The History of Russian Christianity Volume 1: From the Earliest Years Through Tsar Ivan IV

A HISTORY OF RUSSIAN CHRISTIANITY Volume I

A HISTORY OF RUSSIAN CHRISTIANITY Volume I: From the Earliest Years through Tsar Ivan IV

Daniel H. Shubin

Algora Publishing New York

© 2004 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: 0-87586-287-X (softcover) ISBN: 0-87586-288-8 (hardcover) ISBN: 0-87586-289-6 (ebook)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data —

Shubin, Daniel H. The history of Russian Christianity / Daniel H. Shubin. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-87586-287-X (pbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN 0-87586-288-8 (alk. paper) — ISBN 0-87586-289-6 (ebook) 1. Russia (Federation)—Church history. I. Title. BR932.S55 2004 274.7—dc22 2004012764

Wooden Building in Eklutna Village Crosses stand on the onion domes of a Russian Orthodox shrine in Eklutna Village. © Kevin Fleming/CORBIS Photographer: Kevin Fleming

Printed in the United States

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1 1 2 4 7

PART 1. THE PRE-HISTORIC ERA 1. APOSTLE ANDREW 2. THE PRINCES ASKOLD AND DIR 3. PRINCES OLEG AND IGOR AND PRINCESS OLGA 4. EARLY ORTHODOXY IN RUSSIA

9 9 14 16 18

PART 2. THE ERA OF KIEVAN RUSSIA 5. GRAND PRINCE VLADIMIR THE GREAT 6. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF VLADIMIR’S CONVERSION 7. THE BAPTISM OF RUSSIA 8. PRINCE YAROSLAV 9. THE EARLY METROPOLITANS 10. METROPOLITANS ILARION AND KLIMENT 11. EARLY SAINTS AND MARTYRS 12. RULES OF THE RELIGION 13. MONASTERIES AND MONASTICISM 14. THE PECHER MONASTERY 15. CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS STRIFE AND JUSTICE 16. PAGAN REACTIONS 17. ECCLESIASTICAL FINANCES 18. CHURCH-STATE RELATIONSHIP 19. EARLY DISSENTERS, JEWS AND CATHOLICS 20. MORALITY OF KIEVAN RUSSIA 21. RELIGOUS LITERATURE 22. ORTHODOX HOLIDAYS

21 21 28 34 37 38 41 44 47 49 54 59 62 64 67 70 72 76 80

vii

History of Russian Christianity 23. WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY FASTS 24. THE MONGOL INVASION

81 83

PART 3. THE ERA OF MONGOL OCCUPATION 25. METROPOLITAN KIRILL III 26. METROPOLITAN MAKSIM 27. METROPOLITAN PETER 28. METROPOLITAN THEOGNOST 29. METROPOLITAN ALEKSEI 30. ARCHIMANDRITE MIKHAIL AND THE PATRIARCHAL INTERVAL 31. METROPOLITAN PIMEN 32. METROPOLITAN KIPRIAN 33. METROPOLITAN FOTIUS 35. THE STRIGOLNIKS 35. METROPOLITAN ISIDORE AND THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE 36. METROPOLITAN JONAH 37. METROPOLITAN THEODOSIUS 38. METROPOLITAN FILIPP I 39. CHURCH DEVELOPMENT DURING THE OCCUPATION ERA 40. MONASTERIES AND MONASTICISM 41. SERGEI OF RADONEZH 42. SOLOVETSKI MONASTERY 43. EXPANSION OF MONASTERIES 44. MORALITY AND NATIONAL LIFE 45. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 46. SAINTS AND FOOLS IN CHRIST

87 87 93 95 98 101 105 108 113 117 121 124 130 134 135 137 139 141 143 144 147 149 151

PART 4. THE ERA OF MOSCOVITE RUSSIA 47. METROPOLITAN GERONTI 48. ABBOT JOSEPH VOLOTZKI, METROPOLITAN ZOSIMA, AND THE JUDAIZERS 49. METROPOLITAN SIMON 50. METROPOLITAN VARLAAM 51. MOSCOW — THE THIRD ROME 52. ELDER NIL OF SOR 53. SCHOLAR MAKSIM THE GREEK 54. METROPOLITAN DANIEL 55. METROPOLITAN JOASAF 56. METROPOLITAN MAKARI 57. ABBOT ARTEMIE 58. METROPOLITAN AFANASI 59. METROPOLITAN FILIPP II 60. METROPOLITAN KIRILL IV

155 155

viii

158 167 172 173 175 176 180 182 183 189 191 192 195

Table of Contents 61. METROPOLITAN ANTONI AND THE ENIGMA OF TSAR IVAN IV (THE TERRIBLE) 62. METROPOLITAN DIONYSEI 63. THE ANTI-TRINITARIAN MOVEMENT 64. THE SAINTS OF MOSCOVITE RUSSIA 65. EXPANSION OF RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY 66. ECCLESIASTICAL AND MONASTIC CONDITIONS 67. MORAL CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE 68. THE DOMOSTROI 69. ELDERS AND MYSTICS

196 198 199 204 206 209 213 215 217

BIBLIOGRAPHY PRIMARY SOURCES SECONDARY SOURCES

223 223 224

INDEX

225

ix

PROLOGUE I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this 3-volume work is to provide to the reader a history of the Christianity of Russia from its earliest beginnings to the modern age. This first volume of the history begins with the tradition of the visit of Apostle Andrew and concludes about 1590, shortly after the death of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. (Volume 2 will deal with the era through the death of Tsar Peter the Great in 1725, while Volume 3 will conclude in 1990, the year of the termination of Soviet control over Russia.) Although Russian Orthodoxy is the primary topic, dissenting and sectarian groups of the era are included, along with discussion of the presence of Catholicism and the influx of Protestantism. This history is intensive as well as objective, aiming to give the reader fluency in the events, people and eras that comprise the history of Russian Christianity, including not just the higher levels of church activities but saints and serfs, dissenters and sectarians, as well. It is difficult to write solely a history of the Russian Orthodox Church, because the history of Russia as a state, people and culture is completely interwoven with their religion, and every event, person and location has a religious involvement or attachment to it. In writing this history the author has sought to focus on Russian religion while including those areas of Russian political history and tradition which are needed to explain the religious history. Russian Christian history is largely that of Russian Orthodoxy, and fiction and legend need to be removed in order to present an objective account. With

1

History of Russian Christianity Russian Orthodox history, two problems are present. The first is the meager information provided prior to AD 1240, when major cities, churches and monasteries of Russia were utterly destroyed by Mongol invaders. For the next 240 years, Russia was under Mongol occupation. The second problem is credibility. Russian Orthodoxy has rewritten its history over the years, beginning with the mid-14th century, incorporating much improbable embellishment. For example, records claiming that miracles were performed by the relics of saints abounded in earlier periods, while declining in later eras when more reliable documentation was available, and they were becoming almost nonexistent in the contemporary era. A few of the initial sections, those dealing with Apostle Andrew, Princess Olga and Prince Vladimir, may appear to be exposés, but the intent of the author is to illustrate the development of legends that have become part of the traditional history of Russian Orthodoxy. The book is arranged in chronological and topical sequence. First it is divided into periods of major division within the history of Russia, and then each period is divided into its major characters, primarily metropolitans and patriarchs in chronological order, along with topics of interest that apply to that period at the end of the section.

II. SOURCES In writing this history of the Christian religion of early Russia, the author used the following texts, all in Russian. For the era from Apostle Andrew to the era of Metropolitan Makari: Evgeni Evgenich Golubinski, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, four volumes, edition of 1901-1911.

For the period after Metropolitan Makari to the conclusion of the volume: Anton V. Kartashyov, Ocherki po Istorii Russkoi Tserkvi, two volumes, 1932.

Secondary sources were the following, in order of importance and usage: H. Talberg, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, 1959, two volumes. Pyotr Vasilievich Znamenski, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, 1896. Filaret (Gumilevski), Archbishop of Chernigov, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, 1848. Count Mikhail Vladimirovich Tolstoi, Rasskazi iz Istorii Russkoi Tserkvi, 1898. Feodor Vasilich Livanov, Raskolniki I Ostrozhniki, 5 volumes, 1871-1875

2

Prologue Andrei P. Bogdanov, Russkie Patriarkhi, two 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). Nikolai Ivanovich Prokovyev, Ed. Drevnaya Russkaya Literatura, 1980. Nikolai Rudnev, Razsuzhdenie o Eresyakh I Raskolakh, 1838.

Golubinski and Kartashyov have been translated and paraphrased en masse as the bulk of the content of this history of the Russian Orthodox Church, and their language may be evident as the reader progresses reading the history. E.E. Golubinski (1834-1912) was the most prominent and thorough church historian of his era and a professor at the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. Anton V. Kartashyov (1875-1960) was professor of church history at St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Later, with the dissolution of the Holy Synod under the Provisional Government, Kartashyov was elected as Minister of Confessions April 18, 1917, a position which only lasted a few months. After the Russian Revolution, Kartashyov migrated to Paris, where he taught at the St. Sergius Theological Institute. Some of Kartashyov has also been used in the period from Vladimir the Great to Metropolitan Makari. Reliable and objective sources for ancient history of Russian Orthodox Church are meager. The Russian chronicles are unlike those of nationalities whose histories go back several thousand years and whose populace included scholars and whose culture possessed an established language with alphabet and grammar. The earliest record of Russian Orthodox history is the Chronicle of Nestor (referred to in this volume as pseudo-Nestor), which is also known as the Primary Chronicle. The traditional account is that the monk Nestor wrote his chronicle in 1110-1113, during his residency at Kiev Pecher Monastery. It was supplemented by the monk Sylvester in 1116 by order of Prince Vladimir Monomakh, and by an unknown author in 1118 by order of his son Mstislav Vladimirovich. However, the most reliable evidence presently available indicates that the chronicle which bears the name of Nestor was actually composed about 50 years after his death. The Primary Chronicle has a short paragraph on the visit of Apostle Andrew to Russia and then the founding of Kiev in the late 7th century. It then starts with actual history, beginning about AD 900 with Oleg and concluding 3

History of Russian Christianity about 1098 with the history of an attack that year of the Polotzki on Kiev and its defense by Prince Izyaslav Yaroslavich. The original codices are long lost in history and subsequent editions follow two routes of transmission, the KievoSuzdal, and the Kievan. Each of these two transmissions suffered further editing over time. The earliest editions at present are the Lavrentian (from Suzdal and dated 1377, last copied by the monk Lavrentie), and the Ipatyevski (from the end of the 14th century, and which acquires its name from Kostroma Ipatyevski Monastery, where it was located; its final editor is unknown). There are other, later chronicles that cover a short period of Kievan history prior to its destruction by the Mongols. These are the Novgorod, written in 1130, and the Galitzia-Volin, composed shortly after 1240. The only documents that survived the devastation of Kiev were those earlier taken to Suzdal under Prince Andrei Bogolubski.

III. NAMES, PLACES, AND DATES All of the names in the text are in their transliterated Russian form with the English equivalent — if there is one — in parentheses. Due to the abovementioned dearth of scholars and the late establishment of an alphabet and grammatical rules for the Slavic languages, spellings of names may reasonably vary over time and in different regions. The word Russ (or Rus’) has been abandoned in favor of Russia throughout the text and the people are referred to as Russians, by which the author means the descendents of the inter-marriage of native Slavs and invading Scandinavians. The adjective form of Moscow utilized is Moscovite, rather than the Anglicized and etymologically incorrect Muscovite. In Russian, the middle name is the patronymic, that is, it is derived from the father’s name, and pertains equally to both son and daughter. For sons, the ending is -vich, such as Yaroslav Vladimirovich, meaning Yaroslav son of Vladimir. For daughters, the ending is -evna (or a variation) so that Anna Vasilievna is “Anna daughter of Vasili” and Elizabeth Petrovna designates “Elizabeth daughter of Peter.” The son of the tsar was referred to as Tsarevich; the wife of the tsar was Tsaritza; and the daughter — or sometimes the wife of the Tsar not recognized as empress — was the Tsarevna. Female family names always end in -a or -ya, while for men the family name ends in -ski or a consonant. For example, Peter the Great is Pyotr Alekseevich Romanov, while his sister was Sophia Alekseevna Romanova. 4

Prologue Many early Russia heroes possess a name assigned to them by the Orthodox Church; their original names are lost in history and no doubt had pagan and Slavic roots. Vladimir literally means Prince of Peace. Such a name has a strong Christian identity and would be most appropriate for the individual introducing Christianity into Russia. Sviatopolk means Holy Regiment; Sviatoslav means Holy Slav; Yaroslav means Bright Slav; Andrei Bogolubski is Andrew (named after the apostle) beloved of God. Apart from the heroes of the early era, the balance of secular names are traditional Russian, such as Igor, Olga, Ivan, Vasili, and Vsevolod. All males who are tonsured and become monks and all females who take the veil and become nuns abandon their birth names and assume new names for the duration of their monastic careers. The names are usually selected from a list of Russian saints and other holy people of the ages. This is the reason that many of the names of the Orthodox clergy, as the reader will notice, are the same. To distinguish these people and to avoid confusion, the secular name is often included (in parenthesis); otherwise, it is up to the reader to distinguish between the individuals, such as Vladimir the Great and his grandson Vladimir Monomakh, and the various Josephs, Jonahs, Dionysiuses, Sergeis, and Nikons in the text. The clergy of Orthodoxy were divided into married and monastic. The married clergy were the “white” clergy. They were primarily the village or town parish priests, deacons or lower ranks. The highest rank a married priest could attain was protopope (arch-priest or proto-priest), who was senior priest in a parish or had charge over several small parish churches. A married priest was often referred to as a white priest. The monastic (unmarried) clergy were referred to as the “black” clergy. Beginning with the bishop and up to the patriarch, the Church hierarchy was always chosen from the monastic clergy. Because some lower positions could be held by either married or monastic, the monastic priest always had “monk” attached to his title, or was referred to as a hieromonk or black priest. The hierodeacon was a deacon of the monastic order. The cathedral was the primary church in the capital of a diocese where the bishop had his home. A kremlin is a citadel, a fortress, and one was located inside every major city in Russia, although the most well-known is the Moscow Kremlin. The archimandrite was of the monastic order and was charged as father superior over several small monasteries or one of large or special importance, such as one assigned specifically to the administration of the patriarch. The 5

History of Russian Christianity abbot, or higumen, had charge over a small monastery, abbey or hermitage. A monastery that was considered Stavropigli was one that was under direct control of the patriarch — or later the Holy Synod — rather than under diocesan control, which applied to all other monasteries. Many cities in Russia were named after their founder or in honor of some great ancestor. For this reason, there is a city Vladimir in southwest Russia (founded by Vladimir the Great) and another city Vladimir in northern Russia which was named after Vladimir Monomakh, great-grandson of his namesake. Similarly, a Rostov and a Pereyaslav exist in both southwest and northern Russia. The author has attempted to avoid confusing the reader by defining clearly which city is in reference. The cities of Vladimir, Rostov, Pereyaslav and others with identical names in southwest Russia are referred to as Kievan, while those in northern Russia (which developed later) are referred by their specific names in the balance of the history. The names of ecclesiastical edifices are also repeated in major cities in Russia. Almost every city has a church or monastery dedicated to the Trinity (Troitski), Mary mother of Christ, or some event in the life of Christ (Annunciation, Epiphany, Ascension, Birth, etc.), and so the city is normally included in order to identify which specify church, cathedral or monastery is in referred to. The dates quoted in the text are quoted directly from their sources. Ancient Russia used a calendar based on the creation of the world on September 1, Year 1, while some of the population followed Catholic chronology and celebrated New Year’s Day on March 25, the holiday of the Annunciation. The Julian calendar was not officially adopted in Russia until 1700, by decree of Tsar Peter the Great, although parts of the westernized merchant class were already using it. 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 the present, all dates in early Russian sources are based on it. The author did not consider it necessary to change all dates to match the Gregorian calendar because the majority of specific dates are fabricated by the chroniclers or Russian Church historians, or else are approximations, anyway. Theotokos (Bogo-Roditza) is the most popular term used in Russia to refer to Mary mother of Christ, the Blessed Virgin. Theotokos remains as a transliteration, instead of its translation as Mother-of-God or God-Bearer.

6

Prologue The term heresy is not utilized in this history because of its negative connotation, unless it is the specific attitude of one individual toward another and so indicated.

IV. ABBREVIATIONS Patr. Metr. Pr. Gr. Pr.

Patriarch Metropolitan Prince Grand Prince

7

PART 1. THE PRE-HISTORIC ERA 1. APOSTLE ANDREW Beginning with the 16th century, or possibly slightly earlier, Russian Orthodoxy began to promote Apostle Andrew as the actual initial planter of Christian belief on Russian soil. Around that time, the notion began to be seriously accepted and from then on, when the need or occasion arose, Russian Orthodoxy would point to this with pride and conviction as though it were a fact not subject to debate. The Catholic legate of the 16th century, Antonius Possevin, attempting to convince Tsar Ivan IV to unite with the Catholic Pope, called his attention to the example of Greek Orthodoxy which accepted Unia at the Council of Florence. The Tsar replied, “We do not believe in the Greeks, but in Christ. We accepted the Christian faith at the very beginning of Christianity when Andrew, brother of Peter apostle, entered these regions on his journey to Rome. In this manner did we in Moscow accept the Christian faith at the same time as you did in Italy, and from that time and to the present we have observed it inviolate.” Midway through the 17th century, the popular elder Arsenius Sukhanov, a monk of Troitse-Sergievski Monastery, was sent by Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich to Greece to record how they performed rites. While there, he encountered heated arguments over certain church rituals because of the difference between theirs and those of Russia. When the Greeks pointed out to Sukhanov that the Russians had accepted the religion from them — Greek Orthodoxy — and consequently the Russian Orthodox faith should be in total compliance with

9

History of Russian Christianity their Greek faith, Sukhanov replied, “In vain do you boast that we accepted from you the baptism; we accepted the baptism from Apostle Andrew when he, after the ascension of the Lord, arrived in Byzantium and from there traveled across the Black Sea to the Dnepr River, and followed the Dnepr up to Kiev; and then from Kiev even to the great Novgorod. While journeying, he disseminated his teaching regarding the faith of Christ and some he baptized. Just as you accepted the faith from Apostle Andrew, so did we.” These two chronicles of the Moscovite period express the reason for the fabrication of this legend: in order to provide justification of the equality of the Russian Church to the Greek, thereby also refusing acknowledgment of the Greek having preeminence over the Russian. This would subsequently provide the Russian Church with a basis for their independence from Greek domination and interference in Russian affairs. The basis for the above legend has its origin in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, Book III, Chapter I, who states that the destiny of preaching to Scythians was allotted to Apostle Andrew. Eusebius also states that his source for this information was Origen, even though nowhere in any extant writings of Origen is this to be located. Later traditions expanded Andrew’s preaching to the area north of Byzantium along the western shore of the Black Sea. In reality, this is the most probable extent of the effort of Apostle Andrew and especially since the areas of present day western Russia and Ukraine were barbarian and inaccessible to Aramaic-speaking Jewish apostles. The chronicle of pseudo-Nestor records the journey of Apostle Andrew, which follows the trade route from Constantinople to the land of the Varangians — Scandinavia — traveled by merchants. The circuit entailed crossing the Black Sea and following the Dnepr River north to its source, and then overland to the Lovat River which empties into Lake Ilmen; from Ilmen following the Volkhov River to Lake Ladozhskoi (Ladoga) and thence to the Neva River and so to the Baltic Sea. Traveling west they would reach the north Atlantic Ocean. According to the traditional account of pseudo-Nestor, Andrew preached the gospel westward along the south shore of the Black Sea and arrived at Sinop, Turkey. From there he journeyed north across the Black Sea to Kherson of Tavria, or Chersoness, and there discovered that the mouth of the Dnepr River was nearby. Wanting to journey to Rome, the apostle departed Kherson to the Dnepr River to follow it upriver. Following the river north in boats with his disciples accompanying him Andrew had the opportunity to stop and spend the night on the shore at the foot of some mountains, which were identified as the very mountains upon which the city Kiev was later built. Arising the next day, 10

Part 1. The Pre-Historic Era early in the morning, Apostle Andrew directed the attention of his disciples to the mountains and said, “Do you see these mountains? Know that on these mountains the grace of God will shine. A great city will be built on them and God will raise many churches upon it.” After this, the apostle climbed to the top of the mountains, blessed them, prayed there, and set a cross upon that part of the mountain which later became the primary part of the city. Continuing his northward journey, the apostle came upon some Slavs at a place where the city Novgorod was later built. He noticed among the residents how they would bathe in a steam sauna and whip themselves with branches. The apostle departed from there and continued to the land of the Varangians — most likely Scandinavia — and traversed the Baltic Sea westward, then headed south and then eastward, eventually arriving at Rome. The Romans were amazed at the account of his travels after learning of it from the apostle. After some length of stay in Rome, Andrew returned to Sinop. Some credibility could be attached to this legend if Slavs and Varangians did actually reside in these areas during the first century AD. But the early Orthodox forebears were desperate to establish apostolic origin for their church, even if it had to be accounted for by having Apostle Andrew travel through territory unknown to that era, sparsely inhabited and speaking an alien language, along with a dangerous return to Rome through the uncharted Baltic Sea to the North Atlantic and thereupon to Italy via Gibraltar. Other than pseudo-Nestor, no record prior to the 12th century documents the improbable journey of Apostle Andrew. Even if one did, how would a writer 1000 years later know that Kiev was built on exactly the mountain ascended and blessed by Andrew? And there was no rationale for Andrew to travel to Rome by taking a route 50 times (and six months) longer than the one that led directly across Greece through Yugoslavia and into Italy. The notation of bathing in steam saunas by pseudo-Nestor was a poor attempt to provide cultural evidence that was indigenous to Russia; unfortunately, such a method of bathing did not evolve in Russia for several centuries after the supposed visit of Andrew and was more in vogue during the era when pseudo-Nestor composed his record. Some of the material of pseudo-Nestor may have been plagiarized from the monk Epiphanius (Euthymius Zigabenus), who traveled the region at the end of the 8th century and the beginning of the 9th century. There are certain elements in the narrative of Epiphanius which may have affected the fabrication of the legend. Journeying the perimeter of the Black Sea shore, gathering information from the residents regarding traditions as ancient as they could provide, 11

History of Russian Christianity Epiphanius also mentions Apostle Andrew in his memoirs, but he never mentions any of the items that are indigenous to the record of pseudo-Nestor, such as his journey up the Dnepr River. In the annals of Epiphanius, Andrew did overthrow a statue of Artemedis in Bithynia near Nicea and in its place erect a cross. Likewise in Pathlagonia, east of Bithynia along the Black Sea coast of northwest Turkey, Andrew stopped and offered a prayer at a certain place, sanctified it, and there also erected a cross. The route that Andrew took according to Epiphanius began at the east end of the Black Sea at the western slope of the Caucasus. He followed the shoreline north to Kerch on the Crimean peninsula, and crossed by land to Kherson or Chersoness. From there Andrew journeyed by boat across the Black Sea to Sinop and then to Byzantium. Even then, the accuracy or credibility of the annals of Epiphanius 800 years after a journey with no previous documentation is highly dubious. Another account of similar credibility is a composition of a poem written by Nikita David Panflagonski at the end of the 9th and beginning of the 10th century. He composed a series of sermons in honor of the apostles. In his sermon on Apostle Andrew, he relates that Andrew traveled to Iveria (Georgia), Sarmatia (northeast coast of the Black Sea), Tavria and Scythia, every country and city on both the north and south shores of the Black Sea. After preaching the gospel in all the lands of the north and south shores of the Black Sea, Andrew arrived at Byzantium. Byzantium was just as desperate as Russia, or more so, to develop and magnify these same accounts for its own history of apostolic inauguration. Rome had Apostle Peter and Byzantium needed Apostle Andrew in order to claim apostolic origin to demonstrate equality with Rome, and Moscow needed to do the same with Byzantium. In order to provide a greater preeminence over Byzantium, Kiev further developed the record of the journey of Andrew, now Andrew traveling from Rome directly to Sinop, implying that he circumvented Byzantium. The manner by which the earlier chronicles of Epiphanius migrated into the Russian chronicles and were reformulated to fit the needs of the Russian Church was initially by way of a letter composed by Greek Emperor Mikhael VII Dukas (1072-1077) in 1074, directed to Pr. Vsevolod Yaroslavich, a grandson of Vladimir the Great. The letter had the purpose of arranging a marriage between the brother of the emperor and the daughter of Vsevolod. One of the arguments presented to justify a tight union between the two royal families was the following statement: “Religious books and trustworthy sources instruct me that our states both possess one specific source and root, and that the one and same 12

Part 1. The Pre-Historic Era word of salvation is preached in both, the same divine sacrament was preached by them.” The reference here is to the derivation of their common faith from Apostle Andrew. The legend of Andrew’s evangelical feats along the Black Sea coast from Turkey to Georgia to Tavria migrated to Russia along with the messengers to Vsevolod. Byzantium supplied all the information that was necessary regarding the implantation of Christianity in Russia by Apostle Andrew, and shortly thereafter, the legend surfaced. Some Russian historians of late see Andrew’s journey through the North Atlantic as a means of identifying him as a patron saint of Scotland, as well as some unsubstantiated legends dealing with Ireland. Metropolitan Makarius (Bulgakov), a firm believer in the traditional account of the visitation of Apostle Andrew to Russia summarized his thoughts as follows. Based on the words of our venerated chronicler, we can conclude that in the inner regions of our fatherland, surrounding Kiev and Novgorod, the preaching of St. Andrew did not remain entirely unproductive. True, in our chronicle, at the beginning, it does state that when St. Andrew was at Kiev he only ascended Kievan hills, blessed them and erected upon them a cross prophesying a future great city at that location and a quantity of God’s churches in it, and when he reached Novgorod he was only surprised at the strange customs of the Slavs — bathing in steam baths; and there is not one word about whether he taught any among us the holy Gospel, whether he practiced his primary vocation — preaching — or whether he traveled for some other purpose. But reading further, when he departed our region and arrived in Rome, there first of all he confessed to Christians what he taught and what he saw in the lands of the Slavs during his journey to Rome. Nonetheless, we will not deceive ourselves and so will recognize that if any principles of Christianity were sown by St. Apostle Andrew in the countries of Kiev and Novgorod, they did not survive very long. The barbarity of the people, shortcomings in learned pastors and schools, persecution from pagans, and together with the constant political turmoil and upheaval were the reason that the holy religion — and just as occurred with certain other nations who were enlightened by the very apostles — was suppressed completely among us for many ages. And St. Apostle Andrew by no means can be considered the direct founder of the Russian Church. No, this church, as known to all, appeared at a later date and is the daughter of the church of the Royal city (Constantinople). The First-called (Apostle Andrew) only blessed this church from a distance in the prophetic spirit having erected on the hills of Kiev a holy cross — its immoveable foundation. And if this apostle can be called its founder, then he is only its indirect founder, namely because he gifted the initial archbishop of Byzantium the beginning of an uninterrupted line of successors of the supreme prelates of the Royal City. Then, at the time appointed of God, the uninter-

13

History of Russian Christianity rupted line of our supreme prelates was initiated which has continued to the present.

The specific political issue that motivated the codification of a legend pertaining to Apostle Andrew’s personal visit and blessing of Kiev was the ordination of Kliment Smolyatich as metropolitan of Kiev. The historical background is as follows. In 1145, the metropolitan of Kiev, Mikhail, having held the cathedra some 16 years, abandoned Kiev and returned to Constantinople. In 1147, Pr. Izyaslav Mstislavich installed Kliment Smolyatich, a native Russian, as metropolitan of Kiev — without discussion with or approval of the patriarch. All the previous 13 metropolitans were Greek, except for Ilarion (1051-1054), and were ordained by the Greek patriarch. Izyaslav, however, wanted a native Russian as metropolitan and wanted to be secular monarch of his own Russian church without the interference or intervention of the Greek patriarch. Kliment Smolyatich, a native Russian, was ordained July 27, 1147 as metropolitan. It was during this era of the cathedra of Metr. Kliment, 1147-1155 (and no doubt toward the earlier part of this period), that the legend of Apostle Andrew’s visit was codified and promulgated as fact by Metr. Kliment, lending the name of the prominent monk Nestor of Kiev Pecher Monastery to the documents as author, and thereby dating it 50 years earlier to establish it as a precedent. Pr. Izyaslav needed the historical record as a basis to demonstrate to the Greek Church and patriarch the equality of the Russian Church and its right of independence.

2. THE PRINCES ASKOLD AND DIR This historical era begins in the late 9th century with the foundation of the Russian state by Rurik the Varangian, the progenitor of the royal line of Kievan and Russian princes and tsars. According to the traditional account, Rurik arrived in Novgorod in AD 862 to reign there. With him were two men, nobles, whose names were Askold and Dir. Not wanting to remain with Rurik in Novgorod they requested his permission to journey to Constantinople with their families. As they journeyed down the Dnepr River, they stopped in Kiev, conquered the city and took control of it, and remained there to rule it as princes, uniting with the city many Varangian settlements scattered in the area. According to the traditional account, in 866 they attempted a campaign against Constantinople, using an army of local pagans and 200 ships. They journeyed down the Dnepr and through the Black Sea to the Bosphorus. Their presence was close enough then to pose a danger to the residents of 14

Part 1. The Pre-Historic Era Constantinople. Patriarch Fotius, who was also concerned about the evangelization of the Slavs, after an all-night prayer vigil, brought out from the Church of the Holy Theotokos a relic of a garment of the Theotokos. With the congregation following him, he carried the relic to the shore of the sea, singing along the way. Arriving at the shore, where the sea was calm and serene Patr. Fotius dipped the garment in the water. Immediately a storm arose and the wind and waves destroyed all of the invaders’ 200 ships. Askold and Dir, gripped by fear, were then baptized in the Greek Orthodox faith. Many of the soldiers were executed when they reached the shore, but a few escaped and returned to their homeland. After Askold and Dir returned to Kiev, a bishop was sent to them, at their request, to further instruct them in the ways of Christ. The incident was supposed to have occurred in the year 866, or in the 14th year of the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Mikhael III. The account concludes this part of history by stating that 15 years later, in 881 Pr. Oleg executed the Princes Askold and Dir. The difficulty in accepting the traditional account as reliable is that it is the super-imposition of two separate chronicles, one concerning Askold and Dir immigrating to Kiev and defeating it, the other an account that deals with the attack of Varangians on Constantinople — which does not mention Askold and Dir. This second account is Greek and was adapted into the Primary Chronicle to record the earliest baptism of Russians by Greek Orthodoxy. The baptism of Askold and Dir was derived by pseudo-Nestor from information in a letter composed by Patr. Fotius, dating to about 866-867, which speaks of the baptism of Bulgarians along with some Russians who were in the region and were associated with them. The attack on Constantinople could be either of two events. One is documented by Nikita Paflagonius, in his life of Patr. Ignatius, which mentions that in the years between 859 and 861 some Russians attempted an attack on Constantinople. The second is the account of an invasion by Normans, between 860 and 863, with 360 ships, which were able to reach the city. The Normans were unable to destroy the city and left soon thereafter. It is irrefutable, though, that beginning at about this era of 860-866, Russians from the area of Kiev began to accept Greek Orthodoxy. To a large extent, no doubt, this stemmed from commercial intercourse between the developing city of Kiev and the long-established Constantinople: the traders and merchants visiting Constantinople were proselytized by Greek Orthodox missionaries and took their new religion back to their homeland with them. By the year 862, according to Greek records, a Greek Orthodox bishop was residing in Kiev and a church dedicated to Elijah the prophet was located in the city. 15

History of Russian Christianity Another legend of the era is an incident that occurred after Patr. Fotius dispatched a bishop to Kiev at the request of the new converts. According to the annals of Patr. Fotius, “The Russians exchanged their iniquitous pagan superstition for the pure and unadulterated Christian faith and, having accepted a bishop and teacher, conduct themselves as obedient children and friends, and they have accepted Christian rites.” But when the bishop arrived at the capital of the region, Kiev, the local prince summoned a council. A considerable crowd gathered and the prince himself presided, with nobles and elders who, according to ancient custom among the pagans, were more attached to paganism than the balance of the population. They began to discuss their religion vis à vis Christianity and, having invited the bishop to their council, they asked him, “What is it you want to teach us?” The bishop opened the New Testament and began to speak to them about the Savior and His miracles, and related to them various miracles that were performed by God in the Old Testament. The Russians said, “If we do not see something similar to that which occurred with the three adolescents in the fire, we do not want to believe.” The servant of God was not shaken; he boldly replied to them, “We are nothing before God; but say what it is you want.” They asked that the New Testament be thrown into a fire and promised to convert to the Christian God if the book remained unaffected and unharmed by the flames. Then the bishop exclaimed, “Lord, glorify Your name in the presence of these people,” and he placed the book in a fire. After some time passed, the fire consumed everything in the fireplace, but the New Testament remained intact. Even the ribbons which held the book together were preserved. The people were impressed by the miracle and accepted baptism. This event occurred in the year 867 during the era of Askold and Dir.

3. PRINCES OLEG AND IGOR AND PRINCESS OLGA In 882 Oleg, a Varangian and a relative of Rurik, arrived at Kiev from Novgorod and killed both Askold and Dir. Christianity in Kiev then went underground or practically vanished during the years of his rule, 882-912, and through the years of the rule of his son Igor, 912-945. That Christians lived in Kiev during the rule of Igor is a fact, demonstrated by a treaty that was concluded with the Greeks in 944. The Primary Chronicle notes that references are made twice in this treaty to “the baptized and the un16

Part 1. The Pre-Historic Era baptized.” There is no indication in the chronicle that either Oleg or Igor was Christian or possessed any Christian virtues. Olga was the wife of Igor; they married in 902. According to the traditional account, she accepted Orthodoxy in the following manner. Olga ruled over the Kiev region in 945-969, after the death of her husband; her son Sviatoslav was only five years old at the time of the father’s death. She was originally from Pskov and had qualities of beauty and intelligence surpassing other women of her era. She was able to recruit an army and attack the rebellious Drevlans as vengeance for their murder of her husband Igor, and then she placed a heavy tribute upon them. During her rule she noticed the immaculate life and austerity and high morality of the Christians in Kiev. This interested her, knowing that it was not the local paganism that they adhered to. She discussed faith with the Christian teachers in Kiev, who disclosed to her the heavenly purity of life and supremacy of Christ’s teaching. She decided to be baptized and in order to become more familiar with Orthodoxy she went herself to Constantinople in 957. There she spent about three months; other records indicate that she was away from April to October of 957. However, she was coldly received in Constantinople and had to wait a long time at the entrance to the church before finally being noticed by Emperor Constantine VII and Patr. Theophylactus. Olga was instructed in the Orthodox faith and baptized by the patriarch himself. She was given the new name, Elena (Helen), with her baptism and the emperor himself became her godfather. According to the traditional account, when the newly-converted Olga ascended from the baptismal basin the patriarch congratulated her with the words, “Blessed are you among Russian women because you have loved the light and abandoned darkness. The sons of Russia will not cease to bless you for generations of generations and unto the last of your descendents.” Along with Olga, several of her traveling companions were also baptized, including a nephew, ten famous women, eighteen honored female servants, 22 subjects of feudal princes, 43 merchants, and ten officials, all of them Russian. Olga and her entire retinue were honored by being hosted in the Imperial palace for dinner on two occasions. In return for their hospitality, Olga presented a large dish for the Cathedral of St. Sophia, the underside embedded with pearls and having inside a large jewel with an image of Christ on it. Before her return to Russia, Olga requested a blessing from the patriarch who had baptized her. Bidding farewell to his spiritual daughter with a blessing, the patriarch gave Olga the gift of a cross, inscribed with the words, “Renovate the land of Russia, bringing it to God with the same holy baptism that Olga — the faithful princess — accepted.” On 17

History of Russian Christianity her return to Kiev, Olga constructed a wooden church dedicated to St. Sophia (or Holy Wisdom). (The original church burned down in a fire in 1017 and was later replaced by Pr. Yaroslav with a stone church.) The gift cross was placed in the Kiev Church of St. Sophia but disappeared during the pillage by Mongols in 1240. According to the traditional account, Olga lived twelve years as a Christian in Kiev until her death July 11, 969, between the ages of 70 and 75. Other sources indicate fifteen years, making the year of her baptism 954. The accounts refer to her as Apostolic-equal and the first of Russia to enter the heavenly kingdom. There is no evidence to indicate that the Christianity of Olga ever went beyond her home in Kiev, although traditional accounts relate that Olga preached throughout the region and her proselytes were baptized, and that the Catholic pope recognized Kiev as the cradle of Orthodoxy in Russia during her reign. A later tradition regarding Olga relates that she visited her home city, Pskov. While there, she was standing on the shore of a river, near a thick forest of oak trees, and saw three radiant beams of light descending from heaven onto a small hill on the opposite side of the river. The princess erected a cross at this spot and predicted that a church of the Holy Trinity would be built there, along with a magnificent city. Russian Orthodoxy lauds Olga as “The morning star preceding the sunrise, the rays of the morning dawn preceding daylight; she shined like the full moon during the night, and radiated as a pearl among the unbelievers.” The sunrise and dawn referenced in the acclaim is a reference to her grandson Vladimir the Great. She was also referred to as “the dawn of the salvation of the land of Russia, a female equal to the apostles.” Igor and Olga’s son Sviatoslav inherited the throne of Kiev, through 972. The chronicles consider him a pagan, with no Christian morality or virtue whatever. Orthodoxy in Kiev during his rule stagnated, showing neither growth nor loss.

4. EARLY ORTHODOXY IN RUSSIA A thick, dark cloud encompasses the history of Russia up to the initial chronicled events of the 9th century. Fierce winters, meager population and sparse vegetation, poor soil conditions, and distance from trade routes, along with an undeveloped language and poor literacy, marked Russia as a great unknown as well as a great unwanted. Only with the development of Kiev, along the Dnepr River, a trade route, and its intercourse with Bulgaria did a history 18

Part 1. The Pre-Historic Era begin, religious as well as political and economic. The religion of this pre-historic era promulgated by Greek Orthodox sources as being “Christian” cannot be ascertained or defined. Much of the traditional record is embellished with dioceses, bishops, archbishops, cathedrals, and the like, when the population of Kherson, as magnificent a city as it was, only numbered a few thousand in the 8th-10th centuries and the population of Kiev was in the area of 10-20,000 during the ascendancy of Vladimir the Great. Churches were wooden and clergy were ill-educated and semi-literate, and few knew sufficient Greek to know even the rudiments of Christian teaching. The religious chroniclers of the Middle Ages magnified their exploits to leave a legacy of apparent success in foreign and alien lands for future generations; or perhaps future generations fabricated the exploits of previous generations to identify themselves as heirs of a successful, uninterrupted Christian tradition. The Crimean Peninsula in the 8th century contained traces of an organized Greek Orthodox clergy, and the Azov region had cultural and economic ties with both Constantinople and Sinop. The population, primarily Crimean Goths, was concentreated along the shoreline and engaged in commerce across the Black Sea. One area acknowledged as having an organized Greek Orthodox diocese is Tamatarkhan, the area east of Crimea (today known as the Kuban region) and which later extended east along the Black Sea coast toward the foot of the Caucasus. The Crimean Goths migrated eastward with the invasion of Huns in the 5th century and developed settlements there. Evidence of Greek Orthodoxy begins in the 7th century in this area and was consistent throughout the later centuries, surviving Mongol rule; but all of it held close to shore and did not migrate inland. There is evidence that Orthodox churches existed in the southern Ukraine in the 9th and 10th centuries, but these churches were primarily in settlements located along the shore of the Black Sea, from Constantinople to Kherson. More probable than the migration of Greek Orthodoxy into Kievan Russia is that of Christianity introduced by Varangians (Scandinavians). Traditional accounts state that 400 churches were constructed by Varangian Christians in Kievan Russia. Acting as missionaries were merchants and other travelers from Scandinavia, passing through Kiev on their route to the Mediterranean region. As Metr. Makarius (Bulgakov) wrote: The opinion of other historians cannot be discarded or ignored who state that Christianity was introduced into Russia by Varangians who traveled through Russia from Scandinavia, and not by Greeks as the biased chroniclers

19

History of Russian Christianity record. Because the chroniclers do state that many Varangians living in Kiev were Christians, then this is evidence that they brought their religion with them from their homeland and dispersed it in Kiev and Novgorod. This would account for the statements made in early chronicles that toward the end of the reign of Igor, in about 944, Kiev contained over 400 churches.

In addition Bulgarian Bogomils, migrating east from Bulgaria to escape persecution, flourished in Kiev and had a great appeal to the common population, introducing to them basic Christian morals and ethics. The influence and writings of Bogomils survived the era of Mongol invasion and occupation among the peasants in the outlying rural area. Their remnants surfaced in subsequent eras and are discussed later.

20

PART 2. THE ERA OF KIEVAN RUSSIA 5. GRAND PRINCE VLADIMIR THE GREAT According to historian Golubinski, the name Vladimir Sviatoslavich literally means “Prince of Peace, son of Holy Slav,” and is no doubt the name assigned him by Orthodox prelates later in his career after installing Orthodoxy in Kiev. His original name is lost in history and no doubt had pagan and Slavic roots. The appellation “Vladimir Sviatoslavich” has a strong Christian identity and would be most appropriate for the individual introducing Christianity into Russia. In later years, after the tradition surrounding Vladimir was codified, he was referred to as “the Great” and “Apostolic-equal.” Vladimir was the youngest of three sons born to Sviatoslav. In their struggle for supremacy in Kiev, in late 978 or early 979 Vladimir killed his brother Yaropolk by decapitation and then took his brother’s wife to be his own. Vladimir gained a reputation in his early years as a military leader who led many soldiers into battle, in several wars, to extend the territory of his realm. According to the Primary Chronicle, Vladimir had 800 concubines; according to the Nikon Chronicle, he had 1100. If this was not enough, he also adulterated with married women and deflowered virgins. Along with this, at his accession to power in Kiev he set up statues of pagan deities on a hill outside his home: Perun, made of wood but with gold leaf and silver lips; also Khors-Dazh-bog and Stribog, Simargel and Mokosh. (Bog is the Russian word for God.) He sacrificed to them, calling them gods, and brought his sons and daughters as sacrifices to these demons. In his early years Vladimir defiled the land with his demands and

21

History of Russian Christianity filled the soil of Russia and the hill where he performed his sacrifices with blood. Kiev was also a center for the slave trade, in which Vladimir was also heavily involved. The first martyrs of Russia were a father and son named Feodor and Iyoann. According to the traditional account, Vladimir the Great, in his early years, gained the victory in a decisive military campaign against the Yatvyags, a local non-Slavic tribe. He decided to thank the gods — the pagan deities — for his victory with a human sacrifice. After a consultation, the elders and nobles decided they would throw lots to determine whom to select for the sacrifice. The lot fell to a handsome young man, son of a Varangian; but father and son both professed to be Christians. In vain did the father try to convince the agents who came to take his son that the pagan deities were not real gods, but soulless statues, and that there was only one true God, creator of heaven and earth. This only irritated the agents, who left their home and told everyone what the father had said. Weapons in hand, a crowd gathered and broke down the door of the Christians’ home and demanded the father to deliver his son to them as a human sacrifice. The father refused; both were killed and their house was destroyed. Later prelates set July 12 as a holiday to commemorate the martyrs Feodor and Iyoann. The traditional account of the introduction of Orthodoxy into Kiev and the baptism of Vladimir as recorded by both Golubinski and Count M. Vl. Tolstoi is the following: In AD 986, the eighth year of the reign of Vladimir, Mohammedan delegates from the Bulgar Empire east of Kiev in the central Volga region arrived to visit him. They said to him, “You are a wise and intelligent king, but you do not know the law, and you adhere to the wrong and false religion. Believe in our law and venerate Mohammed.” Vladimir asked him, “What does your religion consist of?” They said, “We believe in God, while Mohammed commands us to circumcise the foreskin, not to eat pork, not to drink wine. After death we will exercise sexual activity with many wives. Mohammed will give each man 70 beautiful wives, while the most beautiful of them whom the man will select will become the sole [legitimate] wife. And likewise here at present.” they said, “every sexual activity is permissible. Whoever is crippled in this world so shall he also be in the other.” Vladimir listened to them with great enthusiasm when they spoke about having many wives, because he himself was a ladies’ man and had a strong sexual appetite. But to circumcise the foreskin and not to eat pork was not attractive to 22

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia him, and as for the prohibition of drinking, saying, “For Russians, drinking is joy; we cannot exist without it.” Later, some Germans arrived, saying, “We have arrived as delegates sent by the Pope.” They said to Vladimir, “This is what the Pope ordered us to relate to you: your land is just like our land, but your religion is not like ours, because our religion is right; we worship the God who created heaven and earth, the stars, moon and all that breathes. But your gods are wood.” Vladimir asked them, “What is your rule?” They said, “Fast according to your strength, and whatever a person eats and drinks is to the glory of God, just as our teacher Paul [apostle] stated.” Vladimir, knowing of the political intrigues of the Pope, told the Germans, “Go back; our fathers did not accept religion from the [earlier] popes.” Jews of Khazar, having heard of this, came also, saying, “We heard that Bulgars and Christians came, each teaching you their religion. Christians believe in the man whom we crucified, while we believe in the one God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” And Vladimir asked them, “And what is your rule?” They answered, “Be circumcised, do not eat pork or rabbit; observe the Sabbath.” Vladimir asked, “And where is your land at present?” They answered, “In Jerusalem, but God became angered at our fathers and scattered them as a result of our sins throughout various lands, and our land was allotted to Christians.” Vladimir said, “How are you able to teach others when you yourselves are rejected of God and dispersed? If God loved you and your religion, then you would not be scattered throughout various lands. Or, is it that you want this to occur to us, also?” After this, the Greeks sent to Vladimir a monk who was a philosopher, saying, “We heard that Bulgars came to you and tried to convince you to accept their religion, but their religion defiles heaven and earth; they are cursed above all people because they have become similar to Sodom and Gomorrah, upon whom the Lord released fiery rocks to destroy them. In the same manner do these await the day of their own destruction, when God will come to judge the earth and destroy all the lawless and wicked.” (The philosopher then discredits Bulgar customs, unfit for print in this history.) Hearing this, Vladimir spat on the ground and said, “This is repulsive” (sic). The philosopher continued, “We also heard that emissaries came from Rome to teach you their religion; but their religion is somewhat corrupt 23

History of Russian Christianity compared to ours, because they conduct their services using unleavened bread as the wafer, which God did not assign, while commanding the use of leavened bread which was the custom handed to the apostles, ‘Accept this bread and say: This is my body, broken for you.’ They do not practice this, and for this reason their religion is deficient.” Vladimir said, “Jews came to me and said that these Germans and Greeks believe in the man whom they crucified.” The philosopher answered, “We genuinely believe in him because prophets prophesied that someday God would be born; other prophets foretold that he would be crucified and buried and would resurrect on the third day and would ascend to heaven. They [the Jews] killed these prophets, while others they dismembered, using saws. When the prophecies were to be fulfilled, God descended to earth, was crucified, and after his resurrection ascended to heaven. Then he awaited their repentance for 46 years. Since they never repented, he sent Romans against them who destroyed their cities and scattered them throughout various countries, where to the present time they live in servitude.” Vladimir asked, “But why did God descend to earth and accept such a passion?” The philosopher answered, “If you are willing, great ruler, to listen, I will relate to you in an orderly fashion the circumstances as to why God descended to the earth.” Vladimir said, “I am ready to listen, with great satisfaction.” The philosopher subsequently gave a very long sermon to Vladimir, in which he expounded in detail the entire sacred history of the Old and New Testaments from beginning to the end, from the creation of the world to the ascension of Jesus Christ and preaching of the apostles. Having portrayed in this manner the plan of divine providence regarding the salvation of people, or the reason why God descended to the earth, the philosopher concluded his sermon, “God has assigned a day when he wants to judge, descending from heaven, the living and dead and to recompense every person according to his deeds: for the righteous, the kingdom of heaven and indescribable beauty and joy without end, and eternal life; while for sinners is reserved an endless fiery torment, and the worm which does not die.” Having said this, the philosopher showed Vladimir a large cloth upon which was depicted the awesome judgment of God, and showed him the righteous on the right side entering into paradise in joy, with sinners on the left side walking towards torment. Vladimir sighed and said, “It is well for them on the right, but woe for those on the left.” 24

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia The philosopher said, “If you want to stand with the righteous, on the right, then be baptized.” Vladimir, having placed these words in his heart, said, “I will wait a while longer,” because he wanted to test all the religions. After giving the philosopher many gifts, Vladimir sent him away with much honor. In the year 987, Vladimir summoned his nobles and the city elders and said to them, “Behold, there came to me Bulgars, saying ‘Accept our law.’ Then there came Germans, who likewise lauded their law; then came Jews; after them all, Greeks came discrediting all the other laws and lauding only their own. They spoke much, narrating from the beginning of the world about the progress of the entire world. Subtle and marvelous was their narrative; everyone should listen to it. They said there will be another world and whoever enters their religion, after having died, he will resurrect and will not again die forever, but whoever enters another religion, then in that world he is doomed to burn in fire. What can you add to my thinking? What do you advise?” asked Vladimir of the nobles and elders. The nobles and elders answered, “You know, King, that no one discredits his own [religion], but lauds it. If you want to test it thoroughly and you do have men in your service, send them to experience the services of each of them, the manner in which they serve God.” This speech pleased the ruler and all the people. They selected good and accomplished men, numbering ten, and said to them: “First, go to the Bulgars and survey their religion.” They went, and having arrived, they saw the repulsive customs and the worship in mosques, and they returned home. And Vladimir said, “Go now to the [Catholic] Germans, likewise survey what they have to offer, and from there go to the Greeks.” The delegation arrived among the Germans, and watched their church services; then they traveled to Constantinople and went to the king. The king asked why they had come and they related to him the former events. The king was glad, and provided on their behalf a great feast that day. In the morning, the following day, the king sent a messenger to the patriarch with the command to say, “Russians have arrived and desire to survey our religion; order that the church be cleaned and prepared; gather and prepare your retinue and perform the liturgy yourself, so that they see the glory of our God.” Hearing this, the patriarch ordered his retinue to be summoned for them to perform a holiday liturgy, as they would customarily during a holiday; they lit the incense and arranged the singers and choir. They accompanied the [delegates] into the Church of St. Sophia and set them in the middle of the church in an open area, 25

History of Russian Christianity showing them the beauty of the church, the singing and liturgy of the archbishop and the row of deacons, explaining to them the manner in which they served God. In ecstasy and amazement, the visitors lauded their services, and kings Basil and Constantine summoned them and said to them, “Go to your land,” and they released them with great gifts and with honor. Basil II and Constantine VIII reigned as co-regents in Constantinople, beginning AD 975. When they arrived in their homeland, Vladimir summoned his nobles and elders and said, “Behold, the men whom we sent have arrived, let us listen to what they have seen, let them describe it in the presence of the troops.” The emissaries said, “We went to the Bulgars and watched how they worshiped in their temple, that is, in their mosque. They stand, not wearing a waistband;1 when they worship, they sit on their tails and look this way and that way, as though insane. There is no joy in them but only sorrow and great melancholy; there is nothing good in their law. Then we went to the Germans and saw how they performed many services in their temples, but we did not see any beauty of any kind. After this, we went to the Greeks and they led us to the place where they serve their God; and we did not know whether we were in heaven or on earth, because on earth it is impossible to view such scenery and such beauty. We are unable to describe it to you, but only know this: that there God resides with people, and that their liturgy transcends the liturgy of all the other countries. We cannot forget such beauty; just as any person, when he has tasted something sweet, afterward he does not want what is bitter; so we ourselves do not want to go on serving our [pagan] gods.” After hearing the words of the messengers, the nobles said to Vladimir, “If the law of the Greeks was bad, your grandmother Olga would not have accepted it; and she was the wisest of all people.” Vladimir said, “Then, where shall we be baptized?” The nobles answered, “Wherever it pleases you.” A year passed. Now it was 988, and Vladimir the Great went to war against Kherson (Korsun, or Chersoness), a Greek city in the Crimea. After a more or less prolonged and intensive siege, he finally conquered the city (with the help of certain traitors who were found among the besieged residents). After entering Kherson, Vladimir sent messengers to Constantinople, to kings Basil and Constantine, with orders to say to them: “I have conquered your glorious city. I hear that you have a sister who is a virgin. If you do not give her to me as a wife, then I will do to your capital as I have done to this city.” The kings answered that 1. Typical traditional male Russian dress included a waistband as a belt.

26

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia it is impossible for Christians to allow a young lady to become a wife of a pagan; but that if he were to be baptized, then he would receive both the hand of the princess and the heavenly kingdom. Vladimir replied that he had come to Kherson with the firm intention of being baptized. “Because,” he said, “I have already earlier made survey of your religion and it appeals to me.” The kings rejoiced, having heard this, and intended to send their sister Anna to Vladimir. Initially, Princess Anna disagreed, saying, “It is better for me to die than to go into captivity.” But her brothers informed her that she had the opportunity to become the sole person responsible for the conversion to Christ of the entire Russian nation, and at the same time would deliver her fatherland Greece from the terrible weapons of Russia. The sorrowful princess departed, accompanied by many officials and priests, by boat, to Kherson, where loyal residents were overjoyed to greet her. Before the bride arrived at Kherson, Vladimir lost his vision the same way Apostle Paul had lost his, and was greatly agitated. When his bride arrived, she told him, “If you want to be healed of this illness, be baptized quickly; otherwise you will not receive a healing.” Vladimir agreed, was baptized, and the bishop of Kherson laid his hands upon Vladimir as he ascended from the baptismal basin. Immediately, Vladimir received his sight and in excitement exclaimed, “Now, I have seen the true God.” Vladimir received the new name Vasili, at his baptism, and his troops were also baptized at the same time. Vladimir, about 30 years of age, was united in marriage with the princess after his baptism. In memory of the events at Kherson, Vladimir built a church there and returned the conquered city to the Greek kings as a dowry for the hand of their sister, Anna. They then departed for Kiev. The account of monk Yacov adds the following incident to the traditional account: Vladimir the Great intended that one of the goals of the campaign would be the import of Greek Orthodoxy to his people. Standing near Kherson during the siege, Vladimir prayed, “Lord God, sovereign of all. Now I ask of You, if You hand this city over to me, I will accept and lead its Christians and priests to my land for them to teach my people the Christian law.” Monk Yacov, however, dates the siege of Kherson two years after Vladimir’s baptism.

27

History of Russian Christianity 6. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF VLADIMIR’S CONVERSION This concludes the traditional account of Vladimir’s conversion. It is not difficult for the modern reader to separate fact from fabrication and remove embellishments from the account. For all practical purposes, the account does satisfy the curious mind regarding the introduction of Orthodoxy into Kiev, and Vladimir’s conversion. In contradistinction to the traditional account of the journey of Apostle Andrew, this account of Vladimir’s baptism is Greek in origin and was chronicled by Greek prelates in Kiev to emphasize themselves as the source of Russian Orthodoxy and at the same time to discredit other religions which, at the time of composition, were influential in Kiev and perhaps were even proselytizing. There is no doubt that Vladimir came into contact with Khazar Jews and had intense discussions about their religion with them, but the chroniclers who recorded these events at least 200 years later were distant from the actual conversations. The evidence indicating a late composition is primarily the statement about the wafer used in the Eucharist. Orthodoxy uses leavened bread, while Catholicism uses unleavened; but this was not an issue of division between Orthodoxy and Catholicism until the split between the two in 1054, when the eastern half of the ecumenical church was excommunicated by Pope Leo IX. Even then, its effect in Kiev was miniscule and especially so given its isolation from the politics of Europe. The visits of Vladimir’s emissaries to other countries appear ineffective because only the Orthodox section is underscored. The chronicler apparently has no knowledge of services in a Catholic church and his statements regarding services in a mosque are far from correct, indicating that the chronicler himself had never witnessed their services but used secondhand information to discredit them and record that Vladimir rejected theirs as a good religion. Of course, the Greek chronicler emphasized and lauded his own religion with a fictitious sermon of the delegates to Vladimir and of their journey to Constantinople to visit kings and patriarchs and to witness a liturgy, and not a typical one but a holiday liturgy especially performed to impress the delegates. Germans visiting Kiev, when Germany as an ethnic group did not yet exist, also raises the readers’ eyebrows, but the word is used derogatorily (the Russian word for German is ne-metz, which also means dumb, and might be applied generically to non-Russian speakers.) If we consider the supposed basis of Vladimir’s selection of a religion, it is surprising that it did not take into account morality or ethics, or its effect on conduct or behavior, or whether it would best improve the economy or his subjects’ standard of living, or their obedience to Vladimir as supreme authority. 28

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia According to the account, his criteria were ritual and corporeal rules. But, what are rituals? Superficial conditioned movements which, without an assigned interpretation, have no meaning of their own; which, on their own, are neither good nor bad; which, for a person outside the religion, are meaningless and which do not provide understanding of the substance of the religion. There is no reasonable explanation for Vladimir to have dispatched emissaries to survey the various liturgies and to use such as the basis for choosing the best religion for the residents of his realm. A normal person, dedicated to his religion as Vladimir was to his own, would immediately become defensive. Oddly, the account does not show this about Vladimir. The entire context of the Greek account (speaking through the lips of Vladimir, nobles and elders, emissaries of the Jews, Moslems, Catholic, and Orthodox, and the delegates sent by Vladimir to survey the religions) is the intent to establish the root and source of Russian Orthodoxy as Greek Orthodoxy and to impress this on the population and future generations, and to make foreign religions appear repulsive and “unorthodox.” The emphasis on Greek Orthodoxy was strengthened in order to ignore or circumvent the influence and effect of Varangian Christians on Vladimir. The frame or shell of the circumstances does, however, still retain validity regarding the baptism of Vladimir and the introduction of Christianity into Kiev; and this leads to the question of why Vladimir would exchange his religion for another. According to Russian historian Sergei Solovyov, all of the paganism, immorality, sexual excess, and fratricide of Vladimir was magnified (if not fabricated) to emphasize his sinfulness in order to heighten the impact of his conversion from paganism to Orthodoxy. Vladimir’s conversion would not be effective as a tool for later Orthodox leaders if it was only nominal; but when his immorality and dedication to pagan deities was exaggerated, even to the point of accusing him of infant immolation, his conversion to a new man in the image of God could be used as an effective tool to convert others to Orthodoxy. Solovyov also felt that Vladimir was resentful toward Orthodoxy as a young man, including the early years of his reign over Kiev, and that this led him to murder his older brother Yaropolk, who was Christian. The opposing view, held by other Russian historians such as Tatischev, provides the hypothesis that the more Vladimir practiced his paganism, the more repulsive it became, until he abandoned it in favor of Orthodoxy. Although he was pagan in these early years, the Christianity of his grandmother Olga still resided in Vladimir, although it was dormant. According to another account, Vladimir had five legitimate wives; four of them identified themselves as Christians: two were Greek, one was

29

History of Russian Christianity Czech, and one was Bulgarian. This, of course, is a considerable smaller harem than noted above. In retrospect, it seems that all Vladimir actually knew about Orthodoxy was its rites as performed in churches in Kiev and that — based on what meager information he was able to acquire from his wives and others — he recognized the religion as a more refined and superior paganism then the one he inherited from his forebears. Jews, Moslems and Catholics were repulsive to him because they were not Slavic but foreigners, with alien gods, while Vladimir was somewhat able to identify Greeks with the residents of his own Kiev estate and saw the rite and ritual of Orthodoxy as a superior form of the rite and ritual of his paganism. As far as morality and ethics were concerned, apparently this never entered his conception or view of religion — because the best religion was the best rite and ritual. During the pre-Mongol period in Kiev, other religions were not proselytizing and so there was no insecurity on the part of Orthodoxy — no need to defend itself. A small number of Catholics, or Germans (as the chronicler refers to them), did live in Kiev but that would be normal along the trade route tracing the Dnepr River from Russia to the Black Sea. Khazar Jews, likewise, had a colony, along with Bulgar Moslems, in the region. But these held to their own ethnic group and religion, and there is no evidence they represented any threat to Orthodoxy. Varangian Christians and Bulgarian Bogomils also resided in Kiev, and in greater numbers than Orthodox Christians. A zealous and fervent defender of Orthodoxy could foresee one of these alien groups becoming a threat to their monopoly of Russian religion eventually, and with the proper sources at hand, such a person could compose a narrative like the one detailing Vladimir’s search for the true religion, and in doing so could especially by-pass any Varangian intervention. The source of the legend of Vladimir’s search for the true religion is a story regarding the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism in the year AD 740. During the early 12th century, a Spanish Jew, Jehuda Halevi (1085-1141), wrote a popular book titled Kuzari, or, The Khazars. It was published a year before his death. Halevi’s book includes a chapter about the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism in about the year AD 740, likewise a traditional legend. In Halevi’s account an angel appeared several times to the ruler of the Khazars, who was a zealous idolater but with pious feelings. The angel told him, “Your feelings are good, but your service to God is not right.” To discover the right way to worship God, the ruler turned first to a pagan philosopher who represented Pantheism, and then to Christian and Moslem teachers. After hearing their intensive and extensive 30

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia expositions, the ruler was dissatisfied with all of them; but he noticed that both the Christian and Moslem teachers referred to Judaism as the source of their religion. Then he decided to listen to the exposition of a Jewish teacher, who was able to convince the ruler of the truth of Judaism; this subsequently led to the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism. There is a striking parallel between the Jehuda Halevi account and the chronicler’s, and it is noteworthy that the chronicler’s record appears at a time in the beginning of the 13th century, when Kiev was increasing in population, including Catholics, Moslems and Jews, which added insecurity to the advancement of Orthodoxy. This would have been ample reason for a zealous Greek Orthodox monk, familiar with his native land and less familiar with the customs and manners of these Asiatic religions, to fabricate a tale about Vladimir’s search for true the religion. The notion of the Orthodox delegation showing Vladimir a large cloth with a depiction of the final judgment is adapted from a similar event that preceded the conversion of Boris I, ruler of Bulgaria. He was persuaded by Byzantine Emperor Mikhael III to convert to Orthodoxy, in 865. The Jewish delegates’ statement that their land was allotted to the Christians was not valid during the era of Vladimir: Palestine was under Islamic control from the 7th to the turn of the 12th century. In 1099, the First Crusade captured Jerusalem and established the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which lasted under Christian rule until 1187, when it was reconquered by Islamic armies. Apparently the author of the traditional account was unaware of its re-occupation by Islam and only knew of its defeat by the Christian crusaders. Why Vladimir would ask the Khazar Jews about their land also poses a problem. Vladimir knew exactly where the Khazar empire was located; but the chronicler’s intent was to transfer this identity of the Khazars to the Jews of Palestine, if there were any at that time. There are two accounts in addition to pseudo-Nestor’s, dealing with the conversion of Vladimir. The first is the account of Metr. Ilarion, a contemporary of Yaroslav, written between 1037 and 1050; the second is that of the monk Yacov, mentioned above, a contemporary of Izyaslav, which was written about 1070. None of the three records mentions anything about delegates sent to Vladimir from adherents of the various religions or about his emissaries to being sent to survey the other religions. What all three do state — and this, positively — is that Vladimir made the decision to accept Orthodoxy entirely on his own, without any intervention or influence of others. Ilarion states that Vladimir made the decision to accept Orthodoxy without any formal introduction or 31

History of Russian Christianity instruction in it, but solely on the basis of personal inclination and a sense that Orthodoxy was superior to the paganism of his forebears. The monk Yacov states that God himself, having surveyed the heart of Vladimir and beholding him from heaven, enlightened his heart to accept baptism. Monk Yacov states that a second inspiration was the influence of Vladimir’s grandmother, which gave rise to a zeal to imitate her, and so he accepted baptism. Pseudo-Nestor follows the context of his two predecessors, but mentions that Vladimir had a divine revelation to accept baptism. The place of Vladimir’s baptism likewise has been debated because of the conflicting references in the early records. Although the traditional account names Korsun (Kherson), pseudo-Nestor supplements his statement by indicating that other sources contemporary with his own also specify Kiev or else the city Vasilyev, about 25 miles southwest of Kiev on the Stugne River, thus explaining Vladimir’s baptismal name, Vasili. The section of the traditional account dealing with Vladimir’s dispatching of delegates to survey the local prospective religions also has a derivation. In the Nikon chronicles, we read of the following event occurring in the year 1001, about 13 years after the baptism of Vladimir: “In that year, Vladimir sent his delegates to Rome and others to Jerusalem and to Egypt and to Babylon, to survey their lands and their customs.” This record is a casual note by the author regarding the affairs of Vladimir and can be compared to notes on the travels of Tsar Peter I through Europe. Although the chronicler may not have read about his travels in any of the original manuscripts, at least he had enough information to reinterpret the event for his own purpose, as witnessed above by the traditional account, dating it 15 years earlier in the reign of Vladimir and stating its purpose being the survey of local religions. The most perplexing of all episodes in the traditional account is Vladimir’s prayer at the walls of Kherson, during the siege, and his intent to use the conquest of the city as a means of imparting “Christian” precepts into his realm. Why not just ask for missionaries from the patriarchs of Constantinople? The Greek author of the traditional account needed to introduce religious undertones into Vladimir’s purely military campaign, which surely aimed to expand the size of his realm by annexing a seaport on the Black Sea. Vladimir’s sudden blindness and his subsequent healing are obviously an embellishment by the author, an analogy to Apostle Paul’s blindness and subsequent healing. There is an evident parallel between the traditional account of the conversion of Vladimir with that of Constantine, in the 4th century; both renounced their paganism after years of practicing it and introduced 32

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia Christianity as the state religion in their realms. The intent of the Primary Chronicle was to portray Vladimir as the Russian Constantine the Great. Neither of them was particularly Christian during his reign as a “Christian” ruler; both were military commanders who required a utilitarian religion with a superficial appeal to the senses in order to consolidate the loyalties of their subjects. According to the account, Vladimir found this in the local Orthodoxy, which to his military and pagan mind was superior to the religion commonly practiced in Kiev. As Constantine the Great utilized the Christian religion of his day to serve his needs, and modified it as necessary to adapt to his Roman style of rule, so did Vladimir in Kiev. Vladimir’s marital tie with Anna, the sister of Basil II and Constantine VIII, was sufficient to induce Constantinople to send Orthodox priests to Kiev. Vladimir returned to Kiev from Kherson accompanied by Orthodox priests in the year 990. His spoils included many icons and church appurtenances and the relics of Clement the Martyr and of other saints. The most objective conclusion on this matter is provided by Golubinski, namely, that Vladimir’s paganism and immorality and murders are far overstated, and that Vladimir was open to Christianity from childhood, including during the time of his accession to the throne in Kiev. Vladimir decided to accept Christianity, not after futile attempts to elevate paganism but through conversion by the local Varangian Christians; he was baptized at about the time of his accession to the throne, in order to provide a “better” religion for his subjects. Vladimir’s baptism occurred not in Kiev, or Kherson, but most likely in the local city Vasilyev, and was performed not by a Greek Orthodox priest but by a local Varangian priest. His baptism in AD 987 occurred two years before his conquest of Kherson, which date can be set at about 989 or 990. Vladimir’s conquest of Kherson was typical of a military leader of the era wanting to expand his territory, and had no religious overtones. His later association was primarily with the Christianity of Bulgaria rather than the Orthodoxy of Constantinople. Vladimir’s purpose in seeking to acquire as his wife a sister of the Byzantine emperors, in distinction to his previous wives, was to attach himself by way of marriage to Constantinople, for political and economic reasons. Even as a Christian, Vladimir continued for the next 28 years, until his death in 1015, to show strong ties to native Russian paganism, and he conducted himself as a military-style leader.

33

History of Russian Christianity 7. THE BAPTISM OF RUSSIA Vladimir’s effort in imposing Orthodoxy upon his subjects as the official national religion was not apostolic, but rather in keeping with the conduct of a military commander accomplishing a task for the sake of expediency. According to the traditional account, when Vladimir returned to Kiev from Kherson, in about 990, he destroyed the idols in the city. Orthodox priests worked the city squares where crowds were gathered and visited the homes of residents, admonishing them on the principal tenets of the Gospel, impressing on the pagans the futility of idolatry and convincing them to accept the religion of salvation. Not all of the townsmen declared their eagerness to change religions; some were stubborn, or else postponed the matter from day to day. One evening, Vladimir issued an order for all the residents of Kiev to appear the next morning on the banks of the Dnepr River. And in the morning, crowds of people appeared, old and young, and mothers with their infants, on the banks of the river. They were baptized en masse by the Orthodox priests who had accompanied Vladimir from Kherson, and under the auspices of Vladimir and his troops. According to the traditional account, not one person of the city failed to appear. Who would oppose the will of Prince Vladimir? The people joyfully proceeded to fulfill their sovereign’s wishes, saying, “If this new religion was not good then our ruler and his nobles would not have accepted it.” The people entered the water, some up to their necks while others up to their waists, and some only up to the knees; adults held the children. Emerging from the water, they took communion from priests standing on the shore. At the conclusion of the day’s events, Vladimir declaimed, “Great God who created heaven and earth, view Your new people. God, give them to recognize You as the true God, just as Christian countries have recognized You, and confirm in them the true faith and help me, Lord, to oppose the enemy as I depend on You and on Your dominion.” Metr. Ilarion mentions that those who did not have themselves baptized voluntarily did so out of fear of reprisal from Vladimir. This same scenario was repeated in smaller cities shortly thereafter. According to the account, the priests on the bank of the Dnepr River recited prayers while Vladimir, in ecstasy over the event, prayed to God while standing on the river bank. “On that day,” states the account, “earth and heaven rejoiced.” Metr. Larion summarized Vladimir’s introduction of Christianity into Russia in the following manner. He commanded the baptism in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit throughout his entire land, so that publicly and loudly the name of the Holy Trinity would be glorified in all the cities and all would become Christian:

34

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia great and small, slave and free, young and old, noble and peasant, rich and poor. And not one person opposed his pious command; they were baptized, if not out of love then out of fear of him who gave the command, and in this manner was authority magnanimously united in his person. And at one moment our entire land began to glorify Christ with the Father and Holy Spirit. He turned many from the error of idolatry: not only cities, but his entire realm.

Vladimir proceeded to remove the statue of Perun he had earlier erected, and tied it to the tail of a horse and had it dragged out of the city. Some residents of Kiev cried as they watched Perun being dragged through the streets. It was taken to the Dnepr, pushed into the current by soldiers, and sent floating downstream until it was destroyed in the rapids. Subsequent to the mass baptism at Kiev, Vladimir destroyed the rest of the pagan idols. The local Orthodoxy praised his efforts and began construction of new churches to replace the pagan temples. Vladimir built a new church in honor of St. Vasili, his patron saint, on the very hill where he had earlier erected the statue of Perun. Golubinski relates that many were not convinced of the superiority of Orthodoxy over their traditional paganism and refused the superficial conversion, while others turned a deaf ear to the commands, and still others took flight out of the city. These accused Vladimir and his sycophant nobles of being renegades from the religion of their forebears. In 991, Bishop Joakim arrived at Novgorod and destroyed the idol temples. The statue of Perun was cut down and he ordered people to throw it into the Volkhov River. They tied it with ropes and dragged it through manure and beat it with sticks and hacked it with saws. At that moment, the story goes, a demon entered into Perun and the statue began to cry, “Oh, woe to me, what their ruthless hands have done to me.” When they threw him into the Volkhov River and he floated under their large bridge, Bishop Joakim pointed his finger at the statue in the river and said, “For this, the children of Novgorod will remember me.” The bishop ordered the people not to rescue the statue. In the morning, a man from the village of Pidblya went to his boat in the river, intending to deliver some pots to the city, and he noticed that Perun had floated to the shore. The man pushed the statue back into the river with a pole and said, “You, Perunishek,2 have eaten and drunk enough; now, float further away.” And the statue floated off to an unknown resting place. The accounts indicating that Russia was baptized by Vladimir are exaggerations on the part of authors striving to impress on their readers that the 2. Diminutive of Perun.

35

History of Russian Christianity best religion for Russia was provided by their very own ruler and willingly accepted by national consensus. In reality, only a small segment of the population was baptized, primarily those in the larger two cities, Kiev and Novgorod, and in other cities to a considerably lesser extent. The adherents to the new religion were primarily those of Varangian or Slavic descent, and did not include any of the foreigners living in Kievan Russia. There is no record in the early chroniclers that any other specific area other than Kiev and Novgorod were baptized to any significant extent. A saying has been preserved regarding the baptism of Novgorod. “Putyata baptized with the sword, while Dobrinya used fire.” In other words, the residents of Novgorod were coerced into baptism just as were those of Kiev. Putyata was the military commander of Vladimir’s army; he used his troops to punish any who rebelled against baptism and destruction of the idols and pagan temples. Dobrinya was Vladimir’s uncle who, in quelling the rebellion, burned many houses in the city. Another chronicle, part of the biography of Bishop Joakim, states that the residents took vengeance against Dobrinya by burning his own house and murdering his wife, and that Dobrinya had to use his regiment to quell the disturbance. As Vladimir further expanded his realm over the next 25 years, Orthodox bishops were at his heels erecting churches and baptizing new subjects into the national religion, now Russian Orthodoxy. Vladimir died July 15, 1015, somewhere between the ages of 55 and 58. He was buried in the Desyatinnoi (Tithe) Church, which he had built by donating one tenth of his possessions for its construction. Vladimir had Church books in the Slavonic language imported for use in the new churches from Bulgaria. As a person, Vladimir is described by the account as having a generous and humanitarian nature. He was not an ascetic, but a man of the people. Vladimir was hospitable, to the extent of inviting the poor to his banquets and opening his home to the destitute. Vladimir’s leadership was utilized in military campaigns just as it was used to institute Orthodoxy as the national religion. He was extraordinarily adept at using both war and religion to expand the size of Kievan Russia and keep it a single solid, consolidated state for the 25 years after his baptism. As a professional soldier, Vladimir also did not hesitate to execute any who were upsetting his new society. According to the traditional account, Vladimir also released his concubines and his earlier five wives, giving them their freedom, while keeping Anna, the sister of the Byzantine kings, as his sole legitimate wife for the rest of his life.

36

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia 8. PRINCE YAROSLAV With the death of Vladimir, the precepts of brotherhood he had instilled in the population with his Christianization seemed to have vanished as if they never existed, and especially in his immediate family. Vladimir had twelve sons, according to one account, but five is the more reliable number; and after Vladimir’s death internecine strife arose between the siblings. Prior to his death Vladimir had assigned each of his five sons a segment of his realm; now, fratricidal civil wars wrought devastation over a five-year period. The eldest son was Sviatopolk, of Novgorod, who executed three of his brothers: Boris of Rostov, Gleb of Murom, and Sviatoslav of Drevlyan. But Sviatopolk was not able to defeat the remaining brother, Yaroslav of Novgorod. Eventually, Yaroslav defeated Sviatopolk and acquired sole control of Kievan Russia. In the year 1015, Sviatopolk’s troops defeated the troops of both Boris and Gleb, his two brothers. The two attempted to flee, but realized that they were in a hopeless situation. According to the traditional account, Boris was ruthlessly slain by soldiers sent by Sviatopolk on July 24, 1015. Gleb was murdered on September 5, in the same manner. In the year 1019, after saturating Kievan Russia with blood, Sviatopolk was defeated by his brother Yaroslav. Yaroslav expanded the size of Kiev, attempting to imitate Constantine in the building of Constantinople. A wall was constructed around the city and many new Orthodox Churches were built within it. He constructed a church of St. Sophia, or Holy Wisdom, built a monastery dedicated to St. Gregory, and a convent dedicated to St. Irene. Once the strife dissipated, Yaroslav began to import religious books from Bulgaria, in Slavonic, and he also brought in translators from Bulgaria to translate other church books from Greek. To further expand Orthodoxy in Kievan Russia, Yaroslav created a diocese in Rostov in addition to those of Kiev and Novgorod. The first bishop of Rostov was Feodor, a Greek just like all the bishops in Kiev at the time. He built a church in the city, but his effort at converting the non-Slavic population to Orthodoxy was a failure and Feodor relocated to Suzdal to escape the angry residents. The second bishop was Ilarion, but his efforts in Novgorod were a similar failure. In reality, the harshness of the cold climate and lack of assistance made any type of progress difficult for these clergy displaced from their comfortable Mediterranean Greece. The third bishop was Leonti; although Greek, he was tonsured at Pecher Monastery in Kiev, was a disciple of Antonius of Pecher, and was acclimated to life in Russia. Leonti was successful in establishing Orthodoxy in Rostov and died a martyr’s death in about 1077. The 37

History of Russian Christianity successor of Leonti was Isai (Isaiah), a Russian who was also tonsured at Pecher Monastery. Later, he became abbot of Izyaslav Monastery of St. Dimitri in Kiev. Isai retained the position of bishop of Rostov from 1077 to 1089, and expanded his diocese to include Suzdal. The preacher Avrami was also popular in Rostov in later years. According to tradition, he destroyed the statue of the idol Voloss with a stick given to him by Apostle John, in a vision. This occurred during the rule of Vladimir Monomakh. After the death of Yaroslav in 1054, his sons Izyaslav, Sviatoslav and Vsevolod held control of the throne in a more or less peaceful manner until an internecine struggle burst into the open and Sviatopolk seized control in 1093, retaining it until 1114. Vladimir Monomakh, born in 1053, the great-grandson of his namesake, ascended the throne over Kievan Russia as Grand Prince in 1114 and reigned until 1125.

9. THE EARLY METROPOLITANS The earliest record or chronicle of Russian Orthodoxy does not discuss the matter of the establishment of the cathedra of the first metropolitan; the traditional accounts incline toward Mikhail, while the scholarly accounts toward Leon. The Steppenaya Kniga — Nomocanon of ancient Russia — states that Vladimir requested a metropolitan from Patr. Nikolas II Chrysoberges, who then sent Mikhael to Kiev from Constantinople to occupy the cathedra. Archbishop Filaret, Talberg and Count Tolstoi incline towards Mikhail, and the latter states that he died in 992 and was buried inside the Desyatinnoi Church in Kiev and that in 1103 his remains were transferred to the cave where Antonius of Pecher resided as a recluse. Prof. Znamenski, following the traditional account, states that Vladimir brought Bishop Mikhail from Kherson to Kiev himself after the victory and installed him as metropolitan. Kartashyov, on the other hand, provides evidence that Mikhail was one of several missionary bishops sent by Patr. Nikolas to the region after the baptism of Kiev and that his career did not progress any further. The Novgorod version of the ancient chronicle states that Leon was sent to Kiev from Constantinople in 991 by Patr. Nikolas, at the request of Vladimir, and then assumed the cathedra of metropolitan. This version is accepted by the more thorough and investigative historians such as Golubinski and Kartashyov, and in general is accepted by scholars as the more reliable account. 38

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia There were 24 metropolitans over Kievan Russia from the baptism of Vladimir in 988 to the invasion of the Mongols in 1240, and all of them were Greek except for Ilarion and Kliment. They were: 1. Leon, or Leonti: sent by patriarch Nikolas II in 991; he died between 1004 and 1008. 2. Ioyann I (John): he assumed the cathedra no later than 1008 and possessed it through the initial years of Yaroslav’s rule (1019-1054). 3. Theopempt: mentioned in the year 1039 by the chroniclers when he consecrated the Desyatinnoi Church in Kiev. He was formerly bishop of Novgorod, 1036-1039. In 1043, he returned to Constantinople because of war between Kievan Russia and Greece. 4. Kirill I (Cyril): died shortly after his arrival at Kiev. No dates are available regarding him. 5. Ilarion: ordained 1051; he is further described in the following chapter. 6. Efrim: mentioned by the chroniclers in the year 1055. 7. Giorgi: arrived in Kiev from Constantinople in 1062 and became bishop of Novgorod, which cathedra he held until 1072 when he was selected as metropolitan to succeed Efrim. He traveled to Constantinople to receive ordination that year and held the cathedra through 1076. 8. Ioyann II: ordained 1076 or 1077; he died in 1089. The chronicler describes him as good and blessed, “a man fluent in books and education, charitable to the under-privileged and widows, considerate toward all whether rich or poor; he was humble, meek and quiet; an accomplished speaker who comforted the sorrowful with his holy sermons. He was the type [of metropolitan] which previously had not resided in Russia and none was like him in the future.” Some of his compositions have survived to the present. 9. Ioyann III: a eunuch and arrived from Greece in 1089 with Anna, daughter of Gr. Pr. Vsevolod, who was visiting Constantinople. He died after one year as metropolitan. 10. Nikolas: mentioned by the chroniclers in the years 1097 and 1101. 11. Nikifor I: arrived December 6, 1104; he died April 1121. 12. Nikita: arrived in 1122; he died March 9, 1126. 13. Mikhail: who was formerly bishop of Novgorod from 1129 through 1131. He became metropolitan in 1131, but abandoned the cathedra and returned to Constantinople in 1145. 14. Kliment Smolyatich: ordained in 1147 (further described in the following chapter). 15. Constantine I: arrived in 1156. He abandoned the cathedra the following year and died in exile in 1159. 16. Theodor: arrived August 1161. He died in either 1162 or 1163. 17. Ioyann IV: arrived 1164 and died in 1166. 18. Constantine II: arrived 1167 and held the cathedra through 1175. 19. Nikifor II: mentioned by the chroniclers for the years 1182-1198. 39

History of Russian Christianity 20. Gavriil: no further information is available. 21. Diomicius: mentioned by the chroniclers for the years 1198-1201 22. Matthei: held the cathedra 1201-1221. 23. Kirill II: arrived on January 6, 1124; he died in 1233. 24. Iosif (Joseph): arrived 1237 from Nicea and is not mentioned again. It seems he fled Kiev the following year when invasion by Mongols became imminent. The above list is based on Golubinski’s research. Archbishop Filaret and Prof. Znamenski agree with him and the dates assigned, except that they exclude Gavriil and Diomicius (#20 and 21) since the scant amount of information available on these men causes them to doubt their genuine accession to the cathedra. For the first 50 years after Vladimir’s conversion, the metropolitan had his cathedra not in Kiev but in Kievan Pereyaslav, about 50 miles south of Kiev where the Alta and Trubezh Rivers converge. Vladimir the Great had ties primarily with the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, and for this reason located the initial Greek metropolitans supplied by the patriarch, Leonti and Ioyann I, not in Kiev, his capital, but at this distant residence; their efficacy was nominal, if that. The cathedra was moved to Kiev with the completion of the Church of St. Sophia, under Yaroslav, which then became the cathedra of the metropolitan. As noted, all of the metropolitans of Kievan Russia were Greek, except for Ilarion and Kliment. Most of them arrived from Constantinople, their cathedra having been assigned to them by the respective ecumenical patriarch; some had been bishops, monks, or priests who earlier migrated to Kiev from Constantinople and were promoted. There are many reasons for the short accession of several of them, and the speedy return to Constantinople of others. Golubinski feels that the bishop or priest who was elevated and ordained as metropolitan of Kiev would not have been of the highest caliber or quality, because few would want to accept this relocation to a backward and barbarian region; and few or none of the Greek metropolitans actually spoke Russian or could conduct services in Slavonic in any event. This accounts for the meager advancement of Orthodoxy in Kievan rule during the years following Ilarion, after 1055. The colder climate of Kiev and the Russian north likewise sapped the enthusiasm of the transplanted Mediterranean natives. With the introduction of Orthodoxy as the national religion in Kievan Russia under Vladimir, the patriarchs of Constantinople took advantage of the right to ordain its metropolitans, but not entirely in the manner defined by the canons. The canons assigned to the patriarch only the right to consecrate or ordain metropolitans; but their selection was assigned to a council of bishops of 40

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia the dioceses. With regard to the metropolitan of Kiev, the ecumenical patriarch acted, on the contrary, by both selecting the candidate and then ordaining him as metropolitan. According to the canons, a council of Russian bishops could select a native Russian as metropolitan; but in practice, for the most part, the patriarch selected him and transferred him to Russia (first to Kiev, and later to Moscow). In this manner the Greek Church was able to subject the Russian Church to its authority at the expense of Kievan or Moscovite leaders. In reality, the ecumenical patriarch had no business or canonical justification to interfere or meddle in the affairs of Russian Orthodoxy without a specific request to do so. But, due to the persistence of the patriarch, every metropolitan through the Mongol invasion was Greek with the exception of those two. In the Greek Orthodox ecclesiastical system, the metropolitan was answerable to his counterpart in the civil government and prelates and parish clergy were subject to the authority of the metropolitan. Each diocese had a bishop assigned to it, with an archbishop charged with overseeing several dioceses or holding authority over an especially large or important diocese, such as Novgorod. Golubinski notes that there is a strong possibility that the Russian Church never knew about the canon allowing Kievans to select their own metropolitan independently. The Greek metropolitans certainly had no reason to mention it. Even so, given the weakness of Russian Orthodoxy as a corporate body, and its lack of cohesion, and later on the weakness of the grand princes of Kiev and Moscow, they may not have beenin a position to name their own metropolitans. Kievan Russia was embroiled in internecine civil wars and struggles between local feudal estates for the entirety of the period between Vladimir and the Mongols, and there was no stability during the Mongol occupation, either. An incoherent or disrupted national religion would easily sway the grand prince to listen to Greek promoters and send for a metropolitan from Constantinople. .

10. METROPOLITANS ILARION AND KLIMENT Russian metropolitans were ordained by the demand of strong grand princes. Ilarion was ordained in 1051 under Pr. Yaroslav Vladimirovich, and Kliment under Pr. Izyaslav Mstislavich in 1147. The intent of both princes was to create a national Russian Church without interference or influence by Constantinople.

41

History of Russian Christianity Metr. Ilarion (1051-1055) is important in the history of early Russian Orthodoxy because he was the first native Russian metropolitan. According to the traditional account he was senior priest in the village Berestov, which was the summer palace of Pr. Yaroslav. As a result, Ilarion became close to Yaroslav. Ilarion led an ascetic life during his early years and dug himself a cave near the Dnepr River to seclude himself and mediate in. He wanted to imitate to some degree the cave-dwelling hermits he had heard about and went there to sing and pray to God, alone and in secret. Ilarion was then tonsured as a monk. Yaroslav held a council of prelates in 1051 and proposed Ilarion to the council as a candidate to fill the vacant cathedra of the metropolitan, and after his selection by the council in Kiev Ilarion traveled to Constantinople for approval and ordination as metropolitan by the patriarch, which was granted in 1051. During Ilarion’s ministry, he brought in singers from Greece and utilized them to develop the Russian style of singing: short phrases chanted in a harmony by the choir. During his career, Pecher Monastery was founded. Ilarion left his cathedra in about the year 1055 and returned to the ascetic life of a recluse until his death in 1067. Ilarion wrote several edifying theological compositions during his career. While a priest at Berestov, Ilarion wrote the eloquent compositions, “About the law given by Moses and of grace and truth that evolved from Christ,” and “Laud on behalf of Vladimir.” Once he became metropolitan, Ilarion composed a Confession of Faith, discussing the primary tenets of Orthodoxy in Russian. In 1145, during the reign of Pr. Vsevolod Olegovich, Metr. Mikhail, who had retained the cathedra some fourteen years, abandoned Kiev and returned to Constantinople. He was a Greek and had been bishop of Novgorod from 1129 to 1131. Mikhail’s return after sixteen years in Russia had to do with his dissatisfaction with Vsevolod and the internecine strife between the two families for control of Kievan Russia. Pr. Vsevolod died in 1146 and was succeeded by his brother Igor Olegovich, who only held the throne two weeks before losing it to his rival and cousin, Izyaslav Mstislavich. Two years passed and Izyaslav waited for a new metropolitan from Constantinople. Offended by the patriarch’s delay, Izyaslav installed a native Russian as metropolitan on July 27, 1147. He was Kliment Smolyatich, an austere, self-educated ascetic. Izyaslav made no attempt to secure the patriarch’s approval or blessing for Kliment’s ordination. Izyaslav convened an ecclesiastical council in Kiev of seven bishops whose consensus he wanted for his action. The venerated Bishop Onuthrius of 42

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia Chernigov insisted that Russian prelates had the canonical right to ordain Kliment. Four other bishops approved: Theodor of Belgrad, Evthemi of Kievan Pereyaslav, Theodor of Vladimir-of-Volin and Damian of Yurvey. The two who opposed the ordination of Kliment were Bishops Nifont of Novgorod and Manuel of Smolensk; Manuel was Greek. Bishop Onuthrius stated, “I have ascertained that the bishops here gathered together reserve the authority to install a metropolitan.” But Bishop Nifont replied, “It is not in the canons for a metropolitan to be ordained without a patriarch; the patriarch ordains a metropolitan.” Turning to Kliment, he added, “We will not present you the oath; we will not minister with you, because you did not receive a blessing at the Cathedral of St. Sophia and from the patriarch. But if you repent, and you accept a blessing from the patriarch, then we will bow to you. We have the decrees of [former] Metr. Mikhail that it is improper for us to have a metropolitan who has not ministered at St. Sophia.” Then Bishop Onuthrius again declared, “I have ascertained that it is proper for us to ordain a metropolitan and so we can ordain Kliment, who is one of us, just as they ordain with the imposition of their hands.” The opposition was overruled by Pr. Izyaslav, and Kliment Smolyatich was ordained metropolitan of Kiev July 27, 1147 by the Russian prelates gathered at the council. After the ordination, Manuel accepted Kliment as metropolitan, but Nifont refused. Two years later, Nifont was summoned to Kiev by Kliment, with the approval of Izyaslav, and taken into custody in a cell at Pecher Monastery. He sat there incarcerated for a few months until he was released by Yuri Dolgoruki in late 1149. Three years after Kliment’s ordination, in 1150, Grand Prince Izyaslav was defeated by his uncle Yuri Dolgoruki, and along with the exit of Izyaslav was that of Kliment. However, Izyaslav twice regained his throne from Uncle Yuri — and twice lost it — during the year 1150. When Izyaslav regained the throne on the third occasion, he had Kliment installed again and he held the position another five years until 1155, when he was finally expelled by Yuri Dolgoruki shortly after Izyaslav’s death on November 13, 1154. Yuri, who did not accept the ordination of Kliment as valid, sent an embassy to Constantinople to the patriarch requesting a Greek metropolitan to be ordained and delivered. Patr. Constantine IV did not hesitate in sending Constantine, a Greek, ordained in 1156. With the exile of Kliment and the ordination of Constantine, Bishop Nifont of Novgorod felt he was finally vindicated and he rushed from Novgorod to be on hand to greet the new metropolitan. Waiting for Constantine in Kiev, in 43

History of Russian Christianity April 1156, Nifont fell ill and passed away before the new Greek metropolitan arrived; Bishop Manuel of Smolensk, however, greeted him very honorably. Constantine’s first ecclesiastical activity after his arrival in Kiev in late 1156 was to expel and excommunicate all the priests who had been ordained by Kliment. Yuri Dolgoruki died the following year (May 15, 1157) and was succeded by Rostislav Mstislavich, a brother of Izyaslav. Constantine was then forced to flee Kiev to save his life, as Izyaslav’s sons wanted to take vengeance on him for anathemizing their father for having ordained Kliment. He fled to Chernigov, to the home of Bishop Antonius — also a Greek — and remained there until his death in 1159, two years later. Izyaslav’s sons then wanted to re-install Kliment on the cathedra, but Rostislav refused and another Greek was summoned from Constantinople, with the blessing of the patriarch — now Lukas Chrysoberges. Theodor arrived August 1161. The new metropolitan only lasted a year, dying in 1162 or 1163. Meanwhile, Kliment was able to gain Rostislav’s favor through the efforts of his nephews, Izyaslav’s sons. Two years after the death of Theodor, Rostislav sent an embassy to the patriarch at Constantinople with a petition to officially recognize Kliment as metropolitan and allow him an ordination by the patriarch; but Rostislav’s embassy met a new metropolitan and his retinue as they were journeying to Kiev, and had to turn back. The patriarch, having heard of Rostislav’s change of attitude toward Kliment and hearing of the death of Theodor, had wasted no time in ordaining a replacement metropolitan and dispatching him to Kiev. The retinue of Ioyann IV, the new metropolitan of Kiev, arrived 1164 and presented many valuable gifts to Rostislav, in order to quell his anger over the patriarch’s refusal to accommodate his choice of Kliment. Eventually, Ioyann IV was accepted by Rostislav, but reluctantly. Kliment died in exile, in about 1164, while his successor Ioyann died May 12, 1166.

11. EARLY SAINTS AND MARTYRS The early expansion of Orthodoxy did not progress without persecution from opposing religions and from nationalities that were enemies of Kievan Russia, although the histories of such events were somewhat embellished to magnify their martyrs; and some are obviously legends. In the southeast of Russia, hordes of Polovtzi resided in the expanses between the Dnepr and the Don Rivers, and in the 9th century all the way to the 44

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia Volga River. They were perennial enemies whom Vladimir and other feudal princes fought, both in order to defend themselves and to extend the size of their territory. With the expansion of Christianity into the region, the Polovtzi began to attack. In 1091-1094, they destroyed many of the cities surrounding Kiev and brutally massacred many Christians. In 1095, they attacked Kiev and the Pecher Monastery, burning it down and executing priests. According to one traditional account, Evstratius and thirty other monks were sold to a Kherson Jew after the attack on Kiev. Attempting to force Evstratius to deny his Christian beliefs, the Jew starved some of them to death. As Evstratius refused to deny his faith, he was crucified at Easter season, and impaled. Nikon and the rest of monks remained in captivity among the Polovtzi, and they were cruelly tortured. Nikon patiently endured the deprivation of food and drink and the cruel beating, while attempting at the same time to convert his torturers. By the mighty hand of God, Nikon was delivered from death and by a Divine miraculous intervention many of the Polovtzi were converted to Christianity in the year 1111. Beginning at this time, Polovtzi princes who had married Kievan women began to convert to Christianity and so implanted the faith among their countrymen. The Bulgars, Kiev’s neighbors to the east, had commercial associations with Russians, although their treaties were often violated. Pr. Andrei Bogolubski was able to convert many of them to Christianity (from both their paganism and from Islam), especially those who lived in Vladimir as merchants and businessmen. Bogolubski was also able to convert other pagan nationalities to Christianity, such as the Cheremis, and Mordovians, and also Jews. Other Bulgars became indignant at the conversion of their brethren to Christianity and began to persecute them. The wealthy merchant Avraanius, a Bulgar himself and a convert to Christianity, was decapitated in 1229. God then took personal vengeance on the Bulgars by having half of their capital city burn down in some unexplained manner, along with several other smaller Bulgar cities. Reduced to fear and despair as a result of these fires, in the following year 1230, after six years of violent struggle with the northern Russians, the Bulgars asked peace from Suzdal prince Andrei Bogolubski, which he granted. During the 13th century, Russian missionaries from Novgorod also preached and converted many pagans in the area of Karelia and the Russian far north, along the Dvin River. In 1147, Gerasim, an ascetic of the Glushevski hermitage at Kiev, left the city to live in a desolate area along the Vologda River. There, alone, he constructed a monastery and church dedicated to the Holy Trinity and for thirty years preached the name of Christ to the local residents. 45

History of Russian Christianity Nestor is known for his identification with the ancient chronicle that bears his name. He was not Greek but a native Kievan. At the age of 17, in 1073, near the end of the life of Theodosius of Pecher, Nestor entered Pecher Monastery and was tonsured by abbot Stephen. He was immediately ordained as a deacon. During the initial years at Pecher, Nestor constantly read books in the monastery library, which led him to become the single most-educated person in the history of Pecher Monastery. Nestor died in 1114. Writings traditionally ascribed to Nester are the Primary Chronicle, a history of Russia during the years 852-1110, and the martyrdom of princes Boris and Gleb. Bishop Kirill of Turov was the son of wealthy parents, but he renounced his inheritance and became a monk at Turov. He isolated himself on a pillar, following the ascetics of Egypt such as Simon the Stylite. The austerity of his life led the local feudal prince and folk to ask that he become bishop. As a preacher he was praised by his contemporaries as a Russian Chrysostom. Tradition indicates that he was more of a religious poet than a preacher, although he left as a legacy twelve addresses, three letters to monks, thirty prayers and a liturgy for supplicants. His ascetic composition, “Tale of the Monk’s Rank,” and his letter to the Pecher abbot Vasili, expound various rules of monastic life. In 1182, Kirill left the episcopacy to return to ascetic isolationism and he died the following year. In the north of Russia, Antoni the Roman (d. 1147) arrived in Novgorod in 1108 and resided there forty years. He established his residence on the banks of the Volkhov River, about a mile outside of Novgorod. Blessed by Bishop Nikita of Novgorod, Antoni initially opened an orphanage. In 1117, he began the construction of a stone church dedicated to the Theotokos, which took two years to build and six more years to decorate. In 1127, Antoni built another edifice on the premises dedicated to the Presentation of the Lord, and in 1131 founded a monastery, becoming its first abbot. The Antoni Monastery, although not the first of monasteries in the Novgorod region, has survived the centuries and its ruins still remain. Mention must be made at this time of the holiest of all icons in the history of Russian Orthodoxy: the icon of the Immaculate Theotokos of Vladimir. According to the traditional account, the icon was painted by Luke the Evangelist, but its history over the next millennium is unrecorded. In 1131, the icon was brought from Constantinople to Kiev along with another icon of historical importance, the Theotokos of Pigoroschei. The icon of the Immaculate Theotokos of Vladimir was first housed at a church in Kiev and then at a convent in Vishgorod, until 1155, when Pr. Andrei Bogolubski took the icon to his new 46

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia city of Vladimir — from which the icon takes it name. In 1395, the icon was relocated to Moscow, and its final home became Moscow Uspenski Cathedral, where it was placed by Metr. Varlaam in 1514.

12. RULES OF THE RELIGION Ecclesiastical rules legislated by Vladimir have been transmitted in various chronicles dating from the 13th to the 17th centuries. His ecclesiastical regulation consisted of three parts. The first dealt with his own tithe donated for the construction of the Desyatinnoi (Tithe) Church of the Holy Theotokos. The second section dealt with topics of ecclesiastical justice assigned to the metropolitan and bishops; it lists those crimes whereby Christians of Russia would be subject to punishment by the Orthodox Church. The list contains the following crimes: 0 1. Acts of superstition, heresy, desecration of the church edifice, and grave or tomb robbery. 2. Crimes against the family, such as kidnapping a wife or marriage between relatives (incest was considered the marriage of grandchildren or closer blood relationship). Men were prohibited from marrying for a fourth time. The abandonment of unwanted children, unnatural relations, offenses against parents, and strife over inheritance were specifically defined as domestic crimes.

The third section consists of a list of ranks that pertain to the administration of the church, as follows: 0

1. Persons in the ministry of the church: abbot, priest, deacon, churchman, priest’s wife, priest’s son, monk, nun, and wafer-baker. 2. Persons who are dependents of the church, who receive a stipend from church income: widows, the blind, cripples, hunchbacks, healers, persons who have received a miraculous healing, persons under penance who dedicate themselves to some temporary service in the church, freed slaves or serfs, mendicants, and pilgrims.

Prelates were also commanded in this regulation to regulate the city’s weights and measures, and judges were forbidden to violate church statutes or to conduct a trial without the presence of a prelate. Pr. Yaroslav supplemented this code during Metr. Ilarion’s administration. The distinctive points of Yaroslav’s regulations are the following: 0

47

History of Russian Christianity 1. Clearer and more detailed definitions for the degree of punishment for crimes against the church: penance, monetary compensation, execution. The latter punishment was reserved solely to the discretion of the prince. 2. The Episcopal court was created and it had entire jurisdiction over persons subject to church regulations. Yaroslav excluded serious crimes from the Episcopal court, which were under the jurisdiction of the civil courts. 3. The Episcopal court was to be separate from the civil or princes’ court.

Because ecclesiastical authority is an authority not of this world, the canons proscribe its use for the punishment of civil offenders and provide it solely as a means of punishment for ecclesiastical violations. This justice, as it pertains to the laity, consisted in the following: instruction and admonishment; penance consisting of a deprivation of participation in the Eucharist; excommunication; and anathema. Pertaining to the clergy — and depending on the severity of the violation — this justice consisted of the same instruction and admonishment, interdiction and excommunication. In situations where the guilty person, disregarding the church punishment, remained insubordinate and continued to disturb the peace of the church, the prelates were not to utilize force for punishment, themselves, but to hand the person over to civil authorities. However, as time progressed the authority of the Episcopal Court increased and prelates began to use force or corporal methods of punishment: assessment of fines; incarceration — for which special cells were constructed inside cathedrals or monasteries; and public or private whipping. Such punishments were applied by prelates on both laity and parish clergy for violation of various ecclesiastical regulations. The records for the era of Kievan Russia are meager in this matter, but evidence for instances of the use of physical punishment is available, though scattered in historical events pertaining to church affairs. The primary goal of the metropolitans of Greek origin was the conformance of Russia to Byzantine culture and Greek Orthodox religion. They did not view the Russian culture as being as advanced or sophisticated as their own, nor did they view the Russian Church as autocephalous. The attitude of the Greek metropolitan was that the Russian Church was a stepchild of the Greek Church and was subject to its culture as well as religion: the Byzantine mode of worship was implanted in Russian Christianity. The manner in which priests approached a prelate and revered him was Byzantine; the manner in which the deep-voiced deacons pronounced the words of the liturgy — incomprehensible to the parishioners, in any case — was Byzantine; the art work in the churches was

48

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia Byzantine. In short, everything about the religion was Byzantine and quite alien to the average Russian. Russian prelates and priests’ primary complaint about the Greek metropolitans was that they did not have sufficient concern for the affairs of the Russian Church, the way a native Russian as metropolitan would. The preference of a Russian over a Greek was based on the presumption of loyalty or patriotism that would be displayed. A Russian would be willing to sacrifice himself for his nation, while a foreigner would not, and Slavic loyalty could not be implanted in a Greek because of his own congenital qualities. For the most part these Greek metropolitans were officials of the mother church, serving in a foreign country, with no obligation to the country. As a result, meager information about the ecclesiastical activities of Greek metropolitans is recorded in the ancient chronicles.

13. MONASTERIES AND MONASTICISM Pseudo-Nestor recorded in his annals the regimen and asceticism of monks of Pecher Monastery. The Lord gathered a certain type of monk at the residence of our Mother, so that they became philanthropists, like stars, in the land of Russia. They were firm when they fasted, while others stood vigil or prostrate; some fasted a day or two, while others ate only green soup, while others only soup of raw vegetables. All resided in love. The younger [monks] subjected themselves to the older, not bold enough to speak to them except humbly and with willingness to obey. The elder [monks] had love for the younger, instructing them as though they were their beloved children. If any fell into violation he was comforted, and two or three divided among themselves the penance assigned to him. If a brother abandoned the monastery, all the remaining brethren sorrowed over him, and were sent to retrieve him and ask him to return. And when he arrived, they all would go to the abbot, bowing to him and beseeching him, and then they rejoiced when their brother was re-admitted. Such was divine love, such was humility and temperance among the holy brethren. Even after their death, they still shine as inextinguished lamps through various miracles performed by them and by their intercession to God.

The institution of Orthodoxy in Russia was accompanied by the institution of monasticism. Russia adopted rules and examples of the monastic life primarily from Greece and to a lesser extent from Egypt. Much as in Western monasticism, the vows were obedience, poverty and chastity. The accounts state that monasticism was already organized and practiced under Vladimir the 49

History of Russian Christianity Great, although the first monastery was built under Yaroslav in 1037, along with the first convent. That there were other monasteries in Kiev under Yaroslav can be confirmed by the statement of Antonius of Pecher that he visited several monasteries in Kiev after his arrival there from Mt. Athos, about the year 1050, but none suited him. The situation was the same for Theodosius of Pecher. The oldest recorded monastery in Novgorod is the Yurievski, founded in 1019 during the reign of Pr. Yaroslav. Most of the monasteries erected during the era of Kievan Russia were the effort of one individual. An ascetic from Greece or a Russian who felt God calling him, either naturally or by revelation, or some other supernatural means, went alone or with others of the same mind to a secluded area and built a house, cave or lean-to and began his career and of course, waited for others to join him. Land was often given to ascetics on request by feudal princes; of course, the land included the serfs tied to that parcel. The monastery was built by the serfs and monks under supervision of the abbot. There must have been monks residing in Kiev during the rule of Yaroslav, in order to justify his building a monastery (and a convent as well). The monastery would have been subsidized by the grand prince and a subsidy would have been provided for its future, through the grant of real estate as a patrimony, just as was done for churches. Most of the monasteries — and this is clear when reviewing the list of churches and monasteries — were constructed in the Kiev and Novgorod regions. The number of monasteries outside these regions was very limited. The total number of monasteries, male and female, in Kievan Russia was about 70, with twelve of them convents. Of this number, about thirty were constructed by feudal princes while the balance resulted from the efforts of individual ascetics or small groups of them. Some monastery construction was privately funded by a wealthy man who had decided to become a monk in his later years and used his wealth to build a monastery and then bequeathed the balance of his estate to the monastery as its patrimony. In the information that remains available these days, the first Kiev monastery built by ascetics was Pecher (to be discussed in the following chapter). Pr. Izyaslav also built Dimitrievski Monastery and Nikolaevski Convent in Kiev. Another son of Yaroslav, Vsevolod, also built Mikhailovski-Vidubinski Monastery and Andreevski-Yanchin Convent in Kiev, while the grandson of Yaroslav, Sviatopolk Izyaslavich, built Mikhailovo-Zlatoverkh Monastery in Kiev. Monasticism begins with hermitage. Individuals who desired to distance themselves from the world and consecrate their lives solely to the service of God 50

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia departed from the cities and its temptations to deserted areas and solitude. The goal of such hermits and monks was voluntary poverty and sexual abstinence, and a denial of those manners and customs considered worldly. An exceptional dedication or concern for the affairs of the Lord was to evolve from this life of asceticism. Living for God became the mortification of the flesh by means of fasting and physical deprivation, and the perfection of the spirit through mental and oral prayer. The rules of monasticism pertained to the above goals and intents, a regimentation designed to direct the monk or ascetic toward this spiritual perfection. Unconsciously, monasticism created an artificial division within Orthodox clergy by touting itself as the sole means of attaining the kingdom of heaven. Of course, many wanted to enter the kingdom and so, naturally, many had the desire to become a monk, whether early in life or later in life, or even on their deathbeds. Monks and nuns were a special and distinct class in the population and were, in a sense, neither laity nor clergy. Regular monks residing in a monastery were not priests or deacons or ordained members of the clergy. They could become members of the clergy if they so desired, but the vast majority did not. Monks were selected as abbots for all episcopacies, which required a monastic candidate. The monk, hermit, or ascetic was the “holy man” of Russia, dedicated to the affairs of God by his deprivation of the “ways of the world.” Due to superstition, the peasantry often stood in awe of these men who had sacrificed everything for the kingdom of heaven. Antagonism likewise surfaced between the ordained parish clergy and the ascetics. The parish or local priest regularly attended to the needs of his parishioners, and had a family of his own to support, while the monk lived confined within the walls of a monastery in relative comfort, with a guaranteed subsidy through the patrimony. In reality, it was a reversal of roles: the parish priest was the one deprived of comfort and security for the benefit of his parish, while the superstitious populace viewed the monks, living in relative comfort, as the holy men. True monasticism was presented as very difficult: physical deprivation and the quantity of prayers — oral and mental — recited at services left an indelible impression on the will and conscience of every neophyte monk. Exhaustion was the result, but the rule could not deliberately be relaxed. True monasticism was austere and required unconditional communal residence with a total absence of personal property. The food in the dining area was communal, the clothes were identical and nondescript, issued by the monastery, and housekeeping work was required of all equally. An individual living under such rigid conditions was forced to become ascetic, poor, a lover of simplicity, and spiritually regimented. 51

History of Russian Christianity This was the ideal; and however the ideal may be described or demanded, conditions of residency varied, from monastery to monastery, depending on the inclination and strength of the father superior. An abbot or higueman was father superior of a small monastery, abbey or hermitage; while the archimandrite was father superior of a large monastery or several monasteries, or, later in history, one that was under the direct administration of the patriarch or Holy Synod. Convents in Russia were under the administration of a father superior. The concept of a mother superior did not exist in Russian Orthodoxy until the Moscovite era, and convents were often located next door to or nearby a monastery. Every male who was tonsured and became a monk and every female who took the veil and became a nun also abandoned their secular names and assumed new names for the rest of their monastic careers. The name was usually selected from a list of Russian saints and other holy people of the ages; the more popular the saint was, the more often his or her name was selected; and the choice often had to do with the identity the neophyte wanted to adopt. This is the reason, as the reader will notice, that many of the names of the Orthodox clergy are often same. To distinguish them one from another and to avoid confusion, the secular family name was often included in parenthesis following their monastic names. The monastery provided a residence, table, and clothes; and often, an opportunity to learn to read and write, as well as to learn the Orthodox religion and the ecclesiastical services and regulations. Depending on the monastery, the monk would either sleep in a dormitory or would have a cloister assigned to him. As great as the inclination to attain salvation may have been among peasantry and serfs who remained in the world, so was the inclination to shelter and provide charity to monks and ascetics in order to acquire through that avenue a prayer from them on their behalf. It was a vicarious act on the part of the serfs: by assisting these holy men, they hoped God would look upon them with the same favor as He looked upon monks and ascetics. Individual monasteries and convents created their own rules during the early part of Kievan Russia, due to lack of information from established monasteries in other regions of eastern Orthodoxy. Theodosius of Pecher introduced into his monastery the Studite rule of St. Theodor. To what extent this rule was adopted by other monasteries is not known. Neither is it known how large these early monasteries were, in terms of residence; it is difficult even to conjecture, because most of them were destroyed by the Mongols and no records are available. In fact, some monasteries are known only because they are

52

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia mentioned in later accounts, while their ruins have been obliterated and are nowhere to be located. Not every individual tonsured as a monk who gave his oath of poverty, chastity and obedience fulfilled his commitment. Those who were wealthy often did not assign their personal property to the monastery, but kept it and utilized it to provide better conditions of residence for themselves at the monastery. Only after their death was their wealth and property inherited by the monastery. Often, the wealthy monks established a clique of their own, separate from the monks who observed the rule of poverty. The rule of sexual abstinence was often violated, too, especially with a monastery in close proximity to a convent. Even though the monastery rules forbade the presence of women, it was not unusual to have women as residents in a monastery for the purposes of cooking and housekeeping. Female pilgrims, likewise, visited monasteries on a regular basis. Obedience to the abbot was voluntary and it was not unusual to have a monk leave a monastery after a dispute with the father superior or other monks and relocate to another monastery, or even to wander from one to another as an itinerant elder — staritz — or mendicant. This was actually more prevalent later during the 18th and 19th centuries than during Kievan Russia It was not unusual to have a person on his deathbed call for the services of an abbot and confess to him his sins, renounce his worldly ways, accept tonsure, the monastic vows, accept a new name, and bequeath his property to the monastery to become part of its patrimony, and then pass away, now as a monk. This maneuver originated toward the end of the 12th century. For many of the superstitious, it was a last resort to enter the kingdom of heaven while having enjoyed all they could of life. The abbot would fulfill the request and rites of the dying person, knowing that the donation or legacy would benefit their residence at the monastery. Such philanthropists were then buried inside the monastery with all ecclesiastical honor and a high mass. The more intelligent of the clergy during Kievan Russia and later eras recognized the deathbed tonsure as futile. Polikarp of Pecher wrote in the Paterik, “He who says, ‘Tonsure me when you notice I am about to die,’ such faith and tonsure is vain.” In 1194, Gr. Pr. Sviatoslav Vsevolodovich of Chernigov was tonsured on his deathbed; likewise Pr. Vsevolod Mstislavich of Vladimir-of-Volin, in 1195, and David Rostislavich of Smolensk in 1197. In 1227, princess Maria, wife of Vsevolod Yurievich, took the veil as a nun eighteen days before her death. However, in 1167, Rostislav Mstislavich wanted to be tonsured as a monk on his deathbed, but was denied this by his confessor, a local priest who informed him that too 53

History of Russian Christianity little of life remained for him to practice sufficient asceticism as a monk for it to be of any value to him in the after life. A married person could become a monk or nun, but only with the willing agreement of the spouse whom they would have to forsake. One evil that surfaced after the institution of monasticism in Kievan Russia was involuntary tonsure. Feudal princes would force tonsure upon their political opponents or adversaries. Such a person was then doomed to seclusion in a monastery cloister for the balance of his life, and the prince would instruct the father superior on the necessity of that person’s confinement at the monastery. Since monasteries often depended on the feudal prince for protection and economic support, their requests would be honored. In 1205, Roman Mstislavich, prince of Galitzia-Volin, tonsured his father-in-law Rurik Rostislavich, prince of Kiev. After Roman’s death in 1206, Rurik discarded his monk’s frock and released himself from monastery confinement. In 1146, Igor Olegovich, prince of Chernigov, was forced to be tonsured and confined to a monastery after his unsuccessful attempt to gain control of the throne of Kiev, upon the death of his brother Vsevolod. A second evil was the forced tonsure of an unwanted wife. With divorce not permitted, a feudal prince or wealthy landlord wanting to marry another woman — for whatever reason — would force his wife to take the veil as a nun and confine her to the local convent, there to be secluded for the rest of her life. The church would take the view that she had abandoned her earthly marriage in favor of a marriage with Christ, via the church, and therefore the husband was now free to remarry. Of course, the husband would have to contribute to the economy of the convent in order to induce them to accept his wife for the balance of her life; or, perhaps the convent might have been obligated to the feudal prince or landlord and would have had to comply with his wishes for political reasons. The above-mentioned Roman Mstislavich forced his wife to take the veil due to her opposition to his political intrigues against her family.

14. THE PECHER MONASTERY The founder of the Pecher (Cave) Monastery was Antonius, and the person who built and established the monastery was Theodosius. Antonius was born in the city of Lubech, in Chernigov province, on the east side of the Dnepr River about 80 miles north of Kiev. Hs birth name is not known, nor is his genealogy — he could have been from a noble or peasant 54

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia family. Although a man of the world in his early years, he was motivated with a desire to travel to Greece and then to worship at historical places of veneration. Arriving at Athos after visiting local monasteries, Antonius took a liking for monasticism and decided to be tonsured. An abbot of an unrecorded monastery tonsured him at his own request and assigned him the new name of Antonius, which he selected as a reflection of his desire to become for Kievan Russia what Anthony the Hermit was for Egypt. This abbot taught Antonius the monastic life and regulations and released him to return to Russia with the blessing of Mt. Athos. Returning to Russia, Antonius did not go back to his home town of Lubech but decided to head for Kiev. It was obvious that only in Kiev — where Orthodoxy was firmly imbedded and already possessing monks — would he be able to find other individuals zealous for the ascetic life of a hermit. Antonius arrived at Kiev toward the end of Yaroslav’s rule and after the ordination of Ilarion as metropolitan in 1051. After surveying the monasteries there and not finding one to suit his taste, he developed intentions to be a lone ascetic and eventually to start his own monastery, with his own rites and regulations. He discovered the cave that Metr. Ilarion had used to seclude himself near the village of Berestov. Now, since it was vacant, Antonius decided to utilize the cave for his own struggle as an ascetic cave-dweller and during his sole residency he ate only dry bread and drank only water. After a while, people heard about him and visited him, bringing provisions and asking for his blessing. At the time of Yaroslav’s death, in 1054, Antonius was already recognized as an ascetic and Izyaslav, son of Yaroslav, came to him to ask for a blessing and prayer for him and his troops. Other men with similar inclinations attached themselves to Antonius, and he accepted them and tonsured them as monks for his new community. Those who joined Antonius initially were: Nikon, an elder; Theodosius; Varlaam, son of a wellknown Kiev nobleman and who later became first abbot of the monastery; Efraim, a eunuch of Pr. Izyaslav’s, who later became bishop of Pereyaslav. Theodosius was born in Vasilyev, near Kiev, where Vladimir the Great was most probably baptized. His father was a high-ranking noble of Pr. Yaroslav’s realm and he provided Theodosius with the best education available. During his studies Theodosius learned about the great ascetics of Orthodoxy and decided to imitate them when he matured. In his teens, he rejected the games common to those of his age group and preferred to wear patched-up clothes, to identify himself with the destitute. When Theodosius turned 13, his father died; now, he began to subdue and train himself by acting as one of the slaves or serfs which 55

History of Russian Christianity his family owned, working alongside them on the farm and in the fields. Theodosius developed his ascetic nature during these years. His mother was strongly opposed to his intentions and on one occasion, when he wanted to travel to Jerusalem with some pilgrims, she locked him in chains to keep him home. Theodosius continued attending church locally and noticed that the liturgy for the Eucharist was often canceled due to a lack of wafers. To remedy the situation, Theodosius began to bake wafers himself, and he donated the income from their sale to poor people. His mother uncovered this second occupation of his, scolded him, and forced him to quit. Four years later, Theodosius clandestinely left home and went to live with a priest in a nearby city, with the intent of becoming a deacon and so draw closer to the church liturgy and operation. Again at his mother’s insistence, Theodosius returned home; but now he managed to become deacon in a church close by. As his passion to become an ascetic and a monk strengthened, he attached iron fetters and chains to himself. His mother again intervened and admonished him to return to a normal mode of life. Instead, Theodosius left home and traveled to Kiev, which took three weeks. He applied at every monastery in the area, but was rejected as being too young to be tonsured as a monk. Then he heard about Antonius and his cave, and went to him. At first, Antonius would not accept him either, because of his youth, warning him that the caves were melancholy and oppressive and that Theodosius would not be able to handle the strict discipline. Theodosius insisted that he should be allowed to prove himself, and Antonius condescended to let him in. Nikon the elder tonsured him and attired him in a monk’s garb. Theodosius was about age 20 when he entered the Pecher community, in around the year 1055. The community of ascetic monks at Pecher numbered about fifteen at this time and they continued digging into the hillside, creating a larger cavern and constructing a church inside of it, and cloisters. When the cave began to take the form of an actual monastery, Antonius separated from the group and dug another cave on a nearby hillside, where he relocated to reside as a recluse. Antonius ordained Varlaam as abbot in his place and the majority of the brothers remained, although a few migrated over time to Antonius’ new cave. The construction that brought the monastery into its final form began about the year 1057. The first church in Pecher Monastery was small and made of wood; it was dedicated to the Ascension of the Theotokos. The property still belonged to Pr. Izyaslav, and at the Monastery’s request the hill where the original cave was located was donated to them as a formal monastery.

56

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia Construction of sufficient buildings allowed the monks to move into aboveground quarters in about 1062. No sooner was the monastery completed than Izyaslav requested Varlaam to relocate to the Monastery of St. Dimitri, as abbot. In his place, Theodosius was elected abbot; he was not yet 30. When Theodosius accepted the post of abbot, the monastery only housed 20 monks as residents, but that quickly increased to 100. Theodosius implemented the Studite regulation at Pecher, which was brought there by a Greek Studite monk from Constantinople who arrived in Kiev along with the new metropolitan Giorgi, in about the year 1072. With the increase of resident ascetic monks and the increase in visitations by pilgrims, about eleven or twelve years after the original monastery was built at the caves, Theodosius decided to build an entirely new monastery alongside the cave where Antonius had moved to some years earlier. Antonius had since passed away. In 1073, Theodosius began the erection of a large stone church on the new site to initiate the development of the new monastery. However, Theodosius passed away the following year, on May 3, 1074, the week after Easter, after a brief but severe illness apparently caused by his typical selfdeprivation during Lent. He never did see the materialization of his dream. His age was estimated to have been about 45. He was buried inside the cave first dug by Ilarion decades earlier. The work on the new monastery was continued by his successors: Stephen, the new abbot up to year 1078; Nikon the Elder, who assumed the role of abbot after Stephen and until the year 1088 when he passed away; and Ioyann, the successor of Nikon as abbot. The stone church of the new monastery begun by Theodosius was completed by Stephen in the year 1075, but because of lack of funds for furnishings and appurtenances it was not dedicated until 1089, 14 years later. The wooden buildings of the new monastery were built during Stephen’s time as abbot and it was in full operation by the time of the dedication of the primary stone church. In 1108, the stone dining hall was completed. The annals of Pseudo-Nestor record the names of several monks of Pecher who distinguished themselves with their feats of asceticism and charity. Damian (d. 1071) was a presbyter and disciple of Theodosius, the founder. He kept a meatless diet his entire monastic career and in later years only accepted bread and water. Next mentioned is Mark, who lived alone in a cave which he dug by himself. He acted as grave-digger for the monastery during his residence. Also of note were Spiridon and Nikodim, who baked hosts for the Eucharist at the monastery. They were active during the abbacy of Pimen, 1132-1141.

57

History of Russian Christianity Nikolai, a son of Pr. David Sviatoslavich of Chernigov, entered Pecher Monastery in 1106. After his feudal principality was defeated by Pr. David Igoryevich, in 1099, Nikolai abandoned the worldly life and became a monk. He resided at Pecher until his death October 14, 1142. During his monastic career prince-monk Nikolai took advantage of his family connections and regularly acted as mediator between feuding feudal families in Kievan Russia. Little is recorded about the progress of Pecher Monastery during the 12th and early 13th centuries. In 1182, Vasili was ordained archimandrite of the monastery, now that it had risen to greater importance in Kievan Russia; he passed away in about 1177. During his rule the monastery was encircled by a stone wall. In 1240, Pecher Monastery was entirely destroyed by Mongols. Ruins of part of the stone church survive as the only sign of the original monastery. Pecher Monastery fostered several prominent prelates in succeeding generations: abbot Stephan — the successor to Theodosius — was ordained bishop of Vladimir-of-Volin in 1078, which episcopacy he held until his death in 1094. Bishop Nikita of Novgorod was also a monk from the Kiev Pecher Monastery. In 1096, he was ordained as bishop of Novgorod and held the episcopacy eleven years. Bishop Leonti of Kievan Rostov was the first monk of Kiev Pecher Monastery to be ordained a bishop. He was ordained 1051 by Metr. Ilarion of Kiev. Leonti held the episcopacy until his death in about 1077. Bishop Isai (Isaiah) of Rostov — mentioned above — was originally a monk of Pecher Monastery. Bishop Semeon of Vladimir was also a monk of Pecher Monastery. In 1206 he was installed as abbot of the Vladimir Rozhdestvo-Bogoroditza (Birth of the Theotokos) Monastery and in 1215 was ordained as the first bishop of Vladimir and Suzdal. Feudal prince Giorgi selected Semeon as bishop for the capital of his principality to make it independent from the episcopacy of the diocese of Rostov. Semeon accepted the position and retained it until his death May 20, 1226. He was first entombed at the Vladimir cathedral, but then his remains were transferred to Kiev Pecher Monastery. While he was bishop of Suzdal, Semeon wrote a letter intended to dissuade the monk Polikarp from leaving Pecher. He recounted the stories of several monks whose careers of asceticism had impressed him, and described his own life at the monastery. It is not known whether the letter had the desired effect on Polikarp, but in later years Semeon’s letter was supplemented by other monks and was published in 1661 as the Pecher Paterik, or the Lives of the Pecher Saints.

58

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia 15. CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS STRIFE AND JUSTICE Vladimir the Great, knowing well the autocratic despotism of the Greeks, from his merchants traveling through the Balkans and from his friends the Bulgarian kings, originally had no intention of submitting his Russian Church to the Greek Patriarch. Instead, he looked to the prelates of the autocephalous Bulgarian Church for assistance in this matter and support; the Bulgarians were quite independent of the Greeks and had their own patriarch at in the city of Akhrid. It was to the Bulgarians that Vladimir turned when he needed priestmissionaries to baptize his people, to instruct them and to conduct church services. The initial clergy of Russian Orthodox were members of Bulgarian Orthodoxy: Anastas, bishop of Kiev, and Jehoakim, bishop of Novgorod, both were Bulgarians from Kherson and could speak Slavonic as well as Greek. They were intended to represent the autonomy of a national Russian Church. Under Vladimir, the Bulgarian patriarch was the head of the cathedra of Kiev and Anastas was his vicar; the first two metropolitans supplied by Constantinople resided at Kievan Pereyaslav, distant from them. A change in attitude occurred in the year 1037 when the Desyatinnoi Church of Kiev, built by Vladimir, was replaced by the new cathedral church of St. Sophia built by Yaroslav and completed in 1039. The new church was to be identified with the St. Sophia of Constantinople and was a sign of the transfer of the Russian Church to the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Constantinople in the capacity of one of its metropolitans. Bulgaria had been defeated by Byzantium in 1014, and Bishop Anastas of Kiev fled to Poland fearing for his safety; but he returned to Kiev in 1018. The following year Yaroslav gained control of Kievan Russia and the internecine civil wars finally ended. Anastas disappeared entirely, leaving the region for parts unknown. The final native Bulgarian to hold the office of patriarch of Bulgaria died in 1037, and in his place a Greek was selected by the patriarch at Constantinople as head of Bulgarian Orthodoxy. That same year Kiev received from Constantinople Theopempt, a Greek, as its new metropolitan, and the new St. Sophia became the cathedral church in 1039. With Metr. Theopempt the administration of Constantinople over the religious affairs of Russia began, and it continued 500 years until Tsar Vasili III overthrew the Greek overlords. In 1043, Theopempt disappeared (no doubt returning to Constantinople as a result of the war between Kievan Russia and Greece). Yaroslav had attacked Constantinople for commercial reasons, ignoring their religious association. Captives taken by Yaroslav were executed to impress on the Greeks his 59

History of Russian Christianity opposition to Greek commercial and political hegemony in the Black Sea, but in retrospect the war proved unsuccessful for the aims of Yaroslav. Beginning in 1132, Kievan Russia entered a vicious and treacherous cycle of struggles between the two primary royal lineages: the Monomakhs and the Olegovichs. This went on until the demise of Kievan Russia at the hands of the Mongols. Metropolitans, beginning with Mikhail in 1130, were installed and removed at the whim of the heir of whichever family was in power, and they were utilized as the the princes’ puppets. The struggle was a total loss, with neither family gaining secure and lasting control of Kievan Russia; it weakened the state and left it more vulnerable to the Mongols. The chronology indicates forty attempts at the throne over 110 years, beginning in 1130, with some individuals ascending and descending the throne three times. In 1134, Metr. Mikhail was in Novgorod and protested to the sons of Mstislav Vladimirovich against the civil war and for rising against their uncle Yuri Vladimirovich. He was incarcerated for his troubles. After two years he was released and then traveled to Kiev, where he was in fact able to subdue the struggle between the two families; but the peace only lasted four years. In 1140, the Olegovichs attacked Kiev and destroyed it, banishing the remaining Monomakhs to distant parts. Metr. Mikhail convinced Vyacheslav Vladimirovich to abandon the city to Vsevolod Olegovich, in order to spare whatever was left. This new peace only continued until 1145, when Mikhail returned to Constantinople and died there. In 1155, Andrei Yurievski, son of Yuri Dolgoruki (Long-Arms), of the Monomakh lineage, left Kiev and relocated to Suzdal, in the north, where he began a new center of both religious and civil life under his new appellation of Andrei Bogolubski (beloved of God). There was one attempt during the era of Kievan Russia to transfer the cathedra or establish a new metropolitan, namely by Andrei Bogolubski, during the middle of the 12th century. Andrei was the second feudal prince of Suzdal, succeeding his father in 1157; he was killed in 1175. Andrei was able to develop a large feudal estate or principality in the Rostov-Vladimir-Suzdal region and had greater power in the Russia of that era than any of the feuding princes of Kiev. During his twenty years as feudal prince in the Russian north, Andrei Bogolubski saw nine of his relatives rise and fall in the struggle for control of Kievan Russia, none of whom lasted over two years. Andrei wanted to make Vladimir on the Klyazma River — a new city built and named after his grandfather Vladimir Monomakh — the indisputable capital of his realm, so he wanted a metropolitan located there. But since Vladimir would be a new capital, 60

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia of a northern realm, and therefore a rival to Kiev, he knew he could not transfer the metropolitan of Kiev to Suzdal. Bogolubski’s intention was to create a new diocese with a new metropolitan. He built a church in honor of the Assumption of the Theotokos in Vladimir and had a candidate ready to fill the new metropolitan’s cathedra in the year 1162; his name was Theodoret, or Theodor. He was an abbot of a local monastery who was very capable, an educated and robust individual. But Theodor was also ambitious. After consulting with his nobles, Bogolubski sent his agent Yakov Stanislavich on behalf of Theodor to propose his intentions to Patr. Luka Khrizovergus at Constantinople, but his intentions were doomed to failure. The patriarch summoned a council and condemned the proposition. A letter was composed informing Andrei Bogolubski of the rejection of his request, and it was delivered with the retinue on their return. But the failure did not end here. A few years later, in 1168, during the cathedra of Metr. Constantine II, an ecclesiastical council was held in Kiev regarding the fast days of Wednesday and Friday. Pr. Andrei Bogolubski sent on his behalf his abbot Theodor. Bogolubski also wrote to Pr. Mstislav Izyaslavich of Kiev, asking him to defrock and expel Metr. Constantine at this council and ordain another in his stead — having Theodor in mind. Many were dissatisfied with Metr. Constantine, but Pr. Mstislav decided against it, as it would only add to the turbulence and upheaval in the Kievan realm. Theodor then conceived another means of ascending the cathedra of metropolitan. Without the knowledge of Pr. Bogolubski, he departed in 1169 for Constantinople, to visit the patriarch. He could not connive his way to the metropolitan’s cathedra in Kiev, but at least he could get himself ordained as bishop of Rostov and Vladimir in the Russian north. On his return to Russia, Theodor went directly to Rostov and took up his responsibilities, but Bogolubski — although he liked Theodor very much — asked him to travel to Kiev to acquire the blessing of Metr. Constantine. Bogolubski did not care for Constantine and presumably wanted this performed only for the sake of ecclesiastical protocol. Theodor, in his arrogance, replied, “I have been ordained as bishop by the patriarch. Why do I need the blessing of the metropolitan?” Metr. Constantine, meanwhile having become cognizant of the events, wrote to abbots and priests of the diocese of Rostov not to accept Theodor as bishop until he received a blessing in Kiev. The letter had its desired effect and they all refused the rites and liturgy of Theodor, including layman and serf alike. This irritated Theodor rather severely and he began to interdict abbots and priests who did not accept him as bishop, closing the doors to their churches and 61

History of Russian Christianity appropriating their property. Unable to tolerate Theodor’s arrogance and criminal conduct, Bogolubski had him arrested and taken under custody to Kiev. There he was tried by Metr. Constantine at an ecclesiastical court, defrocked, and incarcerated in a local jail to serve penance. Theodor refused to comply with any of Metr. Constantine’s orders and only increased his bitterness towards the metropolitan. In 1169, Metr. Constantine sentenced Bishop Theodor to execution: his tongue was cut out, then his right hand was chopped off; his eyes were punctured and then he was decapitated. Theodor’s corpse was then cremated in a bonfire. (The metropolitan literally implemented the words of Jesus in Matt 5:29 and 25:41.) Later that same year, Andrei Bogolubski’s army attacked Kiev and pillaged the city. He destroyed many buildings and took residents captive as slaves to central Russia.

16. PAGAN REACTIONS The paganism of Kievan Russia did not possess an organized caste of specially-designated cultic priests, but only self-designated priests or sorcerers whose private social-religious activity consisted in predicting the future and practicing magic. Such pagan sorcerers were widespread during the era of Kievan Russia, and therefore they presented a grave danger and obstacle to the spread of Orthodoxy. With the Kievan state subsidizing and promoting Orthodoxy, those who were considered more dangerous were either incarcerated to the end of their lives or else were executed; others lowered their profiles and eventually dissipated into history, vanishing without a trace. There is little reliable information on the public struggle between the Orthodox priests and pagan priests and the few definitive recorded incidents in the chronicles related to us are from the Orthodox perspective. In 1024, a sorceress appeared in Suzdal, predicting a famine as a result of the acceptance of Orthodoxy. Taking heed of this prediction, people in the area traveled to the Bulgars and returned with additional provisions. Pr. Yaroslav, having heard about this sorceress, went with his troops to Suzdal. They executed the woman and the pagans who had believed her, and destroyed their homes. As he left Suzdal, Yaroslav stated, “As a result of your sins, God will bring upon the region famine and plague, or bad weather, or some other punishment, so people will know that Christ is the only God recognized in the heavens.”

62

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia In 1071, a sorcerer enticed by a demon arrived in Kiev. He began to preach to people that in five years the Dnepr River would reverse its flow, that is, flow upstream. According to the chronicler, the sorcerer disappeared one night and was never seen or heard from again. This same sorcerer also predicted the murder of Gleb Sviatoslavich, who was murdered in 1078 by Nikita, a hermit of the Pecher Monastery, whom the chronicler claims was led astray by a demon. Between the years 1074 and 1078, during the reign of Pr. Gleb Sviatoslavich, a sorcerer appeared in Novgorod who passed himself off as a god, claiming he could predict the future. He discredited Orthodoxy and promised the people he could walk across the Volkhov River as though on dry land. This incident started an uproar in the city; many believed him and others wanted to get the Orthodox Bishop Theodor and kill him. The bishop adorned himself in his liturgical attire and, taking up a large cross, went to the city square and cried out, “Whoever wants to believe this sorcerer, go follow him; but whoever believes [in God], let him approach the cross.” Only Pr. Gleb and his troops stood on the side of the bishop while the rest of the Novgorodians stood with the sorcerer, creating quite a tumult. Pr. Gleb hid an axe under his clothing, walked up to the sorcerer, and began a conversation with him, saying, “Do you know what will happen tomorrow morning, and all day tomorrow until evening?” The sorcerer replied, “I know everything.” Then Pr. Gleb told him, “But do you know what will happen today?” The sorcerer replied, “I will create great miracles.” As he was saying these words, the prince took his axe and chopped the sorcerer into two pieces. The crowd dispersed. In 1091, in Rostov, another sorcerer appeared publicly, but he was arrested and executed immediately. Four miracle workers appeared in Novgorod in 1227. They were burned to death at the palace of Pr. Yaroslav. In a similar incident, in Pskov, twelve sorceresses were hanged and then burned. It is apparent that even with the priests’ coercive efforts to install Orthodoxy as the national religion, much opposition still existed among the superstitious mass of the Russian population. This eventually led to a compromise or eclectic blend of Orthodoxy and paganism, which became known as dvoye-veria or dual-belief. Golubinski feels that a second baptism by the sword and fire was imposed on the residents of Novgorod shortly after the execution of the sorcerer there; this would have encouraged the development of dual belief among a populace anxious to avoid further persecution by Orthodoxy.

63

History of Russian Christianity 17. ECCLESIASTICAL FINANCES Apart from regular city or parish churches, every diocese had a special church, the cathedral church, which was the residence of the bishop. In a larger diocese, the ecclesiastical superior was archbishop. For all practical purposes, the feudal prince in whose estate or domain the diocesan capital was located would select the bishop; the majority of them were native Russians. The Russian Orthodox clergy was divided into higher and lower. The lower clergy were the parish priest and deacon. The higher clergy or prelates were the bishop, archbishop, metropolitan and later the patriarch. The monasteries formed a distinct third class: monks, abbots and related monastery personnel. Income for the lower clergy came from: 1. contributions, 2. revenue or taxes imposed on the laity by the parish priest, 3. fees for performance of rites, such as weddings, baptisms, funerals, etc., and 4. real estate (patrimony). The higher clergy had income from: 1. real estate (patrimony), 2. contributions from the parishes, 3. fees for rites, as described above, 4. annual taxes or tribute from the parishes within the diocese, and 5. revenue from clergy for their consecration into office. It was originally foreseen that the national church would be subsidized by generous donations from everyone from the noblemen to the commoners, for the benefits the Church would provide the community. However, because the population of Kievan Russia had been coerced into accepting a new religion and forced to abandon the old one, they had no heartfelt or sincere desire to contribute toward the support of the new religion and they certainly felt no obligation towards its advancement; they withdrew at any mention of contributions. Vladimir the Great attempted to institute the tithe, among the nobility, in order to provide the Church with support, and he made himself an example. One tenth of his own wealth was utilized for the construction of the Desyatinnoi (Tithe) Church in Kiev, but few if any followed suit. This exemplary effort was an abysmal failure and incurred its demise at the same time as Vladimir. To assure the financial security of the clergy and national Church, feudal princes then implemented another method by which Russian Orthodoxy could sustain itself indefinitely and provide for its financial security and future growth: patrimony in the form of real estate. Monasteries primarily gained income from their patrimony and from contributions from pilgrims. Theoretically, monks were also obliged to donate

64

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia their possessions to the monastery when they were tonsured, since one of the monastic vows was to live in poverty. The value and provision of monastic and ecclesiastical patrimony in the form of real estate must be understood in view of the Russian feudal system. The serfs were tied to the land and whoever owned the land owned the serfs. This pertained to villages, likewise: whoever owned the village also owned the residents of the village, unless they were already freedmen, such as artisans, merchants, clergy, soldiers, civil servants, businessmen, and others. Russia is abundant in land and the local feudal prince would often grant a parcel of land to the bishop, local parish or monastery for their subsistence. The serfs residing on the property then became possessions of the church or monastery, along with the land; and the church or monastery now became a landowner and landlord. As time progressed, religious and pious citizens would grant title to various properties to the church or monastery as a gift or legacy. Beginning from the time of Yaroslav, the Orthodox prelate began to acquire real estate from feudal princes and as gifts from landlords, and he viewed the real estate and serfs that were part of the patrimony as his personal property as long as he held his episcopacy or cathedra. Pilgrims visiting monasteries left donations and often bequeathed their property to the monastery, which the father superior considered his own to deal with as long as he held his abbacy. The beautiful churches and monasteries that dot the countryside throughout Russia were constructed by serfs who were part of the patrimony of the local parish or diocese or monastery. The amount of land held by the church as during the era of Kievan Russia was small, not nearly its size in later centuries. In about the year 1150, feudal prince Rostislav Mstislavich of Smolensk donated to the diocese at Smolensk three villages and their farms and an additional small partial which included a lake. The serfs both male and female worked at the churches or monasteries, as laborers, craftsmen, cooks and bakers, and performed any and all work that needed to be done. In this manner, the real estate holdings of the Orthodoxy increased tremendously over the centuries. Eventually, the Church became not only financially secure, but extremely wealthy — the wealthiest institution in all of Russia, next to the state itself; and this extreme wealth was accompanied by arrogance and corruption in the circle of the prelates of Russia. Bishops viewed parishes as if they were their own personal domains, which they would assign to priests as if they were renting them a parish. Based on this model, a tax was levied on the parish priests, which was to be delivered to the diocesan bishop as a payment for the yearly lease of the parish. This was 65

History of Russian Christianity instituted only later during the era of Kievan Russia, inasmuch as priests initially received no salary, but only room and board; it was at the beginning of the 13th century that they began to receive income from the parishioners. One of the controversies of this era and which has been perennial throughout the history of Russian Orthodoxy is the payment for the consecration of a candidate as priest by the bishop, as monk by the abbot, as bishop by the metropolitan, and during the Patriarchal period as metropolitan by the patriarch. The consecrating prelate would offer the excuse that the fee covered expenses; but the payment often exceeded any expenses by a large extent. In essence, payment for consecration was extortion on the part of the consecrating party, and it was accepted for the following reason. With the increase of real estate holdings within the Church, it was very lucrative to be bishop of a diocese, priest of a church, or abbot of a monastery having a large patrimony, and if a vacancy appeared in such a parish or monastery the consecrating prelate would not hesitate to sell the office to the highest bidder. Simony evolved in Russian Orthodoxy during the later years of Kievan Russia, when dioceses began to acquire quantities of property and serfs and developed a steady or abundant income. Luxury was the life of a priest in a wealthy parish, and miserable was the priest in a poor parish. Quite often, once simony acquired a foothold, unqualified individuals could get themselves consecrated into office by offering a greater bribe or payment than other candidates. The high ecclesiastical calling lost its dignity, as a result, and the only sincere clergy in Kievan Russia that remained toward the conclusion of this era were poor monks isolated in forsaken areas, praying in their lonely monasteries or hermitage cloisters. The parishioners were not unaware of the simony and corruption of the higher priesthood and so lost respect for Orthodoxy even more, and saw less reason to discard the traditions of their ancestral religions. Rites subject to payment included the marriage ceremony. Gr. Pr. Constantine Monomakh (1042-1045) issued an edict stating that every male entering into marriage was to pay the diocesan bishop one gold piece, in value about five rubles, while the woman was to bring linen as a gift to the bishop, in value of 12 rubles. Serfs and peasants, as a rule, avoided church weddings during this era and far into the future, and satisfied themselves with (or even preferred) a wedding performed by an elder or a pagan priest according to their traditional rite. The annual gift or duty for the bishop was an additional source of revenue, and it was implemented if only to remind the parish priest under whose subjection he was. Every year, when the priest traveled to the diocesan capital 66

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia for church councils, or when the bishop sent his delegates annually to the local churches, a gift of a predetermined value was given to the bishop. Theoretically, this gift was destined for church coffers at the cathedral, although the bishop viewed it as his own. Often, the bishop imposed penalties if the payment was not made; sometimes force was resorted to; havoc and ruin ensued when cities and villages refused to comply with the bishop’s request. Other income for parish priests was acquired from fines imposed on those violating church rules; a bribe from peasants who wanted to quickly bury someone who had died in questionable circumstances; a fine paid by women who had given birth to an illegitimate child; revenue for performing the marriage of an under-age male or female, or if the couple were closer than second cousins; performing a pre-arranged marriage against the will of one of the individuals (usually the bride); and others. Contributions were expected from parishioners at least three or four times a year: Easter, Christmas, Apostle Peter’s Day, and often on another major holiday. It was also not unheard-of for a parish priest or bishop to illegally appropriate a parcel of property or farm acreage, attach it to his patrimony, and then lease it back to the peasants, expecting a rent payment at the end of harvest. The local feudal prince seldom defended the peasants from oppression by Orthodox clergy. These examples, however, reflect conditions in the poorer parishes or dioceses, while those in wealthy regions lived sumptuously with much competition for a priests’ or bishops’ office. The bishops were not incapable of philanthropy when the opportunity arose. As the wealth of certain dioceses increased, including the personal wealth of the bishop, they often routed this wealth toward building hospitals, orphanages, old age homes, and asylums for abandoned children. The destitute were assisted, along with children born out-of-wedlock. Travelers in need were also assisted until they could continue on their journey.

18. CHURCH-STATE RELATIONSHIP The church-state relationship in Kievan Russia was adopted from Byzantium during the years when Orthodoxy was being introduced under Vladimir the Great. The civil authority was obligated to materially support and protect the authority of the Church, while the Church would provide morality and an ethical basis which would have a benevolent and beneficial influence on the population. In theory, this was the ideal attitude to be observed and practiced by both Church and state in Kievan Russia, but there were hardly any 67

History of Russian Christianity periods of harmony during the era in which such a relationship could be implemented. During the internecine family struggles and divisions into feudal estates, some prelates attempted to mitigate the violence and reconcile feuding factions, and they dedicated themselves to that goal. As Metr. Nikifor II (11821197) said to Rurik Rostislavich, on his third accession to the throne of Kiev in 1195, “Grand Prince, we are installed in the land of Russia by God to curb you from shedding blood.” Likewise Metr. Nicholai (1097-1101) admonished Gr. Pr. Vladimir Monomakh, “We pray for you and for your brother; you must not destroy the land of Russia, because if you war among yourselves then pagans will invade with their army and possess our land.” The words of Nikolai were prophetic, and were fulfilled in the conquest of Kievan Russia by the Mongol, Batu Khan, in 1240. Orthodox prelates eventually gained the natural respect of the Christian population, and the feudal princes took advantage of their respect and utilized them as agents or delegates on important matters among themselves. Prelates did not shy away from such assignments. Bishop Oleg of Cherigov played a major role in 1096 in reconciling the feuding princes Vladimir Monomakh and Sviatopolk Izyaslavich, even if it did not last long. In order to give divine affirmation to the peace treaties, the prelate had each party kiss a cross or holy icon to confirm the solemn oath. The intentions of most clergy, higher and lower, were sincere in attempting to instigate peace among warring families, but there were also apparent cases when a metropolitan was involved in intrigue with the grand prince against the opposing family faction. We must remember that metropolitans were mainly Greeks assigned by Constantinople and not native Russians. Their primary obligation was to Constantinople, not to Kiev, and for this reason they tended to be impartial in internecine family struggles and wanted only reconciliation and peace in the land. A metropolitan who was a native Russian would more likely be partial towards the prince who installed him in office. Such was the case with Kliment Smolyatich, who sided in with Pr. Izyaslav Mstislavich and the Monomakh family during his cathedra. There is one significant incident of justice involving a bishop and a council of feudal princes. In 1229, Kirill withdrew from his position as bishop of Rostov, due to illness. According to the chronicler, he was very rich, possessing farms and villages and much material goods as well as a large library; he was the wealthiest single individual in the entire Suzdal region. At a council that year, several feudal princes in Suzdal decided to appropriate all of the former bishop’s 68

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia wealth and property because of his decision to leave the cathedra. They used as justification charges that he had acquired his wealth through fraud and graft. It is significant that it was the feudal princes who judged him, without any involvement of the metropolitan or any other clergy. Of the eight bishops of Novgorod recorded during the era of Kievan Russia, six were nominated and installed by popular vote. Even then, not every bishop was in complete concord with the residents of Novgorod. In 1211, the anger of the residents of Novgorod rose up against Archbishop Mitrofan for some unrecorded reason. He was immediately removed from his episcopacy and run out of town. Another bishop was installed in his place, Antonius, or to use his name before tonsure, Dobrinei Yadreikovich. Eight years passed and Mitrofan again fell into good favor with the residents of Novgorod. Antonius was deposed, while Mitrofan was installed in his former position. After Mitrofan’s death in 1223, Arsenius, a monk from the Khutinski Monastery, was installed as bishop; but two years later, in 1225, Arsenius was deposed by the residents and Antonius was re-installed in his former position. This second period only lasted three years, as Antonius abandoned his episcopacy due to illness in 1228. At this time Arsenius was allowed to return to his former cathedra. This second period for Arsenius, however, only lasted a short interval, according to the chroniclers; Arsenius was deposed for the second time the following year and had to travel to Kiev and take refuge in the Church of St. Sophia to save his life. Golubinski feels that this rotation of bishops in Novgorod was the result of politics among the regional nobles and feudal princes who played the bishops like pawns in a game. Antonius was placed in the episcopacy a third time after Arsenius was exiled in 1229. He died in 1232. The subsequent bishop was more stable. Spiridon, formerly hierodeacon from the Yurievski Monastery, was bishop for almost twenty years, through 1249, when he died. At the conclusion of the era of Kievan Russia, at the time of the Mongol invasion, sixteen dioceses are recorded. The original division of the land into dioceses was coincidental with the division into feudal estates by the descendants of Vladimir the Great. The initial division was among the sons of Vladimir through his various wives; control was eventually acquired by Yaroslav and then divided among his five sons: Izyaslav in Kiev, Sviatoslav in Chernigov, Vsevolod in Kievan Pereyaslav, Igor in Vladimir-of-Volin, and Vyacheslav in Smolensk. These divisions were reduced in later generations and then expanded as the numbers of descendants decreased and increased.

69

History of Russian Christianity 19. EARLY DISSENTERS, JEWS AND CATHOLICS In the year 1004, during the reign of Vladimir the Great and under Metr. Leonti, there appeared in Kiev a certain monk Adrian who criticized Orthodoxy and its regulations and the other priests and monks. Metr. Leonti rose against him, refuted him, excommunicated him and incarcerated him. After some term of incarceration, Adrian repented of his error and was received back into Orthodoxy. Another dissenter surfaced in 1123; he was Dmitri, who also denied the Church regulations. Metr. Nikita of Kiev imprisoned Dmitri in the city Sineletz (or Sinetz) along the Sul River. The evidence indicates that Adrian and Dmitri had converted to Bogomilism during their religious careers, a premise with which Archbishop Filaret concurs. With Vladimir the Great associating with Bulgarian Orthodoxy and with the increasing trade and commerce with Eastern Europe, it was not unusual for Bogomils to migrate to Kiev. Some migrated to escape the armies of Catholic Crusaders who crossed their territory on their campaign to the Holy Land. As a denomination, they were vehemently anti-Orthodox having suffered heavily under the hand of Orthodoxy in Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria. Apart from trade and commerce with Kiev, migration eastward would also be a reasonable attempt to escape further turmoil in Bulgaria, especially with the First Crusade of 1096. The Bogomils rejected the rite and ceremony of Orthodoxy, including icon, church, vestment, and related church appurtenances. They also renounced monasticism and the organized hierarchical priesthood. Adrian and Dmitri voiced these new convictions to their fellow monks and clergy, which only caused them censure. Greek metropolitans in Kiev then proceeded to deal with the dissenters in the manner they were instructed by Constantinople and accustomed to: suppression by force and incarceration until repentance. The influence of the Bogomils did not end here, as it continued to infiltrate Russia and surfaced in later years in the religious movements of the Strigolniks and Judaizers, to be discussed later. Jews migrated to Kievan Russia in the decades following the start of the First Crusade in 1096. Armies of Crusaders traveled from central Europe and across Hungary and Bulgaria to Turkey, the land route to the Holy Land, and many Jews fled east to escape, especially fleeing the battles between European Catholics and Islamic Turks. Orthodoxy did not oppose the settlement of Jews in the region during the era of Kievan Russia, but showed tolerance. The influence of the Jews and their potential threat to Orthodoxy were minor, and 70

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia their presence only increased commerce in the region and trade with eastern Europe. In regard to Catholicism, the traditional account states that Pope John XV sent emissaries to Vladimir while he was at Kherson to argue against his preference for Greek Orthodoxy and to sway his intentions toward Catholicism; but the attempt failed. Emissaries were also dispatched to Vladimir in Kiev in the years 991 and 1000. Subsequent attempts by the popes to convert the princes of Kiev to Catholicism were likewise doomed to failure. The Kievan princes, in their struggles for the throne, were not about to subject themselves to any worse an ecclesiastical leader than they already had in the patriarch of Constantinople. On one occasion Pr. Izyaslav Yaroslavich, attempting to regain the throne from his brother Pr. Sviatoslav Yaroslavich, did appeal to Pope Gregory VII Hildebrand in 1075, hoping for some military support. His request was futile; no support was ever received. Anti-pope Clement III sent delegates in the year 1080, hoping for support from the Kievan prices in his struggle to overthrow Pope Gregory VII, but this attempt also failed. Emissaries from Rome likewise traveled to Kiev in the years 1164-1166, sent by Pope Alexander III; in 1207, sent by Pope Innocent III; in 1227, sent by Pope Honorius III; and in 1231, sent by Pope Gregory IX. It is important to note that the Greek metropolitans of Kiev considered Roman Catholicism heresy, beginning in 1054 when delegates from Pope Leo IX excommunicated the entirety of Eastern Orthodoxy from Christendom. The Greek patriarchs were not about to release their authority and their grip on Kievan Russia to Catholicism. The attitude of the individual metropolitans toward Catholicism varied from considerate to malicious. Metr. Ioyann, 1077-1089, expressed his view in this manner: “Eat with them, and help them when they need help for the sake of the love of Christ, and do not be completely prejudicial.” But the majority of opinions were less forbearing. Metr. Georgi, 1072-1077, stated, “The Latins are not worthy of their Eucharist, nor should they offer prayers. Do not drink from the same cup with them and neither offer them any food.” Metr. Nikifor, 11031121, taught, “It is not right for us Orthodox Christians to drink or eat with them, nor to kiss them. And if necessity compels an Orthodox to eat with them, then set their food and dishes apart.” The monk Theodosius, a Greek, gave the following instruction in a letter to Pr. Izyaslav Mstislavich, about 1150: “The religion of the Latins is not worth learning nor are their customs worth observing, and flee from their Eucharist; listen to none of their instruction; all of their habits and customs avoid and beware of; do not offer your daughters to 71

History of Russian Christianity them for marriage, nor accept theirs from them; do not worship with them; do not kiss them; do not eat or drink out of the same dish with them, nor accept food from them.” In 1204, the third Crusade captured Constantinople. Catholic Crusaders killed the residents and pillaged the city. The patriarch of Constantinople, John X Kamateros, was exiled from the city, destitute, riding on a donkey. Pope Innocent III attempted to take advantage of the situation by subjecting Russian Orthodoxy to Catholicism, but the pope’s admonishment to the Kievan princes failed.

20. MORALITY OF KIEVAN RUSSIA To what extent did the introduction of Orthodoxy by Vladimir improve the morality of Kiev during his reign, and to what extent did Orthodoxy in general improve the morality of the population of Kievan Russia during the 250 years between the baptism of Kiev and the invasion of the Mongols? This question has been answered in part in previous chapters, although indirectly. We must admit that any grace of God cannot be administered if religion is coerced upon people, when faith is demanded of them under duress. It is only effective when accepted willingly and the believers portray themselves worthy of the grace of God on their own merit. As indicated in previous chapters, those baptized by order of the princes of Kievan Russia became Christian in name only; it was another matter for them to become Christian by faith and morality. Golubinski testifies that in Kievan Russia there was no spiritual enlightenment for the population in general. Kievan Russia remained in an uneducated state; its pastors had a meager education themselves, and so could do little to elevate their parishioners. The extent of enlightenment was the church service: the liturgy, sign of the cross, kissing icons, hearing the recitation of prayers by the priest and songs of the choir, and participation in the Eucharist. All in all this was an unsatisfactory transmission of Orthodox truth and thereby it left a void in the religious experience of the parishioners. It was insufficient to replace in its entirety the paganism and superstition they and their ancestors had held to for generations and it could not resolve their indifference toward Orthodoxy. Monks and clergy were able to acquire an adequate education due to the presence of scholars from either Bulgaria or Greece, and the nobles were able to hire the same for their households; but they were distant from the majority peasant population of Kievan Russia. 72

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia The result of the peasantry’s superficial Orthodox education was the evolution of dvoye-veria or dual belief, as mentioned above: a merger of existing Slavic pagan and superstitious rites and beliefs with what manifestations of Orthodoxy were transmitted to them. For much of the populace there was no good reason to abandon their ancestral religion for a new one, and the objects of veneration in their ancient religion were mentally associated with the new objects of veneration of the Orthodox Church. Thus, superficially, they were Orthodox; but psychologically they were still pagan: the new rites ostensibly replaced the old without any change in the heart or character of the worshipper. It was easy for Vladimir’s regiments to demolish the temples and statues representing the earlier gods and to execute pagan priests and sorcerers, and to build new churches furnished with Orthodox appurtenances and clergy, but the soul or conscience of the peasantry could not be modified so mechanically. Laws against pagan rites could be legislated and prohibitions could be issued under threat of death, but the essence and substance of paganism retained their place in the hearts of the masses. Only over the course of time, and not until after the expulsion of the Mongols from Russia when a new expansion of Orthodoxy occurred (along with an increase in the number of churches and the arrival of new priests to replace those who had perished) that the peasantry slowly abandoned their ancestral religions and accepted Orthodoxy; this process took centuries. The pagan Slavs of Kiev venerated a panoply of deities. Of the good deities, who were considered white, the most prominent of them was Perun, the god of thunder and lightning; the sun was venerated in the deity Dazh-bog; the deity of air and wind was Stri-bog. Household deities, the patron deities of homes, were Rod and Rozhanitsi. The patron deity of cattle was Volos or Veles, who could be identified with the Scandinavian Valass, the god of cattle. Several minor deities existed who were identified with forests, streams, swamps, fields and mountains. The black or bad deities were Div, identified with the brown owl; Mara, a goddess of plague and disease; and Moryana, the goddess of death. These deities also had anthropomorphic physical representations, but most of their attributes are long lost in history. The Slavs of ancient Russia never attained the sophistication of building special temples or edifices for the veneration of their deities. They were worshipped outdoors, on hills, in fields and in forests, and just as much in the homes (for peasants, at least). The worship service consisted in bringing sacrifices to the deities: an animal was killed in the presence of an idol 73

History of Russian Christianity representing the deity, then butchered and roasted. Drink and bread offerings were brought which, along with the roasted animal, provided food for a community meal. Songs were sung in honor of the deity and prayers were offered. After the completion of the community meal, all the attendants danced. Consecrated priests did not exist in Russian paganism and rites were performed by an elder of the community, a head of household, or even by the local feudal prince or landlord. Sorcerers attended as soothsayers or prognosticators for supplicants and would let people know whether their prayers were heard or their offering acceptable. Russian paganism included a belief in life beyond the grave, immortality of the soul, and judgment for conduct before death. Souls of the deceased resided on an island called Buyan, located in a sea beyond the ocean. The dead were cremated, usually in boats sent down a river, representing their journey to the island residence. A feast — a memorial dinner and service — followed the cremation. Russian pagans generally celebrated four annual holidays, on the first day of each season: three were holidays dedicated to the god of the sun, and one to Perun. Other days were also observed in honor of other deities. Thus, among the uneducated populace the two cults stood side by side — paganism and Orthodoxy — and the rites of both were observed in the home and outdoors. With the abolition of idolatry by Vladimir and his successors, the identifications of pagan deities were transferred to the saints portrayed on Orthodox icons. The pagan holiday of Kolyad — the new year, celebrated at the winter solstice — and also the holiday of the sun and Perun, were merged with Christmas, so that customs and festivities of this season were overlaid onto Christmas. The holiday of the autumn equinox, known as Maslyanitz,3 was celebrated during the week before Advent. The holiday of the summer solstice was merged with the holiday of John the Baptist, July 24. The celebration of the spring equinox was merged with Easter. The traditions and rites of the majority of other pagan holidays likewise were melded with the saint’s holiday that coincided with it on the calendar. The holiday of Voloss was equated with the holiday of St. Gregori, April 23. The household celebrations of the holidays of Rod and Rozhanitz were assimilated into the holiday Sobor (Assembly) of the Holy Virgins, celebrated December 26, the day after Christmas. Perun was identified with prophet Elijah ascending to heaven in a fiery chariot; Voloss was identified with St. Vlasic, and Yaril, another pagan deity, with St. Gregori.

3. From the Russian word maslo, meaning butter or oil.

74

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia In general, parish priests were at a loss as to how to eradicate paganism from the peasants and other uneducated folk, and they tolerated this dual-faith, the subconscious transfer of paganism into local Orthodoxy. In any case, individuals selected from among the populace to become priests, and those who volunteered, had roots in their ancestral religion and it was difficult for them to execute a personal religious metamorphosis overnight. Thus, compromising with themselves as well as with the people, they condoned and even fueled the development of dual faith. The first generation of Orthodox priests from among the native population was not about to condemn or reprimand anybody for continuing to adhere to their ancestral religion. At least now, they felt, the identification was with the true God and his saints, represented by icons of Jesus, Mary, John the Baptist, apostles, prophets and of course the saints of Orthodoxy; and it was before them, rather than their ancestral idols, that the people prayed, sang and performed their rites. The Mongol invasion was an indirect benefit to Orthodoxy as it obliterated the majority of paganism in Russia, while Orthodoxy survived to replace it. Ancient historians provide little information about the character or morality of the peasantry or townsmen of Kievan Russia, although some information is available that deals with the nobility. Morality was measured in terms of prayer — both domestic and liturgical — and the construction of churches, but virtue or rectitude was not. Vladimir Monomakh, in his instruction to children, gave them a rule to pray every day at sunrise and at sunset. The number of domestic shrines and private chapels suggested the amount of prayer performed by the nobility and their households. Feudal princes departing for war would take priests with them. Priests accompanied the Kievan army in a war against the Polovtsi in the year 1111. Vladimir Monomakh began and ended his battles with prayer. Pr. Izyaslav Davidovich of Chernigov (d. 1161) wore his cross as he proceeded to war in 1143. A defeat of the enemy was celebrated with a thanksgiving liturgy. Andrei Bogolubski had his priests pray over him and his soldiers before he proceeded in battle against the Bulgars. Some Kievan prelates were able to have princes issue laws in various areas to improve the morality of the populace, including rules against excessive usury and against maltreatment of serfs by feudal princes and landlords. Prelates especially worked to decrease the slave trade so prominent in Kiev.

75

History of Russian Christianity 21. RELIGOUS LITERATURE The first success in providing divine literature to the Russians was the translation of the Bible into Slavonic by the brothers Cyril (Kirill) and Methodius. According to the traditional account, during the second half of the 9th century the western Slavic nation of Moravia, which had recently accepted Catholicism, was disenchanted with services conducted in the Latin language. The members wanted to hear the services in their native tongue. Knowing that the pope would not grant them this request, but that the Eastern Orthodox patriarch would, the Moravians turned to the latter with a request to provide them with books containing the liturgy translated into their vernacular. The emperor of Constantinople, Mikhael III (842-867), graciously accepted their request and delegated the matter to Constantine, a philosopher who later became a monk with the new name of Cyril; he was fluent in the Slavonic language. Cyril, however, died on February 14, 869, shortly after beginning the translation. His older brother Methodius, who was archbishop of Moravia, continued the work until his death April 6, 885. He was able to translate the entire Greek Bible, which included the books known as the Apocrypha, except for the books of the Maccabees, and he included in the translation the Nomocanon of John the Scholastic. The Bulgarians adopted this Bible from the Moravians, and it was then adopted by Kievan Russia. But because the Slavonic language of Moravia was not the Slavonic of Bulgaria, the Bible underwent revision; and the Slavonic of Bulgaria was not the Slavonic of Kievan Russia, either. This is why a complete Bible in the language of Russia was not available for another 500 years. The language of the Church even at this early date, during the reign of Yaroslav (who imported books from Bulgaria), was not the conversational Russian language of the common people. The lack of scholarship in Russia combined with the successive wars between feudal princes delayed the development of quality liturgical and books and scholastic literature in the vernacular. Several other related books on liturgy and doctrine were translated into Slavonic from Greek and were made available, but primarily in Kiev. These were the following: 0

1. A concise explanation of the Orthodox faith, composed by John of Damascus. 2. Instruction of Cyril of Jerusalem. 3. Refutation of Arias by Athanasius of Alexandria.

76

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia 4. Two books on theology and an interpretation of the Lord’s holidays by Gregory the Theologian. 5. A tract on free will or determination and three tracts on the resurrection by Methodius of Patar. 6. Six books by John, the presbyter and exarch of Bulgaria. 7. Interpretation of Job by Olimpiodor of Alexandria. 8. Two interpretations of the Psalms; one by Athanasius of Alexandria, the other by Theodorit of Kir.

In addition to the above major volumes, the books available in Slavonic included an assortment of moral instruction, history, and Bible understanding written by Greek instructors over the centuries. As far as original Russian compositions are concerned, there were a few, the most prominent being the chronicles of Kievan Russia adopted or edited from briefs originally composed by monks of Pecher Monastery. The single most prominent piece of literature to survive to the modern age out of Kiev is the Paterik of Pecher Monastery. The Paterik was composed primarily by Semeon, a monk originally of Pecher Monastery who was later installed as abbot of Rozhdestvennoi Monastery in Vladimir by prince Vsevolod Yurievich in 1197. In 1214 he was ordained as bishop of Vladimir and Suzdal, by the prince’s son Yuri Vsevolodovich. While he was bishop of Suzdal, Semeon wrote a letter to the monk Polikarp at Pecher Monastery, providing biographies of several exemplary monks from the early years, and narratives of the miracles that occurred there. Polikarp added to Semeon’s accounts and delivered the completed book to Akinkin, archimandrite of Pecher Monastery. In later years, Semeon’s work was further expanded by other monks and was published in 1661 as the Pecher Paterik, or the Lives of the Pecher Saints. Bishop Semeon passed away May 20, 1226; he was first entombed at the Vladimir cathedral, but then his remains were transferred to Kiev Pecher Monastery. The first Russian to compose religious literature during the era of Kievan Russia was Luki Zhidyata (1036-1060). He was selected by Pr. Yaroslav to become bishop of Novgorod in 1036. The Novgorod Cathedral of St. Sophia was built under his auspices and he consecrated it in 1051. Zhidyata wrote about the obligations of a Russian Christian. Theodosius of Pecher Monastery left a legacy of codified teachings for both monk and layman. His tracts discussed the dark side of contemporary monastic life at Pecher, which other chroniclers did not discuss. Theodosius reprimands the monks for their indifference toward the liturgy, lack of observance of the rule 77

History of Russian Christianity of chastity, acquisition of goods in their cloisters, dissatisfaction with the communal meal, and their complaints against the abbot’s use of monastery funds to assist the destitute and homeless. One instruction of Theodosius was directed to Kievan Russia in general, titled, “Regarding the Judgments of God.” It deals with the vestiges of paganism among the people and the many vices of the era, and specifically cited theft, fraud, vengeance and alcoholism. Another tract dealt with the need to improve the conduct of parishioners at liturgy. Theodosius also composed two letters to Pr. Izyaslav, the first dealing with the fast of Wednesday and Friday in agreement with the Studite rule, and the other a polemic against Catholicism including his interdiction. He instructed the Russian people not to associate with Catholics, neither at meals nor in marriage. John (Ioyann), archbishop of Novgorod, was ordained in 1164 and as a teaching pastor became a model for future bishops. His writings deal with a range of rules and instruction, but primarily with the responsibility of the bishop over his flock as pastor. He also reprimands many clergymen for their participation in usury, gambling, and alcoholism, and likewise admonishes them to abandon pagan customs still practiced among the people. The final original Russian composer of note is abbot Daniil. He traveled to Jerusalem shortly after the First Crusade and traveled for 16 months, visiting many of the holy sites of Eastern Orthodoxy. He left to his fellow adherents a description of his pilgrimage. The single document that most reflects the beliefs or theology of the Kievan era is the Confession of Faith of Metr. Ilarion, written sometime between 1051 and his death in 1067. The following is a selection: I believe in one God glorified in Trinity: the God who is without birth, without beginning and without end; the begotten Son, who is likewise without beginning and end; the Holy Spirit who emanates from the Father and was manifested in the Son and who is likewise co-beginningless and equal to the Father and Son... I believe and confess that the Son, by the good will of the Father and permission of the Holy Spirit, descended to the earth for the salvation of the human race, but He did not abandon the heavens or the Father. He suffered for me in the flesh as a human, but in His divinity was impassionate as God. The holy and glorious Virgin Mary is also named the Theotokos. Honor her and in faith venerate her. Look upon her holy icon and see the Lord as a child and rejoice. Likewise look upon His holy saints…

With the peasantry, matters were of a completely different sort; their lives were filled with legends and apocryphal tales. Inside the home of a typical serf, living in any outlying area, in the corner of the main room, under the family icons, among books such as the Psalter and Prayers to the Blessed Virgin, it was 78

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia not unusual to find a worn-out notebook full of scribbles in grammatically incorrect Russian. Such a book would contain, for example, the story of how Archangel Michael toured the Blessed Virgin through the regions of the torment of hell. The story tells of a river of fire that flows from east to west. In this river stood sinners: some up to their knees, others up to their waists, a third group up to their throats. These were people who did not honor their parents or the Orthodox clergy: they had violated the 5th Commandment. In another dark river, the loud wail and cry of those who had crucified Christ would be heard. In other areas of hell, worms gnawed on those who did not observe church fasts, did not go to confession, and did not take communion. Poisonous snakes bit the faces and hearts of those who talked, laughed or joked in church during liturgy, who did not listen to the singing and who did not venerate the holy icons. There was also a place for wayward shepherds, those who first saw the light but preferred darkness. They did not instruct their parishioners, did not read ecclesiastical texts, and closed the doors of the heavenly kingdom to the people. Landlords and dishonest judges — those who condemned the innocent and acquitted the guilty — and wicked tsars and princes and ruthless feudal lords — those who oppressed their serfs — all resided in hell. Along with the Blessed Virgin’s visit to hell, the admonishment of Pope Clement of Rome dealing with twelve Fridays was often included. Whoever observed the fast on any one of these specific Fridays would be rescued either from accidental death or drowning, or an attack, plague, enemy or unclean spirit. The conclusion of the text would include a statement characteristic of an indulgence. Any person who copied and distributed the text, or read it once a week, would receive forgiveness of sins in a quantity equal to the number of leaves on a tree, and the person would be protected from calamity in earthly life and receive the Kingdom of heaven in the future life. Many legends answered questions which the priest could not: What happened to Adam after his exile from paradise? Who buried Adam and what did the funeral procedure consist of? What was the adolescent life of the Blessed Virgin? And if no answer was available, then a legend was fabricated that did, as ludicrous as that might seem to the modern mind. Some of the legends dealt with redemption, a concept which was not easily assimilated by the peasant mind. According to one legend, after the devil deceived Adam in paradise, Adam had to subscribe to an ordinance which placed him under the control of the devil. The record was inscribed on a stone slate that the devil hid in the center of the Jordan River, and there it remained under the guard of 400 demons for 4,000 years. But when Christ was being baptized in the 79

History of Russian Christianity Jordan River, he stood upon this stone and crushed it, thus releasing Adam from his bondage to the devil. Another legend dealing with the same theme relates how Adam made a crown or garland from branches and twigs of the tree of life while he still resided in paradise. At his death, Adam was buried wearing the garland. As time passed, an immense tree grew out of the garland and the roots embedded themselves in the coffin of Adam. After many centuries the entire tree was dug up — roots and coffin included — and brought to Solomon for use in building his temple. The tree was rejected by the builders and was replanted on the hill of Golgotha, including the roots and Adam’s coffin. Later, the tree was hewn down and used to make the very cross that Christ was crucified on. When the blood of Christ flowed from his body, it seeped into the ground and into the coffin, and dripped upon the preserved head of Adam. This incident absolved Adam of his sins and provided him redemption. Such legends and apocryphal stories represent the extent of the cosmology of the peasant mind and that part of medieval European literature that migrated into Russia which they could assimilate.

22. ORTHODOX HOLIDAYS The implantation of Greek Orthodoxy in Russian soil was accompanied by the transference of the standard holidays and festivities of the Greek calendar. The list of holidays accepted by the Russian clergy were those common to all Christendom during that era: Christmas, Easter, Epiphany, Trinity or Pentecost, Ascension, and Annunciation (March 25), as well as the fasts of Wednesday and Friday, Lent and Advent. Holidays of blessed Christians were included: Elijah (July 20), John the Baptist (b. June 24, d. August 29), Apostles Peter and Paul (June 29), John the Apostle (December 27), Stephen the Martyr (December 26), Archangel Michael (September 29); and those dedicated to the Virgin Mary: Assumption (August 15), Purification (February 2), and Intercession (October 1). Others were included to complete an annual cycle of commemorations. With the development of Russian Orthodoxy and to strengthen and develop a national Church, prelates began creating holidays beginning about the year 1093. These new holidays were to commemorate Russian saints, clergy, ascetics and heroes, those with whom the Russian people could identify. The first holiday created for the Russian Church calendar commemorated the deaths of Boris and Gleb. The date chosen was July 24, the day Boris was killed (Gleb 80

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia was killed on September 5). Although they were not Christian martyrs in the strict definition — their execution was part of a political and internecine struggle — their inclusion in the calendar was a means for the Russian Church to begin the insertion of a pantheon of native Russians into church worship. A second holiday on May 2 was created to commemorate the transfer of their remains to a church for veneration. After Boris and Gleb, two Russian prelates were canonized and holidays were assigned for their commemoration: the venerable Theodosius of Pecher Monastery (May 3), and Leonti, the third bishop of Rostov (May 23). A very important holiday implemented at this time commemorated Nikolas the Miracle Worker (May 9), the patron saint of Russia (d. AD 314). Local areas included other individuals into their calendar. In Kiev, a holiday commemorating Pr. Mstislav Vladimirovich was celebrated; in Chernigov, the holiday of Pr. Igor Olegovich; in Smolensk, the holiday of the venerable Avrami of Smolensk; in Pskov, the holiday of Vsevolod Mstislavich, prince of Novgorod; in Rostov, the holiday of Bishop Isaiah. Holidays were also installed to commemorate the dedication of certain churches: the Desyatinnoi Church of Vladimir the Great in Kiev (May 12); the Church of St. Sophia in Kiev (May 11 and November 4); and the Church of St. Gregory in Kiev (November 26). Holidays commemorating the lives of Olga and Vladimir the Great did not reach the Church calendar until the 14th century, and newer holidays of a national style were not added to any degree until after the end of Mongol occupation.

23. WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY FASTS The fasts of Lent, and Wednesday and Friday of each week, were adopted from Greek Orthodoxy as canonical practice and were applicable to all members — if not the national membership — of Russian Orthodoxy shortly after Greek metropolitans were installed in Kiev by Pr. Yaroslav. The balance of fasts, those of Advent, Assumption, and St. Peter, were implemented not through legislation but by tradition. The fast in Russian Orthodoxy was not a complete abstention from food and drink but a partial abstention, allowing only the consumption of meatless food. The meatless food would usually consist solely of vegetables but depending on the circumstances milk, cheese, and eggs and such animal byproducts might be permitted, or even fish. 81

History of Russian Christianity The Fast of Advent covered the period beginning November 14 and concluding December 24, Christmas Eve, and was also known as Phillip’s Fast, since November 14 was the holiday of Apostle Phillip. The fast of St. Peter was the second week following Trinity or Pentecost, lasting seven days. The fast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary took place during the first 15 days of August, prior to the holiday on August 15. These three, however, may or may not have been fulfilled by the membership, whether laity or clergy; the evidence is slim. A debate arose in Russian Orthodoxy during the era of Kievan Russia as to whether the fast of Wednesday and Friday could be circumvented, should a major church holiday fall on one of those days (or during other fasts during the church year). The Russians in their simple and traditional manner did not emphasize the fasts the way the Greeks expected them to. The issue became a political one: whether the dictate of the metropolitan of Kiev (who was Greek) was to be obeyed, or the local bishops of the dioceses (who were Russian). Traditionally, in Russia, Wednesday and Friday meatless days could be circumvented during the interval from Easter to Pentecost (Trinity), including Pentecost, Christmas, and the interval of twelve days from Christmas to Epiphany and including Epiphany, and Assumption. As other major holidays were initiated, the meatless diet was allowed to be circumvented if one of these days fell on a Wednesday or Friday. Local tradition or the attitude of the bishop often dictated whether a holiday was meatless or not. All went well in Kievan Russia through the middle of the 12th century, regardless of the attitude of the patriarch of Constantinople toward enforcement of his rules. Conflict erupted in the year 1157, with the efforts of Bishop Nestor of Rostov, a Greek, who attempted to implement in his diocese the Wednesday and Friday meatless diet according to the rule of Constantinople. Nestor’s attempt was met with much opposition by the residents of Rostov, even to the point that Nestor irritated the prince of the region, Yuri Bogolubski, who banished Nestor from his cathedra. Nestor traveled to Constantinople to vindicate himself before Patr. Lukas Chrysoberges. The patriarch vindicated him and composed a long letter to be delivered to Bogolubski, dictating to him how and when the meatless diet should be implemented during the church year. Bogolubski ignored the contents of the letter and the episcopacy of bishop of Rostov was filled by Leon in about the year 1164, meaning that a new bishop was installed by Bogolubski himself. The tradition of lax meatlessness continued just as it had before Nestor. Four years later, in 1168, the matter of meatless holidays surfaced in Kiev. The new metropolitan of Kiev, Constantine II, a Greek, interdicted and imprisoned Polikarp, abbot of Pecher Monastery, because he abrogated the 82

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia meatless diet during lesser holidays of the Lord, and on the holidays of the Virgin Mary and local saints, when they fell on Wednesday or Friday and during the interval from Easter to Pentecost. Apparently Polikarp observed the same Russian tradition as did Rostov prior to Bishop Nestor. Metr. Constantine’s intention was to first have the famous Pecher Monastery subject itself to Greek rules, in this case the meatless diet on holidays, and thus serve as an example to the remainder of Russian Orthodoxy. But Polikarp refused, and so bore the brunt of Constantine’s frustration. Whether Constantine accomplished anything by this remains unknown, but the Russian Orthodox in general continued their tradition, without much consideration for the Greeks. Two other attempts were made by bishops at this time, both of them Greek, to institute Greek rules on the meatless diet; these were Bishop Antonius of Chernigov and an unnamed bishop of Kievan Pereyaslav. But both their attempts were futile as well, and Antonius was eventually deposed from office after dictating to Pr. Sviatoslav Vsevolodovich of Kiev that he should not eat meat during the lesser holidays. It must also be remembered that observance of the prescribed meatless diet, and the inclusion or exclusion of milk and eggs, primarily affected the clergy and some nobility, but had little effect on the eating habits of the general population. This controversy became dormant, or moot, with the Mongol invasion, which represented a rather more important issue for both clergy and nobility.

24. THE MONGOL INVASION The first invasion of Kievan Russia by Mongols — also referred to as Tatars — occurred in 1223. Genghis Khan was still alive at the time (d. 1227). Under his orders, his horde invaded Persia; but not satisfied with their victory there, they crossed the Caucasus Mountains and entered Russia from the south. They traveled northwest, destroying everything in their path. The Polovtzi army proceeded against them at the River Kalchik in Ekaterinoslav province. The Mongols defeated their army and continued in a northwesterly direction. About 50 miles south of Kiev, they ended their campaign and turned back homeward. In 1236, an army of 300,000 Mongols, called the Golden Horde, led by Batu Khan, grandson of Genghis Khan, crossed the Ural Mountains. In autumn of that year, they defeated the Bulgars and conquered their capital. The Mongols proceeded northwest again and in 1237 and 1238 destroyed the cities of the principalities of Ryazan, Kolomna, Rostov and Moscow. Ryazan was captured 83

History of Russian Christianity on December 21, 1237. The winter slowed the Mongols’ advance, city to city, but Suzdal fell on February 8, 1238. The defenses of Gr. Pr. Yuri Vsevolodovich near Yaroslav were overcome March 4, 1238. With the devastation of northern Russia complete, the Mongol horde proceeded toward Novgorod, but were put off by the marshes and swamps that would have to be crossed to attain the city. They turned south when they were about 60 miles from Novgorod. The rampage and devastation of central Russia continued through 1239 and into 1240, and then the invaders turned toward Kiev. After a siege, Kiev was taken by Mongol hordes on December 6, 1240. The entire city was razed, reduced to rubble and burned, and its residents were executed. The famous Desyatennoi Church, the Cathedral of St. Sophia, and Pecher Monastery were destroyed; only ruins remained. Other cities of Kievan Russia suffered the same fate as Batu continued with his forces toward Bulgaria and eastern Europe. Returning from Europe in 1242, Batu created a residence for himself and his Golden Horde on the Volga River, about 50 miles upstream from Astrakhan, and named it Sarai. Any monks that survived the Mongol brutality during this period fled to safer havens, such as central Europe. Regarding the conquest of Ryazan, the chronicler relates, “Having taken the city Ryazan and burning it completely, prince Yuri and the princess were killed, while the remaining men, women, children, monks, and nuns and priests were butchered by the sword while others were shot with an arrow, and cremated in fires.” Regarding the city of Vladimir, the chronicler recorded, “Abbots and monks and nuns and priests and deacons from the young to the old, and their children, were beaten; some were killed, others were taken captive walking barefoot and without clothing to their camp, dying from the cold.” Orthodoxy in Russia was plundered of its wealth, and the burning of cities included churches and monasteries. Ecclesiastical appurtenances, which meant nothing to the Mongols, were destroyed in fires. The greatest single loss was the church books that had been copied by hand and passed down from one generation to another, and which could not be replaced. Prelates and clerics who took part in the defense of Russian cities were executed. The lower clergy, monks and nuns, and suffered the same fate as everyone else: they were slaughtered, or taken captives as slaves. After the invasion, Kiev ceased to exist as the city it once had been; it was reduced to a few enclaves of survivors struggling to get by in a heap of rubble. A local noble was assigned by Pr. Daniel Romanovich of Galitzia to rule over the devastated city.

84

Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia Metr. Iosef (Joseph), who arrived in Kiev from Greece in 1237, disappeared from history the year following receipt of news of the devastation of Suzdal in the Russian north. Golubinski suggests he returned to Greece to secure his own safety. After the invasion, Mongols settled in Sarai to begin ruling over their new domain. Unlike the terror they had waged in previous years, having vanquished the territory the victors now showed tolerance toward Orthodoxy and even desired and promoted its prosperity. In no way did they force the surviving Russian population to change religions. And that was not an exception made just for Orthodoxy; Mongols as a rule tolerated the religions of all the nations they subjugated. Because Russia was now under Mongol occupation, and was so until 1480, the Mongol Khan did require a cursory review and approval of all newly ordained prelates of the church and especially the metropolitan, the spiritual head of Russian Orthodoxy. The toleration of religion by Mongols was not for the sake of religion itself but for political expediency, in order to effectuate Mongol occupation without giving additional grounds for rebellion. Pope Innocent IV dispatched John de-Plano Carpini, an Italian Franciscan monk, to the great Khan Gyuk at Karakorum in Mongolia, by land, and he arrived there on July 22, 1246. Carpini was sent as a papal legate to dissuade the khan from any further invasions and to convert him to Christianity; he failed on both counts. Carpini left Mongolia on November 13 of the same year, and visited Batu Khan at Sarai in May 1247. During his return journey he passed through Kiev and recorded in his journal that the city had been reduced to rubble, with only about 200 homes left standing and the residents destitute. Kiev was again invaded by Mongols in 1299 and the remaining residents fled. It was not until 100 years later that Kiev was absorbed into the state of Lithuania and was repopulated, emerging again as a city. The Mongol horde retreated from the state of Lithuania, which allowed the resettlement to progress, and a new Kiev grew, which then remained under the administration of Lithuania and Poland for the next 300 years. In about 1257 or 1258, the Khan of the Golden Horde, Berke or Bekalie, converted to Islam.

85

PART 3. THE ERA OF MONGOL OCCUPATION 25. METROPOLITAN KIRILL III Metr. Iosef arrived at Kiev from Greece in 1237 but, as mentioned above, nothing more was heard of him once news of the devastation of Suzdal reached Kiev. More than likely he returned to Greece to escape the threat of the destruction of Kiev, which would only be obvious for an alien. The next metropolitan was a native Russian. The Gr. Pr. of Galitzia and Volin, Daniel Romanovich (1229-1264), had incorporated Kiev into the administration of Galitzia just prior to the arrival of the Mongols in 1240. Apparently to escape the Mongols himself, Daniel Romanovich fled to Hungary and then to Poland until after the conquest of southeast Europe ended and Batu Khan and his horde turned eastward. When Daniel returned to Galitzia he selected Kirill, an abbot at a local monastery in Galitzia, as metropolitan. Prior to sending Kirill to Constantinople for consecration, however, Daniel himself traveled to visit Batu Khan at Sarai, at the end of 1245 or beginning of 1246. Pr. Daniel returned to Galitzia in February or March of 1246 and Kirill went to Constantinople to be consecrated some time after that; he returned in 1250. Patr. Manuel II was residing in Nicea on the Asiatic side of Greece — present-day Turkey — apparently to protect himself in case of a Mongol incursion toward Constantinople. The patriarch condescended to accept Kirill because, first, Iosef had abandoned the cathedra after only a short duration, and second, no Greek candidate was available or willing to assume this position in a devastated and defenseless Kiev under Mongol occupation.

87

History of Russian Christianity Meanwhile Andrei Yaroslavich, prince of Vladimir and Suzdal in the Russian north, married the daughter of Daniel Romanovich in Kiev in 1250. There is no doubt that Metr. Kirill III was involved in the matchmaking because immediately after the wedding he abandoned the desolate and devastated Kiev and migrated first to Chernigov, then to Ryazan and finally to Vladimir. With the departure of Kirill to the more secure and promising Russian north, Kiev lost its roll as the cathedra of the metropolitan of Russia; there was nothing but rubble left in Kiev, anyway, and Pr. Andrei appeared to provide Kirill a more promising future than Pr. Daniel Romanovich could do, especially now that southwestern Russia was under the control of eastern European rulers and the threat of Catholic hegemony was imminent. Over the subsequent thirty years that Metr. Kirill held the cathedra he traveled extensively attempting to rebuild Orthodoxy after its devastation by the Mongols: he taught, admonished and restored. In 1251, Kirill traveled to Novgorod to visit Alexander Nevski and to install a new bishop there. In 1256 he again traveled to Novgorod, and in 1256 to Rostov to install a new bishop. In 1263, Kirill buried Alexander Nevski in Vladimir. Kirill only twice visited Kiev over the 30 years of his residence in Vladimir: in 1274 and in 1281. There is no record that Kirill ever visited his homeland of Galitzia or Pr. Daniel Romanovich — who nominated him as metropolitan — or his son Lev Danilovich, after he moved to the Russian north. Prince Daniel Romanovich died 1264. In 1261, Metr. Kirill formed a new diocese with its Episcopal center at Sarai, the capital of the Mongol Golden Horde under Berke Khan, the third successor after Batu Khan. The first bishop installed by Kirill was Theognost. The maneuver may have been more politically oriented that religious, with an aim of generating a close proximity between the metropolitan of Russia and the Khan of the Golden Horde, to increase diplomacy and greater toleration or even favoritism toward Orthodoxy. The bishop of Sarai could be influential in the court of the khan on matters related to their occupation of Russia. All attempts at conversion, however, failed. Kirill was able to acquire a copy of the Kormchaya Kniga (the Nomocanon in Slavonic) for the Russian Church from the Bulgarian Church; Metr. Kirill received a copy in 1262 or 1270. The value of the Nomocanon lay in the fact that it was a list of ecclesiastical canons with their interpretation as implemented in the 12th century by three Greek prelates: John Zonara, a monk of Mt. Athos; Aleksis Aristin, a jurist and economist of the Greek Church; and Theodore Valsamon, later known as the titular patriarch of Antioch.

88

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation When Metr. Kirill returned from Kiev in 1274, he brought with him Serapion, archimandrite of the Pecher Monastery to ordain as bishop of Vladimir and Suzdal. After Kiev was laid waste by the Mongols in 1240, all that remained of Pecher Monastery was the scorched stone church; all the other edifices were completely destroyed by fire. To consecrate him, Kirill summoned the following four bishops: Dalmat of Novgorod, Ignatie of Rostov, Theognost of Sarai, and Semeon of Polotzk. In the presence of these five prominent bishops (which included the newest — Serapion of Vladimir and Suzdal) Kirill created the first council of the newly-established church under Mongol occupation. At this council Kirill composed a codified set of concerns dealing with the restoration of Orthodoxy along with several reprimands for laxity in church supervision, errors in the liturgy, and deficiencies in the morality of the clergy and laity. Since 1274 was the 25th year of Kirill’s active service, no doubt he had concerned himself with these matters earlier on an individual basis but now determined to use a council of influential and capable bishops to implement them. In his introduction to the decrees, Kirill states that the punishment of God which overtook the fatherland — the Mongol invasion and occupation — was a result of neglect and violation of the canons of the Church and Christian commandments. His introduction was the following passage. What gain did we acquire abandoning the Divine regulations? Did not God scatter us across the face of the land? Were not our cities conquered? Did not our powerful prince perish from their sharp sword? Were not our children taken captive? Were not the churches of God made desolate? Do not these godless and unclean gentiles weary us every day? All of this happened to us because we did not observe the rules of the saints and our pious fathers.

Evidently Metr. Kirill belonged to that class of individuals who felt that such calamities and national misfortune should be used to awaken and motivate the population toward restoration and moral improvement. The powerful prince mentioned was probably Gr. Pr. Yuri Vsevolodovich, who was defeated in his attempt to defend the city Yaroslav. Ordained to rule the Russian Church immediately following the awesome destruction by the Mongol hordes, Kirill inherited a compact pile of smoldering ruins covered with innumerable human corpses. In view of this horrible expression of the wrath of God upon Russia Kirill apparently swore to himself to be the director of the Russian Church as well as its restorer and renovator to the greatest extent his strength would allow him. The activities of the council of 1274 therefore must be viewed not as a sudden or unexpected initiative or isolated event, but as a conclusive expression of Kirill’s endeavors toward restoring the Russian Church. 89

History of Russian Christianity The edicts of the council and their concerns are headed under five topics, which are the following: 1. Against simony and the avarice of bishops and regarding ordination of lower clergy. Originally, payment for ordination was to cover the associated expenses of the church. Later, the advantages of living at the expense of the church as a priest in comfortable surroundings and with a guaranteed income and life-long security created an over-abundance of candidates for the priesthood. Bishops took advantage of this, especially in the destitute conditions that followed the Mongol invasion, and offered ordinations into the priesthood to the highest bidder, then treating the money acquired as personal income. The council established the expenses for ordination at 70 kopecks, no more and no less. The council also decreed that any and all bishops who were discovered violating the new rule would be defrocked. A secondary issue was that bishops would excommunicate members from the Church for insufficient reason and then charge them to rejoin. This was a means of extortion from the laity. An edict was decreed by the council to excommunicate any prelate found guilty of this practice, and likewise prohibiting any bishop or priest from excommunicating members for insignificant or unsubstantiated reason. Prelates were also proscribed from compelling serfs to work at their personal farms. In previous years, bishops had ordained priests for money; now, under the edict of the council, the bishop was required to investigate the morality and ethic of every candidate. Metr. Kirill’s rule was very specific: When a bishop wants to ordain a priests or deacon, he must ascertain the life the candidate led prior to his application for candidacy; his neighbors who know him must be summoned, those who knew him from childhood. Let them investigate the candidate in detail: did he guard his virginity; did he marry a girl who guarded her virginity; and [marry] in legal matrimony? Is he literate? Even then do not be quick to ordain him, but ascertain, is he a scoundrel; a thief; an alcoholic; treacherous; quarrelsome? Then question him about sinful activities: did he ever practice sodomy or bestiality, or masturbate? Has he ever stolen something other than during his childhood? Did he ever have pre-marital sex? Has he had multiple sexual partners or extra-marital affairs? Was he ever a false witness? Has he ever killed someone, whether pre-meditatively or accidentally? Is he a usurer? Has he ever starved his serfs to death; or allowed them to go naked; or overworked them? Does he avoid taxes? Has he ever practiced witchcraft? If any candidate is guilty in any of these matters, he is unfit to be a priest or deacon or any type of clergyman. But if a person according to his confessor is free from these violations then he can be ordained, but only

90

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation with the consensus of seven other priests. He can wear the priest’s attire and read the liturgy in church until he learns it [by memory]. After an interim as novitiate he can be ordained as a deacon, but not under the age of 25, or as a priest, but not under the age of 30.”

With such prerequisites, Kirill hoped to raise the moral standard of Russian Orthodox clergy. 2. Against error in performance of the offertory. Metr. Kirill noticed that in Novgorod the deacons would perform the offertory before the priests. The council agreed that this was an error and that the priest should perform the offertory before the deacon. 3. Against non-ordained persons performing certain sacred rites, with respect to laymen performing the liturgy; against infringement of the sacristan on the rights of the Church which do not pertain to them; and about the standards for the sacristan and their approach to the altar. Metr. Kirill discovered that in Novgorod province non-ordained persons were consecrating the grain brought on behalf of the deceased. The council advised that only priests should be allowed to consecrate such gifts, and not even a deacon. Also non-ordained persons were prohibited from singing or reading from the ambo or approaching the altar, but only ordained clergy. The sacristan was not to approach the liturgical dishes or hold the incense burner; this was only to be done by an ordained priest or deacon. Standards were also established for the sacristan, since he was allowed in the presence of the altar along with the priest and deacon, but not to perform rites. 4. Against alcoholism among priests. Metr. Kirill disclosed that in Novgorod province this malady did exist among priests: that they would drink to an excessive degree during holy fast days beginning Palm Sunday and until All-Saints Day, November 1; and that on All-Saints Day there was no liturgy performed and no divine baptism. The council decreed that priests stop drinking, on penalty of being deposed from their office. And if any of the laity should oppose the defrocking of the alcoholic priest, then he would be excommunicated. (Although Kirill only observed the activities of the two holy days of Palm Sunday and All-Saints Day and the interval between them, the failure to perform liturgy due to alcoholism was endemic in Novgorod throughout the year.)

91

History of Russian Christianity 5. Against fist-fighting; against pagan festivities on Saturday nights. Metr. Kirill disclosed to the council the incidence of fighting between drunken men, even to their death, and the crowds of people who watched such fights. The council issued a decree prohibiting fist-fighting, and forbidding priests from performing a memorial mass or requiem on behalf of any who died in such fights. The council was also informed that on Saturday nights men and women were getting together and playing and dancing and indulging in orgies, just as the pagans celebrated Bacchanalia. The council decreed that such immorality must cease or the participants would be excommunicated. Golubinski feels that the council dealt with many additional topics of significance related to the short-comings of the Russian clergy of that era, but they are unrecorded. It is true that we have records only of a small number of issues discussed; but that might also be due to the meager number of attendants at the council. The five bishops in all reality had little power to implement such reforms and decrees and to rectify clerical deficiencies. Two years after the council of Vladimir of 1274, at the request of Metr. Kirill, Bishop Theognost of Sarai forwarded a list of questions to the council of the patriarch at Constantinople (probably John XI Berkos, 1275-1282). These questions may well have been introduced at the council of Vladimir, however, as no response or resolution could be found they were then forwarded to Constantinople. The new topics dealt with the Orthodox liturgy, tonsuring of monks, the fasts of Wednesday and Friday, acceptance of heretics back into the Church, baptism of pagans, eating of animals killed by suffocation, the attitude of bishops toward monasteries within their diocese, and the women who are allowed to bake wafers for the Eucharist. Replies were received on all questions, a total of 33. The Uniate Church, or the Eastern Rite Catholic church, took its first steps during this period. Papal legates from Innocent III offered Gr. Pr. Daniel Romanovich of Galitzia a king’s crown in 1246 and the assistance of papal forces to overthrow the Mongol overlords. Needless to say, the pay-back was that the realm of the grand prince would become Catholic, subject to Rome. The taste of a king’s crown, making Gr. Pr. Daniel equal to the kings of Poland and Hungary, was too sweet to resist, and so in 1247 Daniel sent delegates to the pope accepting the offer. In essence, the religion would become Catholic, although the rites would continue in the Orthodox fashion and utilize unleavened bread in the Eucharist.

92

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation At the last minute, Daniel Romanovich renegged. Perhaps he saw little point in being king if he had to subject himself to the papacy in matters of religion. The pope would still hold the greater authority, making him the superior and Daniel the inferior. However some time later, toward the end of 1253 or beginning of 1254, after additional conversation with papal legates, Daniel Romanovich accepted the crown and anointment from the papal legate. This occurred at a city near Brest-Litovsk. An oath of obedience to the new Pope Alexander IV was given by Daniel and his realm became Uniate. There is no doubt that Metr. Kirill encouraged Daniel Romanovich to reject the pope’s initial offers and remain Orthodox, but once Metr. Kirill had abandoned Kiev in 1250 for the more secure Vladimir (under Pr. Andrei Yaroslavich, his new patron), Daniel felt cheated by the Orthodox Church as well as by Metr. Kirill and Pr. Andrei, his son-in-law. It was apparent that the Mongol occupation was going to go on for a long time, and Daniel Romanovich felt there would be more promise for his own realm in both religion and government if he was to align himself with Europe and the papacy rather than Constantinople and Orthodoxy. The implementation of Unia was slow in the realm of Daniel Romanovich. In 1257, Pope Alexander IV issued an edict to the new king reprimanding him for not upholding his oath of allegiance. Along with the attempt to bring southwest Russia under papal control, Pope Innocent IV sent his legates to the famous Alexander Yaroslavich Nevski, in 1248, hoping that northern Russian would concur with Daniel Romanovich. Nevski courteously welcomed the papal delegates and he allowed them to construct a Catholic church in Pskov, but the attempt to lure Nevski to Catholicism went no further and the delegates returned to Rome. Metr. Kirill died December 6, 1281 at Pereyaslav in northern Russian. He was visiting the feudal prince of Pereyaslav, Dmitri Alexandrovich Nevski, when he died. His body was transferred to Kiev, where he was buried.

26. METROPOLITAN MAKSIM All of a sudden after the death of Kirill — once news reached Constantinople — candidates appeared in Greece for the cathedra of metropolitan of all Russia. During the cathedra of Metr. Kirill, Constantinople realized that northern Russia had somewhat survived the devastation by Mongols and that an atmosphere of tolerance prevailed between the new grand prince at Vladimir and the Mongol occupation; Orthodoxy had freedom of 93

History of Russian Christianity practice. For this reason the Greek patriarch (either John XI Berkos or Gregory II Kyprios) decided to provide a Greek metropolitan for Russia rather than allowing them to select their own. Even prior to Kirill’s death, Constantinople sent a warning to the grand prince not to select another metropolitan on his own. Maksim was ordained at Constantinople to succeed Kirill as metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia, as the specific title of the cathedra read, and he arrived in Kiev in 1283. After arriving in Russia, Maksim immediately departed to visit Khan Toda-Mangu at Sarai, to acquire his approval. Maksim was sent by the emperor of Constantinople, Andronicus the elder, who recently had ascended the throne after his father Mikhael Paleologus died in 1282. The visit with the khan also included a discussion of political matters dealing with the empire. On Maksim’s return to Kiev in 1284, he summoned a council of Russian bishops, but no documents survive that would indicate the purpose of this council. In 1285, the following year, Metr. Maksim visited Vladimir, Novgorod and Pskov in the Russian north and then returned to Kiev. Dmitri Alexandrovich, son of the famous Alexander Nevski, was prince of Novgorod at the time. Maksim visited Vladimir and Suzdal again in 1295, and finally in 1299 he left Kiev entirely to take up permanent residence in Suzdal, no doubt during the advance of Mongol forces toward Kiev. Much like Metr. Kirill, Maksim realized that nothing remained for him at Kiev and that northern Russia offered greater security and promise, especially if he attached himself to Gr. Pr. Dmitri, since Ukraine was now Uniate under the hegemony of Rome. In 1299, the Mongols again attached Kiev and plundered the city to such an extent that all the residents fled. The following year, Maksim visited Constantinople and on his return stopped at Kiev for his final visit. He gathered whatever appurtenances survived the latest onslaught and moved them to Vladimir in the north. Future metropolitans would not even stop at Kiev on their arrival in Russia from Constantinople, but would travel directly to the north. Kiev was so badly devastated that Maksim did not even leave a bishop behind to represent Orthodoxy. To fill the void in southwest Russian — Ukraine — a new cathedra was created in 1303 in Galitzia and a metropolitan was ordained to fill it. Apparently after the death of king Daniel Romanovich, the region returned to Orthodoxy and his grandson Yuri Levovich requested a metropolitan from Patr. Athanasius and Emperor Andronicus Paleologus. The request was granted and the bishop of Galitzia, Nifont — not a Greek but a native of the region — was promoted to

94

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation metropolitan, primarily to keep the region Orthodox rather than have it slide back into the grips of the papacy. As far as the activities of Maksim are concerned, the chroniclers leave us no information at all except for one document which deals with the fast of Wednesday and Friday, and marriage. Apparently couples continued to marry in the traditional pagan manner or had the service performed by a village elder. Maksim’s decree required all marriages to be performed in an Orthodox Church and by an ordained priest. Metr. Maksim died on either December 6 or 16, 1305; his body was buried in Uspenski Cathedral in Vladimir.

27. METROPOLITAN PETER The successor to Metr. Maksim was Peter (Pyotr in Russian), a native Russian from the Galitzia region. Peter’s ordination, however, was not without a political struggle among feudal princes and the patriarch of Constantinople. The moment Maksim died, abbot Gerontie was dispatched to Constantinople by Pr. Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tver for immediate ordination. Mikhail was brother of the above-mentioned Pr. Andrei Yaroslavich, who ascended June 22, 1304 to become grand prince of Vladimir after the death of Andrei Alexandrovich Nevski — another son of the famous Alexander Nevski. Mikhail’s intent was more political than religious, as he hoped to take the cathedra under his jurisdiction as grand prince and so move the residence of the metropolitan from Vladimir to his home feudal estate at Tver. Apparently Moscow, at this time, was increasing in size and importance — while Vladimir was declining — and Mikhail desperately needed support from Orthodox prelates to suppress its rise and promote his own Tver. But other feudal princes of northern Russia had the same idea of magnifying their own feudal estates at the expense of Moscow. Nonetheless, Gerontie was not ordained at Constantinople. Coincidental with Mikhail Yaroslavich’s dispatching of Gerontie to Constantinople, another candidate was also sent for ordination, but not for the entirety of Russia. Abbot Peter was the candidate selected by Yuri Levovich, grand prince of Galitzia, to fill the now vacant cathedra of metropolitan of Galitzia. Apparently the initial metropolitan, Nifont, selected in 1303, had died, and Peter was to replace him; and so he was now sent to Constantinople for ordination. But Patr. Athanasius ordained Peter as metropolitan of Galitzia, Kiev and all Russia! 95

History of Russian Christianity Peter had entered a monastery at the very young age of 12, with the intent of becoming a monk. In later years, as a zealous ascetic, Peter founded his own monastery in Galitzia and became its abbot. These qualities led Pr. Yuri Levovich to select Peter as candidate to replace Nifont as the next metropolitan of Galitzia. According to the traditional account, Peter arrived at Constantinople before Gerontie and was ordained as metropolitan of Galitzia. After Gerontie arrived and the patriarch sized him up, the latter felt him unqualified to assume such an important cathedra and felt that a united Russia with one metropolitan was preferable to a divided Russia. Therefore Patr. Athanasius — who originally ordained Nifont — now ordained Peter as metropolitan of Galitzia, Kiev and all Russia. Yuri Levovich of course was displeased at Athanasius’ decision, complaining that Peter’s residence at Vladimir in northern Russia was too distant for him to be of any benefit to Galitzia. Yuri Levovich’s complaint was ignored and Peter was ordained in May 1308; he arriving in Vladimir the following year. The populace, urged by Pr. Mikhail, refused to accept Peter as metropolitan and expressed contempt for him. Pr. Mikhail felt betrayed by Constantinople, but as time progressed he reconciled with Metr. Peter; but the reconciliation was both temporary and superficial. Bishop Andrei of Tver, manipulated by Pr. Mikhail, sent documented complaints of a serious nature about Metr. Peter to Patr. Athanasius, hoping to see Peter demoted. Pr. Mikhail still wished to replace him with Gerontie, his original choice. The allegations were serious enough for Patr. Athanasius to send his legate to Russia in 1310 and summon a council at Pereyaslav, which convened in early 1311. The city selected for the council was nearer to Moscow than Vladimir or Tver. There are no extant records indicating the specific accusations. Present at the council were the prosecutor Pr. Andrei of Tver, Bishop Semeon of Rostov and a number of abbots, monks and priests. A number of local feudal princes attended but Gr. Pr. Mikhail did not; he was at Sarai visiting the Khan. In his stead, Mikhail sent his two sons, ages nine and eleven. The right to speak on his behalf was entrusted to the nobles who accompanied the two sons. What occurred at this council is likewise unknown due to a lack of records, except that Metr. Peter was acquitted on all charges. Golubinski feels that Metr. Peter was accused of simony and it must have been to some major extent in order to necessitate a trial under the auspices of a patriarchal legate. This conjecture is based on a letter sent by Tver monk Akindin to Pr. Mikhail, begging the prince to root out avarice and simony from the Church. About the year 1312 or 1313, Bishop Andrei also sent monk Akindin to Constantinople to confer with the new 96

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation Patr. Nifont, the successor of Patr. Athanasius, about this matter, but nothing came of the meeting or of Akindin’s letter to Pr. Mikhail. Metr. Peter retained his cathedra; however, prince and metropolitan remained enemies until the death of the former in 1318. An important letter written by Metr. Peter was circulated among both clergy and laity, dealing with widowed priests and other matters. Apparently, too many priests were living immorally after the death of their wives; Metr. Peter stated that if a widowed priest wanted to remain in the priesthood, that is, continue to perform liturgy, then he should relocate to a monastery as his new residence; otherwise, he should retire. Other matters addressed in Metr. Peter’s circular to priests included the prohibition of accepting gifts to perform polygamous marriages and an injunction to restrain themselves from drunkenness. The laity was also addressed and was urged to preserve the fear of God within themselves; to bring gifts to God out of their possessions; to respect priests and monks; to give charity to the poor, widows, orphans, blind and those imprisoned. Metr. Peter wrote other general letters to the clergy to improve their moral standards, leaving the impression of a dedicated shepherd willing to travel about Russia teaching and reprimanding; he also had a rare ability to defend himself against the worst of critics and opponents. In 1313, the Mongol Khan Tokhta died and Khan Uzbek was installed as his replacement. He issued an edict requiring his personal approval of all promotions, most specifically in the case of princes and metropolitans. Up to this time the princes and metropolitans had met with the khan voluntarily, and often for political purposes. Metr. Peter visited Khan Uzbek in 1313 and acquired his approval — along with a letter of commendation, which was very unusual. In his edict Khan Uzbek also relieved Russian Orthodox clergy from any further payment of tribute, which in the past was expected from all his subjects; it was still expected from the feudal princes. It is important to note that the wife or one of the wives of feudal prince Yuri Danilovich of Moscow was a sister to Khan Uzbek. This association between the prince of Moscow and the Khan strengthened the former’s status in Russia, and that overflowed on Metr. Peter, who was a close friend of Yuri. Metr. Peter became acquainted with Yuri Danilovich shortly after his arrival to northern Russia. A friendship developed between them as a result of Pr. Mikhail of Tver’s animosity and contempt towards Metr. Peter. A residence was made available in Moscow for Metr. Peter, and he took advantage of it for long periods to distance himself from his antagonist. Even with the death of Pr. Mikhail in 1318, the persecution did not desist; Pr. Mikhail’s two sons, princes 97

History of Russian Christianity Dimitri and Aleksander, both perpetuated their father’s animosity toward Peter and toward Moscow. In 1311, Dimitri Mikhailovich went to war against Moscow but failed to conquer it. He tried again in 1322 and was able to capture the prince, Yuri Danilovich. Pr. Dimitri killed Pr. Yuri in 1325. Then, because Pr. Yuri was the brother-in-law of the Khan, the latter intervened: Dimitri was imprisoned and ten months later he too was executed, by order of the Khan. Moscow during this period was increasing in size and population and the throne was inherited by prince Ivan I Danilovich, also known as Ivan Kalita (Money-bags), brother of Yuri Danilovich and grandson of Aleksander Nevski. Pr. Ivan’s rule began in around 1325. Fed up with fighting against the feudal princes, Metr. Peter made the inevitable decision to leave for good from the principality of his adversary’s family in Vladimir, and migrated in late 1325 to the protection of his friend Pr. Ivan Danilovich of Moscow. Having made Moscow his permanent residence and cathedra, he began having a new church constructed. On August 4, 1326, a stone church dedicated to the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, the Uspenski (Dormition) Cathedral was begun, and it was also to serve as the sepulcher for Metr. Peter and many more metropolitans, patriarchs, princes and tsars to follow. Metr. Peter died soon thereafter, December 20-21, 1326, and was buried at the partially constructed Uspenski Cathedral in Moscow. One dissenter must be mentioned at this time; his name was Seyit. He was a monastic arch-priest from Novgorod who abandoned monasticism. Much like his spiritual predecessors Andrei and Dmitri of the 10th and 11th centuries, he was influenced by Bogomilism and apparently converted to their beliefs. By the early 14th century, the Bogomils were migrating further north to escape the disastrous effects of the Crusades on southeastern Europe and persecution by Catholicism. Metr. Peter brought Seyit to trial by for heresy; with the help of Pr. Ivan Danilovich, he was able to condemn Seyit, and his story ends at this time. In the tradition of the era, Seyit was most likely executed as a heretic, but his convictions did not perish with him but surfaced in the next century in the sectarian group known as Strigolniks.

28. METROPOLITAN THEOGNOST As brother-in-law to the Mongol Khan Uzbek and as good friend of Metr. Peter — now residing in Moscow — Pr. Yuri Danilovich had aspired to attain 98

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation the prominence of grand prince during his life time, and his dream did not die with him. His brother Ivan “Kalita” Danilovich continued the aspiration for the family name, now burying Metr. Peter in Moscow and hoping that the next metropolitan would likewise make Moscow his cathedra and residence. A plot was conceived while Metr. Peter was on his deathbed. He and Pr. Ivan agreed to select Theodor, archimandrite of Rozhdestvennoi Monastery in Vladimir, as Peter’s successor. Unfortunately, in 1327 the patriarch of Constantinople ordained a Greek, Theognost, as metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia (the title remained as before, even though a metropolitan had not lived in Kiev for almost 80 years). All was not lost, however, as by the time Theognost arrived in northern Russia in May 1328, two and a half years after the death of Metr. Peter, Pr. Ivan Danilovich of Moscow was able to overthrow Pr. Aleksander Mikhailovich of Vladimir — son of Pr. Mikhail — and assume authority as grand prince over what was now to be known as Moscovite Russia. Leaving Constantinople, Theognost first visited the region of Galitzia, where he ordained two bishops, one for Galitzia and one for Volin. He then proceeded north, directly to Moscow. By the time Theognost arrived, Moscow considered itself the capital of all Russia, displacing both Vladimir and Suzdal and possessing both grand prince and metropolitan; but, it was still a poor city and smaller than most other capitals of feudal principalities. There was much work for both prince and metropolitan to do to enlarge Moscow, and construction of stone churches began immediately. To magnify Moscow as a shrine, Gr. Pr. Ivan Danilovich recorded the miracles attributed to the remains of Metr. Peter and requested that he be canonized. Metr. Theognost, due to his short interval in Russia and not familiar with his Russian predecessor, yet wanting to magnify the city of his cathedra — Moscow — endeavored for the canonization. All the evidence regarding Metr. Peter was forwarded to the patriarch at Constantinople and in July 1339 a positive response was received. The canonization of Metr. Peter was an event of immense political and religious significance for Moscow; here was buried the first native Russian metropolitan to be canonized by the patriarch of Constantinople, which indicated a special divine favor toward the new capital of Russia. In 1329, Metr. Theognost visited Novgorod, stayed for a while and returned to Moscow. After ordaining new bishops for Rostov, Suzdal and Tver in 1330 he departed for southern Russia, to the Volin region where he stayed through 1331. From Volin he traveled to Constantinople and then returned to Moscow, arriving in the fall of 1333. 99

History of Russian Christianity With the accession of a new khan after the death of Khan Uzbek in 1341, Metr. Theognost departed for Sarai in 1342 to acquire the approval of the new khan, Chanibek. This visit almost had serious disastrous consequences for the Russian Church. Certain feudal princes complained to the khan that Theognost was appropriating for himself large quantities of gold and silver and possessed an immense income, and that he should pay tribute to the khan just as they did. The calumny of the feudal princes can be understood: Theognost acquired funds to support the Church and pay its expenses and further its expansion — especially in Moscow — and was at the same time exempt from tribute to the khan just as other religions in areas of Mongol occupation. It is impossible to ascertain whether Theognost collected the funds by ethical or unethical means, although there seems to be a combination of both injustice — as the feudal princes viewed it — and justice in Theognost’s efforts to increase the financial security of the Russian Church. Khan Chanibek agreed with the feudal princes and changed the Mongol policy, now requiring an annual tribute from the Russian Church; this, of course, was immediately and adamantly refused by Theognost. Eventually the metropolitan, by way of gifts presented to the wife of the khan, was able to have the demand of tribute from the Russian Church rescinded. In addition to his trips to Novgorod, Volin and Constantinople, Metr. Theognost also visited Bransk in 1340; Novgorod a second time in 1341; and Volin and Galitzia again in 1348-1349, and Kostroma at about the same time. The accounts of his visit to Novgorod are not so complimentary. On Theognost’s second visit to Novgorod, he was accompanied by a large retinue and appropriated from the archbishop and monastery a considerable store of provisions, gifts and money for himself and for the members of his retinue. Prelates of Novgorod accused Metr. Theognost of funneling the money to Moscow to finance the construction of new stone churches. This requirement of a contribution to the metropolitan later evolved into an annual tribute during his visits to the diocesan capitals. In 1353, just prior to the death of Theognost, archbishop Moisei of Novgorod sent letters to both the emperor and patriarch of Constantinople with complaints about Theognost, referring to coercion on his part. The accounts are not specific but they deal with tribute required from clergy and with the ordination costs of arch-priests. Constantinople made no response prior to Theognost’s death, but during the cathedra of his successor Metr. Aleksei, a response was received. Theognost’s visit to Kostroma concluded with the necessity of a local council. Strife had surfaced between the bishop of Ryazan and the bishop of 100

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation Sarai, the capital of the Golden Horde, regarding the boundaries of their dioceses. Ryazan was an older diocese and had developed a large Orthodox population compared to the new diocese of Sarai. No doubt the bishop of Sarai attempted to increase the size of his diocese by allocating some of the region of Ryazan. The records do not state the results of the council. Metr. Theognost died March 11, 1353 of the Black Plague which entered Russia from Europe. He was buried in the Church of St. Peter in Moscow, which was built by Theognost alongside Uspenski Cathedral.

29. METROPOLITAN ALEKSEI Aleksei was born Simeon Elevtherie and was son of nobleman Theodor Byakont, a descendant of an aristocratic family of Kievan Russia. The family lost all their property with the Mongol destruction of Chernigov. They migrated to Moscow to the service of Daniel Alexandrovich, son of Alexandr Nevski, who accepted Theodor as one of his nobles. Simeon Elevtheria was their eldest son and Pr. Ivan Danilovich of Moscow was his god-father. In his early years he received the best education available and was an avid reader. At about age 20 or 21, Simeon Elevtherie decided to enter the monastic life and took the name of Aleksei at his tonsure; he entered Bogoyavlenski Monastery in Moscow. At the age of 27 he was approached by Metr. Theognost and his godfather Pr. Ivan, with the intent of making him successor to Theognost after his death. Both metropolitan and prince wanted to keep the cathedra in Moscow, which an outsider might not be willing to do. With the death of Pr. Ivan in 1340, his son Semeon Ivanovich inherited the post of grand prince of Moscow; he immediately promoted Aleksei to the position of vicar to the metropolitan to assure his residency in Moscow until Theognost’s death. In this newly-created post of vicar, Aleksei was a type of circuit judge for the scattered Orthodox parishes for the next twelve years. In 1350, when Theognost became ill, Gr. Pr. Semeon sent a delegation to the emperor and patriarch at Constantinople with a petition that in case of the sudden and unexpected death of Theognost, a candidate from Moscow should be ordained as metropolitan, rather than a Greek. The hierarchy at Constantinople realized that Semeon would not be as easy to deal with as his father Ivan Money-bag, so they granted the request. Semeon was dubbed The Proud, because of his arrogant and obstinate character.

101

History of Russian Christianity Metr. Theognost died March 11, 1353; Gr. Pr. Semeon died the following month, April 26, both of the Black Plague. Ivan II Ivanovich, brother of Semeon, inherited the principality of Moscow. The delegation from Constantinople arrived in Moscow shortly after the two deaths and Aleksei immediately departed for Constantinople for his ordination. Arriving at Constantinople, Aleksei was not immediately ordained but was placed on one year probation by Patr. Callistis. Apparently the patriarch resented having to ordain a Russian metropolitan to suit the arrogance and demands of a Russian prince who recently had died of the plague. Patr. Callistis died, himself, the following April, before the expiration of the probation period. After one year of fulfilling liturgies and rites under surveillance of the patriarch, including the presentation of many expensive gifts and donations of considerable money as contributions to the patriarchate, Aleksei was ordained metropolitan of all Russia on June 30, 1354 by the new patriarch Philotheos. One of the demands made by the patriarch and to which Aleksei had to concede, in order to secure the appointment of a native Russian as metropolitan, was that Aleksei travel to Constantinople and appear in person before the patriarch every two years and give an account of his activities. One concession the patriarch allowed was to permit Aleksei’s vicar or legate to attend in his place if ill health made the metropolitan unfit to travel personally. Obviously there was a concern for keeping Aleksei under subjection to Constantinople, lest he become too independent and distance himself further from the capital of Eastern Orthodoxy. However, over the 24 years of the cathedra of Metr. Aleksei, he only traveled once to Constantinople, and there is no evidence that he ever sent an agent to represent him. While he was in Constantinople, Aleksei was informed of Novgorod prelates’ complaint against the late Metr. Theognost. By the time Aleksei arrived at Constantinople, the delegates had already left for Novgorod, possessing an edict in their favor from the patriarch condemning Theognost and allowing the clergy of Novgorod to wear the chasuble engraved with a four-post cross. Aleksei set the matter straight with the patriarch, explaining to him the accurate details of their complaint against the late Metr. Theognost and their reason for coming to Constantinople. Patr. Philotheos issued a new edict with ordering the Novgorod clergy to subject themselves in matters of belief and rite to the metropolitan and not to contact the patriarch without the prior knowledge and consensus of Metr. Aleksei. Metr. Theognost was vindicated in this newest edict and Archbishop Moisei was ordered not to wear the four-post cross. Prior to his departure from Constantinople in 1355, Metr. Aleksei requested that the patriarchal synod canonically approve the relocation of the residence 102

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation and cathedra of the metropolitan of Russia from Kiev to Vladimir. In recognition of the devastation of Kiev and its recent failure to rise from the rubble, the council formally approved Vladimir as the new cathedra of the metropolitan of all Russia. The Greeks however were not unaware that Aleksei’s actual residence and cathedra were in Moscow, as Theognost’s had been, and as far back as Metr. Peter. But because Aleksei was a native Russian, this was as great a concession as the council could allow. As a result of Metr. Aleksei’s close proximity to the Moscovite dynasty, his living in Moscow and enjoying the patronage of the grand prince, he became very active in state affairs. Prior to his death in 1353, Gr. Pr. Semeon Ivanovich enjoined his brothers Ivan and Andrei to be obedient to the new metropolitan. During the weak rule of Gr. Pr. Ivan II Ivanovich, 1353-1359, Metr. Aleksei took advantage of this testament and acquired considerable state authority in the principality of Moscow; and after the death of Gr. Pr. Ivan in 1359 he became regent over his son, the nine-year-old heir Dmitri Ivanovich. Using his combined state and sacerdotal authority, plus being a native Russian, Metr. Aleksei became a zealous promoter of the interests of Moscovite Russia. At his death, Gr. Pr. Ivan Ivanovich not only left his son Dmitri under Metr. Aleksei’s guardianship but the entire principality, until the son should reach maturity. The greatest challenge to Metr. Aleksei during this period was an attempted usurpation by Pr. Dmitri Konstantinovich of Suzdal in 1360. Intervention by Metr. Aleksei and other Moscovite nobles and their plea to the Khan Naurus at Sarai established young Dmitri Ivanovich (later to be known as Dmitri Donskoi) as grand prince. One specific incident was resolved by the use of armed force by Metr. Aleksei in 1365. A struggle erupted between the brothers Dmitri and Boris Konstantinovich, regarding the city Nizhni-Novgorod (recently known as Gorki), each one claiming that the city belonged to his feudal estate. To resolve the issue quickly, Metr. Aleksei incorporated the city into the domain of the metropolitan and Pr. Boris was reprimanded and ordered to appear in Moscow for reconciliation with his brother Pr. Dmitri. Boris refused. The venerable Sergei of Radonezh placed an interdict upon the city of Nizhni-Novgorod and closed all the churches. Boris still refused to subject himself to the dictates of Metr. Aleksei; the latter sent a Moscow battalion to arrest Pr. Boris, thus putting the city back into the hands of his brother Pr. Dmitri. Devoted to the future majesty of the city of Moscow, Metr. Aleksei beautified it with the construction of new churches. As a career monk, he built six monasteries in his diocese, three of them in Moscow: Spasski-Andronikov 103

History of Russian Christianity and Chudovski (Miracle) Monasteries, and Alekseevski Convent, the first one in Moscow. Two of Metr. Aleksei’s sisters were nuns; he built the convent for them and named it after himself. One of Aleksei’s great contributions to Russian Orthodox scholarship is his personal translation of the New Testament from Greek into Old Russian. That Metr. Aleksei could accomplish such a task is surely due to the fact that he had spent twelve years as vice-regent or vicar under Metr. Theognost, a Greek, plus a year at Constantinople, where he no doubt developed a fluency in Greek. His years as a monk also conditioned him with the ability to study in a cloister. Metr. Aleksei had one of the longest lives of any Russian prelate, somewhere between 80 and 85 years. In his later years Aleksei expressed a wish to see the venerable Sergei of Radonezh installed after him in the metropolitan’s cathedra, but the humble monk refused to accept the honor. In any case, Pr. Dmitri Ivanovich (1362-1389), whom Metr. Aleksei had raised from the age of nine, had a court favorite in mind as the next metropolitan of all Russia. Metr. Aleksei died February 12, 1378 after 20 years as metropolitan and was buried inside Chudovski Monastery, which he built himself. Fierce rivalry for the cathedra of all Russia intensified during the ordination of Aleksei, worse than at any other time during Kievan or Moscovite Russia. Simultaneously with Aleksei, in 1354, Roman was ordained metropolitan of Lithuania-Galitzia. Roman held this cathedra until his death at the end of 1361. During this period he and Pr. Olgerd of Lithuania — which included Galitzia and Volin — fought Metr. Aleksei for recognition and for greater control of the region. After Metr. Roman’s death, Pr. Olgerd was unable to persuade Patr. Philotheos of Constantinople ordain a new metropolitan for him because the regions under his jurisdiction had been incorporated in 1364 into the cathedra of Russia’s metropolitan, Aleksei. Pr. Olgerd refused to accept his archenemy as metropolitan over the dioceses in his domain and persistently pressured the patriarch. His efforts failed, however, and he was left with an irreconcilable contempt for Metr. Aleksei. Toward the end of 1370, Pr. Olgerd staged an attack against Moscow, which was unsuccessful. But then, in 1371, Olgerd’s daughter was given in marriage to Pr. Vladimir Andreevich, a first cousin to Gr. Pr. Dmitri Ivanovich of Moscow. For a while, Olgerd rescinded his demands. In 1370, nine years after Roman’s death, Kazimir of Poland, having appropriated the regions of Galitzia and Volin, turned to Patr. Philotheos to request a metropolitan for these regions. King Kazimir discredited Metr. Aleksei for his negligence of the area while he resided far away in northern Russia, and 104

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation also threatened the patriarch, saying that if he did not ordain a special metropolitan Kazimir would convert his realm to Catholicism, that is, to Unia. One reason for that, obviously, was political: if a Moscovite metropolitan had control of religious affairs in these regions, then political control would be next. Olgerd and Kazimir wanted both religious and political control over their realms, independent of Russia. Patr. Philotheos capitulated to the demands of King Kazimir and ordained a candidate selected by Kazimir, Bishop Antonius, in May 1371 — but as metropolitan of Galitzia only, and not of Lithuania! Metr. Aleksei was informed of this ordination by a letter from Patr. Philotheos. Pr. Olgerd renewed his demand to Patr. Philotheos in 1373 for a metropolitan for Lithuania, and Constantinople sent an emissary to Moscow to reconcile the feuding factions. This legate was Kiprian, a hieromonk. Olgerd and Kiprian conspired to have the latter become metropolitan in place of Aleksei. In his report to Patr. Philotheos, Kiprian lodged grave accusations against Aleksei, accusations so damning that no one could wish to see such a person as supreme representative of Orthodoxy in Russia, except for his patron the grand prince of Russia. Finally capitulating to Pr. Olgerd, Patr. Philotheos ordained Kiprian as metropolitan of Lithuania on December 2, 1375. Immediately, Kiprian also claimed the cathedra of Kiev, Moscow and all Russia, and sent letters to Moscow to that effect. To counteract this audacious move, Patr. Philotheos of Constantinople sent another legate to Moscow to verify the charges brought by Kiprian against Metr. Aleksei. All the Russian prelates rallied behind Aleksei and the legate reported to the patriarch that the charges had been nothing but slander. Kiprian’s maneuvering led Metr. Aleksei and Gr. Pr. Dmitri to select a candidate as a successor to the cathedra before Aleksei’s death, lest Kiprian make another attempt; but even so, Kiprian did attempt once again to usurp the cathedra a few years later.

30. ARCHIMANDRITE MIKHAIL AND THE PATRIARCHAL INTERVAL The death of Metr. Aleksei initiated a 12-year interval in the occupation of the cathedra of all Russia. The saga of priest Mikhail was short, and saturated with the political machinations of the religious hierarchy of Orthodoxy, of Moscow as well as Constantinople and Suzdal. Mikhail, whose nickname was Mityai, was from Kolomensk province and was the son of a priest. He was an extraordinary person, tall, with wide shoulders and a robust physique, handsome, wearing a long, thick beard; highly educated and scholarly, yet able to 105

History of Russian Christianity engage in light conversation; he expressed himself eloquently and had a powerful memory. Mikhail in addition possessed an excellent singing voice and was a talented public speaker. The chronicler of Mikhail’s life could not find enough words to compliment his competence and character. Such exceptional qualities caught the attention of Gr. Pr. Dmitri Ivanovich, who immediately attached Mikhail to himself. For all practical purposes, Mikhail became the court favorite and Pr. Dmitri’s right-hand man, assisting him in every area of state administration. Two years prior to the death of Metr. Aleksei, a vacancy occurred in the post of archimandrite of the royal Spasski Monastery. Dmitri urged Mikhail to be tonsured and accept the vocation of a monk in order to be promoted to the new position. After some consideration, Mikhail agreed and on the very day that he was tonsured, he was assigned to fill the vacant position of archimandrite of Spasski Monastery. Gr. Pr. Dmitri’s longterm plan was for Mikhail to assume the cathedra after Metr. Aleksei’s death. Initially, Metr. Aleksei preferred to have Sergei of Radonezh succeed him; he was the most venerated ascetic in all of Russia at the time. To justify his choice, Aleksei cited the text of 1 Tim 3:16, which states that a bishop should not be a recent convert — referring to the fact that Mikhail had only recently accepted tonsure. However, after Sergei declined the offer, Metr. Aleksei wholeheartedly advocated Mikhail as his successor. All would have gone well if not for Metr. Kiprian of Lithuania, who was now residing in Kiev and just waiting for Metr. Aleksei to die so that he could step into the vacancy. Kiprian well knew the Moscovites’ contempt toward him, and especially the royal family and hierarchy, but this was not to interfere with Kiprian’s aspirations. Immediately after Metr. Aleksei passed away on February 12, 1378, with the counsel and approval of his nobles Gr. Pr. Dmitri promoted Mikhail to the interim position of metropolitan-elect, or designee, until such time that he could officially be ordained in Constantinople. Patr. Makarius, the successor of Patr. Philotheos, also sent a letter to Moscow (in response to a request sent earlier by Gr. Pr. Dmitri), advising Constantinople not to acknowledge Kiprian as metropolitan of Russia under any circumstance. To the chagrin of Kiprian, the response supported Dmitri’s request that Mikhail succeed Metr. Aleksei. Kiprian accused Pr. Dmitri of violating canonical law by installing Mikhail as metropolitan without ordination by the patriarch, while he, Kiprian, possessed this ordination. Between June 3 and 23, 1378, four months after the death of Metr. Aleksei, Kiprian arrived in Moscow. He declared his right to the position, stating that his ordination as metropolitan of Lithuania extended to Kiev and thereby included 106

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation all Russia. Gr. Pr. Dmitri had Kiprian arrested and incarcerated. After some short term of imprisonment, Kiprian was expelled from Moscow; he journeyed to Constantinople, hoping for the patriarch’s support in his accession to the cathedra of all Russia. Only one of the bishops in Moscovite Russia expressed disapproval of the interim designee, Mikhail. That was Bishop Dionysei of Suzdal diocese, who had himself a secret aspiration for the cathedra of all Russia. Born in NizhniNovgorod, and named David, he took the new name Dionysei at his tonsure. In imitation of the cave dwellers of Kiev, he dug for himself a hovel about two miles from the city along the Volga River and lived there as an ascetic. In about 1335, he was able to gather enough disciples about himself to found a monastery, which he named the Voznesenie Gospodnya (Ascension of the Lord). In 1374, Dionysius was ordained as bishop of Suzdal by Metr. Aleksei; he was well-favored by Andrei Konstantinovich, feudal prince of Suzdal and Nizhni-Novgorod. Since the local city Vladimir was in the diocese of Suzdal and in earlier years had been the cathedra of the metropolitan, and the title as defined by Constantinople was that of metropolitan of Vladimir and all Russia, Dionysei concluded that he should be the legitimate successor to Metr. Aleksei. Since Mikhail had been fulfilling the obligations of the post since his designation, including wearing the robes and mantle, Dionysei labeled him a usurper, engendering a bitter conflict. The only exception in Mikhail’s assumption of the duties of metropolitan over the Russian Church, since he was still designee, was the ordination of others, that is, the imposition of hands. After some interval elapsed, possibly waiting for spring when travel would again be possible, in 1379 Mikhail began to prepare to go to Constantinople. But then he came up with a better idea and suggested to Gr. Pr. Dmitri that if two or three bishops could ordain another bishop, as recorded in the canons, then five or six bishops could ordain a metropolitan (namely, him). The emperor in Constantinople was in a pitiable, destitute state under Ottoman rule and was desperately in need of financial support; the patriarch was likewise in a low moral condition and likewise financially destitute. Mikhail may have considered the emperor of Constantinople of lower status than the Moscovite grand prince in terms of realm and authority, and he considered himself as having a more stable character and being in control of a larger Church than Patr. Makarius. Gr. Pr. Dmitri and his nobles approved Mikhail’s idea and summoned their bishops to Moscow. But Bishop Dionysei of Suzdal disapproved: he certainly harbored ill feelings toward Mikhail and still aspired to the cathedra, himself. Dionysei vehemently protested against installing Mikhail, stating that their 107

History of Russian Christianity attempt to ordain a metropolitan was uncanonical. In the process, he agitated Gr. Pr. Dmitri. This suppressed enmity between Mikhail and Dionysei surfaced in a heated argument at the council. The prince had no choice at the conclusion of the council except to rescind his decision and Mikhail agreed to travel to Constantinople for ordination. That hardly settled the matter, as Bishop Dionysei himself made arrangements to travel to Constantinople and there to attempt to acquire the cathedra for himself. Dionysei had earlier written a letter discrediting Mikhail to Patr. Makarius and the patriarch had responded with an invitation to Dionysei to visit him at Constantinople, hoping that with three aspirants he could auction off the cathedra of all Russia to the highest bidder. But Gr. Pr. Dmitri had Dionysei arrested before he could leave Moscow. After a short imprisonment, Dionysei promised Dmitri that he would return to Suzdal and abandon his aspirations for the cathedra. The prince released him. Dionysei returned to Suzdal, but soon thereafter made his way to Nizhni-Novgorod and after a short stay left, following the Volga River south on his way to Constantinople. Mikhail left Moscow for Constantinople on July 20, 1379, with three prelates as traveling companions. He journeyed first to Kolomna, his home city, then to Ryazan and across the steppes to Sarai, the capital of the Golden Horde. Khan Mamai detained Mikhail for a short while, also issuing him a letter approving his succession to the cathedra. Arriving at the northeastern shore of the Black Sea, Mikhail took a ship for the balance of the journey. As the ship drew near to the Bosphorus, with Constantinople already in view in the distance, Mikhail suddenly became ill and unexpectedly died. The ship arrived at Constantinople with a deceased Mikhail on board. He was buried at Constantinople.

31. METROPOLITAN PIMEN With the death of archimandrite Mikhail, it seemed that nothing remained for his traveling companions except to return to Moscow empty-handed and with news of his death. The three companions devised a plan to salvage their situation by having one of them ordained as metropolitan, instead. These three were all dedicated archimandrites of prominent monasteries in Russia: John of Moscow Petrovski, Pimen of Pereyaslav Goritzki, and Martinian of an unnamed monastery in Kolomensk. Some debate arose and sides were taken among themselves and other Orthodox clergy who were part of the retinue; Pimen was 108

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation selected with the majority vote. The embassy had in their possession some letterhead paper from Gr. Pr. Dmitri Ivanovich and they composed a letter in the name of the grand prince requesting that the patriarch ordain Pimen as metropolitan. The successor of Patr. Makarius was Patr. Nilus, and he feigned acceptance of the forged document as authentic and, fulfilling the spurious request, ordained Pimen. Patr. Nilus was not unaware of the deception, the valuable gifts and sizeable monetary contribution from the delegates, in value of over 20,000 rubles in silver at the time, rendered it palatable. Meanwhile, Metr. Kiprian was also traveling to Constantinople, hoping to be ordained as metropolitan of all Russia (as he had attempted earlier). Dionysei, bishop of Suzdal, was also residing in Constantinople at the time, hoping to win the cathedra, but neither of these two had the kind of financial backing enjoyed by the delegates who had arrived with Mikhail. The delegates surmised that having one of their own ordained during their sojourn at Constantinople was their only good chance to thwart the pretensions of Kiprian and Dionysei. Kiprian utterly failed in his quest and returned to Kiev, while Dionysei was at least elevated to archbishop. Pimen, arriving late August or September 1379, was ordained in June 1380 after a 10-month residence in Constantinople. During this interim Patr. Makarius was deposed and Patr. Nilus was ordained in his stead. Gr. Pr. Dmitri Ivanovich received no immediate news of Mikhail’s death; it is not clear why, except perhaps for his preoccupation with military preparations. The great battle of Kulikova against the Mongol hordes under Khan Mamai occurred September 8, 1380. However, after the battle and the prince’s return to Moscow, he did receive news of Mikhail’s death and of the conspiracy among the retinue, and the ordination of Pimen that had been accomplished without his knowledge or approval. Gr. Pr. Dmitri became infuriated and swore not to accept Pimen as metropolitan. The details and motivations cannot be fully reconstructed, but Kiprian seems to have acquired the favor of Gr. Pr. Dmitri again after returning from Constantinople, or else Dmitri was simply desperate for some resolution and refused to reconcile himself to having Pimen as metropolitan; in any case, in March 1381 Gr. Pr. Dmitri sent his confessor, Theodor, abbot of Moscow Semeonov Monastery, to summon Kiprian (who was residing at Kiev). Kiprian arrived in Moscow May 23, 1381 on the holiday of the Ascension and was received as metropolitan of all Russia by Gr. Pr. Dmitri. Seven months after Kiprian’s return to Moscow, in December 1381 Pimen arrived at the borders of Russia from Constantinople. As he entered a city on the 109

History of Russian Christianity boundary of the principality of Kolomensk, Gr. Pr. Dmitri Ivanovich had him arrested by a detachment of soldiers. Moscow was circumvented entirely and Pimen was sent directly into exile to the city Chukhlom, in the Kostroma region, while his retinue of advisors and guards and those who were part of the conspiracy of his ordination and his other traveling companions were sent to various prisons, in shackles. It would appear that the history of Pimen as metropolitan would terminate at this point, with Kiprian accepted as metropolitan by Pr. Dmitri. But Pimen was only in exile, and the enormous sums Pimen had contributed to Patr. Nilus for his ordination now rescued him. Having heard that instead of ascending the cathedra Pimen was incarcerated, and wanting to retain this generous ally in a position of power, Patr. Nilus hurled interdicts at Pr. Dmitri. Patr. Nilus blamed Kiprian for the entire affair, while at the same time interceding on behalf of Pimen. As a result of this intervention, Pr. Dmitri banished Kiprian from Moscow and freed Pimen, elevating him to the cathedra, even though his personal feelings were unchanged. Another event that contribud to this change of course was the following. In August of 1382, the Mongols under the new Khan Tokhtamish attacked Moscow. Pr. Dmitri wanted to fight the Mongols, just as he had done at Kulikova, but his nobles and feudal princes were opposed. The Russian military forces had been decimated by the intense battle of Kulikova two years earlier and there were barely sufficient soldiers to defend Moscow, much less mount an attack. As a result, Gr. Pr. Dmitri and his remaining troops retreated from Moscow north to Pereyaslav and then to Kostroma. When the Mongols reached the walls of the city, abandoned by its rulers, the residents were perplexed: should they fight, or surrender? Kiprian had also abandoned the city, relocating to Tver for safety. Kiprian’s flight from the threatened Moscow served as sufficient reason for Dmitri to unleash his anger and discontent at him. Kiprian was banished from Moscow on October 7, 1382, after 16 months as metropolitan; he returned to Kiev, while Pimen was simultaneously released from exile and moved to Tver, awaiting the withdrawal of the Mongols. Dionysei, now archbishop of Suzdal, remained in Constantinople some three and a half years, until January 1383, when he returned to Russia. In Constantinople he was content with his new title, apparently bestowed upon him as a consolation prize after losing the cathedra of all Russia to Pimen. Now, returning to Moscow, Archbishop Dionysei proceeded to stir up Gr. Pr. Dmitri against Metr. Pimen: he was able to turn Dmitri against Pimen and in the following year, in June 1384, Dmitri sent Dionysei to Constantinople together with his confessor Theodor, abbot of Moscow Semeonov Monastery, in order to 110

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation request the dismissal of Pimen and the ordination of Dionysei in his stead. There is no doubt that Patr. Nilus was well aware of the illegitimacy and spuriousness of Pimen’s candidature from the start, but with formal indictments presented to him from the grand prince, now the patriarch could only claim ignorance of the conspiracy and disavow Pimen, that is, sacrifice Pimen to save himself. And this is exactly what Patr. Nilus did: he discussed the matter with his council, stating that if the accusations brought against Pimen were valid, then he should be deposed from his cathedra. Patr. Nilus then sent two Greek metropolitans with a retinue of officials to Moscow, there to hear the accusations from the grand prince himself and, if they found them valid, to depose Pimen and elevate Dionysei in his place. Dionysei would travel with them from Constantinople to Moscow. Patr. Nilus would not ordain Dionysei beforehand, in Constantinople, because he still hoped to reconcile prince and metropolitan in Moscow through the efforts of his delegates; and Patr. Nilus did not trust Dionysei to begin with. He suspected him of being a charlatan, of using what he felt were forged letters in the name of Gr. Pr. Dmitri to acquire the cathedra of all Russia. Nilus trusted Pimen more, even though he had ordained him on the basis of a patently fake letter from the grand prince. Now, such an event would be unprecedented in Russia history: the deposition of a metropolitan and ordination of another by two Greek metropolitans in the role of delegates. But such did not occur. In late autumn of 1384, Patr. Nilus’ delegates arrived in Moscow, but they were not accompanied by the aspirant to the cathedra. For some reason, archbishop Dionysei detached himself from his companions and went to Kiev, there to meet with Kiprian, his former contender for the cathedra. Kiprian seized his opportunity and had Dionysei arrested and imprisoned by the soldiers of Pr. Vladimir Olgerdovich of Kiev, son of Pr. Olgerd of Lithuania. After about a year in a Kiev prison, Dionysei died on October 15, 1385. While abbot Theodor, the confessor of the grand prince, was in Constantinople, Patr. Nilus granted him the title of archimandrite and his Semeonov Monastery became part of the patriarchal domain, rather than diocesan. Only Theodor returned to Moscow from Constantinople having advanced his cause. Even after Dionysei was arrested in Kiev, Gr. Pr. Dmitri Ivanovich refused reconciliation with Pimen. The circumstances regarding Dionysei left Dmitri with a distaste for even Kiprian. Now, the patriarch’s two delegates remained in Moscow with no one to ordain, which left Dmitri perplexed and distraught. Leaving the two patriarchal delegates in Moscow, under the hospitality of 111

History of Russian Christianity Dmitri, Pimen departed for Constantinople in May of 1385 to meet again with the patriarch, hoping for his reconsideration and a confirmation of his right to the cathedra of all Russia. But Pimen was not alone in his quest, as Kiprian also returned to Constantinople, arriving shortly after Pimen. The patriarch proposed a hearing before a council to decide which of the two contenders, Pimen or Kiprian, should be confirmed, even though under the circumstances Gr. Pr. Dmitri did not care to have either one. The patriarch’s decision was not quick in coming, but extended almost three years into 1388. His procrastination in deciding between the two candidates bewildered the grand prince as well as the contenders. The patriarch’s two delegates finally returned to Constantinople after three years in Moscow, not understanding the reason for their long-term residence as expatriates. Shortly after their return to Constantinople, Gr. Pr. Dmitri again dispatched his confessor Theodor, now archimandrite, to the patriarch demanding the deposition of Pimen. Theodor brought letters from the grand prince explaining Pimen’s culpability in the matter of forging a document in the name of the grand prince in order to acquire ordination as metropolitan. At first, Theodor acted as though he was an ardent prosecutor of Pimen, defending the interests of Dmitri; but later, in 1389, as the inquest finally began to decide on one of the two contenders, Theodor changed his attitude toward Pimen. The two reconciled and made a pact between themselves: they then fled Constantinople to Anatolia — central Turkey — to the Ottoman Empire. They found support among the subjects of the sultan and hurled denunciations against both the Byzantine emperor and the Orthodox patriarch. Their conduct can be easily understood, considering that almost the entire Byzantine empire was under Ottoman control and that the emperor in Constantinople had little or no authority; and they were for the most part subjects of the Turkish sultan. On that basis, Pimen realized that his chance of acquittal was marginal, with the evidence and proceedings inclined toward Kiprian, and second, he hoped for support from Ottomans, who could pressure the patriarch for his — Pimen’s — confirmation as metropolitan. The sultan at this time was residing in Adrianopol, in Europe, and not in Turkey. A message was sent to Pimen from both emperor and patriarch urging him to return to Constantinople to complete the proceedings of the inquest, but Pimen refused. As a result, the patriarch deposed him in absentia and elevated Kiprian to the cathedra of all Russia. This final decision occurred late 1387 or early 1388, but the conflict and the scheming did not conclude here.

112

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation Pimen arrived in Moscow from Turkey May 6, 1388; Kiprian was still residing in Constantinople, attempting to devise a means of reconciling with Gr. Pr. Dmitri on his return to Moscow, after having incarcerated and eventually killed Dionysei. The grand prince welcomed Pimen back to Moscow after his four-year absence, and Pimen presented himself as legitimate metropolitan. No one told Dmitri that he had been removed from the cathedra. Theodor also returned to Russian from Turkey, now elevated by Pimen to bishop to Rostov; he conspired with Pimen to deceive Dmitri regarding the proceedings at Constantinople. Under such circumstances Pimen stayed in Moscow from June 1388 until April 13, 1389, when he prepared to go to Constantinople once again. Gr. Pr. Dmitri could not understand the need for such a trip so soon after a fouryear absence, and voiced his displeasure at the new journey. But in the interim, there had been a change in patriarchs: Nilus passed away and Antonius was elevated in January of 1389. Perhaps Pimen was afraid that eventually his deception would be disclosed, and so he included in his luggage an impressive array of gifts for the new patriarch. The following month, Patr. Antonius summoned a new ecclesiastical council to review the affairs of the Russian cathedra, with Kiprian still residing in Constantinople. The new council confirmed the decision made by the late Patr. Nilus: Pimen was deposed and Kiprian was confirmed. There is no indication in any of the accounts whether Pimen was ever made aware of the results of the new council. When Pimen arrived in the vicinity of Constantinople, he ended his journey at a local Turkish city located on the Bosphorus, and communicated from there with the new patriarch, through patriarchal agents. Then Pimen relocated to Chalcedon, and shortly thereafter he died, on September 11, 1389. Gr. Pr. Dmitri “Donskoi” Ivanovich himself died May 19, 1389, about a month after Pimen’s second departure for Constantinople. Vasili I Dmitrievich succeeded his father as grand prince of Moscow, and he agreed to accept Kiprian as legitimate metropolitan of Russia.

32. METROPOLITAN KIPRIAN Although some of the chroniclers identify Kiprian as a Serbian, he was actually a Bulgarian and closely related to several prelates in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The history of Kiprian up to the time of his final confirmation as metropolitan of Vladimir and all Russia, including Kiev and Lithuania, is 113

History of Russian Christianity discussed above; now we will review his record having attained the cathedra he so coveted. Archimandrite Theodor, now bishop of Rostov, was dispatched by the new grand prince Vasili I Dmitrievich to Constantinople to retrieve Kiprian and accompany him to Moscow. They departed Constantinople October 1, 1389, accompanied by two Russian bishops: Mikhail of Smolensk and Iona (Jonah) of Volin. They traveled by ship across the Black Sea, up the Dnepr River to Kiev; leaving Kiev February 14, 1390, Kiprian and his retinue arrived in Moscow during the fourth week of Lent. All the bishops of Russia appeared in his presence immediately after his arrival to formally express their recognition of him as legitimate metropolitan of all Russia. This convocation of bishops was intended to indicate a unity of support for Kiprian after the various machinations for the cathedra over the previous twelve years. The first issue that Metr. Kiprian had to contend with was Bishop Evthemie Vislem of Tver. The activities and conduct of the bishop had been the subject of many recent complaints by feudal prince Mikhail Aleksandrovich of Tver. Bishop Evthimie had been ordained back in 1374 by Metr. Aleksei, but friction between feudal prince and bishop became severe. By 1387, the prince could no longer tolerate the presence of the bishop and forced him to retire to a monastery. In June 1390, Metr. Kiprian journeyed to Tver to conduct an inquest. The bishop was accused of rebellion and inciting disorder, and much evidence was presented against him by local archimandrites, abbots, priests and monks, including nobles, landlords and even peasants. There was no way the bishop could justify himself or disprove all the accusations. Metr. Kiprian had hoped to reconcile prince and bishop, but under the weight of the testimony, plus the spite of so many persons against Bishop Evthimie, the metropolitan had no choice but to defrock the bishop and depose him. Metr. Kiprian then ordained as his replacement Arsenie, a proto-deacon who was nominated by Pr. Mikhail. The accounts do not specify the crimes or malicious conduct of Bishop Evthemei, except to say that they were of a sufficiently serious nature to merit his expulsion. Arsenie was ordained July 24, 1390 as bishop of Tver. A second matter that came up was an agreement made in 1385 by the nobles of Novgorod, stipulating that they would no longer summon the metropolitan’s court in Moscow to settle disputes in their region but would handle matters themselves. Novgorod had its own Episcopal court headed by the archbishop, which now would include two nobles and two townsmen. This new court would now handle all judicial and criminal matters in Novgorod, independent of Moscow, except for the most heinous of crimes. 114

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation Novgorod’s attitude towards Moscow — asserting its independence and liberty — was perennial and ancient, and they claimed that this latest maneuver was based on concessions made to them by Metr. Pimen. But in essence their actions were driven by the tribute that had to be paid the metropolitan every time he visited Novgorod. This tribute from every clergyman in Novgorod resulted in tens of thousands of rubles per year and while it also affected the other dioceses, Novgorod was hardest hit. As a large commercial center and a very wealthy city, it was a prime source of income for the cathedra of the metropolitan. Although in the past the metropolitan himself had not visited Novgorod or any of the other cities regularly, the tribute was collected through his agents on a monthly basis. In February 1392, Metr. Kiprian traveled to Novgorod. He was welcomed with all the honor due the head of the Church and conducted services over the next two weeks at various churches. On February 25, after conducting services at the cathedral of St. Sophia, Metr. Kiprian requested his monthly stipend or tribute, and the officials of Novgorod flatly refused him. Realizing the futility of pursuing the matter and knowing they would not capitulate to his demands, Kiprian left Novgorod three days later and returned to Moscow; he issued an interdict against the entire city of Novgorod, meaning, essentially, their excommunication. Kiprian sent delegates to the patriarch at Constantinople with his complaint against the residents of Novgorod, and the officials of Novgorod did likewise, hoping to acquire an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of their cause from the patriarch. The patriarch’s letters urging Novgorod to reconcile and subject itself to the metropolitan proved futile and Gr. Pr. Vasili I decided to intervene. During Lent of 1393, he sent his army against Novgorod and captured many of their cities for his own principality. Many of the residents were killed, and the rest soon surrendered. Two years later, in 1395, Kiprian again went to Novgorod and conducted services, and again requested his annual tribute; again, they flatly refused him. Force was not to be considered this time, because the grand prince was preoccupied with the threat of invasion and war with Tamerlame. The metropolitan’s attempts toward reconciliation were futile and he returned to Moscow empty-handed. Archbishop Ioann (John) of Novgorod was summoned to Moscow three times after Metr. Kiprian’s final visit, in 1396, 1397 and 1401, to answer for the actions of his flock. On the third occasion John was forced to resign his cathedra and was held in custody in Moscow for three years and four months. John, along with Bishop Savva of Lutz, was held at Chudovski

115

History of Russian Christianity Monastery in Moscow in a cell under guard. After his release he again assumed his cathedra and returned to Novgorod. One edict of note was issued in 1392 and confirmed again in 1404; it pertains to monastery patrimony. The edict was issued by Kiprian and authorized by Vasili I, to confirm the previous tradition of monasteries possessing land, property, villages and serfs, and that the cathedra of the metropolitan also had title to the same. In 1395, Tamerlane invaded southern Russia. He defeated the Mongol Khan Tokhtamish and proceeded north to Moscow. Tamerlane reached as far as the Don River in Ryazan province. Gr. Pr. Vasili heard that Tamerlame was preparing to invade northern Russia, especially Moscow, and to devastate the region, and so he gathered his military force and stationed it near Kolomna on the shore of the Oka River. According to a traditional account, rather than depending on his military he decided to turn to the intercession of the Immaculate Virgin. After consulting with the metropolitan and his nobles, Vasili required a fast and fervent prayer from all his troops. Simultaneously the miracle-working icon of the Theotokos was being moved from Vladimir to Uspenski Cathedral in Moscow. Orthodox clergy felt the icon would be safer in Moscow than in Vladimir. On the very day that the icon arrived in Moscow, August 26, 1395, Tamerlame and his forces retreated and began their trek out of Russia. As the icon was entering Moscow, Tamerlane, a long distance away, had an awesome and terrifying vision: a holy man descending from a high mountain with gold rods in his hands attacked him, and a woman dressed in scarlet hovered in the air above him, with a large army behind her. Tamerlane departed from Russia as a result of this apparition. Regardless of the distaste many Russian Orthodox clergy had for Greeks, the Russians remained charitable and assisted them in their poverty under the ongoing siege by the Ottoman Turks. During the reign of Gr. Pr. Vasili I, the entire Balkan peninsula and almost the entirety of the earlier Byzantine Empire was under Ottoman control, with the city of Constantinople almost the only remaining Greek territory in Asia. In 1390, Sultan Bayazid established a blockade of Constantinople for seven years. During the blockade, in 1395-1396, the emperor and patriarch sent delegates to Moscow to request financial aid. Both Metr. Kiprian and Gr. Pr. Vasili consented and an amount of 20,000 rubles in hard coin was transferred to them in 1398, after the blockade was lifted. The Ottomans instigated a second blockade of Constantinople in 1400 and the Greeks asked for help again, but there is no record as to whether the Russians responded a second time. 116

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation The greatest achievement of Metr. Kiprian was that of publishing new and better editions of books dealing with the liturgy, and standardizing the liturgy. In earlier years each church had its own liturgy, since books were difficult to acquire and not all the priests could read. As the quality of priest improved, the liturgies of John Chrysostom and Basil the Great were implemented, but even then, major variations existed church to church. The patriarch of Constantinople who was contemporary with the early years of Metr. Kiprian was Philotheos Kokkinos. He published a new service book to standardize the liturgy in the Greek Church and subsequently had it translated into Slavonic. Metr. Kiprian then reproduced this service book for use in Russia. Metr. Kiprian had his residence in the village of Golenischev, about two miles outside of Moscow, where he could escape the bustle of the city. There he died on September 16, 1406 after much political intrigue and 30 years as metropolitan between Russia and Lithuania.

33. METROPOLITAN FOTIUS After the death of Kiprian, Gr. Pr. Vasili I Dmitrievich, despite his animosity toward the Greeks, sent emissaries to the patriarch and emperor at Constantinople asking them to select and dispatch to Moscow a new metropolitan according to ancient tradition, that is, a Greek. War raged between Lithuania and Russia during that year and split the two countries along religious lines. Kiprian had been metropolitan of both countries, but the prince of Lithuania now demanded a metropolitan of his own, to include the region of Kiev, far from Russia and under the hegemony of Lithuania. Thus, coincident with the dispatch of emissaries by Gr. Pr. Vasili, Pr. Vitovt of Lithuania sent Archbishop Theodosius of Polotz, who was Greek by genealogy, to Constantinople as his candidate for metropolitan of Lithuania. The patriarch denied Vitovt his request and one metropolitan was ordained for the entirely of Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine, just as with Kiprian during his later years. Fotius was from Morea, in southern Greece. He entered a local monastery in his early years and was a disciple of Akakius, a popular and fervent ascetic who later became metropolitan of Monemvasi, the ancient area of Peloponnesus in southern Greece. Having joined the staff of Akakius as an official of his diocese, Fotius was sent on business to the patriarch at Constantinople by his elder and mentor and arrived at the court of the patriarch 117

History of Russian Christianity simultaneously with both the emissaries from Moscow and Vitovt’s candidate, Theodosius. Patr. Matfeius (Matthew) quite unexpectedly ordained Fotius as metropolitan of Russia, Kiev and Lithuania on September 1, 1408. The only information available regarding his qualifications for the cathedra indicate his scholarship and austerity, as recorded by a local monk. Fotius arrived in Kiev the following year, September 1, 1409, accompanied by emissaries of the emperor and the patriarch. Pr. Vitovt was in Kiev at the time and did not greet Fotius very ceremoniously, especially given that his candidate for the cathedra had been turned down. Fotius was able to reconcile with Vitovt, however, and he accepted him as metropolitan. For the next six months Fotius lived in Lithuania, but toward the end of this term the two began to quarrel over Fotius’ intention of journeying to Moscow. Still, on the eve of Easter Sunday, March 22, 1410, Fotius arrived in Moscow, with the same emissaries he had left Constantinople with. In his religious legacy Fotius states that his twenty-year cathedra of the Russian Church was a period of incessant sorrow, tears and weeping. He arrived in Moscow shortly after its devastation in 1408 by the Mongols; the first half of his cathedra was saturated with personal sorrows and during the second half Russia succumbed to plague and terrible famine. In Moscow Fotius indeed inherited a cathedra in a sorrowful condition. The patrimony of the metropolitan consisting of villages, farms and estates had been plundered and confiscated by local landlords, feudal princes and brigands. Apparently, after the death of Metr. Kiprian and subsequent attack by Mongols, these persons of authority took advantage of the weakness of the state of Russia and appropriated the patrimony of the metropolitan and decimated it. Serfs were removed and resettled in villages as part of the estates of these landlords and feudal princes. The four-year interval between the death of Metr. Kiprian and the arrival of Metr. Fotius provided a window of opportunity. One of the first items Fotius had to address was the reappropriation of land that had been illegally seized and the repopulation of the desolate villages. In retaliation, the accused landlords and princes proceeded to discredit and slander Fotius to Gr. Pr. Vasili in 1413. Fotius wrote letters defending himself and his activities to Gr. Pr. Vasili and requesting help in redeveloping the patrimony: real estate, serfs, and property. Metr. Fotius was successful, for the most part, in recovering the patrimony. Needless to say, he acquired many enemies along the way.

118

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation As mentioned above Moscow was attacked by Mongols in 1408 and again in 1411. Realizing the threat of this second attack, Fotius went to Vladimir, the ancient capital, and from there he moved further northeast to Senezhki, part of his patrimony, and hid there for four weeks until the Mongols retreated. Afterwards, Gr. Pr. Vasili I asked Fotius to come back to Moscow to consult with him regarding a matter of matrimony: the possibility of Anna, his daughter, marrying John, son of Byzantine emperor Manuel. The emperor considered the marriage of his eldest son and heir to the throne to the daughter of the Russian grand prince very desirable and advantageous. And, in Manuel’s view, Russia could not then refuse a request for aid, which Constantinople so desperately needed to defend against the Ottoman occupation of the Byzantine Empire. In 1411, with the consultation and blessing of Metr. Fotius, Gr. Pr. Vasili resolved to allow his daughter to marry the Greek heir and sent her to Constantinople. She was only ten years old. This relationship by marriage between Gr. Pr. Vasili I Dmitrievich and Emperor Manuel only lasted three years, as Princess Anna died in the Black Plague when it raged though Constantinople in 1414. The challenges confronting Metr. Fotius were not limited to his reacquisition of the cathedral patrimony, because the number of his enemies had now increased. Working together, the landlords and feudal princes were somehow able to turn the opinion of Gr. Pr. Vasili against Fotius. Scheming to take vengeance, a number of them journeyed to Lithuania to Pr. Vitovt and presented him with various calumnies and accusations against Metr. Fotius. Other nobles of Moscow, using agents in Lithuania, assisted them in striving for the deposition of Fotius. Their plot succeeded and Pr. Vitovt developed such malice against Metr. Fotius that he resolved to expel him as metropolitan of Lithuania and install someone else in his stead. The specific charge brought against Metr. Fotius by these landlords and feudal princes was that he had financially devastated Kiev — part of the jurisdiction of Lithuania — by overtaxing and demanding excess tribute, which he then funneled to Moscow. The truth of the matter was that Metr. Fotius was so involved with matters locally that he had exhibited a lack of concern for the western half of his cathedra. Along with the above charge, Vitovt accused Metr. Fotius of plundering the churches of Kiev of their wealth, artifacts and valuable icons and transferring everything to Moscow. In reality, Kiev had no wealth to speak of; it had never recovered from the Mongol devastations of 1240 and 1299 and the ongoing occupation by the Golden Horde. The landlords and feudal princes hoped that by making Metr. Fotius lose the western half of his cathedra, his 119

History of Russian Christianity authority in Moscow would be weakened, and once this was accomplished they would recover the church property they had lost to him. Vitovt demanded and acquired from prelates in Lithuania a statement that they felt the Kiev region was spiritually dormant and destitute as a result of its neglect and plunder by Metr. Fotius. Vitovt used this document to rid Kiev of all the clergy ordained by and aligned with Metr. Fotius. Vitovt also confiscated the entire church patrimony in Lithuania and Ukraine associated with the cathedra of Metr. Fotius: villages, farmland, serfs and other property. Metr. Fotius, discovering the extent to which his enemies had succeeded in arming Vitovt against him and the actions that he was now taking against him, resolved to travel to Lithuania to attempt to reconcile himself with the prince and thence travel on to Constantinople to the patriarch to thwart Vitovt’s attempt to have a new metropolitan installed over Lithuania. But when Metr. Fotius arrived in Lithuania, he was arrested by order of Vitovt, robbed of his personal property, and sent back to Moscow. Vitovt summoned his prelates and demanded from them another statement, further discrediting and denouncing Metr. Fotius and declaring that they could no longer accept him as their supreme primate. The candidate whom Vitovt selected as metropolitan of Kiev and Lithuania in lieu of Fotius was Grigori Tsamblak, an abbot. He was Bulgarian, a nephew of the late Metr. Kiprian, tonsured as a monk in Constantinople where he spent some time as a cleric on the patriarchal staff. Later he held positions as abbot of Dechansk Monastery in Serbia and minister of various churches in Moldova. Lately he had been abbot at Plinair Monastery in that region of Bulgaria close toward Constantinople. In earlier years, Tsamblak had accompanied his uncle Metr. Kiprian to Moscow and also to Vilna, in Lithuania, where he remained after his uncle’s death. The exact position that Tsamblak held between Metr. Kiprian’s death and his nomination by Vitovt is unknown. Sometime during the second half of 1414, Pr. Vitovt dispatched Tsamblak to Constantinople to be ordained as metropolitan. In order to convince the patriarch that Tsamblak’s ordination was for the benefit of the Lithuanian Church, and not as a means of accomplishing Vitovt’s personal vengeance on Fotius, Vitovt coerced his bishops into composing a statement addressed to the patriarch enumerating the various accusations against Fotius and, in conclusion, requesting that a new metropolitan — their candidate Tsamblak — be ordained. However, even though Vitovt was able to prevent Fotius himself from traveling to Constantinople, he was unable to stop Fotius’ agents, and through his agents Fotius was able to inform the patriarch of the plot against him. 120

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation Tsamblak was not ordained, and what is more, because of the upheaval he had caused in Constantinople, the patriarch had him defrocked and excommunicated. When Tsamblak returned to Lithuania with his notice of expulsion, Vitovt summoned his prelates and attempted to convince them to ordain Tsamblak without the involvement of the patriarch. The prelates, however, persuaded Vitovt to petition the patriarch at Constantinople a second time before proceeding with his intention. In March of 1415, a second delegation was dispatched to ask the patriarch to ordain a metropolitan especially for Lithuania. Vitovt waited until November of that year for a reply, but received none. Prelates of Lithuania, under orders of Vitovt, ordained Tsamblak as metropolitan November 15, 1415. Over the next four years, unrest prevailed in the Orthodox Church of both Lithuania and Russia. Lithuanian prelates issued statements justifying their ordination based on various canons and traditions of the Orthodox Church of Eastern Europe. These same prelates also found justification for not accepting a candidate ordained in Constantinople, accusing them of simony, of accepting gifts and bribes to ordain a person as metropolitan. Vitovt likewise issued a statement enumerating Metr. Fotius’ crimes against the Lithuanian Church as a justification for bullying his prelates into ordaining Tsamblak. Fotius himself was highly discontent over the matter and he dispatched a delegation to Constantinople to ask the patriarch to declare Tsamblak an illegitimate intruder into the cathedra, and requesting that Tsamblak be expelled and be declared anathema. All of this was to no avail, as no response or intervention by the patriarch was forthcoming. After four years as metropolitan of Lithuania and Kiev, Grigori Tsamblak died of unknown causes during the winter of 1419-1420. Shortly after his death, Metr. Fotius was again reconciled with Vitovt, who made no further effort to secure a special metropolitan for Lithuania. In all, Metr. Fotius held the cathedra over the Russian Church for 21 years and 10 months. He died July 1 or 2, 1431.

35. THE STRIGOLNIKS The chroniclers relate that in 1371 during the cathedra of Metr. Aleksei three men were convicted of being corruptors of the Orthodox religion and were executed. These were Nikita, a deacon, Karp, and a third person whose name has not been preserved. Former members of the Orthodox monastic clergy, they 121

History of Russian Christianity preached their convictions initially in Pskov and then moved to Novgorod. They were first admonished by Orthodox clergy in Novgorod, but they persisted, and so were excommunicated from the Church. Nonetheless they continued to preach their dissenting convictions. The three were thrown by a mob off a bridge into the waters of the Volkhov River to drown. The mob quoted the words of Jesus, in Matt 18:6, to justify their execution: drowning them in the depths of the sea rather than allowing them to lead any more astray. These three were the founders of the sectarian group which called themselves Strigolniks. The name is derived from the Russian word strigitz, meaning to shear or cut one’s hair. Some sources indicate that one of the founders was a barber; this may well have been, but the relevance of the appellation had to do with the fact that they cut their hair short and so did all adherents of their group. Orthodox clergy allowed their hair to grow long, in the tradition of the Biblical Nazarene (Numbers 5:6). The Strigolniks preferred to follow the tradition for men as advised by Apostle Paul, to wear the hair short (1 Cor 11:14). The source of Karp and Nikita’s teachings seems to have been a protopope of Novgorod named Seyit who taught about 40 years earlier, as mentioned above. Seyit rejected the existence of a paradise on earth and taught vehemently against monasticism, so persuasively that many monks abandoned the monasteries and married — no doubt including the three who ended up in the river. Bogomil influence in the region was a catalyst to the expansion of Strigolniks. Strigolniks abandoned Orthodoxy to start their own persuasion not because they rejected any dogmas of the Church or its confession of faith, but because they no longer wanted to be in fellowship with the balance of Orthodox clergy. Strigolniks felt that all prelates and priests were ordained as a result of simony or bribery, and for that reason they did not consider their consecration genuine. The Strigolniks concluded that the liturgy now performed by Orthodox clergy was ineffective and that any sacrament accepted from them was worthless. The second contention of the Strigolniks was that Orthodox clergy led a life unworthy of their vocation. They accused their contemporary priests and monks of greed: acquisition of wealth and prosperity through extortion from peasants and even from the dead by charging relatives for funerals and requiems. Strigolniks also charged the Orthodox clergy with alcoholism and disorderly conduct while associating with people sharing the same vice. Because of this promiscuity, the Strigolniks referred to the Orthodox clergy as the actual heretics, maintaining that they were separating from the Church with the intent 122

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation of preserving the true piety of orthodox clericalism. Having separated from the established priesthood, Strigolniks ordained their own ministers to perform services and sacraments, claiming that Apostle Paul authorized plain and simple people to teach. The Strigolniks gave up the practice of confession, but in lieu of this they kneeled with their faces to the floor while a minister recited prayers over them. Although some sources indicate that Strigolniks rejected prayer for the dead, it was not the requiem which they denied but the priests’ extortion of fees for the sacrament of last rites, funerals and requiems. Strigolniks taught that the mercy of God could not be purchased. Nikita and Karp’s convictions spread after their death and in 1383 a reprimand was delivered by Patr. Nilus of Constantinople against Strigolniks in Novgorod and Pskov. Metr. Fotius discovered the existence of Strigolniks about five or six years after his accession to his cathedra. He wrote a letter dated September 23, 1416 to officials, priests and all Christians in Pskov, reprimanding Strigolniks and admonishing the clergy to return them to the true path — Orthodoxy; and if they were unable to do so, then to excommunicate the dissenters so they would no longer be tares growing among the wheat. This letter was ineffective, since the Strigolniks had already long since separated and distanced themselves from the Orthodox clergy; however, some clergy in Pskov did proceed to seek out and arrest Strigolniks, imprisoning some. Others fled, once they saw the beginnings of persecution. Metr. Fotius wrote a second letter against the Strigolniks on July 22, 1427, eleven years later. He labeled them rebellious and said they were caught in the snares of the devil. The Orthodox clergy of Pskov again arrested Strigolniks and subjected them to imprisonment and corporal punishment. The clergy reported back to Metr. Fotius that when they apprehended Strigolniks they, in their obstinacy, looked to heaven and called upon God their Father, and that they persisted in their convictions. Metr. Fotius delivered his response in a letter dated September 23, 1427, where he further prevailed on them to utilize both corporal punishment and incarceration, but not capital punishment. Although Strigolniks were not directly executed — except in the case of the initial propagators — many did die while incarcerated and as a result of corporal punishment inflicted upon them. There is no more mention of any individuals of the Strigolnik persuasion after 1427, nor are there any records that indicate the number of adherents to the Strigolnik group over the 100 years of their history. They must have been

123

History of Russian Christianity relatively few, perhaps a few thousand at most, and their influence was limited primarily to the cities of Novgorod and Pskov.

35. METROPOLITAN ISIDORE AND THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE Metr. Isidore was a brilliant figure in the history of Russian Orthodoxy and a most controversial one, due to his involvement in the Council of Florence. Gr. Pr. Vasili Vasilich (Basil II) was 16 when Metr. Fotius died in 1431, but he was determined not to turn to Constantinople for a new metropolitan. Prior to nominating his own candidate and dispatching him to Constantinople for ordination, Vasili Vasilich had to visit the Khan of the Golden Horde himself and secure his consensus that he assume the title of grand prince of Moscovite Russia, to inherit the throne from his father who had passed away in 1425. Vasili Vasilich planned to depart Moscow on the holiday of the Assumption, August 15, 1431, and to return no earlier than on the holiday of St. Peter, June 29, of the following year. After that, Vasili intended to turn his attention to the selection of a new metropolitan. The selection of a candidate for the cathedra was delayed in part by the civil war between Vasili Vasilich, the young prince of Moscow, and his uncle, Pr. Yuri Dmitrievich of Galitzia. Each deposed the other three times between 1425 and 1434. It was only upon the death of Yuri Dmitrievich (June 6, 1434) that Vasili Vasilich finally acquired the throne permanently. Vasili II Vasilich returned from the khan as planned in June 1432, with a victory — a decree awarding him the authority of grand prince of Moscow and all Russia; and so later in the year he nominated Bishop Jonah of Ryazan and Murom as his candidate for metropolitan. Jonah remained in Moscow and attended the marriage of the grand prince February 8, 1433. He hesitated to travel to Constantinople for ordination, fearing as soon as he left his seat vacant it would be filled by some rival and he would find the cathedra of Moscovite Russia taken out from under him. He patiently waited as the struggle between uncle and nephew went on, although this delay entailed other risks to his accession. At the time Jonah was nominated in Moscow, the new prince of Lithuania, Svidrigailo, Vitovt’s successor, dispatched to Constantinople his own candidate for metropolitan, Bishop Gerasim of Smolensk. Gerasim was accepted by Patr. Joseph II and was ordained in 1432, but only as metropolitan of Lithuania, not of Russia. Jonah finally left for Constantinople long after the death of Yuri Dmitrievich, not until the latter part of 1435. His journey to 124

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation Constantinople, however, proved futile. By the time Jonah arrived sometime early or mid-1436, Patr. Joseph had already selected another candidate and ordained him as metropolitan. Jonah returned to Moscow empty-handed. The patriarch took advantage of Moscow’s procrastination in order to select a metropolitan for a very particular mission. Constantinople needed Catholic support against the Ottoman Turks. To obtain that support, the patriarch needed a metropolitan who would bring Russia around at a special council to be held in Florence, Italy. It was planned to unify the two branches of ecumenical Christianity, meaning the conversion of Orthodoxy to Unia. The person Patr. Joseph selected was Isidore, an official at the court of the patriarch, an extremely talented and distinguished person who formally was abbot of the Monastery of St. Dmitri in Constantinople. Of course, Isidore was Greek. In 1433 abbot Isidore was part of Emperor John Paleologus’s delegation to the council at Basel to set the groundwork for the unification of the Churches. Both emperor and patriarch wanted to see a metropolitan sitting on the Russian cathedra who would be dedicated to the interests of Constantinople. He had to be willing to sacrifice the Russian Church to Catholicism at the FerraroFlorentine Council in order to acquire Rome’s political and military support for the defense of Constantinople. Isidore arrived in Moscow April 2, 1437, accompanied by Bishop Jonah. Gr. Pr. Vasili was immensely offended at the machinations of the patriarch and emperor of Constantinople. Vasili had hoped that Jonah would return as metropolitan, but he now arrived as part of the retinue of a Greek metropolitan. Gr. Pr. Vasili intended initially to reject Isidore entirely, but then thought better of it. He accepted him, and so avoided any quarrel with Constantinople. Vasili discovered that Isidore was intelligent and had exceptional qualities in diplomacy: an ability to deal with people and acquire their support. Unlike the majority of Greeks sent to serve as metropolitans of Russia, Isidore was fluent in Slavonic, which obviated the need for a translator. In a short time Vasili came to like Isidore, and no doubt because Isidore extended his own friendship to Vasili and gained his trust. Patr. Joseph and Emperor John Paleologus made arrangements for Isidore to attend the council of Florence well in advance of his departure to Moscow. Because of this, immediately on his arrival in Moscow Isidore began making preparations for further travel. Gr. Pr. Vasili vehemently protested against any meeting regarding the unification of the eastern and western branches of the Ecumenical Church and especially the Russian metropolitan’s presence at such a council. Vasili reluctantly acceded but instructed Isidore that under no 125

History of Russian Christianity circumstances was he to advocate any unification of the Russian Church with Catholicism or jeopardize the interests of Russian Orthodoxy. When Isidore departed Moscow on the holiday of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, September 8, 1427, only five months after his arrival from Constantinople, he did not travel alone. Gr. Pr. Vasili provided Metr. Isidore with a brilliant retinue consisting of over a hundred men, whose purpose was to advertise the majesty of Imperial Russia. Included in the retinue were Bishop Simeon of Suzdal and Vassian, an archimandrite of an unmentioned monastery. Bishop Simeon was to act as secretary and record the council proceedings. The journey proceeded slowly and pompously. They arrived in Tver September 14, and they remained there nine days. The next stop was Novgorod, where they entered the city October 7 in a parade as though they were guests of the city. The officials and clergy of Novgorod generously provided Metr. Isidore with money and provisions for their journey. The retinue left Novgorod after a week’s stay and moved on to Pskov, arriving December 6. Isidore likewise entered Pskov in a parade, in great pomp. Well attended by the officials and clergy of Pskov, Isidore remained there seven weeks through the winter of 14271428. The next stop was Riga, where they arrived February 4, 1438. After eight weeks the weather was clear and they left May 5, by sea, to Lubeck, arriving at the port May 19. It was a 20-day journey through Germany from Lubeck to Ferraro, where they arrived August 18, 1438, almost a year after their departure from Moscow. Other Greek clergy and officials from Constantinople had arrived there March 4, 1438, five and a half months earlier. Yet when Isidore arrived, the council had not even begun! The pope had promised the Byzantine emperor that his delegates would arrive in Florence by April 9, 1438 to begin the council, but the date came and went with no sign of the Pope’s contingent. Finally the council began its proceedings at Ferraro on October 8, 1438, after the Catholic delegates finally arrived, and it was moved to Florence on or shortly after January 10, 1439, where it continued until March 24, 1439. The Greeks were at a disadvantage during the debates on the issues that separated the two divisions of the Ecumenical church: the Filioque, purgatory, type of bread for the Eucharist, and of course, Papal supremacy. The Eastern delegates could not return to Constantinople empty-handed, and Catholics were not about to make any concessions, knowing that they had the upper hand in the matter. Greeks needed the military support of Catholic Europe and had no choice except to concede to all demands. Unpalatable as it would be to surrender themselves to the authority of the papacy, it was their only hope of 126

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation succeeding in their quest. The Greeks had foresight enough to acknowledge their inability to defend themselves against the Ottoman Turks and that it was only a matter of time before Constantinople would fall. The only solution was for the Eastern half of the Ecumenical church to become Uniate. Under Unia — or Eastern Rite Catholicism as it is sometimes called — the rite and tenets of Orthodoxy remained the same, but the Church — including the patriarch and all clergy — was subject to the authority of the Papacy. The Orthodox delegates finally subscribed to Unia at Florence, on July 5, 1439, and this was formally announced. Metr. Isidore was a fervent advocate of the Uniate resolution and accepted its decree as applicable equally to Russian Orthodoxy. As the council closed its sessions, after the agreement of both parties, the delegates slowly filtered out of Florence and back to their respective dioceses and capitals. The Byzantine emperor left August 26, while Isidore and his retinue finally departed Florence for Moscow September 6, 1439. Prior to his departure Pope Eugenius IV bestowed on Metr. Isidore the title of apostolic legate over Lithuania, Galitzia, Livonia (Latvia) and all Russia, in additional to the title of cardinal which he had earlier received from him in January of 1439. In his return trip, Metr. Isidore and his retinue took a route different. From Florence he traveled to Venice, where he spent three months, September 15 to December 22. Then they took a ship from Venice across the Adriatic Sea to the Croatian shore, arriving January 7, 1440, and traveled from there by land to Zagreb, and thence through Hungary to Cracow, Poland, arriving March 6. His purpose for this route was to travel through the areas of his apostolic legation, visiting both clergy and royal families and other officials and familiarizing himself with these regions. Isidore was in no hurry to return to Moscow, and so traveled from Cracow to Lithuania, arriving March 15, and thence to Galitzia, where he remained until July 10, residing at Lvov most of the time. From Lvov the next stops were Vilna and Brest-Litovsk, and he arrived at Troki on either August 13 or 14, 1440. A total of six months were spent in the region of Lithuania and Galitzia. Isidore finally arrived in Moscow via Smolensk on March 19, 1441, on Sunday during the third week of Lent. Metr. Isidore had been absent from Russia some three-and-a-half years, although the final year was spent traveling through eastern Europe and southwest Russia. After the conclusion of the council, the Lithuanian princes accepted Isidore as metropolitan and apostolic legate over their region. It suited the Orthodoxy of eastern Europe to accept Unia: they wanted to distance themselves from the hegemony of Moscovite Russia, and draw closer to western Europe — which held more promise for them politically and economically. Converting Russian 127

History of Russian Christianity Orthodoxy to Unia was also to Isidore’s advantage, as it opened up the possibility of greater promotions in the political sphere of Roman Catholicism. Of course, this leads us to believe that it was never Isidore’s intention as metropolitan to be faithful to Russian Orthodoxy, but that he was a traitor to begin with. He managed to succeed in his purpose without betraying his true motives to anybody in Moscow. Bishop Jonah recorded in a letter to another bishop that while Isidore was still in Russia, it never crossed anybody’s mind that he intended to betray Russian Orthodoxy by subjecting it to the authority of the Catholic Papacy. It appears that Isidore deceived Gr. Pr. Vasili along with all the Orthodox clergy in Russia. As Catholic cardinal and apostolic legate of the papacy, Isidore re-entered Moscow. Arriving at the Kremlin, he went directly to Uspenski Cathedral and began a thanksgiving prayer on behalf of the grand prince and all Orthodox Christianity. Metr. Isidore then performed the liturgy, but instead of mentioning the name of Patr. Metrophanes of Constantinople, he uttered the name of the Catholic pope, Eugenius IV. After the liturgy he ordered a proto-deacon to ascend the ambo and publicly read the edict regarding the unification of the two divisions of the Ecumenical church as subscribed to at the council July 5, 1439. Subsequently he presented to Gr. Pr. Vasili II Vasilich a statement from the Pope informing him of the unification of the two divisions of the Ecumenical church and asking him to diligently assist and support Isidore as he implemented Unia in Russia. Isidore’s conduct, boldly announcing the unification and naming the Catholic pope rather than the Orthodox patriarch, stunned and appalled the prelates and nobles who had gathered in Moscow to greet their metropolitan after his long absence; and it sent Gr. Pr. Vasili into a rage. After the crowds dispersed following the services, Gr. Pr. Vasili meditated on the situation. One day, two days, three days passed. On the fourth day Gr. Pr. Vasili ordered Isidore arrested and declared him a heretic, subject to trial by an ecclesiastical council. It is unavoidable to think that the decision to deal with Metr. Isidore in this manner was decided long before his arrival in Moscow. Isidore had spent a year in Lithuania, and Moscow’s royalty and clergy were well aware of his decision and the opinions he expressed at the council of Florence. But to prove the accusations, he had to be allowed back. When Isidore opened his mouth in Uspenski Cathedral, he erased any doubt that may have remained in Russians’ minds. He was a traitor to Orthodoxy. This sealed his fate; he would have to be expelled as metropolitan and as a resident of Russia.

128

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation Isidore was taken into custody March 23, 1441 at the Chudovski Monastery and was placed under guard in a cloister. Gr. Pr. Vasili then gathered a council of bishops, archimandrites, abbots and priests and before the assembled group accused Isidore of heresy. Vasili urged the council to try to reconcile Isidore with Russian Orthodoxy; he wanted Isidore to acknowledge the shame of his conduct since his ordination, to abandon the introduction of Unia into Russia, and to repent of his Catholic association. Isidore, however, remained adamant in his loyalty to the Uniate resolution and had no intention of subjecting himself to the authority of the Moscow council. Gr. Pr. Vasili then ordered that Isidore remain confined in a cell at Chudovski Monastery under guard until such time that he repented. Clergymen, under orders from Vasili, visited him regularly to admonish him to repent; but their attempts were in vain. Vasili even threatened Isidore with execution — by burning at the stake or being buried alive until he suffocated — but these threats also proved futile. Six months went by while Isidore sat in his cell. Spring and summer passed and Vasili was perplexed as to how to further handle his stubborn traitor. The only solution was to expel Isidore from Russia, but without any commotion. On the night of September 15, 1441 Isidore was allowed out of his cell by guards and then out of the monastery, and he immediately fled Moscow. His expulsion was announced as an escape. Isidore went first to Tver, where he was harbored by feudal prince Boris Aleksandrovich. But during Lent of 1442, Gr. Pr. Vasili ordered Boris to stop providing asylum to Isidore and to expel him. Ordered to leave Tver, Isidore traveled to Novgorod and after a short stay there continued on and eventually reached Rome. There he accepted a position as an official at the pope’s court. Patr. Joseph II of Constantinople died during the proceedings at the council of Florence. In his place Patr. Metrophanes II was ordained May 4, 1440 by Emperor John Paleologus. Patr. Metrophanes passed away August 1, 1443, and it was three years before emperor John Paleologus set another in his place. Gregory III Mammas was ordained July 7, 1446, but then in August 1451 he fled to Rome to escape the threat of Ottoman siege. The consequences of Unia were mixed. It was good for the Orthodoxy of eastern Europe, which reaped the benefits of association with the rest of Catholic Europe and yet was able to hold to its original traditions and rites. For the areas under control of the Ottoman Turks, Unia was of no benefit because Greek Orthodoxy’s effort to unify with Catholicism eventually backfired. Byzantine emperor John VIII Paleologus died October 31, 1448. His successor was brother Constantine XI Paleologus, crowned March 12, 1450. 129

History of Russian Christianity Initially John was a zealous promoter of Orthodoxy and an opponent of Unia, but then his attitude changed as he watched Turks prepare to lay siege to Constantinople. Toward the end of 1452, Constantine turned to Unia in despair as his final hope for military intervention by papal forces. It still seemed that the papacy might organize military regiments from central Europe, similar to the Crusaders, to attack Islamic Turks and defend Constantinople. The Catholic Church provided no help at all, however, so that Constantine’s initiative only turned Orthodox clergy of Constantinople against him. Constantinople was defeated by Islamic Ottomans on May 29, 1453 and the Byzantine Empire ceased to exist. The body of Constantine XI was found dead June 1 when they entered the city. After the defeat of Constantinople, Sultan Mahomet II ordained Gennadius II as patriarch. Running parallel to these events and contemporary with the years subsequent to the council of Florence and the defeat of Constantinople was the Catholic counter-reformation. The Uniate resolution was also promoted by Rome in order to strengthen Catholicism. By making eastern Europe Uniate, Rome was able to acquire allies who were less likely to join the Protestant Reformation; Catholic hegemony had now expanded to the regions of Poland and Lithuania. The council of Trent was summoned in order to develop methods to counter the effects of the Protestant Reformation on Catholic Europe; it began in 1545 and continued through 1551, consisting of 13 sessions. The pope was far more concerned with the survival of Catholicism in Europe because of the rising threat of Luther’s and Calvin’s reformations than he was worried about Constantinople’s need for defense against Ottoman Turks. The papacy’s preoccupation with the counter-reformation was the prime reason for excusing itself from diligently assisting Constantinople; and Islam, beyond the borders of Catholic Europe, seemed far away. Rome seemed to be safe from any threat by Ottoman military forces.

36. METROPOLITAN JONAH After the expulsion of Metr. Isidore, Gr. Pr. Vasili II Vasilich intended to ordain a metropolitan who was Russian, and to have the ordination performed by Russian prelates rather than by the patriarch of Constantinople. Vasili was greatly offended by what he considered the treachery of Patr. Joseph in betraying all of Eastern Orthodoxy by submitting it to the authority of Rome. Not only

130

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation was Metr. Isidore considered an apostate and traitor in Russia, but so were the patriarch of Constantinople and the Byzantine emperor. Vasili could not request another metropolitan from Constantinople in any case, because they were no longer Orthodox but Uniate. Vasili first resolved to ask the patriarch for the right to select and ordain his own metropolitan; he did not intend to sever ties with Greece permanently, but wanted the Greeks to realize that there was no chance whatsoever for them to impose Unia on Russia. Vasili’s letter went unanswered. Russian prelates wanted to disassociate themselves entirely from the clergy at Constantinople at this point, but they did not have the courage to proclaim total independence as an autocephalous ecclesiastical regime. Still, the intention of acting independently to nominate and ordain a metropolitan for Russian Orthodoxy was itself a proclamation of independence from Constantinople and a sign of autonomy, indirectly claiming that Constantinople was an apostate and traitor to the Orthodox faith. The decision was not implemented immediately, though. In June 1445, Gr. Pr. Vasili was captured by Mongol troops and imprisoned for three months. A few months after his release, his cousin Dmitri Yurievich Shemak took him captive in February 1446 and deprived him of his position as grand prince; Dmitri Yurievich held the throne of Moscovite Russia for ten months. Vasili II regained the throne, and Dmitri Yurievich tried again in February 1447. This time he failed. Finally, in December 1448, after the turmoil between the disputing factions of the clan was calmed and the Mongols ceased making incursions into the region, Gr. Pr. Vasili again brought up the issue of the metropolitan’s cathedra. Even then, there was grave meditation as to their right to move forward and the consequences. A second, though minor, concern was the reappearance of Isidore. Isidore visited Constantinople in 1452, but as a papal legate. His visit had to do with Emperor Constantine XI’s new inclination toward Unia. Bishop Jonah of Ryazan was ordained metropolitan of Moscow and all Russia December 15, 1448 by a council of bishops, archimandrites, abbots and priests, as ordered by Gr. Pr. Vasili Vasilich. For all practical purposes Russian Orthodoxy as an independent ecclesiastical corporate entity has its beginning with the ordination of Jonah as metropolitan of Moscow and all Russia. The areas of Eastern Europe and Lithuania which accepted the decrees of the council of Florence still considered Isidore the legitimate metropolitan, and in their eyes nothing had changed for them in spite of his expulsion from Russia. At this time Gregory Mammas was patriarch of Constantinople and Constantine XI was Byzantine emperor, and both of whom at the time were 131

History of Russian Christianity inclined toward Orthodoxy. Gr. Pr. Vasili decided to announce Moscow’s actions to them both at Constantinople; but not until they formally denounced the Uniate status of Orthodoxy. In July 1452, Gr. Pr. Vasili wrote to Emperor Constantine, informing him of the selection and ordination of a new metropolitan. The letter never reached Constantinople, because Constantine turned again to Rome for support and declared his support of Unia — which repulsed Moscow — and Patr. Gregory Mammas had already fled to Rome, seeking refuge. The conquest of Constantinople on May 29, 1453 by Ottoman Turks was the only witness needed by Moscow for the vindication of their ordination. In later years Moscow would preach that Constantinople fell to Islam as a result of apostasy — its capitulation to Rome — while Moscow remained untainted. Moscow’s initiative in ordaining its own metropolitans, beginning with Metr. Jonah after the fall of Constantinople, did not go uncriticized in later years. Patr. Dionysius I stated in 1469 that Constantinople did not recognize and would not recognize any metropolitan ordained without its blessing. Patr. Jonah was a native of Galitzia, born near the city of Kostroma, of parents who were considered nobles. At the age of twelve he entered school at a local monastery with the intention, even at that early age, to become a monk. When he was ready to be tonsured, he entered Semeonov Monastery in Moscow. He dedicated his time there to scholarly issues and wrote several books on the regulations of monasticism. Jonah was ordained as bishop of Ryazan by Metr. Fotius. His capabilities came to the attention of Fotius, and prior to his death he disclosed his wish that Jonah be ordained to fill the soon-to-be vacant cathedra. Jonah’s first effort as metropolitan was to recover for Russia those areas lost to the Uniate church, and primarily Lithuania and Galitzia. After tedious negotiations with Gr. Pr. Kazimir of Lithuania, and Pr. Aleksandr Vladimirovich of Kiev — who was brother-in-law of Vasili II — Jonah was able to add to his title metropolitan of Lithuania and Kiev; but he was unable to gain Galitzia, which remained Uniate. Beginning in 1451, Metr. Jonah proceeded to purge the regions of the influence of Isidore and their Uniate status. The inclusion of Lithuania in the realm of Metr. Jonah’s cathedra lasted seven years, and then this region separated from his jurisdiction and became Uniate permanently. This division occurred in the following manner: after Isidore was expelled from Russia, he eventually made his way to the service of the pope. In Rome, the Catholic clergy did not accept the sentence of the Russian ecclesiastical council and felt that 132

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation Isidore had been deprived of his cathedra illegally, while Jonah was the usurper. Of course, the pope could not demand Isidore’s recognition in Russia, but he could in Lithuania, which was under authority of the Polish crown at the time. However, there was animosity between the sovereign of Poland and the prince of Lithuania. This is what led Pr. Kasimir to accept Metr. Jonah, for a time. Then the influence of Catholicism increased in these areas until finally Kasimir’s inclination toward Orthodoxy was suppressed. In 1458, Kazimir capitulated to the demands of Pope Calixtus III and removed his region from the cathedra of Metr. Jonah, allowing the Uniate resolution to reaffix itself under the authority of Rome. Subsequently Isidore, whom Rome felt was legitimate metropolitan, was again offered the cathedra, but because of his advanced age he declined. Isidore died April 27, 1463. To fill the vacant position of Uniate metropolitan of Lithuania and Galitzia, proto-deacon Gregori, abbot of the Monastery of St. Dmitri in Constantinople, was ordained July 21, 1458 by Patr. Gregory Mammas (who was residing in Rome at the time); but his cathedra did not include Kiev. As soon as Vasili II, in Moscow, heard about the ordination of abbot Gregori as Uniate metropolitan, he sent a delegation to the Polish sovereign with a message warning him not to accept him. From his own side Metr. Jonah also dispatched abbots Vassian of Troitse-Sergievski Monastery and Kassian of Kirill Bel-Ozerski Monastery, entrusting them with the duty to persuade local Russian feudal princes, nobles and landlords who were residing in Lithuania to stand firm for Orthodoxy. These measures proved futile. After Gregori arrived and he was received by the Polish sovereign, Metr. Jonah and an ecclesiastical council of Russian clergy sent another letter to the Polish sovereign, and letters to individual prelates in Poland, requesting them not to accept Gregori as metropolitan. But these measures failed, too, and the Polish sovereign installed Gregori on the cathedra as Uniate metropolitan. It is obvious that Poland saw greater advantage in a religious association with Rome than with Moscow, and with Europe rather than Russia, especially now that Metr. Jonah had reached an advanced age himself. Metr. Jonah was not entirely secure in his own position. Toward the end of 1459, he summoned an ecclesiastical council of Russian clergy and required each of them to give him a written oath of allegiance to himself and to whomever his successor would be, and to swear that they would have no association or communication with Uniate Metr. Gregori. It was difficult to acquire this oath from Novgorod, because in 1456 Gr. Pr. Vasili II went to war against that city and inflicted much damage on it. 133

History of Russian Christianity After twelve years on the cathedra, Metr. Jonah died March 31, 1461. He had spent thirty years of his life as bishop and metropolitan.

37. METROPOLITAN THEODOSIUS When Gr. Pr. Vasili II Vasilich noticed Metr. Jonah’s declining health and felt that the end of his life was in the very near future, he summoned several prelates to Moscow. Vasili presented his selections to Metr. Jonah and asked him to select one as his successor. After discussions with them and after much meditation, Jonah selected Theodosius, blessed him, and confirmed his choice in writing. Theodosius had been archimandrite of Chudovski Monastery in Moscow for ten years, and then was ordained as archbishop of Rostov in June 1454, which episcopacy he held seven years. Theodosius was ordained as metropolitan either May 3 or 4, 1461, only 40 days after Metr. Jonah died. Gr. Pr. Vasili did not want to give Constantinople any opportunity to select a successor, nor to allow Uniate Metr. Gregori to extend his cathedra into Russia during the interval. And no sooner did they hear of Jonah’s death than they heard of his successor’s ordination. The prelates of the Russian Church were required to give an oath of allegiance to Metr. Theodosius, just as they had given to Metr. Jonah. In reality, there was probably no genuine concern for any defection except possibly from Novgorod. Gr. Pr. Vasili at this time considered himself the successor of the Greek emperors, and was very secure in his decision to have his bishops ordain Metr. Theodosius. The name of Theodosius does not belong to the number of especially illustrious figures of Russian Orthodoxy. In his contemporaries’ view, Theodosius was a mediocre individual, very regimented and narrow minded, with little depth. The quality of both prelate and parish priest had declined as a result of the turbulent political strife between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and the quality of parish priests suffered the most. Theodosius was aware of this and when he was ordained his primary concern was to improve the Russian clergy; but this would only be accomplished within a narrow framework. The sole measure of improvement that Theodosius could grasp was to try not to allow the priests to lead others by their own less than exemplary lifestyle. Priests still taught their parishioners little and church rites and liturgies were performed mechanically. Every Sunday, Theodosius summoned a quantity of priests to his presence — usually the worst he could find — and would instruct them in the holy regulations of their ecclesiastical office, admonish them and then threaten 134

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation them with severe punishment if they did not reform themselves. He required any widowed priests and deacons who were not cohabitating with a mistress to be tonsured and assigned to a monastery, while those widowers who had taken a mistress were sentenced to corporal punishment, fined, and defrocked. Metr. Theodosius’ attempt to reform the priesthood of his own local diocese — and then his entire cathedra — was short-lived and ended in total failure. The number of parishes in Russia was immense and when Metr. Theodosius began his austere screening of priests, issuing an interdict against many of them and defrocking and expelling others, the result was that many parishes were left without any priest at all. The illiterate and superstitious masses of Russian peasants and serfs were satisfied with the quality of their priests as they were, and could not see any sense in the metropolitan’s persecution — as the masses viewed it — of parish priests. The typical Russian only noticed that Theodosius had rendered their parishes priestless. Now, they had no singing and no liturgies, and the people cursed the metropolitan. When Metr. Theodosius realized that his zeal for reform had brought the curse of the people upon himself, instead of their blessing, he was devastated. He abandoned his cathedra September 13, 1464, having served for three years and four months. The psychological impact of this debacle caused him to become seriously ill. He eventually regained his health, and retired to Chudovski Monastery, his origin, but now as a simple monk with no special treatment. Theodosius lived eleven years after his withdrawal from public office and died between October 1 and 4, 1475, at Troitse-Sergievski Monastery where he was residing as part of a pilgrimage; and there he was buried.

38. METROPOLITAN FILIPP I Succeeding Theodosius was Filipp, bishop of Suzdal. Theodosius selected Filipp prior to his departure from the cathedra and he was ordained November 11, 1464, two months after Theodosius departed. Ivan III Vasilich was grand prince at this time, and later during his reign assumed the appellation of tsar; he ascended the throne March 27, 1462, after the death of his father. Filipp’s foremost accomplishment as metropolitan was that together with Ivan III he was able to turn Novgorod against the Lithuanian metropolitan and his Uniate church, and re-unite it with Orthodoxy. Filipp also arranged for the construction of a new Uspenski Cathedral in place of the old one that had been damaged by fire. 135

History of Russian Christianity Metr. Gregori of Lithuania was unsteady in his loyalty. In 1470, after twelve years as Uniate metropolitan, he decided to reconvert to Orthodoxy and sent a delegation to declare to the patriarch his desire to return, along with a request that the patriarch also recognize and confirm him as metropolitan. Symeon I had only held the patriarchate of Constantinople a short while and he declined to take up either issue; but his successor, Patr. Dionysius (who, as some chroniclers insinuate, was favorably inclined toward Gregori as a result of the many gifts presented by the delegation) accepted his transition back to Orthodoxy and confirmed him in his cathedra as Orthodox metropolitan of both Lithuania and Russia. After the delegation departed, Patr. Dionysius sent his messengers to Novgorod and Moscow, informing them that Gregori was lawful metropolitan and that Filipp, who had been ordained in Moscow, circumventing Constantinople, was illegitimate and was not recognized by Constantinople. Of course, this aroused the animosity of Gr. Pr. Ivan III, who immediately proclaimed Gregori’s conversion and confirmation a ruse, saying that the post had been purchased from the patriarch at Constantinople by simony. Ivan also reminded Archbishop Jonah of Novgorod of the loyalty oath he had sworn to Metr. Theodosius, rejecting Metr. Gregori and Unia. Russian prelates also refused to recognize Patr. Dionysius’ ordination. Archbishop Jonah of Novgorod died November 5, 1470, and ten days later Metr. Filipp ordained proto-deacon Theofil in Moscow to take his place. Theofil was selected specifically because he was inclined toward a religious union of Novgorod with the Orthodoxy of Russia. Even then, the political climate in Novgorod changed quickly and the residents and nobles elected to sever ties with Gr. Pr. Ivan III of Moscow — in favor of Poland. To settle the matter once and for all, Gr. Pr. Ivan inaugurated a military campaign against Novgorod in May 1471 and subjected them entirely to his authority, by force. Toward the end of 1472, Ivan III entered into a second marriage — his first wife having passed away — now, with the Greek princess Zoe Paleologus, daughter of Thomas the despot of Moria who was brother to the previous emperors of Constantinople, John VIII Paleologus and Constantine XI. To save his life from Ottoman Sultan Mahomet, Thomas had fled to Rome in 1460, and there he died in 1465. In 1469, Pope Paul II suggested to Gr. Pr. Ivan that he marry Thomas’ daughter Zoe. After counsel with Metr. Filipp, his mother, and various nobles, Ivan agreed to the proposition. There can be no doubt that Pope Paul II envisaged using the marriage as a catalyst to entice Moscovite Russia

136

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation towards Unia. His successor, Pope Sixtus IV, sent his legate, cardinal Antonius, with the princess (whose name was changed to Sophia, prior to the wedding). The Latin cross was at the forefront of their procession, all the way from Rome to Moscow. Reports of this aroused the attention of both grand prince and metropolitan, and they held a counsel regarding the proper way to deal with the procession when it arrived. About ten miles short of Moscow, messengers were sent to Antonius by order of Ivan III and Metr. Filipp, instructing him to put away the Latin cross as he traveled nearer to Moscow. He obeyed. Antonius did not attempt to reinstate Unia in Moscow right away — the pope felt this could be attempted later, after the marriage — but considerable debate did occur between Filipp and Antonius regarding matters of faith, debates that were arranged and enjoyed by Metr. Filipp. After ten years as metropolitan, Filipp quite unexpectedly fell ill April 4, 1473, and died the next day. The illness was caused by the effects of a fire at the Moscow Kremlin, which destroyed the residence of the metropolitan and damaged the Uspenski cathedral.

39. CHURCH DEVELOPMENT DURING THE OCCUPATION ERA The invasion of the Mongol Horde devastated not only Kievan Russia as a civilization but also Orthodoxy as a whole. To the extent that Russia again began to develop economically and politically, so its faith and religion began to recover from the onslaught. Kiev was set back for several centuries, but the northern cities that were less accessible and less desirable to the Mongols were less hard hit and they soon acquired greater freedoms than the south. As mentioned above, in about 1257 or 1258 the Khan of the Golden Horde, Berke or Bekalie, converted to Islam; this did not improve relations between the two cultures. Prior to their conversion, the pagan Mongols had exhibited a great tolerance of Orthodoxy, while as Moslems this tolerance decreased. And, of course, the Orthodox perennially referred to Moslems as “infidels.” Development of Orthodoxy began soon after the withdrawal of the Mongols to Sarai on the lower Volga. Toward the end of the 13th century, Kirill (Cyril) founded Chelmogorski Monastery on Mt. Chelme. During his 52-year ministry in northwest Russia and especially among the Finns, he enlightened the population with Orthodox teaching.

137

History of Russian Christianity In 1329 on the island of Valaam in Lake Ladoga (Ladozhskoi), an elder named Sergei settled, and shortly after another monk named German. They founded the famous Valaam Monastery, which also spread Orthodoxy in the region. Toward the end of the 14th century Arsenius, a monk from Valaam Monastery, settled on Konevski Island, near to Valaam Island, and there founded Konevski Monastery; and in the 15th century Lazarus founded Murmansk Monastery in Lake Onega (Onezhski). The most prominent evangelist of the era was Stephen of Perm. He was born about 1345 in the city Yustyug in the Vologda province in northern Russia. In 1365, he entered the monastery of St. Gregori the Divine in the city Rostov, was tonsured as a monk and began his studies. The remainder of his life was dedicated to the expansion of Orthodoxy and conversion of the pagan tribes living in the Perm region, along the western slope of the central Ural Mountains. He is credited with the baptism of half the pagan population of the region. After 18 years of ministry in Perm, which included 14 years as bishop, Stephen died April 26, 1396 in Moscow during a visit with Metr. Kiprian regarding church matters. He was buried in Spasski Monastery inside the Kremlin. Apart from the few Church leaders who built monasteries during the early years of the Mongol occupation were the many who constructed churches in cities and outlying regions. The majority of new churches were constructed in Novgorod and Pskov, and subsequently Moscow. During the rule of Pr. Ivan Danilovich, the Uspenski (Assumption of the Immaculate Virgin) and Archangelsk (Michael the Archangel) Cathedrals were built in Moscow; while under Pr. Vasili Dmitrievich Blago-Veschenski (Annunciation) Cathedral was built. Cathedrals were likewise erected in Tver, Ostrov, and Nizhni-Novgorod. Up to the 15th century all churches were constructed without heating, ovens or fireplaces. The construction of churches and monasteries was followed by art, in the form of church appurtenances, and especially icons and iconography. The most famous iconographers of the 15th century were Feofan the Greek and the Moscovite monks Daniel Ikonnik and Andrei Rublyov. Miracles and healings were attributed to icons, which increased their manufacture and installation in churches, homes and shrines. To the most famous of icons in Russia — the Immaculate Theotokos of Suzdal — was attributed the deliverance of Moscow from the invasion of Tamerlane in 1395.

138

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation 40. MONASTERIES AND MONASTICISM The era of Mongol occupation produced a significant number of elders and mystics. They were far more serious in nature and dedication than those of later eras, presumably due to the difficult environment they lived in. These elders and mystics are a separate class or even caste within Russian Orthodoxy, not becoming high-ranking prelates but following more of the pattern of the fool in Christ. They acquired a reputation among both clergy and laity as a result of their high morality and asceticism, as well as insight and depth in spiritual matters; many of them were visionaries, prophetic in their discourses and addresses. Only a few noteworthy examples will be discussed in detail, such as Sergei of Radonezh, Kirill of Bel-Ozerski and the Solovetski founders, while the balance of prominent elders and mystics of the era will only be briefly mentioned. Beginning about the middle of the 14th century, conditions improved for monasticism. Within 150 years some 180 new hermitages, monasteries, convents and abbeys were erected, comprising almost innumerable monks and ascetics and promoting community activity. The reasons for such strong development of monastic life included a better adaptation of the teachings of Christ to individual lives, along with the prevailing destitution which drove many to find comfort and purpose through religion. Many of the new monasteries were constructed in the forests of northern Russia; this was promoted by the state in order to open these regions for development and colonization, while the Mongols concentrated on the occupation of primarily central and southern Russia, the warmer climatic and better developed regions. Moscow itself was surrounded with a ring of monasteries. In the city of Tver eleven monasteries appeared; in Nizhni-Novgorod there were four; and in Pskov, twelve. All major cities had new monasteries constructed in or near them. The number of brothers residing in the monasteries varied widely, some from 100 up to 300, while others held only 2-6. The administration over the monasteries varied; some were under the local feudal prince or diocesan bishop; those located in the patrimony of the metropolitan were under his direct administration. The larger or more prominent monasteries were identified as Stavropigli, meaning that they were under the direct administration of the patriarch. The rules implemented for the monks in residence were based on Basil the Great, Efraim the Syrian, John the Pillar-Dweller (Stylite), Theodor the Studite and others, all depending on the extent of stringency or leniency of the father superior. 139

History of Russian Christianity The financial resources of the monasteries included donations of pilgrims, offerings for requiems and memorials, and the monastic patrimony. The patrimony was the primary source of income, and in monasteries with a large patrimony it can be seen that the residents were inclined toward a concern for business matters, regulation and care of the serfs, and even conflicts with neighbors, which tended to steer monk and father superior away from their religious obligations. During this era, once monasteries were established and possession of patrimony allowed and assigned, the serious question arose whether it was proper for monasteries to possess and administrate villages. Metr. Kiprian wrote in a letter to abbot Afanasie expressing the opinion that the right to possess villages was never assigned to the ancient fathers because it involved them with worldly obligations. Kiprian advised the abbot that if someone should donate or bequeath a village to the monastery, the monks should not administrate it, but that some God-fearing citizen should be assigned this responsibility, and so deliver the produce and other goods of the village directly to the monastery. In reality, such opinions issued by the metropolitans of the Russian Church were of little effect and mostly ignored. The patrimonies of the monasteries rapidly increased, either by outright purchase, donations, or through wills and testaments, but especially by settlement and expansion of a monastery into a wilderness and then claiming the surrounding region as its possession, including towns and farms. The local feudal prince would permit this acquisition in order to expand development and thus cultivation. Privileges were allotted to the serfs who were part of monastery patrimony: they were relieved of taxes and assessment, certain civil duties, the building of the prince’s home and related structures, and direct work on the estate of the feudal prince or his fields and farms. The sale of goods produced in the monastery patrimony were likewise exempt from taxes and duties. At the same time, serfs who were part of monastery patrimony were under the jurisdiction of the father superior and monks, who also would handle legal conflicts (and any others) that would arise among the serfs. Other than serious crimes such as murder, battery and grand theft, all justice was administered by the father superior via the Episcopal court. In serious or capital cases the father superior together with the feudal prince administered justice via the civil court. The privileges granted to serfs living on monastery patrimony encouraged development of such out-lying regions. The available peasant population also provided the father superior with ample labor to construct the massive monuments of monasticism surviving throughout Russia until today, and ample 140

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation artisans to decorate them; and the feudal prince often supplied his own serfs as part of the labor to construct monasteries in his principality. The village peasants, men and women, were recruited as servants to work at monastery kitchens and businesses The expansion of the number of monasteries was encouraged in order to expand the settlement of wilderness areas. A monk would arrive at some outlying region, some place where no one else would settle, and would create for himself a residence in a cave, a hollow of a tree or a crudely constructed hovel. Little by little others would be attracted to him, those attempting to escape the temptations of the world and who wanted to devote themselves to prayer and solitude. The small community of ascetics would gradually clear the virgin forest, using their own labor, and erect better residences for themselves. By this time the community would be recognized by the feudal prince or by a father superior of a larger monastery. Thus the colonization of such virgin regions of Russia progressed and a new city with surrounding villages would emerge over a period of time. Such cities for example were Yustyug near Gledenski Monastery; Varnavin near Varnavinski Monastery; Kalyazin near Kalyazinski Monastery; and Kirillov near Kirill Bel-Ozerski Monastery. The monasteries were very benevolent and charitable toward serfs and local residents during times of duress or tragedy. During periods of famine, the monastery would feed the hungry serfs. Hostels, orphanages and hospitals would also be built near the monastery or within its confines.

41. SERGEI OF RADONEZH The secular or birth name of our next subject was Bartholomei. He was born about 1314, son of a noble Rostov couple who migrated to the city of Radonezh about 60 miles north of Moscow during the reign of Pr. Ivan Danilovich. At the time of his parents’ death he handed over all of their property to his younger brother and, with his older brother Stephen, Bartholomei departed into the forest about ten miles from Radonezh. The hermits built a cloister and a wooden church in the forest. This occurred in 1337, the traditional date for the founding of Troitski Monastery. Stephen was unable to endure the solitary life; his wife passed away and he soon departed from his younger brother and entered Bogoyavlenski (Epiphany) Monastery in Moscow. Bartholomei accepted tonsure from a local abbot named Mitrofan, at the age of 24, in 1337, on the holiday of the martyr Stephen. The new monk accepted Sergei as his new 141

History of Russian Christianity name — a variation of the Slavonic form of Stephen. At the invitation of Sergei Metr. Theognost traveled to Radonezh to consecrate his cloister and church dedicated to the Holy Trinity (Troitsa, in Russian). After two years of living alone in his forest residence, Sergei developed a reputation as an austere ascetic and began to attract disciples. Additional huts were built to house 12 monks. By 1354, the community had grown sizably and Sergei was ordained elder and abbot of the hermitage by Bishop Athanasi of Volin. Over the succeeding years Sergei developed his cloister into a full-size functioning monastery — the largest of its kind in Moscovite Russia — and implemented austere monastic regulations upon himself and the others, and especially poverty. As the fame of the small community spread, contributions were provided by many pilgrims. Dmitri Donskoi and Metr. Aleksei were both patrons of Sergei and both requested his counsel on matters of political as well as religious nature. When Metr. Aleksei was on his deathbed, Sergei was asked to assume first the post of bishop and then to be nominated as successor to the cathedra of metropolitan. Gr. Pr. Dmitri Donskoi personally urged Sergei to accept the arrangement; but he refused. Later, after the death of Metr. Aleksei, Sergei foretold the death of the ambitious Mikhail, prophesying that he would die before reaching Constantinople for ordination by the patriarch — and so it was. At this time Gr. Pr. Dmitri had to deal with an invasion of Moscow by the Mongol Khan, Mamai. Prior to launching an attack on Mamai, Dmitri went to the mystic Sergei for his advice; Sergei informed him that God would grant him victory, although at the grave cost of many soldiers. The battle of Kulikova took place September 8, 1380, and the victory was won by Dmitri Donskoi. Sergei’s prediction increased his reputation in Russia and his favor in the royal family; they rewarded Sergei and his hermitage with funds and considerable real estate — patrimony — for his monastery. In 1378, at the request of Gr. Pr. Dmitri Donskoi, Sergei founded Dubenski Monastery along the Stromini River, about 20 miles southeast of his Troitski Monastery. Sergei ordained Leonti, a disciple of his, as abbot of the new monastery; the second abbot was Savva Strominski, also a disciple of Sergei. In later years Savva became abbot of Troitski Monastery. In 1385, Sergei founded another monastery, also at the request of Gr. Pr. Dmitri Donskoi; this was Golutvib, near Kolomna, where the Moscow River flows into the Oka River. Over the succeeding years Sergei received many visions and revelations, while abbot at his monastery. He died at the age of 78 September 25, 1392 and was canonized shortly after his death. 142

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation The monastery was renamed after its founder as the Troitse-Sergievski Monastery under Nikon, who succeeded Sergei as abbot, and it continued to grow in wealth and size. Pilgrimages were regularly made by Russians who left considerable donations, including real estate. At the time of the accession of Empress Catherine II the Great, in 1762, Troitse-Sergievski Monastery was the largest single landowner in Russia next to the state, possessing over 100,000 serfs. The city Radonezh was renamed in later years to Zagorsk, and today is known as Sergeev Posad.

42. SOLOVETSKI MONASTERY Next to Troitse-Sergievski Monastery, the most prominent monastery founded during the occupation era was Solovetski — Solovki for short — located on Solovetski Island in the White Sea. Solovetski Monastery, more properly known as the Monastery of ZosimaSavvatiev, was founded in 1429 by Herman and Savvatie (Sabatias). Savvatie was originally a monk from Bel-Ozerski Monastery but later transferred to Varlaam Monastery in Lake Ladoga. While he was there, he heard about the island of Solovetski from one of his disciples, Gennadi (who later became archbishop of Novgorod). Savvatie traveled to the area and met with another monk, Herman, living on the mainland. In 1429, they took a boat to the island and built for themselves a residence. After some time Herman left the island, while Savvatie remained. After several years alone, Savvatie returned to the mainland and died September 27, 1435. Herman returned to the island a year later, this time with Zosima, a monk, and built first a church and over the following years a monastic community. Zosima died April 18, 1478 after more than 42 years of labor at Solovetski. Herman died in 1479, the following year, with over 50 years of dedication to Solovetski. Up to the time of the arrival of Savvatiev and Hermann, the island had been completely uninhabited, except that during the summer local residents of the mainland would travel there to fish and hunt. Beginning with the establishment of the monastery, an influx of people began — people wishing to flee the world — and from these fugitives the Solovetski Monastery society was formed. Most of the buildings of the monastery were erected from 1558 to 1566, during the reign of Tsar Ivan IV. The tsar patronized the monks of the monastery with benevolent grants of land on the mainland, to the west and south, which eventually totaled about 300,000 acres. Other churches were added, with the 143

History of Russian Christianity final one in 1834. One side of the monastery borders Blagopoluchi (Benevolent) Bay and the opposite side approaches Sviatoi Ozero (Holy Lake). Solovetski Monastery quickly rose to become a leading shrine in Holy Russia, and Savvatie and Zosima were both canonized by the Orthodox Church in 1551. Rumors spread throughout Russia of the miraculous powers credited to their relics and remains, and the monastery rapidly gained a reputation as a sacred shrine. Pilgrimages began, with 10,000 to 15,000 pilgrims a year visiting the holy island and leaving an immense wealth in charitable donations.

43. EXPANSION OF MONASTERIES Among the disciples of Sergei of Radonezh, the monk whom Sergei nominated as his successor, Nikon of Radonezh, takes precedence. As a young man Nikon attempted to join Sergei and his circle of hermits, but was denied the opportunity. Nikon entered Sernikhov Vysotski Monastery under the rule of Athanasi, another former disciple of Sergei. After two years at Vysotski, Nikon was allowed to enter Sergei’s Troitski Monastery. In 1392, Nikon accepted the post of abbot after the death of Sergei. Unlike Sergei’s autocratic rule, Nikon preferred to share the rule with other monks, having been one himself for several years; and that proved highly successful. Some years later, in 1408, the Mongols again invaded the region and laid siege to Moscow. Troitse-Sergievski Monastery was destroyed by fire, but it was rebuilt under abbot Nikon. Abbot Nikon of Radonezh died November 17, 1429. Several disciples of Sergei of Radonezh took his example and built monasteries. Roman of Kirzhach constructed Blago-Veschenski (Annunciation) Monastery and led an ascetic life; he died July 26, 1392. Monk Sylvester founded a monastery on the shore of the Obnora River, near Belyoe (White) Lake. Andronik became abbot of Spasski Monastery, south of Moscow on the Yauza River, built in 1361 by Metr. Aleksei. The church at Spasski was adorned with icons and artwork by the best icon-painter of the era, Daniel Chyorni, and his student Andrei Rublyov. Theodor and Pavel, both disciples of Sergei, left Troitski Monastery in 1363 for the area of Rostov. Along the Usta River about ten miles west of Rostov they built the Borisoglebski (Boris and Gleb) Monastery after receiving a vision of the two martyrs of ancient Russia. In later years, Theodor left and traveled to Lake Kuban, where he built another monastery. Theodor then returned to Borisoglebsk to conclude his life; he died October 22, 1410. 144

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation A nephew of Sergei’s named Feodor, son of his brother Stephen, also entered Troitski Monastery. In his later years he traveled to Moscow and there, in an area called Semeonov, along the Moscow River, Feodor founded the Rozhdestvo Bogo-Roditsa Church (Birth of the Theotokos), although the monastery became known as Semeonov. This same Feodor became the confessor of Gr. Pr. Dmitri Donskoi, who sent him to Constantinople on matters pertaining to Metr. Kiprian in 1383. While at Constantinople, Feodor was ordained by Patr. Nilus as archimandrite and raised his monastery to Stavropighial status (under patriarchal administration). In 1388, Feodor again traveled to Constantinople, where the patriarch promoted him to archbishop of Rostov. While attending to the church at Rostov, Feodor founded a convent and dedicated it to the Theotokos. He passed away November 28, 1394. Nikita, another of Sergei’s disciples, founded Pokrovski Visokski Monastery along the eastern edge of the city Borovsk, along the shore of the Protva River. Other disciples of Sergei of Radonezh traveled further from Moscow to the regions of Tver, Novgorod and Kostroma. Ksenofont founded Tytanski Monastery in Tver. Yakov of Zheleznoborsk settled 20 miles from Galitzia, where he founded his hermitage in 1392. The birth name of Kirill of Bel-Ozerski (White Lake) was Kosmo. He was the son of noble parents and was orphaned at an early age, living with relatives in Moscow most of his early life. Not having an inclination toward the secular life, he took the new name Kirill (Cyril) after his tonsure at Semeonov Monastery in Moscow. After nine years as a monk, Kirill also accepted the responsibilities of a priest and then in 1390 took his place as archimandrite of Semeonov Monastery, after Feodor was elevated to the episcopacy as bishop of Rostov. Even as father superior, Kirill did not alter his mode of life and continued to labor with the other monks; the visits and pilgrimages to the monastery by wealthy and famous people irritated him. Seeking a means of escaping the responsibilities of archimandrite at Semeonov, Kirill soon after heard a voice telling him to relocate to Beloye Ozero. Among the monks at Semeonov was Therapont, a native of Voloko-Lamsk whose parents were from Pskov. Kirill dispatched Therapont to the region of Beloye Ozero to survey the area and identify any promising site for a monastery. After his return, archimandrite Kirill resigned his post at Semeonov and left together with Therapont for Beloye Ozero. The two elders settled about ten miles apart, and by 1397 Kirill had attracted several disciples and built a church; Therapont built his in 1398. Kirill’s became known as Kirill Bel-Ozerski while Therapont’s became known as Therapontov; both expanded and developed into 145

History of Russian Christianity monasteries and were prominent in the later history of Russian Orthodoxy. These elders were both influenced by the monastic regulations of Sergei of Radonezh. In 1408, Gr. Pr. Andrei requested Therapont to construct a new monastery in Mozhaisk, south of Moscow. Therapont was obedient and relocated to the new city; the monastery was dedicated to the Birth of the Theotokos (Rozhdestvo Bogo-Roditzta) and Therapont was visited there regularly by Metr. Fotius, the two of them becoming good friends. After 18 years at Mozhaisk, Therapont died at a very old age, May 27, 1426. Kirill continued his ministry at his Bel-Ozerski Monastery, until his death June 9, 1427. When Pr. Boris Konstantinovich wanted to build a new monastery in Suzdal, in 1364, he asked bishop Dionysei of Suzdal to recommend a candidate for abbot. Dionysius nominated the 36-year-old Evfimi, a close friend of Sergei of Radonezh. He was born in Nizhni-Novgorod and as a young man entered Voznesenie Gospodnya Monastery (Ascension of the Lord), founded by elder Dionysius at the same city. Prince and ascetic worked together in Suzdal to construct the new complex, which became known as Spasso-Evfimiev Monastery. Evfimi died April 1, 1440 at the age of 88, after 52 years as archimandrite of his monastery. The first stone building of the complex (built originally in wood) was erected 1507-1511. During the earlier period the monastery suffered greatly from the Mongol invasion and Polish raids. This compelled the Suzdal princes to fortify the monastery as much as possible. Gradually, Spasso-Evfimiev Monastery was buttressed with high and unusually massive walls and towers and in this manner turned into a colossal stronghold. Pokrovski (Intercession of the Immaculate Virgin) Convent was built in Suzdal a few years later, in 1346 by Pr. Andrei Konstantinovich, brother of Boris, about a mile west of Spasso-Evfimiev. Pafnutius of Borovsk was born about 1395; at the age of twelve he entered Borovsk Pokrovski Monastery and was placed under the guidance of elder Nikita, formerly a disciple of Sergei of Radonezh. After seven years Metr. Fotius ordained Pafnutius as abbot, at the request of feudal prince Semeon Vladimirovich. For the next 30 years, Pafnutius austerely ruled over the monastery; he became severely ill in 1444, and resigned. After regaining his health, Pafnutius built a new monastery in the region, which became known as Borovsk-Pafnutiev. There he resided until his death in 1477 at the age of 82. Other elders and monks of this era were: Antoni Dimski (d. 1273), who founded a monastery on Dimski Lake in Novgorod province; Ksenofont, who founded Robeiski Monastery near Novgorod in 1262; Constantine and Kosmo, 146

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation two monks who founded Kosin Monastery near Staraya Russa on Lake Ladoga; Roman Kirzhachski (d. 1392) founder and abbot of a monastery near Kirzhach, Vladimir province; and Makari Zheltovodski (d. 1444) who lived with Bishop Dionysei of Suzdal for several years and later founded a monastery in Kostroma province.

44. MORALITY AND NATIONAL LIFE The ceremonial piety and superficial aspects of the Orthodox religion did not contribute to any great extent to the development of a morality and ethic for the Russian population. The general impression that one acquires from the study of morality during this era is very sullen and remorseful. The majority of researchers into the national life of the era see here the source of everything considered baneful or distasteful in the Russian national character. The Mongol devastation and occupation certainly played a major role in lowering standards of morality. Even the princes themselves had to travel to the regional khan at Sarai in servile submission to gain approval for their reign, which the khan only granted after gifts were offered — and in the case of two or more challengers, approval was granted to the feudal prince presenting the greatest gifts. The population had to subject themselves to the annual demands of the Mongol tax collector and cheerfully provide tribute and feign gratitude. It was not unusual for a serf to kill a Mongol tax collector out of spite — and then the local peasantry would kill him, out of fear of reprisals. The era was plagued by feuds between despotic Mongol troops and local feudal princes over authority of the land. The Russian metropolitan worked in unison with the grand prince and feudal princes to encourage national unity and define a Russian civilization for the future. Other than social disorder, serious vices plagued the private life of much of the population, whether rich or poor, noble or serf. Chroniclers record alcoholism, vulgarity and sensuality, wife abuse included. One letter from Metr. Jonah to the bishop of Vyatka reprimands the male populace for having as many as five and even seven wives, and some up to ten, all polygamous marriages that were blessed by the parish priest. Many men lived with concubines, as many as they could accommodate or as many as needed shelter. One example was recorded with the brutal murder in 1406 of the princess of Vyazen, the saintly Iyulianna (Julianne), by Pr. Yuri of Smolensk, for her refusal to gratify his

147

History of Russian Christianity excessive sexual appetite. She was no doubt murdered during an attempted rape. Parallel with a decline of morality was the persistence of a remnant of Slavic paganism; belief in sorcerers and witches was widespread. At the beginning of the 15th century as the bubonic plague spread into Russia from Europe, twelve witches were burned at the stake in Pskov, convicted of causing the plague. In all classes of the population there was a superstitious belief in dreams and the power of coincidences, a bird’s chirp, a cat’s meow, a raven’s caw, and other events believed to be premonitions. Offerings and dedications of meals to domestic, forest, water and other deities of the ancient era continued. Even times of national festivity were accompanied by pagan rituals, which applied equally to the celebration of church holidays. Just as with the duality of belief during the era of Kievan Russia, pagan practices and rituals during the occupation era migrated into local Orthodox worship and were fused into it. This made Christianity ineffective in both the moral sphere as well as the sacerdotal. The lives of Russian saints blended together with those of Slavic deities, creating a new generation of mythology and apocryphal legends. The number of miracles attributed to icons and relics of saints increased the veneration of wood and bones, while morality languished. Services performed by the priest in parish churches were mechanical with little moral benefit for the parishioner. According to the ancient Orthodox calendar, the year 1492 was 7,000 years from the creation of the world and to many in Russia that definitely spelled doomsday. At the same time, many prelates and priests utilized the events of the era to draw people to repentance, away from the superstition, duality of belief, pagan remnants, and ignorance. The internecine struggles between feudal princes so prevalent during the Kievan era continued during Mongol occupation. In 1393, regiments of Novgorod attacked the city Yustug, burned it down, and pillaged the cathedral including all of its wealth and art. In 1434 Gr. Pr. Vasili Vasilich of Moscow plundered the region of Galitzia and burned churches and monasteries. In 1372 Pr. Mikhail of Tver plundered and then burned the city Torzhok. In 1375 Novgorod regiments did the same to Kostroma. During the years 1352 to 1427, the Black Plague consumed Russia; entire cities perished. In 1417 the residents of Novgorod and the surrounding cities died faster than they could be buried. Relics and icons were regularly donated to Russian Orthodox Churches by Constantinople. For example, in 1347 Greek emperor John Kantakyzin presented Gr. Pr. Semeon Ivanovich of Moscow with a pectoral cross made of the wood of 148

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation the very cross Christ was crucified on, along with relics of various saints. When Archbishop Dionysie of Suzdal returned from Constantinople in 1382, he brought with him part of Christ’s crown of thorns. In the following year Pr. Dmitri Konstantinovich of Nizhni-Novgorod built a silver ark in the shape of a cross with inlaid decor to house the relic. In 1401, the ark was relocated to Moscow and housed at the Blago-Veschenski Cathedral.

45. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION The activity of enlightenment gave the monastery even greater significance during this era. Entering the monastery, a person would find himself in a special world, an educated arena where scholarship was honored together with asceticism. During mealtime, during liturgy, and in their personal cloisters, scripture and commentary were recited. A secondary effect of the atmosphere of scholarship was the copying of books, both religious and secular, by literate monks trained to be copyists. If a person sought an education, he could find the best teachers in a monastery — and a rich library, as well. Both feudal prince and layman would attend liturgy at the monastery and engage in spiritual discussions, gaining insight into piety. In addition to oral instruction, letters of admonishment were written and sent to various individuals, letters that were also copied and used for religious instruction. The influence of monasteries on the populace is more obvious because of its ascetic tendency, which was pervaded with ancient Orthodox piety. Outside the major cities, for the most part monasteries were the sole means of dissemination of divine truth and instruction during the Mongol occupation. As a rule, religious and moral education during the Mongol occupation limped along under the most unpleasant of circumstances. The Mongol invasion destroyed schools and libraries along with all other edifices, while the internecine struggle diverted attention from books to the sword. Only the city of Novgorod, which was spared by the Mongols, developed any scholarship. In other areas schools once encouraged by feudal princes were closed and Orthodox clergy were ill-equipped to perform a role in education. Metr. Isidore, while attending the council of Florence, stated that Russian bishops were illiterate. Metr. Kiprian directly accused the lower clergy of ignorance and pointed at huge textbooks filled with legends, fables and sensationalism as evidence.

149

History of Russian Christianity Many books of apocryphal nature in Slavonic translation migrated into Russia from Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia. Peasants and citizens alike were attracted by fables and legends because they were more easily understood by the illiterate masses than the theology or mysticism of austere Orthodoxy, and they often satisfied curious and naïve mind. Even the best of Orthodoxy teachers of the era utilized these apocryphal tales and incorporated them into their sermons and dissertations with full confidence of their reliability. Apart from the infusion of religious literature into Russia from abroad, there was also considerable original composition by Russian divines and prelates. The majority of such publications were admonishments rather than theological treatises. The simplicity and mediocrity of the compositions of early Russian prelates can be attributed to their often low origin, austerity, and usually poor education, while verbosity and rhetoric infected the compositions of later Russian prelates who attempted to imitate Byzantine style. Metropolitans Kiprian, Fotius and Gregori Tsamblak wrote in an abstract rhetorical style which they inherited from the Byzantine tradition, and which had little benefit or effect on the life of the people. The metropolitans imported from Greece knew neither Slavonic nor Russian so they left few or no compositions. Metr. Kiprian however brought Serbian manuscripts with him and copies of Greek service books from Constantinople which he translated into Russian for use and distribution. The earliest of educators of the Mongol occupation era of the 13th century were Metr. Kirill and Bishop Serapion of Suzdal and Vladimir. Metr. Kirill at the council of 1274 began a complete list of admonishing instruction starting with the low morality of the era and specifying that the calamity of the Mongol invasion and occupation was the result of national sins against God. The instruction of Serapion clearly characterizes the dark side of the feudal era: internecine strife, coercion, battery, enslavement of the weak by the strong, vengeance, indifference toward the destitute, weakness of family relationships, and alcoholism. Especially significant are Serapion’s reprimands against the remnants of paganism, reliance on sorcery, and the custom of burning witches at the stake during times of national distress and calamity. Compositions surviving from the 14th century include those of several abbots, monks and deacons of the era of Metr. Peter; all are similar to the admonishments of Metr. Kirill, of the previous century. The influence of apocryphal legends is especially noticeable in the letter from Bishop Vasili of Novgorod to Bishop Feodor of Tver, describing paradise. Bishop Vasili stated that the earthly paradise continues to exist on earth and that Makarius of Egypt 150

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation was able to attain it, while Enoch and Elijah reside there at the present. Positive instruction was provided by Bishop Matthei (Matthew) of Sarai. Living in the capital of region of Mongol occupation, his instruction focuses on faith, love, honor of clergy and attitude toward the Russian princes and toward servants. The instruction of the 15th century is characterized by its extreme simplicity and vitality, among which the teaching of Bishop Semeon of Novgorod is a primary example. Instruction of a positive nature, rather than condemnation, is exemplified by abbot Kirill of Bel-Ozerski Monastery in letters sent to feudal princes Vasili Dmitrievich of Moscow, Andrei of Mozhaisk, and Dmitri of Zvenigorodsk. Kirill’s attitude is that of an abbot under authority who is obligated to have a concern for the advancement of civil harmony and the prosperity of the state as well as the salvation of their souls. For all of this, the abbot and other clergy will answer to God, he states. Kyrill’s letters portray the nature of the era by insisting on the necessity of righteous judgment, ending oppression of orphans and slaves, abolishing unjust taxes, terminating the illegal trade in alcoholic beverages, and giving up dissension. Other writers of the century refute superstition, specifically mentioning the belief in the voice of animals and the attribution of meaning to the route of the flight of birds. They also try to explain natural occurrences such as earthquakes, storms, clouds, lightning and thunder in objective terms, rather than in terms of the activity of pagan deities.

46. SAINTS AND FOOLS IN CHRIST Several figures arise in the history of Orthodoxy having the title of “fool in Christ.” They are a unique class set apart from ordained clerics and monks. The first recorded fools in Christ are Isaaki of Kiev Pecher Monastery and Prokopi Yustyug, of the mid-13th century. Later fools in Christ, of the occupation era, were Nikolai Kolchanov, a miracle worker of Novgorod (d. 1392); his contemporary Feodor, also a miracle worker of Novgorod; and Maksim, a miracle worker of Moscow (d. 1433). The final prominent fool in Christ was Isidor Tverdislov, a miracle worker from Rostov (d. 1474). They distinguished themselves as pious mendicants who possessed supernatural insight or power, or had an ability of divine intercession. The somber mood imposed upon sincere individuals by the occupation led them to this extreme renunciation of the world, striving for a holiness they allowed to envelop and captivate their entire person; this was accentuated by the weakness and corruption of the Orthodox 151

History of Russian Christianity parish clergy, which drove them to seek their individual salvation on their own. These fools in Christ were the forerunners of the mystics of later centuries. The individual who foremost provided the style of the fool in Christ was Prokopi Yustyug (Ustuzhski). Propoki was not a native Russian but a merchant from eastern Europe, who had a business in Novgorod. He became captivated with Orthodoxy and denied Catholicism; he closed his business at the same time he accepted his new faith. After distributing his possessions to the poor, he settled to live for some time at Khutinski Monastery near Novgorod along the Volkhov River; during this period Prokopi and abbot Varlaam became close friends. Prokopi thereafter departed to Veliki Yustyug, in the wilderness of northwest Russia, where he developed into a fool in Christ. There he became friends with Kiprian, son of a prominent landlord having property along the lower Dvin River. Kiprian built Archangelsk Monastery in 1212, near Yustyug, where he lived for over 60 years until his death September 28, 1276. Prokopi spent considerable time with Kiprian. As a fool in Christ, Prokopi would wander about the local city, where he was abused by the residents; he spent his nights in prayer, or sleeping, at the local church or outdoors. He continued to live in this manner and a legend of his ability to intercede and prophesy developed. Prokopi died July 8, 1286 and was buried outside the city on the banks of the Suhona River. Isidore the Blessed was born in Germany and was brought up in Catholicism. His parents were wealthy, of royal extraction, but Isidore abandoned both them and Catholicism, became an ascetic and left to visit the various Orthodox churches and shrines in the east, eventually settling in Rostov. There he lived outdoors and gained a reputation as a fool in Christ; his sole shelter was a hut made of straw located in a marsh, where he lived during both cold and hot weather. Several miracles are attributed at him; Isidore died in 1474. Mikael of Khlop (Khlopski) was related to the feudal princes of Moscow but abandoned everything for God. He relocated to Khlop Monastery, near Novgorod, and attached himself to the abbot of the monastery, who assigned him a cloister. Mikael ate once a week and slept on the floor in his cloister. To him is attributed a prophecy made on the day of the birth of the future Tsar Ivan IV: that he would devastate Novgorod. Mikael Khlopski died 1452, after 44 years as an ascetic. Pavel of Obnor (Obnorski) was tonsured as a monk at the age of 22 and for the next 15 years lived in solitude near Troitse-Sergievski Monastery. After accepting a blessing from Sergei of Radonezh, he relocated to Khomelsk, where he lived three years, building for himself a cloister on a nearby mountain. Once 152

Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation disciples attached themselves to him, and with the blessing of Metr. Fotius, he founded a monastery dedicated to the Holy Trinity. He refused the position of abbot and preferred to live in his hovel on the mountain. Pavel Obnorski died 1429, at the age of 112. Savva of Visher (Visherski) was from a noble family, but was tonsured as a monk and traveled to Novgorod as an ascetic. Five miles outside the city he built a hut to reside in. After additional travel in the region Savva, with the blessing of Archbishop Semeon of Novgorod in 1418, he constructed a church in honor of the Ascension of the Lord (Vosnesenie Gospodnya). Savva erected a pillar for himself and he lived on it faithfully, only descending twice a week to attend services and eat. Savva the Blessed died in 1461. Several bishops, in addition to those saints earlier noted, dedicated their life to Russian Orthodoxy during the Mongol occupation era. Chroniclers mention: Ignati (d. 1288), Yakov (d. 1392), and Feodor (d. 1395) of Rostov; Vasili of Ryazan (d. 1367); Theoktist (d. 1308), Moises (d. 1351), and Vasili (d. 1351) of Novgorod; Dionisei of Suzdal (d. 1388); and Arseni of Tver (d. 1409) Three nuns are mentioned by the chroniclers for their efforts in early Russian monasticism during the Mongol occupation era, two of them having the same monastic name. The first Evfrosinia was born Theodulia, and was a princess of Suzdal, the daughter of Pr. Mikhail of Chernigov. Her parents arranged to marry her to a prince of Suzdal, but he died before their wedding day. In 1227, she renounced the world and took the veil as a nun at Rizopolozhenski (Placement of the Garment of the Theotokos) Convent in Suzdal. The other Evfrosinia was the wife of Pr. Dmitri Donskoi. Her husband died in battle in 1389 and left her a widow while still a young woman. Taking the veil as a nun shortly after, she used her late husband’s resources in 1393 to build a church dedicated to the Birth of the Blessed Virgin (Rozhdestvo Bogoroditza) in memory of the Battle of Kulikova. In 1407, she financed the construction of a second church dedicated to the Ascension of the Lord (Voznesenie Gospodnya). Evfrosinia passed away later that year, before the construction of the church was completed. A third noteworthy nun in the chronicles is Anastasia, another princess of Suzdal. She was the daughter of a Tver feudal prince. When she was twelve years of age, Pr. Andrei Konstantinovich of Suzdal requested her hand in marriage, and the parents consented. During these years she built Zachayevski Convent in Suzdal. Anastasia was married for thirteen years; her husband died in 1365, and then she remained a widow for four years before taking the veil at 153

History of Russian Christianity Zachayevski Convent, which she founded. She was tonsured by Bishop Dionysei and her new name became Theodora. She resided at the convent until her death in 1377 at the age of 46.

154

PART 4. THE ERA OF MOSCOVITE RUSSIA 47. METROPOLITAN GERONTI The next period of Orthodox history is the era of Moscovite Russia. It begins with the final defeat of Mongol forces in 1480, which ended 240 years of occupation. Geronti was metropolitan of Moscow and all Russia during this transitional period. He was originally archimandrite of Moscow Semeonov Monastery and then, in about 1455, was elevated to bishop of Kholomensk. During an 18-day interval after the death of Metr. Filipp on April 5, 1473, Tsar Ivan III Vasilich held an ecclesiastical council of prelates in Moscow. On April 23, Ivan III nominated Geronti for the cathedra of metropolitan and he was confirmed by the council. This day was also coincidentally the holiday of St. George. On the holiday of St. Peter, July 4, 1473, Geronti was ordained as metropolitan. He held the cathedra until his death on May 28, 1489. One of Geronti’s accomplishments was the reconstruction of Moscow Uspenski Cathedral, which was damaged in a fire April 4, 1473. It was reconsecrated August 12, 1479 and presently stands within the Moscow Kremlin. During the consecration of the cathedral, a controversy arose between Tsar Ivan III and Metr. Geronti having to do with the proper direction of the procession of the cross around the edifice. If it was to follow the pattern of the sun, the procession would have to go out through the doors (which face west) and exiting the church turn south — left — and proceed around the church counter-clockwise. If the procession ought to go in the direction opposite to that

155

History of Russian Christianity of the sun, the congregation would turn north — right — and proceed around the church clockwise. During the consecration, Metr. Geronti led the procession clockwise. Afterwards, certain of Metr. Geronti’s enemies and ill-wishers maligned him to Tsar Ivan for this and stated that the procession should have gone counter-clockwise. Tsar Ivan took their part, and declared the error grave enough that it would bring God’s wrath upon the nation. Research in church service books was unable to resolve the issue, because nothing was even mentioned about the direction of the procession. Several archimandrites and abbots arose to defend Metr. Geronti; one of them who had visited Mt. Athos in Greece stated that during his visit he saw the procession performed counter-clockwise. To oppose the metropolitan in the debate, the grand prince summoned Bishop Vassian of Rostov and archimandrite Gennadi of Moscow Chudovski Monastery, who both held the same view as the grand prince; and the former was a rival to Geronti for the cathedra. The metropolitan provided as evidence in his own support the fact that the deacon, while burning incense at the altar, walks with the incense burner around the throne-table clockwise, while Vassian and Gennadi had nothing to offer as material evidence to support their opposing view, only stating that as Christ — the true sun — resurrected from hell, then he followed the pattern of the sun during sunrise Easter morning. The debate led nowhere. Tsar Ivan held firm in his conviction and, hoping to change the metropolitan’s mind, ordered that no new churches be consecrated until the issued was resolved. The debate lay dormant until after the defeat of the Mongols in 1480 but surfaced again in 1481. Gennadi still stood behind the grand prince, along with Joasaph, the new Bishop of Rostov. Metr. Geronti was so annoyed by the harassment and intimidation that he went to Semeonov Monastery in Moscow and announced that he would resign from his cathedra unless the grand prince apologized and dropped the matter. With only two supporters among the prelates of Russian Orthodoxy and a rather weak case, Ivan apparently felt that nothing would be accomplished by pursuing the matter further; he dispatched his son as delegate and requested that Metr. Geronti remain on his cathedra. Geronti would not accept the apology from the son; Ivan then personally went to Semeonov Monastery, apologized, and asked Geronti to stay on. This put the matter to rest for about 150 years, and the procession was performed in the manner that Metr. Geronti felt proper. During the cathedra of Metr. Filipp, Moscow subjugated Novgorod in 1471. However, the residents refused to terminate their association with Poland, and so Tsar Ivan III sent his regiments to Novgorod on a regular basis to arrest 156

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia insurgents. Some were executed, while others were locked up, locally or in Moscow. In 1478, after invading and again gaining control of Novgorod, Tsar Ivan appropriated a significant amount of real estate that was part of the patrimony of the Church in that region. Archbishop Theofil of Novgorod was accused of treachery; no doubt he felt Tsar Ivan’s appropriation of ecclesiastical and monastic patrimony to be illegal, and he wanted to re-unite with Uniate Poland. Tsar Ivan had the archbishop arrested January 19, 1480 and brought to Moscow in custody while his entire Episcopal treasury was confiscated, becoming part of the Imperial treasury. In Moscow, Theofil was incarcerated at Chudovski Monastery, without further inquest or trial. He died there four years later, October 26, 1484. Metr. Geronti agreed with the orders of Tsar Ivan, and officially expelled Theofil from the priesthood and excommunicated him. The selection of a new archbishop occurred July 17, 1483 when three nominees were presented to Tsar Ivan: archimandrite Elisei (Elisha) of Spasso (Salvation) Monastery; archimandrite Gennadi of Chudovski Monastery; and monk Sergei of TroitseSergievski Monastery. Their ballots were placed on a table in the holy place at Uspenski Cathedral. After Metr. Geronti performed the liturgy, a ballot was selected, and it was that of monk Sergei. On September 4, 1483, monk Sergei was ordained as archbishop of Novgorod, the most important cathedra in Russia next to the metropolitan. Sergei however was morally and politically weak, and lasted only nine months at his episcopacy. He was replaced by archimandrite Gennadi of Chudovski Monastery, and retired to Troitse-Sergievski Monastery, again as a regular monk. To Tsar Ivan III belongs the credit for releasing Russia from Mongol occupation. For nine years he refused to pay tribute to Khan Akhmet. Delegates sent to Moscow from the Golden Horde to gather tribute were spurned and subsequently executed, except for one who returned to Khan Akhmet with Ivan’s demand to leave Russia. The Mongols gathered their army and stormed toward Moscow; the battle at the field of Borov took place on July 23, 1480 and the Mongols were defeated. In the period after the battle and through the end of his life, Ivan III no longer considered himself just grand prince, but tsar, a title adapted from the Greek appellation Caesar. Ivan felt he had a two-fold claim to the title: first, in his view, he had inherited the throne of the Byzantine kings, having married the Byzantine princess Zoe Paleologus; and, second, having overthrown the Mongols, he was no longer subordinate to any authority. The defeat of 157

History of Russian Christianity Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks boosted Ivan III to this higher plateau of authority over Russia, now as an independent autocrat.

48. ABBOT JOSEPH VOLOTZKI, METROPOLITAN ZOSIMA, AND THE JUDAIZERS The most difficult chapter of Russian Orthodoxy history to write is the one dealing with the Judaizers. All available information on the movement is written by Orthodox clergy and is deeply tainted with anti-Semitism. According to Orthodox sources, the Judaizers were the most infectious of all heresies to have ever surfaced in Russia, but after an objective and historical review of their activities and tenets we will find them not to have been a sect, at all, for there were too few of them to form one. The movement consisted of individuals within the Orthodox clergy and lay people who held convictions similar to those of the Bogomils. Like the Strigolniks, the new dissention erupted as a reaction to the corruption and illiteracy of prelates and parish priests and the influence and involvement of government polity in the Orthodox Church. The Judaizers were not Jews in any sense of the word; this appellation was applied to them only to discredit them. The group referred to themselves as the New Teaching. The primary source for information on the Judaizers are the writings of Joseph Volotzki, archbishop of Rostov at the time and abbot of his Joseph VolokoLamsk Monastery. Joseph Volotzki was born November 12, 1440, having the birth-name John. His grandfather Aleksandr had migrated to Russia from Lithuania during the reign of Dmitri Donskoi and received from him some property about twelve miles outside of Voloko-Lamsk (Volotzk), where John was born. At the age of eight, he was given to elder Arsenius of Voloko-Lamsk Kresto-Vozdvizhenski (Raising of the Cross) Monastery for his education. After some time he moved to another abbey in Voloko-Lamsk, Prechistoi Bogoroditza (Immaculate Theotokos), and lived there until the age of 20. Then he moved to a wilderness area near Tver to visit the famous ascetic Varsonofei, who counseled the young zealot to go to Borovsk to the venerated ascetic Pafnutius. John came under the tutelage of Pafnutius on February 13, 1460; he tonsured him and assigned him the new name Joseph. While at Borovsk, Joseph convinced his parents to join the monastic life. His father — also named John — joined the monastic brethren at Borovsk and was tonsured as a monk, accepting the new name Johanniki. There he resided for the next 15 years until his death. Marina took the veil at Voloko-Lamsk Convent 158

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia of St. Vlasiya, where she also resided for the next 30 years, until her death. Two of Joseph’s brothers, Vassian and Akaki, also joined the Borovsk Monastery. In later years Vassian became archbishop of Rostov (1506-1516), while Akaki became bishop of Tver (1525-1546). When the venerated Pafnutius was on his deathbed, the Borovski monastic brethren asked him who should be his successor. Without hesitation he directed their attention to Joseph, who had now lived at the monastery some 17 years and was outstanding for his intelligence, charity and asceticism. In 1477, Joseph was ordained abbot of Borovsk-Pafnutiev Monastery by Metr. Geronti. Once he became abbot, more stringent regulations were imposed on the monastic brethren, engendering complaints and dissatisfaction. Hardly a year later, Joseph took leave of Borovsk-Pafnutius and for the next twelve months traveled about Russia visiting other monasteries. The monastery that most impressed Joseph and whose pattern he sought to emulate was Kirill Bel-Ozerski. Returning to Borovsk, Joseph resigned his abbacy, and with seven of the brethren — including his two brothers — he returned to his home near VolokoLamsk. The feudal prince of the region, Boris Vasilich, brother of Tsar Ivan III, took a liking to Joseph. He donated some land for a monastery about ten miles from the city and was able to acquire the blessing of Archbishop Gennadi of Novgorod on Joseph’s behalf. The first church at the new premises — later to be known as Joseph Voloko-Lamsk Monastery — was consecrated on August 15, 1479. The new monastic facility was endowed with gifts from its patrons: feudal prince Boris Vasilich, Novgorod Archbishop Gennadi, and other local landlords who bequeathed money, farms, villages and undeveloped land to the new monastery. Monks from Borovsk migrated to Joseph’s monastery as well as many lay people seeking to enter the new monastic community as novitiates, and their families also gave generously to the monastery. Joseph Volotzki was an excellent speaker and residents of the area flocked to listen to his sermons; they discussed issues with him and ask his counsel on various matters. The regimen instituted at his monastery was based on the austere program that he learned while visiting Kirill Bel-Ozerski. Zealous for Russian Orthodoxy, Joseph Volotzki did not stop short of calling the liberal Metr. Zosima names: Judas the Betrayer, predecessor of the antichrist, first-born of Satan, a criminal of a type that had never surfaced yet among apostates — and all of this, right to his face. It is no wonder that Archbishop Gennadi of Novgorod selected abbot Joseph as his confederate in the inquisition of Judaizers. His book Prosvititel (Enlightener) served as the Orthodox basis for inquisition and persecution of 159

History of Russian Christianity not only Judaizers, but also other dissenting and sectarian denominations in later years. During the cathedra of Metr. Filipp I, a man identified only by the name of Sakhari arrived in Novgorod on November 8, 1470, from Latvia, as part of the retinue of Pr. Mikhail Aleksandrovich of Kiev. The prince remained in Novgorod about four months and departed March 15, 1471, but no information indicates what became of Sakhari after this date; he completely disappears from the scene. (The name Sakhari is a modification of Zakhariya, the Russian form of Zachariah.) Joseph Volotzki labeled Sakhari a Jew, but there is no evidence to justify this except that Sakhari did advocate circumcision. More Bogomilism than Judaism is apparent in Sakhari’s tenets. Some historians have identified Sakhari as a member of the Karaite sect of the Jews, and many of them did live in Ukraine and Latvia during this era; but this is just conjecture. Livanov describes Sakhari in the following and somewhat more objective terms. Sakhari was an educated individual and had an excellent mastery of dialectics; he knew the Holy Scriptures and the works of the holy fathers, astrology, and all the sciences. He was also familiar with the natural sciences. Sakhari attached himself to the Judaizer interpretation, and it is difficult to understand why. It is doubtful that he was a Talmudist, because in the teaching of Sakhari not one word from the Talmud is found. By all likelihood he was a member of some religious community in Latvia. His entire teaching did not contain anything new or original, nor was it complete, delivered to us from somewhere else, but was a compilation of various and sundry similar and conflicting opinions and interpretations, all of which developed from the eras of the Bogomils and Strigolniks on Russian soil. And so we see that the New Teaching, popularly labeled the sect of the Judaizers, quickly seized the Russian community of that era and found proselytes among educated individuals. One of the preachers was Gregori Mikhailovich Puchin, the son of an influential boyar who had great authority in Novgorod. Remnants of the Strigolniks joined the New Teaching with a large group of priests and deacons, citizens, churchmen, city rulers and peasants. The writings of Kozmi (Cosmas), a Bulgarian presbyter and organizer of the sect of the Bogomils, and those of Menander and Jesus the son of Sirach, promoted the New Teaching along with other books on logic and philosophy which were apparently brought from Latvia.

As part of the retinue of the prince of Kiev, Sakhari had access to the higher circles of both polity and religion in Russia. Sakhari’s first convert in Novgorod was the priest Dionysei, who then brought another priest, Aleksei, who was also converted. These two priests became the fountainhead of the Judaizer

160

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia movement. At this time five of Sakhari’s fellows migrated from Latvia to Novgorod, but information as to their history and role is vague. Priest Aleksei changed his name to Abraham and his wife changed her name to Sarah. Sakhari and his friends disappear from history at this time; Aleksei and Dionysei went on to preach their convictions, which they called the New Teaching. Their proselytes included Gabriel, protopope of the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Novgorod, and about 20 more priests and deacons of the region. The newest converts to their New Teaching in Moscow were Zosima, archimandrite of Semeonov Monastery and later metropolitan, and Theodor Vasilich Kuritzin, a secretary of Tsar Ivan III, and others. The most prominent convert to the New Teaching was Elena Stefanovna, a daughter-in-law of Tsar Ivan. The movement continued developing in Novgorod quietly and slowly for nine years and then spread into Moscow. Toward the end of 1479, Tsar Ivan visited Novgorod and took a liking to priests Aleksei and Dionysei; he took them to Moscow with him on his return. Aleksei was elevated to protopope of Uspenski Cathedral, while Dionysei became a priest at Archangelsk Cathedral. By promoting them in Moscow, Tsar Ivan indicated that he recognized qualities in these men that were valuable to Russian Orthodoxy; this was the same Tsar Ivan who was so meticulous regarding Orthodox tradition in the direction of the procession of the cross. The New Teaching continued to expand clandestinely and subtly for 17 years, when it was exposed by the zealous new archbishop of Novgorod, Gennadi. The Judaizers had expanded under archbishop Sergei of Novgorod, a morally and politically weak man who did not consider the New Teaching a threat to Orthodoxy. He resigned June 27, 1484. His replacement Gennadi, formerly archimandrite of Chudovski Monastery in Moscow, was ordained archbishop of Novgorod December 12, 1484. Gennadi was a fervent advocate of capital punishment for anyone labeled a heretic to Orthodoxy, and he took as his example the Catholic Inquisition in Spain (prosecuted by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Castile and Aragon, at the request of Pope Innocent VIII). Gennadi looked for a ruthless execution of all heretics by burning them at the stake or by public hangings. “Sinners or heretics,” Gennadi said to Tsar Ivan III, “must be put to death by our hands, or we are no different than them in prayer.” Gennadi arrived to take up his post December 9, 1485; he heard about the dissenters from some drunk parish priests (sic). Gennadi relayed the information to Metr. Geronti and Tsar Ivan III, and began an investigation himself. The tsar ordered Gennadi to take all measures necessary to subdue the dissenters. Three individuals were arrested in Novgorod but were released on bail; they fled to 161

History of Russian Christianity Moscow. They were the priest Grigori, his son Samson, a deacon, and the priest Ersima. Gennadi proceeded with his inquisition of Judaizers, based on the order he received from Tsar Ivan. Gennadi requested and received the assistance of abbot Joseph of Voloko-Lamsk Monastery. Those members of the movement who repented were reunited to Orthodoxy and were required to attend liturgy regularly, while those who persisted in their convictions were arrested and handed over to the civil authorities for disciplinary action. Gennadi wrote reports regarding the unrepentant, and tried to convince both metropolitan and tsar to condemn them in absentia and sentence them to execution. This did not occur; there was friction between him and Metr. Geronti. Tsar Ivan, influenced by protopopes Aleksei and Th. Kuritzin, likewise refused to issue an order for their execution. Thus the prosecution of the movement subsided for a while and those who had been arrested were released; they eventually migrated to Moscow. The matter lay dormant until the death of Metr. Geronti May 28, 1489. After an interval of over a year, and for reasons unknown, as the chronicler states, archimandrite Zosima of Semeonov Monastery was selected September 19 and then ordained September 26, 1490 as metropolitan of Russia. Joseph Volotzki states that protopope Aleksei cast a demonic spell on Tsar Ivan, leading him to select and ordain a secret adherent of the Judaizers as metropolitan (even though protopope Aleksei died shortly after Metr. Geronti, before the ordination of Zosima). How Zosima managed to have himself ordained as metropolitan — whether or not he was a secret adherent of the Judaizer conviction — becomes apparent if we consider that Ivan III’s main criterion was ability in ecclesiastical administration. More than likely Zosima became the target of Joseph Volotzki’s anger because of his lenient attitude toward the New Teaching, and so Joseph labeled Zosima a secret Judaizer and turned against him. Gennadi wrote a letter to the new metropolitan and the tsar, requesting an ecclesiastical council to declare anathema on these heretics (as he considered them). Metr. Zosima agreed to a new council and Gennadi was able to arrest two members of the New Teaching: protopope Dionysei of Archangelsk Cathedral and a monk named Zakharie, who was earlier father superior of a monastery in Pskov. Zakharie fell under suspicion when reports were published that he had suspended performance of the Eucharist at his monastery. The council convened October 17, 1490, 21 days after Zosima’s ordination as metropolitan. Present at this council were Bishop Tikhon of Rostov, Bishop Nifont of Suzdal, Bishop Filothei of Perm, Bishop Vassian of Tver, Bishop Semeon of Ryazan, and several archimandrites, abbots and priests. The new metropolitan presided over the council. Tsar Ivan did not attend but sent his 162

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia son, Tsarevich Vasili III Ivanovich in his place. Abbot Athani of TroitseSergievski Monastery and the venerated Trans-Volga elders Nil of Sor (Sorski) and Paisei of Yaroslav (Yaroslavov) also attended. The defendants denied all charges of heresy hurled against them by Gennadi, but they were convicted on all counts. Tsar Ivan III felt capital punishment was unnecessary and he only authorized exile or corporal punishment. Metr. Zosima and the venerated elders Nil of Sor and Paisei of Yaroslav also opposed execution. Archbishop Gennadi ignored their intercession and had them punished as he saw fit. Now condemned as heretics, they were excommunicated from the Church. The chroniclers record the names of several men who were excommunicated along with Dionysei and Zakarie: protopope Gabriel of Novgorod, deacon Gridya of Borisoglebsk, priest Denis of Archangel, and deacon Samukhi of Nikolsk. A total of nine men were sentenced. Some were incarcerated, while others were sent to Novgorod to be punished. Beginning 30 miles outside of Novgorod, they were seated backwards on horses and wearing their clothes turned inside out; they were capped with the pointed bast helmets that were a sign of the insane. They also wore a plaque stating, “Behold the hosts of satan.” Thus they were toured through the cities and towns as they journeyed toward Novgorod. Whoever saw them would spit on them, right in their eyes, and would hurl abuse at them, screaming, “Look at you enemies of God, blasphemers of Christ.” Having arrived in Novgorod they were secured in wooden cages; their hats were set on fire and they were burned to death. The approaching fatal year of 1492 gave the Judaizers new impetus. From Orthodox Greece migrated a new interpretation of the final days, which was accepted by many Orthodox clergy in Moscovite Russia. According to the Orthodox calendar, 1492 completed 7,000 years from the creation of the world, which would usher in the new millennium and Christ’s second coming. Bolstering this conviction, Orthodox believers quoted Solomon: “Give a portion to seven or even to eight, for you know not what evil may happen on earth” (Eccl 11:2). They interpreted this to mean that humanity was allotted seven periods of residence, while the eighth would become eternity. These periods were defined as millennia. When the year 1492 came and passed without incident, Judaizers accused the Orthodox clergy of membership in a pseudo-church. The failed prediction created increased disorder in Orthodoxy, with each side hurling anathemas at the other. Many of the serfs and peasantry joined the New Teaching, feeling slighted by Orthodoxy. As the number of adherents of the New Teaching increased, so did the vengeance of Joseph Volotzki. Because of Metr. Zosima’s 163

History of Russian Christianity leniency toward the “heretics,” he was himself accused by Joseph Volotzki of being a clandestine Judaizer. Zosima did not view the Judaizers as a threat to the dominion of Orthodoxy and in retaliation accused Joseph Volotzki of sensationalism. Joseph Volotzki’s incessant maligning of Metr. Zosima eventually led to his resignation May 17, 1491 after three years and eight months as metropolitan. He retired to Troitse-Sergievski Monastery. A new metropolitan was ordained one and a half years later September 20, 1495 — Simon, a monk of the same monastery. Theodor Kuritzen, however, was still actively promoting the New Teaching, although clandestinely. He was able to persuade Tsar Ivan to elevate a fellow adherent, Kassian, as archimandrite of Yurievski Monastery in Novgorod, which became the next center of Judaizer thought until 1504. As the adherents increased in numbers as a result of Kassian’s proselytism, Joseph Volotzki also began to prepare his second phase of inquisition. He wrote the book “Prosvititel” (The Enlightener) at about this time, exposing the New Teaching as heretical, with Jewish roots, and stating that the only way to rid Orthodoxy of this plague was by executing its members. Joseph accused the Judaizers of defiling Orthodox churches, dishonoring holy icons, conducting clandestine services where they offered blood sacrifices, and performing liturgy using Jewish traditions. This anti-Semitic sensationalism was effective in the creation of a second ecclesiastical council in 1503 to anathematize and punish the newest group of dissenters. Theodor Kuritzen died sometime between 1497 and the beginning of the second council in 1503. The Judaizer heresy was not actually the primary topic of the council. Tsar Ivan summoned the council to discuss what he felt were topics of major moral importance; they will be discussed in the following chapter. Joseph Volotzki, now respected by both tsar and prelates, attended the council. When the topic turned to the Judaizers, Joseph Volotzki refuted their heresy and demanded that the leading figures be sentenced to death by being locked in wooden cages and publicly set on fire. Other adherents were to have their tongues cut out, and incarcerated permanently. Even if any of the accused should repent, he felt the repentance should not be considered valid or sincere, as it would have been performed out of fear of reprisal for heresy; the accused should therefore still be subject to some type of corporal punishment. The new metropolitan Simon, along with many higher clergy, voted in favor of capital punishment. The tsar, having a more lenient and mature attitude toward dissenters from Orthodoxy, opposed capital punishment — although he still felt they should be punished in some manner. Tsar Ivan had the support of the two 164

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia venerated Trans-Volga elders at this council, also: Nil Sorski and Paisei Yaroslavov. Toward the conclusion of the council the majority view overcame the leniency of the tsar and Trans-Volga elders. Ivan capitulated to their demands and authorized the execution of any dissenters apprehended. He also ordered a search throughout all the cities, and decreed that the dissenters be brought to Moscow. In November and December of 1503, all the Judaizers who were apprehended were tried at an Episcopal court where Orthodox witnesses testified against them, and they were excommunicated and sentenced. The primary preachers of the New Teaching, Ivan Volk, a brother of Kuritzen, Ivan Maksimov, brother of protopope Aleksei, Dmitri Konovalov, and archimandrite Kassian of Yurievski Monastery, were duly secured in wooden cages and burned to death on December 27, 1503 in Moscow. Another leader, Nekras Rukova, had his tongue excised and was subsequently burned to death after his arrival in Novgorod. The rest of the adherents were either exiled to various monasteries to be imprisoned until the end of their lives, or else were burned to death. The executions of 1503-1504 meant the demise of the New Teaching as a public religious movement. Any remaining adherents held their views in private. The beliefs and tenets that defined the New Teaching, or Judaizers, is discussed less by Orthodox historians than the sensationalism surrounding them as dissenters of Orthodoxy; and their own documents have not survived. Livanov recorded the primary tenets of the Judaizers as the following. God the Father Almighty has neither Son nor Holy Spirit as persons of the same essence and co-enthroned with him. Where in Scripture it is stated that God the Father Almighty possesses the Word and Spirit, this refers to His revealed word and the spirit residing in the atmosphere. Jesus Christ is not the actual son of God. The son of God foretold in Scripture is not yet born, and when he is born he will called son of God, not due to essence, but by grace, as were Moses, David and other prophets and holy men. The Christ that is confessed by Christians was a plain person and not God. He was crucified, died, and so decayed in the tomb. The law of Moses must be observed. (This pertained to circumcision, Old Testament holidays, the Sabbath, food laws, and specifically the injunction not to utilize images in worship.) The writings of the holy fathers of the early church are false, and likewise the New Testament. The apostle wrote that Christ was to return soon and claimed that they were already in the concluding period of life on earth, but now 1500 years have passed and Christ has not yet returned.

165

History of Russian Christianity Veneration of icons and the crucifix is idolatry. Orthodox traditions are to be rejected. Monasticism is a human development and monks are apostates from the writings of the prophets, gospels and apostles. If is it true that the prophetic writings speak about the last judgment, resurrection of the dead, and etc., then it is not Jesus Christ who will judge, but God Almighty. The body of Christ and His blood in the sacrament of the Eucharist is not actual flesh and blood, but plain bread and wine, and the Eucharist has no sacramental validity. Temples and other sacred items made by hand are unnecessary. The Fast days of Wednesdays and Fridays are to be rejected. Meat and milk can be eaten on these days. The saints are not to be worshipped and holy relics are not to be venerated.

Adherents of the New Teaching did reject certain liturgical, traditional and theological aspects of Orthodoxy. The Jewish identity that Joseph Volotzki recognized in the New Teaching was the drive behind his anti-Semitism, but he failed to acknowledge that it was the corruption of Orthodoxy during this era that acted as a catalyst for the progress of the Judaizer movement. The common peasantry was attracted to the New Teaching as a movement with which they could identify and which offered more benefit to their personal life than the complex theology and liturgy of Orthodoxy. The elders of the New Teaching also provided a higher standard of morality than either the parish priest or prelate. Rudnev, a researcher on the dissenters of early Russia, concluded in 1838 that the movement labeled Judaizer was not Judaism, neither was it purely rationalistic Christian thought, but a combination of certain facets of the two. Rudnev concluded, as did Livanov, that the Bogomil influence is more apparent in the New Teaching than anything Talmudic or Jewish. Eventually, all of the leaders of the New Teaching perished as martyrs. After the council of 1503, the balance of members either fled Russia entirely to Lithuania or Germany, or scattered throughout Moscovite Russia, away from large metropolitan centers and diocesan capitals. The last of the inquisitions occurred in 1520, with the arrest of Isaak. An ecclesiastical council held that year ordered his execution for heresy and labeled him “a Jewish sorcerer, magician and deceiver.” The last mention of the movement comes in a report made by Archbishop Makari — later metropolitan — to Tsar Vasili III, stating that the movement had been vanquished. The movement did go dormant at this time,

166

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia except in outlying regions which became fertile soil for the later growth and development of the teachings of Bashkin and Tveritinov. A remnant of Judaizers resided in Tambov as late as the 1760s under the tutelage of their elder, Matvei Semeonovich Dalmatov. At another council, held in 1505, Archbishop Gennadi was tried for simony. It appears he deposed several priests for no apparent reason and then promoted others in their place after accepting a bribe. Tsar Ivan summoned Gennadi to Moscow when he heard about this. At the trial, Gennadi was convicted of simony, was defrocked and relieved of his diocese, and was incarcerated at Chudovski Monastery. Confined to a cloister under guard, there he stayed until he died, December 3, 1515, after eleven years of incarceration. Tsar Ivan III died October 27, 1505; Joseph Volotzki died September 9, 1515.

49. METROPOLITAN SIMON The reason for Metr. Zosima’s resignation and his replacement by Simon was discussed in the previous chapter. Russian historians relate the manner of Simon’s ordination September 20, 1495. After Simon was selected by a council of prelates, he entered the palace to be presented to the tsar. They left the palace together and were accompanied by the royal family; everyone walked together in a procession to Uspenski Cathedral in the Moscow Kremlin. There the metropolitan-elect kissed the icon of the Vladimir Theotokos and venerated the tombs of his predecessors. From the cathedral they walked to the home of the metropolitan, where at the doors the tsar delivered him back to the prelates to return to the cathedral to complete the ordination. At the conclusion of the liturgy of ordination, the tsar entrusted him with the shepherd’s staff. After the ordination, the metropolitan rode around the city on a donkey that was led by one of the noblemen. As mentioned above, Ivan III Vasilich considered himself heir to the Byzantine throne after the fall of Constantinople in 1452 to the Ottoman Turks, and especially given his marriage to the Greek princess Zoe Paleologus. Now referring to himself as Tsar of Russia, Ivan III did not hesitate to personally arrange the selection and ordination of Simon as metropolitan by Russian prelates. Shortly after Simon’s accession to the metropolitan’s cathedra, an ecclesiastical council was held in Moscow (April 16 through August 6, 1503) in order to resolve issues of morality and ethics that plagued the priesthood. The 167

History of Russian Christianity Judaizer matter one of the topics discussed. These topics had been discussed by earlier metropolitans and ordinances had been established; however, despite these earlier efforts, the ordinances were not implemented at the parish level and were ineffective. The first issue was simony. Bishops continued to require payment from candidates for ordination. The council ruled that, beginning with the metropolitan, no ecclesiastical figure should require money as a prerequisite for an ordination nor should he select the candidate who would provide the greater contribution. It was because of this ordinance that Archbishop Gennadi of Novgorod was deposed from his episcopacy and incarcerated in 1505. The second issue was the performance of rites and liturgies by priests who had become drunk the night before. Because of their hangovers, they were unable to perform the liturgy. The council decreed that any priest or monk who drank alcoholic beverages was not to perform any church service the following day. The next issue was the cohabitation of monks and nuns. It was not unusual to have a convent and monastery side by side, or nuns living at a monastery. This close proximity led to moral dissolution. The father superior often did not have the fortitude to curb this immorality, or else himself had a nun with whom he quartered. A coincident issue was widowed priests who acquired for themselves a concubine. The council decreed that monks and priests who were caught violating their vow of chastity should be defrocked and expelled from the monastery or parish, or else they were to cease the immorality and remain chaste, living at a monastery. Widowed priests could no longer reside at or administrate a parish. All these laudable decrees were, again, unappealing, unenforceable and ineffective. The final issue discussed at this council was the matter of ecclesiastical patrimony: the vast expanses of real estate, including serfs, villages and inclusive property owned by Russian Orthodoxy. Paisei Yaroslavov and Nil Sorski were the two primary elders that advocated poverty and self-subsistence for the monasteries. Paisei was a monk tonsured at an unrecorded monastery north of the Volga River, known as the Trans-Volga region. The primary monasteries of the Trans-Volga were Kirill Bel-Ozerski and Therapontov, and which area also contained several smaller hermitages and abbeys. In 1479, Tsar Ivan III ordered Paisei to assume the responsibility of abbot of Troitse-Sergievski Monastery. Paisei accepted the post but left after three years to retire as a regular monk. Nil Sorski was a disciple of Paisei and founded a hermitage on the Sor River about eight miles from Kirill Bel-Ozerski Monastery. Nil traveled to Constantinople and Mt. Athos in his early years and brought to Russia more instruction on ascetic practices. Both of these elders were granted privileges by their patron 168

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia and benefactor Tsar Ivan III, and they were the two who requested the dissolution of ecclesiastical patrimony at this council. The faction of clergy in favor of ecclesiastical patrimony were labeled “possessors,” while those against were labeled “non-possessors.” In addition to the above elders, the well-known monk and former prince Vassian Kosoi of the Patrikeev family sided in with the non-possessors. At the council of 1503, after the discussion ended regarding widowed priests, Nil announced to the council his proposition for the reformation of Russian monasticism. His ideal concept was that monasteries should not possess real estate populated with serfs, but that monks should support themselves by working at crafts or agriculture, and if this provided insufficient income then they could accept donations from pilgrims and other charitable individuals — but only the amount necessary to live on, not accepting any more. Paisei and Nil’s views regarding the impropriety of wealthy monasteries have as their source Kirill of Bel-Ozersk, who died in 1427. According to the true ideal of monasticism, monks must provide for themselves by the labor of their own hands and acquire an excess in order to have something to contribute to the poor. As noted in an earlier chapter, Theodosius of Pecher Monastery, although he accepted donations of real estate from charitable citizens, opposed using that to provide financial security for the monastery. He claimed it reflected insecurity and meager faith on the part of the monastic brethren. Kirill of Bel-Ozersk, following the concepts of Theodosius of Pecher, accepted donations of real estate to the monastery, and even utilized monastery funds to purchase more, yet in his mind it amounted to excessive ecclesiastical patrimony, to which he opposed. After Kirill’s death his views were promulgated by Paisei Yaroslavov and Nil Sorski. These two men were inspired to crystallize their convictions and to undertake a complete reformation of Russian monasticism, to return it to what they saw as its original ideal state. During the zealous era of Paisei and Nil, abbots and archimandrites were obsessed with a passion to acquire more and more towns and villages, and often thought of nothing else. They took full advantage of their position to extort real estate from landlords and feudal princes under the façade of Christian charity. Once gaining possession of land, they directed their efforts to developing it agriculturally, hoping for greater income. Monks exploited the serfs living on their patrimony no less ruthlessly than the previous landlord or feudal prince. Some father superiors even appropriated land by arguing over borders and then going to court, knowing that the judge would decide the new property line in their favor. As a result of this blatantly unethical conduct, the notion that 169

History of Russian Christianity monasticism entailed a rejection and denial of the world became a laughing matter. It was these examples of avarice that prompted exceptional people to raise their voices against ecclesiastical and monastery patrimony. Nil Sorski opposed ecclesiastical patrimony in the depths of his soul and he described it to his contemporaries as the fatal venom of monasticism, stating that monasteries, once highly respected, had become an abomination as a result of property ownership and management. Of course, the drive led by the two Trans-Volga elders to radically reform monasticism to its original ideal was nothing more than a pipe dream. Apart from Nil’s few supporters from Bel-Ozerski Monastery, the council was against the proposition. His proposal was not even debated or discussed: for the most part, it was simply disregarded. The council selected Joseph Volotzki to refute the proposal, and his refutation was the basis for the centuries-old practice of monastic patrimony: it is implemented as a source of income to provide financial security for the monastery, and this applied equally to parish churches, dioceses, and the cathedra of the metropolitan. In regard to the abuse of such contributions of real estate Joseph stated that individual transgressions were not sufficient reason to blame the entire monastic system and so deprive it of its patrimony. Joseph also viewed the wealth of the Church, both monastic and parish, as a means to attract better quality monks and priests, those who would not become ordained if they actually had to support themselves by manual labor and live in poverty. The prelates had their own interests to defend and were fortunate to have such an advocate as Joseph Volotzki; he quickly convinced the council of the danger in allowing the state to secularize ecclesiastical patrimony. Such was the answer provided to Paisei Yaroslavov and Nil Sorski at the council. The answer had yet to be presented to Tsar Ivan; Nil Sorski’s proposal had important implications for the interests of the state and the tsar’s own personal interests. Tsar Ivan had already distributed extensive lands to his servants and employees for their service, and now he was desperate for more fertile land. Second, Tsar Ivan also possessed a passion for acquiring more wealth. If Nil’s proposal materialized, it would give him access to large tracts of excellent land, to do with as he pleased. For these reasons, he was inclined to favor Nil’s view about the impropriety of monastic real estate holdings. Tsar Ivan had already secularized some of the real estate of the churches and monasteries of Novgorod during his struggle with them over control of the region in 1478, and again in 1500, when Ivan appropriated more real estate from the archbishop of Novgorod and regional monasteries.

170

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia If Tsar Ivan thought that the prelates at the council would be favorably disposed toward Nil’s proposal, he was mistaken. The council informed Tsar Ivan that they were unable to grant elder Nil’s request that monasteries and churches abolish real estate proprietorship and become self-sustaining, explaining that the tradition of the Church owning real estate holdings and serfs and villages was instituted centuries earlier by prelates and ecclesiastical councils who agreed that such property, once acquired by the Church, was God’s property, to be under the administration of the guardian church. The property was sanctified land, to be considered a gift of God, and it would be sacrilegious to violate the will of God by returning the land (or allowing the land to be repossessed) for secular use. In essence, the council decreed a retroactive edict to their own advantage, forbidding them to forfeit any ecclesiastical real estate. Tsar Ivan was not at all satisfied with the results of the council. The prelates had to read their declaration through an entire three times before the tsar accepted it as their consensual decision. Ivan at least hoped for a concession, for some compromise; but such was not the case. Still, there is no evidence that he came away with harsh feelings toward either his metropolitan or toward Joseph Volotzki. However, that was hardly the end of the matter; later tsars persisted in efforts to secularize ecclesiastical real estate. Shortly after the council concluded, Tsar Ivan issued two laws regarding transfer of property to the Church. The first allowed heirs the opportunity to buy back or redeem the property at a later date, if they felt they had been deprived of an inheritance by their parents. The second law forbade any property that contained serfs to be transferred to the Church without the express approval of the tsar; but this only pertained to certain provinces in the outlying regions of Moscovite Russia. The legislation proved futile, as local feudal princes continued to allow the Church to expand and acquire property for development in regions distant from the capital Moscow. As far as Metr. Simon’s role as supreme pastor of Russian Orthodoxy is concerned, there are only two extant letters that display his attitude toward morality, apart from the reforms of the council of 1503. Both of these instructives are addressed to the city of Perm. The first was to the clergy and the second to the laity, dated August 22, 1501. The bishop of Perm had passed away in April of that year, and a new bishop was not ordained until the following year, May 5, 1502. Metr. Simon’s two instructives deal with temptations that both clergy and laity faced, and express the hope that they would persevere and continue in Orthodoxy until the new bishop was ordained. 171

History of Russian Christianity After 16 years as metropolitan of Russia, Simon passed away April 30, 1511.

50. METROPOLITAN VARLAAM The son of Ivan III, Vasili III, likewise considered himself tsar — or independent autocrat — over Russia, and in fact to a greater degree than his father did. Tsar Vasili selected Varlaam as metropolitan; he had been archimandrite of Semeonov Monastery in Moscow since 1506. Varlaam was selected on July 27, 1511, four months after the death of Simon, and was ordained August 3, 1511. A visitor to Russia at the time, Baron Gerbershtein, recorded his impression of the metropolitan’s nomination. Gerbershtein visited Russia twice, from April 14 to November 21, 1517, and from April 26 to November 11, 1526. He wrote that in previous ages the metropolitan and archbishops were selected by a council of other archbishops along with bishops, archimandrites and abbots who sought throughout the monasteries and abbeys a man of holy life, whom they would nominate. At the present time, he recorded, the new sovereign had the custom of inviting a select group to his presence and then he would choose one of them as he saw fit. Varlaam’s selection as metropolitan proved to be a disappointment for Tsar Vasili III. In his favor, in ecclesiastical matters Varlaam was sympathetic toward those labeled “non-possessors,” and was a supporter of the former prince and now monk Vassian Kosoi; but they had been the losing faction. Later during his cathedra, Metr. Varlaam protected Maksim the Greek, who was disliked by many. The historical record indicates that Varlaam was an austere person, never a sycophant of the tsar, and who did nothing opposed to his own conscience. With such high moral standards, Varlaam did not fit in well with the tsar’s circle. Varlaam followed the ideas of the Trans-Volga elders, seeking to introduce and put into practice high principles of Christian morality; he could not approve all of the activities of feudal politics. As a result, Metr. Varlaam was forced to resign or was forced out of his cathedra by Tsar Vasili. The fatal point of contention was Tsar Vasili’s attempt to violate a peace treaty between himself and a regional feudal prince, Vasili Ivanovich Schematich. The tsar sought to invade the principality of Schematich and append it to his own Moscovite principality; Varlaam would not give his consent and rather reprimanded the tsar for wishing to violate the treaty. Tsar Vasili III forced Metr. Varlaam out of 172

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia his cathedra December 17 or 18, 1521 after ten years as metropolitan. First, he was exiled to Kirill Bel-Ozerski Monastery, where he was incarcerated in shackles and fetters in an isolated cell. Later that month, Varlaam was transferred to Kamennoi Monastery at Kubenski Lake, in Vologda province, where he spent the remainder of his life as a regular monk. The accounts do not indicate the date of his death.

51. MOSCOW — THE THIRD ROME The Russian concept that the right and privilege of the Byzantine emperor had been transferred to the tsar of Moscow found its primary basis and support in the marriage of Tsar Ivan III to the niece of the last Byzantine Emperor, Zoe Paleologus (in Russia, her name was changed to Sophia, because Russian prelates considered her Greek name Uniate). With this marriage it was as if the Moscow sovereignty acquired a formal and judicial right to the Byzantine crown. Pavel Miliukov described the ideology as follows: Marrying Sophia Paleologus, Tsar Ivan III became for his generation the heir of the Caesaro-Papism of the Byzantine emperors. And in the same move, the Russian Church claimed its own right to independence from the patriarch of Constantinople; and the Russian kings took on a role as its representative and head, even though their claims did not extend as far as the boundaries that the Byzantine emperors placed under their authority. Emperor Constantine XI Paleologus had been found dead June 1, 1453, the day after the Ottoman Turks defeated Constantinople. Of his family, only two brothers remained: Dmitri and Thomas; they were living in Peloponesia. Dmitri died in captivity shortly thereafter; he was a monk, and left no children. Thomas fled to Venice, seeking refuge from the Turks and asking Rome for protection, and he died there sometime later. Thomas left four children, whom the pope took under his tutelage: Manuel, Andrei, Helen and Zoe. Of them, Manuel returned to the Turkish sultan and converted to Islam; Helen died in her early years; Zoe and Andrei were educated in Rome under the guidance of cardinal Vissarion. Zoe was engaged first to a wealthy and popular Venetian, which engagement was broken when the grand prince of Moscow became interested in her. Rome supported the marriage, hoping that Russia would provide military assistance in a Crusade against the Turks — which was a futile dream, nonetheless. In 1473, the wife of a Venetian seignior (whose name has been lost) wrote to Ivan Tsar III, saying that the eastern empire had terminated the imperial dynasty through the male offspring, and that it was now to continue and

173

History of Russian Christianity pertain to Ivan III’s family as a result of the marriage. The existence of Sophia’s brother Andrei was ignored for political expediency.

Shortly after the liberation from Mongol occupation in 1480, Ivan III became the first of Moscow princes to officially adopt an autocratic title by referring to himself as tsar (from the Roman Caesar). His donning of the title celebrated both events: taking up the legacy of Byzantium, and liberating Russia from Mongol occupation. In correspondence, Ivan III referred to himself as, “By the mercy of God, Tsar of all Russia.” His son Vasili III continued the tradition and referred to himself in correspondence as, “By the mercy of God, tsar and grand prince.” The development of the theory of Moscow as the “Third Rome” began with Metr. Zosima in 1492. In his announcement regarding the Easter cycle he wrote, “And now, may God glorify our enlightened, faithful and Christ-loving grand prince Ivan Vasilich within Orthodoxy, the sovereign and autocrat of all Russia, the new king Constantine for the new city of Constantine — Moscow.” The ambassadorial translator Dmitri Gerasimov wrote the “Story of the White Cowl,” wherein he exalts the ecclesiastical authority of Russia coincident with its political significance. The author’s intent was to explain the transfer of the sole Orthodox Christian kingdom. The supreme sacred item was the white cowl which, in a miraculous fashion, was relocated to Russia and then worn by the archbishops of Novgorod from ancient times. He wrote, “Ancient Rome fell from glory and from the faith of Christ due to pride and its own will. The new Rome — Constantinople — perished by the force of the descendents of Hagar. Upon the third Rome, which is the Russian land, the grace of the holy Spirit has shined.” Another composition was written providing the provenance of the crown of Vladimir Monomakh. One passage relates the travels of this royal insignia, suggesting that it moved from Babylon to Egypt, then to Rome, then to Byzantium, and finally to Russia. The strongest formulation composed in the Russian community regarding Russia’s right to consider itself heir of Orthodoxy was provided by elder Filofei (Philothius) of Pskov Eleazarov Monastery in a letter to Tsar Vasili III and his son, the future Ivan IV. Filofei identifies the woman clothed with the sun of Revelation 12 with the Church. Russia is the wilderness to which the Church migrated after fleeing from Constantinople. The remaining Christian nations were swept away by a flood of unbelievers covering the land. Filofei concludes, “Listen, for the sake of the Lord, the Church of ancient Rome fell due to belief in the Apollinarian heresy, and the Church of Constantinople was severed apart by 174

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia the swords of the [descendants] of Hagar. For all the Christian kingdoms descend to your kingdom and this kingdom will have no end. Two Romes have fallen, while the third stands, and a fourth there will not be. You alone,” wrote the elder to Vasili III, “under all heaven are the Christian king and your Christian kingdom will never become the possession of another. You alone are the great Orthodox Russian king under all of heaven. You are as Noah was in the ark, saved from the flood, directing and driving the Church of Christ and affirming the Orthodox faith.” The final expression is a clear statement that the royal authority of the tsar must be used to defend the faith and church of Christ. Now, the grand prince of Moscow appears as “He who holds the reins of the holy ecumenical apostolic church.” This, the logic of Filofei, eventually migrated into the thinking of Russians, both clerical and laic, in regard to their spiritual legacy.

52. ELDER NIL OF SOR Further discussion of the prominent elder Nil Sorski will explore what type of ascetic he was and his impact on Russian monasticism during the Moscovite era. Nil Maikov was tonsured as a monk at Kirill Bel-Ozerski Monastery and was a disciple of Paisei Yaroslavov. In his zeal as a young monk, he traveled to Mt. Athos where he spent time learning the practice of asceticism and especially hesychasm, silent prayer in deep meditation. He was accompanied to Mt. Athos by a fellow monk named Innocent, or Pr. Okhlebinin before his tonsure. He returned to Kirill Bel-Ozerski and introduced the practice of hesychasm there. About five miles from Kirill Monastery, Nil began his own hermitage alongside the river Sor — hence his name, Sorski — along with his fellow monk Innocent. As his fledgling monastery, he would not accept any patrimony or real estate other than the grounds themselves, and the monks were to work to support themselves. While other monasteries accumulated property, Nil Sorski was a non-possessor. Nil could not but recognize that with the acceptance of the Greek practice of hesychasm he would meet with those who opposed self-taught scholars. Nil would have an uphill battle to impress upon the Russians this foreign idea of taking a critical attitude toward scripture. Nil also condemned ecclesiastical extravagance, apparent in the decor and embellishment of churches and clerical vestments. He also lightened the burden of superficial adherence to rite and ritual required of monks, replacing it by his practice of denial and contemplative 175

History of Russian Christianity prayer. Nil attended the council of 1503 and there introduced his projected reform of Russian monasticism which was so flatly rejected by the clergy attending, as mentioned in a previous chapter. His ideal of monasticism was the development of small hermitages, each self-contained and self-sustained, without wealth or extravagance. Pavel Miliukov viewed the activities of these Trans-Volga elders in the following manner. The views of Nil Sorski and his followers were in stark contradiction to the views of Voloko-Lamsk abbot Joseph. In contradistinction to Joseph and his adherents, who summoned people to a holy inquisition and compelled them to punishment as heretics, Nil confirmed that to judge the innocent and guilty and to impose exile or incarceration was not a matter for the Church; the Church must act through petitions and prayer. The moral teaching of the upper-Volga elders was enveloped by the spirit of inner Christianity. The essence of piety lay not in church beauty and expensive garments and icons, and not in monotone church singing, but in the inner constitution of the soul, one’s spiritual activities. Christ’s champions were not to live at the expense of another, they said, but to sustain themselves by the labor of their own hands. Monasteries for this reason must not possess wealth and the monks must not be greedy. Any wealth should be distributed to the poor according to the command of the gospels. Finally, the upper-Volga elders did not believe in the new miracle-workers canonized by the councils of 1547 and 1549.

Nil Sorski died in 1508 at about the age of 75. Not wanting his body to be enshrined or divided up as relics, he instructed his disciples to leave his body deep in the forest to be consumed by wild animals. His disciples did fulfill his last wishes. Nil’s disciple Vassian Kosoi continued the concept of ecclesiastical poverty. Still pressing his views on the importance of the monastic oath of poverty, Kosoi was condemned at an ecclesiastical council in 1531 by Metr. Daniel. Kosoi was exiled to incarceration at Voloko-Lamsk Monastery, where Daniel was formerly abbot. Kosoi remained there until his death at an unrecorded date, but before 1545.

53. SCHOLAR MAKSIM THE GREEK Maksim the Greek is included in this history of Russian Orthodoxy to portray how severely Tsar Vasili III dealt with those who would discredit or attempt to expose the flaws and inadequacies of his national church, and especially a foreigner.

176

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia Maksim was born in 1475 to a pious Greek family living in the region today known as Albania. His parents sent him to Italy to receive a higher education, not wanting to send him to Athens or Constantinople because of Ottoman occupation. His studies occupied the years 1495-1505 and were primarily in the city Padua. Of all his teachers, the Dominican abbot Girolamo Savonarola had the greatest influence, impressing him with a sense of piety and a high standard of morality. Maksim was with Savonarola in Florence, and he also attended schools in Venice and Milan. From Italy, Maksim traveled to Athens, Greece, and was there tonsured as a monk. He entered the Annunciation Batoped Monastery, which had an immense library that he utilized to continue his scholarship. For ten years Maksim studied and taught, and also debated with Catholics, advocating and defending Orthodox theology. Maksim’s relationship with Russia begins in 1515. Tsar Vasili had in his possession an interpretive psalter containing several commentaries by various church scholars, but it was written in Greek. Both he and Metr. Varlaam wanted it translated into Russian for their edification and benefit. Since no competent translators lived in Russia at the time, Vasili sent delegates to Athens to find one. The first choice was Savva, an elder of the Batoped Monastery. However, due to old age and poor health, he was unable to travel. The choice then fell on Maksim, although he did not know Russian. Maksim and two Greek monks accompanying him arrived in Moscow March 4, 1518 and began work on the translation. Maksim would translate from Greek into Latin, while his two associates would translate from Latin into Russian. Tsar Vasili welcomed the guests and gave them an excellent residence at Chudovski Monastery. They also had at their disposal two highly talented calligraphers: Mikhail Yaroslav Medovartsev of Novgorod and Siluan, a monk of Troitse-Sergievski Monastery who later shared the same fate as Maksim. Maksim and his associates worked diligently on the psalter and its commentaries and completed the volume in 17 months. During interludes in the translation, at the request of Metr. Varlaam, Maksim also translated a commentary on the Apostolic letters. By this time, Maksim had acquired an excellent working knowledge of the Russian language. After the completion of the work, Maksim requested leave of Tsar Vasili to return home. But Tsar Vasili and Metr. Varlaam saw Maksim as too valuable to them, and so refused his request. The two monks who had accompanied Maksim, however, were allowed to return to Athens. The next task Tsar Vasili assigned to Maksim was the emendation of earlier translations from Greek into Russian of the Triodion, Breviary, Psalter, 177

History of Russian Christianity Gospels and Apostolic letters. Now in Russia against his will, Maksim accepted his fate and went to work on emending the initial Russian translations of Greek liturgical and church service books. During this period, up to 1525, Maksim wrote several dissertations against Catholicism, against any unification of Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and against astrology. On the other hand, his polemics were inclined toward support of Vassian Kosoi and against ecclesiastical patrimony, and in these dissertations he reprimanded the monasteries for their excessive wealth and the luxury of monks’ residences. His writings also refuted the superficial piety of Russian Orthodoxy and Maksim disagreed with the tsar’s attitude toward the patriarch of Constantinople. Regardless of his talents, this intrusion into controversy put Maksim in disfavor with Tsar Vasili III. The new metropolitan, Daniel, did not have the same regard for Maksim’s scholarship as his predecessor Metr. Varlaam, but viewed him as a foreign interloper into Russia’s private religious affairs. Maksim opposed Metr. Daniel as well as Tsar Vasili, in many areas, over the same principles for which Metr. Varlaam was forced out of his cathedra. Metr. Daniel took matters in hand and in 1525 summoned an ecclesiastical council where he accused Maksim of mistranslation and deliberate manipulation of passages in the church service books in order to give them a heretical connotation. These passages were not of theological significance and none was of any major consequence even to the critical student, but they were enough grounds for an accusation of heresy against one who was already out of favor. Maksim as an able scholar and was well able to defend himself, but his arguments were ignored and only ignited Daniel’s fury for vengeance. Maksim was incarcerated in a prison cell at Joseph Voloko-Lamsk Monastery for the next six years, where Metr. Daniel had been abbot and still had close ties. Maksim’s compatriot Savva, who had since been promoted to archimandrite of Spasski Monastery, was incarcerated in a cloister cell at Vozmitzki Voloko-Lamsk Monastery. In 1531, Maksim was released from Voloko-Lamsk and brought to Moscow for a second trial. He had been pleading innocence, and Metr. Daniel wanted to be sure he would remain incarcerated for life. Much as in 1525, Metr. Daniel accused Maksim of deleting passages in the revised Russian version of the church service books and of discrediting the original translations. The trial and sentence were approved by Tsar Vasili himself and Maksim was exiled to the Otroch (Infant Jesus) Monastery in Tver. Pavel Miliukov wrote the following about Maksim the Greek:

178

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia Great was the difference between the cosmology of the pupil of scholarly Europe and the representatives of the half-pagan Russia. As we know by experience, these people of different worlds obviously did not possess a common language and did not possess the capability to understand one another. Feeling himself alienated from this community, Maksim finally asked to go home, to his holy mountain, but they compelled him to remain in Moscow. “We are afraid,” as one of his friends explained to him. “You arrived here, and you are an intelligent person, and you have seen both the good and bad among us. You will go back and tell everything.” And disregarding all of Maksim’s claims that he was subject to Greek authority but not to Russian, they would not release him to return to his homeland. Twice he was brought to court under accusations which for the most part were absurd, as exemplified above. Twice he was condemned. At the second trial, after a despairing attempt to convince his judges, using terms they might find more acceptable, he was handed over, just like Vassian, into the hands of his enemies at Voloko-Lamsk Monastery, and then sent to Tver Otroch Monastery for incarceration.

For his first 15 years at Otroch, Maksim was confined in a prison cell at the monastery. The succeeding metropolitan, Joasaf, allowed some amelioration in Maksim’s situation. Metr. Joasaf still thought Maksim would be dangerous if he were released and regained his freedom completely, but Maksim was released from confinement and was allowed to remain a regular monk at the monastery, which he did for the next five years, although still confined to the premises. In 1545 Patr. Joakim of Alexandria heard about Maksim’s plight and petitioned the succeeding tsar, Ivan IV, for his release. In 1551, Maksim was transferred to Troitse-Sergievski Monastery, where he resided as a regular monk — although still confined to the premises — until his death in 1556. Of the 38 years that Maksim the Greek spent in Russia, for the first seven years he was treated as an honored scholar and translator; for the next 21 years he was incarcerated as a heretic; and the final 10 years he lived as a regular monk but was confined to the premises of the monastery. Metr. Daniel considered this a political victory against both Maksim and Vassian Kosoi for their advocacy of non-possession of ecclesiastical patrimony and their refutation of superficial piety. It is an interesting coincidence that Metr. Daniel, after his own expulsion from his cathedra by Ivan Shuiski in 1539, was also sent to Voloko-Lamsk for the rest of his life and was confined to the premises. Maksim, however, outlived Metr. Daniel by nine years.

179

History of Russian Christianity 54. METROPOLITAN DANIEL Metr. Varlaam was deprived of his cathedra by Tsar Vasili III because of his unwillingness to give in to the will of the tsar, whose dictates and intentions Varlaam considered unethical and malicious. Tsar Vasili chose for himself a metropolitan who would be more concessionary. The man selected to fill the new vacancy was Daniel, abbot of Voloko-Lamsk Monastery and successor to its founder, the eminent Joseph Volotzki. Prior to the death of Joseph, monks at Voloko-Lamsk Monastery presented to him ten of their peers as candidates to succeed him, but none of them was acceptable. Monk Daniel was ambitious to rise in the hierarchy and he knew that becoming abbot of a prominent monastery was the stepping stone to becoming archbishop of a diocese, which offered a more comfortable life and a secure future. He claimed to have had an offer to become father superior at another monastery. Joseph recognized traits of his own in Daniel: austerity as well as loyalty to Orthodoxy, accompanied by a certain shrewdness; and so he selected Daniel as his successor. Joseph Volotzki died September 9, 1515. Daniel was about 30 years old at the time and immediately set to work conforming the monastery to the regulations that Joseph had earlier established. Since Joseph had been on good terms with Tsar Vasili, the tsar would often visit or make a short pilgrimage to the west of Moscow to Voloko-Lamsk. As time proceeded, abbot Daniel also gained the support and favor of Tsar Vasili, because of the way that he ran the monastery. Daniel was abbot for six years prior to being selected as candidate for the metropolitan’s cathedra. Metr. Varlaam was deposed on December 17 or 18, 1521, and Daniel was ordained in his stead February 27, 1522. He held the cathedra 17 years. Metr. Daniel’s first decisions pertaining to Tsar Vasili’s policies had to do with the violation of the treaty with Vasili Ivanovich Schematich, mentioned earlier. By invitation of both Tsar Vasili and Metr. Daniel, Schematich arrived in Moscow on April 18, 1523. On May 11, three weeks later, he was arrested and imprisoned. Not only was Daniel not ashamed of his treachery, but he publicly held a prayer of thanksgiving to God for the capture of Schematich. Because Daniel was an advocate of the possession of real estate by monasteries — following the precedent of Joseph — he became a fiery persecutor of Maksim the Greek and Vassian Kosoi. The imprisonment of both these men was the pinnacle of Metr. Daniel’s triumph over his political adversaries. Of course, both were incarcerated at Voloko-Lamsk Monastery

180

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia where Daniel was formerly abbot and where Kosoi eventually died, sometime prior to 1545. Pavel Miliukov described the struggle: Notwithstanding his well-known descent from the princely family of Patrikeevs, disregarding even his family tie with the house of the Grand Prince, in the end Vassian Kosoi was condemned as a heretic by the religious council under the cathedra of Metr. Daniel. Condemned, he was pushed into the hands of the evilest of his enemies, the Josephites, and sent to their monastery for incarceration.

Metr. Daniel did Tsar Vasili a second political favor by arranging the tsar’s divorce from his first wife, Solomonia Yurievna Saburova, and his marriage to Elena Vasilievna Glinskaya, a niece of Pr. Michal Glinski of Lithuania whose family had migrated to Russia and was then living in Moscow. There were no offspring from his 20-year marriage with Saburova (a marriage arranged by his father Tsar Ivan two months before his death and performed September 4, 1505). Tsar Vasili did not want to leave the throne of Russia to his brothers, and hoping yet to produce his own heir, he decided that re-marrying offered the best chance. Since divorce and remarriage were against the canons of Orthodoxy, Metr. Daniel made arrangements to force Saburova to take the veil, and she became a nun — against her will — on November 28, 1525. She was then exiled to Pokrovski Convent in Suzdal, arrangements also made by Metr. Daniel. Saburova’s name was changed to Sophia and she was confined to the premises of the convent for the rest of her days, dying there in 1540, having outlived both her husband and his second wife. She was buried in a crypt under the Pokrovski Cathedral. Tsar Vasili married Elena Glinskaya two months after Solomonia Yurievna was tonsured, January 21, 1526, in a ceremony performed by Metr. Daniel. The new marriage produced Ivan, a son and heir to the throne, August 25, 1530, and later a second son, Yuri. Tsar Vasili died December 4, 1533, leaving as heir his three-year-old son Ivan IV. On his deathbed the tsar entrusted Metr. Daniel with the care of his wife and two sons, Ivan and Yuri. Tsar Vasili’s intent in issuing this order was for Daniel to take charge of the Boyar Duma (Assembly of Nobles) and to handle the administrative affairs of state until heir Ivan would attain maturity. But nothing of the sort occurred. Metr. Daniel failed to become involved with the Duma and the widow Tsaritza Elena assumed control. Five years later, April 3, 1538 Elena Glinskaya died, leaving the administration of the government to the Duma, Tsarevich Ivan IV Vasilich being only eight years old at the time. A power struggle immediately ensued in the 181

History of Russian Christianity Duma and Pr. Vasili Vasilich Shuiski, senior nobleman in the Duma, took control of state affairs. After one and a half years another power struggle occurred, now with Pr. Ivan Fedorovich Belski as rival to Shuiski. For reasons unknown, Metr. Daniel sided with Belski and his faction. Shuiski however was able to retain his control and overcame the attempted usurpation by Belski; he had him arrested and imprisoned. Shortly after the conclusion of the second power struggle, Pr. Vasili Shuiski died and his brother Pr. Ivan Vasilich Shuiski assumed control over the Duma and government. Ivan Shuiski deposed Metr. Daniel from his cathedra February 2, 1539 because of his support of Belski. Metr. Daniel was banished to his former residence, Voloko-Lamsk Monastery, but now as a regular monk, and there he lived out the balance of his life confined to the premises. He died eight years later, May 22, 1547.

55. METROPOLITAN JOASAF After Metr. Daniel was deposed, Pr. Ivan Shuiski summoned an ecclesiastical council in Moscow to elect a new metropolitan. They selected three candidates — all in one day — and presented the list to Shuiski: archimandrite Jonah of Chudovski Monastery; abbot Joasaf of Troitse-Sergievski Monastery; and abbot Theodosi of Novgorod Khutinski Monastery. The bishops were careful to nominate candidates who would be agreeable to Shuiski, and from the three he selected Joasaf. The new metropolitan was named February 5, 1539, only three days after Daniel’s expulsion, and he was ordained four days later, February 9, 1539. Metr. Joasaf held his cathedra one month short of three years, until he was deposed by the same person who had selected him, Ivan Shuiski. Nothing is known of Joasaf’s early life except that he was from the Skripitzin family. A capable and effective administrator, less involved with the church than with the state, in the initial year and a half of his cathedra Metr. Joasaf assisted Shuiski with the administrative affairs of his government. After this period and for reasons unrecorded, Metr. Joasaf joined together with several noblemen and was able to pressure officials into releasing Ivan Belski from prison. In July 1540, Belski was released from prison and with the support of Metr. Joasaf and several noblemen, he overthrew Shuiski. Over the next year and a half, Ivan Shuiski gained additional support and on the night of January 2, 1542 the Shuiski family sounded an alarm in the 182

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia Moscow Kremlin; Belski was arrested and sent into exile. The people turned against the traitor Metr. Joasaf, pelting him with rocks as he fled from his home. He took refuge in a local church but guards from the Shuiski faction entered the church and beat the metropolitan almost to death for his treachery. Metr. Joasaf was arrested by order of Ivan Shuiski and confined to a cell at Kirill Bel-Ozerski Monastery for the next five years. In 1547, Joasaf was permitted to return to Troitse-Sergievski Monastery, his former residence, where he spent the rest of his life as a regular monk. He was only allowed out of the monastery premises once, in 1551, to attend the Hundred-Chapters Council in Moscow. Joasaf died July 27, 1555 at Troitse-Sergievski Monastery.

56. METROPOLITAN MAKARI The fact that Golubinski dedicates his massive 4-volume history of the Russian Orthodox Church “To the memory of the Most-Eminent Makari, Metropolitan of Moscow,” and concludes his history with his death serves as concrete testimony to Metr. Makari’s character, achievements and dedication to Russian Orthodoxy. Of all the metropolitans in the history of Russian Orthodoxy, Golubinski says the following about Makari, “We can apply to his name the epithets eminent and most eminent. And actually he does present himself as the supreme shepherd of the Russian Church, the most eminent of them all, of those before him and of those after him.” It is also worth mentioning that the name of the ambitious Metr. Daniel is on the lowest rung of Golubinski’s list. Makari was born in 1481 or 1482; his parents were named Leonti and Evfrosina; his mother in her later years became a nun. He was tonsured as a monk at Borovsk-Pafnutiev Monastery, where he spent his early years. Makari was selected as archimandrite of Luzhetzki Monastery near Mozhaisk, outside of Moscow, in 1506; and he was ordained as archbishop of Novgorod March 4, 1526. During his years at Luzhetzki Monastery, Makari became acquainted with Tsar Vasili III and gained his respect. Vasili admired the monastery for its organization, the austere regulations of communal living for the monks, and the personal morality and ethics of Makari, who was also a gifted teacher and debater. With the episcopacy of Novgorod now vacant for 17 years since 1509, Tsar Vasili III personally selected Makari to fill the Episcopal position. The tsar also permitted Makari to inherit the vast treasury of earlier archbishops of Novgorod, 183

History of Russian Christianity which had been under the administration of the tsar’s family since 1478. Entering the city, Makari was welcomed by the residents of Novgorod, since he was perceived to be more lenient than the greedy and arrogant archbishops of previous generations, such as Gennadi and Serapion. Makari did not burden parish clergy with excessive tribute and taxes, and also protected them from insatiable officials. Soon after his accession to the episcopacy, Makari began a reform in the monasteries in his diocese. He required communal living for all the monks; many of them, if not the vast majority, had over the years acquired wealth and property and had brought this into the monastery where they led comfortable lives. Of the 22 monasteries in Novgorod diocese, only four had communal living arrangements for the monks; the others allowed their monks to live in houses nearby, with their individual wealth. Makari summoned the abbots of all these monasteries to a meeting, and he admonished — or threatened — them to convert to communal living by demanding that monks donate their wealth to the monastery and practice the vow of poverty that each of them had taken. In time, 16 of the monasteries completely converted to communal living. Makari likewise put an end to the tradition of monks and nuns living together in the same monastery. He separated them entirely and assigned nuns to convents under a mother superior. After the death of Tsar Vasili III, December 4, 1533, Makari was summoned to Moscow along with other prelates in January 1534. While he was there, he obtained the approval and favor of the tsar’s widow Elena. During the interval of the struggle for the control of the government between the Shuiski and Belski families, Makari distanced himself from Moscow and concentrated his effort in his own diocese of Novgorod; but his talent and capability were not unknown to Pr. Ivan Shuiski. Just two and a half months after the dismissal of Metr. Joasaf, Ivan Shuiski nominated Makari to be the new metropolitan of Moscow and all Russia. Makari initially declined the offer, especially given with Moscow’s insolvency and the sorry fate of the two previous metropolitans, both dismissed from the cathedra as a result of political struggles within the state. Other prelates pressured him to accede; they believed that Makari would bring stability to the highest cathedra of Russian Orthodoxy. Only then did Makari accept the nomination. He arrived in Moscow from Novgorod on March 9, 1542, was selected by an ecclesiastical council of eight prelates on March 16, 1542, and was ordained March 19. Makari was about 59 or 60 years old.

184

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia Pr. Ivan Shuiski was still in power in 1542 and the young heir Ivan was only twelve years old. The following year, 1543, Shuiski fell ill and disappeared from the scene; he died in a very short time. His position as head of the Duma was quickly assumed by his cousin, Pr. Andrei Mikhailovich Shuiski of Pskov. However, a group of noblemen loyal to the family of the tsar seized Andrei Shuiski and executed him, on December 29, 1543. From now on, the position of head of the Duma was no longer to be occupied by leading families or prominent feudal princes, but passed into the hands of people close to the young tsarevich, Ivan Vasilich, and especially his uncles — the Glinski princes — to whom was entrusted considerable authority over imperial Russia. For the next two years or so, until young Ivan turned 16, control over the Duma was vested in the Glinski family. This five-year interval from 1538 — the death of Tsaritza Elena — to 1543, when the Glinski family gained control over the Duma, was a period of political intrigue that tested the conscience and patience of Metr. Makari. When Ivan turned 16 in 1546, Metr. Makari made a personal decision that he felt would stabilize Russia, even at the risk of his own cathedra. He decided to coronate Ivan as tsar of Moscow and all Russia. Later that year, on December 12, 1546, Ivan now just having turned 17, Metr. Makari conferred with him about the situation. On the following day Ivan announced publicly his decision to accept coronation as tsar the following month, and many believe that this announcement began a new epic in the history of Russia. Metr. Makari crowned Ivan IV Vasilich tsar of Moscow and all Russia on January 16, 1547. Two weeks later, February 3, 1547, the young Tsar Ivan married Anastasia Romanovna Zakharina, who provided stability in his early years and was the most beloved and affectionate of his eventual seven wives. She was a sister of Nikita Romanovich, the most honored member of the Boyar Duma and later progenitor of the Romanov lineage. To begin his renovation of Russian Orthodoxy, Metr. Makari initially held two councils, one in 1547, the other in 1549, where he promoted the canonization of Russian saints. He canonized 22 local saints and eight ascetics of Orthodoxy. An additional nine prelates were added as local saints only. Prior to Makari, Russian Orthodoxy had only 22 canonized saints; now, the number increased to 52. Within two years the Russian Church canonized more saints than had been canonized during the previous five centuries, since the foundation of Orthodoxy in Russia. Makari’s objective was to Russify the Church: now that it was independent of both Greek Constantinople and Islamic Mongols, the Church was to begin a new era and develop its Russian identity.

185

History of Russian Christianity Makari’s primary accomplishment for Russian Orthodoxy was the Hundred-Chapters Council of 1551,4 so named because of the division of topics discussed into 100 chapter headings (although only 69 specific topics were finally discussed). The council began February 23, 1551. Attending the council were nine bishops and several archimandrites, abbots, ascetics and elders, along with monks, protopopes and priests respected by the people. It appears to have been a balanced cross-section of prelates, parish clergy and ascetics of Russia of the era. It was, of course, Tsar Ivan who opened the first session, with a speech describing how he was moved to initiate an ecclesiastical council for the renovation of Russian Orthodoxy. The council concluded its discussions in a relatively short span of time, ending May 17, 1551. The 69 topics fall into two groups: 37 topics that were presented at the beginning of the council, and 32 that were brought up as discussions progressed. Metr. Makari presented the council with his proposition for the entire renovation of Russian Orthodoxy by rectifying its flaws and inadequacies. In regard to liturgy, the council decreed that all church liturgy, whether community or private, be performed entirely and properly, according to the prescribed rites with no exclusions of any portions. The texts of books containing liturgies and rites were to be free of errors and were to be corrected by competent copyists. The council decreed that all icons must be created by iconographers in a satisfactory and appropriate manner, and that all the appurtenances of the Church, especially those of the altar, be supplied and available for all the liturgies performed. Pertaining to diocesan government, the council decreed that more active supervision be implemented over parish clergy, with the institution of new departments; that archbishops and their officials must desist from their arbitrary extortion of fees and contributions from the lower clergy and laity; and that arrangements be made for all parish churches to train and have a choir at all services. Pertaining to the Episcopal court, the council decreed that secular officials of the diocese must not interfere with the sphere of the Episcopal court; that the Episcopal court must place such officials under watch so that they no longer influenced prelates; and that the Episcopal court must be kept as just as possible.

4. This council is often mistranslated into English as the Hundred Head Council.

186

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia Pertaining to the preparation and selection of candidates for the priesthood, the council decreed that they should be men worthy of the office and instructed in their obligations. The council expressed a concern that better schools be introduced to educate candidates for the priesthood. Pertaining to the monasteries and monks, the council decreed that the increase of wealth and income of monasteries should be curtailed and that the father superior should be subject to oversight and control; that alcoholism and immorality in monasteries be stopped; that the father superior not be served better food in his cell than the ordinary monks; that monks and nuns were forbidden from living together; that laity were forbidden from living at monasteries; that monks and nuns were forbidden from cohabitating together outside the monastery and convent; and that the building of new monasteries by local feudal princes (rather than by the Church) should be restricted. Pertaining to the Christian life of the laity, the council decreed against further practice of sexual immorality, including homosexuality; against the immoral custom of shaving the beard; against men and woman bathing together in steam baths (saunas); against gambling, including dice and cards; against Tartar customs in attire; against national festivities based on early pagan customs; against sorcery, witchcraft and superstition; against clowns traveling town to town; and against swindlers, imposters and cheaters. Metr. Makari also included in the topics for the council his concern for the proper manner of holding the hand while making the sign of the cross: the index and middle fingers raised, with the latter slightly bent; the thumb, ring and little fingers together, and with the Hallelujah being sung twice, and not thrice. Since printing was not yet introduced into Russia, it was difficult to promulgate the edicts of the Hundred-Chapters Council; and the collected proceedings of the council were so massive that an immense number of copyists would be required to generate a significant number of copies for distribution. It was impossible. In lieu of distributing the entire content of the proceedings, extracts were copied and distributed. The question now arises, how effective was this latest council in rectifying ecclesiastical inadequacies, and raising its standard of morality, ethic and competency? Not very. Although Metr. Makari exerted considerable effort in summoning the council and discussing the topics, after his death the decrees were forgotten and the clergy and laity returned to their former conduct. To make the edicts of the council effective on a long term basis, a series of Metr. Makaris would have been necessary, one after another, in order to implement the decrees, but such metropolitans or prelates did not arise. 187

History of Russian Christianity Prior to the Hundred-Chapters Council, or during its proceedings, certain monks opposed to monastery patrimony had a conversation with Tsar Ivan regarding the matter and disclosed to him their views, especially Artemie, abbot of Troitse-Sergievski Monastery. The tsar was well aware of the abuse of such patrimonies and knew that this did not contribute to the support of a genuine monastic life; nor was it in his own interest. Tsar Ivan expressed this opinion quite vehemently. The writings of Maksim the Greek against possession of patrimony had clearly portrayed all the contradictions between total rejection of the world by monks and the abuse of the same by those possessing extensive patrimony. Using the view of Maksim the Greek and like-minded Russian prelates as a rationale, Tsar Ivan not only desired the dissolution of monastery patrimony in the interests of the state but appears to have been sincerely convinced that removing real estate from the sphere of the monastery would be best for the monastic vocation. Metr. Makari was, however, a vehement supporter of the possession of patrimony by churches and monasteries (while being equally vehement in reprimanding those who abused the income from patrimony). The measures Tsar Ivan implemented against expansion and abuse of patrimony were not excessive, partly because of his profound respect for Metr. Makari. Shortly after the close of the Hundred-Chapters Council, Tsar Ivan decreed primarily that no monastery could buy land and neither could anyone donate land, unless a report was first submitted to the tsar. The tsar was to have the final decision on every transaction. However, due to the size of Russia, and poor records and communication, the rule was no more effective than any earlier one, when other grand princes had attempted to regulate the transfer of real estate into the ecclesiastical domain. Another major event during the cathedra of Metr. Makari was the introduction of printing in Russia, although not in time for the proceedings of the Hundred-Chapters Council. In 1547, Russian officials invited book publishers from abroad, but it was not until 1556, some seven years later, that Marusha Nefedyev of Novgorod arrived in Moscow and began to set up his printing business. The first book went to press only on April 19, 1563. There were several reasons for the delays in the establishment of book printing in Moscow. No one from Europe seemed eager to assist Moscow, and Nefedyev had to feel his way forward, learning as he went. The notion of book printing was also opposed by many illiterate officials and teachers among the bishops and abbots. The first book to be published in Russia was the Acts of the Apostles, but it did not come off the press in a completed version until March 1, 1564, some time after the death of Metr. Makari. 188

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia Makari retained his cathedra for 21 years and nine and a half months, until his death December 31, 1563 at the age of 82.

57. ABBOT ARTEMIE Artemie was tonsured by the venerated abbot Kornili of Kolomensk Monastery, located in Vologda province. In 1536, with the blessing of Kornili, Artemie moved to a new residence at Kirill Bel-Ozerski Monastery. In 1548, after a successful term of ascetic monastic conduct and regimen, and with the death of the father superior of his former residence — now known as KolomenskKorniliev Monastery — the resident monks invited Artemie to succeed him as abbot. He accepted the offer and retained the position of abbot of the monastery for three years. His reputation increased as a result of his ability to run a monastery successfully and in 1551, at the request of brethren monks at TroitseSergievski, Tsar Ivan IV summoned Artemie from solitude and installed him as abbot of the famous monastery. The simple and reticent Artemie accepted the offer reluctantly and under duress, and only held the post for six months; he then returned to the Russian wilderness. Un-pretentious and un-ambitious, the idealist Artemie had strong convictions on the policy of non-possession of ecclesiastical patrimony and he could not tolerate the acquisition of wealth at Troitse-Sergievski Monastery. Rather than contend with the issue, he decided to take refuge elsewhere. For two or three years he lived in the Trans-Volga wilderness, where he became acquainted with Matvei Semeonovich Bashkin, a rationalist who rejected Orthodox rite and composed an evangelical approach to the practice of Christian teaching. Metr. Makari, head of the possessors’ group, along with others accused Artemie of adhering to the protestant teachings of Bashkin. As a result of this accusation Artemie was arrested and brought to trial along with other monks and disciples of his. There was no doubt that the accusations were spurred more by the issue of ecclesiastical patrimony than by any possible dissension. Arrested with Artemie were the following individuals: the famous missionary Theodorit, who was at the time archimandrite of Suzdal Spasso-Evfimiev Monastery; the monk Savva Shakh; the monk Isaac Belobaev of Solovetski Monastery; and Kassian, a former elder in the monastic clergy of Ryazan diocese. Kassian reprimanded the clergy at his trial and then suffered an apoplectic seizure. He was removed from the cathedral to a local monastery. 189

History of Russian Christianity The proceedings concentrated on Artemie. He considered all the accusations against him to be spurious and felt he was innocent on all charges. Witnesses surfaced from among his former brethren of Troitse-Sergievski Monastery to testify against him: abbot Jonah, lay-brother Adrian Angilov, and the monk Ignati Kurachyov. Witnesses were also brought in from Bel-Ozerski: abbot Semeon of Kirill Monastery and former abbot Nektari of Therapontov Monastery. He was accused of violations of various ecclesiastical canons: denial of the holy fathers; failure to venerate icons; not cursing (proclaiming anathema) heretics from Novgorod; praising Catholics; and not observing Orthodox fasts. Abbot Jonah testified that Artemie refused to make the sign of the cross, while Adrian testified that Artemie stated that requiems were useless because if a person was burning in hell a memorial mass would not be of any benefit to him. Nektari testified that Artemie would often leave Pecher Monastery in Pskov during his visit there and patronize a German settlement about ten miles away, where he adopted their Protestant doctrines and traditions. None of the defenses that Artemie provided were of any use; he was too dangerous, since he taught and advocated non-possession of ecclesiastical patrimony, and his life-style and ministry validated his thinking. Artemie was pronounced guilty of heresy and exiled to Solovetski Monastery. In the directive written in the name of Metr. Makari, guidelines pertaining to Artemie’s confinement in the monastery are stated in the following terms. “He shall abide inside the monastery with strict firmness and tight protection; he shall be locked up in an individual, unlit cell, in order that not even one souldamaging or blasphemous statement shall be preached. He shall not have discussion with anyone, neither with the clergy, nor the laymen of the monastery, nor with monks of other monasteries.” Furthermore, the exiled Artemie was not to be permitted to write any letter or message to anyone, without exception; and likewise he was not be given any letters or items no matter who sent them. In short, it was dictated that he be forbidden any intercourse, friendship, and communication with anybody, whosever they might be, “but only that he be confined and imprisoned and sit in silence to repent of the attraction of his heresy, and be humbled.” After some unrecorded term of incarceration at Solovetski Artemie was released and decided to relocated to Lithuania. There, he befriended another fugitive from Russia, Pr. Andrei Kurbski, and settled to minister under his new circumstances to the large number of Orthodox living there, and there he spent the balance of his life. 190

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia 58. METROPOLITAN AFANASI Afanasi was ordained metropolitan February 24, 1564. He was originally a monk of Chudovski Monastery and was later promoted to protopope of the Blago-Veschenski Cathedral, where he became personal confessor of the tsar. As successor to Metr. Makari, he assumed the cathedra just as Tsar Ivan IV was confirming his authority as absolute. Historically, the role of Russian prelates did not allow them to alienate themselves completely from political matters, and their cathedra obligated them to become involved even if only to express a moral position; but even when they restrained themselves to that level of interference, it led to collisions. Tsar Ivan realized early on that the greatest threat to his total autocratic authority lay in the hereditary noblemen, the Boyar Duma, whose assistance he required to conduct the affairs of state as tradition dictated. Even more, he feared a revolt of the people, prompted by the noblemen and feudal princes. Tsar Ivan prepared a maneuver to annihilate his political enemies, but first he had to gain support of clergy, peasants and the general Russian populace. Tsar Ivan disappeared from Moscow December 5, 1564, taking with him the tsaritza, their children, a few trusted officials, a bodyguard, and his confessor. Touring several monasteries, he stopped at the city of Aleksandrov, in Vladimir province. From there he wrote a letter addressed to Metr. Afanasi, listing the abuses and disloyalty of the Boyars (noblemen) and placing blame on the clergy for their intervention on the noblemen’s behalf. Tsar Ivan then declared his abdication. The Moscow community was struck dumb by the threat of abdication. Moscow townsmen pleaded with Metr. Afanasi to beseech the tsar not to abandon his realm. The metropolitan organized a deputation of trusted individuals, at the head of which stood Archbishop Pimen of Novgorod, and dispatched it to Aleksandrov. The tsar welcomed the deputation and expressed to them his complaints regarding the noblemen. In conclusion, he stated that only because of his respect for his spiritual father Metr. Afanasi and those prelates who interceded on his behalf would he agree to accept authority over his realm; and only under the condition that the clergy not curb or cease their intercession on his behalf when he executed traitors. The delegation accepted the conditions and Tsar Ivan became “the Terrible,” as he unveiled to them the institution of a new department of the state: the Oprichnin (bodyguards, or select corps); its members were called oprichniks.

191

History of Russian Christianity Unable to face the new political circumstances surrounding the tsar, Afanasi voluntarily retired from his cathedra on May 16, 1566, after two years as metropolitan, and returned to Chudovski Monastery as a regular monk. In June of that year, the tsar proposed Archbishop German of Kazan to a council of prelates gathered to select a successor to Metr. Afanasi. The archbishop had become popular as a result of his missionary work. For a long while, German would not agree to accept the cathedra of metropolitan, but eventually the tsar and an ecclesiastical council compelled him to do so. Within two days of his acceptance, the metropolitan-designate spoke with the tsar and advised him to abandon his persecutions and cruelty. Upon hearing of this, the tsar’s close allies recommended he demote German, stating that he was a poor advisor. Tsar Ivan took their advice and expelled German from the chambers of the metropolitan, telling him, “You are not even ordained as metropolitan and already you want to enslave me.” German’s family were nobles of Sardirev-Polev, descendents of the princes of Smolensk. It is understandable that the tsar and his allies quickly became suspicious that he would defend the very noblemen whom the tsar considered traitors to the realm. Two days later, German was found dead at his palace. The authorities advertised the death as plague-related, as the disease was still ravaging parts of Russia; but the public clearly saw it as the work of Tsar Ivan’s oprichniks.

59. METROPOLITAN FILIPP II Of the histories of all the metropolitans of Russia, that of Filipp II is the most sorrowful. Filipp was born February 11, 1507, a descendent of a family of nobles surnamed Kolichev. His father was a nobleman close to Tsar Vasili III and had a seat in the Duma, while Filipp himself as a young man spent time at the courtyard of the tsar. He left Moscow at an early age and was tonsured as a monk at Solovetski Monastery in 1537, and then in 1548 was promoted to abbot. Solovki expanded immensely during the 18 years of Fillip’s abbacy. Visiting Moscow during the Hundred-Chapters Council, abbot Filipp gained the respect of Tsar Ivan, who then generously contributed both land and money to the construction and expansion of Solovetski Monastery. Perhaps in the light of these contributions the tsar hoped to find in Filipp a silent supporter of his political policies, but the opposite occurred. 192

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia Filipp was summoned to Moscow and was overwhelmed by the generosity of the tsar, but from the outset he rejected the offer of the metropolitan’s cathedra. Nonetheless, much like German, he was compelled by tsar and an ecclesiastical council to accept the candidacy. Filipp bluntly stated that Tsar Ivan would have to promise to dismantle the Oprichnin before he could accept the cathedra. Tsar Ivan promised, and personal ambition curbed the moral impetus that drove Filipp to threaten to leave the cathedra if Tsar Ivan reneged. Filipp accepted the offer and was ordained metropolitan July 25, 1566. For a while, the activity of the oprichniks in executing the tsar’s vengeance did seem to subside, but in less than a year the tsar again initiated a wave of cruel tortures and executions. Those prosecuted sought intervention by Metr. Filipp and, as supreme shepherd of the Church, he resolved to approach the tsar with a reprimand. A secret colloquy with the tsar did not ameliorate his ruthlessness, but only proved that the metropolitan was on the side of the nobles. Tsar Ivan’s rage against Metr. Filipp echoed in the palace; opportunists arose to side with the tsar against the metropolitan. Archbishop Pimen of Novgorod, Bishops Pafnuti of Smolensk and Filofei of Ryazan, and the tsar’s confessor, Evstrafi of Blago-Veschenski Cathedral, conspired together and discredited Filipp to the tsar. Metr. Filipp, realizing that he had lost the tsar’s trust, decided to break his promise of silence in view of the renewed executions ordered by the tsar. In March 1568, Metr. Filipp turned to Tsar Ivan in the Uspenski Cathedral and voiced a reprimand of his unjust cruelty. Tsar Ivan threatened him, saying, “Filipp, do not rebuke my authority lest my wrath fall upon you.” But Filipp was already on the road to becoming a martyr. On another Sunday soon thereafter, Metr. Filipp again reprimanded the tsar. During liturgy, the tsar walked up to where the metropolitan was standing and waited for his blessing. Metr. Filipp went on intently gazing at the icon of the Savoir, as if he did not see the ruler standing there. An official turned to Filipp and said to him, “Father, the Sovereign waits before you, bless him.” Then Filipp, looking at Tsar Ivan, spoke boldly in his ecclesiastical authority, saying, “Under the circumstances I do not recognize the Orthodox tsar in his alien garments. I do not recognize him as a result of his state affairs. How many have you angered, accepting this new image and altering your original convictions? Sovereign, fear the judgment of God! You legislate for others, yet you violate the same law. Even among Tatars and pagans justice resides, but not in Russia. Grace can be found in all the world, but in Russia there is no compassion towards the innocent and just. Here we bring a bloodless 193

History of Russian Christianity sacrifice for the salvation of the world, but behind the altar the blood of Christians is spilled and for no crime committed. You yourself ask God for forgiveness of your sins — forgive also those who have sinned against you.” “Filipp,” the tsar replied, “Do you think to change our will? It would be better for you if you were of the same mind with us.” “Then my faith would be in vain,” objected Filipp. “I do not sorrow over those who are innocently led to be executed as martyrs; I sorrow over you, I worry about your salvation.” With every spoken word of remonstrance that Filipp uttered, he put his cathedra and his life more at risk; but he also more and more won the respect of the parishioners attending the liturgy. However, now it was only a question of time until the tsar would have sufficient basis to expel Filipp from his cathedra without further damage to his own reputation. The tsar’s sycophants attempted to discredit the metropolitan. One of them, Archbishop Pimen of Novgorod, hoped to ascend the cathedra himself. Metr. Filipp reprimanded Pimen prophetically when he said, “You attempt to steal the episcopacy of another, but you will soon lose your own.” On July 28, 1568, during the procession of the cross around Novo-Devichi Monastery, something happened that further infuriated Tsar Ivan against Metr. Filipp. Ivan then sought for a canonical basis to expel Filipp. Not finding a reason in Moscow — Filipp never violated any canon over his career — Ivan sent agents to Solovetski. There, they used every means possible to locate witnesses who would testify against Metr. Filipp: they offered bribes, promises of promotion, anything to attain their goal. Eventually, the agents were able to acquire a few people who were willing to go to Moscow and testify, among them the new abbot himself, Paisei. They traveled to Moscow together. An ecclesiastical council was immediately summoned, the most abusive and shameful of all councils in the history of Russian Orthodoxy. The courageous prelate, having listened to false witnesses, would not condescend to justify or defend himself, and decided to retire from the cathedra by removing from himself the symbols of his investiture. But his triumphant enemies would not allow him to leave so easily and quickly. They required him to remain as metropolitan, having in mind a more dramatic means of taking their vengeance. On November 8, 1568, Metr. Filipp was performing liturgy on the Holiday of Archangel Michael at Uspenski Cathedral. In the middle of services, the nobleman Basmanov entered with a gang of the tsar’s oprichniks. He publicly read the decree of an ecclesiastical council regarding the expulsion of Filipp from his cathedra. The oprichniks tore the metropolitan’s vestments off Filipp and clothed him in an old monk’s cassock; they dragged him out of the cathedral and 194

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia took him to Bogo-Yavlenski Monastery in a peasants’ sledge. For an entire week the martyr sat in shackles in a stale prison cell in the monastery. He was then transferred to Old Nikolski Monastery and again confined in a cell under guard. To intimidate him further, one of his relatives was decapitated and the head was brought to Filipp in his cell. After a year at Old Nikolski Monastery, Filipp was exiled to Otroch Monastery in Tver, confined to a cloister under guard. A year later, in the summer of 1570, Maluta Skuratov, a henchman of Tsar Ivan, personally strangled Filipp in his cell. Maluta told monastery officials that Filipp died as result of the monastery’s negligence, dying from asphyxiation due to the intolerable heat in his cell from the hot summer weather. Metr. Filipp’s body was taken to Solovetski Monastary for internment. The prophetic words of Filipp to Pimen were fulfilled in 1570, when Tsar Ivan ordered the complete devastation of the city Novgorod and its population. Pimen was expelled from his episcopacy and accused of treachery by Ivan the Terrible.

60. METROPOLITAN KIRILL IV After expelling Metr. Filipp, Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible took care not to allow anyone to ascend the cathedra who was descended from or had family associated with any Boyars. Archimandrite Kirill of Troitse-Sergievski Monastery was ordained as metropolitan November 11, 1568, within three days of Filipp’s expulsion. During Kirill’s term, the terrors of the Oprichnin almost reached the level of civil war: entire cities were destroyed or vacated, if they were suspected of treachery or disloyalty to Tsar Ivan. The worst destruction was that of Novgorod in 1570. By order of Tsar Ivan, about 5,000 monks were tortured to death. They were brought from their respective monasteries to Novgorod, made to stand on scaffolds, and then were beaten to death with clubs. The monks were then returned to their monasteries for burial. Every day for six weeks — from January 2 to February 13 — between 1000 and 1500 dead bodies were thrown into the Volkhov River. Metr. Kirill did not last long in his cathedra. Although he had a brilliant past, he was relatively inactive and ineffective as metropolitan; the political atmosphere must have constrained anyone in his position. After four years he died, on February 8, 1572.

195

History of Russian Christianity 61. METROPOLITAN ANTONI AND THE ENIGMA OF TSAR IVAN IV (THE TERRIBLE) Tsar Ivan IV was an enigma in his relationship to Russian Orthodoxy. At the Hundred-Chapters Council, he emphasized the necessity of church attendance and respect for the house of God, while he himself would discuss state matters with his officials and military commanders, and would listen to their reports and issue orders, inside church during liturgy. Tsar Ivan attended church regularly, accepted the sprinkling of holy water and blessings from the metropolitan, and initiated every action with the sign of the cross. Even while at Aleksandrov, he attended services with his oprichniks and followed some monastic regulations: he wore a monk’s cassock, rang church bells, read from the Lives of the Saints during dinner and himself recited prayers. He even developed lumps on his forehead from the many deep bows to the ground he performed during liturgy. But, at the same time, he was issuing orders to his oprichniks for the arrest, torture and execution of thousands of innocents. His military campaigns were the most brutal against both the enemies of Russia and against his own countrymen, such as Novgorod, Pskov and Smolensk, and his marital and domestic life showed no evidence of any Christian morality. While the tsar’s mercenaries pillaged churches and monasteries, and tortured and executed priests and monks, he would contribute vast sums of money and property for the construction of new churches and monasteries and was the greatest patron and primary financier of the expansion of Solovetski Monastery under Metr. Filipp. Tsar Ivan IV condemned fortune-tellers, astrologers and sorcerers at the Hundred-Chapters Council, but at the same time he turned to them for help, just as his father Tsar Vasili III had done. During his reign Tsar Ivan sought counsel from witches and sorcerers and made use of their chants, conjurations, sorcery and spells. He accepted herbs and concoctions from them for healing, and wore amulets they gave him. During his reign, there was communication between Rome and Moscow regarding the conversion of Russian Orthodoxy to Unia, but nothing came of Rome’s efforts. In 1581, for example, papal legate Antonius Possevin, a Jesuit, arrived in Moscow entrusted with the responsibility to resurrect the matter of a Russian Uniate Church. Although Ivan received Antonius, when he brought up the question of Catholic churches in Russia, Ivan replied with a flat “No.” The tsar was particularly concerned that westerners shaved off their beards and that the pope was carried on a litter, which Tsar Ivan felt inappropriate. He bluntly told Antonius, “A pope who does not live according to Christ and according to the Apostles is not a shepherd, but a wolf.” Antonius withdrew from further 196

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia discussions at this point. Tsar Ivan did allow Catholic priests to accompany merchants and travelers from Europe to Russia, but they were not allowed to preach their faith. Ivan IV’s first wife, Anastasia Romanovna, unexpectedly died in 1560, which devastated him psychologically. His second wife, Maria, died after eight years of marriage, while his third wife Martha died two weeks after the wedding. Anna Koltovska married Ivan the Terrible in 1572. At an ecclesiastical council summoned to nominate a new candidate for the patriarchate, Tsar Ivan IV asked the bishops to permit him to divorce his fourth wife and marry again, claiming that his marriage with Martha had never been consummated. (According to the canons of the church, a man was only allowed to marry four times.) To resolve the matter with the least offense to the tsar, the council decreed a three-year public penance on the tsar after his divorce, after which he would be free to do as he pleased, even to marry again. The tsar accepted their terms and in 1575 Anna Koltovska was exiled to a convent and forced to become a nun; her name became Sister Darya. (She lived 41 years at the convent and died in 1616 at about age 65.) Tsar Ivan initially observd the penance imposed on him by the council, but after a short while he disregarded their decree and proceeded to marry again. Anna Vasilchikova married Ivan in about 1575, becoming his fifth wife. She was exiled to Pokrovski Convent, in Suzdal, a few years after their marriage. Tsar Ivan went on to marry a sixth and seventh time. His seventh wife was Maria Feodorevna Nagoi, from Uglich, whom he married in September 1580 and who bore him a son after his death; she named him Dmitri. No doubt Tsar Ivan considered himself above the prelates, and divorcing and remarrying against ecclesiastical canons was his symbolic triumph over the Russian Orthodox Church. To crown the enigma, Tsar Ivan had himself tonsured a monk by the new Metr. Dionysei, one month prior to his death. But before that, in 1571, Evdokia Saburova, the daughter of a commoner, became the first wife of Ivan IV’s son Ivan, the Tsarevich. Within a few years she too was exiled, by order of her father-in-law, to Pokrovski Convent in Suzdal. Young Ivan’s second wife, Praskovya Vasilchikova (no relation to Anna above), was exiled to Bel-Ozerski Monastery on the same terms; Tsarevich Ivan married a third time, and his wife became pregnant. Her father-in-law Tsar Ivan attacked her and was beating her when the son intervened; young Ivan blamed his father for ruining his first two marriages and then demanded that he not interfere with his third. This led to an intense altercation between father and son, and the Tsar killed his own heir in a fit of anger. Young Ivan died November 19, 1581.

197

History of Russian Christianity Kirill’s successor as metropolitan was Archbishop Antoni of Polotz, ordained in May 1572. He was by nature a calm and mild-mannered individual, and he did not interfere with any of Tsar Ivan’s activities over the nine years of his cathedra. Antoni died in January 1581. Two noteworthy ecclesiastical councils were held during Metr. Antoni’s cathedra, both summoned by Tsar Ivan, in 1573 and 1580. In the interests of the state the tsar implemented restrictions on the right of the Church to increase its patrimony. Much like the earlier tsars, Tsar Ivan felt that the Russian Church had acquired too much property and that restrictions were necessary in order to keep such property in the domain of the state, if at all possible.

62. METROPOLITAN DIONYSEI In February of 1581, archimandrite Dionysei of Novgorod Khutinski Monastery was ordained as metropolitan of Russia, succeeding Antoni. One of the first events in his ministry was to tonsure Tsar Ivan IV on his deathbed and give him the new name of Jonah. Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible died the night of March 18, 1584. At the time, Tsar Ivan’s seventh wife, Maria Nagoi, was pregnant and soon gave birth to a son, Dmitri. Ivan’s son by an earlier marriage, Feodor Ivanovich, ascended the throne as tsar of Moscow and all Russia and was crowned by Metr. Dionysei on May 31, 1584. On behalf of his late father, Tsar Feodor sent to the patriarch of Constantinople 1,000 rubles as a donation and requested the performance of a requiem for the deceased tsar. Nine hundred rubles were sent to the patriarch of Jerusalem for him to perform a requiem, and 82 rubles in addition for a mass on behalf of the health and longevity of himself as the new tsar. On hand to advise the new tsar was Boris Feodorovich Godunov, brotherin-law to Tsar Feodor through his sister Tsaritza Irina Feodorevna. Godunov was also son-in-law of Maluta Skuratov, Tsar Ivan IV’s most odious henchman, the person who strangled Patr. Fillip to death. Godunov’s official title was Royal Military Commander and Regent of Kazan and Astrakhan. With both these connections Boris was able to quickly ascend to political authority and prominence in the Russian state. Dionysei was a person of great talent and strong character, and as a result he did not retain his position through the end of his natural life. The financial needs of the realm were such that Dionysei had to yield to the demands of Tsar 198

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia Feodor and cede a certain amount of ecclesiastical property and other privileges to the state. Decisions on these matters were made at an ecclesiastical council held in 1584, shortly after the death of Tsar Ivan IV. The most influential and popular nobleman of the era, Nikita Romanovich Zakharin, passed away April 23, 1586. He was also brother of Tsar Ivan IV’s first wife, Anastasia Romanovna, and progenitor of the royal Romanov lineage. His death led to a power struggle in the Boyar Duma between the two remaining powerful and rival factions: the Godunovs and the Shuiskis. The energetic Metr. Dionysei became entangled in the web of politics and was unable to stand against court favorite Boris Godunov. Dionysei sided with the Shuiski clan, but the Godunovs had the upper hand. Metr. Dionysei and Archbishop Varlaam of Krutitzk appeared before Tsar Feodor and attempted to expose the tyranny and malice of his brother-in-law Boris, but Boris was able to gain the victory and had both metropolitan and archbishop exiled from Moscow October 13, 1587: Dionysei, back to Khutinski Monastery, and Varlaam to Antoniev Monastery, where he died shortly after his arrival. Civil leaders and noblemen became victims of Godunov’s purges, which he learned to conduct from his father-in-law. Ivan Petrovich Shuiski died of asphyxiation November 16, 1588; his prison cell was filled with smoke. The following year Andrei Ivanovich Shuiski was murdered. Other adversaries of Godunov were exiled to the Russian far north, Siberia and the Caucasus. Metr. Dionysei’s immediate successor was Jonah, of whom little is known. He was deposed within two months by Godunov and was never listed in the record of metropolitans. His successor was likewise hand-picked by Boris Godunov: Archbishop Job of Rostov, a mild-mannered and ambitious man hoping to attain greater promotions through sycophantic adherence to both Tsar Feodor and Boris Godunov.

63. THE ANTI-TRINITARIAN MOVEMENT As the harbingers and proselytizers of the New Teaching were labeled Judaizers in a shallow sense, so Bashkin and Kosoi and their adherents were labeled anti-trinitarian, although this was but a minor facet of their theology. At this time in Russian Orthodox history, liberal or rationalist Protestant thinking has its debut with a new generation of dissenters, more educated than their earlier counterparts — the Strigolniki and Judaizers — and more influenced by the Reformation in western Europe. 199

History of Russian Christianity In 1550, two Lithuanians arrived in Moscow: Matfei (Matthew), a doctor, and his companion Andrei Khoteev. There is no information regarding their origin except that they were Protestant liberals with some Lutheran or other reformation Christian convictions. While in Moscow they befriended a landowner and nobleman of Tambov who happened to be residing there at the time. The two Lithuanians also brought with them the Bible, in Slavonic, and discussed religion at length with the Tambov landowner. Although little gain was made with the landowner — his name is lost in history — he had a servant named Matvei Semeonovich Bashkin who was self-educated and readily grasped the liberal and rationalist concepts of Christianity taught by the doctor and his friend. The Lithuanians returned home — the environment under Metr. Makari and Tsar Ivan IV was Euro-phobic and not receptive to foreigners — and so did the Tambov landowner, while servant Bashkin remained in Moscow to manage the owner’s business interests. Over the next couple of years, Bashkin further studied the Bible they had left behind and developed convictions that departed from Russian Orthodoxy. He traveled to the Bel-Ozersk region to confer with elders at the monasteries located there, the Kirill and Therapontov, and to explore his new convictions — thinking they would be more open-minded and liberal than those in Moscow. On the contrary, they reprimanded him for his denial of Orthodox tenets and begged for his repentance of Protestant teachings. Bashkin, however, was very active and disseminated his concepts to other monks of the region, including Theodosei Kosoi, although he eventually returned to Moscow. He also came into contact with abbot Artemie mentioned above. During Lent of 1553, Bashkin went to confession to protopope Semeon of Blago-Veschenski Cathedral in the Kremlin. Bashkin’s confession — dealing with his doubts about the orthodoxy of his religion — sparked the priest’s interest. Semeon visited Bashkin at his home and discussed Christianity and its beliefs and practices with him at length. Semeon then began to suspect Bashkin of heresy, since he no longer attended liturgy, and especially because Semeon was unable to respond to Bashkin’s deeper inquiries into the truths of Christianity. The protopope reported Bashkin’s confession and the conversations they had had to his friend, the priest Sylvester, personal confessor of Tsar Ivan IV and author of Domostroi. Sylvester had already heard reports of the Tambov nobleman’s servant’s failure to attend liturgy and reported this to Metr. Makari. An Episcopal court heard the protopope relate Bashkin’s confession and conversations, and a report was written and delivered to Metr. Makari. After a discussion with Tsar Ivan, the tsar ordered that Bashkin be 200

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia arrested and transferred to Joseph Voloko-Lamsk Monastery for a confrontation and inquisition. Bashkin was interrogated by two monks of Voloko-Lamsk, Gerasim and Thilofei. He unveiled his teaching to them and even wrote down his convictions. Bashkin gave the monks the names of two of his fellow adherents, the brothers Ivan and Grigori Borisov, of Moscow, who were then arrested. After two years of intense suffering and inquisition at Voloko-Lamsk, Bashkin and the two Borisov brothers were taken to Moscow in December 1555 for trial. All three were convicted of heresy by an ecclesiastical council presided over by Metr. Makari. They were sentenced to life imprisonment: Bashkin to Voloko-Lamsk Monastery; Ivan Borisov to Valaam Monastery; and Grigori Borisov to an unnamed monastery in the far north of Russia. Ivan Borisov was able to escape Valaam and went to Sweden to live, while Grigori died in exile. Bashkin arrived at Voloko-Lamsk for this second visit on December 22, 1555, a Friday, but was not as fortunate as his spiritual brethren. Tsar Ivan IV ordered his immediate execution. In a dungeon at the monastery just a couple of days after his return, Matvei Semeonovich Bashkin was stretched by a rack while his torso was carved open allowing his entrails to spill out. (One historian states that the torturous death was performed publicly in Red Square in Moscow and in the presence of Tsar Ivan the Terrible.) Theodosei Kosoi, a native of Moscow, was a son or servant — the accounts vary on this item — of one of the palace nobleman. In his early years he abandoned the nobility and was tonsured as a monk at Kirill Bel-Ozerski Monastery. While there, Kosoi met with Bashkin during his visit and was penetrated by his teachings, and was himself arrested in 1554 for disseminating heresy. He was transferred under guard from Bel-Ozerski to Moscow where he was tried and convicted. After his trial (but before his exile), Kosoi was able to escape and made his way to Lithuania, where he married and continued preaching his Protestant views among Orthodox living there. The teachings of Bashkin and Kosoi were codified about ten years later by Zinobei, a monk of Oteinski Monastery about 30 miles northeast of Novgorod. Zinobei relates in his book — which was written as a polemic against the teaching of Kosoi — that once he arrived at the monastery two monks from Novgorod Spasski Monastery, Gerasim and Afanasi, and a third person, the laybrother Feodor who was an iconographer, had asked him to teach them about the difference between the teachings of Kosoi and those of Orthodoxy. “A new teaching has appeared,” they said, “and many praised Kosoi for it. Was it from God and should they follow him?” The new teaching was the teaching of Kosoi 201

History of Russian Christianity himself, which was in its fullest essence a continuation of the teaching of Bashkin. As monk Zinobei recorded in his book, Theodosei Kosoi taught the following: • The mystery of the Holy Trinity is not to be recognized because the law recognizes only one God. • Jesus Christ was not the only begotten son of God incarnated for the salvation of people, but was a plain person. There was no necessity for the Son of God to become incarnate for the fallen Adam to arise, since God can by His own hands renew the defiled image of God in man. • For this reason there is no renewal of the image of God in man through redemption and man today lives as he did earlier, prior to the first advent of Christ. • All the writings of the ecclesiastical fathers are human traditions mixed with lies and must be rejected. • Veneration of icons is rejected on the basis that the scriptures consider them idols. Rejecting icons, the miracles which occurred due to icons are also rejected. People must destroy crosses or icons in their possession. • People should not attend Orthodox Church since it is full of idols, and neither should they confess to priests or take communion from them. • People must not bow down to the cross because the cross was the weapon of the enemies of Christ. • People must not pray to deceased saints. Consequently, Kosoi felt that it was improper to have the remains of the saints in church, and recommended that they be buried in the ground. • Regulations and rules of the Orthodox Church, chants, fasts, the sign of the cross, burning of incense were the traditions of men and should not be observed. • Monasticism was an institution of man, and priests should not be referred to as father, because only God in heaven should be referred to in that manner. • Prelates, in rejecting heretics and not accepting their repentance, transgress the commandment of the Lord who commanded to forgive every sinner, even if he should sin a second time. • All people were equal in the sight of God, including Tatars and Germans and other nationalities; and the Christian should not participate in war. A review of Kosoi’s teachings indicates that he learned from Bashkin and progressed further in rationalist and liberal thinking. Their teaching was apparently a combination of observations: in part Lutheran, in part Unitarian. When Luther started the Reformation in the western Church, the spirit of Reformation not only flooded the greater portion of the west but also expanded into Poland and Lithuania and further east into Russia. The liberal teaching 202

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia which migrated to Moscow from Lithuania consisted mainly in not accepting anything as truth that could not be understood rationally. Pavel Miliukov records the situation: Theodosei Kosoi came close to the Lithuanian-Polish anti-Trinitarians and developed his own teaching into a complete system, rejecting only some fragments of Novgorod liberal thought. Many facets of this system brought the teaching of Theodosei into correlation with spiritual Christianity: he was not restrained by the usual evangelic criticism, rejection of icons and remains of saints and the general protest against church ritualism; in short, those viewpoints which he retained were more or less similar to the opinions of Artemie. Having accepted these opinions as a point of departure, he progressed much further in the direction of spiritual Christianity. He declared his followers, those who accepted spiritual reason, to be sons of God, the sole individuals to whom truth was revealed. All others, he considered dogs. Even if they kept a charitable life, they could not be saved if they did not accept the spiritual mind. From another perspective, Theodosei Kosoi found true offspring of God among all persuasions. “All people are alike before God; Tatars and Germans likewise.” Kosoi quoted Apostle Peter, saying, “In every nation those who fear God and do justice are acceptable to Him.” And [Kosoi] further taught, “Whoever possesses our reason is a spiritual brother and kin, and for this reason baptism is not needed. Communion is likewise not needed, since Christ gave us His spoken word, not His blood and not His body. It is also not necessary to pray because in the gospels the command is to worship in Spirit and Truth. To desist from crime is the real prayer. There must be no churches, since they are not described in the Gospels or letters of the Apostles. The apostles entered a large room, and not a church. According to John Chrysostom, a church is not walls but the assembly of believers. Restraint from food and marriage is superfluous, because unto the clean, all things are clean. Preceptors in the community of believers must not exist, because ‘there is one preceptor, Christ.’ All who accept the spiritual mind are equal one unto another, as spiritual brethren and kin. Possessions are to be brought into the community in the fashion of the first Christians. Authorities, and war, must not exist among the true followers of Christ.”

In response to the expansion of liberal and Protestant thought during the era of Tsar Ivan IV, Metr. Makari instituted an inquisition from the forests of the Trans-Volga to the foremost circles of Moscow to uproot the dissension. Other than the deacon Ivan Viskovati — who remonstrated against the artwork represented by icons — the extent of success of this newest inquisition is not chronicled and the short-lived anti-trinitarian movement ends at this time.

203

History of Russian Christianity 64. THE SAINTS OF MOSCOVITE RUSSIA Prior to the Mongol invasion, Russia only had four native canonized saints: the martyred brothers Boris and Gleb Vladimirovich, Theodosius of Kiev Pecher Monastery, and Bishop Leonti of Rostov. From the time of the Mongol invasion to the accession of Metr. Makari, 21 were added: 1. Princess Olga 2. Vladimir the Great 3. Antonius, founder of Kiev Pecher Monastery 4. Isaiah, bishop of Rostov 5. Varlaam, bishop of Khutinsk 6. Pr. Mikhail of Chernigov 7. Theodor, a nobleman of Chernigov 8. Nikita, bishop of Pereyaslav 9. Ignati, bishop of Rostov 10. Pr. Theodor of Yaroslav 11. David, son of #10 above 12. Constantine, son of #10 above 13. Metr. Peter 14. Metr. Aleksei 15. Avrami, bishop of Rostov 16. Dmitri, bishop of Prilutz 17. Abbot Sergei of Radonezh 18. Abbot Kirill of Bel-Ozersk 19. Metr. Jonah 20. Elder Makari of Kalyazin 21. Elder Pafnuti of Borovsk. At the councils of 1547 and 1549, summoned by Metr. Makari, 28 more saints were canonized, all of them Russian, except for one Serbian. These were: 1. John, or Elijah, archbishop of Novgorod 2. Gr. Pr. Aleksandr Yaroslavich Nevski 3. Abbot Nikon of Radonezh 4. Elder Pavel of Obnor 5. Abbot Sabbatius (Savvatiev) of Solovetsk 6. Elder Dionysei of Glushitsk 7. Elder Mikhail of Klopsk 204

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia 8. Abbot Zosima of Solovetsk 9. Elder Aleksandr of Sver 10. Pr. Vsevolod Mstislavich of Pskov 11. Nifont, archbishop of Novgorod 12. Avramie, bishop of Smolensk 13. Gr. Pr. Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tver 14. Antonius, a martyr of Lithuania 15. John, a martyr of Lithuania 16. Evstathi, a martyr of Lithuania 17. Jacob, bishop of Rostov 18. Stefan, bishop and missionary of Perm 19. Abbot Evfimi of Suzdal Spasso-Evfimiev Monastery 20. Elder Savva of Storozhev 21. Elder Grigori of Pelshem 22. Jonah, archbishop of Novgorod. 23. Evfrosin, bishop of Pskov 24. Evfrem, bishop of Perekomsk 25. John, a martyr of Belograd (or Akkerman, part of Moldova at present) 26. Abbot Therapont of Therapontov 27. Martinian of Bel-Ozerski 28. Arsenius, an archbishop of Serbia (not Russian) This brought the total number of canonized Russian saints to 52, plus an additional nine who were to be venerated as local, not national, saints. Pavel Miliukov describes the effect of the quick canonization of so many saints: The national pride was now fully satisfied. One of the codifiers of the new Lives of the Saints could say, in all confidence, that from the time of the Moscow councils regarding the new miracle-workers, “the churches of God in the Russian land will never lack in the memory of saints, and that Russia genuinely shines with piety just as did the second Rome and royal city, Constantinople.” These words indicate what a close association was made between the canonized saints and the basis of imperial Moscow as the third Rome. Another editor of the Lives united the old argument with the new, saying that in Constantinople the Orthodox faith abdicated to the Islamic heresy as a result of godless Turks, while here the Russian land radiated from the teachings of our saints. It was important to prove that the Russian Church, although appearing at the eleventh hour, created no fewer workers in the garden of the Lord than those Churches that had labored from the first hour; that the seeds fell here not

205

History of Russian Christianity among thorns and not among rocks, but on good fertile soil producing a 100fold harvest. These convictions also compelled Metr. Makari to begin a codification of the lives of all the Russian saints up to his time. The work produced a familiarity with all the local venerated Russian saints and their recognition as saints for all Russia.

65. EXPANSION OF RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY The Moscovite era from 1480 to 1590, hardly over 100 years, produced a greater expansion of the Church in Russia than any other 100-year period in its history. Missionary activities flourished, which were followed by the construction of thousands of new churches and some 300 monasteries. Stephen of Perm was the primary missionary of Orthodoxy to the Perm region in the late 14th century, and 100 years later the missionary effort continued. Toward the end of the 16th century, Trifon of Vyatka enthusiastically embarked on new missionary work in the area, establishing Uspenski (Assumption) Monastery in Vyatka in 1580. He continued his work until his death in 1612. The expansion of Russian Orthodoxy into Karelia and Lapland was due to the efforts of monk Theodorit of Solovetsk. Born in Rostov, at the age of 13 he ran away from home to Solovetski Monastery and there at the age of 14 was tonsured as a monk. After 15 years of residence on the island — most of the time under guidance of the venerated elder, Zosima — Theodorit was ordained hierodeacon and soon after departed to the hermitage of Aleksandr of Sver (Sverski), and then visited other monasteries of the Trans-Volga region, including a two-year stay at Kirill Bel-Ozerski. He returned to Solovki in 1529 and stayed there another eight years. At that time he befriended a hermit named Mitrophan and traveled with him to Novgorod, where Theodorit was ordained hieromonk by then-archbishop Makari. They lived there two years, until Makari was ordained as metropolitan. Gathering funds while in Novgorod, Theodorit traveled north into Lapland and Karelia and built a church at the mouth of the Kola River, near the presentday city of Murmansk. A small number of monks joined him and an abbey was created. For the next ten years — 1539 to 1549 — Theodorit expanded Russian Orthodoxy throughout the region, preaching in Lapland and Karelia and the most northwest regions of Russian. He then moved back to Novgorod, but was immediately ordained as archimandrite of Suzdal Spasso-Evfimiev Monastery, where he resided for five years. In 1554, Theodorit was arrested as an associate of abbot Artemie, whom he had befriended while at Kirill Bel-Ozerski. Theodorit 206

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia was sentenced to confinement under guard at Kirill Bel-Ozerski Monastery for one and half years, but was released after six months due to his knowledge of Greek, and was dispatched in 1557 to Constantinople on an embassy on behalf of Tsar Ivan IV. Upon his return, Theodorit moved to Vologda and lived there to the end of his life, in 1577, as a monk at Prilutzki Monastery. The venerated Trifon Pechengski must be mentioned alongside Theodorit, as he accompanied him to the far north at Mordcap. Trifon constructed a monastery dedicated to the Holy Trinity in the city Pechenga, near Kola, in 1533. Russian Orthodoxy was expanded into Astrakhan after Tsar Ivan IV conquered the region in 1554. These southeastern areas of Russia were under the hegemony of the Mongols, which prevented an early expansion of Orthodoxy. Although slow to develop, a monastery was constructed there by monk Kirill in 1568. By 1573, the monastery consisted of three churches and 25 brethren. After Tsar Ivan IV’s victory over Kazan, missionaries were sent there and Gurei, abbot of Selizharovsk Monastery, became the first bishop of Kazan, ordained in 1555. He died December 4, 1563. Since the compilation of the original Slavonic Bible in glagolithic script by elders Cyril and Methodius, in the 9th century, no further attempt had been made in Russia to create a complete codex of the entire Holy Bible in contemporary Slavonic for some 500 years. The original Slavonic Bible was a bibliographic rarity and the only books copied and circulated were Psalms, the Gospels and Apostolic letters. It was Archbishop Gennadi of Novgorod who made the next attempt to compile a complete Slavonic Bible for Russian Orthodoxy. Some of the books of his version were revisions of the original work by Cyril and Methodius — such as the five books of Moses and the Psalms — while others were translations from the Latin Vulgate into Slavonic. Other books of the Bible had been translated into Slavonic over the centuries by private individuals. The books of the Maccabees were translated from the Latin Vulgate into Slavonic especially for the new revision, work that was completed in 1493 by Archbishop Gennadi. Then it was reproduced by copyists, since printing technology still lay many years in Russia’s future. The earliest extant copy of the Gennadi Bible is dated 1499. The first actual printed Slavonic Bible was published by Georgi Skorina of Polotzk; it was printed in Prague in installments during the period 1517-1520, but only the Old Testament was completed. Skorina used other eastern European translations of the Bible and the Vulgate to compile his Slavonic translation.

207

History of Russian Christianity Pr. Constantine of Ostrog (Ostrozhski) (1526-1608) founded in his principality an educational community whose primary motive was to combat Protestantism and Catholicism. A part of this effort — and its most spectacular product — was the production of a complete Slavonic Bible, published in 1580 and reprinted with emendations in 1581. Tsar Ivan IV gave Pr. Constantine a complete copy of the Gennadi Bible, which had been compared with other Slavic translations, along with available Greek Septuagint texts; it was the primary source for the Ostrog Bible. The project took close to four years to complete and was published by Ivan Feodoroff. During its early years Moscow, as the capital of Imperial Russia as well as that of Russian Orthodoxy since Metr. Peter, lacked the quantity of churches seen in older cities such as Pskov or Novgorod. Prior to the reign of Tsar Ivan III, almost all the churches of Moscow were constructed of wood. During the Moscovite era and as the tsars began to associate more with rulers of European countries, architects and artists were invited from Europe to Moscow to decorate the city as well as to build and decorate churches, which contributed to making the city appear as a suitable capital of both Imperial Russia and Russian Orthodoxy. It was felt that the religious pre-eminence of Moscow ought to be expressed not only by the antiquity and the quantity of its churches, but by their beauty and style. Tsar Ivan III rebuilt almost all the churches located inside the Kremlin. Uspenski Cathedral, originally constructed by Gr. Pr. Ivan Danilovich in 1327, was soon dilapidated and then was destroyed by fire in 1471. Metr. Fillip I gathered money from other churches’ charities to rebuild the church, and he entrusted the work to two Russian architects, Krivtozov and Mishkin. They redesigned and constructed a new edifice based on the pattern of a cathedral in Vladimir, making it wider, lengthier and taller. But within two years, the roof collapsed as a result of poor engineering. Tsar Ivan III invited the famous Venetian architect Aristotel Feoravanti to rebuild it in 1475. He accepted the invitation and, after arriving in Moscow, razed the existing cathedral to its foundation. The new Uspenski Cathedral was completed in five years and was consecrated August 12, 1479 by Metr. Geronti. Feoravanti remained in Russia until his death. In similar fashion three other dilapidated churches in the Kremlin were razed and rebuilt: Blago-Veschenski, Archangelsk, and St. John the Pillar-Dweller (Stylite). Blago-Veschenski Cathedral was rebuilt in the years 1484-1489 by Russian architects from Pskov. Archangelsk Cathedral was based on the Uspenski design but with somewhat larger proportions and rebuilt 15051508 under the architect Aloisio or Aleviz Novi from Milan, Italy, also at Ivan III’s 208

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia invitation. The church of St. John the Pillar-Dweller was rebuilt during the same years by the European architect Fryazin Tzebon. Fires occurred regularly in the capital city Moscow, destroying buildings, including churches: in the fire of 1471, 25 churches were destroyed; in 1475, 23 churches were destroyed; a fire in 1488 destroyed 42 churches. The son and successor of Tsar Ivan III, Tsar Vasili II, zealously erected churches in Moscow. Fryazin Tzebon was commissioned again for the design and construction of ten churches in 1514, and after their completion, three more in 1527. Tsar Ivan IV was not about to cede to his father and grandfather greater honor for the embellishment of Moscow with beautiful churches. After the fire of 1547 destroyed almost all the buildings in Moscow, Tsar Ivan rebuilt the city and especially the three Kremlin churches mentioned above. The most popular or recognizable of all churches in Russia is the Sobor Vasili Blazhenago (Cathedral of Vasili the Blessed) — originally known as the Pokrov Presviatoi Bogoroditza (Intercession of the Immaculate Theotokos) — built in 1555 in Red Square to commemorate the victory of Tsar Ivan IV over Kazan. The manufacture of icons by competent artists accompanied the construction of churches. The difficulty lay in the fact that western influence became noticeable in the design and portraits of the saints when drawn by a western artist. The Hundred-Chapters Council decreed that iconographers must adhere to the ancient Russian style and that bishops in each diocese survey closely all artistry in churches and icons so they would conform to the original and traditional Russian style. The council recommended the famous Russian iconographer Andrei Rublyov (d. 1430) as an example for all artists.

66. ECCLESIASTICAL AND MONASTIC CONDITIONS The monasteries’ continued possession of extensive patrimony seriously undermined the morality of monks and all monastic clergy, even if it may not have been the primary reason for the low level of morality at well-endowed monasteries. Both ecclesiastical and imperial authorities strove to curb or at least expose the decline of monastic life with their statutes and decrees, all of which had a very caustic nature. According to the Hundred-Chapters Council, monks continually vexed the state with their petitions for more land, even though they appropriated land from the children of nobles and feudal princes by coercion, extortion or by bribing the copyist writing deeds of ownership. The courts were flooded with lawsuits dealing with monastic impropriety in the 209

History of Russian Christianity appropriation of land. The monastic clergy often squandered the money on themselves, only to increase their level of comfort and security. Charity to the poor and under-privileged declined; not only did many monasteries fail to feed the destitute or to assist them, but they had no mercy for serfs of their own estates. The Hundred-Chapters Council decreed that the monasteries be organized on the original pattern of communal living, that the father superior would not make any financial decisions without consultation and consensus of elders and diocesan clergy. The father superior was to be satisfied with the same food and clothing as the balance of the brethren; he was not to house his children or relatives in cloisters at the expense of the monastery, nor have them work at the estate. The Hundred-Chapters Council likewise decreed against the influx of lay people as guests who would live in the cloisters and whose conduct was a temptation. Individuals accepted tonsure for various reasons: because of a sincere desire to take up the monastic vocation; as a means to attaining salvation; to isolate themselves for personal reasons from the mainstream of society; and sometimes, to escape work and responsibilities. Some brought their worldly wealth with them and lived out their lives in comfortable circumstances at a monastery. Some father superiors would not allow a tonsured monk to join the brethren at their monastery unless they contributed a suitable sum of money to the monastery. Monks who, for whatever reason, were not assigned a monastery would wander from city to city or monastery to monastery, begging for food and shelter, unable to provide any benefit to society. The Hundred-Chapters Council also turned its attention to the misuse of the term “fool in Christ,” which allowed many imposters to travel city to city posing as venerated elders or ascetics while taking advantage of the charity of kind people. Kostomarov described the era as follows: The monasteries established by pious ascetics did not long retain their pious character and the holiness of the brethren was short-lived. As soon as the monastery became famous and local villages increased in size it was filled with free-loaders, vagrants and alcoholics. The initial answer to the decline of national piety was quite obvious; it was the inadequacy of the liturgy as performed at most churches, which was hardly accessible to the general public. The majority of parish churches stood empty or were very poorly attended. Parishioners did not show the least respect for services; the illiterate priest conducting the service would pronounce the syllables of each word slowly, and if he could not do that, then he recited it by memory to the extent that he could. Prelates ordained illiterate men, claiming that if they did not then the parishes would have absolutely no one to attend to

210

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia the sacraments. Such priests were often quick to abandon their parishes. Conducting Vespers or Matins was a self-inflicted torture which they could only ameliorate by alcohol. Prelates deliberately ordained priests in order to bring in fees. Priests who were literate and could perform the services were rare, and other priests would abandon their parishes out of disillusionment or disenchantment, wandering off to live in a monastery or elsewhere. In many monasteries, the abbot who purchased his position knew neither the liturgy nor the brethren and lived on income drawn from monastic patrimony. Such prelates would host their guests lavishly and allow relatives to live at the monastery. A monk often kept a woman or girl in his cloister to attend to his needs, and the abbot did likewise. Other monks kept boys in their cells; sodomy was a regular occurrence at monasteries; and monks and nuns often lived together in the same monastery. Alcoholism was rampant. However, we must not think that because an excess of monastic patrimony existed this allowed all resident monks to live in luxury. As wealthy as a monastery might be, this wealth was only utilized by certain monastic prelates who, along with their relatives, lovers and favorites, depleted the coffers. Only those brethren who had the favor or approval of the father superior lived comfortably; the others suffered hunger, discomfort and lack of necessities. Nothing remained for them but to leave the monastery and find another, or roam about the country. Monks could be severely mistreated and abused by the abbot and might be expelled or else would themselves abandon their residence, only to wander city to city. A stream of such vagrant monks and nuns wandered across all of Russia, with no destiny or goal in their sights. One would carry an icon which he would advertise as miracle-working, a second pretended to be a fool for Christ, and a third might claim to have visions of Good Friday. Some prophesied and others healed, hoping to gain the awe of superstitious serfs and accumulate some charity. This decline or lack of piety and integrity among clergy had a negative effect on the morality of the population, whether nobleman, free person or serf. The majority of Russian families were plagued with perversion and disruption, abuse and violence. Marriage in general was avoided by much of the population. The 17th century was no different than the 12th, when Metr. John (Ioyann IV) echoed the disinclination of Russians to marry. And if this was not enough, the people took a bestial attitude toward sexual relations, and incest was endemic among serfs and the peasant population.

Even with the efforts of the ecclesiastical councils of 1503 and the Hundred-Chapters Council of 1551, there still existed considerable discord during performance of liturgies, and this became worse with the expansion of the Church. Strong reprimands by Orthodox prelates were directed against disorderly and inefficient performance of church rites, and the deterioration of singing and recitation of prayer. Often, the services incorporated many 211

History of Russian Christianity individuals performing their part of the liturgy all at the same time, overlapping each other. To decrease the length of the liturgy, one would read, another would sing, and a third would recite the daily service, with the effect that nothing at all was intelligible. Singing was further distorted, as rather than correctly pronouncing the words singers expanded them with additional syllables, to such an extent that the words were undecipherable. Such chaos was addressed in the decrees of the Hundred-Chapters Council, but little progress was made in most parish churches. The general attitude was that if it was Russian, then it was orthodox; but if it was foreign, then it was heretic. Since male Russians wore a beard, the beard was eventually attached to the confession of Orthodoxy. Shaving the beard was then labeled a Catholic heresy. The Hundred-Chapters Council decreed that a clean-shaven man would not receive a funeral service in an Orthodox Church, not a requiem after 40 days, nor would candles be burned in church on his behalf; he was considered an infidel. The attachment to form and ritual is reflected in every area of the character of the Russian community. The virtuous person of the era attended church services; austerely observed the fasts, and in addition also fasted voluntarily or on Mondays; contributed to monasteries and churches, and to the construction of new churches; made pilgrimages to holy places; donated to charity and gave food to the poor; and participated in various types of benevolent conduct. The life of the pious Orthodox was built around the statutes of the Church. The arrangement of time, his diet, clothing, etiquette and attitude between the members of the family all reflected the influence of the religion. Even the outward appearance of the Russian city and town attested to religion as a dominant force in the region. Foreigners saw many magnificent churches and monasteries in Russian cities and heard the incessant ring of church bells; along every street stood shrines and icons with candles lit in front of them. Passers-by made the sign of the cross in front of each, while a few bowed right to the ground to venerate them. Everywhere the eye turned, it met clergy carrying holy water, crosses, or icons, and singing. They would perform their processions around their churches like clockwork. But true religious feeling which enlivens the liturgy and transforms the character of a person was scarcely developed. Among the many questions and conflicts of the 16th century was the contradistinction between Christian ostentation and morality, and even those people who most refuted the liturgical piety were often themselves clearly typical of all it represented.

212

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia Even when society sensed the necessity of restoration of the Church after the devastation caused by the Mongol occupation, it seems it did not have the means to boost itself out of this difficult state. Tsars and feudal princes were so involved in political struggles that little time and effort was dedicated toward improvement of education and literacy. Archbishop Gennadi of Novgorod wrote a bitter complaint to Metr. Simon about the illiteracy of the clergy of his diocese. They bring a man to me to ordain as priest. I ask him to read the Apostolic letters, but he does not know how to begin. I give him the Psalter, and he can barely mumble some of it. I deny him his request and he begins to complain to me. We cannot find people who are literate and so we must teach them. I tell him to learn the liturgy, but he has problems pronouncing the first word. I tell him one thing and he replies to me something else. I tell him to first learn the alphabet, and after reciting a few of the letters, he wants to leave. Even when such unschooled people learn to read, their pronunciation ruins it for them entirely. I tell him to hire a teacher and to give him a bowl of porridge or piece of money as payment, but then he leaves because he has no money. Having no ability, he mumbles words as he leafs through the book and he still has no knowledge of church protocol.

Archbishop Gennadi asked Metr. Simon to help in creating schools, but little was done to improve the literacy of the parish clergy. Many of the Boyars and feudal princes were hardly literate, themselves, in those days. As a result, ecclesiastical preaching or delivery of sermons was poor and often limited to a repetition of recorded instructive from metropolitans Jonah, Theodosius, Filipp and Fotius, and especially John Chrysostom. In lieu of an active instruction, the message was mundane and shallow. Some of the priests turned to the Lives of the Saints for their sermons, which provided an interest for the parishioners. After the fruitless sighs of Gennadi of Novgorod and the failed effort of the Hundred-Chapters Council to open schools, the Jesuit Antonius Possevin proposed to Tsar Ivan IV that he send young Russians to Rome to be educated at the Uniate College of St. Athanasius or at the Jesuit schools in Lithuania, but to no avail. Although Tsar Ivan did initiate printing in 1560 in Moscow and opened schools, they fell into disuse when his terrors began.

67. MORAL CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE As indicated, the level of education and religious training was low for laity, clergy, and even the higher clergy during the Moscovite era. Monastery and church construction was rapid, but educational development did not keep pace.

213

History of Russian Christianity The wife of Tsar Vasili III, the barren Solomonia, sought help from sorcerers for her inability to conceive. Later Tsar Vasili himself, after marrying Elena Glinskaya, invited wizards to the palace hoping that they, using their chants and talismans, could instill in him virility so he could regularly impregnate his wife to acquire a large progeny. Tsar Ivan IV also consulted with sorcerers, although he also executed others. People in general patronized wizards at every occasion when normal or natural means were insufficient to accomplish something. Medicine was often based on the conjuration and advice of such charlatans and quacks. National and private disasters, failures, family squabbles and other troubles were often attributed to a spell cast by a wizard, and to circumvent the effects one often resorted to more chants or sorcery from other wizards. This spirit of sorcery also found its way into Orthodoxy. Supplication acquired a posture of incantation with the names of mythological figures exchanged for those of Christian saints. Some Christian prayers were converted into chants and icons into charms, which the common people could identify with the efficacy of sorcery. Excerpts of such prayers were worn round the neck as good luck charms, or hung in homes as a talisman, or utilized in fortune telling. The bakers who prepared the host for the Eucharist would recite a pagan incantation over them to insure their efficacy in the rite. Priests would place under the altar the salt prepared on Maudy Thursday — the day before Good Friday — and then would later sell it as a cure for both people and animals, and would sell the soap remaining from the sanctification of a church. Parish priests would also walk about the church holding texts of books of divination. Beginning with the 16th century, astrology and fortune-telling permeated Russia from Europe and books containing occult methods were translated into Russian. Excerpts from forbidden books, delved into by the curious or the desperate, increased in distribution and readership. The attempt of higher Orthodoxy to proscribe certain books failed. Often, the parish priest could not tell the difference between traditional Orthodox texts and those of the occult and superstition. Metr. Daniel often remarked on apocryphal excerpts and fables, as did the textbooks of Metr. Makari, the proceedings of the HundredChapters Council, and even the writings of Maksim the Greek. The historians of this era note that teachers utilized fables and superstition more than they did Holy Scripture. Entertainment was cruel, such as boxing matches where one opponent was beaten to his death. Tsar Ivan IV enjoyed using people as bait to hunt bears, a routine that others of high rank also practiced. Community meetings and feasts regularly concluded in fights and even murder. Moralists attempted to arm 214

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia themselves to defeat alcoholism, which pervaded every sector of Russian society and even the higher Orthodoxy clergy. The celebration of important Christian holy festivities was combined with immoral pagan customs inherited from earlier ages, which vexed the moralists to no end. In 1505, abbot Panfil of Eleazarov Monastery wrote to the rulers of Pskov asking them to curb the immoral practice of both genders enjoying the steam sauna together on the eve of the Holiday of the Birth of John the Baptist. Pagan practices of necromancy pervaded requiems held on Radnitza, the Tuesday after Easter, and on Thursday during Passion Week, and on the Saturday before Pentecost, which were accompanied by all-night festive memorial services at cemeteries. Beneath the ostentatious and superficial piety, the rather crude barbarian nature of the community is disclosed. In their attitudes, the oppression of lower classes by the upper, of the poor by the rich, and of subjects by their rulers, stand out. A disregard for personal rights was accompanied by terrible punishment and torture; this dominated the judicial system and the custom of brute force pervaded every aspect of society affecting all classes. The oprichniks, for example, the personal police force of Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible, could invade every homestead and rob them of their possessions and even life. They had no respect even for the church as a refuge. In Novgorod region, the oprichniks destroyed the sepulcher of the venerated Savva of Visherski. Foreigners noticed in Russians a weakness of conscience, a lack of personal honor. Every person assigned to some work in society attempted to get rich quick by taking advantage of the opportunities the job or vocation provided. The HundredChapters Council complained that caretakers of poor-houses embezzled funds donated by charitable people.

68. THE DOMOSTROI Family morality and the domestic ideals of the era were outlined in a sufficiently large text called the Domostroi, meaning Home Builder, composed during the early part of the reign of Tsar Ivan IV by the famous priest Sylvester. The Domostroi deals exclusively with daily domestic life in Russia and serves as a valuable record of ancient conduct. It describes with especial clarity the primary topics and customs of the era, from the most important religious obligations to the most mundane or trivial of domestic duties. It is also apparent from the content of the book how difficult it was for liturgical piety to express 215

History of Russian Christianity the true Christian ideal of domestic life, which the Domostroi unconditionally attributes to the father as the head of the family. The children, mentally and morally immature, live only according to his will and threats, and he will carry the responsibility in this life and in the next. The wife is his slave in every respect, exclusively his mistress and worker, and is placed as the head of other household servants. The Domostroi rules out any enjoyment for women and requires from them exclusive domestic concern and work, and as a result of this normal daily pattern or routine there can be no leisure time available for any enjoyment in her personal life. When a wife is not working, she will inevitably turn to gossip with servant-girls or trades-women, to chatting with busybody women or fortune-tellers, or to drink. To cure any natural tendency toward idleness or timewasting, the Domostroi advises a pedagogical enlightenment through beating. Children likewise have no rights under their father; their destiny depends entirely on his decisions, including their status in society, and whom they will marry. Children are considered foolish, and unable to understand anything. The father is obligated to teach them all protocol and to fear God, and his means to accomplish this is through intimidation and beating. As the personification of authority, the father must not play or laugh with his children. In regards to servants or serfs, the father is to be considered a good master, but at the same time Domostroi humiliates the servant as a person of scant reasoning ability who cannot be taught unless he is beaten. In case of arguments between his serfs and others, the Domostroi advises the master to scold his own, too, even if they were in the right. This will reduce enmity among them. The rules dealing with morality in the Domostroi retain a character of liturgical asceticism. Laughter, song, dance, worldly entertainment, and even idleness are forbidden. The entire house must be arranged after the pattern of a monastery. Whoever enters it must recite a prayer — just as at the door to a cloister. Every day, the family must perform services in the morning, noon, afternoon, evening and at night. The Lord’s Prayer must constantly be on the tip of their tongue while they hold an icon in their hand. Regarding public conduct, everything must be accomplished in an orderly fashion. The family must attend church regularly, be hospitable, give to charities, and listen to the admonishment of priests. The style of virtue recorded in the Domostroi seldom deviates from liturgical piety and is confined primarily to one outward form. Instances of improper conduct are also listed in the Domostroi: praising people, overstaying one’s welcome at the home of another…

216

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia The final chapter of the Domostroi reflects more of the personal character of the priest, Sylvester. He places the trait of kind-heartedness at the pinnacle of Christian disposition. Sylvester himself liberated all of his serfs, redeemed others out of servitude, raised several orphans, assisted the crippled, never held contempt for anyone who was poor or disadvantage, and attempted to make his own life exemplary. The Domostroi was quite influential during this era, and its content reflects the existing conditions of domestic life in Russia as well as what they considered the ideal. What happened to Sylvester in later years is an interesting footnote. He and an official, Alexis Adashyov, were part of a small circle of trusted advisers to Tsar Ivan IV during the early part of his reign; however, the relationship changed during later years. In 1560, after the sudden and unexpected death of Anastasia, Tsar Ivan’s first wife, Sylvester and Adashyov were accused of plotting to poison her. Sylvester was condemned personally by Tsar Ivan, and with no chance of defense was exiled later that year to Solovetski, where he died in prison a few years later. Adashyov was incarcerated in a local jail and died a short time thereafter.

69. ELDERS AND MYSTICS The era of Moscovite Russia produced a significant number of elders and mystics, far more than the previous era of Mongol occupation — although not comparable to them in terms of dedication, asceticism, respect or amount of effort expended to promote Orthodoxy. This minute faction of the population reacted to the prevailing moral corruption by swinging to the opposite extreme, asceticism, to escape it. In the Moscovite era far more freedom was available; this manifested in many ways, including in the increase of construction of monasteries and churches. Two of the elders have already been discussed: Nil of Sor and Paisius of Therapontov, and a few more will be included. Martinian was a disciple of Kirill of Bel-Ozersk and an ascetic monk during his residence at Bel-Ozerski Monastery. He took over as abbot of Therapontov Monastery after the death of its founder, Therapont. Martinian was then asked by Tsar Vasili III to assume the post of abbot at Troitse-Sergievski Monastery, which was a considerable promotion. Martinian moved to his new residence but he was uncomfortable with the constant influx of pilgrims and visitors from Moscow. In 1455 he returned to Therapontov Monastery where he served another 28 years as abbot. Martinian died January 12, 1483 at the age of 88. 217

History of Russian Christianity Galaktiyon was a fool in Christ who resided at Therapontov Monastery for over 20 years. When Tsar Vasili III sent his military forces against Kazan Galaktiyon prophesied that he would fail, but that his son would succeed. Tsar Vasili did fail in his several attempts at defeating Kazan, and his son Tsar Ivan IV did succeed. In Tver province, a recently widowed young man whose name was Makari entered Klobukov Monastery near the city Kashin (today known as Kozhino). After a few years as a monk, Makari departed from the monastery and walked about twelve miles toward the Volga River. Makari healed the local nobleman, Kolyaga, of some infirmity and in return he donated a considerable partial of land (which included several villages) to Makari for a new monastery. Financed by Kolyaga, Makari built a monastery and became its abbot, and he dedicated the complex to the Holy Trinity. Abbot Makari passed away March 17, 1483 at the age of 83. Paisius, one of the monks at Makari’s Holy Trinity Monastery, was invited by feudal prince Andrei Vasilievich to found a monastery at Uglich, along the Volga River. The first church was dedicated in 1482 and he continued there as abbot from the opening of the monastery through his death June 6, 1504 at the age of 107. A friend of Paisius, a Greek named Constantine, arrived in Moscow with the retinue of Zoe Paleologus, the bride of Tsar Ivan III. Constantine decided not to return to Constantinople, and when Metr. Joasaf retired from the cathedra and was exiled to Therapontov Monastery, Constantine went with him. At Therapontov, Constantine accepted tonsure as a Russian Orthodox monk and accepted the new name Kassian. Leaving Therapontov with several other monks, he went to Pr. Andrei Vasilievich of Uglich, with whom they were friends. On the banks of the Volga River they erected a church dedicated to the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, financed by Pr. Andrei. The monk Kassian lived there for the rest of his life, passing away in 1504. Aleksandr Svirski was born in the region of Kargopol, and at the age of 26 was tonsured as a monk at Varlaam Monastery in Lake Ladoga. Aleksandr spent 13 years at the monastery and then relocated to Lake Roschinskoe, between Lakes Ladoga and Onega (Ladozhskoi and Onezhskoi), where he remained in isolation seven years. Befriending the local feudal prince ZavalishConstantinein, Aleksandr managed to secure financing for a new monastery. In 1508, the Church of the Holy Trinity was dedicated as the base of the monastery. Aleksandr became its abbot, and stayed there at his monastery until he passed away, August 30, 1533 at the age of 85. 218

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia Daniel was known as the wonder worker of Pereyaslav; his birth name was Dmitri. He was tonsured as a monk at Nikitzki Monastery and later joined the hermitage of abbot Panfuti of Borovsk. After his parents died he returned to Pereyaslav and settled at Uspenski Monastery. Archimandrite Antoni of Pereyaslav Uspenski Monastery convinced him to accept ordination as a priest. Many miracles are attributed to Daniel during his years at Uspenski Monastery and later when he resided at Goritzki Monastery. Daniel was offered the position of abbot at Goritzki, which he declined. In 1530, Daniel left Goritzki to live at an orphanage, which Tsar Vasili III supported at Daniel’s request. At the orphanage, Daniel founded a church and hermitage dedicated to the Holy Trinity. He passed away April 7, 1540, at the age of 90. In Pereyaslav another ascetic was born. Gregori was his birth name but he became known as Gerasim of Boldinsk after his tonsure as a monk. At the age of 13, Gerasim came under the influence of Daniel of Pereyaslav, while he lived at Goritzki Monastery, and later he went to live at his orphanage and worked there as a shoemaker. After 26 years with elder Daniel, and no doubt after his death, Gerasim left Goritzki Monastery and orphanage to live in the forests of Smolensk province. There on a mountain called Boldin, Gerasim founded a monastery. Gerasim went on to found Predtechev (John the Baptist) Monastery in nearby Vyazem, and later also founded the Monastery of the Presentation of the Virgin Mary in nearby Kaluzhski province. After a long and dedicated life, Gerasim passed away May 1, 1554. Arseni Sukhorusov is another zealous monk who came from TroitseSergievski Monastery. In 1527, he departed the monastery for the forests near Vologda, about 25 miles from the city, and he lived there alone. Disciples joined him over the years until enough gathered to build a hermitage, and then a church in the nearby city Vlakherni. Arseni lived in the area until his death August 24, 1550. Andrei Seiski, also known as Anthony of Siya, lived in the far north along the Northern Dvin River. He was born 1477 in the village Ketch, thirty miles from Archanglesk. After the death of his parents, when Andrei was 25, he moved to Novgorod and lived there for five years. While he was there he married, but his wife passed away after a year of marriage. He returned home and in 1508 decided to become a monk. Andrei departed into the forests and lived as a hermit until 1520. Several disciples gathered around Andrei in the forest north of Novgorod and near the White Sea, and they formed a hermitage along the Siya River near Mikhailov Lake. Two of the brethren traveled to visit Tsar Vasili III in 1544; he allotted them land and financial assistance to construct the Monastery of Siya, 219

History of Russian Christianity over which Andrei would be abbot. Andrei Seiski passed away December 7, 1556 at the age of 79, after spending 37 years as a recluse, monk and abbot in the area of the Siya River. Evfrosin of Sinichya (Blue Jay) Lake was a martyr among the early elders of the far north. He was born in the region of Karelia and was raised in the area of Ladoga Lake. As a young man he lived at Valaam Monastery in Ladoga Lake and later in Novgorod; becoming a monk, he resettled at Tikhvin Monastery. In the year 1600 he left Tikhvin for Sinichya Lake northeast of Ladoga Lake. There he lived alone as a hermit, but after a while other hermits joined him and a monastery was formed. Polish troops attacked the monastery March 20, 1612 and killed Evfrosin and all the monks residing there. Nikandr of Pskov was a fool in Christ. He settled as a young man in the forests east of Pskov where he lived as a recluse for 15 years. Nikandr then settled at Kripetzki Monastery and later resided at Demyanski Monastery for the final eight years of his life. He died September 24, 1581. As a young man Vasili the Blessed left his parents’ home and lived on the streets of Moscow. During the day he would walk from church to church, and at night he slept on their doorsteps. Although he avoided people, they came to him regularly requesting advice. Vasili stood in front of Vosdvizhenski Monastery July 20, 1547 and wept, but the people could not understand his sorrow. On the following day a fire consumed much of the city of Moscow. Vasili the Blessed also prophesied that Tsar Ivan IV would defeat Kazan. When Vasili died August 2, 1552, Tsar Ivan IV and feudal princes carried the body of the fool in Christ to a church where he was entombed. Because of Tsar Ivan IV’s respect for Vasili, the church built in Red Square to commemorate the defeat of Kazan was name after him — Sobor Vasili Blazhenago. Nil of Stolbensk was tonsured at Rzhevski Monastery. In 1528, he was summoned by a voice to relocate to Seligerski Lake in Kalinin province, about halfway between Moscow and Novgorod. He moved to an island in the lake, dug himself a cave, and lived on the island for 27 years. Nil of Stolbensk died 1554. Other noteworthy elders, mystics and monks of the era include Tikhon Medenski (d. 1492), who founded Uspenski Monastery in Meden, north of the city Kalug in Kaluzhski province, and Makari Komelski (d. 1537), a monk from the Kirill Bel-Ozerski Monastery who founded a monastery in the city Gryazovtz in Vologda province. Other notable fools in Christ include: Lavrenti Kaluzhski (d. 1515); Nikola of Pskov (d. 1576); John Moscovski (d. 1589); John of Yustug (Yustuzhski), a fool in Christ who spend many years in Moscow (d.

220

Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia 1589); and John Vlasatie (d. 1580), a wonder worker of Rostov. All of these men were distinct in their role as mystics and fools in Christ. By the conclusion of the Moscovite period — about 1590 — Russian Orthodoxy had recovered from its defeat by the Mongols and restored itself as the official religion of Russia. At the same time, European Protestantism was also making inroads into Russia as the country increased its communication and commercial links with Europe. The initial appearance of independent and liberal Christian thought is also noticed toward the conclusion of the Moscovite era as the Bible in Slavonic becomes available to the general public. The subsequent volume of this History will cover the period 1590-1725, the Patriarchal Period through the death of Tsar Peter the Great, and will include the institution of the Holy Synod to replace the Russian Patriarchate.

221

BIBLIOGRAPHY PRIMARY SOURCES: Filaret (Gumilevski), Archbishop of Chernigov, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, Moscow, 1848, reprinted 2001. Golubinski, Evgeni Evgenich, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, 4 volumes, edition of 1901-1911; reprinted Moscow, 1997. Kartashyov, Anton V., Ocherki po Istorii Russkoi Tserkvi, 2 volumes, Paris, 1932; reprinted, Moscow, 1993. Kostomarov, Nikolai Ivanovich, Raskol, St. Petersburg, 1903; reprinted Moscow, 1903. Makarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomensk, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, 8 volumes, 1857; reprinted Moscow, 1994. Miliukov, Pavel Nikolaevich, Ocherki po Istorii Russkoi Kulturi, volume 2, Paris, 1930; reprinted, Moscow, 1994, Prokovyev, Nikolai Ivanovich, Ed. Drevnaya Russkaya Literatura, Moscow, 1980. Rudnev, Nikolai, Razsuzhdenie o Eresyakh I Raskolakh, 1838. Talberg, H., Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, 2 volumes, Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, N.Y., 1959. Tolstoi, Count Mikhail Vladimirovich, Rasskazi iz Istorii Russkoi Tserkvi, 1898; reprinted 1999. Znamenski, Pyotr Vasilievich, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, Moscow, 1896; reprinted 1996.

223

History of Russian Christianity SECONDARY SOURCES: Billington, James H., The Icon and the Axe, New York, 1966. Bolshakoff, Sergius, Russian Mystics, Kalamazoo, MI, 1980. Brockett, L.P., The Bogomils of Bulgaria and Bosnia, Philadelphia, 1999. Bulgakov, Sergius, The Orthodox Church, Crestwood, N.Y. 1998. Fedotov, G. P. A Treasury of Russian Spirituality, Belmont, MA, 1975. Fedotov, G. P., The Russian Religious Mind, New York, 1946. Florinsky, Michael T., Russia, a History and an Interpretation, New York, 1953. Heard, Albert F. The Russian Church and Russian Dissent, New York, 1887. Hosking, Geoffrey, Russia, People and Empire, Cambridge, MA. 1997. Kluchevsky, V.O., A History of Russia, New York, 1991, reprinted 1960. Lossky, Vladimir, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, Crestwood, N.Y. 1998. Norwich, John Julius, A Short History of Byzantium, New York, 1999. Pipes, Richard, Russia under the Old Regime, Penguin Books, 1995. Pospielovsky, Dimitry, The Orthodox Church in the History of Russia, Crestwood, N.Y. 1998. Preobrazhenski, Alexandr, Ed., The Russian Orthodox Church: 10th to 20th Centuries, Moscow, 1988. Riasanovsky, Nicholas V., A History of Russia, New York, 1969. Rose, Father Seraphim, The Northern Thebaid, Forestville, CA., 1995. Ware, Timothy, The Orthodox Church, Penguin Books, 1963. Zenkovsky, Serge, Medieval Russia’s Epics, Chronicles and Tales, New York, 1963. Zernov, Nicolas, The Russians and their Church, Crestwood, N.Y. 1994.

224

INDEX

Aristotel Feoravanti, 208 Arseni Sukhorusov, 219 Artemie, 188–190, 200, 203, 206 Askold, 14–16 Assumption of the Virgin Mary, 82, 218 Astrakhan, 84, 198, 207 Athanasi of Volin, 142 Athanasius, 76–77, 94–96, 213 Avarice, 90, 96, 170 Avraanius, 45

A Adam, 79–80, 202 Adrian, 70, 190 Advent, 74, 80–82 Afanasi, 191–192, 201 Akakius, 117 Alcoholics/alcoholism, 211 Aleksandr Svirski, 218 Alekseevski Convent, 104 Aleksei (Metr.), 100–107, 114, 121, 142, 144, 204 Aleksei (priest) see New Teaching, 161 Aleksei Mikhailovich, 9 Alexander III, 71 Alexander IV, 93 Alexander Nevski, 88, 94–95 Alexis Adashyov, 217 Anastasia Romanovna Zakharina, 185, 197, 199, 217 Anastasia, princess of Suzdal, 153 Anatolia, 112 Andrei Bogolubski, 4–5, 45–46, 60–62, 75 Andrei of Tver, 96 Andrei Rublyov, 138, 144, 209 Andrei Seiski, 219 Andrei Yaroslavich, 88, 93, 95 Andrei Yurievski, 60 Andrew (Apostle), 1–2, 4–5, 9–14, 28 Andronicus Paleologus, 94 Anna, 4, 27, 33, 36, 39, 119, 197 Annunciation, 6, 80, 138, 144, 177 Anti-trinitarians, 199, 203 Antonius, 9, 37–38, 44, 50, 54–57, 69, 83, 105, 113, 137, 196, 204–205, 213 Antonius Possevin, 9, 196, 213 Apocrypha, 76 Apostle Peter’s Day, 67 Apostles Peter and Paul, 80 Archangel Michael, 79–80

B Bashkin, 167, 189, 199–202 Basil II, 26, 33, 124 Batu Khan, 68, 83, 85, 87–88 Beards/shaving, 212 Bel-Ozerski Monastery, 133, 141, 143, 146, 168, 170, 173, 175, 183, 189, 197, 201, 207, 217, 220 Black Plague, 101–102, 119, 148 Black Sea, 10–14, 19, 30, 32, 60, 108, 114 Blago-Veschenski Cathedral, 149, 191, 193, 200, 208 Bogomilism/Bogomils, 20, 30, 70, 98, 122, 160, 166 Boris Godunov, 198 Boris I, 31 Boris Konstantinovich, 146 Boris of Rostov (Vladimirovich), St., 37, 46, 80–81, 145, 204 Boris Vasilich, 159 Bosphorus, 14, 108, 113 Boyar Duma, 181, 185, 191, 199 Bulgar, 22–23, 30, 45 Bulgaria, 18, 20, 31, 33, 36–37, 59, 70, 72, 76–77, 84, 120, 150 Bulgars, 23, 25–26, 45, 59, 62, 75, 83 Byzantium, 10, 12–13, 59, 67, 174

225

History of Russian Christianity Dnepr River, 10, 12, 14, 18, 30, 34, 42, 54, 63, 114 Dobrinya, 36 Domostroi, 200, 215–217 Don River, 44, 116

C Caesaro-Papism, 173 Callistis, 102 Cathedral of Vasili the Blessed, 209 Catholic priests, 197 Catholicism, 1, 28, 71–72, 76, 78, 93, 98, 105, 125–130, 133–134, 152, 178, 208 Chernigov, 2, 44, 53–54, 58, 69, 75, 81, 83, 88, 101, 153, 204 Christ, 6, 9–10, 15, 17, 24, 27, 35, 42, 45, 54, 62, 71, 79–80, 139, 149, 151–152, 156, 163, 165–166, 174–176, 197, 202–203, 210–211, 218, 220 Christmas, 67, 74, 80, 82 Chronicle of Nestor (Pseudo-Nestor), 3, 32, 49, 57 Chudovski Monastery, 104, 116, 129, 134–135, 156–157, 161, 167, 177, 182, 191–192 Clement III, 71 Clowns, 187 Constantine II, 39, 61, 82 Constantine IV, 43 Constantine VII, 17, 26, 33 Constantine VIII, 26, 33 Constantine XI Paleologus, 129, 173 Constantinople, 10, 13–15, 17, 19, 25–26, 28, 32–33, 37–44, 46, 57, 59–61, 68, 70–72, 76, 82, 87, 92–96, 99–102, 104–121, 123–126, 128–134, 136, 142, 145, 149–150, 158, 167–168, 173–174, 177–178, 185, 198, 205, 207, 218 Council of Florence, 9, 124 Crusades/Crusaders, 70, 72, 98, 130 Cyril and Methodius (Kirill), 207

E Easter, 45, 57, 67, 74, 80, 82–83, 118, 156, 174, 215 Efraim the Syrian, 139 Egypt, 32, 46, 49, 55, 151, 174 Elena Vasilyevna Glinskaya, 181 Elijah the prophet, 15 Epiphanius, 11–12 Epiphany, 6, 80, 82, 141 Episcopal court, 48, 114, 140, 165, 186, 200 Eucharist, 28, 48, 56–57, 71–72, 92, 126, 162, 166, 214 Eugenius IV, 127–128 Eusebius, 10 Evfrosinia, 153 Evstratius, 45

F Feodor and Iyoann, 22 Filipp I, 135, 160, 192 Filofei, 174, 193 Fist-fighting, 92 Florence, 125–131, 150, 177 Fotius, 15–16, 117–121, 123–124, 132, 146, 150, 153, 213

G Galaktiyon, 218 Galitzia, 4, 54, 84, 87–88, 92, 94–96, 99– 100, 104, 124, 127, 132–133, 145, 148 Genghis Khan, 83 Gennadi, 143, 156–157, 159, 161–162, 167–168, 184, 207, 213 Gennadius II, 130 Germans, 23–26, 28, 30, 202–203 Gerontie, 95–96 God, 5–6, 11, 13, 16–17, 21–27, 29–30, 32, 34, 42, 45, 49–52, 60, 62–63, 68, 72, 75, 78, 89, 97, 123, 140, 142, 150– 152, 156, 163, 165–166, 171, 174, 180, 193, 196, 201–203, 205, 216 Golden Horde, 83–85, 88, 101, 108, 119, 124, 137, 157 Golgotha, 80 Golubinski, 2–3, 21–22, 33, 35, 38, 40–41, 63, 69, 72, 85, 92, 96, 183 Good Friday, 211, 214

D Daniel Alexandrovich, 101 Daniel Romanovich, 84, 87–88, 92–94 Daniel, Metr., 176, 178–183, 214 David Rostislavich, 53 Dazh-bog, 21, 73 Desyatinnoi Church, 38–39, 59, 81 Dimitri (saint), 38, 57 Dimitri Mikhailovich, 98 Dionysei (priest), see New Teaching, 160 Dionysei, Bishop and Archbishop, of Suzdal, 107–108, 146–147, 154 Dir, 14–16 Dmitri Donskoi, 142, 145, 153, 158 Dmitri Ivanovich, 103–104, 106, 109–111, 113 Dmitri Konstantinovich, 103 Dmitri Yuriyevich, 131

226

Index Goths, 19 Greece, 9, 11, 27, 37, 39, 42, 49–50, 55, 59, 70, 72, 85, 87, 93, 117, 131, 150, 156, 163, 177 Gregori (Uniate metropolitan), 85, 104– 106, 114, 117, 119, 121, 124, 127– 128, 132–134, 136, 181, 205 Gregori Tsamblak (Metr.), 120–121, 150 Gregory II Kyprios, 94 Gregory IX, 71 Gregory Mammas (Patr.), 131, 133 Gregory VII Hildebrand, 71

J Jehuda Halevi, 30–31 Jews, 23–25, 28–31, 45, 70, 158, 160 Joakim, 35–36, 179 Joasaf, 179, 182–184, 218 John de-Plano Carpini, 85 John of Yustug, 220 John the Baptist, 74–75, 80, 215, 219 John the Scholastic, 76 John VIII Paleologus, 129, 136 John Vlasatie, 221 John X Kamateros, 72 John XI Berkos, 92, 94 John XV, 71 John, Apostle, 38, 80 Jonah, 114, 124–125, 128, 130–134, 136, 147, 182, 190, 198–199, 204–205, 213 Jordan River, 79 Joseph Volotzki, 158–160, 162–164, 166– 167, 170–171, 180 Judaizers See, New Teaching, 70, 158– 165, 167, 199

H Hallelujah, 187 Herman, 143 Holy water, 196, 212 Honorius III, 71 Hundred-Chapters Council, 183, 186– 188, 192, 196, 209–215 Hungary, 70, 87, 92, 127

I

K

Icons, 33, 46, 68, 70, 72, 74–75, 78, 116, 119, 138, 144, 148–149, 164, 166– 167, 176, 186, 190, 193, 202–203, 209, 211–212, 214, 216 Igor Olegovich, 42, 54, 81 Ilarion, 14, 31, 34, 37, 39–42, 47, 55, 57– 58, 78 Incest, 47, 211 Innocent III, 71–72, 92 Innocent IV, 85, 93 Ioyann IV, 39, 44, 211 Irina Feodorevna, 198 Isidore, 124–132, 149, 152 Islamic Ottomans, 130 Ivan Belski, 182 Ivan I (Ivan Kalita), 9, 98, 102–103, 135– 137, 144, 152, 155–157, 159, 161– 163, 167–168, 172–174, 179, 181, 185, 189, 191, 195–201, 203, 207– 209, 213–215, 217–218, 220 Ivan II, 102–103, 135–137, 155–157, 159, 161–163, 167–168, 172–174, 208– 209, 218 Ivan III, 135–137, 155–157, 159, 161–163, 167–168, 172–174, 208–209, 218 Ivan IV, 9, 144, 152, 174, 179, 181, 185, 189, 191, 195–201, 203, 207–209, 213–215, 217–218, 220 Ivan Shuiski, 179, 182, 184–185, 199 Izyaslav Davidovich, 75 Izyaslav Mstislavich, 14, 41–42, 68, 71

Karelia, 45, 206, 220 Karp, 121–123 Kazan, 192, 198, 207, 209, 218, 220 Kazimir, 104, 132 Khan Akhmet, 157 Khan Chanibek, 100 Khan Gyuk, 85 Khan Mamai, 108–109 Khan Naurus, 103 Khan Toda-Mangu, 94 Khan Tokhta, 97, 110, 116 Khan Tokhtamish, 110, 116 Khan Uzbek, 97–98, 100 Khazar/Khazars, 23, 28, 30–31 Kherson/Chersonessus, 10, 12, 19, 26–27, 32–34, 38, 45, 59, 71 Kiev, 3–4, 10–22, 27–46, 50, 54–64, 68– 73, 75–77, 81–85, 87–89, 93–96, 99, 103, 105–107, 109–111, 113–114, 117–121, 132–133, 137, 151, 160, 204 Kievan Russia, 19, 36–42, 44, 48, 50, 52– 55, 58–60, 62, 64–72, 75–78, 82–84, 101, 137, 148 King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, 161 Kiprian, 105–106, 109–118, 120, 138, 140, 145, 150, 152 Kirill and Methodius (see Cyril and Methodius), 76 Kirill III (metr.), 87–94, 150–151, 195 Kirill Monastery, 175, 190

227

History of Russian Christianity Kirill of Bel-Ozersk, 139, 145, 151, 169, 204, 217 Kirill of Turov, 46 Kliment Smolyatich, 14, 39, 42–43, 68 Kolomna, 83, 108, 116, 142 Kolyad, 74 Konstantine Monomakh, 66 Kostomarov, 3, 210 Kremlin, 5, 128, 137–138, 155, 167, 183, 200, 208–209

Moravia, 76 Moscovite Russia, 99, 103–104, 107, 124, 127, 131, 136, 142, 155, 163, 166, 171, 204, 217 Moscow, 3–5, 9, 12, 41, 47, 83, 95–120, 124–129, 131–134, 136–139, 141– 142, 144–146, 148–149, 151–152, 155–157, 161–162, 165, 167, 171– 175, 177–185, 188, 191–194, 196, 198–201, 203, 205, 208–209, 213, 217–218, 220 Moscow River, 142, 145 Mstislav Vladimirovich, 3, 60, 81 Mt. Athos, 50, 55, 88, 156, 168, 175 Mysticism, 150

L Lapland, 206 Lent, 57, 80–81, 114–115, 127, 129, 200 Leo IX, 28, 71 Lithuania, 85, 105, 113, 117–121, 124, 127–128, 130–133, 136, 158, 166, 190, 201–202, 213 Lukas Chrysoberges, 44, 82 Luke, 46 Luki Zhidyata, 77

N Nazarene, 122 Nestor, 3, 10–11, 14–15, 31–32, 45, 82–83 Nestor of Rostov, 82 New Teaching, 158, 160–166, 199 Nifont, 43, 94–97, 162, 205 Nikandr of Pskov, 220 Nikifor II, 39, 68 Nikita, 12, 15, 39, 46, 58, 63, 70, 121–123, 145–146, 185, 199, 204 Nikita Paflagonius, 15 Nikita Romanovich Zakharin, 199 Nikolas II Chrysoberges, 38 Nikolas the Miracle Worker, 81 Nikon the elder, 56 Nil of Stolbensk, 220 Nil Sorski, 165, 168–170, 175–176 Nilus, 109–111, 113, 123, 145 Novgorod, 4, 10–11, 13–14, 16, 20, 35–39, 41–43, 45–46, 50, 58–60, 63, 69, 77– 78, 81, 84, 88–89, 91, 94, 98–100, 102–103, 107–108, 114–115, 122– 124, 126, 129, 133–136, 138–139, 143, 145–149, 151–153, 156–157, 159–161, 163–165, 168, 170, 174, 177, 182–184, 188, 190–191, 193– 196, 198, 201, 203–208, 213, 215, 219–220 Nuns/convents, 37, 46, 50, 52–54, 104, 139, 145, 154, 168, 181, 184, 187, 197

M Mahomet II, 130 Makari, 2–3, 147, 166, 183–191, 200–201, 203–204, 206, 214, 218, 220 Makarius, 3, 13, 19, 106–109, 151 Maksim, 93–95, 151, 172, 176–180, 188, 214 Maksim the Greek, 172, 176, 178–180, 188, 214 Maluta Skuratov, 195, 198 Manuel II, 87 Manuel of Smolensk, 43 Maria Nagoi, 198 Marriage, 211 Martinian, 108, 205, 217 Maslyanitz, 74 Matfeius, 118 Matins, 211 Matvei Semeonovich Dalmatov, 167 Mikhael III, 31, 76 Mikhael Paleologus, 94 Mikhael VII Dukas, 12 Mikhail (metropolitan-elect), 42–43, 60, 105–107 Mikhail Yaroslavich, 95 Moisei of Novgorod, 100 Monasticism, 49–50, 139, 166, 202 Mongol invasion, 20, 41, 69, 75, 83, 89–90, 146, 149–150, 204 Mongol/mongols, 2, 19–20, 30, 41, 68–69, 75, 81, 83–85, 87–90, 92–94, 97–98, 100–101, 109, 116, 119, 131, 137– 139, 142, 146–151, 153, 155, 157, 174, 204, 213, 217

O Oleg, 4, 15–17, 68 Olga, 2, 5, 16–18, 26, 29, 81, 204 Olgerd of Lithuania, 104, 111 Olimpiodor of Alexandria, 77 Onuthrius of Chernigov, 42 Oprichnin/oprichniks, 191–196, 215 Ordination, 14, 39–40, 42–44, 55, 61, 89– 90, 95, 100, 102, 104–112, 120–121,

228

Index Rudnev, 3, 166 Rurik, 14, 16, 54, 68 Rurik Rostislavich, 54, 68 Russian Orthodoxy, 1–2, 6, 9, 18, 28–29, 36, 38, 41, 46, 52, 64, 66, 72, 80–83, 85, 124, 126–129, 131, 134, 139, 146, 153, 156, 158–159, 161, 168, 171, 176, 178, 183–186, 194, 196, 200, 206–208

124, 129–134, 136, 142, 162, 167– 168, 213, 219 Origen, 10 Ostrog Bible, 208 Otroch Monastery, 179, 195 Ottoman, 70, 116, 125, 127, 129–130, 132, 158, 167, 173, 205 Ottoman Turks, 107, 112, 116, 119, 125, 127, 129–130, 132, 136, 158, 167, 173, 177

S

P

Sakhari, 160 Sarai, 84–85, 87–89, 92, 94, 96, 100–101, 103, 108, 137, 147, 151 Saunas, 11, 187 Savvatie, 143–144 Semeon of Vladimir, 58 Semeonov Monastery, 109–111, 132, 145, 155–156, 161–162, 172 Septuagint, 208 Serapion, 89, 150, 184 Serfs, 66, 118 Sergei of Radonezh, 103–104, 106, 139, 141, 144–146, 153, 204 Seyit, 98, 122 Shaving (see Beards), 212 Siberia, 199 Sign of the cross, 72, 187, 190, 196, 202, 212 Simon (Metr.), 164, 167, 171, 213 Simon the Stylite, 46 Simony, 66, 90, 96, 121–122, 136, 167– 168 Slavonic Bible, 76, 200, 207–208 Slavonic language, 36, 76, 125, 150, 207 Solomonia Yurievna Saburova, 181 Solovetski Monastery, 143–144, 189–190, 192, 196, 206 Solovyov, 29 Soothsayers, 74 Sorcery/Sorcerers, 62–63, 166 Spasski Monastery, 106, 138, 144, 178, 201 Spasski-Andronikov, 103 Spasso-Evfimiev Monastery, 146, 189, 205–206 St. Dimitri, 38, 57 St. Sophia, 17, 25, 37, 40, 43, 59, 69, 77, 81, 84, 115, 161 Stephen of Perm, 138, 206 Stephen the Martyr, 80, 141 Stri-bog, 21, 73 Strigolniks, 70, 98, 121–123, 158, 160 Sultan Bayazid, 116 Superstition, 16, 47, 51, 72, 148, 151, 187, 214

Pafnutius, 146, 158–159 Pagan festivities, 92 Paganism, 16–17, 29–30, 32–33, 35, 45, 62–63, 72–75, 78, 148, 150 Paisei Yaroslavov, 165, 168–170, 175 Paisius, 217–218 Palm Sunday, 91 Panfil of Eleazarov Monastery, 215 Patrimony, 50–51, 53, 64–67, 116, 118– 120, 139–140, 142, 157, 168–170, 175, 178–179, 188–190, 198, 209, 211 Pavel Miliukov, 173, 176, 178, 181, 203, 205 Pecher Monastery, 3, 14, 37, 42–43, 45– 46, 49, 54, 56, 58, 63, 77, 82–84, 89, 151, 190, 204 Pecher Paterik, 58, 77 Pereyaslav, 6, 40, 43, 55, 59, 69, 83, 93, 96, 108, 110, 204, 219 Perun, 21, 35, 73–74 Peter (Patr.), 208 Peter, Apostle, 12, 67, 80, 203 Peter, St., 3, 81–82, 101, 124, 155 Peter, Tsar, 1, 6, 32 Philotheos (Patr.), 102, 104–106 Philotheos Kokkinos, 117 Pimen, 57, 108–113, 115, 191, 193–195 Poland, 59, 85, 87, 92, 104, 127, 130, 133, 136, 156–157, 202 Polikarp of Pecher, 53 Polovtzi, 44, 83 Primary Chronicle, 3–4, 15–16, 21, 33, 46 Procession of the cross, 155, 161, 194 Prokopi Yustyug, 151–152 Pseudo-Nestor, 32, 49, 57 Pskov, 17–18, 63, 81, 93–94, 122–124, 126, 138–139, 145, 148, 162, 174, 185, 190, 196, 205, 208, 215, 220

R Rituals, 29–30, 175, 212 Rod and Rozhanitsi, 73 Rostislav Mstislavich, 44, 53, 65

229

History of Russian Christianity Suzdal, 4, 37, 45, 58, 60, 62, 68, 77, 84–85, 87, 89, 94, 99, 103, 105, 107–110, 126, 135, 138, 146–147, 149–150, 153–154, 162, 181, 189, 197, 205– 206 Sviatopolk, 5, 37–38, 50, 68 Sviatoslav, 5, 17–18, 21, 37–38, 53, 69, 71, 83 Sviatoslav Vsevolodovich, 53, 83 Sylvester, 3, 144, 200, 215, 217

Vasili II, 59, 124, 128, 130–134, 163, 166, 172, 174, 176, 178, 180, 183–184, 192, 196, 209, 214, 217–219 Vasili III, 59, 163, 166, 172, 174, 176, 178, 180, 183–184, 192, 196, 214, 217– 219 Vasili Shuiski, 182 Vassian Kosoi, 169, 172, 176, 178–181 Vassian of Rostov, 156 Vespers, 211 Vitovt, 117–121, 124 Vladimir (city in NW Russia), 58, 77, 88– 89, 94, 99, 103, 119 Vladimir Andreevich, 104 Vladimir Monomakh, 3, 5–6, 38, 60, 68, 75, 174 Vladimir Sviatoslavich, 21 Vladimir the Great, 3, 5–6, 12, 18–19, 22, 26–27, 29, 31–32, 34–36, 39–40, 50, 55, 59, 64, 67, 69–70, 81, 204 Vladimir-of-Volin, 43, 53, 58, 69 Volga River, 44, 84, 107–108, 168, 218 Volkhov River, 10, 35, 46, 63, 122, 152, 195 Voloko-Lamsk Monastery, 145, 158–159, 162, 176, 178–180, 182, 201 Vsevolod Mstislavich, 53, 81, 205 Vsevolod Olegovich, 42, 60 Vsevolod Yaroslavich, 12 Vsevolod Yurievich, 53, 77 Vulgate, 207 Vyacheslav Vladimirovich, 60, 69

T Tamatarkhan, 19 Tambov, 167, 200 Tamerlane, 116, 138 Theodorit of Solovetsk, 206 Theodosei Kosoi, 200–203 Theodosius (an ascetic), 55–57 Theodosius of Pecher, 46, 50, 52, 77, 81, 169 Theognost, 88–89, 92, 98–104, 142 Theopempt, 39, 59 Theophylactus, 17 Theotokos, 6, 15, 46–47, 56, 58, 61, 78, 116, 138, 145–146, 153, 158, 167, 209 Therapontov Monastery, 190, 217–218 Trans-Volga, 163, 165, 168, 170, 172, 176, 189, 203, 206 Trinity, 6, 18, 34, 45, 78, 80, 82, 142, 153, 202, 207, 218–219 Troitse-Sergievski, 9, 133, 135, 143– 144, 153, 157, 163–164, 168, 177, 179, 182–183, 188–190, 195, 217, 219 Turkey, 10, 12–13, 70, 87, 112–113 Tver, 95–96, 99, 110, 114, 126, 129, 138– 139, 145, 148, 151, 153, 158–159, 162, 178–179, 195, 205, 218

W Wife abuse, 147 Witches, 148, 150, 196

Y Yaropolk, 21, 29 Yaroslav, 4–5, 18, 31, 37–42, 47–48, 50, 55, 59, 62–63, 65, 69, 76–77, 81, 84, 89, 163, 177, 204 Yatvyags, 22 Yuri Danilovich, 97–98 Yuri Dmitrievich, 124 Yuri Dolgoruki, 43–44, 60 Yuri Levovich, 94–96 Yuri Vladimirovich, 60 Yurievski Monastery, 69, 164–165

U Ural Mountains, 83, 138 Uspenski Cathedral, 47, 95, 98, 101, 116, 128, 135, 155, 157, 161, 167, 193– 194, 208

V Vagrant monks, 211 Varangians, 10–11, 15, 19 Vasili I, 59, 113–117, 119, 124, 128, 130– 134, 163, 166, 172, 174, 176, 178, 180, 183–184, 192, 196, 209, 214, 217–219

Z Zoe Paleologus, 136, 157, 167, 173, 218 Zosima, 143–144, 158–159, 161–163, 167, 174, 205–206

230