Split has led to serious changes in a state and ­ society life­. The temporal power led by the tsar has used the best efforts for destruction ­ of the main contender - churches led by the patriarch.

Split among clergy was outlined: the part has been incited against the offensive ­ policy of the tsar on the church privilege, the part has not accepted church reform. The clerics who have not accepted innovations convinced the parishioners to express protests and when have understood, that it is useless and is punished by a death penalty, - to leave families in the remote areas of the country to build a new life by new rules. So Split in Russian society was born. Split is many-sided: it was present in the church organisation, in ­ a society, between the state and church, between the government ­ and a society.

In opposition of three camps of Split the victory was gained ­ by the government headed by Alexey Mihajlovichem. It ­ possessed an administrative resource, possibility legally to apply force. Thus and Alexey Mihajlovicha's politiko-legal sights ­ as much as possible met the requirements of time and developed to the middle of XVII century ­ to historical conditions in Russia. With contenders the winner has finished: on the Cathedral of 1666 both Nikon, and Avvakum have been outlawed, deprived the ­ posts and are banished. Fifteen years both have spent in references (the truth, conditions of the maintenance of the former patriarch were incomparably better) and have died with a difference ­ less than year.

the Imperial power has destroyed leaders, but not Split camp. So, Old Believers up to 1917 become one of constant interstate ­ problems.

It will be overcome for the ideas and the ecclesiastical authority: let it is short (to Peters ­
skoj epoch), but in certain degree it is successful, though external successes were rather unsteady, conditional inherently. So, sights of patriarch Nikona were supported by all church management. During struggle with Cathedral ­ Ulozheniem it has achieved a concession on a judicial line: clergymen have been withdrawn by the decision of the Cathedral of 1667 from jurisdiction of secular establishments even on criminal cases. The second concession was abolition of the Monastic order. But in half a century both these concessions have been liquidated by Peter Alekseevichem already without any difficulties and prekoslovija.

the Second small victory of church noted by us should be considered ­ as the favour from temporal power. Nominal abolition ­ of the Monastic order at all did not mean real change ­ in an alignment of forces. The state and continued to dictate henceforth churches the conditions. Now it even became easier, as the tsar ­ selected candidates on the patriarchal post, proceeding from principles poslushnosti, compliance and tractability from the patriarch more attentively­. So, having got tired of struggle with vigorous Nikonom, the tsar and bishops on the Cathedral of 1667 have selected on a post of the patriarch «the person who was not initiating of any disputes owing to the extreme old age and nezametnosti» [305] - the archimandrite to the Trinity-sergieva of monastery Iosafa II (1667 - 1672). By the same principle of enmity with Nikonom ­ and friendship with the tsar have held the posts patriarchs Pitirim (1672 - 1673) and Ioakim (1674 - 1690).

the concept «the Monastic order» Has ceased to exist, but ­ the essence of its activity has not disappeared­. In certain degree the tsar personally has concentrated all basic functions of this body in the hands. Really, if ­ clerics so strongly insisted on order liquidation why was not to meet them and not to clean the "grown hateful" word-combination. It have cleaned. But only a word-combination. The government felt in a debt to the Cathedral of 1666 as, under the pressure of the monarch, church reform has been approved, and patriarch Nikon is condemned east patri ­
arhami (them was the overwhelming majority on the Cathedral as Russian hierarches ­ opposed depositions Nikona) for its seditious ideas. ­ Nominal abolition of the order was gratitude gesture.

the concession concerning transfer of the right of court over priests and monks in hands of the church Is similar by the nature. «gosudarev the court» and remained highest authority for all lawsuits, and the control from ­ the state over activity of church judges has completely remained ­ according to norms of the chapter of XII Cathedral Ulozhenija.

we Will pay attention to one more curious moment: Russian hierarches who always were against removal Nikona from the patriarchal chair and its reference, not only have achieved its restoration in a rank of the patriarch (­ posthumously), but also could inspire both to east patriarchs, and a sovereign feeling of fault before Nikonom. Before death tsar Alexey Mihajlovich in the will asked from patriarch Nikona of the pardon, new tsar Feodor Alekseevich has made the decision on returning to patriarch Nikonu of its dignity and asked it to return to the Voskresensky monastery based by it [306] . On a way to this monastery Nikon Patriarch Nikon has died in August, 1681 has been buried with honours appropriate to the patriarch in the Voskresensky cathedral ­ of the Novoierusalimsky monastery. In September, 1682 to Moscow ­ reading and writing of all four east patriarchs, «resolving Nikona from all preshcheny and restoring it in a dignity of the Patriarch vseja Russia» [307] have been delivered­.

Opposition of politiko-legal sights of ideologists of Split ­ was reflected in the further development of the state and the right at least in two ­ aspects: first, in change of relations between the state and church, loss of former powerful positions by last in a country government and gradual ­ deprivation of church of administrative and judicial functions, secondly, in working out of ways of the state influence on "far-outers" of persons
- Old Believers who have poured out in occurrence of variety of norms criminal,­ administrative, the civil law, created specially for struggle against conservatives.

Considering the first aspect of influence of Split, it is necessary to note the following. Process of nationalisation of the church has begun with Alexey Mihajlovicha Romanov's board, which sense consisted in liquidating ­ the competitor of the absolute monarchical power and to subordinate to the state ­ of each inhabitant of the country, including to this exclusive and concerning ­ the independent representative of spiritual estate (after all tax bearers and soldiers whom, according to the monarch are necessary to the country, should be and clerics as the state citizens). Patriarch Nikon ­ tried to stop this process and even to change a vector direction in the counter party that has led to Split between the state and church, and to rupture of relations between the tsar and the patriarch in particular. Following patriarchs approved, proceeding from a principle poslushnosti ­ to a sovereign while, at last, son Alexey Mihajlovicha - Peter, has not dared ­ to liquidate patriarchate definitively. We dare to assume, that if not Split process of nationalisation of church would go without sharp crises, and smoothly and it would more organically be entered in history of Russia. Peter the Great especially esteeming all western, but thus orthodox monarch and the devout ­ Russian person, would not dare to liquidate patriarchate, not knowing history of the sharpest conflict of the father with Nikonom.

Split has several times increased speed of process of submission of church to the state. Still Alexey Mihajlovich has begun approach to the church property, having fixed in Cathedral Ulozhenii the norms interfering ­ expansion of church landed property and limiting jurisdiction of church. From the end of XVII century on church some national taxes began to extend­. Then fiscal privileges ­ of monasteries, church a payoff on gathering trading and kabatskih duties have been cancelled tarhannye reading and writing,­ fiscal incentives of church establishments are limited. Since 1705 attendants
the churches which do not have arrival, began to be assessed with special monetary gathering,­ and arrivals - gathering for military and other needs. In 1722 rigid rules of the introduction into spiritual estate are established: in a family of noble family to become the priest or leave in a monastery the younger son on achievement of forty years could only. ­ Their relatives should pay for representatives podatnyh the estates which have arrived in clergy,­ the head tax [308] . In days of Anna Ioannovny's board the part of clergy began to be exposed to a military appeal (since 1737). Catherine II in 1764 has spent full sekuljarizatsiju church manors. Interest of the state was obvious: the policy sekuljarizatsii ­ has brought considerable benefits, the former monastic possession were that reserve from which the Russian monarchs made large pozha -

309 lovanija the occupied earths to dignitaries [309] .

Both Peter, and Ekaterina Velikie the actions on sharp restriction of the rights of church motivated with noble purposes. Through the Synod Peter has ostensibly made possible to the full to be shown to a principle sobornosti in ­ church activity [310] . Ekaterina has explained sekuljarizatsiju necessity ­ to raise level of erudition of clergy and to lift authority of church on a society (on its logician, too rich clergy caused an uncooperative altitude from the population, and economic questions did not allow to care of self-education, self-education, spiritual ro - ste) [311] . Catherine II took to itself for a rule «to respect religion, but for what not to suppose it in affairs state» [312] . It has directly sounded that principle by which all monarchs of Russia since Alexey Mihajlovicha Romanov's times actually were guided. Last in the board beginning «with -
gosudarstvoval» with the patriarch, and then has come to idea of the individual power and elimination from a political arena of its main competitor - churches.

According to the teacher of chair of history of Fatherland of historical faculty of Orthodox Piously-Tihonovsky humanitarian university diakona Ivan Ivanov, from the beginning of XVIII century Russian orthodox church ­ has turned to one of departments of machinery of state, having lost possession ­ and having appeared depending on the means allocated for its maintenance with the state [313] (really, still Peter has established salaries for monasteries and the arrivals which size was corrected by each following monarch). Further I.Ivanov briefs: « Such validity was bitterly worried ­ by a part of clergy and a society: deep crisis of the Russian ­ Orthodoxy godlessness of the XX-th century » [314] becomes which culmination began­. It is impossible to agree With last conclusion, as the relationship of cause and effect between mutual relations of the state and church in monarchic Russia and sights ­ of communists at religion obviously is absent. The assumption of Orthodoxy crisis in XVIII and also is incorrect XIX centuries. On the contrary, it was time ­ of blossoming of a monkhood and starchestva which has considerably filled up a cathedral ­ of Russian sacred (Serafim Sarovsky, Xenia Blazhennaja, Amvrosy Optinsky, Feofan the Hermit, Ignaty Bryanchaninov, John Kronshtadtsky, the Matron Moscow, etc.).

S.F.Platon notices, that Peter I the radical actions «has resolved a question on the church authority so, that has radically destroyed ­ possibility of collision imperial and the ecclesiastical authority» [315] . Peter's experience has allowed also to Catherine II to operate concerning church not less considerably­. After, in 1841, Nikolay I will transfer the church earths in the western provinces in control of the Ministry of the state-owned properties [316] .

Thus, sharpness strengthening in dej ­
stvijah temporal power in relation to church became the Split consequence­. If before Split the state undertook attempts of approach to influence and church property ­ did it by small steps, gradual measures (we already talked that on restriction of growth of landed property of church has left about hundred years - from Stoglava to Cathedral ulozhenija). Before Split of the politician of the state ­ in relation to church differed suspension and accuracy. Split ­ has accurately designated three conflicting camps, as two of which have acted temporal power, led by the tsar, and official Russian orthodox church led by the patriarch (the third camp of Split - staroobrjadchestvo, is ­ an original combination of new models of the secular and spiritual authorities which distinct from are existing). Intensity of struggle during the Split epoch has sharply worsened without that difficult relations between the state and church. Owing to it (some kind of - insults) the imperial power has dared not to reckon henceforth opinions of hierarches to refuse delicacy in relation to church to transform last into one of offices of state and to consider it only as the important component of a spiritual life of a society which had ­ paramount value in education bogobojaznennyh and legislative ­ citizens.

Judicial functions of church were gradually reduced even before Split, and after it have been sharply shown to a minimum. In XVIII century from spiritual court jurisdiction have deduced a category has put, apparently, to exclusively ­ it cognizable ­ - crimes against morality. For example, simple ­ vital circumstances, at which any of the parties did not declare ­ infringement of the rights, and which both parties (arranged co-habitation to ­ the relative, co-habitation and a birth of the child from the married woman ­ in long-term absence of the husband (being on earnings, in ­ army, avenues) Admitted juridical facts in the form of wrongful acts­. The similar category of affairs was considered always by the spiritual courts and appointed punishments in the form of a different sort poslushany (houses or in a monastery­), excommunications etc. After Split these affairs began to consider ­
sja in civil courts. However, the spiritual courts, breaking the law, it is frequent on a habit considered specified cases that caused the protest from the state [317] . As a result the competence of the spiritual courts was limited ­ to the disposal of legal proceeding, the clerics connected with minor offences­.

Under the influence of Split there was essentially new system ­ of mutual relations of the secular and spiritual power, absolutely distinct from ­ existing 650 years (from the moment of Christianity acceptance in Russia to the middle of XVII century). Not paying attention to protests of clergy, Peter liquidated patriarchate and has created semisecular controls church - the Synod, Anna Ioannovna has obliged a part of clerics to serve in army, ­ Catherine the Great has spent full sekuljarizatsiju the church and monastic earths. Object to such policy of the state church was unable­. Patriarch Nikon became the last «a great sovereign» from ­ representatives of clergy which really could lead serious struggle for «­ the superiority of priesthood over a kingdom».

