The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Ideological religious trends of the 15-16th centuries in the Soviet historiography of the period of "Great-power Stalinism": ideology and science

d. A. Vinokurov


Work is presented by department of national history of the Bashkir state pedagogical university of M. Akmulla.

The research supervisor - the doctor of historical sciences, professor G.T. Obydennova

In article the questions connected with reflection of ideology of "great-power Stalinism" in historical science of 1945-1953 are considered. In the center of attention there is a problem of change of perception by historical memory of ideological religious trends of the 15-16th centuries. Communication between ideology of late Stalinism and features of transformation of the Soviet historical science studying questions of history of the Russian church is shown.

D. Vinokurov


The question connected with the reflection of "high Stalinism" in historiography is considered in the article. Special attention is paid to the change in the perception of

the ideological and religious movements of the 15th-16th centuries. The author shows the connection between the late Stalinism ideology and peculiarities of the transformation in the Soviet science studying the Russian church history.

The last period of a Stalin's rule is noted by the significant changes which occurred in the field of official ideology and the methodological bases of the humanities. One of private manifestations of that sort of changes is "change of coordinates" in perception and interpretation of the ideological and religious representations accompanying formation of the Moscow state in the 15-16th centuries. The conceptual sheaf "church - the government", in the 1920-1930th used in antireligious promotion, to the second half of the 1940th gains new treatment. This change was not connected with "creative reconsideration" of Marxism, took place in many respects very unexpectedly for the historians who were not in time to jump on a footboard of new "line" of party in historical science. It was a consequence of the internal evolution of the Stalin mode which was reflected in the new relations of cooperation with Russian Orthodox Church and found the new individuality in days of the Great Patriotic War and the first post-war years [4, page 288-290].

In military years the period of the 15-16th centuries begins to be interpreted as the period heroic as which main fact creation of the uniform powerful Russian state surrounded with a ring of enemies, but which managed to defend the independence acted. The context of the historical researches devoted to the late Middle Ages became more and more "etatistsky". From late works of I.V. Stalin the medievalists unanimously drew a conclusion that "creation of the centralized state to replace feudal fragmentation is a necessary condition not only maintaining independence, but also and a condition of successful economic and cultural development of this country" [18, page 30].

However there were no concrete instructions as to historians to interpret the history of church of the 15-16th centuries and messianic theories appearing her environment and directly connected with formation of the uniform state. Here that circumstance which was noted in foreign observers of an era of Stalinism was shown. In the historical science which is torn off from rigid sketchiness of times of "pokrovshchina" unexpectedly there are subjects which poorly corresponded to current "line" of party. The history of church is among such subjects in which, according to A. Masur and G. Bateman, pro the line"" it is infinitely difficult to follow not only to the foreign researcher, but also the Soviet historian" [1, river 57]. About change of a party course to church the researcher had to judge by a number of indirect signs, direct reference to historical science of not having: for example, on restoration of patriarchate, activization of issue of "The magazine of the Moscow patriarchy", opening of a number of spiritual educational institutions, etc.

The problem of participation of church in creation of the centralized state could not but rise on a wave of strengthening of interest of I.V. Stalin by Ivan the Terrible's era. The "Stalin" perception of an image of Ivan the Terrible which was reflected, in particular, in the movie by S.M. Eisenstein "Ivan the Terrible" (1944-1945) where the young tsar it is proud proclaims the well-known messianic formula: "Two Rome fell, and the third - Moscow - stands, and the fourth Rome not to happen", it is widely known. But the peculiar "cult of Grozny" and its era created by R.Yu. Vipper, S.V. Bakhrushin and I.I. Smirnov's works could not exist in a historical vacuum - the science addresses studying "the superlinear phenomena" an era of formation of the uniform Russian state - in particular, the history of church as

"most general sanction" of the feudal state.

The Russian church as one of the leading ideological forces of the Russian Middle Ages, acquires the status of "ally" of statesmen - Ivan III and Vasily III. Paradoxically there are points of view rehabilitating the theory "Moscow - the Third Rome".

So, one of the leading Soviet philosophers, M.T. Iovchuk, in 1946 in a public lecture for students of the Higher party school said that "in the depths of religious ideology appeared and gradually the progressive socio-political ideas developed. One of such progressive ideas was the theory about "Moscow - the third Rome". Authors of this theory claimed that the Moscow state has to become the third Rome - the most great power of the world" [11, page 11]. Gradually from the idea of "tretyeromizm" that begins to act "offensive", "imperialistic"

a crape in which shrouded this concept a historiography of an era of M.N. Pokrovsky [5, page 104].

Began to find in the theory and new - "progressive" elements. For example, in 1945 in the research which came out posthumously

N. S. Chayev calling the theory "a church and political fantasy" 16th century, speaks about "ideological unity" of the Russian population Х^ХУ! centuries, formed by this theory, and the foreign policy of the Russian government was not "imperialistic", and directed pro the ancestral lands the Russian land", i.e. on the western and its northwest borders" [20, page 22]. V.S. Pokrovsky in 1951 alters a picture a statement a little that this theory "was not accepted as the official theory of the Moscow princes during addition of the Russian centralized state as any expansionist aspirations were alien to the Moscow state" [16, by page 59], but "played a significant role" in formation of the state unity. Similar views were stated also by N.N. Maslennikova, one of the largest specialists in the Pskov knizhnost of the 16th century [13, page 203].

Joseph of Volotsk and the current generated by him in the Russian church which received the name "iosiflyanst-in" in historical science are put now in the forefront. If "Pokrovsky's school" characterized Joseph of Volotsk's activity as "a congestion of imushchestvo in hands of church, maintenance of the dominating religion by police measures, support of clergy by throne and the nobility" [15, page 130], then now its activity is located in a context of formation of the centralized state.

Through a prism of fight of "oblastnichestvo" and "throne" V.S. Pokrovsky looks at an io-siflyanstvo problem: "as royal (sic! - Of V.) the power in Russia was progressive in the 16th century... Iosif Sanin's theory... played a positive role in formation of the strong Russian state" [16, page 64]. According to Pokrovsky, the iosiflena - the only current in the Russian church of the 15-16th centuries able to apply for progressive character; not money-making acts in its constructions by the seigniorial current, Vassian Patrikeev and Maximus the Greek's activity appears the social demagogy which is not promoting the solution of the current problems, if I may say so, of "creation of a tsarism in a single country". Here we can note in brackets that by 1958 this vector will cardinally change and reproaches in demagogy will fall on the head already of Joseph of Volotsk and iosiflyan in general [7, page 241-246], and in not money-making will begin to mark out "ethical" and "social" sense. Even more "progressive" nature of an iosif-lyanstvo was emphasized by P.P. Smirnov who saw in iosiflyana an antithesis to boyars, and their social base - in the "posluzhilets, peasants and lackeys" [19, page 86] coming to a proscenium during fight of the grand-ducal power against specific separatism.

Approximately from the same positions O.V. Trakhtenberg forms the criticism. If in the field of philosophy and literature to the iosiflena appear them (we will notice, strictly following a canon of the liberal journalism of the 19th century) "extreme formalists" and "nachetchik", and even "the Russian Jesuits" and "Russian to -

miniresidents of Kan", the author nevertheless is forced to recognize that not money-making "was used as ideological weapon by seigniorial party, in other words, feudal reaction" [17, page 78] and played in general "the braking, reactionary role" in formation of the uniform Russian state while the iosiflyanstvo promoted its growth. The author sees the messianic theory of Filofey in historical prospect - if in the 19th century the theory echoes which sounded at Slavophiles were used "for reactionary conclusions", then in the 16th century "the healthy political thought" [17, page 75], coming down, according to the author to need of formation of the uniform strong state led by Moscow was behind a church and religious peel of" this theory ".

The only large generalizing research of an era of late Stalinism covering problems of history of the Russian church of the 15-16th centuries is the monograph by I.U. Budovnits "The Russian journalism of the 16th century" (1947). In the Russian church the author obviously looks at opposition of the "iosiflyan-sky" and "not money-grubbing" directions eyes "иосифлян". Nilo di Sora as the theorist, and Vassian Patrikeev as the practician became founders of a current which was "the tool of seigniorial policy" [3, page 81]. Iosif Waugh-lotsky acts in Budovnits's discourse rather as "business executive" and the politician, than as the spiritual figure. Generally in the book Budovnitsa the iosiflyanstvo is treated from a position of a pre-revolutionary historiography, with allocation of three of its qualitative parties: fight against laicisation, rigid "proti-voyeretichesky" line and assistance of Joseph of Volotsk and his associates to formation of ideology of monocracy.

"The political line" of Iosif Volots-ky, Budovnits writes, more corresponded to problems of the Russian state, than "conservative humanity the" of not grabbers trying to create allegedly church, weak and dependent on the princely power. "The strong, centralized economically powerful church was created in unison with the strong, centralized autocratic power, and both

these institute mutually supported each other throughout "the eminence of Moscow" from the small principality to the extensive state" [3, page 100], the researcher concludes. At such approach of course even the monk Filofey to the author "is drawn... the progressive writer who devoted all the talent to strengthening of a front line at that time of the autocratic power and with great elation and belief looked at the future of the homeland, predicting it the most brilliant situation among all other states of the world" [3, page 175] as which it was understood, obviously, Ivan the Terrible's government.

The same theses were defended in for the first time the work which came out in 1951 by V.V. Mavrodin. He attributes the final statement of io-siflyansky ideology as the leading force by the time of cathedrals of 1525-1531 which condemned M. Grek and Vassian Patrikeev. Osiflyan, Mavrodin considers, "seeking for creation of the powerful uniform state with the strong autocratic power at the head, were spokesmen of the progressive social thought invested with a cover of the church doctrine whereas "not grabbers" with their patriarchal expectations, with the aspiration to leave from political life and to create church, independent of temporal power, reflected the conservative beginning in the Russian church" [11, page 204]. Here it should be noted one fact: recognition of cathedrals 1525 and 1533 of "progressive" was not peculiar to an either a pre-revolutionary, nor Soviet historiography.

In general, if to speak about the general trend, then everyone concrete "иосифлянин" (Joseph of Volotsk, the archbishop Gennady, metropolitans Daniil and Makari, etc.) was from the point of view of the historian Marxist undoubtedly "reactionary" figure at least upon belonging to "princes of church", but all together, united by one general name and the general activity - strengthening of the authority of the grand-ducal power, they were figures "progressive".

To illustrate a thought that historians interpreted the party line

it is not identical, but in the identical direction, it is necessary to address works of one of sign Soviet scientists - D.S. Likhacheva. In 1945-1952 his creativity was strongly influenced from the dominating Stalinism ideology. In its concept of ideological registration of the grand-ducal power the theory "Moscow - the third Rome" gets new sounding. Since 1945 Likhachev claims that this theory is not autochthonic, and is introduced from the outside, representing one of manifestations of "the Byzantine influence" which, according to Likhachev, was insignificant, representing the culture of "the top classes of Byzantium". Ya.S. Lurye in 1948 opposed such interpretation of a problem [12, page 86], however a "official" dispute in the period of I.V. Stalin's government did not take place. At Likhachev the whole theory extremely in consonance to an internal political situation in the country, a situation of fight against "cosmopolitism" and "servility before the West" is formed. Ruling classes, Likhachev declares in one of the articles, need "foreign" culture that "will more sharply separate from the working people, artificially and imperiously to rise over it" [10, page 125]. The people, the carrier of original culture, "are not be infected with cosmopolitism and always resists to "influences" [9, page 468]. But this thesis conflicts at Likhachev to other his construct - the statement which was influenced, probably, influence of work of N.S. Chayev that "the brilliant haze of the world power which supporters of the theory of Moscow tried to open - the third Rome, never seduced the Moscow government which was steadily striving for a close and specific goal - to reunion "vseya Russia"" [8, page 31-32]. It turns out that not "people", nevertheless "government" defined the main line of development of the Russian state. Thus, D.S. Likhachev concludes, the Russian state differs from other states in commitment to peculiar Realpolitik while their existence "was supported abstract, El Misti -

the chesky and nonnational principles" also set to himself concrete "natsionalnoobjedinitelny tasks in grandiose scales".

Proceeding from the facts given above, it is possible to assume that in the Soviet historical science of the 1940-1950th which is engaged in studying the questions connected with the past of the Russian church there was temporary deviation from the classical Marxist scheme of sociology of religion. This withdrawal adds new strokes to ideology, if I may say so, of a Stalin empire style. We see how authors repeat cliched formulas about progressive value of folding of the uniform Russian state, about reactionism of seigniorial ideology not - money-making, about rational elements in the concept of Moscow - the third Rome. All these phenomena ideally fitted into daily occurrence of late Stalinism, with its cult of the state, rejection of the western trends, aspiration to find in the past innovative projects, etc. We are far from a thought to connect the designated phenomena with fashionable, but obviously unprovable ideas in a modern politological thought of that, as. V. Stalin in post-war years in the activity went on the way of reforming of Marxist-Leninist ideology and allegedly formed "the synthesized historical Russian geopolitical idea in which if desired it is possible to find echoes of the ideas of Joseph of Volotsk, Filofey, N.Ya. Danilevsky, K.N. Leontyev" [14, page 299]. From our point of view, these phenomena took place in view of lack of the ideological program of relationship with ROC which is accurately designated by I.V. Stalin during the post-war period and the new round of a cult of personality giving in the 1940th strong smack of etatism and also folding from 1930th of quite indistinct idea of "the Soviet patriotism". Occurred, using successful definition of the Canadian researcher S. Ekelchuk, the next "ideological mutation of Stalinism" [2, page 78] which was reflected including in historical science.


1. Mazour A., Bateman H. Recent Conflicts in Soviet Historiography//The Journal of Modem History. 1952. Vol. 24. N 1. P. 56-68
2. Yekelchyk S. Stalinist Patriotism as Imperial Discourse: Reconciling the Ukrainian and Russian "Heroic Pasts", 1939-1945//Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History. 2002. Vol. 3 (1). River 51-80.
3. Budovnits. U. Russian journalism of the 16th century. M.; L.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR publishing house, 1947. 309 pages
4. O. Vasilyeva. State and church relations of the Khruschev's period//Vittorio. The international scientific collection devoted to Vittorio Strada's 75 anniversary. M.: Three square, 2005. Page 288-301.
5. A.D. Dmitrev. Church and the idea of autocracy in Russia. M.: Atheist, 1930. 231 pages
6. M.T. Iovchuk. Formation of philosophical and social and political thought in Russia the 15-18th centuries: the transcript of the lectures given at the Higher party school at the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks). M.: B. and., 1946. 40 pages
7. N.A. Kazakova. A country subject in a monument of zhitiyny literature of the 16th age//Works of Department of Old Russian literature of institute of the Russian literature of Academy of Sciences of the USSR. M.; L.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR publishing house, 1958. T. XIV. Page 241-246
8. D.S. Likhachev. Culture of Russia of an era of formation of the Russian national state. L.: OGIZ, 1946. 160 pages
9. D.S. Likhachev. Some questions of class nature of the Russian literature of the XI-XVII ages//News of Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Office of literature and language. M.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR publishing house, 1951. T. X. Issue 5. Page 461-472.
10. D.S. Likhachev. Emergence of the Russian literature. M.; L.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR publishing house, 1952. 240 pages
11. Mavrodinv. B. Formation of the uniform Russian state. L.: LIE publishing house, 1951. 330 pages
12. Ya.S. Lurye. The first ideologists of the Moscow autocracy (Sofia Paleolog and her opponents)//Scientific notes of LGPI of A.I. Herzen. Department of history of the USSR. L.: LGPI publishing house, 1948. T. 78. Page 81-106.
13. N.N. Maslennikova. Ideological fight in the Pskov literature during formation of the Russian centralized state//Works of department of Old Russian literature of Institute of the Russian literature of Academy of Sciences of the USSR. M.; L.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR publishing house, 1951. T. VIII. Page 187-217.
14. PanarinI., PanarinaL. Information war and peace. M.: Olma-Press, 2003. 384 pages
15. M.F. Paozersky. The Russian Saints before court of history. M.; Ptg.: State publishing house, 1923. 156 pages
16. Pokrovsk V.S. Istoriya of the Russian political thought. M.: State publishing house of legal literature, 1951. Issue 1. 130 pages
17. O.V. Trakhtenberg. A social and political thought in Russia in the 15-17th centuries//From history of the Russian philosophy: sb. metro station: State publishing house of political literature, 1951. 766 pages
18. I.I.I. Smirnov. V. Stalin and some questions of historical science//Historical notes. M.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR publishing house, 1949. T. 30. Page 3-30.
19. P.P. Smirnov. Formation of the Russian centralized state in the 14-15th centuries//Questions of history. 1946. No. 2-3. Page 55-90.
20. Teas H. C. "Moscow - the third Rome" in political practice of the Moscow government of the 16th century//Historical notes. M.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR publishing house, 1945. T. 17. Page 3-23.


1. Mazour A., Bateman H. Recent Conflicts in Soviet Historiography//The Journal of Modern History. 1952. Vol. 24. N 1. P. 56-68
2. Yekelchyk S. Stalinist Patriotism as Imperial Discourse: Reconciling the Ukrainian and Russian "Heroic Pasts", 1939-1945//Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History. 2002. Vol. 3 (1). River 51-80.
3. Budovnits I. U. Russkaya publitsistika XVI veka. M.; L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1947. 309 s.
4. Vasil&yeva O. Gosudarstvenno-tserkovnye otnosheniya khrushchevskogo perioda//Vittorio. Mezhdu-narodny nauchny sbornik, posvyashchenny 75-letiyu Vittorio Strady. M.: Tri kvadrata, 2005. S. 288-301.
5. Dmitrev A. D. Tserkov& i ideya samoderzhaviya v Rossii. M.: Ateist, 1930. 231 s.
6. Iovchuk M. T. Formirovaniye filosofskoy i obshchestvenno-politicheskoy mysli v Rossii XV-XVIII vv.: stenogramma lektsiy, prochitannykh v Vysshey partiynoy shkole pri TsK VKP (b). M.: B.i., 1946. 40 s.
7. Kazakova N. A. Krest&yanskaya tema v pamyatnike zhitiynoy literatury XVI veka//Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoy literatury instituta russkoy literatury AN SSSR. M.; L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1958. T. XIV. S.241-246
8. Likhachev D. S. Kul&tura Rusi epokhi obrazovaniya russkogo natsional&nogo gosudarstva. L.: OGIZ, 1946. 160 s.
9. Likhachev D. S. Nekotorye voprosy klassovogo kharaktera russkoy literatury XI-XVII vekov//Izvestiya AN SSSR. Otdeleniye literatury i yazyka. M.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1951. T. X. Vyp. 5. S.461-472.
10. Likhachev D. S. Vozniknoveniye russkoy literatury. M.; L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1952. 240 s.
11. Mavrodin V. V. Obrazovaniye edinogo Russkogo gosudarstva. L.: Izd-vo LGU, 1951. 330 s.
12. Lur&ye Ya. S. Pervye ideologi moskovskogo samoderzhaviya (Sofiya Paleolog i eyo protiv-niki)//Uchenye zapiski LGPI im. A. I. Gertsena. Kafedra istorii SSSR. L.: Izd-vo LGPI, 1948. T. 78. S. 81-106.
13. Maslennikova N. N. Ideologicheskaya bor&ba v pskovskoy literature v period obrazovaniya Russkogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva//Trudy otdela drevnerusskoy literatury Instituta russkoy lit-eratury AN SSSR. M.; L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1951. T. VIII. S. 187-217.
14. Panarin I., Panarina L. Informatsionnaya voyna i mir. M.: Olma-Press, 2003. 384 s.
15. PaozerskyM. F. Russkiye svyatye pered sudom istorii. M.; Ptg.: Gosudarstvennoye izdatel&stvo, 1923. 156 s.
16. Pokrovsky V. S. Istoriya russkoy politicheskoy mysli. M.: Gosudarstvennoye izdatel&stvo yuridi-cheskoy literatury, 1951. Vyp. 1. 130 s.
17. Trakhtenberg O. V. Obshchestvenno-politicheskaya mysl& v Rossii v XV-XVII vekakh//Iz istorii russkoy filosofii: sb. st. M.: Gosudarstvennoye izdatel&stvo politicheskoy literatury, 1951. 766 s.
18. Smirnov I. I. I. V. Stalin i nekotorye voprosy istoricheskoy nauki//Istoricheskiye zapiski. M.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1949. T. 30. S. 3-30.
19. Smirnov P. P. Obrazovaniye Russkogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva v XIV-XV vv.//Voprosy istorii. 1946. N 2-3. S. 55-90.
20. Chayev N. S. "Moskva - tretiy Rim" v politicheskoy praktike moskovskogo pravitel&stva XVI veka//Istoricheskiye zapiski. M.: Izdatel&stvo AN SSSR, 1945. T. 17. S. 3-23.
Other scientific works: