The life of Habakkuk summary. Life of Archpriest Avvakum

08.04.2019

Translation Natalia Vladimirovna Ponyrko

The publisher thanks the priest Alexey Lopatin for kindly providing photographs

Archpriest Avvakum in the cultural memory of the Russian people

In the spring of 1670, an earthen prison was built in Pustozersk. Streletsky half-head Ivan Elagin arrived here to carry out the execution. Four prisoners walked, surrounded by a team of archers, to the place where the scaffold was prepared. Archpriest Avvakum, priest Lazar, deacon Theodore and monk Epiphanius were preparing for death. The executioner waited in his place. When the half-head came out into the middle and began to unroll the scroll to read the royal decree, those condemned to execution began to say goodbye to each other. Habakkuk blessed the block. At this time, Ivan Elagin began to read the royal letter: the sovereign deigned to sentence Avvakum to imprisonment in an earthen log house, putting him on bread and water, and the rest of the prisoners to have their hands whipped and their tongues cut.

What happened next on April 14, 1670 in the Pustozersky fortress, abandoned to the ends of the world, was bitter and terrible. Elder Epiphanius asked that his head be cut off instead of his hand and tongue, so great was his despair. The priest Lazarus himself straightened his tongue under the executioner’s instrument to reduce the torment.

When they were taken from the place of execution to prisons, the prisoners “swept away” all their property, distributed everything, “without leaving any And tsy." It was a gesture of final frenzy and powerlessness. They called for death, refusing food, and Epiphanius exposed the wound on his hand so that life would leave along with the blood.

The Pustozersk execution was not just another torment, but the collapse of his last hopes: back in February 1668, soon after arriving in Pustozersk prison, the priest Lazar wrote two petitions - to the king and Patriarch Joasaph, in which he asked the king for a trial against the archbishops and gave consistent and software analysis of all defects church reform1
See: Materials for the history of the schism during the first period of its existence / Ed. N. Subbotina. [M., 1878]. T. 4. pp. 179–284.

The prisoners still hoped for the king, for his sympathy and willingness to judge their rights and, most importantly, for the power of his word. After all, Lazarus not only asked, he also threatened: “And if we<…>We are tormented in every way and executed, locked up in close dungeons<…>and about this, O king, your ancestors, and the former kings and patriarchs, will sue you<…>to this also the holy fathers" 3
Materials for the history of the schism. T. 4. P. 263.

Of course, by writing like this, they should have expected the worst. They waited (that’s why Theodora’s petition was “terrible”), but at the same time they hoped. Two-year red tape with sending petitions 4
Cm.: Veselovsky S. B. Documents about the construction of the Pustozersk prison, about priest Lazar, Ivan Krasulin and Grigory Yakovlev // LZAK. St. Petersburg, 1914. Issue. 26. pp. 13–22.

The explanation was that Lazar did not allow the governor Ivan Neelov to “read” them before sending them to the king, as the procedure required. He sent petitions under his own seal, personally and only to the king, addressed him as a person to a person and expected that he would speak to him as a person. The persistent desire to avoid intermediaries in communication with the king stemmed from the hope that this condition would ensure success. Lazar's petitions were written in February 1668, and sent to Moscow in February 1670. 5
Materials for the history of the schism. T. 4. P. XX?II-XX?III, 223–284.

Hopes were dashed. Instead of God’s righteous and solemn judgment (Lazarus asked the king to test him by “God’s fate”: he volunteered “to be autocratically summoned to the fire in front of the whole kingdom to announce the truth” 6
Right there. P. 236.

) – an unjust and humiliating “city” court in its ordinariness, the shaking hands of executioners who do not know how to properly extract cut off tongues with pincers.

It is not known exactly who wrote the note about the “execution”, which begins so solemnly as in the chronicles. The name indicated by the cryptogram under the essay is Ivan Neronov. Pinezhan Ivan Neronov lived in Pustozersk until 1679 8
Cm.: Malyshev V. I. The oldest copy of the “Book of Interpretations and Moral Teachings” by Archpriest Avvakum // From “The Tale of Igor’s Host” to “ Quiet Don" L., 1969. P. 272 (Reprint: Malyshev V. I. Favorites: Articles about Archpriest Avvakum. St. Petersburg, 2010, pp. 214–221).

(remarkable: the full namesake of the spiritual father Avvakum). From final words The notes are clear that their author was a persecuted supporter of the old faith and, perhaps, also a Pustozersk prisoner 9
According to the reasonable assumption of A. T. Shashkov, Pinezhan Ivan Neronov was just the scribe of this text, and its author, most likely, is the former patriarchal clerk Fyodor Trofimov, an opponent of Nikon’s reforms, who was also in custody at that time in Pustozersk (See: Shashkov A. T.“Self-witnesses” of the Pustozersk “execution” on April 14, 1670 // Social thought and traditions of Russian spiritual culture in historical and literary monuments XVI–XX centuries Novosibirsk, 2005. pp. 437–453 (Reprint: Shashkov A. T. Selected works. Ekaterinburg, 2013. pp. 151–162)).

It is important that these lines, in addition to documentary evidence of the bloody event, also mean that the prisoners regained the strength to resist. The announcement of their suffering was in itself an act of struggle and meant that the execution had failed to achieve its goal.

It is noteworthy that the hero of this short work, if it is appropriate to distinguish heroes among the sufferers, is the priest Lazarus.

At the scaffold, a witness to the execution reports, the convicts behaved differently. Habakkuk “yelled,” scolded and sobbed, “that he was excommunicated from the brethren,” Epiphanius meekly begged for death penalty, Lazarus - prophesied. When the butt was cut off with the tongue, there was so much blood that two large towels were stained with it. Lazarus threw one of them to the silent spectators who surrounded the place of massacre, with the words: “Take it to your house for blessing.” And one more gesture was intended for the viewer: Lazarus raised his severed hand and, after kissing it, put it in his bosom. 10
Note from an eyewitness... P. 122.

