Questions of life

Contents Unity of Faith Freedom of Conscience and Tolerance Free Institutions Democracy Faith Truth Culture Court Religion is the main connection of human society, and therefore happiness is when religion itself is bound by unity. Strife and schisms in religion - this evil was unknown among the pagans. The reason was that the pagan religion consisted not so much in firm beliefs, but in rites and ceremonies: one can imagine what kind of faith there was when their main teachers and church fathers were poets. But the true God is a believing God, and therefore His service and His faith do not tolerate confusion and collaboration. So, let's say a few words about church unity: what are its fruits, what are its limits and what are its paths. The fruit of church unity (not to mention, the main thing, is that it pleases God) is twofold: one for those inside the church, the other for those outside the church. Regarding the first, there is no doubt that heresies and schisms serve as the greatest temptation; even worse than debauchery, for just as in the flesh a wound or rupture of bodily integrity is more important than internal disorder, so in the spiritual sphere. When unity is broken, this is even more In all, it drives people out of the church or keeps them out of the church. And when it comes to the point that one says: “Behold, it is in the wilderness,” and another, “Behold, it is in treasures” (Matt. XXIV, 26), that is, when some are looking for Christ in the hosts of heretics, and others in the visible face of the church, an authoritative voice is heard by all people: “Do not go forth from the Apostle of the Gentiles” (whose calling was especially directed to external people). says: “If the whole church comes together, and everyone speaks in tongues, and those who do not know or who are unfaithful come in, will they not say that you are mad?” (1 Corinth. XIV, 23): and, of course, it will not be better when atheists and external people hear so many discordant and contradictory opinions about religion - this will turn them away from the church and leave them sitting “in the seats of the destroyers” (Psalm I, 1). A joke does not apply to an important matter, but one joker expressed it well when he composed a catalog of books with invented titles: he included among them the Moorish Dance of the Heretics. And truly, each sect has its own special gait, and its own twists of body movements, which arouses a lot of mockery among worldly people who are accustomed to mocking every sacred thing. And for those who find themselves in the bosom of the church, the fruit of unity is peace, a source of endless benefits: it confirms faith; it ignites love. Peace of conscience pours out from the outside world of the church, and instead of working on quarrels and disputes about faith, writing and reading turn to books about deeds of piety. The limits of unity must be correctly established: this is very important. There are two extremes here: some zealots hate any talk about appeasement. For them, it’s not about the world, but about which side to be on and which party to join. On the contrary, some Laodiceans (Apoc. III, 14, 15) and indifferent people think that it is possible to harmonize religious views on the middle path, cleverly connecting one with the other - and becoming, as it were, a mediator between God and man. One and the other extreme should be avoided, and this can be achieved if in the society of Christians two divergent positions were rightly and directly explained, in the spirit of our Savior himself: one - “whoever is not with us is against us” (Luke XII, 30), 2 and the other: “whoever is not against us is with us,” that is, so that the basic and essential objects in religion are correctly distinguished and distinguished from objects not so much of faith as of personal opinion, ritual or good moods. Many may think that this is not important and is already arranged; but if it were arranged somewhere without any bias, then, of course, it would be introduced everywhere. I can only express this opinion on this, judging by my limited experience. People should beware of causing discord in the Church of God by bickering of two kinds. One thing is when the subject of dispute is too small and empty and not worth all the heated struggle over it, excited and fueled by contradictions. One of the church fathers notes about this: “Christ’s tunic was not sewn, but the church robe was multi-colored.” “In veste varietas sit, scissura non sit” (clothes can be varied, as long as they are not torn). Unity is one thing, uniformity is another. On the other hand, it happens that the subject of controversy is important, but the reasoning about it falls into such subtleties and is so obscured that it does not so much clarify the essence of the matter as accumulate conclusions of wit. A reasonable and wise person, hearing how ignorant people sometimes argue among themselves, thinks to himself that those arguing are essentially of the same opinion, but they cannot agree. And if people differ so much in their judgments, then doesn’t it come to the thought that when mortal people, contradicting each other, essentially desire one thing and strive for one thing, God the Most High, knowing the hearts, accepts both of them in one. St. speaks beautifully about such wranglings. The Apostle Paul, giving this instruction: “Keep the tradition, avoiding worthless talk and the contradictions of false reason” (1 Tim. VI, 20). People create contradictions where there are none, and dress them up in new terms, so firmly established that the term already controls the meaning. object, whereas in essence this meaning should govern the term. There is a false world or a false unity: in one case, when the world rests on darkness and ignorance, for in the darkness no color is visible; in another, when opposing differences in the fundamental tenets of faith are directly allowed, and the world is based on this. Truth and falsehood in such cases are like iron and clay in the image of Nebuchadnezzar, as the prophetic vision describes him (Daniel II, 33, 41): attached parts to the body, but not one with the body. Regarding the ways to achieve unity, people should observe that, while establishing or protecting religious unity, they do not destroy or distort the law of love and communication of human society. There are two swords in the Christian world: the spiritual sword and the sword of civil power, and both have a place and purpose in the establishment of religion. But there should be no place for a third sword: this is Mohammed’s sword or something similar. This means to spread religion by war, or to rape the conscience by bloody persecution (unless in the case of open temptation, blasphemy or the conversion of religion to anti-state affairs): all the more, it means to incite and nourish rebellion, justify conspiracies and riots, arm crowds of people, and the like: all this strives to overthrow the government - the power that exists from God. Thus, arming one commandment with another, people, considering themselves Christians, forget that they are human. Lucretius 3 the poet, narrating how Agamemnon 4 decided to sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia, 5 in order to satisfy the anger of Diana, 6 says: “Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum” (religion can prompt such terrible actions). What would he say when he learned about the recent horrors of St. Bartholomew's Night 7 in France or about the Gunpowder Plot 8 in England? He would have become seven times even worse, an epicurean and an atheist. If the sword of civil power should be used with extreme caution in matters of religion, then what a monstrous thing it is to arm a crowd of people with it: let us leave this to the Anabaptists 9 or similar furies. Great was the blasphemy of the spirit of darkness when he said: “I will ascend and be like the Most High”: but even more blasphemous is to personify God, as if He says: “I will descend down and be like the prince of darkness.” And it is no better when, in the name of religion, people go to the extent of cruel and damned deeds, to the murder of princes and rulers, to the beating of the masses of the people, to the overthrow of states and governments. Truly, this means bringing down the Holy Spirit, instead of the form of depth, in the image of a hawk or a raven, and planting the banner of pirates and villains on the ship of the Church of Christ. And for this, it is very necessary that the church, with its teaching and being tired, and the sovereigns with their sword, and all the teachings of the Christian law and morality, - as if by the Caduceus of Mercurius, 10 condemned and in advance delivered to hell all actions and opinions that strive to incite and justify such horrors - which has already been partly done. So, it is necessary that in advice regarding religion, the word of the Apostle James should be put at the head of the discussion: “The wrath of a man does not accomplish the righteousness of God” (James I, 20), and one of the wise fathers of the church notices and himself confesses that those who in their actions adhered to the policy of violence against conscience and insisted on it, were often themselves interested in it for their own personal purposes. Freedom of conscience and tolerance Those who talk about freedom of conscience, in various beliefs, usually reduce belief to the concept of conviction, that is, to the action of the mind, settling on a certain idea. However, the belief of the masses for the most part is established not so much in the mind as in the imagination: it provides the initial basis, creating ideas, from which the mind then develops a teaching that is put together into a scheme and even, during its development, into a whole system. Thus, a never-ending process of psychic religious creativity takes place in humanity, endlessly producing the most diverse, sometimes in the wildest and ugliest form, types of beliefs and creeds. The systems of beliefs established for centuries, with the power of dominatingly conquering millions of populations, covering entire parts of the world, fenced off by codes of covenants and a powerful scientific hierarchy, even those did not fully retain their integrity, breaking into many interpretations, mutually hostile and mutually exclusive. But outside these doctrinal systems, fenced with strong walls, which were created by the centuries-old labor of many generations, the work of new prophets and preachers is carried out daily and hourly, attracting circles, groups and whole masses of enthusiastic followers. And each one forms a separate organ of passionate aspiration and passionate propaganda. And it is noteworthy that not only simple and ignorant people are attracted to this endeavor, but also people from among civilized society. There has never been such a proliferation of sects of all kinds as in our time of civilization dominating everywhere and increased communication between classes of society. It was as if the need for a mystical desire for some new faith had awakened again among the masses, as the age-old beliefs and traditions of past generations weakened in society. At the same time, the inconsistencies with the teachings of Christ and the misfortunes of human society become more clearly realized - and a desire arises for the real implementation of the kingdom of God on earth, through the new teaching of love and peace, which denies the preaching of the church about the same teaching. Based on the denial of the church, new sects of a rationalistic nature are created, reflecting or distorting Protestant and Reformed teachings. The ancient superstitions of the pagan world are being revived, seeking union with the deity in the wild deification of the flesh and in depraved zeal. Finally, the very denial of all faith and all creeds takes the form of a special teaching that demands dominant power. It is impossible for this endless mixture of dreamy and self-inflicted beliefs to have one common basis in conviction: they are generated by the nervous power of the imagination, they are propagated by the imitative susceptibility of the same nervous feeling. Thus, in an environment embraced by a new teaching, no matter how wild and ignorant it may be, a psychic excitement is formed, infecting the whole mass with the power of some kind of hypnosis, against which any conviction is powerless - and an unyielding fanaticism develops, often malicious and furious, in other cases quiet and passive, with the desire to suffer for the truth. But almost all creeds, opinions and sects are possessed, in essence, by a passionate attraction to propaganda and intolerance of any other belief. The desire for this goal uses all sorts of means to achieve it - flattery, deception, lies, slander, promises, threats, moral and material pressure, reaching the point of violence, leading in other cases to mass violence and destruction committed by a crowd. The history of new beliefs and sects is always the same. The first preacher comes up with a new definition of man's relationship to the deity. Little by little, a new dogma is being created, a new classification of beliefs, actions, and responsibilities. Disciples, preachers, followers appear, eagerly perceiving with their minds and imagination the new truth of life and salvation - faith is created. But if in the beginning the spiritual principle of the new faith took possession of all and was active in all, the mass, mostly consisting of ignorant or unbalanced minds, clings exclusively to the forms and appearances of a system of doctrine and worship, enclosed within the walls built for the whole herd, and looks upon all who stand outside the walls as enemies and outcasts. The principle of love, without which every creed is dead, disappears in belief, and the fanaticism of enmity and persecution flares up. In this vague confusion of all kinds of religious aspirations and dreams, is it possible to seek a solution to the contradictions by applying to them one abstract principle of freedom? If it were only the freedom of personal and collective self-sufficient belief and the cult connected with it, it would be fair and worthy to apply complete freedom to it, and then in this certain sense the freedom of conscience, harmless to everyone, would really appear in action - freedom of belief. For many centuries, this freedom was not allowed: there was a time when the persecution of state power and the ruling church extended to any heresy, to any deviation of opinion and belief from the norm of belief, unconditionally recognized by the state: then cruel and unwavering punishment struck both individuals and the totality of entire populations, without entering into consideration of motives. But this time has passed, and the law does not recognize the secret or open confession of one or another faith as a crime when it is not combined with open violence against another belief. Because of freedom of conscience, a bloody battle was waged for centuries, and the persecuted religion won its freedom. But it soon turned out that this freedom turned on each side into its own exclusive freedom, turning into a restriction of freedom for the party of the opposite belief; it turned out that essentially religious and church beliefs, merging organically with the instincts, interests and aspirations of a nationality or state for dominance and exclusivity, became infected in their aspirations with the same intolerance against which they had previously won their freedom. This is how the fierce struggle for freedom of belief continued for centuries, and it cannot be said that this struggle has completely stopped in our time, a time of seemingly complete triumph of the fundamental principle of freedom. And in our time, religious beliefs are far from being separated from political and national beliefs and aspirations. So, one proclamation of freedom cannot yet resolve all the contradictions of different beliefs in the real life of society. It turns out that the proclaimed unconditional freedom of conscience actually turns into freedom of violence and persecution and serves not to establish peace, but to spread anger and hatred between citizens. It is not difficult for the legislator to theoretically resolve the contradiction between principle and reality by pointing to the criminal law on retribution for violation of freedom by violence. But the threat of punishment and punishment itself, while fundamentally opposed to violence, does not eliminate the possibility of violence in reality. Justice is carried out slowly and its effect extends to a crime that has already been committed and to a person convicted of a crime, and when the spirit of violence and malice embraces the totality of a fanatically devoted to an exclusive belief and mentally united mass, justice in relation to it is powerless and ineffective; ineffective even in relation to the convicted person, when in his fanatical mood and in his excited spirit the effect of threat and even suffering disappears, for all suffering seems to him to be suffering for faith and truth. Punishment, and even more so cruel, not only loses the power of mental influence in such cases, but has the opposite effect, producing increased irritation, and produces a martyr from the criminal, who becomes only a new instrument for the mental stimulation of the crowd and attraction to the teaching, no matter how wild and ignorant it may be, while correction of the criminal will by punishment becomes completely impossible. Moreover, the operation of the judicial mechanism both in research and in judgment becomes completely impossible in view of the countless violations and violence committed in the secrecy of home and public life. On the other hand, the very tasks of justice become impossible to fulfill where it meets with blind fanaticism, turning into madness, which is not subject to imputation and destroys any meaning of punishment, hypnotically taking possession of a whole crowd of people who have lost their minds. How will justice penetrate into remote corners and villages, where a father, through violence and beatings, forces his wife and children to leave one faith and join another, alien one? Here one cannot expect a complaint, because any complaint would only lead to new violence by the domestic authorities. How should justice act when, in the absence of strong local authorities, one part of the population deals with cruel lynchings against another part because of fanaticism in belief, and a bloody war breaks out in which it is impossible to distinguish truth from untruth? With equal civil rights for everyone, a fanatic sectarian can achieve a position of power and influence over many people dependent on him, and exert unfair pressure on them for the purpose of religious fanaticism. And here the law of the court is powerless to eliminate biases and to establish justice in relations. Thus, the bitter experience of all peoples, all generations, all times up to the present day, testifies that, using freedom of conscience, people of different faiths, in the name of this freedom, violate this very freedom in relation to others who want to use this freedom. The unconditional preachers of freedom, inspired by its idea, should not forget about this abuse of freedom. Freedom is a necessary, essential tool of all thinking, all activity, but this weapon is double-edged and requires the equalization of rights that flow from freedom and are based on it. The controversial issue of religious tolerance, that is, of an indifferent attitude towards all beliefs, would have long ago been resolved very simply if all beliefs were kept in an indifferent attitude towards each other. But this has never happened and still does not happen. Representative people in every church and every denomination are filled with a passionate desire that all outsiders will join them and join in their belief. This desire, flaring up, blinds a person and takes on the character of a fanatical demand. Its source can be indicated - in a benevolent desire to communicate to other people the saving benefit of faith. Being himself convinced that he possesses the only truth of faith, and that this truth is the only saving one for everyone, a zealot of faith strives with all zeal to communicate it to everyone. But this is not enough. The motivations for propaganda are very complex and act in the soul of the propagandist - often unconsciously for him. The experience of the entire history of church strife shows that zealots of the faith, having power, persecute everyone who does not accept their teachings and subject them to cruel executions. Zealous sectarians, having no power, strive to attract to their teachings and rituals all who stubbornly adhere to their former teachings and rituals, using abuse, threats and violence, and in their rage they do not spare even close people, despising the ties of kinship and friendship. Belief, whatever it may be, blinds the whole person with all his feelings and aspirations, with all his relationships to people, to all human unions, to the entire social and state system. In the soul of every zealot lies the desire to confirm his faith and his teaching with the sympathy and unity of all his fellow people: from here a passionate desire for bickering, competition and disputes is born and intensifies, with which jealousy is further irritated and the mutual malice that arises from it is fed, reaching the point of bitterness. No matter how much one talks in theory about religious tolerance in principle, in reality it does not exist, by human nature, as far as the doctrine of faith is concerned. There is not a single church, not a single creed (no matter how wild and senseless it may be) that actually adheres to the freedom it preaches: not a single one renounces the right to deny and persecute any other teaching. Such freedom is combined, and even then in rare cases, with complete indifference to any belief - but this is only characteristic of a nature that is essentially indifferent and apathetic. Experience shows us that imaginary indifference to any faith turns into denial of faith, precisely that which at a given moment appears to the mind, and from denial it can turn into persecution. Denial of God and faith in Him, or so-called atheism, receives the property of a special belief in the unconditional truth of one’s idea of ​​faith and in the false and destructive property of any other idea of ​​faith. So we see, and unbelief, in turn, becomes an evil persecutor of all faith, or - oddly enough - the patron of sectarian superstitions against the faith professed by the masses or the majority. For someone who lives and acts in society, in alliance with other people, it would seem natural to have the disposition and ability to understand and tolerate differences in inclinations, dispositions and opinions. But this disposition and opinion is accessible to few people who clearly understand that it is impossible to reduce human opinions to one unconditional truth and that every truth from different sides appears in many shades. And our time is especially unfavorable for mental and moral unity: serious moral demands from life arise everywhere and are strengthened by an exorbitantly rapid increase in knowledge, far from being tested and brought into a system. Hence the extreme desire for the disorderly and one-sided development of each personality: the desire of everyone to assimilate for himself certain ideas