Konstantin Kostyuk

The Development of "Theology of Power" in the Fourteenth - Sixteenth Century Russia

Konstantin Kostyuk-General Director of "Direct Media" Publishing House; Head of Electronic Library "University Library Online" (Moscow, Russia), kkostjuk@directmedia.ru

The article examines the development of a particular "theology of power" in Russia in the 14 - 16th centuries, which became a foundation of the Russian ideology of monarchical rule. It explores a specific relationship between the Russian church and state as expressed in Ivan the Terrible's theological views. It then discusses several inner conflicts and alternative theological viewpoints on the phenomenon of Tsar's power in the medieval Russia. It goes further with detailed analysis of how this "theology of power" affected the country's later socio-cultural history.

Keywords: theology of power, Orthodox theology, Church-State relations, political theology.

In RUSSIAN medieval society, the time of the 15th and 17th centuries, referred to as the era of the Muscovite state, is characterized by a decisive separation of Russia from its, primarily, Western neighbors. The essence of this turn in the political dimension lies in the emergence of autocracy and the centralization of the state, in the socio-economic dimension - in the emerging serfdom. In the historical perspective, Western and Russian societies, hitherto somewhat homogeneous, entered into a counter-phase: if the unity of the Holy Roman Empire began to weaken, the vertical of power in the Moscow state, on the contrary, strengthened; if the church in the West institutionally became more independent-

page 42
However, in the East, on the contrary, it was losing its autonomy. While in the West the church successfully fought to prevent the concentration of the emperor's power and thereby promote the liberalization of the political system, Russian theology developed a theocratic concept of the autocratic divine power of the tsar. Finally, if the West, moving from class-representative institutions of power to the absolutism of national states, discovered that the will of the people is the basis of sovereignty and legitimacy of power (Zh. Woden), in Russia the people have lost the importance of a legitimizing factor in relation to the state autocratic power1.

What caused such a difference in civilizational movements in the mature Middle Ages? Last but not least, the development of ideologemes that take on different directions due to the peculiarities of Christian and confessional culture. The sacralization of power serves as the most succinct explanation for the emerging divergence between Western and Eastern Christian-political traditions. If in the West the spiritual power, increasingly assimilating the difference between spiritual and secular principles, entangles secular power in a network of institutions of influence and control, in Russia, on the contrary, secular power with increasing success claims to spiritual significance, reducing the Byzantine theory of the symphony of powers to the concept of their inseparability and non-fragmentation. The secularization of the concept of power in the West is opposed by its sacralization in the East.

The development of the ideologeme of autocratic power in Russia takes place against the background of the flourishing of public journalism after centuries of "intellectual silence" under the cultural rule of the steppe people. The emergence of Christian journalism, which is largely associated with polemics against new heresies (Zeno Ottensky), with the cultural influence of Byzantium and Italy (Maxim Grek, Fyodor Karpov), with reactions to social shifts, including the strengthening of the centralization of power (Andrey Kurbsky), proceeds, however, without a real protest against the formation of autocracy. Even Kurbsky, in his correspondence with Ivan the Terrible and in The History of the Grand Duke of Moscow, goes no further than an individual condemnation of Ivan's tyranny. In relation to the institute-

1. См. Gnagi, A. (1970) Katholische Kirche und Demokratie: ein dogmengeschichtlicher Uberblick uber das grundsatzliche Verhaltnis der katholischen Kirche zur demokratischen Staatsreform, s.92 f., 152 f. Zurich: Benziger Verlag.

page 43
on the eve of autocracy, all Russian non-possessive scribes agree in a listless chorus with the same principles that the Josephite theorists proclaimed, trying only to elevate them, using the categories of reason, measure, enlightenment, and social sanction. With all their desire, they cannot not only formulate, but even find an alternative: so confidently does the spectrum of public interests concentrate on the autocracy consolidating the state. The theoretical initiative belongs in this era to the representatives of the Josephite school, who in their works boldly outline the contours of the great kingdom and the great king, filling these images with theological content and eschatological meaning. In this article, we will try to reproduce the evolution of the Moscow "theology of power", which for centuries to come has become a guiding star for both Russian Orthodoxy and the state.

Political theology of the Moscow era

The theocratic idea of the Eastern Church goes back to the eighty-first Psalm, which deals with kings: "You are gods and sons of the Almighty." In Russian Christian literature, it sounds as early as the thirteenth century in the Tale of the Murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky: "For the authorities are set by God; the earthly tsar is like any human being by nature, but he is higher in rank than God."2. This was a significant superstructure on the concept of authority of the Apostle Paul (Rom 13), who had in mind exclusively pagan authorities and therefore preached loyalty, but not worship of authority. Russian Christianity, on the contrary, initially dealt with Christian rulers and interpreted Paul's words according to the "permissible maximum". "A high - ranking lord and autocrat, a Christian king on behalf of God, holding the reins of government in all Christian affairs" - this is how Monk Philotheus 3 described the king. Enthusiastic glorification of the tsar increased until the XVIII century. "You are the sun, the moon is Queen Mary," Simeon of Polotsk exclaimed.4 Glorification

2. The tale of the murder of Andrey Bogolyubsky / / Monuments of literature of Ancient Russia. XII vek. Moscow, 1980. p. 327.

3. Malinin V. Elder of the Eleazar Monastery Filofey and his Epistles. Kiev: Printing House of the Kiev Pechersk Assumption Lavra, 1901. Appendices. p. 27.

4. Simeon of Polotsk. Selected Works, Moscow-L., 1953, p. 110.

page 44
It was not only due to the poetic inspiration of the court elites that the tsar's rule was transformed into a church-state ideology.

In the view of historians, a radical turn in the self-consciousness of Moscow society is associated with the name of the Pskov abbot of the Eleazarov monastery Filofey (beginning of the XVI-ser. XVI). Philofey was a classic Russian "scribe" who was in no way involved in the life of the political elite. Nevertheless, his thesis about Moscow as the Third Rome very soon became the most adequate formula for the turn that was taking place in the Russian consciousness. And it is its adherents, as well as the entire wing of the carriers of nationalist ideology, and not the "Josephites", who should be considered as the true exponents of the line aimed at the formation of unlimited autocracy.5
Unlike the Josephites, who are exclusively engaged in domestic politics, the scribe Philotheus already measures the size of Russia in the global geographical, historical and confessional space. Russia was no longer satisfied with the role of the outskirts of civilization, it claimed to become its center. Russia claimed to belong not only to the Eastern Christian, but also to the Western culture. It is significant that the texts of Philotheus are devoted not to Moscow at all, but to the description of the space of sacred history. He talks about the stars and the movement of cosmic bodies, about world history and its drivers. Rome is at the center of history, because " Rome is the whole world." The monk does not detract from the historical significance of present-day Catholic Rome, but aims to justify the Christian fall of modern Rome, since the fall of the pagan empire is not the fall of Rome in the providential sense. Philotheus does this by giving a whole system of arguments that incriminate Rome in heresy, in connection with the pagan past, the succession with the legacy of Pontius Pilate, and, " although the walls of great Rome, and the towers, and the three-story buildings were not captured, yet their souls were captured by the devil because of the unleavened bread."-

5. Likhachev D. S. Natsionalnoe samosoznanie Drevnoi Rus ' [National identity of Ancient Russia], Moscow: Izd. Akademii nauk SSSR, 1945; Pokrovsky V. S. Istoriya russkoi politicheskoi mysli [History of Russian Political Thought]. litry, 1951. V. 1., p. 59; Chaev N. S. Moscow-the Third Rome in the political practice of the Moscow state. 1945. Т. 17. С. 12 - 13; Toomanoff, С. (1955) "Moscow the Third Rome: Genesis and Significance of a Politico-Religious Idea", Catholic Historical Review 40 (4): 411 - 447.

page 45
nocs"6. Constantinople, that is, the "second Rome", on the contrary, even after being conquered by the "Hagarites", did not lose faith. But its fall was due to the submission of the Romans, the Council of Florence, which Russia experienced especially hard. "Ninety years since the Greek kingdom was destroyed and will not be restored: and all this happened for our sins, because they betrayed the Greek Orthodox faith into Catholicism." 7
...All of great Rome is falling... The Church of Constantinople was destroyed and trampled on like a vegetable storehouse... Third Rome, new great Russia is a desert... and those Divine Apostles will not preach in it, but the grace of God will be enlightened on it... From now on, the one Holy Cathedral Church of the East shines more than the sun in the whole of the celestial empire, and the one Orthodox great Russian tsar in the whole of the celestial Empire, like Noah in the ark saved from the flood.8
G. Florovsky notes that Philotheus ' theory was an eschatological theory [9] based on apocalyptic categories and the image of a "wandering kingdom": "For two Rimes fall, and the third stands, and the fourth is not in being"[10]. He highlights here the warning of the impending end: the last epoch has arrived, the last earthly " kingdom." Moscow has become the center of apocalyptic expectations and part of the earthly history of Christ's redemptive feat. From now on, only Russia and its tsar are responsible to God for preserving the true faith. And only faith and the hand of God, and not external power and not the signs of fate - the stars - are at the root of the rise and fall of states. The idea of the Third Rome turned out to be popular in history because it was the first historiosophical concept that translated Russian history into a providential plan, into a biblical one

6. Elder Philotheus. Message about unfavorable days and hours / / Russian philosophical thought of the XI-XVII centuries. Issue 1. Electronic edition. Moscow, 2006. p. 343.

7. Ibid., p. 349.

8. Malinin V. Elder of the Eleazar Monastery Filofey and his epistles. pp. 49_50, 62-63.

9. See Florovsky G. Puti russkogo bogosloviya [Ways of Russian Theology]. Paris, 1937. p. 10. Florovsky notes that the concept itself originated in correspondence with the German Catholic Nikolai Bulaev, the physician of Tsar Vasily III.

10. Malinin V. Elder of the Eleazar Monastery Filofey and his epistles. p. 60.

page 46
history 11. For theological development and self-reflection, this was the most provocative and fruitful thought ever expressed by a Russian person. It is not surprising that more has been written about it - not even a theory, but a phrase said in passing-than about the whole of Russian philosophy. Hilarion of Kiev set out to show the equality of Russia with other Christian countries, to present it as a country of grace. Philotheus puts forward a much more pretentious task - to place Russia at the center of the Christian world and world history and proclaim it the last guardian of the true Christian faith. Without becoming the" official doctrine "of the tsarist court, it was reflected in all the formulas and formats of self-understanding of Russia, up to the Bolshevik era, exploding from within the "secularism"of government power, no matter how hostile to the church it might be. 12
Focusing on the responsibility that Russia is taking on, researchers often fail to notice the problems that this theological thesis entails. N. Berdyaev caught them sensitively:

Russia's mission is to be the bearer and guardian of true Christianity and Orthodoxy. This is a religious vocation. "Russians" are defined by "Orthodoxy". ... On this basis, there was an acute nationalization of the Orthodox Church. Orthodoxy turned out to be the Russian faith... Russia is the universe, the Russian tsar is the tsar over tsars, Jerusalem is the same Russia, Russia is where the truth of faith is. The Russian religious vocation, an exceptional vocation, is associated with the strength and greatness of the Russian state, with the exceptional significance of the Russian tsar. The imperial temptation enters the Messianic consciousness... The spiritual failure of the idea of Moscow as the Third Rome was precisely in the fact that the Third Rome was presented as a manifestation of tsarist power, the power of the state, was formed as the Moscow Kingdom, then as an empire, and finally as the Third International.13
11. However, by this time the image of Moscow as the "New Jerusalem" had also been recognized in Russian literature, which has the same meaning of God's choice of the Russian people, but less political pointedness.

12. The historical ambitions of the Russian state, fueled by the providential significance of Orthodoxy, were manifested in the doctrine of church universalism in the era of Tsar Alexey, in the concept of "Autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality" and pan-Slavism in the XIX century, and finally in the ideology of the world revolution in Bolshevism, etc., up to the idea of a "multipolar global world" in the XXI century.

13. Berdyaev N. Russkaya ideya [Russian idea]. Electronic edition, Moscow, 2005, p. 37.

page 47
The idea of a Third Rome was adopted too informally, too intimately by the Orthodox consciousness. However, its main problem is not the historical helplessness of Russia's mission as the Third Rome, but the temptation itself to become an "earthly Jerusalem", to put itself at the head of the Christian world and at the same time cut itself off from the entire "infidel" world. It is in the light of "historiosophical seduction" and defeat that the Christian social thought of the following centuries should be interpreted. Despite the fact that the leading position of the Russian Church in Orthodoxy has never been lost and even indirectly confirmed by the Eastern patriarchs, since that era the Russian Church has been living in a situation of "spiritual discord" with universal Orthodoxy, having fallen ill with theological nationalism and affecting the inner life of the united church.

The second significant element of Philotheus ' theology was that the figure of the Orthodox tsar received a new meaning in it. It is not the church (for example, the Metropolitan of Moscow), but only the tsar, who takes on the task of preserving Orthodoxy, and this church mission takes on primarily political significance. The idea of the spiritual supremacy of the king was expressed in Philotheus much more clearly than was customary in Byzantium: The tsar is "the retainer of God's holy churches, the throne of all episcopias, parables, etc., and all Christian fulfillment" 14. The Tsar has become not only a symbol of the continuity of historical Orthodoxy, but also the pinnacle of the spiritual hierarchy on earth. Neither the metropolitan nor the patriarch (after this institution was established in Russia) could be equated with the tsar within this hierarchy.

A new component appears in the image of the tsar - a dynamic perspective. If the traditional ideal of the kingdom remained immobile, including the virtues and virtues of the ruler, now it has a mission and task, namely, the political task of" leading the nation": "All the Christian kingdoms are flooded with infidels, and only one sovereign of our kingdom stands alone by the grace of Christ. It behooves the king to govern it with great care and with respect to God, not to hope in gold or in transitory riches, but to trust in God who gives all things. " 15 A high view of the tsarist power is accompanied by-

14. Malinin V. Elder of the Eleazar Monastery Filofey and his epistles. p. 55.

15. Elder Philotheus. Epistle on Unfavorable Days and hours. p. 355.

page 48
It is accompanied by the demand for unconditional submission to it on the part of its subjects. If someone has to suffer the sovereign's "great punishment" in vain, then it is only possible to express their sadness with " bitter lamentation and true repentance." One cannot but agree with N. Zolotukhina that "the discussion of free will initiated by Neil Sorsky was practically rejected by Philofey and for many years was closed as a topic in the history of Russian political thought" 16. Despite the fact that Philofey did not actually touch on the practice of public administration, he outlined the boundaries of the thinking of the era, within which many issues were removed by themselves.

Ivan Peresvetov, sometimes called the "Russian Machiavelli", was a Lithuanian nobleman in the Russian service. The petitions that he addressed to Ivan the Terrible went down in history both because of his literary style and because of his independent political program. Peresvetov emphasized the right of the tsar to complete autocracy, relying on the divine origin of his power. The centralization of the state, the need for a state bureaucracy subordinate to the tsar, as well as a regular army, received a consistent justification from him. The traditional concept of the tsarist "thunderstorm" was interpreted by Peresvetov as the need for strict punitive management: "Without such a thunderstorm, truth cannot be introduced into the kingdom powerfully."17
One of the ideas that runs through his works is the complete abolition of boyar independence, the system of viceroyalty and appanage: "Do not give anyone a viceroyalty in the city." In any form of feeding, Peresvetov saw the source of inefficiency and injustice of management, "when they let strife into their kingdom, give cities and regions to their nobles to manage, and the nobles grow rich from dishonorable levies on the tears and blood of the Christian family, and when they leave feeding from volosts, then they settle disputes with the field in case of injustice, and here on both sides 18. Instead of feudal-patrimonial relations, the author offers prizes for the following reasons:-

16. Isaev I. A., Zolotukhina N. M. Istoriya politicheskikh i pravovykh ucheniy Rossii [History of political and legal doctrines of Russia]. Moscow: Yurist, 1995, p. 83.

17. " But death is ordained for the guilty one, and when they find the guilty one, they will not have mercy on the best, but will execute him according to the merits of his deeds." Peresvetov I. Malaya Chelobitnaya [Small Petition] / / Works of I. Peresvetov, Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1956, p. 188.

18. Peresvetov I. Bolshaya Chelobitnaya [Big Petition] / / Works of I. Peresvetov, Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1956, p. 140.

page 49
It also suggests that the entire management system of the civil service should be placed on a regular salary, whether it concerns local government, the courts, or the military. Equally inefficient and irrational, he considered localism and any methods of remuneration based on gender, and not on personal merit. Peresvetov demands to pay and promote only for personal merits: "The great nobles of the Russian tsar themselves grow rich and lazy, but they impoverish his kingdom, and so his servants are called that they go to his service in color and on horseback and in public, but they do not stand firmly for the Christian faith and do not play fiercely against the enemy with a mortal game, they lie to God and to the Sovereign " 19. In the works of Peresvetov, the logic of the subsequent autocratic policy aimed at the formation of a centralized noble administrative apparatus subordinate to a single center is outlined.

The king should rule together with his closest advisers, the duma. However, this council for the tsar has the nature not of a class representation, as many researchers believe 20, but of a purely tool for effective decision-making. The function of "synclites "(councils) is in correct and wise consultations, in fair laws, in correct decisions. In Peresvetov's writings, the idea of limiting power is not expressed, on the contrary, all the pathos is in removing possible restrictions. The author takes the point of view of absolute autocracy and analyzes the ways to optimize the state apparatus from it. Public service, in his opinion, does not combine in any way with property, wealth, class status. Property and property independence - grounds for absenteeism from service: "The rich do not respect military talents at all. Even if the hero gets rich, he will become lazy."

Peresvetov's state is not cruel, it is monolithic. The thinker reproduces the principles of despotism, despotism in the name of the common good and the protection of the Christian faith. At the same time, it excludes the use of power for personal benefit, its purpose is to serve pravda. Pravda is a natural-legal ideal that does not know confessional limitations. "God does not love faith, but the truth," he said. 21 A king must serve the truth in this respect.

19. Ibid., p. 174.

20. Budovnits I. U. Ideological Struggle in Russian Journalism, Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1960.

21. Works of I. Peresvetov, Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1956, p. 170.

page 50
his main job description. "Untruth"," lawlessness " is the cause of the fall of the state, its disintegration due to conflicting estate interests. Behind the concept of truth is the moral and legal ideal of social perfection, which for Peresvetov primarily has a correlate of properly organized government.

Peresvetov, when he sent his petitions to the tsar, did not shy away from telling the tsar a word of truth. To the question: "The Kingdom of Moscow is strong and famous and rich in everything! Is there any truth in this realm? " he replies: "The Christian faith, sire, is good, perfect in all things, and the beauty of the church is great, but there is no truth." To this, the hero, through whose mouth the teaching is performed, exclaims:"If there is no truth, there is nothing."

The significance of Peresvetov's writings for understanding the thinking of the epoch is important because they not only express the Christian values that were the basis of this thinking, but also translate them into a concrete program of political reforms. However, the author is not a theologian, but a secular writer, so he practically does not analyze the theological meaning of the proposed changes.

The founder of the "theology of power" should be considered Abbot Joseph of Volokolamsk (Volotsk) (1439-1515) 22. He was one of the first to awaken Russia from its theological slumber. 23 Joseph's activities were determined by two tasks: strengthening the church and strengthening the monarchical power. The solution proposed by Joseph was based on a contradictory compromise: he wanted to elevate the church by voluntarily associating with the monarchy according to the Byzantine model, and even more so by placing the monarch at the head of the church. Unlike the secular adherents of the theocratic idea (Peresvetov, Ivan IV), he saw the source of the divine dignity of the tsar not in power.-

22. Iosif Volotsky came from a noble family of Lithuanian immigrants. At the age of twenty, Joseph took the veil, and at the age of forty, he founded the Volokolamsk Monastery in the lands of the appanage Prince Boris Volotsky. With the transfer of the monastery to the Grand ducal patronage in 1507, personal relations with the Grand Duke developed. The main works of Joseph are, along with the "Enlightener", Epistles to various persons.

23. New discussions begin as a result of the emergence of heresies -strigolniki, zhidovstvuyuschih, etc. The first person to actively respond to the heresy in a "bookish way" - by translating and publishing books denouncing the heresy of the Jews-was a church official, Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod, who was like-minded with Joseph.

page 51
It is in the power of the church itself. He was the one who gave the syncretic ideal of the Orthodox teaching about the symphony a specifically "Russian" interpretation, understanding the church and the state as two divine works of the tsar and connecting them under a single church vault. He interpreted the concept of the symphony between the church and the tsar so broadly that he removed the boundary between church and state law, combining spiritual and secular government in a single concept of power. At the same time, Joseph not only gave a justification for autocracy, but at the same time was the first to develop the doctrine of resistance to unrighteous power. He constantly reminded the rulers of the moral limits of state power, of the supremacy of spiritual power over secular power, of the social role of the Church and of the significance of its social charitable activities. Thanks to the works of Joseph Volotsky and his associates, the role of the Church was elevated in the 15th century, its social and economic growth, and the state assumed its function in preserving the purity of faith and combating heresies.

The central place in the socio-political teaching of Joseph is occupied by the concept of power. Power is the highest manifestation of divine care for people, the embodiment of God's Providence on earth: "God has placed you in His stead on your thrones." Joseph compares the meaning and task of power to light and the sun: "So, the sun has its own business: to illuminate those who live on earth, and the king has his own: to take care of all his subjects." "Gods and sons of the Most High," he figuratively calls "kings and princes" and promises them the greatest closeness to God. Their goal is "to fulfill the will of God and receive eternal joy from God, with disembodied powers, just as He himself promised you: Where I am, there will my servant also be, and you will reign with Him and rejoice with him forever." 24
At the same time, Joseph teaches us to distinguish between authority as a divine institution and its fulfillment by a certain person, the sovereign. And the author devotes the pages of his epistles not to the usual praises of royal dignity, but to the edification of kings. "For the king is like all men by nature, but by authority he is like the Most High God. And just as God wants to save all people, so the king must protect from all harm, both mental and physical, everything that he needs.

24.Cit. by: Fedotov G. St. Philip, Metropolitan of Moscow. Paris, 1928. p. 94.

page 52
subject to"25. The ruler fulfills the Divine purpose, while remaining a person who, like all people on earth, makes mistakes and therefore bears a huge responsibility on his shoulders. "Hear and understand, O kings, princes, and judges of the world, and fear the Most high, that death may not enter into the world because of your neglect: for a little neglect brings great calamities, and cursed is he who does the work of the Lord carelessly."26 This responsibility is not only and not so much for himself as for himself. for your subjects: "When you receive the royal scepter from God, make sure that you please the One Who gave it to you, because you will answer to God not only for yourself: if others do evil, then you, who gave them their will, will answer to God." Joseph radicalizes the responsibility and actions of the ruler. Just as he may be a servant and confidant of God, he may be a servant of the Devil himself. "For every king or prince who lives in neglect, does not care for his subjects, and does not have the fear of God, becomes a servant of Satan, therefore the wrath of the Lord will come upon him inexorably and suddenly... So take heed that you do not become children of wrath, or die like men, or be cast down to hell like dogs."27 In another passage: "A wicked king who does not care about his subjects is not a king, but a tormentor."

Joseph equates the tasks and duties of the tsar with those of prelates and bishops, uniting them under the single name of "shepherd" and preaching the patriarchal position. The tsar is responsible for both the souls and bodies of his subjects: "Kings and princes should take every possible care of piety and protect their subjects from mental and physical disturbances." Subjects are nothing more than a "flock" with nothing to take from them, but everything will be collected from their shepherd. 28 At the same time, the arsenal of power-based care offered by Joseph is purely punitive and is aimed primarily at preventing atrocities ("we command you to put to severe execution jews, robbers, sodomites, fornicators, adulterers, murderers, sorcerers, counterfeiters, grave desecrators, etc.-

25. Joseph of Volokolamsk. Educator. Valaam: Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaam Monastery, 1994.

26. Ibid., p. 84. 27. Ibid., p. 57.

28. " When the Divine rules are not observed, various crimes occur: therefore the wrath of God is upon us, and all kinds of punishments, and the final judgment; and it is all the fault of shepherds who do not take care of the flock of Christ and do not protect it." Ibid., p. 108.

page 53
sneezing people doing evil"). Referring to the tsar as an "eparch", but having in mind the execution of a punitive function, Joseph transfers to the tsar all pastoral responsibility for the protection of the doctrine of the faith, since for the "prelates" there is no other task left than to expose heretics and apostates. At the heart of Joseph's "theology of power "is the king's" hyper-responsibility " to God. Such an instigation is rather an edifying "instruction" of the monarch and is very far removed from the" admiration " of him.

While distinguishing between the nature of power itself and the person clothed with power, Joseph also implements the syncretic idea of the unity of divine and natural rights, moral and state laws, which should be united by a single divine legislation. He denies the opposition of divine and positive law, while at the same time giving absolute priority to the former. The divine law is the foundation of all law, originating from the Ecumenical Councils and gradually descending to the "city" laws: "By divine providence, the Divine rule was mixed with the Commandments of the Lord, the utterances of the Holy Fathers, and the very laws of Paki Grad" 29. The theonomic interpretation of legislation is one of the theoretical pillars of the "theology of power", but it is rarely voiced in Russian medieval thought, which feeds on the logic of deeds, not the logic of institutions.

If we talk about the practical application of the Orthodox "theology of power", then its first adept should be considered Tsar Ivan IV, the Terrible (1530-1584), who devoted himself to the implementation of this idea and thus largely determined the special path of Russia. Ivan the Terrible was a well-read "scribe" and an enlightened ruler of his time. He was a true "theologian on the throne" and at the same time an ascetic schemer, sometimes calling himself a "black man".30 Like Machiavelli, he defended the intrinsic value of power, but if the former talked about the political as an area autonomous from other areas of life, then in the case of Ivan the Terrible, power was placed at the center of the universe, and he considered himself as a divine instrument designed to concentrate power and consolidate it.-

29. Ibid., p. 112.

30. Ivan was no stranger to self-abasement, calling himself a "stinking dog", " deluded in the darkness of pride and the shadow of the mortal charms of vanity, lovingkindness and lovingkindness." He called his Oprichnina residence, Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, a monastery, established the order order there, and called himself "abbot".

page 54
courts. For the Florentine, the goals of the political were dictated by his own logic: power as a human art of government, which had lost its medieval connection with the divine ontology. It is quite different with Ivan IV: for a policy that presents itself as a manifestation of God's will, power was more than government. Power is a cosmic totality, a sacred force. Ivan IV managed to make a "theocratic revolution of power", subordinating history to his own theologumen and for a certain period of time tearing Russia out of the space of profane history.

For a rather long period of his reign, thirty-six years, Ivan went through a complex evolution, in which there were years of dependent boyar regency, years of flourishing estate-representative relations ("Elected Rada"), when Ivan IV, according to N. Karamzin, was a model of a "pious tsar", and, finally, years of independent boyar regency. the struggle for undivided power and the eradication of boyar treason, when Ivan presented himself as a bloody tyrant. Crowned the first of the Moscow princes to the kingdom in 1547, he understood all his life as a sacred mission. About himself, he wrote as follows: "If you do not delight in any kingdom, but by God's permission and blessing of your first parents and parents, as you were born in the kingdom, so you will grow up and become king by God's command, and your parents will take your blessing, and not everyone else will delight"31. Purity of origin means the sacred purity of autocratic rights of power: royal power is primordial, undivided, and no interference with its prerogatives is permissible by its very nature.

The tsar has unlimited access to all social life, with the exception of matters of faith. He is charged with full authority over the bodies and souls of His subjects, as well as full authority over the bodies and souls of His subjects.-

31. In a message to King Sigismund II Augustus of Poland, he wrote:: "After all, the free tsarist autocracy of our great sovereigns is not like your wretched kingdom: no one tells our sovereigns anything, because our sovereign autocrats sit on the throne by the grace of God... no one replaces their free autocrats on the throne, does not put and does not approve." He directly ridicules Queen Elizabeth for parliamentary restrictions: "We thought that you were the sovereign in your state and owned everything yourself and took care of your sovereign honor and benefits for the state.. But it looks like you have other people who own it." Messages of Ivan the Terrible, Moscow, 1950, p. 156.

page 55
responsibility for them before God 32. Ivan identifies disobedience to the tsar with direct disobedience to God, and treason with the gravest sin: "I was not angry with man, but with God." He interprets the demand for obedience to authority in an unconditional way, which does not allow any restrictions, regardless of the righteousness or criminality of the royal will. In a letter to Kurbsky, he sincerely considers it the duty of a subject to suffer death and thus save the soul, if the tsar wished this death: "Why did you not deign to suffer from me, the obstinate ruler, and inherit the crown of life?"33 Ivan the Terrible does not allow a question to be raised in which one can judge whether the tsar's will is right or wrong, either from the point of view of moral law or from the point of view of legal law. As authorized by the divine will, the royal will is incomprehensible and in no way accountable to mere mortals. "And you are free to pay your serfs, and you are also free to execute them..." 34. It is the sovereign's direct duty to execute traitors. And the point is not in the personal cruelty of the tsar, which even in those harsh times has no analogues, but in the rationality and purposefulness that "sedition" is burned out throughout Russia.35 The struggle against sedition is the meaning of this king's life; having eradicated it, he begins to thrash around fruitlessly, ending the end of his kingdom with almost madness.

There is only one source of "sedition" that hinders the implementation of the concept of absolute power - boyar self-will. As a child, the tsar witnessed the boyar autocracy. Ivan the Terrible of the Oprichnina era is a tsar who burns out the boyar principle in the country 36. His power does not need the mediation of the boyars

32. " By God's permission, God gave their souls into the power of our great sovereign, and they gave their souls and served the king until their death, and bequeathed to you their children to serve the children and grandchildren of our grandfather." Messages of Ivan the Terrible, Moscow, 1950, p. 125.

33. Drevnerusskaya literatura: Perepiskaia kn. A. Kurbsky s Ivanom Grozny [Old Russian Literature: Correspondence of Prince A. Kurbsky with Ivan the Terrible], L., 1979, p. 974.

34. Old Russian literature: Correspondence of Prince A. Kurbsky with Ivan the Terrible. p. 976: "Until now, Russian rulers did not report to anyone, but had the freedom to execute their subjects and never appeared before another court."

35. Ivan the Terrible in recent years led a memorial service, which included about 4,000 ruined souls.

36. Contemporaries refer to the great influence on Ivan of the words of Vassian Toporkov: "If you want to be an autocrat, do not keep with you a single adviser who would be smarter than you, because you are the best of all; if you do this, you will be firm in the kingdom and will have everything in your hands. But if you have people with you who are smarter than you, you will necessarily obey them."

page 56
or estates: he wants to be directly connected with the people. So, after the Moscow fire in 1550, he publicly accused the boyars of scheming and robbing the common people, promised to be "their protection and protection", threatened to "reveal all the atrocities and return the loot"37. The union of the" Christian tsar and people", without boyar mediation, became the basis of the ideological structure for the struggle against the boyars, which determined his policy based on terror. The contrast between the" good tsar "and the" bad boyars " became all the more obvious axiom from now on, the higher the dignity of the tsar was interpreted and the more the tsar's servants were deprived of their own dignity, in addition to their official function. The opposite is also true: the divine dignity of the tsar could only be maintained by devaluing the aristocratic dignity of the boyars.

Ivan legally eliminates the basis of feudal independence of the boyars: thanks to the reforms of 1540-1550, the viceroyalty was abolished and replaced by estate self-government, the army was reformed and transferred from the boyar militia to a regular basis, the Royal Sudebnik of 1550 was adopted. The service of the boyars from the free became mandatory. The possibility of legal departure, the basis of boyar freedom, is eliminated. While, however, the boyars possessed large land holdings, economic stability led to an increase in the importance and influence of the boyar clans.38 Ivan could not destroy the boyars, and opals served only as point weapons that did not affect the system. The problem was also not solved by the rotation of the elite, the rise of nobles from non-noble families. Ivan needed a tool that would drive the feudal lords out of their native ancestral fiefdoms and make it possible to treat land ownership as monetary forms of payment, without allowing the aristocracy to gain a foothold on the land.

Such a tool was the "Oprichnina": in 1566, the tsar divided his lands in two, into royal and zemsky (Zemstvo) lands.-

lovev S. M. History of Russia since ancient times // History of Russia. Electronic edition, Moscow, 2005, p. 8662.

37. Karamzin N. M. Istoriya gosudarstva Rossiiskogo [History of the Russian state]. Volume VIII / / History of Russia. Electronic edition, Moscow, 2005, p. 2387.

38. Poray-Korshits draws attention to the extremely small number of boyars in the Muscovite state. Under Ivan IV, there were only seventeen boyar families, but the boyar families represented the political elite in the country, entangling the country with a network of family ties. Poray-Koshits I. Istoriya Russkogo dvoryanstva [History of the Russian Nobility]. Electronic edition, Moscow, 2005, pp. 42-869.

page 57
schina), treating the "Oprichnina" as the Moscow prince's own lot 39. The Oprichnoi army, the Tsar's Guard, received the appointment of the high police for high treason. In fact, as V. Klyuchevsky rightly believes, this was an attempt to implement the plan to transform the government class from boyar to noble. "Russia of the sixteenth century," writes V. Klyuchevsky, " was an absolute monarchy, but with an aristocratic administration, that is, a government staff. There was no political legislation that defined the boundaries of supreme power, but there was a government class with an aristocratic organization that the government itself recognized. " 40 The growth of the Muscovite state is accompanied by the growth of both forces that were to clash. The destabilizing actions of Ivan the Terrible, even if not in such a short time as he set himself, managed to undermine the foundations of the feudal constitution of appanage Russia: "The boyars no longer had a firm foundation in their administration, in the people, or even in their class organization." 41 By introducing the Oprichnina, the tsar proved his right to completely rebuild and reshape a society based on a solid foundation of traditions and traditions, to make it fall out of the framework of traditional consciousness, fixed by the life of generations. With the help of the Oprichnina, Ivan the Terrible for the first time declared the right of the Orthodox monarch to lead the people to their own ideocratic goal, changing their fate. This shaking of the foundations of the state began the monopolization of public life by the tsarist will, a line that has been consistently pursued in Russia for many centuries.

The tsar's attitude to the church is also significant. Being a deeply pious man, he did not claim hierocratic power, but considered himself entitled to direct the church administration. He limited the powers of the church hierarchy exclusively to divine services and sacraments, that is, sacramental

39. Vipper R. Yu. Ivan Grozny, Moscow: Delfin Publ., 1922; Platonov S. F. Ocherki po istorii Smuty v Moskovskom gosudarstvo XVI-XVII vvakh [Essays on the History of Troubles in the Moscow State of the XVI-XVII centuries]. Opyt izucheniya obshchestvennogo stroya i kastronykh otnosheniy v Smutnoe vremya [Experience in studying the social order and estate relations in the Time of Troubles]. Moscow: Pamyatniki istoricheskoi mysli, 1994; Veselovsky S. B. Issledovaniya po istorii oprichniny [Research on the history of the Oprichnina]. Moscow: Izd-vo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1963; Zimin A. A. Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible]. Moscow: Mysl, 1964.

40. Klyuchevsky V. O. Course of Russian history. Volume 2 / / History of Russia. Electronic edition, Moscow, 2005, pp. 21,634.

41. Ibid., pp. 21,639.

page 58
power. "Be silent," he replied to Metropolitan Philip, who protested against the Oprichnina, "and bless us according to our permission." 42 In his oprichnina mockery, Ivan the Terrible ravaged monasteries, ruined monks. Despite the fact that he supported the Josephite interpretation of church-state relations, he did not stop at killing the first hierarch of the Russian Church in order to nullify the church's political opposition. At the same time, the tsar did not see the church as an opponent of his autocracy, nor did he persecute the church hierarchy in the same way that he persecuted the boyars. In the tsar's plan, the state assumed the concerns and tasks of the church, including the tasks of strengthening and spreading the faith, so that it should be a matter of merging the authorities, and not a division of the authorities or a symphony of them.

It is noteworthy that, despite such a contradictory policy and assessment of historians, the personality of Ivan the Terrible received an unambiguously positive assessment among writers and representatives of the church who are focused on the ecclesiastical exaltation of the Russian state. 43 The significance of this assessment cannot be understated. Ivan the Terrible, like no other Russian tsar, put a religious principle at the beginning of his activity and carried it out with religious obsession. This principle - the principle of the sacred dignity of power-meant not just the consistent implementation of the concept of "theology of power", but, by eliminating the boundary between the church and the state, endowing the state with the highest spiritual mission by turning it into the image of the church. This is exactly what Ivan the Terrible demonstrated in his Oprichnina, albeit in the form of a masquerade.

The era of Ivan the Terrible's rule is an important moment in Russian history, the choice of the country's future historical path. Despite the existence of differences in the interpretation of the "ideal" tsar, in the personality of Ivan the Terrible, both the ideal of an enlightened monarch of a class-representative monarchy, in the early period of his reign, and the ideal of an autocrat, in the second half of his reign, converged. Karamzin was the first to contrast two periods of government

42. Fedotov G. St. Philip, Metropolitan of Moscow. Moscow: Moskovskiy rabochy Publ., 1991, p. 72.

43. In particular, mitr. John (Snychev) writes: "The figure of Tsar John IV the Terrible and the epoch of his reign seem to crown the period of formation of Russian religious consciousness." John, mitr. St. Petersburg and Ladoga. Autocracy of the spirit. Ocherki russkogo samosoznaniya [Essays on Russian Self-consciousness], St. Petersburg: L. S. Yakovleva Publishing House, 1994, P. 189.

page 59
Ivan the Terrible, describing it as an acute moral and historical conflict of the tsar's personality itself.

Tsarist power and the Church

In the XVI century, the internal evolution of the state idea of Moscow, aimed at including all Russian lands in a single state, came to an end. The elite found themselves in an ideological and political impasse. At this point of internal equilibrium, despite the extreme instability of the external situation, the state could serve both the Veche ideal of "conciliarity" and the ideal of "autocratic autocracy", in the sense that A. Akhiezer puts into these concepts.44 The convocation of zemstvo councils embodies the ideal of class-representative government, focused on consensus and consent, in the old days. Its ideologues were a galaxy of" liberal-minded " theologians, starting with Maxim the Greek, whose voice was increasingly fading. The opposing concept of "autocracy" -an imperious one - man rule-has always been very convincing in a huge country due to the integrity and consistency in the implementation of political will. Interpreting the entire course of Russian history as a pendulum between two ideals, Akhiezer emphasizes the inability of Russian historical consciousness to find a middle ground ("mediation"), an equilibrium intermediate state between the extremes. The strength of Ivan the Terrible's personality is evident in the fact that from the very beginning of his reign, he strives to realize both ideal concepts, skillfully subordinating the internal political situation to his will. If in the first half of his reign (in the era of the "Elected Rada") he was focused on the role of an enlightened monarch, consistently building the entire political system of the country under it, then in the second half he even more decisively and logically rebuilt the state under another system

This became possible due to the fact that both directions of social thought in medieval Russia were directed, in fact, to a single theocratic concept of tsarist power. Here and there the figure of the king stood at the center of the social cosmos, holding the prerogative of the bearer of divine power on earth. Once-

44. See Akhiezer A. S. Kritika istoricheskogo opyta Rossii [Criticism of the historical experience of Russia]. In 3 volumes. Novosibirsk: "Siberian Chronograph", 1997, vol. 1, pp. 72, 173.

page 60
the differences in the ideals of government were determined not by the essential boundaries of tsarist power, but only by the way this power was applied: it could either seek to harmonize the existing interests of different, primarily aristocratic strata, or determine the "necessary" position of these interests in the system of social relations. If the "national monarch" is a passive sun that radiates light into the world, then the autocrat is an active demiurge who creates the world itself. It is only a question of how the potencies of absolute divine power are used, and not of their limits, which mortals are not authorized to determine. Zenkovsky rightly notes that the political theocracy of Moscow Orthodoxy was not only a product of the development of tyranny, it was a spiritual dream and thirst of the church people, the fruit of a mystical understanding of history and politics:

The exaltation of tsarist power was not just a "utopia", nor was it, of course, an expression of ecclesiastical "servilism" (church circles themselves created an ideology about tsarist power), but an expression of a mystical understanding of history... Royal power is the point at which historical existence meets the will of God... For the church consciousness, the tsar was not at all the bearer of a "Caesarian" principle: on the contrary, he already overcomes the opposition between the Caesarian principle and the will of God. In the tsar, a "mysterious" combination of the divine and human principles, that is, a combination inaccessible to rational awareness, is established, and historical existence is sanctified in him. This ideology is all the more dear to the church consciousness because in it the entire historical process was conceived as moving towards its own secularization, towards the transformation of earthly rule into ecclesiastical: the "tsar" is, in fact, a certain "church rank" ... 45

The theology of power, which was formed in Moscow Rus, was an expression of the social ontology of "sanctification of being", which was present in the Orthodox consciousness. If in the Byzantine tradition "sacred power" was hindered by the historical division (symphony) of powers, then in the evolution of Muscovy, tsarist power soon turns out to be not just a national political center, but the basis and stronghold of the church's stay in this world - a world surrounded by alien, satanic forces. The king, who has an impact on external forces, on the world, plays disproportionately

45. Zenkovsky V. Istoriya russkoi filosofii [History of Russian Philosophy], vol. 1, Moscow, 2000, p. 49.

page 61
a greater role than the supreme hierarch, who is only part of the internal organization of the church. And the rank of tsar and metropolitan (even the tsar-appointed patriarch) is incommensurable. The state's assimilation of its ecclesiastical mission, as Zenkovsky writes, served for the church as a development outside, a movement into the world. The church had no other organ of communication with the world than the state, or rather the tsar; this became obvious as soon as it was realized that Russia was surrounded by many non - Orthodox countries, and ecumenical Orthodoxy was in danger.

The ideology of sanctifying tsarist power led to the removal of the Christian opposition of "God" and "Caesar", and in the historical perspective-to the rejection of the Orthodox Byzantine concept of "symphony" of authorities in favor of the concept of "fusion" of authorities. The opposition between the secular and the sacred has never been defined in Russia in the form of opposing principles, understood in their purity; and this is due to the special form of the ideal of tsarist power. Orthodox thought both proceeded from their unity and moved towards it, skilfully avoiding those obstacles where this confrontation could be exposed, for example, in the question of church property, interference in church affairs, and so on. In the West, the movement of Christian consciousness in the Middle Ages was largely directed towards understanding the difference between secular and sacred, secular and ecclesiastical principles. The key point here was the "investiture dispute", a struggle for the right to appoint local ecclesiastical authorities that unfolded in Catholic Europe between the Pope and secular rulers. 46 It was a dispute over the institutional control of the secular authorities over the church. The more the difference of interests was marked, the more obvious was the difference in the nature of church and state principles.

In a certain sense, this "dispute" could not have arisen in the Orthodox Church. The right of the emperor or tsar to propose candidates for the highest ecclesiastical titles for approval by the council has never been questioned by the Eastern Church.47 The answer to this was the canonical conscientiousness of the tsarist government,

46. См. Struve, T. (1985) "Investiturstreit", Pipers Handbuch der politischen Ideen. Bd. 2, s.222. Munchen-Zurich: Piper. In addition, as in Russia, in Europe, the feudal possessions of the church have become the subject of serious struggle. In Europe, the papal Church was so strong and independent that it was able to preserve not only property, but also power in the territories of ecclesiastical principalities.

47. See Lebedev A. P. Clergy of the ancient Ecumenical Church from Apostolic times to the X century. St. Petersburg: Aletheia Publ., 1997 (reprint of the 1905 edition).

page 62
noted by A. Kartashov: the church procedural order was sacred to her 48. However, this right of investiture was limited to the rank of First Hierarch (metropolitan, later patriarch). All other appointments were a matter for the church hierarchy. Given this, it becomes clear why theologians who advocated the autonomy of the church were at the same time proponents of the theocratic idea: if the monarch is a special person of the church, then the act of his will (investiture) is an internal act of the church. Vaguely distinguishing between the secular and the sacred, the church expanded in their eyes to a complete universe of social existence, absorbing the state. The right of the tsar to an investiture built his position into a single church hierarchy and subordinated him to the entire church, without giving him full control of the church. Although the hierarchy of secular and ecclesiastical power overlapped in the tsar, for the church the tsar was only a certain function, had limited powers, and was a servant of the church. Therefore, even when the tsar appointed a patriarch, he was not considered the head of the church, as was typical of many Protestant churches. The tsar was engaged in ecclesiastical potestas jurisdictionis nor could he claim potestas magisterii, an area of much greater importance to the church. This ideal construction, aimed at sanctifying the world, was probably relevant until the king himself did not distinguish between the secular and the sacred, sincerely subordinating himself to the service of the church. Until then, even the tsar's conflicts with the first hierarchs were purely internal church problems.

Theology of Power and the Church hierarchy

What was the attitude of the church hierarchy to this division of powers and understanding of the separation of powers? The dynamics and evolution of the position of hierarchs from the exaltation of the tsar to the struggle against the hypertrophied ecclesiastical significance of the tsarist power illustrate the boundaries of the unity of the church and the tsar. At the beginning of the Moscow era, the primates of the Church, along with the unification of the state, are increasingly rallying dioceses around themselves and receiving in the community-

48. An example of this is not only relations with the external church authorities, when Ivan III patiently waited for decades for Constantinople to recognize the independence of the Moscow Metropolis, but also with the internal one, when even the conflict with Nikon required a long-term conciliar trial. See Kartashov A. Ocherki po istorii russkoy tserkvi [Essays on the History of the Russian Church], vol. 2, Moscow, 1991, p. 200.

page 63
it is becoming increasingly significant. The contribution of the Moscow metropolitans in the XV and XVI centuries (St. Peter, St. Alexy, St. Jonah, St. Philip, St. Hermogenes, St. Macarius) to the rapprochement of the church and the Moscow state was very great. G. Fedotov wrote about Metropolitan Alexy, who could be called a politician at the altar: "Modern chronicles are full of his deeds for the state. The metropolitan devoted his brilliant abilities to the construction of the state of Moscow and did more for this than any of the princes who succeeded Ivan Kalita... The victory at Kulikovo Field was the result of his efforts. " 49 The Moscow metropolitans used their authority and spiritual authority to give the Grand Duke of Moscow the authority befitting a head of state. The complex of ideas that formed the basis of the official union of the tsar and the church was developed and voiced by Joseph of Volokolamsk, who saw the strengthening of the tsar and the kingdom as a way to strengthen the church. For a long time, a certain parity was observed between the head of state power and the head of spiritual power, so that in the absence of the tsar, metropolitans and patriarchs assumed state power and received the royal title "Great Sovereign".

It is worth mentioning the significance for Russian socio-religious thought of Ivan the Terrible's contemporary, Metropolitan Makarii of Moscow, who headed the metropolitan see from 1542 to 1564. Through his activities, Makarii set a spiritual direction for the Russian state - the gathering of Holy Russia, the subordination of a common religious and state ideology. "Not a bold denouncer of tsarist vices, but also not a rude flatterer of them," as N. Karamzin writes about him50, Macarius was far from the theocratic pathos of Ivan the Terrible, but he asked and confirmed with his authority the correctness of this direction: "You, sire, God, instead of Himself, chose on earth and on the throne I ascended, entrusting you with the mercy and life of all great Orthodoxy. " 51
Metropolitan Macarius developed the rite of crowning the tsar and crowned Ivan IV, marking the culmination point in the development of the" theology of power", giving the theoretical ideologeme a sacramental force. As B. Uspensky notes, in Russia there was a complete identification of the anointing of the tsar with myrrh, which

49. Fedotov G. Svyatye drevnoi Rus ' [The Saints of Ancient Russia], Moscow: Moskovskiy rabochy Publ., 1991, p.107.

50. Karamzin N. M. Istoriya gosudarstva Rossiiskogo [History of the Russian state]. Volume IX / / History of Russia. Electronic edition, Moscow, 2005, p. 2573.

51.Cit. by: Zenkovsky V. Istoriya russkoi filosofii [History of Russian Philosophy], Vol. 1, Moscow, 2000, part 1, p. 48.

page 64
This is typical of both the Byzantine and Western traditions, with the sacrament of chrismation performed in the Orthodox Church immediately after baptism.52 If the proclamation "Holy, Holy, Holy" when anointing the Byzantine emperor with myrrh refers, in fact, to the Old Testament tradition of anointing the kingdom (Isaiah, VI, 3), indicates God's choice and likens the emperor to the Old Testament kings, then the words "Seal and gift of the Holy Spirit", as is customary in the sacrament of chrismation, likens king directly to Christ, whom he " anointed... God by the Holy Spirit "(Acts X, 38). Analyzing this rite, Ouspensky emphasizes that it is completely similar to the rite of baptism, that is, in fact, if it does not cancel baptism, then it is a baptism of a second, higher order.

At the same time, the "royal place"in the middle of the church, where the wedding is performed, correlates with the "royal doors" leading to the altar... Two kings - the heavenly and the earthly-are as if spatially opposed in the temple... The anointing of the king determines the special liturgical status of the king, which is manifested in the nature of his communion with the holy Mysteries. After the introduction of chrismation into the rite of ordination, the king's communion begins to differ from that of the laity, to some extent approaching that of the clergy. Later (from the middle of the 17th century), the tsar began to receive communion in exactly the same way as the clergy receive communion. 53
This special quality of chrismation, which distinguishes the tsar from the laity, was firmly assimilated in late Russian theology:

Who does not know that our most pious Sovereigns, on their accession to the throne, receive the holy Anointing for Their great service on the same day as they receive the crown and other signs of Their Majesty? This is not a repetition of the Anointing; no, the Anointing of Myrrh is not repeated, as is Baptism, the spiritual birth; but another, the highest degree of communication of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, is required for the other-

52. See Uspensky B. A. Tsar and Patriarch: Charisma of Power in Russia. The Byzantine Model and its Russian Reinterpretation, Moscow: Yazyki russkoi kul'tury, 1998, p. 22.

53. Uspensky B. A. Tsar and Patriarch: the charisma of power in Russia. p. 24. Cf. Gorsky A.V. On the sacred act of wedding and anointing of tsars to the kingdom. Moscow, 1882; Kartashov A. The emergence of the cathedral power of the Tsar under Constantine the Great, its theological justification and its church perception / / Kirche und Kosmos. Orthodoxes und Evangelisches Christentum. Hf. 2. Witten: Luther-Verlag, 1950.

page 65
exalted state and service... The holy anointing of kings is a different, higher degree of sacrament, a special Spirit descending on the Head of the nations.54
The consecration of the tsar's mission and status could not fail to lead to changes in the relations between church and state, church and tsar. Reaching this point in its meaning marked an act that removes / abolishes the institutional boundary between the church and the state. However, the movement towards it was the "proper word" and the pulse of Russian political theology.

The growing importance and "sacred" weight of the tsar, however, necessarily led to a reduction in the institutional weight of the church. The church hierarchy couldn't help but feel this. Although the Moscow era was waiting for another solemn event - the installation of the patriarch, from the middle of the XVI century, a period of latent growth of church opposition to the strengthening of autocratic power begins. The development of the doctrine of disobedience to an unrighteous king belongs to this era.

The foundations of this teaching were first developed/presented by Joseph of Volokolamsk. Since, in his opinion, the king is eschatologically close not only to God, but also to Satan, he not only seeks the gifts of grace, but is also in constant danger of falling into sin. Therefore, a Christian has the right to disobey a malicious ruler. One can submit to such a ruler only with the body, but not with the soul: "It is fitting for those to worship and serve the body, and not the soul, and to give them royal honor, and not divine." Josephus states the limits of tyranny that justify such disobedience: "If a king rules over people, but is subject to sin and passions, greed and rage, cunning and lies, especially to unbelievers and despises religion, then this king is not a servant of God, but one of the children of Satan, and he is not a king, but a tyrant. To this king... you don't have to obey, even if he threatens you with death. For the Apostles... they died, but their decrees were not followed. " 55 It is the Christian's duty to resist such rulers. Joseph, of course, admits only the possibility of passive resistance and directs it against the person, and not against the power itself.

54. Ignatius, Archbishop of Voronezh and Zadonsk. On the Sacraments of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, St. Petersburg, 1849, p. 143.

55. Ibid., p. 96.

page 66
A landmark historical event in the development of relations between the tsar and the church hierarchy was the conflict between Ivan the Terrible and Metropolitan Philip of Moscow. Elevated to the metropolitanate by the tsar himself, he actively opposed the Oprichnina, "grieving" the tsar about the unjust executions.

Dear King and Grand Duke, how long do you want to shed the innocent blood of your loyal subjects and Christians? How long will injustice prevail in Russia? Tatars and pagans, as well as the whole world, say that all peoples have a law and truth, only the Russians do not have them. All over the world, criminals seek and find mercy from the powerful, but in Russia there is no mercy, and there is no mercy for the innocent and the right. Think that you, even if God has exalted you in the world, are mortal, and that God will charge you for innocent blood. The stones will scream and complain about you. I have to tell you this, even if I have to die for it."

In an effort to appease the voice of the church, the " people's conscience "and to deprive the hierarch of the right to" mourn", Ivan removed Philip from the metropolia and subsequently ordered him to be put to death. "The great shepherd of the Russian Church, a martyr for the sacred custom of mourning, fell undefeated, marking the great moral strength of the church," writes S. M. Solovyov.57 The episode of the metropolitan's clash with the tsar is a unique case in Russian history of open resistance of the church primate to the unrighteous power.

This case marked new and significantly narrowed boundaries of the church's influence on social realities. However, the final historical page in the evolution of the "theology of power", which changed the self-understanding of the church, was the conflict between the royal and patriarchal authorities under Nikon.

Nikon marks an era when patriarchal power was already established (Patriarch Filaret [Romanov], the father of Tsar Michael, was the de facto co-ruler of the monarch). From the very beginning, Nikon was captured by the idea of raising the patriarchal power. He was perhaps the only first hierarch who appointed and removed bishops without notifying the sovereign. But despite the fact that " ti-

56.Cit. By: Fedotov G. Sveti Filip, Metropolitan of Moscow, Moscow: Moskovskiy rabochy Publ., 1991, p. 75.

57. Solov'ev S. M. Istoriya Rossii s drevneyshikh vremen [History of Russia since ancient times]. Book III / / History of Russia. Electronic edition, Moscow, 2005, p. 8702.

page 67
shaishy " Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich was, like no other, the personification of the image of a pious Orthodox tsar and the patriarch was connected with the tsar by personal friendship, by this time political decisions were made that radically changed the appearance of the church-state symphony.

In 1649, in accordance with the Addition, the most representative legislative code of the entire Moscow era, the Monastery Order was created, which transferred all matters relating to church affairs to the state. In particular, the Monastery order began to pass cases of appointments to the places of the mass of clergy. Ecclesiastical possessions were also subject to this department, as well as fees from all ecclesiastical possessions, with the exception of patriarchal estates. The Council approved a new border for them: a complete ban was imposed on any expansion of church possessions, and estates in Moscow and the Moscow region were withdrawn from the church. This was, in fact, the first act of land secularization. Resistance to this policy ultimately ended in conflict with the tsar. The inter - patriarchal period lasted for more than seven years (1658-1666), until in 1666 the church council deprived Nikon of his dignity.

An interesting document is the letters requested by the tsarist government and sent by the Eastern patriarchs to justify the legitimacy of the deposition of Patriarch Nikon: "Answers of the patriarchs" and "Rules concerning the power of the tsar and the power of the church". They defined the jurisdiction of the tsar in relation to the church and established the limits of the tsar's power in relation to the patriarch and the episcopate. It is interesting to note that the "Answers", instead of indicating what the patriarch can do, say nothing about the sphere of spiritual affairs, but they do speak about the sphere of civil affairs and thus formulate the rights to the unlimited competence of the king:"The Patriarch is obedient to the king, who is placed on the highest dignity and avenger of God." Although the "Rules" required the tsar to act in accordance with the canons of the church, they also allowed him to simply remove the latter in the event of a conflict with the patriarch. Based on the principle of the "divine right of the sovereign", they unequivocally asserted the superiority of state power over church power: "No one has a bit of freedom and can resist the royal command - for there is a law"58.

58. Nikolin A. Tserkva i gosudarstvo [Church and State]. Istoriya pravovykh otnosheniy [History of Legal Relations], Moscow: Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 1997, p. 73_74.
page 68
In the history of the Russian Church, this page is interesting because Patriarch Nikon unexpectedly expressed the concept of the superiority of priestly power over tsarist power. Despite the fact that such an attack was exceptional for the Russian Church, there is no reason to consider it accidental and illogical, to accuse Nikon of Western "Papocesarism". The Patriarchate was established not so long ago in Russia, but it already had a solid foundation, which significantly raised its importance in comparison with the metropolis. Thus, the autocracy took this growth very seriously, which could only mitigate the strengthening of patriarchal power by completely eradicating it.

In the run-up to the council's trial, Nikon developed his concept quite thoroughly in the book "Objections or ruin of the mortal Nikon, by the grace of God of the Patriarch, against the questions of the boyar S. Streshnev, who wrote to the Metropolitan of Gaza Paisius Ligaridius and on the answers of Paiseova". This work was, of course, influenced by Western theology. Since the time of the struggle against the "heresy of the Jews", translations of the Vulgate and sacred books from Latin into Church Slavonic have been introduced into the Russian written tradition. The apocryphal rule of the Sixth Ecumenical Council on the correlation of two powers (in the Latin spirit of the theory of two swords) was also included in the first Russian Bible, the so-called Gennadievskaya Bible. This theory was already felt in the Josephite tradition and was enthusiastically adopted by Nikon.

According to Nikon, the priesthood is superior to the kingdom because of its superior tasks and powers. The priesthood is closer to God, and that decides everything.

And between God and human nature stands the priest, who by no means reduces honor to us, who raises supplications from us... For this reason also kings are anointed by the priest's hand, and not priests by the king's hands. And bringing the most royal head under priestly hands, God supposes, punishes us, because this one is the greater ruler, for the lesser is blessed by the greater... The king is entrusted to those here, and Az to those in heaven. We entrust the king to our bodies, and the priest to our souls. The king leaves debts to his estates, but the priest leaves debts to his trespasses. He forces, and sometimes comforts. He is needed, this time by advice. He is the sensual part of them, and this is the spiritual part. He inveighed against his enemies, but he was the beginning and world-bearer of the darkness of this world. And for this reason: the priesthood of the kingdom is most present 59.

59. Kartashov A. Ocherki po istorii russkoy tserkvi [Essays on the History of the Russian Church], vol. 2, Moscow, 1991, p. 195.

page 69
Nikon also sees the inequality of power in the fate of the church's history. Already on the extreme edge of confrontation, when he had nothing to lose, Nikon resolutely belittles the royal power not only as spiritually inferior, but also as historically late. The kingdom, he insists, is given by God in anger as a response to the earthly imperfections of society: "The priesthood is not of man, nor of man, but of God himself, both ancient and present, and not of kings. But even more than that, the kingdom came forth from the priesthood and still exists: just as the statute of royal ordination bears witness. The priesthood everywhere is the most honorable kingdom, as above on the banners of the divine Scripture. And now pack up the speech: the kingdom even if you are given from God into the world, but in the wrath of God... The power of the priesthood is only as good as civil rights are, as good as the earth is heaven. " 60
Nikon accuses Tsar Alexey of violating the God-established system and hierarchy of authorities. He not only "received the rank of prelate and the power of the church". He also "robbed the holy church." Along with Metropolitan Makarii, Nikon considers the church's possessions "forever inviolable." He writes to the Patriarch of Constantinople with indignation about what the bishops had previously put up with: "Everything is now the king's will... When a deacon, presbyter, abbot, or archimandrite wishes to be ordained, he writes a petition to the tsar's Majesty and asks for orders that the metropolitan or archbishop consecrate him... And sitse consecrate them with the royal word... And when the king of genesis commands the council, then it happens. And Kovo orders to be elected and appointed, to be a bishop, to be elected and appointed. And kovo commands them to judge and discuss, and they judge and discuss and excommunicate. " 61
We must pay tribute to the steadfastness and consistency of Nikon, who in the seven years allotted for a compromise did not come to the tsar with a reconciliation. Like the Old Believers who were condemned to persecution, Nikon called for resistance and struggle with the state for the "gospel law", "like the first Martyrs". He revels in extreme conclusions, declaring the entire canonical life of the church after his resignation interrupted and, as a result of new "wrong" appointments, overthrown:"And so for the sake of lawlessness, everything was abolished: the prelacy and the priesthood and Christianity - from small to great" 62.

60. Kartashov A. Ocherki po istorii russkoy tserkvi [Essays on the History of the Russian Church], vol. 2, p. 196.

61. Ibid., p. 197.

62. Ibid., p. 199.

page 70
in his dialectic with those whom he had recently arbitrarily persecuted, Nikon exclaims:: "As the time of the Antichrist is."

Nikon was able to express the extreme pole of Moscow's political theology, which had never before been emphasized by church writers who exalted the tsarist power. In their worldview, spiritual power is immeasurably higher than earthly power. But many of them, unlike Nikon, did not even try to separate her from the tsar. In their views, the concept of secularism was not formulated, and even more so this concept was not identified with the power of the king. The differentiation of these concepts, the differentiation of the boundaries between the church and the state, was the result of institutional changes carried out by the state itself. The discovery of the" secular " beginning of tsarist power was an unexpected consequence for both sides of the infringement of the church and easily destroyed the building of the Moscow theology of power that had been erected for centuries. A generation later, the autocrat of Russia, Peter I, boldly rewrites the canonical church constitution, and the church hierarchs, not openly opposing secular power, like Nikon, silently deny it the fullness of the church ideal, practically withdrawing from public service. The Church has lost its critical voice, limiting itself to questions of dogma and worship. The era of political theology-in the form of the theocratic "state of truth" - is over.

Bibliography/References

Akhiezer A. S. Kritika istoricheskogo opyta Rossii [Criticism of the historical experience of Russia]. In 3 volumes Novosibirsk: "Siberian Chronograph", 1997.

Berdyaev N. Russian idea // History of philosophy. Electronic edition, Moscow, 2005.

Budovnits I. Ideological Struggle in Russian Journalism, Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1960.

Veselovsky S. B. Issledovaniya po istorii oprichniny [Research on the history of the Oprichnina]. Moscow: Izd. Akademii nauk SSSR, 1963.

Ivan the Terrible, Moscow: Delfin Publ., 1922.

Gorsky A.V. On the sacred act of wedding and anointing the kings of the kingdom. Moscow, 1882. Old Russian Literature: The Correspondence of Prince A. Kurbsky with Ivan the Terrible, L., 1979.

Zenkovsky V. Istoriya russkoi filosofii [History of Russian Philosophy], vol. 1, Moscow, 2000.

Zimin A. A. Oprichnina Ivana Groznogo [Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible]. Moscow: Mysl', 1964.

Ignatius, Archbishop of Voronezh and Zadonsk. On the Sacraments of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, St. Petersburg, 1849.

John, mitr. St. Petersburg and Ladoga. Autocracy of the spirit. Ocherki russkogo samosoznaniya [Essays on Russian Self-consciousness], St. Petersburg: L. S. Yakovleva Publishing House, 1994.

page 71
Joseph of Volokolamsk. Educator. Valaam: Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaam Monastery, 1994.

Isaev I. A., Zolotukhina N. M. Istoriya politicheskikh i pravovykh ucheniy Rossii [History of political and legal doctrines of Russia].

Karamzin N. M. Istoriya gosudarstva Rossiiskogo [History of the Russian State]. Electronic edition, Moscow, 2005.

Kartashova Street. Essays on the History of the Russian Church, vol. 2, Moscow, 1991.

Kartashov A. The emergence of the conciliar power of the Tsar under Constantine the Great, its theological justification and its Church perception / / Kirche und Kosmos. Orthodoxes und Evangelisches Christentum. Hf. 2. Witten: Luther-Verlag, 1950.

Klyuchevsky V. O. Course of Russian history. Volume 2 / / History of Russia. Electronic edition, Moscow, 2005.

Lebedev A. P. Clergy of the ancient Ecumenical Church from Apostolic times to the X century. St. Petersburg: Aleteya Publ., 1997.

Likhachev D. S. Natsionalnoe samosoznanie Drevnoi Rus ' [National identity of Ancient Russia]. Moscow: Izd. Akademii nauk SSSR, 1945.

Malinin V. Elder of the Eleazar Monastery Filofey and his epistles. Kiev: Printing House of the Kiev Pechersk Assumption Lavra, 1901. Applications.

Nikolin A. Tserkva i gosudarstvo [Church and State]. Istoriya pravovykh otnosheniy [History of Legal Relations], Moscow: Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 1997.

Peresvetov I. Bolshaya Chelobitnaya [Big Petition] / / Works of I. Peresvetov, Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1956.

Peresvetov I. Malaya Chelobitnaya [Small Petition] / / Works of I. Peresvetov, Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1956.

Platonov S. F. Essays on the history of Troubles in the Moscow State of the XVI-XVII centuries. The experience of studying social structure and class relations in the time of Troubles. Moscow: Monuments of historical thought, 1994.

The tale of the murder of Andrey Bogolyubsky / / Monuments of Literature of Ancient Russia. XII century. Moscow, 1980.

Pokrovsky V. S. Istoriya russkoi politicheskoi mysli [History of Russian Political Thought]. lit-ry, 1951. Messages of Ivan the Terrible, Moscow, 1950.

Poray-Koshits I. History of the Russian nobility // History of Russia. Electronic edition, Moscow, 2005.

Simeon of Polotsk. Selected Works, Moscow-L., 1953.

Solov'ev S. M. Istoriya Rossii s drevneyshikh vremeni [History of Russia since ancient Times]. Electronic edition, Moscow, 2005.

Elder Philotheus. Message about unfavorable days and hours / / Russian philosophical thought of the XI-XVII centuries. Issue 1. Electronic edition. Moscow, 2006.

Uspensky B. A. Tsar and Patriarch: Charisma of Power in Russia. The Byzantine Model and its Russian Reinterpretation, Moscow: Yazyki russkoy kul'tury, 1998.

Fedotov G. St. Philip, Metropolitan of Moscow. Paris, 1928. Fedotov G. Svyatye drevnoi Rus ' [The Saints of Ancient Russia], Moscow: Moskovskiy rabochy Publ., 1991. Florovsky G. Puti russkogo bogosloviya [Ways of Russian Theology]. Paris, 1937.

Chaev N. S. Moscow - the Third Rome in the political practice of the Moscow State // Historical notes. 1945. Vol. 17.

page 72
Akhiezer, A. S. (1997) Kritika istoricheskogo opyta Rossii. V 3-kh t. [Critique of Russian Historical Experience. In 3 volumes]. Novosibirsk: "Sibirskii khronograf".

Berdiaev, N. (2005) "Russkaia ideia", in Istoriia filosofii ["The Russian Idea", in History of Philosophy]. Elektronnoe izdanie. Moscow.

Budovnits, I.U. (1960) Ideologicheskaia bor'ba v russkoi publitsistike [Ideological Struggle in Russian Publicism]. Moscow: Izd-vo Akademii nauk SSSR.

Chaev, N. S. (1945) "Moskva -tretii Rim v politicheskoi praktike Moskovskogo gosudarstva" ["Moscow the Third Rome"in Political Practice of Moscow State], Istoricheskie zapiski. T. 17.

Drevnerusskaia literatura: Perepiska kn. A.Kurbskogo s Ivanom Groznym [Ancient Russian Literature: Correspondence between A. Kurbskiy and Ivan the Terrible]. (1979) Leningrad.

Fedotov, G. (1991) Sviatye drevnei Rusi [Saints of Ancient Rus]. M.: Moskovskii rabochii.

Fedotov, G. (1928) Sviatoi Filipp, mitropolit Moskovskii [Saint Philip, Metropolitan of Moscow]. Parizh.

Florovskii, G. (1937) Puti russkogo bogosloviia [The Pathways of Russian Theology]. Parizh.

Gnagi, A. (1970) Katholische Kirche und Demokratie: ein dogmengeschichtlicher Uberblick uber das grundsatzliche Verhaltnis der katholischen Kirche zur demokratischen Staatsreform. Zurich: Benziger Verlag.

Gorskii, A. V. (1882) О sviashchennodeistvii venchaniia i pomazanii tsarei na tsarstvo [On the Sacrament of Coronation and Anointing of Tsars]. Moscow.

Ignatii, arkhiepiskop Voronezhskii i Zadonskii. (1849) О tainstvakh edinoi, sviatoi, sobornoi i apostol'skoi Tserkvi [On Sacraments of Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church]. Saint-Petersburg.

Ioann, mitr. Sankt-Peterburgskii i Ladozhskii. (1994) Samoderzhavie dukha. Ocherki russkogo samosoznaniia [Autocracy of Spirit. Essays on Russian Self-consciousness]. Saint-Petersburg: Izdatel'stvo L. S. Iakovlevoi.

Iosif Volokolamskii. (1994) Prosvetitel' [The Enlightener]. Valaam: Spaso-Preobrazhenskii Valaamskii monastyr'.

Isaev, I. A., Zolotukhina N. M. (1995) Istoriia politicheskikh ipravovykh uchenii Rossii [History of Russian Political and Legal Teachings]. Moscow: Iurist.

Karamzin, N. M. (2005) "Istoriia gosudarstva Rossiiskogo. Tom VIII", in Istoriia Rossii ["History of Russian State", in History of Russia]. Elektronnoe izdanie. Moscow.

Kartashov, A. (1950) "Vozniknovenie sobornoi vlasti tsaria pri Konstantine Velikom, ее bogoslovskoe obosnovanie i ее tserkovnoe vospriiatie" [The Rise of Tsar's Catholic Power in Times of Constantine the Great, Its Theological Explanations and Church Perception], Kirche und Kosmos. Orthodoxes und Evangelisches Christentum. Hf. 2. Witten: Luther-Verlag.

Kartashov, A. (1991) Ocherki po istorii russkoi tserkvi [Essays on the Histiry of Russian Church]. T. 2. Moscow.

Kliuchevskii, V. O. (2005) "Kurs russkoi istorii". Tom 2 ["The Course on Russian History", in History of Russia], in Istoriia Rossii. Elektronnoe izdanie. Moscow.

Lebedev, A. P. (1997) Dukhovenstvo drevnei Vselenskoi Tserkvi ot vremen apostol'skikh do X veka [The Priesthood of Ancient Universal Church since the Times of Apostles till the Xth Century]. Saint-Petersburg.: Aleteiia.

Likhachev, D. S. (1945) Natsional'noe samosoznanie Drevnei Rusi [National Self-consciousness of Ancient Rus]. Moscow: Izd-vo Akademii nauk SSSR.

page 73
Malinin, V. (1901) Starets Eleazarova monastyria Filofei i ego poslaniia [Philotheus, Monk of Yelizarov Monastery, and his Epistles]. Kiev: Tipografiia Kievo-Pecherskoi Uspenskoi lavry. Prilozheniia.

Nikolin, A. (1997) Tserkov'i gosudarstvo. Istoriia pravovykh otnoshenii [Church and State. History of Legal Relations]. Moscow: Izd-vo Sretenskogo monastyria.

Peresvetov, I. (1956) "Bol'shaia Chelobitnaia", Sochineniia I. Peresvetova ["Big Epistle", in Works by I.Peresvetov]. Moscow: Izd-vo Akademii nauk SSSR.

Peresvetov, I. (1956) "Malaia Chelobitnaia", Sochineniia I. Peresvetova ["Small Epistle", in Works by I.Peresvetov]. Moscow: Izd-vo Akademii nauk SSSR.

Platonov, S.F. (1994) Ocherki po istorii Smuty v Moskovskom gosudarstve XVI-XVII vv. Opyt izucheniia obshchestvennogo stroia i soslovnykh otnoshenii v Smutnoe uremia [Essays on the History of the Time of Troubles in Moscow State of XVI-XVII Centuries. Studying Social Order and Relations between Estates in the Time of Trouble]. Moscow: Pamiatniki istoricheskoi mysli.

Pokrovskii, V. S. (1951) Istoriia russkoi politicheskoi mysli. V. 1 [History of Russian Political Thought. Vol. 1]. Moscow: Gos. izd-vo iurid. lit-ry

Porai-Koshits, I. (2005) "Istoriia Russkogo dvorianstva", in Istoriia Rossii ["The History of Russian Nobility", in History of Russia]. Elektronnoe izdanie. Moscow.

Poslaniia Ivana Groznogo [Epistles of Ivan the Terrible] (1950). Moscow.

"Povest'ob ubienii Andreia Bogoliubskogo" (1980), in Pamiatniki literatury Drevnei Rusi. XII vek ["A Story of Andrey Bogolyubsky's Murder", in Monuments of Literature of Ancient Rus of the 12 century]. Moscow.

Simeon Polotskii. (1953) Izbrannye sochineniia [Selected Works]. Moscow-Leningrad.

Solov'ev, S. M. (2005) "Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen", in Istoriia Rossii ["The History of Russia since Ancient Times", in The History of Russia]. Elektronnoe izdanie. Moscow.

Starets Filofei. (2006) "Poslanie о neblagopriiatnykh dniakh i chasakh", in Russkaia filosofskaia mysl' XI-XVII v. Vyp. 1 ["Epistle on Inauspicious Days and Hours", in Russian Philosophical Thought of XI-XVII centuries]. Elektronnoe izdanie. Moscow.

Struve, T. (1985) "Investiturstreit", Pipers Handbuch der politischen Ideen. Bd. 2. Miinchen-Zurich: Piper.

Toomanoff, C. (1955) "Moscow the Third Rome: Genesis and Significance of a Politico-Religious Idea", Catholic Historical Review 40 (4): 411 - 447.

Uspenskii, B. A. (1998) Tsar' i patriarkh: kharizma vlasti v Rossii. Vizantiiskaia model'i ее russkoe pereosmyslenie [Tsar and Patriarch: The Charisma of Power in Russia. Byzantine Model and Its Russian Reconsideration]. M.: Iazyki russkoi kul'tury.

Veselovskii, S. B. (1963) Issledovaniia po istorii oprichniny [Studies in the History of Oprichnina]. M.: Izd-vo Akademii nauk SSSR.

Vipper, R. Iu. (1922) Ivan Groznyi [Ivan the Terrible]. Moscow: Del'fin.

Zen'kovskii, V. (2000) Istoriia russkoi filosofii. T. 1 [History of Russian Philosophy. Vol. 1]. Moscow.

Zimin, A. A. (1964) Oprichnina Ivana Groznogo [Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible]. Moscow: Mysl'.

page 74

Permanent link to this publication: