The Russian tradition of religious tolerance perception in the works of Russian thinkers of the XIX-XX centuries and modern realities

Zhukova Evgeniia Mikhaylovna Postgraduate student, Department of State-Confessional Relations, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration 119571, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Vernadskogo, 82, of. 6 korpus ev7zhukova@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Introduction

Today, the world is in an extremely unstable state. We are witnessing global changes – "tectonic" shifts in geopolitics, social and economic spheres. Some countries are experiencing a cultural and economic downturn, others are at the stage of a radical and sometimes painful rebirth, and others have entered a phase of intensive maturation. If 10 years ago conflicts could be enumerated point-by-point, now there is literally no place on the world map where there would not be any hotbeds of tension caused by uncontrolled migration, religious fanaticism, interethnic and interfaith hostility. Such a state of the planet, of course, has a serious impact on the consciousness of people even in relatively prosperous regions.

In search of the causes of this global crisis, the attention of many public and political figures and philosophers turns to modernization trends - rapid technological progress, literally changing the daily lives of billions of ordinary people, a permanent "cultural revolution", the object of reform of which was personal identity, the institution of family and marriage, the boundaries of permissible and unacceptable, etc. In the same list, you can include another important area of human life – religion. The revision of the attitude to religious teachings (in particular, to their moral values), the transformation, both at the official and at the household level, of relations between representatives of various faiths aggravate the already difficult socio-political situation.

Scientists and politicians consider one of the ways out of this situation to be a "return to the roots" – an appeal to basic traditions. In the case of Russia, religious tolerance can undoubtedly be attributed to such.

In the religious studies literature, there are two approaches to the interpretation of the concept of religious tolerance, which can be conditionally designated as cognitive-normative and cognitive-communicative. The first considers religious tolerance as a legal concept: here it appears either as a state principle that provides the necessary disposition between representatives of different faiths, or as an individual's right to profess a particular religion. A. Y. Bendin ^{[10, p. 21]}, M. S. Stetskevich ^{[69, p. 14]}, A.V. Pchelintsev ^[58] and others gravitate towards this approach. The second approach focuses on social relations: here religious tolerance is interpreted as a certain format of relations between the majority and the minority, a tolerant attitude to the views of a dissident, and ultimately – a kind of social mechanism for moderating interactions within a conflictogenic society.  This approach is followed by V. I. Garadzha ^[17], V. A. Tsypin ^{[83, p. 728]} and others. The works of individual researchers (I. N. Yablokov ^{[86, p. 347]}, M. O. Shakhov ^{[84, p. 960]}, etc.) combine both approaches.

The indicated approaches are certainly very fruitful for a certain range of tasks. However, both of them leave out of consideration the most important for our research – the humanistic dimension of religious tolerance, and prevent its study as an ethical principle. In this situation, it is quite predictable and natural to mix (sometimes up to identification) religious tolerance with such concepts as religious tolerance, religious pluralism, relativism, freethinking, ecumenism, multiculturalism, etc., which was discussed in detail in one of our works ^[31]. In addition, the cognitive-normative approach often restricts the existence of religious tolerance to the close confessional state, which, in particular, implies that it is impossible to talk about the religious tolerance of a secular state (which, for example, is modern Russia) in principle.

We believe that for the full disclosure of religious tolerance, its essential features, it is advisable to use an ethico-cultural (or ideal-ethical, that is, oriented to high cultural standards) approach, allowing, on the one hand, to address it as a principle (primarily ethical), and on the other – to consider a person first of all as a spiritual being, and already from these positions – as a social unit and a subject of law. An important difference between this approach and those mentioned above is also that religious tolerance can be considered as an ideal ethical principle, an internal regulatory in moral behavior in any life situations. The principle exists regardless of whether it is prescribed in the legislation, whether there are conflicts on religious grounds in society, etc.

In order to clarify the terminology used, we consider it important to clarify that it is in cultural traditions that morality in its original forms perceives a person as a carrier of the spirit ^[6]. Let's make a reservation that, according to V.I. Tolstykh, "tradition" means a way of being and reproducing elements of social and cultural heritage, fixing the stability and continuity of the experience of generations, times and epochs ^[77]. The crystallized facets of spiritual life and understanding of the highest meaning of life have been accumulating in the tradition for centuries ^{[15, p. 20]}.

Using an ethical and cultural approach, firstly, we will find out whether it is possible to talk about the existence of a Russian tradition of perception of the principle of religious tolerance; secondly, in case of a positive answer to this question, we will identify the features of this tradition and, based on it, we will try to build a theoretical model of this principle. In addition to the ethical and cultural approach, we also use a logical and methodological approach.

We emphasize that the focus of our attention (and, accordingly, the material for our generalizations) will be those and only those thoughts of Russian philosophers who are either permeated with religious tolerance, or analyze the phenomenon of religious tolerance itself. Opposing opinions, as well as plots of Russian history that can be qualified as examples of religious intolerance, are left out of the scope of the study. Recognizing the confrontation of different positions both in the literary heritage and in the history of the Russian state, we limit ourselves to the task of identifying the "connecting thread" between different views on the phenomenon of religious tolerance among authors of different eras.

Thinkers of Ancient Russia on religious tolerance

The idea of a tolerant attitude towards representatives of various faiths was present in the philosophical thought of ancient and medieval Russia for many centuries. In the works of the XI–XV centuries, this topic is touched on episodically and often casually. However, moral and ethical issues (attitude to people, to human life and death, to justice, etc.) were an indispensable component of many texts of that era. The adoption of Christianity at the turn of the X–XI centuries was of crucial importance for the culture of the Russian people during this period, which led to the appearance of a number of lengthy texts that give the modern researcher the opportunity to penetrate (or at least touch) with the worldview of a man of that era. In the works of Metropolitan Hilarion, Vladimir Monomakh, Daniel the Sharpener, Theodosius of the Caves, Athanasius Nikitin, etc. the theme of the attitude towards representatives of a different faith is traced.

A very special place among the literary monuments of the period under consideration is occupied by the "Word about Law and Grace" by Metropolitan Hilarion (XI century). The author pursued the idea of equality of all peoples and their mutual respect. The researchers note that the work is permeated with a broad universal universalism (in the Christian sense) ^{[45, pp. 10-22]}.

Another famous monument is the "Teaching of Vladimir Monomakh" (XII century). It is a testament-instruction to descendants. In it, Prince Vladimir Monomakh, based on his life experience, developed various topics, including those related to human relations. He urged people to refrain from revenge and cruelty, to act justly, to stand up for the weak and suffering, as well as all those whom society condemns. The attitude towards one's neighbor, according to the prince's instructions, is a correlate of the attitude towards God: "For who says: "I love God, but I don't love my brother," is a lie" ^{[56, p. 411]}. Vladimir Monomakh bequeathed to his descendants to observe these rules in dealing with people, thereby setting ethical standards, cementing the principles of mercy in society and the state ^{[49, p. 134],[49, p. 144]}. The moral sermon of the Grand Duke had to lie on the ground prepared by Christianity.

The legacy and sermon of St. Theodosius of the Caves (XI century), one of the first hegumens of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, is of interest. In his "Testament", the Monk Theodosius of the Caves said: "If you see someone naked or hungry, or in trouble, whether it's a Jew or a Muslim, be merciful to everyone, deliver him from trouble as much as you can, and you will not be deprived of God's reward, because God Himself in this century pours out His mercy not only on Christians, but also on infidels" ^[52].

In the XII century, another monument of ancient Russian thought was created – the "Prayer" of Daniel the Sharpener. Its author praised the generosity of Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich of Pereyaslav-Suzdal, comparing him to a bird that takes care of both its own and other people's chicks ^{[46, p. 298]}. This indicates that the orbit of attention of the addressee of the "Prayer ..." included not only his compatriots, but also representatives of other nations (and therefore, in particular, representatives of other faiths).

Hagiographic (hagiographic) literature can be rightfully attributed to the heritage of Ancient Russia. The life told about the life and deeds of the righteous, which were based on humanity, mercy, recognition that man is a particle of God ^{[1, p. 56]}.

The state in its most ideal form is described in the "Legend of the City of Kitezh" ^{[85, pp. 81-82]}. It was assumed that there would be no greed, corruption, etc. in this city. This work echoed the legend of Belovodye, which became known much later – in the XVII century; justice and religious tolerance should have triumphed in this country ^{[36, pp. 404-405]}.

The period of the XV–XVII centuries became a period of intensive political and cultural development for the Russian state. At this time, various works related to travel, the so-called "walks", appear. But perhaps the most famous work of this kind was "Walking across Three Seas" by the Tver merchant Afanasy Nikitin (XV century), who visited the Caucasus, Turkey, Crimea, Persia, India. Contacts with representatives of various religions, apparently, had an impact on the traveler's worldview and led to a broader, synthetic perception of people's religious life ^{[81, p. 28]}. D. S. Likhachev noted that Afanasy Nikitin's statements are permeated with extraordinary religious tolerance ^{[46, p. 304]}.

The high degree of openness of the Russian people to the "alien" culture noted by researchers indicates that they have no fundamental attitudes to "preserve" their own traditions and their willingness to accept and understand the "other" without losing their original identity ^[20]. This susceptibility is indicated by such ancient texts as the collection "Bee" (no later than the XII century.) ^{[22, p. 6],[22, p. 69]} – one of the main sources of information about ancient Greek philosophy and political thought of antiquity in Russia, as well as ABC books (XIII–XVIII centuries.) – the most important sources, containing information of an encyclopedic and educational nature, showing the general cultural accumulations of the country, including interest in foreign religious and philosophical concepts.

In addition, translated works were one of the indicators of openness. Thus, the ancient Russian novel "Alexandria" (ca. XV century.), which existed in five editions, told about Indian wise men, ascetics, "Rahmanah" (iskazh. "brahmanas", the Indian class of priests), about the meeting of Alexander the Great with them. Eastern teachers explained to the commander that it is impossible to win the favor of people by force, only justice and wisdom are able to do this, because they are based on love. The ideas of Indian philosophical teachings were also found in other sources, for example, in the "Zosima's Walk to the Rahmans" (no later than the XIV century), which spoke of righteous people living far to the East, in a place that looks like paradise on earth.

Already in the XVII century, the capital of the Russian state, Moscow, was called "shining Athens" ^{[36, p. 417]}, since many cultural and art figures flocked here. On the one hand, Russia was a mediastinum between the West (Europe) and the East (Asia), and therefore volens nolens got acquainted with various traditions. On the other hand, the adoption of Christianity, which put unconditional love for one's neighbor at the forefront, regardless of one's religious affiliation, played a huge influence on the formation of attitudes towards the "other". It should be noted that such a broad interest in the achievements of other peoples could not develop without experiencing and searching with them, a sense of unity (at the level of internal spiritual requests) with representatives of various traditions. Through book culture and life experience, the Russian people came into contact and absorbed natural science, artistic and religious-philosophical samples born in different countries and sometimes in a distant era. Many generations have formed a corresponding attitude towards man and society, life and death, etc. All this was deposited in the spiritual baggage of the Russian people and later served as the basis for more crystallized ideas.

Russian philosophers on religious tolerance

From the end of the XVII century. – the first half of the XVIII century. a new page in the history of Russia opens, associated with Peter's transformations. Science, engineering, literature, art – all spheres of society's activity received a new powerful impetus at this time. Thinkers of this period addressed the topic of religious tolerance on a qualitatively different level. It was at this time that the design of the concept of religious tolerance refers.

Let's pay attention to the legacy of those authors of the early XVII – mid XX centuries who made a significant contribution to Russian culture, were important figures in the socio-political and cultural history of the country. Moreover, out of the whole multitude of such figures, we will single out those whose works simultaneously contain two components necessary for the disclosure of the stated topic: firstly, reflections on religion and religious tolerance, unfolding, including through comparison (and sometimes opposition) of the Russian experience with foreign; secondly, plots related to history and/or the future (mission) Of Russia.

The thinker of the Petrine era and the period of palace coups V. N. Tatishchev believed that for the well-being of any state and people, harmony and love are needed, and not enmity and hatred leading to ruin. In his works, V. N. Tatishchev cited the example of European countries, Germany and England, showing that the presence of only two faiths in a state (approximately the same in their influence) is a less stable construction than one in which there are three or more faiths. The state, in his opinion, should create laws, take actions that contribute to such a harmonious coexistence. In the Russian state, V. N. Tatishchev noted, representatives of different faiths live – Christians, Muslims, pagans, etc. They have different relationships: they can live in the same city, conduct trade among themselves and jointly carry out public service – to guard the state border, participate in the suppression of internal uprisings ^{[51, p. 29],[70, p. 86-88]}.

A. N. Radishchev is a philosopher mainly of Catherine's time, the author of the famous "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow", in which the contours of the future Russia are outlined. According to the author, there is no serfdom in it, humanity flourishes, religious tolerance prevails, there is no place for religious prejudices and superstitions ^{[33, p. 69],[57, p. 27]}.

According to the concept of the thinker I. S. Aksakov, a well-known representative of the Slavophile movement, religious tolerance, naturally present in Christian teaching, is not equivalent to "faithfulness", indifference to faith, rejection of one's faith. The philosopher spoke about the humanity and religious tolerance of the Russian people, expressing confidence that in principle there could not be the intolerance that was observed in medieval Europe. This, according to I. S. Aksakov, is evidenced, in particular, by the five-century coexistence of Jews and the Christian population in the west of the Russian state ^{[2, p. 100],[3, p. 17]}.

Another philosopher, the Slavophile Yu. F. Samarin, also addressed the topic under discussion. Analyzing the differences in the historical paths of the Russian state and Europe, he highlighted an important difference: if England and France conquered and enslaved the population in different parts of the world, the Russian authorities followed a different line of behavior. By rejecting the Western model of "winner–loser" relations, Russia managed to avoid those social, religious, internecine wars that would destroy the integrity of the state. Yu. F. Samarin considered religious tolerance and receptivity to be the main features of the Russian character. He gave these features the status of state-forming and state-protecting ones ^{[63, pp. 453-457],[65, p. 176]}. We find the same observations in the work of A. S. Khomyakov: "They (Russians – E. Zh.) are not able to feel aristocratic contempt for other tribes, but everything human finds in them harmony and sympathy... The Russian looks at all the peoples, delimited in the endless borders of the northern kingdom, as his brothers" ^{[82, p. 152]}.

The ideas of religious tolerance were also considered in the philosophy of K. N. Leontiev, who adhered to conservative views. He distinguished between "New European humanity", which aims at personal well-being and love for man, the impulse of which is a feeling for God ^{[11],[43, p. 109]}. This feeling, which gives its bearer strength, can be experienced even to the enemy (meaning the reflection of an external military invasion), for example, in the form of mercy, forgiveness. But love, in his opinion, should not look like hypocrisy or ingratiation, it should be a sincere impulse of the soul ^[44].

For Leo Tolstoy, the idea of religious tolerance was closely connected with the categories of love, life, faith. Only those who love can find the meaning of life. At the same time, such a person should experience not a personal (animal), but a superpersonal feeling. It is the latter that is true and is directed to representatives of various faiths ^{[19, p. 46],[25, p. 228],[74, p. 323],[74, p. 389],[76, p. 802]}. The meaning of life is service to humanity. The philosopher believed that it was necessary to educate the people, to teach them the basics and ethics of various religions – Zoroastrianism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc., and their humanistic essence is significant in understanding religions ^{[73, pp. 292-293],[75, p. 7]}.

