In the history of mankind, there are not so many names, the memory of which lives in the people for centuries. Among them is the name of the leader of one of the most radical sects of the Middle Ages, the leader of the popular uprising, the Italian Fra Dolcino. Even during his lifetime, he became a legendary figure; not without reason, among contemporaries there were several versions of the execution of Dolcino himself and his girlfriend Margarita. In the places that were the scene of their activities, folk tradition gave new names to many points: Mount Cathar and Mount Patarena, the Nun's Pass (the refuge of the" miraculously saved " Margarita), the werewolf's Den, and so on. Just a few years after the execution, Dolcino's personality acquired a lot of fantastic details: he, according to rumor, was a sorcerer and soothsayer, astrologer and alchemist. Until recently, Valsesia was alive with legends about the treasures that he allegedly buried along the way of his progress. The church fought fiercely against the tragically attractive shadow of its victim, and for more than five centuries, the chapel on the site of the last battle of the rebels with the Crusaders was the center of annual solemn prayers and thanksgiving services, which flocked to the masses of the surrounding residents (this continued until the middle of the XIX century).

Great fame accompanied Dolcino throughout the Middle Ages. During his lifetime, he was placed by his great contemporary Dante in the same company as Mahomet, Bertrand de Born, and other" heresiarchs " who shook the foundations of the existing order. Another great Italian, Tommaso Campanella, mentions Dolcino as an example of the deadly danger for popes (along with Luther) in one of his final treatises. Rumor about him went far beyond the borders of Italy. According to one ecclesiastical historian (Fra Giacomo Foresti of Bergamo), "the whole of Europe and other lands were full of rumors about Dolcino at that time." 1 Despite the obvious exaggeration, this phrase still speaks about the scale of Dolcino's fame.

The name Dolcino was not forgotten in later times. In the Rissorgimento era, it becomes a banner under which patriotic strata of society unite: anti-clerics, liberals, democrats and just opposition "free thinkers" of Northern Italy. There are a number of dramas dedicated to him (in 1846, 1851, 1881, 1885) and works of a different genre, numerous journalistic articles and pamphlets are published, in which this victim of church reaction constantly appears. In 1907, on the 600th anniversary of the death of the national hero, an obelisk was solemnly opened on the slope of Mount Cebello, on which the inscription was carved: "In memory

1 Cit. by: E. Anagnine. Dolcino e il movimento ereticale all' inizio del Trecento. Firenze. 1964, p. 259.

page 81

about Fra Dolcino. From idea to martyrdom." At the beginning of the 20th century, with the rise of the workers ' movement and socialist agitation, Dolcino was also mentioned in another aspect that soon became dominant: from a martyr and victim of the Inquisition, he became a fighter for social justice and national happiness. This is how it appears in the works of A. Labriola ("Essays on the materialist understanding of History"), who specifically studied the Dolcino movement, devoting a one-year course to medieval heresies, read at the University of Rome (unfortunately, it has not come down to us). In this course (as can be seen from the letter of A. Labriola to J. Sorel of July 2, 1897) Dolcino's movement was considered from two points of view. On the one hand, A. Labriola sees in it the logical conclusion of theoretical ideas that were popular among religious sects, primarily the ideas of early Christianity, the principles of"pure evangelism". Here, the most important achievement of the apostolics was the revolutionary " rejection of everything that was established by the church (literally: the hierarchy), starting with Sylvester." On the other hand, the apostolic movement appears to us as a "social revolution", the result of the "forced proletarianization" of the peasantry in areas where "the feudal order was still alive". From this point of view, "the movement led by Dolcino is one of the stages in a long chain of outrages of the Christian plebs... who rebelled against the (church. - V. S.) hierarchy and at the most acute moments rose to the recognition of the inevitability of the arrival of communism " 2 .

In the future, Marxist historiography, based on the statements of Fr. Engels on the essence of medieval heretical movements 3, continued and developed the propositions expressed by A. Labriola. This is especially true of Soviet historiography, which from its very first steps showed a deep and constant interest in the history of popular movements. The Dolcino uprising became the focus of many Soviet authors4 , who saw it as an example of combining heresy with a peasant uprising. In the works of the greatest Soviet medievalist, Academician S. D. Skazkin, the versatility of the approach to assessing this movement is particularly clearly shown .5 On the one hand, the sect of the Apostolic brothers is considered by the author as one of the first peasant-Plebeian heresies, a synthesis of the most radical heretical thought of the Middle Ages, on the other - as a peasant uprising, as a natural result of the socio-economic development of Western Europe at that time .6 In the works of S. D. Skazkin and other Marxist historians, Dolcino is depicted as a strong personality, the leader of one of the most prominent popular uprisings of the Middle Ages.

Fra Dolcino is portrayed differently in Italian historiography. Serious scientific study of the Apostolic Brothers and Sisters movement-

2 See A. Labriola. Discorrendo di socialismo e di filosofia. Ban. 1953, pp. 118, 140 - 141.

3 See K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 7, pp. 359-363.

4 A. K. Jivilegov. Peasant Movements in the West, Moscow, 1924; M. A. Tikhanova. The Dolcino Uprising. "Problems of the history of pre-capitalist formations", 1937, N 7-8; S. D. Skazkin. The Dolcino Uprising. "Teaching history at school", 1949, N 4.

5 See S. D. Skazkin. Dolcino's first message. In: "From the history of socio-political ideas. To the 75th anniversary of Academician V. P. Volgin", Moscow, 1955. Historical conditions of the Dolcino Uprising. "Reports of the Soviet delegation at the X International Congress of Historians in Rome", Moscow, 1955; "History of Italy", Vol. 1. Moscow, 1970, ch. VII.

6 However, there is no consensus in Marxist historiography about the social basis of this movement. In particular, B. Topfer (GDR) regards it as primarily Plebeian, assigning a leading role to the proletarian strata of the population (see B. Topfer. Das kommende Reich des Friedens. Leipzig, 1964; A.D. Lyublinskaya. Medievalists of the GDR on the urban uprisings of the XIV century. "The Middle Ages". Issue No. 24. Moscow, 1963).

page 82

Etania Dolcino began in Italy in the late XIX-early XX century. The extensive literature about Dolcino published up to that time was based on random sources and did not provide a sufficiently deep analysis of events; some of the works were often based on legends .7 The first attempt at a scientific analysis of the theory of apostolics belongs to Fr. However, in his attempt to reconstruct the dogmas of the apostolic brothers, the author went too far, "expressing (by his own admission - V. S.) the ideas of the apostolics with the degree of certainty and completeness with which they are not contained in the sources" 8 . The direct opposite of Tocco was the work of A. Segarizzi, who published in the new edition of Muratori all the then (and practically still) known documents about Dolcino and provided them with a scrupulous source-historiographical introduction; the publication of the protocols of the Bologna Inquisition, undertaken by Aldovrandini, was of a similar kind .9 However, the most important work of the late XIX - early XX centuries. J. R. R. Tolkien's book appeared. Volpe 10, dedicated to medieval Italian heresies and treating them as a broad popular movement caused by socio-economic motives. Thanks to this formulation of the question, as well as the breadth of the painted picture of the heretical movements in Italy of the XII-XIV centuries. Volpe became one of the best works of Italian bourgeois historiography and has largely retained its significance to this day. After Volpe's research, no fundamentally new or fundamental research appeared during almost the entire first half of the twentieth century, although several papers were published during this time11 .

A new sharp rise in interest in the topic of Apostolics and Dolcino occurred in the 50s and 60s of our century. Dissemination of the achievements of Marxist historiography in wide circles of the world scientific community (translation into Western European languages of university general courses and monographic studies by E. A. Kosminsky, A. I. Neusykhin, M. M. Smirin, B. F. Porshnev, etc.) and increasing attention to the problems of socio-economic development and class struggle. authors devoted to heretical movements in general and to apostolics in particular (books by historians of the GDR Ye. Werner, M. Erbstosser, B. Tepfer, the Polish author T. Manteuffel and, first of all, the publication of S. D. Skazkin's report at the X International Congress of Historians in Rome), served as an impetus for the appearance of a number of works by Italian historians that to varying degrees affect the movement of Segarelli (the founder of the Apostolic sect) and Dolcino or raise common problems history of medieval heresies. We will focus on some of the most significant works of modern Italian authors (R. Morgen, E. Dupree-Thesader, C. G. Mohr, J. Miccoli) below. The nature of these works is diverse: there are generalizing compendiums on medieval heresiology in general, and historiographical reviews, and reviews, and specific studies devoted to various aspects of the history of individual heresies, and reports presented on certain topics.-

7 Mosheim. Geschichte des Apostel-Ordens. Helmstaedt. 1748; G. Baggiolini. Dolcino e i Patareni. Novara. 1837.

8 F. Tocco. Gli apostolici e fra Dolcino. "Archivio Storico Italiano", Ser. V. T. XIX. 1897, p. 274.

9 "Rerum Italicarum Scriptores". NE. T. IX. Citta-di-Castello. 1907, p. V; "Atti e Memorie della regia Deputazione di Storia patria per le provinzie de Romagna". Ser. III. Vol. XIV. 1895 - 1896.

10 G. Volpe. Movimenti religiosi e sette ereticale nella societa medievale italiana. Firenze. 1922 (последнее издание).

11 A. Aspesi. Angelo di Tiatira. Torino. 1932; C. Violini, M. I. Mazzone. Fra Dokino e la setta degli Apostolici. Torino. 1942.

page 83

a lazy occasion 12 . However, despite the different nature of the works and the dissimilarity of their authors, we can attribute them to one of the currently dominant trends in Italian bourgeois historiography. Particular differences in views on individual problems do not prevent these authors from agreeing in their principled assessments of the main problems of the Apostolic brothers ' movement and the Dolcino uprising. Some of these problems will be discussed in the article.

Most of these authors do not hide the fact that the appearance of their works is caused by the desire to refute the Marxist interpretation of the Dolcino movement. J. R. R. Tolkien writes extensively about this. Mikkoli: "There are often numerous theories in circulation, sometimes even raised to dogma, which make up the" cultural baggage " of the majority, but have not yet been carefully criticized from the point of view of the latest scientific achievements. Among them, not the least place belongs to the Apostolic movement, especially at the time when it was headed by Dolcino; and not only because it is of exceptional importance in the history of popular heresies of the late Middle Ages as the first and only Italian heresy combined with an armed uprising, ... but also because it acquired a special historiographic significance It is the subject of works aimed at showing the dependence of medieval heresies on various stages of social development. From this point of view, it is the Dolcino revolt that is chosen as a typical example of proving the validity of the interpretation of medieval heresies based on the Marxist concept of historical materialism. Therefore, the purpose of this short article will be to retrace the Dolcino "problem" and its fate over the past centuries ... " 13 . No less clearly states the purpose of its work. Dupree-Thesader: "It is a question of revising, revising the' established myth of Dolcino 'as a symbol, as an example of the class struggle." 14
Contemporary Italian critics '"refutation" of the Marxist view of the Apostolics and medieval heresies goes in several directions. But at the heart of all their concepts, no matter what direction their authors belong to, is one main idea - the denial of the connection of religious movements with the socio-economic conditions of the era. Unlike the most reactionary historians of the Church, who completely do not recognize the social nature of hereticism, modern Italian researchers of medieval heresies do not deny their well-known dependence on the socio-economic factor, and first of all their popular character. R. Morgen and L. Salvatorelli spoke about the "numerous uneducated" participants of the heretical movements of the XI-XV centuries at the Congress of historians in Rome. 15 E. Dupree-Thesader considers it a "generally recognized fact" that heresies were most easily spread in the lower strata of society and that the lower the social status of a person, the closer his contacts with heretics are. 16 Finally, many researchers of the history of Italy in the thirteenth century explicitly call this time the "era of heresies", emphasizing that the" heretical contagion " has spread to all circles of society,

12 R. Morghen. Medioevo cristiano. Bari. 1965 (latest edition); ejusd. Movimenti religiosi popolari nel periodo della Riforma della Chiesa. "Relazioni del X Congresso.Internazionale di Scienze Storiche". Vol. III. Firenze. 1955; E. Dupre- Theeider. Introduzione alle eresie medievale. Bologna. 1953; ejusd. L'eresia a Bologna nei tempi di Dante. "Studi storici in onore di Gioacchino Volpe". Vol. I. Firenze. 1958;ejusd. Fra Dolcino: storia e mito. "Bolletino della Societa di Studi Valdesb. Vol. 77. 1958; ejusd. Problemi di eresiologia medievale. "Bolletino della Societa di Studi Valdesb. Vol. 102. 1957; G. Miccoli. Note sulla fortuna di Fra Dolcino. "Annali della Scuola Normale di Pisa". 1955; C. G. Mor. S. D. Skazkin. Le condizioni storiche della rivolta di Dolcino (ред.). "Bolletino storico-bibliografico Subalpino", LIV (1956), fasc. II.

13 G. Miccoli. Op. cit., p. 245.

14 E. Dupre-Theseider. Fra Dolcino..., p. 5.

15 "Relazioni del X Congresso...", Vol. Ill, pp. 333, 351, 420.

16 E. Dupre-Theseider. Problemi di eresiologia..., p. 13.

page 84

starting from the Ghibelline nobility and ending with the peasantry and the disenfranchised plebs 17 .

Moreover, in some cases, some of these authors explicitly recognize the dependence of heretical movements on economic issues and, in particular, on the financial situation of the participants in these movements. Thus, the connection between heresy and social discontent, established in Italian historiography as early as in the works of J. R. R. Tolkien. Volpe, in principle, is not denied by modern authors. This, for example, is indicated by the above statement of E. Dupree-Thesader. However, all the contemporary Italian historians listed above agree that social motives, although they may have been involved in the origin and development of heresies, are still not the main ones and are relegated to the second and third place in comparison with purely religious issues.

The general view of this problem, which is most discussed in the works of R. Morgen and E. Dupree-Thesader, can be reduced to the following brief scheme. Various factors can serve as an impetus for moving away from the official interpretation of the surrounding reality and moving to critical positions: social, religious, moral, and personal. However, according to R. Morgen and E. Dupree-Thesader, the decisive factor among them is personal, purely religious motives; otherwise, why do these oppositional moods manifest themselves in a heretically religious form? After all, reacting to the reasons that pushed him into the camp of heresy, a person puts forward a demand for the reform of dogma and clergy, a return to the evangelical norms of life; as a rule, there are no direct social and even more economic demands in heresies. Thus, social discontent plays a certain role in the first stages of the emergence of a heretical worldview, when it deepens and strengthens the religious and ethical opposition of the individual; later, taking into account that the heretic, having converted to a new faith, usually leaves the usual circle of occupations, interests and acquaintances, he completely breaks away from the earthly soil of economic interests and experiences moral update. So, in general, heresy is the result of a spiritual choice and has a purely religious content.

This is the outline of our opponents ' concept. Here it is not possible to expound in detail Marxist views on the essence of medieval heresies; these views are quite well known not only to the Soviet reader, but also to modern critics of the "Dolcino myth". Therefore, it is more appropriate to focus not on explaining the position of Marxist historiography on this issue, but on the methods used by these authors in the fight against it.

As R. Morgen and other "critics" (E. Dupree - Thesader, C. G. Mohr, J. Miccoli) should know, F. Engels, and after him V. I. Lenin showed that any discontent (and first of all social discontent) in the era of the dominance of official church ideology inevitably had to take the form of religious opposition. It is possible that they know (and since they have taken the trouble to revise Marxist concepts, they should know) that medieval sectarian theories do not necessarily contain open social demands; these demands arise among heretics only at a certain stage in the development of heresy, at the stage of peasant-Plebeian heresy. Thus, the fact that there are no direct socio-economic requirements in sectarian dogma and the fact that socio-economic motives do not appear in the course of heresy-at its origin and at the initial stages of development, for a Marxist historian, is evidence of the specifics of medieval heresy, but

