What letter should a Ukrainian surname end with? What surnames are actually Ukrainian?

Solovetsky uprising or Solovetsky seat- armed resistance of the monks of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Solovetsky Monastery from 1668 to 1676 to the church reforms of Patriarch Nikon. Due to the monastery’s refusal to accept innovations, the government took strict measures in 1667 and ordered the confiscation of all estates and property of the monastery. A year later, the royal regiments arrived in Solovki and began to besiege the monastery. Fighting of varying intensity continued for several subsequent years and ended only in 1676 with the fall of the Solovetsky Monastery.

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 4

The destruction of Russian history by Peter I - the destruction of books

Gregorian and Julian calendar: differences and similarities. Gleb Nosovsky

The chronology and the Russian calendar...

On the introduction of a new calendar by Peter I

Subtitles

Background

TO early XVII century Solovetsky Monastery turned into an important military outpost for the fight against Swedish expansion (Russian-Swedish War (1656-1658)). The monastery was well fortified and armed, and its inhabitants (425 people in 1657) had military skills. Accordingly, the monastery had food supplies in case of an unexpected Swedish blockade. His influence spread widely along the shores of the White Sea (Kem, Sumsky Ostrog). The Pomors actively supplied food to the defenders of the Solovetsky Monastery.

Causes of the uprising

The cause of the uprising was new service books sent from Moscow in 1657. By decision of the council of cathedral elders, these books were sealed in the monastery treasury chamber, and services continued to be conducted using the old books. In 1666-1667, the Solovites (Geronty (Ryazanov)) wrote five petitions to the tsar in defense of the old liturgical rites. In 1667, the Great Moscow Council took place, which anathematized the Old Believers, that is, the ancient liturgical rites and all those who adhere to them. On July 23, 1667, the authorities appointed reform supporter Joseph as rector of the monastery, who was supposed to carry out reforms in the Solovetsky Monastery. Joseph was brought to the monastery and here, at a general council, the monks refused to accept him as abbot, after which Joseph was expelled from the monastery, and later Archimandrite Nikanor was elected abbot. An open refusal to accept reforms was perceived by the Moscow authorities as an open rebellion.

Events

On May 3, 1668, by royal decree, a rifle army was sent to Solovki to bring the rebellious monastery into obedience. Archers under the command of a solicitor Ignatius Volokhova landed on Solovetsky Island on June 22, but met decisive resistance.

The first years of the siege of the Solovetsky Monastery were carried out weakly and intermittently, as the government counted on peaceful resolution the situation. In the summer months, government troops (streltsy) landed on the Solovetsky Islands, tried to block them and interrupt the connection between the monastery and the mainland, and for the winter they went ashore to the Sumsky Ostrog, and the Dvina and Kholmogory streltsy dispersed to their homes during this time. In the summer of 1672 I.A. Volokhov was replaced by governor K. A. Ievlev, the army was increased to 725 archers.

This situation remained until 1673.

In September 1673, governor Ivan Meshcherinov arrived on the White Sea with instructions to begin active military operations against the defenders of the Solovetsky Monastery, including shelling the walls of the monastery from cannons. Until this moment, the government was counting on a peaceful resolution of the situation and prohibited shelling of the monastery. The tsar guaranteed forgiveness to every participant in the uprising who voluntarily confessed.

The cold that set in early in October 1674 forced Ivan Meshcherinov to retreat. The siege was lifted again and the troops were sent to the Sumy fort for the winter. In the period 1674-1675 the Streltsy army was doubled.

Until the end of 1674, the monks remaining in the monastery continued to pray for Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. On January 7, 1675 (December 28, 1674 old style), at a meeting of participants in the uprising, it was decided not to pray for the “Herod” king.

At the end of May 1675, Meshcherinov appeared near the monastery with 185 archers for reconnaissance. In the summer of 1675, hostilities intensified and from June 4 to October 22, the losses of the besiegers alone amounted to 32 people killed and 80 people wounded. Meshcherinov surrounded the monastery with 13 earthen towns (batteries) around the walls, and the archers began to dig under the towers. In August, reinforcements arrived consisting of 800 Dvina and Kholmogory archers. This time Meshcherinov decided not to leave the islands for the winter, but to continue the siege in winter. However, the defenders of the monastery fired back and inflicted heavy losses on the government forces. The tunnels were filled up during a raid by a detachment of defenders of the monastery. On January 2 (December 23, old style), 1676, the desperate Meshcherinov made an unsuccessful attack on the monastery; the assault was repulsed, 36 archers, led by captain Stepan Potapov, were killed.

Occupation of the monastery by government troops

On January 18th (January 8th of the old style), 1676, one of the defectors - the monk traitor Feoktist - informed Meshcherinov that it was possible to penetrate into the monastery from the moat of the Onufrievskaya Church and introduce the archers through the window located under the drying house near the White Tower and blocked with bricks, an hour before dawn, since it is at this time that the changing of the guard occurs, and only one person remains on the tower and wall. On a dark, snowy night on February 1 (January 22, old style), 50 archers led by Stepan Kelin, directed by Feoktist, approached the blocked window: the bricks were dismantled, the archers entered the drying chamber, reached the monastery gates and opened them. The defenders of the monastery woke up too late: about 30 of them rushed with weapons to the archers, but died in an unequal battle, wounding only four people.

After a short trial on the spot, the rebel leaders Nikanor and Sashko, as well as 26 other active participants in the rebellion, were executed, others were sent to the Kola and Pustozersky prisons.

Solovetsky uprising in Old Believer literature

The Solovetsky uprising received wide coverage in Old Believer literature. The most famous work is the work of A. Denisov “The History of the Solovetsky Fathers and Sufferers|The History of the Solovetsky Fathers and Sufferers who have generously suffered for piety and holy church laws and traditions at the present time,” created in the 18th century. This work describes numerous brutal murders participants of the Solovetsky uprising. For example, the author reports:

And having experienced various things, you found in ancient church piety firm and not corrupt, boiling with green rage, preparing various deaths and executions: hang this testament by the neck, and cut through the new and many interstices with a sharp iron, and with a hook threaded on it, afflict each one in his own way. hook. The blessed sufferers with joy howled into the rope of the virgin, with joy prepared their feet for the heavenly mother-in-law, with joy gave the ribs for cutting and commanded to cut through the widest speculator.

The story of the fathers and sufferers of Solovetsky, who at the present time generously suffered for piety and holy church laws and traditions

A large number of people were killed (several hundred). Almost all the defenders of the monastery died in a short but hot battle. Only 60 people survived. 28 of them were executed immediately, including Sashko Vasiliev and Nikanor, the rest - later. Monks were burned with fire, drowned in an ice hole, hung by their ribs on hooks, quartered, and frozen alive in ice. Of the 500 defenders, only 14 remained alive

State educational institution

higher professional education

"Pomeranian State University" them. M.V. Lomonosov Severodvinsk branch

On the topic: “Solovetsky uprising of 1668 - 1676”

2nd year students, group 221 of the Faculty of Philology

Department of Russian Language and Literature

Sharina Valentina Vladimirovna

Severodvinsk

Introduction

The beginning of discontent

Participants of the uprising

Stages of the uprising

Fall of the Monastery

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

“Names are associated with the White Sea North folk heroes, leaders of the peasant wars of the 17th century. Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov, captured after the suppression of the uprising, was exiled to Kargopol in 1608. There his life was tragically cut short. I.I. Bolotnikov, on orders from the capital, was blinded and drowned in an ice hole on the Onega River. This is how the feudal lords dealt with their class enemy. In the middle of the 17th century. waves of urban uprisings reached our North. Major performances masses We were in Kargopol, Veliky Ustyug and Sol Vychegda.

Twice in 1652 and 1661. Stepan Timofeevich Razin went across all of Russia to the Solovetsky Monastery. Perhaps that is why, after the suppression of the peasant war Razin, many associates of the leader of the rebellious peasantry, fleeing from the punitive forces, fled from the territories of the upper reaches of the Volga and its tributaries Unzha and Vetluga to the Solovetsky Monastery and led the fight against serfdom here.

Solovetsky uprising 1668 - 1676 was the largest after the peasant war under the leadership of S.T. Razin’s anti-serfdom movement of the 17th century” [Frumenkov 2 - 20]

1. The beginning of discontent

“By the middle of the 17th century. The Solovetsky Monastery became one of the richest and most independent Christian monasteries in Russia. Situated on the islands of the White Sea, surrounded by a strong stone wall, supplied with a large amount of military supplies and having a strong streltsy garrison, the monastery was invulnerable border fortress, covering the entrance to the Arkhangelsk port. Due to its remoteness from the center, it was weakly connected with the Moscow Patriarchate and the Novgorod Metropolis, to which it was once subordinate. On the vast territory that belonged to the monastery - the islands and the sea coast - large enterprises operated that brought in a large income for those times. The monastery owned fisheries, salt pans, mica mines, leather huts, and potash factories. But the end of the century was marked by a major popular uprising.” [Sokolova]

“The Solovetsky uprising broke out on the crest of popular uprisings of the 17th century. in the summer of 1648 there was an uprising in Moscow, then in Solvychegodsk, Veliky Ustyug, Kozlov, Voronezh, Kursk. In 1650, uprisings broke out in Pskov and Novgorod. In the early 60s there was unrest over new copper money. These unrest were called “copper riots.” The Solovetsky uprising of 1668 - 1676 was the end of all these unrest and the Peasant War led by Stepan Razin, but discontent in the monastery appeared much earlier.

Apparently, already in 1646, dissatisfaction with the government was felt in the monastery and its possessions. On June 16, 1646, Abbot Ilya wrote to bring lay people of various ranks, archers and peasants in monastic estates to the kiss of the cross. The oath form was soon sent from Moscow. The monastics were obliged to serve the sovereign faithfully, to want his good without any cunning, to report any crowd or conspiracy, to carry out military work without any treason, not to join traitors, not to do anything without permission, in a crowd or conspiracy, etc. From this it is clear that the danger of “ospreys”, conspiracies and betrayals was real.

The gradually accumulating dissatisfaction with Patriarch Nikon resulted in 1657 in a decisive refusal of the monastery, headed by its then Archimandrite Ilya, to accept the newly printed liturgical books. The monastery's disobedience acquired various shapes V next years and was largely determined by pressure from below from the laity (primarily workers) and ordinary monks living in the monastery. The following years were filled with numerous events, during which the monastery, torn apart internal contradictions, in general, still refused to submit not only to the ecclesiastical authority of the patriarch, but also to the secular authority of the tsar.” [Likhachev 1 - 30]

In July-August 1666, at the behest of the Tsar and the Ecumenical Patriarchs, the “Conciliar Order on the Acceptance of Newly Corrected Books and Orders” was sent to the Solovetsky Monastery. In their response petitions, the Council, the brethren, the “Balti” and the laity promised to submit to the royal authority in everything, but asked only “not to change the faith.” But disagreements in the monastery became more and more noticeable: the bulk of the brethren, speaking out against Nikon’s innovations, also expressed their dissatisfaction with the monastery management, demanding the removal of Abbot Bartholomew. Relying on servicemen and black people, they expressed increasingly radical ideas of resistance. At the same time, a small group of monastic brethren emerged, which was inclined to compromise with the authorities and accept church reform.

In October 1666, the monastery refused to accept Archimandrite Sergius of the Yaroslavl Spassky Monastery, sent by the Moscow Council to investigate the petition of the Solovetsky monks. In February 1667, a special investigator A.S. arrived in the Sumy prison, one hundred and fifty kilometers from the monastery, for “detective work.” Khitrovo. The summoned elders and monastery servants did not appear for interrogation. In response to disobedience, on December 27, 1667, a royal decree was issued, which ordered “the Solovetsky Monastery to have patrimonial villages, and villages, and salt and all kinds of industries, and in Moscow and in the cities, courtyards with all sorts of factories and supplies, and the salt should be assigned to us , the great sovereign, and from those villages, and from villages, and from all kinds of trades, money, and all kinds of grain reserves, and salt, and all kinds of purchases from Moscow and from the cities were not ordered to be allowed into that monastery.” [Sokolova]

Participants of the uprising

“The main driving force behind the Solovetsky uprising at both stages of the armed struggle was not the monks with their conservative ideology, but the peasants and Balti people - temporary residents of the island who did not have a monastic rank. Among the Balti people there was a privileged group, adjoining the brethren and the cathedral elite. These are the servants of the archimandrite and the cathedral elders (servants) and the lower clergy: sextons, sextons, clergy members (servants). The bulk of the Beltsy were laborers and working people who served the internal monastery and patrimonial farms and were exploited by the spiritual feudal lord. Among the workers who worked “for hire” and “by promise”, that is, for free, who vowed to “atone for their sins with God-pleasing labor and earn forgiveness,” there were many “walking”, runaway people: peasants, townspeople, archers, Cossacks, and Yaryzheks. They formed the main core of the rebels.

Exiles and disgraced people, of whom there were up to 40 people on the island, turned out to be good “combustible material.”

In addition to the working people, but under their influence and pressure, part of the ordinary brethren joined the uprising. This should not be surprising, since the black elders by their origin were “all peasant children” or came from the suburbs. However, as the uprising deepened, the monks, frightened by the determination of the people, broke with the uprising.

An important reserve of the rebellious monastic masses were the Pomeranian peasantry, workers in the salt fields, mica and other industries, who came under the protection of the walls of the Solovetsky Kremlin.” [Froomenkov 3 - 67]

“The testimony of Elder Prokhor is characteristic in this regard: “The brethren in the monastery, with a total of three hundred people, and more than four hundred people from Beltsy, locked themselves in the monastery and sat down to die, but they don’t want any of the images to be built. And they began to stand for theft and capitolism, and not for faith. And many Kapiton monks and Beltsi from the lower towns came to the monastery during the Razinov era, and they excommunicated their thieves from the church and from their spiritual fathers. Yes, in their monastery they gathered Moscow fugitive archers and Don Cossacks and boyar fugitive slaves and various state foreigners... and the root of all evil gathered here in the monastery.” [Likhachev 1 - 30]

“There were more than 700 people in the rebel monastery, including over 400 strong supporters of the fight against the government using the peasant war method. The rebels had at their disposal 990 cannons placed on the towers and fences, 900 pounds of gunpowder, a large number of handguns and bladed weapons, as well as protective equipment.” [Froomenkov 2 - 21]

Stages of the uprising

“The uprising in the Solovetsky Monastery can be divided into two stages. At the first stage of the armed struggle (1668 - 1671), laymen and monks came out under the banner of defending the “old faith” against Nikon’s innovations. The monastery at that time was one of the richest and economically independent, due to its distance from the center and the wealth of natural resources.

