To characterize the state of education in Moscow in the first half of the 17th century

Your Reverence! Dear Sirs! Before defending the essay, I would like to draw your attention to an old subject, but for all of us, I believe, not without interest, the character and degree of education of the Great Russian theologian of the first half of the 17th century, since it affected mainly the religious dispute that was the subject of our study. In church historical literature, the first half of the 17th century is considered to be the time of the extreme decline of education in Muscovite Rus', when we not only did not have secondary schools, books and scientifically educated people, but there were not enough literacy schools, and people known in society for their learning “barely knew the alphabet, did not know which letters in the alphabet were vowels and consonants, and genders and tenses, and persons, and numbers - don’t even remember that, sacred philosophy has never even been in my hands.” It was, they say, a time in the life of the Russian Church when even representatives of the clergy, Moscow authorities, honest archimandrites and wise archpriests of the Kremlin cathedrals “passed through the divine scriptures like ink”, did not understand the goodness of what was read and sung in the holy churches, “did not know either Orthodoxy or crooked Orthodoxy”, did not have clear separate concepts about the objects of faith and rituals recognized as dogmatic. “And ignorance, the most complete ignorance, according to our Eminence historian, prevailed in the Moscow state not only among the laity, but also among the clergy, not only among the common people, but also in the highest strata of society. There were few people, even among the clergy, who loved to read books and enrich their minds with knowledge, and even fewer who dared to write essays themselves.” To this description of the state of education in Moscow in the first half of the 17th century, which originated from the elder Arseny Glukhy, who had reasons to be extremely dissatisfied with his contemporaries and therefore judged them too harshly from the point of view of education, I will allow myself to make a small addition or, better yet, an explanation. Reviewing the descriptions of our ancient book depositories, one cannot help but notice that from the first half of the 17th century many manuscripts have reached us, containing, in addition to extensive translated and generally borrowed writing, many historical and theological works, marked by literary independence. Studying the church life of a given time, one encounters two serious theological disputes that occupied the minds of the best people of their time for a very long time and gave rise to a number of works that, even for modern theological science, could have not only historical, but also practical significance. All this shows that the Russian people of the first half of the 17th century cannot be completely denied a disposition to mental work, a love of book reading, or a certain kind of knowledge. Let's say more. Next to the truly dark masses of the people and individuals who have acquired historical fame for themselves through their ignorance, we see enlightened shepherds who not only wisely ruled the church, teaching the people entrusted to them with the truths of salvation and repelling the false ideas of the enemies of Orthodoxy, but also were experienced advisers in state affairs; We see prolific authors who, not without success, tried their hand at various types of writing, from historical legends and stories to church hymnographic works, inclusive. In order not to be unfounded, I will turn for proof to the Trinity Monastery, which is close to all of us, which took a very active part in the political and church life of Moscow Rus' in the first half of the 17th century. Here, at the same time as the leader Login and the charterer Philaret, who called grammatical cunning and bookish philosophy heresy, we find Rev. Dionysius, Abraham Palitsyn, Arseny Glukhy, Ivan Nasedka, Simon Azaryin - all such persons who are known in our scientific literature as the authors of wonderful works and educated people of their time. But how can we understand this education? Where did their few representatives focus their interest and what did their few representatives strive for? In the absence of scientific education, obtained through a more or less systematic study of various sciences in schools and with a small number of even schools for initial training in reading and writing, a means of developing the mind and acquiring knowledge for the Great Russian theologian of the first half of the 17th century, as well as for his ancestors, was reading the books of the priest. Scriptures, mainly with interpretation, apostolic and conciliar rules, writings of the holy fathers and teachers of the church, which almost all were already known to our ancestors at that time, lives of saints in menaions and collections, paterikons, celebrations, legends or teachings from the elders, church