From Split the church left politically and economically weakened. However two processes as which catalyst Split and which obviously have gone on advantage of Russian orthodox church, steels spirituality growth (clerics has acted "were released" from state affairs and of some ­ economic cares, having switched the basic attention to rescue of souls of believers, as well as gradual transformation of Russia into the secular state is necessary to clergy), and also.

Orthodoxy remains the state religion of Russia before coming to power of Bolsheviks. The state supervised ­ church economic activities,­ to a limit has narrowed its judicial functions, did not suppose to
to participation in the politician. At all thus did not interfere with divine service affairs and gradually, to the beginning of XX century, has come to idea of toleration, considering ­ a multinationality and mnogokonfessionalnost as prominent features of Russian state.

Non-interference of the state to questions of religion and ceremonies, and ­ non-interference of church to state affairs after Split became signs of development towards "good breeding" of Russia.

In certain degree thanks to Split the Russian Federation ­ is today the secular state that article 14 of the Constitution ­ of the Russian Federation fixes­. With a view of preventive maintenance of possible splits on religious soil it is necessary to bar all aspirations to make Orthodoxy the state ­ religion of Russia as it was till 1917. Similar ideas type today wide popularity as the number of the persons visiting a temple and considering with believers has grown, a number of religious holidays are celebrated as state (Christmas, Easter, Celebrating of the Kazan icon of Divine mother - Day of national unity (in honour of disposal of Moscow and Russia of Poles in 1612) In some subjects of federation, in particular in Bryansk area, - Radonitsa - special pominovenie deceased for the ninth day after Easter). At the same time recently attacks to Russian orthodox church have amplified a different sort: the punk - "moleben" in the Temple of the Christ of the Savior in February, 2012, an attack on the judge who has selected a preventive punishment in the form of taking into custody to participants of the given action, an attack and murder of orthodox priests, destruction poklonnyh crosses, etc. Thereupon many known public figures offer to make changes to article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and to declare Orthodoxy official ­ state religion that will allow then to make amendments to ­ the Criminal code of the Russian Federation, the Code about administrative violations of the Russian Federation up to revival of responsibility for blasphemy. It is represented, that the given step is inexpedient: The church should be separated from the state ­ that there was no sensation of interrelation of actions of church and it ruko ­
vodstva with actions of ruling political elite (differently, ­ the citizens who are not respecting the President of the Russian Federation, will not respect also the Patriarch). Any, even insignificant church reform will automatically pass in ­ a plane of political reforms as it was in Split, just when Orthodoxy ­ was the state religion. The policy (especially modern ­ domestic) gives weight of occasions to indignation, discontent, meetings, eventually, for split. Therefore, the distantsirovannej there will be a church from the state, the above probability nepovtorenija in the future of splits at ­ which basis in any degree there are collisions of interests of the state and church, disputes on a religious cult, ceremonies, avenue

Split has renewed discussions about born in Byzantium ideas «­ symphonies of the authorities». About the understanding ­ of the symphony of the secular and spiritual authorities ideologists of Split Most actively polemized­: tsar Alexey Mihajlovich,­ patriarch Nikon, protopriest Avvakum. After a state victory in this opposition disputes have ceased. However, both official, and old believe orthodox churches will continue «to dream silently of the ancient symphony», that confirm numerous theological compositions [318] .

Now the question on the symphony of the authorities became actual again, but already in connection with necessity of adaptation of the idea to realities of a modern life. By us it has been noticed earlier, that Split became the beginning of process ­ of transformation of Russia in the secular state. It is possible to object, that the state declared suddenly secular Bolsheviks, and in the conditions of normal ­ development of monarchic Russia without critical revolution of October, 1917 Orthodoxy would remain the state religion. However at ­ last Russian emperor the law on a freedom of worship has been passed,­ the state did not interfere with divine service questions after Alexey Mihajlovicha, no less than the church has been discharged of state affairs. Even if Orthodoxy also would remain the state religion with ­ a high probability the principle of independence of church from
the states would be proclaimed. Most likely, the temporal power would show care of ­ official religion as it occurs in all countries where there is last: ­ Orthodoxy bases would be one of obligatory subjects of the school ­ program, RPTS would have fiscal incentives, in bolshem the size budgetary funds would be spent for support and building of arrivals and monasteries,­ would remain administrative and the criminal liability for ­ wrongful acts against official church.

Today as the symphony of the authorities the model of the secular ­ state in which, according to the Patriarch Moscow and vseja Russia ­ Cyril, «the remarkable prospect of development ­ tserkovnogosudarstvennyh relations so that opens is considered ­­­ neither the state, nor ­ church did not interfere with affairs each other, respected mutually a position each other on these internal affairs and simultaneously built wide system of 319 interactions, dialogue and cooperation» [319] .

the Question on a state and church parity, on the symphony of the authorities is rather actual now. Split has broken developed symphony of the authorities in Russia (the truth, not in original Byzantian understanding, and with national features), having predetermined periodic occurrence ­ of discussions concerning interaction of these two institutes. So, in 2010 and 2011 according to have passed in Yerevan and Dubrovnik the international ­ conferences devoted to problems of relations of church and ­ the state: «the Contribution of Orthodoxy to formation and development of statehood of the countries of East Christian tradition», «Some results of multicultures - nogo the project in modern Europe and problems of spiritual identity of the people».

V.A.Alekseev, the professor of the Moscow State University, the President of the International ­ public Fund of unity of the orthodox people, in the report «the State ­ and Church» says, that «these the most ancient and so different on containing ­
niju institutes of human life, clashing hanging together, continue to move on a way of historical progress» [320] . «There can be an impression, that the state and church compete among themselves ­ for influence on the people, operating within the limits of one general social and ­ historical space. It and so, and not absolutely so. From the point of view of especially secular approach, here it is really possible to see a competition. But if to be guided by exclusively religious reasons conclusions will be others» [321] . « In an ideal variant the state and church, supplementing each other, co-operate, harmonise a social system,­ that in the Byzantian tradition has received the "symphony" name [322] . It is impossible to disagree with V.A.Alekseeva's conclusion: «for church in the modern ­ inconsistent world there is a big blessing that it is separated from the state­... Only in the secular state the church can ­ adequately exist and develop» [323] .

In beginning HH century the ober-public prosecutor of Synod K.P. pobedonostsev convinced ­ last Russian emperor of the return: are on pain of death inadmissible ­ branch of church from the state and, especially, a freedom of worship­. In the letter from March, 2nd, 1905 he wrote: «Reasonings on the equation of creeds and on changes in the church device threaten with danger to undermine the bases on which all life of the state and national is based­. The church always was oporoju to the state, and the state - oporoju Churches: the branch of Church from the state would be  destruction both for Church, and for the state in Russia. Otherwise at a present shock of minds - again
a distemper, disastrous for Church and for the state» [324] . pobedonostsev writes these lines when has not passed also two months after Bloody Sunday (­ on January, 9th, 1905) . Knowing it as extreme conservative, estimating conditions in ­ which the opinion on the secular state and toleration is expressed, it is possible to conclude, that is momentary it is right, convincing in that concrete context of political conditions. Prospect of development of relations between the state ­ and church Pobedonostsev does not consider, but truly urges ­ the emperor «to wait till quiet times», only then vzveshenno and ­ advisedly to solve a question on church reform [325] .

So, the beginning of process of transformation ­ of church in institute independent of the state, and then - Russia in ­ the secular state became one of Split consequences­­.

A.G.Glinchikovoj's sight at possible consequences of Split Is interesting­. She insists, that in case of a victory of Old Believers Russia would become on - the present the legal, democratic state with a civil ­ society. Meanwhile about the present day the existing political mode in the country is faster totalitarian, rather than democratic, despite a democracy victory in the beginning of 90th just because in XVII century sights of dissenters ­ have sustained defeat [326] . To agree with the author it is possible in its opinion on problems of freedom of a modern society. However, as to sights at transformation of Russia in a lawful state in case of a victory in Split of movement of Old Believers, they rather sporny.

Old Believers built a life in the communities by a principle sobornosti ­(democracies) not because they aspired to democratic ideals that is why that they have been forced to adapt to new conditions
lives. For a society they were marginalami. Being proscribed, ­ not understood they should create "microstates" in ­ the Russian state. As they did not divide sights of the official power and church the models of the organisation of a life created by them purposely strongly ­ differed from the standard: In Russia nobody asked opinion of the people,­ and Old Believers accepted all important decisions in common (cathedrally), in the state the higher clergy was appointed the tsar and officials, at ­ Old Believers all clergy was selected the people, the state did not give possibility to grow rich to the simple person, definitively having enslaved it, Old Believers in every possible way encouraged aspiration to work and riches (differently it was simple to them ­ not to survive), to the state the obedient, illiterate, ­ unpretentious citizen was necessary,­ to an old believe society - the clever, active, strong-willed,­ purposeful person (that is very important - teetotal!).

Earlier we talked that for Old Believers ­ division of the world into two contrasted camps was characteristic­. For this reason the life in their communities radically differed from a life in the state: they ­ have meaningly built model-antipode. Thus if conservatives have defended dvuperstie, especial "alleluia", and other ceremonies for which preservation they struggled there would be no necessity «to leave in split», «to lodge in zveropastvennyh areas» and to puzzle over features of the organisation of a life in the communities. The old believe church would take a place ­ of official Russian orthodox church and would be after Split in that position what we described, with that only a difference that would be christened by two fingers, used old prayer books and so forth Thus,­ the victory of camp of Old Believers in Split would not be reflected in any way in the prompt process of democratisation of a society and transformation of Russia into ­ a lawful state.

Split has influenced domestic law development, in particular such branches as criminal, administrative, civil, tax because variety of norms has been developed for struggle with «inakomyslja ­
shchimi» - with conservatives.

At the very beginning of Split Old Believers not so excited temporal power from that point of view that have disagreed with ceremonial innovations. On them pressed, them oppressed, but is faster "for form's sake". When it became obvious,­ that «in split» thousand people leave, the state was frightened to lose tax bearers. Above we said, that for replenishment of treasury at church ­ the earths were taken away, responsibility for tax crimes was entered. In Old Believers have seen new possibility to earn: to execute Christian ceremonies by former, prereform tradition they paid for the right the special tax, which Peter I has increased twice, having released Old Believers ­ from service in the standing army, is there was one of rare examples for Russia when the tax represented itself as a consensus in relations between the government and separate social group [327] .

the State has managed to benefit by occurrence staroobrjadchestva, having obliged to pay the double tax for possibility legally to use ­ prereform ceremonies and books. However often conservatives did not wish ­ to pay double podushnyj the salary and pretended to be orthodox pravoslav - nymi [328] . For this reason rather severe punishment for «undercover split» - penal servitude and collecting from the dissenter of the double head tax not paid to it [329] has been established. Since times of empress Elizabeth Petrovny in the category of high treasons seduction in races - kol » [330] has been carried«. Concealment of the fact of an accessory to dissenting sect, recognised ­ especially harmful, with a view of an addition to city estate was regarded as «the false indication about itself» and punished by return on military service in
the Caucasian case, or the reference in the Transcaucasian edge [331] .

the Imperial power, having won in opposition of three camps of Split,­ first severely finished with leaders of two other camps. In a camp of Old Believers have suffered not only ideologists of movement, but also simple participants. However the policy of the state in relation to Old Believers became eventually more liberally. The reason for that was comprehension ­ of an inefficiency of exclusively retaliatory measures, possibility to fill up ­ treasury at the expense of compromises with conservatives, and also aspiration ­ to return a part of believers under protection of official church.

Peter III was the First emperor who has proclaimed to the politician of toleration in relation to Old Believers. He considered, that because of reprisals conservatives run abroad, and Russia loses from their emigration (mainly in the economic plan) [332] much.

In Catherine II reign - "popovtsam" [333] it was authorised to Old Believers ­ to use old ceremonies and the books which are not contradicting orthodox canons, it is allowed to build churches, but their priests ­ should report monthly to bishops about behaviour of dissenters in each arrival. The Ober-public prosecutor of Synod I.I. Melissino in the reference to the empress wrote, that thus popovtsev it is possible to approach to ­ official church; besides it is not necessary to name their dissenters, and it is better - "dvoedontsami" (christened by two fingers) [334] . Under its petition ­ it was forbidden to Old Believers in a case rekrutskogo a set to buy ­ serfs from landowners for sending on service instead of itself (similar
practice in XVIII century had a wide circulation) [335] . Last example shows special sharpness and enterprise of Old Believers: They have found possibility to avoid service in army, not breaking the law. ­ It is no wonder, what exactly they will constitute a layer of the most well-founded businessmen of Russia in the end of the imperial period of domestic history­.

Under Ivan Melissino Opredeleniem Svjatejshego Sinoda's offer from December, 17th, 1764 [336] all conservatives have been released from the monastic conclusions, besides for purely mercantile reasons: not to spend ­ for their maintenance of state means, and «to have from them to treasury considerable ­ profit, having written down in the double dissenting salary» [337] . Hardly later, in 1765, I.I.Melissino has addressed to the Synod with the offer about nepritesnenii dissenters: «Strict the act become corrupted even more ­ can corrupt­... Persecution of these also hardens, naprotivu that a mild admonition ­ become corrupted umjagchaet hearts, and them in repentance results. And at last ­ inveterate having eradicated rebelliousness, and to the due turns to obedience» [338] .

Liberal policy Catherine II and Paul I in relation to ­ Old Believers proceeded and in Alexander's reign I (1801-1825). In ­ the circular letter to all provincial chiefs from August, 19th, 1820 of a problem of the government in the relation staroobrjadchestva were formulated as follows: « Dissenters are not pursued for the opinions of their sect concerning to belief, and can easy keep these opinions and execute the ceremonies accepted by them, without everyone, however, public okazatelstva doctrines and bogoslu ­
zhenija the sect... They not under any circumstances should not evade from supervision of general rules of an accomplishment, laws defined » [339] . Considering staroverie sectarianism which should ­ be completely got rid in due course,­ and naming indulgences poslepetrovskogo time« the imaginary rights »Old Believers, Alexander's government I, nevertheless, did not wish ­ to begin new persecutions. In the state legislation of this ­ time the same principle on which the dominating church has dared at establishment edinoverija -« tolerance without a recognition » [340] was brightly expressed.

Nikolay's Board I (1825-1855) differed a reactionary policy in which result Old Believers have suffered also. They have lost all privileges given by it by former tsars: have been again deprived the citizenship ­ and possibility rights ­ openly to make divine service, it it was forbidden to lead parish registers (before an extract from them were the legal document ­ and replaced with itself the passport), - thus, conservatives appeared out of the law. Old believe marriages did not admit, and children of conservatives ­ were illegitimate. They had no rights neither to the inheritance, nor to a surname of the father [341] [342] . At Nikolay it was again forbidden to select Old Believers ­ on public posts, to write down in ikonopisnye tsehi and in ­ merchant guilds, they were not allowed to accept orphans and foundlings, their children

342 it was offered to christen in orthodox belief.

the Government for struggle with staroobrjadchestvom created various ­«confidential consultative committees» with the central committee in ­ Petersburg, engaged in shadowing and supervising a life staroverskih communities for the purpose of their suppression and closing.

In 1835, under the petition to the tsar of the metropolitan of the Moscow Philaret, the decree about division of Old Believers into three groups has been published: the most harmful (or "vrednejshih") where sectarians and the Old Believers ­ who were not recognising marriages and prays for the tsar have been carried­; harmful where all concerned the others "bezpopovtsy", and less harmful where have been included "popovtsy" [343] .

In Alexander's reign II (1855-1881) softening of a religious policy of the state again was outlined. In 1863-64 a number ­ of the corresponding standard legal acts showing growth ­ of toleration even to those old believe sects which till this time were considered especially harmful has been published­­. So, in the relation molokan certificates [344] have been published, allowing them to register in city estate in ­ city of Mariinsk specially taken away ­ for them in Western Siberia, to receive the document ­ proving the identity, to leave the settlements with a view of earnings by trade and wage labour, to take the agricultural purpose earths ­ in short-term rent (that was especially actual for sectarians of Crimea ­ where owing to geographical features of peninsula there was no possibility ­ to prepare enough of hay for cattle).

In ten years, in 1874, the law on old believe ­ marriages [345] has been published,­ data about which began to bring in special parish registers at

polices, and children born from such marriages henceforth admitted ­ legitimate.

At last, on May, 3rd, 1883, Alexander III, despite the protest ober - the public prosecutor of Synod K.P. pobedonostseva, has signed the Law «About talent ­ to dissenters of some rights civil and on departure spiritual treb» [346] . Old Believers received a number of the civil rights: they could ­ be engaged in the industry and trade, to receive passports in accordance with general practice­. Except economic freedom, it was authorised to make «public prayers and divine services», including in specially arranged prayful ­ houses, to open new prayful buildings, but from the permission ober - the public prosecutor of the Synod and the Minister of Internal Affairs, to repair old, ­ with the permission of the governor, but it was forbidden to erect belltowers [347] . Besides it,­ the law granted to Old Believers a number of political freedoms: the right to be ­ the selected works on public posts in those provinces where they constituted the majority of the population. However, the law of 1883 Limited charitable ­ and educational activity of Old Believers which was considered ­ as the propaganda, pursuing aim «seduction in split». Activity starovercheskih teachers and all system of training ­ in starovercheskih schools has been forbidden­.

the Edition of the Law from May, 3rd, 1883 - a vivid example of absolutely new ­ model of the relation of the state and church. The state in the name of the monarch the will contrary to opinion of the ober-public prosecutor of the Synod and the majority of its members has established the norms regulating public relations in that sphere which always was under influence and the church control. The temporal power, ignoring opinion of church led by the Synod, independently ­ solved how to concern the dissenters, what circle of the rights and freedom to them to give, proceeding in the decisions from political and economic
interests. Indignations of members of the Synod remained not heard. In this new model of behaviour of the state in relation to church Split consequences were to the full reflected. The state is independent (without the aid of church) established obligatory rules of behaviour according to the interests: citizens, first of all, should be ­ legislative, serve and work for the Fatherland blessing. After two hundred years of persecutions ­ on Old Believers for the state the urgency of a problem of "cleanliness" of creed was lost. Certainly, it was not lost for church, but the new model of a parity of the secular and spiritual authorities has allowed not to consider by the end of XIX century at all opinion of last.