In the “newly corrected liturgical books” brought to the monastery, the Solovki residents discovered “ungodly heresies and evil innovations,” which the monastery theologians refused to accept. The struggle of the exploited masses against the government and the church, like many actions of the Middle Ages, took on a religious guise, although in fact, under the slogan of defending the “old faith,” the democratic strata of the population fought against state and monastic feudal-serf oppression. V.I. drew attention to this feature of the revolutionary actions of the peasantry suppressed by darkness. Lenin. He wrote that “... the appearance of political protest under a religious guise is a phenomenon characteristic of all peoples, at a certain stage of their development, and not of Russia alone” (vol. 4, p. 228).” [Froomenkov 2 - 21]

“Apparently, initially Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich hoped to starve and intimidate the monastery, blocking the delivery of food and other necessary supplies. But the blockade dragged on, and in the Volga region and in the south of Russia a peasant war flared up under the leadership of S. T. Razin.” [Sokolova]

“In 1668, the king ordered the monastery to besieged. An armed struggle between the Solovki residents and government troops began. The beginning of the Solovetsky uprising coincided with the peasant war flaring up in the Volga region under the leadership of S.T. Razin." [Froomenkov 2 - 21]

The transition to open hostilities extremely aggravated social contradictions in the rebel camp and accelerated the disengagement of the fighting forces. It was finally completed under the influence of the Razins, who began to arrive at the monastery in the autumn of 1671.” [Froomenkov 3 - 69]

“Participants in the peasant war of 1667 - 1671 joined the insurgent mass. took the initiative in the defense of the monastery into their own hands and intensified the Solovetsky uprising.

The fugitive boyar serf Isachko Voronin, the Kem resident Samko Vasiliev, and the Razin atamans F. Kozhevnikov and I. Sarafanov came to lead the uprising. The second stage of the uprising began (1671 - 1676), during which religious issues receded into the background and the idea of ​​fighting for the “old faith” ceased to be the banner of the movement. The uprising takes on a pronounced anti-feudal and anti-government character, becoming a continuation of the peasant war led by S.T. Razin. The far north of Russia became the last hotbed of the peasant war.” [Froomenkov 2 - 22]

“In the “questioning speeches” of people from the monastery, it is reported that the leaders of the uprising and many of its participants “do not go to God’s church, and do not come to confession to the spiritual fathers, and the priests are cursed and called heretics and apostates.” Those who reproached them for the fall were answered: “We can live without priests.” The newly corrected liturgical books were burned, torn, and drowned in the sea. The rebels “gave up” their pilgrimage for the great sovereign and his family and did not want to hear any more about it, and some of the rebels spoke about the king “such words that it’s scary not only to write, but even to think.” [Froomenkov 3 - 70]

“Such actions finally scared the monks away from the uprising. For the most part, they break with the movement and try to distract working people from armed struggle, they take the path of treason and organize conspiracies against the uprising and its leaders. Only the fanatical supporter of the “old faith,” the exiled Archimandrite Nikanor, with a handful of adherents, hoped to cancel Nikon’s reform with the help of weapons until the end of the uprising. The people's leaders decisively dealt with reactionary monks who were engaged in subversive activities: they imprisoned some, and expelled others beyond the walls of the fortress.

The population of Pomerania expressed sympathy for the rebellious monastery and provided it with constant support with people and food. Thanks to this help, the rebels not only successfully repelled the attacks of the besiegers, but also made bold forays that demoralized the government riflemen and caused them great damage.” [Froomenkov 2 - 22]

“The entire civilian population of Solovki was armed and organized in a military manner: divided into tens and hundreds with the corresponding commanders at their head. The besieged significantly fortified the island. They cut down the forest around the pier so that no ship could approach the shore unnoticed and fall into the firing range of the fortress guns. The low section of the wall between the Nikolsky Gate and the Kvasoparennaya Tower was raised with wooden terraces to the height of other sections of the fence, a low Kvasopairennaya Tower was built on, and a wooden platform (roll) was built on the Drying Chamber for installing guns. The courtyards around the monastery, which allowed the enemy to secretly approach the Kremlin and complicate the defense of the city, were burned. Around the monastery it became “smooth and even.” In places where there was a possible attack, they laid boards with nails and secured them. A guard service was organized. A guard of 30 people was posted on each tower in shifts, and the gate was guarded by a team of 20 people. The approaches to the monastery fence were also significantly strengthened. In front of the Nikolskaya Tower, where most often it was necessary to repel the attacks of the royal archers, trenches were dug and surrounded by an earthen rampart. Here they installed guns and built loopholes. All this testified to the good military training of the leaders of the uprising, their familiarity with the technology of defensive structures.” [Froomenkov 3 - 71]

“After the suppression of the peasant war led by S.T. Razin's government took decisive action against the Solovetsky uprising.

In the spring of 1674, a new governor, Ivan Meshcherinov, arrived in Solovki. Up to 1000 archers and artillery came under his command. In the fall of 1675, he sent a report to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich outlining plans for the siege. The archers dug under three towers: White, Nikolskaya and Kvasoparennaya. On December 23, 1675, they launched an attack from three sides: where there were tunnels, and also from the side of the Holy Gate and the Seldyanaya (Arsenal) Tower. “The rebels did not sit idly by either. Under the leadership of the fugitive Don Cossacks Pyotr Zapruda and Grigory Krivonog, experienced in military affairs, fortifications were erected in the monastery.

In the summer-autumn months of 1674 and 1675. Hot battles broke out under the walls of the monastery, in which both sides suffered heavy losses.” [Froomenkov 2 - 23]

Fall of the Monastery

“Due to the brutal blockade and continuous fighting, the number of defenders of the monastery also gradually decreased, supplies of military materials and food products were depleted, although the fortress could defend itself for a long time. On the eve of his fall, the monastery had, according to defectors, grain reserves for seven years, according to other sources - for ten years, and cow butter for two years. Only vegetables and fresh produce were in short supply, which led to an outbreak of scurvy. 33 people died from scurvy and wounds.” [Froomenkov 3 - 73]

“The Solovetsky Monastery was not taken by storm. He was betrayed by traitorous monks. The defector monk Feoktist led a detachment of archers into the monastery through a secret passage. Through the tower gates they opened, the main forces of I. Meshcherinov poured into the fortress. The rebels were taken by surprise. The massacre began. Almost all the defenders of the monastery died in a short battle. Only 60 people survived. 28 of them were executed immediately, including Samko Vasilyev, the rest - later.” [Froomenkov 2 -23]

“The reprisal against the rebels was extremely harsh. According to the traitor Theoktist, Meshcherinov “hanged some thieves, and froze many, dragging them behind the monastery to the lip (that is, the bay). Those executed were buried on the island of Babya Luda at the entrance to Blagopoluchiya Bay. The corpses were not buried: they were thrown with stones.” [Likhachev 1 - 32]

“The defeat of the Solovetsky Monastery occurred in January 1676. This was the second time after the defeat of the peasant war by S.T. Razin hit popular movement. Soon after the suppression of the uprising, the government sent trustworthy monks from other monasteries to Solovki, ready to pray for the tsar and the reformed church.