liturgical books, works of historical content, such as: paleys, chronographs, genealogies and chronicles; finally, reading the works of Russian writers and especially southwestern polemical literature of the late 16th and early 17th centuries. The Great Russian scribe of the first half of the 17th century, following his ancestors, called this entire wide field of knowledge by the general name of “divine scriptures.” In these writings he saw a source of wisdom, from them he borrowed and reinforced his beliefs; he turned to them to solve theological, philosophical, historical and political issues. Whether a Moscow scientist of a given time was studying the correct church and liturgical books, whether he wrote a justificatory speech about this correction to the patriarch, an influential archpriest or a noble boyar, whether he criticized the work of southern Russian and Western European scholasticism, whether he found out the causes and meaning of the terrible events of the troubled time, whether he wanted to make his favorite idea accessible to public consciousness through literary means - all this was he did not do anything other than according to the guidance of the divine scriptures. Analyzing the teaching gospel of Tranquillion in 1627, the Epiphany abbot Elijah and the sacristan Ivan Nasedka often asked the same question: “Who is the father of this speech from the holy theologians or God-bearing ones?” and not finding a correspondence between the reasoning of the preacher and the works of Chrysostom, Theophylact of Bulgaria, Ephraim the Syrian, Athanasius of Alexandria, Hippolytus of Rome, Timothy of Jerusalem and Palladius Mnich, they note that “no one has spoken of this from the holy theologians, below the thought, even the repentant Cyril Tranquillion,” that the latter with his speeches “creates abuses the apostles, the words of Christ are rejected” and, in general, “philosophizes contrary to divine scripture. Seventeen years later, in a religious dispute with a Lutheran pastor, Fr. Ivan uses the same argumentation “from the divine scriptures and establishes himself as an excellent expert on the latter, even in the eyes of a truly educated court preacher. To the pastor’s question: “Why do the Russians say three amens in the baptismal formula, when not a single one is written in the gospel?” The mother hen replies that “that’s how it’s supposed to be from the holy fathers.” Justifying his baptism, the pastor argued that the Forerunner, baptizing the Savior, scooped water from the shore with his hand and poured it over Christ, who stood knee-deep or loin-deep in the Jordan. “Where in the divine scripture is it written about this?” - our theologian interrogated his opponent and without waiting for an answer from the puzzled opponent, he impressively remarked: “And then you say, Matthew (that was the pastor’s name), not knowing, but in your own opinion, citing any evidence from divine scripture; We will tell you the answer not of our own accord, but from divine scripture, just as the holy apostles and holy fathers spoke about Christ’s baptism... And what is the most reliable evidence of this for you?” Allowing himself and others to philosophize, write and speak under the indispensable guidance of divine scriptures, recognizing the latter as the measure of truth, the Russian theologian of the early 17th century. He spent almost all his mental strength on mastering this authority and studying the divine scriptures. And to his credit, it must be said that he knew them better than us. Reading all these “copyings, expositions and collections from the divine scriptures” of the Moscow scribe of the time that interests us, every now and then we come across quotes from the Bible, patristic works, church liturgical books and extensive hagiographical and historical-canonical literature of that time. Studying carefully these works, which repel the reader with the disorder of their presentation and the paucity of living ideas, scientific conclusions and generalizations, you are amazed at the richness and diversity of the religious knowledge of their authors and involuntarily begin to change your view of those whom you are accustomed to consider complete ignoramuses. Without exaggeration, we can say that in the first half of the 17th century. the church-theological spirit was, as it were, the blood that flowed in the veins of the Orthodox Russian theologian. Revolving primarily in the church-theological sphere and setting “divine scriptures” as the starting point and norm for resolving all issues, the Russian theologian of the early 17th century, at first cautiously and hesitantly, then more boldly and openly, began to look into the area of ​​external human wisdom, which his ancestors and the vast majority of his contemporaries were not interested in, to which they were even distrustful. Among the manuscripts that have survived from the first half of the 17th century, translations of the philosophy and grammar of John of Damascus, alphabet books, alphabets or lexis of foreign speeches, rhetoric and cosmography are quite common. Of course, all these books were written and rewritten at one time because there was a demand for them, there were people who were interested in them. As an example of such inquisitive people, we point out Rev. Dionysius and the people who were near him. Having thoroughly studied the “divine scriptures,” especially the works of Chrysostom, Dionysius the Areopagite, Gregory the Theologian and John of Damascus, and generally belonging to the nature of his education to ancient Rus', Rev. Dionysius, in his justification speech to all Orthodox Christians, clearly expresses and persistently conveys the idea that “he is worthy of finding out everything with reason,” that one should not stop at the letter of the scriptures, one must delve into their inner meaning. Possessing a sound mind, he is not averse to doubting the correctness of the patristic interpretations of the Gospel; he is afraid that he might confirm his thoughts “on naked words” and leave his position unproven. To reveal the inappropriateness of the preposition: “and by fire” in the prayer for the blessing of water on Epiphany, together with excerpts from liturgical books and patristic writings, he cites rational considerations and at the same time reveals a close acquaintance with the philosophy of Damascus. The employees and subordinates of the famous archimandrite, having mastered his views and methods of evidence, went further than their boss in acquiring secular knowledge. Elder Arseny Glukhoy, who worked diligently on his self-education, “many times in mental labor and sweat goes through the osm parts of the word,” that is, the grammar of Damascus, finds it “more than other sacred books” and, finally, perfectly masters grammatical cunning, as evidenced by the exemplary for the 17th century. the language of his messages and quite correct judgments of an etymological and even philological nature. Having become acquainted with sacred philosophy, Arseny comes to the conclusion that without it, as well as without knowledge of grammar, “no one can rightly judge accurately in the divine scriptures, but also in zemstvo affairs; Even if he is intelligent by nature, he will have many sins."... Verbal art and sacred philosophy for an educated person have, according to him, the same meaning as an ax and an adze for a carpenter, scissors, arshins and needles for a tailor. "Accomplice, interlocutor and sufferer" of St. Dionysius, Fr. Ivan Nasedka, with his extensive knowledge of theological and hysterical literature, was just as familiar with the grammatical and philosophical works of Damascus. The scholastic and, moreover, not always well-intentioned dialectic, noticed in the polemical works of Fr. Ivan, the grammatical and stylistic corrections that he liked to make in the works of others, and, finally, direct data convince us of this in a very positive way. No wonder Simon Azaryin called the Mother Hen “the wisest and most cunning of words.” It is also known about Anthony of Podolsk, the literary enemy of the three named personalities, who advocated the addition of “and fire” in the Epiphany prayer, that he publicly boasted of his knowledge of grammar and dialectics, and said that no one knows these sciences in Russia as completely as he does. And this boast was not empty boasting. Podolsky's works reveal in him a writer with talents, a serious education and a highly developed dialectic. In the words “about drunkenness” and “about the kingdom of heaven,” a real rhetorician appears, putting in the foreground the “weaving of words” and the artificiality of form in general; one can see through the spirit, capable of speaking convincingly and writing sermons for people who obey feelings and loud phrases. But this is exactly what our ancestors of the first half of the 17th century were, “looking for red verbs”, who loved to read everything in a “wise, florid” and generally “comfortable” presentation. This last circumstance, it seems to us, sufficiently explains the curious phenomenon that the science of “decorating the word,” rhetoric with poetry, became known to Moscow scribes earlier than other verbal sciences and from the first time found a warm welcome among them. Almost all literary figures of the first half of the 17th century. we tried to write as beautifully as possible; the more prominent and major of them, for example, the princes: Shakhovskoy, Katyrev-Rostovsky and Khvorostinin, Ivan Nasedka, Anthony Podolsky, Simon Azaryin, Arseny Sukhanov even engaged in poetry and left behind several experiments in rhymed verse. Of course, these first Russian verses cannot be compared with the excellent examples of the solemn lyricism of Simeon of Polotsk, but it seems to us indisputable that they should be recognized as the early harbingers of the masters of this southwestern native. The studies of outstanding Moscow scribes in sacred philosophy and verbal sciences were a clear expression of the new scientific direction of Great Russian education; they were a weak beginning of that mental movement that was caused by the events of our civil and church life at the beginning of the 17th century, especially intensified in the 40-50s and then finally developed under the southwestern influence. In the first half of the 17th century, this mental movement was not strong enough to completely take over the Moscow theologian, to change his traditional physiognomy, that is, to completely transform our old scribbler into a real southern Russian scientist. In debates about faith with the Danes, the Great Russian theologian continues to look out for the same ancient Russian scribe, who owns a large stock of heterogeneous, mainly church-theological information, gleaned from books for the most part without any pre-developed plan, information obtained at different times, not illuminated by one guiding idea, not brought into a system, not critically verified and not appreciated. The Moscow scientist of the 40s of the 17th century does not always strictly distinguish between the true and the dubious, the undoubtedly genuine from the counterfeit; in his apologetic-polemical treatises, next to biblical books and paternal works under the name of holy, inspired writings, works of southern Russian authors are sometimes quoted, even apocryphal articles, which are given the same importance and meaning as the first. Having become acquainted with grammar, rhetoric and dialectics, the Moscow theologian still continued to include astronomy and geometry in the register of “heretical books, which are not honorable for Orthodox Christians to keep,” along with the enchanter and the traveler. Not being skilled in linguistics, not knowing how to speak Greek, German and Latin, at times he does not understand the real meaning of the holy book and bases his, of course, incorrect opinion on the misinterpreted sacred text. Poorly educated, insufficiently developed mentally and generally unprepared for the perception of religious ideas with abstract content, the Great Russian theologian of the first half of the 17th century in the theological disputes that he had to conduct most often speaks of church actions and rituals, lovingly dwelling on the external manifestation of religion, as a sphere more accessible to his understanding. Often, because of a ritual trifle, he raises a serious theological dispute, in which he tries to present his opponent as a heretic, does not deign to listen to his arguments, interrupts his words, rushes here and there, without any order, thoughtlessly pours out everything that comes to his mind, in a word, he is ready to lay down his soul for some unimportant, in our opinion, ritual feature. Such intense concentration of the Moscow scribe's attention on ritual issues and objects, with a lack of serious mental work, dulled the very thinking ability, the ability to understand it, and the weakening of the power of thought and understanding in turn gave rise to self-confidence in him, unaccountable stubbornness in his opinions, contempt for the words and judgments of others. All this, of course, speaks of the low level of education of the Moscow theologian of the first half of the 17th century, but we should not forget that all these are sins that are common among modern Russian theologians. This is the addition that I would like to make to the long-standing and now well-known characteristic of the state of education in Moscow in the first half of the 17th century. This addition is one of the impressions I gained from studying the religious dispute that arose in 1644-1645 between Orthodox Russian theologians and a visiting Lutheran pastor - one of the sides from which this dispute may be of interest to a church historian. There will be other aspects in our debates about faith that, we believe, will be of interest to those involved, for example, in the history of dogma in Rus', the split of the Old Believers and other sciences. I tried to note all these aspects, everything important and curious in one respect or another, to the best of my knowledge, in the essay, making it my main task to find out as closely as possible what “was and is overgrown with the past,” according to the beautiful expression of folk poetry, which at the same time realizes that what “will be will not be in the old way, but in a new way.” How satisfactorily I have reproduced the history of the debate about faith in connection with the case of Prince Valdemar, which caused them, I leave it to competent people to judge this and, above all others, to my highly respected mentors and opponents, Evgeniy Evstigneevich Golubinsky and Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky, to whom I now testify to my deep gratitude for all the good advice and instructions that they gave me at different times. Speech delivered by corrected Doctor of Science, Associate Professor of the Academy Alexander Golubtsov on November 25, 1891, before defending his dissertation: “The irony of faith caused by the case of Prince Valdemar and Princess Irina Mikhailovna.” You might be interested in: