"Monopoly on truth" in religion and science. The most famous cases of persecution of science and scientists

Genetics, cytology, ethology, theory of relativity, sociology, psychoanalysis and ecology. Why were these sciences declared “bourgeois pseudosciences” in the USSR?
In the late 40s and early 50s of the 20th century, groups of scientists arose in physics, biology, mathematics, astronomy, and chemistry who argued that certain scientific theories were idealistic and should be corrected or replaced by materialistic teachings.
In August 1948, the famous session of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences named after Lenin took place. The meeting, the composition of participants and speakers of which was carefully selected, recognized the biological teaching of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko as the only correct one. A pogrom of genetics began in the USSR. Biologists were kicked out of work and put in prison. The new teaching claimed that rye could give birth to wheat, and a fir tree could give birth to birch.
Trofim Denisovich Lysenko after his election as an academician of the All-Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, 1934

Groups of party scientists sought to displace established theories that had been tested in numerous experiments. So, in April 1951, a meeting on cosmogony was held in Moscow solar system, which stated that “the crisis and confusion in foreign astronomy reflects the contradictions of a decaying capitalist society.” Foreign astronomical theories were rejected as idealistic.
Ideological censorship caused serious damage to the development of science in the USSR
Materialist physicists, as they called themselves, planned to physical sciences transformations that in form, essence, depth and scale would be similar to the recent transformations in biology.
One of the main objects of their criticism was Einstein's theory of relativity. The materialists recognized that Einstein’s formula for the relationship between mass and energy was confirmed by experience and underlies the calculations of nuclear reactions, but, nevertheless, they declared the entire teaching false.
Another object of their criticism was the “views of the Copenhagen school” in the physics of the microworld. In fact, all quantum mechanics was rejected. The theory of probability, in particular the concept of “mathematical expectation,” was also criticized.

Lysenko's speech in the Kremlin. Behind him (from left to right) Kosior, Mikoyan, Andreev and Stalin, 1935
Why were “bourgeois pseudosciences” banned?
Genetics
The party's concern for science was, first of all, to bring the scientific picture of the world into line with the ideology of dialectical materialism and communist slogans. Genetics argued that each personality is unique and inimitable, and that many not only physical, but also mental qualities are determined from birth and are only partially amenable to environmental influences and external correction. Dialectical materialism assessed scientific theory not from the point of view of its correspondence to facts, but from the point of view of the prevailing philosophical dogmas and compliance with the atheistic worldview.
Genetics invaded the ideological spheres and went against the existing picture of the world according to Marx and Lenin. Lysenko: “Genetics is the corrupt girl of imperialism.”
Cytology
Cytology (the science of cells) studies how living cell, and how it performs its normal functions. A cell contains chromosomes, and chromosomes contain genes. Genes are studied by genetics, and genetics is the “corrupt girl of imperialism.” Therefore, cytology should also be prohibited. This is the logic.
Ethology
Until the mid-1960s in the USSR, ethology was essentially banned and was considered a “bourgeois pseudoscience,” and human ethology retained this status until the 1990s. Why? Because the reasons for the leaders’ behavior become too obvious. And these reasons do not always turn out to be moral and humanistic...
Another reason why Konrad Lorenz, the founder of ethology, and science itself were banned was the scientist’s participation in World War II on the side of the Nazis (as a result of which he was even captured in Russian captivity). Although the second “father” of ethology, the Dutchman Nicolaas Tinbergen, participated in the Resistance and was imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp for this.


Nikolaas Tinbergen (left) and Konrad Lorenz, 1978
Einstein's theory of relativity
In fact, the theory of relativity could not be banned because it was necessary to create the atomic bomb. It was used in practice, but in words Einstein's ideas were declared “false.” The result was the so-called “dualism” in Soviet science: the theory was considered erroneous, but was actively applied in life.
Einstein's views were "untenable, anti-scientific and hostile to science."
Sociology
During the Soviet era, the ban on sociological theory stemmed from her opposition to Marxism-Leninism. Since it was believed that this doctrine was Soviet sociology (the government wing of sociologists in the 60s and 70s of the 20th century also believed so), it was forbidden to develop any other theory. A ban was introduced on the study of basic problems of society, power and property, not to mention dozens of specific topics, ranging from stratification (social inequality) to sex.

Ivan Dmitrievich Ermakov - one of the pioneers of psychoanalysis in the USSR
Psychoanalysis
Initially, psychoanalysis experienced a period of rapid prosperity in the early 1920s, when Ivan Dmitrievich Ermakov opened the State Psychoanalytic Institute and published translations of the works of Freud and Jung. Then it was rejected as a “bourgeois teaching” and practically did not develop. Why? Because the fundamental subject of study of psychoanalysis - unconscious motives of behavior originating in latent sexual disorders - did not fit in with the conscious struggle of the oppressed proletariat against capitalist exploiters. And anyway, what kind of s*x?! It did not exist in the USSR.
Genetics, psychoanalysis and ecology were declared “bourgeois pseudosciences.”
Ecology
There was also a taboo on ecology in the USSR. These sciences objectively showed a noticeable lag behind the “country of victorious socialism” from the “decaying West” in many parameters of quality of life, including such fundamental ones as public health and quality environment. Therefore, human ecology not only did not develop, but its very existence in the Soviet Union was condemned in every possible way. On the basis of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, would-be theorists argued that human ecology is a “bourgeois pseudoscience” that is based on false concepts and is a variant of social Darwinism. But the principles underlying human ecology gradually made their way, and, in the end, it won its place in modern Russian science.

1 Representatives of the modern Orthodox Church are trying to hide the reactionary activities of this church in the past and its struggle with education and science. They argue that the persecution of education and science in Russia, if it existed, was of an accidental nature, and that the church never denied the need and benefits of education and science. Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy A. Ivanov, during a meeting in 1956 with representatives of the US church, in his report “Christian Faith and Modern Science” assured that both faith and science each have their own special area and do not interfere with each other. Professor of the Leningrad Theological Academy L. Pariysky, in a report on the same topic, argued that religion cannot contradict science, since, in his words, “the Bible and nature are two books written by God and intended for man.” A representative present at the meeting did not agree with such praise of the church. church organizations USA Dr. Boyle. He reminded his Orthodox colleagues of the recent history of the Church, when science and scientists were persecuted as threatening religion 2 . Other representatives of the Orthodox Church did not deny the reactionary role of this church in the history of the cultural development of the Russian people, but said that the Orthodox Church was forcibly placed in the service of the autocracy, which oppressed the church, forced the creation of a dogma about the divine origin of royal power, and that the preaching of the reaction was carried out at the insistence autocracy.

In reality it was not like that. The Church, in alliance with the autocracy, persecuted the enlightenment of the people and instilled ignorance and obscurantism. The Enlightenment was used to justify serfdom and the exploitation of the people. The government and the church tried to prevent the spread of literacy, to educate the people in the spirit of devotion to the autocracy and religion, to lead them away from revolutionary struggle. Orthodox Church recognized only such enlightenment that was based on religion. Enlightenment, not sanctified by the beneficial influence of religion, its representatives said, is more harmful than useful. Being hostile to the education of the people and the development of domestic science, the church was often the initiator of persecution of the most talented scientists and progressive teachers. She slowed down the development of education and science and sought to destroy the books of leading scientists.

Already in ancient Rus' the church acted as a persecutor of education and science. At church councils XIV - XVII. indexes of banned books were reviewed and approved. The oldest church monument, the Helmsman's Book, was punishable by a church curse for reading such books. Books recognized as harmful were proposed to be burned on the body of the person on whom they were found. Books that came from the West were especially hated by the spiritual authorities. In an effort to preserve intact the dominant religious ideology, which sanctified the serfdom and exploitation of the people, the spiritual authorities fought against the penetration of Western European ideas into Moscow, destroyed books brought from there, and brutally executed the distributors of these ideas and the keepers of banned books. Under Ivan III, for keeping and reading foreign books in Moscow, Prince Lukomsky was burned in a wooden cage along with the translator Matthias Lyakh, accusing them of sorcery and evil intent. At the same time, the foreign doctor Anton Ehrenstein was executed as a sorcerer who knew evil spirits, and in 1580, during the reign of Ivan IV, the foreign court doctor Bomelius was burned as a “fierce sorcerer.”

Intolerance towards education and science was manifested by the spiritual authorities in the 17th century. Under Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, they wanted to burn the Dutch paramedic Quirinus on charges of sorcery. Boyar Artamon Sergeevich Matveev was accused of witchcraft in 1676 for his passion for books and exiled to the Pustozersky Monastery. When organizing the “hotbed of enlightenment” - the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy - in 1687, it was entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring that foreigners did not produce “disturbances” to the Orthodox Church. The inquisitors of the academy were supposed to burn heretical, fortune-telling and “blasphemous” books, and those guilty of distributing them were to be brought to the “city” court for punishment.

In the 18th century, strengthening the power of the feudal landowners, the government hid behind the then fashionable slogan of “enlightenment.” But the government and the ecclesiastical establishment continued to treat education with extreme hostility, persecuting progressive thinkers and scientists. Already at the beginning of the 18th century. It was proposed to interrogate the authors and distributors of writings against the church, “cleanse” them, and send them to the Synod with questioning speeches. Even the Academy of Sciences was not free from the vigilant control of church representatives. They checked its publications, looking for passages in them that were “dubious and contrary to Christian laws, government and good morals.” At their insistence, in 1743, the astronomical calendar published by the Academy of Sciences was confiscated, in which spiritual censors managed to find information about the planets “prone to tempting the people.” They also objected to the publication of Russian chronicles undertaken by the Academy of Sciences - this most valuable source for the study of Russian history. According to reviews of spiritual censors, the chronicles contain “many obvious lies.”

The great Russian scientist M.V. Lomonosov, whose research undermined the foundations of religion, also aroused the hatred of the Synod and the clergy. Lomonosov rejected the church teaching about the immutability of nature and its creation by God. “It is in vain to think,” he wrote, “that everything, as we see, was first created by a creator. Such reasoning is very harmful to the growth of sciences. It’s easy to be a philosopher by learning three words: God created it this way, and giving this in response instead of all reasons” 3. Lomonosov ridiculed the stupidity and ignorance of the clergy who opposed science. In 1740, on the initiative of Lomonosov, a book by the French scientist, academician Fontenelle, “Conversation on the Many Worlds,” was published, which presented in a popular form the scientific data of astronomy, which ran counter to religious myths about the creation of the world. The Synod recognized Fontenelle's book as “against faith and morality”; the book was confiscated and destroyed. Irritated by M. V. Lomonosov’s speeches against religion and the church, the Synod wanted to prevent him scientific activity. He demanded that Lomonosov's works be burned, and that Lomonosov himself be sent to the Synod “for admonition and correction” 4 . The attacks of the Synod did not intimidate Lomonosov; he continued to insist on freedom scientific research, demanded that the clergy “not become attached” to science and not scold scientists in their sermons.

In 1756, Moscow University wanted to publish the philosophical poem “An Essay on Man” by the outstanding English writer Alexander Pope (1688-1744). In this book, the author opposed medieval scientific views about the structure of the universe. Naturally, this caused sharp attacks from spiritual censors, who found in the book “the evil ideas of Copernicus about the multitude of worlds, contrary to the Holy Scriptures,” and the book was banned. The “correction” of the book was entrusted to the Moscow Metropolitan Ambrose. He remade Pope's poem, replacing the verses that spoke of the many worlds and the Copernican system with his own poems. The book was published in this distorted form in 1757.

A progressive scientist, professor of mathematics at Moscow University, D. S. Anichkov (1733-1788), who in 1759 published a dissertation “Discourse from natural theology on the beginning and origin of worship of God among various, especially ignorant peoples,” was subjected to persecution by the spiritual authorities. Anichkov rejected the divine origin of religion and accused the clergy of ignorance and charlatanism. A review of Anichkov’s dissertation was given by Moscow Metropolitan Ambrose. The book was recognized by him as “harmful and seductive.” At his insistence, Anichkov’s book was publicly burned in Moscow at Lobnoye Mesto. Another professor at Moscow University, I. Melman, for his criticism of religion and the church, following the denunciation of Moscow Metropolitan Plato, was removed from teaching and sent to the Secret Chancellery, where he was tortured. Then the scientist was exiled to East Prussia. In a fit of madness, he committed suicide.

The hatred of the ecclesiastical department was caused by the activities of the outstanding Russian educator N.I. Novikov, who managed to short term publish many books in all branches of knowledge. The books were harshly criticized religious fanaticism and superstition. Following a denunciation by Pyotr Alekseev, archpriest of the Moscow Archangel Cathedral, Novikov was arrested, and the books he published were confiscated. For his oppositional attitude to the autocracy, for active educational activities and criticism of religion and the church, Novikov was imprisoned as a dangerous state criminal in the Shlisselburg fortress, from where he came out only 15 years later, after the death of Catherine, who hated him.

Another outstanding Russian writer, A.N., did not escape the tenacious clutches of spiritual inquisitors. Radishchev, author of the famous “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow.” Radishchev was a materialist; he believed that matter and nature exist forever, that they can neither be destroyed nor created. Radishchev defended the unity of soul and body and criticized religious views on the immortality of the soul, condemned royal despotism and religious superstitions. Radishchev's views were found "contrary to God's law, the Ten Commandments, the Holy Scriptures, Orthodoxy and civil law." Radishchev’s book was destroyed, and he, as a “rebel worse than Pugachev,” was sentenced to death penalty, which was replaced by 10 years of hard labor. More than a hundred years have passed, and again this book of the materialist writer was condemned by the church. In 1903, spiritual censors found that Radishchev’s book was still dangerous for religion and the church, that it undermined the authority of secular and spiritual authorities. At the request of the churchmen, the entire circulation of the book was destroyed.

The French bourgeois revolution of 1789 frightened the autocracy and landowners. Fearing the penetration of revolutionary ideas into Russia, the autocracy intensified censorship repressions. In many cities, censorship committees were organized with the participation of representatives of the ecclesiastical department. These committees were real inquisitorial tribunals. They burned “harmful” books at the stake, persecuted their authors and persons suspected of possessing these books. Not content with the activities of these inquisitorial tribunals, the Synod organized in 1797 a special spiritual censorship, which was granted the broadest powers. Spiritual censorship invaded all areas of science, literature, social and political life, and tried to completely suppress everything progressive. She laid her hand on everything that was even remotely related to religion.

The talented books of French materialist philosophers, who exposed the reactionary essence of religion, were met with particular hostility by the ecclesiastical department. Already from the 80s of the 18th century. Churchmen fought against the spread of these ideas. The ecclesiastical department published literature in which it criticized the ideas of Voltaire and materialist philosophers, and sought the confiscation and burning of their works. The persecution of these works did not stop in the 19th and 20th centuries. Thus, in 1868, in Voltaire’s work “Philosophy of History,” spiritual censors found “mockery of the truths and a refutation of the Holy Scriptures.” At their insistence, this work of Voltaire was destroyed. In 1890, Voltaire’s “Satirical and Philosophical Dialogues” were destroyed, and in 1893, his poetic works, in which “anti-religious tendencies” were found 5 .

The same fate befell the works of the “luminary of godlessness,” an outstanding representative of pre-Marxian materialism and atheism, Denis Diderot (1713-1784). Starting from the end of the 18th century, the spiritual authorities sought to prohibit and destroy not only his philosophical, but also artistic works. The atheistic treatises of Holbach (1723-1789) also aroused the hatred of the ecclesiastical department. His famous book “The System of Nature” was considered one of the most terrible books and was rightly called the “bible of materialism.” Back in 1770, this “hellish book” was set on fire by Catholic inquisitors and since then it has been repeatedly banned in Russia. Even in 1898, fearing the “hellish” effect of this book, which, according to spiritual censors, destroyed the fundamental principles of religion, spiritual inquisitors insisted on its destruction. They also dealt with the book of the English materialist philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) “Leviathan,” which Catholic inquisitors included in the list of harmful books back in the 17th century. and had her publicly burned. After 200 years, she was condemned by Orthodox inquisitors. They recognized Hobbes’s book as “contrary to the Holy Scriptures and the Orthodox Church” and achieved its burning in 1874. For speaking out against the church and feudal ideology, they destroyed in 1871 the book “On Man” by another outstanding materialist philosopher of the 18th century. - Helvetia.

In the second half of the 19th century. due to the growth revolutionary movement Extremely reactionary measures were taken to protect the autocracy. To strengthen the influence of the clergy in the field of educating the people, a wide network of parochial schools was organized. They were supposed to raise their children in the spirit of devotion to the autocracy, the Orthodox Church and the so-called “Russian people”.

The parochial school was seen as an addition to the church. In her program, the main place was occupied by church subjects - the law of God, the Church Slavonic language, church singing, and divine services. Day after day, the children were taught that the Tsar’s power was given by God, they were told about the “chosenness” of the Russian people, and religious intolerance and national enmity were preached. During Russian language and history lessons, priests convinced children that God is the creator and provider of the world, to whom children should be imbued with love and gratitude. The textbooks of progressive teachers - K.D. Ushinsky, I.A. Khudyakov, V.P. Vakhterov were “expelled” from church schools, since, according to the reviews of spiritual censors, they interfered with the development of religious feelings. They were replaced by anti-scientific textbooks compiled in a religious-monarchical spirit. To the secular primary schools The spiritual authorities were extremely hostile, calling them “an instrument of corruption of the people.” The clergy accused these schools of being infected with “anti-religion” and “immorality”; they tried to turn the peasants against them and force their closure.

The parochial school did not satisfy masses. The peasants compared this school to a smokehouse lamp that lets in dim light. As the Bolshevik Pravda wrote in 1912, “the peasant masses greedily sought knowledge, broad knowledge that would give answers to the questions posed by life” 6 . But the church school did not provide this knowledge. Under the influence of Bolshevik ideas about enlightening the people, peasants spoke out against church schools. They stopped giving them money and demanded the opening of secular schools, as well as the separation of church and school. In response to these demands, the government and the ecclesiastical department intensified the terror in the field of public education.

Advanced teachers tried to expose the lies of the religious interpretation of natural phenomena and give children the rudiments of a scientific understanding of the world. But these attempts met with opposition from the clergy. Church representatives wrote denunciations against progressive teachers and sought their dismissal. They said: “It is better for the children to remain ignorant people, but good Christians and faithful sons of the Tsar and the Fatherland, than to be literate, but filled with the poison of the revolution” 7. The school's propaganda of Darwinian ideas aroused particular hatred. The priests instilled in the children that Darwin was an apostate who rebelled against the Holy Scriptures, that Darwin's theory was heretical, since it contradicted the Bible. The priests forbade the use teaching aids- paintings on geography, zoology, even a globe, because school should develop not the mind, but the heart and religiosity.

Speaking in State Duma against the allocation of funds for the maintenance of theological schools, the Bolsheviks exposed the reactionary activities of the Orthodox Church in the matter of educating the people. They said that the priests were trying to educate downtrodden slaves in school, to darken the people's consciousness, that the peasant, like the worker, needed not a priestly, but a genuine education. They called parochial schools “slaughterhouses” and demanded that they be handed over to museums as monuments of popular ignorance that befuddled the people in the interests of the autocracy towards the church.

Reactionary goals were pursued by the autocracy in high school as well. Students were brought up “in the spirit of the truths of religion, respect for property rights.” Ancient languages ​​and God's law left no time for natural sciences. The writer A. Serafimovich, recalling his student years, wrote: “We were strangled in the gymnasiums by Latin, Greek, the law of God, they crushed us with everything, just to strangle us.” living soul" 8

The spiritual authorities hoped that teaching the law of God would save students from religious indifference and unbelief. Therefore, the law of God was considered the main subject; it was taught in all classes, starting with preparatory school. Other objects were also used for religious education school curriculum- Russian language, history, law, etc. Church representatives extolled the importance of the Orthodox Church in the history of Russia, praised the “love” of the clergy for the people, and said that the Russian people were allegedly characterized by a special religiosity. They obscured the role of class struggle in the history of society and incited national and religious hatred.

Religious ideology at school was enforced by police measures. Teachers were required to support anti-science religious views. Study of natural history and others exact sciences, the priests said, has a negative effect on the morality of young people. Salvation from unbelief was seen in the propaganda of religious ideologists. Students and teachers were required to regularly go to church, confess, and take part in church services, in the church choir. They were under constant surveillance; students who neglected church duties were expelled from school as unreliable. Progressive teachers who tried to introduce living word, introduce students to genuine science.

The dominance of religious views caused protest on the part of students; it manifested itself especially strongly during the first Russian revolution. The students refused to attend church services and fast, insisted on excluding the law of God from the school curriculum, and destroyed Philaret’s “Catechism”, which they hated. They openly showed disrespect for priests and demanded the removal of the most reactionary of them from schools. Despite the “classical nightmare” and police terror that dominated the school, Darwin’s teachings and revolutionary ideas began to penetrate into the school. Students began to understand that religion and the church support autocracy and that priests - worst enemies people. A negative attitude towards the church and religion appeared among students. This caused increased terror on the part of the spiritual authorities, especially after the suppression of the Russian Revolution of 1905. Trying to expel the revolutionary spirit from the school, the ecclesiastical department began to strengthen the “churchiness” in it. The school once again reigned supreme religious ideas about the origin of the world and man, everything that contradicted the religious idea of ​​the world was excluded from the school curriculum. In the language of the priests, this was called the fight against “moral flabbiness.”

In the 60s of the XIX century. In connection with the development of capitalism in Russia, the need for literate workers arose. Sunday and evening schools began to emerge, where progressive teachers taught workers to read and write, introduced them to the basics of science, as well as the ideas of revolutionary democrats. The government closed these schools, considering them breeding grounds for revolution. In their place, new schools were opened, the control of which was entrusted to the priests. Instead of science, religious obscurantism was installed here. Undesirable teachers who brought genuine knowledge to the people were expelled by the churchmen with the help of the police. However, despite the atmosphere of detective and terror, Sunday and evening schools, with the assistance of progressive teachers, often turned into centers of propaganda for revolutionary Marxism and contributed to the awakening of class consciousness among workers.

Angrily condemning the policy of the autocracy and the church against the enlightenment of the people, A. I. Herzen wrote: “They do everything so that wherever a person turns, before his eyes there would be either an earthly executioner or a heavenly executioner, one with a rope, ready to end everything, the other with fire, ready to burn all eternity” 9.

Instead of books that would give the people knowledge, the spiritual department published in large quantities books and brochures designed to corrupt the people, to distract them from the class struggle. Capitalizing on the people's craving for knowledge, the spiritual department contributed to the publication of the lives of the “saints,” as well as books and painted paintings depicting events from the Old and New Testament history, with scenes of the Last Judgment, hell and torment of “sinners.” Such literature flowed into the villages in a muddy stream, filled the libraries of the people, was bought with their labor pennies and poisoned the people's consciousness.

There were very few popular science and fiction books. The government and the church believed that the development of literacy and the love of reading corrupted the people, contributed to the growth of materialistic ideas and the development of the revolutionary movement. In the 60s of the XIX century. The publication of Jules Verne's fascinating novel "Journey to the Center of the Earth" was banned. Spiritual censors found that this novel could develop anti-religious ideas and destroy confidence in the Holy Scriptures and the clergy. In 1886, at the insistence of church representatives, a book by the famous French astronomer C. Flamarion, “The World Before the Creation of Man,” was vetoed; it supposedly refutes the biblical stories about miracles and the creation of man and undermines religious foundations 10 . Spiritual censors were equally hostile to Robert Koch’s book “Nature and Humanity in the Light of the Doctrine of Development,” in which the famous scientist introduced readers to discoveries in the field of natural sciences. In 1893, the book of the outstanding scientist G. N. Getchinson “Autobiography of the Earth” was included in the list of prohibited books and they achieved its destruction.

As class consciousness and revolutionary struggle grew, the persecution of popular science literature intensified. Even in 1905, representatives of the censorship department and the clergy said that popular science literature was harmful to the people, since it supposedly gave little knowledge, taught superficiality, and corrupted the people's soul. They demanded the prohibition of popular science literature and the expansion of the publication of church, so-called religious and moral books and brochures. But such literature did not satisfy the masses, who greedily sought education. “Do you know,” wrote the St. Petersburg “Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class” in an appeal to Russian society in 1896, “that in Russia there is no other environment that would be full of such a thirst for knowledge? Light, knowledge, give us the opportunity to learn, give us the opportunity to read, - the persistent voices of the working people can be heard" 11 .

Fearing the enlightenment of the masses, the government and clergy carefully monitored libraries for the people. These libraries were replenished mainly with books of religious and moral content, and the works of the best Russian writers - Saltykov-Shchedrin, Ch. Uspensky, Nekrasov, Korolenko, Chekhov, Shevchenko and others were not allowed into them. As one worker wrote in Iskra, libraries primarily provided books that dulled the worker and instilled in him religious views. The workers, however, were against popular publications and priestly instructions, all kinds of priestly rubbish.

The spiritual department considered reading fiction a sin, because it saw it as a threat to religion. The ecclesiastical department tried to prevent the spread of fiction, seeking its prohibition and destruction. When the complete works of N.V. Gogol were published in 1853, many passages that were found offensive to the church were excluded from his works at the request of the spiritual authorities.

Spiritual inquisitors caused many griefs famous writer M. Zagoskin. Moscow Metropolitan Filaret found a “mixture” of ecclesiastical and secular subjects in Zagoskin’s works, and to please Filaret, the author had to thoroughly remake his works so that they could see the light of day 12 . N. S. Leskov also suffered from spiritual censorship. When his collected works were published in 1889, spiritual censorship “torn apart” the sixth volume, which contained works from the life of the clergy. The entire circulation of the book was destroyed. Talking about the reprisal of “thick-bellied priests” over his book, Leskov called this reprisal “vile arbitrariness and autocracy on the part of every scoundrel” 13 .

For the literary activities of L.N. Tolstoy was personally monitored by the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod Pobedonostsev. At his insistence, many of Tolstoy’s works, as being contrary to the teachings and spirit of Christianity, did not see the light of day in their time. Back in 1901, the Synod achieved a ban on Tolstoy’s novel “Resurrection” for “disrespectful comments about the Orthodox Church and Christianity.” Maxim Gorky was subjected to persecution by spiritual censorship, who was accused of placing the body rather than the spirit at the center of his works, thereby undermining the religious foundations of society.

Orthodox censors, like Catholic inquisitors, treated with great hostility the works of progressive foreign writers who exposed the reactionary essence of religion and the obscurantist activities of its ministers. The works of the great German writer Heinrich Heine, “The Book of Songs,” “Gods in Exile,” and others, were considered blasphemous and destroyed at the insistence of spiritual censorship. Even in the last pre-revolutionary full meeting In the works of G. Heine (1904), many passages that “undermined” piety were excluded. The spiritual authorities imposed a ban on many works of outstanding French writers: Postav Flaubert, Anatole France, Emile Zola, Henri Barbusse and others. “blasphemous and blasphemous” thoughts and mockery of Christianity were found in them. In 1908, one of A. France’s best works, “Penguin Island,” was confiscated, and in 1914, the novel “Rise of the Angels” was confiscated. These works of A. France were included by the Catholic Church in the lists of prohibited literature back in 1922 14 .

Representatives of the church dealt no less cruelly with folk spectacles and the theater. In the 17th century they took it from the people musical instruments- domras, sumras, gudki, harps and burned them in the squares. In XIX-XX her. spiritual authorities compared the theater to opium and achieved a ban on organizing shows on the eve of holidays and Sundays, and for visiting the theater during Lent they were threatened with excommunication and church curse. The spiritual department made sure that the plays did not contain criticism of religion, not only Christian, but even pagan. At their insistence, entire pages were deleted from plays and opera librettos because they allegedly offended the religious feelings of believers. Thus, Gogol’s comedy “The Inspector General” suffered for its mocking attitude towards religion and the church; A. Rubinstein's opera "The Demon" - for provisions incompatible with the teachings of the Orthodox Church (the libretto had to be redone at the behest of spiritual censors); drama by L. N. Tolstoy “And the Light Shines in the Darkness” - for criticism of the Orthodox Church. The ecclesiastical department in 1910 achieved a ban on its production.

The spiritual authorities were hostile to advanced science and its best representatives. Fearing that the development of natural science and the spread of materialistic ideas would undermine the foundation Christian religion- belief in the immortality of the soul, spiritual authorities fought against the spread of these ideas. In 1866, a wonderful book by the Russian scientist I.M. Sechenov, “Reflexes of the Brain,” appeared, in which religious ideas about man and his soul were exposed. At the insistence of spiritual censors, this book “for presenting the most extreme materialistic views” was recognized as harmful and it was arrested. They wanted to exile the author to the Solovetsky Monastery “for humility and correction.” But public attention was attracted to the book by I.M. Sechenov, and, fearing to arouse special interest in it, the censorship department was forced to lift the arrest from it. However, the work of I.M. Sechenov continued for a long time be on the list of prohibited books. The author of the book was counted among the “unreliable” and was forbidden to give lectures to the people 15.

Against development national science There was also Moscow Metropolitan Filaret. He condemned the lectures of the outstanding Russian naturalist K.F. Roulier (1814-1858), who defended materialistic principles in biology, and accused him of undermining faith in the biblical myths about the creation of the world. The persecution of an outstanding scientist led to his premature death 16. Another outstanding scientist, historian, professor at Moscow University T. N. Granovsky, was also persecuted by Filaret. He was accused of having a harmful influence on students because in his history lectures he did not mention the role of divine providence in the historical process. The works of the outstanding representative of Russian materialism A.I. were under censorship ban. Herzen, who in passionate and angry words exposed the reactionary essence of the Orthodox Church, its defense of the autocracy and landowners, and the church’s hostile attitude towards the development of domestic science. In 1893, an attempt was made to publish the works of A. I. Herzen in Russia, but out of four thousand pages of his works, more than three thousand were erased by censorship, and the publication did not see the light of day. The reason for the ban, as the defenders of the spiritual department wrote, was “the atheism of A. I. Herzen and his social ideas.” Representatives of the spiritual department, seeking to ban the works of A. I. Herzen, published dirty little books against him, in which they called Herzen “an apostate and an enemy of the Christian faith, an opponent of Orthodoxy.”

The spiritual authorities greeted with great hostility the teachings of the great English scientist Charles Darwin, the founder of the materialist doctrine of the origin of species, which dealt a crushing blow to religion. Darwin and his followers undermine the foundations of religion, leaving no room for morality. The works of Charles Darwin were persecuted and destroyed. In 1890, an attempt was made to introduce Russian readers to a book that popularized Darwin’s ideas: “Charles Darwin and His Teachings.” Spiritual censors called this book “a catechism of materialistic negation.” religious ideas" She was banned. In 1895, Charles Darwin’s book “The Descent of Man and Sexual Selection” was banned for its materialistic nature. Russian readers also did not see Sydekum Albert's book about the life and teachings of Darwin. It was recognized as anti-religious and destroyed 17.

Fighting against Darwin's teachings, spiritual authorities did not limit themselves to banning Darwin's works, books and articles that popularized his views. They spoke out against Darwinism in their sermons, published articles in magazines, and books directed against Darwin and his teachings. Calling Darwin's teachings “blasphemous,” they tried to prove his “unscientific” nature and accused Darwin of destroying morality. Spiritual censors wrote that there is a most serious, most fundamental contradiction between evolutionary theory and Christianity, that Darwin’s teaching denies what constitutes the very essence of religion.

Spiritual censorship also condemned the materialistic ideas of Ernest Haeckel (1834-1919), the greatest German scientist, naturalist and follower of Darwin. In his writings, Haeckel denounced idealism and church obscurantism, revealed the reactionary role of the church, exposed religious superstitions, and called church leaders “unscrupulous charlatans and deceivers.” At the insistence of the clergy, Haeckel's works were blacklisted. Thus, in 1873, Haeckel’s work “The Natural History of the Universe” was banned, which subverted the foundations of religion, especially because the author developed in it a materialist doctrine of the universe and, as spiritual censors believed, mocked biblical tales about the origin of the world and man. In 1879, his “History of the tribal development of organisms” was also included in the lists, which outlined evolutionary theory; the book was burned. In 1902, E. Haeckel’s world-famous book “World Riddles” was also burned. For its merciless criticism of idealism and clericalism, for “impudent attacks against the highest objects of Christian veneration,” this book was blacklisted back in 1916. 18

The greatest materialist of the pre-Marx period, Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), was also considered the most dangerous enemy of religion. Feuerbach's works “On the Essence of Religion”, “History of New Philosophy”, “Theogony”, “Thoughts on Death and Immortality”, “The Essence of Christianity” were considered by censors to be destructive for religion and Christianity, since they criticized the biblical stories about the creation of the world and man , life on earth, the immortality of the soul, the religious worldview was exposed. Back in 1907-1910. at the insistence of spiritual censors, Feuerbach's works that undermined the foundations of religion were destroyed. Fearing the destructive power of the philosopher's ideas, the censorship department, which defended the interests of the Orthodox Church, did not allow Feuerbach's views to be presented even in magazine articles.

The great ideas of scientific communism aroused the anger and hatred of the government and spiritual authorities, especially during the period of intense class struggle. Pointing to the enormous revolutionary power of the great ideas of Marx and Engels, which called on the proletariat to fight the exploiters, tsarist officials and representatives of spiritual censorship always noted the atheistic nature of these ideas. In 1888, for materialistic views, a ban was imposed on the work of F. Engels “Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of the German classical philosophy" 20 years later, this work of Engels was again banned. In 1914, Engels’s work “The Principles of Communism” was banned, and in 1915 the work “From Classical Idealism to Dialectical Materialism” was declared “blasphemous”; the entire circulation of this book was destroyed 19. The spiritual authorities could not forgive Engels for his materialistic views and his exposure of the reactionary role of religion and Christianity, as well as his exposure of the social roots of religion. The collection of works of the founders of scientific communism was also subject to prohibitions: churchmen rightly believed that these immortal works had an incendiary effect on the minds of readers.

The Orthodox Church, as we have seen, treated science, especially materialistic science, with implacable hostility. Thus, Kharkov Bishop Ambrose wrote in 1901 that the development of science leads to an increase in unbelief. He called progressive scientists “the most dangerous enemies of the church” 20. Another bishop, Innocent, called for abandoning the scientific worldview and returning to faith 21 . Obscurantism emerged with particular force during the period of the first Russian revolution. The clergy were ready to put on the stake and scaffold everyone who did not share their reactionary views on science. Thus, Moscow Bishop Nikon accused Moscow professors in 1905 of ruining youth and involving them in the revolution 22 . St. Petersburg Metropolitan Anthony Vadkovsky also joined this point of view.

Trying to substantiate the doctrine of God as the creator and ruler of the universe, representatives of the church attacked first of all the principle of the materiality of the world. They also denied the objective nature of the laws of nature, its eternity. God, they say, defeats the laws of nature, therefore miracles are possible. The Bible was declared to be the only source of wisdom and knowledge, and religion was declared to be the only criterion of truth; the scientific worldview was rejected as contrary to this criterion; any knowledge that goes against religion was considered pseudoscientific and false. The clergy tried to convince the people that science has not brought any benefit to humanity, that it is fruitless and meaningless, and is not needed for practical life. Thus, the clergy turned the people against science and its progressive representatives.

However, the church could not prevent the development scientific ideas, the victorious spread of materialistic science in Russia. She was forced to adapt to the new times. Now the churchmen have declared that there is no contradiction between science and religion, that natural science and Social sciencies do not refute revelations and miracles, but are consistent with them. By falsifying scientific data, the clergy began to prove that modern natural science confirms biblical tales about the creation of the world, that evolutionary theory does not reject the dogmas of the Christian church (the creation of man, his fall and redemption), that the development of natural science does not at all lead to atheism and is not dangerous for religion, that science and religion can live in union with each other. The Church began to fight genuine science with more subtle methods. Religion, they say, does not contradict science, but protects it; “sound” scientific knowledge gets along quite well with sincere faith. By preaching the need to reconcile religion and science, the clergy sought to distract the masses from the revolutionary struggle.

Progressive representatives of Russian society waged an irreconcilable struggle against clericalism and obscurantism, against reactionary politics church and tsarism in the field of education and science. Bolshevik Party fought against religion and the church as one of the main pillars of the autocracy. However, under autocracy this struggle could only have a limited scope. Only after the conquest of power by the proletariat in October 1917 did it become possible to truly educate the people and the victorious march of science in the name of the happiness of the people.

We sought to show in what forms the inquisitorial activity of the Orthodox Church manifested itself. As we have seen, already in ancient Rus' the Orthodox Church fought against anti-feudal movements that took on a religious guise - the Strigolnik heresy, the Novgorod-Moscow heresy, etc. The Church theoretically justified the need to apply “fierce executions” to heretics and church rebels and tried to transplant them onto Russian soil morals of the Catholic Inquisition. Like their Catholic brethren, Orthodox inquisitors spread and supported among the people the belief in the existence of evil spirits. The trials of witchcraft and the persecution of schismatics are “worthy” of emulation by the Spanish inquisitors.

The widespread search and trial of schismatics was carried out with the direct participation of church bodies specially created for this purpose. Under the banner of the struggle for the purity of Orthodoxy, mass terror was carried out against schismatics using the “city” court against them. One of the forms of protest against this terror was their mass self-immolation.

Orthodoxy was implanted among non-Russian peoples using inquisitorial methods. The New Epiphany office left the darkest memory of itself. Her activities were the cause of numerous popular unrest. Forced Christianization is the main method colonial policy autocracy, which set itself the task of Russifying the peoples of non-Russian nationality and destroying their national culture.

Burning at the stake, hard labor, deprivation civil rights, exile and persecution are the means of defense Orthodox faith. Under the guise of preserving its “purity,” religious intolerance was instilled. Conversion from Orthodoxy to other religions was severely punished. In tsarist legislation there was a whole system of punishments to combat freedom of conscience. It was initiated by the spiritual department. Apostates and disobedients were “educated” in monastery prisons under the most difficult conditions for many years. Those who doubted the faith and criticized religion were excommunicated and anathematized.

Such was the activity of the Orthodox Inquisition. And although the Orthodox Church did not have such an organized apparatus as the catholic church, she dealt with church “rebels” with no less cruelty than the Catholic inquisitors did.

The reader may ask: what was the situation with representatives of other Christian and non-Christian religions - Lutherans, sectarians, Jews, Muslims? Representatives of these religious teachings They were also cruel inquisitors and tried to suppress with fire and sword the sprouts of free thought and criticism of the official teachings of these religions. Each of these religions, preaching its exclusivity, was distinguished by intolerance towards other religions; its representatives resorted to violence against the conscience of citizens to “prove” the superiority of the faith they professed, especially if they had the punitive apparatus of the state on their side.

Thus, any religion, whether Christian or non-Christian, is incompatible with freedom of conscience. At the same time, bourgeois “freedom of conscience” is nothing more than tolerance for all types of religious freedom of conscience. In practice, this comes down to taking over all religions and using them to stupefy the working masses. The workers' party, as Marx pointed out, must strive to free the conscience from the religious dope 23 .

1. For more details on this, see E. F. Grekulov. The Orthodox Church is the enemy of enlightenment. Publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1962.

2. “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate”, 1956, No. 5, p. 66.

3. M. V. Lomonosov. Favorites philosophical works. M, 1950, p. 397.

4. P. P. Pekarsky. History of the Academy of Sciences, vol. II. St. Petersburg, 1873, pp. 603 - 604.

5. “Archival business”, 1938, No. 1 (45), p. 93.

7. P. S. Ivashchenko. Folk school in Belarus with late XIX V., diss., p. 54.

8. Sh. Ganelin. Essays on history high school. M, 1954 p. 45.

9. A. I. Herzen. Collected Works, vol. 14, p. 481.

10. “Archival business”, 1930, No. 1 (45), p. 90.

11. “Leaflets of the St. Petersburg Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class 1895 - 1897.” L., 1934, p. 646.

12. A. Kotovich. Spiritual censorship in Russia. St. Petersburg, 1909, p. 559.

13. “Book News”, 1937, No. 12.

14. “Literary Heritage”, vol. 22 - 24, 1935, pp. 627, 635 - 673; vol. 33 - 34, 1939, pp. 583 - 584.

15. “Materials on the revision of current regulations of censorship and the press,” part I. St. Petersburg, 1870, pp. 499 - 505; V. Prokofiev, Atheism of Russian revolutionary democrats. M., 1955, p. 88.

16. “Russian Antiquity”, 1903, No. 12, p. 687.

17. “Questions in the history of religion and atheism”, 1960, No. 7, pp. 411 - 421.

18. “Questions of Philosophy”, 1958, No. 9, p. 89; see also “Archival Business”, 1938, No. 1 (45), pp. 86 - 87.

19. “Marxist Historian”, book. 8 - 9, 1935, pp. 65 - 88.

20. “Faith and Reason”, 1901, No. 12.

21. Ibid., p. XI.

22. Newspaper “Rus”, 1905, No. 164.

23. K. Marx and F. Engels. Selected Works, Vol. II. M., 1955, p. 26.

Recently I once again came across the phrase “ the contribution of religion to culture was often expressed in the persecution of scientists, in the burning of books and scientists themselves, in the banning of entire teachings and branches of knowledge.” The author did not bother himself with any more detailed accusations - exactly how many scientists were burned by the clergy, for what kind of scientific research, he did not give the names of these people and the circumstances of their execution. For what? After all, everyone educated person knows that churchmen have been burning scientists for centuries, this is part of the great conflict between science and religion, in which science, initially persecuted and exterminated, finally won. This is something that is firmly known to everyone and “proven by science.”

But what happens if we do show a little curiosity and try to clarify the details - for example, the number of scientists burned? How many of them were there, martyrs of science? Hundreds of thousands? Tens of thousands? Thousands? Hundreds? How many victims have the centuries-old cruel struggle between science and religious obscurantism claimed?

Let's try to find out.

Turning to the atheistic literature itself, we find only two candidates for the role of scientists, from the priests who were martyred, burned by the Roman Inquisition, and Miguel Servetus, executed in Calvinist Geneva. Was Giordano Bruno a scientist, much less a great one? This is a controversial issue, most sources prefer to label him as a “philosopher” and “mystic”, and his surviving works are occult and in no way scientific. But what is indisputable is that the reasons why he was burned had nothing to do with science. No one accused Bruno of any scientific research - the reason for his accusation and execution was his views regarding Christ, the Virgin Mary, the Sacraments, as well as his occult activities. There is nothing good in burning people for any views - but it should be noted that the views for which Bruno suffered were not related to science. Occultists, admirers of Hermes Trismegistus and the secret arts can still count him as their martyr. But he is not in the least degree a martyr of science.

Miguel Servet is indeed a natural scientist and doctor. And they really burned it in Geneva. However, he is not well suited to the role of a victim of the “struggle between science and religion.” Servetus himself was fanatically religious; it is his religion, not his scientific views, and brought him to the stake. He was condemned because of his book “The Restoration of Christianity” in which he denied the Trinity of God and generally expressed views that were extremely heretical from the point of view of Calvin (and everyone else). Let us say again: burning heretics - or anyone else in general - is bad. But religious false teachers are in no way martyrs of science - they are martyrs of the corresponding religious teachings.

So, do we have an answer to the question “how many scientists were burned by churchmen for their scientific research?” Yes, and very accurate. No one. This is even surprising - in the history of the Church, everything has happened, there have been villains, there have been fools, there have been political showdowns under religious flags, there have been settling of personal scores under the guise of a struggle for true faith- but somehow it didn’t work out with the burning of scientists for science. Somehow it doesn’t work out very well with scientists, tortured clergymen - only two candidates, and even those, upon closer examination, did not suffer for science at all.

In "" the Catholic church authorities really forced the great scientist to abandon his scientific views; their position, in a historical context, can be considered partly understandable, although undoubtedly erroneous. But was Galileo burned? No. To what extent did the atrocities of the inquisitors reach in this textbook and culminating case of the confrontation between science and religion? Galileo was sentenced to house arrest, which he spent initially in the palace of his friend, Archbishop Piccolomini in Siena, and then in his homeland, Arcetri.

But have there been large-scale “persecutions of scientists” in history? Was there a “ban on entire teachings and branches of knowledge,” were there scientists who were really tortured for their scientific views? Yes, there were, and relatively recently, not in the dark Middle Ages, but in the twentieth century, not in foreign countries, but in our homeland. Only the persecutors of science were not “religious obscurantists,” but, on the contrary, atheistic obscurantists.

Fields of knowledge such as genetics and cybernetics were banned as “bourgeois pseudosciences,” and scientists were subjected to severe persecution. The outstanding Russian biologist Nikolai Vavilov was accused of “promoting deliberately hostile theories... he fought against the theories and works of Lysenko, which were of decisive importance for the agriculture of the USSR,” arrested, tortured and tortured, and died in prison. A book on the history of agriculture, written by him in prison, was destroyed by decision of the NKVD of the USSR. Vavilov himself, speaking about the persecution to which he was subjected as a scientist, compared himself with Galileo; however, as we see, his fate under the rule of militant atheists was much more bitter.

Why is the myth about “scientists burned by churchmen” repeated with such persistence? There are a number of reasons for this - intellectual laziness, lack of curiosity, closed-mindedness, stubborn reluctance to recognize facts that contradict once and for all accepted ideas. In a word, inertia and dogmatism, which atheists so love to attribute to believers.

And I want to convert people who talk about “scientists burned by churchmen” not even to faith - but to reason. To intellectual honesty and openness, to a willingness to check facts and reconsider obviously false ideas. To all those virtues without which true science cannot exist.

It is a popular belief that Copernicus did not publish his works because he was afraid of the evil Church. They say the Inquisition, the Middle Ages and all the rest. That's why his "On Rotation" celestial spheres"was published at the very end of his life (he apparently never saw it published). And then under great pressure from friends. And provided with a foreword by the theologian Osiander, who called the "new model a “ridiculous” but useful mathematical device invented to reduce calculations: “there is no need for these hypotheses to be true or even probable, only one thing is enough for them to provide a method of calculation that is consistent with observations.” "

And Copernicus himself stipulates in advance that he rejects any extra-scientific criticism: “Even if there are some idle talkers who, being ignorant in all mathematical sciences, still undertake to judge them on the basis of some place Holy Scripture, misunderstood and perverted for their purpose, dare to condemn and persecute this work of mine, then I, without any delay, can neglect their judgment as frivolous.

But here I read about Lobachevsky’s geometry (emphasis mine):
“The first publications on hyperbolic geometry belong to its authors: Lobachevsky published the results of his research in 1829-1830, Bolyai in 1832. Their predecessor can be considered the German lawyer Schweickart, mentioned in Chapter 1, who came up with the idea of ​​​​non-Euclidean geometry in 1818 g., and also, perhaps, his nephew Taurinus7. At the beginning of 1819, Schweickart’s description of the new “astral” (stellar) geometry, which fit on one page, was sent to Gauss by one of the latter’s students (by the way, the astronomer Gauss responded). : “Almost everything has been copied from my soul.” The fact is that the “king of mathematicians,” the great Gauss, who was already discussed in Chapter 5, came to non-Euclidean geometry even earlier in a letter to Taurinus dated November 8, 1824. Gauss called this geometry strange and reported: “I have developed [it] so much to my complete satisfaction that I can solve any problem with it.” However, Gauss did not publish anything on this topic, rightly believing that the scientific community was not yet ready to accept such a thing.” bold thoughts. Gauss's work on non-Euclidean geometry became known only after the posthumous publication of his archive. Here is the confession he made in 1829 in a private letter: “It will probably not be long before I can process my extensive research on this issue so that it can be published. Perhaps I will not even dare to do this for the rest of my life, because I am afraid of the outcry of the Boeotians that will rise if I express my views in full.” And the aforementioned student astronomer, who intends to publicly admit the falsity of the Euclidean axiom about parallels, Gauss in 1818 warns: “I rejoice that you have the courage to speak out as if you recognized the falsity of our theory of parallels, and at the same time of our entire geometry . But the wasps whose nest you disturb will fly on your head.”

The validity of Gauss's fears was soon confirmed by the reaction of his contemporaries to Lobachevsky's writings.
....

In 1832, the council of Kazan University presented this work to the Academy of Sciences. Academician Ostrogradsky wrote in his review: “Everything that I understood in Mr. Lobachevsky’s geometry is below mediocre. [...] Mr. Rector Lobachevsky's book is discredited by an error [...] it is carelessly presented and [...] therefore, it does not deserve the attention of the Academy." Mikhail Vasilyevich Ostrogradsky was a mathematician, although somewhat down-to-earth, but famous (and even deservedly famous), and his opinion enjoyed high authority. Nobody knew the provincial Lobachevsky in the capitals. Ostrogradsky's feedback was listened to. And in 1834, a mocking libel, signed with two letters S.S., appeared in F.V. Bulgarin’s magazine “Son of the Fatherland.” Here is a quote from it:

How can one think that Mr. Lobachevsky, an ordinary professor of mathematics, would write a book for some serious purpose that would bring a little honor to the last school teacher! If not scholarship, then at least common sense every teacher should have, and in new geometry this last one is often lacking.

The fame of “Copernicus of Geometry” came to Lobachevsky posthumously, on the eve of his centenary. Respect is due to his devotion to scientific truth, fearlessness in defending it and perseverance in enduring adversity.

So what does the Church have to do with it? Exactly the same reaction, under exactly the same conditions. Only the Church in the 19th century had no influence on mathematicians. And she had no reason to defend the “fifth axiom of Euclid”... Otherwise treatises would have been written on the topic of persecution by the Church against Lobachevsky.