Solovetsky uprising 1668 - 1676 was the largest after the peasant war under the leadership of S.T. Razin's anti-serfdom movement of the 17th century." [Froomenkov 2 - 23]

Conclusion

“No matter how much the official historians of the monastery tried to present the matter as if Solovki, after the suppression of the uprising, did not lose their moral authority in the North, this was not the case. The role of Solovki in cultural life Severa fell sharply. Solovki found itself surrounded by Old Believer settlements, for which the monastery remained only a holy memory. Andrei Denisov, in his “History of the Fathers and Sufferers of Solovetsky,” described the “languid ruin” of the Solovetsky Monastery, the martyrdom of the Solovetsky sufferers, and his work, having been sold in hundreds of copies and printed copies, became one of the most favorite readings among the Old Believers. Solovki are a thing of the past.

At the same time, the Solovetsky uprising was of great importance in strengthening the Old Believers in northern Russia. Despite the fact that the uprising was brutally suppressed, or perhaps precisely because of this, it served to strengthen the moral authority of the old faith among the surrounding population, accustomed to seeing the Solovetsky Monastery as one of the main shrines of Orthodoxy.

The uprising showed that in ideological and social terms the monastery was not a cohesive group. The monastery of those centuries cannot be considered as a kind of homogeneous organization acting in only one, official direction. It was social organism, in which the forces of various class interests were at work. Due to the complexity and development of economic and cultural life, various contradictions were most clearly reflected here, and new social and ideological phenomena arose. The monastery did not live a slow and lazy life, as it seemed to many, but experienced turbulent events, actively intervened in public life And social processes Russian North.

Resistance to Nikon's reforms was only a pretext for an uprising, behind which there were more complex reasons. Dissatisfied people joined the old faith, since the Old Believers were an anti-government phenomenon and directed against the dominant church.” [Likhachev 1 - 32]

Solovetsky Monastery uprising

Bibliography

1. Architectural and artistic monuments of the Solovetsky Islands // under general edition D.S. Likhacheva. - Moscow, art, 1980. - 343 p.

Our region in the history of the USSR // under. Ed. G.G. Frumenkova. - Arkhangelsk: North-Western book publishing house, 1974. - p. 20 - 23.

Sokolova O.V. Solovetsky uprising / O.V. Sokolov [Electronic resource]

Froomenkov G.G. Solovetsky Monastery and the defense of the White Sea region in the 16th - 19th centuries. // G.G. Froomenkov. - Northwestern Book Publishing House, 1975. - 182 p.

Metropolitan Macarius, in his book on the schism, drew on three groups of sources for research: documentary material published by that time in AI, AAE, DAI, church polemical and accusatory literature (mainly the epistles of Ignatius, Metropolitan of Tobolsk), and Old Believer literature. Although the range of sources subsequently expanded significantly, the main course of the uprising was described on the basis of the material available to the eminent historian (he used many texts from manuscripts in his personal library); Attention is drawn to a number of important moments in its history: the existence in the monastery of two parties, which were defined on the basis of their relationship to the royal decrees (those who opposed them and those who wanted to submit to them); the organization of “outrage” not so much by the Solovetsky monks, but by the secular part of the “inhabitants” of the monastery - the Beltsy, including the participants in the uprising of S. T. Razin who fled here. The personal passions that guided them led to the most stubborn resistance to tsarist power. In contrast to the widespread (before and after his work) opinion that the siege of the monastery lasted 8 or even 10 years, Metropolitan Macarius believed that the siege can only be spoken of in relation to two recent years(1674-1676), and “until then there was no direct siege at all.”

The Solovetsky Monastery's resistance to Nikon's reforms and disagreement with the “newly corrected” books began in the middle - 2nd half. 50s Researchers who wrote about the uprising after Metropolitan Macarius also explained the monastery’s discontent with economic motives. Thus, I. Ya. Syrtsov, who used materials from the monastery archive for his work, noted that Patriarch Nikon cut the material wealth of the monastery by relinquishing some Solovetsky lands and constrained its independence. This theme was developed by A. A. Savich, who saw in the monastery primarily a farm, an estate, a “large feudal lordship” with feudal liberties; she maintained an army and had no intention of sacrificing her independence. A. A. Savich, characterizing the politics around the monastery, began from afar, from the middle and even the beginning of the 16th century, focusing on the time of Patriarch Nikon, who interfered in the management and internal life of the monastery. He caused especially great damage to the monastery by taking the relics of St. Philip, which attracted pilgrims, to Moscow in 1652. Later N.A. Barsukov devoted great attention economic order in the monastery on the eve of the uprising and possible reasons for dissatisfaction with Patriarch Nikon. However, it should be noted that researchers have almost no direct evidence that both on the eve and during the uprising there were any motives other than religious ones, with the exception of “not praying for the Tsar”, which acquired a political connotation, although it retains a significant religious element, an eschatological basis. Only in the “questioning speeches” (1674) of one of the monastery “natives”, where it is reported about strengthening the walls of the monastery and providing it with supplies (“they brought in firewood for ten years”), the following sentiments were reported among the rebels: “...They call the Solovetsky monastery their monastery , and the great sovereign is called the land only by the monastery.” Apparently the statements this kind are the basis of the statement of A.P. Shchapov, who saw in the uprising “the antagonism of the Pomeranian region against Moscow.” However, we do not know whether one of the many “talks” was being conveyed here, or whether this was the position of some part of the supporters of the armed struggle. But even in this case, it is necessary to take into account the numerous testimonies of sources about the forcible imposition of their position of armed struggle on that part that remained within the framework of religious demands.

According to Metropolitan Macarius, the “start of indignation” was started when newly corrected books were sent to the monastery. On June 8, 1658, the “black Council” approved the “conciliar verdict of the Solovetsky monks on the rejection of new books,” signed by the entire brethren. But three of the priests who signed the verdict, who wanted to remain faithful to the Church - to use the newly sent Missals, managed to send a petition to Patriarch Nikon, despite Archimandrite Elijah’s ban on pilgrims and other persons to take any messages out of the monastery. The petition reported that many priests signed under duress from the archimandrite: “...And he began to force us to put our hands to that sentence.” One of them, Father Herman, “they beat him twice with whips just because he sang mass against those Servants in the area with Archdeacon Euthymius, and they wanted to beat him for that”; after this, “our brothers, the priests, being afraid of him, the archimarite, laid hands, as he ordered, not to serve according to the new Service Books.” The signing of the conciliar verdict was preceded by a debate in the monastery, when the priests tried to convince the archimandrite to accept the church reform: “And they told him, the archimarite, that he himself should begin to serve according to those Missals, and we with him; and he, the archimarite, and his advisers don’t even want to hear about those Service Books, not just to serve.” The same lack of unanimity regarding the rejection of new books and other issues will manifest itself in further events during the uprising.

For a long time, the submission of petitions was main form“struggle” between Solovetsky monks and Balti. There was no “resistance” to the Church in them yet, but there was a thirst for dispute, religious debate, a desire to convince and change their minds state power, first of all, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, in the need to preserve the ancient tradition. They did not contain any other “slogans”. Many champions of the old books and old rituals proceeded from the fact that there were disagreements between the king and the patriarch, and wanted to “help” the king. However, within the monastery, as already mentioned, there was no unity. A significant imprint on a kind of “schism” within the monastery was left by the rivalry between Archimandrite Elijah Bartholomew, who was appointed here after the death, and the former Archimandrite of the Savvo-Storozhevsky Monastery Nikanor, who lived here “in retirement.”

Discrepancies within the monastery were noted as early as February 1663. The guide Gerontius, the future author of the Solovetsky petitions, disrupted the normal course of the service - the monks suspected that he was serving the liturgy according to Nikon’s books. Gerontius wrote to Archimandrite Bartholomew, who was then in Moscow, that “all the brethren and laity” wanted to “stone him to death” and threatened to put him to death. Bartholomew then came to the defense of Gerontius. The archimandrite did not entirely share the sentiments of the brethren and laity against the new rites, he maintained connections with Moscow and the consecrated Council, tried to soften the monastery’s position in relation to the church hierarchy, but did not have significant support in the monastery. At the Council of 1666, although Bartholomew submitted a petition for the preservation of the “old faith” in the Solovetsky Monastery, he did not sign it himself.

In the monastery, Azarius, a simple monk (“wake-up man”), was elected by “self-will” and placed in the cellar, and the black priest, charterer and book guardian Gerontius was appointed treasurer. This was a violation of the rules, since the archimandrite had the right to change the cellarer by conciliar verdict and with the permission of the tsar. Petitions were sent to Moscow with complaints against Archimandrite Bartholomew and with a request to appoint Archimandrite Nikanor or someone else instead of him. Nikanor actually already behaved like an abbot (it should be recalled that his appointment was supposed to be after the death of Archimandrite Elijah, but then did not take place). A powerful and ambitious man, he continued to strive to become the head of the monastery, taking advantage of the growing disagreements due to Nikon’s reforms.

In July-August 1666, at the behest of the Tsar and the Ecumenical Patriarchs, the “Conciliar Order on the Acceptance of Newly Corrected Books and Orders” was sent to the Solovetsky Monastery; it was carried by Archimandrite Sergius of the Spassky Monastery. But his mission failed; in response to petitions, the Council, the brethren and the laity promised to submit to the royal authority in everything, asked only “not to change the faith” and again complained about Archimandrite Bartholomew.

In February 1667, a special investigator A.S. Khitrovo arrived in the Sumskaya fortress, 150 km from the monastery, for “detective work”. He called the elders and servants here for questioning, but they did not arrive for questioning.

New materials on the history of the uprising introduced in scientific circulation O. V. Chumicheva, revealed rumors discovered during the investigation (already in Moscow) about the emergence of eschatological sentiments in the monastery: Patriarch Nikon is the Antichrist and wants to become “pope” and Alexei Mikhailovich is the last tsar, because “in the Moscow state there was There are seven kings, but there will be no king.”

Initially, the Moscow ecclesiastical and secular authorities tried to resolve the conflict peacefully: Nikanor, summoned to Moscow in the same February 1667, was greeted as a real archimandrite, he renounced his previous views, but feignedly, because, having returned to the monastery, he repented a second time, “ Get into trouble with the schismatics.” Joseph, Bartholomew’s “cell brother” and like-minded person, was appointed archimandrite. When he, together with Archimandrites Bartholomew (to hand over and receive cases) and Nikanor (who was determined to “live here in retirement”) arrived at the monastery, Joseph and Bartholomew were not accepted and were imprisoned. The fourth petition was sent to Moscow, in which the monks asked not to force them to change the “tradition and rite” of St. Zosima and Savvatiya; They turned to the king: “...Do not order, sir, more than that, to send teachers to us in vain... but command, sir, to send your royal sword to us and from this rebellious life to take us into that serene and eternal life.” The fifth petition ends in the same way. The motif of “non-resistance” is an important component of religious thought, both ancient and new Russia- sounds here with complete clarity. The fifth, the most famous Solovetsky petition, widespread in Old Believer literature, was rather of a propaganda nature; It is not entirely clear whether it was immediately received by the king. The answer came to the fourth petition. On December 23, 1667, two separate letters were sent to the Solovetsky elders, as well as to the “servants and servants” of the monastery with a proposal to submit, and on December 27, 1667, a royal decree was issued, which meant the beginning of the blockade of the monastery for “opposition” and “disobedience” to secular and church authorities, the most holy Ecumenical Patriarchs. The decree prescribed that “of the Solovetsky Monastery, patrimonial villages and villages, and salt works and all kinds of trades, and in Moscow and in the cities, courtyards with all sorts of factories and supplies, and salt should be assigned to us, the great sovereign, and from those villages, and from villages, and from all kinds of crafts, money, and all kinds of grain reserves, and salt, and all kinds of purchases from Moscow and from the cities were not ordered to be allowed into that monastery.” The same instructions were repeated in April 1668: not to allow the grain reserves sent from Vologda and stored in barns in Kholmogory to be sent to the monastery, but to be sent to the monastery salt mines for working people.

When navigation opened in the spring of 1668, solicitor Ignatius Volokhov arrived in Solovki with a small detachment of archers (slightly more than 100 people). In response, the monastery “locked itself”, which was the beginning of its “sitting”. Apparently, in the first period, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich hoped to starve and intimidate the monastery, blocking the delivery of food and other necessary supplies, but its full implementation was also prevented natural conditions, and the connections of the monastery with the population, which provided support primarily with the delivery of food. The blockade dragged on, the destruction of economic ties led to a decrease in salt production and the decline of other industries; the treasury suffered losses. The Streltsy leaders committed all sorts of abuses, ruined the population with illegal extortions and duties, behaved arrogantly, including in relation to the spiritual authorities, and exceeded their powers, which was noted in a number of royal decrees.

Later, during interrogations of monks and Balti who fled or were expelled from the monastery, one of the main questions was about the “breeders,” i.e., the organizers of the resistance.

In the “questioning speeches” of 1674, Hieromonk Mitrofan, who voluntarily left the monastery, said: “In the Solovetsky ... monastery, a rebellion took place about newly corrected printed books from the black priest Gerontya, and from the former Savin monastery, Archimarite Nikanor, and from the cellarer Azarya, and from the servant Fadyushka Borodin with comrades... and who... their brothers, priests, and elders, and ministers, did not bother them with their rebellion... and asked to leave the monastery, and they... rebels, they were not released from the monastery. And shooting... was conceived from Archimarite Nikanor and from the servant Fadyushka Borodin and his comrades; and he... Nikanor, walks around the towers incessantly, and censes the cannons, and sprinkles water, and says to them: “My mother galanochki, our hope is in you; “You will defend us” ... but Gerontey forbade shooting and did not order to shoot.” The novice of Gerontius, Elder Manasseh, behaved in the same way.

Hieromonk Pavel repeated the testimony of Mitrofan, including Nikanor’s words about the “galanochka cannons,” and attributed the beginning of the “rebellion” and “rebellion” to the time of the arrival of Archimandrite Sergius, i.e. back to 1666. This is confirmed by the testimony of the archers, accompanying Archimandrite Sergius: they heard “worldly people” in the monastery talking about how the archers outside the monastery should be captured and stoned. According to new data, the Streltsy reported that among the secular supporters of the resistance there were “from prison leakers and from death penalty fugitives”, perhaps “Moscow rebels”, i.e. participants in the Moscow uprisings.

