Analogy of the history of the spread of Christianity in Russia with the history of the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire

The beginning of the spread of Christianity in Russia coincides with events that had an important influence on the fate of the entire Christian Church. When (in 866 AD) the first conversion to Christianity of the Kyiv princes and part of the Russian people followed, then the difference in doctrine and practice between the Eastern and Western churches was already so deep and noticeable that the fathers of the local Council of Constantinople were forced to pronounce the first anathema against the errors rooted in the Western Church. The encyclical of Patriarch Photius, with which he invited the shepherds of the Eastern Church to this council, contains the first historical news of the baptism of the Russian Slavs. The final establishment of Christianity in Russia under St. Vladimir and the beginning of the Russian Church only preceded by 64 years the final falling away of the Western Church from the Eastern. Thus, the beginning of the Russian Church coincides with the era of the falling away of the Roman Church from the Eastern Orthodox. On the other hand, the Russian state and the Russian church begin their historical existence precisely in that era when the Byzantine Empire, which for five and a half centuries was the external protection of Orthodoxy and Christian enlightenment, despite some external splendor and exemplary (in appearance) harmony of state institutions, was already heading towards its fall. The most Byzantine education of the 9th century. and the examples of the Christian pious life of some Byzantine Greeks were not a sign of incipient development, but only a remnant, a faint shadow of that great past, which for the Byzantine Empire ended in the 4th - 5th centuries. Christian era. Such a significant coincidence of the beginning of the Russian church and the Russian state with such an important moment in the history of the Christian world makes it possible to assume that the Russian church is destined to replace for Orthodoxy the apostate Roman one, and the Russian Christian state, which was just beginning its historical existence, the obsolete Byzantine Empire. In a word, such a coincidence of events gives some opportunity to assume that the beginning of the Russian church is an event that has deep significance not only for Russia, but a world-historical significance, although to a weak extent similar to what the founding of the Christian church and the spread of Christianity in the worldwide Roman Empire had for the whole world. And with this view of the significance of the Russian Church, every feature of similarity in the history of the spread of the Christian faith in the Roman Empire with the history of the spread of Christianity in Russia receives special interest and significance, as new confirmation that the very coincidence of the beginning of the Russian Church with the falling away of the Western Church from the Orthodox Church is not a matter of chance, but is a necessary phenomenon. The beginning of the Russian church cannot, of course, be sought before the foundation of the Russian state; but it is undeniable that the Christian faith spread among the Russian Slavs and especially among the peoples living within the borders of present-day Russia, long before the beginning of the Russian Church. The tradition recorded by Nestor dates the first Christian sermon between Slavic and non-Slavic tribes living north of the Black Sea to apostolic times. According to this legend, St. Apostle Andrew the First-Called came with an evangelical sermon to the peoples living within what is now southern and central Russia, was on the mountains on which Kyiv was later built, put a cross on one of them, predicted that Orthodoxy would one day spread here, and walked from the Kyiv mountains to the Baltic Sea. If this tradition is true (and the best historians do not find anything particularly incredible in it), then this apostolic sermon makes it possible to compare the Russian church, which was later in its origins, with the apostolic (sedes apostolica) Roman. The origin of the Roman Church undoubtedly dates back to apostolic times. It was probably founded by the disciples of St. Apostle Paul, who later himself personally preached the Gospel in Rome for at least two years (Rom.15:20; Acts 28:30–31). But the historical tradition found in St. Clement of Rome, says that in Rome he preached the Gospel and St. Apostle Peter Later tradition considers him the founder of the Roman Church and its first bishop, and recognizes all Roman bishops as the successors of St. Apostle Peter. This tradition especially spread in the West, and there in general the see of the Roman bishop was recognized as “the see of St. Petra." If this later tradition is true, then the Roman Church, founded by the two supreme apostles, thoroughly recognizes them as its special patrons, and its hierarchs as the immediate successors in the department of St. Petra. But the beginning of Christianity within present-day Russia also dates back, according to legend, to apostolic times. Here the first preacher of the Gospel was also an apostle, if not the supreme one, then the first-called one, and perhaps, after Peter, John and James, the closest to Jesus Christ (Mark 13:3; Acts 1:13), the Apostle Andrew, brother of Peter, the founder of the Roman Church. Tradition about the preaching of St. Our ancestors always believed Andrei within (present-day) Russia: they told this legend on occasion to anyone who asked. As a result of the same faith in this legend, the Russian state recognizes St. Andrew as its patron 1. The Russian hierarchy, although not directly, also originates from St. ap. Andrew, who ordained the first Byzantine bishop, Stachy, from whose successors, the Patriarchs of Constantinople, the Russian Church received its hierarchy. Comparison of the characters of the supreme apostles and enlighteners of Rome with the character of the apostle. Andrew (as far as can be judged from the few data that the Gospel presents) on the one hand, and the national character of the Romans and Slavs on the other hand, opens a new line of similarity in the fact of the first evangelical sermon in Rome and within Russia. The harmonious combination of all spiritual forces - a strong and developed mind, deep feeling and energetic, firm will, which does not allow deviations from the once accepted intention - these are the distinctive features of the apostle. Pavel. Converted from a persecutor to an apostle, therefore, recognizing with his mind the superiority of Christianity over Judaism, St. the apostle of the tongues “does not consult with flesh and blood” (Gal.1:16), but, renouncing those erroneous opinions that his Jewish upbringing and life strengthened in him, he becomes a zealous and most active (1 Cor.15:10) apostle of Christ, despite the depth of his love for his people (Rom.9:1-3), faithful to his calling ( Acts 26:15–18; Gal.1:15,16) the apostle Paul devotes his entire life to preaching the Gospel primarily among the Gentiles (Rom.1:13–15) and never hesitates in serving his calling (Gal.2:4–18; Rom.11:13). The lively and fiery character of St. Peter challenged him to energetic activity, although in general he lacked that unwavering firmness in his decisions that characterizes the apostle. Paul (Matthew 14:28–31; Mark 14:29–31; John 13:37; Mark 14:37, 66–72; Acts 11:1–18, 15:7–10; Gal.2:11–16). Even during the life of the Lord, due to the peculiarities of his character, the apostle. Peter acts and speaks more and before all the other disciples of Christ. This energy and penchant for activity place him at the head of all the followers of Jesus Christ, and the Apostle Peter is the first, active and courageous preacher of Christianity among Jews and pagans and a strict denouncer of those moral deviations that appeared in the (then) Christian society of the apostolic age. This energy, characteristic of the apostles Peter and Paul, is the reason that the Gospel speaks of St. Peter more than about the other apostles, and the “Acts of the Apostles” outlines almost exclusively the activities of the apostles Peter and Paul, whose preaching works constitute the main content of the history of the apostolic age. The apostles Peter and Paul are, above all (the apostles), historical apostles. Meanwhile, the character of St. Andrey is more restrained and even-tempered than lively and energetic. St. Andrew, “the First-Called Apostle, but not distinguished from the number of other apostles, except for the cases of his caring participation regarding the feeding of 5000 loaves and also the presentation to the Lord of the Greeks who wanted to see Him (John 6:8–9, 12:22), also regarding the deplorable fate awaiting the Jews and Jerusalem (Mark 13:4).” "St. Andrei, perhaps, was not distinguished by particularly swift impulses of love for his Teacher, but he was especially disposed to share His love, the only Lover of Mankind, for people.” (On Orthodoxy in relation to modernity - Arch. Theodora. St. Petersburg, 1860, p. 230). The same traits that characterize the ap. Peter and Paul differs from the character of the apostle. Andrew, constitute the difference between the national character of the Romans and the character of the Slavs. The energetic character of the Roman people predisposed them to intense activity. Conscious of their strength, the Roman people set themselves the difficult and great task of extending their power to all nations, and for centuries they pursued this goal persistently and energetically, without retreating from any sacrifice, overcoming all obstacles. It can be said that the whole life of the Romans was concentrated in their idea 2, and the best of them found the willpower in themselves in order to suppress the voice of personal sympathies where they became an obstacle to achieving the intended goal 3. And this willpower conquered the whole world to Rome and made the life of the Romans the center of the life of the world. The Roman people already became a world-historical people when the Slavs did not declare themselves in any way in world history, when individual Slavic peoples were barely known by name. Indeed, the calm, meek and peace-loving Slavic peoples were not distinguished by the energy and thirst for activity that distinguished the Romans. The Slavs were not a people striving for conquest. The bright, attractive sides of the national character of the Slavs were expressed not so much in their political life as in their public and private life: a distinctive feature of the moral character of the Slavs is their innate humanity, good nature, in some cases reaching to extremes (for example, hospitality among the Slavs was recognized as a virtue, absolutely obligatory for everyone). While the enlightened Romans treated their slave as an instrumentum vocale, the Slav looked at him as a younger member of the family (“slave”; the derivative from here is “robinich” “child”). Thus, just as the best aspects in the character of the Romans resemble the character of their enlighteners, the apostles Peter and Paul, so the Slavic type, with its bright side, resembles the characteristic features of St. Andrey. Therefore, even if the legend about the preaching of St. Peter in Rome and St. Andrew within Russia were legends and an expression of the (poetic) idea of ​​the Roman and Russian people, then one cannot but recognize the creative choice in accordance with the national character, as a result of which the Apostle Peter in the popular consciousness is the apostle of the Romans, and not the Slavs, and, on the other hand, the apostle. Andrew is the apostle of the Slavs. But if Christianity, according to legend, was preached almost simultaneously in Rome and within Russia; The establishment of Christianity, preached by the apostles, did not take place simultaneously in the Roman Empire and within Russia. In the Roman Empire, Christianity was established after the first apostolic sermon; on the contrary, due to the unpreparedness of the peoples living within present-day Russia to assimilate Christian doctrine and due to frequent political upheavals, Christianity could only establish itself among the Russian Slavs in the 9th – 10th centuries. The period from 866 to 988 was the time of the struggle of Christianity against paganism in Russia, a time that represents an analogy with the period of the struggle of Christianity against paganism in the Roman Empire (from 34 to 313 AD). Naturally, this analogy cannot be carried out in all details because in the 122-year period such events could not have occurred that could represent in all particulars a correspondence with all the events that took place in the Roman Empire over the course of 279 years. Moreover, the national character of the Romans and Slavs and their way of life were so different that opposition to Christianity on the part of paganism could not be the same in the Roman Empire and Russia. The pagan religion in Rome was a state institution that existed for many centuries from the beginning of Rome until the era of its worldwide power. This joint continuous existence of religion and state gave rise to the conclusion about a necessary causal connection between them, and even the most enlightened of the Romans fell into this error. The pagan mythology of the Romans received a completed form and, having become the subject of philosophical interpretation, received that imaginary consistency that deceived many educated pagans. There was nothing like this in Russia. True, paganism was the state religion here too; but since the Russian state had not existed for many years, the mutual connection between the pagan religion and the Russian state had not yet acquired the antiquity that it had in Rome. Slavic mythology itself had not yet received that relatively strict completeness that distinguished Roman mythology, and therefore the mythical appearance of Perun was vaguely presented to the consciousness of the Russian Slav, while “Optimus Maximus Jupiter Stator (Capitolinus)” clearly appeared to the Roman mind as the personification of the idea of all-conquering and invincible (Victor, Invictus) dominion, the reflection of which was the most Rom 4. On the other hand, the energetic character of the Roman people was more predisposed to the despotic suppression of the religious freedom of an individual in the name of the principle of state benefit than the soft, good-natured character of the Slavic people, capable of sacrificing the strict fulfillment of even a moral duty for the sake of a humane attitude towards the individual. Consequently, the struggle of paganism with Christianity in Russia could not be as grandiose as the struggle of Christianity with paganism in the Roman Empire. Only with this view of the nature of the struggle between Christianity and paganism can one point out similar facts in the history of the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire and in the history of the spread of Christianity in Russia. The spread of Christianity among the Kyiv Slavs begins with the historically attested fact of the conversion to Christianity of two Kyiv princes, whom the Russian chronicle calls Oskold and Dir - some of the first dignitaries of the state and residents of Kyiv. The conversion of the Kyiv pagans to Christianity was preceded by two miracles. However, the conversion of princes to Christianity did not lead to the conversion of an entire people; on the contrary, the Christian princes themselves were killed, and a pagan became a prince in Kiev. Turning to the history of the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire in the Apostolic Age, one cannot help but notice several facts similar to those that make up the beginning of the establishment of Christianity in Russia. One of the main means of spreading Christianity in the apostolic age was miracles. The same means converted the princes of Kyiv to Christianity. Especially the last miracle - the preservation of the Gospel intact in the fire is so striking and extraordinary that it can be compared with those miraculous signs that the Lord promises to His followers (Mark 16:17-18) and which were frequent only in the apostolic age. Christianity in Russia is accepted by princes and high dignitaries. The same thing happened in the Roman Empire. The preaching of the Apostle Paul converted the proconsul Sergius Paulus and Dionysius the Areopagite to Christ (Acts 13:7–12, 17:34). Among the members of the Roman Church is St. Paul mentions believers from the house of Caesar (Phil. 4:22). However, the conversion of members of the imperial family to Christianity did not have a particularly noticeable impact on the relations of representatives of the pagan authorities towards Christians. The only historically known Christian from the house of Caesar, the consul Flavius ​​Clement, a relative of the emperor Domitian (from the house of Flavius), was executed for accepting Christianity along with his wife, Domitilla, also a relative of the emperor 5. After this, history (until the last persecution) does not mention Christians from the imperial house. Following the death of Oskold and Dir, the reign of the pagans Oleg and Igor began (882 - 945). This