ways of russian theology, fr. george florovsky

8/11/2019 Ways of Russian Theology, Fr. George Florovsky

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ways-of-russian-theology-fr-george-florovsky 1/272

Ways of

Russian TheologyFr. George Flofovsky

Content :

Editor's Preface. Translator's Note. Author's Preface.

Chapter I. The Crisis of Russian Byzantinism

Introduction. The Pagan Era. The Baptism of Rus'. Second “South Slaic! Influence Eremitical

Renaissance Ian III and the "est. The #udai$ers. #osephites% Transolgan Elders and &aimThe (ree). &etropolitan &a)arii and the *ouncil of a +undred *hapters.

Chapter II. Encounter With the West% Orthodoxy in West Russia.

Artemii and ,ur-s)ii. The strog *ircle and Bi-le. ,onstantin stro$hs)ii. The /nion of Brest0“Brotherhoods!0 the ,ie &onaster1 of the *aes. /niatism. &etropolitan Peter &ogila of ,ie.

The rthodo *onfession. The ,ie Academ1. The “Pseudomorphosis! of rthodo Thought.

Chapter III. The Contradictions of the Seventeenth Century.

Introduction. *orrection of Boo)s. Patriarch Ni)on. The Schism. ,iean 2earning in &usco1.

*onclusion.

Chapter IV. The St. eters!ur" Revo#ution

I. The *haracter of the Petrine Reforms. The Ecclesiastical Schools of the Eighteenth *entur1.

Protestant Scholasticism. Russian 3reemasonr1. The Rea4a)ening of Russian &onasticism.

Chapter V. Stru""#e $or Theo#o"y.

Introduction. Aleander I0 Prince A.N. (olits1n0 the *oming of Pietism. The Reial of Russian3reemasonr1. Reform of the Ecclesiastical Schools% 56789565. The Russian Bi-le Societ1.

Translation of the Russian Bi-le. Return to Scholasticism. &etropolitan 3ilaret of &osco4.

Theolog1 in the Reformed Ecclesiastical Schools. The &oral9Rationalistic School. *hurch and

State /nder Nicholas I. *onclusion.

Notes to *hapter I. Notes to *hapter II. Notes to *hapter III. Notes to *hapter I;. Notes to

*hapter ;. A-out the Author. A-out the Editor. A-out the Translator. A-out the Assistant Editor.



Editor's Preface.

n August 55% 5<=< 3r. (eorges ;asil'eich 3loros)1% one of the more influential of

t4entieth centur1 theologians and historians of *hristianit1% died. "ith his death a part of our scholarl1 4orld also dies. The scholarl1 4orld finds itself in a rather unusual situation. /nli)e

other reno4ned 4riters 4ho% upon their death% hae alread1 shared their -est 4or)s 4ith their

contemporaries% onl1 posthumousl1 are 3r. 3loros)1's greatest 4or)s -eing pu-lished in English > "a1s of Russian Theolog1 ?in t4o olumes@% The Eastern 3athers of the 3ourth *entur1% and

The B1$antine 3athers from the 3ifth to the Eighth *enturies. ne pauses 4ith 4onder 4hen one

reali$es that 3r. 3loros)1 4as so influential 4ithout these 4or)s haing -een pu-lished in a

4estern language.3r. (eorges 3loros)1 4as -orn in dessa in 56<. +e 4as the -eneficiar1 of that i-rant

Russian educational eperience% 4hich flourished to4ard the end of the nineteenth centur1 and

produced man1 gifted scholars. The reolution a-orted this rich% gro4ing tradition. As a result of the reolution% trained Russian scholars -ecame a part of the Russian emigration in "estern

Europe and in the /nited States. A tragic depriation for Russia -ecame a gift to 4estern culture.

ne could perhaps compare the flight of Russian scholars to "estern Europe and the /nited

States and their concomitant influence 4ith the flight and influence of B1$antine scholars in thefifteenth centur1. In -oth cases the 4estern scholarl1 4orld 4as surprised at the high leel of

learning in -oth Russia and B1$antium.

3r. 3loros)1 personified the cultiated% 4ell9educated Russian of the turn of the centur1.+is penetrating mind grasped -oth the detail and depth in the unfolding drama of the histor1 of

*hristianit1 in -oth eastern and 4estern forms. +e 4as theologian% church historian% patristic

scholar% philosopher% and Slaist. And he handled all these areas eceptionall1 4ell. Astheologian he 4rote -rilliantl1 on the su-ects 9inter alia9 of creation% diine energies% and

redemption. As church historian he 4rote on personalities and intellectual moements from all

t4ent1 centuries. As patristic scholar he 4rote t4o olumes on the eastern and B1$antine fathers.As philosopher he 4rote eceptionall1 4ell 9inter alia9 on the pro-lem of eil and on the

influence of ancient (ree) philosoph1 on patristic thought as 4ell as on the influence of (erman philosoph1 on Russian thought. As Slaist there 4as irtuall1 no area of Russian life that he hadnot at some point anal1$ed.

&an1 4estern churchmen found him a positie challenge. thers found him intimidating%

for here 4as one 4ho possessed something similiar to enc1clopaedic )no4ledge. +ere 4as one

4ho had the a-ilit1 to anal1$e 4ith insight. +ere 4as a oice from the *hristian east capa-le of putting theological discussion% long -ogged do4n in the 4est -1 reformation and counter9

reformation polemics% on a ne4 theological leel 4ith perceptie anal1ses of forgotten thought

from the earl1 centuries of the histor1 of the *hurch. 3r.. 3loros)1 -ecame the spo)esman for 4hat he termed the “ne4 patristic s1nthesis!0 that is% one must return to patristic thought for a

point of departure0 church histor1 ought not > from this perspectie > -e anal1$ed through the

thought patterns of the reformation or of the *ouncil of Trent or through the thought structure of Thomas ACuinas: one must return to the earliest life of the church% to that liing church 4hich

eisted -efore the 4ritten testimon1 of the Ne4 Testament and 4hich ultimatel1 determined the

canon of our Ne4 Testament > the church of the fathers. That 3r. 3loros)1 influenced

contemporar1 church historians is o-ious. It is note4orth1 that the -est contemporar1 multi9olume histor1 of the church pa1s a special tri-ute to 3r. 3loros)1. #arosla Peli)an of Dale

/niersit1% in the -i-liographic section to his first olume in The *hristian Tradition: A +istor1

of the eelopment of octrine% 4rites under reference to 3r. 3loros)1's t4o olumes ?in

F



Russian@ on the *hurch 3athers ?The Eastern 3athers of the 3ourth *entur1 and The B1$antine

3athers of the 3ifth to the Eighth *enturies@: “These t4o 4or)s are -asic to our interpretation of

trinitarian and christological dogmas! ?p. 8< from The Emergence of the *atholic Tradition:5779G77@. (eorge +untston "illiams% +ollis Professor of iinit1 at +arard iinit1 School%

4rote: “3aithful priestl1 son of the Russian rthodo *hurch . . .% 3r. (eorges 3loros)1 > 4ith

a career9long inolement in the ecumenical dialogue -et4een apostolic patristic rthodo1 andall the man1 forms of *hristianit1 in the ld "orld and the Ne49 is toda1 the most articulate%

trenchant and 4insome eponent of rthodo Theolog1 and piet1 in the scholarl1 4orld. +e is

innoatie and creatie in the sense 4holl1 of -eing eer prepared to restate the saing truth of Scripture and Tradition in the idiom of our contemporar1 1earning for the transcendent . . . !

3r. 3loros)1's professorial career led him from the /niersit1 of dessa to Prague% 4here

he taught philosoph1 from 5<FF until 5<FG. In 5<FG he 4as inited to hold the chair of patrolog1

at St. Sergius' rthodo Theological Institute in Paris. In 5<6 3r. 3loros)1 accepted thedeanship of St. ;ladimir's Theological School in Ne4 Dor). Simultaneousl1 he taught at /nion

Theological School and *olum-ia /niersit1. In 5<8G 3r. 3loros)1 accepted an initation from

+arard /niersit1 4here he held the chair of Eastern *hurch +istor1 until 5<G. "hile teaching

at +arard /niersit1% 3r. 3loros)1 also taught at +ol1 *ross (ree) rthodo TheologicalSchool in Broo)line% &assachusetts. 3rom 5<G until his death in 5<=< 3r. 3loros)1 4as

;isiting Professor at Princeton /niersit1. It should -e remem-ered that through all the 1earsand during all the research% 3r. 3loros)1 4as a faithful priest of the rthodo *hurch%

officiating at the numerous liturgical serices% presenting sermons% and acting as a spiritual guide

and father confessor. The histor1 of the translation of "a1s of Russian Theolog1 could -1 itself -e a separate -oo). Suffice it to sa1 that more persons had a hand in this proect than is o-ious%

especiall1 in the earl1 1ears of the proect. The 4or) of Andre4 Blane and friends 4as Cuite

significant. In late 5<= I receied a personal reCuest from 3r. 3loros)1 to head the entire

proect and to -ring it to completion. I hesitated until 3r. 3loros)1 insisted that I assume thegeneral editorship of the proect. I agreed. 3rom that time on% the organi$ation of the proect

-egan ane4. The first step 4as to compare eisting translations.

The second step 4as ta)en 4hen 3r. 3loros)1 insisted that Ro-ert 2. Nichols -e appointedthe ne4 translator. The third step. 4as to *ompare the ne4 translation 4ith the original tet.

And% finall1 c. 6G6 footnotes 4ere added to part ne of "a1s of Russian Theolog1. I do not

pretend that 4e hae produced a perfect -oo). There are% I am sure% errors still to -e uncoered.But in the main I thin) the product is “read1%! especiall1 in light of the fact that a readership has

-een a4aiting this English translation for approimatel1 fort1 1ears.

The footnotes 4ere added for a specific reason. It 4as thought that there 4ould -e t4o t1pes

of readership: theologians 4ho might -e unfamiliar 4ith the 4orld of Russian culture in general0and% Slaists 4ho might -e unfamiliar 4ith church histor1 and patristics. It 4as considered unfair

to epect Slaists to )no4 *appadocian theolog1% ust as it 4as considered unfair to epect a

theologian to )no4 the poetr1 of Tiutche. It 4as decided that an inde to -oth olumes 4ouldappear onl1 4ith Part T4o of "a1s of Russian Theolog1. I 4ish to than) m1 4ife% ;era% for her

patience and help. A special de-t of gratitude is o4ed to 3r. #anus$ Ihnato4ic$ of the /niersit1

of St. Thomas in +ouston for his indispensa-le help in tracing references to Polish personalities.And% of course% 4ithout the 4or) of Ro-ert 2. Nichols and Paul ,achur this 4or) could not hae

-een completed.

Eer1one 4ho has participated in this proect 4ould% I thin)% oin in our earnest pra1er from

the rthodo serice: “"ith the saints% *hrist% gie rest to the soul of th1 serant% 3r. (eorges%



4here there is neither sic)ness% nor sorro4% nor sighing% -ut life eerlasting . . . 3or the eer9

memora-le serant of (od% 3r. (eorges% for his repose% tranCuilit1 and -lessed memor1% let us

pra1 to the 2ord . . . . That the 2ord our (od 4ill esta-lish his soul in a place of -rightness% a place of erdure% a place of rest% 4here all the righteous d4ell% let us pra1 to the 2ord . . . . (od

of all that is spiritual and of all flesh% 4ho hast trampled do4n eath% and oerthro4n the eil%

and gien life unto th1 4orld% do thou% the same 2ord% gie rest to the soul of th1 departedserant% 3r. (eorges% in a place of -rightness% a place of erdure% a place of repose% 4hence all

sic)ness% sorro4 and sighing hae fled a4a1. Pardon eer1 transgression% 4hich he hath

committed% 4hether -1 4ord% or deed% or thought. 3or thou art a good (od% and loest man)ind -ecause there is no man 4ho lieth and sinneth not0 for thou onl1 art 4ithout sin and th1

righteousness is to all eternit1% and th1 4ord is true . . . . 3or thou art the Resurrection% and the

2ife% and the Repose of th1 departed serant% 3r. (eorges.!

In loving memory Richard S. Haugh Rice University

October 31, 1979.

Translator's Note.

er a hundred and sit1 1ears ago% in 565% Archimandrite 3ilaret ?ro$do@% then a

1outhful rthodo reformer and later “ecumenical! metropolitan of &osco4% dre4 up a charter for the Russian ecclesiastical schools and su-mitted it to Tsar Aleander I. 3rom that moment

can -e dated the a4a)ening of modern Russian rthodo thought. As 3ilaret told the learned

clerg1 and lait1 gathered for the occasion% rthodo1 had -een da$$led and dierted -1 a seriesof 4estern religious and cultural enthusiasms and no4 must “sho4 its face in the true spirit of

the Apostolic *hurch.! In an important sense% 3ilaret's summons to recoer and proclaim again

the faith of the apostles and the *hurch fathers 4as ans4ered 4hen 3r. (eorges 3loros)1's"a1s of Russian Theolog1 appeared in 5<= among the rthodo emigres in Paris. r% more

accuratel1% the -oo) represented the culmination of more than a centur1's effort -1 Russians% -eginning 4ith 3ilaret% to rediscoer their o4n rthodo tradition.

"a1s of Russian Theolog1 forms an integral part of the attempt to purif1 Russian

rthodo1 -1 clarif1ing its proper relationship to the "est. 3rom the siteenth to the nineteenth

centur1% the Russian *hurch found itself intellectuall1 unprepared to deal 4ith the religious and

cultural storms -ursting in upon it. 3irst came the era of open hostilities -et4een Protestants and*atholics0 later came the Enlightenment and Romanticism. *onseCuentl1% rthodo1 a-sor-ed%

sometimes unconsciousl1% 4estern scholasticism% deism% pietism% and idealism% and produced

4hat 3r. 3loros)1 descri-es as the “pseudomorphosis! of Russia's authentic religious lifederied from B1$antium. nl1 in the nineteenth centur1 did Russian rthodo1 seriousl1

underta)e to recoer its B1$antine heritage and find its 4a1 “-ac) to the 3athers “% there-1

la1ing the foundation for 3loros)1's later program of “neo9atristic s1nthesis%! a concept heela-orates in his o4n preface to this -oo) and throughout the stud1.

Although no one has gone so far as to sa1 a-out 3loros)1 4hat the historian S. &.

Solo'e once said a-out 3ilaret ?HEer1 da1 for lunch he ate t4o priests and t4o minno4s!@% his

caustic remar)s a-out prominent figures in Russian histor1 prepared the atmosphere for the cooland critical manner in 4hich the -oo) 4as receied. "a1s of Russian Theolog1 4as not 4ell

reie4ed. +is colleagues at the St. Sergius Institute in Paris colla-orated against him in order to

shield the students from his influence. Nicholas Berdiae 4rote a long reie4 in The "a1 ?Put #%



the leading rthodo intellectual ournal in the Russian emigration% accusing him of arrogance

and spea)ing as though he 4ere (od thundering do4n mal udgment on those 4ith 4hom he

disagreed. &an1 at the Institute sa4 the -oo) as a full scale attac) on Russia and its faith. 5 The1resented the acer-ic remar)s a-out those 4ho he -e -elieed to hae surrendered to the "est:

“3eofan Pro)opoich 4as a dreadful person . . . ?+e@ stands forth not as a 4esterner% -ut as a

4estern man% a foreigner . . . ?+e@ ie4ed the rthodo 4orld as an outsider and imagined it to -e a duplicate of Rome. +e simpl1 did not eperience rthodo1% a-sor-ed as he 4as in 4estern

disputes. In those de-ates he remained to the end allied 4ith the Protestants.! Similarl1% Peter

&ogila% the great seenteenth centur1 churchman% is descri-ed as a “cr1pto9Roman.! “+e -rought rthodo1 to 4hat might -e called a 2atin “pseudomorphosis'.! And% in a manner 4hich

4ould ineita-l1 proo)e his Parisian associates% 3loros)1 4rote that .! . .N. A. Berdiae dran)

so deepl1 at the springs of (erman m1sticism and philosoph1 that he could not -rea) loose from

the fatal (erman circle.. . (erman m1sticism cut him off from the life of the (reat *hurch.! Naturall1% the -oo) found een fe4er friends among the Russian “radicals! in Paris. Paul

&iliu)o tried to silence the -oo) -1 refusing to print Professor Bitselli's reie4 in Russian

Notes ?Russ)iia $apis)i@.

But aside from the polemical st1le% 4h1 the hostilit1 to the -oo) in rthodo intellectualcircles Because it effectiel1 Cuestioned the historical -asis of man1 of their strongl1 held

theological ie4s. 3loros)1 Cuic)l1 emerged as the most authoritatie liing oice of Russianrthodo1 in the "est% and he sought to use his position to pose ne4 Cuestions a-out

ecumenicit1 deried from his reflection on the Russian eperience and its B1$antine past.

&odern Russian rthodo ecumenism% if it -egins an14here% -egins in Paris 4ith him. Not% of course% onl1 4ith him% and not onl1 in the 5<7s. +e had the eperience of the preceding centur1

to dra4 upon. &etropolitan 3ilaret and the editorial -oard for the ournal The "or)s of the +ol1

3athers in Russian Translation o-iousl1 anticipated his appeal for a “return to the 3athers.! The

rthodo emigres in Paris 4ere 4or)ing clerg1 and la1men tr1ing to acclimate Russianrthodo1 to the ecumenical challenges of the t4entieth centur1. All 4or)ed on the same

pro-lems: a re9eamination of Russia's religious past% the meaning of the Reolution for Russia

and the modern 4orld% and the role of Russian rthodo1 in the present and future.But among all those 4ho thus sered the *hurch in eile% 3r. 3loros)1 stands alone. thers

might eplore and refine rthodo thought -ut 3loros)1 altered the contet in 4hich discussion

of the *hurch's 4or)% meaning% and character must ta)e place. In so doing% he laid the foundationfor reconciling the “Eastern and the riental! rthodo *hurches. +is “as1mmetrical! definition

of the *halcedonian formula first appeared in his 5< lectures on the B1$antine 3athers of the

;9;III *enturies. In "a1s of Russian Theolog1 he clarified the short9comings% achieements%

and tas)s of the Russian *hurch. And in the net fe4 1ears he defined the necessar1 approachEastern rthodo1 must ta)e in order to oercome separation from the other *hristian

confessions. In 5<=% at the ecumenical encounters in Athens and Edin-urgh% he eplained his

“neopatristic s1nthesis! or “re9+elleni$ation! of rthodo1 in such a 4a1 as to eercise “a profound influence upon the. .%. ?Edin-urgh@ *onference% presenting the eternal truths of the

*atholic 3aith so effectiel1% so 4insomel1% and so clearl1 that the1 commended themseles to

men of the most diersified nationalities and religious -ac)grounds.HF All this% in its essentials%4as carried through in a remar)a-l1 short period from 5<7 until the out-rea) of the 4ar.

The 4ar in Europe claimed "a1s of Russian Theolog1 as one of its casualties. Nearl1 the

entire stoc) of the -oo) 4as destro1ed during a -om-ing raid on Belgrade near 4hich 3loros)1

had moed to sere as chaplain and religious teacher to the Russian colon1 at Bela *r)a.

8



Although copies suried there and else4here% the -oo) -ecame some4hat rare. The present

translation 4ill% therefore% ma)e this monumental 4or) more readil1 aaila-le -1 -ringing it to

the attention of a much larger non9Russian spea)ing English pu-lic. The -oo)'s great eruditionand compassion desere the 4idest possi-le audience. An English translation has long -een

oerdue.

All translators% if the1 are to an1 etent conscious of their 4or)% recogni$e the disparit1 -et4een the original the1 read and the 4or) the1 produce. n er1 rare occasions a translator

perfectl1 captures his su-ect% -ut far more often he onl1 approimates or suggests the original.

This -oo) follo4s the general rule. 3r. 3loros)1's "a1s of Russian Theolog1 is not an eas1 -oo) to render into English. It is a highl1 personal and passionate account of Russian religious

thought and Russian culture constructed from 4ords% phrases% and thoughts so deepl1 rooted in

the Russian rthodo tradition that the English translator can onl1 imperfectl1 cone1 their rich

associations. *onseCuentl1% he must settle for something less% and I hae tried to retain the igor and earnestness of the -oo) -1 4riting English prose rather than proiding a literal rendition of

the Russian tet. I do not claim to hae succeeded in capturing 3r. 3loros)1's st1le0 I onl1 claim

an attempt at aoiding the a4)4ardness of a more precisel1 literal reproduction. As Ed4ard

3it$gerald once o-sered: “the lie dog -etter than the dead lion! ?2etters% 2ondon% 56<@.The translation of "a1s of Russian Theolog1 is actuall1 a 4or) of man1. In 5<=8% 4hen I

first -ecame part of the proect% rough drafts of seeral chapters and sections of others hadalread1 -een completed. These drafts included a portion of chapter F% chapters and % sections

59= of chapter 8% section 5 of chapter =% and chapters 6 and <. "hen at the reCuest of 3r.

3loros)1 and Richard +augh% the general editor of this proect% I agreed to assume the -urden of this proect preiousl1 carried for4ard -1 the earlier group% I etensiel1 reised and in some

instances retranslated the chapters alread1 in draft form% and translated the remainder of chapter

8 as 4ell as the preface and chapters 5% G% and =. To all the chapters I added numerous

eplanator1 notes. The general editor% Richard +augh% has appended still others. In sum% thetranslation is a collectie enterprise 4hich has ta)en considera-le time to complete% 4or)ed on as

it has -een during summers% holida1s% and at other spare moments in 4or)ing da1s deoted to

teaching% other literar1 proects% and administratie duties. f course% I assume full responsi-ilit1for an1 errors in the translation% -ut the hard% selfless la-or of the preious translators must

receie full ac)no4ledgement.

ne further 4ord a-out the notes accompan1ing the tet. Those notes designated 4ithin -rac)ets as “Author's notes! are of t4o )inds. ne contains material remoed from the -od1 of

the tet% so that it does not interrupt the narratie. Such material is usuall1% -ut not al4a1s% of a

-i-liographical character. The other sort proides information ta)en from the -i-liograph1 at the

end of the Russian edition. ?That full -i-liograph1 is not included 4ith this translation. nl1 aselected -i-liograph1 is appended. Readers 4ho 4ish to use the er1 etensie Russian

-i-liograph1 are inited to consult the original 5<= D&*A Press edition@. "here necessar1% I

hae proided a more eact citation to a 4or) ?i.e.% edition% olume% page% etc@. than thatcontained in the original. All notes not directl1 attri-uted to the author are mine or the editor's.

Transliteration has -een done follo4ing the usage of the Slaic Reie4. (enerall1% Russian

*hristian names are reproduced here% 4ith a fe4 eceptions 4here the name is 4ell )no4n ?e.g.2e rather than 2eo% ecept for 2eo Tolsto1@.

SCuare -rac)ets are used er1 sparingl1 in the tet to enclose material added -1 the

translator. In -ringing the translation of "a1s of Russian Theolog1 into print% it is a pleasure to

than) all those 4ho helped me 4ith the tas). 3irst to Richard and ;era +augh% 4ho chec)ed the

G



Stud1ing the Russian past led me to the coniction and strengthened me in it that in our da1

the rthodo theologian can onl1 find for himself the true measure and liing source of creatie

inspiration in patristic tradition. I am coninced the intellectual -rea) from patristics andB1$antinism 4as the chief cause for all the interruptions and failures in Russia's deelopment.

The histor1 of these failures is told in this -oo). All the genuine achieements of Russian

theolog1 4ere al4a1s lin)ed 4ith a creatie return to patristic sources. That this narro4 path of patristic theolog1 is the sole true 4a1 is reealed 4ith particular clarit1 in historical perspectie.

Det the return to the fathers must not -e solel1 intellectual or historical% it must -e a return in

spirit and pra1er% a liing and creatie self9restoration to the fullness of the *hurch in the entiret1of sacred tradition.

"e are granted to lie in an age of theological a4a)ening -espo)en throughout the diided

*hristian 4orld. It is time to reeamine and recall 4ith great attention all the sometimes cruel%

sometimes inspired lessons and testaments of the past. But a genuine a4a)ening can onl1 -egin4hen not onl1 the ans4ers -ut the Cuestions are heard in the past and in the future. The

inehausti-le po4er of patristic tradition in theolog1 is defined still more -1 the fact that

theolog1 4as a matter of life for the hol1 fathers% a spiritual Cuest ?podig@% a confession of faith%

a creatie resolution of liing tas)s. The ancient -oo)s 4ere al4a1s inspired 4ith this creatiespirit. +ealth1 theological sensitiit1% 4ithout 4hich the sought9for rthodo a4a)ening 4ill not

come% can onl1 -e restored in our ecclesiastical societ1 through a return to the fathers. In our da1theological confessionalism acCuires special importance among the *hurch's la-ors as the

inclusion of the mind and 4ill 4ithin the *hurch% as a liing entr1 of truth into the mind. ;os

eemplaria graeca nocturna ersate diurrna. rthodo1 is once again reealed in patristiceegesis as a conCuering po4er% as the po4er giing re-irth and affirmation to life% not onl1 as a

4a1 station for tired and disillusioned souls0 not onl1 as the end -ut as the -eginning% the

-eginning of a Cuest and creatiit1% a “ne4 creature.!

In finishing the -oo)% I recall 4ith gratitude all those 4ho -1 eample or counsel% -1 -oo)sand inCuiries% -1 o-ection% s1mpath1 or reproach helped and help me in m1 4or). I gratefull1

remem-er the li-raries and repositories 4hose hospitalit1 I eno1ed during the long 1ears of m1

studies. +ere I must mention one name dear to me% the late P. I. Nogorodtse% an image of truthfulness 4ho 4ill neer die in m1 heart's memor1. I am inde-ted to him more than can

possi-l1 -e epressed in 4ords. “True instruction 4as in his mouth! ?&alachi F:G@.

Chater !.

The Crisis of Russian "y#antinis$

!ntroduction.The histor1 of Russian thought contains a good deal that is pro-lematical and

incomprehensi-le. The most important Cuestion is this: 4hat is the meaning of Russia's ancient%

enduring% and centuries long intellectual silence +o4 does one eplain the late and -elateda4a)ening of Russian thought The historian is ama$ed 4hen he passes from the d1namic and

often loCuacious B1$antium to placid% silent Rus'. Such a deelopment is perpleing. "as Russia

silent% lost in thought% and 4rapped in contemplation of (od r 4as it mired in spiritualstagnation and idleness "as it lost in dreams or in a semidormant eistence

6



4as it rendered po4erless. As if through some historical underground% this hidden life%

simultaneousl1 of t4o minds and of t4o faiths% flo4ed through the trou-led depths of the popular

su-conciousness. In essence% t4o cultures9one -1 da1 and one -1 night 4ere intert4ined. f course the adherents to the “da1! culture 4ere the minorit1. +o4eer% as is al4a1s the case% an

eCuation of spiritual potentials does not indicate an1 historical formation's capacit1 for life and

gro4th. The ne4l1 acCuired B1$antine *hristian culture did not instantl1 -ecome “popular!culture0 it long remained the propert1 and possession of a literate and cultured minorit1. This 4as

an inescapa-le and natural stage in the process. +o4eer% one must remem-er that the histor1 of

this “da1time! *hristian culture did not constitute the 4hole of Russia's spiritual destin1. A“second culture! deeloped in the su-terranean regions% forging a ne4 and uniCue s1ncretism in

4hich local pagan “surials! melted together 4ith -orro4ed ancient m1tholog1 and *hristian

imagination. This second life flo4ed underground and freCuentl1 -ro)e through to histor1's

surface. Det one al4a1s detects its hidden presence as foam1 and tempestuous laa. The -arrier -et4een these t4o social and spiritual strata 4as al4a1s fluid and diffuse and constantl1

permeated from each side -1 the process of osmosis. But these strata 4ere not full1 independent

of each other. Their different spiritual and religious Cualities 4ere more important and might -e

defined as follo4s: “da1time! culture 4as the culture of the spirit and the mind. This 4as an“intellectual! culture. “Nighttime! culture comprised the realm of dreams and imagination.

In sum% the inner d1namic of cultural life is al4a1s defined -1 mutual interpenetration of such Cualities and aspirations. The unhealthiness of ld Russia's deelopment la1 foremost in the

fact that its “nighttime! imagination too long and stu--ornl1 concealed itself and fled from the

eamination% erification% and purification of “thought.! Earl1 polemists and sermonists hadalread1 noted the strange dura-ilit1 of such s1ncretic “fa-les.! The1 there-1 detected in this

capriciousness of popular imagination one of the fundamental traits of the Russian national spirit.

"hile accurate% this statement must immediatel1 -e Cualified. In an1 eent% 4e are dealing here

4ith an historical Cuantit1% not a pre9historical or etra9historical one. In other 4ords% s1ncretismis a product of deelopment% the result of process% an historical concretion% and not onl1 or

merel1 an inherited trait or characteristic presered despite the interpla1 of historical forces.

The defect and 4ea)ness of ld Russia's spiritual deelopment in part consisted of itsdefectie ascetic temperament ?certainl1 not of an1 ecess of asceticism@ and in part it consisted

of its soul's insufficient spiritualit1% ecessie “piet1! or “poetics! as 4ell as its spiritual

amorphousness. If one prefers% it consisted of its spontaneit1.This is the source of that contrast 4hich might -e descri-ed as the counterpoint of

B1$antine “aridit1! to Slaic “plasticit1.! It must -e noted that this does not refer to some lac) of

“scientific! rationalism ?although the disunction of “piet1! and reason or rational dou-t is no

less a sic)ness than dream1 imagination@. But 4hat is under discussion here is spiritualsu-limation and the transformation of piet1 into spiritualit1 through “intellectual! discipline and

through the achieement of insight and contemplation.

The path is not one from “naiete! to “consciousness%! from “faith! to “)no4ledge%! or from trust to dis-elief and criticism. But it is a path from an elemental lac) of 4ill to 4illed

responsi-ilit1% from the 4hirl of ideas and passions to discipline and composure of the spirit0

from imagination and argument to a 4holeness among spiritual life% eperience% and insight0from the “ps1chological! to the “pneumatic.! And this long hard road% this road of intellectual

and inner achieement% is the impercepti-le road of historical construction.

The traged1 of the Russian spirit 4as first performed amidst such spiritual and

ps1chological aporia. The split -et4een these t4o strata is onl1 one er1 formal epression of

57



that traged1. And it 4ill not do to ascri-e it to some formal categories% m1tholog1% or structure of

the Russian spirit. +istorical destin1 is fulfilled in specific eents and acts% in the 4illingness or

refusal to ma)e decisions 4hen confronted 4ith concrete liing tas)s.

The "atis$ of Rus'.Rus' receied -aptism from B1$antium. That act immediatel1 defined its historical destin1

and its cultural and historical road. Rus' 4as immediatel1 included in a definite and preiousl1

ela-orated net4or) of ties and actions. Baptism mar)ed the a4a)ening of the Russian spirit. It

4as a summons from the “poetic! dreaminess to spiritual temperance and thought. At the sametime *hristianit1 ushered Rus' into creatie and ital intercourse 4ith the entire surrounding

ciili$ed 4orld. f course% one cannot and should not imagine the -aptism of Rus' as a single

eent for 4hich a precise date can -e gien. Baptism 4as a comple and multifaceted process0 alength1 and freCuentl1 punctuated eent etending not oer decades -ut oer centuries. In an1

case% it -egan -efore the reign of ;ladimir. “*hristianit1 prior to ;ladimir! is a much greater and

-etter defined Cuantit1 than is usuall1 assumed. Prior to St. ;ladimir's da1% cultural and religious

ties 4ere alread1 esta-lished -et4een ,ie and Tsar S1meon in Bulgaria l and perhaps 4ith&oraia. Baptism laid claim to the legac1 of SS. *1ril and &ethodius. 58 B1$antine influence

4as not onl1 direct and immediate ?it 4ould seem that its indirect influence came first and 4as

the most significant and decisie one@. Acceptance of the *1ril and &ethodius legac1% not thedirect reception of B1$antine culture% proed decisie. irect spiritual and cultural contact 4ith

B1$antium and the (ree) element 4as secondar1 to that from Bulgaria. Possi-l1 one can een

spea) of a clash and struggle in ancient ,ie -et4een elements and influences% -et4een those of Bulgaria and those directl1 from (reece.

+o4eer% 4e still do not )no4 in detail the histor1 of this struggle% and it cannot -e

surmised or reconstructed. ifferences and diergencies among such contending influencesshould not -e eaggerated. ne theor1 suggests that the “(ree) faith! and the “Bulgarian faith!

4ere in essence Cuite different% so that at the er1 da4n of Russian *hristianit1 t4o religiousideals or doctrines contested 4ith each other. The ictor 4as not the o1ous *hristianit1 of the(ospels% 4hich inspired and enflamed St. ;ladimir. Instead% a different and “dar) religious

doctrine%! Bogomilism% triumphed. 5G &an1 o-ections can -e Cuic)l1 raised against such a -old

interpretation. 3irst% all efforts to separate the “faith of ;ladimir%! that “o1ful and triumphant

*hristian outloo)! “free from ascetic rigorism! from that of Bulgaria -etra1s anincomprehensi-le misunderstanding. It 4ould -e more appropriate to deduce this “dar) doctrine!

from the Bulgaria of the priest *osmas! 5= da1% for Bogomilism 4as then precisel1 a “Bulgarian

heres1.! Second% one is hardl1 permitted to arra1 all of the religious life of the &onaster1 of the*aes l6 under the ru-ric of this “dar) doctrine! and attri-ute the monaster1's ascetic life to

fanaticism. In an1 case% such a characteri$ation scarcel1 descri-es St. 3eodosii% l< 4ho is least of

all a “dar)! person. But he is undou-tedl1 a (recophile personall1 lin)ed 4ith the &onaster1 of Studior. F7 And it should not -e imagined that the “(ree) faith! possessed onl1 a single face.

(reat caution and precision in ma)ing distinctions is needed at this point% -ut one 4ould do 4ell

to compare St. S1meon the Ne4 Theologian Fl 4ith his opponents during this same eleenth

centur1. Third% dou-t is cast on the 4or) of SS. *1ril and &ethodius. "as their la-or not amista)e or an etremel1 careless underta)ing FF oes not the Slaic language of the *hurch

mar) a “-rea) 4ith classical culture! Translation o-scures the original and reduces the need to

)no4 (ree) in that same 4a1 4hich compelled the "est to learn the 2atin language of the

55



*hurch. This “a-sence of a classical legac1%! as one of the chief traits distinguishing Russian

from “European! culture% 4as noted long ago -1 the Slaophiles% and in particular -1 Ian

,irees)ii. F +o4eer% oersimplification 4ill not do. True% neither +omer nor ;irgil 4as)no4n in ancient ,ie% -ut it does not follo4 that the Slaic language of the liturg1 proided the

impediment. nl1 irresponsi-le h1per-ole could suggest that of all the riches of *hristian

+ellenism% Rus' receied from B1$antium onl1 “one -oo)%! the Bi-le. In an1 eent% it is hardl1true that onl1 the Bi-le 4as translated% for a long list of other sufficientl1 dierse literar1

monuments 4ere translated as 4ell. ne must also admit that the “scientific% philosophical% and

literar1 tradition of (reece is a-sent! in ld Russia's cultural inentor1. But again% this 4as notthe fault of the Slaic language.

&ost importantl1% the er1 fact or process of translation cannot -e diminished. Bi-lical

translation has al4a1s -een a maor ' eent in a nation's life and has al4a1s signified a particular

effort and achieement. The constant sound of the (ospels in the familiar language of the liturg1o-liged and facilitated the recollection of *hrist and the preseration of +is liing image in the

heart. In general% translation reCuires more than ust a )no4ledge of the 4ords0 it also reCuires a

great creatie tension and presence of mind. Translation is a mental igil and trial% not simple

eercise or a-stract mental g1mnastics. Authentic translation al4a1s means the molding of thetranslator. +e must penetrate his su-ect0 that is% he must -e enriched -1 the eent and not ust

hae his )no4ledge increased. +ence the enduring significance of the 4ritings of *1ril and&ethodius. Their 4or) shaped and formed the “Slaic! language% gae it an inner *hristian

leaening% and infused it 4ith ecclesiastical life. The er1 su-stance of Slaic thought -ecame

transfigured. “Slaic! language 4as molded and forged in the *hristian cruci-le under the po4erful pressure of (ree) ecclesiastical language. This 4as not simpl1 a literar1 process0 it 4as

the construction of thought. *hristian influence 4as felt far -e1ond and far deeper than in an1

particular religious themes. *hristianit1 affected the er1 manner of thin)ing.

Thus% after its conersion% eleenth centur1 Rus' sa4 the sudden appearance of an entireliterature 4ritten in a familiar and 4holl1 comprehensi-le language. In effect% the entire li-rar1

of Tsar S1meon's Bulgaria -ecame accessi-le to Russian 4riters. #agic F once made the

follo4ing remar) a-out the literature of S1meon's age: “-ecause of the richness of its literar14or)s of religious and ecclesiastical content% LitM could rightl1 stand alongside the richest

literature of the time 4hether (ree) or 2atin% eceeding in this regard all other European

literatures.! The present da1 historian of Slaic literature can full1 endorse this estimate.In an1 eent% the outloo) of ld Russia's man of letters cannot -e descri-ed as narro4. The

opposite difficult1 and danger 4as actuall1 greater: the transfer of a complete literature might

oer4helm a Russian 4riter or reader% for a ne4 and 4ealth1 -ut utterl1 foreign 4orld stood

-efore him9a 4orld that 4as too rich and remote from the surrounding national life. nce again4hat 4as most needed 4as ps1chological self9discipline and self9a-straction.

f course the acCuisition of Bulgarian letters should not -e seen as a single act or an uniCue

eent. In realit1 their “acCuisition! meant that Bulgarian 4ritings -ecame a source from 4hicheducated Russians could ta)e 4hat the1 4ished. Bulgarian 4ritings% ho4eer% did not o-scure

those in (ree)% at least not during the eleenth centur1. At Iarosla's F8 court in ,ie ?and soon

at the cathedral of St. Sophia as 4ell@% a circle of translators la-ored on translations from (ree).Thus% a long series of literar1 monuments un)no4n in Tsar S1meon's Bulgaria 4as included in

the Slaic idiom.

5F



Iarosla loed religious rules and regulations and 4as deoted to priests% especiall1 to

mon)s. +e applied himself to -oo)s% and read them continuall1 da1 and night. +e assem-led

man1 scri-es% and translated from (ree) into Slaic. +e copied and collected man1 -oo)s. . . .It is interesting to note that the literature -rought from Bulgaria 4as largel1 related to

liturgical needs ?the +ol1 Scriptures and patristic 4ritings for reading in the cathedrals@% 4hile at

Iarosla's court historical and secular -oo)s 4ere more often translated.,ie stood at a great crossroads. No one should imagine that the *hurch of ,iean Rus' 4as

cut off or isolated. uring the eleenth and t4elfth centuries% ,ie maintained close lin)s 4ith

*onstantinople and &t. Athos% FG as 4ell as 4ith distant Palestine% 4hich at that time 4as in thehands of the *rusaders. Ties 4ith the "est% too% 4ere constant and 4ell deeloped. "e can

confidentl1 surmise ho4 the acCuisition of B1$antine *hristian literature% that communion 4ith

*hristian culture% resounded in Rus'. The first Russian chroniclers% hagiographers% and

-iographers of the ne4 and hol1 Rus' 4ere raised precisel1 on this literature. These men possessed a definite and sensitie outloo). The1 4ere certainl1 not naie simpletons. ne al4a1s

detects a clear religious and historical tendenc1 or conception in the deelopment of the

chronicles.

Seeral names are particularl1 releant to this discussion. ne is &etropolitan Ilarion% F= -est )no4n as the author of the remar)a-le sermon n the 2a4 of &oses (ien to +im -1 (od

and on (race and Truth L $a)one% &oiseom dannom% i o -lagodati i istineM 4hich een thatconstantl1 carping (olu-ins)ii 4as compelled to descri-e as “an impecca-le academic speech

4ith 4hich among modern speeches onl1 those of ,aram$in F6 can -e compared%! and “Lhe 4asM

not a rhetorician of the least distinguished da1s of (ree) orator1% -ut a true orator during itsflourishing period.! (olu-ins)ii deemed Ilarion's sermon 4orth1 to stand alongside The Tale of

Igor's *ampaign% LSloo o pol)u IgoreeM. In fact% it is an eemplar1 model of oratorical s)ill.

The language is free and simple. It discloses the intensit1 of *hristian eperiences and it

possesses a 4ell made and translucent structure. The sermons of ,irill of Turo F< -elong to thesame literar1 t1pe.

There is little point in spea)ing a-out the originalit1 of these 4riters. The1 4ere under the

formatie influence of B1$antine letters% repeating foreign themes and eploiting 4ell9)no4nmaterial. Det for the historian it is precisel1 this fact 4hich is the important and instructie one.

,irill of Turo himself reminds us that he teaches and 4rites “not from m1self% -ut from -oo)s.!

And “from -oo)s! he 4rote a-l1 and freel1. ,irill's sermons are er1 dramatic% 1et rhetorical ''refinement does not oercome his ital and sensitie heart. f course his sermons are merel1

compilations% although the1 are inspired and liing ones. ne must also mention ,limentii

Smoliatich 7:“Such a philosopher there has not 1et -een in the Russian land%! the *hronicle

sa1s of him. +e 4rote “from +omer% from Aristotle% and from Plato.! &ention% too% should -emade of St. Araamii of Smolens). 5 To -e sure% these men 4ere part of a minorit1% or if one

prefers% of an ecclesiastical intelligentsia. uring these earl1 centuries there 4ere no theologians

in their ran)s. But there 4ere men of genuine *hristian cultiation and culture. The1 made thefirst flights of Russian +ellenism.

%econd &%outh %lavic !nfluence Ere$itical Renaissance !van !!! and the West.

The Tatar inasion F 4as a national disaster and a political catastrophe. “The destruction of the Russian land%! as one contemporar1 puts it. “A pagan scourge.! “A cruel people came upon

us% iolating (od and la1ing 4aste our land.! There is no need to lighten the colors 4hile

portra1ing such deastation and destruction.

5



+o4eer% the Tatar 1o)e does not constitute a separate period in the histor1 of Russian

culture. No interruption or -rea) can -e o-sered in Russia's cultural effort or in its creatie

mood and aspirations. True% culture moes or is displaced to the north. Ne4 centers deelop%4hile old ones decline. Det this ne4 gro4th sprang from seeds preiousl1 so4n and cultiated%

not from the “transmission of enlightenment! from the cultured south of ,ie to the semi9

-ar-arous northeast% as until een recentl1 some historians hae delighted in descri-ing the process. The north had long since ceased to -e 4ild and un)no4n. Situated astride a maor

crossroad% the Su$dal' land hardl1 stood as a lonel1 outpost.

In an1 case% the thirteenth centur1 4as not a time of decline or impoerishment in thehistor1 of Russian culture and letters. An important series of ideological and cultural tas)s

4as started at that time and included the Pateri)on of the &onaster1 of the *aes% the Palaea

8 ?the ld Testament@% and a series of anti9#e4ish polemics% not to mention the sophisticated

leel of 4riting alread1 achieed in the chronicles. As earl1 as the thirteenth centur1 one detectsin these literar1 4or)s ne4 -onds 4ith the Slaic south and the almatian coast. The net

centur1 sa4 those -onds strengthened and multiplied% ma)ing it possi-le to spea) of a ne4 4ae

of “South Slaic! influence. And this ne4 italit1 did not merel1 echo -ut directl1 continued the

ne4 cultural moement in B1$antium correctl1 termed the “Palaeologian Renaissance%! G4hich captiated the ne4 South Slaic )ingdoms. Rus' 4as in intimate contact 4ith Patriarch

Euth1mius' = Bulgaria during the fourteenth centur1% and for this reason the eample of &etropolitan ,iprian is instructie. +e 4as -orn in Turnoo. 2ater he -ecame a mon) at the

Studion &onaster1 and then a mon) on &t. Athos. As the (ree) protege and candidate% he came

to Russia to occup1 the office of the metropolitan. &osco4 receied him 4ith great reluctanceand dela1. Det this reception did not preent him from leaing a significant mar) on the histor1

of Russian culture. As a learned man and -i-liophile% ,iprian deoted himself to translations%

not% ho4eer% 4ith an1 great success. “+e 4rote eer1thing in Ser-ian.! &ore important 4ere

his liturgical 4ritings and concerns. +e attempted to introduce Russia to the liturgical reform of the 4ell9)no4n Palamite% Patriarch Philotheus of *onstantinople. 6 It 4ould seem that the

cele-ration of (regor1 of Palamas < as a saint in the Russian *hurch dates -ac) to ,iprian.

,iprian 4as a coninced non9possessor. 7 +e 4as also a foreigner and a ne4comer to &osco4%and Cuite t1pical of that incipient moement 4hich he had not -egun. Russian ties 4ith

*onstantinople and &t. Athos 4ere strengthened and reitali$ed during the fourteenth centur1.

Russian settlements 4ere founded or refur-ished% -eing settled 4ith man1 inha-itants 4hoengaged in the cop1ing of -oo)s. ne notes a si$ea-le Cuantit1 of manuscripts and -oo)s in

Russian monastic li-raries 4hich date -ac) precisel1 to this period. &ore importantl1% these ne4

4ritings form a fresh ne4 stream. This time their content 4as m1stical and ascetical% -ut once

again the1 constituted a complete literature. Indeed% this ne4 translation actiit1 on &t. Athosand in Bulgaria stems from the +es1chast moement 4ith its deepl1 contemplatie spirit and

approach. These translations made the 4or)s of the ascetical 3athers )no4n in Slaic literature.

Such 4or)s included St. Basil the (reat's 5 t4o homilies on fasting entitled e #eunio% the4ritings of the Blessed iadochus of Photice% F Isaac the S1rian% +es1chius% the 2adder

of St. #ohn *limacus% 8 n 2oe L liu-iM% and the “*hapters! L(lai$n1M -1 &aimus the

*onfessor G and arious “+1mns of iine 2oe! -1 S1meon the Ne4 Theologian% 7 as 4ellas ioptra -1 the mon) Philipp. 6 f particular note is the translation of the Areopagite <

together 4ith the commentaries made on &t. Athos in 5=5 -1 the mon) Isaiah at the reCuest of

Theodosius% &etropolitan of Serres. Someone in Russia 4as reading such m1stical and ascetical

-oo)s.

5



The fourteenth centur1 4itnessed an eremitical and monastic renaissance: this is the age of

St. Sergei of Radone$h. 87 ne senses during these decades the po4erful intensit1 of a ne4

B1$antine impact in Russian *hurch art% particular1 iconograph1. It is sufficient to mention theremar)a-le Theophanes the (ree) 8l and his cele-ration in colors. And Theophanes 4as not

alone% for he had man1 4orth1 disciples. Thus% during the fourteenth and part of the fifteenth

centur1% Russian culture eperienced a ne4 4ae of B1$antine influence.Det such ne4 influence occurred on the ee of crisis and schism. True% the crisis had -een

long in the ma)ing% 1et cultural self9consciousness had not -een prepared for the -rea). The

crisis 4as a-oe all a national and political one lin)ed 4ith the gro4th of the &uscoite Stateand 4ith the da4ning of national political self9a4areness. Such an a4a)ening also reCuired

ecclesiastical independence from *onstantinople. "ith a fe4 interruptions% -ut al4a1s 4ith great

incisieness and intensit1% &osco4 and *onstantinople de-ated these themes throughout the

fourteenth centur1. The Cuarrel 4as -ro)en off rather than resoled. The *ouncil of 3lorences Fand the ourne1 to that “unhol1 eighth council! -1 the (ree) candidate for the &osco4 see%

&etropolitan ?and later *ardinal@ Isidore 8 sered as a pretet for the -rea). (ree) apostas1 at

3lorence proided the ustification and the -asis for proclaiming independence. It 4as an act of

ecclesiastical politics. But there 4ere reer-erations and conseCuences for cultural construction.ou-ts and disCuiet concerning the faith of the (ree)s had some rational foundation. The fall of

*onstantinople sered as an apocal1ptical to)en and testimon1 ?and not ust in Russia 4as itgien such an interpretation@. Een much later ,ur-s)ii 8 could 4rite that “Satan 4as released

from his imprisonment.! ne must remem-er ho4 much in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries

religious consciousness -ecame agitated and confused -1 eschatological epectations and -1 ageneral fore-oding: “night is approaching% our life is ending.! “Behold% toda1 apostas1 is come%!

Iosif ;olots)ii 4as soon to 4rite. 88

The first traces of the famous “Third Rome Theor1! are s)etched out precisel1 in such

perspecties of apocal1ptical unrest. The theor1 is intrinsicall1 an eschatological one% and themon) 3ilofei sustains its eschatological tones and categories. “3or t4o Romes hae fallen% a third

stands% and a fourth there cannot -e.! 8G The pattern is a familiar one ta)en from B1$antine

apocal1ptical literature: it is the translatio imperii% or more accuratel1% the image of the4andering ,ingdom9the ,ingdom or cit1 4andering or stra1ing until the hour comes for it to

flee into the desert.

The pattern has t4o sides: a minor one and a maor one0 an apocal1ptical dimension and achiliastic one. The minor side 4as primar1 and fundamental in Russia. The image of the Third

Rome is -rought into sharper focus against a -ac)ground of the approaching end. “3or 4e a4ait

the ,ingdom 4hich has no end.! And 3ilofei recalls the apostolic 4arning: “The da1 of the 2ord

4ill come li)e a thief in the night.! +istor1 is a--reiated and historical perspectie isforeshortened. If &osco4 is the Third Rome% then it is also the last. That is% the last epoch% the

last earthl1 )ingdom% has -egun. The end approaches. “Th1 *hristian )ingdom cannot remain.!

"ith the greatest humilit1 and 4ith the “greatest apprehension%! a perfectl1 presered pure faithmust -e o-sered and its commandments )ept. In his epistle to the (rand Prince% 3ilofei gies

4arning and een ma)es threats% -ut he does not use glorification. fficial 4riters onl1 later

reinterpreted this apocal1ptical theme in a paneg1rical sense. B1 doing so% the theor1 -ecametransformed into a peculiar doctrine of semi9official chiliasm. 8= If one forgets a-out the Second

*oming% then it is Cuite another matter to affirm that all rthodo )ingdoms are -rought together

and com-ined in that of &osco4% for then the &uscoite tsar is the last% sole% and therefore%

uniersal tsar. Een in its original form% the Third Rome replaces and does not continue the

58



Second. The tas) is not to continue or presere B1$antine tradition un-ro)en. B1$antium

someho4 must -e replaced or recreated. A ne4 Rome must -e constructed to replace the old one%

4hich has fallen a4a1. “The &uscoite tsars 4ished to -ecome the heirs of the B1$antineemperors 4ithout leaing &osco4 or entering *onstantinople%! as ,aptere had put it. 86 The

conCuest -1 the +agarenes 8< proided the usual eplanation for the fall of the Second Rome%

and the “+agarene captiit1! 4as understood as a constant menace to the purit1 of the (ree) faith. This fact accounts for the intense caution and mistrust in dealing 4ith those (ree)s liing

“in the pagan tsar's realm of godless Tur)s.! Thus% the rthodo hori$on -egan to narro4.

It too) onl1 a short step to ma)e a complete -rea) 4ith (ree) tradition and to o-literate an1memor1 of the (ree) past% that is% the patristic past. The danger arose that the historical

ecumenical tradition might -ecome o-scured and replaced -1 a local and national one 4hich

4ould confine ecumenical tradition 4ithin the ar-itrar1 limits of Russia's specific and national

memor1. ;ladimir Solo'e rightl1 termed it “a Protestantism of national tradition.! f coursenot eer1one shared this outloo). Such conclusions 4ere certainl1 not reached all at once and

pro-a-l1 no sooner than the midsiteenth centur1. But it is indicatie of the 4a1 in 4hich (ree)

mediation came to -e completel1 ecluded and reected. In fact% the meaning of the stor1 a-out

the Apostle Andre4's sermon in Rus'% G7 as amended and restated in the siteenth centur1% must -e understood precisel1 in this 4a1. (raduall1% -ut steadil1% B1$antium's authorit1 collapsed% and

all interest in B1$antium ceased. Russia's national self9affirmation pla1ed the decisie part in thisestrangement. Simultaneousl1 Russia deeloped and strengthened its lin)s 4ith the "est. B1 the

end of the fifteenth centur1% man1 perceied the "est as something more real than the destro1ed

and conCuered B1$antium. Such s1mpath1 is perfectl1 understanda-le and natural for practitioners of Realpoliti)% that is% among men of politics. But s1mpath1 for the "est soon arose

among other segments of societ1 as 4ell.

The marriage of Ian III to Sophia Palaeologus is often ie4ed as a B1$antine restoration in

&osco4. G5 In realit1% the “marriage of our tsar in the ;atican! s1m-oli$ed the -eginning of Russian 4esternism. f course oe% or Sophia% 4as a B1$antine princess% -ut in fact she 4as

raised in the atmosphere of the union achieed -1 the *ouncil of 3lorence. *ardinal Bessarion GF

sered as her guardian. The marriage actuall1 did ta)e place in the ;atican% and a papal legateaccompanied Sophia to &osco4. espite the legate's enforced earl1 departure from &osco4% the

-inding ties 4ith Rome and ;enice remained intact. The marriage Cuic)l1 dre4 &osco4 closer

to the or-it of contemporar1 Ital1 and did not signif1 an1 a4a)ened a4are ness for B1$antinetraditions and memories. “+e lifted the curtain separating us from Europe%! 4rites ,aram$in

a-out Ian III. “Epiring (reece refuses the remains of its ancient greatness0 Ital1 grants the first

fruits of its nascent art. The people still stagnate in ignorance and coarseness% 1et the state is

alread1 operating according to the dictates of an enlightened mind.! Ian III possessed anundou-ted taste and preference for Ital1. +e -rought architects from Ital1 to re-uild and remodel

the ,remlin% the palace% and the cathedrals. “&ore Italico%! as +er-erstein G reports a-out these

ne4 constructions in &osco4 -uilt -1 such famous architects as Aristotle 3ioraanti% G AloisioG8 and Pietro Solario. GG The influence of B1$antium at this time 4as far less eident. At the

turn of the siteenth centur1% Russian diplomats 4ere strenuousl1 a-sor-ed in -uilding an

alliance 4ith Suleiman I. “the &agnificent%! G= and had little time for dreams a-out the“patrimon1 of *onstantine! or a crusade against *onstantinople. "estern states% carefull1

calculating the po4er of &usco1 in the international arena% s4iftl1 noted this deelopment.

There is eer1 reason to consider Ian III a 4esterner. Such a description applies een more

full1 to ;asilii III. The son of the “(ree) Enchantress! ?as ,ur-s)ii du--ed Sophia@% ;asilii too)

5G



as his second 4ife ?in a disputed marriage@ the Princess (lins)aia% G6 4ho 4as raised 4holl1 in

the 4estern manner. “Thus% the (rand Prince has altered our ancient customs.! This remar)

should not -e confined to political or social changes. “nce again our land 4as in turmoil.! It isinteresting to note that ;asilii III's faorite ph1sician% Ni)olai “Nemchin! ?Hthe (erman!@ or

Bule corresponded on such themes as the reunion of the churches. &an1 men of li)e mind

surrounded him in &osco4. ?These 4ere the “modest connections! in higher ecclesiasticalcircles to 4hich (olu-ins)ii refers@. It 4as &aim the (ree)'s G< fate to engage him in polemic

and de-ate. *uriousl1% Ni)olai “Nemchin! addressed himself to the Arch-ishop ;assian of

Rosto ?the -rother of Iosif ;olots)ii@ as if counting upon his s1mpath1 or at least interest.&oreoer% “Nemchin! 4as deoted to astrolog1.

a-elin =7 has some responsi-le grounds for 4riting that man1 of Ian III's policies eo)e

the image of &achiaelli. This applies more full1 to ;asilii III% 4hose cruel and despotic rule% so

often the o-ect of complaint in -o1ar circles% more closel1 mimics contemporar1 Italian princesthan it does an1 remote B1$antine -asileus.

The (udai#ers.

The Nogorodian lands had alread1 eperienced a ne4 religious ferment as earl1 as thefourteenth centur1. The “heres1 of the strigol'9ni)i! =5 4as primaril1 a protest against the *hurch

hierarch1. Another and more comple moement appeared at the end of the net centur1: the

#udai$er heres1. After capturing the leaders of the married clerg1% the heres1 shifted to &osco44here it “germinated! in the faora-le soil of ro1al protection. 2ittle is )no4n a-out the

moement% and een that )no4ledge comes from unrelia-le 4itnesses% the partisan opponents

and enemies of the heres1 such as Arch-ishop (ennadii of Nogorod =F and especiall1 Iosif ;olots)ii. Iosif's Enlightener LProsetitel'M constitutes the chief source. = There are also man1

important pieces of information not found in the first edition of the Enlightener 4hich are

presered in &etropolitan &a)arii's = (reat Reading *ompendium ?Ireli)i chet'i9mineiM.(enerall1 spea)ing% it is difficult to distinguish 4hat is of primar1 importance from that 4hich is

secondar1 or een etraneous in the descriptions proided -1 these polemists.The -oo)s coming from or circulating in #udai$er circles are much more relia-le and

instructie. The1 include Bi-lical translations from +e-re4 and astrological -oo)s% as 4ell as

translations from &aimonides =8 and Alga$el. =G These translations 4ere 4ritten in

“2ithuanian%! that is% "est or South4est Russian. The #udai$er mon) a)har% around 4hom the

trou-le started% came from ,ie. +is -ac)ground remains o-scure. Some scholars speculate thathe might hae lied among the *rimean ,araite #e4s% == or he ma1 hae had connections 4ith

*onstantinople. In an1 case% he 4as a representatie of #e4ish learning. “#udai$er! Bi-lical

translations 4ere produced in a #e4ish milieu for use in the s1nagogue ?for eample% the tet of the Boo) of aniel is diided into the t4o categories of haphtarah or parashah =6 according to

the da1s of the 4ee)@. Thus% the #udai$er heres1 epressed intellectual ferment. “"aering has

appeared in the people and in dou-ting 4ords a-out the iine! ?The Ni)onian *hronicle@.“No4 in the homes% along the roads% and in the mar)et places% mon)s and la1men are all in dou-t

and anguish concerning the faith%! 4rote St. Iosif ;olots)ii. #udging -1 Arch-ishop (ennadii's

first communications concerning the heres1% the ferment and dou-ts -egan as the result of

reading -oo)s. (ennadii sought out -oo)s -elonging to the heretics% such as S1lester% Pope of Rome LSelierst% papa Rims)iiM% ?that is% the stor1 of the 4hite co4l =< purportedl1 gien to Pope

S1lester I -1 *onstantine the (reat@ as 4ell as Athanasius of Aleandria% The Sermon of

*osmas on the Bogomils ?Sloo ,o$ m1 na -ogomiloM% ion1sius the Areopagite% 2ogic% the

5=



Bi-lical -oo)s of the Prophets% (enesis% ,ings% and the "isdom of Solomon. &enander 67 4as

also included. The list is a sufficientl1 dierse and disconnected one. +o4eer% the -oo)s of the

ld Testament clearl1 stand out. Perhaps “dou-ts! deeloped precisel1 through the interpretationof tets. “The1 hae altered the psalms and the prophecies%! 4rites (ennadii. 3or the same

reason St.. Iosif ;olots)ii -arel1 gets -e1ond the limits of clarif1ing tets in his Enlightener.

Apparentl1 the #udai$ers found it difficult to accept the prefiguratie meaning of the ldTestament to the effect that the prophecies hae not 1et come to pass -ut still a4ait their

fulfillment. &oreoer% the Nogorodian heretics failed to discoer an1 eidence concerning the

+ol1 Trinit1 in the ld Testament theophanies. Possi-l1 an outside or #e4ish source accountedfor these eegetical difficulties. ne should recall that precisel1 at that moment 4or) 4as going

for4ard on Bi-lical tets at the Arch-ishop's court in Nogorod.

Astrological themes held a special place in “#udai$er! teachings. “Dou stud1 the la4s of the

stars and ga$e at the stars and arrange human -irth and life according to them%! Iosif ;olots)iiaccuses the official 3edor ,urits1n 6l and the archpriest Ale)sei. Starga$ing 4as directl1

imputed to a)har% “4ho has studied eer1 contriance for eil doing% as 4ell as magic% the

Blac) Boo)% the la4s of the stars% and astrolog1.! ne such astrological -oo) mentioned -1

(ennadii is full1 )no4n: the Si "ings LShesto)r1lM% a set of astronomical ta-les compiled in thefourteenth centur1 -1 the Italian #e4 Emmanuel -ar #aco-. Astrolog1 -ecame an o-ect of

interest in &osco4 at the outset of the siteenth centur1. Een &aim the (ree) undertoo) to4rite a-out “the po4er and arrangement of the stars%! and on the “(erman fascination for telling

fortune and on fortune's 4heel.! In Nogorod% (ennadii most igorousl1 attac)ed #udai$er

astrolog1% 4hich 4as -eing used to calculate the date of Easter in connection 4ith the end of theseenth millenium 4ith its epectant apocal1ptical catastrophe. According to #e4ish

calculations% the sith millenium 4as onl1 ust -eginning.

There is no need to recite the full histor1 of the “#e4ish heres1! or to attempt a complete

reconstruction of its “s1stem.! &ost li)el1 there 4as no heretical enclae% onl1 certain predispositions0 that is% precisel1 those “4aerings in the mind%! or rethin)ing% referred to in the

Ni)onian *hronicle.

The historical significance of the “#udai$er! moement -ecomes clearer 4hen it is related toother circumstances present in contemporar1 Nogorodian life. Kuite pro-a-l1 the Nogorodian

heretics adhered to &osco4's point of ie4. That 4ould eplain 4h1 Ian III appointed those

“soul harming archpriests! to the leading positions in the ,remlin cathedrals. The heretics found protection and support in &osco4. &ean4hile% in Nogorod a great and er1 important

theological proect 4as -eing carried through: the compilation and reision of the first complete

Slaic Bi-le. /nepectedl1% the proect passed into Roman *atholic hands. Although general

superision and official editorship -elonged to the episcopal archdeacon (erasim Popo)a inrealit1 a certain ominican friar named ;eniamin possessed the decisie influence. ?Perhaps he

came from *raco4 or Prague@. “A pres-1ter or mon) of the monaster1 of St. ominic -1 the

name of ;eniamin% -orn a Sloenian and -1 faith a 2atin.! This ;eniamin did not come to Nogorod accidentall1% and he 4as pro-a-l1 not alone. 3oreigners 4ere alread1 gathering in

Nogorod during the time 4hen Efimii 4as arch-ishop ?579586@. “All 4ho came from

strange or foreign lands 4ere receied 4ith loe and gien rest%! 6F 4rote Pachomius the Ser-.In an1 eent% during (ennadii's da1 in Nogorod one o-seres a fermant in the 2atin st1le.

Apparentl1 ;eniamin -rought prepared Bi-lical tets 4ith him% for the influence of *roatian

glagolitic can -e detected in the language. No one in Nogorod attempted to use either (ree)

manuscripts or -oo)s. Nor 4ere easil1 accessi-le Slaic materials ?from the liturgical -oo)s@

56



Iosif includes een the tsar in this s1stem of (odl1 inunctions The tsar% too% is su-ect to

la4% and he melds his po4er onl1 4ithin the frame4or) of (od's 2a4 and the *ommandments.

ne o4es no serice to an unust or “diso-edient! tsar% for he is not reall1 a tsar. “Such a tsar isnot (od's serant% -ut a deil0 not a tsar -ut a t1rant.! Iosif -orders on ustification of regicide.

ne can easil1 see ho4 su-seCuent generations of “#osephites! dimmed and emasculated St.

Iosif's ision. Their 4ords -ecame unrelated to their deeds% so that een the most learned pastorscould simultaneousl1 -e er1 indulgent men. St Iosif's conception and plan% contains an inherent

danger% 4hich is not confined to its ordinar1 defects and modifications. There is a danger of

ecessie attention to societ1 4ith a resultant reductionism or minimalism% perhaps not for oneself% -ut for societ1.

Iosif 4as an insatia-le% if superficial% reader% and the ;olo)alams) &onaster1 housed a rich

li-rar1. ne source relates that “he possessed all the diinel1 inspired -oo)s on the tip of his

tongue.! The fact that he largel1 acCuired this 4ide% if uncritical% familiarit1 from compendiumsand miscellanies rather than from complete colections of patristic 4ritings is of less importance.

Det all of his reading still left Iosif% indifferent to culture. &ore precisel1% culture proided him

onl1 4ith those things 4hich sere the ideals of out4ard magnificence and splendor% 1et Iosif

4ould not accept culture's creatie pathos. As a conseCuence% the #osephites could freCuentl1 produce enormous and magnificent cathedrals adorned 4ith an inspired iconograph1% -ut still

remain distrustful and indifferent to theolog1. It 4as precisel1 this indifference that preentedIosif from transcending the narro4 limits of his reading% or -ecoming an1thing -ut a mechanical

reader. Actuall1% his Enlightener LProsetitel'M is almost completel1 reduci-le to a series of

Cuotations and references. Een a resered ,a$an' pu-lisher remar)ed that “one can hardl1descri-e the -oo) as an original 4or)% or een in the strict sense a Russian 4or).! An1

originalit1 it ma1 possess finds epression onl1 through the selection and arrangement of the

4or)s of others. Iosif's selection is Cuite daring% for he did not hesitate to include innoations%

een 4estern ones% if it 4as adantageous to do so.This is not the place to dissect and determine 4hat significance #osephite sermons and

actiities possessed for life and thought in the religious and political histor1 of the siteenth

centur1. The important point is that their actiities did not promote culture. Such populism ?thatis% “going to the people!@ inaria-l1 leads directl1 to cultural indifference% 4hateer the reason

for it. The concept of social ustice ma1 easil1 -e reduced to the leel% of an eCuili-rium and

status Cuo 4hich me4s creatie pathos as a disruptie force.The #osephites' theological inentor1 4as neither negligi-le nor limited. The -est #osephites

demonstrated familiarit1 and erudition among primar1 sources on doctrine% the Scriptures% and

the 4ritings of the 3athers. Iosif% and to a greater etent &etropolitan aniil <7 freel1

manipulated Cuite aried theological materials. ne cannot spea) of the poert1 of their data. Neertheless% the Cuestion of creatiit1 remains% and these references do not gainsa1 the fact that

the #osephites read onl1 superficiall1. Det in an important sense their opponents% too% suffered

from the same defect. 2i)e the Enlightener St. Nil's <l The Tradition to the isciples LPredanieucheni)amM is designed more as a collection or “lin)! than as an original discourse.

Some4hat later% the #osephite &etropolitan &a)arii <F conceied of and -rought to fruition

a plan to gather together all -oo)s aaila-le in Russia. ne of &a)arii's colla-orators calls him a“Second Philadelphia.! +e succeeded in choosing literar1 assistants 4ho could -uild from his

-lueprint. The pres-1ter Andrei ?su-seCuentl1 &etropolitan Afanasii@% the compiler of the Boo)

of egrees LStepennaia )nigaM < -elonged to the “&a)arii circle.! ther mem-ers of the group

included the pres-1ter Agafon% author of the famous *reation *1cle L&irotorn1i )rugM 0 Saa%

F5



later Bishop of ,rutits)% 4ho assisted the 4or) of compiling the lies of the saints0 Ermolai9

Era$m% the author of man1 interesting 4or)s% such as his Boo)s on the +ol1 Trinit1 L,nigi o s.

TroitseM 4ritten in the spirit of m1stical s1m-olism. (erasimo% a holdoer from an earlier da1%also -elonged to the group. +o4eer% the #osephites al4a1s compiled or s1stemati$ed 4ritings%

the1 neer created or shaped them.

The #osephites cannot -e portra1ed as traditionalists. The1 hardl1 alued B1$antinetradition% 4hile their o4n national tradition 4as of relatiel1 recent origin and relatiel1

marginal importance. The Transolgan Elders% the opponents of the #osephites% grasped the past

much more firml1 the #osephites are more readil1 recogni$a-le as innoators. Their iconograph1ma)es this o-ious. In particular the ictor1 of the #osephites meant the interruption or

restriction of B1$antine tradition.

f course the Transolgan moement cannot -e descri-ed simpl1% as a preseration and

continuation of B1$antine traditions ?ust as B1$antium cannot -e reduced to the Transolganmoement@. 'The Transolgans formed liing and organic constitution ?and not merel1 a

reflection@ of that spiritual and contemplatie moement 4hich sei$ed the entire (ree) and

South Slaic 4orld during the fourteenth centur1. This 4as a renaissance in contemplatie

monasticism. 3undamentall1% the Transolgan moement constituted a ne4 eperiment% a ne4discipline and a trial of this spirit. At the outset% Transolgans largel1 sought silence and Cuiet.

*onseCuentl1% their moement% signalled a decisie departure or escape from the 4orld% a carefulsurmounting of all “ loe for the 4orld.! The s)ete% thus% -ecame the model for their lies. r

else the1 chose the life of the solitar1 hermit. “*oeno-itical! monasteries seemed too nois1 and

organi$ed. “Non9possession%! that is% to possess nothing in the 4orld% forms their road leadinga4a1 from the 4orld. The Transolgans' truth9the truth of contemplation and intellectual

construction lies in their flight from the 4orld. Det one must immediatel1 add that the1 not onl1

tried to surmount 4orldl1 passions and “loe for the 4orld! the1 also sought to forget the 4orld%

and not ust its anit1% -ut its needs and sic)nesses. The1 not onl1 reected it% -ut denied it as4ell. 3or this reason% 4hereas the #osephites continued to 4or) in the 4ord% the Transolgan

moement had no historical impact.

f course the Transolgans did not utterl1 a-andon the 4orld. Their second generation -ecame entangled in political struggles an intrigues ?the “prince9mon)! ;assian Patri)ee <

proides a sufficient eample@. +o4eer% the Transolgans did not approach or return to the

4orld in order to -uild 4ithin it. Rather% the1 came to argue and fight against seculari$ation of ecclesiastical life and to adertise and insist upon monastic 4ithdra4al from the 4orld. Such 4as

the meaning of their memora-le Cuarrel 4ith the #osephites oer *hurch properties. The

Transolgan's refusal to ta)e direct religious and social action sered as a peculiar social

coefficient to their moement.The Transolgan Elders -uilt an incompara-le school for spiritual igil% 4hich proided a

spiritual and moral% preparation for theolog1. "hile in the strict sense onl1 4ith difficult1 can

one spea) of Transolgan theolog1% the moement itself signified an a4a)ening of theologicalconsciousness. An intellectual thirst is reealed in the depths of their spiritual concentration. St.

Nil of the Sora 4as a “silent one! ?-e$molni)M. +e had no need to spea) or teach. Although not

a thin)er% 4riter% or theologian% Nil appears in histor1 precisel1 as an “elder! LstaretsM or teacher.+e 4as a teacher of silence an instructor and guide for “mental construction! in the spiritual life.

/pon comparison 4ith the 4ider contemplatie tradition of (reece and B1$antium or after

comparison 4ith the Philo)alia Lo-rotoliu-ieM% <8 one discoers nothing ne4 in St. Nil. /suall1

one cannot easil1 distinguish or separate his personal ie4s and thoughts from the uninterrupted

FF



stream of ecerpts and citations in his 4riting. Perhaps St. Nil's moral themes and% to a lesser

etent% his definitel1 formed outloo) proide his most distinguishing traits. +o4eer% if Nil

epresses little that is his “o4n! 4hich is distinguisha-le from generalI1 accepted spiritualtradition% then at least he epresses it independentl1. +e lies in the patristic tradition. That

tradition lies and is alie in him. nl1 through a complete misunderstanding could historians

Russian literature freCuentl1 find the -eginnings of rationalistic criticism and the collapse of ecclesiastical tradition in St. Nil of the Sora. Such surprising speculations are constructed onl1 in

total ignorance of that tradition.

Nil of the Sora came from and remained confined to the ascetical and contemplatietradition of the ancient and B1$antine *hurch. ne should remem-er that the “freedom! 4hich

St. Nil al4a1s demands also reCuires a simultaneous seerance of “self94ill.! If the Transolgans

remained indifferent to formal discipline and o-edience nonetheless o-edience seres as their

fundamental ascetical commandment and tas). “Bind 1ourself 4ith the la4 of the diine 4ritingsand o-sere it! is St. Nil's point of departure% 4ith the stipulation that “the true and diine

4ritings! not -e interpreted either in the% sense of “critical! tradition or as a confinement of the

corpus of “scripture! 4ithin the limits of “+ol1 Scripture.! n the contrar1% in this instance Nil

meant the “diine! 4ritings of ascetical literature. In doing so% St. Nil laid particular stress on theascetical guidance% eperience% and adice of “4ise and spiritual men.! rest &iller once

descri-ed the Transolgans as a “spiritual militia.! 'Their moement did amount to a )ind of spiritual recruitment% -ut according to a er1 high and sensitie standard. The lies of the

Transolgan mon)s and saints proide a clear and moing demonstration of ho4 their teachings

4ere applied and transformed in life and deeds. Their in4ard disposition 4as of chief importance.

The follo4ing contrast sums up the disagreements -et4een the #osephites and the

Transolgans: the former sought to conCuer the 4orld -1 means of social la-or 4ithin it0 the

latter attempted to oercome the 4orld through transfiguration and through the formation of ane4 man% -1 creating a ne4 human personalit1. The second points the 4a1 to creatie cultural

gro4th.

The affair of &aim the (ree) proides the most cele-rated and instructie episode in thehistor1 of the #osephite9Transolgan struggle. True% in realit1 political moties largel1

determined his coniction and condemnation. Acting on his o4n dreams ?and perhaps on direct

commission@% &aim too) part in political maneuers to o-tain Russian aid against the Tur)s.+is efforts coincided 4ith &osco4's eertions to achiee an eternal peace and alliance 4ith

those same Tur)s. &oreoer% &aim ineighed too greatl1 against autocephal1 for the Russian

*hurch.

&aim's fate contains an inherent contradiction. As a (ree) epert% he 4as summoned to&osco4 to correct translations. Det onl1 4ith considera-le difficult1 could his epertise -e used

for that purpose. &aim )ne4 no Russian 4hen he first arried% 4hile no one 4ho )ne4 (ree)

could -e found in &osco4. This seems almost incredi-le. +o4eer% &aim 4as a-le to translatefrom (ree) into 2atin. ther translators then recast the 2atin into Russian: “+e 4rites in 2atin%

and 4ith a cop1ist 4e 4rite in Russian.!

&aim's personalit1 is of general interest. +e 4as not onl1 an Athonite mon)% -ut also aman of humanist education. “If &aim had remained in Ital1 and ta)en a position in one of the

Italian cathedrals% then 4e are coninced that among all of the outstanding ?(ree) scholars and

professors then residing in Ital1% he 4ould hae occupied the most important position%! 4rote

(olu-ins)ii. &aim studied in ;enice% Padua% and 3lorence. “+e 4as una-le to o-tain

F



philosophical training in (reece -ecause of the poert1 of -oo)s! Saonarola <G produced a

strong impression on him% and later in &osco4 &aim s1mpatheticall1 descri-ed the *arthusian

mon)s. <= Although not a humanist in the 4estern sense of that 4ord% &aim ma1 -e called aB1$antine% humanist. In an1 case% he 4as a man of genuine literar1 culture. AcCuaintance 4ith

his (ree) manuscripts sho4s that he 4rote in the original and erudite literar1 language close to

that of the Bi-le. +e did not 4rite in the ernacular. +e himself stressed “Athenian EloCuence!Ldo-roglagolaniia )e)ropids)agoM. +e -rought an Aldus &anutius <6 edition of the Bi-le 4ith

him from ;enice% 4here he had often isited &anutius a-out -oo)printing. "hile there% he met

the famous #anus 2ascaris. << &aim totall1 and characteristicall1 reected 4esternscholasticism. +e openl1 admired Plato and “the formal philosophers of the supreme%! 4hile

“Aristotelian artistr1! remained for him a s1non1m for heres1. *oncerning scholasticism% he

ma)es the follo4ing remar): “No dogma% human or diine% can firml1 -e considered relia-le

among them LscholasticsM% if Aristotelian s1llogisms do not affirm that dogma and if it does notrespond to artistic demonstration.! &aim's religious st1le 4as also t1picall1 B1$antine.

In &osco4 he primaril1 -usied himself ?or rather 4as -usied@ 4ith translations. In addition

he argued a good deal% particularl1 against the “gift of starga$ing%! and generall1 against 2atin

propaganda% +agarene impiet1% the #udai$ers% or een the Armenian heres1. &aim also deotedhimself to themes on the preailing moralit1. nl1 a small group of students formed around

&aim% -ut he produced a great and po4erful impression. +is misera-le fate and incarcerationmerel1 gae ne4 grounds to respect his patient suffering. Thus% he 4as soon canoni$ed% in 58<5%

during the reign of 3edor I Ianoich ?5869<6@. 577 This 4as a -elated -ut unam-iguous

reoinder to those “sl1 mon)s called #osephites%! 4ho censured St. &aim for heres1 andindependent thin)ing during his lifetime.

&aim 's condition s1m-oli$es and testifies to the -rea) in the B1$antine succession and

mar)s the renunciation of creatie continuit1. The differences -et4een &aim and his Russian

accusers can -e summari$ed single formula. 3or a “#osephite%! the “Third Rome! meant thatgreat and ne4l1 constructed *hristian )ingdom &usco1. B1 contrast% for &aim% the “Third

Rome! signified a *it1 4andering in the 4ilderness.

#ourne1ing along a 4ild road filled 4ith man1 dangers% I came upon a 4oman )neeling 4ithher regal head held in her hands% moaning -itterl1 and 4eeping inconsola-l1. She 4as dressed

entirel1 in -lac)% as is the custom for 4ido4s. Around her 4ere 4ild animals: lions% -ears%

4oles% and foes . . . . . “Basileia LEmpireM is m1 name! . . .. “"h1 do 1ou sit alongside thisroad surrounded as it is -1 4ild animals! And again she ans4ered me: “ traeler% let this road

-e the last one in an accursed age! . . ..

Metropolitan Makarii and the Council of a Hundred Chapters.

R. "ipper% in his popular -iograph1 of Ian the Terri-le% cleerl1 compared the age of

&etropolitan &a)arii 4ith that of the “*atholic Reformation.! l75 The *ouncil of a +undred*hapters ?Stogla@ thus -ecame a Russian *ouncil of Trent. The comparison contains an

undou-ted truth% for during the era of &etropolitan &a)arii in &osco4% there appeared an urge

and endeaor to “construct culture as a s1stem.! This 4as an age of compilations. &a)arii's

follo4ers compiled the past0 that is% the1 s1stemati$ed Russia's national histor1. No rene4edattention 4as gien to the (ree) eample. “In the siteenth centur1% the ld Russian source

replaced the (ree) one%! as Istrin rightl1 noted. Det one must immediatel1 recogni$e the peculiar

fact that the 4or) of compilation -egan in Nogorod. Should not this effort -e connected 4ith

F



deries from the Slaic south as a last 4ae of the B1$antine Renaissance. But the influence of

4estern engraing forms its eterior.

;is)oat1i correctl1 sensed and diagnosed this deelopment in iconograph1. “I -eheld thatthe icons in the human form of #esus *hrist ur 2ord 4ere ta)en do4n. And those 4hich the1

put there are such as I hae neer seen and are of man1 terrors. I 4as in fear of contamination

and eer1 sort of cunning.! It 4as not innoations% as such% 4hich trou-led ;is)oat1i. "hatdistur-ed him 4as the idea underl1ing them. +e perceied that idea as a retreat to the ld

Testament% a moe a4a1 from the “truths! of the (ospels to4ard prophetic “t1pes! or

“shado4s.! +e too) as his point of departure the eight19second canon of the *ouncil in Trullo?G<59<F@: “one must portra1 in human form.! 555 ;is)oat1i recalled that “it is not seeml1 to

enerate images more than truth.! Therefore% &etropolitan &a)arii's repl1 that it is permissi-le

to paint the image of *hrist in the form of an angel “according to Isaiah's prophec1%! or that the

t4o crimson 4ings can -e depicted “according to the 4ritings of the (reat ion1sius! could notsoothe ;is)oat1i. Such a repl1 4as untimel1. 3or ;is)oat1i's “dou-ts! centered precisel1 on

the point that one should not paint according to prophecies 4hich hae alread1 occurred or come

to pass% -ut according to the (ospels% that is% in the fullness of the historical Incarnation. “2et the

glor1 of ur 2ord #esus *hrist's human form not -e diminished.! ;is)oat1i did not defend the past% he defended “truth%! that is% iconographic realism. +is Cuarrel 4ith &etropolitan &a)arii

4as a clash of t4o religious and esthetic orientations: traditional hieratic realism as opposed to as1m-olism nourished -1 a heightened religious imagination. It 4as also an encounter -et4een a

strengthened 4estern influence and B1$antine tradition. Paradoicall1% this “4esternism!

achieed ictor1 under the guise of “antiCuit1! and “compilation.!This paradoical element is Cuite eident in the ma)e9up of Ian the Terri-le. “+e 4as an

orator of natural eloCuence in 4ritten 4isdom and cleer in thoughts%! one contemporar1 sa1s of

him. Ian I; 4as not merel1 a tolera-le man of letters or a superficial reader. +e possessed a

genuine gift for 4riting. +e 4rote 4ith ere and epression% although he a-used his citationsand Cuotations. +e compiled such Cuotations into “4hole -oo)s% paramias Lreadings from the

ld TestamentM and epistles%! in the sarcastic 4ords of ,ur-s)ii. “A man of 4onderful

understanding in the science of -oo) learning and er1 eloCuent%! 4rites a later chronicler.“There is grace in his 4ords% and force in his dialects%! 4rites ,aram$in. Ian the Terri-le

undou-tedl1 possessed an inCuiring religious mind and a full1 conceied religious outloo)%

although it 4as of a som-er% hea1% and lacerating sort from 4hich he suffered and suffered toogreatl1. Det Ian I; did not onl1 face to4ard the past. &en of 4estern faith al4a1s attracted him%

een if he 4ould descend upon them 4ith furious accusations and threats. +is famous Cuarrel

4ith #an Ro)1ta% the “minister of the *$ech LBohemianM Brethren%! 55 is a sufficient

illustration. Nor is it accidental that an enormous influ of “4est Europeans! into &usco1 -egins precisel1 during his reign. Ian flung his preference for the "est and for 4esterners in the

face of his contemporaries. Some4hat later% the famous official Ian Timofee recalled 4ith a

sigh: “Alas% eer1thing 4ithin him 4as in the hands of -ar-arians.! B1 “-ar-arians! he meantforeigners. Not onl1 politicall1 -ut culturall1% Ian I; graitated to the "est and not to

B1$antium. +e recogni$ed no historical dependence on the (ree)s% nor did he 4ish to ma)e such

an ac)no4ledgment. “ur faith is *hristian% not (ree)%! he replied to Posseino. 55Among the 4riters of the siteenth centur1% inoii tens)ii occupies a uniCue position.

inoii 4as the author of a Cuite remar)a-le -oo) The Eidence of Truth% for Those "ho InCuire

a-out the Ne4 Teaching LIstin1 po)a$anie% ) oprosishim o noom ucheniiM% composed in

ans4er to the confusions arising from 3eodosii ,osoi's propaganda. inoii 4rites 4ith great

F=



lieliness and 4ith a genuinel1 literar1 temperament% although his st1le is rather ponderous and

his thought is not al4a1s sufficientl1 disciplined. ne senses a great erudition in him. +e not

onl1 cites eidence% -ut he 4eighs it. This is a ne4 trait supplied -1 inoii. +is chief argumentis al4a1s -ased on a theological reasoning lin)ed 4ith the use of Bi-lical tets% 4hich are not

4renched out of contet.

inoii's stance in the preailing polemics and diisions is not eas1 to define. +e 4as closeto &aim the (ree). Tradition descri-es him as “a disciple of the saintl1 elder.! The spirit of

Nogorodian independence is po4erfull1 present in him. +e udges and critici$es contemporar1

life 4ith a great decisieness and coniction% 4hich echoes &aim the (ree). +o4eer% inoiidisagreed 4ith &aim and 4ith the entire Transolgan tradition on one er1 important point: he

4as not a non9possessor% and he defended monastic properties% sometimes 4ith iron1% -ut 4ith

almost #osephite9li)e arguments against the “prince9mon).! 3rom the Transolgan moement

inoii primaril1 acCuired a spirit of theological deli-eration% a refreshing eperience in spirituallife% and a general religious and moral tension in relation to life around him. In this respect he

stood apart from his age. Therefore% most li)el1 inoii's -oo) on heretics remained un)no4n.

nl1 Ni)on ma)es an1 reference to it.

The spirit of stagnation and torpor in &osco4 congealed and hardened precisel1 during thisage of trou-led conflict and recrimination.

+eres1 in &osco4 is -orne -et4een fools 4ho deceitfull1 -a--le as follo4s: it is notnecessar1 to stud1 oerl1 much the speech of -oo)s% for men lose themseles in -oo)s% that is to

sa1% the1 lose their minds and there-1 fall into heres1.

True% this 4as 4ritten -1 Prince ,ur-s)ii% and it does not follo4 that one should generali$eon this characteri$ation. +o4eer% such an attitude remained dominant and ictorious until the

end of the centur1. n the er1 ee of the Time of Trou-les% during the reign of Tsar 3edor%

decisie ecclesiastico9political deductions 4ere made from the “Third Rome Theor1%! 4hich -1

that time had -ecome full1 transformed from an apocal1ptical premonition into an official stateideolog1. The &osco4 patriarchate 4as esta-lished more as eidence for the independence and

preeminence of the Russian tsardom than for the independence of the Russian *hurch ?see% for

eample% the esta-lishment charter@. Esta-lishment of the patriarchate 4as primaril1 a politicalact 4hich reer-erated in the er1 depths of the national spirit. It mar)ed the final reection of

B1$antium.

Chater !!.

Encounter With the West

,rthodo+y in West Russia.

The siteenth centur1 constitutes a tragic and trou-led period in the life of "est Russia. It 4as a

time of political conflict and social unrest% and also a time of religious strife% -itter theological

controersies% and factionalism. The political merger of 2ithuania and Poland consummated in

the /nion of 2u-lin ?58G<@ 5 created a ne4 situation for the rthodo minorit1 under their

control. *ould this minorit1 maintain its identit1 and continue its o4n cultural traditions under the ne4 conditions The pro-lem 4as -oth national and religious. Poland 4as spirituall1 a

F6



Roman *atholic countr1% -ut its East Slaic citi$ens -elonged to the B1$antine sphere. Een

-efore "est Russia -ecame a part of the (rand uch1 of 2ithuania F and the ,ingdom of

Poland% its rthodo population had -een torn -1 the pull -et4een B1$antium and Rome. Since5F<<% 4hen the metropolitan see “of all Russia! 4as transferred from ,ie to the north ?and

su-seCuentl1 to &osco4@% this region had )no4n a constant drie for ecclesiastical autonom1.

The motie 4as mainl1 political% especiall1 after the anneation -1 Poland and 2ithuania: a non9resident metropolitan% it 4as feared% might -e open to the influence of an alien po4er. The

Patriarchate of *onstantinople preferred a single% undiided metropolia% and the epithet “of all

Russia! 4as rigorousl1 maintained in the title of the metropolitan of &osco4. True% departuresfrom this principle 4ere occasionall1 made% such as the appointment of a special metropolitan

for (alicia and later one for 2ithuania. +o4eer% these “autonomies! neer lasted long. An

inclination in faor of the Roman "est often accompanied this urge for ecclesiastical autonom1

in "est Russia. It is hardl1 a coincidence that shortl1 after his appointment% (regor1 Tsam-la)%% the first metropolitan of 2ithuania should attend the *ouncil of% *onstance ?55=9556@. 8

Apparentl1 he did so at the reCuest of the 2ithuanian princes 4ho at that er1 time 4ere

negotiating 4ith the pope for an ecclesiastical union. *ertainl1 the eentual separation of the

rthodo *hurch in 2ithuania from the &osco4 metropolia 4as accomplished under circumstances peculiarl1 related to Rome. Isidore% 4ho 4as appointed metropolitan of all Russia

to the *ouncil of 3lorence% turned out to -e one of the strongest partisans of the “/nia! duringthe council's sessions. Shortl1 after a4ard% the pope raised him to the ran) of cardinal. "hen

Isidore returned to his see% &osco4 disao4ed and reected him% -ut he found acceptance in

2ithuania. /na-le to remain in &osco4% he retired to Rome. But the stor1 does not end there. In58=% the /niate patriarch of *onstantinople in eile% (regor1 &ammas% 6 together 4ith the

s1nod of (ree) -ishops residing in Rome% appointed a certain (regor1 as metropolitan of ,ie

and 2ithuania and totius Russiae inferioris% o-iousl1 4ith the hope that in the course of time

(regor1 4ould etend his urisdiction to “all Russia.! This (regor1 4as a former a--ot of the St.emetrius monaster1 in *onstantinople and an associate of Isidore. ddl1 enough% the

appointment did not introduce the 3lorentine /nion into 2ithuania. Instead% (regor1 seems to

hae sought recognition from the rthodo patriarch in *onstantinople. "ishing to presere -oth connections% his successors did the same. This created an am-iguous situation. < The

papac1 distrusted this )ind of diided allegiance. Earl1 in the siteenth centur1 the lin)s 4ith

Rome 4ere -ro)en% and henceforth the rthodo *hurch in 2ithuania continued in o-edience tothe ecumenical patriarchate alone.

The maor pro-lem% ho4eer% had not -een soled. The concept of a pluralistic societ1 4as

still un)no4n and un4elcome% and the right to religious freedom 4as rarel1 recogni$ed and often

een strongl1 contested. The state for the most part 4as “confessional% 4ith religious non9conformit1! or “religious dissent! regarded as a threat to political and national unit1. *ertainl1

this 4as a fundamental an inescapa-le issue in the /nited ,ingdom of Poland and 2ithuania: the

“East Sla pro-lem! 4as at one and the same time a Polish92ithuanian pro-lem% for it inoledthe integrit1 of the realm. *ould the “rthodo minorit1! remain an independent cultural unit

4ithout endangering the common cultural -ond *ould “t4o *hurches! ?and that intrinsicall1

meant “t4o cultures!@ peacefull1 co9eist in a single realm *ould the “rthodo minorit1! -etrul1 integrated into corporate life of the land 4ithout some agreement or at least compromise

4ith Rome *ould the B1$antine tradition -e safel1 allo4ed in a countr1 more and more attuned

to 4estern 4a1s of life +ere la1 the cru of the pro-lem of the “/nia.! /nion 4ith Rome 4as

insepara-le from the 4ider pro-lem of ciil unit1 4ithin the Polish92ithuanian )ingdom. In the

F<



contet of the siteenth centur1 it 4as a sociological and cultural pro-lem more than a

theological one.

The rapid gro4th of the ast and impressie rthodo State of &usco1 aggraated the4hole situation. The rthodo faithful in the Polish92ithuanian )ingdom could hardl1 fail to turn

to &usco1 in times of trou-le and distress. The rise and epansion of the Reformation into

2ithuania and Poland proper as 4ell as into its "est Russian proinces further complicated the picture. 2utheranism did not ma)e much head4a1% -ut *alinism spread s4iftl1 and

triumphantl1% especiall1 in 2ithuania% 4here it 4on the open support of local magnates and% at

least initiall1% met no effectie countermeasures from the Roman *atholic hierarch1. The *$echLBohemianM Brethren% l7 eiled from their o4n countr1% also too) refuge in Poland and for a time

assumed a prominent role in the general “eangelical! moement. Een more conspicuous 4as

the gro4th of the “Ne4 Arians%! as the Antitrinitarians 4ere commonl1 la-eled. l l 3or a 4hile

Poland sered as one of the centers of the moement on the European continent.In general the countr1 -ecame a shelter for all )inds of religious eiles persecuted and

prosecuted in their o4n lands. Poland 4as ironicall1 descri-ed as a “paradisus haereticomus.!

Radical trends 4ere especiall1 dominant in the reign of Sigismund II Augustus ?586958=F@. 5F

The situation changed under the su-seCuent rulers Stephen Bator1 ?58=G9586G@ 5 and especiall1Sigismund III of the S4edish house of ;asa ?586=95GF@% 5 ustl1 called the “#esuit )ing.! The

Roman *hurch finall1 regained control 4ith the help of the #esuit fathers% 4ho 4ere called in atthe adice of the Nuncio *ommendone 58 and *ardinal Stanislaus +osius% -ishop of *ourland.

5G The #esuits concentrated their efforts on education -ut the1 also succeeded in ma)ing their

influence strongl1 felt at the Polish92ithuanian court.B1 the end of the siteenth centur1% the )ingdom of Poland and 2ithuania 4as once again a

Roman *atholic realm and a maor stronghold of the *atholic faith in Europe. In this Cuic)ened

enironment the pro-lem of “non9conformit1! assumed a ne4 urgenc1 and grait1. The

rthodo of "est Russia no4 found themseles -et4een t4o opposing camps. 3or a time thegreater threat of a *atholic domination -rought them to the support of the Protestants in a

common struggle for “religious freedom.! /nder the circumstances% religious freedom for the

rthodo also meant “national identit1.! But the alliance 4as more forced than oluntar1%dictated as it 4as -1 politics rather than doctrine. nce their independence had -een regained%

incomplete as this ma1 hae -een% the rthodo ended the coalition. The achieement% ho4eer%

4as no simple one% and the struggle left a distinct and deep imprint.The rthodo *hurch in Poland and 2ithuania 4as ill prepared for a militant encounter 4ith

the "est. "ith sorro4 and anguish contemporaries tell of “the great rudeness and ignorance! of

the common people and the local clerg1. The hierarchs 4ere little -etter eCuipped to do -attle.

The rthodo themseles deplored and eposed their lo4 moral standards and 4orldliness. It4as commonl1 complained that the -ishops 4ere more interested in politics% personal prestige%

and priilege than in matters of faith or the spiritual needs of the people. A great rthodo

champion of that da1% the Athonite mon) Ian ;ishens)ii% l= acidl1 commented that “instead of theolog1 the1 pursue the )naeries of men% la41er's deceptions% and the deil's t4addle.! The1

4ere% he 4ent on% more interested in the “statutes! of the la4 than in the “canons! of the *hurch.

True% ;ishens)ii's rhetoric is passionate% -ut it discloses the profound disappointment and loss of confidence that contemporaries felt in their hierarchs. 3urthermore% the -ishops 4ere diided

among themseles.

B1 the end of the siteenth centur1% no longer a-le to 4ithstand the eternal pressure% the1

capitulated en masse to Roman o-edience. Their floc)s% ho4eer% 4ould not follo4. In order for

7



ecclesiastical union 4ith Rome to -e esta-lished% coercion and een persecution 4ould -e

needed. This account% of course% can -e differentl1 construed: the -ishops did not desert their

floc)s% rather the lait1 refused to o-e1 their pastors. "hateer the case% the rthodo communit14as rent and an unhapp1 tension diided the hierarch1 from the people. The -urden of the

defense of rthodo1 against an enforced union 4ith Rome fell entirel1 on the shoulders of the

lait1 and lo4er clerg1. Their deout efforts and concerted action presere the rthodo faith%ma)ing the eentual canonical restoration of order possi-le. A maor tas)% ho4eer% 4as 1et to -e

accomplished. rthodo1 urgentl1 needed% and its integral preseration reCuire a creatie

“reconstruction of -elief%! a restatement of the rthodo faith. Such a “reconstruction! had toderie from a conscious confrontation 4ith the "est's dual challenge: Roman *atholicism and

the Reformation. *ould the B1$antine tradition -e maintained strictl1 as it 4as% or must ne4

forms -e deised Should rthodo1 remain purel1 “eastern%! or under the ne4 conditions

4ould it in some 4a1 hae to -e “4esterni$ed! Such a tas) could not -e accomplished in aninstant. -iousl1 it 4as a program for man1 generations. In the process a ne4 tension -ordering

on a -rea) emerged among those 4ho remained rthodo. The result 4as an am-iguous

“pseudomorphosis! of rthodo thought% and to some etent also of rthodo life. Een though

these seenteenth centur1 efforts -1 rthodo theologians of "est Russia ma1 hae ended infailure or compromise% the no-ilit1 and importance of their 4or) cannot -e o-scured.

The significance of these arious eents can -e comprehended onl1 if set in a 4ider European perspectie. Europe 4as then diided into t4o hostile camps% at once political -locs

and confessional confederations: the *atholic league and the Eangelical alliance. The rthodo

minorit1 in Poland and 2ithuania could not escape entanglement in this larger po4er struggle. No political stand 4as possi-le apart from a confessional commitment% and each confessional

choice carried 4ith it a political connotation. The patriarch of *onstantinople% too% 4as heail1

inoled in this political contest. Since he sered -oth as head of a large church and as national

leader of the “*hristian nation! LRum milletiM 4ithin the ttoman Empire% he 4as a prominent political figure on the international scene. 56 Also of significance is the interest sho4n% and

actie part ta)en% in the fate of the "est Russian *hurch -1 the other eastern patriarchs

-eginning in the last decades of the siteenth centur1. +o4eer% the historical destin1 of therthodo *hurch in Poland and 2ithuania ultimatel1 depended upon the outcome of the political

struggle -et4een *atholic and Protestant po4ers 4hich 4as soon to erupt in the Thirt1 Dears

"ar ?5G5695G6@. In this conflict Poland emerged as a strategic center. This eplains the liel1interest of the &oldaian princes in the ecclesiastical affairs of the "est Russian *hurch and

4h1 a "allachian prince 4as eentuall1 named metropolitan of ,ie. 5< This act s1m-oli$ed

more than rthodo solidarit10 it also reflected a common political concern. Non9theological

factors thus 4eighed heail1 on the ecclesiastical and cultural situation of "est Russia% 4here -1the third Cuarter of the siteenth centur1 the rthodo *hurch faced a seere challenge from the

"est% an eistential challenge at once religious and cultural.

Arte$ii and -urskii.

The strength of the Protestant impact on rthodo circles in Poland and 2ithuania cannot -e

accuratel1 assessed. It seems to hae -een considera-le% especiall1 in the middle decades of the

siteenth centur1. And its challenge had to -e met. Significantl1% the first rthodo 4riters inthese lands to respond 4ere t4o fugities from &osco4% the hegumen Artemii and the cele-rated

Prince Andrei ,ur-s)ii.

5



Artemii% 4hose dates are uncertain% 4as at one time hegumen of the Trinit1 monaster1. In

588 a council in &osco4 sentenced him for alleged heresies ?Hcertain 2utheran schisms!@ to

confinement in the Solo)ii monaster1% from 4hich he su-seCuentl1 escaped into 2ithuania. Therecord of the trial proceedings does not sho4 an1 heres1. It seems that the real reason for his

condemnation 4as his ideological allegiance. "hereas the leaders of the council -elonged to the

dominant #osephite part1% Artemii adhered to the Transolgan tradition. +eretics% in his ie4%should -e ehorted rather than persecuted.

nce in 2ithuania% Artemii 4as dra4n to the defense of rthodo1 against the inroads of

Protestants and Antitrinitarians. +e settled on the estate of Iurii% Prince of Sluts)% 4here hiscontacts soon included those tempted or conerted -1 Protestant preaching. 3or his la-ors there

Artemii 4ould earn the high praise of a)harii ,op1stens)ii% F7 a distinguished rthodo

thin)er of the net centur1% 4ho spea)s in his Boo) of efense of the +ol1 *atholic Apostolic

Ecumenical *hurch LPalinodiiaM of “this -lessed mon)% 4ho 4ith the help of (od% turned man1in 2ithuania a4a1 from the Arian and 2utheran heresies% and through 4hom (od dispelled the

danger that all Russian people there might -e pererted into these heresies.! F5 Artemii's

approach to dissenters 4as as much pastoral as polemic. +is 4ritings are nota-le for their

humane attitude to4ards opponents. +e deals 4ith them in the spirit of tolerance and trueeangelical charit1% irtues reminiscent of the Transolgan elders% -ut rare in the polemical

literature of Artemii's da1.A num-er of Artemii's epistles hae -een presered. FF The1 reeal the rthodo point of

ie4 on the issues at sta)e. f special interest are t4o missies to S$1mon Budn1% an influential

*alinist preacher 4ho later 4ent oer to Socinianism and oined its most radical 4ing ?the nonadorantes@. F In 58GF Budn1 pu-lished a treatise in the ;ernacular% The #ustification of a Sinner

Before (od Lpradanie greshnago cheloe)a pered BogomM% and his *atechism L,ate)hi$isM.

F +e also 4on reno4n for his Polish translation of the Bi-le% 4hich appeared in 58=F. Budn1

sent his -oo)s to Artemii. The1 prompted Artemii's epistles% 4hich% though igorousl1 attac)ingBudn1's heresies% sought to persuade and to conert. Artemii addressed Budn1 as “-rother! on

the grounds of their “common humanit1%! -ut he made no effort to conceal his detestation of “the

eil faith of false reason! to 4hich Budn1 4as committed. f necessit1 large parts of Artemii'sletters 4ere deoted to rites and eternal o-serances% since the Protestants reected them. But

his heart 4as else 4here. *hristianit1 4as for him first and foremost an inner realit1% a spiritual

discipline% “the *ross in action%! i.e.% an ascetic eploit% the 4a1 of silence Lhes1chiaM% andspiritual concentration. Artemii 4as rooted in the patristic heritage. +is sources 4ere traditional:

St. Basil the (reat% F8 St. Isaac of Nineeh ?or “the S1rian%! as he is usuall1 called in the East@%

FG also the Areopagite F= and St. #ohn of amascus. F6 2i)e St. Nil of the Sora% F< he contended

that these sacred 4ritings should -e used not -1 rote -ut 4ith discernment. It 4as Artemii 4hofirst called ,ur-s)ii's attention to the patristic sources. 7

Prince Andrei ,ur-s)ii ?58F69586@ 4as a distinguished militar1 leader and statesman.

Although a refugee from his o4n countr1% he readil1 found a place among the local no-ilit1 of ;ol1nia 4here he 4as granted honors and priileges. It is not clear ho4 he acCuired his 4ide

erudition. But he emerges from his famous and ehement correspondence 4ith Tsar Ian I; and

from his +istor1 of Ian Iir LIstoriia o ;eli)om ,nia$e &os)os)om# as a s)illful 4riter% a po4erful polemist% and a man of great intelligence. 5 In no sense 4as he onl1 a spiteful and

enomous pamphleteer -ent upon oicing his passions and pleading the cause of the -o1ars

against a t1rannical tsar. +e 4as also a man of -road culture and an ardent supporter of the

F



rthodo tradition. In &osco4 he had -een close to the circle of &aim the (ree) F 4hom he

ac)no4ledged as his “most -eloed% teacher! and 4hose -iograph1 he later compiled.

istur-ed -1 the gro4th of “foul heresies! in Poland% ,ur-s)ii 4as no less disma1ed -1 thenegligence and indifference of the rthodo communit1 there: “4e are inept and indolent in

stud1 and too proud to as) a-out that 4hich 4e do not )no4.! +e sought to spread learning

among the rthodo. +e urged them to return to the primar1 sources% to the er1 springs of faithand )no4ledge. ,ur-s)ii had a special loe for the great patristic tradition% and he oiced

chagrin and irritation that the rthodo people around him )ne4 so little of the 3athers and

scarcel1 read them. “3oreigners ta)e delight in our teachers% 4hereas 4e% loo)ing at our o4n%4aste a4a1 4ith spiritual hunger.! +e 4as ama$ed that not all the patristic 4ritings had -een

translated into *hurch Slaonic% and he epressed dissatisfaction 4ith eisting translations.

Accordingl1% he decided to translate ane4.

It ma1 appear strange that ,ur-s)ii chose to translate the (ree) 3athers from 2atin tets%since for that purpose he had to learn 2atin. But man1 of the 4ritings that interested him still

remained to -e pu-lished in the original% and to o-tain and use all the (ree) manuscripts 4as too

difficult a tas). ,ur-s)ii himself 4or)ed from the ;enetian translations. +is li-rar1 contained the

complete 4or)s of *hr1sostom% St. (regor1 of Na$ian$us% 8 St. *1ril of Aleandria% G andSt. #ohn of amascus% = as 4ell as Nicephorus *allistus' +istoria ecclesiastica. 6 ,ur-s)ii had

-een impressed -1 a stor1 told -1 &aim a-out the $eal of ;enetian scholars at 4or) translatingthe (ree) 3athers. < Apparentl1 he also came to -eliee that after the catastrophe of B1$antium%

those (ree) manuscripts% 4hich had -een saed% 4ere ta)en to Ital1 and stored in the li-raries of

;enice and Padua. 7The fall of *onstantinople 4as a true apocal1ptic disaster for '' ,ur-s)ii% a time 4hen

“Satan 4as loosed from his -onds.! "ith B1$antium in the hands of the Infidel% he had to loo) to

the "est. ,ur-s)ii had no s1mpath1 for Rome% ho4eer. The *ouncil of 3lorence had -een% in

his phrase% “a true traged1% 4ith eil and sad conseCuences.! 3rom his contacts on &t. Athos hesought and o-tained copies of the polemical 4ritings of *a-asilas l and others directed against

the 2atins. ,ur-s)ii's cultural hori$on 4as t1picall1 B1$antine. Indeed% 4ith his loe of learning

and penchant for stud1 he can -e properl1 descri-ed as a “B1$antine humanist.! Patristictheolog1 and the “4isdom of the (ree)s! ?i.e. (ree) philosoph1@ 4ere in his e1es an indiisi-le

cultural 4hole. “ur ancient fathers 4ere trained and adept% in -oth natural philosoph1 and the

sacred Scriptures.! ,ur-s)ii conseCuentl1 sought to com-ine stud1 of the 3athers 4ith that of theclassical philosophers. f the latter% he mainl1 read Aristotle ?Ph1sics and Ethics@% pro-a-l1

under the influence of St. #ohn of amascus and *icero% from 4hom he deried a Stoic

conception of natural la4. F

,ur-s)ii dre4 up an am-itious program of translation: all the 3athers of the fourth centur1.As part of the proect% he gathered around him for classical studies a -and of 1oung scholars% or

-accalaurei as he st1led them. And he sent a relatie% Prince &i)hail -olens to learn the higher

sciences in *raco4 and in Ital1. It 4as not eas1 for ,ur-s)ii to find enough people fluent in2atin 4ho 4ere also at home in literar1 Slaonic. +e himself did not hae complete command of

Slaonic. But he 4as aerse to translating the 3athers into the cruder colloCuial. Indeed% it 4as

pro-a-l1 at his suggestion that a mem-er of the 4ealth1 &amonich famil1 in ;ilna in 5865 pu-lished a (rammar of the Slaonic 2anguage L(ramati)a sloens)aia ia$1)aM.

nl1 a small part of ,ur-s)ii's translation proect 4as eer accomplished. In addition to the

sermons of *hr1sostom% 4ith 4hich he -egan% ,ur-s)ii managed to translate the -asic 4or)s of

St. #ohn of amascus% including the ialectica and efide orthodoa and some of his lesser



4ritings. The1 alread1 eisted in part% -ut in an archaic translation of #ohn% Earch of

Bulgaria 8 ,ur-s)ii chec)ed #ohn's tet against certain (ree) and 2atin editions% reised it% and

added translations of the missing chapters. To amascene's ialectica he also appended anintroduction n 2ogic% -ased on the Triii Erotomata% pu-lished -1 #ohann Spangen-erg in 588F

and 588 in *raco4 G Apparentl1 ,ur-s)ii intended this 4or) to -e a tet-oo). In 5868

,ur-s)ii printed in ;ilna a translation of #ohn of amascus' A isputation -et4een a Saracenand a *hristian. But of the other 3athers% he succeeded in translating and pu-lishing onl1 a fe4

sermons and homilies. = To adance his dispute 4ith the Arians ?his maor preoccupation@%

,ur-s)ii also compiled% and 4here necessar1 translated% seeral eegetical anthologies: TheInterpreted Acts and Epistles LTol)o1i Apostol'M% including a special selection of Patristic tets0

An A--reiated Interpreted Boo) of Prophets LSo)rashchenie tol)o1)h prorochestM% 4hich

also contained Patristic commentar10 6 and an Interpreted Psalter LTol)oaia psalt1r'M in 4hich%

in addition to the -asic commentar1 ta)en from Theodoret of *1rus < and from Pseudo9Athanasius% 87 he included a num-er of rich and apt choices from the other 3athers. In all of this

4or) ,ur-s)ii manifests a ital dogmatic interest and a so-er and clear faith.

+o4eer modest ,ur-s)ii's achieements 4ere in comparison 4ith the scale of his original

plan% that he een conceied such a comprehensie scholarl1 program is of signal importance.The scheme itself reeals a clear conception of religious culture% grounded in the tradition of a

Slaono9+ellenic culture. +e opposed this to “Polish -ar-arism.! This 4as no mere rhetorical phrase. The Polish language 4as at the time ust coming into use for scholar1 purposes% and

Polish literature 4as sitill in statu nascendi. In contrast% *hurch Slaonic literature had eisted

for centuries and had deeloped its o4n ela-orate st1le and tradition. ,ur-s)ii had reason tocontend that an accurate translation into Polish from (ree) or Slaonic% or een 2atin% 4as

impossi-le. The meaning might -e rendered% -ut the st1le 4ould -e lost.

3ar more than a scri-e or a dr1 scholar% ,ur-s)ii had a liing feeling for his time. +is aims

hae often -een critici$ed as old9fashioned and out of date. In fact% the1 4ere prophetic. +estroe for a creatie rene4al of the patristic tradition% a reitali$ation and continuation of the

B1$antine heritage in the Slaic 4orld. The future of rthodo1% he -elieed% depended upon its

faithfulness to the tradition of the 3athers.

The ,strog Circle and "ile.

,ur-s)ii 4as not alone in his literar1 and educational endeaors. In the second half of the

siteenth centur1 a num-er of rthodo printing centers 4ere esta-lished in 2ithuania andPoland% most -1 priate hands: Ian 3edoro 85 and Petr &stislaets 8F at a-ludo% near

Bial1sto)% on the estate of the *hod)ie4ic$ famil1 ?58G6 to 58=7@0 8 3edoro in 2o ?58=9

58=<% reied in 58<5@0 &stislaets in ;ilna ?58=958=G% resurrected -1 the &amonich famil1 in586F@0 Prince ,onstantin stro$hs)ii 8 at strog in ;ol1nia ?5867958<7@. 88 The -asic motie

for these centers 4as apologetical0 their chief aim 4as to com-at Protestant% and especiall1

Arian% propaganda. 3or this purpose it 4as deemed more important to pu-lish primar1 sourcesthan argumentatie 4or)s. The result 4as a goodl1 flo4 of liturgical manuals% deotional -oo)s%

religious pamphlets% and sermons.

The most important of these printing presses 4as at strog 4here through the energies of

Prince stro$hs)ii a center of learning and culture had sprouted. Among the “loers of 4isdom!4ho gathered there 4ere (erasim Smotrits)ii% the educator% 8G Ian 3edoro% master printer% the

priests ;asilii Sura$)ii% author of n a /nited 3aith L edinoi ereM% 8= and emian Naliai)o

?-rother of the famous hetman@% 86 and of special fame% #an 2iatos% mathematician and



astronomer. 8< f this communit1 at strog a)harii ,op1stens)ii 4rote in his Palinodiia:

“+ere 4ere orators eCual to emosthenes. +ere 4ere doctors 4ell9trained in (ree)% 2atin% and

Slaonic. +ere 4ere outstanding mathematicians and astrologers.! Though an o-iouseaggeration% his 4ords indicate the strong impression% 4hich the strog enterprise left on the

su-seCuent generation. Nor can the profound deotion to learning 4ithin the strog group -e

denied. The1 cherished the same ision of a i-rant Slaono9+ellenic culture% as did ,ur-s)ii.The school at strog 4as modelled on the (raeco9B1$antine pattern. ften descri-ed as a

“(ree) school%! it 4as in fact a “school of three languages! Ltrilingue l1caeumM and of the li-eral

arts.! Non slaonicae duntaat linguae% sed grecarum uta atCue latinarum artium ereit palaestram.! G7 Prince stro$hs)ii planned to transform his school into a full9fledged academ1

and thus more firml1 esta-lish strog as a Slaonic9(ree) cultural center. G5 +is dream neer

materiali$ed0 moreoer% the school itself managed to surie for onl1 a fe4 1ears. The plan 4as

unrealistic for the times. A critical shortage of Cualified personnel eisted almost eer14here.*ompetent teachers 4ere all -ut impossi-le to find% especiall1 for the instruction of (ree). In

586 stro$hs)ii considered hiring seeral (ree) /niates from the (ree) *ollege of St.

Athanasius in Rome% -ut 4ithout success. 2ater he loo)ed to (reece itself. *1ril 2ucaris% the

future patriarch% taught at strog in 58< and 58<8. GF stro$hs)ii also tried to educate studentsa-road. An interpreter at the *ouncil of Brest% 3ather ,iprian% seems to hae -een one of these

students. +e studied in ;enice and Padua and then sta1ed for a 4hile on &t. Athos. stro$hs)ii'ssuccess in these arious endeaors 4as modest. Pro-a-l1 his entire proect 4as too am-itious for

priate enterprise. Een so% the reno4n 4hich the school at strog gained 4as ustified% not so

much for its achieements ?although these 4ere significant@% as for its no-le9spirited pioneering.3rom the start the strog communit1 4as deepl1 inoled in the struggle 4ith Roman

propaganda and later 4ith that of the /niates. G The reform of the calendar introduced in 586F

-1 Pope (regor1 OIII created great agitation G pen resistance 4as strong in a num-er of

Cuarters% and in Poland that resistance included some Roman *atholics. #an 2iatos of *raco4attac)ed it iolentl1. Epelled from the uniersit1% he moed to strog 4here he lent

encouragement and support to rthodo groups opposing the ne4 calendar. ?2iatos continued his

campaign as late as 5G7% still in strog@. Another igorous opponent of the reform 4as (erasimSmotrits)ii% headmaster of the strog school in the 5867's. A pamphlet he pu-lished in 586

sharpl1 denounced it. That same 1ear the *hurch in *onstantinople formall1 reected the

calendar reform and -rought the dispute to an end for rthodo peoples. In Poland and2ithuania% ho4eer% the controers1 4as )ept alie for seeral more 1ears -1 persistent attempts

to enforce the use of the ne4 calendar throughout the countr1.

3ar more significant than the struggle against calendar reform% and indeed the most

spectacular of all the underta)ings of the strog communit1% 4as the translation and printing of the great strog Bi-le. "ith its pu-lication in 5867 ?reissued in 5865 4ith certain technical

amendments@% the full tet of the Bi-le made its first appearance in *hurch Slaonic. The strog

Bi-le% as such% remains a landmar) in Slaonic Bi-lical histor1. It a-ides also as a magnificentachieement in itself% a monument of scholarship% literature% and theolog1.

The strog Bi-le 4as conceied as a polemic tool and intended for 4ide circulation. In the

Preface% 4ritten -1 (erasim Smotrits)ii% readers 4ere strongl1 4arned against those 4ho% pretending their course could -e sustained 4ith +ol1 "rit% “most -lasphemousl1 dare to follo4

Arius in their teaching.! National Bi-les% of course% hae -een characteristic instruments of

reformationists. The Polish and *$ech Bi-les and the Sloene Bi-le of Primo$ Tru-er G8 are -ut

a fe4 eamples. In the Russian "est most Bi-le translation also stemmed from a Protestant

8



milieu% specificall1 from Socinian and Antitrinitarian circles 4ho -ased their la-ors on the *$ech

or% more often% the Polish ersion. ;asilii Tiapins)ii GG translated the (ospels in Belorussia from

the 58=F ersion of S$1mon Budn1% 4hile ;alentin Negales)ii G= made his edition in ;ol1niafrom the Polish Bi-le% 4hich &arcin *$echo4ic$ had pu-lished in *raco4 in 58==. G6 Some of

these ernacular editions are hardl1 more than paraphrases% 4ith confessional -ias plain in the

4ording of the tet and% een more% in the glosses and eplanator1 notes. *ertainl1 all of thetranslations of the Bi-le made in "est Russia -1 /nitarians deiated considera-l1 from the

traditional tet of the rthodo East. This is een true of the famous Russo9Slaonic Bi-le of

(eorgii ?3rantis$e)@ S)orina of Polots)% printed in Prague in 585=958F7 ?though neer completed -e1ond the ld Testament@. G< Based mainl1 on the 587G Bi-le of the Bohemian

/traCuists ?i.e.% *alitins@% it 4as connected to the +ussite endeaor% if onl1 indirectl1. =7 In

addition S)orina used the 2atin Postillae perpetuae of Nicholas de 21ra. =5 ,ur-s)ii 4as sharpl1

critical of S)orina's translation. +e lamented that it 4as ta)en “from the corrupted #e4ish -oo)s!and pointed to the similarit1 of the S)orina edition 4ith 2uther's Bi-le. Pro-a-l1 he meant -1

this that -oth translations came from the 2atin ;ulgate% 4hich in turn depended on the +e-re4

tet. The traditional Slaonic tet% of course% 4as -ased on the (ree) Septuagint.

The strog Bi-le stemmed from a conscious and critical attempt to adhere to the (ree) tetual tradition. And the language of translation 4as to -e traditional *hurch Slaonic% not an1

of the ernacular languages. The -asic source for the strog edition 4as the (ennadii Bi-le =F?4ith some trou-le o-tained in a clear cop1 from &osco4 through a 2ithuanian diplomat@. This

tet 4as carefull1 chec)ed and reised% 4ith man1 of its “2atinisms! epurgated in the process.

n the initiatie of Prince stro$hs)ii% ne4 manuscripts 4ere sought in the Slaic monasteries of Bulgaria and Ser-ia% in “Roman lands%! and een as far a4a1 as *rete. +e also appealed to the

patriarch of *onstantinople to send relia-le and properl1 corrected manuscripts% as 4ell as

“people competent in the +ol1 "ritings% (ree) and Slaonic. It is clear from the Preface%

ho4eer% that the editors of the strog Bi-le 4ere disma1ed -1 the poor state of the manuscripts4ith 4hich the1 4or)ed. Too freCuentl1 the tets suffered from ariations and corruptions. Still%

for their time% the strog scholars had rich and ample material at their disposal. The1 consulted

the &assoretic tet = and the ;ulgate and too) into consideration the ne4 *$ech and Polishersions. Then once again the1 chec)ed their tet against the (ree)% using t4o printed editions:

the Aldine Septuagint of 5856 ?;enice@ = and the great *omplutensian Pol1glot of *ardinal

Oimenes% completed -et4een 5859585=% -ut not released until 58FF. =8"ith all its o-ious imperfections% the strog Bi-le offers a more accurate and relia-le tet

than the famous Situs *lementine ersion of the ;ulgate ?58<F@. =G &odern editions of the

Slaonic Bi-le are still essentiall1 -ased on the tet of the strog Bi-le. The tas) 4hich

confronted its translators and editors 4as enormous0 their accomplishment note4orth1. Itapparentl1 too) this competent team of scholars three to four 1ears to complete the enterprise.

