IN AND. Surikov. Boyarina Morozova
Feodosya Prokopyevna Morozova (1632-1675) – activist of the Old Believers, associate of Archpriest Avvakum. Thanks to the painting, Surikova became known simply as the noblewoman Morozova.
The first sketches for “Boyaryna Morozova” date back to 1881. Surikov completed the final version measuring 3.04 by 5.86 m in 1887. Contemporaries said about the painting that Surikov recreated “genuine antiquity, as if he was an eyewitness to it.”
The artist gave the image of the noblewoman frantic features: her raised hand with two fingers and her bloodless, fanatical face reflect what Avvakum said about her: “You rush at the enemy like a lion.”
The painting depicts “the shame of the noblewoman Feodosya Prokopyevna Morozova following for interrogation to the Kremlin for her adherence to the schism during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich.” Some characters in the picture are curious, some are mocking, but most of the people look at her with reverence and bow to her. Among the crowd, Surikov depicted himself as a wanderer with a staff, standing in deep thought.
The attitude towards Feodosia Morozova and her historical role is rather ambiguous. Her renunciation of all the blessings of life, of which the noblewoman had many, is called by some a feat in the name of faith, others - by fanatical adherence to religious canons. Life path of a rebel noblewoman Morozova, captured Vasily Surikov on his most famous canvas, ended in tragic death. Who was she really - a holy martyr or a possessed woman?
After Nikon's reform in the 17th century, a split occurred in the church: the Old Believers refused to accept innovations. Following Archpriest Avvakum, they became schismatics and stoically endured torture and went to their death, but did not renounce their convictions. By order of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, schismatics were sent into exile, thrown into earthen prisons - deep pits, or into basements with rats. The same fate awaited the noblewoman Morozova.
Feodosia Prokopyevna Morozova (nee Sokovnina), was the supreme palace noblewoman. Her father was related to the Tsar's wife Maria Ilyinichna, so Theodosia was one of the courtiers. Her husband Gleb Morozov also came from a noble family; his older brother Boris was very rich. After the death of her husband and his brother, the entire fortune passed to Feodosia. She lived in luxury, she had several estates and 8 thousand serfs at her disposal. She rode out in a carriage, accompanied by hundreds of servants.
The Tsar ordered to arrest Theodosia, taking away her estates and lands, and expel her from Moscow if she did not renounce her old faith. Boyarina Morozova refused and deliberately doomed herself to poverty, hunger and certain death. She died in an earthen prison from complete exhaustion in 1675.
Vasily Surikov depicted the moment when the noblewoman was being transported on a firewood through the streets of Moscow. The artist admired the woman who rebelled against the official church and royal power, and was so strong that no torture could break her will.
In 1887, the painting “Boyaryna Morozova” was first presented at the 15th exhibition of Peredvizhniki artists, after which P. Tretyakov bought it for his collection. The reaction to the film was mixed. Surikov was even accused of promoting a split. Only 3 people then openly spoke with a positive assessment of the work: writers Garshin and Korolenko and music critic Stasov. V. Korolenko wrote: “There is something great in a person who consciously goes to death for what she considers to be the truth. Such examples awaken in us faith in human nature and uplift our souls.”
Surikov knew the story of Morozova from childhood - he was familiar with schismatics, the artist’s aunt Avdotya Vasilievna leaned towards the old faith. In the first sketches, the artist endowed the noblewoman with exactly her features. But the result did not satisfy him: “No matter how I paint her face, the crowd hits. After all, how long have I been looking for him? The whole face was small. I got lost in the crowd." In the end, the Ural Old Believer served as the prototype for the heroine: “I wrote a sketch of her in kindergarten at two o’clock. And when I inserted it into the picture, it conquered everyone,” said the artist. This is exactly how everyone now imagines noblewoman Morozova.
A. M. Panchenko | Boyarina Morozova - symbol and personality
Boyarina Morozova - symbol and personality
The memory of the nation strives to give each major historical character an integral, complete appearance. Proteism is alien to the memory of the nation. She seems to “sculpt” her heroes. Sometimes we can talk about such a “statue” only conditionally: it exists as a kind of “national feeling”, consisting of various facts, assessments, emotions, it exists as an axiom of culture, which does not need proof and, most often, is not fixed in the form of a clear formula. But in some cases, the “statue” of a historical figure is directly cast into a verbal or plastic form. This happened to the noblewoman Fedosya Prokopievna Morozova, who remained in the memory of Russia as V.I. Surikov wrote her.
Analyzing the controversy and rumors about this painting (it was the main event of the fifteenth traveling exhibition), N.P. Konchalovskaya, Surikov’s granddaughter, cites, among others, a review by V.M. Garshin: “Surikov’s painting surprisingly vividly represents this wonderful woman. Anyone who knows her sad story, I am sure, will forever be captivated by the artist and will not be able to imagine Fedosya Prokopyevna otherwise than how she is depicted in his painting.” It is difficult for contemporaries to be impartial, and their predictions do not often come true. But Garshin turned out to be a good prophet. Over the nearly hundred years that separate us from the fifteenth exhibition of the Itinerants, Surikov’s Morozova has become the “eternal companion” of every Russian person. “Otherwise” it is truly impossible to imagine this 17th-century woman, ready to endure torture and death for the sake of a cause of the rightness of which she is convinced. But why exactly did Surikov’s Morozova become an iconographic canon and historical type?