All interrogated people from the monastery in 1674 unanimously separated Gerontius’s position on the issue of armed struggle, naming him only among the “starters” of the uprising, but not the organizers of the “shooting”: “The rebellion and rebellion started with the arrival of Archimarite Sergius, from Nicanor and Gerontius; and the shooting started from Nikanor, Azaria and Fadeika Borodin.” Among these same “questioning speeches,” the testimony of Gerontius, the author of the last Solovetsky petitions, is especially interesting. He was among those whom the “rebels” released from prison and expelled from the monastery after the “Black Council” on September 16, 1674.

When asked about the organizers of the rebellion, he answered differently than others: the rebellion was carried out “from all the brethren and from the servants”; stated that “I wrote the petition at the fraternal order,” the brethren and the missals approved it. If in the testimony of other interrogated people he appears as an opponent only of “shooting,” that is, armed struggle, then he himself stated that he was against any resistance, against “locking” the monastery; he even wrote a “sentence” about this: “And he... Geronteus forbade shooting and did not order to be locked in the monastery, and he... the thieves kept him in prison for that and tortured him to this day; and he wrote a sentence about this, that you should not fight against the sovereign’s military men, and that sentence was with the cellarer Azarya.” Gerontius’s words that he “did not order” not only to shoot, but also “to lock himself in the monastery” were confirmed by the “worker” Vasily Karpov, son of Kirilovshchina. This position of “non-resistance”, taken at the very beginning of the uprising by a group of supporters of Gerontius (its composition and number are unknown), clearly appears in that part of Gerontius’ testimony that dates back to 1674. Gerontius pleaded guilty (“and before the great sovereign he everyone is to blame"), but stated that he did not participate in non-praying ("and being in the Solovetsky Monastery, for him, the great sovereign, I prayed to God, and now I pray, and must continue to pray"); declared his devotion to the Church (“both conciliar and Apostolic Church according to the conciliar and saints’ tradition, the father will follow”). However, he did not abandon his previous convictions: “And it is doubtful for him to listen to the newly corrected printed books, without evidence from the ancient charatean books, and imagine the cross on himself with three fingers, and he is afraid of the Last Judgment of God, and he wants reliable assurance about those newly corrected books and about the cross and testimony with ancient charatean books received from the Most Reverend Joachim, Metropolitan of Novgorod and Velikolutsk"; The Metropolitan allegedly called for Gerontius, but he was not released from the monastery. Gerontius, as before, hoped for a peaceful resolution of the conflict through debate and negotiations, refused resistance and encouraged others to do so. Many other priests of the monastery thought the same.

The discord between the two sides, the lack of unity among the inhabitants who remained in the monastery, i.e., the preservation of loyalty by a significant number of them to the Church, were noted from the very beginning of the “seating.” Thus, in the royal decree to I. A. Volokhov on September 1, 1668, it was said that “many elders and worldly people want to get behind those disobedient people and come to you”; he was reproached for his long stay not at the walls of the monastery, but in the Sumsky fort and on Zayatsky Island, which is why “it is impossible for them to come to you by sea” from Solovetsky Island. It was prescribed, if possible, to cross directly to the monastery from Zayatsky Island, and also to find out in detail from those who came, to ask questions, “who are the names in that monastery that are now the most disobedient and their advisers, and who do not want to be in the council with them, and how many of their people are on both sides, and what is the difference between them, and do they have grain and other food supplies, and how much and how much will they have, and why do they expect poverty and how soon?” .

In December 1668, 11 Chernetsy and 9 Beltsy left the monastery, “and in the monastery they did not pester the rebels.” They ended up in the Sumy prison.

New documents provide even more evidence of the existence in the monastery of a significant number of people, mainly ordinary monks and priests, who were against the uprising and armed struggle (O. V. Chumicheva calls this group “moderate”, as opposed to “radical”). On June 18, 1669, 12 people were expelled from the monastery, different years exiled here by royal decrees, as well as 9 elders and laymen who did not support the uprising. Among the exiles there were also opponents of the uprising. According to those expelled, up to a third of the monastery brethren and laity did not want to fight with the tsar and did not approve of the reprisal against books (a large number of newly printed books were destroyed in the monastery, among them there could have been ancient manuscripts; the charterers Gerontius and Archimandrite Nikanor were against this action). Gerontius, according to new information, had been in the monastery prison since September 1668, and not since 1670, as was supposedly previously thought. Consequently, deep divisions existed from the very beginning of the uprising.

A new, earlier date for the introduction of “non-praying” for the Tsar and Patriarch is given - the spring-summer of 1669, which is seen as “the most acute and definite shape political protest of the Old Believers." Cellarer Azarius, treasurer Simon, and others removed specific names from the traditional prayer for the Tsar, inserting words about “blessed princes,” and instead of prayers for the patriarch and metropolitans, about the health of “Orthodox bishops.” Other changes were also carried out. However, at the beginning of September 1669, the initiators of the most radical measures were captured and imprisoned. They managed to free themselves, and a battle ensued between the “moderate” and “radical” groups, in which the latter was defeated. 37 people, among them cellar Azary, Simon, Thaddeus Petrov, were expelled from the monastery and captured by Volokhov’s archers. Gerontius was released. New, “moderate” leaders in 1670 began negotiations on the surrender of the monastery, and in 1671 they confirmed that the monastery would open the gates if the royal troops lifted the siege, and another archimandrite would be appointed to the monastery instead of Joseph. The “moderate” leaders categorically rejected an alliance with the laity, accusing the “radical party” of relying on the Balti people. However, in August-September 1671, the “moderates” were defeated, but resistance to the uprising in the besieged monastery did not stop. Thus, the mayor elder Yakov Solovarov soon organized a conspiracy to open the gates to the troops and thereby stop the resistance and uprising as a whole.

New documents have confirmed the accuracy of reports from Metropolitan Ignatius and other sources about the role of newcomers, about the participation in the uprising of the Razinites, who were involved in the military side of defense. There was information about this earlier, in particular in the “questioning speeches” of Elder Pachomius (June 1674). “...And to the monastery... during the Razinov era, many capitons, monks and Beltsy from the lower towns came, those (i.e., “capitons” - N.S.)... they, thieves, were excommunicated both from the Church and from the spiritual fathers.” This is important evidence that even the religious position of those in the monastery (and not just in relation to the armed struggle) was not always an expression of the internal mood of the monastery, but was formed under the influence of newcomers, that is, from the outside. It is not directly said that it was the “Razinites” who came, it is only said that the “Capitons” came “into Razinism” (1670-1671). “Capitonicism” is mentioned once again, and it is its supporters who appear as opponents of “surrender”: “And in the monastery they locked themselves and sat down to die, but they didn’t want to create any images, and they began to stand for theft and for capitonicism, and not for the faith "

According to O.V. Chumicheva, “the sources repeatedly mention that among the participants in the uprising in the Solovetsky Monastery there were Razinites... However, despite the active role of newcomers, it cannot be argued that it was they who led the leadership of the uprising.” In the “questioning speeches” of Elder Pachomius, those on whom the leaders of the uprising mainly relied were also named: “But they... in the monastery gathered Moscow fugitive archers, and Don Cossacks, and boyar fugitive slaves, and peasants, and different states of foreigners: Sviyskie Germans, and Poles, and Turks, and Tatars, those... the thieves, the cellarer, the mayor, and the centurion have the best faithful people.” To the report about the Don Cossacks staying in the monastery, we can add that S. T. Razin himself went there on pilgrimage in 1652 and 1661. Elder Pachomius also reported that there are about 300 brethren and more than 400 Beltsi in the monastery. The same figures were given by another “native” from the monastery, Elder Alexander, who also confirmed the information about the social composition of Balti. He reported the presence in the Solovetsky Monastery of “Beltsy people of various ranks, Moscow fugitive archers, and Don Cossacks, and fugitive boyar people.” However, in the already cited “questioning speeches” of September 1674, another, much smaller number was named: 200 brethren and 300 Balti, during the years of the blockade died of scurvy and 33 people were killed.

Ignatius, Metropolitan of Siberia and Tobolsk, directly says that Razin’s “helpers” came to the monastery from Astrakhan, “then the brotherhood, the monk and the Beltsy, gave up their will, and appointed Fadeik Tanner and Ivashka Sarafanov as their boss, and began being in everything contrary to not only the Holy Church by blaspheming, but also not wanting to have a pious king as your sovereign.” The Cossacks called on the monks: “Wait, brothers, for the true faith.” It was, presumably, a call for armed struggle. Events about which we're talking about, occurred at the very beginning of the uprising, since Thaddeus Petrov, named here, was outside the monastery, in the Sumy fort, as mentioned above, already in the fall of 1669. Consequently, “Razin’s assistants” ended up in the monastery even before the start of the Peasant War of 1670-1671, that is, what made them “Razins” was, apparently, their participation in early campaigns.

A. A. Savich, without denying the fact of the participation of the Razinites in the Solovetsky uprising, did not recognize their prominent, much less leading, role. If we accept the testimony of Metropolitan Ignatius that Thaddeus Kozhevnik was a Razinite, then it becomes obvious precisely their role in the victory not of the supporters of “non-resistance”, but of the agitators of shooting at the tsarist troops

(It should be recalled that Gerontius, an opponent of the armed struggle, was in prison already in September 1668, and Thaddeus Petrov was undoubtedly in the monastery earlier, and probably much earlier than the autumn of 1669). Thaddeus's name is invariably mentioned in answers to the question of who started shooting at the tsarist troops. Even while imprisoned in the Sumy prison, he sent letters to the monastery, insisting on his line (“but he ordered them to strengthen the siege firmly and did not order the siege”). It is in the context of the message about the letters of Thaddeus Borodin in the “questioning speeches” of Elder Pachomius that the words quoted above are found, reflecting the opinion of some part of the besieged (“they call the Solovetsky Monastery their monastery”).

Controversies within the monastery escalated at the end of 1673-1674. As the already mentioned hieromonk Pavel showed, on September 28, 1673, “they had a black cathedral in the Solovetsky Monastery to leave prayers for the great sovereign.” But the priests continued to pray for the king. On September 16, 1674 (testimony of Mitrofan and others), a new Council was held, among the participants of which there was a riot. The centurions Isachko and Samko threatened the cellarer Azaria that they would stop their military service(“they put the gun on the wall”) because “they, the thieves, did not order the priest to pray to God for the great sovereign, and the priests do not listen to them and pray to God for the great sovereign, but they... the thieves do not want to hear that... and about the great ... sovereign they say such words that it’s scary not only to write, but even to think. And they sat down... they, thieves, in the monastery to die, they don’t want to give up anything.” After this, the opponents of the armed struggle, who were imprisoned in cruel conditions and found themselves in the hands of the governor I. Meshcherinov, were expelled from the monastery.

Did “non-praying” for the sovereign give a political and civil character to the movement? Considering this issue on later material, as well as analyzing the Old Believer eschatological writings, N. S. Guryanova concluded that their authors expressed peculiar “ political concepts", but the definition of "political concepts" is placed in quotation marks. And this is absolutely fair, since it emphasizes its conventionality. It can be assumed that the reason for the tightening of the siege of the monastery and the actions of the royal troops was precisely the activation at the end of 1673-1674. advocates of “failure to pray for the Tsar,” which was considered a crime against the state. The lack of unity in the monastery on this issue and the disagreements among the rebels did not matter to the government.

On last stage uprising, “sitting”, governor I. A. Meshcherinov, who had been in Solovki since January 1674, was ordered to tighten the siege and continue it in the winter. The supply of food to the surrounding population became impossible, scurvy and pestilence began. The monastery, however, had sufficient supplies of food and weapons; the besieged strengthened the battle walls and could hold out for a long time. But one of those whom the rebels forcibly held in the monastery showed the archers a passage in the wall, and they took possession of the monastery in January 1676.

The brutal reprisal against the participants in the uprising did not stop the spread of the Old Believers, but, on the contrary, contributed to its strengthening; the political and military participation of the state in the conflict, which was religious and intra-church in origin, provoked actions that gave the resistance a social and political dimension.

Notes

Macarius, Met. History of the Russian schism. P. 234.

Syrtsov I. Ya. Indignation of the Solovetsky Old Believers monks. Kostroma, 1888.

Savich A. A. Solovetsky estate of the XV-XVII centuries. (Experience in studying economics and social relations in the Far Russian North in Ancient Rus'). Perm, 1927. S. 257-262; see also: Borisov A. A. Economy of the Solovetsky Monastery and the struggle of peasants with northern monasteries in the 16th - 17th centuries. Petrozavodsk, 1966.

Barsov E. Acts related to the history of the Solovetsky rebellion // Readings in OIDR. 1883. Book. 4. P. 80.

Shchapov. Russian schism. P. 414; aka. Zemstvo and schism. P. 456.

Macarius, Met. History of the Russian schism. pp. 216-218.

The term “black Council” is used in the documents of the Solovetsky Monastery of this time not only to designate the Council, in which only the monastic part took part, without the participation of the “Beltsy”, and which usually took place in the Refectory Chamber (Materials for the history of the schism during the first period of its existence. M., 1878. T. 3. P. 3-4, 13, 14, 39, etc.), but also in relation to the Great Council, for example, to the Council of 1666, held in the Transfiguration Church, to which those who arrived at the monastery Archimandrite Sergius gathered “the cellarer... the treasurer, and the cathedral elders, and the black priests, and the deacons, and the hospital elders, and all the brothers, and servants, and servants, and archers... all the brothers and lay people taught the whole black Cathedral... to shout” (there same. pp. 143-145).

The preposition “against” here means “in accordance with”.

Materials for the history of the schism. T. 3. P. 6-13.

Right there. pp. 18-47.

Right there. pp. 117-178.

Right there. pp. 196-198; Barskov Ya. L. Monuments of the first years of the Russian Old Believers. St. Petersburg, 1912. pp. 27-28.

Chumicheva O. V. 1) New materials on the history of the Solovetsky uprising (1666-1671) // Journalism and historical works period of feudalism. Novosibirsk, 1989. P. 60-62; 2) Pages of the history of the Solovetsky uprising (1666-1676) // History of the USSR. 1990. No. 1. P. 169.

Materials for the history of the schism. pp. 210, 262.

Right there. pp. 213-262; Latest literature about the Solovetsky petitions and the Solovetsky uprising in general: Bubnov N. Yu. Old Believer book in Russia in the second half of the 17th century. Sources, types and evolution. St. Petersburg, 1995. pp. 191-219; Chumicheva O. V. Brief answer to the Solovetsky Monastery and the fifth petition (Relationships of texts) // Research in the history of literature and public consciousness feudal Russia. Novosibirsk, 1992. pp. 59-69.

AAE. St. Petersburg, 1836. T. 4. No. 160. P. 211-212.

DAI. St. Petersburg, 1853. T. 5. No. 67. II. pp. 339-340.

According to new materials, this happened not in November, but in June 1668 (Chumicheva. New materials. P. 62).

AI. T. 4. No. 248. P. 530-539.

Materials for the history of the schism. pp. 142, 152.

Chumicheva. New materials. P. 69.

Kagan D. M. Gerontius // Dictionary of scribes. Vol. 3. Part 1. pp. 200-203.

DAI. T. 5. No. 67. III. P. 340.

DAI. T. 5. No. 67. IX. P. 344.

Chumicheva. Pages of history. pp. 170-172.

This is what the rebels were called in official documents.

Chumicheva. New materials on the history of the Solovetsky uprising of 1671-1676. (Vol. 2) // Sources on the history of social consciousness and literature of the period of feudalism. Novosibirsk, 1991. P. 43.

Barsov. Acts related to the history of the Solovetsky rebellion. No. 26. pp. 78-81.

Right there. No. 14. P. 58.

AI. T. 4. No. 248. P. 533.

Three messages of Blessed Ignatius, Metropolitan of Siberia and Tobolsk. Third message // Orthodox interlocutor. 1855. Book. 2. P. 140.

Savich. Solovetsky estate. P. 274.

AI. T. 4. No. 248.

Guryanov. Peasant anti-monarchist protest. P. 113.

For some new information about the circumstances of the penetration of troops into the monastery, see: Chumicheva. Pages of history. pp. 173-174.

Historians recorded the Solovetsky uprising in the period from 1667 to 1676. The monks and laity of the Solovetsky monastery opposed the government of Muscovy led by Patriarch Nikon.
One of the centers of Russian Orthodoxy found itself in the abyss of political and religious troubles of that difficult time. The anti-state sentiments of the parishioners and religious figures of the Solovetsky Monastery subsequently resulted in a bloody uprising that lasted for almost nine years.
Already on September 15, 1667, the elders of the monastery decided to begin to openly fight the government and the patriarch, who in turn tried to introduce a new church reform in the center. Otherwise, not only curses awaited them, but also royal disgrace. At the meeting, the elders drew up a letter of petition for the king, in which their refusal to submit was clearly visible.
At first, after the start of the uprising, the state did not have the opportunity to send troops there to fight opponents of carrying out the will of the royal court. However, as soon as Stenka Razin’s movement was suppressed (it was because of him that the Tsar was unable to begin the fight against the Solovetsky rebels), the monastery came under heavy fire from the Tsar’s troops.
For a long time the army could not take the monastery by storm, which unspeakably upset the great sovereign. Thanks to one of the defectors, the monk Theoktistus, the soldiers still managed to enter the monastery. It turned out that there was a hole in the wall filled with stones, through which it was very easy to disassemble. One January night in 1676, despite a severe snowstorm and frost, the army entered the monastery and captured it.
As soon as the monastery was captured, a fierce battle broke out on its territory. Many lay people died during the fighting. Some of them were executed after the uprising was suppressed by the sovereign. Other schismatics of the church went to other monasteries. Naturally, the state independently made decisions for the students of the Solovetsky Monastery where they would go for their religious exile.

Prerequisites for the Solovetsky Uprising
The upcoming schism could already be judged from the events of 1636. At this time, Patriarch Nikon sent church books written in his own hand to the monastery, which, even without prior reading and discussion, immediately ended up locked in chests. This was the beginning of the Solovetsky uprising, famous in history.
Beginning in 1661, the schism began to actively spread to other territories. It should also be noted that in addition to the religious, the uprising also had a political nature. The activity of the movement intensified noticeably when, in addition to monks, it was also joined by fugitive Moscow shooters and rebels under the leadership of their ideological mentor Stepan Razin.

Solovetsky uprising: results
The mid-17th century was significant for the Solovetsky Monastery. His farm grew noticeably and reached its peak. The monastery was provided with benefits and several land plots to expand its territory. The state benefited from such relations with the monastery. Since the latter gave a significant part of the monetary donations to the state. That is why the turmoil that began quite seriously affected Russian society.
The results of the Solovetsky uprising turned out to be sad for the protesters. The state's suppression of the uprising organized by the monks led to subsequent persecution of the schismatics. The latter, in turn, no longer defended their interests as zealously as before. Having ceased to fight “evil” in the form of the state, adherents of the uprising had to take the path of Christian obedience.
One of the distinguishing features of the behavior of the former rebels was their public departure from life into the world of the dead. To do this, many of them organized mass starvation, or left this world by self-immolation, trying to attract as many people as possible to this. more people. During the period from 1675 to 1695, about forty “garis” followed one after another (self-immolation). In total, during this period, about 20,000 schismatics chose to burn alive. It was only in 1971 that the persecution was recognized as wrong. Until this moment they continued with enviable frequency.
A slightly different fate was prepared for the Solovetsky Monastery. Supporters of the Solovetsky uprising gained posthumous fame for their tenacity and complete dedication to religion.

In the middle of the White Sea on the Solovetsky Islands there is a monastery of the same name. In Rus' it is glorified not only as the greatest among the monasteries that support the old rituals. Thanks to its strong armament and reliable fortification, the Solovetsky Monastery in the second half of the 17th century became the most important post for the military repelling the attacks of the Swedish invaders. Locals did not stand aside, constantly supplying his novices with provisions.

The Solovetsky Monastery is also famous for another event. In 1668, his novices refused to accept the new church reforms approved by Patriarch Nikon, and fought back the tsarist authorities, organizing an armed uprising, called Solovetsky in history. Resistance lasted until 1676.

In 1657, the supreme power of the clergy sent out religious books, which were now required to conduct services in a new way. The Solovetsky elders met this order with an unequivocal refusal. Afterwards, all the novices of the monastery opposed the authority of the person appointed by Nikon to the position of abbot and appointed their own. This was Archimandrite Nikanor. Of course, these actions did not go unnoticed in the capital. Adherence to the old rituals was condemned, and in 1667 the authorities sent their regiments to the Solovetsky Monastery to take away its lands and other property.

But the monks did not surrender to the military. For 8 years they confidently held back the siege and were faithful to the old foundations, turning the monastery into a monastery that protected novices from innovations.

Until recently, the Moscow government hoped for a quiet resolution of the conflict and forbade attacking the Solovetsky Monastery. And in winter time The regiments generally abandoned the siege, returning to the mainland.

But in the end, the authorities decided to carry out stronger military attacks. This happened after the Moscow government learned about the monastery’s concealment of Razin’s once undead troops. It was decided to attack the walls of the monastery with cannons. Meshcherinov was appointed voivode to lead the suppression of the uprising, who immediately arrived in Solovki to carry out orders. However, the tsar himself insisted on pardoning the perpetrators of the rebellion if they repented.

It should be noted that those who wished to repent to the king were found, but were immediately captured by other novices and imprisoned within the monastery walls.

More than once or twice, regiments tried to capture the besieged walls. And only after lengthy assaults, numerous losses and a report from a defector who pointed out the hitherto unknown entrance to the fortress, did the regiments finally occupy it. Note that at that time there were very few rebels left on the territory of the monastery, and the prison was already empty.

The leaders of the rebellion, numbering about 3 dozen people, who tried to preserve the old foundations, were immediately executed, and other monks were exiled to prison.

As a result, the Solovetsky Monastery is now the bosom of the New Believers, and its novices are serviceable Nikonians.