There was a certain gradation in the execution that took place in Pustozersk: the measure allotted to Lazar was the largest. It was ordered to cut his hand at the wrist. Theodore followed him - his hand was cut off halfway down the palm. Epiphanius was the last to have four fingers cut off.

Perhaps Lazarus was punished most of all as the author of petitions; and his special behavior during the execution is also obviously connected with the awareness of primacy in this case.

From the pen of Lazar, unlike the other prisoners, not a single more line came out after the execution in 1670. No wonder: he completely lost right hand. Perhaps there were other, hidden reasons. Nevertheless, in the Pustozersky Writers' Union, the role of Lazar is noticeable, and in some ways, perhaps, fundamental. The theme of being chosen was first heard in connection with the name of priest Lazar. We were convinced of this by the example of the essay of an eyewitness who described the second execution. There were other works as well.

Even in Moscow, the persecuted leaders of the Schism had the idea of the need to describe and make public the events related to their persecution by the spiritual and secular authorities. She came to them with the awareness of the exclusivity of their role in public life modernity; under her influence, Epiphanius' autobiographical note was written and (based on Avvakum's note) an essay by Deacon Theodore about the Moscow torment of Avvakum, Lazarus and Epiphanius. The theme of chosenness, which sounded in the last work, was already connected with the name of Lazarus: “And when the priest Lazarus had cut out the tongue of the priest Lazarus, God’s prophet Elijah appeared to the holy martyr Lazarus and said to him: “Be bold, priest, and testify to the truth, without fear.” And then he took his hand away from his mouth, and poured out the blood on the ground, and began to speak the word of God to the people and bless the people with his hand.” 11
Materials for the history of the schism during the first period of its existence / Ed. N. Subbotina. [M., 1881]. T. 6. P. 47.

This theme was continued by an eyewitness to the second execution in Pustozersk. And then Avvakum developed it in relation to himself in his Life and in his letters, and Deacon Theodore also used it 12
See the story about the appearance of the Mother of God to Theodore in Theodore’s letter to his son Maxim (Titova L.V.“The Message of Deacon Fyodor to his son Maxim” is a literary and polemical monument of the early Old Believers. Novosibirsk, 2003. P. 149). The motive of chosenness was present not only exclusively in the behavior of Lazar (as one could conclude from the fact that both significant episodes were described by a third person), but also in the personal writings of the Romanov-Borisogleb priest. In a petition in 1668, Lazarus wrote to Tsar Alexei: “In the past years of this suffering, I was surrounded by chains<…>. And I lie in thought and grieve, and I fall into a little sleep. And the holy prophet Elijah the Tezbite appeared to me and said to me: “Lazarus, I am with you, do not be afraid.” And become invisible. I found myself filled with joy, but I found the iron that fell from me” (Materials for the history of the schism. Vol. 4. P. 264). The parallelism of this scene with the text from the Acts of the Apostles is obvious. Like the angel who appeared to the Apostle Peter in prison, the prophet Elijah appears to Lazarus. And just as the chains fell off the prisoner, just as the chains fell off the apostle ( Dejan. 12:7).

In 1668, in Pustozersk, four people united to live side by side for fifteen years, whose names for one half Russian XVII V. became a symbol of righteousness and even holiness, for the other - schism and stubborn rebellion. Behind us was a decade and a half of unequal struggle, which began from the moment the newly installed Patriarch Nikon announced church reform, sending out an order during the Great Lent of 1653 to the cathedral churches of the state to replace the two-fingered sign of the cross with the three-fingered one and abolish prostrations at the services of Great Lent. The abolition of two fingers and prostrations was followed by a whole series other changes in the rituals of the Russian Church, motivated by the need to unify church orders in accordance with the modern Greek way of life; followed by large-scale editing of liturgical books based on modern Greek texts, while Russian books copied from generation to generation were declared corrupt due to the “illiteracy” of Russian scribes. Those who then did not agree to suddenly abandon the centuries-old tradition of their ancestors realized that the time had come for them to undergo difficult trials. Those who disagreed with Nikon’s innovations were immediately subjected to severe repression: after arrest and interrogation, the archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral on Red Square Ioann Neronov, the Murom archpriest Loggin, and the Kostroma archpriest Daniil were sent into exile. One of the last among the white clergy, in September 1653, Archpriest Avvakum was arrested and exiled to Siberia. In 1654, Bishop Pavel Kolomensky, who refused to sign the protocols of the Moscow Council that approved Nikon’s reform, was deposed and exiled to prison in the Novgorod region, where he soon died under unclear circumstances.

After the break that occurred between the Tsar and Nikon in November 1658, when Nikon himself found himself out of work, the champions of the “old faith” flashed hope for the abolition of the reform, but that was not the case: Nikon’s course towards restructuring church life was taken by Tsar Alexei Mihailovic continued on his own. At the meeting he convened in 1666–1667. At a local council of the Russian Church, opponents of Nikon's reform were anathematized and declared schismatics.

Behind was the Moscow Cathedral of 1666–1667. with cuttings of hair, endless interrogations and persuasion to repent. The first execution was behind us: Lazarus, Epiphanius and Theodore had their tongues cut out for the first time back in Moscow. The tsar and the spiritual authorities, sending prisoners into general confinement, did not think that they were thereby turning northern Pustozersk into a kind of spiritual center in which all the threads of the Old Believer struggle would converge for a decade and a half.

It is known that soon after the convicts arrived in Pustozersk, a lively exchange of messages began between the prison and Old Believer Moscow. The writings of the Pustozersky residents were also sent to Mezen and Solovki; later the sphere of influence will include Siberia and the Kerzhen forests. The family of Archpriest Avvakum, languishing near Pustozersk in Mezen exile, became the main link with outside world by force. Deacon Theodore, in a letter to the archpriest’s son Ivan, wrote about the works sent to Mezen: “... the faithful went to Solovki and to Moscow. And then let’s write off as a faithful person, who will be happy and teach others”; Archpriest himself wrote about the “letters to Moscow” that were to be sent to Avvakum’s family 13
Barskoe Ya. L. Monuments. P. 69; Letters and messages from Archpriest Avvakum to his family ( // BLDR. T. 17. P. 208.

At this time (until the last third of 1669) 14
Smirnov P. S. Internal issues in the schism in the 17th century. St. Petersburg, 1898. pp. 2–3.

) in Pustozersk, two works were written, which to some extent can be considered the fruit of the collective creativity of prisoners: Epistle to a certain Muscovite John (most likely the son of Archpriest Avvakum Ivan) and “The Book-Answer of the Orthodox.” And although the first was signed by Archpriest Avvakum, and about the second it is known that it was compiled on behalf of all the “bitter brethren”, it is also known that both works were written by Deacon Theodore 15
Cm.: Titova L.V. Message from Deacon Fyodor to his son Maxim. pp. 3–9,246–305.

The deacon was reputed to be an expert in Scripture. The monk Abraham even considered him to have labored “more than others” in the Divine Scripture 16
Materials for the history of the schism during the first period of its existence / Ed. N. Subbotina. [M., 1885]. T. 7. P. 261.

This, obviously, predetermined the fact that Deacon Theodore was assigned to write programmatic works interpreting the coming of the Antichrist into the world and the attitude towards the Nikonian clergy.

At first it was relatively easy for prisoners to communicate. They were brought in in winter. The earthen prison was not ready, and it was not possible to build it - due to permafrost, due to the lack of timber, due to the lack of workers. Disputes between the governor and local peasants, who evaded the sovereign's duties on the construction of an earthen prison, lasted until 1670, until a decree came about executions and the immediate construction of prisons 17
Veselovsky S. B. Documents about the construction of the Pustozersk prison. pp. 6–13.

Until then, the huts of local peasants were freed for the exiles, each with their own.

At night they got out of their prisons and met in the houses of people devoted to them, or perhaps in one house. In any case, it is known that among the Pustozersky residents there lived a certain “brother Alexey”, in whose house Avvakum and Theodore met the nights before their execution 18
Cm.: Barskoe Ya. L. Monuments. P. 68; Shashkov A. T. “Self-witnesses” of the Pustozersk execution... P. 437–453.

In this house, Habakkuk may have added to the already prepared Epistle of Theodore to John: “This Habakkuk the archpriest understood this truly.” 19
Materials for the history of the schism. T. 6. P. 79.

The content of both works of Theodore presented a consistent description of the time being experienced as the “last retreat” before the coming of the Antichrist. Previously, in Moscow at the council, they only threatened with the Antichrist, now without hesitation they asserted that the “last retreat”, which should occur before the appearance of the Antichrist, came to Russia along with Nikon’s reform.

It is clear that this was unacceptable for the authorities, and the empty lakers who reasoned this way turned into opponents of everything government structure. Theodore wrote: “At this time there was neither king nor saint. There was only one Orthodox king left on earth, and even that one, not heeding himself, was caught in the trap of a heretic<…>extinguished<…>and brought into darkness many delights" 20
Right there. P. 72.

In addition to exposing the “final retreat,” Theodore’s writings were interpreted about the attitude towards the Nikonian clergy. The Pustozersky prisoners ordered the priests of the Nikonian ordination to shun ("that is, part of the Antichrist army" 21
Right there. P. 64.

), and priests of the pre-Nikon order should be accepted only if they are disgusted by innovations, otherwise they should be rejected, just like the first ones.

Theodore's work was a consistent denunciation and a frank program, and although it was written by the decision of all the prisoners, it was written by Theodore's hand. It is not without reason that Theodore himself wrote: “And the message that was written to you, brother John, is from me, and you, do not send my hand to Solovki (i.e., autograph. - N.P.), the apostates wouldn’t get it - they know my hand.” 22
Barskoe Ya. L. Monuments. P. 69.

One more work should be pointed out, which brought Deacon Theodore to execution for the second time. In 1669, the so-called Fifth Petition of Archpriest Avvakum was written and sent to Tsar Alexei. However, the author of the first half of this petition was not Avvakum, but Deacon Theodore 23
Cm.: Ponyrko N.V. Deacon Theodore – co-author of Archpriest Avvakum // TODRL. M.; L., 1976. T. 31. pp. 362–365.

; It was this part of the petition that represented one of the most daring and daring works among the writings of the early Old Believers. It was here that it was said: “The master is the king over all, and the servant is God’s with all”; here the responsibility for the massacre of the Old Believers was shifted from the spiritual authorities to the tsar: “Everything is in you, the tsar, the matter is closed and it’s only about you” 24
Message from Archpriest Avvakum to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich from Pustozersk (“Fifth Petition”) ( Prepare text and comment. N. S. Demkova) // BLDR. T. 17. P. 167, 169.

The second part of the petition, written by Archpriest Avvakum himself, was much softer in tone. Here - although there are accusations, but along with them there is also an expression of love and a blessing. In the first part there is no hint of private relations, complete intransigence and passionate denunciation of the king as the main and even the only culprit of innovations and reprisals against prisoners.

Only Deacon Theodore at that time dared to call the king “the horn of the Antichrist.” He wrote as much in his letter addressed to the family of Habakkuk. In this letter, the deacon wrote, among other things, that the first part of the Fifth Petition belongs to his pen. It was also clear from the letter that the deacon hoped less than others for the king’s mercy and his ability to fairly judge the Pustozerians 25
Barskoe Ya. L. Monuments. pp. 68–70.

And it was this letter that fell into the hands of the authorities. The only currently known list of the message of Deacon Theodore to the family of Avvakum was found in the files of the Secret Order 26
Right there. P. IX.

The secret order and with it the tsar, therefore, became aware of the deacon’s authorship in relation to the Fifth Petition, and the reasoning contained in this letter about the “horn of the Antichrist” with reference to the prophecies of a certain Suzdal hermit Michael, who supposedly, after the death of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, at the time of the accession of Alexei Mikhailovich, foreseeing the future, he taught: “There is no king, brothers, but the horn of the Antichrist.” 27
Right there. P. 69.

The letter to the Habakkuk family, the first part of the Fifth Petition to the Tsar, the “Book of Answer of the Orthodox” and the letter to John cost Deacon Theodore half a palm and a second cutting off of his tongue.

The hierarchy of executions corresponded to the priestly hierarchy of those executed. For what reason the meek Epiphanius, the only one of the four monks, was sentenced a second time to have his tongue and four fingers cut off, we do not know.

In the autobiographical Life, written after 1670, as in the earlier autobiographical Note, Epiphanius appears as a desert ascetic, immersed in his inner world, – the world of “smart doing”. Long ago, long before Pustozersk, Epiphanius prayed in his deserted cell, so that his heart would “devour” the prayer of Jesus. At that time he was not able to master this prayer, about which John Chrysostom wrote: “If anyone, demanding this prayer of Jesus, says as if breathing from his nostrils, in the first year Christ, the Son of God, will dwell in him; in the second year he will enter into the Holy Spirit, after the third year the Father will come to him, and having entered into him, the Holy Trinity will create an abode in him. And prayer will devour the heart, and the heart will devour prayer.” 28
Karmanova O. Ya. Autobiographical note of the Solovetsky monk Epiphanius (to the problem of text motivation) // Old Believers in Russia (X? II-XX centuries). M., 1999. P. 256.

But Epiphanius hoped for the commandment “to him who asks, it will be given” and was constantly striving to comprehend “smart” prayer. Prayer was not given to him, and he despaired, praying for it with tears into the night. This went on for a long time. One day, one night, tired of the “rule” and completely losing hope, the monk lay down on a couch and fell into a “fine” sleep. And then he heard that his mind was “creating the prayer to Jesus in a light, red, and wonderful way.” He woke up: “And my mind, like a good-willed swan, cries out to the Lord.” 29
Right there.

From then on, the Jesus prayer remained in Epiphany’s soul.

And at the same time, this was a man who found the determination to go from the distant desert to the capital denouncing Nikon and the Tsar. No one knows the contents of Epiphanius’s “books” directed against innovations, because these books have not reached us. But it is known that they existed. It was for “books” that a meek monk went to execution in Moscow 30
Epiphanius himself wrote about the books he created to expose Nikon’s reform in his autobiographical Note (see: Karmanova O. Ya. Autobiographical note. P. 260) and in his autobiographical Life (see: Life of the Monk Epiphanius // Ponyrko N.V. Three lives - three lives. Archpriest Avvakum, monk Epiphanius, noblewoman Morozova. St. Petersburg, 2010. P. 126). There is evidence from Vygov’s Life of Epiphanius that Epiphanius, having brought “books written on the Suna River” to Moscow, “before the cathedral church during a holiday with a gathering of many people, he himself began to honor all the people out loud.” (Ponyrko N.V. Cyril-Epiphanius hagiographic cycle and hagiographic tradition in Vygov Old Believer literature // TODRL. L., 1974. T. 29. P. 155).

Maybe in April 1670 they were remembered to him again? Or were new ones written in Pustozersk that have not reached us?

The execution of 1670 in Pustozersk was intended to destroy the Pustozersk union as a force. But it failed. On the contrary, the execution raised the Pustozero prisoners to the level of martyrdom and gave them the right to insurmountable moral superiority over their opponents. The number of writings has not diminished. There are more of them. Suffice it to say that both autobiographical Lives, Avvakum and Epiphanius, were created after 1670, as were both Pustozersky collections - monuments to the joint writing activity of prisoners.

But writing after 1670 became much more difficult, almost impossible. The finally rebuilt prison consisted of four log buildings covered with earth. Each of them was surrounded by a fence, and all together by a common fort. You could reach from the floor to the ceiling with your hand, and at the very top there was a window through which food was served and waste was thrown out. In the spring, the prison was flooded with water up to the bunks; in the winter, the stove smoke ate away at the eyes and suffocated. Epiphany's eyes became so festering that he was temporarily blind and for a long time could not engage in his favorite handicraft - carving wooden crosses. But it was here, in the dugouts, and not in the first two years in peasant huts, with a constant shortage of paper, the Lives of Avvakum and Epiphanius and other significant works of Avvakum were written; Deacon Theodore wrote his works here. All four were different. And in many ways they are equal in size to Habakkuk. The gift of words was incommensurable.

In Avvakum’s primacy, which nevertheless immediately catches the eye, his priestly rank initially played a large role. We must not forget that Avvakum was the senior priest, the only archpriest among the prisoners. Lazarus was just a priest, Theodore occupied the last step in the priestly hierarchy - a deacon, Epiphanius was not a clergyman at all, but simply a monk. Therefore, when the Moscow and other flocks turned primarily to Habakkuk for resolution of various issues, be it moral problems, questions of Christian dogma or behavioral tactics (all of them for the Old Believer of the 17th century with highest point vision were matters of faith), they appealed not only to his talent and authority, but also, not least, to his clergy, which initially presupposed this authority.

Avvakum's spiritual rank determined his relationships with people. But in the archpriest the priestly destiny was happily combined with human calling and divine gift. As, for example, in his spiritual fatherhood.

He was a priest and therefore a teacher, a “father” (“Behold, I and the children have given me to eat.” - Heb. 2:13). The number of Habakkuk’s spiritual children, according to his own account, reached 600 31
See present. ed. P. 48.

We can say that his whole life was a passionate and at the same time conscientious fulfillment of the duty of spiritual fatherhood. Often spiritual children turned into simply children for Avvakum. Talent and spiritual power raised the archpriest above people, forced him to look at them as little children. His famous “playing with people” is a game of a strict and caring father with his children 32
Here we must perceive the deep plan of this expression from Habakkuk, namely the Gospel “and I will make you a fisher of man” ( Mf. 4:19; MR. 1:17).

Didn’t he “play” with his spiritual daughter Anna from Tobolsk when she, repenting of her sin before him, cried and sobbed? “I shout at her before people,” humbling her and ultimately forgiving her 33
See present. ed. P. 146.

Avvakum also “plays” when he scolds Elder Melania, the spiritual mentor of the noblewoman Morozova. Angry denunciations alternate, one more furiously than the other, and in conclusion: “And I know your Melania that she kind person, but don’t let your ears unwind: the flock of Christ shepherds firmly, even as I scold. After all, I’m not angry with her - I hope you know me.” 34
^Message from Archpriest Avvakum to Boyar F. P. Morozova, Princess E. P. Urusova and M. G. Danilova ( Prepare text and comment. N. S. Demkova)// BLDR. T. 17. P. 221.

One of most interesting monuments in ancient Russian literature is the famous “Life of Archpriest Avvakum”. Its summary is autobiographical story about the fate and deeds of the elder, about his faithful service to God. Written in a completely new genre for this time, the work demonstrates a unique style and original language.

The work, which has come to us from time immemorial, consists of three familiar parts. In the first of them (introduction), the author sets out the church dogmas of the true faith, which he sacredly professes. In the main part, the saint talks about his life: about birth and childhood, about persecution and exile, about his thoughts and observations. In conclusion, Avvakum gives separate stories about the healing of the possessed, and also turns to Elder Epiphanius - his like-minded person, associate and spiritual father. The summary of “The Life of Archpriest Avvakum” says that it was Epiphanius who pushed him to write this work so that the word of God and the truths comprehended would not go into oblivion. In turn, the archpriest advises him to write a similar work about himself, so that people know about his difficult life.

“The Life of Archpriest Avvakum”: analysis and characteristics

First autobiographical work ancient Russian literature not only talks about the long-suffering life of the holy elder. It was a brilliant work, which not only includes the “boring” facts of life, but also contains a certain message of a rebel who did not put up with the vices of either his flock or other priests. For sharp criticism of the patriarch, and even the Tsar-Father himself, for his rejection of church reform (Abakkuk was and remained an Old Believer), he was not only sent into exile, his priesthood was revoked, but he was also executed with a terrible death. After torture, he was burned in a log house along with his associates in Pustozersk.

That's it summary"The Lives of Archpriest Avvakum." His writing style is filled with poetry and emotion. The elder understands that the canons have been destroyed, but he does not want to put up with this, he continues to spread the light of God's truth. Even in exile, the disgraced archpriest preaches and writes letters, fights “lawlessness” and teaches the true faith. The great teacher of the church, Habakkuk, did not even agree to the queen’s requests to renounce his beliefs.

The summary of “The Life of Archpriest Avvakum” also contains an element of miracle as evidence of the veracity of the ideas that the elder preaches. In the name of Jesus Christ, the saint cast out demons and healed the weak. The author's digressions testify to the experience of the writer who cares about the integrity and unity of the entire narrative. Later, such techniques will become mandatory in fiction.

The meaning of "Life"

Appearance autobiographical work marked new stage development of literature in Rus'. After all, the followers of Habakkuk, and simply other authors who did not share his views, came closer to the world: there is a departure from the canons, literary fiction, the language becomes more lively, “peasant”. Old Russian literature ceased to be purely ecclesiastical; it was more in line with the new society - more educated, prone to independent reflection on life, religion, government and its ideals.

“The Life of Archpriest Avvakum, Written by Himself” is the autobiography-confession of Avvakum Petrov. “The Life...”, like most of the works of the head of the Old Believers, was written in Pustozersky imprisonment (an area at the mouth of the Pechora River), where in an “earthen pit” (prison) he spent, together with three like-minded people, the last fifteen years of his life, full of struggle and suffering. Avvakum revised his autobiography several times (1672-1675). It has survived to this day in four editions, three of which are original. It is believed that the most early version"Life..." is lost, but Pryanishnikovsky preserves its traces list XIX century, discovered by V.I. Malyshev. To date, there are about 20 copies of the first author's edition, the autographs of which have not survived. The second edition is represented by 23 copies (its autograph was discovered by V.G. Druzhinin at the beginning of the 20th century). The autograph of the third edition, represented by 7 copies, was found by I.N. Zavoloko. The life was first published by N.S. Tikhonravov in 1861 (“Chronicles of Russian Literature and Antiquity”).

“The Life of Archpriest Avvakum” is an outstanding monument of ancient Russian literature, the first autobiography in the history of Russian literature. Habakkuk created “his life from his youth until he was fifty-five years old.” The author relied on the centuries-old tradition of the hagiographic genre and used some of its topoi and motifs. At the same time, Avvakum’s work contains bright innovative features, because the archpriest talks about his ascetic service. He does this with the “blessing” and “command” of his confessor and “prisoner” Elder Epiphanius. Hence the confessional intonations, repentance for sins (“I am a sinner”), the combination of the sublime and the mundane in one image. Much in Avvakum’s work is unusual: description states of mind hero, depiction of the natural world, an abundance of everyday details. Even elements of religious fiction acquire an everyday character under the pen of the archpriest.

The life of Archpriest Avvakum was not easy even before the church reform. The fight against arbitrariness local authorities, zealous service in the villages of Lopatitsa and Yuryevets became the cause of persecution, which he resignedly endured. But the main trials befell Avvakum after the reform of Patriarch Nikon (1653), which led to a church schism. In numerous innovations, supporters of the old faith saw not only a violation of ancient Orthodox rituals, but also a rejection of the previous way of life and the onset of the kingdom of Antichrist. The author of the life figuratively conveyed the state of the zealots of the old faith: “The heart grew cold and the legs trembled.” The emotional denunciations of the Nikonians made Habakkuk the spiritual leader of the schism. What awaited him was a long-term Siberian exile (Tobolsk, Yeniseisk, Dauria), persecution by the governor Pashkov, defrocking at a church council, and then the Pustozersky prison.

Habakkuk not only “scolds from Scripture and reproaches Nikon,” he angrily exposes the “Nikonian heresy.” The style of "Life..." changes when he talks about his family. The archpriest speaks with particular tenderness about his faithful friend Anastasia Markovna. His wife shared his “life in living hell,” exile and wanderings. It is from Markovna that he finds support in moments of doubt (“dare to preach the word of God as before, but don’t worry about us”).

In captivity, Avvakum continued his struggle. His works were released to the public through sympathetic streltsy guards. “This is Archpriest Avvakum, I believe, this is what I confess, I live and die with this,” these words sound the firm faith, the inflexibility of a man who has not been broken by trials. On April 14, 1682, the writer was burned in a log house along with Lazar, Fyodor and Epiphanius. The execution was carried out by order of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich. The archpriest was charged with “great blasphemy against the royal house.”

Avvakum's style is bright and individual. The story about life and the struggle for “ancient piety” is told in the first person. At the same time, the archpriest deliberately resorts to vernacular language. He seems to be ironizing himself, calling his writing style “blathering.” According to his conviction, “God does not listen to the words of the red, but He wants our deeds.” Avvakum talks confidentially with the reader. Every word he says sounds sincere and emotional. Passionate impulses of the soul, the world of human feelings in the 17th century. expressed simply and naturally, the author “is not in the habit of coloring his speech with philosophical verses.”

The personality and writings of the “fiery” Avvakum invariably attracted writers of modern times. The language and emotionality of live speech evoked enthusiastic responses from writers of the 19th and 20th centuries. “The Life of Archpriest Avvakum” served as a source for the creation of many historical novels: “The Great Schism” by D.L. Mordovtseva (1881); “Devastated Nests” by A. Altaev (pseudonym of M.V. Yamshchikova, 1908); “The Quietest” and “Nikon” V.A. Bakhrevsky (1988). It inspired the creators of poems about Avvakum: “Archpriest Avvakum” by M.A. Voloshin (1919) and others K immortal work Individual poems (D.S. Merezhkovsky) and stories (“Fiery Archpriest” by Yu. Nagibin, 1975) go back to Avvakum. Writers from abroad also owe their plots to him (for example, I.S. Lukash - “The Lost Word”, 1936).

In 1991, in the homeland of the creator of “Life...”, in the village of Grigorovo Nizhny Novgorod region, a monument by sculptor V. Klykov was erected.

The contents of the petitions were known to Lazar's comrades and approved by them. Deacon Theodore wrote to Avvakum’s family about Lazar’s demands several months before his execution: “Lazar’s father wrote letters to the king<…>but he wrote terribly and boldly - he asked for a trial against heretics.” The prisoners still hoped for the king, for his sympathy and willingness to judge their rights and, most importantly, for the power of his word. After all, Lazarus not only asked, he also threatened: “And if we<…>We are tormented in every way and executed, locked up in close dungeons<…>and about this, O king, your ancestors, and the former kings and patriarchs, will sue you<…>to these are the holy fathers."

Of course, by writing like this, they should have expected the worst. They waited (that’s why Theodora’s petition was “terrible”), but at the same time they hoped. The two-year delay in sending petitions was explained by the fact that Lazar did not allow the governor Ivan Neelov to “read” them before sending them to the tsar, as the procedure required. He sent petitions under his own seal, personally and only to the king, addressed him as a person to a person and expected that he would speak to him as a person. The persistent desire to avoid intermediaries in communication with the king stemmed from the hope that this condition would ensure success. Lazar's petitions were written in February 1668, and sent to Moscow in February 1670. April 14th was the answer to them.

Hopes were dashed. Instead of God's righteous and solemn judgment (Lazarus asked the king to test himself by "God's fate": he volunteered to "autocratically go to the fire before the whole kingdom to inform the truth") - an unjust and humiliating in its everydayness "city" court, the shaking hands of executioners who do not really know how to remove the truncated tongues with pliers.

But the day came when a message flew from distant Pustozersk to like-minded convicts: “In the year 1678, on the 14th day of April, on St. Thomas’ week on Thursday, in the Pustozersk prison, by decree of the Tsarev, Ivan Elagin took half a head from the prisons of Archpriest Avvakum, priest Lazar , Deacon Theodore and Elder Epiphanius. And they walked to the designated place for execution...” It is not known exactly who wrote the note about the “execution”, which begins so solemnly as in the chronicles. The name indicated by the cryptogram under the essay is Ivan Neronov. Until 1679, Pinezhan resident Ivan Neronov lived in Pustozersk (remarkably: the full namesake of Avvakum’s spiritual father). From the final words of the note it is clear that their author was a persecuted supporter of the old faith and, perhaps, also a prisoner of Pustozersky. It is important that these lines, in addition to documentary evidence of the bloody event, also mean that the prisoners regained the strength to resist. The announcement of their suffering was in itself an act of struggle and meant that the execution had failed to achieve its goal.

It is noteworthy that the hero of this short work, if it is appropriate to distinguish heroes among the sufferers, is the priest Lazarus.

At the scaffold, a witness to the execution reports, the convicts behaved differently. Habakkuk “screamed,” scolded and sobbed, “that he was excommunicated from the brethren,” Epiphanius meekly begged for the death penalty, Lazarus prophesied. When the butt was cut off with the tongue, there was so much blood that two large towels were stained with it. Lazarus threw one of them to the silent spectators who surrounded the place of massacre, with the words: “Take it to your house for blessing.” And one more gesture was intended for the viewer: Lazarus raised his severed hand and, after kissing it, put it in his bosom.

Perhaps Lazarus was punished most of all as the author of petitions; and his special behavior during the execution is also obviously connected with the awareness of primacy in this case.

From the pen of Lazar, unlike the other prisoners, not a single more line came out after the execution in 1670. No wonder: he completely lost his right arm. Perhaps there were other, hidden reasons. Nevertheless, in the Pustozersky Writers' Union, the role of Lazar is noticeable, and in some ways, perhaps, fundamental. The theme of being chosen was first heard in connection with the name of priest Lazar. We were convinced of this by the example of the essay of an eyewitness who described the second execution. There were other works as well.

Even in Moscow, the persecuted leaders of the Schism had the idea of the need to describe and make public the events related to their persecution by the spiritual and secular authorities. It came to them along with the awareness of the exclusivity of their role in the social life of our time; under her influence, Epiphanius' autobiographical note was written and (based on Avvakum's note) an essay by Deacon Theodore about the Moscow torment of Avvakum, Lazarus and Epiphanius. The theme of chosenness, which sounded in the last work, was already connected with the name of Lazarus: “And when the priest Lazarus had cut out the tongue of the priest Lazarus, God’s prophet Elijah appeared to the holy martyr Lazarus and said to him: “Be bold, priest, and testify to the truth, without fear.” And then he took his hand away from his mouth, and poured out the blood on the ground, and began to speak the word of God to the people and bless the people with his hand.” This theme was continued by an eyewitness to the second execution in Pustozersk. And then Avvakum developed it in relation to himself in his Life and in his epistles, and Deacon Theodore also used it.

The Life of Archpriest Avvakum is the first autobiography-confession in the history of Russian literature, in which the story of the misadventures own life combined with an angry satirical denunciation of the ruling elite, with the preaching of the “true faith.”
Created in 1672-1673, "Life" in language and style is a real masterpiece of ancient Russian literature. According to the author, it was supposed to serve a purely practical purpose - the fight against the church reformism of Patriarch Nikon, against whom the rebellious archpriest rebelled.
Choosing such a thing for your work unusual shape, Avvakum, of course, knew what he was getting into. Emu was well aware of the lives of various saints, widespread in Rus', written according to certain rules, the main purpose of which was to glorify the ascetics of the Christian faith, posthumously canonized by the church. When taking on the task of writing his “Life,” Archpriest Avvakum had to inevitably face a certain literary dependence on traditional church hagiography. According to tradition, the compiler of the life of a canonized saint in the author’s digressions all the time humbly flirted with the reader, assuring that he was unworthy to describe the actions of such outstanding personality. Avvakum began to compile his own life himself, which could be perceived negatively among readers. He needed to somehow morally justify his action, to find serious evidence of the need to create his own “Life”. For this, Avvakum attracts Elder Epiphanius, his friend and spiritual father, who wrote the preface to his hagiograph. In the preface, Epiphanius justifies Avvakum’s action by the fact that he himself demanded this from him. literary confession. “The long-suffering prisoner of the prison, the unfortunate, the sufferer of the need, the confessor of Christ, the holy archpriest Avvakum was forced to write his life quickly by his spiritual monk Epiphanius, so that the work of God would not be consigned to oblivion. Amen,” writes Epiphanius. He calls Habakkuk a saint and explains the writing of the “Life” by the fact that it serves the “cause of God,” that is, the struggle for the establishment of the old faith.
Despite the fact that “Life” is a talented, highly artistic work, Archpriest Avvakum himself did not consider himself a writer. He was prompted to take up the pen by necessity - the fight against the church enemy Patriarch Nikon and his reform activities. Paying tribute to the traditions of hagiographic literature, Avvakum mentions his insignificance: “...I am a sinner, a fornicator and a predator, a thief and a murderer, a friend of tax collectors and sinners, and a accursed hypocrite to every man.”
At the same time, Habakkuk considers himself a “prophet” and even an evangelist, which is repeatedly emphasized in the “Life”. Like the first Christian apostles, he calls himself a slave and messenger of Jesus Christ.
The innovation of the Life of Avvakum was especially clearly reflected in its language and style. “The Life,” as the author himself admits, is written in “natural Russian language,” that is, in vernacular, which is contrasted with the eloquence of “philosophical verses,” or in other words, rhetorical styles of a church-theological nature. Here is how Avvakum himself writes about this in one of the versions of “Life”: “For the sake of you, gentlemen, who honor and hear, do not despise our vernacular, since I love my Russian natural language, it is not the custom to color speech with philosophical verses, since God does not listen to the words of red people , but he wants our affairs... For this reason, I don’t worry about eloquence, and I don’t despise my Russian language...”
Avvakum does not highly appreciate the style of “weaving words”, characteristic of bookish speech of his time. He gives preference to the living spoken language of the common people.
Elements of vernacular are found at every turn in the Life. They are especially expressive in vocabulary, phraseology, various syntactic structures and in the figurative fabric of the work. Here is an episode that tells how Avvakum was brought to the Bratsk prison:
“Then they brought me to the Bratsk prison, threw me into prison, gave me straws... Like a little dog, I’m lying in the village: if they give me food, if not. my back was rotting. There were a lot of fleas and lice... And my wife, twenty miles away, was sent away from me, her grandmother, Ksenia, tormented me all that winter, barking and reproaching.”
Imagery and characteristic feature the language of Archpriest Avvakum is created here by expressive comparisons like: “I’m lying like a dog in a straw,” as well as by the ease and naturalness of presentation, and the predominance of commonly used vocabulary.
Avvakum uses not only colloquial words and expressions, such as: “lay on his belly”, “fools”, “there are a lot of fleas and lice”, but also colloquial meanings of generally accepted words. “Bark” is used here in the sense of scolding, and this contributes to the creation of imagery and emotional expressiveness of the language.
Along with this, Avvakum uses a number of figurative means of traditional hagiographic literature. The personification of fate here is the ship, and human life compared to swimming.
When Avvakum came home after confessing to a girl burdened with “many sins,” he had a dream that two ships that belonged to Lukin and Lavrentiev, his spiritual children, were sailing along the Volga. And Habakkuk sees the third ship. This ship “... is not decorated with gold, but is speckled with various beauties - red, and white, and blue, and black, and with ash - but its human mind cannot accommodate its beauty and kindness. The young man is bright, sitting at the stern, ruling. .. And I cried out: “Whose ship?” And sitting on it answered: “Your ship. Here, swim on it, if you are bothering your wife and children." And I trembled and sat up and reasoned: "What is this visible thing? And what will the swimming be like?
In those cases when Avvakum sends threats against the followers of Patriarch Nikon, he uses only colloquial speech, supported by rude words and expressions.
“Just give me time, dogs, don’t leave me. I hope in Christ that you will be in my hands. I will squeeze the juice out of you.”
The author does not shy away from abusive language. He uses expressions such as: “son of ****”, “you ****”, “with a shitty face” and the like.
Colloquial phraseology is presented in the “Life” by proverbs, sayings, puns: “I got drunk from the sea, but choked on the crumbs,” “a cow’s tears will be shed for a bear,” “the archpriest loved the famous nobles, but love and endure, wretched man, to the end,” “the demon “He’s not a man: he’s not afraid of the batog.”
Avvakum very skillfully reproduces spoken language, which is most characteristically shown in the episode of his return from Siberian exile.
“The poor archpriest wanders and wanders, and she collapses, much less! At one time, wandering, she fell, and another languid man came across her, and immediately fell; both were screaming, but could not get up. The man shouted: “Mother “Madam, forgive me!” And the archpriest shouts: “Why, my dear, did you crush me?” I came, and the poor thing blames me, saying: “How long will this torment, archpriest?” And I say: “Markovna , until my death!” She, sighing, answered: “Okay, Petrovich, otherwise we’ll wander.”
Avvakum uses the vernacular in original combinations with Church Slavonicisms, which are explained by everyday expressions: “on the third day I was hungry, that is, I wanted to eat,” “the tree is green, the hedgehog is full of good stench.”
Being essentially a traditionalist in his political convictions, Archpriest Avvakum, like Ivan the Terrible, strove for the democratization of Russian literary language. He did not see the difference between book Church Slavonic and living Russian spoken languages and spoke them fluently. For him it was one language.
In "Life" the author makes extensive use of Church Slavonicisms, skillfully weaving them into the colloquial, vernacular style of his work. Habakkuk often cites excerpts from theological literature. For example, when he sets out the prophecies of Ivan Neronov about the plague epidemic, about the war with Poland and about church schism, Habakkuk writes: “This is how the spirit of Antichrist is allowed to act, according to the Lord’s saying: “If he was able to deceive even the elect, and let everyone who thinks stand, lest he fall”... Hear what is written: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling block and a stone to temptation; “Everyone who does not agree with us about him stumbles or is offended.” These, apparently, are not verbatim quotes, but their free translation in the language of Habakkuk himself.
When Habakkuk refers to the Old Testament story about how Job grumbled at God because of his suffering, he sticks more closely to the original language: “You have known me from my mother’s womb, who will judge between me and You, as you punish me in this way; I have not despised orphans and widows, from the stockade of my sheep I have clothed myself with the clothes of the poor."
Church-book phraseology appears in Avvakum in a new meaning. For example, the devil is turned into a dandy seducer: “And the devil of a prodigal sits on her soul, combs her curls, and straightens her mustache in the midst of the people. She is very good, and it’s hard to spit on her...”
Book phraseology is often combined with colloquial words and phrases: “Login was kindled by the jealousy of the divine fire, condemning Nikon, and spit across the threshold into the altar in Nikon’s eyes.”
Avvakum did not disdain dialectisms in his speech, boldly introducing them into the text of the Life. He widely uses the emotional-intensifying particle “ot”, characteristic of Northern Russian dialects, and much more.
In the style of the “Life” of Archpriest Avvakum, the leisurely tale form is intertwined with a bright sermon, which contributes to the close connection of church-bookish elements of the language with colloquial and even dialectal ones. Avvakum called his style “blathering,” meaning “conversation, conversation.”
The Life consists of a series of skillfully drawn dramatic scenes built on acute conflicts of a social, religious or ethical nature. Dramatic scenes connected by lyrical or journalistic digressions. Habakkuk either grieves, or is indignant, or sneers at his opponents; or he ardently sympathizes with his fellow believers and is sad about their fate.
Avvakum is merciless towards his political opponents - Patriarch Nikon and his followers. Using irony and grotesque, he creates their bright satirical images. The hypocrisy and deceit of Nikon is put at the forefront, who before his election to the patriarch behaves “like a fox, with a healthy face,” and after that “he did not even allow his friends to join the Crusade.” According to Avvakum’s apt description, Nikon is a “rogue”, “a big-nosed, pot-bellied greyhound dog”, “a bastard of the Antichrist”, a “wolf”, a “motley-shaped beast” and a “hound of hell”.
He portrays Habakkuk and representatives of secular authorities in an unflattering manner. One of them beat up the archpriest in the church. And at home “he bit off the fingers of his hand, like a dog, with his teeth. And when his throat was filled with blood, then he let go of my hand from his teeth,” writes Habakkuk.
The archpriest also practices satirical depictions of his enemies in other works. In one of his works, he gives a grotesque image of Nikon’s comrade-in-arms, the Ryazan Archbishop Hilarion: “He will sit in a carriage, spread out like a bubble on the water, sitting in the carriage on the pillows, combing his hair like a girl, let him go, sticking his face out in the square so that the blue- The Vorukhinians loved it."
Habakkuk does not stop even before denouncing the king. Exiled to Pustozersk, in his messages he disparagingly calls the monarch a poor and thin tsar.
“The Life” of Avvakum is a masterful story, not bound by any conventions, written according to the laws oral speech. The narrator often gets ahead of himself and returns to previously told episodes. Accurate chronological sequence it doesn't matter to him.
Some researchers of the style of Avvakum's work see in the most dramatic situations the appearance of rhythm, sound repetitions, alliteration and assonance characteristic of poetic speech.
“At the church they pull your hair, push you in the sides, bargain for your neck, and spit in your eyes.”
Or in this passage, for example:
“In the middle of the street they were beating and trampling, and the women were with levers.”
In conclusion, I would like to add that the features of the style of “Life” and other works of Avvakum clearly indicate the unique creative individuality this talented writer is the second half XVII century, which clearly reflected characteristic features transitional era.
Having accomplished a real feat, fighting against injustice almost all his life, branding tsarist officials and his religious opponents, Archpriest Avvakum undoubtedly had the moral right to create his own life. Avvakum's work is the first step from the literature of the Middle Ages to Russian literature of modern times.