You are on page 1of 272

Ways of

Russian Theology
Fr. George Flofovsky
Cont ent :
Editor's Preface. Translator's Note. Author's Preface.
Chapter I. The Crisis of Russian Byzantinism
Introduction. The Pagan Era. The Baptism of Rus'. Second South Slaic! Influence Eremitical
Renaissance Ian III and the "est. The #udai$ers. #osephites% Transolgan Elders and &a'im
The (ree). &etropolitan &a)arii and the *ouncil of a +undred *hapters.
Chapter II. Encounter With the West% Orthodoxy in West Russia.
Artemii and ,ur-s)ii. The .strog *ircle and Bi-le. ,onstantin .stro$hs)ii. The /nion of Brest0
Brotherhoods!0 the ,ie &onaster1 of the *aes. /niatism. &etropolitan Peter &ogila of ,ie.
The .rthodo' *onfession. The ,ie Academ1. The Pseudomorphosis! of .rthodo' Thought.
Chapter III. The Contradictions of the Seventeenth Century.
Introduction. *orrection of Boo)s. Patriarch Ni)on. The Schism. ,iean 2earning in &usco1.
*onclusion.
Chapter IV. The St. eters!ur" Revo#ution
I. The *haracter of the Petrine Reforms. The Ecclesiastical Schools of the Eighteenth *entur1.
Protestant Scholasticism. Russian 3reemasonr1. The Rea4a)ening of Russian &onasticism.
Chapter V. Stru""#e $or Theo#o"y.
Introduction. Ale'ander I0 Prince A.N. (olits1n0 the *oming of Pietism. The Reial of Russian
3reemasonr1. Reform of the Ecclesiastical Schools% 56789565:. The Russian Bi-le Societ1.
Translation of the Russian Bi-le. Return to Scholasticism. &etropolitan 3ilaret of &osco4.
Theolog1 in the Reformed Ecclesiastical Schools. The &oral9Rationalistic School. *hurch and
State /nder Nicholas I. *onclusion.
Notes to *hapter I. Notes to *hapter II. Notes to *hapter III. Notes to *hapter I;. Notes to
*hapter ;. A-out the Author. A-out the Editor. A-out the Translator. A-out the Assistant Editor.
Editor's Preface.
.n August 55% 5<=< 3r. (eorges ;asil'eich 3loros)1% one of the more influential of
t4entieth centur1 theologians and historians of *hristianit1% died. "ith his death a part of our
scholarl1 4orld also dies. The scholarl1 4orld finds itself in a rather unusual situation. /nli)e
other reno4ned 4riters 4ho% upon their death% hae alread1 shared their -est 4or)s 4ith their
contemporaries% onl1 posthumousl1 are 3r. 3loros)1's greatest 4or)s -eing pu-lished in English
> "a1s of Russian Theolog1 ?in t4o olumes@% The Eastern 3athers of the 3ourth *entur1% and
The B1$antine 3athers from the 3ifth to the Eighth *enturies. .ne pauses 4ith 4onder 4hen one
reali$es that 3r. 3loros)1 4as so influential 4ithout these 4or)s haing -een pu-lished in a
4estern language.
3r. (eorges 3loros)1 4as -orn in .dessa in 56<A. +e 4as the -eneficiar1 of that i-rant
Russian educational e'perience% 4hich flourished to4ard the end of the nineteenth centur1 and
produced man1 gifted scholars. The reolution a-orted this rich% gro4ing tradition. As a result of
the reolution% trained Russian scholars -ecame a part of the Russian emigration in "estern
Europe and in the /nited States. A tragic depriation for Russia -ecame a gift to 4estern culture.
.ne could perhaps compare the flight of Russian scholars to "estern Europe and the /nited
States and their concomitant influence 4ith the flight and influence of B1$antine scholars in the
fifteenth centur1. In -oth cases the 4estern scholarl1 4orld 4as surprised at the high leel of
learning in -oth Russia and B1$antium.
3r. 3loros)1 personified the cultiated% 4ell9educated Russian of the turn of the centur1.
+is penetrating mind grasped -oth the detail and depth in the unfolding drama of the histor1 of
*hristianit1 in -oth eastern and 4estern forms. +e 4as theologian% church historian% patristic
scholar% philosopher% and Slaist. And he handled all these areas e'ceptionall1 4ell. As
theologian he 4rote -rilliantl1 on the su-Bects 9inter alia9 of creation% diine energies% and
redemption. As church historian he 4rote on personalities and intellectual moements from all
t4ent1 centuries. As patristic scholar he 4rote t4o olumes on the eastern and B1$antine fathers.
As philosopher he 4rote e'ceptionall1 4ell 9inter alia9 on the pro-lem of eil and on the
influence of ancient (ree) philosoph1 on patristic thought as 4ell as on the influence of (erman
philosoph1 on Russian thought. As Slaist there 4as irtuall1 no area of Russian life that he had
not at some point anal1$ed.
&an1 4estern churchmen found him a positie challenge. .thers found him intimidating%
for here 4as one 4ho possessed something similiar to enc1clopaedic )no4ledge. +ere 4as one
4ho had the a-ilit1 to anal1$e 4ith insight. +ere 4as a oice from the *hristian east capa-le of
putting theological discussion% long -ogged do4n in the 4est -1 reformation and counter9
reformation polemics% on a ne4 theological leel 4ith perceptie anal1ses of forgotten thought
from the earl1 centuries of the histor1 of the *hurch. 3r.. 3loros)1 -ecame the spo)esman for
4hat he termed the ne4 patristic s1nthesis!0 that is% one must return to patristic thought for a
point of departure0 church histor1 ought not > from this perspectie > -e anal1$ed through the
thought patterns of the reformation or of the *ouncil of Trent or through the thought structure of
Thomas ACuinas: one must return to the earliest life of the church% to that liing church 4hich
e'isted -efore the 4ritten testimon1 of the Ne4 Testament and 4hich ultimatel1 determined the
canon of our Ne4 Testament > the church of the fathers. That 3r. 3loros)1 influenced
contemporar1 church historians is o-ious. It is note4orth1 that the -est contemporar1 multi9
olume histor1 of the church pa1s a special tri-ute to 3r. 3loros)1. #arosla Peli)an of Dale
/niersit1% in the -i-liographic section to his first olume in The *hristian Tradition: A +istor1
of the Eeelopment of Eoctrine% 4rites under reference to 3r. 3loros)1's t4o olumes ?in
F
Russian@ on the *hurch 3athers ?The Eastern 3athers of the 3ourth *entur1 and The B1$antine
3athers of the 3ifth to the Eighth *enturies@: These t4o 4or)s are -asic to our interpretation of
trinitarian and christological dogmas! ?p. A8< from The Emergence of the *atholic Tradition:
5779G77@. (eorge +untston "illiams% +ollis Professor of Eiinit1 at +arard Eiinit1 School%
4rote: 3aithful priestl1 son of the Russian .rthodo' *hurch . . .% 3r. (eorges 3loros)1 > 4ith
a career9long inolement in the ecumenical dialogue -et4een apostolic patristic .rthodo'1 and
all the man1 forms of *hristianit1 in the .ld "orld and the Ne49 is toda1 the most articulate%
trenchant and 4insome e'ponent of .rthodo' Theolog1 and piet1 in the scholarl1 4orld. +e is
innoatie and creatie in the sense 4holl1 of -eing eer prepared to restate the saing truth of
Scripture and Tradition in the idiom of our contemporar1 1earning for the transcendent . . . !
3r. 3loros)1's professorial career led him from the /niersit1 of .dessa to Prague% 4here
he taught philosoph1 from 5<FF until 5<FG. In 5<FG he 4as inited to hold the chair of patrolog1
at St. Sergius' .rthodo' Theological Institute in Paris. In 5<:6 3r. 3loros)1 accepted the
deanship of St. ;ladimir's Theological School in Ne4 Dor). Simultaneousl1 he taught at /nion
Theological School and *olum-ia /niersit1. In 5<8G 3r. 3loros)1 accepted an initation from
+arard /niersit1 4here he held the chair of Eastern *hurch +istor1 until 5<G:. "hile teaching
at +arard /niersit1% 3r. 3loros)1 also taught at +ol1 *ross (ree) .rthodo' Theological
School in Broo)line% &assachusetts. 3rom 5<G: until his death in 5<=< 3r. 3loros)1 4as
;isiting Professor at Princeton /niersit1. It should -e remem-ered that through all the 1ears
and during all the research% 3r. 3loros)1 4as a faithful priest of the .rthodo' *hurch%
officiating at the numerous liturgical serices% presenting sermons% and acting as a spiritual guide
and father confessor. The histor1 of the translation of "a1s of Russian Theolog1 could -1 itself
-e a separate -oo). Suffice it to sa1 that more persons had a hand in this proBect than is o-ious%
especiall1 in the earl1 1ears of the proBect. The 4or) of Andre4 Blane and friends 4as Cuite
significant. In late 5<=: I receied a personal reCuest from 3r. 3loros)1 to head the entire
proBect and to -ring it to completion. I hesitated until 3r. 3loros)1 insisted that I assume the
general editorship of the proBect. I agreed. 3rom that time on% the organi$ation of the proBect
-egan ane4. The first step 4as to compare e'isting translations.
The second step 4as ta)en 4hen 3r. 3loros)1 insisted that Ro-ert 2. Nichols -e appointed
the ne4 translator. The third step. 4as to *ompare the ne4 translation 4ith the original te't.
And% finall1 c. 6G6 footnotes 4ere added to part .ne of "a1s of Russian Theolog1. I do not
pretend that 4e hae produced a perfect -oo). There are% I am sure% errors still to -e uncoered.
But in the main I thin) the product is read1%! especiall1 in light of the fact that a readership has
-een a4aiting this English translation for appro'imatel1 fort1 1ears.
The footnotes 4ere added for a specific reason. It 4as thought that there 4ould -e t4o t1pes
of readership: theologians 4ho might -e unfamiliar 4ith the 4orld of Russian culture in general0
and% Slaists 4ho might -e unfamiliar 4ith church histor1 and patristics. It 4as considered unfair
to e'pect Slaists to )no4 *appadocian theolog1% Bust as it 4as considered unfair to e'pect a
theologian to )no4 the poetr1 of Tiutche. It 4as decided that an inde' to -oth olumes 4ould
appear onl1 4ith Part T4o of "a1s of Russian Theolog1. I 4ish to than) m1 4ife% ;era% for her
patience and help. A special de-t of gratitude is o4ed to 3r. #anus$ Ihnato4ic$ of the /niersit1
of St. Thomas in +ouston for his indispensa-le help in tracing references to Polish personalities.
And% of course% 4ithout the 4or) of Ro-ert 2. Nichols and Paul ,achur this 4or) could not hae
-een completed.
Eer1one 4ho has participated in this proBect 4ould% I thin)% Boin in our earnest pra1er from
the .rthodo' serice: "ith the saints% . *hrist% gie rest to the soul of th1 serant% 3r. (eorges%
A
4here there is neither sic)ness% nor sorro4% nor sighing% -ut life eerlasting . . . 3or the eer9
memora-le serant of (od% 3r. (eorges% for his repose% tranCuilit1 and -lessed memor1% let us
pra1 to the 2ord . . . . That the 2ord our (od 4ill esta-lish his soul in a place of -rightness% a
place of erdure% a place of rest% 4here all the righteous d4ell% let us pra1 to the 2ord . . . . . (od
of all that is spiritual and of all flesh% 4ho hast trampled do4n Eeath% and oerthro4n the Eeil%
and gien life unto th1 4orld% do thou% the same 2ord% gie rest to the soul of th1 departed
serant% 3r. (eorges% in a place of -rightness% a place of erdure% a place of repose% 4hence all
sic)ness% sorro4 and sighing hae fled a4a1. Pardon eer1 transgression% 4hich he hath
committed% 4hether -1 4ord% or deed% or thought. 3or thou art a good (od% and loest man)ind
-ecause there is no man 4ho lieth and sinneth not0 for thou onl1 art 4ithout sin and th1
righteousness is to all eternit1% and th1 4ord is true . . . . 3or thou art the Resurrection% and the
2ife% and the Repose of th1 departed serant% 3r. (eorges.!
In loving memory
Richard S. Haugh Rice University
October 31, 1979.
Translator's Note.
.er a hundred and si't1 1ears ago% in 565:% Archimandrite 3ilaret ?Ero$do@% then a
1outhful .rthodo' reformer and later ecumenical! metropolitan of &osco4% dre4 up a charter
for the Russian ecclesiastical schools and su-mitted it to Tsar Ale'ander I. 3rom that moment
can -e dated the a4a)ening of modern Russian .rthodo' thought. As 3ilaret told the learned
clerg1 and lait1 gathered for the occasion% .rthodo'1 had -een da$$led and dierted -1 a series
of 4estern religious and cultural enthusiasms and no4 must sho4 its face in the true spirit of
the Apostolic *hurch.! In an important sense% 3ilaret's summons to recoer and proclaim again
the faith of the apostles and the *hurch fathers 4as ans4ered 4hen 3r. (eorges 3loros)1's
"a1s of Russian Theolog1 appeared in 5<A= among the .rthodo' emigres in Paris. .r% more
accuratel1% the -oo) represented the culmination of more than a centur1's effort -1 Russians%
-eginning 4ith 3ilaret% to rediscoer their o4n .rthodo' tradition.
"a1s of Russian Theolog1 forms an integral part of the attempt to purif1 Russian
.rthodo'1 -1 clarif1ing its proper relationship to the "est. 3rom the si'teenth to the nineteenth
centur1% the Russian *hurch found itself intellectuall1 unprepared to deal 4ith the religious and
cultural storms -ursting in upon it. 3irst came the era of open hostilities -et4een Protestants and
*atholics0 later came the Enlightenment and Romanticism. *onseCuentl1% .rthodo'1 a-sor-ed%
sometimes unconsciousl1% 4estern scholasticism% deism% pietism% and idealism% and produced
4hat 3r. 3loros)1 descri-es as the pseudomorphosis! of Russia's authentic religious life
deried from B1$antium. .nl1 in the nineteenth centur1 did Russian .rthodo'1 seriousl1
underta)e to recoer its B1$antine heritage and find its 4a1 -ac) to the 3athers % there-1
la1ing the foundation for 3loros)1's later program of neo9atristic s1nthesis%! a concept he
ela-orates in his o4n preface to this -oo) and throughout the stud1.
Although no one has gone so far as to sa1 a-out 3loros)1 4hat the historian S. &.
Solo'e once said a-out 3ilaret ?HEer1 da1 for lunch he ate t4o priests and t4o minno4s!@% his
caustic remar)s a-out prominent figures in Russian histor1 prepared the atmosphere for the cool
and critical manner in 4hich the -oo) 4as receied. "a1s of Russian Theolog1 4as not 4ell
reie4ed. +is colleagues at the St. Sergius Institute in Paris colla-orated against him in order to
shield the students from his influence. Nicholas Berdiae 4rote a long reie4 in The "a1 ?Put #%
:
the leading .rthodo' intellectual Bournal in the Russian emigration% accusing him of arrogance
and spea)ing as though he 4ere (od thundering do4n mal Budgment on those 4ith 4hom he
disagreed. &an1 at the Institute sa4 the -oo) as a full scale attac) on Russia and its faith. 5 The1
resented the acer-ic remar)s a-out those 4ho he -e -elieed to hae surrendered to the "est:
3eofan Pro)opoich 4as a dreadful person . . . ?+e@ stands forth not as a 4esterner% -ut as a
4estern man% a foreigner . . . ?+e@ ie4ed the .rthodo' 4orld as an outsider and imagined it to
-e a duplicate of Rome. +e simpl1 did not e'perience .rthodo'1% a-sor-ed as he 4as in 4estern
disputes. In those de-ates he remained to the end allied 4ith the Protestants.! Similarl1% Peter
&ogila% the great seenteenth centur1 churchman% is descri-ed as a cr1pto9Roman.! +e
-rought .rthodo'1 to 4hat might -e called a 2atin pseudomorphosis'.! And% in a manner 4hich
4ould ineita-l1 proo)e his Parisian associates% 3loros)1 4rote that .! . .N. A. Berdiae dran)
so deepl1 at the springs of (erman m1sticism and philosoph1 that he could not -rea) loose from
the fatal (erman circle.. . (erman m1sticism cut him off from the life of the (reat *hurch.!
Naturall1% the -oo) found een fe4er friends among the Russian radicals! in Paris. Paul
&iliu)o tried to silence the -oo) -1 refusing to print Professor Bitselli's reie4 in Russian
Notes ?Russ)iia $apis)i@.
But aside from the polemical st1le% 4h1 the hostilit1 to the -oo) in .rthodo' intellectual
circlesI Because it effectiel1 Cuestioned the historical -asis of man1 of their strongl1 held
theological ie4s. 3loros)1 Cuic)l1 emerged as the most authoritatie liing oice of Russian
.rthodo'1 in the "est% and he sought to use his position to pose ne4 Cuestions a-out
ecumenicit1 deried from his reflection on the Russian e'perience and its B1$antine past.
&odern Russian .rthodo' ecumenism% if it -egins an14here% -egins in Paris 4ith him. Not% of
course% onl1 4ith him% and not onl1 in the 5<A7s. +e had the e'perience of the preceding centur1
to dra4 upon. &etropolitan 3ilaret and the editorial -oard for the Bournal The "or)s of the +ol1
3athers in Russian Translation o-iousl1 anticipated his appeal for a return to the 3athers.! The
.rthodo' emigres in Paris 4ere 4or)ing clerg1 and la1men tr1ing to acclimate Russian
.rthodo'1 to the ecumenical challenges of the t4entieth centur1. All 4or)ed on the same
pro-lems: a re9e'amination of Russia's religious past% the meaning of the Reolution for Russia
and the modern 4orld% and the role of Russian .rthodo'1 in the present and future.
But among all those 4ho thus sered the *hurch in e'ile% 3r. 3loros)1 stands alone. .thers
might e'plore and refine .rthodo' thought -ut 3loros)1 altered the conte't in 4hich discussion
of the *hurch's 4or)% meaning% and character must ta)e place. In so doing% he laid the foundation
for reconciling the Eastern and the .riental! .rthodo' *hurches. +is as1mmetrical! definition
of the *halcedonian formula first appeared in his 5<AA lectures on the B1$antine 3athers of the
;9;III *enturies. In "a1s of Russian Theolog1 he clarified the short9comings% achieements%
and tas)s of the Russian *hurch. And in the ne't fe4 1ears he defined the necessar1 approach
Eastern .rthodo'1 must ta)e in order to oercome separation from the other *hristian
confessions. In 5<A=% at the ecumenical encounters in Athens and Edin-urgh% he e'plained his
neopatristic s1nthesis! or re9+elleni$ation! of .rthodo'1 in such a 4a1 as to e'ercise a
profound influence upon the. .%. ?Edin-urgh@ *onference% presenting the eternal truths of the
*atholic 3aith so effectiel1% so 4insomel1% and so clearl1 that the1 commended themseles to
men of the most diersified nationalities and religious -ac)grounds.HF All this% in its essentials%
4as carried through in a remar)a-l1 short period from 5<A7 until the out-rea) of the 4ar.
The 4ar in Europe claimed "a1s of Russian Theolog1 as one of its casualties. Nearl1 the
entire stoc) of the -oo) 4as destro1ed during a -om-ing raid on Belgrade near 4hich 3loros)1
had moed to sere as chaplain and religious teacher to the Russian colon1 at Bela *r)a.
8
Although copies suried there and else4here% the -oo) -ecame some4hat rare. The present
translation 4ill% therefore% ma)e this monumental 4or) more readil1 aaila-le -1 -ringing it to
the attention of a much larger non9Russian spea)ing English pu-lic. The -oo)'s great erudition
and compassion desere the 4idest possi-le audience. An English translation has long -een
oerdue.
All translators% if the1 are to an1 e'tent conscious of their 4or)% recogni$e the disparit1
-et4een the original the1 read and the 4or) the1 produce. .n er1 rare occasions a translator
perfectl1 captures his su-Bect% -ut far more often he onl1 appro'imates or suggests the original.
This -oo) follo4s the general rule. 3r. 3loros)1's "a1s of Russian Theolog1 is not an eas1
-oo) to render into English. It is a highl1 personal and passionate account of Russian religious
thought and Russian culture constructed from 4ords% phrases% and thoughts so deepl1 rooted in
the Russian .rthodo' tradition that the English translator can onl1 imperfectl1 cone1 their rich
associations. *onseCuentl1% he must settle for something less% and I hae tried to retain the igor
and earnestness of the -oo) -1 4riting English prose rather than proiding a literal rendition of
the Russian te't. I do not claim to hae succeeded in capturing 3r. 3loros)1's st1le0 I onl1 claim
an attempt at aoiding the a4)4ardness of a more precisel1 literal reproduction. As Ed4ard
3it$gerald once o-sered: the lie dog -etter than the dead lion! ?2etters% 2ondon% 56<:@.
The translation of "a1s of Russian Theolog1 is actuall1 a 4or) of man1. In 5<=8% 4hen I
first -ecame part of the proBect% rough drafts of seeral chapters and sections of others had
alread1 -een completed. These drafts included a portion of chapter F% chapters A and :% sections
59= of chapter 8% section 5: of chapter =% and chapters 6 and <. "hen at the reCuest of 3r.
3loros)1 and Richard +augh% the general editor of this proBect% I agreed to assume the -urden of
this proBect preiousl1 carried for4ard -1 the earlier group% I e'tensiel1 reised and in some
instances retranslated the chapters alread1 in draft form% and translated the remainder of chapter
8 as 4ell as the preface and chapters 5% G% and =. To all the chapters I added numerous
e'planator1 notes. The general editor% Richard +augh% has appended still others. In sum% the
translation is a collectie enterprise 4hich has ta)en considera-le time to complete% 4or)ed on as
it has -een during summers% holida1s% and at other spare moments in 4or)ing da1s deoted to
teaching% other literar1 proBects% and administratie duties. .f course% I assume full responsi-ilit1
for an1 errors in the translation% -ut the hard% selfless la-or of the preious translators must
receie full ac)no4ledgement.
.ne further 4ord a-out the notes accompan1ing the te't. Those notes designated 4ithin
-rac)ets as Author's notes! are of t4o )inds. .ne contains material remoed from the -od1 of
the te't% so that it does not interrupt the narratie. Such material is usuall1% -ut not al4a1s% of a
-i-liographical character. The other sort proides information ta)en from the -i-liograph1 at the
end of the Russian edition. ?That full -i-liograph1 is not included 4ith this translation. .nl1 a
selected -i-liograph1 is appended. Readers 4ho 4ish to use the er1 e'tensie Russian
-i-liograph1 are inited to consult the original 5<A= D&*A Press edition@. "here necessar1% I
hae proided a more e'act citation to a 4or) ?i.e.% edition% olume% page% etc@. than that
contained in the original. All notes not directl1 attri-uted to the author are mine or the editor's.
Transliteration has -een done follo4ing the usage of the Slaic Reie4. (enerall1% Russian
*hristian names are reproduced here% 4ith a fe4 e'ceptions 4here the name is 4ell )no4n ?e.g.
2e rather than 2eo% e'cept for 2eo Tolsto1@.
SCuare -rac)ets are used er1 sparingl1 in the te't to enclose material added -1 the
translator. In -ringing the translation of "a1s of Russian Theolog1 into print% it is a pleasure to
than) all those 4ho helped me 4ith the tas). 3irst to Richard and ;era +augh% 4ho chec)ed the
G
translation against the original and 4ho hae sho4ed a cheerful helpfulness throughout the 4or).
Also% to &rs. Thelma "inter and &rs. &ar1ann 2o(uidice 4ho patientl1 t1ped the manuscript
and to Eean "illiam Nelsen and President Sidne1 Rand of St. .laf *ollege 4ho proided
financial assistance for the t1ping. &ost of all I 4ould li)e to than) m1 4ife Sharon and m1
children 4ho often 4ondered aloud 4hen the Bo- 4ould -e done% -ut neer complained 4hen it
4as not.
Robert . !ichols
Saint Ola" #ollege !orth"ield,
$innesota %une 1, 197&
5. &an1 of the -iographical and -i-liographical facts a-out 3loros)1 used here are dra4n from
Professor (eorge +. "illiam's admira-le essa1 (eorges ;asilieich 3loros)1: +is American
*areer ?5<:695<G8@%! The (ree) .rthodo' Theological Reie4% ;ol. II% No. 5 ?Summer% 5<G8@%
=957=. *oncerning the Cuarrel oer the -oo)% "illiams follo4s Ale'ander Schmemann's
suggestion ?F=9F6@ that the Institute stood polari$ed at the time -et4een the maBorit1
representing the Russian! school% 4ho 4ere re4or)ing the maBor themes of Russian
nineteenth9 centur1 theolog1 and philosoph1%! and 3loros)1 4ith his programmatic! return to
the 3athers in order to repossess J*hristian' or Jsacred +ellenism'.
+o4eer% the diision -et4een +ellenists! and Russians! seems oer9dra4n% for 4e are
actuall1 dealing 4ith at least t4o trends in modern Russian theolog1. .ne directl1 continued the
themes of the Slaophiles% ;ladimir Solo'e% and the Russian idea! > the theme of Russia's
uniersali$ing response to 4estern humanism. ?3loros)1 directl1 challenges this school in the
final chapter of the -oo)% 4here he as)s 4h1 Russia's culture is punctuated 4ith discontinuities
and replies that Russia's uniersal responsieness! is fatal! and am-iguous.!@ The other trend%
4hile -1 no means indifferent to the first% stressed the need to recoer genuine! .rthodo'
tradition9a maBor nineteenth centur1 theme centering particularl1 in the &osco4 Theological
Academ1. It 4ould -e more correct to spea) of t4o emphases 4ithin Russia's recent theological
past 4hich continued to gro4 and flourish een in emigration after 5<5= rather than spea) of t4o
groups% onl1 one of 4hich d4elled on the maBor themes of nineteenth centur1 Russian theolog1
and philosoph1. Een Berdiae% 4ho admonished 3loros)1 for preferring an a-stract and
inhuman B1$antinism to Russia's higher spiritualit1% ends his reie4 -1 lin)ing 3loros)1 to
nineteenth centur1 Russian themes. See Put'% No. 8A ?April9#ul1% 5<A=@% 8 A9=8.
F. Role of +onour%! ?Editorial@% The 2iing *hurch ?Ne4 Dor) and &il4au)ee@% ;ol. <6% 5
?#anuar1 8% 5<A6@% 5 f. as Cuoted in "illiams% op. cit.% A6.
Author's Preface.
This -oo) 4as conceied as an e'periment in historical s1nthesis% as an e'periment in the
histor1 of Russian thought. Preceding the s1nthesis% as long ago as the da1s of m1 1outh% came
1ears of anal1sis% man1 1ears of slo4 reading and reflection. 3or me the past fate of Russian
theolog1 4as al4a1s the histor1 of a creatie contemporaneit1 in 4hich I had to find m1self.
+istorical impartialit1 is not iolated in this 4a1. Impartialit1 is not non9participation. It is not
indifference nor a refusal to ma)e an ealuation. +istor1 e'plains eents% discloses their meaning
and significance. The historian must neer forget that he studies and descri-es the creatie
traged1 of human life. +e must not% for he cannot. /n-iased histor1 has neer e'isted and neer
4ill.
=
Stud1ing the Russian past led me to the coniction and strengthened me in it that in our da1
the .rthodo' theologian can onl1 find for himself the true measure and liing source of creatie
inspiration in patristic tradition. I am coninced the intellectual -rea) from patristics and
B1$antinism 4as the chief cause for all the interruptions and failures in Russia's deelopment.
The histor1 of these failures is told in this -oo). All the genuine achieements of Russian
theolog1 4ere al4a1s lin)ed 4ith a creatie return to patristic sources. That this narro4 path of
patristic theolog1 is the sole true 4a1 is reealed 4ith particular clarit1 in historical perspectie.
Det the return to the fathers must not -e solel1 intellectual or historical% it must -e a return in
spirit and pra1er% a liing and creatie self9restoration to the fullness of the *hurch in the entiret1
of sacred tradition.
"e are granted to lie in an age of theological a4a)ening -espo)en throughout the diided
*hristian 4orld. It is time to ree'amine and recall 4ith great attention all the sometimes cruel%
sometimes inspired lessons and testaments of the past. But a genuine a4a)ening can onl1 -egin
4hen not onl1 the ans4ers -ut the Cuestions are heard in the past and in the future. The
ine'hausti-le po4er of patristic tradition in theolog1 is defined still more -1 the fact that
theolog1 4as a matter of life for the hol1 fathers% a spiritual Cuest ?podig@% a confession of faith%
a creatie resolution of liing tas)s. The ancient -oo)s 4ere al4a1s inspired 4ith this creatie
spirit. +ealth1 theological sensitiit1% 4ithout 4hich the sought9for .rthodo' a4a)ening 4ill not
come% can onl1 -e restored in our ecclesiastical societ1 through a return to the fathers. In our da1
theological confessionalism acCuires special importance among the *hurch's la-ors as the
inclusion of the mind and 4ill 4ithin the *hurch% as a liing entr1 of truth into the mind. ;os
e'emplaria graeca nocturna ersate diurrna. .rthodo'1 is once again reealed in patristic
e'egesis as a conCuering po4er% as the po4er giing re-irth and affirmation to life% not onl1 as a
4a1 station for tired and disillusioned souls0 not onl1 as the end -ut as the -eginning% the
-eginning of a Cuest and creatiit1% a ne4 creature.!
In finishing the -oo)% I recall 4ith gratitude all those 4ho -1 e'ample or counsel% -1 -oo)s
and inCuiries% -1 o-Bection% s1mpath1 or reproach helped and help me in m1 4or). I gratefull1
remem-er the li-raries and repositories 4hose hospitalit1 I enBo1ed during the long 1ears of m1
studies. +ere I must mention one name dear to me% the late P. I. Nogorodtse% an image of
truthfulness 4ho 4ill neer die in m1 heart's memor1. I am inde-ted to him more than can
possi-l1 -e e'pressed in 4ords. True instruction 4as in his mouth! ?&alachi F:G@.
Chater !.
The Crisis of Russian "y#antinis$
!ntroduction.
The histor1 of Russian thought contains a good deal that is pro-lematical and
incomprehensi-le. The most important Cuestion is this: 4hat is the meaning of Russia's ancient%
enduring% and centuries long intellectual silenceI +o4 does one e'plain the late and -elated
a4a)ening of Russian thoughtI The historian is ama$ed 4hen he passes from the d1namic and
often loCuacious B1$antium to placid% silent Rus'. Such a deelopment is perple'ing. "as Russia
silent% lost in thought% and 4rapped in contemplation of (odI .r 4as it mired in spiritual
stagnation and idlenessI "as it lost in dreams or in a semidormant e'istenceI
6
No historian toda1 4ould agree 4ith (olu-ins)ii that prior to the reolution 4rought -1
Peter the (reat% F .ld Russia possessed no ciili$ation or literature and hardl1 een an1 literac1.
At present such s4eeping generali$ations seem onl1 curious% lac)ing either polemic or passion.
&oreoer% fe4 historians 4ould still repeat ,liuches)ii's A statement that for all its seeming
intensit1 and po4er% .ld Russian thought neer e'ceeded the limits of ecclesiastical and moral
casuistr1.! Det in addition to the Kuestions of ,iri) L;oproshaniia ,iri)aM% : there is also the
Instruction LPouchenieM 8 of ;ladimir &onoma)h.G A good deal 4as tested and e'perienced
during those pre9Petrine centuries. And the Russian icon irrefuta-l1 testifies to the comple'it1
and profundit1% as 4ell as to the genuine -eaut1% of .ld Russia's religious life and of the creatie
po4er of the Russian spirit. "ith Bustice% Russian iconograph1 has -een descri-ed as a theolog1
in colors.! = Still% .ld Russian culture remained unformulated and mute. The Russian spirit
receied no creatie literar1 and intellectual e'pression. The ine'pressi-le and une'pressed
Cualit1 in .ld Russia's culture often appears unhealth1. &an1 hae ie4ed it as simple
-ac)4ardness and primitiism and e'plained it -1 .ld Russia's fatal ties 4ith a pitiful
B1$antium. This% in essence% 4as the ie4 of *haadae ?la misera-le B1aance@. 6 In an1 case%
such an interpretation is insufficient. B1$antium of the tenth centur1 4as certainl1 not in decline.
.n the contrar1% the tenth centur1 4as a period of rene4al and renaissance in the B1$antine
Empire. &oreoer% strictl1 spea)ing% in the tenth centur1 B1$antium 4as the sole countr1 of
genuine culture throughout the entire European! 4orld% and it long remained a source of liing
culture% 4hose creatie tension een suried a period of political decline and collapse.
B1$antine culture and religious life e'perienced a ne4 adance% 4hich colored the entire Italian
Renaissance. < In an1 eent% communion 4ith B1$antine culture could in no 4a1 cut off or
isolate .ld Russia from the great families of the human race%! as *haadae -elieed. In general%
one cannot e'plain the difficulties of .ld Russia's deelopment -1 its lac) of culture. The crisis
of .ld Russia 4as one of culture% not the lac) of culture or non9culture. The undisclosed
intellectual aspect of .ld Russia's spirit is a conseCuence and an e'pression of inner dou-ts or
aporia. This 4as a true crisis of culture% a crisis of B1$antine culture in the Russian spirit. At the
most decisie moment in Russia's effort at national and historical self9definition% B1$antine
tradition 4as interrupted. The B1$antine legac1 4as set aside and remained half9forgotten. The
core and essence of this cultural crisis consisted of Russia's reBection of the (ree)s.!
It is no longer necessar1 to proe that there is a chronolog1! in .ld Russian culture and
letters. The attentie historian no4 has in sufficient clarit1 -efore him all the multifaceted and
mutuall1 incommensurate and separate historical moments and formations% so that he need no
longer search for a general formula! or designation for all of .ld Russia%! as if it 4as of one
piece from St. ;ladimir's 57 times to the reign of Tsar Ale)sei &i)hailoich. 55 In realit1 .ld
Russia 4as not one 4orld -ut man1. &oreoer% it is impossi-le to construct and interpret Russian
histor1 as some peculiar and self contained process. Russia 4as neer isolated and separated
from the great families of the human race.!
The Pagan Era.
Russia's cultural histor1 -egins 4ith the -aptism of Rus'. 5F The pagan era sered onl1 as a
threshold. This certainl1 does not mean that the pagan past 4as of no significance. There
remained faint ?although sometimes Cuite isi-le@ traces of paganism 4hose memor1 4as long
presered in the popular mind% customs L-1t'M% and st1le. &oreoer% ;ladimir Solo'e lA
Bustifia-l1 descri-ed the -aptism of Rus' as a form of national self9reBection% an interruption or
-rea) in the national tradition. Baptism does indeed signif1 a -rea). Paganism did not die% nor
<
4as it rendered po4erless. As if through some historical underground% this hidden life%
simultaneousl1 of t4o minds and of t4o faiths% flo4ed through the trou-led depths of the popular
su-conciousness. In essence% t4o cultures9one -1 da1 and one -1 night 4ere intert4ined. .f
course the adherents to the da1! culture 4ere the minorit1. +o4eer% as is al4a1s the case% an
eCuation of spiritual potentials does not indicate an1 historical formation's capacit1 for life and
gro4th. The ne4l1 acCuired B1$antine *hristian culture did not instantl1 -ecome popular!
culture0 it long remained the propert1 and possession of a literate and cultured minorit1. This 4as
an inescapa-le and natural stage in the process. +o4eer% one must remem-er that the histor1 of
this da1time! *hristian culture did not constitute the 4hole of Russia's spiritual destin1. A
second culture! deeloped in the su-terranean regions% forging a ne4 and uniCue s1ncretism in
4hich local pagan surials! melted together 4ith -orro4ed ancient m1tholog1 and *hristian
imagination. This second life flo4ed underground and freCuentl1 -ro)e through to histor1's
surface. Det one al4a1s detects its hidden presence as foam1 and tempestuous laa. The -arrier
-et4een these t4o social and spiritual strata 4as al4a1s fluid and diffuse and constantl1
permeated from each side -1 the process of osmosis. But these strata 4ere not full1 independent
of each other. Their different spiritual and religious Cualities 4ere more important and might -e
defined as follo4s: da1time! culture 4as the culture of the spirit and the mind. This 4as an
intellectual! culture. Nighttime! culture comprised the realm of dreams and imagination.
In sum% the inner d1namic of cultural life is al4a1s defined -1 mutual interpenetration of
such Cualities and aspirations. The unhealthiness of .ld Russia's deelopment la1 foremost in the
fact that its nighttime! imagination too long and stu--ornl1 concealed itself and fled from the
e'amination% erification% and purification of thought.! Earl1 polemists and sermonists had
alread1 noted the strange dura-ilit1 of such s1ncretic fa-les.! The1 there-1 detected in this
capriciousness of popular imagination one of the fundamental traits of the Russian national spirit.
"hile accurate% this statement must immediatel1 -e Cualified. In an1 eent% 4e are dealing here
4ith an historical Cuantit1% not a pre9historical or e'tra9historical one. In other 4ords% s1ncretism
is a product of deelopment% the result of process% an historical concretion% and not onl1 or
merel1 an inherited trait or characteristic presered despite the interpla1 of historical forces.
The defect and 4ea)ness of .ld Russia's spiritual deelopment in part consisted of its
defectie ascetic temperament ?certainl1 not of an1 e'cess of asceticism@ and in part it consisted
of its soul's insufficient spiritualit1% e'cessie piet1! or poetics! as 4ell as its spiritual
amorphousness. If one prefers% it consisted of its spontaneit1.
This is the source of that contrast 4hich might -e descri-ed as the counterpoint of
B1$antine aridit1! to Slaic plasticit1.! It must -e noted that this does not refer to some lac) of
scientific! rationalism ?although the disBunction of piet1! and reason or rational dou-t is no
less a sic)ness than dream1 imagination@. But 4hat is under discussion here is spiritual
su-limation and the transformation of piet1 into spiritualit1 through intellectual! discipline and
through the achieement of insight and contemplation.
The path is not one from naiete! to consciousness%! from faith! to )no4ledge%! or
from trust to dis-elief and criticism. But it is a path from an elemental lac) of 4ill to 4illed
responsi-ilit1% from the 4hirl of ideas and passions to discipline and composure of the spirit0
from imagination and argument to a 4holeness among spiritual life% e'perience% and insight0
from the ps1chological! to the pneumatic.! And this long hard road% this road of intellectual
and inner achieement% is the impercepti-le road of historical construction.
The traged1 of the Russian spirit 4as first performed amidst such spiritual and
ps1chological aporia. The split -et4een these t4o strata is onl1 one er1 formal e'pression of
57
that traged1. And it 4ill not do to ascri-e it to some formal categories% m1tholog1% or structure of
the Russian spirit. +istorical destin1 is fulfilled in specific eents and acts% in the 4illingness or
refusal to ma)e decisions 4hen confronted 4ith concrete liing tas)s.
The "atis$ of Rus'.
Rus' receied -aptism from B1$antium. That act immediatel1 defined its historical destin1
and its cultural and historical road. Rus' 4as immediatel1 included in a definite and preiousl1
ela-orated net4or) of ties and actions. Baptism mar)ed the a4a)ening of the Russian spirit. It
4as a summons from the poetic! dreaminess to spiritual temperance and thought. At the same
time *hristianit1 ushered Rus' into creatie and ital intercourse 4ith the entire surrounding
ciili$ed 4orld. .f course% one cannot and should not imagine the -aptism of Rus' as a single
eent for 4hich a precise date can -e gien. Baptism 4as a comple' and multifaceted process0 a
length1 and freCuentl1 punctuated eent e'tending not oer decades -ut oer centuries. In an1
case% it -egan -efore the reign of ;ladimir. *hristianit1 prior to ;ladimir! is a much greater and
-etter defined Cuantit1 than is usuall1 assumed. Prior to St. ;ladimir's da1% cultural and religious
ties 4ere alread1 esta-lished -et4een ,ie and Tsar S1meon in Bulgaria l: and perhaps 4ith
&oraia. Baptism laid claim to the legac1 of SS. *1ril and &ethodius. 58 B1$antine influence
4as not onl1 direct and immediate ?it 4ould seem that its indirect influence came first and 4as
the most significant and decisie one@. Acceptance of the *1ril and &ethodius legac1% not the
direct reception of B1$antine culture% proed decisie. Eirect spiritual and cultural contact 4ith
B1$antium and the (ree) element 4as secondar1 to that from Bulgaria. Possi-l1 one can een
spea) of a clash and struggle in ancient ,ie -et4een elements and influences% -et4een those of
Bulgaria and those directl1 from (reece.
+o4eer% 4e still do not )no4 in detail the histor1 of this struggle% and it cannot -e
surmised or reconstructed. Eifferences and diergencies among such contending influences
should not -e e'aggerated. .ne theor1 suggests that the (ree) faith! and the Bulgarian faith!
4ere in essence Cuite different% so that at the er1 da4n of Russian *hristianit1 t4o religious
ideals or doctrines contested 4ith each other. The ictor 4as not the Bo1ous *hristianit1 of the
(ospels% 4hich inspired and enflamed St. ;ladimir. Instead% a different and dar) religious
doctrine%! Bogomilism% triumphed. 5G &an1 o-Bections can -e Cuic)l1 raised against such a -old
interpretation. 3irst% all efforts to separate the faith of ;ladimir%! that Bo1ful and triumphant
*hristian outloo)! free from ascetic rigorism! from that of Bulgaria -etra1s an
incomprehensi-le misunderstanding. It 4ould -e more appropriate to deduce this dar) doctrine!
from the Bulgaria of the priest *osmas! 5= da1% for Bogomilism 4as then precisel1 a Bulgarian
heres1.! Second% one is hardl1 permitted to arra1 all of the religious life of the &onaster1 of the
*aes l6 under the ru-ric of this dar) doctrine! and attri-ute the monaster1's ascetic life to
fanaticism. In an1 case% such a characteri$ation scarcel1 descri-es St. 3eodosii% l< 4ho is least of
all a dar)! person. But he is undou-tedl1 a (recophile personall1 lin)ed 4ith the &onaster1 of
Studior. F7 And it should not -e imagined that the (ree) faith! possessed onl1 a single face.
(reat caution and precision in ma)ing distinctions is needed at this point% -ut one 4ould do 4ell
to compare St. S1meon the Ne4 Theologian Fl 4ith his opponents during this same eleenth
centur1. Third% dou-t is cast on the 4or) of SS. *1ril and &ethodius. "as their la-or not a
mista)e or an e'tremel1 careless underta)ingI FF Eoes not the Slaic language of the *hurch
mar) a -rea) 4ith classical cultureI! Translation o-scures the original and reduces the need to
)no4 (ree) in that same 4a1 4hich compelled the "est to learn the 2atin language of the
55
*hurch. This a-sence of a classical legac1%! as one of the chief traits distinguishing Russian
from European! culture% 4as noted long ago -1 the Slaophiles% and in particular -1 Ian
,irees)ii. FA +o4eer% oersimplification 4ill not do. True% neither +omer nor ;irgil 4as
)no4n in ancient ,ie% -ut it does not follo4 that the Slaic language of the liturg1 proided the
impediment. .nl1 irresponsi-le h1per-ole could suggest that of all the riches of *hristian
+ellenism% Rus' receied from B1$antium onl1 one -oo)%! the Bi-le. In an1 eent% it is hardl1
true that onl1 the Bi-le 4as translated% for a long list of other sufficientl1 dierse literar1
monuments 4ere translated as 4ell. .ne must also admit that the scientific% philosophical% and
literar1 tradition of (reece is a-sent! in .ld Russia's cultural inentor1. But again% this 4as not
the fault of the Slaic language.
&ost importantl1% the er1 fact or process of translation cannot -e diminished. Bi-lical
translation has al4a1s -een a maBor ' eent in a nation's life and has al4a1s signified a particular
effort and achieement. The constant sound of the (ospels in the familiar language of the liturg1
o-liged and facilitated the recollection of *hrist and the preseration of +is liing image in the
heart. In general% translation reCuires more than Bust a )no4ledge of the 4ords0 it also reCuires a
great creatie tension and presence of mind. Translation is a mental igil and trial% not simple
e'ercise or a-stract mental g1mnastics. Authentic translation al4a1s means the molding of the
translator. +e must penetrate his su-Bect0 that is% he must -e enriched -1 the eent and not Bust
hae his )no4ledge increased. +ence the enduring significance of the 4ritings of *1ril and
&ethodius. Their 4or) shaped and formed the Slaic! language% gae it an inner *hristian
leaening% and infused it 4ith ecclesiastical life. The er1 su-stance of Slaic thought -ecame
transfigured. Slaic! language 4as molded and forged in the *hristian cruci-le under the
po4erful pressure of (ree) ecclesiastical language. This 4as not simpl1 a literar1 process0 it 4as
the construction of thought. *hristian influence 4as felt far -e1ond and far deeper than in an1
particular religious themes. *hristianit1 affected the er1 manner of thin)ing.
Thus% after its conersion% eleenth centur1 Rus' sa4 the sudden appearance of an entire
literature 4ritten in a familiar and 4holl1 comprehensi-le language. In effect% the entire li-rar1
of Tsar S1meon's Bulgaria -ecame accessi-le to Russian 4riters. #agic F: once made the
follo4ing remar) a-out the literature of S1meon's age: -ecause of the richness of its literar1
4or)s of religious and ecclesiastical content% LitM could rightl1 stand alongside the richest
literature of the time 4hether (ree) or 2atin% e'ceeding in this regard all other European
literatures.! The present da1 historian of Slaic literature can full1 endorse this estimate.
In an1 eent% the outloo) of .ld Russia's man of letters cannot -e descri-ed as narro4. The
opposite difficult1 and danger 4as actuall1 greater: the transfer of a complete literature might
oer4helm a Russian 4riter or reader% for a ne4 and 4ealth1 -ut utterl1 foreign 4orld stood
-efore him9a 4orld that 4as too rich and remote from the surrounding national life. .nce again
4hat 4as most needed 4as ps1chological self9discipline and self9a-straction.
.f course the acCuisition of Bulgarian letters should not -e seen as a single act or an uniCue
eent. In realit1 their acCuisition! meant that Bulgarian 4ritings -ecame a source from 4hich
educated Russians could ta)e 4hat the1 4ished. Bulgarian 4ritings% ho4eer% did not o-scure
those in (ree)% at least not during the eleenth centur1. At Iarosla's F8 court in ,ie ?and soon
at the cathedral of St. Sophia as 4ell@% a circle of translators la-ored on translations from (ree).
Thus% a long series of literar1 monuments un)no4n in Tsar S1meon's Bulgaria 4as included in
the Slaic idiom.
5F
Iarosla loed religious rules and regulations and 4as deoted to priests% especiall1 to
mon)s. +e applied himself to -oo)s% and read them continuall1 da1 and night. +e assem-led
man1 scri-es% and translated from (ree) into Slaic. +e copied and collected man1 -oo)s. . . .
It is interesting to note that the literature -rought from Bulgaria 4as largel1 related to
liturgical needs ?the +ol1 Scriptures and patristic 4ritings for reading in the cathedrals@% 4hile at
Iarosla's court historical and secular -oo)s 4ere more often translated.
,ie stood at a great crossroads. No one should imagine that the *hurch of ,iean Rus' 4as
cut off or isolated. Euring the eleenth and t4elfth centuries% ,ie maintained close lin)s 4ith
*onstantinople and &t. Athos% FG as 4ell as 4ith distant Palestine% 4hich at that time 4as in the
hands of the *rusaders. Ties 4ith the "est% too% 4ere constant and 4ell deeloped. "e can
confidentl1 surmise ho4 the acCuisition of B1$antine *hristian literature% that communion 4ith
*hristian culture% resounded in Rus'. The first Russian chroniclers% hagiographers% and
-iographers of the ne4 and hol1 Rus' 4ere raised precisel1 on this literature. These men
possessed a definite and sensitie outloo). The1 4ere certainl1 not naie simpletons. .ne al4a1s
detects a clear religious and historical tendenc1 or conception in the deelopment of the
chronicles.
Seeral names are particularl1 releant to this discussion. .ne is &etropolitan Ilarion% F=
-est )no4n as the author of the remar)a-le sermon .n the 2a4 of &oses (ien to +im -1 (od
and on (race and Truth L. $a)one% &oiseom dannom% i o -lagodati i istineM 4hich een that
constantl1 carping (olu-ins)ii 4as compelled to descri-e as an impecca-le academic speech
4ith 4hich among modern speeches onl1 those of ,aram$in F6 can -e compared%! and Lhe 4asM
not a rhetorician of the least distinguished da1s of (ree) orator1% -ut a true orator during its
flourishing period.! (olu-ins)ii deemed Ilarion's sermon 4orth1 to stand alongside The Tale of
Igor's *ampaign% LSloo o pol)u IgoreeM. In fact% it is an e'emplar1 model of oratorical s)ill.
The language is free and simple. It discloses the intensit1 of *hristian e'periences and it
possesses a 4ell made and translucent structure. The sermons of ,irill of Turo F< -elong to the
same literar1 t1pe.
There is little point in spea)ing a-out the originalit1 of these 4riters. The1 4ere under the
formatie influence of B1$antine letters% repeating foreign themes and e'ploiting 4ell9)no4n
material. Det for the historian it is precisel1 this fact 4hich is the important and instructie one.
,irill of Turo himself reminds us that he teaches and 4rites not from m1self% -ut from -oo)s.!
And from -oo)s! he 4rote a-l1 and freel1. ,irill's sermons are er1 dramatic% 1et rhetorical ''
refinement does not oercome his ital and sensitie heart. .f course his sermons are merel1
compilations% although the1 are inspired and liing ones. .ne must also mention ,limentii
Smoliatich A7:Such a philosopher there has not 1et -een in the Russian land%! the *hronicle
sa1s of him. +e 4rote from +omer% from Aristotle% and from Plato.! &ention% too% should -e
made of St. Araamii of Smolens). A5 To -e sure% these men 4ere part of a minorit1% or if one
prefers% of an ecclesiastical intelligentsia. Euring these earl1 centuries there 4ere no theologians
in their ran)s. But there 4ere men of genuine *hristian cultiation and culture. The1 made the
first flights of Russian +ellenism.
%econd &%outh %lavic' !nfluence Ere$itical Renaissance !van !!! and the West.
The Tatar inasion AF 4as a national disaster and a political catastrophe. The destruction of
the Russian land%! as one contemporar1 puts it. A pagan scourge.! A cruel people came upon
us% iolating (od and la1ing 4aste our land.! There is no need to lighten the colors 4hile
portra1ing such deastation and destruction.
5A
+o4eer% the Tatar 1o)e does not constitute a separate period in the histor1 of Russian
culture. No interruption or -rea) can -e o-sered in Russia's cultural effort or in its creatie
mood and aspirations. True% culture moes or is displaced to the north. Ne4 centers deelop%
4hile old ones decline. Det this ne4 gro4th sprang from seeds preiousl1 so4n and cultiated%
not from the transmission of enlightenment! from the cultured south of ,ie to the semi9
-ar-arous northeast% as until een recentl1 some historians hae delighted in descri-ing the
process. The north had long since ceased to -e 4ild and un)no4n. Situated astride a maBor
crossroad% the Su$dal' land hardl1 stood as a lonel1 outpost.
In an1 case% the thirteenth centur1 4as not a time of decline or impoerishment in the
histor1 of Russian culture and letters. AA An important series of ideological and cultural tas)s
4as started at that time and included the Pateri)on A: of the &onaster1 of the *aes% the Palaea
A8 ?the .ld Testament@% and a series of anti9#e4ish polemics% not to mention the sophisticated
leel of 4riting alread1 achieed in the chronicles. As earl1 as the thirteenth centur1 one detects
in these literar1 4or)s ne4 -onds 4ith the Slaic south and the Ealmatian coast. The ne't
centur1 sa4 those -onds strengthened and multiplied% ma)ing it possi-le to spea) of a ne4 4ae
of South Slaic! influence. And this ne4 italit1 did not merel1 echo -ut directl1 continued the
ne4 cultural moement in B1$antium correctl1 termed the Palaeologian Renaissance%! AG
4hich captiated the ne4 South Slaic )ingdoms. Rus' 4as in intimate contact 4ith Patriarch
Euth1mius' A= Bulgaria during the fourteenth centur1% and for this reason the e'ample of
&etropolitan ,iprian is instructie. +e 4as -orn in Turnoo. 2ater he -ecame a mon) at the
Studion &onaster1 and then a mon) on &t. Athos. As the (ree) protege and candidate% he came
to Russia to occup1 the office of the metropolitan. &osco4 receied him 4ith great reluctance
and dela1. Det this reception did not preent him from leaing a significant mar) on the histor1
of Russian culture. As a learned man and -i-liophile% ,iprian deoted himself to translations%
not% ho4eer% 4ith an1 great success. +e 4rote eer1thing in Ser-ian.! &ore important 4ere
his liturgical 4ritings and concerns. +e attempted to introduce Russia to the liturgical reform of
the 4ell9)no4n Palamite% Patriarch Philotheus of *onstantinople. A6 It 4ould seem that the
cele-ration of (regor1 of Palamas A< as a saint in the Russian *hurch dates -ac) to ,iprian.
,iprian 4as a coninced non9possessor. :7 +e 4as also a foreigner and a ne4comer to &osco4%
and Cuite t1pical of that incipient moement 4hich he had not -egun. Russian ties 4ith
*onstantinople and &t. Athos 4ere strengthened and reitali$ed during the fourteenth centur1.
Russian settlements 4ere founded or refur-ished% -eing settled 4ith man1 inha-itants 4ho
engaged in the cop1ing of -oo)s. .ne notes a si$ea-le Cuantit1 of manuscripts and -oo)s in
Russian monastic li-raries 4hich date -ac) precisel1 to this period. &ore importantl1% these ne4
4ritings form a fresh ne4 stream. This time their content 4as m1stical and ascetical% -ut once
again the1 constituted a complete literature. Indeed% this ne4 translation actiit1 on &t. Athos
and in Bulgaria stems from the +es1chast moement 4ith its deepl1 contemplatie spirit and
approach. These translations made the 4or)s of the ascetical 3athers )no4n in Slaic literature.
Such 4or)s included St. Basil the (reat's :5 t4o homilies on fasting entitled Ee #eBunio% the
4ritings of the Blessed Eiadochus of Photice% :F Isaac the S1rian% :A +es1chius% :: the 2adder
of St. #ohn *limacus% :8 .n 2oe L. liu-iM% and the *hapters! L(lai$n1M -1 &a'imus the
*onfessor :G and arious +1mns of Eiine 2oe! -1 S1meon the Ne4 Theologian% :7 as 4ell
as Eioptra -1 the mon) Philipp. :6 .f particular note is the translation of the Areopagite :<
together 4ith the commentaries made on &t. Athos in 5A=5 -1 the mon) Isaiah at the reCuest of
Theodosius% &etropolitan of Serres. Someone in Russia 4as reading such m1stical and ascetical
-oo)s.
5:
The fourteenth centur1 4itnessed an eremitical and monastic renaissance: this is the age of
St. Sergei of Radone$h. 87 .ne senses during these decades the po4erful intensit1 of a ne4
B1$antine impact in Russian *hurch art% particular1 iconograph1. It is sufficient to mention the
remar)a-le Theophanes the (ree) 8l and his cele-ration in colors. And Theophanes 4as not
alone% for he had man1 4orth1 disciples. Thus% during the fourteenth and part of the fifteenth
centur1% Russian culture e'perienced a ne4 4ae of B1$antine influence.
Det such ne4 influence occurred on the ee of crisis and schism. True% the crisis had -een
long in the ma)ing% 1et cultural self9consciousness had not -een prepared for the -rea). The
crisis 4as a-oe all a national and political one lin)ed 4ith the gro4th of the &uscoite State
and 4ith the da4ning of national political self9a4areness. Such an a4a)ening also reCuired
ecclesiastical independence from *onstantinople. "ith a fe4 interruptions% -ut al4a1s 4ith great
incisieness and intensit1% &osco4 and *onstantinople de-ated these themes throughout the
fourteenth centur1. The Cuarrel 4as -ro)en off rather than resoled. The *ouncil of 3lorences F
and the Bourne1 to that unhol1 eighth council! -1 the (ree) candidate for the &osco4 see%
&etropolitan ?and later *ardinal@ Isidore 8A sered as a prete't for the -rea). (ree) apostas1 at
3lorence proided the Bustification and the -asis for proclaiming independence. It 4as an act of
ecclesiastical politics. But there 4ere reer-erations and conseCuences for cultural construction.
Eou-ts and disCuiet concerning the faith of the (ree)s had some rational foundation. The fall of
*onstantinople sered as an apocal1ptical to)en and testimon1 ?and not Bust in Russia 4as it
gien such an interpretation@. Een much later ,ur-s)ii 8: could 4rite that Satan 4as released
from his imprisonment.! .ne must remem-er ho4 much in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
religious consciousness -ecame agitated and confused -1 eschatological e'pectations and -1 a
general fore-oding: night is approaching% our life is ending.! Behold% toda1 apostas1 is come%!
Iosif ;olots)ii 4as soon to 4rite. 88
The first traces of the famous Third Rome Theor1! are s)etched out precisel1 in such
perspecties of apocal1ptical unrest. The theor1 is intrinsicall1 an eschatological one% and the
mon) 3ilofei sustains its eschatological tones and categories. 3or t4o Romes hae fallen% a third
stands% and a fourth there cannot -e.! 8G The pattern is a familiar one ta)en from B1$antine
apocal1ptical literature: it is the translatio imperii% or more accuratel1% the image of the
4andering ,ingdom9the ,ingdom or cit1 4andering or stra1ing until the hour comes for it to
flee into the desert.
The pattern has t4o sides: a minor one and a maBor one0 an apocal1ptical dimension and a
chiliastic one. The minor side 4as primar1 and fundamental in Russia. The image of the Third
Rome is -rought into sharper focus against a -ac)ground of the approaching end. 3or 4e a4ait
the ,ingdom 4hich has no end.! And 3ilofei recalls the apostolic 4arning: The da1 of the 2ord
4ill come li)e a thief in the night.! +istor1 is a--reiated and historical perspectie is
foreshortened. If &osco4 is the Third Rome% then it is also the last. That is% the last epoch% the
last earthl1 )ingdom% has -egun. The end approaches. Th1 *hristian )ingdom cannot remain.!
"ith the greatest humilit1 and 4ith the greatest apprehension%! a perfectl1 presered pure faith
must -e o-sered and its commandments )ept. In his epistle to the (rand Prince% 3ilofei gies
4arning and een ma)es threats% -ut he does not use glorification. .fficial 4riters onl1 later
reinterpreted this apocal1ptical theme in a paneg1rical sense. B1 doing so% the theor1 -ecame
transformed into a peculiar doctrine of semi9official chiliasm. 8= If one forgets a-out the Second
*oming% then it is Cuite another matter to affirm that all .rthodo' )ingdoms are -rought together
and com-ined in that of &osco4% for then the &uscoite tsar is the last% sole% and therefore%
uniersal tsar. Een in its original form% the Third Rome replaces and does not continue the
58
Second. The tas) is not to continue or presere B1$antine tradition un-ro)en. B1$antium
someho4 must -e replaced or recreated. A ne4 Rome must -e constructed to replace the old one%
4hich has fallen a4a1. The &uscoite tsars 4ished to -ecome the heirs of the B1$antine
emperors 4ithout leaing &osco4 or entering *onstantinople%! as ,aptere had put it. 86 The
conCuest -1 the +agarenes 8< proided the usual e'planation for the fall of the Second Rome%
and the +agarene captiit1! 4as understood as a constant menace to the purit1 of the (ree)
faith. This fact accounts for the intense caution and mistrust in dealing 4ith those (ree)s liing
in the pagan tsar's realm of godless Tur)s.! Thus% the .rthodo' hori$on -egan to narro4.
It too) onl1 a short step to ma)e a complete -rea) 4ith (ree) tradition and to o-literate an1
memor1 of the (ree) past% that is% the patristic past. The danger arose that the historical
ecumenical tradition might -ecome o-scured and replaced -1 a local and national one 4hich
4ould confine ecumenical tradition 4ithin the ar-itrar1 limits of Russia's specific and national
memor1. ;ladimir Solo'e rightl1 termed it a Protestantism of national tradition.! .f course
not eer1one shared this outloo). Such conclusions 4ere certainl1 not reached all at once and
pro-a-l1 no sooner than the midsi'teenth centur1. But it is indicatie of the 4a1 in 4hich (ree)
mediation came to -e completel1 e'cluded and reBected. In fact% the meaning of the stor1 a-out
the Apostle Andre4's sermon in Rus'% G7 as amended and restated in the si'teenth centur1% must
-e understood precisel1 in this 4a1. (raduall1% -ut steadil1% B1$antium's authorit1 collapsed% and
all interest in B1$antium ceased. Russia's national self9affirmation pla1ed the decisie part in this
estrangement. Simultaneousl1 Russia deeloped and strengthened its lin)s 4ith the "est. B1 the
end of the fifteenth centur1% man1 perceied the "est as something more real than the destro1ed
and conCuered B1$antium. Such s1mpath1 is perfectl1 understanda-le and natural for
practitioners of Realpoliti)% that is% among men of politics. But s1mpath1 for the "est soon arose
among other segments of societ1 as 4ell.
The marriage of Ian III to Sophia Palaeologus is often ie4ed as a B1$antine restoration in
&osco4. G5 In realit1% the marriage of our tsar in the ;atican! s1m-oli$ed the -eginning of
Russian 4esternism. .f course Noe% or Sophia% 4as a B1$antine princess% -ut in fact she 4as
raised in the atmosphere of the union achieed -1 the *ouncil of 3lorence. *ardinal Bessarion GF
sered as her guardian. The marriage actuall1 did ta)e place in the ;atican% and a papal legate
accompanied Sophia to &osco4. Eespite the legate's enforced earl1 departure from &osco4% the
-inding ties 4ith Rome and ;enice remained intact. The marriage Cuic)l1 dre4 &osco4 closer
to the or-it of contemporar1 Ital1 and did not signif1 an1 a4a)ened a4are ness for B1$antine
traditions and memories. +e lifted the curtain separating us from Europe%! 4rites ,aram$in
a-out Ian III. E'piring (reece refuses the remains of its ancient greatness0 Ital1 grants the first
fruits of its nascent art. The people still stagnate in ignorance and coarseness% 1et the state is
alread1 operating according to the dictates of an enlightened mind.! Ian III possessed an
undou-ted taste and preference for Ital1. +e -rought architects from Ital1 to re-uild and remodel
the ,remlin% the palace% and the cathedrals. &ore Italico%! as +er-erstein GA reports a-out these
ne4 constructions in &osco4 -uilt -1 such famous architects as Aristotle 3ioraanti% G: Aloisio
G8 and Pietro Solario. GG The influence of B1$antium at this time 4as far less eident. At the
turn of the si'teenth centur1% Russian diplomats 4ere strenuousl1 a-sor-ed in -uilding an
alliance 4ith Suleiman I. the &agnificent%! G= and had little time for dreams a-out the
patrimon1 of *onstantine! or a crusade against *onstantinople. "estern states% carefull1
calculating the po4er of &usco1 in the international arena% s4iftl1 noted this deelopment.
There is eer1 reason to consider Ian III a 4esterner. Such a description applies een more
full1 to ;asilii III. The son of the (ree) Enchantress! ?as ,ur-s)ii du--ed Sophia@% ;asilii too)
5G
as his second 4ife ?in a disputed marriage@ the Princess (lins)aia% G6 4ho 4as raised 4holl1 in
the 4estern manner. Thus% the (rand Prince has altered our ancient customs.! This remar)
should not -e confined to political or social changes. .nce again our land 4as in turmoil.! It is
interesting to note that ;asilii III's faorite ph1sician% Ni)olai Nemchin! ?Hthe (erman!@ or
Bule corresponded on such themes as the reunion of the churches. &an1 men of li)e mind
surrounded him in &osco4. ?These 4ere the modest connections! in higher ecclesiastical
circles to 4hich (olu-ins)ii refers@. It 4as &a'im the (ree)'s G< fate to engage him in polemic
and de-ate. *uriousl1% Ni)olai Nemchin! addressed himself to the Arch-ishop ;assian of
Rosto ?the -rother of Iosif ;olots)ii@ as if counting upon his s1mpath1 or at least interest.
&oreoer% Nemchin! 4as deoted to astrolog1.
Na-elin =7 has some responsi-le grounds for 4riting that man1 of Ian III's policies eo)e
the image of &achiaelli. This applies more full1 to ;asilii III% 4hose cruel and despotic rule% so
often the o-Bect of complaint in -o1ar circles% more closel1 mimics contemporar1 Italian princes
than it does an1 remote B1$antine -asileus.
The (udai#ers.
The Nogorodian lands had alread1 e'perienced a ne4 religious ferment as earl1 as the
fourteenth centur1. The heres1 of the strigol'9ni)i! =5 4as primaril1 a protest against the *hurch
hierarch1. Another and more comple' moement appeared at the end of the ne't centur1: the
#udai$er heres1. After capturing the leaders of the married clerg1% the heres1 shifted to &osco4
4here it germinated! in the faora-le soil of ro1al protection. 2ittle is )no4n a-out the
moement% and een that )no4ledge comes from unrelia-le 4itnesses% the partisan opponents
and enemies of the heres1 such as Arch-ishop (ennadii of Nogorod =F and especiall1 Iosif
;olots)ii. Iosif's Enlightener LProsetitel'M constitutes the chief source. =A There are also man1
important pieces of information not found in the first edition of the Enlightener 4hich are
presered in &etropolitan &a)arii's =: (reat Reading *ompendium ?Ireli)i chet'i9mineiM.
(enerall1 spea)ing% it is difficult to distinguish 4hat is of primar1 importance from that 4hich is
secondar1 or een e'traneous in the descriptions proided -1 these polemists.
The -oo)s coming from or circulating in #udai$er circles are much more relia-le and
instructie. The1 include Bi-lical translations from +e-re4 and astrological -oo)s% as 4ell as
translations from &aimonides =8 and Alga$el. =G These translations 4ere 4ritten in
2ithuanian%! that is% "est or South4est Russian. The #udai$er mon) Na)har% around 4hom the
trou-le started% came from ,ie. +is -ac)ground remains o-scure. Some scholars speculate that
he might hae lied among the *rimean ,araite #e4s% == or he ma1 hae had connections 4ith
*onstantinople. In an1 case% he 4as a representatie of #e4ish learning. #udai$er! Bi-lical
translations 4ere produced in a #e4ish milieu for use in the s1nagogue ?for e'ample% the te't of
the Boo) of Eaniel is diided into the t4o categories of haphtarah or parashah =6 according to
the da1s of the 4ee)@. Thus% the #udai$er heres1 e'pressed intellectual ferment. "aering has
appeared in the people and in dou-ting 4ords a-out the Eiine! ?The Ni)onian *hronicle@.
No4 in the homes% along the roads% and in the mar)et places% mon)s and la1men are all in dou-t
and anguish concerning the faith%! 4rote St. Iosif ;olots)ii. #udging -1 Arch-ishop (ennadii's
first communications concerning the heres1% the ferment and dou-ts -egan as the result of
reading -oo)s. (ennadii sought out -oo)s -elonging to the heretics% such as S1lester% Pope of
Rome LSelierst% papa Rims)iiM% ?that is% the stor1 of the 4hite co4l =< purportedl1 gien to Pope
S1lester I -1 *onstantine the (reat@ as 4ell as Athanasius of Ale'andria% The Sermon of
*osmas on the Bogomils ?Sloo ,o$ m1 na -ogomiloM% Eion1sius the Areopagite% 2ogic% the
5=
Bi-lical -oo)s of the Prophets% (enesis% ,ings% and the "isdom of Solomon. &enander 67 4as
also included. The list is a sufficientl1 dierse and disconnected one. +o4eer% the -oo)s of the
.ld Testament clearl1 stand out. Perhaps dou-ts! deeloped precisel1 through the interpretation
of te'ts. The1 hae altered the psalms and the prophecies%! 4rites (ennadii. 3or the same
reason St.. Iosif ;olots)ii -arel1 gets -e1ond the limits of clarif1ing te'ts in his Enlightener.
Apparentl1 the #udai$ers found it difficult to accept the prefiguratie meaning of the .ld
Testament to the effect that the prophecies hae not 1et come to pass -ut still a4ait their
fulfillment. &oreoer% the Nogorodian heretics failed to discoer an1 eidence concerning the
+ol1 Trinit1 in the .ld Testament theophanies. Possi-l1 an outside or #e4ish source accounted
for these e'egetical difficulties. .ne should recall that precisel1 at that moment 4or) 4as going
for4ard on Bi-lical te'ts at the Arch-ishop's court in Nogorod.
Astrological themes held a special place in #udai$er! teachings. Dou stud1 the la4s of the
stars and ga$e at the stars and arrange human -irth and life according to them%! Iosif ;olots)ii
accuses the official 3edor ,urits1n 6l and the archpriest Ale)sei. Starga$ing 4as directl1
imputed to Na)har% 4ho has studied eer1 contriance for eil doing% as 4ell as magic% the
Blac) Boo)% the la4s of the stars% and astrolog1.! .ne such astrological -oo) mentioned -1
(ennadii is full1 )no4n: the Si' "ings LShesto)r1lM% a set of astronomical ta-les compiled in the
fourteenth centur1 -1 the Italian #e4 Emmanuel -ar #aco-. Astrolog1 -ecame an o-Bect of
interest in &osco4 at the outset of the si'teenth centur1. Een &a'im the (ree) undertoo) to
4rite a-out the po4er and arrangement of the stars%! and on the (erman fascination for telling
fortune and on fortune's 4heel.! In Nogorod% (ennadii most igorousl1 attac)ed #udai$er
astrolog1% 4hich 4as -eing used to calculate the date of Easter in connection 4ith the end of the
seenth millenium 4ith its e'pectant apocal1ptical catastrophe. According to #e4ish
calculations% the si'th millenium 4as onl1 Bust -eginning.
There is no need to recite the full histor1 of the #e4ish heres1! or to attempt a complete
reconstruction of its s1stem.! &ost li)el1 there 4as no heretical enclae% onl1 certain
predispositions0 that is% precisel1 those 4aerings in the mind%! or rethin)ing% referred to in the
Ni)onian *hronicle.
The historical significance of the #udai$er! moement -ecomes clearer 4hen it is related to
other circumstances present in contemporar1 Nogorodian life. Kuite pro-a-l1 the Nogorodian
heretics adhered to &osco4's point of ie4. That 4ould e'plain 4h1 Ian III appointed those
soul harming archpriests! to the leading positions in the ,remlin cathedrals. The heretics found
protection and support in &osco4. &ean4hile% in Nogorod a great and er1 important
theological proBect 4as -eing carried through: the compilation and reision of the first complete
Slaic Bi-le. /ne'pectedl1% the proBect passed into Roman *atholic hands. Although general
superision and official editorship -elonged to the episcopal archdeacon (erasim Popo)a in
realit1 a certain Eominican friar named ;eniamin possessed the decisie influence. ?Perhaps he
came from *raco4 or Prague@. A pres-1ter or mon) of the monaster1 of St. Eominic -1 the
name of ;eniamin% -orn a Sloenian and -1 faith a 2atin.! This ;eniamin did not come to
Nogorod accidentall1% and he 4as pro-a-l1 not alone. 3oreigners 4ere alread1 gathering in
Nogorod during the time 4hen Efimii 4as arch-ishop ?5:A795:86@. All 4ho came from
strange or foreign lands 4ere receied 4ith loe and gien rest%! 6F 4rote Pachomius the Ser-.
In an1 eent% during (ennadii's da1 in Nogorod one o-seres a fermant in the 2atin st1le.
Apparentl1 ;eniamin -rought prepared Bi-lical te'ts 4ith him% for the influence of *roatian
glagolitic can -e detected in the language. No one in Nogorod attempted to use either (ree)
manuscripts or -oo)s. Nor 4ere easil1 accessi-le Slaic materials ?from the liturgical -oo)s@
56
full1 e'ploited. Det the ;ulgate's 6A influence clearl1 stands out. "hole -oo)s > Paralipomena
#eremiah% A E$ra% "isdom of Solomon% 5 and F &acca-ees 94ere simpl1 translated from 2atin. A
(erman Bi-le pu-lished in 5877 supplied the introductor1 headings. 2atin usage also dictated
the inclusion into the te't of the deutero9canonical -oo)s. .ne modern inestigator characteri$ed
the (ennadii Bi-le as a man19colored coat se4n from arious tatters and patches.! I.E. Esee
6: spea)s 4ith leariness of its impercepti-le appro'imation! to the 2atin Bi-le ?Hthe dierting
of the Slaic Bi-le from its (ree) stream-ed into a 2atin one!@. +e also notes the er1 thic)
*atholic atmosphere! surrounding (ennadii and the outright appearance of a militant *atholic
spirit in Russian ecclesiastical life.!
Euring the period 4hen (ennadii 4as arch-ishop% a good deal 4as translated from 2atin at
the arch-ishop's residence.! A treatise -1 (uillaume Eurandus entitled Rationale diinorum
officiorum 68 4as translated at least in e'tracts% 4ith the o-ious purpose for use as a guide to
the 4or) on the ne4 liturgical statute. ?#udging -1 the language of the translation% one 4ould
suppose the translator 4as a foreigner. Perhaps it 4as the Eominican friar ;eniamin@. 3or the
purposes of polemic 4ith the #udai$ers% (ennadii instructed the 4ell9)no4n (erasimo to
translate the famous -oo) -1 the fourteenth centur1 3ranciscan Nicholas of 21ra% 6G Ee &essia
eiusCue adentu and the 4ritings against the apostate #e4s! -1 Samuel the #e4. 6= To this same
period -elongs the er1 characteristic Brief discourse against those 4ho 4ould iolate the sacred
moa-le and immoa-le propert1 of the /niersal *hurch ?Sloo )rat)o protiu te)h% i$he
eshchi siashchenn1ia podi$hn1ia i nepodi$hn1ia% s'-om1ia tser)i stupaiutsiaM. The Brief
Eiscourse 4as a defense of *hurch propert1 and an assertion of the clerg1's full independence.
That independence included the right to act 4ith the aid of the secular arm%! ?that is% -rachium
saeculare@. /ndou-tedl1% the -oo) is a translation from 2atin. Interestingl1 enough% the final
ersion of saints' lies and instructional -oo)s are permeated 4ith 2atin constructions.
*haracteristic% too% is the special t4ist gien to the stories of ;arlaam and Ioasaf collected in
&etropolitan &a)arii's (reat Reading *ompendium. The1 4ere intended to demonstrate the
superiorit1 of ecclesiastical authorit1 oer temporal po4er. At the same time% an1thing in the
earlier redactions 4hich spo)e of the insignificance of all 4orldl1 -lessings has -een toned
do4n. Both of these literar1 monuments relate precisel1 to that period 4hen the Cuarrel -ro)e
out oer *hurch properties and the relationship -et4een *hurch and State. "hen the
#osephites! -ecame dissatisfied 4ith the (rand Prince's ar-itrariness% (ennadii and Iosif turned
to 2atin sources for self9Bustification. In the course of his struggle 4ith the #udai$ers% 4hen
(ennadii 4as compelled to o-tain a ne4 Easter *1cle LPas)haliiaM% or *1cle for the creation of
the 4orld%! he sent off for and o-tained one from Rome. These 4ere hardl1 accidental
coincidences. .ne should recall the critical circumstances surrounding the Cuestion of ciil
punishment of heretics according to the e'ample of the Spanish )ing.! (eorg on Thurn% the
eno1 of the +aps-urg emperor% related ho4 the Spanish )ing had cleansed his land.! .rest
&iller 66 once made the remar) that in its inner meaning and spirit% the council on heretic held
in &osco4 under Iosif ;olots)ii's direction 4as a second council of 3lorence.! Aside from its
inaccurac1% his statement is too emphatic and s4eeping. Det in one respect he 4as correct: at
that momen the 2atin 4orld dre4 nearer to us than did the 4orld of (reece.! In essence% one
o-seres in the cele-rated de-ate -et4een the #osephit and the Transolgan Elders a struggle
-et4een ne4 and old% -et4een 2atin and (ree).
(ennadii of Nogorod 4as replaced -1 Serapion% a man of completel1 different st1le% 4ho
is remem-ered for his tragic encounter 4ith Iosif after he had -een remoed from office and
incarcerated. After4ard% the archiepiscopal see in Nogorod long remained acant. .-iousl1
5<
the circumstances affecting the deelopment of ecclesiastical culture under (ennadii's direction
did not alter. The same cultural atmosphere and purpose persisted and found a t1pical
representatie in Emitrii (erasimo. As an official in the 3oreign Serice 4ith important
responsi-ilities% he traeled freCuentl1 to "estern Europe% including Rome. In his 1outh he had
4or)ed under the direction of ;eniamin in Nogorod. Su-seCuentl1% he sered as a translator for
&a'im the (ree). Alread1 in enera-le old age%! in 58AG% &a)arii% then Arch-ishop of
Nogorod% commanded him to translate from Roman 4riting and speech! the Interpreted
Psalter LTol)oaia psaltirM of Bruno +er-ipolensis ?of "iir$-urg@ 6< despite the fact that &a'im
had -een -rought to Russia for the er1 purpose of translating such an interpreted Psalter from
(ree). (erasimo's translation stands as an epilogue to (ennadii's 4or).
(osehites) Transvolgan Elders and *a+i$ The Greek.
There e'ists an enormous literature a-out the conflict and de-ates -et4een the #osephites!
and the Transolgan Elders%! 1et the meaning of this Cuarrel and of the irritations! among the
Russian monastics has still to -e full1 reealed. +istorians hae addressed their attention mainl1
to the de-ates oer monastic propert1 or to the controers1 surrounding the punishment of
heretics. But those issues 4ere onl1 superficial ones. The real struggle 4ent on deep -elo4 the
surface and 4as fought oer the er1 -asis and limits of *hristian life and construction. T4o
religious conceptions or% ideals clashed. The dispute oer monastic properties sered onl1 as a
formal prete't% clothing this inner tension. The religious life of the people -ecame enmeshed in
this spiritual contest% there-1 polari$ing the national life.
A detailed inCuir1 into this fateful historical struggle and schism 4ould -e inappropriate
here. .ne needs onl1 to determine its significance for the histor1 of Russian culture. The chief
difficult1 for interpretation lies in the fact that the clash 4as one -et4een t4o truths. St. Iosif's
truth is no4 the harder one to grasp. +is shallo4 and haught1 successors -adl1 tarnished it. But
there 4as undenia-l1 a truth > the truth of social serice.
Iosif adocated and persuasiel1 preached strict communal life. Although stern and harsh%
he 4as strictest 4ith himself. 2ife in his monaster1 4as un-eara-l1 cruel and hard% reCuiring an
e'treme concentration of 4ill and ultimate dedication. That dedication 4as lin)ed 4ith a
measured% highl1 rituali$ed% and strictl1 regulated routine. Iosif's idea of social serice and the
calling of the *hurch entirel1 defined his outloo) and reminds one of Russian populism of the
mid9nineteenth centur1 ?that is% of going to the people!@. Euring Iosif's lifetime% the need 4as
great for the *hurch to pla1 such a role. The people lac)ed firm moral foundations% and the
-urdens of life 4ere nearl1 insupporta-le. #osif's originalit1 deries from his theor1 and practice
of monastic life as a )ind of social organi$ation% as a special sort of religious and national
serice. +is ideal communit1! contains man1 ne4 non9B1$antine traits. 3ormal regulation or
rituali$ing of life does not o-scure his ideal's inner dimension% and that spiritual core is in4ardl1
su-ordinated to social serice and the achieement of Bustice and charit1. Iosif least deseres to
-e called indulgent. Nor can he -e accused of indifference or inattention to those around him. As
a great -enefactor and a person% 4ho commiserates 4ith the unfortunate%! he defended the
o4nership of monastic illages! precisel1 on the -asis of his philanthropical and social
conictions. In fact% he receied% illages! from the po4erful and 4ealth1 so that he might share
and diide their proceeds among the lo4er classes and the poor. *harit1% not merel1 fear or a
sense of o-ligation% prompted Iosif to carr1 out good 4or)s and conert his monaster1 into an
orphanage and hospice% 4hile setting aside a portion of the cemeter1 for -urial of strangers.
F7
Iosif includes een the tsar in this s1stem of (odl1 inBunctions The tsar% too% is su-Bect to
la4% and he melds his po4er onl1 4ithin the frame4or) of (od's 2a4 and the *ommandments.
.ne o4es no serice to an unBust or diso-edient! tsar% for he is not reall1 a tsar. Such a tsar is
not (od's serant% -ut a deil0 not a tsar -ut a t1rant.! Iosif -orders on Bustification of regicide.
.ne can easil1 see ho4 su-seCuent generations of #osephites! dimmed and emasculated St.
Iosif's ision. Their 4ords -ecame unrelated to their deeds% so that een the most learned pastors
could simultaneousl1 -e er1 indulgent men. St Iosif's conception and plan% contains an inherent
danger% 4hich is not confined to its ordinar1 defects and modifications. There is a danger of
e'cessie attention to societ1 4ith a resultant reductionism or minimalism% perhaps not for
oneself% -ut for societ1.
Iosif 4as an insatia-le% if superficial% reader% and the ;olo)alams) &onaster1 housed a rich
li-rar1. .ne source relates that he possessed all the diinel1 inspired -oo)s on the tip of his
tongue.! The fact that he largel1 acCuired this 4ide% if uncritical% familiarit1 from compendiums
and miscellanies rather than from complete colections of patristic 4ritings is of less importance.
Det all of his reading still left Iosif% indifferent to culture. &ore precisel1% culture proided him
onl1 4ith those things 4hich sere the ideals of out4ard magnificence and splendor% 1et Iosif
4ould not accept culture's creatie pathos. As a conseCuence% the #osephites could freCuentl1
produce enormous and magnificent cathedrals adorned 4ith an inspired iconograph1% -ut still
remain distrustful and indifferent to theolog1. It 4as precisel1 this indifference that preented
Iosif from transcending the narro4 limits of his reading% or -ecoming an1thing -ut a mechanical
reader. Actuall1% his Enlightener LProsetitel'M is almost completel1 reduci-le to a series of
Cuotations and references. Een a resered ,a$an' pu-lisher remar)ed that one can hardl1
descri-e the -oo) as an original 4or)% or een in the strict sense a Russian 4or).! An1
originalit1 it ma1 possess finds e'pression onl1 through the selection and arrangement of the
4or)s of others. Iosif's selection is Cuite daring% for he did not hesitate to include innoations%
een 4estern ones% if it 4as adantageous to do so.
This is not the place to dissect and determine 4hat significance #osephite sermons and
actiities possessed for life and thought in the religious and political histor1 of the si'teenth
centur1. The important point is that their actiities did not promote culture. Such populism ?that
is% going to the people!@ inaria-l1 leads directl1 to cultural indifference% 4hateer the reason
for it. The concept of social Bustice ma1 easil1 -e reduced to the leel% of an eCuili-rium and
status Cuo 4hich me4s creatie pathos as a disruptie force.
The #osephites' theological inentor1 4as neither negligi-le nor limited. The -est #osephites
demonstrated familiarit1 and erudition among primar1 sources on doctrine% the Scriptures% and
the 4ritings of the 3athers. Iosif% and to a greater e'tent &etropolitan Eaniil <7 freel1
manipulated Cuite aried theological materials. .ne cannot spea) of the poert1 of their data.
Neertheless% the Cuestion of creatiit1 remains% and these references do not gainsa1 the fact that
the #osephites read onl1 superficiall1. Det in an important sense their opponents% too% suffered
from the same defect. 2i)e the Enlightener St. Nil's <l The Tradition to the Eisciples LPredanie
ucheni)amM is designed more as a collection or lin)! than as an original discourse.
Some4hat later% the #osephite &etropolitan &a)arii <F conceied of and -rought to fruition
a plan to gather together all -oo)s aaila-le in Russia. .ne of &a)arii's colla-orators calls him a
Second Philadelphia.! +e succeeded in choosing literar1 assistants 4ho could -uild from his
-lueprint. The pres-1ter Andrei ?su-seCuentl1 &etropolitan Afanasii@% the compiler of the Boo)
of Eegrees LStepennaia )nigaM <A -elonged to the &a)arii circle.! .ther mem-ers of the group
included the pres-1ter Agafon% author of the famous *reation *1cle L&irotorn1i )rugM 0 Saa%
F5
later Bishop of ,rutits)% 4ho assisted the 4or) of compiling the lies of the saints0 Ermolai9
Era$m% the author of man1 interesting 4or)s% such as his Boo)s on the +ol1 Trinit1 L,nigi o s.
TroitseM 4ritten in the spirit of m1stical s1m-olism. (erasimo% a holdoer from an earlier da1%
also -elonged to the group. +o4eer% the #osephites al4a1s compiled or s1stemati$ed 4ritings%
the1 neer created or shaped them.
The #osephites cannot -e portra1ed as traditionalists. The1 hardl1 alued B1$antine
tradition% 4hile their o4n national tradition 4as of relatiel1 recent origin and relatiel1
marginal importance. The Transolgan Elders% the opponents of the #osephites% grasped the past
much more firml1 the #osephites are more readil1 recogni$a-le as innoators. Their iconograph1
ma)es this o-ious. In particular the ictor1 of the #osephites meant the interruption or
restriction of B1$antine tradition.
.f course the Transolgan moement cannot -e descri-ed simpl1% as a preseration and
continuation of B1$antine traditions ?Bust as B1$antium cannot -e reduced to the Transolgan
moement@. 'The Transolgans formed liing and organic constitution ?and not merel1 a
reflection@ of that spiritual and contemplatie moement 4hich sei$ed the entire (ree) and
South Slaic 4orld during the fourteenth centur1. This 4as a renaissance in contemplatie
monasticism. 3undamentall1% the Transolgan moement constituted a ne4 e'periment% a ne4
discipline and a trial of this spirit. At the outset% Transolgans largel1 sought silence and Cuiet.
*onseCuentl1% their moement% signalled a decisie departure or escape from the 4orld% a careful
surmounting of all loe for the 4orld.! The s)ete% thus% -ecame the model for their lies. .r
else the1 chose the life of the solitar1 hermit. *oeno-itical! monasteries seemed too nois1 and
organi$ed. Non9possession%! that is% to possess nothing in the 4orld% forms their road leading
a4a1 from the 4orld. The Transolgans' truth9the truth of contemplation and intellectual
construction lies in their flight from the 4orld. Det one must immediatel1 add that the1 not onl1
tried to surmount 4orldl1 passions and loe for the 4orld! the1 also sought to forget the 4orld%
and not Bust its anit1% -ut its needs and sic)nesses. The1 not onl1 reBected it% -ut denied it as
4ell. 3or this reason% 4hereas the #osephites continued to 4or) in the 4ord% the Transolgan
moement had no historical impact.
.f course the Transolgans did not utterl1 a-andon the 4orld. Their second generation
-ecame entangled in political struggles an intrigues ?the prince9mon)! ;assian Patri)ee <:
proides a sufficient e'ample@. +o4eer% the Transolgans did not approach or return to the
4orld in order to -uild 4ithin it. Rather% the1 came to argue and fight against seculari$ation of
ecclesiastical life and to adertise and insist upon monastic 4ithdra4al from the 4orld. Such 4as
the meaning of their memora-le Cuarrel 4ith the #osephites oer *hurch properties. The
Transolgan's refusal to ta)e direct religious and social action sered as a peculiar social
coefficient to their moement.
The Transolgan Elders -uilt an incompara-le school for spiritual igil% 4hich proided a
spiritual and moral% preparation for theolog1. "hile in the strict sense onl1 4ith difficult1 can
one spea) of Transolgan theolog1% the moement itself signified an a4a)ening of theological
consciousness. An intellectual thirst is reealed in the depths of their spiritual concentration. St.
Nil of the Sora 4as a silent one! ?-e$molni)M. +e had no need to spea) or teach. Although not
a thin)er% 4riter% or theologian% Nil appears in histor1 precisel1 as an elder! LstaretsM or teacher.
+e 4as a teacher of silence an instructor and guide for mental construction! in the spiritual life.
/pon comparison 4ith the 4ider contemplatie tradition of (reece and B1$antium or after
comparison 4ith the Philo)alia LEo-rotoliu-ieM% <8 one discoers nothing ne4 in St. Nil. /suall1
one cannot easil1 distinguish or separate his personal ie4s and thoughts from the uninterrupted
FF
stream of e'cerpts and citations in his 4riting. Perhaps St. Nil's moral themes and% to a lesser
e'tent% his definitel1 formed outloo) proide his most distinguishing traits. +o4eer% if Nil
e'presses little that is his o4n! 4hich is distinguisha-le from generalI1 accepted spiritual
tradition% then at least he e'presses it independentl1. +e lies in the patristic tradition. That
tradition lies and is alie in him. .nl1 through a complete misunderstanding could historians
Russian literature freCuentl1 find the -eginnings of rationalistic criticism and the collapse of
ecclesiastical tradition in St. Nil of the Sora. Such surprising speculations are constructed onl1 in
total ignorance of that tradition.
Nil of the Sora came from and remained confined to the ascetical and contemplatie
tradition of the ancient and B1$antine *hurch. .ne should remem-er that the freedom! 4hich
St. Nil al4a1s demands also reCuires a simultaneous seerance of self94ill.! If the Transolgans
remained indifferent to formal discipline and o-edience nonetheless o-edience seres as their
fundamental ascetical commandment and tas). Bind 1ourself 4ith the la4 of the diine 4ritings
and o-sere it! is St. Nil's point of departure% 4ith the stipulation that the true and diine
4ritings! not -e interpreted either in the% sense of critical! tradition or as a confinement of the
corpus of scripture! 4ithin the limits of +ol1 Scripture.! .n the contrar1% in this instance Nil
meant the diine! 4ritings of ascetical literature. In doing so% St. Nil laid particular stress on the
ascetical guidance% e'perience% and adice of 4ise and spiritual men.! .rest &iller once
descri-ed the Transolgans as a spiritual militia.! 'Their moement did amount to a )ind of
spiritual recruitment% -ut according to a er1 high and sensitie standard. The lies of the
Transolgan mon)s and saints proide a clear and moing demonstration of ho4 their teachings
4ere applied and transformed in life and deeds. Their in4ard disposition 4as of chief
importance.
The follo4ing contrast sums up the disagreements -et4een the #osephites and the
Transolgans: the former sought to conCuer the 4orld -1 means of social la-or 4ithin it0 the
latter attempted to oercome the 4orld through transfiguration and through the formation of a
ne4 man% -1 creating a ne4 human personalit1. The second points the 4a1 to creatie cultural
gro4th.
The affair of &a'im the (ree) proides the most cele-rated and instructie episode in the
histor1 of the #osephite9Transolgan struggle. True% in realit1 political moties largel1
determined his coniction and condemnation. Acting on his o4n dreams ?and perhaps on direct
commission@% &a'im too) part in political maneuers to o-tain Russian aid against the Tur)s.
+is efforts coincided 4ith &osco4's e'ertions to achiee an eternal peace and alliance 4ith
those same Tur)s. &oreoer% &a'im ineighed too greatl1 against autocephal1 for the Russian
*hurch.
&a'im's fate contains an inherent contradiction. As a (ree) e'pert% he 4as summoned to
&osco4 to correct translations. Det onl1 4ith considera-le difficult1 could his e'pertise -e used
for that purpose. &a'im )ne4 no Russian 4hen he first arried% 4hile no one 4ho )ne4 (ree)
could -e found in &osco4. This seems almost incredi-le. +o4eer% &a'im 4as a-le to translate
from (ree) into 2atin. .ther translators then recast the 2atin into Russian: +e 4rites in 2atin%
and 4ith a cop1ist 4e 4rite in Russian.!
&a'im's personalit1 is of general interest. +e 4as not onl1 an Athonite mon)% -ut also a
man of humanist education. If &a'im had remained in Ital1 and ta)en a position in one of the
Italian cathedrals% then 4e are coninced that among all of the outstanding ?(ree) scholars and
professors then residing in Ital1% he 4ould hae occupied the most important position%! 4rote
(olu-ins)ii. &a'im studied in ;enice% Padua% and 3lorence. +e 4as una-le to o-tain
FA
philosophical training in (reece -ecause of the poert1 of -oo)s! Saonarola <G produced a
strong impression on him% and later in &osco4 &a'im s1mpatheticall1 descri-ed the *arthusian
mon)s. <= Although not a humanist in the 4estern sense of that 4ord% &a'im ma1 -e called a
B1$antine% humanist. In an1 case% he 4as a man of genuine literar1 culture. AcCuaintance 4ith
his (ree) manuscripts sho4s that he 4rote in the original and erudite literar1 language close to
that of the Bi-le. +e did not 4rite in the ernacular. +e himself stressed Athenian EloCuence!
Ldo-roglagolaniia )e)ropids)agoM. +e -rought an Aldus &anutius <6 edition of the Bi-le 4ith
him from ;enice% 4here he had often isited &anutius a-out -oo)printing. "hile there% he met
the famous #anus 2ascaris. << &a'im totall1 and characteristicall1 reBected 4estern
scholasticism. +e openl1 admired Plato and the formal philosophers of the supreme%! 4hile
Aristotelian artistr1! remained for him a s1non1m for heres1. *oncerning scholasticism% he
ma)es the follo4ing remar): No dogma% human or diine% can firml1 -e considered relia-le
among them LscholasticsM% if Aristotelian s1llogisms do not affirm that dogma and if it does not
respond to artistic demonstration.! &a'im's religious st1le 4as also t1picall1 B1$antine.
In &osco4 he primaril1 -usied himself ?or rather 4as -usied@ 4ith translations. In addition
he argued a good deal% particularl1 against the gift of starga$ing%! and generall1 against 2atin
propaganda% +agarene impiet1% the #udai$ers% or een the Armenian heres1. &a'im also deoted
himself to themes on the preailing moralit1. .nl1 a small group of students formed around
&a'im% -ut he produced a great and po4erful impression. +is misera-le fate and incarceration
merel1 gae ne4 grounds to respect his patient suffering. Thus% he 4as soon canoni$ed% in 58<5%
during the reign of 3edor I Ianoich ?586:9<6@. 577 This 4as a -elated -ut unam-iguous
reBoinder to those sl1 mon)s called #osephites%! 4ho censured St. &a'im for heres1 and
independent thin)ing during his lifetime.
&a'im 's condition s1m-oli$es and testifies to the -rea) in the B1$antine succession and
mar)s the renunciation of creatie continuit1. The differences -et4een &a'im and his Russian
accusers can -e summari$ed single formula. 3or a #osephite%! the Third Rome! meant that
great and ne4l1 constructed *hristian )ingdom &usco1. B1 contrast% for &a'im% the Third
Rome! signified a *it1 4andering in the 4ilderness.
#ourne1ing along a 4ild road filled 4ith man1 dangers% I came upon a 4oman )neeling 4ith
her regal head held in her hands% moaning -itterl1 and 4eeping inconsola-l1. She 4as dressed
entirel1 in -lac)% as is the custom for 4ido4s. Around her 4ere 4ild animals: lions% -ears%
4oles% and fo'es . . . . . Basileia LEmpireM is m1 name! . . .. "h1 do 1ou sit alongside this
road surrounded as it is -1 4ild animalsI! And again she ans4ered me: . traeler% let this road
-e the last one in an accursed age! . . ..
Metropolitan Makarii and the Council of a Hundred Chapters.
R. "ipper% in his popular -iograph1 of Ian the Terri-le% cleerl1 compared the age of
&etropolitan &a)arii 4ith that of the *atholic Reformation.! l75 The *ouncil of a +undred
*hapters ?Stogla@ thus -ecame a Russian *ouncil of Trent. The comparison contains an
undou-ted truth% for during the era of &etropolitan &a)arii in &osco4% there appeared an urge
and endeaor to construct culture as a s1stem.! This 4as an age of compilations. &a)arii's
follo4ers compiled the past0 that is% the1 s1stemati$ed Russia's national histor1. No rene4ed
attention 4as gien to the (ree) e'ample. In the si'teenth centur1% the .ld Russian source
replaced the (ree) one%! as Istrin rightl1 noted. Det one must immediatel1 recogni$e the peculiar
fact that the 4or) of compilation -egan in Nogorod. Should not this effort -e connected 4ith
F:
the la-ors of Arch-ishop (ennadiiI In one sense% this si'teenth centur1 compiling! meant that
strengthened Nogorodian ha-its% customs% and traditions 4ere gien a general e'tension. Tsar
Ian I; did not accidentall1 cite Nogorodian precedents and e'amples more often than an1
others in his speech and Cuestions at the *ouncil of a +undred *hapters.
The *ouncil's attempt to generali$e the Nogorodian e'ample 4ent hand in hand 4ith the
4estern ?particularl1 (erman@ influenced underta)ing of &a)arii and S1lester. The e'act nature
of the mutual relationship -et4een the Select *ouncil LI$-rannaia radaM and the metropolitan is
not clear. Politicall1 S1lester and &a)arii 4ere different minds% -ut on cultural Cuestions the1
came from the same mold. Brea)ing 4ith the (ree)s ?the Cuestion of the (ree) e'am 4as
entirel1 ignored at the *ouncil of a +undred *hapters@ and su-mitting to local custom constitute
the cultural and religio9ps1chological achieement of the si'teenth centur1. *ustom% or the ideal
of societ1%! emerged ictorious. The aerage mid9si'teenth centur1 &uscoite's spiritual
household no longer had room for the contemplatie life. 57F *ontemplatie m1sticism and
asceticism9the -est and most alua-le part of B1$antine tradition9pla1ed no role in the
conseratie &uscoite s1nthesis. This s1nthesis% at once selectie and tendentious% amounted
less to a compilation than to an assortment defined -1 an oerarching idea or 4ill. +o4eer% the
Athonite translation of the Areopagitica did pass into &a)arii's (reat Reading *ompendium or
&enelogos Leli)ie chet' i mineiM and generall1 enBo1ed an une'pectedl1 4ide circulation and
popularit1. ?Ian the Terri-le greatl1 admired the Areopagitica@. .ne need not discuss the details
of &a)arii's (reat Reading *ompendium% 4hich had as its design to gather into one collection
all the sacred -oo)s aaila-le in Russia.! The most important point is that &a)arii not onl1
collected the lies of saints% -ut he also re4or)ed them and adBusted them in relation to each
other in order to achiee a codified and s1stematic model of piet1.
&etropolitan &a)arii's literar1 and enc1clopedic enterprises did not end 4ith the (reat
Reading *ompendium. +is grandiose Bi-lical code'% 4hich com-ined Bi-lical stories 4ith the
Palaea 57A and the *hronograph l7: L,hronografM is no less characteristic and significant. In
particular% the Pentateuch is gien a free paraphrase. *uriousl1% this Bi-lical te't generall1 does
not conform to the (ennadii Bi-le. The code'% profusel1 illustrated 4ith miniatures% still remains
insufficientl1 studied% -ut it does disclose a particular cultural and historical purpose. The
miniatures proide incontesta-le testimon1 and proof a-out the increasing strength of 4estern
influence. (enerall1 spea)ing% the influence of (erman engraings is er1 noticea-le in the
&uscoite and Nogorodian manuscripts of the si'teenth centur1 ?the characteristic ine
ornamentation ta)en from later (erman (othic% for e'ample@. &oreoer% (erman ?perhaps
Eanish@ influence ia Nogorod is lin)ed 4ith the first -oo) printing in &osco4. The Triumphal
Boo) LTor$hestennaia )nigaM also deseres mention% for it 4as composed on the instructions of
&etropolitan &a)arii as a supplement and parallel to the (reat Reading *ompendium. It 4as
compiled largel1 under South Slaic influence. The Boo) of Eegrees LStepennaia )nigaM should
also at least -e mentioned here.
But most importantl1% something must -e said a-out the *ouncil of a +undred *hapters%
578 one of the most difficult and comple' pro-lems in the histor1 of .ld Russian life and la4.
The chief difficult1 lies in the nota-le lac) of correspondence and the o-ious disBunction in the
protocols of the *ouncil -et4een the Cuestions as)ed and the ans4ers gien. The Cuestions 4ere
posed -1 Tsar Ian I;% that is% -1 the adisers in the Select *ouncil surrounding him at the time.
The Cuestions are generall1 li-eral% or in an1 case% reformist. The1 contain er1 man1 seere
accusations. At the same time% there is a clear effort to achiee uniformit1. The 4aerings!
a-out 4hich Tsar Ian complains signif1 precisel1 the aried e'pression of regional customs. Det
F8
the Cuestioners do not indicate 4hom the1 are as)ing or 4ho should repl1. Those giing the
ans4ers displa1 their dissatisfaction on the point through their tenacious and stu--orn insistence
on past custom. Een &etropolitan &a)arii hardl1 cared for real reform.
The *ouncil of a +undred *hapters% conceied of as a reformational! council% 4as reali$ed
as a reactionar1! one. +o4eer% this mid9centur1 council did e'press something ne4: the 4ill to
construct and fortif1 a definite order. Such a plan is em-odied in that most t1pical monument of
the age% the .rdering of the +ouse LEomostroiM. Sometimes ie4ed as a picture of actual dail1
life or as an illustration ta)en from nature ?a ie4 totall1 unBustified@% the .rdering of the +ouse
actuall1 more closel1 appro'imated a part1 program or proBect% an e'emplar1 and ideali$ed plan%
or a ariet1 of utopia. The -oo) is didactic not descriptie. It s)etches out a theoretical ideal% -ut
it does not depict dail1 realit1. In fact% man1 elements of undou-ted Russian tradition are reBected
and condemned. The% trial of &atei Bash)in 57G proides a perfect illustration of such
reBection. A series of prominent Transolgans 4ere summoned to his trial% not as 4itnesses or as
men of similiar ie4s% -ut for the purpose of condemning them. Artemii% l7= the recent a--ot of
the +ol1 Trinit19St. Sergei &onaster1% and 3eodorit% the Enlightener of the 2apps%! 576 4ere
similarl1 condemned. 3or the historian% the indiidual charges in these cases are not so crucial.
/ndou-tedl1 actual freethin)ers 4ere concealed in Transolgan s)etes% and undou-tedl1 the1
4ent too far 4ith their dou-ts.! 3eodosii ,osoi l7< certainl1 did. &uch more instructie is the
desire on the part of the Budges to generali$e their results and findings and to gie those findings
a 4ide currenc1.
The affair of Ian ;is)oat1i% the prominent and influential chancellor of the 3oreign
.ffice% is especiall1 instructie and characteristic. ;is)oat1i had the temerit1 to openl1 critici$e
the innoations introduced -1 &etropolitan &a)arii and S1lester. The controers1 centered on
innoations in iconograph1. ;is)oat1i 4as offended -1 the ne4 icons painted -1 Nogorod and
Ps)o iconographers in accordance 4ith a directie from the priest S1lester during the
cathedral's renoation after the fire of 58:=. The ne4 4all paintings done in the (olden
*ham-er% 4hich 4as at that time under construction% also agitated ;is)oat1i. It 4as ;is)oat1i%
ho4eer% 4ho 4as condemned for innoation. Although a council charged him 4ith heres1 and
disorderliness% it did not gie an1 satisfactor1 ans4er to his Cuestions and -e4ilderments.
