[Avvakum] Petrov (11/20/1620, village of Grigorovo, Zakudemsky camp, Nizhny Novgorod district - 04/14/1682, Pustozersk), archpriest (defrocked), major figure early Old Believers, dissenter. A. presented basic information about his life in the autobiographical “Life” and other writings. Genus. in the family of the priest of Borisoglebskaya Ts. Petra († c. 1636). Mother - Mary (monastically Martha) - was, according to A., “a faster and a woman of prayer” and had a great influence on religion. son's development. In 1638, A. married the daughter of a local blacksmith, Anastasia Markovna (1628-1710), who bore him 5 sons and 3 daughters. Having moved to the village. Lopatishchi of the same district, A. was ordained a deacon in 1642, and a priest in 1644. In the summer of 1647, he fled with his family from the persecution of the local “boss” to Moscow, where he found support from the royal confessor Stefan Vonifatiev, after which he returned to his ruined home in Lopatishchi. From that time on, A. began to maintain active contacts with the circle of “zealots of piety” and consistently implement their program for correcting morals, which is why he entered into constant conflicts with both the flock and the authorities. In May 1652, fleeing from angry parishioners, A. again headed to Moscow and was assigned to the city of Yuryevets-Povolsky, where he was made archpriest. In a new place, A. soon antagonized the laity and clergy, was severely beaten by a crowd and fled to Kostroma, and from there to Moscow. Here he began to serve in the Kazan Cathedral, whose archpriest was his patron, the leader of the “God-lovers” Ivan Neronov. Finding himself in the thick of events related to the church reform carried out by Patriarch Nikon, A., after the arrest of Neronov (Aug. 4, 1653), became the head of the Old Believer opposition to the reforms. Together with the Kostroma archpriest Daniil, he wrote an unsurvived petition to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, where he asked for Neronov, escorted the latter into exile, and preached from the porch of the Kazan Cathedral; deprived of a place, he served in the church. St. Averkiya in Zamoskvorechye, and then demonstratively performed divine services in the “sushila” in Neronov’s courtyard, where he was arrested on August 13. 1653 Chained, A. was imprisoned in the dungeon of the Andronikov Monastery, where he was beaten and starved.
Saved from being cut off thanks to the intercession of the tsar, A. was transferred to the Siberian order, and on September 17. 1653 “for his many outrages” he was exiled with his family to Tobolsk, where he lived from the end. Dec. 1653 to the end of July 1655. Here A. enjoyed the patronage of the Tobolsk governor V.I. Khilkov and the Siberian archbishop. Simeon, who obtained permission for him to serve in the St. Sophia and Ascension Cathedrals. Nevertheless, as I later recalled. A., “in a year and a half, five words of the sovereign were spoken against me” (i.e., 5 denunciations were sent to A.). He had a particularly acute clash with the archbishop's clerk I.V. Struna. And although, thanks to the support of the bishop, the matter ended in favor of the archpriest, these events influenced his fate: it was ordered to transfer A. and his family in custody to the Yakut prison with a ban on serving the liturgy. A. only reached Yeniseisk, because a new decree was received - to send him to Dauria together with the detachment of the governor A.F. Pashkov. During the campaign, which began on July 18, 1656, extremely hostile relations developed between A. and the governor, who had a tough disposition. It's already September 15th. 1656 A. was, by order of the latter, punished with a whip on the Long Threshold for “small writing”, in which the governor was condemned for rudeness and cruelty. At the same time, the Cossacks and servicemen compiled a petition, inspired by Pashkov, addressed to the tsar, accusing A. of writing a “thieves’ composite memory,” “deaf, nameless,” directed against the “initial people” with the aim of causing unrest. The petitioners demanded the death penalty for A. Upon the arrival of Pashkov’s detachment on October 1. 1656 in the Bratsk prison A. was imprisoned in a cold tower, where he sat until November 15. In May 1657, the detachment moved further, through Baikal, along Selenga and Khilka to lake. Irgen, and from there we dragged it to the river. Ingoda, then along Ingoda and Shilka, reaching at the beginning. July 1658, the mouth of the river. Nerchi. In the spring of 1661, A., by order from Moscow, with his family and several. people set off on their way back through the whole of Siberia, engulfed in uprisings of indigenous peoples. In 1662-1663 he spent the winter in Yeniseisk, from the end. June 1663 to mid. Feb. 1664 he lived in Tobolsk, where he was associated with the Romanov priest Lazar and Patriarchal clerk (subdeacon) Fyodor Trofimov, who were in exile here for adherence to the old rituals, and also once saw the exiled Yuri Krizhanich, who described this meeting in 1675. No later than May 1664, A. arrived in Moscow. During her almost 11-year Siberian exile, A. had to endure incredible hardships and hunger, overcome many dangers, and survive the death of 2 sons. In Siberia, the archpriest's fame as a hero and martyr for the “old faith” was born, and his talent as a preacher developed. He later recalled that, returning to Moscow, “he shouted in all cities and villages, in churches and at auctions,” denouncing “Nikonian” innovations. There are many of his students and followers left in Siberia.
In Moscow, A. was very favorably received by the tsar and his immediate circle, met and debated with Simeon of Polotsk and Epiphanius (Slavinetsky), received gifts from courtiers, talked with the tsar's confessor Lukyan Kirillov, Ryazan archbishop. Hilarion, the okolnichy R. M. Streshnev and F. M. Rtishchev, argued with them “about the folding of fingers, and about the three-lipped hallelujah, and about other dogmas,” and became the spiritual father of the noblewoman F. P. Morozova, her sister king. E. P. Urusova and many others. other Moscow “old lovers”. Despite the gifts and promises from the authorities (including the promise to make him a clerk at the Printing House), A., who treated the new rituals with the same intolerance, “grumbled again” - he wrote an angry petition to the tsar, “so that he would recover the old piety ", and began to openly preach his views. In Aug. In 1664, it was decided to exile A. and his family to Pustozersk. From the road, from Kholmogory, he wrote on October. 1664 petition to the Tsar with a request, due to the difficulty of the winter journey, to leave him “here, on Kholmogory.” Thanks to the intercession of Ivan Neronov, who by that time had already reconciled with the Church, as well as due to the refusal of the Kevrol and Verkhovsky peasants to give money and carts, A.’s place of exile became Mezen (he arrived here with his family and household members on December 29, 1664).
In con. 1665 - beginning In 1666, in connection with preparations for the Council (which began in February 1666), the leaders of the Old Believer opposition were arrested. On March 1, 1666, he was brought to Moscow and A., who was given to Metropolitan Krutitsky for admonition. Pavel. “He was in his yard,” A. recalled, “drawing me to his charming faith, he tormented me every five days, and intrigued, and fought with me.” On March 9, A. was transferred “under the command” to the Pafnutiev Borovsky monastery. After a heated debate at the Council, A. and his like-minded people, Deacon. Fyodor Ivanov and the Suzdal priest. Nikita Dobrynin, were defrocked on May 13, 1666 and anathematized in the Assumption Cathedral, after which they, chained, were placed in the St. Nicholas Ugreshsky Monastery, where on June 2 Fyodor and Nikita repented and signed the letters required of them. In the beginning. Sep. A. was again transferred to the prison of the Pafnutiev Borovsky monastery, where he was unsuccessfully persuaded to repent and reconcile with the Church. A. S. Matveev and clerk D. M. Bashmakov took part in these exhortations.
On June 17, 1667, new unsuccessful exhortations and heated debates continued at the meetings of the Council, and a month later A., priest Lazar and the Solovetsky monk Epiphanius were sentenced for their stubbornness. final verdict- “send to the Graz court.” Aug 26 by royal decree A. together with Lazarus, the Simbirsk priest. Nicephorus and Epiphanius sentenced him to exile in Pustozersk. On another day, Lazarus and Epiphanius had their tongues cut out, and on August 30-31. All convicts were taken to Pustozersky prison and on December 12. They were taken to the place where they were placed “separately, having cleared the Pustozero peasants’ huts, one person per hut,” under the supervision of centurion F. Akishev and 9 archers. Apr 20 In 1668, Fyodor Ivanov was brought here.
After several months ago the priest died in Pustozersk. Nikifor. The construction of special prisons for exiles dragged on, thanks to which they had the opportunity for some time to communicate quite freely with each other, as well as maintain connections with outside world. Deprived of books and other materials necessary for work, A. and his comrades nevertheless continued to expose “Nikonian” innovations in their “writings.” Already in the fall of 1669, on behalf of all the Pustozero prisoners, Fyodor Ivanov’s book “The Answer of the Orthodox” was sent to Rus', containing “the truth about church dogma”, to which A. attached a detailed approving review - “Attribution of knowledge for this sake.” In a petition sent at the same time to the Tsar, A. wrote that they were in vain excommunicated from the Church and called heretics, for in this case all the former Russians deserved a similar fate. hierarchs and sovereigns who adhered to pre-Nikon rituals. In his opinion, the main responsibility for all decisions of the Church lies with the king himself. A.’s works, written both by himself and in collaboration with his “prisoners,” were transmitted through “faithful people” to Mezen (here in Okladnikovaya Sloboda his family was in exile), and from there to Moscow, to the Solovetsky Monastery and in other places. A.’s connections with his students and followers did not stop even after the regime for keeping Pustozersk prisoners, who were separated into separate earthen prisons, became stricter.
In 1670, a new wave of repression began against adherents of pre-Nikon rituals. In March, students A. Fyodor Yurodivy and Luka Lavrentievich were hanged on Mezen. A.'s sons Ivan and Procopius were also sentenced to hang, but they “obeyed” and were imprisoned together with their mother in an earthen prison. 14 Apr In the same year, the second “execution” of Pustozersky “prison inmates” took place (Lazar, Fyodor Ivanov and Epiphany had their tongues cut out a second time and their right hands were chopped off), A. was ordered “instead of the death penalty” to be kept in prison on bread and water. The deterioration of the situation of Pustozersky prisoners to a certain extent even stimulated their lit. creation. It was during these years that A. created his main works. The most famous of them - the autobiographical "Life" - he wrote in 1672-1675. at the “compulsion” of his spiritual father, the monk Epiphanius, who wanted the “work of God” - the life of A. - not to be forgotten. A. calls the reason for writing his own “Life” the desire to force his students to follow his example (apparently implying standing for the “old faith”). “The Life” has been preserved in 3 author’s editions, 2 of which have survived in autographs. In addition, there is the Pryanishnikovsky list, which is a text edited by someone from the earliest version of A.’s “Life” that has not reached us, as well as 2 later revisions of the work.
During these same years, A. wrote the “Book of Conversations,” which reflected essential elements his relationship to modern times. events. In this work, which included 9 (sometimes 10) chapters of “conversations,” church reform appears as a return from the Gospel teaching to the Old Testament institutions and orders, which took place under the influence of the Romans and Greeks, in different time those who have departed from the “truth,” which is a harbinger of the Second Coming and the Last Judgment. In conditions of the open onslaught of evil, when the need to choose a path (“narrow” - to God, “broad” - to the devil) becomes especially acute, a person, despite his dual nature, is still able to show his true essence, preferring to a sinful world captured Antichrist, spiritual work in the house of God. This is exactly what A. called on his followers - the “little chosen ones”, who, as he wrote, sent “conversations” along with accompanying letters. In the Old Believer environment, A.’s “conversations” were combined into collections, but none of them contains the full text.
Another major work that appeared from the pen of A. in 1673-1676 is the “Book of Interpretations,” addressed to his favorite student S. I. Krasheninnikov (monk Sergius). It includes A.’s interpretations of the Psalms, the Book of Proverbs and the Wisdom of King Solomon, the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, as well as his own teaching “What is the Christian mystery, and how to live in the faith of Christ.” Turning to the interpretation of Old Testament texts, A. sought to show modern times through them. him events and thereby give them a spiritual assessment.
A.’s views on the time he was living through were also reflected in his extensive epistolary heritage - in petitions to Tsars Alexei Mikhailovich and Feodor Alekseevich, in messages and letters to his family, Princess Irina Mikhailovna, F. P. Morozova, E. P. Urusova and M. G. Danilova, abbot. Theoktist, the holy fool Afanasy (monk Abraham), Maremyana Feodorovna, Ksenia Ivanovna and Alexandra Grigorievna, Alexei Kopytovsky, “father” Jonah, Elder Kaptelina, Boris and “other servants of God Most High,” “holy fathers” and “venerable mothers,” etc. d. A. saw the cause of the church schism in the arbitrariness of the hierarchs; he called Nikon’s activities “the Hagaryan sword” and compared the deposed Patriarch with Arius and Pope Formosus. A polemical attitude often led A. to contradictory statements. Thus, calling for the slaughter of the “Nikonians” like dogs in a temper, he wrote in other writings, showing humility, that the Lord would forgive those members of the Council who cursed and cut off his hair, since this happened not through their fault, but “The devil himself built it with his slander.” For a long time A. believed that Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich would turn to the “true faith,” and only after the repressions that began in 1670, his attitude towards the Tsar changed dramatically: Pustozersky prisoners called Alexei Mikhailovich and his future. the successor on the throne by the “horns of the Antichrist,” that is, the forerunners of the Antichrist, who has not yet appeared in the world. However, after the accession of Theodore Alekseevich in 1676, on whom the Old Believers pinned their hopes, A. tried to change the Old Believers’ assessment of the new king, which was reflected in A.’s “Response” to the “Announcement from the Spiritual Son to the Spiritual Father” sent from Moscow. . This approach was approved by all Pustozersky prisoners.
A.’s attitude towards the sacraments of the reformed Church was complex. Denying the reality of the sacrament of ordaining priests in it and teaching his flock to resort, out of necessity, to all sorts of deceptions when contacting them, he nevertheless, back in 1669, not only allowed his spiritual children to go to those churches where newly ordained priests served according to the old books, but he also allowed them to take such priests as confessors. Later, in a letter to “father” Jonah, A. wrote that the “new priests” who had converted to the Old Belief could serve all services except the liturgy; Only those who “suffer from tormentors and shed their blood for old piety” can liturgize. Since it was difficult to find such priests who suffered “for the faith” and yet remained free, A. had to remove this restriction. He even recognized as valid the Baptism performed by the “unrepentant Nikonian priests,” but advised after that to read additional prayers. A. condemned those of his co-religionists who, in the conditions of the “end times,” denied the sacrament of Marriage and refused the Communion of the Holy Gifts in view of the “ultimate destruction” of the Bloodless Sacrifice by the Antichrist. In the ritual sphere, along with upholding traditions. for the zealots of pre-Nikon antiquity, judgments about double-fingered, special alleluia, icon writing according to ancient models, etc. A. addressed issues that caused controversy within the Old Believers, advocating the piety of early printed books, the eight-pointed shape of the cross, unanimous singing, etc. Approving self-immolation in his messages to Krasheninnikov, A. saw in them not a means of spiritual salvation, but in some cases the only way to “escape” from the hands of the “tormentors.”
A special place in A.’s heritage is occupied by “The Book of Reproof, or the Eternal Gospel” (c. 1679) - a polemical work directed against one of the “prisoners” of the archpriest - the former. diak. Fedora Ivanov. The “Book” reflected their disputes on dogmatic issues, which lasted almost a decade; all Pustozersky prisoners took part in these disputes. The far from complete text of the “Book” has reached us in the form of excerpts, paraphrases and quotes, including in Fyodor’s letter to his son Maxim, in the works of denouncers of the schism of the 18th century. (in the “Search for the schismatic Bryn faith” by St. Demetrius of Rostov, in the “Sling” of Nizhny Novgorod Archbishop Pitirim, in the writings of the founder of the Sarov desert. Hieroschema John, Archpriest A.I. Zhuravlev, former Bespopovite G. Yakovlev, etc. ), in “The Tale of the Disputes That Occurred on Kerzhenets Because of Avvakum’s Dogmatic Letters” by T. M. Lysenin, etc. In these disputes, Fyodor defended in most cases dogmatically correct opinions, Lazar shared, although not in everything, the views A., and the monk Epiphanius took a neutral position. In the fight against Fedor, A. was not shy in his choice of means: with the help of the archers guarding them, he stole from his opponent an essay on controversial issues and destroyed it, leaving only a few. sheets, which he spoiled and sent to Moscow.
A. denied the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, since he argued that in the Holy Trinity there are 3 beings, “three kings of heaven,” each of which has a “special graying”; at the same time, he separated Christ from the third Person of the Holy Trinity, or “quadrupled” Her, as Fyodor wrote. At the same time, A. and Lazar accused Fyodor of “monotheism” and said that he was hiding “beings in beings.” False ideas about the Persons of the Holy Trinity led A. to a revision of other dogmas. The Being of God seemed to him to be spatially limited, “dwelling in the highest,” “inaccessible,” from which the conclusion followed that God became man not by a Being, but by grace. Further, A. asserted that on the 3rd day after death, “the Son of God arose, descending body and soul into the dwelling of hell.” At the same time, he distinguished between the “rising” from the grave and the Resurrection (the first occurred during the descent into hell, and “Christ was resurrected as if he came out of hell”) and believed that even before the “rising” Christ sent His soul from the Cross with His Blood to God She and her father “beat the Jews with their foreheads, because they killed Christ in vain.” In the dispute about the soul, A. proceeded from the opinion that it is “uniform and corporeal; mind, word and spirit are the active forces in it,” that is, types of manifestation of spiritual energy. A. represented Angelov, together with Lazarus, in accordance with popular views, as humanoid, i.e., as they are written on icons. A. and Lazarus believed that the transfusion of the Holy Gifts was performed at the proskomedia - this belief is caused by the fact that the order of the proskomedia in the pre-Nikonian Service Books was very long, and at the proskomedia the Holy Gifts were blessed almost in the same way as in the anaphora. A. and Lazarus considered the founder of the Church not the Lord Jesus Christ, but the apostle. Petra.
All these misconceptions, which emerged in the process of A.’s fierce polemics with the imaginary heresy of Fyodor, received distribution and support among some of the archpriest’s students and followers (see Avvakumovshchina), however, the majority of the Old Believers did not support A.’s dogmatic constructions, despite his high authority as a martyr for the “old faith”, did not accept. Afterwards A.'s dogmatic constructions became the object of sharp criticism from denouncers of the schism. In turn, the Vygov writer S. Denisov, trying in his “Russian Grapes” to refute that these “writings” were written by A., called them a forgery.
In 1676, in connection with A.’s petition to Tsar Feodor Alekseevich, which was very harsh and offensive in tone (it, in particular, spoke about the afterlife torment of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, who did not side with A.), it was decided to transfer the archpriest and his comrades to Kozheezersky and Spaso-Kamenny monasteries, but the transfer did not take place. At the same time, “thieves and rebels” who were captured after the suppression of the uprising in the Solovetsky Monastery were sent to Pustozersk. Due to lack of space in the Pustozersky prisons, they were apparently taken somewhere, and on January 20. In 1680, a new batch of 10 “Nightingales” arrived here. Jan 6 1681 - on the feast of the Epiphany - Moscow Old Believers, as reported in the announcement of the Synod of 1725, “shamelessly and thieves threw scrolls blasphemous and dishonorable to the royal dignity” and in cathedrals, vestments “and the coffins of the royal dekhtem... at the instigation of the same dissenter and blind leader his own” A. “He himself... on birch bark charters inscribed the royal personages and high spiritual leaders with blasphemous inscriptions and interpretations.” These events accelerated the outcome. 8 Feb. In 1682, Tsar Feodor Alekseevich received permission from the Council to deal with schismatics “according to the sovereign’s discretion.” The captain of the Streltsy stirrup regiment, I. S. Leshukov, went to Pustozersk, who carried out a hasty investigation into the distribution of “evil” and “blasphemous” writings directed against the tsar and hierarchs from the earthen prison. 14 Apr 1682 A., Lazar, Epiphanius and Fyodor Ivanov were burned in a log house “for great blasphemy against the royal house.”
By the Old Believers of Belokrinitsky Consent, A. is revered as a holy martyr. The 1st service of A. (together with Bishop Pavel of Kolomna and other Old Believers who suffered for the “old faith”) was compiled in the beginning. XVIII century (Church. 1912. No. 41). The veneration was established by the Council of the Old Believer Church in 1916, at the same time the service of A. (with polyeleos) was written. The Old Believer Church celebrates the memory of A. in the week after the celebration of the memory of St. Fathers VII Omni. Cathedral. In the village A monument to A. was erected in Grigorov in 1991 (sculptor V. M. Klykov), the Avvakumov holiday is annually held in Grigorov, which attracts Old Believers from all over the country. In the village In B. Murashkino in 1993 the Old Believer church was consecrated. in the name of A.
Works: MDIR. M., 1875-79. T. 1-5; Monuments of the history of the Old Believers of the 17th century. St. Petersburg, 1927. Book. 1. Issue. 1. (RIB; T. 39); The Life of Archpriest Avvakum, written by himself, and his other works. M., 1960, 1991; Irkutsk, 1979n; Gorky, 1988n; Robinson A. N. Lives of Avvakum and Epiphanius: Research. and texts. M., 1963; Pustozersky collection: Autographs op. Habakkuk and Epiphany. L., 1975; PLDR. XVII century Book 2. P. 351-454; Pustozerskaya prose: Archpriest Avvakum. Monk Epiphanius. Pop Lazar. Deacon Fedor. M., 1989; Demkova N. S., Seseykina I. V.. The oldest (Pechora), list of the “Book of Interpretations and Moral Teachings”, found by V.I. Malyshev // Ancient storage of the Pushkin House: Materials and research. L., 1990. P. 73-146.
Lit.: Myakotin V. A. Archpriest Avvakum, his life and work: Biogr. feature article. St. Petersburg, 1893; Borozdin A. K. Archpriest Avvakum: Essay on the history of mental life in Russian. society in the 17th century. St. Petersburg, 19002. R. n/d., 1998p; Smirnov P. S. Internal issues in the schism in the 17th century. St. Petersburg, 1898, 19002; Pascal P. Avvakum et les débuts du raskol: La crise religieuse aux XVII-e siècle en Russie. P., 1938, 19632; Robinson A. N. Creativity of Avvakum and social movement at the end of the 17th century. // TODRL. 1962. T. 18. P. 149-175; aka. The struggle of ideas in Russian literature of the 17th century. M., 1974; Klibanov A. I. Archpriest Avvakum as a cultural and historical phenomenon // Ist. THE USSR. 1973. No. 1. P. 76-98; Eleonskaya A. S. Russian journalism of the second half of the 17th century. M., 1978; Malyshev V. I. Materials for the “Chronicle of the Life of Archpriest Avvakum” // Old Russian book literature: According to the materials of the Pushkin House. L., 1985. S. 277-322; Rumyantseva V. S. Popular anti-church movements in Russia in the 17th century. M., 1986; Shashkov A. T. Avvakum Petrov // SKKDR. Vol. 3. Part 1. pp. 16-30 [bibliogr.]; Bubnov N. Yu. Old Believer book in Russia in the second half of the 17th century: Sources, types and evolution. St. Petersburg, 1995; Zenkovsky S. Russian Old Believers: Spirit. movements of the 17th century M., 1995; Wurgaft, Ushakov. Old Believers. M., 1996. P. 8-9; Demkova N. S. Works of Avvakum and journalistic literature of the early Old Believers. St. Petersburg, 1998.
A. T. Shashkov
Archpriest Avvakum(Avvakum Petrovich - in the old tradition, the emphasis was on the second “a”: Avvakum, and this tradition is preserved among the Old Believers; November 25, 1620, Grigorovo, Knyagininsky district - April 14 (24), 1682, Pustozersk) - archpriest of the city of Yuryevets-Povolsky , opponent of the church reform of Patriarch Nikon in the 17th century, spiritual writer. 43 works are attributed to him, including the famous “Life”, “Book of Conversations”, “Book of Interpretations”, “Book of Reproofs”, etc. He is considered the founder of new Russian literature, free figurative speech, and confessional prose. Old Believers reverence Avvakum as a martyr and confessor.
Life
Coming from a poor family of a hereditary parish priest (Peter, son of Kondratiev), quite well-read, of a strict disposition, he gained fame quite early as an ascetic of Orthodoxy, who also engaged in exorcism of demons. Born “in the Nizhny Novgorod region beyond the Kudma River, in the village of Grigorov,” Avvakum lost his father at the age of 15 and suffered a lot from his orphanhood. According to Avvakum, his father was “diligent in drinking alcohol,” and his mother Maria, monastically Martha, was a great “faster and prayer worker” and “always taught” her son “the fear of God.” Only in choosing his wife he was very lucky. At the age of seventeen, on the instructions of his mother, he married an impoverished fourteen-year-old orphan, the daughter of a blacksmith, Anastasia Markovna, who was his true “helper to salvation,” a faithful friend in all his adversities.
In 1642, Habakkuk was ordained a deacon, and in 1644 he was made a priest. He became the priest of the village of Lopatitsa, Makaryevsky district, Nizhny Novgorod province. Already here, that rigorism that did not know the slightest concessions, which made his life a series of continuous torments, was sharply defined in him. Strict with himself to the point that once, during the confession of a “girl guilty of fornication” who came to him, the “prodigal fire” lit up in him, he “lit three candles and attached them to his forehead and laid his right hand on the flame and held “until the evil desire died away,” Habakkuk treated his flock and any lawlessness with which he had to encounter just as strictly. “The boss took away a daughter from a certain widow,” the archpriest interceded. “Dancing bears with tambourines and domras” came to Lopatitsy - favorite entertainment ancient Rus', and the ascetic Habakkuk, “jealous for Christ, he drove them out and broke the hares and tambourines from many and took away two great bears - one was bruised, and the other was released into the field.” At this time (1648), governor Sheremetev was sailing along the Volga past Lopatitsa. They complained to him about Avvakum’s arbitrariness. Sheremetev called him to himself, reproached him and wanted to let him go, only ordering him to “bless his son Matvey, the barber, as a farewell.” But the adherent of antiquity, “seeing the fornicating image” of the young boyar, was not afraid of the governor’s anger and flatly refused to bless the boyar. Habakkuk constantly exposed and shamed his parishioners for various vices, and neighboring priests because they poorly followed church rules and regulations. The “boss,” whom he accused of taking the widow’s daughter away, first “crushed him to death,” so that he lay “dead for half an hour or more,” then “when he came to church, he beat him and dragged him by his feet on the ground in his vestments.” ”, fired “from a pistol” and finally “he took the house and knocked it out, robbing everything.” Sheremetev, enraged by Avvakum’s refusal to bless his son, threw the stubborn man into the Volga, so that the archpriest barely escaped inevitable death.
Moscow
After Avvakum had to flee from Lopatitsa to Moscow twice, he was appointed archpriest in Yuryevets-Povolsky. Strict with himself, he mercilessly pursued any deviation from church rules (“priests and women, whom he dissuaded from fornication,” already 8 weeks after Avvakum arrived in this city, “they beat him with a batog and trampled him in the middle of the street” and threatened completely kill “the thief, damn his son, and throw his body into the ditch for the dogs”), as a result of which, around 1651, he was forced to flee from the indignant flock of Yuryevets to Moscow. Here Avvakum Petrovich, considered a scientist and personally known to the tsar, who was on the most friendly terms with the tsar’s confessor Stefan Vonifantiev, participated in the “book council” carried out under Patriarch Joseph. He lived with his friend, also a later famous schism teacher, the archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral, John Neronov, “knowing his church whenever he went away.” When Patriarch Joseph died in 1652, the new Patriarch Nikon, once a friend of Avvakum, replaced the previous Moscow inquirers with Ukrainian scribes led by Arseny the Greek, who knew Greek language. The reason was the difference in approaches to reform: if Avvakum, Ivan Neronov and others advocated correcting church books based on Old Russian Orthodox manuscripts, then Nikon was going to do this based on Greek liturgical books. Initially, the patriarch wanted to take the ancient “charatean” books, but then he was content with Italian reprints. Avvakum and other opponents of the reform were confident that these publications were not authoritative and were distorted. The archpriest sharply criticized Nikon's point of view in a petition to the king, written by him together with the Kostroma archpriest Daniil.
Avvakum took one of the first places among the adherents of antiquity and was one of the first victims of the persecution to which Nikon's opponents were subjected. In September 1653, he was thrown into the basement of the Andronievsky Monastery, where he sat for 3 days and 3 nights “without eating or drinking,” and then they began to exhort him to accept “new books,” but to no avail. The archpriest was not such as to deviate from what he considered to be the truth. “They reproach me,” he wrote, “for not submitting to the patriarch, but I scold and bark from the scriptures,” “they pull him by the hair, and push him in the sides, and bargain for his neck, and spit in his eyes.” Even after this the archpriest did not submit, and Nikon ordered his hair cut. But the king interceded, and Avvakum Petrovich was exiled to Tobolsk.
After a long and painful journey, the archpriest arrived in Tobolsk. Here, under the patronage of the archbishop, he settled down well. But a series of fanatical and rude antics such as the fact that for one offense he “whipped a certain clerk Ivan Struna with a belt”, and ordered the body of the boyar son Beketov, who cursed him and the archbishop in the church, to be “thrown to the dogs in the middle of the street”, and most of all, that Avvakum zealously continued to “scold the scriptures and reproach the heresy of Nikonov,” which led to him being taken away beyond the Lena, and when he arrived in Yeniseisk, another order came from Moscow: to take him to the governor Afanasy Pashkov, sent to conquer the “Daurian land” "
Pashkov was “a harsh man: he constantly burns and torments people,” and he was directly “ordered to torture Avvakum.” Anyone else under such conditions would have tried, if not to please the governor, then at least not to offend him first. But Avvakum at first began to find irregularities in Pashkov’s actions. He, of course, got angry and first of all ordered the archpriest and his family to be thrown off the plank on which he was sailing along the Tunguska. It was scary even on the fragile plank, but here we had to make our way with small children through the impenetrable wilds of the wild Daurian gorges. Avvakum could not stand it and wrote a message to Pashkov full of reproaches. The governor became completely furious, ordered the archpriest to be dragged to him, first beat him himself, and then ordered him to be given 72 lashes with a whip and then thrown into the Bratsk prison. Habakkuk sat for a long time in the “icy tower: winter lived there in those days, but God warmed him even without a dress! Like a dog lying in a straw: if they feed you, if not. There were a lot of mice: I beat them with a skufi - and my father wouldn’t let me! He was lying on his belly: his back was rotting. There were a lot of fleas and lice.” The archpriest hesitated: “I wanted to shout at Pashkov: forgive me!”, but “the power of God forbade me - I was ordered to endure.” They then transferred him to a warm hut, and Avvakum lived here with the dogs, chained all winter. In the spring, Pashkov released the long-suffering archpriest into the wild, but even in freedom it was terrible in the wild places where Avvakum, along with the rest of Pashkov’s “regiment,” paved the way: the “doschaniks” knocked together on a living thread sank, storms, especially on Lake Baikal, threatened certain death , many times I had to come face to face with death from starvation, to prevent which it was necessary to eat “chill wolves and foxes and receive all kinds of filth.” “Oh, that time!” Habakkuk exclaimed with horror, “I don’t know how the mind abandoned him.” His two little sons “wandering with others over the mountains and sharp stones, naked and barefoot, subsisting on grass and roots” died “in their needs.” So great and terrible were these “needs” that the archpriest, powerful in both body and spirit, at one time “from weakness and from a great famine, was exhausted in his rule,” and only the signs and visions that came to him kept him from cowardice.
Avvakum spent six years “in the Daurian land,” reaching Nerchinsk, Shilka and Amur, enduring not only all the hardships of a difficult campaign, but also cruel persecution from Pashkov, whom he accused of various “untruths.”
Return to Moscow
Meanwhile, Nikon lost all influence at court, and in 1663 Avvakum was returned to Moscow. The return journey was also terrible and lasted three years. Throughout the journey, Habakkuk “shouted throughout all the cities and villages, in churches and at market places, preaching the word of God, and teaching and denouncing godless flattery,” that is, Nikonian innovations. The first months of his return to Moscow were a time of great personal triumph for Avvakum. Nothing prevented Muscovites, among whom there were many open and secret supporters of the split, from enthusiastically honoring the sufferer, who was returned at their request. The tsar himself showed affection for him, ordered him to “put him in the monastery courtyard in the Kremlin” and, “walking past my yard on campaigns,” says Avvakum, “he often bowed with me, low, and he himself said: ‘bless me and pray about me"; and at another time he took off his Murmanka hat and dropped it from his head while on horseback. He used to lean out of the carriage towards me,” and all “the boyars after the Tsar with their brows, and brows: archpriest! bless and pray for us.”
However, soon everyone became convinced that Avvakum was not Nikon’s personal enemy, but a principled opponent of church reform. Through the boyar Rodion Streshnev, the tsar advised him, if not to join the reformed church, then at least not to criticize it. Avvakum followed the advice: “And I amused him: the king, that is, was created by God and is kind to me,” but this did not last long. Soon he began to criticize the bishops even more strongly than before, introducing instead of the 8-pointed unequal 4-pointed cross adopted in Rus', the correction of the Creed, tripartite addition, partes singing, reject the possibility of salvation according to the newly corrected liturgical books, and even sent a petition to the king, in which he asked to depose Nikon and restore Joseph’s rituals: “he grumbled again, wrote a lot to the Tsar, so that he would seek out the old piety and defend our common mother, the Holy Church from heresy and would place an Orthodox shepherd on the throne of the patriarch instead of the wolf and the apostate Nikon, a villain and a heretic.”
This time the king was angry, especially since Avvakum, who was sick at that time, submitted the petition through the holy fool Theodore, who with it “attacked the king’s carriage with boldness.” Alexey Mikhailovich favored Avvakum as a man who suffered a lot, but not at all as a heresiarch, and when he saw from the petition that the archpriest was rebelling not only against Nikon, but against the entire existing church, he “began to turn on him.” “It didn’t feel good,” adds Avvakum, “as I began to speak again; They love how I’m silent, but it didn’t work out for me.” The tsar ordered to tell the archpriest: “The authorities are complaining about you, you have devastated the churches: go into exile again.”
In 1664, Avvakum was exiled to Mezen, where he continued his preaching and supporting his followers scattered throughout Russia with messages in which he called himself “a slave and messenger of Jesus Christ,” “a proto-Singelian of the Russian church.”
The archpriest stayed in Mezen for a year and a half. In 1666, he was again brought to Moscow, where on May 13, after futile exhortations at the cathedral that gathered to try Nikon, he was stripped of his hair and “cursed” in the Assumption Cathedral at mass, in response to which he immediately imposed an anathema on the bishops (“ cursed the resistance"). They then took the archpriest to the Pafnutiev Monastery and there, “locked in a dark tent, shackled, they kept him there for almost a year.”
And after this they did not give up the idea of convincing Avvakum, whose defrocking was met with great indignation among the people, and in many boyar houses, and even at court, where the queen, who interceded for Avvakum, had a “great disturbance” with the king on his day of defrocking. They again persuaded Avvakum in the face of the Eastern patriarchs in the Chudov Monastery (“you are stubborn; all of our Palestine, and Serbia, and Albans, and Wallachians, and Romans, and Lyakhs, all of them cross themselves with three fingers; you alone stand on your stubbornness and cross yourself with two fingers; this is not proper”), but he firmly stood his ground: “Teacher of the Universe! Rome fell long ago and lies unyielding, and the Poles perished with it, until the end they were enemies of Christians, and your Orthodoxy is motley; from the violence of Tursky Magmet, natural weakness became; and in the future, come to us to study”, “scold them as much as I could” and, finally, “the last word of the river: I am clean and the dust that clings to my feet I shake off before you, according to what is written: it is better to be one, do the will of God, than the darkness of the lawless "
Pustozersk[edit | edit source text]
At this time, his comrades were executed. Avvakum was punished with a whip and exiled to Pustozersk on Pechora (1667). At the same time, his tongue was not cut out, like Lazarus and Epiphanius, with whom he and Nikifor, the archpriest of Simbirsk, were exiled to Pustozersk.
For 14 years he sat on bread and water in an earthen prison in Pustozersk, continuing his preaching, sending out letters and messages. Finally, his harsh letter to Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, in which he criticized Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and scolded Patriarch Joachim, decided the fate of both him and his comrades: they were all burned in a log house in Pustozersk.
In 1991, Old Believers from Riga erected a memorial cross at the Pustozero settlement, and on April 27, 2012, the Old Believers Pomeranians consecrated a chapel next to the cross in memory of the Pustozero martyrs.
Avvakum is revered in most Old Believer churches and communities as a martyr and confessor. In 1916, the Old Believer Church of Belokrinitsky Consent canonized Avvakum as a saint.
On June 5, 1991, a monument to Avvakum was unveiled in the village of Grigorovo, Nizhny Novgorod region.
Theology
Avvakum Petrovich's doctrinal views are quite traditional; his favorite area of theology is moral and ascetic. The polemical orientation is expressed in criticism of Nikon’s reforms, which he connects with “Roman fornication,” that is, with Latinism. 
God, judging by the works of Habakkuk, invisibly accompanied the passion-bearer at all stages of his life’s journey, helping to punish the wicked and wicked. Thus, Avvakum describes how a governor who hated him sent an exile to fish in a fishless place. Habakkuk, wanting to shame him, appealed to the Almighty - and “the God of fish caught his nets full.” This approach to communication with God is very similar to the Old Testament: God, according to Habakkuk, shows a keen interest in Everyday life suffering for the true faith.
Avvakum suffered, according to him, not only from the persecutors of the true faith, but also from demons: at night they allegedly played domra and pipes, preventing the priest from sleeping, knocked the rosary out of his hands during prayer, and even resorted to direct physical violence - they grabbed the archpriest by the head and twisted it. However, Avvakum is not the only zealot of the old faith overcome by demons: the torture allegedly perpetrated by the devil’s servants on the monk Epiphanius, Avvakum’s spiritual father, was much more severe.
Researchers have discovered a very strong dependence of the ideological world of Habakkuk on patristic and patericon writing. Anti-Old Believer literature often discusses the archpriest’s contradictory answer to a question from one of his correspondents, preserved in a letter whose authenticity is in doubt, about an expression that confused her in one liturgical text about the Trinity. This expression could be understood in such a way that in the Holy Trinity there are three essences or beings, to which Habakkuk replied “do not be afraid, smite the insect.” This remark gave New Believer polemicists a reason to talk about “heresy” (tritheism). Subsequently, they tried to justify these views of Avvakum in Irgiz, so that from such apologists a special sense of “Onufrievites” emerged. In fact, the archpriest’s views on the Holy Trinity did not differ from the patristic ones, as can be seen from the preface to the Life, which clearly contains the Athanasian Creed, professing the Consubstantial Trinity.
On the other hand, a number of Old Believer apologists generally categorically reject the authenticity of those writings of Avvakum, which contain controversial dogmatic judgments, and declare them to be a “Nikonian” forgery, designed to discredit the “martyr.” See, for example, the book by K. Ya. Kozhurin, written from the perspective of the Old Believers (non-priest members of the Pomeranian Church), a biography of Avvakum in the series “The Life of Remarkable People.”
Archpriest Avvakum. Old Believer icon
Avvakum, archpriest of the city of Yuryevets-Povolozhsky, is one of the main leaders of the Russian Old Believers of the 17th century. Habakkuk was born before 1610. Coming from a poor family, distinguished by his great erudition and a strict but cheerful disposition, he gained fame quite early as a zealot of Orthodoxy, engaged in exorcism of demons. Strict with himself, he mercilessly persecuted all lawlessness and deviation from church rules, and for this reason, around 1651 he had to flee from the indignant flock to Moscow. Here Habakkuk, reputed to be a scientist and personally known to the king, participated in the “book correction” under Patriarch Joseph (d. 1652). But Nikon, who became patriarch after Joseph, replaced the previous Russian inquiry officers with people invited from Ukraine, and partly from Greece. They carried out the correction of Russian church books in a non-national spirit, introduced those “innovations” in liturgical texts and rituals that served as the cause of the schism. Habakkuk took one of the first places among the zealots of antiquity and was one of the first victims of the persecution of opponents of Nikonianism. Already in September 1653 he was thrown into prison and they began to admonish him, but to no avail. Then Avvakum was exiled to Tobolsk, and then, by royal decree, for swearing at Nikon he was sent even further away - to Lena. From here, Archpriest Avvakum was sent to distant Dauria as a priest with a detachment of military men, who were led there by the Yenisei governor Pashkov to erect new forts there. Pashkov founded the forts of Nerchinsky, Irkutsk, Albazinsky and ruled in that region for about five years. Over these years, Avvakum suffered a lot from this cruel governor, who often kept him in prison, starved him, beat him, and oppressed him with work. The archpriest, unbridled in his tongue, often brought upon himself the voivode’s anger with his denunciations.
Avvakum's story about the life of the Russians in this unpleasant country, about their clashes with the natives, provides interesting details. One day Pashkov decided to send his son Eremey to the neighboring Mungal possessions for robbery, and gave him 72 Cossacks and 20 foreigners. Before the start of the campaign, the superstitious commander, instead of turning to Orthodox priest Habakkuk for prayer, forced the pagan shaman to wonder whether the campaign would be successful. The shaman took the ram and began to twist its head while it moaned pitifully until he tore it off completely. Then he began to jump, dance and shout, calling on demons, and, exhausted, fell to the ground; Foam started coming out of my mouth. The shaman announced that the people would return with great booty. Habakkuk was greatly indignant at the belief in barbaric fortune-telling and prayed to God that not a single person would turn back. In his autobiography, the archpriest likes to boast greatly, often telling about the appearances of saints, the Mother of God and the Savior himself, that happened to him, about the miraculous power of his prayer. She justified herself this time too. The march was accompanied by ominous signs: horses neighed, cows brayed, sheep and goats bleated, dogs howled. Only Eremey, who sometimes stood up for Archpriest Avvakum before his father, asked to pray for him, which he did with zeal. People did not return for a long time. Since Avvakum not only did not conceal his desire for the death of the detachment, but expressed it loudly, Pashkov became angry and decided to torture him. The fire had already been lit. Knowing that people don’t live long after that fire, the archpriest said goodbye to his family. The executioners were already following Avvakum, when suddenly Eremey rode along, wounded and only his friend returning; he brought back the executioners. Eremey said that the Mungal people beat the entire detachment, but one native saved him, taking him to a deserted place, where they wandered through the mountains and forests for a whole week, not knowing the way, and how, finally, a man appeared to him in a dream in the form of Archpriest Avvakum, and showed the way. Pashkov was convinced that through the archpriest’s prayer his son Eremey was saved, and this time he did not touch Avvakum. In general, apparently, Archpriest Avvakum was a man not only of an indomitable spirit, but also of iron health, who easily endured bodily suffering.
In 1660, Tolbuzin was sent as governor to replace Pashkov. Avvakum was allowed to return to Moscow, where his zealous admirers did not forget about him. In addition, Alexei Mikhailovich and the boyar party, which initially supported Nikon's reforms, now entered into a sharp quarrel with the power-hungry patriarch, who openly sought to place his authority above the tsar's. In the fight against Nikon, the tsar and the boyars temporarily decided to take advantage of the leaders of the Old Believers.
Avvakum had to sail along the Siberian rivers alone with his family and several wretched people in a boat, enduring poverty and danger from the natives. Twice along the way the archpriest spent the winter: in Yeniseisk and Tobolsk. Approaching native Russia, Avvakum saw that worship was performed according to corrected books and rituals. Jealousy flared up in him to expose the “Nikonian heresy”; but his wife and children tied him up, and he became sad. But the archpriest’s wife, having learned from him the cause of sadness, herself blessed him for his feat, and Avvakum boldly began to preach everywhere his favorite two-fingered prayer, a special hallelujah, and an eight-pointed cross on prosphora. Only in 1663 did he reach Moscow. “As if the angel of God received me, the sovereign and the boyars were all happy with me,” writes Avvakum in “Life” (his own autobiography). “I went to Fyodor Rtishchev, he blessed me... for three days and three nights he didn’t let me go home... The Emperor immediately ordered me to be placed in his hand and spoke gracious words: “Are you living well, archpriest?” God told me to see him again!” And I... say: “As the Lord lives, as my soul lives, O Tsar-Sovereign, and henceforth, whatever God wills!” He, dear one, sighed and went where he needed to. And there was something else, too much to say!.. He ordered me to be placed in the Kremlin, on the Novodevichy courtyard, and... walking past my yard, he often bowed low to me; and he himself says: Bless me and pray for me!.. And sometimes all the boyars, after him, would lean out of the carriage towards me.”
Favor towards Avvakum, according to him, extended to the point that after the death of another leader of the Old Believers, Stefan Vonifatiev, he was offered to become the royal confessor if he repented and accepted Nikon’s corrections. But the archpriest remained adamant and submitted petitions to the king, in which he blasphemed everything Nikon had done, equated him with Arius, and threatened all his followers with terrible judgment. The petitions of Archpriest Avvakum are written in remarkably lively, strong and figurative language; they had to make a great impression on the minds; it is not surprising that he had intercessors even in the highest society. In addition to Fyodor Rtishchev and Rodion Streshnev, he found sympathy in the Morozov, Miloslavsky, Khilkov, and Khovansky families. The noblewoman Fedosya Morozova showed him special devotion. Through her husband Gleb Ivanovich (through his brother, the famous Boris Ivanovich), she was related to Tsarina Marya Ilyinichna, and through her father (Okolnich Sokovnin) she was related to her. Under the influence of Morozova, Tsarina Maria Miloslavskaya herself and her relatives provided patronage to Archpriest Avvakum. Fedosya's own sister, Princess Evdokia Urusova, also became a spiritual daughter and follower of Avvakum. Morozova was already a widow, and, possessing great wealth, she supported the dissenter with all means. She made her house into a kind of monastery and kept nuns, pilgrims and holy fools there. Avvakum, who almost settled in her house, spread the Old Believer sermon throughout the capital through his followers.
The king left Habakkuk alone, ordering him only to refrain from preaching and petitioning. They even promised to hire him as a clerk at the Printing Yard. But the archpriest lasted no more than six months; again he began to bother the king with petitions, and to confuse the people with preaching against Nikonianism. Following a complaint from the spiritual authorities, Avvakum was sent into exile to Mezen (1664). But he continued to write messages from there. In March 1666, Archpriest Avvakum was transferred closer to Moscow to be subjected to a conciliar trial.
Avvakum was brought to Moscow, where on May 13, after futile exhortations at the council that had gathered to try Nikon, he was cut off and cursed in the Assumption Cathedral, in response to which Avvakum immediately proclaimed an anathema to the bishops. And after this, they did not give up the idea of convincing Avvakum, whose defrocking was met with great displeasure among the people, and in many boyar houses, and even at court, where the queen, who interceded for Archpriest Avvakum, had a “great discord” with the tsar on the day of his defrocking . Habakkuk’s exhortations took place again, already in the face of the East. patriarchs in the Chudov Monastery, but Avvakum firmly stood his ground. His accomplices were executed at this time. Avvakum was only punished with a whip and exiled to Pustozersk (1667). They didn’t even cut out his tongue, like Lazarus and Epiphanius, with whom he and Nicephorus, Archpriest of Simbirsk, were exiled to Pustozersk.
Avvakum sat for 14 years on bread and water in an earthen prison in Pustozersk, tirelessly continuing his preaching, sending out letters and district messages. Finally, his daring letter to Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, in which he reviled Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and scolded Patriarch Joachim, decided the fate of Avvakum and his comrades. On April 1, 1681 they were burned in Pustozersk. Old Believers consider Avvakum a martyr and have icons of him. 43 works are attributed to Archpriest Avvakum, of which 37, including his autobiography (“Life”), were published by N. Subbotin in “Materials for the History of the Schism” (vols. I and V). Avvakum’s doctrinal views boil down to the denial of Nikon’s “innovations,” which he connects with “Roman fornication,” i.e., with Catholicism. In addition, Habakkuk in St. The Trinity distinguished three essences or beings, which gave the first denouncers of the schism a reason to talk about a special sect of “Habakkukism,” which in fact did not exist, since Habakkuk’s views on St. The Trinity was not accepted by the Old Believers.
Avvakum Petrov, Avvakum Petrovich Kondratiev(common pronunciation is Habakkuk); or, Grigorovo - April 1 (14), 1682, Pustozersk) - archpriest of the city of Yuryevets-Povolozhsky, opponent of the liturgical reform of Patriarch Nikon of the 17th century; spiritual writer.
43 works are attributed to him, including the famous “Life”, “Book of Conversations”, “Book of Interpretations”, “Book of Reproofs”, etc. He is considered the founder of new Russian literature, free figurative speech, and confessional prose.
Life
Coming from a poor family, quite well-read, of a strict disposition, he gained fame quite early as a supporter of Orthodoxy, who also practiced exorcism.
Strict with himself, he mercilessly pursued any deviation from church rules, as a result of which around 1651 he was forced to flee from the indignant flock of the city of Yuryevets-Povolozhsky to Moscow. Here Avvakum Petrovich, considered a scientist and personally known to the tsar, participated in the “book council” carried out under Patriarch Joseph. When Patriarch Joseph died in 1652, the new Patriarch Nikon replaced the previous Moscow inquirers with Little Russian scribes led by Arseny the Greek. The reason was the difference in approaches to reform: if Avvakum, Ivan Neronov and others advocated correcting church books based on Old Russian Orthodox manuscripts, then Nikon was going to do this based on Greek liturgical books. Initially, the patriarch wanted to take the ancient “charatean” books, but then he was content with Italian reprints. Avvakum and other opponents of the reform were confident that these publications were not authoritative and were distorted. The archpriest sharply criticized Nikon's point of view in a petition to the king, written by him together with the Kostroma archpriest Daniil.
Avvakum took one of the first places among the adherents of antiquity and was one of the first victims of the persecution to which Nikon's opponents were subjected. In September 1653, he was thrown into prison and they began to persuade him to accept the “new books,” but to no avail. Avvakum Petrovich was exiled to Tobolsk, then for 6 years he was under the governor Afanasy Pashkov, sent to conquer the “Daurian land”, reached Nerchinsk, Shilka and Amur, enduring not only all the hardships of a difficult campaign, but also cruel persecution from Pashkov, whom he accused him of various “untruths”.
And after this they did not give up the idea of convincing Avvakum, whose defrocking was met with great indignation among the people, and in many boyar houses, and even at court, where the queen, who interceded for Avvakum, had a “great disturbance” with the king on his day of defrocking. Avvakum was again persuaded in the face of the Eastern patriarchs in the Chudov Monastery, but he firmly stood his ground. At this time, his comrades were executed. Avvakum was punished with a whip and exiled to Pustozersk (1667). At the same time, his tongue was not cut out, like Lazarus and Epiphanius, with whom he and Nikifor, the archpriest of Simbirsk, were exiled to Pustozersk.
For 14 years he sat on bread and water in an earthen prison in Pustozersk, continuing his preaching, sending out letters and messages. Finally, his harsh letter to Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, in which he criticized Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and scolded Patriarch Joachim, decided the fate of both him and his comrades: they were all burned in a log house in the city of Pustozersk.
Avvakum is revered in most Old Believer churches and communities as a martyr and confessor. In 1916, the Old Believer Church of Belokrinitsky Consent canonized Avvakum as a saint.
God, judging by the works of Habakkuk, invisibly accompanied the passion-bearer at all stages of his life’s journey, helping to punish the wicked and wicked. Thus, Avvakum describes how a governor who hated him sent an exile to fish in a fishless place. Habakkuk, wanting to shame him, appealed to the Almighty - and “the God of fish caught his nets full.” This approach to communication with God is very similar to the Old Testament: God, according to Habakkuk, shows close interest in the daily lives of those who suffer for the true faith.
Avvakum suffered, according to him, not only from the persecutors of the true faith, but also from demons: at night they played domras and pipes, preventing the monk from sleeping, knocked the rosary out of his hands during prayer, and even resorted to direct physical violence - they grabbed the archpriest by the head and twisted it. However, Avvakum is not the only zealot of the old faith overcome by demons: the torture perpetrated by the servants of the devil on the monk Epiphanius, Avvakum’s spiritual father, was much more severe.
Researchers have discovered a very strong dependence of the ideological world of Habakkuk on patristic and patericon writing. Anti-Old Believer literature often discusses the archpriest’s contradictory answer to a question from one of his correspondents, preserved in a letter whose authenticity is in doubt, about an expression that confused her in one liturgical text about the Trinity. This expression could be understood in such a way that in the Holy Trinity there are three essences or beings, to which Habakkuk replied “do not be afraid, smite the insect.” This remark gave New Believer polemicists a reason to talk about “heresy” (tritheism). Subsequently, they tried to justify these views of Avvakum in Irgiz, so that from such apologists a special sense of “Onufrievites” emerged. In fact, the archpriest’s views on the Holy Trinity did not differ from the patristic ones, as can be seen from the preface to the Life, and his careless expressions were not accepted by the Old Believers. A number of researchers, in particular N. M. Nikolsky and E. A. Rozenkov, talk about Avvakum’s lack of awareness of issues of Orthodox dogma. Thus, the phrase from the letter in which Habakkuk promised the call that followed that he would see “three kings” causes confusion.
Links
- Avvakum Petrovich “Life... Petitions to the Tsar. Letters to Boyarina Morozova" facsimile reproduction of the Paris edition of 1951. ImWerden Library
- Avvakum in the Fundamental Electronic Library “Russian Literature and Folklore”
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
See what “Protopop Avvakum” is in other dictionaries:
HABACKKUM- (Avvakum Petrovich) (1620, village of Grigorovo, Nizhny Novgorod province. 04/14/1682, Pustozersk) one of the first spiritual leaders of the Old Belief, a confessor who suffered martyrdom at the stake. At the age of 21 he was ordained deacon, and in 1643 or 1644... ... Russian Philosophy. Encyclopedia
The first in time and the most talented of the schismatic writers, opponents of the innovations of Patriarch Nikon, archpriest of the mountains. Yuryevets Povolzhsky; born, as can be seen from his autobiography, in 1615 or 1616, burned in Pustozersk, in a log house, April 1, 1681... ... Large biographical encyclopedia
Wikipedia has articles about other people named Habakkuk. Avvakum Petrov ... Wikipedia
- (about 1620, the village of Grigorovo, Zakudemsky camp, Nizhny Novgorod district 1682, Pustozersky fort), one of the founders of the Old Believers, archpriest, writer. From the priests. Since 1642 deacon, since 1644 priest of the village of Lopatishchi, Nizhny Novgorod district.... ... Moscow (encyclopedia)
- (1620 or 1621, the village of Grigorovo, Nizhny Novgorod province - 1682, executed in Pustozersk), head of the Old Believers and ideologist of the schism in Orthodox Church, archpriest, writer. St. Avvakum When Nikon began reforming the church in 1653, Archpriest Avvakum spoke... Literary encyclopedia
Avvakum Petrov (1620 or 1621-1682), archpriest, head of the Old Believers, ideologist of the schism in the Russian Orthodox Church.
Born in the village of Grigoriev, Makaryevsky district, Nizhny Novgorod province, in the family of a rural priest. After Avvakum’s marriage to fellow villager Nastasya Markovna, he was ordained a deacon (1641), and in 1644 he became a priest in the village of Lopatitsy.
The desire to harshly expose the misdeeds of parishioners led to his first clash with the flock. In 1646, Avvakum was beaten and driven out of the village along with his wife and son. He left for Moscow, where his fellow countryman Ivan Neronov supported him.
In the capital, Avvakum zealously became involved in the activities of the circle of Russian theologians “zealots of ancient piety”, led by the royal confessor Stefan Vonifatiev. In 1653, Archpriest Avvakum began an open struggle with Patriarch Nikon. He sharply opposed the correction of liturgical books. He was outraged by both the prohibition of two fingers and the reforms in church services. Avvakum submitted a petition to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, in which he defended the old rituals. He refused to accept changes in worship, for which he was soon captured and exiled first to the Androniev Monastery, and then to Tobolsk.
After a ten-year exile, released from it at the request of Moscow friends, the archpriest returned to Moscow in 1664. Alexei Mikhailovich, who had quarreled with Nikon, received Avvakum graciously and ordered him to be settled in the Kremlin, in the courtyard of the Novodevichy Convent. Avvakum addressed new petitions to the king, demanding the eradication of the Nikonian heresy. The archpriest himself pointedly did not attend churches where they served according to the new rituals.
In the summer of 1664, church hierarchs, fearing unrest among the Old Believers in Moscow, obtained from Alexei Mikhailovich a decision on a new exile of the archpriest to Pustozersk. There he was first imprisoned wooden frame, and then to an earthen prison, but Avvakum did not stop fighting. During his 15-year imprisonment in Pustozersk, he wrote two collections of theological works - “The Book of Conversations” and “The Book of Interpretations”, many letters and messages to like-minded Old Believers. These texts were transmitted from the Pustozersky prison, both in whole and in parts, and then sent out to Old Believer communities.
Avvakum's works testify to the breadth of his theological interests and courage in matters of theology. He even dared to interpret the texts in detail Holy Scripture. Thus, the “Book of Interpretations” includes explanations of individual psalms, chapters from the Book of Proverbs of Solomon, the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, and the Gospel of Matthew. During his exile in Pustozero, Avvakum wrote his most famous work - his autobiography.
The text of the “Life” best demonstrated the virtues of Avvakum the writer: rich, figurative and inimitable language, a sense of humor and irony, subtle observation and a tenacious memory for details. Fearing new Old Believer uprisings and seeing Avvakum as a possible leader, the Moscow government sentenced him to death for his great blasphemy against the royal house.
On April 14, 1682, Avvakum and his closest friends, who all this time shared with him the hardships of the Pustozero prison - priest Lazar, monk Epiphanius and deacon Fedor - were burned in a wooden frame.
Subsequently, Archpriest Avvakum was canonized by the Old Believers as a saint and great martyr.