The Russian philosopher and writer F. M. Dostoevsky considered the relations between representatives of different confessions (mainly between Orthodox and non-Orthodox) in the context of the political situation of those times, but also emphasized the ethical component of these relations. He compared Russia's international activities with the behavior of an infinitely patient mother. The reason why the states trust Russia so much and ask for help, the thinker saw that in it, unlike the European world, there is no desire to extract their own benefits everywhere. She is guided by philanthropic motives, which, according to F. M. Dostoevsky, are predominant in relations within the state: "the faith of a Tatar never... Russian Russian has never humiliated, has never oppressed or persecuted ..., nowhere in the West and even in the whole world will you find such a broad, such humane religious tolerance as in the soul of a real Russian person" ^{[29, p. 46],[29, p. 102-103],[29, p. 127]}.

The outstanding surgeon, philosopher-cosmist N. I. Pirogov addressed the topic of religious tolerance. He reflected on the existence not only of individual thinking, but also on the presence of another, more perfect world thought, which determines the unity of all mankind. Side by side with these arguments were thoughts about the expediency of world processes, the diversity of forms, including religious ones. Religious faith for him is a deep need of the human soul, which does not tolerate any violent interference ^{[50, p. 187-188],[53, p. 39],[53, p. 163]}. He believed that if someone "sincerely loves people", then it would not be difficult for him to show friendliness to a gentile ^{[53, p. 454],[54, p. 436]}.

According to the Russian philosopher V. S. Solovyov, in the matter of religious tolerance, it is necessary to follow the "primordial universal principle of morality": "don't do to others what you don't want to yourself." Only humanistic ideas, humanity and enlightenment will lead the world to a state of happiness, the philosopher believes. The ruler who embarked on the path of eradicating the "objectionable" religion will be no better than Charlemagne, on whose orders the famous Verdun massacre (782 AD) was arranged – the murder of about one hundred thousand Saxons who resisted their forced conversion to Christianity ^{[68, pp. 658-659]}.

The Russian philosopher I. A. Ilyin perceived religious tolerance as one of the elements that serve to unite the state and prevent its dismemberment. According to the philosopher, Russia should not repeat the experience of Europe and split into many states: "Russia should not have turned, like Western Europe, into a "bed-and-breakfast" system of small states with their outposts, customs and eternal wars" ^{[35, p. 23]}. And, bringing the topic to the level of spiritual issues, he added: "Russia is an organism of nature and spirit – and woe to the one who dismembers it!" ^{[35, p. 21]}.

One of the founders of Russian cosmism, N. F. Fedorov, believed that in a world where "unanimity expressed in a common, all-fatherly cause" would be achieved, there would also be religious tolerance, understood by the philosopher as "the denial of any quarrel over beliefs, over thoughts" ^{[80, p. 386]}. In disputes and discord, he saw the childish state of humanity, its religious imperfection. N. F. Fedorov believed that people's consciousnesses would not be so limited in understanding religions and the world in general if people knew how to love, would keep a sense of unity ^{[64, p. 284],[79, p. 97]}.

Another representative of Russian cosmism, N. K. Roerich, conceived religious tolerance as the focus of the best human qualities – the ability to accommodate and forgive, respect for everything that exists, mercy, generosity, trust, "omniscience", readiness for infinite knowledge, creativity, humanity. According to the artist, reciprocity and responsibility flow from religious tolerance ^{[60, p. 387]}. Thanks to her, an opportunity opens up for building a favorable future. The thinker condemned intolerance, calling it an "inquisitorial spirit" ^{[40, p. 119-123]}, a "dark generation" ^{[55, p. 113]}, stupidity, hatred of cooperation ^{[59, p. 487],[61, p. 112-116]}.

The Russian philosopher N. A. Berdyaev (1874-1948) believed that religious tolerance is "a loving and careful attitude to every human soul, to its inner spiritual life, to its individual path" ^{[13, pp. 184-187]}. In his concept, the human soul approaches God in its own special, unique ways, while experiencing suffering, spiritual struggles, passing life lessons, accumulating certain experience ^{[13, p. 184]}. Intolerance and fanaticism, according to N. A. Berdyaev, have religious origins. A fanatic is like a jealous man who suspects everyone of treason and betrayal, looking for conspirators who oppose his faith ^{[12],[13, p. 188]}.

Finally, the Marxist-Leninist philosophy, which played a significant role in the life of Russia, deserves special consideration. For the main ideologist of this philosophy in Soviet Russia, V. I. Lenin, the aspirations and interests of the common people, first of all, the proletariat and the peasantry, were the main thing. Therefore, the ideological and political attitudes of the leader in the field of educational and cultural-educational work were derived from his attitude to the corresponding classes. This naturally resulted in his tolerant attitude towards representatives of the most diverse confessions of Russia. The Bolsheviks' socio-economic strategy was to eliminate the exploitation of man by man, to endow the previously oppressed classes with real instruments of power and creative energy, as well as to form a strong link between the new authorities (Soviet, party structures) and the working masses. At the forefront was the normalization (in the Marxist sense of the word) of the entire complex of ties and relations in society, the organic consequence of which was to be the actualization of humanistic principles, including religious tolerance. V. I. Lenin believed that "the deepest source of religious prejudice is poverty and darkness; we must fight this evil" ^{[42, p. 186]}.

V. I. Lenin's closest associates in the field of cultural and educational work were V. D. Bonch-Bruevich, an informal expert on sectarianism in the Bolshevik environment, thanks to whom contacts were made and the policy of the Soviet government towards Russian religious minorities was formed, as well as A.V. Lunacharsky, People's Commissar of Education of the RSFSR, an expert in literature, art, history, in including the history of religion. Both of them, like V. I. Lenin, adhered to the principle of religious tolerance, believing that it was necessary to fight ignorance ^{[14, p. 40-41]}, that it was important to instill in people an interest in science, give them moral and artistic education, and introduce them to cultural ^{[48, p. 452]}. For example, A.V. Lunacharsky was a supporter of public discussions with representatives of various faiths ^{[4, p. 84],[4, p. 96]}. A.V. Lunacharsky insisted that aggression on religious grounds, which was quite clearly manifested in European countries, where for many years there was a "monstrous enmity" ^{[48, p. 449]}, unacceptable for Russia. He was distrustful and critical of the century of the foreign liberal-bourgeois world that followed this war ^{[48, p. 449]}. How these principled attitudes of the founders of the Soviet state are consistent with the reduction in the number of churches observed since the late 1920s and the repressions of the 1930s against clergy and religious activists, as well as the question of whether (and if so, to what extent) these processes in the USSR can be considered a manifestation of religious intolerance, - topics for a separate, large research project that historians, religious scholars, and lawyers have yet to implement.

The idea of internationalism – the desire to unite representatives of various nationalities and religions into a single fraternal family on the basis of their attitude to work, exploitation, etc. - can be considered a natural development (or, rather, a refraction through the prism of Marxism) of the Russian tradition of religious tolerance. Note that these thoughts were expressed by V. I. Lenin back in 1905: "Jew and Christian, Armenian and Tatar, Pole and Russian, Finlander and Swede, Latvian and German – all, all go together under one common banner of socialism. All workers are brothers, and in their strong union the only guarantee for the good and happiness of all working and oppressed humanity" ^{[41, p. 81]}.

Summing up the presented analysis, we can state the following. Russian thinkers have demonstrated various approaches both to the concept of "religious tolerance" itself and to the corresponding (pro) phenomenon. All of them linked them with the problem of man (his essence, his attitude to his neighbor, his place in society) and humanity as a whole, various social issues, the theme of love, justice, forgiveness and morality, and, in addition, with the problem of the state structure, the way of the country, its tasks on a global scale, etc. Namely, we can talk about: an approach based on expediency, in which national and social utility are the key ones (V. N. Tatishchev); an approach based on the common interests of citizens (A. N. Radishchev); an approach in which the separation of the functions of the state and religious associations comes to the fore (I. S. Aksakov); an approach in which religious tolerance is considered as a state-forming and preserving element (Yu. F. Samarin, I. A. Ilyin); an approach where "moral love" lies at the basis of relations between people (K. N. Leontiev); an approach that focuses on the relationship between man and humanity (L. N. Tolstoy); a geopolitical approach in which religious tolerance is a superpersonal quality (F. M. Dostoevsky); an approach that focuses on the spiritual "constitution" of each person (N. I. Pirogov); an approach based on reciprocity, i.e. the thesis of the inadmissibility of actions against other people that a person considers unacceptable according to in relation to oneself (V. S. Solovyov); an approach based on the unification of people and aspirations (N. F. Fedorov); an approach based on the concept of cultural universals (N. K. Roerich); an approach based on the recognition of the value of the individual spiritual path of a person (N. A. Berdyaev); a Marxist approach (V. I. Lenin, V. D. Bonch-Bruevich, A.V. Lunacharsky).

Note that some of these thinkers, namely F. M. Dostoevsky, L. N. Tolstoy, N. I. Pirogov, V. S. Solovyov and N. K. Roerich, can be united on the grounds that they all somehow adhered to a holistic view of the world. Using various philosophical and artistic images, they approached the idea of the fundamental unity of humanity, that humanity as such is a single organism. The natural consequence of this attitude was an absolute rejection of all kinds of clashes on religious grounds, which these philosophers saw not only useless, but also contrary to Nature itself.

The National Corpus of the Russian language on "religious tolerance"

As an interesting addition to the voiced conclusions, we found it important to analyze the features of the use of the term "religious tolerance" in Russian-language texts of various genres dating back several hundred years. This can be done by referring to the materials of the National Corpus of the Russian language, URL: https://ruscorpora.ru / (hereinafter referred to as NKRYA). To date, it has accumulated works created in the period from 1776 to 2021.

A lexical and grammatical search of the NKRR yielded 342 examples of the use of the word "toleration" in 219 texts dated 1824-2020. During this almost 200-year period, there have been moments of increasing and decreasing frequency of the use of the word "religious tolerance". In the XIX century . the appearance of this word is noticeably more frequent in 1871-1876 . (9 texts), 1880-1887 (13 texts) and 1891-1899 (18 texts). A surge of interest in the topic of religious tolerance is recorded in 1901-1912 (50 texts), in the first post-revolutionary years (1918-1928, 13 texts), as well as in the second half of the 1930s (1934-1940, 8 texts). Further, for almost half a century, the topic of religious tolerance in the texts of the NKR is practically not touched upon (for 1941-1988 there were only 9 texts). Since the late 1980s, the term under discussion has been constantly present in the texts of the NKRJ: conditionally delimited periods of more intensive use of the term are recorded here - 1989-1998 (13 texts), 1999-2007 (57 texts) and 2009-2013 (9 texts).

Most of these "waves" in one way or another can be correlated with events in the state-confessional, religious and political life of Russia (the change of the emperor, the adoption of relevant laws, etc.). In addition, the NCRA makes it possible to clarify the semantics of the term "religious tolerance", its connotations and features of contexts of use. In view of the fact that we associate the formation of the Russian tradition of the genesis of the concept of "religious tolerance" with the period XI – ser. In the twentieth century, we studied the texts of the NKRR that appeared before the mid-1960s. There were 132 such texts in total, which is 60% of the total array of NKRR texts in which the word "religious tolerance" is used. It should be noted that this list includes half (47%) of those authors of the last quarter of the XVIII – mid-XX centuries, whom we have identified as the most prominent exponents of the Russian tradition of the genesis of the concept of "religious tolerance" (N. A. Berdyaev, V. D. Bonch-Bruevich, F. M. Dostoevsky, K. N. Leontiev, N. I. Pirogov, V. S. Solovyov, L. N. Tolstoy). The analysis of these 132 texts led us to the following conclusions:

1. The term "religious tolerance" is used in almost all cases (98.5%) in connection with religion, and only occasionally (1.5%) in a figurative sense (for example, due to differences in scientific interpretations of poorly studied biological processes, a variety of approaches in theatrical art).

2. None of the selected authors reveals the exact meaning of the term "religious tolerance". This is not surprising, since the NCRA included mainly artistic and journalistic works, documents of personal origin, texts of laws, etc. Nevertheless, we find some clarifications of the concept in three texts, namely: K. P. Pobedonostsev has the idea that religious tolerance is "an indifferent attitude to all beliefs" (1904); the opposite point of view was expressed by P. A. Stolypin, who believed that "religious tolerance is not yet indifference" (1909); Archpriest V. P. Sventsitsky, speaking of the "complete religious tolerance" of the Roman authorities to peoples of all kinds of beliefs who flocked to Rome, regarded it as a manifestation of "cynical indifference to matters of faith" (1927).

3. More than half of the texts (54%) mention religious tolerance in connection with the history of Russia/About a quarter of the texts (27%) discuss its presence/absence/role in connection with other countries and peoples; in the remaining texts (19%) religious tolerance is considered in a general philosophical and general cultural context, without reference to any specific peoples, states or epochs.

4. Slightly less than half of the texts (45%) do not give any assessment of the phenomenon of religious tolerance as such – whether it is important for society, etc. As a rule, it is: 1) newspaper publications that briefly report on certain events and processes caused by changes in the sphere of state-confessional relations; 2) fragments of texts that relate to internal political transformations and touch on the topic of religious tolerance in passing.

Other texts (55%) containing estimates of religious tolerance, in the first approximation, can be divided into three groups of different sizes. The first, the largest group of texts (94%) recognizes the beneficence of religious tolerance, its importance and necessity for society, including the Russian one. The second, which is 6%, expresses doubt about the expediency of religious tolerance or even indicates its harm to Russia. As an example of such texts, one can cite the work of the Russian (mainly emigrant) politician V. F. Ivanov "Secrets of Freemasonry" (1934), in which he developed the idea that religious tolerance is an instrument of the Masons, thanks to which they bring schisms into the Christian church. Russian Russian fascists note that V. F. Ivanov preached extreme nationalist ideas, and in the 1920s he headed a cell of the Russian Fascist Organization in Shanghai, which was later transformed into the Russian Fascist Party. Thus, these texts of his, as well as several works by other authors, which make up the mentioned 6%, can be attributed to marginal for Russian religious-philosophical and socio-political thought.

5. On the question of whether religious tolerance is characteristic of Russia, its people and/or sovereigns, the NCRA issues various opinions with a confident predominance of affirmative answers (not all the 132 texts of the NCRA studied by us are meant, but only those in which this question is specifically raised). Let's clarify our statement. The first group of texts (about 15%) draws attention to various facts indicating the absence of religious tolerance in Russia or its specific/limited nature. For example, it is said that in some periods repression against dissidents "went alongside religious tolerance" (S. F. Platonov, 1898-1899); that Nicholas II opposed the "Duma law on religious tolerance" (P. N. Milyukov, 1921); that "freedom of religion has been restricted in Russia for centuries" (Mitr. Evlogiy (Georgievsky), 1935-1940), etc.

However, the majority of texts (85%) speak about the existence of religious tolerance in Russia. The proximity of two opposing views has the following explanation. If in the first group the authors apparently adhered to "ideal" ideas about religious tolerance, then the second group, presumably, proceeded from synchronous realities (primarily European) and drew their conclusions as a result of comparisons of religious life in Russia and abroad. In our opinion, insufficient attention is paid to this fundamental point when analyzing and evaluating the nature of interfaith and state-confessional relations in Russia during the period under review.

Here are just three examples from the second group.

"Do you know how foreigners call Nevsky Prospekt? Tolerance Street (Toleranz-Strasse). And indeed, I do not know of any city in Europe in which there are so many churches of various faiths on one street" (F. V. Bulgarin, 1824).

"... nowhere will they help the unfortunate so willingly as in our fatherland, which is justly revered as a model of religious tolerance, hospitality and tranquility" (F. V. Bulgarin, 1829).

"The Russian people are extremely tolerant. Russian Russian freedom of conscience, that is, the right of every person to pray and believe as his conscience tells him, has always been the symbol of faith of all the best Russian people in full accord with the spirit of the entire Russian people" (V. P. Sventsitsky, 1919).

Thus, religious tolerance is a topic that has regularly arisen in the works of Russian thinkers. Its relevance was due to a number of reasons. Firstly, the geographical scope of Russia, in which for many centuries numerous peoples who professed completely different religions got along. And secondly, the neighborhood with Europe, which is equally diverse in religious and national composition and, nevertheless, has failed, unlike Russia, to become a single state. The regularity of addressing the topic of religious tolerance allows us to talk about a certain Russian tradition. Despite the different approaches, the thinkers who adhered to it explicitly or implicitly expressed the same idea – about humanism as the foundation and essence of religious tolerance. Revealing various facets of this phenomenon (compassion, receptivity, forgiveness, etc.), they actually talked about religious tolerance as an ethical category. Moreover, in the philosophers' arguments about the importance of religious tolerance for the state and society, there are motives that allow us to talk about the perception of religious tolerance as a fundamental ethical principle important for an individual, his spiritual growth and for the world as a whole (which, by the way, testifies to the beginnings of the ideas of globalization).

Theoretical model of religious tolerance

This brings us to the question of what elements (virtues, qualities, ethical laws) can be associated with the concept of religious tolerance. The final part of the article will be devoted to identifying these elements. Moreover, in our analysis we will rely not only on the works of the "bearers" of the tradition that we have identified (F. M. Dostoevsky, I. A. Ilyin, V. S. Solovyov, L. N. Tolstoy, etc.), but also on works that reveal their ideological positions or talk about ethical principles in general (A. A. Huseynov, M. L. Gelfond, A. F. Losev, E. A. Tahodi, etc.).

So, it was shown above that the "core" of religious tolerance is humanism, which is understood as love for a person and respect for his perception of the image of the "sacred", "supreme" (God, the Absolute, the images of the founders and outstanding ascetics, etc.), as well as his feelings and actions in relation to this image. Humanism, or philanthropy, is the opposite of misanthropy. The sacred is understood as a category that denotes the property of an object, which translates it into the category of objects of exceptional significance, of enduring value and on this basis requires reverent attitude ^{[29, p. 962]}. Let's make a reservation that in this case there is no question of Satanism, since it involves the rejection of compassion.

"Superpersonal" love is a feeling that a person feels not for a narrow (his own children, relatives, etc.), but for a fairly wide range of people ^{[25, p. 228],[74, p. 388-389]}. Such love is associated with dedication, with indifference to "other people's" children, peoples, states. At the same time, the concept of "alien" completely dissolves ^{[74, p. 385]}, but the concept of "neighbor" gradually expands the area of its application. And helping one's neighbor does not imply illusions of a possible future, but an effective tense state in the present ^{[74, p. 388],[88, p. 76]}, leading to the good for all mankind ^{[18, p. 43],[74, p. 389],[87, p. 152]}, unity of people, the creation of qualitatively new relations between them ^{[47],[71, pp. 132-133]}. One of the important elements of the concept of religious tolerance is the "golden rule of morality". It says: "Do not act towards others as you would not like them to act towards you." It is believed that this is a formula of a person's attitude to other people or a moral norm that has the quality of universality and opens up the prospect of cooperation, and in order to apply it, an individual needs to put himself in the place of another ^[23],[24].

It is possible to distinguish such aspects of morality as the power of reason over affects; striving for the highest good; good will, disinterested motives; the ability to exist in a human community; humanity or a social (human) form of relations between individuals; autonomy of will; reciprocity of relations manifested through the golden rule of morality. An indicator of good will is the ability to take actions that are not based on a selfish motive (benefit) ^{[28, pp. 13-20]}. The "golden rule of morality" is otherwise called the principle of justice. One who does not want to experience the horrors of war should not expose another to it. Justice is connected with mercy, compassion, altruism ^{[66, pp. 165-169],[68, pp. 657-660]}. In addition, justice acts as a kind of common moral denominator of social relations; it corresponds to morality in projection on the social sphere, helps to formulate an answer about the meaning and purpose of being together in society and the state ^[26].

Reciprocity is associated with the "golden rule of morality", sometimes it is even called the rule of reciprocity ^{[28, p. 17]}. The latter is the basis of cooperation. Cooperation, in turn, is closely related to creation. The lack of reciprocity leads to lies and deception, its enemy is selfishness ^{[60, p. 387]}. Egoism, on the other hand, is the desire for isolation, when a person feels like a separate particle of the universal whole and asserts this private being in egoism ^[67]. When there is reciprocity, violence is impossible. It is associated with responsibility ^{[60, p. 387]}, which falls on a person with a heavy burden if he refuses to act in the creative direction of reciprocity. Hence, another responsibility arises – the result of awareness of the importance of preserving humanity, the importance of every human life. Such responsibility generates a desire for unification, which is based on the idea of humanity as a single organism ^{[74, p. 374]}. Everything is interconnected, people do not exist separately from each other, and their actions have an impact on the whole world, and therefore, by hurting someone, an individual makes the whole of humanity suffer, including himself ^{[76, pp. 561-562]}. Within the framework of such ideas, the meaning of life is described as service to humanity, manifested in any work that an individual chooses at one stage or another of his path and by which he benefits people regardless of the type of social work, physical or intellectual ^{[72, p. 414]}.

The good is affirmed in overcoming the disunity of people, in their desire for harmony, mutual understanding. Goodness and kindness are expressed in mercy, love, while evil and malice are expressed in violence, hostility ^{[28, p. 194]}. Charity is an active good, or rather, an attitude manifested in a person's actions, the content of which determines the value of his existence in the world. A merciful act can be one in which respect for another person, recognition of human dignity is embedded ^{[21, pp. 37-38]}. Humanity (or humanity) in a broad sense is synonymous with morality and can be deciphered as love for a person, doing good to him ^{[27, p. 439]}. Attention should be paid to one more trait – susceptibility to other cultures ^{[30, p. 43],[38, p. 270]}. It is the ability to understand the deep essence and purpose of the peoples of the world, their traditions, understanding the importance of preserving their identity; the ability to selfless actions in relation to these peoples that would provide them with security and the opportunity to develop ^{[29, p. 46]}. In addition, it promotes the continuity of cognition, the accommodation of the "other" ^{[78, p. 150]}. Receptivity is associated with attention to people, openness, caring for them, the ability to penetrate into the sensory sphere of a person, understanding how he can be helped at one time or another ^{[32, p. 86]}.

Assistance, in turn, is impossible without patience, which in turn manifests itself in peacefulness, cooperation ^{[55, pp. 101-102],[37, p. 295]}. Patience acts as work, as humility, as a quality that positively affects the inner state of a person, it reveals his ability to accept certain realities. Humility is the opposite of pride. It is not associated with cowardice, connivance, or laziness ^{[9, p. 120]}. If you take away this quality from an individual, then everything will turn into "nothingness" – loyalty, modesty, humility, love, compassion, and forgiveness ^{[34, p. 129]}. Forgiveness is understood as a refusal to take revenge for an insult or damage caused, as well as cordial reconciliation ^[7]. Another important trait – selflessness – is considered as a prosocial orientation of the individual (respectively, self–interest - as antisocial). This orientation is revealed through caring appeal to people, love, altruism, selflessness, service to other people, generosity ^{[39, p. 19]}.

Altruism deserves a separate discussion, which is usually understood as a moral principle that prescribes selfless actions aimed at the benefit of other people. In its essential content, the principle of altruism is imprinted in the commandment of love, it is a special case of mercy and is the opposite of egoism ^[5]. Altruism is aimed at achieving the common good. Striving for the common good forms the basis of human solidarity, cultivates mutual respect and a sense of belonging to the social whole ^{[62, p. 5]}. At the same time, respect can be understood as one of the important aspects of human relations. In particular, a special type of respect is distinguished – for human dignity, which equalizes people, as well as for the potential for development ^{[8, p. 188]}. In turn, human dignity is considered as the basis of morality, which consists in the belief and belief in the high purpose of man. Beauty and a sense of beauty are conditions of human dignity, they serve to elevate it and are the basis of goodness, morality" ^{[16, p. 74]}.

So, the core of religious tolerance is humanism; the orbit of religious tolerance includes a number of elements that reveal it: the "golden rule of morality", accommodation, forgiveness, respect for everything that exists, mercy, compassion, kindness, generosity, trust, attention, infinity of knowledge, the desire to unite, creativity, humanity, receptivity, reciprocity, responsibility, cooperation, selflessness, openness.

Of course, the list of elements present in the described model is not exhaustive. Further identification of the virtues that Russian philosophers include in the orbit (semantic field) of religious tolerance could expand this list. However, taking into account the fact that we have attracted all the main publications of the selected authors on the stated topic, such additions will be exclusively clarifying in nature and will not make any fundamental adjustments to the model we have built. Even taking into account the noted incompleteness (in detail) of the model, we can say that the listed elements taken together give a comprehensive idea of religious tolerance as an ethical principle, allow us to look at state-confessional and interfaith relations (relations in society as a whole) not only as a socio-political phenomenon, but also and as an ethical and cultural phenomenon.

We emphasize the theoretical nature of the proposed model. Just as in the case of many concepts of philosophy and political science ("legality", "justice", "state", etc.) we have ideal constructions that combine both established practice and images of the desired, in our case, the constructed scheme is, on the one hand, a reflection of real historical experience (the part of it that is associated with manifestations of religious tolerance), and on the other hand, a kind of extrapolation of this experience into the realm of the ideal.

Conclusion

The appeal to the philosophical heritage of Russian thinkers testifies to the presence of a certain tradition in the interpretation of the concept of religious tolerance. On the one hand, they saw religious tolerance as an important factor consolidating Russia. On the other hand, a characteristic feature of their approaches is the consideration of interfaith and state-confessional relations in the context of ethical issues (unlike, say, Western European thinkers, who discuss these topics mainly in connection with the legal status of a person or group). In addition, in Russian philosophy, these questions often arise in connection with reflections on the fate of Russia, its role on the world stage and its historical mission. And this is no coincidence, since the Russian state is unique precisely for its multi-confessional and multinational nature. The comprehension of this experience is so important for understanding the path of the country that it cannot but lead to reflections on the national idea.