Solovetsky uprising against church reform. Solovetsky uprising: a brief history

State educational institution

higher professional education

"Pomeranian State University" named after. M.V. Lomonosov Severodvinsk branch

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

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

Department of Russian Language and Literature

Sharina Valentina Vladimirovna

Severodvinsk

Introduction

The beginning of discontent

Participants of the uprising

Stages of the uprising

Fall of the Monastery

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

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

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

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

1. The beginning of discontent

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

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

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

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

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

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

Participants of the uprising

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stages of the uprising

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fall of the Monastery

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

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

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

“The defeat of the Solovetsky Monastery occurred in January 1676. This was the second time after the defeat of the peasant war by S.T. Razin’s blow to the popular movement. Soon after the suppression of the uprising, the government sent trustworthy monks from other monasteries to Solovki, ready to pray for the tsar and the reformed church.

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Solovetsky Monastery uprising

Bibliography

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

Our region in the history of the USSR // under. Ed. G.G. Frumenkova. - Arkhangelsk: North-Western Book Publishing House, 1974. - p. 20 - 23.

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

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

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

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

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

He spoke out against them, on the side of the Old Believers. This performance was led by Archimandrite Ilya himself. When the newly printed Nikon service books were sent to the Solovetsky monks in 1657, the archimandrite and his entourage hid them. The following year, Ilya convened the entire Solovetsky brethren and exhorted them to stand up for Orthodoxy and not accept “Latin” innovations. The monks signed a general verdict so that the priests would not dare to serve using newly printed books. Ilya and his assistants began to spread Old Believer propaganda throughout the Pomeranian region. Ilya soon died. The new archimandrite of the Solovetsky monastery, Bartholomew, tried to cancel the aforementioned sentence and introduce new books, but to no avail; staunch adherence to the Old Believers and the preaching of the coming of the time of the Antichrist have already become firmly entrenched among the brethren and the surrounding population.

Solovetsky Monastery. Photo from 1915

Bartholomew was summoned to Moscow for the council of 1666-1667, which finally approved Nikon's reforms. The brethren of the Solovetsky Monastery instructed him to submit a petition to the cathedral for the abandonment of antiquity. The archimandrite said that he tried to introduce new books, but without success. A petition was sent to the cathedral from some Solovetsky elders, accusing Bartholomew of drunkenness, covetousness and asking to give her a different abbot. But another petition also came, from the cellarer who had leaned towards the government and some of the monks - they complained that the “schismatics” were starting rebellions in the Solovetsky Monastery. To investigate, the cathedral sent a commission to Solovki headed by Yaroslavl-Spassky Archimandrite Sergius and accompanied by a streltsy detachment. The Solovetsky monks received her with extreme hostility. When the commission began to read the conciliar charter in the church, the brethren raised a cry against triplicity, three-toed hallelujah and new books. The one who shouted most was the former archimandrite of the Sava-Storozhevsky Monastery, beloved by the Tsar, Nikanor, who retired to the Solovetsky monastery. The commission went back without achieving anything. And the brethren sent new petitions to the sovereign about leaving the old books. In Moscow, Bartholomew was dismissed and another archimandrite, Joseph, was appointed to the Solovetsky Monastery. When he arrived there, the brethren asked him how he would serve: using old or new books. Joseph read the royal decree on the introduction of Nikon’s books. He was not allowed to become the abbot and was expelled from the monastery; and they again sent a petition to the king asking him to leave the old order. Then, in December 1667, the tsar ordered the Solovetsky estates to be taken away from the treasury and the supply of grain supplies to the monastery to be stopped. The Moscow Council of 1667 pronounced an anathema on disobedient monks. But the Solovetsky brethren did not submit, and in 1668 Volokhov’s rifle detachment was sent to the monastery. The monks, with many of the laymen who were in exile and on pilgrimage, armed themselves and sat under siege. Thus began the Solovetsky Uprising, which lasted eight years (1668-1676).

The uprising of the Old Believers of the Solovetsky Monastery against Nikonian books in 1668. Artist S. Miloradovich, 1885

The Solovetsky Monastery was a fairly strong fortress and had all the means for long-term defense. Its island position on a distant sea, encased in ice for six months, served as the best protection. The walls of the Solovetsky Monastery were armed with cannons and arquebuses (up to 90 guns in total). Up to 900 poods of gunpowder were prepared. Bread and food supplies were collected for almost ten years; Moreover, communications with the shore and the delivery of provisions did not stop for a long time. The garrison of Solovki exceeded 500 people, including up to 200 monks and novices and more than 300 laymen: peasants, runaway slaves, archers, Don Cossacks and even foreigners - Swedes, Poles, Tatars. Zeal for the old faith gave participants in the Solovetsky Uprising great moral strength. The Solovki residents threw the newly printed books they had sent into the sea. The solicitor Volokhov, who was sent to suppress the Solovetsky uprising with a detachment of riflemen of one hundred and fifty men, did not even dare to besiege the monastery; The rebels gave a bold response to his admonitions.

Voivode Volokhov stood on Hare Island, 5 versts from the monastery; but, having achieved nothing, he retired to solid ground for the winter. He set up a weak outpost in the Kemsky town, ostensibly with the goal of not allowing supplies into the monastery, and he himself settled nearby in the Sumsky fort and began to exact taxes from the monastery volosts. Here he got into an argument with Archimandrite Joseph. Expelled from the Solovetsky monastery after the start of the uprising, Joseph settled on the same Hare Island, from where he ruled the Sumy and Kem monastery estates and all sorts of crafts. Joseph complained to Moscow about Volokhov’s extortion, and the latter reported that the archimandrite and his elders were drinking, did not pray to God for the sovereign’s health, and even cared for the participants in the Solovetsky uprising. The dispute flared up to the point that Volokhov hit the archimandrite on the cheeks, pulled his beard and ordered the archers to put him on a chain. Both opponents were summoned to Moscow and never returned to the White Sea.

To suppress the Solovetsky uprising, instead of Volokhov, the Streltsy head of Ievlev was sent to 1672 with reinforcements of 600 Streltsy from Kholmogory and Arkhangelsk. But these archers were people “not trained in infantry formation.” In August 1672, the governor with 725 people approached the monastery, but limited himself to burning nearby farm buildings, killing cattle and also went to the Sumy prison, citing a lack of gunpowder and lead. Here, following the example of Volokhov, he began to oppress the peasants of the Solovetsky Monastery with extortions for the purpose of profit, but under the pretext of collecting food for his detachment.

The following year Ievlev was recalled. Ivan Meshcherinov was entrusted with leading the suppression of the Solovetsky uprising with new reinforcements and a decree “to be on Solovetsky Island relentlessly.” The commanders subordinate to him (foreigners Kohler, Bush, Gutkovsky and Stakhorsky) were supposed to train the archers in infantry formation and shooting; although they themselves were officers of the Reitar system. In the summer of 1674, Meshcherinov collected boats and karbas and landed on Solovetsky Island. It turned out that Ievlev, having set fire to the outbuildings surrounding the monastery, thereby facilitated its defense and made the attack more difficult. These buildings would enable the besiegers to get close to the walls; now they had to act against the Solovetsky rebels in open areas under the fire of the serfs. The ground was rocky, and trenches had to be dug with great difficulty. Having somehow fortified himself with entrenchments, Meshcherinov began to fire at the monastery; from where they also responded with shots. The most ardent rebel was the former Archimandrite of the Savva-Storozhevsky Monastery Nikanor; he blessed the firing of cannons, walked along the towers and sprinkled St. with water, Dutch cannons, saying: “My mother gallanochki, we rely on you.” He ordered to shoot at the commander, saying: “If you hit the shepherd, the military men will scatter like sheep.” Next to Nikanor, at the head of the Solovetsky uprising, were the cellarer Markel, the mayor elder Dorofey, nicknamed Walrus, and the centurions Isachko Voronin and Samko.

Voivode Meshcherinov suppresses the Solovetsky uprising. Lubok of the 19th century

But discord arose among the rebels over the issue of prayers for the great sovereign. Some elders insisted on continuing prayers. On September 16, 1674, participants in the Solovetsky Uprising held a general meeting on this matter. Here Isachko and Samko and their comrades took off their weapons, saying that they no longer wanted to serve, since the priests prayed to God for the great sovereign. Then the cellarer finished them off with his brow, and they put their weapons on again, uttering abusive words at the king. After this, the rebels expelled some black priests from the monastery, while others left on their own, appearing to Meshcherinov, bringing repentance to the sovereign and spreading various defamatory rumors about the participants in the Solovetsky uprising. The repentant priests agreed to accept the newly corrected books and triplets. After the removal of the priests, there was almost no one to conduct church services in the monastery: but Nikanor said that it was possible to do without priests and without mass, and limit oneself to reading the hours in the church. However, not everyone agreed with him, and strife continued among the rebels, although there was no mention of surrender. Meshcherinov did not dare to spend the winter on the island; but he ruined his trenches and, following the example of his predecessors, sailed from the Solovetsky Monastery for the winter in the Sumy prison, contrary to orders from Moscow.

The same thing that happened under Volokhov and Ievlev was repeated there. Complaints were sent to Moscow about the oppression and selfishness of the governor Meshcherinov, who, under the guise of collecting feed, carried out extortions in the Sumy district and even sent his own measure to collect grain reserves, which included 22 pounds to spare against the state budget! Letters of reprimand to the governor arrived from Moscow, but they remained without effect.

In the summer of 1675, Meshcherinov again landed at the monastery, having more than 1000 military men, guns and supplies in abundance. This time he decided to besiege the participants of the Solovetsky uprising in winter, for which he built 13 earthen towns with cannons around the monastery and dug under three towers. But the siege would have dragged on for a long time if treason had not helped. In November, the monk Feoktist ran away from the monastery. He pointed out to Meshcherinov the weak point of the rebels’ defense: a window lightly blocked with stones under the drying rack near the White Tower. The voivode did not heed this instruction at first. On December 23, he made an attack and was repulsed with great damage. Only after that Meshcherinov took the advice of Feoktist. On the night of January 22, 1676, he sent a detachment with Major Kashin. Theoktist knew the hour when the guards dispersed to their cells, and only one person remained on the walls. The archers broke out the stones in the window, entered the White Tower and let the army in. By dawn the monastery was in the hands of the royal army; the monks were quickly disarmed. The captured leaders of the Solovetsky uprising - Archimandrite Nikanor and Centurion Samko - were hanged; the less guilty are imprisoned; and the crowd that confessed was spared. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, apparently, did not have time to learn about the capture of the Solovetsky Monastery - he died a few days later. Vladimir Volkonsky was sent to the voivodeship in Solovki, who subjected the covetous Meshcherinov to a wanted list on charges of embezzling part of the monastery treasury.

Based on materials from the book by D. I. Ilovaisky “History of Russia. In 5 volumes. Volume 5. Father of Peter the Great. Alexey Mikhailovich and his immediate successors"

Solovetsky uprising of the Decembrists, Solovetsky uprising of Pugachev
1668-1676

Place

Solovetsky Islands

Cause

refusal to accept the “newly corrected liturgical books”

Bottom line

Suppression of the uprising

Opponents Commanders Losses

unknown

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

1 Background
2 Reasons for the uprising
3 Events
- 3.1 Occupation of the monastery by government troops
4 Solovetsky uprising in Old Believer literature
5 Solovetsky uprising in culture
6 Notes
7 Literature
8 Links

Background

By the beginning of the 17th century, the Solovetsky Monastery had become an important military outpost for the fight against Swedish expansion (Russian-Swedish War (1656-1658)). The monastery was well fortified and armed, and its inhabitants (425 people in 1657) had military skills. Accordingly, the monastery had food supplies in case of an unexpected Swedish blockade. His influence spread widely along the shores of the White Sea (Kem, Sumsky fort). The Pomors actively supplied food to the defenders of the Solovetsky Monastery.

Causes of the uprising

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

Events

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

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

This situation remained until 1673.

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

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

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

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

Occupation of the monastery by government troops

Voivode Meshcherinov suppresses the Solovetsky uprising. Lubok of the 19th century

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

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

Solovetsky uprising in Old Believer literature

Conciliar verdict of the Solovetsky monks on the rejection of newly printed books

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

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

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

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

On January 29 (February 11), the Russian Orthodox Church commemorates the holy martyrs and confessors: Archimandrite Nikanor, Monk Macarius, Centurion Samuel and others like them in the Solovetsky Monastery for the ancient piety of those who suffered. In the Old Believers, it has been performed at least since the end of the 18th century; manuscripts commemorating the Solovetsky martyrs date back to this time.

Solovetsky uprising in culture

In the first episode of the multi-part film “Mikhailo Lomonosov,” a Pomor fisherman tells young Lomonosov the story of the uprising.

Notes

1 2 3 Frumenkov G. G. Solovetsky Monastery and defense of the seaside in the 16th-19th centuries. -Arkhangelsk: North-Western Book Publishing House, 1975
Footnote error?: Invalid tag ; no text specified for multi2 footnotes
Archimandrite Nikanor, Samuel the centurion, Macarius the monk and others like them suffered at the Solovetsky monastery
RPSC calendar
Today is the memory of the holy Solovetsky martyrs, who suffered for ancient piety

Literature

Karelia: encyclopedia: in 3 volumes / chapter. ed. A. F. Titov. T. 3: R - Y. - Petrozavodsk: “PetroPress”, 2011. - 384 p.: ill., map. ISBN 978-5-8430-0127-8 (vol. 3) - page 115
Barsukov N. A. Solovetsky uprising. 1668-1676 - Petrozavodsk: 1954.
Borisov A. M. Economy of the Solovetsky Monastery and the struggle of peasants with northern monasteries in the 16th-17th centuries. - Petrozavodsk: 1966. - Ch. 4.
Frumenkov G. G. Prisoners of the Solovetsky Monastery. - Arkhangelsk: 1965.
Frumenkov G. G. Solovetsky Monastery and the defense of Pomerania in the 16th-19th centuries. - Arkhangelsk: North-Western Book Publishing House, 1975.
Chumicheva O.V. Solovetsky uprising of 1667-1676. - M.: OGI, 2009.
History of the first-class stauropegial Solovetsky Monastery. -St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg. acc. total printing business in Russia E. Evdokimov. Troitskaya, No. 18. 1899
Denisov S. The story of the Solovetsky fathers and sufferers. - M., 2002

Solovetsky Uprising Information About

|
Sep. 6th, 2010 | 02:58 pm

For unknown reasons, in 1653, the brethren of the Solovetsky monastery tried to change their abbot: instead of Archimandrite Elijah, they elected the Solovetsky tonsured bookkeeper Nikanor. On June 16, 1653, Nikanor went to Moscow for assignment, but he was unexpectedly appointed rector of the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery in Zvenigorod, where he remained until 1660. Returning to the Solovetsky Monastery “to retire,” Archimandrite Nikanor became the spiritual leader of the Solovetsky uprising.

the same beginning in the Russian_north

The question of the interpretation of historical events related to the Solovetsky uprising of 1668-1676 is extremely complex and ambiguous. The most complete review of currently known historical documents was carried out in the work of O.V. Chumicheva “Solovetsky uprising of 1668-1676.” (Novosibirsk 1998) In this work, based on archival sources, the course of events during the uprising was restored as objectively as possible and its causes and ideology were analyzed. The author shows that the ideas of rejection of the conciliar decrees of the Russian Church and the tsar’s decrees on serving according to newly printed books arose among the monastery monks and workers, and they also played a major role in organizing armed resistance. This is also evident from the fact that during the siege the monastery was still ruled by the black cathedral. To understand why the smooth flow of monastic life was disrupted by an unprecedented explosion of passions, let us first turn to the historical context in which the correction of liturgical books and rituals was conceived.

staircase to Calvary

In 1646, at the court of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, a circle of “God-lovers,” or “zealots” of piety, was formed, led by the rector of the Annunciation Cathedral in the Moscow Kremlin, Stefan Vonifatiev.
The main goal of the circle was to improve the church and spiritual-moral life of Russian society after the Time of Troubles. Although Russian piety and living faith of the 17th century were worthy of all admiration, ignorance darkened the purity of our ancient doctrine with the invention of new dogmas unknown to the Church; disfigured the majestic order of worship by distorting liturgical books and rituals, and by polyphony in singing and reading. Moreover, it quickly became clear that it is extremely difficult in Russia to establish what is true and to discard absurdities and errors that contradict the charter and spirit of the Church.

After July 25, 1652, Metropolitan Nikon of Novgorod, “ Sobin's friend"Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, was installed as Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', the correct organization of church life in Russia became his immediate responsibility. From the letters of the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah and the Greek Council addressed to the first Russian Patriarch Job, Patriarch Nikon knew what terrible condemnation threatened for every innovation in the rank of the Orthodox Church. Therefore, when on the ancient sakkos of Metropolitan Photius, sent from Greece, he read the original Creed, he was horrified to see that the Symbol in Russian printed books was not similar to it, and likewise, the rite of the then Liturgy differed from the most ancient copies of it. Nikon, as the head of the Church, could not help but consider himself responsible before God for these inconsistencies - this was the starting point of his zeal to bring the entire liturgical order of the Russian Church into agreement with the order of the Universal Church. Patriarch Nikon accomplished what he was called to do and what all the former metropolitans and patriarchs of Moscow from 1464 to 1652 were unable to do before him.
In August 1657, newly corrected service books were sent to Solovki. Under the influence of Archimandrite Elijah, the black cathedral, without delving into the essence of the corrections and fearing the supposedly contained in them “ many heresies and evil innovations", defined them as " scripture of the servants of Antichrist, Latin heresy" and sentenced: the new service books should be put aside, and the service should be continued as before, as it was under the miracle workers.

In the absence of the Patriarch, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich essentially took charge of the management of church affairs. His previous activities: the adoption of the Council Code (1649), which limited monastic land ownership and abolished the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of church people in civil and criminal cases; the tsar’s active participation in Nikon’s reform and the brutal persecution of its opponents; the growing trend towards secularization of public life; the intensification of international contacts of Rus' (communication with heretics - Latins and Lutherans) - all this gave the Solovetsky monks a reason to mistrust the tsar in matters of piety. Therefore, the unrest in the Solovetsky Monastery, without being suppressed at the very beginning, gained strength. There were several reasons for this: firstly, the preservation of ancient piety for the Solovetsky monks meant strict and unswerving adherence to the charter bequeathed by the holy founders, that is, there was a suspicious attitude towards any changes; secondly, the poorly educated clergy did not want to serve according to new books: “old people and they can barely read from old books, but from new ones, no matter how much they study, they will not get used to it"; thirdly, at the beginning of the 17th century, for the Solovetsky monks, military affairs was “ for the custom”, and they could take up arms, defending their right to independently decide their spiritual and worldly affairs; fourthly, at that time there were many exiles in the monastery just for the purpose of correcting books and rituals (the head of the printing yard under Patriarch Joseph, Prince Lvov, Arseny the Greek, the former royal confessor and archimandrite of the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery Nikanor, fugitive accomplices of the Volga robber Razin) .
By the way, while still Metropolitan of Novgorod (April 1649 - July 1652), Nikon tried to correct the disorders known to him in the Solovetsky monastery: he banned the fish table on Saturdays and Sundays during Lent and throughout Holy Week; under the threat of prohibition, he ordered the distribution of prosphora to be made not from rye, but from wheat flour; prohibited drunken drinking in the monastery; and also demanded that the rules for the maintenance of exiled and imprisoned people be tightened, “you give them freedom, and therefore there is great unrest from those exiled rioters.” The development of events showed that failure to comply with the last order had particularly dire consequences.
Let us note that the reform did not affect the foundations of Orthodox dogma: it only brought the form (rites) into line with the content (dogma). Among the most significant transformations were: the replacement of two fingers with three fingers when making the sign of the cross; change in the shape of the cross: instead of " tripartite"(eight-pointed) with the image of the Crucifixion - " two-part"(four-pointed); change of walking on the sun (“ salting") to walk against the sun when performing the rites of baptism, wedding, during religious processions, etc.; reduction in the number of prosphoras from 7 to 5 for proskomedia (at the beginning of the Liturgy). From book corrections: change in the spelling of the name of Christ (Jesus instead of Jesus). Replacement of the text in the “Creed”: before Nikon - “The True and Life-Giving Lord”, “His Kingdom has no end”, after Nikon - “The Life-giving Lord”, “There will be no end to His Kingdom”, etc.

Archimandrite Elijah died in 1659. In his place, the brethren chose a tonsure monk from their own monastery - Hieromonk Bartholomew, who then lived with the rank of an elder at the Solovetsky Metochion in Vologda. In March 1660, on Palm Sunday, Bartholomew was ordained in Moscow to the rank of Archimandrite by Metropolitan Macarius of Novgorod and then was present at the Council that was taking place at that time on the case of Patriarch Nikon until the very end of the Council, and signed its decision, so that he could go to his monastery only at the end of August. But the new abbot of the Solovetsky Monastery could not do anything against the general verdict of the brethren, held on June 8, 1658, not to accept the newly printed Service Books. On October 22, 1661, he managed to draw up, together with all the priests and all the brethren of the monastery at the Black Council, a new verdict, so that, following the example of the cathedral church in Moscow and all monasteries, he could introduce “narrative singing” in the Solovetsky Monastery and henceforth perform services according to the newly corrected printed books , only this sentence remained a dead letter and was not carried out at all, as it turned out after some time.

At the beginning of 1663, as soon as Archimandrite Bartholomew went to Moscow on monastic affairs, great turmoil occurred in the monastery due to the fact that on February 7, during the celebration of the Liturgy by priests Varlam and Gerontius, “ the deacon of the Gospel was without a candle, and there was no shroud on the lectern, and the sexton did not offer up the holy thing at the prayer behind the pulpit" Everyone especially attacked the guide, Hieromonk Gerontius, accusing him of going to the cellarer and asking for new Service Books, which were still in the monastery treasury, to serve according to them. And they threatened to stone him, despite Gerontius’ oaths that he had “ It never happened either in my mind or in my thoughts to desire new Missals: what gain for salvation do I have, what new thing do I want? It is sufficient for my salvation to follow the tradition of the venerable wonderworkers" A letter from Hieromonk Gerontius to Moscow to the builder Joseph about the slander perpetrated against him, Gerontius, has been preserved (dated February 15, 1663). For us, this letter is a wonderful testimony about the spiritual situation in the monastery, showing how easily rumors and unrest arise through those who are careless to fight against the machinations of the enemy of the human race and the first slanderer. The tone of the letter is warm and sincere, as it is addressed to the spiritual father: “ To my sovereign father, holy monk Joseph, your spiritual son, the poor priest Gerontius...“Wanting to reveal his spiritual grief and asking for prayers, Gerontius talks about the origin of “newness” in the service of the Liturgy on February 7. Sexton Ignatius Dranitsyn did not prepare the covers for the lectern in advance. " And as the deacon taught the Gospel of honor (to read) and the sexton missed the shroud on the lectern, and could not find the shroud, and at one time the sexton was looking for the shroud, and at that time the deacon read the Gospel, and the sexton did not have time to stand with a candle at the Gospel, and after Varlaam the priest began to speak the prayer behind the pulpit, the sexton did not have time to come out with the shrine. And that same day, servants came to the cellarer: Grigory Chornoy, Sidor Khlomyga and their comrades, beat me with their foreheads, as if I were serving the Divine Liturgy in a new way... And I asked the cellarer and the treasurer for mercy with tears, so that the rebel men They didn’t believe me, they ordered me to find him directly, and they rejoiced at my timelessness... Because of their unrighteous investigation, a rebellion and a great death took place about me, and they say that I served in a new way, and for that they wanted to stone me, and they covered the hay window with feces human. And he did not leave his cells until the return of Archimandrite Bartholomew... And now, for his own sins, he is hated by the entire monastery, like an enemy of God. And now, Sovereign, from immeasurable depression and sadness I have fallen into bed, I cannot see the light of God, and I pray to Your Reverence, pray for me to the all-generous God, so that the Lord God would tame such an enemy storm that has risen against me, and turn those rebels and murderers of the heart into meekness.».
The troubles were stopped by the fact that the archimandrite, having received news of what had happened both from the cellarer and from Gerontius, hastened to return from the road to the monastery and carried out an investigation. As a result of the trial, the innocence of Hieromonk Gerontius was proven. The sexton admitted that all the changes in the service of the Liturgy occurred because of his sluggishness, and when those standing in the Annunciation Church began to ask him about it, he said that the charterer Gerontius ordered him to serve this way. He repented of this lie and asked for forgiveness. The cellarer Savvaty, who had some displeasure with Gerontius, gave birth to this lie. That is, because of petty human passions, the fire of rebellion flared up, about which Archimandrite Bartholomew writes with fear: “it is unknown what would have happened; Only God pacified for a while.” The main victim of the turmoil was Hieromonk Gerontius, who behaved truly like a monk and wrote about his main persecutor, Kelar: “ God have mercy on him and I must (I) pray to God for him».
Having punished, after investigating the case, the perpetrators of the troubles, Archimandrite Bartholomew, together with all the priests and deacons of the monastery, drew up a sentence (February 16, 1663) so that “ henceforth there was no indignation from them and no new ranks“, and whoever of them begins to introduce any new ranks without the sovereign’s decree and the bishop’s command, or reproaches another with new ranks and does not prove it, will be humbled by monastic cruel humility; even if the archimandrite himself begins to transform church rites and introduce new ones without the sovereign and the bishop’s command, then the priests should boldly speak to the archimandrite about this, and if he does not listen, then write to the Novgorod Metropolitan of him against him. After such a verdict, there was no point in thinking about the introduction of new Service Books in the Solovetsky Monastery instead of the old ones hitherto used, although the sentence, not without intention, stated in such general terms, in letter did not at all concern the new Service Books.

In 1666, Archimandrite Bartholomew was summoned to Moscow to participate in the council that deposed Patriarch Nikon, but, paradoxically, irrevocably approved the fruits of his pastoral labors. A petition was sent with Bartholomew (the first, dated February 14, 1666), which was signed by the cellarer Savvaty and the brethren and the laymen who happened on the island, asking the king “not to change the church ranks,” but there was no signature of the archimandrite under the petition.
But Archimandrite Bartholomew signed the conciliar act, in which service according to the new books was recognized as mandatory. When they found out about this on Solovki, a group of monks and laymen opposed to Bartholomew removed his henchmen from their affairs - cellarer Savvaty and treasurer Barsanuphius, citing the fact that " they insult us with every cruel and inhuman insult, they beat priests and deacons and ordinary brethren in vain with whips without mercy, and put the deaf in chains in prisons, and starve them, and, taking them out of prison, they rob them naked, and, taking off their clothes, mercilessly and inhumanly expelled from the monastery in vain" The rebels tried to convince the Tsar to appoint Archimandrite Nikanor, former Savvinsky (in Zvenigorod), as rector32. However, in Moscow the petitioners were put into custody, and at the behest of the Tsar and the Ecumenical Patriarchs, a “Conciliar Order on the Acceptance of Newly Corrected Books and Orders” was sent to the monastery. He was carried by Archimandrite Sergius of the Spaso-Yaroslavl Monastery. About him in the Biography of Patriarch Nikon" I. Shusherin writes: " Sergius was a proud man, like an ancient pharaoh, and eloquent" Therefore, he not only failed to pacify the Solovetsky brethren, but even intensified the unrest. When in the Transfiguration Church he read the royal decree and the order of the consecrated Council to the brethren, shouts were heard: “we are obedient to the decree of the great sovereign and obey him in everything, and the commandments about the Creed, about folding three fingers for the sign of the cross, about the three-fingered hallelujah, about the prayer “Lord “Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us” and we do not accept the newly corrected printed books, and we do not want to hear, and we are all ready to suffer with one accord.” Here, the former Archimandrite Savva of the Storozhevsky Monastery Nikanor, raising his hand high with three fingers folded, began to say that the teaching about folding three fingers for the sign of the cross is a Latin tradition, that this is the seal of the Antichrist and that he is ready to go to Moscow and suffer for everyone. A furious cry arose. Archimandrite Sergius barely persuaded the brethren to choose someone with whom they could talk decently about the matter. The brethren pointed to the black priest Gerontius, who, without participating in the struggle for power in the monastery, firmly adhered to the old rituals. He immediately began to cite the well-known and refuted opinions of schismatics in Moscow: why was the “Son of God” taken away in the prayer “Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us” and about hallelujah three times. There was noise again. When asked by Archimandrite Sergius whether they considered the Tsar and the Council to be Orthodox and pious, the Solovki residents answered in the affirmative, but they refused to accept the command of the Council: “ We do not blaspheme their commands, but we do not accept new faiths and teachings, we adhere to the tradition of the Holy Wonderworkers and for their tradition we are all ready to die willingly" The only result of the arrival of Archimandrite Sergius was the “Skaska” he took away and the petition he sent (the second, September 1666), which was signed first by Archimandrite Nikanor, then by the brethren and laity. They promised to submit to the royal authority in everything, they only asked: “Do not tell him, sir, the sacred Archimandrite Sergius, your sovereign ancestors, the blessed kings and the pious great princes, and the leaders of our great wonderworkers, the reverend and God-bearing father Zosima, and Savvatius, and Herman, and the Right Reverend Philip, Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus' to violate traditions” and again complained about Archimandrite Bartholomew and asked to install Nikanor.

Initially, the Moscow church and secular authorities tried to resolve the conflict peacefully: Nikanor, summoned to Moscow in the same February 1667, was greeted as an archimandrite, he renounced his previous views, but feignedly, because, having returned to the monastery, he repented a second time, “with schismatics come to their senses.” Joseph, Bartholomew’s “cell brother” and like-minded person, was appointed archimandrite. When Joseph, together with archimandrites Bartholomew (to hand over and receive affairs) and Nikanor (who was determined to “live here in retirement”) arrived at Zayatsky Island, there was a Council in the monastery on whether to accept archimandrites. And they decided to accept with honor and joy if “ they will learn to serve in the old way, but if they begin to serve in a new way, then we, Archimandrite Joseph, don’t need him in the monastery... sit in our cell, but don’t know anything in the monastery and in the church" Archimandrite Joseph did not retreat from the position of the Council (although he even had reason to fear for his life), so even his former spiritual son Gerontius, who had by that time been chosen as treasurer, did not approach him for blessing. On September 15, 1667, Elder Gerontius himself read in the cathedral church in front of all the brethren the Patriarch’s signature and table documents, and together with the cellarer he said: “ We don’t need you to be an archimandrite with such service as it is written in the letter" Archimandrite Joseph tried to reason with the brethren so that they would obey the decree of the Great Sovereign and the Ecumenical Patriarchs, but the treasurer and all the brethren refused him with great noise: “We don’t need you as an archimandrite, sit in your cell.”

Archimandrite Nikanor, having waited in Arkhangelsk until Archimandrite Joseph would be rejected without him, although according to his letter, arrived at the monastery on September 20. He announced that he was still ordered to be in peace in the monastery; he said nothing to the Council about his repentance before the Council and about the obedience of the Solovetsky brethren to the Council. He said that the “horned” hood was put on him by force. And when the brethren reminded him that he was sent to Moscow, “ so that you, the Great Sovereign, dare to stand for us, and what you brought to us is unknown to the mind", he answered: " You yourself will go to Moscow and taste about it».
....

In the spring of 1668, solicitor Ignatius Volokhov arrived in Solovki with a small detachment of archers (slightly more than 100 people). In response, the monastery " locked himself up", which was the beginning of it " seats" Apparently, in the first period, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich hoped to starve and intimidate the monastery, blocking the delivery of food and other necessary supplies, but its full implementation was hampered by both natural conditions and the monastery’s connections with the population, which provided support primarily through the delivery of food. In addition to the blockade, Volokhov was charged with “ to prey on the disobedient, depending on the case there, by all sorts of measures».
However, with the forces that I. Volokhov had, “ make a living“There was nothing to think about the impregnable island fortress. Even organizing a complete blockade of the islands turned out to be impossible. The besieged did not lose contact with the outside world: they bought fish on Anzer, the Kemlyans delivered oil to the monastery, and peasants from many other volosts brought food. The rebels enjoyed the authority, sympathy and support of the Pomeranian population. They were looked at as " sitters for the name of Christ and the Salvation Cross».

Numerically, Balti people predominated among the villagers - more than four hundred Moscow archers and Don Cossacks, and boyar fugitive slaves, and peasants; there were foreigners from different states - “Sviy Germans, and Poles, and Turks, and Tatars.” Yes, they “came into Razinovism” many Kapitons, Chernetsy and Balti from lower towns" In the monastery, according to Elder Pachomius, “ the roots of every evil have been gathered».
Obviously, the Bali people played a noticeable role in leading the uprising: the defectors gave the tsar’s investigators the names of “ worldly bush breeders“- Isachko Voronina, Khrisanfko Borodu, Sashko Vasilyeva, Kozemka Varaksu, Nikifor Kamyshina, Kozemka Khromy, who arrived “from the Razin regiment” Fadeyka Kozhevnikov, Ivashka Sarafanov and others. One must think that it was not without the participation of these Balti people, experienced in military affairs, that a guard service was organized, training for inmates in fire combat was organized, trenches and an earthen rampart in front of the Nikolskaya Tower were built, peals (wooden walls) were cut on the drying ground, and so on. However, the military craft was also for the monks " according to custom».
The ignorance of the rebels was especially evident on March 7, 1669, when they tore and burned more than two hundred books, and made schismatic notes on the remaining ones. The "Lavsaik" was preserved intact, which was read by the Monk Zosima, and in which the Jesus Prayer was written as the Holy Church commands it to be done: "Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us"; and the Book of Hours that belonged to Saint Philip, in which it was prescribed to say three times “Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, glory to Thee, O God.”

The position of the prisoners - both the Balti people and the monks - was unequivocal: “ “We,” they declared, “don’t want to sing and speak according to the newly corrected books, and for that we want to die all unanimously.”" Anti-government sentiments were very strong among the rebels. The already mentioned elder Pachomius testified during interrogations: “ the thieves call the Solovetsky Monastery their monastery, but the Great Sovereign is called the land only by the monastery" AND " island de our", the rebels said, and " not the Great Sovereign».

The actions of Ignatius Volokhov during 1668-1671 can hardly be qualified as a siege of the monastery. The summer of 1668 was devoted to standing on Zayatsky Island; The summer of 1669 passed in exactly the same way. Preparing for long-term resistance, in July 1669 the rebels expelled from the monastery those imprisoned there: the Greek Metropolitan Macarius, the monk Gerasim, the priest Kozma, the monk Job Saltykov, the son of the boyar Osip Piryugin. In June 1670, a skirmish took place near the monastery, during which one archer was killed and two were wounded; The rebels' losses were three killed and two wounded. The following summer there was no military action at all.
Volokhov was much more interested in sorting out his relationship with Archimandrite Joseph. The solicitor and the abbot sent denunciations against each other to Moscow. Volokhov wrote that Joseph had “little truth” to the government, that he was sending secretly to the besieged monastery “ thieves' letters“, that the monks who are with him are all hawkmoths, walk around the villages drunk and bring the Sovereign’s supplies “for theft” to the women, etc. Joseph, in turn, wrote that Volokhov “ does not do anything to the Solovetsky rebels", spends all his time in the Sumy prison, ruins " for your own gain"monastery peasants, threatens to slander (" announce in vain") before the Sovereign Archimandrite, etc. In Moscow they didn’t know who to believe. In the end, things got ugly: on March 16, 1672, during mass, a fight broke out - Volokhov in the church of the public Archimandrite Joseph “ beat and tore his beard and, having shackled him, kept him in prison for a long time" The government was forced to recall both of them to Moscow. Elder Joel was appointed in place of Joseph, and in place of Volokhov ~~ the head of the Moscow archers, Clementy Ievlev (on August 2, 1672, he arrived on the island in Glubokaya Bay).

Rabocheostrovsk

The summer of 1673 also did not bring K. Ievlev any noticeable success. Moreover, the Dvina archers started a riot, almost killing their commander, who sent military men to attacks without a combat reserve, as a result of which the military men suffered heavy losses. After the riot, barely escaping reprisal, Ievlev beat the king with his forehead to relieve him of his post. On September 6, 1673, governor Ivan Alekseevich Meshcherinov was sent to replace Ievlev, and with him the initial foreigners Stepan Kelen and Gavrila Bush.
On December 28, 1673, it was decided in the monastery “ leave the pilgrimage for the Great Sovereign“—the most serious state crime at that time. However, it is hardly worth overestimating its importance: the monastery had already been at war with the government for five years before this decision was made.
June 3, 1674 I.A. Meshcherinov landed on Bolshoi Solovetsky Island and sent an embassy to the monastery, which was immediately placed under guard. By this time, the confrontation between the monastery and the authorities had gone too far. There was no expectation of mercy, even in the case of voluntary surrender. The rebels probably had heard about cruel reprisals against differences, especially since, as Elder Joseph testified, in the summer of 1671 “ from Razin the regiment came to the Solovetsky Monastery».
What was happening inside the monastery at that time is known from the “questioning speeches” of 1674. On September 17, hieromonks Mitrofan and Ambrosy and Belets Judka Ivanov son Roguev voluntarily left the monastery, and hieromonks Geronty and Paul, and elders Varlaam, Dionysius and Manasiy were also expelled by the rebels , yes, on September 20, the work Vaska Kirilovshchina came out. To the questions: do they obey the Great Sovereign and the Church and from whom did the rebellion begin, Hieromonk Mitrofan said: “ In the Solovetsky... monastery, a rebellion broke out about newly corrected printed books from the black priest Gerontya, and from the former Savin monastery, Archimandrite Nikanor, and from the cellarer Azarya, and from the servant Fadyushka Borodin and his comrades... and who... their brothers, the priests, both the elders and the servants did not bother them about their rebellion... and they asked to leave the monastery, and they... the rebels, they were not released from the monastery. And the shooting... began from Nikanor the Archimandrite and from the servant Fadyushka Borodin and his comrades; and he... Nikanor, walks around the towers incessantly, and censes the cannons, and sprinkles water, and says to them: “My mother galanochki, our hope is in you; “You will defend us” ... but Gerontey forbade shooting and did not order to shoot" The novice of Gerontius, Elder Manasseh, behaved in the same way. Nikanor blessed the defenders of the monastery not to stop shooting for a minute, and advised them to look through the chimney for the governor: “ and as you see, and you shoot at him, when we hit the shepherd, the military men will go wild like sheep».
Hieromonk Pavel repeated the testimony of Mitrofan, including Nikanor’s words about the “galanochka cannons,” and added that Nikanor did not partake of the Holy Mysteries for five years, and attributed the beginning of the “rebellion” and “rebellion” to the time of the arrival of Archimandrite Sergius, i.e. . as early as 1666. This is confirmed by the testimony of the archers who accompanied Archimandrite Sergius: they heard “worldly people” in the monastery saying that the archers outside the monastery should be captured and stoned.

All interrogated people from the monastery in 1674 unanimously separated Gerontius’s position on the issue of armed struggle, naming him only among the “starters” of the uprising, but not the organizers of the “shooting”: “ Riot and rebellion began with the arrival of Archimandrite Sergius, from Nicanor and Gerontius; and the shooting started from Nikanor, Azaria and Fadeika Borodin" Both Hieromonk Mitrofan and Hieromonk Pavel spoke about the aggravation of contradictions within the monastery. September 28, 1673 " they had a black cathedral in the Solovetsky Monastery to leave prayers for the great sovereign" But the priests continued to pray for the king. On September 16, 1674, a new Council was held, among the participants of which there was a riot. The centurions Isachko and Samko threatened the cellarer Azary that they would stop their military service (“they put the gun on the wall”) because “ They, thieves, did not order the priest to pray to God for the great sovereign, and the priestesses do not listen to them and pray to God for the great sovereign, but they... thieves do not want to hear that... but about the great... sovereign they say such words, that not only to write, but also to think is scary. And they sat down... they, thieves, in the monastery to die, they don’t want to surrender in any way».
"Island"

Since the government was pretty tired of the protracted rebellion, Meshcherinov was given an order that he “never leave Solovetsky Island without the Sovereign’s permission” and that “the rebellion should be eradicated soon.” The royal letter addressed to the governor ended with an expressive postscript: “ And if you, Ivan, are from Solovetsky Island, without our Great Sovereign’s decree, you will leave from now on, and for that you will be given the death penalty».
In the summer of 1674, I. Meshcherinov made noise with cannons around the monastery. On July 25, the rifle detachment of Major Kelen stormed the trenches (trenches) near the Nikolskaya Tower. All attempts by the rebels to recapture the trenches ended in failure. I. Meshcherinov wanted to divert water from the Holy Lake, but the lack of workers did not allow this to be done.

At the end of May 1675, Meshcherinov again landed in Dolgaya Guba of the Bolshoi Solovetsky Island. The persistent “small number of people” (under the governor there were only 185 archers) did not allow an immediate attack on the monastery. The summer was spent in small skirmishes with the besieged, in the construction of batteries, towns and ramparts, equal in height to the walls of the fortress. From the thunder it was possible to fire at the monastery from cannons, of which, however, Meshcherinov had few, there were no gunners, gunpowder, or cannonballs. All this was sent to the governor only in September.
With the arrival of reinforcements, siege work intensified. However, artillery could not destroy the fortress wall. Attempts to dig under the corner towers were unsuccessful. Frontal attacks were in vain. One of them took place on December 23, 1675 at the Herring Gate. The streltsy detachment that stormed the gate suffered losses - 36 people killed and wounded - and retreated. Captain Stepan Potapov died.

Meanwhile, the situation of the besieged continued to deteriorate. Those who fled from the monastery testified during interrogations: “ In the city, many Chernetsy and Balti thieves were killed by the strong siege and many are lying sick, and others have died" As mentioned above, none of the hieromonks supported armed resistance and did not want to give up prayers for the king, which the rebels forced them to do. Nikanor consoled the rebels: “We can live without priests.” The rebels stopped going to church, died without repentance and were buried without prayers. However, there remained a certain number of monks in the monastery who did not want to participate in armed resistance, continued to pray for the king and were looking for an opportunity to get rid of the power of worldly rebels.
On the night of November 9, 1675, the monk Feoktist came out of the monastery to Meshcherinov’s camp, having previously “looked out in the monastery for all sorts of city fortresses and places of cause where thieves ... could commit a plot against them.” The plan proposed by Theoktist boiled down to the following: an hour before dawn, when the night guards leave and one person remains at the posts on the walls, a detachment of archers should penetrate the monastery through a “hole” in the drying area and, having killed the guards, open the gates. Meshcherinov hesitated for a long time to implement this plan, but the futility of the siege efforts prompted the governor to act according to Theoktistus’ plan.
On the night of January 22, 1676, " when there was a storm, frost and a great blizzard... Theoktist with the howls... one by one I entered the dried shelter, filled the whole bottom with howls, and as I went I broke the locks, and opened the gates, to the monastery in the hand of Meshcherinov and let the soldiers into the monastery».
The rebels were taken by surprise. The embittered archers killed almost everyone. Meshcherinov captured 63 people, of whom 35 were imprisoned and 28 executed. Old Believer sources say that Archimandrite Nikanor, after interrogation, was beaten by the governor, and then, tied hand and foot, thrown into a ditch, where he lay all night in one shirt, and died the next morning. However, Meshcherinov himself does not mention the capture of Nikanor, and in documents his name is last mentioned among the organizers of the uprising in 1674. Therefore, it can be assumed that he died before the end of the “sentence.”

The eight-year “sitting” undermined both the spiritual and economic power of the monastery. After the Meshcherinov pogrom, only 14 monks remained in the monastery, and according to the census in the fall of 1668, there were 273 of them. The number of Balti people according to the census in the fall of 1668 was 400 people. According to calculations by O.V. Chumicheva it turns out that during the siege, about 200 people left the monastery, were expelled or fled. If we take into account the number of deaths during the siege, it turns out that the death toll during the assault is at least 200 people. In addition to human losses, the monastery also suffered enormous material damage. I.A. Meshcherinov robbed the monastery. He appropriated many icons in valuable frames and folds, church vestments, printed and handwritten books, silver, copper and tin dishes, mica, sable and marten furs, several cannons, arquebuses, gunpowder, watches, several pounds of iron, and horse harnesses. Some monks, in order to save their lives, gave large bribes to the governor: the black priest Leonty gave his 850 rubles, and 150 rubles from the treasury, and a military watch, and a sable fur coat. Feoktist brought from the government chamber four bags of money, silver dishes, a watch, and a fur coat. By order of Tsar Feodor Alekseevich, the best-hearted and self-interested governor was put under guard. Only in August 1677, having returned the loot to the monastery, was Meshcherinov able to travel to Moscow.

Solovetsky events of 1668-1676. posed an important question: “ Why did God allow this discord to exist among the Russian people?“The Russian Church had to suffer through its faith in the fight against heresies, as Byzantium did in its time.
And they answered it through the mouths of their contemporaries: “ Heresies excite us from the deep laziness of sleep, move us to work, to read the Holy Scriptures and to review and analyze the rules of our Godliness... May the good servants of God appear in their strength; let the hidden stench between us be exposed; may ignorance drive itself away from the Church" Let us pay attention to the last remark: it is not the Church that will drive out ignorance, but ignorance itself will tear itself away from the Church. The wounds could be healed for " God's Providence has a habit of extracting medicine from poison»

The text of the book by M.V. Osipenko was used "