The ideological struggle of the late 15th - early 16th centuries was expressed not only in heresies, it also affected the official Orthodox Church, which was forced to respond to the above phenomena. Some of the clergy took the path of tightening their positions towards heresies and expanding church power as opposed to secular power. Around the Novgorod Archbishop Gennady, already at the end of the 15th century, militant churchmen were grouped, who were determined to mercilessly fight against heresy, following the example of the “Spanish” (Spanish) king. In Gennady's circle, ideas about the superiority of church power over secular power and the inviolability of monastic land ownership developed. The “Tale of the White Klobuk” said that the white hood (a symbol of the power of the Novgorod archbishop) came to Novgorod from Rome, and this hood was “more honest” than the royal crown, i.e. The royal power must submit to the church power.
A student and follower of Gennady was the abbot of the Volokolamsk (Volotsky) monastery Joseph Sanin (Volotsky). His main work, “The Book on Heretics,” which received the title “The Enlightener” in the 17th century, and other journalistic works are devoted to criticism of the views of Novgorod and Moscow heretics, substantiating the positions of militant churchmen (especially the defense of monastic land ownership). IN last years During his life, the Volotsk abbot tried to strengthen the alliance of militant churchmen with the grand ducal government. By establishing the strictest discipline in the monasteries, raising external piety and suppressing all freethinking, Joseph Volotsky and his followers (Josephites) sought to raise the shaky authority of the church.
Joseph did not immediately come to such views on royal power. At first, the Josephites supported the specific princely opposition and opposed the grand ducal government, which sought to secularize church lands. At the council of 1503, they opposed the project of eliminating monastic land ownership, which was put forward by non-covetous people (we will discuss them below), supported by Ivan III. Needing the help of a strong church organization to combat heretical movements, Ivan III conceded on this issue: the “acquisitive” demands of the Josephites were satisfied. In return, Ivan III secured support from the church.
At the council of 1504, the Josephites achieved the condemnation of heretics and reprisals against them. From that moment on, the Josephites supported the idea of the divine origin of royal power, put forward by their ideological leader Joseph Volotsky.
The Josephite Philotheus, an elder of one of the Pskov monasteries, during the reign of Vasily III, developed the idea of the historical continuity of power of the Moscow sovereigns from the Byzantine emperors. This theory (“Moscow is the third Rome”) played an important role in the formation of the official ideology of the Russian autocracy. According to this theory, there is a state in the world that is eternal in its spiritual essence - Rome; its earthly outlines may change and may bear different names. Rome is the most powerful state in the world. The first Rome is the ancient Roman Empire, which over time became ossified in sins and, according to God’s plan, was destroyed by barbarians. Second Rome - its successor Byzantine Empire. Her sin was the conclusion of the Union of Florence with the Catholics in 1439, after which God's punishment was her capture by the Turks. After this, Moscow became the third Rome as the only major stronghold of Orthodoxy, which is the capital of not only a powerful state, but also a stronghold of spirit and morality - “the earthly support of heavenly virtues”, which should stand forever. As Philotheus wrote, “two Romes have fallen, and the third stands, but there will never be a fourth.” The theory “Moscow is the third Rome,” despite its certain originality and completeness, is not a unique phenomenon. For example, the Turks who captured Constantinople had a similar theory; they also called their country Rome (Rum), and themselves - Rumians. This name was also used by their eastern neighbors.
Many of the highest church hierarchs of the 16th century came from among the Josephites: Metropolitan Daniel, Rostov Archbishop Vassian (brother of Joseph Volotsky), bishops Savva Slepushkin, Vassian Toporkov (nephew of Joseph Volotsky), Akaki, Savva Cherny, etc. Metropolitan Macarius was close to the Josephites. As an intra-church movement, Josephiteism lasted until the 17th century.
Nil Sorsky, who came from the Maikov family of clerks, proposed different paths of church reform compared to the Josephites. Having visited Mount Athos in Greece in his youth, Nile settled on the Sora River in the Trans-Volga region (hence his followers are sometimes called “Trans-Volga elders”), where he began to preach his teachings. The views of Nil Sorsky were formed under the strong influence of medieval mystics; he had a negative attitude towards external piety and insisted on the need for asceticism and moral self-improvement. Unlike the Josephites, who were devoted to every letter of church literature, Nil Sorsky demanded a critical approach to church scriptures. His followers objected to Josephite cruelties towards heretics, and the Trans-Volga monasteries often became hotbeds of heresies. The teachings of Nil Sorsky were used by the ideologists of the boyars and, above all, by Vassian Patrikeev, who defended the idea of the need to secularize the real estate of the church.
An open clash between Joseph of Volotsky and Nil Sorsky occurred at a church council in 1503, at which Nil Sorsky, supported by Ivan III, raised the question of the secularization of church property (hence the followers of Nil are called non-covetous). The Josephite majority of the cathedral decisively rejected the proposal to eliminate monastic land ownership. Ivan III, as already said, took the side of the Josephites in this dispute.
The struggle between the Josephites and non-possessors continued. At a church council in 1531, the controversy ended with the condemnation of the teachings of non-possessors.
Maxim the Greek and the Non-Possessors
The years of the reign of Vasily III (1505 - 1533) were a time of further strengthening of the grand ducal power. The decisive struggle against the noble boyars was preceded by a period when Vasily III tried, in his secularization policy, to rely on non-acquisitive people and increase his domain. He brought Vassian Patrikeev closer to him. A special code prohibited residents of a number of regions of the Russian state, as well as the descendants of the Yaroslavl, Suzdal and Starodub princes, from selling and giving their estates to monasteries for “remembrance of their souls” without the knowledge of the Grand Duke. In 1511, Var-laam, who was close to the non-covetous people, became metropolitan, and to correct the liturgical books he summoned from Athos the learned monk Maximus the Greek (Greek humanist Michael Trivolis), who had at one time been under the influence of Savonarola.
In Rus', Maxim the Greek became a prominent publicist who adopted the non-acquisitive ideas of Vassian Patrikeev. However, the rapprochement of Vasily III with the non-covetous people turned out to be short-lived, because it turned out to be in conflict with the main line of the grand ducal power, aimed at limiting the boyars' willfulness. Non-acquisitive people and their allies - the boyars - were not inclined to support the autocratic aspirations of the Moscow sovereigns. In 1522, instead of Varlaam, who fell into disgrace, the disciple of Joseph Volopky, the head of the Josephites, Daniel, an ardent supporter of strengthening the grand-ducal autocratic power, became Metropolitan of Moscow. In 1525, the government uncovered a conspiracy headed by one of the court figures, Bersen-Beklemishev. He spoke out in defense of the privileges of the feudal nobility and was indignant at the fact that “our sovereign, locked in bed at his bedside, does all sorts of things,” with the boyars, as before, without consulting. Bersen-Beklemishev was executed, and the persecution of non-possessors began. In 1525 and 1531, Maxim the Greek was convicted twice and imprisoned in a monastery. In 1531 after judicial trial Vassian Patrikeev was also imprisoned and died soon after.
Story
The non-covetous people were initially led by Elder Nil Sorsky, who preached asceticism.
Supporters of the official church called themselves Josephites after their leader Joseph Volotsky.
The non-covetous people were initially supported by Ivan III, who saw in them a force helping him to take away part of the church’s lands.
In the studies of some historians, there is an opinion about the connection of non-covetous people with the development of heretical teachings of the late 15th - mid-16th centuries, so I. Ya. Froyanov rightly points out that all the famous heretics of the specified period were associated with non-covetous people, both by the community of ideas and the place stay: Matvey Bashkin, Elder Artemy, Theodosius Kosoy - lived and worked in the monasteries of the non-covetous, and those of the heretics who were not executed were imprisoned in the monasteries of the Josephites, which indirectly confirms their connection with the opponents of the followers of Joseph of Volotsky - the non-covetous. A. I. Pliguzov in a number of works questioned the unshakable dogma of “the struggle of the Josephites and non-covetous people led by Nil Sorsky.”
Grade
Non-covetousness received a unanimous assessment from secular, unbiased historians. They evoked open sympathy among domestic authors, both liberal (pre-revolutionary) and Soviet, their ideas were presented as the only true and Christianly normal ones, while the Josephites were not better light, their teaching was considered self-serving and Christianly erroneous. This tradition was violated by only a few points: A.V. Kartashev, in his book, pointed out the bias of these judgments, and also in Soviet historiography, for some time, a negative characterization of non-covetousness dominated, when, under the influence of the instructions of I.V. Stalin, the process of centralization in Rus' was considered closely unity with the development of autocracy and was assessed in a positive sense. Non-acquisitive people were presented as conductors of the old, feudal-boyar order.
In modern literature, both domestic and foreign authors have become widespread with a negative attitude towards the Josephites, and, conversely, a positive, sympathetic attitude towards non-covetous people; they generally repeat the rhetoric of their predecessors, considering the Josephites to be orthodox, and non-covetous people to be similar to Western European reformers.
Notes
Links
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
- Nezhinsky (pigeon)
- Josephites
See what “Non-covetous” is in other dictionaries:
THE NON-COVENANTS Modern encyclopedia
Non-covetous people- NON-COVENANTS, a religious and political movement in the Russian state at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries. Nil Sorsky, Vassian Kosoy and others. Non-covetous people preached asceticism, withdrawal from the world, and called for the church to renounce land ownership. Opponents... ... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary
THE NON-COVENANTS Big Encyclopedic Dictionary
THE NON-COVENANTS- (Trans-Volga elders), adherents of the religious-political movement in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. N. preached the need for the church to renounce acquisition (acquisition of land and property values) as contrary to the gospel principles.... ... Russian history
Non-covetous people- (Trans-Volga elders) religious and political movement in the Russian state at the end. 15 start 16th centuries They preached asceticism, withdrawal from the world; demanded that the church renounce land ownership. Ideologists: Nil Sorsky, Vassian Kosoy and others. Against... ... Political science. Dictionary.
THE NON-COVENANTS- opponents of church land ownership in Russia (late 15th - early 16th centuries). Widespread dissatisfaction with the church, in particular with the acquisition of lands and other wealth, and protests against the church of heretics forced some members of the clergy to look for ways... ... Legal encyclopedia
non-acquisitive- (Trans-Volga elders), followers of the religious-political movement in the Russian state at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries. They preached asceticism, withdrawal from the world; demanded that the church renounce the “acquisition” of land property. Ideologists: Neil Sorsky,... ... encyclopedic Dictionary
Non-covetous people- opponents of church land ownership in Russia at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries. Widespread dissatisfaction with the church, in particular with its “acquisition” of lands and other wealth, forced some representatives of the clergy to look for ways to restore the shaky... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
THE NON-COVENANTS- opponents of the church. land ownership in Russia con. 15 start 16th centuries Widespread dissatisfaction with the church, in particular with its acquisition of lands and other wealth, and the speeches of heretics against the church forced some representatives of the clergy to look for ways to restore... ... Soviet historical encyclopedia
THE NON-COVENANTS- representatives of religions. Philosopher and societies. currents in Rus. state ve late 15th – mid. 16th centuries, led by Nil Sorsky, Vassian Kosy (Patrikeev) and Artemy Troitsky. Maxim Grek also joined N. In contrast to the Josephites, who sought... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
Liberation from the Tatar-Mongolian dependence and the formation of a single state had a beneficial effect on the economy of Rus' and caused an economic and economic recovery. During this period Orthodox Church owned huge lands, actively developed economic activity. From the end of the 15th century. Its interference in the political life of the state is also increasing. The policy of the great princes, dissatisfied with the ever-increasing economic and political power of the church, was aimed at limiting its power. These ideas were embodied in the doctrine of “non-covetousness.” At the Council of 1503, non-covetous people supported the Grand Duke's proposal to abolish church land ownership.
They were opposed by adherents of preserving the existing church system; initially they were called “money-grubbers”, then “Josephites” - after the name of their ideologist Joseph Volotsky. The goal of the “acquisitive” and “non-acquisitive” was still the same - to improve the work of the church, but they had different ideas about the ideals of monastic service and the relationship between spiritual and secular power.
Non-covetous people- supporters of a special direction of Russian socio-political thought, opposite to money-grubbers.
Basic ideas of non-possessors:
· the ideal of the monastic structure - the early Christian community;
· separation from the church of all wealth and deprivation of its right to own inhabited lands;
· monasteries should not have private property; the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified even by good goals;
Founder teachings - Neil Sorsky (1433-1508).
The doctrine of non-covetous people is most fully expressed in the works of Maxim Greka(Mikhail Trivolis) (1470-1555).
The relationship between secular and spiritual power. Spiritual and secular authorities must be separated, each of them has its own sphere of activity, which determines the measures of influence that are permissible only for it.
State. M. Grek paid much attention legal means origin of power - hereditary and elective, when they participate in elections simple people. The goal of the state is to ensure a peaceful and calm life for people and stable internal order.
The essence of power is considered by M. Greek traditionally - as the realization of the Divine will. He believed that it was possible to criticize a ruler to the point of recognizing his rule as “tormenting,” but doing anything against him was unacceptable.
Form of government preferable, according to the Greek, is one in which the king controls his subjects “in the royal synclite councils,” which include boyars and nobles, i.e. to a certain extent we are talking about an estate-representative monarchy. Listing the duties of the king, Maxim the Greek repeated provisions such as: listen to the advice of wise advisers and clergy, protect and organize the lives of his subjects on the basis of good laws.
Right. Maxim the Greek consistently develops the idea of limiting royal power not only by advice, but also by law. Distinguishes between “truth” (law) and “untruth” (violation of the law).
A significant place in the works of M. Grek is given to criticism of the court. He notes the bribery of judges, criticizes the practice of extrajudicial arbitrariness and lawless extortions, expressed in planting evidence on the innocent in order to obtain a payoff, medieval forms of judicial combat as an unfair way of resolving cases, while giving preference to testimony and oath.
Attitude towards heresy. Official church hierarchs insisted on the persecution of heretics, and not only by the forces of the church, but by all means of state coercion, including the use of death penalty. Non-covetous people considered it unacceptable to persecute heretics, proposing to influence them only with persuasion and wise conversations.
Josephites (money-grubbers) - supporters of a special direction of Russian social thought, who received their name after their main inspirer - Joseph Volotsky.
Key Ideas Josephites:
· preservation of existing orders and all forms of church organization and its economic situation;
· the need to increase (“acquire”) church property, which will allow the church to more successfully implement one of its main tasks - to do “good deeds”: building monasteries, maintaining the clergy, helping those in need;
· recognition of the personal “non-covetousness” of the monks.
Joseph Volotsky(Ivan Ivanovich Sanin) (1439-1515), church leader, spiritual writer, saint of the Russian Orthodox Church.
We especially note that Volotsky became a rather significant person in the state: he led the Josephite spiritual party, whose members occupied key positions in the church, Volotsk monks participated in the baptism of the future Tsar Ivan IV, and acted as the main prosecutors in the trials of Maxim the Greek, M. S. Bashkin and Theodosius Oblique. The monk Philotheus was close to the Josephites, who formulated and substantiated the concept of “Moscow – the third Rome”.
State. The relationship between spiritual and secular power. The position of the Josephites in relation to the royal power was not constant. Initially, the Josephites supported the idea of the dominance of spiritual power over secular power. The ruler, according to I. Volotsky, is an earthly man and a simple performer God's will, therefore, he should be given only “royal honor, and not divine honor.” If a tyrant was established on the throne, then one should not obey him. Volotsky's subsequent rapprochement with Grand Duke Ivan III led to a change in his views on the nature of grand-ducal power: recognizing, as before, its divine origin, he already declares the need to subordinate all institutions of the state and church to the ruler. The only limitation on the power of the sovereign is the inadmissibility of going beyond the limits of God and state laws.
Right. Volotsky classifies laws traditionally for his time. But in his classification there is no distinction, widespread in Western European thought, between divine law and state (positive) law. The source of all legislation, in his opinion, is the Divine will.
The hierarchy of laws according to his teaching is as follows:
· Local and Ecumenical Councils;
· “the words of the Holy Fathers”;
· “city laws”, which mechanically combine the first and second.
Attitude towards heresy. I. Volotsky shows absolute intolerance towards heretics. He considers dissent a crime not only against religion and the church, but also against the state. Heretics must be severely punished.
In general, the union of the Josephites with the state lasted until the 2nd half of the 16th century. Later, the ideas of the inalienability of church property began to contradict the ideology of the emerging autocracy. An echo of the Josephite doctrine was the policy of Patriarch Nikon.
The most prominent Russian publicist of the 16th century. was Ivan Semenovich Peresvetov(dates of birth and death unknown), in whose person the nobility found a persistent defender of their interests.
Most of the specific provisions put forward by I. S. Peresvetov touched upon such major issues as the complete abolition of servitude in Rus', the abolition of feeding, the reorganization of local government, the army, the implementation of judicial reform, and the publication of the Code of Laws.
Expressing his negative attitude towards large nobles and boyars, the ideologist of the nobility spoke of them as “lazy rich people” who do not care about the interests of the state, but think only about themselves. The boyars, in his opinion, oppress the volosts and cities, “get rich from the tears and blood of the peasants.”
The true support of the sovereign, his military and service strength, according to the writer, are the “warriors,” that is, the nobles. In the fight against internal and external enemies, the tsar should rely primarily on the nobility.
Without touching on the situation of the peasants and considering their exploitation natural, I. S. Peresvetov rebels against both complete and “bonded servitude”, into the networks of which individual seedy nobles fell. He recommends to the sovereign the organization of a standing army with “fire combat.”
Political ideal I. S. Peresvetova is a strong centralized state with tsarist power at the head, which, relying on the nobility, will organize an army, create a state apparatus flexible and obedient to the will of the tsar, clear the court of bribery, and defeat the boyars during the struggle to strengthen the state.
In accordance with the specific conditions of the political struggle in the 16th century. I. S. Peresvetov demanded from the tsar that he deal with the traitors and keep his kingdom “in a thunderstorm.”
The primary task foreign policy Moscow I.S. Peresvetov considered the conquest of Kazan. By annexing Kazan to the Russian state and taking possession of this “sub-heaven land”, the “Great Sovereigns of All Rus'” will secure their country from enemy attacks and open new trade routes.
In the person of I. S. Peresvetov, the rising nobility and service people, who rose to prominence as a result of “talent and service,” received their talented thinker. I. S. Peresvetov’s program touched upon all issues of the political struggle between princes and boyars, defenders of the appanage-patrimonial order, on the one hand, and the tsarist power, which relied on the nobility, on the other.
opponents of the church land ownership in Russia con. 15 - beginning 16th centuries Widespread dissatisfaction with the church, in particular with its acquisition of lands and other wealth, and the speeches of heretics against the church forced some representatives of the clergy to look for ways to restore the shaken authority of the church. They were led by Nil Sorsky, who preached asceticism. In 1503, when the Grand Duke. power on the church The cathedral raised the question of the secularization of the church. lands, which could weaken the material resources of the church, which resisted the strengthening of the power of the leader. prince, and create a reserve of lands necessary for distribution to the nobility, Nil Sorsky and his associates supported this proposal. However, militant churchmen - the Josephites - defended the church's right to land and other property. Grand Duke the government compromised with the church, preserving its lands and receiving its support in the fight against large secular feudal lords. After the death of Nil Sorsky, the idea of secularization of monastic lands was substantiated in detail by Vassian Patrikeev. The controversy with the Josephites ended with N.'s condemnation to the church. cathedral in 1531. N.'s ideas were sometimes used feudal. opposition. K ser. 16th century religious-political the struggle between the Josephites and N. began to give way to a combination of elements of non-covetousness and Josephiteness in the works of a number of publicists who substantiated the idea of a union of secular and spiritual power (Sylvester and others). N.'s ideas influenced the formation of the views of Theodosius Kosy, Artemy and other heretics. 16th century Lit.: Budovnits I.U., Russian journalism of the 16th century, M.-L., 1947; Kazakova N. A., Vassian Patrikeev and his works, M.-L., 1960; Zimina A., I. S. Peresvetov and his contemporaries, M., 1958; Lurie Ya. S., Ideological. wrestling in Russian journalism con. XV - beginning XVI century, M.-L., 1960; Lilienfeld F., Nil Sorski und seine Schriften, V., 1963. A. M. Sakharov. Moscow.
Non-acquisitives are opponents of church land ownership in Russia (late 15th - early 16th centuries). Widespread dissatisfaction with the church, in particular with its acquisition of lands and other wealth, and protests against the church by heretics forced some members of the clergy to look for ways to restore the shaky authority of the church. At their head was Nil Sorsky, who preached asceticism. When the grand ducal power at the church council (1503) raised the question of the secularization of church lands, which could weaken the material resources of the church, which resisted the strengthening of the power of the grand duke, and create a reserve of lands necessary for distribution to the nobility, Nil Sorsky and his associates supported this proposal. However, the Josephites defended the church's right to land and other property. The grand ducal power compromised with the church, preserving its lands and receiving its support in the fight against large feudal lords. After the death of Nil Sorsky, the idea of secularization of monastic lands was substantiated in detail by Vassian Patrikeev. The controversy with the Josephites ended with the condemnation of Nile and the non-possessors at a church council (1531). The ideas of non-acquisitive people were sometimes used by the feudal opposition. By the middle of the 16th century, the religious and political struggle of the Josephites and non-covetous people began to give way to a combination of elements of non-covetousness and Josephiteness in the works of a number of publicists who substantiated the idea of a union of secular and spiritual power (Sylvest et al.). The ideas of non-acquisitive people influenced the formation of the views of Theodosius Kosy, Artemy and other heretics of the mid-16th century.
NON-COVENIENCE, one of the main spiritual and moral foundations of Holy Rus'. Its essence was the predominance of spiritual and moral motives life behavior over material interests.
In the souls of our ancestors, primarily peasants, there lived a sense of justice, and not just material retribution, compensation, but a sense of supreme justice - to live with dignity according to one’s soul, to reward according to one’s conscience. By the 19th century A popular ideal of justice was formed, which was a kind of compass for the Russian peasant. You should not chase wealth, profit, or pursue selfish interests. As a goal in life, it was considered unworthy. The main thing is to live life kindly, honestly, with dignity.
A person should not strive for wealth or hoarding; a person should be content with little.
“Extra money means extra worries”, “Money is a worry, a bag is a burden”, “You can’t live without bread, and you can’t live on bread (not on bread, material interest)”, “You won’t live on bread alone”, “ He has bread for his belly and lives without money.” Indeed, “why bother your soul if you have something to live with” (eat bread). “I can live without money, as long as I have bread,” “Sleep better without money,” “Better bread and water than pie with misfortune.”
“Drink me, Lord, in a small bite,” the peasant prays. “Eat half-full, drink half-drunk, and live a century to the full.” There is nothing to envy others, says the Russian peasant and emphasizes: “Looking at people to live (that is, not according to income) is to cry at yourself.”
Rejecting acquisitiveness and hoarding, carefully and with dignity accepting wealth and money, the working person puts forward his ideal - the ideal of modest prosperity, in which he can live tolerably himself and help his loved ones. “He is rich who does not know need”, “We will not be rich, but we will be well-fed.”
In the minds of Russian people, the concept of prosperity and satiety is associated only with labor, work, personal merit. “As you work, so do you eat”, “As you are (how we work), so is the sleigh”, “As is the groin, so is the hat on it”, “Such is Senka’s hat”, “As is Martyn, such is his altyn” ( earned so much).
Russian people firmly believe that: “You will be full from your labors, but you will not be rich.” Such a person does not need profit. “A well-fed soul does not take profit”, “It is better to live in pity than in envy”, “He who feeds the orphans knows God”, “Gather with one hand, distribute with the other”, “The hand of the giver will not become scarce.”
“You’re not rich by what you have, but rich by what you’re happy about” (that is, share with your neighbor), “Not rich, but happy to have guests,” “I don’t need a rich man, give me someone who’s a bit overpriced” (not greedy), “Keep the girl in the dark.” , and money is tight.”
A special question is raised about the attitude towards other people's property and the results of other people's labor. Encroach on them - terrible sin. “It’s better to collect from around the world than to take someone else’s.” “It is better to ask for Christ’s sake than to take it from behind a bush.” “An earned loaf is better than a stolen loaf.” “Although patched, but not grabbed.”
For a Western European burgher, the Russians would probably seem monstrous nonsense folk proverbs calling to feel sorry for other people's property. “Don’t take care of your own, take care of someone else’s.” “Take care of someone else’s, and take care of yours as you know.” But in fact it was like this: they took care of other people's property with more zeal than their own.
“Don’t count money in someone else’s pocket.” “Have pity on someone else’s, God will give his own.” “Whoever desires someone else’s will lose his own.” However, the Russian worker also says this: “Don’t forget what’s yours, and don’t neglect someone else’s.” “I will stand for what is mine, but I will not take someone else’s.”
A.I. Herzen in the book “The Past and Thoughts” talks about a peasant who categorically refused to take too much from him. In the hut where Herzen stopped to spend the night on his way to exile, the peasant fed him dinner. When it was necessary to pay for the meal in the morning, the owner asked the exile for five kopecks, and the smallest coin he had was two kopecks. The peasant refused to accept this coin because he considered it a great sin to take more for dinner than it was worth.
Writer V. I. Belov rightly notes: “In the old days, many people considered God’s punishment not poverty, but wealth. Their idea of happiness was associated with moral purity and spiritual harmony, which, in their opinion, was not promoted by the desire for wealth. They were proud not of wealth, but of intelligence and ingenuity. Those who were proud of wealth, especially not acquired wealth, but inherited wealth, were disliked by the peasantry.”
Among the peasant sages and experienced people, there were truths, the ideological and moral content of which, translated into modern language, was something like this: “Man’s wealth does not consist in money and comfort, not in expensive and convenient things and objects, but in the depth and diversity of comprehension of the essence of being.” , acquiring the beauty and harmony of the world, creating a high moral order.”
A person who thinks only about his personal material interests is unpleasant to the soul of a peasant. His sympathies are on the side of those who live according to conscience, justice, and simplicity of soul.
The classic Russian fairy tale about three brothers - two smart and the third a fool - ends with the moral victory of the unmercenary, non-covetous, simple-minded younger “fool” brother over the materialism and practical wisdom of the older brothers.
Thrift and thrift are more consistent with his ideal of modest income. “Thrift,” he says, “is better than wealth,” “A thrifty person is better than a rich person,” “Thrift is half of salvation,” “Stock doesn’t break the bank,” “Stock doesn’t fix troubles.”
“A small loot, but a big save - you’ll live a lifetime”, “A penny for a penny - a family will live”, “A penny at home saves a ruble”, “It’s better to take care of your own than to live someone else’s.”
“Keep your daily life based on industry and income”, “People do not get rich by coming, but by spending”, “Throw goods behind, you will find yourself ahead”, “Whoever wastes is not on that path.”
“It’s not about godfather, but we need to take it and take care of it,” the sensible owner teaches. “Pick one berry at a time and you’ll fill up a box,” “Fluff after feather, and a feather duster will come out,” “In general, the stock will not spoil the bag,” “If you put it further away, you’ll take it closer.”
Thrift is strongly encouraged. But hoarding, the greedy acquisition of material objects, is considered a sin, because, as the people believe, “to a stingy soul is worth less than a penny.”
The stingy and miserly, just like the rich, are suspected of colluding with the devil. “The miser saves - the devil stashes his purse”, “The devil stashes his purse - the miser fills it”, “Whoever wants money does not sleep all night”, “Stingy as bees: they collect honey, but die themselves.”
People said about such people: “His teeth are frozen from stinginess,” “You can’t ask for a loan of ice from him at Epiphany,” “Every penny he has is nailed down with a ruble nail.” And the general verdict is this: “God will reduce the age of a stingy man.”
Condemning money-grubbing, hoarding, greed, stinginess and unjust wealth, the people's consciousness is condescending towards the poor and, moreover, sympathizes with them. Apparently, the image of a poor man is more consistent with popular ideals than the image of a rich man.