period in the history of Christianity in Russia can be compared with the period of unsystematic persecution of Christians by the Roman government 6 . During this era, the best emperors appeared on the Roman throne. Emperors like Trajan and Antoninus Pius were neither in their personal character nor in their governmental prudence disposed to persecute Christians as Christians for their religious beliefs. And if during this period Christians suffer persecution from the pagan authorities; they are tolerated precisely because the mystery of Christian religious meetings seemed suspicious to the Roman pagans: Christians were mistaken for members of a secret society with anti-state goals and they (Christians) were persecuted as political criminals, on the basis of the edict against heteria. Thus, these persecutions were accidental and based on a misunderstanding. The emperors themselves tried, with their edicts addressed to regional leaders, to limit the possibility of applying the edict against heteria to Christians. Undisposed to Christianity, the emperors, however, forbade searching for Christians, although they punished those of them who were legally accused of belonging to a Christian society. A common feature of the attitude of the emperors of this era towards Christians is the desire to ignore, not to notice the very fact of the existence of a Christian society, harmless (at least, not expressing its harmful aspirations in any way), but not under the protection of laws. Lactantius’s bright view of the emperors of this period is remarkable (disagreeing, however, with strict history in particulars, but generally correct). In his work “De mortibus persecutorum” Lactantius does not classify any of these emperors (from Trajan to Septimius Severus inclusive) as persecutors of the church, speaking with praise of their character. “After the death of Domitian,” writes Lactantius, “the Church of Christ not only returned to its former state, but even reached a more brilliant and flourishing position. During the subsequent period of time, when a number of good princes (multi ac boni principes) stood at the head of the Roman Empire, the church did not suffer any hostile attacks (nullos impetus inimicorum passa) and spread in the east and in the west.” (Sar. Sh). The reign of Oleg and Igor provides an analogy with this period of Roman history. Pagan princes, naturally, could not provide direct and positive assistance to the spread of Christianity in their domains; but on the other hand, they did not directly oppose the spread of Christianity: neither Oleg nor Igor were persecutors of Christians. Oleg, by his very character, bears some resemblance to Ulnius Trajan. Both Oleg and Trajan were distinguished by their military talents, and both of these sovereigns adhered to a policy of conquest; without receiving a scientific education, they knew how to govern their people wisely and fairly and earned the unfeigned love of their subjects. “And all the people wept for him (Oleg) with great tears” (years Nest., quoted by Pogodin in the work “Norman period Russian history.” Moscow. 1859. p. 22), and the name of the “prophetic”, wise Oleg lived for a long time in people’s memory. In the same way, the Romans afterwards greeted their emperors with the words: “felicior Augusto, melior Trajano.” (Wegner... p. 458). Thus, from his personal character and political prudence, Oleg, like Trajan, was not disposed to persecute Christians. And if Trajan, with all his good qualities, not understanding the very nature of Christianity, considered Christians to be people guilty of political crimes and disobedient to the government: then Oleg, due to the difference between his position and that of Trajan, could not fall into such a mistake. The very fact of the existence of a Christian state - Byzantium - could have given Oleg a more correct concept of Christians than the fragmentary information about the essence and ritual side of Christianity, on the basis of which Trajan made a conclusion about Christians. At the same time, it is very likely that Christianity, which at the first stages of its existence in Kyiv received the patronage of the princes, openly existed under Oleg, and therefore in the way of life of the Kyiv Christians there was not that mystery that seemed so suspicious to the Roman emperors. Thus, even because Christianity existed openly in Kyiv, Oleg could not come to the erroneous judgment about Christians that Trajan came to. In any case, there is no doubt that Oleg, throughout his reign, did not go beyond the recognition of Christians’ legal right to exist (at least in his agreement with the Greeks, Oleg does not mention Christians in Russia in a single word, although they undoubtedly existed and constituted the 60th eparchy of the Patriarchate of Constantinople; Oleg did not even forbid his embassy from telling in Kyiv that in Constantinople they, Russian ambassadors were shown “the beauty of the church... and the passion of the Lord, and the crown, and the nail, and the scarlet robe, and the relics of the saints, teaching me my faith and showing them the true faith”). Igor's reign was even more favorable to Christians. Less energetic (“lazy” according to Pogodin) than Oleg, Igor, naturally, was even less inclined than Oleg to begin the fight against Christianity. During Igor's reign, Christians enjoyed the rights clearly expressed in his agreement with the Greeks: Russian Christians already had a cathedral church; they enjoyed freedom of worship; in the princely squad there were already Christians, and in such numbers that without their consent the agreement could not be firm. In almost all Christian countries, the spread of Christianity was beneficially influenced by women who had influence on the rulers of the state or who themselves were at the head of the government. The same is true, in particular, of the history of Christianity in the Roman Empire and Russia. Roman pagan society at the beginning of the 3rd century had the opportunity to become so familiar with Christianity that from the very lives of Christians and Christian apologies they could understand the unfoundedness of their view of Christians as people pursuing goals dangerous to the well-being of the state. Along with the change in view of Christians, the very system of government relations towards them had to change. The gifted Julia Mammaya, who ruled the state on behalf of her son, Alexander Severus, consciously changed her attitude towards Christians. As a ruler, she had the most beneficial influence on the administration of the empire. Probably under the influence of eclecticism, Mammaya decided to become acquainted with Christianity in its true form and for this purpose called the most famous Christian scientist of his time, Origen, to her court in Antioch, and respectfully listened to his instructions. Having learned the essence of Christianity, Mammaya, if she did not accept the true faith, at least patronized Christians throughout her reign. The son of Mammea, Alexander Severus respected Christianity and had a bust of Jesus Christ in his shrine. Grand Duchess Olga, who ruled the Russian state on behalf of her son Svyatoslav, can be compared with Julia Mammea. She was a woman gifted with a high intelligence, for which she was called “the wisest of all people,” and strong energy. As a ruler, Olga left her memory behind a number of wise and useful government institutions. Like Mammae, Olga began to develop a new relationship with Christians. Given the freedom of religion that Christians enjoyed in Kyiv, Olga had every opportunity to become acquainted with the rituals and moral life of Christians. Gifted with a bright mind, the princess could easily understand that only Christianity could put a person on that moral height that significantly distinguished Christians from pagans. A pope, a priest or perhaps even a bishop, Gregory was to Olga what Origen was to Mammae. Having become familiar with the essence of Christianity from conversations with a Christian pastor, Olga could not help but feel a disposition towards Christianity and, by her very energetic, active nature, she had to express in practice her disposition towards Christianity. The previous relations of the pagan government towards Christians in Russia were more favorable than the relations towards Christians of Mammaea's predecessors: therefore, conversion to Christianity was a less abrupt and unexpected transition for Olga than for Mammaea. Olga could not dwell on the semi-Christianity that was the eclecticism of Alexander Severus, already because she was unfamiliar with the philosophy that was the dominant trend during the time of Alexander Severus: therefore, Olga, guided by her common sense, could express her disposition towards Christianity only by complete conversion to Christianity. And the Grand Duchess solemnly accepted Orthodoxy in its very capital and became Elena not only by name. Like St. Helen, with her beneficent influence on her son, prepared his conversion to Christianity, so St. Olga, with her influence on the people and especially on her grandchildren, prepared the triumph of Christianity over paganism in Russia. That's why St. Olga was for Russia more than “the morning star that precedes the sun.” During the reign of eclectic Roman emperors who were favorable to Christians - Alexander Severus, Gordian and Philip the Arabian - Christianity could spread openly and quickly without encountering opposition from the government. At this time, Christian writers, with their scientists and judicial apologies, clarified for the pagans the essence of Christianity as a religion with the highest moral principles, highly consistent with the moral nature and dignity of man 7 - with a sublime teaching about God. This circumstance, on the one hand, disposed many pagans to convert to Christianity, but on the other hand, it caused a whole series of persecutions of Christians by the extreme pagan party. At this time, all the shortcomings in the moral, family and social life of Roman society, all the weaknesses of the political system of the Roman Empire were revealed more sharply than ever before. Facts such as the despotism of soldiers and the simultaneous existence of 30 Roman emperors and almost constant internecine wars between claimants to the Roman throne could not but lead all honest Roman citizens to the awareness of the need for measures that would renew the social and political body and resurrect the ancient greatness of the Roman people. Unfortunately, these patriots were led by adherents of paganism, who shared the opinion that the greatness of the Roman state was closely connected with the strict observance of the ancient Roman religion. They may have recognized that in Christian society there are no elements directly and immediately opposed to the social and political system of the Roman Empire, but at the same time they could not help but see the deep difference between Christianity and the Roman state religion - they could not help but understand that Christianity, with its rapid spread, threatened Roman paganism with a complete fall. Consequently, from the point of view of the leaders of the pagan patriotic party, Christianity, while harmless to the state directly, turned out to be harmful to the state indirectly. As a result, new persecutions against Christians began with the goal of exterminating the very name of Christianity. The persecutors' view of Christianity itself in its essence was correct; their mistake lay in a misunderstanding of the mutual relationship between the Roman state system and the Roman civil religion; at the basis of the persecution there was no misunderstanding regarding the Christian religion, which would need to be clarified and brought to the attention of the Roman government: therefore, judicial apologies in defense of Christians are stopped as not leading to their goal, 8 and the persecution continues with terrible systematic cruelty until the death of the persecutors. These were persecutions against the Christian Church itself. This period of persecution of the Christian Church in the Roman Empire (249–259 and 275) corresponds in the history of the spread of Christianity in Russia to the reign of Svyatoslav (969–972). With the beginning of Svyatoslav's reign, the situation of Christians in Russia changed for the worse. Svyatoslav, despite the admonitions of St. Olga, remained faithful to paganism, which, more than Christianity, was consistent with the warlike character of the prince and his squad. During his mother’s life, he could not begin to openly oppose the spread of Christianity and had to limit himself only to ridicule among his squad at those who accepted Christianity. This attitude of the prince towards Christianity, despite the fact that he did not openly prohibit conversion to Christianity, could not but weaken the successful spread of Christianity: the will of the hero-prince, beloved by the squad, his secret dislike for the new religion was discovered, and this was enough to keep some from converting to Christianity. After death he led. princes Olga's dislike of the prince towards Christianity was expressed in the first persecution of Christians in Russia. After an unsuccessful war with the Greeks, pagan nobles convinced Svyatoslav that he did not receive victory because he offended the gods by allowing Christians to exist freely in his army and in the state. The persecution began with the execution of several Christians who were in Svyatoslav’s army. Even Svyatoslav’s cousin, Gleb, became a victim of persecution. “A command was sent to Kyiv to destroy all churches and destroy the very name of Christians.” But this command was not fulfilled, because Svyatoslav was soon killed by the Pechenegs. The history of this persecution bears many similarities with the persecution of Christians under Decius, Valerian and Aurelian. Both of the latter, like Svyatoslav, began to persecute Christians at the suggestions of their associates and shortly before their death. Representatives of the pagan party, the nobles of Svyatoslav, agree with Decius in the motives and ultimate goal of the persecution: like Decius, the Russian nobles recognized paganism as a necessary condition for the prosperity of Rus', saw in Christianity a complete contradiction of paganism and decided to persecute Christians to the point of complete extermination. Militant, distinguished by a strictly moderate lifestyle and honesty remarkable for his time, Svyatoslav represents one of the brightest pagan types of his time: in the Roman Empire, paganism in the same way puts forward its best forces, its most noble representatives, to fight Christianity. Thus, Decius was the Cato of his time: “this senator was one of the few who resembled the honest and capable citizens of Roman antiquity” (Wegner). Having ascended the imperial throne, Decius set himself the goal of reviving ancient Roman valor in his contemporaries and raising popular morality. When, for this purpose, he decided to elect a censor with the most extensive powers, the Senate declared that only the noble Valerian could be nominated for this post. Having become emperor, Valerian at first treated the Christians themselves condescendingly and favorably and was the best in relation to them of all previous sovereigns. Strict and stern, warlike restitutor orbis Aurelian was fair even to the most Christians until the last time of his life. And all these best representatives of paganism, who decided to fight against Christianity, died an unhappy death. Decius and his army died in the swamps at Abritus; Aurelian is treacherously killed by his secretary. The unfortunate fate of Valerian in captivity at Sapor is known; the desecration of the Roman emperor did not end with his life; “The barbarians took off his skin and, having painted it with red paint, like a brilliant trophy, hung it in the church and for a long time showed it to the Roman ambassadors in triumph” (Lactart). The fate of Svyatoslav is much like the fate of Valerian: the Pechenegs made a cup from the skull of the Russian prince and drank from it, remembering their brave enemy. After the death of Svyatoslav, Christians in Russia enjoyed peace during the continuation of the 8-year reign of Yaropolk. This peace towards Russian Christians was the same as the peace of the church in the Roman Empire that preceded the last persecution of Christians under Diocletian (276-303). Brought up under the direct influence of St. Olga, meek and kind-hearted Yaropolk was disposed towards Christianity. This disposition may have been supported in the prince by his Christian wife. But this prince was not energetic and strong enough in character to bring about the triumph of Christianity over paganism in his state. Yaropolk was too subject to the influence of those around him. When finally the extreme pagan party during his reign felt strong enough to fight Christianity, Yaropolk himself, treacherously abandoned by his confidants, was killed. His fate is similar to the fate of those good but weak Roman emperors (such as Alexander Severus), who, due to their personal qualities, could not earn the respect of their troops and became victims of the indignant legions. After the death of Yaropolk, Vladimir ascended the throne of Kyiv. Already in ancient times, Russian writers likened Vladimir to Constantine the Great; This analogy is found in Metropolitan Hilarion, in the ancient canon of St. Vladimir, Nestor, etc. But such an analogy can be carried out far from completely. The story of Vladimir corresponds to two completely opposite eras in the history of Christianity in the Roman Empire: the persecution under Diocletian and the reign of Constantine the Great. In his personal life, Konstantin Vel. and St. Vladimir do not have much in common with each other. The son of Christian-friendly Constantius Chlorus (a monotheist by his convictions) and a Christian mother, Constantine Vel. in his very initial upbringing he received a predisposition to Christianity and always remained faithful to the (original) first inspirations of St. Elena. With his philosophically educated mind and moral character, Constantine never sympathized with the actions of the pagan party against Christians and, in turn, was hated by the representative of this party, Galerius. Thus, Constantine prepared for conversion to Christianity in a strictly gradual manner, without any moral change. Meanwhile, a characteristic feature of the life of St. Vladimir is served precisely by the moral crisis that separates two opposing periods in the life of the Russian prince. Having received his initial education under the influence of St. Olga, Vladimir early submitted to the influence of the rude pagan, Dobrynya, which was all the more powerful because Vladimir spent his young years far from Christian Kyiv. The pagan influence of Dobrynya for some time, apparently, completely drowned out the Christian influence of St. in Vladimir’s soul. Olga: obeying the suggestions of the pagan party, Vladimir became as zealous a pagan as Maximian Galerius, and in moral terms stood as low as Herculius 9. Having ascended the Kiev throne, Vladimir declared his gratitude to the gods by decorating their idols, abundant sacrifices and cruel persecution of Christians. Like Galerius, he began the destruction of all Kyiv Christian churches. Then Christians were forced, under threat of death, to worship idols. As a result, “some of the believers began to hide their religion, others fled from Kyiv”; There were, perhaps, cases of apostasy from the faith. It is undoubtedly known that during this persecution two Christian Varangians were killed by the pagans as martyrs for the faith of Christ. The persecution was aimed at the complete extermination of Christians, but led the very leaders of the pagan party to a change of belief. This is a new similarity between the persecution of Vladimir and the persecution of Diocletian. In the Roman Empire, the most cruel of the persecutors, Galerius, repented, in Russia, Prince Vladimir from a pagan became a Christian, only for the wild and stubborn nature of Galerius 10 an incurable illness was needed to bring about this beneficial change in him, while in the naturally gentle (“gentle prince”) and who probably retained traces of the good influence of St. Olga Vladimir only experienced a moral crisis that renewed him, and, with the supernatural assistance of Providence, Vladimir from a persecutor became an equal to the apostles, an imitator of Constantine the Great, an enlightener of the Russian land. The same moral change occurred in other leaders of the pagan party in Russia: otherwise the readiness for a change of religion that they discovered in these fanatics is inexplicable. Having been baptized in Korsun, Vladimir returned to Kyiv with the hierarchy and relics of saints, and - a wonderful fact! - these were the relics of St. Bishop of Rome Clement, discovered by the enlighteners of the Slavs, St. Cyril and Methodius. Was this the transfer of the relics of St. bishop of Rome to Kiev as a symbolic indication that the Slavic race and especially the Russian Church must accomplish for the Universal Church what the Roman Church, which was tending to fall away from Orthodoxy, was called upon to accomplish? Educational activities of St. Vladimir is similar to the activities of Constantine the Great both in general character and in certain particulars. Constantine the Great acted wisely, taking into account the national character of his subjects. To the energetic, freedom-loving Romans, an order to change one's religion would naturally seem to be a violation of freedom of belief; any direct government action against paganism would provoke the pagans into a fierce struggle with the government, which would only bring harm to the spread of Christianity. Therefore Constantine left paganism to its own fate. But on Vladimir’s part such a passive attitude towards paganism would be a mistake. The calm, conservative character of the Slavs did little to predispose the Russians to such a decisive revolution as a change of religion. Moreover, the common people, due to their underdevelopment, did not feel capable of pronouncing their own decisive judgment on the comparative merits of paganism and Christianity and prudently relied in this regard on the decision of the prince and the boyars. Due to these features in the character and mood of the Russians, Vladimir, while remaining essentially an imitator of Constantine the Great, had to decisively and actively promote the conversion of his subjects to Christianity, even resort to direct orders. Both Constantine the Great and Vladimir, in view of the successful spread of Christianity, paid special attention to the Christian education of their subjects. Constantine converted pagan temples into Christian ones, Vladimir built Christian churches on the site of the (idol) pagan temples he destroyed. In general, having sincerely accepted Christianity, Constantine Vel. and St. Vladimir assumed the same moral responsibilities, and therefore the activities of both equal-apostles necessarily had to have close similarities. The case of St. Constantine Vel. and Vladimir was continued by their successors, and after the 2nd century, after Christianity was declared the dominant religion, it spread to all parts of Russia proper and the Roman Empire. It is remarkable that the two main cities of Russia, Novgorod and Kyiv, are reminiscent of Rome and Constantinople in their attitude towards Christianity. In Constantinople and Kyiv, Christianity, declared the state religion, met almost no opposition from the pagans. In the former capitals, Rome and Novgorod, paganism persisted longer. Aurelius Symmachus in Rome still defended paganism. In 392–394, the pagan party in Rome was still so strong that it could install the pagan Eugenius on the throne and restore paganism for a short time. In Novgorod, Christianity was introduced only by force of arms, and even in 1071 a sorcerer could carry away an entire city with him, while in the same year in Kiev they treated the sorcerer with distrust. Thus, the history of the spread of Christianity in Russia is similar in the general course of events and in the characters of some figures to the history of the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Both in the Roman Empire and within present-day Russia, the first promoters of Christianity were the apostles. At the very beginning of its strong establishment in both states, Christianity found, albeit not for long, followers in the very houses of sovereigns. In both states, Christianity meets from the pagan government with, at first, relatively insignificant opposition, then sympathy; but this sympathy is soon replaced by a cruel reaction on the part of paganism, which uses its best forces in this fruitless struggle. But some of the persecutors of Christianity die an unhappy death, others repent of their struggle against Christianity. Then comes an era when Christianity, declared the state religion, wins a complete victory over paganism. Vasily Bolotov, sixth grade student at Tver Theological Seminary. Letters "S" A. P. R", marked at the ends of the cross of the Order of St. Andrey means: “Sanctus Andreas Patronus Russiae”. Holy Order vol. I, book. VI Art. 292. As for the fate of these legends (about the preaching of the Apostle Peter in Rome and the Apostle Andrew in Russia) in the scientific world, it is the same. They treated the legend about the preaching of St. with distrust. Andrei within Russia there are some scientists. Tradition about the preaching of St. Peter in Rome also arouses distrust among some scientists. Recently, in Rome itself, in the presence of famous Catholic scientists, the very fact of the apostle’s presence was questioned. Peter in Rome, and the historical authenticity of this legend was not protected by them. Virgil clearly and definitely expressed the conscious (at least in the later period of the existence of the Roman state) desire of representatives of the Roman people for political domination over the whole world and their conviction that it is worldwide dominion that constitutes the goal of the historical existence of the Roman people. Having stated that it is not aesthetic or mental development that will constitute the historical glory of the Romans, Virgil continues: “Tu reqere imperiopopulos, Romane, memento! Haec tibi erunt artes: pacisque imponere morem, Parcere subjectis et debellare superbos.” Aen. VI, 851 – 853. (in Scherr). Cic. contra Catilin. Cap. 1 – 11. Wegner about Konstantin V: “It is clear that his heart was naturally soft, under the influence of political necessity it had the ability to become hard like the shell under which it beat.” (Rome. St. Petersburg 1865. Volume II, p. 571). Or. Novitsky. The gradual development of ancient Philosopher teachings in connection with the development of religions. beliefs. Kyiv. 1860 hour. II, pp. 29 and 33. Capefigus introduces Domitilla as the wife of Domitian. 6 This period is usually defined as 98–161 after the Birth of Christ. But, excluding the persecution of Mark Avremius (161 - 180), a persecution with an educational purpose, to which Russian history presents nothing similar, this period can be extended until 219; because the persecution of Christians even under Sentimius Severus is also accidental and is based on the same view of the Roman government towards Christians on which the persecution of Trajan and his immediate successors was based. Tertullian’s famous expression is that “the soul of man is Christian by nature.” In order to be successful in defending Christians before the Roman government, Christian apologists had to prove that pagan religion was not the only reason for the greatness of the Roman Empire and that, therefore, the prosperity of the Roman state was possible even when paganism was replaced by Christianity. The most convincing proof of this truth can only be historical experience - the fact of the prosperous existence of the Roman state after replacing the pagan religion with Christianity. Only with such a historical fact behind them could Christian apologists give full credibility to their judgments that “the pattern of Roman life, formed under the influence of paganism... naturally leads to the fall of the empire.” It is obvious that such an apology was possible in the 5th century, and not in the 3rd. "Lactant." de mort. persecuted cap. VIII sub fin: “Jam libido in homine pestifero (Herkulio) non modo ad corrumpendes mores, quod est odiosum ac detestabile, verum etiam ad violandas primorum filias. Nam quacunque iter fecerat, avulsae a conspectu parentum virgines, statim praesto. His rebus beatum se judicabat.” "Fuerat huic bestiae (Galerio) naturalis barbaries et feritas." Ibidem. You might be interested in: