SHUBIN, D. (Ed.), The History of Russian Christianity, Vol. I

A HISTORY OF RUSSIAN
CHRISTIANITY
Volume I
A HISTORY OF RUSSIAN
CHRISTIANITY
Volume I: From the Earliest

Years through Tsar Ivan IV
Daniel H. Shubin
Algora Publishing
New York
© 2004 by Algora Publishing.
All Rights Reserved
www.algora.com
No portion of this book (beyond what is permitted by

Sections 107 or 108 of the United States Copyright Act of 1976)
may be reproduced by any process, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form, or by any means, without the
express written permission of the publisher.
ISBN: 0-87586-287-X (softcover)
ISBN: 0-87586-288-8 (hardcover)
ISBN: 0-87586-289-6 (ebook)
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data —
Shubin, Daniel H.
The history of Russian Christianity / Daniel H. Shubin.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-87586-287-X (pbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN 0-87586-288-8 (alk. paper)
— ISBN 0-87586-289-6 (ebook)
1. Russia (Federation)—Church history. I. Title.
BR932.S55 2004
274.7—dc22
2004012764
Wooden Building in Eklutna Village

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROLOGUE 1
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SOURCES 2
III. NAMES, PLACES, AND DATES 4
IV. ABBREVIATIONS 7
PART 1. THE PRE-HISTORIC ERA 9

1. APOSTLE ANDREW 9
2. THE PRINCES ASKOLD AND DIR 14
3. PRINCES OLEG AND IGOR AND PRINCESS OLGA 16
4. EARLY ORTHODOXY IN RUSSIA 18
PART 2. THE ERA OF KIEVAN RUSSIA 21

5. GRAND PRINCE VLADIMIR THE GREAT 21
6. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF VLADIMIR’S CONVERSION 28
7. THE BAPTISM OF RUSSIA 34
8. PRINCE YAROSLAV 37
9. THE EARLY METROPOLITANS 38
10. METROPOLITANS ILARION AND KLIMENT 41
11. EARLY SAINTS AND MARTYRS 44
12. RULES OF THE RELIGION 47
13. MONASTERIES AND MONASTICISM 49
14. THE PECHER MONASTERY 54
15. CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS STRIFE AND JUSTICE 59
16. PAGAN REACTIONS 62
17. ECCLESIASTICAL FINANCES 64
18. CHURCH-STATE RELATIONSHIP 67
19. EARLY DISSENTERS, JEWS AND CATHOLICS 70
20. MORALITY OF KIEVAN RUSSIA 72
21. RELIGOUS LITERATURE 76
22. ORTHODOX HOLIDAYS 80
vii
History of Russian Christianity
23. WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY FASTS 81

24. THE MONGOL INVASION 83
PART 3. THE ERA OF MONGOL OCCUPATION 87

25. METROPOLITAN KIRILL III 87
26. METROPOLITAN MAKSIM 93
27. METROPOLITAN PETER 95
28. METROPOLITAN THEOGNOST 98
29. METROPOLITAN ALEKSEI 101
30. ARCHIMANDRITE MIKHAIL AND THE PATRIARCHAL INTERVAL 105
31. METROPOLITAN PIMEN 108
32. METROPOLITAN KIPRIAN 113
33. METROPOLITAN FOTIUS 117
35. THE STRIGOLNIKS 121
35. METROPOLITAN ISIDORE AND THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE 124
36. METROPOLITAN JONAH 130
37. METROPOLITAN THEODOSIUS 134
38. METROPOLITAN FILIPP I 135
39. CHURCH DEVELOPMENT DURING THE OCCUPATION ERA 137
40. MONASTERIES AND MONASTICISM 139
41. SERGEI OF RADONEZH 141
42. SOLOVETSKI MONASTERY 143
43. EXPANSION OF MONASTERIES 144
44. MORALITY AND NATIONAL LIFE 147
45. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 149
46. SAINTS AND FOOLS IN CHRIST 151
PART 4. THE ERA OF MOSCOVITE RUSSIA 155

47. METROPOLITAN GERONTI 155
48. ABBOT JOSEPH VOLOTZKI, METROPOLITAN ZOSIMA,
AND THE JUDAIZERS 158
49. METROPOLITAN SIMON 167
50. METROPOLITAN VARLAAM 172
51. MOSCOW — THE THIRD ROME 173
52. ELDER NIL OF SOR 175
53. SCHOLAR MAKSIM THE GREEK 176
54. METROPOLITAN DANIEL 180
55. METROPOLITAN JOASAF 182
56. METROPOLITAN MAKARI 183
57. ABBOT ARTEMIE 189
58. METROPOLITAN AFANASI 191
59. METROPOLITAN FILIPP II 192
60. METROPOLITAN KIRILL IV 195
viii
Table of Contents
61. METROPOLITAN ANTONI AND THE ENIGMA OF

TSAR IVAN IV (THE TERRIBLE) 196
62. METROPOLITAN DIONYSEI 198
63. THE ANTI-TRINITARIAN MOVEMENT 199
64. THE SAINTS OF MOSCOVITE RUSSIA 204
65. EXPANSION OF RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY 206
66. ECCLESIASTICAL AND MONASTIC CONDITIONS 209
67. MORAL CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE 213
68. THE DOMOSTROI 215
69. ELDERS AND MYSTICS 217
BIBLIOGRAPHY 223
PRIMARY SOURCES 223
SECONDARY SOURCES 224
INDEX 225
ix
PROLOGUE
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this 3-volume work is to provide to the reader a history of

the Christianity of Russia from its earliest beginnings to the modern age. This
first volume of the history begins with the tradition of the visit of Apostle
Andrew and concludes about 1590, shortly after the death of Tsar Ivan the
Terrible. (Volume 2 will deal with the era through the death of Tsar Peter the
Great in 1725, while Volume 3 will conclude in 1990, the year of the termination
of Soviet control over Russia.) Although Russian Orthodoxy is the primary
topic, dissenting and sectarian groups of the era are included, along with
discussion of the presence of Catholicism and the influx of Protestantism. This
history is intensive as well as objective, aiming to give the reader fluency in the
events, people and eras that comprise the history of Russian Christianity,
including not just the higher levels of church activities but saints and serfs,
dissenters and sectarians, as well.
It is difficult to write solely a history of the Russian Orthodox Church,
because the history of Russia as a state, people and culture is completely
interwoven with their religion, and every event, person and location has a
religious involvement or attachment to it. In writing this history the author has
sought to focus on Russian religion while including those areas of Russian
political history and tradition which are needed to explain the religious history.
Russian Christian history is largely that of Russian Orthodoxy, and fiction
and legend need to be removed in order to present an objective account. With
1
Russian Orthodox history, two problems are present. The first is the meager
information provided prior to AD 1240, when major cities, churches and
monasteries of Russia were utterly destroyed by Mongol invaders. For the next
240 years, Russia was under Mongol occupation. The second problem is
credibility. Russian Orthodoxy has rewritten its history over the years,
beginning with the mid-14th century, incorporating much improbable
embellishment. For example, records claiming that miracles were performed by
the relics of saints abounded in earlier periods, while declining in later eras when
more reliable documentation was available, and they were becoming almost non-
existent in the contemporary era.
A few of the initial sections, those dealing with Apostle Andrew, Princess
Olga and Prince Vladimir, may appear to be exposés, but the intent of the author
is to illustrate the development of legends that have become part of the
traditional history of Russian Orthodoxy.
The book is arranged in chronological and topical sequence. First it is
divided into periods of major division within the history of Russia, and then each
period is divided into its major characters, primarily metropolitans and
patriarchs in chronological order, along with topics of interest that apply to that
period at the end of the section.
II. SOURCES
In writing this history of the Christian religion of early Russia, the author
used the following texts, all in Russian.
For the era from Apostle Andrew to the era of Metropolitan Makari:
Evgeni Evgenich Golubinski, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, four volumes, edition of
1901-1911.
For the period after Metropolitan Makari to the conclusion of the volume:
Anton V. Kartashyov, Ocherki po Istorii Russkoi Tserkvi, two volumes, 1932.
Secondary sources were the following, in order of importance and usage:
H. Talberg, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, 1959, two volumes.
Pyotr Vasilievich Znamenski, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, 1896.
Filaret (Gumilevski), Archbishop of Chernigov, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, 1848.
Count Mikhail Vladimirovich Tolstoi, Rasskazi iz Istorii Russkoi Tserkvi, 1898.
Feodor Vasilich Livanov, Raskolniki I Ostrozhniki, 5 volumes, 1871-1875
2
Prologue
Andrei P. Bogdanov, Russkie Patriarkhi, two volumes, 1999.

Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov, Raskol, 1903.
Makarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomensk, Istoriya
Russkoi Tserkvi, 1857, eight volumes.
Pavel Nikolaevich Miliukov, Ocherki po Istorii Russkoi Kulturi, volume 2, 1930
(1994 reprint).
Nikolai Ivanovich Prokovyev, Ed. Drevnaya Russkaya Literatura, 1980.
Nikolai Rudnev, Razsuzhdenie o Eresyakh I Raskolakh, 1838.
Golubinski and Kartashyov have been translated and paraphrased en masse

as the bulk of the content of this history of the Russian Orthodox Church, and
their language may be evident as the reader progresses reading the history. E.E.
Golubinski (1834-1912) was the most prominent and thorough church historian
of his era and a professor at the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. Anton V.
Kartashyov (1875-1960) was professor of church history at St. Petersburg
Theological Academy. Later, with the dissolution of the Holy Synod under the
Provisional Government, Kartashyov was elected as Minister of Confessions
April 18, 1917, a position which only lasted a few months. After the Russian
Revolution, Kartashyov migrated to Paris, where he taught at the St. Sergius
Theological Institute. Some of Kartashyov has also been used in the period from
Vladimir the Great to Metropolitan Makari.
Reliable and objective sources for ancient history of Russian Orthodox
Church are meager. The Russian chronicles are unlike those of nationalities
whose histories go back several thousand years and whose populace included
scholars and whose culture possessed an established language with alphabet and
grammar. The earliest record of Russian Orthodox history is the Chronicle of
Nestor (referred to in this volume as pseudo-Nestor), which is also known as the
Primary Chronicle. The traditional account is that the monk Nestor wrote his
chronicle in 1110-1113, during his residency at Kiev Pecher Monastery. It was
supplemented by the monk Sylvester in 1116 by order of Prince Vladimir
Monomakh, and by an unknown author in 1118 by order of his son Mstislav
Vladimirovich. However, the most reliable evidence presently available indicates
that the chronicle which bears the name of Nestor was actually composed about
50 years after his death.
The Primary Chronicle has a short paragraph on the visit of Apostle
Andrew to Russia and then the founding of Kiev in the late 7th century. It then
starts with actual history, beginning about AD 900 with Oleg and concluding
3
about 1098 with the history of an attack that year of the Polotzki on Kiev and its
defense by Prince Izyaslav Yaroslavich. The original codices are long lost in
history and subsequent editions follow two routes of transmission, the Kievo-
Suzdal, and the Kievan. Each of these two transmissions suffered further editing
over time. The earliest editions at present are the Lavrentian (from Suzdal and
dated 1377, last copied by the monk Lavrentie), and the Ipatyevski (from the end
of the 14th century, and which acquires its name from Kostroma Ipatyevski
Monastery, where it was located; its final editor is unknown).
There are other, later chronicles that cover a short period of Kievan history
prior to its destruction by the Mongols. These are the Novgorod, written in 1130,
and the Galitzia-Volin, composed shortly after 1240. The only documents that
survived the devastation of Kiev were those earlier taken to Suzdal under Prince
Andrei Bogolubski.
III. NAMES, PLACES, AND DATES
All of the names in the text are in their transliterated Russian form with
the English equivalent — if there is one — in parentheses. Due to the above-
mentioned dearth of scholars and the late establishment of an alphabet and
grammatical rules for the Slavic languages, spellings of names may reasonably
vary over time and in different regions.
The word Russ (or Rus’) has been abandoned in favor of Russia throughout
the text and the people are referred to as Russians, by which the author means
the descendents of the inter-marriage of native Slavs and invading
Scandinavians. The adjective form of Moscow utilized is Moscovite, rather than
the Anglicized and etymologically incorrect Muscovite.
In Russian, the middle name is the patronymic, that is, it is derived from
the father’s name, and pertains equally to both son and daughter. For sons, the
ending is -vich, such as Yaroslav Vladimirovich, meaning Yaroslav son of
Vladimir. For daughters, the ending is -evna (or a variation) so that Anna
Vasilievna is “Anna daughter of Vasili” and Elizabeth Petrovna designates
“Elizabeth daughter of Peter.” The son of the tsar was referred to as Tsarevich;
the wife of the tsar was Tsaritza; and the daughter — or sometimes the wife of
the Tsar not recognized as empress — was the Tsarevna. Female family names
always end in -a or -ya, while for men the family name ends in -ski or a
consonant. For example, Peter the Great is Pyotr Alekseevich Romanov, while
his sister was Sophia Alekseevna Romanova.
4
Prologue
Many early Russia heroes possess a name assigned to them by the

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

monastery that was considered Stavropigli was one that was under direct
control of the patriarch — or later the Holy Synod — rather than under diocesan
control, which applied to all other monasteries.
Many cities in Russia were named after their founder or in honor of some
great ancestor. For this reason, there is a city Vladimir in southwest Russia
(founded by Vladimir the Great) and another city Vladimir in northern Russia
which was named after Vladimir Monomakh, great-grandson of his namesake.
Similarly, a Rostov and a Pereyaslav exist in both southwest and northern
Russia. The author has attempted to avoid confusing the reader by defining
clearly which city is in reference. The cities of Vladimir, Rostov, Pereyaslav and
others with identical names in southwest Russia are referred to as Kievan, while
those in northern Russia (which developed later) are referred by their specific
names in the balance of the history.
The names of ecclesiastical edifices are also repeated in major cities in
Russia. Almost every city has a church or monastery dedicated to the Trinity
(Troitski), Mary mother of Christ, or some event in the life of Christ
(Annunciation, Epiphany, Ascension, Birth, etc.), and so the city is normally
included in order to identify which specify church, cathedral or monastery is in
referred to.
The dates quoted in the text are quoted directly from their sources. Ancient
Russia used a calendar based on the creation of the world on September 1, Year 1,
while some of the population followed Catholic chronology and celebrated New
Year’s Day on March 25, the holiday of the Annunciation. The Julian calendar
was not officially adopted in Russia until 1700, by decree of Tsar Peter the Great,
although parts of the westernized merchant class were already using it. Dates
prior to Peter the Great were converted to the Julian calendar by Russian
historians. Since Russia continued to use the Julian calendar until 1918, and
Russian Orthodoxy continues to do so at the present, all dates in early Russian
sources are based on it. The author did not consider it necessary to change all
dates to match the Gregorian calendar because the majority of specific dates are
fabricated by the chroniclers or Russian Church historians, or else are
approximations, anyway.
Theotokos (Bogo-Roditza) is the most popular term used in Russia to refer
to Mary mother of Christ, the Blessed Virgin. Theotokos remains as a
transliteration, instead of its translation as Mother-of-God or God-Bearer.
6
Prologue
The term heresy is not utilized in this history because of its negative
connotation, unless it is the specific attitude of one individual toward another
and so indicated.
IV. ABBREVIATIONS
Patr. Patriarch
Metr. Metropolitan
Pr. Prince
Gr. Pr. Grand Prince
7
PART 1. THE PRE-HISTORIC ERA
1. APOSTLE ANDREW
Beginning with the 16th century, or possibly slightly earlier, Russian

Orthodoxy began to promote Apostle Andrew as the actual initial planter of
Christian belief on Russian soil. Around that time, the notion began to be
seriously accepted and from then on, when the need or occasion arose, Russian
Orthodoxy would point to this with pride and conviction as though it were a
fact not subject to debate. The Catholic legate of the 16th century, Antonius
Possevin, attempting to convince Tsar Ivan IV to unite with the Catholic Pope,
called his attention to the example of Greek Orthodoxy which accepted Unia at
the Council of Florence. The Tsar replied, “We do not believe in the Greeks, but
in Christ. We accepted the Christian faith at the very beginning of Christianity
when Andrew, brother of Peter apostle, entered these regions on his journey to
Rome. In this manner did we in Moscow accept the Christian faith at the same
time as you did in Italy, and from that time and to the present we have observed
it inviolate.”
Midway through the 17th century, the popular elder Arsenius Sukhanov, a
monk of Troitse-Sergievski Monastery, was sent by Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich
to Greece to record how they performed rites. While there, he encountered
heated arguments over certain church rituals because of the difference between
theirs and those of Russia. When the Greeks pointed out to Sukhanov that the
Russians had accepted the religion from them — Greek Orthodoxy — and
consequently the Russian Orthodox faith should be in total compliance with
9
their Greek faith, Sukhanov replied, “In vain do you boast that we accepted from
you the baptism; we accepted the baptism from Apostle Andrew when he, after
the ascension of the Lord, arrived in Byzantium and from there traveled across
the Black Sea to the Dnepr River, and followed the Dnepr up to Kiev; and then
from Kiev even to the great Novgorod. While journeying, he disseminated his
teaching regarding the faith of Christ and some he baptized. Just as you accepted
the faith from Apostle Andrew, so did we.”
These two chronicles of the Moscovite period express the reason for the
fabrication of this legend: in order to provide justification of the equality of the
Russian Church to the Greek, thereby also refusing acknowledgment of the
Greek having preeminence over the Russian. This would subsequently provide
the Russian Church with a basis for their independence from Greek domination
and interference in Russian affairs.
The basis for the above legend has its origin in the Ecclesiastical History of
Eusebius, Book III, Chapter I, who states that the destiny of preaching to
Scythians was allotted to Apostle Andrew. Eusebius also states that his source
for this information was Origen, even though nowhere in any extant writings of
Origen is this to be located. Later traditions expanded Andrew’s preaching to
the area north of Byzantium along the western shore of the Black Sea. In reality,
this is the most probable extent of the effort of Apostle Andrew and especially
since the areas of present day western Russia and Ukraine were barbarian and
inaccessible to Aramaic-speaking Jewish apostles.
The chronicle of pseudo-Nestor records the journey of Apostle Andrew,
which follows the trade route from Constantinople to the land of the Varangians
— Scandinavia — traveled by merchants. The circuit entailed crossing the Black
Sea and following the Dnepr River north to its source, and then overland to the
Lovat River which empties into Lake Ilmen; from Ilmen following the Volkhov
River to Lake Ladozhskoi (Ladoga) and thence to the Neva River and so to the
Baltic Sea. Traveling west they would reach the north Atlantic Ocean.
According to the traditional account of pseudo-Nestor, Andrew preached
the gospel westward along the south shore of the Black Sea and arrived at Sinop,
Turkey. From there he journeyed north across the Black Sea to Kherson of
Tavria, or Chersoness, and there discovered that the mouth of the Dnepr River
was nearby. Wanting to journey to Rome, the apostle departed Kherson to the
Dnepr River to follow it upriver. Following the river north in boats with his
disciples accompanying him Andrew had the opportunity to stop and spend the
night on the shore at the foot of some mountains, which were identified as the
very mountains upon which the city Kiev was later built. Arising the next day,
10
Part 1. The Pre-Historic Era
early in the morning, Apostle Andrew directed the attention of his disciples to
the mountains and said, “Do you see these mountains? Know that on these
mountains the grace of God will shine. A great city will be built on them and
God will raise many churches upon it.” After this, the apostle climbed to the top
of the mountains, blessed them, prayed there, and set a cross upon that part of
the mountain which later became the primary part of the city. Continuing his
northward journey, the apostle came upon some Slavs at a place where the city
Novgorod was later built. He noticed among the residents how they would
bathe in a steam sauna and whip themselves with branches. The apostle
departed from there and continued to the land of the Varangians — most likely
Scandinavia — and traversed the Baltic Sea westward, then headed south and
then eastward, eventually arriving at Rome. The Romans were amazed at the
account of his travels after learning of it from the apostle. After some length of
stay in Rome, Andrew returned to Sinop.
Some credibility could be attached to this legend if Slavs and Varangians
did actually reside in these areas during the first century AD. But the early
Orthodox forebears were desperate to establish apostolic origin for their church,
even if it had to be accounted for by having Apostle Andrew travel through
territory unknown to that era, sparsely inhabited and speaking an alien
language, along with a dangerous return to Rome through the uncharted Baltic
Sea to the North Atlantic and thereupon to Italy via Gibraltar. Other than
pseudo-Nestor, no record prior to the 12th century documents the improbable
journey of Apostle Andrew. Even if one did, how would a writer 1000 years later
know that Kiev was built on exactly the mountain ascended and blessed by
Andrew? And there was no rationale for Andrew to travel to Rome by taking a
route 50 times (and six months) longer than the one that led directly across
Greece through Yugoslavia and into Italy.
The notation of bathing in steam saunas by pseudo-Nestor was a poor
attempt to provide cultural evidence that was indigenous to Russia;
unfortunately, such a method of bathing did not evolve in Russia for several
centuries after the supposed visit of Andrew and was more in vogue during the
era when pseudo-Nestor composed his record.
Some of the material of pseudo-Nestor may have been plagiarized from the
monk Epiphanius (Euthymius Zigabenus), who traveled the region at the end of
the 8th century and the beginning of the 9th century. There are certain elements
in the narrative of Epiphanius which may have affected the fabrication of the
legend. Journeying the perimeter of the Black Sea shore, gathering information
from the residents regarding traditions as ancient as they could provide,
11
Epiphanius also mentions Apostle Andrew in his memoirs, but he never

mentions any of the items that are indigenous to the record of pseudo-Nestor,
such as his journey up the Dnepr River. In the annals of Epiphanius, Andrew did
overthrow a statue of Artemedis in Bithynia near Nicea and in its place erect a
cross. Likewise in Pathlagonia, east of Bithynia along the Black Sea coast of
northwest Turkey, Andrew stopped and offered a prayer at a certain place,
sanctified it, and there also erected a cross. The route that Andrew took
according to Epiphanius began at the east end of the Black Sea at the western
slope of the Caucasus. He followed the shoreline north to Kerch on the Crimean
peninsula, and crossed by land to Kherson or Chersoness. From there Andrew
journeyed by boat across the Black Sea to Sinop and then to Byzantium. Even
then, the accuracy or credibility of the annals of Epiphanius 800 years after a
journey with no previous documentation is highly dubious.
Another account of similar credibility is a composition of a poem written
by Nikita David Panflagonski at the end of the 9th and beginning of the 10th
century. He composed a series of sermons in honor of the apostles. In his sermon
on Apostle Andrew, he relates that Andrew traveled to Iveria (Georgia),
Sarmatia (northeast coast of the Black Sea), Tavria and Scythia, every country
and city on both the north and south shores of the Black Sea. After preaching the
gospel in all the lands of the north and south shores of the Black Sea, Andrew
arrived at Byzantium.
Byzantium was just as desperate as Russia, or more so, to develop and
magnify these same accounts for its own history of apostolic inauguration. Rome
had Apostle Peter and Byzantium needed Apostle Andrew in order to claim
apostolic origin to demonstrate equality with Rome, and Moscow needed to do
the same with Byzantium. In order to provide a greater preeminence over
Byzantium, Kiev further developed the record of the journey of Andrew, now
Andrew traveling from Rome directly to Sinop, implying that he circumvented
Byzantium.
The manner by which the earlier chronicles of Epiphanius migrated into
the Russian chronicles and were reformulated to fit the needs of the Russian
Church was initially by way of a letter composed by Greek Emperor Mikhael VII
Dukas (1072-1077) in 1074, directed to Pr. Vsevolod Yaroslavich, a grandson of
Vladimir the Great. The letter had the purpose of arranging a marriage between
the brother of the emperor and the daughter of Vsevolod. One of the arguments
presented to justify a tight union between the two royal families was the
following statement: “Religious books and trustworthy sources instruct me that
our states both possess one specific source and root, and that the one and same
12
word of salvation is preached in both, the same divine sacrament was preached
by them.” The reference here is to the derivation of their common faith from
Apostle Andrew.
The legend of Andrew’s evangelical feats along the Black Sea coast from
Turkey to Georgia to Tavria migrated to Russia along with the messengers to
Vsevolod. Byzantium supplied all the information that was necessary regarding
the implantation of Christianity in Russia by Apostle Andrew, and shortly
thereafter, the legend surfaced. Some Russian historians of late see Andrew’s
journey through the North Atlantic as a means of identifying him as a patron
saint of Scotland, as well as some unsubstantiated legends dealing with Ireland.
Metropolitan Makarius (Bulgakov), a firm believer in the traditional
account of the visitation of Apostle Andrew to Russia summarized his thoughts
as follows.
Based on the words of our venerated chronicler, we can conclude that in the
inner regions of our fatherland, surrounding Kiev and Novgorod, the preaching
of St. Andrew did not remain entirely unproductive. True, in our chronicle, at
the beginning, it does state that when St. Andrew was at Kiev he only ascended
Kievan hills, blessed them and erected upon them a cross prophesying a future
great city at that location and a quantity of God’s churches in it, and when he
reached Novgorod he was only surprised at the strange customs of the Slavs —
bathing in steam baths; and there is not one word about whether he taught any
among us the holy Gospel, whether he practiced his primary vocation —
preaching — or whether he traveled for some other purpose. But reading
further, when he departed our region and arrived in Rome, there first of all he
confessed to Christians what he taught and what he saw in the lands of the
Slavs during his journey to Rome.
Nonetheless, we will not deceive ourselves and so will recognize that if any
principles of Christianity were sown by St. Apostle Andrew in the countries of
Kiev and Novgorod, they did not survive very long. The barbarity of the people,
shortcomings in learned pastors and schools, persecution from pagans, and
together with the constant political turmoil and upheaval were the reason that
the holy religion — and just as occurred with certain other nations who were
enlightened by the very apostles — was suppressed completely among us for
many ages. And St. Apostle Andrew by no means can be considered the direct
founder of the Russian Church. No, this church, as known to all, appeared at a
later date and is the daughter of the church of the Royal city (Constantinople).
The First-called (Apostle Andrew) only blessed this church from a distance in
the prophetic spirit having erected on the hills of Kiev a holy cross — its
immoveable foundation. And if this apostle can be called its founder, then he is
only its indirect founder, namely because he gifted the initial archbishop of
Byzantium the beginning of an uninterrupted line of successors of the supreme
prelates of the Royal City. Then, at the time appointed of God, the uninter-
13
rupted line of our supreme prelates was initiated which has continued to the
present.
The specific political issue that motivated the codification of a legend
pertaining to Apostle Andrew’s personal visit and blessing of Kiev was the
ordination of Kliment Smolyatich as metropolitan of Kiev. The historical
background is as follows. In 1145, the metropolitan of Kiev, Mikhail, having held
the cathedra some 16 years, abandoned Kiev and returned to Constantinople. In
1147, Pr. Izyaslav Mstislavich installed Kliment Smolyatich, a native Russian, as
metropolitan of Kiev — without discussion with or approval of the patriarch. All
the previous 13 metropolitans were Greek, except for Ilarion (1051-1054), and
were ordained by the Greek patriarch. Izyaslav, however, wanted a native
Russian as metropolitan and wanted to be secular monarch of his own Russian
church without the interference or intervention of the Greek patriarch. Kliment
Smolyatich, a native Russian, was ordained July 27, 1147 as metropolitan. It was
during this era of the cathedra of Metr. Kliment, 1147-1155 (and no doubt toward
the earlier part of this period), that the legend of Apostle Andrew’s visit was
codified and promulgated as fact by Metr. Kliment, lending the name of the
prominent monk Nestor of Kiev Pecher Monastery to the documents as author,
and thereby dating it 50 years earlier to establish it as a precedent. Pr. Izyaslav
needed the historical record as a basis to demonstrate to the Greek Church and
patriarch the equality of the Russian Church and its right of independence.
2. THE PRINCES ASKOLD AND DIR
This historical era begins in the late 9th century with the foundation of the
Russian state by Rurik the Varangian, the progenitor of the royal line of Kievan
and Russian princes and tsars. According to the traditional account, Rurik
arrived in Novgorod in AD 862 to reign there. With him were two men, nobles,
whose names were Askold and Dir. Not wanting to remain with Rurik in
Novgorod they requested his permission to journey to Constantinople with their
families. As they journeyed down the Dnepr River, they stopped in Kiev,
conquered the city and took control of it, and remained there to rule it as princes,
uniting with the city many Varangian settlements scattered in the area.
According to the traditional account, in 866 they attempted a campaign
against Constantinople, using an army of local pagans and 200 ships. They
journeyed down the Dnepr and through the Black Sea to the Bosphorus. Their
presence was close enough then to pose a danger to the residents of
14
Constantinople. Patriarch Fotius, who was also concerned about the

evangelization of the Slavs, after an all-night prayer vigil, brought out from the
Church of the Holy Theotokos a relic of a garment of the Theotokos. With the
congregation following him, he carried the relic to the shore of the sea, singing
along the way. Arriving at the shore, where the sea was calm and serene Patr.
Fotius dipped the garment in the water. Immediately a storm arose and the wind
and waves destroyed all of the invaders’ 200 ships. Askold and Dir, gripped by
fear, were then baptized in the Greek Orthodox faith. Many of the soldiers were
executed when they reached the shore, but a few escaped and returned to their
homeland. After Askold and Dir returned to Kiev, a bishop was sent to them, at
their request, to further instruct them in the ways of Christ. The incident was
supposed to have occurred in the year 866, or in the 14th year of the reign of the
Byzantine Emperor Mikhael III. The account concludes this part of history by
stating that 15 years later, in 881 Pr. Oleg executed the Princes Askold and Dir.
The difficulty in accepting the traditional account as reliable is that it is the
super-imposition of two separate chronicles, one concerning Askold and Dir
immigrating to Kiev and defeating it, the other an account that deals with the
attack of Varangians on Constantinople — which does not mention Askold and
Dir. This second account is Greek and was adapted into the Primary Chronicle
to record the earliest baptism of Russians by Greek Orthodoxy. The baptism of
Askold and Dir was derived by pseudo-Nestor from information in a letter
composed by Patr. Fotius, dating to about 866-867, which speaks of the baptism
of Bulgarians along with some Russians who were in the region and were
associated with them.
The attack on Constantinople could be either of two events. One is
documented by Nikita Paflagonius, in his life of Patr. Ignatius, which mentions
that in the years between 859 and 861 some Russians attempted an attack on
Constantinople. The second is the account of an invasion by Normans, between
860 and 863, with 360 ships, which were able to reach the city. The Normans
were unable to destroy the city and left soon thereafter.
It is irrefutable, though, that beginning at about this era of 860-866,
Russians from the area of Kiev began to accept Greek Orthodoxy. To a large
extent, no doubt, this stemmed from commercial intercourse between the
developing city of Kiev and the long-established Constantinople: the traders and
merchants visiting Constantinople were proselytized by Greek Orthodox
missionaries and took their new religion back to their homeland with them. By
the year 862, according to Greek records, a Greek Orthodox bishop was residing
in Kiev and a church dedicated to Elijah the prophet was located in the city.
15
Another legend of the era is an incident that occurred after Patr. Fotius
dispatched a bishop to Kiev at the request of the new converts. According to the
annals of Patr. Fotius, “The Russians exchanged their iniquitous pagan
superstition for the pure and unadulterated Christian faith and, having accepted
a bishop and teacher, conduct themselves as obedient children and friends, and
they have accepted Christian rites.” But when the bishop arrived at the capital of
the region, Kiev, the local prince summoned a council. A considerable crowd
gathered and the prince himself presided, with nobles and elders who, according
to ancient custom among the pagans, were more attached to paganism than the
balance of the population. They began to discuss their religion vis à vis
Christianity and, having invited the bishop to their council, they asked him,
“What is it you want to teach us?”
The bishop opened the New Testament and began to speak to them about
the Savior and His miracles, and related to them various miracles that were
performed by God in the Old Testament. The Russians said, “If we do not see
something similar to that which occurred with the three adolescents in the fire,
we do not want to believe.”
The servant of God was not shaken; he boldly replied to them, “We are
nothing before God; but say what it is you want.” They asked that the New
Testament be thrown into a fire and promised to convert to the Christian God if
the book remained unaffected and unharmed by the flames. Then the bishop
exclaimed, “Lord, glorify Your name in the presence of these people,” and he
placed the book in a fire. After some time passed, the fire consumed everything in
the fireplace, but the New Testament remained intact. Even the ribbons which
held the book together were preserved. The people were impressed by the
miracle and accepted baptism. This event occurred in the year 867 during the era
of Askold and Dir.
3. PRINCES OLEG AND IGOR AND PRINCESS OLGA
In 882 Oleg, a Varangian and a relative of Rurik, arrived at Kiev from

Novgorod and killed both Askold and Dir. Christianity in Kiev then went
underground or practically vanished during the years of his rule, 882-912, and
through the years of the rule of his son Igor, 912-945.
That Christians lived in Kiev during the rule of Igor is a fact, demonstrated
by a treaty that was concluded with the Greeks in 944. The Primary Chronicle
notes that references are made twice in this treaty to “the baptized and the un-
16
baptized.” There is no indication in the chronicle that either Oleg or Igor was
Christian or possessed any Christian virtues.
Olga was the wife of Igor; they married in 902. According to the traditional
account, she accepted Orthodoxy in the following manner. Olga ruled over the
Kiev region in 945-969, after the death of her husband; her son Sviatoslav was
only five years old at the time of the father’s death. She was originally from Pskov
and had qualities of beauty and intelligence surpassing other women of her era.
She was able to recruit an army and attack the rebellious Drevlans as vengeance
for their murder of her husband Igor, and then she placed a heavy tribute upon
them. During her rule she noticed the immaculate life and austerity and high
morality of the Christians in Kiev. This interested her, knowing that it was not
the local paganism that they adhered to. She discussed faith with the Christian
teachers in Kiev, who disclosed to her the heavenly purity of life and supremacy
of Christ’s teaching. She decided to be baptized and in order to become more
familiar with Orthodoxy she went herself to Constantinople in 957. There she
spent about three months; other records indicate that she was away from April
to October of 957. However, she was coldly received in Constantinople and had
to wait a long time at the entrance to the church before finally being noticed by
Emperor Constantine VII and Patr. Theophylactus. Olga was instructed in the
Orthodox faith and baptized by the patriarch himself. She was given the new
name, Elena (Helen), with her baptism and the emperor himself became her
godfather.
According to the traditional account, when the newly-converted Olga
ascended from the baptismal basin the patriarch congratulated her with the
words, “Blessed are you among Russian women because you have loved the light
and abandoned darkness. The sons of Russia will not cease to bless you for
generations of generations and unto the last of your descendents.” Along with
Olga, several of her traveling companions were also baptized, including a
nephew, ten famous women, eighteen honored female servants, 22 subjects of
feudal princes, 43 merchants, and ten officials, all of them Russian. Olga and her
entire retinue were honored by being hosted in the Imperial palace for dinner on
two occasions. In return for their hospitality, Olga presented a large dish for the
Cathedral of St. Sophia, the underside embedded with pearls and having inside a
large jewel with an image of Christ on it. Before her return to Russia, Olga
requested a blessing from the patriarch who had baptized her. Bidding farewell
to his spiritual daughter with a blessing, the patriarch gave Olga the gift of a
cross, inscribed with the words, “Renovate the land of Russia, bringing it to God
with the same holy baptism that Olga — the faithful princess — accepted.” On
17
her return to Kiev, Olga constructed a wooden church dedicated to St. Sophia
(or Holy Wisdom). (The original church burned down in a fire in 1017 and was
later replaced by Pr. Yaroslav with a stone church.) The gift cross was placed in
the Kiev Church of St. Sophia but disappeared during the pillage by Mongols in
1240.
According to the traditional account, Olga lived twelve years as a Christian
in Kiev until her death July 11, 969, between the ages of 70 and 75. Other sources
indicate fifteen years, making the year of her baptism 954. The accounts refer to
her as Apostolic-equal and the first of Russia to enter the heavenly kingdom.
There is no evidence to indicate that the Christianity of Olga ever went beyond
her home in Kiev, although traditional accounts relate that Olga preached
throughout the region and her proselytes were baptized, and that the Catholic
pope recognized Kiev as the cradle of Orthodoxy in Russia during her reign.
A later tradition regarding Olga relates that she visited her home city,
Pskov. While there, she was standing on the shore of a river, near a thick forest
of oak trees, and saw three radiant beams of light descending from heaven onto a
small hill on the opposite side of the river. The princess erected a cross at this
spot and predicted that a church of the Holy Trinity would be built there, along
with a magnificent city. Russian Orthodoxy lauds Olga as “The morning star
preceding the sunrise, the rays of the morning dawn preceding daylight; she
shined like the full moon during the night, and radiated as a pearl among the
unbelievers.” The sunrise and dawn referenced in the acclaim is a reference to her
grandson Vladimir the Great. She was also referred to as “the dawn of the
salvation of the land of Russia, a female equal to the apostles.”
Igor and Olga’s son Sviatoslav inherited the throne of Kiev, through 972.
The chronicles consider him a pagan, with no Christian morality or virtue
whatever. Orthodoxy in Kiev during his rule stagnated, showing neither growth
nor loss.
4. EARLY ORTHODOXY IN RUSSIA
A thick, dark cloud encompasses the history of Russia up to the initial

chronicled events of the 9th century. Fierce winters, meager population and
sparse vegetation, poor soil conditions, and distance from trade routes, along
with an undeveloped language and poor literacy, marked Russia as a great
unknown as well as a great unwanted. Only with the development of Kiev, along
the Dnepr River, a trade route, and its intercourse with Bulgaria did a history
18
begin, religious as well as political and economic. The religion of this pre-historic
era promulgated by Greek Orthodox sources as being “Christian” cannot be
ascertained or defined. Much of the traditional record is embellished with
dioceses, bishops, archbishops, cathedrals, and the like, when the population of
Kherson, as magnificent a city as it was, only numbered a few thousand in the
8th-10th centuries and the population of Kiev was in the area of 10-20,000 during
the ascendancy of Vladimir the Great. Churches were wooden and clergy were
ill-educated and semi-literate, and few knew sufficient Greek to know even the
rudiments of Christian teaching. The religious chroniclers of the Middle Ages
magnified their exploits to leave a legacy of apparent success in foreign and alien
lands for future generations; or perhaps future generations fabricated the
exploits of previous generations to identify themselves as heirs of a successful,
uninterrupted Christian tradition.
The Crimean Peninsula in the 8th century contained traces of an organized
Greek Orthodox clergy, and the Azov region had cultural and economic ties with
both Constantinople and Sinop. The population, primarily Crimean Goths, was
concentreated along the shoreline and engaged in commerce across the Black
Sea.
One area acknowledged as having an organized Greek Orthodox diocese is
Tamatarkhan, the area east of Crimea (today known as the Kuban region) and
which later extended east along the Black Sea coast toward the foot of the
Caucasus. The Crimean Goths migrated eastward with the invasion of Huns in
the 5th century and developed settlements there. Evidence of Greek Orthodoxy
begins in the 7th century in this area and was consistent throughout the later
centuries, surviving Mongol rule; but all of it held close to shore and did not
migrate inland. There is evidence that Orthodox churches existed in the
southern Ukraine in the 9th and 10th centuries, but these churches were
primarily in settlements located along the shore of the Black Sea, from
Constantinople to Kherson.
More probable than the migration of Greek Orthodoxy into Kievan Russia
is that of Christianity introduced by Varangians (Scandinavians). Traditional
accounts state that 400 churches were constructed by Varangian Christians in
Kievan Russia. Acting as missionaries were merchants and other travelers from
Scandinavia, passing through Kiev on their route to the Mediterranean region.
As Metr. Makarius (Bulgakov) wrote:
The opinion of other historians cannot be discarded or ignored who state
that Christianity was introduced into Russia by Varangians who traveled
through Russia from Scandinavia, and not by Greeks as the biased chroniclers
19
record. Because the chroniclers do state that many Varangians living in Kiev
were Christians, then this is evidence that they brought their religion with
them from their homeland and dispersed it in Kiev and Novgorod. This would
account for the statements made in early chronicles that toward the end of the
reign of Igor, in about 944, Kiev contained over 400 churches.
In addition Bulgarian Bogomils, migrating east from Bulgaria to escape
persecution, flourished in Kiev and had a great appeal to the common
population, introducing to them basic Christian morals and ethics. The
influence and writings of Bogomils survived the era of Mongol invasion and
occupation among the peasants in the outlying rural area. Their remnants
surfaced in subsequent eras and are discussed later.
20
PART 2. THE ERA OF KIEVAN RUSSIA
5. GRAND PRINCE VLADIMIR THE GREAT
According to historian Golubinski, the name Vladimir Sviatoslavich

literally means “Prince of Peace, son of Holy Slav,” and is no doubt the name
assigned him by Orthodox prelates later in his career after installing Orthodoxy
in Kiev. His original name is lost in history and no doubt had pagan and Slavic
roots. The appellation “Vladimir Sviatoslavich” has a strong Christian identity
and would be most appropriate for the individual introducing Christianity into
Russia. In later years, after the tradition surrounding Vladimir was codified, he
was referred to as “the Great” and “Apostolic-equal.”
Vladimir was the youngest of three sons born to Sviatoslav. In their
struggle for supremacy in Kiev, in late 978 or early 979 Vladimir killed his
brother Yaropolk by decapitation and then took his brother’s wife to be his own.
Vladimir gained a reputation in his early years as a military leader who led many
soldiers into battle, in several wars, to extend the territory of his realm.
According to the Primary Chronicle, Vladimir had 800 concubines; according to
the Nikon Chronicle, he had 1100. If this was not enough, he also adulterated
with married women and deflowered virgins. Along with this, at his accession to
power in Kiev he set up statues of pagan deities on a hill outside his home: Perun,
made of wood but with gold leaf and silver lips; also Khors-Dazh-bog and Stri-
bog, Simargel and Mokosh. (Bog is the Russian word for God.) He sacrificed to
them, calling them gods, and brought his sons and daughters as sacrifices to
these demons. In his early years Vladimir defiled the land with his demands and
21
filled the soil of Russia and the hill where he performed his sacrifices with blood.
Kiev was also a center for the slave trade, in which Vladimir was also heavily
involved.
The first martyrs of Russia were a father and son named Feodor and
Iyoann. According to the traditional account, Vladimir the Great, in his early
years, gained the victory in a decisive military campaign against the Yatvyags, a
local non-Slavic tribe. He decided to thank the gods — the pagan deities — for
his victory with a human sacrifice. After a consultation, the elders and nobles
decided they would throw lots to determine whom to select for the sacrifice. The
lot fell to a handsome young man, son of a Varangian; but father and son both
professed to be Christians. In vain did the father try to convince the agents who
came to take his son that the pagan deities were not real gods, but soulless
statues, and that there was only one true God, creator of heaven and earth. This
only irritated the agents, who left their home and told everyone what the father
had said. Weapons in hand, a crowd gathered and broke down the door of the
Christians’ home and demanded the father to deliver his son to them as a human
sacrifice. The father refused; both were killed and their house was destroyed.
Later prelates set July 12 as a holiday to commemorate the martyrs Feodor and
Iyoann.
The traditional account of the introduction of Orthodoxy into Kiev and the
baptism of Vladimir as recorded by both Golubinski and Count M. Vl. Tolstoi is
the following:
In AD 986, the eighth year of the reign of Vladimir, Mohammedan delegates
from the Bulgar Empire east of Kiev in the central Volga region arrived to visit
him. They said to him, “You are a wise and intelligent king, but you do not know
the law, and you adhere to the wrong and false religion. Believe in our law and
venerate Mohammed.”
Vladimir asked him, “What does your religion consist of?”
They said, “We believe in God, while Mohammed commands us to
circumcise the foreskin, not to eat pork, not to drink wine. After death we will
exercise sexual activity with many wives. Mohammed will give each man 70
beautiful wives, while the most beautiful of them whom the man will select will
become the sole [legitimate] wife. And likewise here at present.” they said,
“every sexual activity is permissible. Whoever is crippled in this world so shall
he also be in the other.”
Vladimir listened to them with great enthusiasm when they spoke about
having many wives, because he himself was a ladies’ man and had a strong sexual
appetite. But to circumcise the foreskin and not to eat pork was not attractive to
22
Part 2. The Era of Kievan Russia
him, and as for the prohibition of drinking, saying, “For Russians, drinking is joy;
we cannot exist without it.”
Later, some Germans arrived, saying, “We have arrived as delegates sent by
the Pope.” They said to Vladimir, “This is what the Pope ordered us to relate to
you: your land is just like our land, but your religion is not like ours, because our
religion is right; we worship the God who created heaven and earth, the stars,
moon and all that breathes. But your gods are wood.”
Vladimir asked them, “What is your rule?” They said, “Fast according to
your strength, and whatever a person eats and drinks is to the glory of God, just
as our teacher Paul [apostle] stated.”
Vladimir, knowing of the political intrigues of the Pope, told the Germans,
“Go back; our fathers did not accept religion from the [earlier] popes.”
Jews of Khazar, having heard of this, came also, saying, “We heard that
Bulgars and Christians came, each teaching you their religion. Christians believe
in the man whom we crucified, while we believe in the one God of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob.”
And Vladimir asked them, “And what is your rule?”
They answered, “Be circumcised, do not eat pork or rabbit; observe the
Sabbath.”
Vladimir asked, “And where is your land at present?”
They answered, “In Jerusalem, but God became angered at our fathers and
scattered them as a result of our sins throughout various lands, and our land was
allotted to Christians.”
Vladimir said, “How are you able to teach others when you yourselves are
rejected of God and dispersed? If God loved you and your religion, then you
would not be scattered throughout various lands. Or, is it that you want this to
occur to us, also?”
After this, the Greeks sent to Vladimir a monk who was a philosopher,
saying, “We heard that Bulgars came to you and tried to convince you to accept
their religion, but their religion defiles heaven and earth; they are cursed above
all people because they have become similar to Sodom and Gomorrah, upon
whom the Lord released fiery rocks to destroy them. In the same manner do
these await the day of their own destruction, when God will come to judge the
earth and destroy all the lawless and wicked.” (The philosopher then discredits
Bulgar customs, unfit for print in this history.)
Hearing this, Vladimir spat on the ground and said, “This is repulsive” (sic).
The philosopher continued, “We also heard that emissaries came from
Rome to teach you their religion; but their religion is somewhat corrupt
23
compared to ours, because they conduct their services using unleavened bread as
the wafer, which God did not assign, while commanding the use of leavened
bread which was the custom handed to the apostles, ‘Accept this bread and say:
This is my body, broken for you.’ They do not practice this, and for this reason
their religion is deficient.”
Vladimir said, “Jews came to me and said that these Germans and Greeks
believe in the man whom they crucified.”
The philosopher answered, “We genuinely believe in him because prophets
prophesied that someday God would be born; other prophets foretold that he
would be crucified and buried and would resurrect on the third day and would
ascend to heaven. They [the Jews] killed these prophets, while others they
dismembered, using saws. When the prophecies were to be fulfilled, God
descended to earth, was crucified, and after his resurrection ascended to heaven.
Then he awaited their repentance for 46 years. Since they never repented, he sent
Romans against them who destroyed their cities and scattered them throughout
various countries, where to the present time they live in servitude.”
Vladimir asked, “But why did God descend to earth and accept such a
passion?”
The philosopher answered, “If you are willing, great ruler, to listen, I will
relate to you in an orderly fashion the circumstances as to why God descended to
the earth.”
Vladimir said, “I am ready to listen, with great satisfaction.”
The philosopher subsequently gave a very long sermon to Vladimir, in
which he expounded in detail the entire sacred history of the Old and New
Testaments from beginning to the end, from the creation of the world to the
ascension of Jesus Christ and preaching of the apostles. Having portrayed in this
manner the plan of divine providence regarding the salvation of people, or the
reason why God descended to the earth, the philosopher concluded his sermon,
“God has assigned a day when he wants to judge, descending from heaven, the
living and dead and to recompense every person according to his deeds: for the
righteous, the kingdom of heaven and indescribable beauty and joy without end,
and eternal life; while for sinners is reserved an endless fiery torment, and the
worm which does not die.” Having said this, the philosopher showed Vladimir a
large cloth upon which was depicted the awesome judgment of God, and
showed him the righteous on the right side entering into paradise in joy, with
sinners on the left side walking towards torment.
Vladimir sighed and said, “It is well for them on the right, but woe for those
on the left.”
24
The philosopher said, “If you want to stand with the righteous, on the
right, then be baptized.”
Vladimir, having placed these words in his heart, said, “I will wait a while
longer,” because he wanted to test all the religions. After giving the philosopher
many gifts, Vladimir sent him away with much honor.
In the year 987, Vladimir summoned his nobles and the city elders and said
to them, “Behold, there came to me Bulgars, saying ‘Accept our law.’ Then there
came Germans, who likewise lauded their law; then came Jews; after them all,
Greeks came discrediting all the other laws and lauding only their own. They
spoke much, narrating from the beginning of the world about the progress of the
entire world. Subtle and marvelous was their narrative; everyone should listen to
it. They said there will be another world and whoever enters their religion, after
having died, he will resurrect and will not again die forever, but whoever enters
another religion, then in that world he is doomed to burn in fire. What can you
add to my thinking? What do you advise?” asked Vladimir of the nobles and
elders.
The nobles and elders answered, “You know, King, that no one discredits
his own [religion], but lauds it. If you want to test it thoroughly and you do have
men in your service, send them to experience the services of each of them, the
manner in which they serve God.” This speech pleased the ruler and all the
people. They selected good and accomplished men, numbering ten, and said to
them: “First, go to the Bulgars and survey their religion.” They went, and having
arrived, they saw the repulsive customs and the worship in mosques, and they
returned home.
And Vladimir said, “Go now to the [Catholic] Germans, likewise survey
what they have to offer, and from there go to the Greeks.” The delegation arrived
among the Germans, and watched their church services; then they traveled to
Constantinople and went to the king.
The king asked why they had come and they related to him the former
events. The king was glad, and provided on their behalf a great feast that day. In
the morning, the following day, the king sent a messenger to the patriarch with
the command to say, “Russians have arrived and desire to survey our religion;
order that the church be cleaned and prepared; gather and prepare your retinue
and perform the liturgy yourself, so that they see the glory of our God.” Hearing
this, the patriarch ordered his retinue to be summoned for them to perform a
holiday liturgy, as they would customarily during a holiday; they lit the incense
and arranged the singers and choir. They accompanied the [delegates] into the
Church of St. Sophia and set them in the middle of the church in an open area,
25
showing them the beauty of the church, the singing and liturgy of the archbishop
and the row of deacons, explaining to them the manner in which they served
God. In ecstasy and amazement, the visitors lauded their services, and kings
Basil and Constantine summoned them and said to them, “Go to your land,” and
they released them with great gifts and with honor. Basil II and Constantine VIII
reigned as co-regents in Constantinople, beginning AD 975.
When they arrived in their homeland, Vladimir summoned his nobles and
elders and said, “Behold, the men whom we sent have arrived, let us listen to
what they have seen, let them describe it in the presence of the troops.”
The emissaries said, “We went to the Bulgars and watched how they
worshiped in their temple, that is, in their mosque. They stand, not wearing a
waistband;1 when they worship, they sit on their tails and look this way and that
way, as though insane. There is no joy in them but only sorrow and great
melancholy; there is nothing good in their law. Then we went to the Germans
and saw how they performed many services in their temples, but we did not see
any beauty of any kind. After this, we went to the Greeks and they led us to the
place where they serve their God; and we did not know whether we were in
heaven or on earth, because on earth it is impossible to view such scenery and
such beauty. We are unable to describe it to you, but only know this: that there
God resides with people, and that their liturgy transcends the liturgy of all the
other countries. We cannot forget such beauty; just as any person, when he has
tasted something sweet, afterward he does not want what is bitter; so we
ourselves do not want to go on serving our [pagan] gods.”
After hearing the words of the messengers, the nobles said to Vladimir, “If
the law of the Greeks was bad, your grandmother Olga would not have accepted
it; and she was the wisest of all people.”
Vladimir said, “Then, where shall we be baptized?”
The nobles answered, “Wherever it pleases you.”
A year passed. Now it was 988, and Vladimir the Great went to war against
Kherson (Korsun, or Chersoness), a Greek city in the Crimea. After a more or
less prolonged and intensive siege, he finally conquered the city (with the help of
certain traitors who were found among the besieged residents). After entering
Kherson, Vladimir sent messengers to Constantinople, to kings Basil and
Constantine, with orders to say to them: “I have conquered your glorious city. I
hear that you have a sister who is a virgin. If you do not give her to me as a wife,
then I will do to your capital as I have done to this city.” The kings answered that
1. Typical traditional male Russian dress included a waistband as a belt.
26
it is impossible for Christians to allow a young lady to become a wife of a pagan;

but that if he were to be baptized, then he would receive both the hand of the
princess and the heavenly kingdom. Vladimir replied that he had come to
Kherson with the firm intention of being baptized. “Because,” he said, “I have
already earlier made survey of your religion and it appeals to me.” The kings
rejoiced, having heard this, and intended to send their sister Anna to Vladimir.
Initially, Princess Anna disagreed, saying, “It is better for me to die than to go
into captivity.” But her brothers informed her that she had the opportunity to
become the sole person responsible for the conversion to Christ of the entire
Russian nation, and at the same time would deliver her fatherland Greece from
the terrible weapons of Russia. The sorrowful princess departed, accompanied
by many officials and priests, by boat, to Kherson, where loyal residents were
overjoyed to greet her.
Before the bride arrived at Kherson, Vladimir lost his vision the same way
Apostle Paul had lost his, and was greatly agitated. When his bride arrived, she
told him, “If you want to be healed of this illness, be baptized quickly; otherwise
you will not receive a healing.”
Vladimir agreed, was baptized, and the bishop of Kherson laid his hands
upon Vladimir as he ascended from the baptismal basin. Immediately, Vladimir
received his sight and in excitement exclaimed, “Now, I have seen the true God.”
Vladimir received the new name Vasili, at his baptism, and his troops were also
baptized at the same time. Vladimir, about 30 years of age, was united in
marriage with the princess after his baptism. In memory of the events at
Kherson, Vladimir built a church there and returned the conquered city to the
Greek kings as a dowry for the hand of their sister, Anna. They then departed for
Kiev.
The account of monk Yacov adds the following incident to the traditional
account: Vladimir the Great intended that one of the goals of the campaign
would be the import of Greek Orthodoxy to his people. Standing near Kherson
during the siege, Vladimir prayed, “Lord God, sovereign of all. Now I ask of You,
if You hand this city over to me, I will accept and lead its Christians and priests
to my land for them to teach my people the Christian law.” Monk Yacov,
however, dates the siege of Kherson two years after Vladimir’s baptism.
27
6. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF VLADIMIR’S CONVERSION
This concludes the traditional account of Vladimir’s conversion. It is not

difficult for the modern reader to separate fact from fabrication and remove
embellishments from the account. For all practical purposes, the account does
satisfy the curious mind regarding the introduction of Orthodoxy into Kiev, and
Vladimir’s conversion. In contradistinction to the traditional account of the
journey of Apostle Andrew, this account of Vladimir’s baptism is Greek in origin
and was chronicled by Greek prelates in Kiev to emphasize themselves as the
source of Russian Orthodoxy and at the same time to discredit other religions
which, at the time of composition, were influential in Kiev and perhaps were
even proselytizing. There is no doubt that Vladimir came into contact with
Khazar Jews and had intense discussions about their religion with them, but the
chroniclers who recorded these events at least 200 years later were distant from
the actual conversations. The evidence indicating a late composition is primarily
the statement about the wafer used in the Eucharist. Orthodoxy uses leavened
bread, while Catholicism uses unleavened; but this was not an issue of division
between Orthodoxy and Catholicism until the split between the two in 1054,
when the eastern half of the ecumenical church was excommunicated by Pope
Leo IX. Even then, its effect in Kiev was miniscule and especially so given its
isolation from the politics of Europe. The visits of Vladimir’s emissaries to other
countries appear ineffective because only the Orthodox section is underscored.
The chronicler apparently has no knowledge of services in a Catholic church and
his statements regarding services in a mosque are far from correct, indicating
that the chronicler himself had never witnessed their services but used second-
hand information to discredit them and record that Vladimir rejected theirs as a
good religion. Of course, the Greek chronicler emphasized and lauded his own
religion with a fictitious sermon of the delegates to Vladimir and of their journey
to Constantinople to visit kings and patriarchs and to witness a liturgy, and not
a typical one but a holiday liturgy especially performed to impress the delegates.
Germans visiting Kiev, when Germany as an ethnic group did not yet exist, also
raises the readers’ eyebrows, but the word is used derogatorily (the Russian
word for German is ne-metz, which also means dumb, and might be applied
generically to non-Russian speakers.)
If we consider the supposed basis of Vladimir’s selection of a religion, it is
surprising that it did not take into account morality or ethics, or its effect on
conduct or behavior, or whether it would best improve the economy or his
subjects’ standard of living, or their obedience to Vladimir as supreme authority.
28
According to the account, his criteria were ritual and corporeal rules. But, what
are rituals? Superficial conditioned movements which, without an assigned
interpretation, have no meaning of their own; which, on their own, are neither
good nor bad; which, for a person outside the religion, are meaningless and
which do not provide understanding of the substance of the religion. There is no
reasonable explanation for Vladimir to have dispatched emissaries to survey the
various liturgies and to use such as the basis for choosing the best religion for the
residents of his realm. A normal person, dedicated to his religion as Vladimir was
to his own, would immediately become defensive. Oddly, the account does not
show this about Vladimir. The entire context of the Greek account (speaking
through the lips of Vladimir, nobles and elders, emissaries of the Jews, Moslems,
Catholic, and Orthodox, and the delegates sent by Vladimir to survey the
religions) is the intent to establish the root and source of Russian Orthodoxy as
Greek Orthodoxy and to impress this on the population and future generations,
and to make foreign religions appear repulsive and “unorthodox.” The emphasis
on Greek Orthodoxy was strengthened in order to ignore or circumvent the
influence and effect of Varangian Christians on Vladimir. The frame or shell of
the circumstances does, however, still retain validity regarding the baptism of
Vladimir and the introduction of Christianity into Kiev; and this leads to the
question of why Vladimir would exchange his religion for another.
According to Russian historian Sergei Solovyov, all of the paganism,
immorality, sexual excess, and fratricide of Vladimir was magnified (if not
fabricated) to emphasize his sinfulness in order to heighten the impact of his
conversion from paganism to Orthodoxy. Vladimir’s conversion would not be
effective as a tool for later Orthodox leaders if it was only nominal; but when his
immorality and dedication to pagan deities was exaggerated, even to the point of
accusing him of infant immolation, his conversion to a new man in the image of
God could be used as an effective tool to convert others to Orthodoxy. Solovyov
also felt that Vladimir was resentful toward Orthodoxy as a young man,
including the early years of his reign over Kiev, and that this led him to murder
his older brother Yaropolk, who was Christian. The opposing view, held by
other Russian historians such as Tatischev, provides the hypothesis that the
more Vladimir practiced his paganism, the more repulsive it became, until he
abandoned it in favor of Orthodoxy. Although he was pagan in these early years,
the Christianity of his grandmother Olga still resided in Vladimir, although it
was dormant. According to another account, Vladimir had five legitimate wives;
four of them identified themselves as Christians: two were Greek, one was
29
Czech, and one was Bulgarian. This, of course, is a considerable smaller harem
than noted above.
In retrospect, it seems that all Vladimir actually knew about Orthodoxy
was its rites as performed in churches in Kiev and that — based on what meager
information he was able to acquire from his wives and others — he recognized
the religion as a more refined and superior paganism then the one he inherited
from his forebears. Jews, Moslems and Catholics were repulsive to him because
they were not Slavic but foreigners, with alien gods, while Vladimir was
somewhat able to identify Greeks with the residents of his own Kiev estate and
saw the rite and ritual of Orthodoxy as a superior form of the rite and ritual of his
paganism. As far as morality and ethics were concerned, apparently this never
entered his conception or view of religion — because the best religion was the
best rite and ritual.
During the pre-Mongol period in Kiev, other religions were not
proselytizing and so there was no insecurity on the part of Orthodoxy — no
need to defend itself. A small number of Catholics, or Germans (as the chronicler
refers to them), did live in Kiev but that would be normal along the trade route
tracing the Dnepr River from Russia to the Black Sea. Khazar Jews, likewise, had
a colony, along with Bulgar Moslems, in the region. But these held to their own
ethnic group and religion, and there is no evidence they represented any threat
to Orthodoxy. Varangian Christians and Bulgarian Bogomils also resided in Kiev,
and in greater numbers than Orthodox Christians. A zealous and fervent
defender of Orthodoxy could foresee one of these alien groups becoming a threat
to their monopoly of Russian religion eventually, and with the proper sources at
hand, such a person could compose a narrative like the one detailing Vladimir’s
search for the true religion, and in doing so could especially by-pass any
Varangian intervention.
The source of the legend of Vladimir’s search for the true religion is a story
regarding the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism in the year AD 740. During
the early 12th century, a Spanish Jew, Jehuda Halevi (1085-1141), wrote a popular
book titled Kuzari, or, The Khazars. It was published a year before his death.
Halevi’s book includes a chapter about the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism
in about the year AD 740, likewise a traditional legend. In Halevi’s account an
angel appeared several times to the ruler of the Khazars, who was a zealous
idolater but with pious feelings. The angel told him, “Your feelings are good, but
your service to God is not right.” To discover the right way to worship God, the
ruler turned first to a pagan philosopher who represented Pantheism, and then
to Christian and Moslem teachers. After hearing their intensive and extensive
30
expositions, the ruler was dissatisfied with all of them; but he noticed that both
the Christian and Moslem teachers referred to Judaism as the source of their
religion. Then he decided to listen to the exposition of a Jewish teacher, who was
able to convince the ruler of the truth of Judaism; this subsequently led to the
conversion of the Khazars to Judaism.
There is a striking parallel between the Jehuda Halevi account and the
chronicler’s, and it is noteworthy that the chronicler’s record appears at a time in
the beginning of the 13th century, when Kiev was increasing in population,
including Catholics, Moslems and Jews, which added insecurity to the
advancement of Orthodoxy. This would have been ample reason for a zealous
Greek Orthodox monk, familiar with his native land and less familiar with the
customs and manners of these Asiatic religions, to fabricate a tale about
Vladimir’s search for true the religion.
The notion of the Orthodox delegation showing Vladimir a large cloth with
a depiction of the final judgment is adapted from a similar event that preceded
the conversion of Boris I, ruler of Bulgaria. He was persuaded by Byzantine
Emperor Mikhael III to convert to Orthodoxy, in 865.
The Jewish delegates’ statement that their land was allotted to the
Christians was not valid during the era of Vladimir: Palestine was under Islamic
control from the 7th to the turn of the 12th century.
In 1099, the First Crusade captured Jerusalem and established the Kingdom
of Jerusalem, which lasted under Christian rule until 1187, when it was
reconquered by Islamic armies. Apparently the author of the traditional account
was unaware of its re-occupation by Islam and only knew of its defeat by the
Christian crusaders. Why Vladimir would ask the Khazar Jews about their land
also poses a problem. Vladimir knew exactly where the Khazar empire was
located; but the chronicler’s intent was to transfer this identity of the Khazars to
the Jews of Palestine, if there were any at that time.
There are two accounts in addition to pseudo-Nestor’s, dealing with the
conversion of Vladimir. The first is the account of Metr. Ilarion, a contemporary
of Yaroslav, written between 1037 and 1050; the second is that of the monk
Yacov, mentioned above, a contemporary of Izyaslav, which was written about
1070. None of the three records mentions anything about delegates sent to
Vladimir from adherents of the various religions or about his emissaries to being
sent to survey the other religions. What all three do state — and this, positively
— is that Vladimir made the decision to accept Orthodoxy entirely on his own,
without any intervention or influence of others. Ilarion states that Vladimir
made the decision to accept Orthodoxy without any formal introduction or
31
instruction in it, but solely on the basis of personal inclination and a sense that
Orthodoxy was superior to the paganism of his forebears. The monk Yacov
states that God himself, having surveyed the heart of Vladimir and beholding
him from heaven, enlightened his heart to accept baptism. Monk Yacov states
that a second inspiration was the influence of Vladimir’s grandmother, which
gave rise to a zeal to imitate her, and so he accepted baptism. Pseudo-Nestor
follows the context of his two predecessors, but mentions that Vladimir had a
divine revelation to accept baptism.
The place of Vladimir’s baptism likewise has been debated because of the
conflicting references in the early records. Although the traditional account
names Korsun (Kherson), pseudo-Nestor supplements his statement by
indicating that other sources contemporary with his own also specify Kiev or
else the city Vasilyev, about 25 miles southwest of Kiev on the Stugne River, thus
explaining Vladimir’s baptismal name, Vasili.
The section of the traditional account dealing with Vladimir’s dispatching
of delegates to survey the local prospective religions also has a derivation. In the
Nikon chronicles, we read of the following event occurring in the year 1001,
about 13 years after the baptism of Vladimir: “In that year, Vladimir sent his
delegates to Rome and others to Jerusalem and to Egypt and to Babylon, to
survey their lands and their customs.” This record is a casual note by the author
regarding the affairs of Vladimir and can be compared to notes on the travels of
Tsar Peter I through Europe. Although the chronicler may not have read about
his travels in any of the original manuscripts, at least he had enough information
to reinterpret the event for his own purpose, as witnessed above by the
traditional account, dating it 15 years earlier in the reign of Vladimir and stating
its purpose being the survey of local religions.
The most perplexing of all episodes in the traditional account is Vladimir’s
prayer at the walls of Kherson, during the siege, and his intent to use the
conquest of the city as a means of imparting “Christian” precepts into his realm.
Why not just ask for missionaries from the patriarchs of Constantinople? The
Greek author of the traditional account needed to introduce religious
undertones into Vladimir’s purely military campaign, which surely aimed to
expand the size of his realm by annexing a seaport on the Black Sea. Vladimir’s
sudden blindness and his subsequent healing are obviously an embellishment by
the author, an analogy to Apostle Paul’s blindness and subsequent healing.
There is an evident parallel between the traditional account of the
conversion of Vladimir with that of Constantine, in the 4th century; both
renounced their paganism after years of practicing it and introduced
32
Christianity as the state religion in their realms. The intent of the Primary
Chronicle was to portray Vladimir as the Russian Constantine the Great.
Neither of them was particularly Christian during his reign as a “Christian”
ruler; both were military commanders who required a utilitarian religion with a
superficial appeal to the senses in order to consolidate the loyalties of their
subjects. According to the account, Vladimir found this in the local Orthodoxy,
which to his military and pagan mind was superior to the religion commonly
practiced in Kiev. As Constantine the Great utilized the Christian religion of his
day to serve his needs, and modified it as necessary to adapt to his Roman style
of rule, so did Vladimir in Kiev. Vladimir’s marital tie with Anna, the sister of
Basil II and Constantine VIII, was sufficient to induce Constantinople to send
Orthodox priests to Kiev.
Vladimir returned to Kiev from Kherson accompanied by Orthodox priests
in the year 990. His spoils included many icons and church appurtenances and
the relics of Clement the Martyr and of other saints.
The most objective conclusion on this matter is provided by Golubinski,
namely, that Vladimir’s paganism and immorality and murders are far
overstated, and that Vladimir was open to Christianity from childhood,
including during the time of his accession to the throne in Kiev. Vladimir
decided to accept Christianity, not after futile attempts to elevate paganism but
through conversion by the local Varangian Christians; he was baptized at about
the time of his accession to the throne, in order to provide a “better” religion for
his subjects. Vladimir’s baptism occurred not in Kiev, or Kherson, but most
likely in the local city Vasilyev, and was performed not by a Greek Orthodox
priest but by a local Varangian priest. His baptism in AD 987 occurred two years
before his conquest of Kherson, which date can be set at about 989 or 990.
Vladimir’s conquest of Kherson was typical of a military leader of the era
wanting to expand his territory, and had no religious overtones. His later
association was primarily with the Christianity of Bulgaria rather than the
Orthodoxy of Constantinople. Vladimir’s purpose in seeking to acquire as his
wife a sister of the Byzantine emperors, in distinction to his previous wives, was
to attach himself by way of marriage to Constantinople, for political and
economic reasons. Even as a Christian, Vladimir continued for the next 28 years,
until his death in 1015, to show strong ties to native Russian paganism, and he
conducted himself as a military-style leader.
33
7. THE BAPTISM OF RUSSIA
Vladimir’s effort in imposing Orthodoxy upon his subjects as the official

national religion was not apostolic, but rather in keeping with the conduct of a
military commander accomplishing a task for the sake of expediency. According
to the traditional account, when Vladimir returned to Kiev from Kherson, in
about 990, he destroyed the idols in the city. Orthodox priests worked the city
squares where crowds were gathered and visited the homes of residents,
admonishing them on the principal tenets of the Gospel, impressing on the
pagans the futility of idolatry and convincing them to accept the religion of
salvation. Not all of the townsmen declared their eagerness to change religions;
some were stubborn, or else postponed the matter from day to day. One evening,
Vladimir issued an order for all the residents of Kiev to appear the next morning
on the banks of the Dnepr River. And in the morning, crowds of people
appeared, old and young, and mothers with their infants, on the banks of the
river. They were baptized en masse by the Orthodox priests who had
accompanied Vladimir from Kherson, and under the auspices of Vladimir and his
troops. According to the traditional account, not one person of the city failed to
appear. Who would oppose the will of Prince Vladimir? The people joyfully
proceeded to fulfill their sovereign’s wishes, saying, “If this new religion was not
good then our ruler and his nobles would not have accepted it.” The people
entered the water, some up to their necks while others up to their waists, and
some only up to the knees; adults held the children. Emerging from the water,
they took communion from priests standing on the shore. At the conclusion of
the day’s events, Vladimir declaimed, “Great God who created heaven and earth,
view Your new people. God, give them to recognize You as the true God, just as
Christian countries have recognized You, and confirm in them the true faith and
help me, Lord, to oppose the enemy as I depend on You and on Your dominion.”
Metr. Ilarion mentions that those who did not have themselves baptized
voluntarily did so out of fear of reprisal from Vladimir. This same scenario was
repeated in smaller cities shortly thereafter. According to the account, the
priests on the bank of the Dnepr River recited prayers while Vladimir, in ecstasy
over the event, prayed to God while standing on the river bank. “On that day,”
states the account, “earth and heaven rejoiced.” Metr. Larion summarized
Vladimir’s introduction of Christianity into Russia in the following manner.
He commanded the baptism in the name of the Father and Son and Holy
Spirit throughout his entire land, so that publicly and loudly the name of the
Holy Trinity would be glorified in all the cities and all would become Christian:
34
great and small, slave and free, young and old, noble and peasant, rich and poor.
And not one person opposed his pious command; they were baptized, if not out
of love then out of fear of him who gave the command, and in this manner was
authority magnanimously united in his person. And at one moment our entire
land began to glorify Christ with the Father and Holy Spirit. He turned many
from the error of idolatry: not only cities, but his entire realm.
Vladimir proceeded to remove the statue of Perun he had earlier erected,
and tied it to the tail of a horse and had it dragged out of the city. Some residents
of Kiev cried as they watched Perun being dragged through the streets. It was
taken to the Dnepr, pushed into the current by soldiers, and sent floating
downstream until it was destroyed in the rapids.
Subsequent to the mass baptism at Kiev, Vladimir destroyed the rest of the
pagan idols. The local Orthodoxy praised his efforts and began construction of
new churches to replace the pagan temples. Vladimir built a new church in
honor of St. Vasili, his patron saint, on the very hill where he had earlier erected
the statue of Perun.
Golubinski relates that many were not convinced of the superiority of
Orthodoxy over their traditional paganism and refused the superficial
conversion, while others turned a deaf ear to the commands, and still others took
flight out of the city. These accused Vladimir and his sycophant nobles of being
renegades from the religion of their forebears.
In 991, Bishop Joakim arrived at Novgorod and destroyed the idol temples.
The statue of Perun was cut down and he ordered people to throw it into the
Volkhov River. They tied it with ropes and dragged it through manure and beat
it with sticks and hacked it with saws. At that moment, the story goes, a demon
entered into Perun and the statue began to cry, “Oh, woe to me, what their
ruthless hands have done to me.” When they threw him into the Volkhov River
and he floated under their large bridge, Bishop Joakim pointed his finger at the
statue in the river and said, “For this, the children of Novgorod will remember
me.” The bishop ordered the people not to rescue the statue. In the morning, a
man from the village of Pidblya went to his boat in the river, intending to deliver
some pots to the city, and he noticed that Perun had floated to the shore. The
man pushed the statue back into the river with a pole and said, “You,
Perunishek,2 have eaten and drunk enough; now, float further away.” And the
statue floated off to an unknown resting place.
The accounts indicating that Russia was baptized by Vladimir are
exaggerations on the part of authors striving to impress on their readers that the
2. Diminutive of Perun.
35
best religion for Russia was provided by their very own ruler and willingly
accepted by national consensus. In reality, only a small segment of the
population was baptized, primarily those in the larger two cities, Kiev and
Novgorod, and in other cities to a considerably lesser extent. The adherents to
the new religion were primarily those of Varangian or Slavic descent, and did not
include any of the foreigners living in Kievan Russia. There is no record in the
early chroniclers that any other specific area other than Kiev and Novgorod were
baptized to any significant extent.
A saying has been preserved regarding the baptism of Novgorod. “Putyata
baptized with the sword, while Dobrinya used fire.” In other words, the
residents of Novgorod were coerced into baptism just as were those of Kiev.
Putyata was the military commander of Vladimir’s army; he used his troops to
punish any who rebelled against baptism and destruction of the idols and pagan
temples. Dobrinya was Vladimir’s uncle who, in quelling the rebellion, burned
many houses in the city. Another chronicle, part of the biography of Bishop
Joakim, states that the residents took vengeance against Dobrinya by burning
his own house and murdering his wife, and that Dobrinya had to use his
regiment to quell the disturbance.
As Vladimir further expanded his realm over the next 25 years, Orthodox
bishops were at his heels erecting churches and baptizing new subjects into the
national religion, now Russian Orthodoxy. Vladimir died July 15, 1015,
somewhere between the ages of 55 and 58. He was buried in the Desyatinnoi
(Tithe) Church, which he had built by donating one tenth of his possessions for
its construction. Vladimir had Church books in the Slavonic language imported
for use in the new churches from Bulgaria. As a person, Vladimir is described by
the account as having a generous and humanitarian nature. He was not an
ascetic, but a man of the people. Vladimir was hospitable, to the extent of
inviting the poor to his banquets and opening his home to the destitute.
Vladimir’s leadership was utilized in military campaigns just as it was used
to institute Orthodoxy as the national religion. He was extraordinarily adept at
using both war and religion to expand the size of Kievan Russia and keep it a
single solid, consolidated state for the 25 years after his baptism. As a
professional soldier, Vladimir also did not hesitate to execute any who were
upsetting his new society. According to the traditional account, Vladimir also
released his concubines and his earlier five wives, giving them their freedom,
while keeping Anna, the sister of the Byzantine kings, as his sole legitimate wife
for the rest of his life.
36
8. PRINCE YAROSLAV
With the death of Vladimir, the precepts of brotherhood he had instilled in

the population with his Christianization seemed to have vanished as if they
never existed, and especially in his immediate family. Vladimir had twelve sons,
according to one account, but five is the more reliable number; and after
Vladimir’s death internecine strife arose between the siblings. Prior to his death
Vladimir had assigned each of his five sons a segment of his realm; now,
fratricidal civil wars wrought devastation over a five-year period. The eldest son
was Sviatopolk, of Novgorod, who executed three of his brothers: Boris of
Rostov, Gleb of Murom, and Sviatoslav of Drevlyan. But Sviatopolk was not able
to defeat the remaining brother, Yaroslav of Novgorod. Eventually, Yaroslav
defeated Sviatopolk and acquired sole control of Kievan Russia.
In the year 1015, Sviatopolk’s troops defeated the troops of both Boris and
Gleb, his two brothers. The two attempted to flee, but realized that they were in
a hopeless situation. According to the traditional account, Boris was ruthlessly
slain by soldiers sent by Sviatopolk on July 24, 1015. Gleb was murdered on
September 5, in the same manner. In the year 1019, after saturating Kievan Russia
with blood, Sviatopolk was defeated by his brother Yaroslav.
Yaroslav expanded the size of Kiev, attempting to imitate Constantine in
the building of Constantinople. A wall was constructed around the city and
many new Orthodox Churches were built within it. He constructed a church of
St. Sophia, or Holy Wisdom, built a monastery dedicated to St. Gregory, and a
convent dedicated to St. Irene. Once the strife dissipated, Yaroslav began to
import religious books from Bulgaria, in Slavonic, and he also brought in
translators from Bulgaria to translate other church books from Greek.
To further expand Orthodoxy in Kievan Russia, Yaroslav created a diocese
in Rostov in addition to those of Kiev and Novgorod. The first bishop of Rostov
was Feodor, a Greek just like all the bishops in Kiev at the time. He built a
church in the city, but his effort at converting the non-Slavic population to
Orthodoxy was a failure and Feodor relocated to Suzdal to escape the angry
residents. The second bishop was Ilarion, but his efforts in Novgorod were a
similar failure. In reality, the harshness of the cold climate and lack of assistance
made any type of progress difficult for these clergy displaced from their
comfortable Mediterranean Greece. The third bishop was Leonti; although
Greek, he was tonsured at Pecher Monastery in Kiev, was a disciple of Antonius
of Pecher, and was acclimated to life in Russia. Leonti was successful in
establishing Orthodoxy in Rostov and died a martyr’s death in about 1077. The
37
successor of Leonti was Isai (Isaiah), a Russian who was also tonsured at Pecher
Monastery. Later, he became abbot of Izyaslav Monastery of St. Dimitri in Kiev.
Isai retained the position of bishop of Rostov from 1077 to 1089, and expanded
his diocese to include Suzdal.
The preacher Avrami was also popular in Rostov in later years. According
to tradition, he destroyed the statue of the idol Voloss with a stick given to him
by Apostle John, in a vision. This occurred during the rule of Vladimir
Monomakh.
After the death of Yaroslav in 1054, his sons Izyaslav, Sviatoslav and
Vsevolod held control of the throne in a more or less peaceful manner until an
internecine struggle burst into the open and Sviatopolk seized control in 1093,
retaining it until 1114. Vladimir Monomakh, born in 1053, the great-grandson of
his namesake, ascended the throne over Kievan Russia as Grand Prince in 1114
and reigned until 1125.
9. THE EARLY METROPOLITANS
The earliest record or chronicle of Russian Orthodoxy does not discuss the
matter of the establishment of the cathedra of the first metropolitan; the
traditional accounts incline toward Mikhail, while the scholarly accounts
toward Leon. The Steppenaya Kniga — Nomocanon of ancient Russia — states
that Vladimir requested a metropolitan from Patr. Nikolas II Chrysoberges, who
then sent Mikhael to Kiev from Constantinople to occupy the cathedra.
Archbishop Filaret, Talberg and Count Tolstoi incline towards Mikhail, and the
latter states that he died in 992 and was buried inside the Desyatinnoi Church in
Kiev and that in 1103 his remains were transferred to the cave where Antonius of
Pecher resided as a recluse. Prof. Znamenski, following the traditional account,
states that Vladimir brought Bishop Mikhail from Kherson to Kiev himself after
the victory and installed him as metropolitan. Kartashyov, on the other hand,
provides evidence that Mikhail was one of several missionary bishops sent by
Patr. Nikolas to the region after the baptism of Kiev and that his career did not
progress any further.
The Novgorod version of the ancient chronicle states that Leon was sent to
Kiev from Constantinople in 991 by Patr. Nikolas, at the request of Vladimir, and
then assumed the cathedra of metropolitan. This version is accepted by the more
thorough and investigative historians such as Golubinski and Kartashyov, and in
general is accepted by scholars as the more reliable account.
38
There were 24 metropolitans over Kievan Russia from the baptism of

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

21. Diomicius: mentioned by the chroniclers for the years 1198-1201
22. Matthei: held the cathedra 1201-1221.
23. Kirill II: arrived on January 6, 1124; he died in 1233.
24. Iosif (Joseph): arrived 1237 from Nicea and is not mentioned again. It
seems he fled Kiev the following year when invasion by Mongols became
imminent.
The above list is based on Golubinski’s research. Archbishop Filaret and
Prof. Znamenski agree with him and the dates assigned, except that they
exclude Gavriil and Diomicius (#20 and 21) since the scant amount of
information available on these men causes them to doubt their genuine accession
to the cathedra.
For the first 50 years after Vladimir’s conversion, the metropolitan had his
cathedra not in Kiev but in Kievan Pereyaslav, about 50 miles south of Kiev
where the Alta and Trubezh Rivers converge. Vladimir the Great had ties
primarily with the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, and for this reason located the
initial Greek metropolitans supplied by the patriarch, Leonti and Ioyann I, not in
Kiev, his capital, but at this distant residence; their efficacy was nominal, if that.
The cathedra was moved to Kiev with the completion of the Church of St.
Sophia, under Yaroslav, which then became the cathedra of the metropolitan.
As noted, all of the metropolitans of Kievan Russia were Greek, except for
Ilarion and Kliment. Most of them arrived from Constantinople, their cathedra
having been assigned to them by the respective ecumenical patriarch; some had
been bishops, monks, or priests who earlier migrated to Kiev from
Constantinople and were promoted. There are many reasons for the short
accession of several of them, and the speedy return to Constantinople of others.
Golubinski feels that the bishop or priest who was elevated and ordained as
metropolitan of Kiev would not have been of the highest caliber or quality,
because few would want to accept this relocation to a backward and barbarian
region; and few or none of the Greek metropolitans actually spoke Russian or
could conduct services in Slavonic in any event. This accounts for the meager
advancement of Orthodoxy in Kievan rule during the years following Ilarion,
after 1055. The colder climate of Kiev and the Russian north likewise sapped the
enthusiasm of the transplanted Mediterranean natives.
With the introduction of Orthodoxy as the national religion in Kievan
Russia under Vladimir, the patriarchs of Constantinople took advantage of the
right to ordain its metropolitans, but not entirely in the manner defined by the
canons. The canons assigned to the patriarch only the right to consecrate or
ordain metropolitans; but their selection was assigned to a council of bishops of
40
the dioceses. With regard to the metropolitan of Kiev, the ecumenical patriarch
acted, on the contrary, by both selecting the candidate and then ordaining him as
metropolitan. According to the canons, a council of Russian bishops could select
a native Russian as metropolitan; but in practice, for the most part, the patriarch
selected him and transferred him to Russia (first to Kiev, and later to Moscow).
In this manner the Greek Church was able to subject the Russian Church to its
authority at the expense of Kievan or Moscovite leaders.
In reality, the ecumenical patriarch had no business or canonical
justification to interfere or meddle in the affairs of Russian Orthodoxy without a
specific request to do so. But, due to the persistence of the patriarch, every
metropolitan through the Mongol invasion was Greek with the exception of
those two. In the Greek Orthodox ecclesiastical system, the metropolitan was
answerable to his counterpart in the civil government and prelates and parish
clergy were subject to the authority of the metropolitan. Each diocese had a
bishop assigned to it, with an archbishop charged with overseeing several
dioceses or holding authority over an especially large or important diocese, such
as Novgorod.
Golubinski notes that there is a strong possibility that the Russian Church
never knew about the canon allowing Kievans to select their own metropolitan
independently. The Greek metropolitans certainly had no reason to mention it.
Even so, given the weakness of Russian Orthodoxy as a corporate body, and its
lack of cohesion, and later on the weakness of the grand princes of Kiev and
Moscow, they may not have beenin a position to name their own metropolitans.
Kievan Russia was embroiled in internecine civil wars and struggles between
local feudal estates for the entirety of the period between Vladimir and the
Mongols, and there was no stability during the Mongol occupation, either. An
incoherent or disrupted national religion would easily sway the grand prince to
listen to Greek promoters and send for a metropolitan from Constantinople. .
10. METROPOLITANS ILARION AND KLIMENT
Russian metropolitans were ordained by the demand of strong grand

princes. Ilarion was ordained in 1051 under Pr. Yaroslav Vladimirovich, and
Kliment under Pr. Izyaslav Mstislavich in 1147. The intent of both princes was to
create a national Russian Church without interference or influence by
Constantinople.
41
Metr. Ilarion (1051-1055) is important in the history of early Russian

Orthodoxy because he was the first native Russian metropolitan. According to
the traditional account he was senior priest in the village Berestov, which was
the summer palace of Pr. Yaroslav. As a result, Ilarion became close to Yaroslav.
Ilarion led an ascetic life during his early years and dug himself a cave near the
Dnepr River to seclude himself and mediate in. He wanted to imitate to some
degree the cave-dwelling hermits he had heard about and went there to sing and
pray to God, alone and in secret. Ilarion was then tonsured as a monk. Yaroslav
held a council of prelates in 1051 and proposed Ilarion to the council as a
candidate to fill the vacant cathedra of the metropolitan, and after his selection
by the council in Kiev Ilarion traveled to Constantinople for approval and
ordination as metropolitan by the patriarch, which was granted in 1051.
During Ilarion’s ministry, he brought in singers from Greece and utilized
them to develop the Russian style of singing: short phrases chanted in a harmony
by the choir. During his career, Pecher Monastery was founded. Ilarion left his
cathedra in about the year 1055 and returned to the ascetic life of a recluse until
his death in 1067.
Ilarion wrote several edifying theological compositions during his career.
While a priest at Berestov, Ilarion wrote the eloquent compositions, “About the
law given by Moses and of grace and truth that evolved from Christ,” and “Laud
on behalf of Vladimir.” Once he became metropolitan, Ilarion composed a
Confession of Faith, discussing the primary tenets of Orthodoxy in Russian.
In 1145, during the reign of Pr. Vsevolod Olegovich, Metr. Mikhail, who had
retained the cathedra some fourteen years, abandoned Kiev and returned to
Constantinople. He was a Greek and had been bishop of Novgorod from 1129 to
1131. Mikhail’s return after sixteen years in Russia had to do with his
dissatisfaction with Vsevolod and the internecine strife between the two
families for control of Kievan Russia.
Pr. Vsevolod died in 1146 and was succeeded by his brother Igor Olegovich,
who only held the throne two weeks before losing it to his rival and cousin,
Izyaslav Mstislavich.
Two years passed and Izyaslav waited for a new metropolitan from
Constantinople. Offended by the patriarch’s delay, Izyaslav installed a native
Russian as metropolitan on July 27, 1147. He was Kliment Smolyatich, an austere,
self-educated ascetic. Izyaslav made no attempt to secure the patriarch’s
approval or blessing for Kliment’s ordination.
Izyaslav convened an ecclesiastical council in Kiev of seven bishops whose
consensus he wanted for his action. The venerated Bishop Onuthrius of
42
Chernigov insisted that Russian prelates had the canonical right to ordain
Kliment. Four other bishops approved: Theodor of Belgrad, Evthemi of Kievan
Pereyaslav, Theodor of Vladimir-of-Volin and Damian of Yurvey. The two who
opposed the ordination of Kliment were Bishops Nifont of Novgorod and
Manuel of Smolensk; Manuel was Greek.
Bishop Onuthrius stated, “I have ascertained that the bishops here
gathered together reserve the authority to install a metropolitan.” But Bishop
Nifont replied, “It is not in the canons for a metropolitan to be ordained without
a patriarch; the patriarch ordains a metropolitan.” Turning to Kliment, he added,
“We will not present you the oath; we will not minister with you, because you
did not receive a blessing at the Cathedral of St. Sophia and from the patriarch.
But if you repent, and you accept a blessing from the patriarch, then we will bow
to you. We have the decrees of [former] Metr. Mikhail that it is improper for us
to have a metropolitan who has not ministered at St. Sophia.”
Then Bishop Onuthrius again declared, “I have ascertained that it is proper
for us to ordain a metropolitan and so we can ordain Kliment, who is one of us,
just as they ordain with the imposition of their hands.” The opposition was
overruled by Pr. Izyaslav, and Kliment Smolyatich was ordained metropolitan of
Kiev July 27, 1147 by the Russian prelates gathered at the council. After the
ordination, Manuel accepted Kliment as metropolitan, but Nifont refused. Two
years later, Nifont was summoned to Kiev by Kliment, with the approval of
Izyaslav, and taken into custody in a cell at Pecher Monastery. He sat there
incarcerated for a few months until he was released by Yuri Dolgoruki in late
1149.
Three years after Kliment’s ordination, in 1150, Grand Prince Izyaslav was
defeated by his uncle Yuri Dolgoruki, and along with the exit of Izyaslav was
that of Kliment. However, Izyaslav twice regained his throne from Uncle Yuri —
and twice lost it — during the year 1150. When Izyaslav regained the throne on
the third occasion, he had Kliment installed again and he held the position
another five years until 1155, when he was finally expelled by Yuri Dolgoruki
shortly after Izyaslav’s death on November 13, 1154. Yuri, who did not accept the
ordination of Kliment as valid, sent an embassy to Constantinople to the
patriarch requesting a Greek metropolitan to be ordained and delivered. Patr.
Constantine IV did not hesitate in sending Constantine, a Greek, ordained in
1156.
With the exile of Kliment and the ordination of Constantine, Bishop
Nifont of Novgorod felt he was finally vindicated and he rushed from Novgorod
to be on hand to greet the new metropolitan. Waiting for Constantine in Kiev, in
43
April 1156, Nifont fell ill and passed away before the new Greek metropolitan
arrived; Bishop Manuel of Smolensk, however, greeted him very honorably.
Constantine’s first ecclesiastical activity after his arrival in Kiev in late 1156
was to expel and excommunicate all the priests who had been ordained by
Kliment. Yuri Dolgoruki died the following year (May 15, 1157) and was
succeded by Rostislav Mstislavich, a brother of Izyaslav. Constantine was then
forced to flee Kiev to save his life, as Izyaslav’s sons wanted to take vengeance on
him for anathemizing their father for having ordained Kliment. He fled to
Chernigov, to the home of Bishop Antonius — also a Greek — and remained
there until his death in 1159, two years later.
Izyaslav’s sons then wanted to re-install Kliment on the cathedra, but
Rostislav refused and another Greek was summoned from Constantinople, with
the blessing of the patriarch — now Lukas Chrysoberges. Theodor arrived
August 1161. The new metropolitan only lasted a year, dying in 1162 or 1163.
Meanwhile, Kliment was able to gain Rostislav’s favor through the efforts
of his nephews, Izyaslav’s sons. Two years after the death of Theodor, Rostislav
sent an embassy to the patriarch at Constantinople with a petition to officially
recognize Kliment as metropolitan and allow him an ordination by the patriarch;
but Rostislav’s embassy met a new metropolitan and his retinue as they were
journeying to Kiev, and had to turn back. The patriarch, having heard of
Rostislav’s change of attitude toward Kliment and hearing of the death of
Theodor, had wasted no time in ordaining a replacement metropolitan and
dispatching him to Kiev.
The retinue of Ioyann IV, the new metropolitan of Kiev, arrived 1164 and
presented many valuable gifts to Rostislav, in order to quell his anger over the
patriarch’s refusal to accommodate his choice of Kliment. Eventually, Ioyann IV
was accepted by Rostislav, but reluctantly. Kliment died in exile, in about 1164,
while his successor Ioyann died May 12, 1166.
11. EARLY SAINTS AND MARTYRS
The early expansion of Orthodoxy did not progress without persecution

from opposing religions and from nationalities that were enemies of Kievan
Russia, although the histories of such events were somewhat embellished to
magnify their martyrs; and some are obviously legends.
In the southeast of Russia, hordes of Polovtzi resided in the expanses
between the Dnepr and the Don Rivers, and in the 9th century all the way to the
44
Volga River. They were perennial enemies whom Vladimir and other feudal
princes fought, both in order to defend themselves and to extend the size of their
territory. With the expansion of Christianity into the region, the Polovtzi began
to attack. In 1091-1094, they destroyed many of the cities surrounding Kiev and
brutally massacred many Christians. In 1095, they attacked Kiev and the Pecher
Monastery, burning it down and executing priests. According to one traditional
account, Evstratius and thirty other monks were sold to a Kherson Jew after the
attack on Kiev. Attempting to force Evstratius to deny his Christian beliefs, the
Jew starved some of them to death. As Evstratius refused to deny his faith, he
was crucified at Easter season, and impaled. Nikon and the rest of monks
remained in captivity among the Polovtzi, and they were cruelly tortured. Nikon
patiently endured the deprivation of food and drink and the cruel beating, while
attempting at the same time to convert his torturers. By the mighty hand of God,
Nikon was delivered from death and by a Divine miraculous intervention many
of the Polovtzi were converted to Christianity in the year 1111. Beginning at this
time, Polovtzi princes who had married Kievan women began to convert to
Christianity and so implanted the faith among their countrymen.
The Bulgars, Kiev’s neighbors to the east, had commercial associations with
Russians, although their treaties were often violated. Pr. Andrei Bogolubski was
able to convert many of them to Christianity (from both their paganism and from
Islam), especially those who lived in Vladimir as merchants and businessmen.
Bogolubski was also able to convert other pagan nationalities to Christianity,
such as the Cheremis, and Mordovians, and also Jews.
Other Bulgars became indignant at the conversion of their brethren to
Christianity and began to persecute them. The wealthy merchant Avraanius, a
Bulgar himself and a convert to Christianity, was decapitated in 1229. God then
took personal vengeance on the Bulgars by having half of their capital city burn
down in some unexplained manner, along with several other smaller Bulgar
cities. Reduced to fear and despair as a result of these fires, in the following year
1230, after six years of violent struggle with the northern Russians, the Bulgars
asked peace from Suzdal prince Andrei Bogolubski, which he granted.
During the 13th century, Russian missionaries from Novgorod also
preached and converted many pagans in the area of Karelia and the Russian far
north, along the Dvin River.
In 1147, Gerasim, an ascetic of the Glushevski hermitage at Kiev, left the
city to live in a desolate area along the Vologda River. There, alone, he
constructed a monastery and church dedicated to the Holy Trinity and for thirty
years preached the name of Christ to the local residents.
45
Nestor is known for his identification with the ancient chronicle that bears
his name. He was not Greek but a native Kievan. At the age of 17, in 1073, near the
end of the life of Theodosius of Pecher, Nestor entered Pecher Monastery and
was tonsured by abbot Stephen. He was immediately ordained as a deacon.
During the initial years at Pecher, Nestor constantly read books in the monastery
library, which led him to become the single most-educated person in the history
of Pecher Monastery. Nestor died in 1114. Writings traditionally ascribed to
Nester are the Primary Chronicle, a history of Russia during the years 852-1110,
and the martyrdom of princes Boris and Gleb.
Bishop Kirill of Turov was the son of wealthy parents, but he renounced his
inheritance and became a monk at Turov. He isolated himself on a pillar,
following the ascetics of Egypt such as Simon the Stylite. The austerity of his life
led the local feudal prince and folk to ask that he become bishop. As a preacher
he was praised by his contemporaries as a Russian Chrysostom. Tradition
indicates that he was more of a religious poet than a preacher, although he left as
a legacy twelve addresses, three letters to monks, thirty prayers and a liturgy for
supplicants. His ascetic composition, “Tale of the Monk’s Rank,” and his letter
to the Pecher abbot Vasili, expound various rules of monastic life. In 1182, Kirill
left the episcopacy to return to ascetic isolationism and he died the following
year.
In the north of Russia, Antoni the Roman (d. 1147) arrived in Novgorod in
1108 and resided there forty years. He established his residence on the banks of
the Volkhov River, about a mile outside of Novgorod. Blessed by Bishop Nikita
of Novgorod, Antoni initially opened an orphanage. In 1117, he began the
construction of a stone church dedicated to the Theotokos, which took two
years to build and six more years to decorate. In 1127, Antoni built another
edifice on the premises dedicated to the Presentation of the Lord, and in 1131
founded a monastery, becoming its first abbot. The Antoni Monastery, although
not the first of monasteries in the Novgorod region, has survived the centuries
and its ruins still remain.
Mention must be made at this time of the holiest of all icons in the history
of Russian Orthodoxy: the icon of the Immaculate Theotokos of Vladimir.
According to the traditional account, the icon was painted by Luke the
Evangelist, but its history over the next millennium is unrecorded. In 1131, the
icon was brought from Constantinople to Kiev along with another icon of
historical importance, the Theotokos of Pigoroschei. The icon of the Immaculate
Theotokos of Vladimir was first housed at a church in Kiev and then at a convent
in Vishgorod, until 1155, when Pr. Andrei Bogolubski took the icon to his new
46
city of Vladimir — from which the icon takes it name. In 1395, the icon was
relocated to Moscow, and its final home became Moscow Uspenski Cathedral,
where it was placed by Metr. Varlaam in 1514.
12. RULES OF THE RELIGION
Ecclesiastical rules legislated by Vladimir have been transmitted in various

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

priest’s wife, priest’s son, monk, nun, and wafer-baker.
2. Persons who are dependents of the church, who receive a stipend from
church income: widows, the blind, cripples, hunchbacks, healers, persons who
have received a miraculous healing, persons under penance who dedicate
themselves to some temporary service in the church, freed slaves or serfs,
mendicants, and pilgrims.
Prelates were also commanded in this regulation to regulate the city’s
weights and measures, and judges were forbidden to violate church statutes or
to conduct a trial without the presence of a prelate.
Pr. Yaroslav supplemented this code during Metr. Ilarion’s administration.
The distinctive points of Yaroslav’s regulations are the following:
0
47
1. Clearer and more detailed definitions for the degree of punishment for
crimes against the church: penance, monetary compensation, execution. The
latter punishment was reserved solely to the discretion of the prince.
2. The Episcopal court was created and it had entire jurisdiction over
persons subject to church regulations. Yaroslav excluded serious crimes from
the Episcopal court, which were under the jurisdiction of the civil courts.
3. The Episcopal court was to be separate from the civil or princes’ court.
Because ecclesiastical authority is an authority not of this world, the
canons proscribe its use for the punishment of civil offenders and provide it
solely as a means of punishment for ecclesiastical violations. This justice, as it
pertains to the laity, consisted in the following: instruction and admonishment;
penance consisting of a deprivation of participation in the Eucharist;
excommunication; and anathema. Pertaining to the clergy — and depending on
the severity of the violation — this justice consisted of the same instruction and
admonishment, interdiction and excommunication.
In situations where the guilty person, disregarding the church punishment,
remained insubordinate and continued to disturb the peace of the church, the
prelates were not to utilize force for punishment, themselves, but to hand the
person over to civil authorities. However, as time progressed the authority of the
Episcopal Court increased and prelates began to use force or corporal methods
of punishment: assessment of fines; incarceration — for which special cells were
constructed inside cathedrals or monasteries; and public or private whipping.
Such punishments were applied by prelates on both laity and parish clergy for
violation of various ecclesiastical regulations. The records for the era of Kievan
Russia are meager in this matter, but evidence for instances of the use of physical
punishment is available, though scattered in historical events pertaining to
church affairs.
The primary goal of the metropolitans of Greek origin was the conformance
of Russia to Byzantine culture and Greek Orthodox religion. They did not view
the Russian culture as being as advanced or sophisticated as their own, nor did
they view the Russian Church as autocephalous. The attitude of the Greek
metropolitan was that the Russian Church was a stepchild of the Greek Church
and was subject to its culture as well as religion: the Byzantine mode of worship
was implanted in Russian Christianity. The manner in which priests approached
a prelate and revered him was Byzantine; the manner in which the deep-voiced
deacons pronounced the words of the liturgy — incomprehensible to the
parishioners, in any case — was Byzantine; the art work in the churches was
48
Byzantine. In short, everything about the religion was Byzantine and quite alien
to the average Russian.
Russian prelates and priests’ primary complaint about the Greek
metropolitans was that they did not have sufficient concern for the affairs of the
Russian Church, the way a native Russian as metropolitan would. The
preference of a Russian over a Greek was based on the presumption of loyalty or
patriotism that would be displayed. A Russian would be willing to sacrifice
himself for his nation, while a foreigner would not, and Slavic loyalty could not
be implanted in a Greek because of his own congenital qualities. For the most
part these Greek metropolitans were officials of the mother church, serving in a
foreign country, with no obligation to the country. As a result, meager
information about the ecclesiastical activities of Greek metropolitans is recorded
in the ancient chronicles.
13. MONASTERIES AND MONASTICISM
Pseudo-Nestor recorded in his annals the regimen and asceticism of monks

of Pecher Monastery.
The Lord gathered a certain type of monk at the residence of our Mother, so
that they became philanthropists, like stars, in the land of Russia. They were
firm when they fasted, while others stood vigil or prostrate; some fasted a day
or two, while others ate only green soup, while others only soup of raw
vegetables. All resided in love. The younger [monks] subjected themselves to
the older, not bold enough to speak to them except humbly and with
willingness to obey. The elder [monks] had love for the younger, instructing
them as though they were their beloved children. If any fell into violation he
was comforted, and two or three divided among themselves the penance
assigned to him. If a brother abandoned the monastery, all the remaining
brethren sorrowed over him, and were sent to retrieve him and ask him to
return. And when he arrived, they all would go to the abbot, bowing to him and
beseeching him, and then they rejoiced when their brother was re-admitted.
Such was divine love, such was humility and temperance among the holy
brethren. Even after their death, they still shine as inextinguished lamps
through various miracles performed by them and by their intercession to God.
The institution of Orthodoxy in Russia was accompanied by the institution
of monasticism. Russia adopted rules and examples of the monastic life primarily
from Greece and to a lesser extent from Egypt. Much as in Western
monasticism, the vows were obedience, poverty and chastity. The accounts state
that monasticism was already organized and practiced under Vladimir the
49
Great, although the first monastery was built under Yaroslav in 1037, along with
the first convent. That there were other monasteries in Kiev under Yaroslav can
be confirmed by the statement of Antonius of Pecher that he visited several
monasteries in Kiev after his arrival there from Mt. Athos, about the year 1050,
but none suited him. The situation was the same for Theodosius of Pecher. The
oldest recorded monastery in Novgorod is the Yurievski, founded in 1019 during
the reign of Pr. Yaroslav.
Most of the monasteries erected during the era of Kievan Russia were the
effort of one individual. An ascetic from Greece or a Russian who felt God calling
him, either naturally or by revelation, or some other supernatural means, went
alone or with others of the same mind to a secluded area and built a house, cave
or lean-to and began his career and of course, waited for others to join him. Land
was often given to ascetics on request by feudal princes; of course, the land
included the serfs tied to that parcel. The monastery was built by the serfs and
monks under supervision of the abbot.
There must have been monks residing in Kiev during the rule of Yaroslav, in
order to justify his building a monastery (and a convent as well). The monastery
would have been subsidized by the grand prince and a subsidy would have been
provided for its future, through the grant of real estate as a patrimony, just as
was done for churches. Most of the monasteries — and this is clear when
reviewing the list of churches and monasteries — were constructed in the Kiev
and Novgorod regions. The number of monasteries outside these regions was
very limited. The total number of monasteries, male and female, in Kievan Russia
was about 70, with twelve of them convents. Of this number, about thirty were
constructed by feudal princes while the balance resulted from the efforts of
individual ascetics or small groups of them. Some monastery construction was
privately funded by a wealthy man who had decided to become a monk in his
later years and used his wealth to build a monastery and then bequeathed the
balance of his estate to the monastery as its patrimony. In the information that
remains available these days, the first Kiev monastery built by ascetics was
Pecher (to be discussed in the following chapter).
Pr. Izyaslav also built Dimitrievski Monastery and Nikolaevski Convent in
Kiev. Another son of Yaroslav, Vsevolod, also built Mikhailovski-Vidubinski
Monastery and Andreevski-Yanchin Convent in Kiev, while the grandson of
Yaroslav, Sviatopolk Izyaslavich, built Mikhailovo-Zlatoverkh Monastery in
Kiev.
Monasticism begins with hermitage. Individuals who desired to distance
themselves from the world and consecrate their lives solely to the service of God
50
departed from the cities and its temptations to deserted areas and solitude. The
goal of such hermits and monks was voluntary poverty and sexual abstinence,
and a denial of those manners and customs considered worldly. An exceptional
dedication or concern for the affairs of the Lord was to evolve from this life of
asceticism. Living for God became the mortification of the flesh by means of
fasting and physical deprivation, and the perfection of the spirit through mental
and oral prayer. The rules of monasticism pertained to the above goals and
intents, a regimentation designed to direct the monk or ascetic toward this
spiritual perfection.
Unconsciously, monasticism created an artificial division within Orthodox
clergy by touting itself as the sole means of attaining the kingdom of heaven. Of
course, many wanted to enter the kingdom and so, naturally, many had the
desire to become a monk, whether early in life or later in life, or even on their
deathbeds. Monks and nuns were a special and distinct class in the population
and were, in a sense, neither laity nor clergy. Regular monks residing in a
monastery were not priests or deacons or ordained members of the clergy. They
could become members of the clergy if they so desired, but the vast majority did
not. Monks were selected as abbots for all episcopacies, which required a
monastic candidate. The monk, hermit, or ascetic was the “holy man” of Russia,
dedicated to the affairs of God by his deprivation of the “ways of the world.” Due
to superstition, the peasantry often stood in awe of these men who had sacrificed
everything for the kingdom of heaven. Antagonism likewise surfaced between
the ordained parish clergy and the ascetics. The parish or local priest regularly
attended to the needs of his parishioners, and had a family of his own to support,
while the monk lived confined within the walls of a monastery in relative
comfort, with a guaranteed subsidy through the patrimony. In reality, it was a
reversal of roles: the parish priest was the one deprived of comfort and security
for the benefit of his parish, while the superstitious populace viewed the monks,
living in relative comfort, as the holy men.
True monasticism was presented as very difficult: physical deprivation and
the quantity of prayers — oral and mental — recited at services left an indelible
impression on the will and conscience of every neophyte monk. Exhaustion was
the result, but the rule could not deliberately be relaxed. True monasticism was
austere and required unconditional communal residence with a total absence of
personal property. The food in the dining area was communal, the clothes were
identical and nondescript, issued by the monastery, and housekeeping work was
required of all equally. An individual living under such rigid conditions was
forced to become ascetic, poor, a lover of simplicity, and spiritually regimented.
51
This was the ideal; and however the ideal may be described or demanded,
conditions of residency varied, from monastery to monastery, depending on the
inclination and strength of the father superior. An abbot or higueman was father
superior of a small monastery, abbey or hermitage; while the archimandrite was
father superior of a large monastery or several monasteries, or, later in history,
one that was under the direct administration of the patriarch or Holy Synod.
Convents in Russia were under the administration of a father superior. The
concept of a mother superior did not exist in Russian Orthodoxy until the
Moscovite era, and convents were often located next door to or nearby a
monastery.
Every male who was tonsured and became a monk and every female who
took the veil and became a nun also abandoned their secular names and assumed
new names for the rest of their monastic careers. The name was usually selected
from a list of Russian saints and other holy people of the ages; the more popular
the saint was, the more often his or her name was selected; and the choice often
had to do with the identity the neophyte wanted to adopt. This is the reason, as
the reader will notice, that many of the names of the Orthodox clergy are often
same. To distinguish them one from another and to avoid confusion, the secular
family name was often included in parenthesis following their monastic names.
The monastery provided a residence, table, and clothes; and often, an
opportunity to learn to read and write, as well as to learn the Orthodox religion
and the ecclesiastical services and regulations. Depending on the monastery, the
monk would either sleep in a dormitory or would have a cloister assigned to him.
As great as the inclination to attain salvation may have been among
peasantry and serfs who remained in the world, so was the inclination to shelter
and provide charity to monks and ascetics in order to acquire through that
avenue a prayer from them on their behalf. It was a vicarious act on the part of
the serfs: by assisting these holy men, they hoped God would look upon them
with the same favor as He looked upon monks and ascetics.
Individual monasteries and convents created their own rules during the
early part of Kievan Russia, due to lack of information from established
monasteries in other regions of eastern Orthodoxy. Theodosius of Pecher
introduced into his monastery the Studite rule of St. Theodor. To what extent
this rule was adopted by other monasteries is not known. Neither is it known
how large these early monasteries were, in terms of residence; it is difficult even
to conjecture, because most of them were destroyed by the Mongols and no
records are available. In fact, some monasteries are known only because they are
52
mentioned in later accounts, while their ruins have been obliterated and are
nowhere to be located.
Not every individual tonsured as a monk who gave his oath of poverty,
chastity and obedience fulfilled his commitment. Those who were wealthy often
did not assign their personal property to the monastery, but kept it and utilized
it to provide better conditions of residence for themselves at the monastery. Only
after their death was their wealth and property inherited by the monastery.
Often, the wealthy monks established a clique of their own, separate from the
monks who observed the rule of poverty. The rule of sexual abstinence was often
violated, too, especially with a monastery in close proximity to a convent. Even
though the monastery rules forbade the presence of women, it was not unusual
to have women as residents in a monastery for the purposes of cooking and
housekeeping. Female pilgrims, likewise, visited monasteries on a regular basis.
Obedience to the abbot was voluntary and it was not unusual to have a
monk leave a monastery after a dispute with the father superior or other monks
and relocate to another monastery, or even to wander from one to another as an
itinerant elder — staritz — or mendicant. This was actually more prevalent later
during the 18th and 19th centuries than during Kievan Russia
It was not unusual to have a person on his deathbed call for the services of
an abbot and confess to him his sins, renounce his worldly ways, accept tonsure,
the monastic vows, accept a new name, and bequeath his property to the
monastery to become part of its patrimony, and then pass away, now as a monk.
This maneuver originated toward the end of the 12th century. For many of the
superstitious, it was a last resort to enter the kingdom of heaven while having
enjoyed all they could of life. The abbot would fulfill the request and rites of the
dying person, knowing that the donation or legacy would benefit their residence
at the monastery. Such philanthropists were then buried inside the monastery
with all ecclesiastical honor and a high mass.
The more intelligent of the clergy during Kievan Russia and later eras
recognized the deathbed tonsure as futile. Polikarp of Pecher wrote in the
Paterik, “He who says, ‘Tonsure me when you notice I am about to die,’ such
faith and tonsure is vain.”
In 1194, Gr. Pr. Sviatoslav Vsevolodovich of Chernigov was tonsured on his
deathbed; likewise Pr. Vsevolod Mstislavich of Vladimir-of-Volin, in 1195, and
David Rostislavich of Smolensk in 1197. In 1227, princess Maria, wife of Vsevolod
Yurievich, took the veil as a nun eighteen days before her death. However, in
1167, Rostislav Mstislavich wanted to be tonsured as a monk on his deathbed,
but was denied this by his confessor, a local priest who informed him that too
53
little of life remained for him to practice sufficient asceticism as a monk for it to
be of any value to him in the after life.
A married person could become a monk or nun, but only with the willing
agreement of the spouse whom they would have to forsake.
One evil that surfaced after the institution of monasticism in Kievan Russia
was involuntary tonsure. Feudal princes would force tonsure upon their political
opponents or adversaries. Such a person was then doomed to seclusion in a
monastery cloister for the balance of his life, and the prince would instruct the
father superior on the necessity of that person’s confinement at the monastery.
Since monasteries often depended on the feudal prince for protection and
economic support, their requests would be honored. In 1205, Roman
Mstislavich, prince of Galitzia-Volin, tonsured his father-in-law Rurik
Rostislavich, prince of Kiev. After Roman’s death in 1206, Rurik discarded his
monk’s frock and released himself from monastery confinement. In 1146, Igor
Olegovich, prince of Chernigov, was forced to be tonsured and confined to a
monastery after his unsuccessful attempt to gain control of the throne of Kiev,
upon the death of his brother Vsevolod.
A second evil was the forced tonsure of an unwanted wife. With divorce
not permitted, a feudal prince or wealthy landlord wanting to marry another
woman — for whatever reason — would force his wife to take the veil as a nun
and confine her to the local convent, there to be secluded for the rest of her life.
The church would take the view that she had abandoned her earthly marriage in
favor of a marriage with Christ, via the church, and therefore the husband was
now free to remarry. Of course, the husband would have to contribute to the
economy of the convent in order to induce them to accept his wife for the
balance of her life; or, perhaps the convent might have been obligated to the
feudal prince or landlord and would have had to comply with his wishes for
political reasons. The above-mentioned Roman Mstislavich forced his wife to
take the veil due to her opposition to his political intrigues against her family.
14. THE PECHER MONASTERY
The founder of the Pecher (Cave) Monastery was Antonius, and the person
who built and established the monastery was Theodosius.
Antonius was born in the city of Lubech, in Chernigov province, on the east
side of the Dnepr River about 80 miles north of Kiev. Hs birth name is not
known, nor is his genealogy — he could have been from a noble or peasant
54
family. Although a man of the world in his early years, he was motivated with a
desire to travel to Greece and then to worship at historical places of veneration.
Arriving at Athos after visiting local monasteries, Antonius took a liking for
monasticism and decided to be tonsured. An abbot of an unrecorded monastery
tonsured him at his own request and assigned him the new name of Antonius,
which he selected as a reflection of his desire to become for Kievan Russia what
Anthony the Hermit was for Egypt. This abbot taught Antonius the monastic life
and regulations and released him to return to Russia with the blessing of Mt.
Athos.
Returning to Russia, Antonius did not go back to his home town of Lubech
but decided to head for Kiev. It was obvious that only in Kiev — where
Orthodoxy was firmly imbedded and already possessing monks — would he be
able to find other individuals zealous for the ascetic life of a hermit. Antonius
arrived at Kiev toward the end of Yaroslav’s rule and after the ordination of
Ilarion as metropolitan in 1051.
After surveying the monasteries there and not finding one to suit his taste,
he developed intentions to be a lone ascetic and eventually to start his own
monastery, with his own rites and regulations. He discovered the cave that Metr.
Ilarion had used to seclude himself near the village of Berestov. Now, since it was
vacant, Antonius decided to utilize the cave for his own struggle as an ascetic
cave-dweller and during his sole residency he ate only dry bread and drank only
water. After a while, people heard about him and visited him, bringing
provisions and asking for his blessing. At the time of Yaroslav’s death, in 1054,
Antonius was already recognized as an ascetic and Izyaslav, son of Yaroslav,
came to him to ask for a blessing and prayer for him and his troops. Other men
with similar inclinations attached themselves to Antonius, and he accepted them
and tonsured them as monks for his new community. Those who joined
Antonius initially were: Nikon, an elder; Theodosius; Varlaam, son of a well-
known Kiev nobleman and who later became first abbot of the monastery;
Efraim, a eunuch of Pr. Izyaslav’s, who later became bishop of Pereyaslav.
Theodosius was born in Vasilyev, near Kiev, where Vladimir the Great was
most probably baptized. His father was a high-ranking noble of Pr. Yaroslav’s
realm and he provided Theodosius with the best education available. During his
studies Theodosius learned about the great ascetics of Orthodoxy and decided to
imitate them when he matured. In his teens, he rejected the games common to
those of his age group and preferred to wear patched-up clothes, to identify
himself with the destitute. When Theodosius turned 13, his father died; now, he
began to subdue and train himself by acting as one of the slaves or serfs which
55
his family owned, working alongside them on the farm and in the fields.
Theodosius developed his ascetic nature during these years. His mother was
strongly opposed to his intentions and on one occasion, when he wanted to
travel to Jerusalem with some pilgrims, she locked him in chains to keep him
home. Theodosius continued attending church locally and noticed that the
liturgy for the Eucharist was often canceled due to a lack of wafers. To remedy
the situation, Theodosius began to bake wafers himself, and he donated the
income from their sale to poor people. His mother uncovered this second
occupation of his, scolded him, and forced him to quit.
Four years later, Theodosius clandestinely left home and went to live with
a priest in a nearby city, with the intent of becoming a deacon and so draw closer
to the church liturgy and operation. Again at his mother’s insistence, Theodosius
returned home; but now he managed to become deacon in a church close by. As
his passion to become an ascetic and a monk strengthened, he attached iron
fetters and chains to himself. His mother again intervened and admonished him
to return to a normal mode of life. Instead, Theodosius left home and traveled to
Kiev, which took three weeks. He applied at every monastery in the area, but
was rejected as being too young to be tonsured as a monk. Then he heard about
Antonius and his cave, and went to him. At first, Antonius would not accept him
either, because of his youth, warning him that the caves were melancholy and
oppressive and that Theodosius would not be able to handle the strict discipline.
Theodosius insisted that he should be allowed to prove himself, and Antonius
condescended to let him in. Nikon the elder tonsured him and attired him in a
monk’s garb. Theodosius was about age 20 when he entered the Pecher
community, in around the year 1055.
The community of ascetic monks at Pecher numbered about fifteen at this
time and they continued digging into the hillside, creating a larger cavern and
constructing a church inside of it, and cloisters. When the cave began to take the
form of an actual monastery, Antonius separated from the group and dug
another cave on a nearby hillside, where he relocated to reside as a recluse.
Antonius ordained Varlaam as abbot in his place and the majority of the brothers
remained, although a few migrated over time to Antonius’ new cave.
The construction that brought the monastery into its final form began
about the year 1057. The first church in Pecher Monastery was small and made of
wood; it was dedicated to the Ascension of the Theotokos. The property still
belonged to Pr. Izyaslav, and at the Monastery’s request the hill where the
original cave was located was donated to them as a formal monastery.
56
Construction of sufficient buildings allowed the monks to move into above-

ground quarters in about 1062.
No sooner was the monastery completed than Izyaslav requested Varlaam
to relocate to the Monastery of St. Dimitri, as abbot. In his place, Theodosius
was elected abbot; he was not yet 30. When Theodosius accepted the post of
abbot, the monastery only housed 20 monks as residents, but that quickly
increased to 100. Theodosius implemented the Studite regulation at Pecher,
which was brought there by a Greek Studite monk from Constantinople who
arrived in Kiev along with the new metropolitan Giorgi, in about the year 1072.
With the increase of resident ascetic monks and the increase in visitations
by pilgrims, about eleven or twelve years after the original monastery was built
at the caves, Theodosius decided to build an entirely new monastery alongside
the cave where Antonius had moved to some years earlier. Antonius had since
passed away. In 1073, Theodosius began the erection of a large stone church on
the new site to initiate the development of the new monastery. However,
Theodosius passed away the following year, on May 3, 1074, the week after
Easter, after a brief but severe illness apparently caused by his typical self-
deprivation during Lent. He never did see the materialization of his dream. His
age was estimated to have been about 45. He was buried inside the cave first dug
by Ilarion decades earlier.
The work on the new monastery was continued by his successors: Stephen,
the new abbot up to year 1078; Nikon the Elder, who assumed the role of abbot
after Stephen and until the year 1088 when he passed away; and Ioyann, the
successor of Nikon as abbot. The stone church of the new monastery begun by
Theodosius was completed by Stephen in the year 1075, but because of lack of
funds for furnishings and appurtenances it was not dedicated until 1089, 14 years
later. The wooden buildings of the new monastery were built during Stephen’s
time as abbot and it was in full operation by the time of the dedication of the
primary stone church. In 1108, the stone dining hall was completed.
The annals of Pseudo-Nestor record the names of several monks of Pecher
who distinguished themselves with their feats of asceticism and charity. Damian
(d. 1071) was a presbyter and disciple of Theodosius, the founder. He kept a
meatless diet his entire monastic career and in later years only accepted bread
and water. Next mentioned is Mark, who lived alone in a cave which he dug by
himself. He acted as grave-digger for the monastery during his residence. Also of
note were Spiridon and Nikodim, who baked hosts for the Eucharist at the
monastery. They were active during the abbacy of Pimen, 1132-1141.
57
Nikolai, a son of Pr. David Sviatoslavich of Chernigov, entered Pecher

Monastery in 1106. After his feudal principality was defeated by Pr. David
Igoryevich, in 1099, Nikolai abandoned the worldly life and became a monk. He
resided at Pecher until his death October 14, 1142. During his monastic career
prince-monk Nikolai took advantage of his family connections and regularly
acted as mediator between feuding feudal families in Kievan Russia.
Little is recorded about the progress of Pecher Monastery during the 12th
and early 13th centuries. In 1182, Vasili was ordained archimandrite of the
monastery, now that it had risen to greater importance in Kievan Russia; he
passed away in about 1177. During his rule the monastery was encircled by a
stone wall. In 1240, Pecher Monastery was entirely destroyed by Mongols. Ruins
of part of the stone church survive as the only sign of the original monastery.
Pecher Monastery fostered several prominent prelates in succeeding
generations: abbot Stephan — the successor to Theodosius — was ordained
bishop of Vladimir-of-Volin in 1078, which episcopacy he held until his death in
1094. Bishop Nikita of Novgorod was also a monk from the Kiev Pecher
Monastery. In 1096, he was ordained as bishop of Novgorod and held the
episcopacy eleven years. Bishop Leonti of Kievan Rostov was the first monk of
Kiev Pecher Monastery to be ordained a bishop. He was ordained 1051 by Metr.
Ilarion of Kiev. Leonti held the episcopacy until his death in about 1077. Bishop
Isai (Isaiah) of Rostov — mentioned above — was originally a monk of Pecher
Monastery.
Bishop Semeon of Vladimir was also a monk of Pecher Monastery. In 1206
he was installed as abbot of the Vladimir Rozhdestvo-Bogoroditza (Birth of the
Theotokos) Monastery and in 1215 was ordained as the first bishop of Vladimir
and Suzdal. Feudal prince Giorgi selected Semeon as bishop for the capital of his
principality to make it independent from the episcopacy of the diocese of
Rostov. Semeon accepted the position and retained it until his death May 20,
1226. He was first entombed at the Vladimir cathedral, but then his remains
were transferred to Kiev Pecher Monastery.
While he was bishop of Suzdal, Semeon wrote a letter intended to dissuade
the monk Polikarp from leaving Pecher. He recounted the stories of several
monks whose careers of asceticism had impressed him, and described his own
life at the monastery. It is not known whether the letter had the desired effect on
Polikarp, but in later years Semeon’s letter was supplemented by other monks
and was published in 1661 as the Pecher Paterik, or the Lives of the Pecher Saints.
58
15. CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS STRIFE AND JUSTICE
Vladimir the Great, knowing well the autocratic despotism of the Greeks,
from his merchants traveling through the Balkans and from his friends the
Bulgarian kings, originally had no intention of submitting his Russian Church to
the Greek Patriarch. Instead, he looked to the prelates of the autocephalous
Bulgarian Church for assistance in this matter and support; the Bulgarians were
quite independent of the Greeks and had their own patriarch at in the city of
Akhrid. It was to the Bulgarians that Vladimir turned when he needed priest-
missionaries to baptize his people, to instruct them and to conduct church
services. The initial clergy of Russian Orthodox were members of Bulgarian
Orthodoxy: Anastas, bishop of Kiev, and Jehoakim, bishop of Novgorod, both
were Bulgarians from Kherson and could speak Slavonic as well as Greek. They
were intended to represent the autonomy of a national Russian Church. Under
Vladimir, the Bulgarian patriarch was the head of the cathedra of Kiev and
Anastas was his vicar; the first two metropolitans supplied by Constantinople
resided at Kievan Pereyaslav, distant from them.
A change in attitude occurred in the year 1037 when the Desyatinnoi
Church of Kiev, built by Vladimir, was replaced by the new cathedral church of
St. Sophia built by Yaroslav and completed in 1039. The new church was to be
identified with the St. Sophia of Constantinople and was a sign of the transfer of
the Russian Church to the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Constantinople in the
capacity of one of its metropolitans.
Bulgaria had been defeated by Byzantium in 1014, and Bishop Anastas of
Kiev fled to Poland fearing for his safety; but he returned to Kiev in 1018. The
following year Yaroslav gained control of Kievan Russia and the internecine civil
wars finally ended. Anastas disappeared entirely, leaving the region for parts
unknown. The final native Bulgarian to hold the office of patriarch of Bulgaria
died in 1037, and in his place a Greek was selected by the patriarch at
Constantinople as head of Bulgarian Orthodoxy. That same year Kiev received
from Constantinople Theopempt, a Greek, as its new metropolitan, and the new
St. Sophia became the cathedral church in 1039. With Metr. Theopempt the
administration of Constantinople over the religious affairs of Russia began, and
it continued 500 years until Tsar Vasili III overthrew the Greek overlords.
In 1043, Theopempt disappeared (no doubt returning to Constantinople as
a result of the war between Kievan Russia and Greece). Yaroslav had attacked
Constantinople for commercial reasons, ignoring their religious association.
Captives taken by Yaroslav were executed to impress on the Greeks his
59
opposition to Greek commercial and political hegemony in the Black Sea, but in
retrospect the war proved unsuccessful for the aims of Yaroslav.
Beginning in 1132, Kievan Russia entered a vicious and treacherous cycle of
struggles between the two primary royal lineages: the Monomakhs and the
Olegovichs. This went on until the demise of Kievan Russia at the hands of the
Mongols. Metropolitans, beginning with Mikhail in 1130, were installed and
removed at the whim of the heir of whichever family was in power, and they
were utilized as the the princes’ puppets. The struggle was a total loss, with
neither family gaining secure and lasting control of Kievan Russia; it weakened
the state and left it more vulnerable to the Mongols. The chronology indicates
forty attempts at the throne over 110 years, beginning in 1130, with some
individuals ascending and descending the throne three times.
In 1134, Metr. Mikhail was in Novgorod and protested to the sons of
Mstislav Vladimirovich against the civil war and for rising against their uncle
Yuri Vladimirovich. He was incarcerated for his troubles. After two years he was
released and then traveled to Kiev, where he was in fact able to subdue the
struggle between the two families; but the peace only lasted four years. In 1140,
the Olegovichs attacked Kiev and destroyed it, banishing the remaining
Monomakhs to distant parts. Metr. Mikhail convinced Vyacheslav
Vladimirovich to abandon the city to Vsevolod Olegovich, in order to spare
whatever was left. This new peace only continued until 1145, when Mikhail
returned to Constantinople and died there.
In 1155, Andrei Yurievski, son of Yuri Dolgoruki (Long-Arms), of the
Monomakh lineage, left Kiev and relocated to Suzdal, in the north, where he
began a new center of both religious and civil life under his new appellation of
Andrei Bogolubski (beloved of God).
There was one attempt during the era of Kievan Russia to transfer the
cathedra or establish a new metropolitan, namely by Andrei Bogolubski, during
the middle of the 12th century. Andrei was the second feudal prince of Suzdal,
succeeding his father in 1157; he was killed in 1175. Andrei was able to develop a
large feudal estate or principality in the Rostov-Vladimir-Suzdal region and had
greater power in the Russia of that era than any of the feuding princes of Kiev.
During his twenty years as feudal prince in the Russian north, Andrei
Bogolubski saw nine of his relatives rise and fall in the struggle for control of
Kievan Russia, none of whom lasted over two years. Andrei wanted to make
Vladimir on the Klyazma River — a new city built and named after his
grandfather Vladimir Monomakh — the indisputable capital of his realm, so he
wanted a metropolitan located there. But since Vladimir would be a new capital,
60
of a northern realm, and therefore a rival to Kiev, he knew he could not transfer
the metropolitan of Kiev to Suzdal. Bogolubski’s intention was to create a new
diocese with a new metropolitan. He built a church in honor of the Assumption
of the Theotokos in Vladimir and had a candidate ready to fill the new
metropolitan’s cathedra in the year 1162; his name was Theodoret, or Theodor.
He was an abbot of a local monastery who was very capable, an educated and
robust individual. But Theodor was also ambitious.
After consulting with his nobles, Bogolubski sent his agent Yakov
Stanislavich on behalf of Theodor to propose his intentions to Patr. Luka
Khrizovergus at Constantinople, but his intentions were doomed to failure. The
patriarch summoned a council and condemned the proposition. A letter was
composed informing Andrei Bogolubski of the rejection of his request, and it was
delivered with the retinue on their return.
But the failure did not end here. A few years later, in 1168, during the
cathedra of Metr. Constantine II, an ecclesiastical council was held in Kiev
regarding the fast days of Wednesday and Friday. Pr. Andrei Bogolubski sent on
his behalf his abbot Theodor. Bogolubski also wrote to Pr. Mstislav Izyaslavich
of Kiev, asking him to defrock and expel Metr. Constantine at this council and
ordain another in his stead — having Theodor in mind. Many were dissatisfied
with Metr. Constantine, but Pr. Mstislav decided against it, as it would only add
to the turbulence and upheaval in the Kievan realm.
Theodor then conceived another means of ascending the cathedra of
metropolitan. Without the knowledge of Pr. Bogolubski, he departed in 1169 for
Constantinople, to visit the patriarch. He could not connive his way to the
metropolitan’s cathedra in Kiev, but at least he could get himself ordained as
bishop of Rostov and Vladimir in the Russian north. On his return to Russia,
Theodor went directly to Rostov and took up his responsibilities, but
Bogolubski — although he liked Theodor very much — asked him to travel to
Kiev to acquire the blessing of Metr. Constantine. Bogolubski did not care for
Constantine and presumably wanted this performed only for the sake of
ecclesiastical protocol. Theodor, in his arrogance, replied, “I have been ordained
as bishop by the patriarch. Why do I need the blessing of the metropolitan?”
Metr. Constantine, meanwhile having become cognizant of the events,
wrote to abbots and priests of the diocese of Rostov not to accept Theodor as
bishop until he received a blessing in Kiev. The letter had its desired effect and
they all refused the rites and liturgy of Theodor, including layman and serf alike.
This irritated Theodor rather severely and he began to interdict abbots and
priests who did not accept him as bishop, closing the doors to their churches and
61
appropriating their property. Unable to tolerate Theodor’s arrogance and

criminal conduct, Bogolubski had him arrested and taken under custody to Kiev.
There he was tried by Metr. Constantine at an ecclesiastical court, defrocked,
and incarcerated in a local jail to serve penance.
Theodor refused to comply with any of Metr. Constantine’s orders and only
increased his bitterness towards the metropolitan. In 1169, Metr. Constantine
sentenced Bishop Theodor to execution: his tongue was cut out, then his right
hand was chopped off; his eyes were punctured and then he was decapitated.
Theodor’s corpse was then cremated in a bonfire. (The metropolitan literally
implemented the words of Jesus in Matt 5:29 and 25:41.)
Later that same year, Andrei Bogolubski’s army attacked Kiev and pillaged
the city. He destroyed many buildings and took residents captive as slaves to
central Russia.
16. PAGAN REACTIONS
The paganism of Kievan Russia did not possess an organized caste of

specially-designated cultic priests, but only self-designated priests or sorcerers
whose private social-religious activity consisted in predicting the future and
practicing magic. Such pagan sorcerers were widespread during the era of
Kievan Russia, and therefore they presented a grave danger and obstacle to the
spread of Orthodoxy. With the Kievan state subsidizing and promoting
Orthodoxy, those who were considered more dangerous were either
incarcerated to the end of their lives or else were executed; others lowered their
profiles and eventually dissipated into history, vanishing without a trace. There
is little reliable information on the public struggle between the Orthodox priests
and pagan priests and the few definitive recorded incidents in the chronicles
related to us are from the Orthodox perspective.
In 1024, a sorceress appeared in Suzdal, predicting a famine as a result of
the acceptance of Orthodoxy. Taking heed of this prediction, people in the area
traveled to the Bulgars and returned with additional provisions. Pr. Yaroslav,
having heard about this sorceress, went with his troops to Suzdal. They
executed the woman and the pagans who had believed her, and destroyed their
homes. As he left Suzdal, Yaroslav stated, “As a result of your sins, God will bring
upon the region famine and plague, or bad weather, or some other punishment,
so people will know that Christ is the only God recognized in the heavens.”
62
In 1071, a sorcerer enticed by a demon arrived in Kiev. He began to preach to

people that in five years the Dnepr River would reverse its flow, that is, flow
upstream. According to the chronicler, the sorcerer disappeared one night and
was never seen or heard from again. This same sorcerer also predicted the
murder of Gleb Sviatoslavich, who was murdered in 1078 by Nikita, a hermit of
the Pecher Monastery, whom the chronicler claims was led astray by a demon.
Between the years 1074 and 1078, during the reign of Pr. Gleb Sviatoslavich,
a sorcerer appeared in Novgorod who passed himself off as a god, claiming he
could predict the future. He discredited Orthodoxy and promised the people he
could walk across the Volkhov River as though on dry land. This incident
started an uproar in the city; many believed him and others wanted to get the
Orthodox Bishop Theodor and kill him. The bishop adorned himself in his
liturgical attire and, taking up a large cross, went to the city square and cried
out, “Whoever wants to believe this sorcerer, go follow him; but whoever
believes [in God], let him approach the cross.” Only Pr. Gleb and his troops
stood on the side of the bishop while the rest of the Novgorodians stood with the
sorcerer, creating quite a tumult. Pr. Gleb hid an axe under his clothing, walked
up to the sorcerer, and began a conversation with him, saying, “Do you know
what will happen tomorrow morning, and all day tomorrow until evening?” The
sorcerer replied, “I know everything.” Then Pr. Gleb told him, “But do you know
what will happen today?” The sorcerer replied, “I will create great miracles.” As
he was saying these words, the prince took his axe and chopped the sorcerer into
two pieces. The crowd dispersed.
In 1091, in Rostov, another sorcerer appeared publicly, but he was arrested
and executed immediately. Four miracle workers appeared in Novgorod in 1227.
They were burned to death at the palace of Pr. Yaroslav. In a similar incident, in
Pskov, twelve sorceresses were hanged and then burned.
It is apparent that even with the priests’ coercive efforts to install
Orthodoxy as the national religion, much opposition still existed among the
superstitious mass of the Russian population. This eventually led to a
compromise or eclectic blend of Orthodoxy and paganism, which became
known as dvoye-veria or dual-belief. Golubinski feels that a second baptism by
the sword and fire was imposed on the residents of Novgorod shortly after the
execution of the sorcerer there; this would have encouraged the development of
dual belief among a populace anxious to avoid further persecution by
Orthodoxy.
63
17. ECCLESIASTICAL FINANCES
Apart from regular city or parish churches, every diocese had a special
church, the cathedral church, which was the residence of the bishop. In a larger
diocese, the ecclesiastical superior was archbishop. For all practical purposes,
the feudal prince in whose estate or domain the diocesan capital was located
would select the bishop; the majority of them were native Russians.
The Russian Orthodox clergy was divided into higher and lower. The lower
clergy were the parish priest and deacon. The higher clergy or prelates were the
bishop, archbishop, metropolitan and later the patriarch. The monasteries
formed a distinct third class: monks, abbots and related monastery personnel.
Income for the lower clergy came from: 1. contributions, 2. revenue or taxes
imposed on the laity by the parish priest, 3. fees for performance of rites, such as
weddings, baptisms, funerals, etc., and 4. real estate (patrimony).
The higher clergy had income from: 1. real estate (patrimony), 2.
contributions from the parishes, 3. fees for rites, as described above, 4. annual
taxes or tribute from the parishes within the diocese, and 5. revenue from clergy
for their consecration into office.
It was originally foreseen that the national church would be subsidized by
generous donations from everyone from the noblemen to the commoners, for the
benefits the Church would provide the community. However, because the
population of Kievan Russia had been coerced into accepting a new religion and
forced to abandon the old one, they had no heartfelt or sincere desire to
contribute toward the support of the new religion and they certainly felt no
obligation towards its advancement; they withdrew at any mention of
contributions.
Vladimir the Great attempted to institute the tithe, among the nobility, in
order to provide the Church with support, and he made himself an example. One
tenth of his own wealth was utilized for the construction of the Desyatinnoi
(Tithe) Church in Kiev, but few if any followed suit. This exemplary effort was
an abysmal failure and incurred its demise at the same time as Vladimir. To
assure the financial security of the clergy and national Church, feudal princes
then implemented another method by which Russian Orthodoxy could sustain
itself indefinitely and provide for its financial security and future growth:
patrimony in the form of real estate.
Monasteries primarily gained income from their patrimony and from
contributions from pilgrims. Theoretically, monks were also obliged to donate
64
their possessions to the monastery when they were tonsured, since one of the
monastic vows was to live in poverty.
The value and provision of monastic and ecclesiastical patrimony in the
form of real estate must be understood in view of the Russian feudal system. The
serfs were tied to the land and whoever owned the land owned the serfs. This
pertained to villages, likewise: whoever owned the village also owned the
residents of the village, unless they were already freedmen, such as artisans,
merchants, clergy, soldiers, civil servants, businessmen, and others. Russia is
abundant in land and the local feudal prince would often grant a parcel of land to
the bishop, local parish or monastery for their subsistence. The serfs residing on
the property then became possessions of the church or monastery, along with
the land; and the church or monastery now became a landowner and landlord.
As time progressed, religious and pious citizens would grant title to various
properties to the church or monastery as a gift or legacy.
Beginning from the time of Yaroslav, the Orthodox prelate began to acquire
real estate from feudal princes and as gifts from landlords, and he viewed the real
estate and serfs that were part of the patrimony as his personal property as long
as he held his episcopacy or cathedra. Pilgrims visiting monasteries left
donations and often bequeathed their property to the monastery, which the
father superior considered his own to deal with as long as he held his abbacy.
The beautiful churches and monasteries that dot the countryside throughout
Russia were constructed by serfs who were part of the patrimony of the local
parish or diocese or monastery. The amount of land held by the church as during
the era of Kievan Russia was small, not nearly its size in later centuries. In about
the year 1150, feudal prince Rostislav Mstislavich of Smolensk donated to the
diocese at Smolensk three villages and their farms and an additional small partial
which included a lake. The serfs both male and female worked at the churches or
monasteries, as laborers, craftsmen, cooks and bakers, and performed any and all
work that needed to be done.
In this manner, the real estate holdings of the Orthodoxy increased
tremendously over the centuries. Eventually, the Church became not only
financially secure, but extremely wealthy — the wealthiest institution in all of
Russia, next to the state itself; and this extreme wealth was accompanied by
arrogance and corruption in the circle of the prelates of Russia.
Bishops viewed parishes as if they were their own personal domains, which
they would assign to priests as if they were renting them a parish. Based on this
model, a tax was levied on the parish priests, which was to be delivered to the
diocesan bishop as a payment for the yearly lease of the parish. This was
65
instituted only later during the era of Kievan Russia, inasmuch as priests initially
received no salary, but only room and board; it was at the beginning of the 13th
century that they began to receive income from the parishioners.
One of the controversies of this era and which has been perennial
throughout the history of Russian Orthodoxy is the payment for the
consecration of a candidate as priest by the bishop, as monk by the abbot, as
bishop by the metropolitan, and during the Patriarchal period as metropolitan
by the patriarch. The consecrating prelate would offer the excuse that the fee
covered expenses; but the payment often exceeded any expenses by a large
extent. In essence, payment for consecration was extortion on the part of the
consecrating party, and it was accepted for the following reason. With the
increase of real estate holdings within the Church, it was very lucrative to be
bishop of a diocese, priest of a church, or abbot of a monastery having a large
patrimony, and if a vacancy appeared in such a parish or monastery the
consecrating prelate would not hesitate to sell the office to the highest bidder.
Simony evolved in Russian Orthodoxy during the later years of Kievan Russia,
when dioceses began to acquire quantities of property and serfs and developed a
steady or abundant income. Luxury was the life of a priest in a wealthy parish,
and miserable was the priest in a poor parish. Quite often, once simony acquired
a foothold, unqualified individuals could get themselves consecrated into office
by offering a greater bribe or payment than other candidates. The high
ecclesiastical calling lost its dignity, as a result, and the only sincere clergy in
Kievan Russia that remained toward the conclusion of this era were poor monks
isolated in forsaken areas, praying in their lonely monasteries or hermitage
cloisters. The parishioners were not unaware of the simony and corruption of
the higher priesthood and so lost respect for Orthodoxy even more, and saw less
reason to discard the traditions of their ancestral religions.
Rites subject to payment included the marriage ceremony. Gr. Pr.
Constantine Monomakh (1042-1045) issued an edict stating that every male
entering into marriage was to pay the diocesan bishop one gold piece, in value
about five rubles, while the woman was to bring linen as a gift to the bishop, in
value of 12 rubles. Serfs and peasants, as a rule, avoided church weddings during
this era and far into the future, and satisfied themselves with (or even preferred)
a wedding performed by an elder or a pagan priest according to their traditional
rite.
The annual gift or duty for the bishop was an additional source of revenue,
and it was implemented if only to remind the parish priest under whose
subjection he was. Every year, when the priest traveled to the diocesan capital
66
for church councils, or when the bishop sent his delegates annually to the local
churches, a gift of a predetermined value was given to the bishop. Theoretically,
this gift was destined for church coffers at the cathedral, although the bishop
viewed it as his own. Often, the bishop imposed penalties if the payment was not
made; sometimes force was resorted to; havoc and ruin ensued when cities and
villages refused to comply with the bishop’s request.
Other income for parish priests was acquired from fines imposed on those
violating church rules; a bribe from peasants who wanted to quickly bury
someone who had died in questionable circumstances; a fine paid by women
who had given birth to an illegitimate child; revenue for performing the marriage
of an under-age male or female, or if the couple were closer than second cousins;
performing a pre-arranged marriage against the will of one of the individuals
(usually the bride); and others. Contributions were expected from parishioners
at least three or four times a year: Easter, Christmas, Apostle Peter’s Day, and
often on another major holiday. It was also not unheard-of for a parish priest or
bishop to illegally appropriate a parcel of property or farm acreage, attach it to
his patrimony, and then lease it back to the peasants, expecting a rent payment
at the end of harvest. The local feudal prince seldom defended the peasants from
oppression by Orthodox clergy. These examples, however, reflect conditions in
the poorer parishes or dioceses, while those in wealthy regions lived
sumptuously with much competition for a priests’ or bishops’ office.
The bishops were not incapable of philanthropy when the opportunity
arose. As the wealth of certain dioceses increased, including the personal wealth
of the bishop, they often routed this wealth toward building hospitals,
orphanages, old age homes, and asylums for abandoned children. The destitute
were assisted, along with children born out-of-wedlock. Travelers in need were
also assisted until they could continue on their journey.
18. CHURCH-STATE RELATIONSHIP
The church-state relationship in Kievan Russia was adopted from

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

implemented. During the internecine family struggles and divisions into feudal
estates, some prelates attempted to mitigate the violence and reconcile feuding
factions, and they dedicated themselves to that goal. As Metr. Nikifor II (1182-
1197) said to Rurik Rostislavich, on his third accession to the throne of Kiev in
1195, “Grand Prince, we are installed in the land of Russia by God to curb you
from shedding blood.”
Likewise Metr. Nicholai (1097-1101) admonished Gr. Pr. Vladimir
Monomakh, “We pray for you and for your brother; you must not destroy the
land of Russia, because if you war among yourselves then pagans will invade
with their army and possess our land.” The words of Nikolai were prophetic, and
were fulfilled in the conquest of Kievan Russia by the Mongol, Batu Khan, in
1240.
Orthodox prelates eventually gained the natural respect of the Christian
population, and the feudal princes took advantage of their respect and utilized
them as agents or delegates on important matters among themselves. Prelates
did not shy away from such assignments. Bishop Oleg of Cherigov played a major
role in 1096 in reconciling the feuding princes Vladimir Monomakh and
Sviatopolk Izyaslavich, even if it did not last long. In order to give divine
affirmation to the peace treaties, the prelate had each party kiss a cross or holy
icon to confirm the solemn oath.
The intentions of most clergy, higher and lower, were sincere in attempting
to instigate peace among warring families, but there were also apparent cases
when a metropolitan was involved in intrigue with the grand prince against the
opposing family faction. We must remember that metropolitans were mainly
Greeks assigned by Constantinople and not native Russians. Their primary
obligation was to Constantinople, not to Kiev, and for this reason they tended to
be impartial in internecine family struggles and wanted only reconciliation and
peace in the land. A metropolitan who was a native Russian would more likely
be partial towards the prince who installed him in office. Such was the case with
Kliment Smolyatich, who sided in with Pr. Izyaslav Mstislavich and the
Monomakh family during his cathedra.
There is one significant incident of justice involving a bishop and a council
of feudal princes. In 1229, Kirill withdrew from his position as bishop of Rostov,
due to illness. According to the chronicler, he was very rich, possessing farms
and villages and much material goods as well as a large library; he was the
wealthiest single individual in the entire Suzdal region. At a council that year,
several feudal princes in Suzdal decided to appropriate all of the former bishop’s
68
wealth and property because of his decision to leave the cathedra. They used as
justification charges that he had acquired his wealth through fraud and graft. It
is significant that it was the feudal princes who judged him, without any
involvement of the metropolitan or any other clergy.
Of the eight bishops of Novgorod recorded during the era of Kievan Russia,
six were nominated and installed by popular vote. Even then, not every bishop
was in complete concord with the residents of Novgorod. In 1211, the anger of the
residents of Novgorod rose up against Archbishop Mitrofan for some unrecorded
reason. He was immediately removed from his episcopacy and run out of town.
Another bishop was installed in his place, Antonius, or to use his name before
tonsure, Dobrinei Yadreikovich. Eight years passed and Mitrofan again fell into
good favor with the residents of Novgorod. Antonius was deposed, while
Mitrofan was installed in his former position. After Mitrofan’s death in 1223,
Arsenius, a monk from the Khutinski Monastery, was installed as bishop; but
two years later, in 1225, Arsenius was deposed by the residents and Antonius
was re-installed in his former position. This second period only lasted three
years, as Antonius abandoned his episcopacy due to illness in 1228. At this time
Arsenius was allowed to return to his former cathedra. This second period for
Arsenius, however, only lasted a short interval, according to the chroniclers;
Arsenius was deposed for the second time the following year and had to travel to
Kiev and take refuge in the Church of St. Sophia to save his life.
Golubinski feels that this rotation of bishops in Novgorod was the result of
politics among the regional nobles and feudal princes who played the bishops
like pawns in a game. Antonius was placed in the episcopacy a third time after
Arsenius was exiled in 1229. He died in 1232.
The subsequent bishop was more stable. Spiridon, formerly hierodeacon
from the Yurievski Monastery, was bishop for almost twenty years, through
1249, when he died.
At the conclusion of the era of Kievan Russia, at the time of the Mongol
invasion, sixteen dioceses are recorded. The original division of the land into
dioceses was coincidental with the division into feudal estates by the
descendants of Vladimir the Great. The initial division was among the sons of
Vladimir through his various wives; control was eventually acquired by Yaroslav
and then divided among his five sons: Izyaslav in Kiev, Sviatoslav in Chernigov,
Vsevolod in Kievan Pereyaslav, Igor in Vladimir-of-Volin, and Vyacheslav in
Smolensk. These divisions were reduced in later generations and then expanded
as the numbers of descendants decreased and increased.
69
19. EARLY DISSENTERS, JEWS AND CATHOLICS
In the year 1004, during the reign of Vladimir the Great and under Metr.
Leonti, there appeared in Kiev a certain monk Adrian who criticized Orthodoxy
and its regulations and the other priests and monks. Metr. Leonti rose against
him, refuted him, excommunicated him and incarcerated him. After some term of
incarceration, Adrian repented of his error and was received back into
Orthodoxy.
Another dissenter surfaced in 1123; he was Dmitri, who also denied the
Church regulations. Metr. Nikita of Kiev imprisoned Dmitri in the city Sineletz
(or Sinetz) along the Sul River.
The evidence indicates that Adrian and Dmitri had converted to
Bogomilism during their religious careers, a premise with which Archbishop
Filaret concurs. With Vladimir the Great associating with Bulgarian Orthodoxy
and with the increasing trade and commerce with Eastern Europe, it was not
unusual for Bogomils to migrate to Kiev. Some migrated to escape the armies of
Catholic Crusaders who crossed their territory on their campaign to the Holy
Land. As a denomination, they were vehemently anti-Orthodox having suffered
heavily under the hand of Orthodoxy in Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria. Apart from
trade and commerce with Kiev, migration eastward would also be a reasonable
attempt to escape further turmoil in Bulgaria, especially with the First Crusade
of 1096. The Bogomils rejected the rite and ceremony of Orthodoxy, including
icon, church, vestment, and related church appurtenances. They also renounced
monasticism and the organized hierarchical priesthood. Adrian and Dmitri
voiced these new convictions to their fellow monks and clergy, which only
caused them censure. Greek metropolitans in Kiev then proceeded to deal with
the dissenters in the manner they were instructed by Constantinople and
accustomed to: suppression by force and incarceration until repentance. The
influence of the Bogomils did not end here, as it continued to infiltrate Russia
and surfaced in later years in the religious movements of the Strigolniks and
Judaizers, to be discussed later.
Jews migrated to Kievan Russia in the decades following the start of the
First Crusade in 1096. Armies of Crusaders traveled from central Europe and
across Hungary and Bulgaria to Turkey, the land route to the Holy Land, and
many Jews fled east to escape, especially fleeing the battles between European
Catholics and Islamic Turks. Orthodoxy did not oppose the settlement of Jews
in the region during the era of Kievan Russia, but showed tolerance. The
influence of the Jews and their potential threat to Orthodoxy were minor, and
70
their presence only increased commerce in the region and trade with eastern
Europe.
In regard to Catholicism, the traditional account states that Pope John XV
sent emissaries to Vladimir while he was at Kherson to argue against his
preference for Greek Orthodoxy and to sway his intentions toward Catholicism;
but the attempt failed. Emissaries were also dispatched to Vladimir in Kiev in
the years 991 and 1000. Subsequent attempts by the popes to convert the princes
of Kiev to Catholicism were likewise doomed to failure. The Kievan princes, in
their struggles for the throne, were not about to subject themselves to any worse
an ecclesiastical leader than they already had in the patriarch of Constantinople.
On one occasion Pr. Izyaslav Yaroslavich, attempting to regain the throne from
his brother Pr. Sviatoslav Yaroslavich, did appeal to Pope Gregory VII
Hildebrand in 1075, hoping for some military support. His request was futile; no
support was ever received. Anti-pope Clement III sent delegates in the year 1080,
hoping for support from the Kievan prices in his struggle to overthrow Pope
Gregory VII, but this attempt also failed.
Emissaries from Rome likewise traveled to Kiev in the years 1164-1166, sent
by Pope Alexander III; in 1207, sent by Pope Innocent III; in 1227, sent by Pope
Honorius III; and in 1231, sent by Pope Gregory IX. It is important to note that
the Greek metropolitans of Kiev considered Roman Catholicism heresy,
beginning in 1054 when delegates from Pope Leo IX excommunicated the
entirety of Eastern Orthodoxy from Christendom. The Greek patriarchs were
not about to release their authority and their grip on Kievan Russia to
Catholicism.
The attitude of the individual metropolitans toward Catholicism varied
from considerate to malicious. Metr. Ioyann, 1077-1089, expressed his view in
this manner: “Eat with them, and help them when they need help for the sake of
the love of Christ, and do not be completely prejudicial.” But the majority of
opinions were less forbearing. Metr. Georgi, 1072-1077, stated, “The Latins are
not worthy of their Eucharist, nor should they offer prayers. Do not drink from
the same cup with them and neither offer them any food.” Metr. Nikifor, 1103-
1121, taught, “It is not right for us Orthodox Christians to drink or eat with them,
nor to kiss them. And if necessity compels an Orthodox to eat with them, then
set their food and dishes apart.” The monk Theodosius, a Greek, gave the
following instruction in a letter to Pr. Izyaslav Mstislavich, about 1150: “The
religion of the Latins is not worth learning nor are their customs worth
observing, and flee from their Eucharist; listen to none of their instruction; all of
their habits and customs avoid and beware of; do not offer your daughters to
71
them for marriage, nor accept theirs from them; do not worship with them; do
not kiss them; do not eat or drink out of the same dish with them, nor accept
food from them.”
In 1204, the third Crusade captured Constantinople. Catholic Crusaders
killed the residents and pillaged the city. The patriarch of Constantinople, John
X Kamateros, was exiled from the city, destitute, riding on a donkey. Pope
Innocent III attempted to take advantage of the situation by subjecting Russian
Orthodoxy to Catholicism, but the pope’s admonishment to the Kievan princes
failed.
20. MORALITY OF KIEVAN RUSSIA
To what extent did the introduction of Orthodoxy by Vladimir improve the

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

evolution of dvoye-veria or dual belief, as mentioned above: a merger of existing
Slavic pagan and superstitious rites and beliefs with what manifestations of
Orthodoxy were transmitted to them. For much of the populace there was no
good reason to abandon their ancestral religion for a new one, and the objects of
veneration in their ancient religion were mentally associated with the new
objects of veneration of the Orthodox Church. Thus, superficially, they were
Orthodox; but psychologically they were still pagan: the new rites ostensibly
replaced the old without any change in the heart or character of the worshipper.
It was easy for Vladimir’s regiments to demolish the temples and statues
representing the earlier gods and to execute pagan priests and sorcerers, and to
build new churches furnished with Orthodox appurtenances and clergy, but the
soul or conscience of the peasantry could not be modified so mechanically. Laws
against pagan rites could be legislated and prohibitions could be issued under
threat of death, but the essence and substance of paganism retained their place
in the hearts of the masses. Only over the course of time, and not until after the
expulsion of the Mongols from Russia when a new expansion of Orthodoxy
occurred (along with an increase in the number of churches and the arrival of
new priests to replace those who had perished) that the peasantry slowly
abandoned their ancestral religions and accepted Orthodoxy; this process took
centuries.
The pagan Slavs of Kiev venerated a panoply of deities. Of the good deities,
who were considered white, the most prominent of them was Perun, the god of
thunder and lightning; the sun was venerated in the deity Dazh-bog; the deity of
air and wind was Stri-bog. Household deities, the patron deities of homes, were
Rod and Rozhanitsi. The patron deity of cattle was Volos or Veles, who could be
identified with the Scandinavian Valass, the god of cattle. Several minor deities
existed who were identified with forests, streams, swamps, fields and
mountains.
The black or bad deities were Div, identified with the brown owl; Mara, a
goddess of plague and disease; and Moryana, the goddess of death. These deities
also had anthropomorphic physical representations, but most of their attributes
are long lost in history.
The Slavs of ancient Russia never attained the sophistication of building
special temples or edifices for the veneration of their deities. They were
worshipped outdoors, on hills, in fields and in forests, and just as much in the
homes (for peasants, at least). The worship service consisted in bringing
sacrifices to the deities: an animal was killed in the presence of an idol
73
representing the deity, then butchered and roasted. Drink and bread offerings
were brought which, along with the roasted animal, provided food for a
community meal. Songs were sung in honor of the deity and prayers were
offered. After the completion of the community meal, all the attendants danced.
Consecrated priests did not exist in Russian paganism and rites were performed
by an elder of the community, a head of household, or even by the local feudal
prince or landlord. Sorcerers attended as soothsayers or prognosticators for
supplicants and would let people know whether their prayers were heard or
their offering acceptable.
Russian paganism included a belief in life beyond the grave, immortality of
the soul, and judgment for conduct before death. Souls of the deceased resided
on an island called Buyan, located in a sea beyond the ocean. The dead were
cremated, usually in boats sent down a river, representing their journey to the
island residence. A feast — a memorial dinner and service — followed the
cremation. Russian pagans generally celebrated four annual holidays, on the first
day of each season: three were holidays dedicated to the god of the sun, and one
to Perun. Other days were also observed in honor of other deities.
Thus, among the uneducated populace the two cults stood side by side —
paganism and Orthodoxy — and the rites of both were observed in the home and
outdoors. With the abolition of idolatry by Vladimir and his successors, the
identifications of pagan deities were transferred to the saints portrayed on
Orthodox icons. The pagan holiday of Kolyad — the new year, celebrated at the
winter solstice — and also the holiday of the sun and Perun, were merged with
Christmas, so that customs and festivities of this season were overlaid onto
Christmas. The holiday of the autumn equinox, known as Maslyanitz,3 was
celebrated during the week before Advent. The holiday of the summer solstice
was merged with the holiday of John the Baptist, July 24. The celebration of the
spring equinox was merged with Easter. The traditions and rites of the majority
of other pagan holidays likewise were melded with the saint’s holiday that
coincided with it on the calendar. The holiday of Voloss was equated with the
holiday of St. Gregori, April 23. The household celebrations of the holidays of
Rod and Rozhanitz were assimilated into the holiday Sobor (Assembly) of the
Holy Virgins, celebrated December 26, the day after Christmas. Perun was
identified with prophet Elijah ascending to heaven in a fiery chariot; Voloss was
identified with St. Vlasic, and Yaril, another pagan deity, with St. Gregori.
3. From the Russian word maslo, meaning butter or oil.
74
In general, parish priests were at a loss as to how to eradicate paganism

from the peasants and other uneducated folk, and they tolerated this dual-faith,
the subconscious transfer of paganism into local Orthodoxy. In any case,
individuals selected from among the populace to become priests, and those who
volunteered, had roots in their ancestral religion and it was difficult for them to
execute a personal religious metamorphosis overnight. Thus, compromising
with themselves as well as with the people, they condoned and even fueled the
development of dual faith. The first generation of Orthodox priests from among
the native population was not about to condemn or reprimand anybody for
continuing to adhere to their ancestral religion. At least now, they felt, the
identification was with the true God and his saints, represented by icons of
Jesus, Mary, John the Baptist, apostles, prophets and of course the saints of
Orthodoxy; and it was before them, rather than their ancestral idols, that the
people prayed, sang and performed their rites. The Mongol invasion was an
indirect benefit to Orthodoxy as it obliterated the majority of paganism in
Russia, while Orthodoxy survived to replace it.
Ancient historians provide little information about the character or
morality of the peasantry or townsmen of Kievan Russia, although some
information is available that deals with the nobility. Morality was measured in
terms of prayer — both domestic and liturgical — and the construction of
churches, but virtue or rectitude was not. Vladimir Monomakh, in his
instruction to children, gave them a rule to pray every day at sunrise and at
sunset. The number of domestic shrines and private chapels suggested the
amount of prayer performed by the nobility and their households.
Feudal princes departing for war would take priests with them. Priests
accompanied the Kievan army in a war against the Polovtsi in the year 1111.
Vladimir Monomakh began and ended his battles with prayer. Pr. Izyaslav
Davidovich of Chernigov (d. 1161) wore his cross as he proceeded to war in 1143.
A defeat of the enemy was celebrated with a thanksgiving liturgy. Andrei
Bogolubski had his priests pray over him and his soldiers before he proceeded in
battle against the Bulgars.
Some Kievan prelates were able to have princes issue laws in various areas
to improve the morality of the populace, including rules against excessive usury
and against maltreatment of serfs by feudal princes and landlords. Prelates
especially worked to decrease the slave trade so prominent in Kiev.
75
21. RELIGOUS LITERATURE
The first success in providing divine literature to the Russians was the
translation of the Bible into Slavonic by the brothers Cyril (Kirill) and
Methodius. According to the traditional account, during the second half of the
9th century the western Slavic nation of Moravia, which had recently accepted
Catholicism, was disenchanted with services conducted in the Latin language.
The members wanted to hear the services in their native tongue. Knowing that
the pope would not grant them this request, but that the Eastern Orthodox
patriarch would, the Moravians turned to the latter with a request to provide
them with books containing the liturgy translated into their vernacular. The
emperor of Constantinople, Mikhael III (842-867), graciously accepted their
request and delegated the matter to Constantine, a philosopher who later
became a monk with the new name of Cyril; he was fluent in the Slavonic
language. Cyril, however, died on February 14, 869, shortly after beginning the
translation. His older brother Methodius, who was archbishop of Moravia,
continued the work until his death April 6, 885. He was able to translate the
entire Greek Bible, which included the books known as the Apocrypha, except
for the books of the Maccabees, and he included in the translation the
Nomocanon of John the Scholastic.
The Bulgarians adopted this Bible from the Moravians, and it was then
adopted by Kievan Russia. But because the Slavonic language of Moravia was
not the Slavonic of Bulgaria, the Bible underwent revision; and the Slavonic of
Bulgaria was not the Slavonic of Kievan Russia, either. This is why a complete
Bible in the language of Russia was not available for another 500 years. The
language of the Church even at this early date, during the reign of Yaroslav (who
imported books from Bulgaria), was not the conversational Russian language of
the common people. The lack of scholarship in Russia combined with the
successive wars between feudal princes delayed the development of quality
liturgical and books and scholastic literature in the vernacular.
Several other related books on liturgy and doctrine were translated into
Slavonic from Greek and were made available, but primarily in Kiev. These were
the following:
0
1. A concise explanation of the Orthodox faith, composed by John of

Damascus.
2. Instruction of Cyril of Jerusalem.
3. Refutation of Arias by Athanasius of Alexandria.
76
4. Two books on theology and an interpretation of the Lord’s holidays by

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

communal meal, and their complaints against the abbot’s use of monastery funds
to assist the destitute and homeless. One instruction of Theodosius was directed
to Kievan Russia in general, titled, “Regarding the Judgments of God.” It deals
with the vestiges of paganism among the people and the many vices of the era,
and specifically cited theft, fraud, vengeance and alcoholism. Another tract dealt
with the need to improve the conduct of parishioners at liturgy. Theodosius also
composed two letters to Pr. Izyaslav, the first dealing with the fast of
Wednesday and Friday in agreement with the Studite rule, and the other a
polemic against Catholicism including his interdiction. He instructed the
Russian people not to associate with Catholics, neither at meals nor in marriage.
John (Ioyann), archbishop of Novgorod, was ordained in 1164 and as a
teaching pastor became a model for future bishops. His writings deal with a
range of rules and instruction, but primarily with the responsibility of the
bishop over his flock as pastor. He also reprimands many clergymen for their
participation in usury, gambling, and alcoholism, and likewise admonishes them
to abandon pagan customs still practiced among the people.
The final original Russian composer of note is abbot Daniil. He traveled to
Jerusalem shortly after the First Crusade and traveled for 16 months, visiting
many of the holy sites of Eastern Orthodoxy. He left to his fellow adherents a
description of his pilgrimage.
The single document that most reflects the beliefs or theology of the Kievan
era is the Confession of Faith of Metr. Ilarion, written sometime between 1051
and his death in 1067. The following is a selection:
I believe in one God glorified in Trinity: the God who is without birth,
without beginning and without end; the begotten Son, who is likewise without
beginning and end; the Holy Spirit who emanates from the Father and was
manifested in the Son and who is likewise co-beginningless and equal to the
Father and Son... I believe and confess that the Son, by the good will of the
Father and permission of the Holy Spirit, descended to the earth for the
salvation of the human race, but He did not abandon the heavens or the Father.
He suffered for me in the flesh as a human, but in His divinity was impassionate
as God. The holy and glorious Virgin Mary is also named the Theotokos. Honor
her and in faith venerate her. Look upon her holy icon and see the Lord as a
child and rejoice. Likewise look upon His holy saints…
With the peasantry, matters were of a completely different sort; their lives
were filled with legends and apocryphal tales. Inside the home of a typical serf,
living in any outlying area, in the corner of the main room, under the family
icons, among books such as the Psalter and Prayers to the Blessed Virgin, it was
78
not unusual to find a worn-out notebook full of scribbles in grammatically

incorrect Russian. Such a book would contain, for example, the story of how
Archangel Michael toured the Blessed Virgin through the regions of the torment
of hell. The story tells of a river of fire that flows from east to west. In this river
stood sinners: some up to their knees, others up to their waists, a third group up
to their throats. These were people who did not honor their parents or the
Orthodox clergy: they had violated the 5th Commandment. In another dark river,
the loud wail and cry of those who had crucified Christ would be heard. In other
areas of hell, worms gnawed on those who did not observe church fasts, did not
go to confession, and did not take communion. Poisonous snakes bit the faces
and hearts of those who talked, laughed or joked in church during liturgy, who
did not listen to the singing and who did not venerate the holy icons. There was
also a place for wayward shepherds, those who first saw the light but preferred
darkness. They did not instruct their parishioners, did not read ecclesiastical
texts, and closed the doors of the heavenly kingdom to the people. Landlords and
dishonest judges — those who condemned the innocent and acquitted the guilty
— and wicked tsars and princes and ruthless feudal lords — those who
oppressed their serfs — all resided in hell.
Along with the Blessed Virgin’s visit to hell, the admonishment of Pope
Clement of Rome dealing with twelve Fridays was often included. Whoever
observed the fast on any one of these specific Fridays would be rescued either
from accidental death or drowning, or an attack, plague, enemy or unclean spirit.
The conclusion of the text would include a statement characteristic of an
indulgence. Any person who copied and distributed the text, or read it once a
week, would receive forgiveness of sins in a quantity equal to the number of
leaves on a tree, and the person would be protected from calamity in earthly life
and receive the Kingdom of heaven in the future life.
Many legends answered questions which the priest could not: What
happened to Adam after his exile from paradise? Who buried Adam and what
did the funeral procedure consist of? What was the adolescent life of the Blessed
Virgin? And if no answer was available, then a legend was fabricated that did, as
ludicrous as that might seem to the modern mind.
Some of the legends dealt with redemption, a concept which was not easily
assimilated by the peasant mind. According to one legend, after the devil
deceived Adam in paradise, Adam had to subscribe to an ordinance which placed
him under the control of the devil. The record was inscribed on a stone slate that
the devil hid in the center of the Jordan River, and there it remained under the
guard of 400 demons for 4,000 years. But when Christ was being baptized in the
79
Jordan River, he stood upon this stone and crushed it, thus releasing Adam from
his bondage to the devil.
Another legend dealing with the same theme relates how Adam made a
crown or garland from branches and twigs of the tree of life while he still resided
in paradise. At his death, Adam was buried wearing the garland. As time passed,
an immense tree grew out of the garland and the roots embedded themselves in
the coffin of Adam. After many centuries the entire tree was dug up — roots and
coffin included — and brought to Solomon for use in building his temple. The
tree was rejected by the builders and was replanted on the hill of Golgotha,
including the roots and Adam’s coffin. Later, the tree was hewn down and used
to make the very cross that Christ was crucified on. When the blood of Christ
flowed from his body, it seeped into the ground and into the coffin, and dripped
upon the preserved head of Adam. This incident absolved Adam of his sins and
provided him redemption.
Such legends and apocryphal stories represent the extent of the cosmology
of the peasant mind and that part of medieval European literature that migrated
into Russia which they could assimilate.
22. ORTHODOX HOLIDAYS
The implantation of Greek Orthodoxy in Russian soil was accompanied by

the transference of the standard holidays and festivities of the Greek calendar.
The list of holidays accepted by the Russian clergy were those common to all
Christendom during that era: Christmas, Easter, Epiphany, Trinity or Pentecost,
Ascension, and Annunciation (March 25), as well as the fasts of Wednesday and
Friday, Lent and Advent. Holidays of blessed Christians were included: Elijah
(July 20), John the Baptist (b. June 24, d. August 29), Apostles Peter and Paul
(June 29), John the Apostle (December 27), Stephen the Martyr (December 26),
Archangel Michael (September 29); and those dedicated to the Virgin Mary:
Assumption (August 15), Purification (February 2), and Intercession (October
1). Others were included to complete an annual cycle of commemorations.
With the development of Russian Orthodoxy and to strengthen and
develop a national Church, prelates began creating holidays beginning about the
year 1093. These new holidays were to commemorate Russian saints, clergy,
ascetics and heroes, those with whom the Russian people could identify. The
first holiday created for the Russian Church calendar commemorated the deaths
of Boris and Gleb. The date chosen was July 24, the day Boris was killed (Gleb
80
was killed on September 5). Although they were not Christian martyrs in the
strict definition — their execution was part of a political and internecine
struggle — their inclusion in the calendar was a means for the Russian Church
to begin the insertion of a pantheon of native Russians into church worship. A
second holiday on May 2 was created to commemorate the transfer of their
remains to a church for veneration.
After Boris and Gleb, two Russian prelates were canonized and holidays
were assigned for their commemoration: the venerable Theodosius of Pecher
Monastery (May 3), and Leonti, the third bishop of Rostov (May 23). A very
important holiday implemented at this time commemorated Nikolas the Miracle
Worker (May 9), the patron saint of Russia (d. AD 314).
Local areas included other individuals into their calendar. In Kiev, a holiday
commemorating Pr. Mstislav Vladimirovich was celebrated; in Chernigov, the
holiday of Pr. Igor Olegovich; in Smolensk, the holiday of the venerable Avrami of
Smolensk; in Pskov, the holiday of Vsevolod Mstislavich, prince of Novgorod; in
Rostov, the holiday of Bishop Isaiah.
Holidays were also installed to commemorate the dedication of certain
churches: the Desyatinnoi Church of Vladimir the Great in Kiev (May 12); the
Church of St. Sophia in Kiev (May 11 and November 4); and the Church of St.
Gregory in Kiev (November 26).
Holidays commemorating the lives of Olga and Vladimir the Great did not
reach the Church calendar until the 14th century, and newer holidays of a
national style were not added to any degree until after the end of Mongol
occupation.
23. WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY FASTS
The fasts of Lent, and Wednesday and Friday of each week, were adopted
from Greek Orthodoxy as canonical practice and were applicable to all members
— if not the national membership — of Russian Orthodoxy shortly after Greek
metropolitans were installed in Kiev by Pr. Yaroslav. The balance of fasts, those
of Advent, Assumption, and St. Peter, were implemented not through legislation
but by tradition. The fast in Russian Orthodoxy was not a complete abstention
from food and drink but a partial abstention, allowing only the consumption of
meatless food. The meatless food would usually consist solely of vegetables but
depending on the circumstances milk, cheese, and eggs and such animal
byproducts might be permitted, or even fish.
81
The Fast of Advent covered the period beginning November 14 and

concluding December 24, Christmas Eve, and was also known as Phillip’s Fast,
since November 14 was the holiday of Apostle Phillip. The fast of St. Peter was
the second week following Trinity or Pentecost, lasting seven days. The fast of
the Assumption of the Virgin Mary took place during the first 15 days of August,
prior to the holiday on August 15. These three, however, may or may not have
been fulfilled by the membership, whether laity or clergy; the evidence is slim.
A debate arose in Russian Orthodoxy during the era of Kievan Russia as to
whether the fast of Wednesday and Friday could be circumvented, should a
major church holiday fall on one of those days (or during other fasts during the
church year). The Russians in their simple and traditional manner did not
emphasize the fasts the way the Greeks expected them to. The issue became a
political one: whether the dictate of the metropolitan of Kiev (who was Greek)
was to be obeyed, or the local bishops of the dioceses (who were Russian).
Traditionally, in Russia, Wednesday and Friday meatless days could be
circumvented during the interval from Easter to Pentecost (Trinity), including
Pentecost, Christmas, and the interval of twelve days from Christmas to
Epiphany and including Epiphany, and Assumption. As other major holidays
were initiated, the meatless diet was allowed to be circumvented if one of these
days fell on a Wednesday or Friday. Local tradition or the attitude of the bishop
often dictated whether a holiday was meatless or not.
All went well in Kievan Russia through the middle of the 12th century,
regardless of the attitude of the patriarch of Constantinople toward enforcement
of his rules. Conflict erupted in the year 1157, with the efforts of Bishop Nestor of
Rostov, a Greek, who attempted to implement in his diocese the Wednesday and
Friday meatless diet according to the rule of Constantinople. Nestor’s attempt
was met with much opposition by the residents of Rostov, even to the point that
Nestor irritated the prince of the region, Yuri Bogolubski, who banished Nestor
from his cathedra. Nestor traveled to Constantinople to vindicate himself before
Patr. Lukas Chrysoberges. The patriarch vindicated him and composed a long
letter to be delivered to Bogolubski, dictating to him how and when the meatless
diet should be implemented during the church year. Bogolubski ignored the
contents of the letter and the episcopacy of bishop of Rostov was filled by Leon
in about the year 1164, meaning that a new bishop was installed by Bogolubski
himself. The tradition of lax meatlessness continued just as it had before Nestor.
Four years later, in 1168, the matter of meatless holidays surfaced in Kiev.
The new metropolitan of Kiev, Constantine II, a Greek, interdicted and
imprisoned Polikarp, abbot of Pecher Monastery, because he abrogated the
82
meatless diet during lesser holidays of the Lord, and on the holidays of the Virgin
Mary and local saints, when they fell on Wednesday or Friday and during the
interval from Easter to Pentecost.
Apparently Polikarp observed the same Russian tradition as did Rostov
prior to Bishop Nestor. Metr. Constantine’s intention was to first have the
famous Pecher Monastery subject itself to Greek rules, in this case the meatless
diet on holidays, and thus serve as an example to the remainder of Russian
Orthodoxy. But Polikarp refused, and so bore the brunt of Constantine’s
frustration. Whether Constantine accomplished anything by this remains
unknown, but the Russian Orthodox in general continued their tradition,
without much consideration for the Greeks. Two other attempts were made by
bishops at this time, both of them Greek, to institute Greek rules on the meatless
diet; these were Bishop Antonius of Chernigov and an unnamed bishop of Kievan
Pereyaslav. But both their attempts were futile as well, and Antonius was
eventually deposed from office after dictating to Pr. Sviatoslav Vsevolodovich of
Kiev that he should not eat meat during the lesser holidays. It must also be
remembered that observance of the prescribed meatless diet, and the inclusion
or exclusion of milk and eggs, primarily affected the clergy and some nobility,
but had little effect on the eating habits of the general population. This
controversy became dormant, or moot, with the Mongol invasion, which
represented a rather more important issue for both clergy and nobility.
24. THE MONGOL INVASION
The first invasion of Kievan Russia by Mongols — also referred to as Tatars

— occurred in 1223. Genghis Khan was still alive at the time (d. 1227). Under his
orders, his horde invaded Persia; but not satisfied with their victory there, they
crossed the Caucasus Mountains and entered Russia from the south. They
traveled northwest, destroying everything in their path. The Polovtzi army
proceeded against them at the River Kalchik in Ekaterinoslav province. The
Mongols defeated their army and continued in a northwesterly direction. About
50 miles south of Kiev, they ended their campaign and turned back homeward.
In 1236, an army of 300,000 Mongols, called the Golden Horde, led by Batu
Khan, grandson of Genghis Khan, crossed the Ural Mountains. In autumn of that
year, they defeated the Bulgars and conquered their capital. The Mongols
proceeded northwest again and in 1237 and 1238 destroyed the cities of the
principalities of Ryazan, Kolomna, Rostov and Moscow. Ryazan was captured
83
on December 21, 1237. The winter slowed the Mongols’ advance, city to city, but
Suzdal fell on February 8, 1238. The defenses of Gr. Pr. Yuri Vsevolodovich near
Yaroslav were overcome March 4, 1238.
With the devastation of northern Russia complete, the Mongol horde
proceeded toward Novgorod, but were put off by the marshes and swamps that
would have to be crossed to attain the city. They turned south when they were
about 60 miles from Novgorod. The rampage and devastation of central Russia
continued through 1239 and into 1240, and then the invaders turned toward
Kiev.
After a siege, Kiev was taken by Mongol hordes on December 6, 1240. The
entire city was razed, reduced to rubble and burned, and its residents were
executed. The famous Desyatennoi Church, the Cathedral of St. Sophia, and
Pecher Monastery were destroyed; only ruins remained. Other cities of Kievan
Russia suffered the same fate as Batu continued with his forces toward Bulgaria
and eastern Europe. Returning from Europe in 1242, Batu created a residence for
himself and his Golden Horde on the Volga River, about 50 miles upstream from
Astrakhan, and named it Sarai. Any monks that survived the Mongol brutality
during this period fled to safer havens, such as central Europe.
Regarding the conquest of Ryazan, the chronicler relates, “Having taken
the city Ryazan and burning it completely, prince Yuri and the princess were
killed, while the remaining men, women, children, monks, and nuns and priests
were butchered by the sword while others were shot with an arrow, and
cremated in fires.” Regarding the city of Vladimir, the chronicler recorded,
“Abbots and monks and nuns and priests and deacons from the young to the old,
and their children, were beaten; some were killed, others were taken captive
walking barefoot and without clothing to their camp, dying from the cold.”
Orthodoxy in Russia was plundered of its wealth, and the burning of cities
included churches and monasteries. Ecclesiastical appurtenances, which meant
nothing to the Mongols, were destroyed in fires. The greatest single loss was the
church books that had been copied by hand and passed down from one
generation to another, and which could not be replaced. Prelates and clerics who
took part in the defense of Russian cities were executed. The lower clergy,
monks and nuns, and suffered the same fate as everyone else: they were
slaughtered, or taken captives as slaves. After the invasion, Kiev ceased to exist
as the city it once had been; it was reduced to a few enclaves of survivors
struggling to get by in a heap of rubble. A local noble was assigned by Pr. Daniel
Romanovich of Galitzia to rule over the devastated city.
84
Metr. Iosef (Joseph), who arrived in Kiev from Greece in 1237, disappeared
from history the year following receipt of news of the devastation of Suzdal in
the Russian north. Golubinski suggests he returned to Greece to secure his own
safety.
After the invasion, Mongols settled in Sarai to begin ruling over their new
domain. Unlike the terror they had waged in previous years, having vanquished
the territory the victors now showed tolerance toward Orthodoxy and even
desired and promoted its prosperity. In no way did they force the surviving
Russian population to change religions. And that was not an exception made
just for Orthodoxy; Mongols as a rule tolerated the religions of all the nations
they subjugated.
Because Russia was now under Mongol occupation, and was so until 1480,
the Mongol Khan did require a cursory review and approval of all newly
ordained prelates of the church and especially the metropolitan, the spiritual
head of Russian Orthodoxy. The toleration of religion by Mongols was not for
the sake of religion itself but for political expediency, in order to effectuate
Mongol occupation without giving additional grounds for rebellion.
Pope Innocent IV dispatched John de-Plano Carpini, an Italian Franciscan
monk, to the great Khan Gyuk at Karakorum in Mongolia, by land, and he
arrived there on July 22, 1246. Carpini was sent as a papal legate to dissuade the
khan from any further invasions and to convert him to Christianity; he failed on
both counts. Carpini left Mongolia on November 13 of the same year, and visited
Batu Khan at Sarai in May 1247. During his return journey he passed through
Kiev and recorded in his journal that the city had been reduced to rubble, with
only about 200 homes left standing and the residents destitute.
Kiev was again invaded by Mongols in 1299 and the remaining residents
fled. It was not until 100 years later that Kiev was absorbed into the state of
Lithuania and was repopulated, emerging again as a city. The Mongol horde
retreated from the state of Lithuania, which allowed the resettlement to
progress, and a new Kiev grew, which then remained under the administration
of Lithuania and Poland for the next 300 years.
In about 1257 or 1258, the Khan of the Golden Horde, Berke or Bekalie,
converted to Islam.
85
PART 3. THE ERA OF MONGOL OCCUPATION
25. METROPOLITAN KIRILL III
Metr. Iosef arrived at Kiev from Greece in 1237 but, as mentioned above,
nothing more was heard of him once news of the devastation of Suzdal reached
Kiev. More than likely he returned to Greece to escape the threat of the
destruction of Kiev, which would only be obvious for an alien. The next
metropolitan was a native Russian. The Gr. Pr. of Galitzia and Volin, Daniel
Romanovich (1229-1264), had incorporated Kiev into the administration of
Galitzia just prior to the arrival of the Mongols in 1240. Apparently to escape the
Mongols himself, Daniel Romanovich fled to Hungary and then to Poland until
after the conquest of southeast Europe ended and Batu Khan and his horde
turned eastward. When Daniel returned to Galitzia he selected Kirill, an abbot
at a local monastery in Galitzia, as metropolitan. Prior to sending Kirill to
Constantinople for consecration, however, Daniel himself traveled to visit Batu
Khan at Sarai, at the end of 1245 or beginning of 1246. Pr. Daniel returned to
Galitzia in February or March of 1246 and Kirill went to Constantinople to be
consecrated some time after that; he returned in 1250. Patr. Manuel II was
residing in Nicea on the Asiatic side of Greece — present-day Turkey —
apparently to protect himself in case of a Mongol incursion toward
Constantinople. The patriarch condescended to accept Kirill because, first, Iosef
had abandoned the cathedra after only a short duration, and second, no Greek
candidate was available or willing to assume this position in a devastated and
defenseless Kiev under Mongol occupation.
87
Meanwhile Andrei Yaroslavich, prince of Vladimir and Suzdal in the

Russian north, married the daughter of Daniel Romanovich in Kiev in 1250.
There is no doubt that Metr. Kirill III was involved in the matchmaking because
immediately after the wedding he abandoned the desolate and devastated Kiev
and migrated first to Chernigov, then to Ryazan and finally to Vladimir. With
the departure of Kirill to the more secure and promising Russian north, Kiev lost
its roll as the cathedra of the metropolitan of Russia; there was nothing but
rubble left in Kiev, anyway, and Pr. Andrei appeared to provide Kirill a more
promising future than Pr. Daniel Romanovich could do, especially now that
southwestern Russia was under the control of eastern European rulers and the
threat of Catholic hegemony was imminent.
Over the subsequent thirty years that Metr. Kirill held the cathedra he
traveled extensively attempting to rebuild Orthodoxy after its devastation by
the Mongols: he taught, admonished and restored. In 1251, Kirill traveled to
Novgorod to visit Alexander Nevski and to install a new bishop there. In 1256 he
again traveled to Novgorod, and in 1256 to Rostov to install a new bishop. In
1263, Kirill buried Alexander Nevski in Vladimir. Kirill only twice visited Kiev
over the 30 years of his residence in Vladimir: in 1274 and in 1281. There is no
record that Kirill ever visited his homeland of Galitzia or Pr. Daniel Romanovich
— who nominated him as metropolitan — or his son Lev Danilovich, after he
moved to the Russian north. Prince Daniel Romanovich died 1264.
In 1261, Metr. Kirill formed a new diocese with its Episcopal center at Sarai,
the capital of the Mongol Golden Horde under Berke Khan, the third successor
after Batu Khan. The first bishop installed by Kirill was Theognost. The
maneuver may have been more politically oriented that religious, with an aim of
generating a close proximity between the metropolitan of Russia and the Khan
of the Golden Horde, to increase diplomacy and greater toleration or even
favoritism toward Orthodoxy. The bishop of Sarai could be influential in the
court of the khan on matters related to their occupation of Russia. All attempts
at conversion, however, failed.
Kirill was able to acquire a copy of the Kormchaya Kniga (the Nomocanon
in Slavonic) for the Russian Church from the Bulgarian Church; Metr. Kirill
received a copy in 1262 or 1270. The value of the Nomocanon lay in the fact that it
was a list of ecclesiastical canons with their interpretation as implemented in
the 12th century by three Greek prelates: John Zonara, a monk of Mt. Athos;
Aleksis Aristin, a jurist and economist of the Greek Church; and Theodore
Valsamon, later known as the titular patriarch of Antioch.
88
Part 3. The Era of Mongol Occupation
When Metr. Kirill returned from Kiev in 1274, he brought with him
Serapion, archimandrite of the Pecher Monastery to ordain as bishop of Vladimir
and Suzdal. After Kiev was laid waste by the Mongols in 1240, all that remained
of Pecher Monastery was the scorched stone church; all the other edifices were
completely destroyed by fire. To consecrate him, Kirill summoned the following
four bishops: Dalmat of Novgorod, Ignatie of Rostov, Theognost of Sarai, and
Semeon of Polotzk. In the presence of these five prominent bishops (which
included the newest — Serapion of Vladimir and Suzdal) Kirill created the first
council of the newly-established church under Mongol occupation. At this
council Kirill composed a codified set of concerns dealing with the restoration of
Orthodoxy along with several reprimands for laxity in church supervision, errors
in the liturgy, and deficiencies in the morality of the clergy and laity. Since 1274
was the 25th year of Kirill’s active service, no doubt he had concerned himself
with these matters earlier on an individual basis but now determined to use a
council of influential and capable bishops to implement them. In his
introduction to the decrees, Kirill states that the punishment of God which
overtook the fatherland — the Mongol invasion and occupation — was a result
of neglect and violation of the canons of the Church and Christian
commandments. His introduction was the following passage.
What gain did we acquire abandoning the Divine regulations? Did not God
scatter us across the face of the land? Were not our cities conquered? Did not
our powerful prince perish from their sharp sword? Were not our children
taken captive? Were not the churches of God made desolate? Do not these
godless and unclean gentiles weary us every day? All of this happened to us
because we did not observe the rules of the saints and our pious fathers.
Evidently Metr. Kirill belonged to that class of individuals who felt that
such calamities and national misfortune should be used to awaken and motivate
the population toward restoration and moral improvement. The powerful prince
mentioned was probably Gr. Pr. Yuri Vsevolodovich, who was defeated in his
attempt to defend the city Yaroslav. Ordained to rule the Russian Church
immediately following the awesome destruction by the Mongol hordes, Kirill
inherited a compact pile of smoldering ruins covered with innumerable human
corpses. In view of this horrible expression of the wrath of God upon Russia
Kirill apparently swore to himself to be the director of the Russian Church as
well as its restorer and renovator to the greatest extent his strength would allow
him. The activities of the council of 1274 therefore must be viewed not as a
sudden or unexpected initiative or isolated event, but as a conclusive expression
of Kirill’s endeavors toward restoring the Russian Church.
89
The edicts of the council and their concerns are headed under five topics,
which are the following:
1. Against simony and the avarice of bishops and regarding ordination

of lower clergy.
Originally, payment for ordination was to cover the associated expenses of

the church. Later, the advantages of living at the expense of the church as a priest
in comfortable surroundings and with a guaranteed income and life-long
security created an over-abundance of candidates for the priesthood.
Bishops took advantage of this, especially in the destitute conditions that
followed the Mongol invasion, and offered ordinations into the priesthood to the
highest bidder, then treating the money acquired as personal income. The
council established the expenses for ordination at 70 kopecks, no more and no
less. The council also decreed that any and all bishops who were discovered
violating the new rule would be defrocked. A secondary issue was that bishops
would excommunicate members from the Church for insufficient reason and
then charge them to rejoin. This was a means of extortion from the laity. An edict
was decreed by the council to excommunicate any prelate found guilty of this
practice, and likewise prohibiting any bishop or priest from excommunicating
members for insignificant or unsubstantiated reason. Prelates were also
proscribed from compelling serfs to work at their personal farms.
In previous years, bishops had ordained priests for money; now, under the
edict of the council, the bishop was required to investigate the morality and
ethic of every candidate. Metr. Kirill’s rule was very specific:
When a bishop wants to ordain a priests or deacon, he must ascertain the
life the candidate led prior to his application for candidacy; his neighbors who
know him must be summoned, those who knew him from childhood. Let them
investigate the candidate in detail: did he guard his virginity; did he marry a girl
who guarded her virginity; and [marry] in legal matrimony? Is he literate? Even
then do not be quick to ordain him, but ascertain, is he a scoundrel; a thief; an
alcoholic; treacherous; quarrelsome? Then question him about sinful activities:
did he ever practice sodomy or bestiality, or masturbate? Has he ever stolen
something other than during his childhood? Did he ever have pre-marital sex?
Has he had multiple sexual partners or extra-marital affairs? Was he ever a
false witness? Has he ever killed someone, whether pre-meditatively or
accidentally? Is he a usurer? Has he ever starved his serfs to death; or allowed
them to go naked; or overworked them? Does he avoid taxes? Has he ever
practiced witchcraft? If any candidate is guilty in any of these matters, he is
unfit to be a priest or deacon or any type of clergyman. But if a person according
to his confessor is free from these violations then he can be ordained, but only
90
with the consensus of seven other priests. He can wear the priest’s attire and
read the liturgy in church until he learns it [by memory]. After an interim as
novitiate he can be ordained as a deacon, but not under the age of 25, or as a
priest, but not under the age of 30.”
With such prerequisites, Kirill hoped to raise the moral standard of
Russian Orthodox clergy.
2. Against error in performance of the offertory.
Metr. Kirill noticed that in Novgorod the deacons would perform the
offertory before the priests. The council agreed that this was an error and that
the priest should perform the offertory before the deacon.
3. Against non-ordained persons performing certain sacred rites, with

respect to laymen performing the liturgy; against infringement of the
sacristan on the rights of the Church which do not pertain to them; and
about the standards for the sacristan and their approach to the altar.
Metr. Kirill discovered that in Novgorod province non-ordained persons

were consecrating the grain brought on behalf of the deceased. The council
advised that only priests should be allowed to consecrate such gifts, and not
even a deacon. Also non-ordained persons were prohibited from singing or
reading from the ambo or approaching the altar, but only ordained clergy. The
sacristan was not to approach the liturgical dishes or hold the incense burner;
this was only to be done by an ordained priest or deacon. Standards were also
established for the sacristan, since he was allowed in the presence of the altar
along with the priest and deacon, but not to perform rites.
4. Against alcoholism among priests.
Metr. Kirill disclosed that in Novgorod province this malady did exist
among priests: that they would drink to an excessive degree during holy fast
days beginning Palm Sunday and until All-Saints Day, November 1; and that on
All-Saints Day there was no liturgy performed and no divine baptism. The
council decreed that priests stop drinking, on penalty of being deposed from
their office. And if any of the laity should oppose the defrocking of the alcoholic
priest, then he would be excommunicated. (Although Kirill only observed the
activities of the two holy days of Palm Sunday and All-Saints Day and the
interval between them, the failure to perform liturgy due to alcoholism was
endemic in Novgorod throughout the year.)
91
5. Against fist-fighting; against pagan festivities on Saturday nights.
Metr. Kirill disclosed to the council the incidence of fighting between

drunken men, even to their death, and the crowds of people who watched such
fights. The council issued a decree prohibiting fist-fighting, and forbidding
priests from performing a memorial mass or requiem on behalf of any who died
in such fights.
The council was also informed that on Saturday nights men and women
were getting together and playing and dancing and indulging in orgies, just as
the pagans celebrated Bacchanalia. The council decreed that such immorality
must cease or the participants would be excommunicated.
Golubinski feels that the council dealt with many additional topics of
significance related to the short-comings of the Russian clergy of that era, but
they are unrecorded. It is true that we have records only of a small number of
issues discussed; but that might also be due to the meager number of attendants
at the council. The five bishops in all reality had little power to implement such
reforms and decrees and to rectify clerical deficiencies.
Two years after the council of Vladimir of 1274, at the request of Metr.
Kirill, Bishop Theognost of Sarai forwarded a list of questions to the council of
the patriarch at Constantinople (probably John XI Berkos, 1275-1282). These
questions may well have been introduced at the council of Vladimir, however, as
no response or resolution could be found they were then forwarded to
Constantinople. The new topics dealt with the Orthodox liturgy, tonsuring of
monks, the fasts of Wednesday and Friday, acceptance of heretics back into the
Church, baptism of pagans, eating of animals killed by suffocation, the attitude
of bishops toward monasteries within their diocese, and the women who are
allowed to bake wafers for the Eucharist. Replies were received on all questions,
a total of 33.
The Uniate Church, or the Eastern Rite Catholic church, took its first steps
during this period. Papal legates from Innocent III offered Gr. Pr. Daniel
Romanovich of Galitzia a king’s crown in 1246 and the assistance of papal forces
to overthrow the Mongol overlords. Needless to say, the pay-back was that the
realm of the grand prince would become Catholic, subject to Rome. The taste of
a king’s crown, making Gr. Pr. Daniel equal to the kings of Poland and Hungary,
was too sweet to resist, and so in 1247 Daniel sent delegates to the pope
accepting the offer. In essence, the religion would become Catholic, although the
rites would continue in the Orthodox fashion and utilize unleavened bread in
the Eucharist.
92
At the last minute, Daniel Romanovich renegged. Perhaps he saw little

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

Constantinople — candidates appeared in Greece for the cathedra of
metropolitan of all Russia. During the cathedra of Metr. Kirill, Constantinople
realized that northern Russia had somewhat survived the devastation by
Mongols and that an atmosphere of tolerance prevailed between the new grand
prince at Vladimir and the Mongol occupation; Orthodoxy had freedom of
93
practice. For this reason the Greek patriarch (either John XI Berkos or Gregory
II Kyprios) decided to provide a Greek metropolitan for Russia rather than
allowing them to select their own. Even prior to Kirill’s death, Constantinople
sent a warning to the grand prince not to select another metropolitan on his
own.
Maksim was ordained at Constantinople to succeed Kirill as metropolitan
of Kiev and all Russia, as the specific title of the cathedra read, and he arrived in
Kiev in 1283. After arriving in Russia, Maksim immediately departed to visit
Khan Toda-Mangu at Sarai, to acquire his approval. Maksim was sent by the
emperor of Constantinople, Andronicus the elder, who recently had ascended
the throne after his father Mikhael Paleologus died in 1282. The visit with the
khan also included a discussion of political matters dealing with the empire. On
Maksim’s return to Kiev in 1284, he summoned a council of Russian bishops, but
no documents survive that would indicate the purpose of this council.
In 1285, the following year, Metr. Maksim visited Vladimir, Novgorod and
Pskov in the Russian north and then returned to Kiev. Dmitri Alexandrovich,
son of the famous Alexander Nevski, was prince of Novgorod at the time.
Maksim visited Vladimir and Suzdal again in 1295, and finally in 1299 he left Kiev
entirely to take up permanent residence in Suzdal, no doubt during the advance
of Mongol forces toward Kiev. Much like Metr. Kirill, Maksim realized that
nothing remained for him at Kiev and that northern Russia offered greater
security and promise, especially if he attached himself to Gr. Pr. Dmitri, since
Ukraine was now Uniate under the hegemony of Rome.
In 1299, the Mongols again attached Kiev and plundered the city to such an
extent that all the residents fled. The following year, Maksim visited
Constantinople and on his return stopped at Kiev for his final visit. He gathered
whatever appurtenances survived the latest onslaught and moved them to
Vladimir in the north. Future metropolitans would not even stop at Kiev on their
arrival in Russia from Constantinople, but would travel directly to the north.
Kiev was so badly devastated that Maksim did not even leave a bishop behind to
represent Orthodoxy.
To fill the void in southwest Russian — Ukraine — a new cathedra was
created in 1303 in Galitzia and a metropolitan was ordained to fill it. Apparently
after the death of king Daniel Romanovich, the region returned to Orthodoxy
and his grandson Yuri Levovich requested a metropolitan from Patr. Athanasius
and Emperor Andronicus Paleologus. The request was granted and the bishop of
Galitzia, Nifont — not a Greek but a native of the region — was promoted to
94
metropolitan, primarily to keep the region Orthodox rather than have it slide
back into the grips of the papacy.
As far as the activities of Maksim are concerned, the chroniclers leave us no
information at all except for one document which deals with the fast of
Wednesday and Friday, and marriage. Apparently couples continued to marry in
the traditional pagan manner or had the service performed by a village elder.
Maksim’s decree required all marriages to be performed in an Orthodox Church
and by an ordained priest. Metr. Maksim died on either December 6 or 16, 1305;
his body was buried in Uspenski Cathedral in Vladimir.
27. METROPOLITAN PETER
The successor to Metr. Maksim was Peter (Pyotr in Russian), a native

Russian from the Galitzia region. Peter’s ordination, however, was not without a
political struggle among feudal princes and the patriarch of Constantinople.
The moment Maksim died, abbot Gerontie was dispatched to
Constantinople by Pr. Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tver for immediate ordination.
Mikhail was brother of the above-mentioned Pr. Andrei Yaroslavich, who
ascended June 22, 1304 to become grand prince of Vladimir after the death of
Andrei Alexandrovich Nevski — another son of the famous Alexander Nevski.
Mikhail’s intent was more political than religious, as he hoped to take the
cathedra under his jurisdiction as grand prince and so move the residence of the
metropolitan from Vladimir to his home feudal estate at Tver. Apparently
Moscow, at this time, was increasing in size and importance — while Vladimir
was declining — and Mikhail desperately needed support from Orthodox
prelates to suppress its rise and promote his own Tver. But other feudal princes
of northern Russia had the same idea of magnifying their own feudal estates at
the expense of Moscow. Nonetheless, Gerontie was not ordained at
Constantinople.
Coincidental with Mikhail Yaroslavich’s dispatching of Gerontie to
Constantinople, another candidate was also sent for ordination, but not for the
entirety of Russia. Abbot Peter was the candidate selected by Yuri Levovich,
grand prince of Galitzia, to fill the now vacant cathedra of metropolitan of
Galitzia. Apparently the initial metropolitan, Nifont, selected in 1303, had died,
and Peter was to replace him; and so he was now sent to Constantinople for
ordination. But Patr. Athanasius ordained Peter as metropolitan of Galitzia, Kiev
and all Russia!
95
Peter had entered a monastery at the very young age of 12, with the intent
of becoming a monk. In later years, as a zealous ascetic, Peter founded his own
monastery in Galitzia and became its abbot. These qualities led Pr. Yuri Levovich
to select Peter as candidate to replace Nifont as the next metropolitan of
Galitzia. According to the traditional account, Peter arrived at Constantinople
before Gerontie and was ordained as metropolitan of Galitzia. After Gerontie
arrived and the patriarch sized him up, the latter felt him unqualified to assume
such an important cathedra and felt that a united Russia with one metropolitan
was preferable to a divided Russia. Therefore Patr. Athanasius — who originally
ordained Nifont — now ordained Peter as metropolitan of Galitzia, Kiev and all
Russia.
Yuri Levovich of course was displeased at Athanasius’ decision,
complaining that Peter’s residence at Vladimir in northern Russia was too
distant for him to be of any benefit to Galitzia. Yuri Levovich’s complaint was
ignored and Peter was ordained in May 1308; he arriving in Vladimir the
following year. The populace, urged by Pr. Mikhail, refused to accept Peter as
metropolitan and expressed contempt for him. Pr. Mikhail felt betrayed by
Constantinople, but as time progressed he reconciled with Metr. Peter; but the
reconciliation was both temporary and superficial. Bishop Andrei of Tver,
manipulated by Pr. Mikhail, sent documented complaints of a serious nature
about Metr. Peter to Patr. Athanasius, hoping to see Peter demoted. Pr. Mikhail
still wished to replace him with Gerontie, his original choice.
The allegations were serious enough for Patr. Athanasius to send his legate
to Russia in 1310 and summon a council at Pereyaslav, which convened in early
1311. The city selected for the council was nearer to Moscow than Vladimir or
Tver. There are no extant records indicating the specific accusations. Present at
the council were the prosecutor Pr. Andrei of Tver, Bishop Semeon of Rostov and
a number of abbots, monks and priests. A number of local feudal princes
attended but Gr. Pr. Mikhail did not; he was at Sarai visiting the Khan. In his
stead, Mikhail sent his two sons, ages nine and eleven. The right to speak on his
behalf was entrusted to the nobles who accompanied the two sons. What
occurred at this council is likewise unknown due to a lack of records, except
that Metr. Peter was acquitted on all charges. Golubinski feels that Metr. Peter
was accused of simony and it must have been to some major extent in order to
necessitate a trial under the auspices of a patriarchal legate. This conjecture is
based on a letter sent by Tver monk Akindin to Pr. Mikhail, begging the prince
to root out avarice and simony from the Church. About the year 1312 or 1313,
Bishop Andrei also sent monk Akindin to Constantinople to confer with the new
96
Patr. Nifont, the successor of Patr. Athanasius, about this matter, but nothing
came of the meeting or of Akindin’s letter to Pr. Mikhail. Metr. Peter retained his
cathedra; however, prince and metropolitan remained enemies until the death of
the former in 1318.
An important letter written by Metr. Peter was circulated among both
clergy and laity, dealing with widowed priests and other matters. Apparently,
too many priests were living immorally after the death of their wives; Metr. Peter
stated that if a widowed priest wanted to remain in the priesthood, that is,
continue to perform liturgy, then he should relocate to a monastery as his new
residence; otherwise, he should retire. Other matters addressed in Metr. Peter’s
circular to priests included the prohibition of accepting gifts to perform
polygamous marriages and an injunction to restrain themselves from
drunkenness. The laity was also addressed and was urged to preserve the fear of
God within themselves; to bring gifts to God out of their possessions; to respect
priests and monks; to give charity to the poor, widows, orphans, blind and those
imprisoned. Metr. Peter wrote other general letters to the clergy to improve their
moral standards, leaving the impression of a dedicated shepherd willing to travel
about Russia teaching and reprimanding; he also had a rare ability to defend
himself against the worst of critics and opponents.
In 1313, the Mongol Khan Tokhta died and Khan Uzbek was installed as his
replacement. He issued an edict requiring his personal approval of all
promotions, most specifically in the case of princes and metropolitans. Up to
this time the princes and metropolitans had met with the khan voluntarily, and
often for political purposes. Metr. Peter visited Khan Uzbek in 1313 and acquired
his approval — along with a letter of commendation, which was very unusual. In
his edict Khan Uzbek also relieved Russian Orthodox clergy from any further
payment of tribute, which in the past was expected from all his subjects; it was
still expected from the feudal princes. It is important to note that the wife or one
of the wives of feudal prince Yuri Danilovich of Moscow was a sister to Khan
Uzbek. This association between the prince of Moscow and the Khan
strengthened the former’s status in Russia, and that overflowed on Metr. Peter,
who was a close friend of Yuri.
Metr. Peter became acquainted with Yuri Danilovich shortly after his
arrival to northern Russia. A friendship developed between them as a result of
Pr. Mikhail of Tver’s animosity and contempt towards Metr. Peter. A residence
was made available in Moscow for Metr. Peter, and he took advantage of it for
long periods to distance himself from his antagonist. Even with the death of Pr.
Mikhail in 1318, the persecution did not desist; Pr. Mikhail’s two sons, princes
97
Dimitri and Aleksander, both perpetuated their father’s animosity toward Peter
and toward Moscow.
In 1311, Dimitri Mikhailovich went to war against Moscow but failed to
conquer it. He tried again in 1322 and was able to capture the prince, Yuri
Danilovich. Pr. Dimitri killed Pr. Yuri in 1325. Then, because Pr. Yuri was the
brother-in-law of the Khan, the latter intervened: Dimitri was imprisoned and
ten months later he too was executed, by order of the Khan.
Moscow during this period was increasing in size and population and the
throne was inherited by prince Ivan I Danilovich, also known as Ivan Kalita
(Money-bags), brother of Yuri Danilovich and grandson of Aleksander Nevski.
Pr. Ivan’s rule began in around 1325. Fed up with fighting against the feudal
princes, Metr. Peter made the inevitable decision to leave for good from the
principality of his adversary’s family in Vladimir, and migrated in late 1325 to the
protection of his friend Pr. Ivan Danilovich of Moscow. Having made Moscow
his permanent residence and cathedra, he began having a new church
constructed. On August 4, 1326, a stone church dedicated to the Assumption of
the Blessed Virgin, the Uspenski (Dormition) Cathedral was begun, and it was
also to serve as the sepulcher for Metr. Peter and many more metropolitans,
patriarchs, princes and tsars to follow.
Metr. Peter died soon thereafter, December 20-21, 1326, and was buried at
the partially constructed Uspenski Cathedral in Moscow.
One dissenter must be mentioned at this time; his name was Seyit. He was
a monastic arch-priest from Novgorod who abandoned monasticism. Much like
his spiritual predecessors Andrei and Dmitri of the 10th and 11th centuries, he was
influenced by Bogomilism and apparently converted to their beliefs. By the early
14th century, the Bogomils were migrating further north to escape the disastrous
effects of the Crusades on southeastern Europe and persecution by Catholicism.
Metr. Peter brought Seyit to trial by for heresy; with the help of Pr. Ivan
Danilovich, he was able to condemn Seyit, and his story ends at this time. In the
tradition of the era, Seyit was most likely executed as a heretic, but his
convictions did not perish with him but surfaced in the next century in the
sectarian group known as Strigolniks.
28. METROPOLITAN THEOGNOST
As brother-in-law to the Mongol Khan Uzbek and as good friend of Metr.

Peter — now residing in Moscow — Pr. Yuri Danilovich had aspired to attain
98
the prominence of grand prince during his life time, and his dream did not die
with him. His brother Ivan “Kalita” Danilovich continued the aspiration for the
family name, now burying Metr. Peter in Moscow and hoping that the next
metropolitan would likewise make Moscow his cathedra and residence. A plot
was conceived while Metr. Peter was on his deathbed. He and Pr. Ivan agreed to
select Theodor, archimandrite of Rozhdestvennoi Monastery in Vladimir, as
Peter’s successor. Unfortunately, in 1327 the patriarch of Constantinople
ordained a Greek, Theognost, as metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia (the title
remained as before, even though a metropolitan had not lived in Kiev for almost
80 years). All was not lost, however, as by the time Theognost arrived in
northern Russia in May 1328, two and a half years after the death of Metr. Peter,
Pr. Ivan Danilovich of Moscow was able to overthrow Pr. Aleksander
Mikhailovich of Vladimir — son of Pr. Mikhail — and assume authority as grand
prince over what was now to be known as Moscovite Russia.
Leaving Constantinople, Theognost first visited the region of Galitzia,
where he ordained two bishops, one for Galitzia and one for Volin. He then
proceeded north, directly to Moscow. By the time Theognost arrived, Moscow
considered itself the capital of all Russia, displacing both Vladimir and Suzdal
and possessing both grand prince and metropolitan; but, it was still a poor city
and smaller than most other capitals of feudal principalities. There was much
work for both prince and metropolitan to do to enlarge Moscow, and
construction of stone churches began immediately.
To magnify Moscow as a shrine, Gr. Pr. Ivan Danilovich recorded the
miracles attributed to the remains of Metr. Peter and requested that he be
canonized. Metr. Theognost, due to his short interval in Russia and not familiar
with his Russian predecessor, yet wanting to magnify the city of his cathedra —
Moscow — endeavored for the canonization. All the evidence regarding Metr.
Peter was forwarded to the patriarch at Constantinople and in July 1339 a
positive response was received. The canonization of Metr. Peter was an event of
immense political and religious significance for Moscow; here was buried the
first native Russian metropolitan to be canonized by the patriarch of
Constantinople, which indicated a special divine favor toward the new capital of
Russia.
In 1329, Metr. Theognost visited Novgorod, stayed for a while and returned
to Moscow. After ordaining new bishops for Rostov, Suzdal and Tver in 1330 he
departed for southern Russia, to the Volin region where he stayed through 1331.
From Volin he traveled to Constantinople and then returned to Moscow,
arriving in the fall of 1333.
99
With the accession of a new khan after the death of Khan Uzbek in 1341,
Metr. Theognost departed for Sarai in 1342 to acquire the approval of the new
khan, Chanibek. This visit almost had serious disastrous consequences for the
Russian Church. Certain feudal princes complained to the khan that Theognost
was appropriating for himself large quantities of gold and silver and possessed
an immense income, and that he should pay tribute to the khan just as they did.
The calumny of the feudal princes can be understood: Theognost acquired funds
to support the Church and pay its expenses and further its expansion —
especially in Moscow — and was at the same time exempt from tribute to the
khan just as other religions in areas of Mongol occupation. It is impossible to
ascertain whether Theognost collected the funds by ethical or unethical means,
although there seems to be a combination of both injustice — as the feudal
princes viewed it — and justice in Theognost’s efforts to increase the financial
security of the Russian Church. Khan Chanibek agreed with the feudal princes
and changed the Mongol policy, now requiring an annual tribute from the
Russian Church; this, of course, was immediately and adamantly refused by
Theognost. Eventually the metropolitan, by way of gifts presented to the wife of
the khan, was able to have the demand of tribute from the Russian Church
rescinded.
In addition to his trips to Novgorod, Volin and Constantinople, Metr.
Theognost also visited Bransk in 1340; Novgorod a second time in 1341; and Volin
and Galitzia again in 1348-1349, and Kostroma at about the same time. The
accounts of his visit to Novgorod are not so complimentary. On Theognost’s
second visit to Novgorod, he was accompanied by a large retinue and
appropriated from the archbishop and monastery a considerable store of
provisions, gifts and money for himself and for the members of his retinue.
Prelates of Novgorod accused Metr. Theognost of funneling the money to
Moscow to finance the construction of new stone churches. This requirement of
a contribution to the metropolitan later evolved into an annual tribute during his
visits to the diocesan capitals. In 1353, just prior to the death of Theognost,
archbishop Moisei of Novgorod sent letters to both the emperor and patriarch of
Constantinople with complaints about Theognost, referring to coercion on his
part. The accounts are not specific but they deal with tribute required from
clergy and with the ordination costs of arch-priests. Constantinople made no
response prior to Theognost’s death, but during the cathedra of his successor
Metr. Aleksei, a response was received.
Theognost’s visit to Kostroma concluded with the necessity of a local
council. Strife had surfaced between the bishop of Ryazan and the bishop of
100
Sarai, the capital of the Golden Horde, regarding the boundaries of their
dioceses. Ryazan was an older diocese and had developed a large Orthodox
population compared to the new diocese of Sarai. No doubt the bishop of Sarai
attempted to increase the size of his diocese by allocating some of the region of
Ryazan. The records do not state the results of the council.
Metr. Theognost died March 11, 1353 of the Black Plague which entered
Russia from Europe. He was buried in the Church of St. Peter in Moscow, which
was built by Theognost alongside Uspenski Cathedral.
29. METROPOLITAN ALEKSEI
Aleksei was born Simeon Elevtherie and was son of nobleman Theodor
Byakont, a descendant of an aristocratic family of Kievan Russia. The family lost
all their property with the Mongol destruction of Chernigov. They migrated to
Moscow to the service of Daniel Alexandrovich, son of Alexandr Nevski, who
accepted Theodor as one of his nobles. Simeon Elevtheria was their eldest son
and Pr. Ivan Danilovich of Moscow was his god-father. In his early years he
received the best education available and was an avid reader. At about age 20 or
21, Simeon Elevtherie decided to enter the monastic life and took the name of
Aleksei at his tonsure; he entered Bogoyavlenski Monastery in Moscow. At the
age of 27 he was approached by Metr. Theognost and his godfather Pr. Ivan, with
the intent of making him successor to Theognost after his death. Both
metropolitan and prince wanted to keep the cathedra in Moscow, which an
outsider might not be willing to do.
With the death of Pr. Ivan in 1340, his son Semeon Ivanovich inherited the
post of grand prince of Moscow; he immediately promoted Aleksei to the
position of vicar to the metropolitan to assure his residency in Moscow until
Theognost’s death. In this newly-created post of vicar, Aleksei was a type of
circuit judge for the scattered Orthodox parishes for the next twelve years. In
1350, when Theognost became ill, Gr. Pr. Semeon sent a delegation to the
emperor and patriarch at Constantinople with a petition that in case of the
sudden and unexpected death of Theognost, a candidate from Moscow should
be ordained as metropolitan, rather than a Greek. The hierarchy at
Constantinople realized that Semeon would not be as easy to deal with as his
father Ivan Money-bag, so they granted the request. Semeon was dubbed The
Proud, because of his arrogant and obstinate character.
101
Metr. Theognost died March 11, 1353; Gr. Pr. Semeon died the following
month, April 26, both of the Black Plague. Ivan II Ivanovich, brother of Semeon,
inherited the principality of Moscow. The delegation from Constantinople
arrived in Moscow shortly after the two deaths and Aleksei immediately
departed for Constantinople for his ordination. Arriving at Constantinople,
Aleksei was not immediately ordained but was placed on one year probation by
Patr. Callistis. Apparently the patriarch resented having to ordain a Russian
metropolitan to suit the arrogance and demands of a Russian prince who
recently had died of the plague. Patr. Callistis died, himself, the following April,
before the expiration of the probation period. After one year of fulfilling liturgies
and rites under surveillance of the patriarch, including the presentation of many
expensive gifts and donations of considerable money as contributions to the
patriarchate, Aleksei was ordained metropolitan of all Russia on June 30, 1354 by
the new patriarch Philotheos. One of the demands made by the patriarch and to
which Aleksei had to concede, in order to secure the appointment of a native
Russian as metropolitan, was that Aleksei travel to Constantinople and appear
in person before the patriarch every two years and give an account of his
activities. One concession the patriarch allowed was to permit Aleksei’s vicar or
legate to attend in his place if ill health made the metropolitan unfit to travel
personally. Obviously there was a concern for keeping Aleksei under subjection
to Constantinople, lest he become too independent and distance himself further
from the capital of Eastern Orthodoxy. However, over the 24 years of the
cathedra of Metr. Aleksei, he only traveled once to Constantinople, and there is
no evidence that he ever sent an agent to represent him.
While he was in Constantinople, Aleksei was informed of Novgorod
prelates’ complaint against the late Metr. Theognost. By the time Aleksei arrived
at Constantinople, the delegates had already left for Novgorod, possessing an
edict in their favor from the patriarch condemning Theognost and allowing the
clergy of Novgorod to wear the chasuble engraved with a four-post cross.
Aleksei set the matter straight with the patriarch, explaining to him the accurate
details of their complaint against the late Metr. Theognost and their reason for
coming to Constantinople. Patr. Philotheos issued a new edict with ordering the
Novgorod clergy to subject themselves in matters of belief and rite to the
metropolitan and not to contact the patriarch without the prior knowledge and
consensus of Metr. Aleksei. Metr. Theognost was vindicated in this newest edict
and Archbishop Moisei was ordered not to wear the four-post cross.
Prior to his departure from Constantinople in 1355, Metr. Aleksei requested
that the patriarchal synod canonically approve the relocation of the residence
102
and cathedra of the metropolitan of Russia from Kiev to Vladimir. In recognition

of the devastation of Kiev and its recent failure to rise from the rubble, the
council formally approved Vladimir as the new cathedra of the metropolitan of
all Russia. The Greeks however were not unaware that Aleksei’s actual residence
and cathedra were in Moscow, as Theognost’s had been, and as far back as Metr.
Peter. But because Aleksei was a native Russian, this was as great a concession
as the council could allow.
As a result of Metr. Aleksei’s close proximity to the Moscovite dynasty, his
living in Moscow and enjoying the patronage of the grand prince, he became very
active in state affairs. Prior to his death in 1353, Gr. Pr. Semeon Ivanovich
enjoined his brothers Ivan and Andrei to be obedient to the new metropolitan.
During the weak rule of Gr. Pr. Ivan II Ivanovich, 1353-1359, Metr. Aleksei took
advantage of this testament and acquired considerable state authority in the
principality of Moscow; and after the death of Gr. Pr. Ivan in 1359 he became
regent over his son, the nine-year-old heir Dmitri Ivanovich.
Using his combined state and sacerdotal authority, plus being a native
Russian, Metr. Aleksei became a zealous promoter of the interests of Moscovite
Russia. At his death, Gr. Pr. Ivan Ivanovich not only left his son Dmitri under
Metr. Aleksei’s guardianship but the entire principality, until the son should
reach maturity. The greatest challenge to Metr. Aleksei during this period was
an attempted usurpation by Pr. Dmitri Konstantinovich of Suzdal in 1360.
Intervention by Metr. Aleksei and other Moscovite nobles and their plea to the
Khan Naurus at Sarai established young Dmitri Ivanovich (later to be known as
Dmitri Donskoi) as grand prince.
One specific incident was resolved by the use of armed force by Metr.
Aleksei in 1365. A struggle erupted between the brothers Dmitri and Boris
Konstantinovich, regarding the city Nizhni-Novgorod (recently known as
Gorki), each one claiming that the city belonged to his feudal estate. To resolve
the issue quickly, Metr. Aleksei incorporated the city into the domain of the
metropolitan and Pr. Boris was reprimanded and ordered to appear in Moscow
for reconciliation with his brother Pr. Dmitri. Boris refused. The venerable Sergei
of Radonezh placed an interdict upon the city of Nizhni-Novgorod and closed all
the churches. Boris still refused to subject himself to the dictates of Metr.
Aleksei; the latter sent a Moscow battalion to arrest Pr. Boris, thus putting the
city back into the hands of his brother Pr. Dmitri.
Devoted to the future majesty of the city of Moscow, Metr. Aleksei
beautified it with the construction of new churches. As a career monk, he built
six monasteries in his diocese, three of them in Moscow: Spasski-Andronikov
103
and Chudovski (Miracle) Monasteries, and Alekseevski Convent, the first one in
Moscow. Two of Metr. Aleksei’s sisters were nuns; he built the convent for them
and named it after himself.
One of Aleksei’s great contributions to Russian Orthodox scholarship is his
personal translation of the New Testament from Greek into Old Russian. That
Metr. Aleksei could accomplish such a task is surely due to the fact that he had
spent twelve years as vice-regent or vicar under Metr. Theognost, a Greek, plus a
year at Constantinople, where he no doubt developed a fluency in Greek. His
years as a monk also conditioned him with the ability to study in a cloister.
Metr. Aleksei had one of the longest lives of any Russian prelate,
somewhere between 80 and 85 years. In his later years Aleksei expressed a wish
to see the venerable Sergei of Radonezh installed after him in the metropolitan’s
cathedra, but the humble monk refused to accept the honor. In any case, Pr.
Dmitri Ivanovich (1362-1389), whom Metr. Aleksei had raised from the age of
nine, had a court favorite in mind as the next metropolitan of all Russia. Metr.
Aleksei died February 12, 1378 after 20 years as metropolitan and was buried
inside Chudovski Monastery, which he built himself.
Fierce rivalry for the cathedra of all Russia intensified during the
ordination of Aleksei, worse than at any other time during Kievan or Moscovite
Russia. Simultaneously with Aleksei, in 1354, Roman was ordained metropolitan
of Lithuania-Galitzia. Roman held this cathedra until his death at the end of
1361. During this period he and Pr. Olgerd of Lithuania — which included
Galitzia and Volin — fought Metr. Aleksei for recognition and for greater
control of the region. After Metr. Roman’s death, Pr. Olgerd was unable to
persuade Patr. Philotheos of Constantinople ordain a new metropolitan for him
because the regions under his jurisdiction had been incorporated in 1364 into the
cathedra of Russia’s metropolitan, Aleksei. Pr. Olgerd refused to accept his arch-
enemy as metropolitan over the dioceses in his domain and persistently
pressured the patriarch. His efforts failed, however, and he was left with an
irreconcilable contempt for Metr. Aleksei.
Toward the end of 1370, Pr. Olgerd staged an attack against Moscow,
which was unsuccessful. But then, in 1371, Olgerd’s daughter was given in
marriage to Pr. Vladimir Andreevich, a first cousin to Gr. Pr. Dmitri Ivanovich of
Moscow. For a while, Olgerd rescinded his demands.
In 1370, nine years after Roman’s death, Kazimir of Poland, having
appropriated the regions of Galitzia and Volin, turned to Patr. Philotheos to
request a metropolitan for these regions. King Kazimir discredited Metr. Aleksei
for his negligence of the area while he resided far away in northern Russia, and
104
also threatened the patriarch, saying that if he did not ordain a special
metropolitan Kazimir would convert his realm to Catholicism, that is, to Unia.
One reason for that, obviously, was political: if a Moscovite metropolitan had
control of religious affairs in these regions, then political control would be next.
Olgerd and Kazimir wanted both religious and political control over their
realms, independent of Russia. Patr. Philotheos capitulated to the demands of
King Kazimir and ordained a candidate selected by Kazimir, Bishop Antonius, in
May 1371 — but as metropolitan of Galitzia only, and not of Lithuania! Metr.
Aleksei was informed of this ordination by a letter from Patr. Philotheos.
Pr. Olgerd renewed his demand to Patr. Philotheos in 1373 for a
metropolitan for Lithuania, and Constantinople sent an emissary to Moscow to
reconcile the feuding factions. This legate was Kiprian, a hieromonk. Olgerd and
Kiprian conspired to have the latter become metropolitan in place of Aleksei.
In his report to Patr. Philotheos, Kiprian lodged grave accusations against
Aleksei, accusations so damning that no one could wish to see such a person as
supreme representative of Orthodoxy in Russia, except for his patron the grand
prince of Russia. Finally capitulating to Pr. Olgerd, Patr. Philotheos ordained
Kiprian as metropolitan of Lithuania on December 2, 1375. Immediately, Kiprian
also claimed the cathedra of Kiev, Moscow and all Russia, and sent letters to
Moscow to that effect. To counteract this audacious move, Patr. Philotheos of
Constantinople sent another legate to Moscow to verify the charges brought by
Kiprian against Metr. Aleksei. All the Russian prelates rallied behind Aleksei
and the legate reported to the patriarch that the charges had been nothing but
slander. Kiprian’s maneuvering led Metr. Aleksei and Gr. Pr. Dmitri to select a
candidate as a successor to the cathedra before Aleksei’s death, lest Kiprian
make another attempt; but even so, Kiprian did attempt once again to usurp the
cathedra a few years later.
30. ARCHIMANDRITE MIKHAIL AND THE PATRIARCHAL INTERVAL
The death of Metr. Aleksei initiated a 12-year interval in the occupation of

the cathedra of all Russia. The saga of priest Mikhail was short, and saturated
with the political machinations of the religious hierarchy of Orthodoxy, of
Moscow as well as Constantinople and Suzdal. Mikhail, whose nickname was
Mityai, was from Kolomensk province and was the son of a priest. He was an
extraordinary person, tall, with wide shoulders and a robust physique,
handsome, wearing a long, thick beard; highly educated and scholarly, yet able to
105
engage in light conversation; he expressed himself eloquently and had a powerful

memory. Mikhail in addition possessed an excellent singing voice and was a
talented public speaker. The chronicler of Mikhail’s life could not find enough
words to compliment his competence and character.
Such exceptional qualities caught the attention of Gr. Pr. Dmitri Ivanovich,
who immediately attached Mikhail to himself. For all practical purposes,
Mikhail became the court favorite and Pr. Dmitri’s right-hand man, assisting him
in every area of state administration. Two years prior to the death of Metr.
Aleksei, a vacancy occurred in the post of archimandrite of the royal Spasski
Monastery. Dmitri urged Mikhail to be tonsured and accept the vocation of a
monk in order to be promoted to the new position. After some consideration,
Mikhail agreed and on the very day that he was tonsured, he was assigned to fill
the vacant position of archimandrite of Spasski Monastery. Gr. Pr. Dmitri’s long-
term plan was for Mikhail to assume the cathedra after Metr. Aleksei’s death.
Initially, Metr. Aleksei preferred to have Sergei of Radonezh succeed him;
he was the most venerated ascetic in all of Russia at the time. To justify his
choice, Aleksei cited the text of 1 Tim 3:16, which states that a bishop should not
be a recent convert — referring to the fact that Mikhail had only recently
accepted tonsure. However, after Sergei declined the offer, Metr. Aleksei
wholeheartedly advocated Mikhail as his successor. All would have gone well if
not for Metr. Kiprian of Lithuania, who was now residing in Kiev and just
waiting for Metr. Aleksei to die so that he could step into the vacancy. Kiprian
well knew the Moscovites’ contempt toward him, and especially the royal family
and hierarchy, but this was not to interfere with Kiprian’s aspirations.
Immediately after Metr. Aleksei passed away on February 12, 1378, with the
counsel and approval of his nobles Gr. Pr. Dmitri promoted Mikhail to the
interim position of metropolitan-elect, or designee, until such time that he could
officially be ordained in Constantinople. Patr. Makarius, the successor of Patr.
Philotheos, also sent a letter to Moscow (in response to a request sent earlier by
Gr. Pr. Dmitri), advising Constantinople not to acknowledge Kiprian as
metropolitan of Russia under any circumstance. To the chagrin of Kiprian, the
response supported Dmitri’s request that Mikhail succeed Metr. Aleksei.
Kiprian accused Pr. Dmitri of violating canonical law by installing Mikhail as
metropolitan without ordination by the patriarch, while he, Kiprian, possessed
this ordination.
Between June 3 and 23, 1378, four months after the death of Metr. Aleksei,
Kiprian arrived in Moscow. He declared his right to the position, stating that his
ordination as metropolitan of Lithuania extended to Kiev and thereby included
106
all Russia. Gr. Pr. Dmitri had Kiprian arrested and incarcerated. After some short
term of imprisonment, Kiprian was expelled from Moscow; he journeyed to
Constantinople, hoping for the patriarch’s support in his accession to the
cathedra of all Russia.
Only one of the bishops in Moscovite Russia expressed disapproval of the
interim designee, Mikhail. That was Bishop Dionysei of Suzdal diocese, who had
himself a secret aspiration for the cathedra of all Russia. Born in Nizhni-
Novgorod, and named David, he took the new name Dionysei at his tonsure. In
imitation of the cave dwellers of Kiev, he dug for himself a hovel about two miles
from the city along the Volga River and lived there as an ascetic. In about 1335, he
was able to gather enough disciples about himself to found a monastery, which
he named the Voznesenie Gospodnya (Ascension of the Lord). In 1374, Dionysius
was ordained as bishop of Suzdal by Metr. Aleksei; he was well-favored by
Andrei Konstantinovich, feudal prince of Suzdal and Nizhni-Novgorod. Since
the local city Vladimir was in the diocese of Suzdal and in earlier years had been
the cathedra of the metropolitan, and the title as defined by Constantinople was
that of metropolitan of Vladimir and all Russia, Dionysei concluded that he
should be the legitimate successor to Metr. Aleksei. Since Mikhail had been
fulfilling the obligations of the post since his designation, including wearing the
robes and mantle, Dionysei labeled him a usurper, engendering a bitter conflict.
The only exception in Mikhail’s assumption of the duties of metropolitan over
the Russian Church, since he was still designee, was the ordination of others,
that is, the imposition of hands.
After some interval elapsed, possibly waiting for spring when travel would
again be possible, in 1379 Mikhail began to prepare to go to Constantinople. But
then he came up with a better idea and suggested to Gr. Pr. Dmitri that if two or
three bishops could ordain another bishop, as recorded in the canons, then five
or six bishops could ordain a metropolitan (namely, him). The emperor in
Constantinople was in a pitiable, destitute state under Ottoman rule and was
desperately in need of financial support; the patriarch was likewise in a low
moral condition and likewise financially destitute. Mikhail may have considered
the emperor of Constantinople of lower status than the Moscovite grand prince
in terms of realm and authority, and he considered himself as having a more
stable character and being in control of a larger Church than Patr. Makarius.
Gr. Pr. Dmitri and his nobles approved Mikhail’s idea and summoned their
bishops to Moscow. But Bishop Dionysei of Suzdal disapproved: he certainly
harbored ill feelings toward Mikhail and still aspired to the cathedra, himself.
Dionysei vehemently protested against installing Mikhail, stating that their
107
attempt to ordain a metropolitan was uncanonical. In the process, he agitated

Gr. Pr. Dmitri. This suppressed enmity between Mikhail and Dionysei surfaced
in a heated argument at the council. The prince had no choice at the conclusion
of the council except to rescind his decision and Mikhail agreed to travel to
Constantinople for ordination.
That hardly settled the matter, as Bishop Dionysei himself made
arrangements to travel to Constantinople and there to attempt to acquire the
cathedra for himself. Dionysei had earlier written a letter discrediting Mikhail to
Patr. Makarius and the patriarch had responded with an invitation to Dionysei
to visit him at Constantinople, hoping that with three aspirants he could auction
off the cathedra of all Russia to the highest bidder. But Gr. Pr. Dmitri had
Dionysei arrested before he could leave Moscow. After a short imprisonment,
Dionysei promised Dmitri that he would return to Suzdal and abandon his
aspirations for the cathedra. The prince released him. Dionysei returned to
Suzdal, but soon thereafter made his way to Nizhni-Novgorod and after a short
stay left, following the Volga River south on his way to Constantinople.
Mikhail left Moscow for Constantinople on July 20, 1379, with three
prelates as traveling companions. He journeyed first to Kolomna, his home city,
then to Ryazan and across the steppes to Sarai, the capital of the Golden Horde.
Khan Mamai detained Mikhail for a short while, also issuing him a letter
approving his succession to the cathedra. Arriving at the northeastern shore of
the Black Sea, Mikhail took a ship for the balance of the journey. As the ship
drew near to the Bosphorus, with Constantinople already in view in the
distance, Mikhail suddenly became ill and unexpectedly died. The ship arrived
at Constantinople with a deceased Mikhail on board. He was buried at
Constantinople.
31. METROPOLITAN PIMEN
With the death of archimandrite Mikhail, it seemed that nothing remained

for his traveling companions except to return to Moscow empty-handed and
with news of his death. The three companions devised a plan to salvage their
situation by having one of them ordained as metropolitan, instead. These three
were all dedicated archimandrites of prominent monasteries in Russia: John of
Moscow Petrovski, Pimen of Pereyaslav Goritzki, and Martinian of an unnamed
monastery in Kolomensk. Some debate arose and sides were taken among
themselves and other Orthodox clergy who were part of the retinue; Pimen was
108
selected with the majority vote. The embassy had in their possession some
letterhead paper from Gr. Pr. Dmitri Ivanovich and they composed a letter in the
name of the grand prince requesting that the patriarch ordain Pimen as
metropolitan. The successor of Patr. Makarius was Patr. Nilus, and he feigned
acceptance of the forged document as authentic and, fulfilling the spurious
request, ordained Pimen. Patr. Nilus was not unaware of the deception, the
valuable gifts and sizeable monetary contribution from the delegates, in value of
over 20,000 rubles in silver at the time, rendered it palatable. Meanwhile, Metr.
Kiprian was also traveling to Constantinople, hoping to be ordained as
metropolitan of all Russia (as he had attempted earlier). Dionysei, bishop of
Suzdal, was also residing in Constantinople at the time, hoping to win the
cathedra, but neither of these two had the kind of financial backing enjoyed by
the delegates who had arrived with Mikhail. The delegates surmised that having
one of their own ordained during their sojourn at Constantinople was their only
good chance to thwart the pretensions of Kiprian and Dionysei. Kiprian utterly
failed in his quest and returned to Kiev, while Dionysei was at least elevated to
archbishop.
Pimen, arriving late August or September 1379, was ordained in June 1380
after a 10-month residence in Constantinople. During this interim Patr.
Makarius was deposed and Patr. Nilus was ordained in his stead.
Gr. Pr. Dmitri Ivanovich received no immediate news of Mikhail’s death; it
is not clear why, except perhaps for his preoccupation with military
preparations. The great battle of Kulikova against the Mongol hordes under
Khan Mamai occurred September 8, 1380. However, after the battle and the
prince’s return to Moscow, he did receive news of Mikhail’s death and of the
conspiracy among the retinue, and the ordination of Pimen that had been
accomplished without his knowledge or approval. Gr. Pr. Dmitri became
infuriated and swore not to accept Pimen as metropolitan. The details and
motivations cannot be fully reconstructed, but Kiprian seems to have acquired
the favor of Gr. Pr. Dmitri again after returning from Constantinople, or else
Dmitri was simply desperate for some resolution and refused to reconcile himself
to having Pimen as metropolitan; in any case, in March 1381 Gr. Pr. Dmitri sent
his confessor, Theodor, abbot of Moscow Semeonov Monastery, to summon
Kiprian (who was residing at Kiev). Kiprian arrived in Moscow May 23, 1381 on
the holiday of the Ascension and was received as metropolitan of all Russia by
Gr. Pr. Dmitri.
Seven months after Kiprian’s return to Moscow, in December 1381 Pimen
arrived at the borders of Russia from Constantinople. As he entered a city on the
109
boundary of the principality of Kolomensk, Gr. Pr. Dmitri Ivanovich had him
arrested by a detachment of soldiers. Moscow was circumvented entirely and
Pimen was sent directly into exile to the city Chukhlom, in the Kostroma region,
while his retinue of advisors and guards and those who were part of the
conspiracy of his ordination and his other traveling companions were sent to
various prisons, in shackles. It would appear that the history of Pimen as
metropolitan would terminate at this point, with Kiprian accepted as
metropolitan by Pr. Dmitri. But Pimen was only in exile, and the enormous sums
Pimen had contributed to Patr. Nilus for his ordination now rescued him.
Having heard that instead of ascending the cathedra Pimen was incarcerated,
and wanting to retain this generous ally in a position of power, Patr. Nilus
hurled interdicts at Pr. Dmitri. Patr. Nilus blamed Kiprian for the entire affair,
while at the same time interceding on behalf of Pimen. As a result of this
intervention, Pr. Dmitri banished Kiprian from Moscow and freed Pimen,
elevating him to the cathedra, even though his personal feelings were unchanged.
Another event that contribud to this change of course was the following.
In August of 1382, the Mongols under the new Khan Tokhtamish attacked
Moscow. Pr. Dmitri wanted to fight the Mongols, just as he had done at
Kulikova, but his nobles and feudal princes were opposed. The Russian military
forces had been decimated by the intense battle of Kulikova two years earlier
and there were barely sufficient soldiers to defend Moscow, much less mount an
attack. As a result, Gr. Pr. Dmitri and his remaining troops retreated from
Moscow north to Pereyaslav and then to Kostroma. When the Mongols reached
the walls of the city, abandoned by its rulers, the residents were perplexed:
should they fight, or surrender? Kiprian had also abandoned the city, relocating
to Tver for safety. Kiprian’s flight from the threatened Moscow served as
sufficient reason for Dmitri to unleash his anger and discontent at him. Kiprian
was banished from Moscow on October 7, 1382, after 16 months as metropolitan;
he returned to Kiev, while Pimen was simultaneously released from exile and
moved to Tver, awaiting the withdrawal of the Mongols.
Dionysei, now archbishop of Suzdal, remained in Constantinople some
three and a half years, until January 1383, when he returned to Russia. In
Constantinople he was content with his new title, apparently bestowed upon
him as a consolation prize after losing the cathedra of all Russia to Pimen. Now,
returning to Moscow, Archbishop Dionysei proceeded to stir up Gr. Pr. Dmitri
against Metr. Pimen: he was able to turn Dmitri against Pimen and in the
following year, in June 1384, Dmitri sent Dionysei to Constantinople together
with his confessor Theodor, abbot of Moscow Semeonov Monastery, in order to
110
request the dismissal of Pimen and the ordination of Dionysei in his stead. There
is no doubt that Patr. Nilus was well aware of the illegitimacy and spuriousness
of Pimen’s candidature from the start, but with formal indictments presented to
him from the grand prince, now the patriarch could only claim ignorance of the
conspiracy and disavow Pimen, that is, sacrifice Pimen to save himself. And this
is exactly what Patr. Nilus did: he discussed the matter with his council, stating
that if the accusations brought against Pimen were valid, then he should be
deposed from his cathedra. Patr. Nilus then sent two Greek metropolitans with a
retinue of officials to Moscow, there to hear the accusations from the grand
prince himself and, if they found them valid, to depose Pimen and elevate
Dionysei in his place. Dionysei would travel with them from Constantinople to
Moscow.
Patr. Nilus would not ordain Dionysei beforehand, in Constantinople,
because he still hoped to reconcile prince and metropolitan in Moscow through
the efforts of his delegates; and Patr. Nilus did not trust Dionysei to begin with.
He suspected him of being a charlatan, of using what he felt were forged letters
in the name of Gr. Pr. Dmitri to acquire the cathedra of all Russia. Nilus trusted
Pimen more, even though he had ordained him on the basis of a patently fake
letter from the grand prince. Now, such an event would be unprecedented in
Russia history: the deposition of a metropolitan and ordination of another by
two Greek metropolitans in the role of delegates. But such did not occur.
In late autumn of 1384, Patr. Nilus’ delegates arrived in Moscow, but they
were not accompanied by the aspirant to the cathedra. For some reason,
archbishop Dionysei detached himself from his companions and went to Kiev,
there to meet with Kiprian, his former contender for the cathedra. Kiprian seized
his opportunity and had Dionysei arrested and imprisoned by the soldiers of Pr.
Vladimir Olgerdovich of Kiev, son of Pr. Olgerd of Lithuania. After about a year
in a Kiev prison, Dionysei died on October 15, 1385.
While abbot Theodor, the confessor of the grand prince, was in
Constantinople, Patr. Nilus granted him the title of archimandrite and his
Semeonov Monastery became part of the patriarchal domain, rather than
diocesan. Only Theodor returned to Moscow from Constantinople having
advanced his cause.
Even after Dionysei was arrested in Kiev, Gr. Pr. Dmitri Ivanovich refused
reconciliation with Pimen. The circumstances regarding Dionysei left Dmitri
with a distaste for even Kiprian. Now, the patriarch’s two delegates remained in
Moscow with no one to ordain, which left Dmitri perplexed and distraught.
Leaving the two patriarchal delegates in Moscow, under the hospitality of
111
Dmitri, Pimen departed for Constantinople in May of 1385 to meet again with
the patriarch, hoping for his reconsideration and a confirmation of his right to
the cathedra of all Russia. But Pimen was not alone in his quest, as Kiprian also
returned to Constantinople, arriving shortly after Pimen.
The patriarch proposed a hearing before a council to decide which of the
two contenders, Pimen or Kiprian, should be confirmed, even though under the
circumstances Gr. Pr. Dmitri did not care to have either one. The patriarch’s
decision was not quick in coming, but extended almost three years into 1388. His
procrastination in deciding between the two candidates bewildered the grand
prince as well as the contenders. The patriarch’s two delegates finally returned
to Constantinople after three years in Moscow, not understanding the reason for
their long-term residence as expatriates. Shortly after their return to
Constantinople, Gr. Pr. Dmitri again dispatched his confessor Theodor, now
archimandrite, to the patriarch demanding the deposition of Pimen. Theodor
brought letters from the grand prince explaining Pimen’s culpability in the
matter of forging a document in the name of the grand prince in order to acquire
ordination as metropolitan.
At first, Theodor acted as though he was an ardent prosecutor of Pimen,
defending the interests of Dmitri; but later, in 1389, as the inquest finally began
to decide on one of the two contenders, Theodor changed his attitude toward
Pimen. The two reconciled and made a pact between themselves: they then fled
Constantinople to Anatolia — central Turkey — to the Ottoman Empire. They
found support among the subjects of the sultan and hurled denunciations
against both the Byzantine emperor and the Orthodox patriarch. Their conduct
can be easily understood, considering that almost the entire Byzantine empire
was under Ottoman control and that the emperor in Constantinople had little or
no authority; and they were for the most part subjects of the Turkish sultan. On
that basis, Pimen realized that his chance of acquittal was marginal, with the
evidence and proceedings inclined toward Kiprian, and second, he hoped for
support from Ottomans, who could pressure the patriarch for his — Pimen’s —
confirmation as metropolitan. The sultan at this time was residing in
Adrianopol, in Europe, and not in Turkey. A message was sent to Pimen from
both emperor and patriarch urging him to return to Constantinople to complete
the proceedings of the inquest, but Pimen refused. As a result, the patriarch
deposed him in absentia and elevated Kiprian to the cathedra of all Russia. This
final decision occurred late 1387 or early 1388, but the conflict and the scheming
did not conclude here.
112
Pimen arrived in Moscow from Turkey May 6, 1388; Kiprian was still
residing in Constantinople, attempting to devise a means of reconciling with Gr.
Pr. Dmitri on his return to Moscow, after having incarcerated and eventually
killed Dionysei. The grand prince welcomed Pimen back to Moscow after his
four-year absence, and Pimen presented himself as legitimate metropolitan. No
one told Dmitri that he had been removed from the cathedra. Theodor also
returned to Russian from Turkey, now elevated by Pimen to bishop to Rostov; he
conspired with Pimen to deceive Dmitri regarding the proceedings at
Constantinople. Under such circumstances Pimen stayed in Moscow from June
1388 until April 13, 1389, when he prepared to go to Constantinople once again.
Gr. Pr. Dmitri could not understand the need for such a trip so soon after a four-
year absence, and voiced his displeasure at the new journey. But in the interim,
there had been a change in patriarchs: Nilus passed away and Antonius was
elevated in January of 1389. Perhaps Pimen was afraid that eventually his
deception would be disclosed, and so he included in his luggage an impressive
array of gifts for the new patriarch.
The following month, Patr. Antonius summoned a new ecclesiastical
council to review the affairs of the Russian cathedra, with Kiprian still residing
in Constantinople. The new council confirmed the decision made by the late
Patr. Nilus: Pimen was deposed and Kiprian was confirmed. There is no
indication in any of the accounts whether Pimen was ever made aware of the
results of the new council. When Pimen arrived in the vicinity of
Constantinople, he ended his journey at a local Turkish city located on the
Bosphorus, and communicated from there with the new patriarch, through
patriarchal agents. Then Pimen relocated to Chalcedon, and shortly thereafter he
died, on September 11, 1389.
Gr. Pr. Dmitri “Donskoi” Ivanovich himself died May 19, 1389, about a
month after Pimen’s second departure for Constantinople. Vasili I Dmitrievich
succeeded his father as grand prince of Moscow, and he agreed to accept Kiprian
as legitimate metropolitan of Russia.
32. METROPOLITAN KIPRIAN
Although some of the chroniclers identify Kiprian as a Serbian, he was

actually a Bulgarian and closely related to several prelates in the Bulgarian
Orthodox Church. The history of Kiprian up to the time of his final confirmation
as metropolitan of Vladimir and all Russia, including Kiev and Lithuania, is
113
discussed above; now we will review his record having attained the cathedra he
so coveted.
Archimandrite Theodor, now bishop of Rostov, was dispatched by the new
grand prince Vasili I Dmitrievich to Constantinople to retrieve Kiprian and
accompany him to Moscow. They departed Constantinople October 1, 1389,
accompanied by two Russian bishops: Mikhail of Smolensk and Iona (Jonah) of
Volin. They traveled by ship across the Black Sea, up the Dnepr River to Kiev;
leaving Kiev February 14, 1390, Kiprian and his retinue arrived in Moscow during
the fourth week of Lent. All the bishops of Russia appeared in his presence
immediately after his arrival to formally express their recognition of him as
legitimate metropolitan of all Russia. This convocation of bishops was intended
to indicate a unity of support for Kiprian after the various machinations for the
cathedra over the previous twelve years.
The first issue that Metr. Kiprian had to contend with was Bishop
Evthemie Vislem of Tver. The activities and conduct of the bishop had been the
subject of many recent complaints by feudal prince Mikhail Aleksandrovich of
Tver. Bishop Evthimie had been ordained back in 1374 by Metr. Aleksei, but
friction between feudal prince and bishop became severe. By 1387, the prince
could no longer tolerate the presence of the bishop and forced him to retire to a
monastery. In June 1390, Metr. Kiprian journeyed to Tver to conduct an inquest.
The bishop was accused of rebellion and inciting disorder, and much evidence
was presented against him by local archimandrites, abbots, priests and monks,
including nobles, landlords and even peasants. There was no way the bishop
could justify himself or disprove all the accusations. Metr. Kiprian had hoped to
reconcile prince and bishop, but under the weight of the testimony, plus the
spite of so many persons against Bishop Evthimie, the metropolitan had no
choice but to defrock the bishop and depose him. Metr. Kiprian then ordained as
his replacement Arsenie, a proto-deacon who was nominated by Pr. Mikhail. The
accounts do not specify the crimes or malicious conduct of Bishop Evthemei,
except to say that they were of a sufficiently serious nature to merit his
expulsion. Arsenie was ordained July 24, 1390 as bishop of Tver.
A second matter that came up was an agreement made in 1385 by the nobles
of Novgorod, stipulating that they would no longer summon the metropolitan’s
court in Moscow to settle disputes in their region but would handle matters
themselves. Novgorod had its own Episcopal court headed by the archbishop,
which now would include two nobles and two townsmen. This new court
would now handle all judicial and criminal matters in Novgorod, independent of
Moscow, except for the most heinous of crimes.
114
Novgorod’s attitude towards Moscow — asserting its independence and

liberty — was perennial and ancient, and they claimed that this latest maneuver
was based on concessions made to them by Metr. Pimen. But in essence their
actions were driven by the tribute that had to be paid the metropolitan every
time he visited Novgorod. This tribute from every clergyman in Novgorod
resulted in tens of thousands of rubles per year and while it also affected the
other dioceses, Novgorod was hardest hit. As a large commercial center and a
very wealthy city, it was a prime source of income for the cathedra of the
metropolitan. Although in the past the metropolitan himself had not visited
Novgorod or any of the other cities regularly, the tribute was collected through
his agents on a monthly basis.
In February 1392, Metr. Kiprian traveled to Novgorod. He was welcomed
with all the honor due the head of the Church and conducted services over the
next two weeks at various churches. On February 25, after conducting services
at the cathedral of St. Sophia, Metr. Kiprian requested his monthly stipend or
tribute, and the officials of Novgorod flatly refused him.
Realizing the futility of pursuing the matter and knowing they would not
capitulate to his demands, Kiprian left Novgorod three days later and returned
to Moscow; he issued an interdict against the entire city of Novgorod, meaning,
essentially, their excommunication. Kiprian sent delegates to the patriarch at
Constantinople with his complaint against the residents of Novgorod, and the
officials of Novgorod did likewise, hoping to acquire an acknowledgement of the
legitimacy of their cause from the patriarch. The patriarch’s letters urging
Novgorod to reconcile and subject itself to the metropolitan proved futile and
Gr. Pr. Vasili I decided to intervene. During Lent of 1393, he sent his army against
Novgorod and captured many of their cities for his own principality. Many of the
residents were killed, and the rest soon surrendered.
Two years later, in 1395, Kiprian again went to Novgorod and conducted
services, and again requested his annual tribute; again, they flatly refused him.
Force was not to be considered this time, because the grand prince was
preoccupied with the threat of invasion and war with Tamerlame. The
metropolitan’s attempts toward reconciliation were futile and he returned to
Moscow empty-handed. Archbishop Ioann (John) of Novgorod was summoned
to Moscow three times after Metr. Kiprian’s final visit, in 1396, 1397 and 1401, to
answer for the actions of his flock. On the third occasion John was forced to
resign his cathedra and was held in custody in Moscow for three years and four
months. John, along with Bishop Savva of Lutz, was held at Chudovski
115
Monastery in Moscow in a cell under guard. After his release he again assumed
his cathedra and returned to Novgorod.
One edict of note was issued in 1392 and confirmed again in 1404; it
pertains to monastery patrimony. The edict was issued by Kiprian and
authorized by Vasili I, to confirm the previous tradition of monasteries
possessing land, property, villages and serfs, and that the cathedra of the
metropolitan also had title to the same.
In 1395, Tamerlane invaded southern Russia. He defeated the Mongol Khan
Tokhtamish and proceeded north to Moscow. Tamerlane reached as far as the
Don River in Ryazan province. Gr. Pr. Vasili heard that Tamerlame was
preparing to invade northern Russia, especially Moscow, and to devastate the
region, and so he gathered his military force and stationed it near Kolomna on
the shore of the Oka River. According to a traditional account, rather than
depending on his military he decided to turn to the intercession of the
Immaculate Virgin. After consulting with the metropolitan and his nobles, Vasili
required a fast and fervent prayer from all his troops. Simultaneously the
miracle-working icon of the Theotokos was being moved from Vladimir to
Uspenski Cathedral in Moscow. Orthodox clergy felt the icon would be safer in
Moscow than in Vladimir. On the very day that the icon arrived in Moscow,
August 26, 1395, Tamerlame and his forces retreated and began their trek out of
Russia. As the icon was entering Moscow, Tamerlane, a long distance away, had
an awesome and terrifying vision: a holy man descending from a high mountain
with gold rods in his hands attacked him, and a woman dressed in scarlet
hovered in the air above him, with a large army behind her. Tamerlane departed
from Russia as a result of this apparition.
Regardless of the distaste many Russian Orthodox clergy had for Greeks,
the Russians remained charitable and assisted them in their poverty under the
ongoing siege by the Ottoman Turks. During the reign of Gr. Pr. Vasili I, the
entire Balkan peninsula and almost the entirety of the earlier Byzantine Empire
was under Ottoman control, with the city of Constantinople almost the only
remaining Greek territory in Asia. In 1390, Sultan Bayazid established a blockade
of Constantinople for seven years. During the blockade, in 1395-1396, the
emperor and patriarch sent delegates to Moscow to request financial aid. Both
Metr. Kiprian and Gr. Pr. Vasili consented and an amount of 20,000 rubles in
hard coin was transferred to them in 1398, after the blockade was lifted. The
Ottomans instigated a second blockade of Constantinople in 1400 and the
Greeks asked for help again, but there is no record as to whether the Russians
responded a second time.
116
The greatest achievement of Metr. Kiprian was that of publishing new and
better editions of books dealing with the liturgy, and standardizing the liturgy.
In earlier years each church had its own liturgy, since books were difficult to
acquire and not all the priests could read. As the quality of priest improved, the
liturgies of John Chrysostom and Basil the Great were implemented, but even
then, major variations existed church to church. The patriarch of Constantinople
who was contemporary with the early years of Metr. Kiprian was Philotheos
Kokkinos. He published a new service book to standardize the liturgy in the
Greek Church and subsequently had it translated into Slavonic. Metr. Kiprian
then reproduced this service book for use in Russia.
Metr. Kiprian had his residence in the village of Golenischev, about two
miles outside of Moscow, where he could escape the bustle of the city. There he
died on September 16, 1406 after much political intrigue and 30 years as
metropolitan between Russia and Lithuania.
33. METROPOLITAN FOTIUS
After the death of Kiprian, Gr. Pr. Vasili I Dmitrievich, despite his
animosity toward the Greeks, sent emissaries to the patriarch and emperor at
Constantinople asking them to select and dispatch to Moscow a new
metropolitan according to ancient tradition, that is, a Greek. War raged between
Lithuania and Russia during that year and split the two countries along religious
lines.
Kiprian had been metropolitan of both countries, but the prince of
Lithuania now demanded a metropolitan of his own, to include the region of
Kiev, far from Russia and under the hegemony of Lithuania. Thus, coincident
with the dispatch of emissaries by Gr. Pr. Vasili, Pr. Vitovt of Lithuania sent
Archbishop Theodosius of Polotz, who was Greek by genealogy, to
Constantinople as his candidate for metropolitan of Lithuania.
The patriarch denied Vitovt his request and one metropolitan was ordained
for the entirely of Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine, just as with Kiprian during his
later years. Fotius was from Morea, in southern Greece. He entered a local
monastery in his early years and was a disciple of Akakius, a popular and fervent
ascetic who later became metropolitan of Monemvasi, the ancient area of
Peloponnesus in southern Greece. Having joined the staff of Akakius as an
official of his diocese, Fotius was sent on business to the patriarch at
Constantinople by his elder and mentor and arrived at the court of the patriarch
117
simultaneously with both the emissaries from Moscow and Vitovt’s candidate,
Theodosius.
Patr. Matfeius (Matthew) quite unexpectedly ordained Fotius as
metropolitan of Russia, Kiev and Lithuania on September 1, 1408. The only
information available regarding his qualifications for the cathedra indicate his
scholarship and austerity, as recorded by a local monk. Fotius arrived in Kiev the
following year, September 1, 1409, accompanied by emissaries of the emperor and
the patriarch. Pr. Vitovt was in Kiev at the time and did not greet Fotius very
ceremoniously, especially given that his candidate for the cathedra had been
turned down. Fotius was able to reconcile with Vitovt, however, and he
accepted him as metropolitan. For the next six months Fotius lived in Lithuania,
but toward the end of this term the two began to quarrel over Fotius’ intention
of journeying to Moscow. Still, on the eve of Easter Sunday, March 22, 1410,
Fotius arrived in Moscow, with the same emissaries he had left Constantinople
with.
In his religious legacy Fotius states that his twenty-year cathedra of the
Russian Church was a period of incessant sorrow, tears and weeping. He arrived
in Moscow shortly after its devastation in 1408 by the Mongols; the first half of
his cathedra was saturated with personal sorrows and during the second half
Russia succumbed to plague and terrible famine.
In Moscow Fotius indeed inherited a cathedra in a sorrowful condition.
The patrimony of the metropolitan consisting of villages, farms and estates had
been plundered and confiscated by local landlords, feudal princes and brigands.
Apparently, after the death of Metr. Kiprian and subsequent attack by Mongols,
these persons of authority took advantage of the weakness of the state of Russia
and appropriated the patrimony of the metropolitan and decimated it. Serfs
were removed and resettled in villages as part of the estates of these landlords
and feudal princes. The four-year interval between the death of Metr. Kiprian
and the arrival of Metr. Fotius provided a window of opportunity.
One of the first items Fotius had to address was the reappropriation of land
that had been illegally seized and the repopulation of the desolate villages. In
retaliation, the accused landlords and princes proceeded to discredit and slander
Fotius to Gr. Pr. Vasili in 1413. Fotius wrote letters defending himself and his
activities to Gr. Pr. Vasili and requesting help in redeveloping the patrimony:
real estate, serfs, and property. Metr. Fotius was successful, for the most part, in
recovering the patrimony. Needless to say, he acquired many enemies along the
way.
118
As mentioned above Moscow was attacked by Mongols in 1408 and again

in 1411. Realizing the threat of this second attack, Fotius went to Vladimir, the
ancient capital, and from there he moved further northeast to Senezhki, part of
his patrimony, and hid there for four weeks until the Mongols retreated.
Afterwards, Gr. Pr. Vasili I asked Fotius to come back to Moscow to
consult with him regarding a matter of matrimony: the possibility of Anna, his
daughter, marrying John, son of Byzantine emperor Manuel. The emperor
considered the marriage of his eldest son and heir to the throne to the daughter
of the Russian grand prince very desirable and advantageous. And, in Manuel’s
view, Russia could not then refuse a request for aid, which Constantinople so
desperately needed to defend against the Ottoman occupation of the Byzantine
Empire. In 1411, with the consultation and blessing of Metr. Fotius, Gr. Pr. Vasili
resolved to allow his daughter to marry the Greek heir and sent her to
Constantinople. She was only ten years old. This relationship by marriage
between Gr. Pr. Vasili I Dmitrievich and Emperor Manuel only lasted three
years, as Princess Anna died in the Black Plague when it raged though
Constantinople in 1414.
The challenges confronting Metr. Fotius were not limited to his
reacquisition of the cathedral patrimony, because the number of his enemies had
now increased. Working together, the landlords and feudal princes were
somehow able to turn the opinion of Gr. Pr. Vasili against Fotius. Scheming to
take vengeance, a number of them journeyed to Lithuania to Pr. Vitovt and
presented him with various calumnies and accusations against Metr. Fotius.
Other nobles of Moscow, using agents in Lithuania, assisted them in striving for
the deposition of Fotius. Their plot succeeded and Pr. Vitovt developed such
malice against Metr. Fotius that he resolved to expel him as metropolitan of
Lithuania and install someone else in his stead. The specific charge brought
against Metr. Fotius by these landlords and feudal princes was that he had
financially devastated Kiev — part of the jurisdiction of Lithuania — by
overtaxing and demanding excess tribute, which he then funneled to Moscow.
The truth of the matter was that Metr. Fotius was so involved with matters
locally that he had exhibited a lack of concern for the western half of his
cathedra. Along with the above charge, Vitovt accused Metr. Fotius of
plundering the churches of Kiev of their wealth, artifacts and valuable icons and
transferring everything to Moscow. In reality, Kiev had no wealth to speak of; it
had never recovered from the Mongol devastations of 1240 and 1299 and the
ongoing occupation by the Golden Horde. The landlords and feudal princes
hoped that by making Metr. Fotius lose the western half of his cathedra, his
119
authority in Moscow would be weakened, and once this was accomplished they
would recover the church property they had lost to him.
Vitovt demanded and acquired from prelates in Lithuania a statement that
they felt the Kiev region was spiritually dormant and destitute as a result of its
neglect and plunder by Metr. Fotius. Vitovt used this document to rid Kiev of all
the clergy ordained by and aligned with Metr. Fotius. Vitovt also confiscated the
entire church patrimony in Lithuania and Ukraine associated with the cathedra
of Metr. Fotius: villages, farmland, serfs and other property.
Metr. Fotius, discovering the extent to which his enemies had succeeded in
arming Vitovt against him and the actions that he was now taking against him,
resolved to travel to Lithuania to attempt to reconcile himself with the prince
and thence travel on to Constantinople to the patriarch to thwart Vitovt’s
attempt to have a new metropolitan installed over Lithuania. But when Metr.
Fotius arrived in Lithuania, he was arrested by order of Vitovt, robbed of his
personal property, and sent back to Moscow. Vitovt summoned his prelates and
demanded from them another statement, further discrediting and denouncing
Metr. Fotius and declaring that they could no longer accept him as their supreme
primate.
The candidate whom Vitovt selected as metropolitan of Kiev and Lithuania
in lieu of Fotius was Grigori Tsamblak, an abbot. He was Bulgarian, a nephew of
the late Metr. Kiprian, tonsured as a monk in Constantinople where he spent
some time as a cleric on the patriarchal staff. Later he held positions as abbot of
Dechansk Monastery in Serbia and minister of various churches in Moldova.
Lately he had been abbot at Plinair Monastery in that region of Bulgaria close
toward Constantinople. In earlier years, Tsamblak had accompanied his uncle
Metr. Kiprian to Moscow and also to Vilna, in Lithuania, where he remained
after his uncle’s death. The exact position that Tsamblak held between Metr.
Kiprian’s death and his nomination by Vitovt is unknown.
Sometime during the second half of 1414, Pr. Vitovt dispatched Tsamblak
to Constantinople to be ordained as metropolitan. In order to convince the
patriarch that Tsamblak’s ordination was for the benefit of the Lithuanian
Church, and not as a means of accomplishing Vitovt’s personal vengeance on
Fotius, Vitovt coerced his bishops into composing a statement addressed to the
patriarch enumerating the various accusations against Fotius and, in conclusion,
requesting that a new metropolitan — their candidate Tsamblak — be ordained.
However, even though Vitovt was able to prevent Fotius himself from
traveling to Constantinople, he was unable to stop Fotius’ agents, and through
his agents Fotius was able to inform the patriarch of the plot against him.
120
Tsamblak was not ordained, and what is more, because of the upheaval he had
caused in Constantinople, the patriarch had him defrocked and
excommunicated.
When Tsamblak returned to Lithuania with his notice of expulsion, Vitovt
summoned his prelates and attempted to convince them to ordain Tsamblak
without the involvement of the patriarch. The prelates, however, persuaded
Vitovt to petition the patriarch at Constantinople a second time before
proceeding with his intention. In March of 1415, a second delegation was
dispatched to ask the patriarch to ordain a metropolitan especially for Lithuania.
Vitovt waited until November of that year for a reply, but received none. Prelates
of Lithuania, under orders of Vitovt, ordained Tsamblak as metropolitan
November 15, 1415.
Over the next four years, unrest prevailed in the Orthodox Church of both
Lithuania and Russia. Lithuanian prelates issued statements justifying their
ordination based on various canons and traditions of the Orthodox Church of
Eastern Europe. These same prelates also found justification for not accepting a
candidate ordained in Constantinople, accusing them of simony, of accepting
gifts and bribes to ordain a person as metropolitan. Vitovt likewise issued a
statement enumerating Metr. Fotius’ crimes against the Lithuanian Church as a
justification for bullying his prelates into ordaining Tsamblak. Fotius himself
was highly discontent over the matter and he dispatched a delegation to
Constantinople to ask the patriarch to declare Tsamblak an illegitimate intruder
into the cathedra, and requesting that Tsamblak be expelled and be declared
anathema. All of this was to no avail, as no response or intervention by the
patriarch was forthcoming. After four years as metropolitan of Lithuania and
Kiev, Grigori Tsamblak died of unknown causes during the winter of 1419-1420.
Shortly after his death, Metr. Fotius was again reconciled with Vitovt, who made
no further effort to secure a special metropolitan for Lithuania.
In all, Metr. Fotius held the cathedra over the Russian Church for 21 years
and 10 months. He died July 1 or 2, 1431.
35. THE STRIGOLNIKS
The chroniclers relate that in 1371 during the cathedra of Metr. Aleksei
three men were convicted of being corruptors of the Orthodox religion and were
executed. These were Nikita, a deacon, Karp, and a third person whose name has
not been preserved. Former members of the Orthodox monastic clergy, they
121
preached their convictions initially in Pskov and then moved to Novgorod. They
were first admonished by Orthodox clergy in Novgorod, but they persisted, and
so were excommunicated from the Church. Nonetheless they continued to
preach their dissenting convictions. The three were thrown by a mob off a bridge
into the waters of the Volkhov River to drown. The mob quoted the words of
Jesus, in Matt 18:6, to justify their execution: drowning them in the depths of the
sea rather than allowing them to lead any more astray.
These three were the founders of the sectarian group which called
themselves Strigolniks. The name is derived from the Russian word strigitz,
meaning to shear or cut one’s hair. Some sources indicate that one of the
founders was a barber; this may well have been, but the relevance of the
appellation had to do with the fact that they cut their hair short and so did all
adherents of their group. Orthodox clergy allowed their hair to grow long, in the
tradition of the Biblical Nazarene (Numbers 5:6). The Strigolniks preferred to
follow the tradition for men as advised by Apostle Paul, to wear the hair short (1
Cor 11:14).
The source of Karp and Nikita’s teachings seems to have been a protopope
of Novgorod named Seyit who taught about 40 years earlier, as mentioned above.
Seyit rejected the existence of a paradise on earth and taught vehemently against
monasticism, so persuasively that many monks abandoned the monasteries and
married — no doubt including the three who ended up in the river. Bogomil
influence in the region was a catalyst to the expansion of Strigolniks.
Strigolniks abandoned Orthodoxy to start their own persuasion not
because they rejected any dogmas of the Church or its confession of faith, but
because they no longer wanted to be in fellowship with the balance of Orthodox
clergy. Strigolniks felt that all prelates and priests were ordained as a result of
simony or bribery, and for that reason they did not consider their consecration
genuine. The Strigolniks concluded that the liturgy now performed by Orthodox
clergy was ineffective and that any sacrament accepted from them was
worthless.
The second contention of the Strigolniks was that Orthodox clergy led a
life unworthy of their vocation. They accused their contemporary priests and
monks of greed: acquisition of wealth and prosperity through extortion from
peasants and even from the dead by charging relatives for funerals and requiems.
Strigolniks also charged the Orthodox clergy with alcoholism and disorderly
conduct while associating with people sharing the same vice. Because of this
promiscuity, the Strigolniks referred to the Orthodox clergy as the actual
heretics, maintaining that they were separating from the Church with the intent
122
of preserving the true piety of orthodox clericalism. Having separated from the
established priesthood, Strigolniks ordained their own ministers to perform
services and sacraments, claiming that Apostle Paul authorized plain and simple
people to teach.
The Strigolniks gave up the practice of confession, but in lieu of this they
kneeled with their faces to the floor while a minister recited prayers over them.
Although some sources indicate that Strigolniks rejected prayer for the dead, it
was not the requiem which they denied but the priests’ extortion of fees for the
sacrament of last rites, funerals and requiems. Strigolniks taught that the mercy
of God could not be purchased.
Nikita and Karp’s convictions spread after their death and in 1383 a
reprimand was delivered by Patr. Nilus of Constantinople against Strigolniks in
Novgorod and Pskov. Metr. Fotius discovered the existence of Strigolniks about
five or six years after his accession to his cathedra. He wrote a letter dated
September 23, 1416 to officials, priests and all Christians in Pskov, reprimanding
Strigolniks and admonishing the clergy to return them to the true path —
Orthodoxy; and if they were unable to do so, then to excommunicate the
dissenters so they would no longer be tares growing among the wheat. This
letter was ineffective, since the Strigolniks had already long since separated and
distanced themselves from the Orthodox clergy; however, some clergy in Pskov
did proceed to seek out and arrest Strigolniks, imprisoning some. Others fled,
once they saw the beginnings of persecution.
Metr. Fotius wrote a second letter against the Strigolniks on July 22, 1427,
eleven years later. He labeled them rebellious and said they were caught in the
snares of the devil. The Orthodox clergy of Pskov again arrested Strigolniks and
subjected them to imprisonment and corporal punishment. The clergy reported
back to Metr. Fotius that when they apprehended Strigolniks they, in their
obstinacy, looked to heaven and called upon God their Father, and that they
persisted in their convictions.
Metr. Fotius delivered his response in a letter dated September 23, 1427,
where he further prevailed on them to utilize both corporal punishment and
incarceration, but not capital punishment. Although Strigolniks were not
directly executed — except in the case of the initial propagators — many did die
while incarcerated and as a result of corporal punishment inflicted upon them.
There is no more mention of any individuals of the Strigolnik persuasion after
1427, nor are there any records that indicate the number of adherents to the
Strigolnik group over the 100 years of their history. They must have been
123
relatively few, perhaps a few thousand at most, and their influence was limited
primarily to the cities of Novgorod and Pskov.
35. METROPOLITAN ISIDORE AND THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
Metr. Isidore was a brilliant figure in the history of Russian Orthodoxy and
a most controversial one, due to his involvement in the Council of Florence.
Gr. Pr. Vasili Vasilich (Basil II) was 16 when Metr. Fotius died in 1431, but
he was determined not to turn to Constantinople for a new metropolitan. Prior
to nominating his own candidate and dispatching him to Constantinople for
ordination, Vasili Vasilich had to visit the Khan of the Golden Horde himself and
secure his consensus that he assume the title of grand prince of Moscovite
Russia, to inherit the throne from his father who had passed away in 1425. Vasili
Vasilich planned to depart Moscow on the holiday of the Assumption, August
15, 1431, and to return no earlier than on the holiday of St. Peter, June 29, of the
following year. After that, Vasili intended to turn his attention to the selection of
a new metropolitan.
The selection of a candidate for the cathedra was delayed in part by the
civil war between Vasili Vasilich, the young prince of Moscow, and his uncle, Pr.
Yuri Dmitrievich of Galitzia. Each deposed the other three times between 1425
and 1434. It was only upon the death of Yuri Dmitrievich (June 6, 1434) that
Vasili Vasilich finally acquired the throne permanently.
Vasili II Vasilich returned from the khan as planned in June 1432, with a
victory — a decree awarding him the authority of grand prince of Moscow and
all Russia; and so later in the year he nominated Bishop Jonah of Ryazan and
Murom as his candidate for metropolitan. Jonah remained in Moscow and
attended the marriage of the grand prince February 8, 1433. He hesitated to
travel to Constantinople for ordination, fearing as soon as he left his seat vacant
it would be filled by some rival and he would find the cathedra of Moscovite
Russia taken out from under him. He patiently waited as the struggle between
uncle and nephew went on, although this delay entailed other risks to his
accession. At the time Jonah was nominated in Moscow, the new prince of
Lithuania, Svidrigailo, Vitovt’s successor, dispatched to Constantinople his own
candidate for metropolitan, Bishop Gerasim of Smolensk. Gerasim was accepted
by Patr. Joseph II and was ordained in 1432, but only as metropolitan of
Lithuania, not of Russia. Jonah finally left for Constantinople long after the
death of Yuri Dmitrievich, not until the latter part of 1435. His journey to
124
Constantinople, however, proved futile. By the time Jonah arrived sometime

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

Catholicism or jeopardize the interests of Russian Orthodoxy.
When Isidore departed Moscow on the holiday of the Nativity of the
Blessed Virgin, September 8, 1427, only five months after his arrival from
Constantinople, he did not travel alone. Gr. Pr. Vasili provided Metr. Isidore
with a brilliant retinue consisting of over a hundred men, whose purpose was to
advertise the majesty of Imperial Russia. Included in the retinue were Bishop
Simeon of Suzdal and Vassian, an archimandrite of an unmentioned monastery.
Bishop Simeon was to act as secretary and record the council proceedings.
The journey proceeded slowly and pompously. They arrived in Tver
September 14, and they remained there nine days. The next stop was Novgorod,
where they entered the city October 7 in a parade as though they were guests of
the city. The officials and clergy of Novgorod generously provided Metr. Isidore
with money and provisions for their journey. The retinue left Novgorod after a
week’s stay and moved on to Pskov, arriving December 6. Isidore likewise
entered Pskov in a parade, in great pomp. Well attended by the officials and
clergy of Pskov, Isidore remained there seven weeks through the winter of 1427-
1428. The next stop was Riga, where they arrived February 4, 1438. After eight
weeks the weather was clear and they left May 5, by sea, to Lubeck, arriving at
the port May 19. It was a 20-day journey through Germany from Lubeck to
Ferraro, where they arrived August 18, 1438, almost a year after their departure
from Moscow.
Other Greek clergy and officials from Constantinople had arrived there
March 4, 1438, five and a half months earlier. Yet when Isidore arrived, the
council had not even begun! The pope had promised the Byzantine emperor that
his delegates would arrive in Florence by April 9, 1438 to begin the council, but
the date came and went with no sign of the Pope’s contingent. Finally the
council began its proceedings at Ferraro on October 8, 1438, after the Catholic
delegates finally arrived, and it was moved to Florence on or shortly after January
10, 1439, where it continued until March 24, 1439.
The Greeks were at a disadvantage during the debates on the issues that
separated the two divisions of the Ecumenical church: the Filioque, purgatory,
type of bread for the Eucharist, and of course, Papal supremacy. The Eastern
delegates could not return to Constantinople empty-handed, and Catholics were
not about to make any concessions, knowing that they had the upper hand in the
matter. Greeks needed the military support of Catholic Europe and had no
choice except to concede to all demands. Unpalatable as it would be to
surrender themselves to the authority of the papacy, it was their only hope of
126
succeeding in their quest. The Greeks had foresight enough to acknowledge

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

possibility of greater promotions in the political sphere of Roman Catholicism.
Of course, this leads us to believe that it was never Isidore’s intention as
metropolitan to be faithful to Russian Orthodoxy, but that he was a traitor to
begin with. He managed to succeed in his purpose without betraying his true
motives to anybody in Moscow. Bishop Jonah recorded in a letter to another
bishop that while Isidore was still in Russia, it never crossed anybody’s mind
that he intended to betray Russian Orthodoxy by subjecting it to the authority
of the Catholic Papacy. It appears that Isidore deceived Gr. Pr. Vasili along with
all the Orthodox clergy in Russia.
As Catholic cardinal and apostolic legate of the papacy, Isidore re-entered
Moscow. Arriving at the Kremlin, he went directly to Uspenski Cathedral and
began a thanksgiving prayer on behalf of the grand prince and all Orthodox
Christianity. Metr. Isidore then performed the liturgy, but instead of mentioning
the name of Patr. Metrophanes of Constantinople, he uttered the name of the
Catholic pope, Eugenius IV. After the liturgy he ordered a proto-deacon to
ascend the ambo and publicly read the edict regarding the unification of the two
divisions of the Ecumenical church as subscribed to at the council July 5, 1439.
Subsequently he presented to Gr. Pr. Vasili II Vasilich a statement from the Pope
informing him of the unification of the two divisions of the Ecumenical church
and asking him to diligently assist and support Isidore as he implemented Unia
in Russia.
Isidore’s conduct, boldly announcing the unification and naming the
Catholic pope rather than the Orthodox patriarch, stunned and appalled the
prelates and nobles who had gathered in Moscow to greet their metropolitan
after his long absence; and it sent Gr. Pr. Vasili into a rage. After the crowds
dispersed following the services, Gr. Pr. Vasili meditated on the situation. One
day, two days, three days passed. On the fourth day Gr. Pr. Vasili ordered Isidore
arrested and declared him a heretic, subject to trial by an ecclesiastical council.
It is unavoidable to think that the decision to deal with Metr. Isidore in
this manner was decided long before his arrival in Moscow. Isidore had spent a
year in Lithuania, and Moscow’s royalty and clergy were well aware of his
decision and the opinions he expressed at the council of Florence. But to prove
the accusations, he had to be allowed back. When Isidore opened his mouth in
Uspenski Cathedral, he erased any doubt that may have remained in Russians’
minds. He was a traitor to Orthodoxy. This sealed his fate; he would have to be
expelled as metropolitan and as a resident of Russia.
128
Isidore was taken into custody March 23, 1441 at the Chudovski Monastery
and was placed under guard in a cloister. Gr. Pr. Vasili then gathered a council of
bishops, archimandrites, abbots and priests and before the assembled group
accused Isidore of heresy. Vasili urged the council to try to reconcile Isidore with
Russian Orthodoxy; he wanted Isidore to acknowledge the shame of his conduct
since his ordination, to abandon the introduction of Unia into Russia, and to
repent of his Catholic association. Isidore, however, remained adamant in his
loyalty to the Uniate resolution and had no intention of subjecting himself to the
authority of the Moscow council. Gr. Pr. Vasili then ordered that Isidore remain
confined in a cell at Chudovski Monastery under guard until such time that he
repented. Clergymen, under orders from Vasili, visited him regularly to
admonish him to repent; but their attempts were in vain. Vasili even threatened
Isidore with execution — by burning at the stake or being buried alive until he
suffocated — but these threats also proved futile. Six months went by while
Isidore sat in his cell. Spring and summer passed and Vasili was perplexed as to
how to further handle his stubborn traitor. The only solution was to expel
Isidore from Russia, but without any commotion. On the night of September 15,
1441 Isidore was allowed out of his cell by guards and then out of the monastery,
and he immediately fled Moscow. His expulsion was announced as an escape.
Isidore went first to Tver, where he was harbored by feudal prince Boris
Aleksandrovich. But during Lent of 1442, Gr. Pr. Vasili ordered Boris to stop
providing asylum to Isidore and to expel him. Ordered to leave Tver, Isidore
traveled to Novgorod and after a short stay there continued on and eventually
reached Rome. There he accepted a position as an official at the pope’s court.
Patr. Joseph II of Constantinople died during the proceedings at the
council of Florence. In his place Patr. Metrophanes II was ordained May 4, 1440
by Emperor John Paleologus. Patr. Metrophanes passed away August 1, 1443, and
it was three years before emperor John Paleologus set another in his place.
Gregory III Mammas was ordained July 7, 1446, but then in August 1451 he fled
to Rome to escape the threat of Ottoman siege.
The consequences of Unia were mixed. It was good for the Orthodoxy of
eastern Europe, which reaped the benefits of association with the rest of
Catholic Europe and yet was able to hold to its original traditions and rites. For
the areas under control of the Ottoman Turks, Unia was of no benefit because
Greek Orthodoxy’s effort to unify with Catholicism eventually backfired.
Byzantine emperor John VIII Paleologus died October 31, 1448. His
successor was brother Constantine XI Paleologus, crowned March 12, 1450.
129
Initially John was a zealous promoter of Orthodoxy and an opponent of Unia,

but then his attitude changed as he watched Turks prepare to lay siege to
Constantinople. Toward the end of 1452, Constantine turned to Unia in despair
as his final hope for military intervention by papal forces. It still seemed that the
papacy might organize military regiments from central Europe, similar to the
Crusaders, to attack Islamic Turks and defend Constantinople. The Catholic
Church provided no help at all, however, so that Constantine’s initiative only
turned Orthodox clergy of Constantinople against him. Constantinople was
defeated by Islamic Ottomans on May 29, 1453 and the Byzantine Empire ceased
to exist. The body of Constantine XI was found dead June 1 when they entered
the city. After the defeat of Constantinople, Sultan Mahomet II ordained
Gennadius II as patriarch.
Running parallel to these events and contemporary with the years
subsequent to the council of Florence and the defeat of Constantinople was the
Catholic counter-reformation. The Uniate resolution was also promoted by
Rome in order to strengthen Catholicism. By making eastern Europe Uniate,
Rome was able to acquire allies who were less likely to join the Protestant
Reformation; Catholic hegemony had now expanded to the regions of Poland
and Lithuania. The council of Trent was summoned in order to develop methods
to counter the effects of the Protestant Reformation on Catholic Europe; it began
in 1545 and continued through 1551, consisting of 13 sessions. The pope was far
more concerned with the survival of Catholicism in Europe because of the rising
threat of Luther’s and Calvin’s reformations than he was worried about
Constantinople’s need for defense against Ottoman Turks. The papacy’s
preoccupation with the counter-reformation was the prime reason for excusing
itself from diligently assisting Constantinople; and Islam, beyond the borders of
Catholic Europe, seemed far away. Rome seemed to be safe from any threat by
Ottoman military forces.
36. METROPOLITAN JONAH
After the expulsion of Metr. Isidore, Gr. Pr. Vasili II Vasilich intended to
ordain a metropolitan who was Russian, and to have the ordination performed
by Russian prelates rather than by the patriarch of Constantinople. Vasili was
greatly offended by what he considered the treachery of Patr. Joseph in betraying
all of Eastern Orthodoxy by submitting it to the authority of Rome. Not only
130
was Metr. Isidore considered an apostate and traitor in Russia, but so were the
patriarch of Constantinople and the Byzantine emperor.
Vasili could not request another metropolitan from Constantinople in any
case, because they were no longer Orthodox but Uniate. Vasili first resolved to
ask the patriarch for the right to select and ordain his own metropolitan; he did
not intend to sever ties with Greece permanently, but wanted the Greeks to
realize that there was no chance whatsoever for them to impose Unia on Russia.
Vasili’s letter went unanswered. Russian prelates wanted to disassociate
themselves entirely from the clergy at Constantinople at this point, but they did
not have the courage to proclaim total independence as an autocephalous
ecclesiastical regime. Still, the intention of acting independently to nominate
and ordain a metropolitan for Russian Orthodoxy was itself a proclamation of
independence from Constantinople and a sign of autonomy, indirectly claiming
that Constantinople was an apostate and traitor to the Orthodox faith.
The decision was not implemented immediately, though. In June 1445, Gr.
Pr. Vasili was captured by Mongol troops and imprisoned for three months. A
few months after his release, his cousin Dmitri Yurievich Shemak took him
captive in February 1446 and deprived him of his position as grand prince;
Dmitri Yurievich held the throne of Moscovite Russia for ten months. Vasili II
regained the throne, and Dmitri Yurievich tried again in February 1447. This time
he failed. Finally, in December 1448, after the turmoil between the disputing
factions of the clan was calmed and the Mongols ceased making incursions into
the region, Gr. Pr. Vasili again brought up the issue of the metropolitan’s
cathedra. Even then, there was grave meditation as to their right to move
forward and the consequences.
A second, though minor, concern was the reappearance of Isidore. Isidore
visited Constantinople in 1452, but as a papal legate. His visit had to do with
Emperor Constantine XI’s new inclination toward Unia.
Bishop Jonah of Ryazan was ordained metropolitan of Moscow and all
Russia December 15, 1448 by a council of bishops, archimandrites, abbots and
priests, as ordered by Gr. Pr. Vasili Vasilich. For all practical purposes Russian
Orthodoxy as an independent ecclesiastical corporate entity has its beginning
with the ordination of Jonah as metropolitan of Moscow and all Russia. The
areas of Eastern Europe and Lithuania which accepted the decrees of the council
of Florence still considered Isidore the legitimate metropolitan, and in their eyes
nothing had changed for them in spite of his expulsion from Russia.
At this time Gregory Mammas was patriarch of Constantinople and
Constantine XI was Byzantine emperor, and both of whom at the time were
131
inclined toward Orthodoxy. Gr. Pr. Vasili decided to announce Moscow’s

actions to them both at Constantinople; but not until they formally denounced
the Uniate status of Orthodoxy. In July 1452, Gr. Pr. Vasili wrote to Emperor
Constantine, informing him of the selection and ordination of a new
metropolitan. The letter never reached Constantinople, because Constantine
turned again to Rome for support and declared his support of Unia — which
repulsed Moscow — and Patr. Gregory Mammas had already fled to Rome,
seeking refuge.
The conquest of Constantinople on May 29, 1453 by Ottoman Turks was
the only witness needed by Moscow for the vindication of their ordination. In
later years Moscow would preach that Constantinople fell to Islam as a result of
apostasy — its capitulation to Rome — while Moscow remained untainted.
Moscow’s initiative in ordaining its own metropolitans, beginning with Metr.
Jonah after the fall of Constantinople, did not go uncriticized in later years. Patr.
Dionysius I stated in 1469 that Constantinople did not recognize and would not
recognize any metropolitan ordained without its blessing.
Patr. Jonah was a native of Galitzia, born near the city of Kostroma, of
parents who were considered nobles. At the age of twelve he entered school at a
local monastery with the intention, even at that early age, to become a monk.
When he was ready to be tonsured, he entered Semeonov Monastery in Moscow.
He dedicated his time there to scholarly issues and wrote several books on the
regulations of monasticism. Jonah was ordained as bishop of Ryazan by Metr.
Fotius. His capabilities came to the attention of Fotius, and prior to his death he
disclosed his wish that Jonah be ordained to fill the soon-to-be vacant cathedra.
Jonah’s first effort as metropolitan was to recover for Russia those areas
lost to the Uniate church, and primarily Lithuania and Galitzia. After tedious
negotiations with Gr. Pr. Kazimir of Lithuania, and Pr. Aleksandr Vladimirovich
of Kiev — who was brother-in-law of Vasili II — Jonah was able to add to his
title metropolitan of Lithuania and Kiev; but he was unable to gain Galitzia,
which remained Uniate.
Beginning in 1451, Metr. Jonah proceeded to purge the regions of the
influence of Isidore and their Uniate status. The inclusion of Lithuania in the
realm of Metr. Jonah’s cathedra lasted seven years, and then this region
separated from his jurisdiction and became Uniate permanently. This division
occurred in the following manner: after Isidore was expelled from Russia, he
eventually made his way to the service of the pope. In Rome, the Catholic clergy
did not accept the sentence of the Russian ecclesiastical council and felt that
132
Isidore had been deprived of his cathedra illegally, while Jonah was the usurper.
Of course, the pope could not demand Isidore’s recognition in Russia, but he
could in Lithuania, which was under authority of the Polish crown at the time.
However, there was animosity between the sovereign of Poland and the prince of
Lithuania. This is what led Pr. Kasimir to accept Metr. Jonah, for a time. Then
the influence of Catholicism increased in these areas until finally Kasimir’s
inclination toward Orthodoxy was suppressed. In 1458, Kazimir capitulated to
the demands of Pope Calixtus III and removed his region from the cathedra of
Metr. Jonah, allowing the Uniate resolution to reaffix itself under the authority
of Rome. Subsequently Isidore, whom Rome felt was legitimate metropolitan,
was again offered the cathedra, but because of his advanced age he declined.
Isidore died April 27, 1463.
To fill the vacant position of Uniate metropolitan of Lithuania and Galitzia,
proto-deacon Gregori, abbot of the Monastery of St. Dmitri in Constantinople,
was ordained July 21, 1458 by Patr. Gregory Mammas (who was residing in
Rome at the time); but his cathedra did not include Kiev.
As soon as Vasili II, in Moscow, heard about the ordination of abbot
Gregori as Uniate metropolitan, he sent a delegation to the Polish sovereign with
a message warning him not to accept him. From his own side Metr. Jonah also
dispatched abbots Vassian of Troitse-Sergievski Monastery and Kassian of Kirill
Bel-Ozerski Monastery, entrusting them with the duty to persuade local
Russian feudal princes, nobles and landlords who were residing in Lithuania to
stand firm for Orthodoxy. These measures proved futile. After Gregori arrived
and he was received by the Polish sovereign, Metr. Jonah and an ecclesiastical
council of Russian clergy sent another letter to the Polish sovereign, and letters
to individual prelates in Poland, requesting them not to accept Gregori as
metropolitan. But these measures failed, too, and the Polish sovereign installed
Gregori on the cathedra as Uniate metropolitan. It is obvious that Poland saw
greater advantage in a religious association with Rome than with Moscow, and
with Europe rather than Russia, especially now that Metr. Jonah had reached an
advanced age himself.
Metr. Jonah was not entirely secure in his own position. Toward the end of
1459, he summoned an ecclesiastical council of Russian clergy and required each
of them to give him a written oath of allegiance to himself and to whomever his
successor would be, and to swear that they would have no association or
communication with Uniate Metr. Gregori. It was difficult to acquire this oath
from Novgorod, because in 1456 Gr. Pr. Vasili II went to war against that city
and inflicted much damage on it.
133
After twelve years on the cathedra, Metr. Jonah died March 31, 1461. He had
spent thirty years of his life as bishop and metropolitan.
37. METROPOLITAN THEODOSIUS
When Gr. Pr. Vasili II Vasilich noticed Metr. Jonah’s declining health and
felt that the end of his life was in the very near future, he summoned several
prelates to Moscow. Vasili presented his selections to Metr. Jonah and asked
him to select one as his successor. After discussions with them and after much
meditation, Jonah selected Theodosius, blessed him, and confirmed his choice in
writing. Theodosius had been archimandrite of Chudovski Monastery in
Moscow for ten years, and then was ordained as archbishop of Rostov in June
1454, which episcopacy he held seven years. Theodosius was ordained as
metropolitan either May 3 or 4, 1461, only 40 days after Metr. Jonah died.
Gr. Pr. Vasili did not want to give Constantinople any opportunity to select
a successor, nor to allow Uniate Metr. Gregori to extend his cathedra into
Russia during the interval. And no sooner did they hear of Jonah’s death than
they heard of his successor’s ordination. The prelates of the Russian Church
were required to give an oath of allegiance to Metr. Theodosius, just as they had
given to Metr. Jonah. In reality, there was probably no genuine concern for any
defection except possibly from Novgorod. Gr. Pr. Vasili at this time considered
himself the successor of the Greek emperors, and was very secure in his decision
to have his bishops ordain Metr. Theodosius.
The name of Theodosius does not belong to the number of especially
illustrious figures of Russian Orthodoxy. In his contemporaries’ view,
Theodosius was a mediocre individual, very regimented and narrow minded,
with little depth. The quality of both prelate and parish priest had declined as a
result of the turbulent political strife between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and
the quality of parish priests suffered the most. Theodosius was aware of this and
when he was ordained his primary concern was to improve the Russian clergy;
but this would only be accomplished within a narrow framework. The sole
measure of improvement that Theodosius could grasp was to try not to allow the
priests to lead others by their own less than exemplary lifestyle. Priests still
taught their parishioners little and church rites and liturgies were performed
mechanically. Every Sunday, Theodosius summoned a quantity of priests to his
presence — usually the worst he could find — and would instruct them in the
holy regulations of their ecclesiastical office, admonish them and then threaten
134
them with severe punishment if they did not reform themselves. He required any
widowed priests and deacons who were not cohabitating with a mistress to be
tonsured and assigned to a monastery, while those widowers who had taken a
mistress were sentenced to corporal punishment, fined, and defrocked.
Metr. Theodosius’ attempt to reform the priesthood of his own local
diocese — and then his entire cathedra — was short-lived and ended in total
failure. The number of parishes in Russia was immense and when Metr.
Theodosius began his austere screening of priests, issuing an interdict against
many of them and defrocking and expelling others, the result was that many
parishes were left without any priest at all. The illiterate and superstitious
masses of Russian peasants and serfs were satisfied with the quality of their
priests as they were, and could not see any sense in the metropolitan’s
persecution — as the masses viewed it — of parish priests. The typical Russian
only noticed that Theodosius had rendered their parishes priestless. Now, they
had no singing and no liturgies, and the people cursed the metropolitan.
When Metr. Theodosius realized that his zeal for reform had brought the
curse of the people upon himself, instead of their blessing, he was devastated. He
abandoned his cathedra September 13, 1464, having served for three years and
four months. The psychological impact of this debacle caused him to become
seriously ill. He eventually regained his health, and retired to Chudovski
Monastery, his origin, but now as a simple monk with no special treatment.
Theodosius lived eleven years after his withdrawal from public office and died
between October 1 and 4, 1475, at Troitse-Sergievski Monastery where he was
residing as part of a pilgrimage; and there he was buried.
38. METROPOLITAN FILIPP I
Succeeding Theodosius was Filipp, bishop of Suzdal. Theodosius selected

Filipp prior to his departure from the cathedra and he was ordained November
11, 1464, two months after Theodosius departed. Ivan III Vasilich was grand
prince at this time, and later during his reign assumed the appellation of tsar; he
ascended the throne March 27, 1462, after the death of his father. Filipp’s
foremost accomplishment as metropolitan was that together with Ivan III he
was able to turn Novgorod against the Lithuanian metropolitan and his Uniate
church, and re-unite it with Orthodoxy. Filipp also arranged for the
construction of a new Uspenski Cathedral in place of the old one that had been
damaged by fire.
135
Metr. Gregori of Lithuania was unsteady in his loyalty. In 1470, after twelve
years as Uniate metropolitan, he decided to reconvert to Orthodoxy and sent a
delegation to declare to the patriarch his desire to return, along with a request
that the patriarch also recognize and confirm him as metropolitan. Symeon I had
only held the patriarchate of Constantinople a short while and he declined to
take up either issue; but his successor, Patr. Dionysius (who, as some chroniclers
insinuate, was favorably inclined toward Gregori as a result of the many gifts
presented by the delegation) accepted his transition back to Orthodoxy and
confirmed him in his cathedra as Orthodox metropolitan of both Lithuania and
Russia.
After the delegation departed, Patr. Dionysius sent his messengers to
Novgorod and Moscow, informing them that Gregori was lawful metropolitan
and that Filipp, who had been ordained in Moscow, circumventing
Constantinople, was illegitimate and was not recognized by Constantinople.
Of course, this aroused the animosity of Gr. Pr. Ivan III, who immediately
proclaimed Gregori’s conversion and confirmation a ruse, saying that the post
had been purchased from the patriarch at Constantinople by simony. Ivan also
reminded Archbishop Jonah of Novgorod of the loyalty oath he had sworn to
Metr. Theodosius, rejecting Metr. Gregori and Unia.
Russian prelates also refused to recognize Patr. Dionysius’ ordination.
Archbishop Jonah of Novgorod died November 5, 1470, and ten days later Metr.
Filipp ordained proto-deacon Theofil in Moscow to take his place. Theofil was
selected specifically because he was inclined toward a religious union of
Novgorod with the Orthodoxy of Russia. Even then, the political climate in
Novgorod changed quickly and the residents and nobles elected to sever ties
with Gr. Pr. Ivan III of Moscow — in favor of Poland. To settle the matter once
and for all, Gr. Pr. Ivan inaugurated a military campaign against Novgorod in
May 1471 and subjected them entirely to his authority, by force.
Toward the end of 1472, Ivan III entered into a second marriage — his first
wife having passed away — now, with the Greek princess Zoe Paleologus,
daughter of Thomas the despot of Moria who was brother to the previous
emperors of Constantinople, John VIII Paleologus and Constantine XI. To save
his life from Ottoman Sultan Mahomet, Thomas had fled to Rome in 1460, and
there he died in 1465. In 1469, Pope Paul II suggested to Gr. Pr. Ivan that he
marry Thomas’ daughter Zoe. After counsel with Metr. Filipp, his mother, and
various nobles, Ivan agreed to the proposition. There can be no doubt that Pope
Paul II envisaged using the marriage as a catalyst to entice Moscovite Russia
136
towards Unia. His successor, Pope Sixtus IV, sent his legate, cardinal Antonius,
with the princess (whose name was changed to Sophia, prior to the wedding).
The Latin cross was at the forefront of their procession, all the way from
Rome to Moscow. Reports of this aroused the attention of both grand prince and
metropolitan, and they held a counsel regarding the proper way to deal with the
procession when it arrived. About ten miles short of Moscow, messengers were
sent to Antonius by order of Ivan III and Metr. Filipp, instructing him to put
away the Latin cross as he traveled nearer to Moscow. He obeyed. Antonius did
not attempt to reinstate Unia in Moscow right away — the pope felt this could
be attempted later, after the marriage — but considerable debate did occur
between Filipp and Antonius regarding matters of faith, debates that were
arranged and enjoyed by Metr. Filipp.
After ten years as metropolitan, Filipp quite unexpectedly fell ill April 4,
1473, and died the next day. The illness was caused by the effects of a fire at the
Moscow Kremlin, which destroyed the residence of the metropolitan and
damaged the Uspenski cathedral.
39. CHURCH DEVELOPMENT DURING THE OCCUPATION ERA
The invasion of the Mongol Horde devastated not only Kievan Russia as a
civilization but also Orthodoxy as a whole. To the extent that Russia again
began to develop economically and politically, so its faith and religion began to
recover from the onslaught. Kiev was set back for several centuries, but the
northern cities that were less accessible and less desirable to the Mongols were
less hard hit and they soon acquired greater freedoms than the south. As
mentioned above, in about 1257 or 1258 the Khan of the Golden Horde, Berke or
Bekalie, converted to Islam; this did not improve relations between the two
cultures. Prior to their conversion, the pagan Mongols had exhibited a great
tolerance of Orthodoxy, while as Moslems this tolerance decreased. And, of
course, the Orthodox perennially referred to Moslems as “infidels.” Development
of Orthodoxy began soon after the withdrawal of the Mongols to Sarai on the
lower Volga.
Toward the end of the 13th century, Kirill (Cyril) founded Chelmogorski
Monastery on Mt. Chelme. During his 52-year ministry in northwest Russia and
especially among the Finns, he enlightened the population with Orthodox
teaching.
137
In 1329 on the island of Valaam in Lake Ladoga (Ladozhskoi), an elder

named Sergei settled, and shortly after another monk named German. They
founded the famous Valaam Monastery, which also spread Orthodoxy in the
region. Toward the end of the 14th century Arsenius, a monk from Valaam
Monastery, settled on Konevski Island, near to Valaam Island, and there founded
Konevski Monastery; and in the 15th century Lazarus founded Murmansk
Monastery in Lake Onega (Onezhski).
The most prominent evangelist of the era was Stephen of Perm. He was
born about 1345 in the city Yustyug in the Vologda province in northern Russia.
In 1365, he entered the monastery of St. Gregori the Divine in the city Rostov,
was tonsured as a monk and began his studies. The remainder of his life was
dedicated to the expansion of Orthodoxy and conversion of the pagan tribes
living in the Perm region, along the western slope of the central Ural Mountains.
He is credited with the baptism of half the pagan population of the region. After
18 years of ministry in Perm, which included 14 years as bishop, Stephen died
April 26, 1396 in Moscow during a visit with Metr. Kiprian regarding church
matters. He was buried in Spasski Monastery inside the Kremlin.
Apart from the few Church leaders who built monasteries during the early
years of the Mongol occupation were the many who constructed churches in
cities and outlying regions. The majority of new churches were constructed in
Novgorod and Pskov, and subsequently Moscow. During the rule of Pr. Ivan
Danilovich, the Uspenski (Assumption of the Immaculate Virgin) and
Archangelsk (Michael the Archangel) Cathedrals were built in Moscow; while
under Pr. Vasili Dmitrievich Blago-Veschenski (Annunciation) Cathedral was
built. Cathedrals were likewise erected in Tver, Ostrov, and Nizhni-Novgorod.
Up to the 15th century all churches were constructed without heating, ovens or
fireplaces.
The construction of churches and monasteries was followed by art, in the
form of church appurtenances, and especially icons and iconography. The most
famous iconographers of the 15th century were Feofan the Greek and the
Moscovite monks Daniel Ikonnik and Andrei Rublyov. Miracles and healings
were attributed to icons, which increased their manufacture and installation in
churches, homes and shrines. To the most famous of icons in Russia — the
Immaculate Theotokos of Suzdal — was attributed the deliverance of Moscow
from the invasion of Tamerlane in 1395.
138
40. MONASTERIES AND MONASTICISM
The era of Mongol occupation produced a significant number of elders and

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

offerings for requiems and memorials, and the monastic patrimony. The
patrimony was the primary source of income, and in monasteries with a large
patrimony it can be seen that the residents were inclined toward a concern for
business matters, regulation and care of the serfs, and even conflicts with
neighbors, which tended to steer monk and father superior away from their
religious obligations.
During this era, once monasteries were established and possession of
patrimony allowed and assigned, the serious question arose whether it was
proper for monasteries to possess and administrate villages. Metr. Kiprian wrote
in a letter to abbot Afanasie expressing the opinion that the right to possess
villages was never assigned to the ancient fathers because it involved them with
worldly obligations. Kiprian advised the abbot that if someone should donate or
bequeath a village to the monastery, the monks should not administrate it, but
that some God-fearing citizen should be assigned this responsibility, and so
deliver the produce and other goods of the village directly to the monastery. In
reality, such opinions issued by the metropolitans of the Russian Church were of
little effect and mostly ignored. The patrimonies of the monasteries rapidly
increased, either by outright purchase, donations, or through wills and
testaments, but especially by settlement and expansion of a monastery into a
wilderness and then claiming the surrounding region as its possession, including
towns and farms. The local feudal prince would permit this acquisition in order
to expand development and thus cultivation.
Privileges were allotted to the serfs who were part of monastery patrimony:
they were relieved of taxes and assessment, certain civil duties, the building of
the prince’s home and related structures, and direct work on the estate of the
feudal prince or his fields and farms. The sale of goods produced in the
monastery patrimony were likewise exempt from taxes and duties. At the same
time, serfs who were part of monastery patrimony were under the jurisdiction of
the father superior and monks, who also would handle legal conflicts (and any
others) that would arise among the serfs. Other than serious crimes such as
murder, battery and grand theft, all justice was administered by the father
superior via the Episcopal court. In serious or capital cases the father superior
together with the feudal prince administered justice via the civil court. The
privileges granted to serfs living on monastery patrimony encouraged
development of such out-lying regions. The available peasant population also
provided the father superior with ample labor to construct the massive
monuments of monasticism surviving throughout Russia until today, and ample
140
artisans to decorate them; and the feudal prince often supplied his own serfs as
part of the labor to construct monasteries in his principality. The village
peasants, men and women, were recruited as servants to work at monastery
kitchens and businesses
The expansion of the number of monasteries was encouraged in order to
expand the settlement of wilderness areas. A monk would arrive at some out-
lying region, some place where no one else would settle, and would create for
himself a residence in a cave, a hollow of a tree or a crudely constructed hovel.
Little by little others would be attracted to him, those attempting to escape the
temptations of the world and who wanted to devote themselves to prayer and
solitude. The small community of ascetics would gradually clear the virgin
forest, using their own labor, and erect better residences for themselves. By this
time the community would be recognized by the feudal prince or by a father
superior of a larger monastery. Thus the colonization of such virgin regions of
Russia progressed and a new city with surrounding villages would emerge over a
period of time. Such cities for example were Yustyug near Gledenski Monastery;
Varnavin near Varnavinski Monastery; Kalyazin near Kalyazinski Monastery;
and Kirillov near Kirill Bel-Ozerski Monastery.
The monasteries were very benevolent and charitable toward serfs and
local residents during times of duress or tragedy. During periods of famine, the
monastery would feed the hungry serfs. Hostels, orphanages and hospitals
would also be built near the monastery or within its confines.
41. SERGEI OF RADONEZH
The secular or birth name of our next subject was Bartholomei. He was
born about 1314, son of a noble Rostov couple who migrated to the city of
Radonezh about 60 miles north of Moscow during the reign of Pr. Ivan
Danilovich. At the time of his parents’ death he handed over all of their property
to his younger brother and, with his older brother Stephen, Bartholomei
departed into the forest about ten miles from Radonezh. The hermits built a
cloister and a wooden church in the forest. This occurred in 1337, the traditional
date for the founding of Troitski Monastery. Stephen was unable to endure the
solitary life; his wife passed away and he soon departed from his younger brother
and entered Bogoyavlenski (Epiphany) Monastery in Moscow. Bartholomei
accepted tonsure from a local abbot named Mitrofan, at the age of 24, in 1337, on
the holiday of the martyr Stephen. The new monk accepted Sergei as his new
141
name — a variation of the Slavonic form of Stephen. At the invitation of Sergei

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

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

founded during the occupation era was Solovetski — Solovki for short —
located on Solovetski Island in the White Sea.
Solovetski Monastery, more properly known as the Monastery of Zosima-
Savvatiev, was founded in 1429 by Herman and Savvatie (Sabatias). Savvatie was
originally a monk from Bel-Ozerski Monastery but later transferred to Varlaam
Monastery in Lake Ladoga. While he was there, he heard about the island of
Solovetski from one of his disciples, Gennadi (who later became archbishop of
Novgorod). Savvatie traveled to the area and met with another monk, Herman,
living on the mainland. In 1429, they took a boat to the island and built for
themselves a residence. After some time Herman left the island, while Savvatie
remained. After several years alone, Savvatie returned to the mainland and died
September 27, 1435. Herman returned to the island a year later, this time with
Zosima, a monk, and built first a church and over the following years a monastic
community. Zosima died April 18, 1478 after more than 42 years of labor at
Solovetski. Herman died in 1479, the following year, with over 50 years of
dedication to Solovetski. Up to the time of the arrival of Savvatiev and Hermann,
the island had been completely uninhabited, except that during the summer
local residents of the mainland would travel there to fish and hunt. Beginning
with the establishment of the monastery, an influx of people began — people
wishing to flee the world — and from these fugitives the Solovetski Monastery
society was formed.
Most of the buildings of the monastery were erected from 1558 to 1566,
during the reign of Tsar Ivan IV. The tsar patronized the monks of the monastery
with benevolent grants of land on the mainland, to the west and south, which
eventually totaled about 300,000 acres. Other churches were added, with the
143
final one in 1834. One side of the monastery borders Blagopoluchi (Benevolent)
Bay and the opposite side approaches Sviatoi Ozero (Holy Lake).
Solovetski Monastery quickly rose to become a leading shrine in Holy
Russia, and Savvatie and Zosima were both canonized by the Orthodox Church
in 1551. Rumors spread throughout Russia of the miraculous powers credited to
their relics and remains, and the monastery rapidly gained a reputation as a
sacred shrine. Pilgrimages began, with 10,000 to 15,000 pilgrims a year visiting
the holy island and leaving an immense wealth in charitable donations.
43. EXPANSION OF MONASTERIES
Among the disciples of Sergei of Radonezh, the monk whom Sergei

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

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

These elders were both influenced by the monastic regulations of Sergei of
Radonezh.
In 1408, Gr. Pr. Andrei requested Therapont to construct a new monastery
in Mozhaisk, south of Moscow. Therapont was obedient and relocated to the
new city; the monastery was dedicated to the Birth of the Theotokos
(Rozhdestvo Bogo-Roditzta) and Therapont was visited there regularly by
Metr. Fotius, the two of them becoming good friends. After 18 years at
Mozhaisk, Therapont died at a very old age, May 27, 1426. Kirill continued his
ministry at his Bel-Ozerski Monastery, until his death June 9, 1427.
When Pr. Boris Konstantinovich wanted to build a new monastery in
Suzdal, in 1364, he asked bishop Dionysei of Suzdal to recommend a candidate
for abbot. Dionysius nominated the 36-year-old Evfimi, a close friend of Sergei of
Radonezh. He was born in Nizhni-Novgorod and as a young man entered
Voznesenie Gospodnya Monastery (Ascension of the Lord), founded by elder
Dionysius at the same city. Prince and ascetic worked together in Suzdal to
construct the new complex, which became known as Spasso-Evfimiev
Monastery. Evfimi died April 1, 1440 at the age of 88, after 52 years as
archimandrite of his monastery. The first stone building of the complex (built
originally in wood) was erected 1507-1511. During the earlier period the
monastery suffered greatly from the Mongol invasion and Polish raids. This
compelled the Suzdal princes to fortify the monastery as much as possible.
Gradually, Spasso-Evfimiev Monastery was buttressed with high and unusually
massive walls and towers and in this manner turned into a colossal stronghold.
Pokrovski (Intercession of the Immaculate Virgin) Convent was built in
Suzdal a few years later, in 1346 by Pr. Andrei Konstantinovich, brother of Boris,
about a mile west of Spasso-Evfimiev.
Pafnutius of Borovsk was born about 1395; at the age of twelve he entered
Borovsk Pokrovski Monastery and was placed under the guidance of elder
Nikita, formerly a disciple of Sergei of Radonezh. After seven years Metr. Fotius
ordained Pafnutius as abbot, at the request of feudal prince Semeon
Vladimirovich. For the next 30 years, Pafnutius austerely ruled over the
monastery; he became severely ill in 1444, and resigned. After regaining his
health, Pafnutius built a new monastery in the region, which became known as
Borovsk-Pafnutiev. There he resided until his death in 1477 at the age of 82.
Other elders and monks of this era were: Antoni Dimski (d. 1273), who
founded a monastery on Dimski Lake in Novgorod province; Ksenofont, who
founded Robeiski Monastery near Novgorod in 1262; Constantine and Kosmo,
146
two monks who founded Kosin Monastery near Staraya Russa on Lake Ladoga;
Roman Kirzhachski (d. 1392) founder and abbot of a monastery near Kirzhach,
Vladimir province; and Makari Zheltovodski (d. 1444) who lived with Bishop
Dionysei of Suzdal for several years and later founded a monastery in Kostroma
province.
44. MORALITY AND NATIONAL LIFE
The ceremonial piety and superficial aspects of the Orthodox religion did
not contribute to any great extent to the development of a morality and ethic for
the Russian population. The general impression that one acquires from the study
of morality during this era is very sullen and remorseful. The majority of
researchers into the national life of the era see here the source of everything
considered baneful or distasteful in the Russian national character.
The Mongol devastation and occupation certainly played a major role in
lowering standards of morality. Even the princes themselves had to travel to the
regional khan at Sarai in servile submission to gain approval for their reign,
which the khan only granted after gifts were offered — and in the case of two or
more challengers, approval was granted to the feudal prince presenting the
greatest gifts. The population had to subject themselves to the annual demands
of the Mongol tax collector and cheerfully provide tribute and feign gratitude. It
was not unusual for a serf to kill a Mongol tax collector out of spite — and then
the local peasantry would kill him, out of fear of reprisals. The era was plagued
by feuds between despotic Mongol troops and local feudal princes over
authority of the land. The Russian metropolitan worked in unison with the
grand prince and feudal princes to encourage national unity and define a Russian
civilization for the future.
Other than social disorder, serious vices plagued the private life of much of
the population, whether rich or poor, noble or serf. Chroniclers record
alcoholism, vulgarity and sensuality, wife abuse included. One letter from Metr.
Jonah to the bishop of Vyatka reprimands the male populace for having as many
as five and even seven wives, and some up to ten, all polygamous marriages that
were blessed by the parish priest. Many men lived with concubines, as many as
they could accommodate or as many as needed shelter. One example was
recorded with the brutal murder in 1406 of the princess of Vyazen, the saintly
Iyulianna (Julianne), by Pr. Yuri of Smolensk, for her refusal to gratify his
147
excessive sexual appetite. She was no doubt murdered during an attempted

rape.
Parallel with a decline of morality was the persistence of a remnant of
Slavic paganism; belief in sorcerers and witches was widespread. At the
beginning of the 15th century as the bubonic plague spread into Russia from
Europe, twelve witches were burned at the stake in Pskov, convicted of causing
the plague. In all classes of the population there was a superstitious belief in
dreams and the power of coincidences, a bird’s chirp, a cat’s meow, a raven’s
caw, and other events believed to be premonitions. Offerings and dedications of
meals to domestic, forest, water and other deities of the ancient era continued.
Even times of national festivity were accompanied by pagan rituals, which
applied equally to the celebration of church holidays. Just as with the duality of
belief during the era of Kievan Russia, pagan practices and rituals during the
occupation era migrated into local Orthodox worship and were fused into it.
This made Christianity ineffective in both the moral sphere as well as the
sacerdotal. The lives of Russian saints blended together with those of Slavic
deities, creating a new generation of mythology and apocryphal legends. The
number of miracles attributed to icons and relics of saints increased the
veneration of wood and bones, while morality languished. Services performed by
the priest in parish churches were mechanical with little moral benefit for the
parishioner.
According to the ancient Orthodox calendar, the year 1492 was 7,000 years
from the creation of the world and to many in Russia that definitely spelled
doomsday. At the same time, many prelates and priests utilized the events of the
era to draw people to repentance, away from the superstition, duality of belief,
pagan remnants, and ignorance.
The internecine struggles between feudal princes so prevalent during the
Kievan era continued during Mongol occupation. In 1393, regiments of Novgorod
attacked the city Yustug, burned it down, and pillaged the cathedral including
all of its wealth and art. In 1434 Gr. Pr. Vasili Vasilich of Moscow plundered the
region of Galitzia and burned churches and monasteries. In 1372 Pr. Mikhail of
Tver plundered and then burned the city Torzhok. In 1375 Novgorod regiments
did the same to Kostroma. During the years 1352 to 1427, the Black Plague
consumed Russia; entire cities perished. In 1417 the residents of Novgorod and
the surrounding cities died faster than they could be buried.
Relics and icons were regularly donated to Russian Orthodox Churches by
Constantinople. For example, in 1347 Greek emperor John Kantakyzin presented
Gr. Pr. Semeon Ivanovich of Moscow with a pectoral cross made of the wood of
148
the very cross Christ was crucified on, along with relics of various saints. When
Archbishop Dionysie of Suzdal returned from Constantinople in 1382, he
brought with him part of Christ’s crown of thorns. In the following year Pr.
Dmitri Konstantinovich of Nizhni-Novgorod built a silver ark in the shape of a
cross with inlaid decor to house the relic. In 1401, the ark was relocated to
Moscow and housed at the Blago-Veschenski Cathedral.
45. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
The activity of enlightenment gave the monastery even greater significance

during this era. Entering the monastery, a person would find himself in a special
world, an educated arena where scholarship was honored together with
asceticism. During mealtime, during liturgy, and in their personal cloisters,
scripture and commentary were recited. A secondary effect of the atmosphere of
scholarship was the copying of books, both religious and secular, by literate
monks trained to be copyists. If a person sought an education, he could find the
best teachers in a monastery — and a rich library, as well. Both feudal prince and
layman would attend liturgy at the monastery and engage in spiritual
discussions, gaining insight into piety. In addition to oral instruction, letters of
admonishment were written and sent to various individuals, letters that were
also copied and used for religious instruction. The influence of monasteries on
the populace is more obvious because of its ascetic tendency, which was
pervaded with ancient Orthodox piety. Outside the major cities, for the most
part monasteries were the sole means of dissemination of divine truth and
instruction during the Mongol occupation.
As a rule, religious and moral education during the Mongol occupation
limped along under the most unpleasant of circumstances. The Mongol invasion
destroyed schools and libraries along with all other edifices, while the
internecine struggle diverted attention from books to the sword. Only the city of
Novgorod, which was spared by the Mongols, developed any scholarship. In
other areas schools once encouraged by feudal princes were closed and
Orthodox clergy were ill-equipped to perform a role in education. Metr. Isidore,
while attending the council of Florence, stated that Russian bishops were
illiterate. Metr. Kiprian directly accused the lower clergy of ignorance and
pointed at huge textbooks filled with legends, fables and sensationalism as
evidence.
149
Many books of apocryphal nature in Slavonic translation migrated into

Russia from Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia. Peasants and citizens alike were
attracted by fables and legends because they were more easily understood by the
illiterate masses than the theology or mysticism of austere Orthodoxy, and they
often satisfied curious and naïve mind. Even the best of Orthodoxy teachers of
the era utilized these apocryphal tales and incorporated them into their sermons
and dissertations with full confidence of their reliability.
Apart from the infusion of religious literature into Russia from abroad,
there was also considerable original composition by Russian divines and
prelates. The majority of such publications were admonishments rather than
theological treatises. The simplicity and mediocrity of the compositions of early
Russian prelates can be attributed to their often low origin, austerity, and
usually poor education, while verbosity and rhetoric infected the compositions
of later Russian prelates who attempted to imitate Byzantine style.
Metropolitans Kiprian, Fotius and Gregori Tsamblak wrote in an abstract
rhetorical style which they inherited from the Byzantine tradition, and which
had little benefit or effect on the life of the people. The metropolitans imported
from Greece knew neither Slavonic nor Russian so they left few or no
compositions. Metr. Kiprian however brought Serbian manuscripts with him
and copies of Greek service books from Constantinople which he translated into
Russian for use and distribution.
The earliest of educators of the Mongol occupation era of the 13th century
were Metr. Kirill and Bishop Serapion of Suzdal and Vladimir. Metr. Kirill at the
council of 1274 began a complete list of admonishing instruction starting with
the low morality of the era and specifying that the calamity of the Mongol
invasion and occupation was the result of national sins against God. The
instruction of Serapion clearly characterizes the dark side of the feudal era:
internecine strife, coercion, battery, enslavement of the weak by the strong,
vengeance, indifference toward the destitute, weakness of family relationships,
and alcoholism. Especially significant are Serapion’s reprimands against the
remnants of paganism, reliance on sorcery, and the custom of burning witches at
the stake during times of national distress and calamity.
Compositions surviving from the 14th century include those of several
abbots, monks and deacons of the era of Metr. Peter; all are similar to the
admonishments of Metr. Kirill, of the previous century. The influence of
apocryphal legends is especially noticeable in the letter from Bishop Vasili of
Novgorod to Bishop Feodor of Tver, describing paradise. Bishop Vasili stated
that the earthly paradise continues to exist on earth and that Makarius of Egypt
150
was able to attain it, while Enoch and Elijah reside there at the present. Positive
instruction was provided by Bishop Matthei (Matthew) of Sarai. Living in the
capital of region of Mongol occupation, his instruction focuses on faith, love,
honor of clergy and attitude toward the Russian princes and toward servants.
The instruction of the 15th century is characterized by its extreme
simplicity and vitality, among which the teaching of Bishop Semeon of Novgorod
is a primary example. Instruction of a positive nature, rather than condemnation,
is exemplified by abbot Kirill of Bel-Ozerski Monastery in letters sent to feudal
princes Vasili Dmitrievich of Moscow, Andrei of Mozhaisk, and Dmitri of
Zvenigorodsk. Kirill’s attitude is that of an abbot under authority who is
obligated to have a concern for the advancement of civil harmony and the
prosperity of the state as well as the salvation of their souls. For all of this, the
abbot and other clergy will answer to God, he states. Kyrill’s letters portray the
nature of the era by insisting on the necessity of righteous judgment, ending
oppression of orphans and slaves, abolishing unjust taxes, terminating the illegal
trade in alcoholic beverages, and giving up dissension. Other writers of the
century refute superstition, specifically mentioning the belief in the voice of
animals and the attribution of meaning to the route of the flight of birds. They
also try to explain natural occurrences such as earthquakes, storms, clouds,
lightning and thunder in objective terms, rather than in terms of the activity of
pagan deities.
46. SAINTS AND FOOLS IN CHRIST
Several figures arise in the history of Orthodoxy having the title of “fool in
Christ.” They are a unique class set apart from ordained clerics and monks. The
first recorded fools in Christ are Isaaki of Kiev Pecher Monastery and Prokopi
Yustyug, of the mid-13th century. Later fools in Christ, of the occupation era,
were Nikolai Kolchanov, a miracle worker of Novgorod (d. 1392); his
contemporary Feodor, also a miracle worker of Novgorod; and Maksim, a miracle
worker of Moscow (d. 1433). The final prominent fool in Christ was Isidor
Tverdislov, a miracle worker from Rostov (d. 1474). They distinguished
themselves as pious mendicants who possessed supernatural insight or power,
or had an ability of divine intercession. The somber mood imposed upon sincere
individuals by the occupation led them to this extreme renunciation of the
world, striving for a holiness they allowed to envelop and captivate their entire
person; this was accentuated by the weakness and corruption of the Orthodox
151
parish clergy, which drove them to seek their individual salvation on their own.
These fools in Christ were the forerunners of the mystics of later centuries.
The individual who foremost provided the style of the fool in Christ was
Prokopi Yustyug (Ustuzhski). Propoki was not a native Russian but a merchant
from eastern Europe, who had a business in Novgorod. He became captivated
with Orthodoxy and denied Catholicism; he closed his business at the same time
he accepted his new faith. After distributing his possessions to the poor, he
settled to live for some time at Khutinski Monastery near Novgorod along the
Volkhov River; during this period Prokopi and abbot Varlaam became close
friends. Prokopi thereafter departed to Veliki Yustyug, in the wilderness of
northwest Russia, where he developed into a fool in Christ. There he became
friends with Kiprian, son of a prominent landlord having property along the
lower Dvin River. Kiprian built Archangelsk Monastery in 1212, near Yustyug,
where he lived for over 60 years until his death September 28, 1276. Prokopi
spent considerable time with Kiprian.
As a fool in Christ, Prokopi would wander about the local city, where he
was abused by the residents; he spent his nights in prayer, or sleeping, at the
local church or outdoors. He continued to live in this manner and a legend of his
ability to intercede and prophesy developed. Prokopi died July 8, 1286 and was
buried outside the city on the banks of the Suhona River.
Isidore the Blessed was born in Germany and was brought up in
Catholicism. His parents were wealthy, of royal extraction, but Isidore
abandoned both them and Catholicism, became an ascetic and left to visit the
various Orthodox churches and shrines in the east, eventually settling in Rostov.
There he lived outdoors and gained a reputation as a fool in Christ; his sole
shelter was a hut made of straw located in a marsh, where he lived during both
cold and hot weather. Several miracles are attributed at him; Isidore died in 1474.
Mikael of Khlop (Khlopski) was related to the feudal princes of Moscow
but abandoned everything for God. He relocated to Khlop Monastery, near
Novgorod, and attached himself to the abbot of the monastery, who assigned
him a cloister. Mikael ate once a week and slept on the floor in his cloister. To
him is attributed a prophecy made on the day of the birth of the future Tsar Ivan
IV: that he would devastate Novgorod. Mikael Khlopski died 1452, after 44 years
as an ascetic.
Pavel of Obnor (Obnorski) was tonsured as a monk at the age of 22 and for
the next 15 years lived in solitude near Troitse-Sergievski Monastery. After
accepting a blessing from Sergei of Radonezh, he relocated to Khomelsk, where
he lived three years, building for himself a cloister on a nearby mountain. Once
152
disciples attached themselves to him, and with the blessing of Metr. Fotius, he
founded a monastery dedicated to the Holy Trinity. He refused the position of
abbot and preferred to live in his hovel on the mountain. Pavel Obnorski died
1429, at the age of 112.
Savva of Visher (Visherski) was from a noble family, but was tonsured as a
monk and traveled to Novgorod as an ascetic. Five miles outside the city he built
a hut to reside in. After additional travel in the region Savva, with the blessing of
Archbishop Semeon of Novgorod in 1418, he constructed a church in honor of the
Ascension of the Lord (Vosnesenie Gospodnya). Savva erected a pillar for
himself and he lived on it faithfully, only descending twice a week to attend
services and eat. Savva the Blessed died in 1461.
Several bishops, in addition to those saints earlier noted, dedicated their
life to Russian Orthodoxy during the Mongol occupation era. Chroniclers
mention: Ignati (d. 1288), Yakov (d. 1392), and Feodor (d. 1395) of Rostov; Vasili
of Ryazan (d. 1367); Theoktist (d. 1308), Moises (d. 1351), and Vasili (d. 1351) of
Novgorod; Dionisei of Suzdal (d. 1388); and Arseni of Tver (d. 1409)
Three nuns are mentioned by the chroniclers for their efforts in early
Russian monasticism during the Mongol occupation era, two of them having the
same monastic name. The first Evfrosinia was born Theodulia, and was a
princess of Suzdal, the daughter of Pr. Mikhail of Chernigov. Her parents
arranged to marry her to a prince of Suzdal, but he died before their wedding
day. In 1227, she renounced the world and took the veil as a nun at
Rizopolozhenski (Placement of the Garment of the Theotokos) Convent in
Suzdal.
The other Evfrosinia was the wife of Pr. Dmitri Donskoi. Her husband died
in battle in 1389 and left her a widow while still a young woman. Taking the veil
as a nun shortly after, she used her late husband’s resources in 1393 to build a
church dedicated to the Birth of the Blessed Virgin (Rozhdestvo Bogoroditza) in
memory of the Battle of Kulikova. In 1407, she financed the construction of a
second church dedicated to the Ascension of the Lord (Voznesenie Gospodnya).
Evfrosinia passed away later that year, before the construction of the church was
completed.
A third noteworthy nun in the chronicles is Anastasia, another princess of
Suzdal. She was the daughter of a Tver feudal prince. When she was twelve
years of age, Pr. Andrei Konstantinovich of Suzdal requested her hand in
marriage, and the parents consented. During these years she built Zachayevski
Convent in Suzdal. Anastasia was married for thirteen years; her husband died in
1365, and then she remained a widow for four years before taking the veil at
153
Zachayevski Convent, which she founded. She was tonsured by Bishop Dionysei
and her new name became Theodora. She resided at the convent until her death
in 1377 at the age of 46.
154
PART 4. THE ERA OF MOSCOVITE RUSSIA
47. METROPOLITAN GERONTI
The next period of Orthodox history is the era of Moscovite Russia. It

begins with the final defeat of Mongol forces in 1480, which ended 240 years of
occupation.
Geronti was metropolitan of Moscow and all Russia during this
transitional period. He was originally archimandrite of Moscow Semeonov
Monastery and then, in about 1455, was elevated to bishop of Kholomensk.
During an 18-day interval after the death of Metr. Filipp on April 5, 1473, Tsar
Ivan III Vasilich held an ecclesiastical council of prelates in Moscow. On April
23, Ivan III nominated Geronti for the cathedra of metropolitan and he was
confirmed by the council. This day was also coincidentally the holiday of St.
George. On the holiday of St. Peter, July 4, 1473, Geronti was ordained as
metropolitan. He held the cathedra until his death on May 28, 1489.
One of Geronti’s accomplishments was the reconstruction of Moscow
Uspenski Cathedral, which was damaged in a fire April 4, 1473. It was re-
consecrated August 12, 1479 and presently stands within the Moscow Kremlin.
During the consecration of the cathedral, a controversy arose between Tsar
Ivan III and Metr. Geronti having to do with the proper direction of the
procession of the cross around the edifice. If it was to follow the pattern of the
sun, the procession would have to go out through the doors (which face west)
and exiting the church turn south — left — and proceed around the church
counter-clockwise. If the procession ought to go in the direction opposite to that
155
of the sun, the congregation would turn north — right — and proceed around
the church clockwise. During the consecration, Metr. Geronti led the procession
clockwise. Afterwards, certain of Metr. Geronti’s enemies and ill-wishers
maligned him to Tsar Ivan for this and stated that the procession should have
gone counter-clockwise.
Tsar Ivan took their part, and declared the error grave enough that it would
bring God’s wrath upon the nation. Research in church service books was
unable to resolve the issue, because nothing was even mentioned about the
direction of the procession. Several archimandrites and abbots arose to defend
Metr. Geronti; one of them who had visited Mt. Athos in Greece stated that
during his visit he saw the procession performed counter-clockwise. To oppose
the metropolitan in the debate, the grand prince summoned Bishop Vassian of
Rostov and archimandrite Gennadi of Moscow Chudovski Monastery, who both
held the same view as the grand prince; and the former was a rival to Geronti for
the cathedra. The metropolitan provided as evidence in his own support the fact
that the deacon, while burning incense at the altar, walks with the incense
burner around the throne-table clockwise, while Vassian and Gennadi had
nothing to offer as material evidence to support their opposing view, only stating
that as Christ — the true sun — resurrected from hell, then he followed the
pattern of the sun during sunrise Easter morning. The debate led nowhere.
Tsar Ivan held firm in his conviction and, hoping to change the
metropolitan’s mind, ordered that no new churches be consecrated until the
issued was resolved. The debate lay dormant until after the defeat of the
Mongols in 1480 but surfaced again in 1481. Gennadi still stood behind the grand
prince, along with Joasaph, the new Bishop of Rostov. Metr. Geronti was so
annoyed by the harassment and intimidation that he went to Semeonov
Monastery in Moscow and announced that he would resign from his cathedra
unless the grand prince apologized and dropped the matter. With only two
supporters among the prelates of Russian Orthodoxy and a rather weak case,
Ivan apparently felt that nothing would be accomplished by pursuing the matter
further; he dispatched his son as delegate and requested that Metr. Geronti
remain on his cathedra. Geronti would not accept the apology from the son; Ivan
then personally went to Semeonov Monastery, apologized, and asked Geronti to
stay on. This put the matter to rest for about 150 years, and the procession was
performed in the manner that Metr. Geronti felt proper.
During the cathedra of Metr. Filipp, Moscow subjugated Novgorod in 1471.
However, the residents refused to terminate their association with Poland, and
so Tsar Ivan III sent his regiments to Novgorod on a regular basis to arrest
156
Part 4. The Era of Moscovite Russia
insurgents. Some were executed, while others were locked up, locally or in
Moscow. In 1478, after invading and again gaining control of Novgorod, Tsar
Ivan appropriated a significant amount of real estate that was part of the
patrimony of the Church in that region.
Archbishop Theofil of Novgorod was accused of treachery; no doubt he felt
Tsar Ivan’s appropriation of ecclesiastical and monastic patrimony to be illegal,
and he wanted to re-unite with Uniate Poland. Tsar Ivan had the archbishop
arrested January 19, 1480 and brought to Moscow in custody while his entire
Episcopal treasury was confiscated, becoming part of the Imperial treasury. In
Moscow, Theofil was incarcerated at Chudovski Monastery, without further
inquest or trial. He died there four years later, October 26, 1484.
Metr. Geronti agreed with the orders of Tsar Ivan, and officially expelled
Theofil from the priesthood and excommunicated him. The selection of a new
archbishop occurred July 17, 1483 when three nominees were presented to Tsar
Ivan: archimandrite Elisei (Elisha) of Spasso (Salvation) Monastery;
archimandrite Gennadi of Chudovski Monastery; and monk Sergei of Troitse-
Sergievski Monastery. Their ballots were placed on a table in the holy place at
Uspenski Cathedral. After Metr. Geronti performed the liturgy, a ballot was
selected, and it was that of monk Sergei. On September 4, 1483, monk Sergei was
ordained as archbishop of Novgorod, the most important cathedra in Russia
next to the metropolitan.
Sergei however was morally and politically weak, and lasted only nine
months at his episcopacy. He was replaced by archimandrite Gennadi of
Chudovski Monastery, and retired to Troitse-Sergievski Monastery, again as a
regular monk.
To Tsar Ivan III belongs the credit for releasing Russia from Mongol
occupation. For nine years he refused to pay tribute to Khan Akhmet. Delegates
sent to Moscow from the Golden Horde to gather tribute were spurned and
subsequently executed, except for one who returned to Khan Akhmet with
Ivan’s demand to leave Russia. The Mongols gathered their army and stormed
toward Moscow; the battle at the field of Borov took place on July 23, 1480 and
the Mongols were defeated.
In the period after the battle and through the end of his life, Ivan III no
longer considered himself just grand prince, but tsar, a title adapted from the
Greek appellation Caesar. Ivan felt he had a two-fold claim to the title: first, in
his view, he had inherited the throne of the Byzantine kings, having married the
Byzantine princess Zoe Paleologus; and, second, having overthrown the
Mongols, he was no longer subordinate to any authority. The defeat of
157
Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks boosted Ivan III to this higher plateau of
authority over Russia, now as an independent autocrat.
48. ABBOT JOSEPH VOLOTZKI, METROPOLITAN ZOSIMA, AND THE JUDAIZERS
The most difficult chapter of Russian Orthodoxy history to write is the one
dealing with the Judaizers. All available information on the movement is written
by Orthodox clergy and is deeply tainted with anti-Semitism. According to
Orthodox sources, the Judaizers were the most infectious of all heresies to have
ever surfaced in Russia, but after an objective and historical review of their
activities and tenets we will find them not to have been a sect, at all, for there
were too few of them to form one. The movement consisted of individuals within
the Orthodox clergy and lay people who held convictions similar to those of the
Bogomils. Like the Strigolniks, the new dissention erupted as a reaction to the
corruption and illiteracy of prelates and parish priests and the influence and
involvement of government polity in the Orthodox Church. The Judaizers were
not Jews in any sense of the word; this appellation was applied to them only to
discredit them. The group referred to themselves as the New Teaching. The
primary source for information on the Judaizers are the writings of Joseph
Volotzki, archbishop of Rostov at the time and abbot of his Joseph Voloko-
Lamsk Monastery.
Joseph Volotzki was born November 12, 1440, having the birth-name John.
His grandfather Aleksandr had migrated to Russia from Lithuania during the
reign of Dmitri Donskoi and received from him some property about twelve
miles outside of Voloko-Lamsk (Volotzk), where John was born. At the age of
eight, he was given to elder Arsenius of Voloko-Lamsk Kresto-Vozdvizhenski
(Raising of the Cross) Monastery for his education. After some time he moved to
another abbey in Voloko-Lamsk, Prechistoi Bogoroditza (Immaculate
Theotokos), and lived there until the age of 20. Then he moved to a wilderness
area near Tver to visit the famous ascetic Varsonofei, who counseled the young
zealot to go to Borovsk to the venerated ascetic Pafnutius. John came under the
tutelage of Pafnutius on February 13, 1460; he tonsured him and assigned him the
new name Joseph.
While at Borovsk, Joseph convinced his parents to join the monastic life.
His father — also named John — joined the monastic brethren at Borovsk and
was tonsured as a monk, accepting the new name Johanniki. There he resided for
the next 15 years until his death. Marina took the veil at Voloko-Lamsk Convent
158
of St. Vlasiya, where she also resided for the next 30 years, until her death. Two
of Joseph’s brothers, Vassian and Akaki, also joined the Borovsk Monastery. In
later years Vassian became archbishop of Rostov (1506-1516), while Akaki
became bishop of Tver (1525-1546).
When the venerated Pafnutius was on his deathbed, the Borovski monastic
brethren asked him who should be his successor. Without hesitation he directed
their attention to Joseph, who had now lived at the monastery some 17 years and
was outstanding for his intelligence, charity and asceticism. In 1477, Joseph was
ordained abbot of Borovsk-Pafnutiev Monastery by Metr. Geronti. Once he
became abbot, more stringent regulations were imposed on the monastic
brethren, engendering complaints and dissatisfaction. Hardly a year later, Joseph
took leave of Borovsk-Pafnutius and for the next twelve months traveled about
Russia visiting other monasteries. The monastery that most impressed Joseph
and whose pattern he sought to emulate was Kirill Bel-Ozerski.
Returning to Borovsk, Joseph resigned his abbacy, and with seven of the
brethren — including his two brothers — he returned to his home near Voloko-
Lamsk. The feudal prince of the region, Boris Vasilich, brother of Tsar Ivan III,
took a liking to Joseph. He donated some land for a monastery about ten miles
from the city and was able to acquire the blessing of Archbishop Gennadi of
Novgorod on Joseph’s behalf. The first church at the new premises — later to be
known as Joseph Voloko-Lamsk Monastery — was consecrated on August 15,
1479. The new monastic facility was endowed with gifts from its patrons: feudal
prince Boris Vasilich, Novgorod Archbishop Gennadi, and other local landlords
who bequeathed money, farms, villages and undeveloped land to the new
monastery. Monks from Borovsk migrated to Joseph’s monastery as well as many
lay people seeking to enter the new monastic community as novitiates, and their
families also gave generously to the monastery.
Joseph Volotzki was an excellent speaker and residents of the area flocked
to listen to his sermons; they discussed issues with him and ask his counsel on
various matters. The regimen instituted at his monastery was based on the
austere program that he learned while visiting Kirill Bel-Ozerski. Zealous for
Russian Orthodoxy, Joseph Volotzki did not stop short of calling the liberal
Metr. Zosima names: Judas the Betrayer, predecessor of the antichrist, first-born
of Satan, a criminal of a type that had never surfaced yet among apostates — and
all of this, right to his face.
It is no wonder that Archbishop Gennadi of Novgorod selected abbot
Joseph as his confederate in the inquisition of Judaizers. His book Prosvititel
(Enlightener) served as the Orthodox basis for inquisition and persecution of
159
not only Judaizers, but also other dissenting and sectarian denominations in
later years.
During the cathedra of Metr. Filipp I, a man identified only by the name of
Sakhari arrived in Novgorod on November 8, 1470, from Latvia, as part of the
retinue of Pr. Mikhail Aleksandrovich of Kiev. The prince remained in Novgorod
about four months and departed March 15, 1471, but no information indicates
what became of Sakhari after this date; he completely disappears from the scene.
(The name Sakhari is a modification of Zakhariya, the Russian form of
Zachariah.)
Joseph Volotzki labeled Sakhari a Jew, but there is no evidence to justify
this except that Sakhari did advocate circumcision. More Bogomilism than
Judaism is apparent in Sakhari’s tenets. Some historians have identified Sakhari
as a member of the Karaite sect of the Jews, and many of them did live in Ukraine
and Latvia during this era; but this is just conjecture. Livanov describes Sakhari
in the following and somewhat more objective terms.
Sakhari was an educated individual and had an excellent mastery of
dialectics; he knew the Holy Scriptures and the works of the holy fathers,
astrology, and all the sciences. He was also familiar with the natural sciences.
Sakhari attached himself to the Judaizer interpretation, and it is difficult to
understand why. It is doubtful that he was a Talmudist, because in the
teaching of Sakhari not one word from the Talmud is found. By all likelihood he
was a member of some religious community in Latvia. His entire teaching did
not contain anything new or original, nor was it complete, delivered to us from
somewhere else, but was a compilation of various and sundry similar and
conflicting opinions and interpretations, all of which developed from the eras
of the Bogomils and Strigolniks on Russian soil.
And so we see that the New Teaching, popularly labeled the sect of the
Judaizers, quickly seized the Russian community of that era and found
proselytes among educated individuals. One of the preachers was Gregori
Mikhailovich Puchin, the son of an influential boyar who had great authority in
Novgorod. Remnants of the Strigolniks joined the New Teaching with a large
group of priests and deacons, citizens, churchmen, city rulers and peasants.
The writings of Kozmi (Cosmas), a Bulgarian presbyter and organizer of the
sect of the Bogomils, and those of Menander and Jesus the son of Sirach,
promoted the New Teaching along with other books on logic and philosophy
which were apparently brought from Latvia.
As part of the retinue of the prince of Kiev, Sakhari had access to the higher
circles of both polity and religion in Russia. Sakhari’s first convert in Novgorod
was the priest Dionysei, who then brought another priest, Aleksei, who was also
converted. These two priests became the fountainhead of the Judaizer
160
movement. At this time five of Sakhari’s fellows migrated from Latvia to

Novgorod, but information as to their history and role is vague. Priest Aleksei
changed his name to Abraham and his wife changed her name to Sarah. Sakhari
and his friends disappear from history at this time; Aleksei and Dionysei went on
to preach their convictions, which they called the New Teaching. Their
proselytes included Gabriel, protopope of the Cathedral of St. Sophia in
Novgorod, and about 20 more priests and deacons of the region. The newest
converts to their New Teaching in Moscow were Zosima, archimandrite of
Semeonov Monastery and later metropolitan, and Theodor Vasilich Kuritzin, a
secretary of Tsar Ivan III, and others. The most prominent convert to the New
Teaching was Elena Stefanovna, a daughter-in-law of Tsar Ivan.
The movement continued developing in Novgorod quietly and slowly for
nine years and then spread into Moscow. Toward the end of 1479, Tsar Ivan
visited Novgorod and took a liking to priests Aleksei and Dionysei; he took them
to Moscow with him on his return. Aleksei was elevated to protopope of
Uspenski Cathedral, while Dionysei became a priest at Archangelsk Cathedral.
By promoting them in Moscow, Tsar Ivan indicated that he recognized qualities
in these men that were valuable to Russian Orthodoxy; this was the same Tsar
Ivan who was so meticulous regarding Orthodox tradition in the direction of the
procession of the cross.
The New Teaching continued to expand clandestinely and subtly for 17
years, when it was exposed by the zealous new archbishop of Novgorod,
Gennadi. The Judaizers had expanded under archbishop Sergei of Novgorod, a
morally and politically weak man who did not consider the New Teaching a
threat to Orthodoxy. He resigned June 27, 1484. His replacement Gennadi,
formerly archimandrite of Chudovski Monastery in Moscow, was ordained
archbishop of Novgorod December 12, 1484. Gennadi was a fervent advocate of
capital punishment for anyone labeled a heretic to Orthodoxy, and he took as his
example the Catholic Inquisition in Spain (prosecuted by King Ferdinand and
Queen Isabella of Castile and Aragon, at the request of Pope Innocent VIII).
Gennadi looked for a ruthless execution of all heretics by burning them at the
stake or by public hangings. “Sinners or heretics,” Gennadi said to Tsar Ivan III,
“must be put to death by our hands, or we are no different than them in prayer.”
Gennadi arrived to take up his post December 9, 1485; he heard about the
dissenters from some drunk parish priests (sic). Gennadi relayed the information
to Metr. Geronti and Tsar Ivan III, and began an investigation himself. The tsar
ordered Gennadi to take all measures necessary to subdue the dissenters. Three
individuals were arrested in Novgorod but were released on bail; they fled to
161
Moscow. They were the priest Grigori, his son Samson, a deacon, and the priest
Ersima. Gennadi proceeded with his inquisition of Judaizers, based on the order
he received from Tsar Ivan. Gennadi requested and received the assistance of
abbot Joseph of Voloko-Lamsk Monastery. Those members of the movement
who repented were reunited to Orthodoxy and were required to attend liturgy
regularly, while those who persisted in their convictions were arrested and
handed over to the civil authorities for disciplinary action. Gennadi wrote
reports regarding the unrepentant, and tried to convince both metropolitan and
tsar to condemn them in absentia and sentence them to execution. This did not
occur; there was friction between him and Metr. Geronti. Tsar Ivan, influenced
by protopopes Aleksei and Th. Kuritzin, likewise refused to issue an order for
their execution. Thus the prosecution of the movement subsided for a while and
those who had been arrested were released; they eventually migrated to
Moscow. The matter lay dormant until the death of Metr. Geronti May 28, 1489.
After an interval of over a year, and for reasons unknown, as the chronicler
states, archimandrite Zosima of Semeonov Monastery was selected September
19 and then ordained September 26, 1490 as metropolitan of Russia. Joseph
Volotzki states that protopope Aleksei cast a demonic spell on Tsar Ivan, leading
him to select and ordain a secret adherent of the Judaizers as metropolitan (even
though protopope Aleksei died shortly after Metr. Geronti, before the ordination
of Zosima). How Zosima managed to have himself ordained as metropolitan —
whether or not he was a secret adherent of the Judaizer conviction — becomes
apparent if we consider that Ivan III’s main criterion was ability in ecclesiastical
administration. More than likely Zosima became the target of Joseph Volotzki’s
anger because of his lenient attitude toward the New Teaching, and so Joseph
labeled Zosima a secret Judaizer and turned against him.
Gennadi wrote a letter to the new metropolitan and the tsar, requesting an
ecclesiastical council to declare anathema on these heretics (as he considered
them). Metr. Zosima agreed to a new council and Gennadi was able to arrest
two members of the New Teaching: protopope Dionysei of Archangelsk
Cathedral and a monk named Zakharie, who was earlier father superior of a
monastery in Pskov. Zakharie fell under suspicion when reports were published
that he had suspended performance of the Eucharist at his monastery. The
council convened October 17, 1490, 21 days after Zosima’s ordination as
metropolitan. Present at this council were Bishop Tikhon of Rostov, Bishop
Nifont of Suzdal, Bishop Filothei of Perm, Bishop Vassian of Tver, Bishop
Semeon of Ryazan, and several archimandrites, abbots and priests. The new
metropolitan presided over the council. Tsar Ivan did not attend but sent his
162
son, Tsarevich Vasili III Ivanovich in his place. Abbot Athani of Troitse-
Sergievski Monastery and the venerated Trans-Volga elders Nil of Sor (Sorski)
and Paisei of Yaroslav (Yaroslavov) also attended. The defendants denied all
charges of heresy hurled against them by Gennadi, but they were convicted on
all counts. Tsar Ivan III felt capital punishment was unnecessary and he only
authorized exile or corporal punishment. Metr. Zosima and the venerated elders
Nil of Sor and Paisei of Yaroslav also opposed execution. Archbishop Gennadi
ignored their intercession and had them punished as he saw fit.
Now condemned as heretics, they were excommunicated from the Church.
The chroniclers record the names of several men who were excommunicated
along with Dionysei and Zakarie: protopope Gabriel of Novgorod, deacon
Gridya of Borisoglebsk, priest Denis of Archangel, and deacon Samukhi of
Nikolsk. A total of nine men were sentenced. Some were incarcerated, while
others were sent to Novgorod to be punished. Beginning 30 miles outside of
Novgorod, they were seated backwards on horses and wearing their clothes
turned inside out; they were capped with the pointed bast helmets that were a
sign of the insane. They also wore a plaque stating, “Behold the hosts of satan.”
Thus they were toured through the cities and towns as they journeyed toward
Novgorod. Whoever saw them would spit on them, right in their eyes, and
would hurl abuse at them, screaming, “Look at you enemies of God, blasphemers
of Christ.” Having arrived in Novgorod they were secured in wooden cages; their
hats were set on fire and they were burned to death.
The approaching fatal year of 1492 gave the Judaizers new impetus. From
Orthodox Greece migrated a new interpretation of the final days, which was
accepted by many Orthodox clergy in Moscovite Russia. According to the
Orthodox calendar, 1492 completed 7,000 years from the creation of the world,
which would usher in the new millennium and Christ’s second coming.
Bolstering this conviction, Orthodox believers quoted Solomon: “Give a portion
to seven or even to eight, for you know not what evil may happen on earth” (Eccl
11:2). They interpreted this to mean that humanity was allotted seven periods of
residence, while the eighth would become eternity. These periods were defined
as millennia.
When the year 1492 came and passed without incident, Judaizers accused
the Orthodox clergy of membership in a pseudo-church. The failed prediction
created increased disorder in Orthodoxy, with each side hurling anathemas at
the other. Many of the serfs and peasantry joined the New Teaching, feeling
slighted by Orthodoxy. As the number of adherents of the New Teaching
increased, so did the vengeance of Joseph Volotzki. Because of Metr. Zosima’s
163
leniency toward the “heretics,” he was himself accused by Joseph Volotzki of

being a clandestine Judaizer. Zosima did not view the Judaizers as a threat to the
dominion of Orthodoxy and in retaliation accused Joseph Volotzki of
sensationalism. Joseph Volotzki’s incessant maligning of Metr. Zosima
eventually led to his resignation May 17, 1491 after three years and eight months
as metropolitan. He retired to Troitse-Sergievski Monastery. A new
metropolitan was ordained one and a half years later September 20, 1495 —
Simon, a monk of the same monastery.
Theodor Kuritzen, however, was still actively promoting the New
Teaching, although clandestinely. He was able to persuade Tsar Ivan to elevate a
fellow adherent, Kassian, as archimandrite of Yurievski Monastery in Novgorod,
which became the next center of Judaizer thought until 1504. As the adherents
increased in numbers as a result of Kassian’s proselytism, Joseph Volotzki also
began to prepare his second phase of inquisition. He wrote the book “Prosvititel”
(The Enlightener) at about this time, exposing the New Teaching as heretical,
with Jewish roots, and stating that the only way to rid Orthodoxy of this plague
was by executing its members. Joseph accused the Judaizers of defiling
Orthodox churches, dishonoring holy icons, conducting clandestine services
where they offered blood sacrifices, and performing liturgy using Jewish
traditions. This anti-Semitic sensationalism was effective in the creation of a
second ecclesiastical council in 1503 to anathematize and punish the newest
group of dissenters.
Theodor Kuritzen died sometime between 1497 and the beginning of the
second council in 1503. The Judaizer heresy was not actually the primary topic of
the council. Tsar Ivan summoned the council to discuss what he felt were topics
of major moral importance; they will be discussed in the following chapter.
Joseph Volotzki, now respected by both tsar and prelates, attended the council.
When the topic turned to the Judaizers, Joseph Volotzki refuted their heresy
and demanded that the leading figures be sentenced to death by being locked in
wooden cages and publicly set on fire. Other adherents were to have their
tongues cut out, and incarcerated permanently. Even if any of the accused should
repent, he felt the repentance should not be considered valid or sincere, as it
would have been performed out of fear of reprisal for heresy; the accused should
therefore still be subject to some type of corporal punishment. The new
metropolitan Simon, along with many higher clergy, voted in favor of capital
punishment. The tsar, having a more lenient and mature attitude toward
dissenters from Orthodoxy, opposed capital punishment — although he still felt
they should be punished in some manner. Tsar Ivan had the support of the two
164
venerated Trans-Volga elders at this council, also: Nil Sorski and Paisei
Yaroslavov. Toward the conclusion of the council the majority view overcame
the leniency of the tsar and Trans-Volga elders. Ivan capitulated to their
demands and authorized the execution of any dissenters apprehended. He also
ordered a search throughout all the cities, and decreed that the dissenters be
brought to Moscow.
In November and December of 1503, all the Judaizers who were
apprehended were tried at an Episcopal court where Orthodox witnesses
testified against them, and they were excommunicated and sentenced. The
primary preachers of the New Teaching, Ivan Volk, a brother of Kuritzen, Ivan
Maksimov, brother of protopope Aleksei, Dmitri Konovalov, and archimandrite
Kassian of Yurievski Monastery, were duly secured in wooden cages and burned
to death on December 27, 1503 in Moscow. Another leader, Nekras Rukova, had
his tongue excised and was subsequently burned to death after his arrival in
Novgorod. The rest of the adherents were either exiled to various monasteries to
be imprisoned until the end of their lives, or else were burned to death. The
executions of 1503-1504 meant the demise of the New Teaching as a public
religious movement. Any remaining adherents held their views in private.
The beliefs and tenets that defined the New Teaching, or Judaizers, is
discussed less by Orthodox historians than the sensationalism surrounding
them as dissenters of Orthodoxy; and their own documents have not survived.
Livanov recorded the primary tenets of the Judaizers as the following.
God the Father Almighty has neither Son nor Holy Spirit as persons of the
same essence and co-enthroned with him. Where in Scripture it is stated that
God the Father Almighty possesses the Word and Spirit, this refers to His
revealed word and the spirit residing in the atmosphere.
Jesus Christ is not the actual son of God. The son of God foretold in
Scripture is not yet born, and when he is born he will called son of God, not due
to essence, but by grace, as were Moses, David and other prophets and holy
men. The Christ that is confessed by Christians was a plain person and not
God. He was crucified, died, and so decayed in the tomb.
The law of Moses must be observed. (This pertained to circumcision, Old
Testament holidays, the Sabbath, food laws, and specifically the injunction not
to utilize images in worship.)
The writings of the holy fathers of the early church are false, and likewise
the New Testament. The apostle wrote that Christ was to return soon and
claimed that they were already in the concluding period of life on earth, but
now 1500 years have passed and Christ has not yet returned.
165
Veneration of icons and the crucifix is idolatry. Orthodox traditions are to

be rejected.
Monasticism is a human development and monks are apostates from the
writings of the prophets, gospels and apostles.
If is it true that the prophetic writings speak about the last judgment,
resurrection of the dead, and etc., then it is not Jesus Christ who will judge, but
God Almighty.
The body of Christ and His blood in the sacrament of the Eucharist is not
actual flesh and blood, but plain bread and wine, and the Eucharist has no
sacramental validity.
Temples and other sacred items made by hand are unnecessary.
The Fast days of Wednesdays and Fridays are to be rejected. Meat and milk
can be eaten on these days.
The saints are not to be worshipped and holy relics are not to be venerated.
Adherents of the New Teaching did reject certain liturgical, traditional and
theological aspects of Orthodoxy. The Jewish identity that Joseph Volotzki
recognized in the New Teaching was the drive behind his anti-Semitism, but he
failed to acknowledge that it was the corruption of Orthodoxy during this era
that acted as a catalyst for the progress of the Judaizer movement. The common
peasantry was attracted to the New Teaching as a movement with which they
could identify and which offered more benefit to their personal life than the
complex theology and liturgy of Orthodoxy. The elders of the New Teaching also
provided a higher standard of morality than either the parish priest or prelate.
Rudnev, a researcher on the dissenters of early Russia, concluded in 1838
that the movement labeled Judaizer was not Judaism, neither was it purely
rationalistic Christian thought, but a combination of certain facets of the two.
Rudnev concluded, as did Livanov, that the Bogomil influence is more apparent
in the New Teaching than anything Talmudic or Jewish.
Eventually, all of the leaders of the New Teaching perished as martyrs.
After the council of 1503, the balance of members either fled Russia entirely to
Lithuania or Germany, or scattered throughout Moscovite Russia, away from
large metropolitan centers and diocesan capitals. The last of the inquisitions
occurred in 1520, with the arrest of Isaak. An ecclesiastical council held that year
ordered his execution for heresy and labeled him “a Jewish sorcerer, magician
and deceiver.” The last mention of the movement comes in a report made by
Archbishop Makari — later metropolitan — to Tsar Vasili III, stating that the
movement had been vanquished. The movement did go dormant at this time,
166
except in outlying regions which became fertile soil for the later growth and
development of the teachings of Bashkin and Tveritinov. A remnant of Judaizers
resided in Tambov as late as the 1760s under the tutelage of their elder, Matvei
Semeonovich Dalmatov.
At another council, held in 1505, Archbishop Gennadi was tried for simony.
It appears he deposed several priests for no apparent reason and then promoted
others in their place after accepting a bribe. Tsar Ivan summoned Gennadi to
Moscow when he heard about this. At the trial, Gennadi was convicted of
simony, was defrocked and relieved of his diocese, and was incarcerated at
Chudovski Monastery. Confined to a cloister under guard, there he stayed until
he died, December 3, 1515, after eleven years of incarceration. Tsar Ivan III died
October 27, 1505; Joseph Volotzki died September 9, 1515.
49. METROPOLITAN SIMON
The reason for Metr. Zosima’s resignation and his replacement by Simon
was discussed in the previous chapter. Russian historians relate the manner of
Simon’s ordination September 20, 1495. After Simon was selected by a council of
prelates, he entered the palace to be presented to the tsar. They left the palace
together and were accompanied by the royal family; everyone walked together in
a procession to Uspenski Cathedral in the Moscow Kremlin. There the
metropolitan-elect kissed the icon of the Vladimir Theotokos and venerated the
tombs of his predecessors. From the cathedral they walked to the home of the
metropolitan, where at the doors the tsar delivered him back to the prelates to
return to the cathedral to complete the ordination. At the conclusion of the
liturgy of ordination, the tsar entrusted him with the shepherd’s staff. After the
ordination, the metropolitan rode around the city on a donkey that was led by
one of the noblemen.
As mentioned above, Ivan III Vasilich considered himself heir to the
Byzantine throne after the fall of Constantinople in 1452 to the Ottoman Turks,
and especially given his marriage to the Greek princess Zoe Paleologus. Now
referring to himself as Tsar of Russia, Ivan III did not hesitate to personally
arrange the selection and ordination of Simon as metropolitan by Russian
prelates.
Shortly after Simon’s accession to the metropolitan’s cathedra, an
ecclesiastical council was held in Moscow (April 16 through August 6, 1503) in
order to resolve issues of morality and ethics that plagued the priesthood. The
167
Judaizer matter one of the topics discussed. These topics had been discussed by
earlier metropolitans and ordinances had been established; however, despite
these earlier efforts, the ordinances were not implemented at the parish level and
were ineffective. The first issue was simony. Bishops continued to require
payment from candidates for ordination. The council ruled that, beginning with
the metropolitan, no ecclesiastical figure should require money as a prerequisite
for an ordination nor should he select the candidate who would provide the
greater contribution. It was because of this ordinance that Archbishop Gennadi
of Novgorod was deposed from his episcopacy and incarcerated in 1505.
The second issue was the performance of rites and liturgies by priests who
had become drunk the night before. Because of their hangovers, they were unable
to perform the liturgy. The council decreed that any priest or monk who drank
alcoholic beverages was not to perform any church service the following day.
The next issue was the cohabitation of monks and nuns. It was not unusual
to have a convent and monastery side by side, or nuns living at a monastery. This
close proximity led to moral dissolution. The father superior often did not have
the fortitude to curb this immorality, or else himself had a nun with whom he
quartered. A coincident issue was widowed priests who acquired for themselves
a concubine. The council decreed that monks and priests who were caught
violating their vow of chastity should be defrocked and expelled from the
monastery or parish, or else they were to cease the immorality and remain chaste,
living at a monastery. Widowed priests could no longer reside at or administrate
a parish. All these laudable decrees were, again, unappealing, unenforceable and
ineffective.
The final issue discussed at this council was the matter of ecclesiastical
patrimony: the vast expanses of real estate, including serfs, villages and inclusive
property owned by Russian Orthodoxy. Paisei Yaroslavov and Nil Sorski were
the two primary elders that advocated poverty and self-subsistence for the
monasteries. Paisei was a monk tonsured at an unrecorded monastery north of
the Volga River, known as the Trans-Volga region. The primary monasteries of
the Trans-Volga were Kirill Bel-Ozerski and Therapontov, and which area also
contained several smaller hermitages and abbeys. In 1479, Tsar Ivan III ordered
Paisei to assume the responsibility of abbot of Troitse-Sergievski Monastery.
Paisei accepted the post but left after three years to retire as a regular monk. Nil
Sorski was a disciple of Paisei and founded a hermitage on the Sor River about
eight miles from Kirill Bel-Ozerski Monastery. Nil traveled to Constantinople
and Mt. Athos in his early years and brought to Russia more instruction on
ascetic practices. Both of these elders were granted privileges by their patron
168
and benefactor Tsar Ivan III, and they were the two who requested the
dissolution of ecclesiastical patrimony at this council. The faction of clergy in
favor of ecclesiastical patrimony were labeled “possessors,” while those against
were labeled “non-possessors.” In addition to the above elders, the well-known
monk and former prince Vassian Kosoi of the Patrikeev family sided in with the
non-possessors.
At the council of 1503, after the discussion ended regarding widowed
priests, Nil announced to the council his proposition for the reformation of
Russian monasticism. His ideal concept was that monasteries should not
possess real estate populated with serfs, but that monks should support
themselves by working at crafts or agriculture, and if this provided insufficient
income then they could accept donations from pilgrims and other charitable
individuals — but only the amount necessary to live on, not accepting any more.
Paisei and Nil’s views regarding the impropriety of wealthy monasteries
have as their source Kirill of Bel-Ozersk, who died in 1427. According to the true
ideal of monasticism, monks must provide for themselves by the labor of their
own hands and acquire an excess in order to have something to contribute to the
poor. As noted in an earlier chapter, Theodosius of Pecher Monastery, although
he accepted donations of real estate from charitable citizens, opposed using that
to provide financial security for the monastery. He claimed it reflected insecurity
and meager faith on the part of the monastic brethren. Kirill of Bel-Ozersk,
following the concepts of Theodosius of Pecher, accepted donations of real
estate to the monastery, and even utilized monastery funds to purchase more, yet
in his mind it amounted to excessive ecclesiastical patrimony, to which he
opposed. After Kirill’s death his views were promulgated by Paisei Yaroslavov
and Nil Sorski. These two men were inspired to crystallize their convictions and
to undertake a complete reformation of Russian monasticism, to return it to
what they saw as its original ideal state.
During the zealous era of Paisei and Nil, abbots and archimandrites were
obsessed with a passion to acquire more and more towns and villages, and often
thought of nothing else. They took full advantage of their position to extort real
estate from landlords and feudal princes under the façade of Christian charity.
Once gaining possession of land, they directed their efforts to developing it
agriculturally, hoping for greater income. Monks exploited the serfs living on
their patrimony no less ruthlessly than the previous landlord or feudal prince.
Some father superiors even appropriated land by arguing over borders and then
going to court, knowing that the judge would decide the new property line in
their favor. As a result of this blatantly unethical conduct, the notion that
169
monasticism entailed a rejection and denial of the world became a laughing

matter. It was these examples of avarice that prompted exceptional people to
raise their voices against ecclesiastical and monastery patrimony. Nil Sorski
opposed ecclesiastical patrimony in the depths of his soul and he described it to
his contemporaries as the fatal venom of monasticism, stating that monasteries,
once highly respected, had become an abomination as a result of property
ownership and management.
Of course, the drive led by the two Trans-Volga elders to radically reform
monasticism to its original ideal was nothing more than a pipe dream. Apart
from Nil’s few supporters from Bel-Ozerski Monastery, the council was against
the proposition. His proposal was not even debated or discussed: for the most
part, it was simply disregarded. The council selected Joseph Volotzki to refute
the proposal, and his refutation was the basis for the centuries-old practice of
monastic patrimony: it is implemented as a source of income to provide financial
security for the monastery, and this applied equally to parish churches, dioceses,
and the cathedra of the metropolitan. In regard to the abuse of such
contributions of real estate Joseph stated that individual transgressions were not
sufficient reason to blame the entire monastic system and so deprive it of its
patrimony. Joseph also viewed the wealth of the Church, both monastic and
parish, as a means to attract better quality monks and priests, those who would
not become ordained if they actually had to support themselves by manual labor
and live in poverty. The prelates had their own interests to defend and were
fortunate to have such an advocate as Joseph Volotzki; he quickly convinced the
council of the danger in allowing the state to secularize ecclesiastical patrimony.
Such was the answer provided to Paisei Yaroslavov and Nil Sorski at the council.
The answer had yet to be presented to Tsar Ivan; Nil Sorski’s proposal had
important implications for the interests of the state and the tsar’s own personal
interests. Tsar Ivan had already distributed extensive lands to his servants and
employees for their service, and now he was desperate for more fertile land.
Second, Tsar Ivan also possessed a passion for acquiring more wealth. If Nil’s
proposal materialized, it would give him access to large tracts of excellent land,
to do with as he pleased. For these reasons, he was inclined to favor Nil’s view
about the impropriety of monastic real estate holdings.
Tsar Ivan had already secularized some of the real estate of the churches
and monasteries of Novgorod during his struggle with them over control of the
region in 1478, and again in 1500, when Ivan appropriated more real estate from
the archbishop of Novgorod and regional monasteries.
170
If Tsar Ivan thought that the prelates at the council would be favorably
disposed toward Nil’s proposal, he was mistaken. The council informed Tsar
Ivan that they were unable to grant elder Nil’s request that monasteries and
churches abolish real estate proprietorship and become self-sustaining,
explaining that the tradition of the Church owning real estate holdings and serfs
and villages was instituted centuries earlier by prelates and ecclesiastical
councils who agreed that such property, once acquired by the Church, was
God’s property, to be under the administration of the guardian church. The
property was sanctified land, to be considered a gift of God, and it would be
sacrilegious to violate the will of God by returning the land (or allowing the land
to be repossessed) for secular use. In essence, the council decreed a retroactive
edict to their own advantage, forbidding them to forfeit any ecclesiastical real
estate.
Tsar Ivan was not at all satisfied with the results of the council. The
prelates had to read their declaration through an entire three times before the
tsar accepted it as their consensual decision. Ivan at least hoped for a concession,
for some compromise; but such was not the case. Still, there is no evidence that
he came away with harsh feelings toward either his metropolitan or toward
Joseph Volotzki. However, that was hardly the end of the matter; later tsars
persisted in efforts to secularize ecclesiastical real estate.
Shortly after the council concluded, Tsar Ivan issued two laws regarding
transfer of property to the Church. The first allowed heirs the opportunity to
buy back or redeem the property at a later date, if they felt they had been
deprived of an inheritance by their parents. The second law forbade any property
that contained serfs to be transferred to the Church without the express
approval of the tsar; but this only pertained to certain provinces in the outlying
regions of Moscovite Russia. The legislation proved futile, as local feudal princes
continued to allow the Church to expand and acquire property for development
in regions distant from the capital Moscow.
As far as Metr. Simon’s role as supreme pastor of Russian Orthodoxy is
concerned, there are only two extant letters that display his attitude toward
morality, apart from the reforms of the council of 1503. Both of these instructives
are addressed to the city of Perm. The first was to the clergy and the second to
the laity, dated August 22, 1501. The bishop of Perm had passed away in April of
that year, and a new bishop was not ordained until the following year, May 5,
1502. Metr. Simon’s two instructives deal with temptations that both clergy and
laity faced, and express the hope that they would persevere and continue in
Orthodoxy until the new bishop was ordained.
171
After 16 years as metropolitan of Russia, Simon passed away April 30, 1511.
50. METROPOLITAN VARLAAM
The son of Ivan III, Vasili III, likewise considered himself tsar — or
independent autocrat — over Russia, and in fact to a greater degree than his
father did. Tsar Vasili selected Varlaam as metropolitan; he had been
archimandrite of Semeonov Monastery in Moscow since 1506. Varlaam was
selected on July 27, 1511, four months after the death of Simon, and was ordained
August 3, 1511.
A visitor to Russia at the time, Baron Gerbershtein, recorded his
impression of the metropolitan’s nomination. Gerbershtein visited Russia twice,
from April 14 to November 21, 1517, and from April 26 to November 11, 1526. He
wrote that in previous ages the metropolitan and archbishops were selected by a
council of other archbishops along with bishops, archimandrites and abbots
who sought throughout the monasteries and abbeys a man of holy life, whom
they would nominate. At the present time, he recorded, the new sovereign had
the custom of inviting a select group to his presence and then he would choose
one of them as he saw fit.
Varlaam’s selection as metropolitan proved to be a disappointment for Tsar
Vasili III. In his favor, in ecclesiastical matters Varlaam was sympathetic toward
those labeled “non-possessors,” and was a supporter of the former prince and
now monk Vassian Kosoi; but they had been the losing faction. Later during his
cathedra, Metr. Varlaam protected Maksim the Greek, who was disliked by
many. The historical record indicates that Varlaam was an austere person, never
a sycophant of the tsar, and who did nothing opposed to his own conscience.
With such high moral standards, Varlaam did not fit in well with the tsar’s
circle.
Varlaam followed the ideas of the Trans-Volga elders, seeking to introduce
and put into practice high principles of Christian morality; he could not approve
all of the activities of feudal politics. As a result, Metr. Varlaam was forced to
resign or was forced out of his cathedra by Tsar Vasili. The fatal point of
contention was Tsar Vasili’s attempt to violate a peace treaty between himself
and a regional feudal prince, Vasili Ivanovich Schematich. The tsar sought to
invade the principality of Schematich and append it to his own Moscovite
principality; Varlaam would not give his consent and rather reprimanded the
tsar for wishing to violate the treaty. Tsar Vasili III forced Metr. Varlaam out of
172
his cathedra December 17 or 18, 1521 after ten years as metropolitan. First, he was
exiled to Kirill Bel-Ozerski Monastery, where he was incarcerated in shackles
and fetters in an isolated cell. Later that month, Varlaam was transferred to
Kamennoi Monastery at Kubenski Lake, in Vologda province, where he spent
the remainder of his life as a regular monk. The accounts do not indicate the date
of his death.
51. MOSCOW — THE THIRD ROME
The Russian concept that the right and privilege of the Byzantine emperor
had been transferred to the tsar of Moscow found its primary basis and support
in the marriage of Tsar Ivan III to the niece of the last Byzantine Emperor, Zoe
Paleologus (in Russia, her name was changed to Sophia, because Russian
prelates considered her Greek name Uniate). With this marriage it was as if the
Moscow sovereignty acquired a formal and judicial right to the Byzantine
crown. Pavel Miliukov described the ideology as follows:
Marrying Sophia Paleologus, Tsar Ivan III became for his generation the
heir of the Caesaro-Papism of the Byzantine emperors. And in the same move,
the Russian Church claimed its own right to independence from the patriarch
of Constantinople; and the Russian kings took on a role as its representative
and head, even though their claims did not extend as far as the boundaries that
the Byzantine emperors placed under their authority.
Emperor Constantine XI Paleologus had been found dead June 1, 1453, the
day after the Ottoman Turks defeated Constantinople. Of his family, only two
brothers remained: Dmitri and Thomas; they were living in Peloponesia. Dmitri
died in captivity shortly thereafter; he was a monk, and left no children.
Thomas fled to Venice, seeking refuge from the Turks and asking Rome for
protection, and he died there sometime later. Thomas left four children, whom
the pope took under his tutelage: Manuel, Andrei, Helen and Zoe. Of them,
Manuel returned to the Turkish sultan and converted to Islam; Helen died in
her early years; Zoe and Andrei were educated in Rome under the guidance of
cardinal Vissarion. Zoe was engaged first to a wealthy and popular Venetian,
which engagement was broken when the grand prince of Moscow became
interested in her. Rome supported the marriage, hoping that Russia would
provide military assistance in a Crusade against the Turks — which was a
futile dream, nonetheless.
In 1473, the wife of a Venetian seignior (whose name has been lost) wrote to
Ivan Tsar III, saying that the eastern empire had terminated the imperial
dynasty through the male offspring, and that it was now to continue and
173
pertain to Ivan III’s family as a result of the marriage. The existence of Sophia’s
brother Andrei was ignored for political expediency.
Shortly after the liberation from Mongol occupation in 1480, Ivan III
became the first of Moscow princes to officially adopt an autocratic title by
referring to himself as tsar (from the Roman Caesar). His donning of the title
celebrated both events: taking up the legacy of Byzantium, and liberating Russia
from Mongol occupation. In correspondence, Ivan III referred to himself as, “By
the mercy of God, Tsar of all Russia.” His son Vasili III continued the tradition
and referred to himself in correspondence as, “By the mercy of God, tsar and
grand prince.”
The development of the theory of Moscow as the “Third Rome” began with
Metr. Zosima in 1492. In his announcement regarding the Easter cycle he wrote,
“And now, may God glorify our enlightened, faithful and Christ-loving grand
prince Ivan Vasilich within Orthodoxy, the sovereign and autocrat of all Russia,
the new king Constantine for the new city of Constantine — Moscow.”
The ambassadorial translator Dmitri Gerasimov wrote the “Story of the
White Cowl,” wherein he exalts the ecclesiastical authority of Russia coincident
with its political significance. The author’s intent was to explain the transfer of
the sole Orthodox Christian kingdom. The supreme sacred item was the white
cowl which, in a miraculous fashion, was relocated to Russia and then worn by
the archbishops of Novgorod from ancient times. He wrote, “Ancient Rome fell
from glory and from the faith of Christ due to pride and its own will. The new
Rome — Constantinople — perished by the force of the descendents of Hagar.
Upon the third Rome, which is the Russian land, the grace of the holy Spirit has
shined.”
Another composition was written providing the provenance of the crown
of Vladimir Monomakh. One passage relates the travels of this royal insignia,
suggesting that it moved from Babylon to Egypt, then to Rome, then to
Byzantium, and finally to Russia.
The strongest formulation composed in the Russian community regarding
Russia’s right to consider itself heir of Orthodoxy was provided by elder Filofei
(Philothius) of Pskov Eleazarov Monastery in a letter to Tsar Vasili III and his
son, the future Ivan IV. Filofei identifies the woman clothed with the sun of
Revelation 12 with the Church. Russia is the wilderness to which the Church
migrated after fleeing from Constantinople. The remaining Christian nations
were swept away by a flood of unbelievers covering the land. Filofei concludes,
“Listen, for the sake of the Lord, the Church of ancient Rome fell due to belief in
the Apollinarian heresy, and the Church of Constantinople was severed apart by
174
the swords of the [descendants] of Hagar. For all the Christian kingdoms
descend to your kingdom and this kingdom will have no end. Two Romes have
fallen, while the third stands, and a fourth there will not be. You alone,” wrote
the elder to Vasili III, “under all heaven are the Christian king and your Christian
kingdom will never become the possession of another. You alone are the great
Orthodox Russian king under all of heaven. You are as Noah was in the ark,
saved from the flood, directing and driving the Church of Christ and affirming
the Orthodox faith.” The final expression is a clear statement that the royal
authority of the tsar must be used to defend the faith and church of Christ. Now,
the grand prince of Moscow appears as “He who holds the reins of the holy
ecumenical apostolic church.” This, the logic of Filofei, eventually migrated into
the thinking of Russians, both clerical and laic, in regard to their spiritual legacy.
52. ELDER NIL OF SOR
Further discussion of the prominent elder Nil Sorski will explore what
type of ascetic he was and his impact on Russian monasticism during the
Moscovite era. Nil Maikov was tonsured as a monk at Kirill Bel-Ozerski
Monastery and was a disciple of Paisei Yaroslavov. In his zeal as a young monk,
he traveled to Mt. Athos where he spent time learning the practice of asceticism
and especially hesychasm, silent prayer in deep meditation. He was accompanied
to Mt. Athos by a fellow monk named Innocent, or Pr. Okhlebinin before his
tonsure. He returned to Kirill Bel-Ozerski and introduced the practice of
hesychasm there.
About five miles from Kirill Monastery, Nil began his own hermitage
alongside the river Sor — hence his name, Sorski — along with his fellow monk
Innocent. As his fledgling monastery, he would not accept any patrimony or real
estate other than the grounds themselves, and the monks were to work to
support themselves. While other monasteries accumulated property, Nil Sorski
was a non-possessor.
Nil could not but recognize that with the acceptance of the Greek practice
of hesychasm he would meet with those who opposed self-taught scholars. Nil
would have an uphill battle to impress upon the Russians this foreign idea of
taking a critical attitude toward scripture. Nil also condemned ecclesiastical
extravagance, apparent in the decor and embellishment of churches and clerical
vestments. He also lightened the burden of superficial adherence to rite and
ritual required of monks, replacing it by his practice of denial and contemplative
175
prayer. Nil attended the council of 1503 and there introduced his projected
reform of Russian monasticism which was so flatly rejected by the clergy
attending, as mentioned in a previous chapter. His ideal of monasticism was the
development of small hermitages, each self-contained and self-sustained,
without wealth or extravagance. Pavel Miliukov viewed the activities of these
Trans-Volga elders in the following manner.
The views of Nil Sorski and his followers were in stark contradiction to the
views of Voloko-Lamsk abbot Joseph. In contradistinction to Joseph and his
adherents, who summoned people to a holy inquisition and compelled them to
punishment as heretics, Nil confirmed that to judge the innocent and guilty
and to impose exile or incarceration was not a matter for the Church; the
Church must act through petitions and prayer. The moral teaching of the
upper-Volga elders was enveloped by the spirit of inner Christianity. The
essence of piety lay not in church beauty and expensive garments and icons,
and not in monotone church singing, but in the inner constitution of the soul,
one’s spiritual activities. Christ’s champions were not to live at the expense of
another, they said, but to sustain themselves by the labor of their own hands.
Monasteries for this reason must not possess wealth and the monks must not
be greedy. Any wealth should be distributed to the poor according to the
command of the gospels. Finally, the upper-Volga elders did not believe in the
new miracle-workers canonized by the councils of 1547 and 1549.
Nil Sorski died in 1508 at about the age of 75. Not wanting his body to be
enshrined or divided up as relics, he instructed his disciples to leave his body
deep in the forest to be consumed by wild animals. His disciples did fulfill his
last wishes.
Nil’s disciple Vassian Kosoi continued the concept of ecclesiastical poverty.
Still pressing his views on the importance of the monastic oath of poverty, Kosoi
was condemned at an ecclesiastical council in 1531 by Metr. Daniel. Kosoi was
exiled to incarceration at Voloko-Lamsk Monastery, where Daniel was formerly
abbot. Kosoi remained there until his death at an unrecorded date, but before
1545.
53. SCHOLAR MAKSIM THE GREEK
Maksim the Greek is included in this history of Russian Orthodoxy to

portray how severely Tsar Vasili III dealt with those who would discredit or
attempt to expose the flaws and inadequacies of his national church, and
especially a foreigner.
176
Maksim was born in 1475 to a pious Greek family living in the region today
known as Albania. His parents sent him to Italy to receive a higher education,
not wanting to send him to Athens or Constantinople because of Ottoman
occupation. His studies occupied the years 1495-1505 and were primarily in the
city Padua. Of all his teachers, the Dominican abbot Girolamo Savonarola had
the greatest influence, impressing him with a sense of piety and a high standard
of morality. Maksim was with Savonarola in Florence, and he also attended
schools in Venice and Milan. From Italy, Maksim traveled to Athens, Greece, and
was there tonsured as a monk. He entered the Annunciation Batoped Monastery,
which had an immense library that he utilized to continue his scholarship. For
ten years Maksim studied and taught, and also debated with Catholics,
advocating and defending Orthodox theology.
Maksim’s relationship with Russia begins in 1515. Tsar Vasili had in his
possession an interpretive psalter containing several commentaries by various
church scholars, but it was written in Greek. Both he and Metr. Varlaam wanted
it translated into Russian for their edification and benefit. Since no competent
translators lived in Russia at the time, Vasili sent delegates to Athens to find one.
The first choice was Savva, an elder of the Batoped Monastery. However, due to
old age and poor health, he was unable to travel. The choice then fell on Maksim,
although he did not know Russian.
Maksim and two Greek monks accompanying him arrived in Moscow
March 4, 1518 and began work on the translation. Maksim would translate from
Greek into Latin, while his two associates would translate from Latin into
Russian. Tsar Vasili welcomed the guests and gave them an excellent residence
at Chudovski Monastery. They also had at their disposal two highly talented
calligraphers: Mikhail Yaroslav Medovartsev of Novgorod and Siluan, a monk of
Troitse-Sergievski Monastery who later shared the same fate as Maksim.
Maksim and his associates worked diligently on the psalter and its
commentaries and completed the volume in 17 months. During interludes in the
translation, at the request of Metr. Varlaam, Maksim also translated a
commentary on the Apostolic letters. By this time, Maksim had acquired an
excellent working knowledge of the Russian language.
After the completion of the work, Maksim requested leave of Tsar Vasili to
return home. But Tsar Vasili and Metr. Varlaam saw Maksim as too valuable to
them, and so refused his request. The two monks who had accompanied
Maksim, however, were allowed to return to Athens.
The next task Tsar Vasili assigned to Maksim was the emendation of
earlier translations from Greek into Russian of the Triodion, Breviary, Psalter,
177
Gospels and Apostolic letters. Now in Russia against his will, Maksim accepted
his fate and went to work on emending the initial Russian translations of Greek
liturgical and church service books. During this period, up to 1525, Maksim
wrote several dissertations against Catholicism, against any unification of
Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and against astrology. On the other hand, his
polemics were inclined toward support of Vassian Kosoi and against
ecclesiastical patrimony, and in these dissertations he reprimanded the
monasteries for their excessive wealth and the luxury of monks’ residences. His
writings also refuted the superficial piety of Russian Orthodoxy and Maksim
disagreed with the tsar’s attitude toward the patriarch of Constantinople.
Regardless of his talents, this intrusion into controversy put Maksim in disfavor
with Tsar Vasili III.
The new metropolitan, Daniel, did not have the same regard for Maksim’s
scholarship as his predecessor Metr. Varlaam, but viewed him as a foreign
interloper into Russia’s private religious affairs. Maksim opposed Metr. Daniel
as well as Tsar Vasili, in many areas, over the same principles for which Metr.
Varlaam was forced out of his cathedra. Metr. Daniel took matters in hand and in
1525 summoned an ecclesiastical council where he accused Maksim of
mistranslation and deliberate manipulation of passages in the church service
books in order to give them a heretical connotation. These passages were not of
theological significance and none was of any major consequence even to the
critical student, but they were enough grounds for an accusation of heresy
against one who was already out of favor. Maksim as an able scholar and was
well able to defend himself, but his arguments were ignored and only ignited
Daniel’s fury for vengeance.
Maksim was incarcerated in a prison cell at Joseph Voloko-Lamsk
Monastery for the next six years, where Metr. Daniel had been abbot and still
had close ties. Maksim’s compatriot Savva, who had since been promoted to
archimandrite of Spasski Monastery, was incarcerated in a cloister cell at
Vozmitzki Voloko-Lamsk Monastery. In 1531, Maksim was released from
Voloko-Lamsk and brought to Moscow for a second trial. He had been pleading
innocence, and Metr. Daniel wanted to be sure he would remain incarcerated for
life. Much as in 1525, Metr. Daniel accused Maksim of deleting passages in the
revised Russian version of the church service books and of discrediting the
original translations. The trial and sentence were approved by Tsar Vasili
himself and Maksim was exiled to the Otroch (Infant Jesus) Monastery in Tver.
Pavel Miliukov wrote the following about Maksim the Greek:
178
Great was the difference between the cosmology of the pupil of scholarly
Europe and the representatives of the half-pagan Russia. As we know by
experience, these people of different worlds obviously did not possess a
common language and did not possess the capability to understand one
another. Feeling himself alienated from this community, Maksim finally asked
to go home, to his holy mountain, but they compelled him to remain in
Moscow. “We are afraid,” as one of his friends explained to him. “You arrived
here, and you are an intelligent person, and you have seen both the good and
bad among us. You will go back and tell everything.” And disregarding all of
Maksim’s claims that he was subject to Greek authority but not to Russian,
they would not release him to return to his homeland. Twice he was brought to
court under accusations which for the most part were absurd, as exemplified
above. Twice he was condemned. At the second trial, after a despairing attempt
to convince his judges, using terms they might find more acceptable, he was
handed over, just like Vassian, into the hands of his enemies at Voloko-Lamsk
Monastery, and then sent to Tver Otroch Monastery for incarceration.
For his first 15 years at Otroch, Maksim was confined in a prison cell at the
monastery. The succeeding metropolitan, Joasaf, allowed some amelioration in
Maksim’s situation. Metr. Joasaf still thought Maksim would be dangerous if he
were released and regained his freedom completely, but Maksim was released
from confinement and was allowed to remain a regular monk at the monastery,
which he did for the next five years, although still confined to the premises. In
1545 Patr. Joakim of Alexandria heard about Maksim’s plight and petitioned the
succeeding tsar, Ivan IV, for his release. In 1551, Maksim was transferred to
Troitse-Sergievski Monastery, where he resided as a regular monk — although
still confined to the premises — until his death in 1556. Of the 38 years that
Maksim the Greek spent in Russia, for the first seven years he was treated as an
honored scholar and translator; for the next 21 years he was incarcerated as a
heretic; and the final 10 years he lived as a regular monk but was confined to the
premises of the monastery.
Metr. Daniel considered this a political victory against both Maksim and
Vassian Kosoi for their advocacy of non-possession of ecclesiastical patrimony
and their refutation of superficial piety. It is an interesting coincidence that
Metr. Daniel, after his own expulsion from his cathedra by Ivan Shuiski in 1539,
was also sent to Voloko-Lamsk for the rest of his life and was confined to the
premises. Maksim, however, outlived Metr. Daniel by nine years.
179
54. METROPOLITAN DANIEL
Metr. Varlaam was deprived of his cathedra by Tsar Vasili III because of his
unwillingness to give in to the will of the tsar, whose dictates and intentions
Varlaam considered unethical and malicious. Tsar Vasili chose for himself a
metropolitan who would be more concessionary. The man selected to fill the
new vacancy was Daniel, abbot of Voloko-Lamsk Monastery and successor to its
founder, the eminent Joseph Volotzki. Prior to the death of Joseph, monks at
Voloko-Lamsk Monastery presented to him ten of their peers as candidates to
succeed him, but none of them was acceptable. Monk Daniel was ambitious to
rise in the hierarchy and he knew that becoming abbot of a prominent monastery
was the stepping stone to becoming archbishop of a diocese, which offered a
more comfortable life and a secure future. He claimed to have had an offer to
become father superior at another monastery. Joseph recognized traits of his
own in Daniel: austerity as well as loyalty to Orthodoxy, accompanied by a
certain shrewdness; and so he selected Daniel as his successor. Joseph Volotzki
died September 9, 1515.
Daniel was about 30 years old at the time and immediately set to work
conforming the monastery to the regulations that Joseph had earlier established.
Since Joseph had been on good terms with Tsar Vasili, the tsar would often visit
or make a short pilgrimage to the west of Moscow to Voloko-Lamsk. As time
proceeded, abbot Daniel also gained the support and favor of Tsar Vasili, because
of the way that he ran the monastery. Daniel was abbot for six years prior to
being selected as candidate for the metropolitan’s cathedra. Metr. Varlaam was
deposed on December 17 or 18, 1521, and Daniel was ordained in his stead
February 27, 1522. He held the cathedra 17 years.
Metr. Daniel’s first decisions pertaining to Tsar Vasili’s policies had to do
with the violation of the treaty with Vasili Ivanovich Schematich, mentioned
earlier. By invitation of both Tsar Vasili and Metr. Daniel, Schematich arrived in
Moscow on April 18, 1523. On May 11, three weeks later, he was arrested and
imprisoned. Not only was Daniel not ashamed of his treachery, but he publicly
held a prayer of thanksgiving to God for the capture of Schematich.
Because Daniel was an advocate of the possession of real estate by
monasteries — following the precedent of Joseph — he became a fiery
persecutor of Maksim the Greek and Vassian Kosoi. The imprisonment of both
these men was the pinnacle of Metr. Daniel’s triumph over his political
adversaries. Of course, both were incarcerated at Voloko-Lamsk Monastery
180
where Daniel was formerly abbot and where Kosoi eventually died, sometime
prior to 1545. Pavel Miliukov described the struggle:
Notwithstanding his well-known descent from the princely family of
Patrikeevs, disregarding even his family tie with the house of the Grand Prince,
in the end Vassian Kosoi was condemned as a heretic by the religious council
under the cathedra of Metr. Daniel. Condemned, he was pushed into the hands
of the evilest of his enemies, the Josephites, and sent to their monastery for
incarceration.
Metr. Daniel did Tsar Vasili a second political favor by arranging the tsar’s
divorce from his first wife, Solomonia Yurievna Saburova, and his marriage to
Elena Vasilievna Glinskaya, a niece of Pr. Michal Glinski of Lithuania whose
family had migrated to Russia and was then living in Moscow. There were no
offspring from his 20-year marriage with Saburova (a marriage arranged by his
father Tsar Ivan two months before his death and performed September 4, 1505).
Tsar Vasili did not want to leave the throne of Russia to his brothers, and hoping
yet to produce his own heir, he decided that re-marrying offered the best chance.
Since divorce and remarriage were against the canons of Orthodoxy, Metr.
Daniel made arrangements to force Saburova to take the veil, and she became a
nun — against her will — on November 28, 1525. She was then exiled to
Pokrovski Convent in Suzdal, arrangements also made by Metr. Daniel.
Saburova’s name was changed to Sophia and she was confined to the premises of
the convent for the rest of her days, dying there in 1540, having outlived both her
husband and his second wife. She was buried in a crypt under the Pokrovski
Cathedral.
Tsar Vasili married Elena Glinskaya two months after Solomonia Yurievna
was tonsured, January 21, 1526, in a ceremony performed by Metr. Daniel. The
new marriage produced Ivan, a son and heir to the throne, August 25, 1530, and
later a second son, Yuri.
Tsar Vasili died December 4, 1533, leaving as heir his three-year-old son
Ivan IV. On his deathbed the tsar entrusted Metr. Daniel with the care of his wife
and two sons, Ivan and Yuri. Tsar Vasili’s intent in issuing this order was for
Daniel to take charge of the Boyar Duma (Assembly of Nobles) and to handle the
administrative affairs of state until heir Ivan would attain maturity. But nothing
of the sort occurred. Metr. Daniel failed to become involved with the Duma and
the widow Tsaritza Elena assumed control.
Five years later, April 3, 1538 Elena Glinskaya died, leaving the
administration of the government to the Duma, Tsarevich Ivan IV Vasilich being
only eight years old at the time. A power struggle immediately ensued in the
181
Duma and Pr. Vasili Vasilich Shuiski, senior nobleman in the Duma, took control
of state affairs. After one and a half years another power struggle occurred, now
with Pr. Ivan Fedorovich Belski as rival to Shuiski. For reasons unknown, Metr.
Daniel sided with Belski and his faction. Shuiski however was able to retain his
control and overcame the attempted usurpation by Belski; he had him arrested
and imprisoned.
Shortly after the conclusion of the second power struggle, Pr. Vasili Shuiski
died and his brother Pr. Ivan Vasilich Shuiski assumed control over the Duma
and government. Ivan Shuiski deposed Metr. Daniel from his cathedra February
2, 1539 because of his support of Belski. Metr. Daniel was banished to his former
residence, Voloko-Lamsk Monastery, but now as a regular monk, and there he
lived out the balance of his life confined to the premises. He died eight years
later, May 22, 1547.
55. METROPOLITAN JOASAF
After Metr. Daniel was deposed, Pr. Ivan Shuiski summoned an

ecclesiastical council in Moscow to elect a new metropolitan. They selected
three candidates — all in one day — and presented the list to Shuiski:
archimandrite Jonah of Chudovski Monastery; abbot Joasaf of Troitse-Sergievski
Monastery; and abbot Theodosi of Novgorod Khutinski Monastery.
The bishops were careful to nominate candidates who would be agreeable
to Shuiski, and from the three he selected Joasaf. The new metropolitan was
named February 5, 1539, only three days after Daniel’s expulsion, and he was
ordained four days later, February 9, 1539. Metr. Joasaf held his cathedra one
month short of three years, until he was deposed by the same person who had
selected him, Ivan Shuiski. Nothing is known of Joasaf’s early life except that he
was from the Skripitzin family.
A capable and effective administrator, less involved with the church than
with the state, in the initial year and a half of his cathedra Metr. Joasaf assisted
Shuiski with the administrative affairs of his government. After this period and
for reasons unrecorded, Metr. Joasaf joined together with several noblemen and
was able to pressure officials into releasing Ivan Belski from prison. In July 1540,
Belski was released from prison and with the support of Metr. Joasaf and several
noblemen, he overthrew Shuiski.
Over the next year and a half, Ivan Shuiski gained additional support and
on the night of January 2, 1542 the Shuiski family sounded an alarm in the
182
Moscow Kremlin; Belski was arrested and sent into exile. The people turned
against the traitor Metr. Joasaf, pelting him with rocks as he fled from his home.
He took refuge in a local church but guards from the Shuiski faction entered the
church and beat the metropolitan almost to death for his treachery. Metr. Joasaf
was arrested by order of Ivan Shuiski and confined to a cell at Kirill Bel-Ozerski
Monastery for the next five years. In 1547, Joasaf was permitted to return to
Troitse-Sergievski Monastery, his former residence, where he spent the rest of
his life as a regular monk. He was only allowed out of the monastery premises
once, in 1551, to attend the Hundred-Chapters Council in Moscow. Joasaf died
July 27, 1555 at Troitse-Sergievski Monastery.
56. METROPOLITAN MAKARI
The fact that Golubinski dedicates his massive 4-volume history of the
Russian Orthodox Church “To the memory of the Most-Eminent Makari,
Metropolitan of Moscow,” and concludes his history with his death serves as
concrete testimony to Metr. Makari’s character, achievements and dedication to
Russian Orthodoxy. Of all the metropolitans in the history of Russian
Orthodoxy, Golubinski says the following about Makari, “We can apply to his
name the epithets eminent and most eminent. And actually he does present
himself as the supreme shepherd of the Russian Church, the most eminent of
them all, of those before him and of those after him.” It is also worth mentioning
that the name of the ambitious Metr. Daniel is on the lowest rung of
Golubinski’s list.
Makari was born in 1481 or 1482; his parents were named Leonti and
Evfrosina; his mother in her later years became a nun. He was tonsured as a
monk at Borovsk-Pafnutiev Monastery, where he spent his early years. Makari
was selected as archimandrite of Luzhetzki Monastery near Mozhaisk, outside
of Moscow, in 1506; and he was ordained as archbishop of Novgorod March 4,
1526. During his years at Luzhetzki Monastery, Makari became acquainted with
Tsar Vasili III and gained his respect. Vasili admired the monastery for its
organization, the austere regulations of communal living for the monks, and the
personal morality and ethics of Makari, who was also a gifted teacher and
debater.
With the episcopacy of Novgorod now vacant for 17 years since 1509, Tsar
Vasili III personally selected Makari to fill the Episcopal position. The tsar also
permitted Makari to inherit the vast treasury of earlier archbishops of Novgorod,
183
which had been under the administration of the tsar’s family since 1478. Entering
the city, Makari was welcomed by the residents of Novgorod, since he was
perceived to be more lenient than the greedy and arrogant archbishops of
previous generations, such as Gennadi and Serapion. Makari did not burden
parish clergy with excessive tribute and taxes, and also protected them from
insatiable officials.
Soon after his accession to the episcopacy, Makari began a reform in the
monasteries in his diocese. He required communal living for all the monks; many
of them, if not the vast majority, had over the years acquired wealth and property
and had brought this into the monastery where they led comfortable lives. Of the
22 monasteries in Novgorod diocese, only four had communal living
arrangements for the monks; the others allowed their monks to live in houses
nearby, with their individual wealth. Makari summoned the abbots of all these
monasteries to a meeting, and he admonished — or threatened — them to
convert to communal living by demanding that monks donate their wealth to the
monastery and practice the vow of poverty that each of them had taken. In time,
16 of the monasteries completely converted to communal living. Makari likewise
put an end to the tradition of monks and nuns living together in the same
monastery. He separated them entirely and assigned nuns to convents under a
mother superior.
After the death of Tsar Vasili III, December 4, 1533, Makari was summoned
to Moscow along with other prelates in January 1534. While he was there, he
obtained the approval and favor of the tsar’s widow Elena.
During the interval of the struggle for the control of the government
between the Shuiski and Belski families, Makari distanced himself from Moscow
and concentrated his effort in his own diocese of Novgorod; but his talent and
capability were not unknown to Pr. Ivan Shuiski. Just two and a half months
after the dismissal of Metr. Joasaf, Ivan Shuiski nominated Makari to be the new
metropolitan of Moscow and all Russia. Makari initially declined the offer,
especially given with Moscow’s insolvency and the sorry fate of the two previous
metropolitans, both dismissed from the cathedra as a result of political struggles
within the state. Other prelates pressured him to accede; they believed that
Makari would bring stability to the highest cathedra of Russian Orthodoxy.
Only then did Makari accept the nomination. He arrived in Moscow from
Novgorod on March 9, 1542, was selected by an ecclesiastical council of eight
prelates on March 16, 1542, and was ordained March 19. Makari was about 59 or
60 years old.
184
Pr. Ivan Shuiski was still in power in 1542 and the young heir Ivan was only
twelve years old. The following year, 1543, Shuiski fell ill and disappeared from
the scene; he died in a very short time. His position as head of the Duma was
quickly assumed by his cousin, Pr. Andrei Mikhailovich Shuiski of Pskov.
However, a group of noblemen loyal to the family of the tsar seized Andrei
Shuiski and executed him, on December 29, 1543. From now on, the position of
head of the Duma was no longer to be occupied by leading families or prominent
feudal princes, but passed into the hands of people close to the young tsarevich,
Ivan Vasilich, and especially his uncles — the Glinski princes — to whom was
entrusted considerable authority over imperial Russia. For the next two years or
so, until young Ivan turned 16, control over the Duma was vested in the Glinski
family. This five-year interval from 1538 — the death of Tsaritza Elena — to 1543,
when the Glinski family gained control over the Duma, was a period of political
intrigue that tested the conscience and patience of Metr. Makari. When Ivan
turned 16 in 1546, Metr. Makari made a personal decision that he felt would
stabilize Russia, even at the risk of his own cathedra. He decided to coronate
Ivan as tsar of Moscow and all Russia. Later that year, on December 12, 1546,
Ivan now just having turned 17, Metr. Makari conferred with him about the
situation. On the following day Ivan announced publicly his decision to accept
coronation as tsar the following month, and many believe that this
announcement began a new epic in the history of Russia.
Metr. Makari crowned Ivan IV Vasilich tsar of Moscow and all Russia on
January 16, 1547. Two weeks later, February 3, 1547, the young Tsar Ivan married
Anastasia Romanovna Zakharina, who provided stability in his early years and
was the most beloved and affectionate of his eventual seven wives. She was a
sister of Nikita Romanovich, the most honored member of the Boyar Duma and
later progenitor of the Romanov lineage.
To begin his renovation of Russian Orthodoxy, Metr. Makari initially held
two councils, one in 1547, the other in 1549, where he promoted the canonization
of Russian saints. He canonized 22 local saints and eight ascetics of Orthodoxy.
An additional nine prelates were added as local saints only. Prior to Makari,
Russian Orthodoxy had only 22 canonized saints; now, the number increased to
52. Within two years the Russian Church canonized more saints than had been
canonized during the previous five centuries, since the foundation of Orthodoxy
in Russia. Makari’s objective was to Russify the Church: now that it was
independent of both Greek Constantinople and Islamic Mongols, the Church
was to begin a new era and develop its Russian identity.
185
Makari’s primary accomplishment for Russian Orthodoxy was the

Hundred-Chapters Council of 1551,4 so named because of the division of topics
discussed into 100 chapter headings (although only 69 specific topics were
finally discussed). The council began February 23, 1551. Attending the council
were nine bishops and several archimandrites, abbots, ascetics and elders, along
with monks, protopopes and priests respected by the people. It appears to have
been a balanced cross-section of prelates, parish clergy and ascetics of Russia of
the era.
It was, of course, Tsar Ivan who opened the first session, with a speech
describing how he was moved to initiate an ecclesiastical council for the
renovation of Russian Orthodoxy. The council concluded its discussions in a
relatively short span of time, ending May 17, 1551. The 69 topics fall into two
groups: 37 topics that were presented at the beginning of the council, and 32 that
were brought up as discussions progressed.
Metr. Makari presented the council with his proposition for the entire
renovation of Russian Orthodoxy by rectifying its flaws and inadequacies. In
regard to liturgy, the council decreed that all church liturgy, whether
community or private, be performed entirely and properly, according to the
prescribed rites with no exclusions of any portions. The texts of books
containing liturgies and rites were to be free of errors and were to be corrected
by competent copyists. The council decreed that all icons must be created by
iconographers in a satisfactory and appropriate manner, and that all the
appurtenances of the Church, especially those of the altar, be supplied and
available for all the liturgies performed.
Pertaining to diocesan government, the council decreed that more active
supervision be implemented over parish clergy, with the institution of new
departments; that archbishops and their officials must desist from their arbitrary
extortion of fees and contributions from the lower clergy and laity; and that
arrangements be made for all parish churches to train and have a choir at all
services.
Pertaining to the Episcopal court, the council decreed that secular officials
of the diocese must not interfere with the sphere of the Episcopal court; that the
Episcopal court must place such officials under watch so that they no longer
influenced prelates; and that the Episcopal court must be kept as just as
possible.
4. This council is often mistranslated into English as the Hundred Head Council.
186
Pertaining to the preparation and selection of candidates for the

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

monks opposed to monastery patrimony had a conversation with Tsar Ivan
regarding the matter and disclosed to him their views, especially Artemie, abbot
of Troitse-Sergievski Monastery. The tsar was well aware of the abuse of such
patrimonies and knew that this did not contribute to the support of a genuine
monastic life; nor was it in his own interest. Tsar Ivan expressed this opinion
quite vehemently. The writings of Maksim the Greek against possession of
patrimony had clearly portrayed all the contradictions between total rejection of
the world by monks and the abuse of the same by those possessing extensive
patrimony. Using the view of Maksim the Greek and like-minded Russian
prelates as a rationale, Tsar Ivan not only desired the dissolution of monastery
patrimony in the interests of the state but appears to have been sincerely
convinced that removing real estate from the sphere of the monastery would be
best for the monastic vocation. Metr. Makari was, however, a vehement
supporter of the possession of patrimony by churches and monasteries (while
being equally vehement in reprimanding those who abused the income from
patrimony). The measures Tsar Ivan implemented against expansion and abuse
of patrimony were not excessive, partly because of his profound respect for
Metr. Makari. Shortly after the close of the Hundred-Chapters Council, Tsar
Ivan decreed primarily that no monastery could buy land and neither could
anyone donate land, unless a report was first submitted to the tsar. The tsar was
to have the final decision on every transaction. However, due to the size of
Russia, and poor records and communication, the rule was no more effective
than any earlier one, when other grand princes had attempted to regulate the
transfer of real estate into the ecclesiastical domain.
Another major event during the cathedra of Metr. Makari was the
introduction of printing in Russia, although not in time for the proceedings of
the Hundred-Chapters Council. In 1547, Russian officials invited book
publishers from abroad, but it was not until 1556, some seven years later, that
Marusha Nefedyev of Novgorod arrived in Moscow and began to set up his
printing business. The first book went to press only on April 19, 1563.
There were several reasons for the delays in the establishment of book
printing in Moscow. No one from Europe seemed eager to assist Moscow, and
Nefedyev had to feel his way forward, learning as he went. The notion of book
printing was also opposed by many illiterate officials and teachers among the
bishops and abbots. The first book to be published in Russia was the Acts of the
Apostles, but it did not come off the press in a completed version until March 1,
1564, some time after the death of Metr. Makari.
188
Makari retained his cathedra for 21 years and nine and a half months, until
his death December 31, 1563 at the age of 82.
57. ABBOT ARTEMIE
Artemie was tonsured by the venerated abbot Kornili of Kolomensk

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

accusations against him to be spurious and felt he was innocent on all charges.
Witnesses surfaced from among his former brethren of Troitse-Sergievski
Monastery to testify against him: abbot Jonah, lay-brother Adrian Angilov, and
the monk Ignati Kurachyov. Witnesses were also brought in from Bel-Ozerski:
abbot Semeon of Kirill Monastery and former abbot Nektari of Therapontov
Monastery. He was accused of violations of various ecclesiastical canons: denial
of the holy fathers; failure to venerate icons; not cursing (proclaiming anathema)
heretics from Novgorod; praising Catholics; and not observing Orthodox fasts.
Abbot Jonah testified that Artemie refused to make the sign of the cross, while
Adrian testified that Artemie stated that requiems were useless because if a
person was burning in hell a memorial mass would not be of any benefit to him.
Nektari testified that Artemie would often leave Pecher Monastery in Pskov
during his visit there and patronize a German settlement about ten miles away,
where he adopted their Protestant doctrines and traditions. None of the defenses
that Artemie provided were of any use; he was too dangerous, since he taught
and advocated non-possession of ecclesiastical patrimony, and his life-style and
ministry validated his thinking. Artemie was pronounced guilty of heresy and
exiled to Solovetski Monastery.
In the directive written in the name of Metr. Makari, guidelines pertaining
to Artemie’s confinement in the monastery are stated in the following terms. “He
shall abide inside the monastery with strict firmness and tight protection; he
shall be locked up in an individual, unlit cell, in order that not even one soul-
damaging or blasphemous statement shall be preached. He shall not have
discussion with anyone, neither with the clergy, nor the laymen of the
monastery, nor with monks of other monasteries.” Furthermore, the exiled
Artemie was not to be permitted to write any letter or message to anyone,
without exception; and likewise he was not be given any letters or items no
matter who sent them. In short, it was dictated that he be forbidden any
intercourse, friendship, and communication with anybody, whosever they might
be, “but only that he be confined and imprisoned and sit in silence to repent of
the attraction of his heresy, and be humbled.”
After some unrecorded term of incarceration at Solovetski Artemie was
released and decided to relocated to Lithuania. There, he befriended another
fugitive from Russia, Pr. Andrei Kurbski, and settled to minister under his new
circumstances to the large number of Orthodox living there, and there he spent
the balance of his life.
190
58. METROPOLITAN AFANASI
Afanasi was ordained metropolitan February 24, 1564. He was originally a

monk of Chudovski Monastery and was later promoted to protopope of the
Blago-Veschenski Cathedral, where he became personal confessor of the tsar. As
successor to Metr. Makari, he assumed the cathedra just as Tsar Ivan IV was
confirming his authority as absolute. Historically, the role of Russian prelates
did not allow them to alienate themselves completely from political matters, and
their cathedra obligated them to become involved even if only to express a moral
position; but even when they restrained themselves to that level of interference,
it led to collisions. Tsar Ivan realized early on that the greatest threat to his total
autocratic authority lay in the hereditary noblemen, the Boyar Duma, whose
assistance he required to conduct the affairs of state as tradition dictated. Even
more, he feared a revolt of the people, prompted by the noblemen and feudal
princes. Tsar Ivan prepared a maneuver to annihilate his political enemies, but
first he had to gain support of clergy, peasants and the general Russian populace.
Tsar Ivan disappeared from Moscow December 5, 1564, taking with him the
tsaritza, their children, a few trusted officials, a bodyguard, and his confessor.
Touring several monasteries, he stopped at the city of Aleksandrov, in Vladimir
province. From there he wrote a letter addressed to Metr. Afanasi, listing the
abuses and disloyalty of the Boyars (noblemen) and placing blame on the clergy
for their intervention on the noblemen’s behalf. Tsar Ivan then declared his
abdication.
The Moscow community was struck dumb by the threat of abdication.
Moscow townsmen pleaded with Metr. Afanasi to beseech the tsar not to
abandon his realm. The metropolitan organized a deputation of trusted
individuals, at the head of which stood Archbishop Pimen of Novgorod, and
dispatched it to Aleksandrov. The tsar welcomed the deputation and expressed
to them his complaints regarding the noblemen. In conclusion, he stated that
only because of his respect for his spiritual father Metr. Afanasi and those
prelates who interceded on his behalf would he agree to accept authority over
his realm; and only under the condition that the clergy not curb or cease their
intercession on his behalf when he executed traitors. The delegation accepted
the conditions and Tsar Ivan became “the Terrible,” as he unveiled to them the
institution of a new department of the state: the Oprichnin (bodyguards, or
select corps); its members were called oprichniks.
191
Unable to face the new political circumstances surrounding the tsar,

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

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

of the tsar, but from the outset he rejected the offer of the metropolitan’s
cathedra. Nonetheless, much like German, he was compelled by tsar and an
ecclesiastical council to accept the candidacy. Filipp bluntly stated that Tsar
Ivan would have to promise to dismantle the Oprichnin before he could accept
the cathedra. Tsar Ivan promised, and personal ambition curbed the moral
impetus that drove Filipp to threaten to leave the cathedra if Tsar Ivan reneged.
Filipp accepted the offer and was ordained metropolitan July 25, 1566.
For a while, the activity of the oprichniks in executing the tsar’s vengeance
did seem to subside, but in less than a year the tsar again initiated a wave of cruel
tortures and executions. Those prosecuted sought intervention by Metr. Filipp
and, as supreme shepherd of the Church, he resolved to approach the tsar with a
reprimand. A secret colloquy with the tsar did not ameliorate his ruthlessness,
but only proved that the metropolitan was on the side of the nobles. Tsar Ivan’s
rage against Metr. Filipp echoed in the palace; opportunists arose to side with
the tsar against the metropolitan. Archbishop Pimen of Novgorod, Bishops
Pafnuti of Smolensk and Filofei of Ryazan, and the tsar’s confessor, Evstrafi of
Blago-Veschenski Cathedral, conspired together and discredited Filipp to the
tsar.
Metr. Filipp, realizing that he had lost the tsar’s trust, decided to break his
promise of silence in view of the renewed executions ordered by the tsar. In
March 1568, Metr. Filipp turned to Tsar Ivan in the Uspenski Cathedral and
voiced a reprimand of his unjust cruelty. Tsar Ivan threatened him, saying,
“Filipp, do not rebuke my authority lest my wrath fall upon you.” But Filipp was
already on the road to becoming a martyr.
On another Sunday soon thereafter, Metr. Filipp again reprimanded the
tsar. During liturgy, the tsar walked up to where the metropolitan was standing
and waited for his blessing. Metr. Filipp went on intently gazing at the icon of
the Savoir, as if he did not see the ruler standing there. An official turned to
Filipp and said to him, “Father, the Sovereign waits before you, bless him.”
Then Filipp, looking at Tsar Ivan, spoke boldly in his ecclesiastical
authority, saying, “Under the circumstances I do not recognize the Orthodox
tsar in his alien garments. I do not recognize him as a result of his state affairs.
How many have you angered, accepting this new image and altering your
original convictions? Sovereign, fear the judgment of God! You legislate for
others, yet you violate the same law. Even among Tatars and pagans justice
resides, but not in Russia. Grace can be found in all the world, but in Russia
there is no compassion towards the innocent and just. Here we bring a bloodless
193
sacrifice for the salvation of the world, but behind the altar the blood of
Christians is spilled and for no crime committed. You yourself ask God for
forgiveness of your sins — forgive also those who have sinned against you.”
“Filipp,” the tsar replied, “Do you think to change our will? It would be
better for you if you were of the same mind with us.”
“Then my faith would be in vain,” objected Filipp. “I do not sorrow over
those who are innocently led to be executed as martyrs; I sorrow over you, I
worry about your salvation.” With every spoken word of remonstrance that
Filipp uttered, he put his cathedra and his life more at risk; but he also more and
more won the respect of the parishioners attending the liturgy. However, now it
was only a question of time until the tsar would have sufficient basis to expel
Filipp from his cathedra without further damage to his own reputation.
The tsar’s sycophants attempted to discredit the metropolitan. One of
them, Archbishop Pimen of Novgorod, hoped to ascend the cathedra himself.
Metr. Filipp reprimanded Pimen prophetically when he said, “You attempt to
steal the episcopacy of another, but you will soon lose your own.”
On July 28, 1568, during the procession of the cross around Novo-Devichi
Monastery, something happened that further infuriated Tsar Ivan against Metr.
Filipp. Ivan then sought for a canonical basis to expel Filipp. Not finding a
reason in Moscow — Filipp never violated any canon over his career — Ivan sent
agents to Solovetski. There, they used every means possible to locate witnesses
who would testify against Metr. Filipp: they offered bribes, promises of
promotion, anything to attain their goal. Eventually, the agents were able to
acquire a few people who were willing to go to Moscow and testify, among them
the new abbot himself, Paisei. They traveled to Moscow together.
An ecclesiastical council was immediately summoned, the most abusive
and shameful of all councils in the history of Russian Orthodoxy. The
courageous prelate, having listened to false witnesses, would not condescend to
justify or defend himself, and decided to retire from the cathedra by removing
from himself the symbols of his investiture. But his triumphant enemies would
not allow him to leave so easily and quickly. They required him to remain as
metropolitan, having in mind a more dramatic means of taking their vengeance.
On November 8, 1568, Metr. Filipp was performing liturgy on the Holiday
of Archangel Michael at Uspenski Cathedral. In the middle of services, the
nobleman Basmanov entered with a gang of the tsar’s oprichniks. He publicly
read the decree of an ecclesiastical council regarding the expulsion of Filipp from
his cathedra. The oprichniks tore the metropolitan’s vestments off Filipp and
clothed him in an old monk’s cassock; they dragged him out of the cathedral and
194
took him to Bogo-Yavlenski Monastery in a peasants’ sledge. For an entire week

the martyr sat in shackles in a stale prison cell in the monastery. He was then
transferred to Old Nikolski Monastery and again confined in a cell under guard.
To intimidate him further, one of his relatives was decapitated and the head was
brought to Filipp in his cell. After a year at Old Nikolski Monastery, Filipp was
exiled to Otroch Monastery in Tver, confined to a cloister under guard. A year
later, in the summer of 1570, Maluta Skuratov, a henchman of Tsar Ivan,
personally strangled Filipp in his cell. Maluta told monastery officials that Filipp
died as result of the monastery’s negligence, dying from asphyxiation due to the
intolerable heat in his cell from the hot summer weather. Metr. Filipp’s body was
taken to Solovetski Monastary for internment.
The prophetic words of Filipp to Pimen were fulfilled in 1570, when Tsar
Ivan ordered the complete devastation of the city Novgorod and its population.
Pimen was expelled from his episcopacy and accused of treachery by Ivan the
Terrible.
60. METROPOLITAN KIRILL IV
After expelling Metr. Filipp, Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible took care not to
allow anyone to ascend the cathedra who was descended from or had family
associated with any Boyars. Archimandrite Kirill of Troitse-Sergievski
Monastery was ordained as metropolitan November 11, 1568, within three days
of Filipp’s expulsion. During Kirill’s term, the terrors of the Oprichnin almost
reached the level of civil war: entire cities were destroyed or vacated, if they were
suspected of treachery or disloyalty to Tsar Ivan.
The worst destruction was that of Novgorod in 1570. By order of Tsar Ivan,
about 5,000 monks were tortured to death. They were brought from their
respective monasteries to Novgorod, made to stand on scaffolds, and then were
beaten to death with clubs. The monks were then returned to their monasteries
for burial. Every day for six weeks — from January 2 to February 13 — between
1000 and 1500 dead bodies were thrown into the Volkhov River.
Metr. Kirill did not last long in his cathedra. Although he had a brilliant
past, he was relatively inactive and ineffective as metropolitan; the political
atmosphere must have constrained anyone in his position. After four years he
died, on February 8, 1572.
195
61. METROPOLITAN ANTONI AND THE ENIGMA OF TSAR IVAN IV (THE TERRIBLE)
Tsar Ivan IV was an enigma in his relationship to Russian Orthodoxy. At

the Hundred-Chapters Council, he emphasized the necessity of church
attendance and respect for the house of God, while he himself would discuss
state matters with his officials and military commanders, and would listen to
their reports and issue orders, inside church during liturgy. Tsar Ivan attended
church regularly, accepted the sprinkling of holy water and blessings from the
metropolitan, and initiated every action with the sign of the cross. Even while at
Aleksandrov, he attended services with his oprichniks and followed some
monastic regulations: he wore a monk’s cassock, rang church bells, read from the
Lives of the Saints during dinner and himself recited prayers. He even developed
lumps on his forehead from the many deep bows to the ground he performed
during liturgy. But, at the same time, he was issuing orders to his oprichniks for
the arrest, torture and execution of thousands of innocents. His military
campaigns were the most brutal against both the enemies of Russia and against
his own countrymen, such as Novgorod, Pskov and Smolensk, and his marital
and domestic life showed no evidence of any Christian morality. While the tsar’s
mercenaries pillaged churches and monasteries, and tortured and executed
priests and monks, he would contribute vast sums of money and property for the
construction of new churches and monasteries and was the greatest patron and
primary financier of the expansion of Solovetski Monastery under Metr. Filipp.
Tsar Ivan IV condemned fortune-tellers, astrologers and sorcerers at the
Hundred-Chapters Council, but at the same time he turned to them for help, just
as his father Tsar Vasili III had done. During his reign Tsar Ivan sought counsel
from witches and sorcerers and made use of their chants, conjurations, sorcery
and spells. He accepted herbs and concoctions from them for healing, and wore
amulets they gave him.
During his reign, there was communication between Rome and Moscow
regarding the conversion of Russian Orthodoxy to Unia, but nothing came of
Rome’s efforts. In 1581, for example, papal legate Antonius Possevin, a Jesuit,
arrived in Moscow entrusted with the responsibility to resurrect the matter of a
Russian Uniate Church. Although Ivan received Antonius, when he brought up
the question of Catholic churches in Russia, Ivan replied with a flat “No.” The
tsar was particularly concerned that westerners shaved off their beards and that
the pope was carried on a litter, which Tsar Ivan felt inappropriate. He bluntly
told Antonius, “A pope who does not live according to Christ and according to
the Apostles is not a shepherd, but a wolf.” Antonius withdrew from further
196
discussions at this point. Tsar Ivan did allow Catholic priests to accompany
merchants and travelers from Europe to Russia, but they were not allowed to
preach their faith.
Ivan IV’s first wife, Anastasia Romanovna, unexpectedly died in 1560,
which devastated him psychologically. His second wife, Maria, died after eight
years of marriage, while his third wife Martha died two weeks after the wedding.
Anna Koltovska married Ivan the Terrible in 1572. At an ecclesiastical council
summoned to nominate a new candidate for the patriarchate, Tsar Ivan IV asked
the bishops to permit him to divorce his fourth wife and marry again, claiming
that his marriage with Martha had never been consummated. (According to the
canons of the church, a man was only allowed to marry four times.) To resolve
the matter with the least offense to the tsar, the council decreed a three-year
public penance on the tsar after his divorce, after which he would be free to do as
he pleased, even to marry again. The tsar accepted their terms and in 1575 Anna
Koltovska was exiled to a convent and forced to become a nun; her name became
Sister Darya. (She lived 41 years at the convent and died in 1616 at about age 65.)
Tsar Ivan initially observd the penance imposed on him by the council, but after
a short while he disregarded their decree and proceeded to marry again. Anna
Vasilchikova married Ivan in about 1575, becoming his fifth wife. She was exiled
to Pokrovski Convent, in Suzdal, a few years after their marriage. Tsar Ivan went
on to marry a sixth and seventh time. His seventh wife was Maria Feodorevna
Nagoi, from Uglich, whom he married in September 1580 and who bore him a
son after his death; she named him Dmitri. No doubt Tsar Ivan considered
himself above the prelates, and divorcing and remarrying against ecclesiastical
canons was his symbolic triumph over the Russian Orthodox Church. To crown
the enigma, Tsar Ivan had himself tonsured a monk by the new Metr. Dionysei,
one month prior to his death.
But before that, in 1571, Evdokia Saburova, the daughter of a commoner,
became the first wife of Ivan IV’s son Ivan, the Tsarevich. Within a few years she
too was exiled, by order of her father-in-law, to Pokrovski Convent in Suzdal.
Young Ivan’s second wife, Praskovya Vasilchikova (no relation to Anna above),
was exiled to Bel-Ozerski Monastery on the same terms; Tsarevich Ivan married
a third time, and his wife became pregnant. Her father-in-law Tsar Ivan attacked
her and was beating her when the son intervened; young Ivan blamed his father
for ruining his first two marriages and then demanded that he not interfere with
his third. This led to an intense altercation between father and son, and the Tsar
killed his own heir in a fit of anger. Young Ivan died November 19, 1581.
197
Kirill’s successor as metropolitan was Archbishop Antoni of Polotz,

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

Monastery was ordained as metropolitan of Russia, succeeding Antoni. One of
the first events in his ministry was to tonsure Tsar Ivan IV on his deathbed and
give him the new name of Jonah. Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible died the night of
March 18, 1584.
At the time, Tsar Ivan’s seventh wife, Maria Nagoi, was pregnant and soon
gave birth to a son, Dmitri. Ivan’s son by an earlier marriage, Feodor Ivanovich,
ascended the throne as tsar of Moscow and all Russia and was crowned by Metr.
Dionysei on May 31, 1584. On behalf of his late father, Tsar Feodor sent to the
patriarch of Constantinople 1,000 rubles as a donation and requested the
performance of a requiem for the deceased tsar. Nine hundred rubles were sent
to the patriarch of Jerusalem for him to perform a requiem, and 82 rubles in
addition for a mass on behalf of the health and longevity of himself as the new
tsar.
On hand to advise the new tsar was Boris Feodorovich Godunov, brother-
in-law to Tsar Feodor through his sister Tsaritza Irina Feodorevna. Godunov
was also son-in-law of Maluta Skuratov, Tsar Ivan IV’s most odious henchman,
the person who strangled Patr. Fillip to death. Godunov’s official title was Royal
Military Commander and Regent of Kazan and Astrakhan. With both these
connections Boris was able to quickly ascend to political authority and
prominence in the Russian state.
Dionysei was a person of great talent and strong character, and as a result
he did not retain his position through the end of his natural life. The financial
needs of the realm were such that Dionysei had to yield to the demands of Tsar
198
Feodor and cede a certain amount of ecclesiastical property and other privileges
to the state. Decisions on these matters were made at an ecclesiastical council
held in 1584, shortly after the death of Tsar Ivan IV.
The most influential and popular nobleman of the era, Nikita Romanovich
Zakharin, passed away April 23, 1586. He was also brother of Tsar Ivan IV’s first
wife, Anastasia Romanovna, and progenitor of the royal Romanov lineage. His
death led to a power struggle in the Boyar Duma between the two remaining
powerful and rival factions: the Godunovs and the Shuiskis. The energetic Metr.
Dionysei became entangled in the web of politics and was unable to stand
against court favorite Boris Godunov. Dionysei sided with the Shuiski clan, but
the Godunovs had the upper hand. Metr. Dionysei and Archbishop Varlaam of
Krutitzk appeared before Tsar Feodor and attempted to expose the tyranny and
malice of his brother-in-law Boris, but Boris was able to gain the victory and had
both metropolitan and archbishop exiled from Moscow October 13, 1587:
Dionysei, back to Khutinski Monastery, and Varlaam to Antoniev Monastery,
where he died shortly after his arrival.
Civil leaders and noblemen became victims of Godunov’s purges, which he
learned to conduct from his father-in-law. Ivan Petrovich Shuiski died of
asphyxiation November 16, 1588; his prison cell was filled with smoke. The
following year Andrei Ivanovich Shuiski was murdered. Other adversaries of
Godunov were exiled to the Russian far north, Siberia and the Caucasus.
Metr. Dionysei’s immediate successor was Jonah, of whom little is known.
He was deposed within two months by Godunov and was never listed in the
record of metropolitans. His successor was likewise hand-picked by Boris
Godunov: Archbishop Job of Rostov, a mild-mannered and ambitious man
hoping to attain greater promotions through sycophantic adherence to both
Tsar Feodor and Boris Godunov.
63. THE ANTI-TRINITARIAN MOVEMENT
As the harbingers and proselytizers of the New Teaching were labeled

Judaizers in a shallow sense, so Bashkin and Kosoi and their adherents were
labeled anti-trinitarian, although this was but a minor facet of their theology. At
this time in Russian Orthodox history, liberal or rationalist Protestant thinking
has its debut with a new generation of dissenters, more educated than their
earlier counterparts — the Strigolniki and Judaizers — and more influenced by
the Reformation in western Europe.
199
In 1550, two Lithuanians arrived in Moscow: Matfei (Matthew), a doctor,

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

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

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

progressed further in rationalist and liberal thinking. Their teaching was
apparently a combination of observations: in part Lutheran, in part Unitarian.
When Luther started the Reformation in the western Church, the spirit of
Reformation not only flooded the greater portion of the west but also expanded
into Poland and Lithuania and further east into Russia. The liberal teaching
202
which migrated to Moscow from Lithuania consisted mainly in not accepting

anything as truth that could not be understood rationally. Pavel Miliukov
records the situation:
Theodosei Kosoi came close to the Lithuanian-Polish anti-Trinitarians and
developed his own teaching into a complete system, rejecting only some
fragments of Novgorod liberal thought. Many facets of this system brought the
teaching of Theodosei into correlation with spiritual Christianity: he was not
restrained by the usual evangelic criticism, rejection of icons and remains of
saints and the general protest against church ritualism; in short, those
viewpoints which he retained were more or less similar to the opinions of
Artemie. Having accepted these opinions as a point of departure, he progressed
much further in the direction of spiritual Christianity. He declared his
followers, those who accepted spiritual reason, to be sons of God, the sole
individuals to whom truth was revealed. All others, he considered dogs. Even if
they kept a charitable life, they could not be saved if they did not accept the
spiritual mind. From another perspective, Theodosei Kosoi found true
offspring of God among all persuasions. “All people are alike before God; Tatars
and Germans likewise.” Kosoi quoted Apostle Peter, saying, “In every nation
those who fear God and do justice are acceptable to Him.” And [Kosoi] further
taught, “Whoever possesses our reason is a spiritual brother and kin, and for
this reason baptism is not needed. Communion is likewise not needed, since
Christ gave us His spoken word, not His blood and not His body. It is also not
necessary to pray because in the gospels the command is to worship in Spirit
and Truth. To desist from crime is the real prayer. There must be no churches,
since they are not described in the Gospels or letters of the Apostles. The
apostles entered a large room, and not a church. According to John
Chrysostom, a church is not walls but the assembly of believers. Restraint from
food and marriage is superfluous, because unto the clean, all things are clean.
Preceptors in the community of believers must not exist, because ‘there is one
preceptor, Christ.’ All who accept the spiritual mind are equal one unto
another, as spiritual brethren and kin. Possessions are to be brought into the
community in the fashion of the first Christians. Authorities, and war, must not
exist among the true followers of Christ.”
In response to the expansion of liberal and Protestant thought during the
era of Tsar Ivan IV, Metr. Makari instituted an inquisition from the forests of the
Trans-Volga to the foremost circles of Moscow to uproot the dissension. Other
than the deacon Ivan Viskovati — who remonstrated against the artwork
represented by icons — the extent of success of this newest inquisition is not
chronicled and the short-lived anti-trinitarian movement ends at this time.
203
64. THE SAINTS OF MOSCOVITE RUSSIA
Prior to the Mongol invasion, Russia only had four native canonized saints:
the martyred brothers Boris and Gleb Vladimirovich, Theodosius of Kiev Pecher
Monastery, and Bishop Leonti of Rostov. From the time of the Mongol invasion
to the accession of Metr. Makari, 21 were added:
1. Princess Olga
2. Vladimir the Great
3. Antonius, founder of Kiev Pecher Monastery
4. Isaiah, bishop of Rostov
5. Varlaam, bishop of Khutinsk
6. Pr. Mikhail of Chernigov
7. Theodor, a nobleman of Chernigov
8. Nikita, bishop of Pereyaslav
9. Ignati, bishop of Rostov
10. Pr. Theodor of Yaroslav
11. David, son of #10 above
12. Constantine, son of #10 above
13. Metr. Peter
14. Metr. Aleksei
15. Avrami, bishop of Rostov
16. Dmitri, bishop of Prilutz
17. Abbot Sergei of Radonezh
18. Abbot Kirill of Bel-Ozersk
19. Metr. Jonah
20. Elder Makari of Kalyazin
21. Elder Pafnuti of Borovsk.
At the councils of 1547 and 1549, summoned by Metr. Makari, 28 more

saints were canonized, all of them Russian, except for one Serbian. These were:
1. John, or Elijah, archbishop of Novgorod

2. Gr. Pr. Aleksandr Yaroslavich Nevski
3. Abbot Nikon of Radonezh
4. Elder Pavel of Obnor
5. Abbot Sabbatius (Savvatiev) of Solovetsk
6. Elder Dionysei of Glushitsk
7. Elder Mikhail of Klopsk
204
8. Abbot Zosima of Solovetsk

9. Elder Aleksandr of Sver
10. Pr. Vsevolod Mstislavich of Pskov
11. Nifont, archbishop of Novgorod
12. Avramie, bishop of Smolensk
13. Gr. Pr. Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tver
14. Antonius, a martyr of Lithuania
15. John, a martyr of Lithuania
16. Evstathi, a martyr of Lithuania
17. Jacob, bishop of Rostov
18. Stefan, bishop and missionary of Perm
19. Abbot Evfimi of Suzdal Spasso-Evfimiev Monastery
20. Elder Savva of Storozhev
21. Elder Grigori of Pelshem
22. Jonah, archbishop of Novgorod.
23. Evfrosin, bishop of Pskov
24. Evfrem, bishop of Perekomsk
25. John, a martyr of Belograd (or Akkerman, part of Moldova at present)
26. Abbot Therapont of Therapontov
27. Martinian of Bel-Ozerski
28. Arsenius, an archbishop of Serbia (not Russian)
This brought the total number of canonized Russian saints to 52, plus an
additional nine who were to be venerated as local, not national, saints. Pavel
Miliukov describes the effect of the quick canonization of so many saints:
The national pride was now fully satisfied. One of the codifiers of the new
Lives of the Saints could say, in all confidence, that from the time of the
Moscow councils regarding the new miracle-workers, “the churches of God in
the Russian land will never lack in the memory of saints, and that Russia
genuinely shines with piety just as did the second Rome and royal city,
Constantinople.” These words indicate what a close association was made
between the canonized saints and the basis of imperial Moscow as the third
Rome. Another editor of the Lives united the old argument with the new,
saying that in Constantinople the Orthodox faith abdicated to the Islamic
heresy as a result of godless Turks, while here the Russian land radiated from
the teachings of our saints.
It was important to prove that the Russian Church, although appearing at
the eleventh hour, created no fewer workers in the garden of the Lord than
those Churches that had labored from the first hour; that the seeds fell here not
205
among thorns and not among rocks, but on good fertile soil producing a 100-
fold harvest.
These convictions also compelled Metr. Makari to begin a codification of
the lives of all the Russian saints up to his time. The work produced a
familiarity with all the local venerated Russian saints and their recognition as
saints for all Russia.
65. EXPANSION OF RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY
The Moscovite era from 1480 to 1590, hardly over 100 years, produced a
greater expansion of the Church in Russia than any other 100-year period in its
history. Missionary activities flourished, which were followed by the
construction of thousands of new churches and some 300 monasteries. Stephen
of Perm was the primary missionary of Orthodoxy to the Perm region in the late
14th century, and 100 years later the missionary effort continued. Toward the end
of the 16th century, Trifon of Vyatka enthusiastically embarked on new
missionary work in the area, establishing Uspenski (Assumption) Monastery in
Vyatka in 1580. He continued his work until his death in 1612.
The expansion of Russian Orthodoxy into Karelia and Lapland was due to
the efforts of monk Theodorit of Solovetsk. Born in Rostov, at the age of 13 he ran
away from home to Solovetski Monastery and there at the age of 14 was tonsured
as a monk. After 15 years of residence on the island — most of the time under
guidance of the venerated elder, Zosima — Theodorit was ordained hierodeacon
and soon after departed to the hermitage of Aleksandr of Sver (Sverski), and then
visited other monasteries of the Trans-Volga region, including a two-year stay at
Kirill Bel-Ozerski. He returned to Solovki in 1529 and stayed there another eight
years. At that time he befriended a hermit named Mitrophan and traveled with
him to Novgorod, where Theodorit was ordained hieromonk by then-archbishop
Makari. They lived there two years, until Makari was ordained as metropolitan.
Gathering funds while in Novgorod, Theodorit traveled north into Lapland
and Karelia and built a church at the mouth of the Kola River, near the present-
day city of Murmansk. A small number of monks joined him and an abbey was
created. For the next ten years — 1539 to 1549 — Theodorit expanded Russian
Orthodoxy throughout the region, preaching in Lapland and Karelia and the
most northwest regions of Russian. He then moved back to Novgorod, but was
immediately ordained as archimandrite of Suzdal Spasso-Evfimiev Monastery,
where he resided for five years. In 1554, Theodorit was arrested as an associate of
abbot Artemie, whom he had befriended while at Kirill Bel-Ozerski. Theodorit
206
was sentenced to confinement under guard at Kirill Bel-Ozerski Monastery for

one and half years, but was released after six months due to his knowledge of
Greek, and was dispatched in 1557 to Constantinople on an embassy on behalf of
Tsar Ivan IV. Upon his return, Theodorit moved to Vologda and lived there to
the end of his life, in 1577, as a monk at Prilutzki Monastery.
The venerated Trifon Pechengski must be mentioned alongside Theodorit,
as he accompanied him to the far north at Mordcap. Trifon constructed a
monastery dedicated to the Holy Trinity in the city Pechenga, near Kola, in 1533.
Russian Orthodoxy was expanded into Astrakhan after Tsar Ivan IV
conquered the region in 1554. These southeastern areas of Russia were under the
hegemony of the Mongols, which prevented an early expansion of Orthodoxy.
Although slow to develop, a monastery was constructed there by monk Kirill in
1568. By 1573, the monastery consisted of three churches and 25 brethren.
After Tsar Ivan IV’s victory over Kazan, missionaries were sent there and
Gurei, abbot of Selizharovsk Monastery, became the first bishop of Kazan,
ordained in 1555. He died December 4, 1563.
Since the compilation of the original Slavonic Bible in glagolithic script by
elders Cyril and Methodius, in the 9th century, no further attempt had been
made in Russia to create a complete codex of the entire Holy Bible in
contemporary Slavonic for some 500 years. The original Slavonic Bible was a
bibliographic rarity and the only books copied and circulated were Psalms, the
Gospels and Apostolic letters. It was Archbishop Gennadi of Novgorod who
made the next attempt to compile a complete Slavonic Bible for Russian
Orthodoxy. Some of the books of his version were revisions of the original work
by Cyril and Methodius — such as the five books of Moses and the Psalms —
while others were translations from the Latin Vulgate into Slavonic. Other
books of the Bible had been translated into Slavonic over the centuries by private
individuals. The books of the Maccabees were translated from the Latin Vulgate
into Slavonic especially for the new revision, work that was completed in 1493
by Archbishop Gennadi. Then it was reproduced by copyists, since printing
technology still lay many years in Russia’s future. The earliest extant copy of the
Gennadi Bible is dated 1499.
The first actual printed Slavonic Bible was published by Georgi Skorina of
Polotzk; it was printed in Prague in installments during the period 1517-1520,
but only the Old Testament was completed. Skorina used other eastern
European translations of the Bible and the Vulgate to compile his Slavonic
translation.
207
Pr. Constantine of Ostrog (Ostrozhski) (1526-1608) founded in his

principality an educational community whose primary motive was to combat
Protestantism and Catholicism. A part of this effort — and its most spectacular
product — was the production of a complete Slavonic Bible, published in 1580
and reprinted with emendations in 1581. Tsar Ivan IV gave Pr. Constantine a
complete copy of the Gennadi Bible, which had been compared with other Slavic
translations, along with available Greek Septuagint texts; it was the primary
source for the Ostrog Bible. The project took close to four years to complete and
was published by Ivan Feodoroff.
During its early years Moscow, as the capital of Imperial Russia as well as
that of Russian Orthodoxy since Metr. Peter, lacked the quantity of churches
seen in older cities such as Pskov or Novgorod. Prior to the reign of Tsar Ivan III,
almost all the churches of Moscow were constructed of wood. During the
Moscovite era and as the tsars began to associate more with rulers of European
countries, architects and artists were invited from Europe to Moscow to
decorate the city as well as to build and decorate churches, which contributed to
making the city appear as a suitable capital of both Imperial Russia and Russian
Orthodoxy. It was felt that the religious pre-eminence of Moscow ought to be
expressed not only by the antiquity and the quantity of its churches, but by their
beauty and style.
Tsar Ivan III rebuilt almost all the churches located inside the Kremlin.
Uspenski Cathedral, originally constructed by Gr. Pr. Ivan Danilovich in 1327,
was soon dilapidated and then was destroyed by fire in 1471. Metr. Fillip I
gathered money from other churches’ charities to rebuild the church, and he
entrusted the work to two Russian architects, Krivtozov and Mishkin. They
redesigned and constructed a new edifice based on the pattern of a cathedral in
Vladimir, making it wider, lengthier and taller. But within two years, the roof
collapsed as a result of poor engineering. Tsar Ivan III invited the famous
Venetian architect Aristotel Feoravanti to rebuild it in 1475. He accepted the
invitation and, after arriving in Moscow, razed the existing cathedral to its
foundation. The new Uspenski Cathedral was completed in five years and was
consecrated August 12, 1479 by Metr. Geronti. Feoravanti remained in Russia
until his death. In similar fashion three other dilapidated churches in the
Kremlin were razed and rebuilt: Blago-Veschenski, Archangelsk, and St. John
the Pillar-Dweller (Stylite). Blago-Veschenski Cathedral was rebuilt in the years
1484-1489 by Russian architects from Pskov. Archangelsk Cathedral was based
on the Uspenski design but with somewhat larger proportions and rebuilt 1505-
1508 under the architect Aloisio or Aleviz Novi from Milan, Italy, also at Ivan III’s
208
invitation. The church of St. John the Pillar-Dweller was rebuilt during the same
years by the European architect Fryazin Tzebon.
Fires occurred regularly in the capital city Moscow, destroying buildings,
including churches: in the fire of 1471, 25 churches were destroyed; in 1475, 23
churches were destroyed; a fire in 1488 destroyed 42 churches.
The son and successor of Tsar Ivan III, Tsar Vasili II, zealously erected
churches in Moscow. Fryazin Tzebon was commissioned again for the design
and construction of ten churches in 1514, and after their completion, three more
in 1527. Tsar Ivan IV was not about to cede to his father and grandfather greater
honor for the embellishment of Moscow with beautiful churches. After the fire
of 1547 destroyed almost all the buildings in Moscow, Tsar Ivan rebuilt the city
and especially the three Kremlin churches mentioned above. The most popular
or recognizable of all churches in Russia is the Sobor Vasili Blazhenago
(Cathedral of Vasili the Blessed) — originally known as the Pokrov Presviatoi
Bogoroditza (Intercession of the Immaculate Theotokos) — built in 1555 in Red
Square to commemorate the victory of Tsar Ivan IV over Kazan.
The manufacture of icons by competent artists accompanied the
construction of churches. The difficulty lay in the fact that western influence
became noticeable in the design and portraits of the saints when drawn by a
western artist. The Hundred-Chapters Council decreed that iconographers
must adhere to the ancient Russian style and that bishops in each diocese survey
closely all artistry in churches and icons so they would conform to the original
and traditional Russian style. The council recommended the famous Russian
iconographer Andrei Rublyov (d. 1430) as an example for all artists.
66. ECCLESIASTICAL AND MONASTIC CONDITIONS
The monasteries’ continued possession of extensive patrimony seriously

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

themselves, only to increase their level of comfort and security. Charity to the
poor and under-privileged declined; not only did many monasteries fail to feed
the destitute or to assist them, but they had no mercy for serfs of their own
estates. The Hundred-Chapters Council decreed that the monasteries be
organized on the original pattern of communal living, that the father superior
would not make any financial decisions without consultation and consensus of
elders and diocesan clergy. The father superior was to be satisfied with the same
food and clothing as the balance of the brethren; he was not to house his children
or relatives in cloisters at the expense of the monastery, nor have them work at
the estate. The Hundred-Chapters Council likewise decreed against the influx of
lay people as guests who would live in the cloisters and whose conduct was a
temptation.
Individuals accepted tonsure for various reasons: because of a sincere desire
to take up the monastic vocation; as a means to attaining salvation; to isolate
themselves for personal reasons from the mainstream of society; and sometimes,
to escape work and responsibilities. Some brought their worldly wealth with
them and lived out their lives in comfortable circumstances at a monastery. Some
father superiors would not allow a tonsured monk to join the brethren at their
monastery unless they contributed a suitable sum of money to the monastery.
Monks who, for whatever reason, were not assigned a monastery would wander
from city to city or monastery to monastery, begging for food and shelter, unable
to provide any benefit to society. The Hundred-Chapters Council also turned its
attention to the misuse of the term “fool in Christ,” which allowed many
imposters to travel city to city posing as venerated elders or ascetics while
taking advantage of the charity of kind people.
Kostomarov described the era as follows:
The monasteries established by pious ascetics did not long retain their
pious character and the holiness of the brethren was short-lived. As soon as the
monastery became famous and local villages increased in size it was filled with
free-loaders, vagrants and alcoholics.
The initial answer to the decline of national piety was quite obvious; it was
the inadequacy of the liturgy as performed at most churches, which was hardly
accessible to the general public. The majority of parish churches stood empty
or were very poorly attended. Parishioners did not show the least respect for
services; the illiterate priest conducting the service would pronounce the
syllables of each word slowly, and if he could not do that, then he recited it by
memory to the extent that he could. Prelates ordained illiterate men, claiming
that if they did not then the parishes would have absolutely no one to attend to
210
the sacraments. Such priests were often quick to abandon their parishes.
Conducting Vespers or Matins was a self-inflicted torture which they could
only ameliorate by alcohol.
Prelates deliberately ordained priests in order to bring in fees. Priests who
were literate and could perform the services were rare, and other priests would
abandon their parishes out of disillusionment or disenchantment, wandering
off to live in a monastery or elsewhere. In many monasteries, the abbot who
purchased his position knew neither the liturgy nor the brethren and lived on
income drawn from monastic patrimony. Such prelates would host their guests
lavishly and allow relatives to live at the monastery. A monk often kept a
woman or girl in his cloister to attend to his needs, and the abbot did likewise.
Other monks kept boys in their cells; sodomy was a regular occurrence at
monasteries; and monks and nuns often lived together in the same monastery.
Alcoholism was rampant.
However, we must not think that because an excess of monastic patrimony
existed this allowed all resident monks to live in luxury. As wealthy as a
monastery might be, this wealth was only utilized by certain monastic prelates
who, along with their relatives, lovers and favorites, depleted the coffers. Only
those brethren who had the favor or approval of the father superior lived
comfortably; the others suffered hunger, discomfort and lack of necessities.
Nothing remained for them but to leave the monastery and find another, or
roam about the country. Monks could be severely mistreated and abused by the
abbot and might be expelled or else would themselves abandon their residence,
only to wander city to city. A stream of such vagrant monks and nuns
wandered across all of Russia, with no destiny or goal in their sights. One
would carry an icon which he would advertise as miracle-working, a second
pretended to be a fool for Christ, and a third might claim to have visions of
Good Friday. Some prophesied and others healed, hoping to gain the awe of
superstitious serfs and accumulate some charity.
This decline or lack of piety and integrity among clergy had a negative
effect on the morality of the population, whether nobleman, free person or serf.
The majority of Russian families were plagued with perversion and disruption,
abuse and violence. Marriage in general was avoided by much of the
population. The 17th century was no different than the 12th, when Metr. John
(Ioyann IV) echoed the disinclination of Russians to marry. And if this was not
enough, the people took a bestial attitude toward sexual relations, and incest
was endemic among serfs and the peasant population.
Even with the efforts of the ecclesiastical councils of 1503 and the
Hundred-Chapters Council of 1551, there still existed considerable discord
during performance of liturgies, and this became worse with the expansion of
the Church. Strong reprimands by Orthodox prelates were directed against
disorderly and inefficient performance of church rites, and the deterioration of
singing and recitation of prayer. Often, the services incorporated many
211
individuals performing their part of the liturgy all at the same time, overlapping
each other. To decrease the length of the liturgy, one would read, another would
sing, and a third would recite the daily service, with the effect that nothing at all
was intelligible. Singing was further distorted, as rather than correctly
pronouncing the words singers expanded them with additional syllables, to such
an extent that the words were undecipherable. Such chaos was addressed in the
decrees of the Hundred-Chapters Council, but little progress was made in most
parish churches.
The general attitude was that if it was Russian, then it was orthodox; but if
it was foreign, then it was heretic. Since male Russians wore a beard, the beard
was eventually attached to the confession of Orthodoxy. Shaving the beard was
then labeled a Catholic heresy. The Hundred-Chapters Council decreed that a
clean-shaven man would not receive a funeral service in an Orthodox Church,
not a requiem after 40 days, nor would candles be burned in church on his
behalf; he was considered an infidel.
The attachment to form and ritual is reflected in every area of the character
of the Russian community. The virtuous person of the era attended church
services; austerely observed the fasts, and in addition also fasted voluntarily or
on Mondays; contributed to monasteries and churches, and to the construction
of new churches; made pilgrimages to holy places; donated to charity and gave
food to the poor; and participated in various types of benevolent conduct. The
life of the pious Orthodox was built around the statutes of the Church. The
arrangement of time, his diet, clothing, etiquette and attitude between the
members of the family all reflected the influence of the religion. Even the
outward appearance of the Russian city and town attested to religion as a
dominant force in the region. Foreigners saw many magnificent churches and
monasteries in Russian cities and heard the incessant ring of church bells; along
every street stood shrines and icons with candles lit in front of them. Passers-by
made the sign of the cross in front of each, while a few bowed right to the ground
to venerate them. Everywhere the eye turned, it met clergy carrying holy water,
crosses, or icons, and singing. They would perform their processions around
their churches like clockwork. But true religious feeling which enlivens the
liturgy and transforms the character of a person was scarcely developed. Among
the many questions and conflicts of the 16th century was the contradistinction
between Christian ostentation and morality, and even those people who most
refuted the liturgical piety were often themselves clearly typical of all it
represented.
212
Even when society sensed the necessity of restoration of the Church after
the devastation caused by the Mongol occupation, it seems it did not have the
means to boost itself out of this difficult state. Tsars and feudal princes were so
involved in political struggles that little time and effort was dedicated toward
improvement of education and literacy. Archbishop Gennadi of Novgorod wrote
a bitter complaint to Metr. Simon about the illiteracy of the clergy of his diocese.
They bring a man to me to ordain as priest. I ask him to read the Apostolic
letters, but he does not know how to begin. I give him the Psalter, and he can
barely mumble some of it. I deny him his request and he begins to complain to
me. We cannot find people who are literate and so we must teach them. I tell
him to learn the liturgy, but he has problems pronouncing the first word. I tell
him one thing and he replies to me something else. I tell him to first learn the
alphabet, and after reciting a few of the letters, he wants to leave. Even when
such unschooled people learn to read, their pronunciation ruins it for them
entirely. I tell him to hire a teacher and to give him a bowl of porridge or piece
of money as payment, but then he leaves because he has no money. Having no
ability, he mumbles words as he leafs through the book and he still has no
knowledge of church protocol.
Archbishop Gennadi asked Metr. Simon to help in creating schools, but
little was done to improve the literacy of the parish clergy. Many of the Boyars
and feudal princes were hardly literate, themselves, in those days. As a result,
ecclesiastical preaching or delivery of sermons was poor and often limited to a
repetition of recorded instructive from metropolitans Jonah, Theodosius, Filipp
and Fotius, and especially John Chrysostom. In lieu of an active instruction, the
message was mundane and shallow. Some of the priests turned to the Lives of
the Saints for their sermons, which provided an interest for the parishioners.
After the fruitless sighs of Gennadi of Novgorod and the failed effort of the
Hundred-Chapters Council to open schools, the Jesuit Antonius Possevin
proposed to Tsar Ivan IV that he send young Russians to Rome to be educated at
the Uniate College of St. Athanasius or at the Jesuit schools in Lithuania, but to
no avail. Although Tsar Ivan did initiate printing in 1560 in Moscow and opened
schools, they fell into disuse when his terrors began.
67. MORAL CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE
As indicated, the level of education and religious training was low for laity,
clergy, and even the higher clergy during the Moscovite era. Monastery and
church construction was rapid, but educational development did not keep pace.
213
The wife of Tsar Vasili III, the barren Solomonia, sought help from sorcerers for
her inability to conceive. Later Tsar Vasili himself, after marrying Elena
Glinskaya, invited wizards to the palace hoping that they, using their chants and
talismans, could instill in him virility so he could regularly impregnate his wife
to acquire a large progeny. Tsar Ivan IV also consulted with sorcerers, although
he also executed others. People in general patronized wizards at every occasion
when normal or natural means were insufficient to accomplish something.
Medicine was often based on the conjuration and advice of such charlatans and
quacks. National and private disasters, failures, family squabbles and other
troubles were often attributed to a spell cast by a wizard, and to circumvent the
effects one often resorted to more chants or sorcery from other wizards.
This spirit of sorcery also found its way into Orthodoxy. Supplication
acquired a posture of incantation with the names of mythological figures
exchanged for those of Christian saints. Some Christian prayers were converted
into chants and icons into charms, which the common people could identify
with the efficacy of sorcery. Excerpts of such prayers were worn round the neck
as good luck charms, or hung in homes as a talisman, or utilized in fortune
telling. The bakers who prepared the host for the Eucharist would recite a pagan
incantation over them to insure their efficacy in the rite. Priests would place
under the altar the salt prepared on Maudy Thursday — the day before Good
Friday — and then would later sell it as a cure for both people and animals, and
would sell the soap remaining from the sanctification of a church. Parish priests
would also walk about the church holding texts of books of divination.
Beginning with the 16th century, astrology and fortune-telling permeated
Russia from Europe and books containing occult methods were translated into
Russian. Excerpts from forbidden books, delved into by the curious or the
desperate, increased in distribution and readership. The attempt of higher
Orthodoxy to proscribe certain books failed. Often, the parish priest could not
tell the difference between traditional Orthodox texts and those of the occult
and superstition. Metr. Daniel often remarked on apocryphal excerpts and
fables, as did the textbooks of Metr. Makari, the proceedings of the Hundred-
Chapters Council, and even the writings of Maksim the Greek. The historians of
this era note that teachers utilized fables and superstition more than they did
Holy Scripture.
Entertainment was cruel, such as boxing matches where one opponent was
beaten to his death. Tsar Ivan IV enjoyed using people as bait to hunt bears, a
routine that others of high rank also practiced. Community meetings and feasts
regularly concluded in fights and even murder. Moralists attempted to arm
214
themselves to defeat alcoholism, which pervaded every sector of Russian society

and even the higher Orthodoxy clergy. The celebration of important Christian
holy festivities was combined with immoral pagan customs inherited from
earlier ages, which vexed the moralists to no end.
In 1505, abbot Panfil of Eleazarov Monastery wrote to the rulers of Pskov
asking them to curb the immoral practice of both genders enjoying the steam
sauna together on the eve of the Holiday of the Birth of John the Baptist. Pagan
practices of necromancy pervaded requiems held on Radnitza, the Tuesday after
Easter, and on Thursday during Passion Week, and on the Saturday before
Pentecost, which were accompanied by all-night festive memorial services at
cemeteries.
Beneath the ostentatious and superficial piety, the rather crude barbarian
nature of the community is disclosed. In their attitudes, the oppression of lower
classes by the upper, of the poor by the rich, and of subjects by their rulers, stand
out. A disregard for personal rights was accompanied by terrible punishment
and torture; this dominated the judicial system and the custom of brute force
pervaded every aspect of society affecting all classes. The oprichniks, for
example, the personal police force of Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible, could invade
every homestead and rob them of their possessions and even life. They had no
respect even for the church as a refuge. In Novgorod region, the oprichniks
destroyed the sepulcher of the venerated Savva of Visherski. Foreigners noticed
in Russians a weakness of conscience, a lack of personal honor. Every person
assigned to some work in society attempted to get rich quick by taking
advantage of the opportunities the job or vocation provided. The Hundred-
Chapters Council complained that caretakers of poor-houses embezzled funds
donated by charitable people.
68. THE DOMOSTROI
Family morality and the domestic ideals of the era were outlined in a
sufficiently large text called the Domostroi, meaning Home Builder, composed
during the early part of the reign of Tsar Ivan IV by the famous priest Sylvester.
The Domostroi deals exclusively with daily domestic life in Russia and
serves as a valuable record of ancient conduct. It describes with especial clarity
the primary topics and customs of the era, from the most important religious
obligations to the most mundane or trivial of domestic duties. It is also apparent
from the content of the book how difficult it was for liturgical piety to express
215
the true Christian ideal of domestic life, which the Domostroi unconditionally
attributes to the father as the head of the family. The children, mentally and
morally immature, live only according to his will and threats, and he will carry
the responsibility in this life and in the next. The wife is his slave in every
respect, exclusively his mistress and worker, and is placed as the head of other
household servants. The Domostroi rules out any enjoyment for women and
requires from them exclusive domestic concern and work, and as a result of this
normal daily pattern or routine there can be no leisure time available for any
enjoyment in her personal life. When a wife is not working, she will inevitably
turn to gossip with servant-girls or trades-women, to chatting with busybody
women or fortune-tellers, or to drink. To cure any natural tendency toward
idleness or timewasting, the Domostroi advises a pedagogical enlightenment
through beating.
Children likewise have no rights under their father; their destiny depends
entirely on his decisions, including their status in society, and whom they will
marry. Children are considered foolish, and unable to understand anything. The
father is obligated to teach them all protocol and to fear God, and his means to
accomplish this is through intimidation and beating. As the personification of
authority, the father must not play or laugh with his children.
In regards to servants or serfs, the father is to be considered a good master,
but at the same time Domostroi humiliates the servant as a person of scant
reasoning ability who cannot be taught unless he is beaten. In case of arguments
between his serfs and others, the Domostroi advises the master to scold his own,
too, even if they were in the right. This will reduce enmity among them.
The rules dealing with morality in the Domostroi retain a character of
liturgical asceticism. Laughter, song, dance, worldly entertainment, and even
idleness are forbidden. The entire house must be arranged after the pattern of a
monastery. Whoever enters it must recite a prayer — just as at the door to a
cloister. Every day, the family must perform services in the morning, noon,
afternoon, evening and at night. The Lord’s Prayer must constantly be on the tip
of their tongue while they hold an icon in their hand. Regarding public conduct,
everything must be accomplished in an orderly fashion. The family must attend
church regularly, be hospitable, give to charities, and listen to the admonishment
of priests. The style of virtue recorded in the Domostroi seldom deviates from
liturgical piety and is confined primarily to one outward form. Instances of
improper conduct are also listed in the Domostroi: praising people, overstaying
one’s welcome at the home of another…
216
The final chapter of the Domostroi reflects more of the personal character
of the priest, Sylvester. He places the trait of kind-heartedness at the pinnacle of
Christian disposition. Sylvester himself liberated all of his serfs, redeemed others
out of servitude, raised several orphans, assisted the crippled, never held
contempt for anyone who was poor or disadvantage, and attempted to make his
own life exemplary. The Domostroi was quite influential during this era, and its
content reflects the existing conditions of domestic life in Russia as well as
what they considered the ideal.
What happened to Sylvester in later years is an interesting footnote. He
and an official, Alexis Adashyov, were part of a small circle of trusted advisers to
Tsar Ivan IV during the early part of his reign; however, the relationship changed
during later years. In 1560, after the sudden and unexpected death of Anastasia,
Tsar Ivan’s first wife, Sylvester and Adashyov were accused of plotting to poison
her. Sylvester was condemned personally by Tsar Ivan, and with no chance of
defense was exiled later that year to Solovetski, where he died in prison a few
years later. Adashyov was incarcerated in a local jail and died a short time
thereafter.
69. ELDERS AND MYSTICS
The era of Moscovite Russia produced a significant number of elders and

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

over 20 years. When Tsar Vasili III sent his military forces against Kazan
Galaktiyon prophesied that he would fail, but that his son would succeed. Tsar
Vasili did fail in his several attempts at defeating Kazan, and his son Tsar Ivan IV
did succeed.
In Tver province, a recently widowed young man whose name was Makari
entered Klobukov Monastery near the city Kashin (today known as Kozhino).
After a few years as a monk, Makari departed from the monastery and walked
about twelve miles toward the Volga River. Makari healed the local nobleman,
Kolyaga, of some infirmity and in return he donated a considerable partial of land
(which included several villages) to Makari for a new monastery. Financed by
Kolyaga, Makari built a monastery and became its abbot, and he dedicated the
complex to the Holy Trinity. Abbot Makari passed away March 17, 1483 at the
age of 83.
Paisius, one of the monks at Makari’s Holy Trinity Monastery, was invited
by feudal prince Andrei Vasilievich to found a monastery at Uglich, along the
Volga River. The first church was dedicated in 1482 and he continued there as
abbot from the opening of the monastery through his death June 6, 1504 at the
age of 107.
A friend of Paisius, a Greek named Constantine, arrived in Moscow with
the retinue of Zoe Paleologus, the bride of Tsar Ivan III. Constantine decided not
to return to Constantinople, and when Metr. Joasaf retired from the cathedra
and was exiled to Therapontov Monastery, Constantine went with him. At
Therapontov, Constantine accepted tonsure as a Russian Orthodox monk and
accepted the new name Kassian. Leaving Therapontov with several other monks,
he went to Pr. Andrei Vasilievich of Uglich, with whom they were friends. On
the banks of the Volga River they erected a church dedicated to the Assumption
of the Virgin Mary, financed by Pr. Andrei. The monk Kassian lived there for the
rest of his life, passing away in 1504.
Aleksandr Svirski was born in the region of Kargopol, and at the age of 26
was tonsured as a monk at Varlaam Monastery in Lake Ladoga. Aleksandr spent
13 years at the monastery and then relocated to Lake Roschinskoe, between
Lakes Ladoga and Onega (Ladozhskoi and Onezhskoi), where he remained in
isolation seven years. Befriending the local feudal prince ZavalishConstantinein,
Aleksandr managed to secure financing for a new monastery. In 1508, the Church
of the Holy Trinity was dedicated as the base of the monastery. Aleksandr
became its abbot, and stayed there at his monastery until he passed away,
August 30, 1533 at the age of 85.
218
Daniel was known as the wonder worker of Pereyaslav; his birth name was
Dmitri. He was tonsured as a monk at Nikitzki Monastery and later joined the
hermitage of abbot Panfuti of Borovsk. After his parents died he returned to
Pereyaslav and settled at Uspenski Monastery. Archimandrite Antoni of
Pereyaslav Uspenski Monastery convinced him to accept ordination as a priest.
Many miracles are attributed to Daniel during his years at Uspenski Monastery
and later when he resided at Goritzki Monastery. Daniel was offered the
position of abbot at Goritzki, which he declined. In 1530, Daniel left Goritzki to
live at an orphanage, which Tsar Vasili III supported at Daniel’s request. At the
orphanage, Daniel founded a church and hermitage dedicated to the Holy
Trinity. He passed away April 7, 1540, at the age of 90.
In Pereyaslav another ascetic was born. Gregori was his birth name but he
became known as Gerasim of Boldinsk after his tonsure as a monk. At the age of
13, Gerasim came under the influence of Daniel of Pereyaslav, while he lived at
Goritzki Monastery, and later he went to live at his orphanage and worked there
as a shoemaker. After 26 years with elder Daniel, and no doubt after his death,
Gerasim left Goritzki Monastery and orphanage to live in the forests of
Smolensk province. There on a mountain called Boldin, Gerasim founded a
monastery. Gerasim went on to found Predtechev (John the Baptist) Monastery
in nearby Vyazem, and later also founded the Monastery of the Presentation of
the Virgin Mary in nearby Kaluzhski province. After a long and dedicated life,
Gerasim passed away May 1, 1554.
Arseni Sukhorusov is another zealous monk who came from Troitse-
Sergievski Monastery. In 1527, he departed the monastery for the forests near
Vologda, about 25 miles from the city, and he lived there alone. Disciples joined
him over the years until enough gathered to build a hermitage, and then a church
in the nearby city Vlakherni. Arseni lived in the area until his death August 24,
1550.
Andrei Seiski, also known as Anthony of Siya, lived in the far north along
the Northern Dvin River. He was born 1477 in the village Ketch, thirty miles from
Archanglesk. After the death of his parents, when Andrei was 25, he moved to
Novgorod and lived there for five years. While he was there he married, but his
wife passed away after a year of marriage. He returned home and in 1508 decided
to become a monk. Andrei departed into the forests and lived as a hermit until
1520. Several disciples gathered around Andrei in the forest north of Novgorod
and near the White Sea, and they formed a hermitage along the Siya River near
Mikhailov Lake. Two of the brethren traveled to visit Tsar Vasili III in 1544; he
allotted them land and financial assistance to construct the Monastery of Siya,
219
over which Andrei would be abbot. Andrei Seiski passed away December 7, 1556
at the age of 79, after spending 37 years as a recluse, monk and abbot in the area
of the Siya River.
Evfrosin of Sinichya (Blue Jay) Lake was a martyr among the early elders of
the far north. He was born in the region of Karelia and was raised in the area of
Ladoga Lake. As a young man he lived at Valaam Monastery in Ladoga Lake and
later in Novgorod; becoming a monk, he resettled at Tikhvin Monastery. In the
year 1600 he left Tikhvin for Sinichya Lake northeast of Ladoga Lake. There he
lived alone as a hermit, but after a while other hermits joined him and a
monastery was formed. Polish troops attacked the monastery March 20, 1612 and
killed Evfrosin and all the monks residing there.
Nikandr of Pskov was a fool in Christ. He settled as a young man in the
forests east of Pskov where he lived as a recluse for 15 years. Nikandr then settled
at Kripetzki Monastery and later resided at Demyanski Monastery for the final
eight years of his life. He died September 24, 1581.
As a young man Vasili the Blessed left his parents’ home and lived on the
streets of Moscow. During the day he would walk from church to church, and at
night he slept on their doorsteps. Although he avoided people, they came to him
regularly requesting advice. Vasili stood in front of Vosdvizhenski Monastery
July 20, 1547 and wept, but the people could not understand his sorrow. On the
following day a fire consumed much of the city of Moscow. Vasili the Blessed
also prophesied that Tsar Ivan IV would defeat Kazan. When Vasili died August
2, 1552, Tsar Ivan IV and feudal princes carried the body of the fool in Christ to a
church where he was entombed. Because of Tsar Ivan IV’s respect for Vasili, the
church built in Red Square to commemorate the defeat of Kazan was name after
him — Sobor Vasili Blazhenago.
Nil of Stolbensk was tonsured at Rzhevski Monastery. In 1528, he was
summoned by a voice to relocate to Seligerski Lake in Kalinin province, about
halfway between Moscow and Novgorod. He moved to an island in the lake, dug
himself a cave, and lived on the island for 27 years. Nil of Stolbensk died 1554.
Other noteworthy elders, mystics and monks of the era include Tikhon
Medenski (d. 1492), who founded Uspenski Monastery in Meden, north of the
city Kalug in Kaluzhski province, and Makari Komelski (d. 1537), a monk from
the Kirill Bel-Ozerski Monastery who founded a monastery in the city
Gryazovtz in Vologda province. Other notable fools in Christ include: Lavrenti
Kaluzhski (d. 1515); Nikola of Pskov (d. 1576); John Moscovski (d. 1589); John of
Yustug (Yustuzhski), a fool in Christ who spend many years in Moscow (d.
220
1589); and John Vlasatie (d. 1580), a wonder worker of Rostov. All of these men
were distinct in their role as mystics and fools in Christ.
By the conclusion of the Moscovite period — about 1590 — Russian

Orthodoxy had recovered from its defeat by the Mongols and restored itself as
the official religion of Russia. At the same time, European Protestantism was
also making inroads into Russia as the country increased its communication and
commercial links with Europe. The initial appearance of independent and liberal
Christian thought is also noticed toward the conclusion of the Moscovite era as
the Bible in Slavonic becomes available to the general public. The subsequent
volume of this History will cover the period 1590-1725, the Patriarchal Period
through the death of Tsar Peter the Great, and will include the institution of the
Holy Synod to replace the Russian Patriarchate.
221
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES:
Filaret (Gumilevski), Archbishop of Chernigov, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, Moscow, 1848,

reprinted 2001.
Golubinski, Evgeni Evgenich, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, 4 volumes, edition of 1901-1911;
reprinted Moscow, 1997.
Kartashyov, Anton V., Ocherki po Istorii Russkoi Tserkvi, 2 volumes, Paris, 1932; reprinted,
Moscow, 1993.
Kostomarov, Nikolai Ivanovich, Raskol, St. Petersburg, 1903; reprinted Moscow, 1903.
Makarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomensk, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, 8
volumes, 1857; reprinted Moscow, 1994.
Miliukov, Pavel Nikolaevich, Ocherki po Istorii Russkoi Kulturi, volume 2, Paris, 1930;
reprinted, Moscow, 1994,
Prokovyev, Nikolai Ivanovich, Ed. Drevnaya Russkaya Literatura, Moscow, 1980.
Rudnev, Nikolai, Razsuzhdenie o Eresyakh I Raskolakh, 1838.
Talberg, H., Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, 2 volumes, Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, N.Y.,
1959.
Tolstoi, Count Mikhail Vladimirovich, Rasskazi iz Istorii Russkoi Tserkvi, 1898; reprinted
1999.
Znamenski, Pyotr Vasilievich, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, Moscow, 1896; reprinted 1996.
223
SECONDARY SOURCES:
Billington, James H., The Icon and the Axe, New York, 1966.
Bolshakoff, Sergius, Russian Mystics, Kalamazoo, MI, 1980.
Brockett, L.P., The Bogomils of Bulgaria and Bosnia, Philadelphia, 1999.
Bulgakov, Sergius, The Orthodox Church, Crestwood, N.Y. 1998.
Fedotov, G. P. A Treasury of Russian Spirituality, Belmont, MA, 1975.
Fedotov, G. P., The Russian Religious Mind, New York, 1946.
Florinsky, Michael T., Russia, a History and an Interpretation, New York, 1953.
Heard, Albert F. The Russian Church and Russian Dissent, New York, 1887.
Hosking, Geoffrey, Russia, People and Empire, Cambridge, MA. 1997.
Kluchevsky, V.O., A History of Russia, New York, 1991, reprinted 1960.
Lossky, Vladimir, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, Crestwood, N.Y. 1998.
Norwich, John Julius, A Short History of Byzantium, New York, 1999.
Pipes, Richard, Russia under the Old Regime, Penguin Books, 1995.
Pospielovsky, Dimitry, The Orthodox Church in the History of Russia, Crestwood, N.Y. 1998.
Preobrazhenski, Alexandr, Ed., The Russian Orthodox Church: 10th to 20th Centuries, Moscow,
1988.
Riasanovsky, Nicholas V., A History of Russia, New York, 1969.
Rose, Father Seraphim, The Northern Thebaid, Forestville, CA., 1995.
Ware, Timothy, The Orthodox Church, Penguin Books, 1963.
Zenkovsky, Serge, Medieval Russia’s Epics, Chronicles and Tales, New York, 1963.
Zernov, Nicolas, The Russians and their Church, Crestwood, N.Y. 1994.
224
INDEX
A Aristotel Feoravanti, 208

Arseni Sukhorusov, 219
Adam, 79–80, 202 Artemie, 188–190, 200, 203, 206
Adrian, 70, 190 Askold, 14–16
Advent, 74, 80–82 Assumption of the Virgin Mary, 82, 218
Afanasi, 191–192, 201 Astrakhan, 84, 198, 207
Akakius, 117 Athanasi of Volin, 142
Alcoholics/alcoholism, 211 Athanasius, 76–77, 94–96, 213
Aleksandr Svirski, 218 Avarice, 90, 96, 170
Alekseevski Convent, 104 Avraanius, 45
Aleksei (Metr.), 100–107, 114, 121, 142,
144, 204
Aleksei (priest) see B
New Teaching, 161 Bashkin, 167, 189, 199–202
Aleksei Mikhailovich, 9 Basil II, 26, 33, 124
Alexander III, 71 Batu Khan, 68, 83, 85, 87–88
Alexander IV, 93 Beards/shaving, 212
Alexander Nevski, 88, 94–95 Bel-Ozerski Monastery, 133, 141, 143,
Alexis Adashyov, 217 146, 168, 170, 173, 175, 183, 189,
Anastasia Romanovna Zakharina, 185, 197, 201, 207, 217, 220
197, 199, 217 Black Plague, 101–102, 119, 148
Anastasia, princess of Suzdal, 153 Black Sea, 10–14, 19, 30, 32, 60, 108, 114
Anatolia, 112 Blago-Veschenski Cathedral, 149, 191,
Andrei Bogolubski, 4–5, 45–46, 60–62, 75 193, 200, 208
Andrei of Tver, 96 Bogomilism/Bogomils, 20, 30, 70, 98, 122,
Andrei Rublyov, 138, 144, 209 160, 166
Andrei Seiski, 219 Boris Godunov, 198
Andrei Yaroslavich, 88, 93, 95 Boris I, 31
Andrei Yurievski, 60 Boris Konstantinovich, 146
Andrew (Apostle), 1–2, 4–5, 9–14, 28 Boris of Rostov (Vladimirovich), St., 37,
Andronicus Paleologus, 94 46, 80–81, 145, 204
Anna, 4, 27, 33, 36, 39, 119, 197 Boris Vasilich, 159
Annunciation, 6, 80, 138, 144, 177 Bosphorus, 14, 108, 113
Anti-trinitarians, 199, 203 Boyar Duma, 181, 185, 191, 199
Antonius, 9, 37–38, 44, 50, 54–57, 69, 83, Bulgar, 22–23, 30, 45
105, 113, 137, 196, 204–205, 213 Bulgaria, 18, 20, 31, 33, 36–37, 59, 70, 72,
Antonius Possevin, 9, 196, 213 76–77, 84, 120, 150
Apocrypha, 76 Bulgars, 23, 25–26, 45, 59, 62, 75, 83
Apostle Peter’s Day, 67 Byzantium, 10, 12–13, 59, 67, 174
Apostles Peter and Paul, 80
Archangel Michael, 79–80
225
C Dnepr River, 10, 12, 14, 18, 30, 34, 42, 54,
63, 114
Caesaro-Papism, 173 Dobrinya, 36
Callistis, 102 Domostroi, 200, 215–217
Cathedral of Vasili the Blessed, 209 Don River, 44, 116
Catholic priests, 197
Catholicism, 1, 28, 71–72, 76, 78, 93, 98,
105, 125–130, 133–134, 152, 178, E
208 Easter, 45, 57, 67, 74, 80, 82–83, 118, 156,
Chernigov, 2, 44, 53–54, 58, 69, 75, 81, 83, 174, 215
88, 101, 153, 204 Efraim the Syrian, 139
Christ, 6, 9–10, 15, 17, 24, 27, 35, 42, 45, Egypt, 32, 46, 49, 55, 151, 174
54, 62, 71, 79–80, 139, 149, 151–152, Elena Vasilyevna Glinskaya, 181
156, 163, 165–166, 174–176, 197, Elijah the prophet, 15
202–203, 210–211, 218, 220 Epiphanius, 11–12
Christmas, 67, 74, 80, 82 Epiphany, 6, 80, 82, 141
Chronicle of Nestor (Pseudo-Nestor), 3, Episcopal court, 48, 114, 140, 165, 186,
32, 49, 57 200
Chudovski Monastery, 104, 116, 129, Eucharist, 28, 48, 56–57, 71–72, 92, 126,
134–135, 156–157, 161, 167, 177, 162, 166, 214
182, 191–192 Eugenius IV, 127–128
Clement III, 71 Eusebius, 10
Clowns, 187 Evfrosinia, 153
Constantine II, 39, 61, 82 Evstratius, 45
Constantine IV, 43
Constantine VII, 17, 26, 33
Constantine VIII, 26, 33 F
Constantine XI Paleologus, 129, 173
Constantinople, 10, 13–15, 17, 19, 25–26, Feodor and Iyoann, 22
28, 32–33, 37–44, 46, 57, 59–61, 68, Filipp I, 135, 160, 192
70–72, 76, 82, 87, 92–96, 99–102, Filofei, 174, 193
104–121, 123–126, 128–134, 136, Fist-fighting, 92
142, 145, 149–150, 158, 167–168, Florence, 125–131, 150, 177
173–174, 177–178, 185, 198, 205, Fotius, 15–16, 117–121, 123–124, 132,
207, 218 146, 150, 153, 213
Council of Florence, 9, 124
Crusades/Crusaders, 70, 72, 98, 130 G
Cyril and Methodius (Kirill), 207
Galaktiyon, 218
Galitzia, 4, 54, 84, 87–88, 92, 94–96, 99–
D 100, 104, 124, 127, 132–133, 145,
Daniel Alexandrovich, 101 148
Daniel Romanovich, 84, 87–88, 92–94 Genghis Khan, 83
Daniel, Metr., 176, 178–183, 214 Gennadi, 143, 156–157, 159, 161–162,
David Rostislavich, 53 167–168, 184, 207, 213
Dazh-bog, 21, 73 Gennadius II, 130
Desyatinnoi Church, 38–39, 59, 81 Germans, 23–26, 28, 30, 202–203
Dimitri (saint), 38, 57 Gerontie, 95–96
Dimitri Mikhailovich, 98 God, 5–6, 11, 13, 16–17, 21–27, 29–30, 32,
Dionysei (priest), see New Teaching, 160 34, 42, 45, 49–52, 60, 62–63, 68, 72,
Dionysei, Bishop and Archbishop, of 75, 78, 89, 97, 123, 140, 142, 150–
Suzdal, 107–108, 146–147, 154 152, 156, 163, 165–166, 171, 174,
Dir, 14–16 180, 193, 196, 201–203, 205, 216
Dmitri Donskoi, 142, 145, 153, 158 Golden Horde, 83–85, 88, 101, 108, 119,
Dmitri Ivanovich, 103–104, 106, 109–111, 124, 137, 157
113 Golgotha, 80
Dmitri Konstantinovich, 103 Golubinski, 2–3, 21–22, 33, 35, 38, 40–41,
Dmitri Yuriyevich, 131 63, 69, 72, 85, 92, 96, 183
Good Friday, 211, 214
226
Index
Goths, 19 J
Greece, 9, 11, 27, 37, 39, 42, 49–50, 55, 59,
70, 72, 85, 87, 93, 117, 131, 150, 156, Jehuda Halevi, 30–31
163, 177 Jews, 23–25, 28–31, 45, 70, 158, 160
Gregori (Uniate metropolitan), 85, 104– Joakim, 35–36, 179
106, 114, 117, 119, 121, 124, 127– Joasaf, 179, 182–184, 218
128, 132–134, 136, 181, 205 John de-Plano Carpini, 85
Gregori Tsamblak (Metr.), 120–121, 150 John of Yustug, 220
Gregory II Kyprios, 94 John the Baptist, 74–75, 80, 215, 219
Gregory IX, 71 John the Scholastic, 76
Gregory Mammas (Patr.), 131, 133 John VIII Paleologus, 129, 136
Gregory VII Hildebrand, 71 John Vlasatie, 221
John X Kamateros, 72
John XI Berkos, 92, 94
H John XV, 71
Hallelujah, 187 John, Apostle, 38, 80
Herman, 143 Jonah, 114, 124–125, 128, 130–134, 136,
Holy water, 196, 212 147, 182, 190, 198–199, 204–205,
Honorius III, 71 213
Hundred-Chapters Council, 183, 186– Jordan River, 79
188, 192, 196, 209–215 Joseph Volotzki, 158–160, 162–164, 166–
Hungary, 70, 87, 92, 127 167, 170–171, 180
Judaizers See, New Teaching, 70, 158–
165, 167, 199
I
Icons, 33, 46, 68, 70, 72, 74–75, 78, 116, K
119, 138, 144, 148–149, 164, 166–
167, 176, 186, 190, 193, 202–203, Karelia, 45, 206, 220
209, 211–212, 214, 216 Karp, 121–123
Igor Olegovich, 42, 54, 81 Kazan, 192, 198, 207, 209, 218, 220
Ilarion, 14, 31, 34, 37, 39–42, 47, 55, 57– Kazimir, 104, 132
58, 78 Khan Akhmet, 157
Incest, 47, 211 Khan Chanibek, 100
Innocent III, 71–72, 92 Khan Gyuk, 85
Innocent IV, 85, 93 Khan Mamai, 108–109
Ioyann IV, 39, 44, 211 Khan Naurus, 103
Irina Feodorevna, 198 Khan Toda-Mangu, 94
Isidore, 124–132, 149, 152 Khan Tokhta, 97, 110, 116
Islamic Ottomans, 130 Khan Tokhtamish, 110, 116
Ivan Belski, 182 Khan Uzbek, 97–98, 100
Ivan I (Ivan Kalita), 9, 98, 102–103, 135– Khazar/Khazars, 23, 28, 30–31
137, 144, 152, 155–157, 159, 161– Kherson/Chersonessus, 10, 12, 19, 26–27,
163, 167–168, 172–174, 179, 181, 32–34, 38, 45, 59, 71
185, 189, 191, 195–201, 203, 207– Kiev, 3–4, 10–22, 27–46, 50, 54–64, 68–
209, 213–215, 217–218, 220 73, 75–77, 81–85, 87–89, 93–96, 99,
Ivan II, 102–103, 135–137, 155–157, 159, 103, 105–107, 109–111, 113–114,
161–163, 167–168, 172–174, 208– 117–121, 132–133, 137, 151, 160,
209, 218 204
Ivan III, 135–137, 155–157, 159, 161–163, Kievan Russia, 19, 36–42, 44, 48, 50, 52–
167–168, 172–174, 208–209, 218 55, 58–60, 62, 64–72, 75–78, 82–84,
Ivan IV, 9, 144, 152, 174, 179, 181, 185, 101, 137, 148
189, 191, 195–201, 203, 207–209, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, 161
213–215, 217–218, 220 Kiprian, 105–106, 109–118, 120, 138, 140,
Ivan Shuiski, 179, 182, 184–185, 199 145, 150, 152
Izyaslav Davidovich, 75 Kirill and Methodius (see Cyril and Meth-
Izyaslav Mstislavich, 14, 41–42, 68, 71 odius), 76
Kirill III (metr.), 87–94, 150–151, 195
Kirill Monastery, 175, 190
227
Kirill of Bel-Ozersk, 139, 145, 151, 169, Moravia, 76

204, 217 Moscovite Russia, 99, 103–104, 107, 124,
Kirill of Turov, 46 127, 131, 136, 142, 155, 163, 166,
Kliment Smolyatich, 14, 39, 42–43, 68 171, 204, 217
Kolomna, 83, 108, 116, 142 Moscow, 3–5, 9, 12, 41, 47, 83, 95–120,
Kolyad, 74 124–129, 131–134, 136–139, 141–
Konstantine Monomakh, 66 142, 144–146, 148–149, 151–152,
Kostomarov, 3, 210 155–157, 161–162, 165, 167, 171–
Kremlin, 5, 128, 137–138, 155, 167, 183, 175, 177–185, 188, 191–194, 196,
200, 208–209 198–201, 203, 205, 208–209, 213,
217–218, 220
L Moscow River, 142, 145
Mstislav Vladimirovich, 3, 60, 81
Lapland, 206 Mt. Athos, 50, 55, 88, 156, 168, 175
Lent, 57, 80–81, 114–115, 127, 129, 200 Mysticism, 150
Leo IX, 28, 71
Lithuania, 85, 105, 113, 117–121, 124, N
127–128, 130–133, 136, 158, 166,
190, 201–202, 213 Nazarene, 122
Lukas Chrysoberges, 44, 82 Nestor, 3, 10–11, 14–15, 31–32, 45, 82–83
Luke, 46 Nestor of Rostov, 82
Luki Zhidyata, 77 New Teaching, 158, 160–166, 199
Nifont, 43, 94–97, 162, 205
M Nikandr of Pskov, 220
Nikifor II, 39, 68
Mahomet II, 130 Nikita, 12, 15, 39, 46, 58, 63, 70, 121–123,
Makari, 2–3, 147, 166, 183–191, 200–201, 145–146, 185, 199, 204
203–204, 206, 214, 218, 220 Nikita Paflagonius, 15
Makarius, 3, 13, 19, 106–109, 151 Nikita Romanovich Zakharin, 199
Maksim, 93–95, 151, 172, 176–180, 188, Nikolas II Chrysoberges, 38
214 Nikolas the Miracle Worker, 81
Maksim the Greek, 172, 176, 178–180, Nikon the elder, 56
188, 214 Nil of Stolbensk, 220
Maluta Skuratov, 195, 198 Nil Sorski, 165, 168–170, 175–176
Manuel II, 87 Nilus, 109–111, 113, 123, 145
Manuel of Smolensk, 43 Novgorod, 4, 10–11, 13–14, 16, 20, 35–39,
Maria Nagoi, 198 41–43, 45–46, 50, 58–60, 63, 69, 77–
Marriage, 211 78, 81, 84, 88–89, 91, 94, 98–100,
Martinian, 108, 205, 217 102–103, 107–108, 114–115, 122–
Maslyanitz, 74 124, 126, 129, 133–136, 138–139,
Matfeius, 118 143, 145–149, 151–153, 156–157,
Matins, 211 159–161, 163–165, 168, 170, 174,
Matvei Semeonovich Dalmatov, 167 177, 182–184, 188, 190–191, 193–
Mikhael III, 31, 76 196, 198, 201, 203–208, 213, 215,
Mikhael Paleologus, 94 219–220
Mikhael VII Dukas, 12 Nuns/convents, 37, 46, 50, 52–54, 104,
Mikhail (metropolitan-elect), 42–43, 60, 139, 145, 154, 168, 181, 184, 187, 197
105–107
Mikhail Yaroslavich, 95 O
Moisei of Novgorod, 100
Monasticism, 49–50, 139, 166, 202 Oleg, 4, 15–17, 68
Mongol invasion, 20, 41, 69, 75, 83, 89–90, Olga, 2, 5, 16–18, 26, 29, 81, 204
146, 149–150, 204 Olgerd of Lithuania, 104, 111
Mongol/mongols, 2, 19–20, 30, 41, 68–69, Olimpiodor of Alexandria, 77
75, 81, 83–85, 87–90, 92–94, 97–98, Onuthrius of Chernigov, 42
100–101, 109, 116, 119, 131, 137– Oprichnin/oprichniks, 191–196, 215
139, 142, 146–151, 153, 155, 157, Ordination, 14, 39–40, 42–44, 55, 61, 89–
174, 204, 213, 217 90, 95, 100, 102, 104–112, 120–121,
228
Index
124, 129–134, 136, 142, 162, 167– Rudnev, 3, 166

168, 213, 219 Rurik, 14, 16, 54, 68
Origen, 10 Rurik Rostislavich, 54, 68
Ostrog Bible, 208 Russian Orthodoxy, 1–2, 6, 9, 18, 28–29,
Otroch Monastery, 179, 195 36, 38, 41, 46, 52, 64, 66, 72, 80–83,
Ottoman, 70, 116, 125, 127, 129–130, 132, 85, 124, 126–129, 131, 134, 139, 146,
158, 167, 173, 205 153, 156, 158–159, 161, 168, 171,
Ottoman Turks, 107, 112, 116, 119, 125, 176, 178, 183–186, 194, 196, 200,
127, 129–130, 132, 136, 158, 167, 206–208
173, 177
S
P
Sakhari, 160
Pafnutius, 146, 158–159 Sarai, 84–85, 87–89, 92, 94, 96, 100–101,
Pagan festivities, 92 103, 108, 137, 147, 151
Paganism, 16–17, 29–30, 32–33, 35, 45, Saunas, 11, 187
62–63, 72–75, 78, 148, 150 Savvatie, 143–144
Paisei Yaroslavov, 165, 168–170, 175 Semeon of Vladimir, 58
Paisius, 217–218 Semeonov Monastery, 109–111, 132, 145,
Palm Sunday, 91 155–156, 161–162, 172
Panfil of Eleazarov Monastery, 215 Septuagint, 208
Patrimony, 50–51, 53, 64–67, 116, 118– Serapion, 89, 150, 184
120, 139–140, 142, 157, 168–170, Serfs, 66, 118
175, 178–179, 188–190, 198, 209, Sergei of Radonezh, 103–104, 106, 139,
211 141, 144–146, 153, 204
Pavel Miliukov, 173, 176, 178, 181, 203, Seyit, 98, 122
205 Shaving (see Beards), 212
Pecher Monastery, 3, 14, 37, 42–43, 45– Siberia, 199
46, 49, 54, 56, 58, 63, 77, 82–84, 89, Sign of the cross, 72, 187, 190, 196, 202,
151, 190, 204 212
Pecher Paterik, 58, 77 Simon (Metr.), 164, 167, 171, 213
Pereyaslav, 6, 40, 43, 55, 59, 69, 83, 93, 96, Simon the Stylite, 46
108, 110, 204, 219 Simony, 66, 90, 96, 121–122, 136, 167–
Perun, 21, 35, 73–74 168
Peter (Patr.), 208 Slavonic Bible, 76, 200, 207–208
Peter, Apostle, 12, 67, 80, 203 Slavonic language, 36, 76, 125, 150, 207
Peter, St., 3, 81–82, 101, 124, 155 Solomonia Yurievna Saburova, 181
Peter, Tsar, 1, 6, 32 Solovetski Monastery, 143–144, 189–190,
Philotheos (Patr.), 102, 104–106 192, 196, 206
Philotheos Kokkinos, 117 Solovyov, 29
Pimen, 57, 108–113, 115, 191, 193–195 Soothsayers, 74
Poland, 59, 85, 87, 92, 104, 127, 130, 133, Sorcery/Sorcerers, 62–63, 166
136, 156–157, 202 Spasski Monastery, 106, 138, 144, 178,
Polikarp of Pecher, 53 201
Polovtzi, 44, 83 Spasski-Andronikov, 103
Primary Chronicle, 3–4, 15–16, 21, 33, 46 Spasso-Evfimiev Monastery, 146, 189,
Procession of the cross, 155, 161, 194 205–206
Prokopi Yustyug, 151–152 St. Dimitri, 38, 57
Pseudo-Nestor, 32, 49, 57 St. Sophia, 17, 25, 37, 40, 43, 59, 69, 77,
Pskov, 17–18, 63, 81, 93–94, 122–124, 81, 84, 115, 161
126, 138–139, 145, 148, 162, 174, Stephen of Perm, 138, 206
185, 190, 196, 205, 208, 215, 220 Stephen the Martyr, 80, 141
Stri-bog, 21, 73
R Strigolniks, 70, 98, 121–123, 158, 160
Sultan Bayazid, 116
Rituals, 29–30, 175, 212 Superstition, 16, 47, 51, 72, 148, 151, 187,
Rod and Rozhanitsi, 73 214
Rostislav Mstislavich, 44, 53, 65
229
Suzdal, 4, 37, 45, 58, 60, 62, 68, 77, 84–85, Vasili II, 59, 124, 128, 130–134, 163, 166,
87, 89, 94, 99, 103, 105, 107–110, 172, 174, 176, 178, 180, 183–184,
126, 135, 138, 146–147, 149–150, 192, 196, 209, 214, 217–219
153–154, 162, 181, 189, 197, 205– Vasili III, 59, 163, 166, 172, 174, 176, 178,
206 180, 183–184, 192, 196, 214, 217–
Sviatopolk, 5, 37–38, 50, 68 219
Sviatoslav, 5, 17–18, 21, 37–38, 53, 69, 71, Vasili Shuiski, 182
83 Vassian Kosoi, 169, 172, 176, 178–181
Sviatoslav Vsevolodovich, 53, 83 Vassian of Rostov, 156
Sylvester, 3, 144, 200, 215, 217 Vespers, 211
Vitovt, 117–121, 124
T Vladimir (city in NW Russia), 58, 77, 88–
89, 94, 99, 103, 119
Tamatarkhan, 19 Vladimir Andreevich, 104
Tambov, 167, 200 Vladimir Monomakh, 3, 5–6, 38, 60, 68,
Tamerlane, 116, 138 75, 174
Theodorit of Solovetsk, 206 Vladimir Sviatoslavich, 21
Theodosei Kosoi, 200–203 Vladimir the Great, 3, 5–6, 12, 18–19, 22,
Theodosius (an ascetic), 55–57 26–27, 29, 31–32, 34–36, 39–40, 50,
Theodosius of Pecher, 46, 50, 52, 77, 81, 55, 59, 64, 67, 69–70, 81, 204
169 Vladimir-of-Volin, 43, 53, 58, 69
Theognost, 88–89, 92, 98–104, 142 Volga River, 44, 84, 107–108, 168, 218
Theopempt, 39, 59 Volkhov River, 10, 35, 46, 63, 122, 152,
Theophylactus, 17 195
Theotokos, 6, 15, 46–47, 56, 58, 61, 78, Voloko-Lamsk Monastery, 145, 158–159,
116, 138, 145–146, 153, 158, 167, 162, 176, 178–180, 182, 201
209 Vsevolod Mstislavich, 53, 81, 205
Therapontov Monastery, 190, 217–218 Vsevolod Olegovich, 42, 60
Trans-Volga, 163, 165, 168, 170, 172, 176, Vsevolod Yaroslavich, 12
189, 203, 206 Vsevolod Yurievich, 53, 77
Trinity, 6, 18, 34, 45, 78, 80, 82, 142, 153, Vulgate, 207
202, 207, 218–219 Vyacheslav Vladimirovich, 60, 69
Troitse-Sergievski, 9, 133, 135, 143–
144, 153, 157, 163–164, 168, 177, W
179, 182–183, 188–190, 195, 217,
219 Wife abuse, 147
Turkey, 10, 12–13, 70, 87, 112–113 Witches, 148, 150, 196
Tver, 95–96, 99, 110, 114, 126, 129, 138–
139, 145, 148, 151, 153, 158–159, Y
162, 178–179, 195, 205, 218
Yaropolk, 21, 29
U Yaroslav, 4–5, 18, 31, 37–42, 47–48, 50,
55, 59, 62–63, 65, 69, 76–77, 81, 84,
Ural Mountains, 83, 138 89, 163, 177, 204
Uspenski Cathedral, 47, 95, 98, 101, 116, Yatvyags, 22
128, 135, 155, 157, 161, 167, 193– Yuri Danilovich, 97–98
194, 208 Yuri Dmitrievich, 124
Yuri Dolgoruki, 43–44, 60
V Yuri Levovich, 94–96
Yuri Vladimirovich, 60
Vagrant monks, 211 Yurievski Monastery, 69, 164–165
Varangians, 10–11, 15, 19
Vasili I, 59, 113–117, 119, 124, 128, 130– Z
134, 163, 166, 172, 174, 176, 178,
180, 183–184, 192, 196, 209, 214, Zoe Paleologus, 136, 157, 167, 173, 218
217–219 Zosima, 143–144, 158–159, 161–163, 167,
174, 205–206
230

SHUBIN, D. (Ed.), The History of Russian Christianity, Vol. I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SHUBIN, D. (Ed.), The History of Russian Christianity, Vol. I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A HISTORY OF RUSSIAN

Volume I: From the Earliest

No portion of this book (beyond what is permitted by

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data —

Wooden Building in Eklutna Village

Printed in the United States

PART 1. THE PRE-HISTORIC ERA 9

PART 2. THE ERA OF KIEVAN RUSSIA 21

23. WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY FASTS 81

PART 3. THE ERA OF MONGOL OCCUPATION 87

PART 4. THE ERA OF MOSCOVITE RUSSIA 155

61. METROPOLITAN ANTONI AND THE ENIGMA OF

The purpose of this 3-volume work is to provide to the reader a history of

Andrei P. Bogdanov, Russkie Patriarkhi, two volumes, 1999.

Golubinski and Kartashyov have been translated and paraphrased en masse

III. NAMES, PLACES, AND DATES

Many early Russia heroes possess a name assigned to them by the

abbot, or higumen, had charge over a small monastery, abbey or hermitage. A

Beginning with the 16th century, or possibly slightly earlier, Russian

Epiphanius also mentions Apostle Andrew in his memoirs, but he never

2. THE PRINCES ASKOLD AND DIR

Constantinople. Patriarch Fotius, who was also concerned about the

3. PRINCES OLEG AND IGOR AND PRINCESS OLGA

In 882 Oleg, a Varangian and a relative of Rurik, arrived at Kiev from

4. EARLY ORTHODOXY IN RUSSIA

A thick, dark cloud encompasses the history of Russia up to the initial

5. GRAND PRINCE VLADIMIR THE GREAT

According to historian Golubinski, the name Vladimir Sviatoslavich

1. Typical traditional male Russian dress included a waistband as a belt.

it is impossible for Christians to allow a young lady to become a wife of a pagan;

6. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF VLADIMIR’S CONVERSION

This concludes the traditional account of Vladimir’s conversion. It is not

7. THE BAPTISM OF RUSSIA

Vladimir’s effort in imposing Orthodoxy upon his subjects as the official

With the death of Vladimir, the precepts of brotherhood he had instilled in

9. THE EARLY METROPOLITANS

There were 24 metropolitans over Kievan Russia from the baptism of

20. Gavriil: no further information is available.

10. METROPOLITANS ILARION AND KLIMENT

Russian metropolitans were ordained by the demand of strong grand

Metr. Ilarion (1051-1055) is important in the history of early Russian

11. EARLY SAINTS AND MARTYRS

The early expansion of Orthodoxy did not progress without persecution

12. RULES OF THE RELIGION

Ecclesiastical rules legislated by Vladimir have been transmitted in various

1. Persons in the ministry of the church: abbot, priest, deacon, churchman,

13. MONASTERIES AND MONASTICISM

Pseudo-Nestor recorded in his annals the regimen and asceticism of monks

14. THE PECHER MONASTERY

Construction of sufficient buildings allowed the monks to move into above-

Nikolai, a son of Pr. David Sviatoslavich of Chernigov, entered Pecher

15. CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS STRIFE AND JUSTICE

appropriating their property. Unable to tolerate Theodor’s arrogance and

16. PAGAN REACTIONS

The paganism of Kievan Russia did not possess an organized caste of

In 1071, a sorcerer enticed by a demon arrived in Kiev. He began to preach to

17. ECCLESIASTICAL FINANCES

18. CHURCH-STATE RELATIONSHIP

The church-state relationship in Kievan Russia was adopted from

periods of harmony during the era in which such a relationship could be

19. EARLY DISSENTERS, JEWS AND CATHOLICS

20. MORALITY OF KIEVAN RUSSIA

To what extent did the introduction of Orthodoxy by Vladimir improve the

The result of the peasantry’s superficial Orthodox education was the