The significance of the de-ate a-out icons reaches 4ider and deeper than is usuall1
-elieed. ;is)oat1i should not -e portra1ed as a -lind defender of a d1ing past or as one 4ho
denied the admissi-ilit1 of an1 creatie renoation of iconograph1. ;is)oat1i's dou-ts!
disclose a er1 profound and penetrating religious understanding.
Russian iconograph1 reached a 4atershed in the si'teenth centur1. Nogorod and Ps)o
reached it first% and from there a ne4 current spread to &osco4. It is eas1 to determine the
importance of this ne4 departure or moement in iconograph1: it constituted a -rea) 4ith
hieratic realism and its replacement -1 decoratie s1m-olism or% more accuratel1% allegor1. The
-rea) found formal e'pression in the influ' of ne4 themes and ne4 theological9didactic!
compositions% as Buslae 557 so aptl1 descri-ed them. The decisie dominance of s1m-olism!
signified the decline of iconograph1. The icon -ecame too literar1.! The idea rather than the
face came to -e depicted% and een the religious idea too freCuentl1 -ecame dimmed% lost% or
dissoled in artistic ingenuit1 and em-ellishment. 3reCuentl1 icons of that period 4ere simpl1
conerted into illustrations of literar1 te'ts% sometimes Bi-lical ones% sometimes of a 4orldl1 and
apocr1phal nature. .ccasionall1% a miniature is een transcri-ed oer a -oo) coer. ;arious
influences com-ined to form this literar1 and illustrated s1m-olism. A considera-le influence
FG
deries from the Slaic south as a last 4ae of the B1$antine Renaissance. But the influence of
4estern engraing forms its e'terior.
;is)oat1i correctl1 sensed and diagnosed this deelopment in iconograph1. I -eheld that
the icons in the human form of #esus *hrist .ur 2ord 4ere ta)en do4n. And those 4hich the1
put there are such as I hae neer seen and are of man1 terrors. I 4as in fear of contamination
and eer1 sort of cunning.! It 4as not innoations% as such% 4hich trou-led ;is)oat1i. "hat
distur-ed him 4as the idea underl1ing them. +e perceied that idea as a retreat to the .ld
Testament% a moe a4a1 from the truths! of the (ospels to4ard prophetic t1pes! or
shado4s.! +e too) as his point of departure the eight19second canon of the *ouncil in Trullo
?G<59<F@: one must portra1 in human form.! 555 ;is)oat1i recalled that it is not seeml1 to
enerate images more than truth.! Therefore% &etropolitan &a)arii's repl1 that it is permissi-le
to paint the image of *hrist in the form of an angel according to Isaiah's prophec1%! or that the
t4o crimson 4ings can -e depicted according to the 4ritings of the (reat Eion1sius! could not
soothe ;is)oat1i. Such a repl1 4as untimel1. 3or ;is)oat1i's dou-ts! centered precisel1 on
the point that one should not paint according to prophecies 4hich hae alread1 occurred or come
to pass% -ut according to the (ospels% that is% in the fullness of the historical Incarnation. 2et the
glor1 of .ur 2ord #esus *hrist's human form not -e diminished.! ;is)oat1i did not defend the
past% he defended truth%! that is% iconographic realism. +is Cuarrel 4ith &etropolitan &a)arii
4as a clash of t4o religious and esthetic orientations: traditional hieratic realism as opposed to a
s1m-olism nourished -1 a heightened religious imagination. It 4as also an encounter -et4een a
strengthened 4estern influence and B1$antine tradition. Parado'icall1% this 4esternism!
achieed ictor1 under the guise of antiCuit1! and compilation.!
This parado'ical element is Cuite eident in the ma)e9up of Ian the Terri-le. +e 4as an
orator of natural eloCuence in 4ritten 4isdom and cleer in thoughts%! one contemporar1 sa1s of
him. Ian I; 4as not merel1 a tolera-le man of letters or a superficial reader. +e possessed a
genuine gift for 4riting. +e 4rote 4ith ere and e'pression% although he a-used his citations
and Cuotations. +e compiled such Cuotations into 4hole -oo)s% paramias Lreadings from the
.ld TestamentM and epistles%! in the sarcastic 4ords of ,ur-s)ii. A man of 4onderful
understanding in the science of -oo) learning and er1 eloCuent%! 4rites a later chronicler.
There is grace in his 4ords% and force in his dialects%! 4rites ,aram$in. Ian the Terri-le
undou-tedl1 possessed an inCuiring religious mind and a full1 conceied religious outloo)%
although it 4as of a som-er% hea1% and lacerating sort from 4hich he suffered and suffered too
greatl1. Det Ian I; did not onl1 face to4ard the past. &en of 4estern faith al4a1s attracted him%
een if he 4ould descend upon them 4ith furious accusations and threats. +is famous Cuarrel
4ith #an Ro)1ta% the minister of the *$ech LBohemianM Brethren%! 55A is a sufficient
illustration. Nor is it accidental that an enormous influ' of 4est Europeans! into &usco1
-egins precisel1 during his reign. Ian flung his preference for the "est and for 4esterners in the
face of his contemporaries. Some4hat later% the famous official Ian Timofee recalled 4ith a
sigh: Alas% eer1thing 4ithin him 4as in the hands of -ar-arians.! B1 -ar-arians! he meant
foreigners. Not onl1 politicall1 -ut culturall1% Ian I; graitated to the "est and not to
B1$antium. +e recogni$ed no historical dependence on the (ree)s% nor did he 4ish to ma)e such
an ac)no4ledgment. .ur faith is *hristian% not (ree)%! he replied to Posseino. 55:
Among the 4riters of the si'teenth centur1% Ninoii .tens)ii occupies a uniCue position.
Ninoii 4as the author of a Cuite remar)a-le -oo) The Eidence of Truth% for Those "ho InCuire
a-out the Ne4 Teaching LIstin1 po)a$anie% ) oprosishim o noom ucheniiM% composed in
ans4er to the confusions arising from 3eodosii ,osoi's propaganda. Ninoii 4rites 4ith great
F=
lieliness and 4ith a genuinel1 literar1 temperament% although his st1le is rather ponderous and
his thought is not al4a1s sufficientl1 disciplined. .ne senses a great erudition in him. +e not
onl1 cites eidence% -ut he 4eighs it. This is a ne4 trait supplied -1 Ninoii. +is chief argument
is al4a1s -ased on a theological reasoning lin)ed 4ith the use of Bi-lical te'ts% 4hich are not
4renched out of conte't.
Ninoii's stance in the preailing polemics and diisions is not eas1 to define. +e 4as close
to &a'im the (ree). Tradition descri-es him as a disciple of the saintl1 elder.! The spirit of
Nogorodian independence is po4erfull1 present in him. +e Budges and critici$es contemporar1
life 4ith a great decisieness and coniction% 4hich echoes &a'im the (ree). +o4eer% Ninoii
disagreed 4ith &a'im and 4ith the entire Transolgan tradition on one er1 important point: he
4as not a non9possessor% and he defended monastic properties% sometimes 4ith iron1% -ut 4ith
almost #osephite9li)e arguments against the prince9mon).! 3rom the Transolgan moement
Ninoii primaril1 acCuired a spirit of theological deli-eration% a refreshing e'perience in spiritual
life% and a general religious and moral tension in relation to life around him. In this respect he
stood apart from his age. Therefore% most li)el1 Ninoii's -oo) on heretics remained un)no4n.
.nl1 Ni)on ma)es an1 reference to it.
The spirit of stagnation and torpor in &osco4 congealed and hardened precisel1 during this
age of trou-led conflict and recrimination.
+eres1 in &osco4 is -orne -et4een fools 4ho deceitfull1 -a--le as follo4s: it is not
necessar1 to stud1 oerl1 much the speech of -oo)s% for men lose themseles in -oo)s% that is to
sa1% the1 lose their minds and there-1 fall into heres1.
True% this 4as 4ritten -1 Prince ,ur-s)ii% and it does not follo4 that one should generali$e
on this characteri$ation. +o4eer% such an attitude remained dominant and ictorious until the
end of the centur1. .n the er1 ee of the Time of Trou-les% during the reign of Tsar 3edor%
decisie ecclesiastico9political deductions 4ere made from the Third Rome Theor1%! 4hich -1
that time had -ecome full1 transformed from an apocal1ptical premonition into an official state
ideolog1. The &osco4 patriarchate 4as esta-lished more as eidence for the independence and
preeminence of the Russian tsardom than for the independence of the Russian *hurch ?see% for
e'ample% the esta-lishment charter@. Esta-lishment of the patriarchate 4as primaril1 a political
act 4hich reer-erated in the er1 depths of the national spirit. It mar)ed the final reBection of
B1$antium.
Chater !!.
Encounter With the West
,rthodo+y in West Russia.
The si'teenth centur1 constitutes a tragic and trou-led period in the life of "est Russia. It 4as a
time of political conflict and social unrest% and also a time of religious strife% -itter theological
controersies% and factionalism. The political merger of 2ithuania and Poland consummated in
the /nion of 2u-lin ?58G<@ 5 created a ne4 situation for the .rthodo' minorit1 under their
control. *ould this minorit1 maintain its identit1 and continue its o4n cultural traditions under
the ne4 conditionsI The pro-lem 4as -oth national and religious. Poland 4as spirituall1 a
F6
Roman *atholic countr1% -ut its East Slaic citi$ens -elonged to the B1$antine sphere. Een
-efore "est Russia -ecame a part of the (rand Euch1 of 2ithuania F and the ,ingdom of
Poland% its .rthodo' population had -een torn -1 the pull -et4een B1$antium and Rome. Since
5F<<% 4hen the metropolitan see of all Russia! 4as transferred from ,ie to the north ?and
su-seCuentl1 to &osco4@% this region had )no4n a constant drie for ecclesiastical autonom1.
The motie 4as mainl1 political% especiall1 after the anne'ation -1 Poland and 2ithuania: a non9
resident metropolitan% it 4as feared% might -e open to the influence of an alien po4er. The
Patriarchate of *onstantinople preferred a single% undiided metropolia% and the epithet of all
Russia! 4as rigorousl1 maintained in the title of the metropolitan of &osco4. True% departures
from this principle 4ere occasionall1 made% such as the appointment of a special metropolitan
for (alicia A and later one for 2ithuania. +o4eer% these autonomies! neer lasted long. An
inclination in faor of the Roman "est often accompanied this urge for ecclesiastical autonom1
in "est Russia. It is hardl1 a coincidence that shortl1 after his appointment% (regor1 Tsam-la)%
:% the first metropolitan of 2ithuania should attend the *ouncil of% *onstance ?5:5=95:56@. 8
Apparentl1 he did so at the reCuest of the 2ithuanian princes 4ho at that er1 time 4ere
negotiating 4ith the pope for an ecclesiastical union. *ertainl1 the eentual separation of the
.rthodo' *hurch in 2ithuania from the &osco4 metropolia 4as accomplished under
circumstances peculiarl1 related to Rome. Isidore% 4ho 4as appointed metropolitan of all Russia
to the *ouncil of 3lorence% turned out to -e one of the strongest partisans of the /nia! during
the council's sessions. Shortl1 after a4ard% the pope raised him to the ran) of cardinal. "hen
Isidore returned to his see% &osco4 disao4ed and reBected him% -ut he found acceptance in
2ithuania. /na-le to remain in &osco4% he retired to Rome. But the stor1 does not end there. In
5:8=% the /niate patriarch of *onstantinople in e'ile% (regor1 &ammas% 6 together 4ith the
s1nod of (ree) -ishops residing in Rome% appointed a certain (regor1 as metropolitan of ,ie
and 2ithuania and totius Russiae inferioris% o-iousl1 4ith the hope that in the course of time
(regor1 4ould e'tend his Burisdiction to all Russia.! This (regor1 4as a former a--ot of the St.
Eemetrius monaster1 in *onstantinople and an associate of Isidore. .ddl1 enough% the
appointment did not introduce the 3lorentine /nion into 2ithuania. Instead% (regor1 seems to
hae sought recognition from the .rthodo' patriarch in *onstantinople. "ishing to presere
-oth connections% his successors did the same. This created an am-iguous situation. < The
papac1 distrusted this )ind of diided allegiance. Earl1 in the si'teenth centur1 the lin)s 4ith
Rome 4ere -ro)en% and henceforth the .rthodo' *hurch in 2ithuania continued in o-edience to
the ecumenical patriarchate alone.
The maBor pro-lem% ho4eer% had not -een soled. The concept of a pluralistic societ1 4as
still un)no4n and un4elcome% and the right to religious freedom 4as rarel1 recogni$ed and often
een strongl1 contested. The state for the most part 4as confessional% 4ith religious non9
conformit1! or religious dissent! regarded as a threat to political and national unit1. *ertainl1
this 4as a fundamental an inescapa-le issue in the /nited ,ingdom of Poland and 2ithuania: the
East Sla pro-lem! 4as at one and the same time a Polish92ithuanian pro-lem% for it inoled
the integrit1 of the realm. *ould the .rthodo' minorit1! remain an independent cultural unit
4ithout endangering the common cultural -ondI *ould t4o *hurches! ?and that intrinsicall1
meant t4o cultures!@ peacefull1 co9e'ist in a single realmI *ould the .rthodo' minorit1! -e
trul1 integrated into corporate life of the land 4ithout some agreement or at least compromise
4ith RomeI *ould the B1$antine tradition -e safel1 allo4ed in a countr1 more and more attuned
to 4estern 4a1s of lifeI +ere la1 the cru' of the pro-lem of the /nia.! /nion 4ith Rome 4as
insepara-le from the 4ider pro-lem of ciil unit1 4ithin the Polish92ithuanian )ingdom. In the
F<
conte't of the si'teenth centur1 it 4as a sociological and cultural pro-lem more than a
theological one.
The rapid gro4th of the ast and impressie .rthodo' State of &usco1 aggraated the
4hole situation. The .rthodo' faithful in the Polish92ithuanian )ingdom could hardl1 fail to turn
to &usco1 in times of trou-le and distress. The rise and e'pansion of the Reformation into
2ithuania and Poland proper as 4ell as into its "est Russian proinces further complicated the
picture. 2utheranism did not ma)e much head4a1% -ut *alinism spread s4iftl1 and
triumphantl1% especiall1 in 2ithuania% 4here it 4on the open support of local magnates and% at
least initiall1% met no effectie countermeasures from the Roman *atholic hierarch1. The *$ech
LBohemianM Brethren% l7 e'iled from their o4n countr1% also too) refuge in Poland and for a time
assumed a prominent role in the general eangelical! moement. Een more conspicuous 4as
the gro4th of the Ne4 Arians%! as the Antitrinitarians 4ere commonl1 la-eled. l l 3or a 4hile
Poland sered as one of the centers of the moement on the European continent.
In general the countr1 -ecame a shelter for all )inds of religious e'iles persecuted and
prosecuted in their o4n lands. Poland 4as ironicall1 descri-ed as a paradisus haereticomus.!
Radical trends 4ere especiall1 dominant in the reign of Sigismund II Augustus ?58:6958=F@. 5F
The situation changed under the su-seCuent rulers Stephen Bator1 ?58=G9586G@ 5A and especiall1
Sigismund III of the S4edish house of ;asa ?586=95GAF@% 5: Bustl1 called the #esuit )ing.! The
Roman *hurch finall1 regained control 4ith the help of the #esuit fathers% 4ho 4ere called in at
the adice of the Nuncio *ommendone 58 and *ardinal Stanislaus +osius% -ishop of *ourland.
5G The #esuits concentrated their efforts on education -ut the1 also succeeded in ma)ing their
influence strongl1 felt at the Polish92ithuanian court.
B1 the end of the si'teenth centur1% the )ingdom of Poland and 2ithuania 4as once again a
Roman *atholic realm and a maBor stronghold of the *atholic faith in Europe. In this Cuic)ened
enironment the pro-lem of non9conformit1! assumed a ne4 urgenc1 and grait1. The
.rthodo' of "est Russia no4 found themseles -et4een t4o opposing camps. 3or a time the
greater threat of a *atholic domination -rought them to the support of the Protestants in a
common struggle for religious freedom.! /nder the circumstances% religious freedom for the
.rthodo' also meant national identit1.! But the alliance 4as more forced than oluntar1%
dictated as it 4as -1 politics rather than doctrine. .nce their independence had -een regained%
incomplete as this ma1 hae -een% the .rthodo' ended the coalition. The achieement% ho4eer%
4as no simple one% and the struggle left a distinct and deep imprint.
The .rthodo' *hurch in Poland and 2ithuania 4as ill prepared for a militant encounter 4ith
the "est. "ith sorro4 and anguish contemporaries tell of the great rudeness and ignorance! of
the common people and the local clerg1. The hierarchs 4ere little -etter eCuipped to do -attle.
The .rthodo' themseles deplored and e'posed their lo4 moral standards and 4orldliness. It
4as commonl1 complained that the -ishops 4ere more interested in politics% personal prestige%
and priilege than in matters of faith or the spiritual needs of the people. A great .rthodo'
champion of that da1% the Athonite mon) Ian ;ishens)ii% l= acidl1 commented that instead of
theolog1 the1 pursue the )naeries of men% la41er's deceptions% and the deil's t4addle.! The1
4ere% he 4ent on% more interested in the statutes! of the la4 than in the canons! of the *hurch.
True% ;ishens)ii's rhetoric is passionate% -ut it discloses the profound disappointment and loss of
confidence that contemporaries felt in their hierarchs. 3urthermore% the -ishops 4ere diided
among themseles.
B1 the end of the si'teenth centur1% no longer a-le to 4ithstand the e'ternal pressure% the1
capitulated en masse to Roman o-edience. Their floc)s% ho4eer% 4ould not follo4. In order for
A7
ecclesiastical union 4ith Rome to -e esta-lished% coercion and een persecution 4ould -e
needed. This account% of course% can -e differentl1 construed: the -ishops did not desert their
floc)s% rather the lait1 refused to o-e1 their pastors. "hateer the case% the .rthodo' communit1
4as rent and an unhapp1 tension diided the hierarch1 from the people. The -urden of the
defense of .rthodo'1 against an enforced union 4ith Rome fell entirel1 on the shoulders of the
lait1 and lo4er clerg1. Their deout efforts and concerted action presere the .rthodo' faith%
ma)ing the eentual canonical restoration of order possi-le. A maBor tas)% ho4eer% 4as 1et to -e
accomplished. .rthodo'1 urgentl1 needed% and its integral preseration reCuire a creatie
reconstruction of -elief%! a restatement of the .rthodo' faith. Such a reconstruction! had to
derie from a conscious confrontation 4ith the "est's dual challenge: Roman *atholicism and
the Reformation. *ould the B1$antine tradition -e maintained strictl1 as it 4as% or must ne4
forms -e deisedI Should .rthodo'1 remain purel1 eastern%! or under the ne4 conditions
4ould it in some 4a1 hae to -e 4esterni$edI! Such a tas) could not -e accomplished in an
instant. .-iousl1 it 4as a program for man1 generations. In the process a ne4 tension -ordering
on a -rea) emerged among those 4ho remained .rthodo'. The result 4as an am-iguous
pseudomorphosis! of .rthodo' thought% and to some e'tent also of .rthodo' life. Een though
these seenteenth centur1 efforts -1 .rthodo' theologians of "est Russia ma1 hae ended in
failure or compromise% the no-ilit1 and importance of their 4or) cannot -e o-scured.
The significance of these arious eents can -e comprehended onl1 if set in a 4ider
European perspectie. Europe 4as then diided into t4o hostile camps% at once political -locs
and confessional confederations: the *atholic league and the Eangelical alliance. The .rthodo'
minorit1 in Poland and 2ithuania could not escape entanglement in this larger po4er struggle.
No political stand 4as possi-le apart from a confessional commitment% and each confessional
choice carried 4ith it a political connotation. The patriarch of *onstantinople% too% 4as heail1
inoled in this political contest. Since he sered -oth as head of a large church and as national
leader of the *hristian nation! LRum milletiM 4ithin the .ttoman Empire% he 4as a prominent
political figure on the international scene. 56 Also of significance is the interest sho4n% and
actie part ta)en% in the fate of the "est Russian *hurch -1 the other eastern patriarchs
-eginning in the last decades of the si'teenth centur1. +o4eer% the historical destin1 of the
.rthodo' *hurch in Poland and 2ithuania ultimatel1 depended upon the outcome of the political
struggle -et4een *atholic and Protestant po4ers 4hich 4as soon to erupt in the Thirt1 Dears
"ar ?5G5695G:6@. In this conflict Poland emerged as a strategic center. This e'plains the liel1
interest of the &oldaian princes in the ecclesiastical affairs of the "est Russian *hurch and
4h1 a "allachian prince 4as eentuall1 named metropolitan of ,ie. 5< This act s1m-oli$ed
more than .rthodo' solidarit10 it also reflected a common political concern. Non9theological
factors thus 4eighed heail1 on the ecclesiastical and cultural situation of "est Russia% 4here -1
the third Cuarter of the si'teenth centur1 the .rthodo' *hurch faced a seere challenge from the
"est% an e'istential challenge at once religious and cultural.
Arte$ii and -ur.skii.
The strength of the Protestant impact on .rthodo' circles in Poland and 2ithuania cannot -e
accuratel1 assessed. It seems to hae -een considera-le% especiall1 in the middle decades of the
si'teenth centur1. And its challenge had to -e met. Significantl1% the first .rthodo' 4riters in
these lands to respond 4ere t4o fugities from &osco4% the hegumen Artemii and the cele-rated
Prince Andrei ,ur-s)ii.
A5
Artemii% 4hose dates are uncertain% 4as at one time hegumen of the Trinit1 monaster1. In
588: a council in &osco4 sentenced him for alleged heresies ?Hcertain 2utheran schisms!@ to
confinement in the Solo)ii monaster1% from 4hich he su-seCuentl1 escaped into 2ithuania. The
record of the trial proceedings does not sho4 an1 heres1. It seems that the real reason for his
condemnation 4as his ideological allegiance. "hereas the leaders of the council -elonged to the
dominant #osephite part1% Artemii adhered to the Transolgan tradition. +eretics% in his ie4%
should -e e'horted rather than persecuted.
.nce in 2ithuania% Artemii 4as dra4n to the defense of .rthodo'1 against the inroads of
Protestants and Antitrinitarians. +e settled on the estate of Iurii% Prince of Sluts)% 4here his
contacts soon included those tempted or conerted -1 Protestant preaching. 3or his la-ors there
Artemii 4ould earn the high praise of Na)harii ,op1stens)ii% F7 a distinguished .rthodo'
thin)er of the ne't centur1% 4ho spea)s in his Boo) of Eefense of the +ol1 *atholic Apostolic
Ecumenical *hurch LPalinodiiaM of this -lessed mon)% 4ho 4ith the help of (od% turned man1
in 2ithuania a4a1 from the Arian and 2utheran heresies% and through 4hom (od dispelled the
danger that all Russian people there might -e pererted into these heresies.! F5 Artemii's
approach to dissenters 4as as much pastoral as polemic. +is 4ritings are nota-le for their
humane attitude to4ards opponents. +e deals 4ith them in the spirit of tolerance and true
eangelical charit1% irtues reminiscent of the Transolgan elders% -ut rare in the polemical
literature of Artemii's da1.
A num-er of Artemii's epistles hae -een presered. FF The1 reeal the .rthodo' point of
ie4 on the issues at sta)e. .f special interest are t4o missies to S$1mon Budn1% an influential
*alinist preacher 4ho later 4ent oer to Socinianism and Boined its most radical 4ing ?the non
adorantes@. FA In 58GF Budn1 pu-lished a treatise in the ;ernacular% The #ustification of a Sinner
Before (od L.pradanie greshnago cheloe)a pered BogomM% and his *atechism L,ate)hi$isM.
F: +e also 4on reno4n for his Polish translation of the Bi-le% 4hich appeared in 58=F. Budn1
sent his -oo)s to Artemii. The1 prompted Artemii's epistles% 4hich% though igorousl1 attac)ing
Budn1's heresies% sought to persuade and to conert. Artemii addressed Budn1 as -rother! on
the grounds of their common humanit1%! -ut he made no effort to conceal his detestation of the
eil faith of false reason! to 4hich Budn1 4as committed. .f necessit1 large parts of Artemii's
letters 4ere deoted to rites and e'ternal o-serances% since the Protestants reBected them. But
his heart 4as else 4here. *hristianit1 4as for him first and foremost an inner realit1% a spiritual
discipline% the *ross in action%! i.e.% an ascetic e'ploit% the 4a1 of silence Lhes1chiaM% and
spiritual concentration. Artemii 4as rooted in the patristic heritage. +is sources 4ere traditional:
St. Basil the (reat% F8 St. Isaac of Nineeh ?or the S1rian%! as he is usuall1 called in the East@%
FG also the Areopagite F= and St. #ohn of Eamascus. F6 2i)e St. Nil of the Sora% F< he contended
that these sacred 4ritings should -e used not -1 rote -ut 4ith discernment. It 4as Artemii 4ho
first called ,ur-s)ii's attention to the patristic sources. A7
Prince Andrei ,ur-s)ii ?58F69586A@ 4as a distinguished militar1 leader and statesman.
Although a refugee from his o4n countr1% he readil1 found a place among the local no-ilit1 of
;ol1nia 4here he 4as granted honors and priileges. It is not clear ho4 he acCuired his 4ide
erudition. But he emerges from his famous and ehement correspondence 4ith Tsar Ian I; and
from his +istor1 of Ian Iir LIstoriia o ;eli)om ,nia$e &os)os)om# as a s)illful 4riter% a
po4erful polemist% and a man of great intelligence. A5 In no sense 4as he onl1 a spiteful and
enomous pamphleteer -ent upon oicing his passions and pleading the cause of the -o1ars
against a t1rannical tsar. +e 4as also a man of -road culture and an ardent supporter of the
AF
.rthodo' tradition. In &osco4 he had -een close to the circle of &a'im the (ree) AF 4hom he
ac)no4ledged as his most -eloed% teacher! and 4hose -iograph1 he later compiled.
Eistur-ed -1 the gro4th of foul heresies! in Poland% ,ur-s)ii 4as no less disma1ed -1 the
negligence and indifference of the .rthodo' communit1 there: 4e are inept and indolent in
stud1 and too proud to as) a-out that 4hich 4e do not )no4.! +e sought to spread learning
among the .rthodo'. +e urged them to return to the primar1 sources% to the er1 springs of faith
and )no4ledge. ,ur-s)ii had a special loe for the great patristic tradition% and he oiced
chagrin and irritation that the .rthodo' people around him )ne4 so little of the 3athers and
scarcel1 read them. 3oreigners ta)e delight in our teachers% 4hereas 4e% loo)ing at our o4n%
4aste a4a1 4ith spiritual hunger.! +e 4as ama$ed that not all the patristic 4ritings had -een
translated into *hurch Slaonic% and he e'pressed dissatisfaction 4ith e'isting translations.
Accordingl1% he decided to translate ane4.
It ma1 appear strange that ,ur-s)ii chose to translate the (ree) 3athers from 2atin te'ts%
since for that purpose he had to learn 2atin. AA But man1 of the 4ritings that interested him still
remained to -e pu-lished in the original% and to o-tain and use all the (ree) manuscripts 4as too
difficult a tas). ,ur-s)ii himself 4or)ed from the ;enetian translations. +is li-rar1 contained the
complete 4or)s of *hr1sostom% A: St. (regor1 of Na$ian$us% A8 St. *1ril of Ale'andria% AG and
St. #ohn of Eamascus% A= as 4ell as Nicephorus *allistus' +istoria ecclesiastica. A6 ,ur-s)ii had
-een impressed -1 a stor1 told -1 &a'im a-out the $eal of ;enetian scholars at 4or) translating
the (ree) 3athers. A< Apparentl1 he also came to -eliee that after the catastrophe of B1$antium%
those (ree) manuscripts% 4hich had -een saed% 4ere ta)en to Ital1 and stored in the li-raries of
;enice and Padua. :7
The fall of *onstantinople 4as a true apocal1ptic disaster for '' ,ur-s)ii% a time 4hen
Satan 4as loosed from his -onds.! "ith B1$antium in the hands of the Infidel% he had to loo) to
the "est. ,ur-s)ii had no s1mpath1 for Rome% ho4eer. The *ouncil of 3lorence had -een% in
his phrase% a true traged1% 4ith eil and sad conseCuences.! 3rom his contacts on &t. Athos he
sought and o-tained copies of the polemical 4ritings of *a-asilas :l and others directed against
the 2atins. ,ur-s)ii's cultural hori$on 4as t1picall1 B1$antine. Indeed% 4ith his loe of learning
and penchant for stud1 he can -e properl1 descri-ed as a B1$antine humanist.! Patristic
theolog1 and the 4isdom of the (ree)s! ?i.e. (ree) philosoph1@ 4ere in his e1es an indiisi-le
cultural 4hole. .ur ancient fathers 4ere trained and adept% in -oth natural philosoph1 and the
sacred Scriptures.! ,ur-s)ii conseCuentl1 sought to com-ine stud1 of the 3athers 4ith that of the
classical philosophers. .f the latter% he mainl1 read Aristotle ?Ph1sics and Ethics@% pro-a-l1
under the influence of St. #ohn of Eamascus and *icero% from 4hom he deried a Stoic
conception of natural la4. :F
,ur-s)ii dre4 up an am-itious program of translation: all the 3athers of the fourth centur1.
As part of the proBect% he gathered around him for classical studies a -and of 1oung scholars% or
-accalaurei as he st1led them. And he sent a relatie% Prince &i)hail .-olens to learn the higher
sciences in *raco4 and in Ital1. It 4as not eas1 for ,ur-s)ii to find enough people fluent in
2atin 4ho 4ere also at home in literar1 Slaonic. +e himself did not hae complete command of
Slaonic. But he 4as aerse to translating the 3athers into the cruder colloCuial. Indeed% it 4as
pro-a-l1 at his suggestion that a mem-er of the 4ealth1 &amonich famil1 in ;ilna :A in 5865
pu-lished a (rammar of the Slaonic 2anguage L(ramati)a sloens)aia ia$1)aM.
.nl1 a small part of ,ur-s)ii's translation proBect 4as eer accomplished. In addition to the
sermons of *hr1sostom% 4ith 4hich he -egan% ,ur-s)ii managed to translate the -asic 4or)s of
St. #ohn of Eamascus% including the Eialectica and Eefide orthodo'a and some of his lesser
AA
4ritings. :: The1 alread1 e'isted in part% -ut in an archaic translation of #ohn% E'arch of
Bulgaria :8 ,ur-s)ii chec)ed #ohn's te't against certain (ree) and 2atin editions% reised it% and
added translations of the missing chapters. To Eamascene's Eialectica he also appended an
introduction .n 2ogic% -ased on the Triii Erotomata% pu-lished -1 #ohann Spangen-erg in 588F
and 588: in *raco4 :G Apparentl1 ,ur-s)ii intended this 4or) to -e a te't-oo). In 5868
,ur-s)ii printed in ;ilna a translation of #ohn of Eamascus' A Eisputation -et4een a Saracen
and a *hristian. But of the other 3athers% he succeeded in translating and pu-lishing onl1 a fe4
sermons and homilies. := To adance his dispute 4ith the Arians ?his maBor preoccupation@%
,ur-s)ii also compiled% and 4here necessar1 translated% seeral e'egetical anthologies: The
Interpreted Acts and Epistles LTol)o1i Apostol'M% including a special selection of Patristic te'ts0
An A--reiated Interpreted Boo) of Prophets LSo)rashchenie tol)o1)h prorochestM% 4hich
also contained Patristic commentar10 :6 and an Interpreted Psalter LTol)oaia psalt1r'M in 4hich%
in addition to the -asic commentar1 ta)en from Theodoret of *1rus :< and from Pseudo9
Athanasius% 87 he included a num-er of rich and apt choices from the other 3athers. In all of this
4or) ,ur-s)ii manifests a ital dogmatic interest and a so-er and clear faith.
+o4eer modest ,ur-s)ii's achieements 4ere in comparison 4ith the scale of his original
plan% that he een conceied such a comprehensie scholarl1 program is of signal importance.
The scheme itself reeals a clear conception of religious culture% grounded in the tradition of a
Slaono9+ellenic culture. +e opposed this to Polish -ar-arism.! This 4as no mere rhetorical
phrase. The Polish language 4as at the time Bust coming into use for scholar1 purposes% and
Polish literature 4as sitill in statu nascendi. In contrast% *hurch Slaonic literature had e'isted
for centuries and had deeloped its o4n ela-orate st1le and tradition. ,ur-s)ii had reason to
contend that an accurate translation into Polish from (ree) or Slaonic% or een 2atin% 4as
impossi-le. The meaning might -e rendered% -ut the st1le 4ould -e lost.
3ar more than a scri-e or a dr1 scholar% ,ur-s)ii had a liing feeling for his time. +is aims
hae often -een critici$ed as old9fashioned and out of date. In fact% the1 4ere prophetic. +e
stroe for a creatie rene4al of the patristic tradition% a reitali$ation and continuation of the
B1$antine heritage in the Slaic 4orld. The future of .rthodo'1% he -elieed% depended upon its
faithfulness to the tradition of the 3athers.
The ,strog Circle and "i.le.
,ur-s)ii 4as not alone in his literar1 and educational endeaors. In the second half of the
si'teenth centur1 a num-er of .rthodo' printing centers 4ere esta-lished in 2ithuania and
Poland% most -1 priate hands: Ian 3edoro 85 and Petr &stislaets 8F at Na-ludo% near
Bial1sto)% on the estate of the *hod)ie4ic$ famil1 ?58G6 to 58=7@0 8A 3edoro in 2o ?58=A9
58=<% reied in 58<5@0 &stislaets in ;ilna ?58=:958=G% resurrected -1 the &amonich famil1 in
586F@0 Prince ,onstantin .stro$hs)ii 8: at .strog in ;ol1nia ?5867958<7@. 88 The -asic motie
for these centers 4as apologetical0 their chief aim 4as to com-at Protestant% and especiall1
Arian% propaganda. 3or this purpose it 4as deemed more important to pu-lish primar1 sources
than argumentatie 4or)s. The result 4as a goodl1 flo4 of liturgical manuals% deotional -oo)s%
religious pamphlets% and sermons.
The most important of these printing presses 4as at .strog 4here through the energies of
Prince .stro$hs)ii a center of learning and culture had sprouted. Among the loers of 4isdom!
4ho gathered there 4ere (erasim Smotrits)ii% the educator% 8G Ian 3edoro% master printer% the
priests ;asilii Sura$)ii% author of .n a /nited 3aith L. edinoi ereM% 8= and Eemian Naliai)o
?-rother of the famous hetman@% 86 and of special fame% #an 2iatos% mathematician and
A:
astronomer. 8< .f this communit1 at .strog Na)harii ,op1stens)ii 4rote in his Palinodiia:
+ere 4ere orators eCual to Eemosthenes. +ere 4ere doctors 4ell9trained in (ree)% 2atin% and
Slaonic. +ere 4ere outstanding mathematicians and astrologers.! Though an o-ious
e'aggeration% his 4ords indicate the strong impression% 4hich the .strog enterprise left on the
su-seCuent generation. Nor can the profound deotion to learning 4ithin the .strog group -e
denied. The1 cherished the same ision of a i-rant Slaono9+ellenic culture% as did ,ur-s)ii.
The school at .strog 4as modelled on the (raeco9B1$antine pattern. .ften descri-ed as a
(ree) school%! it 4as in fact a school of three languages! Ltrilingue l1caeumM and of the li-eral
arts.! Non slaonicae dunta'at linguae% sed grecarum Bu'ta atCue latinarum artium ere'it
palaestram.! G7 Prince .stro$hs)ii planned to transform his school into a full9fledged academ1
and thus more firml1 esta-lish .strog as a Slaonic9(ree) cultural center. G5 +is dream neer
materiali$ed0 moreoer% the school itself managed to surie for onl1 a fe4 1ears. The plan 4as
unrealistic for the times. A critical shortage of Cualified personnel e'isted almost eer14here.
*ompetent teachers 4ere all -ut impossi-le to find% especiall1 for the instruction of (ree). In
586A .stro$hs)ii considered hiring seeral (ree) /niates from the (ree) *ollege of St.
Athanasius in Rome% -ut 4ithout success. 2ater he loo)ed to (reece itself. *1ril 2ucaris% the
future patriarch% taught at .strog in 58<: and 58<8. GF .stro$hs)ii also tried to educate students
a-road. An interpreter at the *ouncil of Brest% 3ather ,iprian% seems to hae -een one of these
students. +e studied in ;enice and Padua and then sta1ed for a 4hile on &t. Athos. .stro$hs)ii's
success in these arious endeaors 4as modest. Pro-a-l1 his entire proBect 4as too am-itious for
priate enterprise. Een so% the reno4n 4hich the school at .strog gained 4as Bustified% not so
much for its achieements ?although these 4ere significant@% as for its no-le9spirited pioneering.
3rom the start the .strog communit1 4as deepl1 inoled in the struggle 4ith Roman
propaganda and later 4ith that of the /niates. GA The reform of the calendar introduced in 586F
-1 Pope (regor1 OIII created great agitation G: .pen resistance 4as strong in a num-er of
Cuarters% and in Poland that resistance included some Roman *atholics. #an 2iatos of *raco4
attac)ed it iolentl1. E'pelled from the uniersit1% he moed to .strog 4here he lent
encouragement and support to .rthodo' groups opposing the ne4 calendar. ?2iatos continued his
campaign as late as 5G7A% still in .strog@. Another igorous opponent of the reform 4as (erasim
Smotrits)ii% headmaster of the .strog school in the 5867's. A pamphlet he pu-lished in 586A
sharpl1 denounced it. That same 1ear the *hurch in *onstantinople formall1 reBected the
calendar reform and -rought the dispute to an end for .rthodo' peoples. In Poland and
2ithuania% ho4eer% the controers1 4as )ept alie for seeral more 1ears -1 persistent attempts
to enforce the use of the ne4 calendar throughout the countr1.
3ar more significant than the struggle against calendar reform% and indeed the most
spectacular of all the underta)ings of the .strog communit1% 4as the translation and printing of
the great .strog Bi-le. "ith its pu-lication in 5867 ?reissued in 5865 4ith certain technical
amendments@% the full te't of the Bi-le made its first appearance in *hurch Slaonic. The .strog
Bi-le% as such% remains a landmar) in Slaonic Bi-lical histor1. It a-ides also as a magnificent
achieement in itself% a monument of scholarship% literature% and theolog1.
The .strog Bi-le 4as conceied as a polemic tool and intended for 4ide circulation. In the
Preface% 4ritten -1 (erasim Smotrits)ii% readers 4ere strongl1 4arned against those 4ho%
pretending their course could -e sustained 4ith +ol1 "rit% most -lasphemousl1 dare to follo4
Arius in their teaching.! National Bi-les% of course% hae -een characteristic instruments of
reformationists. The Polish and *$ech Bi-les and the Sloene Bi-le of Primo$ Tru-er G8 are -ut
a fe4 e'amples. In the Russian "est most Bi-le translation also stemmed from a Protestant
A8
milieu% specificall1 from Socinian and Antitrinitarian circles 4ho -ased their la-ors on the *$ech
or% more often% the Polish ersion. ;asilii Tiapins)ii GG translated the (ospels in Belorussia from
the 58=F ersion of S$1mon Budn1% 4hile ;alentin Negales)ii G= made his edition in ;ol1nia
from the Polish Bi-le% 4hich &arcin *$echo4ic$ had pu-lished in *raco4 in 58==. G6 Some of
these ernacular editions are hardl1 more than paraphrases% 4ith confessional -ias plain in the
4ording of the te't and% een more% in the glosses and e'planator1 notes. *ertainl1 all of the
translations of the Bi-le made in "est Russia -1 /nitarians deiated considera-l1 from the
traditional te't of the .rthodo' East. This is een true of the famous Russo9Slaonic Bi-le of
(eorgii ?3rantis$e)@ S)orina of Polots)% printed in Prague in 585=958F7 ?though neer
completed -e1ond the .ld Testament@. G< Based mainl1 on the 587G Bi-le of the Bohemian
/traCuists ?i.e.% *ali'tins@% it 4as connected to the +ussite endeaor% if onl1 indirectl1. =7 In
addition S)orina used the 2atin Postillae perpetuae of Nicholas de 21ra. =5 ,ur-s)ii 4as sharpl1
critical of S)orina's translation. +e lamented that it 4as ta)en from the corrupted #e4ish -oo)s!
and pointed to the similarit1 of the S)orina edition 4ith 2uther's Bi-le. Pro-a-l1 he meant -1
this that -oth translations came from the 2atin ;ulgate% 4hich in turn depended on the +e-re4
te't. The traditional Slaonic te't% of course% 4as -ased on the (ree) Septuagint.
The .strog Bi-le stemmed from a conscious and critical attempt to adhere to the (ree)
te'tual tradition. And the language of translation 4as to -e traditional *hurch Slaonic% not an1
of the ernacular languages. The -asic source for the .strog edition 4as the (ennadii Bi-le =F
?4ith some trou-le o-tained in a clear cop1 from &osco4 through a 2ithuanian diplomat@. This
te't 4as carefull1 chec)ed and reised% 4ith man1 of its 2atinisms! e'purgated in the process.
.n the initiatie of Prince .stro$hs)ii% ne4 manuscripts 4ere sought in the Slaic monasteries of
Bulgaria and Ser-ia% in Roman lands%! and een as far a4a1 as *rete. +e also appealed to the
patriarch of *onstantinople to send relia-le and properl1 corrected manuscripts% as 4ell as
people competent in the +ol1 "ritings% (ree) and Slaonic. It is clear from the Preface%
ho4eer% that the editors of the .strog Bi-le 4ere disma1ed -1 the poor state of the manuscripts
4ith 4hich the1 4or)ed. Too freCuentl1 the te'ts suffered from ariations and corruptions. Still%
for their time% the .strog scholars had rich and ample material at their disposal. The1 consulted
the &assoretic te't =A and the ;ulgate and too) into consideration the ne4 *$ech and Polish
ersions. Then once again the1 chec)ed their te't against the (ree)% using t4o printed editions:
the Aldine Septuagint of 5856 ?;enice@ =: and the great *omplutensian Pol1glot of *ardinal
Oimenes% completed -et4een 585:9585=% -ut not released until 58FF. =8
"ith all its o-ious imperfections% the .strog Bi-le offers a more accurate and relia-le te't
than the famous Si'tus *lementine ersion of the ;ulgate ?58<F@. =G &odern editions of the
Slaonic Bi-le are still essentiall1 -ased on the te't of the .strog Bi-le. The tas) 4hich
confronted its translators and editors 4as enormous0 their accomplishment note4orth1. It
apparentl1 too) this competent team of scholars three to four 1ears to complete the enterprise.
Technical e'pertise 4as rendered -1 Ian 3edoro% 4ho alread1 had a num-er of printing
proBects to his credit% including the introduction of the art of printing to &osco4. Pro-a-l1 more
than an1thing else% the creatie achieement of the .strog Bi-le testifies to the flo4ering of a
cultural and theological renaissance among the .rthodo' of "est Russia to4ard the end of the
si'teenth centur1. .f een greater significance% the adent of this Bi-le reflects a liing and
un-ro)en connection 4ith the B1$antine tradition.
AG
-onstantin ,stro#hskii.
Prince ,onstantin .stro$hs)ii ?58FG95G76@% founder of the .strog communit1% and later the
mon) ;asilii% 4as a controersial figure. +e 4as a-oe all a politician and a diplomat% if not a
statesman. +is approach to religious pro-lems 4as pragmatic and cultural% rather than
theological. As a natie of 2ithuania% .stro$hs)ii 4as more 4esterni$ed! than his friend Prince
,ur-s)ii% 4ho despite his irulent distaste for political and cultural trends in &osco4% and
ho4eer much his scholarship relied on 2atin te'ts and 4estern pu-lications% remained een in
Polish e'ile an adamant &uscoite and ardent (raecophile. .f the t4o% .stro$hs)ii's cultural
hori$ons 4ere pro-a-l1 the -roader% -ut there 4as less coherence in his ie4s. +e 4as prone to
adBustment and compromise% and his politics freCuentl1 acillated. "ithout Cuestion a staunch
defender of .rthodo'1% at the same time he pla1ed a role in preparing the 4a1 for the /nia%
4hich gae cause to those 4ho 4ould -rand him a s1mpathi$er.
In a sense Prince .stro$hs)ii can -e regarded as the first East Slaic ecumenist.! +e had a
deep interest in the reconciliation of all *hristian communions in Poland and 2ithuania% if onl1 to
secure order in the realm. +e pleaded 4ith *hristians to cooperate and to lie in honest co9
e'istence. Een his personal position 4as curiousl1 inoled. Though a firm adherent of the
.rthodo' *hurch% .stro$hs)ii 4as married to a Roman *atholic and )ept close famil1
connections 4ith *alinists and /nitarians. +is eldest son% Prince #anus$% 4as -apti$ed
according to the *atholic rite% and of his other children% onl1 one remained .rthodo'% -ut een
he had a Roman *atholic 4ife. ==
The ecumenical interests of .stro$hs)ii raised suspicion in seeral Cuarters. +e 4as first of
all accused of e'cessie s1mpath1 for the Socinians% 4ho themseles claimed that in4ardl1 he
shared their conictions: Cuamis religionem /nitariam% Cuam in corde amplecte-atur no sit
professus% /nitariorum tamen 3autor et Patronus fuerit.! =6 It is true that .stro$hs)ii admired
their educational s1stem and commitment to cultural alues. And he did not hesitate to turn to
them for help. .n -ehalf of the .rthodo' he commissioned the Socinian &otoila =< to 4rite a
refutation of the famous -oo) of Peter S)arga% .n the /nit1 of the *hurch of (od under .ne
Pastor L. iedosci )osciola Bo$ego pod iedn1m paster$em 1 o (rec)im od te1 iednosci
odstapieniu% $ pre$est oroga 1 upominaniem do narodo4 rus)ich pr$1 (re)ach stoBac1ch% ;ilna%
58==M 67 4ith 4hich the #esuits launched their literar1 campaign to 4in the .rthodo' in Poland
to union 4ith Rome. 65 ,ur-s)ii 4as incensed 4ith .stro$hs)ii's act. &otoila 4as to him a
deput1 of the Antichrist! and a follo4er of the impious Arius% 6F Photinus% 6A and Paul of
Samosata. 6: *hristian leaders hae gone to such e'tremes of insolence and foolishness%! he
decried% that not onl1 do the1 shamelessl1 har-or and nurture these poisonous dragons in their
homes% -ut the1 emplo1 them as defenders and assistants. And 4hat is een more astonishing%
the1 summon them to guard the spiritual *hurch of (od against satanic spirits and commission
them to 4rite -oo)s against the half9*hristian 2atins.! Pro-a-l1 ,ur-s)ii's intransigence 4as
shared -1 onl1 a fe4% 4ith man1 more grateful to .stro$hs)ii for also enlisting heretics! in the
.rthodo' cause. To hesitate or to linger out of scruple 4as too high a ris) in this struggle.
.stro$hs)ii's ecumenical! oertures 4ere not limited to Protestants0 the1 reached to
Roman *atholics as 4ell. .n a num-er of occasions he conferred 4ith the famous #esuit
missionar1 Antonio Posseino% 68 as he did 4ith the Papal Nuncio Bolognetti. 6G Both reported
to Rome that he 4as a-out to -e conerted. .stro$hs)ii -rought along to these deli-erations a
num-er of la1men and clerg1 and 4hen the matter of *hurch unit1 came up een the )ing%
Stephen Bator1% 4as included. It 4as at this time also that .stro$hs)ii considered o-taining
(ree) /niates from St. Athanasius *ollege in Rome to teach at .strog% een though according to
A=
his plan the .strog school 4as to remain a stronghold of strict .rthodo'1. 2ater he persuaded
Adam PocieB ?Poti1@% 6= future /niate metropolitan and the real architect of the /niate *hurch in
Poland% to ta)e hol1 orders% and then% een though PocieB's Roman leanings 4ere no secret%
sponsored his promotion to the episcopate.
.stro$hs)ii actuall1 had his o4n scheme for reunion 4ith Rome and 4as prepared to go to
Rome to confer 4ith the Pope. But 4hen union finall1 came% .stro$hs)ii did not follo4% and at
the *ouncil of Brest conened in 58<G to promulgate reunion% he led the forces of opposition
4hich disrupted the proceedings. 3or 1ears there after he 4as recogni$ed as a leader of the
.rthodo' resistance moement 4hich sprang up in the 4estern lands. .stro$hs)ii 4as not
inconsistent in these acts. +is ision of unit1 4as Cuite different from that negotiated at the /nia.
Eer1thing there had -een accomplished -1 the local -ishops acting clandestinel1 and alone.
This directl1 countered .stro$hs)ii's plan for a thorough and common discussion of all the issues
inoled and prior consent from the *hurches of &osco4 and &oldaia. "hen in the aftermath
of the *ouncil% the .rthodo' *hurch 4as outla4ed in -oth Poland and 2ithuania% .stro$hs)ii
mounted a ferent campaign to get the decision rescinded. Basing his struggle on the right and
necessit1 of religious freedom%! he once again found himself dra4n to4ard the Protestants% 4ho
for some time had suffered discrimination under the la4 and 4hose threat to .rthodo'1 4as no4
eclipsed -1 Roman *atholicism.
Before long the .rthodo' and the Protestants sought to Boin forces in their common struggle
for religious freedom. The onl1 hope for success la1 in concerted action. +aing confederated
their o4n forces in 58=7 through the Sandomier$ *onfession L*onfessio SandomiriensisM% 66 the
Protestants in 58<8 at the end of the S1nod of Toruri too) up the issue of closer cooperation 4ith
the .rthodo'. .stro$hs)ii% in a letter% 4arned this -od1 that a Roman9.rthodo' union 4as in
preparation and proclaimed his o4n solidarit1 4ith the Protestants. +e declared that% in his
opinion% the .rthodo' 4ere distant from the Romans -ut close to the Eangelicals ?i.e.%
*alinists@. 6< In 58<< a Boint conference met in ;ilna% 4ith the .rthodo' represented -1 a small
group led -1 .stro$hs)ii. <7 The immediate order of -usiness 4as to formulate a common polic1
in the struggle for religious freedom. But once the t4o groups 4ere together% the idea of unit1
readil1 arose. To this the clerical mem-ers on the .rthodo' side proed reticent and easie% if
not openl1 hostile. *hief spo)esman for union in the Protestant delegation 4as Simon Theophil
Turnos)ii% president of the *$ech LBohemianM Brethren in Poland. <5 +e argued that under
certain conditions Protestants and .rthodo' could unite% and cited the negotiations held in 5:859
5:8F -et4een the *ali'tins of Prague and the *hurch of *onstantinople% 4hich ended in
agreement. <F
3ollo4ing the ;ilna conference% certain Protestants drafted a memorandum% 4hich
prominentl1 listed points of agreement -et4een Eangelicals and .rthodo' and placed items
reCuiring further discussion in an appendi'. This 4as for4arded to *onstantinople. Although the
.rthodo' did not share in this action% .stro$hs)ii seems to hae s1mpathi$ed 4ith it. &eletius
Pigas% patriarch of Ale'andria and locum tenens of the ecumenical throne% ac)no4ledged receipt
of the missie% <A -ut% reluctant to interfere in Polish affairs% he )ept his repl1 easie and
noncommittal. &eletius did authori$e his e'arch% *1ril 2ucaris% then residing in Poland% to
discuss the proposal at local leels. Apparentl1 nothing 4as done. All in all% it 4as utopian to
e'pect that an .rthodo'9Eangelical union could -e formed to counter the Brest /nion. Still% the
4hole episode 4as of so-er significance for the future. Euring the negotiations -et4een the
Protestants and the .rthodo'% the Cuestion of union 4as posed in terms% 4hich defined unit1 of
faith! as common opposition to the 2atin faith. As a conseCuence the .rthodo' found themseles
A6
in a position 4here their o4n standpoint had to -e 4or)ed out 4ithin the frame of the 4estern
tension: Rome or Reformation.
Although the plan of doctrinal agreement put for4ard at ;ilna receied no further
deelopment% .rthodo'9Protestant cooperation continued. .rthodo' polemists made e'tensie
use of "estern anti9Roman literature% especiall1 on the Cuestion of papal supremac1% 4here the1
regularl1 utili$ed arguments adanced at the great Reformation councils of Basel and *onstance.
<: Kuite popular 4as Ee repu-lica ecclesiastica% the famed -oo) of &arco Antonio de Eominis
?58GG95GF:@% one time Roman Arch-ishop of Spalatro% 4ho left the *hurch of Rome and then for
a period held a position in the *hurch of England. In translation% his -oo) 4as 4idel1 circulated
in manuscript form among Slas of "est Russia. <8 But perhaps more t1pical of the polemical
literature adopted -1 .rthodo' 4riters at this time 4as the Apo)risis% pu-lished in 58<= under
the name of *hristopher 3ilalet ?Philalethes@. It 4as intended as a repl1 to S)arga's -oo) on the
*ouncil of Brest. *laiming that his -oo) 4as a translation% 4hich pro-a-l1 fooled onl1 a fe4% the
author disguised himself ?in a manner freCuent among Socinians 4ho came to the defense of
.rthodo'1@ -ehind a (ree) literar1 pseudon1m% een though it seems his identit1 4as )no4n to
man1 contemporaries. *urrent scholarship has esta-lished% though not 4ith final certaint1% that
he 4as neither an East Sla nor an .rthodo'% -ut the *alinist &artin Broris)i% a Polish diplomat
4ho for a 4hile sered as Stephen Bator1's secretar1. <G +e 4as also an actie participant in the
meetings -et4een Eangelicals and .rthodo' and a close friend of the .stro$hs)ii famil1. <= If
indeed Broris)i 4as the author of the Apo)risis% then it is highl1 plausi-le that .stro$hs)ii for a
second time 4as instrumental in enlisting a Protestant to counter Roman *atholicism on -ehalf
of the people of the (ree) religion.! <6 The author's aim in the Apo)risis 4as to anal1$e the
proceedings of the *ouncil of Brest from a legal and canonical point of ie4. Readil1 discerni-le
in his 4or)% at least in )e1 parts% is the influence of *alin's Institutiones *hristianae. <<
Protestant -ias is most o-ious in the emphasis on the rights of the lait1 in the *hurch and the
minimal authorit1 of the -ishops. A some4hat similiar -ent characteri$es the closing section of
the treatise% deoted to the papac1. +ere the author made e'tensie use of a ne4 and oluminous
-oo) -1 the Eutch scholar Sigrandus 2u--ertus ?588G95GF8@% entitled Ee Papa Romano ?58<:@%
in 4hich the pope is identified 4ith the Antichrist. 577 Apparentl1 2u--ertus' -oo)% too% had
4ide circulation among the .rthodo'% 4ith seeral important 4riters putting it to use: &eletii
Smotrits)ii% 575 in his 2amentation for the .ne Ecumenical Apostolic Eastern *hurch LThrenos%
5G57M 0 Na)harii ,op1stens)ii% in his Pali nodiia0 Stephen Ni$ani% in his Sermon of St. *1ril of
#erusalem on the Anitchrist and his times.! 57F
The impact 4hich Protestant literature had on the .rthodo' faithful should not -e
oerstressed. +o4eer% a taint! of Protestantism 4as thenceforth to remain a part of "est
Russian mentalit1% and een the much stronger 2atin influence of later 1ears did not reall1
eradicate it. 3ar more dangerous% and of greater significance% 4as the ha-it 4hich .rthodo'
4riters acCuired of approaching theological pro-lems in a 4estern frame of reference. To refute
Roman *atholicism is not necessaril1 to strengthen .rthodo'1% and man1 Protestant arguments
against *atholicism are compati-le 4ith .rthodo' principles. Neertheless .rthodo' polemists
un4ittingl1 or carelessl1 emplo1ed them% 4ith the result that on a num-er of matters Protestant
ie4s impercepti-l1 too) hold. There is% of course% a corollar1 historical e'planation. Patristic
literature 4as scarce% a circumstance compounded -1 the general unrelia-ilit1 of contemporar1
(ree) literature. (ree) theolog1 4as at the time passing through a crisis. (ree) scholars
themseles 4ere stud1ing at schools in the "est% in ;enice% Padua% Rome% or else in (enea or
"itten-urg. The1 4ere more often at home in modern 4estern innoations instead of the
A<
traditions of B1$antium. In the si'teenth centur1 the1 4ere usuall1 of Protestant hue% 4hereas
some4hat later the1 too) on a 2atin tint. Suffice it to name the .rthodo' *onfession ?5GAA@ of
*1ril 2ucaris% a document 4hich 4as *alinist in spirit and in letter. And the 4or)s of 2ucaris
4ere )no4n and appreciated in "est Russia. Perhaps this infusion of Protestantism 4as
ineita-le. "hateer the case% under 4estern influence the ancient ideal of .rthodo' culture
-egan to dim and -lur.
There 4as% ho4eer% another solution to the pro-lem of Rome: to a-andon all foreign
learning! and to a-stain from discussion and de-ate. This ie4point or% more properl1% mood%
also spread in 4estern lands during the same period. Its greatest e'ponent 4as Ian ;ishens)ii
?d. -efore 5GFS@. 2ittle is )no4n of his -iograph1% e'cept 4hat can -e gleaned from his
numerous 4ritings. Born in (alicia% ;ishens)ii apparentl1 receied little formal schooling. +e
must hae left for &t. Athos 4hen Cuite 1oung% and he sta1ed there for the rest of his life. ?.nce%
in 5G7G it seems% he returned -riefl1 to his natie land% -ut finding himself no longer at home
there he left again for Athos@. ;ishens)ii referred to himself as a simpleton% a poor 4anderer!
Lgolia)stranni)M and in similar ein countered the intellectual sophistications of the "est 4ith a
doe9li)e simplicit1! and foolishness -efore (od.! +e should not% ho4eer% -e ta)en too
literall1. *areful anal1sis of his 4ritings suggests that he 4as full1 a-reast of the philosophical
and literar1 moements current in Poland and in "est Russia.
;. Peretts 57A states that ;ishens)ii 4as endo4ed 4ith literar1 s)ill and ere.! +e 4as
4ithout Cuestion a 4riter of talent% forceful% direct% freCuentl1 harsh or rude% -ut al4a1s original
and to the point. +is prose is full of igor and humor% occasionall1 scaling to prophetic heights.
;ishens)ii pro-a-l1 learned his manner of argument from the 3athers0 certainl1 the Areopagitica
left an o-ious imprint on his st1le. +e 4as deepl1 rooted in B1$antine soil% though not from
lac) of 4ider learning. +is central emphasis 4as on tradition and this in its most elementar1
sense: go to *hurch% o-e1 the canons and the rules% do not indulge in argument. ;ishens)ii
reBected pagan 4isdom! Lpagans)aia mudrost'M and ornate reason! Lmash)arn1i ra$umM 4ithout
Cualification. +e opposed all scholasticism in its st1le% method% and su-stance and reBected all
refinements of the rhetorical craft! and all e'ternal and 4orldl1 sophistications.! A true mon)%
he had neither taste nor loe for the polish and gloss of ciili$ation. +e addressed himself to
lo4l1 men: . thou simple% unlearned% and hum-le Rusine% hold fast to the plain and guileless
(ospel in 4hich there is concealed an eternal life for thee.! To pagan sophistr1 ;ishens)ii
opposed the simplicit1 of faith% the hum-l14ise .ctoechos.H57: 1et in his o4n 4a1 he% too%
could -e rhetorical. Is it -etter for thee to stud1 the +orologion% l78 the Psalter% the .ctoechos%
the Epistles and the (ospels% and the other -oo)s of the *hurch% and to please (od in simplicit1
and there-1 to gain eternal life% or to grasp the meaning of Aristotle and Plato and -e% called a
philosopher in this life and then go to (ehennaI! ;ishens)ii is here at the heart of the matter.
The threat of the /nia could -e oercome -1 inner effort alone% -1 a rene4al and reial of
spiritual life. .rthodo'1 could not triumph -1 de-ates or resolutions% -ut onl1 through ascetic
faithfulness% hum-le 4isdom% and intense pra1er.
The difficult1 4ith ;ishens)ii's position is that in the gien historical realities it 4as
impossi-le to aoid de-ate. The issues posed demanded response or else the .rthodo' ris)ed
leaing the impression that the1 had nothing to repl1. Reticence or silence 4as not a permanent
alternatie. .pponents needed to -e faced% their challenges met0 and the encounter had to -e at
their leel and on their terms. ;ictor1 4ould not come -1 refraining% -ut -1 preailing. In actual
fact% ;ishens)ii himself did not entirel1 shrin) from interention. It is enough to mention his
Epistle to the Apostate Bishops ?58<= or 58<6@. 57G Still his 4riting is eer14here concerned
:7
4ith the fundamental predicament: the 4orldliness of the contemporar1 *hurch and the lo4ering
of the *hristian standard. ;ishens)ii's approach to the pro-lem 4as thoroughl1 ascetical. The
4orldliness that threatened the *hurch he sa4 as coming from the "est% and its antidote 4as to
hold fast to the tradition of the East. +is 4as not simpl1 a call for passie resistance. It 4as an
initation to enter -attle% -ut a -attle of the spirit% an unseen 4arfare.!
The /nion of "rest0 &"rotherhoods'0 the -iev *onastery of the Caves.
The /nia -egan as a schism and remained a schism. In the apt phrase of the modern church
historian &etropolitan &a)arii ?Bulga)o@% the /nion in 2ithuania% or rather in the "est
Russian lands% originated 4ith an athema.! 57= The /nia 4as fundamentall1 a clerical
moement% the 4or) of a fe4 -ishops% separated and isolated from the communit1 of the *hurch%
4ho acted 4ithout its free and conciliar consent% 4ithout a consensus ple-is% or as 4as lamented
at the time% secretl1 and stealthil1% 4ithout the )no4ledge Lpora$umenie@ of the *hristian
people.! Thus it could not -ut split the .rthodo' *hurch% sunder the communit1 of faith% and
estrange the hierarch1 from the people.
This same pattern 4as follo4ed at a later date in other areas% in Trans1lania and in the
*arpatho9Russian region of +ungar1. The result eer14here 4as a peculiar and a-normal
situation: at the head of .rthodo' people stood a /niate hierarch1. The hierarchs ie4ed their
su-mission to Roman authorit1 as a reunion of the *hurch%! -ut in realit1 the *hurches 4ere
no4 more estranged than eer. "hereas follo4ing its o4n logic% the ne4 /niate hierarch1 too)
the resistance of the people to -e uncanonical diso-edience to esta-lished authorit1% the re-ellion
of an unrul1 floc) against its la4ful shepherds% the .rthodo' -elieers% on their part% sa4 the
resistance to the hierarch1% their so9called diso-edience%! as the fulfillment of *hristian dut1% the
inescapa-le demand of lo1alt1 and fidelit1. Neither priests% nor -ishops% nor metropolitans 4ill
sae us% -ut the m1ster1 of our faith and the )eeping of the Eiine commandments% that is 4hat
shall sae us%! 4rote Ian ;ishens)ii from &t. Athos. And he forth4ith defended the right of the
faithful *hristians to depose and drie out an1 apostate -ishop% lest 4ith that eil e1e or pastor
the1 go to (ehenna.! This 4as ha$ardous adice. But the situation had -ecome fraught 4ith
am-iguit1 and comple'it1.
The /nia in Poland not onl1 ruptured the Eastern *hurch% it also seered the Roman
*atholic communit1. B1 creating a second hol1 -od1 under papal authorit1% it originated a
dualit1 4ithin the 4estern *hurch. 3ull parit1 of rites! 4as neer achieed or recogni$ed% nor
did the t4o floc)s of common o-edience eer -ecome one > indeed% this 4as not called for in
the original agreement. The tensions -et4een East and "est no4 entered into the life of the
Roman *atholic *hurch. As the1 spread% the1 intensified. Thus sociologicall1% the /nia proed a
failure. The onl1 4a1 out of this impasse% or so some came to -eliee% 4as through the gradual
integration ?i.e.% 2atini$ation!@ of the /niate *hurch. This tendenc1 4as reinforced -1 1et
another sentiment. &an1 from the start had ie4ed the Eastern rite as schismatic%! een if
4ithin Roman allegiance. The1 felt it 4as an alien accretion% a tactical concession to -e tolerated
for strategical reasons% -ut destined to gie 4a1 to full integration into a unifoim% that is% 2atin%
rite. +ence the su-seCuent histor1 of the /nia in the Polish92ithuanian State came to -e
dominated -1 Bust this urge for uniformit1% this desire for 2atini$ation.!
It has -een contended -1 some on the Roman *atholic side that this deelopment 4as
normal% a sign of organic life and the proof of italit1. In a sense% this is true. But 4hateer the
case% it must -e recogni$ed that the /nia in its mature form 4as Cuite different from that
conceied in 58<8% and een from that nurtured -1 the earl1 /niate leaders. It has also -een
:5
argued that such a B1$antine! institution could hardl1 hae suried in a state 4hich -1
principle and aspiration 4as 4holl1 4estern% all the more so after seeral East Slaic regions
4ent oer to &usco1 and the more intransigent! .rthodo' groups 4ere remoed from Polish
care. All these are -ut mild and euphemistic 4a1s of sa1ing that in principle /nia meant
Poloni$ation%! 4hich is 4hat happened historicall1. This 4as% of course% one of the original
aims. The interests of the Polish State called for the cultural and spiritual integration of its
*hristian people% and it is for this reason that the state first encouraged and then supported the
/nia. Indeed% that it suried at all 4as due to state interention. But politicall1% too% the /nia
4as a failure. It promoted resistance rather than integration and added to the schism in the
soul%! a schism in the -od1 politic.! The other primal impulse for /nia ?apparentl1 the moing
idea of Roman *atholic missionaries such as Posseino@ sought a true reunion of the
*hurches%! em-racing the 4hole of the Russian *hurch and% if possi-le% all of the Eastern
*hurches. This distinctl1 religious aspiration 4as dealt a fatal -lo4 -1 that 4hich 4as achieed
politicall1 and culturall1% -1 precisel1 4hat has -een praised as the proof of success or italit1.
The /nion of Brest remained as it -egan% a local arrangement! for the most part generated
and presered -1 reasons and forces of non9theological character. The /nion of Brest did not
arise out of a popular religious moement. It 4as the composition of seeral .rthodo' -ishops
then in charge of .rthodo' dioceses in the Polish92ithuanian State together 4ith authorities of
the Roman *hurch and the )ingdom of Poland. .nce it -ecame )no4n that the act 4ould not
command the agreement or s1mpath1 of the full -od1 of the *hurch% it could onl1 continue as a
clandestine affair. Seemingl1 fearful that further dela1 might su-ert the 4hole enterprise%
Bishops PocieB and Terlets)ii ?Terlec)i@ left for Rome. l76 But ne4s of their secret plot -ecame
pu-lic% and een 4hile the1 4ere a4a1 open protest against the /nia -egan in the *hurch. The
*ouncil of Brest 4as conened on their return. It 4as designed for the solemn promulgation of a
fait accompli% not for discussion. But -efore the mem-ers could gather% a split appeared in the
ran)s of the .rthodo'. T4o councils! resulted% meeting simultaneousl1 and moing to opposed
resolutions. The /niate *ouncil! 4as attended -1 representaties of the Polish *ro4n and the
2atin hierarch1% together 4ith seeral hierarchs from the .rthodo' *hurch. It dre4 up an
instrument of .rthodo' allegiance to the +ol1 See% 4hich 4as then signed -1 si' -ishops and
three archimandrites. The .rthodo' *ouncil! 4as attended -1 an e'arch of the ecumenical
patriarch ?Nicephorus@% 57< an emissar1 from the patriarch of Ale'andria ?*1ril 2ucaris@% three
-ishops ?2u)e% the metropolitan of Belgrade% 557 (edeon Bala-an% 555 and &i)hail
,op1stens)ii 55F@% oer t4o hundred clerg1% and a large num-er of la1men assem-led in a
separate cham-er. It disao4ed the /nia and deposed those -ishops in compliance% announcing
its actions in the name and on the authorit1 of the ecumenical patriarch% 4ho held supreme
Burisdiction oer the metropolia of the "est Russian lands. The decisions of the .rthodo'
*ouncil! 4ere denounced -1 the /niate -ishops and > of greater import > repudiated -1 the
Polish State. +enceforth all resistance to the /nia 4as construed as opposition to the e'isting
order% and an1 4riting critical of the act 4as -randed a criminal offense. E'arch Nicephorus% 4ho
presided oer the .rthodo' *ouncil%! 4as prosecuted and sentenced as an agent of a foreign
state. 55A a final measure% it 4as declared that the (ree) faith! 4ould not -e recogni$ed -1 la4.
Those 4ho remained faithful to .rthodo'1 4ould no longer -e simpl1 stigmati$ed as
schismatics! -ut also harassed as re-els.! "hat to this point for the state had -een essentiall1 a
pro-lem of religious unit1! 4as instantl1 transformed into a pro-lem of political lo1alt1.! As
for the .rthodo' -elieers% the1 had no4 to prepare a theological defense of their faith and% more
urgentl1% to fight for legal recognition.
:F
The struggle of the .rthodo' against the enforced /nia 4as a-oe all a manifestation of the
corporate consciousness of the people of the *hurch. At first the main centers 4ere ;ilna and
.strog. But soon 2o came to the fore% to -e Boined at the -eginning of the seenteenth centur1
-1 ,ie. .f more importance 4as the change in the social strata upon 4hich the .rthodo'
apologists could rel1 for s1mpath1 and support. "hereas in the da1s of ,ur-s)ii and .stro$hs)ii
the .rthodo' cause 4as mainl1 supported -1 the high aristocrac1 Ls$lachtaM% in the ne't
generation no-le families e'perienced an e'odus into the /nia or een into the Roman *atholic
*hurch. Stud1 in #esuit schools freCuentl1 precipitated or promoted the e'odus% and cultural
integration into Polish high societ1 inaria-l1 demanded it. Another pressure 4as the e'clusion
of schismatics! from all important positions in the ciil serice% or for that matter in an1 4al) of
life. To replace the aristocrac1 at the front lines of .rthodo' defense to4nsmen came forth. And
4ith the turn of the centur1% the *ossac)s% or more specificall1 the so9called 3ello4ship of
,nights of the Naporo$he Regiment%! too) up the cudgels. 55: In these same 1ears there also
occurred an important institutional shift. The leading role in the defense of .rthodo'1 4as no4
assumed -1 the famous -rotherhoods! L-ratstaM% 4hose net4or) soon spread oer the 4hole of
the 4estern lands.
The origin of the -rotherhoods is still o-scure. ;arious theories hae -een put forth% -ut
none is full1 conincing. The most sensi-le ie4 suggests that the1 -egan as parochial
organi$ations% and at some time in the trou-led 1ears preceding the /nia% pro-a-l1 in the 5867's%
transformed themseles into corporations for the defense of the faith%! 4hereupon the1 receied
ecclesiastical confirmation. The -rotherhoods of ;ilna and 2o had their statutes! approed -1
Patriarch #eremiah in 586G% 558 and then% une'pectedl1% receied ro1al charters. 55G In internal
affairs the -rotherhoods 4ere autonomous. Some also enBo1ed the status of stauropegia0 that is%
the1 4ere e'empt from the Burisdiction of the local -ishop% 4hich in effect placed them directl1
under the rule of the patriarch of *onstantinople. The first -rotherhood to receie such status 4as
2o% follo4ed -1 ;ilna% 2uts)% Sluts)% and ,ie% and still later -1 &ogile. The 2o
-rotherhood for a 4hile een had the patriarch's authorit1 to superise the actions of their local
-ishop% including the right to Budge him as a court of final instance. An1 decision of guilt
rendered -1 the -rotherhood -ore the automatic anathema of the four eastern patriarchs. This
unusual arrangement can onl1 -e e'plained -1 the a-normalit1 of the situation% 4herein the least
dependa-le element in the "est Russian *hurch 4as the hierarch1. Still% to grant such po4er to
la1 -odies 4as a daring enture. No dou-t this unprecedented gro4th of la1 po4er% in all
li)elihood 4ith concomitant a-uses% 4as a strong factor inclining some -ishops to4ards Rome%
in the -elief that Rome might succeed in restoring proper authorit1. The conflict and
estrangement engendered -et4een hierarch1 and lait1 in the aftermath of the /nia -red an
unhealth1 atmosphere deepl1 affecting the religious consciousness of -oth. Indeed% no period in
the life of the "est Russian *hurch 4as more tr1ing than that -et4een the *ouncil of Brest and
the restoration! of the .rthodo' hierarch1 -1 Patriarch Theophanes of #erusalem in 5GF7% -1
4hich time the .rthodo' episcopate 4as almost e'tinct. 55= The misunderstandings and clashes
of these 1ears -et4een -rotherhoods and local *hurch authorities 4ere so numerous and serious
that een the re9esta-lishment of a canonical hierarch1 could not soon restore order to the
*hurch. And the continuance of trou-les 4as merel1 further assured 4hen the Polish State
stu--ornl1 refused to recogni$e this ne4 hierarch1.
The restoration of a canonical hierarch1 4as preceded -1 e'tended negotiations -et4een
Patriarch Theophanes I; and arious circles in "est Russia% 4here he sta1ed for t4o 1ears. +e
then 4ent to &osco4% 4here he had occasion to discuss the situation 4ith the highest authorities
:A
there% Patriarch 3ilaret and Tsar &i)hail. 556 .n his 4a1 home to #erusalem% Theophanes again
isited Poland. +is contacts this time included the *ossac)s% then led -1 +etman Peter
,onasheich9Sagadaichn1% an alumnus of the .strog school% one of the founders of the ,ie
-rotherhood school% and a man of genuine cultural -ent. 55< moes that 4ere hardl1
unpremeditated% Theophanes on t4o occasions arranged to consecrate -ishops% creating in all si'
ne4 hierarchs% among them the metropolitan of ,ie. Seeral of the ne4 -ishops 4ere )no4n for
their learning: Io Borets)ii% former headmaster of the schools at 2o and ,ie% no4 made
metropolitan of ,ie0 lF7 &eletii Smotrits)ii% an alumnus of the ;ilna Academ1% 4ho also had
attended seeral (erman uniersities0 5F5 and E$e)iel ,urtseich% son of a princel1 famil1 and
for a time a student at the /niersit1 of Padua. lFF In spite of such Cualifications% the ne4
.rthodo' hierarchs found themseles at once engaged in a -itter struggle for authorit1. The
/niate *hurch and the Polish State -oth contested the consecrations% claiming that Theophanes
4as an intruder% an imposter% and een a Tur)ish sp1. .nl1 in 5GAF% Bust after the death of ,ing
Sigismund III% 4as the .rthodo' hierarch1 a-le to gain from his successor% ,ing "lad1sla4 I;%
the recognition of la4. 5FA But een then their difficulties 4ere not entirel1 at an end.
The trou-les 4ith the Polish State 4ere not the onl1 ones the .rthodo' -elieers faced. In
general it 4as an untimel1 season% an age of internecine strife and conflict% an era of 4ars and
uprisings. To -e constructie in such conditions 4as not eas1. It 4as difficult to organi$e
s1stematic religious actiit1 and to create a regular school s1stem. It 4as een harder to presere
some form of calmness and clarit1 of thought% so indispensa-le to the life of the mind.
Neertheless Cuite a -it 4as accomplished% although it is still not possi-le to assess its full
significance.
In the field of education the -rotherhoods too) the lead. The1 organi$ed schools% set up
pu-lishing centers% and printed -oo)s. The earl1 -rotherhood schools > li)e the school at .strog
> 4ere planned on the (ree) pattern. After all% the (ree) population in the cities of South
Russia and &oldaia 4as at this time Cuite si$ea-le% 4ith the 4hole region sering as a maBor
area of the (ree) diaspora. 5F: *ontact 4ith *onstantinople 4as freCuent and regular. (ree)
influence could -e felt in eer1thing% and it did not -egin to fade until the end of the seenteenth
centur1. The -rotherhood school at 2o 4as founded -1 an emigre prelate% Arsenius% arch-ishop
of Elassona and a former student of Patriarch #eremiah. 5F8 +ere% after 586G% the (ree) language
-ecame a salient if not the principle feature in the curriculum. Ineita-l1 some of the
nomenclature -ecame (ree). Teachers% for e'ample% 4ere referred to as didascals and students
called spudei. In 58<5 Arsenius compiled a (ree) grammar% 4hich he pu-lished in (ree) and
Slaonic. Based mainl1 on the noted grammar of *onstantine 2ascaris% lFG it also dre4 on the
manuals of &elanchthon% lF= &artin ?,raus@ *rusius% 5F6 and *lenard of 2ouain. 5F< At his
-rotherhood school in 2o% as also in ;ilna and 2uts)% it 4as not unusual for the students to
learn to spea) (ree) fluentl1. Nor 4as there a shortage of aaila-le (ree) literature. The
catalogues of the -rotherhood li-raries list 4hole editions of the classics > Aristotle%
Thuc1dides% and the li)e. Preachers 4ould Cuote from the (ree) te't of the Scriptures in their
sermons. Eer14here (ree) titles 4ere the fashion for -oo)s and pamphlets% and in general the
literar1 language of "est Russia at that time 4as saturated 4ith (ree) terminolog1. Apparentl1
the 4hole spirit of teaching as 4ell as the ethos 4as +ellenic. It is also true that 2atin 4as from
the -eginning a part of the curriculum at the -rotherhood schools. But on the 4hole 2atin
learning! 4as ie4ed as an unnecessar1 frill% or een a dangerous sophistr1.! Na)harii
,op1stens)ii's comment 4as fairl1 t1pical: The 2atini$ers stud1 s1llogisms and arguments%
::
train themseles for disputes% and then attempt to out9de-ate each other. But (ree)s and
.rthodo' Slas )eep the true faith and ino)e their proofs from +ol1 "rit.!
B1 5G58% in the same 1ear that the famous ,ie -rotherhood 4as founded% a colon1 of
learned mon)s 4as in residence in the ,iean &onaster1 of the *aes% gathered there chiefl1
from 2o -1 the ne4 archimandrite and a--ot Elisei Pletenets)ii. 5A7 In 5G5= the Bala-an
printing press 5A5 4as -rought from Striatin to the monaster1% 4here it 4as put to immediate
use. The chief pu-lications 4ere liturgical -oo)s and the 4ritings of the 3athers% -ut other 4or)s
and authors also merit mention. 3irst of all there is the alua-le Slaonic9/)rainian 2e'icon
L2e)si)on Slaeno9Rossis)ii i imen tol)oanieM compiled -1 Pamo ?Pamfil@ Ber1nda% a
&oldaian% and printed in 5GF=.5AF .f the original 4or)s of the ,ie scholars% the most
interesting and significant is the Boo) of Eefense of the +ol1 *atholic Apostolic Ecumenical
*hurch LPalinodiiaM of Na)harii ,op1stens)ii% 4ho in 5GF: succeeded Pletenets)ii as a--ot of
the &onaster1 of the *aes. It 4as composed in repl1 to the /niate -oo)% Eefense of Encounter
the /nit1 of the *hurch L.-rono Bednosci cer)ie4ne1% ?;ilna% 5G5=@M -1 2eo ,resa. 5AA
,op1stens)ii sought in his stud1 to elucidate the eastern understanding of the unit1 of the
*hurch and 4ith great artistr1 su-stantiated his argument -1 the Scriptures and the 3athers. 3rom
his Palinodiia and other 4ritings it is clear that ,op1stens)ii 4as a man of -road erudition. +e
)ne4 the 3athers and 4as acCuainted 4ith B1$antine historians and canonists% as 4ell as modern
-oo)s on the East ?e.g.% *rusius' Tur)o9(raeciae@ and had also read some 2atin -oo)s ?e.g.% Ee
repu-lica ecclesiastica -1 &arco Antonio de Eominis and Ee Papa Romano -1 2u--ertus@.
,op1stens)ii > li)e &a'im the (ree) -efore him > Cuietl1 and so-erl1 reBected 4estern
scholasticism. It is plain that ,op1stens)ii )ne4 his material and had 4or)ed through it on his
o4n. +e 4as neither an imitator% nor simpl1 a factologist% -ut a creatie scholar in the B1$antine
mold. +is Palinodiia% the tas) of man1 1ears% is still a model of lucidit1. /nfortunatel1% it 4as not
pu-lished in his da1 and in fact not until the nineteenth centur1. ,op1stens)ii died soon after its
completion. +is successor at the &onaster1 of the *aes% Peter &ogila% 4as a man of Cuite
different temperament and persuasion. +e could hae had no s1mpath1 for ,op1stens)ii's -oo)%
for it 4as too direct and outspo)en.
Still another name to -e added to the list of earl1 ,iean scholars 4hose 4ritings 4ere
significant is that of 2arentii ?Tustanos)ii@ Ni$ani ?d. after 5GF=@. Before coming to ,ie% he
had taught in 2o and Brest% and had pu-lished in ;ilna in 58<G a Slaonic grammar and a
le'is. .nce in ,ie% Ni$ani turned his talents as a (ree) e'pert to the translation of St. Andre4 of
*rete's *ommentar1 on the Apocal1pse 5A: and to the superision of an edition of St. #ohn
*hr1sostom's homilies. But Ni$ani's main 4or) remains his *atechism L,ate)hi$isM. "hen
completed% the -oo) 4as sent to &osco4 for pu-lication. There it ran into difiiculties. 3irst it had
to -e translated from the 2ithuanian dialect! > as &uscoites denoted the literar1 language of
"est Russia > into *hurch Slaonic. But the translation 4as poorl1 done. In addition%
authorities at &osco4 detected grae doctrinal errors in the -oo). Ni$ani% it seems% held a
num-er of peculiar opinions in all pro-a-ilit1 deried from his foreign sources: Protestant and
Roman *atholic. +e himself escaped condemnation% -ut the printed ersion of his *atechism
4as 4ithdra4n from circulation and in 5GF=% -urned. +o4eer% copies in manuscript form did
surie and receied 4ide dissemination and popularit1. In the course of the eighteenth centur1
the -oo) 4as thrice reprinted -1 the .ld Belieers 5A8 of (rodno. Ni$ani% li)e Ber1nda%
,op1stens)ii and most of the earl1 ,ie scholars% 4or)ed primaril1 in (ree) and Slaonic
sources% and the 4ritings of these learned mon)s reflect an authentic cultural inspiration. But
een as the1 la-ored a ne4 tide 4as rising in that same ,iean milieu.
:8
As the seenteenth centur1 unfolded% ,ie -egan to feel more and more the impact of
2atin learning.! Ne4 generations 4ere of necessit1 turning to 4estern -oo)s and 4ith
increasing freCuenc1 attending #esuit schools% 4here% as if ine'ora-l1% the1 -ecame im-ued 4ith
the 2atin pattern of stud1. Een Elisei Pletenets)ii% in his effort to counteract the /niate initiatie
of &etropolitan ;eliamin Ruts)ii% 5AG seems to hae had a 4estern model in mind 4hen he
sought to create an .rthodo' order.! /nder his direction% communal life at the &onaster1 of the
*aes 4as restored% -ut on the rule of St. Basil rather than the more common Studite Rule. 5A= A
2atin motif can also -e noted in some of the -oo)s pu-lished at that time -1 certain mem-ers
of the circle at the &onaster1 of the *aes. .n occasion this -ias filtered in through tainted
(ree) sources0 at other times it entered directl1 from 2atin literature. Tarasii Nem)a% composer
of laudator1 erses and the learned editor of ,iean liturgical -oo)s% lA6 made considera-le use
of the cele-rated 4or) of (a-riel Seerus on the sacraments% 4hich had appeared in ;enice in
5G77. 5A< Seerus' -oo) 4as permeated -1 2atin influence% if onl1 in the phraseolog1 4hich
Nem)a li-erall1 adopted. ?To ta)e an e'ample% 4here Seerus used metaousiosis%! or the (ree)
eCuialent of transu-stantiation%! Nem)a emplo1ed the Slaonic prelo$henie suchchest! LHthe
metastasis of su-stancesHM@. The influence of 2atin thought is een more pronounced in ,irill
Tran)illion9Staroet9 s)ii. 5:7 +is -oo) &irror of Theolog1 LNertsalo -ogosloiiaM% pu-lished
at the Pochae &onaster1 in 5G56% can -e regarded as the first attempt -1 a ,ie scholar at a
theological s1stem. A su-seCuent stud1% *ommentaries on the (ospel L/chitel noe Eangelie%
printed in 5G56M% is similarl1 concerned 4ith doctrine. Both 4or)s reflect Thomism% and een
something of Platonism. In ,ie and &osco4 the1 4ere censured for heretical errors!
Leretiches)ie sosta1M and sentenced to destruction. But official reBection did not hinder their
spread in manuscripts or mitigate their -road acceptance in the south as 4ell as in the Russian
north. Een so% disappointed that his -oo)s 4ere repudiated -1 his ecclesiastical superiors%
Staroets)ii 4ent oer to the /nia.
Det another figure in 4hom a Thomist influence can -e seen is ,assian Sa)oich ?c. 58=69
5G=:@% headmaster of the ,ie -rotherhood school from 5GF795GF:. It is most transparent in his
.n the soul L. dusheM% printed in *raco4 in 5GF8. 3rom ,ie% Sa)oich 4ent to 2u-lin% 4here
he esta-lished contact 4ith the Eominicans and attended theological classes. +e later continued
this stud1 in *raco4. And finall1% Sa)oich% too% Boined the /nia% after 4hich he launched a
irulent polemic against the .rthodo' *hurch. In this manner% then% in the second and third
decades of the seenteenth centur1 the Roman *atholic st1le of theolog1 -egan to penetrate into
the ,iean scholarl1 communit1. The ne't decade% the 5GA7's% sa4 Roman *atholic domination.
The shift occurred simultaneousl1 4ith a change of administration at the ,ie &onaster1 of the
*aes% 4hen Peter &ogila -ecame a--ot.
/niatis$.
The /nia 4as less an act of religious choice than cultural and political self9determination.
Neither reasons of faith nor of doctrine 4ere fundamental to the secession of the -ishops. The
earl1 /niates 4ere Cuite sincere in contending that the1 did not change the faith.! The1 felt the1
4ere onl1 transferring Burisdictions and seem reall1 to hae -elieed that the 2atin faith! and
the (ree) faith! 4ere identical. This aspect receied considera-le stress in their pamphlet
literature% for e'ample% in the /nia% or A Selection of Principal Articles L/nia% al-o 1)lad
predneishi)h arHti)uloM% pu-lished anon1mousl1% -ut reputedl1 the 4or) of +1patius PocieB% l:5
or in +armon1% or the *oncordance of the &ost +ol1 *hurch of Rome. 5:F &an1 4ere eCuall1
coninced that under Roman o-edience! the1 could still -e .rthodo'. (ree) /niates% too% felt
:G
this 4a1 and made the most stri)ing attempts to argue the case. In particular this 4as so for Peter
Arcudius ?58GF95GAA@ in his Ee concordia Ecclesiae occidentalis in septem sacramentorum
administratione li-ri septem ?Paris% 5G5<@. 5:A Een more nota-le 4as 2eo Allatius ?586G95GG<@
in his Ee Ecclesiae occidentalis atCue orientalis parpetua consensione li-ri tres ?*oloniae% 5G:6@.
5:: Such a notion led to the stipulation in the final agreement that the /niate *hurch 4as not to
-e merged 4ith the Roman *atholic *hurch -ut 4ould retain its o4n hierarchical independence
and ritual. It 4as a clause accepta-le een to a man li)e .stro$hs)ii. +e ended an opponent of
the /nia% not -ecause he perceied it to -e a -etra1al of faith% -ut -ecause he )ne4 the action
4as ta)en in an unla4ful manner and therefore could hae neither authorit1 nor releance for the
4hole *hurch.
Those 4ho first turned to /niatism seem to hae -een tempted -1 undistur-ed peace!
under Roman o-edience% 4hich -1 implication meant the protection of Polish la4. The1 also
hoped to li-erate themseles from the authorit1 of the patriarch of *onstantinople% long under the
control of the Infidel Tur). .thers of the earl1 /niates 4ere more dra4n to the splendors of
4estern ciili$ation and 4ished to parta)e in its riches. And there 4as a certain disenchantment
4ith the East. .ne of the founders of the /nia% +1patius PocieB% 4ho -ecame the second /niate
metropolitan% declared in a letter to the Patriarch of Ale'andria &eletius Pigas: Dou cannot -e
sure of attaining eternal life -1 heading for the (ree) shore. . . . The (ree)s distort the (ospel.
The1 malign and -etra1 the Patristic heritage. Saintliness is de-ased% and eer1thing has come
apart or fallen into discord in the Tur)ish captiit1. . . . *alin sits in Ale'andria% instead of
Athanasius% 2uther in *onstantinople% and N4ingli in #erusalem! ?Presuma-l1 PocieB 4as
referring to *1ris 2ucaris and to Pigas himself% -oth of 4hom had Protestant leanings@. 5:8 And
so PocieB chose Rome. No longer 4as the 4ellspring of truth! Lstudenets prad1M in the East%
onl1 in the "est could a pure faith and a sta-le order -e found.
As earl1 as 58==% Peter S)arga 5:G had pointed not to doctrinal differences -ut to the
(ree) apostas1! and to the -ac)4ardness of Slaic culture.! "ith the Slaonic tongue one
cannot -e a scholar. It has neither grammar nor rhetoric% nor can it -e gien an1. Because of this
language the .rthodo' hae no schools -e1ond the elementar1 4hich teach reading and 4riting.
+ence their general ignorance and confusion.! +is Budgment is harsh and 4rong% though the
narro4mindedness it e'presses is fairl1 t1pical of the time. +o4eer true it ma1 -e that the
Polish language 4as still not mature enough to sere as a ehicle of learning% the same cannot -e
said of *hurch Slaonic. S)arga 4as una4are of the difference% or he chose to ignore it. As he
assessed the situation% the onl1 remed1 for the ignorance of the Slas 4as the adoption of 2atin
culture. +is attac) did not go unans4ered. .rthodo' defenders such as Na)harii ,op1stens)ii
4ould repl1 that the Slaonic tongue is )in to the language and culture of (reece% and therefore%
it is a safer and surer thing to ma)e translations from the (ree) and to 4rite philosoph1 and
theolog1 in Slaonic than it is to use 2atin% 4hich is an impoerished tongue% too inadeCuate and
too insufficient for loft1 and inoled theological matters.! 5:= ,op1stens)ii e'aggerates as
much as S)arga% onl1 4ith the o-erse. But the distinction the1 point to is a alid one.
3rom the outset% then% /niatism 4as posed and perceied as a Cuestion of cultural
determination. 3or /nia implied% regardless of all assurances or guarantees that the rites and
customs of the East 4ould -e presered% an inclusion or integration into 4estern culture% or as the
(ermans sa1% a 4estern ,ulturraum. To state it -adl1% /nia meant religio9cultural 4esterni$ation.
It could onl1 -e resisted and oercome -1 steadfast allegiance to the (ree) tradition. This 4as
full1 comprehended -1 those 4ho to4ard the end of the si'teenth and the -eginning of the
seenteenth centuries rose to the defense of the .rthodo' *hurch. It is enough to mention the
:=
eloCuent indication made -1 (erasim Smotrits)ii in his ,e1 to the ,ingdom .f +eaen L,liuch
tsarsta ne-esnago% 586:M% and -1 Na)harii ,op1stens)ii in his Palinodiia seeral decades later.
Their concern 4as also shared -1 the founders of the -rotherhood school in ,ie:
"e hae founded -1 the grace of (od this school for .rthodo' children% and hae proided
it at great sacrifice 4ith teachers of the Slaono9Russian and +elleno9(ree) languages% as 4ell
as of other su-Bects% in order that the1 not drin) from the alien spring% and% haing im-i-ed the
fatal poison of the schism of the "est% -e inclined to Boin forces 4ith the dar) and dismal
Romans.
The onl1 cultural concession of the .rthodo' lo1alists 4as the supplementation of *hurch
Slaonic 4ith the local ernacular% the russ)ii diale)t. "ith the passage of time this dialect came
into increasing literar1 use -ecause the common people understood it much -etter than *hurch
Slaonic. It also came into occasional use in the spo)en liturg1% or so it seems from the I.enten
Triodion% 4hich 4as printed in ,ie in 5GF=.5:6 Thus% as the /nia and its inherent
4esterni$ation spread% a concerted effort arose in Poland to defend .rthodo'1. The issue no4 at
hand 4as 4hether% confronted -1 this e'panding 4estern ,ulturraum% a Slaono9+ellenic school
and culture could surie. In the 5GF7's it 4as alread1 an urgent issue0 in the 5GA7's it -ecame a
-urning one.
*etroolitan Peter *ogila of -iev.
In the person of Peter &ogila ?58<G95G:=@ there is something enigmatic and strange. "as he
a sincere champion of .rthodo'1 or a manipulatie hierarch of geniusI It is hard to Budge.
"hateer the case% that he pla1ed a decisie role in the life of the "est Russian *hurch% and%
indirectl1% in the later life of the 4hole Russian *hurch is indisputa-le. +e 4as the most a-le and
po4erful *hurch leader in Poland and 2ithuania in the 4hole of the seenteenth centur1. And it
is appropriate that an entire era in the histor1 of the "est Russian *hurch -ears his name: the
&ogila epoch. Son of a hospodar of &oldaia 4oeodich $emel' moldas)i)hM% 5:< &ogila
seems to hae had from -irth an appetite and talent for po4er. Een on the throne of the ,iean
metropolia he proed more a soereign than a pastor. Educated in the "est% or% more e'actl1% in
Poland and in a Polish fashion% Peter &ogila -ecame in taste and ha-it a sophisticated and
lifelong 4esterner. Apparentl1 he studied at the cele-rated Academ1 of Namosc% founded in 58<:
-1 #an Namo1s)i% the (rand *hancellor of Poland% l87 and seems later to hae spent a short
4hile in +olland. /pon the death of his father% Ieremia &ogila% he 4as ta)en as the 4ard of
*hancellor Stanisla4 Nol)ie4s)i 585 and after4ards of +etman *hod)ie4ic$. 58F In general
4hile a 1outh &ogila% through famil1 and friends% 4as closel1 lin)ed to Polish aristocratic
societ1. And in the future the s1mpath1 and succor of Polish magnates 4ould assure his
ocational success.
In 5GF=% at Bust thirt1 1ears of age% Peter &ogila 4as elected archimandrite of the &onaster1
of the *aes. +e pro-a-l1 aspired to this 4hen he too) monastic o4s and first entered the
monaster1. *ertainl1 4hen the post -ecame acant his candidac1 4as promoted -1 the Polish
goernment. .nce head of the monaster1% &ogila set his o4n course% 4hich sharpl1 contrasted
4ith that of his predecessor. This 4as most eident in the field of education. At the monaster1
&ogila decided to launch a 2atin9Polish school% ineita-l1 if not intentionall1 opposed to and in
competition 4ith ,ie's Slaono9+ellenic -rotherhood school. +is decision created great tension
-ordering on a riot in the cit1. In the 4ords of a contemporar1% (ariil Eomets)oi% 58A There
4as great indignation among the uneducated mon)s and *ossac)s: '"h1% as 4e 4ere gaining
salation% do 1ou start up this Polish and 2atin school% neer -efore in e'istenceI' .nl1 4ith
:6
great difficult1 4ere the1 dissuaded from -eating Peter &ogila and his teaching staff to death.!
58: But &ogila 4as no man to -e frightened. +e emerged unscathed and soon after triumphed.
The -rotherhood had no choice -ut to accept him as an elder -rother% a protector and patron of
this hol1 -rotherhood% the monaster1% and the schools.! Pressing his adantage% &ogila first too)
oer the administration of the -rotherhood school and then com-ined it 4ith his o4n school at
the monaster1 to form a collegium! on the 2atin9Polish pattern. This ne4 institution 4as housed
in the Brotherhood monaster1. Its curriculum and organi$ation 4ere modelled on the lines of
#esuit schools in the countr1% and all ne4 teachers 4ere recruited from graduates of Polish
schools. Isaia Trofimoich ,o$los)ii% the first rector of the ,iean collegium% l88 and Silestr
,osso% the first prefect% receied their education in ;ilna% at the #esuit college in 2u-lin% and at
the Namosc Academ1. It seems that for a 4hile the1 also studied at the Imperial Academ1 of
;ienna. In the same manner% and at the same time he 4as engaged in organi$ing the ne4 school
at ,ie% &ogila set a-out to form a school in ;innitsa. l8G There is reason to -eliee that &ogila
had plans for spreading across the region a net4or) of 2atin9Polish schools for the .rthodo'% as
4ell as for creating something li)e a monastic teaching order% all under the ,ie collegium. 58=
&ogila 4as an aid and resolute 4esterni$er. +is aim 4as to forge the heterogeneous
peoples of the 4estern regions into a single religious ps1cholog1 and inspiration% into a common
culture. Attending all his plans and endeaors% mostl1 -ut the s1mptom of a clash -et4een t4o
opposed religious cultural orientations ?2atin9Polish and +elleno9Slaonic@% 4as an intense% if
su-merged struggle. &ogila 4as not alone in his proBects. +is numerous allies included the
4hole of the 1ounger generation% 4hich% haing passed through Polish schools% had come to
regard the 2atin "est rather than the Slaonic9+ellenic East as its spiritual home. In a sense% this
4as natural and logical. Silestr ,osso 4as eloCuent and direct on the issue. "e need 2atin% he
4ould sa1% so that no one can call us stupid Rus! Lglupaia Rus'M. To stud1 (ree) is reasona-le% if
one studies it in (reece% not in Poland. +ere no one can succeed 4ithout 2atin > in court% at
meetings% or an14here for that matter. There is no need to remind us of (ree). "e honor it. But
(raeca ad chorum% 2atina ad forum. ,osso's argument has logic. But the root of the matter 4as
deeper. At one leel it 4as a linguistic pro-lem% -ut at a more profound leel it 4as an issue of
cultural setting and tradition.
3or those opposed to the pressures -1 &ogila's follo4ers for a 2atin education there 4ere
good reasons for the suspicion that this 4as /niatism. "ere not the .rthodo' partisans of a 2atin
orientation time and again in conference or negotiation 4ith actie /niates% anticipating a
compromise to 4hich -oth sides could 4holeheartedl1 adhereI Eid the1 not more than once
discuss a proposal to Boin all .rthodo' -elieers in the region% /niates and non9/niates ali)e%
under the authorit1 of a special "est Russian patriarch% simultaneousl1 in communion 4ith
Rome and *onstantinopleI And 4as not &ogila himself al4a1s promoted for this august office
-1 the /niate side of the tal)sI This 4as% of course% hardl1 4ithout his )no4ledge. Ruts)ii% the
/niate metropolitan% did not dou-t for a moment that &ogila 4as inclined to the /nia.! It is
certainl1 significant that &ogila neer oiced doctrinal o-Bections to Rome. In dogma% he 4as
priatel1% so to spea)% alread1 at one 4ith the +ol1 See. +e 4as Cuite read1 to accept 4hat he
found in Roman -oo)s as traditional and .rthodo'.! That is 4h1 in theolog1 and in 4orship
&ogila could freel1 adopt 2atin material. The pro-lem for him% the onl1 pro-lem% 4as
Burisdiction. And in the solution of this pro-lem his outloo) and temperament dictated that
practical concerns 4ould -e decisie: ecclesiastical and political tranCuilit1! Luspo)oenieM%
prosperit1! L-lagosostoianieM% good order! L-lagoustroistoM. 3or in the practical realm
:<
eer1thing is relatie. Things can -e arranged and agreed upon. The tas) is one for ecclesiastical
tacticians.
An earl1 and reealing episode in &ogila's career 4as his friendship 4ith one of the ne4
-ishops% &eletii Smotrits)ii% consecrated -1 Patriarch Theophanes precisel1 at the time of his
eastern peregrinations.! Smotrits)ii 4as a learned man. Because of his Slaic grammar%
pu-lished in ;ilna in 5G5<% he occupies a place in the histor1 of general culture. It 4as a
remar)a-le achieement for its time. It can een -e argued that Smotrits)ii 4as > to -orro4
#oseph Eo-ros)ii's l86 phrase princeps (rammaticorum Slaicorum.! "hen he 4rote this te't%
he 4as still of a (ree) orientation. In it he sought to appl1 the rules of (ree) grammar to the
Slaonic tongue. 58< As an ecclesiastic% too% Smotrits)ii -egan in the Slaonic9+ellenic camp
4here he 4as a igorous opponent of the /nia. It is enough to point to his 2amentation
LThrenosM 4ritten in 5G57% 4hich descri-es the sufferings of the oppressed and persecuted
.rthodo' floc) 4ith a s)illful com-ination of passion and rigor. It is li)el1 that this and similar
4ritings led to his selection in 5GF7 as -ishop of Polots). +ere he ran into difficulties. 3irst there
4as conflict 4ith Iosafat ,untseich% /niate -ishop of Polots)0 lG7 then he 4as trou-led -1
doctrinal disagreements among .rthodo' polemists as 4ell as a-uses in the actiit1 of the
-rotherhoods. Eou-ts arose% so Smotrits)ii decided on a trip to the Near East. At ,ie% on his
4a1 to *onstantinople% he isited the metropolitan and receied encouragement and -lessing in
his plan to as) the patriarch to cancel the stauropegia! of the -rotherhoods. Smotrits)ii
succeeded in doing so% -ut the rest of his eastern Bourne1 proed a disappointment. This 4as
especiall1 so of his meeting 4ith *1ril 2ucaris% 4hose *atechism Smotrits)ii read 4hile in
*onstantinople and 4ho not onl1 failed to calm his dou-ts -ut heightened them all the more. B1
the end of his Bourne1 Smotrits)ii had decided to see) some rapproachment 4ith the /niates.
Bac) in ,ie he shared certain of these ideas 4ith &ogila and &etropolitan Io% lG5 4ho 4ere
apparentl1 s1mpathetic. After all% negotiations -et4een the .rthodo' and the /niates% in 4hich
-oth seem someho4 to hae -een inoled% had -een in progress since the /niate proposal in
5GFA for a Boint conference to see) out agreement. Some4hat later% 4ith apparent confidence%
Smotrits)ii sent to &ogila and the metropolitan the manuscript of his Apolog1 LApologia
peregr1nac1i do )raBd4 4schodnich ?Eerman% 5GF6@M. It contained a full and igorous
presentation of his ne4 ie4s% and proo)ed no opposition. B1 this time% it seems since 5GF=%
Smotrits)ii had gone oer to the /nia% though secretl1% in order% as he put it% that pallio
schismatis latens%! he might -etter promote the /niate cause among the .rthodo'. +o4eer% his
clandestine la-ors did not escape the attention of Isaia ,opins)ii% -ishop of Perem1shl and future
metropolitan. 5GF
In the spring of 5GF6 Smotrits)ii formulated a si' point memorandum% 4herein% after noting
the differences -et4een Roman *atholicism and .rthodo'1% he insisted that the1 4ere not of
sufficient magnitude or of such a character as to Bustif1 diision% and su-mitted this to a
conference of .rthodo' -ishops at (rod)o% in ;ol1nia. .nce again% it seems% no open o-Bection
to his ie4s 4as oiced. +ence a Boint meeting 4ith the /niates 4as scheduled for the autumn of
5GF<. +o4eer% 4ell -efore% at a plenar1 council of .rthodo' -ishops and clerg1 in August
5GF6% opponents of Smotrits)ii's ideas stepped forth in force. +e 4as compelled to recant his
Apolog1% 4hich 4as condemned as heretical and then pu-licl1 -urned. "ithin 4ee)s% ho4eer%
Smotrits)ii had% -1 means of a protestation% 4ithdra4n his disao4al% and -1 means of arious
pamphlets em-ar)ed on a polemical e'change 4ith his accusors. 2eading the opposition 4ere
mem-ers of the older .rthodo' generation% among 4hom suspicions arose a-out &ogila and the
metropolitan% since neither had called for a recantation or condemned its 4ithdra4. The1 could
87
hardl1 hae done so. Smotrits)ii's increasing empath1 4ith the /nia had -een of interest to
&ogila for some time% and there 4ere reasons for Smotrits)ii to suspect that his /nia plans
4ould hae the s1mpath1 and cooperation not onl1 of &ogila -ut of the metropolitan as 4ell.
"hat disagreement there 4as -et4een &ogila and Smotrits)ii 4as not a-out ends -ut means.
And the entire episode 4as all the more confused -1 an e'ternal pressure% referred to in /niate
literature as the fear of the *ossac)s.!
Peter &ogila's election as metropolitan of ,ie also transpired under peculiar
circumstances. "ith the death of ,ing Sigismund III% the .rthodo'% in April% 5GAF% sei$ed the
occasion of the election of a ne4 )ing to 4rest from the Polish electoral Eiet certain points of
pacification for the (ree) religion! LPun)t1 uspo)oeniia religii greches)oiM% among them
legali$ation of the .rthodo' *hurch. As e'pected% the consent of ,ing9elect "lad1sla4 I;
rapidl1 follo4ed. Eespite a su-seCuent 4hittling do4n of the points of 5GAF%! in practice% the
ictor1 remained. Though its phrasing 4as patentl1 am-iguous% of particular importance 4as the
right of the .rthodo' to fill their acated sees% including that of ,ie. In fact the sees had all
-een occupied since 5GF7 through the consecrations performed 4ithout announcement or
pu-licit1 -1 Patriarch Theophanes. The consecrations 4ere done at night in an unlighted
sanctuar1% as if -1 stealth% so as not to cause an1 distur-ance. These consecrations% of course% had
neer receied official recognition% -ut the Polish State seems to hae come to terms 4ith the fait
accompli% if onl1 -ecause it could hardl1 aoid dealing 4ith the ne4 -ishops. No4 in 5GAF% 4ith
the ne4 legal concession% it 4ould -e reasona-le to e'pect that 4hat 4as de facto 4ould -e made
de Bure. But nothing of this sort occurred. The .rthodo' themseles% strangel1 enough% made no
attempt to ta)e adantage of the ne4 la4 -1 appl1ing for ro1al confirmation of their actie
hierarch1. It 4as decided instead that all the old -ishops should retire and their -ishoprics -e
turned oer to ne4 elects. This 4as not done -ecause the episcopal occupants 4ere in an1 4a1
considered to -e illegal%! that is% in office 4ithout the confirmation of the *ro4n% nor -ecause
the *hurch Budged them to -e of Cuestiona-le merit. Indeed% the1 could -e credited 4ith haing
restored -oth order and canonical prestige to the *hurch in a time of real and present danger. It
4as simpl1 that% although the old -ishops ma1 hae pla1ed a preponderant role in the protracted
struggle 4ith the state in order to o-tain recognition% the ictor1 itself 4as the 4or) of 1ounger
figures% partisans of a ne4 and opposing ecclesiastical9political orientation% 4ho had little
interest in strengthening the hierarchical authorit1 of their antagonists -1 a formal legali$ation.
*onseCuentl1% 4hat on the -asis of the points of 5GAF! had -een touted as a restitution! of the
.rthodo' hierarch1% 4as in realit1 an annulment of the e'isting hierarch1% esta-lished 1ears
earlier -1 Patriarch Theophanes. Ne4 -ishops 4ere no4 hastil1 and uncanonicall1 chosen -1 the
.rthodo' delegates to the Eiet rather than -1 local diocesan conentions and immediatel1
confirmed -1 the ,ing. It 4as in this 4a1 that Peter &ogila% aristocrat and Polonophile% 4as
elected metropolitan of ,ie.
&ogila did not e'pect a peaceful reception in ,ie in his ne4 capacit1% een though he had
man1 s1mpathi$ers there. ,ie alread1 had a metropolitan% Isaia ,opins)ii% consecrated in 5GF7
in Perem1shl -1 Theophanes and then translated to ,ie in 5GA5 at the death of Io Borets)ii.
"hat is more% ,opins)ii had alread1 clashed 4ith &ogila oer the esta-lishment of a 2atin
collegium in ,ie as 4ell as in connection 4ith the Smotrits)ii affair. This is 4h1 &ogila's
consecration too) place not in the cit1 of his ne4 see as 4as the rule and custom% -ut in 2o% at
the hands of Ieremia Tisaros)ii% the local -ishop% lGA t4o -ishops of Theophanes' consecration%
and an emigre (ree) -ishop. These clashes also e'plain 4h1 he sought patriarchal confirmation
from *1ril 2ucaris% 4ho 4as once again on the ecumenical throne. &ogila receied this and
85
more. +e 4as also -esto4ed 4ith the title E'arch of the Throne of the +ol1 Apostolic See of
*onstantinople.! 3ortified no4 4ith a consecration of dou-le authorit1% and in the dual role of
la4ful metropolitan and patriarchal e'arch% &ogila returned to ,ie. Een so% he 4as not a-le to
aoid a grieous struggle 4ith his demoted! predecessor and finall1 had to resort to the secular
authorities to secure ,opins)ii's forci-le remoal. lG: Nor did this once and for all sole the
conflict. The clash -et4een &ogila and ,opins)ii 4as not simpl1 a competition for position or
po4er. It 4as a collision of deep9rooted conictions a-out the fundamental pro-lem of
ecclesiastical orientation% in -oth its political and cultural dimensions.
Isaia ,opins)ii 4as a man of simple and strong faith% some4hat on the order of Ian
;ishens)ii. 5G8 Immersed as he 4as in the traditions of eastern theolog1 and ascetics% he ie4ed
e'ternal 4isdom! 4ith s)epticism and een antagonism.
The reasoning of this 4orld is one thing% the reasoning of the spirit another. All the saints
studied the spiritual reasoning coming from the +ol1 Spirit% and li)e the sun% the1 hae
illuminated the 4orld. But no4 one acCuires his po4er of reasoning not from the +ol1 Spirit% -ut
from Aristotle% Plato% *icero% and other pagan philosophers. And therefore% people are utterl1
-linded -1 falsehood and seduced from right understanding. The saints learned of *hrist's
commandments and of his 4or)s in the spirit. But these people learn mere 4ords and speech% and
therefore all their 4isdom is on their tongues and dar)ness and gloom a-ide in their souls.
,opins)ii said this of the 2atins% -ut it could hae -een een more easil1 directed at &ogila
and the .rthodo' of the ne4 orientation. ,opins)ii's Spiritual Alpha-et% su-titled 2adder for the
Spiritual 2ife in (od LAlfait du)hon1i. 2estnitsa du)honago po Bo$e $hitel 'staM offers a
significant and s1mptomatic contrast to &ogila's .rthodo' *onfession LPraoslanoe
IspoedanieM .5GG Their antithesis of outloo) and spirit is the main source for the struggle for
po4er -et4een the t4o men. .f course there 4as also a difference of political orientation: Isaia
,opins)ii loo)ed to the .rthodo' state of &usco1% 4hile Peter &ogila sought help from the
*atholic ,ingdom of Poland. In their clash the Polish state had no reason to support ,opins)ii
and eer1 reason to patroni$e &ogila. 3aced 4ith igorous protests from Rome% the Polish
Roman *atholic hierarch1% and the /niates% ,ing "lad1sla4 I; 4as o-liged if onl1 for raisons
d'etat to hold to his commitment made in the Pacta conenta of 5GAF% although he did find it
necessar1 to ma)e certain concessions to the /niates at the e'pense of the ne4 rights of the
.rthodo'. "lad1s)a4 hoped% it seems% that oer the course of time the 4estern orientation of his
ne4 .rthodo' leaders might mitigate .rthodo'9/niate tension and een promote the cause of
*atholic unit1 in the realm. It should -e noted that 4ithin a fe4 1ears a plan of a uniersal
union! Luniersal naia uniaM did come forth% and at the center of negotiations there stood
.rthodo' of the ne4 orientation% most nota-l1 Peter &ogila as 4ell as Prince Afanasii Pu$ina
4ho in the elections of 5GAF had -een chosen -ishop of 2uts). 5G= .nce ensconced as
metropolitan% &ogila set out 4ith ne4 $eal to implement his ecclesiastical and cultural designs.
+is -est results came in the field of education% especiall1 ?since he 4as most gifted as an
organi$er@ in consolidating and e'tending the school s1stem he -egan 4hen a--ot of the
&onaster1 of the *aes. .f great importance also 4as his pu-lication 4or)% in particular his
compilation of the .rthodo' *onfession and resumption of the printing of liturgical materials.
&ost critical for the future 4ere &ogila's efforts to reise and reform the liturgies. 3irst there
4as the 2ithos LRoc)M% pu-lished in 5G:: under the pseudon1m of Eseii Pimen. It 4as
intended as a defense of the Eastern rite and .rthodo' liturg1 against the attac)s of ,assian
Sa)oich% 4ho had gone oer to 2atinism% lG6 -ut much if not most of the large -od1 of
liturgical material in the 2ithos came from 2atin sources. In 5G:G there appeared the famous
8F
E)hologion or Tre-ni) LPra1er Boo)M .5G< This consisted of a comprehensie collection of
rites% offices% and occasional pra1ers% accompanied -1 prefaces! and e'planator1 ru-rics%!
4hich 4ere accompanied -1 e'planator1 articles usuall1 ta)en $ lacins)ie1 agend1%! that is%
from the Roman Ritual of Pope Paul ;. l=7 &an1 of the rites in the Tre-ni) had -een reshaped%
usuall1 -1 replacing traditional pra1ers 4ith pra1ers translated from the 2atin. There has -een no
comprehensie stud1 of &ogila's Tre-ni)% -ut those portions 4hich hae -een anal1$ed -etra1
an unmista)a-le dependenc1 on the 2atin sources% and from time to time a deli-erate deiation
from the (ree) pattern ?e.g.% in the forms for the dedication and consecration of churches% in the
-lessing of -ells% in the rite of iaticum%! 5=5 in the ordo commendationis ad animae . . .@. 5=F
No dou-t some of the changes 4ere inconseCuential. "hat cannot -e dismissed% ho4eer% is the
close attention gien to 2atin rites and regulations and the open disregard of the (ree) tradition.
&oreoer% a num-er of the rites and offices printed in the Tre-ni) 4ere totall1 innoatie for
.rthodo' liturgies. 3inall1% some of the changes introduced -1 &ogila -ore theological
implications of importance% as for e'ample% the shift from the declaratie to the imperatie form
of a-solution in the sacrament of Penance. Indeed% as a 4hole the theolog1 of the sacraments
articulated in &ogila's liturgical prefaces! 4as decidedl1 4estern. "hat resulted from the
Tre-ni)% then% 4as a radical and thorough 2atini$ation! of the Eastern rite. This did not escape
the notice of contemporaries% especiall1 the /niates% -ut also the .rthodo' of &osco4% 4ho
regarded -oo)s of 2ithuanian print%! including the ,ie editions of &ogila% 4ith suspicion and
apprehension. Ironicall1% -ecause of the liturgical 4or) of &ogila and his co9la-orers% the
.rthodo' in Poland e'perienced a 2atini$ation of rites! earlier than did the /niates. In fairness
it should -e noted that &ogila 4as not the first of the .rthodo' in ,ie to -orro4 from 2atin
liturgical sources. Io Borets)ii too) steps in this direction% as for e'ample% in the 2enten rite of
Passias.! 5=A Nor 4as &ogila the originator of that process of cultural a-sorption of 2atin
liturgical ideas and motifs. .thers preceded him. Still in this trend to4ard the 2atini$ation! of
the liturg1 &ogila stands 4ell to the fore -ecause he promoted it on a larger scale and more
s1stematicall1 than an1one else.
To interpret the reign of Peter &ogila 4ith precision is difficult. It has -een argued that
&ogila sought to create an occidental .rthodo'1%! and there-1 to disentangle .rthodo'1 from
its o-solete! oriental setting. The notion is plausi-le. But ho4eer &ogila's moties are
interpreted% his legac1 is an am-iguous one. .n the one hand% he 4as a great man 4ho
accomplished a great deal. And in his o4n 4a1 he 4as een deout. /nder his guidance and rule
the .rthodo' *hurch in "est Russia emerged from that state of disorientation and
disorgani$ation 4herein it had languished eer since the catastrophe at Brest. .n the other hand%
the *hurch he led out of this ordeal 4as not the same. *hange ran deep. There 4as a ne4 and
alien spirit% the 2atin spirit in eer1thing. Thus% &ogila's legac1 also includes a drastic
Romani$ation! of the .rthodo' *hurch. +e -rought .rthodo'1 to 4hat might -e called a 2atin
pseudomorphosis.! True% he found the *hurch in ruins and had to re-uild% -ut he -uilt a foreign
edifice on the ruins. +e founded a Roman *atholic school in the *hurch% and for generations the
.rthodo' clerg1 4as raised in a Roman *atholic spirit and taught theolog1 in 2atin. +e
Romani$ed! the liturgies and there-1 2atini$ed! the mentalit1 and ps1cholog1% the er1 soul
of the .rthodo' people. &ogila's internal to'in%! so to spea)% 4as far more dangerous than the
/nia. The /nia could -e resisted% and had -een resisted% especiall1 4hen there 4ere efforts to
enforce it. But &ogila's cr1pto9Romanism! entered silentl1 and impercepti-l1% 4ith almost no
resistance. It has of course often -een said that &ogila's accretions! 4ere onl1 e'ternal%
inoling form not su-stance. This ignores the truth that form shapes su-stance% and if an
8A
unsuita-le form does not distort su-stance% it preents its natural gro4th. This is the meaning of
pseudomorphosis.! Assuming a Roman gar- 4as an alien act for orthodo'1. And the
parado'ical character of the 4hole situation 4as onl1 increased 4hen% along 4ith the stead1
2atini$ation! of the inner life of the *hurch% its canonical autonom1 4as steadfastl1 maintained.
"hile striing to )eep the .rthodo' *hurch in Poland independent% &ogila and his
confreres of the ne4 orientation )ept to their plans for a uniersal union.! As earl1 as 5GAG% a
Boint conference 4as sought -et4een /niates and .rthodo' to consider a proposal for an
autonomous "est Russian patriarchate. Rome 4as een assured that the scheme 4ould attract
man1 .rthodo'% including perhaps the metropolitan. But for some reason the conference neer
materiali$ed. Det another proBect 4as adanced in 5G:A% this time in a special memorandum
su-mitted -1 Peter &ogila. It is )no4n to us onl1 in the paraphrase of Ingoli% secretar1 to the
.ffice of Propaganda. 5=: &ogila's memorandum apparentl1 consisted of a length1 discussion
of the diergences -et4een the t4o churches% the conditions he -elieed necessar1 for reunion%
and an outline of the means to achiee them. &ogila did not see an1 insurmounta-le differences
of doctrine. 3ilioCue and per filium aried onl1 in the phrasing. "hat diergence there 4as on
purgator1 4as een less conseCuential% since the .rthodo' did in some form ac)no4ledge it. In
ritual% too% agreement on all points 4as readil1 possi-le. The onl1 serious difficult1 4as papal
supremac1. Een if this 4ere to -e accepted -1 the .rthodo'% &ogila stipulated% the eastern
churches must still -e allo4ed the principle of autocephalous patriarchates. It appears &ogila
4as 4illing to limit the reunion! to Poland: he did not mention &usco1% or the (ree)s -ound
in Tur)ish captiit1. Nor did he see) a merger: l'unione e non l'unite. 3or een under the
supremac1 of the pope the .rthodo' 4ere to retain their constitution. The metropolitan 4as still
to -e elected -1 the -ishops% and although it 4ould -e e'pected that he ta)e an oath of allegiance
to the pope% his election 4ould not reCuire papal confirmation. In the eent that the ecumenical
patriarchate should unite 4ith Rome% its Burisdiction in Poland 4as to -e restored. The last
section of &ogila's memorandum set out the means -1 4hich the ne4 plan of union should -e
e'amined and deli-erated. 3irst it should -e su-mitted to local and proincial diets for their
discussion. Ne't% a conference ought to -e arranged -et4een the /niates and the .rthodo'%
4ithout% ho4eer% an1 reference to a perspectie union. The findings o-tained at these
preliminar1 meetings should then -e su-mitted to the general Eiet of the realm. +o4eer
ela-orate% as 4ith the proBect of 5GAG% nothing came of &ogila's reunion memorandum of 5G:A.
And a fe4 1ears later he died ?5G:=@.
Peter &ogila's attitude to the pro-lems of the Roman *atholic *hurch 4as clear and simple.
+e did not see an1 real difference -et4een .rthodo'1 and Rome. +e 4as coninced of the
importance of canonical independence% -ut perceied no threat from inner 2atini$ation.!
Indeed% he 4elcomed it and promoted it in some respect for the er1 sa)e of securing the
*hurch's e'ternal independence. Since &ogila sought to accomplish this 4ithin an undiided
unierse of culture%! the parado' 4as onl1 further heightened. /nder such conditions%
.rthodo'1 lost its inner independence us 4ell as its measuring rod of self9e'amination. "ithout
thought or scrutin1% as if -1 ha-it% 4estern criteria of ealuation 4ere adopted. At the same time
lin)s 4ith the traditions and methods of the East 4ere -ro)en. But 4as not the cost too highI
*ould the .rthodo' in Poland trul1 afford to isolate themseles from *onstantinople and
&osco4I "as not the scope of ision impracticall1 narro4I Eid not the rupture 4ith the eastern
part result in the grafting on of an alien and% artificial tradition 4hich 4ould ineita-l1 -loc) the
path of creatie deelopmentI It 4ould -e unfair to place all -lame for this on &ogila. The
process of 2atini$ation! -egan long -efore he came on the scene. +e 4as less the pioneer of a
8:
ne4 path than an articulator of his time. Det Peter &ogila contri-uted more than an1 other% as
organi$er% educator% liturgical reformer% and inspirer of the .rthodo' *onfession% to the
entrenchment of cr1pto9Romanism! in the life of the "est Russian *hurch. 3rom here it 4as
transported to &osco4 in the seenteenth centur1 -1 ,iean scholars and in the eighteenth
centur1 -1 -ishops of 4estern origin and training.
The ,rthodo+ Confession.
The .rthodo' *onfession is the most significant and e'pressie document of the &ogila
era. Its importance is not limited to the histor1 of the "est Russian *hurch% since it -ecame a
confession of faith for the Eastern *hurch ?though onl1 after a struggle% and its authoritatie
character is still open to Cuestion@. "ho the author or the editor of the *onfession reall1 4as
remains uncertain. It is usuall1 attri-uted to Peter &ogila or Isaia ,o$los)ii. 5=8 &ore than
li)el1 it 4as a collectie 4or)% 4ith &ogila and arious mem-ers of his circle sharing in the
composition. The e'act purpose of the *onfession also remains unclear. .riginall1 conceied as
a catechism%! and often called one% it seems to hae -een intended as a clarification of the
.rthodo' faith in relation to the Protestants. In fact% it is no4 4idel1 assumed that &ogila's
*onfession 4as prepared as a reBoinder to the *onfession of *1ril 2ucaris% 4hich appeared in
5GAA and 4hose pro9*alinist leanings stirred disCuiet and confusion in the 4hole .rthodo'
4orld. In 5GA6 > after certain collusion and pressure from ,ome > -oth 2ucaris and his
*onfession 4ere condemned -1 a s1nod in *onstantinople. 5=G These eents ma1 e'plain 4h1
4hen &ogila's *onfession came out the (ree) *hurch 4as dra4n to it and% after editing -1
S1rigos% 5== conferred on it the *hurch's authorit1.
The first pu-lic appearance of the .rthodo' *onfession came in 5G:7% 4hen Peter &ogila
su-mitted it to a *hurch council in ,ie for discussion and endorsement. Its original title%
E'position of the 3aith of the .rthodo' *hurch in 2ittle Russia% indicates the limited scope
intended for the document. Primaril1 aimed at theologians and those 4ho 4ere concerned 4ith
theolog1% the *onfession 4as composed in 2atin. The council in ,ie critici$ed the draft at a
num-er of points. Eiergent ie4s 4ere oiced a-out the origin of the soul and its destin1 after
death% particularl1 in regard to purgator1 and an earthl1 paradise.! 5=6 +ere &ogila had argued
for creationism 5=< as 4ell as for the e'istence of purgator1. The council in ,ie also engaged in
an e'tended discussion as to 4hen the actual metastasis of the elements occurs in the Eucharistic
liturg1. Before it concluded% the council introduced certain amendments into the *onfession. The
document 4as again su-Bected to open discussion in 5G:F at 4hat has -een referred to as a
council% -ut 4hat 4as in fact a conference in Iasi% conened% so it seems% on the initiatie of
&ogila's friend% the &oldaian prince% Basil% surnamed 2upul% the "olf. 567 In attendance 4ere
t4o representaties of the ecumenical patriarchate% -oth sent from *onstantinople 4ith the title
of e'arch% &eletios S1rigos% one of the most remar)a-le (ree) theologians of the seenteenth
centur1% and Porph1rius% metropolitan of Nicea% l65 as 4ell as seeral &oldaian -ishops%
including &etropolitan ;arlaam% 56F and three delegates from ,ie > Isaia ,o$los)ii% Ignatii
.)senoich% 56A and Ioasaf ,ononoich. 56: &eletios S1rigos too) the leading role. S1rigos
raised a num-er of o-Bections to the *onfession% and 4hen translating it into (ree) introduced
arious amendments. &ost of his changes 4ere actuall1 st1listic. +e chose% for e'ample% to
eliminate certain Scriptural Cuotations used in the draft. &ogila had follo4ed the 2atin ;ulgate%
4hich meant that some of his citations 4ere either not in the Septuagint or 4ere so differentl1
phrased that to retain them 4ould hae made the *onfession highl1 inappropriate for .rthodo'
-elieers.
88
&ogila 4as not satisfied 4ith the *onfession as amended -1 S1rigos. +e decided not to
print it% and in its place he pu-lished simultaneousl1 in ,ie a /)rainian *hurch Slaonic
translation and a Polish ersion% the so9called Brief *atechism L&al1i)ate)hi$is% 5G:8M .568
.nl1 a fe4 of the changes proposed -1 S1rigos for the *onfession 4ere adopted in the Brief
*atechism. &oreoer% it 4as intended for a different audience% for the instruction of 1oung
people%! LHdla c4ic$enia &lod$iHM% 4hich is 4h1 it 4as first composed in colloCuial language. In
5G:< &ogila's Brief *atechism 4as translated from the /)rainian *hurch Slaonic into
Slaonic9Russian! and pu-lished in &osco4. In the meantime% the histor1 of S1rigos' reised
(ree) ersion of the .rthodo' *onfession -egan a ne4 chapter. In 5G:A it 4as officiall1
endorsed -1 the four eastern patriarchs. +o4eer% since the (ree) *hurch sho4ed little interest
in pu-lishing it% the first (ree) edition appeared onl1 in 5G<8. 3rom this latter edition% a
Slaonic9Russian translation 4as made and pu-lished in 5G<G at the reCuest of &etropolitan
;arlaam Iasins)ii of ,ie l6G 4ith the -lessing of Patriarch Adrian. 56= This 4as almost a half
centur1 after the Brief *atechism had -een pu-lished in &osco4. 566
&ogila's *onfession% in complete contrast to 2ucaris' Protestant oriented *onfession% 4as
patentl1 compiled from 2atin sources. As the plan of the -oo) -etra1s% its arrangement 4as also
on the 2atin pattern. It 4as diided according to the so9called three theological irtues%! 3aith%
+ope% and *harit1. Belief 4as elucidated through an interpretation of the *reed. Ethics 4ere
e'pounded -1 means of commentaries on the 2ord's Pra1er% the Beatitudes% and the Eecalogue.
.f course the compilers had more than one 2atin paradigm -efore them. The most o-ious
source 4as the *atechismus Romanus%56< 4hich first appeared in (ree) translation in 586F.
.thers seem to hae -een the .pus *atechisticum% sie Summa doctrinae christianae of Peter
*anisius% S.#.% 5<7 the *ompendium doctrinae christianae ?Eillingen% 58G7@ -1 the Eominican
Petrus de Soto%l<5 and the Eisputationes de controersiis christianae fidei adersus huBus
temporis haereticos ?Rome% 58659<A@ of *ardinal Ro-ert Bellarmine ?58:F95GF5@. 5<F To cite
further 2atin sources is unnecessar1. The main point is that ta)en as a 4hole the .rthodo'
*onfession is little more than a compilation or adaptation of 2atin material% presented in a 2atin
st1le. Indeed% &ogila's *onfession can Bustl1 -e categori$ed as one of the man1 anti9Protestant
e'positions% 4hich appeared through out Europe during the *ounter Reformation or BaroCue era.
*ertainl1 the *onfession 4as more closel1 lin)ed to the Roman *atholic literature of its da1 than
to either traditional or contemporar1 spiritual life in the Eastern *hurch.
It is true that in &ogila's *onfession )e1 Roman doctrines% including the primac1 of the
pope% are repudiated. Neertheless% much of the su-stance and the 4hole of the st1le remain
Roman% and not een S1rigos' editing at Iasi could alter that fact. After all% as 4as customar1 for
(ree)s in the seenteenth centur1% S1rigos had gone to a 2atin school. +e attended Padua% 4here
he -ecame an adherent of Bellarmine% or% as his contemporaries said of him% omnino
Bellarminum spirare idetur.! This is not said to argue that the teaching of the .rthodo'
*onfession 4as at certain points in error. It 4as not so much the doctrine% -ut the manner of
presentation that 4as% so to spea)% erroneous% particularl1 the choice of language and the
tendenc1 to emplo1 an1 and all Roman 4eapons against the Protestants een 4hen not consonant
in full or in part 4ith .rthodo' presuppositions. And it is here that the chief danger of &ogila's
2atin pseudomorphosis! or cr1pto9Romanism! surfaces. The impression is created that
.rthodo'1 is no more than a purified or refined ersion of Roman *atholicism. This ie4 can -e
stated Cuite succinctl1: 2et us omit or remoe certain controersial issues% and the rest of the
Roman theological s1stem 4ill -e .rthodo'.! Admittedl1% in some 4a1s this is true. But the
theological corpus that is there-1 o-tained lac)s or sorel1 reduces the natie genius and the ethos
8G
of the eastern theological tradition. &ogila's cr1pto9Romanism%! in spite of its general
faithfulness to .rthodo' forms% 4as for a long time to -ar the 4a1 to an1 spontaneous and
genuine theological deelopment in the East.
It is instructie from this same point of ie4 to compare the .rthodo' *onfession 4ith the
theological 4or)s of Silestr ,osso% &ogila's follo4er and successor as metropolitan of ,ie.
+is E'egesis LE)$ege$isM pu-lished in 5GA8 sought to indicate the ne4 2atin schools 4hich
&ogila organi$ed for the .rthodo'. +is Instruction% or Science of the Seen Sacraments
LEidas)alia al-o nau)a o sedmi sa)ramenta)h% 5GA=M 4as an attempt to ans4er the charges of
Protestantism leeled against him -1 his Roman opponents. ,osso% it is important to note% chose
to respond to these critics in the language of 2atin theolog1. This is particularl1 eident in that
portion of his -oo) deoted to the sacraments% 4hich closel1 follo4s the 4ell9)no4n treatise of
Peter Arcudius. 5<A 2atin terminolog1 a-ounds in his 4or): transu-stantiation the distinction
-et4een form! and matter%! the 4ords of institution! as the form! of the sacrament of the
Eucharist% contrition! as the matter! of Penance% and others. Since liturgical practice
organicall1 follo4s liturgical theolog1% it -ecame necessar1 for the .rthodo' of the ne4
orientation to ma)e alterations in the rites. Peter &ogila's Tre-ni) permanentl1 esta-lished a
num-er of those changes% 4hich had deeloped in practice as 4ell. It also introduced certain ne4
ones. 3or e'ample% in the sacrament of *onfession the formula for a-solution 4as changed from
the impersonal 1our sins are forgien 1ou! Lgre)hi toi otpushchaiutsiaM to the personal and I%
un4orth1 priest! Li a$% nedostoin1iiereiM. It is also at this time that the sacrament of anointing of
the sic) LeuchelationM came to -e interpreted as ultima unctio% and to -e used as a form of
iaticum% 4hereas preiousl1 the eastern tradition had al4a1s regarded it as a sacrament of
healing. 5<: "ith the ne't generation in ,ie% 2atin influences on religious thought and practice
4ere to intensif1 and e'pand in a more s1stematic manner.
The -iev Acade$y.
Euring the lifetime of Peter &ogila% the ,ie collegium 4as still not a theological school.
The charter% granted on &arch 56% 5GA8% -1 ,ing "lad1sla4 N% made it a condition that teaching
in the collegia should -e limited to philosoph1 ?Hut humaniora non ultra Eialecticam et 2ogicam
doceant!@. .nl1 to4ards the end of the seenteenth centur1% 4ith the introduction of a special
theological class! into the curriculum% 4as theolog1 taught as a separate discipline. Some
pro-lems of theolog1% ho4eer% 4ere treated in courses in philosoph1. At the ,ie collegium the
general plan of education 4as adopted from the #esuit school s1stem. This included the
curriculum do4n to the leel of een te't-oo)s. The te'ts -egan 4ith Alarius grammar l<8 and
ended 4ith Aristotle and ACuinas. Also similar to the #esuit collegia and academies in Poland
4ere the organi$ation of school life% the teaching methods% and the discipline. The language of
instruction 4as 2atin% and of all other su-Bects offered (ree) 4as gien lo4est priorit1. Thus in
practicall1 eer1 respect the ,ie collegium represents a radical -rea) 4ith the traditions of
earlier schools in "est Russia. Though it does seem that the school furnished an adeCuate
preparation for life in Poland% its students 4ere hardl1 initiated into the heritage of the .rthodo'
East. Scholasticism 4as the focus of teaching. And it 4as not simpl1 the ideas of indiidual
scholastics that 4ere e'pounded and assimilated% -ut the er1 spirit of scholasticism. .f course
this 4as not the scholasticism of the &iddle Ages. It 4as rather the neo9scholasticism or pseudo9
scholasticism of the *ouncil of Trent. 5<G It 4as the BaroCue theolog1 of the *ounter9
Reformation Age. This does not mean that the intellectual hori$on of a seenteenth centur1
scholar in ,ie 4as narro4. +is erudition could -e Cuite e'tensie. Students of that era read a
8=
great deal. But usuall1 their reading 4as in a limited sphere. The BaroCue Age 4as% after all% an
intellectuall1 arid era% a period of self9contained erudition an epoch of imitation. In the life of the
mind it 4as not a creatie.
The middle of the seenteenth centur1 4as a difficult and trou-led time for the /)raine.
The ,ie collegium%! to Cuote 2a$ar Baranoich% l<= Arch-ishop of *hernigo% shran) in
stature% and -ecame li)e a small Nacchaeus.! Not until the 5G=7's% under the rectorship of
;arlaam Iasins)ii ?later metropolitan of ,ie@ 4as the -eleaguered and desolate school restored.
Euring this trou-led period it 4as not unusual% it 4as in fact almost customar1% for students to go
a-road to -e trained. ;arlaam himself had studied in El-ing and in .lomouc% and had done some
4or) at the academ1 in *raco4. +is colleagues in the ,ie collegium 4ere educated either at the
#esuit Academ1 in Engelstadt or at the (ree) *ollege of St. Athanasius in Rome. Een after the
collegium regained its strength% this custom did not entirel1 end. It is )no4n that man1 of those
4ho taught there at the end of the seenteenth arid the -eginning of the eighteenth centur1 had in
their student da1s formall1 repudiated .rthodo'1 and passed under Roman o-edience.! No
dou-t this 4as facilitated% een necessitated% -1 the reCuirement then in effect that admission to
the #esuit schools -e conditional upon conersion to Rome% or at least acceptance of the /nia.
Stefan Iaors)ii% -ishop and patriarchal locum tenens under Peter the (reat% is a prominent
e'ample: l<6 +ence the comment of a ne4l1 arried #esuit o-serer in &osco4 generall1 a-out
Russia and particularl1 a-out the Brotherhood &onaster1 in ,ie% 4here the collegium 4as
located: There are man1 /niate mon)s% or mon)s 4ho are close to the /nia% and een more
4ho hold the highest opinion of us . . . In ,ie% there is an entire monaster1 made up of /niates.!
5<< +is remar) lends credence to a sharp attac) on the ,ie scholars leeled -1 Eositheus%
Patriarch of #erusalem: F77
In that land% called the land of the *ossac)s% there are man1 4ho hae -een taught -1 the
2atins in Rome and in Poland% 4ho thereafter hae -ecome a--ots and archimandrites% and 4ho
in their monasteries pu-licl1 read unseeml1 sophistries and 4ear #esuit rosaries around their
nec) . . . 2et it -e decreed that upon the death of these archimandrites and priests% no one 4ho
goes to a Popish place for stud1 shall -e appointed archimandrite% a--ot% or -ishop.
In later 1ears Eositheus -ecame especiall1 alarmed at Stefan Iaors)ii% then locum tenens of
the patriarchal see of &osco4. +e charged him 4ith 2atinism and demanded the immediate
4ithdra4al of all Iaors)ii's claims to the &osco4 patriarchate. Eositheus% it should -e noted%
4as eCuall1 strident 4ith li)e9minded (ree) candidates% declaring that no (ree)% nor an1one
-rought up in 2atin and Polish lands and trained in their schools should -e chosen patriarch of
&osco4.! Because% he 4arned% the1 are associated 4ith the 2atins and accept their arious
manners and dogmas.!
"hat the manners! and dogmas! are to 4hich Eositheus refers can -e ascertained -1
e'amining the lectures and lesson plans as 4ell as others of the 4ritings of arious instructors at
the ,ie collegium spanning the last half of the seenteenth centur1. ,e1 e'amples 4ill suffice.
Ioanni)i (oliatos)ii ?d. 5G66@% rector from 5G86 to 5GGF% 4as a preacher% polemist% and prolific
4riter. +e ac)no4ledged Cuite openl1 that he adapted 2atin sources to his purposes. In 5G8<% for
a ne4 edition of ,e1 to /nderstanding L,liuch ra$umeniiaM% one of his man1 sermon collections%
he appended A Brief (uide for the *omposition of Sermons LNau)a )orot)aia al-o
sposo-$lo$henia )a$aniaM. 3or later editions he enlarged it. 2i)e most of (oliatos)ii's 4or)% the
Brief (uide is characteri$ed -1 a decadent classicism. There is in his choice and elucidation of
te'ts and su-Bects 94eighted as the1 are 4ith 4hat he called themes and narrations! 9a forced
and pompous rhetorical s1m-olism. +ere is ho4 he rendered adice: read -oo)s a-out -easts%
86
-irds% reptiles% fish% trees% her-s% stones% and the arious 4aters 4hich are to -e found in the seas%
riers% and springs% o-sere their nature% properties% and distinctie features% notice all this and
use it in the speech 4hich 1ou 4ish to ma)e.! .f course all pu-lic discourse in his da1 suffered
from -i$arre analogies and an oera-undance of illustration. Een -efore the oratorical st1le of
,ie had reached this )ind of e'treme% &eletii Smotrits)ii ridiculed the ha-it .rthodo'
preachers had for imitating 2atin9Polish homiletics. .ne enters the pulpit 4ith .ssorius% F75
another 4ith 3a-ricius% F7F and a third 4ith S)arga%! F7A he said% referring to the fashiona-le
Polish preachers of the da1. +e could also hae named Tomas$ &lod$iano4s)i% F7: a si'teenth
centur1 preacher of 4ide acclaim% 4ho 4as the most imitated and grotesCue of all. None of this
4as reall1 genuine preaching. It 4as much more an e'ercise in rhetorics Cuite suited to the
preailing taste. Still% een 4hile engaged in such er-al e'cesses% (oliatos)ii and others li)e
him staunchl1 opposed #esuit polemists% and at length refuted their ie4s on papal authorit1% the
3ilioCue% and arious other issues. But (oliatos)ii's cast of mind% as 4ell as his theological and
semantic st1le of argument% remained thoroughl1 Roman.
The tenor of strained artificialit1 is een stronger in the 4ritings of 2a$ar Baranoich% 4ho
4as rector at the ,ie collegium from 5G87 to 5G86 and then arch-ishop of *hernigo. F78 A
-rae opponent of #esuit propaganda% he did not hesitate to ta)e on su-Bects of the greatest
controers1% as is eident in his Ne4 &easure of the .ld 3aith LNo4a miara stare1 "iar1% 5G=GM.
But once again the manner of e'pression and the mode of thought are t1pical of Polish BaroCue.
Baranoich een 4rote in Polish% filling his 4or)s 4ith fa-les% an a-undance of 4itticisms and
puns%! Bests% conceits and er-al gems.! In those da1s%! of course% as has -een noted% it 4as
considered appropriate to mi' sacred traditions of the *hurch 4ith m1thological tales.! Det
another ,iean scholar of this ariet1 4as Antonii Radiillos)ii. F7G All of his homilies
Lpredi)iM and sermons L)a$aniiaM 4ere modelled on 2atin e'amples. And his -oo)% The (arden of
&ar1% &other of (od L.gorodo) &arii Bogorodits1% 5G=GM 4ell illustrates the highl1 allegorical
and rhetorical 2atin st1le e'ercised on &arian themes common to that era.
.f a some4hat different mold than these ,iean scholars 4as Adam Nerni)a of *hernigo.
+e deseres mention -ecause of his special place in the ran)s of religious leaders at that time in
the south of Russia. Born in ,onigs-erg% and trained in Protestant schools% Nerni)a came to
.rthodo'1 through scholarl1 stud1 of the earl1 *hristian tradition. F7= After a long period in the
"est% primaril1 in stud1 at .'ford and 2ondon% he turned up in *hernigo. There he made his
mar) as the author of the treatise% Ee processione Spiritus Sancti% 4hich after its -elated
pu-lication in 2eip$ig in 5==:95==G -1 Samuil &islas)ii% &etropolitan of ,ie% F76 gained him
4ide reno4n. It appears to hae -een Nerni)a's onl1 4or)% -ut it is the 4or) of a lifetime. There
is manifested in it an enormous erudition and a great gift for theological anal1sis. To this da1
Nerni)a's 4or) remains a s)illful compilation of alua-le materials% one of the most
comprehensie studies on the su-Bect eer made. It still deseres to -e read.
The t4o most outstanding e'amples of ,iean learning in the late seenteeth centur1 4ere
Saint Eimitrii ?Tuptalo% 5G8595=7<@ and Stefan Iaors)ii% though to -e sure their religious
importance is not confined to the histor1 of ,iean theolog1. Each pla1ed a large part in the
histor1 of (reat Russian theolog1. Neertheless% -oth figures are Cuite representatie of the later
1ears of the &ogila epoch. Eimitrii% 4ho -ecame -ishop of Rosto after his moe to the north% is
famous for his 4or) in the field of hagiograph1. +ere his main 4or) 4as his -oo) of saints' lies%
The Reading *ompendium ?*het i9&inei% 5G6<95=78@. Based for the most part on 4estern
sources% the -ul) of the 4or) is ta)en from the reno4ned seen olume collection of 2aurentius
Surius%F7< ;itae sanctorum .rientis et .ccidentis% ?58GA9586G% itself actuall1 a re4or)ing into
8<
2atin of S1meon &etaphrastes' 4or) on the lies of saints@.F57 Eimitrii also utili$ed arious of
the olumes of the Acta Sanctorum% 4hich had -1 his time appeared in the Bollandists' edition%
F55 as 4ell as S)arga's personal collection of hagiographies% 2ies of the Saints ?N14ot1
s4gt1ch% 58=G@ 4hich% Budging from the large num-er of translations that circulated in
manuscript form% must hae -een popular among the .rthodo' for a long time. S)arga's st1le
and language% too% left a deep imprint on the 4or) of St. Eimitrii. (ree) and .ld *hurch
Slaonic materials% ho4eer% are hardl1 present at all% and there is scarcel1 a trace of the diction
and idiom of the East. St. Eimitrii's sermons 4ere also of a 4estern character% especiall1 those of
the earl1 1ears. The same is true of his moralit1 pla1s% 4ritten in Rosto for school
performances% and patterned as the1 4ere after the popular #esuit dramas of the time. The
catalogue of Eimitrii's priate li-rar1 4hich has -een presered tells a similar stor1: ACuinas%
*ornelius a 2apide%FlF *anisius% &artin Becan%F5A the sermons of &lod$iano4s)i% numerous
-oo)s on histor1% the Acta Sanctorum% a num-er of the 3athers in 4estern editions% and
pu-lications from ,ie and others of the cities in the south. .n the 4hole it 4as a li-rar1
appropriate to an erudite 2atin. True% in his spiritual life% St. Eimitrii 4as not confined to the
narro4 mold of a 2atin 4orld% -ut as a thin)er and 4riter he 4as neer a-le to free himself from
the mental ha-its and forms of theological pseudo9*lassicism acCuired 4hen at school in ,ie.
Nor did he 4ish to do so% insisting 4ith o-stinac1 on their sacred character. And in the north% in
Russia% 4here he settled% he neer came to understand its distinctie religious ethos and the
circumstances that shaped it. To cite -ut one e'ample: Eimitrii understood the .ld Belieer
moement as no more than the -lindness of an ignorant populace. F5:
A some4hat 1ounger man than St. Eimitrii 4as Stefan Iaors)ii ?5G8695=FF@% 4ho came to
prominence in the north onl1 during the reign of Peter the (reat. Neertheless he 4as a t1pical
representatie of the ,iean cultural pseudomorphosis%! that Romani$ed! .rthodo'1 of the
&ogila epoch. Iaors)ii studied under the #esuits in 2o and 2u-lin% and after4ards in Po$nan
and ;ilna. Euring these 1ears he 4as dou-tlessl1 under Roman o-edience.! .n his return to
South Russia% he reBoined the .rthodo' *hurch% too) monastic o4s in ,ie% and receied an
appointment to teach at the collegium% 4here he later -ecame prefect and then rector. Iaors)ii
4as a gifted preacher% deliering his sermons 4ith passion and authorit1. In spite of his simple
and direct intent to teach and persuade% his st1le 4as that same pseudo9*lassicism% replete 4ith
rhetorical circumlocution. Still% Iaors)ii 4as a man of religious coniction% and he al4a1s had
something to sa1. +is main theological 4or)% Roc) of 3aith L,amen' er1M 4as a polemical
treatise against Protestantism. F58 "ritten in 2atin% een though he had left ,ie% it 4as less an
original 4or) than an adaptation or een a-ridgement of a highl1 select -od1 of 2atin -oo)s. +is
main source 4as Bellarmine's Eisputationes de controersiis christianae fidei adersus huBus
temporis haereticos from 4hich Iaors)ii repeated entire sections or paragraphs% often 4ord for
4ord. Another -asic source 4as &artin Becan's .pera ?5G:<@. Though a alua-le refutation of
Protestantism% Iaors)ii's Roc) of 3aith 4as hardl1 an e'position of .rthodo' theolog1% although
unfortunatel1 it has too often -een understood as such. A second -oo) of Iaors)ii's% Signs of the
*oming of the Antichrist LNnameniia prishestiia Anti)hristoa% 5=7AM% 4as also more or less a
literal rendering of a 2atin 4or)% in this case the treatise Ee Antichristo li-ro OI ?Rome% 5G7:@
-1 the Spanish Eominican Tomas &alenda. F5G
"ith the -eginning of the eighteenth centur1% the &ogilan epoch reached a clima'% 4hen the
school and culture &ogila had esta-lished at ,ie came to its fruition. In theolog1 and in other
fields as 4ell the period during the rule of the hetman &a$epa ?5G6=95=7<@ represents the height
of 4hat ma1 -e termed the /)rainian BaroCue. F5= 3or a time the ,iean Academ1 ?promoted
G7
to the ran) of Academ1! in 5=75@ 4as een referred to semi9officiall1 as the Academia
&ogiliano &a$epiana.! But its clima' 4as also the end. The flo4ering 4as also an epilogue.
Pro-a-l1 the most representatie figure of this final chapter in the &ogila era in ,iean
intellectual histor1 4as Ioasaf ,ro)os)ii ?d. 5=56@% reformer% or een second founder% of the
,iean school. 3or a time he sered as its rector and later he -ecame metropolitan of ,ie. &ore
than an1 other figure he seems to e'hi-it in religious actiit1 and intellectual outloo) all the
am-iguities and contradictions of ,ie's cultural pseudomorphosis: Educated at the (ree)
*ollege of St. Athanasius in Rome% ,ro)os)ii for the rest of his life 4as to retain the
theological set of mind% religious conictions% and deotional ha-its he acCuired there. At ,ie%
he taught theolog1 according to ACuinas and centered his deotional life > as 4as characteristic
of the BaroCue era > on the praise of the Blessed ;irgin of the Immaculate *onception. It 4as
under his rectorship that the student congregations! of the ,ie Academ1 )no4n as &arian
Sodalities arose% in 4hich mem-ers had to dedicate their lies to the ;irgin &ar1% conceied
4ithout original sin! ?H;irgini &ariae sine la-e originali conceptae!@ and ta)e an oath to preach
and defend against heretics that &ar1 4as not onl1 4ithout actual sin% enal or mortal% -ut also
free from original sin%! although adding that those 4ho regard her as conceied in original sin
are not to -e classed as heretics.! F56 ,ro)os)ii's acceptance of the Immaculate *onception
and his propagation of the doctrine at ,ie 4as no more than the consolidation of a tradition that
for some time in the seenteenth centur1 had -een forming among arious representaties of
,iean theolog1% including St. Eimitrii of Rosto. And in this realm% too% it 4as -ut an imitation
or -orro4ing from Roman thought and practice. The gro4ing idea of the Immaculate *onception
of the ;irgin &ar1 4as intellectuall1 lin)ed 4ith an eoling trend in the interpretation of
.riginal Sin% -ut% more profoundl1% it 4as rooted in a specific ps1cholog1 and attitude
deeloping historicall1 4ithin the -osom of the 4estern BaroCue. The eneration of Panagia and
Theoto)os -1 the .rthodo' is -1 no means the same. F5< It is grounded in a spiritual soil of an
altogether different )ind.
Although the /)rainian BaroCue came to an end during the earl1 eighteenth centur1% its
traces hae not full1 anished. Perhaps its most enduring legac1 is a certain lac) of so-riet1% an
e'cess of emotionalism or head1 e'altation present in /)rainian spiritualit1 arid religious
thought. It could -e classified as a particular form of religious romanticism. +istoricall1 this
found partial e'pression in numerous deout and edif1ing -oo)s% mostl1 half9-orro4ed% 4hich at
the end of the seenteenth and the -eginning of the eighteenth centuries 4ere coming out in
,ie% *hernigo% and other cities of South Russia. Interesting parallels to these literar1
documents can -e found in the religious painting and ecclesiastical architecture of the time. FF7
The Pseudomorphosis of Orthodox Thought.
3rom the cultural and historical points of ie4% ,iean learning 4as not a mere passing
episode -ut an eent of unCuestiona-le significance. This 4as the first outright encounter 4ith
the "est. .ne might een hae called it a free encounter had it not ended in captiit1% or more
precisel1% surrender. But for this reason% there could -e no creatie use made of the encounter. A
scholastic tradition 4as deeloped and a school -egun% 1et no spirituall1 creatie moement
resulted. Instead there emerged an imitatie and proincial scholasticism% in its literal sense a
theologica scholastica or school theolog1.! This signified a ne4 stage in religious and cultural
consciousness. But in the process theolog1 4as torn from its liing roots. A malignant schism set
in -et4een life and thought. *ertainl1 the hori$on of the ,iean erudites 4as 4ide enough.
*ontact 4ith Europe 4as liel1% 4ith 4ord of current searchings and trends in the "est easil1
G5
reaching ,ie. Still% the aura of doom hoered oer the entire moement% for it comprised a
pseudomorphism! of Russia's religious consciousness% a pseudomorphosis! of .rthodo'
thought.
Chater !!!.
The Contradictions of the %eventeenth
Century.
!ntroduction.
3or &usco1% the seenteenth centur1 -egan 4ith the Time of Trou-les. l The election of a
ne4 d1nast1 did not put an end to them. An entire centur1 passed in an atmosphere of e'treme
tension and disCuiet and in dissent% differences% and disputes. It 4as an age of popular reolts and
re-ellions.
But the Time of Trou-les 4as not onl1 a political crisis and a social catastrophe% it 4as also
a spiritual shoc) or moral rupture. Euring the Time of Trou-les the national ps1che 4as re-orn.
The nation emerged from the Time of Trou-les altered% alarmed% and agitated0 receptie to ne4
4a1s% -ut er1 distrustful and suspicious. This 4as a distrust that arose from a spiritual lac) of
coniction or from a sense of failure 4hich 4as far more dangerous than all the social and
economic difficulties into 4hich the goernment of the earl1 Romanos 4as plunged.
It is still er1 fashiona-le to depict the seenteenth centur1 as a counterpoint to the era of
Peter the (reat: a pre9reform! period% a static and stagnant age% a dar) -ac)ground for the great
reforms. Such a characteri$ation contains er1 little truth% for the seenteenth centur1 4as a
centur1 of reform. .f course man1 people still lied according to tradition and custom. &an1
een felt an intensified urge to riet eer1 aspect of life in chains or turn life into a solemn%
consecrated% if not hol1% ritual. +o4eer% memor1 of the catastrophe 4as still fresh. The past had
to -e restored and customs o-sered 4ith great presence of mired and deli-eration as precise%
a-stract legal prescriptions.
&uscoite st1le during the seenteenth centur1 4as least of all direct or simple. Eer1thing
4as too premeditated% deli-erated% and designed. People usuall1 -egin to consider and to -e
distur-ed a-out the indestructi-ilit1 of ancestral foundations and traditions onl1 4hen the old
customs L-1t'M are -eing shattered. Thus% in the pathos of the seenteenth centur1 can -e detected
a -elated self9defense against the incipient collapse of custom and routine% a )ind of failing
retreat into ritual! rather than an1 coherent 4holeness or strength. There is more than enough
direct eidence that this shattering of customar1 life 4as general.
The most tenacious conseraties and $ealots of the old order spo)e openl1 a-out
correction.! Een the1 felt and admitted that it 4as no longer possi-le to surie on the inertia
of tradition or ha-it. Resoluteness and determination 4ere needed. B1 correction! these $ealots
usuall1 meant repentance% moral transformation% and concentration of 4ill Lso-rannost'M% as in the
cases of Nerono F or A4a)um. A Their instinct -ecame dulled and an organic sense of life 4as
lost. That is 4h1 ritual% model% e'ample% some sort of mooring and e'ternal standard% -ecame so
necessar1. Euring the process of gro4th a -andage is not needed. *onfessionalism of custom
and routine! L-1tooe ispoednichestoM is a sign of 4ea)ness and decline% not strength and
faith.
GF
The seenteenth centur1 4as a critical%! not an organic! epoch in Russian histor1. It 4as a
centur1 of lost eCuili-rium0 an age of une'pected eents and the inconstant0 a centur1 of
unprecedented and unheard of eents0 precisel1 an unaccustomed age ?-ut not one of custom@. It
4as a dramatic centur1% a centur1 of harsh personalities and colorful characters. Een S.&.
Solo'e : descri-es it as heroic! L-ogat1rs)imM.
The apparent stagnation during the seenteenth centur1 4as not letharg1 or ana-iosis. It 4as
a feerish sleep% replete 4ith nightmares and isions. Not so much somnolence as panic.
Eer1thing had -een torn do4n% eer1thing had -een shifted a-out. The soul itself 4as someho4
displaced. The Russian soul -ecame strange and 4andering during the Time of Trou-les.
It is completel1 incorrect to spea) of the isolation of &usco1 during the seenteenth
centur1. .n the contrar1% the centur1 4itnessed an encounter and clash 4ith the "est and 4ith
the East. The historical fa-ric of Russian life no4 -ecame particularl1 confused and aried% and
the inestigator er1 often discoers in this fa-ric completel1 une'pected strands.
This frightened centur1 ends 4ith an apocal1ptical conulsion% 4ith the terrif1ing approach
of apocal1ptical fanaticism. +ad not the Third Rome in turn suddenl1 -ecome the Eeil's
tsardomI Such a suspicion and conclusion mar)ed the outcome and the end of the tsardom of
&usco1. Rupture and spiritual suicide follo4ed. There 4ill -e no ne4 apostas1% for this has
-een the final Rus'.! The outcome of the seenteenth centur1 4as flight and a dead end. Det there
4as still a more horri-le e'odus: the pine coffin! > the smo)ing log ca-in of those 4ho chose
self9immolation.
Correction of "ooks.
*orrection of the religious -oo)s% that fateful theme for seenteenth centur1 &usco1% 4as
actuall1 much more difficult and comple' than is normall1 thought. Boo) correction is lin)ed
4ith the -eginning of printing in &usco1. The discussion ranged oer the correct! edition of
-oo)s% serices% and te'ts% 4hich had a enera-le histor1 and 4ere )no4n not onl1 in a
multiplicit1 of copies from different periods -ut in a multiplicit1 of translations. &uscoite
editors immediatel1 -ecame dra4n into all the contradictions of manuscript tradition. The1 made
numerous and freCuent mista)es or 4ent astra1% -ut not onl1 -ecause of their ignorance.! Their
mista)es% missteps% and confusions often 4ere caused -1 real difficulties% although the1 did not
al4a1s )no4 and understand e'actl1 4here the difficulties la1.
The concept of a correct! edition is ariousl1 understood and am-iguous. The ancient
e'emplar! is also an indeterminate Cuantit1. The antiCuit1 of a te't and the age of a cop1 -1 no
means al4a1s coincide% and freCuentl1 the original form of a te't is discoered in% comparatiel1
recent copies. Een the Cuestion of the relationship -et4een a Slaonic and a (ree) te't is not
that simple and cannot -e reduced to a pro-lem of an original! and a translation.! Not eer1
(ree) te't is older or more original! than eer1 Slaonic one. The most dangerous thing of all
is to trust an1 single manuscript or edition% een though it ma1 -e an ancient! one.
&osco4 4as not the onl1 place 4here seenteenth centur1 scholars 4ere una-le to
reconstruct the histor1 or genealog1 of te'ts. "ithout a historical stemma ?the tree of descent of
a te't@% manuscripts er1 often seem to displa1 insolu-le and ine'plica-le discrepancies% so that
reluctantl1 a theor1 of their corruption! is posed. *ompelling haste further complicated the
4or) of these &osco4 editors. The -oo)s 4ere -eing corrected! to meet practical needs and for
immediate use. A standard edition%! a relia-le and uniform te't% had to -e immediatel1
produced. .ffice! LchinM had to -e precisel1 defined. The notion of correctness! implied
primaril1 the idea of uniformit1.
GA
The choice of copies for comparison is no eas1 tas)% and under such hurried conditions the
editors had no time to prepare the manuscripts. Because of their ignorance of paleograph1 and
language% for all practical purposes (ree) manuscripts 4ere inaccessi-le. Necessit1 dictated the
easiest course: reliance upon printed editions. But in doing so% a ne4 series of difficulties
presented itself. In the earl1 1ears of the centur1% -oo)s of 2ithuanian imprint! 4ere greatl1
distrusted in &osco4% as 4ere those of the "hite Russians! or *her)ass1's 4hom a council in
5GF7 G had decided to re-apti$e on the ground that the1 had -een -apti$ed -1 sprin)ling rather
than immersion. True% it seems these 2ithuanian! -oo)s enBo1ed the 4idest use. In 5GF6 it 4as
ordered that the1 should -e inentoried in all the churches% in order that the1 could -e replaced
-1 &uscoite editions. 2ithuanian! -oo)s o4ned priatel1 4ere simpl1 to -e confiscated. In
Eecem-er% 5GF=% ,irill Tran)illion's *ommentaries on the (ospel L/chitel noe EangelieM 4as
ordered -urned -1 the pu-lic hangman% for the heretical 4ords and composition reealed in the
-oo).! 2arenti Ni$ani's *atechism% 6 4hich had Bust -een printed -1 the &osco4 Printing
.ffice% 4as not released for circulation.
No less caution 4as e'ercised in relation to the ne4 translations! of (ree) -oo)s ?that is%
those printed in the Roman cities%! ;enice% 2utetia LParisM% and Rome itself@% for if an1thing
ne4 is added to them% 4e shall not accept them% een though the1 -e printed in the (ree)
language.! Een (ree) emigres% after all% usuall1 4arned against these translations! as corrupt%
for the Papists and the 2utherans hae a (ree) printing press% and the1 are dail1 printing the
theological 4or)s of the +ol1 3athers% and in these -oo)s the1 insert their ferocious poison% their
pagan heres1.! But from practical necessit1% the &osco4 editors used these suspect ,iean or
2ithuanian! and ;enetian -oo)s. 3or e'ample% Epifanii Slainets)ii < openl1 4or)ed 4ith the
late si'teenth centur1 3ran)furt and 2ondon editions of the Bi-le. Not surprisingl1 such 4or)
eo)ed 4idespread an'iet1 in ecclesiastical circles% especiall1 4hen it led to deiations from
customar1 routine.
The first tragic episode in the histor1 of the liturgical reform during the seenteenth centur1
stands apart from later eents. This 4as the case of Eionisii No-ninos)ii% Archimandrite of the
+ol1 Trinit1 &onaster1% l7 and his colla-orators% 4ho 4ere condemned in 5G56 for corrupting!
-oo)s. Not all aspects of this case are clear. It is er1 difficult to grasp 4h1 the editors receied
such a lacerating and impassioned trial and condemnation. The1 had -een correcting the Pra1er
Boo) LPotre-ni)M% using a method of comparing manuscripts 4hich included (ree) manuscripts%
although the editors themseles did not )no4 (ree). .nl1 in a er1 fe4 cases did the1 use the
(ree) te't and then 4ith the aid of a foreign intermediar1. In the maBorit1 of cases the
corrections! 4ere directed to4ard restoring the meaning of a te't. The accusation -rought
against the editors hinged on a single correction. The uncorrected te't of the pra1er for the
-lessing of the 4ater at -aptism read as follo4s: consecrate this 4ater -1 Th1 +ol1 Spirit and
-1 fire.! The editors deleted the final phrase and 4ere accused of not recogni$ing that the +ol1
Spirit is li)e fire! and 4ishing to remoe fire from the 4orld.
This matter cannot -e full1 e'plained -1 mere ignorance or personal calculations. After all%
not onl1 the half educated 2oggin and 3ilaret% 55 the strict legalists% -ut the entire clerg1 of
&osco4 as 4ell as the locum tenens% the metropolitan of ,rutits) 5F aligned themseles against
the editors. The learned elder LstaretsM Antonii Podol's)ii 5A 4rote a comprehensie dissertation
.n the illuminating fire L. ogni prosetitel'nomM against Eionisii in 4hich one can discern
distant echoes of Palamite theolog1. In an1 case% formal departure from the preious and familiar
te't 4as not the sole reason for an'iet1. .nl1 during the patriarchate of 3ilaret 5: did the resolute
G:
representations of Patriarch Theophanesls sae Eionisii from final condemnation and
imprisonment.
The first phase in the 4or) of the &osco4 Printing .ffice 4as carried on 4ithout an1
definite plan. Boo)s 4ere corrected and printed as need and demand reCuired. .nl1 later% 4ith
the accession of Ale)sei &i)hailoich ?5G:8@% did this 4or) acCuire the character of a *hurch
reform. An influential circle of Nealots! or 2oers of (od! formed around the 1oung tsar.
Stefan ;onifat'e% archpriest of the Annunciation *athedral and the tsar's confessor lG and the
-o1ar 3edor Rtishche 5= 4ere the most prominent among them. The circle had 4or)ed out a
coherent plan of important ecclesiastical modifications and een reforms. Their plan rested on
t4o central pillars: proper order in the diine serice and pastoral instruction. Both purposes
reCuired corrected -oo)s. Thus -oo) emendation -ecame an organic part of the s1stem of
ecclesiastical renaissance.
The Nealots of the capital discoered that the road to regeneration or rene4al 4as a road to
the (ree)s. In their search for a standard -1 4hich to -ring a disordered Russian *hurch into
genuine unit1% the1 adhered to the (ree) e'ample 4ithout% ho4eer% distinguishing -et4een the
(ree)! past and the seenteenth centur1 present.
Euring the seenteenth centur1% &uscoite contact 4ith the .rthodo' East once again
-ecame ital and constant. &osco4 teemed 4ith (ree)! emigres% sometimes men of high
ecclesiastical office. These (ree)s! most commonl1 came to &osco4 see)ing gifts and alms. In
return the1 4ere as)ed a-out church serices and rules. &an1 of them 4ere Cuite tal)atie% and
from their stories it -ecame clear that (ree) and Russian rites 4ere Cuite dissimilar. +o4 this
had come a-out remained unclear.
A tragic and passionate Cuarrel soon ensued. The Nealots 4ere coninced that the (ree)
e'ample should -e follo4ed. The1 had a genuine attraction or passion for eer1thing (ree)% as
did the tsar% 4hose loe com-ined 4ith his inherent taste for decorous order% for inner and outer
precision. l6 3rom the point of ie4 of religious politics% since (ree)! meant .rthodo'%!
4hateer 4as (ree) automaticall1 came under the dominion of the one .rthodo' tsar% 4ho% in a
certain sense% -ecame responsi-le for (ree) .rthodo'1. Thus% turning to the (ree)s 4as neither
accidental nor sudden.
,ie assisted in satisf1ing this interest in (ree)s.! Teachers%! monaster1 elders% and
learned (ree)s 4ere inited from ,ie for the correction of (ree) Bi-les in the Slaonic
speech.! Epifanii Slainets)ii% 5< Arsenii Satanos)ii ?5G:<@ F7 and Eamas)in Ptits)ii ?5G87@ F5
arried in &osco4 at that moment. Simultaneousl1% &osco4 repu-lished such ,iean -oo)s as
Smotrits)ii's grammar FF and een Peter &ogila's Brief *atechism L&al1i )ate)hi$is% 5G:<M. The
so9called fift19first chapter ta)en from &ogila's Pra1er Boo) LTre-ni)M 4as included in the Boo)
of the Rudder L,ormchaia )niga% 5G:<987M .FA Euring those same 1ears% the Boo) of ,irill
L,irilloa )niga% 5G::M F: 4as compiled% 4hile the ,iean Boo) on the faith L,niga o ereM F8
4as repu-lished. &osco4 apparentl1 desired to repeat or acCuire the ,iean e'perience in
liturgical and -oo) reform! carried through -1 &ogila. Earlier% in 5G:7% &ogila himself had
offered to set up a scholarl1 hospice in &osco4 for the ,iean mon)s from the Brats)
&onaster1 4here the1 could teach (ree) and Slaonic grammar. In an1 case% the court circle of
Nealots had direct connections 4ith &ogila's ,ie. FG .ne must remem-er that all this 4as
ta)ing place during the 1ears 4hen the /lo$henie F= 4as -eing prepared% at the er1 height of
the effort to4ard comprehensie reform of the state.
*oncurrentl1% direct relations 4ith the .rthodo' East 4ere -eing deeloped. But difficulties
appeared at once. Een -efore reaching his destination in the East and the +ol1 2and% 4here he
G8
had -een sent to o-sere and descri-e the local *hurch customs and rituals% Arsenii Su)hano F6
got into a storm1 Cuarrel 4ith some (ree)s in Iasi and came to the conclusion that the (ree)
differences! in rites signified their apostas1 from the faith. &ean4hile% the (ree)s on &ount
Athos -urned Russian -oo)s.
Another Arsenii% )no4n as the (ree)%! F< 4ho had -een left in &osco4 -1 Patriarch
Paisios A7 as a teacher%! turned out to hae -een a student at the *ollege of St. Athanasius in
Rome and at one time a /niate% 4ho then -ecame or pretended to -e a &oslem L-asurmaninM
-ecause of the Tur)s. +e 4as e'iled to Solo)i. Su-seCuentl1 this uneas1 connection -et4een
(ree)! and 2atin! freCuentl1 came to light.
Initiatie in *hurch reform came from the tsar in the face of restrained -ut stu--orn
opposition from the patriarch. Soon the eastern patriarchs found themseles Cuestioned as the
highest authorit1 of appeal. Thus% in 5G85% singing in one oice LedinoglasieM in the liturg1 4as
introduced in accordance 4ith the response and testimon1 of the patriarch of *onstantinople.
This decision not onl1 reersed Russian tradition -ut also oerturned a recent decision made -1 a
*hurch council held in &osco4 in 5G:<% 4hen the proposal 4as first adanced. The introduction
of singing in one oice 4as not merel1 a disciplinar1 measure or a Cuestion of liturgical
propriet1. It 4as a reform of music or chant% a transition from multi9part singing
Lra$delnorechnoeM to Boint singing LnarechnoeM% 4hich demanded and presupposed a er1
difficult re4or)ing of all musical notation as 4ell as a ne4 relationship -et4een te't and music.
Ni)on% 4ho -ecame patriarch in 5G8F% did not initiate or conceie this effort at aligning
ritual and custom 4ith (ree) practices. The reform! had -een deised and decided upon at
court. Ni)on 4as -rought in on a going concern0 he 4as introduced and initiated into preiousl1
prepared plans. +o4eer% he inested all the ardor of his storm1 and impetuous personalit1 into
the e'ecution of these reformation plans% so that his name has -ecome foreer lin)ed 4ith this
attempt to +elleni$e the Russian *hurch in eer1 aspect of its customs and organi$ation. This
Ni)onian! reform com-ined t4o motifs: rectification of ecclesiastical error and conformit1 4ith
the (ree)s. And the reform! too) such a turn that the second theme -ecame the maBor one. It
appeared that precisel1 such a strict and uniform order of serice might most Cuic)l1 arrest an1
nascent 4aering! of peace. Authoritatie decree and strict statute seemed the -est guarantee in
the struggle against diersit1 and discord.
In sum% a profound and comple' cultural and historical perspectie stands reealed -ehind
these literar1 and liturgical reforms.
Patriarch Nikon.
Een during Ni)on's lifetime ?5G7895G65@ contemporaries spo)e and 4rote a good deal
a-out him. Rarel1 has an1one 4ritten disinterestedl1 and dispassionatel1 or 4ithout an1 ulterior
motie and preconceied aim. Ni)on is the su-Bect of arguments% reassessments% Bustifications% or
condemnations. +is name ?no longer a name -ut a sign or s1m-ol@ remains a prete't for dispute
and acrimon1. Ni)on -elongs to that strange class of people 4ho possess no personalit1 -ut onl1
a temperament. In place of a personalit1 the1 offer onl1 an idea or program. The secret of
Ni)on's personalit1 lies entirel1 in his temperament: hence his hori$ons remained foreer narro4.
Not onl1 did he lac) a sense of histor1% -ut he often failed to e'ercise ordinar1 tact and
circumspection. +e had a 4ill to histor1% a great presence of mind or commanding ision!
4hich e'plains ho4 he could -ecome a great historical figure% despite the fact that he 4as not a
great man. Ni)on 4as po4erful% -ut he did not crae po4er% and his a-rupt and stu--orn nature
preented him from -eing a courtier. The possi-ilit1 for action attracted him0 po4er had no such
GG
allure. Ni)on 4as a man of action% not a creatie indiidual. .f course reform of ritual! did not
proide the ital theme in Ni)on's life. Such reform had -een suggested to him and had -een
placed on the agenda -efore his appointment. +o4eer persistentl1 he ma1 hae carried through
this reform% he neer -ecame consumed or a-sor-ed -1 it. To -egin 4ith% he did not understand
(ree). +e neer mastered it and scarcel1 een studied it. +is admiration for eer1thing (ree)!
4as dilettantish. Ni)on had an almost pathological urge to rema)e and refashion eer1thing in
the (ree) image similar to Peter the (reat's passion for dressing eer1one and eer1thing up in
the (erman or Eutch st1le. The t4o men 4ere also united -1 the uncann1 ease% 4ith 4hich the1
could -rea) 4ith the past% -1 their surprising freedom from Russian customs and -1 their
purposefulness and determination. Ni)on listened to the (ree) hierarchs and mon)s 4ith the
same precipitate credulit1 4hich Peter e'hi-ited -efore his European! adisers.
Det Ni)on's (recophilism! did not signif1 an1 -roadening of his ecumenical hori$ons. No
fe4 ne4 impressions 4ere present -ut certainl1 no ne4 ideas. Imitation of contemporar1 (ree)s
could hardl1 lead to a recoer1 of lost tradition. Ni)on's (recophilism did not mar) a return to
patristic tradition or een sere to reie B1$antinism. +e 4as attracted to the (ree)! serice
-1 its great dignit1% solemnit1% sumptuousness% splendor% and isual magnificence% +is reform of
ritual too) its departure from this solemn! point of ie4.
At the er1 start of his actiit1 as a reformer ?5G88@% Ni)on su-mitted to Patriarch Paisios of
*onstantinople a long list of perple'ing points concerning ritual. +e receied a comprehensie
repl1 4ritten -1 &eletios S1rigos. A5 S1rigos fran)l1 and clearl1 e'pressed the ie4 that onl1
central and essential matters of faith reCuired uniformit1 and unit1% 4hile diersit1 and
differences in the ecclesiastical ceremonies! LchinoposledoaniiM and in the formal aspects of
the liturg1 4ere perfectl1 tolera-le% and indeed historicall1 ineita-le% After all% ceremon1 and
liturgical regulation onl1 graduall1 -ecame intert4ined. The1 had not -een created at a single
stro)e. And a great deal in the *hurch ceremon1 depended upon the pleasure of the superior.!
.ne should not conclude that our .rthodo' faith is -eing pererted if some possess a
*hurch ceremon1 4hich differs slightl1 in inessentials -ut not in the articles of faith% if on the
central and essential matter conformit1 4ith the *atholic *hurch is presered.
Not all (ree)s! thought in those terms. &oreoer% &osco4 did not heed this (ree) adice.
Such strictures -1 the patriarch of *onstantinople fell most heail1 on another eastern patriarch%
&a)arios of Antioch% AF 4ho 4ith considera-le enthusiasm and nota-le self satisfaction had
indicated all the differences! to Ni)on and had inspired him to underta)e hast1 corrections!
Apparentl1 it 4as &a)arios 4ho reealed that ma)ing the sign of the cross 4ith t4o fingers94as
an Armenian! heres1. And it 4as this Nestorian! sign of the cross 4hich isiting hierarchs had
anathemati$ed in &osco4 on .rthodo' Sunda1% 5G8G. AA
Ni)on corrected! the rites according to a printed contemporar1 (ree) Euchologion% A: in
order to achiee conformit1 4ith (ree) practice. Such actions did not signif1 a return to
antiCuit1! or to tradition%! although it 4as supposed that 4hateer 4as (ree)! 4as more
ancient and more traditional. Ni)on adhered to the same s1stem 4hen correcting -oo)s. A ne4l1
printed (ree) -oo) usuall1 sered as the -asis for a ne4 Slaonic te't. True% ariants and
parallelisms in the manuscripts 4ere then compared 4ith it% -ut onl1 a printed te't could assure
genuine uniformit1. Neertheless% discerna-le discrepancies appeared in arious editions of the
same -oo)% for ne4 manuscript material 4as -eing emplo1ed throughout the 4or).
Si' editions of Ni)on's serice -oo)s hae -een forci-l1 distri-uted throughout the Russian
realm0 and all these serice -oo)s disagree among themseles and no one -oo) agrees 4ith an1
other.
G=
Kuite legitimatel1 opponents of Ni)on's reform insisted that the ne4 -oo)s 4ere fashioned
from the (ree) -oo)s ne4l1 printed among the (ermans! ?i.e.% in the "est@% from defectie and
discarded -oo)s: and 4e 4ill not accept this innoation.! &oreoer% it 4as also true that some
rites 4ere transformed! or ta)en from Polish serice -oo)s%! such as the Polish pra1er -oo)s
of Peter &ogila and other 2atin translations.! The manuscripts -rought -1 Su)hano from the
East 4ere not% and could not -e% e'tensiel1 utili$ed or gien the necessar1 attention. +o4eer% it
4as the a-rupt and indiscriminate reBection of all .ld Russian ceremon1 and ritual 4hich gae
Ni)on's reforms their sharp Cualit1. Not onl1 4ere those rites replaced -1 the ne4 ones% -ut the1
4ere declared false and heretical% almost ungodl1. Such actions distur-ed and 4ounded the
national conscience. In fur1 and defiance% and moreoer in a language not his o4n% Ni)on hurled
out a censure of the old ritual.! After Ni)on 4as deposed% Russian authorities spo)e reseredl1
and cautiousl1 a-out the old rite.! This 4as true een at the *ouncil of 5GGG. A8 3or Ni)on the
reform 4as precisel1 a ritual or ceremonial reform% and he insisted upon it primaril1 for the sa)e
of propriet1 or in the name of o-edience. But -1 then a ne4 motif had -een introduced -1 the
(ree)s.! (ree)s suggested and contried the resolutions and the curses! at the (reat *ouncil
of 5GG=. AG 3ourteen of the thirt1 -ishops attending the *ouncil 4ere foreigners. The
easterners! at the *ouncil portra1ed themseles and -ehaed as ecumenical Budges! inited
and ac)no4ledged as ar-iters of eer1 aspect of Russian life. The1 4ere the ones 4ho affirmed
the notion that Russia's old ritual! 4as a senseless su-tlet1! and een heres1. ,ieans! such
as Simeon of Polots) A= Boined the (ree)s! in this scornful Budgment.
The -oo) concerning the differences in rites compiled for the *ouncil -1 Eion1sios% a
(ree) archimandrite from &ount Athos% A6 is particularl1 significant and characteristic.
Eion1sios had lied for man1 1ears in &osco4% 4here he 4or)ed on the -oo) corrections at the
&osco4 Printing .ffice. +e flatl1 asserted that Russian -oo)s -ecame contaminated and
pererted the moment Russian metropolitans ceased to -e appointed -1 *onstantinople.
And from this -egan the infatuation 4ith the sign of the cross% the addition to the creed% the
alleluias% and the rest. .ergro4n 4ith tares and other 4ild 4eeds% this land has remained
unploughed and has -een oershado4ed -1 dar)ness.
&oreoer% Eion1sios insisted that all such Russian additions and differences possessed a
heretical tinge: These disagreements and infatuations derie from certain heretics% 4ho had
parted 4a1s 4ith the (ree)s and% -ecause of their sophistr1% did not consult 4ith them a-out
an1thing.! The (reat *ouncil! decided matters in a st1le similar to that of Eion1sios% often
using his o4n 4ords. At this council% .ld Russian ritual 4as declared suspect% condemned
utterl1% and for-idden under terri-le penalties. The contemporar1 ritual of the eastern churches
4as indicated as the model and standard.
The anathemas of the Stogla *ouncil 4ere rescinded and dissoled% and that *ouncil 4as
no council% its curses 4ere not curses% and 4e consider it as nothing% as if it had neer e'isted% for
&etropolitan &a)arii and those 4ith him rec)lessl1 feigned 4isdom in their ignorance.! A<
Thus% Russian *hurch tradition 4as Budged and condemned as ignorance and feigned 4isdom or
as sophistr1 and heres1. /nder the prete't of esta-lishing the fullness of the uniersal *hurch%
.ld Russia 4as replaced -1 modern (reece. This outloo) did not represent the opinion of the
(ree) *hurch% onl1 the ie4s of some itinerant (ree)! hierarchs. It sered as the final act for
Ni)on's reforms.
Det this same council% called for that er1 purpose% deposed and eBected Ni)on. Among
other accusations% Ni)on 4as charged 4ith iolating and corrupting ancient customs and
introducing ne4 -oo)s and rituals! ?according to the testimon1 of Paisios 2igarides@. :7 Ni)on
G6
replied -1 up-raiding his (ree) accusers for introducing ne4 la4s from reBected and
une'amined -oo)s! ?he had in mind the ne4 editions of (ree) -oo)s@. Thus% once again -oo)s
4ere the Cuestion.
Ni)on's trial entangled personal passions 4ith malice and deceit and cunning 4ith agitated
ideas and trou-led conscience. Priesthood! LsiashchenstoM stood trial: such 4as the theme of
Ni)on's life.
According to Iurii Samarin% :5 the scepter of papism la1 concealed -ehind Ni)on's
enormous shado4.! Det this is hardl1 true% for the reerse is more nearl1 the case. The Ni)on
affair mar)s the adance of Empire.! Ni)on 4as right% 4hen in his Refutation! LRa$orenieM :F
he accused Tsar Ale)sei and his goernment of attac)ing the freedom and independence of the
*hurch. Such encroachment could -e detected in the *ode L/lo$henieM 4hich Ni)on considered
dia-olical and the false la4 of the Antichrist. The emphatic Erastianism! :A in leading
goernmental circles forced Ni)on into -attle% and that fact largel1 e'plains his a-rasieness and
loe of po4er.!
As 4ith his other ideas% Ni)on found his conception of the priesthood in patristic teaching%
especiall1 in that of *hr1sostom. Apparentl1 he 4ished to repeat *hr1sostom in life. Perhaps he
did not al4a1s e'press this idea successfull1 or cautiousl1 and on occasion used 4estern
definitions%! -ut he did not e'ceed the limits of patristic opinion -1 asserting that the
priesthood! is higher than the tsardom.! .n this point he 4as opposed not onl1 -1 the (ree)s%
those Asiatic emigrants and s1cophants from Athos%! 4ho defended tsardom against priesthood.
+e 4as attac)ed as 4ell -1 the .ld Ritualists LStaroo-riadts1M% the partisans of Russian tradition%
for 4hom the ,ingdom of (od! 4as achieed 4ithin the tsardom rather than 4ithin the *hurch.
Therein lies the theme of the Schism: not old ritual! -ut the ,ingdom.!
The %chis$.
,ostomaro :: once rightl1 noted that the Schism hunted for tradition and attempted to
adhere as closel1 as possi-le to it0 1et the Schism 4as a ne4 phenomenon% not the old life.!
Therein lies the Schism's fatal parado': it did not em-od1 the past% -ut rather a dream a-out .ld
Russia. The Schism represents mourning for an unreali$ed and unreali$a-le dream. The .ld
Belieer! LStaroerM is a er1 ne4 spiritual t1pe.
Eiision and split 4holl1 constitute the Schism. Born in disillusionment% it lied and 4as
nourished -1 this feeling of loss and depriation% not -1 an1 feeling of po4er and possession.
Possessing nothing% losing eer1thing% the Schism% more 4ith nostalgia and torment than 4ith
routine and custom% could onl1 4ait and thirst% flee and escape. The Schism 4as e'cessiel1
dream1% suspicious% and restie. There is something romantic a-out the Schism% hence its
attraction for man1 Russian Neo9Romantics and Eecadents.
The Schism% consumed -1 memories and premonitions% possessed a past and a future -ut no
present. 3or their -lue flo4er! Lgolu-oitseto)M :8 the .ld Belieers possessed the semi9
legendar1 Inisi-le *it1 of ,ite$h :G The Schism's strength did not spring from the soil -ut from
the 4ill0 not from stagnation -ut from ecstas1. The Schism mar)s the first paro'1sm of Russia's
rootlessness% rupture of conciliarit1% Lso-ornost'M% and e'odus from histor1.
The )e1note and secret of Russia's Schism 4as not ritual! -ut the Antichrist% and thus it
ma1 -e termed a socio9apocal1ptical utopia. The entire meaning and pathos of the first
schismatic opposition lies in its underl1ing apocal1ptical intuition ?Hthe time dra4s near!@% rather
than in an1 -lind! attachment to specific rites or pett1 details of custom. The entire first
generation of ras)olouchitelei LHschismatic teachersHM lied in this atmosphere of isions% signs%
G<
and premonitions% of miracles% prophecies% and illusions. These men 4ere filled 4ith ecstas1 or
possessed% rather than pedants: "e sa4 that it 4as as if 4inter 4as of a mind to come0 our
hearts fro$e% our lim-s shiered! ?Aa)um@ .ne has onl1 to read the 4ords of Aa)um%
-reathless 4ith e'citement: "hat *hrist is thisI +e is not near0 onl1 hosts of demons.! Not onl1
Aa)um felt that the Ni)on! *hurch had -ecome a den of thiees. Such a mood -ecame
uniersal in the Schism: the censer is useless% the offering a-omina-le.!
The Schism% an out-urst of a socio9political hostilit1 and opposition% 4as a social
moement% -ut one deried from religious self9consciousness. It is precisel1 this apocal1ptical
perception of 4hat has ta)en place% 4hich e'plains the decisie or rapid estrangement among the
Schismatics. 3anaticism in panic! is ,liuches)ii's definition% -ut it 4as also panic in the face
of the last apostas1.!
+o4 4as such a mood created and deelopedI "hat inspired and Bustified the hopeless
eschatological diagnosis that the present *hurch is not a church0 the +ol1 Sacraments are not
sacraments0 Baptism is not -aptism0 the Scriptures are a seduction teaching is false0 and
eer1thing is foul and impiousI! Ro$ano := once 4rote that the T1picon of salation proides
the m1ster1 of the Schism% its central nere% and tortured thirst.! &ight it not -e -etter to sa1:
Salation is the T1piconI! Not ' merel1 in the sense that the T1picon as a -oo) is necessar1 and
needed for salation% -ut -ecause salation is a T1picon% that is% a sacred rh1thm and order% rite or
ritual% a ritual of life% the isi-le -eaut1 and 4ell9-eing of custom. This religious design supplies
the -asic assumption and source for the .ld Belieer's disenchantment.
The Schism dreamed of an actual% earthl1 *it1: a theocratic utopia and chiliasm. It 4as
hoped that the dream had alread1 -een fulfilled and that the ,ingdom of (od! had -een
reali$ed as the &uscoite State. There ma1 -e four patriarchs in the East% -ut the one and onl1
.rthodo' tsar is in &osco4 :< But no4 een this e'pectation had -een deceied and shattered.
Ni)on's apostas1! did not distur- the .ld Belieers nearl1 as much as did the tsar's apostas1%
4hich in their opinion imparted a final apocal1ptical hopelessness to the entire conflict.
At this time there is no tsar. .ne .rthodo' tsar had remained on earth% and 4hilst he 4as
una4are% the 4estern heretics% li)e dar) clouds% e'tinguished this *hristian sun. Eoes this not%
-eloed% clearl1 proe that the Antichrist's deceit is sho4ing its mas)I 87
+istor1 4as at an end. &ore precisel1% sacred histor1 had come to an end0 it had ceased to
-e sacred and had -ecome 4ithout (race. +enceforth the 4orld 4ould seem empt1% a-andoned%
forsa)en -1 (od% and it 4ould remain so. .ne 4ould -e forced to 4ithdra4 from histor1 into the
4ilderness. Eil had triumphed in histor1. Truth had retreated into the -right heaens% 4hile the
+ol1 ,ingdom had -ecome the tsardom of the Antichrist.
A pu-lic de-ate a-out the Antichrist had -een present from the outset of the Schism. Some
immediatel1 detected the coming Antichrist in Ni)on or in the tsar. .thers 4ere more cautious.
The1 do his 4or) een no4 -ut the last deil has not 1et to come! ?Aa)um@ At the end of the
centur1 the teaching of a mental! or spiritual Antichrist -ecame esta-lished. The Antichrist had
come% -ut he e'ercised his rule inisi-l1. No isi-le coming 4ould occur in the future. The
Antichrist is a s1m-olic% -ut not a real! person. The Scripture must -e interpreted as a m1ster1.
"hen the hidden m1steries are spo)en% the m1ster1 is to -e understood 4ith the mind and not
4ith the senses.! A ne4 account is no4 present. The Antichrist stands reealed 4ithin the
*hurch. "ith impiet1 he has entered into the chalice and is no4 -eing proclaimed (od and the
2am-.! 85
Det the diagnosis% the approach of the last apostas1%! did not change. Eisruption of the
priesthood in Ni)on's *hurch% cessation of its sacraments% diminution of (race sered as the first
=7
conclusion from such a diagnosis. +o4eer% the disruption of the priesthood -1 Ni)on's
follo4ers meant an end to the priesthood generall1% een among the adherents of the Schism. No
source could reie! this diminished (race. A fugitie priesthood! L-egstuiushchee
siashchentsoM did not resole the pro-lem% 4hile ritual purification ta)en -1 fugitie priests!
implied that a genuine and une'hausted priesthood e'isted among the follo4ers of Ni)on.
Eisagreements and de-ate a-out the priesthood deeloped er1 earl1 in the Schism.
*omparatiel1 Cuic)l1 the priestl1! Lpopots1M and the priestless! L-e$popots1M dierged and
diided. 8F
The priestless segment 4as magistral. *ompromises and concessions 4ere not that
significant% and onl1 the priestless carried their ideas to a logical conclusion. The priesthood
ended 4ith the coming of the Antichrist. (race 4ithdre4 from the 4orld% and the earthl1 *hurch
entered upon a ne4 form of e'istence: priestlessness and a-sence of sacraments. Priesthood 4as
not denied% -ut eschatological diagnosis ac)no4ledged the m1sterious fact or catastrophe that the
priesthood had 4ithered a4a1. Not eer1one accepted this conclusion. ;ar1ing estimates 4ere
made a-out the degree of the coming lac) of (race. After all% if necessar1% een la1men could
-apti$e ?and re-apti$e! or correct!@% -ut could -aptism -e complete 4ithout the chrismI In an1
case% the Eucharist 4as impossi-le: according to theological calculation% at the fulfillment of
GGG 1ears% the sacrifice and sacrament 4ill -e ta)en a4a1.! *onfession 4as scarcel1 possi-le.
Since no one could gie a-solution% it 4as more prudent to settle for mutual forgieness.
&arriage generated particularl1 iolent Cuarrels. *ould marriage still -e permitted as a
sacramentI! "as a pure marriage or a pure -ed possi-le 4ithout priestl1 -lessingI &oreoer%
should one marr1 during these terri-le da1s of the Antichrist% 4hen it 4as more fitting to -e 4ith
the 4ise irginsI The anti9marriage! decision possessed a certain -oldness and consistenc1. A
more general Cuestion arose a-out ho4 the liturg1 could -e conducted 4ithout priests. "as it
permissi-le in case of necessit1 for unordained la1men and mon)s to perform or consummate
certain sacramentsI +o4 should one proceedI Should ancient serices and rituals -e presered
untouched and unalteredI *ould the liturg1 -e performed -1 unordained la1men -1 irtue of
some spiritual! priesthoodI .r 4ould it -e safer to su-mit and -e reconciled to the fact that
(race 4as goneI
The so9called negatiist! moement LnetoshchinaM% that ma'imalism of apocal1ptical
reBection% proided the most e'treme conclusion: (race had -een completel1 and utterl1
4ithdra4n. Therefore% not onl1 could the sacraments not -e performed% -ut the diine liturg1 as a
4hole could not -e conducted in accordance 4ith the serice manuals. .ral pra1er% or een
-reathing% 4as inappropriate% for eer1thing% including running 4ater% had -een profaned.
Salation no4 4ould come not -1 (race or een -1 faith% -ut through hope and lamentation.
Tears 4ere su-stituted for communion.
The Schism created a ne4 antinom1. .nce (race had -een 4ithdra4n% eer1thing depended
on man% on 4or)s or continence. Eschatological fright and apocal1ptical fear suddenl1 -ecame
transformed into a form of humanism% self9reliance% or practical Pelagianism. 8A Ritual too) on
particular importance during this e'ceptional moment of 4ithdra4al. .nl1 custom and ritual
remained 4hen (race departed and the sacraments lost their potenc1. Eer1thing -ecame
dependent upon 4or)s% for onl1 4or)s 4ere possi-le. The une'pected participation of the .ld
Belieers in 4orldl1 affairs% their $eal for custom ?as an e'periment in salation through the
relics of traditional life@ deries from this necessar1 dependence on 4or)s. The Schism made its
peace 4ith the anishing of (race onl1 to clutch at ritual 4ith still greater fren$1 and
stu--ornness. (race had -een e'tinguished and diminished% -ut the Schism tried to replace it
=5
4ith human $eal. B1 doing so% the Schism -etra1ed itself% pri$ing ritual more highl1 than
sacrament and oerestimating its alue. Enduring life 4ithout (race 4as easier than enduring a
ne4 ritual. The Schism attached a certain independent primar1 alue to the office! and
regulation.! Een 4hen in flight from the Antichrist% the dissenters stroe to organi$e an ideal
societ1% although dou-ts 4ere raised in some Cuarters a-out the possi-ilit1 of doing so during the
da1s of the last apostas1. The Schism 4ithdre4 to the 4ilderness% ma)ing an e'odus from histor1
and settling -e1ond its frontiers. 3or (od d4ells onl1 in the 4ilderness and the hermitages0
there +e has turned +is face.!
The Schism al4a1s organi$ed itself as a monaster1% as communities! and hermitages%!
and stroe to -e a final monaster1 or refuge amidst a corrupt and perishing 4orld. The ;1g
e'periment > the The-aid and pious /topia of the Schism! > is especiall1 characteristic. The
;1g communit1 4as -uilt -1 the second generation of .ld Belieers on the principle of the
strictest communism ?so that no one had a penn1 to his name@ and in a mood of eschatological
concentration: care nothing a-out earthl1 things% for the 2ord is near the gates.! This
communit1 pro-a-l1 represents the high point in the histor1 of the Schism.
3or in this ;1g 4ilderness preachers orated% 4ise Platos shone forth% glorious
Eemostheneses appeared% pleasant men as s4eet as Socrates 4ere to -e found% and men -raeas
Achilles 4ere discoered. 8:
The ;1g communit1 4as not merel1 a significant commercial and industrial center ?Peter
the (reat highl1 alued the 4or) of the ;1g settlers at the mines in Poenets and .lonets@. The
;1g pan4ilderness assem-l1! 4as actuall1 a great cultural center% particularl1 during the
lifetime of Andrei Eeniso% 4ho is descri-ed as cleer and s4eet in 4ord%! and certainl1 the
most sophisticated and cultured of all the 4riters and theologians during the earl1 1ears of the
Schism. Eeniso 88 4as consumed -1 the Apocal1pse. 8G Det he did not there-1 lose his clarit1
of thought% and one can detect in him a great intellectual temperament. Eeniso 4as not merel1
4ell read0 he must -e recogni$ed as a theologian. +is Pomors)ie otet1 LHReplies of the Shore
E4ellersHM is a theological 4or) and an intelligent one. ;1g possessed a 4ell assem-led and
magnificent li-rar1 4here .ld Belieers studied the Scriptures% the 3athers% and the literar1
sciences.! Andrei Eeniso himself a-ridged the philosoph1 and theor1 of Ramon 2ull! ?a er1
popular -oo) Budging -1 the num-er of copies 4hich hae -een presered@. 8= It is particularl1
interesting that the Eeniso -rothers% Andrei and Semen% set a-out assiduousl1 re4or)ing the
(reat Reading *ompendium or &enologos L;eli)ie chet'i mineiM 86 as a counter4eight to the
agiographic la-ors of Eimitrii of Rosto% 4ho -orro4ed heail1 from 4estern -oo)s. 8< The ;1g
scholars also 4or)ed on liturgical -oo)s. ;1g housed ateliers for painting icons and contained
other 4or)shops.
.ne is least Bustified in spea)ing of the 4ell9fed ignorance! among the ;1g .ld Belieers.
Their communit1 4as a center in the 4ilderness. Still% ;1g 4as onl1 a refuge% 4here its mem-ers
for a time might -e concealed from impending 4rath and lie in impatient e'pectation of the last
moment. All their -usiness s)ill and religio9democratic pathos! deried from this sense of
haing a-andoned the 4orld.In the a-sence of (race% the priestless .ld Belieer )ne4 that he
depended onl1 on himself and had to -e self9reliant. The ;1g .ld Belieers too) a Cuiet
departure from histor1.
The ne4l1 discoered path of suicidal deaths! sered as another% more iolent escape.
Preaching in faor of suicide com-ined seeral motifs: ascetic mortification ?for e'ample%. the
flagellants% L$aposhcheants1M@% the fear of the Antichrist's temptation%! the idea of -aptism -1
fire ?Heer1one is -egging for a second% unprofaned -aptism -1 fire%! relates the Tiumen' priest
=F
Eometian% 5G=<@. G7 Such innoatie preaching produced horror and disgust among man1 .ld
Belieers. The elder Efrosin's Epistle of Refutation! L.tra$itelnoe pisanie% 5G<5 M G5 is
particularl1 important in this regard. Neertheless% Aa)um praised the first suicides -1 fire
4hen he said -lessed is this desire for the 2ord.! +is authorit1 4as constantl1 cited. The
notion of suicidal death 4as first e'pounded -1 the disciples of ,apiton. Such men conceied
this eil practice prior to the immolations among the ;ia$ni)i and Poni$o'e! ?Efrosin@ ,apiton
4as a crude fanatic 4ho )ept rigorous fasts and 4ore chains. In 5GG8 an inestigation 4as
ordered into his )naer1! and fanaticism.! +o4eer% his disciples and fello4 fasters%! )no4n
as the (odless hermits! LBogomer$)ie pust1nni)iM% continued their fanatical practices.
Preaching in faor of fasting unto death -egan in the conditions arising from such ascetic
flagellation and fanaticism.
Det other arguments 4ere soon adanced. ;asilii the +irsute ?;olosat1i@% acclaimed
legislator of suicides%! did not preach confession or repentance% -ut entrusted all things to fire:
cleanse 1ourseles from all sin -1 fire and fasting% there-1 -eing -apti$ed 4ith a true -aptism.!
+e did not preach this message in isolation. A certain priest called Ale)sandrishche insisted that
in this age *hrist is unmerciful0 +e 4ill not accept those 4ho come 4ithout repentance.! .ne
foreigner -1 the name of ;aila GF -elonged to the earl1 ,apitons.! The Russian ;in1ard
Lilinograd rossiis)iM descri-es him as a man of a foreign race% of the 2utheran faith
accomplished in all the arts% 4ho had studied man1 1ears in the cele-rated Academ1 of Paris%
)ne4 man1 languages 4ell and ho4 to spea) most -eautifull1.! GA ;aila arried in Russia in
the 5GA7's conerted to .rthodo'1% proing to -e of perfect diamond hard endurance.! It 4as
not so important that in their enthusiasm some (odless hermits! determined to commit suicide.
&ore important is the fact that man1 different strata of the .ld Belieer moement Cuic)l1
sei$ed upon their fanatical ideas. This death -earing disease! rapidl1 -ecame something
approaching a dreadful m1stical epidemic% a s1mptom of apocal1ptical terror and hopelessness.
Eeath% death alone can sae us.! The ;1g communit1 had -een founded -1 the disciples of the
self9immolators and d4ellers along the shores of the "hite Sea.
The feeling of alienation and self9imprisonment entirel1 constituted the Schism% 4hich
sought e'clusion from histor1 and life. The Schism cut its ties% 4ishing to escape% not in order to
return to tradition or to a fuller e'istence% -ut as an apocal1ptical rupture and seduction. The
Schism 4as a grieous spiritual disease. It 4as possessed. The hori$on of the .ld Belieers 4as
narro4: the Schism -ecame a Russian Eonatism. G: In that regard% it is appropriate to recall the
4ords of St. Augustine% The field is the 4orld and not Africa. The harest is the end of the
4orld9not the time of Eonatus.HG8
Kievan earning in Muscov!.
3ollo4ing the Time of Trou-les% foreign participation in Russian life -ecame more and
more percepti-le. After the 1ears of the Trou-les LforeignersM ranged so 4idel1 throughout
&usco1 that eer1 Russian -ecame familiar 4ith them! ?Platono@ GG Such contacts 4ere no
longer confined to s)illed artisans and soldiers% or to merchants and traders. 3oreigners are
encountered 4here one least e'pects to find them. /nder B.&. ,hitroo's administration of the
Armor1% (erman! ?i.e. 4estern European@ artists painted 4estern st1le portraiture and icons as
4ell. B1 the mid9seenteenth centur1% the influence of 4estern engraings on Russian
iconograph1 had -ecome so strong that Ni)on 4as compelled to confiscate these profane
3ran)ish! icons. Their o4ners gae them up 4ith o-ious reluctance% so Cuic)l1 had the1
-ecome accustomed and attached to them. At one 4ith Ni)on on this point% Aa)um 4as
=A
distur-ed -1 icons% 4hich 4ere incompati-le 4ith *hurch tradition.! But the artists 4ere
un4illing to gie up their -eloed 3ran)s.! G= B1 the end of the centur1% churches% nota-l1 in
Iaroslal' and ;ologda% 4ere -eing entirel1 decorated 4ith foreign art%! usuall1 in imitation of
such Eutch engraings as those found in the illuminated columns of #ohann Piscator's famous
Theatrum Bi-licum%G6 a -attered cop1 of 4hich could -e found in a damp corner of the -ell
to4er of some local church 4ith some freCuenc1.
*hurch singing supplies a further e'ample of profound 4estern influence. Polish! choir
singing in harmon1 4ith the or an! e'isted in the St. Andre4 &onaster1 under 3edor
Rtishche's G< direction and in the Ne4 #erusalem ?;os)resens)ii@ &onaster1 superised -1
Ni)on. =7 3or his choir% Ni)on acCuired the compositions of &arcin &ielc$e4s)i% the famous
director of the Rorantist chapel in *raco4. =5 As Aa)um reports% The1 o-sere 2atin rules
and regulations% the1 4ae their hands% sha)ing their heads and stamping their feet to the
accompaniment of the organ as is the custom among the 2atins.!
Euring the reign of Tsar 3edor% the Polish foreigner! N.P. Eilets)ii% 4ho 4as inited to
organi$e *hurch singing% Cuite openl1 introduced the theor1 and practice of Roman *hurch
composers.! =F Eilets)ii e'ercised considera-le influence in &osco4 4here he created a
complete 4estern! school of music. =A These are not random or disconnected facts% -ut a group
of interrelated phenomena. The fact that during the seenteenth centur1 arious 4estern features
and details figured in &uscoite usage is not as important as the fact that the actual st1le or
ritual! of life 4as changing. Ps1chological ha-its and needs gae 4a1 to a ne4 politesse.
"estern influences% deried largel1 from ,ie% gre4 steadil1 stronger. The "est Russian mon)
educated in a 2atin school or in one modelled on it in Russia sered as the first disseminator of
4estern learning to -e inited to &osco4! ?,liuches)ii@.
+o4eer% the first generation of ,iean elders! called to the north 4ere still not
4esterners. Epifanii Slainets)ii% the most prominent among them% com-ined scholarship and
loe for education 4ith a true monastic humilit1 and piet1. +e 4as more at home in a mon)'s cell
or stud1 than in societ1. 2ess a thin)er than a -i-liophile% philologist% and translator% he 4as >
according to his disciple Efimii > not onl1 a Budicious man and er1 learned in rhetoric and
grammar% -ut he 4as also a reno4ned inestigator of philosoph1 and theolog1 as 4ell as a
formida-le opponent in matters of the (ree)% 2atin% Slaonic% and Polish languages.!
Slainets)ii had -een summoned to &osco4 as a translator rather than for the teaching of
rhetoric.! +e translated a good deal% including parts of the Bi-le ?particularl1 the Ne4
Testament@% liturgical manuals% the 3athers% and een some secular 4or)s such as a -oo) on
medical anatom1 4ritten in 2atin and -ased on the 4ritings of Andreas ;esalius of Brussels. =:
Epifanii had a super- command of (ree)% although it is not )no4n 4here he studied it% and he
t1pifies the erudite humanist of the time. +e usuall1 4or)ed from 4estern printed editions and
not from manuscripts. Apparentl1 in his 1outh he -ecame enraptured 4ith 2atin 4isdom%! -ut
-1 deepening his (ree) studies he resisted -eing seduced. 2ater he -luntl1 condemned 2atin
s1llogisms.! =8 In an1 case% Epifanii trained his most prominent pupil% Efimii% a mon) of the
*hudo &onaster1% in a pure% almost fanatical +ellenism. Both student and teacher -ecame
literar1 capties of the (ree)s% and the1 translated% as 3edor Poli)arpo put it% in an unusual
Slaonic st1le 4hich sounded more li)e (ree).! =G
The later ,iean and 2ithuanian! emigrants had a er1 different spirit and st1le. Simeon of
Polots) ?Sitianoich% 5GF<95G67@ 4as the most t1pical and influential among them. A rather
common% if 4ell read and -oo)ish "est Russian% Simeon 4as cleer% resourceful% and
Cuarrelsome in eer1da1 matters. +e )ne4 ho4 to rise high and securel1 in the confused
=:
&uscoite societ1 at the time of his arrial in 5GGA. &ore precisel1% he rose at court% 4here he
sered as a poet% ersifier% and as an educated man capa-le of performing an1 tas). At first he
4or)ed as a teacher for seritors in goernment departments. Inescapa-l1% he relied on Alarius'
grammar. == 2ater he -ecame the tutor for the tsareiches% Ale)sei and 3edor% composed
speeches for the tsar% and 4rote solemn official declarations. +e 4as entrusted 4ith the
arrangement! of the agenda for the councils of 5GGG and 5GG= and instructed to translate Paisios
2igarides' polemical tracts. +is o4n treatise against the .ld Belieers% The Scepter of
(oernment LNhe$l praleniiaM proed of little 4orth% ladened as it 4as -1 scholastic and
rhetorical arguments 4hich could scarcel1 -e conincing to those for 4hom the -oo) 4as
4ritten. Simeon of Polots) 4as pompous and arrogant% rhetorical and er-ose% as his t4o
olumes of sermons The Spiritual 3east L.-ed dushen1iM and The Spiritual Supper L;echeria
dushenaiaM testif1. Both olumes 4ere pu-lished in 5G6F95G6A% shortl1 after his death.
Simeon of Polots)'s note-oo)s illustrate ho4 he re4or)ed 2atin -oo)s of such authors as
#ohann &effret of &eissen% a fifteenth centur1 preacher% 4hose -oo) on the *hurch% +ortulus
reginae% Tsar Ale)sei had gien to Arsenii Satanos)ii for translation in 5G8F0 #ohannes 3a-er%
Bishop of ;ienna ?58A5@% )no4n as &alleus +aereticorum from his -oo) against 2uther0 =6 the
fifteenth centur1 Spanish theologian #uan *artagena% 4ho had 4ritten on the sacraments of the
*hristian faith0 =< as 4ell as Bellarmine% (erson% *aesar Baronius% Peter Besse% Alfonso
Salmeron% and #uan Pere$ de Pineda. 67
In preparing his o4n te't-oo)s% Simeon relied on 2atin 4or)s. Thus his -oo) on (ospel
histor1 The 2ife and Teaching of *hrist .ur 2ord and (od LNhitie i uchenie ,hrista (ospoda i
Boga nashegoM 4hich a-ridged the 4or) of (erald &ercator and 4as supplemented -1 additions
from the 4ritings of +enr1 &ore% the cele-rated *am-ridge Platonist. 65 In his o4n 4a1%
Simeon of Polots) 4as pious and upright% -ut the pra1ers he composed appeared -om-astic. +e
deeloped onl1 a )no4ledge of 2atin and o-iousl1 )ne4 no (ree) ?Hhe )ne4 less than
nothing!@. /na-le to read (ree) -oo)s% he read onl1 2atin ones and -elieed onl1 2atin
innoations in thought to -e correct! ?.sten@ 6F +is 4or) 4as al4a1s guided -1 2atin and Polish
-oo)s% that is% -1 the thoughts of men li)e Scotus% ACuinas% and Anselm.! Simeon's opponents
rightl1 made these accusations. +e 4as more at ease 4ith the 2atin Bi-le than the Slaonic one.
A Belorussian! -1 -irth% apparentl1 he studied in ,ie 4here he -ecame a student of 2a$ar
Baranoich% 4ith 4hom Simeon remained close for the rest of his life. 6A Baranoich gae
Simeon a letter of introduction to Paisios 2igarides% 4hen Simeon 4ent north to &osco4. Euring
Ni)on's trial% Simeon -ecame particularl1 intimate 4ith Paisios% sering as his interpreter. .f
course% he translated from 2atin.
Paisios 2igarides ?5G7<95G=6@ is a er1 instructie e'ample of the perple'ing state of affairs
preailing in seenteenth centur1 &usco1. A graduate of the *ollege of St. Athanasius% 4here
he -rilliantl1 distinguished himself% he 4as ordained in Rome -1 the "est Russian /niate
&etropolitan% Rafail ,orsa). 6: In his estimation and report% 2eo Allatius% a dignitar1 of St.
Athanasius% 68 declared that Paisios 4as a man prepared to la1 do4n his life and gie up his
soul for the *atholic faith.! Paisios returned to the 2eant as a missionar1. The Propaganda
3idget also later sent him to "allachia. There% ho4eer% he made a close acCuaintance 4ith
Patriarch Paisios of #erusalem and accompanied him to Palestine. Soon after4ard he -ecame
.rthodo' metropolitan of (a$a. All this time 2igarides pla1ed a dual role. (reed sered as his
guiding passion. +e tried to conince the Propaganda 3ide of his fidelit1 and as)ed that his
suspended missionar1 stipend -e restored. No one -elieed him. The .rthodo' also distrusted
2igarides% seeing in him a dangerous papist. +e soon fell under a -an and 4as still under it 4hen
=8
he arried in &osco4. "hen as)ed a-out 2igarides during Ni)on's trial in &osco4% Patriarch
Eion1sios of *onstantinople replied that 2igarides' scepter is not from the throne of
*onstantinople% and I do not consider him .rthodo'% for I hear from man1 that he is a papist and
a deceier.! 6= Neertheless% he pla1ed a decisie role at the (reat *ouncil of 5GG=. The -o1ar
part1 used him to secure their ecclesiastical and social position and their program ?)no4n as the
Cuestions of Streshne!@. 66 Ni)on 4as not entirel1 4rong 4hen in repl1 he du--ed the tsar a
2atini$er! and the -o1ars and hierarchs 4orshippers of 2atin dogmas.! In an1 case% the
o-ious 2atins% Simeon and Paisios% spo)e for them.
The ne4 4estern orientation too) shape at court. Tsar Ale)sei's son and successor had -een
4holl1 educated in the Polish manner.! A reolution or turning point had -ecome o-ious.
Eisagreements 4ere apparent since the turn of the centur1. As Ian Timofee noted er1 earl1%
Some loo) East% others "est.! 6< &an1 tried to loo) -oth 4a1s. As 4estern influence gre4%
an'iet1 a-out it increased as 4ell. B1 the end of the centur1% a pu-lic Cuarrel had -ro)en out.
*haracteristicall1% the prete't for the de-ate came as a result of a disagreement on the
Cuestion of the moment the +ol1 Sacraments -ecame transformed during the liturg1. Seemingl1%
the topic of de-ate 4as a limited one% -ut in realit1% despite all the political and personal passions
or outright stupidit1 displa1ed in the matter% the clash inoled -asic a'ioms and principles
amounting to a conflict -et4een t4o religious and cultural tendencies. This side of the de-ate >
the principal side > is -1 far the more interesting one. The indiidual arguments put for4ard -1
the 4arring factions are of interest onl1 in so far as the1 ena-le one to detect the Cuarrel's
mainsprings.
Euring the seenteenth centur1% the 4estern ie4 concerning the transformation of the
sacraments during the liturg1% that is% the "ords of Institution% -ecame generall1 accepted and
customar1 in the Russian south and 4est. <7 Such a ie4% deried from ne4l1 made ,iean
-oo)s%! spread north4ard. Simeon of Polots)% along 4ith his disciple Sil'estr &edede% <5
insistentl1 gae it currenc1. B1 5G=A Simeon and Epifanii Slainets)ii had a dispute% or rather a
discourse Lra$glagol'stieM in the presence of the patriarch and other authorities at the ,rest1i
?+ol1 *ross@ &onaster1. .utright Cuarreling -ro)e out later% after the death of Simeon of
Polots). The mon) Efimii and the ne4l1 arried (ree)s% the -rothers 2i)hud%! entered the lists
against &edede. <F Patriarch Ioa)im also too) their side. <A The -read 4orshipping heres1!
L)hle-opo)lonnaia eres'M sered less as a cause than as the e'cuse for these arguments and
conflicts. The actual Cuarrel centered on the Cuestion of 2atin or (ree) influence.
The 2i)hud -rothers 4ere also men of 4estern education% haing studied in ;enice and
Padua. Kuite li)el1 the1 4ere connected 4ith the Propaganda 3ide in one 4a1 or another% -ut in
&osco4 the1 distinguished themseles as opponents of Rome and as principled and informed
pure1ors of a (ree) cultural orientation. <: Een Efimii often emplo1ed 4estern and ,iean
-oo)s. 3or e'ample% his ;umilenie% designed to -e used -1 the priest as a serice manual% 4as
composed on the model of &ogila's Pra1er Boo) LTre-ni)M and according to the appropriate
articles in the ;ilna serice manual 4hich had also -een heail1 influenced -1 Roman
*atholicism. +o4eer% for all that% he remained an outright +ellenist.
Simeon of Polots) and &edede not onl1 em-raced indiidual 2atin! opinions% -ut there
4as also something 2atin in their spiritual demeanor and ma)e up. Together the1 constituted a
Belorussian! element in the schools. The ,iean mon)s openl1 supported the Roman cause. <8
Both factions freCuentl1 e'changed polemical pamphlets of a serious and su-stantial sort% despite
all their a-usie tone and crude methods. The 2atin part1 4as conCuered and condemned at a
*hurch council held in 5G<7. The follo4ing 1ear% 5G<5% &edede -ecame implicated in the
=G
reolt of the strelts1. <G +e 4as unfroc)ed and e'ecuted. An impartial o-serer might deem
Patriarch Ioa)im's harshness some4hat e'cessie and unfounded. "as it reall1 necessar1 to fan
the flames of this Sicilian fire! in the Bread 4orshipping! controers1I In the first place% the
Romani$ing side too) the initiatie% or more precisel1% 4ent on the attac)% apparentl1 in
connection 4ith plans for opening a school or academ1! in &osco4. In the second place% as
contemporaries e'plicitl1 stated% genuine Roman *atholics pla1ed a concealed -ut a er1 real
part in the conflict.
#uraB ,ri$anic ?5G5695G6A@ <= did not come to &osco4 as an isolated figure. Euring the
5G67's an influential *atholic cell too) shape. Although the #esuits liing in &osco4 4ere
e'pelled in 5G<7 oer the Bread 4orshipping! controers1% a fe4 1ears later the1 rene4ed and
e'tended their 4or) 4ith undou-ted success. As a contemporar1 4rote% The Romans use eer1
means to -u1 their 4a1 into the Russian tsardom% and through learning introduce their heres1.!
T4o foreign *atholics occupied er1 prominent and influential positions in &osco4 at the time:
the diplomat Pael &enesius% sent a-road as an eno1 to the pope% <6 and the noted general
Patric) (ordon. << B1 the centur1's end% the #esuits had een opened a school in &osco4 for the
children of prominent aristocratic families. +o4eer% gien the nature of the Petrine 4ars and
reforms% such a school had little chance to gro4. In an1 case% this configuration of historical
circumstances full1 accounts for and e'plains the 'enopho-ia! displa1ed -1 the last patriarchs%
Ioa)im and Adrian. 577
B1 no4 &osco4 4as a4are that the Russian and ,iean emigrants during their stud1
a-road in local #esuit schools had -ecome /niates. .f course% such an act could usuall1 -e
Bustifled su-seCuentl1 on the grounds that the1 did so 4ith insincerit1% not 4ith the heart% -ut
solel1 4ith the lips.! +o4eer% Bustifia-le dou-ts lingered a-out precisel1 4hen these emigrants
4ere actuall1 feigning sincerit1. Eid the1 accept the /nion or reBect itI As a contemporar1 put it%
a #esuit residue still clung een on those 4ho did not fall a4a1.! The deacon Petr Artem'e
conerted to *atholicism 4hile accompan1ing Ioanni)ii 2i)hud on a -rief trip through Ital1. 575
Palladii Rogos)ii's fate seres as a characteristic illustration of this pro-lem. At one point% 4hen
he 4as alread1 a mon) and a deacon% he fled &osco4% for he had apparentl1 -een united 4ith the
Roman *hurch -1 the local #esuit mission. A-road he studied 4ith the #esuits in ;ilna% Neisse%
.lomouc and finall1 at the *ollege of St. Athanasius in Rome% 4here he 4as ordained a priest
mon) or hieromon). +e departed from Rome as a missionar1% ta)ing 4ith him a magnificent
theological li-rar1 furnished -1 the Propaganda 3ide and the Eu)e of 3lorence. /pon his arrial
in ;enice% he as)ed the (ree) metropolitan to restore him to .rthodo'1. After returning to
&osco4% he addressed a penitential letter to the patriarch. &ean4hile% the #esuit mission in
&osco4 continued to regard him as one of their o4n and s1mpathi$ed 4ith his delicate position.
/ltimatel1% Palladii regained the confidence of the higher ecclesiastical circles% and after the
remoal of the 2i)hud -rothers% he 4as appointed rector of the Academ1. 57F Palladii died
shortl1 after4ard and did not succeed in e'ercising an1 influence on the Academ1. +is sermons%
4hich hae -een presered% proide a picture of his true outloo): he remained full1 4ithin the
sphere of Roman *atholic doctrine. Palladii merel1 came first in a long line of such men. Euring
the reign of Peter the (reat% this semi9concealed Roman *atholicism inspired the e'tension of
the school net4or) throughout Russia.
*onflicts 4ith Protestants in &osco4 had occurred earlier. &ost important 4ere the dra4n
out disputes -et4een Russian plenipotentiaries and Protestant pastors 4hen discussing the
proposed marriage of Tsar &i)hail's daughter 4ith the Eanish *ro4n Prince "oldemar in
5G::.57A The de-ate touched 4ith sufficient decisieness and comprehensieness on a ariet1 of
==
Cuestions. Euring the second half of the seenteenth centur1% a Cuantit1 of literar1 anti9Protestant
tracts 4ere in circulation. These 4or)s% often deriatie or translations% testif1 to the ital
character of the polemic. Some among the emigrants from a-road could 4ith reason and Bustice
-e suspected of *alinist or 2utheran persuasion. #an Belo-ods)ii% 4ho came from the 4estern
-orderlands 4ith the aim of acCuiring a position in the ne4l1 conceied and ne4l1 planned
academ1% ma1 -e ta)en as an illustration. The 2atinophile part1 among Simeon of Polots)'s
circle gae him a cool reception and e'posed him. The 2i)hud -rothers did the same later.
B1 the end of the centur1% the (erman su-ur-! LNemets)aia slo-odaM 57: 4as no longer so
isolated and sealed off. The fantastic affair of Kuirinius ,uhlmann% 4ho had first -een
condemned and denounced -1 his o4n follo4ers% proides a further opportunit1 to peer deeper
-eneath the surface into the life of this colon1 or su-ur-% 4hich contained a ariet1 of religions.
,uhlmann% one of those m1stic adenturers% dreamers% or prophets 4ho freCuentl1 made their
appearance during the Thirt1 Dears "ar% often Bourne1ed throughout Europe% maintaining close
ties 4ith m1stical and theosophical circles. +e 4rote a great deal% and among the authorities on
m1sticism he reered #aco- Boehme. 578 ,uhlmann's Boehme Resurrected LNeu-egeisterter
BohmeM appeared in 5G=:. The intiuence of #an *omenius' 2u'e Tene-ris on ,uhlmann should
also -e noted. 57G +e arried in &osco4 rather une'pectedl1 and -egan preaching a-out the
thousand 1ear reign of the righteous Lmonarchia #esueliticaM . Although he discoered onl1 a
small nucleus of follo4ers% he generated great e'citement. Along 4ith his adherents% ,uhlmann
4as accused of freethin)ing% and in 5G6< he and his colla-orator *ondratius Nordermann 4ere
-urned to death in &osco4.
Conclusion.
There is no need to e'aggerate &uscoite ignorance! during the seenteenth centur1. "hat
4as lac)ing 4as not )no4ledge% -ut proper cultural and spiritual perspecties. After mid9centur1%
the issue of schools 4as posed and resoled. But in the process a de-ate arose: should these
schools hae a Slaono9(ree) orientation or a 2atin oneI The Cuestion Cuic)l1 -ecame
complicated and intensified through the antagonism displa1ed -1 itinerant (ree)s and emigrants
from ,ie.
(enerall1 spea)ing% the ,iean emigrants proed superior to these (ree) agrants 4ho
freCuentl1 sought onl1 adentures and adantages. But the ,ieans 4ere 4illing and a-le to
introduce a full1 2atin school -oth in language and in spirit% 4hereas the (ree)s% een those 4ho
4ere outspo)enl1 2atinophiles% al4a1s underscored the decisie importance of (ree). +aing
a-andoned and neglected (ree)9the language from 4hich 1ou acCuired enlightenment in the
.rthodo' faith91ou hae lost 4isdom%! declared Paisios 2igarides. True% this 4as meant as an
attac) on Russian tradition rather than as an attac) on 2atin.
In 5G67% at the reCuest of Tsar 3edor% l7= Simeon of Polots) composed a charter! LpriileiM
or draft statute founding the &osco4 Slaono9(ree) Academ1% modelled on those in ,ie and
on 2atin schools in the "est. The Academ1 4as to -e all9encompassing% proiding all the
li-eral sciences%! from -asic grammar een unto theolog1% 4hich teaches of diine matters and
cleanses the conscience.! In addition to +elleno9(ree)! and Slaonic dialects%! not onl1 4as
2atin to -e taught% -ut Polish as 4ell. &oreoer% the Academ1 4as not to -e merel1 a school -ut
a center for directing education and possessing er1 4ide po4ers in guiding cultural actiit1 in
general. It 4as proposed that the Academ1 -e empo4ered and charged 4ith the dut1 to e'amine
foreign scholars for their scholarl1 competence and for their faith. .f course% -oo)s 4ere to -e
censored. A particularl1 stern clause in the charter concerned teachers of natural magic and
=6
-oo)s of diination 4hich are so hateful to (od. S.&. Solo'e576 on this occasion cleerl1
noted that this 4as to -e no mere school% -ut an a4esome inCuisitorial tri-unal 4ith the
superintendents and the teachers pronouncing the 4ords: guilt1 of unorthodo'1%! 4hile lighting
the criminal's p1re. . . .! The patriarch greeted Simeon's charter! 4ith seere criticism and had it
re4or)ed from a +ellenistic point of ie4. .nl1 this re4or)ed te't is presered0 one must
surmise the character of the original. +o4eer% the charter! neer receied confirmation. 2ater%
in 5G6=% the Academ1 opened rather hum-l1 4ithout a charter! or statute as the Slaono9(reco9
2atin school. The 2i)hud -rothers opened the school and operated it during the first fe4 1ears.
Primaril1 the1 taught (ree)% follo4ed -1 rhetoric and philosoph1 in the usual scholastic manner.
The 2i)hud -rothers did not remain until theolog1 could -e taught. After their departure% the
school -ecame deserted% for there 4as no one 4ho could replace them. 2ater% Palladii Rogos)ii
-ecame the rector and Stefan Iaors)ii l7< receied the appointment as superintendent.
Particular notice must -e gien to &etropolitan Io's educational e'periment in Nogorod%
557 4here a -attle -ro)e out -et4een the 2atin part1! and the eastern! faction ?Archimandrite
(ariil Eomets)oi and +ierodeacon Eamas)in@. 555 T'he school in Nogorod had -een founded
on the (reco9Slaonic model% and the 2i)hud -rothers 4ere summoned there to teach. 2atin 4as
not taught at all% there-1 emphasi$ing Nogorod's diergence from &osco4. "ith the
appointment of 3eofan Pro)opoich 55F as arch-ishop in Nogorod% these Nogorodian schools
4ere eliminated. The close of the centur1 -rought a pseudomorphosis in &uscoite education.
&osco4 struggled 4ith an incipient 2atinophilism coming from ,ie. But nothing among its
o4n defectie and disheeled reseres could -e used as a counter4eight. 3or all their erudition%
the (ree)s inited to Russia offered little promise. ,ie emerged ictorious.
Chater !1.
The %t. Peters.urg Revolution
!. The Character of the Petrine Refor$s.
Reform of the church 4as not an incidental episode in Peter's s1stem of reforms. The
opposite is the case. *hurch reform constituted the principal and the most conseCuential reform
in the general econom1 of the epoch: a po4erful and acute e'periment in state9imposed
seculari$ation. As (olu-ins)ii once noted% Lit 4asM so to spea) a transfer from the "est of the
heres1 of state and custom.! The e'periment succeeded. +erein lies the full meaning% noelt1%
incisieness% and irreersi-ilit1 of the Petrine reform. .f course% Peter had predecessors%! and
the reform 4as in preparation! prior to his reign. Such preparation%! ho4eer% is hardl1
commensurate 4ith the actual reform. &oreoer% Peter scarcel1 resem-les those 4ho came
-efore him. The dissimilarit1 is not confined to temperament or to the fact that Peter turned to
the "est.! +e 4as neither the first nor the onl1 4esterner in &usco1 at the end of the
seenteenth centur1. &uscoite Russia stirred and turned to4ard the "est much earlier. In
&osco4 Peter encountered an entire generation reared and educated in thoughts a-out the "est%
if not in "estern thin)ing. +e also found a firml1 settled colon1 of ,iean and 2ithuanian!
emigrants and scholars% and in this milieu he discoered an initial s1mpath1 to4ard his cultural
enterprises. "hat is innoatie in this Petrine reform is not 4esterni$ation -ut seculari$ation.
=<
In this sense% Peter's reform 4as not onl1 a turning point% -ut a reolution. +e produced an
actual metamorphosis or transformation in Russia%! as one contemporar1 put it. Such is the 4a1
in 4hich the reform 4as conceied% accepted% and e'perienced. Peter 4anted a -rea). +e had the
ps1cholog1 of a reolutionar1 and 4as inclined to e'aggerate an1thing ne4. +e 4anted
eer1thing to -e refur-ished and altered until it passed -e1ond all recognition. +e ha-ituall1
thought ?and taught others to thin)@ a-out the present as a counterpoint to the past. +e created
and inculcated a reolutionar1 ps1cholog1. The great and genuine Russian schism -egan 4ith
Peter. The schism occurred -et4een church and state% not -et4een the goernment and the
people ?as the Slaophiles -elieed@. A certain polari$ation too) place in Russia's spiritual life. In
the tension -et4een the t4in anchor points > secular life and ecclesiastical life > the Russian
spirit stretched and strained to the utmost. Peter's reform signified a displacement or een a
rupture in Russia's spiritual depths.
State authorit1 under4ent an alteration in its perception of itself and in its self9definition.
The state affirmed its o4n self9satisfaction and confirmed its o4n soereign self9sufficienc1. And
in the name of such primac1 and soereignt1% the state not onl1 demanded o-edience from the
church as 4ell as its su-ordination% -ut also sought some 4a1 to a-sor- and include the church
4ithin itself0 to introduce and incorporate the church 4ithin the structure and composition of the
state s1stem and routine. The state denied the independence of the church's rights and po4er%
4hile the er1 thought of church autonom1 4as denounced and condemned as poper1.! The
state affirmed itself as the sole% unconditional% and all9encompassing source of eer1 po4er and
piece of legislation as 4ell as of eer1 deed or creatie act. L...M.
The acts of the ecumenical councils 4ere also to -e emplo1ed. &oreoer% modern -oo)s -1
non9.rthodo' authors could -e used on the uns4ering condition that Scripture and patristic
tradition proide confirmational testimon1 in the e'position of een those dogmas 4here no
direct disagreement -et4een .rthodo' and non9.rthodo'! e'ists. +o4eer% their arguments
are not to -e -elieed lightl1% -ut shall -e e'amined to determine if there is such a phrase in the
Scriptures or in the patristic -oo)s% and 4hether it has the same meaning as the1 assign.! .f
course 3eofan understood non9.rthodo'! to mean Romanists! and all of his 4arnings are
directed against Roman! theolog1. And a misfortune it is that these gentlemen scholars
Lpanoe sh)oliari)iM cannot een hear papal tid-its 4ithout e'alting them to -e infalli-le.!
3eofan himself profusel1 and sedulousl1 used modern! and non9.rthodo'! -oo)s% -ut
these 4ere Protestant -oo)s. +is theological lectures most closel1 appro'imate those of Polanus
on Polansdorf% the Reformation theologian from Basel.lG .ne freCuentl1 detects the use of
#ohann (erhard's compendium 2oci communes theologici ?first edition #ena% 5G5795GFF@. 5= In
the section on the +ol1 Spirit% 3eofan does little -ut repeat Adam Nerni)a. 56 Bellarmine's
Eisputationes 5< 4as al4a1s read1 at his fingertips and not simpl1 to -e refuted.
3eofan must -e termed an epigon% -ut he 4as not a compiler. +e full1 commanded his
material% re4or)ing it and adapting it to his purpose. A 4ell educated man% he moed freel1 in
the contemporar1 theological literature% especiall1 Protestant 4ritings. +e had personal contacts
4ith (erman theologians. And. it must immediatel1 -e added that 3eofan did not simpl1 -orro4
from seenteenth centur1 Protestant scholasticism% he -elonged to it. +is 4ritings fit integrall1
into the histor1 of (erman Reformation theolog1. If the title of Russian -ishop had not appeared
on 3eofan's treatises%! it 4ould hae -een most natural to imagine the1 4ere 4ritten -1 a
professor of some Protestant theological facult1. These -oo)s are saturated 4ith a 4estern
Reformation spirit. Such a spirit can -e detected through out9 in his turn of mind and choice of
4ords. 3eofan stands forth not as a 4esterner% -ut as a 4estern man% a foreigner. It is not an
67
accident that he felt more at home 4ith foreigners% foreign pastors% and learned (erman scholars
at the Academ1 of Sciences. F7 +e ie4ed the .rthodo' 4orld as an outsider and imagined it to
-e a duplicate of Rome. +e simpl1 did not e'perience .rthodo'1% a-sor-ed as he 4as in 4estern
disputes. In those de-ates he remained to the end allied 4ith the Protestants.
Strictl1 spea)ing% 3eofan's theological s1stem contained no instruction on the church. The
definition of the church 4hich he proides is 4holl1 insufficient.
(od desired to unite +is faithful% 4ho 4ere esta-lished in *hrist% as a ciil societ1 or
repu-lic% 4hich is called the *hurch9 in Cuadam certum repu-licam seu ciitatem compingere%
Cuae dicitur ecclesia > so that the1 might -etter )no4 themseles% gie mutual assistance%
reBoice% and 4ith (od's aid defend themseles against their enemies.
3eofan neither e'perienced nor noticed the m1stical realit1 of the church. 3or him the
church 4as merel1 a union for *hristian mutual assistance and identit1 of outloo). Such an
attitude ma)es comprehensi-le his entire ecclesiastical9political program and actiit1.
3eofan -egins his s1stem 4ith a treatise on Scripture as the impecca-le and 4holl1 self9
sufficient primar1 source of religious instruction. In doing so% he closel1 follo4s (erhard's
theological s1stem% 4hose section on the Scriptures practicall1 replaces the section on the
church. 3eofan ardentl1 ineighs against Roman *atholic authors% 4hile insisting on the
completeness and self9sufficienc1 of Scripture. Scripture full1 contains and utterl1 e'hausts the
entiret1 of all necessar1 truths and -eliefs. In theolog1% and in faith itself% onl1 Scripture is
principium cognoscendi. Scripture alone% as the "ord of (od% possesses authorit1. +uman
thoughts and reflections can achiee no greater force than that of theses or arguments! and
certainl1 cannot -ecome a standard of authorit1.! Scriptures are su-Bect to e'egesis and
anal1sis. Rather than lo4er the leel of relia-ilit1 through au'iliar1 and human commentaries%
the most promising method is to use Scripture to interpret itself. The ecumenical councils possess
a su-ordinate right to proide interpretation. Een the consensus patrum is merel1 humanium
testimonium as far as 3eofan is concerned. Such testimon1 represents onl1 an historical 4itness
a-out the past% a-out the opinions of the church in a gien epoch. 3eofan reduces the theologian's
function to Bu'taposing and arranging te'ts. In this sense% follo4ing his 4estern teachers 3eofan
spea)s of theolog1's formal! character and% meaning. 3or all of his distaste for Roman *atholic
scholasticism%! 3eofan% li)e the maBorit1 of Protestant theologians during the seenteenth
centur1 and earlier ?-eginning 4ith &elanchthon@% remained a scholastic. Eespite his great
familiarit1 4ith modern! philosoph1 ?he read Eescartes% Bacon% Spino$a% 2ei-ni$% and "olff@%
3eofan 4as much closer to 3rancis Suare$% F5 4ho had so man1 Protestant successors. At no
point did 3eofan leae that entrancing sphere of 4estern academic theological polemic 4hich
fossili$ed the 4hole tragic pro-lematics of the Reformation de-ates.
Among 3eofan's special treatises%! num-ers seen and eight dealing 4ith man innocent
and fallen are particularl1 important and interesting. 3eofan 4rote another treatise in Russian on
this same theme entitled The Eispute of Peter and Pau5 on the /n-eara-le Do)e. FF 3eofan's
teaching a-out Bustification in this pamphlet sered as the first opportunit1 for his opponents to
spea) a-out his points contrar1 to the church%! his corruption -1 the poison of *alinism! and
his introduction of Reformation su-tleties into the Russian 4orld. Such reproaches and
suspicions 4ere full1 Bustified. 3eofan proceeded from the strictest anthropological permission
4hich e'plains his tendenc1 as a 1oung man to completel1 discount an1 human actiit1 in the
process of salation. Therefore% he limited the significance of theological reflection. &an had
-een -ro)en and reiled -1 falling into sin0 he had -een imprisoned and entangled -1 sin. "ill
itself had -een incarcerated and depried of strength. 3eofan understood Bustification! as a
65
Buridical concept > Bustificatio forensis. #ustification is the action of (od's grace -1 4hich the
repentant sinner 4ho -eliees in *hrist is freel1 accepted -1 +im and declared righteous. +is
sins are not attri-uted to him% -ut *hrist's Bustice is applied ?Hgratis Bustum ha-et et declarat non
imputatis ei peccatis eBus% imputata ero ipsi Bustitia *hristi!@. FA 3eofan emphasi$es that
salation is effected! through faith and that human actions hae no po4er to achiee salation.
There is no need to engage in a detailed anal1sis of 3eofan's s1stem. A general sense for its
inner spirit is more important. .n that score there can -e no de-ate or hesitation a-out the proper
conclusion: 3eofan 4as actuall1 a Protestant! ?A.;. ,artashe@.F: +is contemporaries often
said so. 3eofila)t 2opatins)ii% F8 and especiall1 &ar)ell Rod1shes)ii% FG 4rote a-out it. F=
Both suffered cruell1 for their -oldness. A craft1 and cleer man% 3eofan )ne4 ho4 to parr1
theological attac)s. +is pen impercepti-l1 transformed an1 e'pression of disagreement into a
political denunciation% and he did not hesitate to transfer theological disputes to the court of the
Secret *hancer1. The most po4erful 4eapon of self9defense > and the most relia-le one > 4as
the reminder that on an1 gien Cuestion Peter approed and shared 3eofan's opinion. Thus the
&onarch's person came under attac)% and 3eofan's opponent found himself guilt1 of directl1
offending +is &aBest1: a matter su-Bect to inestigation and reie4 -1 the Secret *hancer1 and
not a matter for unimpeded theological discussion.
HPeter the (reat% a monarch no less 4ise than he is po4erful% did not recogni$e an1 heres1
in m1 sermons.! Such a reference to Peter 4as not simpl1 an easion% for in realit1 Peter agreed
4ith 3eofan on man1 points. The struggle 4ith superstition%! -egun -1 Peter himself% 4as
openl1 proclaimed in the Regulation. 3eofan al4a1s 4rote 4ith a special ere against
superstition.! *haracteristic in this regard is his tragicomed1 ;ladimir% Prince and Ruler of the
Slaonic9Russian 2ands% Brought -1 the +ol1 Spirit from the Ear)ness of /n-elief to the 2ight
of the (ospels. F6 The pla1 is a malicious and spiteful satire on pagan priests! L$hrets1M% and
their superstitions.! Transparent references to contemporar1 life a-ound. 3eofan openl1
despised the clerg1% especiall1 the (reat Russian clerg1% among 4hom he al4a1s felt a stranger
and a foreigner. +e 4as a t1pical man of the Enlightenment%! 4ho did not conceal his
repugnance for ritual% miracles% asceticism% and een the hierarch1. +e fought against all such
delusions! 4ith the tenacit1 of an arrogant rationalist. At an1 rate% een if he 4as insincere in
this struggle% at least he 4as forthright. I despise 4ith the utmost strength of m1 soul mitres%
capes% scepters% candela-ra% censers% and other such trifles.! True% he made this remar) in an
intimate letter to a friend. .f course at that time there 4as a great deal of superstition in Russian
life and customs. But 3eofan and Peter 4ished to 4ar upon it not onl1 in the name of the faith%
-ut in the name of common sense and the general 4elfare.!
Prior to Eli$a-eth's reign% F< goernment authorit1 and een state la4 e'tended a certain
special and preferential protection to Protestantism. Peter's goernment% not Bust from
considerations of state uttilit1 and toleration% 4as er1 often read1 to identif1 the interests of the
Protestants 4ith its o4n interests% there-1 producing the impression that .rthodo'1 is a peculiar%
moderate% ritualistic Protestantism and that .rthodo'1 and Protestantism are eCuall1 reconciled
?H3acillime le itime ue uniantur as 3eofan's friend% the St. Peter-urg academician ,ol' 4rote in
his characteristic -oo) Ecclesia graeca lutheranisans% L2u-ec)% 5=FAM@.A7 *atherine II later
maintained that there is practicall1 no difference! -et4een .rthodo'1 and 2utheranism: ole
culte e'terieure est tres different% mais l'Eglise s'1 oit reduite par rapport a la -rutalite du peuple
P raCuo0 Euring Anna's A5 reign% that is% under Biron% AF the state pursued a particularl1 harsh
polic1 to4ard the church.
6F
The1 attac)ed our .rthodo' piet1 and faith% -ut in such a 4a1 and under such a prete't that
the1 seemed to -e rooting out some unneeded and harmful superstition in *hristianit1. . ho4
man1 clerg1men and an een greater num-er of learned mon)s 4ere defroc)ed% tortured and
e'terminated under that pretenseQ "h1I No ans4er is heard e'cept: he is a superstitious person%
a -igot% a h1pocrite% a person unfit for an1thing. These things 4ere done cunningl1 and
purposefull1% so as to e'tirpate the .rthodo' priesthood and replace it 4ith a ne4l1 conceied
priestlessness L-e$poposhchinaM.
Such is the Eli$a-ethan preacher Amrosii Iush)eich's AA recollection of Anna's reign.
Peter -ecame dissatisfied 4ith Stefan Iaors)ii for raising the issue of Teritino A: and for
his critical and forthright statement on the points of difference -et4een .rthodo'1 and
2utheranism. Roc) of 3aith L,amen' er1M A8 4as not pu-lished during Peter's lifetime precisel1
-ecause of its sharp polemical attac)s upon Protestantism. The -oo) 4as first pu-lished in 5=F6
under the superision of 3eofila)t 2opatins)ii and 4ith the permission of the Supreme Pri1
*ouncil. This edition of the Roc) of 3aith receied man1 -lo4s in (erman1. Buddeus'
apologetic! re-uttal appeared in #ena in 5=F<. AG (ossip ascri-ed this reBoinder to 3eofan.
#ohann &osheim A= critici$ed Roc) of 3aith in 5=A5 . In Russia% 3ather Bernardo de Ri-era% the
household priest of the Spanish eno1 #aco-o 3rancisco% Eu)e de 2iria% came to Iaors)ii's
defense. The Cuarrel% -ecoming eermore entangled and comple'% 4as finall1 resoled in the
Secret *hancer1. A decree of 5< August 5=AF again suppressed Roc) of 3aith and remoed it
from circulation. The entire edition 4as sei$ed and sealed up.
.ur domestic enemies deised a stratagem to undermine the .rthodo' faith0 the1 consigned
to o-liion religious -oo)s alread1 prepared for pu-lication0 and the1 for-ade others to -e
4ritten under penalt1 of death. The1 sei$ed not onl1 the teachers% -ut also their lessons and
-oo)s% fettered them% and loc)ed them in prison. Things reached such a point that in this
.rthodo' state to open one's mouth a-out religion 4as dangerous: one could depend on
immediate trou-le and persecution. ?Amrosii Iush)eich@ Iaors)ii's -oo) 4as restored to free
circulation -1 imperial order onl1 in 5=:5 .
Roc) of 3aith 4as persecuted and suppressed precisel1 -ecause it contained a polemical
reBoinder to the Reformation. 3or this reason ho4eer% een those .rthodo' 4ho had no
s1mpath1 or enthusiasm for Iaors)ii's 2atinism greatl1 alued his 4or). Pososh)o 4as one
such .rthodo'. A6
The -oo) Roc) of 3aith composed -1 +is +oliness the &etropolitan of Ria$an' Stefan
Iaors)ii of -lessed memor1 should -e pu-lished in order to affirm the faith and presere it from
2utherans% *alinists% and other iconoclasts. 3ie or si' copies of it should -e sent to each
school% so that those aspiring for the priesthood might commit this er1 alua-le Roc) to
memor1 in order to repl1 automaticall1 to an1 Cuestion.
Pososh)o 4as sincerel1 4orried and confused -1 this iconoclastic! danger% -1 senseless
2utheran theori$ing%! and -1 the idle 4isdom! of 2utheranism. +e enthusiasticall1 supported
Peter's reforms% -ut he did not -eliee that it 4as either necessar1 or possi-le to repudiate one's
o4n ancestral religion for the sa)e of an1 such renoation or for the general 4elfare%! or replace
it 4ith something ne4l1 conceied and superficial. As igorousl1 as 3eofan and Peter%
Pososh)o critici$ed the religious ignorance and superstition of the people% een the clerg1% as
4ell as the 4idel1 preailing poert1 and inBustice. +e insisted on the general introduction of
schools0 demanded the a-ilit1 to read! Lgrammatiches)oe ra$umenieM from those see)ing to
-ecome deacons0 and inited those pursuing a monastic life to stud1 and -ecome s)illed in
disputations.! +o4eer% Pososh)o's ideal remained the religious life! and not la1 or secular
6A
life. Thus% despite Stefan Iaors)ii's 2atinisms Pososh)o felt a closeness to and a confidence in
him. A-oe all% Stefan proided him 4ith a good deal of useful material.
In this 4a1 circumstances unfolded in 4hich Stefan% 4riting theolog1 on the -asis of
Bellarmine% -1 the same to)en 4as a-le to defend the Russian church from the introduction of
the Reformation. Those circumstances -ecame so comple' that the fate of Russian theolog1 in
the eighteenth centur1 4as resoled in an e'tended de-ate -et4een the epigoni of 4estern post9
Reformation Roman *atholic and Protestant scholasticism. 3eofan eentuall1 emerged
ictorious in that de-ate0 he did not do so immediatel1. Eue to a certain historical inertia% the
earlier Roman *atholic ,iean tradition persisted until mid9centur1% een in the ne4l1 created
schools. Ne4 ideas onl1 slo4l1 gained 4ider currenc1. 3eofan conCuered as a scholar this 4as a
ictor1 for Protestant scholastic theolog1.
The Ecclesiastical %chools of the Eighteenth Century.
In the section of the Regulation entitled Teachers and Students in Educational Institutions!
3eofan outlines a coherent and reasoned program for education in the ne4 schools. "hen there
is no light of learning there can -e no good order in the *hurch0 disorder and superstitions
4orth1 of much ridicule are inescapa-le as are dissensions and the most senseless heresies.! The
,ie Academ1 remained 3eofan's model or template. +e proposed the esta-lishment of the
Academ1! model for (reat Russia. Such a school 4as to -e uniform and general% lasting seeral
1ears and containing man1 grades. All grades 4ould progress together. The school 4as to aim for
general education 4ith philosoph1 and theolog1 forming the capstone. A seminar1 4as to -e
opened in conBunction 4ith the academ1% and it 4as to -e a -oarding school on the monastic
leel.! In 3eofan's estimation% this mar)ed the point of departure. .nce again he is rel1ing on
4estern e'ample or e'perience ?Hthese things hae -een made the su-Bect of no little pondering
in foreign countries!@. +e most li)el1 had in mind the *ollege of St. Athanasius in Rome% 4here
he had studied. The life of the seminar1 4as to -e insulated and isolated 4ith the greatest
possi-le effort made to separate it from the surrounding life ?Hnot in a cit1 -ut aside!@% a4a1 from
the influence of -oth parents and tradition. .nl1 in this manner could a ne4 -reed of men -e
reared and educated. Such a life for 1oung people seems to -e ir)some and similar to
imprisonment. But for the person 4ho -ecomes accustomed to such a life% een for a single 1ear%
it 4ill -e most pleasant0 as 4e )no4 from our o4n e'perience and from that of others.!
3eofan immediatel1 tried to esta-lish such a seminar1% and in 5=F5 he opened a school in
his home at ,arpo)a. The school 4as onl1 for the primar1 grades. 3oreigners% including the
academician (ottlie- Ba1er A< and Sellius% :7 taught there. The school 4as a-olished 4hen
3eofan died. Nai)onospass)ii Academ1 in the Nai)onospass)ii &onaster1 in &osco4 -ecame
the leading school in (reat Russia. B1 5=77 or 5=75% it had alread1 -een reorgani$ed on the
,iean model as a 2atin school under the protection of Stefan Iaors)ii. Patriarch Eositheus of
#erusalem :5 Bustifia-l1 re-u)ed him for introducing 2atin learning.! &ean4hile the #esuits in
&osco4% 4ho had founded their o4n school for the sons of &osco4 aristocrats% commented er1
faora-l1 on it. Students of the t4o schools maintained friendl1 relations and arranged Boint
scholastic conersations. It 4ould seem that for a time Stefan had friendl1 relations 4ith the
#esuits as 4ell.
All the teachers at the academ1 came from ,ie and among them 3eofila)t 2opatins)ii
deseres special mention. 2ater during the reign of Anna% he -ecame arch-ishop of Ter and also
un-eara-l1 suffered at the hands of cunning men. +e suffered most greatl1 from 3eofan% 4hom
he accused and attac)ed for Protestantism. 3eofila)t possessed a 4ide )no4ledge and a -old
6:
spirit% -ut he 4as a t1pical scholastic theologian. +is lectures follo4 Thomas ACuinas. +e also
later superised the pu-lication of Iaors)ii's Roc) of 3aith. :F
(enerall1 spea)ing% the schools of that time in (reat Russia 4ere usuall1 created and
opened onl1 -1 hierarchs from the /)raine. ?There 4as also a time 4hen onl1 /)rainians could
-ecome -ishops and archimandrites@. The1 founded 2atin schools eer14here on the model of
those in 4hich the1 themseles had studied. /suall1 these hierarchs -rought teachers ?sometimes
een of Polish e'traction!@ from ,ie or summoned them after4ard. It sometimes happened
that een the students 4ere -rought from the /)raine. Such an emigration of /)rainians or
*her)ass1 4as regarded in (reat Russia as a foreign inasion. In the most direct and literal
sense% Peter's reform meant /)raini$ation! in the histor1 of these ecclesiastical schools. The
ne4 (reat Russian school 4as dou-l1 foreign to its students: it 4as a school of 2atin learning!
and *her)assian! teachers. Nnamens)ii :A ma)es this point in his remar)a-le -oo) on the
ecclesiastical schools of the eighteenth centur1.
To the students all of these teachers Cuite literall1 seemed to -e foreigners 4ho had traeled
from a far a4a1 land% as the /)raine seemed at the time. The /)raine possessed its o4n customs%
conceptions% and een learning% coupled 4ith a speech 4hich 4as little understood and strange to
the (reat Russian ear. &oreoer% not onl1 did the1 not 4ish to adapt themseles to the 1outh
the1 4ere supposed to educate or to the countr1 in 4hich the1 resided% -ut the1 also despised the
(reat Russians as -ar-arians. An1thing 4hich differed from that in the /)raine -ecame the
o-Bect of mirth and censure. The1 e'hi-ited and insisted upon eer1thing /)rainian as singularl1
-etter.
There is direct eidence that man1 of these emigrants remained unaccustomed to the (reat
Russian dialect and constantl1 spo)e /)rainian. This situation altered onl1 during *atherine II's
reign. B1 that time seeral generations of indigenous (reat Russian 2atinists had gro4n up. The
school remained 2atin. As a colon1! it gre4 stronger% -ut it neer ceased to -e a colon1.
"ithout e'aggeration one can sa1 that that culture 4hich lied and gre4 in Russia from
Peter's da1 on4ard 4as the organic and direct continuation not of &uscoite tradition -ut of
,iean or /)rainian culture! ?Prince N.S. Tru-ets)oi@ :: .nl1 one reseration needs to -e
made: such culture 4as too artificial and too forci-l1 introduced to -e descri-ed as an organic
continuation.!
*onsidera-le confusion and disorgani$ation accompanied the construction of the ne4
school net4or). B1 design the ne4 school 4as to -e a class! school compulsor1 for the
clerical ran).! The children of the clerg1 4ere recruited -1 force% li)e soldiers% under threat of
imprisonment% assignment to the arm1% and merciless punishment. In the /)raine% on the
contrar1% the schools had a multiclass character. &oreoer% in the /)raine the clerg1 did not
-ecome segregated into a distinct class until *atherine's reign. In addition to the ,iean
Academ1% the ,har)o *ollegium also proides a characteristic e'ample. 3ounded as a seminar1
in 5=FF -1 Epifanii Ti)hors)ii% :8 the -ishop of Belgorod% and 4ith great material assistance
from the (olits1n famil1% the school had -een reorgani$ed in 5=FG. Sometimes it 4as een called
the Ti)horian Academ1. The theolog1 class 4as inaugurated as earl1 as 5=A:.
In an1 case% the hierarch1 4as o-ligated to esta-lish ne4 schools and to do so at the e'pense
of the local monaster1 or church. These schools 4ere founded from professional considerations
in the hope of the priesthood%! for the creation and education of a ne4 -reed of clerg1.
+o4eer% their curricula proided for general education 4ith theolog1 studied onl1 in the er1
last 1ear. ;er1 fe4 surmounted the long and difficult curriculum to reach that class. The maBorit1
left the seminaries 4ith no theological training 4hateer. Not Bust the poorer students left earl1
68
?Hfor inaptitude for learning! or for ina-ilit1 to understand the lessons!@. ;er1 freCuentl1 the
-etter students 4ere lured a4a1 to the ciil command! Lsets)aia )ommandaM in search of other
professions or simpl1 to enter into the -ureaucratic ran).! Det throughout the entire eighteenth
centur1 the ecclesiastical schools formed the sole% dura-le% and e'tensie educational s1stem.
The e'pansion and deelopment of such a net4or) of multigrade schools seemed an
impossi-le tas)% as 4as dul1 foreseen. A-oe all% the necessar1 num-er of teachers could
no4here -e found or acCuired% especiall1 teachers sufficientl1 trained in the highest learning!
?i.e.% theolog1 and philosoph1@. In an1 case% onl1 four of the t4ent19si' seminaries opened prior
to 5=87 taught theolog1 and four more offered philosoph1. Eue to the lac) of a-le teachers% this
situation onl1 slo4l1 improed een at the Ale)sandr Nes)ii Seminar1 in St. Peters-urg :G
Enlisting students proed difficult% although failure to appear 4as treated similarl1 to desertion
from the arm1.
A police state dra4s no distinction -et4een stud1 and serice. Education is regarded as a
form of serice or dut1. The student ?een the 1oungest@ 4as loo)ed upon as a seritor
discharging his o-ligation and -ound to perform all the tas)s -elonging to his office under threat
of criminal prosecution and not simpl1 punishment. Thus% onl1 4ith the greatest reluctance 4ere
een the least capa-le students ?including -o1s of unconCuera-le delinCuenc1% cruelt1% and
iolent -rutalit1@ e'cused from enlistment in the education serice% and 4hen that happened%
soldiering replaced their education. In this regard% seminarians -ecame sons of church soldiers
Ltser)on1e )antonist1M.! Those failing to appear% those 4ho disappeared% or those 4ho deserted
4ere trac)ed do4n and forci-l1 returned > sometimes een in chains > for that training and
testing of them depicted in the Spiritual Regulation.! All of these measures failed to deter
deserters. Sometimes nearl1 half the seminar1 ran a4a1% and class lists contained the epicentr1:
semper fugitiosus.
Such 4ild flights -1 students and their concealment -1 others did not result from some dar)
Cualit1% la$iness% or o-scurantism on the part of the clerical ran). The reason for such reBection of
education did not derie from some ignorant or superstitious Cualit1 in the clerg1% a topic on
4hich Peter and 3eofan so eloCuentl1 declaimed. The reason lies concealed in the fact that the
ne4 Russian school 4as foreign and e'otic: an une'pected 2atin9Polish colon1 on the Russian
clerg1's natie soil. Een from the professional! point of ie4 such a school can -e sho4n to
hae -een useless.
The practical mind detected no -enefit in 2atin grammar% that is% in some Jartful
mannerisms' acCuired in the seminaries and utterl1 failed to discoer an1 reasons to a-andon the
old familiar 4a1s of preparation for pastoral duties at home in e'change for ne4 unfamiliar and
dou-tful 4a1s. It still remained to -e proen 4ho 4as -etter prepared for the clerical life: the
psalmist 4ho had sered in the church since childhood and learned reading% singing% and
liturgical routine through practice or the 2atin scholar 4ho had learned a fe4 2atin inflections%
and a fe4 oca-ular1 4ords. ?Nnamens)ii@ In the 2atin schools% students gre4 unfamiliar 4ith
Slaic and een the Scriptural te'ts used during their lessons 4ere presented in 2atin. (rammar%
rhetoric% and poetics 4ere studied in 2atin. Rhetoric in Russian came later. /nderstanda-l1%
parents mistrustfull1 sent their children to that damned seminar1 to -e tortured%! 4hile the
children themseles preferred imprisonment if it meant escaping such educational serice. The
disma1ing impression arose that these ne4l1 introduced schools% if the1 did not actuall1 alter
one's faith% did replace one's nationalit1.
Euring Peter's reign Russia did not acCuire the humanist foundations! of European culture%
-ut merel1 4estern routine. This routine 4as introduced through compulsor1 measures% and such
6G
means freCuentl1 proed morall1 de-asing% particularl1 in the all9em-racing poert1%! that is%
outright destitution 4hich preailed in the schools een as late as the -eginning of the nineteenth
centur1. &etropolitan 3ilaret of &osco4% spea)ing a-out his o4n school da1s% noted that clerical
1ouths from the lo4est grades to the highest prepared themseles for church serice more
through fortitude and endurance than -ecause the1 possessed an1 material adantage.! True% in
the second half of the centur1 this situation improed and another% more fruitful% pedagogical
ideal preailed. Een 3rench -ecame part of the curriculum. The ideal found scarcel1 an1
reflection in life.
The esta-lishment of schools undou-tedl1 constituted a positie step. Det the transplant of
2atin schools in Russian soil signified a -reach in the church's consciousness: a -reach
separating theological learning! from ecclesiastical e'perience. The rift could -e felt all the
more )eenl1 4hen one pra1ed in Slaic and theologi$ed in 2atin. The same Scripture 4hich rang
out in class in the international language of 2atin could -e heard in Slaic in the cathedral. This
unhealth1 -reach in the church's consciousness ma1 4ell hae -een the most tragic conseCuence
of the Petrine epoch. A ne4 dual faith%! or at least dual soul%! 4as created. .nce one has gone
to the (ermans% leaing them is er1 difficult! ?+er$en@. :=
The cultural construction 4as 4estern0 een the theolog1 4as 4estern. Euring the
eighteenth centur1 the term education usuall1 designated scholarl1 erudition.! This theological
erudition of Russia's eighteenth centur1 2atin schools came to -e regarded ?and 4ith reason@ as
some foreign and superfluous element in the church's life and customs% responding to none of its
organic needs. Such erudition 4as not neutral. Theolog1 studied according to 3eofan's s1stem
resulted in all Cuestions -eing posed and ie4ed from a Protestant standpoint. Ps1chological
transformation accompanied this ne4 erudition0 the spiritual dimension 4as Reformed.! Is this
not actuall1 the most po4erful reason for that lac) of faith in and o-stinate indifference to
theological culture 4hich still has not 1et -een outgro4n among the 4ider circles of the
congregation and een among the clerg1I This is also the reason for the continuing attitude
to4ards theolog1 as a foreign and 4estern appendage foreer alien to the .rthodo' East 4hich
has so tragicall1 impeded ?and continues to impede@ the recoer1 of Russia's religious
consciousness and its li-eration from -oth ancient and modern preBudices. This is an historical
diagnosis% not an assessment.
H&an1 seminarians 4ho are stud1ing 2atin language and 2atin su-Bects hae -een o-sered
to -ecome suddenl1 -ored%! as it 4as noted in a er1 curious reCuest for the reinstitution of
Russian entitled 2amentations of Sons of &erchants and Those of &i'ed Ran)s! addressed to
the then arch-ishop of Ter% Platon 2eshin% :6 in 5==7. Such -oredom! and een affliction!
?that is% inBur1 to the mind@ sprang from a spiritual contusion or rupture. Kuite sufficient reasons
and grounds for dis-elief and suspicion 4ere proided not onl1 during Peter's rein -ut
su-seCuent 1ears supplied them 4ith greater freCuenc1. 2earning opposed superstition! and
often faith and piet1 4ere understood to come under that hated designation. Naturall1 this 4as
the Age of Enlightenment.! The -usiness9li)e and utilitarian struggle 4ith superstition during
Peter's reign anticipated the lu'urious freethin)ing and li-ertinism of *atherine's reign.
In dealing 4ith superstition! Peter proed more resolute than een 3eofan% for he 4as
cruder. Still% 3eofan 4as no apprentice. In this regard% the Petrine legislation regulating
monasteries and monasticism is er1 instructie. Peter considered monasticism as )naish and
parasitical. "heneer seeral LsuchM sanctimonious -igots 4ent to isit the (ree) emperors%
the1 more freCuentl1 isited their 4ies.! At the er1 outset Lof Russian histor1M this gangrene
-ecame 4idespread among us.! Peter found Russia climaticall1 unsuited to monasticism. +e
6=
planned to conert e'isting monasteries into 4or) houses% foundling homes or eterans homes.
&on)s 4ere to -ecome hospital attendants and nuns 4ere to -ecome spinners and lacema)ers%
for 4hich purpose s)illed lacema)ers 4ere -rought from Bra-ant. The1 sa1 pra1% and eer1one
pra1s. "hat profit does societ1 get from thatI! The prohi-ition against mon)s stud1ing -oo)s
and engaging in literar1 affairs is Cuite characteristic% and a rule! to that effect 4as appended to
the Regulation. :<
3or no reason shall mon)s 4rite in their cells% either e'cerpts from -oo)s or letters of
adice% 4ithout the personal )no4ledge of their superior under penalt1 of seere corporal
punishment0 nor shall the1 receie letters e'cept 4ith the permission of the superior. In
conformit1 4ith the spiritual and ciil regulations no in) or paper ma1 -e o4ned% e'cept -1
those permitted -1 the superior for a general spiritual use. This shall -e diligentl1 4atched
among the mon)s% for nothing destro1s monastic silence as much as friolous and ain 4ritings.
Apropos of this prohi-ition% (iliaro9Platono 87 once rightl1 noted that:
"hen Peter I issued the decree for-idding mon)s to )eep pen and in) in their cells% 4hen that
same rule ordered -1 la4 that the confessor report to the criminal inestigator those sins reealed
to him in confession0 then the clerg1 must hae felt that henceforth state authorit1 4ould come
-et4een them and the people% that the state 4ould ta)e upon itself the e'clusie instruction of the
popular mind and strie to destro1 that spiritual -ond% that mutual confidence% 4hich e'isted
-et4een shepherds and their floc)s.
True% Peter also 4ished to educate the mon)s in the true understanding of the Scriptures. As
a first step% all 1oung mon)s ?that is% those less than thirt1 1ears old@ 4ere ordered to assem-le
for stud1 at the Nai)onospass)ii Academ1. 85 Such a decree could onl1 produce further unrest%
for it could onl1 -e understood as an effort to e'tend the educational9serice reCuirement to
mon)s ?4hich 4as full1 in )eeping 4ith the spirit of the reforms!@. Such serice 4as to -e done
in 2atin schools at that. Some4hat later Peter proposed to conert the monasteries into nurser1
-eds for the cultiation of enlightened men especiall1 capa-le of translating useful -oo)s.
A-oe all% the ne4 school 4as regarded as a form of state ar-itrariness and interference.
These ne4 learned! mon)s of the 2atin9,iean t1pe ?the onl1 sort Peter and 3eofan 4ished to
train@8F 4hose uncomprehending and e'cited minds 4ere forci-l1 acCuiring and -eing drilled in
lifeless 2atin )no4ledge% could hardl1 -e reconciled to the closure and destruction of the old
pious monasteries or 4ith the silencing of (od's serice 4ithin them. 8A
The Petrine State e'torted the acceptance of this religious and ps1chological act. Precisel1
-ecause of this e'tortion religious consciousness in the eighteenth centur1 so often shran)%
shrielled% and coered itself 4ith silence% Cuiet endurance% and a refusal to pose Cuestions for
itself. A single common language9that s1mpathetic -ond 4ithout 4hich mutual understanding is
impossi-le94as lost. The Cuips and -anterings in 4hich Russia's eighteenth centur1 ,ulturtrager
and enlighteners rapturousl1 engaged further facilitated this process. In general% all these
contradictions and contusions during the eighteenth centur1 po4erfull1 and unhealthil1
resounded and found e'pression in the histor1 of Russian theolog1 and Russian religious
consciousness.
Protestant %cholasticis$.
3eofan's influence in education did not -ecome immediatel1 apparent. +e taught for onl1 a
short time in ,ie and he left no disciples -ehind him. +is s1stem! remained uncompleted%
4hile his notes 4ere prepared and pu-lished much later. 3eofan's s1stem penetrated the school
66
routine appro'imatel1 at mid9centur1 ?in ,ie after Arsenii &ogilians)ii 8: -ecame
metropolitan in 5=8<@. Euring the first half of the centur1 theolog1 continued to -e taught in the
earlier Roman *atholic manner. 88 *ourse plans 4ritten -1 3eofila)t ?that is% on the -asis of
Thomas ACuinas@ usuall1 constituted the theolog1 taught in the ne4 seminaries. At that time
peripatetic philosoph1s 8G > Philsophia Atistotelico9Scholastica94as taught eer14here and
usuall1 from the same te't-oo)s as those used -1 the Polish #esuits. Philosoph1 passed from
Aristotle to "olff 8= almost simultaneousl1 4ith the passage of theolog1 from ACuinas to 3eofan
Pro)opoich. Baumeister's te't-oo) long remained reCuired and 4idel1 accepted. 86 The s4a1
of Protestant 2atin scholasticisrn -egan. 2atin remained the language of the schools% 4hile
instruction and stud1 4ent unchanged. Eirect use 4as made of the s1stems and compendiums
4ritten -1 (erhard% Kuenstedt% +ollatius and Buddeus. 8< *ompilations% a-ridgments%! and
e'tracts! 4ere made from these Protestant hand-oo)s in the same manner such -oo)s had -een
compiled from Roman *atholic te'ts% 3e4 of these compendiums 4ere pu-lished. The lectures
of Sil'estr ,ulia-)a% (eorgii ,onis)ii% or (ariil Petro G7 4ere neer printed .nl1 much later
did such compendiums appear in print: 3eofila)t (ors)ii's Eoctrina ?pu-lished in 2eip$ig in
5=6: and -ased on Buddeus and Schu-ert@0 Ia)inf ,arpins)ii's *ompendium theologiae
dogmaticopolemicae ?2eip$ig% 5=6G@0 Sil'estr 2e-edins)ii's *ompendium ?St Peters-urg% 5=<<
and &osco4% 5678@0 and finall1 Irinei 3al')os)ii'a compendium pu-lished in 565F. G5 All of
these authors follo4ed 3eofan. .ne loo)s in ain for an1 free e'pression of thought in these
-oo)s and compendiums. The1 4ere te't-oo)s: the fossili$ed tradition of the school! and the
4eight of erudition. The eighteenth centur1 4itnessed the age of erudites and archaeologists
?more as philologists than as historians@% and such erudition found e'pression in their teaching.
The 4hole purpose of eighteenth centur1 education resided in compiling and assem-ling
material. Een in the proincial seminaries the -est students read a great deal% especiall1 the
classical historians and freCuentl1 een the church fathers more often in 2atin translation than in
(ree)% 3or the (ree) language did not -elong to the ordinar1! course 4or)% that is% it 4as not
one of the chief su-Bects of instruction and 4as not een reCuired. GF .nl1 in 5=6: 4as an1
attention paid to instruction in (ree) out of consideration for the fact that the sacred -oo)s and
the 4or)s of the teachers of our .rthodo' (reco9Russian *hurch 4ere 4ritten in it: A more
li)el1 e'planation for this decision is to -e found in the political calculations related to the
(ree) ProBect.! GA The reminder a-out (ree) produced no direct practical results and een such
an adocate as &etropolitan Platon of &osco4 G: found onl1 ten or fifteen student 4illing to
stud1 in his -eloed and 4ell tended Trinit1 Seminar1@ Platon himself learned (ree) onl1 after
finishing school. +e hoped the seminarians might achiee the a-ilit1 to spea) simple (ree) and
read +ellenic (ree).! +e succeeded% for some of his students did acCuire the a-ilit1 to 4rite
(ree) erses. The 4or)s of the church fathers as 4ell as other -oo)s 4ere translated from (ree)
and 2atin at -oth the Nai)onospass)ii Academ1 and the Trinit1 Seminar1. (ree)% along 4ith
+e-re4% -ecame compulsor1 4ith the reform of 5=<6.G8
Among the Russian +ellenists of the eighteenth centur1 first place must -e gien to Simon
Todors)ii%GG the great authorit1 on (ree) and .riental languages and student of the famous
&ichaelis G= Todors)ii's students in ,ie% Ia)o Blonnits)ii and ;arlaam 2iashches)ii% -oth
4or)ed on the ne4 edition of the Slaic Bi-le. G6 This 4as no eas1 tas). The editors needed
genuine philological tact and sensitiit1. A decision had to -e made a-out 4hich editions to use
as a -asis for corrections. The "alton Pol1glot% G< to -e consulted in conBunction 4ith the
*omplutensian Pol1glot% =7 4as finall1 decided upon. No immediate solution 4as deised on
ho4 to deal 4ith cases of fault1 translation in the old and ne4 editions. .ne suggestion inoled
6<
full1 printing -oth editions9the old one and the ne4 corrected one9in parallel columns. The
printed Bi-le% ho4eer% merel1 gae an e'tensie inde' of all changes. The editors too) the
Septuagint as their guide. 3eofan had opposed comparing the translation not onl1 4ith the
+e-re4 te't% -ut also 4ith other (ree) te'ts 4hich did not come into common use in the
Eastern *hurch.! +is argument 4as to -e repeated a centur1 later -1 the adherents to the return
to the time of scholasticism.! Ia)o Blonnits)ii at one time sered as a teacher in Ter' and
&osco4. "ithout completing the 4or) on the Bi-le% he secretl1 Bourne1ed to &t. Athos% 4here
he lied ten 1ears in the Bulgarian monaster1 of Nographou =5 and continued his stud1 of Slaic
and (ree).
Bi-lical realism9the effort to grasp and understand the sacred te't in its concreteness and
een in historical perspectie9constitutes the positie side of the ne4 Bi-lical instruction.
&oralistic and didactic allegorism formed a po4erful element in eighteenth centur1 e'egesis.
Neertheless% a-oe all else the Bi-le 4as regarded as a -oo) of Sacred +istor1. An ecclesiastical
apperception -egan to ta)e shape.
In 5=<6 church histor1 -ecame part of the curriculum. Since there 4as no classical! -oo)
?that is% te't-oo)@% &osheim% Bingham% or 2ange 4ere recommended. =F Translation of
historical 4or)s occupied considera-le attention at the &osco4 Academ1 in the 5=G7's. Pael
Ponomare the rector of the academ1 in 5=6F ?later arch-ishop% of Ter' and then Iaroslal'@%
translated the &emoires of Tillemont =A% -ut the 4or) met 4ith the censor's disapproal. Ieronim
*herno% prefect at the academ1 in 5=66% pu-lished his translation of Bingham. &efodii Smirno
rector from 5=<5 to 5=<8 ?later arch-ishop of Ter'@% prefaced his theolog1 lectures 4ith an
historical introduction. +is 2i-er historicus de re-us in primitia sie trium primorum et Cuarti
ineuntis seculorum ecclesia christiana% the first sure1 of church histor1 in Russia% appeared in
5678. The -oo)'s st1le and content 4holl1 -elong to the eighteenth centur1. Petr Ale)see ?5=F=9
5675@% archpriest of the Archangel cathedral% a mem-er of the Russian Academ1% and a man of
er1 adanced ie4s% taught for man1 1ears at &osco4 /niersit1. +is chief 4or)% the
Ecclesiastical Eictionar1 LTser)on1i sloar'M% 4hich proided e'planations for church articles
and terms% 4ent through three editions. =: +e -egan to pu-lish the .rthodo' *onfession
LPraoslanoe ispoedanieM and had printed the entire first part and thirt1 Cuestions of the second
part 4hen the printing 4as halted -ecause of -old remar)s% 4hich hae -een appended.! +is
o4n *atechism L,ati)hi$isM 4as also su-seCuentl1 detained.
&ention should also -e made of ;eniamin Rumos)ii% =8 4ho -ecame 4idel1 )no4n as the
author of Ne4 Ta-le of *ommandments LNoaia s)ri$hal'M% 4hich first appeared in &osco4 in
567:. +e also translated #aco-us (oar's Euchologion. =G ;eniamin died in 5655 as arch-ishop of
Ni$hegorod. Irinei ,lement'es)ii == ?4ho died as arch-ishop of Ps)o in 5656@ 4as )no4n for
his commentaries and translations from the (ree) of the church fathers.
;er1 earl1 in the centur1 a ne4 dimension9pietism94as added to the older Protestant
scholasticism. Simon Todors)ii ?5G<<95=8:@ must once again -e ino)ed in this connection. As
he sa1s himself% after leaing the ,ie Academ1% I traeled across the sea to the Academ1 of
+alle in &agde-urg.! +alle at that time formed the chief and er1 storm1 center of pietism
?*hristian "olff 4as e'pelled in 5=FA@. At +alle% Todors)ii studied oriental languages% especiall1
Bi-lical languages. Such intense interest in the Bi-le is highl1 characteristic of pietism% 4hich
rather une'pectedl1 fuses philosoph1 and moralit1. =6 At one time Todors)ii sered as a teacher
in the pietists' famous .rphan As1lum in +alle. =< "hile at +alle% Todors)ii translated #ohann
Arndt's .n True *hristianit1 L"ahres *hristentumM .67 The -oo) 4as pu-lished in +alle in 5=A8.
+e also translated Anastasius the Preacher's (uide to the ,no4ledge of *hrist's Passion and the
<7
anon1mous Teaching on the 3oundation of the *hristian 2ife. 65 These -oo)s 4ere for-idden in
Russia and remoed from circulation in 5=:A% so that henceforth no such -oo)s 4ould -e
translated into Russian.
Todors)ii did not return home directl1 from +alle. +aing left there% I spent a 1ear and a
half among the #esuits in arious places.! +e taught for a time some4here in +ungar1. +e acted
as a teacher for .rthodo' (ree)s and then returned to ,ie in 5=A<.
Pietism and sentimentalism -ecame Cuite 4idespread during the second half of the centur1.
Both -ecame fused 4ith m1stical freemasonr1. The impact of such dream1 moralism -ecame
Cuite noticea-le in the ecclesiastical schools. Pro-a-l1 it 4as most isi-le in &osco4 in Platon's
da1. Een "olffianism! -ecame sentimental and "olff's theolog1 Bustifia-l1 came to -e )no4n
as the dogmatics for the sentimental man.!
The structure and organi$ation of the church schools e'perienced no su-stantie alteration
during the entire centur1% although the spirit of the age changed seeral times. A small
commission for founding of the most useful schools in the dioceses! had -een formed at the
outset of *atherine's reign. (ariil% then -ishop of Ter'% 6F Inno)entii Nechae% -ishop of
Ps)o% 6A and Platon 2eshin% then still a hieromon)% constituted its mem-ership. The
commission discoered no reason to modif1 the 2atin t1pe of school and proposed onl1 the
introduction of a more complete uniformit1 and greater coherence in the school s1stem ?and
curriculum@. The successie steps of instruction 4ere to -e dismantled0 four seminaries
?Nogorod% St. Peters-urg% ,a$an' and Iaroslal'@ gien an e'panded program of stud1% and
&osco4 Academ1 4as to -e eleated to the ran) of an ecclesiastical uniersit1! 4ith a
uniersal curriculum. The commission clearl1 posed the Cuestion of the necessit1 for improing
the social status and condition of the clerg1. 6: A ne4 spirit perades the entire proposal: social
deelopment is less accented% 4hile discipline is moderated and manners softened. The proposal
aimed to inculcate a no-le sense of integrit1 in the students% 4hich li)e a mainspring% 4ould
goern their actions.! &odern languages% too% 4ere to -e added. A characteristic feature of the
proposal 4ould hae entrusted all the ecclesiastical schools to the ultimate authorit1 of t4o
protectors% one secular and one clerical% in order to gie greater independence to the schools. It
-ecame Cuite clear that genuine reform of the ecclesiastical schools 4as impossi-le 4ithout
-etterment! and support for the clerg1. The commission on church properties ?Teplo pla1ed a
guiding role in that commission@ 68 had actuall1 pointed out this fact in 5=GF. The commission's
proposals in 5=GG had no practical result. +o4eer that 1ear a group of 1oung seminarians 4as
sent a-road to stud1 at (ottingen% 2e1den% or .'ford. "ith the return in 5==A of those sent to
(ottingen% the Cuestion again arose a-out creating a theological facult1 in &osco4 under the
superision of the S1nod 4here the returning specialists could -e used in teaching. In 5=== a
detailed plan 4as dra4n up for such a facult1% -ut once more nothing resulted. "hen &osco4
/niersit1 4as esta-lished in 5=88% a department of theolog1 had -een reBected: In addition to
the philosophical sciences and Burisprudence% theolog1 should -e taught in eer1 uniersit1
ho4eer% the concern for theolog1% properl1 spea)ing% -elongs to the +ol1 S1nod.! 6G
.nl1 one student 4ho had studied in (ottingen 4as appointed to a position in the
ecclesiastical schools. This 4as Eamas)in Semeno Rudne ?5=A=9I=<8@% later -ishop of Ni$hnii
Nogorod and a mem-er of the Russian Academ1. "hile in (ottingen as the superisor for the
1ounger students% he had studied philosoph1 and histor1 rather than theolog1 and translated
Nestor's chronicle 6= into (erman. +o4eer% he did attend theolog1 lectures and in 5==F
pu-lished 3eofan Pro)opoich's treatise .n the Procession of the +ol1 Spirit 4ith additions and
commentaries. .n his return% he too) monastic o4s and -ecame a professor and rector of the
<5
&osco4 Academ1. Een -1 the standards of *atherine's age% he 4as a li-eral! hierarch%
educated in the philosoph1 of "olff and natural la4. It is said that &etropolitan (ariil
indicated to him that he should stop all that (erman nonsense -u$$ing in his head and more
seduousl1 appl1 himself to fulfilling his monastic o4s.! .f those students 4ho studied in
2e1den% one% ;eniamin Bagrians)ii% 66 later -ecame -ishop of Ir)uts). +e died in 565:.
Euring roughl1 those same 1ears% a proposal 4as made to reform the ,ie Academ1. .ne
plan suggested transforming the academ1 into a uniersit1 -1 e'pelling the mon)s and
su-ordinating the school to the secular authorities in societ1 ?the suggestion came from
Ra$umos)ii% 6< Rumiantse% <7 and at the desire of the ,ie and Starodu- no-ilit1 in the
*ommission of 5=GG95=G=@. Another plan% that of (le-o% the goernor9general of ,ie%
adocated the creation of ne4 faculties ?5=GG@. The Academ1 remained unchanged. +o4eer%
4ithin a short time instruction improed in secular su-Bects and modern languages 4hich are
necessar1 for social life! ?3rench had -een taught since 5=8A@. *haracteristicall1% during
&etropolitan Samuil &islas)ii's <5 administration% teacher candidates 4ere sent to stud1 at the
/niersit1 of ;ilna or in the Protestant conent in Sluts) ?ho4eer% the1 4ent to &osco4
/niersit1@.
The 5=<6 reform of the ecclesiastical schools also left their foundations intact. The
seminaries in St. Peters-urg and ,a$an' receied the designation of Academ1! together 4ith an
e'tension and ela-oration of instruction. Ne4 seminaries 4ere opened0 the curricula 4ere
some4hat reised.
&etropolitan Platon 2eshin ?5=A=95655@ 4as the most important contri-utor to church
education in the eighteenth centur1: the Peter &ogila of the &osco4 Academ1%! in S. ,.
Smirno's <F apt phrasing. Platon 4as a t1pical representatie of that ornate% dream1% and
trou-led age% 4hose eer1 contradiction and confusion condensed and reer-erated 4ithin his
personalit1. Plus philosophe Cue pretre%! 4as #oseph II's <A Budgment of him. Platon attracted
*atherine for that er1 reason. In an1 case% as a sufficientl1 enlightened! man% he discoursed on
superstitions! according to the spirit of the age. Neertheless% Platon remained a man of piet1
and pra1er and a great loer of church singing and the liturg1. Impetuous% 1et determined% -oth
direct and dream1% easil1 aroused and persistent% Platon al4a1s acted openl1 and9forthrightl1
4ith himself and 4ith others. +e could not possi-l1 hae lasted long at court% nor could he hae
presered an1 influence there.
Platon adanced -ecause of his a-ilities as a preacher% another trait in )eeping 4ith the st1le
of that rhetorical age. +e could compel een courtiers to shudder and 4eep. Det it is his sermons
4hich iidl1 disclose the utter sincerit1 and intensit1 of his o4n 4arm piet1. Behind his
mannered eloCuence% one detects a fle'i-le 4ill and deep coniction. "hile a teacher of rhetoric
at the Trinit1 Seminar1% Platon too) monastic o4s% and did so from inner coniction and
inclination%! -ecause of a special loe for enlightenment%! as he himself put it. Platon regarded
monasticism from a Cuite peculiar standpoint. 3or him celi-ac1 4as its sole purpose. As
concerns monasticism% he reasoned that it could not impose an1 greater o-ligations upon a
*hristian than those 4hich the (ospel and the -aptismal o4s had alread1 imposed.! <: 2oe of
solitude > less for pra1er than for intellectual pursuits and friendships > proided a strong
attraction. Platon consciousl1 chose the path of the church. +e declined entr1 to &osco4
/niersit1% Bust as he refused offers to other secular positions. +e did not 4ish to -e lost in the
empt1 anit1 of 4orldl1 life. Traces of a personal Rousseauism can -e seen in his efforts to leae
&osco4 for the +ol1 Trinit1 &onaster1% 4here he could -uild his o4n intimate as1lum:
Bethan1. <8
<F
Platon 4as a great and ardent adocate of education and enlightenment. +e had his o4n
conception of the clerg1. +e 4ished to create a ne4% educated and cultured clerg1 ia the
humanistic school. +e 4ished to improe the clerical ran) and eleate it to the social heights. +e
chose to do so at a time 4hen others 4ere tr1ing to reduce and disole the clerg1 in the third
estate of men! and een in an impersonal serfdom. +ence Platon's an'ious desire to adapt the
instruction and education in the ecclesiastical schools to the tastes and ie4s of enlightened!
societ1. +e 4as a-le to do a great deal in particular for the seminar1 at the +ol1 Trinit1
&onaster1. Nai)onospass)ii Academ1 enBo1ed a renaissance under Platon. +e founded Bethan1
Seminar1 in 5=<= on the model of Trinit1 Seminar1. +o4eer% Bethan1 opened onl1 in 5677.
Education of the mind and heart so that the1 might e'cel in good deeds! constituted
Platon's ideal: a sentimental noitiate and inersion of the church's spirit. /nder his influence a
ne4 t1pe of churchman9the erudite and loer of enlightenment9came into -eing. Neither a
thin)er nor a scholar% Platon 4as a $ealot or loer! of enlightenment9a er1 characteristic
eighteenth centur1 categor10
Although a catechist rather than a theologian% Platon's catechisms! and conersations ?or
Elementar1 Instruction in *hristian 2a4@ 4hich he deliered in &osco4 during his earl1 career
?5=8= and 5=86@ signif1 a turning point in the histor1 of theolog1. +is lessons for the (rand
Eu)e Paul <G entitled .rthodo' Teaching or a Brief *hristian Theolog1 LPraoslanoe uchenie
ili so)rashchen )hristians)oe -ogosioie% 5=G8M mar)s the first attempt at a theological s1stem in
Russian. Ease of e'position is the -est feature a-out this 4or)%! 4as 3ilaret of *hernigo's
comment% 1et his faint praise is not Cuite Bust. Platon 4as less an orator than a teacher0 he
pondered oer education more than he studied orator1. I neer trou-led long oer an eloCuent
st1le.! +is determination to persuade educate men proided his e'pressieness and clarit1% for
the face of truth is singularl1 -eautiful 4ithout an1 false cosmetics.! +is polemic 4ith the .ld
Ritualists is Cuite instructie in this connection% for tolerance and deference did not presere him
from superficial simplification. +is proBect for the so9called single faith! LedinoerieM <= can
scarcel1 -e termed a success. In an1 case% Platon's catechisms! actuall1 4ere incomplete. Platon
tried to -ring theolog1 in contact 4ith life. +e sought to do so in conformit1 4ith the spirit of the
time -1 conerting theolog1 into moral instruction% into a )ind of emotional9moralistic
humanism. The arious s1stems of theolog1 no4 taught in the schools hae a scholastic air and
the odor of human su-tleties.! All of this -elongs to an age 4hich preferred to spea) of turning
the mind to4ard the good! rather than to4ard faith.! Platon sought a liel1 and liing theolog1%
4hich could -e found onl1 in Scripture. "hen commenting upon Scripture% 4hen searching out
the literal sense%! a-oe all one aoid an1 -ending or force in order not to a-use Scripture -1
see)ing a hidden meaning 4here none e'ists.! Te'ts should -e Bu'taposed in order that
Scriptures might -e allo4ed to e'plain themseles. At the same time% use the -est
commentators.! Platon understood this to mean the church fathers. The influence of *hr1sostom
and Augustine are easil1 detected in his 4riting. +e hastened to spea) more intimatel1 a-out
dogma% and his doctrinal theolog1! can scarcel1 -e distinguished from the preailing ague and
moralisticall1 emotional 2utheranism of the time. The sacramental meaning of the church is
inadeCuatel1 presented throughout his theolog1% 4hile moral appositions ?the scholastic usus@ are
oerdeeloped. The church is defined er1 imprecisel1 as an assem-l1 of men 4ho -eliee in
#esus *hrist! ?else4here Platon adds% and 4ho lie according to his la4!@. Such imprecision is
Cuite characteristic.
Platon 4as 4holl1 a part of modern Russia and its 4estern e'perience. 3or all his piet1% he
had too little sense of the church. Det this limitation does not detract from or oershado4 the true
<A
importance of his other achieements. The fact that Platon gae attention to the stud1 of Russian
church histor1 and encouraged others to do so as 4ell is of great importance. <6 &oreoer% he
pu-lished the first outline of that histor1 ?-ut onl1 in 5678@. &uch later this s1mpathetic return to
histor1 produced a more profound ecclesiastical self9a4areness. Platon's historical limitation is
isi-l1 e'pressed in his attitude to4ard the Russian language. +e himself not onl1 preached in
Russian -ut pu-lished his theolog1! in Russian. Det his -oo) on theolog1 had to -e translated
into 2atin for school use. Such 4as the case% for e'ample% at the Tula Seminar1.
Platon attempted to improe the instruction in Russian for the lo4est grades. Russian
grammar and rhetoric on the -asis of 2omonoso's << 4ritings replaced 2atin. +o4eer% he
feared that elementar1 instruction in Russian grammar and composition might impede progress
in 2atin su-Bects. /ntil the end of the eighteenth centur1% the greatest emancipation 4hich could
-e achieed in theolog1 lectures at Trinit1 Seminar1 4as the interpretation of te'ts from +ol1
Scripture according to the Slaic Bi-le 4ithout translation from 2atin. ?Nnamens)ii@ &efodii
Smirno 4as the first to do so% and then onl1 in the 5=<7's.
Rare e'periments had -een attempted earlier. At the time Platon -ecame arch-ishop of Ter'
in 5==7% he discoered theolog1 -eing taught in Russian. &a)arii Petroichluo introduced this
innoation in 5=G:. +is lectures 4ere pu-lished posthumousl1 as .rthodo' Teaching of the
Eastern *hurch% *ontaining Eer1thing 4hich a *hristian see)ing salation needs to )no4 and
do ?St. Peters-urg% 5=6A@.575 &a)arii translated scholastic disputations into Russian% tr1ing to
refashion them as conersations 4ith people holding different ie4s and remold them on the
patristic model ?H4heneer reading of the hol1 fathers is releant!@. &a)arii's successor at the
Ter' Seminar1% Arsenii ;ereshchagin l7F follo4ed his e'ample. Platon's appointment altered
eer1thing and restored the 2atin routine.
&uch later ?5678@% 4hen discussing a ne4 reform of the church schools% Platon strenuousl1
o-Bected to Russian as the language of instruction. +e feared a decline in scholarship and
especiall1 an erosion of scholarl1 prestige.
.ur clerg1 are regarded -1 foreigners as nearl1 ignorant for 4e can spea) neither 3rench
nor (erman. But 4e maintain our honor -1 repl1ing that 4e can spea) and cop1 2atin. If 4e
stud1 2atin as 4e do (ree)% 4e lose our 5ast honor% for 4e 4ill not -e a-le to spea) or 4rite an1
language. I -eg 1ou to retain it.
Platon's statement er1 clearl1 demonstrates ho4 greatl1 his outloo) had -een restricted -1
scholastic tradition and ho4 little he sensed the church's needs.
At the same time% the 4ea)est feature of the eighteenth centur1 ecclesiastical school deried
precisel1 from its 2atin character. Some4hat later Egenii Bol)hoitino% 57A another man of
the Enlightenment% Bustl1 noted that our present curriculum% prior to the course philosoph1% is
not one of general education% -ut merel1 a course 2atin literature.! Education cone1ed in the
Russian language 4as regarded 4ith a strange lac) of confidence during the eighteenth centur1.
It seemed to -e an impossi-le dream% if not actuall1 a dangerous one. The -old hope e'pressed in
the foundation charter ?5G &arch 5=A5@ of the ,har)o *ollegium remained unfulfilled. That
hope 4as to teach the .rthodo' children of eer1 class and calling% not onl1 poetics and
rhetoric% -ut also philosoph1 and theolog1 in the Slaonic% (ree) and 2atin languages% 4hile at
the same time endeaoring to introduce these su-Bects in natie Russian.! 2atin preailed.
In 5=G7% 4hen the metropolitan of ,ie% Arsenii &ogilians)ii% 57: ordered that the
.rthodo' *onfession -e read in Russian% his directie 4as considered a fruitless concession to
4ea)ness and ignorance. Basic theological lectures continued to -e deliered in 2atin%
presering the pure 2atin st1le and guarding it from the ulgar common dialect.! Archimandrite
<:
Iuenalii's 578 S1stem of *hristian Theolog1 ?Sistema )hristians)ago -ogosloiiaM% A parts%
?&osco4% 567G@% pu-lished in Russia at the -eginning of the nineteenth centur1% 4as not intended
for school use. The 4estern e'ample% 4ith a certain time lag to -e sure% inspired this tenacious
school 2atinism. As a result the Russian language atrophied.
The educated Russian theological language% a sample of 4hich can -e seen in the theses
presented at school disputations at the &osco4 Academ1% had so little deelopment that it
occupied an incompara-l1 lo4er position than een the language of ancient Russian translators
of the hol1 fathers and of the original theological 4or)s of ancient Rus'. ?Nnamens)ii@.
Things reached such a point that students 4ere una-le to 4rite easil1 in Russian% -ut first
had to e'press their thought in 2atin and then translate it. The students een copied in 2atin or
4rote 4ith a su-stantial admi'ture of 2atin 4ords the e'planations gien -1 the teacher in
Russian.
"hateer argument one used% 4hateer fundamentum one put to his opugnae% each
argument soendus -1 the defendant and his teacher.
H3rom such ?an enironmentM came priests 4ho )ne4 2atin and pagan 4riters adeCuatel1%
-ut 4ho )ne4 poorl1 the authors of the Bi-le or the 4riters of the church! ?3ilaret of &osco4@.
Such a situation 4as not the 4orst feature: still 4orse 4as the inorganic character of an entire
school s1stem in 4hich theolog1 could not -e enliened -1 the direct assistance and e'perience
of church life.
The scope and significance of the scholarl1 and een educational achieements of the
eighteenth centur1 should not -e underestimated. In an1 case% the cultural9theological e'periment
4as Cuite important. An ela-orate school net4or) spread throughout Russia. But Russian
theolog1 . . . all of this school! theolog1% in the strict sense% 4as rootless. It fell and gre4 in
foreign soil . . . A superstructure erected in a desert% . . and in place of roots came stilts. Theolog1
on stilts% such is the legac1 of the eighteenth centur1.
"ussian #reemasonr!.
3reemasonr1 proed to -e a maBor eent in the histor1 of Russian societ1 > that societ1
-orn and ela-orated in the upheaal of the Petrine era. 3reemasons 4ere men 4ho had lost the
eastern! path and 4ho had -ecome lost on 4estern ones. Kuite naturall1 the1 discoered this
ne4 road of freemasonr1 -1 starting from a 4estern crossroads. The first generation raised in
Peter's reforms receied its education in the principles of a utilitarian state serice. The ne4
educated class arose from among the conerts%! that is% among those 4ho accepted the Reform.
At that time such acceptance or ac)no4ledgment defined one's mem-ership in the ne4 class: '
The ne4 men -ecame accustomed and schooled to interpret their e'istence onl1 in terms of state
utilit1 and the general 4elfare. The Ta-le of Ran)s! replaced the *reed LSimol er1M and all it
implied. 57G The consciousness of these ne4 men -ecame e'troerted to the point of rupture.
The soul -ecame lost% disconcerted% and dissoled in the feerish onslaught of foreign
impressions and e'periences. In the 4hirl of construction during Peter's reign there had -een no
time to hae second thoughts or recoer1. B1 the time the atmosphere -ecame some4hat freer%
the soul had alread1 -een raished and e'hausted. &oral receptiit1 -ecame addled0 religious
needs cho)ed and suffocated. The er1 ne't generation -egan spea)ing 4ith alarm on the
corruption of morals in Russia. 57= The su-Bect 4as hardl1 e'hausted. This 4as an ge of
a-sor-ing adentures and eer1 sort of gratification. The histor1 of the Russian soul has not 1et
-een 4ritten for the eighteen centur1. .nl1 fragmentar1 episodes are )no4n. But a general
4eariness% sic)ness% and anguish clearl1 echo and reer-erate in such episodes. The -est
<8
representaties of *atherine's age testif1 to the searing ordeal% 4hich compelled them to set forth
in search of meaning an truth during an age of freethin)ing and de-aucher1. The1 had to contend
4ith passing through the coldest indifference and the most e'cruciating despair. 3or man1%
;oltarianism -ecame a genuine disease -oth morall1 and spirituall1.
A religious a4a)ening > a reial from a religious faint > occurred in the second half of
the eighteenth centur1. Not surprisingl1% such an a4a)ening often -ordered on h1sterics. A
paro'1sm of conscientious thought%! as ,liuches)ii descri-ed this freemasonic a4a)ening. Det
freemasonr1 4as more than a simple paro'1sm. Russian freemasonr1's entire historical
significance lies in the fact that it 4as anascetic effort and attempt at spiritual concentration. The
Russian soul recoered itself through freemasonr1 from the alien customs and dissipations in St.
Peters-urg.
3reemasonr1 did not signif1 a passing episode% -ut rather a deelopmental stage in the
histor1 of modern Russian societ1. To4ard the end of the 5==7's freemasonr1 s4ept through
nearl1 the entire educated class: In an1 case% the s1stem of &asonic lodges% 4ith all its -ranches%
e'tended throughout that class.
Russian freemasonr1 had a histor1 rich in disputes% diisions% and fluctuations. The first
lodges 4ere% in essence% circles of Eeists 4ho professed a rational moralit1 and natural religion%
4hile see)ing to achiee moral self9)no4ledge .l76 No distinctions or diisions e'isted -et4een
freemasons! and ;oltarians.! The m1stical current in freemasonr1 emerged some4hat later.
57< Det the circle of &osco4 Rosicrucians -ecame the most important and influential among the
Russian freemason centers of the time.
3reemasonr1 is a peculiar secular and secret .rder 4ith a er1 strict inner and e'ternal
discipline. And it 4as precisel1 its inner discipline or asceticism ?not Bust health1 spiritual
h1giene@ 4hich proed to -e most important for the general econom1 of &asonic la-ors in
sCuaring the rough stone! of the human heart% as the e'pression 4ent. A ne4 t1pe of man 4as
reared in such asceticism0 a ne4 human t1pe 4hich is encountered in the su-seCuent epoch
among the Romantics.! The occult sources! of Romanticism are -1 no4 incontesta-le.
Russian societ1 receied a sentimental education: an a4a)ening of the heart. The future
Russian intelligent first detected in the masonic moement his shatteredness and dualit1 of
e'istence. +e -ecame tormented -1 a thirst for 4holeness and -egan to see) it. The later
generation of the 56A7's and 56:7's repeated such searching% such Sturm und Erang. This 4as
particularl1 true for the Slaophiles. Ps1chologicall1% Slaophilism is an offshoot of the
freemasonr1 of *atherine's reign ?as it certainl1 did not derie from an1 rustic countr1 customs@.
&asonic asceticism em-races Cuite aried motifs% including a rationalistic indifference of
the Stoic ariet1% as 4ell as ennui 4ith life's anities% docetic fastidiousness% at times an outright
loe for death! ?HBo1 of the grae!@% and a genuinel1 temperate heart. 3reemasonr1 ela-orated a
comple' method of self scrutin1 and self9restraint. To die on the cross of self9a-negation and
perish in the fire of purification%! as I.;. 2opu)hin 557 deigned the goal of the true freemason.!
.ne must struggle 4ith oneself and 4ith dissipation0 concentrate one's feelings and thought0
seer passionate desires0 in9 struct the heart!0 and coerce the 4ill.! 3or the root and seat of eil
is found precisel1 4ithin oneself and in one's 4ill. Appl1 1our9 self to nothing so much as to -e
in spirit% soul and -od1% utterl1 4ith9out JI'.! And in the struggle 4ith 1ourself% 1ou must once
more aoid all self94ill and egoism. Eo not see) or choose a cross for 1ourself% -ut -ear one if
and 4hen it is gien to 1ou. Eo not tr1 to arrange for 1our salation as much as hope for it%
Bo1ousl1 hum-ling 1ourself -efore the 4ill of (od.
<G
3reemasonr1 preached a strict and responsi-le life0 moral self direction0 moral no-ilit10
restraint0 dispassion0 self9)no4ledge and self9possession0 philanthrop1! and the Cuiet life
amidst this 4orld 4ithout allo4ing one's heart to touch its anities.! Det freemasonr1 not onl1
demanded personal self9perfection -ut also an actie loe 9the primar1 e'pression% foundation%
and purpose of the )ingdom of #esus 4ithin the soul.! The philanthropical 4or) of Russian
freemasons of that time is Cuite 4ell )no4n.
&1stical freemasonr1 constituted an inner reaction to the spirit of the Enlightenment. All
the pathos of freemasonr1's Theoretical Eegree 555 4as directed against the inentions of -lind
reason! and the sophistries of that ;oltarian gang.! The accent shifted to intuition% the
counterpoint to eighteenth centur1 rationalism.
The age of scepticism 4as also the age of pietism. 3enelon 55F 4as no less popular than
;oltaire. The philosoph1 of faith and feeling! is no less characteristic of the age > the age of
sentimentalism > than the Enc1clopedie. Sentimentalism is organicall1 lin)ed to freemasonr1
and not onl1 designated a literar1 tendenc1 or moement% -ut initiall1 signified a m1stical trend:
a religio9ps1chological Cuest. The sources of sentimentalism must -e sought in the 4ritings of
Spanish% Eutch and 3rench m1stics of the si'teenth and seenteenth centuries. Sentimentalism
educated the soul in reerie and feeling% in a certain constant pensieness% and in hol1
melanchol1! ?cf. the spiritual path of the 1oung ,aram$in 55A as 4ell as the later deelopment
of Nhu)os)ii@.55: This 4as not al4a1s accomplished -1 the concentration of the soul. The ha-it
of too ceaselessl1 and e'cessiel1 e'amining oneself often resulted in Cuietism of the 4ill. &en
of that period freCuentl1 fell ill from reflection%! and this sentimental education! most
po4erfull1 influenced precisel1 the formation of 'the superfluous man.! +ol1 melanchol1!
inaria-l1 contains an aftertaste of scepticism.
In those da1s men -ecame accustomed to liing in an imaginar1 element% in a 4orld of
images and reflections. The1 ma1 hae penetrated the m1steries or the1 ma1 hae -een haing
-ad dreams. Not accidentall1% the epoch 4itnessed on all sides an a4a)ening of a creatie
fantas19a po4erfull1 great poetic plasticit1 and modelling. The Beautiful Soul! LPre)rasnaia
dushaM -ecame parado'icall1 impressiona-le% starting iolentl1 and trem-ling at the slightest
noise in life. Apocal1ptical presentiments had -een gaining strength since the end of the
seenteenth centur1. The so9called a4a)ening! LEr4ec)ungM t1pified the age% especiall1 among
the -road mass of the population. The theoretical appeal to the heart proides additional
testimon1 a-out this a4a)ening. The a4a)ening of (race! LEurch-ruch der (nadeM% as the
pietists e'pressed it% a-oe all meant a personal ordeal: a gift of e'perience.
HEispassion! is 4holl1 compati-le 4ith such a ision. *ontemporar1 m1sticism possessed a
restrained 4ill% -ut not a temperate heart or imagination. A ne4 generation gre4 up 4ith this
outloo). Scarcel1 -1 accident did the Rosicrucian A.&. ,utu$o 558 translate Ed4ard Doung's
*omplaint% or Night Thoughts. 55G Doung's -oo) did not merel1 sere as a confession of a
sentimental man% -ut as a guide for this ne4l1 a4a)ened and sensitie generation. I t4ice read
Doung's Nights as the good ne4s% not as a poem%! recalled one of that generation. The
Cualification should -e made that such a melancholic philosoph1 of sighs and tears! signified
onl1 a transfigured humanism. . -e a man% and thou shalt -e a godQ And half self9made. .
&an alone has -een summoned to la-or% not in the 4orld -ut 4ithin himself% in seraphical
dreams.! &an)ind 4as not created for -road )no4ledge or for profound understanding -ut for
4onder and reerent emotions.! The call 4as to inner concentration. .ur 4orldl1 deeds hae
-een cur-ed > one must not conCuer things -ut thoughts > guard 1our thoughts as -est 1ou
can% for +eaen attends to them.! Such an attitude sered as a -arrier to freethin)ing. I.(.
<=
Sch4art$ 55= reportedl1 deoted a er1 large portion of his lectures to critici$ing freethin)ing
and godless -oo)s%! of such 4riters as +eletius% Spino$a% and Rousseau 556 and anCuishing
those rising o-scurantists.! As A.3. 2a-$inll1 recalls% a single 4ord from Sch4art$ struc)
corrupt and godless -oo)s from man1 hands and put the +ol1 Bi-le in their place.!
The turn to m1sticism produced an a-undant literature ?printed and in manuscript@% most of
it translated% as can -e seen in the actiities of the T1pographical *ompan1% opened in &osco4 in
5=6:% as 4ell as in the productions from secret presses. "estern m1stics 4ere -est represented%
4ith #aco- Boehme% 5F7 *laude de Saint9&artin 5F5% and #ohn &ason lFF the most 4idel1 read.
S.I. (amaleia 5FA translated all of Boehme's 4ritings ?the translation remained unpu-lished@.
;alentin "iegel% #ohann (ichtel and #ohn Pordage 5F: also appeared in translation. A great
man1 +ermetic! 4riters 4ere translated% including "elling% ,irch-erger% Triridarium
*h1micum% the *hemical Psalter -1 Penn% *hri$omander% and Ro-ert 3ludd. 5F8 &oreoer%
there 4as a 4ide assortment of modern and ancient 4riters such as &acarius of Eg1pt% St.
Augustine's selected 4or)s% the Areopagitica% and een (regor1 Palamas% The Imitation of
*hrist% #ohann Arndt's .n True *hristianit1% 2. Scupoli% Angelus Silesius% Bun1an% &olinos%
Poiret% (u1on% and Eu$etanoo's &1ster1 of the *ross. 5FG A great deal of reading 4as done in
the lodges according to a strictl1 prescri-ed order and under the superision and guidance of the
masters. 'Those outside the lodges read 4ith eCuall1 great aidit1. The pu-lications of the
&osco4 freemasons sold 4ell. Thus% the ne4-orn Russian intelligentsia all at once acCuired a
complete s1stem of m1stical enthusiasms and em-raced the 4estern 1stical9utopian tradition and
the rh1thm of post9Reformation m1sticism. The intelligentsia% studied and gre4 accustomed to
Cuietist m1stics% pietists% and ?to some e'tent@ the church fathers. ?2ate in life Elagin 5F=
deeloped a complete s1stem of patristic readings% apparentl1 as a counter4eight to Sch4art$.@.
3reemasonr1 did not limit itself to a culture of the heart. 3reemasonr1 had its o4n
metaph1sics and dogmatics. Its metaph1sics made freemasonr1 an anticipation and premonition
of Romanticism and Romantic Naturphilosophie. The e'perience of the &osco4 Rosicrucians
?and later of freemasonr1' during Ale'ander I's 5F6 reign@ prepared the soil for the deelopment
of Russian Schellingianism lF< ?especiall1 in Prince ;.3. .does)ii@ 5A7 4hich germinated from
those same magical roots. T4o motifs are important in this magical m1sticism% this diine
alchem1.! The first is the ital feeling for 4orld harmon1 or uniersal unit1% the 4isdom of the
4orld and the m1stical apprehension of nature. "e al4a1s hae -efore our e1es the open -oo)
of nature. Eiine 4isdom shines forth from it 4ith fier1 4ords.! The second motif is a iid
anthropocentric self a4areness: man as the e'tract' of all -eings.!
Naturphilosophie 4as not a chance episode or deformit1 of freemasonr1's 4orldie40 it 4as
one of freemasonr1's essential themes% representing an a4a)ened religio9cosmic a4areness >
nature is the house of (od% 4here (od himself d4ells.! 5A5 Naturphilosophie also represented
an a4a)ened poetic and metaph1sical sense for nature ?for e'ample% the rene4ed sense of nature
in eighteenth centur1 sentimental! anal1sis@. Det% ultimatel1 m1stical freemasonr1 graitated
to4ard disem-odiment. S1m-olic interpretation ma)es the 4orld so attenuated that it is nearl1
reduced to a shado4. In essence% the dogmatics of freemasonr1 signified a reial of a Platoni$ed
gnosticism: a reial 4hich had -egun during the Renaissance. The fall of man the spar) of
light! imprisoned in dar)ness > preides freemasonr1's -asic conception. This acute sense of
impurit1% not so much of sin% is highl1 characteristic of the moement. Impurit1 can rather -etter
-e remoed through a-stinence than through penitence. The entire 4orld appears corrupt and
diseased. "hat is this 4orldI A mirror of corruption and anit1.! The thirst for healing ?and for
<6
cosmic healing@ aroused -1 the search for the )e1 to Nature's m1steries%! deried from this ie4
of nature.
None of the freemasons of *atherine's reign 4as an original 4riter or thin)er. Sch4art$%
Noi)o% ,heras)o% 2opu)hin% ,arnee% and (amaleia lAF 4ere all imitators% translators% and
epigoni. Such Cualities% ho4eer% do not diminish their influence. Euring the 5==7's &osco4
/niersit1 stood entirel1 under the -anner of the freemasons% and its deout9poetic! mood 4as
presered in the uniersit1 pension for the no-ilit1 esta-lished later.
(.S. S)ooroda ?5=FF95=<:@ 5AA proides the onl1 original mutation in this m1stical strain.
+e spent little time in the masonic lodges% 1et he 4as close to masonic circles. In an1 case% he
-elongs to the same m1stical t1pe. +e s1mpathi$ed een more deepl1 4ith (erman m1sticism of
the si'teenth and seenteenth centuries% preferring ;alentin "iegel to #aco- Boehme. +ellenistic
motifs are also po4erfull1 present in him.
In his 2ife of S)ooroda% ,oalins)ii 5A: enumerates S)ooroda's faorite authors:
Plutarch Philo the #e4% *icero% +orace% 2ucian% *lement of Ale'andria .rigen% Nil% Eion1sius
the Areopagite% &a'im the*onfessor and similar 4riters among the moderns.! S)ooroda's
patristic reflections fused 4ith the motifs of the Platonist renaissance. 2atin poets e'ercised a
strong influence oer him% as did some modern ones% for e'ample% &uretus% 5A8 4hom he often
simpl1 translated% there-1 allo4ing the influence of the schools to -e seen. +o4eer his -oo) on
poetics composed at the Pereiaslal' Seminar1 is a highl1 unusual 4or). In an1 case% S)ooroda's
2atin 4as stronger than his (ree). As ,oalins)ii notes: +e spo)e 2atin and (erman fla4lessl1
and Cuite fluentl1% and he had a sufficient understanding of (ree).! S)ooroda's 2atin st1le 4as
graceful and simple% -ut generall1 spea)ing he felt less at home in (ree). *uriousl1% 4hen using
Plutarch in the parallel (ree) and 2atin edition% he read onl1 the 2atin translation. S)ooroda did
not acCuire his +ellenism immediatel1 and directl1. +is philological inspiration must not -e
e'aggerated. +e al4a1s used the Eli$a-eth Bi-le%! 5AG 4hile simpl1 -orro4ing all his m1stical
philolog1 from Philo.
+o4 S)ooroda deeloped his outloo) is difficult to determine. 2ittle is )no4n a-out the
places he sta1ed or the people he met 4hen he 4as a-road. Pro-a-l1 he had alread1 acCuired his
Stoic% Platonic% and pietist interests in ,ie. +is 4anderings and lac) of natie roots ?he had the
heart of a citi$en of the 4orld!@% 4hich lent him the Cualit1 of a near apparition% constituted a
peculiarl1 characteristic feature of S)ooroda's ma)e9up. +is personalit1 iidl1 displa1s an
ascetical pathos% a concentration of thought% an e'tinction of emotions ?4hich are insatia-le@% an
escape from the emptiness! of this 4orld into the caerns of the heart.! S)ooroda accepted
and interpreted the 4orld according to the categories of Platonic s1m-olism. At all times and in
all places he 4as li)e the shado4 of the apple tree.! Shado4 and sign 4ere his faorite images.
Basic to S)ooroda's ie4 4as his counterposition of t4o 4orlds: the isi-le% sensi-le
4orld and the inisi-le% ideal 4orld. .ne is temporar1% the other eternal. +e al4a1s had the Bi-le
in his hands. ?HThe Bi-le 4as the most important thing%! as ,oalins)ii notes@. But for him the
Bi-le formed a -oo) of philosophical para-les% s1m-ols% and em-lems: a peculiar hierogl1phics
of e'istence. A 4orld of s1m-ols% that is to sa1% the Bi-le%! as S)ooroda himself said. +e
sharpl1 reacted against an1 historical understanding of the Bi-le -1 those *hristian historians%
ritual sophists% and theologians of the letter.! +e sought a spiritual! understanding and sa4 the
Bi-le as a guide to spiritual self9)no4ledge. *uriousl1% S)ooroda totall1 reBected monasticism.
In monasticism%! 4rites ,oalins)ii% he sa4 the sinister 4e- of compressed passions una-le to
escape themseles% 4hile pitifull1 and fatall1 suffocating life.!
<<
In an important sense% S)ooroda's 4andering led him a4a1 from the church and a4a1 from
church histor1. ?Een Ern 5A= admitted that S)ooroda 4as a potential sectarian.!@ +is return to
Nature is a ariet1 of pietist Rousseauism. +e trusted nature: the entire econom1 throughout
nature is perfect.!
3reemasonr1 proided the nascent Russian intelligentsia 4ith man1 ne4 and acute
impressions. This deelopment gained complete e'pression onl1 4ith the follo4ing generation at
the turn of the centur1. Det the e'perience of freemasonr1 4as a 4estern e'perience% and in the
final anal1sis such asceticism outside the church sered onl1 to arouse dreaminess and
imagination. The soul deeloped an unhealth1 inCuisitieness and m1stical curiosit1.
The second half of the centur1 also mar)ed an increasing dreaminess and m1sticism among
the people. All of the -asic Russian sects9 the ,hl1st1% 5A6 S)opts1% 5A< Eu)ho-ors% 5:7 and
&olo)ans 5:5 deeloped during those 1ears. In the Ale'andrine age% these t4o currents% the
m1sticism of the lo4er and the higher classes in man1 4a1s conerged% there-1 reealing their
inner affinit1. The1 shared precisel1 that anguish of the spirit! 4hich 4as -1 turns dream1 or
ecstatic. It should -e noted that during *atherine's reign su-stantial settlements% or colonies% of
arious (erman sectarians had -een created in Russia and included the +errnhutters% the
&ennonites% and &oraian Brethren. Their influence on the general deelopment of
contemporar1 spiritual life still has not -een sufficientl1 inestigated and studied% although that
influence -ecame perfectl1 o-ious during Ale'ander's reign. The maBorit1 of these sectarians
-rought 4ith them this apocal1ptical dreaminess% or often outright adentism% and the disposition
to4ard allegor1 and a spiritual! interpretation of (od's "ord.
.ddl1 enough% the colon1 of +errnhutters in Sarpeta had -een approed -1 a special
commission 4hich included Eimitri Secheno% l:F the metropolitan of Nogorod% 4ho had
inestigated the dogmatic teachings of the Eangelical Brethren.! The S1nod also stated that in
its dogmatics and discipline the -rotherhood more or less conformed to the organi$ation of the
earl1 *hristian communities. 5:A The S1nod found it inconenient to openl1 permit the colonists
to do missionar1 4or) among the naties% as the1 persistentl1 reCuested. Permission to do so 4as
granted informall1. +o4eer% such missionar1 4or) did not deelop.
The freemasons of *atherine's reign maintained an am-ialent relationship 4ith the church.
In an1 eent% the formal piet1 of freemasonr1 4as not openl1 disruptie. &an1 freemasons
fulfilled all church o-ligations! and rituals. .thers emphaticall1 insisted on the complete
immuta-ilit1 and sacredness of the rites and orders particularl1 of the (ree) religion.! +o4eer
the .rthodo' serice% 4ith its 4ealth and plasticit1 of images and s1m-ols% greatl1 attracted
them. 3reemasons highl1 alued .rthodo'1's tradition of s1m-ols 4hose roots $each -ac)
deepl1 into classical antiCuit1. But eer1 s1m-ol 4as for them onl1 a transparent sign or
guidepost. .ne must ascend to that 4hich is -eing signified% that is% from the isi-le to the
inisi-le% from historical! *hristianit1 to spiritual or true! *hristianit1% from the outer church
to the inner! church. The freemasons considered their .rder to -e the inner! church%
containing its o4n rites and sacraments.! This is once again the Ale'andrian dream of an
esoteric circle of chosen ones 4ho are dedicated to presering sacred traditions: a truth reealed
onl1 to a fe4 chosen for e'traordinar1 illumination.
&em-ers of the clerg1 sometimes Boined masonic lodges% although the1 did so er1
infreCuentl1. In 5=6F% 4hen the &osco4 masons opened their translation seminar1! ?that is%
the1 formed a special group of students to 4hom the1 proided stipends@% the1 chose the
candidates for it from among proincial seminaries -1 consultation 4ith the local hierarchs.
577
Euring the inestigation of 5=6G% &etropolitan Platon found Noi)o an e'emplar1 *hristian.
+o4eer% the &osco4 metropolitan's standards 4ere not er1 strict.
The Rea2akening of Russian *onasticis$.
The end of the eighteenth centur1 did not resem-le its -eginning. The centur1 had -egun
4ith an effort to reali$e the Reformation in the Russian church. Euring *atherine's reign
reforms! 4ere also drafted -ut in the spirit of the Enlightenment. 5:: Det the centur1 ended
4ith a monastic reial and 4ith an unmista)a-le intensification and increase of spiritual life.
Eeserted and deastated monastic centers such as ;alaamo% ,onoitsa% and others 4ere
reinstated and too) on a ne4 life *uriousl1 enough% &etropolitan (ariil Petro 5:8 $ealousl1
promoted this monastic restoration. This great and important -ishop of *atherne's reign ?to
4hom the Empress dedicated her translation of &armon tel's Belisaire 5:G@ strictl1 o-sered the
fasts% deoted himself to pra1er and pursued an ascetical life not Bust in theor1 -ut in practice.
+is close superision secured the pu-lication of the Slaonic9Russian edition of the Philo)alia
5:= translated -1 the elder LstaretsM Paisii ;elich)os)ii and his disciples. Thus the church
replied to the shallo4ness of an Enlightened Age 4ith a rene4ed spiritual concentration.
The image of St. Ti)hon Nadons)ii ?5=F:95=6F@ 5:6 stands out in -old relief against the
-ac)ground of the eighteenth centur1. +is personalit1 contains man1 unusual and une'pected
traits. In spiritual temperament Ti)hon entirel1 -elonged to the ne4 post9Petrine epoch. +e
studied and then taught in the 2atin schools ?in Nogorod and Ter'@. In addition to the church
fathers% he read and loed modern 4estern 4riters% and particularl1 enBo1ed reading and
rereading Arndt.! That his chief 4or)% .n True *hristianit1 L.- istinnom )hristiansteM -ears the
same title as Arndt's -oo) is scarcel1 an accident. As Egenii Bol)hoitino long ago pointed
out% another of Ti)hon's -oo)s% A Spiritual Treasur1 (athered from the "orld LSo)roishche
du)honoe ot mira so-iraemoeM% is er1 similar in content to that of a 2atin pamphlet -1 #oseph
+all. 5:< Ti)hon's language is suffused -1 the ne4 age. 3reCuent 2atinisms occur in turns of
phrase 4hich% ho4eer% increase his range and strengthen his e'pressieness. +e had a great gift
for 4ords9he 4as artistic and simple at the same time. +is 4riting is al4a1s surprisingl1 limpid.
This limpidit1 is his most une'pected Cualit1. +is grace and lucidit1% his freedom 9and not
merel1 freedom from the 4orld -ut also in the 4orld > is the most stri)ing Cualit1 in St.
Ti)hon's personalit1. +e has the eas1 grace of a pilgrim or traeler neither deflected nor
restrained -1 this 4orld. Eer1 liing -eing on earth is a 4a1farer.! +o4eer% this conCuering
grace 4as achieed through painful trial and ascetic effort. The dar) 4aes of deep 4eariness
and despair are Cuite clearl1 isi-le in Ti)hon's limpid spirit as the1 rush oer him.
*onstitutionall1 he 4as a h1pochondriac and some4hat choleric%! 4rites Ti)hon's cellsman!
?mon) serant@. +is peculiar su-Bectie despair% his special temptation to melanchol1 as a form
of uncustomar1 disclosure of the soul% is 4holl1 uniCue in Russian asceticism and more readil1
suggestie of the Ear) Night of the Soul -1 St. #ohn of the *ross. 587 At times Ti)hon 4ould
fall into a helpless torpor% confinement% and immo-ilit1% 4hen eer1thing around him 4as dar)%
empt1% and unresponsie. Sometimes he could not compel himself to leae his cell0 at other times
he seemingl1 tried to escape ph1sicall1 from despair -1 moing a-out. Ti)hon's 4hole spirit had
-een oer4helmed in this ordeal% 1et that trial left no traces or scars. The original luminosit1 of
his soul 4as onl1 purified in his personal progress.
+is 4as not merel1 a personal asceticism% for St. Ti)hon's temptations 4ere not Bust a stage
in his personal progress. +e continued to -e a pastor and a teacher in his monastic retreat.
Through his sensitiit1 and suffering he remained in the 4orld. +e 4rote for this 4orld and -ore
575
4itness of the Saior -efore a perishing 4orld% 4hich does not see) salation: an apostolic
response to the senselessness of a free9thin)ing age. Ti)hon's encounter 4as the first encounter
4ith the ne4 Russian atheism ?for e'ample% the 4ell9)no4n episode of the ;oltarian lando4ner
4ho struc) Ti)hon on the chee)@. 585
Eostoes)ii cleerl1 detected this phenomenon 4hen he sought to counterpose Ti)hon to
Russian nihilism% there-1 disclosing the pro-lematics of faith and atheism. Ti)hon had still
another characteristic trait. +e 4rote ?or more often dictated@ 4ith inspiration% under the
influence of the +ol1 Spirit. +is cellsman! recounts this practice.
As I heard it from m1 o4n lips% -ut also as I o-sered m1self% 4heneer I too) dictation
from him% the 4ords poured from his mouth so rapidl1 that I scarcel1 succeeded in 4riting them
do4n. And 4hen the +ol1 Spirit -ecame less actie in him and he -ecame lost in thought or
-egan thin)ing of e'traneous things% he 4ould send me a4a1 to m1 cell0 4hile he% )neeling% or at
times prostrating himself in the form of a cross% 4ould pra1 4ith tears that (od should send him
the All9Actiating .ne. Summoning me once again% he 4ould -egin to spea) so torrentiall1 that
at times I failed to follo4 him 4ith m1 pen.
St. Ti)hon constantl1 read the Scriptures and at one time contemplated ma)ing a translation
of the Ne4 Testament from (ree) into the modern st1le.! +e considered useful a ne4
translation of the Psalter from +e-re4. +is faorites among the church fathers 4ere &acarius of
Eg1pt% St. #ohn *hr1sostom% and St. Augustine.
Ti)hon's 4ritings contain all the -orro4ed ideas a-out redemptie satisfaction%! the
distinction -et4een form and su-stance in the sacraments% and so on. 58F Such is his tri-ute to
the schools and to the age. 3ar more important is the fact that seeral 4estern features are
e'pressed in his e'perience. A-oe all this means his unremitting concentration on the memor1
and contemplation of *hrist's sufferings. +e sa4 *hrist coered 4ith 4ounds% lacerated%
tortured% and -lood1%! and he urged the contemplation of +is suffering. +e had a great loe for
the Saior's sufferings% and not onl1 as he -eheld them in his mind% for he had portra1ed in
picture nearl1 all of +is hol1 passions! ?The pictures 4ere painted on canass@. Ti)hon presered
a peculiar insistence and a certain impressionism 4hen spea)ing of the +umiliation and the
Passion of *hrist. &oreoer% a renoated B1$antine contemplatie life is po4erfull1 present in
his e'perience% in his radiant isions% illuminations -1 the light of Ta-or% pathos of the
Transfiguration% and premonitions of Resurrection spring.
The resurrection of the dead is a constantl1 recurring thought for Ti)hon and is em-odied in
the image of spring. Spring is the image and sign of the resurrection of the dead.! This 4ill -e
the eternal spring of the (od9created 4orld. 2et faith guide 1our mind from this sensi-le spring
to that su-lime and longed for spring 4hich the most gracious (od has promised in +is +ol1
Scripture% 4hen the -odies of the faithful 4ho hae died since the -eginning of the 4orld%
germinating from the earth li)e seeds -1 the po4er of (od% shall arise and assume a ne4 and
e'Cuisite form% shall -e clothed in the garment of immortalit1% shall receie the cro4n of
-lessedness from the hand of the 2ord.! This 4ill -e no id1ll of apo)atastasis. .n the contrar1%
nature stained -1 sin 4ill -e condemned een more for its aridit1 and tarnish and 4ill acCuire a
still more niggardl1 appearance. Eternit1 is not the same for all: there is an eternit1 of -liss and
an eternit1 of 4eeping. Ti)hon had these isions of Ta-or freCuentl1% sometimes dail1. The
heaens 4ould -e torn asunder and 4ould -urn 4ith unendura-le radiance. .ccasionall1 he een
sa4 this light in his cell and his heart 4ould reBoice in such contemplations.
St. Ti)hon com-ined an intense concentration of the spirit 4ith an e'ceptional capacit1 for
tenderness and loe. +e spo)e of loe of th1 neigh-or% of social Bustice and charit1 no less
57F
resolutel1 than did St. #ohn *hr1sostom. St. Ti)hon 4as an important 4riter. (race and plasticit1
of images adorn his -oo)s. +is .n True *hristianit1 in particular has historical significance. The
-oo) is less a dogmatic s1stem than a -oo) of m1stical ethics or ascetics% 1et it mar)s the first
attempt at a liing theolog10 the first attempt at a theolog1 -ased on e'perience% in contrast and
as a counter4eight to scholastic erudition% 4hich lac)s an1 such e'perience.
Ti)hon Nadons)ii and the elder Paisii ;elich)os)ii ?5=FF9 5=<:@ 58A had little in common.
As spiritual t1pes% the1 little resem-le one another. +o4eer the1 shared a common la-or. The
elder Paisii% 4as not an independent thin)er% and he 4as rather more a translator than een a
4riter. Det he occupies his o4n prominent place in the histor1 of Russian thought. There is
something s1m-olic in the fact that as a 1oung man he left the ,ie Academ1 4here he 4as
stud1ing and 4andered first to the &oldaian s)etes and then to &ount Athos. In ,ie he had
firml1 refused to stud1 and had ceased to do so% for he did not 4ish to stud1 the pagan
m1tholog1 4hich alone 4as taught in the Academ1: 4here I often heard of (ree) gods and
goddesses and pious tales% and heartil1 despised such teaching.! .-iousl1 he had in mind the
mere reading of classical authors. At the Academ1% Paisii got no farther than s1nta'% and I had
studied onl1 the grammatical teachings of the 2atin language.! Sil'estr ,ulia-)a% 58: sered as
rector at that time. According to tradition% Paisii reprimanded him for the fact that the church
fathers 4ere so little read at the Academ1.
Paisii left the 2atin school for the (ree) monaster1. +o4eer% he did not retreat from or
reBect )no4ledge. +is actions mar) a return to the liing sources of patristic theolog1 and
thin)ing a-out (od. A-oe all% Paisii 4as a founder of monasteries > -oth on Athos and in
&oldaia. +e restored the -est rules! of B1$antine monasticism. +e seemed to -e returning to
the fifteenth centur1. Not accidentall1% the elder Paisii 4as er1 close to St. Nil of the Sora% 588
4hose interrupted 4or) Paisii reied and continued ?his literar1 dependence on St. Nil is full1
o-ious@. This 4or) signified the return of the Russian% spirit to the B1$antine fathers. "hile still
on &ount Athos% Paisii -egan gathering and erif1ing Slaic translations of ascetical 4ritings.
This turned out to -e an arduous tas)% due to the lac) of s)ill of old translators and to the
carelessness of cop1ists. &oreoer% een collecting (ree) manuscripts proed e'tremel1
difficult. Paisii did not find the -oo)s he needed in the great monasteries or s)etes -ut in the
small and isolated s)ete of St. Basil -uilt not long -efore -1 ne4l1 arried mon)s from *aesarea
in *appadocia. There he 4as told that since these -oo)s are 4ritten in the purest +ellenic
(ree)% 4hich no4 fe4 (ree)s other than scholars can read% and 4hich the maBorit1 cannot
understand% such -oo)s hae -een almost completel1 forgotten.!
After his resettlement in &oldaia% the elder Paisii's translation proBect -ecame more
s1stematic% especiall1 in the Niamets monaster1. Paisii clearl1 understood all the difficulties of
translation and the thorough )no4ledge of languages it reCuired. At first he relied on &oldaian
translators. +e formed a large circle of scri-es and tranlators% and he sent his students to learn
(ree) een in Bucharest. +e engaged in this 4or) 4ith great enthusiasm.
+o4 he 4rote occasioned 4onder: his -od1 4as so 4ea) from sores: sores coered his right
side0 ho4eer% until he 4ent to rest on his death-ed% he surrounded himself 4ith -oo)s: there%
side -1 side% stood the (ree) and Slaic Bi-les% (ree) and Slaic (rammars% and the -oo) from
4hich he 4as ma)ing a translation -1 candlelight0 and li)e a little child he sat -ent oer 4riting
all night% forgetting his -odil1 4ea)ness% seere illnesses and difficult1.
Paisii 4as an e'acting translator and he 4as afraid to circulate his translations 4idel1 if
the1 4ere lame or imperfect.! +is disciples also made translations from 2atin.
57A
/nder Paisii's guidance% Niamets monaster1 -ecame a great literar1 center and a source of
theological9ascetical enlightenment. This literar1 actiit1 4as organicall1 lin)ed 4ith spiritual
and intellectual construction.! The -iographer of the elder Paisii notes that his mind 4as
al4a1s Boined 4ith loe for (od0 his tears sere as 4itness.! The message of spiritual
concentration and 4holeness possessed particular significance for that age of spiritual dualism
and cleaage. Pu-lication of the Slaonic9Russian edition of the Philo)alia constituted a maBor
eent not onl1 in the histor1 of Russian monasticism -ut generall1 in the histor1 of Russian
culture. It 4as -oth an accomplishment and a catal1st.
3eofan Pro)opoich and Paisii ;elich)os)ii ma)e an interesting comparison. 3eofan lied
entirel1 on e'pectations. +e stood for 4hat 4as modern% for the future% and for progress. Paisii
lied in the past% in traditions% and in Tradition. Det he proed to -e the prophet and the har-inger
of things to come. The return to sources reealed ne4 roads and meant the acCuisition of ne4
hori$ons
L...M This personal coniction and sense of -eing a prophet 4ho has -een called or sent% the
perception of an e'traordinar1 mission or tas)% and a certain ecstatic egocentricit1 all
characteri$e this t1pe of fanatic. 3otii might -e termed a man possessed rather than a h1pocrite.
In an1 case% the oice of the church's histor1 and ancient traditions can scarcel1 -e detected in
3otii's iolent appeals and out-ursts. +e 4as too ignorant to do so% for he )ne4 er1 little a-out
patristic or een ascetical 4ritings. +e almost neer refers to them. I do not possess the
L4ritings of theM +ol1 3athers% I hae and read onl1 the +ol1 Bi-le.! In this regard% 3otii did not
depart from the custom of that Bi-lical! age. Neither a rigorous defender nor guardian of the
church's customs and traditions% 3otii loed to do eer1thing to suit himself% 4hich% resulted in
Cuarrels 4ith the church authorities. /suall1 he argues on the -asis of personal reelations and
inspirations0 on the -asis of isions apparitions% and dreams. In short% 3otii 4as not so much
superstitious as fanatical.
3otii studied at the St. Peters-urg Theological Academ1 under the sharp e1e of
Archimandrite 3ilaret.! But he did not graduate -ecause of an illness% 4hich too) the form of a
paro'1sm induced -1 fears and spiritual e'haustion. 3otii -ecame confused and paral1$ed -1 the
m1sticism then prealent in societ1. &an1 at the academ1 read too deepl1 in the poisonous
-oo)s of the liar and apostate #ung9Stilling.
Ne4l1 pu-lished 4ritings% such as Stilling% Ec)artshausen% and similar noelistic and
freethin)ing -oo)s could -e read at the academ1. . .Kuarrels -ro)e out oer the Thousand Dear
Reign of *hrist on earth% eternal damnation% and other religious Cuestions0 some loed to deiate
from the +ol1 Scriptures% others found m1steries eer14here. The academ1 li-rar1 4ould not
lend the 4or)s of the +ol1 3athers% for no one gae permission or proided the e'ample. (erman
and other foreign commentators on the +ol1 Scriptures% 4ho caused more harm than the1 did
good% 4ere recommended and passed around.
3otii -ecame utterl1 confused in such an enironment. +e also seems to hae learned a
good deal during the little more than a 1ear he spent at the academ1% although there is little
li)elihood that he learned and -ecame trained to discoer m1steries eer14here.! Nor did the
academ1 infect him 4ith a fashiona-le mania for interpreting the Apocal1pse and diining the
times through apocal1ptical te'ts used as signs. "here 3otii's actual or imaginar1 enemies
adduced the ,ingdom of a Thousand Dears from such te'ts% 3otii discerned the Antichrist. The
4ood is alread1 stac)ed and the fire is -eing )indled.!
After leaing the academ1% 3otii -ecame a teacher at the Ale)sandr Nes)ii schools% 4here
he 4as under the superision of Rector Inno)entii. 555 In 565=% 3otii accepted tonsure and 4as
57:
Cuic)l1 appointed a teacher of religion in the second militar1 academ1. 55F "hile his field of
ision e'panded% 3otii continued to gather polemical materials% reading% re9reading% and
reie4ing ne4l1 printed seditious -oo)s% especiall1 those either manifestl1 or secretl1
reolutionar1 and pernicious.! +is assortment and inentor1 of such -oo)s 4as rather dierse
and disBointed and included -oo)s on English materialism% 3rench pornograph1% freemasonr1 and
magic% (erman philosoph1% the sorcer1 of Boehme% Stilling% and similarl1 satanic -oo)s%!
reolutionar1 and eil! -oo)s% 4retched &asonic! -oo)s% the 4or)s of that &asonic heretic!
3enelon and that foul 3rench 4oman (u1on% and other 4or)s such as those setting forth the
teachings of the &ethodists and the Cuietists% that is% of that #aco-inism and philosoph1 4hich
hides -ehind the mas) of *hristianit1.! 3otii al4a1s remained mistrustful of the ne4l1
educated! clerg1: not a single colla-orator 4as found suita-le0 each 4as prepared to put the
truth up for sale.!
The Russian Bi-le made its appearance against this -ac)ground. At first 3otii attac)ed
actual &asons. As he put it% At the ris) of m1 life% I acted to counter &essenger of Nion
LSions)ii ;estni)M% 2a-$in% the &asonic lodges and heresies% tr1ing to halt the spread of their
schisms.! 3otii 4as correct a-out man1 things% -ut he descri-ed all such defects 4ith an
h1sterical intensit1 4hich could -e more irritating than conincing. +e possessed a peculiarl1
ecstatic suspiciousness 4hich disfigured his accurate o-serations through the addition of
imaginar1 and imperceia-le traits. &etropolitan &i)hail appointed Inno)entii to calm 3otii. But
Inno)entii onl1 further aroused him 4ith his o4n -itter remar)s a-out the snares of the deil.
3otii later 4rote a 2ife LNhitieM of Inno)entii after his o4n li)eness or in )eeping 4ith his
imagined ideal. In realit1% Inno)entii 4as more su-tle and profound% although he lac)ed
sufficient self control and patience.
3otii soon came to -e too o-streperous for the capital and 4as dispatched to Nogorod as
a--ot of the Eereianits &onaster1% then S)ooroda &onaster1% and finall1 the Iur'e &onaster1%
4here he sered as archimandrite. "hile at the Iur'e &onaster1% 3otii formed a close friendship
4ith *ountess A.A. .rloa% 55A 4hich proed to -e the decisie eent in his life. Through
*ountess Anna%! 3otii une'pectedl1 -egan his friendship 4ith Prince (olits1n during those
same 1ears. Their correspondence 4hich has -een presered% possesses a 4arm and sincere
character. 55: In his auto-iograph1%! 3otii recalls his long and e'tensie conersations 4ith
(olits1n at *ountess .rloa's home. These tal)s sometimes lasted nine hours 4ithout
interruption. 3otii emphasi$es that (olits1n passionatel1 came to loe him and 4as prepared to
fulfill his eer1 4ish. #udging -1 (olits1n's actual letters% 3otii did not e'aggerate. +e succeeded
for a time in reconciling (olits1n 4ith &etropolitan Seraphim. (olits1n sa4 in 3otii another St.
#ohn *hr1sostom and a 1outhful starets! LelderM . At the time% 3otii 4as -arel1 thirt1. 3otii did
not conceal his o4n 4arm feelings: Dou and I > the t4o of us > are li)e one -od1 and soul%
one mind and heart0 4e are one -ecause *hrist is in our midst.!
The uprising! -ro)e out in 56F:. As 3ilaret recalls% The uprising against the &inistr1 of
Religious Affairs and against the Bi-le Societ1 and the translation of the +ol1 Scriptures had
-een organi$ed -1 people guided -1 personal interests% 4ho not onl1 spread farfetched and
e'aggerated suspicions% -ut een produced fa-rications and slanders% hoping to attract other%
4ell9intentioned people to their cause.! Ara)chee's558 role in this intrigue needs no ela-oration.
3or him the intrigue 4as the denouement and the means for remoing from authorit1 and
influence a po4erful rial 4ith personal ties to the Tsar.
The appearance of (ossner's -oo) .n the (ospel of &atthe4 L. Eangelii ot &atfeiaM in
Russian translation sered as the occasion and the prete't for decisie action. The translation
578
could onl1 hae -een an e'cuse% for the -oo) 4as indistinguisha-le from the multitude of such
edif1ing and pietistic 4or)s then -eing pu-lished. Seeral times 3otii 4rote fren$ied letters to
the Tsar% 4arning him of danger. +e did so 4ith the )no4ledge and coniction that he had -een
consecrated and sent to testif1 in defense of the -eleaguered church and fatherland. An angel of
the 2ord had -een sent to him on Palm Sunda1. The angel% appearing -efore him during a dream%
held in his hand a -oo) 4ith large letters inscri-ed on its coer: this -oo) has -een composed
for reolution and at this moment its intention is reolution.! The -oo)% it turned out% 4as A
Summons to men to follo4 the inner inclination of the Spirit of *hrist. 55G 3otii defines the
-asic idea of this cunning and impious pamphlet as an appeal to apostas1 from the faith of
*hrist and a summons to alter the ciil order in all of its parts.!
The onl1 argument 4hich might possi-l1 undermine the com-ined ministr1 in the e1es of
Ale'ander I 4as reolution.! 3otii candidl1 sa1s that: Such political actiities and plots had
much greater influence on him LAle'anderM than did the 4elfare of the 4hole *hurch.!
Religiousl1% Ale'ander 4as no less radical than (olits1n. 3otii testified that residing in this cit1
for one and a half months% I secretl1 o-sered (ossner and learned that he 4as preparing
reolution in those minds 4hich he had -een -rought here to teach. +e has -een so 4ell
protected that no one dares touch him0 he 4as summoned here -ecause none among our
.rthodo' clerg1 could -e found capa-le of such schemes.! 3otii's letters aroused the Tsar's
interest precisel1 -ecause of their h1stericall1 apocal1ptical character. *onseCuentl1% he 4ished
to meet 3otii personall1. +e had earlier met 4ith &etropolitan Seraphim. After his audience 4ith
Ale'ander% 3otii t4ice isited (olits1n and at the second meeting cursed him to his face.
3otii stands -efore the hol1 icons: a candle -urns% the hol1 sacraments of *hrist are -efore
him% the Bi-le is open ?at #eremiah FA@. The prince enters li)e a -east of pre1 ?#eremiah 8:G@%
e'tending his hand for the -lessing. But 3otii gies him no -lessing% spea)ing thus: in the -oo)
&1ster1 of the *ross LTainsto )restaM% printed under th1 superision% it is 4ritten: the clerg1 are
-easts0 and I% 3otii% a mem-er of the clerg1% am a priest of (od% so I do not 4ant to -less thee%
and an14a1 thou dost not need it. ?+e gae him #eremiah FA to read@. +o4eer% Prince (olits1n
refused to do so and fled% -ut 3otii shouted after (olits1n through the door he left aBar: if thou
dost not repent% thou shalt fall into +ell.
That is 3otii's ersion. In his Notes LNapis)iM% Shish)o adds that: 3otii shouted after him0
JAnathemaQ Thou shalt -e damned.'!
That same da1% a rescript 4as issued e'iling (ossner from the countr1 and ordering that the
Russian translation of his -oo) -e -urned at the hand of the pu-lic e'ecutioner. 3urthermore% the
translators and censors 4ere to -e placed under arrest. 3otii greatl1 feared the Tsar's 4rath for his
daring anathema% -ut he continued to send his appeals to the court% including one outlining a
plan for the destruction of Russia! as 4ell as directies for the immediate destruction of this
plan in a Cuiet and felicitous manner.! The Cuestion of the Bi-le Societ1 4as posed most
forcefull1. The Bi-le Societ1 must -e eliminated on the prete't that since the Bi-le has alread1
-een printed% it is no4 no longer needed.! The &inistr1 of Religious Affairs 4as to -e a-olished%
and its present dignitar1 depried of t4o other posts. ,oshele 55= should -e remoed% (ossner
e'pelled% 3essler 556 -anished into e'ile% and the &ethodists drien out% or at least their leaders.
.nce again 3otii ino)ed diine inspiration: Eiine Proidence does not no4 reeal that
an1thing more should -e done. I hae proclaimed (od's commandment0 its fulfillment depends
on Thee. Precisel1 t4ele 1ears hae elapsed from 565F to 56F:. (od conCuered the isi-le
Napoleon 4ho inaded Russia. Through Th1 person let +im conCuer the spiritual Napoleon:!
Euring the ensuing da1s% 3otii sent the Tsar seeral more of his alarming massies.! A great%
57G
fearful% and illegal m1ster1 is at 4or)% 4hich I am reealing to thee% . thou po4erful one 4ith
the strength and spirit of (od.! The goal 4as achieed and on 58 &a1 56F:% (olits1n 4as
dismissed% the com-ined ministr1 a-olished% and the former departmental diisions reesta-lished.
Neertheless% (olits1n did not fall into disfaor or lose his personal influence% een after
Ale'ander's death.
The aged Admiral Shish)o% the half9dead Shish)o dug up from o-liion%! 4as appointed
minister of a separate &inistr1 of Education. Although Shish)o did not -ecome &inister of
Religious Affairs% inertia perpetuated the politics of the com-ined ministr1 onl1 in reerse% for he
persistentl1 interfered 4ith S1nodal affairs. Shish)o had no er1 precise religious ie4s. +e
4as a moderate free9thin)er of the eighteenth centur1% 4ho limited his rationalism out of
national9political considerations. Een close friends 4ho 4ere 4ell disposed to4ard him testified
that Shish)o held ie4s closel1 appro'imating% if the1 did not actuall1 coincide 4ith%
Socinianism.! 55< 3otii referred to him rather easiel1: +e defended the .rthodo' *hurch to
the e'tent that he possessed an1 )no4ledge.! 3otii )ne4 perfectl1 4ell such )no4ledge! 4as
rather meager and related more to the church's role in a state% 4hich had called upon it to -e a
pillar and a -ul4ar) against re-ellion and reolution. +o4eer% Shish)o had his o4n firm
opinions a-out Bi-lical translation. The er1 idea of translating the Bi-le seemed to him the
foulest of heresies% although a-oe all a literar1 heres1%! in Ser-ee's 5F7 cleer phrase. 3or
Shish)o denied the er1 e'istence of a Russian language. As though it 4as something
distinct%! he 4ould sa1 perple'edl1. .ur Slaic and Russian language is one and the same%
differentiated onl1 into higher language and common speech.! This 4as Shish)o's -asic
religious9philological thesis. 2iterar1 or colloCuial Russian in his ie4 and understanding is
onl1 the dialect of the common people! 4ithin a Slaic9 Russian language. "hat is the
Russian language diorced from SlaicI A dream% a riddleQ. . . .Is it not odd to affirm the
e'istence of a language 4hich does not contain a single 4ordI! The le'icon is one and the same
for -oth st1les of dialects. B1 Slaic 4e mean nothing else than that language 4hich is higher
than colloCuial and 4hich% conseCuentl1% can onl1 -e learned -1 reading0 it is the loft1% learned
literar1 language.!
In the final anal1sis% Shish)o distinguished -et4een the t4o languages: the language of
faith! and the language of passions or to put it another 4a1% the language of the church! and
the language of the theater.! Bi-lical translation appeared to him to -e a transposition! of the
"ord of (od from the loft1 and dignified dialect to that lo49st1led language of the passions and
the theater. +e -elieed that such a step 4as -eing ta)en in order to deli-eratel1 -elittle the
Bi-le% hence his constant fuss oer the o-serance of .rthodo'1 in literar1 st1le.! +e also
considered the translation hastil1 made0 thro4n to a fe4 students at the Academ1 4ith
instructions to do it as Cuic)l1 as possi-le.! The Russian translation's departure from *hurch
Slaic cast a shado4 on a te't% 4hich had -ecome familiar and hallo4ed -1 church usage and
there-1 undermined confidence in it. The pride of some mon) L3ilaretIM or learned -raggart
sa1s: thus it is in +e-re4. "ell% 4ho 4ill conince me that he )no4s the full force of such a little
)no4n language% 4ritten so long agoI! Kuite freCuentl1 Shish)o spea)s as if Slaic 4as the
original language of +ol1 Scripture. +o4 dare the1 alter 4ords considered to come from the
mouth of (odI!
Shish)o 4as not alone in these religious9philological reflections. *uriousl1 enough% for
similar reasons% Sperans)ii also completel1 opposed a Russian translation of the Bi-le. The
language of the common people! seemed to him less e'pressie and precise. "ould it not -e
57=
-etter to teach eer1one SlaicI Sperans)ii adised his daughter to use the English translation%
not the Russian% 4hen she encountered difficult passages. &an1 others shared this opinion. lF5
Shish)o detected a particularl1 sinister scheme in the pu-lication of the Pentateuch
separatel1 from the Prophets.! "hereas in fact% the Pentateuch represented the first olume of a
complete Russian Bi-le and had -een planned for pu-lication prior to the succeeding olumes in
order to speed the 4or). Shish)o suspected that this separate pu-lication had -een conceied
and e'ecuted in order to push the common people into the arms of the &olo)ane heres1 or
simpl1 into #udaism. &ight not someone understand the &osaic la4 literall1% particularl1 the
o-serance of the Sa--athI . . . .Should not a Cualification -e added that all this can -e e'plained
figuratiel1 and as shado4s of the pastI "ith the support of &etropolitan Seraphim% Shish)o
succeeded in haing the Russian Pentateuch -urned at the -ric) factor1 of the Ale)sandr Nes)ii
&onaster1. Su-seCuentl1% 3ilaret of ,ie lFF could not recall this destruction of the +ol1
Scriptures 4ithout a terri-le shudder.
Shish)o sa4 no need to distri-ute the Bi-le among la1men and the people generall1. "ill
not this imaginar1 need% -1 demeaning the significance of the +ol1 Scriptures% result in nothing
other than heresies or schismsI! "ould not the dignit1 of the Bi-le -e lo4ered -1 haing it in the
homeI "hat can come of thisI . . . .A ast sum 4ill -e e'pended in order that the (ospel%
heretofore regarded 4ith solemnit1 might suffer the loss of its importance% -e sullied% ripped
apart% thro4n under -enches% or sere as 4rapping paper for household goods% and hae no more
a-ilit1 to act on the human mind than on the human heart.! Shish)o 4rites still more
emphaticall1 that this reading of the sacred -oo)s aims to destro1 the true faith% disrupt the
fatherland and produce strife and re-ellion.! +e -elieed that the Bi-le Societ1 and reolution
4ere s1non1ms.
Kuite consistentl1% Shish)o also o-Bected to translation of the Bi-le into other languages
such as Tatar or Tur)ish% for 4ho could ouch for the fidelit1 of the translationI Shish)o also
feared commentaries on the Bi-le. "ho 4ill e'plain the Scriptures once the1 are so 4idel1
distri-uted and so easil1 accessi-leI
"ithout Cualified interpreters and preachers% 4hat 4ill -e the effect 4hen large num-ers of
Bi-les and separate -oo)s of the Bi-le hae -een disseminatedI Amidst such an unchec)ed ?and
one might sa1 uniersal@ deluge of -oo)s of the +ol1 Scriptures% 4here 4ill room -e found for
the Apostolic teachings% practices% and customs of the *hurchI In a 4ord% for eer1thing 4hich
heretofore has sered as a -ul4ar) of .rthodo'1I . . . All of these things 4ill -e dragged do4n%
crushed% and trampled under foot.
Similarl1% Shish)o ie4ed the pu-lication of the *atechism L,ate)hi$isM as a dire plot.
"h1 print so man1 copies% if not to spread an impure9faithI ?A total of 56%777 copies had -een
printed@. .nce again the Russian language more than an1thing else frightened Shish)o. It is
unseeml1 in religious -oo)s to hae such pra1ers as JI -eliee in .ne (od' and the Pater Noster
transposed into the common dialect.! The *atechism contained scriptural te'ts in Russian.
The catechism composed -1 3ilaret ?a tas) originall1 entrusted to &etropolitan &i)hail@
had -een issued in 56FA 4ith the approal of the +ol1 S1nod and -1 imperial directie. At the
reCuest of the &inister of Education%! accompanied -1 the use of the Emperor's name% the
*atechism 4as remoed from sale at the end of 56F:. 3ilaret immediatel1 lodged a protest
against its remoal and openl1 raised the Cuestion a-out .rthodo'1. If the .rthodo'1 of the
*atechism% so solemnl1 confirmed -1 the +ol1 S1nod% is in dou-t% then 4ill not the .rthodo'1
of the +ol1 S1nod itself -e called into CuestionI! In repl1% &etropolitan Seraphim insisted that
the Cuestion of .rthodo'1 had not -een raised and that there 4as no dou-t or dispute on that
576
point. The *atechism had -een suspended solel1 -ecause of the language of the Bi-lical te'ts
and of the pra1ers.! Seraphim% 4ith some disingenuousness% 4ent on to sa1. Dou ma1 as) 4h1
the Russian language should not hae a place in the catechism% especiall1 in its a--reiated form
intended for 1oung children entirel1 unfamiliar 4ith Slaic and therefore incapa-le of
understanding the truths of the faith e'pounded for them in that language% 4hen it% that is%
Russian% has -een retained in the sacred -oo)s of the Ne4 Testament and in the Psalms. To this
and man1 other Cuestions% 4hich might -e as)ed in this connection% I cannot gie 1ou an1
satisfactor1 ans4er. I hope that time 4ill e'plain to us that 4hich no4 seems clouded. In m1
opinion% that time 4ill soon come . . .
Seraphim's ans4er could signif1 that he either had not personall1 or actiel1 participated in
the ne4 course of eents% or that this apparent inconsistenc1 could -e Cuic)l1 oercome -1
e'tending the -an to include -oth the Russian translation of the Ne4 Testament and the Bi-le
Societ1. In an1 case% Seraphim simpl1 lied 4hen he denied that the *atechism's .rthodo'1 had
-een Cuestioned. 3otii emphaticall1 and pu-licl1 pronounced it heretical% compared it 4ith
canal 4ater%! and unfaora-l1 contrasted the *atechism 4ith the older .rthodo' *onfession of
Peter &ogila. 5FA The *atechism 4as su-Bected to e'amination% if not officiall1% then at least
officiousl1. Apparentl1 Archpriest I.S. ,ocheto ?5=<79568:@% a candidate for a higher degree%
4ho had graduated 4ith the first class of the reformed St. Peters-urg Academ1% and at that time a
religion teacher at the Tsars)oe Selo l1cee% had -een entrusted 4ith the reie4. +is ealuation%
Cuic)l1 arried at% did not faor the catechism. ,ocheto too) more interest in Cuestions of
language than of theolog1. As a philologist% he sered as a mem-er of the Russian Academ1%
-eginning in 56F6. 2ater he achieed full mem-ership. 5F:
&etropolitan Egenii% F8 4ho recentl1 had -een summoned to attend the meetings of the
+ol1 S1nod% maintained a er1 critical attitude to4ard the *atechism. 3ilaret's successor at Ter'
and Iaroslal'% Simeon ,r1lo9Platono% 5FG contemptuousl1 du--ed the *atechism a misera-le
pamphlet%! containing unheard of teaching and insuffera-le insolence.! In an1 eent% a reised
edition of the *atechism 4as recirculated onl1 after careful re9e'amination of all Bi-lical te'ts
and citations% including their presentation in Slaic rather than in the Russian dialect.! Een the
language of e'position 4as deli-eratel1 adapted or made more nearl1 appro'imate to Slaic.
+o4eer% onl1 insignificant changes in content 4ere made at that time.
Shish)o o-tained Emperor Ale'ander's permission to for-id translations of the Bi-le as
4ell as to close the Bi-le Societ1. +e 4as a-le to suppl1 some arguments himself% and others
4ere suggested to him -1 such $ealots as &. &agnits)ii 5F= and A.A. Palo lF6 ?4ho 4or)ed
in the office of the .er Procurator of the +ol1 S1nod@. 3otii descri-ed Palo as that -rae
4arrior of 56F:.! &etropolitan Seraphim acted as one 4ith Shish)o. +o4eer% Seraphim acted
on suggestion. A timid man% he lac)ed sufficient clarit1 of mind! to distinguish responsi-l1
enthusiasm and suspicions amidst the cross9currents of rumors and fears. 2eft to himself%
Seraphim 4ould hae insisted onl1 on the dismissal of the -lind minister.! All further reasons
4ere suggested or een imposed on him. At one time Seraphim had studied in Noi)o's
seminar1%! and he had -een an actie mem-er of the Bi-le Societ1% -oth as arch-ishop of &ins)
and later as metropolitan of &osco4. +e often deliered speeches filled 4ith pathos in the
meetings of the &osco4 Bi-le Societ1. +o4eer% his sentiments 4ere changed 4hen he
transferred to St. Peters-urg. +e immediatel1 -ro)e 4ith (olits1n. 3ollo4ing (olits1n's remoal
from office% &etropolitan Seraphim% as president of the Bi-le Societ1% -egan to importune
Emperor Ale'ander a-out a-olishing and closing do4n all Bi-le societies and transferring all
their affairs% propert1% and translation proBects to the +ol1 S1nod.
57<
Such demands 4ere not Cuic)l1 reali$ed% coming as the1 did onl1 during the ne't reign
under the fresh impact of the Eecem-rist reolt% lF< the responsi-ilit1 for 4hich Shish)o
conincingl1 -lamed on the m1stics.! +o4eer% the rescript of 5F April 56FG closing the Bi-le
Societ1 contained an important Cualification: I sanction the continued sale at the esta-lished
price for those 4ho desire them the -oo)s of the +ol1 Scriptures 4hich hae alread1 -een
printed -1 the Bi-le Societ1 in Slaic% Russian% and in other languages spo)en -1 inha-itants of
the Empire.! Een Nicholas I 5A7 4as not full1 prepared to follo4 Shish)o. In practice%
ho4eer% the pu-lications of the Bi-le Societ1 4ere ta)en from circulation and onl1 the
committees concerned for prisons continued to suppl1 the Russian translation of the Ne4
Testament to e'iles and prisoners from their stoc)s.
*uriousl1 enough% in 56F6% Prince ,.,. 2ien% the former superintendent in Eorpat and a
prominent and influential figure in the former Bi-le Societ1% replaced Shish)o as &inister of
Education. 2ater% in 56AF% he -ecame the head of the reied (erman Bi-le Societ1. Prince
2ien -elonged to the &oraian Brethren. Sometimes an official sent from some4here 4ith an
important dispatch 4ould discoer him in the reception hall in front of the lectern% loudl1 singing
the Psalms. Turning to the official% he 4ould listen to him% -ut 4ithout ans4ering% continue his
liturg1! ?;igel'@. .f course% 2ien 4as a (erman and a Protestant0 and it 4as the (erman Bi-le
Societ1% 4hich 4as restored. Det as &inister of Education% he 4as called upon to administer to
the 4hole empire. In an1 case% -1 that time% the ie4s of the goernment! had changed once
again.
L...M
Chater 1.
%truggle For Theology.
!ntroduction.
The full significance of the Ale'andrine eral for Russia's oerall cultural deelopment still
remains to -e discerned and ealuated. An agitated and pathetic moment% a period of po4erfull1
constructie tensions% the Ale'andrine 1ears% 4ith -old naiete% 4itnessed and e'perienced the
first Bo1s of creatiit1. Ian A)sa)o F successfull1 characteri$ed this formatie moment in
Russia's deelopment as one in 4hich poetr1 suddenl1 seemed for a time an incontesta-le
historical ocation0 poetr1 too) on the appearance of a sacramental act.! A peculiar italit1 and
independence% a creatie feeling and Bo1 of artistic master1! suffused all contemporar1 poetical
4or). Russia e'perienced an a4a)ening of the heart.
+o4eer% one must immediatel1 add that there 4as still no a4a)ening of the mind.
Imagination remained un-ridled and untempered -1 mental struggle or intellectual asceticism.
Thus% people of that generation easil1 and freCuentl1 fell under charms or into dreams or isions.
Ale'ander's reign 4as generall1 an age of dreams0 an epoch of musings and sighs% as 4ell as a
time of sights% insights% and isions. A disBunction of mind and heart% of thought and imagination%
characteri$ed the entire period. The age did not suffer so much from the lac) of 4ill as it did
from an irresponsi-le heart. An esthetic culture of the heart replaced moral precepts 4ith
delicate feelings%! in ,liuches)ii's 4ords. The great frailt1 and infirmit1 of pietism proided
precisel1 this defect in the heart.
557
The Russian soul passed through the ordeal or seduction of pietism at the outset of the
nineteenth centur1 > the apogee of Russia's 4esternism. *atherine's reign seems a-solutel1
primitie in comparison to the triumphant face of the Ale'andrine era% 4hen the soul completel1
gae itself oer to Europe. In an1 eent% such a deelopment occurred no earlier than the
appearance of 2etters of a Russian Traeler ?5=<595=<F@.A Ro$ano : once aptl1 remar)ed that
in the 2etters of a Russian Traeler% Russia's soul turned to the marelous 4orld of "estern
Europe% 4ept oer it% loed it and comprehended it0 4hereas in the earlier 1ears of the centur1%
her soul ga$ed on that 4orld 4ith dulled e1es fi'ing on nothing.!
But in immediatel1 succeeding generations a Slaophile! opposition% 4hich 4as not so
much a national9ps1chological opposition as a culturall1 creatie one% -egan to ta)e shape. The
4esternism of Ale'ander's reign% in a real sense% did not mean de9nationali$ation. .n the
contrar1% this 4as a period of increased national feeling. +o4eer% at that moment the Russian
soul too) on a perfect resem-lance to the Aeolian +arp.
Nhu)os)ii's 4ith his ingenious diapson and s1mpathetic% creatie a-ilit1 at reincarnation%
4ith his intense sensitiit1 and responsieness% and 4ith his free and immediate language%
t1pifies the period. Det Nhu)os)ii 4as and foreer remained ?in his l1rical meditations@ a
4estern man% a 4estern dreamer% a (erman pietist al4a1s ga$ing% li)e a poet% through the prism
of the heart.! +ence his astonishing a-ilit1 for translating (erman: his (erman soul simpl1
e'pressed itself in Russian.
Kuite characteristicall1% this attac) of dreaminess -ro)e out under 4artime conditions. B1
the -eginning of the nineteenth centur1% nearl1 the 4hole of Europe had -ecome a theater of
militar1 operations. Europe 4as transformed into an armed camp. It 4as a time of great historical
turning points and diisions% of epoch9ma)ing storms and stresses. The -eginning of the
nineteenth centur1 > the era of the (reat 3atherland "ar G and Napoleon > 4itnessed a ne4
migration of peoples: the inasion of the (auls accompanied -1 the t4ent1 nations.! /nrest
highl1 charged the surrounding enironment. Eents acCuired a feerish rh1thm0 the 4ildest
fears and premonitions came to pass. Be4ildered% the soul 4as torn -et4een hopeful anticipation
and eschatological impatience. &an1 -elieed that the1 lied in an eer9closing apocal1ptical
circle. This is not the Cuiet da4n of Russia% -ut the storm1 t4ilight of Europe%! &etropolitan
3ilaret = once said.
3or a generation of dreamers possessing such unrelia-le and Cuite easil1 aroused
imaginations% the ordeal of those iolent da1s proed to -e a er1 harsh trial. Apocal1ptical fear
a4o)e and the feeling spread 4idel1 that some tangi-le and immanent Eiine guidance had
assumed and dissoled indiidual human 4ills 4ithin itself. The idea of Proidence acCuired a
superstitious and magical reflection in the consciousness of that generation. &en no longer
-elieed in their o4n a-ilities. &an1 e'perienced and interpreted the (reat 3atherland "ar as an
apocal1ptical struggle: A Budgment of (od on the ic1 fields.! Napoleon's defeat 4as accounted
a ictor1 oer the Beast.
Something maBestic and almight1 could -e detected eer14here and in eer1thing. I am
almost certain Ale'ander and ,utu$o had gained the a-ilit1 to see +im and that +is 4rathful
countenance had shone een on Napoleon. ?;igel'@ 6
In the preailing sentiment the spirit of dream1 4ithdra4al from and reBection of the
formal! or e'ternal! in *hristianit1 com-ined 4ith the most unrestrained e'pectation of the
isi-le approach of the ,ingdom of (od on earth. .ne must remem-er that Romanticism and the
Enlightenment eCuall1 -ear the mar) of chiliasm. Romanticism's isionar1 utopianism is
partiall1 the heir to the eighteenth centur1 -elief in the imminent and immediate reali$ation of
555
ultimate ideals. "hether as an Age of Reason% a ,ingdom of (od% or as an1 num-er of
designations% eer1one e'pected a ne4 (olden Age. The goddess Astrea < 4ould return. Earthl1
Paradise once more 4ould -e reealed. Then a genuine Ne4 Dear shall descend upon the earth.!
The ps1chological histor1 of that age and generation can -e understood onl1 from the
perspectie of these a4a)ened socio9apocal1ptical e'pectations and in the conte't of all those
contemporar1 and uniersall1 stunning eents and acts. The histor1 of that age displa1s a strea)
of theocratic utopianism.
Ale+ander !0 Prince A.N. Golitsyn0 the Co$ing of Pietis$.
Emperor Ale'ander I ma1 Bustl1 -e termed the epon1m of his age. +e t1pified the epoch in
his spiritual formation and st1le and in his tastes and inclinations. Ale'ander 4as reared in the
influences of sentimental humanism. 3rom there the step to the m1stical religion of the heart 4as
neither long nor difficult. At a er1 earl1 age% Ale'ander -ecame used to liing in an atmosphere
of dreams and e'pectations% in a peculiar intellectual mimicr1% in aspirations and dreams for the
ideal.! That pathetic oath s4orn -1 the t4o monarchs oer the grae of 3rederic) II occurred as
earl1 as 567:.57 In an1 eent% Ale'ander entered the sphere of m1stical enthusiasms long -efore
the flames of &osco4 illumined his heart.!
Sperans)ii% 55 4riting from Perm% reminded the tsar a-out their conersations on m1stical
themes: conersations% 4hich clearl1 reeal a su-Bect matter corresponding to the emperor's
innermost feelings.! +o4eer% an een stronger influence 4as e'ercised -1 Rodion ,oshele
?5=:<956F=@%5F an old &ason personall1 acCuainted 4ith 2aater% Saint9&artin% Ec)artshausen%
lA and een more closel1 4ith Prince A. N. (olits1n. l: In 565F Ale'ander composed a reealing
memoir entitled .n m1stical literature L. mistiches)oi literatureM for his faorite sister% the
(rand Euchess *atherine. +e repeats% or reformulates% the adice and program of others% 1et one
instantl1 reali$es that Ale'ander has full1 assimilated that program% acclimated himself to its
st1le% and that he had alread1 formed definite tastes and preferences. +e preferred St. 3rancis de
Sales% 58 St. Teresa of Aila% 5G The Imitation of *hrist% 5= and #. Tauler. 56
The (reat 3atherland "ar sered onl1 as a catal1st for Ale'ander% resoling older tensions.
+e read the Ne4 Testament for the first time on the er1 ee of Napoleon's inasion. The
Apocal1pse most greatl1 affected him. Similarl1 the prophets attracted him most in the .ld
Testament. 3rom that moment on4ard% Ale'ander -ecame curious and credulous of eer1
manner of interpretation and an1 interpreter of the enigmatic and s1m-olic Boo) of Reelation.
Precisel1 such curiosit1 dre4 him to #ung9Stilling ?#. +. #ung@% 5< Baroness ,rudener% F7 Pastor
Empeita$% F5 .-erlin% FF the &oraian Brethern% the Kua)ers% and the +errnhutters. FA 2ater%
t4o priests from Balta% 3eodosii 2eits)ii and 3edor 2iseich ?4ho considered themseles t4o
faithful 4itnesses! from Reelations@ 4ere summoned to the capital specificall1 in order to
interpret the Apocal1pse. F: Apparentl1 Ale'ander 4as prepared to listen to Archimandrite 3otii
F8 -ecause 3otii interpreted Reelations and prophesied and threatened in the name of the
Apocal1pse and all the prophets. In such historical circumstances% it 4as not strange to -eliee
that the end 4as approaching.
Ale'ander neither loed nor sought po4er. But he ac)no4ledged that he 4as the -earer of a
sacred idea and reelled in that fact. This -elief constituted the source of his moral and political
o-stinac1 ?rather than tenacit1@. &an1 of that generation detected in themseles a special sign of
predestination. The +ol1 Alliance FG 4as conceied and concluded in precisel1 such a mood. In
a 4a1 similar to the theories of the Age of Enlightenment% this alliance presupposed a faith in an
omnipotent and -eneolent 2a4gier% 4ho designed or esta-lished an ecumenical peace and a
55F
uniersal happiness. No one had to suggest this idea to Ale'ander0 he discoered it for himself in
those eents% 4hich seemed so cunningl1 deised. The Redeemer +imself teaches the idea and
the precepts 4hich 4e hae announced.!
The +ol1 Alliance 4as conceied as a preparation for the ,ingdom of a Thousand Dears. As
(olits1n put it: It 4ill -e apparent to an1one 4ho 4ishes to see% that this act can onl1 -e
understood as a preparation for that promised ,ingdom of the 2ord on earth een as it is in
+eaen.! The act of 3raternal *hristian Alliance! 4as signed in the 1ear of (race 5658% the
5:thRFGth Septem-er%! and the fact that the da1 coincided 4ith the feast of the Eleation of the
+ol1 *ross F= according to the Eastern .rthodo' calendar is scarcel1 an accident. The +ol1
S1nod ordered that the Act of +ol1 Alliance -e displa1ed on 4alls and in eer1 cit1 and illage
church. And each 1ear on the feast of the Eleation of the +ol1 *ross the act 4as to -e
reannounced from the am-o% along 4ith an accompan1ing manifesto% so that each and eer1
person might fulfill his o4 of serice to the one 2ord and Saior% 4ho spea)s through the
person of the Soereign for the entire people.! A special com-ined ministr1%! a &inistr1 of
Religious Affairs and Pu-lic Enlightenment% 4as esta-lished specificall1 in order to fulfill that
o4. F6 According to Sperans)ii% it 4as the greatest goernmental act since the introduction of
the *hristian faith.! Strictl1 spea)ing% this 4as to -e a &inistr1 of Religio /topian Propaganda.
The com-ined ministr1 4as founded so that *hristian piet1 4ould al4a1s sere as the -asis for
true enlightenment.! In other 4ords% this 4as a scheme to place religion at the head or center of
culture as a 4hole: a redemptie union of faith% )no4ledge and authorit1.! The latter element of
this s1nthesis is the characteristic one% for the idea 4as to use the po4er of authorit1! to
reconcile faith! and )no4ledge.! To a significant degree the ne4 ministr1 sered as Prince A.
N. (olits1n's personal department. Perhaps personal regime 4ould -e more accurate. "ith the
fall of (olits1n% the com-ined ministr1 4as a-olished and its departments once more esta-lished
on separate footings.
Prince A.N. (olits1n ?5==A956::@ is perhaps the most characteristic man of that age. In an1
case% he 4as certainl1 its most sensitie and e'pressie representatie. +is a-ilit1 to a-sor-
impressions nearl1 constituted a sic)ness. +e suffered from an outright m1stical curiosit1. A man
of the Enlightenment no longer in his 1outh% (olits1n suddenl1 e'perienced a turning of the
heart. Det the sensitiit1 of this ne4l1 conerted heart com-ined 4ith an insensitie and
some4hat arid intellect. Prince (olits1n's dream1 and authoritarian religious temperament rather
une'pectedl1 gre4 into an organic unit1. An aristocratic grandeur sharpl1 pierced his
sentimentalism. A man 4ith a trusting and sensitie heart% (olits1n could and 4ished to -e a
dictator% and actuall1 -ecame one for seeral 1ears. +is peculiar dictatorship of the heart!
proed er1 tiresome and intolerant. 3anaticism of the heart is especiall1 prone to% and easil1
com-ined 4ith% a sneering compassion.
(olits1n conerted to uniersal *hristianit1%! to a religion of tender imagination and
e'perience of the heart. These 4ere the onl1 Cualities in *hristianit1% 4hich he pri$ed. +ence his
interest in sectarian conersions! and a4a)enings%! 4hich for him reealed the essence of
religion stripped of all its useless trappings. +e alued and understood onl1 the s1m-olism% onl1
the emotional9m1sterious inspiration of ritual in formal! 4orship and church life. "ithin that
conte't (olits1n 4as totall1 sincere and sensitie% for to the end of his da1s he 4as a man on a
Cuest. The spirit of propaganda or prosel1tism is er1 characteristic of such forms of piet1. As
head of the com-ined ministr1% (olits1n discoered himself.
At the same time% the com-ined ministr1 represented a ne4 lin) in the chain of Peter I's
church reform% a ne4 step to4ard the reali$ation of that noel ecclesiastical9political regime
55A
esta-lished at the -eginning of the eighteenth centur1. Still earlier% on the strength of the intimac1
and faor -esto4ed upon him -1 the emperor% and as friend and imperial confidant%! (olits1n%
as .er Procurator% succeeded in -ecoming a sort of goernor9general of the S1nodal
Eepartment.! True% in indiidual cases he defended the church against state encroachments% as
for e'ample% 4hen he reBected Sperans)ii's proposal to turn oer to the secular authorities the
right to grant diorces. "ith the esta-lishment of the com-ined ministr1% his earlier demonstrated
success too) on the full force of la4. The S1nod -ecame formall1 integrated 4ithin the state
administration for religious affairs%! as a special diision for the (reco9Russian confession.!
The manifesto esta-lishing this ne4 administration e'presses the matter as follo4s:
.f course the affairs of the &ost +ol1 (oerning S1nod 4ill -e attached to it ?i.e.% the
ministr1@ in order that the &inister of Religious Affairs and Pu-lic Enlightenment 4ill hae
e'actl1 the same relationship to the S1nod in these affairs as the &inister of #ustice has to the
(oerning Senate% e'cept% ho4eer% in Budicial matters.
3undamental to the design of the com-ined ministr1% as 4ell as to the entire conception of
the +ol1 Alliance% is the religious leadership or supremac1 of the Prince%! ruling and
administering not onl1 -1 the grace of (od%! -ut also -1 Eiine authorit1. As the treatise! on
the +ol1 Alliance phrased it% thus confessing that the *hristian 4orld% of 4hich the1 and their
su-Bects form a part% has in realit1 no other Soereign than +im to 4hom alone po4er trul1
-elongs.! The definition proided -1 Noosiltse F< in his Statutor1 *harter! ma)es an
interesting comparison: As the Supreme head of the .rthodo' (reco9Russian *hurch% the
Soereign is eleated to all the honors of the church hierarch1! ?Article F7@. Such a step for4ard
4ent -e1ond Peter and 3eofan. The Petrine State su-ordinated the church from 4ithout% and in
the name of a secular cause% the common good%! e'torted toleration for seculari$ed life. Euring
Ale'ander's reign% the state once again conceied itself to -e hol1 and sacred% proclaiming
religious leadership and imposing its o4n religious ideas. The .er Procurator seemingl1
Boined the clerg1 of the *hurch! as the locum tenens for the e'ternal -ishop! Lmesto-liustitel'
neshniago epis)opaM% as 3ilaret% the future metropolitan of &osco4% greeted (olits1n on his
appointment0 or the great chimera of uniersal *hristianit1%! as #oseph de &aistre A7
sardonicall1 put it.
The Emperor Ale'ander professed a mongrel form of *hristianit1% and pretentiousl1
claimed the right to rule in the name of this uniersal! religion. All confessions 4ithin the
Russian Empire 4ere urged to accommodate themseles to a particular place 4ithin the oerall
s1stem. The com-ined ministr1 4as to Boin% if not unite% all confessions or churches! not onl1 in
a common tas) -ut 4ith a single inspiration. In this regard% the er1 comple' and highl1
s1m-olical plans for the cathedral of *hrist the Saior dra4n up -1 A.2. "it-erg A5 are er1
instructie. I did not 4ish to raise up an edifice to (od% -ut rather a pra1er.! This cathedral 4as
not to -e merel1 an .rthodo' one% -ut 4as also to em-od1 and e'press an all9em-racing idea.!
As "it-erg himself said: Its er1 dedication to *hrist proed that it -elonged to the entiret1 of
*hristianit1.!
The com-ined ministr1 -ecame a cruel and coercie regime. Religious m1sticism 4as
inested 4ith the full force of la4% 4ith full1 decisie sanctions against those 4ho disagreed or
4ho simpl1 acted easiel1. Simple lac) of s1mpath1 for the ideas of inner *hristianit1! 4as
considered a crime% and conseCuentl1 an act of opposition to the ie4s of the goernment. .ne
article from a contemporar1 statute on censorship reads as follo4s: An1 act is condemned
4hich% under the prete't of defending or Bustif1ing one of the *hristian churches% reproaches
another% there-1 destro1ing the unit1 of loe 4hich -inds all *hristians together in one spirit in
55:
*hrist.! .n the strength of such a statute% anal1sis of Protestant -eliefs from the .rthodo' point
of ie4 -ecame impermissi-le. Such a prohi-ition had e'isted earlier under Peter and Biron.
The regime of the +ol1 Alliance signified the ensem-lement of conscience and spirit% and
constituted the most pretentious form of statism: theocratic statism. Too freCuentl1% the com-ined
ministr1 proed to -e a &inistr1 of .-fuscation%! as ,aram$in du--ed it. And 1et% an
a4a)ening occurred in this e'tremel1 confused and am-iguous historical setting. The state
attempted to strengthen and augment the religious needs of the mass of the population. The
efforts of Prince (olits1n%! 4rites the historian *histoich% AF 4ere directed to4ard arousing
the Russian people from the slum-er and indifference 4hich he seemed to find eer14here0
a4a)ening in them higher spiritual instincts0 and through the distri-ution of religious -oo)s
implanting in them the liing stream of an in4ardl1 comprehended *hristianit1.! That same
historian notes that the period of unrestricted e'istence of the Bi-le Societ1 mar)s the onl1 time
since the outset of the eighteenth centur1 4hen secular societ1% appl1ing itself to religious
su-Bects 4ith a liel1 and intense interest% gae first priorit1 to the moral and spiritual
deelopment of the people.! The message of inner *hristianit1! did not pass a4a1 4ithout a
trace0 it sented as a summons to moral and religious self9reliance. In an1 case% it acted as a
dialectical counter4eight to the enlightened secularism of the preious centur1. At that time a
conscious effort had -een made to force the clerg1 into the lo4er social classes and dissole it in
the common sort of men.! AA No4 the ideal arose of an educated and enlightened clerg1
occup1ing a place in higher societ1. The ne4 regime's program allotted the -earers of religious
ideas and inspiration a greater place or role in the entire s1stem of state and national life.
Eiscipline 4as the hallmar) of Peter's reign education that of *atherine's0 no4 creatiit1 -ecame
the sign of the times.
Roman *atholic elements also e'isted in the preailing m1stical s1ncretism. In an important
sense% #oseph de &aistre -elongs to the histor1 of Russian m1sticism. As a 1outh he e'perienced
freemasonr1% and his outloo) o4es a good deal to Saint9&artin. Euring his 1ears in Russia% he
continued to -eliee that in non9*atholic countries freemasonr1 posed no danger for religion or
for the state. +o4eer% the Bi-le Societ1% 4hose 4or)ing operations he could o-sere firsthand
in Russia% he considered Cuite dangerous. These impressions found a place in his theocratic
s1nthesis. As (. (o1au A: perceptiel1 noted% 4hen de &aistre 4rote .n the Pope% he had t4o
countries in mind: 3rance and Russia. Ee &aistre e'ercised a considera-le influence in Russian
aristocratic circles. A8
Euring the first 1ears of the ne4 centur1% the influence of the #esuits could also -e strongl1
felt. .ne need onl1 recall the names of A--es Nicole AG and Ro$aen. A= 3or a short time% from
5655 to 56F7% the #esuits een managed to achiee the creation of a special educational district
for their schools 4ithin the empire. Polots) Academ1 sered as its administratie center. To the
south% .dessa -ecame a hot-ed of Roman prosel1tism and its *ollege des No-les raCuo0% 4as
soon reorgani$ed as the l1cee Richelieu 4ith Nicole as director. +o4eer% -1 5658 the #esuits
had -een e'pelled from -oth capitals% and -1 56F7 the1 4ere dispatched -e1ond the empire's
frontier. Their schools 4ere either closed or reformed. +o4eer% such measures did not entirel1
eliminate 2atin influence.
The Ale'andrine era consisted of contradictions% am-iguities% and duplicities. 2ife and
thought -ecame diided. An open ?if not free@ social and religious de-ate arose for the first time.
Such 4as the -eginning of a ne4% storm1% and significant era.
558
The Revival of Russian Free$asonry.
A m1stical intensit1 can -e detected from the outset of the centur1. &asonic lodges reied
and reopened. Pu-lication of m1stical -oo)s resumed% proiding a renaissance in the Noi)o
tradition. A6 &en such as 2opu)hin% E. ,arnee% ,oshele% I. Turgene and 2a-$in% A< 4ho had
-een formed in those earlier 1ears% came for4ard to rene4 their actiities.
The 4or) of A. 3. 2a-$in ?5=GG956F8@ most characteri$ed the earl1 1ears of the centur1. B1
5677% 4hile conference secretar1 for the Academ1 of Arts% he opened the St. Peters-urg lodge
The E1ing Sphin'%! an e'clusie and separate circle of Rosicrucians. 3or a time he had -een an
ardent follo4er of Sch4art$% :7 and during Paul's reign he translated the histor1 of the &altese
order from (erman :5 2a-$in no4 tried to repeat the e'perience of &osco4 in the 5=67's% and
actuall1 did so in pu-lishing. B1 567A he had reied the printing of translated m1stical 4or)s%
especiall1 those of #ung9Stilling and Ec)artshausen. Along 4ith Boehme% Saint9&artin and ?in
part@ 3enelon :F sered as authorities or models.! In 567G 2a-$in undertoo) pu-lication of
&essenger of Nion LSions)ii hestni)M. The political climate of those 1ears did not 1et faor such
pu-lications% and 2a-$in 4as compelled to suspend his Bournal. 2a-$in indicates the models on
4hich he fashioned his o4n Bournal: Pfenniger's Sammlung $u Einem *hristlichen &aga$in :A
and E4ald's *hristliche &onatsschrift. ::
The real s4ing to4ard m1stical literature occurred onl1 after the (reat 3atherland "ar in
connection 4ith the actiities of the Bi-le Societ1. .nl1 -1 Imperial order! in 565= 4as
&essenger of Nion reopened. B1 that time there 4as a sufficient demand for such m1stical
-oo)s.! #udging -1 the statements and memoirs of contemporaries% man1 people possessed such
-oo)s. *haracteristicall1 for that period% m1sticism -ecame a social moement and for a time
enBo1ed goernmental support. A strong m1stical t1pe 4as created. *ontemporar1 -iographies
usuall1 contain a m1stical period or episode.
2a-$in's message 4as simple and t1pical: a mi'ture of Cuietism and pietism0 a-oe all% a
message of a4a)ening! or conersion.! +e called for introspection and reflection%
concentrating full attention on the moment of conersion:! The ne4 teaching ac)no4ledged as
real the sole dogma! of conersion.! Renunciation of proud Reason led to agnosticism
?sometimes practicall1 aphasia@ in theolog1. All religious e'perience diffused into 4aes of
captiating and oppressie enthusiasm. In the +ol1 Scriptures 4e find a-solutel1 no guidelines
for the understanding of Eiine matters.! Reason% 4ith its insights% is contrasted 4ith Reelation0
not so much a historical or 4ritten Reelation as an inner! one ?that is% a certain
enlightenment! or illumination!@. +ol1 Scripture is a mute instructor% using signs to inform
the liing teacher 4ho d4ells in the heart.! Eogmas% and een the sacraments% are less important
than this life of the heart. In fact% one cannot please (od 4ith opinions.! "e do not find the
Saior proiding an1 e'planations of dogmas% onl1 practical a'ioms teaching us 4hat to do and
4hat to aoid.! Thus% all confessional diisions stem from the pride of Reason. The true church
is greater than these superficial diisions and consists of all true 4orshippers in the spirit%
encompassing the entire human race. Such a trul1 ecumenical or uniersal! *hristianit1
-ecomes for 2a-$in a peculiar supratemporal or suprahistorical religion. Such a religion is one
and the same for all peoples and all times. It is found in the -oo) of Nature% in the Scriptures%
among the Prophets% in the m1steries and m1ths% and in the (ospel. A single religion of the heart.
Each man possesses a secret chronolog1 of his o4n era from the da1 of his re-irth or conersion%
from the da1 4hen *hrist is -orn or -egins to d4ell in his heart.
A sharp distinction in steps or degrees characteri$es all of this m1sticism% as does the
unrestrained and impetuous aspiration to see) or acCuire higher! degrees or initiations. .nl1 the
55G
lo4est orders of men% those -arel1 catechumens%! could -e satisfied 4ith the pious rituals in the
historical churches. Eream and reason strangel1 intert4ine in a m1sticism 4hich contains a
romantic simplification of all Cuestions and an e'cessie transparenc1 and lucidit1. +is reason
presented eer1thing clearl1 and simpl1% -asing eer1thing on the la4s of necessit1 and on the
la4 4hich unites the isi-le and the inisi-le% the earthl1 and the heaenl1. This% I thought% is a
science of religion0 a great and important discoer1 for me.! :8
.pinions diide on 2a-$in. +is polemical and resolute attac)s on ;oltarianism and all forms
of freethin)ing attracted and reconciled man1 to him. Een Egenii Bol)hoitino :G remar)ed
that he detected man1% if not from the depraed life% at least from those depraed ideas 4hich
com-at religion.! 3ilaret admitted that 2a-$in had pure intentions. +e 4as a good man% 4ith
certain peculiarities in his religious ie4s.! .thers render a much harsher and utterl1 implaca-le
Budgment. Inno)entii Smirno := regarded 2a-$in's translations as completel1 harmful and
dangerous. &an1 4ere of a similar mind. 3otii sa4 in 2a-$in one of the chief instigators of
heres1. In fact% 2a-$in's propaganda 4as e'tremel1 immodest% 4illful% and anno1ing. Intolerant%
he had a pathos for conersion. &oreoer% he achieed success. Apparentl1 een clerg1men ?the
archimandrites 3eofil and Io :6 hae -een named@ Boined his lodge. "it-erg% too% -ecame a
mem-er. *uriousl1 enough% ,heras)o composed his famous h1mn +o4 (lorious! :<
precisel1 for 2a-$in's lodge The E1ing Sphin'.! The h1mn is a t1pical e'ample of the
preailing m1stical and pietist poetr1.
&i)hail Sperans)ii ?5==F956A:@ is another representatie of the m1stical mood. 2i)e
2a-$in% Sperans)ii 4as in essence a man of the preceding centur1. The optimist and rationalist of
the Age of Enlightenment is stri)ingl1 eident in him. Sperans)ii surprised and een frightened
his contemporaries -1 his e'tremel1 a-stract manner. 3orceful and -old in the realm of a-stract
constructions% schemes% and forms% he Cuic)l1 tired and -ecame lost in life% occasionall1 een
failing to o-sere moral decorum. Not onl1 did Sperans)ii neer li-erate himself from this innate
rationalism% een through man1 1ears of reading m1stical and ascetical -oo)s% -ut his thought
gre4 still more arid% if more deeloped% in this ordeal of meditations. +e achieed insensitiit1%
not impartialit1. Sperans)ii deried his great strength as 4ell as his 4ea)ness from this
rationalism. +e -ecame an inimita-le codifier and s1stemi$er% and he could -e a fearless
reformer. But his thoughts lac) italit1: the1 4ere freCuentl1 -rilliant -ut een then the1 retained
an ic1 chill. There is al4a1s something intolera-l1 rhetorical in all his proBects and speeches. +is
clarit1 and lucidit1 possessed an offensie Cualit1% 4hich e'plains 4h1 no one loed him and
4h1 he could hardl1 loe an1one else. A highl1 directed and deli-erate man% he had an e'cessie
passion for s1mmetr1 and too great a faith in the omnipotence of statutes and forms. ?Both
3ilaret and N.I. Turgene 87 concur in this ealuation@. Eespite the daring logic of his man1
proposals% Sperans)ii had no original ideas. +e possessed a clear -ut superficial mind. +is
outloo) lac)ed tim-re and fi-re0 he had no liing muscle. +e een accepted suffering in a dream9
li)e manner. Sperans)ii simpl1 4as not a man of thought. It is all the more characteristic that a
man of that st1le and t1pe could -e attracted and dra4n into a maelstrom of m1sticism.
Sperans)ii came from the clerg1. +e 4ent through the usual curriculum of an ecclesiastical
school% -ecame a teacher and then a prefect in that same Ale)sandr Nes)ii Seminar1s 4here he
had studied. +o4eer% he deeloped an interest in theolog1 at a later date. A-out 567: he -ecame
acCuainted 4ith I. ;. 2opu)hin and -egan reading m1stical -oo)s under &s guidance. +is
reading during those 1ears 4as largel1 comprised of theosophical! -oo)s% including Boehme%
Saint9&artin and S4eden-org. 8F .nl1 later% 4hen in e'ile in Perm and ;eli)opol'e% did he shift
his interest to m1stical theolog1%! that is% partl1 to Cuietism and partl1 to the church fathers. +e
55=
een translated The Imitation of *hrist. At the same time he studied +e-re4 in order that he
might read the Bi-le in that language. Still later% in Pen$a% he -egan learning (erman.
Sperans)ii ma)es the t1pical distinction or dichotom1 of those 1ears -et4een outer! and
inner.! +e possessed more than a mere indifference to histor1 and sharpl1 and maliciousl1
descri-ed historical! and e'ternal! *hristianit1 as that disfigured *hristianit1 adorned 4ith
all the colors of a sensual 4orld.! .nce Sperans)ii 4rote to his former schoolmate P. A.
Slotso% that to search the +ol1 Scriptures for our fruitless and empt1 historical truths and for a
useless s1stem proided -1 the logic of our fie senses is to act the child and amuse ourseles
4ith pointless scholarship and literature.! Sperans)ii ie4ed the Bi-le as a -oo) of para-les and
m1sterious s1m-ols0 he considered it more a m1thical or theoretical! -oo) than an historical
one. Such an approach to the Bi-le generall1 characteri$ed the preailing m1sticism and pietism.
Sperans)ii's isionar1 paternalism% his Buggling of a-stract schemes% and een his lac) of images
are surprising. *uriousl1% he maintained a resered attitude to4ard #ung9Stilling and all
apocal1ptical literature. There 4as too much that 4as apocal1ptical in life and histor1 to suit
him.
Sperans)ii 4as a &ason% adhering to 3essler's scientific! s1stem rather than to
Rosicrucianism. Ee &aistre% on insufficient grounds% considered Sperans)ii an admirer of
,ant.! 3essler's initation to Russia is a s1mptomatic episode. A prominentl1 actie &ason 4ho
had reformed (erman freemasonr1 on more rationalistic and critical lines% he 4as summoned -1
Sperans)ii to occup1 a chair in the ne4l1 reformed St. Peters-urg Theological Academ1.
Su-seCuentl1 Sperans)ii emphasi$ed that 3essler's initation came -1 special Imperial
instruction.! +e 4as offered a chair of +e-re4% 4hich 3essler had preiousl1 held in 2o. 8A
/pon 3essler's arrial% Sperans)ii discoered he possessed an outstanding )no4ledge of
philosoph1 and entrusted him not onl1 4ith the chair of +e-re4% -ut 4ith that of philosoph1
?Sperans)ii considered himself the patron! of that chair@. Baron ,orf% Sperans)ii's earl1 and
official -iographer% guessed that there ma1 hae -een ulterior moties for 3essler's appointment.
8: Since that time% the interesting comments -1 (auenshil'd% 4ho sered for a time under
Sperans)ii in the *ommission on 2a4s% hae -ecome aaila-le. 88 (auenshil'd tells of a
&asonic lodge organi$ed -1 3essler in St. Peters-urg in 4hich Sperans)ii -ecame a mem-er.
&eetings 4ere held in Baron Rosen)ampf's home. 8G A proposal 4as made to found a central
&asonic lodge 4ith filial -ranches throughout the Russian empire% in 4hich the a-lest spiritual
people of eer1 station 4ould -e o-liged to Boin. These spiritual -rethren 4ould -e reCuired to
4rite articles on arious humanitarian Cuestions% delier sermons% and so on. Their 4ritings
4ould then -e su-mitted to the central lodge.! (auenshil'd recalls that at their first meeting
Sperans)ii spo)e of reforming the Russian clerg1.! .ne ma1 infer that 3essler had -een -rought
to St. Peters-urg and appointed to the Nes)ii Academ1 for that purpose.
3essler 4as a freethin)er% not a m1stic. +e su-scri-ed to the ideas of 2essing and 3ichte% 8=
and he suggested that the goal of a true &ason could -e found in the creation of ciic
consciousness and in reeducating the citi$enr1 for the coming age of Astrea. &osco4
Rosicrucians greeted the ne4s of 3essler's appointment 4ith indignation and fear% for he is a
stealth1 enem1 4ho reBects the diinit1 of #esus *hrist and ac)no4ledges him merel1 as a great
man! 86 3essler also met 4ith hostilit1 in St. Peters-urg. +o4eer% prominent people Boined his
lodge% including S. S. /aro% 8< A. I. Turgene% G7 a group of *arpatho9 Russians from the
*ommission on 2a4s ?2odi% Balugians)ii% and .rlai@% G5 the court ph1sician Stoffregen% the
famous doctor E. E. Ellisen and the philanthropist Pomian Pe$aroius% founder of the Russian
Inalid and Ale'ander's *ommittee for the "ounded. GF
556
3essler did not teach long at the academ1. +is Socinian cast of mind soon -ecame apparent.
The s1lla-i for his proposed course 4ere found to -e o-scure.! 3essler 4as Cuic)l1 transferred
to the position of corresponding mem-er! of the *ommission on 2a4s. Su-seCuentl1
Sperans)ii% 4ho had defended 3essler and his s1lla-i% and 4ho until then had -een the most
actie mem-er of the *ommission on Ecclesiastical Schools% stopped attending its meetings
altogether and een as)ed permission to resign. These eents occurred in 5657. The follo4ing
1ear% 3essler 4as reCuired to isit the +errnhutters in the southern ;olga region. In 5656 he
returned once more to St. Peters-urg in the capacit1 of 2utheran (eneral Superintendent. B1 that
time he 4as enBo1ing the faor of Prince (olits1n. The 4hole episode 4ell characteri$es those
trou-led 1ears. The complete confusion and am-iguit1 of religious ie4s is so eloCuentl1
e'pressed.
Refor$ of the Ecclesiastical %chools) 345673438.
Reform of the ecclesiastical schools -egan during the er1 first 1ears of Ale'ander's reign.
This reform formed a part of a general reconstruction of the entire educational s1stem and the
creation in 567F of a ne4 department or ministr1 of pu-lic enlightenment.! .n 8 Noem-er
567: a ne4 statute for uniersities and other pu-lic schools 4as pu-lished and implemented. In
5678 Egenii Bol)hoitino ?5=G=956A=@% then icar of Staraia Russa% dre4 up the first s)etch!
for a ne4 statute for the ecclesiastical schools. Reports 4hich had -een elicited a-out desired
improements 4ere su-mitted to him% and he -ased his proposal on them. .nl1 &etropolitan
Platon of &osco4 GA opposed the idea of reform. +o4eer% none of the -ishops consulted
proposed more than specific corrections or changes 4ithin the frame4or) of the e'isting order.
Agustin ';inograds)ii% -ishop of Emitro and icar to the metropolitan of &osco4% proides
the sole e'ception. +e proposed that education -e diided into distinct leels and that the
academ1 -e organi$ed as a school e'clusiel1 for the higher sciences! and not Bust theolog1. +e
also recommended that the &osco4 Academ1 -e transferred to the +ol1 Trinit1 &onaster1.
Een Egenii Bol)hoitino made onl1 moderate suggestions% proposing to refur-ish the
curriculum and reduce the s4a1 of 2atin in instruction -1 resering it e'clusiel1 for theolog1
and philosoph1. But these ?su-BectsM should -e taught from translations as 4e hae al4a1s
done.! The administration of the Ale)sandr Nes)ii Academ1 oiced the same opinion. Egenii's
s)etch em-odies onl1 a single interesting detail% although a some4hat old9fashioned one. +e
proposed that a special scholarl1 ?or more accuratel1% scholarl19administratie@ department or
learned societ1! -e formed in each academ1's district. These societies 4ould hae sufficientl1
dierse responsi-ilities and areas of competence such as encouragement of theological
scholarship%! pu-lication and censorship of -oo)s% superision of su-ordinate ecclesiastical
schools% and responsi-ilit1 for te't-oo)s. Egenii's idea -ecame a part of the su-seCuent statute.
G:
Egenii 4as and remained a man of the eighteenth centur1. +is personal tastes gae him a
secular outloo)% and he did not conceal the fact that he too) monastic o4s in order to adance
his career% descri-ing ?in correspondence 4ith a friend% to -e sure@ his tonsure 4ith almost
profane leit1: 2i)e spiders% the mon)s spun a -lac) ha-it% is mantle% and co4l around me.!
Egenii studied for a time in &osco4% 4here he had some connection 4ith the 3riendl1 Societ1
of 2earning. In an1 eent% he preferred Shaden's G8 lectures to academ1 lessons. Theolog1 had
little interest for him0 his su-Bect 4as histor1% although he neer -ecame more than a compiler.
According to Inno)entii Boriso% GG he had a chronicler's mind.! Pogodin G= du--ed him
histor1's statistician.! Egenii's great -readth of erudition is as astonishing as its capacit1 to
55<
stupef1 the po4er of thought%! said 3ilaret of *hernigo. G6 Egenii lac)ed strong anal1tical
a-ilities0 his mind entured no further than curiosit1. As an antiCuarian and -i-liographer% he
rendered man1 incontesta-le serices% -ut not in the histor1 of theolog1. It is not surprising that
Egenii later Boined the ran)s of those 4ho faored the return to the time of scholasticism. +e
disli)ed theolog1% and as metropolitan of ,ie% he did not encourage such interests -1 the
students of the ,ie Academ1. +e considered it more 4orth4hile to diert the -est talents into
archial and -i-liographical 4or). At one time he -ecame attracted to modern literature and read
Shaftes-ur1% Eiderot% E'Alem-ert% and Rousseau. G< +e loed Racine and ;oltaire's tragedies
and enBo1ed sentimental noels and tales. +e een translated Pope. =7 Det Egenii al4a1s
maintained a guarded hostilit1 to4ard philosoph1. 3or this reason% then% his s)etches! could not
-e sufficientl1 fle'i-le or inentie. Egenii too) no part in the 4or) on school reform.
.n F< Noem-er 567=% an imperial directie created a *ommittee for the Improement of
Ecclesiastical Schools. &etropolitan Amrosii Podo-edo% 3eofila)t Rusano ?then -ishop of
,aluga@% Prince A. N. (olits1n% Sperans)ii% and t4o archpriests% the tsar's confessor and the chief
militar1 chaplain% Boined the committee. Sperans)ii pla1ed the dominant and decisie role% and in
si' months the committee had finished its 4or) and receied imperial confirmation of its plan
entitled An outline of regulations for the creation of ecclesiastical schools. =5 .n FG #une 5676%
the committee 4as dissoled and a permanent *ommission on Ecclesiastical Schools esta-lished
4ith the same mem-ership and as the supreme ?alinost autonomous@ and chief organ for the
administration of the ecclesiastical schools. Sperans)ii's persistence can -e felt in the
committee's forced pace% 4hile his influence is readil1 eident in the s1mmetr1 and precise
geometr1 through9 out the plan for the entire school net4or).
A s1stem of leels 4as introduced and those leels 4ere used as diisions in the indiidual
educational institutions% a complete contrast to the old order. There 4ere to -e four such leels
-eginning at the -ottom 4ith parish schools% follo4ed -1 district schools% diocesan seminaries%
and then academies. Territorial considerations constituted one of the -ases for these diisions.
The s1stem of consecutie leels formed a unit1 -ased on su-ordinate relationships. The entire
school net4or) 4as diided into districts% 4ith an academ1 at the head or center of each% there-1
freeing the local educational institution from the authorit1 of the local -ishop. The ne4 plan
closel1 appro'imated the general s1stem of pu-lic enlightenment! outlined in the statute of
567A9567:. Een more certain is the fact that the plan 4as modeled after Napoleon's
reorgani$ation of the /niersite de 3rance% 4hich greatl1 suited Sperans)ii's taste. =F
The intention had -een% a-oe all% to esta-lish an autonomousl1 e'isting second and parallel
s1stem of schools. The chief argument 4as adduced from the specific aim of the ecclesiastical
schools% for the sort of enlightenment! should correspond to a school's particular goal. *hurch
schools should prepare serants for the church% not for the state. In practice% the er1 fact of this
long e'istent and highl1 deeloped church school net4or) carried no less 4eight in these
considerations% since the pu-lic school s1stem still a4aited reinstitution. .ne une'pected
Cualification had alread1 -een made in the original .utline: the seminaries 4ere to prepare
students not onl1 for the priesthood% -ut% if possi-le% also for the medical9surgical academies.
The aim of clerical education is undou-tedl1 a sound and fundamental stud1 of Religion. An
understanding of a Religion 4hich -ases its dogma on +ol1 Scriptures and ancient traditions
reCuires a )no4ledge of those same ancient sources as 4ell as the disciplines directl1 related to
them. Such disciplines include the stud1 of classical languages% especiall1 (ree) and 2atin0 -asic
)no4ledge of *hurch Slaic and Slaono9Russian0 an understanding of ancient histor1%
particularl1 that of the Bi-le and the *hurch0 and finall1% the stud1 of theolog1 in all its -ranches.
5F7
+ence% it is apparent that erudition! proper is the chief aim of this religious education. That is
the primar1 foundation on 4hich the church schools must -e -uilt.
The higher leels of the old school 4ere transformed into a separate middle school 4ith the
name of the seminar1. The seminar1 curriculum comprised three t4o91ear courses or diisions!:
a lo4er diision for literature% an intermediate one of philosoph1% and an upper one for theolog1.
+istor1 and mathematics supplemented the curriculum. A completel1 ne4 academ1 4as added to
the entire older s1stem. /nder the ne4 plan the academ1 -ecame a comple' institution
containing% first% a higher school of education0 second% a scholarl1 corporation or collegium 4ith
the tas) of organi$ing a special conference! 4ith participation -1 admirers and patrons of
education from outside the academ10 and third% an administratie center for the entire school
district. =A The higher school of education for the first time -ecame a separate and autonomous
educational unit.
"ith this diision% the theological academies% no longer constrained in their deelopment -1
their original o-ligation to proide elementar1 instruction in grammar and histor1% 4ill engage in
the -roadest stud1 of philosoph1 and theolog1 as -efits them% and deote themseles to an
appropriatel1 adanced theological education. An increase in the num-er of teachers
accompanied the preparation of the ne4 statute: si' professors and t4ele instructors% or
-accalaureates% for each academ1.
The committee had onl1 prepared a plan for reform and esta-lished the -asic principles and
tas)s. The ne4l1 formed commission had to deise a statute. Sperans)ii's actual participation in
the 4or) of the commission did not last long% and during that time he managed to formulate onl1
one portion of the statute goerning the academies% namel1 their administration and the
organi$ation of instruction. +e er1 soon 4ithdre4 from the commission% and the tas) of
completing and ela-orating the academ1 statute fell upon an intelligent and influential man%
3eofila)t Rusano% =: 4ho is not er1 dedicated to the office Lof -ishopM%! as Platon descri-ed
him. 3eofila)t -rought to the commission his o4n personal e'perience as 4ell as a rather la' and
een secular spirit. +e 4as some4hat reminiscent of Egenii% e'cept that rhetoric and esthetics
rather than histor1 attracted him.
The academ1 statute 4as proisionall1 accepted and% in 567<% introduced e'perimentall1 at
the St. Peters-urg Academ1. .nl1 one academ1 4as to -e opened at a time. Sperans)ii had once
remar)ed that no matter ho4 carefull all releant aspects of this matter are assem-led and
considered% e'perience alone can gie them the seal of certaint1.! .n the -asis of the e'perience
deried from the first graduating class at the St. Peters-urg Academ1 ?567<9565:@ and the
o-serations of its rector% 3ilaret% =8 the proisional statute receied one more reision.
*onfirmed and pu-lished in 565:% it 4as introduced in a second academ1% the &osco4 Academ1%
4hich opened that same 1ear. =G The ,ie Academ1 opened onl1 in 565<% 4hile the opening of
the ,a$an' Academ1 4as dela1ed until 56:F. The short suppl1 of teachers and professors
proides the chief reason for this gradual creation of academic centers. Platon's prediction that
enough people 4ere not to -e had came true. Rarel1 could those 4ho taught in the pre9reform
schools -e used in the ne4 academies% for the1 had to teach 4hat the1 themseles had neer
studied% and suita-le teachers 4ere generall1 not to -e found in ,ie and ,a$an'.
Eespite its defects and gaps% the ne4 academ1 statute constituted an undou-ted success. The
entire s1stem 4as no4 constructed on a genuine educational foundation% there-1 displacing the
eighteenth centur1 ideolog1 of state serice. Education no longer aimed to communicate a
specific amount of information or )no4ledge to the students and compel them to memori$e or
assimilate it.
5F5
A good method of teaching consists of reealing to the students their indiidual a-ilities and
intellectual capacities. Therefore% e'tended e'planations in 4hich the professors strie more to
e'hi-it their learning than to a4a)en the minds of their audience contradict this good method.
Similarl1% dictation of lessons during classtime also contradicts it.
Therefore% the ne4 statute placed special emphasis on composition and on 4ritten e'ercises
-1 the students generall1 at all leels of education. &oreoer% a 4ide reading of sources -e1ond
the te't-oo)s 4as encouraged. In ie4 of the lac) of -oo)s and te'ts% this postulate often had to
-e a-andoned% a fact 4hich points out the 4orst and most general fla4 in the ne4 statute: its
architects failed to ta)e sufficient notice of the means aaila-le for reali$ing their ideals.
;er1 important 4as the fact that the dominance of 2atin had -een condemned in principle.
Although the introduction of 2atin in the schools in certain respects had proed to -e of great
4orth% its e'clusie use 4as the reason 4h1 stud1 of Russian and (ree)% so necessar1 for our
*hurch% little -1 little declined.! Neertheless% 2atin remained the language of instruction and
onl1 a fe4 dared to shift to Russian. The1 did so much later. (ree) continued to -e one su-Bect
among man1. The te't-oo)s! -1 necessit1 remained in use for a long time% and not all ne4l1
compiled te'ts represented improement. All the 4hile% the ne4 statute unhesitatingl1 reCuired
teachers and te'ts to al4a1s )eep a-reast of the latest discoeries and achieements in each
field of learning.!
.ther difficulties compounded these pro-lems. /pon its opening under the ne4 statute% the
St. Peters-urg Academ1% in its first four 1ears ?567<9565:@% proided liing testimon1 a-out the
a-stract program designed -1 the reformers. .nl1 the special merc1 of Proidence ena-led the
first class of the academ1 to complete its 4or) successfull1%! 3ilaret later remar)ed. +e had -een
rector since 565F. +e had the 3essler affair primaril1 in mind. 3essler ?5=8G956A<@ taught at the
academ1 long enough to esta-lish contacts and produce an impression% all the more so -ecause
he 4as an inspiring and a-le orator% 4ho spo)e 4ith a fier1 tongue and 4ith captiating
inspiration%! and -ecause he introduced students to the m1steries of contemporar1 (erman
philosoph1 and preached of the -lessed clairo1ance of that truth gained through the inner e1e
of the mind.! In his later memoirs% 3essler enumerates (.P. Pas)ii == ?through his stud1 of
+e-re4@ and Irodion ;etrins)ii =6 among the circle of his student follo4ers at the academ1.
3essler enthralled the students 4ith his learning%! recalls 3ilaret% -ut it must -e accounted an
act of Proidence that -ecause of certain disputes and complications he 4as soon dismissed from
the academ1% for% as later inestigation sho4ed% he 4as a man of dangerous ie4s.!
&1stical currents or epidemics proed no less dangerous. A 2atin captiit1 could -e
replaced -1 a (erman or een an English one% and no4 the s4a1 of (erman philosoph1 and
pietism threatened to displace scholasticism. At that time% and for a long time to come% (erman
learning cast its shado4 oer Russian theolog1% to the detriment of man1. Nonetheless% the
reform of the ecclesiastical schools during those trou-led 1ears produced a genuine italit1 in
theolog1. A creatie turmoil and a4a)ening -egan. An1 sic)ness 4as that of gro4th and life% not
of death or degeneration% although the disease 4as real and of the most dangerous sort. Det the
steep% narro4 path of .rthodo' theolog1 graduall1 could -e discerned amidst the e'treme
m1stical and philosophical enthusiasms on the one hand and the fears and suspicions of them on
the other. Those 1ears 4itnessed Cuarrels% clashes% and struggles > a struggle for theolog1 >
against those 4ho disli)ed and feared it% against those 4ho distrusted thought and creatiit1.
Ee-ate oer the Russian Bi-le proides the opening act in that dramatic struggle.
5FF
The Russian "i.le %ociety.
The second decade of the nineteenth centur1 is the decade of the Bi-le Societ1. The Russian
Bi-le Societ1 sered as a largel1 autonomous -ranch of the British and 3oreign Bi-le Societ1%
founded onl1 in 567:. Agents of the British Societ1 inspired and actiel1 assisted the opening of
the Russian -ranch% and the British design and ideolog1 achieed complete acceptance. =<
The Russian Bi-le Societ1's statute receied confirmation on G Eecem-er 565F. Its first
general meeting too) place on 55 #anuar1 565A% 4ith Prince (olits1n% then .er Procurator of
the S1nod and later minister for the com-ined ministr1% elected as president. In practice% the
Russian Bi-le Societ1 deeloped into a second% and less official% facet of the department of
religious affairs and -ecame the dou-le of the com-ined ministr1. .pened initiall1 as the St.
Peters-urg Bi-le Societ1% its name 4as changed to the Russian Bi-le Societ1 in Septem-er% 565:.
At first the Societ1 limited its 4or) to the distri-ution of Bi-les among foreigners and the non9
.rthodo'% leaing iniola-le the pu-lication of the +ol1 Scriptures in Slaic for those 4ho
confess the (reco9Russian faith0 Lsuch pu-licationM -elongs particularl1 and e'clusiel1 to the
department of the +ol1 S1nod.! But -1 565:% the Societ1 had ta)en upon itself the pu-lication
and distri-ution of the Slaic Bi-le% especiall1 the Ne4 Testament. Bishops and other clerg1%
-oth .rthodo' and non9.rthodo'% 4ere included in the Bi-le Societ1 as ice presidents and
directors simultaneousl1 4ith the formation of the Societ1's adisor1 -oard% 4hich had
heretofore included onl1 la1men. Een the Roman *atholic &etropolitan Stanisla4
Siestr$ence4ic$9Bohus$ Boined. 67 At the -eginning of 565G% the Societ1 decided to pu-lish a
Russian Bi-le.
All Bi-le societies ?in Russia as much as in Britain@ sa4 as their tas) the placing into 4ider
use! of the "ord of (od% een in older or unfamiliar editions% so that each person might
e'perience its redemptie po4er and there-1 acCuire an immediate )no4ledge of (od as +ol1
Scripture reeals +im.! Such an aim com-ined 4ith the strict rule that the sacred -oo)s -e
pu-lished 4ithout notes or comments! in order to aoid an1 human% and therefore partial%
interpretation% 4hich might o-scure the uniersal% manifoldl1 profound% ine'hausti-le% and
infinite "ord of (od. /nderl1ing such -eliefs is the theor1 of mute! signs and the liing
Teacher% 4ho a-ides in the heart.! The Societ1 of 3riends% that is% the Kua)ers% constituted the
most decisie influence in the formation of the Bi-le Societ1's ideolog1. Euring the earl1 1ears%
Russian and English proponents of Bi-lical 4or) maintained intimate and actie cooperation.
The e'peditions -1 British missionaries into the non9*hristian regions of the empire are
particularl1 note4orth1. An English mission traeled to the trans9Bai)al region in order to
conert the Buriats% 4hile a Scottish missionar1 colon1 sent -1 the Edin-urg &issionar1 Societ1
settled in ,arras on the *aucasian frontier.
The Societ1's actiities e'panded rapidl1 and met 4ith considera-le success% for a net4or)
of -ranch societies soon e'tended throughout the empire. "ithin a decade% the Bi-le had -een
pu-lished ?or acCuired@ in fort19three languages and dialects% totaling =7:% 6A5 copies. This
achieement largel1 depended on state support and often on state initiatie. In contrast to its
British counterpart% the Russian Bi-le Societ1 4as not the 4or) of societ1% nor did it enBo1 either
societ1's s1mpath1 or support. Progress came through goernment support and directies: the
(ood Ne4s! 4as freCuentl1 transmitted -1 decree. A $eal for the "ord of (od and a desire to
enlighten those sitting in the shado4 of death -ecame manifest eer14here.
(oernors -egan ma)ing speeches 4hich perfectl1 resem-led sermons0 police
commissioners% elected heads of municipalities% and heads of district police a-l1 disseminated
+ol1 Scriptures and reported on their efforts to the state administration in pious letters li-erall1
5FA
punctuated 4ith Bi-lical citations. The entire affair contained a good amount of nois1
-ureaucratic unctuousness and presented a deceptie -ureaucratic facade ?a ne4 ersion of the
Potem)in illage!@.65 3or all practical purposes% the Bi-le Societ1 -ecame a special
goernment department! and perfected its o4n form of stic)1% unpleasant -ureaucratic9Bi-lical
h1pocris1. +o4eer% these dar)er sides should not -e e'aggerated% for the constructie results of
this Bi-lical 4or) are no less eident and 4orth1.
A host of other philanthropical! enterprises Cuic)l1 -ecame associated 4ith the Bi-le
Societ1. Although partiall1 modelled on the English pattern% these charita-le 4or)s 4ere
necessar1 and ital. The pu-lishing actiities of Princess S. S. &eshchers)aia 6F reCuire special
mention. She adapted or translated -rochures and pamphlets for popular reading printed -1 the
Religious Tract Societ1% founded in 5=<<.6A .ne can Cuestion ho4 understanda-le or appropriate
such -rochures composed -1 a certain deout lad1! 4ere for the simple people! ?although
some original material did get pu-lished% including e'cerpts from St. Ti)hon's 4ritings and from
the sermons of &etropolitan &i)hail Eesnits)ii@. 6: But the cardinal importance of this
enterprise can hardl1 -e disputed. &uch the same can -e said for the schools esta-lished on the
2ancaster s1stem.! 68 Still more important 4as the creation of the Imperial Philanthropical
Societ1 and 4or) among prisoners% such as that done -1 #ohn ;enning% a mem-er of the 2ondon
Prison Societ1% 4ho had founded a similar societ1 in St. Peters-urg in 565<. 6G
These phenomena all deried from a single impulse coming from England. This 4ae of
Anglo9Sa'on Nonconformit1 mingled 4ith that of (erman pietism and older m1stical
freemasonr1. Among the former &asonic leaders% ,oshele% ,arnee% 2a-$in% and 2enitse
no4 assiduousl1 applied themseles to the 4or) of the Bi-le Societ1. This group 4as represented
in the Societ1's &osco4 -ranch -1 Bant1sh9,amens)ii% 6= that la1 mon) and secular -ishop!
in ;igel's cleer definition. +is description perhaps een more full1 applies to Prince (olits1n%
since (olits1n considered himself to -e a secular -ishop! and hence the more distinguished -1
that fact. In an1 case% 2a-$in's pu-lishing actiities harmoni$ed 4ith the 4or) of the Bi-le
Societ1 and freCuentl1 his pu-lications 4ere distri-uted through the usual Bi-le Societ1
channels% 4ith the result that his -oo)s might -e accepted readil1 and naturall1 as those of the
Societ1 itself. The fact that the head of the Postal Eepartment also sered as president of the
Bi-le Societ1 and as minister of the com-ined ministr1% and that onl1 a rare -ureaucrat in the
Postal Eepartment did not -elong to ?or had not -een at least enrolled in@ a lodge or -ranch of the
Bi-le Societ1% greatl1 aided the distri-ution of these -oo)s.
The pu-lication of m1stical -oo)s -1 prominent mem-ers of the Bi-le Societ1 cast a fatal
shado4 on the Societ1's 4or) on the Bi-le. There 4ere sufficient grounds to regard the Bi-le
Societ1 as something more or other than 4hat it claimed to -e. ;er1 man1 people 4ith e'treme
ie4s or 4ith scarcel1 concealed hopes and intentions -elonged to the Societ1% often in leading
and responsi-le positions or roles. B1 statute and design the Bi-le Societ1 4as to em-race all
confessions% so that all confessions! might -e represented in the Societ1 as eCuall1 possessed -1
the sanctit1 of (od's "ord. In fact% the Bi-le Societ1 -ecame something li)e a ne4 confession or
sect ?at least ps1chologicall1@ 4ith the peculiarl1 esoteric and e'alted cast of mind of a circle.!
Sturd$a 66 some4hat Bustifia-l1 called the Bi-le Societ1 e'otic! and la-eled it the Anglo9
Russian sect.! &an1 of the prominent mem-ers of the Bi-le Societ1% nota-l1 its secretar1 ;. &.
Popo% 6< participated in &adame Tatarinoa's circle or spiritual alliance.! <7 ;er1 often
religious toleration and the principle of eCualit1 of all confessions -ecame metamorphosed as
patronage for sectarians% especiall1 for the Eu)ho-ors and &olo)ans% -ut een for the S)opts1.
<5 &1stical -oo)s% particularl1 #ung9Stilling and Ec)artshausen% found read1 acceptance in this
5F:
milieu. <F In an1 case% formal church life! 4as er1 often denounced 4ith the e'pectation that
such 4orn out altar cloths! might -e cut a4a1% there-1 reealing a true and inner *hristianit1.
.ne can read #ung9Stilling on the a-surd and superstitious -lindness of those 4ho profess the
Eastern (ree)9*atholic confession% 4hich must -e drien out 4ith the light of the Eiine -oo).!
.ne feature of this administratie intrusion into Bi-lical under ta)ings could not fail to
-ecome irritating: goernment policies did not include open discussion a-out 4or) on the Bi-le.
Thus% the goernment had itself to -lame if man1 people formed the impression that the
goernment 4as preparing a supraconfessional reolution protected -1 administratie censorship
and police sanctions% and that consent to such a reolution 4ould -e e'torted and made
compulsor1. The storm1 hostilit1 4ith 4hich the authorities greeted the rare attempts to oice
criticism could onl1 deepen suspicions. A t1pical affair is that inoling Inno)entii Smirno
?5=6:9565<@% then archimandrite and rector of the St. Peters-urg Seminar1. Inno)entii% 4ho
Boined the Bi-le Societ1 and -ecame a director in 5658% sered on the translation committee.
?Een after his e'ile to Pen$a% Inno)entii recommended to the Societ1 that the Bi-le -e translated
into &oldaian@.
A sincere and strong friendship -ound him to the Princess &eshchers)aia. A man of 4arm
piet1 and rigorous spiritualit1% he loed pilgrims and fools for *hrist's sa)e! Liurodi1eM . The
spirit of pretentious eCualit1 of all confessions 4hich so greatl1 animated 2a-$in and (olits1n
sered onl1 to confuse Inno)entii. To4ard the end of 5656% Inno)entii% in his capacit1 as
ecclesiastical censor% approed for pu-lication a -oo) -1 Estafii Staneich% A *onersation on
the Immortalit1 of the Soul at the (rae of an Infant LRa$goor o -e$smertii dush nad gro-om
mladentsaM . A (ree) -1 -irth% Staneich had -een educated in Russia and -ecome full1
Russified. +e also fanaticall1 adhered to Shish)o <A and -elonged to Beseda L(atheringM. <: At
the same time% he admired Ed4ard Doung <8 and other English 4riters. As Sturd$a noted% his
-oo) 4as an ineffectual 4or)% -ut harmless.! The -oo)'s stinging criticism consisted in its fran)
condemnation of the ideas e'pressed in such 4or)s as &essenger of Nion and in the -oo)'s hints
a-out the com-ined ministr1's ulterior aims. 3ilaret later recalled that Staneich's -oo)
contained man1 remar)s greatl1 offensie to the goerning authorities and to the spirit of the
times in general.! +ence% 3ilaret cautioned Inno)entii against permitting the -oo)'s pu-lication.
Inno)entii ignored him and accepted 3ilaret's 4arning as a challenge.
Through an imperial directie hastil1 o-tained -1 (olits1n% Staneich's -oo) 4as -anned
and remoed from circulation0 4ithin t4ent19four hours the author 4as e'iled from the capital.
*uriousl1% not onl1 did a second imperial directie free Staneich from arrest in 56F8% -ut that
fact 4as mentioned in the second edition of his -oo). Eespite &etropolitan &i)hail's <G
intercession% Inno)entii 4as gien an honora-le e'ile from St. Peters-urg at the first faora-le
moment. This 4as done 4ithout the )no4ledge of the S1nod through (olits1n's personal
recommendation that Inno)entii -e appointed to the acant diocese in .ren-urg. .nl1 4ith great
difficult1 could this appointment -e redesignated to Pen$a. A fe4 months later% Inno)entii died
from nerous strain and -itter an'iet1. The points (olits1n enumerates in his condemnation of
Staneich's -oo) are most instructie. To the discussion of the immortalit1 of the soul is
appended a defense of the Eastern *hurch% -efore an1one has attac)ed it% and if such an attac)
should occur% it is not for a priate indiidual to ta)e that defense upon himself. 2ac)ing a
correct understanding% the author does not sense that minds ma1 -ecome uneas1 that the *hurch
is in danger.! .f course% Staneich composed his -oo) precisel1 in order to a4a)en such a fear.
+e as)s 4ho is more correct%! St. #ohn *hr1sostom or St. Augustine% and gies preference to
*hr1sostom onl1 -ecause he -elongs to the Eastern *hurch% although hierarchs% freCuentl1 cite
5F8
Augustine in their sermons and 4ritings.! Een more characteristic is the follo4ing: The author
denigrates those -oo)s 4hich the ciil censors has approed0 for e'ample% the 4or)s of Eutoit%
<= specificall1 his Philosophie *hretienne% and he een e'presses' the fear that the Philosophie
diine might -e pu-lished% 4hen in fact it has -een printed in Russian and at Dour &aBest1's
e'pense.
And finall1% under the pretense of defending the outer church% he attac)s the inner one% that
is% he 4ishes to separate -od1 and soul.! +ence the conclusion that% In a 4ord% this -oo) full1
contradicts the principles 4hich guide our *hristian goernment in its ciil and ecclesiastical
parts.! "hile affirming (olits1n's petition% the Emperor e'pressed the hope that henceforth the
*ommission on Ecclesiastical Schools 4ill ta)e measures to ensure that 4ritings 4hich see) to
destro1 the spirit of the inner teaching of *hristianit1 4ill not -1 an1 means -e passed -1 its
censors.!
It is important to note that uneasiness sei$ed een people 4ho 4holl1 s1mpathi$ed 4ith the
Bi-le Societ1's 4or) and 4ho shared in that 4or). &i)hail Eesnits)ii% then metropolitan of
Nogorod% and a man of 4arm piet1% m1stical inclination% and a graduate of Noi)o' s
seminar1%! is one such e'ample. As a parish priest in &osco4% he gained prominence as a
preacher for the common people% giing his greatest attention to Cuestions of the inner life and
calling upon men to leae the dispersion in Eg1pt for the desert of inner solitude.! +e spo)e
4ith simplicit1 and 4armth0 he loed to preach. (olits1n's dictatorial interference 4ith church
administration in the S1nod distur-ed him most deepl1. .f course% he completel1 disapproed
such h1sterical sectarian e'altations as those to -e found in the sermons of 2indel and (ossner%
<6 the 4ritings of the pietists% or een the )naish sacraments at the &i)hailos)ii palace%! as
;igel' 4ittil1 termed those e'ultant performances of the Tatarinoa circle 4hich so fascinated
(olits1n. &etropolitan &i)hail died in 56F7% 4ear1 and e'hausted from his struggle 4ith the
-lind minister.! Shortl1 -efore his death% &i)hail 4rote a candid letter to the Emperor% 4arning
him that the church 4as in danger and the su-Bect of persecution. The Emperor receied the letter
at 2ai-ach% 4hen the metropolitan 4as no longer alie. Rumor spread that (olits1n 4as the
murderer of the metropolitan.! That such a man as &i)hail opposed (olits1n and his regime is
Cuite s1mptomatic. 3ilaret% formerl1 &i)hail's icar% 4rote that the sense of desolation and
a-andonment he has left is great%! and pra1ed that the 2ord might grant us a man 4ith the spirit
and strength of EliBah% for repentance and Budgment must -e preached 4ith the loe and patience
of *hrist0 for there must -e merc1 and solace 4ithout hope for personal comfort.!
Such an'ieties a-out the iolent and dictatorial nature of these false! m1stics sered as a
prelude to the actual uprising! against the Bi-le Societ1 and particularl1 against the Russian
Bi-le. But 4hat more can -e achieedI +ae not the Bi-le societies alread1 to a certain e'tent
displaced the isi-le churchI . . . Is it difficult to understand that the mi'ture of all *hristian
confessions in their meetings is -ut a model for that uniersal religion 4hich the1 are deisingI!
&an1 people regarded this united Bi-le stratum! as an anti9*hurch. The Bi-le Societ1 greatl1
resem-les secret societies%! and it is Bust the same among &ethodists and Illuminati << as it is
in the freemason lodges.! Archimandrite 3otii e'pressed this idea een more emphaticall1:
Enemies prepared to esta-lish a peculiar Bi-le religion and ma)e an amalgam of faiths% there-1
reducing the .rthodo' faith of *hrist.! +e thought the ne4! faith to -e an outright fraud. In our
time% man1 -oo)s e'press% and man1 societies and priate indiiduals herald% some ne4 form of
religion% supposedl1 preordained for the last da1s. This ne4 religion is preached in arious
forms: as a ne4 light% a ne4 doctrine% a coming of *hrist in the Spirit% a reunification of the
churches% a rene4al in the form of the Thousand Dear Reign of *hrist0 or else it is propagated as
5FG
a ne4 truth 4hich is an apostas1 from the Eiine% Apostolic% Patristic and .rthodo' faith. This
ne4 religion is the -elief in the approach of the Antichrist% 4ho foments reolutions% thirsts for
-loodshed% and is filled 4ith the spirit of Satan. The false prophets and apostles of this ne4
religion are #ung9Stilling% Ec)artshausen% (u1on% Boehme% 2a-$in% (ossner% 3essler% the
&ethodists% and the +errhutters. All such frightened conBectures did not lac) foundations. There
4ere more than ample grounds for an'iet1. In an1 case% the spiritual atmosphere 4as unhealth1.
As it turned out% this partiall1 Bustified uprising! degenerated into a sordid court intrigue and the
an'iet1 resulted in a fit of h1sterics. All sense of proportion and Budicious perspectie 4as lost.
In the ensuing polemic and struggle each side possessed onl1 half of the truth and -oth sides
shared the -lame.
Translation of the Russian "i.le.
3ormal discussion a-out a Russian translation of the Bi-le first -egan in 565G. As president
of the Russian Bi-le Societ1% (olits1n receied a er-al directie from the Emperor to propose
to the +ol1 S1nod +is &aBest1's sincere and precise 4ish that Russians -e proided 4ith the
means to read (od's 4ord in their natie language% 4hich for them is more comprehensi-le than
the *hurch Slaic no4 used for the pu-lication of +ol1 Scripture.! At the same time% this ne4
translation 4ould -e pu-lished parallel 4ith the Slaic te't% as had -een done earlier 4ith the
Epistle to the Romans% a translation made 4ith the permision of the S1nod. 577 .f course it is
understood that the use of the Slaic te't must remain iniolate in *hurch serices.! The Russian
translation 4ould -e onl1 for personal use and home reading. Among other Bustifications for the
contemporar1 Russian translation% (olits1n referred to the letter of the (ree) Patriarch *1ril ;I%
575 4hich% similar circumstances% allo4ed the people to read the Ne4 Testament contemporar1
rather than ancient (ree). *1ril's letter had -een printed in the minutes of the Russian Bi-le
Societ1 in 565:.
The S1nod did not superise or accept responsi-ilit1 for the translation of the Bi-le. Perhaps
higher authorit1 suggested such course of action. Instead% the *ommission on Ecclesiastical
Schools 4as placed in charge and 4as also reCuired to find relia-le translators in the St.
Peters-urg Academ1. The Russian Bi-le Societ1 4ould pu-lish the completed translation. Such a
translation 4ould enBo1 the Emperor's protection. +e had originated the idea% or at least it 4as
attri-uted to him.
Not onl1 does he approe the utmost haste in this 4or) of salation% -ut he inspires the
4or) of the Societ1 4ith the ardor of his o4n heart. +e himself set aside the printing in an
incomprehensi-le language 4hich to date has -arred man1 Russians from the (ospel of #esus%
and he opens this -oo) for the er1 1oungest among the people% for 4hom it has -een closed% not
through the (ospel's intent% -ut solel1 through the dar)ness of time.
Actuall1 this incomprehensi-le language! did not so much ma)e the Bi-le less accessi-le
for the people as for the upper class% especiall1 the Emperor% 4ho customaril1 read Ee Sac1's
popular 3rench translation of the Ne4 Testament. 57F +e continued to do so een after the
pu-lication of a Russian ersion.
The *ommission on Ecclesiastical Schools entrusted superision of the translation to
Archimandrite 3ilaret% 57A the rector of the St. Peters-urg Academ1. 3ilaret also had the
authorit1 to select translators at his o4n discretion. It 4as assumed that the translation 4ould -e
done at the Academ1. 3ilaret translated the (ospel of #ohn0 (. P. Pas)ii 57: translated &atthe40
4hile Archimandrite Poli)arp ?(aitanni)o@% 578 rector of the St. Peters-urg Seminar1 and soon
after4ard rector at the &osco4 Academ1% 4or)ed on &ar)0 and Archimandrite &oisei ?Antipo9
5F=
Platono@% 57G a former instructor at the St. Peters-urg Academ1 -ut at that time rector of the
seminar1 in ,ie ?later rector of the ,ie Academ1 and then E'arch of (eorgia@ translated 2u)e.
A special committee in the Bi-le Societ1 e'amined and erified the 4or) of the indiidual
translators. The committee included &i)hail Eesnits)ii% later metropolitan of St. Peters-urg%
Seraphim (lagoles)ii% also a future St. Peters-urg metropolitan% l7= 3ilaret% 2a-$in% and ;. &.
Popo% director of a department in the Eual &inistr1! and secretar1 of the Bi-le Societ1. Popo%
a mem-er of &adame Tatarinoa's circle the translator of 2indel and (ossner% and a man of
e'treme m1stical ie4s% ended his life as a hum-le fanatic! ?;igel'@ in the Nilanto &onaster1
of ,a$an'. *haracteristicall1% the superisor1 committee consisted of an une'pected medle1 of
mem-ers.
3ilaret esta-lished the guidelines for the translation% as the st1le of those guidelines readil1
attests. The translation 4as to -e made from the (ree)% 4hich% as the original language% 4as
gien preference to Slaic% on the condition that Slaic 4ords -e retained or used in the
translation if the1% rather than Russian% more closel1 appro'imate the (ree) 4ithout producing
o-scurit1 or a4)4ardness in the te't%! or if the corresponding Russian 4ords do not conform to
a pure literar1 language.! Accurac1% then clarit1% and finall1 literar1 purit1 constituted the
priorities. Seeral st1listic directies are Cuite characteristic The +ol1 Scripture deries its
maBest1 from the po4er% not the glitter% of its 4ords0 conseCuentl1 one should not adhere
e'cessiel1 to Slaic 4ords and phrases onl1 for the sa)e of their supposed impressieness.!
Another remar) is still more important: The spirit of a passage must -e painsta)ingl1 o-sered%
so that conersation 4ill -e rendered in a colloCuial st1le% narration in a narratie st1le% and so
forth.! These propositions appeared as foul heres1 to the literar1 archaists! and proed to -e of
decisie moment in that tur-ulent uprising! or intrigue of the 56F7's against the Russian Bi-le.
B1 565<% the Russian translation of the (ospels had -een completed and pu-lished. In 56F7%
the entire Ne4 Testament appeared. A Russian translation of the .ld Testament -egan
immediatel1% 4ith the Psalter translated first and% in #anuar1% 56FF% pu-lished separatel1 ?in
Russian onl1 4ithout the Slaic te't@. "or) on the Pentateuch -egan at the same time. l76 &ore
translators 4ere enlisted from the1 ne4l1 opened academies in &osco4 and ,ie% as 4ell as
from seeral seminaries.
The thorn1 and comple' Cuestion of the relationship -et4een the +e-re4 and the (ree)
te'ts immediatel1 arose. +o4 4orth1 and meritorious is the SeptuagintI +o4 significant are the
&assoretic te'tsI These Cuestions 4ere intensified -ecause eer1 departure from the Septuagint
in effect also meant a diergence from the Slaic Bi-le% 4hich remained in liturgical use.
Therefore% some imposing Bustifications or disclaimers 4ere needed. At the outset% the Cuestion
receied a simple solution: the +e-re4 ?&assoretic@ te't 4ould sere as the -asic or original!
te't. A special preface 4as 4ritten in order to pacif1 those unacCuainted 4ith ancient languages
a-out the discrepancies 4ith the Slaic Bi-le. 3ilaret 4rote the preface and &etropolitan
&i)hail% &etropolitan Seraphim% ?then metropolitan of &osco4@ and 3ilaret% no4 arch-ishop of
Iaroslal'% signed it. 3inal correction of the translation 4as entrusted to 3ather (erasim Pas)ii.
The printing had -een completed in 56F8% -ut due to changed circumstances% not onl1 did the
4or) fail to see the light of da1% -ut it 4as confiscated and hastil1 -urned. Bi-lical 4or) 4as
halted and the Bi-le Societ1 4as closed and -anned. The disastrous outcome of the Bi-lical 4or)
reCuires e'planation. A Russian translation of the Bi-le commanded 4idespread attention and
s1mpath10 numerous paeans of praise% and man1 ardent% enflamed phrases 4ere openl1
proclaimed or pu-licl1 composed. Not eer1one meant 4hat the1 said% and a great deal of pure
s1cophanc1 e'isted. Det man1 spo)e from the heart and 4ith full coniction. Pu-lication of the
5F6
Russian Bi-le ans4ered an undou-ted need and alleiated the hunger to hear the "ord of (od%!
as 3ilaret put it. .ne ma1 recall that Ti)hon Nadons)ii also spo)e plainl1 a-out the necessit1 for
a Russian translation. 57< The Russian Bi-le Societ1 ersion 4as not irreproacha-le% -ut the
nature of its pro-lems and shortcomings could -e corrected onl1 through pu-lic discussion and
-road cooperation% not through fear% condemnation% or suspicion.
Strictl1 spea)ing% Prince (olits1n% that la1man in heretical gar-%! not the Russian Bi-le%
4as the o-Bect of attac). The final uprising! against the Bi-le Societ1 and its 4or) united
disparate people 4ho scarcel1 had an1thing in common either temperamentall1 or in st1le. T4o
men% Archimandrite 3otii and Admiral Shish)o% ll7 supplied the ideolog1 for the entire anti9
Bi-le intrigue. Actuall1% t4o ideologies 4ere present. Archimandrite 3otii ?Petr Spass)ii% 5=<F9
56A6@ t1pifies that trou-led and gidd1 age 4ith all its can)erous suspicion. Although a fanatical
opponent of m1stical and other dia-olical intrigues% 3otii possessed the same ps1cholog1 as his
opponents and suffered from the same diseased ecstas1. In his auto-iograph1% 3otii proides a
most conincing and dreadful portrait of himself. A isionar1 and. deotee of ecstas1% he had
nearl1 lost all sense of ecclesiastical9canonical realit1. +e is all the more pretentious for the utter
lac) of humilit1. +is is the portrait of a conceited% insolent% and self9proclaimed charismatic% 4ho
presumptuousl1 surrounds himself 4ith an atmosphere of protectie e'altation. A t1pical
e'ample of the seductie po4er of a false asceticism 4hich -ecomes a terri-le% -lindl1
serpentine alle1% 3otii e'isted in an emotional state% in a 4orld of impressions and e'periences.
But he lac)ed perspectie on religious life. 2iing in fear and apprehension% he dreaded and
shran) from the pu-lic ie4. If he 4ent on the offensie he did so from insurmounta-le fear.
+erein lies the ans4er to the difficult Cuestion a-out 3otii's sincerit1: he 4as not a ile h1pocrite.
+is actions and accusations are consistent. +e attac)ed the Bi-le Societ1 in the genuine
coniction that he 4as fighting 4ith Beliar ?Han archangelic struggle!@. This personal coniction
and sense of -eing a prophet 4ho has -een called or sent% the perception of an e'traordinar1
mission or tas)% and a certain ecstatic egocentricit1 all characteri$e this t1pe of fanatic. 3otii
might -e termed a man possessed rather than a h1pocrite. In an1 case% the oice of the church's
histor1 and ancient traditions can scarcel1 -e detected in 3otii's iolent appeals and out-ursts. +e
4as too ignorant to do so% for he )ne4 er1 little a-out patristic or een ascetical 4ritings. +e
almost neer refers to them. I do not possess the L4ritings of theM +ol1 3athers% I hae and read
onl1 the +ol1 Bi-le.! In this regard% 3otii did not depart from the custom of that Bi-lical! age.
Neither a rigorous defender nor guardian of the church's customs and traditions% 3otii loed to do
eer1thing to suit himself% 4hich resulted in Cuarrels 4ith the church authorities. /suall1 he
argues on the -asis of personal reelations and inspirations0 on the -asis of isions apparitions%
and dreams. In short% 3otii 4as not so much superstitious as fanatical.
3otii studied at the St. Peters-urg Theological Academ1 under the sharp e1e of
Archimandrite 3ilaret.! But he did not graduate -ecause of an illness 4hich too) the form of a
paro'1sm induced -1 fears and spiritual e'haustion. 3otii -ecame confused and paral1$ed -1 the
m1sticism then prealent in societ1. &an1 at the academ1 read too deepl1 in the poisonous
-oo)s of the liar and apostate #ung9Stilling.
Ne4l1 pu-lished 4ritings% such as Stilling% Ec)artshausen% and similar noelistic and
freethin)ing -oo)s could -e read at the academ1. . .Kuarrels -ro)e out oer the Thousand Dear
Reign of *hrist on earth% eternal damnation% and other religious Cuestions0 some loed to deiate
from the +ol1 Scriptures% others found m1steries eer14here. The academ1 li-rar1 4ould not
lend the 4or)s of the +ol1 3athers% for no one gae permission or proided the e'ample. (erman
5F<
and other foreign commentators on the +ol1 Scriptures% 4ho caused more harm than the1 did
good% 4ere recommended and passed around.
3otii -ecame utterl1 confused in such an enironment. +e also seems to hae learned a
good deal during the little more than a 1ear he spent at the academ1% although there is little
li)elihood that he learned and -ecame trained to discoer m1steries eer14here.! Nor did the
academ1 infect him 4ith a fashiona-le mania for interpreting the Apocal1pse and diining the
times through apocal1ptical te'ts used as signs. "here 3otii's actual or imaginar1 enemies
adduced the ,ingdom of a Thousand Dears from such te'ts% 3otii discerned the Antichrist. The
4ood is alread1 stac)ed and the fire is -eing )indled.!
After leaing the academ1% 3otii -ecame a teacher at the Ale)sandr Nes)ii schools% 4here
he 4as under the superision of Rector Inno)entii. 555 In 565=% 3otii accepted tonsure and 4as
Cuic)l1 appointed a teacher of religion in the second militar1 academ1. 55F "hile his field of
ision e'panded% 3otii continued to gather polemical materials% reading% rereading% and reie4ing
ne4l1 printed seditious -oo)s% especiall1 those either manifestl1 or secretl1 reolutionar1 and
pernicious.! +is assortment and inentor1 of such -oo)s 4as rather dierse and disBointed and
included -oo)s on English materialism% 3rench pornograph1% freemasonr1 and magic% (erman
philosoph1% the sorcer1 of Boehme% Stilling% and similarl1 satanic -oo)s%! reolutionar1 and
eil! -oo)s% 4retched &asonic! -oo)s% the 4or)s of that &asonic heretic! 3enelon and that
foul 3rench 4oman (u1on% and other 4or)s such as those setting forth the teachings of the
&ethodists and the Cuietists% that is% of that #aco-inism and philosoph1 4hich hides -ehind the
mas) of *hristianit1.! 3otii al4a1s remained mistrustful of the ne4l1 educated! clerg1: not a
single colla-orator 4as found suita-le0 each 4as prepared to put the truth up for sale.!
The Russian Bi-le made its appearance against this -ac)ground. At first 3otii attac)ed
actual &asons. As he put it% At the ris) of m1 life% I acted to counter &essenger of Nion
LSions)ii ;estni)M% 2a-$in% the &asonic lodges and heresies% tr1ing to halt the spread of their
schisms.! 3otii 4as correct a-out man1 things% -ut he descri-ed all such defects 4ith an
h1sterical intensit1 4hich could -e more irritating than conincing. +e possessed a peculiarl1
ecstatic suspiciousness 4hich disfigured his accurate o-serations through the addition of
imaginar1 and imperceia-le traits. &etropolitan &i)hail appointed Inno)entii to calm 3otii. But
Inno)entii onl1 further aroused him 4ith his o4n -itter remar)s a-out the snares of the deil.
3otii later 4rote a 2ife LNhitieM of Inno)entii after his o4n li)eness or in )eeping 4ith his
imagined ideal. In realit1% Inno)entii 4as more su-tle and profound% although he lac)ed
sufficient self control and patience.
3otii soon came to -e too o-streperous for the capital and 4as dispatched to Nogorod as
a--ot of the Eereianits &onaster1% then S)ooroda &onaster1% and finall1 the Iur'e &onaster1%
4here he sered as archimandrite. "hile at the Iur'e &onaster1% 3otii formed a close friendship
4ith *ountess A.A. .rloa% 55A 4hich proed to -e the decisie eent in his life. Through
*ountess Anna%! 3otii une'pectedl1 -egan his friendship 4ith Prince (olits1n during those
same 1ears. Their correspondence 4hich has -een presered% possesses a 4arm and sincere
character. 55: In his auto-iograph1%! 3otii recalls his long and e'tensie conersations 4ith
(olits1n at *ountess .rloa's home. These tal)s sometimes lasted nine hours 4ithout
interruption. 3otii emphasi$es that (olits1n passionatel1 came to loe him and 4as prepared to
fulfill his eer1 4ish. #udging -1 (olits1n's actual letters% 3otii did not e'aggerate. +e succeeded
for a time in reconciling (olits1n 4ith &etropolitan Seraphim. (olits1n sa4 in 3otii another St.
#ohn *hr1sostom and a 1outhful starets! LelderM . At the time% 3otii 4as -arel1 thirt1. 3otii did
5A7
not conceal his o4n 4arm feelings: Dou and I > the t4o of us > are li)e one -od1 and soul%
one mind and heart0 4e are one -ecause *hrist is in our midst.!
The uprising! -ro)e out in 56F:. As 3ilaret recalls% The uprising against the &inistr1 of
Religious Affairs and against the Bi-le Societ1 and the translation of the +ol1 Scriptures had
-een organi$ed -1 people guided -1 personal interests% 4ho not onl1 spread farfetched and
e'aggerated suspicions% -ut een produced fa-rications and slanders% hoping to attract other%
4ell9intentioned people to their cause.! Ara)chee's558 role in this intrigue needs no ela-oration.
3or him the intrigue 4as the denouement and the means for remoing from authorit1 and
influence a po4erful rial 4ith personal ties to the Tsar.
The appearance of (ossner's -oo) .n the (ospel of &atthe4 L. Eangelii ot &atfeiaM in
Russian translation sered as the occasion and the prete't for decisie action. The translation
could onl1 hae -een an e'cuse% for the -oo) 4as indistinguisha-le from the multitude of such
edif1ing and pietistic 4or)s then -eing pu-lished. Seeral times 3otii 4rote fren$ied letters to
the Tsar% 4arning him of danger. +e did so 4ith the )no4ledge and coniction that he had -een
consecrated and sent to testif1 in defense of the -eleaguered church and fatherland. An angel of
the 2ord had -een sent to him on Palm Sunda1. The angel% appearing -efore him during a dream%
held in his hand a -oo) 4ith large letters inscri-ed on its coer: this -oo) has -een composed
for reolution and at this moment its intention is reolution.! The -oo)% it turned out% 4as A
Summons to men to follo4 the inner inclination of the Spirit of *hrist. 55G 3otii defines the
-asic idea of this cunning and impious pamphlet as an appeal to apostas1 from the faith of
*hrist and a summons to alter the ciil order in all of its parts.!
The onl1 argument 4hich might possi-l1 undermine the com-ined ministr1 in the e1es of
Ale'ander I 4as reolution.! 3otii candidl1 sa1s that: Such political actiities and plots had
much greater influence on him LAle'anderM than did the 4elfare of the 4hole *hurch.!
Religiousl1% Ale'ander 4as no less radical than (olits1n. 3otii testified that residing in this cit1
for one and a half months% I secretl1 o-sered (ossner and learned that he 4as preparing
reolution in those minds 4hich he had -een -rought here to teach. +e has -een so 4ell
protected that no one dares touch him0 he 4as summoned here -ecause none among our
.rthodo' clerg1 could -e found capa-le of such schemes.! 3otii's letters aroused the Tsar's
interest precisel1 -ecause of their h1stericall1 apocal1ptical character. *onseCuentl1% he 4ished
to meet 3otii personall1. +e had earlier met 4ith &etropolitan Seraphim. After his audience 4ith
Ale'ander% 3otii t4ice isited (olits1n and at the second meeting cursed him to his face.
3otii stands -efore the hol1 icons: a candle -urns% the hol1 sacraments of *hrist are -efore
him% the Bi-le is open ?at #eremiah FA@. The prince enters li)e a -east of pre1 ?#eremiah 8:G@%
e'tending his hand for the -lessing. But 3otii gies him no -lessing% spea)ing thus: in the -oo)
&1ster1 of the *ross LTainsto )restaM% printed under th1 superision% it is 4ritten: the clerg1 are
-easts0 and I% 3otii% a mem-er of the clerg1% am a priest of (od% so I do not 4ant to -less thee%
and an14a1 thou dost not need it. ?+e gae him #eremiah FA to read@. +o4eer% Prince (olits1n
refused to do so and fled% -ut 3otii shouted after (olits1n through the door he left aBar: if thou
dost not repent% thou shalt fall into +ell.
That is 3otii's ersion. In his Notes LNapis)iM% Shish)o adds that: 3otii shouted after him0
JAnathemaQ Thou shalt -e damned.' That same da1% a rescript 4as issued e'iling (ossner from
the countr1 and ordering that the Russian translation of his -oo) -e -urned at the hand of the
pu-lic e'ecutioner. 3urthermore% the translators and censors 4ere to -e placed under arrest. 3otii
greatl1 feared the Tsar's 4rath for his daring anathema% -ut he continued to send his appeals to
the court% including one outlining a plan for the destruction of Russia! as 4ell as directies for
5A5
the immediate destruction of this plan in a Cuiet and felicitous manner.! The Cuestion of the
Bi-le Societ1 4as posed most forcefull1. The Bi-le Societ1 must -e eliminated on the prete't
that since the Bi-le has alread1 -een printed% it is no4 no longer needed.! The &inistr1 of
Religious Affairs 4as to -e a-olished% and its present dignitar1 depried of t4o other posts.
,oshele 55= should -e remoed% (ossner e'pelled% 3essler 556 -anished into e'ile% and the
&ethodists drien out% or at least their leaders. .nce again 3otii ino)ed diine inspiration:
Eiine Proidence does not no4 reeal that an1thing more should -e done. I hae proclaimed
(od's commandment0 its fulfillment depends on Thee. Precisel1 t4ele 1ears hae elapsed from
565F to 56F:. (od conCuered the isi-le Napoleon 4ho inaded Russia. Through Th1 person let
+im conCuer the spiritual Napoleon:' Euring the ensuing da1s% 3otii sent the Tsar seeral more of
his alarming missies.! A great% fearful% and illegal m1ster1 is at 4or)% 4hich I am reealing to
thee% . thou po4erful one 4ith the strength and spirit of (od.! The goal 4as achieed and on 58
&a1 56F:% (olits1n 4as dismissed% the com-ined ministr1 a-olished% and the former
departmental diisions reesta-lished. Neertheless% (olits1n did not fall into disfaor or lose his
personal influence% een after Ale'ander's death.
The aged Admiral Shish)o% the half9dead Shish)o dug up from o-liion%! 4as appointed
minister of a separate &inistr1 of Education. Although Shish)o did not -ecome &inister of
Religious Affairs% inertia perpetuated the politics of the com-ined ministr1 onl1 in reerse% for he
persistentl1 interfered 4ith S1nodal affairs. Shish)o had no er1 precise religious ie4s. +e
4as a moderate free9thin)er of the eighteenth centur1% 4ho limited his rationalism out of
national9political considerations. Een close friends 4ho 4ere 4ell disposed to4ard him testified
that Shish)o held ie4s closel1 appro'imating% if the1 did not actuall1 coincide 4ith%
Socinianism.! 55< 3otii referred to him rather easiel1: +e defended the .rthodo' *hurch to
the e'tent that he possessed an1 )no4ledge.! 3otii )ne4 perfectl1 4ell such )no4ledge! 4as
rather meager and related more to the church's role in a state 4hich had called upon it to -e a
pillar and a -ul4ar) against re-ellion and reolution. +o4eer% Shish)o had his o4n firm
opinions a-out Bi-lical translation. The er1 idea of translating the Bi-le seemed to him the
foulest of heresies% although a-oe all a literar1 heres1%! in Ser-ee's 5F7 cleer phrase. 3or
Shish)o denied the er1 e'istence of a Russian language. As though it 4as something
distinct%! he 4ould sa1 perple'edl1. .ur Slaic and Russian language is one and the same%
differentiated onl1 into higher language and common speech.! This 4as Shish)o's -asic
religious9philological thesis. 2iterar1 or colloCuial Russian in his ie4 and understanding is
onl1 the dialect of The common people! 4ithin a Slaic9 Russian language. "hat is the
Russian language diorced from SlaicI A dream% a riddleQ. . . .Is it not odd to affirm the
e'istence of a language 4hich does not contain a single 4ordI! The le'icon is one and the same
for -oth st1les of dialects. B1 Slaic 4e mean nothing else than that language 4hich is higher
than colloCuial and 4hich% conseCuentl1% can onl1 -e learned -1 reading0 it is the loft1% learned
literar1 language.!
In the final anal1sis% Shish)o distinguished -et4een the t4o languages: the language of
faith! and the language of passions or to put it another 4a1% the language of the church! and
the language of the theater.! Bi-lical translation appeared to him to -e a transposition! of the
"ord of (od from the loft1 and dignified dialect to that lo49st1led language of the passions and
the theater. +e -elieed that such a step 4as -eing ta)en in order to deli-eratel1 -elittle the
Bi-le% hence his constant fuss oer the o-serance of .rthodo'1 in literar1 st1le.! +e also
considered the translation hastil1 made0 thro4n to a fe4 students at the Academ1 4ith
instructions to do it as Cuic)l1 as possi-le.! The Russian translation's departure from *hurch
5AF
Slaic cast a shado4 on a te't 4hich had -ecome familiar and hallo4ed -1 church usage and
there-1 undermined confidence in it. The pride of some mon) L3ilaretIM or learned -raggart
sa1s: thus it is in +e-re4. "ell% 4ho 4ill conince me that he )no4s the full force of such a little
)no4n language% 4ritten so long agoI! Kuite freCuentl1 Shish)o spea)s as if Slaic 4as the
original language of +ol1 Scripture. +o4 dare the1 alter 4ords considered to come from the
mouth of (odI!
Shish)o 4as not alone in these religious9philological reflections. *uriousl1 enough% for
similar reasons% Sperans)ii also completel1 opposed a Russian translation of the Bi-le. The
language of the common people! seemed to him less e'pressie and precise. "ould it not -e
-etter to teach eer1one SlaicI Sperans)ii adised his daughter to use the English translation%
not the Russian% 4hen she encountered difficult passages. &an1 others shared this opinion. 5F5
Shish)o detected a particularl1 sinister scheme in the pu-lication of the Pentateuch
separatel1 from the Prophets.! "hereas in fact% the Pentateuch represented the first olume of a
complete Russian Bi-le and had -een planned for pu-lication prior to the succeeding olumes in
order to speed the 4or). Shish)o suspected that this separate pu-lication had -een conceied
and e'ecuted in order to push the common people into the arms of the &olo)ane heres1 or
simpl1 into #udaism. &ight not someone understand the &osaic la4 literall1% particularl1 the
o-serance of the Sa--athI . . . .Should not a Cualification -e added that all this can -e e'plained
figuratiel1 and as shado4s of the pastI "ith the support of &etropolitan Seraphim% Shish)o
succeeded in haing the Russian Pentateuch -urned at the -ric) factor1 of the Ale)sandr Nes)ii
&onaster1. Su-seCuentl1% 3ilaret of ,ie 5FF could not recall this destruction of the +ol1
Scriptures 4ithout a terri-le shudder.
Shish)o sa4 no need to distri-ute the Bi-le among la1men and the people generall1. "ill
not this imaginar1 need% -1 demeaning the significance of the +ol1 Scriptures% result in nothing
other than heresies or schismsI! "ould not the dignit1 of the Bi-le -e lo4ered -1 haing it in the
homeI "hat can come of thisI . . . .A ast sum 4ill -e e'pended in order that the (ospel%
heretofore regarded 4ith solemnit1 might suffer the loss of its importance% -e sullied% ripped
apart% thro4n under -enches% or sere as 4rapping paper for household goods% and hae no more
a-ilit1 to act on the human mind than on the human heart.! Shish)o 4rites still more
emphaticall1 that this reading of the sacred -oo)s aims to destro1 the true faith% disrupt the
fatherland and produce strife and re-ellion.! +e -elieed that the Bi-le Societ1 and reolution
4ere s1non1ms.
Kuite consistentl1% Shish)o also o-Bected to translation of the Bi-le into other languages
such as Tatar or Tur)ish% for 4ho could ouch for the fidelit1 of the translationI Shish)o also
feared commentaries on the Bi-le. "ho 4ill e'plain the Scriptures once the1 are so 4idel1
distri-uted and so easil1 accessi-leI
"ithout Cualified interpreters and preachers% 4hat 4ill -e the effect 4hen large num-ers of
Bi-les and separate -oo)s of the Bi-le hae -een disseminatedI Amidst such an unchec)ed ?and
one might sa1 uniersal@ deluge of -oo)s of the +ol1 Scriptures% 4here 4ill room -e found for
the Apostolic teachings% practices% and customs of the *hurchI In a 4ord% for eer1thing 4hich
heretofore has sered as a -ul4ar) of .rthodo'1I . . . All of these things 4ill -e dragged do4n%
crushed% and trampled under foot.
Similarl1% Shish)o ie4ed the pu-lication of the *atechism L,ate)hi$isM as a dire plot.
"h1 print so man1 copies% if not to spread an impure9faithI ?A total of 56%777 copies had -een
printed@. .nce again the Russian language more than an1thing else frightened Shish)o. It is
5AA
unseeml1 in religious -oo)s to hae such pra1ers as JI -eliee in .ne (od' and the Pater Noster
transposed into the common dialect.! The *atechism contained scriptural te'ts in Russian.
The catechism composed -1 3ilaret ?a tas) originall1 entrusted to &etropolitan &i)hail@
had -een issued in 56FA 4ith the approal of the +ol1 S1nod and -1 imperial directie. At the
reCuest of the &inister of Education%! accompanied -1 the use of the Emperor's name% the
*atechism 4as remoed from sale at the end of 56F:. 3ilaret immediatel1 lodged a protest
against its remoal and openl1 raised the Cuestion a-out .rthodo'1. If the .rthodo'1 of the
*atechism% so solemnl1 confirmed -1 the +ol1 S1nod% is in dou-t% then 4ill not the .rthodo'1
of the +ol1 S1nod itself -e called into CuestionI! In repl1% &etropolitan Seraphim insisted that
the Cuestion of .rthodo'1 had not -een raised and that there 4as no dou-t or dispute on that
point. The *atechism had -een suspended solel1 -ecause of the language of the Bi-lical te'ts
and of the pra1ers.! Seraphim% 4ith some disingenuousness% 4ent on to sa1. Dou ma1 as) 4h1
the Russian language should not hae a place in the catechism% especiall1 in its a--reiated form
intended for 1oung children entirel1 unfamiliar 4ith Slaic and therefore incapa-le of
understanding the truths of the faith e'pounded for them in that language% 4hen it% that is%
Russian% has -een retained in the sacred -oo)s of the Ne4 Testament and in the Psalms. To this
and man1 other Cuestions 4hich might -e as)ed in this connection% I cannot gie 1ou an1
satisfactor1 ans4er. I hope that time 4ill e'plain to us that 4hich no4 seems clouded. In m1
opinion% that time 4ill soon come . . .
Seraphim's ans4er could signif1 that he either had not personall1 or actiel1 participated in
the ne4 course of eents% or that this apparent inconsistenc1 could -e Cuic)l1 oercome -1
e'tending the -an to include -oth the Russian translation of the Ne4 Testament and the Bi-le
Societ1. In an1 case% Seraphim simpl1 lied 4hen he denied that the *atechism's .rthodo'1 had
-een Cuestioned. 3otii emphaticall1 and pu-licl1 pronounced it heretical% compared it 4ith
canal 4ater%! and unfaora-l1 contrasted the *atechism 4ith the older .rthodo' *onfession of
Peter &ogila. 5FA The *atechism 4as su-Bected to e'amination% if not officiall1% then at least
officiousl1. Apparentl1 Archpriest I.S. ,ocheto ?5=<79568:@% a candidate for a higher degree%
4ho had graduated 4ith the first class of the reformed St. Peters-urg Academ1% and at that time a
religion teacher at the Tsars)oe Selo l1cee% had -een entrusted 4ith the reie4. +is ealuation%
Cuic)l1 arried at% did not faor the catechism. ,ocheto too) more interest in Cuestions of
language than of theolog1. As a philologist% he sered as a mem-er of the Russian Academ1%
-eginning in 56F6. 2ater he achieed full mem-ership. 5F:
&etropolitan Egenii% 5F8 4ho recentl1 had -een summoned to attend the meetings of the
+ol1 S1nod% maintained a er1 critical attitude to4ard the *atechism. 3ilaret's successor at Ter'
and Iaroslal'% Simeon ,r1lo9Platono% 5FG contemptuousl1 du--ed the *atechism a misera-le
pamphlet%! containing unheard of teaching and insuffera-le insolence.! In an1 eent% a reised
edition of the *atechism 4as recirculated onl1 after careful re9e'amination of all Bi-lical te'ts
and citations% including their presentation in Slaic rather than in the Russian dialect.! Een the
language of e'position 4as deli-eratel1 adapted or made more nearl1 appro'imate to Slaic.
+o4eer% onl1 insignificant changes in content 4ere made at that time.
Shish)o o-tained Emperor Ale'ander's permission to for-id translations of the Bi-le as
4ell as to close the Bi-le Societ1. +e 4as a-le to suppl1 some arguments himself% and others
4ere suggested to him -1 such $ealots as &. &agnits)ii 5F= and A.A. Palo 5F6 ?4ho 4or)ed
in the office of the .er Procurator of the +ol1 S1nod@. 3otii descri-ed Palo as that -rae
4arrior of 56F:.! &etropolitan Seraphim acted as one 4ith Shish)o. +o4eer% Seraphim acted
on suggestion. A timid man% he lac)ed sufficient clarit1 of mind! to distinguish responsi-l1
5A:
enthusiasm and suspicions amidst the cross9currents of rumors and fears. 2eft to himself%
Seraphim 4ould hae insisted onl1 on the dismissal of the -lind minister.! All further reasons
4ere suggested or een imposed on him. At one time Seraphim had studied in Noi)o's
seminar1%! and he had -een an actie mem-er of the Bi-le Societ1% -oth as arch-ishop of &ins)
and later as metropolitan of &osco4. +e often deliered speeches filled 4ith pathos in the
meetings of the &osco4 Bi-le Societ1. +o4eer% his sentiments 4ere changed 4hen he
transferred to St. Peters-urg. +e immediatel1 -ro)e 4ith (olits1n. 3ollo4ing (olits1n's remoal
from office% &etropolitan Seraphim% as president of the Bi-le Societ1% -egan to importune
Emperor Ale'ander a-out a-olishing and closing do4n all Bi-le societies and transferring all
their affairs% propert1% and translation proBects to the +ol1 S1nod.
Such demands 4ere not Cuic)l1 reali$ed% coming as the1 did onl1 during the ne't reign
under the fresh impact of the Eecem-rist reolt% lF< the responsi-ilit1 for 4hich Shish)o
conincingl1 -lamed on the m1stics.! +o4eer% the rescript of 5F April 56FG closing the Bi-le
Societ1 contained an important Cualification: I sanction the continued sale at the esta-lished
price for those 4ho desire them the -oo)s of the +ol1 Scriptures 4hich hae alread1 -een
printed -1 the Bi-le Societ1 in Slaic% Russian% and in other languages spo)en -1 inha-itants of
the Empire.! Een Nicholas I 5A7 4as not full1 prepared to follo4 Shish)o. In practice%
ho4eer% the pu-lications of the Bi-le Societ1 4ere ta)en from circulation and onl1 the
committees concerned for prisons continued to suppl1 the Russian translation of the Ne4
Testament to e'iles and prisoners from their stoc)s.
*uriousl1 enough% in 56F6% Prince ,.,. 2ien% the former superintendent in Eorpat and a
prominent and influential figure in the former Bi-le Societ1% replaced Shish)o as &inister of
Education. 2ater% in 56AF% he -ecame the head of the reied (erman Bi-le Societ1. Prince
2ien -elonged to the &oraian Brethren. Sometimes an official sent from some4here 4ith an
important dispatch 4ould discoer him in the reception hall in front of the lectern% loudl1 singing
the Psalms. Turning to the official% he 4ould listen to him% -ut 4ithout ans4ering% continue his
liturg1! ?;igel'@. .f course% 2ien 4as a (erman and a Protestant0 and it 4as the (erman Bi-le
Societ1% 4hich 4as restored. Det as &inister of Education% he 4as called upon to administer to
the 4hole empire. In an1 case% -1 that time% the ie4s of the goernment! had changed once
again.
Return to %cholasticis$.
The uprising! of 56F: 4as directed not onl1 against the Bi-le Societ1% -ut against the
4hole ne4 order.! 3ilaret of &osco4 correctl1 defined the purpose of the uprising! as a
return to the time of scholasticism.! Det% the chief defender of the ne4 order during these 1ears
turned out to -e none other than 3ilaret. 3ilaret ?5=6F956G=@ had a long life% literall1 from the
anne'ation of the *rimea to the (reat Reforms.! But he 4as a man of the Ale'andrine age. +e
4as -orn in sleep1% o-liious ,olomna and studied in a pre9reform seminar1 4here students
4ere taught in 2atin from 2atin -oo)s. +o4eer% at the +ol1 Trinit1 monaster1 seminar1% 4here
he finished his studies and -ecame a teacher% the spirit of Protestant scholasticism 4as mitigated
and moderated -1 the 4inno4ing of that churchl1 pietism so t1picall1 e'emplified in
&etropolitan Platon 2eshin. 5A5
Archimandrite Egraf ?&u$ales)ii9Platono@% the rector% taught from Protestant te'ts.
3ilaret recalled that Egraf 4ould assign selected passages to -e copied from +ollatius.H5AF
2essons consisted of translating and commenting on these dictated passages. Those doctrines
4hich .rthodo' and Protestants hae in common% such as the +ol1 Trinit1% Redemption% and so
5A8
on 4ere studied s1stematicall1% -ut others% for e'ample% the doctrine of the *hurch% 4ere not read
at all. Egraf did not receie a s1stematic education% although he recogni$ed the necessit1 for
stud1ing the church fathers and he studied them.! Egraf t1pifies a generation in transition. +e
loed m1stical interpretations of the Bi-le and 4ould -ecome Cuite transported -1 such
e'planations. The ,ingdom of (od is contained not in the 4ord% -ut in strength.! +e attempted
a transition to Russian language instruction. Su-seCuentl1 he sered as rector of the reformed St.
Peters-urg Theological Academ1% -ut he died soon after his appointment.
3ilaret did not Budge him too harshl1 4hen he said that: An ine'perienced teacher
instructed us in theolog1% -ut he did so 4ith great application.! 3ilaret's personal recollections of
the pre9reform! seminar1 4ere 4holl1 negatie. "hat 4as there to admireI! 3ilaret himself
acCuired a -rilliant command of classical languages and a sound preparation in st1listics and
philolog1 from such a school. As a conseCuence he )ne4 ancient languages -etter than modern
ones and neer studied (erman at all. 3or the rest% he could than) his personal talents and
dedication to hard 4or). Thus% in an important sense% there 4as some -asis for his fond
description of himself as a self9educated man.
In 567< the ne4l1 tonsured hierodeacon 3ilaret 4as summoned from the Cuiet refuge of a
+ol1 Trinit1 &onaster1 -athed in the spirit of pious reerie to St. Peters-urg for inspection! and
for serice in the ne4l1 reformed ecclesiastical schools. 3or 3ilaret the startling contrast and the
sudden transfer gae St. Peters-urg a strange appearance: The course of affairs is entirel1
incomprehensi-le to me%! he admitted in a letter to his father. +e could recall those first
impressions of St. Peters-urg for the rest of his life. The S1nod greeted him 4ith the adice to
read S4eden-org's &iracles! LSheden-orgo1 chudesaM and learn 3rench. +e 4as ta)en to
court to ie4 the fire4or)s and attend a masCuerade part1 in order to meet Prince (olits1n% the
.er Procurator of the +ol1 S1nod% Cuite literall1 amidst the noise of the -all.!
Then a short man% his -reast adorned 4ith stars and medals% entered the room and -egan
threading his 4a1 through the hall. +e 4as 4earing a three9cornered hat and some sort of sil)
cape oer an em-roidered uniform. Then he ascended to the -alcon1 4here the clerg1 4ere
decorousl1 seated. +e mingled politel1 4ith the mem-ers of the S1nod% nodding to them%
sha)ing their hands% -riefl1 murmuring a 4ord or t4o first to one% then to another. No one
seemed surprised either at his attire or his familiarit1. This 4as 3ilaret's first masCuerade -all%
and he had neer -efore seen a domino. At the time I 4as an o-Bect of amusement in the S1nod
3ilaret recalled% and I hae remained a fool.! 3ilaret receied a cool 4elcome in St.
Peters-urg% and he 4as not immediatel1 permitted to teach at the academ1. But -1 earl1 565F he
had -ecome the academ1 rector and an archimandrite% 4ith the tas) of superising the Iur'e
&onaster1 in Nogorod. +e adanced primaril1 through his ardor% his distinguished preaching
of the "ord of (od and his edif1ing and eloCuent homilies on the truths of faith.! 3ilaret had
alread1 attracted attention as a st1list and a preacher 4hile at the +ol1 Trinit1 &onaster1. +e
trul1 did hae a gift and feeling for 4ords.
Platon and Anastasii Bratanos)ii lAA among Russian preachers influenced him. In St.
Peters-urg he -ecame acCuainted 4ith seenteenth centur1 3rench sermonists% especiall1
&assillon% Bourdaloue% and most of all% 3enelon. 5A: But the influence of the eastern fathers%
*hr1sostom and (regor1 the Theologian% 4hom 3ilaret al4a1s particularl1 loed and alued% is
Cuite pronounced. 3ilaret chose contemporar1 themes for his sermons. +e spo)e a-out the gifts
and manifestations of the Spirit% the m1ster1 of the *ross% a oice cr1ing in the 4ildernessH9the
faorite topics of pietism and Cuietism. +e freCuentl1 preached in Prince (olits1n's chapel% een
on 4ee)da1s. (rigorii ?Postni)o@% 5A8 a former student and friend% commented rather
5AG
unfaora-l1 on these earl1 sermons. +e 4rote to 3ilaret% fran)l1 sa1ing that these sermons
displa1ed a studied concern for 4ordpla1% ingenuit1% and circumlocution% 4hich could trul1 e'
a heart see)ing the unallo1ed and edif1ing truth.! In fact% during those first 1ears% 3ilaret spo)e
4ith an oerl1 intense and ornamental st1le. 2ater he -ecame calmer and more cautious% -ut his
language al4a1s remained comple' and his phrases 4ere al4a1s arranged as if in counterpoint.
Such features do not diminish the e'pressieness of his sermons. Een +er$en lAG admitted
3ilaret possessed a rare control oer language. +e masterfull1 commanded the Russian
language% s)illfull1 inter4eaing it 4ith *hurch Slaic.! This master1! of language proides
the principal reason for his po4erful st1le: he 4rites 4ith the liing 4ord% a 4ord 4hich seems to
-e thin)ing% an inspired and ocal pondering. 3ilaret al4a1s preached the (ospel and neer tried
to achiee mere rhetorical effect. Precisel1 during those earl1 St. Peters-urg 1ears% he produced
his original and e'emplar1 sermons on (ood 3rida1 ?in 565A% and especiall1 in 565G@. 3ilaret's
scholarl1 and pedagogical duties during those 1ears displa1 a still greater intensit1. A
-urdensome and seere ordeal a4aited him. I had to teach 4hat I had neer -een taught.! In the
short time from 5657 to 565=% he had to prepare himself and construct practicall1 an entire
course in theolog1 in all of its -ranches% including e'egetical theolog1% canon la4% and church
antiCuities. It 4as not surprising that he complained of e'treme e'haustion. Nor is it surprising
that these first attempts did not al4a1s succeed or represent complete originalit1. The1 often
produced dierse and oerl1 fresh impressions. Influences! 4ould -e too strong a 4ord.
3ilaret's first -oo)s% An .utline of *hurch9Bi-lical +istor1 LNachertanie tser)ono-i-leis)oi
istorii% 565GM and Notes on the Boo) of (enesis LNapis)i na )nigu B1tiia% 565GM% 4ere modelled
on Buddeus. 5A= +e also -orro4ed Buddeus's scholarl1 apparatus. Such -orro4ing 4as simpl1
unaoida-le gien his deadline and the haste of the 4or). The students had to -e gien te't-oo)s
and other manuals in order to ta)e the e'aminations.
3ilaret 4as an inspiring and -rilliant professor. +e spo)e distinctl1 4ith an incisie% loft1%
and intelligent manner0 -ut Lhe spo)eM more to the intellect than to the heart. +e freel1
e'pounded +ol1 Scriptures% as if the 4ords simpl1 flo4ed from his mouth. The students -ecame
so ta)en -1 him% that 4hen the time came for him to stop teaching% a great desire al4a1s
remained to go on listening 4ithout regard for food or drin). +e produced a po4erful impression
through his lessons. Those lessons seemed trul1 pleasing and perfect to eer1one. Euring class%
he appeared as a 4ise and eloCuent spea)er and a s)illful 4riter. Eer1thing indicated he deoted
much time to scholarship.
This is Archimandrite 3otii's o4n assessment. +e adds that 3ilaret strongl1 adocated
monasticism and 4as er1 compassionate.! 3otii had an opportunit1 to e'perience that
compassion during his difficult and trou-led 1ear at the academ1. As Sturd$a noted% at that time
3ilaret 4as agitated -1 the promptings of man1 Cuite dierse influences.! Along 4ith eer1one
else% he read #ung9Stilling% Ec)artshausen% 3enelon% and (u1on% as 4ell as ,erner's The Seer of
Preorst. 5A6 Traces of such reading unCuestiona-l1 remained an indeli-le part of his spiritual
and intellectual ma)e9up. 3ilaret could find a common language not onl1 4ith (olits1n% -ut also
4ith 2a-$in and een 4ith itinerant Kua)ers. Eer1 dimension of religious life interested him
and attracted him. +o4eer% for all such interests% 3ilaret sta1ed sCuarel1 4ithin the church and
in4ardl1 remained untouched -1 this m1stical a4a)ening. Because he 4as al4a1s so
impressiona-le% 3ilaret inclined to4ard suspicion: he noted eer1thing and pro-ed and reflected
deepl1 on each detail% a discomforting ha-it for those around him. But he preferred a certain
resere% 4hile su-duing and disciplining himself a-oe all others. Een 3otii% 4ho in his
memoirs reproached 3ilaret for man1 things and strongl1 disli)ed him% admitted that% 4hile a
5A=
student liing under the sharp e1e of Archimandrite 3ilaret%! he neer noticed% or could hae
noticed% een the slightest -lemish on the teaching a-out the church% either in classes at the
academ1 or in priate.! 3otii furiousl1 attac)s 3ilaret for onl1 one thing: his e'cessie patience
and e'treme taciturnit1.
Inno)entii Smirno adised 3otii to pa1 3ilaret freCuent isits% 4here he might learn 4hat
silence means. Such a trait actuall1 4as one of 3ilaret's characteristics. +e appeared secretie
and easie. In is memoirs% Sturd$a 4rites that there 4as something enigmatic! in his entire
-eing. *ompletel1 open onl1 -efore (od% and not -efore men9at least not
indiscriminatel19H3ilaret neer allo4ed himself moments of unguarded confidences.! "ith
partial Bustification% he might -e accused of e'cessie timidit1 and caution% for he did not 4ish to
ris) challenging po4erful authorit1. ?H"e t4o archimandrites of the Iur'e and Pust1ns)
monasteries 4ill not sae the *hurch% if it contains some defect%! 3ilaret told Inno)entii@. But
3ilaret's caution had another dimension. +e had no faith in the utilit1 or relia-ilit1 of harshl1
restrictie measures% and he 4as in no hurr1 to meddle or pass Budgment. Al4a1s a-le to
distinguish the error from the person ma)ing it% he loo)ed -eneolentl1 on eer1 sincere impulse
of the soul. Een in the 1earnings of the m1stics he sensed a true religious thirst% a spiritual
restlessness 4hich stum-led along errant paths% onl1 -ecause the rightful path had -een poorl1
constructed.! Thus% for polemical purposes% prohi-itions alone 4ould not -e sufficient. A-oe
all% education 4as needed. 3or that constructie and creatie struggle 4ith error 4hich 3ilaret
4ished to 4age% one must teach% reason% and refrain from impatient Cuarrels.
Behind the facade of m1stical seductions% 3ilaret could recogni$e a ital need for religion% a
thirst for religious instruction and enlightenment: hence his enthusiastic participation in the 4or)
of the Bi-le Societ1. The 4or) attracted him% for he -elieed that the church should e'pend its
energies on translation of the Bi-le% so that the -read might not -e ta)en from the children.! +e
firml1 -elieed in the po4er of rene4al found in the "ord of (od% and foreer lin)ed his name
4ith and his selflessl1 dedicated life to% the translation of the Russian Bi-le. +is la-or on -ehalf
of the Bi-le is difficult to alue at its true 4orth. 3or him personall1 the 4or) meant great
personal trials and humiliations. At the height of the uprising! against the Bi-le in St.
Peters-urg% 3ilaret% in &osco4% replied that such a desire to read the Bi-le% is alread1 a sign of
moral improement.! If some prefer to lie on roots rather than pure -read% the Bi-le cannot -e
held responsi-le. To the anticipated Cuestion: "h1 this innoation in a matter so ancient and
unneedful of change as *hristianit1 and the Bi-leI! 3ilaret replied% "h1 this innoationI "hat is
ne4I EogmasI Precepts liingI But the Bi-le Societ1 preaches none of these things -ut instead
places into the hands of those 4ho desire it a -oo) from 4hich the truths of the *hurch al4a1s
hae -een dra4n% and from 4hich .rthodo' dogmas and also the pure precepts for liing
continue to -e deried. The Societ1 is a ne4 oneI Det it introduces nothing ne4 into *hristianit1
or produces the slightest alteration in the *hurch . . . .J"h1 this innoation of foreign originI'
the1 continue. In repl1 to that Cuestion% one might point out for our 4orth1 compatriots man1
things and as) a similar Cuestion: J"h1 are the1 not onl1 of foreign origin% -ut een entirel1
foreign'I . . .
As one contemporar1 put it% some of the most deout people held the unfortunate -elief
that people 4ould go mad from reading this sacred -oo).! 3or a time students in the militar1
schools 4ere officiall1 for-idden to read the Bi-le% ostensi-l1 as a precautionar1 measure% for
t4o cadets had alread1 -ecome addled. &an1 others regarded it as a -oo) onl1 for use in church
and suited solel1 to priests.! 3rom fear of m1stical errors and e'cesses% people suddenl1 -egan to
5A6
shun the 4ritings of &acarius of Eg1pt and Isaac the S1rian% 4hose 4ise pra1er of the heart has
-een destro1ed and derided as a pestilence and a ruination.!
Some4hat later 3ilaret had to proe that it 4as permissi-le to 4rite ne4 commentaries on
St. Paul's epistles% despite the fact that *hr1sostom had long ago proided e'planations. Smo)e
consumes one's e1es% arid the1 sa1 Jthe light of the sun consumes them.' *ho)ing from the
smo)e% the1 gasp% Jho4 poisonous is the 4ater from the spring of life.'!
Such a spirit of timid theological endeaor al4a1s distur-ed 3ilaret% 4hereer and 4heneer
it appeared. +uman nature contains a strange am-ialence and contradictor1 tendencies%! he.
once said. .n the one hand e'ists a sense of need for the Eiine and a desire for communion
4ith (od0 on the other hand% there is a m1sterious disinclination to occup1 oneself 4ith Eiine
matters and an impulse to aoid an1 discourse 4ith (od. . . .The first of these tendencies -elongs
to man's original nature% 4hile the other deries from a nature -lemished -1 sin.
Possession and preseration of faith are not sufficient: perhaps 1ou hae dou-ts 1ou
actuall1 possess faith% or ho4 1ou possess it. . . .! 3ilaret continues. As long as 1our faith resides
in the "ord of (od and in the *reed% then 1our faith -elongs to (od% +is prophets% Apostles% and
3athers of the *hurch and not to 1ou. "hen 1ou hold 1our faith in 1our thoughts and memor1%
then 1ou -egin to acCuire it as 1our o4n0 -ut I still fear for 1our acCuisition Lof itM% -ecause the
liing faith in 1our thoughts is% perhaps% still onl1 a to)en of that treasure 1ou hae 1et to receie%
that is the liing po4er of faith.
In other 4ords% faith% in the fullness of its dogmatic content% must -ecome the ital principle
or focus in life. Each person must not merel1 remem-er the content of that faith% -ut acCuire it
4ith the la-or of the mind and 4ith the entiret1 of the soul. 3ilaret 4as not afraid to a4a)en
thought% although he )ne4 temptations could onl1 -e oercome and conCuered -1 the creatie
act and not -1 frightened concealment. Su-seCuentl1 he 4rote: The necessit1 to do -attle 4ith
enemies and 4ith teachings contrar1 to dogma is Cuite a sufficient tas). "hat purpose is sered
-1 com-atting options 4hich are not inimical to an1 dogmatic truthI! 3ilaret al4a1s emphasi$ed
the necessit1 to engage in theolog1 as the single and immuta-le foundation for a complete
religious life. *hristianit1 is not -eing a fool for *hrist's sa)e LiurodstoM% nor is it ignorance%
-ut it is the 4isdom of (od.! +ence no *hristian dares halt at the -eginning or remain onl1 at an
elementar1 stage. *hristianit1 is a path or a 4a1. 3ilaret constantl1 recalls that L4eM should
consider no 4isdom% een that 4hich is secret and hidden% to -e alien and unrelated to us% -ut
4ith humilit1 4e should direct our minds to4ard contemplation of (od.! *hristian personalit1 is
shaped onl1 through such reasoning and understanding0 onl1 in this manner is the perfect man
of (od! shaped% and formed. 3ilaret's faorite aphorism% theolog1 reasons%! is a commandment
to reason! gien to eer1one and not to the fe4. +e considered oerl1 detailed te't-oo)s
harmful% and for Cuite characteristic reasons. A student haing -efore him a large te't-oo)% that
he cannot a-sor- een that 4hich had -een prepared for him *onseCuentl1% the possi-ilit1 of
constructing something for himself seems impossi-le. Thus the mind is not stirred to actiit1 and
the memor1 retains the 4ords rather than the ideas from the pages of -oo).! "hat is actuall1
needed is to arouse and e'ercise the mind's a-ilit1 to function%! and not simpl1 to deelop the
memor1. +erein lies the solution or e'planation for the feror 4ith 4hich 3ilaret all of his life
fought on -ehalf of the Russian language% -oth for the Bi-le and for theological instruction. +e
4ished% and stroe to ma)e theolog1 accessi-le to eer1one% and for that reason he seemed
terri-le and dangerous to his opponents. (eneral accessi-ilit1 is Bust 4hat the1 did not 4ant.
Translation of the Ne4 Testament into the simple dialect left a permanent and indeli-le stain
upon him%! 4rote 3otii.
5A<
It 4as necessar1 to 4age 4ar on t4o fronts in order to achiee the use of Russian in school
instruction. 3irst% one had to com-at the ciil authorities ?and during Nicholas I's reign all
thought! 4as regarded as the em-r1o of reolution@. The so9called *ommittee of G Eecem-er
?56FG956A7@ 5A< completel1 opposed the proposal for instruction in Russian% arguing that the
necessar1 addition of ne4 Russian language te't-oo) editions for dogmatic and hermeneutical
theolog1 might attract the attention of unenlightened people to Cuestions a-out faith: Proiding
an opportunit1 for unfounded e'planations and conBectures.! Second% one had to de-ate 4ith the
represeritaties of the old learning a-out the use of 2atin in theological instruction. ;er1 man1
such representaties still suried. After (olits1n's departure% &etropolitan Egenii of ,ie 5:7
had -een summoned to the S1nod. +e 4as entrusted 4ith a ne4 construction of the ecclesiastical
schools% for the esta-lishment of ecclesiastical schools on the firm and steadfast foundation of
.rthodo'1%! as &etropolitan Seraphim 4rote. 3otii recommended Egenii and openl1
counterposed him to 3ilaret as 4iser than 3ilaret and at the same time an .rthodo' and great
man and a pillar of the *hurch: ' ?3otii gae Egenii a solemn greeting@. +o4eer% once in St.
Peters-urg% Egenii -ecame too preoccupied 4ith his personal and archeological interests to -e
a-le to deote much attention to the large Cuestions of church politics. Neertheless% a
reactionar1 spirit could -e felt Cuite strongl1 among the ne4 mem-ership of the *ommission on
Ecclesiastical Schools. 3ilaret of &osco4 did not attend the sessions of the S1nod during those
trou-led 1ears ?if one does not count the -rief session of the S1nod in &osco4 at Nicholas's
coronation@. +e occupied himself 4ith the affairs of his diocese% and onl1 in 56F= did he return
to St. Peters-urg. Euring the first 4ee)s after his arrial% he 4as called upon to discuss the
Cuestion of church reform. Someone had presented the emperor 4ith a proposal for fundamental
reforms aimed at saddling the *hurch 4ith a )ind of Protestant consistor1 composed of clerg1
and la1men%! in 3ilaret's understanding of the proposal's intent. Apparentl1 (eneral &erder% 5:5
Nicholas's former tutor% had transmitted the proposal. 3ilaret -elieed the author to -e A. A.
Palo% the cohort of 3otii and Shish)o during the uprising! of 56F:. The S1nod struggled to
compose a repl1 to the su-stance of the proposal. 3ilaret also presented a personal note% 4hich
4as su-mitted -1 the S1nod as the opinion of one of its mem-ers. The Emperor 4rote the 4ord
Bust! LspraedlioM on this report% in 4hich 3ilaret had once again raised the Cuestion of Bi-lical
translation. But 3ilaret's suggestion could ma)e no further progress in ie4 of &etropolitan
Seraphim's unCualified opposition. 3ilaret did not insist. I do not 4ish to produce a schism in
the *hurch.!
In the ne't fe4 1ears% 3ilaret had one other opportunit1 to set forth in detail his ie4s on the
Cuestion of church schools. .nce again the opportunit1 came in connection 4ith those same
proposals for reform. +e roundl1 condemned the scholastic schools% and still more emphaticall1
castigated the -elated attempts to return to such superannuated models. Before the reform seeral
ecclesiastical schools 4ere distinguished -1 a )no4ledge of 2atin. . . .As a result% priest )ne4
2atin pagan authors 4ell% -ut hardl1 )ne4 religious and *hurch 4riters. The1 could spea) and
4rite in 2atin -etter than in Russian. "ith their e'Cuisite phrases in a dead language% the1 4ere
more a-le to shine in a circle of scholars than illuminate the people 4ith the liing )no4ledge of
truth. .nl1 dogmatic theolog1 4as taught% and then in the school manner. The result 4as a dr1%
cold )no4ledge% a lac) of a sufficientl1 practical capacit1 to inform% a forced tone% fruitless
teaching% and an ina-ilit1 to spea) to the people a-out the truths 4hich seem so familiar in the
schools. Since the reforms of the church schools in 565:% instruction in practical theolog1
Ldeiatel'noe -ogosloieM has -een introduced% there-1 ma)ing the stud1 of theolog1 closer to the
demands of life. . . .The Russian language 4as permitted in teaching theolog1. ,no4ledge of
5:7
2atin -ecame 4ea)er% -ut at the same time the school terminolog1 -egan to gie 4a1 to a purer
and cleaner e'position of truth. The e'tension of true )no4ledge 4as strengthened and its
communication to the people made easier. . .
3ilaret emphasi$ed that: Theological understanding% crushed -1 the great 4eight of school
terminolog1 taught in 2atin% did not freel1 act on the mind during the period of stud1% and after
stud1 onl1 4ith the greatest difficult1 4as it transposed into Russian for communication to the
people.! +e then critici$ed the latest directies from the *ommission on Ecclesiastical Schools.
True% he agreed% not all teachers constructed their courses successfull1% -ut should teaching from
one's o4n lectures! -e totall1 prohi-ited for that reasonI &ust 2atin once again -ecome
compulsor1 and 3eofila)t's theolog1 te't-oo)% l:F copied from Buddeus's 2utheran theolog1%!
-e assigned once againI 3ilaret once more adduced an argument -ased on effectieness. Return
to 2atin scholasticism from instruction in a comprehensi-le natie language cannot facilitate the
improement of education. It is surprising that a time 4hich is -eing praised for its $eal for
.rthodo'1 should prefer a return to 2atin.!
Another 3ilaret% the arch-ishop of Ria$an' and later metropolitan of ,ie% responded to this
determined note. "ithout Cuarrelling directl1 4ith 3ilaret of &osco4% he insisted upon
presering 2atin for arious reasons: as a defensie measure for scholarship% -ut more
importantl1 as a precaution% so that errors and heresies refuted in dogmatic theolog1 4ould not
gain pu-lic attention through Russian -oo)s. Neertheless% he did agree 4ith certain points% and
proposed that catechisms% particularl1 the .rthodo' *onfession% -e pu-lished for popular use in
Russian and *hurch Slaic. +e also admitted that practical theolog1 could -est -e taught in
Russian. 3inall1% he thought it desira-le to organi$e the translation of patristic 4ritings into
Russian from (ree) and 2atin. 3ilaret of &osco4 had to gie 4a1. The final report did not
include a proposal for theological instruction in Russian.
I proposed that theolog1 -e taught in Russian at the seminaries in order that its stud1 and its
transmission to the people might -e made easier and so that those 4ho are distrustful 4ill not as)
4h1 4e conceal the +ol1 (ospel in a non9.rthodo' language. I stated that it is strange and
crippling to gie s4a1 to 2atin in the (ree) *hurch and that 3eofan Pro)opoich% -1 doing so%
had disfigured our learning% contrar1 to the general opinion of the Russian hierarch1 at that time%
and contrar1 to the e'ample of all Eastern antiCuit10 -ut I had to -e silent% in order to end those
disagreements 4hich could impede our 4or).
+o4eer% 3ilaret did achiee one thing: a special point 4as added to the S1nodal resolution0
in order that instruction conducted in the ecclesiastical schools might -e more fruitfull1 directed
to4ard the goal of popular education in faith and moralit1 -1 means of an educated clerg1% to
that end capa-le people should -e encouraged to prepare theolog1 te't-oo)s 4hich e'pound
truths in a precise 4a1% uno-scured -1 scholastic su-tleties% and 4hich modif1 Ltheolog1M to suit
the circumstances of the Eastern (reco9Russian *hurch.!
The dispute oer the language of instruction 4as decided 4ith out preliminar1 de-ate.
Eespite the prohi-ition% in a short time Russian -ecame the language of the schools eer14here.
3ilaret had alread1 lectured in Russian at the St. Peters-urg Academ1% as did his successor
(rigorii ?Postni)o@. ,irill ?Bogoslos)ii9Platono@ 5:A did so in &osco4. Both (rigorii and
,irill 4ere graduates in the first class at the St. Peters-urg Academ1. &oisei% the rector at the
,ie Academ1% l:: had alread1 taught in Russian. &eletii ?2.eontoich@% 5:8 and later
Inno)entii% follo4ed his e'ample. (raduall1 2atin fell -1 the 4a1side in the seminaries so that
-1 the 56:7's scarcel1 an1 school still taught% theolog1 in 2atin. Neertheless% the transition to
Russian still did not signif1 a genuine li-eration from the captiit1 or slaer1 of scholasticism. In
5:5
the 56:7's Russian theolog1 had to suffer still another relapse of 2atin scholasticism. .nce again
the initiatie -elonged to the ising .er Procurator.
*etroolitan Filaret of *osco2.
3ilaret 4rote er1 little. The circumstances of his life 4ere unfaora-le to 4riting. .nl1 in
his 1outh could he gie himself to scholarship 4ithout too much interference. But he 4as
compelled to 4or) hastil1. These 1ears 4ere actuall1 more deoted to stud1 than to independent
creatiit1. Soon called to sere in the upper hierarch1% 3ilaret thereafter had neither the freedom
nor the leisure to s1stematicall1 inestigate and stud1 theolog1. And in his mature 1ears% 3ilaret
4as a-le to -e a theologian onl1 as a preacher. In fact% his Sermons and Addresses LSloa i rechiM
remains his principal theological legac1. 3ilaret neer constructed a theological s1stem. +is
sermons are onl1 fragments% -ut the1 contain an inner 4holeness and unit1. It is not a unit1 of
s1stem% it is a unit1 of conception. These fragments reeal a liing theological e'perience
tormented and tempered in an ordeal of pra1er and igil. 3ilaret of &osco4 4as the first person
in the histor1 of modern Russian theolog1 for 4hom theolog1 once more -ecame the aim of life%
the essential step to4ard spiritual progress and construction. +e 4as not merel1 a theologian% he
lied theolog1. 3rom the am-o or his episcopal seat in the cathedral% he firml1 and Budiciousl1
taught the lessons of faith. 3ilaret 4as a disciplined spea)er. +e neer simpl1 spo)e% -ut al4a1s
read or follo4ed a 4ritten te't% an oratorical reCuirement from his school da1s.
As a theologian and teacher he 4as a-oe all a Bi-licist. +is sermons d4elled most
freCuentl1 on the "ord of (od. +e did not consult +ol1 Scriptures for proofs: he proceeded from
the sacred te'ts. In Bu)hare's 5:G apt phrase% for 3ilaret Bi-lical te'ts 4ere the thoughts of the
2iing and All94ise (od emanating from his un)no4a-leness for our understanding.! +is
thoughts lied in the Bi-lical element. +e pondered aloud 4hile sifting the nuances of a Bi-lical
image or stor1. 3ilaret% notes Bu)hare% neer allo4ed his theolog1 to -ecome a legal
inestigation goerned -1 a dogmatic code of la4s%! as 4as usuall1 the case -efore 3ilaret's time
and as too often recurred during the epoch of the return to the time of scholasticism.!
Euring his first fe4 1ears of teaching% 3ilaret 4or)ed out a general plan for a course in
theolog1% A Sure1 of Theolog1 L.-o$renie -ogoslos)i)h nau)% 565:M. It 4as a er1
characteristic plan% for it 4as a course in Bi-lical theolog1. In 3ilaret's ie4% the aim of a
theological s1stem 4as to lin) in their proper order! the indiidual facts and truths of
Reelation. A s1stem! of theolog1 4as something full1 dependent and deriatie. +istor1 came
-efore s1stem% for Reelation 4as gien in histor1 and eents.
The formalism of the old Protestant! theological school in 4hich 3ilaret 4as raised and
educated e'ercised a strong influence on him% especiall1 in his 1ounger da1s. +e did not at once
formall1 -rea) 4ith the Russian tradition of Pro)opoich. A great deal in his definitions and
manner of e'pression 4as suggested -1% or he simpl1 copied from% Protestant -oo)s. +e refers to
such -oo)s in his Sure10 hence the incompleteness and scholastic imprecision of 3ilaret's earl1
formulations. +e had the ha-it of referring to +ol1 Scriptures as the sole pure and sufficient
source of teaching a-out faith! and added that to grant the un4ritten "ord of (od eCual 4eight
4ith the 4ritten% not onl1 in the functioning of the *hurch% -ut in its dogmas is to su-Bect oneself
to the danger of destro1ing (od's commandment for the sa)e of human tradition: ' This 4as said%
of course% in the heat of polemics. But it does seem that if he did not den1 it% then 3ilaret
minimi$ed the importance of Tradition in the *hurch. +e shared and reproduced the Protestant
idea of the so9called self9sufficienc1! of +ol1 Scripture. In his earl1 4or)% An e'position of the
differences -et4een the Eastern and "estern *hurches in the teaching of faith LI$lo$henie
5:F
ra$nostei me$hdu Postochnoi i Napadnoi tser)i uchenii er1M 4ritten in 5655 for the Empress
Eli$a-eth Ale)seena and een in the earl1 editions of the *atechism% 3ilaret sa1s er1 little
a-out Tradition or traditions. And in the final redaction of the *atechism during the 56A7's% the
Cuestions and ans4ers a-out Tradition 4ere added at the prompting of others.
Det this 4as more a fault of the peculiar language of the period than an actual mista)e or
error. In an1 case% 3ilaret neer loo)ed upon Scripture a-stractl1 or in isolation. The Bi-le is
gien to and is maintained in the *hurch. The *hurch gies it to the faithful for reading and
guidance. Scripture is 4ritten Tradition% and as such it is a 4itness to the liing )no4ledge and
understanding of the *hurch. Scripture is the record of Tradition% not ordinar1 traditions of
human recollection% -ut +ol1 Tradition. To put it another 4a1% it is the sacred memor1 em-odied
in 4riting for the uninterrupted and uniform preseration of Eiine "ords.!
Scripture% as 3ilaret e'plained it% is onl1 the continuation of Tradition and Tradition's
unaltera-l1 constructed form.! "hen he spo)e of Scripture as the sole and sufficient! source of
teaching a-out faith% he did not hae in mind a -oo) 4ith leather coers% -ut the "ord of (od
4hich lies in the *hurch% and a4a)ens in each liing soul that 4hich the *hurch ac)no4ledges
and teaches. Scripture is Tradition. 3urthermore% true and hol1 Tradition is not simpl1 the
isi-le and er-al tradition of the teachings% canons% ceremonies% and rituals% -ut it is also the
inisi-le and actual instruction -1 grace and sanctification.! It is the unit1 of the +ol1 Spirit% the
communion of the sacraments. And for 3ilaret the main thing 4as not historical memor1% -ut the
uninterrupted flo4 of (race. Therefore% onl1 in the *hurch is authentic tradition possi-le. .nl1
in the *hurch does the (race of the +ol1 Spirit pour forth reealed truth in an un-ro)en stream
and admonish 4ith it.
3ilaret's intense Bi-licism 4as intimatel1 and deepl1 -ound up 4ith his conception of the
*hurch. This 4as a return to the patristic st1le and ha-it in theolog1. At the same time 3ilaret
emphasi$ed that modern philological studies must proide a precise definition for the formal
meaning! of Scripture. Scripture is the "ord of (od% not merel1 the 4ord a-out (od spo)en or
recorded at one time. It is the efficacious 4ord acting eternall1 through the ages. It is a certain
Eiine m1ster1% the unaltera-le appearance of grace and po4er. 2ight is concealed in eer1
trace of (od's "ord% and 4isdom is heard in eer1 sound.! And 3ilaret added% the authenticit1
of +ol1 Scripture e'tends -e1ond the limits of our reason.! It is a )ind of Eiine treasur1: the
unceasing% creatie% life9giing "ord. And the *hurch is that hol1 treasur1 in 4hich this 4ord is
presered. It is a special construction of the Spirit of (od.
Authentic and undou-ted% +ol1 Tradition is the indisputa-le source! of faith. But the
Cuestion remains% ho4 does one recogni$e and discern this undou-ted! traditionI +o4 is the
tradition of faith distinguished from the traditions of the schoolsI It 4as precisel1 this Cuestion
4hich constantl1 occupied 3ilaret's attention. +e 4as reluctant to discuss appeals to tradition% not
4hat constituted Tradition. +e protested against the scholastic custom and ha-it of esta-lishing
or proing doctrinal propositions 4ith a simple selection of te'ts or authoritatie testimon1. +e
emphasi$ed that it 4as impossi-le to eCuate an1 non9Bi-lical testimon1 4ith that of the Bi-le%
and the realm of direct Eiine inspiration is precisel1 descri-ed -1 the -oundar1 of canon. Is it
possi-le to define precisel1 that moment 4hen a church 4riter -ecomes a saint and is no longer
simpl1 a 4riter su-Bect to the usual human 4ea)nessesI! 3ilaret did not place limits on the
educational authorit1 of the *hurch. +e onl1 limited the authorit1 of the schools.
+istorical tradition% in an1 case% is su-Bect to confirmation% and 3ilaret had a liel1 sense of
histor1. It 4as this sense% 4hich separated him from later scholastics 4ith their logical pedantr1
and from the m1stics such as Sperans)ii% 2a-$in% and S)ooroda earlier for 4hom the Bi-le
5:A
-ecame an allegor1 or a s1m-ol. 3or 3ilaret the Bi-le 4as al4a1s and a-oe all a -oo) of
histor1. It -egins 4ith a description of the creation of heaen and earth and concludes 4ith the
appearance of a ne4 heaen and earth% the entire histor1 of the e'isting 4orld%! 3ilaret
remar)ed. And this histor1 of the 4orld is the histor1 of (od's coenant 4ith man. It is also the
histor1 of the *hurch 4hich -egins een earlier. The histor1 of the *hurch -egins
simultaneousl1 4ith the histor1 of the 4orld. The creation of the 4orld in itself ma1 -e seen as a
)ind of preparation for the creation of the *hurch -ecause the purpose for 4hich the )ingdom of
nature 4as made resides in the )ingdom of grace.! The 4orld 4as created for the sa)e of man%
and 4ith the creation of man came the original *hurch% founded in the er1 image and li)eness
of (od. &an 4as introduced into the 4orld of nature as a priest and a prophet% so that the light of
(race 4ould reach out through him to all the created 4orld. In freedom% man 4as called upon to
ans4er this creatie loe% and then the Son of (od 4ould reside in men and reign openl1 and
triumphantl1 throughout the 4orld. +eaenl1 light and po4er 4ould pour do4n ceaselessl1 on
earth until at last the earth 4as no longer distinct from heaen.!
The heaenl1 *oenant 4ith (od 4as a-rogated -1 the 3all0 the original *hurch 4as
destro1ed. &an stifled 4ithin himself the eternal life9giing attention of Eiine glor1% and he
li)e4ise -loc)ed the flo4 of grace to all the 4orld. In the fallen 4orld% ho4eer% creatie Eiine
purpose continued to operate. It acts as a promise and a calling. And the created 4orld
?su-merged -eneath the a-1ss of Eiine infinit1 and hoering a-oe the a-1ss of personal non9
-eing@ preseres the "ord of (od.
All histor1 is the Bourne1 of (od to4ard man and the Bourne1 of man to4ard (od. This hol1
pulse of time and histor1 especiall1 can -e felt in the .ld Testament. That 4as a time of
messianic e'pectations and preparations. &an)ind a4aits and e'pects the promised Saior% and
(od eCuall1 e'pects the e'ercise of human freedom and loe. 3or that reason there is a tension in
time: the created 4orld moes in definite c1cles -1 necessit1 and cannot -e hurried.! The .ld
Testament 4as a time of prefigurations and premonitions0 a time of multiple and multiform
Epiphanies% and at the same time it 4as a returning of the chosen among men to an encounter
4ith the approaching (od. The common ground of Epiphan1% especiall1 in its human
dimension% is the Incarnation of the Son of (od% for the root and foundation of +is hol1
humanit1 is found in men from the time of the er1 first progenitors.! In this sense% the .ld
Testament is a genealog1 of the Saior.
The image of the &other of (od is sharpl1 and clearl1 etched in 3ilaret's theological
consciousness. And the Ea1 of Annunciation 4as for him the most glorious da1 of all. "ith the
Annunciation in Na$areth the .ld Testament ends and the Ne4 Testament -egins. The tension of
e'pectation is dissoled. +uman freedom responds in the &other of (od. She unreseredl1
entrusted herself to the desire of the ,ing of ,ings% and the marriage of the Eiine 4ith man)ind
4as consummated.! And in the Birth of *hrist the *hurch% destro1ed foreer -1 the diso-edience
of the earthl1 Adam% is recreated indestructi-l1 and foreer. The ,ingdom of (race is reealed
and the ,ingdom of (lor1 is alread1 slightl1 isi-le.
In 3ilaret's ie4% the *hurch is the Bod1 of *hrist% the unit1 of one life! in +im. It is not
the union of all under one authorit1% een under the ro1al authorit1 of *hrist. &oreoer% the
*hurch is a continuing Pentecost: a unit1 in the Spirit of *hrist. The sanctif1ing stream of grace
as an unCuencha-le fount flo4s to the er1 threshold of the coming ,ingdom of (lor1. "hen
the m1sterious -od1 of the last Adam% composed and constituted -1 +im through the mutual
lin)ing of the mem-ers -1 the appropriate actions of each of them% gro4s in its composition and
is perfectl1 and finall1 created% then% upheld -1 +is +ead% infused 4ith the +ol1 Spirit% the image
5::
of (od triumphantl1 appears in all its mem-ers and the great Sa--ath of (od and man ensues.!
The circle of time is closed. The 2ord Pantocrator is enthroned and the marriage of the 2am-
-egins.
In his theological speculations 3ilaret al4a1s proceeded from the facts of Reelation and
moed among them. +e neer departed from histor1 in order hurriedl1 to ascend to the e'alted
heights of contemplation! -1 means of a-stract theolog1. +e had no loe for cold philosoph1!
and 4as guided in theolog1 not so much -1 logical conclusions as -1 historical phenomena. +e
4as al4a1s conscious of the Eiine &1steries in their historical manifestations and actions. And
all histor1 is reealed -efore him as a single great unfolding of Eiine 2oe and Eiine (lor1 in
the created 4orld. The theme of his theolog1 4as al4a1s the *oenant of (od and man% in all
the comple'it1 and multiform character of its historical fate.
3ilaret's s1stem! 4as not constructed under influences! and impressions%! for its inner
structure is patristic ?compare it especiall1 4ith (regor1 of N1ssa@. +e d4elled 4ith particular
attention on t4o themes: first% the m1ster1 of the *ross% the m1ster1 of Redemption. And second%
the description of the life of (race% the life in the Spirit *hrist reealed to the faithful. *hrist is
the m1sterious 3irst Priest 4ho is offered and 4ho -rings the offering. +e is the 2am- of (od
and the (reat +ierarch ?see the Epistle to the +e-re4s@. It 4as the *ross of (olgotha he sa4 in
the (ospels. It 4as the passion of the Saior he sa4 in the (od9man. The fate of the 4orld is
suspended from +is cross% the life of the 4orld lies in +is grae. The *ross illuminates the
4eeping land of life0 the sun of -lessed immortalit1 streams forth from +is grae.! The m1ster1
of the *ross is the m1ster1 of Eiine 2oe. Thus in the spiritual realm of m1ster1% along the
entire dimensions of the *ross of *hrist% contemplation is oer4helmed in the limitless loe of
(od.! .n (ood 3rida1 3ilaret once preached on the passage And (od so loed the 4orld.! +e
urged that the ultimate meaning of the *ross -e grasped. BeholdQ . . . There is nothing e'cept
the hol1 and -lessed 2oe of the 3ather% and the Son% and the +ol1 Spirit to4ard a sinful and
despairing man)ind. The 2oe of the 3ather in the act of crucif1ing0 the 2oe of the Son 4ho is
crucified0 the 2oe of the Spirit 4hich triumphs -1 the po4er of the *ross.!
3ilaret 4as completel1 free of an1 sentimental or moralistic misinterpretations of the loe of
the *ross. .n the contrar1% he emphasi$ed that the *ross of *hrist is rooted in the inscruta-leness
of Eiine -eneolence. The m1ster1 of the *ross -egins in eternit1 in the sanctuar1 of the Tri9
h1postatic (odhead 4hich is inaccessi-le to the created 4orld. Thus% *hrist is spo)en of in
Scriptures as the 2am- of (od% fore4arned or een crucified from the time of the 4orld's
creation. The death of *hrist is the center of created -eing. The *ross of #esus% -uilt -1 the
animosit1 of the #e4s and the -loodthirstiness of the pagans% is the earthl1 image and shado4 of
this heaenl1 *ross of loe.! In his sermons% especiall1 on da1s recalling the Passion% 3ilaret
ascended to the heights of l1rical pra1er0 a trem-ling of the heart can -e heard in these addresses.
+is sermons are impossi-le to paraphrase0 it is onl1 possi-le to reread and repeat them. "e find
no integrated s1stem in 3ilaret% for he al4a1s spo)e on occasion.! "e do find something
greater: a unit1 of liing e'perience% a depth of intellectual conception% a m1sterious isitation
of the Spirit.! And this is the clue or e'planation for his influence on theolog1. +e had practicall1
no direct disciples% nor did he create a school0 he created something more important: a spiritual
moement. 3ilaret 4as al4a1s resered in his theological Budgments and he urged others to
e'ercise the same responsi-le caution. This unremitting sense of responsi-ilit1% in 4hich pastoral
and theological moties 4ere intert4ined% 4as al4a1s at 4or) on him and gae him a stern
countenance. It 4as rightl1 said that he 4as a -ishop from morning to night and from night to
morning.! This 4as a source of his caution. But he had another motie as 4ell% an instinctie
5:8
need to Bustif1 his eer1 conclusion. It is precisel1 this need 4hich e'plains all of his
reserations. Each theological thought must -e accepted onl1 in the measure of its strength.!
3ilaret al4a1s opposed the transformation of priate opinions into reCuired ones 4hich might
restrict rather than guide perceptie and searching thought. That is 4h1 he 4as such an
unpleasant and impatient censor and editor. +is report on Inno)entii's Passion "ee) LStrastnaia
Sed initsaM is characteristic: I 4ish that calm reason might accompan1 the la-or of a liel1 and
po4erful imagination and cleanse this -oo).! 3ilaret did not reBect imagination%! -ut he
su-Bected it to strict erification% and not so much erification -1 reason as -1 the testimon1 of
Reelation.
Not much ma1 -e e'pected -1 rel1ing on one's o4n philosophical reasoning for those
su-Bects not found in life on earth. It is more fitting to follo4 Eiine Reelation and the
e'planations of it gien -1 people 4ho hae pra1ed% la-ored% cleansed their inner and outer lies
more than 4e. The image of (od is more apparent and the sight is clearer in those 4hose spirits
here on earth -order more closel1 on heaen than our o4n.
.-iousl1% 3ilaret 4as not so preoccupied 4ith authorit1 as 4ith inner relia-ilit1.
3ilaret appeared too plia-le or e'cessiel1 timid to others in direct proportion to his o4n
demands and caution. Some accused 3ilaret of #aco-inism in theolog1! 5:= -ecause he al4a1s
demanded proofs! and er1 cautiousl1 distinguished -et4een opinion! and definition.! The
people did not loe him and called him a &ason! ?+er$en@. .thers considered him a dar)
reactionar1 and ?strangel1 enough@ preferred *ount Prataso 5:6 ?this applies not onl1 to
Ni)anor Bro)oich l:< -ut also to Rostislao@. 587 Still others 4ere confused -ecause 3ilaret
4ould not condemn the 2atin faith as heres1 or een as a schism% -ut instead he argued that it
4as onl1 an opinion! and not a ruling of the *hurch. In particular he tried to guard against
e'aggeration: Placing the Papal *hurch on the same leel as the Armenian *hurch is cruel and
useless.! +e seemed too cautious 4hen he argued that the Eastern *hurch does not possess an
autocratic interpreter of its teachings 4ho might gie the 4eight of dogma to his e'planations.! It
seemed that he left too much to the indiidual Budgment and conscience! of the faithful% een
though it 4as assisted -1 the teachers of the *hurch and 4as under the guidance of the "ord of
(od.!
Some could not find adeCuate 4ords to descri-e 3ilaret's oppressie t1rannical character. In
this connection% the hostile auto-iographical notes! of the historian S. &. Solo'e 585 4ere
especiall1 t1pical. In Solo'e's description% 3ilaret 4as a sort of eil genius% 4ho smothered the
least in)ling of creatiit1 and independence in his su-ordinates. Solo'e insisted that 3ilaret
destro1ed an1 creatie spirit in the &osco4 Theological Academ1. Something must -e said
a-out this later. +ere it is enough to note that Solo'e's calumn1 can -e countered -1
considera-le contrar1 eidence. .ne e'ample% 4hich is supplied -1 a person 4hom it is difficult
to suspect of partialit1 to4ard 3ilaret% must -e enough. This 4as the statement of (. N. Elisee%
the famous radical and editor of Notes of the 3atherland LNapis)i otechestaM .58F +e 4as a
student in the &osco4 Academ1 at the -eginning of the 56:7's and then a -accalaureate and
professor in ,a$an'. In Elisee's estimation% there 4as too much freedom and an e'ceptional
enironment of heartfelt 4armth% softness% and camaraderie at the &osco4 Academ1.
Solo'e 4as shortsighted and partial in his Budgments. +e 4as not a-le% nor did he 4ish% to
find an1 redeeming Cualities in those 4ho did not agree 4ith him. +e 4as particularl1 irritated
-1 people of a restless mind%! 4ho offended his co$1 night9+egelian 4orldie4. 3ilaret 4as not
the onl1 one 4hom Solo'e condemned in this fashion. +e found onl1 harsh and foul 4ords for
,homia)o. 58A But Solo'e 4as unfair to 3ilaret een as an historian. +e could not and 4ould
5:G
not understand that 3ilaret's out4ard seerit1 sprang from grief and an'iet1. This man has a hot
head and a cold heart.! This characteri$ation is a deceptie half truth. It is true that 3ilaret's mind
4as ferent and hot% and restless thoughts left a deep impress on his 4ithered face. But it is
simpl1 nonsense and a lie that 3ilaret's heart 4as cold. It flo4ed sensitiel1 and
impressionisticall1. And it -urned in an uncann1 and terri-le an'iet1. +is o-ious achieements
and o-ious integrit1 could conceal this grief and an'iet1% this inner suffering% onl1 from a
shortsighted o-serer. 3ilaret's difficult and courageous silence hardl1 concealed or Cuieted his
uneasiness a-out 4hat 4as happening in Russia. It seems that 4e no longer lie een in the
su-ur-s of Ba-1lon% -ut in Ba-1lon itself%! he declared one da1.
,homia)o once noted that 3ilaret 4as compelled to trael -1 deious routes! in order not
to proide a prete't for -eing attac)ed. Su-mission reCuired detours% 4hile his e'actness
perhaps made it less li)el1 that the1 4ould -e on the 4atch and inflict an une'pected -lo4%!
4rote another contemporar1. 3ilaret once 4rote to (rigorii LPostni)oM: It is a great misfortune
if those against 4hom the1 see) an opportunit1 to attac) proide that opportunit1. . . .!
3ilaret did not li)e eas1 and safe paths% for he did not -eliee that eas1 paths could lead to
truth > the narro4 path could hardl1 turn out to -e an eas1 one. I fear onl1 that Bo1 on earth
4hich thin)s it has nothing to fear. . . .!
Theology in the Refor$ed Ecclesiastical %chools.
3ilaret 4as one of the most influential and prominent representaties of the ne4 theolog1
of the heart! taught in the reformed ecclesiastical schools. The aim of this instruction 4as the
education of the inner man%! -1 imparting a liing and 4ell9founded personal coniction in the
saing truths of faith. The inner education of 1ouths for an actie *hristianit1 4ill -e the sole
aim of these schools! ?/)a$ of A7 August 565:@. .ne might recall Neander's 58: aphorism
4hich 4as so popular in those da1s: pectus est Cuod facit theologum% the heart ma)es the
theologian.'' +o4eer% in the Russian schools this theolog1 of the heart! 4as not the onl1
current. "e can detect and distinguish t4o diergent tendencies from the outset. .ne 4as the
theolog1 of the heart.! The other it 4as usual at that time to call neologism%! a moral9
rationalistic school of *hristian interpretation Neologism 4as introduced -1 Ignatius 3essler l88
in the St. Peters-urg Theological Academ1.
In 565<% 3ilaret 4as replaced as rector -1 (rigorii Postni)o a student of the first
graduating class at the ne4 academ1. ?Su-seCuentl1 he -ecame metropolitan of Nogorod0 he
died in 56G7@. (rigorii 4as a continuator% follo4er% admirer% and een friend of 3ilaret of
&osco4. Although he 4as a man of er1 alert and clear thought% he possessed no inner
animation. +e had none of 3ilaret's restless searching mind% nor did an1 of that di$$1ing
panorama% -efore 4hich 3ilaret 4as so accustomed to lie% eer unfold -efore him. .ne neer
feels a tension een in (rigorii's sermons. Eer1thing 4as limpid% his oice 4as een and calm.
+e disli)ed dogmatic themes and preferred action. +is moralism 4as er1 measured and
anno1ing% although it is impossi-le not to feel his great moral strength. Simplicit1% dignit1% and
truthfulness%! reports 3otii% 4ho did not li)e him. (rigorii's character 4as reflected in his
language. There are no rhetorical deices% no ornamentation% onl1 a certain heainess%
coarseness% and plainness. (rigorii% especiall1 in his later 1ears% did not li)e to 4rite for the
people.! Still% one al4a1s senses the influence of those often read and reread English
instructional -oo)s and -rochures from the -eginning of the centur1. +is thought 4as formed
and disciplined in the reading of foreign authors% especiall1 English ones% and it seems that at one
time (rigorii studied English 4ith the students.
5:=
+e 4as a great -i-liophile and stimulated reading among the students. +e regularl1 offered
the students mone1 for translations% in order to compel them to read. As a teacher and lecturer%
(rigorii 4as er1 popular and 4ell li)ed. +e taught in Russian% and in his lectures he
inestigated +ol1 Scriptures in Russian translation% not Slaonic. In general he 4as a $ealous
defender of the Bi-le in Russian until the end of his da1s. +e gae preference in the .ld
Testament to +e-re4 truth%! underscoring the fact that it 4as hardl1 possi-le to construct 4ith
precision an e'act translation of the Septuagint from its aried renderings. But he approached the
&assoretic punctuation criticall1 and 4ith resere.
In 56FF% (rigorii%pu-lished seeral chapters of his theolog1 course. The1 4ere e'amined%
approed% and% of course% corrected -1 3ilaret. There is er1 little that is original in them. But
4hat 4as important 4as the er1 liel1 oice and manner of the author. &uch later (rigorii
4rote his famous -oo) against the schismatics or .ld Belieers% The trul1 ancient% trul1
.rthodo' *hurch LIstinno9dreniaia i istinno9praoslanaia Tser)o'% 5688M . Again% it contains
er1 little that is ne4% 1et the eleated% calm% -eneolent tone is arresting. The author 4as trul1
attempting to persuade and conince. Tolerantl1 and cautiousl1% he tried to succeed through the
4ord of truth.! (rigorii 4as a sincere defender of religious independence and a $ealot for
education. +e possessed a genuine pastoral interest and persistence.
&etropohtan (rigorii's special serice at the St. Peters-urg
Theological Academ1 4as the founding of a Bournal 4ith the characteristic title *hristian
Reading L,hristians)oe *htenieM . It -egan in 56F5. 'The first aim of the Bournal 4as to proide
instructional reading > Russian reading > for all -i-liophiles and churchmen. The Bi-lical
tendenc1 4as clearl1 indicated -1 the choice of epigraph0 -uilt upon the foundation of the
apostles and the prophets! ?Ephesians F:F7@. In an1 case% su-seCuentl1% during the return to the
time of scholasticism%! this approach seemed pretentious and dangerous. Because it 4as a
danger% it 4as replaced -1 another epigraph. After 56:F% I Timoth1 A:58 4as used in its place:
1ou ma1 )no4 ho4 one ought to -ehae in the household of (od% 4hich is the church of the
liing (od% the pillar and -ul4ar) of the truth.! Su-seCuentl1 -oth epigraphs 4ere com-ined.
In its first 1ear% *hristian Reading 4as reminiscent of the &essenger of Nion LSions)ii
;estni)M -oth in the selection and character of its articles. A special section 4as included as a
m1stical chronicle.!
In our 3atherland onl1 er1 rarel1 do the -eneficient actions of the +ol1 Spirit on men's
hearts -ecome )no4n. Therefore all loers of *hristianit1% especiall1 people of the religious
calling% are inited to report on these actions to the editors in order that the1 might -e shared as
manifestations of the glor1 of (od.
Ne4s a-out spiritual signs and miracles 4as een ta)en from foreign pu-lications. After
56F8% ho4eer% the format of this Bournal -ecame more cautious and more translations 4ere
proided from the 3athers. 3rom the outset of pu-lication% *hristian Reading enBo1ed an
une'pected success% 4ith F%:77 su-scri-ers in the first fa4 1ears.
,irill Bogoslos)ii9Platono 58G follo4ed (rigorii's e'ample at the &osco4 Theological
Academ1. +e taught in Russian% disli)ed modern philosoph1% and read -oo)s in an ascetic spirit.
The Cualit1 of (ospel teaching consists in Cuieting hearts stric)en 4ith grief and fear of
heaenl1 Budgment0 it consists in loo)ing into the depths of one's spiritual condition. But ho4
can one 4ho has not e'perienced this loe of the *ross% 4hose heart is not filled 4ith that grief
for (od 4hich leads to salation% achiee or e'plain this po4er and soothing Cualit1 of the
(ospelI
5:6
Euring ,irill's tenure as rector of the &osco4 academ1% each student 4as o-liged to )eep a
personal Bournal of his actiities and thoughts. ,irill 4as close to the disciples of the &oldaian
Elders. 58= "hile arch-ishop of Podolia% he -ecame interested in the Baltic priest 3ather
3eodosii 2eits)ii% 586 arid in his reports portra1ed him 4ith complete s1mpath1 and approal
as a trul1 spiritual man. +e clima'ed his course at the academ1 4ith a treatise on the traditions of
the *hurch.
At the ,iean academ1 the representaties of the ne4 theolog1 4ere &oisei Antipo9
Platono% 4ho died in his office as E'arch of (eorgia in 56A:% and &eletii 2eontoich% later
arch-ishop of ,har)o ?he died in 56:7@. 58< taught in Russian% and -oth -elonged to the first
graduating class of the St. Peters-urg Academ1. Seeral others among the -rightest in this first
class still must -e mentioned. ;. I. ,utneich 4as sent at once as -accalaureate of philosoph1 to
the &osco4 Academ1% 4here he immediatel1 found a student and successor in (olu-ins)ii.
,utneich soon left the serice of the academ1 and su-seCuentl1 -ecame the (rand *haplain
Lo-er siashchenni)M and a mem-er of the S1nod. +e died in 56G8. +e e'pended great effort on
translations from the (ree) 3athers. Ale)sei &alo ?d. 5688@% the archpriest of St. Isaac's
*athedral and priest in the Inalid +ome ?Inalidn1i domM% 4as praised as an outstanding and
po4erful preacher. +e 4as a t1pical see)er of spiritual! and uniersal *hristianit1.! Euring his
meeting 4ith "illiam Palmer% lG7 the latter 4as greatl1 confused -1 Ale)sei's amorphous ie4s
on the structure and limits of the *hurch. In his da1% 3ather &alo had -een a participant in the
spiritual! gatherings of &adame Tatarinoa% and% it seems% he 4as the confessor for seeral
mem-ers of this circle. 5G5
Among the other earl1 graduates of the St. Peters-urg Academ1% the most inspired e'ponent
and preacher of these ne4 moods 4as &a)arii (lu)hare ?5=<F956:=@% one of the most
remar)a-le men of that era. "hile at the academ1% (lu)hare 4as completel1 under 3ilaret's
influence. +e gae up his 4ill to Rector 3ilaret% and did nothing or undertoo) nothing 4ithout
his adice and -lessing. Nearl1 eer1 da1 he confessed his thoughts to him.! The spiritual tie
-et4een teacher and student lasted his lifetime. (lu)hare 4as e'clusiel1 impressionistic and
introspectie. It 4as difficult for him to 4or) under ordinar1 conditions. At the academ1 he read
man1 m1stical -oo)s > #ohann Arndt a-oe all. 5GF +e adopted from such -oo)s the idea of a
renaissance and renoation of the inner man 4ho is illuminated -1 the +ol1 Spirit. .nce he
attended a gathering at &adame Tatarinoa's apartment% -ut he ran a4a1 frightened. /pon
finishing the academ1% he 4ent to E)aterinoslal as a teacher. There he -ecame acCuainted 4ith
the local -ishop% Io Potem)in% 5GA 4ho had -een tonsured -1 the &oldaian Elders. Through
Io% he -ecame close to t4o mon)s from &oldaia% 3ather 2ierii and 3ather ,alinni)% under
4hose influence (lu)hare decided to -ecome a mon). Euring this phase of his life% he 4as
entirel1 consumed -1 a restless searching. Soon he 4as transferred as rector to the ,ostroma
Seminar1% -ut he suffered not onl1 as an administrator% -ut also as a teacher. At the earliest
opportunit1 &a)arii Cuit and 4ent to lie first at the &onaster1 of the *aes and then at the
(lins)ii &onaster1% 4hich at that time 4as a center of a contemplatie renaissance. +e read a
good deal there under the direction of the Elder LStaretsM 3ilaret% lG: and translated St.
Augustine's *onfessions% the 2adder Lof St. #ohn *limacusM% the discourses of St. (regor1 the
(reat% and the declamator1 sermons of St. Theodore the Studite. The school of *hrist is one of
those -right points on the glo-e 4hich ma1 -e reached onl1 -1 placing oneself on the leel of
*hrist's infanc1.! +e translated St. &acarius as 4ell as the 4or)s of Teresa of Spain from the
3rench. +e intended to translate Pascal. 5G8
5:<
&a)arii al4a1s maintained an inCuisitie and faora-le attitude to4ard the -eliefs of others.
In E)aterinoslal' he pra1ed 4ith the Spiritual *hildren! ?the &olo)ans@% and found that the
light of (od's illumination glo4ed in their 4arm faith. The Kua)ers (rellet and Allen% 4hile
traeling in Russia in 565<% 5GG isited E)aterinoslal' 4ith a letter of introduction from 3ilaret%
and found in him a mutual spiritual -ond. 2ater in life% &a)arii dreamed of constructing in
&osco4 a cathedral 4ith three 4ings > for .rthodo'% *atholics% and Protestants. &a)arii did
not remain long in monastic isolation -efore he -egan to thirst for some 4or). +e found it in
preaching among the Si-erian tri-es. +e also found himself. 3ilaret of &osco4 called him a
Romantic missionar1%! and% in fact% &a)arii too) to missionar1 4or) enthusiasticall1 and 4ith
great animation. As a first step% he acCuired t4o To-ols) seminarians as assistants and composed
a model instruction for the first missionar1 outpost:
"e desire that all 4ill -e in common among us: mone1% food% clothes% -oo)s% and other
things0 such measures 4ill aid our efforts to4ard one accord.
The mission 4or)ed under conditions of e'treme hardship and poert1. The mission 4as a
true apostolic la-or for &a)arii. +e gae himself up to it 4ith all the intensit1 of his soul. A less
dedicated missionar1 might attest that this flame did not -urn for *hristianit1.! &a)arii's repl1
to such dou-t 4as decisie: "ho in m1 position can Budge the immaturit1 of these people for
the uniersal faith in #esus *hristI +e shed +is Immaculate Blood on the *ross and tasted death
for the salation of all men.! . . . There is no people 4hom the 2ord 4ould not )no4 as +is
o4n% no depth of ignorance and dar)ness into 4hich the Son of (od% haing -o4ed heaen
do4n% 4ould not descend% into 4hich +e +imself 4ould not -end do4n.! &a)arii sets forth his
general ie4s in a special 4or): Thoughts on the means for a successful e'tension of the
*hristian faith among the #e4s% &ohammedans% and pagans in the Russian Empire L&1sli o
sposo-a)h ) uspeshneishemu rasprostraneniia )hristians)oi er1 me$hdu Ereiami%
&agometanami% i ia$1chni)ami Rossiis)oi der$hae% 56A<M . &a)arii proposed to form a
missionar1 center in ,a$an'% a special missionar19institute monaster1% goerned -1 a strict
communal statute% 1et including a sufficientl1 ariegated educational program in -oth its general
curriculum and theolog1. +e 4ished to acCuaint his colleagues 4ith the s1stem of 2ancastrian
schools% the fundamentals of medicine% and the -asics of agriculture. .-iousl1 contemplatie
dreaminess did not )ill &a)arii's sense of realism. The Altaic mission under his guidance is one
of the most heroic and saintl1 episodes in our histor1.
A ne4 idea 4as -orn during &a)arii's apostolic la-ors% and it -ecame an all9consuming
passion. It 4as a plan to translate the Bi-le. As earl1 as 56A:% &a)arii presented to the S1nod
through &etropolitan 3ilaret a note entitled .n the necessit1 for the Russian *hurch of a
translation of the entire Bi-le from the original te'ts into contemporar1 Russian language L.
potre-nosti dlia Rossiis)oi tser)i prelo$heniia sei Bi-lii s original n1)h te)tso na
soremenn1i russ)ii ia$1)M. 3ilaret concealed this letter in order to protect the Romantic
missionar1! from the 4rath and punishment of the higher authorities 4ho considered -eneficial
the translation of the Scriptures into the languages of half ciili$ed and completel1 unciili$ed
peoples% -ut not into Russian.
&a)arii neither heard nor understood the arguments. In 56A=% he presented to the
*ommission on Ecclesiastical Schools the first part of his o4n translation% the Boo) of #o-%
along 4ith a letter addressed to the Emperor. Again the matter remained 4ithout result. In 56A<%
&a)arii presented the Emperor 4ith a translation of the Boo) of Isaiah and a ne4 letter. The
follo4ing 1ear he resu-mitted the t4o -oo)s for e'amination and comparison 4ith Pas)ii's
translation. the e'istence of 4hich &a)arii had not )no4n earlier. At that point &a)arii moed
587
from arguments and persuasion to threats and dire prophecies. Earlier he had e'pounded on the
necessit1 and usefulness of the "ord of (od in a liing language. The Russian people are
4orth1 of possessing a complete Russian Bi-le.! &a)arii -emoaned the fact that Russians
remain indifferentl1 4ithout a complete Russian Bi-le% 4hile at the same time the1 possess a full
Russian translation of the ,oran.! +e 4as coninced the time 4as ripe to create from the
purest% most alua-le materials of the Russian language a literar1 cathedral of the "isdom of
(od 4ritten 4ith such simplicit1% correctness% and e'actness that it 4ill -e the most -eautiful in
the 4orld% the true glor1 of our .rthodo' *hurch -efore the peoples of all churches% and the Bo1
of heaen.!
No4 &a)arii grieed and threatened% .% sorro4Q The Ro1al Eoors are shut through 4hich
the Eangelists one after another came to us from the sanctuar1% and each 4ith his (ospel
-lessed the Russian *hurch in the name of #esus *hrist. No4 eer1thing is concealed and
dar). . . . "e learn that all of the Pentateuch of &oses 4as alread1 translated into pure Russian
from the +e-re4 and printed in a-undant copies% and has lain for man1 1ears in some empt1
4arehouse > that hol1 and a4esome -oo) of the 2a4 of (od% 4hich la1 in the ar) of Noah's
coenant% in the hol1 of holies% and 4hich 4as read aloud -efore the Israelites% not e'cluding
4omen% children% and strangers. "ill the "ord of (od in the raiment of Slaonic letters cease to
-e (od's "ord if it is in Russian raimentI!
"ith simple naiete &a)arii 4as touching on the sorest and most painful points. +e een
enumerated the signs of (od's 4rath: the flood of 56F:% the uprising of 56F8% the cholera of
56A7% the fire in the "inter Palace. . . .5G= This time he 4as gien an ans4er. B1 an u)a$% the
S1nod e'plained to &a)arii ho4 egotisticall1 and pretentiousl1 he portra1ed himself as a self9
appointed e'egete of Eiine #udgment%! and .ho4 audaciousl1 he has e'ceeded the limits of his
calling and his duties.! Therefore% he 4as commanded to undergo a penance of pra1er! at the
residence of the -ishop of Toms). 3ilaret of *hernigo 5G6 4rites a-out this penance: the1
compelled him to conduct the liturg1 for si' 4ee)s in succession% -ut he understood this as (od's
merc1 and 4as er1 4ell pleased 4ith the penance.! /ndou-tedl1% he misunderstood 4h1 in St.
Peters-urg dail1 conduct of the liturg1 4as considered a punishment for a priest. In &a)arii's
serice record it 4as noted that he carried through a fort1 da1 purification penance -efore
presenting the goernment his thoughts and desires for a complete Russian Bi-le translated from
the originals.! Soon after4ard &a)arii reCuested his release from the mission. +e 4as appointed
superior of the Bol)hos)ii &onaster1 in the .rlo proince% 4here he 4as a-le to recoer heart%
although he sta1ed there onl1 a short 4hile. +e did not cease translating.
+e -egan to dream of going to the +ol1 2and% and settling% if possi-le% in the Bethlehem
cae of #erome lG< in order to finish and perfect his translation of the .ld Testament. It 4as said
that he planned to isit 2eip$ig on the 4a1 and arrange for printing. Not 4ithout difficult1 did he
receie permission for the Bourne1. But on the er1 ee of his departure he fell ill and died.
&a)arii 4as a man of saintl1 uprightness and purit1. An actual liing (ospel%! Arch-ishop
Smaragd 5=7 said of him. +e inter4oe the -est traditions of contemplatie monasticism% his
o4n personal e'perience% and the Bi-lical lessons of the schools. &a)arii 4as a man of great
)no4ledge and an outstanding +e-raist. In his 4or) on the Bi-le he usuall1 follo4ed most
closel1 the 4or) of Rosenmueller% 5=5 4ithout% ho4eer% -eing captiated -1 the latter's
s)epticism. And at the same time he 4as a man of spiritual simplicit1 and transparent soul.
&a)arii 4as a true serant of *hrist (od%! 3ilaret of &osco4 4rote after &a)arii's death in
56:=. And of course it is remar)a-le that during a time of peace he prophesi$ed that there
4ould -e sorro4 for neglecting the e'tension of (od's "ord0 that sorro4 later came to pass.!
585
The isolated position of the &osco4 Theological Academ1 in its 4ooded retreat or% more
accuratel1% -ac)4ater in the St. Sergius su-ur- at the +ol1 Trinit1 2ara decisiel1 contri-uted
to the fact that in this academ1 the guiding moods of the ne4 era too) flesh. .f course the
preparations and ha-its of &etropolitan Platon's time 4ere conducie. In his memoirs%
Rostislao 5=F accuses 3ilaret for attempting to transform the St. Peters-urg Academ1 into a
)ind of semihermitage.! The &osco4 Academ1 actuall1 -ecame such a semi9hermitage%! a
)ind of learned monaster1 of the heart.! A common st1le too) shape there 4hich is eas1 to
distinguish in eer1thing. 3or e'ample% ta)e the lists of -oo)s gien to the students for re4ards
or encouragement: een in 56AA these 4ere the 3rench Bi-le in the translation of Ee Sac1% the
4or)s of 3enelon or 3rancis de Sales% or een #ohn &ason. 5=A .r ta)e the themes for semester
compositions: .n the 1earning of creatures LtariM 0 .n the lac) of differentiation of religious
confessions0 or is it possi-le to -e saed in an1 faithI!0 .n the inner and outer *hurch!
?Themes for 56FG@. .n the conditions of the so9called spiritual deh1dration% or on the periodic
impoerishment of the spiritual man in -eneficient consolations!0 "h1 there 4ere more
possessed people during the lifetime of *hrist and the Apostles than either -efore or since!
?Themes for 56AF@.
In &oral Theolog1 for 565=95656 a 1oung -accalaureate recommended not onl1 that the
students read &acarius of Eg1pt and St. Augustine% -ut also Arndt% Thomas a ,empis% +orn-ec)%
and een the anon1mous +istor1 of those regenerated LIstoriia o$ro$hdenn1)hM.5=: +e taught
from Buddeus' te't-oo)s. In 56F7 and 56F5% the students translated #oachim 2ange's &1sterium
*hristi et christianismi. 5=8 .f course the most characteristic teacher of the period 4as 3edor
(olu-ins)ii% 5=G a graduate of the first class after the reform of the schools. +e 4as a t1pical
representatie of the epoch.
Among the representaties of the older generation 4ho studied in the pre9reform schools -ut
4ho -elonged to this theolog1 of the heart! 4ere &etropolitan &i)hail% Archimandrite Egraf
?3ilaret's teacher@% and Inno)entii Smirno. 5== Inno)entii enters the histor1 of Russian theolog1
as the composer of An .utline of *hurch9Bi-lical +istor1 LNachertaniia tser)ono9-i-leis)oi
istorii% 565G95656M. The -oo) 4as hastil1 4ritten% and its author is not at fault if after his death it
4as forci-l1 retained in the schools as a te't-oo) een until the 56G7's 4hen it 4as clearl1 out of
date% inadeCuate% and unsuita-le. ?The posthumous editions 4ere re4or)ed -1 Archdeacon
,ocheto@. 5=6 The +istor1% compiled from "eismann% Spanheim% Baronius and the &agde-urg
*enturies% l=< 4as er1 dr1% factual% and formal. Surmounting the scholastic routine 4as not eas1
een for such a liel1 person as Inno)entii. At the St. Peters-urg Seminar1% 4here he 4as rector%
Inno)entii taught in 2atin ?after his death% his notes on actie theolog1 Ldeiatel noe -ogosloieM
-ased on his 2atin outlines 4ere pu-lished in Russian translation@.
Such a com-ination of piet1 of the heart! and scholastic erudition! is found among man1
of this older generation. The -est e'ample 4as 3ilaret Amfiteatro% su-seCuentl1 the 4ell9)no4n
metropolitan of ,ie ?5==<9568=@.567 +e 4as a man of 4arm piet1% a large heart% and a true
spiritual life0 an upright and saintl1 man. But in his teaching he remained an uncompromising
proponent of the scholastic past. +e taught% -ut not for long% in the reformed schools% first in St.
Peters-urg and then in &osco4 ?as inspector and rector@. +e al4a1s taught in 2atin. +e 4as
emphaticall1 against teaching theolog1 in Russian. +e follo4ed Irinei 3al')os)ii 565 in his
lecture plan% and in his e'planation of Scripture 'he 4as guided most of all -1 the e'egesis of
;itringa. 56F +is audience noted the thorough precision in his e'position% a mathematical
precision%! and deft argumentation. But at the same time these 4ere more li)e sermons than
lectures in the strict sense% something in the 4a1 of an announcement of good tidings.!
58F
3ilaret 4as hostile to the m1stical! current. Euring m1 professorate at the &osco4
Academ1 there 4as a general trend to4ard m1sticism and I% 4ith all m1 might% com-atted it.! +e
4as een less reconciled to philosoph1. Not onl1 4ere philosophical formulas foreign to him%
-ut so 4ere the er1 names of Spino$a or +egel.! Een 3ilaret of &osco4% 4hom he dearl1
loed% seemed to him too learned and 4ise: did such a thing correspond to monastic o4s and
humilit1I In his earl1 1ears 3ilaret Amfiteatro participated in the Bi-le Societ1% and een in
56:F supported 3ilaret of &osco4 and 4as compelled to leae the S1nod at the same time. Still
later he -ecame much more cautious and -egan to protest sharpl1 against the rene4al of Russian
Bi-lical translations.
There 4ere man1 dedicated people in the ran)s of the older generation. .ne e'ample 4as
the influential and 4ell9)no4n &uscoite 3ather Semen So)olo. +e 4as famous in &osco4 as
a strict and instructie confessor% as a cautious guide for those confused -1 dou-ts and rumors in
da1s of sorro4 and temptation% and as a profound and spirituall1 impregnated m1stic! as it 4as
phrased -1 one of those 4hom he confessed ?N.;. Sush)o in his notes on 3ilaret@. +e studied at
the +ol1 Trinit1 2ara seminar1 and 4as connected 4ith the mem-ers of the Societ1 of
3riends.! +e had a long life ?5==F956G7@. 3or the education of his spiritual children! he
translated and pu-lished ?in 56A:@ Thomas a ,empis' famous -oo) 4ith an appended instruction
a-out ho4 such -oo)s should -e read. In later Dears he loed to read and reread the &essenger
of Nion LSions)ii ;estnl)M% and he did not prohi-it the reading of Ec)artshausen. Such 4as the
po4er of Europeani$ation! in post9Petrine Russia that it 4as possi-le to return to the traditions
of spiritual life onl1 along a 4estern route and -1 4estern e'ample. Arndt 4as )no4n earlier
than the Philo)alia. 56A And for man1 Arndt remained a long 4hile their first loe in
illumination. True% er1 earl1 the reading of the (ree) 3athers% and the 3ather9ascetics in
particular% 4ere added. But onl1 4ith the esta-lishment of contemplatie monasteries in Russia%
4ith their liing return to the .rthodo' traditions of spiritual life% did the 4ae of 4estern
m1stical enthusiasms -egin to su-side.
In the ecclesiastical schools the influence of the Ale'andrine epoch 4as long and lasting. In
those circumstances of theological sensitiit1! the characters of men such as 3ilaret
(umiles)ii or A. ;. (ors)ii l6: might flo4 together. .nl1 -1 reference to the spirit of the
Ale'andrine age is it possi-le to understand the tragic fate of Archimandrite 3edor Bu)hare. . .%
568
The *oral7Rationalistic %chool.
Another clearl1 defined and directl1 counter moement ma1 -e distinguished from the er1
outset in the reformed schools. /ndou-tedl1 its -est representatie 4as 3ather (erasim Pas)ii
?5=6=956GA@% a graduate of the first class of the reformed St. Peters-urg Academ1% a remar)a-le
+e-raist% a long time professor of +e-re4 at the academ1% and a doctor of theolog1 at St.
Peters-urg /niersit1. +e 4as also court chaplain% confessor% and tutor to the Tsareich% the
future Ale'ander II.56G A-oe all% Pas)ii 4as a philologist > a man 4ith a real philological
gift and artistic flair. "ith all the ardor of scholarl1 passion he adored the +e-re4 Bi-le. +e
studied Semitic philolog1 prior to the printing of (esenius' grammar% l6= and his intellectual
outloo) 4as formed under the influence of eighteenth centur1 authorities. Euring his first 1ears
as a teacher at the academ1% Pas)ii composed and printed his o4n +e-re4 grammar. +o4eer%
the +e-re4 and *haldean dictionar1 of the .ld Testament 4hich he also compiled in those same
1ears 4as not pu-lished.
58A
Pas)ii soon Boined the Bi-le Societ1 and 4as greatl1 enthusiastic a-out the translation. It
4as not the language 4hich 4as important for me%! he later stated% -ut rather the pure +ol1
Scriptures undistorted -1 commentaries. I 4ished to achiee a true e'egesis of +ol1 Scripture -1
language alone. A true understanding of +e-re4 leads to an understanding of theolog1.! 3or the
Bi-le Societ1 he translated the Psalter ?he 4rote his o4n classroom te't on the Psalms@ and
superised the printing of the Pentateuch. Een after the Bi-le Societ1 4as closed he continued
to translate: this 4or) constituted his students' lessons at the academ1. After Pas)ii left the
academ1% the students lithographed his translation on their o4n initiatie. It immediatel1 enBo1ed
4ide circulation in the ecclesiastical school milieu. The appearance of this secret! translation
aroused fears% especiall1 among S1nodal authorities. The translation 4as suppressed% the copies
sought out and collected ?this 4as in 56F:@.
There 4ere grounds for such fears and accusations. Translation of the Bi-le could not long
remain merel1 a literar1 e'ercise% and for Pas)ii it 4as not such an e'ercise. Translation is
al4a1s interpretanon. The lithographed translation 4as diided into sections 4ith chapter
headings and e'planations% and 4ith introductor1 and e'planator1 notes. In doing so% Pas)ii
most closel1 follo4ed Rosenmueller. Pas)ii left the impression that he accepted messianic
prophec1 in a er1 limited 4a1 and dou-ted the authenticit1 of arious -oo)s and te'ts. There is
no use to argue no4: those 4ere Pas)ii's actual ie4s% although he completel1 disao4ed them
under inestigation. This li-eral and critical approach to the .ld Testament corresponded to his
general religious outloo). Pas)ii 4as neither a philosopher nor a thin)er% -ut he had er1
definite religious9philosophical conictions. At the uniersit1 he first lectured on the histor1 of
the deelopment of religious ideas in human societ1.! /nder Runich 566 this 4as replaced -1 the
instruction in *hurch histor1 in conformit1 4ith Inno)entii's te't-oo). Pas)ii recommended
Eraese)e's (lau-e% 2ie-e und +offnung 56< as a hand9-oo) for students. Su-seCuenti1% he 4rote
*hristian teaching in a -rief s1stem L,hristians)oe uchenie )rat)oi sistemeM.
Pas)ii professed a highl1 personal and undefined religious moralistic idealism. Religion is
the feeling -1 4hich man's spirit in4ardl1 em-races and is -lessed -1 the Inisi-le% Eternal% and
+ol1. The stud1 of religion is designed onl1 to a4a)en% enlien% and nourish this hol1 feeling% so
that it might strengthen% enlighten% and enflame the inner man% and gie of itself the strength%
light% and life to the entire man% his complete understanding% his thoughts% desires and acts.
Thus% positie religion is simpl1 a )ind of transfer of this innate feeling into a er1 cleer
-ut inadeCuate rational element. Ritual and een dogmas are onl1 an outer shell% onl1 a hint%!
and the dogmas of reason might een suppress or dro4n this immediate hol1 feeling.! In
Pas)ii's understanding% religion approaches moralit1. And *hrist for him 4as -arel1 more than
the Teacher. Pas)ii limited the su-stance! of *hristianit1 -1 the direct testimon1 of Scripture.
I than) (od that the *hurch in 4hich I 4as -orn and educated does not compel me to
-eliee in something 4ithout proof. It permits me to dele into the pure and hol1 "ord of (od%
and if it prescri-es a thing it al4a1s indicates the -asis for its prescription in the "ord of (od
and the common oice of the enlightened teachers of the *hurch.
The *hurch em-races all confessions in so far as the1 contain the true essence! of dogmas.
Palmer 4as er1 surprised 4hen he heard of it Pas)ii 4as er1 open in his conersation 4ith
Palmer. The priest is in no 4a1 distinguisha-le from the pastor% and thus% for e'ample%
succession! 4as un-ro)en among the 2utherans.
The *hristian *hurch is merel1 the shado4 of *hrist's inisi-le and uno-taina-le )ingdom.
Among the *hristian churches the one 4hich most purel1 e'presses the idea of *hrist's )ingdom
is nearest to perfection. Each isi-le church must understand that it is onl1 on the 4a1 to
58:
perfection complete perfection is still far distant in the inisi-le church% in the )ingdom of
heaen.!
It should also -e noted that Pas)ii spo)e 4ith considera-le heat against monasticism.
*hurch histor1 has coninced me that monasticism is unclean and contrar1 to the la4 of nature.
*onseCuentl10 it is contrar1 to the la4 of (od.! Pas)ii 4as a prominent 4or)er and one of the
directors! in the Bi-le Societ1% 1et he 4as al4a1s hostile to 4hat he called the croo)ed roads!
of m1sticism. Peter Bartene 5<7 rightl1 noted that Pas)ii 4as a spo)esman for a ague%
easie% ascillating piet1%! and in this respect he 4as Cuite t1pical. Pas)ii 4as completel1
suited to Nhu)os)ii and (eneral &erder% 5<5 at 4hose suggestion Pas)ii 4as inited to -e the
religion tutor to the Tsareich ?in 56A8 he 4as compelled to leae this post under pressure
primaril1 from 3ilaret% 4ho found his theological ie4s Cuite erroneous@. This 4as the sharpest
form of 4esternism not Bust in theolog1 -ut in spiritual self a4areness: a ps1chological inclusion
in the (erman tradition. This 4as particularl1 true at the St. Peters-urg Academ1 4here true
monastic life neer e'erted a necessar1 correctie. Pas)ii 4as an outstanding philologist% and
from the philological point of ie4 his translation 4as er1 alua-le. +e 4as a-le to cone1 the
er1 st1le and literar1 manner of the hol1 4riters and the prosodic structure of the Bi-lical
language. The translator's repertoire of Russian 4ords 4as Cuite rich and fresh. Pas)ii 4as also
a gifted teacher% and imparted a good deal to his audience. +o4eer% he had fe4 direct disciples.
.nl1 S.,. Sa-inin ?5=6<956GA@% a priest 4ith the diplomatic mission in *openhagen and then in
"eimar% did an1 independent 4or). B1 4a1 of preparation Sa-inin 4rote on ho4 to understand
the meaning in The Song of Songs.! +e then 4or)ed on the Boo) of Isaiah.! In *hristian
Reading he pu-lished a series of e'egetical essa1s mostl1 dealing 4ith the Boo) of Prophets.!
After Pas)ii's translation 4as suppressed% Sa-inin turned to Scandinaian themes. +e pu-lished
a grammar of Icelandic. 3or him philological intersts 4ere uppermost% Bust as the1 4ere for
Pas)ii.
In another 4a1% Inno)entii Boriso ?567795688@ also -elonged to this same (erman!
current in Russian theolog1. +e 4as a graduate of the first course at the ,iean Academ1%
inspector of the St. Peters-urg Theological Academ1% rector of the ,iean Academ1% and finall1
arch-ishop of ,herson and Taurida. In his da1% Inno)entii 4as repeatedl1 suspected and accused
of neolog1.! An unofficial inCuest! 4as made into his manner of thought. There 4ere some
grounds for one. Inno)entii 4as interested in philosoph1 most of all. But he 4as not a thin)er. +e
had a sharp and impressionistic mind% not a creatie one. Nor 4as he a scholar. +e 4as a-le to
phrase Cuestions in an enticing 4a1% and la1 -are inCuir1 at an une'pected point0 he could sei$e
his audience's or his reader's attention and transmit the ans4ers of others 4ith great ere and
enthusiasm. .nl1 a -rilliant delier1 mas)ed the persistent lac) of creatie independence. But it
4as al4a1s delier1 and not erudition. As 3ilaret of &osco4 said a-out Inno)entii: he lac)s
Budgment% -ut he has too much imagination. In fact% Inno)entii 4as an orator% and eloCuence! is
the )e1 to his influence and success -oth in the professor's chair and in the preacher's am-o.
In his theolog1 lectures Inno)entii 4as not independent% -ut lectured on dogmatics -1
adhering to the s1stem! of Eo-ma1er% 5<F as did his theolog1 teacher Archimandrite &oisei. At
the time this s1stem! 4as used in the Austrian *atholic schools. This 4as all er1 characteristic
of this transitional! epoch > from the Enlightenment to Romanticism% from 2essing% +erder%
and ,ant to Schelling or een Baader. The fundamental and controlling concept of this s1stem!
is the idea of the ,ingdom of (od humanisticall1 e'plained as a moral communion.! The
influence of the Enlightenment 4as u-iCuitous and *hristianit1 4as depicted as a school of
natural moralit1 and -lessedness L-la$henstoM. *hristolog1 remained pale and am-iguous. All of
588
these traits can -e found in Inno)entii. *haracteristicall1% the theme of his senior thesis 4as .n
the moral character of #esus *hrist.! Inno)entii's famous -oo) The 2ast Ea1s of #esus *hrist's
Earthl1 2ife LPoslednie dni $emnoi $hi$ni Iisusa ,hrista% 56:=M is onl1 remar)a-le for its literar1
Cualities. It 4as literature% not theolog1. Inno)entii did not e'ceed the -oundaries of rhetorical
and sentimental humanism. In place of theolog1 he al4a1s offered ps1cholog10 in place of
histor1 he offered rhetorics. Inno)entii neer sounded the true depths of spiritual life. +e 4as
eclectic. There 4ere still man1 elements of the Enlightenment in his outloo)% 1et he 4as
po4erfull1 attracted -1 Ale'andrine m1sticism. In his lectures he often d4elled on the pietist
tradition and 4ith great s1mpath1 referred to 3enelon% (u1on% #ung9Stilling% and Ec)artshausen%
4ho had done so much that 4as useful.! Inno)entii often spo)e on Schu-ert l<A themes: dreams
and death. .f course he spo)e a-out The Seer of Preorst. l<: +e s)irted the cosmological
motifs in theolog1. All nature is a portrait of the &ost +igh% perfect and complete.! An echo of
m1stical natural philosoph1 can -e detected in that statement.
Inno)entii is still interesting to read. Naturall1% it 4ould -e more interesting to hear him.
Seeral passages in Bishop Inno)entii's lectures 4ere calculated solel1 for the effect the1 might
hae on the audience and not for their effect on paper0 he 4as a cascading fire4or)s of talent
4hich one can onl1 ie4 unsteadil1 from a distance% for% in approaching him in earnest% one
receies the unpleasant smell of smo)e rather than the pleasant impression of light pla1fulness.
?P.;. Nnamens)ii@ 5<8 Eer1 attempt to imitate or follo4 Inno)entii seemed false. +e neither
had% nor could hae had% successors% although there 4ere unsuccessful mimics. Inno)entii had a
real dramatic gift. 3ilaret of ,ie said it 4as religious demagoguer1.! Inno)entii 4as a-le to
s4a1 een such a hardened spirit! as Rostislao% as 4ell as religious dreamers and see)ers of
speculatie reelations. Inno)entii's listeners sa4 a stern and impressie theological truth in him%
dressed in a spar)ling attire the1 neer imagined% for the1 4ere so accustomed to a scholastic
delier1. It 4as not so much the po4er of his thought -ut his liel1 imagination! that 4as
stri)ing: The po4er of the mind 4as released in a 4ealth of images.! Inno)entii's daring 4as
largel1 irresponsi-le speculation and superficialit1. No matter ho4 dear it 4as to the famous
hierarch% the cast of his mind and the Cualit1 of his a-ilities did not and could not produce a ne4
epoch in theolog1. Art% the fine art of the human 4ord > that 4as his calling.! This 4as 4ritten
a-out Inno)entii -1 &a)arii Bulga)o l<G in a solemn o-ituar1 for the Proceedings L.tchet1M of
the Academ1 of Sciences. &a)arii added: .ne does not encounter *hristian profundit1 and
theological erudition.! Strangel1 enough% Inno)entii e'aggeratedl1 praised &a)arii's dogmatic
theolog1 and his -elated effort to return to the scholastic manner 4ith its oddl1 inert rational
thought and lac) of curiosit1.
"hen in the 56:7's the thought arose to replace 3ilaret's *atechism 4ith another more
ecclesiastical one ?that is% a more Roman *atholic one@% Inno)entii 4as the first person to come
to mind. +is old teacher% Archdeacon S)ortso% l<= put it to him this 4a1: If 1ou are of a li)e
mind 4ith seeral of us% then 4hat 4e need is not a -road )no4ledge of philosoph1% 4e need
onl1 reealed theolog1 L-ogosloie ot)roennoeM.! In his 1ounger da1s Inno)entii had -een
reprimanded precisel1 -ecause he discussed philosophical formulas rather than positie theolog1
under the ru-ric of dogmatics. +e entranced his audience 4ith them. But he 4as onl1
emotionall1 ta)en up 4ith philosoph1 and 4as more interested in the pol1semantic ans4ers of
the philosophers than he 4as agitated -1 their Cuestions. Inno)entii 4as an erudite and an orator.
+e 4as not an historian and his efforts at historical e'position 4ere al4a1s 4ea). 3or seeral
long 1ears he prepared the pu-lication of his Eogmatic Essa1s LEogmatiches)ii S-orni)M% as he
called it% or A &onument of the .rthodo' 3aith LPamiatni) er1 praoslanoiM . It 4as intended
58G
to -e precisel1 a collection of essa1s > a collection of instructions in faith presented and
e'plained in chronological order. But Inno)entii did not touch upon the idea of liing Tradition
4ith all its manifold dimensions. The essa1s remained unpu-lished. Inno)entii's undou-ted
serice 4as founding the Bournal Sunda1 Reading L;os)resnoe *htenieM at the ,ie Theological
Academ1 in 56A=. The Bournal 4as more didactic than scholarl1.
As a preacher Inno)entii most closel1 resem-les &assillon. 5<6 +e 4as connected in eer1
4a1 4ith 4estern tradition. Patristic motifs are hardl1 detecta-le. &oreoer% he re4or)ed an
entire series of /niate acathisti under the domination of this sentimental spirit% of this pla1 of
pious imagination.
In this regard% Inno)entii ma1 -e compared 4ith his ,iean contemporar1 and colleague I.
,. Amfiteatro ?567F956:6@% in his da1 a er1 4ell9)no4n professor of homiletics at the
academ1. +is 2ectures on *hurch Philolog1 L*hteniia o tser)onoi sloesnostiM appeared in
56:=. Amfiteatro turned from 3rench models in sermonr1 to patristic ones. Det the sentimental
strain% practicall1 a hol1 melanchol1%! 4as er1 strong in him. It 4as a preference for sorro4
and dreaminess ?Hthe sun shone% -ut the light 4as sorro4 to him . . .!@.
To a certain e'tent 4esternism! 4as inescapa-le in the dail1 routine of the reformed
ecclesiastical schools. 3oreign -oo)s and te'ts 4ere necessar1 for stud1. The first tas) of a
teacher 4as to introduce the contemporar1 scholarl1 and pedagogical materials of the 4estern
theological schools into a Russian school idiom. "ith the gradual transition to Russian
instruction% the Cuestion of composing or translating te't-oo)s! -ecame much more pointed
than it had -een 4hen 2atin 4as the sole language of theological instruction and learning -oth in
Russia and in the "est. The Statute of 565: encouraged teachers to compose their o4n notes or
te'ts. Euring the return to the time of scholasticism! such actiities came under suspicion% and
control and sureillance made them difficult. In those first decades of the nineteenth centur1% the
students learned from foreign te't-oo)s in translation% in the original% or sometimes in
paraphrase. The first Russian -oo)s 4ere no more than paraphrases. 3or +ol1 Scripture
&etropolitan Amrosii Podo-edo's 5<< +and-oo) for Reading +ol1 Scriptures LRu)oodsto )
chteniiu S. Pisaniia% &osco4% 5=<<M% a paraphrase of a -oo) -1 +ofmann% F77 4as used% as 4as
Ram-ach's Institutiones hermeneuticae sacrae. F75 Ioann Eo-ro$ra)o% F7F at one time the
rector of the St. Peters-urg Theological Academ1% composed his dissertation% Eelineation
hermeneuticae sacrae generalis ?56F6@ on the -asis of Ram-ach. It 4as also used as a te't-oo).!
In conceptual! theolog1% that is theoretical or dogmatic theolog1% all the -oo)s of the preious
centur1 4ere retained. Pro)opoich 4as included% -ut most often it 4as Irinei 3al')os)ii and
onl1 rarel1 the Russian -oo)s of Platon% &a)arii Petroich% or no4 and then Ti)hon Nadons)ii's
.n True *hristianit1. Ne4 authorities appeared in the academies: Eo-ma1er in ,ie0 F7A at the
&osco4 Academ1 rector Poli)arp lectured from 2i-ermann F7: and made use of the other ne4
courses coming from (erman1. Some4hat later 3ilaret (umiles)ii lectured from ,lee F78 and
Brenner% F7G and not 4ithout reference to the opinions of (erman rationalism.! At the same
time the 4or)s of the 3athers 4ere recommended% -ut in practice at the time attention 4as alinost
4holl1 deoted to modern literature. Rector Poli)arp had the ha-it of producing testimon1 from
the 3athers of the Eastern *hurch% and the students in the upper classes 4ould stud1 these
e'tracts. In moral or actie! theolog1% the usual te't-oo) 4as Buddeus% usuall1 as reised -1
3eofila)t. Sometimes Schu-ert's theolog1 4as used% translated from the 2atin -1 the ,ostroma
Archpriest I. Arsen'e F7= ?567:@ or also the te't of Archdeacon I.S. ,ocheto% *haracteristics of
an actie stud1 of faith L*hert1 deiatel'nago ucheniia er1M . This 4as a Russian re4or)ing of
Inno)entii Smirno's 2atin lectures compiled according to Buddeus and &osheim. 3ilaret
58=
(umiles)ii remar)ed that the 2atin notes of the rector 4ere translated into Russian and that
4as all there 4as to it.!
The -asic te't-oo) for pastoral theolog1 4as the useful -ut aged -oo) -1 Parfenii
Sop)os)ii% -ishop of Smolens)% A -oo) on the duties of parish pres-1ters L,niga o
dol$hnostia)h presitero pri)hods)i)hM F76 4hich some preferred to the translated *atholic te't
-1 (iftschut$. F7< In liturgics either the Ne4 Ta-let LNoaia S)ri$hal'M or a -oo) -1 I.I.
Emitres)ii% An +istorical and &1sterious e'planation of the Eiine 2iturg1 LIstoriches)oe i
tainstennoe o-iasnenie Bo$hestennoi liturgii% 567:M F57 4ere most often used. It 4as usual to
turn to foreign -oo)s on composition. Besides 2atin -oo)s% the most important -oo)s for
4riting a dissertation 4ere those in (erman. Therefore% after entering the academ1% the students
deoted all their energies to learning (erman in order to read (erman -oo)s.! This is stated -1
the historian of the &osco4 Academ1% and this situation lasted nearl1 the entire nineteenth
centur1. /nder such conditions% the sharpest impact of that confessional milieu in 4hich the
theological inestigation and la-or 4ent for4ard in the "est 4as a-solutel1 inescapa-le. It 4as
noted immediatel1. 3or man1 it meant timidit1 and 4aering% sometimes een outright fear.
"ould it not -e -etter to aoid this encounter completel1% refuse contact 4ith the traditions of
4estern learning and science% and not sample the du-ious foreign sourcesI In realit1% the constant
reading of foreign -oo)s 4as not harmless. +o4eer% the chief danger 4as not that theological
thought must 4restle 4ith difficult arguments or -ecome sidetrac)ed. &uch more important 4as
the possi-ilit1 that the er1 soul 4ould -e -isected and cut off from firm moorings. Intimate
comments in letters -et4een friends or in diaries are especiall1 instructie and illustratie in this
connection. The friendl1 correspondence -et4een 3ilaret (umiles)ii and A.;. (ors)ii proides
interesting e'amples. ECuili-rium could onl1 -e restored through ascetic igil and pra1er.
The danger la1 in the artificial character of the schools% 4hich 4ere not -ound organicall1
4ith life% 4ith the actual life of the *hurch. *lerical 1ouths lied for 1ears in the artifical semi9
isolation of the half .rthodo'% half9Russian schools. +a-its of a-stract theori$ing 4ere
cultiated0 a self9st1led dream1 intellectualism deeloped. The circumstances of the Ale'andrine
epoch and the -eginnings of Romanticism greatl1 facilitated it . . .
+o4eer% no matter ho4 difficult and dangerous this 4estern! stage 4as% it 4as
inescapa-le. It had to -e accepted as such and as a relatie truth. 3or it is possi-le to sae oneself
from the dangers of thought onl1 -1 creatiit1% not -1 prohi-itions . . .
Church and %tate /nder Nicholas !.
The fall of the &inistr1 of Religious Affairs! in 56F:% the oerthro4 of that Eg1ptian
1o)e%! as &etropolitan Seraphim put it% did not alter the general character of *hurch9state
relations. 3otii ainl1 hastened to announce that in the glor1 of (od the 3ather% the 2ord #esus
*hrist alone is our minister%! for a secular man! still held po4er in the *hurch. Shish)o% een
though not a minister of a com-ined ministr1%! continued to interfere in the affairs of S1nodal
administration on the Cuestions of the *atechism and Bi-lical translation. The process of
conerting *hurch administration into a department! 4as actuall1 speeded up under the .er
ProcuratorS.E. Nechae ?56AA956AG@. F55 "ithout preliminar1 permission% 4ithout hesitating to
decide matters automaticall1% 4ithout consulting the S1nod and een altering S1nodal decisions
4hile closing off the path of retreat -1 imperial confirmation of his reports% the .er Procurator
concentrated all S1nodal affairs and relations in his hands. Nechae% a &ason% 4as contemptuous
of -oth the clerg1 and the hierarch1.
586
Suddenl1% as if from no4here% police reports -egan to appear against the hierarchs and
mem-ers of the +ol1 S1nod. These reports largel1 turned out to -e lies. .ur chanceller1
suspected that the .er Procurator assisted in these reports% in order to humiliate *hurch
administration in Russia. +ierarchs and mem-ers of the S1nod Bustified themseles as -est the1
could. The S1nod 4as greatl1 agitated% 4hile the .er Procurator% giing the appearance of
agitation and encouraging the dissatisfaction of the mem-ers% declared that the regime of police
sureillance did more harm than good.
This is ho4 Ismailo% a contemporar1 -ureaucrat in the S1nodal *hanceller1% recounted
these eents in his memoirs.! Een 3ilaret of &osco4 fell under suspicion. In an official report
he 4as goaded into the incautious remar) that the right of the police to report rumors 4ithout
the least responsi-ilit1 for false information impedes the freedom of administration and distur-s%
in 4ord and deed% the tranCuilit1 of Russian su-Bects.! This 4as an outright condemnation of the
gendarme principle. Euring Nicholas' reign such remar)s 4ere not forgotten% een in the case of
metropolitans. .nce again during the cholera of 56A7 3ilaret appeared dislo1al% 4hen in his
sermon he spo)e too freCuentl1 a-out the sins of )ings and a-out Eiine punishments. 3inall1% it
4ould seem at 3ilaret's insistence% the idea to appoint the Tsareich% the future Ale'ander II% to a
seat in the S1nod in conformit1 4ith his inclusion in the Senate and other higher state -odies 4as
reBected. "ith a surprising lac) of delicac1% 3ilaret referred to the internal autonom1 of the
*hurch. Een to catch sight of 3ilaret -ecame an unpleasantr1 for the Emperor Nicholas.
3ilaret had his o4n theor1 a-out the state% a theor1 of the +ol1 ,ingdom. +e certainl1 did
not conform to the official and officious doctrine of state soereignt1. The Soereign receies
his entire legitimac1 from the *hurch's anointment%! that is% in the *hurch and through the
*hurch. And onl1 the Soereign is anointed% not the state. Therefore the organs of state po4er
possess no Burisdiction in *hurch affairs. 3ilaret's cast of mind 4as utterl1 foreign to the state
-ureaucrats of the Nicholaitan era. 3or them 3ilaret 4as a dangerous li-eral. Sideline o-serers
held the same opinion. 3ilaret 4as er1 cleer in humiliating the temporal po4er0 in his
sermons there 4as the light of that ague *hristian socialism 4hich -eamed from 2acordaire FlF
and other far9sighted *atholics! ?This 4as +er$en's estimate in &1 Past and Thoughts LB1loe i
dum1M.@.
Eissatisfaction 4ith Nechae reached such a pitch that the Tsar 4as as)ed to appoint a more
4or)a-le .er Procurator. The assistant to the .er Procurator% A.N. &ura'e% pla1ed a decisie
part in this plan. *ount N.A. Prataso 4as appointed. +e turned out to -e een more po4erful
than Nechae. +e had a completel1 ela-orated s1stem of reform% and he possessed the a-ilit1 to
gather shre4d and a-le e'ecutors of his designs. Prataso faithfull1 promoted the Nicholaitan
esta-lishment or regime in *hurch politics. State integration of *hurch administration 4as
completed precisel1 in this period. +ence9forth the *hurch 4as )no4n as the Eepartment of the
.rthodo' *onfession.! The clerg1 and the hierarch1 4ere included. The office of .er
Procurator 4as transformed -1 means of a S1nodal *ommand! from an organ of state
sureillance and superision into an organ of real po4er. This 4as entirel1 in harmon1 4ith the
spirit of Peter's reform. In those same' 1ears Sperans)ii 4as minting precise formulae in the
Petrine spirit.
As a *hristian soereign the Emperor is the supreme defender and guardian of the dogmas
of the ruling faith and o-serer of orthodo'1 LpraoerieM and all good order in the +ol1 *hurch.
In this sense% the Emperor% in the la4 of succession to the throne ?April 8% 5=<=@% is called the
+ead of the *hurch. The Autocratic po4er is implemented in *hurch administration -1 means of
58<
the &ost +ol1 (oerning S1nod 4hich it has esta-lished. ?3undamental 2a4s L.snon1e
$a)on1M% articles :F and :A of the 56AF edition.@.
Prataso loo)ed upon *hurch affairs solel1 from the point of ie4 of state interest as the
teaching to 4hich our 3atherland has lent its moral authorit1.! +e -uilt an Empire and put a
church on it. Educated -1 a #esuit goernor% surrounded -1 assistants and adisors ta)en for the
most part from the former Polots) /niate *ollege% Prataso 4as the epitome of a self st1led and
profane -ureaucratic 2atinism. The urge to4ard precise definitions 4as lin)ed to the -arrac)s9
li)e and reactionar1 spirit of that epoch. Prataso had no s1mpath1 to4ard Rome. But
Romani$ed -oo)s on theolog1 and canon la4 corresponded to his o4n personal tastes. Not onl1
did he 4ish to rule the *hurch administration% Prataso 4anted to reorgani$e and reconstruct it in
harmon1 4ith the fundamental principles of an a-solute confessional state. This design
constitutes his historical significance. Prior to his appointment to the S1nod% precisel1 during the
period 4hen the /niersit1 Statute! and the Statute on School Eistricts! 4as reised in 56A8%
Prataso 4as /aro's assistant in the &inistr1 of Education. FlA In that ministr1 a plan to
reform the ecclesiastical schools had -een prepared 4hich full1 conformed to the minister's anti9
clerical and pedagogical ie4s. "as not the er1 e'istence of a special ecclesiastical school
net4or) simpl1 the manifestation of a dangerous class egoism% an e'traordinaril1 harmful
ocational egoismI! "as not the entire Statute of 565: antiCuatedI The &inistr1 sternl1
critici$ed the entire educational s1stem -ased on fear. It underscored the insufficient and
deficient te'ts as 4ell as the failings of the entire educational program% especiall1 the harm
philosoph1 might do 4hen applied to theolog1. "ould it not reduce to m1th that 4hich is -e1ond
human understandingI Parish and district Lue$dM schools 4ere to -e com-ined and transferred to
the &inistr1 of Education.
.nce more 3ilaret defended the ecclesiastical schools and the class accused of harmful
egoism. The Cuestion of transferring or eliminating the schools 4as dropped. Prataso insisted on
reforms% -ut the *ommission on Ecclesiastical Schools 4as un4illing either to e'pand the
Cuestion or contemplate reforms. It 4as satisfied to ree'amine merel1 the te't-oo)s and course
plans su-mitted -1 the arious seminaries.
Prataso decided to circument the *ommission and een the S1nod. In 56A<% on the
strength of his o4n Imperial Report% the *ommission 4as dissoled and replaced -1 a special
Ecclesiastical9Educational Administration. Such a step 4as logical% since the *ommission on
Ecclesiastical Schools 4as organicall1 lin)ed 4ith the preious school structure 4hich 4as no4
to -e su-stantiall1 altered. Eiscussion centered precisel1 on the change of principles% ideals% and
goals. The principle of social deelopment and cultural gro4th placed at the foundation of all the
educational measures of the Ale'andrine period seemed dangerous% disintegratie% artificial% and
useless to Prataso. +e 4anted to turn -ac) once more to the eighteenth centur1 4ith its serice
professionalism. The former statute openl1 declared learning! to -e the special aim of these
schools. This 4as e'actl1 4hat Prataso did not 4ant. It 4as precisel1 this self9contained and
dead learning! 4hich it 4as a-oe all necessar1 to eliminate% particularl1 that disreputa-le and
godless science! philosoph1. According to Prataso's estimate% preiousl1 in man1 respects the
education of Russia's clerical 1ouths rested on an ar-itrar1% non9.rthodo' foundation 4hich had
something in common 4ith arious Protestant sects.! This 4as an o-ious re-u)e of the
Ale'andrine period. The former statute e'plicitl1 proposed to adhere directl1 to the latest
discoeries and achieements.! This meant that non9.rthodo'! and ar-itrar1! stud1. +ere
Prataso ino)ed the 4ords of *hr1sostom: (ood ignorance is -etter than poor )no4ledge. . . .!
5G7
At an1 rate% 4hat 4as needed 4as a scientific course and instruction suita-le to the conditions of
illage life.
The students leae the seminaries to -ecome illage priests. The1 must )no4 illage life
and -e a-le to assist the peasant een in his dail1 affairs. Thus% 4hat use is all this theolog1 to a
illage priestI "h1 does he need philosoph1% that science of freethin)ing% nonsense% egoism% and
-oastingI "hat are trigonometr1% differentials% and integrals to himI It 4ould -e -etter to
strengthen his )no4ledge of *atechetics% *hurch statutes% and singing. That is enough. 2et the
higher sciences remain in the academies.
This 4as ho4 Archimandrite Ni)odim ,a$antse% a former teacher at the &osco4
Academ1% interpreted Prataso's instructions. Ni)odim 4as at that time rector of ;iat)a Seminar1
and had -een summoned -1 the .er Procurator in order to compose ne4 statutes. Fl: Prataso
and his intimate assistant% ,arases)ii% F58 did all the1 could to inculcate this narro4 principle
of professionalism in Ni)odim. Eer1 cadet among us )no4s his 4eapons and ho4 to march0 a
sailor )no4s the name% place and strength of eer1 last nail in the ship0 an engineer gauges eer1
conceia-le cro4-ar% hoo)% and rope. But 4e clerg1 do not )no4 our clerical -usiness.! B1
clerical -usiness! Prataso understood not onl1 the statute! and singing%! -ut also the a-ilit1
to spea) 4ith the people.! It 4as this pretentious populism! 4hich gae the proBected reform
its polemical character. Prataso merel1 deeloped and applied the ideas of ,isele. F5G *adres
of elementar1 teachers 4ho could teach moralit1 to the people must -e created. The clerg1 4as
to -e adapted to that end.
#udging -1 the first sure1% it 4ould seem that the illage priest% haing contact 4ith people
4ho are read1 to accept in childish simplicit1 eer1thing spo)en -1 their pastor% has need not so
much of a detailed and deep )no4ledge of science% as an a-ilit1 to elucidate *hristian truths and
moralit1 of the (ospels simpl1 and clearl1% phrasing those truths of the (ospel in such a 4a1 that
the1 are suita-le for the simple minds of the illagers and relating them to the circumstances of
illage life. . . .
Prataso's entire design 4as nothing other than a 4ager on simplicit1! Lsta)a na
oproshchenieM . In the circumstances of illage life! 4ould it not -e more useful to master dail1
and practical ha-its than acCuire a deep )no4ledge of scienceI! "ould it not -e -etter to )no4
the rudiments of medicine and firml1 understand the fundamental principles of agricultureI
Should not these su-Bects -e introduced and strengthened in the seminar1 programs at the
e'pense of cold learningI!
Prataso proposed to strengthen the non9clerical class features throughout the school s1stem
and impart to all instruction a direction consistent 4ith the needs of illage parishioners: '
Prataso defined the aim of all ecclesiastical schools as the education of 4orth1 seritors of the
altar and preachers of the "ord of the 2ord to the people.! +is proposals 4ere decisiel1
opposed in the *ommission on Ecclesiastical Schools. 3ilaret su-mitted a point -1 point
refntarion of them and as)ed ho4 much these proposals 4ere in harmon1 4ith the spirit of
*hurch la4: ' .nl1 during the summer a-sence of 3ilaret of &osco4 and 3ilaret of ,ie 4as
Prataso a-le to push through the *ommission a proposal for certain alterations in the te't-oo)s
and curriculum. The teacher of literature 4as reminded that the direct aim of his 4or) is to
educate a person 4ho can correctl1% freel1% e'pressiel1% and conincingl1 conerse 4ith the
people a-out the truths of faith and moralit1.! Therefore% secular rhetorics% poetics% and so on
might -e passed oer Cuic)l1. +igher criticism in histor1 instruction is to -e aoided% for as a
4eapon in the hands of a one9sided logician it threatens to destro1 historical monuments! ?that
is% their eracit1@% Bust as ar-itrar1 s1stemi$ation! 4as to -e aoided 4here nations or
5G5
personalities are depicted as -earers of some sort of ideas fatal for them.! Some4hat
une'pectedl1% a 2atin program 4as proposed for philosoph1: Philosoph1 is accustomed to spea)
in 2atin: ' Is not this preference for 2atin more readil1 e'plained -1 the fear that to carr1 on a
pu-lic discussion of philosoph1 in a readil1 understood language might -e dangerousI .nl1 the
most general directions 4ere gien for teaching theolog1: let it -e taught so that the priest ma1
easil1 adapt and appl1 it 4hen he finds an opportunit1 to conerse 4ith a simple person -orn a
&ohammedan or a pagan% or 4ho has conerted from *hristianit1.! .ne need not resole
Cuestions and dou-ts 4hich the innocent mind does not een suspect: ' Peter &ogila's .rthodo'
*onfession LPraoslanoe ispoedanieM 4as to -e placed at the foundation of this instruction% and
the details of theolog1 are to -e confirmed -1 reference to it.! The .rthodo' *onfession 4as
pu-lished in modern Russian -1 the S1nod in that same 1ear% 56A6. In addition% a ne4 su-Bect
4as to -e introduced in the seminar1 curriculum% the histor1 of the +ol1 3athers% for 4hich it
4as still necessar1 to 4or) out and compile a te't-oo).
At that time Prataso 4as most concerned 4ith the pu-lication of reference te'ts 4hich
could -e consulted as easil1 and unreseredl1 as if the1 4ere the teaching and inBunction of the
*hurch on eer1 dimension of ecclesiastical life. In addition to Peter &ogila's *onfession the
Imperial and Patriarchal charters on the esta-lishment of the +ol1 S1nod% 4ith an e'position of
the .rthodo' *onfession of the Eastern *hurch LTsars)aia i patriarshiia gramat1 o uchre$hdenii
Siat. Sinoda% s i$lo$heniem Praoslanago ispoedaniia Postochno9,afoliches)iia Tser)iM 4as
issued. F5= The translation and editorial 4or) 4as underta)en -1 3ilaret of &osco4% 4ho
introduced er1 important corrections in the te't in an effort to eliminate 2atinisms ?e.g.% the
inBunction to la1men against reading the +ol1 Scriptures and the term transu-stantiation!
LpresushchestlenieM 4ere eliminated@. F56 Su-seCuentl1 the Ecclesiastical9Educational
Administration prescri-ed that copies of these charters! -e gien to the students at the seminar1
4hen the1 attained the highest form% so that upon finishing the school and leaing the seminar1%
the1 might )eep this -oo) for constant reference.! The Cuestion of the *atechism 4as once more
raised -1 Prataso in connection 4ith the pu-lication of these Boo)s of S1m-ols.! Prataso%
supported -1 Ser-inoich% F5< the director of his chanceller1% insisted on introducing ne4
Cuestions and ans4ers on Tradition and predestination and omitting those a-out natural
)no4ledge of (od in isi-le nature. 3ilaret refused to include an e'position of the so9called
commandments of the *hurch! FF7 in the *atechism% for he found them superfluous alongside
(od's *ommandments. Instead% the commandments concerning the Beatitudes 4ere included ?as
the1 had -een in the .rthodo' *onfession@. No su-stantial changes 4ere made in the *atechism.
The moment passed 4ithout incident. 3ilaret 4as satisfied 4ith the ne4 edition of his *atechism.
After correction% together 4ith its attendant additions% it 4as no longer merel1 a catechism% -ut a
theological s1stem! in summation. In as much as there is no -oo) approed for theolog1% and
our theologians do not al4a1s guide the 4ord of truth correctl1% I 4as moed to supplement the
catechism.! +o4eer% Prataso and Ser-inoich 4ere soon dissatisfied. In the ne't fe4 1ears the
Cuestion 4as seeral times raised of composing a ne4 catechism -1 a ne4 author. In the 5687's
the name &a)arii 4as selected. FF5
In 56A<% the Boo) of 2a4s L,niga prailM 4as pu-lished to replace The Rudder L,ormchaia
)nigaM. FFF .nl1 *hurch la4s 4ere included in it0 ciil legislation 4as omitted. /nli)e 4hat 4as
done for ciil legislation under Sperans)ii% Prataso found it untimel1 to pu-lish a complete
collection! of *hurch la4s in ie4 of the unseemliness! ?as he Bustified it@ of man1 la4s of the
Petrine era and the entire preceding centur1. Their pu-lication might -e some4hat a4)4ard and
perhaps een inBurious. The *omplete *ollection of ecclesiastical legislation in Russia since the
5GF
esta-lishment of the +ol1 S1nod LPolnoe so-ranie du)hon1)h u)a$onenii Rossii so remeni
uchre$hdeniia Siat. SinodaM alread1 compiled -1 Professor A. ,units1n FFA 4as therefore left
in manuscript% Bust as the e'tensie canonical code of Agustin Sa)haro% Bishop of .ren-urg%
FF:% 4as found unsuita-le. Een the Spiritual Regulation FF8 4as not repu-lished during this era
of repu-lication. A Statute on ecclesiastical consistories L/sta du)hon1)h )onsistoriiM 4as
ne4l1 composed and introduced for temporar1 use in the same 1ear% 56A6% and its final te't 4as
confirmed and repu-lished in 56:5. 3or Prataso's edifice% t4o pillars 4ere intimatel1 connected:
on the one hand% utilit1% order and discipline% and on the other hand% professional Cualification
and strict delineation of the entire order -1 4ritten rules or la4s. Prataso did not li)e
monasticism% 4hich 4as logical from the state's point of ie4. +e preferred to raise clerical
1ouths! in a more practical and secular 4a1. +e preferred the uniform to the cassoc)% as
Rostislao er1 interestingl1 relates in his memoirs ?especiall1 in the chapter .n the reform of
the St. Peters-urg Theological Academ1 primaril1 on the model of the -attalion of militar1
cantons!@.
.nl1 in 56:7 4ere ne4 course outlines for the seminaries finall1 4or)ed out and approed.
The1 4ere introduced in the &osco4 and ,a$an' districts in the fall of that 1ear. 3or all of his
stu--ornness and persistence% Prataso 4as forced to gie 4a1 in a great deal. +e had to -e
satisfied 4ith a compromise. The ne4 su-Bects 4hich he 4anted% general medicine! and
agriculture% 4ere added to the seminar1 curriculum. But the general character of instruction
femained unaltered. .nl1 the Russian language 4as permitted for teaching all su-Bects% and 2atin
4as treated as a separate discipline. &odern languages and +e-re4 4ere electies. It 4as
suggested that philosoph1 -e confined to ps1cholog1 and logic% 4hile e'cluding other -ranches
of metaph1sics. These changes in instruction did not -ecome generali$ed.! But the logical
coherence and core of courses 4hich so fruitfull1 distinguished the schools under the
Ale'andrine statute 4as lost. An interesting innoation 4as the preparator1 course for the
priesthood! for those 4ho had alread1 finished. This course 4as a morepractical program% 4hich
included isits to cit1 hospitals in order to learn simple methods of healing. No su-stantial
changes 4ere included in the academ1 course outlines. .nl1 the distri-ution of courses
according to class 4as altered. Ne4 courses and een ne4 chairs 4ere esta-lished: patristics% a
theological enc1clopedia%! pedagog1% Russian ciil histor1% and so on. +o4eer% the most
important thing > the spirit of the times > 4as altered.
Prataso sought for the clerical ro-e ne4 people 4ho 4ould -e a-le to transcri-e his designs
into the more technical language of the *hurch and theolog1. After seeral attempts and failures%
he found his man among the &osco4 teachers: Afanasii Ero$do% then rector of the ,herson
Seminar1 in .dessa. FFG *ount Prataso found certain pet ideas in Archimandrite Afanasii and
raised him upon his shoulders! ?in the 4ords of &etropolitan 3ilaret@. +e 4as transferred as
rector to the St. Peters-urg Academ1.
Afanasii occupied no chair and taught no su-Bects at the academ1. But he 4as entrusted 4ith
the superision of all teachers% and he cone1ed to them the correct ideas a-out their su-Bects.
&oreoer Afanasii 4as appointed to preside oer a special committee on te't-oo)s and course
outlines. The entire -lo4 4as no4 concentrated on the educational program. The first theme
around 4hich de-ate s4irled ?-oth orall1 and in 4riting@ 4as +ol1 Scripture. Afanasii 4as not
content to distinguish t4o sources of )no4ledge a-out faith% Scripture and Tradition% as
independent and separate su-Bects. +e 4ished to diminish Scripture. .ne detects personal pain in
the passion and irresponsi-ilit1 4ith 4hich Afanasii proed the insufficienc1 ?actuall1 the
hopelessness@ of Scripture. Afanasii frightened contemporaries 4ith his arrogance. It seems to
5GA
me that the grace of the Spirit has recoiled from him% and he is often 4ithout peace and
consolation in the +ol1 Spirit%! remar)ed Eseii .rlins)ii ?later arch-ishop of &ogile@% FF=
4ho replaced him as rector. In such circumstances he tortures himself and does not )no4 4hat
to do 4ith himself. +e catches on some haught1 dream and then forgets it0 he is carried a4a1 or
puts on airs% and then once more -ehaes pitifull1.! The source of theological suspiciousness% not
Bust caution% ma1 -e found in this inner uncertaint1% or in his lac) of firm faith. Afanasii% 1es%
Afanasii alone and no one else preaches: J&ogila's *onfession and The Rudder are all there is
for me > and there is nothing else%' 4rote 3ilaret (umiles)ii to A.;. (ors)ii. .ne might add:
and not een the 3athers or the Bi-le. Afanasii 4anted to steer himself a4a1 4ith The Rudder
from all dou-t. As (ors)ii records from these same comments of &etropolitan 3ilaret% Afanasii
-elieed in the *hurch -oo)s een more than in the "ord of (od. Dou cannot -e saed -1 the
"ord of (od% onl1 the *hurch -oo)s can sae 1ou . . . . Afanasii 4as a coninced and
consistent o-scurantist% and his pessimistic o-scurantism sprang from dou-t and the lac) of faith.
Eer1thing 4as in dou-t. Ni)anor of ,herson FF6 s1mpatheticall1 and 4ith commiseration
depicted Afanasii's sinister and tragic image. Afanasii 4as neither ignorant nor indifferent. +e
4as a passionatel1 inCuisitie and curious man. A sharp mind a-le to plunge to the depths of
matters%! said Ni)anor. But it 4as a proud and spiteful mind. Afanasii did not read Russian -oo)s
een in the later 1ears of literar1 a4a)ening. A-solute ru--ish% m1 dear -o1.! +e read onl1
foreign -oo)s% -oth old and modern. +e 4as interested most of all in the Bi-le% and he 4as an
e'cellent +e-raist. +e 4as interested in the histor1 of ancient religions% the epoch of earl1
*hristianit1% and he reread all the 3athers to Photius. FF< +e )ne4 contemporar1 (erman
*hristolog1! from Bauer to Strauss% FA7 the natural sciences% and not Bust from -oo)s. +e )ept a
her-arium and collected minerals. 3rom such a surfeit of )no4ledge and interests he 4ea)ened
and fell to dou-ting. +e -ecame frightened and dou-ted himself. As an older man he 4rote
oluminousl1% he 4rote enormous% thorough% and su-stantial inestigations% 4hich 4ere of
s1stematic importance.! But he -urned eer1thing. +e 4rote and -urned.! Det something 4as
saed from this destruction. The manuscript of the -oo) The Belieers in *hrist and *hristians
L,hristoer1 i ,hristianaM% on 4hich Afanasii la-ored in his later 1ears 4as presered. The -oo)
is a-out the origins of *hristianit1. The chapter headings are er1 curious. The author
distinguishes the -elieers in *hrist! from *hristianit1 4ithout *hrist! and -efore #esus
*hrist. +e studied the histor1% teachings% and tradition of this *hristianit1. +e sought among the
apologists for organic remains! of it ?Hnot that *hristianit1 4hich ta)es its -eginnings from
#esus *hrist% -ut a different one 4hich preceded it!@. The Essenes% Therapeutae% and Philo are the
lin)s in the chain of facts he studied. FA5 The effort -1 4riters among the -elieers in *hrist to
efface from the historical monuments all the eidence a-out *hristians long in adance of the
*hristian faith! did not completel1 succeed. The (ospel of &arcion! FAF occupied a prominent
place in this process of transformation of *hristianit1 into a *atholic *hristian -elief.!
In Ni)anor's account% Afanasii 4as su-Bect to the most oppressie inner grief% and
su-Bected -1 a sic) mind% -ut not as one 4ho is the product of simple insanit1% rather his sic)ness
flo4ed from a surplus of )no4ledge% from the impossi-ilit1 of reconciling intellectual
antinomies% from a temporar1 and passing tur-ulence% from the principles im-i-ed 4ith his
mother's mil) 4hich -egan to gro4 in his soul.! This is that sinister tur-ulence! of heartfelt
-eliefs0 it is the grief of a heart 4hich dou-ts eer1thing% and Afanasii's reactionar1 an'iet1 gre4
in this Cua)ing soil. That man 4ill -urn people on a -onfire% he 4ill hand oer hol1 essels for
desecration% 1et he 4ill remain half coninced that he does so for the -enefit of man)ind%! 4rote
3ilaret (umiles)ii% condemning Afanasii's policies. The cooperation -et4een Afanasii and
5G:
Prataso > that union of profound dou-t and po4erful presumption > could not last long.
These t4o men agreed onl1 on practical conclusions% not on premises. "ithin fie 1ears0
Afanasii 4as sent to distant Sarato as -ishop.
Afanasii -egan his career of reaction at the St. Peters-urg Academ1 4hen he for-ade
,arpo FAA to lecture from his o4n notes% and compelled him to lecture strictl1 according to
"in)ler. FA: True% ,arpo -egan to lecture criticall1! according to "in)ler% that is% unsparingl1
refuting him and then turning 4ith a passion to the histor1 of philosoph1. Euring the first 1ear of
his administration at the academ1% Afanasii presented his o4n te't-oo)% A concise hermeneutic
LSo)rashchenaia germeneti)aM% to the +ol1 S1nod through the Academic *onference. In it% he
set forth his theological principles. 3ilaret of ,ie a-solutel1 refused either to discuss or reie4
the -oo). Therefore 3ilaret of &osco4 4as as)ed to comment on it. 3ilaret gae a sharp and
detailed repl1. Afanasii 4as humiliated and upset -1 3ilaret's response and 4ished to -ring him
to Budgment -efore the Eastern Patriarchs. 3ilaret 4as profoundl1 4orried and distur-ed -1 the
attempt to eleate Tradition so high that it 4ould cast a shado4 on Scripture% as though Scripture
does not sere as a model for general education! and does not contain all of the dogmas.!
Afanasii 4as too cleer in tr1ing to sho4 the insufficienc1% incomprehensi-ilit1%
contradictoriness% or am-iguities% and een intentional agueness of Scriptural te'ts. The +ol1
Spirit spo)e +ol1 Scripture in order to illuminate% not o-scure%! 3ilaret o-Bected. Afanasii
considered the disagreements and different readings to -e irreconcila-le and hopeless. 3ilaret
replied:
If the Budgment of the +ermeneutic under e'amination 4ere to -e accepted% 4e 4ould )no4
for certain 4hich 4ord is the "ord of (od and 4hich 4ord is the 4ord of man -oth in the .ld
and the Ne4 Testaments. It is terri-le een to contemplate such a thing. Praise (od that the ie4
of this hermeneutic is false.
"ould attac)ing the relia-ilit1 of Scripture -e sufficientl1 cautiousI! "ould it not also put
the relia-ilit1 of Tradition under attac)I The o-ligation of fidelit1 -efore (od and +is +ol1
"ord and +is +ol1 *hurch compels one to testif1 here that a Budgment of +ol1 Scripture -ased
on e'cessie attention to incidental defects in it% 4ithout at the same time an1 indication of its
true perfection% is not onl1 inconsistent 4ith diinel1 inspired Scripture% -ut it is also dangerous
for .rthodo'1....
Not onl1 3ilaret responded so sharpl1 and 4ith such agitation. In 56:8% Archpriest ;. B.
Ba$hano% FA8 the Tsar's confessor% in his capacit1 as mem-er of the Academic *onference%
happened to read the student e'aminations. In one of them > the e'amination of Tarasii
Seredins)ii FAG > he encountered something% 4hich perple'ed him. Seredins)ii placed the
(ospels and the 4ritings of the 3athers under the single ru-ric% the "ord of (od% 4ith the
distinction that the (ospels 4ere called the 4ritten "ord of (od% 4hile the 4or)s of important
*hurch 4riters 4ere the "ord of (od transmitted orall1. Such modernism runs completel1
counter to the teachings of the .rthodo' *hurch and touches on one of its important points.
Ba$hano considered it his o-ligation to direct the *onference's attention to 4here the student
Seredins)ii might o-tain such an incorrect understanding of the "ord of (od. "as the error his
o4n or the fruit of outside promptingI Immediatel1 Ba$hano 4as compelled to leae the
mem-ership of the *onference. Partisans of the return to the time of scholasticism! attempted
to remoe the Bi-le een further than from this secondar1 position. The1 spo)e persistentl1
a-out completel1 for-idding la1men to read the "ord of (od in order to aoid false
commentaries. The thought of for-idding simple *hristians to read the +ol1 Scriptures terrifies
me%! 4rote the arch-ishop of Ter% (rigorii Postni)o% to 3ilaret of &osco4. I cannot conceie
5G8
from 4here such an opinion could come. Is it not a contriance of 2atinism's secret agentsI .r is
it an opinion -red -1 the increased freethin)ing of our age% so that later 4e might -e laughed at
as earlier 4ere the clerg1 of the "estern *hurchI! The Cuestion 4as raised a-out pu-lishing the
Slaonic te't of the Bi-le on the model of the ;ulgate ?He'clusiel1 self9sufficient!@ and
sanctioning it for reCuired and e'clusie use in cathedral% school% and home.
It is easil1 imagined ho4 untimel1 and misplaced &a)arii (lu)hare's repeated and
indiscreet efforts to attract s1mpath1 for a ne4 Russian translation ?and one from the +e-re4 at
that@ must hae appeared at that moment. Such reminders onl1 increased suspicion and o-durac1.
The circulation of Professor (. P. Pas)ii's Bi-lical translation% lithographed -1 the students at
the St. Peters-urg Theological Academ1% aroused een greater e'citement. The Pas)ii affair
-egan 4ith an anon1mous letter sent to the three metropolitans from the cit1 of ;ladimir. As 4as
soon discoered% this letter 4as composed and sent -1 +ieromon) Agafangel Solo'e% the
inspector of the &osco4 Academ1. FA= Agafangel 4as certainl1 not an opponent of Russian
Bi-lical translation. +e 4as -us1 4ith translations of his o4n% and su-seCuentl1 he pu-lished
Russian translations of the Boo) of #o- and the Boo) of #esus son of Sirach ?56G7 and 56G5@.
+ence he 4as alarmed -1 the surreptitious circulation of a translation sanctioned -1 the authorit1
of a scholarl1 name% -ut 4hich 4as inaccurate from the doctrinal and theological points of ie4.
And 4hen the authorit1 of his scholarship and the glor1 of his great )no4ledge threaten
translation -1 4ide circulation% then there is no propriet1 in silence and no salation in
toleration.!
The author of the letter% produced samples of false commentar1 on the Prophets and noted
an un4arranted -ut hardl1 unintentional coarseness in the translation. +e sharpl1 critici$ed the
translation as a 4hole: This is the 4or) of a ne4 &arcion% it is not the 4ords of the liing and
true (od% -ut the ile speech of the ancient serpent.! +o4eer% the author concluded that a -etter
translation 4as needed. There is no need to confiscate copies of the Russian translation. Such a
measure might onl1 arm a *hristian against the authorit1 of the *hurch. The circulation of this
translation is not prompted -1 readers desiring to share the ie4s of the translator% -ut -1 a
commonl1 felt need for a translation . . .The *hristian cannot -e satisfied 4ith an o-scure and
unrelia-le Slaonic translation 4hich in man1 places conceals the truth from him. Since he has
no other translation% he must from necessit1 go to mudd1 4aters in order to Cuench his thirst.
People 4ho receie a secular education hae not read the Slaonic translation for a long time%
-ut turn to foreign translations. . . .
The letter 4as circulated at the end of 56:5. The author naiel1 did not consider 4ho 4ould
inestigate the matter and discuss his report and adice. "ith innocent carelessness he proo)ed
the po4er of the opulent partisans of the return to the time of scholasticism.! +e insisted on the
pu-lication of a Russian Bi-le. Is it Bust that it is impossi-le to escape the chiding of
superstitious people and those 4ho stu--ornl1 remain in the depths of ignoranceI But in 4hat
4a1 are those souls at fault 4ho0 see)ing truth% are refused food for fear of distur-ing the peace
of superstition and ignoranceI! Strangel1% the author completel1 forgot that the metropolitan of
St. Peters-urg% the .er Procurator of the +ol1 S1nod% and man1 others on the commanding
heights of the S1nod stood among the ran)s of those 4ho stu--ornl1 remain in the depths of
ignorance.!
3ilaret of &osco4 tried to preent the report's circulation% -ut he 4as too late. 3ilaret of
,ie% upset -1 the erratic translation% had alread1 put his cop1 of the anon1mous letter in
Prataso's hands. At a preliminar1 hearing in the S1nod% 3ilaret of &osco4 e'pressed his
decided coniction that a Russian translation of the Bi-le should -e pu-licl1 resumed and issued
5GG
under the authorit1 of the +ol1 S1nod. Prataso suggested that he put his proposal in 4riting.
Then% 4ithout recommending discussion of it in the S1nod% Prataso ordered that a categorical
refutation of 3ilaret's opinion -e composed in the name of the aged &etropolitan Seraphim ?most
li)el1 Afanasii composed it@. Prataso su-mitted -oth opinions for imperial consideration% and
4ithout the slightest difficult1 once more receied imperial approal of &etropolitan Seraphim's
intolerant and un1ielding Budgment. Nicholas I detested disputes and differences of opinion%
especiall1 in *hurch affairs% 4here eer1thing should -e decided in complete harmon1 and
unanimit1 and -e -ased not on argument and e'planations% -ut on the precise meaning of
dogmas . .
Strictl1 spea)ing% in his note 3ilaret too) the same point of ie4 as the author of the
unfortunate report. &ore accuratel1% Agafangel% 4ho studied and 4or)ed at the &osco4
Theological Academ1% e'pressed an idea% 4hich had come from 3ilaret and 4as shared -1
eer1one in the +ol1 Trinit1 2ara Academ1. +e had merel1 acted carelessl1. ?3ilaret. said of
Agafangel% The eccentric 4or)ings of his mind 4ere unpredicta-le and incomprehensi-le to
me.!@ 3ilaret underscored the fact that suppression -1 itself is not er1 promising% 4hen the
loe for )no4ledge% 4hich spreads 4ider eer1 da1% hurls itself hungril1 in eer1 direction% and
tears most strenuousl1 along illegal paths 4here the legal ones are not sufficientl1 4ell -uilt.!
3ilaret proposed a series of positie measures: gradual pu-lication of a series of commentaries
and the -oo)s of the Bi-le% -eginning 4ith the Prophets of the .ld Testament% in accordance 4ith
the Septuagint te't% -ut ta)ing into account +e-re4 truth%! rel1ing on the self9e'planatoriness
of the .ld Testament in the Ne4% and the clarifications of the +ol1 3athers. 3ilaret did not
enision learned commentaries ladened 4ith the 4eight of scholarship%! -ut instructie
e'planations directed to4ard the confirmation of faith and to4ard the guidance of life . . . .
Then 3ilaret proposed to ma)e a ne4 edition of the Slaonic Bi-le% Bettisoning all unnecessaril1
ancillar1 articles and accounts of the te't's accurac1 included in the Eli$a-ethan Bi-le% FA6 -ut
appending notes of clarification to the te't in those places 4here the1 4ere demanded. This
4ould proide an understanding of unfamiliar 4ords or e'pressions% 4hich might gie rise to
false interpretation. &ost importantl1% a -rief sure1 of each chapter's content 4as to -e
included. The metropolitan of ,ie full1 agreed 4ith these proposals. 3ilaret's note made no
mention of a Russian translation. Det een this modest suggestion seemed positiel1 dangerous
to Prataso and &etropolitan Seraphim. In the .rthodo' *hurch the preseration and e'tension
of the saing truths of faith is guaranteed -1 a class of pastors to 4hom% 4ith this aim in ie4%
the gift of teaching 4as imparted and 4ho are eminentl1 Cualified for it in the ecclesiastical
institutions.! If this translation is the fruit onl1 of a loe of )no4ledge% then the loe of
)no4ledge should -e gien another direction more in )eeping 4ith the purposes of the *hurch.!
Thus% the loe of )no4ledge! of -elieers to4ard the "ord of (od 4as declared superfluous
and not corresponding to the purposes of the *hurch:' But this 4as the least of the matter.
Pu-lication of the commentaries 4as also reBected. The commentaries of the 3athers% it is true%
4ere accepta-le and permissi-le% -ut Bu'taposing the indiidual patristic commentaries 4as
declared dangerous: it might undermine the eneration the .rthodo' nourish for the +ol1
3athers and transform the su-Bects of faith into sources of arid research.! Notes appended to the
Bi-le onl1 proide grounds for Cuarrels and disputes% there-1 implanting the thought in the
mind that the "ord of (od needs human Bustification and that ordinar1 people might -e Budges in
matters of faith:' The Pas)ii inestigation Cuic)l1 produced an unsettling impression% for
Pas)ii 4as actuall1 too free in his theological ie4s. Euring the Cuestioning% ho4eer% he
5G=
preferred to disao4 eer1thing. 3or Pas)ii the matter ended 4ith a pastoral reprimand% his
recantation% and enforced retirement.
&uch more important 4as the uproar caused -1 the 4ide circulation of the lithographed
translation. The translation 4as confiscated and those 4ho possessed copies 4ere sternl1
interrogated. ;er1 fe4 had the courage to openl1 refuse the return of their copies. Among that
er1 small num-er 4as Professor &.I. Bogoslos)ii FA< 4ho taught at the /chilishcha
Praoedeniia F:7 and 4ho su-seCuentl1 pu-lished his Sacred +istor1 ?Siashchennaia istoriiaM
in t4o olumes. In his official statement he e'plained that the cop1 of the translation 4as his
propert1% and that he 4as reCuired to read the "ord of (od.! .thers declared that the1
misplaced or een destro1ed their copies. The net result of this inCuest 4as the intimidation of
the faculties in the *hurch schools% seminaries% and academies% and further disposed them to
silence. Some4hat later Nhu)os)ii 4rote to his confessor% Archpriest Ba$aro% in "eimar% that:
In (erman1 self9e'egesis produced a loss of faith. 3or us a dead faith proceeding from non9
e'egesis is nearl1 identical 4ith loss of faith. A dead faith is 4orse than the' loss of faith. 2ost
faith is a raging% liing enem1. It fights% -ut coniction can oercome and conCuer it. Eead faith
is a corpse. "hat can -e done 4ith a corpseI! Immediatel1 after the Pas)ii inestigation% -oth
3ilarets left St. Peters-urg and the S1nod under such circumstances that the1 4ould not return
again% although the1 retained their titles as mem-ers of the S1nod. A.N. &ura'e left the serice
of the S1nod at the same time. In the ne't fe4 1ears the mem-ership 4as selected primaril1 from
among the $ealots of the return to the time of scholasticism.! Euring the shipment to &osco4
of 3ilaret's trun)s ?H4hose loc)s had -een mutilated!@% a search had -een made in order to
discoer if some heres1 4as not concealed in those chests%! as 3ilaret said a-out the affair. In St.
Peters-urg during those 1ears% the1 thirsted for slander! against 3ilaret. +e left for &osco4 in
great an'iet1 a-out the conseCuences for the *hurch.
3ilaret (umiles)ii% in his letters to (ors)ii at the time% er1 openl1 and clearl1 descri-es
the tense situation in St. Peters-urg. .nl1 Bust promoted from among the rectors of the &osco4
Academ1 and consecrated -ishop of Riga% 3ilaret 4as compelled to remain seeral months in St.
Peters-urg at the end of 56:5 until he could trael to Riga. +e 4as in St. Peters-urg throughout
all the de-ates in the Pas)ii affair. +e 4as a-le to follo4 matters on each side% -oth through his
metropolitan ?4hom he sincerel1 respected and resem-led in seeral respects@% and through the
shaed schismatics%! as he cleerl1 du--ed the courtiers and -ureaucrats under the .er
Procurator's superision. Prataso and Ser-inoich sought to use him for their ends% although% as
he ironicall1 put it% the1 had long ago put him in the lists of intracta-le 2utherans.! 3ilaret's
general impression 4as gloom1: a difficult time > a time 4hich compels one to 4atch
igilantl1 each step.! "ere these not shado4s ram-ling and s4irling aroundI +e spo)e directl1
and openl1 a-out persecution. Toda1 the1 see) out our sins% so that the1 might dra4
administratie matters into their o4n hands -ecause of them and ma)e the *hurch into an arena
for their egotistical careers.! The *hurch -esieged0 such 4as 3ilaret's impression.
.n the surface it seems as if the1 are fussing oer matters of faith and .rthodo'10 -ut this
could seem true onl1 for a person unacCuainted 4ith or foreign to the 4ords .rthodo'1 and
faith. In the language of their hearts it all means: our concern is politics% all other concerns are
marginal . . . . +o4 strange to lie among such people. Dou are afraid and alarmed for 1our soul%
lest the storms of intrigue -lo4 it into the deadl1 a-1ss of 4orldl1 anit1. Toda1% tomorro4% at
this moment% in the ne't hour% 1ou ponder ho4 to Budge and een condemn intriguers 4ho 4ould
e'change faith and sanctit1 for some ri--oned decoration or often merel1 a smile from higher
ups.
5G6
At the end of 56:F% in his Noem-er 5:th report to the throne% Prataso summari$ed the
results of the ne4l1 4on -attle% and outlined a program for further s)irmishes. Prataso -luntl1
charged the entire *hurch school s1stem 4ith errors and heres10 more precisel1% 4ith
Protestantism. If up to this point schoolroom Protestantism had produced no irremedia-le
misfortune% it 4as onl1 -ecause the graduates of these schools% 4hile sering at the altar% in their
parishes% in the rituals and under the la4s of the *hurch > in the er1 life of the *hurch >
encountered principles and an understanding utterl1 different from that of the schools. /nder the
influence of life% the1 a-andoned such harmful ideas.
The author of the report traced the histor1 of this heres1 in the schools -ac) to 3eofan
Pro)opoich. +e d4elled 4ith particular detail on the eents of the recent past 4hen the Bi-le
societies 4ere actie and had distri-uted -oo)s on theosoph1 and m1sticism along 4ith the
Bi-le. No4% ho4eer% decisie measures had -een ta)en against foreign interference% so that the
garden of religious )no4ledge 4ill al4a1s -e illumined -1 the -eneficient light of Apostolic and
*atholic teaching 4hich saes the .rthodo' East% along 4ith our 3atherland% from all the deadl1
errors of the "est.! There 4as much that 4as true in this critiCue. .nl1 the conclusion 4as false.
3or it 4as impossi-le to oercome 4estern errors -1 simple supression. The Report LNapis)aM
4as most li)el1 once again composed for Prataso -1 Afanasii. In an1 case% Afanasii 4as of li)e
mind. "hile rector of the St. Peters-urg Academ1%! 3ilaret of &osco4 said% Bishop Afanasii
maintained that all Russian theologians -efore him 4ere not .rthodo'.!
In )eeping 4ith Prataso's design% a hast1 edition of a ne4 theological s1stem! 4as
produced for immediate use as a te't-oo)! at the er1 least. At one time the1 een demanded
in the Emperor' s name! that 3ilaret of &osco4 compile the te't-oo). +e did not do so -ecause
of poor health. Prataso then proposed that 3ilaret (umiles)ii should ta)e up the tas). 3ilaret
found this suggestion flattering0 to one's ego% -ut not er1 flattering to the intelligence of
an1one a4are of the actual state of affairs.! +e declined. .nl1 much later% in 56G: did 3ilaret
full1 re4or) and pu-lish his course in dogmatic theolog1.
&a)arii Bulga)o ?565G9566F@% then a 1oung hieromon) and -accalaureate at the ,ie
Academ1 4as more compliant. +e 4as summoned to St. Peters-urg in 56:F to teach theolog1%
replacing Afanasii 4ho declined to teach it and preferred to concentrate on teaching others.
&a)arii had not preiousl1 studied theolog1% and he felt more affinit1 for% and interest in%
historical themes. +e 4rote his school thesis on the histor1 of the ,ie Academ1% and in doing so
he must hae een -ecome acCuainted 4ith old course and conspectus manuscripts on theolog1
from the time of *atholic influence. &ost li)el1 this 4as the source of his o4n personal
s1mpath1 for Roman *atholic hand-oo)s and s1stems. At the academ1 &a)arii listened to the
lectures on dogmatics gien -1 Eimitrii &ureto ?567G9 566A@% F:5 t4ice su-seCuentl1
arch-ishop of ,herson and Taurida. But he did not learn scholastic 4a1s from Eimitrii. "e can
Budge Eimitrii's theolog1 lectures -1 onl1 a fe4 fragments recorded in student memoirs. Eimitrii
attracted% and irresisti-l1 attracted% the trul1 mee) and hum-le heart. But this feeling of the
heart! neer descended to a rhetorical or stic)1 sentimentalism. +is feeling of the heart resided
in the spiritual element and soul. In his lectures he tried to lin) theological pro-lematics 4ith
their spiritual sources and religious% e'perience. .ne al4a1s detects the constant curiosit1 of his
searching mind. Eimitrii's outloo) must no4 -e reconstructed from his sermons. +e loed to
delier sermons% especiall1 ones on dogmatic themes. +e spo)e er1 simpl1% 1et he 4as a-le to
e'press religious conceptions precisel1 in simple% almost naie% 4ords and reeal an in4ard
perspectie een in prosaic details ?for e'ample% read his sermon on time and eternit1 gien Ne4
Dear's Ea1@. B1 his dogmatic inCuisitieness% the po4er and e'haustieness of his reasoning% his
5G<
gift of plastic definition% Eimitrii reminds one most of all of 3ilaret of &osco4. &oreoer%
Eimitrii had a charming simplicit1 and 4onderful humilit1. ,homia)o highl1 alued Eimitrii
4hom he )ne4 personall1 4hen Eimitrii 4as -ishop of Tula.
In a real sense Eimitrii should -e included in the Ale'andrine current in Russian *hurch
life. +e 4as educated in those -oo)s and under those impressions. +e shared a common taste or
een passion for philosoph1 4ith Inno)entii. Een as a theologian Eimitrii remained a
philosopher. +e -egan 4ith the data of Reelation and the testimon1 of the "ord of (od% -ut
immediatel1 proceeded to a speculatie discoer1 of the meaning and po4er of dogma. +e 4as
not an historian% although he supported the historical method in the e'position of dogma. +e 4as
neer a 4esterner > his creatie independent mind and his m1stical realism saed him from
that.
Eimitrii had no direct influence on &a)arii% for 4hom philosophical inestigation of dogma
held no interest. &a)arii states that immediatel1 after he arried in St. Peters-urg% Afanasii
su-Bected his )no4ledge of theolog1 to a strict e'amination% especiall1 4here it touched on
points of .rthodo'1.! +e had to -egin his lectures 4ithout an1 preparation t4o 4ee)s after he
arried. And if that 4as not enough% he had to 4rite them Cuic)l1 in order to turn them oer to
the printer! for pu-lication. .-iousl1 &a)arii lectured according to Afanasii's program.
Temporaril1% 4hile there 4as still no te't-oo)% it 4as proposed that an assortment of e'tracts -e
used from the 4ritings of St. Eimitrii of Rosto% arranged -1 su-Bect.! F:F A section entitled
.n +ol1 3aith and the *hurch in general! 4as placed at the -eginning. Afanasii 4as full1
satisfied 4ith these e'tracts. As &etropolitan 3ilaret o-sered% Afanasii found that theolog1
need not -e taught s1stematicall1% for it 4as sufficient to read the +ol1 Scriptures and the +ol1
3athers.! In 56:: Prataso sent 3ilaret of &osco4 the ne4l1 composed sure1s! L)onspe)t1M
on dogmatics at the St. Peters-urg Academ1 for his e'amination and opinions. 3ilaret completel1
opposed the ne4 arrangement of the arious sections. +e insisted that the -est and most
promising arrangement 4as proided or indicated -1 the S1m-ol of 3aith. F:A ?HThe Ecumenical
S1m-ol of 3aith is nothing other than a -rief s1stem of theolog1.!@ 3ilaret also emphasi$ed that
it is the s1stem of the ecumenical 3athers! and not a later su-tlet1 of the 4estern school. This
is the s1stem of Apostolic Tradition.! The arrangement of the S1m-ol is presered een in the
.rthodo' *onfession.! It is hardl1 possi-le to e'pound 4ith complete coniction the teaching
a-out *hrist's *hurch -efore the doctrine of *hrist as (od is inestigated. If it is either
promising or prudent to put for4ard so 4illfull1 the mind of the Russian .rthodo' *hurch%!
then must not some room for the mind of the Roman *atholic *hurch! also -e admittedI 3ilaret
noted specific 2atini$ing innoations in the sure1s sent to him ?for e'ample% the distinction
-et4een form! and matter! in the sacraments and other similar items@.
In 56:< A Eogmatic Theolog1 LEogmatiches)oe -ogosloieM 4as pu-lished -1 Antonii
Amfiteatro ?5658956=<@% then archimandrite and rector of the ,ie Acadern1 and later
arch-ishop of ,a$an'. This 4as a -oo) in the old st1le. Antonii aoided philosoph1 and
reasoning. +e 4ould hae preferred to aoid eer1 free 4ord.! +e 4ished to retain 4ords
alread1 used in Scripture and e'actl1 defined -1 the *hurch. +ere one detects the direct
influence of 3ilaret of ,ie% under 4hose guidance! and at 4hose desire this Eogmatic! 4as
composed. Antonii 4as 3ilaret's relatie.
Antonii 4as certainl1 neer a scholar. The appointment of a man of his temperament as
rector at the academ1 after Eimitrii and Inno)entii 4as significant. Det Antonii 4as not a
scholastic either: +e 4as more a preacher and a moral preceptor than a schoolman. +e tried to
arouse and strengthen faith in the minds and hearts of his audience -1 summoning them to
5=7
spiritual contemplation and moral introspection. Antonii did not approe of &a)arii's dogmatic
theolog1 4hen it 4as pu-lished: it 4as composed on the 2utheran modelQ! Antonii 4as
a4arded a doctor's degree for his te't-oo). Prataso 4rote to him enthusiasticall1% 1ou hae
done us a great serice. Dou hae remoed from us the stigma that until no4 Russia has neer
had a s1stem of theolog1.!
&ean4hile &a)arii continued to lecture in St. Peters-urg and pu-lish his lectures chapter
-1 chapter in *hristian Reading. In 56:= his Introduction appeared as a separate -oo) and in the
follo4ing 1ears he pu-lished the s1stem! in fie olumes ?56:<9568A@. &a)arii's (reat
Eogmatic! 4as su-seCuentl1 repu-lished man1 times. It 4as Cuic)l1 translated into 3rench and
remained in use from that time on4ard. Impressions a-out the -oo) are diided and 4ere diided
from the er1 outset. "ithout an1 dou-t &a)arii's dogmatic theolog1 4as significant% especiall1
in historical perspectie. .f course in gathering his material &a)arii 4as not completel1
original% nor did he hae to -e independent. +e could find a s1mphon1 of Bi-lical te'ts and a
code of all the patristic citations he needed among 4estern authors% particularl1 among the old
2atin erudites. There 4as no need to research it all again. The important point is that for the first
time such rich and strictl1 researched material 4as e'pounded in a commonl1 understood
Russian st1le. 3rom this standpoint Inno)entii of ,herson's F:: enthusiastic appraisal for the
Academ1 of Sciences of &a)arii's ne4l1 pu-lished dogmatic theolog1 is full1 Bustifia-le and
understanda-le. The -oo) introduced theolog1 into the realm of Russian literature.! .nl1 one
point in this appraisal is incomprehensi-le: ho4 could Inno)entii declare &a)arii's -oo) an
independent and original 4or)I! +e could not een appear to -e independent and original. +e
consciousl1 4ent no further than a simple compilation of te'ts. Actuall1 he did not suspect that it
4as necessar1 to forge the te'ts and eidence into liing dogmatic conceptions% into a spiritual
life. In this respect% &a)arii did not een resem-le Afanasii. Afanasii )ne4 that there are
Cuestions for theological searching. +e 4as alie to their realit1% -ut he 4as afraid to as) such
Cuestions either for himself or for others. This is the source of Afanasii's traged1 and failure in
life. But in no 4a1 4as &a)arii tragic. +e remained indifferent to theological pro-lematics. +e
4as simpl1 unreceptie. In his personal tastes &a)arii 4as a secular! man% complete1 immune
to the spiritual life.! In the 56:7's and 5687's he strengthened the Prataso regime0 in the 56=7's
he 4as a leader of the li-eral reforms ?see his famous proposal to reform the church courts in the
*ommission of 56=A@. F:8 There 4as something -ureaucratic in his 4riting st1le and e'position.
+is dogmatic theolog1 lac)ed precisel1 a sense of the *hurch.! +e dealt 4ith te'ts% not 4ith
eidence or truths. +ence he had such a lifeless and uninspired st1le 4hich carried no coniction.
There are onl1 ans4ers 4ithout Cuestions% -ut the1 cannot ans4er 4hat the1 are not as)ed. Some
might see this as a irtue. In his memorial address% &a)arii's disciple Ni)anor of ,herson ?56F:9
56<7@ F:G spo)e accuratel1 on this score. Een St. #ohn of Eamascus and Peter &ogila had
personal ie4s and moties. Both 3ilaret and Inno)entii made ingenious and unrepeata-le
flights. But not &a)arii. +is 4as a straight clear path% a -alanced la-or.! In other 4ords%
&a)arii had no personal ie4s. +e 4as more o-Bectie than others% for he had no opinions of his
o4n. +is 4as an o-Bectiit1 from indifference. &an1 4ere irritated -1 the inner indifference and
soullessness in &a)arii's -oo)s from the da1 the1 appeared. ,homia)o found &a)arii's
Introduction admira-l1 stupid.! 3ilaret (umiles)ii reacted the same 4a1: A nonsensical
morass%! there is neither logical order nor force in the arguments.! .ne might repeat a-out
&a)arii's theological -oo)s 4hat (iliaro9Platono F:= 4rote a-out &a)arii's +istor1: F:6 a
4or)man9li)e construction 4ith the trappings of scholarl1 apparatus . . . . (iliaro9Platono
4as emphatic. &a)arii's +istor1 has all the appearance of a histor1 -oo)% -ut it is not a histor1%
5=5
onl1 a -oo).! Similarl1 &a)arii's Eogmatic Theolog1 possesses all the appearances of a -oo) of
theolog1% -ut it is onl1 a -oo). Not a histor1 and not een a -oo)% -ut merel1 a construction!
?(iliaro9Platono@.
&a)arii studied in ,ie 4hen theological and philosophical pathos 4as po4erfull1 alie at
the academ1. Det it passed him -1 4ithout a trace. Nor can one detect in &a)arii the Pechers)ii
piet1! so apparent in 3ilaret of ,ie and Antonii Amfiteatro. &a)arii most clearl1 appro'imated
the st1le of the Prataso era% -ecause he 4as a -ureaucratic theologian. +is Eogmatic Theolog1
is a t1pical product of the Nicholaitan epoch. Besides the great! dogmatic% &a)arii also
composed a small! one for use in the schools. As he later said% this -oo) 4as )ept out of sight
-1 the late sage of &osco4%! that is% -1 &etropolitan 3ilaret. .nl1 after 3ilaret's death could this
hand-oo) -e printed and introduced into the schools as a te't-oo).! 3ilaret had silentl1
condemned &a)arii. &a)arii's contemporar1 and successor as rector at the St. Peters-urg
Academ1% Ioann So)olo% F:< reie4ed &a)arii's -oo) much more criticall1. The scholarl1
-oo)s of the author% a-out 4hich 4e are spea)ing% 4ith their thousands of citations contri-ute
li)e nothing else in these critical times to the final stupefaction and stagnation of the religious
-eggars in our schools% precisel1 -ecause the1 aid the omission of an1 4orth4hile thought% fresh
insight% sense of eidence% and in4ard drie.! &a)arii's -oo) 4as outdated the da1 it first sa4
the light% and it remained unneeded and 4ithout a role to pla1 in Russian theological
consciousness% It could not satisf1 those deoted to a spiritual life and raised in ascetic a4areness
or traditions. &a)arii's theolog1 4as Bust as discordant 4ith the Philo)alia as it 4as 4ith
philosoph1. Een &a)arii's student and assistant at the St. Peters-urg Academ1% Ni)anor
Bro)oich% F87 could not lecture in the same st1le% and therefore 4as Cuic)l1 remoed from an
academ1 position and -ecame rector of the seminar1 at Riga. &a)arii adised him to -urn his
lecture notes and outlines. Ni)anor seemed dangerous for he 4as too greatl1 attracted -1
philosoph1 and in one section of his course he e'pounded in great detail the proofs of (od's
e'istence.! This permitted him to present openl1 and minutel1 the modern critical! theories%
particularl1 those of ,ant% although he aimed to attac) and refute them. It seems that in his
lectures Ni)anor touched er1 daringl1 on the most tic)lish Cuestions%! tore apart Strauss%
Bruno Bauer% and 3euer-ach. F85 +o4eer ?and this 4as confirmed -1 Ni)anor@% &a)arii had
heard onl1 of ,ant. Ni)anor's teaching st1le 4as er1 s1mptomatic. Temperamentall1 he 4as
closer to Afanasii than to &a)arii. +e had a sarcastic and -ilious character% 4hich tortured him
and others. All contradictions% he 4as a t1pical representatie of a transitional epoch. Ni)anor's
designs 4ere al4a1s conseratie. In St. Peters-urg in those 1ears% 4hen it 4as customar1 to -e
frightened of 3ilaret%! he disli)ed and feared 3ilaret of &osco4. Ni)anor regarded Prataso as a
-enefactor to theological a4a)ening and scholarship. It appears that he gae a needed shoe to
theological construction! in the academies and saed theolog1 from a meddlesome censorship.
Neertheless% Ni)anor's theological ie4s 4ere er1 close to those of 3ilaret.
Ni)anor 4as a man of philosophical temperament. 3or man1 1ears he la-ored on this three
olume s1stem of philosoph1% Positie Theolog1 and Supernatural Reelation LPolo$hitel naia
filosofiia i ser)hestestennoe ot)roenie% St. Peters-urgM. +is s1stem did not succeed% for it is
onl1 an eclectic compilation in the spirit of the most diffuse Platonism.! But one detects a
genuine intellectual inCuisitieness. It 4as no accident that Ni)anor 4as preoccupied 4ith
apologetics ?and 4ith arguments against the positiists@% for he reCuired a speculatie and critical
Bustification of faith: ' Ni)anor had to pass through a difficult trial of dou-t% through the
dar)ness of 4aering faith. &an1 things appeared differentl1 in the Budgment of science! than
from the standpoint of rigorist .rthodo'1. In the e1es of a person of such Cuestions and
5=F
4ea)nesses% the mori-und -oo)ishness of &a)arii's dogmatics seemed needless and useless.
Beneath a superficial similarit1 of formal method it is eas1 to discoer deep differences -et4een
Ni)anor and &a)arii. The most scholastic of all Ni)anor's -oo)s is his Sure1 of Roman
*atholic teaching on the actual supremac1 in the *hurch LRa$-or rims)ago ucheniia o idimon
glaenste tser)iM. F8F It is an anal1sis of te'ts from the Ne4 Testament% patristic 4ritings%
and 4ritings of historians of the first three centuries and is diided into sections% su-sections%
paragraphs% and indiidual points. Det throughout the -oo) the author's presence can -e seen and
felt shaping and pondering the arguments and citations. The reader's thoughts are caught up in
the same ital process of proofs. Ni)anor's e'position neer descends to a mere recitation or
-ecomes a lifeless chain.! .f course this 4as a Cuestion of scholarl1 temperament. Ni)anor's
mind 4as sharp and decisie. Both his theolog1 and his sermons 4ere er1 daring. In this
connection the series of sermons on the +ol1 *oenant ?gien at the end of the 56=7's@ is er1
interesting% and in them Ni)anor is er1 much reminiscent of 3ilaret. The original *oenant 4as
concluded from eternit1 in the -osom of the Tri9h1postatic (odhead and not 4ithout -loodshed
?see +e-re4s% *hapters IO and O@. The -lood of the eternal *oenant flo4ed from eternit1% the
cup of limitless anger 4as Cuaffed% the er1 cr1 of the *ross echoed in eternit1. Eer1thing 4as
completed for the eternal (od 4as accomplished in eternit1.! The eents on earth are onl1 a
reflection. In heaen and in eternit1 the actual creatie redemptie and saing *oenant 4as
accomplished.! Before all time the Immaculate ;irgin had -een eleated to (od's heaenl1
temple. Before all ages she stood as intercessor -et4een the 4orld% men% the incarnate Son of
(od% and the (odhead . . .!
Ioann So)olo ?5656956G7@ must -e discussed together 4ith Ni)anor. ?Ioann died as -ishop
of Smolens)@. .f a sternl1 moral nature and a sharp mind% he 4as a remar)a-l1 4ell9educated
-ut iolent man.! In the era of the (reat Reforms% F8A he spo)e 4ith une'pected courage and
directness a-out *hristian Bustice% the rene4al of life% and dail1 social inBustice. So as not to
)eep an indifferent silence amidst those cr1ing a-out life's social needs% in order that the1 might
hear us%! he suggested to Shchapo the theme of his pu-lic address% The oice of the ancient
Russian *hurch on improing the lies of unfree people L(olos drenei russ)oi tser)i
o-ulushchenii -1ta neso-odn1)h liudeiM. F8: Ioann 4as a canonist a-oe all else. +is Essa1 for
a course on *hurch Burisprudence L.p1t )ursa tser)onago $a)onoedeniia%.F olumes% 5685M
remains his most important scholarl1 4or). True% it is not a s1stem! of la4% onl1 a stud1 of
sources. Ioann simpl1 neer succeeded in constructing a s1stem.! It 4as said that the
manuscript for the s1stematic olumes 4as detained in censorship. This does not diminish the
importance of his -oo). 3or the first time the ancient and fundamental canons of the *hurch
4ere presented in Russian more in historical than in doctrinal fashion Ioann continued to 4rite
on canonical themes% and later resumed his Essa1 in separate articles. Among these articles% his
famous tract .n the monasticism of -ishops! deseres special attention. F88 It 4as 4ritten at
the reCuest of the .er Procurator A)hmato F8G in connection 4ith discussions on a possi-le
episcopate of lo4er clerg1 ?onl1 unmarried clerg1% -ut 4ithout monastic o4s@. F8= This 4as
Ioann's most personal 4riting. It 4as stri)ing and forceful% -ut not er1 conincing. 3ilaret of
&osco4 found Ioann's research unfounded and far9fetched. Ioann oere'tended and oerapplied
his thesis to the releant eidence. +e spea)s of monasticism! in an almost metaphorical%
nonformal sense. In his e1es an1 renunciation of the 4orld is monasticism. The o-ligingness of
such monasticism is not difficult to demonstrate% -ut not Bust for -ishops% 4hich Ioann failed to
notice. But his o4n idea -ecomes much clearer 4hen he sa1s% A -ishop should -e a-oe the
4orld% not onl1 in Jofficial' teaching% so to spea)% -ut in personal thoughts.! .ne must den1 the
5=A
4orld not onl1 4ith -od1 and soul% -ut 4ith the spirit and intellect as 4ell. .ne must achiee
spiritual and intellectual freedom% a spiritual irginit1.
Ioann 4as a er1 daring teacher of theolog1. +e used &a)arii's te't onl1 for e'aminations
and came to the lecture hall 4ith this -oo) in his hands. But his o4n lectures are completel1
unli)e &a)arii's% and 4ere more li)e free flo4ing conersations 4ith his audience. The1 4ere
not calculated to communicate all the necessar1 information or )no4ledge% nor to -e memori$ed%
-ut merel1 to arouse minds and turn students to4ard stud1 and reflection on the su-Bect matter.
As a professor% Ioann 4as almost an impressionist% and his sentiments 4ere not al4a1s
adeCuatel1 restrained and precise. +e 4as too unsparingl1 critical. +e did not li)e m1sticism!
and spo)e sharpl1 against e'ternal ceremon1 as important onl1 for the half educated and
undeeloped. Ioann's mind 4as too forceful and po4erful. As one of his audience in ,a$an'
accuratel1 defined his manner in his lectures% Ioann said all that natural reason can sa1 a-out
su-Bects communicated to us -1 Reelation.! These 4ere actuall1 more li)e lectures in *hristian
philosoph1 than dogmatics as such. Ioann 4ished to use reason to attain Reelation0 he did not
proceed from it. .nl1 a fe4 of his lectures 4ere pu-lished after his death and some of these 4ere
from student notes 4hich he had e'amined. These lectures focus on fresh e'pression and
freedom of thought and are presented 4ith remar)a-le clarit1 and simplicit1. Some people
critici$ed him for -eing too ta)en up 4ith noel and elegant constructions and not -eing reall1
sincere. .ne perceies in Ioann's philosophical orientation the influence of his alma mater. +e
4as from the &osco4 Theological Academ1.
The most influential teacher of dogmatics at that time 4as 3ilaret (umiles)ii ?5678956GG@.
+e 4as a man of outstanding gifts% a restless mind% and an an'ious heart. 3ilaret er1 a-l1
com-ined philosophical anal1sis and historical demonstration in his lectures on dogmatics.
Rather than rel1 on the 4eight of authorit1 to capture the mind in su-missie o-edience to faith%
he tried to guide reason to4ard a suita-le degree of internal eidence% in order to demonstrate
ho4 a m1ster1 of Reelation% although it cannot -e approached on the principles of reason% does
not contradict its theoretical and practical needs. .n the contrar1% it aids them. It heals an1
infirmit1 of reason caused -1 sin.! This constant effort to demonstrate dogma as a truth of reason
4as er1 characteristic of 3ilaret. At the same time dogma is demonstrated in histor1.
As a teacher 3ilaret produced a profound impression on his audience. +e did so 4ith an
organic -lending of intellectual curiosit1 and a faith of the heart. +is o4n personal italit1
al4a1s shined through and e'emplified his theolog1. Tr1 it and see > such is the 4a1 to
)no4ledge in the *hristian religion.! +e 4as referring to the sacraments and pra1er. Theolog1
4as not Bust a ocation for 3ilaret% he needed it. It gae his lectures life. As the historian of the
&osco4 Academ1 said of him: +e -egan his teaching career 4ith ne4 approaches% including
criticism of sources% philosophical considerations% histor1 of dogma% and polemical refutations of
opinions -orn in the rationalism of the Protestant 4est. These 4ere ne4 su-Bects for his
audience.! A ne4 era 4as -eginning at the academ1. 3ilaret 4as at once a Bi-licist and
Patrologist ?in his lectures he reie4ed at length the &essianic te'ts in +e-re4@. /nfortunatel1%
he 4as a-le to teach onl1 for a short time. "hile still a er1 1oung man% he 4as called to sere as
-ishop. 2ater he resumed 4riting and pu-lished a good deal. .n 3ilaret (umiles)ii's initiatie
the academ1 decided to pu-lish the 4ritings of the +ol1 3athers in Russian translation. The
Academic *onference focused on the tas)% and the Bournal of the academ1 4as )no4n simpl1 as
The supplement to the 4or)s of the +ol1 3athers LPri-aienie ) toreniiam siat1)h ottseM
Athanasius% the *appadocians% and also Ephrem the S1rian% the great 3athers of the fourth
centur1% F86 4ere gien first place. 3ilaret's te't-oo) on patristics +istorical teaching on the
5=:
3athers of the *hurch LIstoriches)oe uchenie o- ottsa)h tser)i% 568<M 4as pu-lished onl1 much
later. 3ilaret al4a1s regarded the 4ritings of the 3athers as the liing testimon1 of the *hurch%
-ut he cautioned against an1 un4arranted identification -et4een historical teaching a-out the
3athers! and teaching a-out Tradition. .ther4ise all patristic opinions must either -e accepted as
4orth1 of -eing considered *hurch teaching ?4hich 4ould -e impossi-le in ie4 of their
disagreements@ or else the real facts a-out the 3athers must -e distorted -1 Bettisoning all those
features of their lies and 4ritings 4hich ma)e them appear ordinar1.! Such an act 4ould mean
complete ar-itrariness in practice. The 3athers of the *hurch upheld Tradition 4here necessar1%
Bust as the1 respectfull1 descri-ed the acts of the *hurch and priate persons. The1 meditated on
the "ord of (od% the articles of faith% and the rules of life0 the1 argued and de-ated%
philosophi$ed% and la-ored as philologists% -ut in so doing the1 sometimes erred.!
These aims for patrolog1 did not coincide 4ith the purposes for 4hich Prataso introduced
historical9theological instruction on the 3athers of the *hurch! into the curricula of the
seminaries and academies. 3ilaret did not Bust accidentall1 omit the 4ord theological! from the
title of his -oo). +istor1 must -e undiluted. .n that -asis it might -e possi-le to dra4 a
theological conclusion and a-stract the Tradition 4itnessed in the 4ritings of the 3athers.!
Therefore his -oo) remained in the S1nod. &oreoer% 3ilaret also spo)e er1 harshl1 a-out Peter
&ogila and his *onfession.
Prataso's calculation to reerse or alter the direction of Russian theolog1 proed incorrect.
B1 that time Russian theological tradition 4as alread1 too ital and strong. The .er
Procurator's self9conceied and partisan plan crum-led -eneath the 4eight of this inner
opposition. This is clearl1 demonstrated -1 comparing that program and its implementation.
&a)arii's dogmatic theolog1 4as ?to a certain degree@ an official and officious program. But it
4as greeted 4ith great hostilit1. Een 4hen it 4as accepted as a te't-oo) for its rich ra4
material% the author's o4n methods 4ere rarel1 accepted. The &a)arii method! triumphed under
Po-edonostse F8< in the 5667's% 4hen inertia 4as proclaimed a principle in life ?a principle
4hich modern m1opic4riters unthin)ingl1 confuse 4ith ignorance and stupidit1!@. +o4eer%
een then the ictor1! 4as onl1 ephemeral. Prataso might succeed in driing 3ilaret of
&osco4 from St. Peters-urg and ostensi-l1 remoe him from S1nodal affairs. All the same he
4as compelled to as) 3ilaret's opinion on eer1 important and su-stantie Cuestion and send him
for e'amination the maBorit1 of his proBects and proposals. 3ilaret presered sufficient influence%
so that -1 his disagreements the .er Procurator's more meddlesome underta)ings 4ere laid to
rest. Prataso did introduce his ne4 order and spirit into the St. Peters-urg Academ1. The
&osco4 Academ1 remained unaltered and 4ithout those changes for the ne4 4hich consumed
Prataso. Philosoph1 continued its former course as did the stud1 of Scripture and +e-re4. And
at the er1 time 4hen the inCuisition 4as -eing conducted throughout Russia oer the lithograph
of Pas)ii's translation% 3ilaret officiall1 proposed to the &osco4 Academic *onference that
4ith the approal of the *onference and the )no4ledge of the diocesan hierarch all instructors -e
reCuired to present in polished form at least some of their lessons to -e lithographed or printed
for use in the academ1. The proposal had no practical results. Det it 4as indicatie that at the
er1 moment 4hen the ne4l1 opened Ecclesiastical9Educational Administration 4as attempting
to call a halt to the independent 4or) of teachers -1 placing reCuired te't-oo)s! in their hands%
3ilaret continued to adhere to the spirit of the Ale'andrine statutes that it 4as far more necessar1
to a4a)en thought and self9motiation in the students than to -ind them 4ith preiousl1 prepared
formulae and phrases.
5=8
In 56:8 3ilaret once more raised the Cuestion of translating the Bi-le and gae the +ol1
S1nod his famous note .n the dogmatic merit and conseratie function of the (ree) Septuagint
commentators and the Slaonic translation of +ol1 Scripture. FG7 The note 4as composed er1
succinctl1 and deli-eratel1. 3ilaret of ,ie% (rigorii Postni)o% and (ariil (orod)o1i% then
arch-ishop of Ria$an' FG5 preliminaril1 e'amined it. 3ilaret 4ished to preent the misuse of
arious Bi-lical te'ts. 3irst of all he insisted that it 4as essential to use -oth the Septuagint and
the Slaonic translation in correlation for the .ld Testament. .ne should not -e accepted as self
authentic%! that is% original% and used in isolation% although the Septuagint should -e the starting
point. Both te'ts desered to -e accorded dogmatic merit.! 3ilaret proposed that a ne4 edition
of the Slaonic Bi-le -e issued more suited to personal use and including a statement a-out the
content of each chapter and e'planator1 notes. 3ilaret said less than he 4ished in his note! in
order to o-tain the agreement of his friends% particularl1 3ilaret of ,ie. The1 4ere opposed to
the Russian translation and 4ere resered to4ard the +e-re4 te't. .ne could hardl1 e'pect
3ilaret of ,ie 4ould -e coninced. It 4as -etter to achiee a minimum firml1 accepta-le to all.
In the 56G7's the heated Cuarrel oer Bi-lical te'ts again -urst into flame > a -elated epilogue to
the de-ates of the 56:7's. "hen the translation of the .ld Testament 4as rene4ed in Ale'ander
II's reign% 3ilaret's note 4as accepted as the guideline.
Prataso's captiit1 of Russian theolog1 did not last long% although it 4as enerating. +e
could cele-rate ictor1 solel1 in the sphere of *hurch9state relations. The ne4 central
administratie structure e'panded and consolidated the Empire's influence and direct po4ers in
the affairs and life of the *hurch.
Conclusion.
It is far from eas1 to gie a general characteri$ation of the ecclesiastical schools during the
reigns of Ale'ander I and Nicholas I. The pre9Reform! school has -een descri-ed and
redescri-ed in the harshest and som-erist terms. The e'pose 4riters Pomialos)ii% Rostislao%
and Ni)itin all 4rote a-out it. FGF The appraisal of such an incontesta-le conseratie! as ;.I.
As)ochens)ii FGA tallies e'actl1 4ith their testimon1. As)ochens)ii 4as also a secular! Budge.
The rudeness of the lo4l -ursa)! confounded him% and he descri-es seminarians 4ith aersion
and cruelt1 as crude cattle.! As)ochens)ii's ie4s hardl1 differed from those of Rostislao. A
murderous character% a stunted mind% an empt1 heart% a preference for dire prophecies: these are
the inheritance of 1ouths 4ho are entrapped in this inCuisition of thought or an1 pure unfeigned
feeling.! Such 4as As)ochens)ii's cheerless conclusion. .ne must admit that there is a good deal
of truth in such charges and condemnations. There 4ere man1 serious defects. &oral coarseness
4as chief among them. It should -e remem-ered that in those da1s the ecclesiastical schools
4ere left in great poert1% disorder% and material insecurit1. Een the professors at the academies
lied in e'tremel1 tight circumstances and poert1. The percentage of graduates fell to nearl1
half. .ne freCuentl1 encounters remar)a-le entries in the class Bournals a-out a-sences -ecause
running a4a1 4as noted! or for not possessing clothes.! The Statute's high standards 4ere often
totall1 unfulfilled. After all% the statute reCuired that not Bust memor1% -ut understanding% -e
deeloped in the students. +o4eer% rote memori$ation remained the norm. 3ormalism%
rhetorics% conention preailed.
In the final anal1sis% such undou-ted defects did not sap the creatie igor of those
generations. The positie historical and cultural significance of the pre9Reform! schools must
-e ac)no4ledged and highl1 alued. 3or this school net4or) sered as the social -asis for the
5=G
entire deelopment and e'pansion of Russian culture in the nineteenth centur1. Not until the
56:7's did the secular schools er1 slo4l1 gain strength. The ,a$an' g1mnasium and een the
,a$an' /niersit1 ?as S.T. A)sa)o FG: descri-ed them@ 4ere far -ehind the seminaries% not to
mention the reformed academies. 3or decades in dierse fields the seminarist! remained the
sole engineer of the Russian enlightenment. In a fundamental sense% the histor1 of Russian
science and learning 4ere tied to the ecclesiastical schools and the clerical class. An e'amination
of the lists of Russian professors for an1 speciali$ation reeals t4o categories: seminarist! and
foreigner! ?usuall1 of (erman or S4edish origin0 more rarel1% Polish@ along 4ith an infreCuent
representatie of the no-ilit1 or -ureaucrat. /ntil onl1 er1 recentl1 the clear echoes and traces
of this clerical education could -e discerned in Russia's academic and literar1 ps1cholog1. It 4as
a source of -oth strength and 4ea)ness > of creatie curiosit1 and of careless ma'imalism. In
this regard% the first half of the centur1 4as a decisie epoch. The generations educated at that
time 4ere the actors at midcentur1 and later% during those an'ious decades of the emancipation!
and impoerishment%! 4hen ?4ith the arrial of the so9called ra$nochinets@ FG8 the social -asis
of the Russian enlightenment -egan to e'pand rapidl1. Actuall1% the ra$nochinets% or one of
mi'ed ran)%! 4as usuall1 a seminarist.
The first half of the centur1 4as also decisie in the histor1 of -oth Russian theolog1 and
Russian philosoph1. The a-undant creatie energ1 is simpl1 staggering: a series of forceful and
prominent personalities0 a reer-erating throng surrounding a leader0 students and follo4ers
rall1ing -ehind a teacher. Such is normall1 the case in an era of significant themes. The Cuestion
of Russian theolog1's e'istence 4as decided then% and it 4as ans4ered 4ith a creatie 1es.! "e
can trace the ictories step -1 step. /nCuestiona-l1 one outcome of this period of Cuarreling and
-ra4ling oer the Bi-le 4as a more responsi-le attitude to4ard the +ol1 Scripture. A solid
foundation for Russian Bi-lical scholarship and Bi-lical theolog1 4as laid precisel1 during this
time. This 4as not a matter of simple erudition or merel1 of concern to a fe4. The Statute of
565: reCuired that all students read Scripture. *haracteristicall1% the er1 aim of the
ecclesiastical school 4as left deli-eratel1 ague: the education of pious and enlightened
serants of the "ord of (od.! Special hours set aside for reading Scriptures 4ere diided into
reading at a normal speed! and deli-erate! reading accompanied -1 e'planations% so that the
chief passages for theological truth! ?the so9called sedes doctrinae@ could -e noted and anal1$ed.
+ermeneutics > theologia hermeneutica > 4as the foundation stone of all theolog1. &oreoer%
the students 4ere e'pected to read the Bi-le on their o4n.! Such reading 4as lin)ed 4ith% and
great attention gien to% Bi-lical languages% not Bust (ree)% -ut +e-re4. True% during the return
to the time of scholasticism%! the stud1 of +e-re4 fell under suspicion. "as not this language of
apostate #e4s no4 a 4eapon of heres1 and neolog1I Een +ol1 Scripture 4as read less
freCuentl1. Elementar1 instruction in catechisms suffered most% for one feared to read the
(ospels to children. Nonetheless% a dura-le Bi-lical foundation 4as laid. The first positie
outcome of this transitional period 4as a ital sense of Eiine Reelation% or to put it another
4a1% an intuitie sense of sacred histor1.
A second outcome 4as no less important. *ontemporar1 theological tradition organicall1
lin)ed a philosophical perspectie and the testimon1 of Reelation% that is% philosoph1! and
theolog1! 4ere com-ined. This 4ill -e discussed in detail later.
Prataso's reform! actuall1 strengthened the third outcome: the a4a)ening of the historical
sense > one of the most characteristic and distinctie traits of Russia's deelopment in the
nineteenth centur1. In part it 4as still the historicism of the eighteenth centur1% a sentimental
surial of a -1gone era% 4ith its archeological curiosit1 a-out the past% its sense of ruin and
5==
desolation. Det% the Statute of 565: laid special stress on that 4hich is called philosoph1 of
histor1%! in order to arouse a d1namic response to life. &odern (erman philosoph1 greatl1
spurred it on. A religious interest in the past > a sense of Tradition > 4as a4a)ened.
3or all its shortcomings and infirmities% the ecclesiastical school 4as classical and
humanitarian. It 4as the sole lin) uniting Russian culture and scholarship 4ith the &iddle Ages
and the Renaissance. It also proided a solid )no4ledge of classical languages ?and to a lesser
degree +e-re4@. (ree) met a sad fate in the pu-lic school. In 56FG it 4as deemed a superfluous
lu'ur1% although it remained in the program. In 5685 it 4as completel1 eliminated in all
g1mnasia e'cept those in uniersit1 to4ns% in cities 4ith (ree) settlements% and in the Eorpat
school district. The hours for stud1ing natural science had to -e found some4here. A great
Cuarrel oer (ree) arose -et4een Prince Shirins)ii9Shi)hmato% FGG the &inister of Education%
and the Assistant &inister% A.S. Noro% FG= although the1 shared a common clerical spirit. The
minister feared that 1ouths 4ould slip their *hristian moorings if the1 read pagan authors.
Noro% ho4eer% 4as coninced that (ree) directs 1ouths! minds to the e'alted and the
su-lime%! deflects them from reading harmful and useless -oo)s% and is the primar1 language of
the .rthodo' Eastern *hurch. In an1 case% the 3athers% from *lement of Rome to *hr1sostom%
4ere added to the curriculum. In 56=5 (ree) 4as reied in the g1mnasia 4ith greatl1 e'panded
hours of instruction. An e'planator1 note laid great stress on the fact that )no4ledge of (ree)
ma)es it possi-le to read the (ospels% the 3athers% and the liturgical canons in their original
language% 4hich ma)es our school learning precious to the people.! In realit1% grammar 4as
taught and the authors read 4ere largel1 non9*hristian.
.ne final outcome remains to -e noted. Pu-lication of theological -oo)s rapidl1 increased.
Theolog1 Bournals flourished0 numerous indiidual 4or)s appeared% and not Bust te't-oo)s and
collections of sermons and addresses. The -est productions of the schools% that is% master's
dissertations. 4ere normall1 pu-lished. .ne should remem-er that in general the schools%
particularl1 the ecclesiastical schools% deoted special attention to the students' 4riting and
literar1 st1le. The academies particularl1 tried to deelop a 4riter's' gift and s)ill. Translation% for
the most part in classical languages% -ut also in modern ones% 4as also drilled into the students.
Thus% the ecclesiastical schools passed Russian thought through a philological and literar1
training% there-1 facilitating the rapid gro4th of scholarl1% theological Bournalism in the ne't
period. In general -1 the 56G7's% the Russian theologian 4as on the same leel 4ith his 4estern
counterpart. The entire Bourne1 4as made in the first half of the centur1.
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
Notes to Chater !.
5. E. (olu-ins)ii ?56A:95<5F@% a historian of the Russian *hurch% 4rote a +istor1 of the Russian
*hurch LIstoriia Russ)oi tser)iM ?&osco4% 566795<5G@% : ols.
F. Peter the (reat% or Peter I ?5G=F95=F8@ reolutioni$ed! Russia -1 introducing "estern
technolog1% transferring the capital from &osco4 to St. Peters-urg ?2eningrad@% -1 reforming the
militar1 s1stem and -1 greatl1 reducing the po4er and authorit1 of the Russian .rthodo'
*hurch. +e a-olished the patriarchate in 5=F5 and transformed the *hurch administration into a
4ing of the State. The former patriarchate -ecame the +ol1 (oerning S1nod.! &an1 of Peter's
*hurch reforms! 4ere patterned after the S4edish Protestant *hurch.
5=6
A. ;... ,liuches)ii ?56:595<55@% a professor of histor1 at the /niersit1 of &osco4% 4rote a
fie olume +istor1 of Russia L,urs Russ)oi istoriiM. +is doctoral dissertation 4as on the
&uscoite -o1ar duma.
:. The Kuestions of ,iri)% a historicall1 reealing composition from the mid 5Fth centur1% is
replete 4ith a legalistic% primitie and ritualistic approach to *hristianit1 -1 the Russian clerg1.
The document consists of 575 Cuestions as)ed -1 a group of Nogorodian priests ?,iri)'s name
headed the list@ and ans4ered -1 Bishop Nifont. The primitie spirit of this 4or) differs radicall1
from the li-eral% more uniersal spirit of ;ladimir &onoma)h's Instruction LRouchenieM to his
sons. T4o other similar compositions of Cuestions and ans4ers! on ritual come from this
period: The Precept of the +ol1 3athers to the *onfessing Sons and Eaughters and The
*anonical Ans4ers of &etr. Ioann II of ,ie.
8. The Pouchenie LInstructionM 4as one of the most interesting pieces of literature in .ld Russia.
3or an anal1sis of the Pouchenie see olume III in Nordland's The *ollected "or)s of (eorge P.
3edoto% entitled The Russian Religious &ind ?I@: ,iean *hristianit1% pages F::9FG:.
G. ;ladimir &onoma)h or ;ladimir II ?578A955F8@% the son of Prince Iarosla and Irina%
daughter of the B1$antine Emperor *onstantine IO &onomachos% 4as an energetic statesman% a
gifted 4riter and a s)illful militar1 leader. ;ladimir's international connections are note4orth1:
his mother 4as a B1$antine princess0 an uncle married a Polish princess0 one aunt married +enr1
I of 3rance% another the ,ing of Nor4a1% a third the ,ing of +ungar1. ;ladimir himself married
the daughter of ,ing +arold of England. +is oldest son married the daughter of the ,ing of
S4eden0 his daughter married the ,ing of +ungar10 and a grand9daughter married into the
B1$antine *omneni imperial famil1. It is note4orth1 that ;ladimir's son had three names: a
(ree) *hristian name ?(eorge@0 a Slaic name ?&stisla@0 and an .ld Norse name ?+arold@.
=. The reference is to E.N. Tru-ets)oi's /mo$renie )ras)o)h ?&osco4% 5<5G@% pu-lished in
English -1 Saint ;ladimir's Seminar1 Press as Icons: Theolog1 in *olor.
6. Petr I. *haadae ?5=<:9568G@% an intellectual 4hose thoughts on Russian histor1 and culture
ignited the controers1 -et4een the "esterni$ers and the Slaophiles% 4rote a enomous
criticism of Russia in 3rench in 6 letters% entitled 2ettres PhilosophiCues ?56F=956A5@. The first
letter% in 4hich the term la misera-le B1$ance! occurred% 4as pu-lished in Russian translation
in Teles)op in 56AG. Emperor Ni)olai I ?5=<G95688@ declared *haadae insane and placed him
under house arrest. See Sochineniia i pis'ma. P. Ia. *haadaea% ed. &. (ershen$on ?&osco4%
5<5A@% F ols.
<. See Part II of Eeno #. (eana)opolos' B1$antine East and 2atin "est: T4o "orlds of
*hristendom in &iddle Ages and Renaissance ?Ne4 Dor): +arper P Ro4% 5<GG@.
57. St. ;ladimir or ;ladimir I ?c. <8G95758@% son of the ;i)ing9Russian prince Siatosla and
one of his courtesans% consolidated the Russian realm from the /)raine to the Baltic. Although
*hristianit1 alread1 e'isted to some e'tent in ,ie% it 4as ;ladimir's B1$antine -aptism% 4hich
esta-lished the date of the conersion! of Russia% -ringing Russia into the or-it of (ree)
.rthodo' *hristianit1.
55. Tsar Ale)sei &i)hailoich ?5GF<95G=G@% son of the first Romano Tsar ?&i)hail@% reigned
from 5G:895G=G. Tsar Ale)sei approed Patriarch Ni)on's reforms%! the result of 4hich led to a
schism in the Russian .rthodo' *hurch.
5F. .n the -aptism of Russia% see N. de Baumgarten% Saint ;ladimir et la conersion de la Russie
?Rome: .rientalia *hristiana% ol. OO;II% 5<AF@. 3or possi-le Scandinaian influence see R.
+augh% St. ;ladimir and .laf Tr1ggason: The Russian Primar1 *hronicle and (unnlaug
5=<
2eifson's Saga of .laf Tr1ggason! in ol. ;III of Transactions of the Association of Russian9
American Scholars ?Ne4 Dor)% 5<=:@% 6A9<G.
5A. ;ladimir S. Solo'e ?568A95<77@% a m1stic% poet% theologian and ecumenist% 4as perhaps
Russia's most gifted and most original philosopher.
5:. Tsar Simeon of Bulgaria ?6<A9<F=@ 4aged constant 4ar on B1$antium0 his goal 4as the
imperial cro4n and the creation of a ne4 empire centered in Bulgaria% an empire 4hich 4ould
replace B1$antium. In <5A Simeon:as cro4ned Emperor -1 Patriarch Nicholas &1sticos. The
alidit1 of Simeon's coronation 4as later disallo4ed% although Simeon% according to Romanos I
?2ecapenos@% called himself Emperor of the Bulgarians and Romans.!
58. SS. *1ril ?*onstantine@ ?c. 6F=96G<@ and &ethodius ?c. 6F8966:@ 4ere -rothers -orn in
Thessalonica 4hose father 2eo 4as a B1$antine drungarios. Thessalonica 4as populated -1
man1 Slas 4hose language the t4o -rothers learned. The -rothers -ecame missionaries to the
Slas and -ecause of their role in *hristiani$ing the Eanu-ian Slas and their enormous
influence on all Slaic peoples% the -rothers receied the titles apostles of the Slas! and
doctors.! The1 translated Scripture into the .ld Bulgarian Slaonic! and for this the1 deised
an alpha-et 4hich% in its final form% came to -e )no4n as *1rillic.
5G. This 4as the ie4 of N.,. Ni)ol's)ii and% in part% of Prisel)o. LAuthor's NoteM. Bogomilism
4as a medieal heres1% the roots of 4hich can -e traced to Paulicianism and &anichaeism. In the
6th centur1 the B1$antines resettled groups of Paulicians in Thrace. Bogomilism% the meaning of
4hich came from the leader Bogomil ?Hpleasing (od!@ purportedl1 arose from this. The central
teaching of the Bogomils 4as that the isi-le% ph1sical 4orld 4as created -1 the deil. +ence%
the1 essentiall1 denied the *hristian doctrine of Incarnation and the *hristian -elief that matter
4as a ehicle of grace. The1 therefore reBected -aptism% the eucharist% marriage% the eating of
meat and drin)ing of 4ine% and the entire hierarchical structure and organi$ation of the
esta-lished *hurch ?although the1 had their o4n hierarch1@.
5=. *osmas% a Bulgarian priest% 4rote a treatise on the Bogomils entitled Sloo siatago ,o$mi
pre$itera na hereti)i prepenie i pouchenie ot -o$hestenni)h )nig. It 4as edited -1 &.(.
Popruchen)o and pu-lished in ,o$ma Pres-1ter -olgars)i pisatel' O e)a ?Sofia% 5<AG@. A
3rench translation e'ists: Puech and ;aillant% 2e traite contre les Bogomiles de *osmas le pretre
?Paris% 5<:8@.
56. The &onaster1 of the *aes ?or Pechers)aia 2ara@% founded -1 St. 3eodosii and St. Antonii%
is still a noted sight in ,ie. 3or a description of life in this monaster1 see The Russian Primar1
*hronicle% trans. Fnd ed. -1 *ross and Sher-o4it$9"et$or ?*am-ridge% &a.: The &edieal
Academ1 of America% 5<8A@% p. 5A< ff. See also the Pateri)on ?i.e. a collection of the lies of
inha-itants of the monaster1@ edited -1 E.I. A-ramoich% Pateri)% ,ieo9Pechers)ogo
monast1ria ?St. Peters-urg% 5<55@.
5<. St. 3eodosii ?Theodosius@% the father of coeno-itic or communal monasticism in Russia% 4as
the first mon)9saint! canoni$ed -1 the Russian .rthodo' *hurch. See ;ol. II in Nordland's The
*ollected "or)s of (eorge P. 3edoto entitled A Treasur1 of Russian Spiritualit1% pp. 559:<.
F7. The Studion or Studios &onaster1 in *onstantinople% esta-lished in :GA -1 the Roman
consul Studios% -ecame famous mainl1 through the efforts of St. Theodore the Studite ?d. 6FG@
4ho merged the coen-itic rule of St. Basil 4ith the spiritualit1 of Palestine. The Studite rule ?see
Patrologia (raeca <<% 5=7A95=F7@ reached Russia ia &t. Athos. Eestro1ed -1 *rusaders in
5F7:% re-uilt in 5F<7% destro1ed again in 5:8A% onl1 parts of the monaster1 remain and the1 form
the &osCue of Imrahar.
567
F5. St. Simeon the Ne4 Theologian ?<:<957FF@% a B1$antine m1stic% prepared the 4a1 for the
later -lossoming of hes1chastic m1sticism. B1 using certain methods of pra1er% Saint Simeon
-elieed one could achiee an inner illumination and directl1 e'perience a ision of Eiine light.
The focal point of a rialr1 -et4een the secular and monastic groups in *onstantinople% Saint
Simeon 4as e'iled in 577< -1 the patriarch. The -an 4as later lifted -ut he refused to leae Saint
&arina &onaster1. +is m1stical poems -ecame classics of Eastern *hristian spiritualit1. See the
recent English translation -1 (.A. &alone1% S.#. of +1mns of Eiine (oe ?Eenille% N.#.:
Eimension Boo)s% no date@.
FF. (.(. Shpet and (.P. 3edoto su-scri-e to this ie4 LAuthor's noteM .
FA. Ian ;. ,irees)ii ?567G9568G@% a noted Slaophile critic and editor% helped esta-lish the
Bournals Eropeets LThe EuropeanM and&os)os)ii s-orni) ?568F@. In the latter he pu-lished his
famous aiP5F=0icle .n the Nature of European *ulture and it's Relation to the *ulture of
Russia.!
F:. ;. #agic ?56A695<FA@ 4as a Ser-ian Slaist and philologist 4ho taught at the /niersities of
.dessa% Berlin% St. Peters-urg and ;ienna. +is chief 4or) is Istoriia slaians)oi filologii ?St.
Peters-urg% 5<57@% and he also did e'tensie 4or) on earl1 Slaonic manuscripts.
F8. Iarosla I or the "ise! ?<679578:@% (rand Prince of ,ie from 575<% promoted *hristian
culture in Russia -1 haing (ree) religious 4or)s translated into Slaic and -1 esta-lishing ne4
churches and monasteries.
FG. The +ol1 &ountain! 4as inha-ited -1 hermits as earl1 as the ninth centur1. In <GA the
mon) Athanasius of Tre-i$ond% 4ith assistance from Emperor Nicephoras II Phocas% esta-lished
the first regular monaster1 there% the (reat 2ara. #ohn T$imsces granted it a charter in <=5% and
oer the ne't fe4 centuries &ount Athos gre4 to -ecome the spiritual center of the .rthodo'
4orld 4ith 5< monasteries founded -1 the 1ear 5:77% including the Russian monaster1 of St.
Panteleimon.
F=. Ilarion% the first natie% non9(ree) metropolitan of ,ie ?c.5785@% 4as elected uncanonicall1
-1 Iarosla and Russian -ishops% an indication of the gro4ing autonom1 of the Russtan church
and a result of Iarosla's Cuarrel 4ith B1$antium. Ilarion has also left a *onfession of 3aith
4hich 3edoto suspects of practical docetic monoph1sitism ?see ol. III in Nordland's The
*ollected "or)s of (eorge P. 3edoto% p. 68 ff.@.
F6. N. &. ,aram$in ?5=GG956FG@% a Russian historian% poet and Bournalist% 4as appointed court
historian -1 Ale'ander I. +is 5F olume Istoriia gosudarsta Rossiis)ogo L+istor1 of the Russian
StateM% 4hich ended 4ith the accession of &i)hail Romano in 5G5A% 4as -oth a literar1
landmar) and a defense of autocratic a-solutism. +is memoir 4as translated and edited -1
Richard Pipes as ,aram$in's &emoir on Ancient and &odern Russia: A Translation and an
Anal1sis ?*am-ridge% &ass.: +arard /niersit1 Press% 5<8<@.
F<. ,irill of Turo ?55A79556<@% 4ho f?ourished in the mid lFth centur1% a-sor-ed 4ell -oth
B1$antine literar1 st1le and theological emphases. .f his e'tant letters% pra1ers and sermons% the
latter hae -een historicall1 the most significant% finding their 4a1 into the Tor$hestenni)
LPaneg1ri)on M% a collection of 4orth1! sermons to correspond 4ith the *hurch calendar. .f his
original ie4s% those on the atonement and ascension are perhaps most note4orth1.
A7. ,limentii Smoliatich% metropolitan of ,ie from 55:=95588% has left us onl1 a fragment ?a
letter to a priest named 3oma@. ,limentii's main concern is to defend the allegorical method of
Bi-lical e'egesis. +e% ho4eer% sho4s no originalit1 and% in fact% Cuotes from no secular sources.
+e 4as totall1 dependent. on his (ree) sources.
565
A5. St. Araamii% an enigmatic personalit1% is -est )no4n for his seere eschatological thought.
+e painted t4o icons ?one on The Second *oming!0 the other on The #udgement!@ and
pro-a-l1 authored the Sermon of the *elestial Po4ers. See ol. III of Nordland's The *ollected
"or)s of (eorge P. 3edoto% pp. 58695=8.
AF. In 5F58 the Tatars oerthre4 the *hinese empire and in 5F5<95FF7 the1 oercame the
&oslems of ,hore$m% the result of 4hich 4as to unite all Tur)ic9Tatar peoples of *entral Asia.
The1 then su-Bugated the (eorgians% .ssetians and other peoples of the *aucasus. Terrified% the
Polots1 and Russians united to attac) the Tatars near the ,al)a rier. The Tatars afflicted the
Russian forces 4ith a deastating defeat. Seen 1ears later the Tatars returned% each 1ear
penetrating further into Russian territor1 until ,ie 4as sac)ed in 5F:7 and Nogorod su-mitted
to Tatar demands in 5F8<. 3or t4o centuries the Russians 4ere under the constant control of the
Tatars.
AA. See ;.&. Istrin% .cher) istorii drene9russ)oi literatur1 ?5<FF@ and his I$sledoaniia o-lasti
drene9russ)oi literatur1 ?5<7G@ LAuthor's noteM.
A:. A Pateri)on 4as a collection of Cuotations from 4orth1 3athers! on the lies of 4orth1
inha-itants in a specific monaster1% often omitting an1 source reference. Pateri)i 4ere numerous
in .ld Russia.
A8. Palaea% collections of Bi-lical histor1 often replacing the historical -oo)s of the .ld
Testament% often merged canonical Bi-lical te'ts 4ith apocr1phal and% at times% een non9
religious 4ritings.
AG. The Palaeologi B1$antine d1nast1 ?5FG595:8A@% esta-lished after the *rusades -1 &ichael
;III Palaeologos ?5F8<95F6F@% 4itnessed a flourishing of -oth religious and secular cultural life
> especiall1 under Androni)es II ?5F6F95AF6@ > 4hile B1$antium itself 4as in its declining
1ears. Both the Slaic north and the 2atin 4est reaped some of the harest of this last B1$antine
renaissance.! Although numerous persons particiated in this cultural renaissance the
contri-utions of three persons 4ill indicate the -readth of this re-irth: 5@ &a'imos Planudes ?d.
5A57@% a 4riter of poetr1 and essa1s% 4as also an editor and translator. +e annotated Sophocles%
Euripides% +esiod% Aesop's 3a-les and a critical (ree) Antholog1. +e also 4or)ed on the te't of
Plutarch's &oralia and translated > inter alia > Augustine's Ee Trinitate% Boethius' Ee
*onsolatione philosophiae and *ato's Eicta0 F@ Eemetrios *1dones ?d.c. 5A<P@% attracted to
2atin scholasticism and a conert ?5AG8@ to 2atin *hristianit1% translated Thomas ACuinas'
Summa Theologiae. +e has left ::= alua-le letters and his t4o E'hortations! unsuccessfull1
urged the B1$antines to unite 4ith the 2atin 4est in order to preent the Tur)ish conCuest0 A@
Theodore &etochites ?d.5AAF@% a statesman% scholar% scientist and poet% 4rote an account of his
traels in Ser-ia 4hile negotiating 4ith the Ser-s. +is commentaries on the Eialogues of Plato
aided the l8th centur1 Platonic renaissance in the "est and his &iscellanea philosophica et
istorica ?ed. -1 &uller and ,iessling in 56F5 in 2eip$ig@ contains 5F7 essa1s on philosophical%
political% moral% historical and aesthetic su-Bects.
A=. Euth1mius of Trnoo ?c. 5A5=9c. 5:7F@% a mon) and spo)esman for +es1chasm% 4as also a
scholar and linguist. +is translations of liturgical and canonical te'ts into .ld Slaonic ?an /sta
of the 2iturg1 of #ohn *hr1sostom and a Slu$he-ni) 4hich corrected and -rought uniformit1 to
liturgical te'ts@ spar)ed the late medieal Slaonic renaissance. In 5A=8 he 4as elected Patriarch
of Trnoo and hence -ecame the primate of the Bulgarian .rthodo' *hurch. "hen Trnoo fell to
the Tur)s in 5A<A% he 4ent into e'ile.
A6. Patriarch Philotheus ?c. 5A7795A=<@% an ardent defender of (regor1 Palamas and +es1chasm%
staunchl1 opposed union 4ith Rome. Author of seeral 4or)s% e'egesis and lies of saints% he
56F
also 4rote 4or)s against the thought of A)ind1nos and Barlaam and 58 Antirrhetica LEiatri-esM
against the historian Nicephorus (regoras. The most important Palamite 4or)% the +agioritic
Tome% a 4or) used -1 Palamas himself in his o4n defense% 4as also authored -1 Philotheus. In
5A8A he -ecame Patriarch -ut later 4as imprisoned on a charge of treason. In 5AG: he 4as
reappointed Patriarch. &ainl1 through his efforts the concrete realit1 of *onstantinople's
supremac1 oer the Eastern *hruch 4as furthered and the .rthodo' Slas 4ere consolidated
under the (ree) Patriarchate.
A<. (regor1 Palamas ?c. 5F<G95A8<@% one of the most controersial thin)ers in the histor1 of
*hristianit1% 4as the theologian of the B1$antine contemplatie moement )no4n as +es1chasm
?hes1chia > state of Cuiet@% a moement 4hich held that it 4as possi-le in this life to -ehold the
ision of (od% to e'perience (od through his uncreated grace% through his Eiine energies. The
+es1chastic ascetical method% 4hich com-ined repetitie pra1er formulas 4ith -odil1 postures
and controlled -reathing% 4as opposed -1 -oth 2atin *hristians and B1$antine +umanists. The
"estern ie4 of grace as -oth created and supernatural found Palamas' teaching especiall1
offensie. See #ohn &e1endorff% A Stud1 of (regor1 Palamas ?2ondon% 5<G:@.
:7. The Non9possessors! Lnestia$hateli M% )no4n as the Transolgan elders L$aol$hs)ie
starts1#% -elieed that monasteries should follo4 the rule of poert1 and not tr1 to possess either
land or mone1.
:5. St. Basil ?c. AF<9A=<@% one of the most important persons in the histor1 of *hristianit1% has
left his mar) on doctrine% liturg1% canon la4 and asceticism. +e 4or)ed tirelessl1 to -ring the
Arians and semi9Arians -ac) to Nicaean .rthodo'1% a mission ultimatel1 cro4ned 4ith success
posthumousl1 at the Second Ecumenical *ouncil ?*onstantinople I@ in A65. +e% his 1ounger
-rother St. (regor1 of N1ssa and St. (regor1 of Na$ian$us are )no4n as the *appadocian
3athers.!
:F. Eiadochus of Photice% a-out 4hose life little is )no4n% died c. :G6. .f his four e'tant 4or)s%
the most important 4or) and one 4hich had a profound influence on later Eastern *hristianit1%
especiall1 Russian% 4as Ee perfectione spirituali capita centum ?.ne +undred *hapters on
Spiritual Perfection M 0 it 4as printed in the Russian Philo)alia.
:A. Isaac the S1rian or Isaac of Nineeh ?d. c. =77@% a S1rian -ishop% theologian and mon)% is
enerated as a saint -1 Eastern *hristianit1 een though he passed his life as a Nestorian. +e 4as
a Nestorian -ishop% ho4eer% for onl1 fie months. +e then resigned and returned to monastic
life. +is numerous 4or)s% 4hich 4ere a -asic source for -oth Eastern and "estern *hristianit1%
had a po4erful influence on Russian spiritualit1.
::. +es1chius of #erusalem ?d. c. :87@% reno4ned in Eastern *hristianit1 as a theologian and
Bi-lical commentator% 4rote > according to the &enologion > commentaries on the entire
Bi-le% the method of 4hich 4as entirel1 allegorical. +e pla1ed an important role in the
*hristological controersies of the Sth centur1 reputedl1 reBecting all philosophical terms e'cept
logos sar)outheis L The "ord -ecame flesh M . Among other 4or)s% he 4rote a church histor1% a
portion of 4hich 4as read at the 3ifth Ecumenical *ouncil ?88A@.
:8. St. #ohn *limacus ?8=<9G:<@% the details of 4hose life are little )no4n% 4rote his +eaenl1
2adder 4hile a--ot of &t. Sinai monaster1. The 2adder% one of the most 4idel1 used hand-oo)s
of the ascetic life in Eastern *hristianit1% greatl1 influenced the +es1chasts and Slaic
monasticism. As the title reeals% the ascetic life is seen as an ascent0 the A7 steps of the ladder
represent the A7 non9pu-lic 1ears of *hrist's life. See P( 66% GAF955G50 also 2adder of Eiine
Ascent% tr. 2. &oore ?Ne4 Dor)% 5<8<@.
56A
:G. &a'imus the *onfessor ?c. 8679GGF@% the most important B1$antine theologian of the =th
centur1 influenced the 4hole of medieal theolog1 and m1sticism in the East. +e is -est )no4n
for his contri-ution to the deelopment of *hristolog1 -1 opposing monothelitism ?the -elief that
*hrist had -ut one 4ill and that 4as diine@. Imprisoned from G8A9G88% &a'imus 4as later
tortured and e'iled.
:=. See note F5.
:6. Philipp the recluse 4as an eail1 telfth centui1 (ree) 4iiter. +is Eioptra or (uide for the
*hristian% in the Bi-liotheCue des Peres% is a dialogue -et4een the soul and the ilesh.
:<. The reference is to the m1sterious genius 4ho flourished at the end of the Sth centur1 and
called himself Eion1sius the Areopagite% the name of one of St. Paul's conerts in Athens ?Acts
5=:A:@. The un)no4n Eion1sius 4rote the *elestial and Ecclesiaatical +ierarch1% Eiine Names
of (od and &1stical Theolog1. These 4ritings -ecame criticall1 important for the theolog1 and
spiritualit1 of Eastern *hristianit1. These 4or)s also -ecame important later in the 2atin "est.
87. St. Sergei of Radone$h ?5A5:95A<F@% 4ho left an enormous oral influence on Russian
spiritualit1% esta-lished the Trinit1 &onaster1 in Radone$h 4hich -ecame a center of spiritual%
cultural and economic life. It sered as a -ase of missionar1 and coloni$ing actiit1 in the
Russian North. ?See Nordland's English edition entitled The ';ita' of St. Sergii of Radone$h:
Introduction% Translation% Notes% ed. -1 &. ,limen)o@.
85. Theophanes the (ree) ?c. 5AA895:78@% a prominent B1$antine painter of icons% murals and
miniatures% 4or)ed in Russia after 5A=7 4here his influence 4as great ?Andrei Ru-le 4as one
of his follo4ers.@. Although he closel1 follo4ed B1$antine standards% he also assimilated specific
features of Russian art. The frescoes in the Nogorodian *hurch of the Transfiguration are his.
8F. The *ouncil of 3errara93lorence ?5:A695::8@% recogni$ed -1 the Roman *hurch as the l=th
Ecumenical *ouncil% 4as the continuation of the significant *ouncil of Basel. Pope Eugenius I;
had it transferred to 3errara and% 4hen a plague hit there% it 4as moed to 3lorence. The (ree)s
ultimatel1 accepted the 2atin statements on the procession of the +ol1 Spirit% on purgator1% the
Eucharist and papal primac1 ?onl1 &ar) Eugenicus% metropolitan of Ephesus% refused to sign@.
The pronouncement on union ?2aetentur *aeli@ 4as signed on #ul1 G% 5:A<. /pon returning to
(ree) territor1% F5 of the F< 4ho signed renounced the union and their signatures. "hen
*onstantinople fell to the Tur)s on &a1 F<% 5:8A% the fe4 (ree) adocates of union fled to Ital1.
8A. Isidore ?c. 5A6895:GA@% a (ree)% 4as sent to the *ouncil of Basel ?5:A:@ as an imperial
B1$antine! eno1 4ith the purpose of arranging a ne4 council in *onstantinople. +e 4as
unsuccessful% and% upon returning% 4as sent to Russia as metropolitan of ,ie and hence the head
of the Russian *hurch. Again his mission 4as to 4or) for union. Attending the *ouncil of
3errara93lorence 4ithout (rand Prince ;asilii II's support% he helped Bessarion dra4 up the
decree of union. Shortl1 thereafter% he 4as made *ardinal and returned to Russia 4here he 4as
conicted of apostas1 -1 an ecclesiastical court and imprisoned. .n Easter 5::: he escaped and
fled 4est4ard. Returning to *onstantinople shortl1 -efore its fall% he 4as 4ounded during the
siege -ut managed to flee to Rome 4here he 4rote a description of the sac) of *onstantinople in
his Epistula lugu-ris LSorro4ful 2etterM . Pope Pius II conferred on him the honorar1 title of
(ree) Patriarch of *onstantinople. +is alua-le e'tant 4or)s 4ere edited in 5<FG -1 (. &ercati
as Scritti d=sidore il cardinale ruteno ?Studi e Testi% :G@.
8:. Andrei &. ,ur-s)ii ?58F69586A@% prince% -o1ar% militar1 commander and close associate of
Ian I; the Terri-le% later defected to Poland 4lien he fell out of faor 4ith Ian. +e reputedl1
4rote religious 4or)s ?defending .rthodo'1 in 2ithuania@% A +istor1 of the (rand Prince of
&osco4 LIstoriia o eli)om )nia$e mos)os)om M and an e'cnange of letters 4ith Ian ?see the
56:
English translation -1 #.2.I. 3ennell@. Recentl1 serious dou-t has -een cast on the authenticit1 of
these letters. See Ed4ard 2. ,eenan% The ,ur-s)ii9(ro$n1i Apocr1pha ?*am-ridge% &ass.%
5<=5@. See also -elo4% *hapter II% section II.
88. Iosif ;olots)ii ?or of ;olo)olams)!@ ?5:A<95858@% often termed the 3ather of &edieal
Russia%! had an influentiall1 actie life and e'erted a po4erful influence on Russian spiritual
thought. +e opposed the #udai$ers ?adocating the death penalt1 for incorrigi-le heretics@%
defended the right of monasteries to o4n propert1 and held an interesting theor1 of the diine
right of )ings. +is thought is e'pressed in his Prosetitel LThe EnlightenerM . See -elo4.
8G. 3ilofei% a mon) from the Elea$ar &onaster1 in Ps)o% s)etched this theor1 in a letter to Tsar
;asilii III in 5857R5855. 3or the te't see the appendi' of ;. &alinin% Starets Elea$aroa
monast1ria 3ilofei i ego poslaniia ?,ie% 5<75@. .n the T'hird Rome Theor1! see ".,. &edlin%
&osco4 and East Rome ?Neuchatel% 5<8F@ and +. Schaeder% &os)a das Eritte Rom ?+am-urg%
5<F<@.
8=. *hiliasm ?from the (ree) chilias meaning 5%777@% also )no4n -1 its 2atin form
?millenarianism@% 4as ?and still is@ a school of thought 4hich -eliees that *hrist 4ill rule isi-l1
on earth for 5%777 1ears. Although there are man1 ariations of chiliasm% the1 derie their
original inspiration from a literal interpretation of the F7th chapter of Reelation.
86. N.3. ,aptere ?56:=95<5=@% a Russian historian% 4as -est )no4n for his studies on Ni)on.
See Patriar)h Ni)on i tsar' Ale)sei &i)hailoich ?F ols:% Sergie Posad% 5<7<95<5F@.
8<. +agarene! referred to those holding the Islamic faith% in this case the Tur)s. The deriation
is from +agar% A-raham's concu-ine and the mother of Ishmael ?(en. 5G:595G0 F5:69F5@. .ne
legend claims that Ishmael 4as the ancestor of &uhammed.
G7. In hisEcclesiastical +istor1 ?A%5@ Euse-ius of *aesarea ?d.c. AA<@% the 3ather of *hurch
+istor1%! esta-lished a tradition -ased on a report -1 .rigen ?d. F8A@ that the Apostle Andre4
had preached in Sc1thia. The Russian Primar1 *hronicle added to that tradition: ?Andre4@ . . .
Bourne1ed up the mouth of the Enieper . . . he o-sered to the disciples 4ho 4ere 4ith him: JSee
1e these hillsI So shall the faor of (od shine upon them that on this spot a great cit1 shall arise%
and (od shall erect man1 churches therein.' +e dre4 near the hills% and haing -lessed them% he
set up a cross. . . ,ie 4as su-seCuentl1 -uilt ?there@ . . . +e then reached. the Slas at the point
4here Nogorod is no4 situated . . . +e 4ent thence among the ;arangians and came to Rome!
?*ross and Sher-o4it$9"et$or% The Russian Primar1 *hronicle L*am-ridge: The &edieal
Academ1 of AmericaM% p. 8:@. The significance of this legend 4as that it could later -e claimed
> 4hether accurate or not > that Russia had an apostolic founding perhaps een earlier than
Rome and at least as apostolic as *onstantinople's. See 3. Eorni)% The Idea of Apostolicit1 in
B1$antium and the 2egend of the Apostle Andre4 ?*am-ridge% 5<86@.
G5. In 5:G< *ardinal Bessarion 4rote from Rome and offered the hand of his 4ard% Noe
Palaeologus ?niece of the last B1$antine emperor@% to Ian in marriage. Three 1ears later Noe
married Ian and too) the name Sofia.
GF. Bessarion ?5:7A95:=F@% former hegumen of St. Basil's &onaster1 in *on9Notes to *hapter I
F=< stantinople and arch-ishop of Nicaea at the time of the *ouncil of 3lorence 4as the leader of
the pro9union part1 in the (ree) church and 4as instrumental in o-taining the approal of man1
(ree) sepresentaties to the terms of the council. After failing to 4in the support of his peGple in
*onstantinople for the union% he returned to 3lorence in 5::7% 4as made a cardinal% arid upon the
death of Isidore in 5:GA he 4as made /niate patriarch of *onstantinople. +is collections of
(ree) literature% -oth classical and patristic% 4ere a profound contri-ution to the Italian
renaissance.
568
GA. Baron Sigismund on +er-erstein ?5:6G958GG@ entered the serice of Emperor &a'imillian I
in 585:. +e t4ice isited &uscoite Russia ?585= and 58FG@% the result of 4hich 4as a -oo) of
his o-serations% a 4or) 4hich 4as e'tremel1 inlluential in forming "estern ie4s of Russia:
Rerum &oscoiticarum *ommentarii. At least t4o English translations e'ist: one -1 ..P. Bac)us
?/niersit1 of ,ansas Press% 5<8G@0 another -1 #.B.*. (rund1 ?Eent% 2ondon% 5<G<@.
G:. Aristotle 3ioraanti of Bologna% a 4ell9)no4n architect and engineer in northern Ital1%
accepted an initation from Prince Simeon Tol-utsin to go to Russia in 5:=8 4here he remained
until his death.
G8.Aloisio or Aleis Noi% the Ne4%! to distinguish him from an earlier Aleisio 4ho had
4or)ed in Russia from 5:<:% 4as summoned -1 Ian III in 5878 to re-uild the old *athedral of
St. &ichael the Archangel.
GG. Pietro Antonio Solario% along 4ith &arco Ruffo% directed the re-uilding of the ,remlin 4alls
entirel1 in red -ric) ?5:68@ and -uilt the famous 3aceted Palace L(ranoitaia PalataM% erected
-et4een 5:6= and 5:<5.
G=. Suleiman I ?c. 5:<:958GG@% under 4hom the .ttomans flourished culturall1 and militaril1%
conCuered Belgrade ?58F5@% Rhodes ?58FF@% the +ungarians ?58FG@% IraC ?58A:958A8@% regions of
Persia and Tripoli ?5885@.
G6. Princess Elena (lins)aia% a 2ithuanian liing as a refugee in the Russian court% so charmed
her ne4 hus-and -1 her 1outh and -eaut1% it is claimed% he shaed off his -eard to please her%
something the .rthodo' *hurch then considered sinful% or at least highl1 Cuestiona-le.
G<. See -elo4% section ;I.
=7. I. Na-elin ?56F795<7<@ 4as a 4ell9)no4n Russian historian.
=5. The strigol ni)i LHshorn9headsHM 4ere mem-ers of a mid l:th centur1 heretical moement
dominant in Nogorod. 2ittle relia-le information is e'tant -ecause the moement 4as stopped
and their 4ritings destro1ed. See the stud1 -1 A.I. ,li-ano% Reformatsionn1e di$heniia
Rossii OI;9 peroi poloine O;I . ?&osco4% 5<G7@% 55695AG.
=F. (ennadii ?d. after 587:@% 4ho -ecame arch-ishop of Nogorod in 5:68% conened A s1nods
to stop heretical moements ?especiall1 the #udai$ers@. To counteract the influence of the
#udai$ers% 4ho 4ere distri-uting Russian translations of the Psalms% (ennadii organi$ed the
underta)ing of the first Russian translation of the Bi-le. +e 4as also responsi-le for the
translation of (uillaume Eurandus' ?c. 5FA795F<G@ 4or) on the liturg1 entitled Rationale
diinorum officiorum. 3orced to resign in 587: -ecause of the &osco49Nogorod political
situation% he 4as imprisoned on a charge of treason.
=A. The oldest )no4n dated cop1 of the Enlightener is that made in 585: -1 Nil Pole a
prominent follo4er of #oseph. +is cop1% ho4eer% does not contain the later Sermons against the
+eretics LSloa na ereti)oM . The Pole manuscript is found in the (osudarstennaia
pu-lichnaia -i-liote)a im. &.E. Salt1)oShchedrina ?2eningrad@% so-ranie Soloets)oe%
A:GRAFG. LAuthor's note0 e'act citation -1 the translator. M
=:. &a)arii ?c. 5:6F958G:@ -ecame metropolitan of &osco4 in 58:F. +e esta-lished the first
printing press in Russia% compiled the ;eli)ii chet i9minei ?te'ts on Russian saints arranged for
5F monthl1 readings@% 4rote the Stepennaia )niga LBoo) of (enerationsM ?a histor1 of the ruling
Russian families@% and 4as a central figure at the Stogla So-or ?*ouncil of 577 *hapters@ in
5885. See section ;II in this chapter.
=8. &oses &aimonides ?55A895F7:@% the most important intellectual personalit1 in medieal
#udaism% 4as a Burist% philosopher and ph1sician. +aing passed his childhood in &uslim Spain%
he later moed 4ith his famil1 to &orocco and then Eg1pt 4here he later 4as appointed the
56G
Sultan's ph1sician. A prolific 4riter% he 4rote > inter alia > a 4or) on logical terminolog1% a
commentar1 on the &ishna% a code of #e4ish la4 and a highl1 influential 4or) on religious
philosoph1 entitled The (uide of the Perple'ed.
=G. Alga$el ?578695555@% an important Ara- theologian and philosopher% 4rote 4or)s on logic%
religious )no4ledge% philosophical pro-lems% canon la4 and theolog1.
==. ,araism ?from the +e-re4 Cara' > to read@ 4as a #e4ish religious moement 4hich -egan
in Persia in the 6th centur1 and spread throughout Europe. It claimed that the onl1 source of
diine la4 4as the +e-re4 Scripture0 hence% it renounced all ra--inic oral tradition and the
Talmud. It supported a personal interpretation of Scripture% -ecame fanaticall1 ascetical and%
parado'icall1% legalistic. In its support of montheism% )araism reBected man1 #e4ish ritual
o-Bects ?e.g. ph1lacteries@ 4hich% it felt% 4ere in conflict 4ith strict monotheism.
=6. +aphtarah ?+e-re4 > conclusion!@% a lesson from the prophets read in the s1nagogue on
the Sa--ath and on feast and fast da1s% 4as the conclusion! and follo4ed the reading )no4n as
the parashah ?4hich 4as ta)en from the Torah and read on the Sa--ath and on &onda1s and
Thursda1s@.
=<. According to a 4or) ?c. 5:<8@ entitled Poest' o -elom )lo-u)e LTale of the "hite *o45 M% a
4hite co4l 4as gien to Pope S1lester I ?d.AA8@ -1 *onstantine the (reat. 2ater another pope
returned it to *onstantinople and finall1 Patriarch Philotheus gae it to the arch-ishop of
Nogorod% ;asilii ,ali)a% in the 5:th centur1. Some relationship seems to e'ist -et4een the Tale
and the famous 6th centur1 forger1% the Eonatio *onstantini% a 4or) 4hich claimed that 4hen
*onstantine transferred his capital to *onstantinople ?B1$antium@% he left Pope S1lester in
charge of the 4estern empire. In the Eonatio the Pope 4ears a 4hite co4l.! 3or the te't of the
Poest' see Pamiatni)i starinnoi russ)oi literatur1 ?St. Peters-urg% 56G7@% ol. I% F669F<6.
67. &enander ?A:F9F<5 B.*.@% (ree) dramatist and chief representatie of the Ne4 *omed1%!
4as the author of more than a hundred comedies. /ntil the end of the 5<th centur1% all that 4as
)no4n of &enander 4ere fragments of 5G87 erses or parts of erses% in addition to a
considera-le num-er of 4ords Cuoted e'pressl1 as from &enander -1 the old le'icographers.
The manuscript The "isdom of &enander the "ise L&udrosti &enandra &udrogo or &enandra
&udrogo ra$umi M mentioned -1 (ennadii% )no4n in Russia from the end of the l:th centur1% is a
collection of moral9didactic erses ta)en from &enander's comedies. It is one of the fe4
e'amples of classical literature transmitted to Russia ia B1$antium. 3or a discussion of
&enander and the other 4or)s and authors mentioned here in connection 4ith (ennadii% see Ia.
S. 2ur'e% Ideologiches)aia -or'-a Russ)oi pu-litsisti)e )onsta O; > nachala O;I e)a
?&osco492eningrad% 5<G7@% 56G95<=.
65. 3edor ,urits1n% a diplomat and Ian III's adiser on foreign affairs might hae -een the
author of Poest' o Era)ule LTale of EraculaM% a 4or) a-out an actual ruler of "allachia.
6F. Pachomius the Ser-% a 4riter of 2ies of saints% esta-lished the st1le! of Russian
hagiographical 4riting for future centuries. See ;. Ia-lons)ii% Pa)homii Ser- i ego
agiografiches)ie pisaniia ?St. Peters-urg% 5<76@.
6A. The ;ulgate ?from the 2atin editio ulgate! > the common edition!@% mainl1 the 4or) of
#erome ?d. c. :5<@ under commission -1 Pope Eamasus ?A6F@ -ecame the authoritatie Bi-lical
te't for the 2atin church. The *ouncil of Trent ?58:G@ proclaimed it the sole 2atin authorit1 -ut
suggested it -e pu-lished 4ith fe4er errors. In 58<F Pope *lementine's ;ulgate edition -ecame
the official! te't for the Roman *atholic *hurch.
6:. See I.E. Esee% (ennadies)aia -i-liia 5:<< g. ?&osco4% 5<5:@.
68. See note =F.
56=
6G. Nicholas of 21ra ?c. 5F=795A:<@% author of the earliest Bi-lical commentar1 in print ?Rome
5:=595:=F@% 4as a leading 3ranciscan theologian and taught at the Sor-onne. +is main 4or) 4as
a 879olume Postillae perpetuae LE'egetical NotesM on +ol1 Scripture% a 4or) of literal
interpretation 4hich greatl1 influenced 2uther.
6=. Samuel the #e4 4as a &orroccan Ra--i 4ho 4rote a letter in 57=F to a certain Ra--i Isaac
e'pressing his dou-ts a-out #udaism and descri-ing his gradual full acceptance of *hristianit1.
The letter 4as originall1 4ritten in Ara-ic% and later translated into 2atin. See A. 2u)1n
"illiams% Adersus #udaeos% ?*am-ridge% 5<A8@.
66. .rest 3edoroich &iller ?56AA9566<@ 4as a famous Russian historian and literar1 critic.
6<. Bruno +er-ipolensis of "ar$-urg ?c. 5778957:8@% a cousin of Emperor *onrad II% sered as
an adiser to him and his successor% +enr1 III% and also held the position of Imperial *hancellor
of Ital1 from 57F=957A:. +e then -ecame -ishop of "ur$-urg% 4here he left his mar) in
education and church restoration. +is e'egesis of the Psalms and his catechetical 4ritings are in
P2% 5:F:A<98G6.
<7. See ;. Nhma)in% &itropolit Eaniil%! *hteniia o-shchesta istorii i drenostei &os)os)ogo
uniersiteta ?5665@% I% 59FFG0 II.
<5. St. Nil Sors)ii ?Ni)olai &ai)o@ ?5:8A95876@% 4ho receied his name from the rier -eside
4hich he esta-lished a monaster1 ?Sora Rier@% opposed monastic o4nership of propert1 and the
inolement of mon)s in social and political life. +e -ecame one of the central figures of the
Transolgan Elders.! .ne of the first Russians to leae 4ritings on the m1stical life% he has left
his letters to his disciples and his S)etic Rule. 3or an English translation of the Rule see ol. II in
Nordland's The *ollected "or)s of (eorge P. 3edoto% pp. <795AA. .n St. Nil see ol. I; in
Nordland's The *ollected "or)s of (eorge P. 3edoto% pp. FG:9F6:.
<F. See note =:.
<A. The Boo) of Eegrees 4as a triumphal histor1 of +ol1 Russia! 4ritten from the perspectie
of the #osephites.
<:. ;assian Patri)ee% 4hose non9monastic name 4as ;asilii% 4as the son of one of Ian III's
close adisers% Prince Ian I. Patri)ee. In 5:<< the1 4ere nearl1 e'ecuted and 4ere saed onl1
-1 the interention of &etropolitan Simon. After the death of Nil Sors)ii in 587<% ;assian
-ecame the ac)no4ledged leader of the Transolgan Elders. At the council of 58A5 he 4as
condemned ?4ith &a'im the (ree)@ for follo4ing the teachings of Aristotle and Plato and for
monoph1sitism. +e 4as sentenced to a cell in the monaster1 of ;olo)olams) 4here he died in
58AF. See +.". Ee4e1 P &. &ateBic% The 2iterar1 +eritage of ;assian Patri)ee%! Slaic and
East European +istor1% O ?"inter% 5<GG@% 5:7958F.
<8. The Philo)alia is an antholog1 of patristic 4ritings on pra1er% asceticism and m1sticism
compiled -1 Nicodemus the +agiorite ?5=:695676@% an Athonite mon). 3irst pu-lished in ;enice
in 5=<F% it 4as instrumental in -ringing a-out a reial of interest in the Eesert 3athers% the
mon)s of &ount Sinai% and the +es1chasts of &ount Athos. 3or its impact on later Russian
spiritualit1 see -elo4% *hapter I;% section ;II.
<G. (irolamo Saonarola ?5:8F95:<6@% a controersial figure of the age% 4as a Eominican prior%
a reformer and a po4erful preacher. +e 4as a preacher of repentance% a oice urging moral
reform in 3lorence% in Ital1 and 4ithin the entire *hurch. Through 5:<8 his influence in 3lorence
4as unmatched. The fier1 and often accusator1 nature of his $eal for reform and his support of
the 3rench at this time em-ittered Pope Ale'ander ;I ?5:<F958<A@ 4ho summoned him to Rome
on #ul1 F5% 5:<8 to e'plain the nature of his reelations. Saonarola replied that he 4as too ill
and too needed in 3lorence to come to Rome. +e sent rather his recent 4or) *ompendium
566
Reelationum% a 4or) 4hich he claimed 4ould ans4er the Cuestion on the nature of
reelations.! .n Septem-er 6% 5:<8 the Pope condemned an1 diine inspiration he might claim
and suspended him from preaching until his case had -een tried. Saanarola responded that he
4ould respect the Pope's decision and that he neer claimed to -e diinel1 inspired. Euring 2ent
of 5:<G Saonarola -egan to preach ?some claim 4ith er-al papal permission@. But his attac) on
the corruption of the *hurch% especiall1 the Roman *uria% -ecame increasingl1 more ehement.
.n &a1 5A% 5:<= the Pope's *um saepenumero e'communicated him. +e refrained from
preaching in 5:<= and 4rote the Pope as)ing for a pardon. There 4as no repl1. .n *hristmas
Ea1 Saonarola cele-rated &ass pu-licl1. +is greatest error seems to hae -een the letters he
sent to the rulers of Europe as)ing them to conene a council and to Budge the Pope. Such an
action 4as counter to Pius II's ?5:8695:G:@ E'secra-ilis ?5:G7@ 4hich prohi-ited secular
authorit1 from conening councils. B1 papal permission Saonarola's trial inoled torture. +e
4as hanged and then -urned in the Pia$$a della Signoria in 3lorence. As earl1 as 5:<< he 4as
enerated locall1 as a saint. Although respected -1 the Reformers and influencing them
some4hat ?2uther pu-lished Saonarola's &editatio on Psalm AF and 85 4ith a preface in 58FA@%
Saonarola 4as a moral rather than a doctrinal reformer. Eoctrinall1 he 4as clearl1 a Thomist% as
eidenced -1 his maBor apologetical 4or) Triumphus crucis. &a'im the (ree) 4as indeed
influenced -1 Saonarola's preaching ?see Sochineniia prepodo-nago &a)sima (re)a russ)om
pereode LSergie Posad% 5<57#% 577@. In 5875 &a'im returned to 3lorence and entered
Saonarola's former monaster1. +e neer% it appears% mentioned his Eominican past to the
Russians. 3or t4o e'cellent 4or)s on Saonarola translated into English% see R. Ridolfi% ;ita di
(iroiamo F ols. ?3lorence% 5<A<@ ?Engl. tr.% 5<8<@ and #. Schnit$er% Saonarola: Ein ,ultur-ild
aus der Neit der Renaissance% F ols. ?&unich% 5<F:@ ?Engl. tr.% 5<A5@.
<=. The .rder of *arthusians! ?.. *art@. 4as founded in 576: -1 St. Bruno of *ologne in the
alle1 of *hartreuse ?cartusia@. The *arthusians% unli)e man1 Roman *atholic monastic orders%
4ere not o-liged to follo4 an1 specified t1pe! or form! of spiritualit1 or school of thought!
?e.g.% Scotism% Thomism% etc.@. Their primar1 purpose 4as to attain union 4ith (od and hence
their main characteristic -ecame e'ternal and interior silence% a silence 4hich 4ould ena-le them
to -e attentie to the guidance of the +ol1 Spirit 4ith the help of their spiritual directors. Bound
to their 4orld of silence% the *arthusians preached! -1 cop1ing manuscripts% editing and
printing. The *arthusians pla1ed an important role in the 4estern monastic reform moement of
the l lth and lFth centuries. The1% more than other forms of 4estern monasticism% most resem-le
.rthodo' monastic spiritualit1.
<6. Aldus &anutius ?5::<95858@% a scholar% editor and famous printer% 4as most reno4ned as the
organi$er of the Aldine Press. &anutius pu-lished the first editions of man1 of the (ree) and
2atin classics.
<<. #anus 2acaris ?5::8958A8@ 4as a famous (ree) scholar and diplomat for 4estern po4ers. As
a li-rarian for 2oren$o de'&edici% 2ascaris traeled throughout the East collecting and editing
manuscripts. "hen the &edici fell% 2ascaris sered the 3rench court as a diplomat. It 4as he 4ho
aided Pope 2eo O 4ith the esta-lishment of the Kuirinal *ollege for 1oung (ree)s% a school
4hich lasted onl1 -rietl1. Through his 3rench contacts he contri-uted to the -eginnings of the
3rench Renaissance.
577. 3edor I Ianoich ?586:958<6@% son of Ian I; the Terri-le and his first 4ife% Anastasia
Romanona% succeeded his father in 586:. Eim94itted and 4ea)% he pla1ed no role in goerning%
a responsi-ilit1 assumed -1 Boris (oduno% his 4ife's -rother. All the achieements of 3edor's
reign 4ere hence the 4or) of (oduno > the 4ar against S4eden ?58<7958<8@ regaining
56<
territor1 lost under Ian the Terri-le0 the stopping of a Tatar raid on &osco4 in 58<50 the
-uilding of numerous fortress9to4ns0 the recoloni$ing of Si-eria and reassertion of control in the
*aucasus0 and% most importantl1% the esta-lishment of theRussian Patriarchate in 58<6. "hen
3edor I died childless in 58<6% the Ruri) d1nast1 came to an end. Po4er 4as transferred to Boris
(oduno -1 the authorit1 of a $ems)ii so-or. +is reign ?58<695G78@ inaugurated 4hat is
commonl1 )no4n as the Time of Trou-les! in Russian histor1.
575. R. "ipper% Ian (ro$n1 ?tr.% &osco4% 5<:=@.
57F. See the characteristic degeneration of the #esus Pra1er in chapter 5A of the Eomostroi
L.rdering of the +ouse M . LAuthor's noteM
57A. See note A8.
57:. The *hronograph 4as a collection of general histor1 compiled in Russia in the mid l8th
centur1. There 4ere su-seCuent editions. It consisted of accounts of Bi-lical eents% Roman and
B1$antine histor1% and sections on Russian and South Slaic histor1. 2ater editions added
sections on "estern European histor1.
578. The Stogla ?577 chapters or decrees@ *ouncil ?5885@ lists its decrees in a rather disorderl1
manner% for the1 are arranged in the list of A= Cuestions posed -1 Ian the Terri-le. The decrees
are mainl1 on matters of ecclesiastical disciplinar1 pro-lems and contain no important doctrinal
statements. B1 decreeing the chanting of t4o Alleluias and the signing of the cross 4ith t4o
fingers% the *ouncil laid the ground4or) for the .ld Belieers' schism a centur1 later. There is a
3rench translation -1 E. Euchesne% 2e Stogla ou 5es *ent *hapitres ?Paris% 5<F7@.
57G. &atei Bash)in 4as condemned for allegedl1 -elieing that the eucharist 4as Bust -read
and 4ine% that *hrist 4as uneCual to (od the 3ather% that confession 4as not necessar1% and for
holding iconoclastic ie4s. See A. Boro$din% &atei Semenoich Bash)in%! Russ)ii
Biograftches)ii Sloar'% II.
57=. See -elo4% *hapter II% section II% Artemii and ,ur-s)ii.!
576. &ost of 4hat is )no4n a-out 3eodorit% 4hose dates are uncertain% comes from the +istor1
of the (rand Prince of &osco4 -1 Prince ,ur-s)ii% 4ho 4as his spiritual son and regarded him
as a true saint. +is missions to the 2apps -egan around 58A7 and continued until he -e*.ame
archimandrite of the Spaso9Efim'e &onaster1 in Su$dal' in 5885. +e 4as summoned to
&osco4 to testif1 against Artemii at his trial% -ut instead defended him% 4hich proo)ed
Artemii's accusers to charge 3eodorit 4ith the same heresies.! +e 4as then -anished to the
monaster1 of St. ,irill -ut 4as released shortl1 on the orders of &etropolitan &a)arii. Tsar Ian
I; sent him to *onstantinople in 588= to o-tain the patriarch's confirmation of his titte Tsar!
?HEmperor!@% 4hich Iosaf II granted in 58G5. Sometime after 58G: 3eodorit reportedl1 defended
the defector ,ur-s)ii in front of Ian% and the enraged tsar ordered him dro4ned. See #.2.I.
3ennel% ed.% Prince ,ur-s)1's +istor1 of Ian I;% ?*am-ridge% 5<G8@% pp. F8F9 F68.
57<. 3eodosii ,osoi 4as the leader of a s1ncretic% unitarian heretical moement 4ith Protestant
and #e4ish influences. +e 4as condemned at a council in 58AA9:.
557. 3edor Ianoich Buslae ?5656956<=@ 4as a Russian grammatician and historian of Russian
art and literature.
555. The Trullan *ouncil% or the Kuinise't! ?H3ifth9si'th!@ 4as held in *onstantinople in G<F
and 4as conceied as a supplement to the 3ifth and Si'th Ecumenical *ouncils ?held in
*onstantinople in 88A and G6795@% 4hich had promulpated no canons. It is most important for its
canons regarding the married clerg1 and confirming the F6th canon of the *ouncil of *halcedon
?:85@% 4hich gies the see of *onstantinople eCual priileges 4ith the see of .ld Rome.! The
"estern *hurch% alread1 practicing clerical celi-ac1% reBected its decisions.
5<7
55F. #an Ro)1ta% a &oraian Brethren% came to &osco4 in 58=7 4ith the Polish em-ass1. At that
time% ho4eer% it 4as common for Russians to consider all Protestants! as 2utherans.! Ian I;
responded to Ro)1ta's e'position -1 utili$ing a 4or) against 2utherans 4ritten -1 a hol1 3ool!
named Parfenii. See E. Am-urger% (eschichte des Protestantismus in Russland ?Stuttgart% 5<G5@.
55A. The *$ech ?Bohemian or &oraian@ Brethren 4ere a remnant of the +ussites 4hich -ro)e
off from the *atholic and /traCuist parties in Bohemia in 5:8=% calling for a return to primitie
*hristianit1. "ith their reBection of 4ar% iolence and oaths% their strict discipline% and their use
of the Bi-le as the sole authorit1 on faith% the1 anticipated later Ana-aptist moements.
55:. Antonio Posseino ?58A:95G55@% a staunch opponent of the Protestant Reformation% -ecame
a #esuit in 588<. Posseino% successful in preaching against the Reformation in 3rance ?58GF9
58=F@% -ecame a special legate of Pope (regor1 OIII in 58==. +is assignment 4as to -ring ,ing
#ohn III of S4eden to *atholicism. ?,ing #ohn actuall1 conerted -ut Cuic)l1 lapsed 4hen the
Pope refused to consider certain reforms: a ernacular liturg1% marriage of the clerg1 and
communion under -oth species.!@ +is ne't papal assignment 4as to Ian the Terri-le 4ho had
as)ed for papal mediation after his loss to Poland. In 5865 he arried in Russia and negotiated an
armistice. +is attempts to 4or) out a reunion of the *hurch failed and he returned to Rome in
586F. +e then sered as papal nuncio to Poland 4ith instructions to continue to 4or) for reunion.
"hen Ian the Terri-le died in 586:% contact 4ith the papac1 4as -ro)en off. 3rom 586= to .
58<5 Posseino 4as professor of theolog1 at the /niersit1 of Padua. Among his 4ritings he left
his inalua-le &oscoia ?;ilna% 586G@. See S. Polcin% S.l.% /ne tentatie d'/nion au O;Ie
siecle: 2a mission religieuse du Pere Antoine Possein S.#. en &oscoie ?58659586F@%!
.rientalia *hrtstiana Analecta% *2 ?Rome% 5<8=@ and .. +alec)i% Posseino's 2ast Statement on
Polish9Russian Relations%! .rientalia *hristiana Periodico% OIO ?5<8A@.
Notes to Chater !!.
5. The close ties -et4een Poland and 2ithuania -egan in 5A68 4hen (rand Prince #agietto of
2ithuania agreed 4ith Polish am-assadors to -e -apti$ed into the *atholic *hurch% marr1 the 5F
1ear old Kueen #ad4iga of Poland% and accede to the Polish throne as ,ing "tad1sta4. 3urther
agreements -et4een Poland and 2ithuania in 5:75 and 5:5A strengthened this personal union.!
Although it lapsed at the end of the l8th centur1% the senates of -oth states then agreed that the
,ing of Poland 4ould also hold the title of (rand Prince of 2ithuania% and at the cit1 of 2u-lin
on #ul1 5% 58G< a common parliment 4as formed% finali$ing the union.
F. Scattered pagan 2ithuanian tri-es first -egan to unite -efore the middle of the lAth centur1
under &indaugas &indoe or &endog% ?d. 5FGA@ to com-at the Teutonic ,nights. &indaugas%
cro4ned 2ithuania's first and onl1 )ing -1 Pope Innocent I;% alread1 -egan to e'pand east4ard
and south4ard into ,iean Rus'% 4hich had -een raaged -1 the Tatars. (ediminas ?d. 5A:5@%
ho4eer% 4as the real -uilder of the 2ithuanian state% moing its frontiers to the Enieper Rier
and esta-lishing his capital at ;ilna. +is son Algiridas ?or .lherd% d. 5A==@ continued to e'pand
into "estern Russia% ta)ing ,ie in 5AGF% and earlier% in 5A88% 4as a-le to secure a separate
metropolitan for his .rthodo' su-Bects. 3or the earl1 histor1 of the 2ithuanian &etropolitanate of
,ie see Emitrii .-olens)ii% B1$antium% ,ie and &osco4% A stud1 in Ecclesiastical
Relations%! Eum-arton .a)s Papers% no. 55% 5<8=.
A. The territor1 of (alicia% situated on the northeastern slopes of the *arpathian &ountains in
present da1 /)raine% first -ecame a strong and independent po4er under Prince Roman ?556<9
5F78@ of ;ladimir in ;ol1nia% and later under his son Eaniel ?5F:895FG:@. Although Eaniel
5<5
receied ) cro4n from papal legates% the independence of (alicia 4as constantl1 threatened -1
+ungar1% 2ithuania and the Tatars% and in the latter half of the l:th centur1 it 4as diided
-et4een Poland and 2ithuania. A separate metropolitanate 4as created for (alicia in 5A7A and
lasted intermittentl1 until 5A:=. See &. +rushes)1% A +istor1 of the /)raine ?Ne4 +aen%
5<:5@% pp. <G95FA.
:. (regor1 Tsam-la)% a Bulgarian and nephe4 of &etropolitan ,irill ?see *hapter I% section I;@%
held the office of metropolitan of 2ithuania from 5:58 until his death in 5:F7. The 2ithuanian
(rand Prince ;itot ?;1tautas% 5A<F95:A7@ had attempted to secure his o4n metropolitan from
the patriarch of *onstantinople% -ut his candidate% (regor1% 4as instead deposed in 5:5:.
Thereupon% ignoring the authorit1 of the patriarch% the 2ithuanian .rthodo' clerg1 met in council
and named (regor1 their metropolitan themseles. See I. "laso4s)1% .utline +istor1 of the
/)rainian .rthodo' *hurch ?Ne4 Dor)% 5<8G@% .l% pp. 57<9557.
8. The *ouncil of *onstance% the 5Gth general council of the *atholic *hurch% met from No. 8%
5:5: to April FF% 5:56. It had three purposes: 5@ to resole the "estern Schism%! -rought on -1
the simultaneous claims to the papac1 of (regor1 OII and anti9popes #ohn OOIII and Benedict
OIII0 F@ to condemn the heresies of #ohn "1cliffe and #an +us ?+us 4as -urned at the sta)e
there in 5:58@0 and A@ to initiate reforms strengthening the po4er of councils at the e'pense of
the papac1. See 2.R. 2oomis% tr.% The *ouncil of *onstance% ed. #.+. &und1 and ,.&. "ood1
?Ne4 Dor)% 5<G5@.
G. See *hapter I% note 8A.
=. See *hapter I% note 8F.
6. (regor1 &ammas ?d. 5:8<@% one of the leaders of the pro9union part1 in *onstantinople and a
supporter of the *ouncil of 3lorence% 4as elected .rthodo' patriarch of *onstantinople in 5::8.
.pposition to the union forced him to a-andon his see and come to Rome in 5:87% 4here he
sered 4ith Isidore and Bessarion as adisers to Popes Nicholas ;% *ali'tus III and Pius II in
their efforts to enforce the union first in *oP5F=0stantinople% and after its fall in Eastern Europe.
<. See% for e'ample% the letter of &arch 5:% 5:=G sent from "est Russia to Pope Si'tus I; 4hich
had as one of its signators the metropolitanslect &isael ?Pstruch or Pstru)is@. The full te't of the
letter is pu-lished in Ar)hi Iugo$apadnoi Rossii% ol. III% part I% ?,ie% 566=@% 5<<9F55. There is
a discussion of the letter and the releant -i-liograph1 in .scar +alec)i% 3rom 3lorence to Brest
?5:A<958<G#% ?second edition% Archon Boo)s% 5<G6@% <<957A. LAuthor's note. M
57. See *hapter I% note 55A.
55. The Arians 4ere follo4ers of the earl1 :th centur1 Ale'andrian pres-1ter Arius ?d. AAG@ 4ho
taught that the onl1 true (od is (od the 3ather% and that *hrist 4as not trul1 diine% i.e. there
4as 4hen he 4as not.! *ondemned at the 3irst Ecumenical *ouncil at Nicaea in AF8% the Arian
heres1 4as rather 4idespread and proo)ed a -itter controers1 throughout the *hurch in the :th
centur1% a controers1 4hich raged until the Second Ecumenical *ouncil at *onstantinople in
A65. The term Arian! 4as therefore applied to arious Anti9Trinitarian or /nitarian sects 4hich
arose during the Protestant Reformation.
5F. Sigismund II Augustus ?58:6958=F@% in 4hose reign the /nion of 2u-lin 4as esta-lished%
4as the last of the descendants of #agiet to hold the Polish throne. Euring his reign there 4as no
official state! religion and therefore an unusual degree of freedom of religious discussion and
4orship.
5A. Stephen Bator1% the prince of Trans1lania% 4as elected to the throne after +enri de ;alois
acated it to claim the 3rench cro4n% and during his reign led three -rilliant militar1 campaigns
against Ian I;'s forces in 2ithuania. Although Bator1 4as a *alinist -efore he conerted to
5<F
accept the throne% he soon -ecame a deout champion of *atholicism% cooperating 4ith the
#esuits in the *atholic restoration in Poland% and een attempted to force his .rthodo' su-Bects to
accept the calendar reform of (regor1 OIII ?see -elo4@.
5:. Sigismund III ;asa ?586=95GAF@% a deout *atholic% 4as elected )ing on the premature death
of Stephen Bator1. It is interesting to note that% acting as the traditional protector of the .rthodo'
su-Bects of the *ommon4ealth% he issued a ro1al charter on #ul1 58% 586< authori$ing Patriarch
#eremiah's isit to 2ithuania ?see -elo4% section ;@ and an1 action he might ta)e on religious
matters% and confirmed #eremiah's deposition of metropolitan of ,ie .nesifor as 4ell as his
decision to put the Brotherhoods of 2o and ;ilno outside the Burisdiction of the local -ishops%
4ho 4ere appointed -1 the Polish cro4n. ?The charter is reprinted in Russ)aia istoriches)aia
-i-liote)a% ;II% col. 555=955F5@. +o4eer% on Eecem-er 58% 58<G% shortl1 after the /nion of
Brest% he irtuall1 outla4ed the .rthodo' *hurch -1 calling on all .rthodo' *hristians to Boin
the union and -anning all opposition to the union. In the latter part of his reign he t4ice inaded
&uscoite Russia0 in 5G57 4hile &usco1 4as in its Time of Trou-les! to tr1 and gain the
Russian cro4n for himself% and again in 5G5= to support his son and successor "tad1sta4's
claim to the throne.
58. (ioanni *ommendone ?58F:9586:@ 4as the papal nuncio to Poland from 58GA958G8. +e
4as responsi-le for o-taining ,ing Sigismund II's acceptance of the decrees of the *ouncil of
Trent ?see note 5<G@ and for persuading him to gie the #esuits his ro1al protection in Poland%
there-1 setting the stage for the *atholic restoration actiities -egun under Stephen Bator1. +e
4as also the first of the papal nuncios to gie attention to the pro-lem of conerting the
.rthodo'% as 4ell as the Protestants% to the Roman *hurch. 2ater he returned as a papal legate to
get Poland's participation in an anti9.ttoman league.
5G. Stanislaus *ardinal +osius ?Stanista4 +o$Bus$@ ?587:958=<@% the great Polish -ishop and one
of the leading *atholic hierarchs of the lGth centur1% had -een a presiding mem-er of the *ouncil
of Trent. Reno4ned for his $eal in com-atting the opponents of *atholicism% he 4as referred to
-1 contemporaries as the second Augustine! and the hammer of heretics.! It 4as he 4ho
actuall1 introduced the Societ1 of #esus ?#esuits@ in Poland in 58G:. Bet4een 58G: and 5G8: 87
#esuit esta-lishments 4ere founded in Poland.
5=. See -elo4% section I;.
56. The nation! or millet s1stem had long -een used -1 &oslem rulers to deal 4ith religious
minorities 4ithin their realms. Each nation! 4as allo4ed to goern its internal affairs according
to its o4n la4s and customs% and the religious head of the nation! 4as responsi-le for it -efore
the &oslem authorities. After the conCuest of B1$antium% the Tur)ish rulers e'tended this s1stem
to the .rthodo' under the patriarch of *onstantinople.
5<. I.e. Peter &ogila ?&oila in Romanian% &oh1la in /)rainian@. See -elo4% section ;II.
F7. Na)harii ,op1stens)ii ?d. 5GF=@ 4as a leading .rthodo' monastic in the period after the
/nion of Brest. See -elo4% section ;.
F5. Russ)aia istoriches)aia -i-liote)a% I;% 65A.
FF. Artemii's epistles are pu-lished in Russ)aia istoriches)aia -i-liote)a% I;% col. 5F7595::6. See
also S.(. ;ilins)ii% Poslaniia startsa Artemiia O;I e)a% ?.dessa% 5<7G@.
FA. Socinianism 4as an Anti9Trinitarian offshoot of the Protestant Reformation. It too) its name
from t4o earl1 proponents of the heres1 in Ital1% 2aelius ?58F8958GF@ and 3austus ?58A<95G7:@
Socinus% 4ho taught that *hrist 4as not diine -1 nature% -ut onl1 -1 office. The center of the
moement soon shifted to the Poland92ithuania *ommon4ealth% 4here 3austus Socinus himself
moed% and 4here it diided into t4o rial factions. The Polish faction% led -1 Socinus% held that
5<A
it 4as proper to address *hrist in pra1er -ecause of +is diine office% and preached non9
participation in goernment and in the militar1. The 2ithuanian group% 4hich Budn1 Boined and
soon led% included seeral local no-lemen 4ho )ept their positions in the goerriment% and taught
that since *hrist 4as not trul1 (od it 4as therefore for-idden to pra1 to +im% hence the name
non9adorantes. The t4o groups 4ere some4hat reconciled at a s1nod in 586:% -ut Budn1 himself
4as e'communicated from them and died a fe4 1ears later. See E.&. "il-ur% A +istor1 of
/nitarianism% ol. I ?*am-ridge% &ass.% 5<:8@.
F:. Budn1's ,ate)hi$is 4as pu-lished ?although not in full@ in Ar)heografiches)ii s-orni)
do)umento% otnosiashchi)hsia ) istorii seero9$apadnoi Rusi% ol. ;III% ?;ilna% 56=7@% 'i9''i.
3ragments of the .pradanie 4ere pu-lished in .p1t' rossiis)oi -i-liografii ;.S. Sopi)oa% ch. I%
?St. Peters-urg% 565A@. The latest essa1 on Budn1 is -1 S. ,ot in Studien $ur alteren (eschichte
.steuropas 5 ?3estschrift fr +.3. Schmid@% ?(ra$9,oln% 5<8G@% pp. GA9556.
F8. See *hapter I% note :5.
FG. See *hapter I% note :A.
F=. See *hapter I% note :<.
F6. St. #ohn of Eamascus ?d. ===@% the last great theologian of the Patristic age% 4as the leading
defender of .rthodo'1 during the controers1 oer icons% and is -est )no4n for his Ee 3ide
.rthodo'a or An E'act E'position of the .rthodo' 3aith% as 4ell as the numerous pra1ers and
h1mns attri-uted to him.
F<. See a-oe% *hapter I% section ;I.
A7. Artemii had a num-er of priate pupils% one of 4hom > &ar) Sar1go$in > later 4or)ed
4ith ,ur-s)ii on Patristic translations. LAuthor's note.M 2ittle is )no4n a-out Sar1go$in ?or
Sar1)ho$in@. +e deserted to 2ithuania along 4ith Timofei Teterin% an arm1 officer 4ho fled
a-out the same time as Prince ,ur-s)ii. In an undated letter to Sar1go$in% ,ur-s)ii relates his
interest in Patritic 4ritings and as)s Sar1go$in to isit him in 2ithuania to help translate the
3athers into *hurch Slaonic. *f. #.2.I. 3ennell% editor and translator% The *orrespondence
-et4een Prince A.&. ,ur-s)1 and Tsar Ian I; of Russia% 58G:958=<% ?*am-ridge% 5<GA@% p.
56F% n. =. The ,ur-s)ii correspondence should -e read 4ith caution and in the light of the
possi-le significance of Ed4ard 2. ,eenan's research. See footnote 8: of *hapter I.
A5. There is an English translation of ,ur-s)ii's histor1 -1 #.2.I. 3ennell% ,ur-s)1's +istor1 of
Ian I;% ?*am-ridge% 5<G8@.
AF. See a-oe% *hapter I% section ;I.
AA. A controers1 e'ists as to 4hether or not% prior to the l=th centur1% li-raries in &osco4
contained (ree) manuscripts. .ne ie4% -ased on pro-a-ilit1% claims that the1 4ere -rought -1
(ree) scholars 4ho came 4ith Sophia Palaeologos0 conseCuentl1 at the time of Ian I; a si$a-le
collection 4as aaila-le. The opposite case% resting on the a-sence of eidence% holds that until
the l=th centur1 onl1 Slaonic material 4as at hand. The pro-lem remains unsoled. LAuthor's
note. M
A:. St. #ohn *hr1sostom% the (olden &outh! ?d. :7=@% is one of the most reno4ned and -eloed
figures in the histor1 of the .rthodo' *hurch. +e is )no4n mostl1 for his fearless preaching in
*onstantinople% his numerous homilies on the Ne4 Testament (ospels and Epistles% and the
Eiine 2iturg1 most commonl1 cele-rated in .rthodo' churches% 4hich is attri-uted to him.
A8. St. (regor1 Na$ian$us% the Theologian! ?c. AA79A6A@% 4as% along 4ith St. Basil and his
-rother St. (regor1 N1ssa% one of the great :th centur1 thin)ers 4ho led the church to the final
ictor1 oer Arianism and helped to standardi$e the theological terminolog1 oer 4hich so man1
-attles 4ere fought in the :th centur1 Trinitarian and Sth centur1 *hristological controersies.
5<:
AG. St. *1ril% patriarch of Ale'andria from :5F until his death in :::% led the struggle against the
Nestorians% 4ho taught that *hrist's diine and human natures 4ere entirel1 separate and that
since &ar1 gae -irth to his human nature onl1 she could not -e called Theoto)os Lthe &other of
(odM . St. *1ril 4as the dominant figure at the Third Ecumenical *ouncil at Ephesus in :A5%
4hich condemned the Nestorian heres1.
A=. See a-oe% note F6.
A6. The +istoria ecclesiastica of Nicephorus *allistus Oanthopoulos ?c. 5FG79 5AA8@ contains 56
-oo)s tracing the histor1 of the *hurch from the -eginnings of *hristianit1 to the reign of the
B1$antine Emperor Phocas ?G7F9G57@. Nicephorus *allistus 4as also )no4n for arious 4ritings
on liturgical themes as 4ell as a catalogue of *hurch 3athers% emperors% patriarchs% melodists and
saints.
A<. See ,ur-s)ii's Introduction to his Ne4 Pearl LNo1i margaritM included in N.(. /strialo%
S)a$aniia )nia$ia ,ur-s)ogo% ?St. Peters-urg% 56G6@. LAuthor's note.M
:7. "here this rumor arose and ho4 it reached ,ur-s)ii is un)no4n. It 4as pro-a-l1 through
&a'im the (ree)% although he could hae heard it from (ree)s 4ho settled in ;ol1nia after the
destruction of *onstantinople. LAuthor's note.M
:5. Nicholas *a-asilas ?5AF795A<7@ 4as a distinguished hes1chast m1stic and a firm opponent of
2atin theolog1 and scholasticism. +e is -est )no4n% ho4eer% for his 2ife in *hrist% tr. *.#. de
*atan$aro ?St. ;ladimir's Seminar1 Press% 5<=:@ and A *ommentar1 on the Eiine 2iturg1% tr.
S.&. +uss1 ?2ondon% 5<G7@.
:F. The stud1 of the eclectic philosoph1 and magnificent prose st1le of *icero ?57G9:A B.*.@% the
great Roman orator and statesman% 4as a standard part of the curiiculum of the ancient schools in
4hich man1 earl1 *hristian 4riters 4ere trained. +is influence is especiall1 felt in such "estern
3athers as Am-rose% #erome% and Augustine.
:A. The &amonich famil1 4ere 4ell9esta-lished printers in ;ilna. T4o of the -est )no4n of
them 4ere the -rothers ,u$ma and 2u)ash% 4ho o4ned their o4n printing office and 4ere
printers for the 2ithuanian goernment.
::. The Eialectica and Ee fide orthodo'a% along 4ith a section .n +eresies in Epitomies and a
short introduction% form the four parts of St. #ohn of Eamascus' principle 4or) 3ount of
,no4ledge. Ee fide orthodo'a is the usual title gien the fourth section of the 3ount% -ut the full
title is An E'act E'position of the .rthodo' 3aith.
:8. Not much is )no4n a-out the life of #ohn% E'arch of Bulgaria ?d.c. <F8@ or een 4hat the
title E'arch! refers to% -ut seeral of his 4or)s are )no4n. +is translation of Ee fide orthodo'a
comes from the 1ears 6<59F% he also 4rote a commentar1 on the si' da1s of creation
LShestodneM -ased on St. Basil's +e'ameron% and his +omilies are -eing edited in Sofia -1 Eora
Ianoa &irchea.
:G. #ohann Spangen-erg ?5:6:95887@ 4as an indefatiga-le 4or)er for the cause of the
Reformation. Born in +ardegsen in 5:6:% he 4as later )no4n as +ardesius% +ardesianus% and
+erdesianus. After im-i-ing the spirit of humanism at the /niersit1 of Erfurt% he -ecame -oth
school rector and preacher at Stol-erg. +e -ecame an earl1 s1mpathi$er of the ideas of the
Reformation and as earl1 as the -eginning of the 58F7's% according to his -iographer &en$el% he
-egan to interpret the Scriptures in an unaccustomed 4a1 Lnon consueto more.M. In 58F: he 4as
inited to the imperial cit1 of Nordhausen and there he sered as -oth educator and pastor0 he
opened his o4n school and hence is often )no4n as Scholae Nordhusanae Episcopum.!
Spangen-erg's reputation as pastor and educator spread rapidl1 and in 58:G 2uther reCuested that
Spangen-erg go to &ansfeld in order to superintend the entire affairs of the church there. +e
5<8
4or)ed tirelessl1% sometimes preaching four times a da1. In 5887 Spangen-erg died% leaing
-ehind his 4ife of fort19three 1ears and four sons ?three of 4hom -ecame theologians@.
Spangen-erg 4rote h1mns% sermons% 4or)s of a doctrinal nature and 4or)s on general moral
deelopment. In his Nfargarita theologica he transposes &elanchthon's 2oci theologici into the
form of Cuestions. +is Triii Erotomata dealt 4ith the triium in the form of Cuestions.
:=. 3ragments of partiall1 completed translations% among them sections of Euse-ius'
Ecclesiastical +istor1% e'ist in manuscript form. LAuthor's note.M The Ecclesiastical +istor1 of
Euse-ius% -ishop of *aesarea ?d. AA<@ is -1 far the most famous of earl1 church histories and the
prime source for all research into the *hristian *hurch. A critical edition of this 4or) 4as
compiled -1 Ed4ard Sch4art$ and pu-lished in (riechische *hristliche Schriftsteller ?2eip$ig%
5<7A9 5<7<@.
:6. *ommonl1 -ut erroneousl1 ascri-ed to &a'im the (ree). LAuthor's note.M
:<. Theodoret% -ishop of *1rus ?:FA9:GG@% 4as a theologian of the Antioch tradition% from 4hich
Nestorius came% and his friendship and s1mpath1 for Nestorius 4as to proe his undoing later%
for although he formall1 condemned Nestorius at *halcedon in :85% he himself 4as condemned
as one of the Three *hapters! at the 3ifth Ecumenical *ouncil in *onstantinople in 88A.
.utside of the *hristological controersies% ho4eer% he 4as )no4n for his alua-le Scriptural
e'egeses.
87. &an1 e'tant fragments of commentaries on the Psalms% (enesis% Ecclesiastes and the Song
of Songs hae -een attri-uted to St. Athanasius% -ishop of Ale'andria from AF6 to A=A% a
courageous fighter against the Arians 4ho 4as e'iled fie times from his see and is -est )no4n
for his Three Eiscourses Against the Arians and The 2ife of St. Anthon1.
85. Ian 3edoro had set up the first printing press in &osco4 in 58G: -ut 4as soon drien out
-1 a superstitious mo- aroused -1 the professional manuscript copiers. +e then 4ent to
Nadlu-o in 2ithuania% 4here he printed the (ospels in 58G6 and% 4hen his patron lost interest in
the proBect% moed on to esta-lish the first press in 2o in 58=A. 2ater he 4ent to .strog to
4or) for Prince ,onstantin 4here he printed the .strog Bi-le ?586795865@. After that he tried to
start his o4n esta-lishment -ac) in 2o -ut died there in 586A.
8F. Petr &stislaets had -een 3edoro's assistant in &osco4. +e came 4ith him to 2ithuania and
settled in ;ilna% 4here he printed the (ospels and the Psalms.
8A. The *hod)ie4ic$ famil1 4as one of the most prominent no-le families in 2ithuania and 4as
highl1 s1mpathetic to the Protestant Reformation. (rigorii *hod)ie4ic$% the castellane of ;ilna%
4ho 4as himself .rthodo'% set aside his entire income of one of his large illages to finance
3edoro's printing operation.
8:. See -elo4% section I;.
88. .n -oo)printing during this period see &.N. Ti)homiro% Nachale mos)os)ogo
)nigopechataniia%! /chen1e $apis)i &(/ ?&osco4% 5<:7@ and A.;. Nerno% Nachalo
)nigopechataniia &os)e i na /)raine ?&osco4% 58:=@.
8G. (erasim Smotrits)ii 4as the first rector of the .strog Academ1% the principal colla-orator in
the preparation of the .strog Bi-le% the author of its Preface% and the author of The ,e1 to the
,ingdom of +eaen% a defense of .rthodo'1 against the /niates 4ritten in 586:. See -elo4.
8=. .n a /nited 3aith 4as pu-lished in .strog in 586A and is presered in Russ)aia
istoriches)aia -i-liote)a% ;II% G759<A6.
86. Eemian Naliai)o 4as the priest of St. Nicholas *hurch in .strog. +is -rother Semerin 4as
the organi$er of his o4n -and of *ossac)s 4ho reolted in the fall of 58<8 and plundered the
territor1 around the cit1 of 2uts)% including the estates of Bishop Terlets)ii% 4ho 4as in Rome at
5<G
the time receiing the Pope's -lessing of the /nion of Brest ?see -elo4@. The follo4ing 1ear
Semerin 4as captured -1 the Polish arm1% tortured in prison for a 1ear% and -eheaded.
8<. #an 2iatos ?c. 58A<95G78@% a *atholic% 4as a professor at the /niersit1 of *raco4 4ho 4as
dismissed from his position -ecause he opposed the calendar reform of Pope (regor1 OIII. See
-elo4.
G7. #aco- Sus$a% Saulus et Paulus. LAuthor's note.M #aco- Sus$a ?5G5795G6=@ 4as the -ishop of
*helm from 5G8F and the head of the /niate Basilian order of mon)s from 5GG5 to 5GG=. +is
Saulus et Paulus ruthenae unionis sanguine -eati #osaphati transformatus sie &eletius
Smotricius 4as pu-lished in Rome in 5G8G.
G5. ;eliamin Ruts)ii% the /niate metropolitan of .strog% ie4ed .stro$hs)ii's plan as an effort to
counter-alance the /niate *ollege of St. Athanasius founded in Rome in 58=G -1 the #esuit
Antonio Posseino. The purpose of this school 4as to educate (ree)s and Slas of the Eastern
rite. LAuthor's note.M Ruts)ii ?58=:95GA=@ succeeded +1patius PocieB ?see -elo4% note 6=@ as
/niate metropolitan of ,ie in 5G5A. +e 4or)ed unsuccessfull1 against the actiities of the
.rthodo' Brotherhood of ,ie and organi$ed the /niate monasteries under his control into a
regular order under the rule of St. Basil.
GF. *1ril 2ucaris 4as one of the most important and tragic figures in the .rthodo' *hurch of this
time. Born in *rete in 58=F% he receied a -road humanist education at the (ree) school in
;enice and the /niersit1 of Padua. +e 4as ordained priest -1 his cousin% &eletius Pigas% the
patriarch of Ale'andria and sent to Eastern Europe to help the .rthodo' in their struggle against
the /nion of Brest. +e attended the .rthodo' s1nod of 58<G in Brest ?see -elo4@ and taught in
the .rthodo' schools of .strog% ;ilna and 2o. 3orced to flee for a short time -ecause he 4as
accused of -eing a Tur)ish sp1% he returned to the 2o school for another -rief period in 5G77
and then 4as elected patriarch of Ale'andria in 5G75. "hile patriarch of Ale'andria% he acCuired
seeral Eutch and Engtish Protestant friencTs 4ith 4hom he