First of all, because the artist was faithful to historical truth. To verify this, it is enough to compare the composition of Surikov’s painting with one of the scenes of the Long Edition of the Tale of the Boyarina Morozova, which is published and studied by A. I. Mazunin in this book. What we see in the picture happened on November 17 or 18, 1671 (7180th according to the old account “from the creation of the world”). The noblewoman had already been in custody for three days “in the human mansions in the basement” of her Moscow house. Now they “put a cap on her neck,” put her on a log and took her to prison. When the sleigh reached the Chudov Monastery, Morozova raised her right hand and, “clearly depicting the addition of a finger (Old Believer two-fingered - A.P.), raising herself high, often enclosing herself with a cross, and also often clinking her cap.” It was this scene of the Tale that the painter chose. He changed one detail: the iron “neck”, the collar worn by the noblewoman, was attached with a chain to the “chair” - a heavy stump of a tree, which is not in the picture. Morozova was not only “laden with heavy irons”, but also “tormented by the inconvenience of the chair,” and this block of wood lay next to her on the firewood. People of the 19th century knew shackles of a different design (they were described in detail in “The House of the Dead” by Dostoevsky). The artist, apparently, decided here not to deviate from the customs of his time: a canvas is not a book, you cannot attach a real comment to it.
However, loyalty to the ancient Russian source does not fully explain the fate of “Boyaryna Morozova”, her role not only in Russian painting, but also in Russian culture in general. In his beautiful paintings about other outstanding people, Surikov also did not sin against the truth, but the characters in these paintings are “representable” in other guises, “otherwise.” Of course, we willingly or unwillingly compare the heroes of “Suvorov’s Crossing of the Alps” and “Menshikov in Berezovo” with their lifetime portraits. But after all, “parsun” was not written from Ermak Timofeevich and Stenka Razin, so there is no possibility for comparison, and yet neither Surikov’s Ermak nor Surikov’s Razin became canonical “statues”.
The fact is that long before Surikov, in the national consciousness, the noblewoman Morozova turned into a symbol - a symbol of that popular movement, which is known under the not entirely accurate name of schism. In essence, this movement has two symbols: Archpriest Avvakum and noblewoman Morozova, a spiritual father and a spiritual daughter, two fighters and two victims. But there were many thousands of warriors and sufferers at the beginning of the schism. Why Avvakum remained in historical memory is understandable. Avvakum is a genius. He had a completely exceptional gift of speech - and, therefore, the gift of persuasion. But why did Russia choose Morozova?
In Surikov’s painting, the noblewoman addresses the Moscow crowd, the common people - a wanderer with a staff, an old beggar woman, a holy fool, and they do not hide their sympathy for the noble prisoner. And so it was: we know that the lower classes rose up for the old faith, for whom the authorities’ encroachment on a time-honored ritual meant an encroachment on the entire way of life, meant violence and oppression. We know that wanderers, beggars, and holy fools found bread and shelter in the noblewoman’s house. We know that people of her class blamed Morozova for her adherence to the “simple people”: “You received into the house... holy fools and others like that... adhering to their teachings.” But there was one more person to whom on that November day Morozova extended two fingers, for whom she rattled her chains. This man is Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The Miracle Monastery was located in the Kremlin. The noblewoman was taken near the sovereign's palace. “I think it’s holy, as if the king is looking at the crossing,” writes the author of the Tale, and most likely writes from the words of Morozova herself, to whom he was very close and with whom he had the opportunity to talk in prison (very interesting considerations about the author’s personality are given in research by A.I. Mazunin). It is not known whether the tsar looked at the noblewoman from the palace passages under which the sleigh rode, or did not look. But there is not the slightest doubt that thoughts about her actually haunted Alexei Mikhailovich. For the tsar, she was a stumbling block: after all, it was not about an ordinary disobedient woman, but about Morozova. To understand how loud it sounded in the 17th century. this name, it is necessary to take a genealogical excursion into distant times.
When in 1240 Prince Alexander Yaroslavich defeated the Swedes on the Neva, then in this battle “six brave men, like yours... strong,” who were described in the Life of Alexander Nevsky, especially distinguished themselves. One of them, Gavrilo Aleksich, chasing enemies, in the heat of battle rode along a gangway onto a Swedish ship, and “overthrew him from the board with his horse into the Neva. By the grace of God, I came out from here unharmed, and again I came upon them, and fought with the commander himself in the midst of their regiment.” Another knight, Misha (aka Mikhail Prushanin), “on foot with his retinue, rushed onto the ships and destroyed three ships.” Of the six “braves,” we chose these two senior warriors (or boyars, which is the same thing), since in the 17th century. The fates of their later descendants were again intertwined and came into contact with the fate of the noblewoman Morozova.
Under the grandson of Alexander Nevsky, Ivan Danilovich Kalita, the first prince of the Moscow appanage, who received the label for the great reign, the descendants of these knights moved to Moscow and gave rise to the largest boyar families. From Gavrila Aleksich, who, according to genealogies, was the great-grandson of Ratsha, came the Chelyadnins, Fedorovs, Buturlins, and Pushkins. From Misha Prushanin - Morozovs, Saltykovs, Sheins. In terms of fame and position, only two or three boyar families could compete with these families - such as the family of Alexander Zern (Velyaminov-Zernov, Saburov and Godunov) and the family of Andrei Kobyla, whose fifth son, Fyodor Koshka, became the ancestor of the Romanovs and Sheremetevs.
When in the 15th century the end of inheritance came, a stream of Rurikovichs poured into Moscow, henceforth the capital city of all Rus', to serve Ivan III. But several of the most prominent lines of the untitled boyars resisted the influx of princes and did not lose “honor and place.” In the eyes of the people of the oprichnina era, Ivan the Terrible was opposed not so much by his peer and former friend, and then the rebel and fugitive Kurbsky, who came from the Yaroslavl appanage princes, as by the son of Gavrila Aleksich in the ninth generation, the richest boyar Ivan Petrovich Fedorov, who was old enough to be the tsar’s father. And it is no coincidence that in 1567, the “crowned wrath”, suspecting this man, respected by all for justice, who had the highest rank of equerry and headed the government of the zemshchina, of a conspiracy, framed the reprisal against him as a scene of rivalry. Ivan the Terrible ordered Fedorov to be dressed in royal robes, given a scepter and placed on the throne. Then the king, “by God’s will,” bowed at his feet and gave all honors according to palace custom, and with his own hands stabbed the mummered king to death.
There is nothing strange in the fact that Ivan the Terrible, who was proud of the antiquity of his family and who traced it through Rurik to Emperor Augustus himself, saw a rival in a man without a princely title. Our ancestors had their own concepts of nobility, which were very different from our concepts. To be a descendant of Rurik or Gediminas did not mean very much in itself. “In Muscovite Rus', a person’s place on the ladder of service ranks... was determined not only by origin, but also by the combination of a person’s serviceability and services, taking into account his birth, i.e., the service level of his “parents”, relatives in general, and first of all his direct ancestors - father, grandfather, etc. along the direct and nearest lateral lines.” The ancestors of I.P. Fedorov “were so “great” and well known to everyone that in various acts they were called by name and patronymic and did not use any family nickname.” Most princes could not even think about being equal to them, for title and nobility in the eyes of ancient Russian society were not at all the same thing.
Let us show this using the example of Prince D. M. Pozharsky, who came from the younger line of Starodub princes. Recognized by all Russian people, “from the tsar to the huntsman,” as the savior of the fatherland, this national hero experienced many humiliations. He continually lost local disputes because his father and grandfather “lost honor” while serving as city clerks and provincial governors. Prince D. M. Pozharsky, although of Rurik blood, was of good birth. For us, this combination looks like an oxymoron, but in the old days, noble princes were distinguished from noble-born princes. Once Pozharsky did not want to serve as a “place below” Boris Saltykov, a distant relative of the Morozovs. He struck with his brow the dishonor of Tsar Mikhail, and the descendant of Rurik, the savior of Russia, was “given over” to the descendant of Misha Prushanin.
These ancient Russian concepts of nobility explain why it cannot be considered a historical incongruity that after the Time of Troubles the escheated throne went to the untitled but “great” “Cat Family”, that Monomakh’s hat ended up on the head of Mikhail Romanov. If fate had been more favorable to the Fedorovs or the Morozovs, they too could have become the founders of a new dynasty.
Morozovs in the XV-XVI centuries. retained an exceptionally high position. In the one and a half century period from Ivan III to the Time of Troubles, up to thirty Duma members, boyars and okolnichys emerged from this family. Although the disgraces and executions of Grozny did not spare the Morozovs either (in the 60s, boyar Vladimir Vasilyevich “dropped out”, in the 70s, his cousin, the famous governor boyar Mikhail Yakovlevich, people of the generation of I.P. Fedorov); although at the time of the accession of the Romanovs there were only a few representatives of this family left, which was destined to be suppressed in the 17th century, it was precisely the reign of the first two Romanovs that was the time of greatest success for the Morozovs.
Two of them, brothers Boris and Gleb Ivanovich, in their youth were sleeping companions of their peer Mikhail Fedorovich, i.e., “home, room, closest people.” Apparently, they received this appointment due to their relationship and affinity with the Romanovs. Suffice it to say that one of their relatives was the great-grandfather of Tsar Mikhail’s mother, and the other two relatives, the Saltykovs, were his cousins. Boris Ivanovich Morozov was granted a boyar status in 1634, in connection with his appointment as uncle to Tsarevich Alexei Mikhailovich. When Alexei married into the state in 1645, his mentor became a temporary worker, a “strong man.” As they put it then, the king “looked out of his mouth.”
In June 1648, a rebellion broke out in Moscow, “the mob rose up against the boyars” - and above all against Boris Morozov. But this did not particularly harm him: the king, with tears, “begged” the world for his breadwinner. The uncle held his pupil tightly in his hands and, using all his dexterity and influence, chose for him a bride from among the noble Miloslavskys, Maria Ilyinichna. At the wedding, Boris Morozov played the first role - he was “in his father’s place” with the sovereign. Ten days later they celebrated another wedding: Boris Morozov, a widower and already an elderly man, married the Tsarina’s sister Anna for a second marriage and became the Tsar’s brother-in-law. He made the best of his absolutely exceptional situation. In 1638, Boris Morozov owned more than three hundred peasant households. This is a good condition, but common for a boyar of that time. Fifteen years later, he had 7,254 households, twenty times more! This is unheard of wealth. Only the Tsar's uncle Nikita Ivanovich Romanov and one of the Cherkasy princes, Yakov Kudenetovich, had the same number of households. All other boyars, titled and untitled, were inferior to Boris Morozov many times over. The career of Gleb Ivanovich Morozov, a completely ordinary person, is, as it were, a reflection of the career of his older brother. They started out the same way - with the king's sleeping bags and the princes' uncles. But Tsarevich Ivan Mikhailovich, to whom Gleb Morozov, who was made a boyar on this occasion, was assigned, died as a minor. From that time on, the progress of Gleb Morozov slowed down and depended entirely on the success of his brother. Like the latter, he also married for the second time and also to a noble woman - the 17-year-old beauty Fedosya Prokopyevna Sokovnina. The Sokovnins, Likhvin and Karachev boyar children, fell into the midst of the Moscow nobility due to their close relationship with the Miloslavskys. Fedosya Prokopyevna was most likely married to Gleb Morozov “from the palace.” She became the “visiting noblewoman” of the tsarina (this was a great honor), who always treated her like a family and, while she was alive, always stood up for her before the tsar.
Boris Morozov died in 1662 childless. His estates were inherited by his younger brother, who himself was a very wealthy man (2110 households according to the list of 1653). Almost simultaneously with Boris, Gleb Ivanovich died, and the only owner of this enormous fortune, second perhaps only to that of the “eminent people” the Stroganovs, turned out to be the youth Ivan Glebovich, and in fact his mother Fedosya Prokopyevna Morozova.
She was surrounded not only by wealth, but also by luxury. Her Moscow house was luxurious. Avvakum recalled that she rode out in a carriage with “musiya and silver,” which was carried by “many argamaks, 6 or 12, with rattling chains,” and which was accompanied by “100 or 200, and sometimes three hundred” servants. Luxury also penetrated into the estates near Moscow, which was new and unusual then. The fact is that, according to ancient tradition, boyar estates had a purely economic purpose. The first to break this tradition was Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, who established several luxurious estates near Moscow. Among them, Izmailovo and Kolomenskoye, the “eighth wonder of the world,” stood out. His uncle did not lag behind the tsar, who set up his village of Pavlovskoye in the Zvenigorod district with great pomp, which became “a kind of dacha”, where the boyar “went for entertainment... inviting guests... sometimes the tsar himself.” Gleb Morozov followed their example. In the mansion of his village of Zyuzin near Moscow, the floors were “written chessboard”, the garden occupied two acres, and peacocks and peahens walked in the yard. In this case, the Tsar and the Morozov brothers imitated Europe, and above all the Polish “potentates”. It was in the 17th century, during the Baroque era, that manor life began to flourish in Poland. During his campaigns in the mid-50s, the tsar had the opportunity to see the luxurious residences of magnates. By the way, Gleb Morozov, who was a member of the sovereign’s staff, also took part in these campaigns.
Taking into account all this - the antiquity and “honor” of the Morozov family, their family ties with the Tsar and Tsarina, their position in the Duma and at court, their wealth and luxury of private life, we will better understand Archpriest Avvakum, who saw something completely exceptional in the fact that noblewoman Morozova renounced “earthly glory”: “It’s not surprising that 20 years and one summer torment me: I am called to myself, let me shake off the burden of sin. And behold, this man is poor, inferior and foolish, from a selfless man, I have no clothes and gold and silver, I have a priestly family, the rank of archpriest, I am filled with sorrows and sorrows before the Lord God. But it’s wonderful to think about your honesty: your family, - Boris Ivanovich Morozov was an uncle to this king, and a nurturer, and a breadwinner, he was sick for him and grieved more than his soul, having no peace day and night.” Avvakum in this case expressed the popular opinion. The people recognized Morozova as their intercessor precisely because she voluntarily “shook off the dust” of wealth and luxury, voluntarily became equal to the “simpletons.”
We will better understand the behavior of the Moscow nobility. Having not succeeded in trying to reason with the lost sheep, seeing that even appeals to her maternal feelings were in vain, the nobility nevertheless for a long time resisted the bishops who carried on the noblewoman’s cause with such zeal. Particularly zealous were the ignorant Joachim, then the Archimandrite of Miracles, and Metropolitan Pavel of Sarsk and Podonsk - both extremely cruel people. But even the gentle patriarch Pitirim changed his character when he realized how much Morozov hated his “Nikonian faith.” “Roaring like a bear” (according to the author of the Tale), the patriarch ordered the noblewoman to be dragged “like a dog, with a cap by the neck,” so that Morozova on the stairs “considered all degrees to be her head.” And at this time Pitirim shouted: “Blow the martyr in the morning!” (i.e. at the stake, because back then it was customary to burn people “in the log house”). However, again “the bolyars were not up to the task,” and the bishops had to give in.
Of course, the nobility defended not so much the person, not Fedosya Morozova as such, but class privileges. The nobility was afraid of the precedent. And only after making sure that this matter was safe for her in terms of class, that it was “not an example or a model,” the nobility renounced the noblewoman Morozova. They now began to look at the lost sheep as a black sheep - according to the proverb, “in the family there is a black sheep, and on the threshing floor there is damage.”
Only Morozova's brothers, Fyodor and Alexei Sokovnin, remained faithful to her, just as Princess Evdokia Urusova, her younger sister, who suffered and died with her, was faithful to her. Tsar Alexei hastened to remove both brothers from Moscow, appointing them governors in small towns. It was a link that could not be called honorable. Apparently, the tsar knew or suspected that the Sokovnins had not only a blood connection with their sisters, but also a spiritual one, that they all stood for “ancient piety.” Apparently, the king feared them - and not without reason, as later events showed.
On March 4, 1697, the okolnichy Alexei Prokopyevich Sokovnin, a “hidden schismatic,” ended his days on the chopping block. He was beheaded on Red Square because, together with Streltsy Colonel Ivan Tsykler, he was at the head of a conspiracy for the life of Peter I. Among the executed conspirators was the steward Fyodor Matveevich Pushkin, married to the daughter of Alexei Sokovnin. The Pushkins, as the weakest branch of Gavrila Aleksich’s family in terms of “honor and place,” began to rise at the end of the 16th century, after the death of more noble relatives in oprichnina. The 17th century was a period of greatest success for the Pushkins, but it ended in their disaster - unexpected and undeserved, because the execution of one conspirator turned into actual disgrace for the entire numerous family. If the Morozovs in the 17th century. died out in the literal sense of the word, then fate was preparing political death for Pushkin: from now on and forever they were expelled from the ruling stratum.
But let’s return to the confrontation between noblewoman Morozova and Tsar Alexei. Even after the break with Nikon, the Tsar remained faithful to church reform, since it allowed him to keep the church under control. The Tsar was very concerned about the resistance of the Old Believers, and therefore he had long been dissatisfied with Morozova. He, of course, knew that at home she prayed in the old way; Apparently, he knew (through his sister-in-law Anna Ilyinichna) that the noblewoman wore a hair shirt, he also knew about her correspondence with Avvakum, imprisoned in Pustozersk, and that her Moscow chambers were a refuge and stronghold of the Old Believers. However, the tsar did not take decisive steps for a long time and limited himself to half-measures: he took away part of the estates from Morozova, and then returned them, tried to influence her through relatives, etc. The sadness of Tsarina Maria Ilyinichna played a great role in these hesitations, but the matter should not be reduced only to her intercession. After all, after her death (1669), the tsar spared Morozova for another two and a half years. Apparently, he was content with Morozova’s “small hypocrisy.” From the Tale it is clear that she “for the sake of decency ... went to the temple,” that is, she attended Nikonian worship. Everything changed dramatically after her secret tonsure.
If the noblewoman Fedosya could bend her soul “for the sake of decency,” then the nun Theodora, who took monastic vows, was not fit for “a little hypocrisy.” Morozova “began to shirk” the worldly and religious duties associated with the rank of “mountaine” (palace) noblewoman. On January 22, 1671, she did not appear at the Tsar’s wedding with Natalya Kirillovna Naryshkina, citing illness: “My legs are very sad, and I can neither walk nor stand.” The king did not believe the excuse and took the refusal as a grave insult. From that moment on, Morozova became his personal enemy. The bishops cleverly played on this. During the dispute about faith, they posed the question directly (there was a catch in the directness): “In brevity, we ask you, according to the service book according to which the sovereign tsar and the blessed queen and the princes and princesses receive communion, have you received communion?” And Morozova had no choice but to answer directly: “I will not take communion.”
The author of the Tale puts into the mouth of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich significant words regarding his feud with Morozova: “It’s hard for her to brother with me - the only one who can overcome everything from us.” It is unlikely that these words were ever uttered: in fact, the autocrat of all Rus' could not, even for a moment, admit that he would be “overcome” by the noblewoman, who was rigid in disobedience. But fiction has, in its way, no less historical value than an immutably established fact. In this case, fiction is the voice of the people. The people perceived the fight between the Tsar and Morozova as a spiritual duel (and in the battle of the spirit, the rivals are always equal) and, of course, were entirely on the side of the “combatant.” There is every reason to believe that the king understood this perfectly well. His order to starve Morozova to death in the Borovsk pit, in the “unlighted darkness”, in the “earthly suffocation” strikes not only with cruelty, but also with cold calculation. The point is not even that death is red in the world. The fact is that a public execution gives a person the aura of martyrdom (if, of course, the people are on the side of the executed). This is what the king feared most of all, he was afraid that “the last misfortune would be worse than the first.” Therefore, he doomed Morozova and her sister to a “quiet”, long death. Therefore, their bodies - in matting, without a funeral service - were buried inside the walls of the Borovsk prison: they feared that the Old Believers would dig them up “with great honor, like the relics of holy martyrs.” Morozova was kept in custody while she was alive. She was left in custody even after her death, which put an end to her suffering on the night of November 1–2, 1675.
In creating a symbol, history is content with a few large strokes. Private life is indifferent to national memory. The life of a mortal man, his earthly passions - all these are little things, they are carried away by the river of oblivion. There is a reason for such selectivity, because history remembers, first of all, heroes, but there is also a danger, because the true appearance of a person is involuntarily distorted.
The spirit of fanaticism emanates from Surikov’s Morozova. But it is wrong to consider her a fanatic. Old Russian man, unlike the man of the Enlightenment culture, lived and thought within the framework of religious consciousness. He was “fed” by faith as his daily bread. In Ancient Rus' there were any number of heretics and apostates, but there were no atheists, which means fanaticism looked different. Boyarina Morozova is a strong character, but not fanatical, without a shadow of gloominess, and it is not for nothing that Avvakum wrote about her as a “cheerful and loving wife” (amiable). She was not at all alien to human passions and weaknesses.
We learn about them first of all from Avvakum, who, as a spiritual father, instructed, scolded, and sometimes cursed Morozova. Of course, Habakkuk’s scolding behavior should not always be taken at face value. Often it was a “therapeutic”, healing technique. When Morozova was in prison torn over her dead son, Avvakum wrote her an angry letter from Pustozersk, even calling her “thin dirt,” and ended with this: “Don’t worry about Ivan, I won’t scold her.” But in some cases, the spiritual father’s reproaches seem quite reasonable.
After the death of her old husband, Morozova remained a young, thirty-year-old widow. She “tormented” her body with a hair shirt, but the hair shirt did not always help. “Stupid, crazy, ugly,” Avvakum wrote to her, “gouge out those little eyes of yours with the shuttle that Mastridia did.” Avvakum had in mind the example of the Venerable Mastridia, whose life the noblewoman knew from the Prologue (under November 24). The heroine of this life gouged out her eyes to get rid of the temptation of love.
Avvakum also accused Morozova of stinginess: “And now... you write: you’ve become impoverished, father; there is nothing to share with you. And I couldn’t even laugh at your disagreement... Alms flow from you like a small drop from the depths of the sea, and then with a reservation.” From his point of view, Habakkuk was right. When we read that the noblewoman sent eight rubles to Pustozersk, “two rubles for the priest alone, and he shared six rubles with the brothers of Christ,” then we involuntarily remember the gold and jewelry that she hid from the authorities. In this case, one cannot but agree with Avvakum. However, this was not just stinginess, but also the homeliness of a zealous housewife. Morozova, by her position, was a “seasoned widow,” that is, a widow who manages the estates until her son comes of age. That’s why she cared about “how... the house is built, how to gain more fame, how... villages and villages are harmonious.” The “seasoned widow” kept for her son the wealth accumulated by his father and uncle. She hoped that the son, no matter how the mother’s fate turned out, would live in “earthly glory” befitting his famous family.
Morozova loved her Ivan very much. Feeling that the king’s patience was coming to an end, that trouble was at hand, she hurried to marry her son and consulted with her spiritual father about the bride: “Where should I get one - from a good breed, or from an ordinary one. Those who are of a better breed than girls are worse, and those girls are better than those who are of a worse breed.” This quote gives a clear idea of Morozova. Her letters are women's letters. We will not find discussions about faith in them, but we will find complaints about those who dare to “deceive” the noblewoman, we will find requests not to listen to those who bully her in front of the archpriest: “No matter what you write, it’s all wrong.” The one who dictated, and sometimes wrote these “letters” with her own hand, was not a gloomy fanatic, but a housewife and mother, busy with her son and household chores.
Therefore, her “small hypocrisy” is understandable, and the hesitations that are reflected in the Tale are understandable. Where torture is discussed, the author writes that Morozova “victoriously” denounced “their crafty retreat” from the rack. Here the influence of the hagiographic canon is obvious, according to which a sufferer for faith always endures torture not only courageously, but also “joyfully.” But much stronger and more humanly authentic is the end of this episode, when the noblewoman began to cry and said to one of those overseeing the torture: “Is Christianity dead to torture a person?”
And she died not as a hagiographic heroine, but as a person. “Servant of Christ! - the noblewoman, tortured by hunger, cried out to the archer guarding her. - Do you have a father and mother alive or have they passed away? And if they are alive, let us pray for them and for you; Even if we die, we will remember them. Have mercy, servant of Christ! I’m very tired of hunger and I’m hungry for food, have mercy on me, give me a little kolachik,” And when he refused (“No, lady, I’m afraid”), she asked him from the pit for at least a piece of bread, at least “a few crackers,” although an apple or a cucumber - and all in vain.
Human weakness does not detract from the feat. On the contrary, she emphasizes his greatness: in order to accomplish a feat, you must first of all be human.
The story of Boyarina Morozova is the main source of information about this wonderful woman. The publication and research of A.I. Mazunin, who carefully studied the manuscript tradition, allows us to read this text in a new way. But the Tale is valuable not only for its historical material. This is a work of high artistic quality. This monument of ancient Russian literature will certainly be appreciated by the modern reader.
Quote according to the book: Konchalovskaya Natalya. The gift is priceless. M., 1965. P. 151.
The Tale of Boyarina Morozova / Prep. texts and research by A.I. Mazunin. L., “Science”, 1979.
For the genealogy of the Morozovs and other boyar families, see the book: Veselovsky S. B. Research on the history of the class of service landowners. M., 1969.
Life of Alexander Nevsky cit. from the book: Izbornik. Collection of works of literature of Ancient Rus'. M., 1970.
Veselovsky S. B. Research on the history of the class of service landowners. P. 103.
Right there. P. 55.
“In the literal sense of the word, this meant extraditing the accused as a complete servitor. In local affairs, “surrender by head”... had a symbolic and everyday meaning... The accused local with a submissive look, with his head uncovered, walked to the courtyard of his new master. The latter, probably in the presence of his children, household members and the entire household, gave the local a more or less severe reprimand, made him feel the full extent of his power and then mercifully forgave him. Depending on the mutual relations of the colliding individuals and surnames, the matter could end either in a similar scene or in complete reconciliation. The man acquitted by the court invited the local man given to him by his “head” to his house, and the recent enemies, over a glass of wine, conscientiously tried to eliminate moments of personal resentment” ( Veselovsky S. B. Research on the history of the class of service landowners. P. 104).
Zabelin I. E. Home life of Russian queens in the 16th and 17th centuries. Ed. 3rd. M., 1901. P. 101.
Cm.: Vodarsky Ya. E. The ruling group of secular feudal lords in Russia in the 17th century. - In the book: Nobility and serfdom in Russia in the 16th-18th centuries. Sat. in memory of A. A. Novoselsky. M., 1975. P. 93.
Right there. For comparison, we point out that, according to the calculations of Ya. E. Vodarsky, at that time the Duma people had on average households: the boyars had 1567, the okolnichy 526, the Duma nobles 357 (ibid., p. 74).
Materials for the history of the schism for the first time of its existence, published... ed. N. Subbotina. T. V, part 2. M., 1879. P. 182-183.
Petrikeev D.I. Large serf farm of the 17th century. L., 1967. P. 46.
Cm.: Tikhonov Yu. A. Moscow region estates of the Russian aristocracy in the second half of the 17th - early 18th centuries. - In the book: Nobility and serfdom in Russia in the 16th-18th centuries. pp. 139-140.
The Life of Archpriest Avvakum, written by himself, and his other works. M., 1960. P. 216.
Right there. P. 296.
Right there. P. 213.
Right there. P. 208. It is interesting to compare this phrase with one incident from Avvakum’s youth, which he spoke about in his Life: “When I was still in trouble, a girl came to confess to me, burdened with many sins, guilty of fornication... Guilty... I But the three-repentant doctor himself fell ill, burning inside with the fire of prodigal fire, and I felt bitter in that hour: I lit three lights and stuck them to the forehead, and laid my right hand on the flame, and held it until the evil in me died out, having fermented” (ibid. P. 60). Here Habakkuk acted directly “according to the Prologue”: in the Prologue under December 27 there is a similar story about a monk and a harlot.
Barskov Ya. L. Monuments of the first years of Russian Old Believers. St. Petersburg, 1912. P. 34.
Right there. P. 37. Of course, eight rubles was a lot of money at that time. But Avvakum and his Pustozersky “prisoners” had to spend more than any resident of Moscow. Here is an example: in order to send a letter to Morozova, Avvakum had to give the archer a whole half.
Barskov Ya. L. Monuments of the first years of Russian Old Believers. P. 34.
Right there. pp. 41-42.
Right there. pp. 38-39.
Material: http://panchenko.pushkinskijdom.ru/Default.aspx?tabid=2330
One of the most tragic stories of the schism of the Russian Church is connected with Borovsk - the death of the noblewoman Feodosia Prokopyevna Morozova.
We all remember Surikov’s painting - Feodosia Morozova, chained in iron, is being taken through Moscow, and she raises two fingers, as a sign that she has not renounced the old faith, does not accept the reforms of Patriarch Nikon, and is ready to go to martyrdom.
In reality, everything was not quite like that. Morozova and her sister Evdokia Urusova were taken through Moscow, but she could not raise her arm, because she was chained to stone blocks so that her arms were stretched down. Surikov couldn’t help but know this, but apparently he needed to show the unbending strength of this woman.
Below we see a modern house, on the site of which was the grave of Feodosia Morozova and Evdokia Urusova, approximately at the corner of the building closest to us.
In 1936, the Bolshevik comrades destroyed this grave, and in its place a district party committee was built. The grave was opened, the remains were taken out of it, and few people know where they are now. Apparently, the Old Believers keep this secret.
Nearby is the building of the former Borovsk gymnasium, built on the site of the prison in which these two staunch women were kept.
Feodosia Morozova and Evdokia Urusova were brought to this prison in the winter of 1673 after monstrous torture. They arrived here as living great martyrs, and the Borovets greeted them as saints.
Even though they were kept in prison, people came to them with their families, asked for blessings, brought food, prayed with them, and the high authorities considered that they were not kept strictly enough.
After this, the sufferers were moved to a pit to die of starvation. They died in it. This is a heartbreaking episode, because they sat in the hole for a very long time. Apparently, people still found a way to throw them some food.
Evdokia Urusova died before her sister, when she was informed that her husband had renounced her and, together with her children, accepted a new faith, but the children forgot her. Feodosia Prokopyevna outlived her by a month and a half. She was 44 years old.
A legend has been preserved of how the noblewoman Morozova, already dying, begged the guard to throw her at least a roll, at least a cucumber, at least an apple. And the guard answered: “Forgive me, mother, I can’t, I’m afraid.” When the women, already dead, were taken out of the pit, they were completely gray and looked like skeletons.
In 2005, a chapel in memory of noblewoman Morozova was erected in Borovsk. It took 4 years to build it using public donations only. Below, at the base of the chapel, is the tombstone of Morozova and Urusova, which their brothers once placed on their grave. But it is impossible to get to her.
When you think about the history of the schism of the Russian church, about the Nikonian reforms, about the fierce resistance of Morozova’s co-religionists, you always wonder, what did Nikon propose?
But apparently they resisted not so much the reforms themselves as the methods by which Nikon carried them out. He ordered, he did not consult with anyone, did not explain anything to anyone, but acted, and did it very cruelly.
It should be noted that a similar reform in Little Russia took place quite painlessly. And here we have horror and darkness. Well, I hope the Lord will sort it out. He knows better.
Painting of Boyarina Morozova Surikov V.I. This work of the artist is inspired by the purely Russian current of the difficult life of that time, the tough and bad time of the church schism.
Surikov depicted the sad but invincible image of the main character of the canvas, Boyarina Morozova, in 1887, in the very compositional center of the picture she is richly dressed in a velvet fur coat, she is being taken on a sleigh through the streets of Moscow to certain death, shackled, her hands are tied with a chain, with her hand raised up.
The noblewoman shouts farewell words to the crowd of people, she is fanatically devoted to her old faith and she will not sell it for any price, and the people for the most part meekly sympathize with her and experience her tragedy as well as their own.
In the image of Boyarina Morozova, Surikov was determined to show the great spirit of the unbroken faith of a Russian woman, who was close to the tsar and had significant authority at court and all the luxury of boyar life, but for the sake of faith was ready to die.
The picture of Boyarina Morozova is executed in the usual colorful colors of Surikov, playing on the contrast of human destinies, reflecting among the dressed and shod townspeople, barefoot, dressed in dirty and wretched attire, a holy fool, a typical character of medieval Rus' who also with sympathy sees off the noblewoman on her last journey. To the right of Boyarina Morozova she is escorted by her sister Princess Urusova, covered in a white scarf with embroidery, seeing her off she is inspired to repeat a similar act.
The painting depicts many Russian people; among those who sympathize, there are also those dissatisfied with her action, laughing maliciously after her, talking among their own kind about her extravagance. Among the many characters in the film, Surikov portrayed himself in the role of a wanderer who wanders through cities and villages. The name of Boyarina Morozova was on everyone’s lips and everyone understood her in their own way.
This is a deeply historical Russian painting by Surikov, where the artist presents the humiliated schismatic Boyarina Morozova in the victorious image of an unbroken woman. The artist Surikov Boyarynya Morozova gives the viewer of the picture the opportunity to feel the whole tragedy of this action, to feel that past and difficult life of the deeply religious Russian people.
Today the painting is in the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow, size 304 by 587.5 cm
Biography of Boyarina Morozova
Boyarina Morozova was born in Moscow on May 21, 1632, she is the daughter of the okolnichi Sokovnin Prokopiy Fedorovich, who was a relative of Maria Ilyinichna, the 1st wife of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The surname Morozov was inherited from his marriage to Gleb Ivanovich Morozov, who came from a noble family of Morozovs at that time, who were the closest relatives of the royal Romanov family.
After the death of brother Boris Ivanovich Morozov and subsequently Gleb Ivanovich, the entire inheritance passes to his young son Ivan. During her son’s early childhood, Feodosia Morozova herself managed this entire fortune; she had 8 thousand peasants in her power, and there were only three hundred domestic servants in the house.
At that time, she had an estate, an estate distinguished by great luxury, modeled on rich foreign estates. She rode around in a beautiful expensive carriage with an escort of up to a hundred people. A rich heritage, a life with taste, it would seem that nothing bad should have happened in her biography of boyar life.
Boyarina Morozova Feodosia Prokopyevna was an outspoken supporter of the Russian Old Believers. Various Old Believers, persecuted by the royal power of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, often gathered in her house to pray at the old Old Believer icons according to ancient Russian rites.
Boyarina Morozova was in very close contact with Archpriest Avvakum, one of the ideologists of the Old Believers, and had a favorable attitude towards holy fools and beggars, who often found warmth and shelter in her house.
Despite the fact that Boyarina Morozova adhered to the Old Believers, she also attended the church of the new rite, which, accordingly, did not make her look like supporters of the old faith. As a result of all this, she secretly took monastic vows from the Old Believers, where she was named Theodore, thereby withdrawing from attending social and church events. She refused an invitation to the wedding of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich on the pretext of illness, despite the fact that at the court of Feodosia Prokopyevna she was always close to the tsar and had the status of the supreme noblewoman.
Accordingly, the king did not like this behavior of Theodora. The tsar tried many times to influence her with the help of relatives, sent boyar Troekurov to persuade her to accept the new faith, but everything was in vain.
In order to punish the boyar for such sins, the tsar was hindered by Morozova’s high boyar position, and Tsarina Maria Ilyinichna also restrained the tsar from punishing the obstinate boyar. Nevertheless, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, having exhausted all his royal patience, sent Archimandrite Iakim of the Chudov Monastery to Morozova together with the Duma sexton Hilarion Ivanov.
Out of hatred for these guests and the new faith of Sister Theodosius, Princess Urusova, as a sign of disagreement, went to bed and, lying down, answered their interrogations. After all this shameful action, in the opinion of the archimandrite, they were shackled, although for now they left the sisters under house arrest.
Even after, when she was taken for interrogation to the Chudov Monastery and then to the Pskov-Pechersky Monastery, she never surrendered, all her boyar estate, the property of the boyar, passed into the royal treasury, all the time of her imprisonment she maintained relations with the Old Believer associates who helped her and They sympathized, brought her food and things, and even one Old Believer priest secretly gave her communion.
For her soul, Patriarch Pitirim himself asked and begged the king to have mercy, to which the king advised the chief priest to make sure of her extravagance himself. During interrogation by Pitirim, Boyarina Morozova also did not want to stand on her own two feet in front of the patriarch, hanging in the arms of the archers.
In 1674, at the Yamsky yard, two Morozov sisters and the Old Believer Maria Danilova were tortured on the rack, hoping to convince them. No amount of persuasion helped and they were about to be burned at the stake, but the Tsar’s sister Irina Mikhailovna and the indignant boyars prevented this from coming true.
The tsar’s decision was as follows: 14 servants who also remained with the old faith were burned alive in a log house; Morozov Feodosia and his sister Princess Urusova were exiled to the Borovsk Pafnutievo-Borovskoy monastery, where they were put in an earthen prison. From complete exhaustion and prison torment, the Morozov sisters died within a few months of each other in 1675
