Br.

Angelos Stanway

Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary

Saint Sergius of Radonezh and the Hesychast Movement

Saint Sergius of Radonezh, one of Russia’s most beloved saints and credited by many

as being the central force of the monastic revival in Russia during the fourteenth century, has

been compared with many of the hesychastic fathers of his era. A recent example is his being

referred to as a “Hesychast monk” in a modern compendium of Orthodox theological

articles1. Given that the saint’s life and work were contemporaneous to the hesychastic

controversy and the Palamite Synods of 1341, 1347 and 1351, we can argue that there may be

the possibility of him having been exposed to hesychastic literature and polemics at some

point. However, what must be investigated is whether the saint considered himself as a

‘hesychast’, or at least a transmitter and practitioner of that tradition, and if the Church

viewed him as such on his canonisation.

It is true that in Orthodox spiritual life, theology, asceticism and hesychasm cannot be

separated from one another, all three being key components of the Christian path of

purification, illumination and deification, especially in the monastic life, where they are

experienced and lived in their fullness. Neither was the hesychastic controversy of the

fourteenth century a reaction against some new teaching – hesychasm, although present in the

Old Testament and Apostolic Eras, developed in its current form at the same time as the rise

of monasticism in the third century onwards. As part of the Church’s living dogmatic

tradition, it has its ideological background in the mystical writings of Saint Dionysius the

Areopagite and is explicitly mentioned in the writings of monastic pioneer Saint Anthony the

1
Mary B. Cunningham & Elizabeth Theokritoff, “Who Are the Orthodox Christians?” in The Cambridge
Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology, p. 8.
 Stanway 2

Great, who is quoted as saying “Let us be men of silence and hesychasts”2. The majority of

monastic writers from the third century onwards, in particular Saint Macarius the Great and

Saint John of the Ladder, refer to hesychasm either implicitly or explicitly, showing its deep

roots in Orthodox Christian tradition. With hesychasm and the Orthodox monastic tradition

being effectively inseparable, one could quite justifiably ask why we should mark out specific

monastic saints as being ‘hesychasts’ or part of the ‘hesychast movement’ in general.

Hesychasm is the specific practice of ‘stillness’ (hesychia) and watchfulness (nepsis)

or the ‘guarding of the heart’ usually centred on the use of the ‘Jesus prayer’, or the repetition

of the name of the Saviour, the latter practice first recorded in the martyrdoms of Saint

Ignatius the God-Bearer and Saint Neokorus3. Monks who practice hesychasm are notable in

having achieved a very high spiritual level and a state of constant contemplation (theoria) of

God through mental, or noetic, prayer. Hesychasm is the primary method, for want of a better

term, of the purification of the heart, the illumination of the nous and, eventually, the

glorification of the individual. The writings of hesychastic fathers mention revelations of the

uncreated Glory of God to the illumined Christian, often called the ‘uncreated light’ or the

‘Taboric light’, which is the same as that which the disciples witnessed at the Transfiguration.

In a sense, the practice of hesychasm is merely the concentrated and dedicated pursuit

of that which all Christians are called to, deification and the vision of the uncreated Glory of

God. For the sake of this paper, we will define ‘hesychasts’ and ‘the hesychast movement’ as

being those Fathers who were influential in establishing the basic teachings of hesychasm,

defending it during the attack of the Barlaamites and propagating it to the rest of the

Orthodox world at large, especially during the ‘golden age’ of hesychasm.

This ‘golden age’ can be estimated to begin in the late thirteenth century with the

labours of Saint Gregory the Sinaite, who began his monastic life on Mount Sinai, before

2
I.M. Kontzevitch, The Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia, pp. 108-109.
3
Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov, On the Prayer of Jesus, pp. 20-21.
 Stanway 3

learning noetic prayer on Crete and subsequently taking up residence on Mount Athos, where

he refined the teachings of hesychasm and wrote his 150 Chapters on Mental Prayer. A

younger contemporary of his, Saint Gregory Palamas, was the man chosen by his brother

monks to defend the hesychasts when they came under attack from Barlaam the Calabrian

and his followers in the early fourteenth century.

The Hesychastic controversy erupted when Barlaam, a Greko-Italian monk and

philosopher, was scandalised by what he thought were erroneous and heretical practices of

the Athonite monks and attacked the hesychastic tradition in his writings. Saint Gregory

Palamas was mobilised to defend hesychasm and in his many writings, specifically Triads in

Defence of the Holy Hesychasts, fought against Barlaam’s accusations. After a long conflict,

during which both parties held the Ecumenical throne at certain points, hesychasm was

eventually exonerated and Barlaam condemned in a series of councils in Constantinople in

1341, 1347 and 1351.

Although the major battles of the hesychastic controversy were fought at the Palamite

councils under the Patriarchate of Constantinople within the Roman Empire, the Russian

church was not without its activity in this period. Contemporary Metropolitans of Moscow

were involved, albeit at a distance, and keeping abreast of developments in the Empire. The

Metropolitan of Moscow, Saint Theognostes, was a Palamite and a copy of the Tome of

1341with his signature exists in the Moscow Synodal Library4. When the anti-Palamite

faction was in power, he suffered deprivation of income until order was restored. His

successor, Saint Alexius, was a favourite of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Philotheus, who

was a strong Palamite and supported Saint Alexius in his struggles with the Novgorodian

hierarchy. Saint Alexius was also a monastic co-struggler with Saint Sergius’ brother,

4
Ibid., p.133.
 Stanway 4

Stephen, at the monastery of the Theophany in Moscow, and later became closely acquainted

with Saint Sergius.

Against this backdrop of ecclesiastical conflict in Constantinople and repression by

the Tatars in Russia, Saint Sergius, in the world Bartholomew, along with his brother

Stephen, set out for the forest near his hometown of Radonezh. The intention was to go into

the wilderness and live like the desert ascetics of Egypt. They established themselves in a

clearing and built some dwellings and a church dedicated to the Holy Trinity. The brothers

lived an austere ascetic life, too austere for Stephen, who returned to coenobitic monasticism

at the monastery of the Theophany. The saint continued his labours as a solitary and was

eventually tonsured by Elder Mitrophanes when he was twenty-three years old, taking the

name Sergius.

Having spent the early years of his monastic life in complete isolation, one can

wonder how Saint Sergius learned of the spiritual teachings of the Church Fathers that he put

into practice. As can be seen in his Life, Saint Sergius was chosen from the womb for his holy

task and “received his learning not from men, but from God”5. However, his God-given

spiritual gifts do not necessarily need to rule out book-learning and, after having received the

gift of reading at the age of seven, he was known for reading the Holy Scriptures, the

Church’s liturgical texts and the writings of the Church Fathers, which were all available

from Rostov library6. Not only this, but his youth had been a preparation for the rigours of the

ascetical life led in the wilderness, with strict fasting from a young age and the ceaseless

repetition of the Psalms7, in itself a practice rooted in the hesychastic monasticism of the

Egyptian desert.

5
Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, The Northern Thebaid, p. 13.
6
Pierre Kovalevsky, Saint Sergius and Russian Spirituality, p. 69.
7
Michael Klimenko (trans.), The ‘Vita’ of St. Sergii of Radonezh, pp. 88-93.
 Stanway 5

The youth’s ability to read, as well as his access to ecclesiastical writings, opens up

the possibility that he was exposed to hesychastic literature from a young age. During the

fourteenth century, “innumerable translated texts of hesychast literature found their way

northwards”8 from monastic centres in Constantinople and elsewhere. The Russian monks in

Constantinople and on Mount Athos were known to receive books from the Bulgarians,

which were copied and sent back to Russia9. There are manuscripts from the thirteenth and

fourteenth centuries, still in existence today, of classic writings such as the complete works of

Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, writings by Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Ephraim the

Syrian, and, most importantly for our study, Saint John Climacus’ The Ladder, writings of

Saint Nilus of Sinai, Saint Dorotheos of Gaza, Saint Isaac the Syrian, Saint Simeon the New

Theologian and “most of the spokesmen for the contemporary hesychast movement in

Greece”10 Saint Gregory the Sinaite, and Callistus and Ignatius Xanthopoulos. Surprisingly,

no translations of Saint Gregory Palamas’ works exist from this period, other than a copy of

his Against the Latins11. What is known is that the library of Saint Sergius’ monastery did

contain Slavonic translations of some of these texts in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,

although whether they were there during the saint’s tenure as abbot is uncertain12.

With potential access to such profound writings, as well as regular encounters with

the monastics who struggled in his local monasteries, we can imagine that the young Saint

Sergius’ spiritual development could have been heavily influenced and informed by the

hesychastic tradition of the Church. Despite this, Fedotov maintains that it would not be

possible for the young saint to acquire the sufficient knowledge of ascetic literature and

patristic writings by the age at which he set off into the forest13. However, what is impossible

8
Aristeides Papadakis & John Meyendorff, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, p.341.
9
Kontzevitch, The Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia, p.124.
10
George P. Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind (Volume II), p.31.
11
Ibid., pp.28-31.
12
Dimitri Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth, p.396.
13
Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind (Volume II), p.203.
 Stanway 6

for man is certainly possible for God and the spiritual drive that Saint Sergius had from his

youth could certainly make up for his lack of knowledge in these matters.

By the time of Saint Sergius’ exodus into the forest, most Russian monasteries were

in urban areas, or on the outskirts of inhabited places14. However, in its beginning, monastic

life in Russia had been established on the premise of the anchoretic spirituality of Mount

Athos. On Mount Athos, with the strong hesychastic tradition preserved there, monasteries

were generally divided between coenobia and hesychasteria, with the average coenobitic

monastery having one or two hesychasteria nearby15. Saint Anthony, founder of the Kiev

Caves Lavra, had been a monk at the Great Lavra and had experienced both the coenobitic

and eremitic life whilst on the Holy Mountain. Having returned to his native land, he took up

residence in a cave near Kiev and commenced his struggles. Eventually, with a brotherhood

gathered around him, the monastic centre for Kievan Rus par excellence was formed that

became the standard for all Russian monasteries.

It was the period of Saint Theodosius’ abbacy that firmly established the Russian

monastic tradition, when he built up the monastic churches and dormitories, introduced the

Studite typicon from Constantinople and regularised the monks’ lives along a more semi-

eremitic fashion16. It has also been noted that it was during this time that the use of the Jesus

prayer in Rus is first recorded17, most likely carried over from Saint Anthony’s time on

Athos. Saints Anthony and Theodosius died in 1073 and 1074 respectively, with the latter

spending twelve years as abbot, from 1062. Saint Anthony was never abbot of the monastery,

instead spending his life in relative seclusion as the spiritual father and avoiding

administrative responsibilities, devoted to the spiritual guidance of the monks and visitors to

the monastery.

14
Ibid., p.196.
15
Papadakis & Meyendorff, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, p.276.
16
Kovalevsky, Saint Sergius and Russian Spirituality, pp.33-35.
17
Andrew J. Sopko, The Struggle for Patristic Theology in the Church of Russia, p. 6.
 Stanway 7

Saint Sergius’ community, and those that followed, were not of the urban monastic

spirit contemporaneous with the rest of Russia. Their spirit was that of the desert. However,

when the time eventually came for Saint Sergius to establish his brotherhood as a monastery,

the community was established on coenobitic grounds. Prior to this, Saint Sergius and his

small group of twelve monks had observed a semi-eremitic, modified Studite typicon and the

full cycle of divine services, except the Divine Liturgy, which was occasionally celebrated by

visiting clergy from the area. With the brotherhood’s plea for Saint Sergius to be made abbot

answered and the saint’s ordination to the priesthood, the Jerusalem typicon of the Lavra of

Saint Sabbas the Sanctified was introduced, as it was all over the Greek and Russian world in

the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The establishing of a coenobitic community was at the

behest of Patriarch Philotheus of Constantinople, a disciple of Saint Gregory Palamas, who

personally wrote to the saint18. One of the main reasons for this thrust from semi-eremitic to

coenobitic monasticism, which was mirrored all over the Orthodox world, surprisingly came

from hesychasts themselves, who thought that too much individualism was developing in

some of the monasteries, which had led to idiorrythmic foundations springing up. Another,

more practical, reason is that a community life would be more conducive to survival,

especially in Russia’s frozen north19. Saint Sergius’ desire to live the life of a desert anchorite

had led him to become abbot of what would become Russia’s major coenobitic monastery.

As it goes, the Jerusalem typicon found good soil in Russia, being close to the Russian spirit,

allowing the monks to contribute to the world around them and conduct missionary work20.

Although Saint Sergius and his monks worked out their salvation within the

framework of a coenobitic community, balancing hard labour with dedication to the Church’s

divine services, they still managed to maintain some of the practices associated with

18
Papadakis & Meyendorff, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, p.342.
19
Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth, pp.394-395.
20
Kontzevitch, The Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia, p.202.
 Stanway 8

hesychasteria in their daily lives. The monks practiced revelation of thoughts, with this taking

place at the fourth ode of the canon, during Matins21. Fasting was strict and many stories

abound of the brotherhood’s early days, when scarcity of bread led to the monks going

without food for days on end. Saint Sergius forbade his monks from begging for alms, which

eventually led to a rebellion by the brethren. Despite this severity, the initial rule used by the

brothers, that of the Studite monastery, had in fact been relaxed by Saint Sergius, who

lessened the demands of rigidity and emphasised humility and gentleness22. Another local

practice, highlighting Saint Sergius’ fatherly role as one guiding his monks along the narrow

path, was his nightly inspections of the monastic cells after Compline. After completing his

own cell rule, he would go on rounds of the other brothers’ cells, rejoicing if the monks

within were praying and making prostrations, reading spiritual books or weeping over their

sins and rapping doors if he heard monks conversing or laughing. The following morning,

monks who had disappointed him were gently reprimanded23.

One of the central teachings of the hesychastic tradition – and the focal point for

Barlaam’s outrage – was the concept of ‘uncreated Grace’, the ‘uncreated or ‘Taboric’ light

which could be seen by the Christian who had received a revelation of God’s Glory.

Although the author of Saint Sergius’ Life, Epiphanius the Wise, lacked the theological

articulation to bring our attention to this facet of the saint’s inner life, there can be no doubt

that the Taboric light is indeed alluded to. It is worth quoting in full some of the accounts of

visions of heavenly fire and angelic concelebrants at the Divine Liturgy, the latter being a

definite sign of a person’s high level of sanctification. We should bear in mind that it is

impossible to accurately describe the uncreated Glory of God in human terms. The first

example is the vision of divine light witnessed by Saint Sergius:

21
Sergius Bolshakoff, Russian Mystics, p.13.
22
Kovalevsky, Saint Sergius and Russian Spirituality, pp.91-94.
23
Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, The Northern Thebaid, pp.21-22.
 Stanway 9

“One day the saint, according to his usual custom, was keeping vigils and was praying

for the brethren that the Lord help them in their daily work and improvement. And while he

was so praying deep in the night, he heard a voice saying “Sergius!” But he was very

surprised by this unusual night call and, after he said his prayer, he opened the window of his

cell, wishing to see who called, and right away he saw a wonderful vision: a great light

appeared from the heaven and drove away all darkness of the night, and the night was

illuminated by this light which excelled by its brightness the light of day. For the second time

the voice was heard, saying “Sergius! You are praying for your children, and the Lord has

accepted your praying; look carefully and see a multitude of monks who are gathered in the

name of the Holy and Life-Giving Trinity in your flock to be taught by you.” The saint

looked and saw a multitude of very beautiful birds that flew not only over the monastery, but

also around the monastery, and the voice was heard, saying “As you saw these birds, in a like

manner the flock of your disciples will be multiplied and even after you they will not

diminish if they choose to follow in your footsteps.””24

The vision of the angelic concelebrant was narrated in the Life as follows:

“He saw at the altar a fourth man co-celebrating with them: a very wonderful man

whose sight was strange and indescribable, shining with great brightness in the face and with

radiating vestments. And during the first exit that angelic-like and wonderful man came out

after the saint and his face was shining like the sun so that it was impossible to look at him.

His vestments were unusual, wonderful, shiny, so that they looked like they were of golden

designs. Isakii asked Father Makarii, who was standing close by: “What is this wonderful

sight, Father? Who is this wonderful man whom we see?” And Makarii, who was also

granted to see this sight and the appearance of great brightness, said: “I do not know, child, I

see this bright and unutterable sight, but I think that this is a servant who arrived with the

24
Klimenko (trans.), The ‘Vita’ of St. Sergii of Radonezh, p.151.
 Stanway 10

prince.” Prince Vladimir was at the time in the monastery. They then approached and asked

those who were with the prince if a priest had come with him, and they answered: “No.”

Then they knew for certain that it was an angel of God who was officiating with them.”25

A vision of heavenly fire was reported about the saint thus:

“… when the saint was celebrating the Divine Liturgy, there was also present a

disciple of the Venerable, ecclesiarch Simon, whom we mentioned before, who was perfect in

many virtues, of whom also the Holy Starets himself witness that he had a perfect life. This

Simon saw a wonderful vision. Once when the saint was officiating, he said to him that he

saw a fire moving over the Table of Oblation, illuminating the altar and encircling the Holy

Gifts. And when the saint was about to partake of Holy Communion, the divine fire rolled

itself up like a shroud and entered the holy chalice. And so the saint took communion. As

Simon saw that, he was frightened, and was filled with trembling and so he marvelled in

himself. When the saint moved away from the Table of Oblation, he understood that Simon

was granted to see this wonderful vision, and so he called and said: “Child, why is your spirit

frightened?” He said: “My Lord! I saw a wonderful vision that the Grace of the Holy Spirit is

operating in you.” The saint forbade him and said: “Do not announce to anybody what you

saw until the Lord orders my departure from this life.” And they rendered praise to the Lord

together.”26

Such events are commonplace in the lives of saints, particularly those renowned for

their ascetic struggles. Even accounts of contemporary hesychastic fathers in places such as

Mount Athos, Romania and Mount Sinai have stories of similar visions of lights, fire,

concelebrating angels and other such occurrences. They are indicative of an extremely high

level of sanctity, not only in the recipient of the grace, but in their disciples also, who have

been made worthy to behold them.

25
Ibid., pp.166-167.
26
Ibid., pp.179-180.
 Stanway 11

Of his disciples, a ‘mystical circle’ existed, consisting of Simon, Isaac and Micah.

These monks were also known to behold the uncreated Glory and obediently reported these

revelations to the saint27. This is exactly what Saint Dionysius the Areopagite refers to when

he writes about ‘divine energy’ and ‘rays of Divinity’ and what Saint Gregory Palamas

expands on when he writes “The Divine Light has not only an allegorical and abstract

meaning: it is the fact of mystical experience.”28

Also emphasised in the Life and other accounts of Saint Sergius is his famous vision

of the Mother of God and the many miracles worked by him. The account of the vision of the

Mother of God shows that the saint had the gift of foresight, or clairvoyance, as he was able

to tell his disciple about what was about to happen:

“And as he was praying and singing the thanksgiving Canon of the Most Pure, it is the

Akafist, and having finished his rule, he sat down for a little rest and said to his disciple, by

the name of Mikhei: “My child, be temperate and vigilant, for there will be to us a wonderful

and awesome visit right now.” And while he was still saying this, a voice was heard that

time: “Here comes the Most Pure Herself!” And as the saint heard it, he quickly went from

his cell into the passage, that is, the entrance, and suddenly great light spread over the saint,

greater than the shining sun, and he then saw the Purest Herself, with two Apostles, Peter and

John, all glittering in indescribable brightness. And as the saint saw this, he prostrated

himself, not being able to suffer unbearable dawn. The Most Pure touched the saint with Her

hands and said: “Do not be terrified, my Chosen, I came to visit you. Your prayer for your

disciples for whom you prayed and for your abode was heard. You should not worry any

more, for from now on there will be everything in abundance and not only as long as you

live, but even after your departure to the Lord I will never leave your refuge, providing all

necessities generously and protecting the donors.” And having said this, she became

27
Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind (Volume II), pp.219-220.
28
Kontzevitch, The Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia, p.52.
 Stanway 12

invisible. The saint remained in ecstasy of mind and was seized by great fear and trembling.

After a while he came to himself, found his disciple lying in fear as if dead, and he lifted him

up. But he fell before the feet of the Starets, saying: “Explain to me, Father, for the Lord’s

sake, what was this wonderful vision, for my spirit almost parted because of that radiant

vision.” The saint, who was rejoicing in his soul so that his whole figure was blossoming with

joy, could answer only this: “Be patient, my child, since my spirit also trembles within me

from that wonderful vision.”

Following this awesome and ecstatic experience, the Life records that the saint

“…stayed the whole night without sleep, contemplating in his mind this unutterable vision.”29

This sentence contains within it an absolute treasury of hesychastic allusions, mentioning the

saint’s all-night contemplation of an ‘unutterable vision’. Contemplation, or theoria, being

the highest of the spiritual levels attained by spiritual strugglers, and the unutterable vision,

being one of the finest ways of ‘describing’ the revelation of the uncreated Glory of God

granted to those who have become friends of God.

His miracles, although not numerous, were also accounted by Epiphanius, and

included clairvoyance, healing and the resurrection of a young boy30. Visions such as those of

the Mother of God, and spiritual gifts, especially clairvoyance, are closely tied with the

hesychastic tradition and indicate the high sanctity of the individual in question.

Saint Sergius’ retreat into the desert of the vast Russian forests acted as a catalyst for

mass monastic colonisation of Russia’s northern lands and the formation of many

monasteries, mostly founded and led by his disciples. Indeed, evidence does exist for

monastic communities existing in this part of Russia from earlier times but it was the spiritual

renaissance that took place at the Holy Trinity Lavra that created a strong and authentic

spiritual tradition to carry to the north and transfigure whole tribes and peoples.

29
Klimenko (trans.), The ‘Vita’ of St. Sergii of Radonezh, pp.174-175.
30
Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind (Volume II), pp.216-217.
 Stanway 13

Eleven of Saint Sergius’ disciples were founders of monasteries, some during his own

life, and the Holy Trinity Lavra was responsible for “fifty monasteries, which in their turn

produced forty more31”. While local conditions, such as the despoiling of Russia by the

Tatars, were conducive for the move to the north, there was also strong influence from the

hesychast movement in the Greek lands. As has been mentioned, there were innumerable

hesychastic texts available in the Slavic language and they no doubt proved to be an

inspiration for the thousands of monks who ventured into the deserts of Russia, the ‘northern

Thebaid’.

Although it would be wrong to say that all of the hundred and fifty or so monasteries

that were founded in northern Russia during this period were directly related to Saint Sergius,

a good majority were. Those that were not developed along similar lines were undoubtedly

sustained from the same deep spiritual wells that Saint Sergius and his monks drank from.

Many accounts of the lives of these strugglers on Russia’s frontiers include mention of

‘unceasing prayer’, ‘mental prayer’ and similar terms, usually denoting hesychastic practices.

Following from the spiritual revitalisation occurring in the heartlands of Russia, many of

these monks, having sanctified themselves in the wilderness, committed themselves to

missionary work on its wild frontiers, Saint Stephen of Perm being a notable missionary.

Moving on from the historical themes that point towards Saint Sergius’ immersion in

the hesychastic tradition, we can look at how the Church itself views the great saint. In the

Church’s liturgical commemorations, his spiritual life is alluded to in typically poetic fashion.

In the stichera of Small Vespers on his feast day of 25th September, he is referred to as having

“been united with the Light that is utterly pure.” In the aposticha of the same service, Saint

Sergius is mentioned as “being worthy to see the divine light.” The stichera of Great Vespers

mention his “unceasing prayer”. The canons at Matins make reference to watchfulness

31
Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, The Northern Thebaid, p.6.
 Stanway 14

(nepsis), seeing Christ face to face, his being “enlightened by bright beams of light”, going

into “the depth of silence”, “shining with divine light” and, again, “unceasing prayer”.32

While none of these phrases refer directly to hesychasm, the poetic language used in the

services to the saint strongly resembles that used by Epiphanius when referring to Saint

Sergius’ spiritual experiences and can be seen as alluding to hesychasm, as these are the kind

of terms that one finds in many hesychastic texts. In fact, Saint Sergius’ services actually

have more allusions to hesychasm than those of Saint Gregory Palamas. We should,

therefore, not doubt that the Church, when composing the liturgical texts for the saint,

considered him as part of the core hesychastic tradition and a carrier of the teachings.

Having looked at the historical movements of the era and their influence on Saint

Sergius, the highly-regarded and fairly contemporary accounts of his life as well as the

Church’s view, we can conclude that Saint Sergius is a definite carrier, practitioner and

transmitter of the hesychastic tradition. Of course, as has been mentioned, we cannot separate

hesychasm from Orthodox monastic spirituality, but in a time such as his, when the urban

monasteries of Russia had mostly become decadent, the transmission of authentic desert

eremitic spirituality was a rare light in the darkness. Evidently spurred on by divine zeal and

his God-given spiritual gifts, complimented by his exposure to ascetic and patristic texts,

Saint Sergius was able to transform Russian spiritual life and reinvigorate the lagging

monasticism of the Russian church. With communications between the Russian and Greek

worlds being evident and regular, we cannot doubt the heavy influence of the Hesychastic

movement under Saint Gregory Palamas on the upsurge of Russian monastic spirituality, as

well as the greater Balkans region. Upon his death and canonisation, the Church recognised

his part in this movement, as shown by the liturgical texts presented above. While we can say

that the Church, his followers and scholars both of his era and ours consider him as a

32
Mother Mary, Saint Sergius of Radonezh, Wonderworker, pp.1-31.
 Stanway 15

hesychast, would the Saint himself? This last question may only be answered by looking to

his extreme humility and coming to our own conclusion.

 Stanway 16

Bibliography

Bolshakoff, Sergius, Russian Mystics.

Cistercian Publications, Kalamazoo, 1977.

Cunningham, Mary & Theokritoff, Elizabeth et al, The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox

Christian Theology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008.

Fedotov, George P., The Russian Religious Mind (Volume II).

Nordland, Houston, 1975.

Klimenko, Michael (trans.), The ‘Vita’ of St. Sergii of Radonezh.

Nordland, Houston, 1980.

Kontzevitch, I.M., The Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia.

Saint Herman of Alaska Press, Platina, 1988.

Kovalevsky, Pierre, Saint Sergius and Russian Spirituality.

Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, New York, 1976.

Mother Mary (trans.), Offices of the Orthodox Church – Saint Sergius of Radonezh,

Wonderworker. Bussy-en-Othe, 1970.

Obolensky, Dimitri, The Byzantine Commonwealth.

Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, New York, 1982.

 Stanway 17

Papadakis, Aristeides & Meyendorff, John, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy.

Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, New York, 1994.

Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, The Northern Thebaid.

Saint Herman of Alaska Press, Platina, 1975.