16. Church and Power, Rus 2 Russia
In the 17th century, Russia faced events that shook the spiritual foundation of the state - the Church.
(This Russian history is turning out to be certainly interesting. I could tell you my impressions, but better I let you find your own conclusions.)
The origins of the schism
We have already mentioned the conflicts of the 15th-16th centuries between the Iosiflans and the Nestorians. In the seventeenth century, intellectual disputes continued in the extreme form of the Church's schism. As is always the case in the acmatic phase, with all the struggle for power, more prosaic matters - domestic needs, the enlightenment, the culture and so on - were not ignored, but gradually receded into the background. Life is first and foremost prose, that is, custom, custom and tradition, and the Time of Troubles threw the country into great disorder, even chaos.
Disorder was also found in the Church, which could not fulfill the role of "spiritual doctor", the guardian of the moral health of the people. Naturally, after the Time of Troubles the reform of the Church became the most urgent problem. The reform was carried out not by bishops, but by priests: Protopop Ivan Neronov, the confessor of the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Stephan Vonifatiev, and the famous Avvakum. These "zealots for piety" acted in two ways. Firstly, they worked in the field of "social Christianity", by which they meant oral sermons and direct work among the flock - closing cabarets, and organizing almshouses and orphanages. Second, they were engaged in correcting the ritual and the liturgical books themselves.
The question of the so-called polyphony was acute. In the churches of Great Russia, in order to save time, one practiced simultaneous service for different saints and different feasts, because the services were very long, and the Muscovites had no time to attend them in full: one had either to go to the Horde, or to Tver, or else they had a conflict with the Tatars. In previous times no one cared about polyphony. Another look at it in the era of revolts and impostors: now it seemed, and there was a reason for it, that the congregation is out of the influence of the Word of God. This was to be corrected, and it was corrected. Unanimity prevailed.
В. G. Schwartz. The Tsarina's Spring Train on a Journey to God's Grace
Patriarch Joseph. Titularnik, 1672.
However, this was not the end of the conflict; on the contrary, the conflict only escalated. The differences in the Moscow and Greek rites, above all in the penitential form, led to this conflict: the Velikorosses baptized with two fingers, the Greeks with three. These differences led to a dispute about historical correctness. In fact, the dispute turned into the question whether the Russian Church rite - the bipartite, the octa-pointed cross, the seven prophora service, the Hallelujah, the walk according to the sun during services, etc. - was the result of a distortion of the books of Divine Worship by ignorant copyists or not.
It is proved (particularly by E. E. Golubinsky - the most authoritative historian of the Church) that the Russians did not distort the rite and that in Kiev under Prince Vladimir they baptized with two fingers - just as in Moscow up to the middle of the 17th century. The fact is that during the Christianization of Russia two charters were used in Byzantium: the Jerusalem charter and the Stua charter which differed in rite aspect. The Eastern Slavs adopted and followed the first; among the Greeks, and after them among the other Orthodox peoples, including the Little Russians, the second prevailed. In general, it should be said that rites are not dogmas. Dogmata must be holy and inviolable; the rites can change, which in Russia happened more than once, and without any special upheavals. Under Metropolitan Kiprian, for example: in 1551 the Council of the Head of the Stoglavyi Synod made the Pskovites, who had used the triple penitential hand, return to the duplicate penitential hand. But by the middle of the 17th century circumstances had changed radically. Gone in the past was "light Russia" with its relative unity in the outlook and behavior of the people. The country was faced with a threefold choice: isolationism (the way of Avvakum); the creation of a theocratic ecumenical orthodox empire (the way of Nikon); joining the "concert" of European powers (the choice of Peter) with the inevitable subordination of the Church to the state. The incorporation of the Ukraine made the problem of choice even more pressing, for one had to think about the uniformity of the Church's rite. The monks of Kiev, most notably Epiphanius of Slavinets, who had appeared in Moscow even before the annexation of Ukraine, began to insist that church services and books be corrected according to their ideas.
At this acute moment patriarch Joseph died (1652). A new patriarch had to be elected; without the patriarch's blessing at that time no governmental, let alone ecclesiastical, measure could be taken in Moscow. Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich, a devout and pious man, was himself very much interested in the prompt election of a patriarch, and wanted to see his "bosom friend" on the patriarchal throne. - Metropolitan Nikon of Novgorod, whom he greatly valued and with whom he had always reckoned.
M. A. Todorova. "The Circle of Devotees of Piety".
Attributes of rituals and symbols adopted by the official Orthodox Church and Old Believers
The Tsar and the Patriarch.
Typical of the acmatic phase, the future patriarch of Moscow, Nikon was an extremely vain and overbearing man. He came from Mordovian peasants and was known as Nikita Minich. Having made a dizzying career, Nikon became famous for his strong temper and sternness, typical not so much for a church hierarch as for a secular ruler. Not satisfied with his immense influence on the tsar and his power over the boyars, and guided by the principle "God is greater than the tsar", Nikon conceived the idea of legitimizing his rights by obtaining power in the state equal to that of the tsar.
Patriarch Nikon
The question of Nikon's election to the patriarchal throne had been decided in advance, since many of the boyars supported the Tsar's wishes and the Orthodox patriarchs of the East, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria, spoke in favor of Nikon's candidacy in their letters. Nikon, of course, was aware of this, but wishing to have absolute power, resorted to pressure. During the procedure of his nomination as patriarch, he openly refused to accept the insignia of patriarchal dignity in the presence of the tsar. Everyone was shocked, and Alexei Mikhailovich himself knelt down and tearfully begged Nikon not to give up his dignity. Then Nikon sternly asked whether, if elected, he would be honored as a father and archpastor, and whether he would be allowed to arrange the Church in accordance with his wishes. Only after receiving the tsar's word and the consent of all those present did Nikon agree to take the symbol of patriarchal authority - the staff of the first Russian metropolitan, Peter, who lived in Moscow.
А. D. Litovchenko. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon in the Assumption Cathedral
The tsar kept his promise. Nikon received enormous power and the title of "Great Sovereign" (1652), similar to that of Tsar. But as a passionate man, Nikon, in keeping with the spirit of the times, was not always discreet in the exercise of his power, not only towards the people of the Church, but also towards the princes and boyars. Therefore, Alexei Mikhailovich sometimes had to take up his pen, and in his letters ask Nikon to be more lenient towards this or that nobleman who had the misfortune to offend the Patriarch.
The "zealots of piety" were at first not at all afraid of the newly elected patriarch, for they had a short acquaintance with him and belonged to his associates. Like them, Nikon was a supporter of the introduction of unanimity, and at the beginning of his patriarchate he himself was baptized with two fingers. But Epiphanius of Slavinets wasted no time in persuading Nikon that his friends were wrong and that it was necessary to correct the church books. At Lent in 1653, Nikon, in a special "memorial" (memorandum), instructed his flock to adopt the triple penitential baptism. The supporters of Vonifatyev and Neronov opposed this - and were exiled by Nikon. At this time Patriarch Makary, an ardent admirer (and then equally ardent opponent) of Nikon, arrived in Moscow; the introduction of the Threepercase was officially announced in the country, and those who continued to use the Two-first at prayer were put under the curse of the Church. Later (1656) a church council confirmed this order, and the ways of Nikon and his former friends parted for good.
В. G. Schwartz. Palm Sunday in the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.
M. A. Todorova. Conversation of Patriarch Nikon
It is interesting that it is the attitude toward his former friends that vividly characterizes Nikon's imperatives of behavior. When Ivan Neronov, exiled by Nikon, decided to reconcile himself to the innovations, he was immediately forgiven - Nikon treated him magnanimously. He was, as we see, only interested in unquestioning obedience to his patriarchal authority. But those who, like Protopopop Avvakum, were unwilling to compromise their conscience and bow to Nikon's authority, continued to remain in exile. This is the behavior typical of a man of the acme phase, striving for the ideal of victory: he does not care about arguments or the search for truth in intellectual disputes. What matters to him is that everyone accepts his authority and no one dares to argue with him.
Thus, the split of Russian Orthodoxy was completed: supporters of the "ancient piety" found themselves in opposition to the official policy, and the cause of church reform was entrusted to the Ukrainian Epiphanius Slavinetsky and the Greek Arsenius. The interesting question is: Why did Nikon rely not on his friends, but on the visiting Ukrainian monks? And most importantly, why did the majority of the parishioners, the cathedral and Tsar Alexei support Nikon's policy? From an ethnological point of view, the answer is very simple. Avvakum's supporters defended the superiority of the local version of Orthodoxy, which developed in northeastern Rus' in the 14th century, over the tradition of Ecumenical (Greek) Orthodoxy. "Ancient blasphemy" could be a platform for narrow Moscow nationalism and corresponded to the ideal of the "Third Rome," "bright Russia”.
From Avvakum's point of view, the Orthodoxy of the Ukrainians, Serbs, and Greeks was inferior. Otherwise, why did God punish them by putting them under the rule of other believers? Thus, Avvakum's Orthodoxy could not be the binding basis of a super-ethnos as a cluster of close but different peoples. Representatives of these peoples were seen by Old Believers only as victims of error in need of reeducation. Of course, such a prospect would not have aroused anyone's sincere sympathy or desire to unite with Moscow. Both the tsar and the patriarch were well aware of this subtlety. Thus, in seeking to increase and expand their power, they focused on Ecumenical (Greek) Orthodoxy; in relation to it, Russian Orthodoxy, Ukrainian Orthodoxy, and Serbian Orthodoxy were no more than admissible variations. It is in establishing the ecumenical character of Russian Orthodoxy that Patriarch Nikon's historical merit lies.
But unfortunately, Nikon's cool temper continued to take its toll, gradually creating many opponents for him among the boyars. The latter strove in every way to spoil relations between the patriarch and the tsar and succeeded in this. It all seems to have begun with little things. In 1658, during a celebration, the tsar's deputy, who, according to custom, paved the way for the tsar, struck the patriarch's man with a stick. He began to be indignant, calling himself "the patriarch's boyar's son", and immediately received another blow on his forehead with a stick. Nikon, learning of this incident, became extremely indignant and demanded that Alexei Mikhailovich investigate and punish the guilty boyar. But no investigation was begun, and the culprit went unpunished. Seeing the tsar's changed attitude toward himself, Nikon decided once again to resort to a technique he had already tried when he ascended the patriarchal throne. After a mass in the Assumption Cathedral, he took off his patriarchal vestments and announced that he was leaving his position as patriarch and going to live in his beloved Voskresensky monastery near Moscow, called New Jerusalem. Attempts by the people to stop the patriarch were unsuccessful. Despite the fact that the people un-harnessed the horses from his carriage, Nikon did not change his mind and left for New Jerusalem on foot.
В. G. Schwartz. Patriarch Nikon in New Jerusalem.
А. D. Kivshenko. The Beginning of the Schism. Patriarch Nikon presents new liturgical books at the Council in 1654.
The patriarchal throne remained empty. Nikon hoped to frighten Alexei Mikhailovich, but miscalculated. The Tsar did not come to him. The long years of Nikon's struggle for the patriarchal throne began. The vicissitudes of this struggle are very interesting, but of little relevance to our theme. The tsar tried to get Nikon to give up the patriarchal title and to return the patriarchal regalia, so that a new patriarch could be elected. Nikon, on the other hand, sought to prove that he was free to return to the patriarchal throne at any time. This attitude was, of course, totally intolerable.
Alexei Mikhailovich then resorted to the mediation of the Ecumenical Patriarchs. However, waiting for their arrival proved difficult: only in 1666 did two of the four patriarchs - the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, who had, however, the authority of the other two Orthodox patriarchs: of Constantinople and Jerusalem, come to Moscow. In spite of all the tricks and resistance of Nikon, he nevertheless came before the court of the patriarchs and was deprived of his dignity. But the same Council of 1666-1667 affirmed the correctness of all the church reforms undertaken by Nikon. The innovations of the patriarch received official approval, but Nikon himself was destined to observe the triumph of his policy as a simple monk exiled to a remote northern monastery. The fate of Avvakum was altogether different.
M. A. Todorova. Patriarch Nikon's departure from Moscow
Nikon's Hermitage at the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery
Bonfires
Exiled to Pustozersk (1667) the disgraced archpriest did not cease his preaching activities. The pilgrims who came to him carried with them in their staffs numerous messages that denounced the Nikonians and called for the protection of the traditions of "ancient piety". At the same time, the dissenters did not limit themselves to preaching the old rite. Many preachers issued appeals to self-immolation as the only way to save the soul. Although it is commonly believed that the preaching of self-immolation belongs to Avvakum, in fact, this is not entirely true. Avvakum did not preach self-immolation, seeing it only as one of the means in the struggle against the Nikonians, permissible for all who wish to do so. A. M. Panchenko, an excellent expert on the "rebellious age," has shown that the preaching of self-immolation did not arise from nothing. It was preceded by the theory of "self-immolation" developed by the elder Kapiton in the 1730s. Kapiton's doctrine was one of the many life-negating heresies, which proceeded from the recognition of the goodness of suicide. Of course, such views can by no means be called Christian.
Iversky Bogoroditsky Svyatoozersky Monastery
В. Matorin. Protopop Avvakum
Tsar Fyodor Alexeevich
Avvakum was undoubtedly the most important opponent of Nikonianism, and his authority as a righteous and persecuted martyr remained very high even in the eyes of his opponents. It was not by chance that the tsar, wishing to overcome church conflicts, offered Avvakum the position of his confessor in 1664. But Avvakum did not compromise. He continued to make appeals and denunciations, wrote a talented and vivid autobiographical book, The Life of Protopop Avvakum, and generally annoyed the "superiors" with his teachings in every possible way. It ended badly for him.
When Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich died in 1676, his son - the quiet and impressionable Fyodor Alexeevich - became enthroned in Moscow. Tsar Fyodor paid much attention to matters of piety, in which he was very scrupulous. Knowing the character of the new Tsar, Avvakum decided to take advantage of Feodor's piety and try to turn him away from Nikonism. He wrote a letter to the tsar in which he said that in a dream he saw Alexei Mikhailovich burning in hell for the sin of apostasy from the true faith and urged Fyodor Alexeevich to turn away from "Nikonian deviation" so that he himself could avoid a similar fate. But Avvakum miscalculated. Feodor could not conceive that his father could be a sinner. Avvakum and his allies "for great blasphemies against the Tsar's House" were burned (1682).
Avvakum's martyrdom finally separated the Nikonians and the Old Believers. A different stereotype of Old Believer behavior set them apart from the mainstream of Russians and created an even more original sub-ethnos. However, common ethnic ties were not destroyed. Thus, the Old Believers through their partisan actions greatly helped Menshikov to achieve victory at Lesnaya (1708). But later, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, having disintegrated into many "koloks" and "conciliarities", Old Believers gradually lost their passionarity and turned from an active sub-ethnos into a conciliarity. By the 20th century only some elements of their stereotype of behavior remained, reminding of the turbulent events of the 17th century Russian history.
The government and the Streltsy
The war with Poland over the Ukraine, the return of Smolensk, and the development of Siberia all required enormous efforts from Russia, which were partially offset by the results achieved: the country under Alexei Mikhailovich in a number of western regions reached the borders it had before the Time of Troubles. Nevertheless, the expenditure of passionarity was so great that by the early 70s of the 17th century there was a pronounced passionate decline. Very soon it led to the same consequences as the passionary decline of the second half of the 16th century: a threat to the political regime of the country and even to its existence emerged.
Since the Time of Troubles, the lower Volga served Russia as a kind of drainage ditch. It was where sub-passionate people, prone to "theft", not energetic enough to perform the service of the sovereign, or to run a peasant economy, fled. The Volga provided fish, and the rich coastal pastures provided plenty of meat. The sub-passionarians, however, could not order their own existence, nor did they seek to do so. Their main activity was raiding and plundering neighboring peoples. The outflow of Cossack and Muscovite passionaries to the western borders and Siberia made the lower Volga practically defenseless. The results were not long in coming. When a talented and energetic leader, Cossack from the Don, Stepan Razin, appeared among the amorphous "golutva" (underclass people), an explosion followed.
The peripeteia of Razin's struggle is well known and does not require a description. Important is the next point of his "political program": the transformation of the entire population of Russia into the Cossacks. From the ethnological point of view, this would lead to a simplification of the system and would hardly do Russia any good. After all, thanks to the class diversity, the Russian super-ethnos could resist enemies and develop its own culture.
Stepan Razin
В. I. Surikov. Stepan Razin.
In 1671 a small regular detachment of Prince Baryatinsky defeated the Razin army near Simbirsk. The ataman fled to the Don and was handed over by the Cossacks to the Moscow government, as they least wanted him to mix with the entire population and turn into a faceless, amorphous mass, albeit under the same name.
In the capital, the decline in passionarity caused a gradual weakening of the country's government. From the time of Alexei Mikhailovich, the influence of the culture of the Catholic West with its luxurious lifestyle, attractive to the upper classes of the Moscow state, became noticeable in Russia. Among members of the royal house, courtiers, and boyars it became fashionable to imitate the Polish magnates in their luxuries and amusements. It was certainly necessary to have considerable money to emulate them, and those who had such money began staging home theaters, creating libraries of Latin books, collecting engravings, collecting translations of Greek authors, and even dressing in "German" clothes. It was not Peter who brought German caftans from Holland. They were first put on by Alexei Mikhailovich's close boyar Athanasius Ordin-Nashchokin and his children. Although German caftans were not well suited for the games of lapta and chizhik, as Russian princes were fond of in the XVII century, considerations of expediency were sacrificed to fashion.
By this time the Old Believers' passionary gene pool had been exhausted: the most vigorous of them either went into exile, or fled to the outskirts and abroad, or perished in "gar garages". A tendency toward isolation from the world began to emerge among Old Believers.
Five years before his death, the widowed Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich married for the second time - to Natalia Naryshkina. Two sons - Feodor and Ivan - and five daughters survived his first wife Maria Miloslavskaya. All of them, except for Princess Sophia, were quite ordinary, unremarkable people. From Naryshkina Alexei Mikhailovich had a son Peter - a very lively and energetic boy.
In 1676 began the reign of Fyodor Alexeevich. For him and other children of Miloslavskaya, many of whom were the same age as Naryshkina, the young widow of Tsar Alexei was a stepmother. The stepmother is a terrible phenomenon in Russian life: the stepmother is not loved and the stepmother does not like the children of her first wife. Not always, of course, it happens exactly like this, but the fact remains that between the Naryshkins and Miloslavskys run a persistent and long feud.
The inconsiderate Natalia Kirillovna Naryshkina had a very weak position at court, while the Tsarevna Sofia was a very energetic person, reminiscent in character of her father, and even more - of her great-grandfather, Patriarch Philaret. Natalia Kirillovna both she and her relatives, led by the boyar Ivan Miloslavsky, were terribly hated. But what could one rich boyar family do against another rich boyar family? Very little: you could intrigue, you could deprive someone else's protégé position or send him to voivodeship in the distant Totma or Tobolsk, but to deal with a hostile family physically impossible. The Miloslavskys did all they could. Alexei Mikhailovich's closest advisor, the boyar Artamon Matveev, who had arranged Naryshkina's marriage to the Tsar, was first appointed voivode in faraway Verkhoturye, then deprived of his rank and exiled to Pustozersk; they brought disgrace upon the Tsarina's brothers and removed her few supporters from office. But the triumph of the Milo Slavs was premature.
Strings of S. T. Razin on the Volga. Based on a drawing by Strauss.
Map of the Caspian Sea. 1668 г.
In 1682, very young, Tsar Fyodor Alexeyevich died. One of the two tsareviches - Ivan or Peter - could have been put on the throne, and formally Ivan Alexeevich had all the advantages, because he was older. However, neither the Boyar Duma, nor the people could not come to a consensus. The issue was resolved by the position of Patriarch Joachim, officially the first person in the state. Joachim was in favor of the election of Peter Alexeevich for purely state reasons: Tsarevich Ivan was a sickly child. The Miloslavsky family's fate became unenviable: now disgrace and exile awaited them. Not willing to resign themselves to the fate prepared for them, the Miloslavskys were determined to act. The mood of the Streltsy troops in Moscow was the determining factor at this critical juncture.
Tsarina Maria Ilyinichna
Tsarina Natalia Kirillovna Naryshkina
Since at that time the majority of the country's male population was in some way connected with military service - some served, others provided them with everything they needed - in every locality of little or no significance, the main role was played by its garrison. Naturally, the largest garrison was in the capital. The special city's army numbered 40,000 men and consisted of Streltsy units. Streltsy appeared in Russia after 500 surrendering Lithuanians entered Russian service and taught Muscovites firing squibs. The pishchalya was an imperfect gun, which fired at a short distance. Because of their short range, the small ranges of the gun were not effective in field battles, but for the defense of cities Streltsy regiments were suited to the best advantage, as they performed purely military and police functions. The ranks of Streltsy units were replenished from the Russian "hunter men". True, Streltsy men received small salaries and were paid irregularly, but they were allowed to engage in trade, crafts and gardening without any problems, as well as to have their own homes in the cities protected by them. All this made streltsys a cheap and powerful army.
Princess Sophia
Tsar Ivan Alexeyevich
Tsar Fyodor Alexeyevich
During the Time of Troubles, Streltsy men showed wonders of courage, endurance, bravery, and fighting ability, defending the Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery from the Poles, and Moscow from the Tushinsky Thief, and participating in the Nizhny Novgorod Zemsky militia. However, in the next seventy years (1610- 1680) Moscow Streltsy lived an entirely different life. In their search for easy, unrequited service, they were now joined by sub-passionarians - those who liked to eat well, sleep well and drink at governmental expense. As a result, the level of passivity of the Streltsy army declined drastically. Streltsy colonels behaved like their subordinates. Taking advantage of the lack of control on the part of the government, they delayed the Streltsy wages, took bribes to relax their service, and compelled the Streltsy men and their wives to work for themselves. The streltsys, of course, did not like digging turnips and picking cucumbers in the colonels' gardens: why should they work for the colonels, when they could work for themselves?
Tsarevich Peter (aged 10).
The Streltsy, having taken advantage of the election of a new Tsar, appealed to the government through their electors to complain against the colonels. They demanded payment of all their salaries, forced labor for the colonels at rates to suit them, and the removal and punishment of all streltsys' "heads" who were displeasing to them. In brief, the streltsys demanded everything that a soldier might demand when he feels he is the master of his situation.15 Fearful of a streltsy revolt, the Naryshkin government, which consisted of people of no means, met all the streltsy demands. The accused regimental commanders were not only dismissed from their posts but also punished with whips. Extremely fantastic sums were exacted from them, allegedly causing harm to the Streltsy units, and their estates were confiscated.
Probably it was seeing the weakness of the Naryshkins (2nd wife) that the Miloslavskys (1st wife) decided to use the Streltsy to fight their opponents. Up to that time neither the Naryshkins nor the Miloslavskys had put forward a serious political program. They were all courtiers to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, i.e. people who were equally affected by the change in customs along Western lines. To the Streltsy and the common people both remained boyars. The majority of the Muscovite population was, on the whole, indifferent to the question of which of them would win. Now the situation had drastically changed.
(15) It should be noted that in the 17th century, subpassionariness was typical neither for the frontier troops, nor for the irregular noble cavalry, nor for the Cossacks, nor for the nobility of monodvors. The decline in passionarity affected the center (Moscow) and not the outskirts of the country.
Crowning of Tsar Brothers Ivan and Peter
Khovanshchina
Miloslavsky, through provocateurs, spread a rumor among the streltsy regiments that the Naryshkins wanted to "destroy" Tsarevich Ivan. Since the streltsys wanted to be able to dictate their conditions to the authorities, they were not at all interested in whether what the Miloslavsky say was true or not. On May 15, 1682, at the sound of the trumpet, the streltsys broke into the Kremlin and demanded to see Tzarevich Ivan. Both Tsarevitch were led out onto the porch and presented to the crowd. But even after ascertaining Ivan's health, the streltsys did not calm down. They began to demand the extradition of the "traitorous nobles" according to the list prepared by the Miloslavsky (1st wife). And the massacre began.
The head of the streltsy order Yury Dolgoruky received the streltsy chosen representatives, treated them to beer and tried to pacify the mutiny. When the elected men left, the old boyar said: "Hang them on the walls of the Chinese city!" Dolgorukii's servant relayed these words to the streltsys, and they returned and hacked the old man to pieces with their sabers. Dolgoruky's son who threatened the rebels with punishment was thrown from the Kremlin porch onto streltsys' spears. The boyar Artamon Matveev, who had just returned from exile, the boyar Ivan Yazykov, the tsarina's brother Afanasy Naryshkin and many others were killed. The lowest instincts of the sub-passionate mob were unleashed. The streltsys, frenzied with blood, dragged the corpses of the boyars on the ground and shouted: "Here comes the boyar Artamon Sergeyevich and Dolgoruky, make way! Threatening to slaughter the entire royal family, the Streltsy men demanded the reprisal of another brother of the Tsarina, the hiding Ivan Kirillovich. The cowardly boyars betrayed Naryshkin. He took communion and went out to meet the streltsys with an icon. The unfortunate man was tortured for a long time, seeking a confession of treason, and then was chopped with sabers. All surviving Naryshkins were sent into exile. Sophia was proclaimed ruler under the "great sovereigns" Ivan and Peter.
However, neither she nor the Miloslavskys received real power. Power was taken by the streltsy, who smashed the estates and cellars of the boyars. Sophia (daughter of 1st wife), understood that it was necessary, at least temporarily, to satisfy the growing appetites of the army, or else the turn of the Miloslavskys would come after the Naryshkins. The Regent ordered to seize silver items from the population in towns and villages and mint money from them in order to pay the Streltsy immediately.
The Streltsy Regiments of Moscow
Tsarist Palace at Kolomenskoye
Old Believers took advantage of this situation. Avvakum's followers demanded a free dispute with appropriate security guarantees from the Streltsy to finally clarify the burning question: whose faith is correct? The government had to agree, and the dispute between the patriarch and the Suzdal priest Nikita Dobrynin, nicknamed Pustosvyat (a very learned man) took place. But since no one had ever won in any dispute since Adam and Eve, each side declared himself the victor. The patriarch informed Tsarevna Sophia of his victory, and the Old Believers went to the square and announced their victory to the Streltsy. But when Sophia immediately ordered the seizure of the Old Believers as having failed to prove their case, the Streltsy easily disowned the "elders", saying: "To hell with us in the old faith, let the priests argue!" After that they again demanded "reward money." As soon as this money (in fact, payment for the lives of the Old Believers who trusted them) was paid to them, the Streltsy settled down. Nikita Dobrynin was executed by beheading him, and the rest of the Old Believers were sent into exile.
As we can see, no goals, characteristic of the movement of passionate people, the Streltsy had none. Like any subpassionarians, they sought only to obtain benefits with minimal effort, which they achieved by constantly blackmailing the government. As a sub-passionary slag, the Streltsy were a very convenient weapon in the hands of any adventurer. And such an adventurer was found. It was Prince Ivan Khovansky, nicknamed Tara-ruy. The new head of the Streltsy Department received his nickname for his propensity to talk and empty promises. A descendant of the noble Gediminovich family, Prince Ivan Andreevich showed himself during the war with Poland as an extremely ineffective commander, which is why he was transferred to the rear - to Moscow. Appointed as commander of the Streltsy Department after Dolgoruky's death he made the necessary conclusions for himself and was constantly flirting with the Streltsy, encouraging them to raise new demands.
Khovansky skillfully maneuvered between Sophia and the army, at the same time arousing their discontent with the government. Thus, Khovansky complained to the Streltsy units about their lack of money, which allegedly kept him from giving them proper rewards for their service. The Streltsy, for their part, wanted in every way to strengthen their own position and weaken that of the boyars. It was possible to weaken the boyars by depriving them of their faithful servants – the courtiers. This is why streltsys proclaimed free those of them who had been "put into bondage" for the last two years, even though the serfs themselves resisted this forced release in every possible way. After all, to break the "bondage record" meant to lose a nourishing bite, to take off a luxurious caftan and go to the hired laborers, replacing the saber and the riding horse with a shovel and a pitchfork.
Trinity-Sergius Monastery
Peter the Great in Russian dress. Late 17th century engraved portrait by Ottens
Since Khovansky did not prevent the Streltsy people from carrying out reforms according to their tastes and inclinations, his popularity among the Streltsy troops was growing. In the summer of 1682, the situation heated up to a maximum. Regent Sophia was well aware that the danger which threatened her on the part of Khovansky and the streltsys was growing by leaps and bounds. So, she took the decisive step of leaving Moscow with Tsarevitch Ivan and Peter, accompanied by her retinue, and leaving for the village of Kolomenskoye near Moscow. From Kolomenskoye Sophia made her way to the famous Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery, ordering the nobles' militia to assemble there.
The departure of the tsarevna threw the Streltsy army into turmoil. "Nadvornaya infantry" was well aware of the measure of unpopularity of their actions among the frontier military units. A clash with the noble militia did not bode well for the streltsys either. Their only salvation was the preservation of the existing order, under which they could blackmail the government. Hence a deputation of Streltsy units set out to Kolomenskoye, seeking to convince Sophia that the Streltsy units had no ill intentions and to bring her back to Moscow. Sophia prudently refused to return. But, seeking to gain time, she calmed the Streltsy electors by pretending to be an unsuspecting, foolish woman. Meanwhile, under the pretext of meeting the son of the Ukrainian hetman Samoilovich, all the boyars were invited to report to the village of Vozdvizhenskoe, where Sophia made a stop on her way to the monastery. Khovansky, who did not expect a catch, went there too. And at that time the boyar Mikhail Lykov, a desperate border fighter, received an order from Sophia to capture Khovansky and with a small detachment of nobles attacked his camp. The voivode seized Ivan's sleeping prince by the scruff of the neck and threw him over the saddle, bringing him to Tsarevna Sophia. Without unnecessary delay, immediately in the dust by the roadside, Khovansky's head was beheaded.
Frightened by the prospect of war with the nobility's militia, the streltsys did not even think of rising to defend their chief. Feeling the strength and determination of Sophia, they agreed to all the conditions of the Government, handed over the instigators and accept Fyodor Shaklovitoy, loyal to Sophia and tough on retribution, as the new head of the Streltsy Department. Khovanshchina is over.
.