the Law of 1883 had been abolished division of sects on more and less harmful­. Sects skoptsov and other fanatic sects were exposed to criminal prosecution only: for distribution of the sights they lost all rights of a condition and referred to settlement, the same punishment followed for sa - mooskoplenie, and for oskoplenie the third parties, both voluntary, and ­ violent, a hard labour till fifteen years, besides attainder was provided; moreover, punishment was provided even for absence of record about oskoplenii in personal papers in view of concealment of the given fact oskoplennym the person [348] . The severity of the legislator to the specified type of "believers" is quite defensible and speaks care of the state of health of citizens and interest in stable demographic growth.

As a whole the reason of improvement of the relation to conservatives from ­ the state in the end of XIX century consisted not in aspiration of temporal powers to make a step on a way to a freedom of worship, and is faster in comprehension of an inefficiency ­ of a retaliatory policy. Moreover, the state needed to normalise ­ the relation from one of most economically active categories ­ of the population. During this period researchers allocate interesting feature pra ­
voprimenitelnoj experts: judges (on different affairs, both criminal, and civil) often supported Old Believers if those acted


one of the parties in process [349] .

Criticizing legislative oppressions of Old Believers, professor M.A.Rejsner wrote: «View on religion as on a nationality basis, caused also the especial relation of our right to Russian split and ­ Russian dissenters. Split on the Christian and moral value costs, of course, not below the Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and other, from the point of view of Orthodoxy, heretical religions. And however split does not use ­ neither their privileges, nor the rights. And if in general the tolerance guaranteed to split puts it along with religions rough jazychestva, in


particulars dissenters are put even below pagans. » [350] .

Really, both the state, and official church to Old Believers concerned worse, than Moslems, Catholics and other "inoslavnym" as in them saw not simply contenders of orthodox church, and the persons ­ applying for the absolute validity and cleanliness of orthodox belief. In ­ one of the brochures, published by the Synod in 1881, it was spoken: « Russian split is painful generation of the Most Russian Church. It is house, internal, its deadly enemy, from enmity to it received the ­ life. These radical properties split essentially differs from the foreign religions which existence is permitted in Russia and to ­ which so unfairly wish to equate others it. To protect the law full freedom of split in all its religious-public departures,­ would mean to legitimise and protect the law in all its displays the most malicious ­ enmity against Orthodoxy, aspiration to overthrow or, at least, behind impossibility to reach it, to causing great
harms of Orthodox Church » [351] .

the Problem of reforming of the tserkovno-state relations ­ was actively discussed by the Russian public in the end of XIX - beginning HH centuries and has drawn attention of ruling circles. So, the chairman of Committee ­ of ministers N.H.Bunge in 1890th years put on the foreground «a question on ­ introduction of wide toleration» [352] . Similar sights were divided the Moscow ­ governor general by Grand duke Sergey Aleksandrovich (the uncle of the tsar), Minister of Internal Affairs V.K.Pleve and replaced it on P.D.Svjatopolk-Mirsky's given post. Last on an audience at the emperor on the occasion of its statement in a post spoke on August, 25th, 1904 about toleration and ­ a freedom of worship as about the important components of the program of reforms and has got ­ Nikolay's II who have told support, that «it always were it is nija» [353] . According to the modern historian of church S.L. Firsova, hardly the emperor actually so considered, as it has been brought up by extreme ­ conservative K.P.pobedonostsevym - the opponent of branch of Church from the state, a freedom of worship and in general any reforms [354] . Nevertheless,­ the emperor has accepted a number of the certificates officially fixing toleration,­ in interests not orthodox (and also not orthodox ­ orthodox) citizens with a view of a guarantee of economic appeal of Russia for active businessmen and industrialists who ­ frequently were representatives staroobrjadchestva or inoslavnyh faiths (Armenians - monofizity, iudei, Moslems).

Nominal ­ Highest decree Pravitelstvujushchemu to the senate «About outlines to usover ­
shenstvovaniju the state order» from December, 12th, 1904 Point ­ of the sixth decree became Essential shift in a toleration question ­­­ said: «we Recognize as necessary to keep tolerance in belief affairs, to subject to legalisation revision about the rights of dissenters, and it is equal the persons belonging to inoslavnym and inovernym to confessions, and irrespective of ­ this to accept nowadays administratively corresponding measures to elimination in their religious life of everyone directly in the law not lips -


novlennogo constraint » [355] .

Nominal Highest decree Pravitelstvujushchemu to the senate «About strengthening of the beginnings of toleration» from April, 17th, 1905 «removes all ­ existing in the constraint state in belief confession and as ­ dominating belief in Russia is orthodox, the legislator, cancelling measures against otpadenija from Christianity, has dated for orthodox belief ­ cancellation of the retaliatory measures established at transition from this» [356] . The April manifesto has created favorable conditions for achievement of civil ­ equality which Old Believers so a long time achieved.

For half a year since time of the edition of the decree ­ scale work on realisation of its points on April, 17th, 1905 has been done­. However guarding forces did not hand over the positions that was visually showed in creation and ­ activity of Special meeting on belief affairs under a management of count A.P.Ignatyev and partly in work of the ministries. On the one hand, the authorities constrained ­ realisation of reforms, but with another - prepared for them more solid ­ legal base. In particular, activity of the Ministry of Justice ­ should concentrate, mainly, on introduction preparation
in action of the chapter of II Criminal code of 1903 [357] , and the coordination of its ­ out-of-date articles with the decree on April, 17th, 1905, and also on acceptance of measures to ­ simplification of a fate of those condemned which punishment should ­ be softened or absolutely cancelled. On June, 25th, 1905 The emperor had been signed ­ the corresponding Decree «About simplification of a fate of the persons condemned for religious offences» [358] . The given Decree had for an object to eliminate collisions between three standard legal acts: two criminal codes (1885 and 1903 according to) and the Decree «About strengthening of the beginnings of toleration» from April, 17th, 1905 The matter is that criminal laws contained norms about impeachment of persons for religious offences while the April Decree declared the return. For elimination of the given collision the legislator in the first point of the Decree dekriminalizoval variety ­ of criminal actions (seventeen structures of crimes), responsibility for which it has been provided by the Penal code of criminal and corrective 1885

At last, Nominal Highest decree Pravitelstvujushchemu to the senate «About an order of formation and action ­ of old believe and sectarian communities and about the rights and duties of a part communities of followers old believe soglasy and ­ the sectarians who have separated from ­ Orthodoxy» according to which following rights were given to conservatives on October, 17th, 1906 has been accepted­­: freely to form religious communities, to select council of ecclesiastics in communities, to construct temples, to arrange schools, ­ charitable establishments, to get the real estate, ecclesiastics ­ of old believe communities have acquired the right to lead the book for record of births,
marriages and death of the coreligionists [359] .

So, since 1906 Old Believers were uravneny in the rights with «others ­ tolerant in Russia Christian confessions» [360] . During same time ­ the norms providing punishment for «seduction in split» and «heresy distribution» have become invalid.

In the State Dumas of first three convocations on an old believe question there was a fierce debate. In III State Duma even ­ the old believe commission which tried to spend a number ­ of the bills directed on expansion and protection of the rights of Old Believers has been formed­­. However ­ all projects of the given commission were transferred to the conclusion of the commission on affairs RPTS which has not allowed to realise any of them. ­ Despite it, in old believe circles it is accepted to name the period 1905­ 1917 "Golden Age" staroobrjadchestva [361] .

staroobrjadchestva and the authorities the state policy of confrontation, the persecutions directed against religious associations shows Historical judgement of experience of interaction, that, is inefficient, as ­ undermines bases of the civil world, the serious damage causes ­ to state interests [362] .

Events of 1917 in certain degree have equalised a legal status of all faiths. All religious currents have undergone to persecution. The general ­ tragedy of a "godless" century has smoothed church disagreements. Moreover, in 1971 Russian orthodox church officially recognised the right to existence ­ of sights of Old Believers and has refused to call henceforth their heretics, having apologised for the last centuries of persecutions.

Today Russian orthodox church easy concerns ­ existence of old believe church. That you will not tell about a return vector
relations. If till 1917 conservatives combated for a recognition of the rights today, being by the legal nature equivalent noncommercial ­ legal bodies along with RPTS, collisions go on ­ property soil.

G.A.Mihajlov, obviously, being the Old Believer, very emotionally ­ depicts in article of the relation to conservatives from ­ the state and church on boundary XX-XXI centuries: «the Modern authorities try not to notice Old Believers. Today there is no persecution, but is absent and ­ zainteresovannoevnimanie to their needs. Old Believers - the most offended and suffering ­ party. The law on a freedom of worship and on religious associations [363] reflects interests of Exclusively Moscow Patriarchy, therefore ­ Old Believers were against its acceptance. Thus all 350-year-old history ­ staroobrjadchestva testifies, that they will not be gone unaided and podderzh -


ki the states » [364] .

it is probable, because of long insult today Old Believers show obstinacy and obstinacy, not wishing to go on contact to official church. Besides it is far from religiousness will defend ­ aspiration of conservatives to redistribute material assets, including the real estate­. For example, the old believe church has opposed transfers by the Ministry of Finance in favour of the Moscow patriarchy of 563 cult subjects from ­ the State fund of precious metals and stones of the Russian Federation among which there were bells, books, icons, other jewelry. Event took place in the end of 1999 Old believe church some years after transfer ­ tried to show the rights to values.

It is possible to establish, that ceremonial disputes between old believe and official orthodox church are absent now. As it is not necessary to speak about conservatives as active and enterprising
people with whom they were till 1917 Today Old Believers is more often ­ appear in quality of the parties in the litigations connected with disputes on property or non-property disputes.

So, till now conservatives negatively concern ­ official orthodox church, naming its flock "shchepotochnikami" because of ­ addition of fingers at a sign of the cross. Old Believers and in the XXI-st century reluctantly go on contact, or do not go at all in spite of the fact that Russian ­ orthodox church always concerned them easy and with understanding (even patriarch Nikon did not see anything terrible in divine service under old books and ceremonies). Dialogue with orthodox priests at times ­ is considered by them as deep self-defilement. Here as a vivid example ­ of an echo of Split business Miroljubova against Latvia can act. So, on materials of the Decision of the European Court under human rights from September, 15th, 2009 (it is taken out by III Section), three applicants were active members of a religious community to which they belonged. The locator ­ was old believe «the spiritual head», two others ­ were accordingly the head and a member of council of the Riga Grebenshchikovsky ­ old believe community (further - RGSO, - largest of 69 Latvian ­ old believe communities). Them have wrongfully proscribed from a community including on the ground that they, «having invited for divine service in church RGSO ­ of the priest of Russian orthodox church, have refused the old believe ­ sights and by that have lost the rights of members of a community». The European court under human rights which, being guided by article 9 of the Convention about ­ protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms [365] , has enacted, the state is obliged to keep a neutrality in religious questions, its intervention could not be considered «necessary in a democratic society» irrespective of ­ the pursued aim. Taking into account a principle of the lawful trust inherent in all ­ positions of the Convention, and a principle of a structural autonomy religious about ­
shchin, following from requirements of article 9 of the Convention [366] , only the most serious ­ and insuperable bases can justify such intervention. Thus, on business infringement of requirements of article 9 of the Convention ­(it is taken out by six affirmative votes and one - contra) is admitted­. As ­ application of article 41 of the Convention [367] . The European Court has awarded to pay ­ to each applicant 4 000 euros on account of indemnification caused moral harm [368] .

In Bryansk area in the first decade of XXI century ­ loud conflicts RPTS and old believe church concerning ­ accessory of temples and monasteries which long time were in desolation took place some,­­­ and now there was a question on their restoration and renewal of divine services. Dispute went about what church to lead restoration. Mass media ­ of Bryansk area willingly and emotionally wrote about conflicts. The old believe church has been adjusted to initiate the proceedings,­ however all disputable objects in Novozybkovsky, Klimovsk, Hundred - rodubskom areas of Bryansk area have been fairly divided between churches in a pre-judicial order. Actually all disputable objects of the real estate ­ belonged to old believe church (in our area ­ considerable number of Old Believers, even the residence of the patriarch is in Novozybkove - in the area southwest). However conservatives have been forced to agree to transfer a number of empty temples of Russian orthodox church because of shortage of means for their restoration and the further maintenance as RPTS the big financial resources rather than
the old believe church certainly possesses. For example, extremely reluctantly, «with a pain in serd - tse» [369] , conservatives have been forced to transfer in 2005 there is no time the richest old believe monastery partially destroyed during Soviet time, on suburb ­ of Klimovo to an orthodox monastery (Bogoroditsky Ploshchansky ­ man's deserts) in view of shortage of means for restoration and small number of a community of conservatives in Klimovsk area.

Thus, disputes between Russian orthodox and old believe ­ church take place now, but all of them basically go concerning a property accessory.

Today it is possible to speak about existence of two parallel, ­ interconnected processes defining in the concrete state of a direction of interaction of the power and churches. On the one hand, the strengthening of toleration connected with strengthening in consciousness of citizens of understanding of importance of a freedom of worship and a freedom of worship, and also realisation of rules of law regulating relations of the state and religious associations ­ on democratic principles is observed­. On the other hand, gradual loss by the state church of special privileges is available, that gradually ­ leads sekuljarizatsii public consciousness [370] .

Earlier we stopped attention to positive sides ­ of the secular state, in particular in preventive maintenance questions in it having split on religious soil. Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation should remain firm­. Thus we consider possible to agree with opinion popular enough now on necessity of an exception of item 13 of the Constitution ­ of the Russian Federation of point 2: «No ideology can be established as state or obligatory». The deputy of the State Duma ­ of Federal assembly of the Russian Federation Fedorov E.A. marks: «Having cleaned an interdiction for ­ the state ideology, whether Russia finds the right to development own ­
tsa, own character, there will be accurate reference points of a state policy,­ there will be concepts that well, and that is bad with orientation on hristi -


anskie values » [371] .

So, opposition of political and legal sights of ideologists of Split was reflected in the further development of the state and the right of Russia, first of all, in change of relations of the secular and spiritual authorities. In it it is possible to allocate at least two positive moments: first, ­ the church has been discharged of the government, has ceased ­ to interfere with development absoljutizma, has lost the status of the largest land owner ­ in the country and all attention began to give to the basic duties - religious; secondly, the secular right (both material, and remedial­) has definitively superseded initial, that promoted harmonisation ­ of legal system of Russia (really, there was something unnatural ­ that in the country two basic in parallel operated normativnopravovyh ­ the certificate: for example Stoglav 1551 - the christian law source, - had the big validity, than the Code of laws of 1550; Success Stoglava ­ in hundred years unsuccessfully tried to repeat Nikon with the Kormchej). ­ Opposition Negative sides «the state - church» in Split ­ to allocate difficult as the official church physically did not suffer from persecutions and oppressions in monarchic Russia as Old Believers. On the contrary, "insult" ­ of church on the state (for patriarchate liquidation, ­ Synod establishment,­ an appeal of clerics in army etc.) Gave it internal unity against general "enemy" which has amplified in days of the Soviet power. Now, when the state is not hostile to church ­(that is general "enemy" has disappeared), split in official church on concordant and not consent with a policy of the patriarch was outlined: whether it is necessary so densely to communicate with representatives of temporal power, heads of other faiths, to democratise an intrachurch life, etc.
split it is necessary to name similar type "distsiplinarno-psychological" [372] , and it can lead to serious consequences, in particular occurrence of the whole movement "neostaroobrjadchestva".

At research of the second aspect of a role ­ of opposition of political and legal sights of ideologists of Split designated by us ­ in the subsequent ­ development of the state and the right of Russia, it is possible to agree with opinion Glinchikovoj concerning that on Old Believers the state fulfilled ­ methods of struggle against far-outers [373] .

Influence of Split on development of the state and the right of Russia was especially notable till critical 1917. The state, having come out the winner from ­ Split, put powerful pressure upon two lost camps: official church have deprived of some privileges and practically of all administrative and judicial functions, definitively having debarred it in the government; on Old Believers at first have brought down a wave of persecutions, and then with a view of struggle against them have developed variety of norms tax, criminal, civil, administrative law. New split in the Russian ­ society - revolution of 1917, - has blocked a sharpness of Split of the middle of XVII century ­ However echoes of the last we can observe now which are shown in features of mutual relations of the state and church, specificity ­ of the relation of the power to the persons who are not dividing official political ­ and legal sights, and also in till now existing "insult" ­ of Old Believers on official church and the state.

<< | >>
A source: Vodopjanova Marina Viktorovna. Political and legal sights of ideologists of Split in Russia XVII centuries. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Moscow - 2017. 2017


  1. Vodopjanova Marina Viktorovna. Political and legal sights of ideologists of Split in Russia XVII centuries. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Moscow - < year>2017,
  4. § 1. Concept, essence and the nature of the political rights and freedom of citizens of Russia, their development in the modern state
  5. Chapter 2. Tourism Historical development to Russia and preconditions of its state-legal regulation
  6. § 1. Use of procedures of interaction of legal bodies and the state for the purpose of the subsequent reference in the WTO
  7. § 3. Political currents in the field of the national-state device of Russia
  10. § 2. The concept of the social state and social statehood as political, obshchepravovaja and konstitutsionno-legal model: history of occurrence and development, feature of display in Kazakhstan
  11. Chapter 1. Features of konstitutsionno-legal regulation of institute of local government in political system of Russia
  12. Chapter 1. The Yenisei provincial gendarme management in organisation-legal system of political investigation of Russia
  13. 2.2. Planning, development and the account of specificity political and migratsionnyhprotsessov Russia and China
  15. 1.2. Objective borders and a role state sobstvennostiv economic development.
  16. the State of the art and prospects of development of not state pension funds in Russia
  17. the CHAPTER III. International legal bases of settlement of the modern state conflict in Afghanistan