A History of Russian Christianity (Vol II) The Patriarchal Age, Peter, The Synodal System

A HISTORY OF RUSSIAN CHRISTIANITY Volume II

A HISTORY OF RUSSIAN CHRISTIANITY Volume II The Patriarchal Era through Peter the Great 1586 to 1725

Daniel H. Shubin

Algora Publishing New York

© 2005 by Algora Publishing All Rights Reserved www.algora.com No portion of this book (beyond what is permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the United States Copyright Act of 1976) may be reproduced by any process, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or by any means, without the express written permission of the publisher. ISBN: 0-87586-346-9 (softcover) ISBN: 0-87586-347-7 (hardcover) ISBN: 0-87586-348-5 (ebook) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data — Shubin, Daniel H. A history of Russian Christianity / Daniel H. Shubin. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-87586-346-9 (pbk.: alk. paper) — ISBN 0-87586-347-7 (alk. paper) — ISBN 0-87586-348-5 (ebook) 1. Russia (Federation)—Church history. I. Title. BR932.S55 2004 274.7—dc22 2004012764

Cover photograph: St. Basil's Cathedral © Buddy Mays/CORBIS Photographer: Buddy Mays Date Photographed: ca. 1985-1995

Printed in the United States

In Memoriam Harry Eyonich Shubin Elder of the Russian Spiritual Christian Molokans of America April 3, 1927 – February 20, 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION II. SOURCES III. NAMES, PLACES, AND DATES IV. ABBREVIATIONS

1 1 2 2

PART 5

3

THE ERA OF THE PATRIARCHATE 70. INSTITUTION OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX PATRIARCHATE 71. PATRIARCH JOB AND TSAR BORIS GODUNOV 72. PATRIARCH IGNATIUS AND PSEUDO-DMITRI I 73. PATRIARCH HERMOGEN AND PSEUDO-DMITRI 74. THE PATRIARCHAL INTERVAL 75. PATRIARCH FILARET 76. PATRIARCH JOASAF I 77. PATRIARCH JOSEPH 78. THE EARLY YEARS OF NIKON MININ 79. ARSENIUS THE GREEK 80. PATRIARCH NIKON AND HIS CAREER 81. PATRIARCH NIKON AND HIS REFORM 82. PATRIARCH NIKON DURING THE INTERVAL 83. THE COUNCIL OF 1666 84. PSEUDO-METROPOLITAN PANTALEON LIGARID 85. THE COUNCIL OF 1666-1667: THE REFORM 86. THE COUNCIL OF 1666-1667: PATRIARCH NIKON 87. THE COUNCIL OF 1666-1667: CHURCH-STATE RELATIONSHIP 88. PATRIARCH NIKON'S CONCLUDING YEARS 89. PATRIARCH JOASAF II 90. PATRIARCH PITIRIM 91. CAUSES OF THE SCHISM 92. PROTOPOPE AVVAKUM PETROVICH AND HIS CONFEDERATES

ix

5 5 36 45 57 64 66 71 72 80 89 90 103 110 116 117 120 121 125 128 132 133 134 137

History of Russian Christianity Vol. II 93. ORTHODOX LIFE, TEACHING AND LITURGY 94. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 95. METROPOLITAN PETER MOGILA OF KIEV 96. DEVOTION OF TSAR AND PATRIARCH 97. THE MYSTICS

141 144 147 150 151

PART 6

157

THE ERA OF TSAR PETER THE GREAT 98. PETER ALEKSEEVICH ROMANOV'S EARLY YEARS 99. PATRIARCH JOACHIM 100. PATRIARCH ADRIAN 101. TSAR PETER THE GREAT AND THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH 102. METROPOLITAN STEFAN YAVORSKI 103. ARCHBISHOP THEOFAN PROKOPOVICH 104. THE RELIGIOUS REGULATION 105. THE RATIFICATION OF THE MOST-HOLY GOVERNING SYNOD 106. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE MOST-HOLY SYNOD 107. CONDITION OF RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY AMONG THE POPULATION 108. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 109. TSAR PETER AND THE OLD BELIEVERS 110. ESCHATOLOGY AND APOCALYPTICISM 111. DMITRI TVERITINOV AND THE PROTESTANT MOVEMENT 112. THE DEMISE OF TSAR PETER THE GREAT 113. REFLECTIONS ON THE SYNODAL SYSTEM

159 159 161 168 174 179 184 188 195 198 200 203 207 211 214 218 219

APPENDICES 116. CONFESSION OF DMITRI TVERITINOV 117. MONASTERY PRISONS

223 223 226

INDEX

233

x

PROLOGUE I. INTRODUCTION The content of this second volume of the history of the Christianity of Russia begins in 1586, with the initiation of the effort toward establishing a Russian patriarchate, and concludes in 1725, at the death of Tsar Peter the Great, covering the Patriarchal Era and the establishment of the Holy Synod. The final chapter is a summary of the opposition to the Synodal system in the two centuries that followed its institution. The appendices consist of the confession read by Dmitri Tveritinov to the Holy Synod prior to his release after ten years of custody, and a description of the use of monasteries as prisons for dissenters. The book is arranged in chronological and topical sequence. It is divided into periods marking major eras within the history of Russia, with a survey of the major characters of each period (primarily metropolitans and patriarchs) in chronological order, with topics specific to each period presented at the end of the section.

II. SOURCES In writing this volume, the author has relied on the following texts, all in Russian, listed in order of importance. Anton V. Kartashyov, Ocherki po Istorii Russkoi Tserkvi, 2 volumes, 1932. N. Talberg, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, 1959, 2 volumes.

1

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II Pyotr Vasilyevich Znamenski, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, 1896. Filaret (Gumilevski), Archbishop of Chernigov, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, 1848. Feodor Vasilich Livanov, Raskolniki I Ostrozhniki, five volumes, 1871-1875. Andrei P. Bogdanov, Russkie Patriarkhi, 2 volumes, 1999. Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov, Raskol, 1903. Makarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomensk, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, 1857, eight volumes. Pavel Nikolaevich Miliukov, Ocherki po Istorii Russkoi Kulturi, volume 2, 1930 (1994 reprint).

III. NAMES, PLACES, AND DATES All of names in the text are transcribed from their Russian form, with the English equivalent — if there is one — in parentheses. The dates given in the text are quoted directly from their sources. Ancient Russia used a calendar based on the creation of the world September 1 year 1, while some of the population followed Catholic chronology and celebrated New Year’s Day March 25, the holiday of the Annunciation. The Julian calendar was not introduced into Russia until 1700, by decree of Tsar Peter the Great, although some sectors of society were already using it due to European influence. Dates prior to Peter the Great were converted to the Julian calendar by Russian historians. Since Russia continued to use the Julian calendar until 1918, and Russian Orthodoxy continues to do so at present, all dates in early Russian sources are based on the Julian calendar. The author did not consider it necessary to convert all dates to match the Gregorian calendar currently in use, because the majority of specific dates were either fabricated by the chroniclers or by Russian church historians, or are approximations in any case.

IV. ABBREVIATIONS Patr. Metr. Pr.

Patriarch Metropolitan Prince

2

PART 5

THE ERA OF THE PATRIARCHATE 70. INSTITUTION OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX PATRIARCHATE In explaining the creation of the Russian patriarchate, Russian historians such as Karamzin and Kostomarov attach much significance to the ambition of Boris Godunov, who installed his court favorite Iov (Job) as metropolitan and then adorned him with the title of patriarch — although Job was not without ambitious inclinations of his own. Godunov’s objective was to route the frail dynasty of Rurik into the channel of his own genealogy. While it cannot be denied that Boris Godunov was ambitious to confirm the upcoming coronation by the mystique of consecration by a patriarch, just as the actual heirs to the throne of the Byzantine emperor had done, the principal reason is much more profound. The idea of a Russian patriarchate evolved from the entire history of the metropolitan’s cathedra during the era of Moscovite Russia. It was on everybody’s mind. During the final years of the 16th century, Moscow developed a very urgent desire to institute a patriarchate for itself. In 1415, Ukraine had removed itself from the administration of the metropolitan of Moscow and created its own cathedra, and in 1596 the region became completely Uniate. Russian distrust of the Greeks was measurably encouraged by the Jesuits, enemies of Orthodoxy. The Jesuits had promoted the decay of the Hellenic east as one of the motives to convert Eastern Orthodoxy to Unia, and this excited in Moscovites an opposite effect. Moscow prelates now developed a drive to become totally autocephalous, by way of a Russian patriarchate, which would

5

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II put them on an equal footing with Greece or perhaps even give them pre-eminence over Greek Orthodoxy. In view of Ukraine’s evasion from the hegemony of both Moscow and Constantinople, Jesuits in the 16th century persistently advertised the loss of the purity of religion and ecclesiastical rites by the Greeks and the Russians who were associated with them. The Jesuit Peter Skarga wrote that the Greek Church suffered for a long while from the despotism of Byzantine emperors, and finally collapsed under the shameful yoke of the Ottoman Turks, who installed and deposed patriarchs at their whim beginning from the defeat of Constantinople in 1453. The patriarch and clergy of Constantinople had a reputation for arrogance, and were oblivious to the fact that purity of religion could not reside in a church in captivity. Skarga also stated that because Russia had imitated the Greek religion and rite, it too possessed no purity of religion, no miracles of God, no spirit of God, no cohesion. Such assessments by the Catholics regarding Russian Orthodoxy made their way to Moscow and, of course, could not please the Russians. The attitude of the Catholics aggravated Russia’s frustration with the Greeks, and convinced them of the necessity of establishing an additional level of ecclesiastical primacy for Russian Orthodoxy. This was necessary not only for personal recognition, but for recognition by the Eastern Orthodox population and the entire Christian world. It is credible that Peter Skarga’s inferences genuinely excited a Grecophobia in Russia that otherwise had lain dormant since the time of the Council of Florence. The Russians were now flattered in the hope that Ukraine — crushed under the heel of Catholicism — would jubilantly arise, once it recognized that its elder sister — the Russian Orthodox Church — now possessed a patriarchate. Indirectly, the Russian Church would affirm that the Hellenic east was aflame, rather than just smoldering, and would summon its brethren in Poland and Lithuania, who had jurisdiction over Ukraine. The national prestige of Russia, both imperial and sacerdotal, always kept in its sights another great historical question: Who would attain hegemony over the Eastern European plain, the Catholics or Orthodox? The question of the patriarchate flared up in Moscow when the news came that Patr. Joachim V of Antioch, who was traveling through Lvov and Eastern Europe, had appeared at the border of Russia. The arrival of an Eastern patriarch on Russian soil was unprecedented. The Moscovites felt honored, in their customary respect for their spiritual fathers according to faith, the heirs of the glory of the ancient church. This was accompanied by a desire to flaunt their piety and

6

The Era of the Patriarchate the majesty of their kingdom. And along with the issue of hospitality, it was an opportunity to present the question of a Russian patriarchate. The rendezvous with the patriarch was pompous, beyond compare with any he received in the Uniate regions of Eastern Europe. Such a reception in Russia could not but impress the Eastern patriarch and gladden his retinue. By order of Moscow, the Smolensk military commander greeted the patriarch with dignity, provided him all comfort and provisions, and accompanied him to Moscow with an honor guard. Patr. Joachim arrived in Smolensk on June 6, 1586, and from there sent a letter to Tsar Feodor Ivanovich. Earlier, the patriarch had requested and received from Tsar Feodor 200 pieces of gold. This newest letter of Patr. Joachim was full of native Byzantine expressions, that is, abundant praise of the Moscovite tsar, such as, “If one should view heaven and the heaven of heavens, and all the stars, but sees not the sun, he has seen nothing. But when he sees the sun he rejoices immensely and glorifies its creator. At the present the sun of our Orthodox Christians is none other than yourself, your royal majesty.” But none of the correspondence was directed to Metr. Dionysei. The tsar sent esteemed emissaries to the patriarch to greet him as he traveled deeper into Russia: to Mozhaisk, first, and then to Dorogomilov. Patr. Joachim entered Moscow on June 17, 1586, and was given a residence in the home of Sheremetiev. On June 25, there was a full-dress banquet to greet the patriarch at the home of Tsar Feodor, but Metr. Dionysei extended to Patr. Joachim neither visit nor greeting. This omission on the part of the Russian metropolitan did not occur without the consensus of imperial authority. The metropolitan clearly wanted the Eastern patriarch, who was begging for alms, to recognize that he — the Russian metropolitan — was head of his own autocephalous church, just like the patriarch of Antioch; he was also the head of a church that was larger and stronger, and that possessed more freedoms. For this reason Russian prelates felt it was more appropriate for the patriarch to condescend to the metropolitan in greeting. The patriarch sought to circumvent the issue by first greeting the tsar; the Russian metropolitan played the same game. As an honored guest, the patriarch rode to the palace in the royal carriage. Receiving the patriarch in his Golden Chamber, the tsar sat on his throne wearing his royal robes in the midst of his noblemen and officials in full dress. The tsar then arose and walked forward from his throne a few feet for the meeting. Patr. Joachim blessed Tsar Feodor and delivered the relics of some saints as a gift for him. He also handed the tsar a letter of approbation, confirmed with the signatures of Patr. Theoleptus of Constantinople and Patr. Silvester of

7

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II Alexandria, regarding financial assistance from Russia in the amount of 8,000 pieces of gold, to cover the debts of the cathedra of Antioch. The tsar invited the patriarch to dine with him that very day, a great honor according to Moscovite custom. Meanwhile, Joachim was directed to Uspenski Cathedral to meet with the metropolitan. This scenario was determined in advance in order to intimidate the patriarch with a display of Metr. Dionysei at his cathedral, surrounded by a crowd of innumerable prelates dressed in brocaded golden robes with pearls, and in the midst of icons, and vaults containing relics of saints, which were also decorated with gold and jewels. The scene was designed so that the destitute guest — patriarch in title only — would feel his inferiority while in the presence of the head of a genuinely majestic church. An honorable greeting was offered the patriarch at the south doors, and attendants led him to kiss certain icons and relic vaults in the traditional manner. Meanwhile Metr. Dionysei, with his prelates in the center of the cathedral, were ready to begin the liturgy. Metr. Dionysei descended from his ambo and then took a few steps forward to greet Patr. Joachim, and hastened to bless him first. The patriarch, struck dumb by the advance of the metropolitan and his blessing, well understood the offense imposed; through an interpreter he informed them that this was inappropriate and that the patriarch was supposed to bless first. But Joachim noticed that nobody seemed to hear his complaint, and divined that it was not the time or place to debate the issue, and he desisted. Patr. Joachim heard the liturgy, standing at a pillar near the rear of the cathedral, still dressed in his traveling clothes! The royal banquet after the liturgy, and the royal gifts presented him, were only gilded pills for the embittered patriarch. The person of the Russian metropolitan, radiant as an Olympic giant in the presence of the patriarch, again hid from the patriarch. Immediately following a greeting and dinner, the royal family began negotiations with Patr. Joachim regarding the patriarchate. The talks were conducted clandestinely, and without a written account of the proceedings. All this impressed upon the patriarch that it was no use for him to argue with the Russian metropolitan, who had the advantage; and the patriarch was now in Moscow’s debt, anyway. By handling the matter entirely behind the scenes, the imperial authorities spared the Russian prelates the risk of condescension and delivered them from any chance of falling into the hands of a destitute beggar. The Russian church asked for nothing, as if it had all it wanted, but nonetheless gave the Eastern patriarchs to understand their obligation

8

The Era of the Patriarchate toward the Russian Church and the need to recognize it for its charity. A patriarchate was the price to be paid. At the Boyar Duma (Assembly of Nobles), Tsar Feodor gave a speech commencing with the statement that he, after consulting with wife Irina and brother-in-law Boris Godunov, had decided to propose a matter to the visiting patriarch. Tsar Feodor proceeded with his address. “From the beginning, at the time of our forefathers — the rulers of Kiev, Vladimir and Moscow — pious tsars and grand princes installed our prelates as metropolitans of Kiev, Vladimir, Moscow and all Russia with the consensus of the ecumenical patriarch at Constantinople. Then by the mercy of the omnipotent God and the immaculate Virgin Mary, our intercessor, by the prayers of the great miracle-workers of the entire Russian realm, and by the petitions and prayer of our ancestors — our pious tsars and grand princes of Moscow — and in accord with the counsel of the patriarch of Constantinople, metropolitans in Moscovite Russia were allowed to be ordained by the selection and consensus of our forebears and the entire council of prelates, one selected from the prelates of the Russian realm. Now, according to His great and indescribable mercy, God has gifted us to see the arrival of the great patriarch of Antioch, and we give glory to God for this event. And we must also ask of Him mercy, so that He will ordain a Russian patriarch within our sovereignty of Moscow. And we will discuss this matter with the most-reverend Patr. Joachim, and will direct him toward blessing a Moscovite patriarchate, one who will be included with all the patriarchs.”

Boris Godunov, nominated for the negotiations, was sent to Patr. Joachim, and proposed to him the following. “You should discuss this with the most-reverend and venerable ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, while the most-reverend patriarch will discuss this great matter with you and the other patriarchs, and with archbishops and bishops and with abbots and archimandrites, and with an entire ecclesiastical assembly. Even at the holy mountain, at Sinai, should our petition be heard, in order for God to permit such a great matter to be implemented in our Russian sovereignty and for the piety of the Christian faith. After meditating on this matter, they should disclose to us how to proceed to consummate this matter.”

Patr. Joachim, after presentation of the request, on his own behalf and on behalf of the other Eastern patriarchs thanked the tsar of Moscow for all the charity that was requested of him, and recognized that it would be appropriate to install a patriarchate in Russia. He promised to discuss this matter with the other patriarchs, saying, “This is a great matter pertaining to a council of us all, and I cannot implement this matter without their consensus.” The final words echoed oddly in the ears of the tsar and Boris Godunov. The subsequent documents pertaining to the negotiations are ambiguous and far from objective. Apparently, the 8,000 pieces of gold Joachim had requested was offered by Godunov, and in return, while on his homeward journey, Joachim was to

9

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II intercede for a Russian patriarchate and secure approval from the remaining patriarchs. The negotiation concluded quickly; both parties received what they expected. Patr. Joachim visited Moscow Chudovski Monastery on July 4, and Troitse-Sergievski Monastery on July 8. He was honorably received and was presented with many gifts at both shrines. Joachim was then received with honor at the tsar’s Golden Chamber on July 17 for farewells. The tsar publicly announced his grant of alms to the patriarch, and requested the patriarch, in return, to pray on his behalf; but not a word was spoken about the patriarchate. From here the guest was led to Blago-Veschenski and Archangelsk Cathedrals, to attend liturgies prior to his departure; but Joachim did not enter the cathedra of the metropolitan — Uspenski Cathedral — nor the personal chambers of Metr. Dionysei, and neither was there any farewell with him. The offense to Joachim was appreciable. One can only surmise that Dionysei’s gesture was not made without strong political reason, nor without the consensus of the tsar and his brother-in-law. Patr. Joachim departed Moscow on August 1, 1586, escorted by an honor guard on his journey for Chernigov. To help accomplish the intents of Moscow, Mikhail Ogarkov, a clerk, was sent with Joachim. Ogarkov was hoping, as well, to ransom his son who was sitting as a captive in a Turkish prison. Ogarkov also was delivering expensive gifts and additional contributions to the patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria. Boris Godunov guided the politics of the Russian state to his own benefit, with opposition from a party that included Metr. Dionysei. Godunov had a favorite among the prelates, Job, abbot of Staritzki (Elder’s) Monastery, whom he hoped to make Dionysei’s replacement. Godunov also entertained the idea of installing Job as patriarchate. Metr. Dionysei suspected as much: the intriguing Godunov might agree to some accommodation with the Eastern Church, to reduce some of the independence of the Russian Church, in order to acquire the pompous patriarchal title for Job. From this point onward, Metr. Dionysei began a serious campaign to preserve intact the autonomy and dignity of the Russian Church. In the following year of 1587, Metr. Dionysei and Archbishop Varlaam of Krutitzk, as candid opponents of Godunov, were both deposed by Godunov, and indeed Job was given Dionysei’s position and then promoted to the cathedra of metropolitan.

10

The Era of the Patriarchate In Constantinople, the tendentiousness of the Russians evoked a negative reaction among the Greek Orthodox prelates. The history of the earlier ascensions of the patriarchates of Bulgaria and Serbia was raised, and the Greeks remembered how bitter it was for them, when these Churches gained independence. The Eastern patriarchs employed the tactics of silence and procrastination at least to delay what they could not prevent, and for an entire year Moscow received no response from them. Constantinople, foreseeing the inevitable, then decided to take advantage of the situation and exploit the Russians. All throughout the latter part of 1586 and early 1587, Eastern clergymen — dozens of metropolitans, archbishops, abbots, hieromonks and monks — migrated in a stream through Chernigov and Smolensk, and thence to Moscow, requesting donations and then returning home with their spoils. Toward the end of June 1587, Nikolai, a Greek, a messenger from the patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch, appeared at Chernigov, at the border of Russia, with a letter again requesting donations and with an oral communication for the tsar. The message borne by Nikolai was that, at a council (seemingly undertaken for the purpose of considering the request for a Russian patriarchate), the patriarchs had conferred on that question. Some evidence indicates that Nikolai fabricated this “oral communication” while in Chernigov, so that his requests for charity would be granted, and he would not return empty-handed. The guards at Chernigov questioned Nikolai about his embassy, and only allowed him to continue his journey to Moscow after they received the desired response. During this interval Patr. Theoleptus of Constantinople was deposed by the Turkish sultan Porta, and former patriarch Jeremiah II Tranos was recalled out of exile and reinstalled as patriarch. It was Theoleptus who, as a result of his intrigue to acquire the patriarchate of Constantinople, had earlier banished Jeremiah to exile. When Patr. Jeremiah returned to Constantinople from exile, the Ecumenical patriarchate was in ruins. Apparently because of the debts of Theoleptus, Sultan Porta confiscated the patriarchal cathedral church of Pammakaristi (All-Blessed) and converted it into a mosque, and also confiscated the remaining buildings of the patriarch’s domain. Jeremiah found refuge at the estate of a feudal prince in Walachia (Romania), and there he built a church to use as his cathedra and residence. Jeremiah was overwhelmed by the responsibility of restoring the devastated center of his own patriarchate, and the Russians’ importunate demands were not on his mind. It is also possible that documents were destroyed during the devastation of Theoleptus’ patriarchate

11

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II by the sultan, and little remained for Jeremiah. However, he did acquire sufficient information from others on the “urgency” of the matter. Jeremiah decided to swallow his Greek pride and travel to the fabulous Moscow — as they described the city — and with an open palm. Moscow, he heard, was very rich and very naïve in honoring Eastern patriarchs, and a patriarch of Constantinople had not yet visited Russia in all its 600 year association. The fact that Moscow was awaiting a positive response regarding the question of the patriarchate did not deter him the least. He needed financial support, which request Moscow did not expect from him, especially after Patr. Joachim’s visit and Nikolai’s intrigue. With the permission of the sultan, Jeremiah left for Russia. Passing through Lvov and Vilna with a retinue of 27 persons, he arrived at Smolensk on June 24, 1588. Moscow was perplexed. Why Jeremiah, and not Theoleptus, whom they knew? Moscow was initially reluctant to accept this newcomer as patriarch, and gossip recalled his earlier expulsion from the cathedra. Using the Smolensk militia, Jeremiah dispatched a letter to the tsar containing a request for funds, mentioning nothing about a patriarchate. This was a riddle for Moscow. They were expecting their affirmative answer, not another request for a hand-out. Tsar Feodor issued an order to Bishop Silvester of Smolensk and the local militia to greet the newcomer with all honor. A delegate from Moscow, headed by the respected Semeon Pushechnikov, was to travel to Smolensk and interview this newcomer. Prelates wondered among themselves whether the new patriarch of Constantinople was legitimate. Apparently the result of Pushechnikov’s interview was satisfactory to Moscow, since Jeremiah was allowed to proceed with his embassy, and was greeted with ample pomp and ceremony. At Smolensk, Jeremiah and his retinue were treated with honor, and were accompanied to Moscow with an honor guard. Two of the prominent members of the retinue were Metr. Jerofius of Monemvasi, in southern Greece, and Archbishop Arsenius of Elasson, a teacher of Greek at Lvov, where he joined the party of Jeremiah. Arsenius described their arrival at Moscow from their final resting place at the Dorogomilov outpost in the following report: Having departed Smolensk on July 1, after ten days we arrived at Moscow. Five miles before great Moscow, Tsar Feodor and the great metropolitan Job of great Moscow sent two archbishops, two bishops, respected noblemen, archimandrites, abbots, priests, monks and a large crowd, to greet the patriarch. The prelates and royal noblemen, having arrived, related to the patriarch the greeting and satisfaction of the tsar, while the patriarch, having stood and raised his hands to God, prayed long, thanking much the tsar, and after his prayer the patriarch blessed the

12

The Era of the Patriarchate prelates and noblemen, giving them a holy kiss. In like manner did he bless them all. In an orderly fashion we proceeded with festivity and great honor to great Moscow.

Patr. Jeremiah of Constantinople entered Moscow July 13, 1588. The guests were led through the best streets of Moscow surrounded by crowds, and were given a residence at the Riazanski Palace. The tsar issued a personal order to Semeon Pushechnikov and a police office, Grigori Naschokin, to see to the security of the guests, and provide surveillance. A robust and strong guard, consisting of three sons of noblemen, was to follow their every move, so that no Greek or Turk residing in Moscow would approach them without official permission. Communication between the guests with the public was permitted only with the approval of Andrei Schelkalov, Minister of Foreign Affairs. Any unauthorized person who attempted to communicate with Jeremiah was to be reported to the tsar. Jerofius of Monemvasi left this bitter account of the surveillance over them. These people are bad and dishonest, and every word they heard they relayed to a translator, and he in turn relayed it to the tsar. None of the local residents were allowed to speak to them or visit with them, neither were they allowed out of the palace into public view. Even when monks, who accompanied the patriarch, had to go to the bazaar for provisions, they were accompanied by the tsar’s people, who guarded them until they returned to their residence.

On this occasion — in contradistinction to the conduct of the former Metr. Dionysei — the prelates expressed their goodwill and respect toward Patr. Jeremiah. This change in attitude was shown, first, because Jeremiah of Constantinople was considered to have preeminence over all Eastern patriarchs; and second, because he had brought many relics of saints as a gift to the Russian tsar, while Joachim had come to them begging for alms; and third, because Godunov had replaced Dionysei with Job, his court favorite, whom he wanted to promote to the cathedra of a newly-established patriarchate. On the day after Jeremiah’s arrival, June 14, by order of the tsar, a distinguished deputation of archimandrites, protopopes and sacristans was dispatched by Metr. Job to the Riazanski Palace to inquire after the patriarch’s health. They also welcomed the patriarch to Moscow, in a ceremonial manner, on behalf of Metr. Job, and requested his blessing. In return, Jeremiah relayed to Job his gratitude for the welcome. On the following Sunday, June 21, a formal welcome was displayed for the patriarch at the palace of the tsar. The patriarch traveled there on a donkey, while crowds lined the streets. Metr. Jerofius and Archbishop Arsenius rode on horses in the traditional manner. After the guests were suitably welcomed by

13

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II palace officials, they were led to the Golden Chamber, where the tsar sat wearing his royal robes, surrounded by noblemen and courtiers, who were again in full dress. Tsar Feodor Ivanovich arose and took a few steps forward to greet the patriarch. The tsar was blessed by the patriarch, and then asked him, “Did you travel well?” Jeremiah answered following the prescribed manner, “By the mercy of God and your sovereign assistance. And as soon as we set eyes upon your royal person, we forgot about the journey and have arrived at your kingdom in good health.” All of this exchange was facilitated by interpreters on both sides. Patr. Jeremiah presented the tsar a gift of holy relics, saying to him, “Here is a golden panegia with several relics of saints. In it is a piece of the life-giving cross upon which Christ was crucified, and in this panegia is some of the blood of Christ, and a piece of the robe of Christ, and a piece of the spear, and of the reed, and a part of the sponge from which Christ tasted the vinegar, and part of the crown of thorns which the Jews placed upon Christ; and also three buttons from the garment of the Immaculate Virgin; plus a relic of the great king Constantine: a piece of his arm held in a silver pouch. This [panegia] holds a relic of the martyr St. Yakov (Jacob), [a piece of] the elbow of the left arm, and which was brought from the land of Syria by Sultan Suleiman, and was given to Patr. Jeremiah at the Church of the Immaculate Virgin. While for Tsaritza Irina we present this gold panegia containing a jewel [on its cover], and on the jewel is engraved the portrait of the holy female martyr Marina. It contains a relic of St. John Chrysostom, part of the small finger of his hand; and a relic of the holy female martyr Marina of Antioch; and a relic of the holy martyr Solomanius, part of the bone of his skull.” (The historical account calls these containers panegias; Kartashyov feels they were more like jewelry boxes, only sealed so they could not be opened.) After the gifts were presented, the tsar sat Patr. Jeremiah alongside himself on a special bench, and ordered the royal treasurer Trakhaniontov to present the tsar’s royal gifts to the patriarch: a golden goblet with two arms, a bolt of blue velvet cloth, a bolt of scarlet velvet cloth, a bolt of blue satin, a bolt of scarlet damask, one bundle of sable furs valued at 30 rubles, and 300 rubles in hard money. Metr. Jerofius had received less valuable gifts, while Archbishop Arsenius had received nothing but the 330 rubles he asked for when he had recently visited Moscow; he took that money back with him to Lvov. At this point the tsar bid farewell to the patriarch, without inviting him for dinner. However, food from the tsar’s table was taken to Riazanski Palace by

14

The Era of the Patriarchate Mikhail Saburov, and the patriarch at the same time was advised to discuss further matters with the tsar’s brother-in-law, Boris Godunov. Later, the patriarch and his retinue entered the small recording chamber at his residence. The tsar appeared, along with Godunov, Andrei Schelkalov and Druzhin Petelin. Godunov requested the entire retinue of the patriarch to leave the chamber, including Metr. Jerofius and Archbishop Arsenius. Then Godunov asked Patr. Jeremiah to personally relate to them why they had come to visit the tsar, when they had left Constantinople, who remained in his place to handle the affairs of the patriarchate, where Patr. Theoleptus was to be found, who previously had communicated with the tsar, whom had he met while traveling through Lithuania, and whether there was any news from that region to relate to the tsar. The Moscow rulers were attempting to elicit clues as to why Patr. Jeremiah seemed not to be planning to address Moscow’s primary interest — the patriarchate. As Jeremiah explained his misfortunes, it became plain that his motives for visiting Moscow and the tsar were straightforward and sincere enough. Now, with the disappearance of Patr. Theoleptus, who well understood the question of a Russian patriarchate, and to whom many expensive gifts had been given — now in vain, it was necessary to begin negotiations from the start. This, of course, was disturbing to the Russian rulers. And other items of a political nature, communicated by Patr. Jeremiah, were not without interest to them. He had been in Poland when they selected their king; their selection was Sigismund II Vasa, and so Krakow became the King’s new residence. Patr. Jeremiah also held certain secrets, but he preferred to relate these matters to Godunov in private, because they dealt with Russian involvement in the selection of the Polish king. But because these secrets did not pertain to the matter at hand, Godunov was not interested to listen any further. After about two hours of ceremonial welcome and general conversation, Patr. Jeremiah retired to his residence for lunch. Did Godunov approach Patr. Jeremiah on the topic of the patriarchate? He certainly did, but Jeremiah did not sense any obligation on his part to proceed at this time. His sole focus was to secure financial backing to cover his needs back in Constantinople. The Moscow officials made it clear that they were not offering charity where nothing was offered in return. Agents of the tsar visited Jeremiah regularly, extorting from him his thoughts; for weeks and months he was sheltered under guard at the Riazanski Palace, his residence, living on the hospitality of the tsar as though a royal prisoner. The Russians then approached

15

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II him with the possibility remaining in Russia as the Russian patriarch. Without any counsel or consultation with others, he answered affirmatively, “I will stay.” As soon as Jeremiah swallowed the bait, intense negotiations began. Patr. Jeremiah was carried away by the thought of being patriarch of both Constantinople and Moscow; his domain would now extend throughout Russia and Eastern Europe. He would have greater access to funds for refinancing his beleaguered and forlorn patriarchate in Constantinople, now laid waste by Ottoman occupation, and could use Russian help in negotiations with the Ottomans. He could also develop Greek culture in Russia, and Moscow would become his second cathedra. Now, he would not have to worry about the autonomy of the Russian Church, since it would be consumed by Constantinople. Patr. Jeremiah may also have been dazzled by the freedom Orthodoxy enjoyed in Moscow, and the wealth, compared to the destitution and persecution in Constantinople. But the invitation to stay in Moscow was only a ruse designed to lure him into acceding to their primary demand. The Russians, of course, were not about to sell or betray their church to the patriarch of Constantinople, and so they informed Jeremiah that he would have to reside at Vladimir, the ancient capital. That way, he would not interfere with the Russian metropolitan, whose cathedra was in Moscow; the patriarch would likewise be distanced from the Russian noblemen, the Duma, and other political bodies and agencies of Imperial Russia. Only after hearing the conditions under which he would have his patriarchate in Russia did Patr. Jeremiah understand that he had been tricked. However, he was still somewhat naive about their ultimate goal. The Russians entered into more detailed negotiations with him, but Patr. Jeremiah rejected their proposition. He knew he could not be effective as a patriarch with his cathedra in Vladimir, while the tsar and metropolitan had their residences in Moscow. Godunov visited Jeremiah several times, persistently seeking to change his mind. It was only after Jeremiah’s adamant rejection of the Russian patriarchate on his own behalf that Tsar Feodor pressed him to ordain Job as patriarch. Having already conceded, at least by implication, that Moscow could or should have its own patriarchate, Jeremiah was backed into a corner. He requested leave to return to Constantinople. But Moscow had the upper hand. In early January of 1589, Tsar Feodor summoned the Duma, in the presence of Patr. Jeremiah, and gave a lecture recapitulating the history of the attitude of the cathedra of the Russian metropolitan to Constantinople. The Duma named Boris Godunov to accept the responsibility for further and final negotiations. The following is Godunov’s address to the Boyar Duma,

16

The Era of the Patriarchate We hoped that the reverend Jeremiah would remain in our sovereignty, possessing the patriarchate of Vladimir and all Russia, while our father and intercessor Metr. Job would remain in the capital city Moscow. But the reverend Jeremiah does not desire the patriarchate of Vladimir. He would be willing to fulfill our will, if we permit him the patriarchate in Moscow where our father Metr. Job presently resides. But we feel that disposition to be inadequate; how can we banish the great miracle-workers Peter and Aleksei and Jonah and men of dignity, as well as our holy and reverent father and intercessor Metr. Job, from [the Cathedral of] the Immaculate Theotokos and the great miracle workers, and implement the Greek law of the patriarch? And he does not know local customs and Russian language, and we are unable to discuss any religious matters without an interpreter. And so we will further discuss this matter with the patriarch, for him to bless and ordain for the patriarchate of Vladimir and Moscow, a member of the Russian council of prelates, our father and intercessor Metr. Job, to elevate him to the same rank as the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. And the rite of ordination will be acquired from him, for us to be able [to ordain] a patriarch from among the metropolitans, archbishops and bishops in Imperial Russia; while metropolitans and archbishops and bishops would be ordained by the patriarch of Imperial Russia, which would be useful in order to increase the number of metropolitans, archbishops and bishops in our cities.

Godunov and Schelkalov visited Patr. Jeremiah on January 13, 1589 in his palace, and stated to him rather adamantly that they by order of the tsar needed to further “discuss” the matter of his ordaining a Russian patriarch. Jerofei of Monembasi was present at the time, and recorded the scene as follows. “Then they said to him, ‘The decision of the tsar is for you to ordain a patriarch.’ And Jeremiah would change the subject, but then said that he is not authorized by the prelates, and this would be illegal. But finally against his own good wishes, he ordained a patriarch for Russia.” Patr. Jeremiah capitulated. Under such ongoing pressure from the royal family and imperial officials, he agreed to ordain a patriarch, and for no other reason than to win his release from royal house arrest and to be allowed to return home. Historian Bogdonov feels that Godunov and Schelkalov learned their techniques of coercion while they were young members of the oprichniks under Tsar Ivan the Terrible. No sooner did Tsar Feodor hear of Jeremiah’s capitulation than he summoned an ecclesiastical council of three archbishops, five bishops, five archimandrites, and three monastic elders, on January 17, 1589, to announce to them the good news. After the meeting, Godunov and Andrei Schelkalov visited Jeremiah with an ultimatum to ordain Metr Job, specifically. Under duress, Jeremiah again agreed, and the selection of Job as patriarch-designee was announced January 19, just two days later. The final technicalities were resolved on January 23, and January 26 was the date selected for the ordination. Along with Job, Patr. Jer-

17

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II emiah was to perform two other ordinations: Aleksandr, as metropolitan of Novgorod and Varlaam, as metropolitan of Rostov. Jeremiah was unprepared to conduct the rite of ordination of a patriarch, and was only able to supply, on such short notice, a synopsis of the rite. Details that were missing were supplied by Schelkalov, from the Russian rite of the ordination of a metropolitan. Beginning January 23, the entire city joined the celebration of a patriarchal ordination. At seven o’clock that morning, an ecclesiastical assembly began at Uspenski Cathedral; except that Metr. Job remained in his chambers. A special delegation of clergy departed for Riazanski Palace, to invite the patriarch to the all-Russia ecclesiastical assembly, where he would venerate the tombs of early Moscovite prelates and acknowledge autonomy of the Russian Orthodox Church (which, up to that time, had been a daughter of the Church of Constantinople). Thus, the Moscovite diplomats were able to ensure that Patr. Jeremiah traveled with them to Uspenski Cathedral, to ordain as patriarch the person he had yet to set his eyes on. At the cathedral, the services began at the sound of the smaller chime. The patriarch proceeded at the forefront of a line of Russian clergy. At their head was a taper-bearer with a dual-burning lamp. As they entered the Kremlin, the larger chime sounded. The episcopacy and clergy greeted the patriarch with three prostrations; the patriarch blessed them all. Entering Uspenski Cathedral, the patriarch stood opposite the icon of the Vladimir Theotokos and listened to the prayer on behalf of his entrance. He approached the icons and tombs of Moscovite miracle-workers and ancient prelates, displayed veneration toward them, and kissed them, and then returned to his place opposite the icon of the Vladimir Theotokos. Russian and Greek prelates approached him and performed the ceremony of the secret council, which pertained to the selection of three candidates for the patriarchate. These were — as predetermined — Metr. Job, archbishop Aleksandr of Novgorod, and Archbishop Varlaam of Rostov. Then these Russian prelates and two of the Greek prelates departed upstairs to the Chamber of the Veneration of the Theotokos (Pokhval Bogo-Roditzi), to consummate the selection. One of the candidates was to be designated patriarch, and the other two would be nominated as metropolitans of their respective dioceses. Documents were composed to this effect by Ivan Schebarshin, metropolitan’s deacon. Then these documents were brought downstairs to the patriarch, and the entire ecclesiastical assembly went to the palace to present the documents to the tsar. The procession was greeted by the tsar and noblemen at the doors to the Golden Chamber. The assembly was led in and they were seated at appropriate places in

18

The Era of the Patriarchate the tsar’s presence. After a moment, Patr. Jeremiah arose and communicated to Tsar Feodor the selection of a candidate, and entrusted him with the related documents. The tsar ordered the deacon to read them. After listening to the names of the candidates, Tsar Feodor selected Metr. Job for the patriarchate. This was the conclusive act of selection, and a special delegation was quickly sent to summon Job to the palace. Job was supposed to hear of his selection direct from the lips of the tsar, and meet Patr. Jeremiah for the first time. Upon the arrival of Metr. Job, the tsar issued strict orders so that his candidate would not be subjugated to the authority of the visiting patriarch, but at the same time would not insult him. The entrance was entirely planned by the tsar: when Job was to arrive at the doors to the tsar’s Golden Chambers, the tsar was to greet him at the doors, and Job would bless him in an appropriate manner. Then the entire ecclesiastical assembly — including Patr. Jeremiah — was to greet the arrival of Metr. Job. Afterwards, Job was to approach Jeremiah and bless him first, and in return, Jeremiah was to bless Job, and the two would kiss each other with a holy kiss in the love of Christ in the traditional manner. Each of them would hand his shepherd’s staff — the sign of his authority — to a prelate standing next to him, in order for them to kiss each other as equals. When Job entered, everything was performed exactly as planned, and they were all seated at their respective places. This was Patr. Jeremiah’s first opportunity to set his eyes on Metr. Job since his arrival in Moscow, seven months earlier! Tsar Feodor informed Metr. Job of his selection as patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, and then asked Patr. Jeremiah to pray on Job’s behalf. They arose, Patr. Jeremiah blessed Metr. Job as the patriarch-designee, and they were seated. Jeremiah handed to Tsar Feodor the documents regarding the selection of two metropolitans. The documents were read and approved by the tsar, and Jeremiah blessed the two metropolitan-designees. The ordination date of the two metropolitans was changed so that it could be performed by the new patriarch of Russia after his own ordination. Patr. Jeremiah had hoped the selection process would occur at an ecclesiastical assembly at Uspenski Cathedral, instead of at the tsar’s chambers, and he was disappointed. For reasons that are not specified, after the nomination ceremony was concluded, Metr. Job failed to publicly thank Patr. Jeremiah for his blessing that designated him as the new patriarch of Moscow and all Russia. From the tsar’s chambers the assembly walked back to Uspenski Cathedral, there to again venerate the icons. After the short service, Patr. Jer-

19

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II emiah returned to his residence, accompanied by a royal delegation, while Job remained at the cathedra to perform additional liturgy. After these services, Job returned to his residence, accompanied by an ecclesiastical assembly. There they congratulated him as patriarch-designee, and wished him many years. The actual ordination of Job was scheduled for January 26, a few days thence. In the center of Uspenski Cathedral, a scaffold was erected and on it three seats were placed: the central one for the tsar, and on either side of him Jeremiah and Job. The Tsar’s gilded chair was enveloped with blue-green velvet and above it red cloth was stretched. The areas for the patriarchs were covered with bluegreen cloth, while the chairs were covered with black velvet. On each side of the scaffold were benches for prelates, both Russian and Greek. Another scaffold was erected to serve as an elevated ambo, and an eagle with its wings outstretched was mounted over it. Twelve large lamps surrounded the ambo. Announcements were made at seven o’clock on the morning of January 26, 1589. Within an hour, Metr. Job appeared. After kissing the icons, he departed to the Chamber of the Veneration of the Theotokos, where he was arrayed in his vestments. An honor guard departed for Patr. Jeremiah, and in the same pomp escorted him to the cathedral. After listening to the prayer of his entrance, the patriarch was arrayed in his vestments, while a choir of Greek girls sang. Now began the pompous ceremony of the entrance of the tsar and his retinue into the cathedral; the same choir now sang to his longevity. After kissing icons and vaults of deceased saints, Tsar Feodor Ivanovich was blessed by Patr. Jeremiah. Then the tsar ascended the scaffold to his seat in the center, and invited the patriarch to sit at his right. Prelates and other clergy were asked to leave the area of the altar and to sit in order of rank, according to the customary manner, on the benches which were placed on each side of the scaffold. A delegation brought Metr. Job into the area in front of the eagle. Job, having bowed at the waist to the tsar and patriarch, read the confession of faith — probably the Nicene Creed — and oath of office, practically identical to the one he had read when he was ordained as metropolitan. The entire assembly arose together. Patr. Jeremiah blessed Job, saying, “By way of our humbleness, the grace of the most holy Spirit accepts you as patriarch of the God-delivered and reigning city of Moscow and the entirety of great Russia.” And again everyone was seated. A protopope and arch-deacon led Job with the customary three bows to Jeremiah. He blessed Job, and then Job blessed Jeremiah, and the two of them kissed. Job followed the line of prelates and kissed them all. Job then stood again in front of the eagle, and bowed his head. Jeremiah

20

The Era of the Patriarchate again blessed him, now with the words. “May the grace of the most holy Spirit be with you.” Then Job ascended the scaffold to take his seat alongside the tsar, and the entire assembly, together with the two patriarchs, congratulated the tsar. He replied similarly to the patriarchs. Job, now descending from his seat on the scaffold, bowed to the assembly — his head reaching the floor — and departed back to the Chamber of the Veneration of the Theotokos. The tsar, likewise, after his blessing by Jeremiah, descended from his seat on the scaffold and stood in his customary royal spot in the cathedral. Jeremiah descended from his seat and began the liturgy. The second part of ordination, the most essential, was to occur after the lesser entrance. After the third recital of “Holy, Holy, Holy,” Job was led from the chambers, and through the Royal Doors in the center of the iconostasis, and brought to the altar. Jeremiah issued an order for Job to be led near the throne-table, while the choir sang the song of the Holy Martyrs, just as would occur for any candidate for a holy order. The patriarch and all the assembled prelates laid their hands on Job and consecrated him. Both patriarchs in unison finished the balance of the liturgy. After the liturgy, the third part of ordination — which is called “nastolovaniye” (seat-assignment) — was performed. Job was led away from the altar, and three times was seated at his patriarchal spot, while the choir sang. Job removed his vestments and Patr. Jeremiah endowed him with a special gold icon and hung it around his collar. The tsar approached the center of the ambo and presented Job with a gold panegia, encrusted with jewels, along with a new set of vestments. The tsar handed these gifts to Jeremiah, who, in turn, hung them on Job, until he was attired in his new patriarchal vestments. He also received a staff made of solid gold, embedded with jewels and pearls, which was crafted especially for the occasion. We can only imagine the impression that was made on Jeremiah when he saw such majesty and wealth as Eastern patriarchs themselves never dreamed of wearing now worn by the Russian patriarch. The tsar wanted for Jeremiah to sense, once more, that Russia had earned a patriarchal title, and that Jeremiah should not regret his decision. After attiring Job in his patriarchal splendor, Jeremiah congratulated him. Then Job in return congratulated Jeremiah, and also congratulated Tsar Feodor. The three of them then returned to their seats on the scaffold. After a few moments, Tsar Feodor arose and recited a speech of investiture, similar to the speech recited at the ordination of a metropolitan:

21

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II The omnipotent and life-giving Holy Trinity, gifting to us, all of Russia, the autocracy of a Russian state, now gives to you the great throne of the great miracleworker Archbishop Peter, which is the patriarchate of Moscow and the entirety of Imperial Russia through the imposition of hands, and ordination by the ecumenical patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople, and the holy fathers and the Greek metropolitans, and archbishops and prelates of our imperial Russian state. Now accept the shepherd’s staff as father, and sit as supreme elder in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and his Immaculate Mother, and enter into [the cathedra] of the great miracle-worker Peter. And beseech the Lord God and the Immaculate Blessed Virgin, his mother, and the great miracle-workers Peter and Aleksei and Jonah, and all the saints on our behalf, and on behalf of our state and our Orthodoxy, provide all that is to our benefit, and that of the body and soul of every Orthodox Christian. And may the Lord God grant you health and longevity for ever. Amen.

(The Archbishop Peter who is mentioned is Apostle Peter, traditionally the first bishop or pope of Rome.) After his speech, the tsar entrusted to Job, as is normal according to the ritual of the ordination of a metropolitan, the original staff of Metr. Peter, decorated especially for the occasion. All of the prelates congratulated Job, while the choir sang a song to his longevity. Then Job recited to Tsar Feodor a speech according to the traditional text, after which the assembly wished the tsar longevity, and the choir sang again. This was repeated for Patr. Jeremiah, and both patriarchs blessed the entire assembly in all four directions. Tsar Feodor left Uspenski Cathedral and went to his own quarters, and the prelates entered the patriarchal chamber to await their invitation to the table of the tsar. Decorated sleighs drawn by grey steeds wearing gold trappings were sent to deliver the patriarchs to dinner. Orthodox prelates and all the officials of the Russian state followed the sleighs. The tsar himself proceeded to greet the patriarchs in their sleigh and accepted a blessing from them. Dinner was held at the Golden Chamber. Among the guests were delegates from Trans-Caucasian Georgia, who were visiting Moscow to deliver a petition to the tsar to accept Georgia under the protectorate of Russia. The gala was as grand as could be managed; the Greeks were struck by the opulent utensils and tableware. The goblets were filled with fine European wines. Nothing of silver or brass was on the table; everything was made of gold: dishes, goblets, glasses, bowls, candlesticks; all out of gold. During the dinner, a choir sang spiritual hymns. Next, Patr. Job was led on a short excursion through the city on a donkey, taking with him a cross and holy water, in a ceremony that included the archimandrites, abbots, noblemen and regular citizens. Prince P. S. Lobanov-Rostovski, the tsar’s courtier, and A. V. Plescheev, an official of the tsar, led the donkey. The entourage left the Kremlin and traveled toward Kitai Gorod (Ori-

22

The Era of the Patriarchate ental Quarter), and then to the Florovski Bridge. At the bridge, the new patriarch descended from his donkey and, standing on a special dais, read a traditional prayer for the prosperity of the city, king and state. He raised the cross and sprinkled holy water on the area. With the bells of the Kremlin ringing in the background, the procession headed back. Boris Godunov and several noblemen greeted the entourage at the Granite Palace, and all of them entered the dining area. After dinner, they drank toasts in honor of the Immaculate Virgin, in memory of Metr. Peter, for the health of the Tsar and Tsaritza, and for the newlyordained patriarch. At the conclusion of the dinner, the tsar presented gifts to the patriarchs and Greek emissaries, and then accompanied the patriarchs to their sleigh. It was winter, and already dark; servants with torches escorted the patriarchs to their residences. That evening Patr. Jeremiah, Metr. Jerofius and archimandrite Arsenius received from Job the first invitation to confer with him the following day. Only now, after the ordination, would they meet unofficially with the new patriarch. It became apparent to Jeremiah, if it was not already, that all the groundwork leading up to and orchestrating this ordination had been the effort of imperial authority. Patr. Job performed liturgy at the Chapel of the Solovetski MiracleWorkers on January 27, while Patr. Jeremiah listened to the mass from the yard at his residence. Later, a delegation with three prelates at its head arrived for Jeremiah, Jerofius, and Arsenius. In front of Job’s palace they performed three ceremonial greetings. Crowds of Russian noblemen, standing on the staircase and in the hallways, were brought to impress the three honored religious dignitaries. Patr. Job greeted them at their sleigh at the entrance. At this first personal meeting of the patriarchs, the question arose as to who was to bless whom first. The ecumenical patriarch Jeremiah, softened by the charity of the tsar, and sensing himself the guest of the hospitable Job, felt the need to condescend and cede his preeminence. Job stepped forward nonetheless and asked for a blessing, saying, “You are my great lord and elder and father. From you did I receive the blessing and ordination for the patriarchate and now it is proper for you to bless me.” But Patr. Jeremiah rejected the offer in the politest terms, saying, “There is only one pious king under all heaven, and it is God who determines our future. It is an honor for the ecumenical patriarch to be here, while in Constantinople, the Christian religion is being expelled by infidel Turks as a result of our sin.” (The

23

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II “one pious king” pertained to the Tsar of Russia, as the cathedras of the other Easter Patriarchs were under the occupation of Islam.) But Patr. Job held fast to his position and Patr. Jeremiah blessed him first. The two of them then kissed. Jeremiah, however, insisted that at least Job enter the chamber ahead of him. In the chamber, each patriarch again greeted the other. Jeremiah gave a short speech, saying (according to the Russian account), “Behold how the Lord God has illumined the Russian kingdom for its clean life, for its prayer, for its great charity, and for the prayer of the pious sovereign — the tsar and grand prince — Feodor Ivanovich, the autocrat of all Russia, who has created the patriarchate in the Cathedral and Apostolic Church of the honorable and glorious Assumption of the Immaculate Theotokos, where the great Russian miracleworkers Peter, Aleksei and Jonah also ministered. And there is only one pious king everywhere under heaven, and we greet the Creator with warm faith, and [greet] the parishioners, and the poor who have a kind heart absent of guile and have respect for goodness, and [greet] the armies and the entirety of Orthodox Christianity.” After a hymn sung by the choir wishing the patriarchs longevity, Pr. Lobanov-Rostovski appeared on behalf of the tsar with an invitation to enter the palace to perform an additional blessing. Tsar Feodor again met the patriarchs, and an assembly of Orthodox prelates, in the Golden Chamber. Job presented the tsar a gift of gratitude — an image of the Blessed Virgin encased in a gold frame. From the palace, the tsar led the patriarchs, prelates and noblemen through the hallway and courtyard to the women’s quarters, to visit the Tsaritza Irina Feodorevna, wife of Tsar Feodor and sister of Boris Godunov. Arriving in the first room, they were asked to wait. When the gold door opened into the main hall, only the tsar, two patriarchs, two Greek prelates, and Boris Godunov were invited to enter. There sat the Tsaritza upon a throne, attired in blinding elegance, surrounded by a crowd of ladies-in-waiting. The beauty of the tsaritza and the elegance of her appearance dumbfounded the Greek guests. Metr. Arsenius, an observer, recorded that even a fraction of her adornment would be sufficient to adorn ten kings. The Tsaritza descended from her throne, accepted a blessing from both patriarchs, and then thanked Patr. Jeremiah for his effort to visit Russia, which, in her own words, “has embellished the Russian Church greatly, and now the glory of the Russian realm has increased in all the world, with the dignity of its metropolitan now raised to the cathedra of the patriarch. For a long while Russian princes have wished this, and they have now attained

24

The Era of the Patriarchate their goal with the arrival of the ecumenical patriarch.” Tsaritza Irina then brought each of her ladies-in-waiting to be blessed by Patr. Jeremiah, while each presented him an embroidered handkerchief or a small towel as a gift. Patr. Job presented the tsaritza with his own gifts, and she in return presented gifts to him, Patr. Jeremiah and the Greek prelates. In conclusion, Tsaritza Irina requested them to pray fervently on her behalf, to heal her of her inability to conceive, and to allow her to give birth to an heir. (The royal couple later had a daughter.) Returning to the palace, they all sat at table by rank. Choirs of girls sang during the meal. After dinner, Patr. Job presented gifts to Patr. Jeremiah and his traveling companions, and accompanied them to the hall and to the door of the chamber. At the steps, the Greek guests were given leftovers from dinner to take back to their residence with them, including wine and candy. Patr. Job spent Tuesday, January 28, receiving congratulatory messages from the civil community of Moscow: noblemen, princes, civil servants, foreign guests and business people, all with symbolic bread and salt and other gifts. On Wednesday, the following day, secretaries of the tsar and Job arrived in the morning at the Riazanski Palace, the residence of Jeremiah and his retinue, bringing food from the ceremonial dinner of earlier days for his breakfast. A donkey was delivered to take Job on another ceremonial tour of Moscow. After Job performed a liturgy at Uspenski Cathedral, he held a dinner at his residence for his clergy and for the noblemen’s sons, officials and guests. After the three o’clock dinner, Job rode on the donkey to parts of the city not previously toured. The donkey was led by Boris Godunov, and then by the tsar’s official, Pr. Lobanov-Rostovski. On Thursday, January 30, Patr. Job ordained Aleksandr as metropolitan of Novgorod, and on the following day Varlaam as metropolitan of Rostov. On February 1, Patr. Jeremiah asked permission to visit Troitse-Sergievski Monastery. There he was honorably welcomed, and the monastery residents presented him with lavish gifts. Thus concluded the days of festivity in Moscow, which were days of bitterness for the Greek retinue of Patr. Jeremiah — especially for his friend, Metr. Jerofius of Monembasi. He was sickened to watch Jeremiah being “wrapped around the finger of the Moscovites,” — as he related in his memoirs — enticed by them into this inescapable transaction which was in violation of Orthodox canon. Jerofius saw it as an unlawful magnification of Moscow by Patr. Jeremiah, with the humiliation of his own vocation as ecumenical patriarch and the humil-

25

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II iation of all Greeks in general. Jerofius’ attitude would also surface later in Greek opposition to the concessions of Patr. Jeremiah. With the approach of Lent, Patr. Jeremiah began to ask leave to return home. Boris Godunov came to the palace of the patriarch to discuss this matter with him, and suggested he stay on in Moscow for several reasons. First, spring travel through Russia was difficult, as the thawing snow made the roads muddy and often impassable; second, Moscow’s prelates wanted from Jeremiah a documented letter, confirming his performance of the rite of ordination of a Russian patriarch. The normal procedure would have been conducted in the opposite sequence: the act of ordination of the Russian patriarch should have been composed prior to its performance, and signed by the respective parties immediately after. But because of the haste with which this ordination had proceeded — after years of waiting — the Russian clergy had not prepared such a document earlier. Under the circumstances, they could not permit Patr. Jeremiah to depart until such a document was created and signed, especially since this document would also require the signatures of the other patriarchs of the Eastern church. Otherwise, Patr. Jeremiah could easily capitulate to pressure from the Greek opposition and recant, voiding the entire maneuver. In the following weeks, a program of exalting and augmenting the Russian hierarchy was executed. In addition to the two metropolitans first ordained by the new Patr. Job, two more were ordained: Gelasie of Krutitzk — a suburb of Moscow — to assist the patriarch in Moscow in his duties, and Hermogen of Kazan, previously archimandrite of the Preobrazhenski (Transfiguration) Monastery in Kazan (he later became patriarch). Patr. Job also ordained six archbishops, for Tver, Vologda, Suzdal, Nizhni-Novgorod, Riazan and Smolensk; and eight bishops, for Chernigov, Kolomna, Pskov, Bel-Ozersk, Ustyug, Rzhev, Dmitov and Bryansk. All these constitutional changes in the Russian Church had to be confirmed in a constituent act or statute applied to the constitution, or in a judicial decree, according to the terminology of the era. It was composed by the state chancellery, but it was arranged in a special format to give the appearance that it had been composed by a council. The decree was written on a large sheet of parchment, with its heading and the initial letters of the text in gold. Its content, however, was not in accordance with the facts; rather, it anticipated them and sought to create them. It stated that the institution of the Russian patriarchate was accomplished with the consensus of the entire Eastern Church, declaring, “According to the will of his royal highness (referring to Tsar Feodor) and in

26

The Era of the Patriarchate agreement with the counsel of the entire ecclesiastical assembly of great Russia, and the Greek kingdom, and the selection in agreement with Patr. Jeremiah of Constantinople himself, and the other ecumenical patriarchs — of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem — and the entire Greek council, according to the divine canons of the apostles and divine fathers.” The content of the statute attributed to Patr. Jeremiah the purely Russian ideological motive for the institution of the patriarchate, namely, to establish Moscow as the third Rome. In this document, Patr. Jeremiah seemingly replies to the tsar’s proposition regarding a Russian patriarchate with the words, “The Holy Spirit abides in you, pious tsar, and as a result of your benevolence, your proposition will materialize. Right and true is this conception of your nobility, while it is the duty of our humility, and the entirety of the ecclesiastical assembly, to perform this magnificent work. Since ancient Rome fell as a result of the Apollinarian heresy, while the second Rome — Constantinople — is in possession of infidel Turks, your great Russian realm, O pious Tsar, as the third Rome, has exceeded the piety of all former kingdoms. They are absorbed into your kingdom, and in all the world, you alone possess the appellation of Christian king. For this reason, this great work will be accomplished by God’s providence, by the prayers of the miracle-workers of Russia, and due to your royal request of God, and your counsel.” This Russian version of the words of Patr. Jeremiah is not entirely without justification; it was compiled from excerpts of several welcome speeches, congratulatory statements and compliments which Patr. Jeremiah had made over the several months of his sojourn in Moscow. The subsequent paragraph of the decree authorized the installation of succeeding patriarchs by the consensus of a council of Russian prelates, with confirmation by the tsar, and the Russian patriarch’s ability to ordain metropolitans, and create new dioceses. Beneath the text of the decree was the tsar’s seal, but not his signature. Following it were the signatures and seals of both Patr. Jeremiah and Patr. Job, and then the signatures of several metropolitans and archbishops of Russia, along with a few archimandrites, abbots and venerated elders; 32 signatures in all. Two Greek prelates also signed the document: Archbishop Arsenius and Archimandrite Christofor. The only opposition came from Jerofius of Monemvasi. He knew the document was generated by the imperial chancellery and not by any council of prelates; and he demanded a copy to review at his leisure. Furthermore, Jerofius apparently could not read Russian himself; a translation was provided, albeit

27

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II biased toward the Russians, of course. For a long while Jerofius would not subscribe to the document, fearing that it would create a schism between Russian Orthodoxy and the rest of Greek Orthodoxy. Neither did Jerofius find any appeal in designating Moscow as the third Rome. Noting that the document indicated that Moscow now considered itself the head of Orthodoxy, and wanted to ascend to the cathedra of the ecumenical patriarchate and develop its sacerdotal realm into a Russian papacy, Jerofius stood firm on the concept that Constantinople was the ecumenical patriarchate. Tsar Feodor grew tired of his obstinate abstinence — or perhaps his brother-in-law did — and police officers were sent to threaten him. Eventually, Jerofius signed the document, but only out of fear of reprisal: being drowned in the Moscow River. Finally, he was allowed to leave for home. Prior to their departure, Tsar Feodor jubilantly received Patr. Jeremiah and his retinue at his palace once again. The tsar attempted to assuage Patr. Jeremiah’s bitterness by another show of generosity. He took the patriarch by the hand, ascended his throne, and sat him next to himself. More gifts were showered upon the patriarch and his retinue: gold and silver goblets, fine cloth, overcoats of the Russian style, and money. The patriarch was personally gifted an elaborate miter adorned with pearls and jewels, having on it the three images of Jesus, Mary and John the Baptist together on the lower front, and the crucifixion on the upper front, with images of various saints all around. An inscription embroidered in pearls around the bottom read, “From the Tsar to the Patriarch.” Metr. Arsenius seized the moment to secure his career for the future; he knelt before the tsar and asked to be allowed to remain in Russia for ever. The tsar granted Arsenius his request, and he lived out the balance of his life in comfortable circumstances as a Russian archbishop. Some suspicion remains whether Metr. Arsenius remained in Moscow to keep Constantinople informed of activities in Russian Orthodoxy. Jerofius had expressed the fear that Moscow might expand its authority, and ascend to become ecumenical patriarchate in lieu of Constantinople. In May 1689, the Greeks departed Moscow, escorted by imperial guards; food was prepared in advanced and was made available to them at regular intervals. The Smolensk regiment, for example, was ordered to prepare eighty buckets of honey along with other prepared food for the guests just before they crossed the border out of Russia at Orsha on the Dnepr River (in present-day Belarus). Arriving at Orsha, the entourage was greeted by a final courier from the tsar, bearing one more parting gift — 1,000 rubles in hard money, a donation to

28

The Era of the Patriarchate help the patriarch reestablish his patriarchate at Constantinople. Patr. Jeremiah also received letters from Tsar Feodor and Boris Godunov, which he had earlier requested, along with a letter from the tsar addressed to the Turkish Sultan Murad. Boris Godunov asked Patr. Jeremiah to keep him informed of political events in Poland and Turkey. Jeremiah wrote back, using the same courier, thanking the tsar for his charity and promising his full effort to liberate the Eastern Church from the infidel Turks. Jeremiah and his entourage had resided in Russia the entirety of a year. But all this investment still did not guarantee that Eastern Orthodoxy would fulfill Moscow’s will. Many worries and many more “donations” lay ahead before Moscow could acquire a consensus of all the Eastern patriarchs for a Russian patriarchate. Jeremiah was detained in Poland for several months due to turbulent affairs in the Orthodox Church there, no doubt relating to the Uniate problem. From Poland, Patr. Jeremiah traveled to Moldova, which he visited for some time. Only by the spring of 1590 did Jeremiah finally arrive in Constantinople, and in May of that year he summoned an ecclesiastical council to discuss the Russian matter. Present at this council were Patr. Joachim of Antioch and Patr. Sofronius of Jerusalem. Patr. Sylvester of Alexandria became ill and died just as the council was to convene. The prelate responsible for Alexandria during the interval was Meletius Pigas, and he expressed his disapproval by boycotting the council. Patr. Jeremiah took advantage of the vacancy of the Alexandrian patriarchate by advertising his council as representing the entire hierarchy of Eastern Orthodoxy. According to the record of the proceedings, Jeremiah related the brilliance of Moscow, the tsar’s piety, and the generosity and welcome that was provided to himself, and to his fellow patriarchs and bishops. Finally, he presented Tsar Feodor Ivanovich’s petition to the council and explained the tsar’s desire to have a Russian patriarchate established, noting that, “At present, he is the only great Orthodox sovereign on earth, and it would be inappropriate not to implement his will.” Patr. Jeremiah related Metr. Job’s ordination as patriarch, and his own subscription to the constitutional decree of a Russian patriarchate. Now, Jeremiah requested their approval of his actions. The patriarchs, having heard of his noteworthy actions, recognized the matter as benevolent and gracious. They agreed to the following items. First, they recognized the validity of Patr. Jeremiah’s ordination of Metr. Job as patriarch of Russia, and accepted that Job would be included along with them in the list of patriarchs of the Eastern church, and that his name would follow after

29

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II the patriarch of Jerusalem in prayers recited, that is, he would be fifth (last). But they made the point that the new patriarch of Moscow should also recognize, just as did the other patriarchs, the supremacy of the cathedra of Constantinople. Second, the appellation of patriarch and the honor attending the cathedra would apply not only to Patr. Job but also to his successors, as long as they were ordained according to canon by a council of Russian prelates. A decree reflecting the decisions of the patriarchs at this council was composed, and signed by the three present: Jeremiah of Constantinople, Sofronius of Jerusalem, and Joachim of Antioch, along with forty-two metropolitans, nineteen archbishops and twenty bishops also present at the council. Dionysius, Greek metropolitan of Trnov, was delegated by the council to travel to Moscow to inform them of the decision of the patriarchs and the council proceedings. Dionysius was very representative of the Greek point of view, and along his way he was to acquire signatures from diocesan bishops in Bulgaria and Moldova. But Dionysius found out that the Moscovites were not about to lose any time. As soon as he reached Smolensk on May 9, 1591, he entrusted his letter for the tsar to the imperial military commanders who were waiting there. As soon as the news of Metr. Dionysius’ arrival at Smolensk reached Moscow, the tsar’s secretary, Protopopov, was dispatched to accompany Dionysius to Moscow and to debrief him along the road, inquiring who had attended the council, whether they had prayed for the welfare of the tsar, whether they mentioned the name of Patr. Job in their prayers. He also asked if the Turkish sultan was informed, and if so, what was his reaction. In short, Russians discarded diplomacy in favor of political expedience; and the answers Protopopov got were less than what Moscow had been looking for. Under the circumstances, Moscow still extended a ceremonial welcome to these latest Greek guests, although very cold in comparison to their predecessors. A delegation on behalf of Patr. Job met Metr. Dionysius upon his entrance into the city, and a formal welcome on behalf of Patr. Job was recited by an archimandrite and protopope. On May 28 the Greek delegates were taken to Novgorod, to a residence at Ilyinski Crossing, and were held there without any official communication until June 20. That day, they were finally received by Tsar Feodor. Metr. Dionysius delivered the decree to the tsar, along with gifts from the council of patriarchs: relics of saints, and regal gold ornaments for both Tsar Feodor and Tsaritza Irina. The tsar invited Metr. Dionysius to be seated next to him, but said nothing to him the whole while. Afterwards, the tsar sent

30

The Era of the Patriarchate the guests back to their residence, and had dinner sent in to them as had been done since their arrival. This cold attitude toward Dionysius continued after the initial meeting. It was prolonged until August 1, when the tsar finally issued an order for Dionysius to meet with the patriarch in Moscow. Patr. Job was at Uspenski Cathedral, in full sacerdotal attire, ready to leave for the sanctification of the water at the Moscow River. Horses were sent for Dionysius and for Bishop Kallistrat, who accompanied him; the archimandrites walked behind. At Uspenski Cathedral, after kissing icons and vaults containing relics of Russian saints, Dionysius was led to the patriarch. He accepted a blessing from Patr. Job, gave him his greeting and handed to him the letter from Patr. Jeremiah and the council proceedings. The patriarchs wrote to Job, “We always recognize you as brother as well as all your successors as the 5th patriarch following Jerusalem, and you will be mentioned in the prayers of our priests just as we also mention each other in prayer.” Patr. Job, accepting the document, invited Dionysius and Kallistrat to participate in a procession of the cross and then to listen to mass, but they were not invited to dinner, although a meal was delivered to their residence. The Greeks realized that they could only gain the honor of performing rites along with the patriarch after presenting a special petition. They requested the tsar’s permission to participate in the liturgy on the Holiday of Assumption, which request was granted. Only after this liturgy were they finally invited to eat at Patr. Job’s table. Again, there was no discussion regarding the council proceedings, and the opportunity to raise the question of a charitable contribution from the tsar and the patriarch of Russia never arose, either. Dionysius was forced to postpone his request for donations. He waited another one and a half months. Finally, realizing that there would never be an opportune moment, and not able to prolong his silence on the matter any more, on October 2, 1591 Dionysius announced that he had in his possession another letter, this one for Boris Godunov, and Dionysius requested a personal audience with him. On October 5, Godunov sent Dionysius a translator, along with horses and an invitation to meet with him. Godunov welcomed the Greek guest honorably, and Dionysius returned the welcome and handed to him two letters: one from Patr. Jeremiah and the other from the council of patriarchs. The letter from the council repeated the essential items of the initial letter given to Patr. Job, but included a rather flattering statement that the Russian patriarchate was instituted as much to his — Godunov’s — desire, as much as to the tsar’s. In his letter Patr. Jeremiah requested 6,000 pieces of gold from the tsar to assist in recon-

31

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II structing the patriarchate of Constantinople and, as Godunov understood the letter, a building or church wing would be named after or dedicated to him. Dionysius then, on behalf of Patr. Jeremiah, presented Godunov with relics of the great martyr Pantaleon1, and on his own behalf, he presented Godunov two gilt atlases (or, perhaps, maps) a sword made of Damascus steel, and two precious bowls. Godunov accepted the relics but turned down the gifts, telling Dionysius that it was improper for him to personally accept such gestures (knowing perfectly well they were bribes). Dionysius, however, persisted, and stated that he would be very offended if Godunov should refuse. Finally, Godunov accepted only the two bowls but declined the rest. He thanked Metr. Dionysius for coming, and said that he had many state matters to take care of, and appreciated his visit. The farewell — much like the greeting — was very cold. On October 7, Dionysius received an invitation to visit Troitse-Sergievski Monastery. The message included a note stating that he would be honorably received, just as the patriarch of Antioch was on his visit, and would be given gifts. Metr. Dionysius divined from this message that Moscow was not especially impressed by the news that he brought them, and that the Russian prelates nonetheless felt it would be advantageous for them to try to use him in improving Moscow’s place on the list of Eastern Patriarchs, from the last to the third position. This attempt to manipulate Metr. Dionysius was moot. The new patriarch of Alexandria, Meletius Pigus, did not recognize Patr. Jeremiah’s action as canonical, believing that he was coerced into ordaining Job during his visit. Patr. Meletius likewise did not recognize the council of patriarchs of 1590 that validated the ordination performed by Jeremiah, since the patriarchate of Alexandria was not represented. Meletius, after his ordination as patriarch, stated in a letter sent to Patr. Jeremiah that a delegate representing Alexandria would have voted against the amendment. The ordination performed by Patr. Jeremiah was a grave error as far as Patr. Meletius was concerned, because it was done prior to acquiring a consensus of the patriarchs. Meletius advised Jeremiah to retract his act of ordination, and to repeal the decision made by the council of 1590. In Moscow, the tsar and Orthodox prelates decided to press forward to gain the prestigious third rung on the Eastern patriarchal ladder, using whatever means were available to summon another council. This time, all the patriarchs would have to be present. A letter was dispatched to Patr. Jeremiah, signed by 1. St. Pantaleon, d. AD 303. Christian martyr and patron saint of physicians.

32

The Era of the Patriarchate the tsar and Russian Orthodox prelates, stating that it was Moscow’s right to have the third position and not the last. The letter was given to Metr. Dionysius, who was also informed that Moscow would be willing to contribute the funds requested by Constantinople if the decision was made in Moscow’s favor. At a farewell dinner held on December 2 at the palace, Dionysius sat at table with Tsar Feodor and Tsaritza Irina. After dinner, gifts were given to Dionysius and his entourage from the tsar and his wife. Dionysius was honorably welcomed December 19, 1591, at Chudovski Monastery, while January 12, 1592, Dionysius was ordered by Tsar Feodor to visit with Patr. Job. After the formal welcome, Dionysius proposed to Job that he should have a special representative on his behalf present at any future council of patriarchs, someone who would defend the interests of the Russian patriarchate. Because of the distance between Moscow and Constantinople, and the difficulty of travel, Job was advised to select a Greek prelate. Job replied that he would discuss the matter with the tsar and an ecclesiastical council, and then respond to the proposition. Job then blessed Dionysius, using his panegia, and dismissed him. Metr. Dionysius departed Moscow on February 18, 1592, after almost nine months in Russia. Before he crossed the border, a courier caught up to Dionysius and delivered more gifts and letters from the tsar. The gifts for Patr. Jeremiah were many, and costly: an omophorium with pearls woven into it, a gold bowl for holy water, a towel interwoven with small pearls, a large quantity of sable and marten, dozens of ermine stretched over a board, and 500 pounds of walrus tusk. The value of these gifts, if sold in Europe, would have amounted in excess of 6,000 gold coins. Gifts were also included for the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem: a prelate’s liturgical miter, a gold bowl for holy water, towels interwoven with small pearls and a large quantity of furs. Patr. Job, in his letter to Patr. Jeremiah, asked him to accept the gifts and informed him that a council of Russian prelates had decided to mention in prayer the patriarch of Moscow in the third position, after the patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria. Interestingly, though, another letter was included, this one from Tsar Feodor to Patr. Jeremiah, in which the tsar reminded the patriarch that during the Job’s ordination as patriarch, it seemed that Jeremiah, along with the consensus of a council of Russian prelates, agreed to recognize the new patriarchate as having the third place. It is difficult to ascertain the validity of the tsar’s statement, and it can be debated. Perhaps Patr. Jeremiah did promise such a thing while under duress, but he either did not mention that conversation or did not remember it during the council of patriarchs of 1590. The patriarchs

33

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II could not understand why Moscow took this issue so seriously; for them, it was obvious protocol for Moscow to be added at the conclusion of the list of patriarchs. The debate almost seemed infantile. There were also letters from the tsar to the other patriarchs. In his letter to Patr. Meletius of Alexandria, the tsar asked that he agree with the decision of the other patriarchs, and that he confirm the ordination of Patr. Job, and the institution of a Russian patriarchate, in writing, in a letter back to the tsar. Patr. Meletius, having sensed by now the importance of Russian Orthodoxy, and now well informed of the pressure from Unia on Orthodoxy in Poland, resolved his dissatisfaction with Patr. Jeremiah and decided to recognize the Russian patriarchate. Meletius now intended to travel to Constantinople and summon a council of all the patriarchs. There was also a political agenda: Meletius, having delivered the waning Hellenic approach to enlightenment from its capture by Catholicism and Unia, was fervent in his hopes of confirming it on the material base of the wealthy and pious Moscow, using the Orthodox Russian Empire as his defense. He wrote to Tsar Feodor to suggest he institute centers of Hellenic education and scholarship in Russia. Immediately, Moscow sent generous gifts to the patriarchal centers. Following behind Metr. Dionysius was the tsar’s secretary, Grigori Afanasyevich Naschokin, a special emissary who delivered a considerable donation and who sought to implement a clandestine plan to use his personal influence on the Eastern patriarchs. In December of 1592, another emissary, Ivan Koschurin, departed Moscow with donations for Mt Athos and Constantinople. In January, a new delegation headed by secretary Mikhail Ogarkov, along with the famous Moscovite pilgrim Trifon Korobeynikov, set out with a substantial contribution. The destitute Eastern Orthodox leaders were meant to finally recognize with whom they were dealing. The tsar ordered the latest delegation to “travel with imperial charity to Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Mt Sinai, and distribute imperial charity to patriarchs and metropolitans and archbishops and to monasteries, and in these areas, and also deliver some into the hands of the needy.” Money sent with the delegation was equivalent to 5,564 Hungarian gold coins, and there was included a vast quantity of sable, fox, ermine, rabbit and marten furs. Secretary Koschurin was also entrusted to withdraw from the imperial treasury 600 Hungarian gold coins while in Constantinople, and distribute them according to his discretion to Orthodox prelates, and also to laymen, churches, the destitute and the incarcerated. A river of such generosity flowed all around those who com-

34

The Era of the Patriarchate prised the new ecclesiastical council summoned by Patr. Meletius, the most educated of all the patriarchs. The council began in Constantinople on February 12, 1593. Its proceedings and acts were considered “great” and “all-conclusive” in comparison to the previous council. Secretary Naschokin attended the council as representative of the tsar. Patr. Meletius conducted the council and recorded its proceedings. For all practical purposes, he affirmed the proceedings of the earlier councils regarding the establishment of a Russian patriarchate according to canon law, and now with a consensus of all the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs. However, Meletius also confirmed the order of the patriarchs, the newest to be placed at the end, in accordance with other Church canons. Patr. Meletius was unswayed by the donations offered by Moscow, and held firm to church canons on this issue. This would be a bitter pill for Moscow to swallow. A copy of the proceedings was entrusted to Naschokin, and letters were written personally by Patr. Meletius to Tsar Feodor and Tsaritza Irina, Patr. Job, and Boris Godunov, which were given to him to deliver. Archimandrite Neofit (a nephew of Patr. Meletius) and John the Reader were delegated to accompany Naschokin on his return trip. Moscow’s attitude toward Patr. Meletius was insolent and malicious. They originally mistook him for an easily manipulated rube, but they soon found out he was up to their tricks. Gifts sent with delegates were refused. Moscow was so irritated that relatives of Patr. Meletius, including his nephew Neofit, who were residing in Moscow, were accused of spying and were incarcerated. Meletius had to write to the tsar to plead for their release. The letter reached Moscow three years later, and only John the Reader was let go. When he returned to Constantinople, all he brought with him were debts that Moscow felt he owed them. Moscow was irreconcilable, and the council proceedings of 1593 were ignored. The clergy ceased discussing it, and the issue eventually passed into oblivion. The Russian hierarchy resolved to stand firm on its own edict and considered itself as possessing third rung on the ladder. In a later letter addressed to Tsar Feodor, Patr. Job stated that during the institution of the patriarchate Moscow had been assigned third position and as far as Russian Orthodox prelates were concerned, there was nothing more to be debated. In summary, with the institution of its own native patriarch Russian Orthodoxy did gain autonomy from and equality with the other Eastern patriarchates, which it had sought, but it did not gain the pre-eminence it hoped for. Historian Metr. Makari (Bulgakov) concludes that the creation of a Russian

35

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II patriarchate did not increase the real authority of the Russian supreme cathedra. Essentially, the patriarch possessed the same authority as, and conducted his church in the same manner as, the other metropolitans of the 16th century.

71. PATRIARCH JOB AND TSAR BORIS GODUNOV Favored by Boris Godunov (the real power behind the throne of Russia) as candidate for metropolitan and subsequently patriarch of Russia, Job possessed exceptional qualities when it came to performance of church liturgy and tradition. He stood out as brilliant among the clergy of his era; but in regard to courage or political wits, he was less well-endowed. Job was mild-mannered and weak, and eventually he collapsed under the barrage of conflicting demands during the era of the imposter pseudo-Dmitri I. Job conducted himself with dignity, adjusting to circumstances. In his earlier years, he was a monk at Staritzki Monastery, located near his hometown Staritza, and soon became its primary singer and reader. After conquering the region and adding it to his own realm, Tsar Ivan IV took notice of Job during a visit to the monastery and on May 6, 1569 promoted him to archimandrite. In 1571, Ivan moved him to Semeonov Monastery in Moscow, and installed him as archimandrite there. In 1575, Job became archimandrite of Novo-Spasski (New Savior) Monastery; in 1581, bishop of Kolomensk; and in January 1586, archbishop of Rostov. By the intrigue of Godunov — as mentioned above in the chapter on Metr. Dionysius — Job was ordained metropolitan of Moscow and all Russia on December 11, 1586. Job’s popularity and his brilliant early career was due to his ability to perform liturgy and rite; he was, likewise, a talented singer. He knew vast portions of the Psalms and New Testament by memory and was able to recite by rote the longer prayers. Since he would recite the prayers by memory, instead of reading, he could weep with emotion — and the entire congregation would follow him in tears. Abstaining from meat and wine, he was exemplary in morality and personal integrity; but he had no personal fortitude. He was traditional and conservative and emulated Metr. Makari in his conduct. Just as Metr. Makari canonized Russian saints, so did Metr. Job, canonizing in 1588 Vasili the Blessed of Moscow, and in 1600, Kornili Komelski, Pr. Daniel of Moscow, and Pr. Roman Vladimirovich of Uglich. Job was also a firm believer in the concept of Moscow as the third Rome. During the cathedra of Job,

36

The Era of the Patriarchate Russian Orthodoxy expanded further into Siberia and the Far East. When Tobolsk was founded in 1586, churches were promptly constructed. A complex incident occurred shortly after the issues surrounding the patriarchate were settled. Tsarevich Dmitri suddenly and mysteriously died at the age of nine and a half. He was the son of Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible and his 7th wife, Maria Nagoi. The death occurred May 15, 1591, in Uglich, the hometown of the mother’s family, near Moscow. Suspicion fell upon Godunov and his family. Since Tsar Feodor and Tsaritza Irina had no children at the time, Feodor’s halfbrother Dmitri was heir-apparent. With him out of the way, Godunov would succeed his heirless brother-in-law as tsar. To settle the matter and divert suspicion, Godunov assigned Patr. Job the responsibility of conducting an investigation. Job, of course, owed Godunov a debt for raising him to the cathedra of patriarch, and the payment obviously would be the coronation of Godunov as tsar. The official conclusion of Job’s investigation was that the residents of Uglich were responsible for the crime, although everyone familiar with the case knew it was Godunov (and, indeed, he was later found responsible). The mother, former Tsaritza Maria Nagoi, was tonsured against her will and exiled to the Nikolaievski Convent in Vologda province; she became Sister Martha. Her brother Michael Nagoi was exiled and imprisoned, and about 200 residents of Uglich were executed. Other Nagoi family members were exiled to Siberia by order of Godunov. Patr. Job’s response to Godunov’s judgment on the Nagoi family and residents of Uglich was that “It is the sovereign’s affair to punish, while our responsibility is to pray for the sovereign.” Job, the Nagoi family, and Uglich paid a steep price for the cathedra of patriarch; and there was more to come. Much to the dismay of Godunov, a long-awaited heir to resurrect the royal lineage was born May 29, 1592, when Tsaritza Irina gave birth to a girl, whom they named Fedosia. The royal family was ecstatic and hoped that a bloodless transition would occur, should the sickly Tsar Feodor die. However, their hopes failed when Tsarevna Fedosia died herself before her second birthday, on January 25, 1594. Patr. Job’s selection and coronation of Boris Godunov as Tsar of Russia is almost as great a farce as was Job’s ordination as patriarch through the intrigues of Godunov. Tsar Feodor Ivanovich died January 7, 1598. The possibility that his wife, Tsaritza Irina, would reign with her brother Godunov as co-regent was unacceptable to the subjects of Russia. In Job’s opinion, Tsaritza Irina should

37

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II have inherited her husband’s throne of upon his death, but Tsar Feodor disagreed and stated, on his death-bed, that “How she should live is already instituted among us.” His father, Tsar Ivan IV, had forced most of his wives to take the veil and exiled them to convents out of the public eye, and Maria Nagoi was treated to the same fate. On his death-bed, Tsar Feodor ordered his wife to withdraw from worldly life and accept the status of a nun. As early as January 12, 1598, only five days after Tsar Feodor’s death, Patr. Job issued a circular letter to all adherents of Orthodoxy adjuring them to swear allegiance to Boris Godunov. Crowds of Moscovites gathered at the Kremlin on January 15, 1598 in opposition to Job’s intentions, asking Tsaritza Irina to accept her late husband’s throne. But she addressed the crowds, stating that her intention was to fulfill the will of her late husband and become a nun. That day, Tsaritza Irina departed Moscow for Novo-Devichi Convent, a short distance away, where she accepted the nun’s veil and the new name Aleksandra. The Boyar Duma turned not to Boris Godunov but to Feodor Nikitich Romanov (later called Filaret), son of the late nobleman Nikita Romanovich Zakharin and first-cousin of Tsar Feodor. He was middle aged but still was considered handsome and dashing, kind, and very popular; the influence and authority that his late father possessed in the Boyar Duma played in his favor. As a whole, the Boyars feared Godunov because of his early career as an oprichnik and officer in the palace of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. Godunov’s ambition to ascend the Russian throne dismayed them. Some historical accounts state that Patr. Job attempted to persuade Tsar Feodor, while on his death-bed, to bequeath the throne to Godunov but he declined, mentioning instead his cousin Feodor Romanov. On January 20, 1598, Job led a procession or parade of clergy and other ecclesiastical officials, along with a large number of Moscow residents, to NovoDevichi Convent to request of Tsaritza Irina/Sister Aleksandra a concession, or consensus, for the coronation of Godunov. Schelkalov, an influential Boyar Duma member, interrupted the possession, telling them that they should swear allegiance to the Boyar Duma until they had settled the question. As the procession made its way through the streets, ecclesiastical officials forced people out of their homes under threat of a fine and those who were not sufficiently emotional were told to put saliva on their cheeks to emulate tears. Most of the crowd had little idea just how they were to request of a nun — who no longer possessed any imperial authority herself — to consent to the coro-

38

The Era of the Patriarchate nation of Godunov. After their arrival at the convent, the crowds eventually dissipated. February 17 was the conclusion of the 40-day mourning for the late tsar. Patr. Job summoned an ecclesiastical assembly on that day, presupposing it would have the authority to crown a tsar who was not of the direct, or even indirect, posterity of the royal house of Rurik. Patr. Job shamelessly affirmed that Tsar Ivan IV had entrusted to Godunov the guardianship of his son Feodor and that Godunov was to be heir, or successor, if Feodor were to die prematurely. Patr. Job pressured the assembly into accepting the selection of Godunov as tsar as the fulfillment of the will of the legitimate monarchs. Naturally, after Patr. Job’s address, the ecclesiastical assembly cried in unison that it was God himself who had selected the previous monarchs and blessed both tsars, Ivan IV and son Feodor, and that the same applied to Godunov. About this time, Godunov conveniently relocated to Novo-Devichi Convent. On the night of February 20, 1598, the churches of Moscow were filled with parishioners. After liturgy, when crowds began to gather for another procession, the bells of all the churches began ringing and they continued to do so throughout the procession, and through the events of the day. On the morning of February 21, the procession headed toward NovoDevichi Convent. Consisting not only of the parishioners gathered at the churches, but now prelates and priests joined them, carrying the most holy of icons from their respective churches and all wearing white vestments. Coincidentally, February 21 was the holiday of the Immaculate Virgin, and Patr. Job, at the forefront of the procession, carried the icon of the Theotokos of Vladimir, the most sacred icon of all Russian Orthodoxy and to whom Novo-Devichi Convent was dedicated. A master at maneuvering crowds and manipulating their inclinations, Job led the second procession, all of them convinced that no other person in all of Russia other than Boris Godunov could become tsar. Again Schelkalov attempted to persuade the crowd to swear allegiance to the Boyar Duma, but to no avail. The crowd cried out, “Long live Boris Feodorovich.” Their arrival at the convent was intended to symbolize a unity of the land’s intentions and heaven’s will. At the gates of the convent, the icon of the Theotokos of Vladimir rendezvoused with the icon of the Theotokos of Smolensk, which was brought out from inside the convent, and Godunov stood beside the icon. “O, kind-hearted queen,” declared Godunov, as he fell on his knees in front of the newly arrived icon, pouring out his tears on the ground, “What a feat you have created. Your

39

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II miracle-working icon has summoned honorable persons, with crosses and a multitude of other icons. Immaculate Theotokos, pray for me and have mercy on me.” Godunov then proceeded to venerate these two most renowned icons by kissing them, and did the same to several other important icons also brought for the occasion. Godunov then loudly asked Patr. Job, “What is the reason for this procession?” In tears, Patr. Job replied, “It was not I who created this feat, but the Immaculate Theotokos with her pre-eternal Child, and the great miracleworkers, all of whom love you. She has unveiled her will, which was to arrive here in your presence, and to fulfill the holy will of Her Son on you. Subject yourself to Her arrival, submit to the will of God, and do not bring upon yourself the wrath of our righteous Lord by being disobedient.” With these words, Patr. Job expressed the direction of his intent: by the will of heaven and the people of Moscow, Boris Godunov was obligated to accept the imperial throne. But Godunov, in a pre-conceived and calculated gesture of pseudo-humility, condescendingly declined the offer. Patr. Job and the retinue entered the convent and performed liturgy at its principle church. The crowds and clergy of Moscow filled the spacious grounds and parks of the monastery, with many more people surrounding its walls. The curious, as well as the sincere and deceived, gathered to watch. After liturgy, Job, Godunov, and the prelates summoned for the occasion gathered in the courtyard, again in public view. There, Patr. Job broke out in sobs and loud wails at Godunov’s calculated rejection of the throne. The two of them then entered the domicile of Tsaritza Irina/sister Aleksandra to, as if, secure her consensus on the coronation of Godunov. Ecclesiastical officials, intermixed with the crowd, incited them to exclaim in loud unison, “May she allow her brother to ascend the throne, as head of the entire country.” These officials then maneuvered the crowd to have them fall upon their knees in the courtyard. Another official was assigned the duty of relaying the conversation occurring inside the convent between Job, Boris Godunov and Irina, to the crowd. In her domicile, noting that the crowd’s excitement was attaining a pinnacle, the former tsaritza addressed Patr. Job, “For the sake of God, the Immaculate Virgin and the great miracle-workers, for the sake of the arrival of the miracle-working icons, for the sake of your pursuit, all the wailing, the up-lifted voices, and un-silenced moans, I give unto you my blood brother, may he be your monarch, the tsar.”

40

The Era of the Patriarchate The tearful Godunov then turned to Job, “Is this acceptable to your benevolence, father?” And then he addressed Irina, “And you, great sovereign mistress, why have you laid upon me such a heavy burden, and assigned to me the supreme royal throne, which was never on my mind?” “Who can understand the will of God,” declared Irina, beginning to cry, herself; this only caused more excitement in the crowds. “May your holy will be done, Lord,” concluded Godunov. Job fell to the ground, loudly giving thanks to God, ordering all the bells of the convent to ring, and ordering the entire crowd to congratulate the new tsar. Again, Job performed liturgy at a church inside the monastery, now on behalf of the health and longevity of tsar-designate Boris Feodorovich. After the crowd’s excitement subsided, Job led the procession back to Moscow. Now, arrangements had to be made for Godunov’s festive and triumphant arrival into Moscow from the convent. Patr. Job, at the head of a delegation of Moscow prelates, greeted Godunov just a few days later, on the morning of February 26, 1598, at the walls of the capital, on his return from Novo-Devichi Convent. A select group of representatives of the people presented Godunov the traditional bread and salt, while a few of the boyars and merchants — now veering to the side of Godunov — honored him with expensive furs and goblets. The acute and subtle Godunov accepted none of the gifts except the bread and salt, but then invited all those who greeted him to his table. They all entered the tsar’s palace and enjoyed a meal, paid for by the state treasury. At Uspenski Cathedral, Patr. Job performed a festive liturgy, praying for the prosperity of tsar-designee Godunov, and blessed him as sovereign over Moscow and all Russia. Afterward, Godunov prayed at Archangelsk Cathedral and at the sepulchers of previous grand princes, and then visited the BlagoVeschenski Cathedral and the royal chambers. Godunov, however, was aware of the absence of the Boyar Duma, and that he still lacked the support of a substantial portion of the population of Moscow. Job then initiated a new circle of propaganda while Godunov, at the beginning of Lent, withdrew again to NovoDevichi Convent. Patr. Job summoned an ecclesiastical council, along with his supporters from the Boyar Duma, for March 9, during the second week of Lent, inviting them to pray to God. As Job stated to them, “In order that He would consider the pious great sovereign, our Tsar Boris Godunov, worthy to be clothed in the royal purple.” Patr. Job also wanted to institute February 21 — the day Godunov gave

41

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II his consensus to be crowned — as a yearly national holiday. Those gathered at this assembly agreed, and promised to pray for Godunov’s coronation. Another circular letter was distributed March 15 to all Orthodox Churches of Russia. It contained a re-written account of the events since the death of Tsar Feodor, including the processions to Novo-Devichi Convent, and the decisions of recent ecclesiastical assemblies. Slowly but surely, officials and clergy swore allegiance to Godunov, while church bells rang and choirs sang to the longevity and prosperity of the forthcoming tsar. The indefatigable Job then organized another festive procession to Novo-Devichi Convent. There the patriarch with his prelates, and boyars faithful to Godunov, beseeched him to return to Moscow and assume his seat on the throne. The prelates, at the forefront of the procession, fell upon their knees before Godunov and prostrated themselves, but a second time Godunov refused the throne. This second rejection was calculated, in order for the appalled crowds and clergy to apply pressure on the Boyar Duma to accept Godunov. Former Tsaritza Irina, likewise, addressed Godunov in the presence of the crowds, stating, “The moment has arrived for you to be clothed in royal purple.” The scenario had its calculated effects on both lay person and cleric. On April 30, the third Sunday after Easter — which was the holiday of the presentation of Myrrh — Godunov returned to Moscow. Patr. Job again met Godunov with a procession of the cross, and they entered Uspenski Cathedral. During the festive liturgy, Job hung the cross of Metr. Peter the Miracle-worker on Godunov’s neck. Holding the hand of son Feodor and daughter Ksenia, Godunov toured the cathedrals of the Kremlin. Arriving back at Uspenski Cathedral, Godunov sat on the tsar’s seat. Patr. Job, in conclusion, urged Godunov to accept the royal vestment of the tsar. The liturgy ended, but both patriarch and tsar-designee still lacked the consensus of the Boyar Duma for Godunov’s coronation. About this time, news arrived at Moscow of the invasion of the Khan of Crimea, Kasi-Girei, who was supported by Ottoman Turks. Godunov volunteered to gather and command an army to resist the invasion. Boyars supported his gesture, hoping in his absence to perhaps crown one of their own as tsar, and namely Feodor Nikitich Romanov. From May 11 to 30, 1598, Godunov led the campaign against the Crimean Khan and his Islamic army and was able to gain a bloodless victory by presenting a peace treaty. Godunov presented himself to them as representing the legitimate government of Russia. Godunov and his army, with their bloodless victory, entered Moscow July 2 as heroes. They were met with a royal and ecclesiastical parade organized by

42

The Era of the Patriarchate Patr. Job, but the Boyars were still leery of Godunov, and his expected coronation was postponed. Godunov retired again to Novo-Devichi. Over the next couple of months, Godunov gained the support of more of the nobles. On September 1, 1598, Patr. Job was again at the forefront of a final and festive ecclesiastical and popular procession to Novo-Devichi Convent, now to invite Godunov to return to Moscow and assume the royal throne. This time Godunov condescended to accepting the pleas of prelates, boyars and the general population. The crowds — under threat of excommunication or fines — swore allegiance to Godunov, and to his wife and children. Since September 1 was also New Year’s Day in the Orthodox calendar, the event conveyed a double meaning. Godunov returned to Moscow with them, and two days later, September 3, 1598, was crowned Tsar of Moscow and all Russia at Uspenski Cathedral. Tents were set up in Red Square for a week of feasting for the general populace. During the festivity, Godunov declared an amnesty for criminals and banned capital punishment for the next five years; but these were promises only made for the occasion of his coronation. Godunov, as tsar, was a realist; the guarantees of the Church meant little to him. To confirm his position, Godunov turned with vengeance on his enemies and political opponents, using exile and the terror which he had learned as a young man in the court of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. During this interim of Godunov’s fury, Patr. Job kept silent and remained loyal to him, but in private he suffered deeply and would weep from sorrow all through the liturgy. During his seven-year reign, Tsar Boris Godunov exerted considerable effort to raise the standard of education in Russia. He had the intention of opening schools in Moscow, and not only primary and secondary schools but also a university patterned after those in Europe. He requested that his noblemen invite professors from Germany, France, Spain and England, but the Duma refused. The higher Orthodoxy clergy opposed the idea since they felt such teachers would infect younger priests with foreign religious and political ideas that would lead to dissension. Finally, Tsar Boris Godunov was able to convince his nobles to send men on their own initiative to Western Europe, who would return after their education was completed. Eighteen men volunteered and left from the harbor at Archangelsk, but only one returned. Once the era of upheavals began, the rest realized it was far too dangerous to return. All those who remained in Europe married and changed their religion; two of them became Anglican priests.

43

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II By order of Tsar Godunov, Feodor Nikitich Romanov — still a threat to his security — was forced to be tonsured, and he was exiled to Solovetski Monastery; his new name became Filaret. His wife was likewise forced to take the veil, and she was exiled to a convent distant from Moscow. The rest of the Romanov family — Mikhail, Aleksandra, Ivan and Vasili — were exiled along with their wives and children, aunts, uncles, and in-laws, to Siberia. Subsequent to the persecution of the Romanov family, Godunov ordered the exile of other prominent boyar families and feudal princes. Vasili Yakovlevich Schekalov was relieved of all his duties and stripped of his rank. Bogdan Yakovlevich Belski — a former contender to the throne — was tied to a pole and had his beard pulled out, hair by hair. He was then put through a torture chamber and flogged, and subsequently exiled to Siberia. In time, the general population of Russia became disgusted with Godunov as tsar, and hoped for a member of the royal lineage — that of Rurik — to appear and ascend the throne. When Feodor Ivanovich had ascended the throne as tsar of Russia in 1584, Catholicism was increasing its drive to subject Orthodoxy to the authority of the papacy by converting it to Unia. That year, Pope Gregory XIII sent letters to Tsar Feodor, which were delivered to him by Jesuits residing in Moscow. The attempt failed. In 1586, Pope Sixtus V called on papal legate Antonius Possevin, this time to persuade Polish king Stephan Bathory to attack Russia. The pope thought that Polish troops could easily conquer the regions of Smolensk, Pskov and Novgorod, and especially with a weak Russian defensive military force under the command of Tsar Feodor. Only the death of Bathory in 1586 terminated Pope Sixtus’ dream. In 1594 and 1597, Pope Clement VIII sent his legate Aleksandr Komule — who was also fluent in the Russian language — to Tsar Feodor about the unification of the two churches, but each time the attempt failed. With the ascension of Tsar Boris Godunov, Polish king Sigismund III, in 1600, sent delegates to Moscow on a peace mission, although their actual intent was to convince Godunov that it would be to Russia’s benefit to allow Poles to settle on Russian land and build Catholic churches. This proposal was likewise rejected.

44

The Era of the Patriarchate 72. PATRIARCH IGNATIUS AND PSEUDO-DMITRI I All attempts by Catholic popes and legates to sway Russia to Unia seemed to have failed with the rise of Boris Godunov as tsar. A new opportunity arose through a disenchanted former Orthodox monk living in Poland. Grigori Otrepyev had high aspirations. He confessed to a Jesuit priest that he was actually Tsarevich Dmitri Ivanovich. Otrepyev publicized the notion that another child had been killed and buried instead, and that he had survived the murder. A plot was hatched to promote Otrepyev as Tsarevich Dmitri, and this was supported by Yuri Mnishek, Polish military commander under King Sigismund III. Mnishek promised to give Otrepyev his daughter Marina in marriage should the plot succeed. With such a marriage — Marina being a Catholic Pole — Catholic inroads could be into Russia, to incline it toward Unia, and having the pseudo-Dmitri as tsar would encourage it. Jesuits surrounded Otrepyev and he made a written agreement with papal nuncio Klavdius Rongoni: if Polish troops were supplied to Otrepyev for his campaign, and if he should ascend the throne of Russia as tsar, then Otrepyev in return would subject Orthodoxy to Catholicism by implementing Unia. A written agreement was also made May 25, 1604, that Otrepyev would cede the regions of Pskov and Novgorod to Poland’s domain if the plot should succeed. Otrepyev wrote a personal letter on July 30, 1604 to Pope Clement VIII, promising him the expansion of Catholic hegemony in Russia shortly after his ascension to the throne of Russia. Otrepyev crossed the border from Poland on October 16, 1604 and entered Russia at the head of Polish troops and Jesuit priests. He made straight for Moscow, declaring that he was Tsarevich Dmitri. The procession moved slowly across western Russia, as the cities he passed through opened their doors to him as heir-apparent to the royal family. Patr. Job was too weak to do much for Godunov. He attempted to expose the pseudo-Dmitri and wrote letters to churches to be read publicly, commanding the people not to accept the imposter. But it was all to no avail. Pseudo-Dmitri had at his disposal a Polish military force to support him, and they attacked Moscow. Job’s efforts also failed due to the Russian people’s desperate hopes for an heir of Rurik’s royal line, whom they now saw materialized in Grigori Otrepyev; their will to believe was augmented by their disenchantment with Godunov’s reign. At the climax of the siege against Moscow, Tsar Boris Feodorovich Godunov unexpectedly died, on April 13, 1605. The Moscow residents remaining

45

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II loyal to Godunov realized their doom, and delivered terms for a treaty to pseudoDmitri. The imposter demanded the execution of his enemies. The Moscovites immediately executed Boris Godunov’s widow Maria Grigorievna and their son Feodor. Their daughter Ksenia was exiled to Suzdal Pokrovski Convent for life. Pseudo-Dmitri entered Moscow on June 20, 1605. Patr. Job‘s good fortune now turned to the worse, and he became the next victim. The crowds of Moscow residents entered Uspenski Cathedral, and dragged Job out with the intent of beating him to death. He was brought to the Lobnoe Mesto in Red Square for execution, but his life was spared at the last minute by pseudo-Dmitri, who did not want to begin his rule as tsar with the patriarch’s blood on his hands. Job was deposed from his cathedra and exiled to Staritzki Monastery. He only appeared in Moscow once more before his death. He died two years after this coup, on June 19, 1607, and was buried inside Uspenski Cathedral. Ignatius was archbishop of Riazan and the first Russian Orthodox prelate to greet and accept pseudo-Dmitri as tsar, which he did on June 5, 1605 in Tule. The imposter entered Moscow on June 20, along with his army, mostly Poles and Lithuanians. Accepted as a legitimate tsar of the royal lineage by Moscow residents, pseudo-Dmitri made his entrance in a magnificent procession. Boyars adorned the heir to the throne in brocaded royal robes made of velvet and silk, woven with jewels and pearls. The rejoicing residents, in festive outfits, flooded the squares and streets. The roofs of buildings, bell-towers and church domes were cluttered with the curious as they watched the procession. The crowds cried, “Greetings our father, sovereign Dmitri Ivanovich, tsar and grand prince of all Russia. May God grant you many years. May the Lord overshadow all your paths with wondrous mercy. You truly are a beautiful sunshine shining upon Russia.” In reply, pseudo-Dmitri cried to them, himself hardly able to restrain his tears, “Greetings, my children. Arise and pray to God on my behalf.” Soon his retinue arrived at Red Square, where clergymen awaited him, all wearing vestments made special for the occasion. The diamonds, emeralds, rubies, and polished glass on the vestments of prelates and priests reflected the bright sun, which also shined on the gold and silver of their crosses. Descending from his horse, pseudo-Dmitri entered Uspenski Cathedral and kissed the miracleworking icons of Russian saints while Moscow clergy and an ecclesiastical assembly chanted prayers. A Polish orchestra blew trumpets and their drums

46

The Era of the Patriarchate rolled, and the crowds exclaimed, “Lord, protect our Tsar.” Once the Moscow church bells began ringing, they drowned out the sound of everything else in the city. After the conclusion of liturgy at Uspenski Cathedral, the new tsar visited the sepulchers of his “ancestors” at Archangelsk Cathedral, and he sat upon the throne of his “forefathers” in the Granite Chamber. He declined a formal coronation until such time as his “mother and relatives” should return from exile, and after the selection and ordination of a patriarch who would then perform the coronation ceremony. Pseudo-Dmitri’s “mother,” Tsaritza Maria Nagoi, confined at Nikolaievski Convent as Sister Martha, was released from confinement by order of the new tsar. She was now en route to Moscow to greet her “son.” Not everyone was deceived by pseudo-Dmitri. Pr. Vasili Ivanovich Shuiski and his two brothers — influential Boyar Duma members — referred to him as an imposter, an agent of the Poles, and an enemy of Orthodoxy. On June 23, by order of pseudo-Dmitri, the three Shuiskis were arrested and placed in custody. The day following his arrival at the Kremlin, pseudo-Dmitri convened an ecclesiastical assembly at Uspenski Cathedral, convinced that Moscow prelates had voluntarily subjected themselves to his will. The purpose of the council was to formally depose Job and select a successor. Although a few disagreed with the proceedings, they declined to object out of fear of reprisal. The vote to depose Job and to ordain Archbishop Ignatius as his successor was unanimous. Ignatius was ordained patriarch of Moscow and all Russia on June 24, 1605, only four days after the arrival of pseudo-Dmitri. The new patriarch was Greek, originally from Mt Athos. While in Greece, Ignatius was bishop of a city near to Mt Athos, and came to Moscow as representative of the patriarch of Constantinople to watch the coronation of Tsar Feodor. He then made the decision to remain. It was no doubt because of his Greek origins that Ignatius was the choice of pseudo-Dmitri. Ignatius could not hide his ambition to advance within Russian Orthodoxy either, which was disclosed when he greeted pseudo-Dmitri on his grand entrance in Moscow and immediately swore loyalty to him as the legitimate tsar of Russia and heir to the throne. On June 30, Patr. Ignatius sent a circular letter informing all the dioceses of Russia of the ascension, “of our native Tsar Dmitri Ivanovich,” and his own ordination as patriarch, “according to the will of our tsar.” Parish priests who refused to acknowledge the newly-ordained Ignatius, or felt pseudo-Dmitri to be an imposter, were exiled to incarceration at distant monasteries. Royal Guards (Streltzi) were ordered to execute any enemies of the

47

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II state accused as traitors by pseudo-Dmitri. Pr. Peter Nikitich Turgenev and Moscow resident Feodor Kalachkin referred to pseudo-Dmitri as satan, and were both executed by decapitation, as though they were criminals. The same day, Pr. Vasili Shuiski was brought from his prison cell to the Lobnoe Mesto in Red Square to be decapitated. Shuiski bid farewell to the assembled crowd and spectators. His head was placed on the chopping block and the executioner stood next to him, axe in hand. Suddenly, a courier arrived from the Kremlin, granting the aged prince and nobleman a reprieve. Much like the reprieve granted Patr. Job, pseudo-Dmitri did not want to begin his reign with the blood of such an influential and venerated nobleman on his hands. Pseudo-Dmitri however ordered him and other members of the Shuiski clan to prison. Maria Feodorevna Nagoi returned from exile July 17. She and her “son” met at a small village a few miles outside Moscow that day. They embraced publicly and cried on each other’s shoulders, while the attending crowd likewise cried. Viewing the spectacle no one could doubt that the mother was greeting the son she thought had died fourteen years earlier. But Maria played the ruse for several reasons: out of hatred for the family of Boris Godunov for killing her son; to be released from exile; and, for the balance of her family to likewise be released from exile. She also hoped to acquire some authority or influence, in order to utilize it to exact vengeance on the enemies of the Nagoi family. The following day, July 18, “mother and son” entered Moscow in no less a jubilant procession than when pseudo-Dmitri himself arrived. A special liturgy was performed at Uspenski Cathedral by Patr. Ignatius, for the occasion of the family reunification. Maria Nagoi was assigned quarters at Voznesenski Convent inside the Kremlin, with all comfort due the tsar’s mother. At Uspenski Cathedral on July 30, 1605, Patr. Ignatius, in the presence of an ecclesiastical council, the Boyar Duma, and both Moscovite and provincial noblemen, along with representatives of major cities, crowned Grigori Otrepyev according to the traditional rite, and he became tsar of Moscow and all Russia. The new tsar was greeted in the Polish language by a Catholic priest, the Jesuit Nikolai Chernikovski, and then letters from Pope Paul V were read to all attending. After the coronation, the assembly moved to Archangelsk Cathedral, where pseudo-Dmitri kissed the sepulchers of his “ancestors” — the earlier tsars and grand princes — and accepted the crown of Vladimir Monomakh from the Greek Archbishop Arsenius of Elasson, which he placed upon his head. PseudoDmitri then announced his soon marriage to Marina Mnishek, Polish military commander Yuri Mnishek’s daughter.

48

The Era of the Patriarchate The first of charitable acts of Tsar pseudo-Dmitri was the return of his “relatives” from exile — the Nagoi's — along with other families who were banished into exile by Boris Godunov. Vasili Yakovlevich Schelkalov had his property and rank returned to him. Soon after his ascension to the throne, pseudo-Dmitri recalled from exile Feodor Nikitich Romanov — now known as monk Filaret — his “cousin”. This was nothing more than a ruse to claim them as his genuine relatives — the few that remained after Godunov’s short reign of terror — and to gain some support from the royal family. Pseudo-Dmitri, however, decided distance would be best for the Romanovs, so Filaret was exiled to the Seiski Monastery near Archangelsk, where he was promoted to archimandrite. A short time later, pseudoDmitri expelled metropolitan Kirill of Rostov from his cathedra, and ordained Filaret in his place, recalling him from the distant north. It was only due to Filaret’s hatred of the Godunovs that he accepted this promotion and ordination from pseudo-Dmitri, knowing well that he was an imposter. Pseudo-Dmitri’s religious attitude began to annoy Patr. Ignatius, as he realized the new tsar was not Orthodox, but Uniate. His conduct irritated the prelates: Tsar pseudo-Dmitri was negligent toward ecclesiastical regulations; adopted Polish customs; would not make the sign of the cross in front of icons; sat at dinner without prayer; ate meat during Lent; would not allow the Orthodox priest to bless his dinner; allowed Catholic Poles into Uspenski Cathedral; and allowed Poles to enter Russian churches with a saber at their side. The upcoming marriage of the tsar with a Catholic only increased the anxiety. As the weeks went by, more and more Catholic Poles were appearing in the Kremlin, and this caused a horrible resonance from both clergy and nobleman. Pseudo-Dmitri wanted to permit Polish Catholics to build churches in Moscow; Ignatius refused him. Fanatics began to voice concern, stating that now religion and homeland were in danger; that the enemy resided within the Moscow Kremlin walls. Pseudo-Dmitri had no choice but to turn to execution to silence his critics. As their heads were laid on the chopping block they cried out, “In place of Christ, you have accepted anti-christ.” The crowds, inclined toward Tsar pseudo-Dmitri, hollered back that as traitors they deserved death. After pseudo-Dmitri’s the ascension to the throne of Russia, papal nuncio Klavdius Rongoni sent the new tsar gifts: a Catholic cross, a rosary, and a copy of the Latin Vulgate Bible, along with a note, for him to remember his promise and execute the subjection of Russian Orthodoxy to Catholicism. Pope Paul V —

49

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II successor to Pope Clement VIII — sent letters on February 11, and April 10, 1606, to pseudo-Dmitri, reminding him of his promise. In counterpoise to the Catholic influx, Patr. Ignatius installed archimandrite Isai Lukoshkov of Vladimir Rozhdestvennoi Monastery as tsar’s confessor. Other affairs of the tsar were placed under control of Terenti, protopope of Blago-Veschenski Cathedral, but the thought of the upcoming wedding of Tsar pseudo-Dmitri vexed Patr. Ignatius emotionally and psychologically. Russian feudal princes and noblemen began to view the reign of pseudo-Dmitri as a defeat of the Russian empire. To make matters worse, all of the correspondence between pseudo-Dmitri and both papal nuncio Rongoni and Pope Paul V was intercepted and read by the Boyar Duma, and this further confirmed the tsar as a traitor to both religion and state. Marina Yurievna Mnishek and her father, Polish military commander Yuri Mnishek, with a large and impressive retinue, crossed the Russian border from Poland on April 8, 1606. They entered Moscow April 24, amid a triumphant reception, ready to start preparations for the wedding. The future father-in-law met pseudo-Dmitri at his Kremlin palace. The tsar sat on an elevated gold throne under a canopy which was crowned with the Russian Imperial insignia of the two-headed eagle, made of pure gold. A diamond and ruby necklace, to which was affixed a cross made of emeralds, hung on the royal robe of the tsar. The famous icon of the Kurski Theotokos, incased in an elegant frame, hung behind the tsar and over his head. Steps leading up to the throne were covered with gold brocade. At each side of each step stood a personal bodyguard wearing a white velvet robe and holding a short steel sword with a gilded handle. The bodyguards wore high fur hats and white Moroccan boots, and a large gold chain hung around their neck. The seat for Patr. Ignatius set at the tsar’s right. The black velvet cassock of the patriarch had a wide band of pearls along the bottom. A diamond cross hung from his neck; he also wore the traditional white cowl. Beneath the patriarch were benches for other prelates, while feudal princes and noblemen sat along the walls. Benches, especially for the members of the Boyar Duma, were located to the left of the throne. The floors were covered with Persian rugs. As the guests entered and approached the steps, a cross was brought on a gold dish to Patr. Ignatius, along with a silver bowl of holy water. The patriarch dipped the cross in the holy water and sprinkled it on the assembly, blessing them. Nothing more dismayed the guests than the majestic environment of tsar and patriarch.

50

The Era of the Patriarchate During the course of discussions regarding the wedding arrangements, Yuri Mnishek agreed his daughter would observe all Orthodox rites, and that she would not trouble Russia with her Catholic upbringing, only observing it on a personal basis at a home chapel. While living in Russia she would adapt to all local customs and traditions. A tug-of-war then evolved regarding the baptism of Marina into Orthodoxy. Pope Paul V had already denied the request of Tsar pseudo-Dmitri for her re-baptism into Orthodoxy, which had been communicated through his papal nuncio Klavdius Rongoni on March 4, 1606. Since pseudo-Dmitri could not bite the hand that had fed him up to now, he informed Patr. Ignatius that his bride would not be baptized into Orthodoxy, but would remain Catholic. Orthodox nomocanon did not recognize Catholic baptism as valid, and many Orthodox prelates considered Catholic baptism heresy, and a few thought it apostasy. Patr. Ignatius then summoned an ecclesiastical council with the presence of Tsar pseudo-Dmitri, in order to acquire justification and reason from him, as to why he considered re-baptism for his bride unnecessary. Most prelates present realized that the tsar was not serious about the observance of Orthodox tenets, and that they would be better off not to confront him, lest they pay the penalty. Hermogen, metropolitan of Kazan and later patriarch, objected to the course Tsar pseudo-Dmitri was taking, and exclaimed, “Tsar, it is not proper for the Christian King to accept an un-baptized person, and lead her into the holy church, and now Germans build Catholic churches and protestant churches. Do not conduct yourself in this manner.” Only Archbishop Joseph of Kolomensk supported him. The bold Hermogen was banished from the capital and returned to his diocese. The balance of prelates at the council unanimously agreed to marry Marina Mnishek according to Orthodox rite, but without requiring her re-baptism. Up to now, Marina Mnishek was still outside of Moscow, probably housed at Novo-Devichi Convent with her retinue. After the council of prelates decided in favor of the tsar’s request, the date of May 2 was set for her entrance into the city proper. That morning, a golden carriage led by twelve horses brought the future tsaritza into Moscow. Her retinue consisted of a total of 2000 persons, mainly Poles and Lithuanians and several Jesuits. The inside of her carriage was decorated with red velvet with small gold nails fastening it all together, while she sat on a pillow made of gold brocade, interwoven with pearls. Marina wore a white satin dress in the French fashion, decorated with

51

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II pearls and diamonds. Opposite Marina in the carriage sat two Polish officials and a Negro servant with a monkey that was held by a gold chain. Surrounding the carriage were hundreds of Moscow royal guards in full dress. An additional seventeen carriages behind Marina’s held her retinue and personal property. A Lithuanian cavalry in full dress was at its rear. A Moscow orchestra met the procession at its gates, and they crossed over the Moscow River and entered Red Square. Only Marina with a small party was allowed into the Kremlin, while the balance of the retinue was dispersed to the homes of Russian officials. Patr. Ignatius, however, did not participate in either procession or greeting, which he would have done if Marina was Orthodox. The members of his ecclesiastical council, likewise, remained at their residences inside the Kremlin. Local and parish priests, however, did join in the festivities of the arrival of their next tsaritza. Caught in a difficult situation, Patr. Ignatius decided against joining the revelers, and proceeded to make sure the wedding would be performed according to Orthodox rite. Marina was housed at the Voznesenski Convent inside the Kremlin, where her future “mother-in-law” Maria Nagoi was also in residence. Ignatius issued strict instructions to the nuns for Marina to observe Orthodox canons in food and clothing, and that she learn the conduct and protocol expected of her as wife of an Orthodox king. Under orders of Patr. Ignatius, no Catholic priest, and especially any Jesuit, was allowed into the convent. During the night of May 7-8, 1606, Marina was moved from the convent to the palace, and the wedding was set for May 9. The day was a Thursday, and also the holiday of St. Nicholas of Myra (d. 343), a highly venerated day on the Orthodox calendar. With the marriage ceremony scheduled for this day, Patr. Ignatius was violating two additional canons of Orthodoxy: marriage on a Thursday, and on a holiday, in addition to the bride not being Orthodox. The engagement rite was performed in private at the Stolovoi Chamber by protopope Feodor of the Blago-Veschenski Cathedral. Patr. Ignatius and his prelates would not attend the engagement, knowing well it should have been conducted at the palace. The new tsar, and, now-tsarevna, Marina, then moved to the Granite Chamber, where feudal princes and noblemen were gathered. Tsar pseudo-Dmitri sat on the tsar’s seat and Marina was invited to sit on the seat next to him. Officials entered the Granite Chamber bringing with them the symbols of imperial authority: the crown of Vladimir Monomakh, a pectoral cross, a gold chain, and a small cape that hung over the shoulders interwoven with jewels. Tsar pseudo-Dmitri arose and kissed the cross and crown, while his

52

The Era of the Patriarchate confessor recited words to the prayer, “Worthy is the Lamb.” Marina descended from her seat and down three steps, as a sign of condescension and, likewise, kissed the Orthodox cross and crown, and then returned to her seat. Royal emissaries then lined up to offer their congratulations to the tsar and tsarevna, while the assembly awaited indication that clergy were ready for their marriage and her coronation. An official then made a sign, which was relayed to the bell ringer at the palace. Once the Kremlin bells began to ring, all the bells in Moscow joined in, until the entire city resonated from the sound of church bells. Pseudo-Dmitri and Marina arose from their seats and moved toward Uspenski Cathedral. The doors of the cathedral opened, and Patr. Ignatius and a procession of prelates exited into the Kremlin courtyard, all of them wearing full sacerdotal vestments. Protopope Feodor, carrying a cross, and deacon Yakov, carrying a gold plate, met them. The metropolitans of Novgorod and Rostov took the items from the protopope and deacon, and followed the patriarch back into the cathedral. Patr. Ignatius once more surveyed the cathedral, and felt all was ready for the wedding and coronation. Inside the cathedral Patr. Ignatius took the cross, crown, chain and royal cape, and set them on a pulpit, or raised table, which was covered with gold brocade woven with pearls. The royal seat was located in the center of the cathedral. The twelve steps leading up to it were covered with purple cloth. From the bottom of the steps, three lengths of purple cloth, with embroidered gold designs between them, led to the altar. A length of black velvet led from the altar to the patriarch’s seat, and then to the right of the tsar’s. Prelates and other ecclesiastical officials sat on benches on each side of the cathedral, while feudal princes and noblemen, who were to attend, sat further to the back. A serpentine path from the palace to Uspenski Cathedral was formed using bright red cloth imported from England, and over which was laid lengths of brocade: one gold and one silver for the tsar and his tsarevna, respectively, to walk upon. Tsar and tsarevna walked arm in arm wearing long Russian-style robes having wide sleeves and made of pink velvet. They wore red Moroccan boots with silver trim. The cloth, which the robes were made of, could hardly be seen under the massive layer of smoothly polished diamonds, emeralds, sapphires and rubies in gold settings. Setting on the head of Marina was a Russianstyle headdress, embedded with diamonds, the value of which was 490,000 Dutch gilders. On pseudo-Dmitri’s side walked his father-in-law, Yuri Mnishek, and on Marina’s side walked Praskovya Ivanovna Mstislavskaya, wife of Feodor

53

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II Mstislavski, eldest nobleman and senior member of the Boyar Duma. Directly behind them walked the two men who were coincidentally planning pseudoDmitri’s murder: princes Vasili Ivanovich Shuiski, who recently was released from prison, and Vasili Vasilyevich Golitzin (these two men were also cousins). To hide their preconceived scheme, the two of them superficially participated in all coronation and marriage rites. The balance of the Boyar Duma followed behind, while, at the cathedral, the choir was already singing to the longevity of the tsar. Having entered Uspenski Cathedral, Tsar pseudo-Dmitri kissed the icon of the Vladimir Theotokos and the icons of the miracle-working metropolitans of Russia. Shuiski then brought Marina up to the icons, and she fell upon her knees in front of them and kissed them. Some traditionalists felt Marina’s veneration of the holiest icons of Russia to be sacrilegious, since she was still Catholic, having refused baptism, and these traditionalists felt Patr. Ignatius to be responsible for such a reprehensible action. Tsar and tsarevna ascended the steps to their seats. Patr. Ignatius formally greeted the tsar and tsarevna, blessed them, and with great celebration placed a crown on Marina’s head, a mantle over her shoulders, and hung a cross around her neck, all of this signifying her as the new empress or tsaritza of Moscow and all Russia. The marriage rite then followed. The marriage of the tsar to Marina was performed after her coronation, another violation of ecclesiastical nomocanon. After performing the marriage liturgy, Patr. Ignatius placed the gold chain of Vladimir Monomakh around the neck of Marina. He anointed her with holy oil as a sign of her membership of Russian Orthodoxy, and allowed her to partake of the Eucharist. The assembly then vacated Uspenski Cathedral. As they exited, gold coins minted especially for the occasion were distributed to the crowds by the elderly prince, Feodor Mstislavski. To the amazement of the crowds, their Polish tsaritza was holding the arm of Pr. Vasili Shuiski as she exited the cathedral! The tsar and his new wife-empress were led to the palace, and the festivities of the day ended. That evening while the couple were enjoying their wedding night, several Russian generals of the Novgorod and Pskov regiments, commanders of the Royal Guards (Streltzi), and other influential men of Moscow, gathered at the home of Pr. Vasili Shuiski, to plot the overthrow of the impostor and so deliver both Russia and Orthodoxy from further decay or betrayal. They, at the same time, would also execute all the foreigners — Poles and Lithuanians — who were part of the retinue of Mnishek.

54

The Era of the Patriarchate It was during the week following his wedding that pseudo-Dmitri made plans for the betrayal of Orthodoxy to Catholicism. On May 16 he wrote a letter to Polish prince Konstantine Bishnevetzki, stating that the time had arrived, and he was ready to convert Orthodoxy to Unia. Pseudo-Dmitri’s intent was to create an artificial rebellion the following Sunday, May 18. He would use his Polish and Lithuanian troops, which were quartered in the city, to suppress it by executing a number of noblemen (Boyars), state officials and Royal Guards. The Jesuits would then arrest Russian prelates, and demand Moscow residents to swear allegiance to the Catholic pope. However, Sunday was never to arrive, because Pr. Vasili Shuiski and his confederates were organizing the Royal Guards for an assault on Saturday. On the morning of Saturday May 17, the Royal Guards were already at their posts at the twelve gates of Moscow. No one was allowed to enter or leave. At daybreak, the Royal Guards began the round-up of the foreign troops residing in the city, and alarms were sounded. In no time at all, the Polish and Lithuanian garrison guarding the Kremlin was surrounded and defeated. Maria Nagoi, fearing for her own safety, and realizing what was occurring, confessed to Pr. Vasili Golitzin that her son had died at Uglich, and that this man was an imposter. Patr. Ignatius was awakened by the alarms, and as he looked out his upper story cloister window in his patriarchal quarters in Chudovski Monastery he could hear the cries of Royal Guards, “In the name of God let us attack this heretic.” As the mob gathered around the royal palace, they cried out, “Hand over the imposter.” The Royal Guards stormed the palace, killing all and every person affiliated with pseudo-Dmitri who stood in the way. Pseudo-Dmitri was arrested in his chambers, but he attempted to save himself by offering the guards money and women, but it was to no avail. He then repeated that he was genuinely Tsar Dmitri Ivanovich, but this was likewise to no avail. Pr. Vasili Golitzin entered the palace, telling the guards that his “mother” had confessed to him being an imposter, and pseudo-Dmitri was led out into the Kremlin courtyard. The crowds, seeing him, hollered, “Kill him, tear him apart.” Crowds began to gather and surround the Royal Guards. As they encircled pseudo-Dmitri with their weapons, Grigori Baluiev, a palace official, told the Royal Guards, “We don’t need to let the heretic try to justify himself, I will myself bless this Polish pipepiper.” First, their rapiers plunged through his body, and then they carved his torso apart with their halberds. His feet were tied together and he was dragged about the Kremlin courtyard. The Royal Guards were shouting that he was an

55

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II imposter, personally exposed by his “mother” Maria and the Nagoi family. The crowd that gathered threw rocks and dirt at his corpse. The mob surrounded the Voznesenski Convent inside the Kremlin as they dragged the corpse near one of its windows. Maria Nagoi was brought to the window and the mob asked her, “Is this your son?” Shaken by the turn of events and massacre, she replied, “You should have asked yesterday, when he was still alive; now, of course, he is not mine.” Grigori Otrepyev’s naked body was dragged outside the Kremlin and into Red Square, where it was allowed to lie exposed in public for four days. Then it was taken outside the city walls of Moscow and cremated. Pr. Vasili Shuiski’s vengeance upon the imposter was not finished until he had his Royal Guards sweep up the ashes of pseudo-Dmitri and scatter them in the wind. From his cloister, Patr. Ignatius watched the crowds’ insanity and saw how quickly their fallen sovereign became a toy, an amusement for the mobs. The monastery was surrounded by Royal Guards, and a sentry was stationed at the patriarch’s cloister. Devastated by the crimes of his subjects, he had every reason to fear for his own fate. Following this, the massacre of foreigners began: they were dragged from their residences, their property was plundered and confiscated, their clothes were stripped off them, and then they were brutally murdered. Polish soldiers and noblemen, doctors and priests, merchants and servants, all suffered the same fate; between 1,500 and 2,000 died within hours of pseudo-Dmitri’s execution. The wives and daughters of the Poles were raped, and several were kidnapped as slaves. A few tried to defend themselves, but it was all in vain. Yuri Mnishek and his daughter Marina survived, because they claimed to possess diplomatic immunity, which the Royal Guards recognized. The following day, Sunday, May 18, an ecclesiastical council of local prelates, archimandrites and abbots, convened to decide the fate of Patr. Ignatius. They judged his conduct as reprehensible: the Greek foreigner siding with pseudo-Dmitri for the sole purpose of attaining the cathedra of the patriarch, a result of his personal ambition; crowning the obvious imposter as tsar; and then marrying him to a foreigner of another religion. The council expelled Ignatius from his cathedra and labeled him a criminal prelate. Ignatius realized the seriousness of the charges against him as foremost Russian Orthodox prelate, and so accepted their decision, not defending or justifying himself. The expelled patriarch was confined under guard to a cloister at Chu-

56

The Era of the Patriarchate dovski Monastery, where he was isolated from both public and religious activities for the next five years. The following day, May 19, the Boyar Duma and a number of prelates assembled in Red Square, and requested the crowds to suggest candidates for the patriarchate, one who would uphold Orthodoxy in the traditional manner and who would then crown the next tsar of Russia. The crowds shouted, “We need a king more than a patriarch. No council is required, Moscow represents our sovereignty. Shuiski will be tsar.” The crowds followed the assembly of Boyars and prelates inside the Kremlin, and led Vasili Ivanovich Shuiski to Uspenski Cathedral, to secure his nomination by the next leading prelate in Russia, Metr. Isidore of Novgorod. Under duress, Isidore and a number of prelates blessed the murderer of his predecessor as his successor. Immediately, a delegation was dispatched by Shuiski to Staritzki Monastery to retrieve the exiled Patr. Job. He was requested to return to Moscow and assume the patriarchate. However, due to loss of eyesight and old age, he declined their offer. Job suggested Metr. Hermogen of Kazan as a possible candidate. The cathedra of Patr. Ignatius lasted almost eleven months, from June 30, 1605 to May 19, 1606, but for the next five years he was cut off from the rest of the world by the high walls of Chudovski Monastery and the sentry at his cloister door.

73. PATRIARCH HERMOGEN AND PSEUDO-DMITRI Russia’s new patriarch, whom the noblemen hoped would return the nation to its Orthodoxy and loyalty to the tsar, was Hermogen, ordained June 3, 1606, barely two weeks after Vasili Shuiski’s coronation. Born in 1530, Hermogen was the son of Yuri Mikhailovich Golitzin, a Kazan feudal prince area. His monastic name was actually Ermolai, but in Slavonic it was rendered Hermogen. During his early life, he lived at the SpassoPreobrazhenski (Transfiguration of the Savior) Monastery in Kazan as layman, while its founder Varsonofei was still abbot. In 1579, Hermogen became parish priest of a Kazan church dedicated to St. Nikolas. In 1583, his wife passed away, and in 1587, he moved to Moscow, where he decided to become a monk, and so was tonsured at Chudovski Monastery. After changing his name to Hermogen, he returned to the Spasso-Preobrazhenski Monastery in Kazan, now as a monk. Hermogen was ordained bishop of Kazan on May 13, 1589, by Patr. Job at a

57

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II council held in Moscow. Shortly after, Hermogen was ordained as the first metropolitan of the newly created diocese of Kazan and Astrakhan, the largest diocese in land size in Moscovite Russia. To Hermogen is attributed the conversion to Orthodoxy of many alien tribes: Tartars, Mordovinians, Moris, Chuvash, Moslems, and other pagans living in the region. There he remained until his selection as patriarch. Accepting the responsibility of metropolitan, Hermogen unveiled zeal that was unknown among the prelates, consisting of Orthodox expansion in his diocese. Tsar Ivan IV’s defeat of Kazan was a signal for Orthodoxy to acquire new strengths: not to slowly develop, but a new era of explosive Russian colonization and expansion. The years of Hermogen’s clerical activity was a preparation for his further and greater work. His mentors were German Polev, archimandrite of the Sviyazhki Monastery, who later became archbishop and was offered the metropolitan’s cathedra by Tsar Ivan the Terrible, and Varsonofei, founder and archimandrite of the Kazan Spaso-Preobrazhenski Monastery. Hermogen exerted more energy and accomplished more for his diocese during his cathedra as metropolitan of Kazan, than did the entire Moscow ecclesiastical assembly for the diocese of Moscow. Metr. Hermogen was an energetic builder, decorating Kazan diocese with many churches and monasteries. The pinnacle of his construction was the Kazan Devichi (Virgin’s) Monastery, and the dedication within it of the Theotokos Church. By the time Hermogen was ordained as patriarch, he was already 76 years old. His ordination closely matched that of Patr. Job: in full ceremonial dress and rite, including the symbolic ride on a donkey around Moscow. Among the prelates of Russia, only Metr. Hermogen and Bishop Joseph of Kholomensk opposed the marriage of the Catholic Pole Marina to pseudoDmitri in Moscow. Pr. Shuiski realized that a person of such austerity and conviction would be valuable to him, in confirming his own position as a conservative Orthodox tsar. But Shuiski feared that Hermogen might not have approved of him as tsar, and so would have refused to crown him. This is why he had Metr. Isidore of Novgorod perform the coronation. Then, Tsar Shuiski ignored and circumvented Isidore, as he selected and ordained Hermogen as patriarch. During the two week interval between his own coronation and Hermogen’s ordination, Tsar Shuiski exhumed the Tsarevich Dmitri Ivanovich’s remains at Uglich, and had them brought to the Archangelsk Cathedral inside

58

The Era of the Patriarchate the Moscow Kremlin to be entombed along with the balance of the royal family. This was to serve as affirmation of his death. The remains arrived in Moscow and were entombed June 3, 1606, the same day as Hermogen’s ordination, and only to verify the death of the last of Rurik’s royal posterity. Shuiski was desperate to prevent any further resurrection of pseudo-Dmitris. Shortly after ascending the cathedra as patriarch, and at the request of Tsar Shuiski, Hermogen canonized Tsarevich Dmitri Ivanovich. The era had difficulties for Patr. Hermogen. Much of the populace still clamored for a descendent of the royal family as tsar, rather than having Vasili Shuiski, and others were still convinced that Dmitri was still alive, or else that pseudo-Dmitri — whom they considered to genuinely be Tsarevich Dmitri — was somewhere in seclusion. Patr. Job, in exile, realized the seriousness and volatility of the situation. In order to save Russia from another civil war or national upheaval, he volunteered to personally and publicly testify to the events surrounding Tsarevich Dmitri’s death in Uglich. The new Tsar Shuiski and new Patr. Hermogen agreed to the offer, and they recalled Job from exile. At Uspenski Cathedral in the Moscow Kremlin, on February 2, 1607, both new and former patriarchs were present. After liturgy, archdeacon Olimpi read a statement consisting of a formal repentance of Job’s involvement in the Tsarevich Dmitri’s murder: Job had concealed the truth from the public, that Boris Godunov planned the murder of Tsarevich Dmitri and was the responsible party. Job also asked the people for their forgiveness, because he violated his vows in defending Godunov, knowing well he was the guilty person. Those gathered at the cathedral cried after the statement was read and kissed Job’s right hand, glad for his eventual repentance. Job returned to Staritzki Monastery after the affair concluded, and he remained there until his death. A second pseudo-Dmitri appeared on the horizon on August 1, 1607, with his army of fugitives, deserters, mercenaries, and fortune-seekers, and by June 1, 1608, he was eight miles from Moscow. The army of pseudo-Dmitri II established their camp at Tushino, near Moscow, and spread over the entire region. All of a sudden Marina Mnishek, the first pseudo-Dmitri’s widow, recognized this new imposter as her legitimate husband and tsar of Russia. The two met in the area and a Jesuit priest married them; she later gave birth to a child. Russian clergy this time struggled against the imposter, but not without serious consequences. Pseudo-Dmitri exiled Bishop Galaktiyon of Suzdal, who died during his relocation. Archbishop Feoktist of Tver was brought to the camp

59

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II and executed. The military regiment of the “Bandit of Tushino,” as he was referred to, attacked Rostov and arrested Metr. Filaret, placing him in a prison cell at Tushino. Bishop Gennadi of Pskov died from a stroke during the attacks in his area. The most infamous of all events in the ecclesiastical history of this era was the siege of Troitse-Sergievski Monastery, defended at the time by the monastery cellarer, Avrami Palitzen. Some 15,000 Polish troops surrounded the monastery on September 23, 1608, and held it under siege until January 12, 1610, a period of sixteen months, but they were unable to capture it. Of 2,400 persons inside the monastery at the beginning of its siege, only 200 survived, including Avrami. The immediate result of the rise of pseudo-Dmitri II was the prosecution of Tsar and Patriarch by their subjects. The first attempt to overthrow Tsar Shuiski occurred on November 17, 1609: Moscow crowds demanded that tsar and patriarch descend to Red Square. In a speech given that day, Patr. Hermogen was barely able to subdue their anger and to convince them to confirm loyalty to Tsar Shuiski. The people lost faith in Shuiski and in the legitimacy of his ascension as tsar of Russia. Knowing he was unable to defeat Polish troops under command of pseudo-Dmitri II, Tsar Shuiski turned to King Charles IX of Sweden. Tsar Shuiski promised the Swedes that he would cede them certain cities and land if they would invade and attack the imposter. This offer to Charles only created worse problems for Tsar Shuiski; it inflamed the anger of Charles’ arch-enemy, King Sigismund III of Poland, who had lost his throne over Sweden in 1599 to Charles, and had been at war with Sweden since 1600. The Swedes entered Russia from the north-west in early 1609, and moved toward Novgorod. The Polish army, under the direct command of Sigismund, invaded Russia and laid siege to Smolensk in September 1609, but they could not defeat the city. When Metr. Filaret was arrested and brought to pseudo-Dmitri II at Tushino, the latter realized the value of such a person and Filaret was willing to make concessions, just as he did earlier when pseudo-Dmitri I released him from Solovetski Monastery and promoted him. Pseudo-Dmitri II assigned him the title of patriarch-designee, hoping this would draw greater loyalty of Russians to his cause, and Filaret did not refuse the opportunity. In December 1609, Polish King Sigismund delivered an ultimatum to both the camp at Tushino, under the command of pseudo-Dmitri II, and to Moscow, under Tsar Shuiski’s command, for both of them to capitulate to Poland’s army and rule. The camp at Tushino, upon receipt of the message, dissolved. PseudoDmitri II fled to Kaluga, about 50 miles further south-west. Half the Russians

60

The Era of the Patriarchate that supported pseudo-Dmitri II abandoned the struggle and returned to Moscow, while the rest accepted Sigismund’s offer. The Russian remnant at Tushino organized a delegation to go to Smolensk, to Sigismund, and offer compromising terms in order to ameliorate the situation. The letter from Sigismund was originally addressed to patriarch-designee Filaret. In the return letter to Sigismund, proposing the terms of the treaty, Filaret referred to himself by the same title. According to the terms of the treaty, Russia would accept the rule of Sigismund’s son Vladislav over them, provided that he would be crowned as tsar by the Russian patriarch, and uphold the Orthodox religion in Russia, and that otherwise nothing else change in Russia. The delegates arrived at Smolensk on February 4, 1610, and delivered their conditions for peace. That same month a Russian army under the command of Mikhail SkopinShuiski — Tsar Vasili Shuiski’s nephew — with a detachment of Swedish soldiers, defeated the remaining military troops at Tushino. They took Filaret back with them to Moscow, after he had been a captive in Tushino for seven months. Skopin-Shuiski’s fame increased as a result of his successful invasion, while Tsar Shuiski’s reputation declined. Skopin-Shuiski died unexpectedly in April 1610. The people immediately suspected his uncle, Tsar Vasili, as the culprit. An attempt was then made to increase the tsar’s stature, by an invasion against the Poles at Smolensk. The talentless brother of Tsar Vasili, Pr. Dmitri Shuiski, led Moscovite troops to Smolensk that June, but they were defeated by a Polish regiment before even entering the city. The Polish military force moved closer toward Moscow and stopped at Mozhaisk, about 70 miles away. In July 1610, pseudo-Dmitri II returned from seclusion and settled in the city Kolomensk, near Moscow. He sent a delegate to Tsar Shuiski, to convince him to capitulate, in order to curb further bloodshed and suffering. Patr. Hermogen supported Tsar Shuiski, even when it seems everyone else had abandoned him. A small detachment of soldiers and supportive noblemen entered the palace on July 17, 1610, and shouted to the tsar, “How long will you allow Christian blood to spill for your own sake? The country is devastated. Nothing good is performed under your reign. Have pity on our ruin. Abandon the royal scepter and we will somehow survive on our own.” The size of the crowd increased, and with a similar petition they forced their way to Patr. Hermogen’s residence, but he continued to support the tsar. A deputation of the crowd arrived at Tsar Shuiski’s palace and forced him to vacate the premises and to return to his earlier residence: now as a prince, no longer tsar of Russia. Tsar Shuiski capitulated under duress, not having forgotten the consequences of his predecessor pseudo-

61

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II Dmitri I. Moscow residents did not trust him and on July 19, two days later, they had Shuiski tonsured as a monk against his will and confined at Joseph VolokoLamsk Monastery under guard. Patr. Hermogen refused to acknowledge either Tsar Shuiski’s expulsion or tonsure as valid. Polish forces at Mozhaisk then issued another ultimatum to Moscow, this one on July 31, 1610, to accept Polish prince Vladislav as tsar. Patr. Hermogen objected and so did Metr. Filaret, but their objection was overruled by Boyars on August 27. A compromise was reached between the two highest prelates of Russian Orthodoxy and the Russian nobility: Pr. Vladislav would be baptized into Orthodoxy by Metr. Filaret at Smolensk, and would remain loyal to Orthodoxy forever; no communication for the infinite future was to occur between Vladislav and any representative of the pope regarding matters of religion; any Orthodox of his realm that would convert to Catholicism would be executed; and finally, Pr. Vladislav would marry a lady of the Orthodox religion according to Greek rites. The following day, 10,000 Moscow residents swore allegiance to the new monarch. Prelates of the Orthodox Church swore allegiance at Uspenski Cathedral in Patr. Hermogen’s presence. Early September 1610, a delegation was sent from Moscow to King Sigismund at Smolensk, to present the terms of Russia’s subjection. The delegates were Metr. Filaret, Avrami Palitzen of Troitse-Sergievski Monastery, and Pr. Vasili Vasilyevich Golitzin, the former tsar’s cousin. Before leaving for Smolensk, Patr. Hermogen blessed the delegates, and Filaret promised him, that he would “die if necessary for the Orthodox Christian religion.” At the meetings outside Smolensk, the delegates began a long negotiation with the Poles regarding their conditions for surrender. The Poles wanted the immediate surrender of Smolensk, and to allow Polish military troops to enter Moscow and occupy it. The Russian delegation stood firm on its own points and refused to concede. However, the noblemen in Moscow, who were not as tenacious as their counterparts at Smolensk, allowed the Polish garrison to enter Moscow on September 21. With the city under Polish military occupation, the noblemen wrote to the delegates at Smolensk to capitulate to Polish rule. A document of Moscow’s surrender was composed on December 6, 1610, but Patr. Hermogen refused to sign it; he was not about to surrender Moscow to foreigners and their Catholic inclinations. Nonetheless, the document was sent to the delegates at Smolensk on December 23, 1610. They received it without the signature of Patr. Hermogen, and so refused to honor it. The patriarch likewise informed

62

The Era of the Patriarchate the delegates not to surrender. Even under siege, Smolensk residents still refused to surrender. Pseudo-Dmitri II was killed on December 11, 1610, and this was a signal for scattered Russians to unite and not surrender to the Poles, who had by now taken occupation of Moscow. The movement of cities to arm themselves began to alarm the Poles. The noble prince Mikhail Saltikov was opposed to a struggle against the Poles, and he ordered Patr. Hermogen to write a circular letter to all the cities urging them to curb any intentions of a campaign against the Poles. Patr. Hermogen replied that such a letter would be composed and circulated only under the conditions that he — Saltikov — and the other traitors to Russia and Orthodoxy, leave Moscow; otherwise he will bless those whose intent is to rid Russia of foreigners and heretics. This had immediate repercussions. Patr. Hermogen was arrested and confined to his cloister at Chudovski Monastery, and Polish soldiers were placed as sentries. It was not until Palm Sunday, March 17, 1611, after three months house arrest, that Hermogen was released to perform liturgy, and even then his freedom only lasted a week. Two days after Palm Sunday, the Tuesday before Easter, the Polish garrison set Moscow on fire. The fire lasted from March 19 to 21, and consumed the majority of the city including 450 churches; only the walled areas of the Kremlin and Kitai Gorod survived. An army of 100,000 Russians from the cities gathered to assault Moscow, to liberate it from Polish occupation. The Polish garrison occupying Moscow again imprisoned Patr. Hermogen, now in a prison cell inside Chudovski Monastery, and recalled former patriarch Ignatius — knowing he was Greek — and reinstalled him as patriarch, hoping for his loyalty. Ignatius had been confined at the same Chudovski Monastery during Patr. Hermogen’s cathedra. He willingly accepted reinstatement and performed Easter liturgy on March 24, 1611, the day after the imprisonment of Patr. Hermogen and the day before the beginning of the siege of Moscow by Russian troops. For the occasion, ex-patriarch Ignatius wore the patriarchal vestments which had been deprived him for the past five years, and during the liturgy he extended longevity and prosperity to Russia’s Polish Tsar, Vladislav. Patr. Ignatius also realized that he could not continue as patriarch under the simultaneous circumstances of Moscow’s occupation by Poles, and its siege by native Russians. Ignatius took advantage of his liberty and quickly escaped later that day from Moscow, intending to travel to Lithuania. There, Ignatius became Uniate and joined the brethren at the Bilenski-Troitzki Monastery in Vilna, where spent the balance of his life, until his death in 1618 or 1619.

63

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II The siege of Moscow began on Monday, the day after Easter. Saltikov and other noblemen demanded that Patr. Hermogen — under threat of death — order the native Russian soldiers to withdraw from Moscow. He refused, and as a result was further kept under guard and in isolation in his cell for the next nine months, until his death on January 17, 1612 at age 81. Moscow had been under siege by Russian provincial troops all this time, and they were still unable to liberate the city from Polish occupation. Some chroniclers sense that Patr. Hermogen was deliberately starved to death in his cell at the Chudovski Monastery, for refusing to order the siege to be lifted.

74. THE PATRIARCHAL INTERVAL A national-political sensation overwhelmed much of Russia’s population as the result of the burning of Moscow by the Poles, the imprisonment and subsequent death of Patr. Hermogen, and the installation of the Greek Ignatius in his place as patriarch. Troitse-Sergievski Monastery then took the lead in affairs, both religious and civil, at this time, under the leadership of its archimandrite, Dionysei, and the hero of the siege, Avrami Palitzen. The two of them wrote a letter, which was circulated throughout the churches, monasteries and parishes of Russia, regarding the seriousness of matters that affected both church and state, and requested that people rise to defend both religion and empire. Their letter fulfilled its intended purpose and made a great impression on the Russian populace. Additional soldiers arrived to support the siege of Moscow. Russian forces occupied Kitai Gorod on October 22, 1612, and on November 27, they occupied the Kremlin. Moscow was finally liberated after 18 months Polish military occupation. The persistence of the Russian delegation at Smolensk was justified, but with Moscow’s liberation, the delegation was now viewed by Poles as their hostages. While Metr. Filaret was residing at Smolensk, he had developed a reputation or legend of a hero. He refused to pledge allegiance to Pr. Vladislav and insisted on his Orthodox baptism; Filaret refused to surrender Smolensk to Poles, and refused to follow the commands of Moscow noblemen, who capitulated to Polish troops. For the final six months at Smolensk, the delegates had been confined to tents at their camps, exposed to cold and maltreatment. In late October 1612, as Russians gained occupation of Moscow, Poles arrested the remaining delegates, confiscated their possessions, and relocated them inside

64

The Era of the Patriarchate Poland. Metr. Filaret was kept as a hostage and captive for the next eight years. He was initially confined at the private home of a Polish official, and the balance of this period was incarcerated at the Marienburg Fortress in Aluksne, Latvia. The disorganization of the Russian Orthodox Church during this era of upheavals was no inspiration to any prelate for the selection of a new patriarch. The determination of Metr. Filaret, and the reputation that he developed, caused both religious and secular leaders to desist in seeking someone else to elevate to the cathedra of patriarch, even though Filaret was in exile in a foreign country. A temporary form of administration surfaced to keep order and progress continuing in the Church. The closest administrator to the patriarch was Metr. Pafnutie of Krutitzk, a suburb of Moscow, who was designated to preside over patriarchal matters at ecclesiastical councils. After his death, the position of senior interim administrator was assigned to Metr. Isidore of Novgorod. But because his diocese was now under Swedish occupation, he was unable to travel to Moscow, so the next in line was Metr. Efrem of Kazan. Over the course of the next few months, the young son of Filaret, Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov, was selected and crowned as the new Tsar of Moscow and all Russia. He was selected February 21, 1613, and was crowned July 11, 1613, at Uspenski Cathedral by Metr. Efrem, who by this time had assumed patriarchal responsibilities. Toward the end of 1613, Metr. Efrem died and patriarchal responsibility passed to the recently ordained metropolitan of Krutitzk, Jonah. However, once Mikhail Romanov ascended the throne he began the slow integration of his exiled father into the Russian Orthodox hierarchy, referring to him in legal documents as, “Great sovereign Filaret, metropolitan of Moscow and all Russia,” which was just a step away from patriarch. In assigning the title of Great Sovereign to his father, Romanov meant that Filaret would be predisposed to participation in imperial affairs and possess a certain amount of authority in decision making and setting of policy for the country. During the fire and subsequent siege of Moscow, Poles plundered the treasures of Moscow and especially that of the Kremlin: gold, religious paraphernalia and church appurtenances, and icons. Any clergy that resisted the plunder were beaten and killed by Poles. They became sadistic: the vaults containing the relics of deceased prelates, saints and rulers of Russia, were broken into and demolished. At Kolyazinski Monastery in Rostov province, Poles broke apart the vault constructed by Boris Godunov, which contained the relics of St. Makari, the miracle-worker. The abbot, monks and lay residents of the monastery, were all

65

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II executed. The monastery treasury was cleaned out and the entire facility was burned to the ground. During the destruction of the Tolstoi Monastery near Yaroslav, all the brethren, 46 in number, were executed by Polish troops. In 1612, in the city Vologda, Polish troops killed three arch-priests, 34 priests, six deacons and six nuns, among them the venerable Galaktiyon of Vologda. In the same province of Vologda, 59 monks of the Spasso-Prilutzki Monastery were locked in a building, which was then set afire by Polish troops, and then 32 nuns were murdered. The above are only a few recorded incidences of Polish terror. Not only did Moscow suffer from the Poles, but every city they set their foot in was plundered.

75. PATRIARCH FILARET After an eight-year captivity, Filaret arrived in Moscow. It was a great day for the humiliated Moscow, as a large crowd joined the triumphant procession of the patriarch-designee as he entered the city. Released from Poland on June 1, 1619, he was greeted and accompanied by three deputations from the border to Moscow. Three miles from the city, Tsar Mikhail Romanov, surrounded by noblemen, met his father, bowing to the ground to him, while father bowed down to the ground to his son, the tsar. Prior to entering Moscow, a parade of clergy in full sacerdotal vestments and carrying icons met him. Filaret entered Moscow on June 14, 1619. He first visited Uspenski Cathedral, then BlagoVeschenski Cathedral and the tsar’s palace, and then departed to his new residence at Troitzki Palace. All the churches rang their bells and the choirs sang hymns of thanksgiving as the hero of the era of upheavals returned home. The selection of a new patriarch began just a few days later; Russia had been without a patriarch over eight years, since Patr. Hermogen’s imprisonment in March of 1611. Coincidentally Theofan, patriarch of Jerusalem, arrived in Moscow just prior to the arrival of Filaret, to request a donation for his patriarchate. Patr. Theofan was given residence at Chudovski Monastery, and while there he would also participate in the imposition of hands upon Filaret during ordination. At an ecclesiastical assembly held June 22, 1619, Patr. Theofan, together with them all in unison, voiced the decision that no one other than the patriarch-designee should ascend the cathedra of patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, Filaret, or Feodor Nikitich Romanov.

66

The Era of the Patriarchate His ordination was performed two days following, on June 24, 1619, in full patriarchal vestments and rite, including the ride about Moscow on a donkey. Tsar Mikhail drew his father-patriarch into state affairs, conferring with him on every matter. In official documents Tsar Mikhail inscribed his father, “Great Sovereign, most holy Patriarch, Filaret Nikitich.” To resurrect the Russian Church and its clergy and attendance, Filaret became involved with publication and distribution of books dealing with Orthodoxy. He was limited in his religious scholarship, having been a handsome and dashing nobleman in earlier years, with little interest in ecclesiastical matters. Now, having ascended to the supreme cathedra of Russian Orthodoxy, his attitude changed. Filaret became incensed at the increase of printing in Europe, while Russia suffered with meager quantities of books and scant availability. As a result he became zealous for its native development. The recent interval of eight years between active patriarchs was a period of blight for the Russian press. Several talented and competent individuals from the previous era of printing were still alive and were recruited to again publish. Three of them knew Greek: the elder Arsenius Glukhoi, abbot Eliyah of Bogo-Yavlenski Monastery, and layman Grigori Onisimov. Working closely with them were Antoni Kralev and the famous arch-priest Ivan Nasedka. Patr. Filaret was able to collect a large number of ancient manuscripts, both paper and parchment, and more books were printed in Moscow during his cathedra than since the time of Tsar Ivan IV, when printing first began in Russia. A complete circle of church service books were printed, and a few in several editions. The entire twelve volume Menea (Daily Missal) was published, as well as the Octoikh (Seven-Week Services), Kanonik (Rules), Triodion (Hymn Book), Instructive Gospel, Tipikon (Church Protocol), Tchasoslov (Horologion), and Sluzhebnik (Rites). Along with the above books, the Gospels, Psalms, and Apostolic letters were also published in several editions in Church Slavonic. On the title page of every book was the patriarch’s imprimatur, while a few even included the personal testimony of Patr. Filaret, affirming textual validity. In the epilogues, a note was inserted, stating that the typesetting of the book was based on ancient Slavonic texts, but never a statement mentioning any comparison to the original Greek texts. The instructions from Patr. Filaret to the emendators were that the Slavonic text was sufficient. One reason was because there were so few scholars available who were fluent in both Greek and Russian, and in no manner were they able to emend such a vast amount of text in a narrow time frame. The emendators subjected themselves to the rule of Filaret,

67

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II but not entirely. Knowing Greek, and having some Greek texts in their possession, they could not but utilize the best of them when the variation with the Slavonic text was obvious or gross. Not having a single text considered absolutely reliable or genuinely correct, the emendators admitted in the epilogue of the newly-published books, that errors had no doubt crept into the text, and they sincerely asked the reader for their condescension and forgiveness. This mechanical, but conscientious method of emendation, did not lead to automatic consistency in all the texts; the same prayer located in different liturgical books often contained variations. Tsar Mikhail and Patr. Filaret, both worrying about access to the complete agenda of church rites, and their uniformity throughout all churches of Russian Orthodoxy, generously distributed books at cost to them, and to distant regions, such as Siberia, at no charge. The supply of books was still meager compared to the number of parishes and priests in Russia, and so Patr. Filaret issued instructions permitting the use of earlier versions at the same time, underscoring that they were far from free of error. Certain passages that were published with flagrant errors did infuriate Patr. Filaret, such as the Sluzhebniks of 1602 and 1612. A new edition was published, which Patr. Filaret hoped would substitute or replace the former in use. Another service book that contained many errors and irregularities was the Tipikon, published in 1610. After it had been in use for twelve years, Patr. Filaret became aware of its flaws and he also noted that the prologue to the Tipikon carried the imprimatur of Patr. Hermogen. In 1623, a patriarchal edict was published requiring that all copies of the Tipikon be collected from churches and monasteries and brought to Moscow for burning. But rather than obeying the edict and delivering the books to be burned, parish priests burned the edict. For a long while Filaret did not prohibit the use of Slavonic service books, commentaries, and theologies, which were printed in Lvov, Vilna, Kiev or Minsk. Editions of these books circulated in Moscow and were on the shelves of the patriarch’s own personal library. But in 1627, Patr. Filaret became worried over this uncontrolled infusion of books from abroad, and initiated their special and critical censure. Even in Lithuanian Russia, there occurred disputes regarding certain books. Afanasi, abbot of Moscow Nikitzki Monastery, who was originally from Kiev, observing the wide circulation in Moscow of the Instructive Gospel of Kirill Stavrovetzki, wrote to Patr. Filaret, informing him that this book had been censured by a council in Kiev. Tsar and patriarch asked Afanasy to compile a report indicating, and underscoring, all heretical and un-Orthodox

68

The Era of the Patriarchate passages. In a parallel investigation, this same problem of theological criticism was assigned to Moscow theologians abbot Iliyah of Bogo-Yavlenski Monastery, and arch-priest Ivan Nasedka. These men were considered capricious in their criticisms and organized their comments into 61 points. As result of their scrutiny, tsar and patriarch together informed the clergy, in a circular letter, that the Instructive Gospel contained many heresies, and opposed the beliefs of the ancient holy fathers. The next step was to search for all copies of the book, and any others written by Kirill Stavrovetzki, to have them burned, in order to rid Moscow of his heresy. In the same circular letter, and in the same vein, a pronouncement was also made that, from that time on, no books dealing with religion printed in Lithuania were to be purchased, and if any person should be discovered purchasing such books, he would be corporeally punished by the tsar and excommunicated by the patriarch. As a result, 60 copies of the Instructive Gospel were publicly burned in Moscow on December 4, 1627. Again in 1628, another circular letter was sent to all churches, requesting information on the extent of use, and possession of church service books printed in Lithuania, and for these books to be forwarded to Moscow to be replaced by books printed here. This stretch of persecution against the Lithuanian press had to contend with the members of Russian Orthodoxy who fled to Eastern Europe during the era of upheavals, and who were now returning to Russia. In 1605, since the beginning of the era of upheavals, beginning when Tsar Boris Godunov died, educational facilities had all terminated instruction and closed their doors. Russia had now fallen far behind the reformation and renaissance of Western Europe and was in dire circumstances, especially when compared to the increase in schools in Eastern Europe thanks to Catholic evangelical and missionary work in these regions, and especially by zealous Jesuits. What made matters worse for Patr. Filaret was that the void in Russia was being filled by Uniate literature published in Russian, and which had considerable Catholic overtones. Other books which were the product of the Reformation and which contained Protestant ideas, as well as those having a nihilist philosophy, also migrated into Russia. An example of the influx of western ideas into Orthodoxy was Pr. Ivan Khvorostinin, a fervent pro-westerner who advocated renaissance philosophy, and who was a member of the highest of Moscovite aristocratic society. He joined the party of pseudo-Dmitri I at the time of his victory over Moscow, using the occasion to discredit the Orthodoxy and support the Uniate church. However, when Vasili Shuiski became tsar, the tables turned on Khvorostinin.

69

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II To stop his influence and promotion of western ideas, Khvorostinin was confined by Shuiski in the Voloko-Lamsk Monastery. But because of his high rank, monastery officials accommodated him, and gave him many privileges and much freedom. Khvorostinin took advantage of this lax security and continued to voice his criticism of Orthodoxy. When Filaret became patriarch, he could not longer tolerate the vociferous opinions of Khvorostinin. To silence him completely, Patr. Filaret had Khvorostinin confined to a cell in the Kirill Bel-Ozerski Monastery, far and isolated from Moscow society. After some term of incarceration and penance, Khvorostinin was released and never again voiced his disapproval of Orthodoxy. Patr. Filaret was strongly disinclined toward schools having any connection with, or influence from, Europe, and so he began communicating with the Greeks. As a result, in 1632 archimandrite Iyosef (Joseph) of Alexandria, educated in Europe, but also knowing Slavonic and Russian, arrived in Moscow. During his early years as a monk, he was sent by Patr. Kirill of Alexandria to Kiev, where he lived and worked two years, and he also visited Moscow in 1623. Iyosef unfortunately died in 1634, two years after his arrival in Moscow, and with his death the Greek school closed likewise. The issue regarding schools did not rise again until the patriarchate of Joseph in 1640. Filaret married his son Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich on February 5, 1626, to Evdokia Streshneva, a native Russian, after his first engagement attempt ended in sore failure, and his second bride, Maria Dolgorukova, died after a one-year marriage. This final marriage of Mikhail proved a success and produced an heir to the throne shortly after. A son, Aleksei Mikhailovich, was born March 19, 1629, and later two daughters, Tatyana and Irina. Protopope Stefan Vonifatiev was installed as Tsarevich Aleksei’s tutor. Patr. Filaret died in 1633 at the age of 80. During his 14 years as patriarch, Filaret stood on a different level than other patriarchs because he was father to the tsar and co-reigned with his son, possessing the title Great Sovereign, Most Holy Patriarch. Whenever Tsar Mikhail would leave Moscow, Patr. Filaret handled all responsibilities pertaining to the state. Patr. Filaret also confirmed the autocratic rule of the tsar over Russia, which was especially necessary after the era of upheavals. No other patriarch would have been able to do this, except one so familiar with the religion, politics and civil war of the era.

70

The Era of the Patriarchate 76. PATRIARCH JOASAF I The successor of Filaret — whose shoes would be difficult to fill — was nominated by his predecessor. On his death-bed, father-patriarch Filaret bequeathed to his son-tsar the ordination of Archbishop Joasaf of Pskov as patriarch. The early life of Joasaf is unknown and his ecclesiastical record begins with his tonsure as a monk at Solovetski Monastery. When abbot Isidore of Solovetski was promoted to metropolitan of Novgorod — he later crowned Vasili Shuiski as Tsar — he took Joasaf with him. After Metr. Isidore’s death in 1619, Joasaf remained in Novgorod and was promoted to archimandrite of Pskov Pecher (Cave) Monastery in 1621, and then on January 1, 1627, he was ordained as archbishop of Pskov and Veliki Luk. He had a high sense of morality, but did not have the drive that Patr. Filaret had, which will be noticed below. Joasaf’s ordination in 1634 in Uspenski Cathedral followed the same procedure as with Filaret. The status of the patriarch immediately changed with Joasaf. He was not Great Sovereign, but Great Lord, and no longer did his name or title accompany the tsar’s on state documents, and quite often, and the more as time progressed, his name was not entered at all on state documents. The nature of Joasaf inclined him away from state affairs. The ecclesiastical activity of Patr. Joasaf pertained to establishing consistency in the liturgy as decreed by the Hundred-Chapters Council. Singing was to be harmonious and in unison; no conversation in church was permitted during services; children of priests and parishioners were not to be allowed to play in the altar during services; excessive drinking after Lent was to be curbed. Joasaf hoped to stop imposters posing as fools for Christ who were begging city to city, by impressing on parish priests, bishops and abbots, the necessity of intervening into their fraud. But, as in earlier eras, both civil and religious authorities were unable to curb such inappropriate conduct, and their efforts were next to futile. As a result, Patr. Joasaf decided to concentrate on improving the morality and ethics of prelates and priests in his Moscow diocese. One document of importance that has survived the centuries pertaining to the cathedra of Patr. Joasaf is his reply to Tsar Mikhail regarding the question of war against Crimean Mongols. A delegation, which had been sent to the Mongols regarding payment of tribute by Russia, was taken captive and a ransom was requested for their release. Tsar Mikhail proposed the question of a

71

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II military campaign to the patriarch and his assembly of prelates for their release. The reply of Patr. Joasaf was the following: And I your intercessor, with the entire ecclesiastical council, convey to you our thoughts. Our obligation is to pray and beseech God regarding the peace of all the world, the prosperity of the churches of God, and your longevity and health, and that of your entire household, because you have been installed as autocrat of all Russia by the right hand of God On-High. And you Sovereign, who have accepted rule over the Orthodox generation of humanity, are obligated to worry not only about yourself, but to preserve and deliver from disturbance all who are under your authority, according to your perspicacious and God-given wisdom. And you, tsar, crowned of God, be zealous, as in earlier eras King Constantine and the faithful Grand Prince Vladimir were zealous. You are the head of us all. Display zeal and piety, so you can liberate your delegates from the hands of the infidels, and from evil torture and shame. Your royal treasury will not decrease as a result of this, when God with His mercy liberates your delegates from such evil torture. You will then be able to compensate the Crimeans for their injustice. In the cities of Ukraine, it would be proper for you to assemble regiments, cavalry and foot soldiers. But to directly write to you such council, to proceed and compensate Crimeans — to take vengeance for their torture of such people — is improper for your intercessor. It is the tsar’s affair — yours — and your boyars, and your close associates, and all your royal counselors, to ascertain vengeance on enemies, and how this should be accomplished, but not us your royal intercessors.

Tsar Mikhail’s decision was not to proceed on a military campaign, but the fate of the delegates taken into custody is not recorded. On item that continued providently was the printing of church books. There were now twelve printing presses in operation and 23 books were published during Patr. Joasaf’s cathedra. Some of them were revised editions from Patr. Filaret’s era, and others were new. Monasteries in 1641 were requested to donate their best and oldest manuscripts to Moscow for inclusion in the comparison of texts, in order to arrive at the least erroneous text for publication. After six years as patriarch, Joasaf died November 28, 1640, and was entombed in Uspenski Cathedral.

77. PATRIARCH JOSEPH For a year after the death of Patr. Joasaf, no selection was made for a successor. The procrastination, according to the tsar and noblemen, as the official report stated, was due to their excessive, or meticulous, caution in the choice of a new patriarch. In reality, the royal family wanted a successor similar to that of

72

The Era of the Patriarchate Patr. Joasaf, one who would apply himself solely to ecclesiastical matters and be subject to state decrees. In no manner did they want a patriarch patterned after Filaret, who expected to co-reign with the tsar and have a wide range of influence and authority, which were Tsar Mikhail’s fears. The conservative and ambitious instinct of many Russian prelates was no secret to Russian noblemen. The tsar also had intentions of reform in his administration, to include advancement for both nobility and commoner, and wanted no opposition from the Church on this matter. Russia was far behind European countries in economy, culture, education, construction, and every facet of national development, including the military. For this reason, the selection process for a candidate was intended to filter out any person who would be a possible obstruction to the state’s goals, and candidates were to be personally selected by Tsar Mikhail. When prelates gathered for selection of a new patriarch, the tsar presented to them his new and novel procedure: the prelates were to give their consensus on six candidates whom he would select; and so they did. The six were Archbishop Serapion of Suzdal; Archbishop Pakhomi of Astrakhan; archimandrite Joseph of Moscow Semeonov Monastery; abbot Jonah of Moscow Bogo-Yavlenski Monastery; abbot Markell of Solovetski Monastery; and abbot Makari of Pskov Svatogorski Monastery. The names were written on six ballots, and each was placed in an envelope and sealed with the tsar’s seal. They were delivered to Uspenski Cathedral by Pr. A. M. Lvov, where prelates would pray for God to select the proper candidate, and then select one ballot. An ecclesiastical assembly convened March 20, 1642, at Uspenski cathedral, for the selection of the next patriarch. Three ballots were placed in a box in front of the Vladimir icon of the Theotokos. They prayed over the matter, and one ballot was removed by a prelate, and the two remaining were set aside. The same procedure was performed on the next three ballots, and then finally the same procedure performed on the two selected ballots. The one ballot of the final two — still sealed — was given to Pr. Lvov, to deliver personally to the tsar. At his palace, the tsar unsealed the envelop and announced to the Boyar Duma, “It is the good will of God and the Immaculate Theotokos for Joseph, archimandrite of Semeonov Monastery, to be patriarch.” Pr. Lvov was dispatched to Semeonov Monastery to inform Joseph of the proceedings. On the following day, March 21, Joseph was formally nominated as the next patriarch and his ordination was scheduled for March 27. The method of ordination followed the same rite of Patr. Joasaf, but at the ceremonial dinner

73

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II with the tsar and noblemen that evening, instead of sitting next to the tsar, the new patriarch sat about six feet away, if not further, to impress on him the necessity for him to distance himself from state affairs. After the dinner, Patr. Joseph performed the ceremonial ride around Moscow, the donkey led by noblemen V. P. Sheremetiev and Pr. A. F. Litvinov-Mosalski. Patr. Joseph was exalted in later years by the Staro-Veri (Old Believers); as far as they were concerned, the patriarch just prior to Patr. Nikon was the last true Orthodox patriarch of Russia. The primary reason was that he published church service books which included the ancient rites and Slavonic texts, and put them into circulation for use by all the churches. The procrastination and inertness of the nature of Patr. Joseph did not complement the tempo and innovations of Moscow, and especially a new attitude that was surfacing toward foreigners and heterodoxy. In 1643, Tsar Mikhail informed Patr. Joseph, that his daughter Irina was engaged to marry Voldemar, son of Danish King Christian IV, and wished that Joseph would pray on their behalf so the marriage arrangements be successful. (As a precedent, Tsar Ivan III had given his daughter in marriage to a Catholic, Pr. Aleksandr of Lithuania and Poland.) The tsar had already promised the prospective groom that he would not be compelled to join the Orthodoxy church. However, when Voldemar arrived in Moscow in early 1644 with his pastor, Matthew Filgober, the patriarch proposed to Voldemar that he join Orthodoxy. Struck by the unexpected statement, he declined. Tsar Mikhail all of a sudden underwent a change in attitude and informed his prospective son-in-law, that if he would not convert to Orthodoxy, a marriage would not be performed. But the attempt to convert failed, the Danes holding their ground. The incident was so psychologically devastating for Tsar Mikhail that he suddenly and unexpectedly died on July 16, 1645, and the Danes left Moscow for home August 17. His wife Tsaritza Evdokia passed away herself within a month. Aleksei Mikhailovich Romanov, age 16, ascended his father’s throne, and a rejuvenation promptly began in the royal circle: noblemen were quickly inspired to new ideas and new energy. Protopope Stefan Vonifatiev of Blago-Veschenski Cathedral was mentor to Tsar Aleksei while he was young, and would regularly read to the tsarevich selections from the Bible, the Church fathers and Lives of the Saints. Vonifatiev also impressed on the young tsar that God would hold him responsible for any negligence on his part in ecclesiastical matters. Vonifatiev felt that God was punishing the subjects of Imperial Russia like disobedient children, as he watched ecclesiastical disorder and dissoluteness and the shameful conduct of

74

The Era of the Patriarchate the clergy: slothfulness, negligence toward liturgy, alcoholism, impropriety. Vonifatiev informed the young tsar how carelessly certain illiterate priests suffering from hang-overs would perform liturgy; they would sing and read four or five passages or hymns at the same time to conclude the services as soon as possible, while most of it was unintelligible to parishioners because of the noise. Monks, likewise, Vonifatiev said, were motivated to acquire gold and silver, and valuable decorations for their cloister and expensive vestments. They sought to gain the favor of important wealthy persons by lavishing them with feasts and offering them bribes, while they themselves led a life of immorality, alcoholism, and partying. Bishops were ordained who had never endured the life of an ascetic, but who had lived luxuriously, and they dealt arrogantly with the members of their diocese. Was it then such a surprise, Vonifatiev concluded, that plain people conducted themselves disorderly in church, talking and fighting, and involved themselves in pagan practices, while they lost all respect for Orthodox clergy. Vonifatiev cried and wailed over the corruption and decay of the church, while attempting to use his personal position and ability to strengthen and improve it. Vonifatiev sought everywhere for pious and virtuous priests, and, after finding one, would use his connections with Tsar Aleksei to promote him to protopope of a larger and more popular church where he could improve the religious condition of the local population. Vonifatiev promoted the priest Avvakum Petrovich to protopope and sent him to Yuriev-Povolski Monastery near Kostroma to curb its corruption and restore it. The zealous protopope Daniel was sent to the city Kostroma, while protopope Login was sent to Murom, both for the same reason. Avvakum (Habbakuk) Petrovich, recruited by Patr. Joseph, was to play a serious and decisive role in the future. He was born in the Nizhni-Novgorod area (today known as Gorki), in the village Grigoriev, in 1620 or 1621. His father, Pyotr, was a local priest and had a reputation of being addicted to drinking; he died at an early age. After his death, his wife became a nun, and became the primary preceptor of her son in religion and piety. Avvakum married Anastasia, a daughter of a local smith, and at age 21 was ordained as a deacon, and then at age 23, as a priest. Even at this young age, being only a parish priest, he developed and displayed in his words and activities, an extreme boldness and unrestrained character. During the seven years of his life as a parish priest in his village, he was run out of town twice. After the second time, with nowhere else to go with his family, and his possessions confiscated, Avvakum went to Moscow, and while

75

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II there was able to befriend some of the higher clergy, and especially protopopes Stefan Vonifatiev and Ivan Neronov. Through their help, at the age of 31, he was promoted to protopope and assigned to Yuriev-Povolski Monastery. There also as a result of his unrestrained zeal— he only lasted eight months — the town population rose up against him and beat him up, almost to his death. He then returned to Moscow with his family, and back to the circle of his previous friends. These men hoped to crystallize the dreams of Metr. Makari of the previous century by reforming the Russian Orthodox Church, and their special goal for the Church was for it to achieve a grandeur and prestige that would make Moscow worthy of being the third Rome. All these men were drawn to the center of the capital of Russian Orthodoxy to comprise the primary circle of conservative reformists. Newly-ordained Nikon Minin, archimandrite of Moscow Novo-Spasski Monastery, was also drawn to this circle. The energy and influence of this circle spread throughout the church, and they became involved in its administration. A line of reforms were installed, but some were so innovative and novel, that Patr. Joseph turned his opposition to them. In 1649, a conflict arose between Patr. Joseph and Stefan Vonifatiev, but the tsar turned a deaf ear to it. The publication of books during the cathedra of Patr. Joseph expanded and developed, but there still existed insufficient scholarship for a critical review of texts, and books newly printed or reprinted still contained the grammatical and textual errors of previous editions. These books printed during Patr. Joseph’s cathedra were the favorite of Old Believers, who considered them divine compositions. Books were also printed by the Russian Orthodox press that did not deal directly with church services, such as the first Church Slavonic grammar; a book by John the Stylite; a book by Efraim the Syrian; an interpretation of the Gospels by Theofilak the Bulgarian; and a collection of writings by various early church fathers. A short catechism written by Peter Mogila, metropolitan of Kiev, was published in 1649. Metr. Peter Mogila proposed to Tsar Mikhail in 1640, that he build a monastery in Moscow to be used as a school. The teachers would be monks from Kiev Bogo-Yavlenski Monastery, where the Kiev Academy was located, but the matter proceeded no further. In 1645 Theofan, Greek metropolitan of Paleopatass, arrived in Moscow, with a proposal from Patr. Parfenius of Constantinople, to begin a Greek printing press in Moscow. The Islamic Turks had closed the printing house in Constantinople, and the patriarch hoped that he could send Greeks to Moscow

76

The Era of the Patriarchate to print more books, and then their services could also be utilized in other areas to benefit the Orthodox Church. Metr. Theofan’s proposal was accepted, and he left Moscow to return to Kiev in 1646, and from there sent Venadict, a Greek, to Moscow, but he proved to be a disappointment to Russians. The new Tsar Aleksei then requested another scholar — one more reliable — to be sent from Constantinople. After a short interval, two arrived in Moscow: Metr. Gavriel of Nazareth and Arsenius the Greek. With these two men — very competent and reliable — the printing house in Moscow began to make great strides forward. In 1649, Damaskin of Ptitz arrived, a man bilingual in Greek and Latin, who was to be utilized in translating the early Latin fathers into Russian, which prelates hoped they could use in their polemics with Catholics. At this time, an interest also sparked in the publication of the Bible. One item that was noticeable during Moscow’s attempt to reform and improve its religion was the advancement of Kiev in comparison to Moscow. Even though Kiev was reduced to rubble in 1299 by Mongols, and took longer than the north to free itself from Mongol occupation, the area nonetheless advanced faster and further than the north in all areas of national concern: economy, culture, education, state administration and religion. Kiev benefitted from being in closer proximity to Constantinople than Moscow, but also Kievan prelates were not as strict or rigid as were those of Moscow and were more pliable in regard to the issue of Unia and cooperation with the papacy or protestant groups, or even non-Christian religions such as Jews and Moslems. In 1648, an un-named leader of the opposition to the reform of Orthodoxy and emendation of church books, composed and published a prophetic dissertation, which became known as the Book about the Faith. The Roman church, it stated, lasted until the year 1,000; the Kievan church until 1595; and in 1666 the tide would turn for the Russian Orthodox Church. Right or wrong in his conclusion, the effect of the book was noticeable in later years in the apocalyptic beliefs and attitudes of Old Believers, and which will be covered in a later chapter. At the time there was no doubt that the Book about the Faith was published as a counter-poise to another book published the same year by the government printing house, which was composed by abbot Nathanael of Kiev Mikhaelovski Monastery. He felt that the Greek Orthodox Church still held the religion inviolate, although it was in captivity. He also taught that Russian prelates were still to be obedient to the patriarch of Constantinople, and that the emendation of church service books to conform to the Greek would be a great benefit for the Russian Church.

77

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II In 1649, Patr. Paisius of Jerusalem arrived in Moscow seeking charity. He had with him a retinue of 30 persons, and was festively greeted. Paisius flattered the tsar and was graciously given many gifts. At his arrival, Patr. Paisius gave the following welcome sermon in Tsar Aleksei’s presence, and which had undertones of military support against the Ottoman Empire. May the Most-Holy Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the one realm and sovereignty, bless your monarchial state. May they increase you, to transcend all kings; portray you as victors and conquerors of all your visible enemies and invisible adversaries, as they did for ancient and modern kings: King David, King Hezekiah and great King Constantine. May they confirm you, and increase your years unto old age, and consider you worthy to prosperously accept the supreme throne of great King Constantine, your ancestor, in order to liberate the nation of pious and Orthodox Christians from iniquitous hands, from fierce beasts. Be a new Moses, liberate us from captivity, just as he liberated the sons of Israel from the hand of Pharaoh using his rod, which represented the honorable life-giving cross.

During Paisius’ visit, his conversation with Stefan Vonifatiev turned toward rite and custom as performed in Russian Orthodox Churches. Paisius told Vonifatiev that the Russians should draw closer to the Greeks as a result of their retreat from the manner rites were performed in Eastern churches. Vonifatiev became very offended at Patr. Paisius’ statement, who referred to Russian rites as innovations. No Russian clergyman, though, was able to contradict Paisius or defend Russian rites. Shortly thereafter, protopope Stefan Vonifatiev and archimandrite Nikon — later patriarch — began to pressure Patr. Joseph, for him to begin, and all the sooner, the emendation of Russian books and rites in order for them to conform to the Greek. Vonifatiev presented a petition to Tsar Aleksei, discrediting the patriarch and prelates for their negligence in allowing alterations of church rites. In response to this attack, Patr. Joseph summoned a special ecclesiastical council in 1650, where he attempted to expose Vonifatiev’s ambitions, and to prove the accusations to be unfounded. At this council, Vonifatiev was reported to have referred to Patr. Joseph and conservative prelates as wolves, while the patriarch in return, expressed execution as the only manner of silencing Vonifatiev’s criticisms. The tsar turned a deaf ear to Patr. Joseph’s complaints and promoted more support for Vonifatiev’s reforms and his circle. The first reform was to implement single harmony in the singing, and Patr. Joseph was supposed to issue a special decree dealing with the matter, even though it was against his personal will, and most Moscow parish priests did not sense any need for a reform, calling it heretic. An edict was issued February 13, 1651, and priest Ivan of Gavrielovski Monastery verbally attacked Patr. Joseph, saying, “You pious bigots

78

The Era of the Patriarchate introduce a new heresy: harmony in singing. You are demon possessed and all pious bigots, including the protopope of Blago-Veschenski Cathedral,” referring to Vonifatiev. As a result of the backlash from the uneducated and traditionminded Russian folk, reformers realized that their approach had to be more tactful and more convincing, and steer clear of the tangled the web of ancient tradition. The reformers also made the effort at this time to gather Greek texts that were as ancient as possible, in order to compare them to the Russian books and to emend the Russian as necessary. For this work, Arseni Sukhanov (not to be confused with Arsenius the Greek), formerly a monk at Troitse-Sergievski Monastery, but now warden of Moscow Bogo-Yavlenski Monastery and the most competent Greek scholar in Moscow at the time, was selected. Arseni had traveled twice to Bulgaria, in 1649 and 1650, together with Patr. Paisius on diplomatic missions, and had earlier been entrusted with other embassies. To supplement his work Arseni Sukhanov was ordered to travel to Constantinople and other areas on a fact-finding mission, to ascertain how other Orthodox Churches were performing their rites. Arseni left Moscow February 24, 1651, and journeyed to Constantinople, and thence to Egypt, where he had audience with Patr. Joannisius of Alexandria. From Egypt, he traveled through Palestine, Syria, eastern Turkey, Georgia, and the Caucasus. He returned to Moscow June 7, 1653. Arseni recorded all of his observations in a book, which he titled, Proskinitari, meaning, Worship at Holy Places. Arseni did record and relate that some of the manner that other Eastern Orthodox churches performed their rites was not identical to the Russian: they recited the Hallelujah thrice; had five breads on their table and not 7; their processions of the cross were against the sun (clock-wise) and not according to the sun (counter clock-wise); the baptism of the sick was by pouring, not by immersion. But regarding the position of fingers to make the sign of the cross, Arseni was silent; no doubt having three fingers upright in the Greek churches made no deep impression on him, as opposed to the Russian two fingers. Arseni also returned with a wealth of manuscripts, enough to create a new library in Moscow, and which was to be more valuable in the future. Nonetheless, there were insufficient bilingual GreekSlavonic scholars in Moscow to be able to put these books to best use, and emendations in texts still proceeded irregularly. Tsar Aleksei’s vision was to expand the hegemony of Russian Orthodoxy to encompass all of Eastern Orthodoxy. He first looked south, to occupying the

79

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II Uniate Ukraine, and then expanding further south, to defeat the infidel Ottomans and occupy Constantinople, the center of Eastern Orthodoxy. Much like his predecessors, Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich considered himself legitimate successor to the Byzantine Emperors. He was supported in his convictions by a loyal circle of feudal princes and members of the extended royal family. They told the tsar, “You are the firm pillar and confirmation of the religion and refuge for all Orthodox who suffer under the yoke of infidels. We await their liberation from your efforts, and we hope to see the Patriarch of Moscow consecrate the Cathedral of Santa Sophia.” Tsar Aleksei would publicly and regularly state that he hoped to see all five Eastern Orthodox patriarchs — including Russia’s — ministering at the Cathedral of Santa Sophia in Constantinople. Tsar Aleksei was convinced that God would require it of him if he — the tsar — did not contribute funds from his treasury and create an army, and even sacrifice his own life, in order to liberate Eastern Orthodoxy from the enemy of the religion, Islam. Toward the end of his life, Patr. Joseph became despondent, seeing how matters were progressing with the reformers, who would circumvent his cathedra and implement their reforms against his will. He no longer had the strength to struggle with the new protopopes who encircled the tsar. Tsar Aleksei also imposed pressure on Patr. Joseph to vacate his cathedra, in order to have a younger patriarch ordained, one who would have greater zeal, as well as be more informed with events occurring in the Church and world. Patr. Joseph caught a chill on April 5, 1652, and on Palm Sunday, April 11, was unable to perform the ceremonial ride on the donkey. Probably affected by pneumonia, his health declined rapidly over the next two days. The tsar visited him on Thursday, the day before Good Friday, and in his presence the patriarch lapsed into a coma. Joseph passed away that evening, April 15, 1652, after 10 years as patriarch.

78. THE EARLY YEARS OF NIKON MININ Nikon was born Nikita Minin on May 24, 1605, to a peasant family of the village Veldemanov, in Nizhni-Novgorod province. He grew to be tall, having a robust stature and very distinct facial features. Nikita’s early life was bitter, having to grow up under the authority of an unpleasant step-mother. She hated him, beat him, and would fall short of killing him. As a child, Nikita ran away from home and took shelter at Makarievski

80

The Era of the Patriarchate Zhyoltovodski Monastery in Kostroma province. There he would live as an ascetic and voluntarily participate in the work, as well as study. Hearing about his father’s impending death, he returned home at the age of 20 and buried him. Taking the advice of relatives, Nikita married and became involved in their local parish, first becoming a deacon, and subsequently a parish priest. Here in the village Liskov, near Nizhni-Novgorod and along the Volga River, Nikita was proud of his priest’s office. Moscow merchants who visited Makariev, just across the Volga from Liskov, could not but be impressed by the popular local priest, Nikita Minin. He was invited to relocate to Moscow, which he did with his family. In Moscow, he led a happy life for 10 years as a parish priest, assigned to a local church. The happiness of Nikita then suddenly terminated: his three children — all sons — died. Nikita was overwhelmed with grief, and sensed this to be a sign from God, a call for him to depart from the world. He discussed the matter with his wife, and she agreed that they should part. She would enter Alekseevski Convent (which was inside the Moscow Kremlin) as a nun, while he would enter Anzerski Hermitage on Solovetski Island in the White Sea, which was under the rule of elder Eleazar. At the age of 31, Nikita Minin took the vows of a monk and accepted the new name Nikon. His asceticism was heroic, reading the entire Psalter completely once each day, and performing 1,000 bows to the ground daily, in addition to complying with the balance of regulations for the monks. Here, Nikon studied the compositions of the holy fathers and other ecclesiastical writings. Life, however, for Nikon was lonely and full of solitude. The monks only gathered together on Saturdays and Sundays. Nikon saw visions during this period as a recluse, and which continued further in his life. Eventually, the solemnity and solitude overwhelmed Nikon, and he could no more endure it; he realized that he was not ascetic but active, and that he needed to practice Orthodoxy in a practical manner. Elder Eleazar noticed this attitude in Nikon, and when the next opportunity arose for him to travel to Moscow on ecclesiastical matters, he took Nikon with him. In Moscow, both Eleazar and Nikon had audience with Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich, asking him for money to pay for the construction of a new stone church. They returned to Solovetski Monastery with the needed funds, and began construction. Nikon was energetic and hurried to build, while Eleazar procrastinated, feeling that a grandiose edifice would be a superfluous expenditure. Nikon could not deal with the arguments of Eleazar, and decided to leave. Nikon took a small boat piloted by a sailor and headed for the mainland, but

81

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II during the trip, they were caught in a storm and almost perished. After the storm subsided they landed on the island of Kia near the mouth of the Onega River (In later years, Nikon would build a personal hermitage here, to commemorate his deliverance from the storm. He named the hermitage Krestnoi.) After spending the night at the home of a hospitable widow, Nikon traveled further — 80 miles — and arrived at Kozhe-Ozerski Hermitage in Kargopol county. He could not travel any further and so asked the abbot and brethren to receive him. They informed him, that since he had no contribution, they could not accept him. Nikon, fortunately, still had in his possession two church service books — the Polu-Yustav and Kannonik (Selected Services and Canons) — which he had personally copied from other books for his own use. Nikon offered the books, which they accepted as an adequate contribution and permitted him to join the hermitage. For some short interval Nikon served as a priest in the church, but then he asked leave of the abbot to live in solitude as an ascetic on a local island. Gaining the abbot’s blessing, Nikon moved to a lonely island and there built for himself a cloister. He lived by fishing. In the third year of his residence there — which lasted until 1643 — the abbot of Kozhe-Ozerski Hermitage died. The monastic brethren went to Nikon at his island and asked him to return and accept the position of abbot. The brethren realized the value of Nikon’s characteristics of virtue, asceticism and regimentation. Nikon agreed to their request and traveled to Novgorod, where he was ordained as abbot by Metr. Affonius. The ascetic period of his life had ended and he felt that the Lord had prepared for him work in the world. Some years later, in 1648, Nikon traveled to Moscow on ecclesiastical business, and while there he made the acquaintance of several clergy, especially protopope Stefan Vonifatiev. While residing in Moscow, Nikon became friends with those clergy who were part of Vonifatiev’s circle, and he spent considerable time discussing with them various means of improving the church. Vonifatiev introduced Nikon to Tsar Aleksei, who, at his first meeting with Nikon, requested him to remain in Moscow. The tsar was mesmerized by the abbot, and knew of the reputation of elder Eleazar of Solovetski from his father, and knew that anyone having so many years of training by Eleazar would be regimented, devoted and loyal. Tsar Aleksei did not permit Nikon to return to KozheOzerski, but instead had Patr. Joseph ordain him as archimandrite of NovoSpasski Monastery. The new archimandrite took his promotion seriously, and proceeded to remodel and decorate the monastery, and introduce a regimented

82

The Era of the Patriarchate protocol for its parishioners. The tsar would frequent Novo-Spasski, and Nikon would regularly visit the tsar. Aleksei required Nikon’s presence every Friday, prior to Matins, at the palace chapel. The tsar realized Nikon’s value and capabilities, and began to funnel to him petitions that he had received for his advice, and had long conversations with him in areas of politics, religion and economics. The crowds began to draw close to him. Even the ecclesiastical princes — protopopes Stefan Vonifatiev and Ivan Neronov — sensed charisma emanating from him. Paths now clearly opened for Nikon to ascend high on the ecclesiastical ladder. About this time the health of Metr. Affonius of Novgorod declined, and he was no longer able to perform his duties. He requested the tsar to grant him retirement — which he did — and Metr. Affonius retired to Spasski-Khutinski Monastery. With Tsar Aleksei’s approval, Patr. Joseph and an ecclesiastical council ordained archimandrite Nikon as metropolitan of Novgorod, the most important cathedra in Russian Orthodoxy, next to the patriarchate. Nikon’s selection by Tsar Aleksei was not arbitrary, but by the suggestion of protopope Vonifatiev, who was aware of Nikon’s zeal toward traditional Orthodox piety, and knew that Nikon could accomplish much in Novgorod. The tsar also allotted Nikon special privileges for his ministry in Novgorod, and primarily hoping for the city’s reconciliation with Moscow. Novgorod was still not reconciled with Moscow, since its annihilation in 1570 by Tsar Ivan IV, and had not yet recovered economically. Nikon accepted these special privileges with the intention of implementing his personal religious conviction, that the Church had the supremacy over the state. The initial conduct of Nikon, as metropolitan of Novgorod, was a good sign for the future. After his arrival in the city, amid much applause from parishioners and residents, he went straight to the aged and retired Affonius at Khutinski Monastery, for his blessing. The aged prelate was impressed with Nikon’s sincerity, and a glow covered Affonius’ face at the entrance of his successor into his cloister. Affonius spoke first, “Bless me, patriarchal-material.” “No, holy father. I am metropolitan with sins, not patriarch. You must bless me,” replied Nikon, thinking that Affonius spoke as a result of dementia. Affonius replied, “You will be patriarch, and so the former should first bless the latter.” Only after Nikon blessed Affonius did Affonius bless Nikon. At the same time, Nikon spent vast sums of church funds on charitable projects in Novgorod: he built four orphanages; during a famine he fed 300 people daily; for the destitute he established a pauper’s cemetery. In regard to

83

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II church liturgy, Nikon was able to implement single unisonant singing in lieu of the disorganized cacophony, along with harmony in the choir rather than an irritating monotone chant. The choir singing implemented by Nikon followed the form of Kiev and attracted more parishioners, and even impressed Moscow choirs when he brought one of his Novgorod choirs there to sing. In 1649, the Monastery Ordinance was decreed, implemented in order to place restraints on Russian Orthodox Church expansion. The ordinance dealt with the Episcopal courts and ecclesiastical patrimony. Up to this time, the individual dioceses possessed their own judicial system, the Episcopal court, which was to investigate, judge, sentence, and punish, those residents living on church property or patrimony, and all diocesan clergy, for any crimes they might commit. The Episcopal courts were ineffective as well as corrupt. Under the Monastery Ordinance, the Episcopal courts were dissolved, and the civil courts were now to handle judicial matters. The churches and monasteries fought tooth and nail against the ordinance, stating that the Church should judge its own clergy and serfs, should they violate some law, and not the civil courts. The second point of the ordinance dealt with limiting the expansion of the Church patrimony. Real estate owned by the Russian Orthodox Church averaged about 30% of arable land in Russia, and the time had come — noblemen felt — to curb its expansion. The Monastery Ordinance was the preliminary legislation for eventual secularization of all ecclesiastical real estate. The ordinance met with great resistance among the clergy, and as a result was eventually discarded several years later, in 1677. Nikon was Moscow Novo-Spasski Monastery archimandrite in 1649, and as a result of his high position he was required to sign the ordinance. Nikon’s subscription was under duress, and in his heart he carried a deep resentment for it. But Nikon, even if alone, was prepared to oppose the ordinance, to present it as an offense to Russian Orthodox autonomy. At this time, the primary plan of Nikon’s future ministry was sketched in his mind: a sacerdotal victory over the civil, aristocratic, and imperial concept of the supremacy of the state over the church. Nikon considered the state’s attitude to be a violation of ecclesiastical canon, and so he wanted to rectify the situation by imposing a new theology consisting of the supremacy of the Church over the state. Nikon began the crystallization of his beliefs with his cathedra at Novgorod. Tsar Aleksei immediately allowed Nikon privileges, or, in other words, exemption from the Monastery Ordinance recently legislated. Even though under the new legislation, judicial process over the clergy and residents of ecclesiastical patrimony was to be con-

84

The Era of the Patriarchate ducted by a new division within the civil court system, Nikon was given the right to judicial and criminal matters over the residents of ecclesiastical patrimony, and clergy, in Novgorod. Nikon was also given the right of surveillance over the civil court in Novgorod, and so he would visit prisons, and control legal and judicial proceedings. During his visit, Patr. Paisius of Jerusalem confirmed his favorite thesis, that Greeks were and are the source of orthodox religion in its true sense. He conducted theological discussions with protopope Vonifatiev, answered many questions proposed by Tsar Aleksei, and gave to Patr. Joseph an ancient Greek manuscript of the Nomocanon as a gift. After meeting Nikon, Patr. Paisius hoped to become better friends with him, now noticing his value to Orthodoxy. After several conversations with Nikon, Paisius praised Tsar Aleksei for having such a wise counselor among his prelates. Tsar Aleksei, in correspondence with Nikon, referred to him in the following words, “The elect and steadfast pastor, instructor of souls and bodies, beloved companion and friends, a sun shining throughout the sky, a special friend in both body and soul.” Before the onset of Lent in 1649, Patr. Paisius visited Tsar Aleksei to discuss various ecclesiastical matters, and then added, “When I was recently enjoying the hospitality of your reverence, I spoke with the venerated archimandrite of Novo-Spasski Monastery, and I enjoyed very much his conversation, and he is a reverent man, and faithful to your realm, with spare time on his hands. I ask of you, permit him to freely attend our conversations, at your leisure, and without any restrictions.” Such laud, from Patr. Paisius on behalf of Nikon, had a beneficial effect upon the tsar. Soon after, Nikon was ordained metropolitan of Novgorod. Patr. Paisius sent Tsar Aleksei a letter containing the following passage, “We praise your grace, because the Holy Spirit has enlightened you, and that you have selected such an honorable man, the venerated priest-monk and archimandrite Nikon, and your royal majesty has promoted him, to ascend the episcopacy of Novgorod. He is worthy to affirm the church of Christ, and pastor the literal sheep of Christ, as the apostle says, ‘This is the type of bishop you should have,’ and we will pray to God, for Him to provide your great realm many years of prosperity.” Patr. Paisius was the only patriarch to express himself in this manner about Nikon. There were also debates between Nikon and Patr. Paisius, in matters where Nikon vehemently opposed the patriarch’s opinions. Paisius claimed

85

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II Greeks were the source of true religion, because the Greeks were baptized by Apostle Andrew. Nikon’s rebuttal was that Russia also received Christianity from Apostle Andrew, according to tradition. Nikon, likewise, did not accept the reference that Paisius made to the many Greek saints who glorified the Greek Church, on their possession of many relics, and on their lauded history, including the Ecumenical Councils held on Greek territory. Nikon replied, “In Russia also God glorified His saints, and their remains lie intact — imperishable — and perform miracles.” Nikon admonished Patr. Paisius, saying to him, “Of all your many monasteries and churches, at present only ruins remain, while in Russia they blossom in luxury. Listen, you Greeks, and heed this. Do not boast, and do not call yourselves the source, because today the words of the Lord in the gospel have been fulfilled on you: you were first, and now you are last; while we were last, but now we are first.” Patr. Paisius replied, “But the four Eastern patriarchs were, and remain, the highest authority, without them no question of religion can be answered legitimately and correctly. They are the supreme court in ecclesiastical matters.” Nikon replied, “This only applies to you Greeks. It is impossible to do anything without your own four patriarchs, because in Constantinople there once was a pious king — the only one under the sun — and he created the four patriarchs, and became a father unto them. And these patriarchs did reside in one realm under one king, and gathered at councils by order of the king. Now, in place of that king, is the pious Tsar of Moscow — the only one under the sun — and God has glorified the Christian realm, which we possess. Our sovereign has installed, in his realm, a patriarch — and not a pope — in the capital city Moscow, and in place of your four patriarchs, he has installed in capital regions four metropolitans.” (The “pious king” is a reference to Constantine the Great.) Nikon continued, “You can see for yourself that we can implement the law of God even without your four patriarchs, because we possess the head of Orthodoxy — an Orthodox king. A patriarch is called a patriarch, because he has metropolitans, archbishops and bishops subject to him. But with you in the east, for example, the patriarch of Alexandria only possesses two churches in his entire cathedra. What is he patriarch of? Not possessing a king as a defender and benefactor of the church’s wealth, and living among infidels, you Greeks have become obstinate and have squandered away your original piety. So how can you be the source of religion?” Patr. Paisius responded, “Kings and realms change one after another, so it was in Old Testament eras, so it continued after the arrival of Christ. All is

86

The Era of the Patriarchate material in this world, and earthly authority is no exception. Roman tyrants ruled the world, but the holy church persisted because it was ruled by prelates. The Byzantine Empire fell, but even under the dominion of Mohammedans, Christianity is preserved intact and piety is observed, because the Orthodox priesthood prevails steadfast during persecution and oppression. Subsequently, the sacerdotal transcends the imperial.” The spark of this thought fell on prepared soil. Nikon needed no more clarification and accepted the position of the Greeks. Nikon had been raised from childhood with feelings of pride for Russian Orthodoxy, but if the theory prevailed, that the sacerdotal had supremacy over the imperial, then he was ready to forget all of his accusations against Greeks, reconcile himself with their pride, and utilize it to confirm the authority of prelates in Russia. The tsar and his court wanted unity with Greece, however Nikon would proceed further, but to his personal goal. Greeks wanted to be called teachers in Moscow, so Nikon was going to put them to work, and for the eventual glory of the Russian Orthodox Church. After Patr. Paisius departed Russia and returned home, he sent Metr. Gavriel of Nazareth to Moscow, to further consolidate his theme of Greco-philia, since Gavriel knew Slavonic. While in Moscow, Gavriel gave sermons in the city’s churches, translated books and counseled the tsar and prelates. Gavriel was persistent in urging Nikon to emend church service books, requiring their comparison with Greek. To assist Gavriel, Patr. Paisius then sent Metr. Gavriel Vlasia of Navpak, who was also recommended by Patr. Joannikus of Constantinople. The Greeks impressed Russian prelates with their scholarship, and pressed Tsar Aleksei for charity for their respective patriarchates. The conversations of Nikon with Patr. Paisius definitely left an impression on him, and drove Nikon to develop his outlook on the relationship between church and state. In his memoirs, written after his resignation as patriarch, and while visiting his Krestnoi Hermitage on the island Kia, Nikon recorded his thoughts on this topic. The following is the selection dealing with it: Christ affirms two swords of sovereignty: sacerdotal and imperial — prelates and kings. The king is the sword to defend the country, its laws, and justice on behalf of widows and orphans of the land. The prelate guides souls, and whom he binds on earth will be bound in heaven. The prelate requires the king to execute everything according to Orthodox nomocanon. The prelate crowns the king as sovereign, and can bind him according to the commandments of God. The king is obligated to confess to his priest, but not in the opposite manner. The prelate can confront the king — not directly against him as legitimate monarch — but as against a person who should violate the law.

87

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II The clergy are people selected and anointed by the Holy Spirit. It is obvious that the person who is obligated to carry the sword, in order to lead people to be obedient to prelates, is himself obligated to also be obedient. Not in vain did God create in heaven two lights: the sun and moon. The sun refers to the authority of prelates; it shines during the day, as the prelate does in souls. The lesser light shines at night, as the civil authority for the body. Just as the moon receives its light from the sun, so the king receives sanctification, anointment and coronation from the prelate. It is from [the prelate], that he accepts undefiled power and authority. But in the final end, all is interwoven in his world, and one cannot exist without the other. So secular people seek salvation of the soul from the prelate, while religious people require defense from injustice and coercion from civil authority. In this respect, one is not superior to another, but each has his authority from God. The civil authority has supremacy over the religious in secular matters, involving itself in public affairs. But in sacerdotal matters, which pertain to all, the great prelate is above the king, and every Orthodox person is obligated to obedience to the prelate, because he is a father in the Orthodox faith, and to him is entrusted the Orthodox Church. In essence, the prelate is considerably above the king. Although, from the view of the royal throne, he is honored, because of the jewels, upholstery and gold applied on [the throne], but the king judges, because he is the person who has received the right to govern, and possess superior authority. The throne of the clergy sets in heaven. Who says this? The heavenly king, “What you shall bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” What can equal such honor? Between God and human nature stands the priest, and his hand anoints the king, and is over the head of the king. In this manner, God indicates that the priest is the greater authority, because the lesser is blessed by the greater. To the tsar is entrusted the here and now, but I possess the heavenly. The tsar remits the debts of property, the priest remits the debts of sins. That one compels, this one comforts. That one uses force, this one uses counsel. That one has material weapons, this one has spiritual. That one battles with enemies, this one [battles] with rulers of the dominion of the darkness of this age. It is all so clear: the sacerdotal surpasses the imperial.

Nikon was able to steer Tsar Aleksei’s affection toward himself, not only for personal motives, but to attain the goal of his ecclesiastical ideology: a genuine subjection of civil or imperial authority to ecclesiastical authority, a theocracy as Nikon understood or imagined it. The opposition of noblemen to Nikon was engendered while he was yet metropolitan of Novgorod, because he conducted himself as ruler over the noblemen, and was involved in state affairs. To procure greater fame, Nikon convinced Tsar Aleksei to relocate the relics of three prelates of Moscow to Uspenski Cathedral inside the Kremlin. As Nikon informed Tsar Aleksei, they were martyrs for Orthodoxy and their fatherland, and were unjustly persecuted by civil authority. The three were Metr. Filipp II, Patr. Job, and Patr. Hermogen, and the proposal was well received. To acquire

88

The Era of the Patriarchate the relics of Metr. Filipp, the tsar dispatched Nikon in 1652 to Solovetski Monastery. While Nikon was traveling to Solovetski Monastery to retrieve the relics of former Metr. Filipp, he was excessively strict with the noblemen who accompanied him as part of his retinue. He beleaguered them by forcing them to fast and to stand in church for long periods during liturgy. Pr. Khovanski, a provincial nobleman and part of the retinue, wrote a letter to Moscow to Tsar Aleksei, complaining of his bitter maltreatment by Nikon, stating, “He furnishes no provisions for me or the noblemen, and we are completed wasted away as a result of Nikons’ severity. Such dishonor has never occurred, a master posing as a metropolitan. We would be better off to end up on the Novaya Zemlya or in Siberia, rather than under the authority of the metropolitan of Novgorod.” (Novaya Zemlya is a group of islands in the Arctic Ocean at the extreme north of Russia.)

79. ARSENIUS THE GREEK Arsenius the Greek was a man of special talent, a scholar and almost a religious genius, but he also had to suffer great hardships in Russia in his earlier years, much as did Maksim the Greek. Arsenius was Greek, but originally from Turkey and from a wealthy family. He was educated in Rome at the Uniate College of St. Athanasius. To acquire this education, Arsenius had to convert to Catholicism from Orthodoxy, a steep price but well worth it for his five years of higher education. From Rome, Arsenius enrolled at Padua University, studying philosophy and medicine. Returning to his homeland, he reconverted to Orthodoxy, hoping for a position as an archbishop of a local diocese. Islamic agents however arrested him as a Catholic spy and incarcerated him. Under torture and threatened with execution, Arsenius was compelled to convert to Islam and was circumcised. Once gaining his freedom, he abandoned Turkey and journeyed first to Walachia, and thence to Poland, and finally settling in Kiev. In 1649, as Patr. Paisius was passing through Kiev on his way to Moscow, Arsenius joined him, and the patriarch was welcome to have Arsenius as his brilliant protégé. Once arriving in Moscow, Arsenius was recruited as a teacher of Greek language, but no one was aware of Arsenius’ past in Rome or Turkey. They only knew him as a result of his scholarship, and that he arrived from Kiev. However, once his Catholic past and Islamic conversion became public knowledge, he was

89

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II arrested as an apostate. After a period of incarceration, and hoping to gain his freedom, Arsenius admitted guilt to the charges brought against him. But instead of gaining his freedom, he was exiled to Solovetski Monastery, there to be disciplined. Arsenius arrived on the island on July 27, 1649. The monks at Solovetski stole all his belongings and quarreled with him on every point of doctrine, rite and custom, and Arsenius was forced to comply with the performance of rites during services, and had to accustom himself to eating meatless food on holidays. When then-Metr. Nikon of Novgorod arrived at Solovetski in the summer of 1652 to retrieve the relics of Metr. Filipp, he rescued Arsenius from his predicament. Nikon took Arsenius with him to Moscow, and quickly installed him as a teacher in a new school, located at Chudovski Monastery. A year later, Arsenius was assigned as an emendator of books, along with others of the era of Nikon’s patriarchate.

80. PATRIARCH NIKON AND HIS CAREER At the time of Patr. Joseph’s death, Nikon was at Solovetski Monastery recovering the remains of Metr. Filipp. Nikon arrived in Moscow July 9, some three months after Patr. Joseph’s death and burial. The tsar was awaiting the arrival of Nikon before proceeding on the selection of a successor. Although Nikon was the premeditated choice for patriarch, Tsar Aleksei followed normal protocol for the selection of a successor to Patr. Joseph. An ecclesiastical assembly for the selection of a new patriarch was summoned by the tsar. The prelates attending were Metr. Kornili of Kazan, Metr. Nikon of Novgorod, Metr. Serapion of Sars, Metr. Varlaam of Rostov, Archbishops Markell of Vologda, Serapion of Suzdal, and Misaid of Riazan, and a quantity of archimandrites, abbots, protopopes and priests. The prelates compiled a list of twelve candidates, and presented it to Tsar Aleksei on July 22, requesting his approval. Members of the leading ecclesiastical circle of Moscow, to which Nikon belonged, submitted protopope Stefan Vonifatiev as a candidate, but he very wisely declined, preferring to support Nikon, who was already the tsar’s favorite. The list was received by the tsar and he gave his consent; the list was returned to the ecclesiastical assembly. Liturgy was preformed at Uspenski Cathedral for divine guidance in selection of the proper candidate. The selection was made by the assembly, and Metr. Kornili was dispatched to Tsar Aleksei to inform him of the result: Metr. Nikon of Novgorod. Nikon was absent from the

90

The Era of the Patriarchate assembly during the final selection process, and a prelate was sent to him, summoning him to appear, to have the offer presented him. Nikon in return, and rather theatrically in tears and sobs, also required of them a special investiture and promise. His oration at Uspenski Cathedral unveiled his prerequisite, “You know that from the beginning we accepted the holy Gospel, the proclamations of the holy apostles, the rules of the holy fathers and imperial laws, from Orthodox Greece, and for this reason we are called Christians. If you want me to be your patriarch, then make this promise while in this cathedral, that you will observe the tenets of the Gospels, and observe the rules of the holy Apostles and holy fathers, and the laws of our pious tsars. If you promise to obey me as your principal pastor, and father in all matters, whatever I relate to you regarding the tenets of God and the canons, if you will allow me to build up the church, then I, according to your desire and request, will no more decline from being supreme archbishop.” Nikon had developed such psychological control over the tsar, noblemen and clergy, that at Uspenski Cathedral, they begged Nikon on their knees to accept the patriarchate, and Tsar Aleksei and the ecclesiastical assembly gave this promise to Nikon. Nikon concluded, “The Lord God is witness for it to be this way.” It was July 22, 1652, and Nikon was 47 years old and at the pinnacle of his strength. Nikon’s formal investiture was performed by Metr. Kornili of Kazan on July 25. At the Granite Chamber later that day, the tsar gave a banquet in honor of Nikon. After the banquet, Nikon performed the ceremonial ride on a donkey around the Kremlin. Officials present at the banquet accompanied the new patriarch and led the donkey in the traditional manner: Pr. Aleksei Trubetzki, Pr. Feodor Kurakin, Pr. Yuri Dolgoruki, Pr. Dmitri Dolgoruki and Pr. Prokopi Sokovnin. Nikon’s official title was Patriarch of Moscow and all Great, Lessor and White Russia. (Ukraine was considered Lessor Russia, even though it was Uniate at the time, independent of the cathedra of Moscow, and had its own metropolitan, Sylvester Kossov.) It was only obvious to those who gave Nikon assurance of their support, that the primary concern on his list was the immediate defeat, or abolition, of the Monastery Ordinance of 1649. In later years, Nikon wrote in his memoirs, “I persistently beseeched the tsar about this cursed book, that laymen have no right to judge clergy. But other than humiliation, I received no response.” For his ideological battle against the Monastery Ordinance, the first act of Nikon was to print his famous Church Slavonic Kormchei or Nomocanon in 1653, consisting of ecclesiastical law. Some of Nikon’s old friends began to think that Nikon would

91

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II eventually push them out of his way, but Nikon was so enveloped with his intention of installing ecclesiastical authority as supreme over the imperial, that he could not squander effort on the immovable position of these Moscovite provincials, as he referred to them. The one exception in the Monastery Ordinance pertained to persons under the administration of the patriarchate, meaning that Nikon’s patriarchal sphere was excluded. All the noblemen, servants and clerks, working in patriarchal administration, and all the serfs on his property, were to be judged and governed directly by the patriarch and his officials. This exception would be well taken advantage of by Patr. Nikon. Even though a section of the ordinance, one that pertained to a cessation of increase of ecclesiastical property, applied to the patriarchate, it was totally ignored by Nikon, and he proceeded to increase his real estate holdings. Tsar Aleksei, likewise, ignoring the ordinance, also provided Nikon much property, and to the point that ecclesiastical patrimony reached it greatest proportion under Patr. Nikon. Patriarchal real estate extended a 70 mile radius surrounding the city Moscow. Entire regions surrounding the cities of Archangelsk, Vologda and Novgorod, came under the control of Nikon, and almost the entirety of counties were absorbed into his real estate holdings. In Novgorod: Valdaiski, Krestetzki and Starorusski counties; in Tver: Rzhev and Ostashkovski counties; vast regions surrounding Kiev, and even property in the Crimea, became part of patriarchal patrimony. The fishing industry in Kazan and Astrakhan was also appropriated by Nikon. The number of his serfs was enormous. Prior to Nikon, the patriarchate possessed 10,000 households, with Patr. Nikon, the amount increased to 25,000 households. In the midst of his ecclesiastical empire, Nikon constructed three monasteries, destined to be part of his dynastic treasury: Iverski Monastery, near the city Valdai in Novgorod province; Krestnoi Hermitage on Kia Island in the White Sea, near the mouth of the Onega River, where Nikon landed after earlier surviving the storm; and the Voskresenski Monastery, also called Novo-Iyerusalim (New Jerusalem), near the city Voskresenka, 30 miles from Moscow on the road to Voloko-Lamsk. The pretentious appellation of New Jerusalem personified the complex megalomania of Patr. Nikon’s fantasies. The church within the monastery was a replica of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem. The apse of the church had five side chapels surrounding the altar, each containing a throne which represented the five patriarchs. Nikon identified the center throne with himself, not just as superintendent of the church, but because he considered himself the true and principal ecumenical patriarch. These three monas-

92

The Era of the Patriarchate teries were gifted by Tsar Aleksei to Patr. Nikon as his personal property, but not without Nikon’s obligation to Aleksei, to fulfill the reform of the church. The personal confessor of the tsar, protopope Stefan Vonifatiev, had communicated this to Nikon, for him to reform Russian Orthodoxy, in order for it to be in complete conformance with the Greek form of worship, and eventually for Moscow to rise into another Constantinople. Patr. Nikon loved Orthodox liturgy, and which was the fundamental reason for his drive to emend ecclesiastical books dealing with rite and custom. Nikon, on a daily basis, attended every service performed at his home chapel inside Uspenski Cathedral. Bishop Pavel of Aleppo attended Nikon’s performance of liturgy on the Sunday prior to Lent, which also included a rite to commemorate the Day of Awesome Judgment. Services began three hours after sunrise, and did not conclude until dusk. Pavel also described the liturgy performed by Patr. Nikon on the first Sunday of Lent. We entered the church as the bells rang at three o’clock, and did not leave until after the bells rang at 10 o’clock. We stood on our feet for seven hours on an iron floor, exposed to extreme cold and damp weather, which penetrated right to our bones. But the patriarch was not satisfied with solely the liturgy, and delivery of a lengthy exposition on the historical background of the holiday, but added a lengthy moral sermon. God, gift to him some sensitivity! His heart had no passion for the tsar or to small children. What would we say if this occurred in our native land? We were struck by amazement at the minute preciseness and order of all these ceremonial and sacramental movements.

Being a person of ascetic constitution, full of energy and strength, and having excellent health, Nikon was never affected by exhaustion. On one occasion, the tsar invited Bishop Pavel and Patr. Makarius for a holiday dinner on Christmas Day. Dinner began at noon and continued almost until midnight, and then after dinner, Nikon went straight from the tsar’s chambers, together with the tsar and taking their guests, to Uspenski Cathedral for Matins. To the amazement of their guests from Antioch, they remained there until the conclusion of liturgy at daybreak. On another occasion, both Patr. Nikon and Patr. Makarius performed liturgy at the Convent of St. Savva, recently constructed in Moscow for nuns who migrated there from Smolensk and Kiev, and then after services, they went to one of Nikon’s summer homes about five miles outside Moscow. A fabulous dinner was served for them and a number of state officials, bishops, archimandrites, priests, and deacons. But as soon as dinner ended, Nikon hurried back to Moscow, and arrived at Uspenski Cathedral as bells were ringing for Vespers.

93

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II The drive that obsessed Patr. Nikon to scholarship and education also materialized in the development of a personal library. At the end of July 1658, soon after Nikon abandoned the cathedra and departed to his Voskresenski Monastery, Tsar Aleksei ordered that a survey be taken of all the articles in Patr. Nikon’s office and home in the Moscow Kremlin. Here were located over 3,000 books, both Greek and Slavonic, hand-copied and printed, and covering topics of religious, history and philosophy. Nikon dedicated his entire tempestuous temperament, and his unrestrainable tenacity, toward achieving the goal of sacramental perfection. Everything Nikon did, he did robustly and majestically. He loved pompous liturgy, and consistently performed it with 40 to 75 clergy of all ranks involved, all participating in the rites. Nikon attired himself in the most expensive patriarchal vestments, and regularly had new ones tailored for him. No patriarch in the past had ever worn such luxurious vestments as did Patr. Nikon. He enjoyed impressing his guests and parishioners with the vestments he wore, and emanated splendor and magnificence as he performed liturgy. One such vestment was described by historians: the mantle was green velvet with white trim, and had a red stripe in the center. As a pectoral decoration, pictures of cherubim woven from gold thread and pearls were embroidered on crimson velvet on the front of his mantle. Upon his head — over the top of his white patriarchal cowl — set the crown of his dignity: a cross embedded with jewels and pearls, erected upon a circular gold base. On the lappets of his cowl were also embroidered figures of cherubim, embellished with various jewels. According to the memoirs of Bishop Pavel of Aleppo, on the holiday of Easter on April 15, 1655, Patr. Nikon wore a sakkos — or bishops’ pallium — which was recently sewn according to his specific instructions. The sakkos was made of Venetian brocade, sewn together using gold thread. The sakkos had a fringe two inches long made of strings of pearls and other jewels. The cost of the sakkos was over 30,000 rubles and unbearably heavy. Just the stole or omophorium weighed 40 lbs. Nikon wore such a vestment only until the conclusion of canon, and then he would go behind the iconostasis and change into a lighter sakkos. On Christmas Day of 1655, Patr. Nikon wore a new sakkos which cost over 7,000 rubles in gold. Pavel of Aleppo relates that Nikon had over 100 such garments in his closet, which included those worn by Russian prelates from ancient times. He would often wear the vestments of earlier Russian patriarchs, and especially those of Patr. Fotius. Patr. Nikon also possessed a collection of patri-

94

The Era of the Patriarchate archal miters, given to him as gifts from Tsar Aleksei and his family, and one by Patr. Johannikus of Constantinople. When most of the population had an income of only a ruble a day or less, this extravagant liturgical pomposity not only exposed the vanity of Nikon, but also was a sign and symbol of the increase of his authority. Patr. Nikon wanted the authority of the patriarchate, as prescribed in the nomocanon, to materialize in his cathedra, and which he felt to be his, as though he was proprietor. Prior to Nikon, no prelate was ever ordained without the edict or consensus of the tsar or grand prince, but now Nikon began to ordain, expel, interdict, and punish prelates and priests, entirely on his own authority. Bishop Pavel of Kholomensk was expelled from his cathedra personally by Patr. Nikon, while Bishop Semeon of Tobolsk was interdicted in the same manner. Nikon was stern and tyrannical in his judicial proceedings against wayward clergy, and even had special deacons enlisted who would visit Moscow churches, and report to him any irregularities or disorder. Armed patriarchal sentries would arrest drunk or dissolute priests that were apprehended wallowing in the streets, and he would secure them in a cloister under lock. Nikon had no mercy for the parish priest. If he did not fulfill his obligations, the patriarch did not hesitate to place him in prison, confine him in shackles, or exile him to some distant region. Bishop Pavel of Aleppo, part of Patr. Makari of Antioch’s retinue, recorded in his memoirs the severity of Patr. Nikon toward clergy gone-astray. The patriarchal royal guards encompass the city, and as soon as they find a drunk priest or monk, they would immediately take him to prison, and subject him to every abuse. We ourselves saw the patriarchal jail filled with such unfortunate persons, as they suffered in such a lamentable condition, weighed down with heavy chains and shackles on their neck and feet. Any person considered guilty of drunkenness, or negligence in their pastoral duties, by the patriarch, is immediately sentence to exile. In earlier years, the monasteries of Siberia were almost empty, but Nikon succeeded to fill them with ecclesiastical officials, priests and wayward monks. If any priest was found guilty of some violation, Nikon would immediately remove his calotte from him, which was almost equivalent to unfrocking.

Bishop Pavel recorded in his memoirs his visit to Troitse-Sergievski Monastery: We saw for ourselves a newly-constructed wooden cloister, without windows and without any openings, other than the door, and three inmates were there confined. When we asked about them, we were informed that they were former deacons who were widowed; they had retired from the priesthood and married again. But as soon as the patriarch heard about this, he ordered that they be arrested and

95

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II sent to Sergievski Monastery and assigned to this special cell. As we walked by them, they wept and cried in such pitiable wails that it tore into our hearts. The unfortunates petitioned our lord [Patr. Makarius] to intercede for them, to allow them to become monks, in order to save themselves from bitter death. Our lord intervened and they were eventually allowed their freedom.

The reason these deacons were prosecuted by Patr. Nikon is because Russian Orthodox canons prohibited widowed clergy to marry again; they were required to remain celibate. Nikon increased the demand of tribute from the local parishes, and the reforms he instituted were directed to increase the authority of prelates. There was no doubt in the mind of both prelate and parish priest that the goal of Nikon’s reform was his elevation in Russian Orthodoxy to a position equivalent to that of the Catholic pope: the patriarchate was to develop into a Russian papacy. Nikon’s cathedra was despotic, and his reforms irritated every stratum of the Russian population, while simultaneously generating spite toward him. Nikon viewed the superstitious and ignorant serfs, and masses of rural peasants, incompatible with the concept of ecclesiastical reform. Kostomarov described it in the following passage: Patr. Nikon was not one of those who attempted to earn the respect of his subjects; it was quite the opposite, they could not tolerate his severity, arrogance and greed. Imbedded in the mind of many clergy was the thought that this odious person was unorthodox, an ecclesiastical criminal. Nikon dealt with the question of reform in the manner that a military commander would deal with some campaign: what he commanded was expected to be obeyed, and punishment would be assigned for disobedience. The priests who had doubts about the newly-corrected church service books, and did not immediately incorporate them into their parishes, instead of being treated gently by Patr. Nikon, were cruelly humiliated, beaten with rods, deprived of food, and were held confined under lock in a monastery cloister, while wearing a shackle on their neck. It is only obvious that to expect such methods to change a person’s convictions and customs would only cause him to become a more stubborn defender of that which he is expected to abandon.

Although such prosecution of sacerdotal violations was performed occasionally by previous patriarchs and metropolitans, but under Nikon it took upon itself the character of ecclesiastical terrorism. Even Nikon’s servants became informants, which annoyed and troubled Moscow residents, and caused them to turn against him. Beginning with his former friends — protopopes Stefan Vonifatiev, Ivan Neronov and Avvakum — and subsequently the balance of Moscow clergy, they all turned against him, and the arrogance and inaccessibility of Nikon grew worse. Ivan Neronov wrote to Patr. Nikon, “What type of honor is this when everyone is afraid of you? What do you think you are? A tiger or bear or wolf or lynx? Our pious tsar allotted you freedom, and now realizing what you

96

The Era of the Patriarchate have acquired, you only accomplish discredit while telling the tsar, ‘I do this according to the Gospels and the traditions of the fathers.’” In 1653, Stefan Vonifatiev, along with Ivan Neronov, presented Tsar Aleksei a formal complaint against Patr. Nikon. They upbraided him, “He loves to sit high and ride wide.” But what was especially unpleasant to Nikon was the animosity toward him by noblemen because of his intervention into the sphere of state affairs. Tsar Aleksei bequeathed the appellation of Great Sovereign to Patr. Nikon, which only Patr. Filaret had possessed. But Filaret possessed it only because he was the tsar’s father, and the political circumstances of the era required it for the stabilization of both church and state. But Nikon boldly utilized the title to his ambitious advantage, seeing it as a crystallization of his authority. Nikon was a counselor to Tsar Aleksei on various state matters: on the annexation of Ukraine to Russia, on war against Poland in 1554, and war against Swedes in 1656. The war against Poland had ideological value for Nikon: they were Catholic, and Nikon was a child during Poland’s assault on Moscow during the era of upheavals. Leaving Moscow on his campaigns, Tsar Aleksei would leave the Boyar Duma (Assembly of Nobles) under Nikon’s control, who would then order duties to military commanders using the address, “The sovereign Tsar, Grand Prince of all Russia, Aleksei Mikhailovich, and myself, Great Sovereign, command…” These military commanders would address their petitions to Nikon, while the noble who was regent of Moscow during the tsar’s absence, and other officials, possessed no rights at all to resolve any issue without first presenting a report to Nikon. Even the collective Boyar Duma decisions had to be ratified by Nikon. The highest ranking noble had to stand in Nikon’s presence when the patriarch received him for audience and as he received directives from him. When a Boyar Duma did convene, and if one of the noblemen might be late even one minute after the bell was rung to start the session, he had to wait outside in the cold until Patr. Nikon decided to allow him into the hall. Clergy were not accustomed to this style of political intervention and pageantry, and they muttered about him, “In place of raising the Evangel, he is using his authority to raise a battle-axe; in place of the cross, he raises a hatchet with which to assist our sovereign.” When Tsar Aleksei left on a campaign, he left his entire family in Nikon’s care. When Moscow was affected by plague, Nikon took the initiative for the safety of the tsar’s family and moved them to a distant locale to save them. Nikon likewise carried on regular communication with the royal courts of foreign nations: Georgia, Moldova and Walachia.

97

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II The personal offences of the nobility only aggravated the resentment that already resided in Nikon, which he held toward their step-child, the Monastery Ordinance of 1649. Nikon would not restrain himself in his constant verbal attacks, and would rebuke noblemen at the Boyar Duma, either for usury, or for playing dangerous political games with foreigners. Taking advantage of Tsar Aleksei’s absence during the war against Poland in 1654-1655, Nikon blatantly exalted himself over the noblemen, attempting to subject them to his patriarchal authority. Nikon’s mind had become clouded by his preoccupation with the concept of ecclesiastical supremacy, and could not accept the fact that this concept was foreign to the theology of Eastern Orthodoxy. During Tsar Aleksei’s absence, the violent fury of Nikon toward the Monastery Ordinance increased along with his passion for the supremacy of the church. The noblemen could not forgive Nikon for all of these offences, and they directed their efforts to undermine his spot as court favorite, and to eventually dislodge and remove this yoke laid upon them. A plot consisting of the following persons was conceived to overthrow Nikon: the Streshnev’s, who were the tsar’s relatives on his mother’s side; the Miloslavski’s, who were the tsar’s relatives through his present wife; Boris Morozov, who was the tsar’s brother-in-law; and Tsaritza Marina, who was Tsar Aleksei’s wife. It seemed obvious to all of them that Nikon had disgraced them to Tsar Aleksei, but at the same time they refused to admit that the talents of Nikon were valuable and useful to the tsar, while the latter’s talentless relatives were of little value and use. Such relatives of the tsar included Pr. Nikita Odoyevski, ideologist and author of the Monastery Ordinance; Pr. Aleksei Nikitich Trubetzki; and Pr. Yuri Dolgoruki. Rodion Streshnev, Tsar Aleksei’s uncle, taught his poodle to stand on its hind legs, and cross its paws, to mimic Nikon performing a blessing. But Nikon also had his ideological friends who were advocates of enlightenment, and who were moderate westernizers of the era: F. M. Rtischev, Artamon Matveev and Ordin-Naschyokin. The tsar’s sister, Tsarevna Tatyanna Mikhailovna, idolized Patr. Nikon. In her bed-chamber hung a huge portrait of Nikon, one that has survived to the present. The tsarevna remained a faithful admirer of Nikon right to the day of his death. The primary problem of Patr. Nikon’s enemies was the manner of turning the heart of Tsar Aleksei away from Patr. Nikon, to somehow create dissension or disruption between the two. While the tsar grew, matured, became wiser, and developed a taste for independence in decisions and policy-making, a series of events then occurred soon after to their benefit. The noblemen took advantage

98

The Era of the Patriarchate of this, and hinted to him to oppose Nikon as a usurper of his imperial authority and royal honor. The noblemen waited for the moment for their scheme to materialize. Meanwhile, the emendation of books and rites progressed, which became a topic of contention for Nikon’s former friends from among the clergy, those who were offended earlier by his arrogance. Moscow protopopes formed a united front together with the Boyar opposition. Protopopes Neronov and Avvakum and deacon Feodor quickly arose to become new protagonists of a schism. For his protest of altering the orientation of the fingers when making the sign of the cross and bows, Ivan Neronov was sentenced to exile by Nikon himself in 1653. Nikon, in sentencing Neronov, was supposedly to have said, “I don’t need or want any help from the tsar, in fact I even spit upon and blow my nose on the tsar’s authority.” Neronov, preparing for exile, remonstrated against Nikon, saying, “The time will come when you will yourself flee from Moscow, although pursued by no one except it be the will of God.” Whether or not these statements are credible, they reflect the attitude of each feuding party. After the unsuccessful campaign against Swedes in 1656 by Tsar Aleksei — which he undertook a result of its promotion by Patr. Nikon — the tsar began to act noticeable colder towards him. The noblemen had hinted to the tsar, that Nikon was to blame for the failure of the military campaign. This, plus the tsar’s independence during his absence from Moscow, caused him to become disaccustomed to Nikon’s influence, and also engendered in him a certain amount of protest against the aggressiveness of his right-hand man. A series of conflicts between tsar and patriarch rapidly arose in succession. Tsar Aleksei had great admiration for Patr. Makarius of Antioch, who had just recently visited Moscow for the first time. It was after the departure of Makarius that the tsar learned that Nikon did not heed the advice of the visiting patriarch pertaining to the performance of the rite for the eve of the holiday of Epiphany, and only sanctified the water once. Makarius had advised Nikon to sanctify the water twice, according to the Greek statute. The tsar then went to the chamber of Nikon and began to rudely argue with him over his refusal to follow Greek custom. Tsar Aleksei called Patr. Nikon an ignorant serf and a child born out-of-wedlock. Nikon then rebutted the tsar, telling him that he had no right to discredit his spiritual father, referring to himself. The tsar replied, “You are not my spiritual father, Makarius of Antioch is.” In early 1657, noblemen recalled Ivan Neronov from his second exile. By order of Patr. Nikon he had been forced to be tonsured as a monk, accepting the

99

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II new name Grigori. These noblemen then condescended to the tsar, needing to acquire an audience with him. They wanted the tsar to hear their accusations against Nikon, which would include Neronov’s testimony. The elderly Neronov told the tsar, “How long will you endure this enemy of Christ? He has confounded all the land of Russia, and your honor he has disavowed. The tsar’s authority is no longer dreaded in Moscow, while everyone is afraid of Nikon, and his messengers are feared more than those of the tsar.” From this point, Tsar Aleksei began to avoid Nikon’s presence. Nikon understood too well what was occurring, and began to remonstrate, and would regularly travel to his Voskresenski Monastery to escape Moscow. The dedication of a new church at the monastery was scheduled for October 18, 1657, and the tsar arrived that morning in a pleasant disposition, just as in earlier times. However, he refused any further invitations of Nikon to visit his monasteries on special events or festivities held there. In Moscow, rumors spread of the disassociation of tsar and patriarch, that is, a factual rupture of their former friendship. Nikon concluded that a devil was behind all of this, and his principal adversary at that moment was protopope Ivan Neronov, now known as priestmonk Grigori. Nikon began to descend into emotional and psychological despair because of his loss of the tsar’s approval and favor. At Pokrovski Monastery, after performing a requiem, Nikon secluded himself in his cloister and began to wail and sob. All the grandiose intentions of Nikon’s, regarding the reforms to be achieved under his patriarchate, were based solely on having the tsar’s endorsement and trust. Without Tsar Aleksei’s backing and unquestionable blind endorsement, Nikon’s dreams would never materialize, and at the same moment the inevitability of his departure from the cathedra entered the mind of Nikon. Tsar Aleksei also meditated on the best manner of implementing ecclesiastical reform, but without Nikon’s personality so directly involved; their mutual association in the future would be limited, dealing only with official matters. The tsar realized that this termination of friendship would be difficult for him, but he had no other choice. The timid obscurity and reserved mannerism of Tsar Aleksei was especially unbearable for Patr. Nikon, and which only routed the patriarch toward taking foolish steps. A conflict erupted the beginning of July 1658, and what was foretold by protopope Neronov was soon to occur. On July 6, a welcome reception was planned for Teimuraz, the Georgian heir to the throne. During the preparation of arrangements for the visit, an altercation occurred between Patr. Nikon’s representative, Pr. Dmitri Mescherski, and the tsar’s secretary, Khitov, regarding the

100

The Era of the Patriarchate welcome ceremony. Subsequently, Khitov hit Mescherski across the forehead with a stick. The tsar did not respond to the incident in a timely manner as he should have, did not resolve it, and acted as if he was the party offended, rather than as the offending party. At the next holiday, the Placement of the Robe of our Lord on July 10, just a few days later, the tsar did not appear at Matins. After the conclusion of liturgy, a nobleman, Pr. Yuri Romodonovski, delivered a message to Patr. Nikon from Tsar Aleksei, saying, “His Royal Majesty is angered toward you. For this reason he had not attended Matins, and do not wait for him to attend Vespers either. You have insulted His Royal Majesty by subscribing yourself as Great Sovereign, when we have one Great Sovereign, who is the tsar. His Royal Majesty honored you as a father and pastor, but you have not recognized it. Now our Royal Majesty has ordered me to tell you, that you must no longer subscribe yourself, or address yourself, as Great Sovereign, and in the future, no such honor will furthermore be attributed to you.” This message struck Patr. Nikon like a bolt of lightning and his airy castle collapsed. The Catholic concept of ecclesiastical supremacy, which resided so long and so intensely in his mind, vanished, and all of a sudden, he was enlightened in a different manner. Nikon was not the type of man to only go halfway, his reaction to the news would have to be radical and numbing. He arranged to bring a plain monk’s cassock with him to the altar at Uspenski Cathedral, and then either find or buy a plain priest’s staff. That afternoon, on July 10, 1568, after performing liturgy, Patr. Nikon partook of the Eucharist, and before opening the Royal Doors in the center of the iconostasis, he sat at the table next to the altar and wrote a letter to Tsar Aleksei. Then, at the conclusion of liturgy, Nikon stood at the ambo and turned toward the crowd in unusual agitation. Interrupted by his tears and stuttering, he said, “I have failed in ministering to you. As a result of this disappointment, I am curtailed and you — noticing my lack of your instruction — have been distanced from me. As of this moment I am no longer your patriarch.” Of course, the crowd was agitated and began to talk loudly among themselves. Nikon had made earlier arrangements to have the doors to the cathedral closed during his resignation. The sounds of conversation continued in the crowd, since no one could understand exactly what was said by Nikon; his tears and emotion caused his address to be hardly comprehensible. After abruptly terminating his unintelligible speech of resignation, Nikon began to undress, removing his patriarchal vestments to dress in the monk’s cassock, but his

101

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II friends restrained him. However, Nikon was able to dress in a black mantle, and then turned to walk toward the doors of the cathedral. He had arranged previously for the doors to be opened after his change of attire, except that by now, Tsar Aleksei had heard about the scandal in the cathedral and ordered the doors to stay closed. Nikon, unable to leave and exhausted from the ordeal, sat down on the stile in front of the iconostasis. The tsar dispatched Pr. Aleksei Trubetzki to Nikon at the cathedral with a personal message, “Why are you abandoning the patriarchate, not having discussed the matter with the Great Sovereign; you should not abandon the patriarchate and remain just as before.” Nikon, in reply to the message of Tsar Aleksei, said to the messenger, “I have left the patriarchate on my own, and I also earlier informed the Great Sovereign, that I would occupy the patriarchate for no more than three years.” Patr. Nikon then handed the letter just composed to Pr. Trubetzki. It was apparent now, that Nikon had planned a route of escape, just in case his plans were disrupted, and now he had to utilize it. Trubetzki returned a second time from Tsar Aleksei, the letter still unopened, with a new request for Nikon not to leave his cathedra. Nikon’s reply at this time was, “I will not change my words, for a long while I retained this conviction not to be patriarch for very long.” Nikon, raising himself from the stile, stood and started to walk out the cathedral doors, which had just been opened. He carried a simple priest’s staff as he walked past the chambers of the patriarch, going directly to the Spasski Gates. Reaching the gates, they were locked. Again he sat down, now under the arch over the gates, until a notice arrived from Tsar Aleksei for the guards to open them. He walked alone to his residence, and there remained in solitude the rest of the day and that night. The next day, Nikon ordered two carriages from Novo-Devichi Convent, one for himself and the second for his personal property. The carriages were quickly brought and loaded, and Nikon then left Moscow for his Voskresenski Monastery, the New Jerusalem, without informing anyone. The absence of any word from Tsar Aleksei that day was an obvious indication that Patr. Nikon’s personal resignation was accepted. Tsar Aleksei’s expenditures on Patr. Nikon over the previous six years of his patriarchate could now hardly be justified. On the following day, July 12, Tsar Aleksei again dispatched Pr. Trubetzki to Patr. Nikon and this time he traveled to see him at his Voskresenski Monastery, asking him to explain specifically why he had left. Nikon replied, “I am no doubt to blame for not informing the Great Sovereign that I was leaving

102

The Era of the Patriarchate Moscow. I was afraid that I would become sick and then die while patriarch. But now I do not want to be patriarch, and if I should want to become patriarch [again] I will be cursed and expelled.” The reasons he gave for abandoning the cathedra were nonsensical and unfounded, but he could not bring himself to swallow his pride and ask forgiveness of Tsar Aleksei, other noblemen, and many clergy. Nikon had held the cathedra of Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia for six years, from July 22, 1652 to July 10, 1658. His rash exodus caused a vacancy in the patriarchate that lasted for nine years, until 1667, an interval fraught with much instability; and it was the primary reason for the development of the raskol (schism). This interval provided the dissenters ample time, freedom and resources to rise against the reform of the church, and the resignation of Nikon gave them more reason to label him Antichrist.

81. PATRIARCH NIKON AND HIS REFORM When Patr. Paisius of Jerusalem arrived in Moscow in 1649 from Moldova seeking charity, he learned about the on-going process of the emendation of Slavonic church service books and became interested in it. Joseph was patriarch at the time, while Nikon was metropolitan of Novgorod and visiting Moscow at the time of Patr. Paisius’ visit. The visiting patriarch mentioned to Metr. Nikon, Patr. Joseph and Tsar Aleksei, that, in his opinion, they were not conforming to Greek custom and rite. This had an immense impact on the three of them and on other prelates. Meanwhile, former patriarch of Constantinople, Athanasius III Pattelaras, arrived in Moscow on April 16, 1653, along with a large retinue. He held the cathedra for three periods: in 1633 for 40 days; about a year from 1634 to 1635; and in 1651 for 15 days; and at the present he was residing at a monastery in Galitzia. Tsar Aleksei welcomed Patr. Athanasius and his retinue on April 22, but not in the same manner as he welcomed Patr. Paisius of Jerusalem, because, as Tsar Aleksei stated, Athanasius was “a patriarch without a cathedra”. He stayed until the end of the year, visiting monasteries and accepting contributions, leaving December 1653; he passed away April 5, 1654. Toward the end of his Russian visit, Patr. Athanasius informed Patr. Nikon of the difference between Greek rites and customs and those of Russia. This evolved into greater motivation for Patr. Nikon to reform the Russian Church,

103

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II and he acquired from Patr. Athanasius additional Greek texts. At the Moscow print-house, several competent translators were now employed, including Epiphanius Slavinetzki, a hieromonk from Kiev; his student Evfimius, a hierodeacon of Chudovski Monastery; and Arsenius the Greek. The initial emendations requested by Patr. Nikon were, first, holding the hand with three fingers upright instead of 2, in making the sign of the cross; and second, performing twelve deep bows and four short bows during the recitation of “Lord and Sovereign of my life,” the prayer of Efrem the Syrian, instead of sixteen deep bows. Nikon issued a special circular letter in 1653, stating that these modifications had been made to the new edition of church service books. The reaction to this edict — as the letter was interpreted — was wide and vocal opposition by both prelates and parish clergy. Earlier, any changes in rite or custom was discussed in a friendly manner among prelates at an ecclesiastical council. For Nikon’s former friends— Ivan Neronov, Avvakum Petrovich, Daniel of Kostroma, Login of Murom, Lazar of Romanov, and Bishop Pavel of Kolomensk — the letter was a declaration of war. By way of this circular letter, Patr. Nikon had attacked the customary and accepted finger arrangement for making the sign of the cross, a custom and rite so close to the heart of every Orthodox that it was considered divinely instituted by many of them. This specific issue had also been defended by a special edict of the Hundred-Chapters Council. Patr. Nikon may have underestimated the harsh reaction his rash action would provoke, but it was not his temperament to suppress his authority and he decided to ruthlessly suppress the opposition right at its inception. Even Stefan Vonifatiev’s reconciliatory intervention could not restrain Nikon, even though he was on Nikon’s side regarding these issues. The spring was stretched as far as it could go, and now had snapped: for such a trifle — as it might seem to an outsider — a catastrophe for the Russian Church began and the drama of the schism commenced. Even the opposition could not have realized that this would lead to a rupture with the official Church. Avvakum wrote in his memoirs, “We gathered together and meditated on it. We noticed that winter was coming; our hearts froze and our legs shook.” Ivan Neronov asked Avvakum to conduct services in his church while he departed for a period of solitude at Chudovski Monastery, which lasted about a week. There Neronov fasted and prayed, until he received a vision. He heard a voice speaking from an icon, “The period for suffering is ripe; it is required for all of you to suffer, but not to weaken.” Neronov was in tears as he conveyed the message to his brethren, who in turn, composed a petition to Tsar Aleksei. In

104

The Era of the Patriarchate this petition, they defended the ancient custom of finger-arrangement and bows, but when Tsar Aleksei received the petition, he gave it no consideration. Avvakum then wrote, “I do not know where he hid it; I think he gave it to Nikon.” After receiving the petition, Patr. Nikon had the tack to restrain himself from vengeance, although he only postponed it. The first opponent to face Nikon’s vengeance was Login of Murom. Charges of discrediting icons of the Savior, the Blessed Virgin, and saints, were contrived against him. Login was defended by his friend, protopope Neronov, but to no avail, and he was arrested and incarcerated. As a result of defending Login, Neronov was likewise tried on contrived charges, and sentenced by Patr. Nikon: he was deprived of his monk's calotte, and sent under guard to SpassoKamennoye Monastery at Lake Kuban, for incarceration. The next victim of Nikon’s inquisition was protopope Daniel of Kostroma, who was exiled to Astrakhan near the Caspian Sea, there to be incarcerated. In September of that year, 1653, Patr. Nikon began to gather testimony to use against protopope Avvakum. In order to deliver Avvakum from a worse fate, Tsar Aleksei intervened at this time and exiled Avvakum with his wife and family to Tobolsk in Siberia, to distance them from Patr. Nikon. At an ecclesiastical council held in Moscow during April 1654, Patr. Nikon defended his actions, and explained his purpose for the emendation of church service books to many Orthodoxy clergy. Only one person confronted Nikon at this council, Bishop Pavel of Kolomensk. He objected to the change from sixteen deep bows during the prayer of Efrem the Syrian, and provided ancient testimony to support his claim. Nonetheless, Pavel subscribed to the council proceedings, although under duress. Shortly thereafter, and because of his willingness to have confronted and disputed the issue with Nikon, Pavel was arrested, deposed from his cathedra, and exiled to the Olonetz region of Novgorod province, to be confined at some remote monastery: the exact location was expunged from the records. Pavel went insane as a result of the inhumane conditions of his confinement, and died of unknown or unrecorded causes. Another ecclesiastical council was held in 1654, where Patr. Nikon again justified his reforms, but the council would not admit that the reforms were approved, or enacted, by Russian prelates as a body. Patr. Nikon dispatched a Greek courier in Moscow, Manual Konstantinov, to Constantinople with a letter to Patr. Paisius. The letter consisted of 28 questions to which Nikon wanted Paisius to reply, all dealing with Orthodox doctrine, rite and custom.

105

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II In June 1654, Patr. Gabriel of Serbia arrived in Moscow, and in February 1655, Patr. Makarius of Antioch. Noticing the Grecophilia of Patr. Nikon, Makarius encouraged him and instructed him further in more trifles and trivialities of Greek practice. Not waiting for a reply from Constantinople on his series of questions, Nikon hurried to take advantage of the presence of Gabriel and Makarius, to put his plan into action, which was to use them to confirm his own convictions. On Quadragesim Sunday — the first Sunday in Lent — of 1655, high mass was performed at Uspenski Cathedral with the participation of both patriarchs Gabriel and Makarius in Tsar Aleksei’s presence. After his sermon, Patr. Nikon began a verbal remonstrance against icons having European origin or style. These icons were manufactured in Germany, and entered Russia through Kiev and Lithuania, or else were copies of European icons made by Russian iconographers. Patr. Nikon had protested against these European-style icons in earlier years, and even went to noblemen’s homes and had them confiscated. Now he ordered icons of this style to be brought to the cathedral, those confiscated from homes of noblemen. These icons were displayed to the assembly, and Nikon read to the assembly the names of the noblemen in whose homes these Europeanstyle icons were discovered. Of course, these noblemen were embarrassed. Patr. Nikon then informed the congregation that such un-orthodox icons were also condemned by Patr. Makarius, who was present in the cathedral. Nikon then proceeded to take each icon and throw it down against the iron floor, smashing it apart. He ordered the fragments of all the icons to be gathered up to be burned. Then the two patriarchs, Gabriel and Makarius, labeled anathema any person who should possess European-style icons. Tsar Aleksei was caught in the excitement of the scenario and did not object, however, he ordered that the fragments of the destroyed icons be buried in the ground, which was done. After the scene dealing with European-style icons, Nikon migrated to the topic of finger arrangement for the sign of the cross. He knew that the repercussions of his circular letter in 1653 still reverberated in many clergy. At this time, he decided to put pressure a second time on the conscience of the congregation, but now by utilizing the Patr. Makarius’ testimony. The visiting patriarch then spoke to the congregation through an interpreter, saying, “It was in Antioch, and not in some other place, that the believers in Christ were first called Christians. From here, the tenets of the faith spread. Neither in Antioch, nor in Constantinople, Jerusalem, Sinai or Mt Athos, nor even in Walachia and Moldova, does anyone bless the way you do, but always with three fingers erect.” All in the

106

The Era of the Patriarchate cathedral were silent and were deeply offended, feeling that the visiting patriarch had offended their most-venerated of ancient Russian customs, and they were likewise unconvinced that their custom was wrong. They could not believe that the entirety of Russia had altered the original tradition. This was perplexing, and much more for the sound mind, which perceived no historical Russian evidence to justify such statements made by Patr. Makarius. During the fifth week of Lent, in March of 1655, Patr. Nikon summoned an ecclesiastical council, with patriarchs Makarius and Gabriel to be included. At the council, a newly-printed church service book, newly-translated from the Greek and including the emendations recommended by Patr. Makarius, was approved for general use. Bishop Pavel of Aleppo recorded Patr. Nikon’s comment, regarding his attitude toward the reform of the Russian Church, “I am Russian and the son of a Russian, but my convictions and my religion are Greek.” A few prelates attending the council disagreed with Nikon and stated, “We will not alter our books or our rites; we have held them since ancient times.” But their comments were muted, because clergy remembered what had occurred to Bishop Pavel of Kolomensk when he confronted Patr. Nikon at an earlier council. In May of 1655, two months after the previous council, the Greek courier Manuel Konstantinov returned from Patr. Paisius in Constantinople, with replies to Patr. Nikon’s 28 questions. The patriarchal ruling was subscribed by 24 metropolitans, one archimandrite, and three bishops, in addition to Patr. Paisius. In this ruling, Paisius did not confirm the trivialities of rites which seemed so important to Nikon. In essence, the letter endeavored to restrain Nikon’s excessive zeal, providing him with a different view of the rites, one based on principle and not on mechanics. The Church’s unity, wrote Patr. Paisius, is not violated by variation of ceremony, but is destroyed by heresy, and he stated, “If it should occur, that some or another church is different than another, due to protocols which are unimportant or unessential for belief, or such items which do not deal with primary articles of faith, but only deal with trivial details, for example, the time of performing a liturgy, or, which fingers are to be utilized by the priest to bless, and so forth, this is not any reason to create any type of dissension, as long as the tenets are preserved without change. This is because the church did not receive these statutes from the beginning at one moment — those which it retains at the present — but little by little… We must not think, that, as if, our Orthodoxy religion is being corrupted because someone performs the rites different than another person, and which are not one of the essential articles of our faith, as long as he agrees with the ecumenical faith in

107

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II important and principal matters.” In the conclusion of his letter, Patr. Paisius begged Patr. Nikon to curb the dissension created over the variations in the performance of rites, only seeing in this scenario a symptom of schism. Nikon, however, proceeded in his own manner with his reform, and especially with the available presence of patriarchs Gabriel and Makarius, who played into his hands. After discussing the issue with Patr. Makarius, Patr. Nikon decided on another demonstration for the clergy’s acceptance of the revised finger arrangement for making the sign of the cross. On February 12, 1656, on the Memorial Holiday of St. Meletius of Antioch, after the liturgy at Chudovski Monastery, and in the presence of the tsar, and his family, and the congregation, Nikon read the assigned sermon dedicated to St. Meletius. In his sermon, he refuted the areas which his opposition claimed justified the 2-erect finger arrangement, even though the passage was nebulous to begin with. Then Patr. Nikon requested the newest successor to the cathedra of St. Meletius of Antioch — who lived in the 4th century — to speak, Patr. Makarius. He was asked to comment on the nebulous passage. Patr. Makarius then said through an interpreter, “Men of Orthodoxy, hear me. I am the successor and heir of the cathedra of St. Meletius. You know that when three fingers are together, in this manner is the sign performed. And if anyone prefers not to make the sign of the cross using these three fingers, but rather, performs the sign of the cross with the two smaller fingers and the thumb together, and the two initial fingers raised, this person is an imitator of Arminius, because this is how Arminians perform the sign of the cross.” The amount of truth in the statement of Makarius is very debatable, and his intent was clearly to impress on the congregation that to use the old custom was heretical, because it conformed to a Protestant fashion. Nevertheless, his impact on the congregation was minimal, but this had no effect on Nikon. After another twelve days, the Holiday of Quadragesim Sunday of 1656 was on the calendar, and Patr. Nikon again utilized this holiday to impress on the congregation the new configuration of fingers for the sign of the cross. Several Greek prelates were in Moscow at the time, and who also celebrated services at Uspenski Cathedral that day. Patr. Nikon was able to maneuver the Greek bishops to testify on his behalf. The record of their declaration was the following, “The tradition we have received from the beginning of the religion, from the holy Apostles, and the holy Fathers, and the seven holy Councils, was to perform the sign of the honorable cross with the three initial fingers of the right

108

The Era of the Patriarchate hand. And if any Orthodox Christian does not perform the cross in this manner, according to the tradition of the Eastern church — which has held the religion from its beginnings to the present — is a heretic and imitator of Arminius. And for this reason, he should be excommunicated from the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and cursed.” Such pressure on the congregation still failed to achieve Patr. Nikon’s goal. Patr. Nikon summoned another ecclesiastical council of Russian prelates on April 23, 1656, and delivered a long-winded sermon regarding the emendation of rites, and especially the finger arrangement. The council proceedings record the following decision, “If any person from this moment on does not obey the ruling to perform the sign of the cross on his person, in the manner the holy Eastern church accepted it from ancient times, and as do the four Ecumenical patriarchs at present, and all Christians, and as the Orthodox of the world perform it — using the thumb and two fingers of the right hand to represent the Holy and Consubstantial and Indivisible and Equally-venerable Trinity — but should perform it in a manner unacceptable to the church, which is combining the two smaller fingers of the hand and the thumb — signifying the inequality of the Holy Trinity — and having two fingers raised — signifying the two natures of two sons, according to the Nestorian heresy — or to make the sign of the cross in any other manner, this person must be excommunicated from the church, and considered accursed, as stipulated by the holy fathers of the seven Ecumenical councils, and other local statutes, and the four Ecumenical patriarchs of the holy Eastern church.” This newest ecclesiastical council likewise had little effect on persuading Russian prelates to sincerely accept Patr. Nikon’s reform. The lack of education of Russian prelates, and their perplexity in the presence of the Eastern prelates, affected their morale, which in turn voided any support they had for Patr. Nikon, as well as any support Tsar Aleksei had for him. Protopope Ivan Neronov, however, did not remain in exile long at SpassoKamennoye Monastery; he conferred there with sympathetic monks, and with the guards, and was able to gain his freedom. He arrived in Moscow for a short while, and then relocated himself to the Ignatiev Hermitage. Nikon well understood the reason for his release from exile, and wanted to curb any possible anarchy by having judgment on Neronov passed by an Episcopal court, and as soon as possible. On Sunday, May 18, 1656, during liturgy at the Chamber of the Cross in the presence of Greek prelates, Patr. Nikon announced the excommunication of pro-

109

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II topope Neronov — now monk Grigori — from the Orthodox Church. Patr. Nikon stated three charges against him: 1. For discrediting the Greek-style of Orthodoxy. 2. For inciting rebellion among people. 3. For escaping from monastery exile. During the liturgy, an archdeacon recited these accusations against Neronov from the ambo, while the choir sang in the background, “Let him be accursed.” Neronov was again taken into custody and exiled; the location was not recorded, but on January 4, 1657, after six months, he again appeared in Moscow. Patr. Nikon’s authority had weakened with local monastery officials, and monks were now inclined toward Neronov’s plight, now having become somewhat of a martyr. As Patr. Nikon was walking to a church to perform liturgy, Neronov approached him and said, “I am the one you seek.” As they together walked further, he added, “You are too weak to accomplish what you are attempting on your own.” They separated during liturgy, but afterwards, Nikon requested a meeting with Neronov at the Chamber of the Cross. There Neronov voiced his complaints about the ecclesiastical reform that Nikon was implementing, while the patriarch listened silently and courteously. Neronov then asked permission to live at the patriarchal Troitzki palace. Nikon condescended and granted the request. Neronov then asked Nikon to release him from the sentence of excommunication. Nikon recited a prayer over Neronov, and at a later liturgy, allowed him to partake of the Eucharist. Nikon also accommodated Neronov, by allowing him to perform services according to the old service books. After losing the support of the tsar, Nikon was desperate to regain support from his former friends, but it was too late. After Patr. Nikon’s departure from his cathedra, a patriarchal regent was assigned to handle patriarchal responsibilities until the matter of ordaining a new patriarch could be resolved. The person selected was Metr. Pitirim of Krutitzk, a Moscow suburb, who was later to become patriarch. The character of Pitirim was such that he had a natural talent for this temporary position. Pitirim was likewise a reformist, and felt the onslaught of the opposition pressuring him to desist from undertaking any reforms.

82. PATRIARCH NIKON DURING THE INTERVAL First of all, after his return to Voskresenski Monastery, Nikon began to work out a reason for the desertion of his cathedra, post factum. Circumventing

110

The Era of the Patriarchate the impulse that led to his offense, Nikon had a tactic developed, which however, completely failed. Patr. Nikon’s speech of July 10, 1658 at Uspenski Cathedral left no doubt in the mind of his audience that he was resigning from the patriarchate. When Pr. Trubetzki went to Voskresenski Monastery on the tsar’s behalf, he asked Nikon if he would give his blessing on a replacement. Nikon responded negatively, claiming that the cathedra was still his domain. Trubetzki informed Nikon, that Metr. Pitirim of Krutitzk would fill the vacancy until such time that a new patriarch be ordained. In a letter to Tsar Aleksei in late 1658, Nikon subscribed it with the words, “Humble Nikon, former patriarch.” Tsar Aleksei, still possessing a soft spot in his heart for Nikon, dispatched imperial secretary Damian Bashmakov to Voskresenski Monastery, arriving May 17, 1659. Meeting with Nikon, Bashmakov asked Nikon of his health, and on the tsar’s behalf presented him some gifts: wine, wheat flour, honey, cheese and fish. Nikon thanked him for the gifts, and wished the tsar longevity for this act of kindness. Bashmakov informed Nikon, that the tsar had granted the request that he had included in a letter to imperial chamberlain, Yuri Ivanovich Romodonovski, which was additional arable land for his Voskresenski Monastery. At the same time Bashmakov confronted Nikon regarding the incessant abuse of his former authority, as if he still possessed it. He disclosed to Nikon Tsar Aleksei’s irritation for continually inviting prelates from Moscow to attend services at Voskresenski Monastery, and especially on holidays, which caused their absence from their obligatory presence in Moscow. As a result, the tsar issued an order for no prelate or parish priest to visit Voskresenski Monastery without his permission, except for patriarchal-regent Pitirim. This, of course, irked Nikon, who still felt he deserved the respect due a patriarch. Bashmakov returned to Moscow to inform Tsar Aleksei that he had accomplished nothing. In September 1659, Nikon left Voskresenski Monastery for his Iverski Monastery and resided there until mid-December. Then he gathered various belongings and traveled to his Krestnoi Hermitage, where he remained until mid-September of the following year. His energy had not yet subsided, and while at Krestnoi, he finished construction of a church dedicated to the Raising of the Cross (Vozdvizhenye Chestnogo Kresta), which was dedicated September 2, 1660. A chapel was also constructed in a nearby grove and dedicated September 8, and then Nikon returned to Voskresenski Monastery. It was a mistake on the part of Tsar Aleksei not to select and ordain a new patriarch to replace Nikon immediately. The tsar was apparently somewhat

111

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II naïve about such matters and wanted to observe canons that pertained; this unfortunately led to the involvement of the Eastern Patriarchs. This only prolonged the resolution another eight years, a period only disastrous to the unity and stability of Russian Orthodoxy. In July 1659, Nikon wrote a castigating letter to Tsar Aleksei, attacking the Monastery Ordinance and the new antitheocratic attitude of the state toward the church. Again in February 1660, the matter of the selection of a new patriarch was again brought to the attention of Nikon, now through the tsar’s chamberman, Matvei Pushkin, who arrived at Krestnoi on February 25, staying until March 6. Nikon replied in a letter from Krestnoi Hermitage, “The patriarch cannot be installed with his presence [referring to himself], since he will not bless him. Upon whom other than myself will you place the miter, installing him as patriarch? The miter was given to me by the Ecumenical Patriarchs, and for a metropolitan to place this miter on a new patriarch is impossible. And should the staff also be taken from the patriarch, and be transferred to the new patriarch? Although he left the cathedra, he did not leave the patriarchate. May it be known to the Great Sovereign that he took the patriarchal cape and omophorium with him. The Great Sovereign must permit him — the patriarch — to reside in Moscow, and by order of the Great Sovereign he — the patriarch — will ordain a newly-selected patriarch, but only after accepting a graceful apology from the Great Sovereign and the prelates. After blessing all of you, he will withdraw to his monastery.” After receiving the response from Nikon, and while Nikon was distant at his Krestnoi Hermitage, Tsar Aleksei summoned an ecclesiastical council, which was to begin March 20, 1660. The topic was his dilemma with Nikon. Other Greek prelates who happened to be residing in Moscow at the time were also invited. The Russian prelates disagreed among themselves, whether Nikon should be formally acknowledged as having resigned, and whether a replacement should be selected and ordained. Greek Bishops Kirill of Andross, Parfenius of Fivsk and Nektarius of Pogoyanin, found Nikon to be formally guilty, but at the same time they wanted to protect their Greek interests and patriotism, especially since Nikon had implemented more of Greek rite and tradition into the Russian. They did inform Tsar Aleksei that, as tsar, he did have the authority to summon an ecclesiastical council to ordain a new patriarch, now with the Nikon’s resignation. Russian prelates disagreed with the Greek, as the council continued through August 14, 1660. The attitude that Nikon could only be formally

112

The Era of the Patriarchate expelled by a council of Eastern Patriarchs — which would allow him to be replaced — was led by two famous and educated Russian clergy: monk Epifani of Slavinetz Monastery, and archimandrite Ignati of Polotzk Monastery. The council conclusions moved Tsar Aleksei to delay a decision regarding Nikon. Nikon, hearing of the proceedings, called them “a gang of Jews and demonpossessed.” The material situation of the deposed patriarch, however, did not change in the least, and Nikon continued to live at his New Jerusalem like a magnate at his palace and estate. The tsar, on the other hand, dreamed of a council of Eastern Patriarchs which would deliver him with its supreme decree from the burdensome black cloud of Nikon. The intensity of the situation increased. At his New Jerusalem, an altercation occurred between the serfs working on Nikon’s property and the neighbors’ serfs, the Babapikins and Sitins. The neighbors complained to the tsar that Nikon’s serfs had illegally mowed the grain on their property. The local civil judges ruled in favor of the neighbors, and Nikon fumed, and appealed to Tsar Aleksei. Leaning upon his theocratic doctrine, Nikon wrote to the tsar, “Where did you acquire such boldness to investigate us and judge us? What laws of God do you possess, that order you to dominate us, the servants of God? Are you not satisfied with the right to judge in justice the people of the kingdom of this world? But this is of little concern to you.” Such a response only drove Tsar Aleksei to greater contempt for Nikon. From his New Jerusalem Monastery, Nikon continued to meddle in ecclesiastical affairs. In 1661, after performing the liturgy for Quadragesim Sunday, Nikon pronounced an anathema on patriarchal regent Metr. Pitirim for riding the royal donkey on Palm Sunday of the previous Easter; for ordaining Mefodie as Bishop of Mstislav with the imposition of his hands; and for discrediting him — Nikon. Pitirim, very agitated after hearing of the anathemas and accounts of Nikon’s protest, appealed to the opinions of Russian prelates, and he was able to acquire from them their support against Nikon. The following year, Pitirim was reassigned by Tsar Aleksei to Novgorod as metropolitan. The next assigned patriarchal-agent was Metr. Job of Rostov. Nikon’s absence from his cathedra for over four years took a psychological toll and he began to concentrate with maniacal intensity on a means of fulfilling his dream of a return to his cathedra. A personal friend and earlier supporter of Nikon, the nobleman Nikita Zuzin, deceived the homesick and disgraced expatriarch with a suggestion of a coup. Nikon wanted to believe — and Zuzin supported him in his fantasy — that the tsar’s friendship and affection for him

113

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II was not entirely extinguished, and that after an effective gesture on the part of Nikon the tsar would free himself from the pressure of the coalition of Nikon’s enemies and subsequently restore him to his cathedra. Nikon was seduced by this dream, while his friend Zuzin began to develop a plan. Nikon gathered together some of his patriarchal vestments and went to Moscow on December 16, 1664. He arrived at the south doors of Uspenski Cathedral during the liturgy for Vespers. Arrangements were made by Zuzin, who acquired the cooperation of a few lower-level brethren at the cathedral, but this was completely unexpected by the responsible prelates. Turmoil broke out when Nikon entered the cathedra, wearing his patriarchal vestments. The new patriarchal-agent, Metr. Job of Rostov, greeted Nikon, who handed him a personal letter for him to deliver to the tsar. Nikon informed Metr. Job that he had returned by invitation, to reduce the tsar’s anger and to reconcile all parties. The dumbfounded tsar, after receiving the letter and hearing of Nikon’s return to the Kremlin, immediately ordered all prelates who happened to be in Moscow at the time and a few noblemen close to him to assemble for a special ecclesiastical council to decide whether to allow Nikon to remain. Assembled, they quickly reached a decision that was negative, and a special delegation was sent to Nikon to announce the decision to him. During their meeting, Nikon had been standing inside Uspenski Cathedral, in the spot reserved for the patriarch. After hearing the news, he told the delegation in rebuttal that if he did not receive a reply to his letter in writing, and personally from the tsar, he would not leave his spot in the church. Nikon still relied on his letter to the tsar, hoping he would take its contents seriously, and thereby not expel Nikon from the church. Nikon’s letter contained a vision he received after five days of fasting, telling him to return to Moscow and his cathedra, and there reconcile. The letter was read to the tsar. Those gathered for the council felt that the explanation of the vision was simple, but they interpreted it to mean the opposite of what Nikon said. The council then agreed on an ultimatum: Nikon was to leave the cathedral and Moscow before sunset and return to his Voskresenski Monastery. Nikon’s fantasy blew away like dust as he gave in to their ultimatum. He returned home under guard like a convict, and they confiscated from him the famous staff of Metr. Peter, which had always stood next to the Royal Doors in the iconostasis at Uspenski Cathedral. At the monastery, he was questioned by the guards regarding his sudden change in attitude. After he informed his inquis-

114

The Era of the Patriarchate itors about Zuzin’s intermediate role, the latter was exiled to Kazan. Metr. Job, for greeting Nikon inside the cathedral and yielding to his request to deliver his letter to the tsar, was replaced by Metr. Pavel of Krutitzk. Nikon did not blame others for his return to Moscow, but was willing to assume complete responsibility. When Nikon returned home that evening he was humbled, and he realized that under the circumstances he would have to completely sever himself from his former cathedra, lest he lose everything entirely. Nikon hoped to survive with a few privileges and accommodations. In January 1665, the following month, Nikon wrote another letter to Tsar Aleksei. It was his formal resignation from the cathedra and his availability to ordain a new patriarch; but he also asked for a few accommodations. His requests were, 1. that he be permitted to retain as his personal possessions his three monasteries including their patrimony, and without interference by the Monastery Ordinance. 2. That he have the authority to ordain clergy for his own monasteries. 3. That he sit above metropolitans whenever he should visit Moscow. 4. That he be allowed the title of patriarch, but plainly without reference to Moscow. Nikon hoped that by making a preliminary condescension, he could escape trial by the Eastern Patriarchs and fend off their anticipated arrival in Moscow. But it was too late; the Eastern Patriarchs had long since been invited and were making preparations for their journey. However, a council of Russian prelates in early 1666 basically agreed to accommodate Nikon’s requests, but with some limitations. 1. His three monasteries they allotted him, but sixteen others that he had founded, or that were part of his patriarchal domain, were to be transferred to their local dioceses. 2. Nikon was not to ordain any clergy without the consent of the new patriarch. 3. Nikon was not to refer to himself as patriarch. 4. Nikon could only visit Moscow with the prior consensus of the tsar and new patriarch. Nikon of course had no choice except to accept the edicts of the council; he hoped that this would settle matters and circumvent the need for any further inquests.

115

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II 83. THE COUNCIL OF 1666 After Patr. Nikon’s departure from his cathedra, Tsar Aleksei took the matter of the reform into his own hands, but nothing of consequence occurred for eight more years. The tsar summoned Russian prelates to an ecclesiastical council on April 20, 1666, assured that now, after over 10 years of utilizing emended church service books, and performing rites as implemented by Nikon’s reform, they would support him to oppose and suppress the rebellious StaroVeri (Old Believers). Now that Nikon had sentenced himself to self-exile, the enmity of the prelates toward him passed into history. In order to gain a sure win with the support of prelates, Tsar Aleksei required of them a positive response to three preliminary questions: 1. Are the Eastern patriarchs orthodox? 2. Are the Greek books and manuscripts orthodox? 3. Did Nikon judge correctly at the council of 1654? Prior to this forthcoming council, all the Russian prelates gave a positive response on an individual basis. Tsar Aleksei and the prelates in their naiveté believed in their infallible authority, thinking that an ecclesiastical council, which would affirm Patr. Nikon’s reform, and subsequently anathematize those who not accept the reform, would actually turn this tide of dissension away from the old-believing Russian population, and would incline them to return to official Orthodoxy and accept the reforms. The tsar and prelates, however, did not guess the depth — or shallowness — of the mind of the general population, and this council eventually became a catalyst for further dissent. The tsar and prelates felt that now with Nikon in exile — the foremost antagonist who tactlessly dealt with his opponents — they could compromise, or come to some type of agreement, with the Old Believers’ opposition, but not yielding to them in any essential issue. But the opposition was more abysmal than they suspected, and which included an eschatological factor, because of which the council ended up just as caustic and tactless toward Old Believers as was Patr. Nikon toward his opponents, or even worse. Protopope Avvakum, deacon Feodor, monk Avraami, and nobleman Morozov, were recalled from exile to Moscow for the council. The other leaders of the opposition were invited to attend, and did: protopopes Neronov, Gerasim Firsov, Fioktist, Antoni, Nikita and Lazar. At the start of the council and in the presence of noblemen and other state officials, Tsar Aleksei addressed the opposition with a condescending speech, admonishing them for dissenting from the reform. His speech had some success,

116

The Era of the Patriarchate as Aleksandr Vyatski capitulated to the reform, and declared his withdrawal from the dissension, but this single act was insufficient to create a wave of returns. The opposition, invited to the council, was not accused for adhering to the earlier books and rites, but for publicly and vocally claiming that the Church was un-orthodox because of the reform, and for declaring the Eucharist and other rites now ineffective. But the tsar and prelates were unable to persuade the primary defenders of the ancient piety — Avvakum, Nikita, Lazar and Feodor — to abandon their opposition and reunite to sovereign Orthodoxy. The balance of Old Believers did assent to the reform: Neronov, Gerasim Firsov, Fioktist, Antoni, and Avraami. The council’s decision was to defrock the opposition leaders of their sacerdotal order, and again exile them. The sentence for heresy was read against Avvakum, Nikita and Feodor at Uspenski Cathedral, and they were excommunicated; the conviction of Lazar was the same but executed later. As Feodor was led out from the cathedral, he lifted his right hand with the two-finger arrangement and said to the attending crowd, “Brethren, for this truth do I suffer and die.” The four men were taken under arrest to the Nikolo-Ugreshski Monastery for confinement, not far outside Moscow. (The Russian chroniclers may have embellished deacon Feodor’s reaction, in order to identify him with Avvakum, whose final words prior to his execution by conflagration were similar.) This ecclesiastical council progressed from April to July 2, 1666, and essentially affirmed the emended church service books and the reformed rites as official, but they were careful and tactful enough not to condemn the old books and rites, which they had grown up with. The tsar and prelates wanted to curb any further dissension, and hoped that the opposition movement would eventually dissipate.

84. PSEUDO-METROPOLITAN PANTALEON LIGARID Pantaleon Ligarid was a transparent person whose subtlety was very apparent. He had high ambitions in the Russian Orthodox Church, which he hoped to attain once Nikon’s expulsion was finalized by the patriarchs. Ligarid was originally a student at the College of St. Athanasius in Rome, and was later sent as a missionary of the Unia to propagandize in Constantinople. From there he traveled to Walachia for a while, and thence to Palestine, where he was

117

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II ordained a metropolitan by Patr. Nektarius of Jerusalem. Later, after the patriarch discovered his Catholic roots, he was defrocked. Again Ligarid traveled to Walachia, where he learned to speak Russian, and thence to Kiev, and finally arriving in Moscow in February 1662. Ligarid was able to hide his Catholic past from the higher clergy, and was accepted into their circle based on his ordination as a metropolitan in Palestine. He was very valuable due to his fluency in both Greek and Russian, and no doubt Latin. It was by the counsel of Ligarid that Tsar Aleksei and the Boyar Duma decided to invite all the Eastern Patriarchs to Moscow for Nikon’s inquisition and trial, for his crimes against the Russian Orthodox Church. The difficulty for Ligarid was to somehow incline the patriarchs’ opinion against Patr. Nikon, since he had implemented Greek rites and traditions in the Russian Church up to the day of his resignation. Nikon had many supporters among Greek clergy, and the invitation by Ligarid to prosecute Nikon through judicial proceedings perplexed them. The Eastern Patriarchs first attempted to excuse themselves, offering as an excuse the hazards of traveling through Islamic-occupied areas. They also provided evidence that since Russian prelates had independently ordained Nikon as patriarch, they likewise could canonically expel him. This latter situation of ordaining and expelling patriarchs apparently occurred regularly in other Eastern Orthodox capitals, and which did not require the presence of other patriarchs. The matter of church reform, or the emendation of church service books, was the last thing on their mind, and of no real interest to them. The Eastern Patriarchs could not understand the absolute necessity of their presence in Moscow, but tsar and boyars — under the influence of Ligarid — felt such was necessary for a canonical expulsion of a patriarch, and a letter was sent on December 22, 1662. Money and other gifts were also sent to the patriarchs, as an inducement: to cover their expenses, as well as donations for their dioceses, but only Patr. Makarius of Antioch and Patr. Paisius of Alexandria agreed to attend. Ligarid’s intrigue was opposed by several Greeks who were living in Moscow at the time, and who arose to defend Patr. Nikon. One was Metr. Athanasius of Ikonisius, who regularly communicated by letter with Patr. Nikon. Noticing that the patriarchs were hesitant in making preparations to journey to Moscow, Ligarid decided to utilize his ties with his friends in Constantinople in order to acquire a special investiture to personally proceed with an inquisition and trial against Patr. Nikon. In 1663, his friends claimed they had been able to acquire from the patriarch of Constantinople, and on his behalf, an investiture

118

The Era of the Patriarchate equivalent to the plenipotentiary of an exarch. When the document arrived in Moscow, Russian Church prelates naively accepted it. The document led them to believe that Ligarid was now supreme inquisitor in the trial over Patr. Nikon. But the document was counterfeit, forged by Ligarid’s friends. On July 18, 1663, Ligarid and Archbishop Josef of Astrakhan delivered a letter to Patr. Nikon at his residence at Voskresenski Monastery, informing him of his official expulsion from his cathedra, including that of the priesthood entirely. Patr. Nikon held no illusions and reprimanded Ligarid right to his face, calling him a thief, un-Christian, an enemy of God, a dog, an imposter, and a commoner, and that he was an adventurer spiritually plundering every diocese he entered, and then denying it. Patr. Nikon denied the validity of Ligarid‘s authority and refused the codified expulsion. Prior to Ligarid leaving Nikon’s cloister, he was called — in addition to the above appellations — a pseudobishop, wolf, tramp, pig, and a new style of heretic. In 1664, Patr. Nektarius of Jerusalem protested against their intended trial of Patr. Nikon, because he saw no serious basis for it. He knew Ligarid well and considered him a rogue; any matter that involved Ligarid was suspicious to begin with. The successor of Nektarius, Patr. Dositheos, wrote a personal letter to Ligarid accusing him of dishonestly and intrigue in this matter. Patr. Dionysius III of Constantinople also relayed his opinion in a letter to the tsar, telling him that he would be better off if he was to restore Patr. Nikon to his cathedra. Dionysius’ successor to the cathedra of Constantinople was Patr. Parthenius. He took advantage of his primacy over the other patriarchs at this time, and threatened to remove both Patr. Makarius of Antioch and Patr. Paisius of Alexandria from their cathedras, because they allowed themselves to be deceived by the summons to travel to Moscow and went. Patr. Parthenius claimed that their reason for accepting the offer to travel to Moscow was for less than honorable reasons, hoping for gifts and contributions, just as the tsar had earlier done for patriarchs who had traveled to Moscow and fulfilled his wishes. As a result of Ligarid’s failure to unfrock Patr. Nikon, he began to disintegrate and weaken in the presence of the clergy in Moscow. Nikon’s friend, Metr. Athanasius of Ikonisius, came to his support again, and began to publicly declare Ligarid’s investiture as counterfeit, including his title of exarch. Tsar Aleksei was irritated at the accusations against Ligarid, and in January 1666, dispatched an agent to Patr. Dionysius in Constantinople to investigate the matter. The tsar’s agent, monk Savvi of Chudovski Monastery, discovered that when Ligarid’s supporters requested this plenipotentiary on his behalf, it was denied them.

119

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II Ligarid’s Catholic background was well known to the patriarch of Constantinople, and Ligarid was not at all recognized as Eastern Orthodox by the prelates of the region. Once the news reached Moscow, Tsar Aleksei was furious at both Ligarid and the thought of a scandal. Ligarid’s first impulse was to flee and he requested permission from Tsar Aleksei to leave; however he remained in Moscow some time longer.

85. THE COUNCIL OF 1666-1667: THE REFORM To ameliorate any impact that the scandal revolving about Ligarid could have on the trial of Patr. Nikon by the visiting patriarchs, Paisius of Alexandria and Makarius III of Antioch, Tsar Aleksei dispatched the Greek hierodeacon Meletius to greet them while they were still on their journey. By that time, they had already traversed the Caucasus Mountains and were in the area of Astrakhan. Meletius met with the two patriarchs, and asked them to ignore Ligarid, and informed them of the trouble he had caused to date with his tactless and unauthorized dealings with Patr. Nikon. The patriarchs assured Meletius that they were there to execute the tsar’s wishes, hoping for greater contributions and rewards on their departure. Patriarchs Paisius and Makarius arrived in Moscow on November 2, 1666, and were accepted with great honor. They were received as hopeful reconcilers by Russians prelates, although their minds were already filled with preconceived notions toward the issue. Ligarid surfaced again, now as interpreter for the patriarchs who spoke no Russian. The first matter that was to be dealt with was the reform that Patr. Nikon had instituted. Ligarid counseled with another Greek monk, Dionysius, formerly of Mt Athos, and now archimandrite of Iverski Monastery, who had now been living in Moscow since 1655. Between the two of them, they composed an outline refuting the Old Believers, which was presented to the Greek-only speaking patriarchs who had little knowledge, and even less concern, for the discord in the Russian Orthodox Church over rite and custom. The concept, as outlined by Ligarid and Dionysius, and presented to the patriarchs, was as follows: Russians are incapable of preserving Orthodoxy intact and pristine on their own. Ever since the fall of Constantinople — becoming independent of Eastern Orthodoxy — they have permitted novelties to replace the original traditions, such as the two-finger configuration, the double Hallelujah, the seven wafers, clock-wise procession of the cross, and

120

The Era of the Patriarchate other items. Now that communication with Greeks had been again reestablished, the opportunity and means to purge the Church of these novelties became available. Disregarding earlier generations’ practice of these rites and customs, the two-finger configuration was identified by Ligarid and Dionysius as Arian, Macedonian (a reference to the Paulicians), Sabellian and even Apollinarian. The double Hallelujah was identified with Hellenic polytheism, as well as Jewish and Islamic monotheism. Other Old Believer traditions became Lutheran and Calvinist. Archimandrite Dionysius affirmed that true Orthodoxy was being instituted under Tsar Aleksei, although Ligarid and Dionysius were not unaware of the fact that such identifications meant nothing to either clergy or laity, whether Reform or Old Believer. The main obstacle in validating the concept of Ligarid and Dionysius laid in the Hundred-Chapters Council of 1555. If the ancient rites and traditions were wrong, so were the edicts of this council, and the most venerated metropolitan of the era, Makari, would also have to be wrong. The conclusion of the Greek patriarchs, Paisius and Makarius, was that the elders, prelates and Metr. Makari, acted out of ignorance, when they authorized these rites at the Hundred-Chapters Council. The patriarchs then stated, that any person who would follow the out-dated rites and traditions would be considered heretic and subject to excommunication. Old Believers would likewise be subject to corporeal punishment by civil authorities, including exile, excision of the tongue, ears and nose, and torture, or incarceration until the end of their natural life. The council’s initial purpose of reconciling Old Believers only turned them into heretics and enemies of Orthodoxy, causing an irrecoverable and permanent division between them. This stuck a mortal blow against Orthodoxy, causing it to loose its effectiveness and respect among the Russian population. The leaders of the Old Believers labeled the council demon-possessed.

86. THE COUNCIL OF 1666-1667: PATRIARCH NIKON The next matter to be dealt with by the visiting Greek patriarchs was Patr. Nikon’s trial. They were likewise counseled on this matter by translators Ligarid and Dionysius, who related to the visiting patriarchs their own personal opinion of Patr. Nikon, and their list of his crimes against the Russian Orthodox Church.

121

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II The first meeting of the council was held on December 1, 1666. When Patr. Nikon arrived from his Voskresenski Monastery to the Moscow Kremlin, he initially wanted to attend services at Uspenski Cathedral, but they closed the doors as he was approaching. He then walked over to Blago-Veschenski Cathedral, but was refused entrance. When Patr. Nikon walked up to the council chamber doors, he was ordered to wait outside. When he was finally allowed in, he was respectfully greeted and offered a seat next to Tsar Aleksei. Annoyed, Nikon refused the offer and told them he would prefer to stand during the proceedings, and which he did for almost eight hours. The tsar then arose, walked over to the table where the patriarchs sat and, while standing, he read his accusations against Patr. Nikon: 0 1. Arbitrary desertion of the patriarchate. 2. Disgrace of the tsar. 3. Discredit of the Monastery Regulation and the tsar’s involvement in ecclesiastical affairs. 4. Discredit of the Russian Church, by claiming its acceptance of various Catholic dogmas. 5. Other minor offences. The second meeting was held December 3; Nikon did not attend. The tsar and Russian prelates testified that Nikon had labeled them heretics. The third meeting was December 5, and Nikon was invited. The prosecuting patriarchs questioned him about his voluntary resignation from his cathedra, and the entire session was a drawn-out futile debate between Nikon and the patriarchs, the former attempting to blur their vision by leading them on tangents away from the matter at hand. At the conclusion of the meeting, the two patriarchs stated that Patr. Nikon was to be deprived of his cathedra, as well as the priesthood, and that he was to remain for the future in the capacity of a simple monk. December 8, was a secret meeting between the tsar and the visiting patriarchs, as to how to conclude the trial. On December 12, the patriarchs and prelates attired themselves in their formal vestments, and departed to a church at Chudovski Monastery. Then they relocated to the Small Chapel over the entrance gate at Chudovski Monastery, where the meeting was held. Tsar Aleksei decided not to attend, but in his stead he sent two representatives, who coincidentally happened to be Nikon’s personal enemies: Odoyevski and Saltikov. Although Nikon was invited, he was ini-

122

The Era of the Patriarchate tially requested to wait in the lobby, and then was requested to enter. Not everyone attended willingly. Archbishop Semeon of Vologda pretended to be ill, but he was brought under coercion, wrapped up in a rug. So there, in the corner of the church, did he lie on the floor, weeping over the unjust expulsion of Nikon. Forced to subscribe to the conviction, he added words to the document, “If this is true let it be. If it is not truth, I do not affirm it.” At the chapel, the verdicts of the trial were read aloud, first in Greek and then in Russian. The crimes of Patr. Nikon included the following: 0 1. He irritated the Great Sovereign by involving himself in matters that did not pertain to his patriarchal cathedra or investiture. 2. He voluntarily denied the patriarchate and deserted his flock, not acting in the fashion of a prelate. 3. He founded monasteries with illegitimate names: New Jerusalem, Golgotha, Bethlehem, Jordan. 4. He magnified himself while patriarch at the New Jerusalem Monastery, criminally appropriating property for his own patrimony. 5. He would not permit the ordination of a new patriarch in Moscow. 6. He excommunicated bishops without reason or inquest; he discredited two bishops, by calling one Annas and the other Caiaphas, and discredited two noblemen, by calling one Herod and the other Pilate. 7. He presented himself at the trial arrogantly, derided the visiting patriarchs and Greek canons. He claimed the Orthodox Church had apostatized into Catholic dogma. 8. He did not show Episcopal humility when disciplining priests, but acted ruthlessly. 0 As a result of all the above crimes, the patriarchs present sentenced him with the deprivation of his omophorium and stole, interdicted him from every sacerdotal activity, and declared that he was no longer to be titled Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, but referred to as a simple monk. Nikon was sentenced to a life term in exile at a designated monastery, where he was to continuously carry out penance and weep over his sins. A prelate, who was personally ordained by Patr. Nikon in earlier years, read the Russian translation, but Nikon interrupted him, “All the crimes noted are false and slander.” He shouted back at Nikon, “Murderer, adulterer, thief!” Nikon withheld himself from further outburst until the document was read in its entirety. Then the patriarchs ordered servants to remove from Nikon his cowl, but he answered in remonstrance, “Why are you ordering them to remove my cowl?” 123

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II One of them answered, “Because the council has sentenced you, and your actions have convicted you, and you are no longer worthy to be called patriarch, because you in your pride abandoned your flock with an oath.” Nikon reprimanded them, “Although this council has unjustly convicted me, although my activities — which did not occur as you have concluded — refute me, nonetheless, I will retain my monastic-sacerdotal vestment to the end of my life. You can do whatever you want, because you are just visitors here; you have come from distant countries and from the ends of the earth, not to do good or initiate peace, but you have come from Ottoman captivity as beggars, worrying only about yourselves, and to get money to use as tribute to the Turks. I ask of you, where did you find these laws to so boldly conduct yourselves here? And even if I was guilty and worthy of conviction, why are you executing this trial in secret like thieves? You have brought me into this monastery chapel; the tsar is not present, not any of his council, and not any residents of the vast multitudes of the land of Russia. Did I receive my flock and my shepherd’s rod by the grace of the Holy Spirit in this chapel? Truly, I built this very chapel. But I, by the selection of the all-holy Spirit, by the wishes and sincere tearful request of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich, after his awesome oath — witnessed by God Himself — accepted the patriarchate at the cathedral church publicly before large crowds. And if you now want to justly convict me and expel me, let us go to the church where I accepted the Shepherd’s rod, and if I am found worthy of your conviction, then there do what you want.” “Whether it’s here or there it’s all the same,” replied the Eastern patriarchs, “All has been executed with the counsel of the tsar and an assembly of prelates.” After his sentence was fully read, Nikon was ordered to approach the patriarchs. Patr. Makarius of Antioch personally removed from Nikon his cowl with the pearl cross, and the valuable panegia impregnated with diamonds, and gave him a simple monk’s cowl to wear, and repeated the final text of the sentence regarding his exile. Because of Ottoman occupation of the Eastern Patriarchs’ ecclesiastical domains, Nikon spoke again to deride their conduct, “Since you are aliens and captives, then divide the valuables among yourselves. Perhaps you might be able to buy some time of consolation with it.” But they allowed Nikon to keep his bishop’s mantle and staff. Nikon subjected himself stoically to the humiliation, but at the end — just prior to being led out of the chapel — he was unable to restrain a backlash at the patriarchs to vent his contempt. The record is vague as to his actual statement, only noting that it was uncomplimentary. He was then requested to leave the church.

124

The Era of the Patriarchate Fearing a popular revolt, no announcement was made at the Kremlin of Nikon’s expulsion and exile. But during his exit from the chapel, prelates accompanied Nikon — and especially archimandrite Sergei of Spasso-Yaroslavski Monastery — and they cried over the scene, while Royal Guards were ordered to remove anybody who would show sympathy to Nikon. Tsar Aleksei refused to show his presence as Nikon was leaving, but he sent an official, his uncle Rodion Streshnev, with money and warm clothing for Nikon. “Take this back to the person who sent it. Nikon needs none of this,” shouted Nikon at Streshnev. But he feared returning the money and clothing to the tsar, and pressed on Nikon to take them, and he finally did, but refused to give gratitude for it. Nikon remained in custody at Chudovski Monastery for a few days until arrangements were finalized for his exile.

87. THE COUNCIL OF 1666-1667: CHURCH-STATE RELATIONSHIP The next issue to be resolved after Nikon’s trial and sentence was completed was the relationship between church and state, between tsar and patriarch. Nikon had promoted a theocratic position where the Church had the supremacy, while the state was subject to it. As with many other ideas and activities of Nikon, this issue as defined by him was likewise accepted and defended by Russian prelates in general; what they did not like was Nikon’s tactless and arrogant conduct in implementing it. Russian prelates favored the theocratic position, since it allowed them greater independence from imperial jurisdiction and greater autonomy, even though most of them could not theologically debate the issue, as opposed to the traditional Eastern Orthodox stance. As a result, officials of the tsar naturally evolved into the role of prosecutors of Nikon, while Russian prelates became advocates of theocracy. The legislation of the Monastery Ordinance of 1649 was at stake here, which was ignored by Russian prelates as a result of the theocratic — or theo-despotic — concept of Nikon. The primary prosecutor of the theocratic concept of Nikon was Feodor Trofimov, secretary of the committee that composed the Monastery Ordinance in 1649. He accused the prelates of capitalizing on the concept of theocracy to gain authority and independence, in order to abuse it. Trofimov in a report to the tsar, recorded the names of several prelates who incorporated Nikon’s views into their cathedra: Archbishop Kornili of Riazan, and Bishops Semeon of Siberia and Illarion of Tobolsk, and Metr. Lavrenti of Kazan. One other person of note, who

125

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II in earlier generations also promoted Nikon’s same concepts, was Archbishop Kiprian of Novgorod; he referred to himself as lord-metropolitan, and had several recorded altercations with state officials in regard to this matter in his diocese. Tsar Aleksei, having defeated Nikon using the authority of the Eastern Patriarchs, hoped to likewise squash this spirit of autonomy that seemed to prevail among Nikon’s supporters. Fortunately, the tsar had written a letter to the patriarchs requesting from them a resolution regarding the mutual relationship between tsar and patriarch. The Greeks took the matter seriously, and began to develop a reply with the help of their own consultants, as well as their translators Ligarid and Dionysius. This is the reason the resolution provided at the sessions of the council in January of 1667 reflect profound thinking and research, and which doctrine in its final state was concretely formulated. The patriarchs were, surprisingly, in consensus in principal areas with the state ideology that prevailed during the composition of the Monastery Ordinance. The Eastern Orthodox concept of theocracy could not be merged with the western Catholic concept of the same without major difficulty. The Eastern patriarchs stated that, “The tsar was the sole legislator of all civil matters, and that the patriarch was subject to the tsar’s authority, who is installed on a higher position than the patriarch. The tsar is the avenger of God on any person who opposes civil affairs or the legislation of the tsar. No one has the freedom to oppose the tsar’s statutes, because he is the law. For this reason, even if a person is a representative of the religion, even the patriarch himself, or any lower clergyman, and resists, let him fear the threat of punishment because he has acted improperly.” The perfect mutual relationship between church and state expressed at the council included a portion of a letter written by Pope Gregory II to Emperor Leo III Isarian, which was read. “Does the emperor know that dogmas of the holy church do not pertain to the emperor, but to the prelates whose responsibility is to safely dogmatize. For this reason prelates are entrusted to the church, and they do not meddle in matters of government over the people, restraining themselves from national affairs, that is, imperial matters. While the emperor must not intervene in ecclesiastical affairs, but should involve himself in what was entrusted to him. A symphony of Christ-loving emperors and pious prelates comprise one authority, when their affairs are directed with peace in love.”

Although the ideal relationship was declared at the council, the actual practice throughout Eastern Orthodoxy, including Russia, has been the church’s subjection to the imperial sovereign.

126

The Era of the Patriarchate There were only four Russian prelates who raised their voices against the edicts of the Eastern Patriarchs: Metr. Pavel of Krutitzk who was also patriarchal-regent, Archbishop Illarion of Riazan, Bishop Semeon of Vologda, and Metr. Stefan of Suzdal. These men were very upset and troubled over the decisions of the patriarchs. Pavel of Krutitzk and Illarion of Riazan, deep into the January night, clandestinely went to the residence of the patriarchs, and poured out their grievances and sorrow to them. They hoped to rouse the patriarchs to their concern about coercion and oppression by imperial officials, and having to endure the pressure of imperial authority. The patriarchs, they said, should be more considerate of the plight of the Russian clergy. Under a pious tsar, they said to the patriarchs, all could be tolerable, but what should occur if the tsar is impious? The visiting patriarchs did not disagree in theory with Pavel and Illarion, but they did not want to involve themselves in the political drama. By opposing Tsar Aleksei’s preconceived expectations from the patriarchs on this issue, they were afraid they would lose donations on their departure. The final meeting of the patriarchs and prelates was held January 24, 1667, which was to conclude the debate regarding the relationship between church and state. Metr. Pavel and Archbishop Illarion were required to stay outside the chamber during the concluding discussion. The final formulation agreed by the patriarchs was the declaration, “This address is the conclusion of this matter. The tsar has the pre-eminence in imperial matters, while the patriarch in ecclesiastical, in order for the church as an institution to be preserved whole and steadfast, and in harmony for ever.” All those attending agreed to the declaration. Then the two opposing prelates — Pavel and Illarion — were then brought into the meeting chamber, because they still subscribed to Nikon’s convictions. The patriarchs announced the general consensus of the attendees to the declaration to the two prelates, and Patr. Paisius further explained, “Adherents of Nikon and the papacy attempt to destroy the state and elevate the priesthood high.” This projectile was aimed straight at these two Russian prelates, which offended them and so prevented them from adding their consent to the council proceedings. Pavel and Illarion, not wanting to make matters worse, decided silence was the best rebuttal. They realized that they were not allowed into the council until after a general consensus was reached as a preconceived ruse. As a result of what the patriarchs interpreted as insubordination and obstinacy, they imposed an interdict upon the pair and forbid them from further performance of rite and liturgy. The two broke out in tears, and Metr. Pavel, who was patri-

127

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II archal-regent, was swiftly replaced by Metr. Theodosius, a Greek, selected at the meeting and simultaneously ordained.

88. PATRIARCH NIKON'S CONCLUDING YEARS A few days after his sentencing, Nikon Minin was taken to Therapontov Monastery, north of Moscow near Beloye Ozero (White Lake). December of that year, 1666, was especially harsh in the north. The inmate was confined first to a small private cell in the infirmary, with steel grating over the window. Nikon was forbidden to leave his cell, and a sentry was placed at the door. He was forbidden to even converse with anyone; a very strict regimen was assigned him. Nikon recorded in his memoirs that the cell stunk, and was black from the soot of smoke because of poor heating from a stove. Nikon reflected on his career as patriarch in his memoirs, written at Therapontov Monastery. He wrote: God knows that I did not ruin the church by clothing its ministers with luxurious vestments, but I enriched and elevated it. There was never any complaint against the patriarchal cathedral, and the amount of real estate, businesses, fisheries and forests that it possessed. I almost doubled the number of serfs as property of the holy church. The servants of the Antichrist wrote in their criminal [Monastery] Ordinance, that it is wrong for prelates and patriarchs to increase their real estate holdings, but during my [cathedra], not only were the noblemen and princes of the royal family not bold enough to refuse the church real estate donations, on behalf of a deceased person, but the tsar himself, on every great holiday, bequeathed land in violation of his own Ordinance. Money and valuables poured into the church’s treasury and vestry like a river. I called upon all Orthodox adherents to contribute for churches and monasteries, and my pleas did not go unanswered. True, prelates and monks did moan, because it was as though I took away their property and routed it to the benefit of the patriarchal cathedra. But this was justifiable for me to have done, because just as in a realm, state property transcends in importance the private property of its subjects, so in the church, the cathedra of the supreme pastor is obligated to stand on a firm footing. In addition to the state treasury, Moscovite tsars also possessed family feudal estates and principalities which they personally supervised, being the wealthiest people in the country. Almost in desolate places, I created a similar basis for patriarchal majesty: the monasteries dear to my heart: Krestnoi, Iverski, and the greatest of them all, Voskresenski, the New Jerusalem. Not understanding my intentions, prelates whined — those whose monasteries I appropriated funds from; priests whined at the vast income deposited in my treasury. The Old Believers declared me a wolf; [they said] I made feudal princes weep, ruined their monasteries, and tortured simple serfs with difficult burdens. But it was not this way at all! On a desolate, rocky island, I began building Krestnoi Hermitage using state funds, not withdrawing anything from ecclesiasti-

128

The Era of the Patriarchate cal accounts. I myself, with my own labors, gathered necessary funds, and built domiciles apart from the patriarchal resident, beginning with the consecration of the church.

Nikon’s imbalanced justification for his ecclesiastical megalomania is hard to refute, due to the blind conviction in his divine summons to magnify the patriarchal cathedra, even if at the expense and sacrifice of others. In January 1667, Nikon wrote to Tsar Aleksei, arrogantly demanding his release, but there was no response. After a year in such confinement, during Easter of 1668, Nikon agreed to recite a blessing on the tsar. To break his fast after Lent, Nikon drank to the health of the tsar’s family. Tsar Aleksei was bothered by the severity of the results of the sentence on Nikon, and so he ordered the monastery to relocate Nikon to a new cell inside the monastery, and that he would be allowed to associate with the monks residing there, and even with pilgrims. Nikon’s malicious and personal enemies were opposed to such an amelioration allowed by the tsar. To settle the matter of Nikon’s regimen, the tsar summoned a meeting with the new patriarch, Joasaf II, and the two Eastern Patriarchs still residing in Moscow. The prelates’ conclusion was to exile Nikon to a monastery further away and more remote, into the far north. Tsar Aleksei and his sister Tatyanna Mikhailovna — who still highly respected Nikon — opposed the measure. Nikon’s enemies slandered him by calling him a traitor, and spread a rumor that he was involved with Stenka Razin, who had recently started a rebellion in the Ukraine among the Cossacks of the Don. As a result of their rumor, Nikon was again incarcerated, and this time in a dungeon. In early 1672, Nikon wrote to Tsar Aleksei, “Now I am sick, naked, and bare-footed; my cell is bare, and I suffer from scurvy. My hands hurt and I cannot lift my left arm. I have developed cataracts on my eyes from the soot and smoke. I bleed from my gums. My mouth cannot endure anything hot or cold or sour. My legs are swollen. The guards neither sell anything to me, nor will they allow me to buy anything. I have no visitors and there is no one from whom I can beg charity.” Tsar Aleksei wanted to ease the plight of the suffering Nikon, but he could not accomplish it in Moscow. The tsar then contacted Patr. Parthenius of Constantinople, and requested him to act as an arbitrator in regard to reducing the severity of the sentence against Nikon. The plan worked, and during the summer of 1672, Nikon was permitted out of his cell, allowed to walk about the monastery grounds, read books without censure, and handle his own personal affairs. Nikon was moved out of the dungeon and into a large cloister, where he was per-

129

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II mitted to receive visitors, pray for the sick and distribute charity. After Nikon adapted to the new regimen and proved himself no threat, Tsar Aleksei began to consider his transfer to his Voskresenski Monastery, but Nikon’s enemies feared what would happen if he returned from exile and was again in the public’s eye. One of Nikon’s enemies became patriarch in 1674, Joakim Savelov. Once ascending the cathedra, he ordered Nikon’s return to the dungeon, and his earlier austere regimen to again be assigned him. Nikon became bitter and wrote complaints to Moscow. Again he demanded their recognition of him as patriarch, and declared the trial illegal and uncanonical, but all of this was to no avail. Prior to his death on January 29, 1676, Tsar Aleksei wrote a last will and testament, and requested forgiveness from Nikon stating, “From my spiritual father, great lord, reverend Nikon, bishop and blessed pastor, although he no longer sits upon his cathedra, if it be the will of God I ask for forgiveness and absolution.” Tsar Aleksei also included in his testament, a request for Nikon to be reinstated as patriarch, which request was posthumously granted by his son, Tsar Feodor Alekseevich. Nikon wept when he was informed of Tsar Aleksei’s death and the contents of his last will and testament, especially the request for forgiveness, but he would not provide a written absolution, because Tsar Aleksei did not liberate him from exile while he was still alive and had the opportunity. Nikon’s regimen became worse. Having the support of other prelates Patr. Joakim raised a clamor about the conduct of Nikon at a periodical ecclesiastical council in May of 1676. He felt it necessary to supplement the sentence with additional measures, as a result of Nikon’s lack of penance and his additional crimes against the church. The list of new crimes included the following items: 1. Nikon continues to call himself patriarch. 2. He beats the servants and monks. 3. He seldom attends church. 4. He does not pray for the tsar and [new] patriarch. 5. He does not conduct himself in the proper manner as a monk should. 6. Forty days after the death of Tsar Aleksei [at his memorial service], Nikon became extremely inebriated. 7. He poisoned people with bad medicine. 8. He shot at a bird which was dragging away his fish. 0

130

The Era of the Patriarchate Their sentence was an order for Nikon to be transferred to Kirill BelOzerski Monastery, just a few miles away, to there be incarcerated and perform penance. Nikon was transferred according to the order, and confined in a sooty and smoky cell. He was not allowed out of the cell, except to attend church services, and he was not permitted any visitors and deprived of pen and paper. Nikon remained incarcerated under these conditions for four years, until some amelioration was permitted. Tatyanna Mikhailovna, sister of the late Tsar Aleksei, along with a group of new supporters in Moscow, petitioned on his behalf, including the brethren of Nikon’s Voskresenski Monastery. Tsar Feodor Alekseevich, now 20 years old, was also inclined to assist Nikon in his plight. (Feodor was born in 1661, three years after the resignation of Nikon.) Tsar Feodor presented this request to a council of prelates in 1681, and some of them responded affirmatively. Patr. Joakim was absolutely against it — fearing for the security of his own cathedra — and disregarded all the arguments of Tsar Feodor. Then the young tsar turned to the Eastern Patriarchs for their support, to acquire a pardon for Nikon. There was, however, insufficient time for the Eastern Patriarchs to decide on the matter, because once they received the request, news arrived from Kirill Monastery that Nikon was seriously ill. Finally, Tsar Feodor decided to utilize imperial authority, and ordered the removal of Nikon from Kirill BelOzerski and his transfer to Voskresenski Monastery. Nikon left his place of confinement and journeyed down the Volga River by boat. On the morning of August 16, 1681, when he awoke, he felt especially weak from his illness, and asked that the boat stop at Tolg Monastery of the Immaculate Theotokos, about four miles south of Yaroslav. He received communion from archimandrite Nikita of Kirill Bel-Ozerski Monastery, who was accompanying him. Nikon’s disciples, and admirers who accompanied him, wiped away their tears, as they watched the disgraced patriarch draw closer to his death. Archimandrite Sergei of Spasso-Yaroslavski Monastery arrived at the boat and begged Nikon in tears for forgiveness for his part in his trial. Nikon, now on his deathbed, humbly forgave his former antagonist. Patr. Nikon Minin died there August 17, 1681. Tsar Feodor ordered that Nikon be buried as though he was still patriarch, disregarding the protests of Patr. Joakim. The tsar himself — although not personally knowing Nikon in his lifetime — carried the coffin of Nikon to his grave, and kissed the hands of the deceased. Nikon was memorialized as patriarch in a eulogy given by Metr. Kornili of Novgorod. The decision of the Eastern Patriarchs regarding the pardon of Nikon was received in 1682, the

131

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II following year they posthumously returned him to the roster of Russian patriarchs, and granted him a pardon.

89. PATRIARCH JOASAF II Joasaf was recognized in earlier years by Patr. Nikon as an exceptional and competent prelate. He was ordained by Nikon as archimandrite of Vladimir Rozhdestvennoi Monastery in 1654, and then promoted him as archimandrite of the famous Troitse-Sergievski Monastery in 1656, where he resided until ordained as patriarch. The ministry of Joasaf at Sergievski was noticed by Tsar Aleksei, after Russian defeat of the Poles which was, he felt, the result of a three day fast and prayer by the brethren at Sergievski. Tsar Aleksei also attributed his victories over Slavic populations in Ukraine and Belarus to miraculous intervention, with the credit due archimandrite Joasaf and the brethren at Sergievski. Exhausted from the long and extensive struggle with Patr. Nikon, Tsar Aleksei and Russian prelates selected a patriarch on January 31, 1667, as a replacement to Nikon. They especially needed a candidate who was not tainted by any of the quarrels, and who, as a result of his old age, was not directly involved with the recent councils. Joasaf was a candidate whom the tsar felt would be no threat to his authority, and who would not meddle in state affairs, but would dedicate his energy toward the recovery of the Church after an eight year interval without an active or recognized patriarch. The cautious tsar avoided metropolitans and bishops, and rather selected the eldest and highestranking of archimandrites, and who was also non-pretentious, as successor to Nikon. The 76-year-old elder, Joasaf, was ordained patriarch of Moscow and all Russia on February 10, 1667, and he accepted the fifth position beneath the other Eastern Patriarchs. To Joasaf’s initiative belongs the decree of icon artistry according to the Byzantine tradition, and abandonment of the European style of art that had migrated into Russia. What former Patr. Nikon had attempted and failed to accomplish, was implemented by his successor, and this decree underscored the conservative course of the church. To Patr. Joasaf can also be attributed the return of ecclesiastical preaching and delivery of sermons, which had desisted soon after the withdrawal of Patr. Nikon. Missionary effort was promoted by Patr. Joasaf, and expansion of Russian Orthodoxy spread to the far north to the Novaya Zemlya islands in the Arctic Ocean, and to as far east as Lake Baikal.

132

The Era of the Patriarchate Spasski Monastery was founded in 1671, along the Amur River, near the unstable border with Chin Dynasty China. Other notable accomplishments of the cathedra of Patr. Joasaf were more reprints, and new prints, of books by the State Printing House, which utilized the talented services of monks and scholars recruited by Patr. Nikon. The books of Semeon Polotzki were published, along with the Large Catechism and Small Catechism in 1667, the Tsvetnaya Triod in 1670, and the Postnaya Triod in 1672 (Festive and Fast-day Three-hymn books, respectively). Patr. Joasaf also extended kindness to Pantaleon Ligarid, since he had been again expelled from Orthodoxy, now by Patr. Nektarius of Jerusalem. In a letter, Joasaf informed Nektarius of the benefit that Ligarid had provided the Russian Church since his arrival, which should suffice for Nektarius’ forgiveness and blessing. Ligarid’s actual pardon arrived only after a contribution of gold was delivered on his behalf to Patr. Dositheos, successor to Nektarius, but which only lasted two months. Ligarid was again excommunicated, now by Dositheos in 1671, and an embarrassed Joasaf died before seeing Russia rid of him. Joasaf’s primary effort was directed to implementing the decrees of the Great Council of 1666-1667, especially replacing old church service books with new ones. To express his gratitude to Joasaf for establishing a relative harmony in the Russian Orthodox Church, Tsar Aleksei rescinded on the Monastery Ordinance of 1649, and returned to Russian prelates the privileges they possessed prior to its legislation. The total liquidation of the Monastery Ordinance occurred a few years later in 1677. Joasaf held the cathedra nine years, until his death on February 17, 1672.

90. PATRIARCH PITIRIM Having acquired greater experience in his rule and realm, Tsar Aleksei extended his control over the Russian Orthodox Church, and so selected another aged prelate as successor to the cathedra. Pitirim was earlier metropolitan of Krutitzk, and subsequently assigned to the temporary position of patriarchal-regent in 1658, after the resignation of Patr. Nikon, but later was reassigned to Novgorod as metropolitan, where he remained until the death of Patr. Joasaf. Turbulent events in Russian Orthodoxy since the withdrawal of Nikon in 1658, and his reprisals and obduracy, played havoc with the relationship of

133

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II prelates with a vacant patriarchal cathedra, and especially Pitirim. Nikon in 1661 had pronounced anathema on patriarchal-regent Pitirim. The spread of Nikon’s anathema through Moscow had a devastating effect on Pitirim, as well as vexing Tsar Aleksei. Pitirim was then reassigned as metropolitan of Novgorod, while Metr. Job of Rostov became patriarchal-agent. The health of Pitirim never improved, and because the favorite monasteries of Nikon fell in his episcopate, the harassment continued. In June 1672, Pitirim composed his Last Will and Testament, expecting to expire, and proceeded to reconcile with his adversaries, and petitioned forgiveness from others. However on July 17, 1672, four months after the death of Patr. Joasaf, the frail and morose Pitirim was ordained patriarch. A dedicated person, and unpretentious, Pitirim immediately magnified the royal family, identifying Tsar Aleksei with Constantine the Great and Grand Prince Vladimir. But the cathedra of Pitirim was short lived — only 10 months — and he passed away on April 17, 1672.

91. CAUSES OF THE SCHISM It was not unusual during the 17th century for a parish, or several of them, or even the entire diocese, to corporately refuse to subject themselves to the bishop, and this occurred on several occasions. They strived to liberate themselves, not only from the payment of tribute, but from the Episcopal Court. Such parish priests also harbored a dormant disinclination toward the Russian Orthodox episcopacy, having an attitude of independence and wanting self-government in ecclesiastical matters. But it was not only the lower clergy, who sought independence from the episcopacy, serfs and peasants wanted the same. This cold attitude toward the episcopacy was accompanied by disobedience, opposition to ecclesiastical authority, and in general distrust and disrespect of prelates. The lower classes of Russian society sought for complete freedom from the authority of prelates. In various areas, especially in Pskov and Novgorod, open revolts of the peasantry surfaced against the Episcopal Courts and ecclesiastical government. The seeds of a massive dissent of the rural population from Russian Orthodoxy were already sown, and it was Part. Nikon who caused it to sprout and flourish. The areas of concern, between the reformers and the traditionalists, would appear to be rather moot and minor to the average Christian, but to the typical

134

The Era of the Patriarchate Russian, whether noble or serf, the concern was of greater magnitude. In regard to ritual, there are five issues which the Old Believers considered vital to the ancient piety. 1. The Eucharist was celebrated by Russians with seven wafers, while Greeks with 5. 2. The word Hallelujah was repeated twice by Russians, while thrice by Greeks. 3. The procession of the cross was performed against the sun (clock-wise) around the church by Russians, while according to sun (counter clockwise) by Greeks. 4. In making the sign of the cross, Russians held the index finger and middle finger erect with the latter slightly crossed, while the thumb, ring and little fingers were together. The Greeks held the thumb, index and middle fingers erect with the ring and little fingers down. 5. The word Jesus was spelled Iisus by Russians, and Isus by Greeks. To understand the reason of the importance applied to the trivialities of rites, the observer must view the tenacity of the traditional priest, noble and serf, in the light of their superstitious attitude toward the efficacy of liturgy. The inherent paganism of ancient and rural Russia was projected into Orthodox rites by both priest and parishioner. The effectiveness or efficacy of the rite depended, as far as both priest and parishioner were concerned, with its precise and correct performance, and especially the recitation of words, in the manner they were defined by the ancient fathers. To alter the rite or tradition would deprive it of its efficacy and this was considered sacrilege to the superstitious mind, plus it deviated from what they considered Russian. In addition, adopting Greek rites and customs was a capitulation to the Greeks, who lost their capital and land to the infidel Turks — Islam — due to God’s disgrace toward them. The reform was understood by the simple mind of the uneducated classes of Russian as an alteration, it was abandoning the ancient piety they received from their holy forefathers, and to alter the rite or tradition meant that the favor or blessing of God would now be removed from Russia. There is a second aspect of the schism that played an equally important role of the traditionalists to refuse acceptance of Patr. Nikon’s reforms, or the newly-published emended church service books, and this was a political issue. This defensive attitude of the subjects of Russian Orthodoxy stems back to the early eras, when the population was compelled into conversion by coercion or threats of violence. This humiliation of serfs was carried over into the later era by 135

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II the institution of ecclesiastical patrimony. The serfs were now, not only subjects, but also the church’s property, due to the church’s ownership of the land. In one respect, their refusal to submit to the reforms was a ruse to rebel against what they felt as excessive and intolerable mis-use of ecclesiastical authority. As Miliukov described it: During the 17th century, prior to the schism, the lower clergy on several occasions, and even the clergy of an entire diocese, or several dioceses in the same province, would not subject themselves to the archbishop, wanting to liberate themselves from the payment of duty and tribute as required by ecclesiastical law, as well as free themselves from the Episcopal courts. Contempt grew over the centuries between the parish clergy and the prelates of Russian Orthodoxy to the point of intolerance. The parish clergy strove toward independence from the ruthless jurisdiction of diocesan authority, and the cathedra of both metropolitan and later the patriarch. The serfs living on ecclesiastical patrimony also felt the archbishop’s heavy hand upon them, and they waited for an opportunity to overthrow this yoke of ecclesiastical servitude. The primary effect of the domination of ecclesiastical prelates over serfs and peasants was the development of the latter’s indifference toward the church; the corruption of parish clergy followed after. Had the opportunity been available, parish clergy would have risen to a higher level of morality and competency, but they felt themselves as victims of prelates, who took advantage of the parishes to accumulate wealth and property.

The schism was primarily political: the rise of serfs and parish clergy against the despotism of the patriarchate and episcopacy, and it rallied around the religious banner of preserving the ancient piety. The rallying point of the ancient piety, as promoted by protopope Avvakum and his confederates, was the arrangement of fingers when performing the sign of the cross. According to the traditional account, when Avvakum was ready to be burned at the stake, as the soldiers were starting the fire, he held up his right hand in the traditional arrangement, and said, “For this do I endeavor.” The ecclesiastical upheaval of the era had a profound effect on the individual Old Believer, the dissenter from official Russian Orthodoxy, by changing his attitude toward religion and his purpose in his life. As Kostomarov relates: In ancient Russia people thought little of religion, it interested them little. The dissenter, on the other hand, thought of nothing but religion. The interest of his entire religious life was concentrated on it. In ancient Russia, liturgy was a soulless maneuver and lackadaisically performed. The dissenter sought in it meaning, and strove to the extent he could, religiously and precisely. In ancient Russia, literacy was rare. The dissenter taught himself to read, and attempted to become knowledgeable. In ancient Russia, absence of opinion reigned, and an unquestioned subjection to authority prevailed. The dissenter loved to think and debate; the dissenter was not content with the command by some authoritative figure to believe in a certain manner, or pray in a certain manner, to accept something because that’s the way it is. The dissenter has his personal conscience to judge all demands; the dis-

136

The Era of the Patriarchate senter attempted to ascertain and investigate everything. It would be unjust to blame him, or laugh at him, because his conclusions and resolutions often were absurd or infantile, since he was deprived of pedagogic guidance. He entered this path already bearing prejudice or bias, which was ingrained into him. He needed to clear the path of obstacles. Regardless of indications of delusion that he might incur in the schism, he had to develop the motivation to exit darkness — mental immobility — and endeavor toward self-education.

These traditionalists referred to themselves as Staro-Veri (Old Believers), or sometimes as Staro-Obradtzi (Old Ritualists). They first defended their right of personal opinion, for example, when they were reprimanded by the patriarch in a publicly addressed sermon for not obeying the archbishops. They declared in response that the archbishop had no dignity if he should corrupt the religion, which makes him an apostate. The Old Believers hoped to find a defense in the civil government, but they were quickly disenchanted, as Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich took the side of the reformers. Soon after, the tsar’s soldiers began persecution against Old Believers, and the latter turned against Tsar Aleksei. The ecclesiastical council held in 1666 subjected the dissenters, not only to ecclesiastical punishment via the Episcopal court, but also to imperial or civil law and punishment. As a result of this, Old Believers withdrew into the wilderness; they abandoned the metropolis of Moscow, and other cities, and migrated into the villages. Here the local parish priests sundered ties with the bishops, and vowed to preserve the ancient piety, and colonies of Old Believers were formed.

92. PROTOPOPE AVVAKUM PETROVICH AND HIS CONFEDERATES The primary theologian of the Priest group was Avvakum Petrovich, who defined Old Believers belief in his treatise, which he titled, Eternal Gospel. He stated that his book was composed not by himself, but by the finger of God. According to Avvakum, the Old Believers accepted the Holy Trinity, that it was defined as three-essences: that it could be divided into three equal essences, but was the sole source of deity. Jesus Christ sat on a throne co-reigning with the Holy Trinity, and that he was a special God. Avvakum acknowledged the incarnation, but at the crucifixion, the soul of Christ ascended to heaven, while the body of Christ descended to hell. Avvakum defined the human soul as material. Avvakum was exiled to Tobolsk in Siberia by Tsar Aleksei in late 1653, to rescue him from Patr. Nikon’s vengeance. In 1656, he was transferred from Tobolsk to Yeniseisk Monastery, north of Krasnoyarsk in Siberia. Avvakum was 137

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II recalled from Yeniseisk in 1663, and he returned to Moscow the following year, after 11 years of absence. His release was gained by noblemen who were still sympathetic to the old traditions. Tsar Aleksei held an audience with the venerated priest, and asked him, “Are you well, protopope?” Avvakum replied, “As the Lord lives, so does my soul live, Sovereign King, and whatever God decides for the future.” Avvakum was granted a residence inside the Moscow Kremlin where he regained his health, and for six months did not involve himself in any ecclesiastical matters. After this silence Avvakum noticed that there was no progress made in curbing the reforms, and so he delivered a petition to the tsar, stating, “Seek out the ancient piety; set aside the new service books and all of Nikon’s endeavors.” Avvakum gained the support of several anti-Nikon noblemen, and confronted people on the streets of Moscow. As a result of his personal effort, many ceased to attend church. Avvakum also presented a list of candidates to fill vacant Episcopacies, all of them antireformist. Orthodox prelates began to worry that Avvakum was attempting to indirectly desolate the churches, and requested Tsar Aleksei, that he again exile Avvakum in order to save Russian Orthodoxy from further disruption, and so not to further undermine the reform. Shortly after the conclusion of the council in January 1667, Avvakum was sentenced by order of Tsar Aleksei to Pusto-Ozersk Fortress, located on the lower Pecher River in the far north, some 200 miles above the Arctic Circle. Avvakum’s sympathizers requested the tsar to ameliorate the sentence, so the tsar had the entourage stop in Mezen, north of Archangelsk on the Mezen River, and obtain a residence for Avvakum there. But their stay was short, and they continued to Pusto-Ozersk. Deacon Feodor and monk Epifani followed soon after. Protopope Lazar was also recalled from exile in Siberia to Moscow, but because of his immediate obstinacy toward the progress of the reform he was quickly exiled to Pusto-Ozersk. The conditions for their exile were severer than any conditions elsewhere in the western world, including the concentration camps of Siberia. Guards only prevented them from an escape, but at no time where they ever forbidden to write, speak or accept visitors. From this lonely and forsaken outpost, the Old Believer leaders wrote numerous letters to clergy, adherents and supporters, as well as to their opposition. In Moscow, their letters were received by monk Avraami, who returned to the Old Believers’ movement shortly after his pseudo-repentance at the Moscow Council of 1666. His freedom did not last long, and Avraami was arrested in 1670 and quickly executed. Other

138

The Era of the Patriarchate adherents, such as the priests Stefan and Kozma, and the nun Melaniya, left Moscow for the provinces and there organized a secret monastic community. The schism was not destined to organize either a clandestine and persecuted community, or a complete church with a hierarchy and sacraments. Deprived of Episcopal leadership right at its conception, it was destined to lead the life of a crippled organization, and was inclined to evolve into a tragedy of churchlessness. All of a sudden, the Old Believers’ leadership proclaimed the end times had arrived. They should not despair, but would be saved even if under the Antichrist’s authority. Nonetheless, the direction their leaders led them turned into a dead end. The sensationalism caused followers to grasp for the last of the “true” priests as though they were apostles. Avvakum held the primary position and was viewed as a holy martyr. Pilgrims en masse journeyed to the desolate northern wilderness, hungry for a miracle or healing. Avvakum in his autobiography, written 1675, boasts indubitably of healings of the insane, deaf and crippled, all of whom recovered due to his prayers. His devotees also flooded him with many questions, “How are we to disattach ourselves from the entire church, from the tsar, from all civil and ecclesiastical authority, from Moscow, and remain alone?” Avvakum was faced with providing concrete and reliable answers. Avvakum taught the people that there was still hope for repentance and restoration while Tsar Aleksei still lived, that the tsar was inherently good, but was deceived by Nikon. Avvakum related his convictions to his listeners: the tsar got drunk from drinking the wine of heresy given him by Nikon, and could not overcome his hangover. Avvakum labeled the masses lambs, “They do whatever they are told.” He taught that they, without question, obey the dictates of the tsar regarding religion, because of their shallow minds. Their gospel contained an eschatological element. According to the ancient Orthodox calendar, the year 1492 was the completion of the 7,000 year cycle assigned to the world and now they resided in the 8th eschatological millennium. They also added the number of the beast, 666, to the Christian millennium and produced 1666, the year of the Moscow councils against the Old Believers and Nikon’s trial. After the year passed, a new calculation was made, that the fall of satan would occur 1666 years after the baptism of Christ, not from his birth, and that then the Antichrist would rule 3-1/2 years before the end. This calculated out to 33-1/2 + 1000 + 666 + 3-1/2= 1703, the year of the end of the world. Nikon was labeled the predecessor of the Antichrist (and later Peter the Great would be labeled the actual Antichrist based on this computation).

139

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II The deacon Feodor taught in the same vein as Avvakum, that the impious trinity resided in their midst: the serpent, beast and pseudo-prophet of Revelation. The serpent was the devil; the beast was the visible Antichrist — the tsar; and the pseudo-prophet was the patriarch. The impious tsars were the horns of the beast. The leaders of the Old Believers opposition hoped to draw the superstitious and simple people away from the official church and to their ideology with this nebulous and vague eschatology. The leaders’ instructions echoed the following, “The orthodox Christian must not accept a blessing from a Nikonist priest, or any rite or baptism or prayer; neither to pray in church together with him, nor in the home. They are not to read heretical books, and not listen to heretical sermons or songs.” Avvakum provided them with further specific instructions, “It is better for a person not to be born, than to make the sign of the cross using 3-fingers. This configuration is the sign of the Antichrist.” Avvakum admonished his followers to disassociate from established churches, their clergy and rites, and be willing to suffer for it. He permitted laymen to perform the sacraments if a priest not defiled by Nikon was not available. But it all eventually led to a dead end, disorder in Old Believer parishes prevailed during services, each church performing the rite in the manner they defined ancient piety. Some parishes held to the old church service books, others selected whatever was available. Anarchy quickly and automatically surfaced, because parishioners did not possess a tangible and genuine hierarchy, and the leaders in captivity were unable to provide any stability. The expansion of theological anarchy, and a lack of regimentation or order, could not but strike dismay into the leaders of the schism. After a few years in exile, distant and alienated from the movement, they began to teach the possibility of repentance on the part of the tsar and patriarch, contrary to their earlier version that the end of time was imminent. Avvakum wrote to Tsar Aleksei, to revoke the decisions of the Greeks and to return to the ancient Russian piety. Avvakum’s letters, along with those of Lazar, only irritated Tsar Aleksei all the more. Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich Romanov died on January 29, 1676, and his throne was inherited by his son Feodor Alekseevich, then about 15. Due to his young age, the late tsar’s sister Tatyanna Mikhailovna continued to exert influence in the royal court. As soon as news of the ascension of a new tsar reached Pusto-Ozersk, Avvakum wrote the young tsar a petition, a combination of traditional loyalty and fanatic impulse. He called the tsar, “Blessed and more blessed,” and, “a beautiful child of the church.” At the same time, Avvakum condemned the conduct and innovations of Nikon, asking the new tsar to right the

140

The Era of the Patriarchate wrongs imposed by Nikon on the church. Avvakum then told him that his father was burning in hell as a result of exiling him to his present location. Avvakum concluded his letter with the passage, “My Christ did not order our apostles to teach that the way to bring peace to the religion is by fire or whip or gallows. The Tatar god Mohammed wrote in his books, ‘Whoever does not submit to our tradition and law must have his head severed off by a sword,’ but our Christ never ordered his disciples to do the same. But these teachers clearly, as indications of Antichrist, destroy and execute those they cannot submit to their religion. Their conduct is a testimony to their beliefs.” These were the final words of protopope Avvakum Petrovich to Tsar Feodor. Tsar Feodor issued the order for the execution of Avvakum and his confederates on April 1, 1681. They had spent 15 years confined at Pusto-Ozerski Fortress. The tsar was now 20 years old and he had sat on the throne of Russia for four years, but it was also obvious that his decision was much influenced, if not demanded, by Patr. Joachim. The order was issued during the era when the Old Believers were causing much havoc for the Royal family and official Orthodoxy in Moscow. They were guilty of, “Great blasphemy against the royal house.” The four Old Believer leaders, and inmates of Pusto-Ozerski Fortress — Avvakum, Lazar, Feodor and Epifani — were burned at the stake. The crowd took off their hats as they stared in astonishment. Avvakum, gesticulating with his two-finger configuration, said, “Pray making the cross in this manner and you will never perish; but if you abandon it, your city will perish and revert to dust, and if your city perishes then this is the end of the light.” Avvakum was about 60 years old. The ashes of the four martyrs were scattered with the ashes of the wood pile, the officials did not want their followers to create a shrine out of their grave, or make relics out of their remains. The Old Believers later canonized Avvakum and placed his image on icons. About 4-1/2 months later, Avvakum’s spiritual arch-enemy Nikon died of natural causes.

93. ORTHODOX LIFE, TEACHING AND LITURGY The Christian life of the Russian people during the patriarchal era continued to develop in the same direction as it had during the Moscovite era, except for the interruption during the era of upheavals. The attitude formulated under the early patriarchs was that holy Russia was the sole Orthodox realm in

141

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II the entire world, while the balance of Christendom was either heretical or under Islamic subjection. The higher form of piety — as in former periods — was monasticism. During the 17th century close to 220 new monasteries, convents, hermitages and abbeys appeared. Along with the monasteries there arose several ascetics who were later canonized and added to the list of Orthodox saints. Such were: Vasili of Mangazeisk (d. 1612). Galaktiyon of Volodsk (d. 1608). Joseph of Volodsk (d. 1612). Irinarkh of Rostov (d. 1619). Adrian of Monzensk (d. 1619). Prokopi of Vyatsk, the fool for Christ (d. December 21, 1627). Irinarkh of Solovetsk (d. 1628). Dionysei of Troitzki (d. 1633). Nikodim of Kozheyersk (d. 1640). Eleazar of Arzersk (d. 1656). Maksim of Totemsk. Andrei of Totemsk. Makari of Konevsk (d. 1678). The national piety still suffered from the unclean mixture of various remnants of paganism and a multitude of superstitions. The old pagan deities of earlier eras still survived among the serfs, especially those deities of the sky, water, home and forests. The religious and civil authorities decreed edicts which prohibited, for example, the festivity on the Winter Solstice (December 21); the holiday of Ivan-Kupalo on June 24, where bonfires were made in the fields and the people would jump over them; clowns; playing demonic games; bathing during a thunderstorm; wearing costumes during Christmas holidays; and fortune telling. The decrees also attempted to curb disorderly conduct, profanity, drunkenness on church holidays, pagan customs at weddings, and those customs dealing with fertility. Belief in sorcery permeated all classes of Russian society. Tsar Boris Godunov invited sorcerers from many Russian cities, asking them about the success of his political ventures. The oath of loyalty that Godunov imposed on all his subjects included a passage stating that they would not cast a spell on the royal family. The royal family often lived in dread of some spell that would be

142

The Era of the Patriarchate cast on them, and every time a family member became ill, all the servants and employees of the royal household would be investigated as possible witches and sorcerers. Pseudo-Dmitri I attributed his success to sorcerers. Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich issued an edict stating, that any person apprehended practicing sorcery would be whipped and then burned at the stake. During Tsar Feodor Alekseevich’s reign, the educated nobleman Matveev was sentenced to exile to Pusto-Ozersk Fortress in the far north after his conviction for sorcery, the same place where Avvakum was later incarcerated. Even court favorite Vasili Golitzin, one of the most educated people of his era, sought the help of sorcerers during the short regency of Sophia Alekseevna. Just as during the era of the Hundred-Chapters Council, this semi-pagan view of Christian sacraments now surfaced in the use of sacred articles for divination; the articles included pieces of the host or wafer, the water from Epiphany, and incense. Parts of prayers were written on scraps of paper and venerated as talismans, while prayers were recited as though they were incantations. The spirit of this semi-pagan sorcery merged with the ceremonial piety, and caused people to have a different view of the rites: not as an expression of inner piety acquiring strength from the rite, but as though acquiring a magical or esoteric strength. This elevation of liturgy to such a high degree of ceremonial importance only exposed how weak and unstable both priest and parishioner were, and neither were enlivened by any inner piety. Parish priests complained to prelates that the members of their fold would not attend church, or participate in confession, for entire decades. This negative attitude toward Orthodoxy was especially apparent during times of political upheaval, such as during the reigns of Godunov and the pseudo-Dmitris. Stenka Razin, the Ukrainian rebel, ruthlessly destroyed churches and monasteries, executed priests, and desecrated the relics of saints. In May 1671, Cossacks, part of the rebellion of Razin, killed Archbishop Joseph of Astrakhan because he admonished them to desist in their revolt. Of the saints of the early Romanov era, the foremost is archimandrite Dionysei of Troitse-Sergievski Monastery. He was ordained by Patr. Theofan of Jerusalem coincident with the ordination of Filaret, after his return from exile. Dionysei unfortunately was betrayed by his peers for his work on the emendation of the Trebnika (Missal), and spent 1 year in incarceration. Archimandrite Dionysei passed away May 10, 1633.

143

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II Abbot Irinarkh of Solovetski Monastery defended the island from attack by the Swedes and Danes in 1623. Becoming abbot in 1614, he expanded the patrimony of Solovetski far into the mainland and increased the size of the monastery. Irinarkh passed away July 17, 1628. Diodor of Yuriev (Yurievski) became a monk at Solovetski under Irinarkh. After several years on the island he departed to Lake Onega and there near Mount Yuriev built for himself a hovel and became an isolated ascetic. Another hermit named Prokhov joined him, and the two lived there seven years. At this time, Diodor acquired funds from Moscow and proceeded to build on Mount Yuriev a church, where he resided until his death November 27, 1633. Semeon of Volomsk (Volomski) was tonsured as a monk in 1613 at the Joseph Voloko-Lamsk Monastery, and then moved to the wilderness near Ustyug along the Kitchmeng River. There he lived alone as an ascetic five years. In 1620, he acquired funds from Metr. Varlaam of Rostov and Tsar Mikhail, and built a monastery dedicated to the Ascension of the Lord. Semeon likewise became abbot, and resided there until his death on. July 12, 1641.

94. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION One of the main Russian Orthodox responsibilities during the Patriarchal Era was to raise the level of religious education of the nation. A higher level of education was also required to counterpoise the influence of Europeans, and especially Catholics, on Russia. The foreigners visiting Russia, along with many Greek prelates, were surprised at the meager education of both nobleman and serf, clergy and laity. Even the highest of Russian prelates, patriarchs Filaret, Joasaf, and Joseph, were people of meager education and little scholarship. To satisfy this need of religious education in Russia, it was natural for Russian prelates to turn to Greece for help, but they had need for educated people themselves as a result of Islamic occupation. In 1632, by request of Patr. Filaret, they were only able to send one teacher to Moscow, archimandrite Josef, but he died after two years in Moscow: the transition from a Mediterranean climate to the harsh cold of central Russia took its toll on Greeks. When Metr. Feofan of Paleopatrass was visiting Moscow in 1645, he suggested introducing a school and printing house for Greeks here because they were unable to do so in Greece due to Islamic occupation, and he preferred not to print his books in

144

The Era of the Patriarchate Europe, because it would then be under the auspices of Catholicism. But when time came to send such men to Moscow, none were available. In 1649, nobleman Feodor Mikhailovich Rtischev, with the permission of Tsar Aleksei and Patr. Joseph, founded Andreevski or Preobrazhenski Monastery, located outside of Moscow, and he invited 30 monks from Ukraine to relocate here. At the monastery, a scholarly community for the translation of books was quickly created, and which included educational facilities for those wanting to learn grammar, the Greek and Latin languages, rhetoric, and philosophy. Later that year, to further the effort at the monastery, the tsar summoned the educated monks Epifanius Slavenitzki and Andrei Satanovski from Kiev, and in the following year another educated monk, Damaskin of Ptitz, arrived in Moscow. This circle of scholars created an environment of religious education that began to have an influence on Moscovites: they assiduously translated books from Greek and Latin into Russian, emended church service books, and began teaching Greek. This was also accomplished with the coincident goal of publishing a new Slavonic Bible. However, native Moscovite teachers opposed the new monastery, and its regimen and curriculum, from its conception. This new method of scholastics of the ex-patriots was alien to the native Russian manner of education, and was interpreted by Russian prelates to be incompatible with conservative Orthodoxy. Russian prelates also felt that Kievan monks, in general, were influenced by Catholic thought. Subsequently, rumors were started that the monks at Andreevski Monastery were insulting the literacy of Moscovite clergy. The young students at Andreevski, having received a basic education, were censured by native Russian educators, such as Ivan Neronov and Stefan Vonifatiev. But others from among the Russians, such as then Metr. Nikon, noblemen Morozov and Rtischev, and Tsar Aleksei, saw nothing heretical taught or promulgated by the monks or students at Andreevski. Once Nikon became patriarch in 1652, a Greek-Latin school was formed at Chudovski Monastery for the emendation of church books. Slavenitzki was installed as director of the new school. After the resignation of Nikon as patriarch in 1658, the school at Chudovski Monastery closed down, and the community at Andreevski fell apart and disbanded: the Kievan monks returned home, and the balance of students and employees assimilated into Russia clerical or secular occupations. The influence of Kievan monks on Russian theology was substantial, and persisted among the graduates of their schools. Among the Kievans, Epifanius Slavenitzki remained in Moscow and died in 1676.

145

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II In 1664, at Tsar Aleksei’s invitation, another graduate of the Kievan Academy arrived in Moscow, the monk, Semeon Sitianovich Petrovski, also referred to as Polotzki. Like his predecessors, he was inclined toward Catholicism as a result of his education. He did not know Greek, but only Latin. Polotzki was an invigorating and eloquent man, a fervent absorber of other peoples’ opinions, and had developed a reputation as a walking encyclopedia. He was a voluminous writer, always having a sermon for every occasion, and also possessed a natural talent as a comedian. After his arrival in Moscow, Polotzki became mentor to the children of Tsar Aleksei (he had 14 total through two wives), and was given a residence in the palace. As a result of his education, he also was assigned various administrative matters to handle, both religious and civil. In 1666, he was assigned to develop a refutation to the Old Believer schism, and so composed his book, Rod of Rule, published in the name of the Great Council of 1666-1667. Subsequent to this, he had published a systematic exposition of the Orthodox religion following the Catholic scholastic method, and named it Crown of Faith. By Patr. Joasaf’s request, he also wrote a treatise on church protocol and against fortunetelling. Polotzki’s intent was to become closer to parishioners by preaching to them, a vocation he learned as a student in the academy at Kiev. In his sermons, he reprimanded the lackadaisical attitude of the clergy toward preaching; rebuked the illiteracy of the populace, their filthy vices, dissensions, superstitions, and pagan remnants; rebuked their belief in witchcraft, charms, talismans, conjurations and premonitions, gambling, observance of pagan holidays, and pagan rites performed on church holidays. Polotzki requested the tsar to start schools and increase the number of teachers. He also taught Latin at a school outside the Kremlin, and trained his students to become translators. Semeon Polotzki died in 1680. The educational efforts of both these monks, Epifanius Slavenitzki and Semeon Polotzki, had an invigorating effect on the development of ecclesiastical scholarship in Russia. In 1667, the parishioners of the Moscow Bogoslavski (Word of God) Church presented a petition to Tsar Aleksei for permission to open a school at the church, and to hire a preacher to give lessons and lectures. In other regions, however, the tide turned against preaching in church. In Perm, the clergy felt that church preaching would only introduce heresy. Tsar Feodor Alekseevich, who happened to have been a student of Polotzki’s, had intentions to found a new school in Moscow, so candidates for Russian clerical positions would not have to go to the Catholic west or Uniate Kiev for a seminary edu-

146

The Era of the Patriarchate cation. In 1679, Tsar Feodor and Patr. Joachim founded a school and were able to enroll 30 students. The other apparent reason for the new school was to counterpoise Catholic influence emanating from the school of Polotzki, even though Tsar Feodor, and future co-regents Ivan and Sophia, attended the Polotzki school at the Kremlin themselves, and received a western-style education.

95. METROPOLITAN PETER MOGILA OF KIEV Peter Mogila was the son of the Walachian and Moldovan military commander Semeon Mogila, receiving in his youth a theological education in Lvov and other major Polish cities. In 1627, at the age of 30, Peter was tonsured as a monk and became archimandrite of the restored Pecher Monastery in Kiev. Metr. Job Boretzki of Kiev died in 1631, and Esai (Isaiah) Kopinski, bishop of Smolensk, became his successor. Esai’s vocation in religion began as a student at schools in Ostrog, later becoming a monk at Pecher Monastery, and in 1620 he was ordained as bishop of Peremishl diocese, and was subsequently moved to Smolensk. Even though Job was a fervent Orthodox, he was aged and unable to handle to complex matters associated with the patriarchate, and especially under the turbulent conditions that affected the Church during the year following his ordination. In 1632, King Sigismund, who was the foremost patron of the Orthodox Church in Kiev, died. Kievan prelates hoped for a return of rights that Orthodoxy was previously deprived of, and they decided not to proceed with the selection of a new king until this important ecclesiastical question was resolved. The election council satisfied the request of Kievan Orthodox prelates, but only after strong debates with the members of the council, who were Uniate or Catholic. Now after 36 years of Uniate control in Lithuania and Poland, Orthodoxy was now recognized by the state with special assigned rights. Orthodoxy in Ukraine was now permitted to ordain their metropolitan and had four dioceses: Lvov, Lutz, Peremishl, and Mstislavski, each with a bishop. The election council also permitted them to open their own schools and publishing houses, and several monasteries, which were earlier confiscated by Catholics, were to be returned to them. Orthodox clergy and parishioners placed great hopes on new King Vladislav to provide additional freedoms and accommodations for them in the future.

147

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II Metr. Esai Kopinski was expelled from his cathedra at the beginning of King Vladislav’s rule. Taking advantage of the restoration of rights for the Orthodox of Ukraine, Kiev clergy ordained a new metropolitan and new bishops. Peter Mogila was selected as metropolitan of Kiev in 1633; he was ordained that year by Patr. Kirill Lukaris of Constantinople in Lvov, King Vladislav also approving of the nomination. Metr. Esai refused to cede his cathedra to Peter Mogila, feeling the new ordination un-canonical, but after a short while he was forced out of his cathedra and transferred to some unrecorded monastery. Peter Mogila accomplished more than any other single metropolitan during the two-and-a-half centuries that Kiev was independent from Moscow, 1461-1689. He interceded on behalf of Orthodox rights before the PolishLithuanian state, and several times affirmed the church’s rights as provided by the council of 1632, and ancient Orthodox treasures were restored. Peter richly decorated the renovated Pecher Monastery. The Kiev Cathedral of Santa Sophia was appropriated from the Uniates in a state of ruin and was restored, and the ancient Vidubetzki Monastery, and the Spassa Church on the Berestov River, were also renovated. The one Desyatinnoi Church section which was underground, and in ruins from Mongol devastation, was also restored. Education was an important area that Metr. Peter concentrated on. Having an excellent western-style education himself, Peter was discontent with the existing ecclesiastical schools in Kiev with their Greek character and shallow curriculum. Even while archimandrite of Pecher Monastery, he wanted to open a new school based on the format of Jesuit colleges. He hired some teachers who also had a western-style education for his new school, men such as Innokentius Gizel, who was originally from Prussia, and Sylvester Kossov, Isaiah Trofimovich Kozlovski, and others. His efforts were impeded by other prelates in Kiev, including then-Metr. Esai, but in 1632, he merged his school together with the existing academy in Kiev. Metr. Peter built new buildings and enriched the academy by gifting it patrimonies. Eventually, under his auspices, it became an Orthodox college based on the format of Jesuit colleges, and the Latin language was introduced along with Aristotelian logic and the theology of Thomas Aquinas. Russian and Slavonic, however, became secondary courses. Metr. Peter’s success at his school was hindered by priests and officials of Kiev, who accused him of promoting Catholicism over Orthodoxy because of the courses that were offered. From the other side, the Catholic-Uniate faction likewise slandered him due to its success, since his overall goal was the Orthodox pro-

148

The Era of the Patriarchate fession. Within the course of 15 years, the Kievan Academy became the scholastic center of both Russia and Ukraine. In 1640 by request of Metr. Mogila, monk Isaiah Trofimovich compiled an Orthodox Profession of Faith in Greek. An ecclesiastical council was summoned by Metr. Mogila, which reviewed the book and also sent copies of it to the Eastern Patriarchs. Representatives of Eastern Orthodoxy gathered for an ecclesiastical in Yassa, Walachia (Iasi, Romania) in 1641-1642, and in the following year, the Profession was approved by the patriarchs. The Profession was published by Metr. Mogila three years later, in 1645, and finally in Russian translation 50 years later, in 1696. Metr. Mogila was also involved in the emendation of church service books. His most important publication was the Yevkhologion, or Great Missal, published in Russian in 1646, which contained all the Russian Orthodox rites based on Greek and Slavonic missals. Peter Mogila either adapted from Catholic missals, or else composed himself, rites that were necessary but not available. Peter supplemented the missal with liturgical, dogmatic and canonical information. Later in his life, he attempted a new revision of the Slavonic Bible but was unable to complete it. Metr. Peter died 1647. Other than his Profession and Great Missal, an important publication of his was the Pecherski Paterik (Lives of the Saints of Pecher Monastery), published 1635. After the death of Metr. Mogila, his Kievan Academy began its decline. Contributions from the nobility ceased, local monasteries illegally appropriated for themselves patrimony assigned to the academy, and many students left in 1648 to join the regiments of Bogdan Khmelnitzki, a Cassock leader struggling for Ukrainian independence from Poland. Although Khmelnitzki died in 1657, the civil war in Ukraine left the academy desolate until the end of the RussoPolish War in 1667 and the partition of Ukraine the following year. Once peace ensued after the conclusion of the wars, the Kievan Academy reopened and began to again attract students, and develop its curriculum and academics. It was renamed after Metr. Peter, and became known as the Kiev-Mogilyanskoi Academy. Following Metr. Peter’s path, two rectors of his academy became metropolitans of Kiev in later years: first was Lazar Baranovich, 1650-1655; and later, Iyonnikius Golyatovski, 1655-1663.

149

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II 96. DEVOTION OF TSAR AND PATRIARCH One item noticeable in the religious life of Russia is the devotion of both tsar and patriarch to the Orthodox religion. The church affected every matter and custom in the lives of its parishioners, and including the royal family. The tsar’s life during the patriarchal period revolved around the church; his schedule was taken up by attendance at liturgy, holiday visits, arrival of pilgrims, and often more than state affairs. This equally affected Russian officials of all ranks, and the residents of Moscow and other diocesan capitals. Reviewing the regimen of Russia’s tsar during this era, the day began at four o’clock in the morning. He would wash and dress, and enter the Chamber of the Cross — his home chapel inside the palace — where his confessor or another priest would be waiting for him. Here he would pray for about a quarter-hour, placing an icon of the saint, to whom the day was dedicated, on a pedestal. After prayer, the priest would sprinkle on the tsar holy water, which was brought from any one of several monasteries, where the water was sanctified for the day’s liturgy. Then the priest would read a passage of religious instruction from a book containing the writings of the fathers and saints of Orthodoxy, and especially John Chrysostom. At his palace chapel the tsar stood as the priest performed Matins and, on occasion, also early mass. The noblemen of the realm (Boyars) would have gathered about this time to accompany the tsar to one of the churches in the Kremlin for mass, after which he would begin business for the day. The patriarch’s day was equally busy; people came to him for a blessing for one reason or another, whether an engagement, wedding, childbirth, vocational promotion, relocation, or even for moving into a new residence. The patriarch, on the eve of important church holidays, such as the Memorial for Metr. Peter, December 20, or during Passion Week, would visit prisons and wish the inmates well, often distributing them charity and liberating as many as he could. Tsar Aleksei on Christmas Eve would visit the prisons and poor-houses, distributing charity, as well as giving something to the destitute and crippled living in the streets. Fasting was austerely practiced during both Lent and Advent, with tsar and patriarch setting the example for the population. They would eat nothing during the first two days of Lent, and then have a light meal on the third day. Especially during Passion Week, which was the week prior to Good Friday, tsar and patriarch practiced deprivation quite austerely. During the evening of Easter, the tsar spent almost the entire night at liturgy, and then

150

The Era of the Patriarchate on his return to the palace, he would visit the prisons, freeing a few and assisting some of the many destitute. On New Year’s Eve, the patriarch would perform Vespers at Uspenski Cathedral, while all the parishioners held lit candles. At midnight, cannons would blast and the bells of the Kremlin and all the churches in Moscow would ring. The Kremlin would be filled with crowds the entire night. After an early mass and Matins, the patriarch would lead a procession of the cross, and then ascend a platform overlooking Red Square to sanctify the water for sprinkling. At this time, bells would again ring and the tsar would proceed to the platform and stand in his spot, while officials and prelates and the patriarch would deeply bow to him. The patriarch greeted the tsar with the words, “Congratulations sovereign-tsar, with the New Year and may there be many more, many years for you and your posterity.” Then the patriarch blessed the tsar. The people of Moscow, gathered for the occasion, would also draw near to the tsar and deeply bow to him. After the outdoor services, the crowds went to their respective churches for New Year’s services. Another special occasion was the tsar’s birthday, when he would distribute food and charity to the destitute and underprivileged. On Sexagesima Sunday — the second Sunday before Lent — the tsar would visit Chudovski, Voznesenski and Alekseevski Monasteries, asking the brethren for forgiveness and gifting them charity. On the following Thursday and Friday, he visited Andronnikov, Novo-Spasski and Semeonov Monasteries, and Novo-Devichi Convent. On Saturday, the tsar with the patriarch would visit the tsaritza and he would ask her for her forgiveness of any manner he may have offended her. The succeeding Sunday, the tsar attended Uspenski Cathedral, where the patriarch performed the ceremony of forgiveness, which included all the parishioners. This exercise was to prepare the people for Lent which began the following Ash Wednesday.

97. THE MYSTICS Kapiton Danilovski must be included among the mystics of the 17 th century due to his unique and eccentric nature and character. Much like other mystics of the early centuries, more folklore is attached to his tradition than reality, and sources are meager. What is known is that Kapiton was born about the turn of the 17th century in the village Danilov (hence his name), about 20

151

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II miles north of the city Kostroma, and he became a monk at some early age. During the 1620’s, he lived in the forest wilderness near Vetlug, about 100 miles east of Kostroma, and later founded a hermitage near Schi, about 50 miles south of Kostroma. Until the late 1630’s, Kapiton had a good relationship with both civil and ecclesiastical authorities. During this early period, Kapiton visited Moscow regularly and patronized the court of Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich, knowing the tsar personally. Matters changed in the life of Kapiton as he developed into an extreme ascetic. He would walk about the villages of Kostroma and Vladimir, and local provinces, wearing chains weighing up to 100 lbs. He fasted regularly which emaciated his body. Over the course of time, Kapiton entirely abandoned any participation in ecclesiastical rites and taking communion. He vehemently criticized the veneration of certain icons, those portraying Christ wearing Episcopal vestments, and those portraying Theotokos wearing royal or elegant clothing. He likewise condemned icons based on modern European tradition, rather than the ancient Russia style. In 1639, Kapiton Danilovski was arrested and exiled to Tobolsk in Siberia, where he remained in custody until about 1650. The charge against him was disorderly conduct, although no details are available. He escaped Tobolsk after a decade in exile, and returned first to his hometown, but subsequently left and through the end of his life traveled through Russia as an itinerant mystic, one step ahead of ecclesiastical authorities. Kapiton is supposed to have died in the early 1660’s. Historian Pavel Miliukov described Kapiton as follows: He appeared as a preacher of some type of enigmatic teaching, and gathered about himself elders who did not attend the Church of God, but who would dig holes in the ground for themselves as dens. They were periodically chased away by local authorities, fleeing from Yaroslav province to Kostroma, and then from Kostroma to Vladimir. The disciples of Kapiton remained as late as 1691 in the Vyasnikovski forests (near Vladimir), refusing any rites, sacraments or ancient ceremonies. From these remote corners, these elders ascended from their dens with a similar religious conviction. They all possessed the original ideals of Kapiton: the rejection of acquisition of grace through sacraments, and ascetic escalation by wearing chains, as did their mentor.

The mood of Kapiton reflected the gloomy disposition of Russia as it was awaiting the imminent Antichrist, and the apocalyptic tendencies of superstitious peasants. The exact extent of Kapiton Danilovski’s influence is difficult to measure, although the many clergy and peasants who heard and saw him, eventually discarded official Orthodoxy and migrated to either the Old Believer communities or later Khristovshin or Khlist assemblies. Priests who were

152

The Era of the Patriarchate interrogated after the Solovetski Mutiny of 1676, claimed to have been disciples of Kapiton during the early years of their monastic career. Likewise, Metr. Ignati of Siberia and Tobolsk recorded in 1696, the existence of a group of dissenters founded by Kapiton during his exile there. This group had no priesthood and repudiated all ecclesiastical rites, while their services were similar to those of later Khlist assemblies. Pavel Miliukov mentions another mystic, Kosmi Medvedski, who in 1691 gathered a group of supporters. They also held services similar to the Khristovshin of later years. Another prominent mystic was a native Russian, Danil Filippov or Filippovich. His efforts created a sectarian denomination known as the Khristovshin or Khlist, which persisted for over 200 years. Russian Orthodox historians initially called them the cult of the Khlisti, meaning flagellants, which was a distortion of Khristi, meaning Christs. The adherents of Daniel Filippov preferred to call themselves People of God. Danil Filippov was a peasant of Kostroma province whose family were members of the non-Priest faction of Old Believers; a traditional account states that, in his early years, he was a disciple of Kapiton Danilovski. As a young man, Danil Filippov was conscripted into military service, but he fled because of his personal conviction of Christian pacaificsm. His religious inclination drove him to read, but after studying Orthodox books on religion he came to the conclusion that neither the old nor the new versions were needed for salvation. Danil concluded that only one book was necessary, and this was the Book of the Dove, which was a living book, and which manifested itself in prophesy and obedience to the Holy Spirit. In 1645, Danil Filippov received a revelation to resolve the futile controversy about the correct version of church service books that seemed to plague Orthodoxy at the time: he gathered his entire library, and stuffed it into a bag, and then threw it into the Volga River. Soon after, according to the traditional Khristovshin account, Danil gathered a crowd around him, teaching them that the holy religion had some 300 years earlier lost its purity, and that the Antichrist had arisen from the monastic orders and destroyed true religion in the land. On Mt Gorodin in Muron county, Vladimir province, a crowd gathered and prayed, cried, raised their hands, and beseeched God to descend from heaven to earth. The powers of heaven then descended from the clouds, and God Sabaoth entered the immaculate body of Danil Filippov to reside there. After the

153

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II incredible event, the powers of heaven ascended into the clouds, while Danil Filippov proclaimed himself God Sabaoth. The teaching of Danil Filippov did not deny or reject the superficial observance of Orthodox rites, or its basic tenets, and so it expanded among the population without interference from Orthodox clergy. He devised worship services consisting of song and prophecy, and meetings in homes which he designated ships or arks. In addition to the above tenets, Danil Filippov also advocated Christian pacifism, himself a fugitive from the military. From among his disciples, Danil chose Ivan Timofeevich Suslov from Vladimir province, as his spiritual son, possessing the appellation of “son of God Sabaoth.” Suslov became the new Christ to replace Jesus as the old Christ. Suslov then selected twelve men whom he titled apostles, and through them, the new teaching was disseminated further in the Vladimir, Kostroma and NizhniNovgorod provinces. Suslov moved on to Moscow, where he came under suspicion and was arrested. After some short imprisonment, Suslov was released in 1658, and continued to live in Moscow where he established four houses of worship which he called ships. Not only did the general public join his group, but priests and monks likewise. Unlike other cults of the era, and in contradistinction to Orthodox clergy, the Khristovshin had a high morality and ethic. (The Khristovshin sect is further expounded in Volume 3.) Kvirin Kuhlman arrived in Moscow in April 1689. He was a visionary or mystic from Germany, who was heavily influenced by Jacob Boehme, another Germany mystic. Kuhlman, as a self-ordained prophet of a new order, preached the imminent arrival of Christ to initiate the millennial kingdom on earth. Through the 1680’s, Kvirin traveled throughout Europe with his message. His motivation led him to Riga and Pskov, and finally to Moscow, where he settled in the German suburb. Kuhlman hoped to establish a new church in Russia, and was able to acquire about three dozen followers in the German suburb, all of whom were also disciples of Jacob Boehme. As Pavel Miliukov comments, “This naïve German enthusiast dreamed to establish in the land, with the help of Moscow, one church, where there would be no authority, no possessions.” After about six months in Moscow, and other sources state 1-1/2 years, an inquisition of his activities and teaching began under orders of Regent Sophia. Kuhlman was condemned as a heretic by an ecclesiastical council under the aus-

154

The Era of the Patriarchate pices of Patr. Joachim and Regent Sophia. They felt that the visionary was causing too much disturbance in the German suburb with his apocalyptic convictions. On October 4, 1689, Kvirin Kuhlman and his religious associate Conrad Norderman were burned to death in a large bond fire in Red Square. All of his books were also thrown into the fire. His followers quickly dissipated after his death.

155

PART 6

THE ERA OF TSAR PETER THE GREAT 98. PETER ALEKSEEVICH ROMANOV'S EARLY YEARS After the death of his first wife Maria Miloslavskaya in 1669, Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich married a second time on January 22, 1671, to Natalya Kirillovna Narishkina; he was 42 and she was 20. She gave birth at the Moscow Kremlin on May 30, 1672, to Imperial Russia’s hero, Peter Alekseevich Romanov. He was Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich’s 14th child, the only son through his second wife, and they had two daughters after Peter: Theodora and Natalya. Peter was four years old when his father died, and he was placed under Patr. Joachim’s tutelage. Peter’s half-brother, Tsar Feodor Alekseevich, who was childless, died April 27, 1682; what then remained of their father’s offspring were Ivan and six daughters through his first wife Maria Miloslavskaya, and Peter and sister Natalya through his second wife. Peter was nine years old when his older half-brother Tsar Feodor and mentor Patr. Joachim issued the order to have the Old Believer leader Avvakum Petrovich and his confederates burned at the stake, and was almost 10 when Patr. Nikon died. As a member of the royal family, he would have walked alongside brother Tsar Feodor, who carried the coffin of this infamous but venerated prelate and supreme threat to imperial authority. No doubt these events, and later discussions of church politics, left a negative impression of the Russian Orthodox Church on Peter’s infant mind. The inflated reports funneling into the Moscow Kremlin of thousands of Old Believers committing suicide by confla-

159

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II gration, for refusing to submit to the authority of official Orthodoxy and its recent reforms, likewise were heard by young Peter. Tsar Peter coarsely mocked the conservative Russian manner of life and custom, including the Russian Orthodox Church. Peter devised a crystallization of his contempt for the Church by having drunken parties with his officials. Tsar Peter referred to such parodies of the Orthodox Church as his “all-cheating, allhair-brained, all-drunken council of Prince Johnnakit, patriarch of Pressburgski, Yauzski and all Kukui.” The parties were held at Preobrazhenski, three miles north-east of Moscow along the Yauza River, which was originally established as a villa and hunting lodge by Tsar Aleksei, and was referred to by the local residents as Kukui. Over the years, young Peter developed it into a training ground and barracks for his regiments, known as the Preobrazhenski Guard. A fort built in the area by Peter, when he was an adolescent, was named Pressburg. Prince Johnnakit was a parody of Pope Innocent XII (the two names are almost identical in Russian). Peter elected a conclave of twelve cardinals along with mockbishops, archimandrites, priests and deacons, numbering as many as 200, while he himself played the role of a deacon. At one of their parodies of Orthodoxy, the mock dedication of Leforte’s newly constructed palace to the god Bacchus, a mock-priest blessed the crowd with two tobacco pipes tied together in the form of a cross. At another party, Tsar Peter parodied the marriage ceremony by having a mock-priest marry a jester to an elderly widow, and then also marry two dwarfs, all of it appearing like a circus side-show. As a result of the costumes and parody, the mock-priest himself was hardly able to restrain his laughter in order to recite the marriage vows. Tsar Peter was able to evade censure of his Drunken Synod by claiming it was a parody of Catholicism, with the primary buffoon titled Prince-pope. The clergy was afraid to reprimand the tsar, in any case, Patr. Adrian included. The one clergyman who did rebuke Tsar Peter incurred serious repercussions. Father Avraami was a dedicated Orthodox priest his entire life. Since 1660, he had been a monk, and then was ordained abbot of Andreevski Monastery, outside Moscow. He wasted no time or effort on developing the monastery as a school for clergy and a mission for pilgrims. The conduct of Tsar Peter in his early years troubled him. In January 1697, he wrote several letters to Peter, informing him that he should abandon his immature manner of conduct and assume his position as Russia’s leader seriously, and promote himself as an example of ruler and judge to his subjects. Peter took offense at the father Avraami’s criticism, and had him immediately arrested, tortured, and interro-

160

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great gated by the newly establish secret police, the Preobrazhenski Guard. Avraami was sentenced to exile to a distant monastery for the remainder of his life.

99. PATRIARCH JOACHIM Joachim was born on January 6, 1621, his birth name was Ivan Petrovich Savelov. He began his career as a lower level official in the government, assigned to the cities Chernigov and Kursk, near the Polish border. Joachim lived in a village and enjoyed hunting. He was hardly literate at the time and had no theological training or any regular Russian Orthodox Church attendance. At the age of 33 or 34, his wife passed away and he found himself widowed. At this point in life, he embarked on the path of religion. In 1655, he went to Kiev and accepted tonsure as a monk at Kiev Mezhigorski Monastery, and he accepted the new name Joachim. Seeking provisions and charity for the monastery, monk Joachim arrived in Moscow April 1657. Tsar Aleksei donated sable fur valued at 100 rubles to the monastery, and assigned him a room at a Moscow monastery as a temporary residence. However, Joachim never left Moscow. He was recruited by Patr. Nikon to assist in building his famous Iverski Monastery. Nikon also recruited other monks from Belarus and the Ukraine, who were residing in Moscow, as personnel for his new monastery. The serene and comfortable life at Iverski for monk Joachim abruptly ended with the scandal surrounding Nikon’s sudden resignation. Conditions because worse as time progressed, and in 1661 Joachim petitioned leave from ex-Patr. Nikon, in order to return to Kiev. The petition only turned Nikon’s attention to Joachim and his request was denied. Instead, Nikon had him reassigned to his Voskresenski Monastery. Joachim, however, could no longer tolerate Nikon’s despotism and tearfully begged his release to Kiev, but Nikon still would not grant it, and Joachim had to leave on his own. After leaving Voskresenski, he was still unable to leave the region, because he was recruited by Feodor Rtischev for his Andreevski Monastery. Rtischev did not have a scholarly background, and so he assigned Joachim as monastery cellarer or warden. Accepting the position, Joachim began to circulate in the Moscow ecclesiastical circles. Soon, Joachim was ordained deacon and then hieromonk, and then in 1664, accepted the position of archimandrite of Chudovski Monastery and was ordained by then Metr. Pitirim of Novgorod. Joachim’s years at Chudovski were

161

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II precarious, because the brethren still all too well remembered former Patr. Nikon’s despotic rule. As a result of Joachim’s benevolent and non-pretentious rule, he was noticed by Tsar Aleksei, who invited the archimandrite regularly to his palace to discuss both civil and religious matters. After Pitirim was ordained patriarch in July 1673, Joachim replaced him as metropolitan of Novgorod. When Pitirim became seriously ill, Joachim was summoned to Moscow and began involvement in the business of the patriarchate, and in the wake of Pitirim’s death he was considered the best choice for the cathedra. Joachim was ordained on July 26, 1674; he was about age 50. The following year, Patr. Joachim summoned an ecclesiastical council, which he hoped would match in importance next to the Hundred-Chapter Council of 1551. The patriarchal interval during Nikon’s absence, and its stagnation since then, had a devastating effect on the morality and ethic of both prelate and parish clergy. Alcoholism was rampant among clergy, which caused the cliché, “He drinks like a monk,” to become popular. Immorality likewise plagued the monastic clergy, beginning with protopope Andrei Savinov, Tsar Aleksei’s confessor, who was sheltering a mistress at the palace, right under the tsar’s nose. Patr. Joachim complained at the council, that priests would drink at taverns, weddings, and other dinners, and then pass out in the street, lying there the entire night. They did no service to the Church by not being able to conduct liturgy the following day. He also exposed and attempted to curb beer brewing and boot-legging at monasteries. Simony had likewise reared its ugly head again, and Joachim issued edicts against it. Prostitution, not discussed at previous councils, was spreading in Moscow, and Patr. Joachim had to threaten the local clergy with capital punishment if they should accept an affair in lieu of a payment of an ecclesiastical fine or for performance of a rite. The edicts of the council of 1675 were sent to all dioceses with a stern admonishment from Joachim for them to follow the edicts without argument or objection. Although the patriarch’s intents were considered noteworthy, little progress was made. Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich Romanov passed away the night of January 29/ 30, 1676, from pneumonia, and the throne passed to his 16-year-old son Feodor; son Peter at this time was four years old. The morning of January 30 was encompassed by a wave of intense activity of allegiance to the new Tsar, which overflowed from the palace into the Kremlin courtyard, over the walls and through Moscow, and even extended to the furthermost extents of the Russian Empire. The young and sickly Feodor, suffering from scurvy, was barely able to gain

162

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great enough strength to enter the palace chapel to bid farewell to his father, and then he returned to his mansion, back to his nurses’ care. Patr. Joachim summoned his prelates and palace officials to begin Tsar Aleksei’s funeral. The affair was so seldom, but Joachim knew the rite. About 10 o’clock that morning, after a late January sunrise, the patriarch was at the head of a procession of prelates and ecclesiastical officials crossing the Kremlin courtyard, from the Chamber of the Cross to the palace. The stream of clergy in their sacerdotal vestments appeared from the distance as a colorful line with brightly colored edges, which were the ranks of Royal Guards (Streltzi), in full dress with their polished swords. They walked upon a black carpet, laid over the pavement for the occasion. Close to 400 clergy attended and they held lit candles in their hands, almost indistinguishable in the morning sun. Officials gathered in front of the imperial palace in full dress, and moved to the sides as the patriarch and his procession drew near. By Patr. Joachim’s order, imperial Russia’s two greatest treasures were carried at the forefront of the procession: the icon of the Immaculate Theotokos of Vladimir and a relic of the actual Cross. Patr. Joachim was assisted with a boyar under each arm. The coffin was hardly even seen as it was carried by pallbearers, due to the amount of expensive brocades covering its lid and draped over its sides. Joachim walked straight ahead, not turning his head, knowing the masses of old friends and compatriots of the tsar had tears rolling down their cheeks and beards. Prior to sealing the coffin, Patr. Joachim performed a requiem, and placed an edict of forgiveness in the cold hands of the deceased, which was to accompany him when he stands for judgment. At Archangelsk Cathedral, the coffin was lowered into a stone sepulcher. With the requiem performed and the sepulcher sealed, the crowds dispersed. Like his predecessor Patr. Joasaf, Patr. Joachim directed his energy to implementing the decisions made at the Great Council of 1666-1667. In 1677, an ecclesiastical council abolished the Monastery Ordinance. At the same council Joachim wanted to increase the number of dioceses in Russia, by adding 10 more — from 13 to 23 — but they were unable to do so. Although Russia is massive in terms of land area, its population is scattered. However, four new dioceses were created: Ustyug and Kholmogorsk in the Russian north, and Tambov and Voronezh in central Russian. The Russian Orthodox Church now had a hierarchy consisting of their patriarch, 13 metropolitans, seven archbishops and two bishops. An addition, four dioceses were later added in 1686, with the annex-

163

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II ation of Ukraine, although three of them were in reality regulated by Poland due to their geographic location along Poland’s border. When Tsar Feodor Alekseevich passed away after a six-year reign, hardly 22 years old and childless, the next in succession was his brother, Ivan V Alekseevich, now 15, but mentally retarded. In favor of Ivan’s accession was his older and ambitious sister, Sophia Alekseevna, and the Miloslavski family on their mother’s side. The next candidate in line was Peter Alekseevich, age 10, and those in favor of young Peter were Patr. Joachim, the noblemen Likhachev, Yazikov, and A. Morozov, and the Narishkin family on his mother’s side. To protect their imperial interests, the Miloslavski family with Sophia caused a mutiny among the Royal Guards, turning them against the Narishkins. On May 15, 1682, hardly two weeks after Tsar Feodor’s death, the Royal Guards attacked the palace like a gang of vigilantes in the presence of young Peter and the Narishkin family, and brutally killed the nobleman Artamon Matveev and Peter’s uncle, Afanasy Narishkin. Uncle Ivan Narishkin was killed two days later. This brutality and bloodshed left an indelible mark on young Peter that lasted throughout his entire life. Because these Royal Guards were also Old Believers, and zealots for the ancient piety, an ingrained malice toward them developed and resided in Peter, and which later surfaced in his legislation against them. To settle the strife between the two royal families of the Narishkins and Miloslavskis, regarding the accession to the throne of Russia of a successor to Tsar Feodor Alekseevich, a compromise was agreed on by both Russian noblemen and prelates on May 26, 1682: the half-brothers Ivan and Peter were both to be crowned tsars. On May 29, a subsequent decision was made for sister Sophia, and she was designated regent on their behalf. June 23, 1682 was designated the day of their coronation. Mutineer Royal Guards, under Pr. Ivan Khovanski, presented a petition the day before the coronation, for the rite to be performed according to the old services, the coronation as performed prior to Patr. Nikon’s reform, but their request was futile. (A few years later Khovanski was executed by order of Tsar Peter.) On the morning of coronation day, Priest Nikita Dobrinin, an Old Believer leader, led a procession of priests and adherents in Red Square, and there held a demonstration against the coronation, because of its performance according to the reformed rite. The procession cried out as they walked through the streets, “Stand firm Orthodoxy, for the true faith. At the present, there is no true religion on earth; neither in Greece, nor in Russia, nor in other lands. Only do we con-

164

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great tinue to preserve the true faith. Do not attend church, they are all defiled. Do not accept any sacrament or prayer from the priests. Do not venerate the new style icons. Do not adore the 4-pointed cross, it is the mark of the Antichrist, do not accept Nikon’s innovations,” and etc. The procession carried old icons and old books, and some notebooks, which contained passages declaring that the end of the world had arrived, and they drew crowds. But the coronation was performed without consideration for their protest. On June 28, a few days after the coronation, several Old Believers forced their entrance into the patriarch’s Chamber of the Cross, and began an altercation with Patr. Joachim. To ameliorate the situation, he designated July 5, as the day for Old Believers to vent their grievances in public. Early that Wednesday morning, the dissenters held their own morning Matins, and then took a cross, a copy of the Gospels, an icon of the last judgment, an icon of the Blessed Virgin, and candles, and walked in a procession to the Moscow Kremlin. A large crowd of spectators and Royal Guards accompanied them. At the head of the procession were priest Nikita Dobrinin, two vagrant monks named Sergei and Savvati, and three monks from Voloko-Lamsk Monastery: Dorothei, another Nikita, and Gavriel. They gathered in front of Archangelsk Cathedral, which was opposite the royal chambers, and there set up a pulpit, upon which they placed their cross, icons and lit candles. From the pulpit, priest Dobrinin began to read from his notebook, telling the people to stand for the true faith, and arousing them against the patriarch and prelates of official Orthodoxy. From the Orthodox side, protopope Vasili of Spasski Monastery attempted to read a rebuttal against priest Dobrinin’s petition, but he was drowned out by the crowd. One Royal Guardsman, who was an Old Believer, grabbed the papers from protopope Vasili, urged him over to the Old Believers’ pulpit and was ready to there strike him. Only monk Sergei saved him and allowed him to return to Uspenski Cathedral. Two hours passed. While this was occurring, the patriarch and Russian prelates were performing liturgy at Uspenski Cathedral. Fear enveloped them after hearing of Old Believers invading the Kremlin, and many of them began to cry. The crowd gathered outside was agitated, and many feared a massacre similar to that which occurred the previous May. At the conclusion of liturgy at Uspenski Cathedral, Patr. Joachim decided to relocate to the Granite Chamber, to there have the scheduled meeting with the leaders of the dissenters. Young Tsars Peter and Ivan, along with Sophia and Natalya Kirillovna, remained inside the cathedral

165

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II until it was safe to leave. Young Peter at age 10, watching all that was occurring, loudly exclaimed, “As long as the crown is on my head, and my soul resides in my body, I will not allow ignorance to prevail in my church.” At the Granite Chamber, the Royal family, Patr. Joachim, seven metropolitans, five archbishops and two bishops (one of them the venerated prelate Mitrofan of Voronezh), gathered for the meeting. The Old Believer leaders then entered the Granite Chamber, bringing with them their pulpit, cross, icons and benches. Patr. Joachim proposed to them the first question, “What exactly is it you want to accomplish?” Priest Nikita Dobrinin replied, “We have come to present a petition for the restoration of the religion, because a new religion has been introduced,” and he began to read his petition. Patiently and without outburst, the assembly listened and the tension subsided. Patr. Joachim, holding in his hands an icon of the venerated Moscow prelate, Metr. Aleksei, began to admonish the rebellious dissenters, for them to subject themselves to the decisions of the church. He spoke trembling and in tears, “We do not disclaim the old books, but emend and restore them according to Greek originals. You have raised yourselves up as judges of both the old and reformed, while you yourselves are illiterate. Prelates have the responsibility to ascertain truth.” But their response was, “We have not come to discuss grammar, but ecclesiastical tenets,” and they lifted their right hand with the two-finger configuration and cried, “This is how to make the sign of the cross.” Archbishop Afanasi of Kholmogorsk then rebuffed Nikita, who became furious; he violently lunged at Afanasi and struck him in the face. An uproar ensued in the chamber, and the dissenters fled from the building, screaming as they proceeded to the safety of the Royal Guards’ barracks, “This be your arrangement,” holding up their hands with two fingers up-right in the Old Believer tradition. That evening, regent Sophia ordered the presence of selected representatives of the Royal Guards and presented them with an ultimatum: to provide her with the guilty party. The regiment obeyed; they immediately arrested the primary leaders of the revolt. The monks were exiled to prisons at various monasteries, while priest Nikita Dobrinin, who was not considered a political criminal, was publicly executed by decapitation in Red Square on July 11, 1682, which was the following week.

166

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great Patr. Joachim, at an ecclesiastical council later in 1682, approved of and enacted a systematic and complete repression of Old Believers, in essence, church-sanctioned persecution. Since the persecution of the Judaizers, this was the next legislation in the life of the Russian Orthodox Church to authorize an inquisition similar to that of the Catholic inquisition of the Middle Ages. Even though the Great Council of 1666-1667 blessed the sword of the state, to place fear into those who opposed the official Church, this newest legislation was out of character for Russian prelates, who now accepted the responsibility of betraying all dissenters and apostates into the hands of the state. Earlier, the civil authorities had transferred dissenters to the Episcopal courts for admonishment, while those obstinate in their convictions were exiled to monasteries for incarceration, penance or penal labor; those that repented were released. The royal military, their officials and landlords now had the requirement to search for dissenters for further prosecution. Civil authorities were to sentence them, and impose corporeal punishment by whipping, or in extreme cases, capital punishment. By 1685, the persecution was in progress. A supplement to the edict of the Council of 1682 was issued, which was a prohibition of dissent from official Russian Orthodoxy. Obstinate dissenters, who opposed or defied the Church, were to be burned at the stake. Those convicted of a lesser crime were to be whipped, or exiled to some distant region. Any person apprehended sheltering or protecting dissenters was subject also to corporeal punishment: whipping. The personal property of any dissenter arrested or apprehended was to be confiscated and transferred to the state treasury. Those dissenters that repented, or completed a period of penance, were held at a monastery under surveillance, in order to ascertain their sincerity before their release and return to Orthodoxy. Patr. Joachim became ill March 4, 1690, and his health quickly declined. He died April 17, 1690, and was buried the following day. As Peter gained maturity, he assumed more monarchial power and was able to overthrow Sophia, his half-sister and regent. In 1689, she was arrested by Peter’s order and confined to Novo-Devichi Convent in Moscow, but as a laysister. After nine year’s confinement at the convent, Sophia was again arrested in 1698 during the mutiny of the Royal Guards, and accused of attempting to usurp the power from Peter. Co-Tsar Ivan V had died in 1696, and only Sophia stood in the way of Peter’s assumption of complete imperial authority. By Peter’s order, Sophia was forced to shave her head and take a religious vow, now as the nun Susanna, and she was kept under guard by soldiers during her residence at

167

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II Novo-Devichi Convent, with no visitors allowed. Sophia was held in confinement at the convent a total of 15 years, until her natural death in 1704 at the age of 47.

100. PATRIARCH ADRIAN Patr. Adrian was destined to be the last. He was born in Moscow in either 1637 or 1639, and was a conservative prelate and hostile toward the new European spirit. The earliest mention of Adrian is in 1678, when he was a hieromonk at Chudovski Monastery, Patr. Joachim selecting him that year as its next archimandrite. For the next nine years through 1686, Adrian increased the size of the monastery and rebuilt most of the structures within it, and all with the Tsar Feodor’s financial support. Adrian implemented strict rules regarding the separation of the genders, and enforcement of their monastic vows, especially celibacy. Even though Chudovski was the most visited of all monasteries by the general public, Adrian closed its doors three days a week — Monday, Wednesday and Friday — for the monastery to be able to perform its designated purpose. The upheavals of 1682 disrupted the quiet life of Chudovski Monastery, which ended up in the center of the bloody conflict. Adrian — archimandrite at the time — had more than his share of misfortune, having to stand by Patr. Joachim’s side. In May 1682, before his very eyes, Royal Guards and soldiers who were Old Believers ransacked the monastery searching for traitors. They axed apart the door into the patriarch’s private office in their search. On May 17, archimandrite Adrian was forced, by the Old Believers’ faction on co-regent Sophia’s side, to tonsure the aged and venerated nobleman Kirill Poluyektovich Narishkin, who was Tsar Peter’s grandfather. Adrian complied, hoping to reduce the bloodshed by isolating the elder nobleman at Solovetski Monastery, outside the political arena. During the summer of 1682, Adrian, along with Bishop Afanasi of Kholmogorsk, supported Patr. Joachim against the waves of antagonism from the schism, from the Old Believers. The era took its toll on Adrian’s health and mind. Patr. Joachim, with regent Sophia’s consensus, ordained Adrian as metropolitan of Kazan on March 26, 1686. He arrived at his new diocese July 28. For the next 4½ years Adrian increased the prosperity of Kazan Blago-Veschenski Cathedral, and wrote a thesis against the Old Believers.

168

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great As Patr. Joachim’s health declined, Metr. Adrian moved back to Moscow and handled the patriarchal affairs of the church. There was no doubt that Joachim viewed Adrian as his successor, and it was Adrian who performed Extreme Unction on the aged patriarch as he laid on his death-bed, and sprinkled holy water on him as he took his last breath. Over the next four months, there were heated debates and struggles regarding Patr. Joachim’s successor. Boyars, the Royal family, and the ecclesiastical council, were divided into two factions. Adrian was fortunate to have the mother of Tsar Peter, Natalya Kirillovna, as his patroness, even though Tsar Peter, now 18, was against him. The opposition advocated Metr. Markell of Pskov, and so did Peter, who viewed him more progressive and intellectual, as opposed to the conservative and traditional Adrian. The final decision was made by Natalya Kirillovna in favor of Adrian. (Metr. Markell died later that year from natural causes.) Adrian’s official selection by a council of prelates occurred August 22, 1690, and on August 27, he entered the Kremlin for his ordination at Uspenski Cathedral in the patriarchal carriage of Patr. Filaret, drawn by six horses. At his ordination, Adrian gave a speech promising to observe the canons of Orthodoxy, and to defend the Church from “Latin, Calvinist, Lutheran, and all other heresies, to my last breath.” After Adrian put on his patriarchal vestments — including the cape or mantle of Metr. Peter — both co-tsars, Ivan V and Peter, entrusted to him the saint’s staff with a speech of congratulation. The Royal family extended its honor to Patr. Adrian at a dinner that evening held at the Granite Chamber, where the new patriarch sat at the same table with co-tsars Ivan V and Peter. To conclude the evening, the state secretary brought Patr. Adrian gifts on behalf of the royal family: gilded silver goblets, silk moiré interwoven with gold thread, bolts of velvet, satin damask and camlet, and bundles of sable fur. Viewing the future as successful for his patriarchate, Adrian addressed the crowd, “I will give to future patriarchs a reason for greater zeal. It is from them that I will acquire a note-worthy memory, honor and praise, and prayer on my behalf.” Adrian was fervent towards ancient Russian forms of piety. By character he was mild mannered and almost other-worldly. He did not hide his repulsion of the new tendencies in government, school and literature. The ordination rite of the new patriarch in Moscow was headed by the personalities of both tsars, Ivan and Peter, but Adrian knew that in reality that he would have to deal with only Peter and his intimidating European program. During his entire cathedra as

169

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II patriarch, Adrian was an unadulterated representative of the Moscovite old regime. He believed in the Eastern Orthodox definition of theocracy, yet he conformed to the law in all its aspects. Attitudes towards Adrian changed upon his ascension to the cathedra, and almost the entire council of prelates voiced their satisfaction. Adrian likewise developed a theory of the relationship between church and state, as he spelled out in his memoirs. God installed two supreme rulers on earth: the sacerdotal and the imperial. They are both divine ministers, they both are comprised of people, and are concerned with people, because they both evolve from the same rule, and give prosperity to the life of people. The state has authority on earth, so that the righteous would govern justly among people, defend the offended, and take vengeance on the offenders, expand the empire, and struggle against foreign enemies. It is to support the holy Orthodox Church at every occasion, and contribute to it; it must exile all heretics, dissenters, and all critics; and apprehend criminals, punish and execute them. It must extend gratitude to the philanthropic, and praise to those who serve well; and install judges and execute justice. The sacerdotal has authority in heaven and on earth: for whoever is bound on earth, will be bound in heaven, and whoever is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven. Our measure of the all-holy and all-performing Spirit is developed by grace; the supreme shepherd is father and head of all, because the patriarch is the image of Christ. For all the Orthodox are sons according to the Spirit: kings, princes, governors, military leaders, and the plain and rich and crippled, men and women of all ages and rank. They are all my sheep and they listen to my arch-pastoral voice, and I know them and I must lay down my soul for them, for those who follow me. They will not follow a strange voice, but run from it, because they do not recognize strange voices. I will answer to God on the day of the justice of God, if one of these entrusted to me should perish, or if I am silent and do not speak the word of my episcopacy when I must, whenever I see the necessity of correction.

Although Adrian’s words are magnanimous, but like other patriarchs before him, he was powerless to implement his reforms effectively, and especially with the opposition of those who inclined toward modernity and Russia’s westernization, such as co-tsar Peter. As much as Adrian was inclined to elevate the priesthood over the realm, he could not deny that the sole defender of the Church and the guarantor of true piety was, “the Tsar of the Russian Orthodox Monarchial Realm.” This phrase was recited by Patr. Joachim on the accession of Tsar Feodor Alekseevich in 1676, and also at the coronation of co-tsars Ivan and Peter in 1682. Shortly after his ascension to the cathedra, Patr. Adrian began to hurl thunder and lightening at shaving, European attire, and tobacco smoking. Patr. Adrian issued a circular letter venting his opposition to shaving the beard and moustache, although it had been already in practice since Boris Godunov’s reign.

170

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great In the recent past, zealous observers of ancient piety, such as protopope Avvakum, refused to associate with anyone clean shaven. Adrian, in his circular letter, admonished prelates and parish priests throughout the country, to excommunicate the “insolent and obdurate” clean-shaven from the church. In his own words, “Do not associate with such people, and do not bless them when you meet them, do not allow them to enter church, and deprive them of the sacraments, until they cease from this and repent completely in tears, prayers and a show of charity.” Seldom did Adrian live in the capital city. He sincerely refused to exchange his provincial residence in Kazan for Moscow’s torment, since he realized he was powerless against the influx of European customs. It was not until after the death of his patroness, Natalya Narishkina, in January 1694, that Adrian began to feel a trial in his conscience, and temptation affecting him. As a result of Russia’s modernization and its gradual decline from the traditional ancient Russian piety, psychological pressure overwhelmed Adrian. The wide and various levels of the Russian population, those that were inclined toward traditional religion, were agitated at Patr. Adrian’s passivity and discredited him, saying, that all he cared for was his career. The matter was not so much that it was difficult, but it was an inescapable situation of the cathedra while under the autocratic authority of Tsar Peter. Peter was inclined toward the Russia’s modernization. The German suburb attracted Peter and there, while in the company of “heretics,” he drank heavily, smoked tobacco and adopted Western European style of clothing, and began to shave. It was not until the death of Peter’s mother Natalya, when he was 22 that any serious altercation surfaced between Patr. Adrian and co-tsar Peter. Up to that time, all went well in their relationship. But after her death, Patr. Adrian took a more serious role in Peter’s education and concern for his example as a traditional Russian, since he viewed the influx of European customs as dangerous for Russians. On one occasion, Adrian met Peter at the palace wearing a European style suit, and reprimanded him for this inappropriate change in traditional attire. Peter sighed and coarsely replied, “Instead of worrying about clothing, worry about the affairs of the church.” When Peter began to shave is not known, but he is shown with a beard — just as halfbrother Ivan — in paintings while his mother was still alive. Co-tsars Peter and Ivan V could not avoid being an example for their subjects in their life and conduct and especially in public events associated with the church. During these early years, Peter did conform to some of the church’s rites,

171

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II but only so his half-brother and co-tsar would not take all the applause from crowds in public. But it was this way only until Ivan’s death on January 27, 1696. As an example: Palm Sunday every year coincides with the Holiday of the Entrance into Jerusalem of the Lord, and in the performance of the traditional rite, the patriarch rides upon a donkey, and is led by the tsar from the Lobnoi Place in Red Square to Uspenski Cathedral. In 1693, both Ivan and Peter held the reigns and led the donkey on the traditional route, but this attitude in Peter changed after his brother’s death. Once ascending the throne of Russia, Tsar Peter curbed his participation in ecclesiastical traditions: the processions of the cross; the ride on the donkey; the ceremonial entrance of the tsar into church, and acceptance of blessing from the patriarch. Tsar Peter was visiting Europe the years 1697-1698, but his trip was cut short when he was recalled to Moscow after receiving reports of a new mutiny of the Royal Guards (Streltzi), which was again instigated by dissident Old Believer priests. Peter returned to Moscow, and decided once and for all to terminate any further mutiny or treason on the side of the Royal Guards and their archaic-believing instigators. Tsar Peter had his soldiers prepare a thousand chopping blocks and several gallows, and he had them installed in Moscow and in the village Preobrazhenski, the location of the guards’ barracks. The condemned were brought in carriages, holding in their hands lit wax candles; they made the sign of the cross and ascended the scaffolds. They covered their faces and themselves put the noose over their heads, and adjusted the rope around their necks. Then they were hanged. Others died by decapitation on the chopping blocks by assigned executioners. Of the 1,800 men taken prisoner, almost 1,200 were executed, most of them by decapitation. For some mutineer Old Believer priests, gallows were set up in front of the Church of the Holy Trinity, where they were hanged. Other priests who promoted the mutiny were hanged in front of the Cathedral of Vasili the Blessed in Red Square. The surviving Royal Guards were exiled from Moscow with their wives and children, except for adult children, who were conscripted into Tsar Peter’s new army. When Peter began his execution of mutineer Royal Guards, Patr. Adrian, holding a venerated Orthodox icon and urged on by the traditionalist sector of society, approached Peter to grieve over those sentenced, and to request pardon for those to be executed. Peter chased him off, with an order to return the icon to its place, adding, “I do not honor God and His immaculate Mother any less than you do, but my obligation is to execute criminals who have intentions of doing harm to society.”

172

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great After Peter’s return from this trip to Europe, he asked Patr. Adrian why he had not made arrangements for his first wife Evdokia Lopukhina — whom Peter had abandoned — to take the nun’s veil and send into exile. Patr. Adrian, too timid to frankly explain his procrastination, told Peter that he was threatened by certain Moscovite clergy, should he do such a thing. Peter demanded their names. Adrian timidly pointed out one archimandrite and four priests. The five were arrested and interrogated, and barely escaped execution by capitation. Eventually, Evdokia was forced to take the veil, and she was exiled to Pokrovski Convent in Suzdal, where she accepted the new name of sister Elena. Nonetheless, Tsar Peter requested Patr. Adrian’s presence several times for his blessing on his campaigns. While preparing for his military campaign against Azov, Peter dined with Adrian December 9, 1695, and after dinner he blessed the tsar with the icon of the Immaculate Theotokos of Vladimir. After Peter’s return the following year, Adrian blessed him with the icon of the All-merciful Savior. Prior to leaving abroad, Adrian blessed Peter February 21, 1697, with the same icon of the Theotokos. Adrian again blessed him with the icon of the Assumption of the Theotokos, on his return on August 31, 1698, at his residence after dinner that evening. Patr. Adrian did not know how to deal with this new era, so alien to him, and so he refuted these new forms and traditions in his sermons. To re-educate Russians, Patr. Adrian took the advice of Patr. Dositheos of Jerusalem, who delivered to Adrian several new books on Eastern Orthodoxy in Greek, to be translated into Russian. The monk Evfimius was busy with this immense load: the Greek theologians Maksim Peloponesius, Meletius Sigarius, and Nilus Solunski. The Profession of Faith of Peter Mogila was translated into Russian by Evfimius and was published in 1696. Having naively banished the brothers Likhud from Moscow, and to exile at Ipatievski Monastery in Kostroma, Patr. Adrian, equally naively, asked Patr. Dositheos to send other monks as teachers in their place. Although Patr. Dositheos agreed to do so, he was powerless to do anything of the sort. This was a desolating blow which lowered further the educational level of the Moscow Academy. Although the courses taught at the academy, those dealing with business and government service, grew, the academy’s religious portion, for all practical purposes, failed entirely in 1700, just prior to Patr. Adrian’s death. On February 21, 1696, the Friday before the beginning of Lent, Patr. Adrian suffered a stroke and was partially paralyzed. He did recover and continued to perform the liturgy, but for the most part was confined to Perevinski Monastery

173

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II outside Moscow. Adrian no longer had the strength to oppose Tsar Peter’s reforms, who would visit the ailing patriarch on occasion. Although Tsar Peter would take an interest in the Moscow Academy, he would not contribute even a kopek to it, already preoccupied with his Azov and Narva campaigns. Patr. Adrian was bedridden for the most part the final years of his cathedra. He normally slept on a wooden cot covered with felt, and a down mattress covered with a thin linen sheet. His pillow was also goose-feather, large enough to cover a large stack of papers and documents. Patr Adrian would lay there covered with a blanket made of beaver and ermine furs. When he had the strength to rise, he would stand on a sable fur rug. A second stroke on October 13, 1700, completely paralyzed Patr. Adrian, and for the next three days, he laid still with no control over his faculties, and unable to communicate, except for the movement of his left eye and left hand. On October 16, 1700, Patr. Adrian died, disillusioned, weak and ill. He was buried the following day inside Uspenski Cathedral. Not even until he died, did he comprehend why he had not been able to accomplish the ideals of the patriarchate in the light of all his years of service and dedication to Orthodoxy.

101. TSAR PETER THE GREAT AND THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH Tsar Peter indubitably held the view, that the role of religion in state affairs was utilitarian and pragmatic, although this did not exclude Peter himself from having a profound and active understanding of Christianity. His motives in dealing with religion always reflected a utilitarian purpose, which was characteristic of Peter’s ideology, yet Peter’s psyche still included a religious facet. Not tolerating superstition and cultural ignorance, Peter still enjoyed liturgical beauty, and passionately read the New Testament, and was much interested in the details of church rites. Peter’s reforms affected the Russian calendar. When Peter returned from Europe on August 25, 1698, he celebrated the Russian New Year’s Day according to the traditional manner, on September 1st, now year 7207. Peter allowed the old calendar to continue another year, and then in December of 1699 decreed that as of the approaching January 1, the Russian calendar was to conform to the European, the new year of 1700 beginning that day. Russians in business and polity, as well as a good portion of official Orthodoxy, had been using the cal-

174

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great endar anyway, in their interactions with Europeans. Tsar Peter’s act made it official. Tsar Peter, the great reformer of Russian society, economy and government, certainly reformed the Russian Church as well. Peter’s metamorphosis of Russian Orthodoxy cannot be defined as a reform in religious terms but as a humiliation and abasement of the Church by transforming it into a state department of religious affairs. It was the decapitation of the Russian personification of the body of Christ. The abolition of the patriarchate and its replacement by a secular board was the materialization of Peter’s innate enmity against Orthodoxy, which he inherited from his father Aleksei Mikhailovich. The tragic conflict between Tsar Aleksei and Patr. Nikon and the prelate’s ideology, which intimidated the officials of the Russian state, including the tsar, acted as a catalyst for Peter. For the subsequent generation, which was aware of the history between tsar and patriarch, the appellation of patriarch in itself contained, in a latent state, the menacing possibility of a new power struggle. The reduction of the authority of the patriarchate and its replacement with a council or board under the auspices of the state was effected through a series of related laws and orders issued by the Tsar over a period of 20 years. Since there were no examples of the type of church reform that Peter wanted to implement, either in Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism, he utilized the example of Protestant churches in the Western Reformation, where the head of state was also head of the state-dominant church. Since Tsar Peter was inclined toward implementing the polity and economy of Europe in his reforms for Russia, there was nothing in his conscience that provided any rational basis for not also following the same vein for religion. This would consist in implementing the Protestant form of supreme ecclesiastical administration. Only one tactical and diplomatic question remained for Tsar Peter: How to accustom the Russian traditional viewpoints to a reform of ecclesiastical government without setting off convulsions among prelates and clergy and without inciting another schism. Peter was likewise vexed by the attitudes and associations of his first wife, Evdokia Feodorevna Lopukhina, who entertained religious wanderers and was mesmerized by fools for Christ. Such religious enthusiasm, combined with what Peter identified as superstition and fanaticism, caused him to label her as possessed. Peter fled from her to the German suburb. There, Peter enjoyed the company of Europeans, discussing politics, economy and religion with them, especially their Enlightenment. It was here, among his European associates, that he first learned about the constitutions of Protestant churches in Europe.

175

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II During Peter’s first trip to Europe in 1697-98, while he was a guest of King George III in England, Peter carried on a two-hour conversation with Princess Anne in which they discussed religion, among many topics. Peter enjoyed Anne’s anti-Catholic attitude, and he characterized her later as “genuinely a daughter of our church.” In England, Peter immersed himself not only in the affairs of the state church but also in the sectarian groups. He conversed at length with the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Anglican bishops regarding church issues. Peter was advised by King William III, the Prince of Orange, to make himself head of the religion, just as the King is in Holland, England and other European countries, in order to acquire complete monarchial authority. It is natural to surmise that beginning at this point Peter intended to put into practice in Russia this concept of giving the head of state primacy over the Church as well. From 1709 to 1717, Peter regularly expressed his inclination toward the protestant system and the supremacy of imperial authority over the church. In 1712, visiting Wittenberg, Germany, Peter stood in front of a statue of Martin Luther and said, “This man genuinely earned this. He was a great benefit for his sovereign and many princes; he courageously withstood the pope and his officials.” This Protestant concept of the primacy of the state was in harmony with the philosophy of sovereign rights as adopted by Peter. In his legislation, Peter regularly rationalized and testified to the ideology of sovereign rights. He viewed the ultimate goal of authority as the welfare and prosperity of the society. This application of Peter’s religious philosophy was purely utilitarian, having nothing specifically religious about it. The old Orthodox theocratic system, a harmony between church and state, was abandoned; there was no place for it in Peter’s new utilitarian use of religion. The ultimate goal of earlier theology was for the Christian nation to enter Christ’s eternal kingdom. This meant that the earthly monarch was subservient to this ecclesiastical ideal, and directed his efforts in that light. But under Peter, priorities were re-evaluated and the utilitarian purpose of religion was emphasized. In Peter’s view, the true Church was not the one that offered the correct path to attainment of the heavenly goal or eternal salvation, but the one that supplied national value or historical continuity. The historical Russian Orthodox Church within the sovereignty of the Tsar had precedence, and was in a superior position to all others. Peter viewed Orthodoxy as the national religion appropriate for Russia, while the Old Believers were dissidents and an obstruction to the utilitarian purpose of the Church. The matter of Nikon’s specific reforms was incidental to Peter’s attitude on the validity or truth of religion. The national

176

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great religion had to be organized in a certain manner to be useful to society, and this determined its validity. Lutheranism was just as true a religion as Orthodoxy, and so was Anglicanism, except that Lutheranism was appropriate for Germans, Anglicanism for Englishmen, and Orthodoxy for Russians. Each religion was the true one for its nation. From that standpoint, the clergy of all faiths now fulfill the function assigned to them by the state: they become servants of the state working for the benefit and prosperity of their society. On the other hand, Peter felt that asceticism and other-worldly inclination only tended to distract people from reality and kept them from serving a beneficial purpose for society, and he felt justified in his effort to organize Russian Orthodoxy as a utility under the primacy of the state. It is understandable that Tsar Peter’s new, secular view and his low appraisal of asceticism was alien and bitter to Russian prelates. Patr. Adrian, ascending his cathedra, did not think that he would be the final patriarch, or that the patriarchate would be sacrificed to the new principles of imperial primacy. Patr. Adrian’s convictions as to the theory of the two domains in the old theological sense — setting the boundaries of Church and State as defined by Nikon — he felt to be indisputable. No doubt Adrian hoped to establish his authority in both the Church and the State, but he failed to specify the areas of state obedience to which his theocratic proposal applied. Nikon’s concept of the primacy of the Church over the state was noticeable in Adrian’s theocracy. As a result, it was impossible to reconcile the views of Patr. Adrian and Tsar Peter; one or the other had to give way. This eventually resulted in a repetition of the showdown between Patr. Nikon and Tsar Aleksei, father of Peter, but not until after the death of Patr. Adrian, although his authority slowly diminished during the duration of his ten-year patriarchate. When Patr. Adrian died October 16, 1700, Tsar Peter was at the battlefield of Narva, at war against the Swedes. Aleksei Kurbatov, Minister of Finances, notified him by letter of Adrian’s death and provided him with the names of several candidates who might handle church affairs until a successor could be selected. Kurbatov’s prime choice was perhaps the most prominent prelate of the era, Bishop Afanasi of Kholmogorsk. To assist in the interim, Kurbatov also suggested Karpion Menshoi, patriarchal treasurer; Paladi Rogovski, and Chudovski Monastery monk Feolog. Kurbatov also recommended two others who were not clerics: the nobleman Ivan Alekseevich Musin-Pushkin, and the tsar’s courtier, Dmitri Petrovich Protasiev. Kurbatov, as Minister of Finances, also saw this as an opportunity to place church finances under the control of the state. Tsar Peter

177

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II replied in writing that the nomination of a successor should be postponed indefinitely. It was not Peter’s intention to nominate an interim patriarch but to have a council to administer the affairs of the cathedra, at least temporarily. It was not as though the Russian Episcopacy was short of worthy representatives of Orthodoxy at this time. Bishop Mitrofan of Voronezh, Bishop Afanasi of Kholmogorsk, and Metr. Job of Novgorod were highly qualified. Any of them would have been honored to accept the cathedra of the patriarchate, as Peter was well aware; and he respected them highly. Afanasi of Kholmogorsk was self-taught and highly erudite. He was born in Siberia, in Tobolsk diocese. He was originally a monk of Dalmatovski Monastery on the Iseti River, where he was promoted to abbot. He then relocated to Archangelsk, where he displayed diplomacy and ability to associate courteously with foreigners, mainly the English who docked at the local port. As a child, Peter had seen Afanasi during the dramatic days of the Royal Guards’ rebellion, when the fanatic priest Nikita Dobrinin struck Afanasi during the struggle in the Granite Chamber. Peter had been impressed by his conduct. Mitrofan of Voronezh, known for his personal austerity, gained particular favor during Peter’s campaign against the Turks. Mitrofan provided large financial contributions for the construction of a naval force which sailed down the Don River to Azov. Mitrofan died in 1703. Serving as one of the pall bearers at his funeral, Peter announced to the crowd, “I no longer have any friend so close to me as was this elder.” Metr. Job of Novgorod, given his social and philanthropic activities, could not but win favor with Peter. Distinct from the inactivity of other bishops, the enterprising Job proved to Peter that the real estate and economic holdings of the Church were not futile wealth. In his diocese, Job built 10 hotels, 15 hospitals, an orphanage, and raised the educational level of the theological school. Job recalled the Likhud brothers who were earlier banished from Moscow and imprisoned and assigned them again to teaching. Job also contributed heavily to the state treasury, as Mitrofan of Voronezh did. S. F. Platonov, the famous Russian historian, provides his opinion as to why Tsar Peter was in no hurry to select a patriarch. There is no need to suppose — as some do — that Peter decided to abolish the patriarchate immediately after the death of Adrian. It is more probable to think that Peter plainly did not know how to go about selecting a patriarch. Peter conducted himself with distrust toward the Russian clergy, convinced many times over how disinclined it was toward reform. Even the better representatives of the ancient Russian hierarchy, who were able to understand the entirety of the nationalism of

178

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great Peter’s politics, assisted him as best they could — Mitrophan of Voronezh, Tikon of Kazan and Job of Novgorod — but such were opposed to the culture of Peter’s reformation. To select a patriarch from among the Russians meant for Peter the risk of creating a formidable opponent. Ukrainian clergy provided a stance that was otherwise: they had been subjected to the influence of western culture and education, and were sympathetic to the innovations of Peter. But to install a Ukrainian as patriarch was impossible, because at the time of Patr. Joachim, Ukrainian theologians were compromising people in the eyes of Moscovite society, as people with Catholic delusions. As a result of this, they were subtlety persecuted. The ascension of a Ukrainian on the patriarchal cathedra would have created social upheaval. Under such circumstances, Peter decided in favor of remaining without a patriarch for the time being.

Tsar Peter re-established the Monastery Ordinance on January 24, 1701, within three months after Patr. Adrian’s death. The effective termination of the Russian patriarchate occurred January 29, 1701, the day all administrative and economic affairs of the church, and all its personnel, were placed under imperial control. The new department was headed by Musin-Pushkin. For the short-term management of church affairs, a council was created. It was headed by the recommended Bishop Afanasi of Kholmogorsk, but this was short-lived. The majority of prelates and parish clergy of Russian Orthodoxy, along with those abbots and archimandrites of monasteries that possessed large land holdings, decisively opposed the new control over their economics by the resurrected Monastery Ordinance. Bishop Ignati of Tambov in 1702 was deprived of his cathedra for the underground publication of the writings of Grigori Talitzen, who wrote that the final days had come and that the Antichrist had appeared, referring to Tsar Peter. He also called for people to distance themselves from the tsar and to refrain from paying taxes. The bishop was exiled to confinement at Solovetski Monastery, residing there until his death. In 1707, Metr. Isaiah of Nizhni-Novgorod was removed from his cathedra and exiled to Kirill BelOzerski Monastery in a forced retirement for openly failing to heed the demands of the Monastery Ordinance.

102. METROPOLITAN STEFAN YAVORSKI Tsar Peter personally installed Stefan Yavorski as interim patriarchal administrator on December 16, 1700, hardly two months after the death of Patr. Adrian. He was unknown to Russian prelates, and was the youngest of any of the metropolitans; his title was “Exarch, Guardian, and Administrator of the Patriarchal Cathedra.” Actually, the appellation of Exarch was inappropriate and

179

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II inapplicable, since an exarch still possessed full authority of the office, although exiled or displaced, while Yavorski was assigned only as guardian and administrator under the Tsar’s auspices. Yavorski was born 1658 in the village of Yavorovo, west of Lvov. His parents were partly of Polish nobility. He attended Kiev-Mogilyanskoi Academy, where he excelled. In order to further his education, he converted to Unia and so was able to attend Jesuit colleges in Lvov, Lublin, Vilna and Posen. During this period, he studied under the name of Stanislav. After completing his education, he returned to Kiev and reconverted to Orthodoxy. Yavorski became a professor at Kiev Academy and while there he was tonsured as a monk. In early 1700, Yavorski was sent to Moscow by order of Metr. Varlaam Yasinski of Kiev as a candidate for some type of vicariate. While he was in Moscow, Yavorski was requested to deliver a eulogy at the funeral of the nobleman A.S. Shein; Tsar Peter attended the requiem. Yavorski’s rhetoric was quite unlike the shallow scholarship and meager vocabulary of Moscow prelates, and Peter was delighted. This was a man who could be utilized in the religious reform, and who could likewise stand up to and debate the conservative long-bearded Moscovite prelates. Yavorski himself was not immediately receptive to such acclamation, and especially on the part of the tsar, who had intentions for his future. Yavorski had his mind set on the prospect of a bishop’s cathedra in a city in the Ukraine or near his home, and his Kievan dialect was something of a liability among Moscovites. Peter, however, instructed a council of Russian prelates to ordain the young Yavorski as metropolitan of Riazan and Murom. Moscovites murmured behind Yanovski’s back, calling him a “Polack, boot-licker, Latinizer,” and “Cherkassian” (Circassian), a term used derogatorily to refer to Ukrainians. Of course, Peter was not deterred. Not even a year passed before he promoted this “Latin sympathizer” to the post of Guardian of the Patriarchal Cathedra. Prelates bit their tongues and attempted to indirectly pressure Peter. They sent a report to the Eastern Orthodox coryphaeus, Patr. Dositheos of Jerusalem. In his reply, which was sent directly to Tsar Peter, Patr. Dositheos reflected the opinion and concerns of Moscovite prelates. The patriarch himself had bitterly suffered as a result of Catholic infusion into Orthodoxy and the education of Orthodox students in Western Europe. Dositheos was sympathetic to Moscovite suspicions of Kievan Catholic sympathizers. Dositheos beseeched Peter to not assign any Episcopal posts to Ukrainians, but solely to Orthodox Moscovites, to reduce the possibility of any Catholic or Protestant influence

180

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great entering Russian Orthodoxy. Parallel with his letter to Tsar Peter, Patr. Dositheos also sent a letter to Stefan Yavorski himself, utilizing information that was delivered to him by Moscovites who were spying on Yavorski. Dositheos faced Yavorski with evidence of his Catholic thinking, and threatened him with oblivion by all of Eastern Orthodoxy if Yavorski should accept this post, which Dositheos understood as equivalent to the patriarchate in authority and administration. The Ukrainian episcopacy was proud of the promotion of their native son and scion and, given the prestige that accrued to Kievan culture which was now embodied in Stefan Yavorski, they supported his perseverance in remaining in his post. As an outsider, he got off to a difficult start among the Russians. Tsar Peter’s hope was that he would evolve into his official spokesman on religious matters; Yavorski played the role as well as he could, naively hoping that with sufficient laud and flattery of the emperor, he would soon be promoted to the patriarchal cathedra. However, as time went on, it became apparent that Yavorski was exerting little or no effort toward Tsar Peter’s church reform, while Peter more and more became convinced that Yavorski was sympathetic to Catholicism (which was repulsive to Peter). Moscovite religious circles eventually sensed that Yavorski was rather a conservative, and they set aside their personal misgivings and recognized him as a useful tool in the struggle against Peter’s radicalism. In the same mind and same voice with Moscovites, Yavorski condemned the Tsar’s second marriage to the Lithuanian Martha Skavoronskaya, whom Russians considered a foreigner, with whom Peter had five children before marrying. (After they were married, in 1712, her name was changed to Ekaterina, or Catherine.) Such conduct was repulsive to Yavorski, especially in view of the fact that Peter’s first wife, Evdokia Lopukhina, was still alive, although confined to a convent. The fatal blow to the career of the ambitious Yavorski was his attachment to the circle of clergy and officials that defended Peter’s son, Aleksei Petrovich, the only child born of his marriage to Evdokia. Peter became quickly disenchanted with Yavorski after the latter indicated his support for Aleksei Petrovich. In 1712, in a sermon on the holiday of St. Aleksei, the namesake of the young tsarevich, Yavorski referred to Peter’s son as, “the only hope Russia has.” In this sermon, Yavorski exposed Peter’s sins: he was condemned for refusing to observe the fasts, offending the Orthodox Church, and abandoning his first wife. Peter reacted quickly; he demanded a written text of the sermon, and wrote

181

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II upon it his resolution. Peter’s reprimand was forwarded personally to Yavorski, whose reaction convinced Peter that Yavorski was incorrigible. Now the relationship between the heads of the state and church worsened, and Yavorski received a directive from Peter forbidding him to preach anymore without submitting his sermons to a censor. It was obvious to everyone, except perhaps Yavorski himself, that his career had reached a dead end. Even then, the more Yavorski observed Peter’s sympathy toward the German Protestant spirit, the more the Catholic, anti-protestant pathos was inculcated in Yavorski. No longer Tsar Peter’s favorite, or a fixture in the public eye, Stefan Yavorski now directed his polemic energy toward writing a voluminous treatise entitled Rock of Faith, to defend conservative Russian Orthodoxy. The rise of Protestant influence provided Yavorski with impetus for such a book. Completed in 1713, it gave Russian Orthodoxy the polemic means to refute Protestantism. Of course, Yavorski was told at the time that such a composition would be detrimental to state interests, whose intent it was to attract foreigners. Such a book, discrediting European Protestant thought and arming traditional Russian Orthodox against them, would preclude their migration into Russia to westernize the country as Tsar Peter intended they should do. The book was never printed during Yavorski’s lifetime. It remained under the care of conservative Orthodox prelates for 15 years and was published in 1728. In the final years of Yavorski’s circulation, he was gradually transformed from an alien into a pillar of conservative Moscovite Orthodoxy. A conspiracy surfaced in early 1718 against Tsar Peter; that cost the Russian Orthodox Church any remaining credibility it may still have retained in his eyes. Several clergy hoped for the tsar’s demise. Should the occasion arise, their intentions were to first release his legitimate wife Evdokia from the convent and then to crown her son, Aleksei Petrovich, as tsar of Russia. In the back of their minds they were convinced that the new tsar would return conservative Orthodoxy to Russia and appoint a patriarch in the traditional manner. Their fantasy flourished during Tsar Peter’s illness in December 1715, when Last Rites were administered; but he quickly regained his health. In the manner of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, Peter began an inquisition in February 1718 into the conspiracy against him. Among the many who were arrested, tried by Peter himself, and either tortured or executed or both, were his closest of political confederates and family members including his own son, Aleksei Petrovich, who died during interrogation by torture. Aleksei’s confessor, Yakov

182

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great Ignatiev, and Evdokia’s confessor, Feodor the Hermit, and other Orthodox clergy were likewise arrested for their suspected involvement. Bishop Dosithei of Rostov was arrested and brought to trial, although he only admitted having sympathy for Peter’s first wife, Evdokia, and their son. Even though no further evidence could be acquired showing any treason against Russia, Peter himself sentenced Dosithei to death. After the trial, as his ecclesiastical vestments were being removed by other clergy under orders, Dosithei stated to fellow prelates, “Am I the only one who has have fallen victim? Why don’t you direct your ears to the public, and hear what they are saying?” Dosithei, along with monk Feodor the Hermit, and one other clergyman, were publicly executed: they were broken on the rack in Red Square on March 26, 1718, and left to die. Metr. Joasaf of Kiev died from a stroke at about this time while on the road to Moscow for his trial. Metr. Ignati of Krutitzk, also a suspect, was forced to retire to a distant hermitage for the balance of his life, now as a regular monk. Later in 1718, protopope Yakov Ignatiev was executed by decapitation in Red Square. Tsar Peter was enraged at Orthodox clergy. “You long-beards,” he shouted, “my father struggled with one man, while I must struggle with a thousand.” Peter was referring to the power struggle between his father Tsar Aleksei and Patr. Nikon. Tsar Peter blamed the conspiracy of his son on his ex-wife Evdokia and the Orthodox clergy, declaring that his son would never have conceived of this idea to betray his father if they had not instigated him. Fortunately, there was no evidence linking Yavorski to the conspiracy and he was delivered from its consequences. (After 19 years at Pokrovski Convent, Evdokia was ordered to Moscow during the proceedings in 1718, and was accused by Peter as an instigator in the attempt to overthrow him. She was then transferred by Tsar Peter’s order to Svyato-Dukhov Convent near Novgorod, where she remained an additional ten years as a nun.) The prosecution by Stefan Yavorski of two Russian Protestant teachers in Moscow, Dmitri Tveritinov and Foma Ivanov, led to his further alienation from Peter. As a result of the altercation with the dissenters Tveritinov and Ivanov — who are discussed further in this history — Yavorski was reprimanded severely by the senate. Yavorski now realized that it was no longer worth the effort to try to warn the senate of the immediate danger and the consequences of Peter’s intervention into ecclesiastical affairs, because the senate viewed the matter through the lens of Tsar Peter’s utilitarian concept of religion. After the senate coarsely scolded Yavorski, he left the senate chambers with tears in his eyes.

183

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II

With the construction of the St. Petersburg Alexandr-Nevski Monastery, completed in 1712, Peter sought a candidate to install as its rector, an educated person who was anti-Catholic and liberal minded. Peter found this person in Theodosei Yanovski. He was descended from Polish nobility and was a graduate of Kiev-Mogilyanskoi Academy. Yanovski had moved to Moscow but fled to Novgorod after being persecuted by Patr. Adrian for his liberal views. In Novgorod, he found refuge with Metr. Job and in due course was promoted by him to the post of archimandrite of Khutinski Monastery. At their first meeting, Tsar Peter took a liking to Yanovski and especially his professional qualities, which he could not find among native Russian clergy. Peter invested Yanovski, rector of the newly-opened Alexandr-Nevski Monastery, with full authority over ecclesiastical affairs in the St. Petersburg region. Peter had visions of his new monastery operating in his reform perspective, and he entrusted Yanovski with the responsibility of implementing this. Alexandr-Nevski was to be a nursery for the training of new bishops and scholars of Orthodoxy in the spirit of Tsar Peter’s vision of a utilitarian church. After the death of Metr. Job in 1716, Tsar Peter elevated Yanovski to metropolitan of Novgorod. Nonetheless, Yanovski likewise failed Tsar Peter in his ambitious reform of Orthodoxy, turning against his new Synod soon after the death of Peter. It was about this time that Tsar Peter finally unearthed the candidate who would implement his revolutionary reform of Russian Orthodoxy. He found the qualities he sought in their highest level in Theofan Prokopovich.

103. ARCHBISHOP THEOFAN PROKOPOVICH Theofan Prokopovich was born 1681 into the family of a Kievan businessman, and at birth was named Eleazar. As an adult, he changed his name to Theofan, after his illustrious uncle who held the post of rector of Kiev-Mogilyanskoi Academy. Just as with Yavorski, Prokopovich departed for Rome, where he entered the Uniate College of St. Athanasius to acquire a higher education, having acquired a fluency in Latin while in Kiev. He likewise became a Uniate monk, with the new name Elisai, the Greek form of Elisha. Jesuit teachers admired the capabilities of Elisai Prokopovich and proposed that he enter their order and remain as a manager at the Vatican library, but Prokopovich hid from them his deep repulsion of everything Catholic and his inclination toward Refor-

184

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great mation theology. The Jesuit environment of Rome had a deleterious effect on him, and a revulsion for Catholicism developed in Prokopovich during his years of study in Rome. In 1702, he returned to Kiev and removed his masquerade of Unia. He was again tonsured as a monk and accepted the name of Samuel, becoming a professor of poetics at Kiev Academy. In 1705, Prokopovich was granted his earlier name of Theofan, again in honor of his uncle, but who had just recently passed away. Through 1716, Prokopovich taught courses in rhetoric, philosophy and theology, although his theology was now inclined toward doctrines that he had developed as a combination of both his Catholic education and independent Protestant studies. His theology won favor in some circles as a fresh approach to the stagnant scholasticism which seemed to have pervaded Orthodoxy due to Jesuit influence in Russia. Tsar Peter initially met Prokopovich in Kiev in 1706, but there was no conversation between them other than a courteous greeting. They next met in 1709, during liturgy in Kiev after the Poltava victory. Prokopovich was entrusted with the sermon to memorialize Tsar Peter’s campaign and victory, and he did so successfully, impressing Tsar Peter with his eloquence. Coincidently, the day of the Poltava victory was also the holiday of the blessed Samson of Old Testament fame, June 28. Prokopovich identified Peter with the Russian Samson — warrior and judge — and the defeat of the Swedes with Samson’s slaughter of 10,000 Philistines; Charles XII became the lion which Peter, the Russian Samson, killed with his own hands. This association of the Swedish insignia of three lions and the end of June — the entrance into the month of the zodiacal sign of Leo — was an effective analogy and created a mystic symbolism that surrounded Tsar Peter like an aura. Prokopovich mentioned in his sermon Peter’s three-cornered hat that was penetrated by a bullet that failed to injure him. In 1711, at the beginning of the Pruth campaign, Peter took Prokopovich with him to lead the military assigned clergy or chaplaincy, and during the campaign Peter was further assured of Prokopovich’s personal value in his plans for ecclesiastical reform. After the Pruth campaign, Tsar Peter assigned Prokopovich to the post of rector at Kiev-Mogilyanskoi Academy, where he would also be professor of theology, and abbot of Kievo-Brethren Monastery. The honorable and courageous leaders of the academy, archimandrites Theofilakt Lopatinski and Gedeon Vishnevski, decided to present a public protest to the tsar, who had erred, they felt, by installing Prokopovich as rector.

185

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II This expose was delivered in 1712 to Tsar Peter at his new northern capital, but he discounted it. In 1716, Tsar Peter summoned Prokopovich to St. Petersburg, which was one step closer, as Prokopovich viewed it, to an episcopate. Academy leaders sensed the same and were alarmed. Archimandrites Lopatinski and Vishnevski wrote a new letter, accusing Prokopovich of Protestantism. The letter was delivered to Tsar Peter by Stefan Yavorski, Peter’s patriarchal guardian, who also added his signature to the letter. Tsar Peter paid as much attention to this letter as he had toward the other. After counsel with the Tsar, Prokopovich agreed to become a resident of the new — and universally unloved — capital built upon the marshes of the Neva River delta (the word “neva” is Swedish for marsh or swamp). Using means acquired from his patrimony, Prokopovich built for himself an estate worthy of an archbishop, and began to lead a publicly fashionable life, which elated Tsar Peter. Prokopovich’s temperament was such that he continued the humanistic idealism which flourished in the 17 th century, and he considered himself “enlightened.” Prokopovich enjoyed the protection of his patron Tsar Peter, as it provided him the channel to mock the traditional form of Moscovite custom and ecclesiastical superstition and, at the same time, propagandize his humanistic optimism, the radiant banner of enlightenment philosophy. In 1716, Prokopovich wrote about his possible candidacy for the episcopacy to his friend Yakov Markevish, a Polish gentleman. In this letter, Prokopovich admitted his distaste for bishop’s vestments, sacred articles, and performance of the liturgy, although he enjoyed church administration and would accept the episcopacy only for the sake of administration over the diocese. The enemies, Prokopovich disclosed in his letter, are the ritualists, those attached to the Church’s medieval tenets, the opponents of the new humanistic optimism and culture. Theofan Prokopovich patiently waited two years in St. Petersburg, and then in 1718 was ordained by a council of prelates as archbishop of Pskov, with the amendment by Tsar Peter that his residence would be in St. Petersburg. In this manner, Peter identified his new city as the religious capital of the northern region, in lieu of either Novgorod or Pskov. Prokopovich’s education and talents exceeded that of Yanovski, who held the title of metropolitan of Novgorod, but Peter hoped the two of them would be cooperative accomplices in his reform. Tsar Peter now awaited the natural demise of Stefan Yavorski in order to assign the administration of the Church to a trusty leader.

186

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great The St. Petersburg home of Prokopovich became a gathering place for the Tsar’s supporters and sycophants, political sympathizers and foreign businessmen who would lunch and dine there regularly. On one occasion, at about midnight, Tsar Peter was inspired to join a dinner that was already underway at Prokopovich’s. The guests were well along in their feasting and drinking when Peter appeared at the door. Without a moment’s hesitation Prokopovich greeted him with the gospel words, “Behold, the bridegroom comes at midnight. And blessed is the servant who is found vigilant.” Peter was charmed, and the feast continued. The pride of Theofan Prokopovich was his library, over 3,000 volumes, which he kept at a Novgorod seminary. The majority of the books were foliovolumes bound in leather, and some three-quarters of them were written by protestant authors. The value of this collection was inestimable, and it served Prokopovich in his literary efforts (which produced some 70 treatises dealing with both religion and politics). As far as Tsar Peter was concerned, Prokopovich was the personification of a religious academy and he had a ready answer to any question dealing with either church or state; Peter came to rely on Prokopovich, who bolstered the theory of the emperor’s sovereign rights and the doctrine of imperial authority by providing Peter with the apparatus for divine approval of his reforms. Prokopovich wrote that since the emperor was the legislator, he was above the law — he defined what the law was; and that the emperor was only subject to God in the terms that the emperor understood the law of God. The emperor was head of the Church, which had no authority to dictate to its superior what his obligations were, or to inform him of God’s requirements of him. On the contrary, it was the Church that was to subject itself to the understanding of God’s requirements as interpreted by the emperor. If the emperor had any judge, it was solely his conscience. Prokopovich’s concept of theocracy was purely subjective, as he had no respect for the historical mutual relationship between church and state in Orthodoxy. According to Prokopovich’s treatises, an unimpeded path was now available to reorganize the higher administration of the Russian Church with one stroke of the emperor’s pen, and so alter its status within the Russian state. Utilizing this theory of the emperor’s sovereign rights, which was alien to the Russian Church, Prokopovich discarded as useless all the ancient foundations, and substituted for them the state’s goals. Formerly, the population strove to attain the Kingdom of God; now, their purpose was to utilize religious fervor for the state’s benefit. The emperor would

187

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II legislate as necessary in order for the Church to serve state interests, which now became the Church’s sole purpose for existence.

104. THE RELIGIOUS REGULATION In this rupture from the existing traditional theocracy, Tsar Peter was careful and moved slowly in unveiling his new concepts. Prokopovich’s mind was the ultimate reflection of his reform intentions and no other person in the future history of Russian Orthodoxy, not even any of the succeeding AttorneyGenerals of the Synod, could attain the same deductions as did Prokopovich. When Peter approached Prokopovich with his sketches and thoughts on a reform of the supreme cathedra, Prokopovich argued in favor of it. They were both in consensus that the Byzantine system and its norms had been misused by Russian clergy, and needed to be changed. Prokopovich inferred as much in his treatise, Inquest regarding the Pontifex, historically providing testimony that the Roman emperors, in the post of Pontifex Maximus, held sacerdotal authority as well as imperial. But Prokopovich twisted this well-known fact to clothe the Russian emperor in Episcopal vestments, while at the same time depriving the episcopacy of its mystical aura. In Roman paganism, the appellation of bishop or Episcopal literally signified a superintendent, guard, foreman or overseer. According to Prokopovich’s rationalization, the title of bishop conferred on the shepherds was not due to their performance of rites but due to their oversight or supervision of the flock. Having reduced the bishop’s role in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, Prokopovich now in reverse bestowed the Episcopal mantle on the Sovereign’s shoulders, referring to him as bishop of bishops, now having the ultimate responsibility of oversight or supervision over the ecclesiastical Episcopacy. The result is that the pagan role of Pontifex among Christian sovereigns is justified. Although they did not perform rites, as the pontifexes did in paganism, the Christian pontifexes legitimately and justly supervised the hierarchy using their supreme sovereign authority. Prokopovich’s subtlety, when carefully interpreted, contained an ideological forgery which very few people were able to recognize. From the pagan roots of Pontifex Maximus evolved the ecclesiastical-administrative authority of the Russian tsar, which was copied from the Byzantine kings. Prokopovich justified his anti-theocratic view of the autocratic monarch based on the concept that the monarch no longer served the church, but the Church served the monarch. Prokopovich’s ideology could be

188

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great summarized as follows: the theocratic monarch presents his realm for the church’s service, while under an imperial monarch, prelates present the Church for the service of the realm. The intent of the reform was clear to Tsar Peter, but he was unable to formulate it in a codified and canonical manner, while Prokopovich defined it very equationally. Prior to meeting Prokopovich, Peter knew that in protestant countries there existed a bureau for the administration of church affairs. The term “ministry” was not used, but “college,” indicating a bureaucracy wherein any administrative member was limited in his authority by the voices of the other members. During his first tour of Europe in 1698 Peter invited Francis Lee, an Englishman, to institute such colleges or ministries in Russia. In 1711, Peter came in contact with Liebnitz, a German, and consulted with him about the matter, and he left Peter with a sketch for a bureau for Church administration. It was not until 1712 that Tsar Peter began to introduce colleges or ministries for separate departments, and not until 1715 that he adopted a system used by the Swedes for his state administrative reforms. When Peter returned from his second tour of Europe in October 1712, he appointed presidents for ten cabinets and assigned each of them the duty of organizing a college or bureau for their respective department. Characteristically, Peter started with areas that did not deal with religion, where he suspected resistance would be strongest. It was soon after the scandal of the Tsarevich Aleksei that the idea of expanding the initial ten departments to encompass the Russian Orthodox Church was first publicized. In May 1718, Peter summoned Yavorski from his comfortable Moscow residence to the swampy construction zone that was St. Petersburg. After languishing at the new capital the entire summer and following winter, Yavorski presented Tsar Peter with a timid petition to be released from captivity in St. Petersburg in order to attend to more important business in Moscow. Yavorski complained he had no real residence. From St. Petersburg, he could not administer the Moscow and Riazan dioceses; he could not summon bishops there when he had nowhere to house them; and he could not administer the patriarchal cathedra. All these tedious problems made his life in the new capital even more uncomfortable, but they also exposed the administrative inertness of Yavorski. Reading his letter, Tsar Peter exploded and after a series of reprimands attacking Yavorski’s character, he concluded his response with the following pregnant passage, “And I think that for a better administration in the future, a Religious College could handle important matters more efficiently.” Peter ordered Prokopovich to compose a preliminary description for

189

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II the institution of a Religious College or Bureau, which Prokopovich completed by December 1718. Every college or bureau was guided by its rules, which were referred to as a regulation. The draft copy of the Religious Regulation was an entire book designed to codify Tsar Peter’s thoughts so they could be easily explained and defended. But neither Peter nor Prokopovich noticed that the document, composed as a preliminary Regulation, contained an inherent incoherence and contradiction, because they were overwhelmed by the challenge of convincing ecclesiastical circles of the necessity of such a bureau. After a series of revisions resulting from discussions between Tsar Peter and Prokopovich, the Religious Regulation was finalized February 11, 1720. When Tsar Peter was visiting Alexandr-Nevski Monastery in 1719, administrator P.V. Nartov asked Prokopovich, “Tell us, father, will a patriarch be soon selected?” Jestingly, Prokopovich replied, “I am already sewing a cassock for him.” Peter sarcastically added, “And I have a hat ready for him.” Their words were not a vain jest but a reference to the Religious Regulation that would become the “cassock and hat” which the religious bureau would wear when they replaced the patriarchate. Finally, the moment arrived for Peter to unleash the materialization of his long intended reform of Russian Orthodoxy. Peter delivered an order to the Secretary-general of the senate on February 23, 1720, to convene an ecclesiastical council for all the senators, plus any prelates who were in St. Petersburg, to listen to the newly-composed Religious Regulation the next day. Attendance was mandatory. It was apparent to Tsar Peter that, in order to implement the regulation at lighting speed, he initially had to acquire a verbal consensus and approval from whatever officials were available, both imperial and ecclesiastical. The members of the senate and clergy gathered that evening to begin listening to the new Religious Regulation. The reading continued the following day, February 24, 1720. At the conclusion of the initial reading, some additional material was added and, according to the report of the tsar’s chancellery of the proceedings of that day, “all the other points were tolerable.” The prelates of the Church who attended the initial reading of the regulation were the following: Stefan Yavorski, metropolitan of Riazan; Silvestr Kholmski, metropolitan of Smolensk; Pitirim Potemkin, archbishop of Nizhni-Novgorod; Varlaam Kossovski, bishop of Tver;

190

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great Aaron Europkin, bishop of Karelia; Theofan Prokopovich, archbishop of Pskov; Theodosei Yanovski, archimandrite of Alexandr-Nevski Monastery and metropolitan of Novgorod; Antoni, archimandrite of Moscow Zlato-Yustova (Chrysostom) Monastery; and, Jonah, archimandrite of Kazan Spaso-Preobrazhenski Monastery.

To confirm this initial victory over the clergy, Tsar Peter required their confirmation of the Religious Regulation the next day, February 25, 1720, as an indication of their consensus. Then two copies of the document were created on February 27, 1720, and the six members of the Imperial Senate and the abovementioned clergy signed both copies of the Regulation; Tsar Peter’s signature followed the others along with the application of the royal seal. By this means, a new form of supreme administration of the Russian Orthodox Church materialized, and without the inclusion or approval from ecclesiastical prelates and without any communication with the other patriarchs of Easter Orthodoxy, but as a result of the sole will of an autocratic monarch. Without any debate, the highest prelates of Russian Orthodoxy submitted to the dissolution of the divine patriarchal cathedra, as ordered by the Russian Tsar. Perhaps the fear of reprisal, hardly dormant in the minds of the prelates, restrained any remonstrance as they submitted to the Regulation. The memory of the many priests who were hanged for mutiny by Tsar Peter in 1698, and the others who were executed in Red Square in 1718, was no doubt still embedded in the back of their minds. Satisfied with his initial decisive victory, Peter allotted a year to acquire the signatures of the balance of prelates and other important clergy of the Russian Church. To accomplish this feat, the Senate nominated first an imperial agent, Lieutenant Semeon Davidov, and archimandrite Antonio of Moscow Zlato-Yustova Monastery was selected to accompany him. An edict of the Senate of March 9, 1720, ordered the confirmation of the Religious Regulation to begin with Moscow, with the metropolitan of Krutitzk, and with bishops, archimandrites and abbots who incidentally happened to be in Moscow. The edict very coarsely expressed the necessity of a confirmation by signature, voluntarily and without debate, and the context of the regulation was only to be read to the signatory clergy. The two delegates, Antonio and Davidov, were then to travel to acquire the signatures of any prelates who were not in either St. Petersburg or Moscow. Any clergy who refused to sign the Regulation were to be arrested and

191

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II threatened with trial for refusing the Imperial Order. During the following seven months, Davidov sent a report of their activities to the Senate on a daily basis. After encompassing all Imperial Russia, except for Tobolsk in eastern Siberia, the two delegates returned to St. Petersburg on January 4, 1721. Other than the original six members of the Senate, the Religious Regulation contained the signatures of 87 clergy: six metropolitans, one archbishop, twelve bishops, 48 archimandrites, fifteen abbots, and five pheromones, plus Tsar Peter’s signature and seal. Only two in southern Russia objected to signing the document: Bishops Antoni Stakhovski of Chernigov and Kirill Shumlyanski of Kievan Pereyaslav delayed their confirmation. The Senate issued an order August 17, 1720, to the governor of Kiev to bring the “saboteurs” to St. Petersburg. Shortly after, the two men signed the document with no further objection. In place of the awaited patriarch, a state bureau was placed at the head of the Church. It possessed the appellation of Religious College, a term adapted from the Catholic College of Cardinals, and was a ministry alongside the other state ministries. The members of the Religious College were obligated to recite an oath of loyalty to the tsar in the Senate, just as did the members of the other ministries. The sacerdotal and imperial realms were now merged together. In normal legislative fashion, the Senate presented to Tsar Peter the cabinet offices of the new college for his confirmation on January 26, 1721, even though it was previously arranged by Peter: One metropolitan selected as president. Two archbishops selected as vice-president. Four protopopes selected as assessors. Three archimandrites selected as counselors. A Greek monk in an undefined position.

The clergy initially assigned to these offices were the following: Metr. Stefan Yavorski of Riazan became president. Archbishops Theodosi Yanovski of Novgorod and Theofan Prokopovich of Pskov became vice-presidents. Protopopes Ivan of Troitzki Monastery and Pyotr of Sampsoneyevski Monastery became assessors. Archimandrites Pyotr of Semeonovski Monastery, Leonid of Petrovski Monastery, Jerofei of Donskoi Monastery and Gavriel of Ipatievski Monastery became counselors (four were selected).

192

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great

The vacant positions would be filled by individuals nominated by the members of the new cabinet. Archbishop Pitirim of Nizhni-Novgorod was later offered a post but he wisely declined. From January 25 through February 14, 1721, all the designated members of the college appeared before the Senate, received their orders, and gave their oath of allegiance. One other office that was nebulously referred to in the regulation, the office of ober-procurator or attorney-general, was to be civil — not sacerdotal — and was not filled at this time. Two documents which reverberated in the minds of Russian Church traditionalists were issued January 25, 1721; these were the manifest of the Religious Regulation and the Oath of Allegiance. In the manifest, Tsar Peter, as autocrat of all Russia, directly declares his authority and his obligation to rectify the disorder of the clergy, just as he did the civil and military offices. Not one word is mentioned in regard to the patriarchate, but the necessity of an ecclesiastical council subject to the autocrat is emphasized as the best method of church administration, a council was subject solely to the edicts of the tsar. The manifest stated that no appeal was available beyond the decisions of the new ecclesiastical council. In earlier years, disenchanted clergy could petition any of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs, but now this was prohibited and the decision of the council was final. The final paragraph of the manifest was the following: And we order all our subjects of all ranks, both sacerdotal and civil, to accept this [council] as an important and authoritative ministry. Everyone will request of it resolution of any religious issue of any type, and will obey its decision in every matter, under threat of grave punishment for disobedience or opposition, just as against any of the other [state] ministries.

Originally the new ministry was to be subject to the Senate, but later it was raised to the same bureaucratic platform as the Senate. The Oath of Allegiance required by the members of the new ministry unsettled the prelates even more than the manifest had done. They swore loyalty to the tsar and his dynasty, and to the interests of the state, and swore that they would report anything they heard that would be detrimental or deleterious to the interests of his Majesty, and that all state secrets would be preserved. They especially swore to their acceptance of the imperial monarch as the anticanonical head of all church authority by reciting the words, “I profess with an oath, that the supreme judge of this Religious College is the Monarch of all Russia, our most-merciful Sovereign.” (This oath remained in effect for almost

193

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II 200 years until it was deleted February 23, 1901, by the ultra-conservative attorney-general of the Holy Synod, Konstantin Pobedonovtsev.) February 14, 1721 was designated for the celebration of the opening of the newest state ministry. A liturgy was performed at Troitzki Cathedral, and the members of the new ministry gathered for their initial meeting at a rather modest wood building which had been the home of a lieutenant-general recently deceased. This initial meeting of the Religious College was mainly ceremonial with little work to be done; the tsar intended it to be a symbolic historical event. The following day, Tsar Peter modified the appellation of Religious College to Most-Holy Administrative Council, or, as others translate it, MostHoly Governing Synod. With the original appellation, its identity as a secular ministry was too obvious or acceptable for the balance of the clergy, and even though nothing else would change, at least its title would make it more palatable to the Orthodox population. “Synod” was also a more comfortable Russian term, while “college” had a Catholic connotation. At this initial meeting the members found it impossible to identify themselves as members of one of many state ministries; as clergymen, they could not debase the Church any further than Tsar Peter had already done. They had themselves banished the dream of a restored patriarchate by signing the Religious Regulation, and now it was they who remained to replace it. They were now employees of the state and members of a ministry, which was no longer sacerdotal but imperial in its nature and purpose. They had lost “the high calling which is in Christ Jesus.” The immediate business of the new Synod was to organize itself to handle the administrative affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, forwarding questions to Tsar Peter for resolution and awaiting his replies. The initial questions dealt with the extent of their authority and the specifics of the Synod’s expected conduct and production. One question of utmost significance was the Church’s material interest, namely, the ecclesiastical patrimony. The church considered its massive accumulation and ownership of real estate, including the towns and serfs there located, as its inalienable, sacred legacy, and that custom had been recognized and ingrained into the Russian clergy for some 700 years and consolidated under the 240-year Mongol occupation. In 1701, Tsar Peter placed the ecclesiastical patrimony under the control of the resurrected Monastery Ordinance, and its control was eventually divided among the other ministries in a very inefficient manner. The question brought to Tsar Peter was whether the new Holy Synod would inherit the administration of all ecclesiastical real estate and related

194

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great material interests. Tsar Peter agreed that it would. The entire patriarchal domain was also transferred to the Synod’s direct administration. The Monastery Ordinance was thereby transferred from subjection to the Senate to the Synod. The serfs who were tied to the land, numbering close to one million, likewise became subjects of the Synod and were subject to its laws and ordinances, just as they had been in earlier times before the Monastery Ordinance was implemented by Tsar Aleksei. These old laws and practices were resurrected and the Episcopal courts were again opened, but now under the auspices of the Synod. During the interval of the patriarchal guardian, from 1700 to 1721, Tsar Peter had assigned many ecclesiastical affairs to the Senate and other ministries. These issues pertained to the sectarians and heretics, churches for foreigners in Russia, alien religions, schools, and the publication of church-related books. Now, with the creation of the Synod, all these matters were routed to the Synod’s responsibility. During its initial phase of operation, many clergy were yet uninformed of the legal status of the Synod. In March 1721, Metr. Ignati of Sarsk and Podon asked what was the basis for his management of the former patriarchal diocese, and whether the decree of the Senate of 1718 was still in force. The Synod responded that Metr. Ignati did not understand the supremacy of the new Most-Holy Governing Synod and noted that now the management of the patriarchal diocese was by the Synod, since the tsar had replaced the patriarch with the Synod.

105. THE RATIFICATION OF THE MOST-HOLY GOVERNING SYNOD Tsar Peter had no reason or motive to counsel with or seek approval from any prelate for his Russian Church reform, including any of the Eastern Church patriarchs. On inauguration day of the Synod, February 14, 1721, the question immediately arose whether to continue to commemorate the names of the Eastern Church patriarchs during liturgy. There was some debate over the question. Prokopovich wrote a letter against continuing this practice for the reason that, if the other patriarchs were mentioned at liturgy, disenchantment with the Synod would arise among parishioners and parish clergy would clamor for the return of the patriarchate. By removing mention of the Eastern patriarchs, Prokopovich hoped to indirectly eradicate the patriarchate and the previous patriarchs of

195

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II Russia from the memories of the Russian population. After considerable debate, Prokopovich’s proposition was adopted and put into practice, but with one sole exception. The mention of the Eastern Patriarchs’ names would occur only when the Synod’s president performed liturgy at the Synodal church chapel, which was a very rare occurrence and with few attending. For the subsequent 200 years, the term “patriarch” and the patriarchs’ names were excluded from the liturgy of the Russian Orthodox Church. In mid-1721, Prokopovich, apparently after discussions with Tsar Peter, prepared in Latin a statement to be delivered to the four Eastern patriarchs to explain their Church reform. Prokopovich’s intent was to inform the patriarchs that the new Most-Holy Governing Synod had replaced the patriarchate. The letter contained no request for the approval or consensus of the patriarchs. In essence, the letter was ambiguous on the need for a reform of the supreme cathedra of the Russian Church; a few excerpts from the canons beginning with the Apostolic were included to embellish the letter. Tsar Peter was portrayed in the letter as a divinely-inspired benefactor of the Orthodox Church who sought the best method of ecclesiastical administration and, after finding it, implemented it. The letter also explained that the Synod consisted of Russian prelates and was embellished with the title of Most-High Governing Synod. The explanation concluded with the statements that Tsar Peter was the supreme monarch, and that the Synod was subject to him as ultimate authority. But after re-reading the letter, Tsar Peter decided against its delivery. The letter reflected Prokopovich’s turbulent conscience as he attempted to justify the dismantling of an office which Tsars Feodor Vasilich and Boris Godunov had worked so hard to create, not only in terms of politics but also in terms of cost. Prokopovich’s letter was a desperate and unsuccessful attempt to make the reform palatable to the patriarchs. A new document was composed directly by Tsar Peter on September 30, 1721, and was to be sent to Patr. Jeremiah III of Constantinople. Tsar Peter’s untroubled conscience enabled him to draft a less contorted document. The new letter was written in a tone of humility, petitioning the patriarchs for their recognition of the new institution, and asking them to deal directly with the Synod regarding ecclesiastical matters. The content of the letter is as follows. As a very obedient and most-desirable son of the mother — our Orthodox-Ecumenical Church — always honoring your High Holiness as the primary prelate of this Orthodox-Ecumenical Church, according to the spirit of our forefathers, we deem it necessary to inform you of the following. According to the responsibilities conferred upon us, and after much serious meditation and discussion with both

196

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great clergy as well as secular officials of our realm, we have found it beneficial to establish a Religious Synod having authority equal to the patriarchate, that is, a supreme Religious Synodal Administration, for the management of our church encompassing all of Russia, and composed of worthy individuals from among the prelates, and a sufficient number of other members of the sacerdotal community. We have assigned specific instructions to this Most-Holy Religious Synod, so they would administer the Holy Church according to the Greek confession irrevocably, and that these dogmas would be the rule of their infallible administration. They have committed themselves to this by way of an oath in the Holy Cathedral Church, and by a confirmation with their personal signatures. We hope that your High Holiness, as the primary prelate of the Orthodox-Ecumenical Eastern Church, would be favored to recognize this institution of ours, and the composition of the Religious Synod, as beneficial, and then communicate this to the other Most-Blessed patriarchs, those of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. And since we have, in a most all-merciful manner, commanded the Holy Religious Synod to communicate and correspond with your Most-High Holiness regarding every religious matter, and so we ask your Holiness that you also would be favored to communicate and correspond with the Synod regarding matters of a religious nature beneficial to the church, in the same manner as earlier with the patriarchs of all Russia; and if [the Synod] should desire from your High Holiness some good counsel that would be beneficial to the church or better its condition, for the sake of Ecumenical Christianity, do not ignore us. For this reason, we promise to show every condescension toward your needs, we having a special inclination toward your High-Holiness. And so, your Most Holiness, spiritually our father, the Supreme Ecumenical Prelate, we will continue to abide herein. Your spiritual son at your disposal.

This imperial letter is sufficiently vague and diplomatically nebulous, but typical of Tsar Peter as he avoided the quagmire that the patriarchs could create for him. The patriarchs, of course, would have understood the situation sufficiently well, through couriers, or their agents, in order to provide a suitable reply. Patr. Jeremiah of Constantinople wrote in a letter dated February 1, 1722, that none of the other patriarchs were in his presence at the moment, but when they should arrive in Constantinople, he felt that they would agree with him in the response that he had prepared. The actual response was not received until two years later in a letter dated September 23, 1723, from Patr. Jeremiah of Constantinople. It was accompanied by a letter from Patr. Athanasius of Antioch, which was almost identical in content. Another letter also accompanied the other two, this one also from Patr. Jeremiah, stating that the patriarchate of Alexandria was vacant at the time and that the patriarch of Jerusalem was ill so that he was unable to travel to Constantinople for their convocation. Patr. Jeremiah hoped that sometime in the near future he would be able to acquire the signature of the patriarch of

197

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II Jerusalem on his own reply to Tsar Peter, if the tsar so required it. Patr. Jeremiah wrote as follows: “We confirm, conclude and declare according to the grace and authority of the All-Holy, Enlivening and Sacredly-Governing Spirit, that the Synod in the Russian Holy Great State, which was established by the pious autocrat — the Holy King of all Moscow, Great and White Russia, and all the northern, eastern, western [lands], and many other lands, the Sovereign-Potentate, Sovereign Peter Alekseevich, Emperor in the Holy Spirit a beloved brother so favorable to us and called our brother in Christ — is a Holy and Sacred Synod composed by pious and orthodox Christians, both sacerdotal and secular persons, whether officers or subjects, and from every level of the clergy, and has the right to perform and institute that which the other four Apostolic Most-holy patriarchal cathedras do. We counsel, motivate and prescribe it to preserve and secure inviolate the customs and traditions of the Sacred Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, and all else retained by the Holy church, and to abide steadfast forever.”

It was apparently very easy for the patriarch of Constantinople to confirm this self-humiliation of the Russian Orthodox Church, remembering how difficult it was in 1589 for Jeremiah II — his namesake — to recognize Moscow as possessing the patriarchal title. To the Greeks’ relief, Moscow, with its own hands, had removed from its own head the honored patriarchal miter. Tsar Peter and Theofan Prokopovich were also glad, in their own way. The Synod, upon receipt of the reply, did not hesitate to distribute a copy of the ecumenical patriarch’s letter to every diocese to be read aloud to the silent and dumbfounded parishioners.

106. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE MOST-HOLY SYNOD The institution of the office of ober-procurator — best translated as attorney-general — was the evolution of the absorption of the Russian Church into the state bureaucracy. Its appearance was a necessity in the system of Tsar Peter’s administration, and especially since the Senate also had an attorneygeneral. Tsar Peter personally issued the following edict in the Senate on May 11, 1722: From the officers, a good man must be selected for the Synod, who will have tenacity and be fluent in all the administrative affairs of the Senate. He will be the attorney-general and instructions will be given him, those applicable instructions already assigned to the attorney-general of the Senate.

198

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great Instructions were published on June 13, 1722, for the new attorney-general of the Synod, adopted from the responsibilities of the attorney-general of the Senate. The highlights of the edict are the following points: 0 1. The attorney-general is obligated to sit in the Synod during proceedings, and astutely watch so that the Synod carries out its responsibilities according to the regulation, and administrates according to the rules; and see to it that matters do not go about in circles at the Synod but are genuinely performed. 2. The attorney-general is required to see to it that the Synod conducts itself justly and without hypocrisy and lives up to its calling. But if the attorney-general is to notice something contrary to this, then he is obligated to immediately intervene and disclose this clearly to the Synod, with full explanation as to why they were acting in such a fashion, and so rectify the situation. And if they do not listen to the attorney-general, then he is to issue a protest for them to cease, and immediately relate the matter to the monarch if necessary. 3. The attorney-general is not liable to answer to anybody but the monarch. The attorney-general was the eyes and ears of the tsar at the Synod due to the tsar’s responsibilities in other areas. Initially, he was not any chairman, and neither was he to direct church administration, but he was the tsar’s method of surveillance and control. As a result of the description of the office, such a position held much potential for authority. As the tsar’s trusted agent, he could rule the Synod with an iron hand to implement his personal intents for the Church with the prevailing threat of betrayal to the tsar for insubordination. Tsar Peter and future tsars, as a result of their concentrated involvement in political and imperial affairs, often did not become involved in Synod, but left this up to their trusted agent, the attorney-general. Fortunately, during the first century of the Synodal system, the attorneygeneral was hardly more than a figure-head with limited influence and was independent from the personalities of the members of the Synod. Not one person during the 18th century suspected that the principle of the office of attorneygeneral would become a concrete reality, accompanied by the abuse of power, which occurred during the following 19 th century. Selected from among statesmen, and often from the military, the attorneys-general of the 19th century possessed genuine authority, often acting as though they were the head of the Church, or knew what was the best way for the Church to serve the state, and such policies as they conjured were implemented by the Holy Synod.

199

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II The first attorney-general was Colonel I. V. Boltin, who was appointed by Tsar Peter on June 15, 1722. He held the position until March 11, 1725, shortly after the tsar’s death, when he was exiled to Siberia by order of Prokopovich. After two years, Boltin was released from confinement and promoted to a position of vice-governor. The next attorney-general was Captain A. P. Baskakov, who only lasted a few months, from March 11 to June 24, 1726. He was formerly Captain of the Royal Guards. He was transferred by order of Prokopovich to the second department of the Synod after its division. Baskakov was replaced by R. Rayevski, who at the time was an official in the Monastery Ordinance. Rayevski held the position from 1726 through 1729, after which time there was no attorney-general of the Holy Synod until 1740. Rayevski had no participation in the proceedings of the Holy Synod during his term of office, and probably for good cause. Evidence indicates that Rayevski abandoned the office because of fear of reprisal from Theofan Prokopovich.

107. CONDITION OF RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY AMONG THE POPULATION In general, the fidelity of the Russian people toward the religious traditions and morals of their fathers and grandfathers remained firm, and changed little from the eras prior to Tsar Peter’s reforms. The measures taken by religious and civil authorities to raise the level of national piety and morality were primarily directed toward the amelioration of the severity of ceremonial exclusiveness and the elimination of superstition. Tsar Peter’s reforms proceeded with a stern exposure of the religious ignorance of the people, who — as expressed by the Religious Regulation — were in no condition to even discern their right hand from their left. Tsar Peter stated in his edicts that the people knew neither faith nor love, and had never heard anything about hope, but that they placed all their faith in church singing, fasting, veneration of icons, construction of churches, and candles and lamps. Several times Tsar Peter entrusted the Holy Synod with composing booklets consisting of expositions of dogmas explaining the essence of the Russian religion, and detailing the differences between Orthodoxy and other religions. He hoped that such publications would explain to the common Russian the distinction between faith and ritual, between dogma and tradition. A primer of this type was compiled by Prokopovich in 1722, and a copy was issued to the churches to be read to all parishioners.

200

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great A census conducted in 1738 provides the most reliable data for a period near to the era of Tsar Peter. It showed that the Russian Orthodox Church claimed 16,900 churches, 125,000 clergymen, 950 monasteries and convents, and 17,000 monks and nuns. In regard to ecclesiastical patrimony, the 151 monasteries in Moscow region alone owned 242,000 male serfs. Troitse-Sergievski Monastery was the largest, owning 20,400 peasant homes with a total of almost 100,000 serfs. But relative to the population of Russia, the number of serious adherents of Orthodoxy was very small. A generous estimate allocates Russia a population as high as 13 million in 1725. At the time of Peter the Great, Moscow may have had 200,000 residents. Although the membership of the Russian Orthodox Church is magnified by historians who claim 90% of the population, the number of those who actively practiced this religion was probably closer to 10% or less. The elimination of superstition was a specialty of the era of Tsar Peter, and was executed with exceptional effort. The tsar himself publicly exposed various religious deceptions and disclosed fraud in weeping icons and in pseudo-relics of saints. He blamed such religious scams on the clergy, and even on specific prelates. Tsar Peter prosecuted those who proclaimed pseudo-miracles, or conjured pseudo-prophesies, and demanded that priests betray to the authorities any person who would confess to any such fraud perpetrated on the people. According to Tsar Peter’s reform, the civil authorities and clergy were summoned to prosecute pseudo-fools for Christ, sorcerers, fortune tellers, and prognosticators. Those who claimed miracles or prophesy were subject to corporal punishment and exile to concentration camps, including those determined to be possessed by the devil. Sorcerers and promulgators of superstitions deleterious to the state were subject to capital punishment. Livanov describes the era in the following manner: In spite of the massive number of churches and monasteries, Orthodox clergy, at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th century, held little significance among people. Many individuals would not accept them in their home their entire life. Many did not attend confession until old age, and often just died unrepentant. Not only on Sundays, but on the holidays of the Lord and the Blessed Virgin, parish priests and deacons did not attend church and did not observe Lent; they had a cold attitude and lack of respect towards the sacraments of the church. Tsar Peter in an edict of February 17, 1718, posted throughout the cities, villages and towns, herded the people into the forsaken churches. In place of its direct responsibilities, the clergy sold hard liquor illegally in church, and thereby lost the last traces of obedience that people had for it.

201

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II During his early years, Tsar Peter had noticed the detrimental effect of monasticism on the economic production of Russia. He viewed monasticism as a drain on Russian society. To curb this centuries-old trend, Tsar Peter issued an edict on January 31, 1701 which stated that no one could become a monk before the age of 50. Existing monastic brethren under the age limit were required to take jobs in industry, care for the sick and crippled, tend to wounded soldiers, assist the indigent and do whatever they could relative to the income of their monastery. Having a utilitarian character, Peter saw monks secluded in monasteries as a waste of manpower, parasiting off ecclesiastical patrimony. Monks were also forbidden to travel or relocate monastery to monastery; the rule was legislated in order to curb vagrancy as well as charlatans and religious hucksters. The income from industries located on ecclesiastical estates was likewise appropriated by Tsar Peter, the profits now going to the state treasury. Such arrangements brought complaints from monks, and especially Old Believers, whose ageold attachment to monasteries and their income from the patrimony was now taken away. They identified Tsar Peter with the Antichrist, which irritated him all the more. The Old Believers’ attitude motivated him to enact more laws against them, and increased his favor towards European Protestants. Orthodox monasteries continued to preserve their significance in the religious life of the people, even though the state was not benevolent towards them through the entire course of the 18th century, and created many obstacles for them. One significant hindrance enacted was the Monastery Ordinance, which limited their growth and financial strength. The state also reduced the number of monasteries along with the population of monks and nuns, with much of this the result of attrition. Tsar Peter saw ascetics as useless to society, and so he legislated rules for tonsure. A novice was allowed to be tonsured only after a threeyear audition or probation, and even then it was permitted only to fill a vacancy in a monastery. The minimum age was 50 for both men and women. In 1723, a new edict was issued stating that no new monks would be tonsured at all, and that vacant cloisters in monasteries would be assigned to retired military officials as a type of retirement. This edict, however, was short lived, opposed as it was by many abbots and archimandrites. At the same time, every lay-brother and lay-sister was to be expelled from monasteries, except for those absolutely necessary for the maintenance of the facility, and those novices nearing the end of their three-year probation. New monasteries were allowed to be constructed only after permission was granted by the Holy Synod and the tsar. Smaller monastic residences were required to be combined into larger ones, while their

202

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great churches were to be converted into parishes. Many monasteries fell vacant as their resources were appropriated by the Monastery Ordinance. In 1724, Tsar Peter issued another edict, the intent of which was to make monasteries useful for the Russian state and society. The monks were to learn trades and begin farming; the nuns likewise were to sew clothing and weave linen. The educated monastic clergy was required to open schools inside the monasteries for local children. The monasteries were to dedicate themselves to philanthropic and charitable endeavors, by creating work-houses, hospitals and orphanages. Monasteries also began to accept wounded soldiers for rehabilitation, and would confine the criminally insane in cells. Abbots were required to swear under oath that they would not harbor any recluses or criminals in the monastery, and not propagate superstition. Such austere arrangements and curtailments of monasticism caused an uproar among the monks. From monastery cloisters came an outpouring of letters of opposition and complaint, as a result of which the Tsar forbade the monks to possess pen and paper in their cells and cloisters; now, nothing was to be written by them without the approval of the father superior. However, Peter the Great died in 1725, and after his death many of the laws pertaining to monasticism were not enforced.

108. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION Before Peter’s reign, during the regency of Sophia, Sylvester Medvedev, the architect and builder of the Zaikonospasski (Icon of the Savior) Monastery and a Uniate monk from Kiev, arose as an influential promoter of Catholic theology in Moscow. Medvedev was acute and educated; he knew Polish, Latin and Russian, and was a favorite of both the regent Sophia and Vasili Golitzin, and continued the policies of his mentor, Polotzki. Medvedev’s Catholic inclinations increased in Moscow and without repression from Tsar Feodor, although Patr. Joachim opposed his efforts. The monk Evfimius of Chudovski Monastery was then selected by the patriarch as a counter to Medvedev and his influence. In 1682, Medvedev acquired from Tsar Feodor a decree allowing him to open an academy in Moscow, but he was hindered in accomplishing his dream due to the tsar’s sudden death that year. In January 1685, the same proposal was presented to regent Sophia by Medvedev, and it was confirmed, but he failed again, and now as a result of opposing efforts by Patr. Joachim and monk Evfimius.

203

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II Two monks who were brothers arrived in Moscow in March 1685: Innokenti (Joannikus) and Sofronius Likhud. They had received their initial education in Greece and later studied at Catholic colleges in Venice and Padua; they returned to Greece in the capacity of Orthodox teachers and preachers. By the recommendation of Patr. Dositheos of Jerusalem, they were sent to Moscow to counterpoise the increasing influence of the Catholicism that was being taught by Medvedev and other Uniate scholars from Kiev. The monks were housed at the Zaikonospasski Monastery and soon set themselves to writing and publishing tracts refuting Catholicism. Medvedev likewise began to justify his position with a flood of tracts. Orthodox prelates in Moscow made the decision to support the side of the conservative Evfimius and the Likhud brothers, and Medvedev failed in his cause. The final triumph of Orthodoxy over Catholicism in Moscow occurred after the overthrow of regent Sophia, which occurred in August 1689. Sylvester Medvedev was convicted of heresy in October of that year and sentenced to execution, but for the interim was confined to a cloister at Troitse-Sergievski Monastery. In February 1691, Sylvester Medvedev was executed by decapitation. During the latter part of 1689, Patr. Joachim succeeded in expelling the Jesuits from Russia. Although Catholic communities still prevailed in Russia, and specifically in Moscow, only lower level Catholic priests were allowed to perform liturgy. Under the Likhud brothers, an academy at a new building at Zaikonospasski Monastery began in 1686. For the initial three years the academy experienced great success. The courses taught were grammar, rhetoric, and logic in both Greek and Latin. The translation of Orthodox books into Russian were a prime concern for the students. Evfimius’ efforts were approved and held in high regard by the majority of Orthodox clergy. In 1692, a letter of commendation was sent by Patr. Dositheos of Jerusalem, however, attitudes changed the following year. The same Patr. Dositheos sent several letters: to Tsar Ivan Alekseevich and Patr. Adrian, and also to the Likhud brothers, demanding that they desist from teaching Latin, and threatening them with excommunication if they did not. The Likhud brothers were also slandered by Greek monks living in Moscow, who were envious of their success. Patr. Dositheos continued to exert pressure on the Likhud’s, until they were finally arrested by order of Patr. Adrian on spurious charges, and exiled to Ipatievski Monastery in Kostroma for incarceration. The Moscow Academy began a slow decline after their exile, and monk Evfimius worked tirelessly to keep the academy operating. There was no help

204

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great from Patr. Adrian, because he was a traditionalist rather than an academic. Monk Evfimius continued translating Greek Orthodox writings against Catholicism and in 1696 translated and published in Russian the Orthodox Confession of Faith of Metr. Peter Mogila of Kiev. Eventually, by 1697, the Moscow Academy fell into ruins; the grounds were unkempt, the roof of the building collapsed, and the ovens failed. It was impossible to conduct a school at the building. Tsar Peter took some interest in revitalizing the school at this time but it was not until three years later that Patr. Adrian assigned hieromonk Palladius Rogovski, a disciple of the Likhud’s, to take over the academy and restore it. Palladius had had some education in Catholic colleges in Europe, and in Rome received a doctorate in theology and philosophy. After taking over responsibility of the academy, Palladius became ill and died two years later, in 1703. The teachers that remained were Kievan with Catholic educations. Later in his reign, Tsar Peter began to worry about sacerdotal and episcopal education, which he sensed to be an extreme necessity as part of his ecclesiastical reform. Not satisfied with the state of the Moscow Academy — the sole source of religious education in northern Russia — Tsar Peter assigned it to the patriarchal-guardian Stefan Yavorski. Then the center was quickly transformed, following the pattern of the Kiev-Mogilyanskoi Academy: its former emphasis on Greek was replaced by an emphasis on Latin. Teachers from Kiev were relocated to Moscow, and Kievan protocol, courses, examinations, debates, rhetoric, recreation, and theatrical performances performed by the students, were implemented. The zealots of the former Greek-Slavonic education complained futilely about innovations implemented at the academy, that such Latin teachings would draw heresy into the Church. However, the Academy rectors paid no attention to this. The purpose of the Tsar’s ecclesiastical reform was to turn Russia toward the west, from the antique Byzantine influence toward occidental civilization. The bishops of the Ukraine also opened religious schools in their dioceses that were inclined toward teaching the Latin fathers: in Chernigov, Rostov, and Smolensk, and even Tobolsk in Siberia. The archaic and traditional mode of instruction of the children of Orthodox clergy was retained by only a few bishops of central Russia. A person who was especially significant for the continuation in Russia of the traditional Greek-Slavonic instruction was Metr. Iov (Job) of Novgorod. To expand education in his own diocese, Metr. Job first turned to the academics of

205

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II Kiev for help. A few of them who were banished from Moscow in earlier years, due to their traditional bent found a refuge in Novgorod, such as Theodosi Yanovski, and the popular archimandrite Gavriel Dometzki of Semeonov Monastery in Moscow. Job, likewise, obtained the release of the two Likhud brothers from incarceration at Ipatievski Monastery in 1706, and invited them to Novgorod. There he utilized their talents to open a Greek Slavonic school at his diocesan office. Up to one hundred students were enrolled at the new school under the supervision of the Likhud brothers, and they implemented their traditional Greek-Russian mode of instruction. Metr. Job became so elated over the success of his Greek-Slavonic school that he dreamt of it becoming a counterpoise to Moscow’s Latin-inclined academy. Other than their instruction at the school, the two Likhud brothers continued their literary activities by composing textbooks on the courses they taught, writing refutations against Luther and Calvin, and translating Greek texts into Russian. Metr. Job wanted to start his own printing house in Novgorod, and requested Tsar Peter to move the old equipment of the printing house of Polotzki from Moscow, and added workers from the old printing house to this request. The intent of Job was to revise the text of the Slavonic Bible and then publish it, which he felt he could do by utilizing the talents of the Likhud's earlier students and the printing house equipment. However, none of this materialized. In 1707, one of the brothers, Sofronius Likhud, was summoned to Moscow to himself work at the printing house. Alone with the older Likhud brother, Innokenti, who was aged and weakening, matters turned in the opposite direction for Metr. Job. In 1716, Metr. Job died. Innokenti Likhud moved out of Novgorod to Moscow shortly after, and there died the following year. The school at Novgorod was then inherited by Metr. Job’s successor, Theodosi Yanovski, who attempted to continue the school as a center of Greek-Slavonic instruction, regardless of his own Latin inclinations. The demise of the Novgorod school occurred in 1726, when Theofan Prokopovich transferred all its students and teachers to his new Latin-inclined academy in St. Petersburg. What little remained of any Greek-oriented religious instruction continued under Sofronius Likhud at his employment, which was the printing house in Moscow, until his death in 1730. His remaining students were transferred to Moscow Academy. This increase in religious education was accompanied by an increase in religious literature. During Tsar Peter’s era, the greatest of religious writers was

206

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great Metr. Dmitri of Rostov. He was born in the vicinity of Kiev in 1651, son of a pious Cossack family; his father Savva Tuptal was a captain in the military. Dmitri was educated at Kiev Mogilyanskoi Academy, and at the age of 18 was tonsured as a monk, settling to live in Chernigov. He soon became popular as a native preacher, and by invitation preached at several monasteries in Eastern Europe. Returning to Kiev in 1684, he began his massive volume on the biography of martyrs and saints of Russian Orthodoxy. The entire work took 20 years of his life, and was published in four installments: 1689, 1695, 1700, and 1705. There was no religious writer comparable to Dmitri in all of Russia. In 1701, Tsar Peter summoned Dmitri from Kiev and had him ordained as metropolitan of Rostov, although he was living in Moscow. Other than preaching, Metr. Dmitri was able to undertake refutation against the Old Believer dissenters, and during his career he wrote several books on theology and Russian Orthodox history. Metr. Dmitri was also responsible for the initial investigations into the new Khristovshin/ Khlist movement. Metr. Dmitri died October 28, 1709.

109. TSAR PETER AND THE OLD BELIEVERS After 1682, the dream of the first generation of Old Believers, that it might yet be possible to set the tsar and Church back on the right path, dissipated entirely. The concept that the end of the world was near resurfaced again and fanaticism became rampant. Many Old Believers were convinced that it was better to die than to betray themselves to the Antichrist’s authority, and they took to suicide in various gruesome forms: starvation, conflagration, drowning, entombment while alive, and self-inflicted fatal wounds. One preacher of suicide was the monk Kapiton from Vladimir province (not to be confused with Kapiton Danilovski). The commoner Vasili Volosati taught starvation as a salvational feat of faith. But the most widely practiced form of mass suicide, as the means to escape the mark of the Antichrist, was conflagration or incineration. Avvakum, still alive at Pusto-Ozerski Fortress, when hearing about the initial deaths by incineration said, “The Russian land is being sanctified by the blood of martyrs.” Of course, Avvakum himself perished by burning at the stake. The final two decades of the 17th century in Russia were flooded with reports of Old Believers’ self-immolation. Although the traditional legacy states the quantity to be in the area of 20,000, based on actual investigation, the number of Old Believers who committed suicide is about 10% of that amount.

207

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II The earliest and most reliable of reports are the conflagrations of Kargopol of 1683-1684. The village was Dora, in Kargopol county, north-east of Novgorod on the Onega River, occupied by a Old Believers’ community. Metr. Kornili of Novgorod sent a detachment to the village, which arrived there February 7, 1683. The detachment consisted of priest Grigori Vasiliev of Voznesenski Monastery and deacon Petro Stepanov from the Kargopol Rozhdestvennoi Monastery, along with soldiers from Novgorod; their purpose was either to return the villages to official Orthodoxy or to arrest them. That day, as the two clergymen entered the village, the residents confined themselves to a wood and straw hut. The Old Believers would not allow the detachment to enter the hut, but called them heretics and wolves. By that time, the hut was already in flames inside. The number of persons inside the hut was 70, including men, women and children. The soldiers were unable to save any of them due to the intense heat generated by the hut’s materials of construction. The following year a soldier from Moscow, Fedosi Yurievich Kozin, was dispatched with a regiment again to Dora. They left January 19, 1684, from Moscow, and arrived at Dora February 12. The Old Believer community was confined to a dining hall along with their leaders, elder Iosef Sukhoi, who was a former monk from Solovetski Monastery, elder Andronnik, and mentors Afanasi Boldirev and Anton Evtikheev. Approaching the dining hall, the persons inside began to shoot at Kozin and his regiment, wounding two soldiers. As they took shelter, the building started on fire. The soldiers were able to rescue 153 from the flames; of these, 59 later died due to burns. Inside the building 47 were found burned to death. In another village about 20 miles away, 50 were burned to death February 20, 1684. In three other villages in the same region, between February 23 and 27, about 55 total burned themselves to their death. Other areas were also plagued with such incidences, such as the Paleostrovski in 1687 and 1688, where according to Old Believer tradition, 4,000 died; and in Pudozh in 1693, where supposedly another 1,000 died. In 1677, 2,700 persons died in Beryozovsk in Siberia. In 1699 in the Ityatzkoi region, 400 persons; along the Pishma River, 160 persons; and in Perm province, 500 persons died. As mentioned above, the figures are presumed to be inflated by Old Believer chroniclers and the actual number is probably 10% of the traditional record. Such conflagrations in the region decreased as Orthodox clergy and soldiers withdrew their inquisition from the villages. To curb the wave of suicide, leaders of the various Old Believer communities were arrested and committed to prison.

208

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great The Old Believers were very vocal in their resistance, and they expressed themselves in hand-copied underground literature where they portrayed Tsar Peter and his entire reform as the work of Antichrist. In one of their publications, Tsar Peter is related to have personally killed the patriarch using the patriarchal staff, and then entered the Granite Chamber to attend an assembly of prelates. There he removed his steel saber and with its flat side struck the table, and told the assembly three times, “I am your tsar, patriarch and god.” This caricature of Tsar Peter is based on sufficiently credible information. Based on the testimony of Count Bestuzhev, who attended a meeting of the Synod in the presence of Tsar Peter, the members presented Tsar Peter with a petition requesting nomination of a patriarch. According to the account, Tsar Peter beat himself on the chest and said, “Here is your patriarch.” Such a scene may well have occurred, given Tsar Peter’s character, perhaps not during official business but possibly at some informal discussion. Another documented version of the above incident — one perhaps more credible — occurred at a meeting of Russian prelates who questioned Tsar Peter about restoring the patriarchate. Tsar Peter set a copy of the Religious Regulation on the table, pointed to it, and said, “Here is your patriarch.” Tsar Peter’s imperial — as well as superior — intellect was able to sufficiently separate the diverse religious concepts of the dissenters from those of the state, and so he proceeded to legislate new and more national laws pertaining to the state’s attitude toward the dissenters. Tsar Peter did not prosecute the dissenters solely for their religious beliefs, but for their anti-government tendencies and demonstrations. If the dissenters — the Old Believers — were willing to register as such with the state, they could have citizenship rights, even though they were not considered Orthodox. However, they would be deprived of certain civil rights, and would have to pay a double poll tax. Such laws were first issued in 1714, and prosecution was then directed toward those who refused to register, who refused to pay the double poll tax, and the fanatical leaders of the dissenters. Now, 50 years after the rupture in the Orthodox Church between the Old Believers and those who accepted the reforms of Patr. Nikon, the imperial and religious authorities had opportunity to make direct appeals to dissenters with invitations for open discussion between them, to settle misunderstandings between them, and without any tension or fear. Later leaders of the dissenters, such as the brothers Andrei and Semeon Denisov, wrote massive and serious treaties to defend their rupture with official Orthodoxy.

209

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II The matter regarding Old Believers was placed under the administration of the Holy Synod after its institution, and tougher laws were issued. An edict of May 15, 1722, stated that dissenters could be executed for diverting Orthodox adherents away from the official Church. Edicts of May 12, and June 16, 1722, prohibited dissenter priests from baptizing children on their own outside of Orthodoxy. Edicts of February 4, and July 16, 1727, stated that any dissenter apprehended diverting an Orthodox adherent to dissension was to be whipped, have his nostrils excised, and transferred to a penal colony. An edict of March 31, 1736, stated that any dissenter apprehended while propagating his tenets was to be sentenced to hard labor. The Holy Synod in 1722 distributed to all the Old Believers’ centers a printed admonishment pertaining to gospel teachings, which also informed them that self-imposed martyrdom was nothing more than suicide. In 1723, the Synod, by Tsar Peter’s order, passed additional legislation against Old Believers: the military was allowed to arrest and search the dissenters; any dissenting monk or nun was taken into custody and placed under surveillance in monasteries; they were to be taxed a double amount; they could not sell their wares at stores or markets; they could not manufacture cast metal or tin icons. In other areas, Old Believer priests were arrested for performing rites based on the old church service books, and were exiled to distant monasteries to serve penance. Likewise any citizen, who had a dissident priest perform a rite in his home, was also charged a double-tax for that year. The disenchantment with the absence of a patriarch during Tsar Peter’s reign, as well as his inclination toward Protestantism, only caused greater numbers of the already superstitious and illiterate Russian masses to abandon Orthodoxy and join the dissenters. Other members took the alternate choice of a mass exodus out of central Russia either to inaccessibly remote areas or entirely out of the country. Within Russia, such areas distant from diocesan capitals or metropolises were the Kerzhenski forests near Nizhni-Novgorod; the Starodubski forests near Chernigov in Ukraine; the area west and south-west of the White Sea in northern Russia; the steppes of the Don, and Siberia. Those emigrating from Russia went to Sweden, Poland, Austria, Prussia, Turkey, the Caucasus, and even China.

210

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great 110. ESCHATOLOGY AND APOCALYPTICISM In 1648, a leader of the opposition to the reform of Orthodoxy and emendation of church books composed and published a prophetic dissertation, which became known as the Book about the Faith. The Roman church, it stated, lasted until the year 1,000; the Kievan church, until 1595; and in 1666, the tide would turn for the Russian Church. The prophecies contained in the eschatological dissertation threatened great danger for the Russian Church in 1666, and placed apocalyptic predictions of the advent of the Antichrist coincident with this goal. According to the Bible Book of Revelation, the authority of Antichrist was to continue on earth for three to 3½ years, which calculated out to be from 1666 to 1669, and at that time, the end of the world would begin: the sun would darken, stars would fall from heaven, the earth would burn up, and finally, the last trumpet of the archangel would summon the righteous and sinful to the awesome judgment. Signs appeared in the region of Nizhni-Novgorod which were interpreted as preludes to the impending terrors, and which verified the convictions of these apocalyptic fanatics. From autumn of 1665, they abandoned the fields, not plowing or sowing, until the fatal year of 1669 when they abandoned their homes. Gathering in crowds, the people prayed, fasted, repented of their sins one to another, held mass and took communion, and prepared themselves in this manner to await the trumpet of the Archangel in fear and trembling. They utilized the old rites in their liturgies, those performed prior to Nikon. According to ancient beliefs, the end of the world was to occur at night, at midnight. And so, as night would draw near, the zealots of the ancient piety clothed themselves in white shirts and shrouds, lay down in coffins hewn from an entire tree, and awaited the trumpet sound. Night after night passed, and so did the entire threatening year, and all the fears and terrors turned out to have been groundless. The world stood just as it did before, and Nikon’s efforts at reform continued to prevail. Obviously, something was not right. To the extent that the time of expectation drew closer, to the same extent did interpretations regarding Antichrist become more fervent and diverse among Old Believers. Someone then evolved an opposing opinion: that they were not to await a tangible Antichrist, but that he had already arrived allegorically — spiritually. But the most highly self-taught scholar from among the leaders of the dissent, the deacon Feodor, persistently demonstrated that biblical scripture speaks definitely about a tangible Anti-

211

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II christ. Among the optimists, of whom the only known example was the exiled Avvakum, hope was again born for a triumph of the correct interpretation, the reinstitution of true faith in the true church. The pessimists, like the monk Avraami, closely reviewed the books and prophecies again and found an error in the old calculations. According to his conclusion, the error in the Book about the Faith was that it counted the years from the birth of Christ rather than from the day of Christ’s resurrection in calculating the date of doomsday. They concluded that the coming of the Antichrist was postponed the interval equal to the earthly life of Christ, 33 years. He would appear in 1699, not in 1666. “Do not be led astray regarding doomsday and the Antichrist,” now wrote Avvakum, “That final devil is yet to appear.” In this fashion, the intense expectation of the archangel’s trumpet was delayed. Some began to await Elijah and Enoch, others with a double zeal joined the struggle to institute in Russia the complete imposition of ancient piety. With the publication of Avvakum’s new interpretation, there was no deficiency in the number of Elijahs and Enochs that suddenly appeared in public, or with open quarrels of dissent from official Orthodoxy. The defenders of the old faith, who had fled earlier from Moscow during Tsar Aleksei’s reign to distant isolated regions of the realm, now began to make their way outside the borders and to the southern steppes. The dissent settled for a while, but then it surfaced again as the year 1699 drew near, carrying with it their expectation of the end of the world. But this time, their expectations were not futile. On August 25, 1698, only five days before the beginning of the New Year on September 1, which was 7207 years after the creation (according to the ancient Orthodox calendar), and when the Antichrist was supposed to appear, Tsar Peter returned from his travels abroad. Royal Guards wanted to barricade the road into Moscow and assassinate him, along with all the Germans who accompanied him, but their plan fell through and Peter arrived in the capital. Not entering the Kremlin, and venerating neither the Iverski nor the Moscow miracle-workers on his return — the tradition of previous tsars — he went straight to the German Quarter to visit his mistress Anna Mons. He spent part of the night drinking at the home of his friend, Leforte, and he spent the rest of the night not at the royal palace but at the guard barracks at Preobrazhenski. The mood of the populace shifted from amazement to terror on the following morning, when the Tsar, formally accepting congratulations on his safe return, personally shaved off the beards of certain noblemen with his own hands.

212

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great New Year’s Day came five days later, on September 1. In lieu of presiding at a festive ceremony at the Kremlin according to ancient custom, and accepting a blessing from the patriarch and wishing the people the best for the coming year, the Tsar spent the entire day feasting at the home of his friends, the Sheins. There, amidst the revelry, the party-goers found their beards shaven off — to Peter’s immense amusement. All of this would have been more than sufficient to confirm the Old Believers’ proposition that Tsar Peter was the very Antichrist they expected. The Old Believers announced, “The beast of the Apocalypse is the tsarist authority; its image is the civil authority; its body is the religious [authority].” They claimed that the tsar did not go to the Moscow shrines because the power of the Lord would not have permitted him — an accursed person — to enter such a holy place. He did not want to worship at the graves of the forefathers, and would not greet his own relatives. It was understandable, they were now strangers to him and also would disclose his deceptive tactics, and for this same reason he did not appear in public on New Year’s Day. The Old Believers were also able to recognize him according to the aforementioned time of this appearance, because he changed the chronology. Tsar Peter instituted a new calendar, commanding the nomenclature of years begin not from the creation of the world but from Christ’s birth. Even more confusing, Peter commanded the new year begin January 1 instead of September 1. This date was quite inconvenient to the minds of those who calculated from the Fall in the Garden of Eden. As far as anyone knew, apples would not have been ripe in the middle of winter, and so the serpent would not have had one with which to deceive Eve. Old Believers likewise felt that Tsar Peter possessed the sign of the Antichrist in an insidious form: he titled himself Emperor, and hid in this fashion his appellation beneath the letter “M”. (If this letter was removed from the word Emperor, and re-adjusted in Slavonic, the numerical equivalent of the title would calculate to exactly 666 — the number of the beast of Revelation.) In short, Tsar Peter Alekseevich Romanov was indubitably the Antichrist. Consistent with the prophecy of the Book about the Faith, with the time frame adjusted by the length of Christ’s life, he appeared in 1699. Consequently, in 1702 — about three years after his appearance — they were supposed to await doomsday, and the same scenes which occurred in 1669 began to repeat themselves. But again, the years came and went, and the sun continued to shine just as it did before. Stars did not fall from heaven, and no one witnessed anything of an

213

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II imminent doomsday. Not only this, but religious speculation — which was strong during Sophia’s regency — became weaker under Peter. The zealots for the ancient piety were baffled by the course of events. Not one of the proposals of the dilemma materialized. The end of the world never arrived, and the victory over Nikon’s reforms became more hopeless with every passing year. The most stubborn of Old Believers finally had to admit that they should no longer worry about life after the grave, but continue their earthly existence: not with the view of gaining a victory over the official Church, but in building a religious community distinct from it. Their worry now was about the organization and survival of their Old Believer community.

111. DMITRI TVERITINOV AND THE PROTESTANT MOVEMENT The career of Dmitri Evdokeev Tveritinov, a popular dissenter and teacher, will be presented here as an illustration of how easily and freely promoters of rationalism poured through Moscow and how shallow the religious emancipation was during Peter the Great’s reign. Tveritinov was an apothecary from the city of Tver, highly educated and with European Protestant inclinations. His family name was actually Deryushkin or Deruzhkin, but he adapted his hometown as his new family name after his arrival in Moscow. Tveritinov was able to acquire a printed edition of Luther’s catechism and the Ostrog (Ostrozhski) edition of the Slavonic Bible. Tveritinov studied all of them assiduously and developed his own personal theology which deviated considerably from Russian Orthodoxy. In many areas his convictions were similar to Bashkin’s teachings. Utilizing these books, he compiled an immense number of excerpts from the Bible and organized them into categories, each one dealing with some topic of theology, similar to a topical Bible. He hand-copied his comments into notebooks, which were then copied and distributed. Tveritinov had access to the Moscow populace at many levels. As a doctor with an extensive practice he became acquainted with the many classes of the community, with aristocrats and clergy, with tradesmen and peasants. He was able to acquire a number of zealous supports and disciples, among them his cousin Foma Ivanov, a barber, who had ceased attending confession and communion beginning in 1693.

214

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great A community surrounding Tveritinov was formed and its members became tightly bound between themselves and provided assistance one for another. One of Tveritinov’s brothers-in-law stated, “His students live in all contentment, because they provide for one another, and if I was to join them, they would make me equally prosperous.” But even outside this tight circle of young friends Tveritinov conducted zealous evangelism. Conversations about faith sprouted in the homes of popular princes and noblemen where Tveritinov appeared in the capacity of doctor, and at the barber shop of Foma, and at the city markets among the merchants. So it grew, friend to friend, quickly increasing the number of people drawn into his circle. At his home, Tveritinov regularly held leisurely gatherings where the rationalists unveiled their censored views, without oppression. “Right now in Moscow,” said Tveritinov, “every person can believe whatever he wants: whatever persuasion a man selects, so does he believe.” He liberally distributed his hand-copied notebooks which included an exposition of the Christian religion according to Tveritinov’s interpretation of the Bible. There is no doubt that these notebooks later served as a profession of belief for peasants of the rural areas, and other dissenters who sought for an Evangelical approach to the Christian religion rather than the liturgical approach of Orthodoxy. Tveritinov’s liberal and Protestant concept of the Christian religion was documented by Livanov as follows: 01. 1. He rejected the veneration of icons. 2. He rejected the dogma regarding the veneration of the cross of Christ. 3. He rejected the dogma of the veneration of Holy Relics. 4. He rejected the dogma of the presentation of the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist, considering it plain bread and wine. 5. He rejected the dogma of petitioning in prayer the saints, and the legitimacy and appropriateness of canonization of saints. 6. He rejected the dogma regarding the special bliss of the souls of the saints until the common judgment of Christ, and taught that the saints cannot know our prayers. 7. He rejected the dogma regarding benevolence on behalf of others, i.e. requiems and prayers on behalf of the dead. 8. He rejected the dogma regarding the importance of the priesthood. 9. He rejected Orthodox Church tradition as one of the sources for Christian doctrine. 10. He rejected Orthodox Church holidays.

215

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II 11. He rejected the dogma regarding the significance of the Divine Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people. Tveritinov taught that there is a mystery in the sacrament, but that it was not divine. 12. He rejected the dogma regarding sacred fasts. 13. He vocally taught and wrote in his textbooks against the Consistory and the Episcopal court system, and the punishment of heretics, and that it is not proper to swear. 14. He rejected the significance of the authority of the Orthodox Church, as the only means that salvation could be attained. He taught an independent attitude of each Christian towards Christ. “I am the Church,” said Tveritinov. 15. He rejected the sacrament of the priesthood, expressing that it was not instituted by the command of God. 16. He rejected the concept of monasticism, expressing that it originated from intentions of church fathers. Such was the form of Russian Christian rationalism of the early 18 th century in the person of Tveritinov and his followers. Its fundamentals were identical with the rationalism of Bashkin and Kosei, except that it progressed further than any previous liberal religious thought. That Tveritinov depicted in himself the influence of Protestantism is indubitably justified; his teachings consisted of Protestant dogmas side by side with the teaching of Bashkin and Kosei, which were already popular in Russia. Tveritinov considered Luther a man who renovated the Church. He had a copy of the Lutheran catechism and often quoted from it, and apparently learned much about Luther from his acquaintances who had attended German schools. There is no doubt that the concluding efforts of Tveritinov were not perspectives of the typical Russian towards Protestantism, but its attraction was due to personal criticism of his own early religious training and his search for Christian truth, apart from the Orthodox Church. In 1713, Dmitri Tveritinov and his cousin Foma Ivanov were arrested by order of Stefan Yavorski for preaching Protestant doctrines. At the time of his arrest, Tveritinov apparently had been a disciple of such rationalist thought for some 20 years, but it was not until it began to influence the thinking of students at Moscow Theological Academy that it was recognized as a problem. Yavorski had hoped to try them in Moscow, but Tsar Peter demanded that they be brought to St. Petersburg for the inquest to be conducted by his newly-formed Senate. Peter quickly divined that this prosecution of Tveritinov and Ivanov by Yavorski was an indirect attempt to undermine his westernization of Russia,

216

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great and so he wanted his Senate to acquit them. At the trial in June 1714, the Senate did exactly what Tsar Peter expected of them: they demanded that Tveritinov and Ivanov repent of their heresy, which the men agreed to do. The Senate then suspended their inquisition and prosecution. The Senate then sent a report to Yavorski and his Moscovite circle of traditionalist clergy, requesting them to readmit the repentant dissenters to Orthodoxy. Yavorski conceded to their demands for the most part, but would not grant the two men total amnesty. Under his auspices, a second trial was held in Moscow: Tveritinov’s on August 31, 1714; and Ivanov’s on October 5. The two were ordered to confinement at local monasteries for a term of penance before their release into society. Foma Ivanov, while confined at Chudovski Monastery, collapsed under pressure from the resident monks and went insane. About three weeks after his confinement, after Matins at Blago-Veschenski Cathedral, he attacked a venerated icon with an axe. An inquest and trial followed and on October 29, 1714, Foma Ivanov was sentenced to death for heresy by Stefan Yavorski. He was executed the following day in Red Square: Foma Ivanov was tied to a pole as a spit, and cooked over a wood fire until his body was entirely cremated. Tveritinov’s future concluded in better circumstances. He was sentenced to house arrest at a monastery in Riazan, which was part of Metr. Stefan Yavorski’s estate. There he resided for the next nine years. After the death of Yavorski in 1722, the issue of Tveritinov’s freedom again surfaced on the agenda of Tsar Peter, and he demanded a final resolution. At a meeting of the Holy Synod February 1, 1723, Tveritinov’s fate was resolved: he was to be granted his liberty after a public repentance. The resolution was signed by Metr. Theodosei Yanovski of Novgorod, Archbishop Theofan Prokopovich, archimandrite Gavriel of Troitse-Sergievski Monastery, president of the Holy Synod Theofilakt Lopatinski, archimandrite Jerofei of Novo-Spasski Monastery, and abbot Varlaam of Ugreshski Monastery. After ten years in custody, Dmitri Tveritinov under duress signed his name to a pre-composed confession, and read it to an assembly of Moscow prelates at Uspenski Cathedral on February 10, 1723, and repented of his dissension. He was thereupon released and his history ends at this time. (The text of his confession is located in the Appendix.)

217

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II 112. THE DEMISE OF TSAR PETER THE GREAT Stefan Yavorski, first president of the Synod, died in 1722. Tsar Peter did not select a new president until the following year, and did not promote any of the existing members to the presiding post. The presidency went to Theofilakt Lopatinski, a Kievan academic whose education was acquired in Europe. He had arrived in Moscow in 1706, where he became rector of Moscow Academy and then, in 1722, archimandrite of Moscow Chudovski Monastery. The following year, Lopatinski was promoted to the episcopacy of Tver, and subsequently to president of the Holy Synod by order of Tsar Peter. In fact, after Tsar Peter died, and talk arose about the reestablishment of the patriarchate, Orthodox prelates felt that the cathedra should go to Lopatinski. This matter put Prokopovich in direct conflict with Lopatinski for political control of the Holy Synod. Tsar Peter permitted the construction of churches of European denominations in Moscow. In Moscow, Catholics had been permitted for some time to build their own churches and schools. From ancient times Islam had mosques in Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberia, lands that came under Russian rule relatively late in the game, but European Protestants, such as Lutherans, only recently had been able to take advantage of the opportunity allowed them by Tsar Peter to build churches in Moscow. Old Believers maligned Tsar Peter, accusing him of making clandestine agreements with the Catholic pope to unify the Greek and Roman churches. The ecclesiastical record ascribes Tsar Peter’s death to hypothermia, which he suffered as a result of immersion into the icy waters of the Neva River. About November 5, 1724, Peter jumped into the river water to help save some sailors whose boat appeared to be grounded and capsizing. Severely impaired by hypothermia, Peter lost much of his strength, yet he was able to recover most of his health by Christmas. According to documented medical records, the actual cause of Tsar Peter’s death was strangury, an infection of the urinary tract, which was complicated by venereal disease. His strangury worsened as a result of his loss of natural defenses due to the incident mentioned above, and poisons slowly backed up into his body as a result of his difficulty in passing urine. The symptoms increased until the disease overwhelmed his body on January 26, 1725, and forced him to become bed-ridden. Theofilakt Lopatinski and Theofan Prokopovich were summoned January 27, 1725, to the tsar’s bedside. The former spoke to Peter about “the death of Christ the Savior, who suffered for us.” As if awakening from a deep sleep, the

218

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great tsar mumbled in reply, “Only this will quench my thirst, this alone will delight me.” At the admonishment of the prelate to believe in the grace and kind heart of God, in the remission of sins, and the gift of eternal life, the ailing Tsar repeated several times the words, “I believe and hope.” After this, Lopatinski recited the words which usually precede participation in the Eucharist, “I believe in the Lord and profess Him.” A few hours prior to his demise, the archimandrite of Troitse-Sergievski Monastery arrived and asked him if he desired to take Holy Communion again. The tsar signaled his assent and raised his hand; he took final communion at this time. On the following morning at about six o’clock, Peter Alekseevich Romanov died at the age of 53. The eulogy was given by Theofan Prokopovich, who asked, “Is this what we have awaited, O Russia? What do we see? What are we doing? We are burying Peter the Great. He, Russia, was your Samson, your Japheth, your Solomon, your David and your Constantine the Great.” Wails from the distressed audience interrupted the eulogy at every phrase.

113. REFLECTIONS ON THE SYNODAL SYSTEM The previous chapters narrated how the reformer Peter the Great executed his un-canonical humiliation of Russian Orthodoxy and how he managed to get those changes endorsed by the available Eastern Patriarchs. Russian Orthodox prelates and priests through the 17th, 18th and the beginning of the 20th centuries retained a sorrow in their hearts over the canonical defect of the Synodal system, while at the same time they prayed for the restoration of the patriarchate. These prelates and priests, however, performed their liturgies with a clear conscience because it was not they who had instituted or permitted the reform, and it was not they who had legalized the Synodal system, but Tsar Peter and the prelates and statesmen of his era. A criticism of the Holy Synod appeared in 1811 with the publication of a history of Russia by the brilliant historian Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin. He described the dilemma as such: The Russian church from ancient times had initially a metropolitan at its head, and finally a patriarch. Peter declared himself head by abolishing the patriarchate, which he felt a threat to his unlimited autocracy. The clergy began its decline from the era of Peter. Our prelates became sycophants to the tsar and, in their cathedrals, lauded them using the language of the Bible. We already possess poets and courtiers for this purpose of lauding them. The principle obligation of

219

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II the clergy is to teach virtue to the people, and in order for such instruction to be effective, [clergy] must be supported. If the Sovereign is present during the business of the higher ranks of the church, if he judges them, or rewards them with secular honors and privileges, then the church becomes subject to secular authority and loses its sacerdotal character; its zeal weakens and faith along with it. And if there occurs a decline in faith, the Sovereign is deprived of the ability to control the hearts of the people in such extreme circumstances when it is necessary [for them] to forget all, and leave all, for the sake of their country, and where the pastor of souls can promise the martyr’s crown as a reward. Sacerdotal authority must possess a special circle of activity outside the imperial authority, but at the same time act in a tight relationship with it.

Karamzin was the first example of a public condemnation of Tsar Peter’s church reform — 100 years after the fact. He was, however, a historiographer in a high position whose opinion had much influence. The voice of church thinkers and prelates could not but follow directly behind him. What the hierarchy thought and said among themselves about the crippled higher administration of the Russian Church was related by Nikodim Kazantsev, Bishop of Yenesei in Siberia, in his memoirs. Although Bishop Nikodim died in 1874, his memoirs were not published until 1905. His conclusions are as follows: The Russian Synod was invented by imperial authority, and so does not possess the dignity of a genuine ecclesiastical council. The sovereign, Peter the Great, created the Russian Synod based on his own thoughts and desires, and without counsel with religious authorities. He permitted nothing in church without his preliminary counsel and agreement. Based on his own sole discretion, Peter selected Archbishop Theofan Prokopovich to compile rules, a person not worthy to be a prelate. He rejected Orthodoxy, was Catholic for a while, then became Lutheran, and again returned to Orthodoxy. Is this the type of person, one so unstable in religion, who should be the creator of rules for the Orthodox Governing Synod? Although the edict approved by Peter was signed by Russian prelates, it was not [signed] during a public convocation of theirs, but in their homes, which deprived them of the possibility to confer with one another and voice their opinions, and by intimidation or by threats if they objected. This is a direct enslavement of their minds, consciences and beliefs, and not freedom. As a result of this, the edict loses its intent, value and obligation. Although the edict was presented for review to the Eastern Patriarchs, but this presentation was not performed by our prelates, but by the Sovereign through secular agents, and without the knowledge, and even less the agreement of, our prelates. It still remains nebulous whether the patriarchs indeed reviewed the edict and actually agreed to confirm it. Even though there was a confirmation from the patriarchs, Peter may have bought it using money, promises and even intimidation. Tsar Peter had no firm religious education, not only not Orthodox, but none at all. He associated with whom he wanted. His popular friend and comrade was Leforte, a Swedish citizen with some education, a reformist, an ecstatic hater of Catholicism and the Papacy. He in all probability armed Peter against Russian prelates, scaring him by identifying them with the Pope. In the Religious Regulation, Peter laughs at the mantle, miter and sakkos of the Russian bishops. Peter was like-

220

The Era of Tsar Peter the Great wise surrounded by other foreigners just like Leforte. The idea of a metamorphosis of church administration in Russia was indubitably inspired in Peter by these vagrant aliens. Peter’s idea of the Synod is a political-ecclesiastical institution, parallel with every other state institution, and so it stood under the complete, supreme despotic surveillance of the Sovereign. The idea of a reform that can be affixed to Orthodoxy is a false one. The church is its own ruler. Its head is Christ our God. The law is the gospel. In religious matters the Sovereign is a son of the church.

The Most-Holy Governing Synod operated for almost 200 years, until it was finally abolished by the Provisional Government on August 5(18), 1917. At that time it was replaced by the Ministry of Denominations and Professor Anton Vasilyevich Kartashyov was elected to fill a temporary post known as Minister of Religion, which replaced the office of Attorney-General of the Holy Synod. (This will be discussed in a later volume of this work). *** The next volume in A History of Russian Christianity will proceed through the 18 , 19th and early 20th centuries, covering the balance of the Synodal era, the rise of the sectarians and their growth and impact on Christianity in Russia, and the restoration of the patriarchate in 1917. The fate of Russian Orthodoxy and other religious denominations during the Soviet era will be the subject of subsequent volumes. th

221

APPENDICES 116. CONFESSION OF DMITRI TVERITINOV The confession read and subscribed to by Dmitri Evdokeev Tveritinov on February 10, 1723, at the Uspenski Cathedral inside the Moscow Kremlin, in the presence of the members of the Most-Holy Synod. (Recorded in Zapiska Leonti Magnitzkago po dely Tveritinova, St. Petersburg; not dated.) I [recite name] with full faith believe, and without any doubt, truly profess all in its entirety and each item individually, what is contained in the Creed, which is the exposition of the religion based on the Holy Ecumenical Councils, first the Nicene Creed, and secondly the Constantinople Creed, which the Holy Ecumenical Apostolic Eastern Church observes and confesses. I believe in one God the Father, Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and all that is visible and invisible. And I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, the only-born, who was born of the Father before all the ages, Light from light, true God, truly born of God — not created — the same essence as God, by whom all things exist. For our — humanity’s — sake and for the sake of our salvation he descended from heaven and was incarnated by the Holy Spirit through Virgin Mary, and became human. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried and resurrected on the third day according to Scripture; and having ascended to heaven, he sat on the right of the Father; and He will come again with glory to judge the living and dead, and His kingdom will have no end.

223

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II According to the second council: And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Life-giving Lord, which emanates from the Father, and is worshipped and glorified together with the Father and Son — as spoken by the Prophets — in the sole holy and ecumenical Church. I profess one baptism for the remission of sins. I await the resurrection of the dead and life of the coming age. Amen. I accept and embrace, truly and firmly, the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, and those legislated by the Church, the statutes and customs. And likewise, I will understand Holy Scripture to the extent and the manner the Holy Eastern Church — our mother — has defined it, and will retain the proper manner it should be interpreted and understood. This I will do according to the unanimity and consensus of the holy fathers, in the manner they accept and understand it. I profess likewise that there are seven true and natural sacraments of the new law implemented by our Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of the human race, and these are: baptism, unction, communion, penance, confirmation, consecration and marriage; by which grace are transmitted. But unorthodox and false sacraments do not apply toward salvation, but toward perdition, as transmitting the defilement of Antichrist, who are blasphemers and who revile the true sacraments. I accept and embrace, likewise, the rites associated with the sacraments, which are confirmed by the Eastern Ecumenical-Orthodox Church. And those items which pertain to this are ecclesiastical song, prayer, fasts, bows and other good deeds, which I will perform with faith, hope and love, and so serve and worship God in spirit and truth. I profess to the Divine Liturgy, where the true, natural and acceptable, fragrant bloodless sacrifice is brought to God on behalf of the living and dead. And the Eucharist is truly and essentially a mystery of the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, where a transformation of the entire essence of the bread into the body, and the entire essence of the wine into the blood, occurs, which the ecumenical Eastern Church calls transubstantiation. I profess likewise that the bread and wine are the visible actual Christ, and I accept this as a genuine mystery. I firmly profess that the icons of Christ, and Ever-immaculate Theotokos, and other saints, must be preserved and retained, and must be venerated in a respectful manner. But whoever calls the holy icons idols, and applies text from Scripture that deals with idols to icons, blasphemes them. And I likewise reject and curse those who do not want to venerate them. Likewise, I honor the saints

224

Appendices and blessed of God, who reign in heaven with Christ, and their relics worthy of honor, and I call upon them for help, and especially upon the Immaculate Eternally-virgin Mary the Theotokos, intercessor for our salvation. I believe and confess the authority given by God through Christ to prelates and priests of the Ecumenical-Orthodox Church, for them to accept and absolve: that whatever they correctly and legitimately bind or absolve on earth is bound or absolved in heaven. This authority given of Christ resides nowhere else, except in the sole Eastern Ecumenical-Orthodox Church, which has from the beginning been whole, unharmed and present in Russia, and this is not entrusted to every person, but only to the servants of the Divine Sacraments. And I excommunicate from the Church anyone who says that from the year 1666 the Orthodox Church in Russia began its ruin, and that the Antichrist arrived in Russia, although not in a visible form but as a spiritual authority. I condemn and curse those who ascend from them — the unbaptized — who baptize and who perform sacraments although they themselves are not ordained. I will not associate with those who have gone astray — dissenters from the Church — and will have no consensus with them, and will propose nothing to them, and I curse and alienate all of their dissenting tenets, those at present and those of the future. I will not perform anything forbidden or rejected, and will not observe anything that is against the Eastern Church, or anything papist, Lutheran, Calvinist, or anything having similar content or opinion, or anything incompatible with the tenets of the Eastern Church. I likewise condemn, reject and curse all heresies that are condemned, rejected and cursed by the Church. I accept and profess everything transmitted, legislated, and explained, by the holy fathers at the seven Ecumenical and local councils. In this confession, those items that I in the past professed of a Lutheran nature, now I will no longer advocate and even mentally. I will not reject the veneration of holy icons, those established by the holy Eastern Church, and I will not refer those texts in Scripture that pertain to idols to icons. I will not call the life-giving cross the gallows, and veneration extended to it as blasphemy. I will not speak, think or connive matters against the Church. I will no longer call the elements of the sacrament of the ineffable most-holy Eucharist just plain bread and plain wine. I will no longer reject or deride the intercession of saints in prayer. I will no longer call fables the prayers recited on behalf of the deceased. I reject my previous opinion, that it is wrong to prohibit meat on fast days. I will

225

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II no longer discredit monasticism, which I earlier discredited. I will observe the use of the utensils and vessels in Divine rites as performed by the holy church according to ecclesiastical tradition. I will no longer — either by pen or thought or by my lips — revive any type of heresy to the end of my life. I curse those heresies which were cursed by the holy Ecumenical Councils, and which also applies to other attempts of dissension in the holy Eastern Church. I will no longer create, or even think to create, excerpts from Holy Scripture to use against the holy church. I will not usurp the authority of teaching, since it has not been granted me, and I will not use any arguments of the Lutherans against Orthodoxy. And since I was for all the above matters excommunicated and cursed by the holy church, I now ask forgiveness of the All-merciful Monarch, Peter the Great, Emperor and Autocrat of all Russia, and ask absolution from the MostHoly Governing Synod of all Russia, and ask forgiveness of the entirety of Orthodox Christianity. I repent with a clean heart; repent truthfully and not in pretense, and not feigningly, but with a clean conscience I repent, and I swear that I have not concealed any false thoughts in my heart. I do not withhold any detrimental poison, and have no intention of returning like a dog to his own vomit. Confessing this, I pray to the humanity-loving God for the absolution of my crimes, and He will bless me, since God is merciful and generous. And He will pardon me, and in the future of my life will establish me in true piety. And no one can attain salvation except in the true Ecumenical-Orthodox religion, which I now willingly profess and will faithfully observe, and may God help me to this goal even to my final breath. If I am bold enough to disavow my oath or return to my former convictions, then I will be subject to ecclesiastical expulsion, civil trial and capital punishment. In confirmation of my oath, I kiss the book and cross of my Savior. Amen.

117. MONASTERY PRISONS When attempts based on logic or persuasion failed to change a person’s mind and bring him back to the required view on religious matters, Russian Orthodox prelates and feudal princes felt compelled to resort to the medieval practice of incarceration. This applied to dissenters, sectarians and political activists. Monastery incarceration was a reflection of the religious intolerance

226

Appendices that was characteristic of Europe throughout most of its history. The first recorded incident of monastery incarceration was Metr. Isidore, but during the reign of Ivan IV the Terrible the concept spread and was implemented in many monasteries across Russia. Since the official ideology of the monarchic-feudal Russian sovereignty was Russian Orthodoxy, a good portion of the inmates of monastery prisons were Protestants and Catholics, Jews and Moslems, and those of foreign or pagan convictions. Many of the dissenters who were committed to religious views which were incompatible with Russian Orthodoxy also disapproved of the state or some of its manifestations; others rejected military service or refused to pledge allegiance to the tsar. Monastery incarceration thus extended also to political prisoners and infamous criminals. A large portion of people who were locked in monastery cells were first punished by undergoing the rack, and were often imprisoned straight from the torture chamber, which was a preliminary admonishment. After being broken by the various tortures — being beaten mercilessly with whips and cudgels, having the nose torn off and the tongue cut out — they were transferred to one or another of the distant monasteries, and were locked up in damp, dark, cold cells or dungeons where they were doomed to eternal solitude. There was a high incidence of psychological trauma among the monastery inmates. Solovetski Monastery was the first and primary location of monastic incarceration due to its location on an island in the White Sea of the Russia north. Inmates were first confined in monastic cells that had been built into the monastery walls and towers during its construction in 1584. Its designer, the Solovetski monk Trifon, had these cells constructed inside the actual walls as places that no one could escape from and where no light would penetrate; these were rock coverts. Built during the reign of Tsar Ivan IV, they are basically short pits, narrow and shallow. They carried various designations or were named based on their location, or based on the famous person that may have been confined there. The inmate of such a rock covert could only lie down, but could not stretch out, and only moved with difficulty. These coverts were normally infested with lice, roaches, and other vermin. This type of prison cell existed not only at Solovetski but at several other monasteries. Incarceration in an underground cell, referred to as an “earth prison cell,” was considered to be the most dreadful punishment. At Solovetski, underground cells were built under the monastery towers, most of them located in the northwest corner of the fortress. The earth prison cell was a hole dug into the ground

227

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II about eight feet deep, with the floor space at about five or six foot square. The sides were laid with bricks; the roof was made of wooden boards over which soil was spread. The door in the roof was made of metal grating to allow ventilation, and contained a small opening that could be secured with a lock. Through it they raised and lowered the prisoner, and gave him food. For sleeping, the floor was covered with straw. For natural needs he was given a special pot, a latrine bucket, which was removed and cleaned once a day. Whether there were any stoves in these cells is unknown. Into this dark, damp cellar dug into the earth a living person was lowered, often shackled hand and foot. The stench of the latrine bucket permeated the cell. The inmate of an earth cell never saw the sun, could not distinguish day from night, and lost track of the days, weeks and years. In 1718, a large two-story pavilion was built in the northwest corner of Solovetski Monastery near the Korozhenski Tower. The lower floor of this building was half-way into the ground, so that the windows were only a couple of feet above ground. In 1798, this lower floor was renovated as a prisoner's quarters. Twelve cells were built in it originally, that is, prisoners’ cloisters. In 1828 the second floor of this pavilion was turned into a prison and sixteen cells were built. At the beginning of the 19th century, sentries who guarded the prisoners were quartered in the same building: the corridors between the prisoners' cells served as quarters for the soldiers. The close association between guards and prisoners often created various unpleasant collisions between them. Later, in 1842, by the request of archimandrite Ilarie, special barracks were built for the soldiers and officers while the prison was enlarged by the addition of a third story. The work was completed in 1848. This resulted in a sullen building of three stories rising above the rock wall that separated it from the other monastery buildings. The prison consisted of crowded semi-dark cells fed by a musty dampness and the stench of the latrine bucket. Ventilation was poor. Inmates’ cells were located on all three floors: a corridor in the center of the floor with an equal number of rooms on each side. Each cell was about eight feet long and seven or eight feet wide, with one small window, and was always under lock. Their design was much the same as prison cells in the provincial capital cities. A stool, small table, and one or two wooden beds were located in each cell. Two inmates were placed in each compartment. The space between the beds was only large enough for one inmate to pass through at a time. The window frame did not have shutters, so that on sunny days the already stuffy air must have been stifling. For natural needs they had to use a bucket which was removed for cleaning once a

228

Appendices day. The food was not geared to provide sound nourishment nor to appeal to the taste buds. The only “treat” an inmate might enjoy was a piece of soft bread, which was rare. During the long winter nights the inmates were not given any light; they held their spoons in front of their faces and ate their food by touch. If they had a gentle, humane Father Superior, the inmates’ existence was bearable: they were brought to church on holidays; they fetched water at the canal about a quarter-mile from the monastery on their own; they alternately went to the monastery kitchen for food; once a week they washed in the bathhouse; strolls were also permitted. But all of this was allowed only during the winter when no outsiders were present at the monastery. During summertime the inmates were not released to go to church, not for water, and not anywhere. They were brought to the bathhouse very early in the morning while everyone was still asleep. But lenient conditions would change quickly and sharply whenever a new Father Superior arrived. With a harsh Father Superior, the inmates languished in their tiny cells with no relief of any kind; guards turned a deaf ear to their complaints, and lied about the prisoners if any complaint was brought to the attention of the authorities; they were left without any care. Thus, inmates wasted away, year after year, and in some cases decade after decade. During the winter, there is nowhere one might escape to from Solovetski. For this reason the prisoners were allowed a little freedom during wintertime. The prisoners were allowed into the corridors to visit one another, and discuss matters of faith, and only in the evening were again secured in their cells. During the summer the surveillance and in general the strictness of confinement significantly increased due to fear of someone escaping, and to keep the prisoners from having any intercourse with the pilgrims and other persons visiting Solovetski. Even so, pilgrims often gave gifts to the inmates and especially those in the lower level, where articles of clothing, food, drink, and honey could be handed to the inmates through the window. In addition to the legendary Solovetski, other monasteries which served as a place of exile and imprisonment were the following: Spasso-Evfimiev, in Suzdal. Chudovski, in Moscow. Joseph, Voloko-Lamsk. Karelia Nikolski, in Archangel Province. Seiski, along the Severo Dvin River, in the Russian north. Spasso-Prilutski, near Vologda.

229

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II Spasso-Preobrazhenski, in Staraya Russa, south of Lake Ilmen. Yurievski near Novgorod. Kirill Bel-Ozerski, along the south shore of Beloye Ozero in northern Russia. Valaam, on the island Valaam in Lake Ladoga (Ladozhskoe Ozero). Sviyazhski, in Kazan Province. Dalmatovski-Uspenski, in Perm Province. Trinity-Selenginski, in the city Selenginsk, south of Lake Baikal on the Selenga River, north of Ulan Ude, near the China border. Vosnesenski-Irkutski, in Irkutsk, Siberia. Uspenski-Nerchinski, in Nerchinsk, in Siberia, east of Lake Baikal. The conditions of exile and imprisonment in all of these monasteries were much the same as at Solovetski. The monasteries of Siberia are known to have extensive prisons where dissenters and other especially important criminals are imprisoned. Many of them were transferred, not only without indication of what their guilt consisted of, but even without recording their first and family names. They became anonymous inmates. Those exiled were placed under the responsibility of the Father Superior who, in these situations had orders from military commanders. Those arrested and imprisoned in Siberian monasteries were confined in separate cells or cellars, and even then were cuffed in chains. The prisons of the Trinity-Selenginski Monastery were utilized extensively. Under this type of incarceration, premature death was common and a large proportion had mental and psychological illness. Women were imprisoned at several convents and monasteries in Russia, but most of them were in the Moscow area, especially the Moscow Ivanovski, Novo-Devichi and Voskresenski Convents. Women were also exiled to the following convents: Pokrovski and Rizopolozhenski, in the city Suzdal, Vladimir Province. Dalmatovski Vvedenski, in Perm Province. Kashenski, in Tver Province. Yeniseiski-Rozhdestvennoi, in the city Yeniseisk, north of Krasnoyarsk in Siberia. Irkutsk-Znamenski in Irkutsk, near Lake Baikal in Siberia.

230

Appendices Women exiled to convents lived in special cells under strict surveillance by nuns assigned to them; they were prohibited from leaving the monastery premises. Their regimen was much the same as that of their male counterparts in monasteries: strict surveillance, solitary confinement, no writing materials, and no exit from the cell except to attend church services. At Yeniseiski-Rozhdestvennoi Monastery, special prison quarters were built with steel gratings for the accommodation of female inmates. Many women were exiled to this monastery and often without a record of their first or family names. Punishment of women by way of exile could come in varying degrees of severity: some were sent for a specified length of time and then allowed to return; others, more important personages or those convicted of more important crimes, would never return. Monastery incarceration was discontinued in 1905 after Tsar Nicholas II issued the Edict of Religious Tolerance, and the remaining inmates were released.

231

INDEX

2 fingers 79, 109, 166 3 fingers 79, 104, 106, 108

attorney-general of the Holy Synod 194, 200 Avvakum 75, 96, 99, 104–105, 116–117, 136–141, 143, 159, 171, 207, 212

A

B

Adrian 142, 160, 168–174, 177–179, 184, 204–205 Afanasi of Kholmogorsk 166, 168, 177– 179 Aleksei Mikhailovich 70, 74, 80, 97, 124, 137, 140, 143, 159, 162, 175 Alexandria 8, 10, 17, 27, 29, 32–33, 70, 79, 86, 118–120, 197 Alexandr-Nevski Monastery 184, 190– 191 Anna Mons 212 antichrist 103, 128, 139–141, 152–153, 165, 179, 202, 207, 209, 211–213, 224– 225 Antonius Possevin 44 Apollinarian 27, 121 Apostle Andrew 86 Apostle Peter 22 Archangelsk Cathedral 10, 41, 47–48, 58, 163, 165 Archanglesk 138 Archbishop of Canterbury 176 Arminius 108–109 Arsenius of Elasson 12, 48 Arsenius the Greek 77, 79, 89, 104 Artamon Matveev 98, 164 Ash Wednesday 151

Bandit of Tushino 60 Baskakov, A. P. 200 Bilenski-Troitzki Monastery 63 Bishop Pavel 93–95, 104–105, 107 Blago-Veschenski Cathedral 41, 50, 52, 66, 74, 79, 122, 168, 217 Book about the Faith 77, 211–213 Boris Godunov 5, 9–10, 15–16, 23–26, 29, 31, 35–41, 43–46, 48–49, 59, 65, 69, 142, 170, 196 Boyar Duma 9, 16, 38–39, 41–42, 47–48, 50, 54, 57, 73, 97–98, 118 Boyars 38, 42–43, 46, 55, 57, 62, 118, 150, 169

Numerics

C Catechism 133 Cathedral of Santa Sophia 80, 148 Cathedral of Vasili the Blessed 172 Catholicism 6, 34, 44–45, 49, 55, 62, 89, 145–146, 148, 160, 175, 181, 185, 203– 205, 220 celibacy 168 Charles IX 60 Charles XII 185 Christian IV 74

233

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II Chudovski Monastery 10, 33, 55, 57, 63– 64, 66, 90, 104, 108, 119, 122, 125, 145, 161, 168, 177, 203, 217–218 Conrad Norderman 155 Constantinople 6–7, 9–13, 15–16, 18, 22– 23, 27–30, 32–35, 47, 76–77, 79–80, 86– 87, 93, 95, 103, 105–107, 117–120, 129, 148, 196–198, 223 Council of 1666 133, 138, 146, 163, 167 Council of 1666-1667 133, 146, 163, 167 Crimean Mongols 71

Grigori Talitzen 179

D

I

Daniel of Kostroma 104–105 Danil Fillipovich 154 Dimitri Tveritinov 1, 183, 216–217 Dionysei 7–8, 10, 13, 64, 142–143 Dosithei of Rostov 183 Drunken Synod 160

I. V. Boltin 200 icon of the Kurski Theotokos 50 Ignati of Krutitzk 183 Ignatius 46–57, 63–64 Ipatievski Monastery 173, 192, 204, 206 Irina 9, 14, 24, 30, 33, 35, 37–38, 40–42, 70, 74 Islam 24, 80, 89, 135, 218 Ivan IV 36–39, 58, 67, 83, 227 Ivan Timofeevich Suslov 154 Iverski Monastery 92, 111, 120, 161

H heretics 63, 121–122, 170–171, 195, 208, 216 Hermogen 26, 51, 57–64, 66, 68, 88 Holy Synod 1, 194, 199–200, 202, 210, 217–219, 221, 223 Holy Trinity 22, 78, 109, 137, 172 Hundred-Chapters Council 71, 104, 121, 143

E Efrem the Syrian 104–105 Elder Eleazar 81 Emperor Leo III 126 Episcopal courts 84, 136, 167, 195 European-style icons 106 Evdokia Lopukhina 173, 181

J Jacob Boehme 154 Jeremiah II 11, 196, 198 Jerofius 12–15, 23, 25, 27–28 Jesuits 5–6, 44–45, 51, 55, 69, 204 Jesus 22, 28, 135, 137, 154, 194, 223–224 Joachim 6–10, 12–13, 29–30, 141, 147, 155, 159, 161–170, 179, 203–204 Joachim V 6 Joasaf I 129 Joasaf II 129 Job 5, 10, 12–13, 16–27, 29–33, 35–43, 45–48, 57–59, 88, 113–115, 134, 147, 178–179, 184, 205–206 Job of Novgorod 178–179 John Chrysostom 14, 150 Jonah 17, 22, 24, 65, 73, 191 Joseph 51, 58, 62, 70, 73–76, 78, 80, 82– 83, 85, 90, 103, 142–145, 229

F Far East 37 Father Avraami 160 Feodor Mstislavski 54 Feodor Nikitich Romanov 38, 42, 44, 49, 66 Feodor the Hermit 183 Filaret 2, 38, 44, 49, 60–62, 64–73, 97, 143–144, 169 Filipp II 88 Foma Ivanov 183, 214, 216–217

G German suburb 154–155, 171, 175 God Sabaoth 153–154 Granite Palace 23 Grigori Otrepyev 45, 48, 56

234

Index Matins 83, 93, 101, 150–151, 165, 217 Medvedev 203–204 Meletius 32, 34–35, 108, 173 Metr. Affonius 82–83 Metr. Isidore 57–58, 65, 71, 227 Mikhail Skopin-Shuiski 61 Mitrofan of Voronezh 178 Monastery Ordinance 84, 91–92, 98, 112, 115, 125–126, 133, 163, 179, 194–195, 200, 202 Mongol occupation 77, 194 monk Avraami 116, 138, 212 Mordovians 58 Moscow 2, 5–17, 19–20, 22, 25–51, 53– 84, 86–97, 99–100, 102–106, 108–112, 114–120, 122–123, 128–132, 134, 137– 139, 141, 144–146, 148, 150–152, 154, 159–162, 165–169, 171–174, 178, 180, 183–184, 189, 191, 198, 201, 203–208, 212–218, 223, 229–230 Moscow Academy 173–174, 204–206, 218 Moscow Kremlin 49, 59, 81, 94, 122, 138, 159, 165, 223 Murad 29

K Kaluga 60 Kapiton Danilovski 151–153, 207 Kazan 26, 51, 57–58, 65, 90–92, 115, 125, 168, 171, 179, 191, 218, 230 Khlist 152–153, 207 Khristovshin 152–154, 207 Khutinski Monastery 83, 184 Kiev 9, 68, 70, 76–77, 84, 89, 92–93, 104, 106, 118, 145–149, 161, 180, 183–185, 192, 203–207 Kiev Mogilyanskoi Academy 207 King George III 176 King William III 176 Kirill Bel-Ozerski Monastery 70, 131, 179 Kirill of Rostov 49 Kirill Stavrovetzki 68 Klavdius Rongoni 45, 49, 51 Kozhe-Ozerski Hermitage 82 Krakow 15 Krestnoi Hermitage 87, 92, 111–112, 128 Krutitzk 10, 26, 65, 110–111, 115, 127, 133, 183, 191 Ksenia 42, 46 Kvirin Kuhlman 154–155

N Natalya Kirillovna 159, 165, 169 Neronov 76, 83, 96–97, 99–100, 104–105, 109–110, 116–117, 145 Nestorian heresy 109 Nikita Dobrinin 164–166, 178 Nikita Romanovich Zakharin 38 Nikon 74, 76, 78, 80–135, 137–141, 145, 159, 161–162, 164–165, 175–177, 183, 209, 211, 214 Nizhni-Novgorod 26, 75, 80–81, 154, 179, 190, 193, 210–211 Nomocanon 85, 91 Novgorod 18, 25–26, 30, 44–45, 53–54, 57–58, 60, 65, 71, 75, 80–85, 88–90, 92, 103, 105, 113, 126, 131, 133–134, 154, 161–162, 178–179, 183–184, 186–187, 190–193, 205–206, 208, 210–211, 217, 230 Novo-Devichi Convent 38–39, 41–43, 51, 102, 167

L Lazar of Romanov 104 Lent 26, 41, 49, 71, 85, 93, 106–107, 129, 150–151, 173, 201 Ligarid 117–121, 126, 133 Likhud 173, 178, 204–206 Lithuania 6, 15, 63, 69, 74, 106, 147 Login of Murom 104–105

M Maria Grigorievna 46 Maria Miloslavskaya 159 Maria Nagoi 37–38, 47–48, 52, 55–56 Marienburg Fortress 65 Marina Mnishek 48, 51, 59 Marina of Antioch 14 Martha Skavoronskaya 181 Martin Luther 176 martyrdom 210

235

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II Pitirim 110–111, 113, 133–134, 161–162, 190, 193 Pokrovski Convent 46, 173, 183 Poland 6, 15, 29, 34, 45, 50, 60, 65–66, 74, 89, 97–98, 147, 149, 164, 210 Polotzki 133, 146, 203, 206 Pope Clement VIII 44–45, 50 Pope Gregory II 126 Pope Gregory XIII 44 Pope Innocent XII 160 Pope Paul V 48–51 Porta 11 Pr. Vladislav 62, 64 Preobrazhenski 26, 57–58, 145, 160–161, 172, 191, 212, 230 Pressburg 160 Princess Anne 176 procession of the cross 31, 42, 120, 135, 151 Prostitution 162 Protestantism 182, 186, 210, 216 Pseudo-Dmitri I 143 Pusto-Ozersk Fortress 138, 143

O oath of allegiance 193 Old Believers 74, 76–77, 116–117, 120– 121, 128, 135, 137–141, 153, 159, 164– 165, 167–168, 176, 202, 207–211, 213– 214, 218 Orthodox calendar 43, 52, 139, 212 Orthodox Confession of Faith 205 Ottomans 16, 80

P Palladius Rogovski 205 Palm Sunday 63, 80, 113, 172 Pantaleon 32, 117, 133 Patr. Athanasius 103, 197 Patr. Gabriel of Serbia 106 Patr. Jeremiah III 196 Patr. Johannikus 95 Patr. Kirill of Alexandria 70 Patr. Makarius 93, 96, 106–108, 118–119, 124 Patr. Nektarius 118–119, 133 Patr. Paisius 78–79, 85–87, 89, 103, 105, 107, 118–119, 127 patriarch 5–29, 31–33, 35–37, 42, 46–47, 50–51, 53, 56–68, 70–74, 76–78, 80, 83, 85–87, 89–95, 97, 99–103, 106, 110– 115, 118, 120, 123–132, 134, 136–137, 140, 145, 150–151, 160, 162–163, 165, 168–170, 172, 174–175, 177–178, 180, 182, 190, 192, 195–198, 203, 209–210, 213, 219 patriarchate 1, 5–6, 8–13, 15–18, 22–24, 26, 28–29, 31–35, 37, 57, 66, 70, 83, 90– 92, 95–96, 100, 102–103, 111–112, 122– 124, 136, 147, 162, 169, 174–175, 177– 179, 181, 190, 193–197, 209, 218–219, 221 Pavel Miliukov 152–154 Pavel of Kolomensk 104–105, 107 Pecher Monastery 147–149 Peter Mogila 76, 147–149, 173, 205 Peter Skarga 6 Peter the Great 2, 139, 214, 219–220, 226

Q Quadragesim Sunday 106, 108, 113

R Red Square 43, 46, 48, 52, 56–57, 60, 151, 155, 164, 166, 172, 183, 191, 217 Religious Regulation 190–191, 193–194, 200, 209, 220 Rock of Faith 182 Rod of Rule 146 Rome 22, 27–28, 36, 76, 89, 117, 184, 205 Rostov 18, 25, 36, 49, 53, 60, 65, 90, 113– 114, 134, 142, 144, 183, 205, 207 Royal Guards 47, 54–56, 125, 163–168, 172, 178, 200, 212 Rtischev 98, 145, 161 Russian calendar 174 Russian Orthodox Church 6, 18, 65, 76– 78, 84, 87, 117, 120–121, 133, 159–161, 163, 167, 176, 182, 189, 191, 194, 196, 198, 201 Ryazanski palace 13–15, 18, 25

236

Index Theotokos 17–18, 20–21, 24, 39–40, 50, 54, 58, 73, 131, 152, 163, 173, 224 Theotokos of Vladimir 39, 163, 173 Therapontov Monastery 128 tobacco smoking 170 Tobolsk 37, 95, 105, 125, 137, 152–153, 178, 192, 205 Troitse-Sergievski Monastery 10, 25, 32, 60, 62, 64, 79, 95, 132, 143, 201, 204, 217, 219 Troitzki palace 110 Tsar Feodor 7, 9, 12, 14, 16–17, 19–22, 24, 26, 28–30, 33–35, 37–38, 42, 44, 47, 130–131, 141, 143, 146, 159, 164, 168, 170, 203 Tsar Ivan V 167 Tsarevich Dmitri 37, 45, 58 Tsarevna Tatyanna 98 Turks 6, 23, 27, 29, 42, 76, 124, 135, 178

S S. F. Platonov 178 Seiski Monastery 49 Sexagesima Sunday 151 shaving 170 Siberia 37, 44, 68, 89, 95, 105, 125, 137– 138, 152–153, 178, 192, 200, 205, 208, 210, 218, 220, 230 siege of Moscow 63–65 Sigismund III 44–45, 60 Silvester 7, 12 Simony 162 Smolensk 7, 11–12, 26, 28, 30, 39, 44, 60– 62, 64, 93, 147, 190, 205 Sofronius 29–30, 204, 206 Solomanius 14 Solovetski 23, 44, 60, 71, 73, 81–82, 89– 90, 144, 153, 168, 179, 208, 227–230 Sophia Alekseevna 143, 164 Spasso-Kamennoye Monastery 105, 109 Spasso-Preobrazhenski Monastery 57 Spasso-Prilutzki Monastery 66 Spasso-Yaroslavski Monastery 125, 131 St Petersburg 184, 186–187, 189, 191, 206, 216, 223 Staritzki Monastery 36, 46, 57, 59 Stefan Yavorski 179, 181–183, 186, 190, 192, 205, 216–218 Stenka Razin 129, 143 strangury 218 Streltzi 47, 54, 163, 172 Suleiman 14 Suzdal 26, 46, 59, 73, 90, 127, 173, 229– 230 Svato-Dukhov Convent 183 Sylvester Medvedev 203–204

U Uglich 36–37, 55, 58–59 Ukraine 5–6, 72, 80, 91, 97, 129, 132, 145, 147–149, 161, 164, 180, 205, 210 Unia 5, 34, 44–45, 55, 77, 117, 180, 185 Uspenski Cathedral 8, 10, 18–19, 22, 25, 31, 41–43, 46–49, 53–54, 57, 59, 62, 65– 66, 71–73, 88, 90–91, 93, 101, 106, 108, 111, 114, 117, 122, 151, 165, 169, 172, 174, 217, 223

V Vasili Golitzin 55, 143, 203 Vasili Shuiski 48, 54–57, 59, 61, 69, 71 Vespers 93, 101, 114, 151 Vladimir 9, 16–18, 39, 48, 50, 52, 54, 72– 73, 132, 134, 152–154, 163, 173, 207, 230 Voldemar 74 Voloko-Lamsk Monastery 62, 70, 144, 165 Vonifatiev 70, 74–76, 78, 82–83, 85, 90, 93, 96–97, 104, 145 Voskresenski Monastery 92, 94, 100, 102, 110–111, 114, 119, 122, 130–131, 161

T Tartars 58 theocracy 88, 125–126, 170, 177, 187–188 Theodosei Yanovski 184, 191, 217 Theofan Prokopovich 184, 186–187, 191– 192, 198, 200, 206, 217–220 Theofilakt Lopatinski 185, 217–218 Theoleptus 7, 11–12, 15

237

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. II

Y

Z

Yuri Mnishek 45, 48, 50–51, 53, 56 Yuriev-Povolski Monastery 75–76

Zuzin 113–115

238

HIGHER EDUCATION: HANDBOOK OF THEORY AND RESEARCH, VOL. XVII

476

HIGHER EDUCATION: HANDBOOK OF THEORY AND RESEARCH, VOL. XVII

476