that he has somehow come up with, which he has heard enough of in one way or another: this is called a conviction or doctrine of one kind or another; and the one who has assimilated them strives to spread or apply these ideas, denying everything that disagrees with them unconditionally. In this sense, the spirit of intolerance towards other people's beliefs and opinions is spreading and intensifying in our time. In ordinary everyday communication, this spirit of isolation does not have much revelry, because at every step it is constrained by decency and the conditions of everyday life. But in the sphere of religious beliefs he walks freely, and has already caused and is causing a lot of unrest and anarchy: here, one might say, the spirit of intolerance reigns in the minds. The right of personal opinion, under the name of freedom of conscience, is expressed in the painful tension of a nervous feeling - and in the persistent, unsubstantiated and hostile denial of everything that disagrees with this opinion. From everywhere you can hear cries for freedom, cries about restrictions on freedom. But those who shout most furiously, demanding freedom for themselves, do not want to recognize freedom from others - as if everyone lives only for himself and lives for himself and demands everything for himself. But freedom cannot be established on one’s own. Every progress, every civilization, all human life is based on the assumption that every person, using his freedom, must respect the freedom of another person. Nowadays everyone preaches the free development of individuality - which means that everyone arranges everything in his own way and does not recognize any will other than his own. And in this spirit we boast of the growth and progress of freedom - in everything, and first and most of all - in the right of everyone to express and proclaim their opinion - about anything. True, but the one who expresses his opinion must recognize reasonable freedom of opinion in another and respect this freedom, and not treat it with hostility and contempt. In fact, we see that people respect and praise only opinions that agree with their opinions, the opinions of their party. We see this at every step, being present during disputes about opinions, about the most essential subjects for human society: about faith, about power, about freedom, about love. We see that people do not compete intelligently, but scold, hurting each other. We see that none of those arguing is aware of responsibility for himself in his opinion, which comes from his personal conviction, but opinion for the most part is not his own conviction, but only an echo and repetition of someone else’s word, someone else’s indignation and someone else’s enthusiasm. It seems sometimes that people without reason fight, they fight in the darkness, so that the blows fall into an empty place, or not where they were directed. When they talk about freedom, they think only about right, and forget that with freedom comes great responsibility. If we separate these two concepts - which is facilitated in our time by the widespread development of individuality - one involuntarily comes to the thought of how to cultivate in people the ability to balance burdens and solve the problem of freedom. The history of persecution in past centuries shows that everywhere the struggle takes place not between power, which persecutes for doctrine or opinion, and freedom, but between two opposite types of opinion and persecution. And when in the West the ancient organization of the Latin Church began to collapse in ancient centuries, 11 new organizations of new faiths were imbued with the same spirit of persecution and adopted the same policy of violence against hostile heterodoxies. Luther followed it, 12 Calvin followed it; 13 she passed on to the new settlements of the New World, to the morals and customs of the Puritans, 14 to the laws of England. Luther overthrew to the ground the entire building of the Roman Church, the entire system of Roman theology, with its dogmatic definitions; but when he had to move from denial to a positive definition of faith, he created his faith with dogmatic definitions; Having rejected the authority of the Roman Pontiff and the ecumenical councils, he nevertheless put himself and his philosophical analysis of the texts of St. in their place. Scripture, and created his own system, full of new technical subtleties of doctrine, and gave this system dominant, exclusive significance, in the spirit of Roman intolerance. And modern man has nothing to be proud of, that the spirit of intolerance disappears from the criminal law in the form of punishment for heterodoxy. This spirit is still alive and active, manifesting itself only in other forms. The desire to insist on one’s own, to bring victory to one’s own, because it is one’s own, takes the form of zeal for the public good, for the truth, for the protection of the principles of this or that institution, and, receiving power, passionately strives to overcome opposing desires and opinions. It may seem that religious tolerance is ensured where indifference to any belief has been established, that the government, before which all beliefs are indifferent, cannot stand for anything. But experience shows that this indifference is in fact impossible, for the sole reason that each belief, penetrating deeply into an individual and entire groups and classes, is reflected in their attitude towards all other individuals and towards the general structure of social life. There can be no indifference of opinions. Whoever says: I don’t care what anyone’s opinion is, doesn’t know what he’s saying, and in any case, a person who is incapable of thinking about anything and forming an opinion for himself is incapable of reasonable tolerance. Whoever possesses this property has a definite opinion himself, is aware of the path he came to it and understands that one can act on someone else’s opinion only in the same way - persuasion; but he doesn’t even have it in his mind that every opinion is of equal value to his opinion. The imaginary indifference to any belief, at first unconscious, is little by little capable of turning into a conscious denial of any belief, into contempt for any cult, and if combined with power, it is realized in measures and laws that are restrictive for any belief. Modern democracy has already provided plenty of examples of this. Modern democracy produces not unification, but fragmentation of opinions and parties, strongly at odds with each other and striving to overcome each other by all means. What can be expected in such a state of tolerance. Tolerance based on denial—at least the denial of violence—has no solid foundation. No matter how much it is proclaimed in the ears of people, no matter how much it is clothed in a dogma or a legal rule, from this alone it will not penetrate into the reality of life. The reason is that tolerance in the character of every person is both a virtue and a property inseparable from moral culture. Human society has not grown up to this virtue and is unlikely to ever grow up to it - and it is least accessible to modern society, split into many opinions and parties. This virtue is preached to everyone in the name of the highest moral principle. This is the apostolic word: “Let your meekness be reasonable to all men” (Philip. VI, 5). But this word “meekness” is conveyed from the Greek ἐπιείκετια, and in Aristotle 15 (Rhetor. 1) this is the name for the property of “forgiving human shortcomings and weaknesses and looking not at the law, but at the legislator; not in letter, but in spirit; on intention, not on action; not into a part, but into a whole; on the entire character of the actor in the entire course of activity, and not just one present minute; remember good over evil; be able to bear insult; seek solutions and pacification in words if action can be avoided.” – This is what tolerance can and should be based on. Our time is the time of development of democracy and the democratic structure of free institutions. Universal suffrage has become a dogma, which to oppose is to fall into heresy. The expression of the people's will in parliaments has received such an artificial structure that it is already becoming a toy in the hands of the ruling party and the majority it has gained, so that in many cases the action of a parliamentary institution tends not so much to ensure civil freedom as to restrict it in the interests of the ruling party. However, when it comes to ways to eliminate unrest, arbitrariness and abuse in public administration and in civil affairs, the only means proposed is the introduction and establishment of elected parliamentary institutions. They are considered some kind of universal medicine to ensure civil order, truth and freedom. This is a vain dream. Only in the old mythological fable does Minerva 16 emerge in full armor from the head of Jupiter. 17 The centuries-old experience of the history of all new peoples clearly shows that only those institutions whose roots are deeply established in the past and arose from the properties of the people are strong and effective. And turning to the present, we see that those people are able to develop and approve free institutions for the protection of civil freedom, which have shown in their history the ability for local self-government. Only that person can truly be free who is independent, that is, clearly aware of the purpose of his life and activity, stands on his own ground and can, without wavering, stand up for himself in his duty. The same should be said about any human society: if it has real freedom in this sense, then it is capable of organizing free institutions. People who have long been accustomed to living and governing themselves in their personal lives and in society are capable of self-government. Drawing strength from their land, animated by its spirit, preserving in themselves the feeling of the people's soul, they manage, both over the centuries and with the development of state institutions, to implement the beginnings of self-government in local life. But when, regardless of everything that has happened in history, the development of the national spirit is undertaken in the name of democratic principles to plant self-government among the people by a new institution at the will of state power, one cannot expect that a plant will take root without having roots in the ground to feed it. There are complaints from everywhere about the bureaucracy, which has seized into its hands all the threads of not only state, but also local government and control of the people's forces. But if by bureaucracy we mean an organization of management and supervision, detached from the life of the people and bound only by the formal execution of orders and rules emanating from the central government, then the preachers of democratic principles, proposing to establish local self-government on their basis, could say in response to their protests against the bureaucracy: mutato nomine de te fabula narratur. Bitter historical experience shows that democrats, as soon as they gain power into their own hands, turn into the same bureaucrats who were previously so strongly indignant, they also become imperious managers of the people's life, detached from the people's life, from its spirit and history, arbitrary rulers of the people's life, not only no better, but sometimes even worse than the previous officials. In ancient times, Tacitus, 18 describing the Germanic tribes, dwells especially on the tribe of Chauks or Saxons, who occupied with their settlements the so-called Saxon Plain, near the North Sea, south of the Danish Peninsula. He points to their special properties - independence and isolation. They do not live in a communal union, but each individually on the land occupied by him, each a free master in his own lot (suam quisque sedem, suos penalos regit). People are not warlike, but when protection is needed, they quickly turn against each other: everyone stands up for himself, and when necessary, everyone will stand up for everyone else. They sit on meager land, cultivating it, but, like others, they seek better lands for themselves. In the 5th century, when the Romans left the fertile lands of Britain and withdrew their legions from there, the Saxons moved there and occupied the fertile part of the region, settling, according to their custom, separately: but common affairs were decided, when necessary, at a meeting of senior people. The power of a mutual alliance based on the land helps them repel attacks and conquests of other tribes of the same region. The era of the Danish conquest comes: they are forced to submit to the conquerors; but they managed to get rid of them at the beginning of the 11th century. Then the Normans conquer Britain, and the conqueror divides the land to his squad on feudal principles. Under the rule of the new Norman and Angevin monarchy, the Anglo-Saxon tribe, thanks to its earthly strength, retains, however, its isolated way of life, and in it the rebellious vassals finally seek support for themselves against the autocratic tyranny of their kings. King John was forced to yield to the national militia and approve, at the request of the barons, the famous Magna Carta 19 to protect the freedom of the Anglo-Saxon people. From that time (1215) until now, the great charter has served as the fundamental law (Common Law) of the English people and state, the basis of that self-government that helped this people survive the most troubled and rebellious eras of their history. Another 60 years passed: under Edward I, the English Parliament was established, 20 and the system of legislation, courts and government was finally established in a united England. The Parliament itself was only a development of the same principles that can be traced in the assemblies of senior people among the Anglo-Saxons before the conquest and in the assemblies of the barons of subsequent times; and to the statute of Edward of 1283 references are still made to this day in support of rights in court. From this time a new history of England begins. The main features of self-government are determined, on which social freedom is based, not imaginary, not ideal, but real. Social work is done by social forces, inseparable from the consciousness of duty and responsibility, but is not mixed with the activities of the state and is not absorbed by it. The state owns the matter of state, the matter of the supreme observance of truth and unity, something that is beyond the power of public activity. Since then, on the same principles, the subsequent development of social life and the state in England has taken place. When the bloody wars of the White and Scarlet Roses 21 exterminated most of the old Norman clans, new clans of large landowners and free landowners (gentry) took their place and became the guardians of that earthly power with which the Anglo-Saxon tribe had been strengthened and held on since ancient times. It helps the people survive the difficult eras of autocracy and tyranny of the Tudors 22 and Stuarts, the 23 era of religious warfare and persecution, and two revolutions that did not destroy the state and did not violate its integrity. And now England adheres to the same principles of its system. The fate of France presents a completely different picture. The Franks, immigrants from the same Saxon plain, occupied a vast field along the banks of the Rhine, settling on empty lands, and brought with them the spirit of the same independent ownership of lands, the same beginning of self-government. Little by little, in the struggle against the power of their leaders, then with the first kings, they managed to protect themselves with a feudal system based on land ownership and on the mutual connection of dependent and supreme possessions. But when feudal life little by little, under the influence of many reasons, degenerated from landowning to military and was resolved into wandering knighthood, the place of feudal power was replaced by the power of royal power in the Capetian family. 24 Royal power was beneficial for ending the anarchy that ruined the entire region. The royal power restored order and began to gather France and organize internal government. But as autocracy asserted itself in France, the ancient principles of self-government fell into oblivion, and society began to be absorbed into the state. Politically, the borders of the French kingdom began to take shape - instead of feudal squads gathering for defense according to the free calculation of obligatory vassal relations, the kings began to recruit troops for campaigns and conquests. With Philip Augustus 25 (XII century), the systematic gathering of all popular forces to one center of royal state policy began. The state collects land, but not in order to establish its rule on earthly power, but in order to collect the treasury from earthly power at the disposal of the state. The main instruments of government were officials and legalists, who applied the forms of the Roman Empire to the construction of new orders of government. In the 14th century, the king established the so-called Assemblies of the States General (Etats généraux); but the main purpose of these meetings was to collect as much money as possible through taxation into the treasury for government affairs and enterprises; they included only the clergy, nobility or knighthood and cities (because money accumulated in cities); but the actual owners who cultivated the land on which the taxation fell did not participate at all. The earth, where earthly power comes from, had neither a representative nor a patron for itself. Thus, little by little, the concept was formed that the state is a great community, the care of which belongs not to the people who compose it, but to the king and his administration. And the kings changed and each of them brought with him either strength and intelligence (like Henry IV), 26 or weakness and a passion for conquest and celebrations. Each reign brought with it an increase in officialdom, and this increase became an important source of state income through the sale of positions and ranks of all kinds. So little by little France grew to a truly monstrous state during the glorious reign of Louis XIV, 27 when his memorable words were heard aloud to everyone: “The State is I” (L'état c'est moi). The villages and fields were deserted, the nobles - the owners of the estates left them and all gathered in Paris for court life, because living outside of it was considered evil and dishonorable. Farmers, suppressed by the tax burden, were mired in poverty, pictures of which amaze us in the descriptions of La Bruyère 28 and Arthur Young. 29 Life seemed possible only for privileged people and government officials. The society was overcome by a feeling of despair and powerlessness; but when the government took control of all public affairs, everyone began to look for the cause of evil and disaster in one government. Thus, in the midst of need and poverty, in the midst of irritation and anger, by the end of the 18th century, extreme tension in society matured, breaking out in a great revolution. There is no doubt that the great revolution had worldwide significance. From it came many beneficial measures and new aspirations; it destroyed many dilapidated forms of government and social relations. But what fruits did it bring for France, what organic transformations did it bring to it? The revolution not only did not eliminate the basic concept of the organic merger of society with the state, the concept on which the French monarchy established itself, fluctuated and fell, but it itself was imbued with this concept and developed and implemented it to its utmost limits. “Private individuals constitute society, and society is responsible for taking care of them, and the representative of society is the state and it is omnipotent.” This is a thought that, having taken root in the minds, has triumphed over them to this day and forms in France the main relations of the state to society. Just at a time when the whole society was agitated by heavy concern for itself and irritation with the state, Rousseau’s famous Contrat Social 30 appeared with a fantastic theory of the social contract, containing confirmation and eloquent development of the same thought - and this explains the enthusiastic success of Rousseau’s theory. The revolutionary government was imbued with this idea. “We must bring happiness to the people” - such speeches were heard at the Convention of 31 in 1793 - they are still heard. What's next? Further, under the guise of “freedom of brotherhood and equality” - wild autocracy, persecution and violence; under the pretext of freedom - the suppression of all freedom by all revolutionary governments, one after another replaced by the action of the rebellious crowd. Next - the unlimited autocracy of the new Empire and the bringing of all of France by Napoleon Bonaparte 32 to the same denominator of individual rule. France, with its historically established provinces, with all local traditions and customs, is divided into departments, uniformly placed under the authority of a prefect. 33 All elements of self-government in rural and urban communities are suppressed, all public unions are bound by regulation, all freedom of education is suppressed, and all manifestations of public life are given into the hands of officials - blind instruments of the central government. The local community was only one of the units of territorial and administrative structure, an instrument of the central administration. Then comes a series of new revolutions, none of which brought organic transformation, but each only repeated even more insistently that all social life is absorbed by the state, and the state takes care of everyone and is therefore responsible for everything. “We,” proclaimed Louis Blanc, 34, in 1848, “we have assumed the terrible responsibility for the well-being of one and all in France.” Is it any wonder then that the crowd, disappointed in the expectation of prosperity, takes up arms against the state and destroys it, arranging a new one, which, entangling the still independent development of local and public life, is in turn subject to destruction. A new revolution from above restores the Empire, which in turn is destroyed, giving way to a third republic; and this one embodies even more decisively the same word of Louis XIV, which does not lose force in France: “L'état c'est moi.” The party that takes power into its hands becomes a state and, under the guise of freedom, suppresses the freedom of life and activity of the entire people. On its banner is written: universal votes and the will of the people; but both are deliberate lies, for more than ever the blind instruments of the central power have multiplied everywhere in the countless bureaucrats, and everyone who can act among the people, everyone, not excluding the school teacher and the owner of the tobacco shop, is recruited by some interest to become agents of the central power that dominates the face, and with the help of these agents a false majority is assembled in an elegant manner, serving as a false expression of the will of the people. Representatives of modern democracy present themselves as prophets of the people's welfare and progress, presenting to the people their ideal - to give the participation of the entire people and the voice of everyone in particular in the management of the people's affairs. But at the same time, they do not want to know either the spirit of the people, or the age-old traditions and beliefs on which the life of the people was based. Democracy, when the mechanism of legislation falls into its hands, begins to wield laws for its own purpose, issuing law after law and not at all embarrassed by the consideration of how much the most essential aspirations and needs of the life and spirit of the people are constrained by the law. In this way, the straightforward despotism of an imaginary government of the people, concentrated in the hands of the predominant party, is created and maintained in the name of ideal truth and the people's good. Bringing everything under the level of its ideal, it strives to realize it through the unification and equalization of everything and everyone in a simple way of a general rule and a general measure. On this path, she encounters strong convictions of individuals and entire classes, based on faith and tradition, rooted in the spirit, and strives to overcome them, because she sees them as the main obstacle to her unifying and equalizing process. In this sense, the most dangerous and most disgusting thing for her is religion and the church: the human will is so closely connected with belief, especially church belief, that it is not easy to overcome it. Hence the struggle between practical democracy and the church: the very existence of the church is an embarrassment and a nuisance for democracy. But for the first time this policy still needs religion, insofar as religion is still needed for its purposes; but for this it is necessary to remove as far as possible the dogmatic appearance from religion, to deprive it of the ability to act on the soul through the discipline of character and thinking; let there remain in it what, in the opinion of politics, constitutes its non-dogmatic essence, that is, the general principles of morality, combined with the general concept of God and the moral dignity of man. This gives religion a vague quality: it turns into some kind of moral philosophy, which refers not to the spiritual property of man, but only to his natural property. In this way, obviously, its very essence is erased from religion. The roots are cut off, without which the plant cannot live, although it seems to be intended to preserve its fruits, that is, to retain the results of the Christian conscience, taking away the faith that created and preserved it. But the policy of democracy plans to achieve the same results by replacing the Law of God in school with a course of morality, and in public life, Christian love and pity with the principles and institutions of altruism and philanthropy. But all this is just for the first time. Democracy moved further in France, achieving complete dominance. She is already launching an unconditional persecution of religion, attempting to forcibly eradicate it from morals and from civil life. France, the imaginary land of freedom, has lived since the time of Napoleon I under Art. 291 of the Criminal Code. This article reads: “No community (association), consisting of more than 20 persons, for the purpose of meeting daily or on appointed days, for the purpose of discussing religious, political or other subjects, shall be formed except with the permission of the government and on such terms as the governmental authority may prescribe to it.” Such was the measure of freedom granted to society for a hundred years and under the operation of free parliamentary institutions. Nowadays the legislation of free French democracy has further limited this measure. According to the law of 1901, permission to form a new society is given only by a special decree of the State Council. But this is not enough. The law adds that the continued existence of such an even permitted society depends entirely on the government: the society is dissolved and terminated by decree of the Council of Ministers. If the society opens without permission or meets after the ban, then each member is subject to a fine of 5,000 francs and imprisonment for a year, and anyone who gives the meeting a place in his premises is subject to the same punishment. It would seem, however, that societies that legally existed prior to this law are not subject to it. No; no matter how long they have been operating, no matter what relationships and agreements they have entered into with cities, colleges, public institutions, etc., they must cease if they do not ask permission for the new order. When a society is destroyed, all its property is subject to liquidation by government measures. This entire law is directed especially against religious congregations that devote themselves to the teaching and education of youth, the charity and treatment of the poor and sick. The new government, which rules France in the name of freedom, attempted to destroy them all. With the destruction of the congregation, thousands of leaders, mostly teachers and female teachers, are scattered and expelled. But the cruel law forbids them to engage in teaching anywhere, of course, under fear of the same fine and prison. The law is cruel, but its execution is even more cruel. The government did not hesitate to indiscriminately close, dissolve and liquidate at least three thousand congregations that had long been active before the publication of the new law. Not enough. When some hoped to take advantage of the new law and ask permission to open new congregations, and several hundred petitions were presented for this, the government refused to consider them, and the Chamber of Deputies, at the request of Combe 35, rejected them all indiscriminately without consideration. It got to the point that when some sisters of mercy decided to leave their vows and continue their activities in a secular rank, the government began to persecute them with strict punishments: others were persecuted for caring for the sick in a private home for nothing. It happened that the courts abandoned the lawless prosecution, but the Supreme Chamber of Cassation, acting on instructions from the authorities, began to overturn the rightful verdicts of the courts. Any protests of the local population and adherents of law and truth against the autocracy of the authorities only result in the adoption of even stricter measures and laws against any activity that bears the name and seal of religion and church. So it is natural that not only people devoted to religion and the church, but also intelligent statesmen all over the world ask with surprise and indignation: to what violence will French democracy finally reach under the banner of freedom? “Combe and his associates,” rightly notes one American publicist, a spokesman for the country’s public opinion, “imagine that they are the engines of progress; but in essence they repeat the misconceptions and mistakes of the medieval policies of the authorities. What did Philip II do when he 36 made the Inquisition an instrument of his policy; what Louis XIV did in France by revoking the Edict of Nantes 37 and dooming Protestants to exile; What England did when it forced its people of different faiths to migrate to America, the same thing is now being done by the Anti-Clericals in France, in their hatred of religious congregations. Isn’t this the same cruel persecution of heresy, turned out in a different form?” Studying the era of the French Revolution, you are amazed at the idea about man and society that was in everyone’s head at that time: the idea is amazingly false and completely inconsistent with the teachings of the first minds of that time - Voltaire, 38 Montesquieu, 39 Buffon. 40 It is assumed that man himself is an abstract being, a primitive and natural man – essentially good and reasonable: an idyll is built on this. This conclusion is considered a strict conclusion from the philosophy of the 18th century: but it is true that reason cannot allow it - and reason is purely natural, not at all ecclesiastical. At least science, exact and hard science, is losing its revolutionary spirit and even becoming anti-revolutionary. Zoology shows us that humans have sharp, bestial teeth: we must watch that the carnivorous and bestial instinct does not awaken in him. Psychology shows us that the mind in a person is based on words and images: we must watch, no matter how hysterical and insane he degenerates. Political economy shows us that there is always a discrepancy between the number of population and the supply of food: so, let us not forget that even in times of prosperity and peace the struggle for existence does not cease: so as not to irritate and inflame it, increasing the mutual distrust of the participants in this competition. History shows that states, governments, religions, churches - all great institutions - serve as the only means by which man - a wild animal - acquires his small share of reason and truth: one must be careful not to destroy the flower by cutting the root. In a word, it seems to me that pure science fosters the spirit of prudence and conservation, and not the spirit of revolution and anarchy: for this it is enough to see and comprehend all the complexity and all the subtle structure of the social composition: then it will be impossible to believe all the charlatans who offer decisive and simple universal cures for evil... (Tain). 41 Modern thinkers and scientists criticize not only the foundations of this or that religion, but also the very foundations of religious feeling in humanity. The question of its moral and social significance is raised. They ask: is it possible for it to hold on, and what significance will it receive and what forms will it take when applied to the new conditions of life that the future social evolution of human society may create. It is impossible to guess about the future, penetrating the millennium of the upcoming destinies of the universe and earthly humanity. The mystery of earthly existence remains before him, dark and insoluble. Religious feeling is inseparable from it: it is alive and ineradicable, for it is rooted in the nature of human earthly existence. A person will always feel his infertility, despite all the improvements in the material conditions of private and public life, he will always feel like a divided being, despite all the teachings that proclaim the freedom of the flesh and lust, he will always consciously or unconsciously strive for ideal unity and perfection. No matter how much animal strength and energy he feels within himself, no matter how much he enjoys it, his soul will not stop thinking about the limit of earthly existence. And we see that as a person masters the forces of nature, time and space, he increasingly feels spiritual emptiness and longing for life. Until a person completely turns into an animal, religious feeling cannot be torn out of his soul and from social life: any violence for this will be madness, and the most fanatical persecution of religion will lead at the other end to a perversion of faith - into superstition. The forms of religious feeling are inexhaustible, extending from the purest and most sublime to the monstrous. The preservation of the height, purity and truth of religious belief belongs to the church. The Church, despite the varied admixture of forms and visible rites and customs that are subject to change over the centuries, will always remain the ark of religious truth. Outside the church, religious feeling falls into the delusion of the flesh and pride, into a dreamy mood of the spirit, into fantastic forms of cult. Our time is a time of decline of religious feeling, or, better to say, its perversion. With the denial of tradition, law, and accepted principles of morality, is combined the search for new forms of belief, new moral principles, the invention of new fantastic objects of worship - a state similar to that in which Roman society was in the era of the Antonines. 42 But a deep soul, thirsting and seeking truth, sooner or later will feel and know it. Where there is no faith, where can one establish a sense of duty and consciousness of responsibility - the basis of any moral impulse and will? Religion alone is the rule of life, a constant reminder to man that there is God and the Rewarder of those who seek Him - the spiritual authority on which man’s duty to God and his neighbors is established. No moral teaching can replace this. It is based theoretically on the principle of the public good, public benefit (utilitarianism), with the denial of the religious principle, although the practical conclusions and provisions of this teaching are drawn from concepts and customs emanating from religion and based on it. But the moral rule, when applied to reality, to the circumstances of place and time, to the interests of oneself and other persons, is subject to fluctuations and doubts, requiring verification with the basic principle, which for utilitarian morality replaces conscience. But this is an abstract principle, and therefore a decision based on his question about what should be done in a given case or what the price of what has been done requires a mental operation that is accessible to few people and, in any case, unclear and associated with hesitation, doubt, and the raising of new questions. On the contrary, the religious measure of duty is not mental or abstract, but is inseparably connected with the living feeling of a soul touched by faith, and is capable of acting on the soul directly, unconsciously and without mental stress, freely applying to new relationships and conditions of life, but without changing in its core and in its dominant effect on the soul. An artificial conscience is created on the basis of morality, but the Christian conscience is the eye of God in the human soul; and before her is the living image of God in the face of Christ the Savior, life-giving with love and truth. And there is nowhere for a person to run away from faith, because he cannot run away from himself. No matter how firmly he decides in his pride to renounce God and be his own God, he remains on earth, surrounded on all sides by the mystery of existence, and no matter how much he wants to close his eyes from it, he cannot help but feel it in the recesses of his soul. Still, he stands on the threshold of something unknown and eternal, having, as Goethe put it, 43 below, under him, graves, and above, above him, the stars of the vault of heaven. In all of humanity and in each individual person, the spirit lives and is nourished and grows by the desire for the ideal, that is, for the highest, which cannot be embraced, in which perfect fulfillment cannot be achieved. In this striving is the whole essence of spiritual life, for what the spirit strives for is something absolute and immutable, something that keeps the living soul on earth, without which every human being drags along the earth senselessly. This desire is innate and inherent in every human soul, and when the soul extinguishes it in itself, it becomes only sound and word. As soon as consciousness begins in the soul, the thought of the beginning of all beginnings, where all life comes from, the thought of love and truth, begins in it, and the aspiration rises to the height of existence. This living grain is not placed from outside, and no science can either generate or invest it. Where it is, there is the beginning of truth; where it is lost, there is lies and deadness. But it cannot completely perish, and anyone who imagines that he has taken it out of his soul and lives without it is lying to himself and deceiving everyone about himself. And the one who has reached the persistent thought that there is only truth, the truth of the immutable law of material nature, is ready every minute to unconsciously deny everything that he feels in relation to himself as insult or violence. The entire history of mankind and all world literature is filled with appeals to truth and cries about untruth and prayers for truth to be established on earth. The entire Hebrew Psalm 44 is a song about truth and untruth, rushing from earth to heaven, and therefore it has become the property of spiritual consolation and encouragement from grief and untruth. All prophetic writings are filled with the same cries, and to this day poetic songs of all times and all peoples cry out for the same thing. This is truly that prophetic scroll on which “the front and the back and sobbing and pity and grief were written.” “How long,” says the prophet, “will the earth and all the grass of the village dry up from the malice of those who live on it.” But in vain would humanity, suffering from untruth, dream that it could someday, through the consistent development of its institutions and customs, establish on earth the kingdom of truth, the kingdom of God. The word of Christ stands in all truth: “My kingdom is not of this world.” 45 Over the course of many centuries, humanity managed to emerge from the wild state of lawlessness and the rule of brute force over the masses and the consistent development of institutions established the rule of law in relations between people, with the establishment of orders based on law. God bless! But the dominance of law does not yet mean victory and the dominance of truth, for law is only a formal recognition of truth, and every institution is operated by people, and man, in his divided nature, bears the germ of a lie, with which truth is incompatible. The law, distributing and defining rights, commands that everyone be given their due; but every right in its legal definition is only a likeness and reflection of the truth; and the application of the law, being established on its letter and merging with it, can actually turn out to be untruth. The court, no matter how complex its structure may be, becomes an arena for a competition about rights, in which victory often belongs not to the one who is right in his conscience, but to the one who is more skilled in the competition, and the very access to the competition is furnished, but by necessity, with formal conditions, the observance of which is difficult and not accessible to everyone: the court becomes a fortress, which is not easy to penetrate and from which it is even more difficult to free oneself. With the establishment of freedom for work and for all activities, with the multiplication and improvement of all its methods and tools, countless new ways of acquiring, for the limitless increase of wealth, new countless types of property with its strong fences are opened, but at the same time a terrible impenetrable abyss opens between the wealth, contentment, satiety of a few - and the desperate poverty of the masses suffering and dying from powerlessness, poverty and ignorance. Public institutions are created to help the suffering, in the name of civic duty, in the name of love and pity, but they are powerless to fill this abyss, which is growing and becoming more and more formidable, responding to love with irritation and anger, despair and lust. The centuries-old bonds of historically created slavery are destroyed and the dominion of man over slaves without rights is destroyed; and at the same time, new types of grave economic slavery are created, generated by the very freedom of economic activity, hopeless slavery, to which the masses are subjected for their daily bread. In the name of freedom and equality, new types of government, improved in design, are created, based on the participation of everyone in the expression of the people's will; but they lead to a new type of irresponsible despotic will of the majority, and membership in one party or another becomes the measure of truth and right itself. And in the midst of all these improvements in order and human existence, the age-old cry of the poor man is heard: “Merciful God! Where is Your truth! What remains is the eternal, unstoppable desire of all humanity for truth. Let every soul grow and nurture this desire within itself. From the first beginnings of existence, it serves for every person as an indicator of his character and spiritual destiny: for one, the fires of love and pity, and indignation at untruth, with a burning thirst to extinguish it or balance it, light up in the soul; the other remains indifferent and, confining the purpose of his existence in the flesh and lust, drags along the earth, not raising his eyes to heaven. But whoever has these lights burning, they illuminate his life, and it is good for him when, carefully carrying this desire for truth through all the vanity of the world, he strives to realize it in his life and in his work. "What is truth?" 46 - Pilate asked mockingly 47 and did not wait for an answer: he thought that this was some kind of truth, speculatively sought for centuries by the sages of the whole world. But before that question, Christ said to him: “For this purpose I have come, that I may testify to the truth, and everyone who is of the truth will listen to My voice.” 48 And all who are of the truth, all who have these fires of striving for truth burning in their souls, listen to His voice, speaking about truth, about love and pity and about sacrifice, all of them were, and are, and will be the flock of Christ, hopers of the Kingdom of God. And all of them, carrying faith in their souls, “did not accept the promises, but only saw the promised land from afar” and died, looking at the “author of the faith and perfecter Jesus” who suffered for the truth. An indicator of culture is the consciousness of duty and responsibility established in custom. Where it disappears, there begins the savagery of morals. In its simplest form, this is the awareness of the obligation of everyone to settle their accounts in connection with their funds, to pay their debts, in private and public matters to give themselves and everyone to whom they owe an account of the use of money according to debt or order, the awareness of the master’s obligation to carry out the ordered work. When society reaches the point where this most elementary consciousness is exhausted, when the very thought of society excuses and justifies an obvious violation of duty in small matters, then little by little the capacity for protest and indignation at violation of a matter in a great, social and state matter becomes pale and confused, the most basic concepts on which the order of social life is established. And then, no matter how much mental development in a society increases, no matter how much the external conditions of civilization improve, the cultural state of such a society is pitiful and dangerous. An indicator of culture in a society is the way people communicate with each other. When it is based on the consciousness of true freedom, which shows respect for the personality of every person, attention to everyone with whom they enter into a relationship. This property was called by the ancients by the common name “reverentia”. With the decline of culture, this property is depleted and disappears; on the contrary, the mass of people increases who have no respect for anything other than their own will and their whim, people without any restraint, without a manly spirit, without the desire to be attentive to anyone, without a sense of duty and responsibility in their actions. There is a kind of anarchy in our time in the field of philosophy. Almost all objective truths - universal consciousness - lose their meaning, so that any denial of unchangeable and absolute truth seems to be a characteristic property and sign of the present time. Religion, morality, law are no longer absolute, essential beliefs and convictions of the spirit, but take on the meaning of some living sensations and aspirations of people's life, fluctuating and changing. Every era, every people bears a trace of change and evolution of moral feeling and consciousness; but now each person individually strives to create for himself his own morality, his own religion, his own worldview, to create and then change in accordance with the need, if such a need exists. So, it is not surprising that entire masses are seized by a pessimistic mood, a kind of satiety with culture. Disappointed, discouraged, desperate people turn away from all higher spiritual aspirations, placing value on the only thing that can be grasped with the hand and that brings “real” material benefit and benefit. Many people are now infected with hopeless spiritual neurasthenia, complete lack of ideas. When they talk about the failure of science, there is truth in this word. Positivism of the sciences, without philosophy, leads directly to inconsistency and the result is an unidealized positivism of all power and all authority. The excessive development of material civilization everywhere leads to the impoverishment of spiritual principles, goodness and truth and to the spread of lies in social life and in social relations. The social life of our time is filled with phenomena that in many ways resemble or directly repeat what we look at with surprise and horror in descriptions of Roman life in the era of the empire. The Juvenal of our time would have to repeat or remake in a new way the paintings and character of the ancient Juvenal. 49 With the collapse of ancient beliefs, their place was taken in Rome by the insane and depraved superstitions of eastern pagan cults. But don’t we see the same madness today in the spread of false Christian scientism, in the desire to seek some new faith - either in Buddhism, or in occultism, in spiritualism, in positivism, in many dreamy cults seeking truth in the idealization of the natural forces of Eastern paganism. Are not the scenes of the Roman circus repeated in our races with their competitions and games, in the phenomena of fashionable sports of all kinds? Doesn't the theatrical stage of our time, with its development of extreme realism, resemble the Roman theater of the Empire? In the awakening mind a wandering force develops with a natural instinct of imitation. The task of education is to concentrate this force and direct it; but our system of education does not concentrate, but breaks it up, and young minds begin to wander far from home, capturing images, forms, ideas and impressions on all sides along the way. Thus, at the very beginning, the ability and desire to know oneself, to feel one’s strength, one’s nature, to develop within oneself a consciousness of duty and the purpose of life is lost: only in this way can a person master himself, and without that, everything that he captures along the way through interest and imitation will not be his own, but someone else’s. And so, breaking into sides, the spirit not so much gains strength as loses it. Such are the consequences of what now often serves as a substitute for education, under the name of self-education. Since the dawn of the world, people have lied, but have they lied and pretended as much as they lie and pretend in our time, when the word posing came into use to express an idea that did not exist before? The desire to show off what one is not, the desire to play a role is a characteristic of our age. In the first half of the 19th century, people assumed a poetic sublimity of spirit, some kind of sentimentality, strange for the common people. After that, only the form changed: poetic pretense went out of fashion, but the desire to play a role remained, only it took on various other forms, and with the new customs of life, many new cases and incentives for pretense appeared. All kinds of enterprises, associations, stock exchange transactions and speculations have made it easier for people to imagine themselves richer than they are. It became possible for every journalist and newspaper writer to present himself as a master of political science, and for a member of parliament to present himself as a political figure. With the help of countless encyclopedias, reference books, and various kinds of illustrations, anyone can show off their education or scholarship. Skilled people, with the help of impudence and ringing phrases, managed to make their way to the top of society, occupy important positions in the administration, and make their name known, even if only for a short time; people with little talent became famous in literature; people without any means, without any dignity, with the help of shameless impudence, acquired enormous wealth through speculation. All these are daily occurrences. Therefore, in order to be successful, you need to take on a role, you need to pose, you need to stand on stilts, you need to live consciously in pretense - in the pretense of feelings, to play a game in which the actor can be carried away to the point of oblivion of his pretense and himself believe in the sincerity of the image he has assumed. And this game extends to all the customs of our community, to all forms of social life, to literature, science and politics. Judges must remember that their office is “the right to judge” (ius dicere), and not to create a court (ius dare), to interpret the law, and not to create the law, or to give the law. Otherwise, it would be similar to the power that the Roman Church arrogates to itself: under the pretext of explaining Holy Scripture, it does not hesitate to add (to it) and change (it); to declare (in it) what is not in it, and to introduce innovations under the guise of antiquity. Judges should be rich in knowledge and not just wit, should be strict in their minds and not just pleasant and amiable, should be knowledgeable in conviction and not frivolous. Above all, their quality and the virtue of their title is truthfulness. “Curse (in the law) who violates his neighbor’s boundaries” (Deut. XXVII). Whoever moves the boundary stone is worthy of blame, and an unjust judge is the boundary breaker when he distributes land and property unfairly. One crooked decision does more harm than many crooked examples: they spoil the flowing water, or else they spoil the very source of water. “Like a troubled spring and a damaged spring, so is the righteous who falls before the wicked” (Prov. XXV, 26). The position of judge relates to the disputing parties, to the lawyers of the parties, to the clerks and subordinate officials of justice, and finally to the Sovereign and the State. And, firstly, the sides. There are judges (says Scripture) who turn judgment into poison (Amos. V, 7), and there are those who turn it into vinegar; for injustice is a bitter thing, and red tape is a sour thing. The first duty of a judge is to eliminate violence and deceit; violence is all the more harmful when it is open, and deception when it is hidden and hidden. This includes slanderous cases that are subject to eruption as the scum of the court. A judge must prepare his way to a right decision, just as God prepares his ways, exalting the valleys and bringing down the stern ones in smooth ways. So, when a high hand appears on one side or the other, strong persecution, cunning tricks, crafty combinations, power, unevenness of defense, then the direct virtue of the judge appears to equalize the inequality; so that he could inscribe his decision, as if on a level field. A strong shock produces blood (Prov. XXX, 33), and grapes in the winepress, when pressed excessively, produce tart wine with the taste of the seeds. Judges must avoid crude conclusions and strained conclusions: the most cruel torture is torture above the law; especially in the criminal law, one must ensure that the goal of intimidation does not turn into the goal of cruelty, and that the laws do not hit the people with rain and fire and the bogeyman that Scripture speaks of (Psalm X, 6), and the stretching of the criminal law hits the people with such rain. Therefore, it is desirable that a wise judge be able to soften the criminal law in action when it remains in oblivion for a long time or is outdated for the present time. It is the duty of the judge to take into account not just one bare fact, but also the circumstances of each case (ut res, ita tempora rerum). Where it is a matter of life and death, the judge must (as far as the law allows), while administering justice, remember mercy; look at the example with a stern eye, but at the person with a merciful eye. On the attitude towards lawyers and defenders. Patience and conscientious attentiveness in listening to the parties are an essential part of justice, and the lengthy speeches of a judge are like a poorly tuned instrument. It is not suitable for a judge to form an opinion in advance about what he has not yet heard in the debate; or, preventing the course of the debate, interrupt the witness or defense attorney, or confuse them with questions, at least relevant to the case. The judge’s job in listening to the debate is the following: 1) to direct the course of the investigation; 2) moderate excessive prolificity in speeches, eliminate repetition or impudence; 3) present in an extract all the material collected during interrogations and debates and 4) announce his ruling or decision. Anything beyond this is superfluous, and comes either from a desire to show off, or from talkativeness, from impatience, or from a lack of memory, from a lack of even attentiveness. It is strange to see that the impudence of lawyers sometimes affects judges, while judges should do the work of God, sitting in His seat, and remember that He humbles the highly moral and gives grace to the humble; but it is even more strange that judges sometimes have leading favorites, who increase extortions and create inroads into justice. The judge is expected to give a favorable assessment of the lawyer's work and praise when the lawyer skillfully conducts the case and makes the defense, especially from the side who did not manage to win the case: this maintains the lawyer's reputation in the client's eyes and encourages him to doubt his own rightness. But society also expects a judge to express decent reproach to a lawyer when he notices in him slanderous fault-finding, great negligence, insufficient familiarity with the case, bias in attacks or impudence in defense. And a lawyer in court should not enter into an argument with the judge, or enter into judgments about the case again after the judge has announced his verdict; but on the other hand, the judge should not interrupt the course of the case with his reasoning, and should not give the party a reason to complain that her lawyer was not heard and her arguments were not stated. Third, regarding clerks and judicial officers. The place of justice is a sacred place, and therefore not only the courtroom, but also its vestibule must be protected from all temptation and conspiracy, for, without a doubt, from thorns, as Scripture says, no grapes are gathered, and justice does not bear sweet fruit when clues are tangled around it and the rapacious hands of clerks and judicial officers walk around it. Judicial proceedings are surrounded by bad tricks. There are four of them. First: there are other people - sowers of litigation - they clutter up the court and confuse the people. Second: some people needlessly confuse the court with complaints and disputes - these are not accomplices of the court (amici curiae), but judicial parasites and flatterers, they lure the court beyond its boundaries, for the sake of their whims and benefits. Third: people serving the court, one might say, not with the right hand, but with the left; they are full of slanderous hooks and malicious tricks, with which the court is diverted from the straight and smooth paths of justice into distant paths and labyrinths. Fourth: these are bailiffs and assessors of court fees; These people justify the usual comparison of the court to a thorny bush, where a flock of sheep strives to escape from bad weather, and there they will always leave some of their wool. On the other hand, a clerk, experienced in practice, knowing all its techniques, understanding the entire course of judicial proceedings, serves as an excellent assistant to the court and can often show the judge himself ways and means. Fourth – the attitude of the court towards the Sovereign and the state. Judges must above all remember the final rule of the Roman Twelve Tables: 50 “Salus poluli suprema lex” (the supreme law is the good of the people), they must know that all laws, if not consistent with this supreme law, are nothing more than a flattering network and the broadcast of an unjust spirit. And therefore, it is good for the state’s cause when monarchs and state authorities often consult with judges, and mutually when judges often ask the sovereign and the authorities: it is one thing when there is something in the law that is inconsistent with the state’s case, and another thing when in the state’s case there is something inconsistent with the law, for it often happens that when the court in its verdict judged only “my and yours” right (meum et tuum), the grounds for the verdict and its consequences turn out to be reprehensible for the interests of the state. This includes not only the dignity and right of state power, but also everything that tends to an important violation of its rights or constitutes a dangerous precedent, or clearly concerns the entire mass of the population. It is very unreasonable to think that law is one thing and politics is something completely different: both are the same as the breath and the muscles that collectively move life. Judges should also remember that Solomon's throne had lions on both sides: there should be lions, but they should stand at the foot of the throne. And so, let the judges not dare to violate the rights of state power in any way. A judge must firmly know and remember what his right and the main part of his title are: the wise use and application of the law; and the apostle speaks of a law of a higher order: we know that the law is good if someone uses it lawfully (1 Tim. I, 8). Published from the book: Questions of Life. M.: Synodal Printing House, 1904. The fact that the collection of articles “Questions of Life” is a publication by K. P. Pobedonostsev was established from his correspondence with the manager of the Moscow Synodal Printing House S. D. Voit. In a letter to him dated November 5, 1904, Pobedonostsev wrote: “I have no reason to think about publishing a new volume of the Moscow Collection, but I have accumulated several articles that are suitable for the current reckless and crazy time. I’m thinking of putting them in a small booklet (not much larger than the 2nd book “Teacher and Teaching” 51 and putting it under the following title: “Leaves of the Moscow Collection.” 52 In a letter to S.D. Voit dated November 9, 1904, he drew his attention to the fact that “in a few days I hope to send you the manuscript. But I will change the title, and I don’t want to put my name out there.” 53 And finally, on November 10, 1904, K. P. Pobedonostsev wrote to S. D. Voit: “Here, I am sending you the manuscript about which I wrote before. The book will be very small, in the format “Teacher and Teaching.” The author's name will not appear and there will be no publication on the cover other than the price and location of sale. This time I think I will print no more than 1200 copies. “Have me type it and send the proofs to me.” There will be a total of 8 articles under titles, without numbering. At the end there is only a table of contents.” 54 Francis Bacon (1561–1626) – English philosopher. Here, when the collection of articles “Questions of Life” was published in 1904, a typo was made: there should be a reference to the Gospel of Matthew (XII, 30), and not to the Gospel of Luke (XII, 30). Titus Lucretius Carus (1st century BC) - Roman poet and philosopher. Agamemnon - in ancient Greek mythology, the king of Mycenae (or Argos), leader of the Achaean army of the Trojan War. Iphigenia is in ancient Greek mythology the daughter of the king of Mycenae (or Argos) Agamemnon, whom he sacrificed to the goddess Artemis to ensure the favorable departure of the Greek army heading to Troy. Diana is the goddess of the moon in ancient Roman mythology, from the 5th century. BC e. identified with the ancient Greek goddess Artemis. Bartholomew's Night is the accepted name in literature for the massacre of Huguenots by Catholics on the night of August 24, 1574 (the feast of St. Bartholomew) in Paris, which continued in the following days in the provinces of France. This refers to the attempt of English Catholics on November 5, 1605 to blow up the British Parliament. Anabaptists are followers of one of the most radical sectarian movements of the Reformation era in Western and Central Europe in the 16th century. Caduia (Latin caduceus “rod” - in ancient mythology a magical rod entwined with two snakes, an attribute of the god Mercury, the same for the ancient Greek Hermes - kerikeion (κερικεῖον). We are talking about the Roman Catholic Church. Luther Martin (1483–1546) – theologian and public figure of the Reformation era, founder of German Protestantism. Calvin Jean (1509–1564) – one of the figures of the Reformation, founder of Calvinism. Puritans - a name in the second half of the 16th - first half of the 17th centuries. English Protestants - followers of Calvinism, dissatisfied with the half-hearted reformation carried out in England in the form of Anglicanism. Aristotle (384–322 BC) – ancient Greek philosopher and scientist. Minerva is one of the main deities in ancient Roman mythology; revered as the goddess of wisdom, knowledge, arts and crafts, identified with the ancient Greek goddess Athena. Jupiter is the supreme deity in ancient Greek mythology and religion. Tacitus Publius Cornelius (c. 58 - after 117) - Roman historical writer. We are talking about the Magna Carta - a charter signed by the English king John the Landless (1199–1216) on June 15, 1215. This refers to the emergence in 1265 of the English parliament during the reign of King Edward I (1272–1307). We are talking about the struggle between two rival dynasties - York and Lancaster, which lasted from 1455 to 1485. Both dynasties and almost the entire noble feudal nobility of England died in this war. The Tudors were a royal dynasty in England 1485–1603. The Stuarts were a royal dynasty in Scotland from 1371, and then in England 1603–1649. and 1660–1714 The Capetians were a dynasty of French kings who reigned from 987 to 1328. Philip II Augustus (1180–1223) – French king of the Capetian dynasty. leginstas - medieval jurists who contrasted secular Roman law with canonical (church) law and feudal customs. Henry IV (1553–1610) - King of France from 1589 (actually from 1594), the first of the Bourbon dynasty. During the Wars of Religion, he was the head of the Huguenots. Louis XIV (1638–1715) – French king since 1643 from the Bourbon dynasty. The period of his reign was the apogee in the development of French absolutism. La Bruyère Jean de (1645–1696) - French writer, satirist and moralist. Young Arthur (1741–1820) – English writer. We are talking about the work of the French philosopher-educator. J.-J. Rousseau "On the Social Contract, or Principles of Political Law." The Convention is the highest legislative and executive body of the first French republic, operating from September 21, 1792 to October 26, 1795. We are talking about the Jacobin stage in the history of the convention, when the popular uprising of May 31 - June 2, 1793 led to the expulsion of the Girondins from the convention and the transfer of full power to the Jacobins. Napoleon I Bonaparte (1769–1821) – French statesman and commander, first consul of the French Republic (1799–1804), Emperor of the French (1804–1814 and March–June 1815). prefect - in France, a person who heads a department as a representative of the central government; considered the head of all government agencies in a given department. Blanc Louis (1811–1882) - French socialist, historian, journalist, figure in the 1848 revolution. Emile Combe (1835–1921) - French statesman. From June 1902 to January 1905, Combe was the head of the French government. The Combe government carried out some anti-clerical measures: it closed a number of Catholic congregations, banned the activities of religious societies in the field of education, and prepared a bill on the separation of church and state (implemented at the end of 1905). Philip II (1527–1598) - Spanish king from 1556 to 1598, the largest representative of Spanish absolutism. Edict of Nantes - an edict signed by the French king Henry IV in April 1598 in Nantes; ended the religious wars in France. According to the Edict of Nantes, Catholicism remained the dominant religion, but the Huguenots received freedom of religion and worship in cities (except Paris and some others), in their castles and a number of rural areas; they were given the right to occupy Huguenot judicial, administrative and military positions; for the trial of Huguenot cases at the parliaments in Paris, Toulouse, Bordeaux and Grenoble, special chambers were created, consisting half of Huguenots; they were allowed to convene their own political conferences and synods. According to the secret additional articles of the edict, the Huguenots received 100 fortresses with garrisons. After the war with the Huguenots in 1621 - 1629, the secret articles of the edict were eliminated throughout the world in Alais (1629). Louis XIV finally revoked the Edict of Nantes of 1598 in 1685. Voltaire (pseudonym; real name and surname: Marie François Arouet (1694–1778)) - French writer, philosopher, historian. Montesquieu Charles Louis de Secondat (1689–1755) - French educator, jurist, philosopher and writer. Buffon Georges-Louis Lsclerc (1707–1788) - French scientist and writer. Tain Hippolyte Adolphe (1828–1893) - French philosopher, esthetician, writer, historian. Antonines - a dynasty of Roman emperors in 96-192; named after Antonina Pius. The reign of the Antonyms is considered the period of greatest prosperity of the Roman Empire. Goethe Johann Wolfgang (1749–1832) was a German poet, thinker and natural scientist. The Psalter is a collection of psalms included in the Old Testament. The traditional (Masortic) text of the Old Testament includes 150 psalms, divided into 5 books; in the Septuagint - Psalm 151. Gospel of John. Ch. 18. Art. 36. Pilate Pontius was a Roman procurator who ruled Judea from 26–36 AD. And. e.; According to the Gospel tradition, he was the judge of Jesus Christ and sentenced him to death. See: Gospel of John. Ch. 18. Art. 37. Juvenal (c. 60-c. 127) - Roman satirical poet. The laws of the twelve tables are a set of laws of Ancient Rome, created, according to tradition, by specially elected colleges of decemvirs in 451–450 BC. e. They were a record of the customary law of the Roman community. The name comes from the fact that they were written on 12 boards displayed in the town square. The second book “Teacher and learning. Pedagogical Notes" with an indication on the title page as a publication by K. P. Pobedonostsev was sent by him for publication to the Moscow Synodal Printing House at the end of January 1904. Russian State Historical Archive. F. 1574. Op. 1. Unit hr. 40. L. 83.