17 E. Anagnine. Op. cit., cap. II.

page 85

not a denial of its social nature. Studies of Marxist scientists both in the Soviet Union (S. D. Skazkina, M. M. Smirin, N. A. Sidorova, E. V. Gutnova, Yu. M. Saprykin, A. N. Chistozvonov, N. A. Bortnik, S. M. Stam, V. L. Kerov, etc.) and abroad (E. V. Kropotkin, V. V. Kropotkin, V. V. Kropotkin, etc.). Werner, B. Tepfer, G. Fagan, and others) confirmed the validity of this interpretation of medieval hereticism on the examples of various heresies. Therefore, an attempt to limit oneself to the mere statement of the absence of direct socio-economic requirements in heresy and not to take into account the Marxist interpretation of this phenomenon simply means ignoring a whole trend in world historiography. And it is completely incomprehensible how the Marxist concept of these problems can be hushed up by precisely those people who set themselves the goal of" revising " this very interpretation.

What do the Italian bourgeois authors oppose to Marxist views, and what methodological positions do they take in analyzing these events? They claim to follow the scientific principle that the highest criterion for evaluating events is the facts, i.e. the source. It is difficult to disagree with this; however, it should be recalled that before becoming objective, a fact must go through many stages of preliminary "processing": it must be selected, understood, put in connection with others, put in the basis of a conclusion; but all these operations are inevitably carried out from certain methodological positions! And often the same fact, the same phenomenon can be, and often are, regarded from directly opposite points of view. A striking example of this is the views on the history of the Apostolic heresy.

One of the main arguments used by Italian bourgeois authors in their "undeclared war" with the Marxists is that the materials of the inquisitorial investigations into the Apostolic case give a different picture of the social composition of the participants than it should be based on the assumption of the "proletarian" nature of the movement. Thus, the protocols of the Bologna Inquisition of the late 13th century show that the bulk of the persecuted were citizens, not peasants, and not the urban plebs, but the "middle", that is, the well-off strata of the city, the popolans. Of the 34 heretics named during Cathar Onyibene's interrogation in 1291, 30 were artisans (weavers, tanners) and tavern keepers. The Inquisition's investigation of the riots in Ferrara (1299) revealed that approximately one-third of the 362 people under investigation belonged to the city's nobility, one-third to the Popolans, and the remaining third to people of unknown origin. In the same way, the apostolics, both in the thirteenth century and under Dolcino, in the fourteenth century, recruited followers among the Popolans, but by no means "among the proletarians of the city and country"; among the poorer strata, heresy did not enjoy much success. Hence the heretical movements of the thirteenth century. (and first of all Catharism and evangelical trends) - " the church of the middle strata of society "("religione del medio ceto","Mittelstandskirche") 18 .

We are not going to challenge the validity of this observation, it is obvious. F. Engels emphasized that the bourgeois opposition "had a significant majority in all the regular meetings of the community, as well as in the guilds"19 , that is, it was an absolute majority of "full-fledged citizens". The leading role of the burghers in the heretical movements of the thirteenth century cannot be doubted; however, is it possible on this basis to reduce the social composition of the participants in the heresy mainly and only to the well-to-do strata of the city's population? In other words, is the fact that follows from the materials of the Bologna Inquisition indisputable?-

18 E. Dupre-Theseider. L'eresia a Bologna..., pp. 401 - 405, 414, 432, 437, 440; ejusd. Problemi di eresiologia..., pp. 15, 16; ejusd. Fra Dolcino..., p. 22.

19 K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 7, p. 354.

page 86

a living fact? It is well known that the main centers of heresy were the cities and that the Inquisition (especially in the first century of its existence) concentrated its attention precisely on the urban heresy, which, in its scope, organization and theoretical acuteness, was the greatest political danger to the church. Finally, it is well-known that among heretics, the wealthiest circles were most persecuted, again as the most dangerous (and also "profitable" in case of possible confiscations). The village heresy (as well as the heresy of the urban plebs) did not have the scale and organization of the city, and at the same time it was more hidden from the persecution of the inquisition. Naturally, the associated features of the Inquisition's policy inevitably had to leave an imprint on its documentation and (as it actually did)on the history of the Inquisition. shift the emphasis of the social affiliation of heretics towards the urban merchants and artisans.

If you break away from the protocols of inquisitorial investigations and turn to the evidence of contemporaries, you will get a much more complex picture. J. Villani, for example, speaks of a "band" of heretics "from various mountain and plain places, people of small means." Another well-known contemporary, Fra Salimbene, describes the Apostolics in the same way. Dupree-Thesader himself has to admit this. "First of all," he writes, " let us note the originally popular, even rather Plebeian, character of the movement. For Salimbene, the apostolics are crooks, rabble, and then peasants who would do well to return to their dirty tasks-tilling the field, tending pigs and cows. " 20 The Plebeian composition of the rebels also follows from the spontaneous and destructive nature of the uprising itself (looting of churches, devastation of villages and villages, etc.), which is constantly emphasized both by an anonymous contemporary and by the chronicler B. Gui. Finally, some documents explicitly mention the Plebeian origin of individual apostolics .21 All this evidence does not allow us to solve the problem of social composition as directly as the Italian authors do. Obviously, we should talk about a broader social base than just the middle strata of the townspeople; most likely, we should talk about a broad nationwide movement, in which both the opposition circles of the urban burghers and the peasant-plebeian masses participated.

The situation is even more complicated with the change in the social composition of apostolics during the uprising. There is no doubt, however, that at that time two groups played the most important role among them - the most zealous supporters of Dolcino who had gathered at his call from all parts of the country (that is, people who, regardless of their origin, at that time belonged to the poor peasantry and the plebs) and the peasantry of the surrounding villages. Nor can there be any doubt that at this last stage of the movement, the peasant-Plebeian strata were a large (if not overwhelming) force. Therefore, the desire to view the Apostolic brothers ' heresy as a movement of the middle strata of the burghers (even if it is a well-to-do peasant, which does not change the essence of the matter) seems to us simplified and one-sided, based on the artificial isolation of one source to the detriment of the objectivity of the entire study. The problem of the social composition of the apostolic movement (like any other heresy) is more complex than it appears to bourgeois Italian historians. Therefore, the accusations of straightforwardness and simplification that they present to Marxist historiography can rather be redirected to these critics themselves, who so narrowly represent the social base of hereticism.

20 "Istorie Florentini di Giovanni Villani cittadino fiorentino fino all'anno 1348". Vol. IV. Milano. 1802, p. 171; E. Dupre-Theseider. Fra Dolcino..., pp, 10 - 11.

21 СМ."Rerum Italicarum Scriptores". NE. T. IX, pp. 63 - 65.

page 87

Another important problem chosen by modern Italian historiography to prove the "wrongness" of the Marxist concept of medieval heresies in general and Dolcino in particular is the assessment of Dolcino's theoretical views. Dolcino's dogma, according to the unanimous opinion of C. G. Mohr, J. Miccoli, and E. Dupree-Thesader, is a religious dogma and does not contain any social content. Mohr expressed this most sharply and definitely: in all the documents concerning this movement, he writes, "there is not a single evidence, not a single hint, of a program of peasant demands of a communist nature; but everywhere and everywhere there is an affirmation of a heretical, purely religious spirit ..." 22 He is echoed by E. Dupree-Thesader:"...we have no evidence that Dolcino promised the poor, the outcasts, the Serfs and the oppressed in general a better economic and social future... " 23 .

Indeed, the programs of the apostolics of the Segarelli and Dolcino eras (in the period preceding the revolt) that have come down to us in the formulations of modern chroniclers (and first of all the inquisitor B. Gui) do not contain "a single hint of social demands"24 , just as such direct demands are not found in all European heretical movements of the XIII century. The Marxist historian is not surprised by this: for the era of the domination of bourgeois heresies in their content, this is natural - after all, only with the emergence of the peasant-Plebeian heresy and its formation in the "sharply distinguished party view in the XIV and XV centuries" 25 can we talk about the open, direct socio-economic program requirements of heretics. In this case, therefore, a researcher dealing with the apostolic movement faces a completely different problem - to find out whether the movement of apostolic brothers (especially during the armed uprising) shows any features that allow us to speak about the transition of this sect to the category of peasant-Plebeian heresies (even if not in the form of a " sharply distinguished party view").

What aspects of Dolcino's theory that distinguish it from a number of other contemporary heresies can be discussed in this case? First of all, about its exclusively revolutionary spirit. Dolcino (as Dupree - Thesader admits)He made Joachim Florski's theory more concrete and used it to move from vague predictions to practical actions. This revolutionary orientation permeated the entire theory of the" Dolcinists", whose evangelicalism, inherent in the apostolics under Segarelli, turned into a militant doctrine, which aims not just to" save the elect " by passively waiting for better times, but to actively prepare for this coup .27
Another point that distinguishes "Dolcinianism" from its contemporary heresies is the presence of elements of a social nature, which are manifested from the very beginning in the theory and practice of Dolcino's supporters. They already understood the " 1000-year-old kingdom of God on earth "as the kingdom of freedom and equality, as the rule of social justice. 28 The most convincing evidence of the peasant-Plebeian orientation of their theory is the fact that this movement resulted in an armed uprising, like almost all heresies that were "a direct expression of the needs of the peasants and Plebeians."29 Obviously (more specifically, this will be discussed below), during the end of the XIII-beginning of the XIV century.

22 C. G. Mor. Op. cit., p. 357.

23 E. Dupre-Theseider. Fra Dolcino..., p. 21.

24 C. G. Mor. Op. cit., p. 357.

25 K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 7, p. 363.

26 E. Dupre-Theseider. Fra Dolcino..., p. 16.

27 Ibid.

28 For more information, see S. D. Skazkin. Dolcino's first message.

29 K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 7, p. 362.

page 88

the social overtones of theoretical propositions gradually increased, which led first to an armed uprising, and then, in the course of it, to a direct rejection of the feudal order. E. Dupree-Thesader also indirectly admits this, effectively crossing out all his previous objections.: "I do not want to say that Dolcinianism did not later merge with the real popular social movement, but in Bologna (that is, according to the materials of the Bologna Inquisition, which preceded the uprising - V. S.), however, this did not yet happen"30 . However, this does not prevent him from continuing to persistently (although now with some caution) repeat:"...Based on the documents currently at our disposal, I rule out the possibility of social demands existing in the form of dominant ideas, and even more so of their interpretation as a class struggle: his (Dolcino - V. S.) sermons, his apostolic way of life, his teaching - completely and obviously of a religious nature. As for the well-known final events, in my opinion, they should be regarded not as a natural and logical result of the prerequisites laid down by him, but as a phenomenon that goes beyond his plans and assumptions. It would therefore be unwise to place this movement, as it is done, in the same category as the French Jacquerie, the Flemish uprising, the English movement led by Wat Tyler, or the Ciompi uprising in Florence; it is quite obvious that these movements belong to social phenomena that have little or no religious content... " 31 .

So, the goal pursued by the author is quite obvious. However, is it worth pursuing it at such a cost, dismissing the facts (the evidence of which he has to admit, albeit with reservations) and ignoring the arguments of Marxist historians? All this indicates the weakness of the position that the author defends.

Let us now proceed to the assessment of the course of events themselves, which are also subject to a thorough revision. However, Italian historians deliberately do not attach much importance to these issues, especially the events of the last stage of the movement. According to the most active critic of the "Marxist myth" about Dolcino, E. Dupree-Thesader, "anyone who decides to try to understand the historical significance of Dolcino should push the stage of armed resistance to the background, paying main attention to what is really interesting, although little known - to his doctrine, which expresses, perhaps, the historical significance of Dolcino.", unclear, but sincere... his passionate expectation of new times ... " 32 . The disdainful attitude towards such an interesting and important period of the apostolic movement is clearly not accidental: indeed, if we take into account the facts, it is impossible to deny the anti-feudal nature of the movement at its last stage. E. Dupree-Thesader does not try to do this, but he tries to shift responsibility for such behavior to extremist circles of the plebs, which gave a spontaneous a touch of the whole movement (robberies, violence, robbery, etc.), circles that Dolcino himself was allegedly not able to cope with: "We are here," writes Ye. Dupree-Thesader, in the realm of pure speculation, wondering to what point he could have held all this crowd in check, driven to fury by the weight of privation and the certainty of impending doom. An anonymous contemporary tells us only one thing: in this most difficult time for himself, Fra Dolcino finds it necessary to confirm once again... principles of apostolism... and among them, along with the usual theoretical propositions, are also those that I would call extraordinary measures and which reflect the full horror of the existing situation: here it is stated that all kinds of cruelty are allowed to the rebels and there is "no sin"for them

30 E. Dupre-Thes eider. L'eresia a Bologna..., p. 441 (our italics - V. S.).

31 Ejusd. Fra Dolcino..., pp. 24 - 25.

32 Ibid. p. 25.

page 89

this is still better than starving to death or renouncing your faith. I would like to believe that this was not written by Dolcino himself, but only forcibly accepted and sanctioned by him, as well as other excesses during this period of the collapse of all hopes and predictions. " 33 Thus Dolcino is helpless in the face of the rampant elements he has awakened; he is a passive observer, trailing in the wake of events, not the leader, but the victim of an insurrection - such is the figure of the popular revolutionary in the image of a modern bourgeois author.

Other events in the life and activities of the rebellious monk are also adjusted to this assessment. Natural and characteristic of all medieval peasant movements, the unpreparedness and spontaneity of the speech is given as proof of the peaceful nature of the sect leader's plans. What were these plans? It turns out that Dolcino "didn't want" to fight. "After all, it is clear that you can fight either attacking or defending. Let's take the first option, striker. But it is not clear to me, then, whether Dolcino's aim in taking up arms was to hasten the end of the "secular" church, or, more simply, to weaken the power of the bishops of Novara and Vercelli. I strongly doubt the plausibility of these tasks, " says Dupree - Thesader. He expresses even greater doubts about the "defensive option". Dolcino's first steps in Valsesia, from the point of view of an Italian historian, look like an ordinary attempt to avoid the persecution of the Inquisition, a policy consistently pursued over the years by both the apostolics and Dolcino himself. Hiding from the punishing bodies of the inquisition, he climbs higher and higher along the Sezia River, changing Gattinara and Seravalle to Campertogno, Campertogno to Mount Balma, and Balma to the inaccessible Parete Calva (Bald Wall). And only here, in the spring of 1305, besieged by the bishop's army, the apostolics began to take active action. Moreover, Dolcino's active actions were largely forced: pushed into the barren mountains with hundreds (and soon thousands) of not only men, but also women, children, and elderly residents of the surrounding villages, he was forced to equip expeditions to the area in search of food, clothing, and weapons. Further events inevitably led the heresiarch, who had embarked on this slippery path, to abandon his former passive tactics, to turn to terror and, as already mentioned, to sanction against his will the most brutal methods that diverged from his theory. This is supposedly the fate of a heretic who fell victim to the forces unleashed by him.

So, according to the greatest expert on this problem in Italy today, the tragic events of 1304-1307 were caused by external circumstances, but not by the internal logic of the movement's development, not by the evolution of the theory of the Apostolic movement. As for Dolcino's own views, "even in the mountains of Valsesia, he thought in the same way as when he preached in Bologna and elsewhere." 35 Here is a familiar pattern that takes us back to the Italian journalistic literature of the nineteenth century: Dolcino is a martyr, a victim, but now not only of the church, but also of his own passions, of his tragic commitment to theory and to the movement itself, dying in order to become a torch of struggle, a symbol of martyrdom in the future.

However, in this far from original interpretation, there is an idea that deserves the closest attention. We are talking about the specifics of the conditions in which the movement developed: the apostolics (and not just their anarchist-Plebeian circles), tightly blocked first on Pareta Calva, then on Cebello, deprived of the most necessary things.

33 Ibid., p. 24.

34 Ibid., p. 18.

35 Ibid.

page 90

they had to introduce extraordinary measures, and first of all, strict control over the distribution of available vital resources (food, clothing, weapons, housing). More than a century later, the Taborites, who were in similar circumstances, introduced a chiliastic community of property as a military measure; 36 Something similar was to be found among the apostolic brethren. Unfortunately, the documents do not provide direct evidence of this practice (which is quite understandable), but some indirect indications and hints do exist. We will refer here only to one of several pieces of evidence that can be interpreted in this way: the chronicler Guido of Pisa mentions the existence of a special kind of money among the besieged, unlike ordinary coins .37
There is no doubt that the military conditions and the logic of the armed struggle had a decisive influence on the apostolics, first of all on their concrete activities, and then on their theory. However, is it correct to assume that this situation affected only a part of the insurgents, gave them the opportunity to stand out from the rest of the mass, dictate conditions to it, forcibly subjugating them? In other words, has there been a schism among the apostolic brethren? There are no grounds for this assumption. On the contrary, all sources confirm that in the last stages of the struggle, the rebels showed massive examples of true courage and fought until the last minute, preferring death to the rejection of their ideas. Does this picture agree with the picture of division and ferment inside the rebel camp drawn by E. Dupree-Thesader? Obviously not. On the contrary, before our mind's eye appears a monolithic army, animated by a single idea and therefore capable of miracles of heroism, which is terrible to its enemies not in numbers, but in discipline, conviction, fanatical faith in its rightness and final victory.

There is no doubt that the new conditions of struggle (armed resistance) have had a decisive impact on theoretical problems and, above all, on those that are directly related to everyday practice and that explain the behavior of the rebels and their methods of struggle. This gives rise to a theoretical justification for the principle of "all means are good", which could not possibly have taken place among the apostolics either in the time of Segarelli or in the Dolcino era preceding the uprising. Does this mean that there has been a general shift in the theory of the Apostolic brothers, or, as Ye. Dupree-Thesader, does this only mean the victory of the anarchist forces in the movement? In addition to the fact that in the latter case, as already mentioned, it is still necessary to prove the existence of any split among the rebels, we will also have to admit that this breakaway part was so strong that it forced the rest to speak and act as they saw fit. Let us turn, however, to the source, and precisely to the one that E. Dupree-Thesader considers the most detailed and trustworthy - the chronicle of an anonymous contemporary. "Dolcino," writes anonymous about the last stages of the revolt, " during his stay in the mountains and in the valley of Sesia, said, taught and preached a lot openly, and also ordered to preach everywhere that his followers, as well as himself, were free and allowed to hang, behead, maim and exterminate people who were subject to the Roman empire churches, and in particular, taking Christians captive, destroying their property, and forcing them to pay ransoms-all without falling into sin."38 . It is difficult to suspect in these very specific words any other meaning, a subtext that speaks of "forced migration".

36 See K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 7, p. 364.

37 См. "Rerum Italicarum Scriptores". NE. T. IX, pp. VIII-IX.

38 Ibid., p. 7.

page 91

sanctions" issued by Dolcino to his "fellow competitors". Wouldn't it be easier and more accurate to see in them what they actually contain - the development of theory under the influence of practice, the ideological justification of the anti-church and, consequently, anti-feudal struggle of the rebellious people?

The idea of the evolution of Dolcino's views caused by special circumstances is also confirmed by some sources. For the sake of proof, let us take the same problem of theoretical justification of the tactics of heretics both in the period preceding the uprising and during the uprising. The main source for studying Dolcino's theory in 1300-1304 is his first and second epistles, which have come down to us as presented by B. Gui. In almost identical terms, they suggest that until the then pope, cardinals, and the highest clergy of the church are destroyed by the future emperor (Frederick of Sicily), Dolcino and his followers will continue to hide, not actively fighting for their ideas. Only after the defeat of the papacy will they move on to openly propagating their ideas and creating a new, apostolic church. The victory of the apostolate, therefore, was associated with the defeat of the papacy by the new emperor.

B. Gwi presents this question somewhat differently in the following lines of his treatise. After giving an account of two of Dolcino's epistles and systematizing his (and Segarelli's) "errors and errors," he returns to the question of sectarian tactics. Repeating that they act in secret, depending on the situation (they"teach" not all at once, but "one or the other, or several, as it suits them"), most of all attacking the" bad life " of the clergy and "outwardly hiding behind piety", B. Gui again turns to the content of their sermon. It is obvious that in this case we are not talking about a purely dogmatic platform expressed in the epistles, but about the theoretical program that Dolcino and his associates adhered to in their preaching practice. "Among other things, Dolcino taught," the Gvi reports...That in 1305 Frederick, King of Sicily, son of King Pedro of Aragon, would become emperor, appoint ten kings in Italy, and kill the pope, cardinals, and prelates... Then Dolcino will take the place of St. Peter and his men will rule the church... They are not yet strong enough in the beginning, and that is why they preach at night, secretly and in fear. However, in the specified year, when Frederick becomes emperor... they will put aside all fear and openly preach throughout the world in order to convert people to their apostolic faith, sect and life... " 39 .

In this comparison of the theory expressed in the epistles and the theory propagated in the course of activity, there is a very significant point: everyday practical preaching is more radical in its spirit than the theoretical calculations of the epistles. Indeed, if in the epistle the apostolics were called to expect the overthrow of the papacy, then in the oral sermon the stage of the triumph of their cause is already connected with a closer time - the election of Frederick as emperor; moreover, this election, in fact, is a signal for the participants of the sect to move from passive expectation to active actions. The difference of views expressed in different types of documents is generally understandable and easily explained: the messages were intended not only for members of the sect, but also for the wider masses, for everyone who wants to get acquainted with Dolcino's theory and prophecies. The sermons focused on a narrower circle of like-minded people and had purely practical tasks. However, in this case, something else is important for us: the apostolic theory provided for a transition to more active actions at the time of the alleged crust-

39 Ibid., p. 26.

page 92

the nation of Frederick, that is, in 1305 40 . In this connection, the observation made by E. Dupree-Thesader is extremely interesting: it is from the spring of 1305 (that is, from the beginning of this year, according to the calendar of that time) that the Apostolics switch to a new, active tactic of resistance, as evidenced by the raids on Varallo, Trivero and other lands, the strengthening of Parete Calva and in general the onset of the stage of armed insurrection. And although Dolcino's predicted accession of Frederick did not take place (but he still continues to expect it, as can be seen from the text of his third epistle, written before the end of December 1305) and the reason for the transition to active actions has not yet come, the actions themselves have already unfolded. It is possible that the actual reason for them was the offensive (in March style) of the decisive, 1305 year, but this is only a guess. It is obvious that the transition to armed struggle took place not against the will and views of Dolcino, but in accordance with them.

And a few more words about Dolcino's role in all these events. The appearance of Dolcino among the apostolics, the beginning of his active activity (and he is considered to be 1287-1289) coincide with the general spread of this heresy, its transition to more radical positions. Thus, in 1290, the apostolic brothers were officially recognized as heretics for the first time (in a bull of Pope Nicholas IV); since 1299, a wave of inquisitorial trials against the apostolics has been sweeping across Northern and Central Italy; as early as 1294, Gherardo Segarelli was imprisoned (his first arrest, described by Salimbene, was caused by other reasons) and in in July 1300, he was burned as having fallen into heresy for the second time. Of course, we do not have sufficient grounds to directly link the activation of the apostolics (and the resulting activity of the Inquisition) with the personality and activities of Dolcino, but this coincidence is very significant.

How does Dolcino behave after becoming the acknowledged head of the sect? In August 1300, immediately after Segarelli's report card, he sends the first message to his followers, setting out his creed. It is interesting that in this message, written, it would seem, in conditions of extreme haste, already. it contains a detailed and complete teaching that has not undergone any major changes in the future. This suggests that the doctrine outlined in the epistle is not a figment of the imagination of a single person, but a theoretical platform for the entire trend that was formed long before 1300. So, from the very first steps, Dolcino acts as a leader of the masses and an exponent of the ideas of a popular uprising. It should be noted that addressing the broad masses of the people in the form of epistles and open letters is a method that was not previously practiced among the apostolic brothers.

In bourgeois literature, the case is often portrayed in such a way that the period 1300-1304 years. Dolcino spent time in Trentino, ostensibly similar to Segarelli's time in Parma. In reality, Dolcino was much more active than his predecessor. Despite the sparseness of these documents, there is still information about the movements, secret and open, accompanied by a group of his closest employees, which were undertaken by the head of the apostolics. So, in 1301, he secretly visited Bologna, and in 1303, together with his entourage, made a great journey through the Lombard lands. According to an anonymous source, Dolcino fell into the hands of inquisitors three times during these years, but his resourcefulness and natural intelligence helped him avoid punishment, despite the fact that he was already preyed upon for a second time.-

40 It should be recalled here that in most parts of Central and Northern Italy the style of "From the Incarnation of Christ" was common, in which the year began with March; hence, according to this style, the year 1305 lasted from March 1305 to March 1306 of our reckoning.

page 93

being held in the Inquisition automatically meant execution or prolonged imprisonment.

Dolcino's outstanding personal qualities could not be denied even by his enemies (and their pen, in fact, belongs to all the information that has come down to us about him). A deeply educated man for his time, who freely used the Bible to argue his points; a talented orator, who easily persuaded any audience with his sermons, and at the same time a passionate tribune of the people, whose one word raised his supporters to the death struggle; a born military leader, who successfully fought for more than two years against the feudal army of a large part of Northwestern Italy; a man who was madly brave and at the same time ascetically modest, who set a personal example to his followers, devoted to the idea to the end of his days and even to the point of death - this is the stern and charming image of the leader of the popular uprising. Not in everything this man was crystal clear and unambiguous - he is contradictory and complex, just as his era is contradictory and complex; however, with all this, in the character of a violent monk who gave his life without regret for a just cause, there is no place for the indecision and passivity attributed to him in the last period of his life by E. Dupree-Thesader. Paradoxically, of the two contemporary views of Dolcino: one as the leader of the revolt, a strong personality who inspired his comrades to fight for victory until the last minute, and the other as a weak, passive figure trailing in the wake of events, the latter belongs to Italian historiography. This is all the more regrettable because in the past Italian historians have characterized the life and work of Dante's great contemporary from a different perspective.

Thus, modern Italian bourgeois historiography is waging an "undeclared war" with Marxist researchers on this sector of the historical front. However, by setting out to "refute" Marxism, to show the "subjectivity and simplicity" of the Marxist method, to revise the "Marxist myth" about Dolcino, critics only showed their own inconsistency, arbitrarily selecting and interpreting facts, straightforwardly, simplistically approaching the solution of fundamental problems, ignoring the arguments of opponents and getting confused in contradictions and reservations. The new works of Italian bourgeois historians on the Apostolic movement and the Dolcino revolt actually take a step back from the best achievements of Italian historiography at the end of the XIX-beginning of the XX century.

page 94

Permanent link to this publication: