Русская версия Slovenščina English

"Russian World" (Russkiy mir and Russkiy mir’) and the All-Russian civilizational space

A. N. Zakatov

Candidate of Historical Sciences,

Associate Professor of the Department of Russian History and Culture

Moscow State University of Geodesy and Cartography

"Russian World" (Russkiy mir and Russkiy mir’) and the All-Russian civilizational space1

( [1] A. N. Zakatov "Russian World", " Russkiy mir andRusskiy mir’" and the All-Russian civilizational space

// Values and senses.  2017. No. 1 (47) P.8-23.  )

Since the mid-1990s, the phrase "Russian World", half-forgotten in the era of the communist regime, has again sounded in the socio-political vocabulary in the post-Soviet space. The appeal to a complex of ideas and traditions, united under this name, became a natural need for a society that parted with the Marxist-Leninist ideology, but did not receive in return another integral system of values and is in search. While one part of the intellectual elite is trying to substantiate a purely pro-Western version of the further development of Russia and other states that emerged after the collapse of the USSR, the other recognizes the originality of the community of peoples that has developed on the territory of the former Russian Empire, and seeks to designate their own historical path for them.

By the 2000s, a fairly large fund of theoretical developments had accumulated to substantiate the idea of the Russian world, and it became more obvious that it was of interest to a significant part of society. The adoption on May 24, 1999 of the Federal Law No. 99-FZ "On the state policy of the Russian Federation in relation to compatriots abroad" regulated the relationship of the modern Russian state with persons living in other states and continuing to consider Russia as their Motherland, or at least gravitating towards the Russian culture [15].

The presence of scientific, social and legal prerequisites led to the crystallization of the concept of the Russian world. In 2006, Russian President V. V. Putin, at a meeting with the St. Petersburg intelligentsia, called for the introduction of the term "Russian World" into constant use [10].

On June 21, 2007, by the decree of the President of the Russian Federation, the Russian World Foundation was established, the goals of which are to popularize the Russian language, “which is a national heritage of Russia and an important element of world culture,” as well as to support programs for studying the Russian language abroad [13]. The founders became the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation. The executive director of the organization is appointed by the President of the Russian Federation, and the fund's property is formed at the expense of the federal budget, voluntary property contributions and donations, as well as other sources in accordance with applicable law. The Russian World Foundation, being a state and public institution, cooperates with educational, scientific, educational, religious and other official and non-governmental organizations all over the world.

The concept of the Russian world has become firmly established in the lexicon of the Russian Orthodox Church. His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, in appropriate cases, actively uses this term and can rightfully be considered one of the leading and most authoritative theorists of the Russian world [4].

The concept of the Russian world is indissolubly intertwined (in many respects coinciding, although with some nuanced differences) the concept of the All-Russian civilizational space, used by the head of the Russian Imperial House, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna.

Meanwhile, it should be noted that even in scientific publications, not to mention public perception, there is some terminological blurring and ambiguity of the concept of "Russian world". This leads to semantic contradictions, misunderstanding of the foundations of the concept, and in some cases gives rise to politicization and a significant distortion of its very essence.

The problems of understanding the term "Russian world" are largely associated with the impoverishment of Russian spelling as a result of the spelling reform of 1918. In pre-revolutionary spelling, there were two words identical in sound, but different in meaning and spelling: mir (peace) and mir’ (world) (comment 1).

"Mir" - an analogue of the Latin pax - has three similar meanings: 1) the opposite of war, the absence of hostilities; 2) in general, peace, harmony, absence of contradictions; 3) silence, order, improvement.

"Mir’" means: 1) the whole Universe; 2) Earth is the only inhabited planet (comment 2); 3) human society as a whole, the human race; 4) a separate human community, community; 5) in the religious sense - a part of the community of believers who do not belong to the clergy (comment 3); 6) Wednesday (comment 4); 7) a separate space (comment 5); 8) the internal state of the individual, the totality of her beliefs, convictions, ideas and spiritual and moral qualities (comment 6).

In Latin, the word "peace" in the meaning of the Universe is expressed by the words "universum" (literally - "whole") and "mundus" (literally - "decoration", "ordered beauty") [12]; the human race - "mundus" and " orbis "(literally -" circle "); communities - "societas" (literally - "society", "community"), "civitas" (literally - "community of citizens"); environments (aggregates, systems, areas) - "orbis".

In the Greek language, similar concepts are also expressed in words that do not have any consonance: "mir" - "εἰρήνη", and "mir" - "κόσμος". However, it should be noted that the Russian (and generally Slavic) consonance of both concepts is not accidental. Both words - "mir" and "mir’" - go back to the ancient Indian "mitras" (friend). A.G. Preobrazhensky does not at all single out the word "peace", combining both main meanings in writing "peace" and asserting: "in both meanings of" εἰρήνη "and" κόσμος ", calm and light are, in essence, the same word" [9].

Max von Vasmer especially notes that in the monuments of Old Slavonic writing, the spelling "mir" is also used in relation to concepts that later began to be expressed by the word "mir" [14] (in the Ostromir Gospel of the 11th century (comment 7) in the Suprasl manuscript of the 11th century (comment 8 ), in the "Word for the Renewal of the Tithe Church" of the XI century [6], in the epistle of St. Bishop of Vladimir and Suzdal Simon to the Monastery of the Caves Polycarp of the XIII century [3] and a number of others).

Indeed, the "world" is a state in which, ideally, the "world" should be, and, in turn, without the existence of the "world" the question of its peace would not have arisen. So these concepts are intertwined. But at the same time, they are different and cannot completely merge, which at one time caused the need to diversify the spelling.

In the "Dictionary of the Russian Academy" the words "mir" and "mir’" and their derivatives are separately devoted to several pages. "Peace" is interpreted as 1) "silence, tranquility, the consent of a people or a state with other peoples", 2) "the very agreement on which peace is based or concluded between two or many states", 3) "consent, mutual love, is opposed to a quarrel ". "Mir" means 1) "the whole world; heaven and earth and everything contained in them ”, 2)“ Universe, sunflower, earthly sphere ”, 3)“ people inhabiting the earth ”, 4)“ society, an assembly of the inhabitants of a village ”[11].

In the "Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language" by V. I. Dal, "mir" is explained as "the absence of quarrel, enmity, disagreement, war; harmony, harmony, unanimity, affection, friendship, benevolence, silence, peace, tranquility "[2], and" peace "-" universe; matter in space and force in time. One of the lands of the universe. Our earth, globe, light. All people, all the world, the human race. Community, society of peasants. Gathering ”[2].

In the Christian teaching, "mir" has an exclusively positive meaning and meaning. This is calmness, silence, true well-being. Peace as the main state of spirit and the essence of service was left to his followers by the Lord Jesus Christ: “I leave peace to you, My peace I give to you” (John, 14:27) (comment 9), “Everyone is from God, reconciling us Himself, Jesus Christ, and the ministry of reconciliation that has given us”(2 Cor. 5:18). “The acquisition of the spirit is peaceful,” according to the word of St. Seraphim of Sarov, this is the way to save yourself and those around you. In the Middle Ages, there was a custom of announcing the "Peace of God" - the cessation of hostilities and hostilities "on those days that were consecrated by the memories of events in the life of Jesus Christ, as well as on major holidays." For the first time, the Peace of God was proclaimed by the Benedictine monks of Cluny in Burgundy, in 1041 (even before the formal division of the Church into Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic), it spread to France, then moved to other countries, in 1095 it was declared compulsory for Catholics, and in 1179 it was consolidated in the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church, although in practice it was not executed. According to some reports, echoes of the Peace of God are also known in medieval Russia (unfortunately, with the same effect) [7].

But the attitude to the "world" is more complicated. On the one hand, the "prince of this world" is the devil; The Savior gives peace “not as peace gives, I give to you” (John, 14, 27) (comment 10); “The whole world is in evil” (1 John 5:19) (commentary 11); faith is “the victory that overcomes the world” (1 John 5, 4) (commentary 12); the world hates Christ and his disciples (John, 15, 18) (commentary 13), and whoever loves the world - “there is love of the Father in him: as everything, the hedgehog in the world, is fleshly lust, and the lust of the world, and the pride of life, is the Father of the Father, but the Father of this world is. And the world passes away, and its lust: but do the will of God, abides forever "(1 John 2, 15-17) (comment 14).

On the other hand, Gnostic ideas about the primordial belonging of the world to Evil are alien to the teaching of the Church, for God created the Universe "very good": "And in the sight of God all things, create the tree: and behold, good is evil" (Genesis 1:31). The world is damaged by sin, but Christ became human and accepted the torment of the cross for the sake of cleansing it from sin: “And this cleansing is about our sin: not about ours, but about the whole world” (1 John 2, 2) (comment 15), “God is in Christ, reconciling Himself, not imputing to Him their sinning, and putting in us the word of reconciliation” (2 Cor., 5, 19) (commentary 16). In the liturgical texts, God is called the Miroder, the Church prays “for the peace of the whole world”, The Complete Orthodox Theological Encyclopedic Dictionary defines the world as “the universe, that is, everything that was the creation of the Creator” and includes in this concept the world “visible or external, and invisible, spiritual” [7].

In the Vulgate (the canonical Latin translation of the Bible) and other translations of the Holy Scriptures into European languages in all the above quotations, the term “mundus” and similar ones are used: in English “the world” in the King James Bible [17], in French “le monde” (Eg, translation of the Jerusalem Bible School) [16]. It is always clear from the context that the word "mundus", especially with a negative assessment, is used mainly in the sense of: 1) the fallen part of the invisible world; 2) "the human race", whose representatives are endowed with free will and are able (and inclined) to fall into sin, betraying their destiny and indulging in Evil. "Mundus" in these places of Scripture is not a planetary and not geographical concept, but demonological and anthropological, that is, referring to the totality of the devil and his angels, as well as to Humanity and its damaged spiritual state.

In a positive sense, "mundus" (as "decoration", "ordered beauty", "correct order"), if viewed in local incarnation (that is, as a part of the entire World associated with a specific people or state), seems to be a more political concept, implying the existence of a territory controlled (decorated and ordered) by a dominant power.

To define a freer sphere of influence of a certain civilization center, the term "orbis" - "circle", "environment", "a system with a set of common values, customs and mores" is more suitable.

What kind of world is meant by the phrase "Russian world"? In the new Russian spelling, this is far from always clear. In different texts, both main variants are encountered (in the old spelling - "mir" and "mir’"), mixing with each other and creating semantic confusion.

To avoid confusion, in the future we will use the words "mir" and "mir’" in strict accordance with the rules of pre-revolutionary spelling.

If we follow the path of analogy, then the first version of the interpretation of the concept of the “Russian World” suggests itself precisely “Mir”, similar to other “WORLDS” - “PAX” s - Pax Romana, Pax Ottomana, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana, etc. (and even Pax Sovietica). Indeed, outwardly, the Russian world, it would seem, is on a par with the Roman world, the Ottoman world, the British world, the American world, the Soviet world.

However, applying historical analysis, we will see without much difficulty that the historical conditions in which the concept of the "Russian World" is being embodied today differ significantly from the conditions of the formation of the former "Worlds" in different parts of the world.

The history of whatever "Pax" we studied, the same pattern is observed everywhere. When it comes to someone's "Pax", it means that for a certain period of time relative international peace and political, economic and social stability, which were ensured by a powerful the power that gave the name to the corresponding "Pax" y. The most typical examples are Pax Assyriaka (Assyrian world), Pax Romana (Roman world), Pax Khazarica (Khazar world), Pax Mongolica (Mongolian world), Pax Ottomana (Ottoman world).

Of course, all these "Worlds" were not unconditional as truly peaceful states and did not last so long. There are even more questions about the peaceful nature of the "Worlds" close to us in time - Pax Hispanica (Spanish world), Pax Britannica (British world), Pax Gallicana (Gallican (French) world), Pax Germanica (Germanic world), Pax Americana (American world)), Pax Sovietica (Soviet world), Pax Sinica (Chinese world).

The volume of this article does not allow us to present a detailed picture of each "World". Let us note just a few features. Among the "Pax"-s of antiquity and the Middle Ages, we still observe a real achievement of peace and stability in the subject territory, although supported by force or the threat of its use.

"Pax"-s of New and Newest times are even less "peaceful". They can be considered "Worlds" from the standpoint of Eurocentrism (Pax Hispanica, Pax Britannica, Pax Gallicana, Pax Germanica) or Americanocentrism (Pax Americana), or Chinesecentrism (Pax Sinica), or communist ideology (Pax Sovietica). In all these cases, the ongoing active violence of the dominant center or the policy of blackmail on its part is justified by a messianic or civilizing idea, and the builders of each "World" try to diminish the scale of their own aggressiveness (non-peace) by cultivating negative ideas about the order and mores of peoples in the subordinate territories (comment 17).

Be that as it may, any "Pax", that is, any "Mir", is a peaceful, stable state (or its illusion), supported by the might of a great power, which has real leverage over the countries and peoples that are in the corresponding "Pax" ...

No matter how long or short the period of "Pax" but, if the memory of it is recorded in the history of mankind, it means that it left a mark on the fate of states and nations that used its real or imaginary benefits.

Each "Pax" was the culmination of a long period of civil and external wars, which allowed the dominant state to gain strength, to ensure its internal strength and international prestige. Pax Russica existed in a certain sense during the reign of the emperors Alexander I the Blessed (1801-1825) and Nicholas I the Unforgettable (1825-1855), for after the defeat of the enemy in the Patriotic War of 1812 and the victorious foreign campaigns of 1813-1815. up to the beginning of the Crimean War of 1853-1856. Russia did not wage major wars, did not experience internal upheavals that could crush statehood, was engaged in internal improvement, continued to expand its territory and imperiously participated in world politics. But then, all the same, external wars did not stop, and uprisings broke out (comment 18), and the revolutionary ferment was latently gaining momentum. If we talk about Pax Russica in the purest and most direct sense, then the duration of its existence coincides with the reign of Emperor Alexander III the Peacemaker (1881-1894) and the first 7-8 years of the reign of his son, Emperor Nicholas II the Passion-bearer (1894-1917), when there was no there was not a single external war, and relative stability was observed within the multinational empire. At the beginning of the twentieth century, destabilization of the country's internal life (the growth of new terrorist activity) begins again, and the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, which was unsuccessful for the Russian Empire. contributes to the further development of the revolutionary movement and begins a series of external conflicts that led to the First World War of 1914-1918 and the revolution of 1917, which put an end to both the former Russian mir and the former Russian mir’.

So, "Mir" - "Pax" is a period characterized by a prosperous, from the point of view of the dominant state, the state of a vast territory that entered the political orbit of this state, and the absence of serious external conflicts.

It goes without saying that in the process of conquests and voluntary accessions of countries and peoples, strengthening its position among other strong states, establishing mechanisms of internal governance that guarantees stability, and other integration actions, the system-forming central power of any "Pax" has a civilizational impact on nations and nationalities caught in its orbit. This is how the corresponding "Orbis" (literally - "circle") appears, that is, "Mir" - interethnic civilizational space, united by a single language of interethnic communication, socio-cultural and historical ties, mental characteristics, economic and geopolitical interests.

Pax ”(“ Mir ”) is the STATE, and“ Orbis ”(“ Mir ”) is the SPACE of COEXISTENCE and CREATION.

"Pax" ("Mir") is the culmination of the development of "Orbis" a ("Mira"). In this case, the folding of the World begins long before the attainment of the state of Peace, and the existence of the World does not end after the World has ceased to be a historical reality.

Speaking about the modern concept of the Russian world, most likely, one should mean precisely "Orbis" ("Mir"), and not "Pax" ("Mir’"). Undoubtedly, the Russian Federation has preserved continuity in relation to the historical Rus-Rusia-Russia and continues to enjoy the status of a great power. Moreover, in recent years it has begun to take steps aimed at regaining the positions it lost in the twentieth century and at further enhancing its role in global politics. However, at the present time it does not have the potential for creating a new Russian world that the Russian Empire existed for Pax Russica or the USSR for Pax Sovietica. Whatever the attitude towards the possibility, desirability and expediency of the revival of the Russian World in the future, at the current historical stage, claims to its establishment in the foreseeable near future may become an unbearable burden and rather will not help, but damage a well-thought-out, systematic and long-term program of planned restoration of the traditional foundations of Russia, its internal prosperity and its rightful place among other great powers.

As for the Russian world, it always abides, regardless of political changes, thanks to the Russian language, which remains the language of interethnic communication, and the Russian culture, which has Orthodox origins, but also absorbed the life-giving juices of the cultures of other fraternal peoples and formed an alloy, spiritually and mentally close, dear and understandable not only to ethnic Russians, not only Orthodox by religion, but also to representatives of many other nations and religions.

Here we come to the need to consider the concept of "Russianness" of the considered World.

The modern reading of the word "Russian" focuses on ethnicity. This semantic simplification entails misunderstanding of the term and its politicization. The concept of the “Russian world” outside Russia is viewed by many as an instrument of political expansion of the modern Russian Federation, an ideological justification for its “imperial ambitions”. Moreover, such interpretations are heard not only from radical opponents of Russia, but also from friendly statesmen and public figures. The leaders and politicians of the former union republics of the USSR, which have become independent states, say that they, in a mild version, “do not understand” what is meant by the “Russian world”, and in a harder version, they unequivocally reject this concept already at the level of a slogan, without delving into what is behind it.

The Russian world in the most negative light is seen as a world of some kind of "vassal dependence" on the Russian Federation for the former parts of the Russian Empire and the USSR and (or) the world of the Russian "fifth column" in the near and far abroad. In maintaining all negative and cautious assessments, not only obsessive anti-Russian and anti-Russian propaganda or superficial prejudices play a role, but also the unsuccessful speeches and actions of some supporters of the “Russian World”, which really give reason to consider this concept as the ideological basis of Russian “neocolonialism” or Russian chauvinism. However, in reality, if you get acquainted with the works and speeches of the most authoritative apologists of the Russian World, it becomes obvious that this World, firstly, is a living objective reality, not dependent on any party ideologies, and secondly, it is much more than a certain political project, and thirdly, is very far from expansionism and chauvinism, and rather even the opposite of them.

The President of the Russian Federation V. V. Putin in his speech to the Federal Assembly of 2013 noted: “We have always been proud of our country. But we do not pretend to be some kind of superpower, understood as a claim to world or regional hegemony, we do not encroach on anyone's interests, we do not impose our patronage on anyone, we do not try to teach anyone how to live. But we will strive to be leaders, defending international law, seeking respect for national sovereignty, independence and identity of peoples. And this is absolutely objective and understandable for such a state as Russia, with its great history and culture, with centuries-old experience of not so-called tolerance, asexual and sterile, but namely the joint, organic life of different peoples within the framework of one single state. <...> And we know that there are more and more people in the world who support our position on the protection of traditional values, which for millennia constituted the spiritual, moral basis of civilization, of every nation: the values of the traditional family, genuine human life, including religious life, not only material life, but also spiritual, the values of humanism and the diversity of the world”[8].

This landmark speech by the President of Russia evoked a positive reaction from many citizens of modern Russia who adhere to traditionalism and healthy conservatism. In this Address and in a number of other steps, the government of the Russian Federation consistently supports the idea of the Russian World as a set of civilizational values. At the same time, one cannot ignore the fact that the perception of the statements of the current political leader is complicated by the presence of inter-party differences within the country and the specifics of international politics. Therefore, for a positive perception of the concept of the Russian world in Russia itself, in the expanses of the former Russian Empire and the USSR and in other countries, it is necessary to consolidate influential non-political forces: the Orthodox Church and traditional confessions, the Russian Imperial House and other historical institutions (comment 19), social, cultural and scientific organizations.

Speaking at the constituent assembly of the Novosibirsk regional branch of the World Russian People's Council on August 24, 2013, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, speaking about the presence of various disconnecting factors, including national, said: “Now let's try to understand: what balances these multiple potentials of division in our country? <…> I do not see such a system. Traditionally, this system has been the Church. But after many years of suffering and persecution, the Church is only today acquiring a certain potential. And this causes, as you know, an inadequate, hysterical reaction from the bearers of a non-religious worldview. ... the Church does not yet have the potential to say that it is capable of balancing all these conflicts, although a lot is already being done today. But the Church has the opportunity to gather people, including people of different views and different convictions, in the name of higher goals. However, these goals must be clearly stated. <...> It is necessary to formulate the goals and objectives of public life, the strategic development of our society so that it unites people regardless of political, social, ethnic, age and other boundaries” [4].

Thus, the Patriarch confirms that the Church, being the foremost of all the keepers of the spiritual and civilizational foundations, still cannot take on the whole complex of problems of ensuring the unity of the peoples of Russia and maintaining good relations with fraternal peoples who have chosen the path of independent state development.

The role of the Russian Imperial House is great in the formulation of goals and objectives that unite citizens and peoples, as independent as possible from the political situation, which, undoubtedly, should include the concept of the Russian World.

“The meaning of the existence of the Imperial House as a historical institution,” says the head of the dynasty, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, “is to maintain a constant living connection with the past, from which we are trying to learn lessons. We see one of our main tasks in a constant reminder to all the peoples of the former Russian Empire that we have many brighter pages of our common history than dark ones. I fully recognize the independence of the states that emerged after 1991, new international agreements, and the domestic legislation of each country. But I also always say that although our states are now different, the Motherland remains one. Our ancestors of all nationalities shed blood for him in the Patriotic War of 1812, in the First World War of 1914-1918, in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. This is a single civilizational and cultural space that cannot be destroyed by changeable political circumstances. In every state of this space, I feel like at home. I am sure that these are not only my feelings”. <...> I think that the Imperial House manages to contribute to the restoration and strengthening of relations between fraternal peoples, both within the Russian Federation and between present-day Russia and its closest neighbors” [5].

In a comparative analysis of the speeches of the Patriarch and the Grand Duchess, there is a consonance and mutual complementarity of their vision of the Russian world as a civilizational space that is not confined to state borders and national and confessional communities.

October 31, 2013, speaking at the XVII World Russian People's Council, held under the title “Russia is a country-civilization. Solidarity society and the future of the Russian people ", Patriarch Kirill said:" Today we have a different geopolitical reality: independent states have emerged in the vastness of historical Russia, many of which are also the heirs of Russia. Therefore, when I speak about Russia, I always mean this great civilizational space. <...> We reject the position of those who believe that Russia should be a country only and exclusively for Russians. But we will also never agree with those who want to see it as a “Russia without Russians”, devoid of a national and religious face, and has lost a sense of solidarity and unity. Such a scenario is fraught with catastrophic consequences not only for our state, but for the whole world. At the same time, I would like to emphasize that not a single person belonging to another nation in Russia should be limited in his rights and opportunities. One of the indispensable conditions for interethnic harmony should be, first, the implementation of the right of the peoples of our country to ethno-cultural development, in which the state-forming Russian people cannot be excluded from the process. And, secondly, the formation of a multinational civil and civilizational community, the awareness by all people belonging to different ethnic groups and peoples of their involvement in a single society, a single country, so that everyone can be proud of the fact that he is a citizen of free Russia” [4].

A similar position is voiced by the head of the House of Romanov: “The state-forming nation, of course, was and remains the Great Russians. This is a historical fact, and it is absurd to argue with such an obvious fact. But before the 1917 revolution, all the inhabitants of the Russian Empire, and not only the Great Russians, were considered Russians. By the way, all over the world this understanding has remained to this day. For foreigners, Russians are Ukrainians, Belarusians, Tatars, Uzbeks, Jews, Moldovans, Georgians, Armenians, and any immigrants from the USSR or descendants of immigrants from pre-revolutionary Russia. This has a deep positive meaning. Russians are not so much an ethnic as a spiritual and cultural concept, just as in ancient times the concept of "Roman" was not ethnic, but civilizational. If a person feels himself Russian, then he is, regardless of nationality” [5].

The head of the House of Romanov is convinced that the idea of the All-Russian civilizational space and the concept of the “Russian World” as its most tangible embodiment is beneficial in our time and has a long-term future: “I firmly believe that a single civilizational space continues to be preserved on the territory of the former Russian Empire, which in reality is much more valuable than state-political unity. Political unity can be ephemeral and vulnerable. The twentieth century has eloquently shown this. And civilizational unity, welded together by centuries of spiritual, cultural and social factors, is stronger, deeper and more significant. Both Russia and other sovereign states that emerged after the collapse of the USSR need to preserve and develop everything that brings peoples closer together and serves to maintain peace and stability” [1].

Comments (1)

1. Today, this difference remains only in the Church Slavonic language, accessible to specialists, clergymen and the most churchly members of the Russian Orthodox Church, but, unfortunately, unknown to the majority of the people.

2. In this sense, the expression "countries of the world" is used.

3.Mirians, in contrast to the clergy (clergy); the power of the world, in contrast to the power of the spiritual.

4. For example, "scientific world", "theatrical world".

5. “Another world” as a place of the afterlife, a parallel world, a virtual world.

6. The spiritual world, the inner world of the artist (poet, writer, etc.).

7. Liturgical Gospel (aprakos), copied in 1056-1057. Deacon Gregory for the Novgorod mayor Ostromir, a monument of ancient Russian writing.

8. Menaion for March, a monument of ancient Bulgarian writing.

9. "Pacem relin quo vobis, pacem illammeam do vobis" (Johan. 14, 27).

10. "Non prouf mundus dat, ego do vobis" (Johan. 14, 27).

11. "Mundum totum in illoimprobojacere" (I Johan. 5, 19).

12. Victoria, quae vicit mundum. (I Johan. 5, 4)

13. "Si mundus vos odit, scitis me prius, quam vos abillis odio habitum" (Johan. 15, 18)

14. “Ne diligite mundum, nes queea, quae in mundos unt. Si quisdiligit mundum, nonest charitas Patris in eo. Quo niam quicquidest in mundo, cupididascarnis, & libido oculorum, & fastus vitae, nonest ex Patre, sed ex mundo est. Porro mundus praeterit, & cupiditasipsius: qui veropraestat voluntatem Dei, manet in aeternum "(I Johan. 2, 15-17)

15. "Et ipse est propitiation pro peccatis nostris: nec pro nostris solum, sedetiam pro totius mundi peccatis" (I Johan. 2, 2)

 16. "Nempe, quia Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilianssibi, non imputandoeis offenses eorum, posuitque in nobissermonemillum reconciliationis" (II Cor. 5, 19).

17. One of the brightest modern illustrations of this approach is the film by M. Gibbson "Apocalypse". There was no peace among the half-savage tribes of the American Indians, and the display with deliberate naturalism of their brutal customs is obviously intended to some extent to justify the "peace" brought to America by whites - first Spanish and Portuguese, and then English and French - colonialists ... Indeed, in the end, this world of European origin gradually became more and more peaceful. Only on the way to it, most of the Indians, who for centuries lived in the absence of this world, disappeared somewhere.

18. Uprising organized by secret societies on December 14, 1825, or the uprising in the Kingdom of Poland in 1830-1831?

19. That is, corporations that have undoubted continuity from the moment of foundation, carry out their activities on the basis of historically established legal norms and therefore have sociocultural sovereignty (for more details, see A. N. Zakatov Socio-cultural sovereignty of historical institutions: origins and modernity // Values and senses. 2016. No. 1 (41). pp. 36–47).



1. Volkov K. Head of the Imperial House: "The accusers are looking for a speck in the eye of Russia" // Izvestia. 2014, 14.04. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: (date of access: 01/25/2017).

2. Dal VI Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language. In 4 volumes. T. 2. // M .: Progress Publishing Group. "Univers", 1994. Repr. ed. P. 912.

3. Kalaydovich KF Monuments of Russian literature of the XII century. M .: Printing house S. Selivanovsky, 1821. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: (date of access: 01/25/2017).

4. Cyril, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. Seven words about the Russian world. Moscow: World Russian People's Council. 2015.120 s.

5. Krylov-Tolstikovich A. N. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna: "Politics is the art of compromises" // Rossiiskie vesti. 2012. No. 4 (2078). [Electronic resource]. Access mode: (access date 25.01.2017).

6. Obolensky M. A., book. About the two most ancient shrines of Kiev: the relics of St. Clement and the cross of the Grand Duchess Olga. Kievite. M.: 1850. Book. 3.P. 144–147.

7. Complete Orthodox Theological Encyclopedic Dictionary. In 2 volumes. Vol. 2. Repr. ed. M.: Concern "Renaissance", 1992. P. 1571.

8. Message of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly, December 12, 2013: [site] .URL: (date of access: 25.01.2017).

9. Preobrazhensky A. G. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. In 2 volumes. T. 1. M.: State publishing house of foreign and national dictionaries, 1959. Repr. ed. S. 538-539.

10. Putin V. V. “The Russian world can and should unite everyone who cares about the Russian word and Russian culture, wherever they live, in Russia or abroad. Use this phrase more often - "Russian world" // Russian Federation today. 2007. No. 4. P. 158–159.

11. Dictionary of the Russian Academy 1789-1794. T. 1-6. T. 4. M .: MGI im. E. R. Dashkova, 2004. S. 145-146.

12. Trubachev ON Comparative historical study of languages of different families. The theory of linguistic reconstruction. Moscow: 1988. S. 197–222. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: (date of access: 01/25/2017).

13. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation “On the establishment of the Russkiy Mir Foundation”. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: (date of access: 01/25/2017).

14. Vasmer M., background. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. V. 4 t. T. 2. 4th ed., Erased. M.: Astrel-AST, 2007.S. 626.

15. Federal Law No. 99-FZ "On the state policy of the Russian Federation in relation to compatriots abroad."

16. La Bible de Jerusalem. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer. 1975.2172 p.

17. The Holy Bible King James Version. Referenceedition. Minsk. 2004.1766 p.