Technical epertise 4as rendered -1 Ian 3edoro% 4ho alread1 had a num-er of printing

proects to his credit% including the introduction of the art of printing to &osco4. Pro-a-l1 morethan an1thing else% the creatie achieement of the strog Bi-le testifies to the flo4ering of a

cultural and theological renaissance among the rthodo of "est Russia to4ard the end of the

siteenth centur1. f een greater significance% the adent of this Bi-le reflects a liing andun-ro)en connection 4ith the B1$antine tradition.

G



-onstantin ,stro#hskii.

Prince ,onstantin stro$hs)ii ?58FG95G76@% founder of the strog communit1% and later the

mon) ;asilii% 4as a controersial figure. +e 4as a-oe all a politician and a diplomat% if not astatesman. +is approach to religious pro-lems 4as pragmatic and cultural% rather than

theological. As a natie of 2ithuania% stro$hs)ii 4as more “4esterni$ed! than his friend Prince

,ur-s)ii% 4ho despite his irulent distaste for political and cultural trends in &osco4% andho4eer much his scholarship relied on 2atin tets and 4estern pu-lications% remained een in

Polish eile an adamant &uscoite and ardent (raecophile. f the t4o% stro$hs)ii's cultural

hori$ons 4ere pro-a-l1 the -roader% -ut there 4as less coherence in his ie4s. +e 4as prone to

adustment and compromise% and his politics freCuentl1 acillated. "ithout Cuestion a staunchdefender of rthodo1% at the same time he pla1ed a role in preparing the 4a1 for the /nia%

4hich gae cause to those 4ho 4ould -rand him a s1mpathi$er.

In a sense Prince stro$hs)ii can -e regarded as the first East Slaic “ecumenist.! +e had adeep interest in the reconciliation of all *hristian communions in Poland and 2ithuania% if onl1 to

secure order in the realm. +e pleaded 4ith *hristians to cooperate and to lie in honest co9

eistence. Een his personal position 4as curiousl1 inoled. Though a firm adherent of the

rthodo *hurch% stro$hs)ii 4as married to a Roman *atholic and )ept close famil1connections 4ith *alinists and /nitarians. +is eldest son% Prince #anus$% 4as -apti$ed

according to the *atholic rite% and of his other children% onl1 one remained rthodo% -ut een

he had a Roman *atholic 4ife. ==The ecumenical interests of stro$hs)ii raised suspicion in seeral Cuarters. +e 4as first of

all accused of ecessie s1mpath1 for the Socinians% 4ho themseles claimed that in4ardl1 he

shared their conictions: “Cuamis religionem /nitariam% Cuam in corde amplecte-atur no sit professus% /nitariorum tamen 3autor et Patronus fuerit.! =6 It is true that stro$hs)ii admired

their educational s1stem and commitment to cultural alues. And he did not hesitate to turn to

them for help. n -ehalf of the rthodo he commissioned the Socinian &otoila =< to 4rite arefutation of the famous -oo) of Peter S)arga% n the /nit1 of the *hurch of (od under ne

Pastor L iedosci )osciola Bo$ego pod iedn1m paster$em 1 o (rec)im od te1 iednosciodstapieniu% $ pre$est oroga 1 upominaniem do narodo4 rus)ich pr$1 (re)ach stoac1ch% ;ilna%58==M 67 4ith 4hich the #esuits launched their literar1 campaign to 4in the rthodo in Poland

to union 4ith Rome. 65 ,ur-s)ii 4as incensed 4ith stro$hs)ii's act. &otoila 4as to him “a

deput1 of the Antichrist! and a follo4er of the impious Arius% 6F Photinus% 6 and Paul of

Samosata. 6 “*hristian leaders hae gone to such etremes of insolence and foolishness%! hedecried% “that not onl1 do the1 shamelessl1 har-or and nurture these poisonous dragons in their

homes% -ut the1 emplo1 them as defenders and assistants. And 4hat is een more astonishing%

the1 summon them to guard the spiritual *hurch of (od against satanic spirits and commissionthem to 4rite -oo)s against the half9*hristian 2atins.! Pro-a-l1 ,ur-s)ii's intransigence 4as

shared -1 onl1 a fe4% 4ith man1 more grateful to stro$hs)ii for also enlisting “heretics! in the

rthodo cause. To hesitate or to linger out of scruple 4as too high a ris) in this struggle.stro$hs)ii's “ecumenical! oertures 4ere not limited to Protestants0 the1 reached to

Roman *atholics as 4ell. n a num-er of occasions he conferred 4ith the famous #esuit

missionar1 Antonio Posseino% 68 as he did 4ith the Papal Nuncio Bolognetti. 6G Both reported

to Rome that he 4as a-out to -e conerted. stro$hs)ii -rought along to these deli-erations anum-er of la1men and clerg1 and 4hen the matter of *hurch unit1 came up een the )ing%

Stephen Bator1% 4as included. It 4as at this time also that stro$hs)ii considered o-taining

(ree) /niates from St. Athanasius *ollege in Rome to teach at strog% een though according to

=



his plan the strog school 4as to remain a stronghold of strict rthodo1. 2ater he persuaded

Adam Pocie ?Poti1@% 6= future /niate metropolitan and the real architect of the /niate *hurch in

Poland% to ta)e hol1 orders% and then% een though Pocie's Roman leanings 4ere no secret%sponsored his promotion to the episcopate.

stro$hs)ii actuall1 had his o4n scheme for reunion 4ith Rome and 4as prepared to go to

Rome to confer 4ith the Pope. But 4hen union finall1 came% stro$hs)ii did not follo4% and atthe *ouncil of Brest conened in 58<G to promulgate reunion% he led the forces of opposition

4hich disrupted the proceedings. 3or 1ears there after he 4as recogni$ed as a leader of the

rthodo resistance moement 4hich sprang up in the 4estern lands. stro$hs)ii 4as notinconsistent in these acts. +is ision of unit1 4as Cuite different from that negotiated at the /nia.

Eer1thing there had -een accomplished -1 the local -ishops acting clandestinel1 and alone.

This directl1 countered stro$hs)ii's plan for a thorough and common discussion of all the issues

inoled and prior consent from the *hurches of &osco4 and &oldaia. "hen in the aftermathof the *ouncil% the rthodo *hurch 4as outla4ed in -oth Poland and 2ithuania% stro$hs)ii

mounted a ferent campaign to get the decision rescinded. Basing his struggle on the right and

necessit1 of “religious freedom%! he once again found himself dra4n to4ard the Protestants% 4ho

for some time had suffered discrimination under the la4 and 4hose threat to rthodo1 4as no4eclipsed -1 Roman *atholicism.

Before long the rthodo and the Protestants sought to oin forces in their common strugglefor religious freedom. The onl1 hope for success la1 in concerted action. +aing confederated

their o4n forces in 58=7 through the Sandomier$ *onfession L*onfessio SandomiriensisM% 66 the

Protestants in 58<8 at the end of the S1nod of Toruri too) up the issue of closer cooperation 4iththe rthodo. stro$hs)ii% in a letter% 4arned this -od1 that a Roman9rthodo union 4as in

preparation and proclaimed his o4n solidarit1 4ith the Protestants. +e declared that% in his

opinion% the rthodo 4ere distant from the Romans -ut close to the Eangelicals ?i.e.%

*alinists@. 6< In 58<< a oint conference met in ;ilna% 4ith the rthodo represented -1 a smallgroup led -1 stro$hs)ii. <7 The immediate order of -usiness 4as to formulate a common polic1

in the struggle for religious freedom. But once the t4o groups 4ere together% the idea of unit1

readil1 arose. To this the clerical mem-ers on the rthodo side proed reticent and easie% if not openl1 hostile. *hief spo)esman for union in the Protestant delegation 4as Simon Theophil

Turnos)ii% president of the *$ech LBohemianM Brethren in Poland. <5 +e argued that under

certain conditions Protestants and rthodo could unite% and cited the negotiations held in 585958F -et4een the *alitins of Prague and the *hurch of *onstantinople% 4hich ended in

agreement. <F

3ollo4ing the ;ilna conference% certain Protestants drafted a memorandum% 4hich

prominentl1 listed points of agreement -et4een Eangelicals and rthodo and placed itemsreCuiring further discussion in an appendi. This 4as for4arded to *onstantinople. Although the

rthodo did not share in this action% stro$hs)ii seems to hae s1mpathi$ed 4ith it. &eletius

Pigas% patriarch of Aleandria and locum tenens of the ecumenical throne% ac)no4ledged receiptof the missie% < -ut% reluctant to interfere in Polish affairs% he )ept his repl1 easie and

noncommittal. &eletius did authori$e his earch% *1ril 2ucaris% then residing in Poland% to

discuss the proposal at local leels. Apparentl1 nothing 4as done. All in all% it 4as utopian toepect that an rthodo9Eangelical union could -e formed to counter the Brest /nion. Still% the

4hole episode 4as of so-er significance for the future. uring the negotiations -et4een the

Protestants and the rthodo% the Cuestion of union 4as posed in terms% 4hich defined “unit1 of

faith! as common opposition to the 2atin faith. As a conseCuence the rthodo found themseles

6



in a position 4here their o4n standpoint had to -e 4or)ed out 4ithin the frame of the 4estern

tension: Rome or Reformation.

Although the plan of doctrinal agreement put for4ard at ;ilna receied no further deelopment% rthodo9Protestant cooperation continued. rthodo polemists made etensie

use of "estern anti9Roman literature% especiall1 on the Cuestion of papal supremac1% 4here the1

regularl1 utili$ed arguments adanced at the great Reformation councils of Basel and *onstance.< Kuite popular 4as e repu-lica ecclesiastica% the famed -oo) of &arco Antonio de ominis

?58GG95GF@% one time Roman Arch-ishop of Spalatro% 4ho left the *hurch of Rome and then for

a period held a position in the *hurch of England. In translation% his -oo) 4as 4idel1 circulatedin manuscript form among Slas of "est Russia. <8 But perhaps more t1pical of the polemical

literature adopted -1 rthodo 4riters at this time 4as the Apo)risis% pu-lished in 58<= under

the name of *hristopher 3ilalet ?Philalethes@. It 4as intended as a repl1 to S)arga's -oo) on the

*ouncil of Brest. *laiming that his -oo) 4as a translation% 4hich pro-a-l1 fooled onl1 a fe4% theauthor disguised himself ?in a manner freCuent among Socinians 4ho came to the defense of

rthodo1@ -ehind a (ree) literar1 pseudon1m% een though it seems his identit1 4as )no4n to

man1 contemporaries. *urrent scholarship has esta-lished% though not 4ith final certaint1% that

he 4as neither an East Sla nor an rthodo% -ut the *alinist &artin Broris)i% a Polish diplomat4ho for a 4hile sered as Stephen Bator1's secretar1. <G +e 4as also an actie participant in the

meetings -et4een Eangelicals and rthodo and a close friend of the stro$hs)ii famil1. <= If indeed Broris)i 4as the author of the Apo)risis% then it is highl1 plausi-le that stro$hs)ii for a

second time 4as instrumental in enlisting a Protestant to counter Roman *atholicism “on -ehalf

of the people of the (ree) religion.! <6 The author's aim in the Apo)risis 4as to anal1$e the proceedings of the *ouncil of Brest from a legal and canonical point of ie4. Readil1 discerni-le

in his 4or)% at least in )e1 parts% is the influence of *alin's Institutiones *hristianae. <<

Protestant -ias is most o-ious in the emphasis on the rights of the lait1 in the *hurch and the

minimal authorit1 of the -ishops. A some4hat similiar -ent characteri$es the closing section of the treatise% deoted to the papac1. +ere the author made etensie use of a ne4 and oluminous

-oo) -1 the utch scholar Sigrandus 2u--ertus ?588G95GF8@% entitled e Papa Romano ?58<@%

in 4hich the pope is identified 4ith the Antichrist. 577 Apparentl1 2u--ertus' -oo)% too% had4ide circulation among the rthodo% 4ith seeral important 4riters putting it to use: &eletii

Smotrits)ii% 575 in his 2amentation for the ne Ecumenical Apostolic Eastern *hurch LThrenos%

5G57M 0 a)harii ,op1stens)ii% in his Pali nodiia0 Stephen i$ani% in his “Sermon of St. *1ril of #erusalem on the Anitchrist and his times.! 57F

The impact 4hich Protestant literature had on the rthodo faithful should not -e

oerstressed. +o4eer% a “taint! of Protestantism 4as thenceforth to remain a part of "est

Russian mentalit1% and een the much stronger 2atin influence of later 1ears did not reall1eradicate it. 3ar more dangerous% and of greater significance% 4as the ha-it 4hich rthodo

4riters acCuired of approaching theological pro-lems in a 4estern frame of reference. To refute

Roman *atholicism is not necessaril1 to strengthen rthodo1% and man1 Protestant argumentsagainst *atholicism are compati-le 4ith rthodo principles. Neertheless rthodo polemists

un4ittingl1 or carelessl1 emplo1ed them% 4ith the result that on a num-er of matters Protestant

ie4s impercepti-l1 too) hold. There is% of course% a corollar1 historical eplanation. Patristicliterature 4as scarce% a circumstance compounded -1 the general unrelia-ilit1 of contemporar1

(ree) literature. (ree) theolog1 4as at the time passing through a crisis. (ree) scholars

themseles 4ere stud1ing at schools in the "est% in ;enice% Padua% Rome% or else in (enea or

"itten-urg. The1 4ere more often at home in modern 4estern innoations instead of the

<



argued that such a “B1$antine! institution could hardl1 hae suried in a state 4hich -1

principle and aspiration 4as 4holl1 4estern% all the more so after seeral East Slaic regions

4ent oer to &usco1 and the more “intransigent! rthodo groups 4ere remoed from Polishcare. All these are -ut mild and euphemistic 4a1s of sa1ing that in principle /nia meant

“Poloni$ation%! 4hich is 4hat happened historicall1. This 4as% of course% one of the original

aims. The interests of the Polish State called for the cultural and spiritual integration of its*hristian people% and it is for this reason that the state first encouraged and then supported the

/nia. Indeed% that it suried at all 4as due to state interention. But politicall1% too% the /nia

4as a failure. It promoted resistance rather than integration and added to the “schism in thesoul%! a “schism in the -od1 politic.! The other primal impulse for /nia ?apparentl1 the moing

idea of Roman *atholic missionaries such as Posseino@ sought a true “reunion of the

*hurches%! em-racing the 4hole of the Russian *hurch and% if possi-le% all of the Eastern

*hurches. This distinctl1 religious aspiration 4as dealt a fatal -lo4 -1 that 4hich 4as achieed politicall1 and culturall1% -1 precisel1 4hat has -een praised as the proof of success or italit1.

The /nion of Brest remained as it -egan% a “local arrangement! for the most part generated

and presered -1 reasons and forces of non9theological character. The /nion of Brest did not

arise out of a popular religious moement. It 4as the composition of seeral rthodo -ishopsthen in charge of rthodo dioceses in the Polish92ithuanian State together 4ith authorities of

the Roman *hurch and the )ingdom of Poland. nce it -ecame )no4n that the act 4ould notcommand the agreement or s1mpath1 of the full -od1 of the *hurch% it could onl1 continue as a

clandestine affair. Seemingl1 fearful that further dela1 might su-ert the 4hole enterprise%

Bishops Pocie and Terlets)ii ?Terlec)i@ left for Rome. l76 But ne4s of their secret plot -ecame pu-lic% and een 4hile the1 4ere a4a1 open protest against the /nia -egan in the *hurch. The

*ouncil of Brest 4as conened on their return. It 4as designed for the solemn promulgation of a

fait accompli% not for discussion. But -efore the mem-ers could gather% a split appeared in the

ran)s of the rthodo. T4o “councils! resulted% meeting simultaneousl1 and moing to opposedresolutions. The “/niate *ouncil! 4as attended -1 representaties of the Polish *ro4n and the

2atin hierarch1% together 4ith seeral hierarchs from the rthodo *hurch. It dre4 up an

instrument of rthodo allegiance to the +ol1 See% 4hich 4as then signed -1 si -ishops andthree archimandrites. The “rthodo *ouncil! 4as attended -1 an earch of the ecumenical

patriarch ?Nicephorus@% 57< an emissar1 from the patriarch of Aleandria ?*1ril 2ucaris@% three

-ishops ?2u)e% the metropolitan of Belgrade% 557 (edeon Bala-an% 555 and &i)hail,op1stens)ii 55F@% oer t4o hundred clerg1% and a large num-er of la1men assem-led in a

separate cham-er. It disao4ed the /nia and deposed those -ishops in compliance% announcing

its actions in the name and on the authorit1 of the ecumenical patriarch% 4ho held supreme

urisdiction oer the metropolia of the "est Russian lands. The decisions of the “rthodo*ouncil! 4ere denounced -1 the /niate -ishops and > of greater import > repudiated -1 the

Polish State. +enceforth all resistance to the /nia 4as construed as opposition to the eisting

order% and an1 4riting critical of the act 4as -randed a criminal offense. Earch Nicephorus% 4ho presided oer the “rthodo *ouncil%! 4as prosecuted and sentenced as an agent of a foreign

state. 55 a final measure% it 4as declared that the “(ree) faith! 4ould not -e recogni$ed -1 la4.

Those 4ho remained faithful to rthodo1 4ould no longer -e simpl1 stigmati$ed as“schismatics! -ut also harassed as “re-els.! "hat to this point for the state had -een essentiall1 a

pro-lem of “religious unit1! 4as instantl1 transformed into a pro-lem of “political lo1alt1.! As

for the rthodo -elieers% the1 had no4 to prepare a theological defense of their faith and% more

urgentl1% to fight for legal recognition.

F



there% Patriarch 3ilaret and Tsar &i)hail. 556 n his 4a1 home to #erusalem% Theophanes again

isited Poland. +is contacts this time included the *ossac)s% then led -1 +etman Peter

,onasheich9Sagadaichn1% an alumnus of the strog school% one of the founders of the ,ie -rotherhood school% and a man of genuine cultural -ent. 55< moes that 4ere hardl1

unpremeditated% Theophanes on t4o occasions arranged to consecrate -ishops% creating in all si

ne4 hierarchs% among them the metropolitan of ,ie. Seeral of the ne4 -ishops 4ere )no4n for their learning: Io Borets)ii% former headmaster of the schools at 2o and ,ie% no4 made

metropolitan of ,ie0 lF7 &eletii Smotrits)ii% an alumnus of the ;ilna Academ1% 4ho also had

attended seeral (erman uniersities0 5F5 and E$e)iel ,urtseich% son of a princel1 famil1 andfor a time a student at the /niersit1 of Padua. lFF In spite of such Cualifications% the ne4

rthodo hierarchs found themseles at once engaged in a -itter struggle for authorit1. The

/niate *hurch and the Polish State -oth contested the consecrations% claiming that Theophanes

4as an intruder% an imposter% and een a Tur)ish sp1. nl1 in 5GF% ust after the death of ,ingSigismund III% 4as the rthodo hierarch1 a-le to gain from his successor% ,ing "lad1sla4 I;%

the recognition of la4. 5F But een then their difficulties 4ere not entirel1 at an end.

The trou-les 4ith the Polish State 4ere not the onl1 ones the rthodo -elieers faced. In

general it 4as an untimel1 season% an age of internecine strife and conflict% an era of 4ars anduprisings. To -e constructie in such conditions 4as not eas1. It 4as difficult to organi$e

s1stematic religious actiit1 and to create a regular school s1stem. It 4as een harder to preseresome form of calmness and clarit1 of thought% so indispensa-le to the life of the mind.

Neertheless Cuite a -it 4as accomplished% although it is still not possi-le to assess its full

significance.In the field of education the -rotherhoods too) the lead. The1 organi$ed schools% set up

pu-lishing centers% and printed -oo)s. The earl1 -rotherhood schools > li)e the school at strog

> 4ere planned on the (ree) pattern. After all% the (ree) population in the cities of South

Russia and &oldaia 4as at this time Cuite si$ea-le% 4ith the 4hole region sering as a maor area of the (ree) diaspora. 5F *ontact 4ith *onstantinople 4as freCuent and regular. (ree)

influence could -e felt in eer1thing% and it did not -egin to fade until the end of the seenteenth

centur1. The -rotherhood school at 2o 4as founded -1 an emigre prelate% Arsenius% arch-ishopof Elassona and a former student of Patriarch #eremiah. 5F8 +ere% after 586G% the (ree) language

-ecame a salient if not the principle feature in the curriculum. Ineita-l1 some of the

nomenclature -ecame (ree). Teachers% for eample% 4ere referred to as didascals and studentscalled spudei. In 58<5 Arsenius compiled a (ree) grammar% 4hich he pu-lished in (ree) and

Slaonic. Based mainl1 on the noted grammar of *onstantine 2ascaris% lFG it also dre4 on the

manuals of &elanchthon% lF= &artin ?,raus@ *rusius% 5F6 and *lenard of 2ouain. 5F< At his

-rotherhood school in 2o% as also in ;ilna and 2uts)% it 4as not unusual for the students tolearn to spea) (ree) fluentl1. Nor 4as there a shortage of aaila-le (ree) literature. The

catalogues of the -rotherhood li-raries list 4hole editions of the classics > Aristotle%

Thuc1dides% and the li)e. Preachers 4ould Cuote from the (ree) tet of the Scriptures in their sermons. Eer14here (ree) titles 4ere the fashion for -oo)s and pamphlets% and in general the

literar1 language of "est Russia at that time 4as saturated 4ith (ree) terminolog1. Apparentl1

the 4hole spirit of teaching as 4ell as the ethos 4as +ellenic. It is also true that 2atin 4as fromthe -eginning a part of the curriculum at the -rotherhood schools. But on the 4hole “2atin

learning! 4as ie4ed as an unnecessar1 frill% or een a dangerous “sophistr1.! a)harii

,op1stens)ii's comment 4as fairl1 t1pical: “The 2atini$ers stud1 s1llogisms and arguments%



train themseles for disputes% and then attempt to out9de-ate each other. But (ree)s and

rthodo Slas )eep the true faith and ino)e their proofs from +ol1 "rit.!

B1 5G58% in the same 1ear that the famous ,ie -rotherhood 4as founded% a colon1 of learned mon)s 4as in residence in the ,iean &onaster1 of the *aes% gathered there chiefl1

from 2o -1 the ne4 archimandrite and a--ot Elisei Pletenets)ii. 57 In 5G5= the Bala-an

printing press 55 4as -rought from Striatin to the monaster1% 4here it 4as put to immediateuse. The chief pu-lications 4ere liturgical -oo)s and the 4ritings of the 3athers% -ut other 4or)s

and authors also merit mention. 3irst of all there is the alua-le Slaonic9/)rainian 2eicon

L2e)si)on Slaeno9Rossis)ii i imen tol)oanieM compiled -1 Pamo ?Pamfil@ Ber1nda% a&oldaian% and printed in 5GF=.5F f the original 4or)s of the ,ie scholars% the most

interesting and significant is the Boo) of efense of the +ol1 *atholic Apostolic Ecumenical

*hurch LPalinodiiaM of a)harii ,op1stens)ii% 4ho in 5GF succeeded Pletenets)ii as a--ot of

the &onaster1 of the *aes. It 4as composed in repl1 to the /niate -oo)% efense of Encounter the /nit1 of the *hurch L-rono ednosci cer)ie4ne1% ?;ilna% 5G5=@M -1 2eo ,resa. 5

,op1stens)ii sought in his stud1 to elucidate the eastern understanding of the unit1 of the

*hurch and 4ith great artistr1 su-stantiated his argument -1 the Scriptures and the 3athers. 3rom

his Palinodiia and other 4ritings it is clear that ,op1stens)ii 4as a man of -road erudition. +e)ne4 the 3athers and 4as acCuainted 4ith B1$antine historians and canonists% as 4ell as modern

-oo)s on the East ?e.g.% *rusius' Tur)o9(raeciae@ and had also read some 2atin -oo)s ?e.g.% erepu-lica ecclesiastica -1 &arco Antonio de ominis and e Papa Romano -1 2u--ertus@.

,op1stens)ii > li)e &aim the (ree) -efore him > Cuietl1 and so-erl1 reected 4estern

scholasticism. It is plain that ,op1stens)ii )ne4 his material and had 4or)ed through it on hiso4n. +e 4as neither an imitator% nor simpl1 a factologist% -ut a creatie scholar in the B1$antine

mold. +is Palinodiia% the tas) of man1 1ears% is still a model of lucidit1. /nfortunatel1% it 4as not

pu-lished in his da1 and in fact not until the nineteenth centur1. ,op1stens)ii died soon after its

completion. +is successor at the &onaster1 of the *aes% Peter &ogila% 4as a man of Cuitedifferent temperament and persuasion. +e could hae had no s1mpath1 for ,op1stens)ii's -oo)%

for it 4as too direct and outspo)en.

Still another name to -e added to the list of earl1 ,iean scholars 4hose 4ritings 4eresignificant is that of 2arentii ?Tustanos)ii@ i$ani ?d. after 5GF=@. Before coming to ,ie% he

had taught in 2o and Brest% and had pu-lished in ;ilna in 58<G a Slaonic grammar and a

leis. nce in ,ie% i$ani turned his talents as a (ree) epert to the translation of St. Andre4 of *rete's *ommentar1 on the Apocal1pse 5 and to the superision of an edition of St. #ohn

*hr1sostom's homilies. But i$ani's main 4or) remains his *atechism L,ate)hi$isM. "hen

completed% the -oo) 4as sent to &osco4 for pu-lication. There it ran into difiiculties. 3irst it had

to -e translated from the “2ithuanian dialect! > as &uscoites denoted the literar1 language of "est Russia > into *hurch Slaonic. But the translation 4as poorl1 done. In addition%

authorities at &osco4 detected grae doctrinal errors in the -oo). i$ani% it seems% held a

num-er of peculiar opinions in all pro-a-ilit1 deried from his foreign sources: Protestant andRoman *atholic. +e himself escaped condemnation% -ut the printed ersion of his *atechism

4as 4ithdra4n from circulation and in 5GF=% -urned. +o4eer% copies in manuscript form did

surie and receied 4ide dissemination and popularit1. In the course of the eighteenth centur1the -oo) 4as thrice reprinted -1 the ld Belieers 58 of (rodno. i$ani% li)e Ber1nda%

,op1stens)ii and most of the earl1 ,ie scholars% 4or)ed primaril1 in (ree) and Slaonic

sources% and the 4ritings of these learned mon)s reflect an authentic cultural inspiration. But

een as the1 la-ored a ne4 tide 4as rising in that same ,iean milieu.

8



As the seenteenth centur1 unfolded% ,ie -egan to feel more and more the impact of

“2atin learning.! Ne4 generations 4ere of necessit1 turning to 4estern -oo)s and 4ith

increasing freCuenc1 attending #esuit schools% 4here% as if ineora-l1% the1 -ecame im-ued 4iththe 2atin pattern of stud1. Een Elisei Pletenets)ii% in his effort to counteract the /niate initiatie

of &etropolitan ;eliamin Ruts)ii% 5G seems to hae had a 4estern model in mind 4hen he

sought to create an “rthodo order.! /nder his direction% communal life at the &onaster1 of the*aes 4as restored% -ut on the rule of St. Basil rather than the more common Studite Rule. 5= A

“2atin motif “ can also -e noted in some of the -oo)s pu-lished at that time -1 certain mem-ers

of the circle at the &onaster1 of the *aes. n occasion this -ias filtered in through tainted(ree) sources0 at other times it entered directl1 from 2atin literature. Tarasii em)a% composer

of laudator1 erses and the learned editor of ,iean liturgical -oo)s% l6 made considera-le use

of the cele-rated 4or) of (a-riel Seerus on the sacraments% 4hich had appeared in ;enice in

5G77. 5< Seerus' -oo) 4as permeated -1 2atin influence% if onl1 in the phraseolog1 4hichem)a li-erall1 adopted. ?To ta)e an eample% 4here Seerus used “metaousiosis%! or the (ree)

eCuialent of “transu-stantiation%! em)a emplo1ed the Slaonic “prelo$henie suchchest! LHthe

metastasis of su-stancesHM@. The influence of 2atin thought is een more pronounced in ,irill

Tran)illion9Staroet9 s)ii. 57 +is -oo) &irror of Theolog1 Lertsalo -ogosloiiaM% pu-lishedat the Pochae &onaster1 in 5G56% can -e regarded as the first attempt -1 a ,ie scholar at a

theological s1stem. A su-seCuent stud1% *ommentaries on the (ospel L/chitel noe Eangelie% printed in 5G56M% is similarl1 concerned 4ith doctrine. Both 4or)s reflect Thomism% and een

something of Platonism. In ,ie and &osco4 the1 4ere censured for “heretical errors!

Leretiches)ie sosta1M and sentenced to destruction. But official reection did not hinder their spread in manuscripts or mitigate their -road acceptance in the south as 4ell as in the Russian

north. Een so% disappointed that his -oo)s 4ere repudiated -1 his ecclesiastical superiors%

Staroets)ii 4ent oer to the /nia.

Det another figure in 4hom a Thomist influence can -e seen is ,assian Sa)oich ?c. 58=695G=@% headmaster of the ,ie -rotherhood school from 5GF795GF. It is most transparent in his

n the soul L dusheM% printed in *raco4 in 5GF8. 3rom ,ie% Sa)oich 4ent to 2u-lin% 4here

he esta-lished contact 4ith the ominicans and attended theological classes. +e later continuedthis stud1 in *raco4. And finall1% Sa)oich% too% oined the /nia% after 4hich he launched a

irulent polemic against the rthodo *hurch. In this manner% then% in the second and third

decades of the seenteenth centur1 the Roman *atholic st1le of theolog1 -egan to penetrate intothe ,iean scholarl1 communit1. The net decade% the 5G7's% sa4 Roman *atholic domination.

The shift occurred simultaneousl1 4ith a change of administration at the ,ie &onaster1 of the

*aes% 4hen Peter &ogila -ecame a--ot.

/niatis$.

The /nia 4as less an act of religious choice than cultural and political self9determination.

Neither reasons of faith nor of doctrine 4ere fundamental to the secession of the -ishops. Theearl1 /niates 4ere Cuite sincere in contending that “the1 did not change the faith.! The1 felt the1

4ere onl1 transferring urisdictions and seem reall1 to hae -elieed that the “2atin faith! and

the “(ree) faith! 4ere identical. This aspect receied considera-le stress in their pamphlet

literature% for eample% in the /nia% or A Selection of Principal Articles L/nia% al-o 1)lad predneishi)h arHti)uloM% pu-lished anon1mousl1% -ut reputedl1 the 4or) of +1patius Pocie% l5

or in +armon1% or the *oncordance of the &ost +ol1 *hurch of Rome. 5F &an1 4ere eCuall1

coninced that under “Roman o-edience! the1 could still -e rthodo. (ree) /niates% too% felt

G



this 4a1 and made the most stri)ing attempts to argue the case. In particular this 4as so for Peter

Arcudius ?58GF95G@ in his e concordia Ecclesiae occidentalis in septem sacramentorum

administratione li-ri septem ?Paris% 5G5<@. 5 Een more nota-le 4as 2eo Allatius ?586G95GG<@in his e Ecclesiae occidentalis atCue orientalis parpetua consensione li-ri tres ?*oloniae% 5G6@.

5 Such a notion led to the stipulation in the final agreement that the /niate *hurch 4as not to

-e merged 4ith the Roman *atholic *hurch -ut 4ould retain its o4n hierarchical independenceand ritual. It 4as a clause accepta-le een to a man li)e stro$hs)ii. +e ended an opponent of

the /nia% not -ecause he perceied it to -e a -etra1al of faith% -ut -ecause he )ne4 the action

4as ta)en in an unla4ful manner and therefore could hae neither authorit1 nor releance for the4hole *hurch.

Those 4ho first turned to /niatism seem to hae -een tempted -1 “undistur-ed peace!

under Roman o-edience% 4hich -1 implication meant the protection of Polish la4. The1 also

hoped to li-erate themseles from the authorit1 of the patriarch of *onstantinople% long under thecontrol of the Infidel Tur). thers of the earl1 /niates 4ere more dra4n to the splendors of

4estern ciili$ation and 4ished to parta)e in its riches. And there 4as a certain disenchantment

4ith the East. ne of the founders of the /nia% +1patius Pocie% 4ho -ecame the second /niate

metropolitan% declared in a letter to the Patriarch of Aleandria &eletius Pigas: “Dou cannot -esure of attaining eternal life -1 heading for the (ree) shore. . . . The (ree)s distort the (ospel.

The1 malign and -etra1 the Patristic heritage. Saintliness is de-ased% and eer1thing has comeapart or fallen into discord in the Tur)ish captiit1. . . . *alin sits in Aleandria% instead of

Athanasius% 2uther in *onstantinople% and 4ingli in #erusalem! ?Presuma-l1 Pocie 4as

referring to *1ris 2ucaris and to Pigas himself% -oth of 4hom had Protestant leanings@. 58 Andso Pocie chose Rome. No longer 4as the “4ellspring of truth! Lstudenets prad1M in the East%

onl1 in the "est could a pure faith and a sta-le order -e found.

As earl1 as 58==% Peter S)arga 5G had pointed not to doctrinal differences -ut to the

“(ree) apostas1! and to the “-ac)4ardness of Slaic culture.! “"ith the Slaonic tongue onecannot -e a scholar. It has neither grammar nor rhetoric% nor can it -e gien an1. Because of this

language the rthodo hae no schools -e1ond the elementar1 4hich teach reading and 4riting.

+ence their general ignorance and confusion.! +is udgment is harsh and 4rong% though thenarro4mindedness it epresses is fairl1 t1pical of the time. +o4eer true it ma1 -e that the

Polish language 4as still not mature enough to sere as a ehicle of learning% the same cannot -e

said of *hurch Slaonic. S)arga 4as una4are of the difference% or he chose to ignore it. As heassessed the situation% the onl1 remed1 for the ignorance of the Slas 4as the adoption of 2atin

culture. +is attac) did not go unans4ered. rthodo defenders such as a)harii ,op1stens)ii

4ould repl1 that the Slaonic tongue is )in to the language and culture of (reece% “and therefore%

it is a safer and surer thing to ma)e translations from the (ree) and to 4rite philosoph1 andtheolog1 in Slaonic than it is to use 2atin% 4hich is an impoerished tongue% too inadeCuate and

too insufficient for loft1 and inoled theological matters.! 5= ,op1stens)ii eaggerates as

much as S)arga% onl1 4ith the o-erse. But the distinction the1 point to is a alid one.3rom the outset% then% /niatism 4as posed and perceied as a Cuestion of cultural

determination. 3or /nia implied% regardless of all assurances or guarantees that the rites and

customs of the East 4ould -e presered% an inclusion or integration into 4estern culture% or as the(ermans sa1% a 4estern ,ulturraum. To state it -adl1% /nia meant religio9cultural 4esterni$ation.

It could onl1 -e resisted and oercome -1 steadfast allegiance to the (ree) tradition. This 4as

full1 comprehended -1 those 4ho to4ard the end of the siteenth and the -eginning of the

seenteenth centuries rose to the defense of the rthodo *hurch. It is enough to mention the

=



eloCuent indication made -1 (erasim Smotrits)ii in his ,e1 to the ,ingdom f +eaen L,liuch

tsarsta ne-esnago% 586M% and -1 a)harii ,op1stens)ii in his Palinodiia seeral decades later.

Their concern 4as also shared -1 the founders of the -rotherhood school in ,ie:"e hae founded -1 the grace of (od this school for rthodo children% and hae proided

it at great sacrifice 4ith teachers of the Slaono9Russian and +elleno9(ree) languages% as 4ell

as of other su-ects% in order that the1 not drin) from the alien spring% and% haing im-i-ed thefatal poison of the schism of the "est% -e inclined to oin forces 4ith the dar) and dismal

Romans.

The onl1 cultural concession of the rthodo lo1alists 4as the supplementation of *hurchSlaonic 4ith the local ernacular% the russ)ii diale)t. "ith the passage of time this dialect came

into increasing literar1 use -ecause the common people understood it much -etter than *hurch

Slaonic. It also came into occasional use in the spo)en liturg1% or so it seems from the I.enten

Triodion% 4hich 4as printed in ,ie in 5GF=.56 Thus% as the /nia and its inherent4esterni$ation spread% a concerted effort arose in Poland to defend rthodo1. The issue no4 at

hand 4as 4hether% confronted -1 this epanding 4estern ,ulturraum% a Slaono9+ellenic school

and culture could surie. In the 5GF7's it 4as alread1 an urgent issue0 in the 5G7's it -ecame a

-urning one.

*etroolitan Peter *ogila of -iev.

In the person of Peter &ogila ?58<G95G=@ there is something enigmatic and strange. "as hea sincere champion of rthodo1 or a manipulatie hierarch of genius It is hard to udge.

"hateer the case% that he pla1ed a decisie role in the life of the "est Russian *hurch% and%

indirectl1% in the later life of the 4hole Russian *hurch is indisputa-le. +e 4as the most a-le and po4erful *hurch leader in Poland and 2ithuania in the 4hole of the seenteenth centur1. And it

is appropriate that an entire era in the histor1 of the "est Russian *hurch -ears his name: the

&ogila epoch. Son of a hospodar of &oldaia 4oeodich $emel' moldas)i)hM% 5< &ogilaseems to hae had from -irth an appetite and talent for po4er. Een on the throne of the ,iean

metropolia he proed more a soereign than a pastor. Educated in the "est% or% more eactl1% inPoland and in a Polish fashion% Peter &ogila -ecame in taste and ha-it a sophisticated andlifelong 4esterner. Apparentl1 he studied at the cele-rated Academ1 of amosc% founded in 58<

-1 #an amo1s)i% the (rand *hancellor of Poland% l87 and seems later to hae spent a short

4hile in +olland. /pon the death of his father% Ieremia &ogila% he 4as ta)en as the 4ard of

*hancellor Stanisla4 ol)ie4s)i 585 and after4ards of +etman *hod)ie4ic$. 58F In general4hile a 1outh &ogila% through famil1 and friends% 4as closel1 lin)ed to Polish aristocratic

societ1. And in the future the s1mpath1 and succor of Polish magnates 4ould assure his

ocational success.In 5GF=% at ust thirt1 1ears of age% Peter &ogila 4as elected archimandrite of the &onaster1

of the *aes. +e pro-a-l1 aspired to this 4hen he too) monastic o4s and first entered the

monaster1. *ertainl1 4hen the post -ecame acant his candidac1 4as promoted -1 the Polishgoernment. nce head of the monaster1% &ogila set his o4n course% 4hich sharpl1 contrasted

4ith that of his predecessor. This 4as most eident in the field of education. At the monaster1

&ogila decided to launch a 2atin9Polish school% ineita-l1 if not intentionall1 opposed to and in

competition 4ith ,ie's Slaono9+ellenic -rotherhood school. +is decision created great tension -ordering on a riot in the cit1. In the 4ords of a contemporar1% (ariil omets)oi% 58 “There

4as great indignation among the uneducated mon)s and *ossac)s: '"h1% as 4e 4ere gaining

salation% do 1ou start up this Polish and 2atin school% neer -efore in eistence' nl1 4ith

6



great difficult1 4ere the1 dissuaded from -eating Peter &ogila and his teaching staff to death.!

58 But &ogila 4as no man to -e frightened. +e emerged unscathed and soon after triumphed.

The -rotherhood had no choice -ut to accept him as “an elder -rother% a protector and patron of this hol1 -rotherhood% the monaster1% and the schools.! Pressing his adantage% &ogila first too)

oer the administration of the -rotherhood school and then com-ined it 4ith his o4n school at

the monaster1 to form a “collegium! on the 2atin9Polish pattern. This ne4 institution 4as housedin the Brotherhood monaster1. Its curriculum and organi$ation 4ere modelled on the lines of

#esuit schools in the countr1% and all ne4 teachers 4ere recruited from graduates of Polish

schools. Isaia Trofimoich ,o$los)ii% the first rector of the ,iean collegium% l88 and Silestr ,osso% the first prefect% receied their education in ;ilna% at the #esuit college in 2u-lin% and at

the amosc Academ1. It seems that for a 4hile the1 also studied at the Imperial Academ1 of

;ienna. In the same manner% and at the same time he 4as engaged in organi$ing the ne4 school

at ,ie% &ogila set a-out to form a school in ;innitsa. l8G There is reason to -eliee that &ogilahad plans for spreading across the region a net4or) of 2atin9Polish schools for the rthodo% as

4ell as for creating something li)e a monastic teaching order% all under the ,ie collegium. 58=

&ogila 4as an aid and resolute 4esterni$er. +is aim 4as to forge the heterogeneous

peoples of the 4estern regions into a single religious ps1cholog1 and inspiration% into a commonculture. Attending all his plans and endeaors% mostl1 -ut the s1mptom of a clash -et4een t4o

opposed religious cultural orientations ?2atin9Polish and +elleno9Slaonic@% 4as an intense% if su-merged struggle. &ogila 4as not alone in his proects. +is numerous allies included the

4hole of the 1ounger generation% 4hich% haing passed through Polish schools% had come to

regard the 2atin "est rather than the Slaonic9+ellenic East as its spiritual home. In a sense% this4as natural and logical. Silestr ,osso 4as eloCuent and direct on the issue. "e need 2atin% he

4ould sa1% so that no one can call us “stupid Rus! Lglupaia Rus'M. To stud1 (ree) is reasona-le% if

one studies it in (reece% not in Poland. +ere no one can succeed 4ithout 2atin > in court% at

meetings% or an14here for that matter. There is no need to remind us of (ree). "e honor it. But(raeca ad chorum% 2atina ad forum. ,osso's argument has logic. But the root of the matter 4as

deeper. At one leel it 4as a linguistic pro-lem% -ut at a more profound leel it 4as an issue of

cultural setting and tradition.3or those opposed to the pressures -1 &ogila's follo4ers for a 2atin education there 4ere

good reasons for the suspicion that this 4as /niatism. "ere not the rthodo partisans of a 2atin

orientation time and again in conference or negotiation 4ith actie /niates% anticipating acompromise to 4hich -oth sides could 4holeheartedl1 adhere id the1 not more than once

discuss a proposal to oin all rthodo -elieers in the region% /niates and non9/niates ali)e%

under the authorit1 of a special "est Russian patriarch% simultaneousl1 in communion 4ith

Rome and *onstantinople And 4as not &ogila himself al4a1s promoted for this august office -1 the /niate side of the tal)s This 4as% of course% hardl1 4ithout his )no4ledge. Ruts)ii% the

/niate metropolitan% did not dou-t for a moment that &ogila 4as “inclined to the /nia.! It is

certainl1 significant that &ogila neer oiced doctrinal o-ections to Rome. In dogma% he 4as priatel1% so to spea)% alread1 at one 4ith the +ol1 See. +e 4as Cuite read1 to accept 4hat he

found in Roman -oo)s as traditional and “rthodo.! That is 4h1 in theolog1 and in 4orship

&ogila could freel1 adopt 2atin material. The pro-lem for him% the onl1 pro-lem% 4as urisdiction. And in the solution of this pro-lem his outloo) and temperament dictated that

practical concerns 4ould -e decisie: ecclesiastical and political “tranCuilit1! Luspo)oenieM%

“prosperit1! L-lagosostoianieM% “good order! L-lagoustroistoM. 3or in the practical realm

<



hardl1 hae done so. Smotrits)ii's increasing empath1 4ith the /nia had -een of interest to

&ogila for some time% and there 4ere reasons for Smotrits)ii to suspect that his /nia plans

4ould hae the s1mpath1 and cooperation not onl1 of &ogila -ut of the metropolitan as 4ell."hat disagreement there 4as -et4een &ogila and Smotrits)ii 4as not a-out ends -ut means.

And the entire episode 4as all the more confused -1 an eternal pressure% referred to in /niate

literature as “the fear of the *ossac)s.!Peter &ogila's election as metropolitan of ,ie also transpired under peculiar

circumstances. "ith the death of ,ing Sigismund III% the rthodo% in April% 5GF% sei$ed the

occasion of the election of a ne4 )ing to 4rest from the Polish electoral iet certain “points of pacification for the (ree) religion! LPun)t1 uspo)oeniia religii greches)oiM% among them

legali$ation of the rthodo *hurch. As epected% the consent of ,ing9elect "lad1sla4 I;

rapidl1 follo4ed. espite a su-seCuent 4hittling do4n of the “points of 5GF%! in practice% the

ictor1 remained. Though its phrasing 4as patentl1 am-iguous% of particular importance 4as theright of the rthodo to fill their acated sees% including that of ,ie. In fact the sees had all

-een occupied since 5GF7 through the consecrations performed 4ithout announcement or

pu-licit1 -1 Patriarch Theophanes. The consecrations 4ere done at night in an unlighted

sanctuar1% as if -1 stealth% so as not to cause an1 distur-ance. These consecrations% of course% hadneer receied official recognition% -ut the Polish State seems to hae come to terms 4ith the fait

accompli% if onl1 -ecause it could hardl1 aoid dealing 4ith the ne4 -ishops. No4 in 5GF% 4iththe ne4 legal concession% it 4ould -e reasona-le to epect that 4hat 4as de facto 4ould -e made

de ure. But nothing of this sort occurred. The rthodo themseles% strangel1 enough% made no

attempt to ta)e adantage of the ne4 la4 -1 appl1ing for ro1al confirmation of their actiehierarch1. It 4as decided instead that all the old -ishops should retire and their -ishoprics -e

turned oer to ne4 elects. This 4as not done -ecause the episcopal occupants 4ere in an1 4a1

considered to -e “illegal%! that is% in office 4ithout the confirmation of the *ro4n% nor -ecause

the *hurch udged them to -e of Cuestiona-le merit. Indeed% the1 could -e credited 4ith haingrestored -oth order and canonical prestige to the *hurch in a time of real and present danger. It

4as simpl1 that% although the old -ishops ma1 hae pla1ed a preponderant role in the protracted

struggle 4ith the state in order to o-tain recognition% the ictor1 itself 4as the 4or) of 1ounger figures% partisans of a ne4 and opposing ecclesiastical9political orientation% 4ho had little

interest in strengthening the hierarchical authorit1 of their antagonists -1 a formal legali$ation.

*onseCuentl1% 4hat on the -asis of the “points of 5GF! had -een touted as a “restitution! of therthodo hierarch1% 4as in realit1 an annulment of the eisting hierarch1% esta-lished 1ears

earlier -1 Patriarch Theophanes. Ne4 -ishops 4ere no4 hastil1 and uncanonicall1 chosen -1 the

rthodo delegates to the iet rather than -1 local diocesan conentions and immediatel1

confirmed -1 the ,ing. It 4as in this 4a1 that Peter &ogila% aristocrat and Polonophile% 4aselected metropolitan of ,ie.

&ogila did not epect a peaceful reception in ,ie in his ne4 capacit1% een though he had

man1 s1mpathi$ers there. ,ie alread1 had a metropolitan% Isaia ,opins)ii% consecrated in 5GF7in Perem1shl -1 Theophanes and then translated to ,ie in 5G5 at the death of Io Borets)ii.

"hat is more% ,opins)ii had alread1 clashed 4ith &ogila oer the esta-lishment of a 2atin

collegium in ,ie as 4ell as in connection 4ith the Smotrits)ii affair. This is 4h1 &ogila'sconsecration too) place not in the cit1 of his ne4 see as 4as the rule and custom% -ut in 2o% at

the hands of Ieremia Tisaros)ii% the local -ishop% lG t4o -ishops of Theophanes' consecration%

and an emigre (ree) -ishop. These clashes also eplain 4h1 he sought patriarchal confirmation

from *1ril 2ucaris% 4ho 4as once again on the ecumenical throne. &ogila receied this and

85



E)hologion or Tre-ni) LPra1er Boo)M .5G< This consisted of a comprehensie collection of

rites% offices% and occasional pra1ers% accompanied -1 “prefaces! and “eplanator1 ru-rics%!

4hich 4ere accompanied -1 eplanator1 articles usuall1 ta)en “$ lacins)ie1 agend1%! that is%from the Roman Ritual of Pope Paul ;. l=7 &an1 of the rites in the Tre-ni) had -een reshaped%

usuall1 -1 replacing traditional pra1ers 4ith pra1ers translated from the 2atin. There has -een no

comprehensie stud1 of &ogila's Tre-ni)% -ut those portions 4hich hae -een anal1$ed -etra1an unmista)a-le dependenc1 on the 2atin sources% and from time to time a deli-erate deiation

from the (ree) pattern ?e.g.% in the forms for the dedication and consecration of churches% in the

-lessing of -ells% in the rite of “iaticum%! 5=5 in the ordo commendationis ad animae . . .@. 5=F No dou-t some of the changes 4ere inconseCuential. "hat cannot -e dismissed% ho4eer% is the

close attention gien to 2atin rites and regulations and the open disregard of the (ree) tradition.

&oreoer% a num-er of the rites and offices printed in the Tre-ni) 4ere totall1 innoatie for

rthodo liturgies. 3inall1% some of the changes introduced -1 &ogila -ore theologicalimplications of importance% as for eample% the shift from the declaratie to the imperatie form

of a-solution in the sacrament of Penance. Indeed% as a 4hole the theolog1 of the sacraments

articulated in &ogila's liturgical “prefaces! 4as decidedl1 4estern. "hat resulted from the

Tre-ni)% then% 4as a radical and thorough “2atini$ation! of the Eastern rite. This did not escapethe notice of contemporaries% especiall1 the /niates% -ut also the rthodo of &osco4% 4ho

regarded -oo)s of “2ithuanian print%! including the ,ie editions of &ogila% 4ith suspicion andapprehension. Ironicall1% -ecause of the liturgical 4or) of &ogila and his co9la-orers% the

rthodo in Poland eperienced a “2atini$ation of rites! earlier than did the /niates. In fairness

it should -e noted that &ogila 4as not the first of the rthodo in ,ie to -orro4 from 2atinliturgical sources. Io Borets)ii too) steps in this direction% as for eample% in the 2enten rite of

“Passias.! 5= Nor 4as &ogila the originator of that process of cultural a-sorption of 2atin

liturgical ideas and motifs. thers preceded him. Still in this trend to4ard the “2atini$ation! of

the liturg1 &ogila stands 4ell to the fore -ecause he promoted it on a larger scale and mores1stematicall1 than an1one else.

To interpret the reign of Peter &ogila 4ith precision is difficult. It has -een argued that

&ogila sought to create an “occidental rthodo1%! and there-1 to disentangle rthodo1 fromits “o-solete! oriental setting. The notion is plausi-le. But ho4eer &ogila's moties are

interpreted% his legac1 is an am-iguous one. n the one hand% he 4as a great man 4ho

accomplished a great deal. And in his o4n 4a1 he 4as een deout. /nder his guidance and rulethe rthodo *hurch in "est Russia emerged from that state of disorientation and

disorgani$ation 4herein it had languished eer since the catastrophe at Brest. n the other hand%

the *hurch he led out of this ordeal 4as not the same. *hange ran deep. There 4as a ne4 and

alien spirit% the 2atin spirit in eer1thing. Thus% &ogila's legac1 also includes a drastic“Romani$ation! of the rthodo *hurch. +e -rought rthodo1 to 4hat might -e called a 2atin

“pseudomorphosis.! True% he found the *hurch in ruins and had to re-uild% -ut he -uilt a foreign

edifice on the ruins. +e founded a Roman *atholic school in the *hurch% and for generations therthodo clerg1 4as raised in a Roman *atholic spirit and taught theolog1 in 2atin. +e

“Romani$ed! the liturgies and there-1 “2atini$ed! the mentalit1 and ps1cholog1% the er1 soul

of the rthodo people. &ogila's “internal toin%! so to spea)% 4as far more dangerous than the/nia. The /nia could -e resisted% and had -een resisted% especiall1 4hen there 4ere efforts to

enforce it. But &ogila's “cr1pto9Romanism! entered silentl1 and impercepti-l1% 4ith almost no

resistance. It has of course often -een said that &ogila's “accretions! 4ere onl1 eternal%

inoling form not su-stance. This ignores the truth that form shapes su-stance% and if an

8



unsuita-le form does not distort su-stance% it preents its natural gro4th. This is the meaning of

“pseudomorphosis.! Assuming a Roman gar- 4as an alien act for orthodo1. And the

paradoical character of the 4hole situation 4as onl1 increased 4hen% along 4ith the stead1“2atini$ation! of the inner life of the *hurch% its canonical autonom1 4as steadfastl1 maintained.

"hile striing to )eep the rthodo *hurch in Poland independent% &ogila and his

confreres of the ne4 orientation )ept to their plans for a “uniersal union.! As earl1 as 5GG% a oint conference 4as sought -et4een /niates and rthodo to consider a proposal for an

autonomous "est Russian patriarchate. Rome 4as een assured that the scheme 4ould attract

man1 rthodo% including perhaps the metropolitan. But for some reason the conference neer materiali$ed. Det another proect 4as adanced in 5G% this time in a special memorandum

su-mitted -1 Peter &ogila. It is )no4n to us onl1 in the paraphrase of Ingoli% secretar1 to the

ffice of Propaganda. 5= &ogila's memorandum apparentl1 consisted of a length1 discussion

of the diergences -et4een the t4o churches% the conditions he -elieed necessar1 for reunion%and an outline of the means to achiee them. &ogila did not see an1 insurmounta-le differences

of doctrine. 3ilioCue and per filium aried onl1 in the phrasing. "hat diergence there 4as on

purgator1 4as een less conseCuential% since the rthodo did in some form ac)no4ledge it. In

ritual% too% agreement on all points 4as readil1 possi-le. The onl1 serious difficult1 4as papalsupremac1. Een if this 4ere to -e accepted -1 the rthodo% &ogila stipulated% the eastern

churches must still -e allo4ed the principle of autocephalous patriarchates. It appears &ogila4as 4illing to limit the “reunion! to Poland: he did not mention &usco1% or the (ree)s -ound

in Tur)ish captiit1. Nor did he see) a merger: l'unione e non l'unite. 3or een under the

supremac1 of the pope the rthodo 4ere to retain their constitution. The metropolitan 4as stillto -e elected -1 the -ishops% and although it 4ould -e epected that he ta)e an oath of allegiance

to the pope% his election 4ould not reCuire papal confirmation. In the eent that the ecumenical

patriarchate should unite 4ith Rome% its urisdiction in Poland 4as to -e restored. The last

section of &ogila's memorandum set out the means -1 4hich the ne4 plan of union should -eeamined and deli-erated. 3irst it should -e su-mitted to local and proincial diets for their

discussion. Net% a conference ought to -e arranged -et4een the /niates and the rthodo%

4ithout% ho4eer% an1 reference to a perspectie union. The findings o-tained at these preliminar1 meetings should then -e su-mitted to the general iet of the realm. +o4eer

ela-orate% as 4ith the proect of 5GG% nothing came of &ogila's reunion memorandum of 5G.

And a fe4 1ears later he died [email protected] &ogila's attitude to the pro-lems of the Roman *atholic *hurch 4as clear and simple.

+e did not see an1 real difference -et4een rthodo1 and Rome. +e 4as coninced of the

importance of canonical independence% -ut perceied no threat from inner “2atini$ation.!

Indeed% he 4elcomed it and promoted it in some respect for the er1 sa)e of securing the*hurch's eternal independence. Since &ogila sought to accomplish this 4ithin an undiided

“unierse of culture%! the parado 4as onl1 further heightened. /nder such conditions%

rthodo1 lost its inner independence us 4ell as its measuring rod of self9eamination. "ithoutthought or scrutin1% as if -1 ha-it% 4estern criteria of ealuation 4ere adopted. At the same time

lin)s 4ith the traditions and methods of the East 4ere -ro)en. But 4as not the cost too high

*ould the rthodo in Poland trul1 afford to isolate themseles from *onstantinople and&osco4 "as not the scope of ision impracticall1 narro4 id not the rupture 4ith the eastern

part result in the grafting on of an alien and% artificial tradition 4hich 4ould ineita-l1 -loc) the

path of creatie deelopment It 4ould -e unfair to place all -lame for this on &ogila. The

process of “2atini$ation! -egan long -efore he came on the scene. +e 4as less the pioneer of a

8



ne4 path than an articulator of his time. Det Peter &ogila contri-uted more than an1 other% as

organi$er% educator% liturgical reformer% and inspirer of the rthodo *onfession% to the

entrenchment of “cr1pto9Romanism! in the life of the "est Russian *hurch. 3rom here it 4astransported to &osco4 in the seenteenth centur1 -1 ,iean scholars and in the eighteenth

centur1 -1 -ishops of 4estern origin and training.

The ,rthodo+ Confession.

The rthodo *onfession is the most significant and epressie document of the &ogila

era. Its importance is not limited to the histor1 of the "est Russian *hurch% since it -ecame a

confession of faith for the Eastern *hurch ?though onl1 after a struggle% and its authoritatiecharacter is still open to Cuestion@. "ho the author or the editor of the *onfession reall1 4as

remains uncertain. It is usuall1 attri-uted to Peter &ogila or Isaia ,o$los)ii. 5=8 &ore than

li)el1 it 4as a collectie 4or)% 4ith &ogila and arious mem-ers of his circle sharing in thecomposition. The eact purpose of the *onfession also remains unclear. riginall1 conceied as

a “catechism%! and often called one% it seems to hae -een intended as a clarification of the

rthodo faith in relation to the Protestants. In fact% it is no4 4idel1 assumed that &ogila's

*onfession 4as prepared as a reoinder to the *onfession of *1ril 2ucaris% 4hich appeared in5G and 4hose pro9*alinist leanings stirred disCuiet and confusion in the 4hole rthodo

4orld. In 5G6 > after certain collusion and pressure from ,ome > -oth 2ucaris and his

*onfession 4ere condemned -1 a s1nod in *onstantinople. 5=G These eents ma1 eplain 4h14hen &ogila's *onfession came out the (ree) *hurch 4as dra4n to it and% after editing -1

S1rigos% 5== conferred on it the *hurch's authorit1.

The first pu-lic appearance of the rthodo *onfession came in 5G7% 4hen Peter &ogilasu-mitted it to a *hurch council in ,ie for discussion and endorsement. Its original title%

Eposition of the 3aith of the rthodo *hurch in 2ittle Russia% indicates the limited scope

intended for the document. Primaril1 aimed at theologians and those 4ho 4ere concerned 4iththeolog1% the *onfession 4as composed in 2atin. The council in ,ie critici$ed the draft at a

num-er of points. iergent ie4s 4ere oiced a-out the origin of the soul and its destin1 after death% particularl1 in regard to purgator1 and “an earthl1 paradise.! 5=6 +ere &ogila had arguedfor creationism 5=< as 4ell as for the eistence of purgator1. The council in ,ie also engaged in

an etended discussion as to 4hen the actual metastasis of the elements occurs in the Eucharistic

liturg1. Before it concluded% the council introduced certain amendments into the *onfession. The

document 4as again su-ected to open discussion in 5GF at 4hat has -een referred to as acouncil% -ut 4hat 4as in fact a conference in Iasi% conened% so it seems% on the initiatie of

&ogila's friend% the &oldaian prince% Basil% surnamed 2upul% the "olf. 567 In attendance 4ere

t4o representaties of the ecumenical patriarchate% -oth sent from *onstantinople 4ith the titleof earch% &eletios S1rigos% one of the most remar)a-le (ree) theologians of the seenteenth

centur1% and Porph1rius% metropolitan of Nicea% l65 as 4ell as seeral &oldaian -ishops%

including &etropolitan ;arlaam% 56F and three delegates from ,ie > Isaia ,o$los)ii% Ignatii)senoich% 56 and Ioasaf ,ononoich. 56 &eletios S1rigos too) the leading role. S1rigos

raised a num-er of o-ections to the *onfession% and 4hen translating it into (ree) introduced

arious amendments. &ost of his changes 4ere actuall1 st1listic. +e chose% for eample% to

eliminate certain Scriptural Cuotations used in the draft. &ogila had follo4ed the 2atin ;ulgate%4hich meant that some of his citations 4ere either not in the Septuagint or 4ere so differentl1

phrased that to retain them 4ould hae made the *onfession highl1 inappropriate for rthodo

-elieers.

88



&ogila 4as not satisfied 4ith the *onfession as amended -1 S1rigos. +e decided not to

print it% and in its place he pu-lished simultaneousl1 in ,ie a /)rainian *hurch Slaonic

translation and a Polish ersion% the so9called Brief *atechism L&al1i)ate)hi$is% 5G8M .568nl1 a fe4 of the changes proposed -1 S1rigos for the *onfession 4ere adopted in the Brief

*atechism. &oreoer% it 4as intended for a different audience% “for the instruction of 1oung

people%! LHdla c4ic$enia &lod$iHM% 4hich is 4h1 it 4as first composed in colloCuial language. In5G< &ogila's Brief *atechism 4as translated from the /)rainian *hurch Slaonic into

“Slaonic9Russian! and pu-lished in &osco4. In the meantime% the histor1 of S1rigos' reised

(ree) ersion of the rthodo *onfession -egan a ne4 chapter. In 5G it 4as officiall1endorsed -1 the four eastern patriarchs. +o4eer% since the (ree) *hurch sho4ed little interest

in pu-lishing it% the first (ree) edition appeared onl1 in 5G<8. 3rom this latter edition% a

Slaonic9Russian translation 4as made and pu-lished in 5G<G at the reCuest of &etropolitan

;arlaam Iasins)ii of ,ie l6G 4ith the -lessing of Patriarch Adrian. 56= This 4as almost a half centur1 after the Brief *atechism had -een pu-lished in &osco4. 566

&ogila's *onfession% in complete contrast to 2ucaris' Protestant oriented *onfession% 4as

patentl1 compiled from 2atin sources. As the plan of the -oo) -etra1s% its arrangement 4as also

on the 2atin pattern. It 4as diided according to the so9called “three theological irtues%! 3aith%+ope% and *harit1. Belief 4as elucidated through an interpretation of the *reed. Ethics 4ere

epounded -1 means of commentaries on the 2ord's Pra1er% the Beatitudes% and the ecalogue.f course the compilers had more than one 2atin paradigm -efore them. The most o-ious

source 4as the *atechismus Romanus%56< 4hich first appeared in (ree) translation in 586F.

thers seem to hae -een the pus *atechisticum% sie Summa doctrinae christianae of Peter *anisius% S.#.% 5<7 the *ompendium doctrinae christianae ?illingen% 58G7@ -1 the ominican

Petrus de Soto%l<5 and the isputationes de controersiis christianae fidei adersus huus

temporis haereticos ?Rome% 58659<@ of *ardinal Ro-ert Bellarmine ?58F95GF5@. 5<F To cite

further 2atin sources is unnecessar1. The main point is that ta)en as a 4hole the rthodo*onfession is little more than a compilation or adaptation of 2atin material% presented in a 2atin

st1le. Indeed% &ogila's *onfession can ustl1 -e categori$ed as one of the man1 anti9Protestant

epositions% 4hich appeared through out Europe during the *ounter Reformation or BaroCue era.*ertainl1 the *onfession 4as more closel1 lin)ed to the Roman *atholic literature of its da1 than

to either traditional or contemporar1 spiritual life in the Eastern *hurch.

It is true that in &ogila's *onfession )e1 Roman doctrines% including the primac1 of the pope% are repudiated. Neertheless% much of the su-stance and the 4hole of the st1le remain

Roman% and not een S1rigos' editing at Iasi could alter that fact. After all% as 4as customar1 for

(ree)s in the seenteenth centur1% S1rigos had gone to a 2atin school. +e attended Padua% 4here

he -ecame an adherent of Bellarmine% or% as his contemporaries said of him% “omninoBellarminum spirare idetur.! This is not said to argue that the teaching of the rthodo

*onfession 4as at certain points in error. It 4as not so much the doctrine% -ut the manner of

presentation that 4as% so to spea)% erroneous% particularl1 the choice of language and thetendenc1 to emplo1 an1 and all Roman 4eapons against the Protestants een 4hen not consonant

in full or in part 4ith rthodo presuppositions. And it is here that the chief danger of &ogila's

2atin “pseudomorphosis! or “cr1pto9Romanism! surfaces. The impression is created thatrthodo1 is no more than a purified or refined ersion of Roman *atholicism. This ie4 can -e

stated Cuite succinctl1: “2et us omit or remoe certain controersial issues% and the rest of the

Roman theological s1stem 4ill -e rthodo.! Admittedl1% in some 4a1s this is true. But the

theological corpus that is there-1 o-tained lac)s or sorel1 reduces the natie genius and the ethos

8G



of the eastern theological tradition. &ogila's “cr1pto9Romanism%! in spite of its general

faithfulness to rthodo forms% 4as for a long time to -ar the 4a1 to an1 spontaneous and

genuine theological deelopment in the East.It is instructie from this same point of ie4 to compare the rthodo *onfession 4ith the

theological 4or)s of Silestr ,osso% &ogila's follo4er and successor as metropolitan of ,ie.

+is Eegesis LE)$ege$isM pu-lished in 5G8 sought to indicate the ne4 2atin schools 4hich&ogila organi$ed for the rthodo. +is Instruction% or Science of the Seen Sacraments

Lidas)alia al-o nau)a o sedmi sa)ramenta)h% 5G=M 4as an attempt to ans4er the charges of

Protestantism leeled against him -1 his Roman opponents. ,osso% it is important to note% choseto respond to these critics in the language of 2atin theolog1. This is particularl1 eident in that

portion of his -oo) deoted to the sacraments% 4hich closel1 follo4s the 4ell9)no4n treatise of

Peter Arcudius. 5< 2atin terminolog1 a-ounds in his 4or): “transu-stantiation “ the distinction

-et4een “form! and “matter%! the “4ords of institution! as the “form! of the sacrament of theEucharist% “contrition! as the “matter! of Penance% and others. Since liturgical practice

organicall1 follo4s liturgical theolog1% it -ecame necessar1 for the rthodo of the ne4

orientation to ma)e alterations in the rites. Peter &ogila's Tre-ni) permanentl1 esta-lished a

num-er of those changes% 4hich had deeloped in practice as 4ell. It also introduced certain ne4ones. 3or eample% in the sacrament of *onfession the formula for a-solution 4as changed from

the impersonal “1our sins are forgien 1ou! Lgre)hi toi otpushchaiutsiaM to the personal “and I%un4orth1 priest! Li a$% nedostoin1iiereiM. It is also at this time that the sacrament of anointing of

the sic) LeuchelationM came to -e interpreted as ultima unctio% and to -e used as a form of

iaticum% 4hereas preiousl1 the eastern tradition had al4a1s regarded it as a sacrament of healing. 5< "ith the net generation in ,ie% 2atin influences on religious thought and practice

4ere to intensif1 and epand in a more s1stematic manner.

The -iev Acade$y.

uring the lifetime of Peter &ogila% the ,ie collegium 4as still not a theological school.

The charter% granted on &arch 56% 5G8% -1 ,ing "lad1sla4 N% made it a condition that teachingin the collegia should -e limited to philosoph1 ?Hut humaniora non ultra ialecticam et 2ogicamdoceant!@. nl1 to4ards the end of the seenteenth centur1% 4ith the introduction of a special

“theological class! into the curriculum% 4as theolog1 taught as a separate discipline. Some

pro-lems of theolog1% ho4eer% 4ere treated in courses in philosoph1. At the ,ie collegium the

general plan of education 4as adopted from the #esuit school s1stem. This included thecurriculum do4n to the leel of een tet-oo)s. The tets -egan 4ith Alarius grammar l<8 and

ended 4ith Aristotle and ACuinas. Also similar to the #esuit collegia and academies in Poland

4ere the organi$ation of school life% the teaching methods% and the discipline. The language of instruction 4as 2atin% and of all other su-ects offered (ree) 4as gien lo4est priorit1. Thus in

practicall1 eer1 respect the ,ie collegium represents a radical -rea) 4ith the traditions of

earlier schools in "est Russia. Though it does seem that the school furnished an adeCuate preparation for life in Poland% its students 4ere hardl1 initiated into the heritage of the rthodo

East. Scholasticism 4as the focus of teaching. And it 4as not simpl1 the ideas of indiidual

scholastics that 4ere epounded and assimilated% -ut the er1 spirit of scholasticism. f course

this 4as not the scholasticism of the &iddle Ages. It 4as rather the neo9scholasticism or pseudo9scholasticism of the *ouncil of Trent. 5<G It 4as the BaroCue theolog1 of the *ounter9

Reformation Age. This does not mean that the intellectual hori$on of a seenteenth centur1

scholar in ,ie 4as narro4. +is erudition could -e Cuite etensie. Students of that era read a

8=



-irds% reptiles% fish% trees% her-s% stones% and the arious 4aters 4hich are to -e found in the seas%

riers% and springs% o-sere their nature% properties% and distinctie features% notice all this and

use it in the speech 4hich 1ou 4ish to ma)e.! f course all pu-lic discourse in his da1 sufferedfrom -i$arre analogies and an oera-undance of illustration. Een -efore the oratorical st1le of

,ie had reached this )ind of etreme% &eletii Smotrits)ii ridiculed the ha-it rthodo

preachers had for imitating 2atin9Polish homiletics. “ne enters the pulpit 4ith ssorius% F75another 4ith 3a-ricius% F7F and a third 4ith S)arga%! F7 he said% referring to the fashiona-le

Polish preachers of the da1. +e could also hae named Tomas$ &lod$iano4s)i% F7 a siteenth

centur1 preacher of 4ide acclaim% 4ho 4as the most imitated and grotesCue of all. None of this4as reall1 genuine preaching. It 4as much more an eercise in rhetorics Cuite suited to the

preailing taste. Still% een 4hile engaged in such er-al ecesses% (oliatos)ii and others li)e

him staunchl1 opposed #esuit polemists% and at length refuted their ie4s on papal authorit1% the

3ilioCue% and arious other issues. But (oliatos)ii's cast of mind% as 4ell as his theological andsemantic st1le of argument% remained thoroughl1 Roman.

The tenor of strained artificialit1 is een stronger in the 4ritings of 2a$ar Baranoich% 4ho

4as rector at the ,ie collegium from 5G87 to 5G86 and then arch-ishop of *hernigo. F78 A

-rae opponent of #esuit propaganda% he did not hesitate to ta)e on su-ects of the greatestcontroers1% as is eident in his Ne4 &easure of the ld 3aith LNo4a miara stare1 "iar1% 5G=GM.

But once again the manner of epression and the mode of thought are t1pical of Polish BaroCue.Baranoich een 4rote in Polish% filling his 4or)s 4ith fa-les% “an a-undance of 4itticisms and

puns%! ests% “conceits and er-al gems.! “In those da1s%! of course% as has -een noted% “it 4as

considered appropriate to mi sacred traditions of the *hurch 4ith m1thological tales.! Detanother ,iean scholar of this ariet1 4as Antonii Radiillos)ii. F7G All of his homilies

Lpredi)iM and sermons L)a$aniiaM 4ere modelled on 2atin eamples. And his -oo)% The (arden of

&ar1% &other of (od Lgorodo) &arii Bogorodits1% 5G=GM 4ell illustrates the highl1 allegorical

and rhetorical 2atin st1le eercised on &arian themes common to that era.f a some4hat different mold than these ,iean scholars 4as Adam erni)a of *hernigo.

+e deseres mention -ecause of his special place in the ran)s of religious leaders at that time in

the south of Russia. Born in ,onigs-erg% and trained in Protestant schools% erni)a came torthodo1 through scholarl1 stud1 of the earl1 *hristian tradition. F7= After a long period in the

"est% primaril1 in stud1 at ford and 2ondon% he turned up in *hernigo. There he made his

mar) as the author of the treatise% e processione Spiritus Sancti% 4hich after its -elated pu-lication in 2eip$ig in 5==95==G -1 Samuil &islas)ii% &etropolitan of ,ie% F76 gained him

4ide reno4n. It appears to hae -een erni)a's onl1 4or)% -ut it is the 4or) of a lifetime. There

is manifested in it an enormous erudition and a great gift for theological anal1sis. To this da1

erni)a's 4or) remains a s)illful compilation of alua-le materials% one of the mostcomprehensie studies on the su-ect eer made. It still deseres to -e read.

The t4o most outstanding eamples of ,iean learning in the late seenteeth centur1 4ere

Saint imitrii ?Tuptalo% 5G8595=7<@ and Stefan Iaors)ii% though to -e sure their religiousimportance is not confined to the histor1 of ,iean theolog1. Each pla1ed a large part in the

histor1 of (reat Russian theolog1. Neertheless% -oth figures are Cuite representatie of the later

1ears of the &ogila epoch. imitrii% 4ho -ecame -ishop of Rosto after his moe to the north% isfamous for his 4or) in the field of hagiograph1. +ere his main 4or) 4as his -oo) of saints' lies%

The Reading *ompendium ?*het i9&inei% 5G6<95=78@. Based for the most part on 4estern

sources% the -ul) of the 4or) is ta)en from the reno4ned seen olume collection of 2aurentius

Surius%F7< ;itae sanctorum rientis et ccidentis% ?58G9586G% itself actuall1 a re4or)ing into

8<



to the ran) of “Academ1! in 5=75@ 4as een referred to semi9officiall1 as the “Academia

&ogiliano &a$epiana.! But its clima 4as also the end. The flo4ering 4as also an epilogue.

Pro-a-l1 the most representatie figure of this final chapter in the &ogila era in ,ieanintellectual histor1 4as Ioasaf ,ro)os)ii ?d. 5=56@% reformer% or een second founder% of the

,iean school. 3or a time he sered as its rector and later he -ecame metropolitan of ,ie. &ore

than an1 other figure he seems to ehi-it in religious actiit1 and intellectual outloo) all theam-iguities and contradictions of ,ie's cultural “pseudomorphosis: Educated at the (ree)

*ollege of St. Athanasius in Rome% ,ro)os)ii for the rest of his life 4as to retain the

theological set of mind% religious conictions% and deotional ha-its he acCuired there. At ,ie%he taught theolog1 according to ACuinas and centered his deotional life > as 4as characteristic

of the BaroCue era > on the praise of the Blessed ;irgin of the Immaculate *onception. It 4as

under his rectorship that the student “congregations! of the ,ie Academ1 )no4n as &arian

Sodalities arose% in 4hich mem-ers had to dedicate their lies “to the ;irgin &ar1% conceied4ithout original sin! ?H;irgini &ariae sine la-e originali conceptae!@ and ta)e an oath to preach

and defend against heretics that “&ar1 4as not onl1 4ithout actual sin% enal or mortal% -ut also

free from original sin%! although adding that “those 4ho regard her as conceied in original sin

are not to -e classed as heretics.! F56 ,ro)os)ii's acceptance of the Immaculate *onceptionand his propagation of the doctrine at ,ie 4as no more than the consolidation of a tradition that

for some time in the seenteenth centur1 had -een forming among arious representaties of ,iean theolog1% including St. imitrii of Rosto. And in this realm% too% it 4as -ut an imitation

or -orro4ing from Roman thought and practice. The gro4ing idea of the Immaculate *onception

of the ;irgin &ar1 4as intellectuall1 lin)ed 4ith an eoling trend in the interpretation of riginal Sin% -ut% more profoundl1% it 4as rooted in a specific ps1cholog1 and attitude

deeloping historicall1 4ithin the -osom of the 4estern BaroCue. The eneration of Panagia and

Theoto)os -1 the rthodo is -1 no means the same. F5< It is grounded in a spiritual soil of an

altogether different )ind.Although the /)rainian BaroCue came to an end during the earl1 eighteenth centur1% its

traces hae not full1 anished. Perhaps its most enduring legac1 is a certain lac) of so-riet1% an

ecess of emotionalism or head1 ealtation present in /)rainian spiritualit1 arid religiousthought. It could -e classified as a particular form of religious romanticism. +istoricall1 this

found partial epression in numerous deout and edif1ing -oo)s% mostl1 half9-orro4ed% 4hich at

the end of the seenteenth and the -eginning of the eighteenth centuries 4ere coming out in,ie% *hernigo% and other cities of South Russia. Interesting parallels to these literar1

documents can -e found in the religious painting and ecclesiastical architecture of the time. FF7

The “Pseudomorphosis” of Orthodox Thought.

3rom the cultural and historical points of ie4% ,iean learning 4as not a mere passing

episode -ut an eent of unCuestiona-le significance. This 4as the first outright encounter 4ith

the "est. ne might een hae called it a free encounter had it not ended in captiit1% or more precisel1% surrender. But for this reason% there could -e no creatie use made of the encounter. A

scholastic tradition 4as deeloped and a school -egun% 1et no spirituall1 creatie moement

resulted. Instead there emerged an imitatie and proincial scholasticism% in its literal sense a

theologica scholastica or “school theolog1.! This signified a ne4 stage in religious and culturalconsciousness. But in the process theolog1 4as torn from its liing roots. A malignant schism set

in -et4een life and thought. *ertainl1 the hori$on of the ,iean erudites 4as 4ide enough.

*ontact 4ith Europe 4as liel1% 4ith 4ord of current searchings and trends in the "est easil1

G5



The seenteenth centur1 4as a “critical%! not an “organic! epoch in Russian histor1. It 4as a

centur1 of lost eCuili-rium0 an age of unepected eents and the inconstant0 a centur1 of

unprecedented and unheard of eents0 precisel1 an unaccustomed age ?-ut not one of custom@. It4as a dramatic centur1% a centur1 of harsh personalities and colorful characters. Een S.&.

Solo'e descri-es it as “heroic! L-ogat1rs)imM.

The apparent stagnation during the seenteenth centur1 4as not letharg1 or ana-iosis. It 4asa feerish sleep% replete 4ith nightmares and isions. Not so much somnolence as panic.

Eer1thing had -een torn do4n% eer1thing had -een shifted a-out. The soul itself 4as someho4

displaced. The Russian soul -ecame strange and 4andering during the Time of Trou-les.It is completel1 incorrect to spea) of the isolation of &usco1 during the seenteenth

centur1. n the contrar1% the centur1 4itnessed an encounter and clash 4ith the "est and 4ith

the East. The historical fa-ric of Russian life no4 -ecame particularl1 confused and aried% and

the inestigator er1 often discoers in this fa-ric completel1 unepected strands.This frightened centur1 ends 4ith an apocal1ptical conulsion% 4ith the terrif1ing approach

of apocal1ptical fanaticism. +ad not the Third Rome in turn suddenl1 -ecome the eil's

tsardom Such a suspicion and conclusion mar)ed the outcome and the end of the tsardom of

&usco1. Rupture and spiritual suicide follo4ed. “There 4ill -e no ne4 apostas1% for this has -een the final Rus'.! The outcome of the seenteenth centur1 4as flight and a dead end. Det there

4as still a more horri-le eodus: “the pine coffin! > the smo)ing log ca-in of those 4ho choseself9immolation.

Correction of "ooks.

*orrection of the religious -oo)s% that fateful theme for seenteenth centur1 &usco1% 4asactuall1 much more difficult and comple than is normall1 thought. Boo) correction is lin)ed

4ith the -eginning of printing in &usco1. The discussion ranged oer the “correct! edition of

-oo)s% serices% and tets% 4hich had a enera-le histor1 and 4ere )no4n not onl1 in amultiplicit1 of copies from different periods -ut in a multiplicit1 of translations. &uscoite

editors immediatel1 -ecame dra4n into all the contradictions of manuscript tradition. The1 madenumerous and freCuent mista)es or 4ent astra1% -ut not onl1 -ecause of their “ignorance.! Their mista)es% missteps% and confusions often 4ere caused -1 real difficulties% although the1 did not

al4a1s )no4 and understand eactl1 4here the difficulties la1.

The concept of a “correct! edition is ariousl1 understood and am-iguous. The “ancient

eemplar! is also an indeterminate Cuantit1. The antiCuit1 of a tet and the age of a cop1 -1 nomeans al4a1s coincide% and freCuentl1 the original form of a tet is discoered in% comparatiel1

recent copies. Een the Cuestion of the relationship -et4een a Slaonic and a (ree) tet is not

that simple and cannot -e reduced to a pro-lem of an “original! and a “translation.! Not eer1(ree) tet is older or “more original! than eer1 Slaonic one. The most dangerous thing of all

is to trust an1 single manuscript or edition% een though it ma1 -e an “ancient! one.

&osco4 4as not the onl1 place 4here seenteenth centur1 scholars 4ere una-le toreconstruct the histor1 or genealog1 of tets. "ithout a historical stemma ?the tree of descent of

a tet@% manuscripts er1 often seem to displa1 insolu-le and ineplica-le discrepancies% so that

reluctantl1 a theor1 of their “corruption! is posed. *ompelling haste further complicated the

4or) of these &osco4 editors. The -oo)s 4ere -eing “corrected! to meet practical needs and for immediate use. A “standard edition%! a relia-le and uniform tet% had to -e immediatel1

produced. “ffice! LchinM had to -e precisel1 defined. The notion of “correctness! implied

primaril1 the idea of uniformit1.

G



The choice of copies for comparison is no eas1 tas)% and under such hurried conditions the

editors had no time to prepare the manuscripts. Because of their ignorance of paleograph1 and

language% for all practical purposes (ree) manuscripts 4ere inaccessi-le. Necessit1 dictated theeasiest course: reliance upon printed editions. But in doing so% a ne4 series of difficulties

presented itself. In the earl1 1ears of the centur1% -oo)s of “2ithuanian imprint! 4ere greatl1

distrusted in &osco4% as 4ere those of the “"hite Russians! or *her)ass1's 4hom a council in5GF7 G had decided to re-apti$e on the ground that the1 had -een -apti$ed -1 sprin)ling rather

than immersion. True% it seems these “2ithuanian! -oo)s eno1ed the 4idest use. In 5GF6 it 4as

ordered that the1 should -e inentoried in all the churches% in order that the1 could -e replaced -1 &uscoite editions. “2ithuanian! -oo)s o4ned priatel1 4ere simpl1 to -e confiscated. In

ecem-er% 5GF=% ,irill Tran)illion's *ommentaries on the (ospel L/chitel noe EangelieM 4as

ordered -urned -1 the pu-lic hangman% “for the heretical 4ords and composition reealed in the

-oo).! 2arenti i$ani's *atechism% 6 4hich had ust -een printed -1 the &osco4 Printingffice% 4as not released for circulation.

No less caution 4as eercised in relation to the “ne4 translations! of (ree) -oo)s ?that is%

those printed in the “Roman cities%! ;enice% 2utetia LParisM% and Rome itself@% “for if an1thing

ne4 is added to them% 4e shall not accept them% een though the1 -e printed in the (ree) language.! Een (ree) emigres% after all% usuall1 4arned against these “translations! as corrupt%

“for the Papists and the 2utherans hae a (ree) printing press% and the1 are dail1 printing thetheological 4or)s of the +ol1 3athers% and in these -oo)s the1 insert their ferocious poison% their

pagan heres1.! But from practical necessit1% the &osco4 editors used these suspect ,iean or

“2ithuanian! and ;enetian -oo)s. 3or eample% Epifanii Slainets)ii < openl1 4or)ed 4ith thelate siteenth centur1 3ran)furt and 2ondon editions of the Bi-le. Not surprisingl1 such 4or)

eo)ed 4idespread aniet1 in ecclesiastical circles% especiall1 4hen it led to deiations from

customar1 routine.

The first tragic episode in the histor1 of the liturgical reform during the seenteenth centur1stands apart from later eents. This 4as the case of ionisii o-ninos)ii% Archimandrite of the

+ol1 Trinit1 &onaster1% l7 and his colla-orators% 4ho 4ere condemned in 5G56 for “corrupting!

-oo)s. Not all aspects of this case are clear. It is er1 difficult to grasp 4h1 the editors receiedsuch a lacerating and impassioned trial and condemnation. The1 had -een correcting the Pra1er

Boo) LPotre-ni)M% using a method of comparing manuscripts 4hich included (ree) manuscripts%

although the editors themseles did not )no4 (ree). nl1 in a er1 fe4 cases did the1 use the(ree) tet and then 4ith the aid of a foreign intermediar1. In the maorit1 of cases the

“corrections! 4ere directed to4ard restoring the meaning of a tet. The accusation -rought

against the editors hinged on a single correction. The uncorrected tet of the pra1er for the

-lessing of the 4ater at -aptism read as follo4s: “consecrate this 4ater -1 Th1 +ol1 Spirit and -1 fire.! The editors deleted the final phrase and 4ere accused of not recogni$ing that the +ol1

Spirit “is li)e fire! and 4ishing to remoe fire from the 4orld.

This matter cannot -e full1 eplained -1 mere ignorance or personal calculations. After all%not onl1 the half educated 2oggin and 3ilaret% 55 the strict legalists% -ut the entire clerg1 of

&osco4 as 4ell as the locum tenens% the metropolitan of ,rutits) 5F aligned themseles against

the editors. The learned elder LstaretsM Antonii Podol's)ii 5 4rote a comprehensie dissertationn the illuminating fire L ogni prosetitel'nomM against ionisii in 4hich one can discern

distant echoes of Palamite theolog1. In an1 case% formal departure from the preious and familiar

tet 4as not the sole reason for aniet1. nl1 during the patriarchate of 3ilaret 5 did the resolute

G



allure. Ni)on 4as a man of action% not a creatie indiidual. f course “reform of ritual! did not

proide the ital theme in Ni)on's life. Such reform had -een suggested to him and had -een

placed on the agenda -efore his appointment. +o4eer persistentl1 he ma1 hae carried throughthis reform% he neer -ecame consumed or a-sor-ed -1 it. To -egin 4ith% he did not understand

(ree). +e neer mastered it and scarcel1 een studied it. +is admiration for eer1thing “(ree)!

4as dilettantish. Ni)on had an almost pathological urge to rema)e and refashion eer1thing inthe (ree) image similar to Peter the (reat's passion for dressing eer1one and eer1thing up in

the (erman or utch st1le. The t4o men 4ere also united -1 the uncann1 ease% 4ith 4hich the1

could -rea) 4ith the past% -1 their surprising freedom from Russian customs and -1 their purposefulness and determination. Ni)on listened to the (ree) hierarchs and mon)s 4ith the

same precipitate credulit1 4hich Peter ehi-ited -efore his “European! adisers.

Det Ni)on's “(recophilism! did not signif1 an1 -roadening of his ecumenical hori$ons. No

fe4 ne4 impressions 4ere present -ut certainl1 no ne4 ideas. Imitation of contemporar1 (ree)scould hardl1 lead to a recoer1 of lost tradition. Ni)on's (recophilism did not mar) a return to

patristic tradition or een sere to reie B1$antinism. +e 4as attracted to the “(ree)! serice

-1 its great dignit1% solemnit1% sumptuousness% splendor% and isual magnificence% +is reform of

ritual too) its departure from this “solemn! point of ie4.At the er1 start of his actiit1 as a reformer ?5G88@% Ni)on su-mitted to Patriarch Paisios of

*onstantinople a long list of perpleing points concerning ritual. +e receied a comprehensierepl1 4ritten -1 &eletios S1rigos. 5 S1rigos fran)l1 and clearl1 epressed the ie4 that onl1

central and essential matters of faith reCuired uniformit1 and unit1% 4hile diersit1 and

differences in the “ecclesiastical ceremonies! LchinoposledoaniiM and in the formal aspects of the liturg1 4ere perfectl1 tolera-le% and indeed historicall1 ineita-le% After all% ceremon1 and

liturgical regulation onl1 graduall1 -ecame intert4ined. The1 had not -een created at a single

stro)e. And a great deal in the *hurch ceremon1 depended upon the “pleasure of the superior.!

ne should not conclude that our rthodo faith is -eing pererted if some possess a*hurch ceremon1 4hich differs slightl1 in inessentials -ut not in the articles of faith% if on the

central and essential matter conformit1 4ith the *atholic *hurch is presered.

Not all “(ree)s! thought in those terms. &oreoer% &osco4 did not heed this (ree) adice.Such strictures -1 the patriarch of *onstantinople fell most heail1 on another eastern patriarch%

&a)arios of Antioch% F 4ho 4ith considera-le enthusiasm and nota-le self satisfaction had

indicated all the “differences! to Ni)on and had inspired him to underta)e hast1 “corrections!Apparentl1 it 4as &a)arios 4ho reealed that ma)ing the sign of the cross 4ith t4o fingers94as

an “Armenian! heres1. And it 4as this “Nestorian! sign of the cross 4hich isiting hierarchs had

anathemati$ed in &osco4 on rthodo Sunda1% 5G8G.

Ni)on “corrected! the rites according to a printed contemporar1 (ree) Euchologion% inorder to achiee conformit1 4ith (ree) practice. Such actions did not signif1 a return to

“antiCuit1! or to “tradition%! although it 4as supposed that 4hateer 4as “(ree)! 4as more

ancient and more traditional. Ni)on adhered to the same s1stem 4hen correcting -oo)s. A ne4l1 printed (ree) -oo) usuall1 sered as the -asis for a ne4 Slaonic tet. True% ariants and

parallelisms in the manuscripts 4ere then compared 4ith it% -ut onl1 a printed tet could assure

genuine uniformit1. Neertheless% discerna-le discrepancies appeared in arious editions of thesame -oo)% for ne4 manuscript material 4as -eing emplo1ed throughout the 4or).

Si editions of Ni)on's serice -oo)s hae -een forci-l1 distri-uted throughout the Russian

realm0 and all these serice -oo)s disagree among themseles and no one -oo) agrees 4ith an1

other.

G=



Kuite legitimatel1 opponents of Ni)on's reform insisted that the ne4 -oo)s 4ere fashioned

from “the (ree) -oo)s ne4l1 printed among the (ermans! ?i.e.% in the "est@% from defectie and

discarded -oo)s: “and 4e 4ill not accept this innoation.! &oreoer% it 4as also true that somerites 4ere “transformed! or ta)en “from Polish serice -oo)s%! such as the “Polish pra1er -oo)s

of Peter &ogila and other 2atin translations.! The manuscripts -rought -1 Su)hano from the

East 4ere not% and could not -e% etensiel1 utili$ed or gien the necessar1 attention. +o4eer% it4as the a-rupt and indiscriminate reection of all ld Russian ceremon1 and ritual 4hich gae

Ni)on's reforms their sharp Cualit1. Not onl1 4ere those rites replaced -1 the ne4 ones% -ut the1

4ere declared false and heretical% almost ungodl1. Such actions distur-ed and 4ounded thenational conscience. In fur1 and defiance% and moreoer in a language not his o4n% Ni)on hurled

out a censure of the “old ritual.! After Ni)on 4as deposed% Russian authorities spo)e reseredl1

and cautiousl1 a-out the “old rite.! This 4as true een at the *ouncil of 5GGG. 8 3or Ni)on the

reform 4as precisel1 a ritual or ceremonial reform% and he insisted upon it primaril1 for the sa)eof propriet1 or in the name of o-edience. But -1 then a ne4 motif had -een introduced -1 the

“(ree)s.! (ree)s suggested and contried the resolutions and the “curses! at the (reat *ouncil

of 5GG=. G 3ourteen of the thirt1 -ishops attending the *ouncil 4ere foreigners. The

“easterners! at the *ouncil portra1ed themseles and -ehaed as “ecumenical udges! initedand ac)no4ledged as ar-iters of eer1 aspect of Russian life. The1 4ere the ones 4ho affirmed

the notion that Russia's “old ritual! 4as a “senseless su-tlet1! and een heres1. “,ieans! suchas Simeon of Polots) = oined the “(ree)s! in this scornful udgment.

The -oo) concerning the differences in rites compiled for the *ouncil -1 ion1sios% a

(ree) archimandrite from &ount Athos% 6 is particularl1 significant and characteristic.ion1sios had lied for man1 1ears in &osco4% 4here he 4or)ed on the -oo) corrections at the

&osco4 Printing ffice. +e flatl1 asserted that Russian -oo)s -ecame contaminated and

pererted the moment Russian metropolitans ceased to -e appointed -1 *onstantinople.

And from this -egan the infatuation 4ith the sign of the cross% the addition to the creed% thealleluias% and the rest. ergro4n 4ith tares and other 4ild 4eeds% this land has remained

unploughed and has -een oershado4ed -1 dar)ness.

&oreoer% ion1sios insisted that all such Russian additions and differences possessed aheretical tinge: “These disagreements and infatuations derie from certain heretics% 4ho had

parted 4a1s 4ith the (ree)s and% -ecause of their sophistr1% did not consult 4ith them a-out

an1thing.! The “(reat *ouncil! decided matters in a st1le similar to that of ion1sios% oftenusing his o4n 4ords. At this council% ld Russian ritual 4as declared suspect% condemned

utterl1% and for-idden under terri-le penalties. The contemporar1 ritual of the eastern churches

4as indicated as the model and standard.

The anathemas of the Stogla *ouncil 4ere rescinded and dissoled% “and that *ouncil 4asno council% its curses 4ere not curses% and 4e consider it as nothing% as if it had neer eisted% for

&etropolitan &a)arii and those 4ith him rec)lessl1 feigned 4isdom in their ignorance.! <

Thus% Russian *hurch tradition 4as udged and condemned as ignorance and feigned 4isdom or as sophistr1 and heres1. /nder the pretet of esta-lishing the fullness of the uniersal *hurch%

ld Russia 4as replaced -1 modern (reece. This outloo) did not represent the opinion of the

(ree) *hurch% onl1 the ie4s of some itinerant “(ree)! hierarchs. It sered as the final act for Ni)on's reforms.

Det this same council% called for that er1 purpose% deposed and eected Ni)on. Among

other accusations% Ni)on 4as charged 4ith iolating and corrupting ancient customs and

introducing “ne4 -oo)s and rituals! ?according to the testimon1 of Paisios 2igarides@. 7 Ni)on

G6



replied -1 up-raiding his (ree) accusers for introducing ne4 la4s from “reected and

uneamined -oo)s! ?he had in mind the ne4 editions of (ree) -oo)s@. Thus% once again -oo)s

4ere the Cuestion. Ni)on's trial entangled personal passions 4ith malice and deceit and cunning 4ith agitated

ideas and trou-led conscience. “Priesthood! LsiashchenstoM stood trial: such 4as the theme of

Ni)on's life.According to Iurii Samarin% 5 “the scepter of papism la1 concealed -ehind Ni)on's

enormous shado4.! Det this is hardl1 true% for the reerse is more nearl1 the case. The Ni)on

affair mar)s the adance of “Empire.! Ni)on 4as right% 4hen in his “Refutation! LRa$orenieM Fhe accused Tsar Ale)sei and his goernment of attac)ing the freedom and independence of the

*hurch. Such encroachment could -e detected in the *ode L/lo$henieM 4hich Ni)on considered

dia-olical and the false la4 of the Antichrist. The emphatic “Erastianism! in leading

goernmental circles forced Ni)on into -attle% and that fact largel1 eplains his a-rasieness and“loe of po4er.!

As 4ith his other ideas% Ni)on found his conception of the priesthood in patristic teaching%

especiall1 in that of *hr1sostom. Apparentl1 he 4ished to repeat *hr1sostom in life. Perhaps he

did not al4a1s epress this idea successfull1 or cautiousl1 and on occasion used “4esterndefinitions%! -ut he did not eceed the limits of patristic opinion -1 asserting that the

“priesthood! is higher than the “tsardom.! n this point he 4as opposed not onl1 -1 the (ree)s%those “Asiatic emigrants and s1cophants from Athos%! 4ho defended tsardom against priesthood.

+e 4as attac)ed as 4ell -1 the ld Ritualists LStaroo-riadts1M% the partisans of Russian tradition%

for 4hom the “,ingdom of (od! 4as achieed 4ithin the tsardom rather than 4ithin the *hurch.Therein lies the theme of the Schism: not “old ritual! -ut the “,ingdom.!

The %chis$.

,ostomaro once rightl1 noted that the “Schism hunted for tradition and attempted toadhere as closel1 as possi-le to it0 1et the Schism 4as a ne4 phenomenon% not the old life.!

Therein lies the Schism's fatal parado: it did not em-od1 the past% -ut rather a dream a-out ldRussia. The Schism represents mourning for an unreali$ed and unreali$a-le dream. The “ldBelieer! LStaroerM is a er1 ne4 spiritual t1pe.

iision and split 4holl1 constitute the Schism. Born in disillusionment% it lied and 4as

nourished -1 this feeling of loss and depriation% not -1 an1 feeling of po4er and possession.

Possessing nothing% losing eer1thing% the Schism% more 4ith nostalgia and torment than 4ithroutine and custom% could onl1 4ait and thirst% flee and escape. The Schism 4as ecessiel1

dream1% suspicious% and restie. There is something romantic a-out the Schism% hence its

attraction for man1 Russian Neo9Romantics and ecadents.The Schism% consumed -1 memories and premonitions% possessed a past and a future -ut no

present. 3or their “-lue flo4er! Lgolu-oitseto)M 8 the ld Belieers possessed the semi9

legendar1 Inisi-le *it1 of ,ite$h G The Schism's strength did not spring from the soil -ut fromthe 4ill0 not from stagnation -ut from ecstas1. The Schism mar)s the first paro1sm of Russia's

rootlessness% rupture of conciliarit1% Lso-ornost'M% and eodus from histor1.

The )e1note and secret of Russia's Schism 4as not “ritual! -ut the Antichrist% and thus it

ma1 -e termed a socio9apocal1ptical utopia. The entire meaning and pathos of the firstschismatic opposition lies in its underl1ing apocal1ptical intuition ?Hthe time dra4s near!@% rather

than in an1 “-lind! attachment to specific rites or pett1 details of custom. The entire first

generation of ras)olouchitelei LHschismatic teachersHM lied in this atmosphere of isions% signs%

G<



and premonitions% of miracles% prophecies% and illusions. These men 4ere filled 4ith ecstas1 or

possessed% rather than pedants: “"e sa4 that it 4as as if 4inter 4as of a mind to come0 our

hearts fro$e% our lim-s shiered! ?Aa)um@ ne has onl1 to read the 4ords of Aa)um% -reathless 4ith ecitement: “"hat *hrist is this +e is not near0 onl1 hosts of demons.! Not onl1

Aa)um felt that the “Ni)on! *hurch had -ecome a den of thiees. Such a mood -ecame

uniersal in the Schism: “the censer is useless% the offering a-omina-le.!The Schism% an out-urst of a socio9political hostilit1 and opposition% 4as a social

moement% -ut one deried from religious self9consciousness. It is precisel1 this apocal1ptical

perception of 4hat has ta)en place% 4hich eplains the decisie or rapid estrangement among theSchismatics. “3anaticism in panic! is ,liuches)ii's definition% -ut it 4as also panic in the face

of “the last apostas1.!

+o4 4as such a mood created and deeloped "hat inspired and ustified the hopeless

eschatological diagnosis that “the present *hurch is not a church0 the +ol1 Sacraments are notsacraments0 Baptism is not -aptism0 the Scriptures are a seduction teaching is false0 and

eer1thing is foul and impious! Ro$ano = once 4rote that “the T1picon of salation proides

the m1ster1 of the Schism% its central nere% and tortured thirst.! &ight it not -e -etter to sa1:

“Salation is the T1picon! Not ' merel1 in the sense that the T1picon as a -oo) is necessar1 andneeded for salation% -ut -ecause salation is a T1picon% that is% a sacred rh1thm and order% rite or

ritual% a ritual of life% the isi-le -eaut1 and 4ell9-eing of custom. This religious design suppliesthe -asic assumption and source for the ld Belieer's disenchantment.

The Schism dreamed of an actual% earthl1 *it1: a theocratic utopia and chiliasm. It 4as

hoped that the dream had alread1 -een fulfilled and that the “,ingdom of (od! had -eenreali$ed as the &uscoite State. There ma1 -e four patriarchs in the East% -ut the one and onl1

rthodo tsar is in &osco4 < But no4 een this epectation had -een deceied and shattered.

Ni)on's “apostas1! did not distur- the ld Belieers nearl1 as much as did the tsar's apostas1%

4hich in their opinion imparted a final apocal1ptical hopelessness to the entire conflict.At this time there is no tsar. ne rthodo tsar had remained on earth% and 4hilst he 4as

una4are% the 4estern heretics% li)e dar) clouds% etinguished this *hristian sun. oes this not%

-eloed% clearl1 proe that the Antichrist's deceit is sho4ing its mas) 87+istor1 4as at an end. &ore precisel1% sacred histor1 had come to an end0 it had ceased to

-e sacred and had -ecome 4ithout (race. +enceforth the 4orld 4ould seem empt1% a-andoned%

forsa)en -1 (od% and it 4ould remain so. ne 4ould -e forced to 4ithdra4 from histor1 into the4ilderness. Eil had triumphed in histor1. Truth had retreated into the -right heaens% 4hile the

+ol1 ,ingdom had -ecome the tsardom of the Antichrist.

A pu-lic de-ate a-out the Antichrist had -een present from the outset of the Schism. Some

immediatel1 detected the coming Antichrist in Ni)on or in the tsar. thers 4ere more cautious.“The1 do his 4or) een no4 -ut the last deil has not 1et to come! ?Aa)um@ At the end of the

centur1 the teaching of a “mental! or spiritual Antichrist -ecame esta-lished. The Antichrist had

come% -ut he eercised his rule inisi-l1. No isi-le coming 4ould occur in the future. TheAntichrist is a s1m-olic% -ut not a “real! person. The Scripture must -e interpreted as a m1ster1.

“"hen the hidden m1steries are spo)en% the m1ster1 is to -e understood 4ith the mind and not

4ith the senses.! A ne4 account is no4 present. The Antichrist stands reealed 4ithin the*hurch. “"ith impiet1 he has entered into the chalice and is no4 -eing proclaimed (od and the

2am-.! 85

Det the diagnosis% the “approach of the last apostas1%! did not change. isruption of the

priesthood in Ni)on's *hurch% cessation of its sacraments% diminution of (race sered as the first

=7



conclusion from such a diagnosis. +o4eer% the disruption of the priesthood -1 Ni)on's

follo4ers meant an end to the priesthood generall1% een among the adherents of the Schism. No

source could “reie! this diminished (race. A “fugitie priesthood! L-egstuiushcheesiashchentsoM did not resole the pro-lem% 4hile ritual purification ta)en -1 “fugitie priests!

implied that a genuine and unehausted priesthood eisted among the follo4ers of Ni)on.

isagreements and de-ate a-out the priesthood deeloped er1 earl1 in the Schism.*omparatiel1 Cuic)l1 the “priestl1! Lpopots1M and the “priestless! L-e$popots1M dierged and

diided. 8F

The priestless segment 4as magistral. *ompromises and concessions 4ere not thatsignificant% and onl1 the priestless carried their ideas to a logical conclusion. The priesthood

ended 4ith the coming of the Antichrist. (race 4ithdre4 from the 4orld% and the earthl1 *hurch

entered upon a ne4 form of eistence: priestlessness and a-sence of sacraments. Priesthood 4as

not denied% -ut eschatological diagnosis ac)no4ledged the m1sterious fact or catastrophe that the priesthood had 4ithered a4a1. Not eer1one accepted this conclusion. ;ar1ing estimates 4ere

made a-out the degree of the coming lac) of (race. After all% if necessar1% een la1men could

-apti$e ?and “re-apti$e! or “correct!@% -ut could -aptism -e complete 4ithout the chrism In an1

case% the Eucharist 4as impossi-le: “according to theological calculation% at the fulfillment of GGG 1ears% the sacrifice and sacrament 4ill -e ta)en a4a1.! *onfession 4as scarcel1 possi-le.

Since no one could gie a-solution% it 4as more prudent to settle for mutual forgieness.&arriage generated particularl1 iolent Cuarrels. *ould marriage still -e permitted as a

“sacrament! "as a pure marriage or a pure -ed possi-le 4ithout priestl1 -lessing &oreoer%

should one marr1 during these terri-le da1s of the Antichrist% 4hen it 4as more fitting to -e 4iththe 4ise irgins The “anti9marriage! decision possessed a certain -oldness and consistenc1. A

more general Cuestion arose a-out ho4 the liturg1 could -e conducted 4ithout priests. "as it

permissi-le in case of necessit1 for unordained la1men and mon)s to perform or consummate

certain sacraments +o4 should one proceed Should ancient serices and rituals -e presereduntouched and unaltered *ould the liturg1 -e performed -1 unordained la1men -1 irtue of

some “spiritual! priesthood r 4ould it -e safer to su-mit and -e reconciled to the fact that

(race 4as goneThe so9called “negatiist! moement LnetoshchinaM% that maimalism of apocal1ptical

reection% proided the most etreme conclusion: (race had -een completel1 and utterl1

4ithdra4n. Therefore% not onl1 could the sacraments not -e performed% -ut the diine liturg1 as a4hole could not -e conducted in accordance 4ith the serice manuals. ral pra1er% or een

-reathing% 4as inappropriate% for eer1thing% including running 4ater% had -een profaned.

Salation no4 4ould come not -1 (race or een -1 faith% -ut through hope and lamentation.

Tears 4ere su-stituted for communion.The Schism created a ne4 antinom1. nce (race had -een 4ithdra4n% eer1thing depended

on man% on 4or)s or continence. Eschatological fright and apocal1ptical fear suddenl1 -ecame

transformed into a form of humanism% self9reliance% or practical Pelagianism. 8 Ritual too) on particular importance during this eceptional moment of 4ithdra4al. nl1 custom and ritual

remained 4hen (race departed and the sacraments lost their potenc1. Eer1thing -ecame

dependent upon 4or)s% for onl1 4or)s 4ere possi-le. The unepected participation of the ldBelieers in 4orldl1 affairs% their $eal for custom ?as an eperiment in salation through the

relics of traditional life@ deries from this necessar1 dependence on 4or)s. The Schism made its

peace 4ith the anishing of (race onl1 to clutch at ritual 4ith still greater fren$1 and

stu--ornness. (race had -een etinguished and diminished% -ut the Schism tried to replace it

=5



4ith human $eal. B1 doing so% the Schism -etra1ed itself% pri$ing ritual more highl1 than

sacrament and oerestimating its alue. Enduring life 4ithout (race 4as easier than enduring a

ne4 ritual. The Schism attached a certain independent primar1 alue to the “office! and“regulation.! Een 4hen in flight from the Antichrist% the dissenters stroe to organi$e an ideal

societ1% although dou-ts 4ere raised in some Cuarters a-out the possi-ilit1 of doing so during the

da1s of the last apostas1. The Schism 4ithdre4 to the 4ilderness% ma)ing an eodus from histor1and settling -e1ond its frontiers. “3or (od d4ells onl1 in the 4ilderness and the hermitages0

there +e has turned +is face.!

The Schism al4a1s organi$ed itself as a monaster1% as “communities! and “hermitages%!and stroe to -e a final monaster1 or refuge amidst a corrupt and perishing 4orld. The ;1g

eperiment > the The-aid and “pious /topia of the Schism! > is especiall1 characteristic. The

;1g communit1 4as -uilt -1 the second generation of ld Belieers on the principle of the

strictest communism ?so that no one had a penn1 to his name@ and in a mood of eschatologicalconcentration: “care nothing a-out earthl1 things% for the 2ord is near the gates.! This

communit1 pro-a-l1 represents the high point in the histor1 of the Schism.

3or in this ;1g 4ilderness preachers orated% 4ise Platos shone forth% glorious

emostheneses appeared% pleasant men as s4eet as Socrates 4ere to -e found% and men -raeasAchilles 4ere discoered. 8

The ;1g communit1 4as not merel1 a significant commercial and industrial center ?Peter the (reat highl1 alued the 4or) of the ;1g settlers at the mines in Poenets and lonets@. The

;1g “pan4ilderness assem-l1! 4as actuall1 a great cultural center% particularl1 during the

lifetime of Andrei eniso% 4ho is descri-ed as “cleer and s4eet in 4ord%! and certainl1 themost sophisticated and cultured of all the 4riters and theologians during the earl1 1ears of the

Schism. eniso 88 4as consumed -1 the Apocal1pse. 8G Det he did not there-1 lose his clarit1

of thought% and one can detect in him a great intellectual temperament. eniso 4as not merel1

4ell read0 he must -e recogni$ed as a theologian. +is Pomors)ie otet1 LHReplies of the Shore4ellersHM is a theological 4or) and an intelligent one. ;1g possessed a 4ell assem-led and

magnificent li-rar1 4here ld Belieers studied the Scriptures% the 3athers% and the “literar1

sciences.! Andrei eniso himself “a-ridged the philosoph1 and theor1 of Ramon 2ull! ?a er1 popular -oo) udging -1 the num-er of copies 4hich hae -een presered@. 8= It is particularl1

interesting that the eniso -rothers% Andrei and Semen% set a-out assiduousl1 re4or)ing the

(reat Reading *ompendium or &enologos L;eli)ie chet'i mineiM 86 as a counter4eight to theagiographic la-ors of imitrii of Rosto% 4ho -orro4ed heail1 from 4estern -oo)s. 8< The ;1g

scholars also 4or)ed on liturgical -oo)s. ;1g housed ateliers for painting icons and contained

other 4or)shops.

ne is least ustified in spea)ing of the “4ell9fed ignorance! among the ;1g ld Belieers.Their communit1 4as a center in the 4ilderness. Still% ;1g 4as onl1 a refuge% 4here its mem-ers

for a time might -e concealed from impending 4rath and lie in impatient epectation of the last

moment. All their -usiness s)ill and “religio9democratic pathos! deried from this sense of haing a-andoned the 4orld.In the a-sence of (race% the priestless ld Belieer )ne4 that he

depended onl1 on himself and had to -e self9reliant. The ;1g ld Belieers too) a Cuiet

departure from histor1.The “ne4l1 discoered path of suicidal deaths! sered as another% more iolent escape.

Preaching in faor of suicide com-ined seeral motifs: ascetic mortification ?for eample%. the

flagellants% L$aposhcheants1M@% the “fear of the Antichrist's temptation%! the idea of -aptism -1

fire ?Heer1one is -egging for a second% unprofaned -aptism -1 fire%! relates the Tiumen' priest

=F



ometian% 5G=<@. G7 Such innoatie preaching produced horror and disgust among man1 ld

Belieers. The elder Efrosin's “Epistle of Refutation! Ltra$itelnoe pisanie% 5G<5 M G5 is

particularl1 important in this regard. Neertheless% Aa)um praised the first suicides -1 fire4hen he said “-lessed is this desire for the 2ord.! +is authorit1 4as constantl1 cited. “The

notion of suicidal death 4as first epounded -1 the disciples of ,apiton. Such men conceied

this eil practice prior to the immolations among the ;ia$ni)i and Poni$o'e! ?Efrosin@ ,apiton4as a crude fanatic 4ho )ept rigorous fasts and 4ore chains. In 5GG8 an inestigation 4as

ordered into his “)naer1! and “fanaticism.! +o4eer% his disciples and “fello4 fasters%! )no4n

as the “(odless hermits! LBogomer$)ie pust1nni)iM% continued their fanatical practices.Preaching in faor of fasting unto death -egan in the conditions arising from such ascetic

flagellation and fanaticism.

Det other arguments 4ere soon adanced. ;asilii the +irsute ?;olosat1i@% acclaimed

“legislator of suicides%! “did not preach confession or repentance% -ut entrusted all things to fire:cleanse 1ourseles from all sin -1 fire and fasting% there-1 -eing -apti$ed 4ith a true -aptism.!

+e did not preach this message in isolation. A certain priest called Ale)sandrishche insisted that

“in this age *hrist is unmerciful0 +e 4ill not accept those 4ho come 4ithout repentance.! ne

foreigner -1 the name of ;aila GF -elonged to the earl1 “,apitons.! The Russian ;in1ardLilinograd rossiis)iM descri-es him as a man “of a foreign race% of the 2utheran faith

accomplished in all the arts% 4ho had studied man1 1ears in the cele-rated Academ1 of Paris%)ne4 man1 languages 4ell and ho4 to spea) most -eautifull1.! G ;aila arried in Russia in

the 5G7's conerted to rthodo1% “proing to -e of perfect diamond hard endurance.! It 4as

not so important that in their enthusiasm some “(odless hermits! determined to commit suicide.&ore important is the fact that man1 different strata of the ld Belieer moement Cuic)l1

sei$ed upon their fanatical ideas. This “death -earing disease! rapidl1 -ecame something

approaching a dreadful m1stical epidemic% a s1mptom of apocal1ptical terror and hopelessness.

“eath% death alone can sae us.! The ;1g communit1 had -een founded -1 the disciples of theself9immolators and d4ellers along the shores of the "hite Sea.

The feeling of alienation and self9imprisonment entirel1 constituted the Schism% 4hich

sought eclusion from histor1 and life. The Schism cut its ties% 4ishing to escape% not in order toreturn to tradition or to a fuller eistence% -ut as an apocal1ptical rupture and seduction. The

Schism 4as a grieous spiritual disease. It 4as possessed. The hori$on of the ld Belieers 4as

narro4: the Schism -ecame a Russian onatism. G In that regard% it is appropriate to recall the4ords of St. Augustine% “The field is the 4orld and not Africa. The harest is the end of the

4orld9not the time of onatus.HG8

Kievan earning in Muscov!.

3ollo4ing the Time of Trou-les% foreign participation in Russian life -ecame more and

more percepti-le. “After the 1ears of the Trou-les LforeignersM ranged so 4idel1 throughout

&usco1 that eer1 Russian -ecame familiar 4ith them! ?Platono@ GG Such contacts 4ere nolonger confined to s)illed artisans and soldiers% or to merchants and traders. 3oreigners are

encountered 4here one least epects to find them. /nder B.&. ,hitroo's administration of the

Armor1% “(erman! ?i.e. 4estern European@ artists painted 4estern st1le portraiture and icons as

4ell. B1 the mid9seenteenth centur1% the influence of 4estern engraings on Russianiconograph1 had -ecome so strong that Ni)on 4as compelled to confiscate these profane

“3ran)ish! icons. Their o4ners gae them up 4ith o-ious reluctance% so Cuic)l1 had the1

-ecome accustomed and attached to them. At one 4ith Ni)on on this point% Aa)um 4as

=



&uscoite societ1 at the time of his arrial in 5GG. &ore precisel1% he rose at court% 4here he

sered as a poet% ersifier% and as an educated man capa-le of performing an1 tas). At first he

4or)ed as a teacher for seritors in goernment departments. Inescapa-l1% he relied on Alarius'grammar. == 2ater he -ecame the tutor for the tsareiches% Ale)sei and 3edor% composed

speeches for the tsar% and 4rote solemn official declarations. +e 4as entrusted 4ith the

“arrangement! of the agenda for the councils of 5GGG and 5GG= and instructed to translate Paisios2igarides' polemical tracts. +is o4n treatise against the ld Belieers% The Scepter of

(oernment Lhe$l praleniiaM proed of little 4orth% ladened as it 4as -1 scholastic and

rhetorical arguments 4hich could scarcel1 -e conincing to those for 4hom the -oo) 4as4ritten. Simeon of Polots) 4as pompous and arrogant% rhetorical and er-ose% as his t4o

olumes of sermons The Spiritual 3east L-ed dushen1iM and The Spiritual Supper L;echeria

dushenaiaM testif1. Both olumes 4ere pu-lished in 5G6F95G6% shortl1 after his death.

Simeon of Polots)'s note-oo)s illustrate ho4 he re4or)ed 2atin -oo)s of such authors as#ohann &effret of &eissen% a fifteenth centur1 preacher% 4hose -oo) on the *hurch% +ortulus

reginae% Tsar Ale)sei had gien to Arsenii Satanos)ii for translation in 5G8F0 #ohannes 3a-er%

Bishop of ;ienna ?585@% )no4n as &alleus +aereticorum from his -oo) against 2uther0 =6 the

fifteenth centur1 Spanish theologian #uan *artagena% 4ho had 4ritten on the sacraments of the*hristian faith0 =< as 4ell as Bellarmine% (erson% *aesar Baronius% Peter Besse% Alfonso

Salmeron% and #uan Pere$ de Pineda. 67In preparing his o4n tet-oo)s% Simeon relied on 2atin 4or)s. Thus his -oo) on (ospel

histor1 The 2ife and Teaching of *hrist ur 2ord and (od Lhitie i uchenie ,hrista (ospoda i

Boga nashegoM 4hich a-ridged the 4or) of (erald &ercator and 4as supplemented -1 additionsfrom the 4ritings of +enr1 &ore% the cele-rated *am-ridge Platonist. 65 In his o4n 4a1%

Simeon of Polots) 4as pious and upright% -ut the pra1ers he composed appeared -om-astic. +e

deeloped onl1 a )no4ledge of 2atin and o-iousl1 )ne4 no (ree) ?Hhe )ne4 less than

nothing!@. “/na-le to read (ree) -oo)s% he read onl1 2atin ones and -elieed onl1 2atininnoations in thought to -e correct! ?sten@ 6F +is 4or) 4as al4a1s guided -1 2atin and Polish

-oo)s% that is% “-1 the thoughts of men li)e Scotus% ACuinas% and Anselm.! Simeon's opponents

rightl1 made these accusations. +e 4as more at ease 4ith the 2atin Bi-le than the Slaonic one.A “Belorussian! -1 -irth% apparentl1 he studied in ,ie 4here he -ecame a student of 2a$ar

Baranoich% 4ith 4hom Simeon remained close for the rest of his life. 6 Baranoich gae

Simeon a letter of introduction to Paisios 2igarides% 4hen Simeon 4ent north to &osco4. uring Ni)on's trial% Simeon -ecame particularl1 intimate 4ith Paisios% sering as his interpreter. f

course% he translated from 2atin.

Paisios 2igarides ?5G7<95G=6@ is a er1 instructie eample of the perpleing state of affairs

preailing in seenteenth centur1 &usco1. A graduate of the *ollege of St. Athanasius% 4herehe -rilliantl1 distinguished himself% he 4as ordained in Rome -1 the "est Russian /niate

&etropolitan% Rafail ,orsa). 6 In his estimation and report% 2eo Allatius% a dignitar1 of St.

Athanasius% 68 declared that Paisios 4as “a man prepared to la1 do4n his life and gie up hissoul for the *atholic faith.! Paisios returned to the 2eant as a missionar1. The Propaganda

3idget also later sent him to "allachia. There% ho4eer% he made a close acCuaintance 4ith

Patriarch Paisios of #erusalem and accompanied him to Palestine. Soon after4ard he -ecamerthodo metropolitan of (a$a. All this time 2igarides pla1ed a dual role. (reed sered as his

guiding passion. +e tried to conince the Propaganda 3ide of his fidelit1 and as)ed that his

suspended missionar1 stipend -e restored. No one -elieed him. The rthodo also distrusted

2igarides% seeing in him a dangerous papist. +e soon fell under a -an and 4as still under it 4hen

=8



he arried in &osco4. "hen as)ed a-out 2igarides during Ni)on's trial in &osco4% Patriarch

ion1sios of *onstantinople replied that “2igarides' scepter is not from the throne of

*onstantinople% and I do not consider him rthodo% for I hear from man1 that he is a papist anda deceier.! 6= Neertheless% he pla1ed a decisie role at the (reat *ouncil of 5GG=. The -o1ar

part1 used him to secure their ecclesiastical and social position and their program ?)no4n as the

“Cuestions of Streshne!@. 66 Ni)on 4as not entirel1 4rong 4hen in repl1 he du--ed the tsar a“2atini$er! and the -o1ars and hierarchs “4orshippers of 2atin dogmas.! In an1 case% the

o-ious 2atins% Simeon and Paisios% spo)e for them.

The ne4 4estern orientation too) shape at court. Tsar Ale)sei's son and successor had -een4holl1 educated “in the Polish manner.! A reolution or turning point had -ecome o-ious.

isagreements 4ere apparent since the turn of the centur1. As Ian Timofee noted er1 earl1%

“Some loo) East% others "est.! 6< &an1 tried to loo) -oth 4a1s. As 4estern influence gre4%

aniet1 a-out it increased as 4ell. B1 the end of the centur1% a pu-lic Cuarrel had -ro)en out.*haracteristicall1% the pretet for the de-ate came as a result of a disagreement on the

Cuestion of the moment the +ol1 Sacraments -ecame transformed during the liturg1. Seemingl1%

the topic of de-ate 4as a limited one% -ut in realit1% despite all the political and personal passions

or outright stupidit1 displa1ed in the matter% the clash inoled -asic aioms and principlesamounting to a conflict -et4een t4o religious and cultural tendencies. This side of the de-ate >

the principal side > is -1 far the more interesting one. The indiidual arguments put for4ard -1the 4arring factions are of interest onl1 in so far as the1 ena-le one to detect the Cuarrel's

mainsprings.

uring the seenteenth centur1% the 4estern ie4 concerning the transformation of thesacraments during the liturg1% that is% the "ords of Institution% -ecame generall1 accepted and

customar1 in the Russian south and 4est. <7 Such a ie4% “deried from ne4l1 made ,iean

-oo)s%! spread north4ard. Simeon of Polots)% along 4ith his disciple Sil'estr &edede% <5

insistentl1 gae it currenc1. B1 5G= Simeon and Epifanii Slainets)ii had a dispute% or rather a“discourse “ Lra$glagol'stieM in the presence of the patriarch and other authorities at the ,rest1i

?+ol1 *ross@ &onaster1. utright Cuarreling -ro)e out later% after the death of Simeon of

Polots). The mon) Efimii and the ne4l1 arried (ree)s% the “-rothers 2i)hud%! entered the listsagainst &edede. <F Patriarch Ioa)im also too) their side. < The “-read 4orshipping heres1!

L)hle-opo)lonnaia eres'M sered less as a cause than as the ecuse for these arguments and

conflicts. The actual Cuarrel centered on the Cuestion of 2atin or (ree) influence.The 2i)hud -rothers 4ere also men of 4estern education% haing studied in ;enice and

Padua. Kuite li)el1 the1 4ere connected 4ith the Propaganda 3ide in one 4a1 or another% -ut in

&osco4 the1 distinguished themseles as opponents of Rome and as principled and informed

pure1ors of a (ree) cultural orientation. < Een Efimii often emplo1ed 4estern and ,iean -oo)s. 3or eample% his ;umilenie% designed to -e used -1 the priest as a serice manual% 4as

composed on the model of &ogila's Pra1er Boo) LTre-ni)M and according to the appropriate

articles in the ;ilna serice manual 4hich had also -een heail1 influenced -1 Roman*atholicism. +o4eer% for all that% he remained an outright +ellenist.

Simeon of Polots) and &edede not onl1 em-raced indiidual “2atin! opinions% -ut there

4as also something 2atin in their spiritual demeanor and ma)e up. Together the1 constituted a“Belorussian! element in the schools. The ,iean mon)s openl1 supported the Roman cause. <8

Both factions freCuentl1 echanged polemical pamphlets of a serious and su-stantial sort% despite

all their a-usie tone and crude methods. The 2atin part1 4as conCuered and condemned at a

*hurch council held in 5G<7. The follo4ing 1ear% 5G<5% &edede -ecame implicated in the

=G



reolt of the strelts1. <G +e 4as unfroc)ed and eecuted. An impartial o-serer might deem

Patriarch Ioa)im's harshness some4hat ecessie and unfounded. "as it reall1 necessar1 to fan

the flames of this “Sicilian fire! in the “Bread 4orshipping! controers1 In the first place% theRomani$ing side too) the initiatie% or more precisel1% 4ent on the attac)% apparentl1 in

connection 4ith plans for opening a school or “academ1! in &osco4. In the second place% as

contemporaries eplicitl1 stated% genuine Roman *atholics pla1ed a concealed -ut a er1 real part in the conflict.

#ura ,ri$anic ?5G5695G6@ <= did not come to &osco4 as an isolated figure. uring the

5G67's an influential *atholic cell too) shape. Although the #esuits liing in &osco4 4ereepelled in 5G<7 oer the “Bread 4orshipping! controers1% a fe4 1ears later the1 rene4ed and

etended their 4or) 4ith undou-ted success. As a contemporar1 4rote% “The Romans use eer1

means to -u1 their 4a1 into the Russian tsardom% and through learning introduce their heres1.!

T4o foreign *atholics occupied er1 prominent and influential positions in &osco4 at the time:the diplomat Pael &enesius% sent a-road as an eno1 to the pope% <6 and the noted general

Patric) (ordon. << B1 the centur1's end% the #esuits had een opened a school in &osco4 for the

children of prominent aristocratic families. +o4eer% gien the nature of the Petrine 4ars and

reforms% such a school had little chance to gro4. In an1 case% this configuration of historicalcircumstances full1 accounts for and eplains the “enopho-ia! displa1ed -1 the last patriarchs%

Ioa)im and Adrian. 577B1 no4 &osco4 4as a4are that the Russian and ,iean emigrants during their stud1

a-road in local #esuit schools had -ecome /niates. f course% such an act could usuall1 -e

ustifled su-seCuentl1 on the grounds that the1 did so 4ith insincerit1% “not 4ith the heart% -utsolel1 4ith the lips.! +o4eer% ustifia-le dou-ts lingered a-out precisel1 4hen these emigrants

4ere actuall1 feigning sincerit1. id the1 accept the /nion or reect it As a contemporar1 put it%

“a #esuit residue still clung een on those 4ho did not fall a4a1.! The deacon Petr Artem'e

conerted to *atholicism 4hile accompan1ing Ioanni)ii 2i)hud on a -rief trip through Ital1. 575Palladii Rogos)ii's fate seres as a characteristic illustration of this pro-lem. At one point% 4hen

he 4as alread1 a mon) and a deacon% he fled &osco4% for he had apparentl1 -een united 4ith the

Roman *hurch -1 the local #esuit mission. A-road he studied 4ith the #esuits in ;ilna% Neisse%lomouc and finall1 at the *ollege of St. Athanasius in Rome% 4here he 4as ordained a priest

mon) or hieromon). +e departed from Rome as a missionar1% ta)ing 4ith him a magnificent

theological li-rar1 furnished -1 the Propaganda 3ide and the u)e of 3lorence. /pon his arrialin ;enice% he as)ed the (ree) metropolitan to restore him to rthodo1. After returning to

&osco4% he addressed a penitential letter to the patriarch. &ean4hile% the #esuit mission in

&osco4 continued to regard him as one of their o4n and s1mpathi$ed 4ith his delicate position.

/ltimatel1% Palladii regained the confidence of the higher ecclesiastical circles% and after theremoal of the 2i)hud -rothers% he 4as appointed rector of the Academ1. 57F Palladii died

shortl1 after4ard and did not succeed in eercising an1 influence on the Academ1. +is sermons%

4hich hae -een presered% proide a picture of his true outloo): he remained full1 4ithin thesphere of Roman *atholic doctrine. Palladii merel1 came first in a long line of such men. uring

the reign of Peter the (reat% this semi9concealed Roman *atholicism inspired the etension of

the school net4or) throughout Russia.*onflicts 4ith Protestants in &osco4 had occurred earlier. &ost important 4ere the dra4n

out disputes -et4een Russian plenipotentiaries and Protestant pastors 4hen discussing the

proposed marriage of Tsar &i)hail's daughter 4ith the anish *ro4n Prince "oldemar in

5G.57 The de-ate touched 4ith sufficient decisieness and comprehensieness on a ariet1 of

==



Cuestions. uring the second half of the seenteenth centur1% a Cuantit1 of literar1 anti9Protestant

tracts 4ere in circulation. These 4or)s% often deriatie or translations% testif1 to the ital

character of the polemic. Some among the emigrants from a-road could 4ith reason and ustice -e suspected of *alinist or 2utheran persuasion. #an Belo-ods)ii% 4ho came from the 4estern

-orderlands 4ith the aim of acCuiring a position in the ne4l1 conceied and ne4l1 planned

academ1% ma1 -e ta)en as an illustration. The 2atinophile part1 among Simeon of Polots)'scircle gae him a cool reception and eposed him. The 2i)hud -rothers did the same later.

B1 the end of the centur1% the “(erman su-ur-! LNemets)aia slo-odaM 57 4as no longer so

isolated and sealed off. The fantastic affair of Kuirinius ,uhlmann% 4ho had first -eencondemned and denounced -1 his o4n follo4ers% proides a further opportunit1 to peer deeper

-eneath the surface into the life of this colon1 or su-ur-% 4hich contained a ariet1 of religions.

,uhlmann% one of those m1stic adenturers% dreamers% or prophets 4ho freCuentl1 made their

appearance during the Thirt1 Dears "ar% often ourne1ed throughout Europe% maintaining closeties 4ith m1stical and theosophical circles. +e 4rote a great deal% and among the authorities on

m1sticism he reered #aco- Boehme. 578 ,uhlmann's Boehme Resurrected LNeu-egeisterter

BohmeM appeared in 5G=. The intiuence of #an *omenius' 2ue Tene-ris on ,uhlmann should

also -e noted. 57G +e arried in &osco4 rather unepectedl1 and -egan preaching a-out thethousand 1ear reign of the righteous Lmonarchia #esueliticaM . Although he discoered onl1 a

small nucleus of follo4ers% he generated great ecitement. Along 4ith his adherents% ,uhlmann4as accused of freethin)ing% and in 5G6< he and his colla-orator *ondratius Nordermann 4ere

-urned to death in &osco4.

Conclusion.

There is no need to eaggerate &uscoite “ignorance! during the seenteenth centur1. "hat

4as lac)ing 4as not )no4ledge% -ut proper cultural and spiritual perspecties. After mid9centur1%

the issue of schools 4as posed and resoled. But in the process a de-ate arose: should theseschools hae a Slaono9(ree) orientation or a 2atin one The Cuestion Cuic)l1 -ecame

complicated and intensified through the antagonism displa1ed -1 itinerant (ree)s and emigrantsfrom ,ie.

(enerall1 spea)ing% the ,iean emigrants proed superior to these (ree) agrants 4ho

freCuentl1 sought onl1 adentures and adantages. But the ,ieans 4ere 4illing and a-le to

introduce a full1 2atin school -oth in language and in spirit% 4hereas the (ree)s% een those 4ho

4ere outspo)enl1 2atinophiles% al4a1s underscored the decisie importance of (ree). “+ainga-andoned and neglected (ree)9the language from 4hich 1ou acCuired enlightenment in the

rthodo faith91ou hae lost 4isdom%! declared Paisios 2igarides. True% this 4as meant as an

attac) on Russian tradition rather than as an attac) on 2atin.In 5G67% at the reCuest of Tsar 3edor% l7= Simeon of Polots) composed a “charter! LpriileiM

or draft statute founding the &osco4 Slaono9(ree) Academ1% modelled on those in ,ie and

on 2atin schools in the "est. The Academ1 4as to -e all9encompassing% proiding “all theli-eral sciences%! from -asic grammar “een unto theolog1% 4hich teaches of diine matters and

cleanses the conscience.! In addition to “+elleno9(ree)! and Slaonic “dialects%! not onl1 4as

2atin to -e taught% -ut Polish as 4ell. &oreoer% the Academ1 4as not to -e merel1 a school -ut

a center for directing education and possessing er1 4ide po4ers in guiding cultural actiit1 ingeneral. It 4as proposed that the Academ1 -e empo4ered and charged 4ith the dut1 to eamine

foreign scholars for their scholarl1 competence and for their faith. f course% -oo)s 4ere to -e

censored. A particularl1 stern clause in the charter concerned teachers of natural magic and

=6



In this sense% Peter's reform 4as not onl1 a turning point% -ut a reolution. “+e produced an

actual metamorphosis or transformation in Russia%! as one contemporar1 put it. Such is the 4a1

in 4hich the reform 4as conceied% accepted% and eperienced. Peter 4anted a -rea). +e had the ps1cholog1 of a reolutionar1 and 4as inclined to eaggerate an1thing ne4. +e 4anted

eer1thing to -e refur-ished and altered until it passed -e1ond all recognition. +e ha-ituall1

thought ?and taught others to thin)@ a-out the present as a counterpoint to the past. +e createdand inculcated a reolutionar1 ps1cholog1. The great and genuine Russian schism -egan 4ith

Peter. The schism occurred -et4een church and state% not -et4een the goernment and the

people ?as the Slaophiles -elieed@. A certain polari$ation too) place in Russia's spiritual life. Inthe tension -et4een the t4in anchor points > secular life and ecclesiastical life > the Russian

spirit stretched and strained to the utmost. Peter's reform signified a displacement or een a

rupture in Russia's spiritual depths.

State authorit1 under4ent an alteration in its perception of itself and in its self9definition.The state affirmed its o4n self9satisfaction and confirmed its o4n soereign self9sufficienc1. And

in the name of such primac1 and soereignt1% the state not onl1 demanded o-edience from the

church as 4ell as its su-ordination% -ut also sought some 4a1 to a-sor- and include the church

4ithin itself0 to introduce and incorporate the church 4ithin the structure and composition of thestate s1stem and routine. The state denied the independence of the church's rights and po4er%

4hile the er1 thought of church autonom1 4as denounced and condemned as “poper1.! Thestate affirmed itself as the sole% unconditional% and all9encompassing source of eer1 po4er and

piece of legislation as 4ell as of eer1 deed or creatie act. L...M.

The acts of the ecumenical councils 4ere also to -e emplo1ed. &oreoer% modern -oo)s -1non9rthodo authors could -e used on the uns4ering condition that Scripture and patristic

tradition proide confirmational testimon1 in the eposition of een those dogmas 4here no

direct disagreement -et4een rthodo and “non9rthodo! eists. “+o4eer% their arguments

are not to -e -elieed lightl1% -ut shall -e eamined to determine if there is such a phrase in theScriptures or in the patristic -oo)s% and 4hether it has the same meaning as the1 assign.! f

course 3eofan understood “non9rthodo! to mean “Romanists! and all of his 4arnings are

directed against “Roman! theolog1. “And a misfortune it is that these gentlemen scholarsLpanoe sh)oliari)iM cannot een hear papal tid-its 4ithout ealting them to -e infalli-le.!

3eofan himself profusel1 and sedulousl1 used “modern! and “non9rthodo! -oo)s% -ut

these 4ere Protestant -oo)s. +is theological lectures most closel1 approimate those of Polanuson Polansdorf% the Reformation theologian from Basel.lG ne freCuentl1 detects the use of

#ohann (erhard's compendium 2oci communes theologici ?first edition #ena% 5G5795GFF@. 5= In

the section on the +ol1 Spirit% 3eofan does little -ut repeat Adam erni)a. 56 Bellarmine's

isputationes 5< 4as al4a1s read1 at his fingertips and not simpl1 to -e refuted.3eofan must -e termed an epigon% -ut he 4as not a compiler. +e full1 commanded his

material% re4or)ing it and adapting it to his purpose. A 4ell educated man% he moed freel1 in

the contemporar1 theological literature% especiall1 Protestant 4ritings. +e had personal contacts4ith (erman theologians. And. it must immediatel1 -e added that 3eofan did not simpl1 -orro4

from seenteenth centur1 Protestant scholasticism% he -elonged to it. +is 4ritings fit integrall1

into the histor1 of (erman Reformation theolog1. If the title of Russian -ishop had not appearedon 3eofan's “treatises%! it 4ould hae -een most natural to imagine the1 4ere 4ritten -1 a

professor of some Protestant theological facult1. These -oo)s are saturated 4ith a 4estern

Reformation spirit. Such a spirit can -e detected through out9 in his turn of mind and choice of

4ords. 3eofan stands forth not as a 4esterner% -ut as a 4estern man% a foreigner. It is not an

67



accident that he felt more at home 4ith foreigners% foreign pastors% and learned (erman scholars

at the Academ1 of Sciences. F7 +e ie4ed the rthodo 4orld as an outsider and imagined it to

-e a duplicate of Rome. +e simpl1 did not eperience rthodo1% a-sor-ed as he 4as in 4esterndisputes. In those de-ates he remained to the end allied 4ith the Protestants.

Strictl1 spea)ing% 3eofan's theological s1stem contained no instruction on the church. The

definition of the church 4hich he proides is 4holl1 insufficient.(od desired to unite +is faithful% 4ho 4ere esta-lished in *hrist% as a ciil societ1 or

repu-lic% 4hich is called the *hurch9 in Cuadam certum repu-licam seu ciitatem compingere%

Cuae dicitur ecclesia > so that the1 might -etter )no4 themseles% gie mutual assistance%reoice% and 4ith (od's aid defend themseles against their enemies.

3eofan neither eperienced nor noticed the m1stical realit1 of the church. 3or him the

church 4as merel1 a union for *hristian mutual assistance and identit1 of outloo). Such an

attitude ma)es comprehensi-le his entire ecclesiastical9political program and actiit1.3eofan -egins his s1stem 4ith a treatise on Scripture as the impecca-le and 4holl1 self9

sufficient primar1 source of religious instruction. In doing so% he closel1 follo4s (erhard's

theological s1stem% 4hose section on the Scriptures practicall1 replaces the section on the

church. 3eofan ardentl1 ineighs against Roman *atholic authors% 4hile insisting on thecompleteness and self9sufficienc1 of Scripture. Scripture full1 contains and utterl1 ehausts the

entiret1 of all necessar1 truths and -eliefs. In theolog1% and in faith itself% onl1 Scripture is principium cognoscendi. Scripture alone% as the "ord of (od% possesses authorit1. +uman

thoughts and reflections can achiee no greater force than that of theses or “arguments! and

certainl1 cannot -ecome a standard of “authorit1.! Scriptures are su-ect to eegesis andanal1sis. Rather than lo4er the leel of relia-ilit1 through auiliar1 and human commentaries%

the most promising method is to use Scripture to interpret itself. The ecumenical councils possess

a su-ordinate right to proide interpretation. Een the consensus patrum is merel1 humanium

testimonium as far as 3eofan is concerned. Such testimon1 represents onl1 an historical 4itnessa-out the past% a-out the opinions of the church in a gien epoch. 3eofan reduces the theologian's

function to utaposing and arranging tets. In this sense% follo4ing his 4estern teachers 3eofan

spea)s of theolog1's “formal! character and% meaning. 3or all of his distaste for Roman *atholic“scholasticism%! 3eofan% li)e the maorit1 of Protestant theologians during the seenteenth

centur1 and earlier ?-eginning 4ith &elanchthon@% remained a scholastic. espite his great

familiarit1 4ith “modern! philosoph1 ?he read escartes% Bacon% Spino$a% 2ei-ni$% and "olff@%3eofan 4as much closer to 3rancis Suare$% F5 4ho had so man1 Protestant successors. At no

point did 3eofan leae that entrancing sphere of 4estern academic theological polemic 4hich

fossili$ed the 4hole tragic pro-lematics of the Reformation de-ates.

Among 3eofan's special “treatises%! num-ers seen and eight dealing 4ith man innocentand fallen are particularl1 important and interesting. 3eofan 4rote another treatise in Russian on

this same theme entitled The ispute of Peter and Pau5 on the /n-eara-le Do)e. FF 3eofan's

teaching a-out ustification in this pamphlet sered as the first opportunit1 for his opponents tospea) a-out his “points contrar1 to the church%! his corruption -1 “the poison of *alinism! and

his introduction of Reformation su-tleties into the Russian 4orld. Such reproaches and

suspicions 4ere full1 ustified. 3eofan proceeded from the strictest anthropological permission4hich eplains his tendenc1 as a 1oung man to completel1 discount an1 human actiit1 in the

process of salation. Therefore% he limited the significance of theological reflection. &an had

-een -ro)en and reiled -1 falling into sin0 he had -een imprisoned and entangled -1 sin. "ill

itself had -een incarcerated and depried of strength. 3eofan understood “ustification! as a

65



The1 attac)ed our rthodo piet1 and faith% -ut in such a 4a1 and under such a pretet that

the1 seemed to -e rooting out some unneeded and harmful superstition in *hristianit1. ho4

man1 clerg1men and an een greater num-er of learned mon)s 4ere defroc)ed% tortured andeterminated under that pretenseQ "h1 No ans4er is heard ecept: he is a superstitious person%

a -igot% a h1pocrite% a person unfit for an1thing. These things 4ere done cunningl1 and

purposefull1% so as to etirpate the rthodo priesthood and replace it 4ith a ne4l1 conceied priestlessness L-e$poposhchinaM.

Such is the Eli$a-ethan preacher Amrosii Iush)eich's recollection of Anna's reign.

Peter -ecame dissatisfied 4ith Stefan Iaors)ii for raising the issue of Teritino and for his critical and forthright statement on the points of difference -et4een rthodo1 and

2utheranism. Roc) of 3aith L,amen' er1M 8 4as not pu-lished during Peter's lifetime precisel1

-ecause of its sharp polemical attac)s upon Protestantism. The -oo) 4as first pu-lished in 5=F6

under the superision of 3eofila)t 2opatins)ii and 4ith the permission of the Supreme Pri1*ouncil. This edition of the Roc) of 3aith receied man1 -lo4s in (erman1. Buddeus'

“apologetic! re-uttal appeared in #ena in 5=F<. G (ossip ascri-ed this reoinder to 3eofan.

#ohann &osheim = critici$ed Roc) of 3aith in 5=5 . In Russia% 3ather Bernardo de Ri-era% the

household priest of the Spanish eno1 #aco-o 3rancisco% u)e de 2iria% came to Iaors)ii'sdefense. The Cuarrel% -ecoming eermore entangled and comple% 4as finall1 resoled in the

Secret *hancer1. A decree of 5< August 5=F again suppressed Roc) of 3aith and remoed itfrom circulation. The entire edition 4as sei$ed and sealed up.

ur domestic enemies deised a stratagem to undermine the rthodo faith0 the1 consigned

to o-liion religious -oo)s alread1 prepared for pu-lication0 and the1 for-ade others to -e4ritten under penalt1 of death. The1 sei$ed not onl1 the teachers% -ut also their lessons and

-oo)s% fettered them% and loc)ed them in prison. Things reached such a point that in this

rthodo state to open one's mouth a-out religion 4as dangerous: one could depend on

immediate trou-le and persecution. ?Amrosii Iush)eich@ Iaors)ii's -oo) 4as restored to freecirculation -1 imperial order onl1 in 5=5 .

Roc) of 3aith 4as persecuted and suppressed precisel1 -ecause it contained a polemical

reoinder to the Reformation. 3or this reason ho4eer% een those rthodo 4ho had nos1mpath1 or enthusiasm for Iaors)ii's 2atinism greatl1 alued his 4or). Pososh)o 4as one

such rthodo. 6

The -oo) Roc) of 3aith composed -1 +is +oliness the &etropolitan of Ria$an' StefanIaors)ii of -lessed memor1 should -e pu-lished in order to affirm the faith and presere it from

2utherans% *alinists% and other iconoclasts. 3ie or si copies of it should -e sent to each

school% so that those aspiring for the priesthood might commit this er1 alua-le Roc) to

memor1 in order to repl1 automaticall1 to an1 Cuestion.Pososh)o 4as sincerel1 4orried and confused -1 this “iconoclastic! danger% -1 “senseless

2utheran theori$ing%! and -1 the “idle 4isdom! of 2utheranism. +e enthusiasticall1 supported

Peter's reforms% -ut he did not -eliee that it 4as either necessar1 or possi-le to repudiate one'so4n ancestral religion for the sa)e of an1 such renoation or for the “general 4elfare%! or replace

it 4ith something ne4l1 conceied and superficial. As igorousl1 as 3eofan and Peter%

Pososh)o critici$ed the religious ignorance and superstition of the people% een the clerg1% as4ell as the 4idel1 preailing poert1 and inustice. +e insisted on the general introduction of

schools0 demanded the “a-ilit1 to read! Lgrammatiches)oe ra$umenieM from those see)ing to

-ecome deacons0 and inited those pursuing a monastic life to stud1 and “-ecome s)illed in

disputations.! +o4eer% Pososh)o's ideal remained the “religious life! and not la1 or secular

6



life. Thus% despite Stefan Iaors)ii's 2atinisms Pososh)o felt a closeness to and a confidence in

him. A-oe all% Stefan proided him 4ith a good deal of useful material.

In this 4a1 circumstances unfolded in 4hich Stefan% 4riting theolog1 on the -asis of Bellarmine% -1 the same to)en 4as a-le to defend the Russian church from the introduction of

the Reformation. Those circumstances -ecame so comple that the fate of Russian theolog1 in

the eighteenth centur1 4as resoled in an etended de-ate -et4een the epigoni of 4estern post9Reformation Roman *atholic and Protestant scholasticism. 3eofan eentuall1 emerged

ictorious in that de-ate0 he did not do so immediatel1. ue to a certain historical inertia% the

earlier Roman *atholic ,iean tradition persisted until mid9centur1% een in the ne4l1 createdschools. Ne4 ideas onl1 slo4l1 gained 4ider currenc1. 3eofan conCuered as a scholar this 4as a

ictor1 for Protestant scholastic theolog1.

The Ecclesiastical %chools of the Eighteenth Century.

In the section of the Regulation entitled “Teachers and Students in Educational Institutions!

3eofan outlines a coherent and reasoned program for education in the ne4 schools. “"hen there

is no light of learning there can -e no good order in the *hurch0 disorder and superstitions

4orth1 of much ridicule are inescapa-le as are dissensions and the most senseless heresies.! The,ie Academ1 remained 3eofan's model or template. +e proposed the esta-lishment of the

“Academ1! model for (reat Russia. Such a school 4as to -e uniform and general% lasting seeral

1ears and containing man1 grades. All grades 4ould progress together. The school 4as to aim for general education 4ith philosoph1 and theolog1 forming the capstone. A seminar1 4as to -e

opened in conunction 4ith the academ1% and it 4as to -e a -oarding school “on the monastic

leel.! In 3eofan's estimation% this mar)ed the point of departure. nce again he is rel1ing on4estern eample or eperience ?Hthese things hae -een made the su-ect of no little pondering

in foreign countries!@. +e most li)el1 had in mind the *ollege of St. Athanasius in Rome% 4here

he had studied. The life of the seminar1 4as to -e insulated and isolated 4ith the greatest possi-le effort made to separate it from the surrounding life ?Hnot in a cit1 -ut aside!@% a4a1 from

the influence of -oth parents and tradition. nl1 in this manner could a ne4 -reed of men -ereared and educated. “Such a life for 1oung people seems to -e ir)some and similar toimprisonment. But for the person 4ho -ecomes accustomed to such a life% een for a single 1ear%

it 4ill -e most pleasant0 as 4e )no4 from our o4n eperience and from that of others.!

3eofan immediatel1 tried to esta-lish such a seminar1% and in 5=F5 he opened a school in

his home at ,arpo)a. The school 4as onl1 for the primar1 grades. 3oreigners% including theacademician (ottlie- Ba1er < and Sellius% 7 taught there. The school 4as a-olished 4hen

3eofan died. ai)onospass)ii Academ1 in the ai)onospass)ii &onaster1 in &osco4 -ecame

the leading school in (reat Russia. B1 5=77 or 5=75% it had alread1 -een reorgani$ed on the,iean model as a 2atin school under the protection of Stefan Iaors)ii. Patriarch ositheus of

#erusalem 5 ustifia-l1 re-u)ed him for introducing “2atin learning.! &ean4hile the #esuits in

&osco4% 4ho had founded their o4n school for the sons of &osco4 aristocrats% commented er1faora-l1 on it. Students of the t4o schools maintained friendl1 relations and arranged oint

scholastic conersations. It 4ould seem that for a time Stefan had friendl1 relations 4ith the

#esuits as 4ell.

All the teachers at the academ1 came from ,ie and among them 3eofila)t 2opatins)iideseres special mention. 2ater during the reign of Anna% he -ecame arch-ishop of Ter and also

un-eara-l1 suffered at the hands of cunning men. +e suffered most greatl1 from 3eofan% 4hom

he accused and attac)ed for Protestantism. 3eofila)t possessed a 4ide )no4ledge and a -old

6



spirit% -ut he 4as a t1pical scholastic theologian. +is lectures follo4 Thomas ACuinas. +e also

later superised the pu-lication of Iaors)ii's Roc) of 3aith. F

(enerall1 spea)ing% the schools of that time in (reat Russia 4ere usuall1 created andopened onl1 -1 hierarchs from the /)raine. ?There 4as also a time 4hen onl1 /)rainians could

-ecome -ishops and archimandrites@. The1 founded 2atin schools eer14here on the model of

those in 4hich the1 themseles had studied. /suall1 these hierarchs -rought teachers ?sometimeseen of “Polish etraction!@ from ,ie or summoned them after4ard. It sometimes happened

that een the students 4ere -rought from the /)raine. Such an emigration of /)rainians or

*her)ass1 4as regarded in (reat Russia as a foreign inasion. In the most direct and literalsense% Peter's reform meant “/)raini$ation! in the histor1 of these ecclesiastical schools. The

ne4 (reat Russian school 4as dou-l1 foreign to its students: it 4as a school of “2atin learning!

and “*her)assian! teachers. namens)ii ma)es this point in his remar)a-le -oo) on the

ecclesiastical schools of the eighteenth centur1.To the students all of these teachers Cuite literall1 seemed to -e foreigners 4ho had traeled

from a far a4a1 land% as the /)raine seemed at the time. The /)raine possessed its o4n customs%

conceptions% and een learning% coupled 4ith a speech 4hich 4as little understood and strange to

the (reat Russian ear. &oreoer% not onl1 did the1 not 4ish to adapt themseles to the 1ouththe1 4ere supposed to educate or to the countr1 in 4hich the1 resided% -ut the1 also despised the

(reat Russians as -ar-arians. An1thing 4hich differed from that in the /)raine -ecame theo-ect of mirth and censure. The1 ehi-ited and insisted upon eer1thing /)rainian as singularl1

-etter.

There is direct eidence that man1 of these emigrants remained unaccustomed to the (reatRussian dialect and constantl1 spo)e /)rainian. This situation altered onl1 during *atherine II's

reign. B1 that time seeral generations of indigenous (reat Russian 2atinists had gro4n up. The

school remained 2atin. As a “colon1! it gre4 stronger% -ut it neer ceased to -e a colon1.

"ithout eaggeration one can sa1 that “that culture 4hich lied and gre4 in Russia fromPeter's da1 on4ard 4as the organic and direct continuation not of &uscoite tradition -ut of

,iean or /)rainian culture! ?Prince N.S. Tru-ets)oi@ nl1 one reseration needs to -e

made: such culture 4as too artificial and too forci-l1 introduced to -e descri-ed as an “organiccontinuation.!

*onsidera-le confusion and disorgani$ation accompanied the construction of the ne4

school net4or). B1 design the ne4 school 4as to -e a “class! school compulsor1 for the“clerical ran).! The children of the clerg1 4ere recruited -1 force% li)e soldiers% under threat of

imprisonment% assignment to the arm1% and merciless punishment. In the /)raine% on the

contrar1% the schools had a multiclass character. &oreoer% in the /)raine the clerg1 did not

-ecome segregated into a distinct class until *atherine's reign. In addition to the ,ieanAcadem1% the ,har)o *ollegium also proides a characteristic eample. 3ounded as a seminar1

in 5=FF -1 Epifanii Ti)hors)ii% 8 the -ishop of Belgorod% and 4ith great material assistance

from the (olits1n famil1% the school had -een reorgani$ed in 5=FG. Sometimes it 4as een calledthe Ti)horian Academ1. The theolog1 class 4as inaugurated as earl1 as 5=.

In an1 case% the hierarch1 4as o-ligated to esta-lish ne4 schools and to do so at the epense

of the local monaster1 or church. These schools 4ere founded from professional considerations“in the hope of the priesthood%! for the creation and education of a ne4 -reed of clerg1.

+o4eer% their curricula proided for general education 4ith theolog1 studied onl1 in the er1

last 1ear. ;er1 fe4 surmounted the long and difficult curriculum to reach that class. The maorit1

left the seminaries 4ith no theological training 4hateer. Not ust the poorer students left earl1

68



?Hfor inaptitude for learning! or “for ina-ilit1 to understand the lessons!@. ;er1 freCuentl1 the

-etter students 4ere lured a4a1 to the “ciil command! Lsets)aia )ommandaM in search of other

professions or simpl1 to enter “into the -ureaucratic ran).! Det throughout the entire eighteenthcentur1 the ecclesiastical schools formed the sole% dura-le% and etensie educational s1stem.

The epansion and deelopment of such a net4or) of multigrade schools seemed an

impossi-le tas)% as 4as dul1 foreseen. A-oe all% the necessar1 num-er of teachers couldno4here -e found or acCuired% especiall1 teachers sufficientl1 trained in the “highest learning!

?i.e.% theolog1 and philosoph1@. In an1 case% onl1 four of the t4ent19si seminaries opened prior

to 5=87 taught theolog1 and four more offered philosoph1. ue to the lac) of a-le teachers% thissituation onl1 slo4l1 improed een at the Ale)sandr Nes)ii Seminar1 in St. Peters-urg G

Enlisting students proed difficult% although failure to appear 4as treated similarl1 to desertion

from the arm1.

A police state dra4s no distinction -et4een stud1 and serice. Education is regarded as aform of serice or dut1. The student ?een the 1oungest@ 4as loo)ed upon as a seritor

discharging his o-ligation and -ound to perform all the tas)s -elonging to his office under threat

of criminal prosecution and not simpl1 punishment. Thus% onl1 4ith the greatest reluctance 4ere

een the least capa-le students ?including -o1s of unconCuera-le delinCuenc1% cruelt1% andiolent -rutalit1@ ecused from enlistment in the education serice% and 4hen that happened%

soldiering replaced their education. “In this regard% seminarians -ecame sons of church soldiersLtser)on1e )antonist1M.! Those failing to appear% those 4ho disappeared% or those 4ho deserted

4ere trac)ed do4n and forci-l1 returned > sometimes een in chains > “for that training and

testing of them depicted in the Spiritual Regulation.! All of these measures failed to deter deserters. Sometimes nearl1 half the seminar1 ran a4a1% and class lists contained the epicentr1:

semper fugitiosus.

Such 4ild flights -1 students and their concealment -1 others did not result from some dar)

Cualit1% la$iness% or o-scurantism on the part of the clerical ran). The reason for such reection of education did not derie from some ignorant or superstitious Cualit1 in the clerg1% a topic on

4hich Peter and 3eofan so eloCuentl1 declaimed. The reason lies concealed in the fact that the

ne4 Russian school 4as foreign and eotic: an unepected 2atin9Polish colon1 on the Russianclerg1's natie soil. Een from the “professional! point of ie4 such a school can -e sho4n to

hae -een useless.

The practical mind detected no -enefit in 2atin grammar% that is% in some Jartfulmannerisms' acCuired in the seminaries and utterl1 failed to discoer an1 reasons to a-andon the

old familiar 4a1s of preparation for pastoral duties at home in echange for ne4 unfamiliar and

dou-tful 4a1s. It still remained to -e proen 4ho 4as -etter prepared for the clerical life: the

psalmist 4ho had sered in the church since childhood and learned reading% singing% andliturgical routine through practice or the 2atin scholar 4ho had learned a fe4 2atin inflections%

and a fe4 oca-ular1 4ords. ?namens)ii@ In the 2atin schools% students gre4 unfamiliar 4ith

Slaic and een the Scriptural tets used during their lessons 4ere presented in 2atin. (rammar%rhetoric% and poetics 4ere studied in 2atin. Rhetoric in Russian came later. /nderstanda-l1%

parents mistrustfull1 sent their children to “that damned seminar1 to -e tortured%! 4hile the

children themseles preferred imprisonment if it meant escaping such educational serice. Thedisma1ing impression arose that these ne4l1 introduced schools% if the1 did not actuall1 alter

one's faith% did replace one's nationalit1.

uring Peter's reign Russia did not acCuire the “humanist foundations! of European culture%

-ut merel1 4estern routine. This routine 4as introduced through compulsor1 measures% and such

6G



means freCuentl1 proed morall1 de-asing% particularl1 in the “all9em-racing poert1%! that is%

outright destitution 4hich preailed in the schools een as late as the -eginning of the nineteenth

centur1. &etropolitan 3ilaret of &osco4% spea)ing a-out his o4n school da1s% noted that clerical1ouths “from the lo4est grades to the highest prepared themseles for church serice more

through fortitude and endurance than -ecause the1 possessed an1 material adantage.! True% in

the second half of the centur1 this situation improed and another% more fruitful% pedagogicalideal preailed. Een 3rench -ecame part of the curriculum. The ideal found scarcel1 an1

reflection in life.

The esta-lishment of schools undou-tedl1 constituted a positie step. Det the transplant of 2atin schools in Russian soil signified a -reach in the church's consciousness: a -reach

separating theological “learning! from ecclesiastical eperience. The rift could -e felt all the

more )eenl1 4hen one pra1ed in Slaic and theologi$ed in 2atin. The same Scripture 4hich rang

out in class in the international language of 2atin could -e heard in Slaic in the cathedral. Thisunhealth1 -reach in the church's consciousness ma1 4ell hae -een the most tragic conseCuence

of the Petrine epoch. A ne4 “dual faith%! or at least “dual soul%! 4as created. “nce one has gone

to the (ermans% leaing them is er1 difficult! ?+er$en@. =

The cultural construction 4as 4estern0 een the theolog1 4as 4estern. uring theeighteenth centur1 the term education usuall1 designated scholarl1 “erudition.! This theological

erudition of Russia's eighteenth centur1 2atin schools came to -e regarded ?and 4ith reason@ assome foreign and superfluous element in the church's life and customs% responding to none of its

organic needs. Such erudition 4as not neutral. Theolog1 studied according to 3eofan's s1stem

resulted in all Cuestions -eing posed and ie4ed from a Protestant standpoint. Ps1chologicaltransformation accompanied this ne4 erudition0 the spiritual dimension 4as “Reformed.! Is this

not actuall1 the most po4erful reason for that lac) of faith in and o-stinate indifference to

theological culture 4hich still has not 1et -een outgro4n among the 4ider circles of the

congregation and een among the clerg1 This is also the reason for the continuing attitudeto4ards theolog1 as a foreign and 4estern appendage foreer alien to the rthodo East 4hich

has so tragicall1 impeded ?and continues to impede@ the recoer1 of Russia's religious

consciousness and its li-eration from -oth ancient and modern preudices. This is an historicaldiagnosis% not an assessment.

H&an1 seminarians 4ho are stud1ing 2atin language and 2atin su-ects hae -een o-sered

to -ecome suddenl1 -ored%! as it 4as noted in a er1 curious reCuest for the reinstitution of Russian entitled “2amentations of Sons of &erchants and Those of &ied Ran)s! addressed to

the then arch-ishop of Ter% Platon 2eshin% 6 in 5==7. Such “-oredom! and een “affliction!

?that is% inur1 to the mind@ sprang from a spiritual contusion or rupture. Kuite sufficient reasons

and grounds for dis-elief and suspicion 4ere proided not onl1 during Peter's rein -utsu-seCuent 1ears supplied them 4ith greater freCuenc1. 2earning opposed “superstition! and

often faith and piet1 4ere understood to come under that hated designation. Naturall1 this 4as

the “Age of Enlightenment.! The -usiness9li)e and utilitarian struggle 4ith superstition duringPeter's reign anticipated the luurious freethin)ing and li-ertinism of *atherine's reign.

In dealing 4ith “superstition! Peter proed more resolute than een 3eofan% for he 4as

cruder. Still% 3eofan 4as no apprentice. In this regard% the Petrine legislation regulatingmonasteries and monasticism is er1 instructie. Peter considered monasticism as )naish and

parasitical. “"heneer seeral LsuchM sanctimonious -igots 4ent to isit the (ree) emperors%

the1 more freCuentl1 isited their 4ies.! “At the er1 outset Lof Russian histor1M this gangrene

-ecame 4idespread among us.! Peter found Russia climaticall1 unsuited to monasticism. +e

6=



planned to conert eisting monasteries into 4or) houses% foundling homes or eterans homes.

&on)s 4ere to -ecome hospital attendants and nuns 4ere to -ecome spinners and lacema)ers%

for 4hich purpose s)illed lacema)ers 4ere -rought from Bra-ant. “The1 sa1 pra1% and eer1one pra1s. "hat profit does societ1 get from that! The prohi-ition against mon)s stud1ing -oo)s

and engaging in literar1 affairs is Cuite characteristic% and a “rule! to that effect 4as appended to

the Regulation. <3or no reason shall mon)s 4rite in their cells% either ecerpts from -oo)s or letters of

adice% 4ithout the personal )no4ledge of their superior under penalt1 of seere corporal

punishment0 nor shall the1 receie letters ecept 4ith the permission of the superior. Inconformit1 4ith the spiritual and ciil regulations no in) or paper ma1 -e o4ned% ecept -1

those permitted -1 the superior for a general spiritual use. This shall -e diligentl1 4atched

among the mon)s% for nothing destro1s monastic silence as much as friolous and ain 4ritings.

Apropos of this prohi-ition% (iliaro9Platono 87 once rightl1 noted that:"hen Peter I issued the decree for-idding mon)s to )eep pen and in) in their cells% 4hen that

same rule ordered -1 la4 that the confessor report to the criminal inestigator those sins reealed

to him in confession0 then the clerg1 must hae felt that henceforth state authorit1 4ould come

-et4een them and the people% that the state 4ould ta)e upon itself the eclusie instruction of the popular mind and strie to destro1 that spiritual -ond% that mutual confidence% 4hich eisted

-et4een shepherds and their floc)s.True% Peter also 4ished to educate the mon)s in the true understanding of the Scriptures. As

a first step% all 1oung mon)s ?that is% those less than thirt1 1ears old@ 4ere ordered to assem-le

for stud1 at the ai)onospass)ii Academ1. 85 Such a decree could onl1 produce further unrest%for it could onl1 -e understood as an effort to etend the educational9serice reCuirement to

mon)s ?4hich 4as full1 in )eeping 4ith the spirit of the “reforms!@. Such serice 4as to -e done

in 2atin schools at that. Some4hat later Peter proposed to conert the monasteries into nurser1

-eds for the cultiation of enlightened men especiall1 capa-le of translating useful -oo)s.A-oe all% the ne4 school 4as regarded as a form of state ar-itrariness and interference.

These ne4 “learned! mon)s of the 2atin9,iean t1pe ?the onl1 sort Peter and 3eofan 4ished to

train@8F 4hose uncomprehending and ecited minds 4ere forci-l1 acCuiring and -eing drilled inlifeless 2atin )no4ledge% could hardl1 -e reconciled to the closure and destruction of the old

pious monasteries or 4ith the silencing of (od's serice 4ithin them. 8

The Petrine State etorted the acceptance of this religious and ps1chological act. Precisel1 -ecause of this etortion religious consciousness in the eighteenth centur1 so often shran)%

shrielled% and coered itself 4ith silence% Cuiet endurance% and a refusal to pose Cuestions for

itself. A single common language9that s1mpathetic -ond 4ithout 4hich mutual understanding is

impossi-le94as lost. The Cuips and -anterings in 4hich Russia's eighteenth centur1 ,ulturtrager and enlighteners rapturousl1 engaged further facilitated this process. In general% all these

contradictions and contusions during the eighteenth centur1 po4erfull1 and unhealthil1

resounded and found epression in the histor1 of Russian theolog1 and Russian religiousconsciousness.

Protestant %cholasticis$.

3eofan's influence in education did not -ecome immediatel1 apparent. +e taught for onl1 a

short time in ,ie and he left no disciples -ehind him. +is “s1stem! remained uncompleted%

4hile his notes 4ere prepared and pu-lished much later. 3eofan's s1stem penetrated the school

66



routine approimatel1 at mid9centur1 ?in ,ie after Arsenii &ogilians)ii 8 -ecame

metropolitan in 5=8<@. uring the first half of the centur1 theolog1 continued to -e taught in the

earlier Roman *atholic manner. 88 *ourse plans 4ritten -1 3eofila)t ?that is% on the -asis of Thomas ACuinas@ usuall1 constituted the theolog1 taught in the ne4 seminaries. At that time

peripatetic philosoph1s 8G > Philsophia Atistotelico9Scholastica94as taught eer14here and

usuall1 from the same tet-oo)s as those used -1 the Polish #esuits. Philosoph1 passed fromAristotle to "olff 8= almost simultaneousl1 4ith the passage of theolog1 from ACuinas to 3eofan

Pro)opoich. Baumeister's tet-oo) long remained reCuired and 4idel1 accepted. 86 The s4a1

of Protestant 2atin scholasticisrn -egan. 2atin remained the language of the schools% 4hileinstruction and stud1 4ent unchanged. irect use 4as made of the s1stems and compendiums

4ritten -1 (erhard% Kuenstedt% +ollatius and Buddeus. 8< *ompilations% “a-ridgments%! and

“etracts! 4ere made from these Protestant hand-oo)s in the same manner such -oo)s had -een

compiled from Roman *atholic tets% 3e4 of these compendiums 4ere pu-lished. The lecturesof Sil'estr ,ulia-)a% (eorgii ,onis)ii% or (ariil Petro G7 4ere neer printed nl1 much later

did such compendiums appear in print: 3eofila)t (ors)ii's octrina ?pu-lished in 2eip$ig in

5=6 and -ased on Buddeus and Schu-ert@0 Ia)inf ,arpins)ii's *ompendium theologiae

dogmaticopolemicae ?2eip$ig% 5=6G@0 Sil'estr 2e-edins)ii's *ompendium ?St Peters-urg% 5=<<and &osco4% 5678@0 and finall1 Irinei 3al')os)ii'a compendium pu-lished in 565F. G5 All of

these authors follo4ed 3eofan. ne loo)s in ain for an1 free epression of thought in these -oo)s and compendiums. The1 4ere tet-oo)s: the fossili$ed “tradition of the school! and the

4eight of erudition. The eighteenth centur1 4itnessed the age of erudites and archaeologists

?more as philologists than as historians@% and such erudition found epression in their teaching.The 4hole purpose of eighteenth centur1 education resided in compiling and assem-ling

material. Een in the proincial seminaries the -est students read a great deal% especiall1 the

classical historians and freCuentl1 een the church fathers more often in 2atin translation than in

(ree)% 3or the (ree) language did not -elong to the “ordinar1! course 4or)% that is% it 4as notone of the chief su-ects of instruction and 4as not een reCuired. GF nl1 in 5=6 4as an1

attention paid to instruction in (ree) out of “consideration for the fact that the sacred -oo)s and

the 4or)s of the teachers of our rthodo (reco9Russian *hurch 4ere 4ritten in it: A moreli)el1 eplanation for this decision is to -e found in the political calculations related to the

“(ree) Proect.! G The reminder a-out (ree) produced no direct practical results and een such

an adocate as &etropolitan Platon of &osco4 G found onl1 ten or fifteen student 4illing tostud1 in his -eloed and 4ell tended Trinit1 Seminar1@ Platon himself learned (ree) onl1 after

finishing school. +e hoped the seminarians might achiee the a-ilit1 to spea) “simple (ree) and

read “+ellenic (ree).! +e succeeded% for some of his students did acCuire the a-ilit1 to 4rite

(ree) erses. The 4or)s of the church fathers as 4ell as other -oo)s 4ere translated from (ree) and 2atin at -oth the ai)onospass)ii Academ1 and the Trinit1 Seminar1. (ree)% along 4ith

+e-re4% -ecame compulsor1 4ith the reform of 5=<6.G8

Among the Russian +ellenists of the eighteenth centur1 first place must -e gien to SimonTodors)ii%GG the great authorit1 on (ree) and riental languages and student of the famous

&ichaelis G= Todors)ii's students in ,ie% Ia)o Blonnits)ii and ;arlaam 2iashches)ii% -oth

4or)ed on the ne4 edition of the Slaic Bi-le. G6 This 4as no eas1 tas). The editors neededgenuine philological tact and sensitiit1. A decision had to -e made a-out 4hich editions to use

as a -asis for corrections. The "alton Pol1glot% G< to -e consulted in conunction 4ith the

*omplutensian Pol1glot% =7 4as finall1 decided upon. No immediate solution 4as deised on

ho4 to deal 4ith cases of fault1 translation in the old and ne4 editions. ne suggestion inoled

6<



full1 printing -oth editions9the old one and the ne4 corrected one9in parallel columns. The

printed Bi-le% ho4eer% merel1 gae an etensie inde of all changes. The editors too) the

Septuagint as their guide. 3eofan had opposed comparing the translation not onl1 4ith the+e-re4 tet% -ut also 4ith other (ree) tets “4hich did not come into common use in the

Eastern *hurch.! +is argument 4as to -e repeated a centur1 later -1 the adherents to “the return

to the time of scholasticism.! Ia)o Blonnits)ii at one time sered as a teacher in Ter' and&osco4. "ithout completing the 4or) on the Bi-le% he secretl1 ourne1ed to &t. Athos% 4here

he lied ten 1ears in the Bulgarian monaster1 of ographou =5 and continued his stud1 of Slaic

and (ree).Bi-lical realism9the effort to grasp and understand the sacred tet in its concreteness and

een in historical perspectie9constitutes the positie side of the ne4 Bi-lical instruction.

&oralistic and didactic allegorism formed a po4erful element in eighteenth centur1 eegesis.

Neertheless% a-oe all else the Bi-le 4as regarded as a -oo) of Sacred +istor1. An ecclesiasticalapperception -egan to ta)e shape.

In 5=<6 church histor1 -ecame part of the curriculum. Since there 4as no “classical! -oo)

?that is% tet-oo)@% &osheim% Bingham% or 2ange 4ere recommended. =F Translation of

historical 4or)s occupied considera-le attention at the &osco4 Academ1 in the 5=G7's. PaelPonomare the rector of the academ1 in 5=6F ?later arch-ishop% of Ter' and then Iaroslal'@%

translated the &emoires of Tillemont =% -ut the 4or) met 4ith the censor's disapproal. Ieronim*herno% prefect at the academ1 in 5=66% pu-lished his translation of Bingham. &efodii Smirno

rector from 5=<5 to 5=<8 ?later arch-ishop of Ter'@% prefaced his theolog1 lectures 4ith an

historical introduction. +is 2i-er historicus de re-us in primitia sie trium primorum et Cuartiineuntis seculorum ecclesia christiana% the first sure1 of church histor1 in Russia% appeared in

5678. The -oo)'s st1le and content 4holl1 -elong to the eighteenth centur1. Petr Ale)see ?5=F=9

5675@% archpriest of the Archangel cathedral% a mem-er of the Russian Academ1% and a man of

er1 adanced ie4s% taught for man1 1ears at &osco4 /niersit1. +is chief 4or)% theEcclesiastical ictionar1 LTser)on1i sloar'M% 4hich proided eplanations for church articles

and terms% 4ent through three editions. = +e -egan to pu-lish the rthodo *onfession

LPraoslanoe ispoedanieM and had printed the entire first part and thirt1 Cuestions of the second part 4hen the printing 4as halted “-ecause of -old remar)s% 4hich hae -een appended.! +is

o4n *atechism L,ati)hi$isM 4as also su-seCuentl1 detained.

&ention should also -e made of ;eniamin Rumos)ii% =8 4ho -ecame 4idel1 )no4n as theauthor of Ne4 Ta-le of *ommandments LNoaia s)ri$hal'M% 4hich first appeared in &osco4 in

567. +e also translated #aco-us (oar's Euchologion. =G ;eniamin died in 5655 as arch-ishop of

Ni$hegorod. Irinei ,lement'es)ii == ?4ho died as arch-ishop of Ps)o in 5656@ 4as )no4n for

his commentaries and translations from the (ree) of the church fathers.;er1 earl1 in the centur1 a ne4 dimension9pietism94as added to the older Protestant

scholasticism. Simon Todors)ii ?5G<<95=8@ must once again -e ino)ed in this connection. As

he sa1s himself% after leaing the ,ie Academ1% “I traeled across the sea to the Academ1 of +alle in &agde-urg.! +alle at that time formed the chief and er1 storm1 center of pietism

?*hristian "olff 4as epelled in 5=F@. At +alle% Todors)ii studied oriental languages% especiall1

Bi-lical languages. Such intense interest in the Bi-le is highl1 characteristic of pietism% 4hichrather unepectedl1 fuses philosoph1 and moralit1. =6 At one time Todors)ii sered as a teacher

in the pietists' famous rphan As1lum in +alle. =< "hile at +alle% Todors)ii translated #ohann

Arndt's n True *hristianit1 L"ahres *hristentumM .67 The -oo) 4as pu-lished in +alle in 5=8.

+e also translated Anastasius the Preacher's (uide to the ,no4ledge of *hrist's Passion and the

<7



anon1mous Teaching on the 3oundation of the *hristian 2ife. 65 These -oo)s 4ere for-idden in

Russia and remoed from circulation in 5=% so that henceforth no such -oo)s 4ould -e

translated into Russian.Todors)ii did not return home directl1 from +alle. “+aing left there% I spent a 1ear and a

half among the #esuits in arious places.! +e taught for a time some4here in +ungar1. +e acted

as a teacher for rthodo (ree)s and then returned to ,ie in 5=<.Pietism and sentimentalism -ecame Cuite 4idespread during the second half of the centur1.

Both -ecame fused 4ith m1stical freemasonr1. The impact of such dream1 moralism -ecame

Cuite noticea-le in the ecclesiastical schools. Pro-a-l1 it 4as most isi-le in &osco4 in Platon'sda1. Een “"olffianism! -ecame sentimental and "olff's theolog1 ustifia-l1 came to -e )no4n

as the “dogmatics for the sentimental man.!

The structure and organi$ation of the church schools eperienced no su-stantie alteration

during the entire centur1% although the spirit of the age changed seeral times. A smallcommission for “founding of the most useful schools in the dioceses! had -een formed at the

outset of *atherine's reign. (ariil% then -ishop of Ter'% 6F Inno)entii Nechae% -ishop of

Ps)o% 6 and Platon 2eshin% then still a hieromon)% constituted its mem-ership. The

commission discoered no reason to modif1 the 2atin t1pe of school and proposed onl1 theintroduction of a more complete uniformit1 and greater coherence in the school s1stem ?and

curriculum@. The successie steps of instruction 4ere to -e dismantled0 four seminaries?Nogorod% St. Peters-urg% ,a$an' and Iaroslal'@ gien an epanded program of stud1% and

&osco4 Academ1 4as to -e eleated to the ran) of an “ecclesiastical uniersit1! 4ith a

uniersal curriculum. The commission clearl1 posed the Cuestion of the necessit1 for improingthe social status and condition of the clerg1. 6 A ne4 spirit perades the entire proposal: social

deelopment is less accented% 4hile discipline is moderated and manners softened. The proposal

aimed “to inculcate a no-le sense of integrit1 in the students% 4hich li)e a mainspring% 4ould

goern their actions.! &odern languages% too% 4ere to -e added. A characteristic feature of the proposal 4ould hae entrusted all the ecclesiastical schools to the ultimate authorit1 of t4o

protectors% one secular and one clerical% in order to gie greater independence to the schools. It

-ecame Cuite clear that genuine reform of the ecclesiastical schools 4as impossi-le 4ithout“-etterment! and support for the clerg1. The commission on church properties ?Teplo pla1ed a

guiding role in that commission@ 68 had actuall1 pointed out this fact in 5=GF. The commission's

proposals in 5=GG had no practical result. +o4eer that 1ear a group of 1oung seminarians 4assent a-road to stud1 at (ottingen% 2e1den% or ford. "ith the return in 5== of those sent to

(ottingen% the Cuestion again arose a-out creating a theological facult1 in &osco4 under the

superision of the S1nod 4here the returning specialists could -e used in teaching. In 5=== a

detailed plan 4as dra4n up for such a facult1% -ut once more nothing resulted. "hen &osco4/niersit1 4as esta-lished in 5=88% a department of theolog1 had -een reected: “In addition to

the philosophical sciences and urisprudence% theolog1 should -e taught in eer1 uniersit1

ho4eer% the concern for theolog1% properl1 spea)ing% -elongs to the +ol1 S1nod.! 6Gnl1 one student 4ho had studied in (ottingen 4as appointed to a position in the

ecclesiastical schools. This 4as amas)in Semeno Rudne ?5==9I=<8@% later -ishop of Ni$hnii

Nogorod and a mem-er of the Russian Academ1. "hile in (ottingen as the superisor for the1ounger students% he had studied philosoph1 and histor1 rather than theolog1 and translated

Nestor's chronicle 6= into (erman. +o4eer% he did attend theolog1 lectures and in 5==F

pu-lished 3eofan Pro)opoich's treatise n the Procession of the +ol1 Spirit 4ith additions and

commentaries. n his return% he too) monastic o4s and -ecame a professor and rector of the

<5



&osco4 Academ1. Een -1 the standards of *atherine's age% he 4as a “li-eral! hierarch%

educated in the philosoph1 of "olff and natural la4. It is said that &etropolitan (ariil

“indicated to him that he should stop all that (erman nonsense -u$$ing in his head and moreseduousl1 appl1 himself to fulfilling his monastic o4s.! f those students 4ho studied in

2e1den% one% ;eniamin Bagrians)ii% 66 later -ecame -ishop of Ir)uts). +e died in 565.

uring roughl1 those same 1ears% a proposal 4as made to reform the ,ie Academ1. ne plan suggested transforming the academ1 into a uniersit1 -1 epelling the mon)s and

su-ordinating the school to the secular authorities in societ1 ?the suggestion came from

Ra$umos)ii% 6< Rumiantse% <7 and at the desire of the ,ie and Starodu- no-ilit1 in the*ommission of 5=GG95=G=@. Another plan% that of (le-o% the goernor9general of ,ie%

adocated the creation of ne4 faculties ?5=GG@. The Academ1 remained unchanged. +o4eer%

4ithin a short time instruction improed in secular su-ects and modern languages “4hich are

necessar1 for social life! ?3rench had -een taught since 5=8@. *haracteristicall1% during&etropolitan Samuil &islas)ii's <5 administration% teacher candidates 4ere sent to stud1 at the

/niersit1 of ;ilna or in the Protestant conent in Sluts) ?ho4eer% the1 4ent to &osco4

/niersit1@.

The 5=<6 reform of the ecclesiastical schools also left their foundations intact. Theseminaries in St. Peters-urg and ,a$an' receied the designation of “Academ1! together 4ith an

etension and ela-oration of instruction. Ne4 seminaries 4ere opened0 the curricula 4eresome4hat reised.

&etropolitan Platon 2eshin ?5==95655@ 4as the most important contri-utor to church

education in the eighteenth centur1: the “Peter &ogila of the &osco4 Academ1%! in S. ,.Smirno's <F apt phrasing. Platon 4as a t1pical representatie of that ornate% dream1% and

trou-led age% 4hose eer1 contradiction and confusion condensed and reer-erated 4ithin his

personalit1. “Plus philosophe Cue pretre%! 4as #oseph II's < udgment of him. Platon attracted

*atherine for that er1 reason. In an1 case% as a sufficientl1 “enlightened! man% he discoursed on“superstitions! according to the spirit of the age. Neertheless% Platon remained a man of piet1

and pra1er and a great loer of church singing and the liturg1. Impetuous% 1et determined% -oth

direct and dream1% easil1 aroused and persistent% Platon al4a1s acted openl1 and9forthrightl14ith himself and 4ith others. +e could not possi-l1 hae lasted long at court% nor could he hae

presered an1 influence there.

Platon adanced -ecause of his a-ilities as a preacher% another trait in )eeping 4ith the st1leof that rhetorical age. +e could compel een courtiers to shudder and 4eep. Det it is his sermons

4hich iidl1 disclose the utter sincerit1 and intensit1 of his o4n 4arm piet1. Behind his

mannered eloCuence% one detects a flei-le 4ill and deep coniction. "hile a teacher of rhetoric

at the Trinit1 Seminar1% Platon too) monastic o4s% and did so from inner coniction andinclination%! -ecause of a special loe for enlightenment%! as he himself put it. Platon regarded

monasticism from a Cuite peculiar standpoint. 3or him celi-ac1 4as its sole purpose. “As

concerns monasticism% he reasoned that it could not impose an1 greater o-ligations upon a*hristian than those 4hich the (ospel and the -aptismal o4s had alread1 imposed.! < 2oe of

solitude > less for pra1er than for intellectual pursuits and friendships > proided a strong

attraction. Platon consciousl1 chose the path of the church. +e declined entr1 to &osco4/niersit1% ust as he refused offers to other secular positions. +e did not 4ish to -e lost in the

empt1 anit1 of 4orldl1 life. Traces of a personal Rousseauism can -e seen in his efforts to leae

&osco4 for the +ol1 Trinit1 &onaster1% 4here he could -uild his o4n intimate as1lum:

Bethan1. <8

<F



Platon 4as a great and ardent adocate of education and enlightenment. +e had his o4n

conception of the clerg1. +e 4ished to create a ne4% educated and cultured clerg1 ia the

humanistic school. +e 4ished to improe the clerical ran) and eleate it to the social heights. +echose to do so at a time 4hen others 4ere tr1ing to reduce and disole the clerg1 in the “third

estate of men! and een in an impersonal serfdom. +ence Platon's anious desire to adapt the

instruction and education in the ecclesiastical schools to the tastes and ie4s of “enlightened!societ1. +e 4as a-le to do a great deal in particular for the seminar1 at the +ol1 Trinit1

&onaster1. ai)onospass)ii Academ1 eno1ed a renaissance under Platon. +e founded Bethan1

Seminar1 in 5=<= on the model of Trinit1 Seminar1. +o4eer% Bethan1 opened onl1 in 5677.Education of the mind and heart “so that the1 might ecel in good deeds! constituted

Platon's ideal: a sentimental noitiate and inersion of the church's spirit. /nder his influence a

ne4 t1pe of churchman9the erudite and loer of enlightenment9came into -eing. Neither a

thin)er nor a scholar% Platon 4as a $ealot or “loer! of enlightenment9a er1 characteristiceighteenth centur1 categor10

Although a catechist rather than a theologian% Platon's “catechisms! and conersations ?or

Elementar1 Instruction in *hristian 2a4@ 4hich he deliered in &osco4 during his earl1 career

?5=8= and 5=86@ signif1 a turning point in the histor1 of theolog1. +is lessons for the (randu)e Paul <G entitled rthodo Teaching or a Brief *hristian Theolog1 LPraoslanoe uchenie

ili so)rashchen )hristians)oe -ogosioie% 5=G8M mar)s the first attempt at a theological s1stem inRussian. “Ease of eposition is the -est feature a-out this 4or)%! 4as 3ilaret of *hernigo's

comment% 1et his faint praise is not Cuite ust. Platon 4as less an orator than a teacher0 he

pondered oer education more than he studied orator1. “I neer trou-led long oer an eloCuentst1le.! +is determination to persuade educate men proided his epressieness and clarit1% “for

the face of truth is singularl1 -eautiful 4ithout an1 false cosmetics.! +is polemic 4ith the ld

Ritualists is Cuite instructie in this connection% for tolerance and deference did not presere him

from superficial simplification. +is proect for the so9called “single faith! LedinoerieM <= canscarcel1 -e termed a success. In an1 case% Platon's “catechisms! actuall1 4ere incomplete. Platon

tried to -ring theolog1 in contact 4ith life. +e sought to do so in conformit1 4ith the spirit of the

time -1 conerting theolog1 into moral instruction% into a )ind of emotional9moralistichumanism. “The arious s1stems of theolog1 no4 taught in the schools hae a scholastic air and

the odor of human su-tleties.! All of this -elongs to an age 4hich preferred to spea) of “turning

the mind to4ard the good! rather than to4ard “faith.! Platon sought a liel1 and liing theolog1%4hich could -e found onl1 in Scripture. "hen commenting upon Scripture% 4hen “searching out

the literal sense%! a-oe all one aoid an1 -ending or force in order not to a-use Scripture -1

see)ing a hidden meaning “4here none eists.! Tets should -e utaposed in order that

Scriptures might -e allo4ed to eplain themseles. “At the same time% use the -estcommentators.! Platon understood this to mean the church fathers. The influence of *hr1sostom

and Augustine are easil1 detected in his 4riting. +e hastened to spea) more intimatel1 a-out

dogma% and his doctrinal “theolog1! can scarcel1 -e distinguished from the preailing ague andmoralisticall1 emotional 2utheranism of the time. The sacramental meaning of the church is

inadeCuatel1 presented throughout his theolog1% 4hile moral appositions ?the scholastic usus@ are

oerdeeloped. The church is defined er1 imprecisel1 as “an assem-l1 of men 4ho -eliee in#esus *hrist! ?else4here Platon adds% “and 4ho lie according to his la4!@. Such imprecision is

Cuite characteristic.

Platon 4as 4holl1 a part of modern Russia and its 4estern eperience. 3or all his piet1% he

had too little sense of the church. Det this limitation does not detract from or oershado4 the true

<



Iuenalii's 578 S1stem of *hristian Theolog1 ?Sistema )hristians)ago -ogosloiiaM% parts%

?&osco4% 567G@% pu-lished in Russia at the -eginning of the nineteenth centur1% 4as not intended

for school use. The 4estern eample% 4ith a certain time lag to -e sure% inspired this tenaciousschool 2atinism. As a result the Russian language atrophied.

The educated Russian theological language% a sample of 4hich can -e seen in the theses

presented at school disputations at the &osco4 Academ1% had so little deelopment that itoccupied an incompara-l1 lo4er position than een the language of ancient Russian translators

of the hol1 fathers and of the original theological 4or)s of ancient Rus'. ?namens)ii@.

Things reached such a point that students 4ere una-le to 4rite easil1 in Russian% -ut firsthad to epress their thought in 2atin and then translate it. The students een copied in 2atin or

4rote 4ith a su-stantial admiture of 2atin 4ords the eplanations gien -1 the teacher in

Russian.

"hateer argument one used% 4hateer fundamentum one put to his opugnae% eachargument soendus -1 the defendant and his teacher.

H3rom such ?an enironmentM came priests 4ho )ne4 2atin and pagan 4riters adeCuatel1%

-ut 4ho )ne4 poorl1 the authors of the Bi-le or the 4riters of the church! ?3ilaret of &osco4@.

Such a situation 4as not the 4orst feature: still 4orse 4as the inorganic character of an entireschool s1stem in 4hich theolog1 could not -e enliened -1 the direct assistance and eperience

of church life.The scope and significance of the scholarl1 and een educational achieements of the

eighteenth centur1 should not -e underestimated. In an1 case% the cultural9theological eperiment

4as Cuite important. An ela-orate school net4or) spread throughout Russia. But Russiantheolog1 . . . all of this “school! theolog1% in the strict sense% 4as rootless. It fell and gre4 in

foreign soil . . . A superstructure erected in a desert% . . and in place of roots came stilts. Theolog1

on stilts% such is the legac1 of the eighteenth centur1.

"ussian #reemasonr!.

3reemasonr1 proed to -e a maor eent in the histor1 of Russian societ1 > that societ1 -orn and ela-orated in the upheaal of the Petrine era. 3reemasons 4ere men 4ho had lost the“eastern! path and 4ho had -ecome lost on 4estern ones. Kuite naturall1 the1 discoered this

ne4 road of freemasonr1 -1 starting from a 4estern crossroads. The first generation raised in

Peter's reforms receied its education in the principles of a utilitarian state serice. The ne4

educated class arose from among the “conerts%! that is% among those 4ho accepted the Reform.At that time such acceptance or ac)no4ledgment defined one's mem-ership in the ne4 “class: '

The ne4 men -ecame accustomed and schooled to interpret their eistence onl1 in terms of state

utilit1 and the general 4elfare. The “Ta-le of Ran)s! replaced the *reed LSimol er1M and all itimplied. 57G The consciousness of these ne4 men -ecame etroerted to the point of rupture.

The soul -ecame lost% disconcerted% and dissoled in the feerish onslaught of foreign

impressions and eperiences. In the 4hirl of construction during Peter's reign there had -een notime to hae second thoughts or recoer1. B1 the time the atmosphere -ecame some4hat freer%

the soul had alread1 -een raished and ehausted. &oral receptiit1 -ecame addled0 religious

needs cho)ed and suffocated. The er1 net generation -egan spea)ing 4ith alarm on the

corruption of morals in Russia. 57= The su-ect 4as hardl1 ehausted. This 4as an ge of a-sor-ing adentures and eer1 sort of gratification. The histor1 of the Russian soul has not 1et

-een 4ritten for the eighteen centur1. nl1 fragmentar1 episodes are )no4n. But a general

4eariness% sic)ness% and anguish clearl1 echo and reer-erate in such episodes. The -est

<8



3reemasonr1 preached a strict and responsi-le life0 moral self direction0 moral no-ilit10

restraint0 dispassion0 self9)no4ledge and self9possession0 “philanthrop1! and the Cuiet life

“amidst this 4orld 4ithout allo4ing one's heart to touch its anities.! Det freemasonr1 not onl1demanded personal self9perfection -ut also an actie loe 9the “primar1 epression% foundation%

and purpose of the )ingdom of #esus 4ithin the soul.! The philanthropical 4or) of Russian

freemasons of that time is Cuite 4ell )no4n.&1stical freemasonr1 constituted an inner reaction to the spirit of the Enlightenment. All

the pathos of freemasonr1's Theoretical egree 555 4as directed against the “inentions of -lind

reason! and “the sophistries of that ;oltarian gang.! The accent shifted to intuition% thecounterpoint to eighteenth centur1 rationalism.

The age of scepticism 4as also the age of pietism. 3enelon 55F 4as no less popular than

;oltaire. The “philosoph1 of faith and feeling! is no less characteristic of the age > the age of

sentimentalism > than the Enc1clopedie. Sentimentalism is organicall1 lin)ed to freemasonr1and not onl1 designated a literar1 tendenc1 or moement% -ut initiall1 signified a m1stical trend:

a religio9ps1chological Cuest. The sources of sentimentalism must -e sought in the 4ritings of

Spanish% utch and 3rench m1stics of the siteenth and seenteenth centuries. Sentimentalism

educated the soul in reerie and feeling% in a certain constant pensieness% and in “hol1melanchol1! ?cf. the spiritual path of the 1oung ,aram$in 55 as 4ell as the later deelopment

of hu)os)[email protected] This 4as not al4a1s accomplished -1 the concentration of the soul. The ha-itof too ceaselessl1 and ecessiel1 eamining oneself often resulted in Cuietism of the 4ill. &en

of that period freCuentl1 fell ill from “reflection%! and this “sentimental education! most

po4erfull1 influenced precisel1 the formation of 'the “superfluous man.! “+ol1 melanchol1!inaria-l1 contains an aftertaste of scepticism.

In those da1s men -ecame accustomed to liing in an imaginar1 element% in a 4orld of

images and reflections. The1 ma1 hae penetrated the m1steries or the1 ma1 hae -een haing

-ad dreams. Not accidentall1% the epoch 4itnessed on all sides an a4a)ening of a creatiefantas19a po4erfull1 great poetic plasticit1 and modelling. The “Beautiful Soul! LPre)rasnaia

dushaM -ecame paradoicall1 impressiona-le% starting iolentl1 and trem-ling at the slightest

noise in life. Apocal1ptical presentiments had -een gaining strength since the end of theseenteenth centur1. The so9called “a4a)ening! LEr4ec)ungM t1pified the age% especiall1 among

the -road mass of the population. The theoretical appeal to the heart proides additional

testimon1 a-out this a4a)ening. The “a4a)ening of (race! Lurch-ruch der (nadeM% as the pietists epressed it% a-oe all meant a personal ordeal: a gift of eperience.

Hispassion! is 4holl1 compati-le 4ith such a ision. *ontemporar1 m1sticism possessed a

restrained 4ill% -ut not a temperate heart or imagination. A ne4 generation gre4 up 4ith this

outloo). Scarcel1 -1 accident did the Rosicrucian A.&. ,utu$o 558 translate Ed4ard Doung's*omplaint% or Night Thoughts. 55G Doung's -oo) did not merel1 sere as a confession of a

sentimental man% -ut as a guide for this ne4l1 a4a)ened and sensitie generation. “I t4ice read

Doung's Nights as the good ne4s% not as a poem%! recalled one of that generation. TheCualification should -e made that such a melancholic “philosoph1 of sighs and tears! signified

onl1 a transfigured humanism. “ -e a man% and thou shalt -e a godQ And half self9made. . “

&an alone has -een summoned to la-or% not in the 4orld -ut 4ithin himself% in “seraphicaldreams.! “&an)ind 4as not created for -road )no4ledge or for profound understanding -ut for

4onder and reerent emotions.! The call 4as to inner concentration. “ur 4orldl1 deeds hae

-een cur-ed > one must not conCuer things -ut thoughts > guard 1our thoughts as -est 1ou

can% for +eaen attends to them.! Such an attitude sered as a -arrier to freethin)ing. I.(.

<=



Sch4art$ 55= reportedl1 deoted a er1 large portion of his lectures to critici$ing “freethin)ing

and godless -oo)s%! of such 4riters as +eletius% Spino$a% and Rousseau 556 and anCuishing

“those rising o-scurantists.! As A.3. 2a-$inll1 recalls% “a single 4ord from Sch4art$ struc) corrupt and godless -oo)s from man1 hands and put the +ol1 Bi-le in their place.!

The turn to m1sticism produced an a-undant literature ?printed and in manuscript@% most of

it translated% as can -e seen in the actiities of the T1pographical *ompan1% opened in &osco4 in5=6% as 4ell as in the productions from secret presses. "estern m1stics 4ere -est represented%

4ith #aco- Boehme% 5F7 *laude de Saint9&artin 5F5% and #ohn &ason lFF the most 4idel1 read.

S.I. (amaleia 5F translated all of Boehme's 4ritings ?the translation remained unpu-lished@.;alentin "iegel% #ohann (ichtel and #ohn Pordage 5F also appeared in translation. A great

man1 “+ermetic! 4riters 4ere translated% including "elling% ,irch-erger% Triridarium

*h1micum% the *hemical Psalter -1 Penn% *hri$omander% and Ro-ert 3ludd. 5F8 &oreoer%

there 4as a 4ide assortment of modern and ancient 4riters such as &acarius of Eg1pt% St.Augustine's selected 4or)s% the Areopagitica% and een (regor1 Palamas% The Imitation of

*hrist% #ohann Arndt's n True *hristianit1% 2. Scupoli% Angelus Silesius% Bun1an% &olinos%

Poiret% (u1on% and u$etanoo's &1ster1 of the *ross. 5FG A great deal of reading 4as done in

the lodges according to a strictl1 prescri-ed order and under the superision and guidance of themasters. 'Those outside the lodges read 4ith eCuall1 great aidit1. The pu-lications of the

&osco4 freemasons sold 4ell. Thus% the ne4-orn Russian intelligentsia all at once acCuired acomplete s1stem of m1stical enthusiasms and em-raced the 4estern 1stical9utopian tradition and

the rh1thm of post9Reformation m1sticism. The intelligentsia% studied and gre4 accustomed to

Cuietist m1stics% pietists% and ?to some etent@ the church fathers. ?2ate in life Elagin 5F=deeloped a complete s1stem of patristic readings% apparentl1 as a counter4eight to Sch4art$.@.

3reemasonr1 did not limit itself to a culture of the heart. 3reemasonr1 had its o4n

metaph1sics and dogmatics. Its metaph1sics made freemasonr1 an anticipation and premonition

of Romanticism and Romantic Naturphilosophie. The eperience of the &osco4 Rosicrucians?and later of freemasonr1' during Aleander I's 5F6 reign@ prepared the soil for the deelopment

of Russian Schellingianism lF< ?especiall1 in Prince ;.3. does)ii@ 57 4hich germinated from

those same magical roots. T4o motifs are important in this magical m1sticism% this “diinealchem1.! The first is the ital feeling for 4orld harmon1 or uniersal unit1% the 4isdom of the

4orld and the m1stical apprehension of nature. “"e al4a1s hae -efore our e1es the open -oo)

of nature. iine 4isdom shines forth from it 4ith fier1 4ords.! The second motif is a iidanthropocentric self a4areness: man as the “etract' of all -eings.!

Naturphilosophie 4as not a chance episode or deformit1 of freemasonr1's 4orldie40 it 4as

one of freemasonr1's essential themes% representing an a4a)ened religio9cosmic a4areness >

“nature is the house of (od% 4here (od himself d4ells.! 55 Naturphilosophie also representedan a4a)ened poetic and metaph1sical sense for nature ?for eample% the rene4ed sense of nature

in eighteenth centur1 “sentimental! anal1sis@. Det% ultimatel1 m1stical freemasonr1 graitated

to4ard disem-odiment. S1m-olic interpretation ma)es the 4orld so attenuated that it is nearl1reduced to a shado4. In essence% the dogmatics of freemasonr1 signified a reial of a Platoni$ed

gnosticism: a reial 4hich had -egun during the Renaissance. The fall of man the “spar) of

light! imprisoned in dar)ness > preides freemasonr1's -asic conception. This acute sense of impurit1% not so much of sin% is highl1 characteristic of the moement. Impurit1 can rather -etter

-e remoed through a-stinence than through penitence. The entire 4orld appears corrupt and

diseased. “"hat is this 4orld A mirror of corruption and anit1.! The thirst for healing ?and for

<6



cosmic healing@ aroused -1 the “search for the )e1 to Nature's m1steries%! deried from this ie4

of nature.

None of the freemasons of *atherine's reign 4as an original 4riter or thin)er. Sch4art$% Noi)o% ,heras)o% 2opu)hin% ,arnee% and (amaleia lF 4ere all imitators% translators% and

epigoni. Such Cualities% ho4eer% do not diminish their influence. uring the 5==7's &osco4

/niersit1 stood entirel1 under the -anner of the freemasons% and its “deout9poetic! mood 4as presered in the uniersit1 pension for the no-ilit1 esta-lished later.

(.S. S)ooroda ?5=FF95=<@ 5 proides the onl1 original mutation in this m1stical strain.

+e spent little time in the masonic lodges% 1et he 4as close to masonic circles. In an1 case% he -elongs to the same m1stical t1pe. +e s1mpathi$ed een more deepl1 4ith (erman m1sticism of

the siteenth and seenteenth centuries% preferring ;alentin "iegel to #aco- Boehme. +ellenistic

motifs are also po4erfull1 present in him.

In his 2ife of S)ooroda% ,oalins)ii 5 enumerates S)ooroda's faorite authors:Plutarch Philo the #e4% *icero% +orace% 2ucian% *lement of Aleandria rigen% Nil% ion1sius

the Areopagite% &aim the*onfessor “and similar 4riters among the moderns.! S)ooroda's

patristic reflections fused 4ith the motifs of the Platonist renaissance. 2atin poets eercised a

strong influence oer him% as did some modern ones% for eample% &uretus% 58 4hom he oftensimpl1 translated% there-1 allo4ing the influence of the schools to -e seen. +o4eer his -oo) on

poetics composed at the Pereiaslal' Seminar1 is a highl1 unusual 4or). In an1 case% S)ooroda's2atin 4as stronger than his (ree). As ,oalins)ii notes: “+e spo)e 2atin and (erman fla4lessl1

and Cuite fluentl1% and he had a sufficient understanding of (ree).! S)ooroda's 2atin st1le 4as

graceful and simple% -ut generall1 spea)ing he felt less at home in (ree). *uriousl1% 4hen usingPlutarch in the parallel (ree) and 2atin edition% he read onl1 the 2atin translation. S)ooroda did

not acCuire his +ellenism immediatel1 and directl1. +is philological inspiration must not -e

eaggerated. +e al4a1s used the “Eli$a-eth Bi-le%! 5G 4hile simpl1 -orro4ing all his m1stical

philolog1 from Philo.+o4 S)ooroda deeloped his outloo) is difficult to determine. 2ittle is )no4n a-out the

places he sta1ed or the people he met 4hen he 4as a-road. Pro-a-l1 he had alread1 acCuired his

Stoic% Platonic% and pietist interests in ,ie. +is 4anderings and lac) of natie roots ?he had “theheart of a citi$en of the 4orld!@% 4hich lent him the Cualit1 of a near apparition% constituted a

peculiarl1 characteristic feature of S)ooroda's ma)e9up. +is personalit1 iidl1 displa1s an

ascetical pathos% a concentration of thought% an etinction of emotions ?4hich are insatia-le@% anescape from the “emptiness! of this 4orld into the “caerns of the heart.! S)ooroda accepted

and interpreted the 4orld according to the categories of Platonic s1m-olism. “At all times and in

all places he 4as li)e the shado4 of the apple tree.! Shado4 and sign 4ere his faorite images.

Basic to S)ooroda's ie4 4as his counterposition of t4o 4orlds: the isi-le% sensi-le4orld and the inisi-le% ideal 4orld. ne is temporar1% the other eternal. +e al4a1s had the Bi-le

in his hands. ?HThe Bi-le 4as the most important thing%! as ,oalins)ii notes@. But for him the

Bi-le formed a -oo) of philosophical para-les% s1m-ols% and em-lems: a peculiar hierogl1phicsof eistence. “A 4orld of s1m-ols% that is to sa1% the Bi-le%! as S)ooroda himself said. +e

sharpl1 reacted against an1 historical understanding of the Bi-le -1 “those *hristian historians%

ritual sophists% and theologians of the letter.! +e sought a “spiritual! understanding and sa4 theBi-le as a guide to spiritual self9)no4ledge. *uriousl1% S)ooroda totall1 reected monasticism.

“In monasticism%! 4rites ,oalins)ii% “he sa4 the sinister 4e- of compressed passions una-le to

escape themseles% 4hile pitifull1 and fatall1 suffocating life.!

<<



In an important sense% S)ooroda's 4andering led him a4a1 from the church and a4a1 from

church histor1. ?Een Ern 5= admitted that S)ooroda 4as a “potential sectarian.!@ +is return to

Nature is a ariet1 of pietist Rousseauism. +e trusted nature: “the entire econom1 throughoutnature is perfect.!

3reemasonr1 proided the nascent Russian intelligentsia 4ith man1 ne4 and acute

impressions. This deelopment gained complete epression onl1 4ith the follo4ing generation atthe turn of the centur1. Det the eperience of freemasonr1 4as a 4estern eperience% and in the

final anal1sis such asceticism outside the church sered onl1 to arouse dreaminess and

imagination. The soul deeloped an unhealth1 inCuisitieness and m1stical curiosit1.The second half of the centur1 also mar)ed an increasing dreaminess and m1sticism among

the people. All of the -asic Russian sects9 the ,hl1st1% 56 S)opts1% 5< u)ho-ors% 57 and

&olo)ans 55 deeloped during those 1ears. In the Aleandrine age% these t4o currents% the

m1sticism of the lo4er and the higher classes in man1 4a1s conerged% there-1 reealing their inner affinit1. The1 shared precisel1 that “anguish of the spirit! 4hich 4as -1 turns dream1 or

ecstatic. It should -e noted that during *atherine's reign su-stantial settlements% or colonies% of

arious (erman sectarians had -een created in Russia and included the +errnhutters% the

&ennonites% and &oraian Brethren. Their influence on the general deelopment of contemporar1 spiritual life still has not -een sufficientl1 inestigated and studied% although that

influence -ecame perfectl1 o-ious during Aleander's reign. The maorit1 of these sectarians -rought 4ith them this apocal1ptical dreaminess% or often outright adentism% and the disposition

to4ard allegor1 and a “spiritual! interpretation of (od's "ord.

ddl1 enough% the colon1 of +errnhutters in Sarpeta had -een approed -1 a specialcommission 4hich included imitri Secheno% lF the metropolitan of Nogorod% 4ho had

inestigated the dogmatic teachings of the “Eangelical Brethren.! The S1nod also stated that in

its dogmatics and discipline the -rotherhood more or less conformed to the organi$ation of the

earl1 *hristian communities. 5 The S1nod found it inconenient to openl1 permit the coloniststo do missionar1 4or) among the naties% as the1 persistentl1 reCuested. Permission to do so 4as

granted informall1. +o4eer% such missionar1 4or) did not deelop.

The freemasons of *atherine's reign maintained an am-ialent relationship 4ith the church.In an1 eent% the formal piet1 of freemasonr1 4as not openl1 disruptie. &an1 freemasons

fulfilled all church “o-ligations! and rituals. thers emphaticall1 insisted on the complete

immuta-ilit1 and sacredness of the rites and orders “particularl1 of the (ree) religion.! +o4eer the rthodo serice% 4ith its 4ealth and plasticit1 of images and s1m-ols% greatl1 attracted

them. 3reemasons highl1 alued rthodo1's tradition of s1m-ols 4hose roots $each -ac)

deepl1 into classical antiCuit1. But eer1 s1m-ol 4as for them onl1 a transparent sign or

guidepost. ne must ascend to that 4hich is -eing signified% that is% from the isi-le to theinisi-le% from “historical! *hristianit1 to spiritual or “true! *hristianit1% from the outer church

to the “inner! church. The freemasons considered their rder to -e the “inner! church%

containing its o4n rites and “sacraments.! This is once again the Aleandrian dream of anesoteric circle of chosen ones 4ho are dedicated to presering sacred traditions: a truth reealed

onl1 to a fe4 chosen for etraordinar1 illumination.

&em-ers of the clerg1 sometimes oined masonic lodges% although the1 did so er1infreCuentl1. In 5=6F% 4hen the &osco4 masons opened their “translation seminar1! ?that is%

the1 formed a special group of students to 4hom the1 proided stipends@% the1 chose the

candidates for it from among proincial seminaries -1 consultation 4ith the local hierarchs.

577



uring the inestigation of 5=6G% &etropolitan Platon found Noi)o an eemplar1 *hristian.

+o4eer% the &osco4 metropolitan's standards 4ere not er1 strict.

The Rea2akening of Russian *onasticis$.

The end of the eighteenth centur1 did not resem-le its -eginning. The centur1 had -egun

4ith an effort to reali$e the Reformation in the Russian church. uring *atherine's reign“reforms! 4ere also drafted -ut in the spirit of the Enlightenment. 5 Det the centur1 ended

4ith a monastic reial and 4ith an unmista)a-le intensification and increase of spiritual life.

eserted and deastated monastic centers such as ;alaamo% ,onoitsa% and others 4ere

reinstated and too) on a ne4 life *uriousl1 enough% &etropolitan (ariil Petro 58 $ealousl1 promoted this monastic restoration. This great and important -ishop of *atherne's reign ?to

4hom the Empress dedicated her translation of &armon tel's Belisaire 5G@ strictl1 o-sered the

fasts% deoted himself to pra1er and pursued an ascetical life not ust in theor1 -ut in practice.+is close superision secured the pu-lication of the Slaonic9Russian edition of the Philo)alia

5= translated -1 the elder LstaretsM Paisii ;elich)os)ii and his disciples. Thus the church

replied to the shallo4ness of an Enlightened Age 4ith a rene4ed spiritual concentration.

The image of St. Ti)hon adons)ii ?5=F95=6F@ 56 stands out in -old relief against the -ac)ground of the eighteenth centur1. +is personalit1 contains man1 unusual and unepected

traits. In spiritual temperament Ti)hon entirel1 -elonged to the ne4 post9Petrine epoch. +e

studied and then taught in the 2atin schools ?in Nogorod and Ter'@. In addition to the churchfathers% he read and loed modern 4estern 4riters% and particularl1 eno1ed “reading and

rereading Arndt.! That his chief 4or)% n True *hristianit1 L- istinnom )hristiansteM -ears the

same title as Arndt's -oo) is scarcel1 an accident. As Egenii Bol)hoitino long ago pointedout% another of Ti)hon's -oo)s% A Spiritual Treasur1 (athered from the "orld LSo)roishche

du)honoe ot mira so-iraemoeM% is er1 similar in content to that of a 2atin pamphlet -1 #oseph

+all. 5< Ti)hon's language is suffused -1 the ne4 age. 3reCuent 2atinisms occur in turns of phrase 4hich% ho4eer% increase his range and strengthen his epressieness. +e had a great gift

for 4ords9he 4as artistic and simple at the same time. +is 4riting is al4a1s surprisingl1 limpid.This limpidit1 is his most unepected Cualit1. +is grace and lucidit1% his freedom 9and notmerel1 freedom from the 4orld -ut also in the 4orld > is the most stri)ing Cualit1 in St.

Ti)hon's personalit1. +e has the eas1 grace of a pilgrim or traeler neither deflected nor

restrained -1 this 4orld. “Eer1 liing -eing on earth is a 4a1farer.! +o4eer% this conCuering

grace 4as achieed through painful trial and ascetic effort. The dar) 4aes of deep 4earinessand despair are Cuite clearl1 isi-le in Ti)hon's limpid spirit as the1 rush oer him.

“*onstitutionall1 he 4as a h1pochondriac and some4hat choleric%! 4rites Ti)hon's “cellsman!

?mon) serant@. +is peculiar su-ectie despair% his special temptation to melanchol1 as a formof uncustomar1 disclosure of the soul% is 4holl1 uniCue in Russian asceticism and more readil1

suggestie of the ar) Night of the Soul -1 St. #ohn of the *ross. 587 At times Ti)hon 4ould

fall into a helpless torpor% confinement% and immo-ilit1% 4hen eer1thing around him 4as dar)%empt1% and unresponsie. Sometimes he could not compel himself to leae his cell0 at other times

he seemingl1 tried to escape ph1sicall1 from despair -1 moing a-out. Ti)hon's 4hole spirit had

-een oer4helmed in this ordeal% 1et that trial left no traces or scars. The original luminosit1 of

his soul 4as onl1 purified in his personal progress.+is 4as not merel1 a personal asceticism% for St. Ti)hon's temptations 4ere not ust a stage

in his personal progress. +e continued to -e a pastor and a teacher in his monastic retreat.

Through his sensitiit1 and suffering he remained in the 4orld. +e 4rote for this 4orld and -ore

575



4itness of the Saior -efore a perishing 4orld% 4hich does not see) salation: an apostolic

response to the senselessness of a free9thin)ing age. Ti)hon's encounter 4as the first encounter

4ith the ne4 Russian atheism ?for eample% the 4ell9)no4n episode of the ;oltarian lando4ner 4ho struc) Ti)hon on the chee)@. 585

ostoes)ii cleerl1 detected this phenomenon 4hen he sought to counterpose Ti)hon to

Russian nihilism% there-1 disclosing the pro-lematics of faith and atheism. Ti)hon had stillanother characteristic trait. +e 4rote ?or more often dictated@ 4ith inspiration% under the

influence of the +ol1 Spirit. +is “cellsman! recounts this practice.

As I heard it from m1 o4n lips% -ut also as I o-sered m1self% 4heneer I too) dictationfrom him% the 4ords poured from his mouth so rapidl1 that I scarcel1 succeeded in 4riting them

do4n. And 4hen the +ol1 Spirit -ecame less actie in him and he -ecame lost in thought or

-egan thin)ing of etraneous things% he 4ould send me a4a1 to m1 cell0 4hile he% )neeling% or at

times prostrating himself in the form of a cross% 4ould pra1 4ith tears that (od should send himthe All9Actiating ne. Summoning me once again% he 4ould -egin to spea) so torrentiall1 that

at times I failed to follo4 him 4ith m1 pen.

St. Ti)hon constantl1 read the Scriptures and at one time contemplated ma)ing a translation

of the Ne4 Testament from (ree) “into the modern st1le.! +e considered useful a ne4translation of the Psalter from +e-re4. +is faorites among the church fathers 4ere &acarius of

Eg1pt% St. #ohn *hr1sostom% and St. Augustine.Ti)hon's 4ritings contain all the -orro4ed ideas a-out redemptie “satisfaction%! the

distinction -et4een form and su-stance in the sacraments% and so on. 58F Such is his tri-ute to

the schools and to the age. 3ar more important is the fact that seeral 4estern features areepressed in his eperience. A-oe all this means his unremitting concentration on the memor1

and contemplation of *hrist's sufferings. +e sa4 *hrist “coered 4ith 4ounds% lacerated%

tortured% and -lood1%! and he urged the contemplation of +is suffering. “+e had a great loe for

the Saior's sufferings% and not onl1 as he -eheld them in his mind% for he had portra1ed in picture nearl1 all of +is hol1 passions! ?The pictures 4ere painted on canass@. Ti)hon presered

a peculiar insistence and a certain impressionism 4hen spea)ing of the +umiliation and the

Passion of *hrist. &oreoer% a renoated B1$antine contemplatie life is po4erfull1 present inhis eperience% in his radiant isions% illuminations -1 the light of Ta-or% pathos of the

Transfiguration% and premonitions of Resurrection spring.

The resurrection of the dead is a constantl1 recurring thought for Ti)hon and is em-odied inthe image of spring. “Spring is the image and sign of the resurrection of the dead.! This 4ill -e

the eternal spring of the (od9created 4orld. “2et faith guide 1our mind from this sensi-le spring

to that su-lime and longed for spring 4hich the most gracious (od has promised in +is +ol1

Scripture% 4hen the -odies of the faithful 4ho hae died since the -eginning of the 4orld%germinating from the earth li)e seeds -1 the po4er of (od% shall arise and assume a ne4 and

eCuisite form% shall -e clothed in the garment of immortalit1% shall receie the cro4n of

-lessedness from the hand of the 2ord.! This 4ill -e no id1ll of apo)atastasis. n the contrar1%nature stained -1 sin 4ill -e condemned een more for its aridit1 and tarnish and 4ill acCuire a

still more niggardl1 appearance. Eternit1 is not the same for all: there is an eternit1 of -liss and

an eternit1 of 4eeping. Ti)hon had these isions of Ta-or freCuentl1% sometimes dail1. Theheaens 4ould -e torn asunder and 4ould -urn 4ith unendura-le radiance. ccasionall1 he een

sa4 this light in his cell and his heart 4ould reoice in such contemplations.

St. Ti)hon com-ined an intense concentration of the spirit 4ith an eceptional capacit1 for

tenderness and loe. +e spo)e of loe of th1 neigh-or% of social ustice and charit1 no less

57F



/nder Paisii's guidance% Niamets monaster1 -ecame a great literar1 center and a source of

theological9ascetical enlightenment. This literar1 actiit1 4as organicall1 lin)ed 4ith spiritual

and “intellectual construction.! The -iographer of the elder Paisii notes that “his mind 4asal4a1s oined 4ith loe for (od0 his tears sere as 4itness.! The message of spiritual

concentration and 4holeness possessed particular significance for that age of spiritual dualism

and cleaage. Pu-lication of the Slaonic9Russian edition of the Philo)alia constituted a maor eent not onl1 in the histor1 of Russian monasticism -ut generall1 in the histor1 of Russian

culture. It 4as -oth an accomplishment and a catal1st.

3eofan Pro)opoich and Paisii ;elich)os)ii ma)e an interesting comparison. 3eofan liedentirel1 on epectations. +e stood for 4hat 4as modern% for the future% and for progress. Paisii

lied in the past% in traditions% and in Tradition. Det he proed to -e the prophet and the har-inger

of things to come. The return to sources reealed ne4 roads and meant the acCuisition of ne4

hori$onsL...M This personal coniction and sense of -eing a prophet 4ho has -een called or sent% the

perception of an etraordinar1 mission or tas)% and a certain ecstatic egocentricit1 all

characteri$e this t1pe of fanatic. 3otii might -e termed a man possessed rather than a h1pocrite.

In an1 case% the oice of the church's histor1 and ancient traditions can scarcel1 -e detected in3otii's iolent appeals and out-ursts. +e 4as too ignorant to do so% for he )ne4 er1 little a-out

patristic or een ascetical 4ritings. +e almost neer refers to them. “I do not possess theL4ritings of theM +ol1 3athers% I hae and read onl1 the +ol1 Bi-le.! In this regard% 3otii did not

depart from the custom of that “Bi-lical! age. Neither a rigorous defender nor guardian of the

church's customs and traditions% 3otii loed to do eer1thing to suit himself% 4hich% resulted inCuarrels 4ith the church authorities. /suall1 he argues on the -asis of personal reelations and

inspirations0 on the -asis of isions apparitions% and dreams. In short% 3otii 4as not so much

superstitious as fanatical.

3otii studied at the St. Peters-urg Theological Academ1 “under the sharp e1e of Archimandrite 3ilaret.! But he did not graduate -ecause of an illness% 4hich too) the form of a

paro1sm induced -1 fears and spiritual ehaustion. 3otii -ecame confused and paral1$ed -1 the

m1sticism then prealent in societ1. &an1 at the academ1 read too deepl1 in the poisonous -oo)s of the liar and apostate #ung9Stilling.

Ne4l1 pu-lished 4ritings% such as Stilling% Ec)artshausen% and similar noelistic and

freethin)ing -oo)s could -e read at the academ1. . .Kuarrels -ro)e out oer the Thousand Dear Reign of *hrist on earth% eternal damnation% and other religious Cuestions0 some loed to deiate

from the +ol1 Scriptures% others found m1steries eer14here. The academ1 li-rar1 4ould not

lend the 4or)s of the +ol1 3athers% for no one gae permission or proided the eample. (erman

and other foreign commentators on the +ol1 Scriptures% 4ho caused more harm than the1 didgood% 4ere recommended and passed around.

3otii -ecame utterl1 confused in such an enironment. +e also seems to hae learned a

good deal during the little more than a 1ear he spent at the academ1% although there is littleli)elihood that he learned and -ecame trained “to discoer m1steries eer14here.! Nor did the

academ1 infect him 4ith a fashiona-le mania for interpreting the Apocal1pse and diining the

times through apocal1ptical tets used as signs. "here 3otii's actual or imaginar1 enemiesadduced the ,ingdom of a Thousand Dears from such tets% 3otii discerned the Antichrist. “The

4ood is alread1 stac)ed and the fire is -eing )indled.!

After leaing the academ1% 3otii -ecame a teacher at the Ale)sandr Nes)ii schools% 4here

he 4as under the superision of Rector Inno)entii. 555 In 565=% 3otii accepted tonsure and 4as

57



Cuic)l1 appointed a teacher of religion in the second militar1 academ1. 55F "hile his field of

ision epanded% 3otii continued to gather polemical materials% reading% re9reading% and

reie4ing ne4l1 printed seditious -oo)s% “especiall1 those either manifestl1 or secretl1reolutionar1 and pernicious.! +is assortment and inentor1 of such -oo)s 4as rather dierse

and disointed and included -oo)s on English materialism% 3rench pornograph1% freemasonr1 and

magic% (erman philosoph1% the sorcer1 of Boehme% Stilling% and similarl1 “satanic -oo)s%!“reolutionar1 and eil! -oo)s% “4retched &asonic! -oo)s% the 4or)s of that “&asonic heretic!

3enelon and that “foul 3rench 4oman “ (u1on% and other 4or)s such as those “setting forth the

teachings of the &ethodists and the Cuietists% that is% of that #aco-inism and philosoph1 4hichhides -ehind the mas) of *hristianit1.! 3otii al4a1s remained mistrustful of the “ne4l1

educated! clerg1: “not a single colla-orator 4as found suita-le0 each 4as prepared to put the

truth up for sale.!

The Russian Bi-le made its appearance against this -ac)ground. At first 3otii attac)edactual &asons. As he put it% “At the ris) of m1 life% I acted to counter &essenger of ion

LSions)ii ;estni)M% 2a-$in% the &asonic lodges and heresies% tr1ing to halt the spread of their

schisms.! 3otii 4as correct a-out man1 things% -ut he descri-ed all such defects 4ith an

h1sterical intensit1 4hich could -e more irritating than conincing. +e possessed a peculiarl1ecstatic suspiciousness 4hich disfigured his accurate o-serations through the addition of

imaginar1 and imperceia-le traits. &etropolitan &i)hail appointed Inno)entii to calm 3otii. ButInno)entii onl1 further aroused him 4ith his o4n -itter remar)s a-out the snares of the deil.

3otii later 4rote a 2ife LhitieM of Inno)entii after his o4n li)eness or in )eeping 4ith his

imagined ideal. In realit1% Inno)entii 4as more su-tle and profound% although he lac)edsufficient self control and patience.

3otii soon came to -e too o-streperous for the capital and 4as dispatched to Nogorod as

a--ot of the ereianits &onaster1% then S)ooroda &onaster1% and finall1 the Iur'e &onaster1%

4here he sered as archimandrite. "hile at the Iur'e &onaster1% 3otii formed a close friendship4ith *ountess A.A. rloa% 55 4hich proed to -e the decisie eent in his life. Through

“*ountess Anna%! 3otii unepectedl1 -egan his friendship 4ith Prince (olits1n during those

same 1ears. Their correspondence 4hich has -een presered% possesses a 4arm and sincerecharacter. 55 In his “auto-iograph1%! 3otii recalls his long and etensie conersations 4ith

(olits1n at *ountess rloa's home. These tal)s sometimes lasted nine hours 4ithout

interruption. 3otii emphasi$es that (olits1n passionatel1 came to loe him and 4as prepared tofulfill his eer1 4ish. #udging -1 (olits1n's actual letters% 3otii did not eaggerate. +e succeeded

for a time in reconciling (olits1n 4ith &etropolitan Seraphim. (olits1n sa4 in 3otii another St.

#ohn *hr1sostom and a “1outhful starets! LelderM . At the time% 3otii 4as -arel1 thirt1. 3otii did

not conceal his o4n 4arm feelings: “Dou and I > the t4o of us > are li)e one -od1 and soul%one mind and heart0 4e are one -ecause *hrist is in our midst.!

The “uprising! -ro)e out in 56F. As 3ilaret recalls% “The uprising against the &inistr1 of

Religious Affairs and against the Bi-le Societ1 and the translation of the +ol1 Scriptures had -een organi$ed -1 people guided -1 personal interests% 4ho not onl1 spread farfetched and

eaggerated suspicions% -ut een produced fa-rications and slanders% hoping to attract other%

4ell9intentioned people to their cause.! Ara)chee's558 role in this intrigue needs no ela-oration.3or him the intrigue 4as the denouement and the means for remoing from authorit1 and

influence a po4erful rial 4ith personal ties to the Tsar.

The appearance of (ossner's -oo) n the (ospel of &atthe4 L Eangelii ot &atfeiaM in

Russian translation sered as the occasion and the pretet for decisie action. The translation

578



fearful% and illegal m1ster1 is at 4or)% 4hich I am reealing to thee% thou po4erful one 4ith

the strength and spirit of (od.! The goal 4as achieed and on 58 &a1 56F% (olits1n 4as

dismissed% the com-ined ministr1 a-olished% and the former departmental diisions reesta-lished. Neertheless% (olits1n did not fall into disfaor or lose his personal influence% een after

Aleander's death.

The aged Admiral Shish)o% “the half9dead Shish)o dug up from o-liion%! 4as appointedminister of a separate &inistr1 of Education. Although Shish)o did not -ecome &inister of

Religious Affairs% inertia perpetuated the politics of the com-ined ministr1 onl1 in reerse% for he

persistentl1 interfered 4ith S1nodal affairs. Shish)o had no er1 precise religious ie4s. +e4as a moderate free9thin)er of the eighteenth centur1% 4ho limited his rationalism out of

national9political considerations. Een close friends 4ho 4ere 4ell disposed to4ard him testified

that Shish)o held “ie4s closel1 approimating% if the1 did not actuall1 coincide 4ith%

Socinianism.! 55< 3otii referred to him rather easiel1: “+e defended the rthodo *hurch tothe etent that he possessed an1 )no4ledge.! 3otii )ne4 perfectl1 4ell such “)no4ledge! 4as

rather meager and related more to the church's role in a state% 4hich had called upon it to -e a

pillar and a -ul4ar) against re-ellion and reolution. +o4eer% Shish)o had his o4n firm

opinions a-out Bi-lical translation. The er1 idea of translating the Bi-le seemed to him thefoulest of heresies% although a-oe all a “literar1 heres1%! in Ser-ee's 5F7 cleer phrase. 3or

Shish)o denied the er1 eistence of a Russian language. “As though it 4as somethingdistinct%! he 4ould sa1 perpleedl1. “ur Slaic and Russian language is one and the same%

differentiated onl1 into higher language and common speech.! This 4as Shish)o's -asic

religious9philological thesis. 2iterar1 or colloCuial Russian in his ie4 and understanding is“onl1 the dialect of the common people! 4ithin a Slaic9 Russian language. “"hat is the

Russian language diorced from Slaic A dream% a riddleQ. . . .Is it not odd to affirm the

eistence of a language 4hich does not contain a single 4ord! The leicon is one and the same

for -oth st1les of dialects. “B1 Slaic 4e mean nothing else than that language 4hich is higher than colloCuial and 4hich% conseCuentl1% can onl1 -e learned -1 reading0 it is the loft1% learned

literar1 language.!

In the final anal1sis% Shish)o distinguished -et4een the t4o languages: the “language of faith! and the “language of passions “ or to put it another 4a1% the “language of the church! and

the “language of the theater.! Bi-lical translation appeared to him to -e a “transposition! of the

"ord of (od from the loft1 and dignified dialect to that lo49st1led language of the passions andthe theater. +e -elieed that such a step 4as -eing ta)en in order to deli-eratel1 -elittle the

Bi-le% hence his constant fuss oer “the o-serance of rthodo1 in literar1 st1le.! +e also

considered the translation hastil1 made0 “thro4n to a fe4 students at the Academ1 4ith

instructions to do it as Cuic)l1 as possi-le.! The Russian translation's departure from *hurchSlaic cast a shado4 on a tet% 4hich had -ecome familiar and hallo4ed -1 church usage and

there-1 undermined confidence in it. “The pride of some mon) L3ilaretM or learned -raggart

sa1s: thus it is in +e-re4. "ell% 4ho 4ill conince me that he )no4s the full force of such a little)no4n language% 4ritten so long ago! Kuite freCuentl1 Shish)o spea)s as if Slaic 4as the

original language of +ol1 Scripture. “+o4 dare the1 alter 4ords considered to come from the

mouth of (od!Shish)o 4as not alone in these religious9philological reflections. *uriousl1 enough% for

similar reasons% Sperans)ii also completel1 opposed a Russian translation of the Bi-le. The

language of the “common people! seemed to him less epressie and precise. "ould it not -e

57=



-etter to teach eer1one Slaic Sperans)ii adised his daughter to use the English translation%

not the Russian% 4hen she encountered difficult passages. &an1 others shared this opinion. lF5

Shish)o detected a particularl1 sinister scheme in the pu-lication of the Pentateuch“separatel1 from the Prophets.! "hereas in fact% the Pentateuch represented the first olume of a

complete Russian Bi-le and had -een planned for pu-lication prior to the succeeding olumes in

order to speed the 4or). Shish)o suspected that this separate pu-lication had -een conceiedand eecuted in order to push the common people into the arms of the &olo)ane heres1 or

simpl1 into #udaism. &ight not someone understand the &osaic la4 literall1% particularl1 the

o-serance of the Sa--ath . . . .Should not a Cualification -e added that all this can -e eplainedfiguratiel1 and as shado4s of the past "ith the support of &etropolitan Seraphim% Shish)o

succeeded in haing the Russian Pentateuch -urned at the -ric) factor1 of the Ale)sandr Nes)ii

&onaster1. Su-seCuentl1% 3ilaret of ,ie lFF could not recall this destruction of the +ol1

Scriptures 4ithout a terri-le shudder.Shish)o sa4 no need to distri-ute the Bi-le among la1men and the people generall1. “"ill

not this imaginar1 need% -1 demeaning the significance of the +ol1 Scriptures% result in nothing

other than heresies or schisms! "ould not the dignit1 of the Bi-le -e lo4ered -1 haing it in the

home “"hat can come of this . . . .A ast sum 4ill -e epended in order that the (ospel%heretofore regarded 4ith solemnit1 might suffer the loss of its importance% -e sullied% ripped

apart% thro4n under -enches% or sere as 4rapping paper for household goods% and hae no morea-ilit1 to act on the human mind than on the human heart.! Shish)o 4rites still more

emphaticall1 that “this reading of the sacred -oo)s aims to destro1 the true faith% disrupt the

fatherland and produce strife and re-ellion.! +e -elieed that the Bi-le Societ1 and reolution4ere s1non1ms.

Kuite consistentl1% Shish)o also o-ected to translation of the Bi-le into other languages

such as Tatar or Tur)ish% for 4ho could ouch for the fidelit1 of the translation Shish)o also

feared commentaries on the Bi-le. "ho 4ill eplain the Scriptures once the1 are so 4idel1distri-uted and so easil1 accessi-le

"ithout Cualified interpreters and preachers% 4hat 4ill -e the effect 4hen large num-ers of

Bi-les and separate -oo)s of the Bi-le hae -een disseminated Amidst such an unchec)ed ?andone might sa1 uniersal@ deluge of -oo)s of the +ol1 Scriptures% 4here 4ill room -e found for

the Apostolic teachings% practices% and customs of the *hurch In a 4ord% for eer1thing 4hich

heretofore has sered as a -ul4ar) of rthodo1 . . . All of these things 4ill -e dragged do4n%crushed% and trampled under foot.

Similarl1% Shish)o ie4ed the pu-lication of the *atechism L,ate)hi$isM as a dire plot.

"h1 print so man1 copies% if not to spread an impure9faith ?A total of 56%777 copies had -een

printed@. nce again the Russian language more than an1thing else frightened Shish)o. “It isunseeml1 in religious -oo)s to hae such pra1ers as JI -eliee in ne (od' and the Pater Noster

transposed into the common dialect.! The *atechism contained scriptural tets in Russian.

The catechism composed -1 3ilaret ?a tas) originall1 entrusted to &etropolitan &i)hail@had -een issued in 56F 4ith the approal of the +ol1 S1nod and -1 imperial directie. “At the

reCuest of the &inister of Education%! accompanied -1 the use of the Emperor's name% the

*atechism 4as remoed from sale at the end of 56F. 3ilaret immediatel1 lodged a protestagainst its remoal and openl1 raised the Cuestion a-out rthodo1. “If the rthodo1 of the

*atechism% so solemnl1 confirmed -1 the +ol1 S1nod% is in dou-t% then 4ill not the rthodo1

of the +ol1 S1nod itself -e called into Cuestion! In repl1% &etropolitan Seraphim insisted that

the Cuestion of rthodo1 had not -een raised and that there 4as no dou-t or dispute on that

576



point. The *atechism had -een suspended solel1 -ecause of the language of the Bi-lical tets

and of the “pra1ers.! Seraphim% 4ith some disingenuousness% 4ent on to sa1. Dou ma1 as) 4h1

the Russian language should not hae a place in the catechism% especiall1 in its a--reiated formintended for 1oung children entirel1 unfamiliar 4ith Slaic and therefore incapa-le of

understanding the truths of the faith epounded for them in that language% 4hen it% that is%

Russian% has -een retained in the sacred -oo)s of the Ne4 Testament and in the Psalms. To thisand man1 other Cuestions% 4hich might -e as)ed in this connection% I cannot gie 1ou an1

satisfactor1 ans4er. I hope that time 4ill eplain to us that 4hich no4 seems clouded. In m1

opinion% that time 4ill soon come . . .Seraphim's ans4er could signif1 that he either had not personall1 or actiel1 participated in

the ne4 course of eents% or that this apparent inconsistenc1 could -e Cuic)l1 oercome -1

etending the -an to include -oth the Russian translation of the Ne4 Testament and the Bi-le

Societ1. In an1 case% Seraphim simpl1 lied 4hen he denied that the *atechism's rthodo1 had -een Cuestioned. 3otii emphaticall1 and pu-licl1 pronounced it heretical% compared it 4ith

“canal 4ater%! and unfaora-l1 contrasted the *atechism 4ith the older rthodo *onfession of

Peter &ogila. 5F The *atechism 4as su-ected to eamination% if not officiall1% then at least

officiousl1. Apparentl1 Archpriest I.S. ,ocheto ?5=<79568@% a candidate for a higher degree%4ho had graduated 4ith the first class of the reformed St. Peters-urg Academ1% and at that time a

religion teacher at the Tsars)oe Selo l1cee% had -een entrusted 4ith the reie4. +is ealuation%Cuic)l1 arried at% did not faor the catechism. ,ocheto too) more interest in Cuestions of

language than of theolog1. As a philologist% he sered as a mem-er of the Russian Academ1%

-eginning in 56F6. 2ater he achieed full mem-ership. 5F&etropolitan Egenii% F8 4ho recentl1 had -een summoned to attend the meetings of the

+ol1 S1nod% maintained a er1 critical attitude to4ard the *atechism. 3ilaret's successor at Ter'

and Iaroslal'% Simeon ,r1lo9Platono% 5FG contemptuousl1 du--ed the *atechism “a misera-le

pamphlet%! containing unheard of teaching and “insuffera-le insolence.! In an1 eent% a reisededition of the *atechism 4as recirculated onl1 after careful re9eamination of all Bi-lical tets

and citations% including their “presentation in Slaic rather than in the Russian dialect.! Een the

language of eposition 4as deli-eratel1 adapted or made more nearl1 approimate to Slaic.+o4eer% onl1 insignificant changes in content 4ere made at that time.

Shish)o o-tained Emperor Aleander's permission to for-id translations of the Bi-le as

4ell as to close the Bi-le Societ1. +e 4as a-le to suppl1 some arguments himself% and others4ere suggested to him -1 such $ealots as &. &agnits)ii 5F= and A.A. Palo lF6 ?4ho 4or)ed

in the office of the er Procurator of the +ol1 S1nod@. 3otii descri-ed Palo as that “-rae

4arrior of 56F.! &etropolitan Seraphim acted as one 4ith Shish)o. +o4eer% Seraphim acted

on suggestion. A timid man% he lac)ed “sufficient clarit1 of mind! to distinguish responsi-l1enthusiasm and suspicions amidst the cross9currents of rumors and fears. 2eft to himself%

Seraphim 4ould hae insisted onl1 on the dismissal of the “-lind minister.! All further reasons

4ere suggested or een imposed on him. At one time Seraphim had studied in Noi)o's“seminar1%! and he had -een an actie mem-er of the Bi-le Societ1% -oth as arch-ishop of &ins)

and later as metropolitan of &osco4. +e often deliered speeches filled 4ith pathos in the

meetings of the &osco4 Bi-le Societ1. +o4eer% his sentiments 4ere changed 4hen hetransferred to St. Peters-urg. +e immediatel1 -ro)e 4ith (olits1n. 3ollo4ing (olits1n's remoal

from office% &etropolitan Seraphim% as president of the Bi-le Societ1% -egan to importune

Emperor Aleander a-out a-olishing and closing do4n all Bi-le societies and transferring all

their affairs% propert1% and translation proects to the +ol1 S1nod.

57<



Such demands 4ere not Cuic)l1 reali$ed% coming as the1 did onl1 during the net reign

under the fresh impact of the ecem-rist reolt% lF< the responsi-ilit1 for 4hich Shish)o

conincingl1 -lamed on the “m1stics.! +o4eer% the rescript of 5F April 56FG closing the Bi-leSociet1 contained an important Cualification: “I sanction the continued sale at the esta-lished

price for those 4ho desire them the -oo)s of the +ol1 Scriptures 4hich hae alread1 -een

printed -1 the Bi-le Societ1 in Slaic% Russian% and in other languages spo)en -1 inha-itants of the Empire.! Een Nicholas I 57 4as not full1 prepared to follo4 Shish)o. In practice%

ho4eer% the pu-lications of the Bi-le Societ1 4ere ta)en from circulation and onl1 the

committees concerned for prisons continued to suppl1 the Russian translation of the Ne4Testament to eiles and prisoners from their stoc)s.

*uriousl1 enough% in 56F6% Prince ,.,. 2ien% the former superintendent in orpat and a

prominent and influential figure in the former Bi-le Societ1% replaced Shish)o as &inister of

Education. 2ater% in 56F% he -ecame the head of the reied (erman Bi-le Societ1. Prince2ien -elonged to the &oraian Brethren. “Sometimes an official sent from some4here 4ith an

important dispatch 4ould discoer him in the reception hall in front of the lectern% loudl1 singing

the Psalms. Turning to the official% he 4ould listen to him% -ut 4ithout ans4ering% continue his

liturg1! ?;igel'@. f course% 2ien 4as a (erman and a Protestant0 and it 4as the (erman Bi-leSociet1% 4hich 4as restored. Det as &inister of Education% he 4as called upon to administer to

the 4hole empire. In an1 case% -1 that time% “the ie4s of the goernment! had changed onceagain.

L...M

Chater 1.

%truggle For Theology.

!ntroduction.

The full significance of the Aleandrine eral for Russia's oerall cultural deelopment still

remains to -e discerned and ealuated. An agitated and pathetic moment% a period of po4erfull1

constructie tensions% the Aleandrine 1ears% 4ith -old naiete% 4itnessed and eperienced thefirst o1s of creatiit1. Ian A)sa)o F successfull1 characteri$ed this formatie moment in

Russia's deelopment as one in 4hich poetr1 suddenl1 seemed for a time an incontesta-le

historical ocation0 poetr1 “too) on the appearance of a sacramental act.! A peculiar italit1 andindependence% a “creatie feeling and o1 of artistic master1! suffused all contemporar1 poetical

4or). Russia eperienced an a4a)ening of the heart.

+o4eer% one must immediatel1 add that there 4as still no a4a)ening of the mind.

Imagination remained un-ridled and untempered -1 mental struggle or intellectual asceticism.Thus% people of that generation easil1 and freCuentl1 fell under charms or into dreams or isions.

Aleander's reign 4as generall1 an age of dreams0 an epoch of musings and sighs% as 4ell as a

time of sights% insights% and isions. A disunction of mind and heart% of thought and imagination%characteri$ed the entire period. The age did not suffer so much from the lac) of 4ill as it did

from an irresponsi-le heart. “An esthetic culture of the heart replaced moral precepts 4ith

delicate feelings%! in ,liuches)ii's 4ords. The great frailt1 and infirmit1 of pietism proided precisel1 this defect in the heart.

557



The Russian soul passed through the ordeal or seduction of pietism at the outset of the

nineteenth centur1 > the apogee of Russia's 4esternism. *atherine's reign seems a-solutel1

primitie in comparison to the triumphant face of the Aleandrine era% 4hen the soul completel1gae itself oer to Europe. In an1 eent% such a deelopment occurred no earlier than the

appearance of 2etters of a Russian Traeler ?5=<595=<F@. Ro$ano once aptl1 remar)ed that

“in the 2etters of a Russian Traeler% Russia's soul turned to the marelous 4orld of "esternEurope% 4ept oer it% loed it and comprehended it0 4hereas in the earlier 1ears of the centur1%

her soul ga$ed on that 4orld 4ith dulled e1es fiing on nothing.!

But in immediatel1 succeeding generations a “Slaophile! opposition% 4hich 4as not somuch a national9ps1chological opposition as a culturall1 creatie one% -egan to ta)e shape. The

4esternism of Aleander's reign% in a real sense% did not mean de9nationali$ation. n the

contrar1% this 4as a period of increased national feeling. +o4eer% at that moment the Russian

soul too) on a perfect resem-lance to the Aeolian +arp.hu)os)ii's 4ith his ingenious diapson and s1mpathetic% creatie a-ilit1 at reincarnation%

4ith his intense sensitiit1 and responsieness% and 4ith his free and immediate language%

t1pifies the period. Det hu)os)ii 4as and foreer remained ?in his l1rical meditations@ a

4estern man% a 4estern dreamer% a (erman pietist al4a1s ga$ing% “li)e a poet% through the prismof the heart.! +ence his astonishing a-ilit1 for translating (erman: his (erman soul simpl1

epressed itself in Russian.Kuite characteristicall1% this attac) of dreaminess -ro)e out under 4artime conditions. B1

the -eginning of the nineteenth centur1% nearl1 the 4hole of Europe had -ecome a theater of

militar1 operations. Europe 4as transformed into an armed camp. It 4as a time of great historicalturning points and diisions% of epoch9ma)ing storms and stresses. The -eginning of the

nineteenth centur1 > the era of the (reat 3atherland "ar G and Napoleon > 4itnessed a ne4

migration of peoples: “the inasion of the (auls accompanied -1 the t4ent1 nations.! /nrest

highl1 charged the surrounding enironment. Eents acCuired a feerish rh1thm0 the 4ildestfears and premonitions came to pass. Be4ildered% the soul 4as torn -et4een hopeful anticipation

and eschatological impatience. &an1 -elieed that the1 lied in an eer9closing apocal1ptical

circle. “This is not the Cuiet da4n of Russia% -ut the storm1 t4ilight of Europe%! &etropolitan3ilaret = once said.

3or a generation of dreamers possessing such unrelia-le and Cuite easil1 aroused

imaginations% the ordeal of those iolent da1s proed to -e a er1 harsh trial. Apocal1ptical fear a4o)e and the feeling spread 4idel1 that some tangi-le and immanent iine guidance had

assumed and dissoled indiidual human 4ills 4ithin itself. The idea of Proidence acCuired a

superstitious and magical reflection in the consciousness of that generation. &en no longer

-elieed in their o4n a-ilities. &an1 eperienced and interpreted the (reat 3atherland "ar as anapocal1ptical struggle: “A udgment of (od on the ic1 fields.! Napoleon's defeat 4as accounted

a ictor1 oer the Beast.

Something maestic and almight1 could -e detected eer14here and in eer1thing. I amalmost certain Aleander and ,utu$o had gained the a-ilit1 to see +im and that +is 4rathful

countenance had shone een on Napoleon. ?;igel'@ 6

In the preailing sentiment the spirit of dream1 4ithdra4al from and reection of the“formal! or “eternal! in *hristianit1 com-ined 4ith the most unrestrained epectation of the

isi-le approach of the ,ingdom of (od on earth. ne must remem-er that Romanticism and the

Enlightenment eCuall1 -ear the mar) of chiliasm. Romanticism's isionar1 utopianism is

partiall1 the heir to the eighteenth centur1 -elief in the imminent and immediate reali$ation of

555



ultimate ideals. "hether as an Age of Reason% a ,ingdom of (od% or as an1 num-er of

designations% eer1one epected a ne4 (olden Age. The goddess Astrea < 4ould return. Earthl1

Paradise once more 4ould -e reealed. “Then a genuine Ne4 Dear shall descend upon the earth.!The ps1chological histor1 of that age and generation can -e understood onl1 from the

perspectie of these a4a)ened socio9apocal1ptical epectations and in the contet of all those

contemporar1 and uniersall1 stunning eents and acts. The histor1 of that age displa1s a strea) of theocratic utopianism.

Ale+ander !0 Prince A.N. Golitsyn0 the Co$ing of Pietis$.

Emperor Aleander I ma1 ustl1 -e termed the epon1m of his age. +e t1pified the epoch inhis spiritual formation and st1le and in his tastes and inclinations. Aleander 4as reared in the

influences of sentimental humanism. 3rom there the step to the m1stical religion of the heart 4as

neither long nor difficult. At a er1 earl1 age% Aleander -ecame used to liing in an atmosphereof dreams and epectations% in a peculiar intellectual mimicr1% in aspirations and dreams for “the

ideal.! That pathetic oath s4orn -1 the t4o monarchs oer the grae of 3rederic) II occurred as

earl1 as 567.57 In an1 eent% Aleander entered the sphere of m1stical enthusiasms long -efore

“the flames of &osco4 illumined his heart.!Sperans)ii% 55 4riting from Perm% reminded the tsar a-out their conersations on m1stical

themes: conersations% 4hich clearl1 reeal a “su-ect matter corresponding to the emperor's

innermost feelings.! +o4eer% an een stronger influence 4as eercised -1 Rodion ,oshele?5=<956F=@%5F an old &ason personall1 acCuainted 4ith 2aater% Saint9&artin% Ec)artshausen%

l and een more closel1 4ith Prince A. N. (olits1n. l In 565F Aleander composed a reealing

memoir entitled n m1stical literature L mistiches)oi literatureM for his faorite sister% the(rand uchess *atherine. +e repeats% or reformulates% the adice and program of others% 1et one

instantl1 reali$es that Aleander has full1 assimilated that program% acclimated himself to its

st1le% and that he had alread1 formed definite tastes and preferences. +e preferred St. 3rancis deSales% 58 St. Teresa of Aila% 5G The Imitation of *hrist% 5= and #. Tauler. 56

The (reat 3atherland "ar sered onl1 as a catal1st for Aleander% resoling older tensions.+e read the Ne4 Testament for the first time on the er1 ee of Napoleon's inasion. TheApocal1pse most greatl1 affected him. Similarl1 the prophets attracted him most in the ld

Testament. 3rom that moment on4ard% Aleander -ecame curious and credulous of eer1

manner of interpretation and an1 interpreter of the enigmatic and s1m-olic Boo) of Reelation.

Precisel1 such curiosit1 dre4 him to #ung9Stilling ?#. +. #ung@% 5< Baroness ,rudener% F7 Pastor Empeita$% F5 -erlin% FF the &oraian Brethern% the Kua)ers% and the +errnhutters. F 2ater%

t4o priests from Balta% 3eodosii 2eits)ii and 3edor 2iseich ?4ho considered themseles “t4o

faithful 4itnesses! from Reelations@ 4ere summoned to the capital specificall1 in order tointerpret the Apocal1pse. F Apparentl1 Aleander 4as prepared to listen to Archimandrite 3otii

F8 -ecause 3otii interpreted Reelations and prophesied and threatened in the name of the

Apocal1pse and all the prophets. In such historical circumstances% it 4as not strange to -elieethat the end 4as approaching.

Aleander neither loed nor sought po4er. But he ac)no4ledged that he 4as the -earer of a

sacred idea and reelled in that fact. This -elief constituted the source of his moral and political

o-stinac1 ?rather than tenacit1@. &an1 of that generation detected in themseles a special sign of predestination. The +ol1 Alliance FG 4as conceied and concluded in precisel1 such a mood. In

a 4a1 similar to the theories of the Age of Enlightenment% this alliance presupposed a faith in an

omnipotent and -eneolent 2a4gier% 4ho designed or esta-lished an ecumenical peace and a

55F



uniersal happiness. No one had to suggest this idea to Aleander0 he discoered it for himself in

those eents% 4hich seemed so cunningl1 deised. “The Redeemer +imself teaches the idea and

the precepts 4hich 4e hae announced.!The +ol1 Alliance 4as conceied as a preparation for the ,ingdom of a Thousand Dears. As

(olits1n put it: “It 4ill -e apparent to an1one 4ho 4ishes to see% that this act can onl1 -e

understood as a preparation for that promised ,ingdom of the 2ord on earth een as it is in+eaen.! The act of “3raternal *hristian Alliance! 4as signed “in the 1ear of (race 5658% the

5thFGth Septem-er%! and the fact that the da1 coincided 4ith the feast of the Eleation of the

+ol1 *ross F= according to the Eastern rthodo calendar is scarcel1 an accident. The +ol1S1nod ordered that the Act of +ol1 Alliance -e displa1ed on 4alls and in eer1 cit1 and illage

church. And each 1ear on the feast of the Eleation of the +ol1 *ross the act 4as to -e

reannounced from the am-o% along 4ith an accompan1ing manifesto% “so that each and eer1

person might fulfill his o4 of serice to the one 2ord and Saior% 4ho spea)s through the person of the Soereign for the entire people.! A special “com-ined ministr1%! a &inistr1 of

Religious Affairs and Pu-lic Enlightenment% 4as esta-lished specificall1 in order to fulfill that

o4. F6 According to Sperans)ii% it 4as “the greatest goernmental act since the introduction of

the *hristian faith.! Strictl1 spea)ing% this 4as to -e a &inistr1 of Religio /topian Propaganda.The com-ined ministr1 4as founded “so that *hristian piet1 4ould al4a1s sere as the -asis for

true enlightenment.! In other 4ords% this 4as a scheme to place religion at the head or center of culture as a 4hole: “a redemptie union of faith% )no4ledge and authorit1.! The latter element of

this s1nthesis is the characteristic one% for the idea 4as to use the po4er of “authorit1! to

reconcile “faith! and “)no4ledge.! To a significant degree the ne4 ministr1 sered as Prince A. N. (olits1n's personal department. Perhaps personal regime 4ould -e more accurate. "ith the

fall of (olits1n% the com-ined ministr1 4as a-olished and its departments once more esta-lished

on separate footings.

Prince A.N. (olits1n ?5==956@ is perhaps the most characteristic man of that age. In an1case% he 4as certainl1 its most sensitie and epressie representatie. +is a-ilit1 to a-sor-

impressions nearl1 constituted a sic)ness. +e suffered from an outright m1stical curiosit1. A man

of the Enlightenment no longer in his 1outh% (olits1n suddenl1 eperienced a turning of theheart. Det the sensitiit1 of this ne4l1 conerted heart com-ined 4ith an insensitie and

some4hat arid intellect. Prince (olits1n's dream1 and authoritarian religious temperament rather

unepectedl1 gre4 into an organic unit1. An aristocratic grandeur sharpl1 pierced hissentimentalism. A man 4ith a trusting and sensitie heart% (olits1n could and 4ished to -e a

dictator% and actuall1 -ecame one for seeral 1ears. +is peculiar “dictatorship of the heart!

proed er1 tiresome and intolerant. 3anaticism of the heart is especiall1 prone to% and easil1

com-ined 4ith% a sneering compassion.(olits1n conerted to “uniersal *hristianit1%! to a religion of tender imagination and

eperience of the heart. These 4ere the onl1 Cualities in *hristianit1% 4hich he pri$ed. +ence his

interest in sectarian “conersions! and “a4a)enings%! 4hich for him reealed the essence of religion stripped of all its useless trappings. +e alued and understood onl1 the s1m-olism% onl1

the emotional9m1sterious inspiration of ritual in “formal! 4orship and church life. "ithin that

contet (olits1n 4as totall1 sincere and sensitie% for to the end of his da1s he 4as a man on aCuest. The spirit of propaganda or prosel1tism is er1 characteristic of such forms of piet1. As

head of the com-ined ministr1% (olits1n discoered himself.

At the same time% the com-ined ministr1 represented a ne4 lin) in the chain of Peter I's

church reform% a ne4 step to4ard the reali$ation of that noel ecclesiastical9political regime

55



esta-lished at the -eginning of the eighteenth centur1. Still earlier% on the strength of the intimac1

and faor -esto4ed upon him -1 the emperor% and as friend and “imperial confidant%! (olits1n%

as er Procurator% succeeded in -ecoming a sort of goernor9general of the “S1nodalepartment.! True% in indiidual cases he defended the church against state encroachments% as

for eample% 4hen he reected Sperans)ii's proposal to turn oer to the secular authorities the

right to grant diorces. "ith the esta-lishment of the com-ined ministr1% his earlier demonstratedsuccess too) on the full force of la4. The S1nod -ecame formall1 integrated 4ithin the state

administration for “religious affairs%! as a special “diision for the (reco9Russian confession.!

The manifesto esta-lishing this ne4 administration epresses the matter as follo4s:f course the affairs of the &ost +ol1 (oerning S1nod 4ill -e attached to it ?i.e.% the

ministr1@ in order that the &inister of Religious Affairs and Pu-lic Enlightenment 4ill hae

eactl1 the same relationship to the S1nod in these affairs as the &inister of #ustice has to the

(oerning Senate% ecept% ho4eer% in udicial matters.3undamental to the design of the com-ined ministr1% as 4ell as to the entire conception of

the +ol1 Alliance% is the religious leadership or supremac1 of the “Prince%! ruling and

administering not onl1 “-1 the grace of (od%! -ut also -1 iine authorit1. As the “treatise! on

the +ol1 Alliance phrased it% “thus confessing that the *hristian 4orld% of 4hich the1 and their su-ects form a part% has in realit1 no other Soereign than +im to 4hom alone po4er trul1

-elongs.! The definition proided -1 Noosiltse F< in his “Statutor1 *harter! ma)es aninteresting comparison: “As the Supreme head of the rthodo (reco9Russian *hurch% the

Soereign is eleated to all the honors of the church hierarch1! ?Article F7@. Such a step for4ard

4ent -e1ond Peter and 3eofan. The Petrine State su-ordinated the church from 4ithout% and inthe name of a secular cause% “the common good%! etorted toleration for seculari$ed life. uring

Aleander's reign% the state once again conceied itself to -e hol1 and sacred% proclaiming

religious leadership and imposing its o4n religious ideas. The er Procurator seemingl1

“oined the clerg1 of the *hurch! as the “locum tenens for the eternal -ishop! Lmesto-liustitel'neshniago epis)opaM% as 3ilaret% the future metropolitan of &osco4% greeted (olits1n on his

appointment0 or “the great chimera of uniersal *hristianit1%! as #oseph de &aistre 7

sardonicall1 put it.The Emperor Aleander professed a mongrel form of *hristianit1% and pretentiousl1

claimed the right to rule in the name of this “uniersal! religion. All confessions 4ithin the

Russian Empire 4ere urged to accommodate themseles to a particular place 4ithin the oeralls1stem. The com-ined ministr1 4as to oin% if not unite% all confessions or “churches! not onl1 in

a common tas) -ut 4ith a single inspiration. In this regard% the er1 comple and highl1

s1m-olical plans for the cathedral of *hrist the Saior dra4n up -1 A.2. "it-erg 5 are er1

instructie. “I did not 4ish to raise up an edifice to (od% -ut rather a pra1er.! This cathedral 4asnot to -e merel1 an rthodo one% -ut 4as also to em-od1 and epress “an all9em-racing idea.!

As "it-erg himself said: “Its er1 dedication to *hrist proed that it -elonged to the entiret1 of

*hristianit1.!The com-ined ministr1 -ecame a cruel and coercie regime. Religious m1sticism 4as

inested 4ith the full force of la4% 4ith full1 decisie sanctions against those 4ho disagreed or

4ho simpl1 acted easiel1. Simple lac) of s1mpath1 for the ideas of “inner *hristianit1! 4asconsidered a crime% and conseCuentl1 an act of opposition to the ie4s of the goernment. ne

article from a contemporar1 statute on censorship reads as follo4s: “An1 act is condemned

4hich% under the pretet of defending or ustif1ing one of the *hristian churches% reproaches

another% there-1 destro1ing the unit1 of loe 4hich -inds all *hristians together in one spirit in

55



*hrist.! n the strength of such a statute% anal1sis of Protestant -eliefs from the rthodo point

of ie4 -ecame impermissi-le. Such a prohi-ition had eisted earlier under Peter and Biron.

The regime of the +ol1 Alliance signified the ensem-lement of conscience and spirit% andconstituted the most pretentious form of statism: theocratic statism. Too freCuentl1% the com-ined

ministr1 proed to -e a “&inistr1 of -fuscation%! as ,aram$in du--ed it. And 1et% an

a4a)ening occurred in this etremel1 confused and am-iguous historical setting. The stateattempted to strengthen and augment the religious needs of the mass of the population. “The

efforts of Prince (olits1n%! 4rites the historian *histoich% F “4ere directed to4ard arousing

the Russian people from the slum-er and indifference 4hich he seemed to find eer14here0a4a)ening in them higher spiritual instincts0 and through the distri-ution of religious -oo)s

implanting in them the liing stream of an in4ardl1 comprehended *hristianit1.! That same

historian notes that “the period of unrestricted eistence of the Bi-le Societ1 mar)s the onl1 time

since the outset of the eighteenth centur1 4hen secular societ1% appl1ing itself to religioussu-ects 4ith a liel1 and intense interest% gae first priorit1 to the moral and spiritual

deelopment of the people.! The message of “inner *hristianit1! did not pass a4a1 4ithout a

trace0 it sented as a summons to moral and religious self9reliance. In an1 case% it acted as a

dialectical counter4eight to the enlightened secularism of the preious centur1. At that time aconscious effort had -een made to force the clerg1 into the lo4er social classes and dissole it in

“the common sort of men.! No4 the ideal arose of an educated and enlightened clerg1occup1ing a place in higher societ1. The ne4 regime's program allotted the -earers of religious

ideas and inspiration a greater place or role in the entire s1stem of state and national life.

iscipline 4as the hallmar) of Peter's reign education that of *atherine's0 no4 creatiit1 -ecamethe sign of the times.

Roman *atholic elements also eisted in the preailing m1stical s1ncretism. In an important

sense% #oseph de &aistre -elongs to the histor1 of Russian m1sticism. As a 1outh he eperienced

freemasonr1% and his outloo) o4es a good deal to Saint9&artin. uring his 1ears in Russia% hecontinued to -eliee that in non9*atholic countries freemasonr1 posed no danger for religion or

for the state. +o4eer% the Bi-le Societ1% 4hose 4or)ing operations he could o-sere firsthand

in Russia% he considered Cuite dangerous. These impressions found a place in his theocratics1nthesis. As (. (o1au perceptiel1 noted% 4hen de &aistre 4rote n the Pope% he had t4o

countries in mind: 3rance and Russia. e &aistre eercised a considera-le influence in Russian

aristocratic circles. 8uring the first 1ears of the ne4 centur1% the influence of the #esuits could also -e strongl1

felt. ne need onl1 recall the names of A--es Nicole G and Ro$aen. = 3or a short time% from

5655 to 56F7% the #esuits een managed to achiee the creation of a special educational district

for their schools 4ithin the empire. Polots) Academ1 sered as its administratie center. To thesouth% dessa -ecame a hot-ed of Roman prosel1tism and its *ollege des No-les raCuo0% 4as

soon reorgani$ed as the l1cee Richelieu 4ith Nicole as director. +o4eer% -1 5658 the #esuits

had -een epelled from -oth capitals% and -1 56F7 the1 4ere dispatched -e1ond the empire'sfrontier. Their schools 4ere either closed or reformed. +o4eer% such measures did not entirel1

eliminate 2atin influence.

The Aleandrine era consisted of contradictions% am-iguities% and duplicities. 2ife andthought -ecame diided. An open ?if not free@ social and religious de-ate arose for the first time.

Such 4as the -eginning of a ne4% storm1% and significant era.

558



“lo4est orders of men% those -arel1 catechumens%! could -e satisfied 4ith the pious rituals in the

historical churches. ream and reason strangel1 intert4ine in a m1sticism 4hich contains a

romantic simplification of all Cuestions and an ecessie transparenc1 and lucidit1. “+is reason presented eer1thing clearl1 and simpl1% -asing eer1thing on the la4s of necessit1 and on the

la4 4hich unites the isi-le and the inisi-le% the earthl1 and the heaenl1. This% I thought% is a

science of religion0 a great and important discoer1 for me.! 8pinions diide on 2a-$in. +is polemical and resolute attac)s on ;oltarianism and all forms

of freethin)ing attracted and reconciled man1 to him. Een Egenii Bol)hoitino G remar)ed

that “he detected man1% if not from the depraed life% at least from those depraed ideas 4hichcom-at religion.! 3ilaret admitted that 2a-$in had pure intentions. “+e 4as a good man% 4ith

certain peculiarities in his religious ie4s.! thers render a much harsher and utterl1 implaca-le

udgment. Inno)entii Smirno = regarded 2a-$in's translations as completel1 harmful and

dangerous. &an1 4ere of a similar mind. 3otii sa4 in 2a-$in one of the chief instigators of heres1. In fact% 2a-$in's propaganda 4as etremel1 immodest% 4illful% and anno1ing. Intolerant%

he had a pathos for conersion. &oreoer% he achieed success. Apparentl1 een clerg1men ?the

archimandrites 3eofil and Io 6 hae -een named@ oined his lodge. "it-erg% too% -ecame a

mem-er. *uriousl1 enough% ,heras)o composed his famous h1mn “+o4 (lorious! < precisel1 for 2a-$in's lodge “The 1ing Sphin.! The h1mn is a t1pical eample of the

preailing m1stical and pietist poetr1.&i)hail Sperans)ii ?5==F956@ is another representatie of the m1stical mood. 2i)e

2a-$in% Sperans)ii 4as in essence a man of the preceding centur1. The optimist and rationalist of

the Age of Enlightenment is stri)ingl1 eident in him. Sperans)ii surprised and een frightenedhis contemporaries -1 his etremel1 a-stract manner. 3orceful and -old in the realm of a-stract

constructions% schemes% and forms% he Cuic)l1 tired and -ecame lost in life% occasionall1 een

failing to o-sere moral decorum. Not onl1 did Sperans)ii neer li-erate himself from this innate

rationalism% een through man1 1ears of reading m1stical and ascetical -oo)s% -ut his thoughtgre4 still more arid% if more deeloped% in this ordeal of meditations. +e achieed insensitiit1%

not impartialit1. Sperans)ii deried his great strength as 4ell as his 4ea)ness from this

rationalism. +e -ecame an inimita-le codifier and s1stemi$er% and he could -e a fearlessreformer. But his thoughts lac) italit1: the1 4ere freCuentl1 -rilliant -ut een then the1 retained

an ic1 chill. There is al4a1s something intolera-l1 rhetorical in all his proects and speeches. +is

clarit1 and lucidit1 possessed an offensie Cualit1% 4hich eplains 4h1 no one loed him and4h1 he could hardl1 loe an1one else. A highl1 directed and deli-erate man% he had an ecessie

passion for s1mmetr1 and too great a faith in the omnipotence of statutes and forms. ?Both

3ilaret and N.I. Turgene 87 concur in this ealuation@. espite the daring logic of his man1

proposals% Sperans)ii had no original ideas. +e possessed a clear -ut superficial mind. +isoutloo) lac)ed tim-re and fi-re0 he had no liing muscle. +e een accepted suffering in a dream9

li)e manner. Sperans)ii simpl1 4as not a man of thought. It is all the more characteristic that a

man of that st1le and t1pe could -e attracted and dra4n into a maelstrom of m1sticism.Sperans)ii came from the clerg1. +e 4ent through the usual curriculum of an ecclesiastical

school% -ecame a teacher and then a prefect in that same Ale)sandr Nes)ii Seminar1s 4here he

had studied. +o4eer% he deeloped an interest in theolog1 at a later date. A-out 567 he -ecameacCuainted 4ith I. ;. 2opu)hin and -egan reading m1stical -oo)s under &s guidance. +is

reading during those 1ears 4as largel1 comprised of “theosophical! -oo)s% including Boehme%

Saint9&artin and S4eden-org. 8F nl1 later% 4hen in eile in Perm and ;eli)opol'e% did he shift

his interest to “m1stical theolog1%! that is% partl1 to Cuietism and partl1 to the church fathers. +e

55=



een translated The Imitation of *hrist. At the same time he studied +e-re4 in order that he

might read the Bi-le in that language. Still later% in Pen$a% he -egan learning (erman.

Sperans)ii ma)es the t1pical distinction or dichotom1 of those 1ears -et4een “outer! and“inner.! +e possessed more than a mere indifference to histor1 and sharpl1 and maliciousl1

descri-ed “historical! and “eternal! *hristianit1 as “that disfigured *hristianit1 adorned 4ith

all the colors of a sensual 4orld.! nce Sperans)ii 4rote to his former schoolmate P. A.Slotso% that “to search the +ol1 Scriptures for our fruitless and empt1 historical truths and for a

useless s1stem proided -1 the logic of our fie senses is to act the child and amuse ourseles

4ith pointless scholarship and literature.! Sperans)ii ie4ed the Bi-le as a -oo) of para-les andm1sterious s1m-ols0 he considered it more a m1thical or “theoretical! -oo) than an historical

one. Such an approach to the Bi-le generall1 characteri$ed the preailing m1sticism and pietism.

Sperans)ii's isionar1 paternalism% his uggling of a-stract schemes% and een his lac) of images

are surprising. *uriousl1% he maintained a resered attitude to4ard #ung9Stilling and allapocal1ptical literature. There 4as too much that 4as apocal1ptical in life and histor1 to suit

him.

Sperans)ii 4as a &ason% adhering to 3essler's “scientific! s1stem rather than to

Rosicrucianism. e &aistre% on insufficient grounds% considered Sperans)ii “an admirer of ,ant.! 3essler's initation to Russia is a s1mptomatic episode. A prominentl1 actie &ason 4ho

had reformed (erman freemasonr1 on more rationalistic and critical lines% he 4as summoned -1Sperans)ii to occup1 a chair in the ne4l1 reformed St. Peters-urg Theological Academ1.

Su-seCuentl1 Sperans)ii emphasi$ed that 3essler's initation came “-1 special Imperial

instruction.! +e 4as offered a chair of +e-re4% 4hich 3essler had preiousl1 held in 2o. 8/pon 3essler's arrial% Sperans)ii discoered he possessed an outstanding )no4ledge of

philosoph1 and entrusted him not onl1 4ith the chair of +e-re4% -ut 4ith that of philosoph1

?Sperans)ii considered himself the “patron! of that chair@. Baron ,orf% Sperans)ii's earl1 and

official -iographer% guessed that there ma1 hae -een ulterior moties for 3essler's appointment.8 Since that time% the interesting comments -1 (auenshil'd% 4ho sered for a time under

Sperans)ii in the *ommission on 2a4s% hae -ecome aaila-le. 88 (auenshil'd tells of a

&asonic lodge organi$ed -1 3essler in St. Peters-urg in 4hich Sperans)ii -ecame a mem-er.&eetings 4ere held in Baron Rosen)ampf's home. 8G “A proposal 4as made to found a central

&asonic lodge 4ith filial -ranches throughout the Russian empire% in 4hich the a-lest spiritual

people of eer1 station 4ould -e o-liged to oin. These spiritual -rethren 4ould -e reCuired to4rite articles on arious humanitarian Cuestions% delier sermons% and so on. Their 4ritings

4ould then -e su-mitted to the central lodge.! (auenshil'd recalls that at their first meeting

Sperans)ii spo)e of “reforming the Russian clerg1.! ne ma1 infer that 3essler had -een -rought

to St. Peters-urg and appointed to the Nes)ii Academ1 for that purpose.3essler 4as a freethin)er% not a m1stic. +e su-scri-ed to the ideas of 2essing and 3ichte% 8=

and he suggested that the goal of a true &ason could -e found in the creation of ciic

consciousness and in reeducating the citi$enr1 for the coming age of Astrea. &osco4Rosicrucians greeted the ne4s of 3essler's appointment 4ith indignation and fear% for “he is a

stealth1 enem1 4ho reects the diinit1 of #esus *hrist and ac)no4ledges him merel1 as a great

man! 86 3essler also met 4ith hostilit1 in St. Peters-urg. +o4eer% prominent people oined hislodge% including S. S. /aro% 8< A. I. Turgene% G7 a group of *arpatho9 Russians from the

*ommission on 2a4s ?2odi% Balugians)ii% and rlai@% G5 the court ph1sician Stoffregen% the

famous doctor E. E. Ellisen and the philanthropist Pomian Pe$aroius% founder of the Russian

Inalid and Aleander's *ommittee for the "ounded. GF

556



3essler did not teach long at the academ1. +is Socinian cast of mind soon -ecame apparent.

The s1lla-i for his proposed course 4ere found to -e “o-scure.! 3essler 4as Cuic)l1 transferred

to the position of “corresponding mem-er! of the *ommission on 2a4s. Su-seCuentl1Sperans)ii% 4ho had defended 3essler and his s1lla-i% and 4ho until then had -een the most

actie mem-er of the *ommission on Ecclesiastical Schools% stopped attending its meetings

altogether and een as)ed permission to resign. These eents occurred in 5657. The follo4ing1ear% 3essler 4as reCuired to isit the +errnhutters in the southern ;olga region. In 5656 he

returned once more to St. Peters-urg in the capacit1 of 2utheran (eneral Superintendent. B1 that

time he 4as eno1ing the faor of Prince (olits1n. The 4hole episode 4ell characteri$es thosetrou-led 1ears. The complete confusion and am-iguit1 of religious ie4s is so eloCuentl1

epressed.

Refor$ of the Ecclesiastical %chools) 345673438.

Reform of the ecclesiastical schools -egan during the er1 first 1ears of Aleander's reign.

This reform formed a part of a general reconstruction of the entire educational s1stem and the

creation in 567F of a ne4 department or ministr1 of “pu-lic enlightenment.! n 8 Noem-er

567 a ne4 statute for uniersities and other pu-lic schools 4as pu-lished and implemented. In5678 Egenii Bol)hoitino ?5=G=956=@% then icar of Staraia Russa% dre4 up the first “s)etch!

for a ne4 statute for the ecclesiastical schools. Reports 4hich had -een elicited a-out desired

improements 4ere su-mitted to him% and he -ased his proposal on them. nl1 &etropolitanPlaton of &osco4 G opposed the idea of reform. +o4eer% none of the -ishops consulted

proposed more than specific corrections or changes 4ithin the frame4or) of the eisting order.

Agustin ';inograds)ii% -ishop of mitro and icar to the metropolitan of &osco4% proidesthe sole eception. +e proposed that education -e diided into distinct leels and that the

academ1 -e organi$ed as a school eclusiel1 for the “higher sciences! and not ust theolog1. +e

also recommended that the &osco4 Academ1 -e transferred to the +ol1 Trinit1 &onaster1.Een Egenii Bol)hoitino made onl1 moderate suggestions% proposing to refur-ish the

curriculum and reduce the s4a1 of 2atin in instruction -1 resering it eclusiel1 for theolog1and philosoph1. “But these ?su-ectsM should -e taught from translations as 4e hae al4a1sdone.! The administration of the Ale)sandr Nes)ii Academ1 oiced the same opinion. Egenii's

s)etch em-odies onl1 a single interesting detail% although a some4hat old9fashioned one. +e

proposed that a special scholarl1 ?or more accuratel1% scholarl19administratie@ department or

“learned societ1! -e formed in each academ1's district. These societies 4ould hae sufficientl1dierse responsi-ilities and areas of competence such as “encouragement of theological

scholarship%! pu-lication and censorship of -oo)s% superision of su-ordinate ecclesiastical

schools% and responsi-ilit1 for tet-oo)s. Egenii's idea -ecame a part of the su-seCuent statute.G

Egenii 4as and remained a man of the eighteenth centur1. +is personal tastes gae him a

secular outloo)% and he did not conceal the fact that he too) monastic o4s in order to adancehis career% descri-ing ?in correspondence 4ith a friend% to -e sure@ his tonsure 4ith almost

profane leit1: “2i)e spiders% the mon)s spun a -lac) ha-it% is mantle% and co4l around me.!

Egenii studied for a time in &osco4% 4here he had some connection 4ith the 3riendl1 Societ1

of 2earning. In an1 eent% he preferred Shaden's G8 lectures to academ1 lessons. Theolog1 hadlittle interest for him0 his su-ect 4as histor1% although he neer -ecame more than a compiler.

According to Inno)entii Boriso% GG he had “a chronicler's mind.! Pogodin G= du--ed him

“histor1's statistician.! “Egenii's great -readth of erudition is as astonishing as its capacit1 to

55<



stupef1 the po4er of thought%! said 3ilaret of *hernigo. G6 Egenii lac)ed strong anal1tical

a-ilities0 his mind entured no further than curiosit1. As an antiCuarian and -i-liographer% he

rendered man1 incontesta-le serices% -ut not in the histor1 of theolog1. It is not surprising thatEgenii later oined the ran)s of those 4ho faored the “return to the time of scholasticism. +e

disli)ed theolog1% and as metropolitan of ,ie% he did not encourage such interests -1 the

students of the ,ie Academ1. +e considered it more 4orth4hile to diert the -est talents intoarchial and -i-liographical 4or). At one time he -ecame attracted to modern literature and read

Shaftes-ur1% iderot% 'Alem-ert% and Rousseau. G< +e loed Racine and ;oltaire's tragedies

and eno1ed sentimental noels and tales. +e een translated Pope. =7 Det Egenii al4a1smaintained a guarded hostilit1 to4ard philosoph1. 3or this reason% then% his “s)etches! could not

-e sufficientl1 flei-le or inentie. Egenii too) no part in the 4or) on school reform.

n F< Noem-er 567=% an imperial directie created a *ommittee for the Improement of

Ecclesiastical Schools. &etropolitan Amrosii Podo-edo% 3eofila)t Rusano ?then -ishop of ,aluga@% Prince A. N. (olits1n% Sperans)ii% and t4o archpriests% the tsar's confessor and the chief

militar1 chaplain% oined the committee. Sperans)ii pla1ed the dominant and decisie role% and in

si months the committee had finished its 4or) and receied imperial confirmation of its plan

entitled An outline of regulations for the creation of ecclesiastical schools. =5 n FG #une 5676%the committee 4as dissoled and a permanent *ommission on Ecclesiastical Schools esta-lished

4ith the same mem-ership and as the supreme ?alinost autonomous@ and chief organ for theadministration of the ecclesiastical schools. Sperans)ii's persistence can -e felt in the

committee's forced pace% 4hile his influence is readil1 eident in the s1mmetr1 and precise

geometr1 through9 out the plan for the entire school net4or).A s1stem of leels 4as introduced and those leels 4ere used as diisions in the indiidual

educational institutions% a complete contrast to the old order. There 4ere to -e four such leels

-eginning at the -ottom 4ith parish schools% follo4ed -1 district schools% diocesan seminaries%

and then academies. Territorial considerations constituted one of the -ases for these diisions.The s1stem of consecutie leels formed a unit1 -ased on su-ordinate relationships. The entire

school net4or) 4as diided into districts% 4ith an academ1 at the head or center of each% there-1

freeing the local educational institution from the authorit1 of the local -ishop. The ne4 planclosel1 approimated the general s1stem of “pu-lic enlightenment! outlined in the statute of

5679567. Een more certain is the fact that the plan 4as modeled after Napoleon's

reorgani$ation of the /niersite de 3rance% 4hich greatl1 suited Sperans)ii's taste. =FThe intention had -een% a-oe all% to esta-lish an autonomousl1 eisting second and parallel

s1stem of schools. The chief argument 4as adduced from the specific aim of the ecclesiastical

schools% for the “sort of enlightenment! should correspond to a school's particular goal. *hurch

schools should prepare serants for the church% not for the state. In practice% the er1 fact of thislong eistent and highl1 deeloped church school net4or) carried no less 4eight in these

considerations% since the pu-lic school s1stem still a4aited reinstitution. ne unepected

Cualification had alread1 -een made in the original utline: the seminaries 4ere to preparestudents not onl1 for the priesthood% -ut% if possi-le% also for the medical9surgical academies.

The aim of clerical education is undou-tedl1 a sound and fundamental stud1 of Religion. An

understanding of a Religion 4hich -ases its dogma on +ol1 Scriptures and ancient traditionsreCuires a )no4ledge of those same ancient sources as 4ell as the disciplines directl1 related to

them. Such disciplines include the stud1 of classical languages% especiall1 (ree) and 2atin0 -asic

)no4ledge of *hurch Slaic and Slaono9Russian0 an understanding of ancient histor1%

particularl1 that of the Bi-le and the *hurch0 and finall1% the stud1 of theolog1 in all its -ranches.

5F7



+ence% it is apparent that “erudition! proper is the chief aim of this religious education. That is

the primar1 foundation on 4hich the church schools must -e -uilt.

The higher leels of the old school 4ere transformed into a separate middle school 4ith thename of the seminar1. The seminar1 curriculum comprised three t4o91ear courses or “diisions!:

a lo4er diision for literature% an intermediate one of philosoph1% and an upper one for theolog1.

+istor1 and mathematics supplemented the curriculum. A completel1 ne4 academ1 4as added tothe entire older s1stem. /nder the ne4 plan the academ1 -ecame a comple institution

containing% first% a higher school of education0 second% a scholarl1 corporation or collegium 4ith

the tas) of organi$ing a special “conference! 4ith participation -1 admirers and patrons of education from outside the academ10 and third% an administratie center for the entire school

district. = The higher school of education for the first time -ecame a separate and autonomous

educational unit.

"ith this diision% the theological academies% no longer constrained in their deelopment -1their original o-ligation to proide elementar1 instruction in grammar and histor1% 4ill engage in

the -roadest stud1 of philosoph1 and theolog1 as -efits them% and deote themseles to an

appropriatel1 adanced theological education. An increase in the num-er of teachers

accompanied the preparation of the ne4 statute: si professors and t4ele instructors% or -accalaureates% for each academ1.

The committee had onl1 prepared a plan for reform and esta-lished the -asic principles andtas)s. The ne4l1 formed commission had to deise a statute. Sperans)ii's actual participation in

the 4or) of the commission did not last long% and during that time he managed to formulate onl1

one portion of the statute goerning the academies% namel1 their administration and theorgani$ation of instruction. +e er1 soon 4ithdre4 from the commission% and the tas) of

completing and ela-orating the academ1 statute fell upon an intelligent and influential man%

3eofila)t Rusano% = “4ho is not er1 dedicated to the office Lof -ishopM%! as Platon descri-ed

him. 3eofila)t -rought to the commission his o4n personal eperience as 4ell as a rather la andeen secular spirit. +e 4as some4hat reminiscent of Egenii% ecept that rhetoric and esthetics

rather than histor1 attracted him.

The academ1 statute 4as proisionall1 accepted and% in 567<% introduced eperimentall1 atthe St. Peters-urg Academ1. nl1 one academ1 4as to -e opened at a time. Sperans)ii had once

remar)ed that “no matter ho4 carefull all releant aspects of this matter are assem-led and

considered% eperience alone can gie them the seal of certaint1.! n the -asis of the eperiencederied from the first graduating class at the St. Peters-urg Academ1 ?567<9565@ and the

o-serations of its rector% 3ilaret% =8 the proisional statute receied one more reision.

*onfirmed and pu-lished in 565% it 4as introduced in a second academ1% the &osco4 Academ1%

4hich opened that same 1ear. =G The ,ie Academ1 opened onl1 in 565<% 4hile the opening of the ,a$an' Academ1 4as dela1ed until 56F. The short suppl1 of teachers and professors

proides the chief reason for this gradual creation of academic centers. Platon's prediction that

enough people 4ere not to -e had came true. Rarel1 could those 4ho taught in the pre9reformschools -e used in the ne4 academies% for the1 had to teach 4hat the1 themseles had neer

studied% and suita-le teachers 4ere generall1 not to -e found in ,ie and ,a$an'.

espite its defects and gaps% the ne4 academ1 statute constituted an undou-ted success. Theentire s1stem 4as no4 constructed on a genuine educational foundation% there-1 displacing the

eighteenth centur1 ideolog1 of state serice. Education no longer aimed to communicate a

specific amount of information or )no4ledge to the students and compel them to memori$e or

assimilate it.

5F5



A good method of teaching consists of reealing to the students their indiidual a-ilities and

intellectual capacities. Therefore% etended eplanations in 4hich the professors strie more to

ehi-it their learning than to a4a)en the minds of their audience contradict this good method.Similarl1% dictation of lessons during classtime also contradicts it.

Therefore% the ne4 statute placed special emphasis on composition and on 4ritten eercises

-1 the students generall1 at all leels of education. &oreoer% a 4ide reading of sources -e1ondthe tet-oo)s 4as encouraged. In ie4 of the lac) of -oo)s and tets% this postulate often had to

-e a-andoned% a fact 4hich points out the 4orst and most general fla4 in the ne4 statute: its

architects failed to ta)e sufficient notice of the means aaila-le for reali$ing their ideals.;er1 important 4as the fact that the dominance of 2atin had -een condemned in principle.

“Although the introduction of 2atin in the schools in certain respects had proed to -e of great

4orth% its eclusie use 4as the reason 4h1 stud1 of Russian and (ree)% so necessar1 for our

*hurch% little -1 little declined.! Neertheless% 2atin remained the language of instruction andonl1 a fe4 dared to shift to Russian. The1 did so much later. (ree) continued to -e one su-ect

among man1. The “tet-oo)s! -1 necessit1 remained in use for a long time% and not all ne4l1

compiled tets represented improement. All the 4hile% the ne4 statute unhesitatingl1 reCuired

teachers and tets to “al4a1s )eep a-reast of the latest discoeries and achieements in eachfield of learning.!

ther difficulties compounded these pro-lems. /pon its opening under the ne4 statute% theSt. Peters-urg Academ1% in its first four 1ears ?567<9565@% proided liing testimon1 a-out the

a-stract program designed -1 the reformers. “nl1 the special merc1 of Proidence ena-led the

first class of the academ1 to complete its 4or) successfull1%! 3ilaret later remar)ed. +e had -eenrector since 565F. +e had the 3essler affair primaril1 in mind. 3essler ?5=8G956<@ taught at the

academ1 long enough to esta-lish contacts and produce an impression% all the more so -ecause

he 4as an inspiring and a-le orator% 4ho spo)e “4ith a fier1 tongue and 4ith captiating

inspiration%! and -ecause he introduced students to the m1steries of contemporar1 (erman philosoph1 and preached of “the -lessed clairo1ance of that truth gained through the inner e1e

of the mind.! In his later memoirs% 3essler enumerates (.P. Pas)ii == ?through his stud1 of

+e-re4@ and Irodion ;etrins)ii =6 among the circle of his student follo4ers at the academ1.“3essler enthralled the students 4ith his learning%! recalls 3ilaret% “-ut it must -e accounted an

act of Proidence that -ecause of certain disputes and complications he 4as soon dismissed from

the academ1% for% as later inestigation sho4ed% he 4as a man of dangerous ie4s.!&1stical currents or epidemics proed no less dangerous. A 2atin captiit1 could -e

replaced -1 a (erman or een an English one% and no4 the s4a1 of (erman philosoph1 and

pietism threatened to displace scholasticism. At that time% and for a long time to come% (erman

learning cast its shado4 oer Russian theolog1% to the detriment of man1. Nonetheless% thereform of the ecclesiastical schools during those trou-led 1ears produced a genuine italit1 in

theolog1. A creatie turmoil and a4a)ening -egan. An1 sic)ness 4as that of gro4th and life% not

of death or degeneration% although the disease 4as real and of the most dangerous sort. Det thesteep% narro4 path of rthodo theolog1 graduall1 could -e discerned amidst the etreme

m1stical and philosophical enthusiasms on the one hand and the fears and suspicions of them on

the other. Those 1ears 4itnessed Cuarrels% clashes% and struggles > a struggle for theolog1 > against those 4ho disli)ed and feared it% against those 4ho distrusted thought and creatiit1.

e-ate oer the Russian Bi-le proides the opening act in that dramatic struggle.

5FF



The Russian "ile %ociety.

The second decade of the nineteenth centur1 is the decade of the Bi-le Societ1. The Russian

Bi-le Societ1 sered as a largel1 autonomous -ranch of the British and 3oreign Bi-le Societ1%founded onl1 in 567. Agents of the British Societ1 inspired and actiel1 assisted the opening of

the Russian -ranch% and the British design and ideolog1 achieed complete acceptance. =<

The Russian Bi-le Societ1's statute receied confirmation on G ecem-er 565F. Its firstgeneral meeting too) place on 55 #anuar1 565% 4ith Prince (olits1n% then er Procurator of

the S1nod and later minister for the com-ined ministr1% elected as president. In practice% the

Russian Bi-le Societ1 deeloped into a second% and less official% facet of the department of

religious affairs and -ecame the dou-le of the com-ined ministr1. pened initiall1 as the St.Peters-urg Bi-le Societ1% its name 4as changed to the Russian Bi-le Societ1 in Septem-er% 565.

At first the Societ1 limited its 4or) to the distri-ution of Bi-les among foreigners and the non9

rthodo% “leaing iniola-le the pu-lication of the +ol1 Scriptures in Slaic for those 4hoconfess the (reco9Russian faith0 Lsuch pu-licationM -elongs particularl1 and eclusiel1 to the

department of the +ol1 S1nod.! But -1 565% the Societ1 had ta)en upon itself the pu-lication

and distri-ution of the Slaic Bi-le% especiall1 the Ne4 Testament. Bishops and other clerg1%

-oth rthodo and non9rthodo% 4ere included in the Bi-le Societ1 as ice presidents anddirectors simultaneousl1 4ith the formation of the Societ1's adisor1 -oard% 4hich had

heretofore included onl1 la1men. Een the Roman *atholic &etropolitan Stanisla4

Siestr$ence4ic$9Bohus$ oined. 67 At the -eginning of 565G% the Societ1 decided to pu-lish aRussian Bi-le.

All Bi-le societies ?in Russia as much as in Britain@ sa4 as their tas) the “placing into 4ider

use! of the "ord of (od% een in older or unfamiliar editions% so that each person mighteperience its redemptie po4er and there-1 acCuire an immediate )no4ledge of (od “as +ol1

Scripture reeals +im.! Such an aim com-ined 4ith the strict rule that the sacred -oo)s -e

pu-lished “4ithout notes or comments! in order to aoid an1 human% and therefore partial%interpretation% 4hich might o-scure the uniersal% manifoldl1 profound% inehausti-le% and

infinite "ord of (od. /nderl1ing such -eliefs is the theor1 of “mute! signs and the “liingTeacher% 4ho a-ides in the heart.! The Societ1 of 3riends% that is% the Kua)ers% constituted themost decisie influence in the formation of the Bi-le Societ1's ideolog1. uring the earl1 1ears%

Russian and English proponents of Bi-lical 4or) maintained intimate and actie cooperation.

The epeditions -1 British missionaries into the non9*hristian regions of the empire are

particularl1 note4orth1. An English mission traeled to the trans9Bai)al region in order toconert the Buriats% 4hile a Scottish missionar1 colon1 sent -1 the Edin-urg &issionar1 Societ1

settled in ,arras on the *aucasian frontier.

The Societ1's actiities epanded rapidl1 and met 4ith considera-le success% for a net4or) of -ranch societies soon etended throughout the empire. "ithin a decade% the Bi-le had -een

pu-lished ?or acCuired@ in fort19three languages and dialects% totaling =7% 65 copies. This

achieement largel1 depended on state support and often on state initiatie. In contrast to itsBritish counterpart% the Russian Bi-le Societ1 4as not the 4or) of societ1% nor did it eno1 either

societ1's s1mpath1 or support. Progress came through goernment support and directies: the

“(ood Ne4s! 4as freCuentl1 transmitted -1 decree. A $eal for the "ord of (od and a desire to

enlighten those sitting in the shado4 of death -ecame manifest eer14here.(oernors -egan ma)ing speeches 4hich perfectl1 resem-led sermons0 police

commissioners% elected heads of municipalities% and heads of district police a-l1 disseminated

+ol1 Scriptures and reported on their efforts to the state administration in pious letters li-erall1

5F



punctuated 4ith Bi-lical citations. The entire affair contained a good amount of nois1

-ureaucratic unctuousness and presented a deceptie -ureaucratic facade ?a ne4 ersion of the

“Potem)in [email protected] 3or all practical purposes% the Bi-le Societ1 -ecame a specialgoernment “department! and perfected its o4n form of stic)1% unpleasant -ureaucratic9Bi-lical

h1pocris1. +o4eer% these dar)er sides should not -e eaggerated% for the constructie results of

this Bi-lical 4or) are no less eident and 4orth1.A host of other “philanthropical! enterprises Cuic)l1 -ecame associated 4ith the Bi-le

Societ1. Although partiall1 modelled on the English pattern% these charita-le 4or)s 4ere

necessar1 and ital. The pu-lishing actiities of Princess S. S. &eshchers)aia 6F reCuire specialmention. She adapted or translated -rochures and pamphlets for popular reading printed -1 the

Religious Tract Societ1% founded in 5=<<.6 ne can Cuestion ho4 understanda-le or appropriate

such -rochures “composed -1 a certain deout lad1! 4ere for the “simple people! ?although

some original material did get pu-lished% including ecerpts from St. Ti)hon's 4ritings and fromthe sermons of &etropolitan &i)hail esnits)ii@. 6 But the cardinal importance of this

enterprise can hardl1 -e disputed. &uch the same can -e said for the schools esta-lished on the

“2ancaster s1stem.! 68 Still more important 4as the creation of the Imperial Philanthropical

Societ1 and 4or) among prisoners% such as that done -1 #ohn ;enning% a mem-er of the 2ondonPrison Societ1% 4ho had founded a similar societ1 in St. Peters-urg in 565<. 6G

These phenomena all deried from a single impulse coming from England. This 4ae of Anglo9Saon Nonconformit1 mingled 4ith that of (erman pietism and older m1stical

freemasonr1. Among the former &asonic leaders% ,oshele% ,arnee% 2a-$in% and 2enitse

no4 assiduousl1 applied themseles to the 4or) of the Bi-le Societ1. This group 4as representedin the Societ1's &osco4 -ranch -1 Bant1sh9,amens)ii% 6= that “la1 mon) and secular -ishop!

in ;igel's cleer definition. +is description perhaps een more full1 applies to Prince (olits1n%

since (olits1n considered himself to -e a “secular -ishop! and hence the more distinguished -1

that fact. In an1 case% 2a-$in's pu-lishing actiities harmoni$ed 4ith the 4or) of the Bi-leSociet1 and freCuentl1 his pu-lications 4ere distri-uted through the usual Bi-le Societ1

channels% 4ith the result that his -oo)s might -e accepted readil1 and naturall1 as those of the

Societ1 itself. The fact that the head of the Postal epartment also sered as president of theBi-le Societ1 and as minister of the com-ined ministr1% and that onl1 a rare -ureaucrat in the

Postal epartment did not -elong to ?or had not -een at least enrolled in@ a lodge or -ranch of the

Bi-le Societ1% greatl1 aided the distri-ution of these -oo)s.The pu-lication of m1stical -oo)s -1 prominent mem-ers of the Bi-le Societ1 cast a fatal

shado4 on the Societ1's 4or) on the Bi-le. There 4ere sufficient grounds to regard the Bi-le

Societ1 as something more or other than 4hat it claimed to -e. ;er1 man1 people 4ith etreme

ie4s or 4ith scarcel1 concealed hopes and intentions -elonged to the Societ1% often in leadingand responsi-le positions or roles. B1 statute and design the Bi-le Societ1 4as to em-race all

confessions% so that all “confessions! might -e represented in the Societ1 as eCuall1 possessed -1

the sanctit1 of (od's "ord. In fact% the Bi-le Societ1 -ecame something li)e a ne4 confession or sect ?at least ps1chologicall1@ 4ith the peculiarl1 esoteric and ealted cast of mind of a “circle.!

Sturd$a 66 some4hat ustifia-l1 called the Bi-le Societ1 “eotic! and la-eled it “the Anglo9

Russian sect.! &an1 of the prominent mem-ers of the Bi-le Societ1% nota-l1 its secretar1 ;. &.Popo% 6< participated in &adame Tatarinoa's circle or “spiritual alliance.! <7 ;er1 often

religious toleration and the principle of eCualit1 of all confessions -ecame metamorphosed as

patronage for sectarians% especiall1 for the u)ho-ors and &olo)ans% -ut een for the S)opts1.

<5 &1stical -oo)s% particularl1 #ung9Stilling and Ec)artshausen% found read1 acceptance in this

5F



milieu. <F In an1 case% “formal church life! 4as er1 often denounced 4ith the epectation that

such “4orn out altar cloths! might -e cut a4a1% there-1 reealing a true and inner *hristianit1.

ne can read #ung9Stilling on the “a-surd and superstitious -lindness of those 4ho profess theEastern (ree)9*atholic confession% 4hich must -e drien out 4ith the light of the iine -oo).!

ne feature of this administratie intrusion into Bi-lical under ta)ings could not fail to

-ecome irritating: goernment policies did not include open discussion a-out 4or) on the Bi-le.Thus% the goernment had itself to -lame if man1 people formed the impression that the

goernment 4as preparing a supraconfessional reolution protected -1 administratie censorship

and police sanctions% and that consent to such a reolution 4ould -e etorted and madecompulsor1. The storm1 hostilit1 4ith 4hich the authorities greeted the rare attempts to oice

criticism could onl1 deepen suspicions. A t1pical affair is that inoling Inno)entii Smirno

?5=69565<@% then archimandrite and rector of the St. Peters-urg Seminar1. Inno)entii% 4ho

oined the Bi-le Societ1 and -ecame a director in 5658% sered on the translation committee.?Een after his eile to Pen$a% Inno)entii recommended to the Societ1 that the Bi-le -e translated

into &oldaian@.

A sincere and strong friendship -ound him to the Princess &eshchers)aia. A man of 4arm

piet1 and rigorous spiritualit1% he loed pilgrims and “fools for *hrist's sa)e! Liurodi1eM . Thespirit of pretentious eCualit1 of all confessions 4hich so greatl1 animated 2a-$in and (olits1n

sered onl1 to confuse Inno)entii. To4ard the end of 5656% Inno)entii% in his capacit1 asecclesiastical censor% approed for pu-lication a -oo) -1 Estafii Staneich% A *onersation on

the Immortalit1 of the Soul at the (rae of an Infant LRa$goor o -e$smertii dush nad gro-om

mladentsaM . A (ree) -1 -irth% Staneich had -een educated in Russia and -ecome full1Russified. +e also fanaticall1 adhered to Shish)o < and -elonged to Beseda L(atheringM. < At

the same time% he admired Ed4ard Doung <8 and other English 4riters. As Sturd$a noted% his

-oo) 4as an “ineffectual 4or)% -ut harmless.! The -oo)'s stinging criticism consisted in its fran)

condemnation of the ideas epressed in such 4or)s as &essenger of ion and in the -oo)'s hintsa-out the com-ined ministr1's ulterior aims. 3ilaret later recalled that Staneich's -oo)

“contained man1 remar)s greatl1 offensie to the goerning authorities and to the spirit of the

times in general.! +ence% 3ilaret cautioned Inno)entii against permitting the -oo)'s pu-lication.Inno)entii ignored him and accepted 3ilaret's 4arning as a challenge.

Through an imperial directie hastil1 o-tained -1 (olits1n% Staneich's -oo) 4as -anned

and remoed from circulation0 4ithin t4ent19four hours the author 4as eiled from the capital.*uriousl1% not onl1 did a second imperial directie free Staneich from arrest in 56F8% -ut that

fact 4as mentioned in the second edition of his -oo). espite &etropolitan &i)hail's <G

intercession% Inno)entii 4as gien an honora-le eile from St. Peters-urg at the first faora-le

moment. This 4as done 4ithout the )no4ledge of the S1nod through (olits1n's personalrecommendation that Inno)entii -e appointed to the acant diocese in ren-urg. nl1 4ith great

difficult1 could this appointment -e redesignated to Pen$a. A fe4 months later% Inno)entii died

from nerous strain and -itter aniet1. The points (olits1n enumerates in his condemnation of Staneich's -oo) are most instructie. “To the discussion of the immortalit1 of the soul is

appended a defense of the Eastern *hurch% -efore an1one has attac)ed it% and if such an attac)

should occur% it is not for a priate indiidual to ta)e that defense upon himself. 2ac)ing acorrect understanding% the author does not sense that minds ma1 -ecome uneas1 that the *hurch

is in danger.! f course% Staneich composed his -oo) precisel1 in order to a4a)en such a fear.

“+e as)s 4ho is more correct%! St. #ohn *hr1sostom or St. Augustine% and gies preference to

*hr1sostom onl1 -ecause he -elongs to the Eastern *hurch% although hierarchs% freCuentl1 cite

5F8



a ne4 truth 4hich is an apostas1 from the iine% Apostolic% Patristic and rthodo faith. This

ne4 religion is the -elief in the approach of the Antichrist% 4ho foments reolutions% thirsts for

-loodshed% and is filled 4ith the spirit of Satan. The false prophets and apostles of this ne4religion are #ung9Stilling% Ec)artshausen% (u1on% Boehme% 2a-$in% (ossner% 3essler% the

&ethodists% and the +errhutters. All such frightened conectures did not lac) foundations. There

4ere more than ample grounds for aniet1. In an1 case% the spiritual atmosphere 4as unhealth1.As it turned out% this partiall1 ustified “uprising! degenerated into a sordid court intrigue and the

aniet1 resulted in a fit of h1sterics. All sense of proportion and udicious perspectie 4as lost.

In the ensuing polemic and struggle each side possessed onl1 half of the truth and -oth sidesshared the -lame.

Translation of the Russian "ile.

3ormal discussion a-out a Russian translation of the Bi-le first -egan in 565G. As presidentof the Russian Bi-le Societ1% (olits1n receied a er-al directie from the Emperor “to propose

to the +ol1 S1nod +is &aest1's sincere and precise 4ish that Russians -e proided 4ith the

means to read (od's 4ord in their natie language% 4hich for them is more comprehensi-le than

the *hurch Slaic no4 used for the pu-lication of +ol1 Scripture.! At the same time% this ne4translation 4ould -e pu-lished parallel 4ith the Slaic tet% as had -een done earlier 4ith the

Epistle to the Romans% a translation made 4ith the permision of the S1nod. 577 “f course it is

understood that the use of the Slaic tet must remain iniolate in *hurch serices.! The Russiantranslation 4ould -e onl1 for personal use and home reading. Among other ustifications for the

contemporar1 Russian translation% (olits1n referred to the letter of the (ree) Patriarch *1ril ;I%

575 4hich% similar circumstances% allo4ed the people to read the Ne4 Testament contemporar1rather than ancient (ree). *1ril's letter had -een printed in the minutes of the Russian Bi-le

Societ1 in 565.

The S1nod did not superise or accept responsi-ilit1 for the translation of the Bi-le. Perhapshigher authorit1 suggested such course of action. Instead% the *ommission on Ecclesiastical

Schools 4as placed in charge and 4as also reCuired to find relia-le translators in the St.Peters-urg Academ1. The Russian Bi-le Societ1 4ould pu-lish the completed translation. Such atranslation 4ould eno1 the Emperor's protection. +e had originated the idea% or at least it 4as

attri-uted to him.

Not onl1 does he approe the utmost haste in this 4or) of salation% -ut he inspires the

4or) of the Societ1 4ith the ardor of his o4n heart. +e himself set aside the printing in anincomprehensi-le language 4hich to date has -arred man1 Russians from the (ospel of #esus%

and he opens this -oo) for the er1 1oungest among the people% for 4hom it has -een closed% not

through the (ospel's intent% -ut solel1 through the dar)ness of time.Actuall1 this “incomprehensi-le language! did not so much ma)e the Bi-le less accessi-le

for the people as for the upper class% especiall1 the Emperor% 4ho customaril1 read e Sac1's

popular 3rench translation of the Ne4 Testament. 57F +e continued to do so een after the pu-lication of a Russian ersion.

The *ommission on Ecclesiastical Schools entrusted superision of the translation to

Archimandrite 3ilaret% 57 the rector of the St. Peters-urg Academ1. 3ilaret also had the

authorit1 to select translators at his o4n discretion. It 4as assumed that the translation 4ould -edone at the Academ1. 3ilaret translated the (ospel of #ohn0 (. P. Pas)ii 57 translated &atthe40

4hile Archimandrite Poli)arp ?(aitanni)o@% 578 rector of the St. Peters-urg Seminar1 and soon

after4ard rector at the &osco4 Academ1% 4or)ed on &ar)0 and Archimandrite &oisei ?Antipo9

5F=



Russian Bi-le ans4ered an undou-ted need and alleiated the “hunger to hear the "ord of (od%!

as 3ilaret put it. ne ma1 recall that Ti)hon adons)ii also spo)e plainl1 a-out the necessit1 for

a Russian translation. 57< The Russian Bi-le Societ1 ersion 4as not irreproacha-le% -ut thenature of its pro-lems and shortcomings could -e corrected onl1 through pu-lic discussion and

-road cooperation% not through fear% condemnation% or suspicion.

Strictl1 spea)ing% Prince (olits1n% that “la1man in heretical gar-%! not the Russian Bi-le%4as the o-ect of attac). The final “uprising! against the Bi-le Societ1 and its 4or) united

disparate people 4ho scarcel1 had an1thing in common either temperamentall1 or in st1le. T4o

men% Archimandrite 3otii and Admiral Shish)o% ll7 supplied the ideolog1 for the entire anti9Bi-le intrigue. Actuall1% t4o ideologies 4ere present. Archimandrite 3otii ?Petr Spass)ii% 5=<F9

566@ t1pifies that trou-led and gidd1 age 4ith all its can)erous suspicion. Although a fanatical

opponent of m1stical and other dia-olical intrigues% 3otii possessed the same ps1cholog1 as his

opponents and suffered from the same diseased ecstas1. In his auto-iograph1% 3otii proides amost conincing and dreadful portrait of himself. A isionar1 and. deotee of ecstas1% he had

nearl1 lost all sense of ecclesiastical9canonical realit1. +e is all the more pretentious for the utter

lac) of humilit1. +is is the portrait of a conceited% insolent% and self9proclaimed charismatic% 4ho

presumptuousl1 surrounds himself 4ith an atmosphere of protectie ealtation. A t1picaleample of the seductie po4er of a false asceticism 4hich -ecomes a terri-le% -lindl1

serpentine alle1% 3otii eisted in an emotional state% in a 4orld of impressions and eperiences.But he lac)ed perspectie on religious life. 2iing in fear and apprehension% he dreaded and

shran) from the pu-lic ie4. If he 4ent on the offensie he did so from insurmounta-le fear.

+erein lies the ans4er to the difficult Cuestion a-out 3otii's sincerit1: he 4as not a ile h1pocrite.+is actions and accusations are consistent. +e attac)ed the Bi-le Societ1 in the genuine

coniction that he 4as fighting 4ith Beliar ?Han archangelic struggle!@. This personal coniction

and sense of -eing a prophet 4ho has -een called or sent% the perception of an etraordinar1

mission or tas)% and a certain ecstatic egocentricit1 all characteri$e this t1pe of fanatic. 3otiimight -e termed a man possessed rather than a h1pocrite. In an1 case% the oice of the church's

histor1 and ancient traditions can scarcel1 -e detected in 3otii's iolent appeals and out-ursts. +e

4as too ignorant to do so% for he )ne4 er1 little a-out patristic or een ascetical 4ritings. +ealmost neer refers to them. “I do not possess the L4ritings of theM +ol1 3athers% I hae and read

onl1 the +ol1 Bi-le.! In this regard% 3otii did not depart from the custom of that “Bi-lical! age.

Neither a rigorous defender nor guardian of the church's customs and traditions% 3otii loed to doeer1thing to suit himself% 4hich resulted in Cuarrels 4ith the church authorities. /suall1 he

argues on the -asis of personal reelations and inspirations0 on the -asis of isions apparitions%

and dreams. In short% 3otii 4as not so much superstitious as fanatical.

3otii studied at the St. Peters-urg Theological Academ1 “under the sharp e1e of Archimandrite 3ilaret.! But he did not graduate -ecause of an illness 4hich too) the form of a

paro1sm induced -1 fears and spiritual ehaustion. 3otii -ecame confused and paral1$ed -1 the

m1sticism then prealent in societ1. &an1 at the academ1 read too deepl1 in the poisonous -oo)s of the liar and apostate #ung9Stilling.

Ne4l1 pu-lished 4ritings% such as Stilling% Ec)artshausen% and similar noelistic and

freethin)ing -oo)s could -e read at the academ1. . .Kuarrels -ro)e out oer the Thousand Dear Reign of *hrist on earth% eternal damnation% and other religious Cuestions0 some loed to deiate

from the +ol1 Scriptures% others found m1steries eer14here. The academ1 li-rar1 4ould not

lend the 4or)s of the +ol1 3athers% for no one gae permission or proided the eample. (erman

5F<



and other foreign commentators on the +ol1 Scriptures% 4ho caused more harm than the1 did

good% 4ere recommended and passed around.

3otii -ecame utterl1 confused in such an enironment. +e also seems to hae learned agood deal during the little more than a 1ear he spent at the academ1% although there is little

li)elihood that he learned and -ecame trained “to discoer m1steries eer14here.! Nor did the

academ1 infect him 4ith a fashiona-le mania for interpreting the Apocal1pse and diining thetimes through apocal1ptical tets used as signs. "here 3otii's actual or imaginar1 enemies

adduced the ,ingdom of a Thousand Dears from such tets% 3otii discerned the Antichrist. “The

4ood is alread1 stac)ed and the fire is -eing )indled.!After leaing the academ1% 3otii -ecame a teacher at the Ale)sandr Nes)ii schools% 4here

he 4as under the superision of Rector Inno)entii. 555 In 565=% 3otii accepted tonsure and 4as

Cuic)l1 appointed a teacher of religion in the second militar1 academ1. 55F "hile his field of

ision epanded% 3otii continued to gather polemical materials% reading% rereading% and reie4ingne4l1 printed seditious -oo)s% “especiall1 those either manifestl1 or secretl1 reolutionar1 and

pernicious.! +is assortment and inentor1 of such -oo)s 4as rather dierse and disointed and

included -oo)s on English materialism% 3rench pornograph1% freemasonr1 and magic% (erman

philosoph1% the sorcer1 of Boehme% Stilling% and similarl1 “satanic -oo)s%! “reolutionar1 andeil! -oo)s% “4retched &asonic! -oo)s% the 4or)s of that “&asonic heretic! 3enelon and that

“foul 3rench 4oman “ (u1on% and other 4or)s such as those “setting forth the teachings of the&ethodists and the Cuietists% that is% of that #aco-inism and philosoph1 4hich hides -ehind the

mas) of *hristianit1.! 3otii al4a1s remained mistrustful of the “ne4l1 educated! clerg1: “not a

single colla-orator 4as found suita-le0 each 4as prepared to put the truth up for sale.!The Russian Bi-le made its appearance against this -ac)ground. At first 3otii attac)ed

actual &asons. As he put it% “At the ris) of m1 life% I acted to counter &essenger of ion

LSions)ii ;estni)M% 2a-$in% the &asonic lodges and heresies% tr1ing to halt the spread of their

schisms.! 3otii 4as correct a-out man1 things% -ut he descri-ed all such defects 4ith anh1sterical intensit1 4hich could -e more irritating than conincing. +e possessed a peculiarl1

ecstatic suspiciousness 4hich disfigured his accurate o-serations through the addition of

imaginar1 and imperceia-le traits. &etropolitan &i)hail appointed Inno)entii to calm 3otii. ButInno)entii onl1 further aroused him 4ith his o4n -itter remar)s a-out the snares of the deil.

3otii later 4rote a 2ife LhitieM of Inno)entii after his o4n li)eness or in )eeping 4ith his

imagined ideal. In realit1% Inno)entii 4as more su-tle and profound% although he lac)edsufficient self control and patience.

3otii soon came to -e too o-streperous for the capital and 4as dispatched to Nogorod as

a--ot of the ereianits &onaster1% then S)ooroda &onaster1% and finall1 the Iur'e &onaster1%

4here he sered as archimandrite. "hile at the Iur'e &onaster1% 3otii formed a close friendship4ith *ountess A.A. rloa% 55 4hich proed to -e the decisie eent in his life. Through

“*ountess Anna%! 3otii unepectedl1 -egan his friendship 4ith Prince (olits1n during those

same 1ears. Their correspondence 4hich has -een presered% possesses a 4arm and sincerecharacter. 55 In his “auto-iograph1%! 3otii recalls his long and etensie conersations 4ith

(olits1n at *ountess rloa's home. These tal)s sometimes lasted nine hours 4ithout

interruption. 3otii emphasi$es that (olits1n passionatel1 came to loe him and 4as prepared tofulfill his eer1 4ish. #udging -1 (olits1n's actual letters% 3otii did not eaggerate. +e succeeded

for a time in reconciling (olits1n 4ith &etropolitan Seraphim. (olits1n sa4 in 3otii another St.

#ohn *hr1sostom and a “1outhful starets! LelderM . At the time% 3otii 4as -arel1 thirt1. 3otii did

57



the immediate destruction of this plan in a Cuiet and felicitous manner.! The Cuestion of the

Bi-le Societ1 4as posed most forcefull1. “The Bi-le Societ1 must -e eliminated on the pretet

that since the Bi-le has alread1 -een printed% it is no4 no longer needed.! The &inistr1 of Religious Affairs 4as to -e a-olished% and its present dignitar1 depried of t4o other posts.

,oshele 55= should -e remoed% (ossner epelled% 3essler 556 -anished into eile% and the

&ethodists drien out% or at least their leaders. nce again 3otii ino)ed diine inspiration:“iine Proidence does not no4 reeal that an1thing more should -e done. I hae proclaimed

(od's commandment0 its fulfillment depends on Thee. Precisel1 t4ele 1ears hae elapsed from

565F to 56F. (od conCuered the isi-le Napoleon 4ho inaded Russia. Through Th1 person let+im conCuer the spiritual Napoleon:' uring the ensuing da1s% 3otii sent the Tsar seeral more of

his alarming “missies.! “A great% fearful% and illegal m1ster1 is at 4or)% 4hich I am reealing to

thee% thou po4erful one 4ith the strength and spirit of (od.! The goal 4as achieed and on 58

&a1 56F% (olits1n 4as dismissed% the com-ined ministr1 a-olished% and the former departmental diisions reesta-lished. Neertheless% (olits1n did not fall into disfaor or lose his

personal influence% een after Aleander's death.

The aged Admiral Shish)o% “the half9dead Shish)o dug up from o-liion%! 4as appointed

minister of a separate &inistr1 of Education. Although Shish)o did not -ecome &inister of Religious Affairs% inertia perpetuated the politics of the com-ined ministr1 onl1 in reerse% for he

persistentl1 interfered 4ith S1nodal affairs. Shish)o had no er1 precise religious ie4s. +e4as a moderate free9thin)er of the eighteenth centur1% 4ho limited his rationalism out of

national9political considerations. Een close friends 4ho 4ere 4ell disposed to4ard him testified

that Shish)o held “ie4s closel1 approimating% if the1 did not actuall1 coincide 4ith%Socinianism.! 55< 3otii referred to him rather easiel1: “+e defended the rthodo *hurch to

the etent that he possessed an1 )no4ledge.! 3otii )ne4 perfectl1 4ell such “)no4ledge! 4as

rather meager and related more to the church's role in a state 4hich had called upon it to -e a

pillar and a -ul4ar) against re-ellion and reolution. +o4eer% Shish)o had his o4n firmopinions a-out Bi-lical translation. The er1 idea of translating the Bi-le seemed to him the

foulest of heresies% although a-oe all a “literar1 heres1%! in Ser-ee's 5F7 cleer phrase. 3or

Shish)o denied the er1 eistence of a Russian language. “As though it 4as somethingdistinct%! he 4ould sa1 perpleedl1. “ur Slaic and Russian language is one and the same%

differentiated onl1 into higher language and common speech.! This 4as Shish)o's -asic

religious9philological thesis. 2iterar1 or colloCuial Russian in his ie4 and understanding is“onl1 the dialect of The common people! 4ithin a Slaic9 Russian language. “"hat is the

Russian language diorced from Slaic A dream% a riddleQ. . . .Is it not odd to affirm the

eistence of a language 4hich does not contain a single 4ord! The leicon is one and the same

for -oth st1les of dialects. “B1 Slaic 4e mean nothing else than that language 4hich is higher than colloCuial and 4hich% conseCuentl1% can onl1 -e learned -1 reading0 it is the loft1% learned

literar1 language.!

In the final anal1sis% Shish)o distinguished -et4een the t4o languages: the “language of faith! and the “language of passions “ or to put it another 4a1% the “language of the church! and

the “language of the theater.! Bi-lical translation appeared to him to -e a “transposition! of the

"ord of (od from the loft1 and dignified dialect to that lo49st1led language of the passions andthe theater. +e -elieed that such a step 4as -eing ta)en in order to deli-eratel1 -elittle the

Bi-le% hence his constant fuss oer “the o-serance of rthodo1 in literar1 st1le.! +e also

considered the translation hastil1 made0 “thro4n to a fe4 students at the Academ1 4ith

instructions to do it as Cuic)l1 as possi-le.! The Russian translation's departure from *hurch

5F



Slaic cast a shado4 on a tet 4hich had -ecome familiar and hallo4ed -1 church usage and

there-1 undermined confidence in it. “The pride of some mon) L3ilaretM or learned -raggart

sa1s: thus it is in +e-re4. "ell% 4ho 4ill conince me that he )no4s the full force of such a little)no4n language% 4ritten so long ago! Kuite freCuentl1 Shish)o spea)s as if Slaic 4as the

original language of +ol1 Scripture. “+o4 dare the1 alter 4ords considered to come from the

mouth of (od!Shish)o 4as not alone in these religious9philological reflections. *uriousl1 enough% for

similar reasons% Sperans)ii also completel1 opposed a Russian translation of the Bi-le. The

language of the “common people! seemed to him less epressie and precise. "ould it not -e -etter to teach eer1one Slaic Sperans)ii adised his daughter to use the English translation%

not the Russian% 4hen she encountered difficult passages. &an1 others shared this opinion. 5F5

Shish)o detected a particularl1 sinister scheme in the pu-lication of the Pentateuch

“separatel1 from the Prophets.! "hereas in fact% the Pentateuch represented the first olume of acomplete Russian Bi-le and had -een planned for pu-lication prior to the succeeding olumes in

order to speed the 4or). Shish)o suspected that this separate pu-lication had -een conceied

and eecuted in order to push the common people into the arms of the &olo)ane heres1 or

simpl1 into #udaism. &ight not someone understand the &osaic la4 literall1% particularl1 theo-serance of the Sa--ath . . . .Should not a Cualification -e added that all this can -e eplained

figuratiel1 and as shado4s of the past "ith the support of &etropolitan Seraphim% Shish)osucceeded in haing the Russian Pentateuch -urned at the -ric) factor1 of the Ale)sandr Nes)ii

&onaster1. Su-seCuentl1% 3ilaret of ,ie 5FF could not recall this destruction of the +ol1

Scriptures 4ithout a terri-le shudder.Shish)o sa4 no need to distri-ute the Bi-le among la1men and the people generall1. “"ill

not this imaginar1 need% -1 demeaning the significance of the +ol1 Scriptures% result in nothing

other than heresies or schisms! "ould not the dignit1 of the Bi-le -e lo4ered -1 haing it in the

home “"hat can come of this . . . .A ast sum 4ill -e epended in order that the (ospel%heretofore regarded 4ith solemnit1 might suffer the loss of its importance% -e sullied% ripped

apart% thro4n under -enches% or sere as 4rapping paper for household goods% and hae no more

a-ilit1 to act on the human mind than on the human heart.! Shish)o 4rites still moreemphaticall1 that “this reading of the sacred -oo)s aims to destro1 the true faith% disrupt the

fatherland and produce strife and re-ellion.! +e -elieed that the Bi-le Societ1 and reolution

4ere s1non1ms.Kuite consistentl1% Shish)o also o-ected to translation of the Bi-le into other languages

such as Tatar or Tur)ish% for 4ho could ouch for the fidelit1 of the translation Shish)o also

feared commentaries on the Bi-le. "ho 4ill eplain the Scriptures once the1 are so 4idel1

distri-uted and so easil1 accessi-le"ithout Cualified interpreters and preachers% 4hat 4ill -e the effect 4hen large num-ers of

Bi-les and separate -oo)s of the Bi-le hae -een disseminated Amidst such an unchec)ed ?and

one might sa1 uniersal@ deluge of -oo)s of the +ol1 Scriptures% 4here 4ill room -e found for the Apostolic teachings% practices% and customs of the *hurch In a 4ord% for eer1thing 4hich

heretofore has sered as a -ul4ar) of rthodo1 . . . All of these things 4ill -e dragged do4n%

crushed% and trampled under foot.Similarl1% Shish)o ie4ed the pu-lication of the *atechism L,ate)hi$isM as a dire plot.

"h1 print so man1 copies% if not to spread an impure9faith ?A total of 56%777 copies had -een

printed@. nce again the Russian language more than an1thing else frightened Shish)o. “It is

5



unseeml1 in religious -oo)s to hae such pra1ers as JI -eliee in ne (od' and the Pater Noster

transposed into the common dialect.! The *atechism contained scriptural tets in Russian.

The catechism composed -1 3ilaret ?a tas) originall1 entrusted to &etropolitan &i)hail@had -een issued in 56F 4ith the approal of the +ol1 S1nod and -1 imperial directie. “At the

reCuest of the &inister of Education%! accompanied -1 the use of the Emperor's name% the

*atechism 4as remoed from sale at the end of 56F. 3ilaret immediatel1 lodged a protestagainst its remoal and openl1 raised the Cuestion a-out rthodo1. “If the rthodo1 of the

*atechism% so solemnl1 confirmed -1 the +ol1 S1nod% is in dou-t% then 4ill not the rthodo1

of the +ol1 S1nod itself -e called into Cuestion! In repl1% &etropolitan Seraphim insisted thatthe Cuestion of rthodo1 had not -een raised and that there 4as no dou-t or dispute on that

point. The *atechism had -een suspended solel1 -ecause of the language of the Bi-lical tets

and of the “pra1ers.! Seraphim% 4ith some disingenuousness% 4ent on to sa1. Dou ma1 as) 4h1

the Russian language should not hae a place in the catechism% especiall1 in its a--reiated formintended for 1oung children entirel1 unfamiliar 4ith Slaic and therefore incapa-le of

understanding the truths of the faith epounded for them in that language% 4hen it% that is%

Russian% has -een retained in the sacred -oo)s of the Ne4 Testament and in the Psalms. To this

and man1 other Cuestions 4hich might -e as)ed in this connection% I cannot gie 1ou an1satisfactor1 ans4er. I hope that time 4ill eplain to us that 4hich no4 seems clouded. In m1

opinion% that time 4ill soon come . . .Seraphim's ans4er could signif1 that he either had not personall1 or actiel1 participated in

the ne4 course of eents% or that this apparent inconsistenc1 could -e Cuic)l1 oercome -1

etending the -an to include -oth the Russian translation of the Ne4 Testament and the Bi-leSociet1. In an1 case% Seraphim simpl1 lied 4hen he denied that the *atechism's rthodo1 had

-een Cuestioned. 3otii emphaticall1 and pu-licl1 pronounced it heretical% compared it 4ith

“canal 4ater%! and unfaora-l1 contrasted the *atechism 4ith the older rthodo *onfession of

Peter &ogila. 5F The *atechism 4as su-ected to eamination% if not officiall1% then at leastofficiousl1. Apparentl1 Archpriest I.S. ,ocheto ?5=<79568@% a candidate for a higher degree%

4ho had graduated 4ith the first class of the reformed St. Peters-urg Academ1% and at that time a

religion teacher at the Tsars)oe Selo l1cee% had -een entrusted 4ith the reie4. +is ealuation%Cuic)l1 arried at% did not faor the catechism. ,ocheto too) more interest in Cuestions of

language than of theolog1. As a philologist% he sered as a mem-er of the Russian Academ1%

-eginning in 56F6. 2ater he achieed full mem-ership. 5F&etropolitan Egenii% 5F8 4ho recentl1 had -een summoned to attend the meetings of the

+ol1 S1nod% maintained a er1 critical attitude to4ard the *atechism. 3ilaret's successor at Ter'

and Iaroslal'% Simeon ,r1lo9Platono% 5FG contemptuousl1 du--ed the *atechism “a misera-le

pamphlet%! containing unheard of teaching and “insuffera-le insolence.! In an1 eent% a reisededition of the *atechism 4as recirculated onl1 after careful re9eamination of all Bi-lical tets

and citations% including their “presentation in Slaic rather than in the Russian dialect.! Een the

language of eposition 4as deli-eratel1 adapted or made more nearl1 approimate to Slaic.+o4eer% onl1 insignificant changes in content 4ere made at that time.

Shish)o o-tained Emperor Aleander's permission to for-id translations of the Bi-le as

4ell as to close the Bi-le Societ1. +e 4as a-le to suppl1 some arguments himself% and others4ere suggested to him -1 such $ealots as &. &agnits)ii 5F= and A.A. Palo 5F6 ?4ho 4or)ed

in the office of the er Procurator of the +ol1 S1nod@. 3otii descri-ed Palo as that “-rae

4arrior of 56F.! &etropolitan Seraphim acted as one 4ith Shish)o. +o4eer% Seraphim acted

on suggestion. A timid man% he lac)ed “sufficient clarit1 of mind! to distinguish responsi-l1

5



enthusiasm and suspicions amidst the cross9currents of rumors and fears. 2eft to himself%

Seraphim 4ould hae insisted onl1 on the dismissal of the “-lind minister.! All further reasons

4ere suggested or een imposed on him. At one time Seraphim had studied in Noi)o's“seminar1%! and he had -een an actie mem-er of the Bi-le Societ1% -oth as arch-ishop of &ins)

and later as metropolitan of &osco4. +e often deliered speeches filled 4ith pathos in the

meetings of the &osco4 Bi-le Societ1. +o4eer% his sentiments 4ere changed 4hen hetransferred to St. Peters-urg. +e immediatel1 -ro)e 4ith (olits1n. 3ollo4ing (olits1n's remoal

from office% &etropolitan Seraphim% as president of the Bi-le Societ1% -egan to importune

Emperor Aleander a-out a-olishing and closing do4n all Bi-le societies and transferring alltheir affairs% propert1% and translation proects to the +ol1 S1nod.

Such demands 4ere not Cuic)l1 reali$ed% coming as the1 did onl1 during the net reign

under the fresh impact of the ecem-rist reolt% lF< the responsi-ilit1 for 4hich Shish)o

conincingl1 -lamed on the “m1stics.! +o4eer% the rescript of 5F April 56FG closing the Bi-leSociet1 contained an important Cualification: “I sanction the continued sale at the esta-lished

price for those 4ho desire them the -oo)s of the +ol1 Scriptures 4hich hae alread1 -een

printed -1 the Bi-le Societ1 in Slaic% Russian% and in other languages spo)en -1 inha-itants of

the Empire.! Een Nicholas I 57 4as not full1 prepared to follo4 Shish)o. In practice%ho4eer% the pu-lications of the Bi-le Societ1 4ere ta)en from circulation and onl1 the

committees concerned for prisons continued to suppl1 the Russian translation of the Ne4Testament to eiles and prisoners from their stoc)s.

*uriousl1 enough% in 56F6% Prince ,.,. 2ien% the former superintendent in orpat and a

prominent and influential figure in the former Bi-le Societ1% replaced Shish)o as &inister of Education. 2ater% in 56F% he -ecame the head of the reied (erman Bi-le Societ1. Prince

2ien -elonged to the &oraian Brethren. “Sometimes an official sent from some4here 4ith an

important dispatch 4ould discoer him in the reception hall in front of the lectern% loudl1 singing

the Psalms. Turning to the official% he 4ould listen to him% -ut 4ithout ans4ering% continue hisliturg1! ?;igel'@. f course% 2ien 4as a (erman and a Protestant0 and it 4as the (erman Bi-le

Societ1% 4hich 4as restored. Det as &inister of Education% he 4as called upon to administer to

the 4hole empire. In an1 case% -1 that time% “the ie4s of the goernment! had changed onceagain.

Return to %cholasticis$.

The “uprising! of 56F 4as directed not onl1 against the Bi-le Societ1% -ut against the4hole “ne4 order.! 3ilaret of &osco4 correctl1 defined the purpose of the “uprising! as “a

return to the time of scholasticism.! Det% the chief defender of the ne4 order during these 1ears

turned out to -e none other than 3ilaret. 3ilaret ?5=6F956G=@ had a long life% literall1 from theanneation of the *rimea to the “(reat Reforms.! But he 4as a man of the Aleandrine age. +e

4as -orn in sleep1% o-liious ,olomna and studied in a pre9reform seminar1 4here students

4ere taught in 2atin from 2atin -oo)s. +o4eer% at the +ol1 Trinit1 monaster1 seminar1% 4herehe finished his studies and -ecame a teacher% the spirit of Protestant scholasticism 4as mitigated

and moderated -1 the 4inno4ing of that churchl1 pietism so t1picall1 eemplified in

&etropolitan Platon 2eshin. 55

Archimandrite Egraf ?&u$ales)ii9Platono@% the rector% taught from Protestant tets.3ilaret recalled that “Egraf 4ould assign selected passages to -e copied from +ollatius.H5F

2essons consisted of translating and commenting on these dictated passages. “Those doctrines

4hich rthodo and Protestants hae in common% such as the +ol1 Trinit1% Redemption% and so

58



on 4ere studied s1stematicall1% -ut others% for eample% the doctrine of the *hurch% 4ere not read

at all. Egraf did not receie a s1stematic education% although he recogni$ed the necessit1 for

stud1ing the church fathers and he studied them.! Egraf t1pifies a generation in transition. +eloed m1stical interpretations of the Bi-le and 4ould -ecome Cuite transported -1 such

eplanations. “The ,ingdom of (od is contained not in the 4ord% -ut in strength.! +e attempted

a transition to Russian language instruction. Su-seCuentl1 he sered as rector of the reformed St.Peters-urg Theological Academ1% -ut he died soon after his appointment.

3ilaret did not udge him too harshl1 4hen he said that: “An ineperienced teacher

instructed us in theolog1% -ut he did so 4ith great application.! 3ilaret's personal recollections of the “pre9reform! seminar1 4ere 4holl1 negatie. “"hat 4as there to admire! 3ilaret himself

acCuired a -rilliant command of classical languages and a sound preparation in st1listics and

philolog1 from such a school. As a conseCuence he )ne4 ancient languages -etter than modern

ones and neer studied (erman at all. 3or the rest% he could than) his personal talents anddedication to hard 4or). Thus% in an important sense% there 4as some -asis for his fond

description of himself as a self9educated man.

In 567< the ne4l1 tonsured hierodeacon 3ilaret 4as summoned from the Cuiet refuge of a

+ol1 Trinit1 &onaster1 -athed in the spirit of pious reerie to St. Peters-urg “for inspection! andfor serice in the ne4l1 reformed ecclesiastical schools. 3or 3ilaret the startling contrast and the

sudden transfer gae St. Peters-urg a strange appearance: “The course of affairs is entirel1incomprehensi-le to me%! he admitted in a letter to his father. +e could recall those first

impressions of St. Peters-urg for the rest of his life. The S1nod greeted him 4ith the adice to

read “S4eden-org's &iracles! LSheden-orgo1 chudesaM and learn 3rench. +e 4as ta)en tocourt to ie4 the fire4or)s and attend a masCuerade part1 in order to meet Prince (olits1n% the

er Procurator of the +ol1 S1nod% Cuite literall1 “amidst the noise of the -all.!

Then a short man% his -reast adorned 4ith stars and medals% entered the room and -egan

threading his 4a1 through the hall. +e 4as 4earing a three9cornered hat and some sort of sil) cape oer an em-roidered uniform. Then he ascended to the -alcon1 4here the clerg1 4ere

decorousl1 seated. +e mingled politel1 4ith the mem-ers of the S1nod% nodding to them%

sha)ing their hands% -riefl1 murmuring a 4ord or t4o first to one% then to another. No oneseemed surprised either at his attire or his familiarit1. This 4as 3ilaret's first masCuerade -all%

and he had neer -efore seen a domino. “At the time I 4as an o-ect of amusement in the S1nod

“ 3ilaret recalled% “and I hae remained a fool.! 3ilaret receied a cool 4elcome in St.Peters-urg% and he 4as not immediatel1 permitted to teach at the academ1. But -1 earl1 565F he

had -ecome the academ1 rector and an archimandrite% 4ith the tas) of superising the Iur'e

&onaster1 in Nogorod. +e adanced primaril1 through his ardor% his distinguished “preaching

of the "ord of (od “ and his “edif1ing and eloCuent homilies on the truths of faith.! 3ilaret hadalread1 attracted attention as a st1list and a preacher 4hile at the +ol1 Trinit1 &onaster1. +e

trul1 did hae a gift and feeling for 4ords.

Platon and Anastasii Bratanos)ii l among Russian preachers influenced him. In St.Peters-urg he -ecame acCuainted 4ith seenteenth centur1 3rench sermonists% especiall1

&assillon% Bourdaloue% and most of all% 3enelon. 5 But the influence of the eastern fathers%

*hr1sostom and (regor1 the Theologian% 4hom 3ilaret al4a1s particularl1 loed and alued% isCuite pronounced. 3ilaret chose contemporar1 themes for his sermons. +e spo)e a-out the gifts

and manifestations of the Spirit% the m1ster1 of the *ross% “a oice cr1ing in the 4ildernessH9the

faorite topics of pietism and Cuietism. +e freCuentl1 preached in Prince (olits1n's chapel% een

on 4ee)da1s. (rigorii ?Postni)o@% 58 a former student and friend% commented rather

5G



unfaora-l1 on these earl1 sermons. +e 4rote to 3ilaret% fran)l1 sa1ing that these sermons

displa1ed “a studied concern for 4ordpla1% ingenuit1% and circumlocution% 4hich could trul1 e

a heart see)ing the unallo1ed and edif1ing truth.! In fact% during those first 1ears% 3ilaret spo)e4ith an oerl1 intense and ornamental st1le. 2ater he -ecame calmer and more cautious% -ut his

language al4a1s remained comple and his phrases 4ere al4a1s arranged as if in counterpoint.

Such features do not diminish the epressieness of his sermons. Een +er$en lG admitted3ilaret possessed a rare control oer language. “+e masterfull1 commanded the Russian

language% s)illfull1 inter4eaing it 4ith *hurch Slaic.! This “master1! of language proides

the principal reason for his po4erful st1le: he 4rites 4ith the liing 4ord% a 4ord 4hich seems to -e thin)ing% an inspired and ocal pondering. 3ilaret al4a1s preached the (ospel and neer tried

to achiee mere rhetorical effect. Precisel1 during those earl1 St. Peters-urg 1ears% he produced

his original and eemplar1 sermons on (ood 3rida1 ?in 565% and especiall1 in 565G@. 3ilaret's

scholarl1 and pedagogical duties during those 1ears displa1 a still greater intensit1. A -urdensome and seere ordeal a4aited him. “I had to teach 4hat I had neer -een taught.! In the

short time from 5657 to 565=% he had to prepare himself and construct practicall1 an entire

course in theolog1 in all of its -ranches% including eegetical theolog1% canon la4% and church

antiCuities. It 4as not surprising that he complained of etreme ehaustion. Nor is it surprisingthat these first attempts did not al4a1s succeed or represent complete originalit1. The1 often

produced dierse and oerl1 fresh impressions. “Influences! 4ould -e too strong a 4ord.3ilaret's first -oo)s% An utline of *hurch9Bi-lical +istor1 LNachertanie tser)ono-i-leis)oi

istorii% 565GM and Notes on the Boo) of (enesis Lapis)i na )nigu B1tiia% 565GM% 4ere modelled

on Buddeus. 5= +e also -orro4ed Buddeus's scholarl1 apparatus. Such -orro4ing 4as simpl1unaoida-le gien his deadline and the haste of the 4or). The students had to -e gien tet-oo)s

and other manuals in order to ta)e the eaminations.

3ilaret 4as an inspiring and -rilliant professor. +e spo)e distinctl1 4ith an incisie% loft1%

and intelligent manner0 -ut Lhe spo)eM more to the intellect than to the heart. +e freel1epounded +ol1 Scriptures% as if the 4ords simpl1 flo4ed from his mouth. The students -ecame

so ta)en -1 him% that 4hen the time came for him to stop teaching% a great desire al4a1s

remained to go on listening 4ithout regard for food or drin). +e produced a po4erful impressionthrough his lessons. Those lessons seemed trul1 pleasing and perfect to eer1one. uring class%

he appeared as a 4ise and eloCuent spea)er and a s)illful 4riter. Eer1thing indicated he deoted

much time to scholarship.This is Archimandrite 3otii's o4n assessment. +e adds that 3ilaret strongl1 adocated

monasticism “and 4as er1 compassionate.! 3otii had an opportunit1 to eperience that

compassion during his difficult and trou-led 1ear at the academ1. As Sturd$a noted% at that time

3ilaret 4as “agitated -1 the promptings of man1 Cuite dierse influences.! Along 4ith eer1oneelse% he read #ung9Stilling% Ec)artshausen% 3enelon% and (u1on% as 4ell as ,erner's The Seer of

Preorst. 56 Traces of such reading unCuestiona-l1 remained an indeli-le part of his spiritual

and intellectual ma)e9up. 3ilaret could find a common language not onl1 4ith (olits1n% -ut also4ith 2a-$in and een 4ith itinerant Kua)ers. Eer1 dimension of religious life interested him

and attracted him. +o4eer% for all such interests% 3ilaret sta1ed sCuarel1 4ithin the church and

in4ardl1 remained untouched -1 this m1stical a4a)ening. Because he 4as al4a1s soimpressiona-le% 3ilaret inclined to4ard suspicion: he noted eer1thing and pro-ed and reflected

deepl1 on each detail% a discomforting ha-it for those around him. But he preferred a certain

resere% 4hile su-duing and disciplining himself a-oe all others. Een 3otii% 4ho in his

memoirs reproached 3ilaret for man1 things and strongl1 disli)ed him% admitted that% 4hile a

5=



student “liing under the sharp e1e of Archimandrite 3ilaret%! he “neer noticed% or could hae

noticed% een the slightest -lemish on the teaching a-out the church% either in classes at the

academ1 or in priate.! 3otii furiousl1 attac)s 3ilaret for onl1 one thing: his ecessie patienceand etreme taciturnit1.

Inno)entii Smirno adised 3otii to pa1 3ilaret freCuent isits% 4here he might learn 4hat

silence means. Such a trait actuall1 4as one of 3ilaret's characteristics. +e appeared secretieand easie. In is memoirs% Sturd$a 4rites that there 4as “something enigmatic! in his entire

-eing. *ompletel1 open onl1 -efore (od% and not -efore men9at least not

indiscriminatel19H3ilaret neer allo4ed himself moments of unguarded confidences.! "ith partial ustification% he might -e accused of ecessie timidit1 and caution% for he did not 4ish to

ris) challenging po4erful authorit1. ?H"e t4o archimandrites of the Iur'e and Pust1ns)

monasteries 4ill not sae the *hurch% if it contains some defect%! 3ilaret told Inno)entii@. But

3ilaret's caution had another dimension. +e had no faith in the utilit1 or relia-ilit1 of harshl1restrictie measures% and he 4as in no hurr1 to meddle or pass udgment. Al4a1s a-le to

distinguish the error from the person ma)ing it% he loo)ed -eneolentl1 on eer1 sincere impulse

of the soul. Een in the 1earnings of the m1stics he sensed a true religious thirst% a spiritual

restlessness 4hich stum-led along errant paths% onl1 -ecause “the rightful path had -een poorl1constructed.! Thus% for polemical purposes% prohi-itions alone 4ould not -e sufficient. A-oe

all% education 4as needed. 3or that constructie and creatie struggle 4ith error 4hich 3ilaret4ished to 4age% one must teach% reason% and refrain from impatient Cuarrels.

Behind the facade of m1stical seductions% 3ilaret could recogni$e a ital need for religion% a

thirst for religious instruction and enlightenment: hence his enthusiastic participation in the 4or) of the Bi-le Societ1. The 4or) attracted him% for he -elieed that the church should epend its

energies on translation of the Bi-le% “so that the -read might not -e ta)en from the children.! +e

firml1 -elieed in the po4er of rene4al found in the "ord of (od% and foreer lin)ed his name

4ith and his selflessl1 dedicated life to% the translation of the Russian Bi-le. +is la-or on -ehalf of the Bi-le is difficult to alue at its true 4orth. 3or him personall1 the 4or) meant great

personal trials and humiliations. At the height of the “uprising! against the Bi-le in St.

Peters-urg% 3ilaret% in &osco4% replied that “such a desire to read the Bi-le% is alread1 a sign of moral improement.! If some prefer to lie on roots rather than pure -read% the Bi-le cannot -e

held responsi-le. To the anticipated Cuestion: “"h1 this innoation in a matter so ancient and

unneedful of change as *hristianit1 and the Bi-le! 3ilaret replied% "h1 this innoation "hat isne4 ogmas Precepts liing But the Bi-le Societ1 preaches none of these things -ut instead

places into the hands of those 4ho desire it a -oo) from 4hich the truths of the *hurch al4a1s

hae -een dra4n% and from 4hich rthodo dogmas and also the pure precepts for liing

continue to -e deried. The Societ1 is a ne4 one Det it introduces nothing ne4 into *hristianit1or produces the slightest alteration in the *hurch . . . .J"h1 this innoation of foreign origin'

the1 continue. In repl1 to that Cuestion% one might point out for our 4orth1 compatriots man1

things and as) a similar Cuestion: J"h1 are the1 not onl1 of foreign origin% -ut een entirel1foreign' . . .

As one contemporar1 put it% “some of the most deout people held the unfortunate -elief

that people 4ould go mad from reading this sacred -oo).! 3or a time students in the militar1schools 4ere officiall1 for-idden to read the Bi-le% ostensi-l1 as a precautionar1 measure% for

t4o cadets had alread1 -ecome addled. &an1 others “regarded it as a -oo) onl1 for use in church

and suited solel1 to priests.! 3rom fear of m1stical errors and ecesses% people suddenl1 -egan to

56



shun the 4ritings of &acarius of Eg1pt and Isaac the S1rian% 4hose “4ise pra1er of the heart has

-een destro1ed and derided as a pestilence and a ruination.!

Some4hat later 3ilaret had to proe that it 4as permissi-le to 4rite ne4 commentaries onSt. Paul's epistles% despite the fact that *hr1sostom had long ago proided eplanations. “Smo)e

consumes one's e1es% arid the1 sa1 Jthe light of the sun consumes them.' *ho)ing from the

smo)e% the1 gasp% Jho4 poisonous is the 4ater from the spring of life.'!Such a spirit of timid theological endeaor al4a1s distur-ed 3ilaret% 4hereer and 4heneer

it appeared. “+uman nature contains a strange am-ialence and contradictor1 tendencies%! he.

once said. n the one hand eists a sense of need for the iine and a desire for communion4ith (od0 on the other hand% there is a m1sterious disinclination to occup1 oneself 4ith iine

matters and an impulse to aoid an1 discourse 4ith (od. . . .The first of these tendencies -elongs

to man's original nature% 4hile the other deries from a nature -lemished -1 sin.

Possession and preseration of faith are not sufficient: “perhaps 1ou hae dou-ts 1ouactuall1 possess faith% or ho4 1ou possess it. . . .! 3ilaret continues. As long as 1our faith resides

in the "ord of (od and in the *reed% then 1our faith -elongs to (od% +is prophets% Apostles% and

3athers of the *hurch and not to 1ou. "hen 1ou hold 1our faith in 1our thoughts and memor1%

then 1ou -egin to acCuire it as 1our o4n0 -ut I still fear for 1our acCuisition Lof itM% -ecause theliing faith in 1our thoughts is% perhaps% still onl1 a to)en of that treasure 1ou hae 1et to receie%

that is the liing po4er of faith.In other 4ords% faith% in the fullness of its dogmatic content% must -ecome the ital principle

or focus in life. Each person must not merel1 remem-er the content of that faith% -ut acCuire it

4ith the la-or of the mind and 4ith the entiret1 of the soul. 3ilaret 4as not afraid to a4a)enthought% although he )ne4 temptations could onl1 -e oercome and conCuered -1 the creatie

act and not -1 frightened concealment. Su-seCuentl1 he 4rote: “The necessit1 to do -attle 4ith

enemies and 4ith teachings contrar1 to dogma is Cuite a sufficient tas). "hat purpose is sered

-1 com-atting options 4hich are not inimical to an1 dogmatic truth! 3ilaret al4a1s emphasi$edthe necessit1 to engage in theolog1 as the single and immuta-le foundation for a complete

religious life. “*hristianit1 is not -eing a fool for *hrist's sa)e LiurodstoM% nor is it ignorance%

-ut it is the 4isdom of (od.! +ence no *hristian dares halt at the -eginning or remain onl1 at anelementar1 stage. *hristianit1 is a path or a 4a1. 3ilaret constantl1 recalls that “L4eM should

consider no 4isdom% een that 4hich is secret and hidden% to -e alien and unrelated to us% -ut

4ith humilit1 4e should direct our minds to4ard contemplation of (od.! *hristian personalit1 isshaped onl1 through such reasoning and understanding0 onl1 in this manner is the “perfect man

of (od! shaped% and formed. 3ilaret's faorite aphorism% “theolog1 reasons%! is a commandment

“to reason! gien to eer1one and not to the fe4. +e considered oerl1 detailed tet-oo)s

harmful% and for Cuite characteristic reasons. “A student haing -efore him a large tet-oo)% thathe cannot a-sor- een that 4hich had -een prepared for him *onseCuentl1% the possi-ilit1 of

constructing something for himself seems impossi-le. Thus the mind is not stirred to actiit1 and

the memor1 retains the 4ords rather than the ideas from the pages of -oo).! "hat is actuall1needed is to arouse and eercise the “mind's a-ilit1 to function%! and not simpl1 to deelop the

memor1. +erein lies the solution or eplanation for the feror 4ith 4hich 3ilaret all of his life

fought on -ehalf of the Russian language% -oth for the Bi-le and for theological instruction. +e4ished% and stroe to ma)e theolog1 accessi-le to eer1one% and for that reason he seemed

terri-le and dangerous to his opponents. (eneral accessi-ilit1 is ust 4hat the1 did not 4ant.

“Translation of the Ne4 Testament into the simple dialect left a permanent and indeli-le stain

upon him%! 4rote 3otii.

5<



It 4as necessar1 to 4age 4ar on t4o fronts in order to achiee the use of Russian in school

instruction. 3irst% one had to com-at the ciil authorities ?and during Nicholas I's reign all

“thought! 4as regarded as the em-r1o of reolution@. The so9called *ommittee of G ecem-er ?56FG9567@ 5< completel1 opposed the proposal for instruction in Russian% arguing that the

necessar1 addition of ne4 Russian language tet-oo) editions for dogmatic and hermeneutical

theolog1 might attract the attention of unenlightened people to Cuestions a-out faith: “Proidingan opportunit1 for unfounded eplanations and conectures.! Second% one had to de-ate 4ith the

represeritaties of the old learning a-out the use of 2atin in theological instruction. ;er1 man1

such representaties still suried. After (olits1n's departure% &etropolitan Egenii of ,ie 57had -een summoned to the S1nod. +e 4as entrusted 4ith a ne4 construction of the ecclesiastical

schools% “for the esta-lishment of ecclesiastical schools on the firm and steadfast foundation of

rthodo1%! as &etropolitan Seraphim 4rote. 3otii recommended Egenii and openl1

counterposed him to 3ilaret as “4iser than 3ilaret and at the same time an rthodo and greatman and a pillar of the *hurch: ' ?3otii gae Egenii a solemn greeting@. +o4eer% once in St.

Peters-urg% Egenii -ecame too preoccupied 4ith his personal and archeological interests to -e

a-le to deote much attention to the large Cuestions of church politics. Neertheless% a

reactionar1 spirit could -e felt Cuite strongl1 among the ne4 mem-ership of the *ommission onEcclesiastical Schools. 3ilaret of &osco4 did not attend the sessions of the S1nod during those

trou-led 1ears ?if one does not count the -rief session of the S1nod in &osco4 at Nicholas'scoronation@. +e occupied himself 4ith the affairs of his diocese% and onl1 in 56F= did he return

to St. Peters-urg. uring the first 4ee)s after his arrial% he 4as called upon to discuss the

Cuestion of church reform. Someone had presented the emperor 4ith a proposal for fundamentalreforms aimed at “saddling the *hurch 4ith a )ind of Protestant consistor1 composed of clerg1

and la1men%! in 3ilaret's understanding of the proposal's intent. Apparentl1 (eneral &erder% 55

Nicholas's former tutor% had transmitted the proposal. 3ilaret -elieed the author to -e A. A.

Palo% the cohort of 3otii and Shish)o during the “uprising! of 56F. The S1nod struggled tocompose a repl1 to the su-stance of the proposal. 3ilaret also presented a personal note% 4hich

4as su-mitted -1 the S1nod as the opinion of one of its mem-ers. The Emperor 4rote the 4ord

“ust! LspraedlioM on this report% in 4hich 3ilaret had once again raised the Cuestion of Bi-licaltranslation. But 3ilaret's suggestion could ma)e no further progress in ie4 of &etropolitan

Seraphim's unCualified opposition. 3ilaret did not insist. “I do not 4ish to produce a schism in

the *hurch.!In the net fe4 1ears% 3ilaret had one other opportunit1 to set forth in detail his ie4s on the

Cuestion of church schools. nce again the opportunit1 came in connection 4ith those same

proposals for reform. +e roundl1 condemned the scholastic schools% and still more emphaticall1

castigated the -elated attempts to return to such superannuated models. Before the reform seeralecclesiastical schools 4ere distinguished -1 a )no4ledge of 2atin. . . .As a result% priest )ne4

2atin pagan authors 4ell% -ut hardl1 )ne4 religious and *hurch 4riters. The1 could spea) and

4rite in 2atin -etter than in Russian. "ith their eCuisite phrases in a dead language% the1 4eremore a-le to shine in a circle of scholars than illuminate the people 4ith the liing )no4ledge of

truth. nl1 dogmatic theolog1 4as taught% and then in the school manner. The result 4as a dr1%

cold )no4ledge% a lac) of a sufficientl1 practical capacit1 to inform% a forced tone% fruitlessteaching% and an ina-ilit1 to spea) to the people a-out the truths 4hich seem so familiar in the

schools. Since the reforms of the church schools in 565% instruction in practical theolog1

Ldeiatel'noe -ogosloieM has -een introduced% there-1 ma)ing the stud1 of theolog1 closer to the

demands of life. . . .The Russian language 4as permitted in teaching theolog1. ,no4ledge of

57



2atin -ecame 4ea)er% -ut at the same time the school terminolog1 -egan to gie 4a1 to a purer

and cleaner eposition of truth. The etension of true )no4ledge 4as strengthened and its

communication to the people made easier. . .3ilaret emphasi$ed that: “Theological understanding% crushed -1 the great 4eight of school

terminolog1 taught in 2atin% did not freel1 act on the mind during the period of stud1% and after

stud1 onl1 4ith the greatest difficult1 4as it transposed into Russian for communication to the people.! +e then critici$ed the latest directies from the *ommission on Ecclesiastical Schools.

True% he agreed% not all teachers constructed their courses successfull1% -ut should teaching from

“one's o4n lectures! -e totall1 prohi-ited for that reason &ust 2atin once again -ecomecompulsor1 and 3eofila)t's theolog1 tet-oo)% lF “copied from Buddeus's 2utheran theolog1%!

-e assigned once again 3ilaret once more adduced an argument -ased on effectieness. “Return

to 2atin scholasticism from instruction in a comprehensi-le natie language cannot facilitate the

improement of education. It is surprising that a time 4hich is -eing praised for its $eal for rthodo1 should prefer a return to 2atin.!

Another 3ilaret% the arch-ishop of Ria$an' and later metropolitan of ,ie% responded to this

determined note. "ithout Cuarrelling directl1 4ith 3ilaret of &osco4% he insisted upon

presering 2atin for arious reasons: as a defensie measure for scholarship% -ut moreimportantl1 as a precaution% so that errors and heresies refuted in dogmatic theolog1 4ould not

gain pu-lic attention through Russian -oo)s. Neertheless% he did agree 4ith certain points% and proposed that catechisms% particularl1 the rthodo *onfession% -e pu-lished for popular use in

Russian and *hurch Slaic. +e also admitted that practical theolog1 could -est -e taught in

Russian. 3inall1% he thought it desira-le to organi$e the translation of patristic 4ritings intoRussian from (ree) and 2atin. 3ilaret of &osco4 had to gie 4a1. The final report did not

include a proposal for theological instruction in Russian.

I proposed that theolog1 -e taught in Russian at the seminaries in order that its stud1 and its

transmission to the people might -e made easier and so that those 4ho are distrustful 4ill not as) 4h1 4e conceal the +ol1 (ospel in a non9rthodo language. I stated that it is strange and

crippling to gie s4a1 to 2atin in the (ree) *hurch and that 3eofan Pro)opoich% -1 doing so%

had disfigured our learning% contrar1 to the general opinion of the Russian hierarch1 at that time%and contrar1 to the eample of all Eastern antiCuit10 -ut I had to -e silent% in order to end those

disagreements 4hich could impede our 4or).

+o4eer% 3ilaret did achiee one thing: a special point 4as added to the S1nodal resolution0“in order that instruction conducted in the ecclesiastical schools might -e more fruitfull1 directed

to4ard the goal of popular education in faith and moralit1 -1 means of an educated clerg1% to

that end capa-le people should -e encouraged to prepare theolog1 tet-oo)s 4hich epound

truths in a precise 4a1% uno-scured -1 scholastic su-tleties% and 4hich modif1 Ltheolog1M to suitthe circumstances of the Eastern (reco9Russian *hurch.!

The dispute oer the language of instruction 4as decided 4ith out preliminar1 de-ate.

espite the prohi-ition% in a short time Russian -ecame the language of the schools eer14here.3ilaret had alread1 lectured in Russian at the St. Peters-urg Academ1% as did his successor

(rigorii ?Postni)o@. ,irill ?Bogoslos)ii9Platono@ 5 did so in &osco4. Both (rigorii and

,irill 4ere graduates in the first class at the St. Peters-urg Academ1. &oisei% the rector at the,ie Academ1% l had alread1 taught in Russian. &eletii ?2.eontoich@% 58 and later

Inno)entii% follo4ed his eample. (raduall1 2atin fell -1 the 4a1side in the seminaries so that

-1 the 567's scarcel1 an1 school still taught% theolog1 in 2atin. Neertheless% the transition to

Russian still did not signif1 a genuine li-eration from the captiit1 or slaer1 of scholasticism. In

55



the 567's Russian theolog1 had to suffer still another relapse of 2atin scholasticism. nce again

the initiatie -elonged to the ising er Procurator.

*etroolitan Filaret of *osco2.

3ilaret 4rote er1 little. The circumstances of his life 4ere unfaora-le to 4riting. nl1 in

his 1outh could he gie himself to scholarship 4ithout too much interference. But he 4ascompelled to 4or) hastil1. These 1ears 4ere actuall1 more deoted to stud1 than to independent

creatiit1. Soon called to sere in the upper hierarch1% 3ilaret thereafter had neither the freedom

nor the leisure to s1stematicall1 inestigate and stud1 theolog1. And in his mature 1ears% 3ilaret

4as a-le to -e a theologian onl1 as a preacher. In fact% his Sermons and Addresses LSloa i rechiMremains his principal theological legac1. 3ilaret neer constructed a theological s1stem. +is

sermons are onl1 fragments% -ut the1 contain an inner 4holeness and unit1. It is not a unit1 of

s1stem% it is a unit1 of conception. These fragments reeal a liing theological eperiencetormented and tempered in an ordeal of pra1er and igil. 3ilaret of &osco4 4as the first person

in the histor1 of modern Russian theolog1 for 4hom theolog1 once more -ecame the aim of life%

the essential step to4ard spiritual progress and construction. +e 4as not merel1 a theologian% he

lied theolog1. 3rom the am-o or his episcopal seat in the cathedral% he firml1 and udiciousl1taught the lessons of faith. 3ilaret 4as a disciplined spea)er. +e neer simpl1 spo)e% -ut al4a1s

read or follo4ed a 4ritten tet% an oratorical reCuirement from his school da1s.

As a theologian and teacher he 4as a-oe all a Bi-licist. +is sermons d4elled mostfreCuentl1 on the "ord of (od. +e did not consult +ol1 Scriptures for proofs: he proceeded from

the sacred tets. In Bu)hare's 5G apt phrase% for 3ilaret Bi-lical tets “4ere the thoughts of the

2iing and All94ise (od emanating from his un)no4a-leness for our understanding.! +isthoughts lied in the Bi-lical element. +e pondered aloud 4hile sifting the nuances of a Bi-lical

image or stor1. 3ilaret% notes Bu)hare% neer allo4ed his theolog1 to -ecome a “legal

inestigation goerned -1 a dogmatic code of la4s%! as 4as usuall1 the case -efore 3ilaret's timeand as too often recurred during the epoch of the “return to the time of scholasticism.!

uring his first fe4 1ears of teaching% 3ilaret 4or)ed out a general plan for a course intheolog1% A Sure1 of Theolog1 L-o$renie -ogoslos)i)h nau)% 565M. It 4as a er1characteristic plan% for it 4as a course in Bi-lical theolog1. In 3ilaret's ie4% the aim of a

theological s1stem 4as to “lin) in their proper order! the indiidual facts and truths of

Reelation. A “s1stem! of theolog1 4as something full1 dependent and deriatie. +istor1 came

-efore s1stem% for Reelation 4as gien in histor1 and eents.The formalism of the “old Protestant! theological school in 4hich 3ilaret 4as raised and

educated eercised a strong influence on him% especiall1 in his 1ounger da1s. +e did not at once

formall1 -rea) 4ith the Russian tradition of Pro)opoich. A great deal in his definitions andmanner of epression 4as suggested -1% or he simpl1 copied from% Protestant -oo)s. +e refers to

such -oo)s in his Sure10 hence the incompleteness and scholastic imprecision of 3ilaret's earl1

formulations. +e had the ha-it of referring to +ol1 Scriptures as “the sole pure and sufficientsource of teaching a-out faith! and added that “to grant the un4ritten "ord of (od eCual 4eight

4ith the 4ritten% not onl1 in the functioning of the *hurch% -ut in its dogmas is to su-ect oneself

to the danger of destro1ing (od's commandment for the sa)e of human tradition: ' This 4as said%

of course% in the heat of polemics. But it does seem that if he did not den1 it% then 3ilaretminimi$ed the importance of Tradition in the *hurch. +e shared and reproduced the Protestant

idea of the so9called “self9sufficienc1! of +ol1 Scripture. In his earl1 4or)% An eposition of the

differences -et4een the Eastern and "estern *hurches in the teaching of faith LI$lo$henie

5F



ra$nostei me$hdu Postochnoi i apadnoi tser)i uchenii er1M 4ritten in 5655 for the Empress

Eli$a-eth Ale)seena and een in the earl1 editions of the *atechism% 3ilaret sa1s er1 little

a-out Tradition or traditions. And in the final redaction of the *atechism during the 567's% theCuestions and ans4ers a-out Tradition 4ere added at the prompting of others.

Det this 4as more a fault of the peculiar language of the period than an actual mista)e or

error. In an1 case% 3ilaret neer loo)ed upon Scripture a-stractl1 or in isolation. The Bi-le isgien to and is maintained in the *hurch. The *hurch gies it to the faithful for reading and

guidance. Scripture is 4ritten Tradition% and as such it is a 4itness to the liing )no4ledge and

understanding of the *hurch. Scripture is the record of Tradition% not ordinar1 traditions of human recollection% -ut +ol1 Tradition. To put it another 4a1% it is the sacred memor1 em-odied

in 4riting “for the uninterrupted and uniform preseration of iine "ords.!

Scripture% as 3ilaret eplained it% is “onl1 the continuation of Tradition and Tradition's

unaltera-l1 constructed form.! "hen he spo)e of Scripture as the “sole and sufficient! source of teaching a-out faith% he did not hae in mind a -oo) 4ith leather coers% -ut the "ord of (od

4hich lies in the *hurch% and a4a)ens in each liing soul that 4hich the *hurch ac)no4ledges

and teaches. Scripture is Tradition. 3urthermore% true and hol1 Tradition is not “simpl1 the

isi-le and er-al tradition of the teachings% canons% ceremonies% and rituals% -ut it is also theinisi-le and actual instruction -1 grace and sanctification.! It is the unit1 of the +ol1 Spirit% the

communion of the sacraments. And for 3ilaret the main thing 4as not historical memor1% -ut theuninterrupted flo4 of (race. Therefore% onl1 in the *hurch is authentic tradition possi-le. nl1

in the *hurch does the (race of the +ol1 Spirit pour forth reealed truth in an un-ro)en stream

and admonish 4ith it.3ilaret's intense Bi-licism 4as intimatel1 and deepl1 -ound up 4ith his conception of the

*hurch. This 4as a return to the patristic st1le and ha-it in theolog1. At the same time 3ilaret

emphasi$ed that modern philological studies must proide a precise definition for the “formal

meaning! of Scripture. Scripture is the "ord of (od% not merel1 the 4ord a-out (od spo)en or recorded at one time. It is the efficacious 4ord acting eternall1 through the ages. It is a certain

iine m1ster1% the unaltera-le appearance of grace and po4er. “2ight is concealed in eer1

trace of (od's "ord% and 4isdom is heard in eer1 sound.! And 3ilaret added% “the authenticit1of +ol1 Scripture etends -e1ond the limits of our reason.! It is a )ind of iine treasur1: the

unceasing% creatie% life9giing "ord. And the *hurch is that hol1 treasur1 in 4hich this 4ord is

presered. It is a special construction of the Spirit of (od.Authentic and undou-ted% +ol1 Tradition is the indisputa-le “source! of faith. But the

Cuestion remains% ho4 does one recogni$e and discern this “undou-ted! tradition +o4 is the

tradition of faith distinguished from the traditions of the schools It 4as precisel1 this Cuestion

4hich constantl1 occupied 3ilaret's attention. +e 4as reluctant to discuss appeals to tradition% not4hat constituted Tradition. +e protested against the scholastic custom and ha-it of esta-lishing

or proing doctrinal propositions 4ith a simple selection of tets or authoritatie testimon1. +e

emphasi$ed that it 4as impossi-le to eCuate an1 non9Bi-lical testimon1 4ith that of the Bi-le%and the realm of direct iine inspiration is precisel1 descri-ed -1 the -oundar1 of canon. “Is it

possi-le to define precisel1 that moment 4hen a church 4riter -ecomes a saint and is no longer

simpl1 a 4riter su-ect to the usual human 4ea)nesses! 3ilaret did not place limits on theeducational authorit1 of the *hurch. +e onl1 limited the authorit1 of the schools.

+istorical tradition% in an1 case% is su-ect to confirmation% and 3ilaret had a liel1 sense of

histor1. It 4as this sense% 4hich separated him from later scholastics 4ith their logical pedantr1

and from the m1stics such as Sperans)ii% 2a-$in% and S)ooroda earlier for 4hom the Bi-le

5



-ecame an allegor1 or a s1m-ol. 3or 3ilaret the Bi-le 4as al4a1s and a-oe all a -oo) of

histor1. It -egins 4ith a description of the creation of heaen and earth and concludes 4ith the

appearance of a ne4 heaen and earth% “the entire histor1 of the eisting 4orld%! 3ilaretremar)ed. And this histor1 of the 4orld is the histor1 of (od's coenant 4ith man. It is also the

histor1 of the *hurch 4hich -egins een earlier. “The histor1 of the *hurch -egins

simultaneousl1 4ith the histor1 of the 4orld. The creation of the 4orld in itself ma1 -e seen as a)ind of preparation for the creation of the *hurch -ecause the purpose for 4hich the )ingdom of

nature 4as made resides in the )ingdom of grace.! The 4orld 4as created for the sa)e of man%

and 4ith the creation of man came the original *hurch% founded in the er1 image and li)enessof (od. &an 4as introduced into the 4orld of nature as a priest and a prophet% so that the light of

(race 4ould reach out through him to all the created 4orld. In freedom% man 4as called upon to

ans4er this creatie loe% “and then the Son of (od 4ould reside in men and reign openl1 and

triumphantl1 throughout the 4orld. +eaenl1 light and po4er 4ould pour do4n ceaselessl1 onearth until at last the earth 4as no longer distinct from heaen.!

The heaenl1 *oenant 4ith (od 4as a-rogated -1 the 3all0 the original *hurch 4as

destro1ed. &an stifled 4ithin himself the eternal life9giing attention of iine glor1% and he

li)e4ise -loc)ed the flo4 of grace to all the 4orld. In the fallen 4orld% ho4eer% creatie iine purpose continued to operate. It acts as a promise and a calling. And the created 4orld

?su-merged -eneath the a-1ss of iine infinit1 and hoering a-oe the a-1ss of personal non9 -eing@ preseres the "ord of (od.

All histor1 is the ourne1 of (od to4ard man and the ourne1 of man to4ard (od. This hol1

pulse of time and histor1 especiall1 can -e felt in the ld Testament. That 4as a time of messianic epectations and preparations. &an)ind a4aits and epects the promised Saior% and

(od eCuall1 epects the eercise of human freedom and loe. 3or that reason there is a tension in

time: “the created 4orld moes in definite c1cles -1 necessit1 and cannot -e hurried.! The ld

Testament 4as a time of prefigurations and premonitions0 a time of multiple and multiformEpiphanies% and at the same time it 4as a returning of the chosen among men to an encounter

4ith the approaching (od. “The common ground of Epiphan1% especiall1 in its human

dimension% is the Incarnation of the Son of (od% for the root and foundation of +is hol1humanit1 is found in men from the time of the er1 first progenitors.! In this sense% the ld

Testament is a genealog1 of the Saior.

The image of the &other of (od is sharpl1 and clearl1 etched in 3ilaret's theologicalconsciousness. And the a1 of Annunciation 4as for him the most glorious da1 of all. "ith the

Annunciation in Na$areth the ld Testament ends and the Ne4 Testament -egins. The tension of

epectation is dissoled. +uman freedom responds in the &other of (od. “She unreseredl1

entrusted herself to the desire of the ,ing of ,ings% and the marriage of the iine 4ith man)ind4as consummated.! And in the Birth of *hrist the *hurch% destro1ed foreer -1 the diso-edience

of the earthl1 Adam% is recreated indestructi-l1 and foreer. The ,ingdom of (race is reealed

and the ,ingdom of (lor1 is alread1 slightl1 isi-le.In 3ilaret's ie4% the *hurch is the Bod1 of *hrist% “the unit1 of one life! in +im. It is not

the union of all under one authorit1% een under the ro1al authorit1 of *hrist. &oreoer% the

*hurch is a continuing Pentecost: a unit1 in the Spirit of *hrist. The sanctif1ing stream of graceas an unCuencha-le fount flo4s to the er1 threshold of the coming ,ingdom of (lor1. “"hen

the m1sterious -od1 of the last Adam% composed and constituted -1 +im through the mutual

lin)ing of the mem-ers -1 the appropriate actions of each of them% gro4s in its composition and

is perfectl1 and finall1 created% then% upheld -1 +is +ead% infused 4ith the +ol1 Spirit% the image

5



need to ustif1 his eer1 conclusion. It is precisel1 this need 4hich eplains all of his

reserations. “Each theological thought must -e accepted onl1 in the measure of its strength.!

3ilaret al4a1s opposed the transformation of priate opinions into reCuired ones 4hich mightrestrict rather than guide perceptie and searching thought. That is 4h1 he 4as such an

unpleasant and impatient censor and editor. +is report on Inno)entii's Passion "ee) LStrastnaia

Sed initsaM is characteristic: “I 4ish that calm reason might accompan1 the la-or of a liel1 and po4erful imagination and cleanse this -oo).! 3ilaret did not reect “imagination%! -ut he

su-ected it to strict erification% and not so much erification -1 reason as -1 the testimon1 of

Reelation. Not much ma1 -e epected -1 rel1ing on one's o4n philosophical reasoning for those

su-ects not found in life on earth. It is more fitting to follo4 iine Reelation and the

eplanations of it gien -1 people 4ho hae pra1ed% la-ored% cleansed their inner and outer lies

more than 4e. The image of (od is more apparent and the sight is clearer in those 4hose spiritshere on earth -order more closel1 on heaen than our o4n.

-iousl1% 3ilaret 4as not so preoccupied 4ith authorit1 as 4ith inner relia-ilit1.

3ilaret appeared too plia-le or ecessiel1 timid to others in direct proportion to his o4n

demands and caution. Some accused 3ilaret of “#aco-inism in theolog1! 5= -ecause he al4a1sdemanded “proofs! and er1 cautiousl1 distinguished -et4een “opinion! and “definition.! “The

people did not loe him and called him a &ason! ?+er$en@. thers considered him a dar) reactionar1 and ?strangel1 enough@ preferred *ount Prataso 56 ?this applies not onl1 to

Ni)anor Bro)oich l< -ut also to Rostislao@. 587 Still others 4ere confused -ecause 3ilaret

4ould not condemn the 2atin faith as heres1 or een as a schism% -ut instead he argued that it4as onl1 an “opinion! and not a ruling of the *hurch. In particular he tried to guard against

eaggeration: “Placing the Papal *hurch on the same leel as the Armenian *hurch is cruel and

useless.! +e seemed too cautious 4hen he argued that the Eastern *hurch “does not possess an

autocratic interpreter of its teachings 4ho might gie the 4eight of dogma to his eplanations.! Itseemed that he left too much to the “indiidual udgment and conscience! of the faithful% een

though it 4as “assisted -1 the teachers of the *hurch and 4as under the guidance of the "ord of

(od.!Some could not find adeCuate 4ords to descri-e 3ilaret's oppressie t1rannical character. In

this connection% the hostile auto-iographical “notes! of the historian S. &. Solo'e 585 4ere

especiall1 t1pical. In Solo'e's description% 3ilaret 4as a sort of eil genius% 4ho smothered theleast in)ling of creatiit1 and independence in his su-ordinates. Solo'e insisted that 3ilaret

destro1ed an1 creatie spirit in the &osco4 Theological Academ1. Something must -e said

a-out this later. +ere it is enough to note that Solo'e's calumn1 can -e countered -1

considera-le contrar1 eidence. ne eample% 4hich is supplied -1 a person 4hom it is difficultto suspect of partialit1 to4ard 3ilaret% must -e enough. This 4as the statement of (. . Elisee%

the famous radical and editor of Notes of the 3atherland Lapis)i otechestaM .58F +e 4as a

student in the &osco4 Academ1 at the -eginning of the 567's and then a -accalaureate and professor in ,a$an'. In Elisee's estimation% there 4as too much freedom and an eceptional

enironment of heartfelt 4armth% softness% and camaraderie at the &osco4 Academ1.

Solo'e 4as shortsighted and partial in his udgments. +e 4as not a-le% nor did he 4ish% tofind an1 redeeming Cualities in those 4ho did not agree 4ith him. +e 4as particularl1 irritated

-1 people of a “restless mind%! 4ho offended his co$1 night9+egelian 4orldie4. 3ilaret 4as not

the onl1 one 4hom Solo'e condemned in this fashion. +e found onl1 harsh and foul 4ords for

,homia)o. 58 But Solo'e 4as unfair to 3ilaret een as an historian. +e could not and 4ould

5G



not understand that 3ilaret's out4ard seerit1 sprang from grief and aniet1. “This man has a hot

head and a cold heart.! This characteri$ation is a deceptie half truth. It is true that 3ilaret's mind

4as ferent and hot% and restless thoughts left a deep impress on his 4ithered face. But it issimpl1 nonsense and a lie that 3ilaret's heart 4as cold. It flo4ed sensitiel1 and

impressionisticall1. And it -urned in an uncann1 and terri-le aniet1. +is o-ious achieements

and o-ious integrit1 could conceal this grief and aniet1% this inner suffering% onl1 from ashortsighted o-serer. 3ilaret's difficult and courageous silence hardl1 concealed or Cuieted his

uneasiness a-out 4hat 4as happening in Russia. “It seems that 4e no longer lie een in the

su-ur-s of Ba-1lon% -ut in Ba-1lon itself%! he declared one da1.,homia)o once noted that 3ilaret 4as compelled to trael -1 “deious routes! in order not

to proide a pretet for -eing attac)ed. “Su-mission reCuired detours% 4hile his eactness

perhaps made it less li)el1 that the1 4ould -e on the 4atch and inflict an unepected -lo4%!

4rote another contemporar1. 3ilaret once 4rote to (rigorii LPostni)oM: “It is a great misfortuneif those against 4hom the1 see) an opportunit1 to attac) proide that opportunit1. . . .!

3ilaret did not li)e eas1 and safe paths% for he did not -eliee that eas1 paths could lead to

truth > the narro4 path could hardl1 turn out to -e an eas1 one. “I fear onl1 that o1 on earth

4hich thin)s it has nothing to fear. . . .!

Theology in the Refor$ed Ecclesiastical %chools.

3ilaret 4as one of the most influential and prominent representaties of the ne4 “theolog1of the heart! taught in the reformed ecclesiastical schools. The aim of this instruction 4as “the

education of the inner man%! -1 imparting a liing and 4ell9founded personal coniction in the

saing truths of faith. “The inner education of 1ouths for an actie *hristianit1 4ill -e the soleaim of these schools! ?/)a$ of 7 August 565@. ne might recall Neander's 58 aphorism

4hich 4as so popular in those da1s: pectus est Cuod facit theologum% “the heart ma)es the

theologian.'' +o4eer% in the Russian schools this theolog1 of the “heart! 4as not the onl1current. "e can detect and distinguish t4o diergent tendencies from the outset. ne 4as the

“theolog1 of the heart.! The other it 4as usual at that time to call “neologism%! a moral9rationalistic school of *hristian interpretation Neologism 4as introduced -1 Ignatius 3essler l88in the St. Peters-urg Theological Academ1.

In 565<% 3ilaret 4as replaced as rector -1 (rigorii Postni)o a student of the first

graduating class at the ne4 academ1. ?Su-seCuentl1 he -ecame metropolitan of Nogorod0 he

died in 56G7@. (rigorii 4as a continuator% follo4er% admirer% and een friend of 3ilaret of &osco4. Although he 4as a man of er1 alert and clear thought% he possessed no inner

animation. +e had none of 3ilaret's restless searching mind% nor did an1 of that di$$1ing

panorama% -efore 4hich 3ilaret 4as so accustomed to lie% eer unfold -efore him. ne neer feels a tension een in (rigorii's sermons. Eer1thing 4as limpid% his oice 4as een and calm.

+e disli)ed dogmatic themes and preferred action. +is moralism 4as er1 measured and

anno1ing% although it is impossi-le not to feel his great moral strength. “Simplicit1% dignit1% andtruthfulness%! reports 3otii% 4ho did not li)e him. (rigorii's character 4as reflected in his

language. There are no rhetorical deices% no ornamentation% onl1 a certain heainess%

coarseness% and plainness. (rigorii% especiall1 in his later 1ears% did not li)e to 4rite “for the

people.! Still% one al4a1s senses the influence of those often read and reread Englishinstructional -oo)s and -rochures from the -eginning of the centur1. +is thought 4as formed

and disciplined in the reading of foreign authors% especiall1 English ones% and it seems that at one

time (rigorii studied English 4ith the students.

5=



+e 4as a great -i-liophile and stimulated reading among the students. +e regularl1 offered

the students mone1 for translations% in order to compel them to read. As a teacher and lecturer%

(rigorii 4as er1 popular and 4ell li)ed. +e taught in Russian% and in his lectures heinestigated +ol1 Scriptures in Russian translation% not Slaonic. In general he 4as a $ealous

defender of the Bi-le in Russian until the end of his da1s. +e gae preference in the ld

Testament to “+e-re4 truth%! underscoring the fact that it 4as hardl1 possi-le to construct 4ith precision an eact translation of the Septuagint from its aried renderings. But he approached the

&assoretic punctuation criticall1 and 4ith resere.

In 56FF% (rigorii%pu-lished seeral chapters of his theolog1 course. The1 4ere eamined%approed% and% of course% corrected -1 3ilaret. There is er1 little that is original in them. But

4hat 4as important 4as the er1 liel1 oice and manner of the author. &uch later (rigorii

4rote his famous -oo) against the schismatics or ld Belieers% The trul1 ancient% trul1

rthodo *hurch LIstinno9dreniaia i istinno9praoslanaia Tser)o'% 5688M . Again% it containser1 little that is ne4% 1et the eleated% calm% -eneolent tone is arresting. The author 4as trul1

attempting to persuade and conince. Tolerantl1 and cautiousl1% he tried to succeed “through the

4ord of truth.! (rigorii 4as a sincere defender of religious independence and a $ealot for

education. +e possessed a genuine pastoral interest and persistence.&etropohtan (rigorii's special serice at the St. Peters-urg

Theological Academ1 4as the founding of a ournal 4ith the characteristic title *hristianReading L,hristians)oe *htenieM . It -egan in 56F5. 'The first aim of the ournal 4as to proide

instructional reading > Russian reading > for all -i-liophiles and churchmen. The Bi-lical

tendenc1 4as clearl1 indicated -1 the choice of epigraph0 “-uilt upon the foundation of theapostles and the prophets! ?Ephesians F:F7@. In an1 case% su-seCuentl1% during the “return to the

time of scholasticism%! this approach seemed pretentious and dangerous. Because it 4as a

danger% it 4as replaced -1 another epigraph. After 56F% I Timoth1 :58 4as used in its place:

“1ou ma1 )no4 ho4 one ought to -ehae in the household of (od% 4hich is the church of theliing (od% the pillar and -ul4ar) of the truth.! Su-seCuentl1 -oth epigraphs 4ere com-ined.

In its first 1ear% *hristian Reading 4as reminiscent of the &essenger of ion LSions)ii

;estni)M -oth in the selection and character of its articles. A special section 4as included as a“m1stical chronicle.!

In our 3atherland onl1 er1 rarel1 do the -eneficient actions of the +ol1 Spirit on men's

hearts -ecome )no4n. Therefore all loers of *hristianit1% especiall1 people of the religiouscalling% are inited to report on these actions to the editors in order that the1 might -e shared as

manifestations of the glor1 of (od.

Ne4s a-out spiritual signs and miracles 4as een ta)en from foreign pu-lications. After

56F8% ho4eer% the format of this ournal -ecame more cautious and more translations 4ere proided from the 3athers. 3rom the outset of pu-lication% *hristian Reading eno1ed an

unepected success% 4ith F%77 su-scri-ers in the first fa4 1ears.

,irill Bogoslos)ii9Platono 58G follo4ed (rigorii's eample at the &osco4 TheologicalAcadem1. +e taught in Russian% disli)ed modern philosoph1% and read -oo)s in an ascetic spirit.

The Cualit1 of (ospel teaching consists in Cuieting hearts stric)en 4ith grief and fear of

heaenl1 udgment0 it consists in loo)ing into the depths of one's spiritual condition. But ho4can one 4ho has not eperienced this loe of the *ross% 4hose heart is not filled 4ith that grief

for (od 4hich leads to salation% achiee or eplain this po4er and soothing Cualit1 of the

(ospel

56



&a)arii al4a1s maintained an inCuisitie and faora-le attitude to4ard the -eliefs of others.

In E)aterinoslal' he pra1ed 4ith the “Spiritual *hildren! ?the &olo)ans@% and found that the

light of (od's illumination glo4ed in their 4arm faith. The Kua)ers (rellet and Allen% 4hiletraeling in Russia in 565<% 5GG isited E)aterinoslal' 4ith a letter of introduction from 3ilaret%

and found in him a mutual spiritual -ond. 2ater in life% &a)arii dreamed of constructing in

&osco4 a cathedral 4ith three 4ings > for rthodo% *atholics% and Protestants. &a)arii didnot remain long in monastic isolation -efore he -egan to thirst for some 4or). +e found it in

preaching among the Si-erian tri-es. +e also found himself. 3ilaret of &osco4 called him a

“Romantic missionar1%! and% in fact% &a)arii too) to missionar1 4or) enthusiasticall1 and 4ithgreat animation. As a first step% he acCuired t4o To-ols) seminarians as assistants and composed

a model instruction for the first missionar1 outpost:

"e desire that all 4ill -e in common among us: mone1% food% clothes% -oo)s% and other

things0 such measures 4ill aid our efforts to4ard one accord.The mission 4or)ed under conditions of etreme hardship and poert1. The mission 4as a

true apostolic la-or for &a)arii. +e gae himself up to it 4ith all the intensit1 of his soul. A less

dedicated missionar1 might attest that “this flame did not -urn for *hristianit1.! &a)arii's repl1

to such dou-t 4as decisie: “"ho in m1 position can udge the immaturit1 of these people for the uniersal faith in #esus *hrist +e shed +is Immaculate Blood on the *ross and tasted death

for the salation of all men.! . . . “There is no people 4hom the 2ord 4ould not )no4 as +iso4n% no depth of ignorance and dar)ness into 4hich the Son of (od% haing -o4ed heaen

do4n% 4ould not descend% into 4hich +e +imself 4ould not -end do4n.! &a)arii sets forth his

general ie4s in a special 4or): Thoughts on the means for a successful etension of the*hristian faith among the #e4s% &ohammedans% and pagans in the Russian Empire L&1sli o

sposo-a)h ) uspeshneishemu rasprostraneniia )hristians)oi er1 me$hdu Ereiami%

&agometanami% i ia$1chni)ami Rossiis)oi der$hae% 56<M . &a)arii proposed to form a

missionar1 center in ,a$an'% a special missionar19institute monaster1% goerned -1 a strictcommunal statute% 1et including a sufficientl1 ariegated educational program in -oth its general

curriculum and theolog1. +e 4ished to acCuaint his colleagues 4ith the s1stem of 2ancastrian

schools% the fundamentals of medicine% and the -asics of agriculture. -iousl1 contemplatiedreaminess did not )ill &a)arii's sense of realism. The Altaic mission under his guidance is one

of the most heroic and saintl1 episodes in our histor1.

A ne4 idea 4as -orn during &a)arii's apostolic la-ors% and it -ecame an all9consuming passion. It 4as a plan to translate the Bi-le. As earl1 as 56% &a)arii presented to the S1nod

through &etropolitan 3ilaret a note entitled n the necessit1 for the Russian *hurch of a

translation of the entire Bi-le from the original tets into contemporar1 Russian language L

potre-nosti dlia Rossiis)oi tser)i prelo$heniia sei Bi-lii s original n1)h te)tso nasoremenn1i russ)ii ia$1)M. 3ilaret concealed this letter in order to protect the “Romantic

missionar1! from the 4rath and punishment of the higher authorities 4ho considered -eneficial

the translation of the Scriptures into the languages of half ciili$ed and completel1 unciili$ed peoples% -ut not into Russian.

&a)arii neither heard nor understood the arguments. In 56=% he presented to the

*ommission on Ecclesiastical Schools the first part of his o4n translation% the Boo) of #o-%along 4ith a letter addressed to the Emperor. Again the matter remained 4ithout result. In 56<%

&a)arii presented the Emperor 4ith a translation of the Boo) of Isaiah and a ne4 letter. The

follo4ing 1ear he resu-mitted the t4o -oo)s for eamination and comparison 4ith Pas)ii's

translation. the eistence of 4hich &a)arii had not )no4n earlier. At that point &a)arii moed

587



from arguments and persuasion to threats and dire prophecies. Earlier he had epounded on the

necessit1 and usefulness of the "ord of (od in a liing language. “The Russian people are

4orth1 of possessing a complete Russian Bi-le.! &a)arii -emoaned the fact that “Russiansremain indifferentl1 4ithout a complete Russian Bi-le% 4hile at the same time the1 possess a full

Russian translation of the ,oran.! +e 4as coninced the time 4as ripe “to create from the

purest% most alua-le materials of the Russian language a literar1 cathedral of the "isdom of (od 4ritten 4ith such simplicit1% correctness% and eactness that it 4ill -e the most -eautiful in

the 4orld% the true glor1 of our rthodo *hurch -efore the peoples of all churches% and the o1

of heaen.! No4 &a)arii grieed and threatened% “% sorro4Q The Ro1al oors are shut through 4hich

the Eangelists one after another came to us from the sanctuar1% and each 4ith his (ospel

-lessed the Russian *hurch in the name of #esus *hrist. No4 eer1thing is concealed and

dar). . . . "e learn that all of the Pentateuch of &oses 4as alread1 translated into pure Russianfrom the +e-re4 and printed in a-undant copies% and has lain for man1 1ears in some empt1

4arehouse > that hol1 and a4esome -oo) of the 2a4 of (od% 4hich la1 in the ar) of Noah's

coenant% in the hol1 of holies% and 4hich 4as read aloud -efore the Israelites% not ecluding

4omen% children% and strangers. "ill the "ord of (od in the raiment of Slaonic letters cease to -e (od's "ord if it is in Russian raiment!

"ith simple naiete &a)arii 4as touching on the sorest and most painful points. +e eenenumerated the signs of (od's 4rath: the flood of 56F% the uprising of 56F8% the cholera of

567% the fire in the "inter Palace. . . .5G= This time he 4as gien an ans4er. B1 an u)a$% the

S1nod eplained to &a)arii ho4 egotisticall1 and pretentiousl1 he portra1ed himself as a “self9appointed eegete of iine #udgment%! and .ho4 audaciousl1 “he has eceeded the limits of his

calling and his duties.! Therefore% he 4as commanded to undergo a “penance of pra1er! at the

residence of the -ishop of Toms). 3ilaret of *hernigo 5G6 4rites a-out this penance: “the1

compelled him to conduct the liturg1 for si 4ee)s in succession% -ut he understood this as (od'smerc1 and 4as er1 4ell pleased 4ith the penance.! /ndou-tedl1% he misunderstood 4h1 in St.

Peters-urg dail1 conduct of the liturg1 4as considered a punishment for a priest. In &a)arii's

serice record it 4as noted that “he carried through a fort1 da1 purification penance -efore presenting the goernment his thoughts and desires for a complete Russian Bi-le translated from

the originals.! Soon after4ard &a)arii reCuested his release from the mission. +e 4as appointed

superior of the Bol)hos)ii &onaster1 in the rlo proince% 4here he 4as a-le to recoer heart%although he sta1ed there onl1 a short 4hile. +e did not cease translating.

+e -egan to dream of going to the +ol1 2and% and settling% if possi-le% in the Bethlehem

cae of #erome lG< in order to finish and perfect his translation of the ld Testament. It 4as said

that he planned to isit 2eip$ig on the 4a1 and arrange for printing. Not 4ithout difficult1 did hereceie permission for the ourne1. But on the er1 ee of his departure he fell ill and died.

&a)arii 4as a man of saintl1 uprightness and purit1. “An actual liing (ospel%! Arch-ishop

Smaragd 5=7 said of him. +e inter4oe the -est traditions of contemplatie monasticism% hiso4n personal eperience% and the Bi-lical lessons of the schools. &a)arii 4as a man of great

)no4ledge and an outstanding +e-raist. In his 4or) on the Bi-le he usuall1 follo4ed most

closel1 the 4or) of Rosenmueller% 5=5 4ithout% ho4eer% -eing captiated -1 the latter'ss)epticism. And at the same time he 4as a man of spiritual simplicit1 and transparent soul.

“&a)arii 4as a true serant of *hrist (od%! 3ilaret of &osco4 4rote after &a)arii's death in

56=. “And of course it is remar)a-le that during a time of peace he prophesi$ed that there

4ould -e sorro4 for neglecting the etension of (od's "ord0 that sorro4 later came to pass.!

585



The isolated position of the &osco4 Theological Academ1 in its 4ooded retreat or% more

accuratel1% -ac)4ater in the St. Sergius su-ur- at the +ol1 Trinit1 2ara decisiel1 contri-uted

to the fact that in this academ1 the guiding moods of the ne4 era too) flesh. f course the preparations and ha-its of &etropolitan Platon's time 4ere conducie. In his memoirs%

Rostislao 5=F accuses 3ilaret for attempting to transform the St. Peters-urg Academ1 into a

)ind of “semihermitage.! The &osco4 Academ1 actuall1 -ecame such a “semi9hermitage%! a)ind of learned monaster1 “of the heart.! A common st1le too) shape there 4hich is eas1 to

distinguish in eer1thing. 3or eample% ta)e the lists of -oo)s gien to the students for re4ards

or encouragement: een in 56 these 4ere the 3rench Bi-le in the translation of e Sac1% the4or)s of 3enelon or 3rancis de Sales% or een #ohn &ason. 5= r ta)e the themes for semester

compositions: “n the 1earning of creatures LtariM “0 “n the lac) of differentiation of religious

confessions0 or is it possi-le to -e saed in an1 faith!0 “n the inner and outer *hurch!

?Themes for 56FG@. “n the conditions of the so9called spiritual deh1dration% or on the periodicimpoerishment of the spiritual man in -eneficient consolations!0 “"h1 there 4ere more

possessed people during the lifetime of *hrist and the Apostles than either -efore or since!

?Themes for 56F@.

In &oral Theolog1 for 565=95656 a 1oung -accalaureate recommended not onl1 that thestudents read &acarius of Eg1pt and St. Augustine% -ut also Arndt% Thomas a ,empis% +orn-ec)%

and een the anon1mous +istor1 of those regenerated LIstoriia o$ro$hdenn1)hM.5= +e taughtfrom Buddeus' tet-oo)s. In 56F7 and 56F5% the students translated #oachim 2ange's &1sterium

*hristi et christianismi. 5=8 f course the most characteristic teacher of the period 4as 3edor

(olu-ins)ii% 5=G a graduate of the first class after the reform of the schools. +e 4as a t1picalrepresentatie of the epoch.

Among the representaties of the older generation 4ho studied in the pre9reform schools -ut

4ho -elonged to this “theolog1 of the heart! 4ere &etropolitan &i)hail% Archimandrite Egraf

?3ilaret's teacher@% and Inno)entii Smirno. 5== Inno)entii enters the histor1 of Russian theolog1as the composer of An utline of *hurch9Bi-lical +istor1 LNachertaniia tser)ono9-i-leis)oi

istorii% 565G95656M. The -oo) 4as hastil1 4ritten% and its author is not at fault if after his death it

4as forci-l1 retained in the schools as a tet-oo) een until the 56G7's 4hen it 4as clearl1 out of date% inadeCuate% and unsuita-le. ?The posthumous editions 4ere re4or)ed -1 Archdeacon

,ocheto@. 5=6 The +istor1% compiled from "eismann% Spanheim% Baronius and the &agde-urg

*enturies% l=< 4as er1 dr1% factual% and formal. Surmounting the scholastic routine 4as not eas1een for such a liel1 person as Inno)entii. At the St. Peters-urg Seminar1% 4here he 4as rector%

Inno)entii taught in 2atin ?after his death% his notes on actie theolog1 Ldeiatel noe -ogosloieM

-ased on his 2atin outlines 4ere pu-lished in Russian translation@.

Such a com-ination of “piet1 of the heart! and scholastic “erudition! is found among man1of this older generation. The -est eample 4as 3ilaret Amfiteatro% su-seCuentl1 the 4ell9)no4n

metropolitan of ,ie ?5==<[email protected] +e 4as a man of 4arm piet1% a large heart% and a true

spiritual life0 an upright and saintl1 man. But in his teaching he remained an uncompromising proponent of the scholastic past. +e taught% -ut not for long% in the reformed schools% first in St.

Peters-urg and then in &osco4 ?as inspector and rector@. +e al4a1s taught in 2atin. +e 4as

emphaticall1 against teaching theolog1 in Russian. +e follo4ed Irinei 3al')os)ii 565 in hislecture plan% and in his eplanation of Scripture 'he 4as guided most of all -1 the eegesis of

;itringa. 56F +is audience noted the thorough precision in his eposition% a “mathematical

precision%! and deft argumentation. But at the same time these 4ere more li)e sermons than

lectures in the strict sense% “something in the 4a1 of an announcement of good tidings.!

58F



Pas)ii soon oined the Bi-le Societ1 and 4as greatl1 enthusiastic a-out the translation. “It

4as not the language 4hich 4as important for me%! he later stated% “-ut rather the pure +ol1

Scriptures undistorted -1 commentaries. I 4ished to achiee a true eegesis of +ol1 Scripture -1language alone. A true understanding of +e-re4 leads to an understanding of theolog1.! 3or the

Bi-le Societ1 he translated the Psalter ?he 4rote his o4n classroom tet on the Psalms@ and

superised the printing of the Pentateuch. Een after the Bi-le Societ1 4as closed he continuedto translate: this 4or) constituted his students' lessons at the academ1. After Pas)ii left the

academ1% the students lithographed his translation on their o4n initiatie. It immediatel1 eno1ed

4ide circulation in the ecclesiastical school milieu. The appearance of this “secret! translationaroused fears% especiall1 among S1nodal authorities. The translation 4as suppressed% the copies

sought out and collected ?this 4as in 56F@.

There 4ere grounds for such fears and accusations. Translation of the Bi-le could not long

remain merel1 a literar1 eercise% and for Pas)ii it 4as not such an eercise. Translation isal4a1s interpretanon. The lithographed translation 4as diided into sections 4ith chapter

headings and eplanations% and 4ith introductor1 and eplanator1 notes. In doing so% Pas)ii

most closel1 follo4ed Rosenmueller. Pas)ii left the impression that he accepted messianic

prophec1 in a er1 limited 4a1 and dou-ted the authenticit1 of arious -oo)s and tets. There isno use to argue no4: those 4ere Pas)ii's actual ie4s% although he completel1 disao4ed them

under inestigation. This li-eral and critical approach to the ld Testament corresponded to hisgeneral religious outloo). Pas)ii 4as neither a philosopher nor a thin)er% -ut he had er1

definite religious9philosophical conictions. At the uniersit1 he first lectured on “the histor1 of

the deelopment of religious ideas in human societ1.! /nder Runich 566 this 4as replaced -1 theinstruction in *hurch histor1 in conformit1 4ith Inno)entii's tet-oo). Pas)ii recommended

raese)e's (lau-e% 2ie-e und +offnung 56< as a hand9-oo) for students. Su-seCuenti1% he 4rote

*hristian teaching in a -rief s1stem L,hristians)oe uchenie )rat)oi sistemeM.

Pas)ii professed a highl1 personal and undefined religious moralistic idealism. Religion isthe feeling -1 4hich man's spirit in4ardl1 em-races and is -lessed -1 the Inisi-le% Eternal% and

+ol1. The stud1 of religion is designed onl1 to a4a)en% enlien% and nourish this hol1 feeling% so

that it might strengthen% enlighten% and enflame the inner man% and gie of itself the strength%light% and life to the entire man% his complete understanding% his thoughts% desires and acts.

Thus% positie religion is simpl1 a )ind of transfer of this innate feeling into a er1 cleer

-ut inadeCuate rational element. Ritual and een dogmas are onl1 an outer shell% onl1 a “hint%!and the dogmas of reason might een suppress or dro4n this immediate “hol1 feeling.! In

Pas)ii's understanding% religion approaches moralit1. And *hrist for him 4as -arel1 more than

the Teacher. Pas)ii limited the “su-stance! of *hristianit1 -1 the direct testimon1 of Scripture.

I than) (od that the *hurch in 4hich I 4as -orn and educated does not compel me to -eliee in something 4ithout proof. It permits me to dele into the pure and hol1 "ord of (od%

and if it prescri-es a thing it al4a1s indicates the -asis for its prescription in the "ord of (od

and the common oice of the enlightened teachers of the *hurch.The *hurch em-races all confessions in so far as the1 contain the “true essence! of dogmas.

Palmer 4as er1 surprised 4hen he heard of it Pas)ii 4as er1 open in his conersation 4ith

Palmer. The priest is in no 4a1 distinguisha-le from the pastor% and thus% for eample%“succession! 4as un-ro)en among the 2utherans.

The *hristian *hurch is merel1 the shado4 of *hrist's inisi-le and uno-taina-le )ingdom.

Among the *hristian churches the one 4hich most purel1 epresses the idea of *hrist's )ingdom

is nearest to perfection. Each isi-le church must understand that it is onl1 on the 4a1 to

58



perfection complete perfection is still far distant in the inisi-le church% in the )ingdom of

heaen.!

It should also -e noted that Pas)ii spo)e 4ith considera-le heat against monasticism.“*hurch histor1 has coninced me that monasticism is unclean and contrar1 to the la4 of nature.

*onseCuentl10 it is contrar1 to the la4 of (od.! Pas)ii 4as a prominent 4or)er and one of the

“directors! in the Bi-le Societ1% 1et he 4as al4a1s hostile to 4hat he called the “croo)ed roads!of m1sticism. Peter Bartene 5<7 rightl1 noted that Pas)ii 4as “a spo)esman for a ague%

easie% ascillating piet1%! and in this respect he 4as Cuite t1pical. Pas)ii 4as completel1

suited to hu)os)ii and (eneral &erder% 5<5 at 4hose suggestion Pas)ii 4as inited to -e thereligion tutor to the Tsareich ?in 568 he 4as compelled to leae this post under pressure

primaril1 from 3ilaret% 4ho found his theological ie4s Cuite erroneous@. This 4as the sharpest

form of 4esternism not ust in theolog1 -ut in spiritual self a4areness: a ps1chological inclusion

in the (erman tradition. This 4as particularl1 true at the St. Peters-urg Academ1 4here truemonastic life neer eerted a necessar1 correctie. Pas)ii 4as an outstanding philologist% and

from the philological point of ie4 his translation 4as er1 alua-le. +e 4as a-le to cone1 the

er1 st1le and literar1 manner of the hol1 4riters and the prosodic structure of the Bi-lical

language. The translator's repertoire of Russian 4ords 4as Cuite rich and fresh. Pas)ii 4as alsoa gifted teacher% and imparted a good deal to his audience. +o4eer% he had fe4 direct disciples.

nl1 S.,. Sa-inin ?5=6<956G@% a priest 4ith the diplomatic mission in *openhagen and then in"eimar% did an1 independent 4or). B1 4a1 of preparation Sa-inin 4rote on ho4 to understand

the meaning in “The Song of Songs.! +e then 4or)ed on the “Boo) of Isaiah.! In *hristian

Reading he pu-lished a series of eegetical essa1s mostl1 dealing 4ith the “Boo) of Prophets.!After Pas)ii's translation 4as suppressed% Sa-inin turned to Scandinaian themes. +e pu-lished

a grammar of Icelandic. 3or him philological intersts 4ere uppermost% ust as the1 4ere for

Pas)ii.

In another 4a1% Inno)entii Boriso ?567795688@ also -elonged to this same “(erman!current in Russian theolog1. +e 4as a graduate of the first course at the ,iean Academ1%

inspector of the St. Peters-urg Theological Academ1% rector of the ,iean Academ1% and finall1

arch-ishop of ,herson and Taurida. In his da1% Inno)entii 4as repeatedl1 suspected and accusedof “neolog1.! An “unofficial inCuest! 4as made into his manner of thought. There 4ere some

grounds for one. Inno)entii 4as interested in philosoph1 most of all. But he 4as not a thin)er. +e

had a sharp and impressionistic mind% not a creatie one. Nor 4as he a scholar. +e 4as a-le to phrase Cuestions in an enticing 4a1% and la1 -are inCuir1 at an unepected point0 he could sei$e

his audience's or his reader's attention and transmit the ans4ers of others 4ith great ere and

enthusiasm. nl1 a -rilliant delier1 mas)ed the persistent lac) of creatie independence. But it

4as al4a1s delier1 and not erudition. As 3ilaret of &osco4 said a-out Inno)entii: he lac)s udgment% -ut he has too much imagination. In fact% Inno)entii 4as an orator% and “eloCuence! is

the )e1 to his influence and success -oth in the professor's chair and in the preacher's am-o.

In his theolog1 lectures Inno)entii 4as not independent% -ut lectured on dogmatics -1adhering to the “s1stem! of o-ma1er% 5<F as did his theolog1 teacher Archimandrite &oisei. At

the time this “s1stem! 4as used in the Austrian *atholic schools. This 4as all er1 characteristic

of this “transitional! epoch > from the Enlightenment to Romanticism% from 2essing% +erder%and ,ant to Schelling or een Baader. The fundamental and controlling concept of this “s1stem!

is the idea of the ,ingdom of (od humanisticall1 eplained as a “moral communion.! The

influence of the Enlightenment 4as u-iCuitous and *hristianit1 4as depicted as a school of

natural moralit1 and -lessedness L-la$henstoM. *hristolog1 remained pale and am-iguous. All of

588



these traits can -e found in Inno)entii. *haracteristicall1% the theme of his senior thesis 4as “n

the moral character of #esus *hrist.! Inno)entii's famous -oo) The 2ast a1s of #esus *hrist's

Earthl1 2ife LPoslednie dni $emnoi $hi$ni Iisusa ,hrista% 56=M is onl1 remar)a-le for its literar1Cualities. It 4as literature% not theolog1. Inno)entii did not eceed the -oundaries of rhetorical

and sentimental humanism. In place of theolog1 he al4a1s offered ps1cholog10 in place of

histor1 he offered rhetorics. Inno)entii neer sounded the true depths of spiritual life. +e 4aseclectic. There 4ere still man1 elements of the Enlightenment in his outloo)% 1et he 4as

po4erfull1 attracted -1 Aleandrine m1sticism. In his lectures he often d4elled on the pietist

tradition and 4ith great s1mpath1 referred to 3enelon% (u1on% #ung9Stilling% and Ec)artshausen%“4ho had done so much that 4as useful.! Inno)entii often spo)e on Schu-ert l< themes: dreams

and death. f course he spo)e a-out The Seer of Preorst. l< +e s)irted the cosmological

motifs in theolog1. “All nature is a portrait of the &ost +igh% perfect and complete.! An echo of

m1stical natural philosoph1 can -e detected in that statement.Inno)entii is still interesting to read. Naturall1% it 4ould -e more interesting to hear him.

Seeral passages in Bishop Inno)entii's lectures 4ere calculated solel1 for the effect the1 might

hae on the audience and not for their effect on paper0 he 4as a cascading fire4or)s of talent

4hich one can onl1 ie4 unsteadil1 from a distance% for% in approaching him in earnest% onereceies the unpleasant smell of smo)e rather than the pleasant impression of light pla1fulness.

?P.;. namens)ii@ 5<8 Eer1 attempt to imitate or follo4 Inno)entii seemed false. +e neither had% nor could hae had% successors% although there 4ere unsuccessful mimics. Inno)entii had a

real dramatic gift. 3ilaret of ,ie said it 4as “religious demagoguer1.! Inno)entii 4as a-le to

s4a1 een such a “hardened spirit! as Rostislao% as 4ell as religious dreamers and see)ers of speculatie reelations. Inno)entii's listeners sa4 a stern and impressie theological truth in him%

dressed in a spar)ling attire the1 neer imagined% for the1 4ere so accustomed to a scholastic

delier1. It 4as not so much the po4er of his thought -ut his “liel1 imagination! that 4as

stri)ing: “The po4er of the mind 4as released in a 4ealth of images.! Inno)entii's daring 4aslargel1 irresponsi-le speculation and superficialit1. “No matter ho4 dear it 4as to the famous

hierarch% the cast of his mind and the Cualit1 of his a-ilities did not and could not produce a ne4

epoch in theolog1. Art% the fine art of the human 4ord > that 4as his calling.! This 4as 4rittena-out Inno)entii -1 &a)arii Bulga)o l<G in a solemn o-ituar1 for the Proceedings Ltchet1M of

the Academ1 of Sciences. &a)arii added: “ne does not encounter *hristian profundit1 and

theological erudition.! Strangel1 enough% Inno)entii eaggeratedl1 praised &a)arii's dogmatictheolog1 and his -elated effort to return to the scholastic manner 4ith its oddl1 inert rational

thought and lac) of curiosit1.

"hen in the 567's the thought arose to replace 3ilaret's *atechism 4ith another more

ecclesiastical one ?that is% a more Roman *atholic one@% Inno)entii 4as the first person to cometo mind. +is old teacher% Archdeacon S)ortso% l<= put it to him this 4a1: “If 1ou are of a li)e

mind 4ith seeral of us% then 4hat 4e need is not a -road )no4ledge of philosoph1% 4e need

onl1 reealed theolog1 L-ogosloie ot)roennoeM.! In his 1ounger da1s Inno)entii had -eenreprimanded precisel1 -ecause he discussed philosophical formulas rather than positie theolog1

under the ru-ric of dogmatics. +e entranced his audience 4ith them. But he 4as onl1

emotionall1 ta)en up 4ith philosoph1 and 4as more interested in the pol1semantic ans4ers of the philosophers than he 4as agitated -1 their Cuestions. Inno)entii 4as an erudite and an orator.

+e 4as not an historian and his efforts at historical eposition 4ere al4a1s 4ea). 3or seeral

long 1ears he prepared the pu-lication of his ogmatic Essa1s Logmatiches)ii S-orni)M% as he

called it% or A &onument of the rthodo 3aith LPamiatni) er1 praoslanoiM . It 4as intended

58G



to -e precisel1 a collection of essa1s > a collection of instructions in faith presented and

eplained in chronological order. But Inno)entii did not touch upon the idea of liing Tradition

4ith all its manifold dimensions. The essa1s remained unpu-lished. Inno)entii's undou-tedserice 4as founding the ournal Sunda1 Reading L;os)resnoe *htenieM at the ,ie Theological

Academ1 in 56=. The ournal 4as more didactic than scholarl1.

As a preacher Inno)entii most closel1 resem-les &assillon. 5<6 +e 4as connected in eer14a1 4ith 4estern tradition. Patristic motifs are hardl1 detecta-le. &oreoer% he re4or)ed an

entire series of /niate acathisti under the domination of this sentimental spirit% of this pla1 of

pious imagination.In this regard% Inno)entii ma1 -e compared 4ith his ,iean contemporar1 and colleague I.

,. Amfiteatro ?567F9566@% in his da1 a er1 4ell9)no4n professor of homiletics at the

academ1. +is 2ectures on *hurch Philolog1 L*hteniia o tser)onoi sloesnostiM appeared in

56=. Amfiteatro turned from 3rench models in sermonr1 to patristic ones. Det the sentimentalstrain% practicall1 a “hol1 melanchol1%! 4as er1 strong in him. It 4as a preference for sorro4

and dreaminess ?Hthe sun shone% -ut the light 4as sorro4 to him . . .!@.

To a certain etent “4esternism! 4as inescapa-le in the dail1 routine of the reformed

ecclesiastical schools. 3oreign -oo)s and tets 4ere necessar1 for stud1. The first tas) of ateacher 4as to introduce the contemporar1 scholarl1 and pedagogical materials of the 4estern

theological schools into a Russian school idiom. "ith the gradual transition to Russianinstruction% the Cuestion of composing or translating “tet-oo)s! -ecame much more pointed

than it had -een 4hen 2atin 4as the sole language of theological instruction and learning -oth in

Russia and in the "est. The Statute of 565 encouraged teachers to compose their o4n notes or tets. uring the “return to the time of scholasticism! such actiities came under suspicion% and

control and sureillance made them difficult. In those first decades of the nineteenth centur1% the

students learned from foreign tet-oo)s in translation% in the original% or sometimes in

paraphrase. The first Russian -oo)s 4ere no more than paraphrases. 3or +ol1 Scripture&etropolitan Amrosii Podo-edo's 5<< +and-oo) for Reading +ol1 Scriptures LRu)oodsto )

chteniiu S. Pisaniia% &osco4% 5=<<M% a paraphrase of a -oo) -1 +ofmann% F77 4as used% as 4as

Ram-ach's Institutiones hermeneuticae sacrae. F75 Ioann o-ro$ra)o% F7F at one time therector of the St. Peters-urg Theological Academ1% composed his dissertation% elineation

hermeneuticae sacrae generalis ?56F6@ on the -asis of Ram-ach. It 4as also used as a “tet-oo).!

In “conceptual! theolog1% that is theoretical or dogmatic theolog1% all the -oo)s of the preiouscentur1 4ere retained. Pro)opoich 4as included% -ut most often it 4as Irinei 3al')os)ii and

onl1 rarel1 the Russian -oo)s of Platon% &a)arii Petroich% or no4 and then Ti)hon adons)ii's

n True *hristianit1. Ne4 authorities appeared in the academies: o-ma1er in ,ie0 F7 at the

&osco4 Academ1 rector Poli)arp lectured from 2i-ermann F7 and made use of the other ne4courses coming from (erman1. Some4hat later 3ilaret (umiles)ii lectured from ,lee F78 and

Brenner% F7G “and not 4ithout reference to the opinions of (erman rationalism.! At the same

time the 4or)s of the 3athers 4ere recommended% -ut in practice at the time attention 4as alinost4holl1 deoted to modern literature. Rector Poli)arp had the ha-it of producing testimon1 from

the 3athers of the Eastern *hurch% and the students in the upper classes 4ould stud1 these

etracts. In moral or “actie! theolog1% the usual tet-oo) 4as Buddeus% usuall1 as reised -13eofila)t. Sometimes Schu-ert's theolog1 4as used% translated from the 2atin -1 the ,ostroma

Archpriest I. Arsen'e F7= ?567@ or also the tet of Archdeacon I.S. ,ocheto% *haracteristics of

an actie stud1 of faith L*hert1 deiatel'nago ucheniia er1M . This 4as a Russian re4or)ing of

Inno)entii Smirno's 2atin lectures compiled according to Buddeus and &osheim. 3ilaret

58=



(umiles)ii remar)ed that “the 2atin notes of the rector 4ere translated into Russian and that

4as all there 4as to it.!

The -asic tet-oo) for pastoral theolog1 4as the useful -ut aged -oo) -1 ParfeniiSop)os)ii% -ishop of Smolens)% A -oo) on the duties of parish pres-1ters L,niga o

dol$hnostia)h presitero pri)hods)i)hM F76 4hich some preferred to the translated *atholic tet

-1 (iftschut$. F7< In liturgics either the Ne4 Ta-let LNoaia S)ri$hal'M or a -oo) -1 I.I.mitres)ii% An +istorical and &1sterious eplanation of the iine 2iturg1 LIstoriches)oe i

tainstennoe o-iasnenie Bo$hestennoi liturgii% 567M F57 4ere most often used. It 4as usual to

turn to foreign -oo)s on composition. “Besides 2atin -oo)s% the most important -oo)s for 4riting a dissertation 4ere those in (erman. Therefore% after entering the academ1% the students

deoted all their energies to learning (erman in order to read (erman -oo)s.! This is stated -1

the historian of the &osco4 Academ1% and this situation lasted nearl1 the entire nineteenth

centur1. /nder such conditions% the sharpest impact of that confessional milieu in 4hich thetheological inestigation and la-or 4ent for4ard in the "est 4as a-solutel1 inescapa-le. It 4as

noted immediatel1. 3or man1 it meant timidit1 and 4aering% sometimes een outright fear.

"ould it not -e -etter to aoid this encounter completel1% refuse contact 4ith the traditions of

4estern learning and science% and not sample the du-ious foreign sources In realit1% the constantreading of foreign -oo)s 4as not harmless. +o4eer% the chief danger 4as not that theological

thought must 4restle 4ith difficult arguments or -ecome sidetrac)ed. &uch more important 4asthe possi-ilit1 that the er1 soul 4ould -e -isected and cut off from firm moorings. Intimate

comments in letters -et4een friends or in diaries are especiall1 instructie and illustratie in this

connection. The friendl1 correspondence -et4een 3ilaret (umiles)ii and A.;. (ors)ii proidesinteresting eamples. ECuili-rium could onl1 -e restored through ascetic igil and pra1er.

The danger la1 in the artificial character of the schools% 4hich 4ere not -ound organicall1

4ith life% 4ith the actual life of the *hurch. *lerical 1ouths lied for 1ears in the artifical semi9

isolation of the half rthodo% half9Russian schools. +a-its of a-stract theori$ing 4erecultiated0 a self9st1led dream1 intellectualism deeloped. The circumstances of the Aleandrine

epoch and the -eginnings of Romanticism greatl1 facilitated it . . .

+o4eer% no matter ho4 difficult and dangerous this “4estern! stage 4as% it 4asinescapa-le. It had to -e accepted as such and as a relatie truth. 3or it is possi-le to sae oneself

from the dangers of thought onl1 -1 creatiit1% not -1 prohi-itions . . .

Church and %tate /nder Nicholas !.

The fall of the “&inistr1 of Religious Affairs! in 56F% the oerthro4 of that “Eg1ptian

1o)e%! as &etropolitan Seraphim put it% did not alter the general character of *hurch9state

relations. 3otii ainl1 hastened to announce that “in the glor1 of (od the 3ather% the 2ord #esus*hrist alone is our minister%! for a “secular man! still held po4er in the *hurch. Shish)o% een

though not a minister of a “com-ined ministr1%! continued to interfere in the affairs of S1nodal

administration on the Cuestions of the *atechism and Bi-lical translation. The process of conerting *hurch administration into a “department! 4as actuall1 speeded up under the er

ProcuratorS.. Nechae ?56956G@. F55 "ithout preliminar1 permission% 4ithout hesitating to

decide matters automaticall1% 4ithout consulting the S1nod and een altering S1nodal decisions

4hile closing off the path of retreat -1 imperial confirmation of his reports% the er Procurator concentrated all S1nodal affairs and relations in his hands. Nechae% a &ason% 4as contemptuous

of -oth the clerg1 and the hierarch1.

586



Suddenl1% as if from no4here% police reports -egan to appear against the hierarchs and

mem-ers of the +ol1 S1nod. These reports largel1 turned out to -e lies. ur chanceller1

suspected that the er Procurator assisted in these reports% in order to humiliate *hurchadministration in Russia. +ierarchs and mem-ers of the S1nod ustified themseles as -est the1

could. The S1nod 4as greatl1 agitated% 4hile the er Procurator% giing the appearance of

agitation and encouraging the dissatisfaction of the mem-ers% declared that the regime of policesureillance did more harm than good.

This is ho4 Ismailo% a contemporar1 -ureaucrat in the S1nodal *hanceller1% recounted

these eents in his “memoirs.! Een 3ilaret of &osco4 fell under suspicion. In an official reporthe 4as goaded into the incautious remar) that “the right of the police to report rumors 4ithout

the least responsi-ilit1 for false information impedes the freedom of administration and distur-s%

in 4ord and deed% the tranCuilit1 of Russian su-ects.! This 4as an outright condemnation of the

gendarme principle. uring Nicholas' reign such remar)s 4ere not forgotten% een in the case of metropolitans. nce again during the cholera of 567 3ilaret appeared dislo1al% 4hen in his

sermon he spo)e too freCuentl1 a-out the sins of )ings and a-out iine punishments. 3inall1% it

4ould seem at 3ilaret's insistence% the idea to appoint the Tsareich% the future Aleander II% to a

seat in the S1nod in conformit1 4ith his inclusion in the Senate and other higher state -odies 4asreected. "ith a surprising lac) of delicac1% 3ilaret referred to the internal autonom1 of the

*hurch. Een to catch sight of 3ilaret -ecame an unpleasantr1 for the Emperor Nicholas.3ilaret had his o4n theor1 a-out the state% a theor1 of the +ol1 ,ingdom. +e certainl1 did

not conform to the official and officious doctrine of state soereignt1. “The Soereign receies

his entire legitimac1 from the *hurch's anointment%! that is% in the *hurch and through the*hurch. And onl1 the Soereign is anointed% not the state. Therefore the organs of state po4er

possess no urisdiction in *hurch affairs. 3ilaret's cast of mind 4as utterl1 foreign to the state

-ureaucrats of the Nicholaitan era. 3or them 3ilaret 4as a dangerous li-eral. Sideline o-serers

held the same opinion. “3ilaret 4as er1 cleer in humiliating the temporal po4er0 in hissermons there 4as the light of that ague *hristian socialism 4hich -eamed from 2acordaire FlF

and other far9sighted *atholics! ?This 4as +er$en's estimate in &1 Past and Thoughts LB1loe i

[email protected] 4ith Nechae reached such a pitch that the Tsar 4as as)ed to appoint a more

4or)a-le er Procurator. The assistant to the er Procurator% A.N. &ura'e% pla1ed a decisie

part in this plan. *ount N.A. Prataso 4as appointed. +e turned out to -e een more po4erfulthan Nechae. +e had a completel1 ela-orated s1stem of reform% and he possessed the a-ilit1 to

gather shre4d and a-le eecutors of his designs. Prataso faithfull1 promoted the Nicholaitan

esta-lishment or regime in *hurch politics. State integration of *hurch administration 4as

completed precisel1 in this period. +ence9forth the *hurch 4as )no4n as the “epartment of therthodo *onfession.! The clerg1 and the hierarch1 4ere included. The office of er

Procurator 4as transformed -1 means of a “S1nodal *ommand! from an organ of state

sureillance and superision into an organ of real po4er. This 4as entirel1 in harmon1 4ith thespirit of Peter's reform. In those same' 1ears Sperans)ii 4as minting precise formulae in the

Petrine spirit.

As a *hristian soereign the Emperor is the supreme defender and guardian of the dogmasof the ruling faith and o-serer of orthodo1 LpraoerieM and all good order in the +ol1 *hurch.

In this sense% the Emperor% in the la4 of succession to the throne ?April 8% 5=<=@% is called the

+ead of the *hurch. The Autocratic po4er is implemented in *hurch administration -1 means of

58<



the &ost +ol1 (oerning S1nod 4hich it has esta-lished. ?3undamental 2a4s Lsnon1e

$a)on1M% articles F and of the 56F edition.@.

Prataso loo)ed upon *hurch affairs solel1 from the point of ie4 of state interest as “theteaching to 4hich our 3atherland has lent its moral authorit1.! +e -uilt an Empire and put a

church on it. Educated -1 a #esuit goernor% surrounded -1 assistants and adisors ta)en for the

most part from the former Polots) /niate *ollege% Prataso 4as the epitome of a self st1led and profane -ureaucratic 2atinism. The urge to4ard precise definitions 4as lin)ed to the -arrac)s9

li)e and reactionar1 spirit of that epoch. Prataso had no s1mpath1 to4ard Rome. But

Romani$ed -oo)s on theolog1 and canon la4 corresponded to his o4n personal tastes. Not onl1did he 4ish to rule the *hurch administration% Prataso 4anted to reorgani$e and reconstruct it in

harmon1 4ith the fundamental principles of an a-solute confessional state. This design

constitutes his historical significance. Prior to his appointment to the S1nod% precisel1 during the

period 4hen the “/niersit1 Statute! and the “Statute on School istricts! 4as reised in 568%Prataso 4as /aro's assistant in the &inistr1 of Education. Fl In that ministr1 a plan to

reform the ecclesiastical schools had -een prepared 4hich full1 conformed to the minister's anti9

clerical and pedagogical ie4s. "as not the er1 eistence of a special ecclesiastical school

net4or) simpl1 the manifestation of a dangerous class egoism% “an etraordinaril1 harmfulocational egoism! "as not the entire Statute of 565 antiCuated The &inistr1 sternl1

critici$ed the entire educational s1stem -ased on fear. It underscored the insufficient anddeficient tets as 4ell as the failings of the entire educational program% especiall1 the harm

philosoph1 might do 4hen applied to theolog1. "ould it not reduce to m1th that 4hich is -e1ond

human understanding Parish and district Lue$dM schools 4ere to -e com-ined and transferred tothe &inistr1 of Education.

nce more 3ilaret defended the ecclesiastical schools and the class accused of harmful

egoism. The Cuestion of transferring or eliminating the schools 4as dropped. Prataso insisted on

reforms% -ut the *ommission on Ecclesiastical Schools 4as un4illing either to epand theCuestion or contemplate reforms. It 4as satisfied to reeamine merel1 the tet-oo)s and course

plans su-mitted -1 the arious seminaries.

Prataso decided to circument the *ommission and een the S1nod. In 56<% on thestrength of his o4n Imperial Report% the *ommission 4as dissoled and replaced -1 a special

Ecclesiastical9Educational Administration. Such a step 4as logical% since the *ommission on

Ecclesiastical Schools 4as organicall1 lin)ed 4ith the preious school structure 4hich 4as no4to -e su-stantiall1 altered. iscussion centered precisel1 on the change of principles% ideals% and

goals. The principle of social deelopment and cultural gro4th placed at the foundation of all the

educational measures of the Aleandrine period seemed dangerous% disintegratie% artificial% and

useless to Prataso. +e 4anted to turn -ac) once more to the eighteenth centur1 4ith its serice professionalism. The former statute openl1 declared “learning! to -e the special aim of these

schools. This 4as eactl1 4hat Prataso did not 4ant. It 4as precisel1 this self9contained and

“dead learning! 4hich it 4as a-oe all necessar1 to eliminate% particularl1 that “disreputa-le andgodless science! philosoph1. According to Prataso's estimate% preiousl1 “in man1 respects the

education of Russia's clerical 1ouths rested on an ar-itrar1% non9rthodo foundation 4hich had

something in common 4ith arious Protestant sects.! This 4as an o-ious re-u)e of theAleandrine period. The former statute eplicitl1 proposed to “adhere directl1 to the latest

discoeries and achieements.! This meant that “non9rthodo! and “ar-itrar1! stud1. +ere

Prataso ino)ed the 4ords of *hr1sostom: “(ood ignorance is -etter than poor )no4ledge. . . .!

5G7



At an1 rate% 4hat 4as needed 4as a scientific course and instruction suita-le to the conditions of

illage life.

The students leae the seminaries to -ecome illage priests. The1 must )no4 illage lifeand -e a-le to assist the peasant een in his dail1 affairs. Thus% 4hat use is all this theolog1 to a

illage priest "h1 does he need philosoph1% that science of freethin)ing% nonsense% egoism% and

-oasting "hat are trigonometr1% differentials% and integrals to him It 4ould -e -etter tostrengthen his )no4ledge of *atechetics% *hurch statutes% and singing. That is enough. 2et the

higher sciences remain in the academies.

This 4as ho4 Archimandrite Ni)odim ,a$antse% a former teacher at the &osco4Academ1% interpreted Prataso's instructions. Ni)odim 4as at that time rector of ;iat)a Seminar1

and had -een summoned -1 the er Procurator in order to compose ne4 statutes. Fl Prataso

and his intimate assistant% ,arases)ii% F58 did all the1 could to inculcate this narro4 principle

of professionalism in Ni)odim. “Eer1 cadet among us )no4s his 4eapons and ho4 to march0 asailor )no4s the name% place and strength of eer1 last nail in the ship0 an engineer gauges eer1

conceia-le cro4-ar% hoo)% and rope. But 4e clerg1 do not )no4 our clerical -usiness.! B1

“clerical -usiness! Prataso understood not onl1 the “statute! and “singing%! -ut also the a-ilit1

to spea) “4ith the people.! It 4as this pretentious “populism! 4hich gae the proected reformits polemical character. Prataso merel1 deeloped and applied the ideas of ,isele. F5G *adres

of elementar1 teachers 4ho could teach moralit1 to the people must -e created. The clerg1 4asto -e adapted to that end.

#udging -1 the first sure1% it 4ould seem that the illage priest% haing contact 4ith people

4ho are read1 to accept in childish simplicit1 eer1thing spo)en -1 their pastor% has need not somuch of a detailed and deep )no4ledge of science% as an a-ilit1 to elucidate *hristian truths and

moralit1 of the (ospels simpl1 and clearl1% phrasing those truths of the (ospel in such a 4a1 that

the1 are suita-le for the simple minds of the illagers and relating them to the circumstances of

illage life. . . .Prataso's entire design 4as nothing other than a “4ager on simplicit1! Lsta)a na

oproshchenieM . In the “circumstances of illage life! 4ould it not -e more useful to master dail1

and practical ha-its than acCuire “a deep )no4ledge of science! "ould it not -e -etter to )no4the rudiments of medicine and firml1 understand the fundamental principles of agriculture

Should not these su-ects -e introduced and strengthened in the seminar1 programs at the

epense of “cold learning!Prataso proposed to strengthen the non9clerical class features throughout the school s1stem

and impart to all instruction “a direction consistent 4ith the needs of illage parishioners: '

Prataso defined the aim of all ecclesiastical schools as “the education of 4orth1 seritors of the

altar and preachers of the "ord of the 2ord to the people.! +is proposals 4ere decisiel1opposed in the *ommission on Ecclesiastical Schools. 3ilaret su-mitted a point -1 point

refntarion of them and as)ed ho4 much these proposals 4ere in harmon1 “4ith the spirit of

*hurch la4: ' nl1 during the summer a-sence of 3ilaret of &osco4 and 3ilaret of ,ie 4asPrataso a-le to push through the *ommission a proposal for certain alterations in the tet-oo)s

and curriculum. The teacher of literature 4as reminded that “the direct aim of his 4or) is to

educate a person 4ho can correctl1% freel1% epressiel1% and conincingl1 conerse 4ith the people a-out the truths of faith and moralit1.! Therefore% secular rhetorics% poetics% and so on

might -e passed oer Cuic)l1. “+igher criticism in histor1 instruction is to -e aoided% for as a

4eapon in the hands of a one9sided logician it threatens to destro1 historical monuments! ?that

is% their eracit1@% ust as “ar-itrar1 s1stemi$ation! 4as to -e aoided 4here nations or

5G5



personalities are depicted as -earers of “some sort of ideas fatal for them.! Some4hat

unepectedl1% a 2atin program 4as proposed for philosoph1: “Philosoph1 is accustomed to spea)

in 2atin: ' Is not this preference for 2atin more readil1 eplained -1 the fear that to carr1 on a pu-lic discussion of philosoph1 in a readil1 understood language might -e dangerous nl1 the

most general directions 4ere gien for teaching theolog1: let it -e taught “so that the priest ma1

easil1 adapt and appl1 it 4hen he finds an opportunit1 to conerse 4ith a simple person -orn a&ohammedan or a pagan% or 4ho has conerted from *hristianit1.! ne need not resole

Cuestions and dou-ts “4hich the innocent mind does not een suspect: ' Peter &ogila's rthodo

*onfession LPraoslanoe ispoedanieM 4as to -e placed at the foundation of this instruction% and“the details of theolog1 are to -e confirmed -1 reference to it.! The rthodo *onfession 4as

pu-lished in modern Russian -1 the S1nod in that same 1ear% 566. In addition% a ne4 su-ect

4as to -e introduced in the seminar1 curriculum% the histor1 of the +ol1 3athers% for 4hich it

4as still necessar1 to 4or) out and compile a tet-oo).At that time Prataso 4as most concerned 4ith the pu-lication of reference tets 4hich

could -e consulted as easil1 and unreseredl1 as if the1 4ere the teaching and inunction of the

*hurch on eer1 dimension of ecclesiastical life. In addition to Peter &ogila's *onfession the

Imperial and Patriarchal charters on the esta-lishment of the +ol1 S1nod% 4ith an eposition of the rthodo *onfession of the Eastern *hurch LTsars)aia i patriarshiia gramat1 o uchre$hdenii

Siat. Sinoda% s i$lo$heniem Praoslanago ispoedaniia Postochno9,afoliches)iia Tser)iM 4asissued. F5= The translation and editorial 4or) 4as underta)en -1 3ilaret of &osco4% 4ho

introduced er1 important corrections in the tet in an effort to eliminate 2atinisms ?e.g.% the

inunction to la1men against reading the +ol1 Scriptures and the term “transu-stantiation!LpresushchestlenieM 4ere eliminated@. F56 Su-seCuentl1 the Ecclesiastical9Educational

Administration prescri-ed that copies of these “charters! -e gien to the students at the seminar1

4hen the1 attained the highest form% “so that upon finishing the school and leaing the seminar1%

the1 might )eep this -oo) for constant reference.! The Cuestion of the *atechism 4as once moreraised -1 Prataso in connection 4ith the pu-lication of these “Boo)s of S1m-ols.! Prataso%

supported -1 Ser-inoich% F5< the director of his chanceller1% insisted on introducing ne4

Cuestions and ans4ers on Tradition and predestination and omitting those a-out natural)no4ledge of (od in isi-le nature. 3ilaret refused to include an eposition of the so9called

“commandments of the *hurch! FF7 in the *atechism% for he found them superfluous alongside

(od's *ommandments. Instead% the commandments concerning the Beatitudes 4ere included ?asthe1 had -een in the rthodo *onfession@. No su-stantial changes 4ere made in the *atechism.

The moment passed 4ithout incident. 3ilaret 4as satisfied 4ith the ne4 edition of his *atechism.

After correction% together 4ith its attendant additions% it 4as no longer merel1 a catechism% -ut a

theological “s1stem! in summation. “In as much as there is no -oo) approed for theolog1% andour theologians do not al4a1s guide the 4ord of truth correctl1% I 4as moed to supplement the

catechism.! +o4eer% Prataso and Ser-inoich 4ere soon dissatisfied. In the net fe4 1ears the

Cuestion 4as seeral times raised of composing a ne4 catechism -1 a ne4 author. In the 5687'sthe name &a)arii 4as selected. FF5

In 56<% the Boo) of 2a4s L,niga prailM 4as pu-lished to replace The Rudder L,ormchaia

)nigaM. FFF nl1 *hurch la4s 4ere included in it0 ciil legislation 4as omitted. /nli)e 4hat 4asdone for ciil legislation under Sperans)ii% Prataso found it untimel1 to pu-lish a “complete

collection! of *hurch la4s in ie4 of the “unseemliness! ?as he ustified it@ of man1 la4s of the

Petrine era and the entire preceding centur1. Their pu-lication might -e some4hat a4)4ard and

perhaps een inurious. The *omplete *ollection of ecclesiastical legislation in Russia since the

5GF



me that the grace of the Spirit has recoiled from him% and he is often 4ithout peace and

consolation in the +ol1 Spirit%! remar)ed Eseii rlins)ii ?later arch-ishop of &ogile@% FF=

4ho replaced him as rector. “In such circumstances he tortures himself and does not )no4 4hatto do 4ith himself. +e catches on some haught1 dream and then forgets it0 he is carried a4a1 or

puts on airs% and then once more -ehaes pitifull1.! The source of theological suspiciousness% not

ust caution% ma1 -e found in this inner uncertaint1% or in his lac) of firm faith. “Afanasii% 1es%Afanasii alone and no one else preaches: J&ogila's *onfession and The Rudder are all there is

for me > and there is nothing else%' “ 4rote 3ilaret (umiles)ii to A.;. (ors)ii. ne might add:

and not een the 3athers or the Bi-le. Afanasii 4anted to steer himself a4a1 4ith The Rudder from all dou-t. As (ors)ii records from these same comments of &etropolitan 3ilaret% Afanasii

“-elieed in the *hurch -oo)s een more than in the "ord of (od. Dou cannot -e saed -1 the

"ord of (od% onl1 the *hurch -oo)s can sae 1ou . . . . “ Afanasii 4as a coninced and

consistent o-scurantist% and his pessimistic o-scurantism sprang from dou-t and the lac) of faith.Eer1thing 4as in dou-t. Ni)anor of ,herson FF6 s1mpatheticall1 and 4ith commiseration

depicted Afanasii's sinister and tragic image. Afanasii 4as neither ignorant nor indifferent. +e

4as a passionatel1 inCuisitie and curious man. “A sharp mind a-le to plunge to the depths of

matters%! said Ni)anor. But it 4as a proud and spiteful mind. Afanasii did not read Russian -oo)seen in the later 1ears of literar1 a4a)ening. “A-solute ru--ish% m1 dear -o1.! +e read onl1

foreign -oo)s% -oth old and modern. +e 4as interested most of all in the Bi-le% and he 4as anecellent +e-raist. +e 4as interested in the histor1 of ancient religions% the epoch of earl1

*hristianit1% and he reread all the 3athers to Photius. FF< +e )ne4 contemporar1 “(erman

*hristolog1! from Bauer to Strauss% F7 the natural sciences% and not ust from -oo)s. +e )ept aher-arium and collected minerals. 3rom such a surfeit of )no4ledge and interests he 4ea)ened

and fell to dou-ting. +e -ecame frightened and dou-ted himself. As an older man he 4rote

oluminousl1% “he 4rote enormous% thorough% and su-stantial inestigations% 4hich 4ere of

s1stematic importance.! But he -urned eer1thing. “+e 4rote and -urned.! Det something 4assaed from this destruction. The manuscript of the -oo) The Belieers in *hrist and *hristians

L,hristoer1 i ,hristianaM% on 4hich Afanasii la-ored in his later 1ears 4as presered. The -oo)

is a-out the origins of *hristianit1. The chapter headings are er1 curious. The author distinguishes “the -elieers in *hrist! from “*hristianit1 4ithout *hrist! and -efore #esus

*hrist. +e studied the histor1% teachings% and tradition of this *hristianit1. +e sought among the

apologists for “organic remains! of it ?Hnot that *hristianit1 4hich ta)es its -eginnings from#esus *hrist% -ut a different one 4hich preceded it!@. The Essenes% Therapeutae% and Philo are the

lin)s in the chain of facts he studied. F5 “The effort -1 4riters among the -elieers in *hrist to

efface from the historical monuments all the eidence a-out *hristians long in adance of the

*hristian faith! did not completel1 succeed. The “(ospel of &arcion! FF occupied a prominent place in this process of transformation of *hristianit1 into a “*atholic *hristian -elief.!

In Ni)anor's account% Afanasii 4as “su-ect to the most oppressie inner grief% and

su-ected -1 a sic) mind% -ut not as one 4ho is the product of simple insanit1% rather his sic)nessflo4ed from a surplus of )no4ledge% from the impossi-ilit1 of reconciling intellectual

antinomies% from a temporar1 and passing tur-ulence% from the principles im-i-ed 4ith his

mother's mil) 4hich -egan to gro4 in his soul.! This is that sinister “tur-ulence! of heartfelt -eliefs0 it is the grief of a heart 4hich dou-ts eer1thing% and Afanasii's reactionar1 aniet1 gre4

in this Cua)ing soil. “That man 4ill -urn people on a -onfire% he 4ill hand oer hol1 essels for

desecration% 1et he 4ill remain half coninced that he does so for the -enefit of man)ind%! 4rote

3ilaret (umiles)ii% condemning Afanasii's policies. The cooperation -et4een Afanasii and

5G



Prataso > that union of profound dou-t and po4erful presumption > could not last long.

These t4o men agreed onl1 on practical conclusions% not on premises. "ithin fie 1ears0

Afanasii 4as sent to distant Sarato as -ishop.Afanasii -egan his career of reaction at the St. Peters-urg Academ1 4hen he for-ade

,arpo F to lecture from his o4n notes% and compelled him to lecture strictl1 according to

"in)ler. F True% ,arpo -egan to lecture “criticall1! according to "in)ler% that is% unsparingl1refuting him and then turning 4ith a passion to the histor1 of philosoph1. uring the first 1ear of

his administration at the academ1% Afanasii presented his o4n tet-oo)% A concise hermeneutic

LSo)rashchenaia germeneti)aM% to the +ol1 S1nod through the Academic *onference. In it% heset forth his theological principles. 3ilaret of ,ie a-solutel1 refused either to discuss or reie4

the -oo). Therefore 3ilaret of &osco4 4as as)ed to comment on it. 3ilaret gae a sharp and

detailed repl1. Afanasii 4as humiliated and upset -1 3ilaret's response and 4ished to -ring him

to udgment -efore the Eastern Patriarchs. 3ilaret 4as profoundl1 4orried and distur-ed -1 theattempt to eleate Tradition so high that it 4ould cast a shado4 on Scripture% as though Scripture

“does not sere as a model for general education! and does not contain “all of the dogmas.!

Afanasii 4as too cleer in tr1ing to sho4 the insufficienc1% incomprehensi-ilit1%

contradictoriness% or am-iguities% and een intentional agueness of Scriptural tets. “The +ol1Spirit spo)e +ol1 Scripture in order to illuminate% not o-scure%! 3ilaret o-ected. Afanasii

considered the disagreements and different readings to -e irreconcila-le and hopeless. 3ilaretreplied:

If the udgment of the +ermeneutic under eamination 4ere to -e accepted% 4e 4ould )no4

for certain 4hich 4ord is the "ord of (od and 4hich 4ord is the 4ord of man -oth in the ldand the Ne4 Testaments. It is terri-le een to contemplate such a thing. Praise (od that the ie4

of this hermeneutic is false.

"ould attac)ing the relia-ilit1 of Scripture -e “sufficientl1 cautious! "ould it not also put

the relia-ilit1 of Tradition under attac) “The o-ligation of fidelit1 -efore (od and +is +ol1"ord and +is +ol1 *hurch compels one to testif1 here that a udgment of +ol1 Scripture -ased

on ecessie attention to incidental defects in it% 4ithout at the same time an1 indication of its

true perfection% is not onl1 inconsistent 4ith diinel1 inspired Scripture% -ut it is also dangerousfor rthodo1....

Not onl1 3ilaret responded so sharpl1 and 4ith such agitation. In 568% Archpriest ;. B.

Ba$hano% F8 the Tsar's confessor% in his capacit1 as mem-er of the Academic *onference%happened to read the student eaminations. In one of them > the eamination of Tarasii

Seredins)ii FG > he encountered something% 4hich perpleed him. Seredins)ii placed the

(ospels and the 4ritings of the 3athers under the single ru-ric% the "ord of (od% 4ith the

distinction that the (ospels 4ere called the 4ritten "ord of (od% 4hile the 4or)s of important*hurch 4riters 4ere the "ord of (od transmitted orall1. Such modernism runs completel1

counter to the teachings of the rthodo *hurch and touches on one of its important points.

Ba$hano considered it his o-ligation to direct the *onference's attention to 4here the studentSeredins)ii might o-tain such an incorrect understanding of the "ord of (od. "as the error his

o4n or the fruit of outside prompting Immediatel1 Ba$hano 4as compelled to leae the

mem-ership of the *onference. Partisans of the “return to the time of scholasticism! attemptedto remoe the Bi-le een further than from this secondar1 position. The1 spo)e persistentl1

a-out completel1 for-idding la1men to read the "ord of (od in order to aoid false

commentaries. “The thought of for-idding simple *hristians to read the +ol1 Scriptures terrifies

me%! 4rote the arch-ishop of Ter% (rigorii Postni)o% to 3ilaret of &osco4. “I cannot conceie

5G8



from 4here such an opinion could come. Is it not a contriance of 2atinism's secret agents r is

it an opinion -red -1 the increased freethin)ing of our age% so that later 4e might -e laughed at

as earlier 4ere the clerg1 of the "estern *hurch! The Cuestion 4as raised a-out pu-lishing theSlaonic tet of the Bi-le on the model of the ;ulgate ?Heclusiel1 self9sufficient!@ and

sanctioning it for reCuired and eclusie use in cathedral% school% and home.

It is easil1 imagined ho4 untimel1 and misplaced &a)arii (lu)hare's repeated andindiscreet efforts to attract s1mpath1 for a ne4 Russian translation ?and one from the +e-re4 at

that@ must hae appeared at that moment. Such reminders onl1 increased suspicion and o-durac1.

The circulation of Professor (. P. Pas)ii's Bi-lical translation% lithographed -1 the students atthe St. Peters-urg Theological Academ1% aroused een greater ecitement. The Pas)ii affair

-egan 4ith an anon1mous letter sent to the three metropolitans from the cit1 of ;ladimir. As 4as

soon discoered% this letter 4as composed and sent -1 +ieromon) Agafangel Solo'e% the

inspector of the &osco4 Academ1. F= Agafangel 4as certainl1 not an opponent of RussianBi-lical translation. +e 4as -us1 4ith translations of his o4n% and su-seCuentl1 he pu-lished

Russian translations of the Boo) of #o- and the Boo) of #esus son of Sirach ?56G7 and 56G5@.

+ence he 4as alarmed -1 the surreptitious circulation of a translation sanctioned -1 the authorit1

of a scholarl1 name% -ut 4hich 4as inaccurate from the doctrinal and theological points of ie4.“And 4hen the authorit1 of his scholarship and the glor1 of his great )no4ledge threaten

translation -1 4ide circulation% then there is no propriet1 in silence and no salation intoleration.!

The author of the letter% produced samples of false commentar1 on the Prophets and noted

an un4arranted -ut hardl1 unintentional coarseness in the translation. +e sharpl1 critici$ed thetranslation as a 4hole: “This is the 4or) of a ne4 &arcion% it is not the 4ords of the liing and

true (od% -ut the ile speech of the ancient serpent.! +o4eer% the author concluded that a -etter

translation 4as needed. There is no need to confiscate copies of the Russian translation. Such a

measure might onl1 arm a *hristian against the authorit1 of the *hurch. The circulation of thistranslation is not prompted -1 readers desiring to share the ie4s of the translator% -ut -1 a

commonl1 felt need for a translation . . .The *hristian cannot -e satisfied 4ith an o-scure and

unrelia-le Slaonic translation 4hich in man1 places conceals the truth from him. Since he hasno other translation% he must from necessit1 go to mudd1 4aters in order to Cuench his thirst.

People 4ho receie a secular education hae not read the Slaonic translation for a long time%

-ut turn to foreign translations. . . .The letter 4as circulated at the end of 565. The author naiel1 did not consider 4ho 4ould

inestigate the matter and discuss his report and adice. "ith innocent carelessness he proo)ed

the po4er of the opulent partisans of the “return to the time of scholasticism.! +e insisted on the

pu-lication of a Russian Bi-le. “Is it ust that it is impossi-le to escape the chiding of superstitious people and those 4ho stu--ornl1 remain in the depths of ignorance But in 4hat

4a1 are those souls at fault 4ho0 see)ing truth% are refused food for fear of distur-ing the peace

of superstition and ignorance! Strangel1% the author completel1 forgot that the metropolitan of St. Peters-urg% the er Procurator of the +ol1 S1nod% and man1 others on the commanding

heights of the S1nod stood among the ran)s of “those 4ho stu--ornl1 remain in the depths of

ignorance.!3ilaret of &osco4 tried to preent the report's circulation% -ut he 4as too late. 3ilaret of

,ie% upset -1 the erratic translation% had alread1 put his cop1 of the anon1mous letter in

Prataso's hands. At a preliminar1 hearing in the S1nod% 3ilaret of &osco4 epressed his

decided coniction that a Russian translation of the Bi-le should -e pu-licl1 resumed and issued

5GG



preferred to disao4 eer1thing. 3or Pas)ii the matter ended 4ith a pastoral reprimand% his

recantation% and enforced retirement.

&uch more important 4as the uproar caused -1 the 4ide circulation of the lithographedtranslation. The translation 4as confiscated and those 4ho possessed copies 4ere sternl1

interrogated. ;er1 fe4 had the courage to openl1 refuse the return of their copies. Among that

er1 small num-er 4as Professor &.I. Bogoslos)ii F< 4ho taught at the /chilishchaPraoedeniia F7 and 4ho su-seCuentl1 pu-lished his Sacred +istor1 ?Siashchennaia istoriiaM

in t4o olumes. In his official statement he eplained that the cop1 of the translation 4as his

propert1% and that he 4as “reCuired to read the "ord of (od.! thers declared that the1misplaced or een destro1ed their copies. The net result of this inCuest 4as the intimidation of

the faculties in the *hurch schools% seminaries% and academies% and further disposed them to

silence. Some4hat later hu)os)ii 4rote to his confessor% Archpriest Ba$aro% in "eimar% that:

“In (erman1 self9eegesis produced a loss of faith. 3or us a dead faith proceeding from non9eegesis is nearl1 identical 4ith loss of faith. A dead faith is 4orse than the' loss of faith. 2ost

faith is a raging% liing enem1. It fights% -ut coniction can oercome and conCuer it. ead faith

is a corpse. "hat can -e done 4ith a corpse! Immediatel1 after the Pas)ii inestigation% -oth

3ilarets left St. Peters-urg and the S1nod under such circumstances that the1 4ould not returnagain% although the1 retained their titles as mem-ers of the S1nod. A.N. &ura'e left the serice

of the S1nod at the same time. In the net fe4 1ears the mem-ership 4as selected primaril1 fromamong the $ealots of the “return to the time of scholasticism.! uring the shipment to &osco4

of 3ilaret's trun)s ?H4hose loc)s had -een mutilated!@% a “search had -een made in order to

discoer if some heres1 4as not concealed in those chests%! as 3ilaret said a-out the affair. In St.Peters-urg during those 1ears% “the1 thirsted for slander! against 3ilaret. +e left for &osco4 in

great aniet1 a-out the conseCuences for the *hurch.

3ilaret (umiles)ii% in his letters to (ors)ii at the time% er1 openl1 and clearl1 descri-es

the tense situation in St. Peters-urg. nl1 ust promoted from among the rectors of the &osco4Academ1 and consecrated -ishop of Riga% 3ilaret 4as compelled to remain seeral months in St.

Peters-urg at the end of 565 until he could trael to Riga. +e 4as in St. Peters-urg throughout

all the de-ates in the Pas)ii affair. +e 4as a-le to follo4 matters on each side% -oth through hismetropolitan ?4hom he sincerel1 respected and resem-led in seeral respects@% and through the

“shaed schismatics%! as he cleerl1 du--ed the courtiers and -ureaucrats under the er

Procurator's superision. Prataso and Ser-inoich sought to use him for their ends% although% ashe ironicall1 put it% “the1 had long ago put him in the lists of intracta-le 2utherans.! 3ilaret's

general impression 4as gloom1: “a difficult time > a time 4hich compels one to 4atch

igilantl1 each step.! "ere these not shado4s ram-ling and s4irling around +e spo)e directl1

and openl1 a-out persecution. “Toda1 the1 see) out our sins% so that the1 might dra4administratie matters into their o4n hands -ecause of them and ma)e the *hurch into an arena

for their egotistical careers.! The *hurch -esieged0 such 4as 3ilaret's impression.

n the surface it seems as if the1 are fussing oer matters of faith and rthodo10 -ut thiscould seem true onl1 for a person unacCuainted 4ith or foreign to the 4ords rthodo1 and

faith. In the language of their hearts it all means: our concern is politics% all other concerns are

marginal . . . . +o4 strange to lie among such people. Dou are afraid and alarmed for 1our soul%lest the storms of intrigue -lo4 it into the deadl1 a-1ss of 4orldl1 anit1. Toda1% tomorro4% at

this moment% in the net hour% 1ou ponder ho4 to udge and een condemn intriguers 4ho 4ould

echange faith and sanctit1 for some ri--oned decoration or often merel1 a smile from higher

ups.

5G6



At the end of 56F% in his Noem-er 5th report to the throne% Prataso summari$ed the

results of the ne4l1 4on -attle% and outlined a program for further s)irmishes. Prataso -luntl1

charged the entire *hurch school s1stem 4ith errors and heres10 more precisel1% 4ithProtestantism. If up to this point schoolroom Protestantism had produced no irremedia-le

misfortune% it 4as onl1 -ecause the graduates of these schools% 4hile sering at the altar% in their

parishes% in the rituals and under the la4s of the *hurch > in the er1 life of the *hurch > encountered principles and an understanding utterl1 different from that of the schools. /nder the

influence of life% the1 a-andoned such harmful ideas.

The author of the report traced the histor1 of this heres1 in the schools -ac) to 3eofanPro)opoich. +e d4elled 4ith particular detail on the eents of the recent past 4hen the Bi-le

societies 4ere actie and had distri-uted -oo)s on theosoph1 and m1sticism along 4ith the

Bi-le. No4% ho4eer% decisie measures had -een ta)en against foreign interference% “so that the

garden of religious )no4ledge 4ill al4a1s -e illumined -1 the -eneficient light of Apostolic and*atholic teaching 4hich saes the rthodo East% along 4ith our 3atherland% from all the deadl1

errors of the "est.! There 4as much that 4as true in this critiCue. nl1 the conclusion 4as false.

3or it 4as impossi-le to oercome 4estern errors -1 simple supression. The Report Lapis)aM

4as most li)el1 once again composed for Prataso -1 Afanasii. In an1 case% Afanasii 4as of li)emind. “"hile rector of the St. Peters-urg Academ1%! 3ilaret of &osco4 said% “Bishop Afanasii

maintained that all Russian theologians -efore him 4ere not rthodo.!In )eeping 4ith Prataso's design% a hast1 edition of a ne4 theological “s1stem! 4as

produced for immediate use as a “tet-oo)! at the er1 least. At one time “the1 een demanded

in the Emperor' s name! that 3ilaret of &osco4 compile the tet-oo). +e did not do so -ecauseof poor health. Prataso then proposed that 3ilaret (umiles)ii should ta)e up the tas). 3ilaret

found this suggestion “flattering0 to one's ego% -ut not er1 flattering to the intelligence of

an1one a4are of the actual state of affairs.! +e declined. nl1 much later% in 56G did 3ilaret

full1 re4or) and pu-lish his course in dogmatic theolog1.&a)arii Bulga)o ?565G9566F@% then a 1oung hieromon) and -accalaureate at the ,ie

Academ1 4as more compliant. +e 4as summoned to St. Peters-urg in 56F to teach theolog1%

replacing Afanasii 4ho declined to teach it and preferred to concentrate on teaching others.&a)arii had not preiousl1 studied theolog1% and he felt more affinit1 for% and interest in%

historical themes. +e 4rote his school thesis on the histor1 of the ,ie Academ1% and in doing so

he must hae een -ecome acCuainted 4ith old course and conspectus manuscripts on theolog1from the time of *atholic influence. &ost li)el1 this 4as the source of his o4n personal

s1mpath1 for Roman *atholic hand-oo)s and s1stems. At the academ1 &a)arii listened to the

lectures on dogmatics gien -1 imitrii &ureto ?567G9 566@% F5 t4ice su-seCuentl1

arch-ishop of ,herson and Taurida. But he did not learn scholastic 4a1s from imitrii. "e can udge imitrii's theolog1 lectures -1 onl1 a fe4 fragments recorded in student memoirs. imitrii

attracted% and irresisti-l1 attracted% the trul1 mee) and hum-le heart. But this “feeling of the

heart! neer descended to a rhetorical or stic)1 sentimentalism. +is feeling of the heart residedin the spiritual element and soul. In his lectures he tried to lin) theological pro-lematics 4ith

their spiritual sources and religious% eperience. ne al4a1s detects the constant curiosit1 of his

searching mind. imitrii's outloo) must no4 -e reconstructed from his sermons. +e loed todelier sermons% especiall1 ones on dogmatic themes. +e spo)e er1 simpl1% 1et he 4as a-le to

epress religious conceptions precisel1 in simple% almost naie% 4ords and reeal an in4ard

perspectie een in prosaic details ?for eample% read his sermon on time and eternit1 gien Ne4

Dear's a1@. B1 his dogmatic inCuisitieness% the po4er and ehaustieness of his reasoning% his

5G<



gift of plastic definition% imitrii reminds one most of all of 3ilaret of &osco4. &oreoer%

imitrii had a charming simplicit1 and 4onderful humilit1. ,homia)o highl1 alued imitrii

4hom he )ne4 personall1 4hen imitrii 4as -ishop of Tula.In a real sense imitrii should -e included in the Aleandrine current in Russian *hurch

life. +e 4as educated in those -oo)s and under those impressions. +e shared a common taste or

een passion for philosoph1 4ith Inno)entii. Een as a theologian imitrii remained a philosopher. +e -egan 4ith the data of Reelation and the testimon1 of the "ord of (od% -ut

immediatel1 proceeded to a speculatie discoer1 of the meaning and po4er of dogma. +e 4as

not an historian% although he supported the historical method in the eposition of dogma. +e 4asneer a 4esterner > his creatie independent mind and his m1stical realism saed him from

that.

imitrii had no direct influence on &a)arii% for 4hom philosophical inestigation of dogma

held no interest. &a)arii states that immediatel1 after he arried in St. Peters-urg% Afanasiisu-ected his )no4ledge of theolog1 to a strict eamination% “especiall1 4here it touched on

points of rthodo1.! +e had to -egin his lectures 4ithout an1 preparation t4o 4ee)s after he

arried. And if that 4as not enough% he had to 4rite them Cuic)l1 “in order to turn them oer to

the printer! for pu-lication. -iousl1 &a)arii lectured according to Afanasii's program.Temporaril1% 4hile there 4as still no tet-oo)% it 4as proposed that an assortment of etracts -e

used from the 4ritings of St. imitrii of Rosto% arranged “-1 su-ect.! FF A section entitled“n +ol1 3aith and the *hurch in general! 4as placed at the -eginning. Afanasii 4as full1

satisfied 4ith these etracts. As &etropolitan 3ilaret o-sered% Afanasii found “that theolog1

need not -e taught s1stematicall1% for it 4as sufficient to read the +ol1 Scriptures and the +ol13athers.! In 56 Prataso sent 3ilaret of &osco4 the ne4l1 composed “sure1s! L)onspe)t1M

on dogmatics at the St. Peters-urg Academ1 for his eamination and opinions. 3ilaret completel1

opposed the ne4 arrangement of the arious sections. +e insisted that the -est and most

promising arrangement 4as proided or indicated -1 the S1m-ol of 3aith. F ?HThe EcumenicalS1m-ol of 3aith is nothing other than a -rief s1stem of theolog1.!@ 3ilaret also emphasi$ed that

“it is the s1stem of the ecumenical 3athers! and not a later su-tlet1 of the 4estern school. “This

is the s1stem of Apostolic Tradition.! “The arrangement of the S1m-ol is presered een in therthodo *onfession.! It is hardl1 possi-le to epound 4ith complete coniction the teaching

a-out *hrist's *hurch -efore the doctrine of *hrist as (od is inestigated. If it is either

promising or prudent to put for4ard so 4illfull1 the “mind of the Russian rthodo *hurch%!then must not some room for the “mind of the Roman *atholic *hurch! also -e admitted 3ilaret

noted specific 2atini$ing innoations in the sure1s sent to him ?for eample% the distinction

-et4een “form! and “matter! in the sacraments and other similar items@.

In 56< A ogmatic Theolog1 Logmatiches)oe -ogosloieM 4as pu-lished -1 AntoniiAmfiteatro ?5658956=<@% then archimandrite and rector of the ,ie Acadern1 and later

arch-ishop of ,a$an'. This 4as a -oo) in the old st1le. Antonii aoided philosoph1 and

reasoning. +e 4ould hae preferred to aoid eer1 “free 4ord.! +e 4ished to retain 4ordsalread1 used in Scripture and eactl1 defined -1 the *hurch. +ere one detects the direct

influence of 3ilaret of ,ie% “under 4hose guidance! and at 4hose desire this “ogmatic! 4as

composed. Antonii 4as 3ilaret's relatie.Antonii 4as certainl1 neer a scholar. The appointment of a man of his temperament as

rector at the academ1 after imitrii and Inno)entii 4as significant. Det Antonii 4as not a

scholastic either: +e 4as more a preacher and a moral preceptor than a schoolman. +e tried to

arouse and strengthen faith in the minds and hearts of his audience -1 summoning them to

5=7



spiritual contemplation and moral introspection. Antonii did not approe of &a)arii's dogmatic

theolog1 4hen it 4as pu-lished: “it 4as composed on the 2utheran modelQ! Antonii 4as

a4arded a doctor's degree for his tet-oo). Prataso 4rote to him enthusiasticall1% “1ou haedone us a great serice. Dou hae remoed from us the stigma that until no4 Russia has neer

had a s1stem of theolog1.!

&ean4hile &a)arii continued to lecture in St. Peters-urg and pu-lish his lectures chapter -1 chapter in *hristian Reading. In 56= his Introduction appeared as a separate -oo) and in the

follo4ing 1ears he pu-lished the “s1stem! in fie olumes ?56<9568@. &a)arii's “(reat

ogmatic! 4as su-seCuentl1 repu-lished man1 times. It 4as Cuic)l1 translated into 3rench andremained in use from that time on4ard. Impressions a-out the -oo) are diided and 4ere diided

from the er1 outset. "ithout an1 dou-t &a)arii's dogmatic theolog1 4as significant% especiall1

in historical perspectie. f course in gathering his material &a)arii 4as not completel1

original% nor did he hae to -e independent. +e could find a s1mphon1 of Bi-lical tets and acode of all the patristic citations he needed among 4estern authors% particularl1 among the old

2atin erudites. There 4as no need to research it all again. The important point is that for the first

time such rich and strictl1 researched material 4as epounded in a commonl1 understood

Russian st1le. 3rom this standpoint Inno)entii of ,herson's F enthusiastic appraisal for theAcadem1 of Sciences of &a)arii's ne4l1 pu-lished dogmatic theolog1 is full1 ustifia-le and

understanda-le. The -oo) “introduced theolog1 into the realm of Russian literature.! nl1 one point in this appraisal is incomprehensi-le: ho4 could Inno)entii declare &a)arii's -oo) “an

independent and original 4or)! +e could not een appear to -e independent and original. +e

consciousl1 4ent no further than a simple compilation of tets. Actuall1 he did not suspect that it4as necessar1 to forge the tets and eidence into liing dogmatic conceptions% into a spiritual

life. In this respect% &a)arii did not een resem-le Afanasii. Afanasii )ne4 that there are

Cuestions for theological searching. +e 4as alie to their realit1% -ut he 4as afraid to as) such

Cuestions either for himself or for others. This is the source of Afanasii's traged1 and failure inlife. But in no 4a1 4as &a)arii tragic. +e remained indifferent to theological pro-lematics. +e

4as simpl1 unreceptie. In his personal tastes &a)arii 4as a “secular! man% complete1 immune

to the “spiritual life.! In the 567's and 5687's he strengthened the Prataso regime0 in the 56=7'she 4as a leader of the li-eral reforms ?see his famous proposal to reform the church courts in the

*ommission of 56=@. F8 There 4as something -ureaucratic in his 4riting st1le and eposition.

+is dogmatic theolog1 lac)ed precisel1 a “sense of the *hurch.! +e dealt 4ith tets% not 4itheidence or truths. +ence he had such a lifeless and uninspired st1le 4hich carried no coniction.

There are onl1 ans4ers 4ithout Cuestions% -ut the1 cannot ans4er 4hat the1 are not as)ed. Some

might see this as a irtue. In his memorial address% &a)arii's disciple Ni)anor of ,herson ?56F9

56<7@ FG spo)e accuratel1 on this score. Een St. #ohn of amascus and Peter &ogila had personal ie4s and moties. Both 3ilaret and Inno)entii made ingenious and unrepeata-le

flights. But not &a)arii. +is 4as a straight clear path% “a -alanced la-or.! In other 4ords%

&a)arii had no personal ie4s. +e 4as more o-ectie than others% for he had no opinions of hiso4n. +is 4as an o-ectiit1 from indifference. &an1 4ere irritated -1 the inner indifference and

soullessness in &a)arii's -oo)s from the da1 the1 appeared. ,homia)o found &a)arii's

Introduction “admira-l1 stupid.! 3ilaret (umiles)ii reacted the same 4a1: “A nonsensicalmorass%! “there is neither logical order nor force in the arguments.! ne might repeat a-out

&a)arii's theological -oo)s 4hat (iliaro9Platono F= 4rote a-out &a)arii's +istor1: F6 “a

4or)man9li)e construction 4ith the trappings of scholarl1 apparatus . . . . “ (iliaro9Platono

4as emphatic. &a)arii's +istor1 has all “the appearance of a histor1 -oo)% -ut it is not a histor1%

5=5



onl1 a -oo).! Similarl1 &a)arii's ogmatic Theolog1 possesses all the appearances of a -oo) of

theolog1% -ut it is onl1 a -oo). “Not a histor1 and not een a -oo)% -ut merel1 a construction!

?(iliaro9Platono@.&a)arii studied in ,ie 4hen theological and philosophical pathos 4as po4erfull1 alie at

the academ1. Det it passed him -1 4ithout a trace. Nor can one detect in &a)arii the “Pechers)ii

piet1! so apparent in 3ilaret of ,ie and Antonii Amfiteatro. &a)arii most clearl1 approimatedthe st1le of the Prataso era% -ecause he 4as a -ureaucratic theologian. +is ogmatic Theolog1

is a t1pical product of the Nicholaitan epoch. Besides the “great! dogmatic% &a)arii also

composed a “small! one for use in the schools. As he later said% this -oo) “4as )ept out of sight -1 the late sage of &osco4%! that is% -1 &etropolitan 3ilaret. nl1 after 3ilaret's death could this

hand-oo) -e printed and introduced into the schools as a “tet-oo).! 3ilaret had silentl1

condemned &a)arii. &a)arii's contemporar1 and successor as rector at the St. Peters-urg

Academ1% Ioann So)olo% F< reie4ed &a)arii's -oo) much more criticall1. “The scholarl1 -oo)s of the author% a-out 4hich 4e are spea)ing% 4ith their thousands of citations contri-ute

li)e nothing else in these critical times to the final stupefaction and stagnation of the religious

-eggars in our schools% precisel1 -ecause the1 aid the omission of an1 4orth4hile thought% fresh

insight% sense of eidence% and in4ard drie.! &a)arii's -oo) 4as outdated the da1 it first sa4the light% and it remained unneeded and 4ithout a role to pla1 in Russian theological

consciousness% It could not satisf1 those deoted to a spiritual life and raised in ascetic a4arenessor traditions. &a)arii's theolog1 4as ust as discordant 4ith the Philo)alia as it 4as 4ith

philosoph1. Een &a)arii's student and assistant at the St. Peters-urg Academ1% Ni)anor

Bro)oich% F87 could not lecture in the same st1le% and therefore 4as Cuic)l1 remoed from anacadem1 position and -ecame rector of the seminar1 at Riga. &a)arii adised him to -urn his

lecture notes and outlines. Ni)anor seemed dangerous for he 4as too greatl1 attracted -1

philosoph1 and in one section of his course he epounded in great detail “the proofs of (od's

eistence.! This permitted him to present openl1 and minutel1 the modern “critical! theories% particularl1 those of ,ant% although he aimed to attac) and refute them. It seems that in his

lectures Ni)anor touched er1 daringl1 on the most “tic)lish Cuestions%! tore apart Strauss%

Bruno Bauer% and 3euer-ach. F85 +o4eer ?and this 4as confirmed -1 Ni)anor@% &a)arii hadheard onl1 of ,ant. Ni)anor's teaching st1le 4as er1 s1mptomatic. Temperamentall1 he 4as

closer to Afanasii than to &a)arii. +e had a sarcastic and -ilious character% 4hich tortured him

and others. All contradictions% he 4as a t1pical representatie of a transitional epoch. Ni)anor'sdesigns 4ere al4a1s conseratie. In St. Peters-urg in those 1ears% 4hen it 4as customar1 “to -e

frightened of 3ilaret%! he disli)ed and feared 3ilaret of &osco4. Ni)anor regarded Prataso as a

-enefactor to theological a4a)ening and scholarship. It appears that he gae “a needed shoe to

theological construction! in the academies and saed theolog1 from a meddlesome censorship. Neertheless% Ni)anor's theological ie4s 4ere er1 close to those of 3ilaret.

Ni)anor 4as a man of philosophical temperament. 3or man1 1ears he la-ored on this three

olume s1stem of philosoph1% Positie Theolog1 and Supernatural Reelation LPolo$hitel naiafilosofiia i ser)hestestennoe ot)roenie% St. Peters-urgM. +is s1stem did not succeed% for it is

onl1 an eclectic compilation in the spirit of the most diffuse “Platonism.! But one detects a

genuine intellectual inCuisitieness. It 4as no accident that Ni)anor 4as preoccupied 4ithapologetics ?and 4ith arguments against the positiists@% for he reCuired a speculatie and critical

“ustification of faith: ' Ni)anor had to pass through a difficult trial of dou-t% through the

dar)ness of 4aering faith. &an1 things appeared differentl1 in the udgment of “science! than

from the standpoint of rigorist rthodo1. In the e1es of a person of such Cuestions and

5=F



4ea)nesses% the mori-und -oo)ishness of &a)arii's dogmatics seemed needless and useless.

Beneath a superficial similarit1 of formal method it is eas1 to discoer deep differences -et4een

Ni)anor and &a)arii. The most scholastic of all Ni)anor's -oo)s is his Sure1 of Roman*atholic teaching on the actual supremac1 in the *hurch LRa$-or rims)ago ucheniia o idimon

glaenste tser)iM. F8F It is an anal1sis of tets from the Ne4 Testament% patristic 4ritings%

and 4ritings of historians of the first three centuries and is diided into sections% su-sections% paragraphs% and indiidual points. Det throughout the -oo) the author's presence can -e seen and

felt shaping and pondering the arguments and citations. The reader's thoughts are caught up in

the same ital process of proofs. Ni)anor's eposition neer descends to a mere recitation or -ecomes a lifeless “chain.! f course this 4as a Cuestion of scholarl1 temperament. Ni)anor's

mind 4as sharp and decisie. Both his theolog1 and his sermons 4ere er1 daring. In this

connection the series of sermons on the +ol1 *oenant ?gien at the end of the 56=7's@ is er1

interesting% and in them Ni)anor is er1 much reminiscent of 3ilaret. The original *oenant 4asconcluded from eternit1 in the -osom of the Tri9h1postatic (odhead and not 4ithout -loodshed

?see +e-re4s% *hapters IO and O@. The -lood of the eternal *oenant flo4ed from eternit1% the

cup of limitless anger 4as Cuaffed% the er1 cr1 of the *ross echoed in eternit1. Eer1thing 4as

completed “for the eternal (od 4as accomplished in eternit1.! The eents on earth are onl1 areflection. “In heaen and in eternit1 the actual creatie redemptie and saing *oenant 4as

accomplished.! Before all time the Immaculate ;irgin had -een eleated to (od's heaenl1temple. “Before all ages she stood as intercessor -et4een the 4orld% men% the incarnate Son of

(od% and the (odhead . . .!

Ioann So)olo ?5656956G7@ must -e discussed together 4ith Ni)anor. ?Ioann died as -ishopof Smolens)@. f a sternl1 moral nature and a sharp mind% he 4as “a remar)a-l1 4ell9educated

-ut iolent man.! In the era of the (reat Reforms% F8 he spo)e 4ith unepected courage and

directness a-out *hristian ustice% the rene4al of life% and dail1 social inustice. “So as not to

)eep an indifferent silence amidst those cr1ing a-out life's social needs% in order that the1 mighthear us%! he suggested to Shchapo the theme of his pu-lic address% The oice of the ancient

Russian *hurch on improing the lies of unfree people L(olos drenei russ)oi tser)i

o-ulushchenii -1ta neso-odn1)h liudeiM. F8 Ioann 4as a canonist a-oe all else. +is Essa1 for a course on *hurch urisprudence Lp1t )ursa tser)onago $a)onoedeniia%.F olumes% 5685M

remains his most important scholarl1 4or). True% it is not a “s1stem! of la4% onl1 a stud1 of

sources. Ioann simpl1 neer succeeded in constructing a “s1stem.! It 4as said that themanuscript for the s1stematic olumes 4as detained in censorship. This does not diminish the

importance of his -oo). 3or the first time the ancient and fundamental canons of the *hurch

4ere presented in Russian more in historical than in doctrinal fashion Ioann continued to 4rite

on canonical themes% and later resumed his Essa1 in separate articles. Among these articles% hisfamous tract “n the monasticism of -ishops! deseres special attention. F88 It 4as 4ritten at

the reCuest of the er Procurator A)hmato F8G in connection 4ith discussions on a possi-le

episcopate of lo4er clerg1 ?onl1 unmarried clerg1% -ut 4ithout monastic o4s@. F8= This 4asIoann's most personal 4riting. It 4as stri)ing and forceful% -ut not er1 conincing. 3ilaret of

&osco4 found Ioann's research unfounded and far9fetched. Ioann oeretended and oerapplied

his thesis to the releant eidence. +e spea)s of “monasticism! in an almost metaphorical%nonformal sense. In his e1es an1 renunciation of the 4orld is monasticism. The o-ligingness of

such monasticism is not difficult to demonstrate% -ut not ust for -ishops% 4hich Ioann failed to

notice. But his o4n idea -ecomes much clearer 4hen he sa1s% “A -ishop should -e a-oe the

4orld% not onl1 in Jofficial' teaching% so to spea)% -ut in personal thoughts.! ne must den1 the

5=



3athers of the *hurch LIstoriches)oe uchenie o- ottsa)h tser)i% 568<M 4as pu-lished onl1 much

later. 3ilaret al4a1s regarded the 4ritings of the 3athers as the liing testimon1 of the *hurch%

-ut he cautioned against an1 un4arranted identification -et4een “historical teaching a-out the3athers! and teaching a-out Tradition. ther4ise all patristic opinions must either -e accepted as

4orth1 of -eing considered *hurch teaching ?4hich 4ould -e impossi-le in ie4 of their

disagreements@ or else the real facts a-out the 3athers must -e distorted -1 ettisoning all thosefeatures of their lies and 4ritings 4hich ma)e them appear “ordinar1.! Such an act 4ould mean

complete ar-itrariness in practice. “The 3athers of the *hurch upheld Tradition 4here necessar1%

ust as the1 respectfull1 descri-ed the acts of the *hurch and priate persons. The1 meditated onthe "ord of (od% the articles of faith% and the rules of life0 the1 argued and de-ated%

philosophi$ed% and la-ored as philologists% -ut in so doing the1 sometimes erred.!

These aims for patrolog1 did not coincide 4ith the purposes for 4hich Prataso introduced

“historical9theological instruction on the 3athers of the *hurch! into the curricula of theseminaries and academies. 3ilaret did not ust accidentall1 omit the 4ord “theological! from the

title of his -oo). “+istor1 must -e undiluted. n that -asis it might -e possi-le to dra4 a

theological conclusion and a-stract the Tradition 4itnessed in the 4ritings of the 3athers.!

Therefore his -oo) remained in the S1nod. &oreoer% 3ilaret also spo)e er1 harshl1 a-out Peter &ogila and his *onfession.

Prataso's calculation to reerse or alter the direction of Russian theolog1 proed incorrect.B1 that time Russian theological tradition 4as alread1 too ital and strong. The er

Procurator's self9conceied and partisan plan crum-led -eneath the 4eight of this inner

opposition. This is clearl1 demonstrated -1 comparing that program and its implementation.&a)arii's dogmatic theolog1 4as ?to a certain degree@ an official and officious program. But it

4as greeted 4ith great hostilit1. Een 4hen it 4as accepted as a tet-oo) for its rich ra4

material% the author's o4n methods 4ere rarel1 accepted. The “&a)arii method! triumphed under

Po-edonostse F8< in the 5667's% 4hen inertia 4as proclaimed a principle in life ?a principle“4hich modern m1opic4riters unthin)ingl1 confuse 4ith ignorance and stupidit1!@. +o4eer%

een then the “ictor1! 4as onl1 ephemeral. Prataso might succeed in driing 3ilaret of

&osco4 from St. Peters-urg and ostensi-l1 remoe him from S1nodal affairs. All the same he4as compelled to as) 3ilaret's opinion on eer1 important and su-stantie Cuestion and send him

for eamination the maorit1 of his proects and proposals. 3ilaret presered sufficient influence%

so that -1 his disagreements the er Procurator's more meddlesome underta)ings 4ere laid torest. Prataso did introduce his ne4 order and spirit into the St. Peters-urg Academ1. The

&osco4 Academ1 remained unaltered and 4ithout those changes for the ne4 4hich consumed

Prataso. Philosoph1 continued its former course as did the stud1 of Scripture and +e-re4. And

at the er1 time 4hen the inCuisition 4as -eing conducted throughout Russia oer the lithographof Pas)ii's translation% 3ilaret officiall1 proposed to the &osco4 Academic *onference that

4ith the approal of the *onference and the )no4ledge of the diocesan hierarch all instructors -e

reCuired to present in polished form at least some of their lessons to -e lithographed or printedfor use in the academ1. The proposal had no practical results. Det it 4as indicatie that at the

er1 moment 4hen the ne4l1 opened Ecclesiastical9Educational Administration 4as attempting

to call a halt to the independent 4or) of teachers -1 placing reCuired “tet-oo)s! in their hands%3ilaret continued to adhere to the spirit of the Aleandrine statutes that it 4as far more necessar1

to a4a)en thought and self9motiation in the students than to -ind them 4ith preiousl1 prepared

formulae and phrases.

5=8



In 568 3ilaret once more raised the Cuestion of translating the Bi-le and gae the +ol1

S1nod his famous note n the dogmatic merit and conseratie function of the (ree) Septuagint

commentators and the Slaonic translation of +ol1 Scripture. FG7 The note 4as composed er1succinctl1 and deli-eratel1. 3ilaret of ,ie% (rigorii Postni)o% and (ariil (orod)o1i% then

arch-ishop of Ria$an' FG5 preliminaril1 eamined it. 3ilaret 4ished to preent the misuse of

arious Bi-lical tets. 3irst of all he insisted that it 4as essential to use -oth the Septuagint andthe Slaonic translation in correlation for the ld Testament. ne should not -e accepted as “self

authentic%! that is% original% and used in isolation% although the Septuagint should -e the starting

point. Both tets desered to -e accorded “dogmatic merit.! 3ilaret proposed that a ne4 editionof the Slaonic Bi-le -e issued more suited to personal use and including a statement a-out the

content of each chapter and eplanator1 notes. 3ilaret said less than he 4ished in his “note! in

order to o-tain the agreement of his friends% particularl1 3ilaret of ,ie. The1 4ere opposed to

the Russian translation and 4ere resered to4ard the +e-re4 tet. ne could hardl1 epect3ilaret of ,ie 4ould -e coninced. It 4as -etter to achiee a minimum firml1 accepta-le to all.

In the 56G7's the heated Cuarrel oer Bi-lical tets again -urst into flame > a -elated epilogue to

the de-ates of the 567's. "hen the translation of the ld Testament 4as rene4ed in Aleander

II's reign% 3ilaret's note 4as accepted as the guideline.Prataso's captiit1 of Russian theolog1 did not last long% although it 4as enerating. +e

could cele-rate ictor1 solel1 in the sphere of *hurch9state relations. The ne4 centraladministratie structure epanded and consolidated the Empire's influence and direct po4ers in

the affairs and life of the *hurch.

Conclusion.

It is far from eas1 to gie a general characteri$ation of the ecclesiastical schools during the

reigns of Aleander I and Nicholas I. The “pre9Reform! school has -een descri-ed andredescri-ed in the harshest and som-erist terms. The epose 4riters Pomialos)ii% Rostislao%

and Ni)itin all 4rote a-out it. FGF The appraisal of such an incontesta-le “conseratie! as ;.I.As)ochens)ii FG tallies eactl1 4ith their testimon1. As)ochens)ii 4as also a “secular! udge.The rudeness of the “lo4l -ursa)! confounded him% and he descri-es seminarians 4ith aersion

and cruelt1 as “crude cattle.! As)ochens)ii's ie4s hardl1 differed from those of Rostislao. “A

murderous character% a stunted mind% an empt1 heart% a preference for dire prophecies: these are

the inheritance of 1ouths 4ho are entrapped in this inCuisition of thought or an1 pure unfeignedfeeling.! Such 4as As)ochens)ii's cheerless conclusion. ne must admit that there is a good deal

of truth in such charges and condemnations. There 4ere man1 serious defects. &oral coarseness

4as chief among them. It should -e remem-ered that in those da1s the ecclesiastical schools4ere left in great poert1% disorder% and material insecurit1. Een the professors at the academies

lied in etremel1 tight circumstances and poert1. The percentage of graduates fell to nearl1

half. ne freCuentl1 encounters remar)a-le entries in the class ournals a-out a-sences “-ecauserunning a4a1 4as noted! or “for not possessing clothes.! The Statute's high standards 4ere often

totall1 unfulfilled. After all% the statute reCuired that not ust memor1% -ut understanding% -e

deeloped in the students. +o4eer% rote memori$ation remained the norm. 3ormalism%

rhetorics% conention preailed.In the final anal1sis% such undou-ted defects did not sap the creatie igor of those

generations. The positie historical and cultural significance of the “pre9Reform! schools must

-e ac)no4ledged and highl1 alued. 3or this school net4or) sered as the social -asis for the

5=G



entire deelopment and epansion of Russian culture in the nineteenth centur1. Not until the

567's did the secular schools er1 slo4l1 gain strength. The ,a$an' g1mnasium and een the

,a$an' /niersit1 ?as S.T. A)sa)o FG descri-ed them@ 4ere far -ehind the seminaries% not tomention the reformed academies. 3or decades in dierse fields the “seminarist! remained the

sole engineer of the Russian enlightenment. In a fundamental sense% the histor1 of Russian

science and learning 4ere tied to the ecclesiastical schools and the clerical class. An eaminationof the lists of Russian professors for an1 speciali$ation reeals t4o categories: “seminarist! and

“foreigner! ?usuall1 of (erman or S4edish origin0 more rarel1% Polish@ along 4ith an infreCuent

representatie of the no-ilit1 or -ureaucrat. /ntil onl1 er1 recentl1 the clear echoes and tracesof this clerical education could -e discerned in Russia's academic and literar1 ps1cholog1. It 4as

a source of -oth strength and 4ea)ness > of creatie curiosit1 and of careless maimalism. In

this regard% the first half of the centur1 4as a decisie epoch. The generations educated at that

time 4ere the actors at midcentur1 and later% during those anious decades of the “emancipation!and “impoerishment%! 4hen ?4ith the arrial of the so9called ra$nochinets@ FG8 the social -asis

of the Russian enlightenment -egan to epand rapidl1. Actuall1% the ra$nochinets% or one of

“mied ran)%! 4as usuall1 a seminarist.

The first half of the centur1 4as also decisie in the histor1 of -oth Russian theolog1 andRussian philosoph1. The a-undant creatie energ1 is simpl1 staggering: a series of forceful and

prominent personalities0 a reer-erating throng surrounding a leader0 students and follo4ersrall1ing -ehind a teacher. Such is normall1 the case in an era of significant themes. The Cuestion

of Russian theolog1's eistence 4as decided then% and it 4as ans4ered 4ith a creatie “1es.! "e

can trace the ictories step -1 step. /nCuestiona-l1 one outcome of this period of Cuarreling and -ra4ling oer the Bi-le 4as a more responsi-le attitude to4ard the +ol1 Scripture. A solid

foundation for Russian Bi-lical scholarship and Bi-lical theolog1 4as laid precisel1 during this

time. This 4as not a matter of simple erudition or merel1 of concern to a fe4. The Statute of

565 reCuired that all students read Scripture. *haracteristicall1% the er1 aim of theecclesiastical school 4as left deli-eratel1 ague: “the education of pious and enlightened

serants of the "ord of (od.! Special hours set aside for reading Scriptures 4ere diided into

reading “at a normal speed! and “deli-erate! reading accompanied -1 eplanations% so that “thechief passages for theological truth! ?the so9called sedes doctrinae@ could -e noted and anal1$ed.

+ermeneutics > theologia hermeneutica > 4as the foundation stone of all theolog1. &oreoer%

the students 4ere epected to read the Bi-le “on their o4n.! Such reading 4as lin)ed 4ith% andgreat attention gien to% Bi-lical languages% not ust (ree)% -ut +e-re4. True% during the “return

to the time of scholasticism%! the stud1 of +e-re4 fell under suspicion. "as not this language of

apostate #e4s no4 a 4eapon of heres1 and neolog1 Een +ol1 Scripture 4as read less

freCuentl1. Elementar1 instruction in catechisms suffered most% for one feared to read the(ospels to children. Nonetheless% a dura-le Bi-lical foundation 4as laid. The first positie

outcome of this transitional period 4as a ital sense of iine Reelation% or to put it another

4a1% an intuitie sense of sacred histor1.A second outcome 4as no less important. *ontemporar1 theological tradition organicall1

lin)ed a philosophical perspectie and the testimon1 of Reelation% that is% “philosoph1! and

“theolog1! 4ere com-ined. This 4ill -e discussed in detail later.Prataso's “reform! actuall1 strengthened the third outcome: the a4a)ening of the historical

sense > one of the most characteristic and distinctie traits of Russia's deelopment in the

nineteenth centur1. In part it 4as still the historicism of the eighteenth centur1% a sentimental

surial of a -1gone era% 4ith its archeological curiosit1 a-out the past% its sense of ruin and

5==



. ;.. ,liuches)ii ?56595<55@% a professor of histor1 at the /niersit1 of &osco4% 4rote a

fie olume +istor1 of Russia L,urs Russ)oi istoriiM. +is doctoral dissertation 4as on the

&uscoite -o1ar duma.. The Kuestions of ,iri)% a historicall1 reealing composition from the mid 5Fth centur1% is

replete 4ith a legalistic% primitie and ritualistic approach to *hristianit1 -1 the Russian clerg1.

The document consists of 575 Cuestions as)ed -1 a group of Nogorodian priests ?,iri)'s nameheaded the list@ and ans4ered -1 Bishop Nifont. The primitie spirit of this 4or) differs radicall1

from the li-eral% more uniersal spirit of ;ladimir &onoma)h's Instruction LRouchenieM to his

sons. T4o other similar compositions of “Cuestions and ans4ers! on ritual come from this period: The Precept of the +ol1 3athers to the *onfessing Sons and aughters and The

*anonical Ans4ers of &etr. Ioann II of ,ie.

8. The Pouchenie LInstructionM 4as one of the most interesting pieces of literature in ld Russia.

3or an anal1sis of the Pouchenie see olume III in Nordland's The *ollected "or)s of (eorge P.3edoto% entitled The Russian Religious &ind ?I@: ,iean *hristianit1% pages F9FG.

G. ;ladimir &onoma)h or ;ladimir II ?578955F8@% the son of Prince Iarosla and Irina%

daughter of the B1$antine Emperor *onstantine IO &onomachos% 4as an energetic statesman% a

gifted 4riter and a s)illful militar1 leader. ;ladimir's international connections are note4orth1:his mother 4as a B1$antine princess0 an uncle married a Polish princess0 one aunt married +enr1

I of 3rance% another the ,ing of Nor4a1% a third the ,ing of +ungar1. ;ladimir himself marriedthe daughter of ,ing +arold of England. +is oldest son married the daughter of the ,ing of

S4eden0 his daughter married the ,ing of +ungar10 and a grand9daughter married into the

B1$antine *omneni imperial famil1. It is note4orth1 that ;ladimir's son had three names: a(ree) *hristian name ?(eorge@0 a Slaic name ?&stisla@0 and an ld Norse name ?+arold@.

=. The reference is to E.N. Tru-ets)oi's /mo$renie )ras)o)h ?&osco4% 5<5G@% pu-lished in

English -1 Saint ;ladimir's Seminar1 Press as Icons: Theolog1 in *olor.

6. Petr I. *haadae ?5=<9568G@% an intellectual 4hose thoughts on Russian histor1 and cultureignited the controers1 -et4een the "esterni$ers and the Slaophiles% 4rote a enomous

criticism of Russia in 3rench in 6 letters% entitled 2ettres PhilosophiCues ?56F=9565@. The first

letter% in 4hich the term “la misera-le B1$ance! occurred% 4as pu-lished in Russian translationin Teles)op in 56G. Emperor Ni)olai I ?5=<G95688@ declared *haadae insane and placed him

under house arrest. See Sochineniia i pis'ma. P. Ia. *haadaea% ed. &. (ershen$on ?&osco4%

5<5@% F ols.<. See Part II of eno #. (eana)opolos' B1$antine East and 2atin "est: T4o "orlds of

*hristendom in &iddle Ages and Renaissance ?Ne4 Dor): +arper Ro4% 5<GG@.

57. St. ;ladimir or ;ladimir I ?c. <8G95758@% son of the ;i)ing9Russian prince Siatosla and

one of his courtesans% consolidated the Russian realm from the /)raine to the Baltic. Although*hristianit1 alread1 eisted to some etent in ,ie% it 4as ;ladimir's B1$antine -aptism% 4hich

esta-lished the date of the “conersion! of Russia% -ringing Russia into the or-it of (ree)

rthodo *hristianit1.55. Tsar Ale)sei &i)hailoich ?5GF<95G=G@% son of the first Romano Tsar ?&i)hail@% reigned

from 5G895G=G. Tsar Ale)sei approed Patriarch Ni)on's “reforms%! the result of 4hich led to a

schism in the Russian rthodo *hurch.5F. n the -aptism of Russia% see N. de Baumgarten% Saint ;ladimir et la conersion de la Russie

?Rome: rientalia *hristiana% ol. OO;II% 5<F@. 3or possi-le Scandinaian influence see R.

+augh% “St. ;ladimir and laf Tr1ggason: The Russian Primar1 *hronicle and (unnlaug

5=<



2eifson's Saga of laf Tr1ggason! in ol. ;III of Transactions of the Association of Russian9

American Scholars ?Ne4 Dor)% 5<=@% 69<G.

5. ;ladimir S. Solo'e ?56895<77@% a m1stic% poet% theologian and ecumenist% 4as perhapsRussia's most gifted and most original philosopher.

5. Tsar Simeon of Bulgaria ?6<9<F=@ 4aged constant 4ar on B1$antium0 his goal 4as the

imperial cro4n and the creation of a ne4 empire centered in Bulgaria% an empire 4hich 4ouldreplace B1$antium. In <5 Simeon:as cro4ned Emperor -1 Patriarch Nicholas &1sticos. The

alidit1 of Simeon's coronation 4as later disallo4ed% although Simeon% according to Romanos I

?2ecapenos@% called himself “Emperor of the Bulgarians and Romans.!58. SS. *1ril ?*onstantine@ ?c. 6F=96G<@ and &ethodius ?c. 6F8966@ 4ere -rothers -orn in

Thessalonica 4hose father 2eo 4as a B1$antine drungarios. Thessalonica 4as populated -1

man1 Slas 4hose language the t4o -rothers learned. The -rothers -ecame missionaries to the

Slas and -ecause of their role in *hristiani$ing the anu-ian Slas and their enormousinfluence on all Slaic peoples% the -rothers receied the titles “apostles of the Slas! and

“doctors.! The1 translated Scripture into the ld Bulgarian “Slaonic! and for this the1 deised

an alpha-et 4hich% in its final form% came to -e )no4n as *1rillic.

5G. This 4as the ie4 of N.,. Ni)ol's)ii and% in part% of Prisel)o. LAuthor's NoteM. Bogomilism4as a medieal heres1% the roots of 4hich can -e traced to Paulicianism and &anichaeism. In the

6th centur1 the B1$antines resettled groups of Paulicians in Thrace. Bogomilism% the meaning of 4hich came from the leader Bogomil ?Hpleasing (od!@ purportedl1 arose from this. The central

teaching of the Bogomils 4as that the isi-le% ph1sical 4orld 4as created -1 the deil. +ence%

the1 essentiall1 denied the *hristian doctrine of Incarnation and the *hristian -elief that matter 4as a ehicle of grace. The1 therefore reected -aptism% the eucharist% marriage% the eating of

meat and drin)ing of 4ine% and the entire hierarchical structure and organi$ation of the

esta-lished *hurch ?although the1 had their o4n hierarch1@.

5=. *osmas% a Bulgarian priest% 4rote a treatise on the Bogomils entitled Sloo siatago ,o$mi pre$itera na hereti)i prepenie i pouchenie ot -o$hestenni)h )nig. It 4as edited -1 &.(.

Popruchen)o and pu-lished in ,o$ma Pres-1ter -olgars)i pisatel' O e)a ?Sofia% 5<G@. A

3rench translation eists: Puech and ;aillant% 2e traite contre les Bogomiles de *osmas le pretre?Paris% 5<8@.

56. The &onaster1 of the *aes ?or Pechers)aia 2ara@% founded -1 St. 3eodosii and St. Antonii%

is still a noted sight in ,ie. 3or a description of life in this monaster1 see The Russian Primar1*hronicle% trans. Fnd ed. -1 *ross and Sher-o4it$9"et$or ?*am-ridge% &a.: The &edieal

Academ1 of America% 5<8@% p. 5< ff. See also the Pateri)on ?i.e. a collection of the lies of

inha-itants of the monaster1@ edited -1 .I. A-ramoich% Pateri)% ,ieo9Pechers)ogo

monast1ria ?St. Peters-urg% 5<[email protected]<. St. 3eodosii ?Theodosius@% the father of coeno-itic or communal monasticism in Russia% 4as

the first “mon)9saint! canoni$ed -1 the Russian rthodo *hurch. See ;ol. II in Nordland's The

*ollected "or)s of (eorge P. 3edoto entitled A Treasur1 of Russian Spiritualit1% pp. 559<.F7. The Studion or Studios &onaster1 in *onstantinople% esta-lished in G -1 the Roman

consul Studios% -ecame famous mainl1 through the efforts of St. Theodore the Studite ?d. 6FG@

4ho merged the coen-itic rule of St. Basil 4ith the spiritualit1 of Palestine. The Studite rule ?seePatrologia (raeca <<% 5=795=F7@ reached Russia ia &t. Athos. estro1ed -1 *rusaders in

5F7% re-uilt in 5F<7% destro1ed again in 58% onl1 parts of the monaster1 remain and the1 form

the &osCue of Imrahar.

567



F5. St. Simeon the Ne4 Theologian ?<<957FF@% a B1$antine m1stic% prepared the 4a1 for the

later -lossoming of hes1chastic m1sticism. B1 using certain methods of pra1er% Saint Simeon

-elieed one could achiee an inner illumination and directl1 eperience a ision of iine light.The focal point of a rialr1 -et4een the secular and monastic groups in *onstantinople% Saint

Simeon 4as eiled in 577< -1 the patriarch. The -an 4as later lifted -ut he refused to leae Saint

&arina &onaster1. +is m1stical poems -ecame classics of Eastern *hristian spiritualit1. See therecent English translation -1 (.A. &alone1% S.#. of +1mns of iine (oe ?enille% N.#.:

imension Boo)s% no date@.

FF. (.(. Shpet and (.P. 3edoto su-scri-e to this ie4 LAuthor's noteM .F. Ian ;. ,irees)ii ?567G9568G@% a noted Slaophile critic and editor% helped esta-lish the

ournals Eropeets LThe EuropeanM and&os)os)ii s-orni) ?568F@. In the latter he pu-lished his

famous ai5F=0icle “n the Nature of European *ulture and it's Relation to the *ulture of

Russia.!F. ;. #agic ?56695<F@ 4as a Ser-ian Slaist and philologist 4ho taught at the /niersities of

dessa% Berlin% St. Peters-urg and ;ienna. +is chief 4or) is Istoriia slaians)oi filologii ?St.

Peters-urg% 5<57@% and he also did etensie 4or) on earl1 Slaonic manuscripts.

F8. Iarosla I or “the "ise! ?<679578@% (rand Prince of ,ie from 575<% promoted *hristianculture in Russia -1 haing (ree) religious 4or)s translated into Slaic and -1 esta-lishing ne4

churches and monasteries.FG. The “+ol1 &ountain! 4as inha-ited -1 hermits as earl1 as the ninth centur1. In <G the

mon) Athanasius of Tre-i$ond% 4ith assistance from Emperor Nicephoras II Phocas% esta-lished

the first regular monaster1 there% the (reat 2ara. #ohn T$imsces granted it a charter in <=5% andoer the net fe4 centuries &ount Athos gre4 to -ecome the spiritual center of the rthodo

4orld 4ith 5< monasteries founded -1 the 1ear 577% including the Russian monaster1 of St.

Panteleimon.

F=. Ilarion% the first natie% non9(ree) metropolitan of ,ie ?c.5785@% 4as elected uncanonicall1 -1 Iarosla and Russian -ishops% an indication of the gro4ing autonom1 of the Russtan church

and a result of Iarosla's Cuarrel 4ith B1$antium. Ilarion has also left a *onfession of 3aith

4hich 3edoto suspects of practical docetic monoph1sitism ?see ol. III in Nordland's The*ollected "or)s of (eorge P. 3edoto% p. 68 ff.@.

F6. N. &. ,aram$in ?5=GG956FG@% a Russian historian% poet and ournalist% 4as appointed court

historian -1 Aleander I. +is 5F olume Istoriia gosudarsta Rossiis)ogo L+istor1 of the RussianStateM% 4hich ended 4ith the accession of &i)hail Romano in 5G5% 4as -oth a literar1

landmar) and a defense of autocratic a-solutism. +is memoir 4as translated and edited -1

Richard Pipes as ,aram$in's &emoir on Ancient and &odern Russia: A Translation and an

Anal1sis ?*am-ridge% &ass.: +arard /niersit1 Press% 5<8<@.F<. ,irill of Turo ?5579556<@% 4ho f?ourished in the mid lFth centur1% a-sor-ed 4ell -oth

B1$antine literar1 st1le and theological emphases. f his etant letters% pra1ers and sermons% the

latter hae -een historicall1 the most significant% finding their 4a1 into the Tor$hestenni) LPaneg1ri)on M% a collection of “4orth1! sermons to correspond 4ith the *hurch calendar. f his

original ie4s% those on the atonement and ascension are perhaps most note4orth1.

7. ,limentii Smoliatich% metropolitan of ,ie from 55=95588% has left us onl1 a fragment ?aletter to a priest named 3oma@. ,limentii's main concern is to defend the allegorical method of

Bi-lical eegesis. +e% ho4eer% sho4s no originalit1 and% in fact% Cuotes from no secular sources.

+e 4as totall1 dependent. on his (ree) sources.

565



5. St. Araamii% an enigmatic personalit1% is -est )no4n for his seere eschatological thought.

+e painted t4o icons ?one on “The Second *oming!0 the other on “The #udgement!@ and

pro-a-l1 authored the Sermon of the *elestial Po4ers. See ol. III of Nordland's The *ollected"or)s of (eorge P. 3edoto% pp. 58695=8.

F. In 5F58 the Tatars oerthre4 the *hinese empire and in 5F5<95FF7 the1 oercame the

&oslems of ,hore$m% the result of 4hich 4as to unite all Tur)ic9Tatar peoples of *entral Asia.The1 then su-ugated the (eorgians% ssetians and other peoples of the *aucasus. Terrified% the

Polots1 and Russians united to attac) the Tatars near the ,al)a rier. The Tatars afflicted the

Russian forces 4ith a deastating defeat. Seen 1ears later the Tatars returned% each 1ear penetrating further into Russian territor1 until ,ie 4as sac)ed in 5F7 and Nogorod su-mitted

to Tatar demands in 5F8<. 3or t4o centuries the Russians 4ere under the constant control of the

Tatars.

. See ;.&. Istrin% cher) istorii drene9russ)oi literatur1 ?5<FF@ and his I$sledoaniia o-lastidrene9russ)oi literatur1 ?5<7G@ LAuthor's noteM.

. A Pateri)on 4as a collection of Cuotations from 4orth1 “3athers! on the lies of 4orth1

inha-itants in a specific monaster1% often omitting an1 source reference. Pateri)i 4ere numerous

in ld Russia.8. Palaea% collections of Bi-lical histor1 often replacing the historical -oo)s of the ld

Testament% often merged canonical Bi-lical tets 4ith apocr1phal and% at times% een non9religious 4ritings.

G. The Palaeologi B1$antine d1nast1 ?5FG5958@% esta-lished after the *rusades -1 &ichael

;III Palaeologos ?5F8<95F6F@% 4itnessed a flourishing of -oth religious and secular cultural life > especiall1 under Androni)es II ?5F6F95F6@ > 4hile B1$antium itself 4as in its declining

1ears. Both the Slaic north and the 2atin 4est reaped some of the harest of this last B1$antine

“renaissance.! Although numerous persons particiated in this cultural renaissance the

contri-utions of three persons 4ill indicate the -readth of this re-irth: 5@ &aimos Planudes ?d.557@% a 4riter of poetr1 and essa1s% 4as also an editor and translator. +e annotated Sophocles%

Euripides% +esiod% Aesop's 3a-les and a critical (ree) Antholog1. +e also 4or)ed on the tet of

Plutarch's &oralia and translated > inter alia > Augustine's e Trinitate% Boethius' e*onsolatione philosophiae and *ato's icta0 F@ emetrios *1dones ?d.c. 5<@% attracted to

2atin scholasticism and a conert ?5G8@ to 2atin *hristianit1% translated Thomas ACuinas'

Summa Theologiae. +e has left = alua-le letters and his t4o “Ehortations! unsuccessfull1urged the B1$antines to unite 4ith the 2atin 4est in order to preent the Tur)ish conCuest0 @

Theodore &etochites ?d.5F@% a statesman% scholar% scientist and poet% 4rote an account of his

traels in Ser-ia 4hile negotiating 4ith the Ser-s. +is commentaries on the ialogues of Plato

aided the l8th centur1 Platonic renaissance in the "est and his &iscellanea philosophica etistorica ?ed. -1 &uller and ,iessling in 56F5 in 2eip$ig@ contains 5F7 essa1s on philosophical%

political% moral% historical and aesthetic su-ects.

=. Euth1mius of Trnoo ?c. 55=9c. 57F@% a mon) and spo)esman for +es1chasm% 4as also ascholar and linguist. +is translations of liturgical and canonical tets into ld Slaonic ?an /sta

of the 2iturg1 of #ohn *hr1sostom and a Slu$he-ni) 4hich corrected and -rought uniformit1 to

liturgical tets@ spar)ed the late medieal Slaonic renaissance. In 5=8 he 4as elected Patriarchof Trnoo and hence -ecame the primate of the Bulgarian rthodo *hurch. "hen Trnoo fell to

the Tur)s in 5<% he 4ent into eile.

6. Patriarch Philotheus ?c. 57795=<@% an ardent defender of (regor1 Palamas and +es1chasm%

staunchl1 opposed union 4ith Rome. Author of seeral 4or)s% eegesis and lies of saints% he

56F



also 4rote 4or)s against the thought of A)ind1nos and Barlaam and 58 Antirrhetica Liatri-esM

against the historian Nicephorus (regoras. The most important Palamite 4or)% the +agioritic

Tome% a 4or) used -1 Palamas himself in his o4n defense% 4as also authored -1 Philotheus. In58 he -ecame Patriarch -ut later 4as imprisoned on a charge of treason. In 5G he 4as

reappointed Patriarch. &ainl1 through his efforts the concrete realit1 of *onstantinople's

supremac1 oer the Eastern *hruch 4as furthered and the rthodo Slas 4ere consolidatedunder the (ree) Patriarchate.

<. (regor1 Palamas ?c. 5F<G958<@% one of the most controersial thin)ers in the histor1 of

*hristianit1% 4as the theologian of the B1$antine contemplatie moement )no4n as +es1chasm?hes1chia > state of Cuiet@% a moement 4hich held that it 4as possi-le in this life to -ehold the

ision of (od% to eperience (od through his uncreated grace% through his iine energies. The

+es1chastic ascetical method% 4hich com-ined repetitie pra1er formulas 4ith -odil1 postures

and controlled -reathing% 4as opposed -1 -oth 2atin *hristians and B1$antine +umanists. The"estern ie4 of grace as -oth created and supernatural found Palamas' teaching especiall1

offensie. See #ohn &e1endorff% A Stud1 of (regor1 Palamas ?2ondon% 5<G@.

7. The “Non9possessors! Lnestia$hateli M% )no4n as the Transolgan elders L$aol$hs)ie

starts1#% -elieed that monasteries should follo4 the rule of poert1 and not tr1 to possess either land or mone1.

5. St. Basil ?c. F<9=<@% one of the most important persons in the histor1 of *hristianit1% hasleft his mar) on doctrine% liturg1% canon la4 and asceticism. +e 4or)ed tirelessl1 to -ring the

Arians and semi9Arians -ac) to Nicaean rthodo1% a mission ultimatel1 cro4ned 4ith success

posthumousl1 at the Second Ecumenical *ouncil ?*onstantinople I@ in 65. +e% his 1ounger -rother St. (regor1 of N1ssa and St. (regor1 of Na$ian$us are )no4n as the “*appadocian

3athers.!

F. iadochus of Photice% a-out 4hose life little is )no4n% died c. G6. f his four etant 4or)s%

the most important 4or) and one 4hich had a profound influence on later Eastern *hristianit1%especiall1 Russian% 4as e perfectione spirituali capita centum ?ne +undred *hapters on

Spiritual Perfection M 0 it 4as printed in the Russian Philo)alia.

. Isaac the S1rian or Isaac of Nineeh ?d. c. =77@% a S1rian -ishop% theologian and mon)% isenerated as a saint -1 Eastern *hristianit1 een though he passed his life as a Nestorian. +e 4as

a Nestorian -ishop% ho4eer% for onl1 fie months. +e then resigned and returned to monastic

life. +is numerous 4or)s% 4hich 4ere a -asic source for -oth Eastern and "estern *hristianit1%had a po4erful influence on Russian spiritualit1.

. +es1chius of #erusalem ?d. c. 87@% reno4ned in Eastern *hristianit1 as a theologian and

Bi-lical commentator% 4rote > according to the &enologion > commentaries on the entire

Bi-le% the method of 4hich 4as entirel1 allegorical. +e pla1ed an important role in the*hristological controersies of the Sth centur1 reputedl1 reecting all philosophical terms ecept

logos sar)outheis L The "ord -ecame flesh M . Among other 4or)s% he 4rote a church histor1% a

portion of 4hich 4as read at the 3ifth Ecumenical *ouncil [email protected]. St. #ohn *limacus ?8=<9G<@% the details of 4hose life are little )no4n% 4rote his +eaenl1

2adder 4hile a--ot of &t. Sinai monaster1. The 2adder% one of the most 4idel1 used hand-oo)s

of the ascetic life in Eastern *hristianit1% greatl1 influenced the +es1chasts and Slaicmonasticism. As the title reeals% the ascetic life is seen as an ascent0 the 7 steps of the ladder

represent the 7 non9pu-lic 1ears of *hrist's life. See P( 66% GF955G50 also 2adder of iine

Ascent% tr. 2. &oore ?Ne4 Dor)% 5<8<@.

56



G. &aimus the *onfessor ?c. 8679GGF@% the most important B1$antine theologian of the =th

centur1 influenced the 4hole of medieal theolog1 and m1sticism in the East. +e is -est )no4n

for his contri-ution to the deelopment of *hristolog1 -1 opposing monothelitism ?the -elief that*hrist had -ut one 4ill and that 4as diine@. Imprisoned from G89G88% &aimus 4as later

tortured and eiled.

=. See note F5.6. Philipp the recluse 4as an eail1 telfth centui1 (ree) 4iiter. +is ioptra or (uide for the

*hristian% in the Bi-liotheCue des Peres% is a dialogue -et4een the soul and the ilesh.

<. The reference is to the m1sterious genius 4ho flourished at the end of the Sth centur1 andcalled himself ion1sius the Areopagite% the name of one of St. Paul's conerts in Athens ?Acts

5=:@. The un)no4n ion1sius 4rote the *elestial and Ecclesiaatical +ierarch1% iine Names

of (od and &1stical Theolog1. These 4ritings -ecame criticall1 important for the theolog1 and

spiritualit1 of Eastern *hristianit1. These 4or)s also -ecame important later in the 2atin "est.87. St. Sergei of Radone$h ?5595<F@% 4ho left an enormous oral influence on Russian

spiritualit1% esta-lished the Trinit1 &onaster1 in Radone$h 4hich -ecame a center of spiritual%

cultural and economic life. It sered as a -ase of missionar1 and coloni$ing actiit1 in the

Russian North. ?See Nordland's English edition entitled The ';ita' of St. Sergii of Radone$h:Introduction% Translation% Notes% ed. -1 &. ,limen)o@.

85. Theophanes the (ree) ?c. 589578@% a prominent B1$antine painter of icons% murals andminiatures% 4or)ed in Russia after 5=7 4here his influence 4as great ?Andrei Ru-le 4as one

of his follo4ers.@. Although he closel1 follo4ed B1$antine standards% he also assimilated specific

features of Russian art. The frescoes in the Nogorodian *hurch of the Transfiguration are his.8F. The *ouncil of 3errara93lorence ?56958@% recogni$ed -1 the Roman *hurch as the l=th

Ecumenical *ouncil% 4as the continuation of the significant *ouncil of Basel. Pope Eugenius I;

had it transferred to 3errara and% 4hen a plague hit there% it 4as moed to 3lorence. The (ree)s

ultimatel1 accepted the 2atin statements on the procession of the +ol1 Spirit% on purgator1% theEucharist and papal primac1 ?onl1 &ar) Eugenicus% metropolitan of Ephesus% refused to sign@.

The pronouncement on union ?2aetentur *aeli@ 4as signed on #ul1 G% 5<. /pon returning to

(ree) territor1% F5 of the F< 4ho signed renounced the union and their signatures. "hen*onstantinople fell to the Tur)s on &a1 F<% 58% the fe4 (ree) adocates of union fled to Ital1.

8. Isidore ?c. 56895G@% a (ree)% 4as sent to the *ouncil of Basel ?5@ as an imperial

“B1$antine! eno1 4ith the purpose of arranging a ne4 council in *onstantinople. +e 4asunsuccessful% and% upon returning% 4as sent to Russia as metropolitan of ,ie and hence the head

of the Russian *hurch. Again his mission 4as to 4or) for union. Attending the *ouncil of

3errara93lorence 4ithout (rand Prince ;asilii II's support% he helped Bessarion dra4 up the

decree of union. Shortl1 thereafter% he 4as made *ardinal and returned to Russia 4here he 4asconicted of apostas1 -1 an ecclesiastical court and imprisoned. n Easter 5 he escaped and

fled 4est4ard. Returning to *onstantinople shortl1 -efore its fall% he 4as 4ounded during the

siege -ut managed to flee to Rome 4here he 4rote a description of the sac) of *onstantinople inhis Epistula lugu-ris LSorro4ful 2etterM . Pope Pius II conferred on him the honorar1 title of

(ree) Patriarch of *onstantinople. +is alua-le etant 4or)s 4ere edited in 5<FG -1 (. &ercati

as Scritti d=sidore il cardinale ruteno ?Studi e Testi% [email protected]. Andrei &. ,ur-s)ii ?58F69586@% prince% -o1ar% militar1 commander and close associate of

Ian I; the Terri-le% later defected to Poland 4lien he fell out of faor 4ith Ian. +e reputedl1

4rote religious 4or)s ?defending rthodo1 in 2ithuania@% A +istor1 of the (rand Prince of

&osco4 LIstoriia o eli)om )nia$e mos)os)om M and an ecnange of letters 4ith Ian ?see the

56



English translation -1 #.2.I. 3ennell@. Recentl1 serious dou-t has -een cast on the authenticit1 of

these letters. See Ed4ard 2. ,eenan% The ,ur-s)ii9(ro$n1i Apocr1pha ?*am-ridge% &ass.%

5<=5@. See also -elo4% *hapter II% section II.88. Iosif ;olots)ii ?or “of ;olo)olams)!@ ?5<95858@% often termed “the 3ather of &edieal

Russia%! had an influentiall1 actie life and eerted a po4erful influence on Russian spiritual

thought. +e opposed the #udai$ers ?adocating the death penalt1 for incorrigi-le heretics@%defended the right of monasteries to o4n propert1 and held an interesting theor1 of the diine

right of )ings. +is thought is epressed in his Prosetitel LThe EnlightenerM . See -elo4.

8G. 3ilofei% a mon) from the Elea$ar &onaster1 in Ps)o% s)etched this theor1 in a letter to Tsar ;asilii III in 58575855. 3or the tet see the appendi of ;. &alinin% Starets Elea$aroa

monast1ria 3ilofei i ego poslaniia ?,ie% 5<75@. n the “T'hird Rome Theor1! see ".,. &edlin%

&osco4 and East Rome ?Neuchatel% 5<8F@ and +. Schaeder% &os)a das ritte Rom ?+am-urg%

5<F<@.8=. *hiliasm ?from the (ree) chilias meaning 5%777@% also )no4n -1 its 2atin form

?millenarianism@% 4as ?and still is@ a school of thought 4hich -eliees that *hrist 4ill rule isi-l1

on earth for 5%777 1ears. Although there are man1 ariations of chiliasm% the1 derie their

original inspiration from a literal interpretation of the F7th chapter of Reelation.86. N.3. ,aptere ?56=95<5=@% a Russian historian% 4as -est )no4n for his studies on Ni)on.

See Patriar)h Ni)on i tsar' Ale)sei &i)hailoich ?F ols:% Sergie Posad% 5<7<95<[email protected]<. “+agarene! referred to those holding the Islamic faith% in this case the Tur)s. The deriation

is from +agar% A-raham's concu-ine and the mother of Ishmael ?(en. 5G:595G0 F5:69F5@. ne

legend claims that Ishmael 4as the ancestor of &uhammed.G7. In hisEcclesiastical +istor1 ?%5@ Euse-ius of *aesarea ?d.c. <@% the “3ather of *hurch

+istor1%! esta-lished a tradition -ased on a report -1 rigen ?d. F8@ that the Apostle Andre4

had preached in Sc1thia. The Russian Primar1 *hronicle added to that tradition: “?Andre4@ . . .

ourne1ed up the mouth of the nieper . . . he o-sered to the disciples 4ho 4ere 4ith him: JSee1e these hills So shall the faor of (od shine upon them that on this spot a great cit1 shall arise%

and (od shall erect man1 churches therein.' +e dre4 near the hills% and haing -lessed them% he

set up a cross. . . ,ie 4as su-seCuentl1 -uilt ?there@ . . . +e then reached. the Slas at the point4here Nogorod is no4 situated . . . +e 4ent thence among the ;arangians and came to Rome!

?*ross and Sher-o4it$9"et$or% The Russian Primar1 *hronicle L*am-ridge: The &edieal

Academ1 of AmericaM% p. 8@. The significance of this legend 4as that it could later -e claimed > 4hether accurate or not > that Russia had an apostolic founding perhaps een earlier than

Rome and at least as apostolic as *onstantinople's. See 3. orni)% The Idea of Apostolicit1 in

B1$antium and the 2egend of the Apostle Andre4 ?*am-ridge% 5<86@.

G5. In 5G< *ardinal Bessarion 4rote from Rome and offered the hand of his 4ard% oePalaeologus ?niece of the last B1$antine emperor@% to Ian in marriage. Three 1ears later oe

married Ian and too) the name Sofia.

GF. Bessarion ?5795=F@% former hegumen of St. Basil's &onaster1 in *on9Notes to *hapter IF=< stantinople and arch-ishop of Nicaea at the time of the *ouncil of 3lorence 4as the leader of

the pro9union part1 in the (ree) church and 4as instrumental in o-taining the approal of man1

(ree) sepresentaties to the terms of the council. After failing to 4in the support of his peGple in*onstantinople for the union% he returned to 3lorence in 57% 4as made a cardinal% arid upon the

death of Isidore in 5G he 4as made /niate patriarch of *onstantinople. +is collections of

(ree) literature% -oth classical and patristic% 4ere a profound contri-ution to the Italian

renaissance.

568



G. Baron Sigismund on +er-erstein ?56G958GG@ entered the serice of Emperor &aimillian I

in 585. +e t4ice isited &uscoite Russia ?585= and 58FG@% the result of 4hich 4as a -oo) of

his o-serations% a 4or) 4hich 4as etremel1 inlluential in forming "estern ie4s of Russia:Rerum &oscoiticarum *ommentarii. At least t4o English translations eist: one -1 .P. Bac)us

?/niersit1 of ,ansas Press% 5<8G@0 another -1 #.B.*. (rund1 ?ent% 2ondon% 5<G<@.

G. Aristotle 3ioraanti of Bologna% a 4ell9)no4n architect and engineer in northern Ital1%accepted an initation from Prince Simeon Tol-utsin to go to Russia in 5=8 4here he remained

until his death.

G8.Aloisio or Aleis Noi% the “Ne4%! to distinguish him from an earlier Aleisio 4ho had4or)ed in Russia from 5<% 4as summoned -1 Ian III in 5878 to re-uild the old *athedral of

St. &ichael the Archangel.

GG. Pietro Antonio Solario% along 4ith &arco Ruffo% directed the re-uilding of the ,remlin 4alls

entirel1 in red -ric) ?568@ and -uilt the famous 3aceted Palace L(ranoitaia PalataM% erected -et4een 56= and 5<5.

G=. Suleiman I ?c. 5<958GG@% under 4hom the ttomans flourished culturall1 and militaril1%

conCuered Belgrade ?58F5@% Rhodes ?58FF@% the +ungarians ?58FG@% IraC ?589588@% regions of

Persia and Tripoli [email protected]. Princess Elena (lins)aia% a 2ithuanian liing as a refugee in the Russian court% so charmed

her ne4 hus-and -1 her 1outh and -eaut1% it is claimed% he shaed off his -eard to please her%something the rthodo *hurch then considered sinful% or at least highl1 Cuestiona-le.

G<. See -elo4% section ;I.

=7. I. a-elin ?56F795<7<@ 4as a 4ell9)no4n Russian historian.=5. The strigol ni)i LHshorn9headsHM 4ere mem-ers of a mid lth centur1 heretical moement

dominant in Nogorod. 2ittle relia-le information is etant -ecause the moement 4as stopped

and their 4ritings destro1ed. See the stud1 -1 A.I. ,li-ano% Reformatsionn1e di$heniia

Rossii OI;9 peroi poloine O;I . ?&osco4% 5<G7@% 55695G.=F. (ennadii ?d. after 587@% 4ho -ecame arch-ishop of Nogorod in 568% conened s1nods

to stop heretical moements ?especiall1 the #udai$ers@. To counteract the influence of the

#udai$ers% 4ho 4ere distri-uting Russian translations of the Psalms% (ennadii organi$ed theunderta)ing of the first Russian translation of the Bi-le. +e 4as also responsi-le for the

translation of (uillaume urandus' ?c. 5F795F<G@ 4or) on the liturg1 entitled Rationale

diinorum officiorum. 3orced to resign in 587 -ecause of the &osco49Nogorod politicalsituation% he 4as imprisoned on a charge of treason.

=. The oldest )no4n dated cop1 of the Enlightener is that made in 585 -1 Nil Pole a

prominent follo4er of #oseph. +is cop1% ho4eer% does not contain the later Sermons against the

+eretics LSloa na ereti)oM . The Pole manuscript is found in the (osudarstennaia pu-lichnaia -i-liote)a im. &.E. Salt1)oShchedrina ?2eningrad@% so-ranie Soloets)oe%

GFG. LAuthor's note0 eact citation -1 the translator. M

=. &a)arii ?c. 56F958G@ -ecame metropolitan of &osco4 in 58F. +e esta-lished the first printing press in Russia% compiled the ;eli)ii chet i9minei ?tets on Russian saints arranged for

5F monthl1 readings@% 4rote the Stepennaia )niga LBoo) of (enerationsM ?a histor1 of the ruling

Russian families@% and 4as a central figure at the Stogla So-or ?*ouncil of 577 *hapters@ in5885. See section ;II in this chapter.

=8. &oses &aimonides ?55895F7@% the most important intellectual personalit1 in medieal

#udaism% 4as a urist% philosopher and ph1sician. +aing passed his childhood in &uslim Spain%

he later moed 4ith his famil1 to &orocco and then Eg1pt 4here he later 4as appointed the

56G



Sultan's ph1sician. A prolific 4riter% he 4rote > inter alia > a 4or) on logical terminolog1% a

commentar1 on the &ishna% a code of #e4ish la4 and a highl1 influential 4or) on religious

philosoph1 entitled The (uide of the Perpleed.=G. Alga$el ?578695555@% an important Ara- theologian and philosopher% 4rote 4or)s on logic%

religious )no4ledge% philosophical pro-lems% canon la4 and theolog1.

==. ,araism ?from the +e-re4 Cara' > to read@ 4as a #e4ish religious moement 4hich -eganin Persia in the 6th centur1 and spread throughout Europe. It claimed that the onl1 source of

diine la4 4as the +e-re4 Scripture0 hence% it renounced all ra--inic oral tradition and the

Talmud. It supported a personal interpretation of Scripture% -ecame fanaticall1 ascetical and% paradoicall1% legalistic. In its support of montheism% )araism reected man1 #e4ish ritual

o-ects ?e.g. ph1lacteries@ 4hich% it felt% 4ere in conflict 4ith strict monotheism.

=6. +aphtarah ?+e-re4 > “conclusion!@% a lesson from the prophets read in the s1nagogue on

the Sa--ath and on feast and fast da1s% 4as the “conclusion! and follo4ed the reading )no4n asthe parashah ?4hich 4as ta)en from the Torah and read on the Sa--ath and on &onda1s and

Thursda1s@.

=<. According to a 4or) ?c. 5<8@ entitled Poest' o -elom )lo-u)e LTale of the "hite *o45 M% a

4hite co4l 4as gien to Pope S1lester I ?d.8@ -1 *onstantine the (reat. 2ater another popereturned it to *onstantinople and finall1 Patriarch Philotheus gae it to the arch-ishop of

Nogorod% ;asilii ,ali)a% in the 5th centur1. Some relationship seems to eist -et4een the Taleand the famous 6th centur1 forger1% the onatio *onstantini% a 4or) 4hich claimed that 4hen

*onstantine transferred his capital to *onstantinople ?B1$antium@% he left Pope S1lester in

charge of the 4estern empire. In the onatio the Pope 4ears a “4hite co4l.! 3or the tet of thePoest' see Pamiatni)i starinnoi russ)oi literatur1 ?St. Peters-urg% 56G7@% ol. I% F669F<6.

67. &enander ?F9F<5 B.*.@% (ree) dramatist and chief representatie of the “Ne4 *omed1%!

4as the author of more than a hundred comedies. /ntil the end of the 5<th centur1% all that 4as

)no4n of &enander 4ere fragments of 5G87 erses or parts of erses% in addition to aconsidera-le num-er of 4ords Cuoted epressl1 as from &enander -1 the old leicographers.

The manuscript The "isdom of &enander the "ise L&udrosti &enandra &udrogo or &enandra

&udrogo ra$umi M mentioned -1 (ennadii% )no4n in Russia from the end of the lth centur1% is acollection of moral9didactic erses ta)en from &enander's comedies. It is one of the fe4

eamples of classical literature transmitted to Russia ia B1$antium. 3or a discussion of

&enander and the other 4or)s and authors mentioned here in connection 4ith (ennadii% see Ia.S. 2ur'e% Ideologiches)aia -or'-a Russ)oi pu-litsisti)e )onsta O; > nachala O;I e)a

?&osco492eningrad% 5<G7@% 56G95<=.

65. 3edor ,urits1n% a diplomat and Ian III's adiser on foreign affairs might hae -een the

author of Poest' o ra)ule LTale of raculaM% a 4or) a-out an actual ruler of "allachia.6F. Pachomius the Ser-% a 4riter of 2ies of saints% esta-lished the “st1le! of Russian

hagiographical 4riting for future centuries. See ;. Ia-lons)ii% Pa)homii Ser- i ego

agiografiches)ie pisaniia ?St. Peters-urg% 5<[email protected]. The ;ulgate ?from the 2atin “editio ulgate! > “the common edition!@% mainl1 the 4or) of

#erome ?d. c. 5<@ under commission -1 Pope amasus ?6F@ -ecame the authoritatie Bi-lical

tet for the 2atin church. The *ouncil of Trent ?58G@ proclaimed it the sole 2atin authorit1 -utsuggested it -e pu-lished 4ith fe4er errors. In 58<F Pope *lementine's ;ulgate edition -ecame

the “official! tet for the Roman *atholic *hurch.

6. See I.E. Esee% (ennadies)aia -i-liia 5<< g. ?&osco4% 5<5@.

68. See note =F.

56=



6G. Nicholas of 21ra ?c. 5F=795<@% author of the earliest Bi-lical commentar1 in print ?Rome

5=595=F@% 4as a leading 3ranciscan theologian and taught at the Sor-onne. +is main 4or) 4as

a 879olume Postillae perpetuae LEegetical NotesM on +ol1 Scripture% a 4or) of literalinterpretation 4hich greatl1 influenced 2uther.

6=. Samuel the #e4 4as a &orroccan Ra--i 4ho 4rote a letter in 57=F to a certain Ra--i Isaac

epressing his dou-ts a-out #udaism and descri-ing his gradual full acceptance of *hristianit1.The letter 4as originall1 4ritten in Ara-ic% and later translated into 2atin. See A. 2u)1n

"illiams% Adersus #udaeos% ?*am-ridge% 5<8@.

66. rest 3edoroich &iller ?569566<@ 4as a famous Russian historian and literar1 critic.6<. Bruno +er-ipolensis of "ar$-urg ?c. 57789578@% a cousin of Emperor *onrad II% sered as

an adiser to him and his successor% +enr1 III% and also held the position of Imperial *hancellor

of Ital1 from 57F=957. +e then -ecame -ishop of "ur$-urg% 4here he left his mar) in

education and church restoration. +is eegesis of the Psalms and his catechetical 4ritings are inP2% 5F:<98G6.

<7. See ;. hma)in% “&itropolit aniil%! *hteniia o-shchesta istorii i drenostei &os)os)ogo

uniersiteta ?5665@% I% 59FFG0 II.

<5. St. Nil Sors)ii ?Ni)olai &ai)o@ ?5895876@% 4ho receied his name from the rier -eside4hich he esta-lished a monaster1 ?Sora Rier@% opposed monastic o4nership of propert1 and the

inolement of mon)s in social and political life. +e -ecame one of the central figures of the“Transolgan Elders.! ne of the first Russians to leae 4ritings on the m1stical life% he has left

his letters to his disciples and his S)etic Rule. 3or an English translation of the Rule see ol. II in

Nordland's The *ollected "or)s of (eorge P. 3edoto% pp. <795. n St. Nil see ol. I; in Nordland's The *ollected "or)s of (eorge P. 3edoto% pp. FG9F6.

<F. See note =.

<. The Boo) of egrees 4as a triumphal histor1 of “+ol1 Russia! 4ritten from the perspectie

of the #osephites.<. ;assian Patri)ee% 4hose non9monastic name 4as ;asilii% 4as the son of one of Ian III's

close adisers% Prince Ian I. Patri)ee. In 5<< the1 4ere nearl1 eecuted and 4ere saed onl1

-1 the interention of &etropolitan Simon. After the death of Nil Sors)ii in 587<% ;assian -ecame the ac)no4ledged leader of the Transolgan Elders. At the council of 585 he 4as

condemned ?4ith &aim the (ree)@ for follo4ing the teachings of Aristotle and Plato and for

monoph1sitism. +e 4as sentenced to a cell in the monaster1 of ;olo)olams) 4here he died in58F. See +.". e4e1 &. &ateic% “The 2iterar1 +eritage of ;assian Patri)ee%! Slaic and

East European +istor1% O ?"inter% 5<GG@% 57958F.

<8. The Philo)alia is an antholog1 of patristic 4ritings on pra1er% asceticism and m1sticism

compiled -1 Nicodemus the +agiorite ?5=695676@% an Athonite mon). 3irst pu-lished in ;enicein 5=<F% it 4as instrumental in -ringing a-out a reial of interest in the esert 3athers% the

mon)s of &ount Sinai% and the +es1chasts of &ount Athos. 3or its impact on later Russian

spiritualit1 see -elo4% *hapter I;% section ;II.<G. (irolamo Saonarola ?58F95<6@% a controersial figure of the age% 4as a ominican prior%

a reformer and a po4erful preacher. +e 4as a preacher of repentance% a oice urging moral

reform in 3lorence% in Ital1 and 4ithin the entire *hurch. Through 5<8 his influence in 3lorence4as unmatched. The fier1 and often accusator1 nature of his $eal for reform and his support of

the 3rench at this time em-ittered Pope Aleander ;I ?5<F958<@ 4ho summoned him to Rome

on #ul1 F5% 5<8 to eplain the nature of his reelations. Saonarola replied that he 4as too ill

and too needed in 3lorence to come to Rome. +e sent rather his recent 4or) *ompendium

566



territor1 lost under Ian the Terri-le0 the stopping of a Tatar raid on &osco4 in 58<50 the

-uilding of numerous fortress9to4ns0 the recoloni$ing of Si-eria and reassertion of control in the

*aucasus0 and% most importantl1% the esta-lishment of theRussian Patriarchate in 58<6. "hen3edor I died childless in 58<6% the Ruri) d1nast1 came to an end. Po4er 4as transferred to Boris

(oduno -1 the authorit1 of a $ems)ii so-or. +is reign ?58<695G78@ inaugurated 4hat is

commonl1 )no4n as the “Time of Trou-les! in Russian histor1.575. R. "ipper% Ian (ro$n1 ?tr.% &osco4% 5<=@.

57F. See the characteristic degeneration of the #esus Pra1er in chapter 5 of the omostroi

Lrdering of the +ouse M . LAuthor's noteM57. See note 8.

57. The *hronograph 4as a collection of general histor1 compiled in Russia in the mid l8th

centur1. There 4ere su-seCuent editions. It consisted of accounts of Bi-lical eents% Roman and

B1$antine histor1% and sections on Russian and South Slaic histor1. 2ater editions addedsections on "estern European histor1.

578. The Stogla ?577 chapters or decrees@ *ouncil ?5885@ lists its decrees in a rather disorderl1

manner% for the1 are arranged in the list of = Cuestions posed -1 Ian the Terri-le. The decrees

are mainl1 on matters of ecclesiastical disciplinar1 pro-lems and contain no important doctrinalstatements. B1 decreeing the chanting of t4o Alleluias and the signing of the cross 4ith t4o

fingers% the *ouncil laid the ground4or) for the ld Belieers' schism a centur1 later. There is a3rench translation -1 E. uchesne% 2e Stogla ou 5es *ent *hapitres ?Paris% 5<F7@.

57G. &atei Bash)in 4as condemned for allegedl1 -elieing that the eucharist 4as ust -read

and 4ine% that *hrist 4as uneCual to (od the 3ather% that confession 4as not necessar1% and for holding iconoclastic ie4s. See A. Boro$din% “&atei Semenoich Bash)in%! Russ)ii

Biograftches)ii Sloar'% II.

57=. See -elo4% *hapter II% section II% “Artemii and ,ur-s)ii.!

576. &ost of 4hat is )no4n a-out 3eodorit% 4hose dates are uncertain% comes from the +istor1of the (rand Prince of &osco4 -1 Prince ,ur-s)ii% 4ho 4as his spiritual son and regarded him

as a true saint. +is missions to the 2apps -egan around 587 and continued until he -e*.ame

archimandrite of the Spaso9Efim'e &onaster1 in Su$dal' in 5885. +e 4as summoned to&osco4 to testif1 against Artemii at his trial% -ut instead defended him% 4hich proo)ed

Artemii's accusers to charge 3eodorit 4ith the same “heresies.! +e 4as then -anished to the

monaster1 of St. ,irill -ut 4as released shortl1 on the orders of &etropolitan &a)arii. Tsar IanI; sent him to *onstantinople in 588= to o-tain the patriarch's confirmation of his titte “Tsar!

?HEmperor!@% 4hich Iosaf II granted in 58G5. Sometime after 58G 3eodorit reportedl1 defended

the defector ,ur-s)ii in front of Ian% and the enraged tsar ordered him dro4ned. See #.2.I.

3ennel% ed.% Prince ,ur-s)1's +istor1 of Ian I;% ?*am-ridge% 5<G8@% pp. F8F9 F68.57<. 3eodosii ,osoi 4as the leader of a s1ncretic% unitarian heretical moement 4ith Protestant

and #e4ish influences. +e 4as condemned at a council in 589.

557. 3edor Ianoich Buslae ?5656956<=@ 4as a Russian grammatician and historian of Russianart and literature.

555. The Trullan *ouncil% or the “Kuiniset! ?H3ifth9sith!@ 4as held in *onstantinople in G<F

and 4as conceied as a supplement to the 3ifth and Sith Ecumenical *ouncils ?held in*onstantinople in 88 and G6795@% 4hich had promulpated no canons. It is most important for its

canons regarding the married clerg1 and confirming the F6th canon of the *ouncil of *halcedon

?85@% 4hich gies the see of *onstantinople “eCual priileges 4ith the see of ld Rome.! The

"estern *hurch% alread1 practicing clerical celi-ac1% reected its decisions.

5<7



55F. #an Ro)1ta% a &oraian Brethren% came to &osco4 in 58=7 4ith the Polish em-ass1. At that

time% ho4eer% it 4as common for Russians to consider all “Protestants! as “2utherans.! Ian I;

responded to Ro)1ta's eposition -1 utili$ing a 4or) against 2utherans 4ritten -1 a “hol1 3ool!named Parfenii. See E. Am-urger% (eschichte des Protestantismus in Russland ?Stuttgart% 5<G5@.

55. The *$ech ?Bohemian or &oraian@ Brethren 4ere a remnant of the +ussites 4hich -ro)e

off from the *atholic and /traCuist parties in Bohemia in 58=% calling for a return to primitie*hristianit1. "ith their reection of 4ar% iolence and oaths% their strict discipline% and their use

of the Bi-le as the sole authorit1 on faith% the1 anticipated later Ana-aptist moements.

55. Antonio Posseino ?5895G55@% a staunch opponent of the Protestant Reformation% -ecamea #esuit in 588<. Posseino% successful in preaching against the Reformation in 3rance ?58GF9

58=F@% -ecame a special legate of Pope (regor1 OIII in 58==. +is assignment 4as to -ring ,ing

#ohn III of S4eden to *atholicism. ?,ing #ohn actuall1 conerted -ut Cuic)l1 lapsed 4hen the

Pope refused to consider certain reforms: a ernacular liturg1% marriage of the clerg1 andcommunion under “-oth species.!@ +is net papal assignment 4as to Ian the Terri-le 4ho had

as)ed for papal mediation after his loss to Poland. In 5865 he arried in Russia and negotiated an

armistice. +is attempts to 4or) out a reunion of the *hurch failed and he returned to Rome in

586F. +e then sered as papal nuncio to Poland 4ith instructions to continue to 4or) for reunion."hen Ian the Terri-le died in 586% contact 4ith the papac1 4as -ro)en off. 3rom 586= to .

58<5 Posseino 4as professor of theolog1 at the /niersit1 of Padua. Among his 4ritings he lefthis inalua-le &oscoia ?;ilna% 586G@. See S. Polcin% S.l.% “/ne tentatie d'/nion au O;Ie

siecle: 2a mission religieuse du Pere Antoine Possein S.#. en &oscoie ?58659586F@%!

rientalia *hrtstiana Analecta% *2 ?Rome% 5<8=@ and . +alec)i% “Posseino's 2ast Statement onPolish9Russian Relations%! rientalia *hristiana Periodico% OIO ?5<8@.

Notes to Chater !!.

5. The close ties -et4een Poland and 2ithuania -egan in 568 4hen (rand Prince #agietto of

2ithuania agreed 4ith Polish am-assadors to -e -apti$ed into the *atholic *hurch% marr1 the 5F1ear old Kueen #ad4iga of Poland% and accede to the Polish throne as ,ing "tad1sta4. 3urther agreements -et4een Poland and 2ithuania in 575 and 55 strengthened this “personal union.!

Although it lapsed at the end of the l8th centur1% the senates of -oth states then agreed that the

,ing of Poland 4ould also hold the title of (rand Prince of 2ithuania% and at the cit1 of 2u-lin

on #ul1 5% 58G< a common parliment 4as formed% finali$ing the union.F. Scattered pagan 2ithuanian tri-es first -egan to unite -efore the middle of the lth centur1

under &indaugas &indoe or &endog% ?d. 5FG@ to com-at the Teutonic ,nights. &indaugas%

cro4ned 2ithuania's first and onl1 )ing -1 Pope Innocent I;% alread1 -egan to epand east4ardand south4ard into ,iean Rus'% 4hich had -een raaged -1 the Tatars. (ediminas ?d. 55@%

ho4eer% 4as the real -uilder of the 2ithuanian state% moing its frontiers to the nieper Rier

and esta-lishing his capital at ;ilna. +is son Algiridas ?or lherd% d. 5==@ continued to epandinto "estern Russia% ta)ing ,ie in 5GF% and earlier% in 588% 4as a-le to secure a separate

metropolitan for his rthodo su-ects. 3or the earl1 histor1 of the 2ithuanian &etropolitanate of

,ie see mitrii -olens)ii% “B1$antium% ,ie and &osco4% A stud1 in Ecclesiastical

Relations%! um-arton a)s Papers% no. 55% 5<8=.. The territor1 of (alicia% situated on the northeastern slopes of the *arpathian &ountains in

present da1 /)raine% first -ecame a strong and independent po4er under Prince Roman ?556<9

5F78@ of ;ladimir in ;ol1nia% and later under his son aniel ?5F895FG@. Although aniel

5<5



accept the throne% he soon -ecame a deout champion of *atholicism% cooperating 4ith the

#esuits in the *atholic restoration in Poland% and een attempted to force his rthodo su-ects to

accept the calendar reform of (regor1 OIII ?see [email protected]. Sigismund III ;asa ?586=95GF@% a deout *atholic% 4as elected )ing on the premature death

of Stephen Bator1. It is interesting to note that% acting as the traditional protector of the rthodo

su-ects of the *ommon4ealth% he issued a ro1al charter on #ul1 58% 586< authori$ing Patriarch#eremiah's isit to 2ithuania ?see -elo4% section ;@ and an1 action he might ta)e on religious

matters% and confirmed #eremiah's deposition of metropolitan of ,ie nesifor as 4ell as his

decision to put the Brotherhoods of 2o and ;ilno outside the urisdiction of the local -ishops%4ho 4ere appointed -1 the Polish cro4n. ?The charter is reprinted in Russ)aia istoriches)aia

-i-liote)a% ;II% col. 555=955F5@. +o4eer% on ecem-er 58% 58<G% shortl1 after the /nion of

Brest% he irtuall1 outla4ed the rthodo *hurch -1 calling on all rthodo *hristians to oin

the union and -anning all opposition to the union. In the latter part of his reign he t4ice inaded&uscoite Russia0 in 5G57 4hile &usco1 4as in its “Time of Trou-les! to tr1 and gain the

Russian cro4n for himself% and again in 5G5= to support his son and successor "tad1sta4's

claim to the throne.

58. (ioanni *ommendone ?58F9586@ 4as the papal nuncio to Poland from 58G958G8. +e4as responsi-le for o-taining ,ing Sigismund II's acceptance of the decrees of the *ouncil of

Trent ?see note 5<G@ and for persuading him to gie the #esuits his ro1al protection in Poland%there-1 setting the stage for the *atholic restoration actiities -egun under Stephen Bator1. +e

4as also the first of the papal nuncios to gie attention to the pro-lem of conerting the

rthodo% as 4ell as the Protestants% to the Roman *hurch. 2ater he returned as a papal legate toget Poland's participation in an anti9ttoman league.

5G. Stanislaus *ardinal +osius ?Stanista4 +o$us$@ ?587958=<@% the great Polish -ishop and one

of the leading *atholic hierarchs of the lGth centur1% had -een a presiding mem-er of the *ouncil

of Trent. Reno4ned for his $eal in com-atting the opponents of *atholicism% he 4as referred to -1 contemporaries as the “second Augustine! and the “hammer of heretics.! It 4as he 4ho

actuall1 introduced the Societ1 of #esus ?#esuits@ in Poland in 58G. Bet4een 58G and 5G8 87

#esuit esta-lishments 4ere founded in Poland.5=. See -elo4% section I;.

56. The “nation! or millet s1stem had long -een used -1 &oslem rulers to deal 4ith religious

minorities 4ithin their realms. Each “nation! 4as allo4ed to goern its internal affairs accordingto its o4n la4s and customs% and the religious head of the “nation! 4as responsi-le for it -efore

the &oslem authorities. After the conCuest of B1$antium% the Tur)ish rulers etended this s1stem

to the rthodo under the patriarch of *onstantinople.

5<. I.e. Peter &ogila ?&oila in Romanian% &oh1la in /)rainian@. See -elo4% section ;II.F7. a)harii ,op1stens)ii ?d. 5GF=@ 4as a leading rthodo monastic in the period after the

/nion of Brest. See -elo4% section ;.

F5. Russ)aia istoriches)aia -i-liote)a% I;% 65.FF. Artemii's epistles are pu-lished in Russ)aia istoriches)aia -i-liote)a% I;% col. 5F75956. See

also S.(. ;ilins)ii% Poslaniia startsa Artemiia O;I e)a% ?dessa% 5<7G@.

F. Socinianism 4as an Anti9Trinitarian offshoot of the Protestant Reformation. It too) its namefrom t4o earl1 proponents of the heres1 in Ital1% 2aelius ?58F8958GF@ and 3austus ?58<95G7@

Socinus% 4ho taught that *hrist 4as not diine -1 nature% -ut onl1 -1 office. The center of the

moement soon shifted to the Poland92ithuania *ommon4ealth% 4here 3austus Socinus himself

moed% and 4here it diided into t4o rial factions. The Polish faction% led -1 Socinus% held that

5<



it 4as proper to address *hrist in pra1er -ecause of +is diine office% and preached non9

participation in goernment and in the militar1. The 2ithuanian group% 4hich Budn1 oined and

soon led% included seeral local no-lemen 4ho )ept their positions in the goerriment% and taughtthat since *hrist 4as not trul1 (od it 4as therefore for-idden to pra1 to +im% hence the name

non9adorantes. The t4o groups 4ere some4hat reconciled at a s1nod in 586% -ut Budn1 himself

4as ecommunicated from them and died a fe4 1ears later. See E.&. "il-ur% A +istor1 of /nitarianism% ol. I ?*am-ridge% &ass.% 5<8@.

F. Budn1's ,ate)hi$is 4as pu-lished ?although not in full@ in Ar)heografiches)ii s-orni)

do)umento% otnosiashchi)hsia ) istorii seero9$apadnoi Rusi% ol. ;III% ?;ilna% 56=7@% i9i.3ragments of the pradanie 4ere pu-lished in p1t' rossiis)oi -i-liografii ;.S. Sopi)oa% ch. I%

?St. Peters-urg% 565@. The latest essa1 on Budn1 is -1 S. ,ot in Studien $ur alteren (eschichte

steuropas 5 ?3estschrift fr +.3. Schmid@% ?(ra$9,oln% 5<8G@% pp. G9556.

F8. See *hapter I% note 5.FG. See *hapter I% note .

F=. See *hapter I% note <.

F6. St. #ohn of amascus ?d. ===@% the last great theologian of the Patristic age% 4as the leading

defender of rthodo1 during the controers1 oer icons% and is -est )no4n for his e 3iderthodoa or An Eact Eposition of the rthodo 3aith% as 4ell as the numerous pra1ers and

h1mns attri-uted to him.F<. See a-oe% *hapter I% section ;I.

7. Artemii had a num-er of priate pupils% one of 4hom > &ar) Sar1go$in > later 4or)ed

4ith ,ur-s)ii on Patristic translations. LAuthor's note.M 2ittle is )no4n a-out Sar1go$in ?or Sar1)ho$in@. +e deserted to 2ithuania along 4ith Timofei Teterin% an arm1 officer 4ho fled

a-out the same time as Prince ,ur-s)ii. In an undated letter to Sar1go$in% ,ur-s)ii relates his

interest in Patritic 4ritings and as)s Sar1go$in to isit him in 2ithuania to help translate the

3athers into *hurch Slaonic. *f. #.2.I. 3ennell% editor and translator% The *orrespondence -et4een Prince A.&. ,ur-s)1 and Tsar Ian I; of Russia% 58G958=<% ?*am-ridge% 5<G@% p.

56F% n. =. The ,ur-s)ii correspondence should -e read 4ith caution and in the light of the

possi-le significance of Ed4ard 2. ,eenan's research. See footnote 8 of *hapter I.5. There is an English translation of ,ur-s)ii's histor1 -1 #.2.I. 3ennell% ,ur-s)1's +istor1 of

Ian I;% ?*am-ridge% 5<G8@.

F. See a-oe% *hapter I% section ;I.. A controers1 eists as to 4hether or not% prior to the l=th centur1% li-raries in &osco4

contained (ree) manuscripts. ne ie4% -ased on pro-a-ilit1% claims that the1 4ere -rought -1

(ree) scholars 4ho came 4ith Sophia Palaeologos0 conseCuentl1 at the time of Ian I; a si$a-le

collection 4as aaila-le. The opposite case% resting on the a-sence of eidence% holds that untilthe l=th centur1 onl1 Slaonic material 4as at hand. The pro-lem remains unsoled. LAuthor's

note. M

. St. #ohn *hr1sostom% the “(olden &outh! ?d. 7=@% is one of the most reno4ned and -eloedfigures in the histor1 of the rthodo *hurch. +e is )no4n mostl1 for his fearless preaching in

*onstantinople% his numerous homilies on the Ne4 Testament (ospels and Epistles% and the

iine 2iturg1 most commonl1 cele-rated in rthodo churches% 4hich is attri-uted to him.8. St. (regor1 Na$ian$us% the “Theologian! ?c. 796@% 4as% along 4ith St. Basil and his

-rother St. (regor1 N1ssa% one of the great th centur1 thin)ers 4ho led the church to the final

ictor1 oer Arianism and helped to standardi$e the theological terminolog1 oer 4hich so man1

-attles 4ere fought in the th centur1 Trinitarian and Sth centur1 *hristological controersies.

5<

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/greek/chrysostom_liturgy.htm

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/greek/chrysostom_liturgy.htm



4or)ed tirelessl1% sometimes preaching four times a da1. In 5887 Spangen-erg died% leaing

-ehind his 4ife of fort19three 1ears and four sons ?three of 4hom -ecame theologians@.

Spangen-erg 4rote h1mns% sermons% 4or)s of a doctrinal nature and 4or)s on general moraldeelopment. In his Nfargarita theologica he transposes &elanchthon's 2oci theologici into the

form of Cuestions. +is Triii Erotomata dealt 4ith the triium in the form of Cuestions.

=. 3ragments of partiall1 completed translations% among them sections of Euse-ius'Ecclesiastical +istor1% eist in manuscript form. LAuthor's note.M The Ecclesiastical +istor1 of

Euse-ius% -ishop of *aesarea ?d. <@ is -1 far the most famous of earl1 church histories and the

prime source for all research into the *hristian *hurch. A critical edition of this 4or) 4ascompiled -1 Ed4ard Sch4art$ and pu-lished in (riechische *hristliche Schriftsteller ?2eip$ig%

5<79 5<7<@.

6. *ommonl1 -ut erroneousl1 ascri-ed to &aim the (ree). LAuthor's note.M

<. Theodoret% -ishop of *1rus ?F9GG@% 4as a theologian of the Antioch tradition% from 4hich Nestorius came% and his friendship and s1mpath1 for Nestorius 4as to proe his undoing later%

for although he formall1 condemned Nestorius at *halcedon in 85% he himself 4as condemned

as one of the “Three *hapters! at the 3ifth Ecumenical *ouncil in *onstantinople in 88.

utside of the *hristological controersies% ho4eer% he 4as )no4n for his alua-le Scripturaleegeses.

87. &an1 etant fragments of commentaries on the Psalms% (enesis% Ecclesiastes and the Songof Songs hae -een attri-uted to St. Athanasius% -ishop of Aleandria from F6 to =% a

courageous fighter against the Arians 4ho 4as eiled fie times from his see and is -est )no4n

for his Three iscourses Against the Arians and The 2ife of St. Anthon1.85. Ian 3edoro had set up the first printing press in &osco4 in 58G -ut 4as soon drien out

-1 a superstitious mo- aroused -1 the professional manuscript copiers. +e then 4ent to

adlu-o in 2ithuania% 4here he printed the (ospels in 58G6 and% 4hen his patron lost interest in

the proect% moed on to esta-lish the first press in 2o in 58=. 2ater he 4ent to strog to4or) for Prince ,onstantin 4here he printed the strog Bi-le ?586795865@. After that he tried to

start his o4n esta-lishment -ac) in 2o -ut died there in 586.

8F. Petr &stislaets had -een 3edoro's assistant in &osco4. +e came 4ith him to 2ithuania andsettled in ;ilna% 4here he printed the (ospels and the Psalms.

8. The *hod)ie4ic$ famil1 4as one of the most prominent no-le families in 2ithuania and 4as

highl1 s1mpathetic to the Protestant Reformation. (rigorii *hod)ie4ic$% the castellane of ;ilna%4ho 4as himself rthodo% set aside his entire income of one of his large illages to finance

3edoro's printing operation.

8. See -elo4% section I;.

88. n -oo)printing during this period see &.N. Ti)homiro% “Nachale mos)os)ogo)nigopechataniia%! /chen1e $apis)i &(/ ?&osco4% 5<7@ and A.;. erno% Nachalo

)nigopechataniia &os)e i na /)raine ?&osco4% 58=@.

8G. (erasim Smotrits)ii 4as the first rector of the strog Academ1% the principal colla-orator inthe preparation of the strog Bi-le% the author of its Preface% and the author of The ,e1 to the

,ingdom of +eaen% a defense of rthodo1 against the /niates 4ritten in 586. See -elo4.

8=. n a /nited 3aith 4as pu-lished in strog in 586 and is presered in Russ)aiaistoriches)aia -i-liote)a% ;II% G759<6.

86. emian Naliai)o 4as the priest of St. Nicholas *hurch in strog. +is -rother Semerin 4as

the organi$er of his o4n -and of *ossac)s 4ho reolted in the fall of 58<8 and plundered the

territor1 around the cit1 of 2uts)% including the estates of Bishop Terlets)ii% 4ho 4as in Rome at

5<G



the time receiing the Pope's -lessing of the /nion of Brest ?see -elo4@. The follo4ing 1ear

Semerin 4as captured -1 the Polish arm1% tortured in prison for a 1ear% and -eheaded.

8<. #an 2iatos ?c. 58<95G78@% a *atholic% 4as a professor at the /niersit1 of *raco4 4ho 4asdismissed from his position -ecause he opposed the calendar reform of Pope (regor1 OIII. See

-elo4.

G7. #aco- Sus$a% Saulus et Paulus. LAuthor's note.M #aco- Sus$a ?5G5795G6=@ 4as the -ishop of *helm from 5G8F and the head of the /niate Basilian order of mon)s from 5GG5 to 5GG=. +is

Saulus et Paulus ruthenae unionis sanguine -eati #osaphati transformatus sie &eletius

Smotricius 4as pu-lished in Rome in 5G8G.G5. ;eliamin Ruts)ii% the /niate metropolitan of strog% ie4ed stro$hs)ii's plan as an effort to

counter-alance the /niate *ollege of St. Athanasius founded in Rome in 58=G -1 the #esuit

Antonio Posseino. The purpose of this school 4as to educate (ree)s and Slas of the Eastern

rite. LAuthor's note.M Ruts)ii ?58=95G=@ succeeded +1patius Pocie ?see -elo4% note 6=@ as/niate metropolitan of ,ie in 5G5. +e 4or)ed unsuccessfull1 against the actiities of the

rthodo Brotherhood of ,ie and organi$ed the /niate monasteries under his control into a

regular order under the rule of St. Basil.

GF. *1ril 2ucaris 4as one of the most important and tragic figures in the rthodo *hurch of thistime. Born in *rete in 58=F% he receied a -road humanist education at the (ree) school in

;enice and the /niersit1 of Padua. +e 4as ordained priest -1 his cousin% &eletius Pigas% the patriarch of Aleandria and sent to Eastern Europe to help the rthodo in their struggle against

the /nion of Brest. +e attended the rthodo s1nod of 58<G in Brest ?see -elo4@ and taught in

the rthodo schools of strog% ;ilna and 2o. 3orced to flee for a short time -ecause he 4asaccused of -eing a Tur)ish sp1% he returned to the 2o school for another -rief period in 5G77

and then 4as elected patriarch of Aleandria in 5G75. "hile patriarch of Aleandria% he acCuired

seeral utch and Engtish Protestant friencTs 4ith 4hom he corresponded on religious matters%

and -1 5G5= he 4as ta)ing open Protestant positions on such matters as sacraments and icons. In5GF7 2ucaris 4as elected patriarch of *onstantinople and -ecame the focal point of the constant

intrigues surrounding that see under the Tur)s. +is *onfession% first pu-lished in 2atin at (enea

in 5GF<% had a thoroughl1 pro9*alinist character% and caused 2ucaris to -e a special target of the#esuits at the ttoman court 4ho 4ere mainl1 responsi-le for his depositions in 5GF5% 5G% and

5G8. 3inall1% in 5G6 -oth *1ril 2ucaris and his *onfession 4ere condemmed at a s1nod in

*onstantinople% he 4as arrested -1 the Tur)s on charges of treason and 4hile sailing to eile he4as murdered -1 the sailors on his ship: The -est account of *1ril's life 4as compiled -1

Thomas Smith% *ollectanea de *1rillo 2ucario ?2ondon% 5=7=@0 a modern 4or) on *1ril is (.A.

+adiantoniou% Protestant Patriarch ?Richmond% ;a.% 5<G5@.

G. See -elo4% section ;.G. Pope (regor1 OIII ?58=F95868@ 4as )no4n for his attempts to 4in -ac) England% S4eden%

and een Russia for *atholicism% his promotion of the #esuit order% and the (regorian /niersit1

in Rome% 4hich he founded. +e is -est remem-ered% ho4eer% for appointing a commission toreise the old #ulian calendar and carr1ing out its recommendations to adance the calendar from

cto-er to cto-er 58% 586F.

G8. Primo$ Tru-er ?58769586G@ 4as the leader of the 2utheran moement in *arnolia ?a proinceof the Austrian empire% no4 part of Dugoslaia@. +e first pu-lished a Sloene translation of the

(ospels% Acts and the Epistle to the Romans at Tu-ingen in 588=9G7. The net 1ear he added a

translation of (alatians and I and II *orinthians. 2ater he pu-lished% along 4ith another

5<=



*arnolian reformer% #uri almatin% a complete Sloene Bi-le at "urttem-urg in 586. See 2.

2egisa and A. (span% eds.% godina sloens)ega slosta ?2u-lana% 5<8G@% I% pp. F7G9.

GG. ;asilii Tiapins)ii 4as a minor no-le from Polots) 4ho translated and printed the (ospels of &atthe4% &ar) and 2u)e and sho4ed a Socinian influence. See &.;. onar9anol's)ii% ;.

Tiapins)ii% pereodchi) Eangeliia na -eloruss)oe narechie ?St. Peters-urg% 56<<@.

G=. Not much is )no4n a-out Negales)ii. +is translation of the (ospels 4as accompanied -1 aSocinian introduction and commentaries and 4as not printed at the time.

G6. &arcin *$echo4ic$ ?58F95G5@ 4as a *alinist minister in ;ilna 4ho oined the Anti9

Trinitarians and later% as the head of a large /nitarian congregation in 2u-lin% -ecame the mostinfluential /nitarian theologian in Poland net to 3austus Socinus ?see note F@. +is Polish

translation of the Ne4 Testament 4as made to counteract the Bi-le of S$1mon Budn1 ?of the

non9adorantes in 2ithuania@. +is most fanious 4or) is e Paedo-aptistarum errorum origine%

?2u-lin%[email protected]<. S)orina ?d. after 588@ 4as a doctor of medicine and a former student of the /niersities of

*raco4 and Padua. +e -egan printing -oo)s first in Prague and after 58F8 in ;ilna.

=7. The /traCuists 4ere a conseratie religious group in Bohemia 4hich split 4ith the Roman

*hurch oer the issue of communion in -oth species. The1 4ere recogni$ed -1 the *ouncil of Basel ?see -elo4% note <@ -ut relations 4ith Rome fell apart 4hen the Pope refused to recogni$e

their candidate for their -ishop. In 585 the1 sent a representatie to *onstantinople to discussunion 4ith the (ree) *hurch% -ut as the patriarchal throne 4as acant the proect 4as confined

to the echange of friendl1 messages and 4as forgotten 4hen the cit1 fell to the Tur)s t4o 1ears

later. &ean4hile the more radical descendants of the +ussites 4ere gaining strength in Bohemiaand 4hen 2uthei appeared on the scene the mem-ers of the /traCuist *hurch either 4ent oer to

the Reformation or 4ere rea-sor-ed into.the *atholic *hurch. Their Bi-le% pu-lished at ;enice in

587G% 4as -ased on +us' Bi-le% 4hich 4as itself a reision of a ernacular ersion supposedl1

the 4or) of SS. *1ril and &ethodius ?see *hapter I% note 58@.=5. See a-oe% *hapter I% note 6G.

=F. See a-oe% *hapter I% note =F.

=. &edieal #e4ish communities handed do4n the -asic +e-re4 consonantal tet of the ldTestament 4ith a &asora% a s1stem of o4el mar)ings and diisions to aid pronunciation in the

pu-lic reading of the Scriptures. The &asora 4as standardi$ed in the lth centur1 and the

&assoretic tet edited -1 the #e4 #aco- -en *ha11im and pu-lished in ;enice in 58F958F8 -ecame the protot1pe for most printed ersions of the +e-re4 ld Testament.

=. The Septuagint% the earliest translation of the ld Testament into (ree)% 4hich dates fror: the

first three centuries -efore *hrist% 4as printed for the first time -1 Andreas Asulanus in 5856 on

the presses of Aldus &anutius in ;enice.=8. *ardinal Oimenes de *isneros ?5G9585=@ 4as a great Spanish ecclesiastic% statesman and

(rand InCuisitor. +is pol1got Bi-le% printed in Alcala in Spain contained parallel columns of the

+e-re4% Aramaic% Septuagint and 2atin ld Testaments and the Ne4 Testament in (ree) and2atin. It 4as the first and most famous of seeral lGth centur1 pol1glot Bi-les.

=G. See a-oe% *hapter I% note 6.

==. stro$hs)ii's -rother9in9la4 4as #ohn *hristopher Tarno4s)i% 4ith 4hom Peter S)arga ?see -elo4@ lied for t4o 1ears. stro$hs)ii's daughter married #an ,is$)a% the leading Socinian

no-le in 2ithuania. 3or a genealog1 of the stro$hs)ii famil1 see #. "olff% ,nia$io4ie lite4s)o9

rusc1 ?"arsa4% 56<8@.

5<6



=6. “;indiciae pro /nitariorum in Polonia Religionis u-ertate% a- ECuite Polone conscriptae%! in

*hristopher Sandius% Bi-liotheca Antitrinitariorum% ?3reistadii9Amsterdam% 5G6@. LAuthor's

note.M=<. &otoila ?also spelled &oto4i)o or &oto4il)o@% an o-scure unitarian% pro-a-l1 a

2ithuanian% appears to hae -een a millenarian. The onl1 information a-out him seems to come

from a letter 4ritten -1 Prince ,ur-s)ii in 58=6. +is -oo) 4as neer pu-lished.67. Peter S)arga ?58G95G5F@ 4as the most influential Polish #esuit of his time. +e -egan his

career as the chancellor of the *atholic archdiocese of 2o 4here he made earl1 contacts 4ith

stro$hs)ii. After he entered the #esuit order% he helped found schools in #arosla4 and ;ilna and%4hen the college at ;ilna -ecame the first #esuit uniersit1 in 58=6% S)arga 4as its first rector.

+is cele-rated -oo)% actuall1 4ritten three 1ears -efore it 4as pu-lished% dealt 4ith the (ree)

*hurch in the tradition of the *ouncil of 3lorence. Its main arguments for reunion 4ere that the

B1$antine emperor and patriarch had originall1 accepted the /nion of 3lorence% thus restoringthe unit1 of the 4hole church under the Pope 4hich had eisted seerat centuries earlier% and that

the contemporar1 (ree) patriarch 4as under the humiliating domination of the Tur)s and 4as

elected and deposed contrar1 to canon la4. The -oo) 4as reprinted in 58<7 4ith a dedication to

,ing Sigismund III% at 4hose court S)arga had -een official preacher since 5866. In the prefaceto the second edition S)arga complained that 4ealth1 rthodo no-les ?i.e.% stro$hs)ii@ 4ere

-u1ing up all the copies of the first edition and -urning them% and he urged the )ing to step upnegotiations 4ith the pro9union -ishops. S)arga 4as the )ing's representatie and chief *atholic

theologian at the S1nod of Brest in 58<G 4hen the union 4as formall1 ratified% and 4or)ed

tirelessl1 until his death in 5G5F to promote the *atholic cause -oth among the rthodo and theProtestants. See #. Tretia)% S)arga 4 d$ieach i lieteratur$e /nii -r$es)ie ?*raco4% 5<5F@.

65. *uriousl1% the first edition of S)arga's -oo) itself is dedicated to stro$hs)ii% and in the

Preface the author refers to conersations the1 had earlier on the su-ect. LAuthor's noteM.

6F. See a-oe% note 55.6. Photinus of Sirmium 4as condemned in 8 as a modalist% or one 4ho held that 3ather% Son

and +ol1 Spirit are ust three different epressions or operations of one (od.

6. Paul of Samosata% -ishop of Antioch from FG7 to FG6% professed a heretical theolog1stressing the unit1 of (od to the point of modalism% and the humanit1 of *hrist to the point of

adoptionism ?the -elief that #esus 4as an ordinar1 man 4hom (od chose to -e *hrist@.

68. See *hapter I% note 55.6G. Al-erto Bolognetti 4as the papal nuncio to Poland from 5865 until his death in 5868.

6=. Adam Pocie ?d.5G5@% an influential no-leman and the castellarte of Brest% gre4 up as a

*alinist and onl1 later oined the rthodo *hurch. +e too) the monastic name +1patius and

-ecame -ishop of Brest and ;ladimir in 58<. Shortl1 after4ard% at a secret meeting at Torc$1nin 58<% he declared himself in faor of union 4ith Rome and -egan to 4or) closel1 4ith

another -ishop% Terlets)ii ?see riote 576@% in promoting the union among the rest of the rthodo

clerg1 in 2ithuania. n #une 5% 58<8 he signed a formal message to ,ing Sigismund IIIannouncing that he and seeral other -ishops 4ere read1 to enter into communion 4ith Rome%

and in the fall of that 1ear he traelled to Rome 4ith Terlets)ii to present the union to Pope

*lement ;III. In 58<< he 4as eleated to /niate metropolitan of ,ie. A -iograph1 of Pocie -1I. Saic)1 appears in #u-ilena )niha 779Iitni ro)oini smerti &itropolita #pati1a Poti1a

?2o% 5<5@% pp. 595.

66. The *onfessio Sandomiriensis 4as the product of a s1nod held in 58=7 as a proect of

Protestant unification. The *onfessio remained% ho4eer% the creed of onl1 the *alinists and the

5<<



*$ech ?Bohemian@ Brethren. The s1nod also dre4 up the so9called *onsensus Sandomiriensis%

4hich 4as a pledge to struggle against -oth Anti9Trinitarians and Roman *atholics.

6<. stro$hs)ii's letter to the S1nod of Torun initing the Protestants to% oin the opposition to the/nion of Brest% also spo)e een of an armed uprising. +is letter is in Russ)aia istoriches)aia

-i-liote)a% OIO% GF9G8.

<7. Incidentall1% in the time of Sigismund II Augustus ?586958=F@ negotiations 4ith “those of different faiths! 4ere part of the i-eral *atholic program. LAuthor's note.M

<5. 3or Turnos)ii's description of his ourne1 to Sandomier$ in 58=7 see ,.E.#. #oerensen%

)umenische Besfre-ungen unter den polnischen Protestanten ?*openhagen% 5<F@% FG5.<F. See a-oe% note =7.

<. &eletius Pigas ?d. 5G75@ 4as Cuite actie in opposing attempts at union 4ith the Roman

*atholic *hurch -oth in 2ithuania and on the island of *hios. The -asic 4or) on him remains I.

&alishes)ii% Ale)sandriis)ii Patriar)h &eletii Pigas i ego uchastie dela)h russ)oi tser)i?,ie% 56=F@% F ols.

<. n the *ouncil of *onstance% see a-oe% note 8. The *ouncil of Basel 4as conened in 5G5

to correct arious monetar1 a-uses among the Roman *atholic hierarch1. Pope Eugene I;

moed it to 3errara in 5= ?see *hapter I note 8F@ -ut the conciliarist part1 at the councilre-elled% deposing the Pope and sending their o4n fleet to *onstantinople to get the (ree)s'

participation in a proect of union. The (ree)s% ho4eer% chose to go 4ith the papal tleet to the*ouncil of 3errara93lorence% and the representaties at the *ouncil of Basel finall1 recogni$ed

the reigning Pope Nicholas ; and dis-anded in 5<.

<8. &arco Antonio de ominis' -oo) 4as pu-lished in 5G5= and asserted that the Pope 4as onl1'primus inter pares Lfirst among eCualsM 4ith no urisdiction oer other -ishops.

<G. Broris)i 4as t4ice sent as am-assador to the ,han of *rimea. These isits inspired his

alua-le escriptio Tataria ?*olloniae Agripp 5868@. LAuthor's note.M There is a Russian edition

of this -oo)% “pisanie ,r1ma%! in apis)i dess)ago o-shchesta istorii i drenostei ?dessa%56G=@% ol. I;.

<=. *asimir Nesets)ii's cele-rated Boo) of +eraldr1 L(er-oni)M mentions Brons)i <n flattering

terms. LAuthor's note.M<6. The Apo)risis is )no4n to hae eisted in at least t4o ersions the original Polish and an

adaption for "est Russia. Brons)i later 4ent oer to the /nia. LAuthor's note.M

<<. The Instituriones *-ristianiae% the famous compendium of *alinist theolog1 4as first printed at Basel in 58G and reised and epanded until *alin's death in 588<. See #. *alin%

Institutes of t-e *hristian Religion% translated -1 3.2. Battles and edited -1 #.T. &cNeill

?Philadelphia% 5<G7@% F ols.

577. Sigrandus 2u--ertus ?588G95GF8@% a strict *alinist and follo4er of Be$a% 4as a prolific4riter 4ho struggled against *atholics and Socinians.

575. &eletii Smotrits)ii ?58=695G@ 4as educated -oth at the rthodo school of strog and

the #esuit college at ;ilna. +e 4as made rthodo -ishop of Polots) in 5GF7 -ut 4as so seerl1 persecuted -1 the Polish authorities that he 4as forced to ta)e refuge 4ith the /)rainian

*ossac)s until he finall1 4ent oer to the /nia in 5GF=. In the -oo) cited here he deplored the

current state of the rthodo *hurch caused -1 the desertion of almost all the 4ealth1 andinfluential rthodo no-les. Smotrits)ii also pu-lished a grammar of *hurch Slaonic in 5G5<.

57F. i$ani's treatise 4as included in a collection )no4n as the ,irilloa )niga ?5G@% 4hich

4as Cuite popular in the 5=th centur1 in &osco4% 4here% of course% it 4as not )no4n that the

arguments originated from a *alinist source. LAuthor's note.M Stephen i$ani 4as a teacher at

F77



the -rotherhood schools in 2o ?4here he 4as later rector@ and ;ilna. A igorous opponent of

the union% he pu-lished a -oo) entitled The Roman *hurch in 58<G% for 4hich he 4as

condemned as a heretic -1 the pro9/nion s1nod of Brest in that same 1ear. In 58<<% at theinstigation of the /niate -ishop Pocie he 4as -anished from ;ilna -1 ,ing Sigismund III's

order% and his su-seCuent fate is un)no4n.

57. ;ladimir Peretts ?56=795<G@ 4as a noted Russian literar1 historian.57. The ctoechos% or “-oo) of eight tones%! contains eight sets of special h1mns used in a

4ee)l1 c1cle in the serices of the rthodo *hurch.

578. The +orologion is a serice -oo) containing the offices of the +ours% T1pical Psalms% andthe readers' and singers' parts of arious other serices.

57G. ;ishens)ii's 4ritings hae -een reproduced in A)t1 iu$hnoi i $apadnoi Rossii ?St.

Peters-urg% 56G8@% II% F789F7=.

57=. &etropolitan &a)arii ?565G9566F@ 4as a distinguished l<th centur1 Russian historian andtheologian% and 4as made metropolitan of &osco4 in 56=<. +is main 4or) is a thirteen olume

Istoriia russ)oi tser)i ?St. Peters-urg% 566<95<7@.

576. n Pocie% see a-oe% note 6=. ,irill Terlets)ii ?d. 5G7=@ 4as the rthodo -ishop of 2uts).

"hen Patriarch #eremiah II of *onstantinople passed through "est Russia ?see -elo4@% heappointed Terlets)ii his earch and instructed him to call regular s1nods of the local episcopate.

Terlets)ii% ho4eer% used these s1nods to ma)e arrangements for the union 4ith Rome% -eginning4ith a meeting in Brest in 58<7% ust one 1ear after #eremiah's isit.

57<. Nicephorus 4as Patriarch #eremiah's icar 4hen the latter died in 58<% and had managed to

maintain some measure of authorit1 in the anarch1 that follo4ed in *onstantinople. +e 4asimprisoned as a sp1 ?at the reCuest of the Polish goernment@ on his 4a1 through "allachia% -ut

stro$hs)ii managed to secure his release so he could preside oer the rthodo council. There

4as some Cuestion as to 4hether he had the po4er to do so% as the patriarchal see in

*onstantinople 4as acant at the time. *1ril 2ucaris% ho4eer% Patriarch Pigas' representatie%4ho 4as certainl1 a4are of the situation in *onstantinople% deferred to him% and Pigas himself

confirmed his decisions a 1ear later. Earl1 in 58<6 Nicephorus 4as arrested -1 the Polish police

as a Tur)ish sp1 and eecuted.557. 2u)e of Belgrade had as one of his goals financial support.

555. (edeon Bala-an ?d. 5G7=@% the -ishop of 2o% 4as actuall1 one of the first rthodo

-ishops in "est Russia to come out in faor of the union% signing pro9union declarations in Brestin 58<7 and in So)al in 58<. +is name also appears on the #une 58<8 declaration that Pocie and

Terlets)ii -rought to Rome. B1 this time% ho4eer% he had renounced the idea of union and in

#ul1 of that 1ear he filed a formal protest in a local court charging that he had signed a -lan)

piece of paper on 4hich Terlets)ii 4as supposed to list complaints against the Polishgoernment's oppression of the rthodo *hurch. Thereafter he 4as a leading opponent of the

/niate *hurch and 4as named &eletius Pigas' earch in 58<=.

55F. &i)hail ,op1stens)ii ?d. 5G57@ 4as the -ishop of Perem1shl% and 4as also an earl1supporter of the union 4ho later -ecame a leader of the rthodo opposition.

55. +e 4as actuall1 a su-ect of the ttoman empire% 4ith 4hich Poland had -een on -ad terms

for some time. LAuthor's note.M55. The Blac) Sea steppes had -een left desolate from the Tatar deastations of the lth and lth

centuries and it 4as to this region% -e1ond the control of goernments% no-lemen and landlords%

that do4ntrodden peasants -egan to migrate in the late l8th centur1 to care a free life for

themseles. These people% )no4n as “*ossac)s%! 4ere forced to organi$e into armed -ands to

F75



defend their freedom against roing Tatar groups% and gre4 in strength and num-ers through9 out

the lGth centur1. In the 5887's the1 -uilt a fortress in the aporo$hian ?H-elo4 the rapids!@ region

of the lo4er nieper Rier 4hich -ecame an earl1 center of their militar1 actiit1. Soon the1 -ecame a potent militar1 force% gaining master1 of the steppes against the Tatars and Tur)s% and a

potent social force as 4ell% setting up camps on no-le estates in 2ithuania and attracting the

oppressed peasantr1 to their num-ess. The Polish92ithuanian goernment continuall1 tried tosu-due them% either -1 direct militar1 action 4hich met 4ith some successes -ut neer resulted

in their ultimate su-mission% or -1 enlisting them in the serices of their o4n foreign polic1%

4hich al4a1s -ac)fired -ecause the Polish goernment 4as neer a-le to )eep their promises to pa1 the *ossac)s and respect their freedom. Because these aporo$hian *ossac)s 4ere

occasionall1 in the serice of the )ings of Poland the1 called themseles “)nights%! and -ecause

of the democratic social organi$ation of their group the1 termed their arm1 as a 4hole a

“fello4ship.! 3or a good general account of the rise and the actiities of the *ossac)s see &.+rushes)ii% A +istor1 of the /)raine ?Ne4 +aen% 5<5@% 59G5.

558. Patriarch #eremiah of *onstantinople ?d. 58<@ passed through "est Russia in 586G on his

4a1 to &osco4% 4here he came to see) funds and ended up esta-lishing the &osco4

patriarchate% and again in 586696< on his return trip. The Polish authorities 4ere unusuall1friendl1 to him% pro-a-l1 -ecause the1 felt he himself 4as inclined to4ards union% -ut also

-ecause the papal nuncio Bolognetti and the #esuit Posseino had earlier concocted a scheme tohae #eremiah moe his see to either ,ie% 2o or ;ilna% 4here he 4ould -e under Roman

influence. 3or the *atholic attitude to #eremiah's ourne1 see . +alec)i% 3rom 3lorence to Brest

?5<958<G#% pp. F59F8.55G. ,oroles)ie priilei. The (rand uch1 of 2ithuania 4as a loose confederation of “lands%!

and it 4as customar1 for the (rand Prince to guarantee the far reaching autonom1 of these

smaller principalities -1 priilei% or special “charters.! This practice 4as then etended to the

-totherhoods.55=. Theophanes 4as also on his 4a1 to &osco4 to see) funds 4hen he 4as as)ed -1 the

rthodo clerg1 in ,ie to consecrate a metropolitan and fie other -ishops for them. This time

the *atho+c authorities 4ere etremel1 hostile% -ut the rthodo *ossac)s had achieed irtualmaster1 oer the ,iean region and gae Theophanes their protection and a militar1 escort in

and out of the countr1.

556. 3ilaret 4as patriarch of &osco4 from 5G5< to 5G and his son% &i)hail Romano ?5G595G8@ 4as the first tsar of the Romano d1nast1% 4hich lasted until 5<5=. Together the1 restored

order in Russia after the “Time of Trou-les.!

55< Sagadaichn1 ?d. 5GFF@ had distinguished himself in leading sea raids against the Tur)s%

sac)ing the su-ur-s of *onstantinople on a num-er of occasions. +e also led an epedition into&usco1 in 5G56 4hich almost succeeded in ta)ing &osco4 itself. Through his militar1

endeaors and also his diplomac1 > )eeping the Polish arm1 at -a1 -1 agreeing to gie in to

their demands -ut stalling until the goernment needed his help > he 4as a-le to achiee*ossac) master1 of the /)raine. A firm rthodo *hristian and supporter of the rthodo

schools and the ,iean -rotherhood% Sagadaichn1's protection against the hostile Polish9*atholic

authorities 4as inalua-le for the reial of the rthodo *hurch in "est Russia.5F7. Io Borets)ii ?d. 5G5@ 4as an epert in (ree) and 2atin% as 4ell as in the *hurch 3athers.

Among his more noted 4or)s 4ere Anthologion ?a translation of (ree) liturgical tets@% ?,ie%

5G5<@% and Apolliia apologia &eletiia Smotrits)ago ?,ie% 5GF6@.

5F5. See a-oe% note 575.

F7F



5FF. ,urtseioh ?d. 5GFG@ 4as consecrated -ishop of ;ladimir in ;ol1rua. After he 4as made

-ishop% the Polish authorities% 4ho did not recogni$e an1 of these consecrations% threatened to

imprison him% and ,urtseich 4as forced to flee to &usco1% 4here he spent the last 1ear of hislife as the arch-ishop of Su$dal'.

5F. The rthodo representaties at the electoral diet in 5GF 4ere strong enough to force

Sigismund's son% "tad1sla4 I; ?5GF95G6@% to recogni$e the rthodo metropolitanate of ,ieand four other episcopal sees% and to diide the church properties and monasteries -et4een the

rthodo and the /niates.

5F. The (ree) colon1 Ne$hin% in the district of *hernigo% actuall1 dates from this period.LAuthor's note.M

5F8. In later 1ears Arsenius moed to &usco1% receiing a -ishopric first in Ter'. and then in

Su$dal'. LAuthor's note.M Patriarch leremiah of *onstantinople had -een deposed -1 the Tur)s in

5868% and his rial% Theoleptus II% 4ho held the patriarchal throne from 5868 until #eremiah'sreturn to the patriarchate in 586G% had sent t4o emissaries to &osco4 to solicit funds to satisf1

the eer9present demands of the Tur)s. Arsenius 4as one of these emissaries. n his return trip

he 4as informed that Theoleptus 4as out of po4er and he decided to remain in 2o% 4here

#eremiah stopped on his 4a1 to &osco4. After conferring 4ith him on the situation in &usco1%#eremiah decided to -ring his former pupil along 4ith him% and thus Arsenius made a second

ourne1 -efore moing there for good. +e 4rote an account of his traels in (ree)% 4hich 4as pu-lished 4ith a 2atin translation in Paris in 5=<.

5FG. *onstantine 2ascaris ?595875@ 4as a mem-er of a former B1$antine imperial famil1.

"hen *onstantinople fell to the Tur)s in 58 2ascaris fled to Ital1% 4here he taught (ree) atschools in &ilan% Rome and Naples. +is grammar% the Erotomata or (rammatica (raeca sie

compendium octo orationis partium% pu-lished in 5=G% 4as the first -oo) eer printed in the

(ree) language and 4as highl1 intluential among European humanists.

5F=. Philipp &elanchthon ?5<=958G7@% the great reformer 4ho led the Protestant moement in(erman1 after the death of his friend &artin 2uther% 4as the principal author of the Augs-urg

*onfession. ne of the leading European humanists and among the first to promote the stud1 of

(ree)% he receied the title “Preceptor of (erman1! for his role in education. &elanchthon'sInstitutiones (raeca (rammatica 4as pu-lished in 585<.

5F6. &artin ?,raus@ *rusius% a professor of (ree) at Ta-ingen around 5888% 4as one of the er1

fe4 scholars to ta)e an interest in the contemporar1 (ree) theologians and clerg1. See his(ermanograecia ?Basel% 5868@% and his Turco9(raeciae% li-ri octo ?Basel% 586@.

5F<. *lenard ?or *lenardus% 5<8958F@ 4rote -oth (ree) and +e-re4 grammars% 4hich sered

as standard tets in man1 uniersities.

57. Pletenets)ii ?c. 588795GF@% a minor (alician no-le% -ecame a--ot of the &onaster1 of the*aes LPechers)aia 2ara in 58<<% and spent his first fifteen 1ears there putting the monaster1

on solid ground -oth spirituall1 and financiall1. Then% 4ith the indispensa-le aid of the *ossac)s

under his li)e9minded friend +etman Sagadaichn1 ?see note 55<@% he 4as a-le to -egin a greatcultural reial in ,ie% the intluence of 4hich 4as felt for centuries in /)rainian histor1.

55. This 4as the press 4hich Ian 3edoro ?see a-oe% note 85@ had left in arrears 4hen he died

in 2o in 586. It 4as redeemed from local #e4ish merchants -1 Bishop (edeon Bala-an and put to use -1 the 2o -rotherhood.

5F. Pamo Ber1nda ?d. 5GF@% poet% translator% printer and a former mem-er of the -rotherhood

in 2o% 4as -rought to ,ie in 5G58 -1 Pletenets)ii.

5. 2eo ,resa 4as /niate arch-ishop of Smolens) from 5GF8 to 5G<.

F7



5. St. Andre4 of *rete ?c. GG79=7@ is )no4n in the rthodo *hurch primaril1 for his “(reat

*anon! read during the 2enten fast. +is 4or)s are in Patrologia (raeca <=% 67895.

58. See -elo4% *hapter III% section I;.5G. See a-oe% note G5.

=. The 4ord “rder! is not an eastern term. Though rthodo% St. Basil's communal rule is

designed more for an out4ard% militant organi$ation0 the Studite rule is aimed at in4ard% solitar1 piet1. LAuthor's note.M St. Basil ?see *hapter I% note 5@ neer composed a formal rule in the

4estern sense of the 4ord. +is Asceticon% a series of Cuestions and ans4ers on monasticism%

epressed his idea of monasticism as a communal life 4ith emphasis on charit1 and liturgical pra1er% as opposed to the life of the anchorite. "hen St. Theodore too) oer the Studion

monaster1 ?see *hapter I% note F7@% he added to the communal organi$ation there Palestinian

traditions of continual% ascetic pra1er% and it is this tradition of monastic life 4hicn spread to Ilt.

Athos and su-seCuenu1 to Russia.56. Tarasii em)a ?d. 5GF@ 4as a noted preacher and hieromon) of the &onaster1 of the

*aes. +e edited a Triodion ?a serice -oo) containing h1mns and pra1ers for (reat 2ent@ 4hich

4as pu-lished at ,ie in 5GF=.

5<. (a-riel Seerus ?d. 5G5G@ 4as the metropolitan of Philadelphia and the head of the (ree) church in ;enice. +e had studied at the /niersit1 of Padua and his Brief Tract on the +ol1

Sacraments made free of use of 2atin scholastic arguments to com-at the Protestants.57. ,irill Tran)illion9Staroets)ii ?d. after 5GG@ had taught (ree) at the -rotherhood school

in 2o -efore coming to the &onaster1 of the *aes% and later 4as archimandrite at the

Assumption &onaster1 in *hernigo. +is /chitel noe Eangelie 4as actuall1 reprinted in 5GG6and again in 5G<G.

55. See a-oe% note 6=.

5F. +armonia% al-o concordantia iar1% sa)ramento4 1 ceremoni1 *er)i S. rientalnie1 $

,osciolem s. R$1ms)im ?;ilna% 5G76@. LAuthor's note.M5. 3or a time Arcudius 4as actie in Poland. LAnthor's note.M Peter Arcudius% a (ree) natie of

the island of *orfu% 4as the first gtaduate of the (ree) *ollege of St. Athanasius in Rome. +e

4ent from Rome to Poland in order to promote the /nia -1 attempting to conince the rthodothat their rite 4ould suffer no alteration after the union. See E. 2egrand% Bi-iiographie helleniCue

du O;II siecle ?Paris% 56<8@% III% F7<9FF.

5. 2eo Allatius 4as another graduate of the *ollege of St. Athanasius. In his later 1ears hecollected (ree) and S1rian manuscripts for Pope (regor1 O;'s Eastern 2i-rar1 in the ;atican.

58. &eletius Pigas had studied in Augs-urg. LAuthor's note.M

5G. See a-oe% note 67.

5=. 3rom the 3ore4ord to his translation of *hr1sostom's +omilies on St. Paul% Besed loannalatousta na poslanie Ap. Pala ?,ie% 5GF@. LAuthor's note.M

56. This practice 4as also follo4ed -1 Peter &ogila. LAuthor's note.M

5<. “+ospodar! 4as an honorar1 title gien to goernors in &oldaia appointed -1 the ttomanPorte.

587. #an amo1s)i ?d. 5G78@ 4as the most po4erful and influential statesman in Poland% and the

chief negotiator -et4een the pro9union -ishops of "est Russia and the Polish cro4n in the earl1discussions 4hich led to the /nion of Brest. n the histor1 of the amosc Academ1% to 4hich

man1 1oung rthodo no-les 4ere sent% see #.,. ,ochano4s)i% $iee A)ademii amos)ie

?*raco4% 56<<95<77@.

F7



585. Stanisla4 ol)ie4s)i 4as the illustrious commander9in9chief of the Polish armies in the late

lGth and earl1 l=th centuries 4ho deastated the *ossac) forces around the turn of the centur1

and led a highl1 successful epedition into &usco1 in 5G57% capturing the -o1as Tsar ;asiliiShuis)ii. +e died in 5GF7 fighting the Tur)s.

58F. #ohn *harles *hod)ie4ic$% of the famil1 4hich had earlier gien Ian 3edoro refuge%

commanded the 2ithuanian armies in the 4ar 4ith S4eden ?5G7595G7G@% suppressed there-ellious Polish gentr1 in 5G7G% inaded &usco1 4ith ol)ie4s)i in 5G57% and also died in

-attle against the Tur)s in 5GF5.

58. (aril omets)oi 4as educated at the ,ie Academ1 and died in ,ie -efore 5=F8% -ut hisrole in Russian *hurch histor1 4as pla1ed out in &usco1. As a--ot of the anilos)ii

monaster1 in &osco4 and later as archimandrite in the Simonos)ii monaster1 he -ecame

thoroughl1 em-roiled in the late l=th centur1 controersies -et4een the (raeco9Slaonic and

2atin parties siding 4ith &edede's 4estern leaning faction ?these controersies are discussedin the net chapter% section ;@. omets)oi 4as also inoled in similar controersies in

Nogorod. *f. Russ)ii -iografiches)ii sloar' ?&osco4% 5<5@% I;% pp. G9=.

58. As Cuoted -1 Silestr ,osso. LAuthor's note.M Silestr ,osso ?d. 5G8=@ 4as a student at

the ,ie Academ1 4hom Peter &ogila sent to Polish colleges as 4ell. +e also taught in the ,ieAcadem1 -efore -ecoming -ishop of &stislal. n &ogila's death in 5G= ,osso succeeded

him as metropolitan of ,ie. +is 4or)s% 4ritten in -oth Russian and Polish% are discussed -elo4%section ;III.

588. Isaia ,o$los)ii ?d. 5G85@% 4ho taught for a 4hile at the -rotherhood school in 2o% 4as

-rought to ,ie -1 &ogila in 5G5. +e soon -ecame a--ot of the Pustino9Ni)olaes)ii&onaster1 in ,ie and assisted &ogila in his educational actiities throughout "est Russia.

58G. It 4as later transferred to the (oshchi or +os$c$1 monaster1 in ;ol1nia. LAuthor's note.M

58=. *f. the Polish order of the Piarists% “rdo Piarum Scholarum.! LAuthor's note.M The “rder

of the Poor *lerics Regular of the &other of (od of the Pious Schools! 4as esta-lished in Romein 58<= -1 #oseph *alasanctius ?588G9 5G6@. Its purpose 4as to proide a free *atholic

education for children% and the order spread rapidl1 enough for the Piarists to found their o4n

colleges.586. #oseph o-ros)ii ?5=8956F<@ 4as a Bohemian #esuit and philologist 4ho did etensie

studies on Slaic languages. Among his important 4or)s are Scriptores rerum -ohemicaruri

?Prague% 5=69@0 *1rillus and &et-odius% der Sla4en Apostel ?Prague% 56F@0 and Institutiones2inguae Slaonicae dialicti eteris ?;ienna% 56FF@.

58<. Smotrits)ii's grammar of *hurch Slaonic% modelled after 2ascaris' (ree) grammar% also

sered as a model for a succession of Russian grammars including that of 2omonoso. See E.S.

Pro)oshina% &eletii Smotrits)ii ?&ins)% 5<GG@. The complete title of Smotrits)ii's grammar is(rammati)a slaens)aia prailnoe sintagma po tshchaniem mnogogreshnago mni)ha &eletiia

Smotrits)ago ?;ilna% 5G5<@.

5G7. Iosafat ,untseich ?586795GF@ organi$ed the /niate Basilian order of mon)s along 4ith;eliamin Ruts)ii. ,untseich 4as murdered in an anti9union riot in ;ite-s) in 5GF% and is a

saint of the "estern *hurch.

5G5. Io Borets)ii% see a-oe.5GF. Isaia ,opins)ii ?d. 5G7@ had taught in the strog school oefore -ecoming a mon) in ,ie%

4here he distinguished himself -1 reorgani$ing seeral monastic communities. In 5GF7 he 4as

consecrated -ishop of Perem1shl -1 Patriarch Theophanes% -ut -eing una-le to ta)e possession

of his see -ecause of Polish harassment% he 4ithdre4 to Smolens) and directed his diocese from

F78



there. nthe death of Io Borets)ii in 5G5 ,opins)ii -ecame metropolitan of ,ie. Soon

after4ards% ho4eer% 4ith the legali$ation of the rthodo *hurch in 5GF% Peter &ogila also

claimed the see of ,ie% and 4ith the help of the Polish police he imprisoned ,opins)ii in the&i)hailos)ii &onaster1. ,opins)ii 4as gien the direction of this monaster1 in 5G 4hen he

promised not to act against &ogila% -ut he left ,ie in 5G8 and spent the rest of his da1s in

o-scurit1 in arious monasteries in &usco1. See -elo4.5G. Ieremia Tisaros)ii ?d. 5G5@ 4as a mem-er of the rthodo gentr1. n the death of

(edeon Bala-an in 5G7= Tisaros)ii 4as a-le to succeed him as rthodo -ishop of 2o -1

promising to oin the /nia. +o4eer% once he 4as made -ishop he reneged on his promise% andafter &i)hail ,op1stens)ii's death in 5G57 he 4as the sole rthodo -ishop in all "est Russia

until Theophanes' consecrations in 5GF7. 3inall1% pro-a-l1 -ecause he 4as 4illing.to participate

in &ogila's consecration% Tisaros)ii 4as confirmed in his see in 5GF -1 the Polish goernment.

5G. Polish police arrested him and put him in prison. LAuthor's note.M5G8. See a-oe% section I;.

5GG. 3or an anal1sis of &ogila's *onfession see the follo4ing section.

5G=. Afanasii ?d. 5G87@ 4as himself a former /niate. +e is the author of a description of the

2uts) so-or of 5G% in Silestr ,osso's idas)alia [email protected]. Sa)oich% former rector of the -rotherhood school in ,ie ?see a-oe% section ;@% had not

onl1 gone oer to the /nia% -ut at the end of his life had -ecome a firm "estern *atholic% polemici$ing against -oth rthodo and /niates.

5G<. Attri-uted to &ogila -ut pro-a-l1% li)e his *onfession% a composite 4or). LAuthor's nofe.M

5=7. In his reform 4or) it seems that &ogila utili$ed a *roatian translation of the Roman Ritualmade -1 the almatian #esuit ,asic and pu-lished in 5G=. It is li)el1 that the 4hole liturgical

proect of Peter &ogila 4as in some manner connected 4ith the Ill1rian /niate moement% from

4hose circles there later appeared the enigmatic pan9Sla missionar1 #urai ,ri$anic. LAuthor's

note.M Bartol ,asic ?58=895G87@ also composed a *roation grammar for students in Rome. #urai,ri$anic ?5G5=95G6@ 4as educated in #esuit circles in Rome. In 5G= he 4as sent on an

unsuccessful mission to conert the Russians to *atholicism% after 4hich he returned to Rome

and 4rote seeral treatises on the Russians and the rthodo *hurch. Then% in 5G8<%' ,ri$'anicleft for the /)raine 4ith no official permission and traelled incognito on to &osco4% 4here he

4or)ed as a translator at the tsar's court. +e 4as discoered in 5GG5 and eiled to Si-eria% 4here

he 4rote a grammar for a proposed pan9Slaic language and an appeal to the tsar to unite allSlaic peoples in a common struggle against the (ermans. In 5G=G ,ri$anic 4as released and

returned to Poland% 4heie he sered as a chaplain in the Polish arm1 until his death in the

Tur)ish siege of ;ienna.

5=5. The iaticum% 2atin for “proision for a ourne1%! is the Eucharist gien to the d1ing% morecommonl1 )no4n as “last rites.!

5=F. The rdo commendationis ad animae eitum de corpore or “ffice of pra1ers for the

separation of soul and -od1%! are read oer the -od1 of the deceased immediatel1 after a persondies.

5=. The rite of Passias is an eening serice cele-rated during great 2ent 4hich contains a

(ospel reading pertaining to *hrist's passion.5=. The ffice of Propaganda LPropaganda 3ideM "as founded during the pontificate of

(regor1 O; ?5GF595GF@ as a central organi$ation for the direction of all missionar1 4or) in the

Roman *hurch. Ingoli ?58=695G<@% a priest from Raenna% 4as its first secretar1.

5=8. See a-oe% note 588.

F7G



5=G. As earl1 as 5GF6 from "est Russia% Smotrits)ii% in his Apologia had Cuestioned the ie4s of

2ucaris% 4ith 4hich he had -ecome acCuainted through the ,ate)hi$is and personal

conersation. LAuthor's note.M5==. &eletius S1rigos ?d. 5GG=@% a philosoph1 professor in *onstantinople% earch of the

ecumenical patriarch and religious adiser to the &oldaian Prince Basil 2upul ?see note 567@%

4as one of the most learned men of his time. There is a -iograph1 of him -1 a contemporar1%Patriarch ositheus ?see -elo4 note F77@% in E. 2egrand% Bi-liographie +elleniCue du O;II

siecle ?Paris% 56<@% II.=79=F. See also #. Pargoire% “&eletios S1rigos% sa ie et ses oeures

Echos d' rient ?*onstantinople% 5<7<@% ol. OII% nos. =% =G% =6% and =<. n his editing of &ogila's *onfession% see -elo4.

5=6. &ogila apparentl1 accepted the Roman *atholic doctrine of the immediate entr1 into

Paradise of the souls of the saints.

5=<. *reationism is the -elief that the soul is created -1 (od and infused into the fetus at themoment of conception.

567. Basil 2upul% ruler of &oldaia from 5Ga to 5G8% 4as responsi-le for a -road cultural

reial in his homeland founding man1 schools% including an academ1 at Iasi 4here he also

esta-lished a printing press. An etremel1 4ealth1 man% he personall1 financed the operations of the patriarchate of *onstantinople and presided oer the council at Iasi in the ancient manner of

the B1$antine emperors. See S. Runciman% The (reat *)urch in *aptiit1 ?*am-ridge% 5<G6@% pp. 59.

565. Porph1rius ?d. 5G8F@ 4as sent to this assem-l1 -1 Patriarch Parthenius I% 4ho held the see

of *onstantinople from 5G6 to 5GF% and &eletius S1rigos 4as sent -1 the ne4 patriarch%Parthenius II.

56F. &etropolitan ;arlaam ?c. 58<795G8=@ 4as the head of the rthodo *hurch in &oldaia

and the eecutor of the educational and pu-lishing proeots financed -1 Basil 2upul.

56. )senoich ?d. 5G87@ 4as a professor and rector of the ,ie collegium% and a noted preacher. Shortl1 -efore his death he 4as elected -ishop of &stislal.

56. ,ononoich ?d. 5G8@ sered as the head of seeral monasteries in ,ie -efore -ecoming

-ishop of &ogile in 5G87.568. The full title 4as e-ranie )rot)ie1 nau)i o art1)ulach 4iar1 pra4osla4no )atholic)ie1

chr$escians)ie1. LAuthor's note.M

56G. ;arlaam Iasins)ii lied at a time 4hen the /)raine 4as politicall1 diided -et4een Polandand Russia% and the clerg1 4as diided -et4een allegiance to the patriarch of *onstantinople and

su-mission to the patriarch of &osco4. ;arlaam himself% 4ho 4as educated at the ,ie

collegium and also at the *atholic Academ1 of *raco4% and sered as rector of the ,ie

collegium and a--ot of the &onaster1 of the *aes% 4anted to remain under the EcumenicalPatriarch. Therefore% 4hen the patriarch of &osco4 offered to consecrate him metropolitan of

,ie in 5G6G% ;arlaam refused to go to &osco4 for his eleation and li)e4ise refused to

recogni$e &etropolitan (edeon% 4ho 4as consecrated in his place. +o4eer% after the patriarchof *onstantinople ceded the urisdiction of ,ie to &osco4 in 5G6=% ;arlaam finall1 agreed to

succeed (edeon and 4as consecrated metropolitan of ,ie% (alicia% and all 2ittle9Russia in 5G<7

in &osco4.56=. Adrian ?5G<795=77@ 4as the last patriarch of &osco4 -efore Tsar Peter's restructuring of the

Russian rthodo *hurch ?see *hapter I;@. A)ead1 old and fee-le 4hen he -ecame patriarch%

Adrian 4as a-le to accomplish little more than strengthening Peter's resole to do a4a1 4ith the

patriarchate -1 interceding on -ehalf of the strelts1 4ho reolted in 5G<6.

F7=



566. *f. A.S. ernoa% ,nigi )irillos)oi pechati i$dann1e &os)e ODI9ODIII e)a)h

?&osco4% 5<86@% no. F58% G<. A compreherisie 4or) giing tne full tet can -e found in A.

&al1 and &. ;iller% 2a *onfession orthodo de Pierre &oghila% rientalia *hristiana ?Rome%5<F=@% O% <.

56<. The *atechismus Romanus% or *atechismus e decretis *oncilii tridentini ad parochos% first

appeared in 58GG and 4as a product of the decree of the *ouncil of Trent ?see note 5<G@ that*atholic doctrine -e clarified and defined in the face of the spread of Protestant heresies.

Intended primaril1 as a reference -oo) for *atholic pastors% it proed immensel1 popular and

4as almost immediatel1 translated into all maor European languages.5<7. Peter *anisius ?58F5958<=@ 4as the first #esuit to engage himself in scholarl1 actiities. +e

4or)ed mainl1 on -ehalf of the *ounter9Reformation in (erman1% 4here he helped set up

seeral #esuit colleges.

5<5. Petrus ?or Pedro@ e Soto ?5877958G@ entered into Spain the rder of 3riars PreacheIs. Asa student% his main interest 4as patrolog1 and the councils of the *hurch. In 58F *harles ; of

Spain made him his adiser and confessor. +e restored and held the chair of theolog1 ?58<9

588@ at the /niersit1 of illingen. e Soto 4as later appointed Pope Pius I;'s theologian at

the *ouncil of Trent. +e died 4hile attending the council. +e authored seeral theological 4or)s.See A. Turon% +istoir des hommes illustres de 5'ordre de Saint ominiCue% G . ?Paris% 5=9

5=<@% ol. % F5G9F7.5<F. Bellarmine also 4or)ed on the commission 4hich produced the Situs9*lementine ;ulgate.

+is isputationes% a s1nthesis of -oth *atholic and Protestant theolog1% 4as 4ritten 4hile

Bellarmine 4as teaching at a school for missionaries in Rome.5<. See a-oe% note 5.

5<. The sacrament of anointing the sic)% or “the oil of pra1er “ has t4o functions: -odil1

healing% and forgieness of sins. It is not an rthodo -elief ho4eer% that anointment al4a1s

results in a recoer1 of health. In the Roman *atholic *hurch ultima unctio% or “etremeunction%! is intended onl1 for the d1ing0 rthodo unction can -e administered to an1 4ho are

sic). See Timoth1"are% The rthodo *hurch ?Battimore% 5<G=@% p. 7.

5<8. The Portugese #esuit Emmanuel Alarius pu-lished a grammar in 58=F under the title einstitutione grammatica li-ri tres ?the three -oo)s -eing Et1molog1% S1nta and Prosod1@. The

grammar gained 4ide acceptance in Europe and a reised edition appeared in 586.

5<G. The *ouncil of Trent% the l<th ecumenical council of the Roman *atholic *hurch% 4as heldin F8 sessions from 588 to 58G. Its purpose 4as to reform the church for a struggle against the

Protestant Reformation and to clarif1 4hat is essential and 4hat is su-ect to discussion in

*atholic doctrine. Among the *atholic teachings 4hich stem from this council are the authorit1

of tradition net to Scripture% the authenticit1 of the ;ulgate the doctrine of ustification and thenum-ering of seen sacraments. Among the ecclesiastical reforms produced -1 this council are

stipulations that a -ishop reside in his diocese and the promotion of education -1 increasing the

num-er of seminaries and the production of a general catechism ?the *atechismus [email protected] is a critical tet of the decrees of the council in (. Al-erigo% *onciliorum

oeucumenicorum decreta ?Ne4 Dor)% 5<GF@% G9==8.

5<=. 2a$ar Baranoich ?c. 5GF795G<@% poet% preacher% pu-lisher and anti9*atholic polemist% hadhimself -een rector of the ,iean college from 5G87 to 5G86. +e -ecame arch-ishop of

*hernigo in 5G8= and simultaneousl1 supported political union 4ith Russia and ecclesiastical

independence from the &osco4 patriarchate.

F76



5<6. In his /niate da1s% Iaors)ii 4as )no4n as Stanislaus. LAuthor's note.M n Iaors)ii% see

-elo4 in this section.

5<<. “Sunt multi monachi el uniti% el unioni proimi% plurimi de re-us nostris optimesentientes . . . . ,1oiae /num totum monasterium est unitorum.! 3rom a letter 4ritten in 5G<<

-1 a #esuit% 3ather Emilian% 4ho 4as in &osco4 at the time. LAuthor's note.M

F77. ositheus 4as patriarch of #erusalem from 5GG< to 5=7=% and during his long tenure he proed himself to -e the most influential and respected figure in the entire rthodo 4orld. As a

scholar he 4as )no4n for his +istor1 of the Patriarchs of #erusalem ?Bucharest% 5=58@% 4hich

4as actuall1 a histor1 of the entire rthodo *hurch% as 4ell as numerous editions of the *hurch3athers% 4ith 4hich he 4as thoroughl1 familiar. As a polemist his chief 4or) 4as the

Enchiridion against the Errors of *alinism ?Bucharest% 5G<7@. Although he also guarded

carefull1 against *atholic influences in the *hurch% his opposition to the Protestants led him into

the support of &ogila's *onfession% for 4hich he 4rote a fore4ord in the (ree) edition of 5G<<.ositheus produced his o4n *onfession ?actuall1 authored -1 four contemporar1 prelates% 4ith

the final editing done -1 ositheus@ 4hich 4as approed -1 a s1nod in #erusalem in 5G=F and

pu-lished a fe4 1ears later at the famous press 4hich he himself financed at Iasi: This

*onfession 4as% on the 4hole% free of the o-ious 2atin influences in &ogila's statement% andonl1 resorted to *atholic terminolog1 4hen defending the rthodo doctrine of the Eucharist

against the Protestants. See S. Runciman% The (reat *hurch in *aptiit1% pp. =98.F75. ssorius% -ishop #eronimo sdrio% professor at the /niersit1 of *oim-ra. Author of

seeral 4or)s% including -i-lical commentaries% 4as )no4n as the “Portuguese *icero.! +is

“Postilla! 4as recommended to the clerg1 of Poland -1 t4o S1nods of ;ilno ?5G7F and [email protected]. #anus$ A. Ihnato4ic$M.

F7F. This is most pro-a-l1 a reference to Piotr 3a-ricius ?588F95GFF@% 4hose original Polish

name 4as ,o4als)i. A #esuit ?from 58=7@% he 4as a popular preacher and respected theologian.

In 5G76 he -ecame the first natie -orn proincial of Polish #esuits. +e translated The Imitationof *hrist -1 Thomas a ,empis% as 4ell as some 4or)s -1 Ro-ert Bellarmine. There 4as another

4ell9)no4n 3a-ricius% "alent1% also a #esuit ?58G95GFG@% at one time a er1 popular preacher in

,ra)o4. L3r. #anus$ A. Ihnato4ic$M.F7. See a-oe% note 67.

F7. Tomas$ &tod$iano4s)i 4as a famous #esuit theologian% canonist and preacher of the

seenteenth centur1 ?5GFF95G6G@. +e 4as 4idel1 traelled% including missionar1 4or) in Tur)e1?Sm1rna@ and Persia and the author of more than thirt1 2atin and Polish 4or)s. +is sermons of

high religious and literar1 Cualit1 put him on a leel 4ith S)arga. L3r. #anus$ A. Ihnato4ic$M.

F78. See note 5<=.

F7G. Radiillos)ii ?d. -efore 5=77@ had -een an archdeacon at the cathedral in *harnigo anda--ot of the Pustino9Ni)olaes)ii &onaster1 in ,ie -efore coming to the &onaster1 of the

*aes.

F7=. +e 4as freCuentl1 paired 4ith erni)a -ecause of the assumption that he% too% 4as -orn in,onigs-erg. +e 4as professor of philosoph1 at the ,ie collegium and later -ecame

archimandrite of the &onaster1 of the *aes. +e also authored the pus totius philosophiae

?5G89=% etant onl1 in manuscript form@. It has% ho4eer% recentl1 -een argued that (i$el 4as aRuthenian.

F76. Samuil &islas)ii ?5=595=<G@ 4as an instructor and rector of the ,ie collegium 4ho

-ecame metropolitan of ,ie in 5=6. +e compiled a 2atin grammar in 5=G8 4hich 4as long

considered the -est in the Russian language% and 4as )no4n as a deoted follo4er of the

F7<



Enlightenment ideals popular during the reign of *atherine the (reat ?5=GF95=<G@. /nder their

s4a1 he reformed the curriculum of the academ1 to include such su-ects as mathematics and

geograph1.F7<. 2aurentius Surius ?58FF958=6@% a *arthusian mon) at *ologne% 4as one of the fe4 4estern

scholars to concern himself 4ith spiritual 4or)s in the *ounteReformational period.

F57. The &enologion% a collection of the lies of 56 saints arranged according to the *hurchcalendar. St. S1meon &etaphrastes ?c. <779<6@ 4as also )no4n for his spiritual poems% sermons

and letters.

F55. The Bollandists are mem-ers of a #esuit societ1 organi$ed in the l=th centur1 -1 #eanBolland for the scholarl1 stud1 and pu-lication of lies of saints.

F5F. *ornelius a 2apide ?an der Steen% 58G695G=@ 4as a professor of eegesis at 2ouain and

Rome. +is commentaries on the Bi-le% 4ith their a-undant Cuotations from the 3athers% 4ere

highl1 popular in Roman *atholic theological circles. See T.". &ossman% The (reat*ommentar1 of *ornelius a 2apide ?2ondon% 5665@.

F5. &artin Becan ?58G95GF@ 4as a #esuit theologian and polemist. +is chief 4or)s 4ere

Summa theologiae scholasticae ?&ain$% 5G5F@% ol.% and *ontroersia anglicana de potestate

regis et pontificis ?&ain$% 5G5F@% in 4hich he defended the moralit1 of assassinating a )ing.F5. See his polemical InCuir1 into the schismatic faith in Br1ns) LRo$1s) o ras)ol'nich'ei

-r1ns)oi ere% 5=7<M. LAuthor's note.MF58. Iaors)ii's ,amen' er1 4as completed in 5=56% -ut 4as not pu-lished until 5=F6% after his

death. There is a three olume edition of the -oo) pu-lished in &osco4 in 5659F.

F5G. Tomas &alenda ?58GG95GF6@ 4as a Spanish theologian and +e-re4 scholar 4ho% inaddition to his treatise on the Antichrist% 4or)ed on corrections of liturgical tets for Pope

*lement ;III and helped compile an Inde for the Spanish InCuisition.

F5=. B1 the time Ian Stepanoich &a$epa -ecame hetman of the /)raine east of the nieper

Rier that titled signified little more than a militar1 goernor of a assal state of Russia. uringhis rule &a$epa proed himself completel1 incapa-le of chec)ing the gradual enserfment of the

peasants and the creation of a ne4 no-le class of *ossac) officers 4ho too) oer the titles and

priileges formerl1 held -1 their Polish masters 4hich the *ossac)s had fought against for oer t4o centuries. &ean4hile% as a militar1 leader &a$epa 4as compelled to lead his forces

4hereer Tsar Peter the (reat ordered% fighting 4ith Russia against the Tur)s and Tatars from

5G<8 to 5G<< ana dfter4ards against the S4edes. 3inall1% 4hen S4eden inaded the /)raine in5=76 &a$epa deserted Tsar Peter's troops% suffered defeat 4ith the S4edes at the -attle of

Poltaa in 5=7<% and died in the fall of that 1ear. &a$epa's onl1 real achieement% and a

note4orth1 one% 4as his patronage of /)rainian religious and cultural life. +e used the great

4ealth acCuired from his office to finance churches% monasteries and schools% re-uilding the&onaster1 of the *aes in ,ie and erecting ne4 facilities for the ,ie Academ1.

F56. As a point of fact% in the Roman *hurch at that time the teaching of the Immaculate

*onception of the ;irgin &ar1 4as not a dogma% -ut an opinion of priate piet1 sponsored -1the lesuits and 3ranciscans% 4hile resisted -1 the ominicans. LAuthor's note.M

F5<. In the rthodo *hurch “panagia! LHAll9hol1HM refers not to &ar1's sinlessness in a uridical

sense% -ut to her perfect o-edience in accepting the "ord of (od% for 4hich she is glorified anda-le to intercede for us. “Theoto)os! LH&other of (odHM is actuall1 a *hristological term% related

to the teaching that the t4o natures of *hrist are united in one person% 4hom &ar1 gae -irth to%

and 4as confirmed -1 the Third Ecumenical *ouncil at Ephesus in 5. n the rthodo

F57



*hurch's eneration of &ar1 see the articles -1 3ather 3loros)1 and ;ladimir 2oss)ii in E.2.

&ascall% ed.% The &other of (od ?2ondon% 5<<@.

FF7. Religious architecture 4as especiall1 a-undant% since &a$epa 4as an ardent -uilder.LAuthor's note.M

Notes to Chater !!!.

5. The Time of Trou-les LSmutnoe ;remiaM refers to that period of internal strife and foreign

interention 4hich resulted in utter chaos in Russia in the earl1 5=th centur1.

The Russian State had -een formed -1 the alliance of arious appanage principalities under one(rand Prince. Thus the Russian princel1 aristocrac1 had deep rooted traditions of independence

and autonom1 and tended to thin) of themseles more as seritors -1 contract than su-ects of

the tsar. The lGth centur1% ho4eer% had 4itnessed a shift in the -ases of political po4er a4a1from the aristocratic -o1ars and to4ard a serice gentr1 4hose position 4as dependent upon the

faor of the tsar. In other 4ords% all po4er 4as graduall1 consolidated in the tsar's hands. But

although this deelopment could -e considered part of a natural socio9economic process% it 4as

cruell1 accelerated -1 Ian the Terri-le and his oprichnina. Tied to this 4as the gradualenserfment of the peasantr1: militar1 and economic necessities demanded that the peasants'

traditional freedom of moement -et4een estates -e drasticall1 curtailed.

Thus 4hen Ian died in 586 he left his fee-le9minded son 3edor a reahn seerel1 4ea)ened -1terror and 4ith t4o significant social groups% the -o1ars and the peasantr1% seething 4ith

resentment to4ard the throne. The actual direction of state affairs passed into the hands of Boris

(oduno% a capa-le administrator 4ho 4as a-le to -ring some measure of economic reial toRussia% -ut as 3edor had no heir it 4as clear that the Ruri) d1nast1 4as coming to an end and the

door 4as open for a struggle oer the throne. Boris himself -ecame tsar upon 3edor's death in

58<6 and temporaril1 secured his position -1 eiling his opponents. Then a famine from 5G75 to5G7 -rought economic deastation to the realm and the stage 4as set for the “Trou-les! proper

to -egin.In 5G7 a pretender to the throne arose claiming to -e Ian's son imitrii% 4ho had died in 58<5."ith the tacit support of the Polish cro4n he inaded &usco1 4ith a small arm1 supplied -1 a

fe4 adenturistic Polish no-les. +is o4n forces 4ere not er1 significant% -ut the -eleaguered

and destitute peasants floc)ed to support him% as did the *ossac)s. Still Boris 4as a-le to )eep

them at -a1% -ut 4hen he died in 5G78 the -o1ars reolted against his son and successor 3edor (oduno and proclaimed their allegiance to the false imitrii% 4ho entered &osco4 and 4as

enthroned as tsar. The &uscoite -o1ars neer intended to sere this dissolute and o-ious fraud%

and soon stirred a popular uprising against him in 4hich the false imitrii 4as murdered. Thenin #une of 5G7G the leading -o1ar% ;asilii Shuis)ii -ecame tsar. ;asilii% ho4eer% )ne4 no peace%

for peasant reolts -egan immediatel1 and a second pretender appeared in 5G76% also supported

-1 Polish no-les. The final -lo4 came in 5G57 4hen ,ing Sigismund III of Poland entered theconflict openl1 and in August of that 1ear his troops captured &osco4.

At this point the tide -egan to turn as a spirit of national resistance to Polish domination

graduall1 united the arious Russian social strata. &osco4 4as recaptured in 5G5F% and the

follo4ing 1ear &i)hail Romano 4as elected tsar -1 a $ems)ii so-or Lassem-l1 of the landM:This eent traditionall1 mar)s the end of the Time of Trou-les% -ut the 4ounds suffered -1

Russia during this period 4ere not to -e easil1 healed% and restoration of order and reconstruction

4ere the dominant themes at all leels of Russian societ1 for man1 1ears to come.

F55



See S.3. Platono% The Time of Trou-les% translated -1 #ohn T. Aleander% ?/niersit1 Press of

,ansas% 5<=7@.

F. Ioann Nerono ?58<595G=7@ 4as a priest in the Ni$hnii9Nogorod region 4hose $eal incom-atting drun)enness and moral lait1 4as t1pical of the earl1 “reformers%! as 4as his

outspo)enness. In 5GF he ran afoul of Tsar &i)hail's goernment -1 critici$ing it for -ringing

foreign adisors into &usco1 and preparing an inasion of Poland one 1ear -efore theepiration of a peace treat1 signed in 5G5. +o4eer% after the accession of Ale)sei &i)hailoich

in 5G8 he 4as appointed archpriest of the ,a$ans)ii *athedral in &osco4 and 4as one of the

senior mem-ers of the circle of “$ealots! around Archpriest Stefan ;onifat'e ?see -elo4@. +eagain fell out of faor 4hen he opposed the importing of ,iean scholars in 5G87 and in 5G8 he

4as eiled for opposition to Ni)on's reforms and harsh% personal attac)s on the patriarch. In 5G88

he returned to &osco4 disguised as a mon) and t4o 1ears later he formall1 accepted the reforms

and 4as made archimandrite in the Pereiaslas)ii monaster1. Nerono's spirit of compromise4as etremel1 rare among the ld Belieers.

. Archpriest A4a)um 4as the most gifted of the earl1 leaders of the schism and eercised a

signficant spiritual intluence oer the ld Belieers throughout thirt1 1ears of persecution for his

-eliefs and for man1 1ears after his death in 5G6F. A generation remoed from Nerono ?he 4as -orn c.5GF7@ he 4as also a priest in the Ni$hnii9Nogorod region 4ho came to &osco4 and

oined ;onifat'e's circle in the 5G7's. "hen Nerono 4as eiled in 5G8 for opposing Ni)on'sreforms A4a)um authored a petition on his -ehalf and 4as also eiled to Si-eria. In 5GG he 4as

-rought -ac) to &osco4 through the interentions of the -o1ars% 4ho hoped his opposition to

Ni)on 4ould help them in their o4n struggle against the patriarch. A4a)um% ho4eer% remainedso intransigent on the Cuestion of the reforms that he 4as again arrested and at a council in 5GGG

?see -elo4% note 8@ defroc)ed and eiled to an underground cell in Pusto$ers). +e lied there%

4ith t4o other leaders of the schism% for siteen 1ears% during 4hich time his cell sered as a

center for ld Belieer leadership and inspiration. In 5G6F he 4as -urned at the sta)e. "hile he4as in eile A4a)um 4rote his famous 2ife of Archpriest Aa)um -1 +imself% a masterpiece of

earl1 Russian literature% a primar1 source for the histor1 of the schism% and also% as A4a)um

sered as chaplain to Pash)o's Si-erian epedition in 5G88% an important geographical andcultural source for the stud1 of l=th centur1 Russia in general. It is reprinted in ;olume II of The

*ollected "or)s of (eorge P. 3edoto.

. Sergei &i)hailoich Solo'e ?56F7956=<@ 4as a Russian historian and professor and rector of the /niersit1 of &osco4. +is main 4or) is the monumental +istor1 of Russia from Ancient

Times LIstoriia Rossii c dreneishi)h remenM ?F< ols.% &osco4% 5685956=<@.

8. A &uscoite name for /)rainians% used especiall1 in the 5Gth and 5=th centuries.

G. The 1ear 5GF7 4itnessed t4o councils on re-aptism. At the first% in &osco4 in cto-er% 2atin“heresies! 4ere condemned and it 4as decided to re-apti$e Roman *atholics. This council 4as

reconened in ecem-er% and directed that /)rainians and "est Russians 4ho 4ere not -apti$ed

-1 triple immersion -e re-apti$ed 4hile those -apti$ed -1 /niate priests undergo a 4ee)'s fastand formall1 a-ure the *atholic faith. These rules 4ere inserted in the 5G< Tre-ni) and 4ere

the la4 until 5GG=.

=. See a-oe% chapter II% p. G7.6. See a-oe% chapter II% p. 8<.

<. Epifanii Slainets)ii ?d. 5G=G@ 4as a learned mon) from ,ie 4ho came to &osco4 in 5G<

for translation 4or) and later -ecome one of Ni)on's chief assistants in his serice -oo)

F5F



corrections. Epifanii also 4as the leader of the Bi-le translation proect -egun in 5G=. +is

4or)s are discussed -elo4% pp. 5789576.

57. ionisii ?58=795G@ 4as a noted figure in his time. Born aid 3edoroich o-ninos)ii%he 4as a priest in the illage of R$he. After the death of his 4ife he -ecame a mon) at the

Bogorodits)ii &onaster1 in Starits and too) the name ionisii. In 5G78 he 4as made

archimandrite of that monaster1% and -egan to ma)e freCuent trips to &osco4 on monaster1 -usiness. There he -ecame friends 4ith Patriarch (ermogen and 4or)ed closel1 4ith him tr1ing

to maintain order in the church during the Time of Trou-les. In earl1 5G57 ionisii 4as made

archimandrite of the +ol1 Trinit1 &onaster1. This 4as shortl1 after the end of a siteen monthsiege -1 the Polish inaders% 4ho soon after captured &osco4. Although the monaster1 itself

neer fell to the Poles% it 4as left deastated and filled 4ith sic)ness% famine and thousands of

corpses. ionisii's chief tas) 4as to reorgani$e and reitali$e the monaster1% -ut he also pla1ed a

heroic role in Russia's li-eration. Together 4ith his )elar' Araamii Palits1n% he 4rote numerousepistles urging the diided factions of Russian societ1 to unite against the foreign inaders% and

these letters seem to hae influenced the militar1 leaders of the forces 4hich finall1 droe out the

Poles. In the period after the Time of Trou-les% 4hile Patriarch 3ilaret 4as -ringing order to the

administratie affairs of the church% ionisii stood at the center of a circle concerned 4ithspiritual reuenation. Boo) printing and correction% using (ree) tets% and a concern for

moralit1 and spiritualit1 4ere the main o-ects of their program. Thus ionisii's actiit1anticipated that of .the net generation of reformers% the “$ealots! ?see -elo4@.

55. 2oggin 4as the conductor of the +ol1 Trinit1 &onaster1 choir 4ho edited the T1pi)on for a

5G57 pu-lication. 3ilaret% his ecclesiarch% also colla-orated on it. Both dou-tless 4ere resentfulof ionisii's changes.

5F. &etropolitan Iona ?Ar)hangel's)ii% d. 5GF5@ 4as formerl1 the head of the Trinit19anilo

&onaster1 in Pereiaslal. In 5G5 he -ecame metropolitan of ,rutits) ?a icar of the Patriarch of

&osco4@ and 4as entrusted 4ith the management of patriarchal affairs until the return fromPolish captiit1 of 3ilaret ?see -elo4@. +e himself 4as later suspended for receiing t4o 2atin

conerts 4ithout re-apti$ing them.

5. Antonii Podol's)ii 4as a "est Russian mon) 4ho lied in &osco4 during the earl1 part of the l=th centur1. +e is )no4n also as the author of another treatise% Sloo o tsarste ne-esnom%

Bogom daroannon i echnom% i o slae siati)h% and as the compiler of a chronograph% 4hich

4as neer pu-lished.5. 3edor Ni)itich Romano ?d. 5G@% a first cousin of Tsar 3edor Ianoich% 4as a popular and

influential -o1ar 4ho 4as one of three candidates for the Russian throne in 58<6% 4hen Boris

(oduno 4as elected. Soon after he 4as eiled for plotting against Boris ?the rumors of Boris

(oduno's inolement in Tsareich imitrii's death in 58<5 apparentl1 4ere first spread -1 theRomano famil1@ and forced to -ecome a mon). This 4as political death% for once tonsured it

4as foreer impossi-le to -ecome tsar. 3edor% no4 3ilaret% then -egan a ne4 career in the

*hurch. The first pretender returned him to &osco4 in 5G7G and had him consecrated&etropolitan of Ria$an% and the second pretender had him elected Patriarch in 5G76% although he

4as not formall1 installed at this time. 3ilaret's position 4as still hardl1 secure in that era of

intrigue and -ro)en fortunes% and in 5G55 he 4as deported to Poland -1 ,ing Sigismund IIIalong 4ith man1 other high ran)ing Russian no-les. +e remained there for eight 1ears. In 5G5

3ilaret's thirteen 1ear old son &i)hail 4as elected the ne4 tsar -1 a $ems)ii so-or Lassem-l1 of

the landM. 3rom that time on4ard there 4as no Cuestion as to 4ho the net patriarch 4ould -e.

An echange of prisoners 4ith Poland 4as arranged in 5G56% and on #une 5% 5G5< 3ilaret

F5



56. See% for eample% the neo9+ellenic motifs in l=th centur1 &uscoite iconograph1% especiall1

in the 4or)s of Simon /sha)o. LAuthor's noteM. /sha)o ?5GFG95G6G@ is the -est )no4n

Russian iconographer of the second half of the l=th centur1.5<. See a-oe% note <.

F7. Arsenii Satanos)ii 4as educated at the ,ie Academ1 and then 4as a hieromon) at the ,ie

Brotherhood &onaster1. +e 4as called to &osco4 along 4ith Epifanii Slainets)ii for 4or) on(ree) tets% -ut Arsenii in fact did not )no4 (ree) ?see N. ,aptere% Protini)i Patriar)ha

Ni)ona% L&osco4% 566=M% p. F5@. +o4eer% he did produce translations of seeral 2atin

theological tets.F5. amas)in Ptits)ii 4as another scholarl1 hieromon) from the &onaster1 of the *aes in

,ie. In &osco4 he 4or)ed for a time at the &osco4 Printing ffice and at the *hudo

&onaster1 4ith Epifanii Slainets)ii% -ut eactl1 4hat he produced in un)no4n% as are an1

su-seCuent details of his life.FF. See a-oe% chapter II% note 575.

F. n &ogila's Tre-ni) see pp. =59=F. The fift19first chapter dealt 4ith the sacrament of

marriage and the degrees of )inship 4hich made marriage impossi-le. This chapter 4as

-orro4ed entirel1 from the Roman Ritual of Pope Paul ;. The ,ormchaia )ntga is a Slaictranslation of the B1$antine Nomocanon% a collection of apostolic canons% the canons of the

ecumenical councils% and in general the ciil and ecclesiastical la4s of the B1$antine Empire. It4as )no4n in manuscript form in Russia since the 55th centur1% -ut its pu-lication in 5G87 4as

its first printing in an1 language.

F. The ,irilloa )niga is a collection of arious polemical tracts designed to sere as acompendium of the rthodo faith during the religious de-ates of 5G ?see note 57@. Its title

comes from the Sermon of St. *1ril of #erusalem on the Antichrist% 4hich opens the -oo).

F8. The ,niga o ere% compiled -1 the ,iean mon) Nathaniel% contained polemics against

2utherans% /niates and #e4s. It 4as pu-lished in &osco4 in 5G6.FG. *f. the ,iean% or “Polish! singers in the &onaster1 of St. Andre4 4ho 4ere later emplo1ed

-1 Ni)on. In general% the &onaster1 4as populated -1 /)rainian mon)s. LAuthor's noteM.

F=. The /lo$henie L*ode of 2a4sM of 5G<% or the So-ornoe /lo$henie% 4as the product of aems)ii so-or held in 5G695G< to codif1 the la4s and -ring order to the goernment of the

Russian realm. The la4 code 4as the first since the Sude-ni) of 5887 and remained the -asic la4

of Russia until 56F. &ore important% ho4eer% 4as the /lo$henie's reorgani$ation of the state.At that time the goernment 4as paral1$ed -1 confusion% as 4as apparent to all from Russia's

failure to ta)e the cit1 of A$o ?recentl1 captured -1 the *ossac)s and offered to the tsar@ and

recent riots in &osco4. There 4as no delineation of the rights and responsi-ilities of the arious

classes of people and little coordination of the seeral goernment departments that issued la4sin their o4n name. 3urthermore% the patriarch 4as head of a realm irtuall1 independent of the

secular authorities. The /lo$henie contained F8 chapters% dealing 4ith state organi$ation% udicial

procedure% propert1% classes of persons% and a criminal statute. As regards the *hurch% the/lo$henie 4as the first code to contain legislatie norms for the *hurch at all% -ringing

ecclesiastics under the urisdiction of la1 courts% and ordering the creation of the &onast1rs)ii

Pri)a$ to oersee legal claims against the *hurch and *hurch administration. It 4as also 4iththis code that the enserfment of the Russian peasantr1 -ecame complete.

F6. After the isit of Patriarch Paisios of #erusalem to &osco4 in 5G< ?see -elo4@% in 4hich he

discussed the man1 differences -et4een the (ree) and Russian rites 4ith Tsar Ale)sei and

Patriarch Iosif% the1 decided to send someone to the East to stud1 the (ree) practices. This

F58



commission 4as entrusted to Arsenii Su)hano% hieromon) and )elar' at the +ol1 Trinit1

monaster1. Arsenii traelled 4ith Paisios to Iasi% then 4ent to &t. Athos and returned to Russia

in ecem-er of 5G87. +e em-ar)ed on a second trip in 5G85 to *onstantinople0 (reece% Eg1ptand #erusalem% returning to &osco4 4ith oer =77 (ree) manuscripts in #une of 5G8. In his

accounts of his traels% especiall1 Preniia o ere ?a de-ate on the faith 4ith an Athonite starets@%

Arsenii epresses much the same ie4s on the (ree) and Russian rituals that the opponents of Ni)on's reforms held% and his 4or)s gained great popularit1 among the ld Belieers. Arsenii

died in 5GG6.

F<. Arsenii came to Russia in 5G< 4ith Patriarch Paisios% and seeing the need in &usco1 for educated clerics decided to sta1 there and see) his fortune. There are some indications that he

opened a school for 1ouths in 5G<% -ut most li)el1 this 4as in 5G8. After Patriarch Paisios left

&osco4 he 4rote to Tsar Ale)sei denouncing Arsenii for his past and Arsenii 4as sent to the

Soloets)ii &onaster1 on the "hite Sea for penance. But 4hen Ni)on -ecame patriarch in 5G8FArsenii 4as allo4ed to return to &osco4 and installed in the *hudo &onaster1% 4here he

opened his school% and 4as put to 4or) on Ni)on's -oo) corrections.

7. Patriarch Paisios of #erusalem came to &osco4 in #anuar1 of 5G< see)ing alms for his

church. "hile there he spo)e at length 4ith Tsar Ale)sei and Ni)on% pointing out the differences -et4een the (ree) and Russian rites and calling on the tsar to -e another &oses and delier his

fello4 rthodo *hristians from the Tur)ish 1o)e. +is prestige as patriarch of an ancient see andhis flatter1 of the tsar seem to hae greatl1 impressed -oth Ale)sei and Ni)on and inspired them

4ith the “ecumenical! goal of aligning the Russian ritual more closel1 to the (ree).

5. See a-oe% chapter II% note 5==.F. &a)arios 4as patriarch of Antioch from 5G= until his death in 5G=F. uring his patriarchate

he made t4o trips to Russia% mainl1 for alms to pa1 the de-ts of his see. The first ourne1

-rought him to &osco4 in 5G88% and later he 4as present at the *ouncil of 5GGG9G= ?see -elo4@.

+e is chiefl1 )no4n in histor1% ho4eer% for the diaries of his traels pu-lished -1 his son%Archdeacon Paul of Aleppo. There is an English translation of this 4or): The Traels of

&acarius% Patriarch of Antioch% F ol% translated -1 3.*. Belfour ?Ne4 Dor)% 5<G<@.

. rthodo Sunda1 is the first Sunda1 of (reat 2ent% on 4hich a special serice is heldcommemorating the ictor1 oer the iconoclasts in 6 and denouncing all heresies. It 4as on

this Sunda1 in 5G88 that Ni)on fulminated against the “3ran)ish! and Polish icons.

. The Euchologion% or “-lessing -oo)%! is a serice -oo) that contains all the rites for thesacraments of the *hurch as 4ell as other ceremonies for special occasions.

8. This council 4as held in April of 5GGG and 4as composed solel1 of Russian -ishops. Its

purpose 4as to condemn the ld Belieer moement% -ut for their opposition to the *hurch

authorities% not for their -eliefs as such. It 4as at this council that A4a)um 4as defroc)ed andsent into eile for the second time.

G. The *ouncil of 5GGG9G= 4as the most splendid and momentous in Russian *hurch histor1 up

to that time. *ono)ed -1 Tsar Ale)sei in the manner of the ancient B1$antine emperors% it 4as presided oer -1 t4o patriarchs% Paisios of Aleandria and &a)arios of Antioch. At the first

session% held in ecem-er of 5GGG% Ni)on 4as formall1 tried for% among other things% desertion

of his see and disrespect for the tsar% deposed to the ran) of a simple mon)% and eiled to the3eraponto &onaster1 in Beloo$ero. At a second session in April of 5GG= those 4ho refused to

accept the ne4 serice -oo)s 4ere anathemati$ed% -ut this time not for disciplinar1 reasons0 the

traditional pre9Ni)onian Russian ritual itself 4as condemned ?see -elo4@.

F5G



=. Simeon of Polots) ?5GF<95G67@% poet% preacher and erudite% came to &osco4 in 5GG and

Cuic)l1 rose high in court serice. +e 4as a leading proponent of 4estern ideas and customs and

sered as a tutor for the tsar's children. See -elo4% pp. 57G9576.6. ion1sios lied in &osco4 from 5G88 to 5GG<. 3rom 5GG he 4as the chief editor of the

&osco4 Printing ffice.

<. The Stogla ?577 chapters@ council 4as held in 5885 under &etropolitan &a)arii of &osco4?58F958G@. It climaed a period of etreme nationalist feeling% 4hen Ian I; 4as cro4ned

“tsar! ?or emperor@ and fort19fie Russian saints 4ere canoni$ed. At the council the Russian

rthodo *hurch 4as proclaimed superior to all other Eastern *hurches. See chapter I% pp. FG9F6.

7. Paisios 2igarides ?5G7<95G=6@ 4as a -rilliant -ut deceptie scholar and an a-solutel1

shameless opportunist. Educated at Rome and ordained a /niate prelate% he traelled throughout

the rthodo East diing into an1 situation 4here an opportunit1 for riches presented itself% andheld arious positions in the rthodo *rhurch ?such as metropolitan of (a$a@ 4hile receiing

regular missionar1 stipends from Rome. +e pla1ed a maor role in the histor1 of the Russian

*hurch of this time% first ingratiating himself 4ith Ni)on and then -ecoming the chief

spo)esman for his opponents and the orchestrator of the *ouncil of 5GGG95GG=. See -elo4% p.576.

5. Iurii Samarin ?565<956=G@ 4as a Russian statesman and Slaophile ideologue. Although he4as not a professional scholar% he is )no4n in the field of historiograph1 for his -rilliant master's

thesis at the /niersit1 of &osco4% in 4hich he conterposed the Protestant and *atholic

directions of Russian theological thought of the earl1 l6th centur1 as personified in 3eofariPro)opoich and Stefan Iaors)ii.

F. Ni)on's Ra$orenie or ;o$ra$henie 4as 4ritten in 5GG in response to 2igarides' ans4ers to

the “Kuestions of Streshne! ?see note 66@. In it Ni)on refuted the accusations -rought against

him point -1 point and gae a full eposition of his ideas regarding the relationship of *hurchand state. It is printed in English translation in "illiam Paliner% The Patriarch and the Tsar

?2ondon% 56=5956=G@% olume I.

. Erastianism is the doctrine that the state is superior to the *hurch in all matters% een the purel1 ecclesiastical. It is named for the S4iss ph1sician and theologian Thomas Erastus ?58F9

586@% 4ho% ho4eer% did not hold such ie4s. Erastus 4rote a 4idel1 read tract in 4hich he

argued that the *hurch does not hae the po4er to ecommunicate% and that all crimes should -e punished -1 the ciil authorities. The term “Erastianism! first came into use in religious de-ates

in England in 5G% 4here it 4as used as a term of a-use for those 4ho faored state control oer

the *hurch.

. Ni)olai Ianoich ,ostomaro ?565=95668@ 4as a poet% literar1 critic% historian and/)rainian nationalist. +e 4rote alua-le studies of Bogdan ,hmelnits)ii and Sten)a Ra$in% as

4ell as his maor 4or)% Russ)aia istoriia $hi$neopisaniia)h ee glaneishi)h deiatelei ?

olumes% Petrograd% 5<[email protected]. The “-lue ilo4er! in Russian literature is a s1m-ol of purit1 and constanc1% often in a naie

sense.

G. The Inisi-le *it1 of ,ite$h% or the “shining cit1 of ,ite$h%! is a cit1 said to hae descendedto the -ottom of a la)e east of the ;olga 4hen the &ongols fist inaded Russia. It sered as a

s1m-ol of pure rthodo1 retreating from a corrupt 4orld% and true -elieers 4ere supposed to

-e a-le to hear the ringing of its church -ells from the shores of the la)e.

F5=



=. ;asilii ;asil'eich Ro$ano ?568G95<5<@ 4as a Russian 4riter )no4n for his unorthodo

religious ie4s and Slaophile tendencies. +e 4ill -e discussed in the second olume of "a1s of

Russian Theolog1.6. The T1pi)on LBoo) of NormsM is a -oo) containing regulations for the times and

performance of the rthodo 4orship serices and general regulations for the entire life of the

monastic communit1 from 4hich it came.<. *f. Arsenii Su)hano's remar)s in his official “trael report! LStateinoi spiso)M concerning

his Cuarrel 4ith the (ree)s. LAuthor's note.M

87. 3edor the eacon% not later than 5GG<. LAuthor's noteM. 3edor Iano 4as a deacon in theAnnunciatipn *athedral in &osco4. +e 4as arrested in 5GG8 and defroc)ed and eiled at the

*ouncil of 5GGG. Although he repented once% in 5GG6 he 4as again arrested and sent to oin

A4a)um in eile in Pusto$ers). There he 4rote a treatise on the ld Belief% “Repl1 of the

rthodo defenders of religion concerning the (reed and other dogmas.! In 5G6F he 4as -urnedat the sta)e along 4ith Aa)um.

85. An anon1mous epistle sent to the ld Belieer communit1 in Tiumen' in Si-eria. LAuthor's

noteM.

8F. The priestless sects deeloped mostl1 in the sparsel1 populated regions of North Russia%4here a parish often coered thousands of sCuare miles and most people sa4 a priest perhaps

once a 1ear at -est. These people conducted reader serices in illage chapels and thus 4ereaccustomed to liing 4ithout priests. In the central regions of Russia% on the other hand% regular

*hurch life 4as more firml1 esta-lished and here the priestist groups emerged% diided among

themseles oer ho4 to accept the “fugitie priests! coming oer from the official *hurch. The priestists eoled into t4o main groups: those 4ho returned to the Russian rthodo *hurch as

edinoerts1 ?see chapter I;% note <=@% and the descendants of the Bela ,r1nitsa communit1 in

Austria9+ungar1% 4ho o-tained a retired (ree) -ishop in 56G and instituted their o4n hierarch1.

8. Pelagias 4as a la1 teacher in Rome at the end of the th centr1. "hat he actuall1 taught is notclear since his 4ritings hae not suried% -ut according to Augustine% 4ho 4rote seeral tracts

against his teachings% he stressed the freedom of the 4ill and the goodness of human nature to the

point 4here man is saed -1 his o4n moral efforts% apart from the grace of (od. This doctrineseerel1 clashed 4ith the Augustinian and Roman *atholic theolog1 of -aptism% original sin and

diine grace.

8. The Cuote is from Ian 3ilippo ?5G8895=@% an intelligent and erudite ld Belieer 4hoheld seeral administratie posts in the ;1g communit1 and 4as its leader from 5=7 until his

death. +e is -est )no4n for his +istor1 of the ;1g *ommunit1% LIstoril ;1gos)oi pust1niM% a

reasoned and scientific 4or) 4hich is a chief source for the stud1 of the earl1 histor1 of the

schism. See E.;. Barso% “Ian 3ilippo% ;1gos)ii Istori) i nastoiatel'%! in Pamiatnaia ,ni$h)alonets)ogo (u-ernii na 56G=god% F% 89577.

88. Andrei eniso 4as -orn in a illage of the Poonets region in 5G=. +e seems to hae -een

influenced Cuite earl1 -1 the 4andering ld Belieer preachers 4ho 4ere common in theoutl1ing regions of Russia% for in 5G<5% still a teenager% he -uilt his o4n hermitage in the ;1g

rier alle1. "hen others follo4ed him into the 4ilderness he organi$ed a communit1 ?the

;1gos)aia pust1n'@ 4hich his father and -rother Semen also oined. /ntil his death in 5=7Andrei eniso courageousl1 led this communit1 through man1 trials% famine and hardships% and

proed himself an a-le theologian in de-ates 4ith the official *hurch authorities and an a-le

diplomat in his dealings 4ith the goernment. n the eniso's and the ;1g communit1 in

F56



general% see R. *rumme1 The Id Belieers and the "orld of Antichrist% the ;1g communit1 and

the Russian state% 5G<95688 ?/niersit1 of "isconsin Press% 5<=7@.

8G. *f. his. “2ament! entitled n the Bride of *hrisr L neeste ,ristooiM% that is% the *hurch ineile and humiliation. LAuthor's noteM.

8=. Ramon 2ull ?5FF955G@ 4as a m1stic% philosopher and missionar1 from the island of

&aorca. +e spent most of his life -attling the Islamic faith on his natie island and alsocompiled an esoteric and unstructured philosoph1 4here-1 he attempted to unif1 all forms of

)no4ledge into one language% faith and -elief. +e 4as also an earl1 and ardent defender of the

doctrine of the immaculate conception. +is principle 4or)s are Ars magna ?5F=@% Ar-or scientiae ?5F<G@ and Ars generalis ultima ?576@.

86. This 4as the great literar1 enterprise of &etropolitan &a)arii ?c. 56F9 58G@. In it he

attempted to gather all material aaila-le for reading in Russia in one s1mposium% diided into

readings for eer1 da1 of the 1ear. The dail1 readings consisted of the lies of the saintscommemorated on that da1 and ecerpts from their 4or)s% if an1. At the end of eer1 month

other readings on religious and moral topics 4ere added. The olumes for fie months 4ere

pu-lished in St. Peters-urg -1 the Russian Archeographic *ommission ?56G695<5=@ and the rest

remain in manuscript.8<. n St. imitrii of Rosto% see chapter II% pp. 6F96.

G7. ometian 4as an old friend of A4a)um and an earl1 opponent of the reforms. +e 4asarrested and -rought to &osco4 in 5GG8% then eiled to Pusto$ers) in Si-eria the follo4ing 1ear.

In 5G=7 he returned to Tiumen' and founded a hermitage 4here he conducted serices for his

fello4 ld Belieers. An epedition 4as sent -1 the goernment to dis-and this hermitage inearl1 5G=<% -ut ometian and his follo4ers -urned themseles rather than -e captured -1 the

agents of the antichrist.

G5. Efrosin 4as a disciple of the enera-le ld Belieer a--ot osifei. +is tra$itel'noe pisanie

o nooi$o-retonnom puti samou-iistenn1)h smerti LRefutation of the Ne4l1 Inented S1stemof SuicidesM is an important source for the stud1 of the Schism in the 5G67's.

GF. ;aila 4as one of the more notorious of the ,apitons in the North ;olga region near ,a$an'.

+e 4as captured and put to the flames -1 the authorities in 5GGG.G. The ;inograd Rossiis)ii% produced -1 Semen eniso% 4as a mart1rolog1 of earl1 ld

Belieer leaders and a deotional account of the Soloets)ii &onaster1's reolt against the ne4

Ni)onian serice -oo)s. The Soloets)ii uprising 4as put do4n 4ith etreme force in 5G=.G. The onatist schism occurred in the earl1 fourth centur1 in North Africa and inoled t4o

main pro-lems: 4hether those *hristians 4ho succum-ed to persecution could repent and re9

enter the *hurch% and 4hether the alidit1 of a sacrament 4as dependent on the 4orthiness of the

minister. In the 1ear 5F a certain archdeacon *aecilian 4as consecrated to the see of *arthage.A local groups of rigorists refused to recogni$e him on the grounds that one of the -ishops 4ho

consecrated him had apostasi$ed during the iocletian persecution% and elected their o4n

hierarch. This -ishop 4as then succeeded -1 onatus% a man of great leadership a-ilities. Thust4o parallel hierarchies came into eistence in North Africa. The onatist groups -ecame

etremel1 seere and eclusie in outloo)% claiming not onl1 that former apostates could neer

again -e *hristians -ut also that an1one in communion 4ith them% i.e.% the entire *atholic*hurch% 4as outside of the -od1 of *hrist. This schism sapped all the strength out of the once

great church of Roman Africa% and 4ith the inasion of the ;andals ?F<@ it 4as irtuall1

destro1ed.

F5<



G8.HAgerest enim mundus% non Africa > messis finis saeculi% non tempus onati%! Ad. litt.

Petiliani% III% F% par. . LAuthor's noteM .

GG. Sergei 3edoroich Platono ?56G795<@ 4as an eminent Russian historian and founder of the “Peters-urg! school of Russian historiograph1. +is main 4or) is his 2ectures on Russian

+istor1 ?first pu-lished in St. Peters-urg in 56<<@ and he also 4rote authoritatie studies on

Boris (oduno and the Time of Trou-les.G=. 3or eample% see the treatise addressed to Simon /sha)o -1 the painter Iosif ;ladimiro.

LAuthor's noteM. Iosif ;ladimiro% “Poslanie ne)oego i$ugrafa Iosifa ) tsareu i$ugrafu i

mudreishemu $hiopistsu Simonu 3edoroichu%! in ;.N. 2a$are% ed.% reneruss)oe is)usstoO;II e)a% ?&osco4% 5<G@% F9G5.

G6. #ohann Piscator ?N.#. ;isscher% d. 5GF8@ 4as a utch Protestant Bi-lical commentator 4ho

4as Cuite popular in his da1. +is illustrated (erman translation of the Bi-le ?4hich is remar)a-le

-ecause it is not -ased on 2uther's@ 4as pu-lished in +olland in 5G87.G<. See note 5= in this chapter.

=7. “Ne4 #erusalem! 4as the name gien -1 Ni)on to the ;os)resens)i ?Resurrection@

monaster1% 4here he -uilt a church according to Arsenii Su)hano's description of the cathedral

in #erusalem. Semen Streshne ?see note 66@ accused Ni)on of disgracing the name of the +ol1*it1 -1 renaming this monaster1. *f. N. (i--enet% Istoriches)oe issledoanie dela Patriar)ha

Ni)ona ?St.Peters-urg% 56659566@% +% 8569887.=5. &arcin &ielc$e4s)i ?d. 5G85@ 4as a mem-er of the Rorantist chapel in *raco4 and later

-ecame a mem-er of the court chapel. In 5G8 he 4as appointed composer to ,ing "lad1sta4

I;. &ielc$e4s)i is often considered the most important Polish composer of the l=th centur1. Thegreat -ul) of his suriing 4or)s consists of a capella masses and psalm9motets.

=F. Apparentl1 in Russia he directed the choir -elonging to (.. Strogano. See his *rammati)a

peniia musi)iis)ago. The Polish original 4as adapted and re4or)ed for the Russian edition -1

the deacon I.T. ,orene. LAuthor's noteM. The Polish edition of ilets)ii's -oo)% (rammat1)amu$1c$na% 4as pu-lished in ;ilna in 5G=8. The first Russian edition appeared t4o 1ears later

?Smolens)% 5G==@0 in &osco4 a reised ersion 4as -rought out. See Iurii ,eld1sh% Russ)aia

mu$1)a O;II e)a% ?&osco4% 5<G8@% 889G.=. *f. the 4or)s of the goernment secretar1 ;.P. Tito. +is )ant1 and psalm1 4ere most often

set to the 4ords of Simeon of Polots) and others. LAuthor's noteM. uring the l=th centur1% a

special religious chant )no4n as the )ant 4as performed -1 Polish and /)rainian clerg1 andmon)s. The psalm 4as a special form of chant related to the )ant. 3or a discussion of ;asilii

Poli)arpoich Tito see (erald R. Seeman% The +istor1 of Russian &usic% ?Ne4 Dor)% 5<G=@% I%

8598F.

=. Andreas ;esalius ?585958G@ 4as a ph1sician 4hose detailed anatomical descriptions insuch 4or)s as e humani corporis fa-rica li-ri septem ?58@ greatl1 adanced the science of

-iolog1.

=8. *f. his dispute 4ith Simeon of Polots). LAuthor's noteM.=G. 3edor Poli)arpo 4as a student of the 2i)hud -rothers at the Slaonic9(ree)9 2atin school in

&osco4 and later a teacher there. +e also 4or)ed at the &osco4 Printing ffice% and 4as

named its director in 5=7<. *onsidered a specialist in theolog1 and *hurch histor1% man1contemporar1 4riters came to him for adice and comments% including St. imitrii of Rosto.

Poli)arpo pu-lished his o4n Slaonic (rammar and a histor1 of Rossia in the lGth and l=th

centuries% -oth commissioned -1 Peter the (reat.

==. See chapter II% note 5<8.

FF7



=6. #ohannes 3a-er of 2eut)irch ?5=69585@. The full title of 3a-er's 4or) is pus adersus

noa Cuaedam dogmata (utheri ?&alleus in haeresin (utheranamM.

=<. #uan de *artagena ?d. 5G5=@ 4as a famous preacher and head of the 3ranciscan order inSpain. isputationes in uniersa christianae religionis arcana 4as pu-lished in Rome in 5G7<.

67. #ean (erson ?5G595F<@% chancellor of the /niersit1 of Paris and a reno4ned 4riter on

theolog1 and spiritualit1% 4as the author of e unitate ecclesiae ?5<59558@. Baronius ?58695G7=@ 4as a cardinal and *hurch historian% )no4n for his 5F olume Annales ecclesiastici

?Rome% 58<695G7=@. Peter Besse ?58G695G<@ 4as )no4n for Bi-lical commentaries. Salmeron

?585895868@ 4as one of the original companions of St. Ignatius of 2o1ola% the founder of the#esuit order. +is 5G olume commentar1 on the Ne4 Testament appeared in &adrid in 58<=.

#uan Pere$ de Pineda ?588695G=@ 4as an editor of the Spanish InCuisition's Inde li-rorum

prohi-itorum and 4as also )no4n for Bi-lical commentaries and translations of the Ne4

Testament ?588G@ and the Psalms [email protected]. (erald &ercator ?585F958<@ 4as the greatest cartographer of the siteenth centur1. +e

deised a s1stem of cured lines for latitude and longitude on maps% )no4n as the “&ercator

proection%! and also 4as the first to use the term “atlas! for a -oo) of maps. In addition he

compiled a concordance of the (ospels and authored a commentar1 on St. Paul's epistle to theRomans. +enr1 &ore ?5G595G6=@ 4as a British poet and religious philosopher. +is chief

theological 4or)s are The Immortalit1 of the Soul ?5G8<@ and Enchiridion &etaph1sicum?5G=5@.

6F. ;ladimir Ianoich sten ?56895<55@ 4as a professor of literature at the /niersit1 of St.

Peters-urg. +is article on Simeon Polots)ii appears in ,hristians)oe chtenie% 5<7=% no. III.6. See chapter II% note 5<=.

6. Rafail ,orsa)% a former student at the *ollege of St. Athanasius% succeeded ;eliamin Ruts)ii

?see chapter II% note G5@ as /niate metropolitan of ,ie and head of the Basilian order in 5G=.

+e died in Rome in 5G5.68. See chapter II% note 5.

6G. See chapter II% note 5=.

6=. Before the (reat *ouncil of 5GGG95GG= 2igarides had produced forged documents 4hichnamed him the patriarch of *onstantinople's legate for the council. Tsar Ale)sei sent a special

eno1 to ion1sios to find out the truth of the matter% -ut -ecause 2igarides' fall 4ould -e too

harmful to Ni)on's opponents and personall1 em-arrassing to the tsar ion1sios' repl1 4as )eptsecret and 2igarides continued to function.

66. Semen 2u)ianoich Streshne 4as the -rother of Tsar Ale)sei's deceased mother. +e had

incurred the great 4rath of Ni)on -1 naming his dog after hirri and teaching it to mimic the 4a1

the patriarch gae the -lessing. Ni)on ecommunicated him ?according to the Ia4 code of 5G<such an offense against the patriarch's honor 4as punisha-le as the patriarch sa4 fit@. Streshne%

4ith 2igarides' help% then composed thirt1 Cuestions concerning the duties of a patriarch and

Ni)on's conduct in the light of these duties. These Cuestions 4ere pu-lished along 4ith replies4ritten -1 2igarides sharpl1 critical of Ni)on. See N. (i--enet% Istoriches)oi issledoanie dela

Patriar)ha Ni)ona% ?St. Peters-urg% 56659566@% II% 8569887% for the tet of the Kuestions.

6<. Ian Timofee ?d. c. 5G7@ 4as a goernment secretar1 Ld' ia)M under Boris (oduno. Sent to4or) in Nogorod in 5G7G% he remained there throughout the S4edish occupation of that cit1

during the Time of Trou-les. The raages and deastation that he 4itnessed there inspired him to

4rite his Annals L ;remenni)M% a rhetorical and ornate histor1 of Russia during his tur-ulent era.

FF5



<7. *f. 2arentii i$ani's ,ete)hi$is% and ,irill Tran)illion9Straroets)ii's /chitel noe

Eangelie% the serice manuals pu-lished in ;ilna in 5G5=% the 2ithos% the Tre-ni) and the short

catechism of Peter &ogila% and especiall1 the ;1)lad of 3edor Safonoich. LAuthor's noteM .<5. Sil'estr &edede ?5G595G<5@ 4as a minor goernment offcial from ,urs) 4ho came to

&osco4 and studied in Sineon's school for goernment seritors. There he -ecame a most

$ealous and deoted follo4er of Simeon's% and later too) monastic o4s and 4as put to 4or) atthe &osco4 Printing ffice. After Simeon's death in 5G67 &edede inherited his court

positions as 4ell as the leadership of the 2atin Part1% and 4rote numerous polemical tracts. +e

also 4as made head of the ai)onospass)ii &onaster1 in &osco4 and opened a 2atin schoolthere% 4hich he and his follo4ers hoped to conert into an academ1. ?Their hopes 4ere dashed

4hen the 2i)huds 4ere -rought to &oseo4 to found a (ree) oriented academ1@. 2ater

&edede -ecame inoled in court intrigues and 4as eecuted for treason in 5G<5.

<F. In 5G6F Patriarch Ioa)im 4rote to Patriarch ositheus of #erusalem as)ing him to send toRussia some educated rthodo scholars to open an academ1 and generall1 to offset the

influence of the 2atin part1 in &osco4. ositheus responded -1 dispatching the -rothers

#oannicus ?d. 5=5=@ and Sophronius ?d. 5=7@ 2i)hud. The1 arried in &osco4 in 5G68 and soon

after organi$ed a Slaono9(ree)92atin academ1 at the ai)onospass)ii &onaster1. Althoughtheir 1ears in &osco4 4ere tur-ulent% their influence on Russian higher education 4as

enormous% for -esides opening the first great Russian academ1 the1 also had to compile all thetet-oo)s for their courses and the first generation of properl1 called “scholars! in Russia 4ere

all educated -1 the 2i)huds. The1 also 4or)ed in the &osco4 Printing ffice and organi$ed

another school in Nogorod. After the death of #oannicus Sophronius sered as head of theSolotchins)ii &onaster1. The -asic 4or) on the 2i)huds remains &. Smertsos)ii% Brat'ia

2i)hud1: pt1 i$sledoaniia i$ istorii tser)onago proseshcheniia tser)onoi $hi$ni )ontsa

O;II i nachala O;III i)o ?St. Peters-urg% 56<<@.

<. Ioa)im ?5GF795G<7@% former archimandrite of the *hudo &onaster1 and metropolitan of Nogorod% 4as patriarch from 5G= until his death. "holl1 conseratie in outloo)% he

attempted to restore the po4ers of the *hurch% hich had -een eroding since Ni)on's fall% and

also stroe against the 2atin9Polish cultural influences flooding into Russia during TsarenaSofia's regenc1 ?see note <G@.

<. The 2i)hud edition of the hitie prep. ;arlaamiia ,hut1ns)ago contains a characteristic

passage on the light of Ta-or interpreted in a Palamite sense as the “uncreated emission of iinit1.! LAuthor's noteM.

<8. *f. the mon) Inno)entii &onast1rs)ii's -oo). LAuthor's noteM .

<G. After the death of 3edor III in 5G6F Peter the (reat% a lad of ten% 4as immediatel1 proclaimed

tsar. +o4eer% 4ithin months a strelts1 coup resulted in Peter's half9-rother Ian -eing namedco9tsar and his sister Sofia -eing named regent for -oth. Thereafter Peter lied outside &osco4

occup1ing himself 4ith arious puerile amusements. &ean4hile disaffection 4ith Sofia 4as

gro4ing in man1 Cuarters% until in 5G6< a gathering of the strelts1 at Sofia's palace ?supposedl1for the purpose of murdering Peter and thus remoing Sofia'schief potential rial for po4er@

sered as a pretet for a general reolt after 4hich Sofia 4as shut up in a conent and the

goernment came full1 into Peter's hands. The “conspirators%! i.e.% Sofia's entire court% 4erecruell1 punished and &edede% -eing a high personage in Sofia's court% 4as immediatel1

arrested and eecuted t4o 1ears later.

<=. See a-oe% chapter II% note 5=7.

FFF



<6. Pael &enesius ?d. 5G6<@ came to Russia in 5GG7 and entered the serice of Tsar Ale)sei's

court. In 5G=F he 4as sent to (erman1% ;enice and Rome to see) out the possi-ilit1 of a

European alliance against the Tur)s. n his return in 5G= he 4as promoted to the ran) of maor general and 4as made a tutor for the Tsareich Peter. In 5G6F Sofia sent him off to 4ar against

the *rimean Tatars% and he returned to &osco4% 4here he died% onl1 after her fall ?5G6<@.

<<. Patric) (ordon ?5G895G<<@ 4as a Scotch #aco-ite 4ho 4as educated at a #esuit college inPoland% -ut then -ecame a mercenar1 soldier for the S4edes% Poles and the (erman emperor. +e

entered the Russian arm1 in 5GG5% 4as sent on diplomatic missions in 5GG8 and 5G68% and 4as

promoted to the ran) of general during the *rimean campaign of 5G6=. Since (ordon 4as anepert on -allistics and fortification% the 1oung Tsar Peter 4as naturall1 attracted to him% and

(ordon -ecame Peter the (reat's earl1 mentor on militar1 sciences. Patric) (ordon 4rote a diar1

during his sta1 in Russia% parts of 4hich are pu-lished in Passages from the iar1 of *eneral

Patric) (ordon of Auchleuchries ?A-erdeen% 568<@.577. 3or Patriarch Ioa)im see a-oe% note <. Adrian% the former metropolitan of ,a$an'% 4as

elected patriarch in 5G<7 and 4as the last patriarch of Russia -efore 5<5=. Aged and ineffectual%

he 4as a-le to do little more than protest in ain the rise of foreign influences and the -rea)do4n

of old traditions. +e died in 5=77.575. Petr Artem'e 4as the son of a priest from Su$dal' and a student at the Slaonic9(ree)92atin

Academ1. n his return from Ital1 he 4as ordained an rthodo deacon and caused localscandals -1 teaching Roman *atholic doctiines on transu-stantiation% purgator1 and the filioCue

from the pulpit. +e 4as finall1 denounced to the patriarch -1 his o4n father% put on trial and

eiled to Solo)i.57F. That is% the Slaono9(ree)92atin Academ1 founded -1 the 2i)huds at the ai)onospass)ii

&onaster1 in 5G68. The 2i)huds left &osco4 in 5G<.

57. To enhance the prestige of the ne4 d1nast1 Tsar &i)hail 4ished to contract a marriage

alliance 4ith a foreign ro1al house. +e himself had loo)ed to enmar) for a ro1al spouse in5GF% and although nothing came of it a delegation had -een sent to enmar) 4hich included the

priest Ian Nased)a% 4ho 4rote a polemical tract entitled Eposition Against the 2utherans. In

5GF serious negotiations -egan to marr1 the tsar's daughter Irina to ,ing *hristian's son"oldemar% 4ho 4ould then lie in Russia. At first "oldemar 4as to conert to rthodo1% -ut

4hen he refused &i)ahil dropped the reCuirement and agreed to allo4 "oldemar to )eep his

faith and furthermore to -uild a 2utheran chapel in &osco4 for him. +o4eer% 4hen "oldemar arried in &osco4 in 5G Patriarch Iosif etoed the marriage. A delicate situation ensued. As

there 4as a real possi-ilit1 of "oldemas ascending the throne in the future% Patriarch Iosif% 4ith

4ide support among the conseratie &uscoite societ1% had to insist on his conersion. n the

other hand% if the marriage did not ta)e place% the tsar 4ould suffer an internationalem-arrassment and loss of prestige. Therefore it 4as decided to conduct religious de-ates 4ith

the purpose of conincing "oldemar to em-race rthodo1. Ian Nased)a 4as the chief

spo)esman for the rthodo side% and portions of his earlier tract 4ere included in the ,irilloa)niga ?see note F@ 4hich 4as pu-lished in connection 4ith the de-ates. The intense interest

4ith 4hich &uscoite societ1 follo4ed these discussions is eidenced -1 the tremendous > for

that time > press run of the ,irilloa )niga. +o4eer despite the tsar's efforts "oldemar remained an 'adamant 2utheran and after &i)hail died in 5G8 he returned to enmar) still a

-achelor.

57. The “(erman su-ur-! 4as part of the $ealot program to chec) the influ of 4estern ideas

through the mingling of foreigners ?all of 4hom 4ere called “(ermans! in l=th centur1 Russia@

FF



4ith Russians in &osco4. In 5G8F Tsar Ale)sei decreed that all foreigners 4ere to lie in a

su-ur- a half mile east of &osco4 on the Iau$a Rier.

578. #aco- Boehme ?or Bohme% 58=895GF@ 4as a (erman 2utheran shoema)er and m1stic. +ismaor 4or)s are The (reat &1ster1 and n the Election of (race% in 4hich he deelops a

comple cosmolog1% at times dualistic and pantheistic% as 4ell as his teaching on the true

*hristian life. Among his disciples 4ere Ne4ton% "illiam Bla)e% *laude de Saint9&artin% +egel%Schelling and Schopenhauer% and his influence 4as to -e felt in Russia in the late l6th and earl1

5<th centuries.

57G. #an Amos *omenius ?,omens)1% 58<F95G=7@ 4as a 4idel1 influential and respected figurein his time. The leader of a *$ech protestant communit1 uprooted -1 the Thirt1 Dears "ar% he

4rote oer F77 4or)s on philosophical and religious themes attempting to define their position

in the eer9changing realities of their eistence and urging peace and cooperation among all men

through uniersal education. +is last maor 4or) (u e tene-ris L2ight and ar)nessM is aseerel1 apocal1ptical treatise -ased on a num-er of 4ritings of his co9religionists 4ho fell in

recent persecutions. *omenius' most important and lasting 4or)% ho4eer% 4as in the field of

education% 4here he proposed ne4 methods of teaching ?cf. his idactica magna@ and language

learning ?#anua linguarum reserata@. See &. Spin)a% #ohn Amos *omenius: That Incompara-le&oraian ?Ne4 Dor)% 5<G=@.

57=. The onl1 suriing son of Tsar Ale)sei -1 his first 4ife% 3edor III ascended the throne in5G=G at the age of 58 and died si 1ears later. +e himself had -een educated -1 Simeon of

Polots)% and the adisors 4ho ran the goernment in the name of the 1oung and sic)l1 tsar 4ere

also 4estern oriented. uring his reign 4estern ideas and customs and 2atin -oo)s and doctrinesspread easil1 among the &uscoite aristocrac1.

576. See a-oe% note .

57<. Stefan Iaors)ii ?5G8695=FF@ 4as a theolog1 professor at the ,ie Academ1 4ho came to

&osco4 in 5=77 and -ecame the nominal% though po4erless% head of the Russian *hurch duringmost of the reign of Peter the (reat. See -elo4% chapter I;% pp. 5F795F5 and note 57.

557. Io 4as metropolitan of Nogorod from 5G<= until his death in 5=5G% and distinguished

himself as a remar)a-le hierarch and a leader in education and philanthrop1. n his o4ninitiatie and at his o4n epense he opened a series of schools 4ith elementat1 curricula in

Nogorod and in other cities of his diocese as 4ell. +e also founded hospitals% almshouses% old

age homes and orphanages. +is onl1 maor 4ritten 4or) is n the Birth of t)e Antichrist ?5=7=@%4ritten as a result of disputes 4ith the ld Belieers 4ho 4ere Cuite numerous in his eparch1.

There is a -iograph1 of him -1 I. *histoich in the ournal Stranni)% 56G5.

555. (ariil omets)oi% of the Iur'e monaster1% reopened the dispute oer the hol1 gifts in 5=7

4ifh a length1 re-uttal of Efimi's earlier 4or) against the 2atin part1 in &osco4. amas)in% amon) of the *hudo monaster1 replied to omets)oi's ne +undred and 3ie Kuestions 4ith

ne +undred and 3ie Ans4ers% 4ritten in the form of a lettei to &etropolitan Io. amas)in

later traelled to &t. Athos and 4rote a comparison of the +ol1 &ountain 4ith the Soloets)ii&onaster1.

55F. 3eofan Pro)opoich 4as the chief architect of Peter the (reat's *hurch reforms. +e is

discussed in the follo4ing chapter% pp. 5F595F=.

Notes to Chater !1.

FF



5. Slaophilism 4as an ideological moement that arose in the 567's in Russia. At that time

there 4ere intense controersies raging concerning the meaning of Russia's histor1% spar)ed -1

*haadae's “3irst Philosophical 2etter! pu-lished in the ournal Teles)op in 56G. In man1 4a1sthe focal point of these de-ates 4as precisel1 Peter's reforms. The Slaophiles% -elieing in the

uniCueness of the Russian spirit% 4hich the1 defined in terms of Slaic nationalit1 and rthodo

*hristianit1% reected Peter's attempt to -ring Russia on the path of "estern European histor1 andsa4 the present eils in Russia as the result of a "esterni$ed aristocrac1 and goernment

spirituall1 and culturall1 diorced from the huge masses of the Russian people.

F. 3eofan Pro)opoich 4as -orn in ,ie and studied at the ,ie Academ1% Polish schools% andthe *ollege of St. Athanasius in Rome 4here% instead of succum-ing to *atholic theolog1 he

deeloped a lasting hatred of *atholicism and fell under a Protestant orientation. "hile prefect of

the ,ie Academ1 he impressed Peter on seeral occasions 4ith sermons glorif1ing the tsar for

his ictor1 at Poltaa. Thereupon he 4as -rought to St. Peters-urg as first -ishop of Ps)o andthen arch-ishop of Nogorod. See -elo4% especiall1 section III.

. This is an allusion to 3eofan Pro)opoich's prade oli monarshei opredelenie soi)h po

se-e nasledni)o Ln the #ustice of the &onarch's "ill in his o4n etermination of his +eirsM%

in 4hich he states that the tsar's 4ill is superior to an1 po4er and cannot -e udged.. Ro$1s) istoriches)ii% )oi)h radi in% i )a)oom ra$ume -1li i naritsalisia imperator1 rimtsii%

)a) ia$1chestii% ta) i )hristianstii pontife)sami ili ar)hiereiami mnogo-u$hnago $a)ona0 a $a)one )hristianstem )hristianstii gosudari mogut li nareshchisia epis)opi ar)hierei% i )a)om

ra$ume.

8. Samuel on Pufendorf ?5GF95G<@ 4as a (erman 4riter and urist 4ho% ho4eer% spent hismost productie 1ears in S4eden. +is e ure naturae et (entium li-ri octo ?5G=F@% and

especiall1 the ecerpt from it pu-lished in 5G=% e officio hominls et ciis uta legem

naturalem% 4as a 4idel1 read treatise on natural la4. In his e ha-itu rehgionis *hristianae ad

itam ciilem he proclaimed the ciil superiorit1 of the state oer the church% and this 4or) sered as a -asis for the collegial s1stem of church goernment in S4eden. Pufendorf is singled

out in the Spiritual Regulation as a teacher 4orth1 of stud1.

G. +ugo (rotius ?58695G8@ 4as a utch urist% statesman and humanist. +is most famous4or)% e iure -elli ac pacis li-ri tres ?5GF8@ -rought him reno4n as the “father of international

la4.! In addition he 4rote on theolog1% histor1% Bi-lical commentaries% and also 4as the author

of numerous poems in 2atin.=. Thomas +o--es ?586695G=<@ 4as a controersial British empiricist and political philosopher.

In 4or)s such as 2eiathan% or the &atter% 3orm and Po4er of a *ommon4ealth% Ecclesiastical

and *iil ?5G85@% e cie ?5GF@ and e corpore politico ?5G88@ he defended a-solute monarch1

as the onl1 4or)a-le political form% -erated papists and Pres-1terians for attempting to limit the po4ers of soereigns% and held that the church and the state are one -od1 oer 4hich the

soereign alone is head.

6. This phrase came into use in the (erman empire after the rise of 2utheranism% 4hen Cuarrelsoer the official religion of local principalities -ro)e out -ecause of situations 4here the faith of

a prince 4as different than that of his su-ects. The Peace of Augs-urg ?5G88@ esta-lished the

principle that “he 4ho rules% his is the religion%! a principle that sered to set the temporal ruler at the head of national Protestant churches.

<. This remar) is from the -oo) entitled Ecclesia romana cum ruthenica irreconcilia-ilis ?#ena%

5=5<@% 4ritten at 3eofan's initation and on the -asis of information he proided. ?Author's noteM.

“+e did this in order to proclaim himself the head and supreme ruler of the church in Russia.!

FF8



#ohann 3ran$ Buddeus ?5GG=95=F<@ 4as a professor at #ena and the most ersatile and respected

2utheran theologian of his age. +e pu-lished 4or)s on histor1% philosoph1% the ld Testament%

and t4o theolog1 courses: Institutiones theologiae moralis ?5=55@ and Institutiones theologiaedogmaticae ?5=F@.

57. Stefan Iaors)ii 4as -orn in 5G86 in a famil1 of /)rainian lesser no-ilit1. +e studied at the

,ie Academ1 and 4as also sent to arious colleges in Poland to complete his education. "hilein Poland% he -ecame a /niate% as 4as the 0 normal practice for Russians stud1ing in the "est%

and moreoer -ecame thoroughl1 im-ued 4ith 2atin theolog1. n his return to ,ie in 5G6< he

reerted to rthodo1% -ecame a mon)% and rose high in the facult1 of the ,ie Academ1. Sentto &osco4 in 5=77 to -e consecrated -ishop of Pereiaslal% he attracted the attention of Peter

4ith one of his sermons and the tsar had him named instead the metropolitan of Ria$an' and

&urom. After the death of Adrian he 4as appointed temporar1 administrator of the patriarchate%

a position 4hich he held until the dissolution of the patriarchate in 5=F5% and also superintendentof the &osco4 Academ1. Throughout his long tenure as nominal head of the Russian% *hurch

Iaors)ii opposed the reforms of Peter and 3eofan% 4hose episcopal consecration he had

protested in 5=56% -ut 4as po4erless to do an1thing a-out it in the face of the iron 4ill of the

tsar. Still he 4as named president of the Ecclesiastical *ollege ?later renamed the &ost +ol1S1nod@ at its inception% -ut too) no actie role in it and died the follo4ing 1ear% 5=FF. Stefan

Iaors)ii's 2atin oriented polemic against Protestantism% ,amen' er1% is discussed -elo4.55. The term “caesaropapism%! 4hich refers to a ruler possessing supreme authorit1 oer the

church as 4ell as the state% 4as originall1 applied -1 certain historians to B1$antium 4here the

emperor often 4ielded enormous control oer the (ree) *hurch. To 3r. 3loros)1% ho4eer% it is -etter suited to the national churches formed in the Reformation 4here the temporal ruler 4as

actuall1 recogni$ed as the official head of the church.

5F. 3ilaret (umiles)ii% arch-ishop of *hernigo from 568< to 56GG% 4as the author of -$or

russ)oi du)honoi Iiteratur1 ?St. Peters-urg% 566@ and Istoriia russ)oi tser)i ?*hernigo%56=@. See chapter ; and note G6.

5. (ioanni Pontanus ?5FF9587@% Italian politician and humanist% 4as the head of the

Neapolitan Academ1. +is dialogues on moralit1% religion and literature% as 4ell as his l1rical poetr1% 4ere 4ritten in 4hat 4as considered the most fluent 2atin st1le of his da1.

5. #oseph #ustus Scaliger ?58795G7<@ 4as a 3rench *alinist humanist and linguist. A

professor first at (enea and then at the /niersit1 of 2eiden% he 4as )no4n for his editions of seeral ancient 4riters% his Poemata omnia ?5G58@% and his t4o chief 4or)s% e emendatione

temporum ?586@ and Thesaurus temporum ?5G7G@ 4hich founded the science of chronolog1.

58. The actual term here is s)omoro)hi% 4andering minstrels of old Russia 4ho 4ent from

illage to illage performing acts and doing tric)s. The1 4ere opposed -1 the *hurch hierarch1.5G. +is S1ntagma theologiae christianae 4as pu-lished in +anoer in 5G7<. LAuthor's noteM.

Amandus Polanus on Polansdorf ?58G595G57@ 4as the leader of the conseratie *alinists in

Basel. +e also composed commentaries on the -oo)s of the ld Testament and produced a(erman translation of the Ne4 Testament.

5=. #ohann (erhard ?586F95G=@ 4as a conseratie 2utheran professor of theolog1 at #ena

4hose 2oci communes theologici 4as the most authoritatie 2utheran theological s1stem of itstime. +e also 4rote *onfessio catholica ?in four parts% 5G95G=@% a defense of 2utheranism

4ith arguments dra4n from *atholic authors% as 4ell as arious eegetical and deotional

4ritings.

FFG



56. Adam erni)a ?or *hernigos)ii@ 4as a 2utheran scholar 4ho after a long stud1 of earl1

church histor1 and the Eastern rthodo *hurch decided to moe to Russia and conert to

rthodo1. In *hernigo in 5G6F he 4rote e processione Spiritus Sancta a suo Patre 4hich 4as)ept in the li-rar1 of the ,ie Academ1 -ut not pu-lished until 5== in ,onigs-erg.

5<. Ro-ert Bellarmine ?58F95GF5@ 4as a cardinal in the Roman *atholic *hurch. +is

isputationes de controersiis christianiae fidei adersus huus temporis haereticos% first pu-lished in Rome from 5865 to 58<% s1noptici$ed -oth Roman *atholic and Protestant

theolog1% and 4as preiousl1 used -1 Peter &ogila. Bellarmine also 4or)ed on the commission

that produced the Situs9*lementine ;ulgate.F7. The Russian Academ1 of Sciences 4as founded in St. Peters-urg shortl1 after Peter's death in

5=F8. It had -een a pet proect of his since his ourne1 to Europe in 5=5= 4hen he discussed the

proect 4ith the philosopher 2ei-nit$ and 4as made an honorar1 mem-er of the 3rench Academ1

of Sciences. The Russian Academ1 4as esta-lished -1 (ermans% and the total mem-ership for the entire l6th centur1 4as t4o9thirds foreigners.

F5. The great Spanish #esuit 3rancis Suare$ ?58695G5=@ 4rote on philosoph1 and theolog1 in a

Thomistic ein% as 4ell as on la4 and politics. Suare$ 4as a most prolific author ?the 568G Paris

edition of his collected 4or)s coers F6 olumes@ and 4e can onl1 mention here his principal philosophical treatise% isputationes metaph1sicae% 4hich 4ent through 56 editions in the l=th

centur1 and 4as 4idel1 used in Protestant as 4ell as Roman *atholic uniersities.FF. Raspria Pala i Petra o ige neado-osominom% 4ritten in 5=5F% -ut pu-lished onl1 in 5== as

part of 3eofan's collected 4or)s. LAuthor's noteM.

F. The traditional rthodo doctrine of salation stands apart from the Reformation argumenton faith and 4or)s% presupposed here -1 3eofan. The rthodo fathers sa4 salation

accomp+shed in a colla-oration of diine grace and the free 4ill of man% the doctrine of

s1nergeia.

F. Anton ;. ,artashe ?56=895<G7@ 4as a distinguished Russian and emigre *hurch historianand one of the founders of the St. Sergius Academ1 in Paris. +is main 4or) is the t4o olume

cher)i po istorii russ)oi tser)i ?Paris% 5<8<@.

F8. 3eofila)t 2opatins)ii% a graduate of the ,ie Academ1% 4as -rought to &osco4 in 5=7 toteach philosoph1 at the &osco4 Academ1. 2ater he -ecame professor of theolog1 and rector

?from 5=7G to 5=FF@. In spite of his differences 4ith 3eofan ?li)e Iaors)ii% he protested 3eofan's

consecration in 5=56@ 2opatins)ii remained in the faor of the tsar and in 5=FF 4as namedarchimandrite of the *hudo &onaster1 and a mem-er of the S1nod% and the follo4ing 1ear

-ishop of Ter'. After Peter's death he actuall1 -ecame the dominant figure in the S1nod% until he

4as arrested and imprisoned under Empress Anna. Reprieed on Eli$a-eth's accession ?5=5@%

3eofila)t died a 1ear later. n his Cuarrel 4ith 3eofan see I. *histoich% 3eofan Pro)opoich i3eofila)t 2opatins)ii ?St. Peters-urg% 56G5@.

FG. &ar)ell Rod1shes)ii had taught at the ,ie Academ1 during 3eofan's tenure there% and it

4as 3eofan's influence that gae him his position as archimandrite of the Iur'e &onaster1.+o4eer% &ar)ell 4as a staunch opponent of Peter's reforms and after the tsar's death he opened

a igorous attac) on the author of most of these reforms% his former friend 3eofan. &ar)ell% in

fact% een 4ent so far as to 4rite a -iograph1 of 3eofan under the title The 2ife of theArch-ishop of Nogorod% the +eretic 3eofan Pro)opoich. Spending most of the 1ears -et4een

5=F8 and 5=7 in confinement or eile for his ie4s% he 4as restored to his position at the Iur'e

&onaster1 onl1 after Eli$a-eth came to po4er% and shortl1 -efore his death in 5=F he 4as een

made a -ishop.

FF=



. imitrii Edo)imoich Teritino 4as a doctor and man of science 4ith man1 friends in the

(erman su-ur-% 4here he -ecame 4ell acCuainted 4ith 2uther's 4or)s. +is scientific

-ac)ground and Protestant influences led him to the denial of relics% miracles and the enerationof icons% and to hold the Bi-le as the sole source of religious authorit1. +e 4as forced to recant

and eentuall1 returned to the fold of rthodo1% -ut the process too) seeral 1ears and

heightened rialries and animosities at the highest leels of Peter's goernment. At the trial of astudent of the &osco4 Academ1 accused of Protestantism and free9thin)ing in 5=5% Teritino

4as denouced as the source of these heresies.3leeing to St. Peters-urg he placed himself under

the protection of the Senate ?an eecutie organ of Peter's% not a legislatie -od1@% 4hich foundhim rthodo and ordered Iaors)ii to agree. Iaors)ii thereupon appealed directl1 to Peter%

4ho% though dou-tless in s1mpath1 4ith Teritino's ideas% could not tolerate the -reach of

authorit1 contained in them% and Teritino 4as finall1 condemned in 5=5G. This affair left Peter

disgruntled 4ith Iaors)ii for forcing him to contradict his Senate% left the Senate -itter 4ithIaors)ii for appealing oer their heads% and left Iaors)ii despairing of the possi-ilit1 to

function 4ith an1 authorit1.

8. Iaors)ii's Roc) of 3aith 4as 4ritten perhaps as earl1 as 5=5.

G. Buddeus' tract 4as pu-lished as efense of the 2utheran *hurch against the *alumnies of Stefan laors)ii ?Epistola apologetica pro ecclesia 2utherana contra calumnias et o-trectationes

Stephani #aorcii ad amium &osCue degentem scriptM. Ro-ert Stupperich% in “3eofan Pro)opoicund #ohann 3ran$ Buddeus%! eitschrift fur osteuropaische (eschichte% IO ?n.s.% @% ?5<8@% pp.

59GF argues that it 4as not 3eofan -ut a former student of Buddeus then in &osco4% Peter

&uller% 4ho sent Iaors)ii's -oo) to #ena. +e also does not find 3eofan to hae -een the tealauthor of Buddeus' reoinder.

=. #ohann 2oren$ on &osheim ?5G<95=88@ 4as a professor of theolog1 at +elmstedt and later

at the /niersit1 of (ottingen% 4hich he helped esta-lish. +is most important 4or) 4as in the

field of *hurch histor1% 4here he 4as one of the first to appl1 modern historiographical methods%and his Institutiones historiae ecclesiasticae ?+elmstedt% 5=88@ 4as often reproduced and 4idel1

used as a tet-oo).

6. Although little is )no4n of the life of Ian Ti)honoich Pososh)o ?c. 5G8F95=FG@% his4ritings mar) him as an intellectual giant in l6th centur1 Russia.*alled -1 man1 the first Russian

economist% his chief 4or) n Poert1 and "ealth L,niga o s)udosti i -ogatstie% 5=FM is a

fascinating economic treatise in 4hich Pososh)o deals 4ith prices% taes% the coining of mone1%relationships of landlords to the peasantr1% and the need for adanced agricultural techniCues and

goernment support for industr1. +e also outlines a plan for economic and social reform in

Russia. This -oo) pro-a-l1 led to his demise in the Peter and Paul fortress in St. Peters-urg t4o

1ears after it 4as 4ritten% -ut -efore that he 4as also )no4n as an enlightened 4riter onecclesiastical and social themes. f particular interest here is The *lear &irror Ler)alo

ocheidnoeM 4hich: Pososh)o 4rote in 5=76 mainl1 against Protestantism and the ld

Belieers. A modern stud1 of this remar)a-le person is B.B. ,afengau$% I.T. Pososh)o: $hi$n' ideiatel'nost' ?&osco4% 5<85@.

<. The historian and philologist (ottlie- Siegfried Ba1er ?5G<95=6@ 4as educated at

,onigs-erg /niersit1 and held the chair of antiCuities and oriental languages at the Academ1 of Sciences in St. Peters-urg. In Russia he accomplished alua-le 4or) in the fields of histor1 and

geograph1% compiled a *hinese dictionar1% and 4rote a histor1 of Russia. As he neer learned to

read Russian his histor1 4as -ased solel1 on B1$antine and Scandinaian sources in 2atin

translation and helped to esta-lish the “Normanist theor1! in Russian historiograph1% i.e.% that

FF<



practicall1 an1thing of political or cultural alue in ancient Russia came from ;arangian traders

4ho esta-lished their rule oer the earl1 Slaic tri-es.

7. Adam Bur)hardt Sellius ?d. 5=G@% a ane% 4as a student of Buddeus at #ena. +e came toRussia in 5=FF and taught 2atin at 3eofan's school% and su-seCuentl1 sered as a teacher in

&osco4% in St. Peters-urg at the Academ1 of Sciences% and at the Ale)sandr Nes)ii Seminar1.

In 5= he conerted to rthodo1 and -ecame a mon) 4ith the name Ni)odim. +e 4as )no4nto later generations in Russia for his -i-liographical and historical 4or)s% most nota-l1

Schediasma litterarium de scriptori-us% Cui historiam politico ecclesiasticam Rossiae illustrarunt

?Reel% 5=G0 Russian translation &osco4% 5658@% Istoriches)oe $ertsalo rossiis)i)h gosudarei?original 2atin unpu-lished% Russian translation &osco4% 5==@% and e rossorum hierarchia%

4hich 4as neer pu-lished -ut 4as put to use -1 later Russian historians.

5. Patriarch ositheus epressed concern oer 2atin influences in Russia on a num-er of

occasions. Alttiough he himself sent the 2i)hud -rothers to &osco4 to open the academ1 there%he denounced them 4hen the1 introduced 2atin into the curriculum. 2ater he protested

Iaors)ii's consecration to the see of Ria$an and 4arned Peter not to -ring /)rainians to Russian

sees. n this redou-ta-le hierarch himself see chapter II% note F77.

F. +is Scientia sacra ?5=7G95=57@ eists in manuscript0 cf. the apis)i of I. ,ro)os)iiLAuthor's noteM.

. Petr ;asil'eich namens)ii ?56G95<5=@ 4as an eminent Russian *hurch historian. ne of his chief 4or)s is u)honaia sh)ola do reform1 5676 goda ?,a$an'% 5665@.

. Ni)olai Sergeeich Tru-ets)oi ?56<795<6@ 4as a 4ell9)no4n Russian and emigre historian

of Slaic literature and general linguistic scholar. +is chief 4or) is (rund$uge der Phonologie?;ienna% 5<<@.

8. Epifanii Ti)hors)ii an archimandrite from *hernigo 4as -ishop of Belgorod from 5=FF

until his death in 5=5. +e founded his Russian language school in Belgorod% and it 4as moed

to ,har)o in 5=FG.G. The Ale)sandr Nes)ii &onaster1 4as founded in 5=57. Peter intended it to -ecome a t1pe

of training center for higher clerg1 in Russia% and he once ordered that all archimandrites for all

Russian monasteries reside first at this monaster1% 4here the tsar could inspect them for himself.In 5=F5 a grammar school 4as founded there -1 3eodosii Ianos)ii% then this school 4as

transformed in 5=F8 into the Slaonic9(reco92atin Seminar1 of St. Peters-urg.

=. Ale)sandr Ianoich +er$en ?565F956=7@ 4as a Russian radical ournalist% philosopher andliterar1 critic. +e spent his most productie 1ears in 2ondon. 4here he pu-lished the famous

ournal ,olo)ol.

6. Platon 2eshin ?5==9565F@ 4as one of the fe4 trul1 great hierarchs of the l6th centur1. Born

near &osco4% he studied at the &osco4 Academ1 and after fmishing taught rhetoric there. In5=G he 4as -rought to St.Peters-urg as preacher to the court of *atherine II and a tutor for

(rand u)e Paul. +e rose successiel1 to the ran) of archimandrite% mem-er of the S1nod%

-ishop of Ter' ?5==7@% and in 5==8 he -ecame the metropolitan of &osco4. uring his = 1earsas metropolitan of &osco4 Platon proed himself to -e a more than capa-le administrator% re9

orgaru$ing his diocese and the Academ1 and introducing numerous measures to raise -oth the

moral and material leel of his clerg1. In the earl1 part of his life he 4as )no4n as one of themost successful preachers in Russia% and oer 877 of his sermons are presered. 2ater he

distinguished himself as a 4riter and pedagogue. Among his oluminous 4ritings are hand-oo)s

and instructions coering almost eer1 aspect of church life% a short histor1 of the Russian

*hurch% and seeral catechetical and dogmatic 4or)s 4ritten in the Russian language% the most

F7



famous of 4hich% Praoslanoe uchenie er1% 4as pu-lished in 2atin% 3rench% (erman% English

and (ree) during his lifetime.A full account of hia life and 4or)s is A. Barso% cher) $hi$ni

mitropolita Platona ?&osco4% 56<5@. +e is also discussed -elo4% especiall1 pp. 5595G.<. This 4as Rule G in the section on monasticism. It 4as not in the original ersion of the

Regulation% -ut as earl1 as 5=75 Peter for-ade mon)s to )eep 4riting materials in their cells% and

this prohi-ition 4as confirmed -1 an edict in #anuar1 of 5=F.87. Ni)ita Petroich (iliaro9Platono ?56F9566=@ 4as a l<th centur1 Slaophile pu-licist. See

chapter ;% note F=.

85. ecree of Septem-er 5% 5=F. LAuthor's noteM .8F. *f. the “notification! L-'ialenieM of 5=F. LAuthor's noteM .

8. See -elo4 for Paisii ;elich)os)ii's outright condemnation of this practice. LAuthor's noteM .

8. Arsenii &ogilians)ii ?5=795==7@% a graduate of the ,ie Academ1% taught at the &osco4

Academ1 and 4as a popular preacher -oth there and at Eli$a-eth's court. A mem-er of the S1nodfrom 5=% he retired to the Nogorod9Seers)ii &onaster1 in 5=8F% -ut 4as called out of

retirement to assume the office of metropolitan of ,ie.

88. Those 4ho taught in such a manner included 3eofila)t% (edeon ;ishens)ii% and to some

etent ,irill 3lorins)ii in &osco40 Inno)entii Popos)ii% ,hristofor *harnuts)ii% Iosif ;ochans)ii and Amrosii u-neich in ,ie. &entioning Arsenii &atseeich's name 4ould not

-e inappropriate at this point. LAuthor's noteM .8G. “Peripatetic! refers to the philosoph1 of Aristotle% populari$ed in "estern Europe -1 the

scholastics. The term is deried from Aristotle's practice of 4al)ing around ?peripatain@ as he

taught% and the colonnade in his l1ceum% called the peripatos.8=. *hristian "olff ?5G=<95=8@ 4as a (erman philosopher and mathematician 4ho taught at the

/niersit1 of &ar-urg and at +alle. In his philosoph1 he stroe to s1stemati$e scholastic

philosoph1 on the -asis of his mathematical method. +is moral and political philosoph1 had

great intluence and -1 the middle of the l6th centur1 dominated (erman uniersities.86. /suall1 in the edition prepared -1 N. Bant1sh9,amens)ii% Baumeistri Elementa

philosophiae% pu-lished in &osco4 in 5=== -ut printed in ,ie as earl1 as 5=8F. LAuthor's noteM.

8<. #ohann (erhard% 2oci theologici0 #ohann Kuenstedt% Theologia didacticopolemica sies1stema theologicum ?"itten-erg% 5G68@0 #ohann Buddeus% Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae

?5=F@ and Isagoge historico9theologica ad theologiam uniersam ?5=F=@.

G7. Sil'estr ,ulia-)a ?5=7595=G5@ taught rhetoric% philosoph1 and theolog1 at the ,ieAcadem1 and also sered as rector. +is t4o popular lecture compilations 4ere *ursus

philosophicus ?5==@ and Theologicae scientiae summa ?5=@. 2ater he -ecame metropolitan of

St. Peters-urg. (eorgii ,oniss)ii ?5=5695=<8@% the arch-ishop of &ogile% although also the

author of a theolog1 and a philosoph1 course% 4as )no4n chiefl1 for his struggles against the/niates in Poland. (ariil Petro ?5=795675@ 4as first -ishop of Ter' and then metropolitan of

St. Peters-urg% 4here he 4as actie 4ith the academ1. +e also sered on *atherine II's

2egislatie *ommission as the representatie of the Russian clerg1% and on a commission toealuate the ecclesiastical schools ?see -elo4@.

G5. 3eofila)t (ors)ii ?d. 5==6@ 4as a professor and rector of &osco4 Academ1% and -ishop of

Pereiaslal and ,olomna. rtodoae orientalis ecclesiae dogmata% seu doctrina christianadeccredendis et agendis 4as pu-lished for a second time for use in the seminaries in 5656. A

shorter ersion% ogmat1 )hristians)oi praoslanoi er1% 4as pu-lished in 2atin and Russian in

5==% translated into (erman that same 1ear% and 3rench in 5=<F. Ia)inf ,arpins)ii% )no4n to his

fello4 monastics as *icero ?5=F95=<6@% had a aried career in fie semmaries and ten

F5



monasteries. +is *ompendium 4as a standard tet-oo). Sil'estr 2e-edins)ii ?d. 5676@% rector of

the ,a$an' Academ1 and arch-ishop of Astra)han% 4as also the author of the popular Netlennaia

pishcha ?&osco4% 5=<<@ and Pritochni) eangel's)ii ?5=<G@% Bi-lical commentaries in erse.Irinei 3al')os)ii ?d. 56F@ taught mathematics as 4ell as theolog1 at the ,ie Academ1 and 4as

-ishop of Smolens) and *higirin.

GF. *f. the desire epressed in the statute of &osco4 /niersit1 “that the (ree) language -etaught.! LAuthor's noteM .

G. Russian foreign polic1 had long -een directed to4ards the south% against Tatar tri-es and the

ttoman Empire. "ith the Tur)ish 4ar ending in the treat1 of ,utchu)9,ainardi ?5==@ Russiahad gained a firm footing on the Blac) Sea and demonstrated her militar1 superiorit1 in that

region. *atherine II's “(ree) Proect! or “grand design! 4as to continue Russian epansion in

thatdirection until the Tur)s 4ere epelled from Europe and she could reie the B1$antine

Empire 4ith its capitol at *onstantinople. The initial step of this plan 4as ta)en 4ith theanneation of the *rimea in 5=6 and another Tur)ish 4ar ending in 5=<F 4ith the Russians

gaining the entire north coast of the Blac) Sea% -ut *onstantinople% of course% 4as -e1ond reach.

uring this time *atherine actiel1 promoted Russia's B1$antine heritage and een had her

second grandson named *onstantine.G. See a-oe% note 6.

G8. This 4as 4hen the num-er of Academies 4as increased to four ?in ,ie% &osco4% St.Peters-urg and ,a$an'@ and eight ne4 seminaries 4ere opened. Teaching at all leels 4as

upgraded% and a s1stem of lesser schools% primaril1 for cantors% 4as created.

GG. After graduating from the ,ie Academ1 Simon Todors)ii ?d. 5=8@ 4as sent a-road for ten1ears to stud1 languages. n his return he taught at the ,ie Academ1% 4as -ishop of ,ostroma

and then arch-ishop of Ps)o and a mem-er of the S1nod. Ecept for a small num-er of sermons

his 4or)s 4ere not pu-lished a report on Russian ecclesiastical schools remaining in the

Imperialli-rar1 in St. Peters-urg% a treatise on riental languages -eing )ept in the li-rar1 of theAcadem1 of Sciences% and his Rudimenta linguae graecae remaining in manuscript in the li-rar1

of the *hernigo Seminar1. +e also translated Arndt's n True *hristianit1% -ut it too 4as not put

in print.G=. #ohann +einrich &ichaelis ?5GG695=6@ 4as a professor of riental languages and later of

theolog1 at the /niersit1 of +alle. A pietist% he 4as the center of 3ranc)e's *ollegium rientale

theologicum ?see note =6@ and he edited a critical edition of the ld Testament ?5=F7@ and aneegetical 4or) on the +agiographa ?+alle% 5=F7@.

G6. The “Eli$a-ethan Bi-le! 4as issued in 5=85 and the printing 4as repeated in 5=8G% 5=8= and

5=8<. LAuthor's noteM . Ia)o Blonnits)ii ?5=5595==@ taught at the seminar1 in Ter' and from

5= to 5=6 he taught at the &osco4 Academ1. "hile in &osco4 he composed a short (ree) grammar% translated the Enchiridion of the Stoic philosopher Epictetus and -egan 4or) on the

ne4 Bi-le. In 5=6 he retired -ecause of illness to a monaster1 in Belgorod% from 4hich he

secretl1 traelled to &t. Athos% returning to the ,ie Brotherhood &onaster1 ten ears later.Blonnits)ii also compiled an unpu-lished Slaonic grammar and translated ion1sius the

Areopagite's n the +eaenl1 Nierarch1. ;arlaam 2iashches)ii ?d. 5==@ taught (ree) at the

,ie Academ1 and 4as su-seCuentl1 the rector of the &osco4 Academ1 and a mem-er of theS1nod. +e continued Blonnits)ii's 4or) on the Eli$a-ethan Bi-le% 4rote a fore4ord for it% and

authored a (ree) grammar in 2atin 4hich 4as later reised% epanded%translated into Russian

and used as a standard tet-oo) in all Russian seminaries.

FF



G<. The "alton% or 2ondinensis% Pol1glot ?2ondon% 5G895G8=@ 4as edited -1 Brian "alton and

Edmond *astle and contained the Scriptures in +e-re4% Samaritan% Aramaic% (ree)% 2atin%

Ethiopian% S1rian% Ara-ic% and Persian. f all pol1glot Bi-les it is still considered the -est.=7. *ompiled under the patronage of the Spanish cardinal and statesman #imene$ de *isneros%

the *omplutensian Pol1glot ?Alcala de +ernares L*omplutum@% ?5859585=@ com-ined the first

printing of the +e-re4 ld Testament% the Septuagint and the (ree) Ne4 Testament 4ith the;ulgate and Aramaic.

=5. The ographou monaster1% together 4ith the Russian monaster1 of St.Panteleimon and the

Ser-ian monaster1 of *hilander ?all of 4hich still eist@%formed a medieal literar1 center 4hereB1$antine religious 4ritings 4ere translated into Slaonic. +ere Blonnits)ii had the opportunit1

of collating numerous (ree) and Slaic manuscripts.

=F. n #ohann &osheim see note =. #oseph Bingham ?5GG695=F@ 4as an English clerg1man

and scholar 4ho 4rote the ehaustie rigines ecclesiasticae% or The AntiCuities of the *hristian*hurch ?57 olumes% 5=7695=FF@. #oachim 2ange ?5G=795=@ 4as a professor of theolog1 at

+alle% )no4n mostl1 for his pietist doctrinal 4or)s and h1mns% and for his +istoria ecclesiastica

;eteris et Noi Testamenti ?+alle% 5=FF@.

=. 2ouis Se-astien le Nain de Tillemont ?5G=95G<6@ 4as a 3rench priest and scholar. +e 4as a pioneer in appl1ing internal criticism to historical documents% and his +istoire des Empereurs et

des autres princes Cui ont regne durant les si premiers siecles de l'dglise ?si olumes% 5G<795=6@ 4on praise from the English historian (i--on. +is &emoires pour serir d I histoire

ecclesiastiCue des si premiers siecles ?siteen olumes% 5G<95=5F@ 4as a massie%

comprehensie and detailed 4or).=. The first edition appeared in &osco4 in 5==% the third in 565<. LAuthor's noteM .

=8. ;eniam.in Rumos)ii9,rasnope)o ?5=<95655@ taught at the Ale)sandr Nes)ii Seminar1

and 4as also rector there -efore -ecoming -ishop of Ar)hangel in 5==8 and Ni$hegorod in 5=<6.

Noaia S)ri$hal'% ili populnitel noe o- iasnenie o Tser)i% o (iturgii% o se)h slu$h-a)h iutaria)h tser)on1)h 4ent through numerous editions in the l<th centur1.

=G. Euchologion is a common name for -oo)s containing the rthodo liturg1 and other rites.

;arious editions of it 4ere pu-lished -eginning in the lGth centur1% -ut the -est and mostcomplete is still (oar's Euchologium seu rituale graecorum ?Paris% 5G=@. (oar ?5G7595G8@ 4as

a ominican 4ho lied on the (ree) island of *hios for nine 1ears and 4rote seeral studies of

the Eastern liturg1.==. Irinei ,lement'es)ii ?5=895656@% a graduate of the &osco4 Academ1% taught (ree) and

+e-re4 there and 4as also the school preacher. A mem-er of the S1nod since 5=66% he -ecame

-ishop of Ter' in 5=<F and arch-ishop of Ps)o in 5=<6. Aside from his translations of the

*hurch fathers his chief 4or)s are Tol)oaniia na siashchennoe pisanie ?in si olumes% 5=6F9565@% So-ranie pouchitel'n1)h slo ?5=<5@ and Bogoslos)ii tra)tat o smerti% o sude% o mu)a)h i

echnom -la$henste ?5=<8@.

=6. *f. the *ollegium Philo-i-licum founded -1 August 3ranc)e. 3ranc)e himself 4as a professor of +e-re4. LAuthor's noteM. August +ermann 3ranc)e ?5GG95=F=@ 4as conerted to

pietism in 2eip$ig%'and it 4as there that he founded his Bi-le stud1 clu-% the *ollegium

Philo-i-licum% in 5G68. 2ater he taught (ree)% +e-re4 and theolog1 at +alle 4hile at the sametime ministering to a local parish% 4here he 4as a most popular preacher. 3ranc)e also deoted

himself to foreign missions and to the education of the poor.

=<. The rphan As1lum 4as founded -1 3ranc)e in 5G<8. In it poor and orphaned children 4ere

proided for and gien an elementar1 education% and the teaching staff consisted of poorer

F



students at +alle /niersit1 4ho gae lessons in echange for their tuition. The rphan As1lum

also contained a pu-lishing esta-lishment that eentuall1 -ecame one of the greatest pu-lishing

houses in (erman1.67. #ohann Arndt ?58895GF5@ 4as a (erman 2utheran pastor )no4n for his immensel1 popular

m1stical 4ritings. ;ier Bucher om 4ahren *hristentum ?5G7G@ 4as Cuic)l1 translated into

almost all European languages% and influenced man1 su-seCuent Protestant and Roman *atholicdeotional 4ritings% as 4ell as St. Ti)hon of adons) ?see -elo4@. Another 4ell )no4n m1stical

4or) of Arndt's is Paradiesgartlein aller chritlichen Tugenden ?5G5F@.

65. Anastasii propoedni) ru)oodsto ) po$naniiu stradanii spasitelia and /chenie o nachale)hristians)ago $hitiia.

6F. See a-oe% note G7.

6. ne of the 'most prominent -ishops of *atherine II's reign% Inno)entii Nechae ?5=FF95=<<@

4as professor of philosoph1 and prefect of &osco4 Academ1% archimandrite of the +ol1 Trinit1&onaster1% -ishop of Ter'% arch-ishop of Ps)o and a mem-er of the +ol1 S1nod. +e 4as

)no4n more as a preacher and spiritual 4riter than a scholar% and his chief 4or)s in this

connection are Nastalenie siashchenni)u ?St. Peters-urg% 5=<@% Prigotolenie ) smerti ?St.

Peters-urg% 5=<@ and *hin ispoedi dlia detei ?St. Peters-urg% 5=<@. Inno)entii 4as also anactie mem-er of the Academ1 of Sciences in the liguistic diision.

6. *f. the “Statute for the (reater Encouragement of Students and for the Better &aintenance of the 2earned *lerg1.! LAuthor's noteM .

68. The seculari$ation of *hurch lands had -een the aim of the Russian goernment since Peter

the (reat. Peter III% nephe4 of Eli$a-eth and hus-and of *atherine the (reat% issued a decreetransferring the administration and reenues of ecclesiastical properties and peasants to the

goernment in 5=GF. After *atherine too) po4er she found it necessar1 to postpone the moe

until she 4as more firml1 enthroned% so she appointed a commission to stud1 the matter. Then in

&arch% 5=G *atherine confirmed the ta)eoer. The decree on seculari$ation critici$ed the*hurch administration in seeral respects% and in the process some F87 monasteries 4ere

dis-anded or conerted to parish churches.

6G. 3rom the “Proposal! LProe)t M% paragraph . LAuthor's noteM .6=. Also )no4n as the Primar1 *hronicle or the Tale of B1gone Dears% Nestor's chronicle is an

ancient% 1ear -1 1ear account of the earliest eents of Russian histor1% -eginning 4ith the 1ear

68F and including the famous account of Russia's conersion to *hristianit1 under Prince;ladimir. It 4as 4ritten in the firsf half of the l lth centur1% and oer the net =8 1ears under4ent

seeral re94or)'ings. Nestor% a mon) of the ,ie &onaster1 of the *aes% 4as one of the final

redactors. There is an English translation -1 S. +. *ross and . B. Sher-o4it$9"et$or% The

Russian Primar1 *hronicle ?*am-ridge% 5<[email protected]. ;eniamin Bagrians)ii 4as sent to 2e1den in 5=GG and returned in 5==G. +e taught

philosoph1 at the Nogorod Seminar1% sered as rector of the Ale)sandr Nes)ii Seminar1% then

returned to Nogorod as professor of theolog1 and rector -efore -ecoming -ishop of Ir)uts) in5=6<.

6<. ,irill Ra$umos)ii ?5=F95=<@% 4hose older -rother Ale)sei 4as the faorite of Empress

Eli$a-eth% 4as the last hetman of the /)raine% holding the office from 5=87 to 5=G.<7. *ount Petr Ale)sandroich Rumiantse ?5=F895=<G@ 4as a reno4ned general and field

marshal and from 5=G the goernor9general of the /)raine.

<5. Samuil &islas)ii ?5=595=<G@ graduated from the ,ie Academ1% 4as a professor and

rector there% and from 5=6 he 4as the metropolitan of ,ie. As a professor he used the teaching

F



methods of *omenius ?see chapter III% note 57G@ and as rector and metropolitan% inspired -1 the

Enlightenment ideals of *atherine II's reign% he introduced the stud1 of the Russian language and

philolog1 and such secular su-ects as mathematics% geograph1 and ciil histor1. +is /chitel'er1: dogmat1 praoslanoi er1 4as pu-lished in ,ie in 5=G7 and the 2atin grammar he

composed in 5=G8 4as long considered the -est in the Russian language. &etropolitan Samuil

4as also )no4n as the continuator and pu-lisher of the 4or)s of 3eofan Pro)opoich.<F. Sergei ,onstantinoich Smirno ?56569566<@ 4as a prominent figure in ecclesiastical

education in the 'l<th centur1. A professor and rector of the &osco4 Academ1% he 4as )no4n as

an a-le historian as 4ell as a (ree)% Patristic and Bi-lical scholar. The remar) here is from hisIstoriia &os)os)oi slaianogre)o9latins)oi a)ademii ?&osco4% 5688@.

<. #oseph II 4as the Austrian emperor from 5=G8 to 5=<7. ne of the l6th centur1 “enlightened

despots! he 4as a patron of science and scholarship and instituted numerous reforms in his

empire% man1 of 4hich did not een surie him. +e isited Russia t4ice% in 5=67 and 5=68.<. Throughout his auto-iograph1 Platon refers to himself in the third person.

<8. A.P. Stanle1% in his 2ectures on the +istor1 of the Eastern *hurch ?2ondon% 5665@ descri-es

Bethan1 as “the ga1 Italian9li)e retreat.! LAuthor's noteM.

<G. Paul ?5=895675@ 4as the son of *atherine II and ?supposedl1@ her assassinated hus-andPeter III. +e ascended the throne on his mother's death in 5=<G% fort19t4o 1ears .old0 mentall1

un-alanced and despising his mother and her policies. After "e 1ears of t1ranical rule he himself 4as assassinated and his elder son% Aleander I% -ecame emperor.

<=. In 5=66 seeral groups of “Priestist! ld Belieers ?those 4ho retained priests after the

Schism@ 4ere admitted to the Russian rthodo *hurch and allo4ed to use the pre9reformliturg1 and serice -oo)s proided the1 accept priests from the official *hurch hierarch1. &ore

groups accepted this proposal and in 5677 the +ol1 S1nod issued special canons for the

edinoerts1.

<6. 3or eample% note the historical research of Ni)odim Sellius ?d. 5=G@. LAuthor's noteM. n Ni)odim Sellius see a-oe% note 7.

<<. The son of a poor fisherman% &i)hail ;asil'eich 2omonoso ?5=5595=G8@ -ecame one of the

premier scientists and linguists in Russian histor1. Educated at schools in &osco4 and St.Peters-urg% he then studied for fie 1ears at the /niersit1 of &ar-urg under *hristian "olff. n

his return he 4as a professor of chemistr1 at the Academ1 of Sciences and in 5=88 helped

organi$e &osco4 /niersit1. As a scientist he 4or)ed in the fields of metallurg1% astronom1%geolog1% economics and geographical eploration% often anticipating later discoeries in the

"est. +e 4as also )no4n as a poet% and his odes helped esta-lish a st1listic -asis of ersification

for Russian poetr1. 2omonoso's most intluential 4or)% ho4eer% 4as in language. +is ,rat)oe

ru)oodsto ritori)e ?5=@ and especiall1 his Rossiis)aia g9ammati)a ?5=88@ standardi$ed themodern Russian literar1 language -1 merging% along strict theoretical lines% ld *hurch Slaonic

and contemporar1 dialectical Russian.

577. riginall1 from Ser-ia% &a)arii Petroich ?5=95=GG@ lied in Russia and studied at the&osco4 Academ1% then -ecame rector of the Ter' Seminar1. A collection of his sermons 4as

also pu-lished posthumousl1 in 5=6G.

575. Praoslanoe uchenie% soder$hashchee se chto )hristianinu soego spaseniiaishchushchemu% $nat' i delat' nadle$hit.

57F. Arsenii ;ereshchagin ?5=G95=<<@ taught rhetoric at Ter' since 5=G5 and on &a)arii

Petroich's premature death in 5=GG he succeeded him as rector and professor of theolog1. In

5== he 4as made -ishop of Ar)hangel% -ut returned to Ter' in 5==8 as -ishop of that cit1%

F8



4here he 4as etremel1 popular for his deotion to the seminar1 and care for the needs of the

students. 2ater he -ecame arch-ishop of Iaroslal and Rosto and a mem-er of the S1nod.

,no4n also as a (ree) scholar ?he introduced the stud1 of (ree) at the Ter' Seminar1@ Arseniicorrected and edited a 5==F Russian edition of *hr1sostom's homilies.

57. &etropolitan of ,ie Egenii Bol)hoitino ?5=G=956=@ 4as a most actie compiler of

historical materials and pu-licist. Entering &osco4 Academ1 in 5=68% he also too) courses at the/niersit1 of &osco4% 4here he 4as actie in the translation and pu-lishing circle around the

&ason N.I. Noi)o. In 5=6< he 4ent to ;orone$h as a teacher of *hurch histor1 in the seminar1

there% then in 5677 he came to St. Peters-urg% too) monastic o4s and taught philosoph1 andorator1 at the St. Peters-urg Academ1. Beginning in 567 he held arious episcopal positions

until in 56FF he 4as chosen metropolitan of ,ie% 4here he remained until his death in 56=.

Egenii 4as a prolific% if not er1 deep 4riter. "hereer he lied he occupied himself 4ith

organi$ing local archial materials and producing short historical 4or)s on that particular region.In addition he made translations% 4rote on Russian music and literature% produced official

polemical 4or)s and engaged in archeolog1. +is chief 4or)s are t4o dictionaries of Russian

4riters% Sloar' istoriches)ii o -1shi)h rossii pisatelia)h du)honago china ?first pu-lished in

5678 in the ournal rug proseshcheniia% reised and supplemented 56F=%@ and Sloar'russ)i)hsets)i)h pisatelei ?&osco4% 568@% and his lstoriia rossiiss)oi ierar)hii ?,ie% 56F=@. See -elo4%

pp. 5=895==.57. See a-oe% note 8.

578. Iuenalii &ededs)ii ?5=G=9567<@ 4as a mon) from Nogorod 4ho came to the Trinit1

&onaster1 in &osco4 in 567F and sered as a catechist at the Trinit1 Seminar1. +is 4or) citedhere 4as one of the first atterapts at a theological s1stem in the Russian language% Iuenalii also

4rote a ,rat)aia ritori)a na rossiis)om ia$1)e ?&osco4% 567G@.

57G. The Ta-le of Ran)s 4as instituted -1 Peter the (reat in 5=FF as an attempt to reorgani$e the

goernment -ureaucrac1 and enlist the entire no-ilit1 in the serice of the state. All militar1 andciil positions 4ere graded in fourtegn ran)s% all no-lemen% regardless of famil1 prestige% 4ere to

enter the lo4est ran)s% and adancement through the ran)s 4as to -e strictl1 regulated.

3urthermore a commoner 4as a-le to enter the lo4est ran) and -1 4or)ing to the upper ran)sattain no-le status. This s1stem originall1 encompassed the 4hole no-le class% -ut although it

suried until 5<5=% it 4as not strictl1 o-sered after Peter's time.

57=. This is a reference to pore$hdenii nrao Rossii% -1 the political figure and pu-licist&i)hail &i)hailoich Shcher-ato ?5=95=<7@. In it he attac)ed the manners of contemporar1

courtiers 4hile glorif1ing pre9Petrine alues. There is an English translation -1 A. 2entin% n the

*orruption of &orals in Russia ?*am-ridge% England% 5<G<@.

576. Such 4ere the first lodges lin)ed -1 I.P. Elagin0 cf. also #ames Anderson's Boo) of *onstitutions LAuthor's noteM. The Boo) of *onstitutions 4as a -asic document of reformed

English freemasonr1 and 4as pu-lished in 5=F. n Elagin see note 5F=.

57<. Note the search for “higher degrees! of the t1pe ela-orated -1 Baron Reichal% the so9called“s1stem of strict o-serance.! LAuthor's noteM. The first Russian lodges functioned some4hat as

social clu-s. 2ater Russian freemasons formed elite groups of those dedicated to higher m1stical

actiities% 4ith tighter organi$ation and discipline. Reichal ?5=F<95=<5@% a former master of theducal court at Bruns4ic) ?4hich a-ounded in masons@ -rought to Russia one of these higher

leels of masonr1.

557. Ian ;ladimiroich 2opu)hin ?5=8G9565G@ sered in the militar1 and on the &osco4

criminal courts -efore deoting himself completel1 to N.I. Noi)o's pu-lishing enterprise at

FG



&osco4 /niersit1. 2opu)hin translated 4or)s of "estern m1stics and freemasons% 4rote

seeral treatises of his o4n% and 4as grand master of a lodge in &osco4. 2i)e others of

Noi)o's circle he also engaged in philanthrop1 and educational 4or)% and sered thegoernments of Paul and Aleander I in arious positions. In 5=<7 he pu-lished a defense of

freemasonr1 in Russia% Nraouchitel n1i )ate)hi$is istinn1)h fran9masono.

555. The Theoretical egree 4as a degree of the Rosicrucian rder% 4hich 4as -rought to Russiain 5=6F -1 Sch4art$ ?see -elo4@. Those 4ho -elonged to it 4ere )no4n as “Theoretical

Brothers.!

55F. 3rancois de Salignac de la &othe 3enelon ?5G8595=58@ 4as a 3rench theologian% educator and arch-ishop. "hile running a school for 1oung Protestant girls conerted to *atholicism in

Paris he 4rote the Traite de 5 Education des filles ?5G6=@ 4hich 4as influential in 4omen's

education. Then% -et4een 5G6< and 5G<< 4hen he 4as a tutor for the grandson of the 3rench

)ing% he produced his 3a-les% ialogues des morts% and TelemaCue% designed as a series of tetsto fit the different leels of deelopment of his ro1al pupil. The purpose of these tets 4as to

train the prince to -e a 4ise% irtuous ruler% and the last one% TelemaCue: aincre les passions% a

pseudo9classical noel in erse -ased on the d1sse1% 4as etremel1 popular in Russia and

proo)ed much political as 4ell as literar1 discussion. In 5G<8 3enelon -ecame arch-ishop of *am-rai and 4rote seeral m1stical treatises% 4hich em-roiled him in controersies oer

Cuietism. +is Traite de l Bistence de ieu ?5=5F95=56@ approached the pro-lem on -othintellectual and m1stical leels% and though 3enelon himself remained a deout *atholic% this and

his other 4or)s 4ere especiall1 appealing to sentimentalists and deists.

55. Ni)olai &i)hailoich ,aram$in ?5=GG956FG@ 4as one of the most important literar1 figuresof his da1 in Russia. In his earl1 career he 4as a poet and noelist -est )no4n for Poor (i$a

?5=<F@. In 5=6< he traeled throughout Europe and on his return he edited the &osco4 #ournal%

in 4hich he pu-lished his Pis'ma russ)ogo puteshestenni)a ?5=<595=<F@% a sentimental account

of his traels 4ritten in the st1le of 2aurence Sterne. ,aram$in founded the ournal ;estni) Erop1 in 567F% -ut the net 1ear he 4as named court historian and deoted the rest of his life to

historical research. +is &emoir on Ancient and &odern Russia ?5655@ and the t4ele olume

Istoriia gosudarsta rossiis)ago ?565<9 56FG@ 4ere patriotic historical ustifications of autocraticgoernment in Russia and 4ere influential -oth for historiograph1 and literar1 st1le.

55. ;asilii Andreeich hu)os)ii ?5=69568F@ 4as an important Russian poet and translator%

and a literar1 disciple of ,aram$in. Educated in &osco4% he sered in the militar1 during the Napoleonic 4ars% -ecame a mem-er of the emperor's court and in 56FG 4as named a tutor to the

future tsar Aleander II. +e 4as one of the founders of the literar1 societ1 Ar$amas% and

translated such "estern romantics as Schiller% (oethe and B1ron% as 4ell as +omer's d1sse1.

558. Ale)sei &i)hailoich ,utu$o ?d. 5G<7@ 4as introduced to the Rosicrucian order 4hile astudent at the /niersit1 of 2eip$ig from 5=GG to 5==7. +e 4as actie in lodges in St. Peters-urg

and &osco4% 4here he 4as also engaged in etensie translating actiit1. ,utu$o died 4hile on

-usiness for the order in Berlin.55G. Ed4ard Doung ?5G695=G8@ 4as a 4ell9)no4n English 4riter. Night Thoughts ?5=F95=8@%

4ritten after the successie deaths of three mem-ers of his famil1% is a long dramatic monologue

diided into nine “Nights! epressing the author's grief% thoughts on death% and Cuest for religious consolation. Doung 4as also the author of *onecfures on riginal *omposition ?5=8<@%

a piece of literar1 criticism 4hich anticipated seeral ideas of the romantics and 4as especiall1

popular in (erman1.

F=



55=. Ioann ?#ohann@ (eorg Sch4art$ ?d. 5=6@ 4as a 1oung% aristocratic student of the occult and

mem-er of a (erman “strict o-serance! lodge 4ho 4as -rought to Russia in 5==G. +e 4as soon

placed -1 his influential patrons at &osco4 /niersit1% 4here he lectured on philolog1% histor1and philosoph1. Sch4art$ -egan his o4n “strict o-serance! lodge in &osco4 in 5=67% and the

follo4ing 1ear% on a trip a-road% he oined the Rosicrucians and -rought that order -ac) to Russia

4ith him.556. *laude9Adrien +eletius ?5=5895==5@ 4as a controersial 3rench philosophe 4ith a

hedonist -ent. +is most famous 4or)s 4ere e d'Esprit ?5=86@% in 4hich he denied all religious

-ases for moralit1% and e l homme ?5=F@% a treatise on education. Baruch ?Benedict@ Spino$a?5GF95G==@% a utch #e4% 4as the foremost eponent of an impersonal% rational order in the

unierse and the author of Ethica ?5G==@% Tractatus de intellectus emendatione ?5G==@ and

Tractatus theologico9politicus ?5G=7@. #ean9#acCues Rousseau ?5=5F95==6@% the famous 3rench

philosopher and political theorist% 4as -est )no4n in Russia for Emile% ou de l education ?5=GF@and u contrat social ?5=GF@.

55<. Ale)sandr 3edoroich 2a-$in ?5=GG956F8@ 4as one of the most influential Russian masons

of the first decades of the l<th centur1 ?see -elo4% pp. 5=795=F and pp. 569568@. Educated under

Sch4art$ at &osco4 /niersit1% he 4or)ed for a time at the Academ1 of Ait% as ahistoriographer for Emperor Paul% and at the Admiralt1 under Aleander I. 2a-$in opened his

o4n Rosicrucian lodge in 5677% and from 5675 to 567G translated and pu-lished seeral 4or)s -1 Ec)artshausen ?see chapter ;% note 5@ and #ung9Stilling ?see chapter ;% note 5<@. In 567G he

-egan his famous ournal &essenger of ion% 4hich at first did not succeed%-ut 4as resurrected

in 565= and this time eno1ed a 4ide circulation. 2a-$in then continued as a leading masonic pu-licist and actie mem-er of the Russian Bi-le Societ1 until he 4as -anished in 56F5 for lese

maeste.

5F7. n #aco- Boehme see chapter III% note 578.

5F5. ne of the leaders of the anti9rationalism moement of the late l6th centur1% 2ouis9*laudede Saint9&artin ?5=9567@ 4as a 4ealth1 3rench aristocrat 4ho deoted himself to m1stical

4ritings in the contet of his higher order freemasonr1. +is es Erreurs et de la eiite ?5==8@

4as an instant success and 4as almost immediatel1 translated into Russian. Also popular 4ere 2+omme de desir ?5=<7@% 2e Nouel homme ?5=<F@% 2e *rocodile ?5=<6@% 2.Esprit de chose and

(e &inistere de l'homme9esprit ?567F@. +e signed his 4or)s “2e Philosophe Inconnu! and

-ecause of his popularit1 in Russia Russian mason9 m1stics 4ere commonl1 called “&artinists.!5FF. #ohn &ason ?5=7G95=G@ 4as one of the -est )no4n of the English Nonconformists. +e

4as famous in his time for his Self ,no4ledge0 a Treatise% she4ing the nature and -enefice of

that important science% and the 4a1 to attain it ?2ondon% 5=8@.

5F. Semen Ianoich (amaleia ?5=956FF@% a former student of the ,ie Academ1% taught2atin at the St. Peters-urg militar1 academ1 for t4o 1ears -efore entering goernment serice in

5==7. +e retired in 5=6 to deote himself to his enormous translation actiit1 ?his translation of

Boehme coers FF olumes@ in connection 4ith Noi)o's T1pographic *ompan1% and 4as alsomaster of the e)alion lodge in &osco4. +is correspondence 4ith his fello4 masonic leaders

?pu-lished in t4o olumes in &osco4% 56F% and a third olume% &osco4% 56G956<@ is an

important source for the stud1 of this period.5F. ;alentin "eigel ?5895866@ 4as a Protestant m1stic and an opponent of scholasticism.

#ohann (ichtel ?5G695=57@9 4as a prominent theosophist at 4oll% )no4n for his attac)s on

2utheran doctrine. +is 4ritings hae -een collected in the seen olume Theosophica practica.

F6



#ohn Pordage ?5G7695G<6@% English astrologer and m1stic% 4as the author of Theologia m1stica

?5G67@% &1stic diinitia ?5G6@ and &etaph1sica ea et diina ?5G<6@.

5F8. Earl1 alchemists often com-ined m1sticism and sorcer1 4ith their pseudochemical pursuits.(eorg on "elling is )no4n for his curious -oo)% pus &ago*a--alisticum et theosophicum%

darinnen der /rsrung% Natur% Eigenschaften und (e-rauch% des Sal$es% Sch4efels und &ercurii

?5=8@. Ni)olaus Anton ,irch-erger is important for his correspondence 4ith Saint9&artin% 2ecorres9pondence inedite de 2.. de Saint9&artin dit le philosophe inconnu et ,irch-erger Baron

de 2ie-storf ?Amsterdam% 56GF@. Ro-ert 3ludd ?58=95G=@ 4as an English ph1sician and

Rosicrucian and the author of &edicina *atholic seu m1sticum artis medicandi sacrarium?3ran)furt% 5GF<@.

5FG. 2oren$o Scupoli ?58795G57@ is the author of *om-attimento Spirituale ?5GG7@% translated

into English from a Russian tet -1 E. ,adlou-os)1 and (. Palmer% /nseen "arfare ?2ondon%

5<8F@. Angelus Silesius ?5GF95G==@ 4rote (erman religious poems inspired -1 the 4ritings of Boehme. #ohn Bun1an ?5GF695G66@% an English minister% 4as 4idel1 famous for The Pilgrim's

Progress ?5G=6@. &iguel de &olinos ?5G795G<=@ 4as an important Spanish pietist. Pierre Poiret

?5G<95=5<@ 4as a 3rench m1stic% )no4n for his 2'economie diine ?5G6=@. &adame (u1on

?5G695=5=@ 4as the most reno4ned eponent of Cuietism.5F=. Ian Perfil'eich Elagin ?5=F895=<@ 4as a 4ealth1 and influential official in *atherine's

goernment and at one time director of music and the theater for her court. +e 4as the chief organi$er and spo)esman for the more rational English freemasonr1 centered in St. Peters-urg%

-ecoming a mason in 5=87 and in 5==F -eing named the "st Russian proincial grand master.

5F6. The eldest son of Emperor Paul% Aleander I 4as proclaimed emperor after his father'sassassination in 5675 and reigned until 56F8. See chapter ;% note 5 and pp. 5GF95G6.

5F<. The philosoph1 of 3riedrich "ilhelm #oseph on Schelling ?5==89568@ 4as a Cuest for

4holeness in the unierse and in human life and )no4ledge% an attempt to com-ine the scientific

stud1 of nature 4ith the religious and spiritual 1earnings of man)ind. Schelling's ideas 4ere fustspread among Russians in the first decades of the l<th centur1 -1 t4o St. Peters-urg professors%

aniil ,aunni)9;ellans)ii and Ale)sandr (alich% then at &osco4 /niersit1 -1 Ian a1do%

Ni)olai Nade$hdin and &i)hail Palo. In 56F a group of students at &osco4 /niersit1%including ;.3. does)ii% imitrii ;eneitino% Ale)sandr ,oshele% and Petr and Ian

,irees)ii% formed the -shchesto 2iu-omudriia LSociet1 of 2oers of "isdomM% 4hose

purpose 4as to discuss (erman idealistic philosoph1% particularl1 Schelling. This group itself some4hat resem-led a masonic organi$ation and though it 4as dis-anded in the 4a)e of the

ecem-rist uprising its mem-ers continued to propagate Schelling's philosoph1% and -1 the

567's Schellingianism 4as dominant in Russian intellectual circles. Schelling's ideas 4ere also

at the root of Slaophilism.57. ;ladimir 3edoroich does)ii ?567956G<@ 4as one of the founders in 56F of the Societ1

of 2oers of "isdom ?see preceding note@. A graduate of &osco4 /niersit1% he 4or)ed for

seeral 1ears on the ournals &os)os)ii ;estni) and Soremenni) ?along 4ith Push)in@ -eforemoing to St. Peters-urg in 56FG. There he occupied himself 4ith 4riting short stories and

noels lordan Bruno i Petr Aretino% Samarianin% and Russ)ie nochi ?all 56@ 4ere three of an

unfinished c1cle of ten noels% and the philosophical discussions in them represent the height of the Russian romanticism of the 567's. After these 4ere pu-lished does)ii a-andoned his

+terar1 actiit1 and 4or)ed as director of the St. Peters-urg li-rar1 and from 56G5 he 4as a

senator. +e is also )no4n as the father of classical Russian musicolog1% and helped esta-lish the

St. Peters-urg and &osco4 conseratories.

F<



55. *f. the translation -1 A. Petro of *ount +aug4it$' Pastoral Epistle LPast1rs)oe PoslanieM

4hich appeared in (erman in 5=68. LAuthor's noteM .

5F. n Sch4art$ see note 55= on Noi)o see chapter ;% note 6 on ,heras)o see chapter ;%note < for 2opu)hin see this chapter% note 557. a)harii Ia)oleich ,arnee ?5==956F6@%

senator and mem-er of the State *ouncil under Aleander I% 4as actie in the &osco4 lodges

and founded a lodge in rel in 5=6 ?4hen he 4as ice9goernor there@. 3or (amaleia seea-oe% note 5F.

5. (rigorii S)ooroda 4as a /)rainian m1stic and philosopher 4ho acCuired the character of a

legend through almost 7 1ears of 4andering a-out the /)raine. +e studied at the ,ieAcadem1% then% -eing an eceptional singer% 4as sent to the court chapel in St. Peters-urg. In

5=87 he accompanied a diplomatic mission to +ungar1 and spent three 1ears roaming +ungar1%

Poland% Austria and (erman1. n his return to Russia he taught for a 1ear at the seminar1 in

Pereiaslal and also at the ,har)o *ollegium. S)ooroda left there in 5=GG and spent theremainder of his life on his famous peregrinations. +e left a aried literar1 output consisting of

dialogues% letters% poems% songs% fol) tales% and some translations of ancient philosophers.

5. &i)hail Ianoich ,oalins)ii ?or ,oalens)ii% 5=8=9567=@% a curator of &osco4

/niersit1% 4as a life9long friend of S)ooroda% haing first met him 4hen the latter taught at the,har)o *ollegium in 558<. +e 4rote his 2ife in 5=<G% -ut it 4as not pu-lished until 566G% in

,ies)aia Starina% no. <.58. &arc9Antoine &uretus ?58FG95868@ 4as a 3rench humanist and a Roman *atholic priest

and teacher in Rome. +e issued seeral annotated editions of ancient 2atin poets as 4ell as his

o4n poems in 3rench% collected in #uenilia [email protected]. The Eli$a-eth Bi-le 4as commissioned -1 the +ol1 S1nod in 5=F as a correction and

reision of the last Slaonic Bi-le printed in 5GG. The 4or) 4as not completed until 5=85%

during the reign of Empress Eli$a-eth% and this Bi-le 4as printed four times in the 5=87's.

5=. ;ladimir 3rantseich Ern ?566F95<5=@ 4as a Russian philosopher. +e 4rote a -iograph1 of S)ooroda% pu-lished in &osco4 in 5<5F.

56. The ,hl1st1 4ere founded in the l=th centur1 -1 a man 4ho claimed to -e (od% declared

one of his male disciples to -e *hrist% and one of his 4omen follo4ers to -e the &other of (od.A group of this sect 4as discoered in &osco4 in the 5=7's% and oer 77 4ere prosecuted for

the heres1 in &osco4 in the 5=7's. Thereafter the sect flourished underground% and -1 the late

l<th centur1 claimed oer G7%777 mem-ers. The ,hl1st1 denied the doctrine of the +ol1 Trinit1and held that (od inha-ited the man #esus *hrist% 4ho died a natural death and 4as -uried in

#erusalem. Essentiall1 dualistic% the1 taught that the -od1 is the prison of the spirit and marriage

4as condemned and children called “incarnations of sin.! (od 4ould -ecome incarnate in the

faithful ,hl1st% ho4eer and he 4ould hae the inner oice of the spirit to direct him% ma)ing all -oo)s% including the Bi-le% superfluous. *ongregations 4ere t1picall1 led -1 a “*hrist! and a

'J4lother of (od! and their rituals turned into fren$ied dances follo4ed -1 ecstatic prophes1ing.

The sect 4as a-le to gro4 underground -ecause out4ardl1 the mem-ers 4ere pious church9goers% -elieing the rthodo *hurch serices to -e s1m-ols of their o4n m1steries.

5<. The S)opts1 4ere a late l6th centur1 offshoot of the ,hl1st1% 4ho 4ent een further in their

condemnation of seual relations -1 adocating a “-aptism of fire! or castration. Their mostimportant earl1 leader 4as ,onrad Seliano% 4ho 4as eiled to Si-eria under *atherine II -ut

returned to &osco4 and 4as )no4n personall1 to Emperors Paul and Aleander I. uring the

latter's reign some high placed connections allo4ed him to lie Cuite comforta-l1 and spread his

F7



doctrines rather freel1. /nder the net tsar% Nicholas I% the S)opts1 4ere persecuted% -ut li)e the

,hl1st1 eisted secretl1 in large num-ers.

57. Appearing in this period in the /)raine% the u)ho-ors LSpirit9"restlersM 4ere m1sticalsectarians 4hose doctrine com-ined Socinian% 3reemason and ,hl1st1 teachings. "hile reecting

the ecessie prescriptions of the latter% the1 organi$ed themseles in strict communes% 4hich

often% gre4 4ealth1 as a result of their hard 4or) and so-er liing. The1 had man1 famouscoritacts% from (rigorii S)ooroda% 4ho helped them compose a confession of faith presented to

the goernor of E)aterinoslal in 5=<5% to the noelist *ount 2e Tolstoi. The latter proided

funds for a large group of u)ho-ors to emigrate to "estern *anada in 56<<.55. The &olo)ans L&il) rin)ersM 4ere formed -1 an earl1 u)ho-or leader dissatisfied 4ith

their doctrine. The ne4 sect resem-led Eangelical *hristianit1 at times% accepting the Bi-le as

the sole authorit1 for their faith 4hile reecting icons% rituals and fasts ?thus their name@.

5F. imitrii Secheno ?5=7<95=G=@ 4as an important figure in the earl1 1ears of *atherine II'sreign% and the main eecutor of her ecclesiastical policies. Becoming a mon) 4hile a student at

the &osco4 Academ1% imitrii taught there for seeral 1ears then 4or)ed for ten 1ears on

missionar1 actiities% in 4hich he 4as highl1 successful. In 5=F he 4as named -ishop of

Ni$hnii9Nogorod in5=8F -ishop of Ria$an and &urom% and in 5=8= he 4as eleated toarch-ishop of Nogorod. In all three sees imitrii actiel1 promoted ecclesiastical education -1

improing and reorgani$ing the seminaries and in Nogorod he een esta-lished a s1stem of grammar schools. /nder *atherine imitrii sered on seeral special commissions% including the

commission on *hurch properties% and he died 4hile attending the meetings of the 2egislatie

*ommission.5. This faora-le conclusion -1 the S1nod is a direct reference to the decree of 3e-ruar1 55%

5=G on the settlement of the -rethren. LAuthor's note.M .

5. *f. the points raised -1 the er Procurator I. I. &elissino in 5=G= during the composition

of a S1nodal Instruction LSinodal'nii na)a$M for the 2egislatie *ommission. +o4eer% these points 4ere not implemented. LAuthor's noteM.

58. See a-oe% note G7.

5G. #ean93rancois &armontel ?5=F95=<<@% 3rench poet% dramatist and critic% 4as -est )no4nfor his auto-iograph1% &emoires d'un pere ?567@. Belissaire ?5=G=@ 4as a philosophical%

romantic noel.

5=. The Philo)alia Lo-rotoliu-ie in RussianM is a compilation of m1stical 4riimgs 4hich is of great importance in Russian spiritualit1% containing rare and other4ise un)no4n tets and

sering as a ital lin) to Palestinian and B1$antine spiritualit1. *ompiled -1 the Athonite mon)s

&acarius of *orinth and Nicodemus the +agiorite% it 4as first pu-lished in ;enice in 5=<F% -ut

the complete ersion 4as onl1 pu-lished in Russian in 56==. Portions of the Philo)alia areaaila-le in English in E. ,adlou-os)1 and (. Palmer% "ritings from the Philo)alia on Pra1er

of the +eart ?2ondon% 5<85@ and Earl1 3athers from the Philo)alia ?2ondon% 5<8@.

56. 3or some contemporar1 accounts of this famous saint% as 4ell as ecerpts from his 4ritings%see Nordland's *ollected "or)s of (.P. 3edoto.

5<. #oseph +all ?58=95G8G@ 4as an Anglican -ishop in the reign of *harles I. +is

&editatiunculae Su-itaneae eCue re nata su-ortae later appeared in Russian translation as;ne$arn1ia ra$m1shleniia% proi$edenn1ia drug pri o$$renii na )a)uiu9ni-ud'eshch'

?&osco4% 5=6G@. LAuthor's noteM .

587. Noche oscura% Noche del Espiritu. Ti)hon should also -e compared to Tauler and Arndt.

LAuthor's noteM. St. #ohn of the *ross% founder of the Spanish iscalced *armelites ?58F958<5@%

F5



4as )no4n for his poetr1 and m1stical theological 4ritings and is a doctor of the Roman

*atholic *hurch. ar) Night is a poem pu-lished 4ith a theological commentar1 on reaching

perfect union 4ith (od% The Ascent of &ount *armel.585. This stor1 is recounted -1 Ian Efimo in his memoirs of St. Ti)hon. Ti)hon “resoled to

return to the man 4ho had insulted him and to -eg for forgieness for' haing led him into such

temptation.' So% going -ac)% he fell at the feet of his host . . . This act so deepl1 impressed theno-leman that he himself fell on his )nees at the -ishop's feet% imploring forgieness. 3rom that

da1 on his -ehaior to4ards his serfs 4as completel1 altered.! See A Treasur1 of Russian

Spiritualit1. ;olume II in Nordland's *ollected "or)s of (.P. 3edoto.58F. ;eshchi and soershenie in Ti)hon's translation. LAuthor's noteM .

58. There is an ecellent account of Paisii's life and influence on Russian monasticism

pu-lished in English -1 Nordland Pu-lishing *ompan1: S. *heteri)o% Starets Paisii

;elich)os)ii.58. See a-oe% note G7.

588. St. Nil ?c. 595876@ 4as the first great Russian m1stical ascetical 4riter and the founder

of the “non9possessing! school of monasticism. See a-oe% *hapter I% section ;I.

Notes to Chater 1.

5. 3rom 5675 to 56F8 Russia 4as ruled -1 Aleander I% the “enigmatic tsar.! Aleander 4as -ornin 5===% the first son of the (rand u)e and future emperor Paul. +is education% ho4eer% 4as

superised -1 his grandmother *atherine the (reat% 4ho hired as his tutor the S4iss repu-lican

*esar 2a +arpe% and thus Aleander 4as reared in the atmosphere of the Enlightenment. +eacCuired an earl1 reputation as a li-eral% promising to grant Russia a constitution 4hen he came

to po4er% and also too) great care to improe education ?fie ne4 uniersities 4ere esta-lished

in his reign@. &ean4hile Aleander's foreign polic1 through the comple 1ears of the Napoleonic4ars proed ultimatel1 successful: the -orders of the Russian empire 4ere etended irtuall1 to

their 5<5 limits and Russia emerged as a dominant force in European politics. B1 the time of Russia's defeat of Napoleon Aleander 4as openl1 ehi-iting his tendencies to m1sticism andthe occult% lending his imperial ear to all manner of prophets and seers. &1stical societies 4ere

gien free reign in Russia% and 4ith the lifting of restrictions on foreign trael and the

importation of foreign -oo)s% not to mention the direct contact 4ith Europe through inasion and

conCuest% Russia 4as inundated -1 ne4 and dierse ideas. Aleander himself -egan to traelceaselessl1 throughout his empire and throughout Europe% deoting himself to such far9fetched

schemes inspired -1 his m1stical interests as the “+ol1 Alliance%! and more and more he -egan

to leae the conduct of state affairs to su-ordinates. The last four 1ears of his reign% after he -ecame o-sessed 4ith reolutionaries and 4as coninced that the m1stical societies he had

earlier fostered 4ere conspiring against the esta-lished order% 4ere mar)ed -1 o-scurantism and

repression.F. Ian Sergeeich A)sa)o ?56F9566G@% poet% editor of the ournal Russ)aia -eseda and

pu-lisher of the ne4spaper en'% 4as a noted figure in Russian societ1 in his time. In the 56G7's

he emerged as the leading ideologist of the Slaophiles.

. The Pis'ma russ)ago puteshestenni)a 4ere 4ritten -1 Ni)olai ,aram$in after a ourne1through (erman1% S4it$erland% 3rance and England in 5=6<95=<7. In them he descri-es foreign

alues% customs and ideas in the st1le of l6th centur1 European sentimental literature% especiall1

2aurence Sterne's A Sentimental #ourne1 ?5=G6@. ,aram$in also used them to epress his ideas

FF



on politics and education. The 2etters 4ere actuall1 4ritten oer a period f ten 1ears% the first

part appearing in ,aram$in's &osco4 #ournal in 5=<595=<F% the second part in the collection

Aglaia in 5=<95=<8% and the last part came out in 5675. The1 are often considered the highest point of Russian prose in the l6th centur1.

. See chapter III% note =.

8. See chapter I;% note 55.G. Russian militar1 forces irrst enteted the European 4ars against Napoleon in 5678% 4hen the1

4ere routed -1 the 3rench in the -attle of Austerlit$. At the same time Russia 4as inoled from

567G9565F in a 4ar 4ith Tur)e1. After more costl1 set-ac)s at the hands of the 3rench in 567Gand 567=% Aleander and Napoleon had their famous meeting on the Nieman Rier near Tilsit

resulting in a Russo93rench alliance. Immediatel1 Russia 4ent to 4ar 4ith S4eden and anneed

3inland and the Aland Islands. &ean4hile the alliance 4ith 3rance 4as rapidl1 deteriorating

until on #une F% 565F% after conCuering Austria% Napoleon led an arm1 of close to G77%777 menacross the Russian frontier. After a costl1 -ut inconclusie -attle near Borodino the Russian arm1

4ithdre4 -ehind &osco4. Napoleon occupied the empt1% ancient capital for da1s% 4aiting for

Aleander to sue for peace. This 4as a humiliating time for Russia% and Aleander's prestige 4as

at a lo4 e--. Napoleon% ho4eer% had no choice -ut to retreat 4ithout Aleander's su-mission -efore 4inter set in% and hounded -1 peasant guerillas% an earl1 onset of free$ing 4eather% and

the lac) of adeCuate roads and supplies in Russia he finall1 escaped in ecem-er 4ith onl17%777 demorali$ed troops. To Aleander it seemed as if the elements had miraculousl1 deliered

him from the inader% and Russian armies% oined -1 the Austrians and the Prussians% pressed on

after the 3rench. n &arch 5% 565 Aleander and 3rederic) "ilhelm III of Prussia made atriumphant entr1 into Paris% forcing Napoleon into his first eile and leaing Aleander the most

po4erful ruler in Europe and coninced more than eer of -eing chosen -1 (od for a special

mission.

=. 3ilaret% metropolitan of &osco4 from 56F5 to 56G=% 4as the most outstanding Russianhierarch of the l<th centur1. Born ;asilii &i)hailoich ro$do in ,olomna in 5=6% he first

attended the ,olomna Seminar1% then the Trinit1 Seminar1 in &osco4. /pon graduation he

taught (ree)% +e-re4 and poetics at the latter. In 5676 he -ecame a mon) 4ith the name 3ilaretand 4as sent to St. Peters-urg as inspector of the academ1 and professor of philosoph1 and

theolog1. 3ilaret 4as named rector of the St. Peters-urg Academ1 in 565F% and during his tenure

there he -ecame 4ell9)no4n in societ1 for his preaching% his polemics 4ith the #esuits and his promotion of Bi-lical studies and translation% to 4hich end he participated in the ill9fated

Russian Bi-le Societ1. In 565= 3ilaret 4as consecrated -ishop of Reel% in 565< he -ecame

arch-ishop of Ter' and a mem-er of the S1nod% in 56F7 he 4as transferred to the see of

Iaroslal% and finall1 in 56F5 he moed to &osco4 as metropolitan% 4here he remained until hisdeath G 1ears later. 3ilaret's life and his aried and important actiit1 and literar1 4or) is

discussed in detail -elo4% sections ;II and ;III.

6. 3ilipp 3ilippoich ;igel' ?5=6G9568G@ 4as a long9time goernment official% in his 1outh amem-er of the pro9,aram$in literar1 societ1 Ar$amas and later in life an etreme reactionar1.

+is &emoirs ?&osco4% 56G956G8@ proide a-undant information on customs% eents and

Russian literar1 life in the first third of the l<th centur1.<. In classical m1tholog1 Astrea 4as the goddess of ustice and later -ecame a poetic s1m-ol of

purit1 and innocence. She 4as the last goddess to leae the earth after the (olden Age and

-ecame the constellation ;irgo. At the er1 -eginning of the Russian “Enlightenment%! the

F



coronation of Eli$a-eth% the empress had a statue of her -uilt% and the last important Russian

masonic lodge 4as named Astrea.

57. This occurred 4hen Aleander 4as attempting to persuade the Prussian )ing to oin acoalition against Napoleon. Aleander and 3rederic) "ilhelm III% 4ith his Cueen 2ouise

4atching% s4ore an oath of eternal friendship in the underground cr1pt of 3rederic) the (reat in

Potsdam.55. The important statesman &i)hail &i)hailoich Sperans)ii ?5==F956<@ 4as a mason. The

son of a priest% he attended St. Peters-urg Seminar1 and also taught there 4hile also sering as a

secretar1 for an influentiat no-leman% Prince ,ura)in. Through the latter Sperans)ii 4as a-le toenter goernment serice and rapidl1 rose through the Ta-le of Ran)s. In 567= he -ecame a

secretar1 and assistant to Aleander and 4as )no4n as a competent statesman% drafting

educational% financial and administratie reforms. Sperans)ii gained fame% as 4ell as numerous

enemies% 4ith his 567< proposal for a constitution for Russia. ne part of his proposal% thecreation of a State *ouncil appointed -1 the emperor% 4as carried out in 5657 -ut for the rest

Sperans)ii 4as eiled to%Si-eria the follo4ing 1ear. Een in eile Sperans)ii 4or)ed in the

proincial administration% and he 4as called -ac) to St. Peters-urg in 56F5 to sere on the State

*ouncil he created. /nder Nicholas I he sered on the special court 4hich tried the ecem-ristsin the emperor's personal chanceller1% and on his secret committee to inestigate the peasant

pro-lem. +is chief contri-ution to Russian histor1% ho4eer% 4as his collection and digest of Russian la4s% the Polnoe so-ranie $a)ono rossiis)oi imperii ?567@ and Sod $a)ono

rossiiss)oi imperii ?56F956<@. See &arc Raeff% &ichael Sperans)1% Statesman of Imperial

Russia% 5==F956< ?The +ague% 5<[email protected]. ,oshele had sered in the +orse (uards and as am-assador to enmar) under Paul% and

4as largel1 responsi-le for -oth (olits1n's and Aleander's turn to m1sticism. +e sered in

arious capacities in Aleander's goernment% -eing named a mem-er of the State *ouncil in

5657% -ut he retired from all of his positions in 5656 to deote himself entirel1 to spreading hism1stical ideas in St. Peters-urg societ1.

5. #ohann ,aspar 2aater ?5=595675@ 4as a leader of the anti9rationalist religious moement

in S4it$erland. A Protestant minister% he 4as the author of numerous poems and fol) songs% -utis -est remem-ered as the founder of the pseudo9science of ph1siognom1% 4hich see)s traces of

diine -eing in human features. +is Ph1siognomische 3ragmente $ur Beforderungder

&enschen)enntnis und &enschenlie-e ? olumes% 5==895==6@ 4as read all oer Europe. 3or 2ouis*laude de Saint9&artin% see chapter I;% note 5F5. ,arl on Ec)artshausen ?5=8F9 567@

4as an enorrriousl1 prolific Baarian 4riter 4ho -egan his career as a respected urist and man

of the Enlightenment -efore turning to m1sticism and alchem1. Ec)artshausen 4as personall1

acCuainted 4ith I.;. 2opu)hin% 4ho first translated his 4or)s into Russian% and though heremained almost un)no4n eer14here else% in Russia he -ecame immensel1 popular and

eentuall1 irtuall1 all of his 4or)s 4ere translated.

5. Ale)sandr Ni)olaeich (olits1n ?5==956@% )no4n as Cuite the rogue in his earl1 da1s%4as conerted to m1stical pursuits -1 ,oshele and eentuall1 -ecame a irtual dictator of

religious affairs in Russia. The scion of one of Russia's oldest no-le families% (olits1n deeloped

a permanent friendship 4ith Aleander 4hen he 4as a 1oung page at *atherine II's court. "henAleander ascended the throne he appointed his old friend er Procurator of the +ol1 S1nod. In

5657 he 4as also made head of the department of foreign confessions% and in 565G -ecame

&inister of Popular Education. (olits1n reached his high point in 565= 4hen he 4as named head

of a ne4 dual ministr1 of Ecclesiastical Affairs and Pu-lic Education. At the same time he 4as

F



head of the postal department and president of the Russian Bi-le Societ1. (o+ts1n 4as )no4n

for philanthropical 4or) 4ith the poor% 4ido4s and prisoners as 4ell as for his ruthless eercise

of his supreme po4er oer all religious matters. +is enormous po4er% ho4eer% also -rought himman1 enemies% chief of 4hich 4as his onl1 rial in the goernment% Ara)chee ?see -elo4% note

558@. 3inall1 in 56F (olits1n 4as forced to leae his positions in the Bi-le Societ1 and the dual

ministr1. +e retained% ho4eer% his command of the postal department ?4hich% thoughinsignificant in itself gae him a seat in the meetings of the *ouncil of &inisters@ as 4ell as the

tsar's confidence and friendship. /nder Nicholas I he also presered great influence and foi a

time presided oer the meetings of the State *ouncil% of 4hich he had -een a mem-er since5657.

58. St. 3rancis de Sales ?58G=95GFF@% a student of Antonio Posseino at Padua and the -ishop of

(enea% 4as )no4n for his struggle 4ith the *alinists in S4it$erland and for his m1stical

4or)s. +is 4ritings 4ere practical and intended for people 4ith actie lies in the 4orld% andinclude Introduction to the eout 2ife ?5G7<@ and Treatise on the 2oe of (od ?5G5G@.

5G. Perhaps the greatest 4oman m1stic of the Roman *atholic *hurch% St. Teresa ?58589586F@%

the reformer of the *armelite order for nuns% 4rote seeral 4or)s recogni$ed as classics on the

contemplatie life. Among them are The "a1 of Perfection ?586@% The Interior *astle ?5866@and Spiritual Relations% Eclamations of the Soul to (od ?5866@. Besides numerous poems and

letters she also left an auto-iograph1% The 2ife of the &other Teresa of #esus [email protected]=. ften attri-uted% 4ith ar1ing degrees of certaint1% to Thomas a ,empis ?56795=5@% the

Imitation of *hrist is one of the -est )no4n of all classics of spiritual literature. It mar)ed the

-eginning of a 4hole ne4 approach to spiritualit1 at the end of the &iddle Ages in the 4estern4orld% the eotio moderna. This spiritual attitude% arising in the Netherlands and the (erman

states% emphasi$ed personal interior and eterior asceticism% the reading of +ol1 Scripture%

meditation on the human life of *hrist and intellectual simplicit1% in contrast to the earlier

sophisticated and speculatie spiritualit1 of the Scholastics.56. The ominican m1stic #ohann Tauler ?c.57795G5@ 4as a student of &eister Ec)hart. +e

preached and lectured at Strass-ourg and Basel% epounding a m1stical theolog1 -ased on

ACuinas that gained man1 adherents -ecause of its practical% rather than speculatie% character.Although arious 4ritings hae -een attri-uted to him% he actuall1 left nothing etant. +is

sermons% ho4eer0 4ere pu-lished and 4idel1 read.

5<. #ohann +einrich #ung ?5=79565=@ 4as a ph1sician and economics professor at &ar-urg%famous for his m1stical 4ritings. The “Stilling! attached to his name comes from the pietist ideal

of inner peace% of Stille. #ung eno1ed etensie popularit1 during his lifetime% particularl1

among masons and pietists. The prophet of a millenium to -e ushered in -1 a ne4 *hurch% a

higher% spiritual form of m1stical *hristianit1 uniting and superseding all confessions% he came toregard Aleander as a chosen instrument of (od destined to -ring his ne4 *hurch in from the

East. Aleander personail1 isited him 4hile attending the European peace conferences of 565.

Among #ung9Stilling's man1 4or)s are as +eim4eh ?5=<95=<=@% an allegorical noeltranslated into Russian and seriali$ed -1 the &osco4 /niersit1 press in 565=95656% Theorie der

(eister)unde ?5676@% and his auto-iograph1% +einrich Stillings 2e-en ?8 olumes% 567G@% the

first olume of 4hich 4as pu-lished -1 the (erman poet (oethe in 5=== and is still alua-le for its depiction of illage life in the l6th centur1.

F7. Bar-ara #uliane% 3reifrau on ,riidener ?5=G956F@ 4as a 2atian 4oman from Riga 4ho

married a Russian diplomat there in 5=6F and for the net FF 1ears deoted herself to amorous

escapades. After her hus-and's death in 567F she pu-lished an auto-iographical noel ;alerie

F8



?Paris% 567@% then under4ent a conersion to a pietist m1sticism 4ith apocal1ptical strains. She

traeled through (erman1 and S4it$erland holding Bi-le classes% and in 5658 she met

Aleander% 4ho came -riefl1 under her s4a1 and attended some of her meetings.She then liedin St. Peters-urg% -ut 4as eiled in 56F5 for espousing the cause of the (ree) reolutionaries and

died in a pietist colon1 in the *rimea. Although Baroness ,rudener claimed credit for the famous

+ol1 Alliance ?see -elo4@ her actual influence on it 4as limited.F5. +enri92ouis Empeita$ ?or Empa1ta$% 5=<79568@ 4as epelled from the theological school in

(enea for his leadership in the Societe des Amis% an unauthoii$ed pietist Bi-le group. +e 4ent

on to -ecome a disciple of Baroness ,riidener% and later returned to a parish in (enea. Amonghis 4or)s is *onsiderations sur la diinite de #esu9*hrist.

FF. #ohann 3riedrich -erlin ?5=7956FG@ 4as a 2utheran pastor )no4n for his etensie

philanthropical actiit1 in his natie "alder-ac) as 4ell as for his spiritual guidance. In his

popular and successful sermons he com-ined the rationalism of Rousseau 4ith the m1sficism of #ung9Stilling and S4eden-org. The hio cit1 and college is named after him.

F. The &oraian Brethren 4ere descendants of the *$ech +ussites. The Kua)ers% or Societ1 of

3riends% 4ere a non9structured *hIistian societ1 founded in England -1 (eorge 3o ?5GF9

5G<5@. The +errnhutters trace their origin to an earl1 l6th centur1 communit1 in Saon1 )no4nas the +errnhut L"atch of the 2ordM. All three 4ere related to l6th centur1 (erman pietism and

all three found Russia attractie for missionar1 4or)% especiall1 after *atherine's decrees of religious toleration ?5=GF and 5=G@ and the opening of Russia's ast southern and eastern

regions to foreign coloni$ation.

F. 3eodosii 2eits)ii ?5=<59568@ had earlier 4ritten a treatise on the nearness of the last udgment% 4hich he sent to (olits1n. Through the latter he 4as inited to St. Peters-urg in 56F

and granted an audience 4ith the tsar. The net 1ear 2eits)ii's life9long friend and cohort 3edor

2iseich 4as also allo4ed to come to the capital and together the1 gae freCuent sermons and

speeches on the end of the 4orld. 2eits)ii 4as soon for-idden to preach and sent a4a1 to amonaster1 -ecause his sermons 4ere also often critical of the goernment. +e returned to Balta

in 56F= and produced numerous eschatological 4or)s% 4hich 4ere popular 4ith ld Belieers

and the S)opts1.F8. 3otii gained prominence in Russia in the 56F7's 4ith his ocal attac)s on the m1stical trends

in societ1% 4hich helped -ring a-out Prince A.N. (olits1n's fall from po4er. Born Petr Ni)itich

Spass)ii in 5=<F% he studied at the Nogorod Seminar1 and spent a 1ear at the St. Peters-urgAcadem1 -efore -ecoming a teacher in the Ale)sandr Nes)ii elementar1 school. +e -ecame a

mon) in 565= and taught at the Second &ilitar1 Academ1 -efore -eing sent to a monaster1

outside Nogorod in 56F7 for the criticism of the no-ilit1's religious leanings in his sermons.

uring his -rief “eile! he -ecame friends 4ith *ountess A.A.rloa ?see note 55@ 4ho%together 4ith 3otii's s1mpathi$ers among the upper clerg1% 4as a-le to secure his appointment as

an archimandrite in the Ale)sandr Nes)ii &onaster1 in 56FF. 3otii's influence gre4 as he

gained adherents among the upper leels of societ1% particularl1 among no-le 4omen% and heeen -ecame intimate 4ith (olits1n. The latter 4as imp$essed 4ith his asceticism and

apocal1ptical statements and had him named head of the prestigious Iur'e &onaster1 in

Nogorod. In 56F% ho4eer% 3otii again appeared in St. Peters-urg% 4ildl1 declaiming againstthe enemies of the faith and the masonic “reolutionaries%! -oth in speeches and in letters to

influential people. (olits1n's enemies% among them &agnits)ii and Ara)chee% sa4 to it that

some of his letters reached the impressiona-le Tsar Aleander% 4ho granted 3otii an audience in

56F. After his tal) 4ith the tsar 3otii openl1 -ro)e 4ith (olits1n and een pronounced an

FG



G. See chapter I;% note 57.

=. Inno)entii Smirno ?5=69565<@ 4as an outspo)en opponent of the m1stical moement

represented -1 2a-$in. +e had taught at the Trinit1 Seminar1 in &osco4% at the St. Peters-urgAcadem1% and sered on the chief administration of the schools in the &inistr1 of Education.

Inno)entii 4as also the ecclesiastical censor until he allo4ed a -oo) critical of (olits1n to -e

printed% for 4hich he 4as “eiled! to a -ishopric in Si-eria. An important ecclesiastical 4riter%his utline of *hurch +istor1 LNachertanie tser)onoi istoriiM sered as a standard tet-oo) until

the 56G7's.

6. 3eofil ?d. 56GF@ 4as a catechist in the Second &ilitar1 Academ1 in St. Peters-urg and aleading mem-er of 2a-$in's lodge “The 1ing Sphin! until 5656% 4hen he 4as sent to dessa

to teach in the 21cee Richelieu and head the dessa -ranch of the Russian Bi-le Societ1. After

56F he 4as sent to a monaster1 in Rosto and forced to pursue his calling. Io% a teacher of

religion in the &aritime Academ1% had -een a theoretical degree mason since 567< and 4as amem-er of &me. Tatarinoa's circle. +e oined 2a-$in's lodge in 5656 -ut died of a mental

disorder that same 1ear.

<. &i)hail &ateeich ,heras)o ?5=9567=@ 4as a Russian poet% dramatist% and curator of

&osco4 /niersit1. +e -ecame a mason 4hile an administrator of the college in St. Peters-urgin 5==5% and it 4as his decision 4hile at &osco4 /niersit1 in 5==< to lease Noi)o the press.

+is -est9)no4n poems are Rossiada ?5==<@ and ;ladimir Re-orn ?5=68@% a-out the introductionof *hristianit1 in Russia. “+o4 (lorious is our 2ord in ion! LH,ol' slaen nash gospod' o

SioneHM -ecame the h1mn of the imperial famil1 and 4as regularl1 sung at coronations%

4eddings and funerals.87. A prominent goernment official and ecem-rist% Ni)olai Ianoich Turgene ?5=6<956=5@

4ent a-road in 56F% a 1ear -efore the ecem-rist reolt% and lied in 2ondon and Paris for the

rest of his life. In Paris in 56= he pu-lished a 4or) containing a histor1 of this period from the

ecem-rist point of ie4% 2a Russie et les Russes.85. The Ale)sandr Nes)ii Seminar1% the seminar1 of St. Peters-urg% 4as founded in 5=F8. "ith

the ecclesiastical school reform of 5=<6 it 4as upgraded to the status of an academ1.

8F. Emanuel S4eden-org ?5G6695==F@ 4as a S4edish scientist and engineer 4ho in the 5=7's -egan to hae freCuent isions and on the -asis of them formulated a ne4 philosophical s1stem

of *hristianit1. S4eden-org denied the traditional doctrine of the +ol1 Trinit1% and on the 4hole

his teaching approimated neoPlatonism in the contet of lGth and l=th centur1 Protestantm1sticism. +is 4or)s% among them the Bi-lical commentar1 Arcana celestia ?5=<95=8G@ and

the doctrinal 4or) ;era christiana religio ?5==5@ 4ere 4idel1 read in his o4n time and greatl1

influenced later romantics and ps1chics. Although S4eden-org neer formed a communit1

himself% his follo4ers organi$ed the Ne4 #erusalem *hurch in 5=6=% and it almost immediatel1 -ecame )no4n in Russia.

8. P.. 2odi heard his 2o lectures and pointed him out to Sperans)ii. LAuthor's noteM . n

P.. 2odi see -elo4% note G5.8. A longtime goernment official and director of the St. Peters-urg li-rar1% &odest Andreeich

,orf ?5677956=F@ sered under Sperans)ii for fie 1ears in Emperor Nicholas I's priate

chanceller1. +is hi$n' grafa Sperans)ago 4as pu-lished in St. Peters-urg in 56G5.88. A Trans1lanian -1 -irth% 3edor ?3reidrich92eopold@ (auenshil'd ?d. 567@ came to Russia in

5655 and 4as a 4ell9)no4n pedagogue and director of the Aleandrian 21cee in St. Peters-urg.

+e left Russia in 56FF% and in resden pu-lished a three olume translation of ,aram$in's

F<



+istor1. +is comments are contained in the article “&i)hail &i)hailoich Sperans)ii! in

Russ)aia Starina&a1% 5<7F% pp. F859FGF.

8G. (usta Andreeich Rosen)ampf ?5=GF956F@ 4as an eminent urist 4ho 4or)ed on andheaded Aleander's *ommission on 2a4s. +e also pu-lished seeral 4or)s on Russian legal

histor1% including the first studies of the ,ormchaia )niga.

8=. (otthold Ephraim 2essing ?5=F<95=65@ occupied an important place in the (ermanEnlightenment and in (erman literature as a critic and dramatist. +e also su-scri-ed to

controersial religious ie4s% -elieing in a future rational religion 4hich 4as to succeed

#udaism and *hristianit1. #ohann (ottlie- 3ichte ?5=GF9565@ 4as the successor of Immanuel,ant as the leader of (erman idealist philosoph1 and applied ,ant's philosoph1 to religion%

producing a doctrine a)in to deism and illuminism and -ased on the principles of moralit1 and

dut1.

86. The opinion of Po$dee epressed in a letter to *ount A.,. Ra$umos)ii. LAuthor's noteM.Po$dee ?5=F956F7@ 4as one of the original founders of freemasonr1 in Russia and one of the

first to adance to Rosicrucianism. *ount Ra$umos)ii 4as &inister of Education at the time.

8<. *ount Sergei /aro ?5=6G95688@ had sered in the Russian em-assies in ;enice and Paris%

and later -ecame president of the Academ1 of Sciences ?5656@ and &inister of Education ?56@.+e is -est reme-ered as the formulator of the slogan “rthodo1% Autocrac1% and Nationalit1! >

the so9called “official nationalit1! of Nicholas I's reign.G7. Ale)sandr Ianoich Turgene ?5=68956G@ 4as a 4ell9traeled no-leman 4ho in 5657 4as

named head of the epartment of 3oreign *onfessions and a mem-er of the State *ouncil. +e

had studied at the /niersit1 of (ottingen% and contri-uted greatl1 to Russian historicalscholarship -1 collecting materials on Russian histor1 from foreign archies.

G5. Petr mitrieich 2odi ?5=G956F<@ 4as a professor at uniersities in 2o and *raco4

-efore coming to St. Peters-urg in 567 to teach philosoph1. &i)hail Andreeich Balugians)ii

?5=G<956=@% -orn in +ungar1 and educated in Austria% 4as a professor of la4 and histor1 4hocame to Russia in 567 and later -ecame the first rector of St. Peters-urg /niersit1. Ian

Semenoich rlai ?5==5956F<@ came to St. Peters-urg as a student at the &edical Institute% and

4or)ed there for man1 1ears -efore -eing named head of the Be$-orods)o 21cee in Ne$hin in56F5 and in 56FG the head of the 21cee Richelieu in dessa. +e pu-lished seeral medical

treatises in addition to 2atin poems and a histor1 of *arpatho9Russia.

GF. Pe$aroius ?5==G956=@ had studied at the /niersit1 of #ena -efore coming to Russia to4or) on the *ommission on 2a4s and in the *ollege of #ustice. +e founded the ournal Russian

Inalid in 565 to raise mone1 to help the ictims of the recent 4ar% and -1 56F5 turned oer

more than a million ru-les to the goernment committee founded in 565.

G. n Platon see chapter I;% note 6.G. *f. the statute of the &osco4 Societ1 of Russian +istor1 and AntiCuities% opened in 567.

LAuthor's noteM

G8. ne of the first professors of &osco4 /niersit1% founded in 5=88% Ioann &atias ?#ohann9&atthias@ Shaden 4as a (erman 4ho% after graduating from the /niersit1 of Tii-ingen came to

&osco4 in 5=8G. +e taught arious su-ects there until his death in 5=<=% and 4as one of the

most popular and influential professors among the students.GG. A highl1 influential churchman and theologian during the reign of Nicholas I% Inno)entii

Boriso ?56779568=@ 4as 4ell9)no4n for his oratorical s)ills. +e graduated from the ,ie

Academ1 and 4as a professor and inspector of the St. Peters-urg Academ1 until 567% 4hen he

returned to ,ie as rector. In 56G he 4as consecrated -ishop of *higirin and sered the sees of

F87



;ologda and ,har')o -efore -eing named arch-ishop of ,herson and the *rimea in 566.

Inno)entii left seeral unpu-lished 4or)s% including Poslednie dni $emloi $hi$ni lisusa ,hrista

and the collection of dogmatic essa1s Pamiatni) er1. +e also translated 3ilaret's catechism intoPolish and 4as the founder in 56= of the oumal ;os)resnoe chtenie. See -elo4 pp. F9F8.

G=. &i)hail Petroich Pogodin ?5677956=8@ 4as a conseratie Russian historian 4ho taught at

&osco4 /niersit1% edited the ournals &os)os)ii estni) and &os)itianin% and 4or)ed in the&inistr1 of Education. +is chief 4or)s are Issledoaniia% $amechaniia i le)tsii o russ)oi istorii ?=

olumes% &osco4% 56G9568=@ and important research on the chronicle of Nestor and other

ancient chronicles. G6. 3ilaret (umiles)ii% arch-ishop of *hernigo from 568< to 56GG% 4as an important Russian

hierarch% historian and theologian. Born in 567% he studied at the Tam-o Seminar1 and at the

academ1 in &osco4% 4here he -ecame a mon) and successiel1 sered as professor% inspector%

and finall1 rector. In 565 he 4as named to the see of Ria$an' and 4as transferred to ,har')o in566 -efore -ecoming arch-ishop of *hernigo. As a -ishop he 4as )no4n as a competent

administrator and patron of education% especiall1 for 4omen0 as a teacher he 4as considered -oth

intelligent and innoatie% and as a 4riter he 4as respected for his dogmatic treatise

Praoslanoe dogmatiches)oe -ogosloie ?56G@% his fie olume Istoriia russ)oi tser)i ?56=%first pu-lished in 568<@ and -$or russ)oi du)honoi literatur1 ?third edition% St. Peters-urg%

566@. 3ilaret is also important as a collector of historical materials in the dioceses he sered.The -asic 4or) on him is I. 2istos)ii% 3ilaret% ar)iepis)op chernigos)ii ?*hernigo% 56<8@. See

-elo4% pp. F89F8.

G<. Anthon1 Ashle1 *ooper% third earl of Shaftes-ur1 ?5G=595=5@ 4as an English politician%neo9Platoruc philosopher% and the author of *haracteristic)s of &en% &anners% pinions% Times

?5=55@. enis iderot ?5=595=6@% 4ho isited Russia in 5== at *atherine II's initation% 4as a

leading 3rench philosophe and editor of the Enc1clopedie. #ean 2e Rond d'Alem-ert ?5=5=9

5=6@ also 4or)ed on the Enc1clopedie and 4as an outstanding 3rench scientist. +is main 4or)sare puscules mathematiCues ?5=G595=67@ and &elanges de literature% d'histoire% et de

philosophie ?5=8@. n Rousseau see chapter I;% note 556.

=7. Aleander Pope ?5G6695=@% poet% satirist% and essa1ist% 4as the most prominent literar1figure in England in his time and the leader of English neo9*lassicism. Among his 4or)s are

translations of +omer% The Rape of the 2oc) ?5=5F@% The unciad ?5=F6@% An Essa1 on *riticism

?5=55@ and An Essa1 on &an ?5=95=@% 4hich 4as especiall1 popular in Russia.=5. Nachertanie prail o o-ra$oanii du)hon1)h uchilishch. LAuthor's noteM.

=F. The la4 on that reform 4as pu-lished on &arch 57% 567G. f course the notion of academic

regions had a)ead1 appeared in the draft proposal -1 Egenii. LAuthor's noteM .

=. That is% the internal and eternal administration. LAuthor's noteM.=. 3eofila)t Rusano ?5=G8956F5@ 4as a graduate of the Ale)sandr Nes)ii Seminar1 and

taught poetics and rhetoric there -esides sering as a catechist in seeral institutions in St.

Peters-urg. In 5=<< he 4as made -ishop of ,aluga% in 567G he -ecame a mem-er of the S1nod%and in 567< he 4as eleated to arch-ishop of Ria$an'. 3eofila)t 4as an actie supporter of

education in the spirit of the Enlightenment and 4or)ed most energeticall1 on the committee to

reform ecclesiastical education% -ut his opposition to 3essler in 5657 4on him a reputation as ano-scurantist as 4ell as the animosit1 of (olits1n and Sperans)ii. +e soon lost his influential

position in the *hurch and in societ1 and 4as forced to return to his diocese. In 565= he 4as

transferred to (eorgia as earch and then metropolitan ?565<@. 3eofila)t 4as an epert in modern

languages and produced man1 translations from 3rench0 (erman% English and 2atin.

F85



=8. 3ilaret ro$do% later metropolitan of &osco4. See note =.

=G. The &osco4 Theological Academ1 4as no4 located at the +ol1 Trinit1 &onaster1.

LAuthor's noteM .==. Archpriest (erasim Petroich Pas)ii ?5=6=956G@ 4as an esteemed professor philologist and

+e-raist and a controersial Bi-lical scholar and translator. A graduate of the St. Peters-urg

Academ1% in 565 he 4as named to the chair of +e-re4 there. and that same 1ear oined theRussian Bi-le Societ1% for 4hich he translated the Psalms and the (ospel of &atthe4 and edited

translations of the ld and Ne4 Testaments. +e gained prominence in societ1 as a priest at the

tsar's court% a mem-er of the ecclesiastical censor's committee% and since 565< a professor of theolog1 at the /niersit1 of St. Peters-urg. 3rom 56F5 to 56< he 4or)ed on the ournal

,hristians)oe chtenie% and in 56FG he 4as appointed a tutor to the tsareich Aleander ?the

future Aleander II@. +e 4as dismissed from this post in 568 after a controers1 oer some

-oo)s he 4rote for his lessons% including ,hristians)oi uchenie )rat)oi sisteme and Nachertanie tser)onoi istorii ?3ilaret's comments on these 4or)s and Pas)ii's defenseare

pu-lished in *hteniia -shcheste Istorii i renostei Rossiis)i)h% [email protected] in 565

another controers1 erupted oer some ld Testament translations he had done 4t%lle a professor

at the academ1% 4hich his students had lithographed from their notes and distri-uted 4ithoutofficial permission ?see -elo4% pp. F<9F8 @. "ith the accession of Aleander II in 5688 Pas)ii

4as again at the court chapel% and in 5686 he 4as elected to the Academ1 of Sciences for hislinguistic 4or). Pas)ii's chief 4or) is 3ilologiches)iia na-liudeniia nad sostaom russ)ago

ia$1)a LPhilological -serations on the *omposition of the Russian 2anguage% 565956FM

4hich% unli)e his Bi-lical research and translations% 4as 4ell9receied on all sides. +isBi-leis)iia drenosti dlia ra$umeniia s. Pisaniia 4as pu-lished onl1 in 566. Pas)ii also

compiled a +e-re4 grammar. See N.I. Barso% “Protoierei (erasim Petroich Pas)ii%

Biografiches)ii ocher) po no1m materialam%! in Russ)aia Starina% 5667.

=6. Irodion ;etrins)ii 4as a professor of histor1 and philosoph1 for man1 1ears at the St.Peters-urg Academ1% and later directed the g1mnasium at &ogile.

=<. The last 1ears of the l6th centur1 4itnessed an out-urst of missionar1 $eal in England% 4hen

seeral societies% such as the Societ1 for the Promotion of *hristian ,no4ledge and theReligious Tract Societ1% 4ere formed. The British and 3oreign Bi-le Societ1% opened in 2ondon

in 567% 4as the largest% most am-itious% and most successful of these groups. Its purpose 4as

the 4ider distri-ution% free of charge and “4ithout note or comment%! of the Bi-le% and from itser1 -eginning it 4as interdenominational. An immediate success in the British Isles% it Cuic)l1

gre4 in foreign affiliates and -1 565G had -ranches in oer a hundred cities throughout the

4orld. In 5678 t4o Scottish missionaries associated 4ith the British Bi-le Societ1% #ohn Paterson

?5==G95688@ and E-ene$er +enderson ?5=695686@ set out for India% -ut una-le to o-tain passagefrom the British East India *ompan1 the1 instead deoted themseles to founding Bi-le societies

in enmar)% the Netherlands% Iceland% S4eden and Nor4a1. Paterson then came to Russia in

565F% and 4as oined -1 +enderson in 565G. Both 4or)ed closel1 4ith the Russian Bi-leSoeiet1% and in 56FF% after seering his relationship 4ith the parent organi$ation% Paterson

-ecame an actual director in the Russian societ1. Paterson and +enderson 4ere forced to leae

Russia after the Bi-le Societ1's closing in 56FG.67. &etropolitan Stanista4 4as an old instrument of *atherine II in her religious policies in the

anneation of Poland. +e 4as named -ishop of &ogile in 5==% and in 5=6F 4as promoted to

arch-ishop and chief pastor of all Roman *atholics in the Russian empire. Eleated to

metropolitan in 5=6<% he lost some influence to the #esuits during Paul's reign% -ut rose again

F8F



under Aleander and it 4as on his orders that the #esuits 4ere epelled from St. Peters-urg in

5658. +e died in 56FG.

65. This term 4as gien -irth during *atherine II's ourne1 do4n the nieper Rier in 5=<7. +er faorite (rigorii Potem)in% the goernor of the southern proinces% 4as careful to see that

eer1thing and eer1one *atherine 4ould see from her rier-oat 4ould -e immaculate and in

good order. The Saon diplomat +el-ig suggested satiricall1 that Potem)in had facadesconstructed and transported along the route% and coined the term “Potem)in illage!

LPotem)insche dorferM to descri-e them. The term gained regular use in the (erman ernacular

language.6F. Sofiia Sergeena &eshchers)aia ?5==89566@ 4as one of the earliest and most deoted

mem-ers of the Russian Bi-le Societ1% and in the 567's she 4as head of the St. Peters-urg

"omen's Prison *ommittee. All told she helped translate and pu-lish oer <7 titles% and all

copies 4ere distri-uted free or for a nominal charge. Aleander I also contri-uted funds for thisenterprise.

6. These 4ere the so9called &e1er -rochures% named after the -oo)seller 4ho sered as

correspondent for the British Bi-le Societ1 in St. Peters-urg. LAuthor's noteM.

6. &etropolitan &i)hail ?5=GF956F7@ had studied at the Trinit1 Seminar1 in &osco4% and alsoattended &osco4 /niersit1% 4here he oined Noi)o's translation and pu-lishing enterprise

and the 3riendl1 2earned Societ1. +e -ecame a priest in &osco4 and 4as 4ell9)no4n for m1sticall1 oriented sermons. In 5=<G he 4as named a court priest and in 567F -ecame -ishop of

Starai Rus'. Transferred to *hernigo in 567% he oined the +ol1 S1nod in 565 and t4o 1ears

-efore his death -ecame metropolitan of St. Peters-urg. &an1 sermons of his hae -een pu-lished.

68. The 2ancaster s1stem used older students to teach 1ounger ones. n these schools see #udith

*ohen ace)% “The 2ancastrian School &oement in Russia%! Slaonic and East European

Reie4% O2; ?#ul1% 5<G=@% pp. 9G=.6G. #ohn ;enning ?5==G95686@ in his 1outh 4or)ed for a Russian trading firm in 2ondon. In 5=<

he moed to St. Peters-urg and -ecame a 4ell9todo merchant there. +is interest in prisons came

from his -rother "alter% one of the founders of the Societ1 for the Improement of Prisoniscipline in 2ondon. After the Russian Prison Societ1 4as set up ;enning traeled to isit

prisons and insane as1lums in S4eden% (erman1% 3rance and England% and had personal contact

4ith Emperors Aleander I and Nicholas I.6=. Ni)olai Ni)olaeich Bant1sh9,amens)ii ?5==9565@ 4as important for his life9long la-or of

organi$ing the archies of the &inistr1 of 3oreign Affairs and the alua-le collections of

materials he produced for historians. Bant1sh9,amen9 s)ii had studied at the ,ie and &osco4

Academies and also 4rote on moral philosoph1. +e sered as ice9president of the Bi-le Societ1.66. Ale)sandr S)arlamoich Sturd$a ?5=<59568@ 4as one of the leaders of a conseratie%

rthodo reaction to the 4estern m1stical and intellectual influences in Russian societ1. A

&oldaian -1 -irth% he had a long and actie diplomatic career% underta)ing numerous foreignmissions for the Russian &inistr1 of 3oreign Affairs% and also 4or)ed in (olits1n's &inistr1 of

Education. A prolific 4riter on religious and political themes% Sturd$a's t4o most famous 4or)s

are *onsiderations sur Ia doctrine et l'esprit de 5'eglise orthodoe ?Stuttgart% 565G@% 4ritten 4hileSturd$a 4as in Paris% and &emoire sur l'etat actuel de l'Allemagne ?5656@. The latter% composed

on imperial commission 4hile the author 4as on a diplomatic mission to (erman1% condemned

li-eralism in education and adocated strict goernment control of instruction and discipline in

the schools.

F8



rthodo1 for his conseratie political reasons and 4as thus indisposed to (olits1n and

especiall1 hostile to the Russian Bi-le Societ1 for its translation of the Scriptures into

contemporar1 Russian. In 56F he succeeded (olits1n as &inister of Education% and his tenurehere 4as mar)ed -1 strict censorship and control oer the uniersities.

<. In 5655 Shish)o organi$ed his literar1 and linguistic disciples into the societ1 Beseda

liu-itelei russ)ago slo L(athering of 2oers of Russian SpeechM. This group functioned until565G and issued its ournal *hteniia% t4ent1 times.

<8. See chapter I;% note 55G.

<G. &etropolitan &i)hail esnits)ii% see a-oe% note 6.<=. #ean9Philippe utoit ?or utoit9&em-rini% 5=F595=<@ 4as a fluent and successful 3rench

preacher and a great admirer of (u1on. +is t4o principal 4or)s are Philosophie diine ? ols.%

5=<@ and Philosophie chretienne ? ols.% 56779565<@.

<6. These t4o *atholic priests 4ere representaties of a Baarian m1stical moement close tothe ideals of the +errnhutters called Er4ec)ten. Ignatius 2indel% the leader of the Baarian Bi-le

Societ1% came to St. Peters-urg in 565<. Some of his sermons 4ere translated into Russian -1

;.&. Popo% -ut in less than a 1ear &etropolitan &i)hail esnits)ii had him sent off to dessa.

#ohann Eangelista (ossner ?5==95686@ 4as a priest in &unich. /nfroc)ed -1 the local*atholic hierarch1 in 565=% he moed first to Prussia and then in 56F7 to St. Peters-urg% at the

initation of the Bi-le Societ1. Installed as pastor of a *atholic parish% his sermons soon -ecame4ell9)no4n in Russian societ1. +is -oo)% (eist des 2e-ens und der 2ehre #esu% 4as translated

into Russian in 56F956F ?in its final form also -1 Popo@% and the attempt to pu-lish this -oo)

proided the opportunit1 for (olits1n's enemies to -ring formal accusations against him to thetsar. In the spring of 56F (ossner 4as epelled from Russia and returned to (erman1% 4here he

conerted to the 2utheran *hurch und sered for man1 1ears as a pastor in Berlin. +e 4as

remem-ered in his natie land for his philanthropical and missionar1 4or)% and a popular

translation of the Ne4 Testament.<<. An ultra9secret and disciplined m1stical societ1% the Illuminati 4ere formed in 5==G -1 a

professor of canon la4 at the /niersit1 of Ingelstadt in (erman1% Adam "eishaupt ?5=69

567@. The1 denied the alue not onl1 of esta-lished religion% -ut goernment and societ1 as4ell. That% together 4ith their secrec1 and their -ringing moral casuistr1 to its etreme limit%

caused them seere persecution in (erman1. The1 gre4 and spread% ho4eer% -1 infiltrating and

ta)ing oer masonic lodges% 4here the1 esta-lished their o4n degrees as adanced ' degrees of freemasonr1.

577. *f. the translation and commentaries -1 Arch-ishop &efodii Smirno. LAuthor's noteM.

Tol)oanie na poslanie apostola Pala ) Rimlianam ?first edition 5=<% reprinted 5=<< and

565@. &efodii Smirno ?5=G595658@ 4as rector of the &osco4 Academ1% -ishop of ;orone$h%then arch-ishop of Ter'. To him also -elongs a histor1 of the *hurch in the first centur1% 2i-er

historicus &osco4% 5678@.

575. In 5676 the British and 3oreign Bi-le Societ1 sent agents to (reece% 4here the1 planned amodern (ree) translation of the Bi-le 4ith Adamantios ,oraes ?5=6956@. The Patriarch of

*onstantinople *1ril ;I -lessed the underta)ing% although his successors resisted it for man1

1ears.57F. 2ouis9Issac 2emaistre de Sac1 ?5G595G6@ 4as imprisoned in the Bastille as a #ansenist

from 5G5G to 5G56. "hile there he and some fello4 educated inmates translated the Bi-le into

3rench. 2e Noueau Testament traduit en 3rangais ?popularl1 )no4n as 2e Noueau Testament

F88



de &ons 5GG=@ caused a iolent de-ate oer Bi-lical translation in Paris. e Sac1's 2a Sainte

Bi-le came out in 5G=F% and is still popular in 3rance.

57. 3ilaret ro$do% later metropolitan of &osco4. See note =.57. See a-oe% note ==.

578. Poli)arp (aitanni)o 4as rector of &osco4 Academ1 and archimandrite of the

Noospass)ii &onaster1 from 56F9568. +e also translated Patristic 4or)s for ,hristians)oechtenie% pu-lished as *hrestomatia latina in usum scholarum ecclesiasticarum ?&osco4% 56F=@%

and left a Theologia dogmatica in manuscript on his death in 56=.

57G. +is dates are 5=6956. Seeral editions of his sermons hae -een pu-lished.57=. Serafim ?Stefan ;asil'eich (lagoles)ii% 5=8=956@ succeeded &i)hail esnits)ii as

metropolitan of St. Peters-urg and held that see during the tur-ulent 1ears of the reaction against

(olits1n and the Bi-le Societ1 and the ecem-rist uprising. Serafim 4as educated at the

&osco4 Academ1 and &osco4 /ruersit1% 4here he 4as a mem-er of Noi)o's 3reindl12earning Societ1. +e 4as a professor and rector of &osco4 Academ1% and held the episcopal

sees of ;iat)a% Smolens) and &ins) -efore -ecoming arch-ishop of Ter' in 565. That same

1ear he 4as named a mem-er of the *ommission on Ecclesiastical Schools and -ecame a ice9

president of the Bi-le Societ1% for 4hich he helped translate the (ospels and the Psalins. In 565<he 4as made metropolitan of &osco4 and three 1ears later transferred to St. Peters-urg. Alread1

G8 1ears old% his actiit1 4as limited and he could not eercise much initiatie in the importantaffairs he 4as part of at that time. Still% he succeeded (olits1n as president of the Bi-le Societ1

in 56F and persuaded the tsar to finall1 close it in 56FG.

576. In his Notes on the Boo) of (enesis Lapis)i na )nigu -1tiia% St. Peters-urg% 565GM 3ilaret proided throughout a Russian translation of the +e-re4 tet. LAuthor's noteM.

57<. See a-oe% pp. 58=958<.

557. See a-oe% note <.

555. Inno)entii Smirno ?5=69565<@. See a-oe% note =.55F. The ,adets)ii )orpus% or militar1 academ1% 4as esta-lished in 5=5 for sons of the no-ilit1.

B1 5<77 there 4ere t4ent1 such militar1 schools 4ith this name% the students usuall1 -eing

officers' sons.55. Anna Ale)seena rloa9*hesmens)aia ?5=689566@% the granddaughter of *atherine II's

one9time faorite (rigorii rlo% 4as an etremel1 4ealth1 no-le4oman. She too) on 3otii as

her “spiritual father! at the adice of Inno)entii Smirno% and remained close to 3otii the rest of his life. A pious deotee of the rthodo *hurch% rloa donated millions of ru-les to arious

monasteries and churches% 4hich assured her intluence 4ith high9piaced ecclesiastics. She 4as

also close to the tsar's famil1.

55. *f. “a pis'ma )nia$ia A. N. (olits1na ) Iur'es)omu ar)himandritu 3otiiu%! *hteniia &os)os)om o-shcheste istorii i drenosti rossiis)i)h pri &os)os)om uni%ersitete% 56G6% III%

F=9F<0 “,nia$' A.N. (olits1n i ar)himandrit 3otii 56FF956F8 gg.%! Russ)aia Starina% 566F%

F=89F<G.558. Ale)sei Andreeich Ara)chee ?5=G<956@ 4as one of Aleander's closest% most trusted%

and constant adisors. Aleander first met him 4hen Ara)chee 4as sering in Paul's priate

arm1 at (atchina. "hen Paul -ecame emperor he 4as named Cuartermaster9general and 4asresponsi-le for deeloping the artiller1 and reforming the administration and training of the

arm1. /nder Aleander he sered as &inister of "ar and administrator of the militar1 colonies%

and the more Aleander turned to m1stical interests and trael the more the da19toda1

administration of the empire fell into the hands of this hard94or)ing% efficient% -ut often

F8G



ruthlessl1 -rutal assistant. B1 the 56F7's Ara)chee's onl1 rial for the tsar's faor 4as (olits1n%

and after his fall Ara)chee 4as unCuestiona-l1 the second most po4erful man in Russia. "hen

Aleander died% ho4eer% he retired from goernment serice.55G. ;o$$anie ) cheloe)am o posledoanii nutrennemu lecheniiu u)ha ,hristoa% a

3rench pietist 4or)% translated into Russian in 56F< and pu-lished in St. Peters-urg. The

translator% I.I. Iastre-tso% sered as eecutie secretar1 on the *ommission for EcclesiasticalSchools. LAuthor's noteM.

55=. See a-oe% note 5F.

556. Ignatius9Aurelius 3essler ?5=8G956<@% the 2o professor 4ho came to the chair of easternlanguages and philosoph1 at the St. Peters-urg Academ1 in 567<% had -een eiled to Sarato for

atheism in 5657. There he 4or)ed as superintendent of the Protestant consistories of South

Russia until he returned to St. Peters-urg in 56F7. After his second eile in 56F% he returned in

56 as head of the 2utheran consistories of all Russia. 3essler left numerous 4or)s% includinglinguistic treatises% pla1s% noels% and his m1stical and theological 4or)s.

55<. Russian 4riters freCuentl1 referred to all 4ho denied the diinit1 of #esus *hrist as

Socinians% or follo4ers of the anti9trinitarian moement founded -1 2aelius and 3austus Socinus

in Ital1 in the lGth centur1. This sect 4as especiall1 strong in Poland and "est Russia.5F7. mitrii Ni)olaeich Ser-ee ?5=<<956=G@% a no-leman from the Nogorod region% left

interesting memoirs on this period% apis)i mitriia Ni)olaeicha Ser-eea ?&osco4% 56<<@.5F5. 3or eample% the ecem-rist Baron Ian Shteingel% referring to the Russian Bi-le% 4rote

that “confidence in one of the sacred -oo)s read in *hurch is undermined.! LAuthor'snoteM.

5FF. 3ilaret Amtteatro ?5==<9568=@ 4as head of the ;olo)alams) &onaster1 in St. Peters-urgand inspector and rector of the St. Peters-urg Academ1 from 565. In these 1ears he participated

in the actiities of the Russian Bi-le Societ1. In 565= he 4ent to the &osco4 Academ1 as rector%

and 4as named to arious -ishoprics until he -ecame metropolitan of ,ie in 56=. See -elo4%

pp. F8G9F86.5F. Incidentall1% the rthodo *onfession under4ent a ne4 translation ust at that moment.

Prince S.A. Shirins)ii9Shi)hmato ?shortl1 thereafter +ieromon) Ani)ita and a close personat

friend of 3otii@ superised the 4or). +o4eer% the translation 4as held up in the religiouscensorship committee at the recommendation of 3r. (erasim Pas)ii.

5F. ,ocheto later -ecame the superior at the Sts. Peter and Paul *athedral. *f. his essa1 n

the isastrous effects of partialit1 for foreign languages L pagu-n1)h sledstiia)h pristrastiia ) inostrann1m ia$1)am M%4ritten in the spirit of Shish)o% 4ho o-tained mem-ership for ,ocheto

in the Russian Academ1. LAuthor'snoteM.

5F8. Egenii Bol)hoitino. See chapter I;% note 57.

5FG. Simeon ,r1lo9Platono ?5===956F@ taught 3rench and poetics at the &osco4 Trinit1Seminar1 and rhetoric at the &osco4 Academ1% 4here he 4as later rector. In 565G he 4as

consecrated -ishop of Tula and succeeded to *hernigo ?5656@% Ter' ?56F7@ and Iaroslal

?56F5@. +e also taught at the St. Peters-urg Academ1.5F=. &i)hail 2eont'eich &agnits)ii ?5==695688@ 4as an opportunistic goernment official 4ho

came to the forefront of an o-scurantist attac) on the educational s1stem in Russia. Earl1 in

Aleander's reign he sered in the Preo-ra$hens)oi (uards and in the &inistr1 of 3oreignaffairs. Actie in masonr1 and in the li-eral circle around Sperans)ii% he shared Sperans)ii's

disgrace and 4as eiled in 565F to ;ologda. There he 4or)ed his 4a1 up in the proincial

administration and in 5656 -ecame goernor of Sim-irs). +e then -egan 4riting letters attac)ing

the school s1stem and the masonic lodges. In 565< he 4as appointed to inestigate the

F8=



/niersit1 of ,a$an'% and -ecame famous oernight 4ith a sensational epose of the

reolutionar1 philosoph1 and illuminism he claimed 4as -eing taught there -1 the professors of

the “+ellish alliance.! The net 1ear he 4as named head of ,a$an' /niersit1 and reformed itaccording to the principles of the “+ol1 Alliance%! 4ith philosoph1 his main target. +e came

-ac) to St. Peters-urg and allied himself 4ith Ara)chee% Shish)o and 3otii against (olits1n

and the Bi-le Societ1. +o4eer% in 56FG &agnits)ii 4as himself accused of -elonging to theIlluminati and 4as eiled to Estonia.

5F6. Palo 4as an opportunistic former caalr1 officer 4ho held and lost seeral goernment

o-s. In 56F he ingratiated himself 4ith the er Procurator Prince &eshchers)ii% and after receiing an appointment in his office Cuic)l1 oined forces 4ith Ara)chee and 3otii. The net

1ear he 4as also gien a place in the*ommission on Ecclesiastical Schools. In 56F= ho4eer%

Nicholas I ordered him into retirement.

5F<. uring the Napoleonic 4ars man1 1oung no-le officers receied a first hand loo) at4estern Europe. The1 returned 4ith ne4 political and social ideas and a desire to -ring Russia to

the fore of European ciili$ation -1 the implementation of these ideas. Encouraged -1 the earl1

li-eralism of Aleander's reign seeral 1oung (uards officers in 565G formed the /nion of

Salation ?Soiu$ spaseniia M% 4hose general aim 4as to -rihg a-out% -1 reolutionar1 means if necessar1% constitutional goernment and an end to serfdom in Russia. This societ1 4as

reorgani$ed in 565= into the /nion of "elfare LSoiu$ -lagodenstiiaM% -ut 4as dissoled in 56F7for fear of goernment reprisals. The mem-ers of this group% for the most part Imperial (uards

officers of high social standing% trained in secret organi$ation and conspiratorial techniCues -1

the association of man1 of them 4ith masonic lodges% then formed t4o underground societies. InSt. Peters-urg the1 4ere led -1 Ni)ita &ura'e% Prince E. -olens)ii% Prince Sergei Tru-ets)oi%

and later the poet ,. R1lee0 the southern organi$ation gathered around Pael Pestel. The

moement gained s1mpathi$ers and plans 4ere discussed for a reolutionar1 ta)eoer of the

goernment. "hen Aleander I suddenl1 died on Noem-er 5<% 56F8% the conspirators decidedto act. At that time the goernment 4as in a state of confusion. The net in line for the throne

4as presuma-l1 Aleander's -rother *onstantine. +o4eer% he had married a Polish countess

and secretl1 renounced his rights to the succession% and in an unpu-lished manifesto of 56F thenet -rother% Nicholas% 4as named heir apparent. In the confusing 4ee)s after Aleander's death%

ho4eer% Nicholas 4as unsure of his support% and for fear of appearing as a usurper he -ade all

his associates to proclaim their lo1alt1 to the ne4 emperor *onstantine. &ean4hile in "arsa4*onstantine 4as s4earing allegiance to Nicholas. The latter finall1 accepted the throne on

ecem-er 5 and the populace 4as dul1 ordered to ta)e the traditional oath to the ne4

soereign. That da1 around %777 soldiers% led -1 the St. Peters-urg conspirators% gathered on the

Senate sCuare and refused to ta)e the oath% shouting out their demands for “*onstantine . . .! 4hohad an unfounded reputation of -eneolenc1 and li-eralism% “ . . . and a *onstitution.! The1

epected the rest of the militar1 to oin them% -ut instead after pleas from &etropolitan Serafim

and the (rand u)e &ichael to disperse% 4ere fired on -1 troops lo1al to Nicholas and Cuic)l1arrested. "ithin three 4ee)s the southern mem-ers of the conspirac1 4ere rounded up. A special

commission 4as esta-lished to tr1 the “ecem-rists%! and fie 4ere hanged 5 eiled

permanentl1 to Si-eria% and another 68 4ere gien lesser terms of eile.57. Nicholas ?5=<G95688@% the third son of Paul% -ecame tsar in 56F8 during the ecem-rist

reolt. A loer of -arrac)s discipline and a -elieer in strong autocratic authoritarianism% he too)

personal direction oer the goernmerit to a degree not seen in Russia since Peter the (reat. +is

reign 4itnessed a great epansion of the goernment -ureaucrac1% repression of dissenters and

F86



increased censorship% and the gro4th of the Imperial *hanceller1% formerl1 a relatiel1

insignificant department% into a huge structure 4ith four comprehensie sections. Important

matters of state 4ere transferred from the arious ministeries to this chanceller1% increasing Nicholas' personal superision oer his empire. The thira section of the chanceller1% the political

police% -ecame a famous instrument of repression. Both the schools and the *hurch 4ere used to

foster the ideal of “fficial Nationalit1%! summed up in /aro's phrase “rthodo1% Autocrac1%and Nationalit1.! In foreign affairs Russian interests to4ard the south continued% and Nicholas

reersed Aleander's polic1 of non9interention in the (ree) reolution -1 going to 4ar 4ith

Tur)e1 and forcing the Sultan% in the 56F< Treat1 of Adrianople% to recogni$e self9goernment in(reece. Russia's epansionist polic1% ho4eer% placed it on a collision course 4ith the interests of

England and 3rance% resulting in the *rimean "ar% still raging 4hen Nicholas died in 5688.

55. See chapter I;% note 6.

5F. aid +ollatius ?or +olla$ 5G695=5@ 4as a 2utheran minister and theologian. +isEamen theologicum acroamaticum ?Rostoc) and 2eip$ig% 5=5=@ 4as the last gteat tet-oo) of

2utheran otthodo1 -efore the coming of pietism. +ollatius also 4rote Scrutinium eritatis in

m1sticorum dogmata ?"itten-erg% 5=55@.

5. Anastasii Bratanos)ii9Romanen)o ?5=G59567G@ 4as -ishop of &ogile and from 5678arch-ishop of Astra)han. +e 4as a mem-er of the Russian Academ1 and 4or)ed on the 5676

reorgani$ation of the ecclesiastical schools.5. #ean9Baptiste &assillon ?5GG95=F@% 3rench pedagogue and -ishop% 4as )no4n as “the

Racine of the pulpit.! 2ouis Bourdaloue ?5GF95=7@% the “)ing of orators and the orator of

)ings%! 4as a #esuit theologian 4hose sermons 4ere considered models of classical homiletics.Both preached at the court of 2ouis OI;. n 3enelon see chapter I;% note 55F.

58. (rigorii Postni)o ?d. 56G7@ succeeded 3ilaret as rector of the St. Peters9 E -urg Academ1

in 565<% and t4o 1ears later founded the ournal ,hristians)oe 5 chtenie there. +e 4as also

)no4n as the author of Istinno9dreniaia i istinno9 praoslanaia ,hristoa tser)o ?5688@4ritten against the ld Belieers. In 5688 he -ecame metropolitan of St. Peters-urg. See -elo4%

pp. FF79FFF.

5G. +er$en's B1loe i um1 ?English translation &1 Past and TPoughts: &emoirs% G olumes% Ne4 Dor)% 5<F95<F6@ contains man1 alua-le comments on eents and personalities of this

time.

5=. n #ohann 3ran$ Buddeus see chapter I;% note <.56. ie Seherin on Preorst ?56F<@. This noel 4as centered on themes of h1pnotism and

somnam-ulance. Its author% #ustinus ,erner ?5=6G956GF@% 4as a (erman l1rical poet of the

Romantic S4a-ian school. Besides his deepl1 melancholic poems he authored Reiseschatten

?5655@ and Bilder-uch aus meiner “ )na-en$eit ?56<@.5<. This committee 4as formed -1 Nicholas I to inestigate the causes of the recent ecem-rist

uprising and possi-le reforms of the goernment in the light of them. It 4as chaired -1 Prince

;.P. ,ochu-ei and included (olits1n and *ount P.A. Tolstoi. Its recommendations on proincialadministration 4ere adopted in 56=.

57. Egenii Bol)hoitino. See chapter I;% note 57.

55. ,arl ,arloich &erder ?5=66956@% )no4n as a humane and sensitie man% transmittedthese Cualities to Aleander Ni)olaeich 4hile tutoring him from 56F until his death.

5F. 3eofila)t (ors)il% octrina ?first pu-lished in 2eip$ig in 5=6@. See chaptet I;% note G5.

F8<



noelist Tolstoi% and his main philosophical 4or)% influenced -1 Plato and 2ei-ni$% Po$itinaia

filosof:ia i ser)hchustennoe -1tie LSt. Peters-urg% 56=895666@.

587. mitrii Ianoich Rostislao ?567<956==@% a son of a priest% taught mathematics and ph1sics for man1 1ears at the St. Peters-urg Academ1 and participated in the free pu-lic lecture

series organi$ed -1 Russian professors in Ria$an' in the 5687's and 56G7's. +e 4rote seeral

articles on the contemporar1 state of *hurch affairs% especiall1 religious education 4hich causeda sensation -ecauseof their Protestant -ias and sharpl1 critical tone. Among them are

du)hon1)h uchilishcha)h% 4ritten on official commission -ut so controersial it could onl1 -e

pu-lished in 2eip$ig in 56G7% *hernoe i -eloe du)hoensto Rossii ?56G8956GG@% and p1ti$sledoaniia o- imushchesta)h i do)hoda)h nash1)h monast1rei ?St. Peters-urg% 56=G@% an

attac) on the 4ealth of monasteries. +e also contri-uted to arious ournals and left interesting

apis)i LNotesM% pu-lished after his death in Russ)aia Starina from 5667 to 56<8.

585. The famous historian Sergei &i)hailoich Solo'e ?56F7956=<@ taught Russian histor1 atthe /niersit1 of &osco4 for the last F 1ears of 3ilaret's life% 4hen he 4as alread1 permanentl1

settled in &osco4. The title of his auto-iograph1 is &oi $apis)ii dlia detei moi)h% a% esli

mo$hno% i dlia drugi)h ?St. Peters-urg% no date@.

58F. It seems that ostoes)ii had Elisee in mind 4hen he created the remar)a-le character Ra)itin. LAuthor's noteM. (rigorii a)haroich Elisee ?56F5956<5@ taught Russian *hurch

histor1 and other su-ects at the ,a$an' Academ1 until 568. That 1ear he left the facult1 and4ent to lie in Si-eria% 4or)ing for the proincial goernment. In 5686 he moed to St.

Peters-urg and -egan his ournalistic actiit1% at first in association 4ith *hern1shes)ii and

o-roliu-o% and in his o4n right he -ecame a leader of the Populist moement LNarodnichestoM .

58. Ale)sei Stepanoich ,homia)o ?567956G7@ is the -est )no4n of the Slaophile leaders to

the "est. Solo'e% on the other hand% 4as a moderate “"esterni$er.! ,homia)o lied most of

his life in &osco4 4ith no official responsi-ilities% deoting his time to 4riting and discussiongroups. +e is regarded -1 man1 rthodo as a great la1 theologian. See A. (ratieu's A.S.

,homia)o and the Slaophile &oement% translated from the 3rench -1 Eli$a-eth &e1endorff

?t4o olumes% [email protected]. The epounder of “pectoral theolog1! #ohann August "ilhelm Neander ?5=6<95687@ 4as

-orn aid &endel% a #e4. +e conerted to Protestant *hristianit1 4hile a student in +alle% and

taught at the /niersit1 of +eidel-erg and Berlin. A theologian of the pietist tradition% he alsogained reno4n as a *hurch historian% pu-lishing a si olume *hurch histor1 ?56FG9568F@ and

4or)s on #ulian the Apostate and #ohn *hr1sostom% among others.

588. See a-oe% note 556.

58G. See a-oe% note 5.58=. The follo4ers of Paisii ;elich)os)ii ?5=FF95=<@0 see a-oe% chapter I;% section ;II% “The

Rea4a)ening of Russian &onasticism.!

586. See a-oe% note F.58<. &oisei Antipo9Platono% see note 57G0 &eletii 2eontoich% see note 58.

5G7. "illiam Palmer ?5655956=<@% an Anglican +igh *hurchman% had taught Notes to *hapter ;

G= at ford. +e -ecame interested in the rthodo *hurch and 4as particularl1 actie in promoting inter9communion 4ith it% and for that reason made t4o ourne1s to Russia% in 567

and 56F. Su-seCuentl1 he turned seerel1 critical of the Anglican *hurch and in 5688 conerted

to Roman *atholicism and moed to Rome to stud1 and 4rite on archeolog1. Among his 4ritten

4or)s are +armon1 of Anglican octrine 4ith the octrine of the Eastern *hurch ?56G@% Notes

FG5



on a ;isit to the Russian *hurch ?first pu-lished in 566F@% and the si olume The Patriarch and

the Tsar ?56=5956=G@% a collection of materials on Ni)on and Ale)sei &i)hailoich.

5G5. n &me. Tatarinoa's “Spiritual alliance! see a-oe% note <7.5GF. 3or #ohann Arndt see chapter I;% note 67.

5G. Io ?5=87956F@% a second cousin of *atherine the (reat's faorite (rigorii Potem)in% lied

for seeral 1ears after his tonsure in Iasi and 4as a--ot of the Assumption &onaster1 inBessara-ia. In 5=< he 4as consecrated a icar to the -ishop of E)aterinoslal% -ecame

arch-ishop of &ins) and ;ol1nia ?4here he is remem-ered for etensie church construction and

efficient administration of the diocese@ in 5=<G% and in 565F returned to E)aterinoslal asarch-ishop.

5G. 3ilaret ?5==9565@ 4as hegumen of the (lins)ii9Bogorodichn1i pust1n in the /ral region%

and 4as largel1 responsi-le for its spiritual reuenation. +e composed rules for conents and

pu-lished in 56F a Prostrannoe pouchenie ) noopostri$hennomu mona)hu. There is a -iograph1 of him% hitie -la$hennoi pamiati startsa% o$o-noitelia *lins)oi pust1ni% igumena

Pilareta ?St. Peters-urg% 56G7@.

5G8. Blaise Pascal ?5GF95GGF@ -egan his career as a mathematician and ph1sical scientist% and

made lasting contri-utions to those fields. 2ater in life% ho4eer% he concentrated on religious9 philosophical 4riting% particularl1 in defense of the #ansenists% 4hose harsh and ascetical

doctrine resem-led *alinism to a degree ?the1 4ere condemned in the papal -ull /nigenitus in5=78@. Pascal's 2ettres proinciales and Pensees 4ere influential on such later 4estern thin)ers

as Rousseau% +enri Bergson% and the Eistentialists.

5GG. (rellet and Allen 4ere on a missionar1 ourne1 for the Societ1 of 3riends that too) them in5656956F7 to Nor4a1% S4eden% 3inland% Russia% *onstantinople% and the (ree) Islands. "illiam

Allen ?5==7956@ 4as a chemist -1 pro fession and participated in the philanthropical societies

popular in England in his time. "hen Aleander came to 2ondon in 565 Allen 4as introduced

to him as a “model Kua)er.! +e met Aleander during this trip as 4ell% and again in ;ienna in56FF. Stephen (rellet% -orn Etienne de (rellet du &a-illier in 3rance in 5==% had an

adenturous 1outh. +e 4as arrested and condemned to death follo4ing the 3rench reolution -ut

managed to escape and sail to South America. In 5=<8 he moed to Ne4 Dor) and started a -usiness% oined the Societ1 of 3rends% then moed to Philadelphia and -ecame a Kua)er

minister. +e made seeral missionar1 trips through North America and Europe% and also met

Aleander in 565 in England. (rellet died in 5688 in Ne4 #erse1.5G=. The flood of 56F is immortali$ed in Push)in's The Bron$e +orseman. The cholera

epidemic -egan in the *aucasus in the 56F7's% -1 567 raged in central Russia% and spread to St.

Peters-urg and Poland in 565. er 577%777 lies 4ere claimed% largel1 due to administratie

incompetence in dealing 4ith the epidemic. See Roderic) E. &c(re4% Russia and the *holera%56F956F ?/niersit1 of "isconsin Press% 5<G8@.

5G6. 3ilaret (umiles)ii% arch-ishop of *hernigo. See a-oe% note G6.

5G<. This cae 4as in a monaster1 in Bethlehem 4here St. #erome ?c. 79F7@ produced the;ulgate.

5=7. Smaragd ?Ale)sandr ,r1$hanos)ii% d. 56G@ 4as arch-ishop of Ria$an'. +e carried on an

etensie and detailed correspondence 4ith% among others% Inno)entii Boriso and I.3. (lush)o.These letters contain man1 alua-le o-serations on his contemporaies and his times.

5=5. Ernst93riedrich ,arl Rosenmueller ?5=G69568@ 4as a (erman 2utheran +e-raist and

professor of riental languages at the /niersit1 of 2eip$ig. +is main 4or)s are Scholia in ;etus

FGF



Testamentum ?2eip$ig% 5=669568@% +and-uch der -i-lishchen Altertums)unde ?2eip$ig% 56F9

565@ and Analecta ara-ica ?2eip$ig% 56F8956F6@.

5=F. See a-oe% note 587.5=. 3or de Sac1 see a-oe% note 57F0 for 3enelon see chapter I;% note 55F0 for St. 3rancis de

Sales see this chapter% note 580 on #ohn &ason see chapter I;% note 5FF.

5=. n #ohann Arndt% see chapter I;% note 67. n Thomas a ,empis see a-oe% note 5=.Anthon1 +orn-ec) ?5G595G<=@ 4as a (erman 4ho moed to England and -ecame an Anglican

pastos% and left popular deotional 4ritings.

5=8. See chapter I;% note =F.5=G. 3edor Ale)sandroich (olu-ins)ii ?5=<=9568@ studied at the ,ostroma Seminar1 and

&osco4 Academ1% 4here he -ecame a highl1 popular professor of philosoph1 for man1 1ears.

+e stood at the center of a circle deoted to theistic philosophical discussions. Although he

pu-lished almost nothing himself% his students printed his 2ectures from their notes -eginning in56G6.

5==. n &i)hail esnits)ii see a-oe% note 60 for Egraf see p. F7F0 for Inno)entii Smirno see

note =.

5=6. Ioa)im Semenoich ,ocheto ?5=6<9568@ 4as a professor at the St. Peters-urg Academ1from 565 to 5685% dean of the *athedral of Sts. Peter and Paul and also taught at the

Aleandrian l1cee. In 56F he pu-lished the first 4or) on moral theolog1 in Russian% *hert1deiatel nago ucheniia er1% 4hich 4ent through fie editions% and later pu-lished the tet-oo)

Nachertanie )hristians)i)h o-ia$annostei. A mem-er of the Academ1 of Sciences since 565% he

contri-uted greatl1 to its *hurch Slaonic9Russian dictionar1% sering as final editor of seeralolumes.

5=<. *hristian "eismann ?5G==95==@ 4as a pietist professor at Stuttgart and Tu-ingen. +is

principal histor1 4as Introductio in memora-ilia ecclesiastica historiae sacrae Noi Testamenti%

maime ero saeclorum primorum et noissimorum ?F ols.% Stuttgart% 5=5695=5<@. 3riedrichSpanheim ?5GF95=75@ taughf theolog1 at +eidel-erg and 2eiden. +is Summa historiae

ecclesiasticae appeared in 5G6<. *aesar Baronius ?58695G7=@ 4as a *atholic *hurch historian

and casdinal. +is Annale.s ecclesiastici ?586695G7=@ 4as a response to the &agde-urg *enturies.The *enturiae &agde-urgenses% printed -et4een 588< and 58=% 4as the first gieat Protestant

*hurch histor1. *hiefl1 the 4or) of &atthias 3lacius Ill1ricus% it contained a sharp 2utheran

-ias% -ut 4as important for the introduction of adanced methods of scholarship.567. 3or -iographical data on 3ilaret Amfiteatro see a-oe% note 5FF.

565. See chapter I;% note G5.

56F. *ampegius .;itringa ?5G8<95=FF@ 4as a utch Reformed ld Testament scholar and

*hurch historian. +is chief 4or) is a t4o9olume commentar1 on Isaiah ?5=595=F7@% 4hich 4ashighl1 influential among later Protestant commentators.

56. See a-oe% chapter I;% note 5=.

56. n 3ilaret% see a-oe% note G6. Ale)sandr ;asil'eich (ors)ii ?565F956=8@ 4as an archpriestand rector of &osco4 Academ1. Although he neer -ecame a mon) he lied in a monastic st1le

and 4as )no4n as much for his piet1 as for his erudition. +is course at the academ1% Istoriia

eangel's)aia i tser)i aposto5's)oi% as 4ell as his other learned 4or)s% he did not pu-lish out of modest1. (ors)ii also compiled% at the suggestion of 3ilaret% an pisanie slaians)i)h ru)opisei

&os)os)oi Sinodal'noi Bi-liote)i% 4hich sered as an important guide for historians.

568. See a-oe% note 5G.

FG



56G. Aleander II ?565695665@ too) oer the throne during the *rimean "ar in 5688. After

etricating Russia from that disaster he proceeded to promulgate the “(reat Reforms! ?see note

F8@. Aleander sponsored these reforms more -ecause he recogni$ed the necessit1 for them than -ecause he 4as an1 less autocratic in spirit than his father Nicholas I. After 56GG he 4as

decidedl1 more conseratie% especiall1 in his nominations to important goernment posts% 4hile

at the same time the ie4s of the dissenting groups in Russia% increasingl1 more radical%hardened. 3inall1 Aleander 4as assisinated -1 a mem-er of the terrorist organi$ation The

People's "ill.

56=. The +e-raische (rammati) of +einrich 3riedrich "ilhelm (esenius ?5=6G956F@ 4as first printed in +alle in 565 and 4ent through 5 editions in the author's lifetime. A long9time

professor of riental languages at +alle /niersit1% he also pu-lished a +e-raisches und

*haldaisches +and4orter-uch ?2eip$ig% 56579565F@ and Thesaurus philologico9criticus linguae

+e-raeae et *haldaeae ;eteris Testamenti ?2eip$ig% 56F<[email protected]. mitrii Paloich Runich ?5=67956G7@ 4as curator of the St. Peters-urg school district from

56F5 to 56FG. A colla-orator in &agnits)ii's o-scurantist designs on education ?see a-oe% note

5F=@ he conducted a purge of 4estern oriented professors at the /niersit1 of St. Peters-urg. n

ascending the throne Nicholas Cuic)l1 replaced him. Runich 4as also a mason and held aninteresting correspondence 4ith Noi)o% 2opu)hin% ;.&. Popo% and others% pu-lished in

Russ)ii Ar)hi% 56=7956=5.56<. (lau-e% 2ie-e und +offnung 4as a catechetical 4or) pu-lished in 565 -1 #ohann +einrich

Bernard raese)e ?5==956<@. +e 4as -ishop of Saon1 from 56F and particularl1 noted as a

preacher espousing a humanistic *hristianit1 and attempting to reconcile rationalism and pietism. 5<7. Peter Bartene ?56F<956=@ 4as a student at &osco4 /niersit1 and a mem-er of

its facult1 in the historical9philological diision. +e made a great contri-ution to Russian

historical scholarship through a num-er of collections of historical documents% and 4as the

founder in 56G of the ournal Russ)ii Ar)hi.5<5. n hu)os)ii see chapter I;% note 550 for (eneral &erdeI see a-oe% note 55.

5<F. &arianus o-ma1er 4as a Baarian theologian% particularl1 influenced -1 the ideas of

Schelling. +is dates are 5=895678.5<. #ohann Ernst Schu-ert ?5=5=95==@ 4as a (erman theologian. Among uis man1 doctrinal

4or)s are *ompendium theologiae dogmaticae ?+elmstedt and +alle% 5=G7@ and Institutiones

theologiae dogmaticae ?2eip$ig% 5=<@. +e also 4rote a tet-oo) on moral theolog1 that 4astranslated into Russian -1 Ia)o Arsen'e ?see -elo4@.

5<. See a-oe% note 56.

5<8. See chapter I;% note .

5<G. B1 the 56G7's &a)arii ?565G9566F@ 4as one of the most respected and influentialecclesiastical figures and theologians in Russia. Born &i)hail Petroich Bulga)o% he attended

the ,ie Academ1% -ecame a mon) there and taught Russian *hurch and ciil histor1. In 56F he

transferred to the St. Peters-urg r'scadem1 as a professor of theolog1 and later -ecame rector.uring this period his main historical and theological 4or)s appeared: the first olume of his

massie Istoriia russ)oi tser)i came out in 56G956=% his doctoral dissertation edenie

-ogosloie 4as pu-lished in 56=% the first part of the fie olume ogosloie dogmatiches)oe4as issued in 56<% and in 568 &a)arii pu-lished his Istorila russ)ago ras)ola staroo-riadsta.

Besides these he 4rote a large num-er of lesser 4or)s% 4as a regular contri-utor to seeral

ournals and from 568 a mem-er of the Academ1 of Sciences. In 568= he -ecame -ishop of

Tam-o and succeeded to ,har')o and 2itos)% finall1 -ecoming metropolitan of &osco4 in

FG



56=<. See 3. Tito% &a)arii Bulga)o% mitropolit mos)os)ii ?,ie% 56:8@. &a)arii's theological

4or) is discussed -elo4% pp. F889FG5.

5<=. Ian &i)hailoich S)ortso ?5=<8956G@ taught at the St. Peters-urg Academ1% and later 4as professor of philosoph1 at the ,ie Academ1 and piofessor of theolog1 at &osco4

/niersit1. +e pu-lished t4o 4ell9)no4n 4or)s on canon la4% apis)i po tser)4nomu

$a)onoedeniiu ?th ed.% ,ie% 56=5956=@ and ida)h i stepenia)h rodsta ?,ie% 56G@% as4ell as the popular ,ate)hi$iches)iia poucheniia ?,ie% 568@. +is correspondence 4ith

Inno)entii Boriso 4as pu-lished -1 N.I. Barso in Trud1 ,ies)oi A)ademii% 566F9566.

5<6. See note 5.5<<. Amrosii Podo-edo ?5=F95656@% at one time a preacher and prefect at the &osco4

Academ1 and head of the Noospass)ii &onaster1% rose through the episcopal ran)s during

*atherine II's reign% -ecoming metropolitan of Nogorod and St. Peters-urg in 5=<5. +e is also

the compiler of So-ranie pouchitel'n1)h slo ?&osco4% 5657@ and did important 4or) 4ithRussian *hurch music.

F77. *arl (ottlie- +ofmann ?5=795===@ 4as a (erman preacher and professor of theolog1 at

"itten-erg. +is -asic eegetical 4or)s are Introductio in lectionem Noi Testamenti and

Institutiones theologiae eegeticae in usum academicarum praelectionum adornatae.F75. A student of &ichaelis and Buddeus% #ohn #aco- Ram-ach ?5G<95=8@ taught at the

/niersit1 of +alle. In his theolog1' he com-ined the premises of pietism 4ith the methods of "olffian philosoph1. +is -est )no4n 4or) is his Betrachtungen on the life and death of *hrist%

pu-lished in the collection Betrachtungen u-er das gan$e 2eiden *hristi und die sie-en let$en

"orte des ge)reu$igten #esu ?Basel% 56G8@. Ram-ach 4as also a popular poet and h1mnographer.F7F. Ioann o-ro$ra)o ?5=<7956=F@ taught orator1 and theolog1 in St. Peters-urg% and also

sered as the academ1's li-rarian. A mem-er of the censorship committee since 56F% he -ecame

rector of the academ1 t4o 1ears later. In 567 he -egan his episcopal career in Pen$a% 4as

moed to Ni$hnii9Nogorod in 568% and in 56= succeeded to arch-ishop of the on and Noocher)ass).

F7. See note 5<F.

F7. Bruno 3ran$ 2eopold 2ie-ermann ?5=8<956@% a #esuit% 4as head of the theological schoolat &ain$. +is Institutiones theologiae is an anti9rationalist approach to Roman *atholic theolog1.

F78. A student of Ram-ach's% +einrich ,lee ?56779567@ taught *hurch histor1% philosoph1 and

theolog1. +e is remem-ered for ie Beichte ?&ain$% 56F=@% 2ehr-uch der ogmengeschichte ?Fols.% &ain$% 56=9566@ and ,atholische ogmati) ? ols% &ain$% 568@.

F7G. 3riedrich Brenner ?5=69566@ 4as a (erman *atholic theologian and apologist. +is chief

dogmatic 4or)s are ,atholische ogmati) ?56F6956F<@ and (enerelle dogmati) oder0

3undamentirung der )atholischen speculatien theologie [email protected]=. The Russian title is Bogosloiia nrastennaia ili )hristians)iia nastaleniia% )otor1)h

iasno i terdo do)a$an1 dol$hnosti )hristianina% o-shchestennom ili gra$hdans)om%

domashnem i5i tser)onom sostoianii na)hodiashchagosia ?&osco4% 567@. Ia)o Arsen'eichArsen'e ?5=G69566@ taught 2atin% rhetoric and philosoph1 at the ,ostroma Semiriar1% and for

man1 1ears 4as archpriest of the /sspens)ii LAssumptionM cathedral of ,ostroma.

F76. Parfenii Sop)os)ii ?5=5G95=<8@ taught rhetoric at the seminar1 in Nogorod and 4as later prefect and rector there. In 5=8< he 4as named a icar to the Nogorod -ishop and from 5=G5

sered as -ishop of Smolens) and mem-er of the S1nod.

F7<. 2eitfaden $u ;orlisungen u-er die Pastoral9theologie ?5=6F@. 3ran$ (iftschut$ ?5=695=66@

4as a professor of theolog1 at the /niersit1 of ;ienna.

FG8



F57. Primaril1 a linguist% Ian Ianoich mitres)ii 4as a student at the &osco4 Academ1 and

taught there until 5678. +e also sered as a translator for the +ol1 S1nod% and pu-lished

translations of St. *lement ?5=65@ and the philsoopher Isocrates ?5=6<5.F55. Stepan mitrieich Nechae ?5=<F956G7@ 4as formerl1 the director of the Tula school

district and sered in Nicholas I's Imperial *hanceller1. 2ater he -ecame a senator. +e carried on

a alua-le correspondence 4ith 3ilaret of &osco4% pu-lished as Perepis)a mitropolitamos)os)ago 3ilareta s S.. Nechae1m ?St. Peters-urg% 56<8@.

F5F. #ean Baptiste +enri 2acordaire ?567F956G5@ 4as a famous preacher in 3rance and helped

restore the ominican rder there. As a 1oung la4 student he possessed etreme li-eral andatheistic ie4s% -ut then a-andoned a promising la4 career 4hen he returned to the *atholic

*hurch and -ecame a priest. +e 4as one of the main figures in 2amennais' moement to re-uild

the influence of the *atholic *hurch in 3rance -1 adopting li-eral social and political ie4s.

F5. A reised statute for the uniersities 4as issued on #ul1 FG% 568. According to it much of the po4er and responsi-ilities of the uniersit1 councils 4as transfered to the district curator% an

appointee of the &inister of Education. The 1ear -efore that priate schools and een tutors 4ere

dra4n into the &inistr1 of Education's domain% thus esta-lishing a firm% structured net4or) of

goernment superised education.F5. Ni)odim ,a$antse ?567956=@% a student at &osco4 Academ1% 4as a professor and

inspector there and sered as rector of seeral seminaries. 2ater he -ecame -ishop of Enisei. +ismemoirs of 3ilaret% 3ilarete% mitropolite mos)os)om% moia pamiat'% 4ere pu-lished in

*hteniia &os)os)om -shcheste Istorii i renostei Rossiis)i)h% 56==.

F58. Ale)sandr Ianoich ,arases)ii ?5=<G9568G@ -egan his goernment career in the &inistr1of "ar. +e oined the *ommission on Ecclesiastical Schools in 56F% an 4hen it -ecame a

department of the +ol1 S1nod in 56< he 4as its first director. uring the reign of Aleander II

he continued to 4or) in educational administration and 4as especiall1 actie in opening schools

for 4omen.F5G. *ount Pael mitrieich ,isele ?5=66956=F@% a reno4ned general and statesman% 4as the

chief administrator of the Russian forces occup1ing &oldaia and "allachia from 56F< to 56.

3rom 56= to 568G he 4as &inister of State Properties% and introduced ast reforms concerningthe state peasants that sered as a prelude to the great reforms of Aleander II's reign. After 568G

,isele sered as Russian am-assador in Paris.

F5=. It 4ill -e recalled that the Spiritual Regulation and other documents related to theesta-lishment of the S1nodal s1stem under Peter the (reat 4ere 4ritten in a didactic st1le% at

once ustif1ing and eplaining the ne4 order 4hile outlining the proper duties of the *hristian

citi$en to his *hurch and to his statc. See a-oe% chapter I;% section II.

F56. The rthodo *hurch -eliees that communicants parta)e of the real -od1 and -lood of *hrist% -ut traditionall1 her theologians 4ere neer concerned as to ho4 the transformation of

the -read and 4ine is accomplished in the liturg1. The term “transu-stantiation! and the

distinction of “form! and “matter! it implies 4ere -orro4ed -1 earl1 Russian theologians fromscholastic sources.

F5<. A graduate of the #esuit Academ1 in Polots)% ,onstantin Stepanoich Ser-inoich ?5=<=9

56=@ for a long time 4as editor of the #ournal of the &inistr1 of Education. +e also headedPrataso's chanceller1 from 568G9568<. Ser-inoich 4as close to ,aram$in% A.I. Turgene and

Shish)o and left interesting notes on them as 4ell as correspondence.

FGG



FF7. The apoedi tser)on1ia are nine ?sometimes ten@ rules regarding the *hurch life of the

-elieer. The1 deal 4ith pra1er% )eeping the fasts% participation in the Sacraments% o-edience to

one's priest% aoiding the 4ritings and compan1 of heretics% etc.FF5. &a)arii Bulga)o. See note 5<G and -elo4.

FFF. The ,ormchaia )niga 4as first pu-lished in 5G87. See chapter III% note F.

FF. Ale)sandr Petroich ,units1n ?5=69565@ 4as a professor at St. Peters-urg /niersit1 and4or)ed on the *ommission on 2a4s for Aleander and in Nicholas I's Imperial *hanceller1.

Influenced in his teaching -1 ,ant and Rousseau% his Prao estestennoe ?St. Peters-urg% 5656@

caused a controers1 that forced him to leae the uniersit1. ,units1n 4as also the author of Istoriches)oe i$o-ra$henie dreniago sudoproi$odsta Rossii ?St. Peters-urg% 56@.

FF. Agustin Sa)haro ?5=G69565@ taught homiletics and (ree) at the St. Peters-urg Academ1%

and later 4as rector of seminaries in Iaroslal and Ria$an'. +e -ecame -ishop of ren-urg in

567G% -ut retired to the ;arruts)ii &onaster1 in Iaroslal in 5656. There he compiled his 58olume Polnoe so-ranie du)hon1)h $a)ono.

FF8. The u)hon1i reglament 4as the' document -1 4hich Peter the (reat's *hurch reform 4as

eecuted. See a-oe% chapter I;% section II.

FFG. In his long career Afanasii ?5677956=G@ taught at the &osco4 Academ1 and sered as rector of seminaries in Pen$a% ,ostroma% Ria$an'% and ,herson -efore -ecoming rector of the St.

Peters-urg Academ1 in 565. The net 1ear he -egan his episcopal career as a icar to the -ishopof Podolia transferred to Sarato in 56= and eentuall1 -ecame arch-ishop of Astra)han%

retiring in 56=7.

FF=. Eseii ?56769566@ 4as a 4ell9)no4n ecclesiastical 4riter 4ho sered as rector of -oththe &osco4 and St. Peters-urg Academies. +e also sered as -ishop of Samara% Ir)uts) and

&ogile. Among his 4or)s are /teshenie s)or-i i -ole$ni ?56=<@% Ra$m1shleniia na molitu

(ospodniu ?56=5@% and Besed1 na os)resn1ia i pra$dnichn1ia Eangeliia ?56=G@.

FF6. See a-oe% note 5<.FF<. Photius 4as patriarch of *onstantinople from 68696G= and 6=6966G. An important figure in

the histor1 of the schism -et4een the Eastern and "estern *hurches% he 4as the first to attac)

the ftlioCue on theological grounds and 4as heail1 inoled in theological polemics as 4ell asecclesiastical9political intrigues. Photius 4as the most learned scholar of <th centur1 B1$antium%

and in man1 4a1s represents the end of the great Patristic era. The most recent stud1 of Photius

is Richard S. +augh's Photius and the *arolingians ?Nordland% 5<[email protected]. Bruno Bauer ?567<9566F@ 4as a (erman Protestant Bi-lical critic and historian. In his t4o

maor 4or)s% ,riti) der eangelischen (eschichte des #ohannes ?567@ and ,riti) der

eangelischen (eschichte der S1nopti)er ?F ols.% 5659 566F@ he denied the historicit1 of #esus

*hrist and Cuestioned the foundations of traditional *hristian doatrine. Bauer's 4or)s 4ereintluential on Niet$sche and &ar. aid Strauss ?5676956=@ 4as a theologian of the Tu-ingen

school% 4hich interepreted the (ospels in m1thological terms and 4as strongl1 influenced -1

+egel. +is chief 4or) is as (e-en #esu )ritisch -ear-eitet ?568956G@. The 4or)s of these t4oscholars produced intense de-ates on the “historical #esus “ ultimatel1 leading to the “li-eral!

school represented -1 Adolph +arnac) and the “eschatological! school of Al-ert Sch4eit$er.

F5. The Essenes 4ere mem-ers of a #e4ish sect that flourished in Palestine from the secondcentur1 B.*. to the end of the first centur1 A.. Although practices among different groups

aried% the1 generall1 ecluded 4omen% scrupulousl1 o-sered the &osaic la4 and reected

4orship in the temple in #erusalem% resem-ling in their teaching the man1 dualistic m1ster1

religions of the time. The ead Sea Scrolls come from an Essene communit1 at Kumran. The

FG=



Therapeutae 4ere a similar sect% -ut -red out of the #udaic +ellenistic moement in Eg1pt at the

end of the first centur1 B.*. The1 4ere strictl1 ascetic and contemplatie. Philo #udaeus% or Philo

of Aleandria ?c. 5 B.*. > c. 87 A.@. 4as the greatest #e4ish philosopher and theologian of the (reco9Roman period of #e4ish histor1. +e 4as deepl1 influenced -1 Plato and attempted to

ma)e #udaism comprehensi-le to the (ree)s.

FF. &arcion 4as a second centur1 semi9gnostic heretic 4ho -elieed in t4o gods% the ldTestament (od of anger and retri-ution 4ho created the 4orld and eil% and the father of #esus

*hrist% 4ho 4as perfect goodness and completel1 aloof from the 4orld. *ondemned in Rome in

5% he produced a (ospel that 4as essentiall1 the Pauline epistles and 2u)e minus 4hateer &arcion considered #e4ish corruptions. The rest of Scripture he completel1 reected. The

*hurch's canon of -oo)s of Scripture 4as considera-l1 hastened -1 &arcion's (ospel.

F. ;asilii Ni)olaeich ,arpo ?5=<6956G=@ 4as a philosopher of the Idealist tradition. +e

taught philosoph1 at the ,ie and St. Peters-urg Academies% and among his man1 4or)s is;edenie filosofiiu ?St. Peters-urg% 567@. +is chief reno4n% ho4eer% is as the Russian

translator of Plato ?the second% complete edition of Plato's 4or)s came out in St. Peters-urg from

56G to 56=<@.

F. Auguste 3riedrich "in)ler ?5=G=9566@% a (erman% 4as a professor of philosoph1 at the/niersit1 of +alle and later at #ena. +is “tet-oo)! 4as standard in man1 uniersities

throughout (erman1 and Eastern Europe.F8. ;asilii Borisoich Ba$hano ?56779566@ graduated from the St. Peters-urg Academ1 and

taught (erman there. +e sered also as a catechist at the Second &ilitar1 Academ1 -efore

replacing Pas)ii as religious tutor to the future Emperor Aleander II in 568. In 566 he -ecame the confessor for the imperial famil1 and chief priest at the court chapel. +is lessons for

Aleander 4ere pu-lished in 56< as - o-ia$annostia)h )hristianina.

FG. Seredins)ii ?56FF956<=@ later 4as a 4ell9)no4n chaplain at the Russian em-assies in

Naples and Berlin. +e authored -ogoslu$henii $apadnoi tser)i ?St. Peters-urg% 56<9568G@and numerous other 4or)s on *atholic and Protestant religious life.

F=. Agafangel su-seCuentl1 -ecame arch-ishop of ;ol1nia and in the 56G7's he openl1 attac)ed

the er Procurator's domineering and ar-itrariness. +e died in 56=G.F6. This 4as the corrected Slaonic ersion commissioned -1 the +ol1 S1nod in 5=F -ut first

issued in 5=85% during the reign of Empress Eli$a-eth.

F<. A professor of theolog1 and (ree)% &i)hail Ismailoich Bogoslos)ii ?567=9566@ later -ecame the head chaplain of the armed forces and a enera-le protopres-1ter at the /sspens)ii

cathedral in &osco4. +e pu-lished a ,urs o-shchago tser)onago praa ?&osco4% 5668@ and

too) an actie part in translating the ld Testament into Russian.

F7. The /chilishcha Praoedeniia LSchool of #urisprudenceM 4as esta-lished in St. Peters-urgin 568 through the efforts of Prince Petr (. l'den-urg. It 4as administered under the auspices

of the &inistr1 of #ustice and 4as eclusiel1 for no-le 1ouths. I.S. A)sa)o and the composer

*hai)os)ii 4ere among its famous students.F5. mitrii &ureto graduated from the ,ie Academ1 in 56% and 4as a professor and rector

there. Named -ishop of Tula in 5687% he 4ent to ,herson% or dessa% first in 568= and succeeded

to arch-ishop of Iaroslal in 56=% returning to the *rimea the net 1ear as arch-ishop.FF. The1 had -een pu-lished in ,hristians)oe chtenie in 56F as ogmatic Teaching Selected

from the "ritings of our +ol1 3ather imitrii of Rosto% Saint and &iracle "or)er LSiatago

ottsa nashego imitriia Rostos)ago% siatitelia i chudotortsa% dogmatiches)oe uchenie%

1-rannoe i$ ego sochineniiM. L Author's note M .

FG6



F. The S1m-ol of 3aith% the Nicene9*onstantinopolitan creed% is diided into four parts% on

(od the 3ather% #esus *hrist% the +ol1 Spirit% and the *hurch% and each part contains seeral

articles.F. Inno)entii Boriso. See a-oe% note GG.

F8. &a)arii Bulga)o sered as chairman of the committee to discuss the reform of church

courts% formed in 56=7. The issue 4hich the committee addressed% the po4er and function of ecclesiastical courts% 4as greatl1 pu-lici$ed. A histor1 of a-uses had led the pu-lic to distrust the

as-itrariness of -ishops and to push for an ecclesiastical udiciar1 4hich 4ould -e autonomous

of the eecutie -ranch of the church. *ount .A. Tolstoi% a supporter of this li-eral position%appointed &a)arii chairman of the committee on the -asis of his li-eral position on the reform of

the ecclesiastical s1stem of education. After three 1ears of internal disputes% the committee

proposed a -ill -ased on the separation of udicial and eecutie po4ers. This -ill earned &a)arii

and the committee -itter criticism from all of the influential -ishops% as eemplified -1 A.3.2aro% The Planned Reform of the Ecclesiastical *ourt ?Peters-urg% 56=% ;ol. I@. 3or a more

detailed discussion% see Igor Smolitsch% (eschichte er Russischen ,irche 5=7795<5= ?2eiden%

5<G@% pp. 5=9==.FG. Ni)anor Bro)oich. See a-oe% note 5<.

F=. A graduate of the &osco4 Academ1% Ni)ita Petroich (iliaro9Platono ?56F9566=@ 4as a4ell9)no4n commentator on current affairs. +e taught at the &osco4 Academ1% 4as a mem-er

of the &osco4 censorship committee% and carried out special commissions for the &inistr1 of Education. 3rom 56G= until his death he deoted himself to pu-licistic actiit1% pu-lishing a

dail1 ne4spaper in &osco4 4ith Slaophile leanings ?Soremenn1e I$estiia@ and contri-uting

to other Slaophile ournals. +is auto-iograph1% I$ pere$hitogo ?&osco4% 566G@ contains atalented portra1al of the mores of his time and the spiritual enironment of the ecclesiastical

schools of 4hich he 4as a product.

F6. Istoriia russ)oi tser)i% in 5 olumes0 most recentl1 pu-lished in St. Peters-urg% 566<9

5<7.F<. Ioann So)olo ?5656956G<@ is -est remem-ered as a preacher and canonist. +e studied at

the &osco4 Academ1 and taught in ,a$an' and St. Peters-urg%4here he 4as also rector. +e died

as -ishop of Smolens). +is p1t )ursa tser)onago $a)onoedeniia ?St. Peters-urg% 56859568F@is a fundamental 4or) on Russian canon la4. See -elo4% pp. F8<9FGF.

F87. See a-oe% note 5<.

F85. n Strauss and Bauer see a-oe% note F7. 2ud4ig Andreas 3euer-ach ?567956=F@ 4as afamous (erman atheist philosopher. +e taught that (od is a su-ectie principle produced -1 the

human consciousness and that all religion is ps1chological illusion. +is chief 4or) is as "esen

des *hristentums ?2eip$ig% 5650 English translation The Essence of *hristianit1% 2ondon% 568@

and his collected 4or)s 4ere pu-lished also in 2eip$ig from 56G to 56GG.F8F. The Sure1 4as first pu-lished as articles in *hristian Reading in 568F and 568% and then

separatel1 in 568G and 5686. LAuthor's noteM.

F8. The *rimean "ar ?56889568G@ had sho4n clearl1 to all the shortcomings in the Russianstate% and 4hen Aleander II too) the throne in 5688 he immediatel1 turned his attention to

comprehensie reforms of the Russian social% political% legal% and militar1 s1stem. The first

pro-lem to -e dealt 4ith 4as that of the peasantr1. In 568G Aleander opened official discussionon the emancipation of the serfs% and after much stalling on the part of the lando4ning no-les the

Act of Emancipation 4as issued in 56G5. This 4as follo4ed in 56G -1 political reforms%

creating the organs of local self9goernment the $emtstos% and a ne4 court s1stem 4ith ur1

trials. *ensorship 4as relaed and the educational s1stem epanded particularl1 at the primar1

FG<



leel. n the one hand these reforms -rought some hope to disaffected segments of societ1% -ut

eentuall1 the1 proed insufficient to deal 4ith the pressing pro-lems Russia 4as facing.

F8. Afanasii Pro)of'eich Shchapo ?567956=G@ 4as a Russian historian of the federalist or “regional! school% 4hich concentrated on the histor1 of popular% rather than goernmental

institutions. A son of a priest near Ir)uts) in Si-eria% he graduated from the ,a$an' Academ1 and

taught Russian histor1 -oth there and at ,a$an' /niersit1. +e 4as deepl1 interested in the plightof the peasantr1% and 4as arrested in 56G5 for critici$ing the recent reforms for their inadeCuac1

in another pu-lic address. +is chief 4or) is his stud1 of the *hurch Schism% emsto i ras)ol

?St. Peters-urg% 56GF@. +is collected 4or)s 4ere printed in three olumes in St. Peters-urg%5<7G95<76.

F88. It 4as pu-lished in The rthodo Interlocutor LPraoslan1i so-esedni)M% 56G. LAuthor's

noteM .

F8G. Ale)sei Petroich A)hmato ?5656956=7@ 4as er Procurator of the +ol1 S1nod for onl1a 1ear ?56G956G@. A soldier -1 profession% he 4as a caalr1 officer in the *rimean "ar% rose to

the ran) of adutant9general% and sered as militar1 goernor of ,har')o.

F8=. The -ishops of the rthodo *hurch are traditionall1 dra4n eclusiel1 from the monastics.

If a non9mon) is elected to an episcopal see he must first -e tonsured a mon) -efore he can -econsecrated.

F86. St. Athanasius ?F<89=@% -ishop of Aleandria% 4as a great Trinitarian theologian andleader of the struggle against the Arians. The *appadocians are Basil the (reat ?d. =<@% -ishop

of *aesarea and a leading defender of Nicene orthodo10 (regor1 of Na$ian$us ?d. <7@% )no4n

as “the Theologian! for -oth his doctrinal 4or)s and spiritual poetr10 aiid (regor1 of N1ssa ?d.<@% 4hose 4or) tended to -e more philosophical and m1stical. St. Ephrem the S1rian ?c. 7G9

=@ 4as the most important representatie of S1rian *hristianit1 in the fourth centur1. +e left

man1 theological 4or)s% Bi-lical commentaries and h1mns.

F8<. er Procurator of the +ol1 S1nod from 5667 to 5<78% ,onstantin PetroichPo-edonostse ?56F=95<7=@ 4as an ultra9conseratie and nationalist thin)er. The son of a

priest% he -egan his career in the ciil serice% and also lectured in la4 at the /niersit1 of

&osco4. In 56G5 he 4as hired as a tutor to Aleander II's son the future Aleander III% and later he 4as in charge of the education of Nicholas II% the last tsar of Russia. In 56G he 4or)ed on the

legal reforms and 4as named to the Senate and the State *ouncil. Po-edonostse 4as at the head

of the conseratie reaction follo4ing the assassination of Aleander II in 5665 and remained aclose adisor to Aleander III and Nioholas II. Although he possessed great erudition and 4as

4idel1 traeled% his etreme ideas isolated him from contemporar1 intellectual societ1% and one

of his onl1 friends 4as the noelist ostoes)ii. See R.3. B1mes% Po-edonostse: +is 2ife and

Thought ?5<[email protected]. dogmatiches)om dostoinste i o)hranitelhom upotre-lenii greches)ago semidesiat1

tol)oni)o i slaians)ago pereoda Siashchennago Pisaniia. It 4as pu-lished onl1 in 5686 in

the &osco4 Academ1 #ournal Supplement.FG5. (ariil 4as formerl1 a professor at the seminar1 in Ria$an' and rector of the rlo

Seminar1. In 56F6 he 4as made -ishop of ,aluga then moed to &ogile in 565% 4here he

4or)ed to -ring the /niates of "est Russia -ac) into the rthodo *hurch. In 56= he -ecamearch-ishop of Ria$an'% 4here he remained until his death in 56GF.

FGF. Ni)olai (erasimoich Pomialos)ii ?568956G@ 4as a graduate of the St. Peters-urg

seminar1. +is critiCue of the seminaries% cher)i -urs1 4as printed in the ournals ;remia and

Soremenni) in 56GF956G. n Rostislao see a-oe% note 587. Ian Sa4ich Ni)itin ?56F9

F=7



56G5@ 4as a 4ell9)no4n Russian poet. +is neni) seminarista Liar1 of a SeminarianM appared

in ;orone$hs)aia Beseda in 56G5.

FG. ;i)tor Ipat'eich As)ochens)ii ?56F7956=<@ studied at the ;orone$h Seminar1 and finishedthe master's course at the ,ie Academ1. Remaining in the chair of patrolog1% he -ecame a full

professor in 56G. &ost of his literar1 actiit1 4as in the ournal omashniaia Beseda% 4hich he

founded in 568 -ut -ecause of censorship did not come out until 5686. +e also 4rote a shortIstoriia russ)oi literatur1 ?,ie% 56G@ and ,ie s dreneishim ego uchilishchem ?,ie% 568G@.

FG. The ,a$an' g1mnasium 4as gien uniersit1 status onl1 in 5678% t4o 1ears -efore A)sa)o

graduated% and he dou-ted the school's a-ilit1 to grant him a uniersit1 degree. SergeiTimofeeich A)sa)o ?5=<59568<@ the father of the Slaophiles ,onstantin and Ian% 4as a ciil

serant inspired -1 the 4or)s of (ogol to produce his o4n noels. +is three chief 4or)s all

translated into English% are the auto-iographical noels Semeinaia )hroni)a ?568G0 English

translation *hronicle of a Russian 3amil1% 5<F@% ;ospominaniia ?568G Auto-iograph1 of aRussian School-o1% 5<5=@% and ets)ii god1 -agroa9nu)a ?56860 Dears of *hildhood% 5<5G@.

FG8. Ra$nochinets 4as a term applied in the l6th and l<th centuries to “people of arious

classes%! or those 4ho left their hereditar1 social station 4ithout formerl1 entering another legal

class. &ore specificall1 in Russian literature it refers to mem-ers of the lo4er social strata% suchas peasants and priest's sons% 4ho too) leading roles in the proincial intelligentsia.

FGG. A political reactionar1 and literar1 disciple of Shish)o Prince Platon Ale)sandroichShirins)ii9Shi)hmato ?5=<79568@ -egan to 4or) for the &inistr1 of Education in 56F% and

4as minister from 5687 until his death. +e also headed the St. Peters-urg Archeographic

*ommission and 4as a mem-er of the Academ1 of Sciences.FG=. Araam Sergeeich Noro ?5=<8956G<@ 4as a hero of the -attle of Borodino% and after4ards

4or)ed in asious goernment offices. In 5687 he -ecame assistant &iruster of Education and

succeeded Shirins)ii9Shi)mato in 568% remaining in the post until 5686. Noro 4as ersed in

man1 languages and 4as er1 4ell traeled% leaing a fie olume Puteshestiia ?St. Peters-urg%568@ of a ourne1 to Sicil1% the +ol1 2and and Eg1pt.

Aout the Author.

Born in dessa in 56<% 3ather (eorges 3loros)1 4as Assistant Professor at the /niersit1 of

dessa in 5<5<. +aing left Russia% 3r.3loros)1 taught philosoph1 in Prague from 5<FF until

5<FG. +e 4as then inited to the chair of Patrolog1 at St. Sergius' rthodo Theological Institutein Paris.

In 5<6 3r. 3loros)1 came to the /nited States. +e 4as Professor and ean of St. ;ladimir's

Theological School until 5<88% 4hile also teaching as Adunct Professor at *olum-ia /niersit1and /nion Theological Seminar1.

3rom 5<8G until 5<G 3r. 3loros)1 held the chair of Eastern *hurch +istor1 at +arard

/niersit1. Since 5<G he has taught Slaic studies and histor1 at Princeton /niersit1 until hisdeath.

3r. (eorges 3loros)1% Emeritus Professor of Eastern *hurch +istor1 at +arard /niersit1 and

recipient of numerous honorar1 degrees% 4as a mem-er of the American Academ1 of Arts and

Sciences.3r. (eorges 3loros)1 died on August 5 5% 5<=<.

F=5



Aout the Editor.

AB/T T+E EITR: r. Richard S. +augh% ;isiting Professor of *hurch +istor1 at Rice/niersit1 4as appointed (eneral Editor of "a1s of Russian Theolog1 -1 3r 3loros)1 r

ways of russian theology, fr. george florovsky

Documents