Christianization of Russia

The Christianization of Ancient Russia
A Millennium: 988-1988
The Christianization
of Ancient Russia
A Millennium: 988-1988
Edited by Yves Hamant
U N E S CO
The authors are responsible for the choice and the
presentation of the facts contained in this book and
for the opinions expressed therein, which are not
necessarilythose of U N E S CO and do not commit the
Organization.
Published in 1992 by the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization
7 place de Fontenoy, 75700 Paris, France
Typeset by the U N E S CO Press
Printed by Imprimerie de la Manutention, Mayenne
ISBN 92-3-102642-9
French edition (1989): 92-3-202642-2
UNES CO 1992
Printed in France
Preface
The thousandth anniversaryof the introduction of Christianity into Rus' was
celebrated by a number of cultural events, including a symposium organized by
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization from 28
to 30 June 1988. The present work assembles the papers delivered on that occa-
sion which gave some thirtyleading figures from religious, scientific and uni-
versity circles an opportunityto consider the Christianization of ancient - or
Kievan - Rus' from a wide varietyof viewpoints.
The participants began by studying the baptism of Vladimir and the inhab-
itants of Kiev in 988, and the events leading up to it, in an attempt to throw
light on its circumstances and consequences. The event was clearlyof mome n-
tous religious and spiritual significance. It denoted the expansion of the Kievan
State and its entry into the ranks of the great nations, while heralding the birth
of Eastern Slav culture. Then again it demonstrated the original way in which
Rus' had assimilated the Byzantine heritage through the work of Cyril and
Methodius and their disciples.
The Symposium was further intended to examine the impact of the con-
version to Christianityon the entire historical and socio-cultural development
of the Eastern Slavs up to the present day. The situation could not of course be
viewed from every angle; however, the participants proposed guidelines and
marked out the terrain for future research.
The Christianization of ancient Rus' is a living proof of the dialectical link
between what constitutes cultural unityas the distinct mode of human exis-
tence, and pluralityof cultures as specific to particular societies. 'Art springs
from two founts of music,' noted Blok in his Diary, 'one of creative individual-
ity and one sounding at the very soul of an entire people, a collective soul.' Dif-
ferent cultures, by enriching one another, have contributed to the advance of
civilizations bydrawing from the innermost sources of the evangelical message.
In the same way, the influence of Byzantium and of the heritage of Cyril and
Methodius contributed to the emergence of anew community without extin-
guishing the identityand ethnic distinctness of the peoples of Rus' .
Christianity therefore was already displaying its capacitynot to absorb the
culture of peoples converting to it. O ne of the lessons to be drawn from Vladi-
mir's conversion is that man looks to knowledge, creation and faith in order to
find the reasons for his existence and the strength to reach beyond himself. So,
whether such faith be scientific, ethical or religious in nature, it shares in the
culture of individuals and societies and in the assertion of individual and collec-
tive personalities. As a secular Organization, U N E S CO is aware that, if it is to
fulfil its ethical role, it has to muster the sum of forces regulating the spiritual
dimension of human existence. The Russian worddoukhovnyi means both 'intel-
lectual' and 'spiritual'. Few words could express more pithily the nature of
U N E S CO ' s work, which aims to develop the intelligence and its fruits, and to
harness these for the common good by ensuring that intellectual processes are
oriented, guided and stimulated by a spiritual impetus, whether it be a philo-
sophical ideal, an attachment to moral values, or religious faith.
'Yet,' as Jean Guhenno wrote, 'inequalityis an insuperable barrier tocom-
munication of the faith. Being alone in one's beliefs is nothing in itself. Faith
cannot live or give warmth unless it is shared and comes to fulness quite nat-
urallyincommon prayer.' In these times of rapid economic, social and cultural
change, the development of the means of communication is compressing dis-
tances and enmeshing the globe in a net of interdependency that no one can
ignore. Each of us is a member sutgeneris of a community that is both unique and
highly diverse and promises toremain indivisible in the future. This pre-
ordained community exists already. It falls to us to transform it into cultural
reality. N o such policyof life can conceivably be carried out without a surge of
solidaritybetween individuals, societies and nations. Yet this moral and indeed
compassionate message of fraternal love, and hence of peace for there can be
no peace without knowledge of others is uttered by every religion in the
world. Hence receptivityto faith may contribute to achieving no less an aspira-
tion of today's world than the survival of the human race. However, solidarity
is important for other reasons too: it enjoins that above and beyond any diffe-
rences that exist, the whole human race - not just individuals and governments,
but religions too should strive to create a worldwide environment inwhich
all may live freelyand happily in a spirit of fraternitywith their neighbours,
whoever theymay be. Only those wh o strive with each new day to overstep the
limits of the possible can hope to change realityhereafter. And that is precisely
where solidaritytakes root.
Federico Mayor
Director-General of U N E S CO
To the reader
The country whose inhabitants were baptized in the year 988 was known in
their language as Rus' (the apostrophe indicates the palatalization of the preced-
ing consonant) and is transliterated thus in these pages to indicate the Medieval
Kievan State. That state was quite distinct from the political entity that was to
appear in the fourteenth centuryaroundMoscow under the Russian name of
'Kossiya'. To avoid confusion and conform to increasinglycommon practice in
scientific publications, the term 'Russia' has been used here in place of 'Kossiya'.
Proper nouns in Slavonic languages employing the Cyrillic alphabet are
given the usual transcription in the main body of the work (e.g. Prince Yaros-
lav, Pushkin the poet), while great names in historyand those of leading
churchmen are anglicized as a rule (e.g. Prince Andrew, Bishop Porphyrus).
O n the other hand, for the quotations and notes, the transliteration recom-
mended by the International Organization for Standardization has been used
(e.g. Puskin, Lihacev, Porfirij).
Yves Hamant
Contents
Part O ne
Archpriest Nikolai Shivarov
DimiterAngelov
Nikolai Todorov
Boris Kauschenbach
Yaroslav Shchapov
Iannis Karayannopoulos
Miguel Arranz, S.J.
Jean-Pierre Arrignon
VladimirVodoff
CHRISTIANITY REACHES KIEVAN RUS':
THE SOURCES
The W ork of Cyril and Methodius in Bulgaria and its
transmission toKievan Rus' 15
The introduction of Christianity intoRus': the work of
Cyril and Methodius 29
The conversion of Rus' to Christianity 37
The development of Kievan Rus' in the wake of
Christianization 43
The assimilationby Kievan Rus' of the classical and
Byzantine heritage: the role of Christianization 55
Christianization: a turning-point in the history of Rus' 65
The baptism of Prince Vladimir 75
The religious achievements of Yaroslav the Wise 95
The conversion of Rus' : a subject of international historical
research 105
Part T wo CHRISTIANITY, ART AND CULTURE
Svetan Grozdanov Macedonia, Serbia and Russian medieval art 115
Stanislav Martselev Christianityand the development of architecture and art in
Western Rus' 127
Yves Marnant The evolution of Russian ecclesiastical architecture in the
seventeenth century 135
Sergey Averintsev The baptism of Rus' and the path of Russian culture 139
Aristide Wirsta
Elena Smorgunova
Part Three
Vladimir Zielinksy
Dimitri Schakhovskqy
Frank Kmpfer
Part Four
Francis Conte
Metropolitan Philaret
Stanislav Koltunyuk
Metropolitan Juvenal
Nikita Struve
Part Five
Yury Kochubey
Fr Mircea Pcurariu
Todor Sabev
The Byzantine origins of medieval sacred music inKievan
Rus' 149
The role of the book in the Christianization of Rus' 155
THE TH E ME OF ' HO LY RUSSIA'
The gift and enigma of'Holy Russia' 161
The genesis and permanence of 'Holy Russia' 179
The image of Russian Christianity in the West and the
concept of 'Holy Russia' 193
CHRISTIANITY AN D SOCIETY
Paganism and Christianity in Russia: 'double' or 'triple'
faith? 207
The influence of Christianityon the cultural and spiritual
development of society 217
The Millennium of the conversion of Rus' to
Christianity 229
The Russian Orthodox Church: past and present 233
Atheism and religion in the Soviet Union 255
INTERCHURCH RELATIONS YE S TE RDAY
AN D TO DAY
The Russian Orthodox Church in the Ukraine and its ties
with the Christian East 263
Ecclesiastical and cultural relations between Romania and
Russia 269
The Russian Orthodox Church and the ecumenical
movement 281
Part Six
Yves Hamant
HISTORICAL LAN DMARKS
Historical landmarks 303
APPENDICES
S ummary of the proceedings of the symposium 325
Message from Patriarch Pimen 335
Message from Patriarch Dimitrios 337
Part One
CHRISTIANITY
REACHES KIEVAN RUS':
THE SOURCES
The work of Cyril and Methodius
in Bulgaria and its transmission
to Kievan Rus'
Archpriest Nikolai Shivarov
Culture is an important and noteworthy part of life in human society. In its his-
torical aspect it undoubtedly includes man' s relationship to the world around
him (both nature and society) and to himself and all the material and spiritual
values created by him. In this sense literature, science and music are integral
parts of culture, while still standing apart from or parallel to it.
1
T he history of a people is also formed by the mutual relations between it
and its neighbours. Its culture includes not only its o w n creative experience and
the traditional heritage of previous generations, but also the cultural achieve-
ments of other countries and peoples. T he wid e variety of forms of culture and
the links between them show the unacceptability of either cultural diffusionism
involving an od d amalgamation, or of cultural relativism strangely isolating
each particular people. Und oubted ly, when ancient states disappear from the
historical scene, muc h of their civilization disappears. All the same, it does not
all perish. Outstanding cultural achievements remain and sooner or later pass
into the treasury of succeeding times. E ach successive stage in the history of a
people is also linked to the one that went before. T o a greater or lesser degree,
great achievements are passed on from generation to generation, albeit often
reinterpreted.
Historical research shows that the Eastern R o ma n Empire, known much
later as the Byzantine Empire, was composed of many nationalities. T hrough its
eastern provinces the cultural values of the civilization of the ancient Near East
passed into it, and within its territory lived peoples w h o were bearers of their
o wn culture (including Slavs) and even those w h o had their o wn written lan-
guage (such as the Phrygians, Cappad ocians and Aramaic Syrians). T he classical
Greek heritage left a d eep mark and the Greek language acted as a unifying fac-
tor. E ven in this, however, the spirit of a new age could be felt. Despite the aspi-
16 Archpriest Nikolai Shivarov
ration to preserve the purityof the ancient Attic language on a level cor-
responding to the language of the ancient authors which served as a model,
many barbarisms crept into the language, as did the new terminology of church
and doctrine, while, almost imperceptibly, a new vernacular came into being.
2
The Byzantine Church was the heir of the early Christian Church both in its
theological and its general religious aspects. The fourth century, the classical
age both of theology and of theological literature, while marking the furthest
point of development of the Church up to that time, laid the foundations for
the subsequent evolution of Byzantine theological thought. Beginning in the
fourth century the capital of the EasternRoman Empire, Constantinople or the
' N e w Rome ' , graduallybecame the centre of all cultural life. This is why the
main works on the historyof theological literature in the Byzantine Empire
begin from the sixth century.
3
The work of the teachers of the Slavs, SS Cyril and Methodius, is inextric-
ably linked to the cultural development of the East. They were born and edu-
cated in Byzantium and inspired by the Fathers of the Eastern Church. The
extended life of St Cyril witnesses to the deep respect he felt for St Gregory
Nazianzen and the profound influence this eminent theologian and writer had
on him.
4
The two brothers translated the Eastern Liturgy, which is based on
that of Antioch and later underwent the beneficial influence of the Church of
Jerusalem.
5
They served it in Byzantium (in particular, on Mount Olympus in
Asia Minor), and also in Moravia and Pannonia. The teaching that the two
brothers offered to their Slav spiritual childrenwas trulyOrthodox. It is consis-
tent with the spirit of the confession of the EarlyChurch, which found its
expression in the Ecumenical Councils and in the works of the Eastern Fath-
ers.
6
They maintained its purity(in particular, they objected to the introduction
of the 'filioque' into the Nicene Creed). They regarded themselves as emissaries
of the Patriarch of Constantinople and subjects of the Byzantine Empire, but
avoided involvement in the struggle between Rome and Constantinople. Thus
they bore witness to the fact that their first task was the establishment of the Sla-
vonic written literature and culture, which, far from leading to schism in the
world, could serve to link the Roman and Byzantine cultures. In this respect,
too, the two brothers are an example of communication and co-operation.
The Bulgarian State was formed in681 at an important crossroads. Chris-
tianityspread among the Slav population within its territoryand even reached
the Khan' s court long before the baptism of the whole nation in865. Its ruler,
Prince Boris, sent young Bulgarians to Byzantium, where they received an edu-
cation that later allowed them to contribute to the development of Bulgarian
culture. In886, after enduring the hardships of wandering and persecution in
Moravia, eminent disciples of SS Cyril and Methodius reached the territoryof
Bulgaria: SS Clement, N ah um and Angelarius. Other disciples joined them, or
perhaps (as suggested bysome historical sources) preceded them. Here, in their
The work of Cyril and Methodius in Bulgaria 17
and its transmission to Kievan Rus'
own land, together with other talented compatriots, they extended their great
and fruitful activities, which resulted in the brilliant period of Bulgarian history
that Pavel Safarik was later to call 'the Golden Age of ancient Bulgarian liter-
ature and culture'.
This new, second stage in the development of Slavonic written literature
and culture was remarkable, on the one hand, for its fidelity to the essence of
the work of SS Cyril and Methodius, and, on the other, for the establishment of
intensely active centres of learning. Very soon, creative monastic life began,
with extensive building and flourishing material culture and art (icon-painting,
frescoes, miniatures, carvings, etc.).
The Bulgarians quickly assimilated the achievements of Byzantium's multi-
national culture. E ven the most cursory glance at works translated into the
ancient Bulgarian language in the ninth and tenth centuries shows this without
a shadow of doubt. W orks from various lands were translated: from Alexandria
and Jerusalem, Cyrus and Edessa, Antioch, Caesarea of Cappadocia and Con-
stantinople. The authors translated belonged to various autocephalous
Churches: the Churches of Alexandria (St Athanasius), Jerusalem (St Cyril),
Antioch (St John Chrysostom), Georgia (Peter the Iberian), and were of diffe-
rent ethnic origin: Greek, Arab, Aramaic Syrian, etc. In the Bulgarian capital of
Preslav a varietyof works, representing various fields of knowledge of the time
and various genres, was selected: dogmatic and philosophical (the works of St
John Damascene and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite), homiletic with a
moral and social tendency (the sermons of St John Chrysostom, separately or
collected in the anthology called the Zlatostrui (Golden Stream), exegetic (anum-
ber of commentaries, etc. on biblical books), apologetic (the sermons of St Ath-
anasius against the Arians), geographical (the Topography of Cosmas Indico-
pleustes) and others. Among the anthologies an important place belongs to the
Sbornik of Tsar Simeon of 915. There was a marked tendency for wider interpre-
tation even of the same field of theology. For the interpretation of the Psalms,
for example, the commentaries of Hesychius of Jerusalem (from the moderate
tendency of the school of Alexandria) and of the Blessed Theodiritis of Cyrus
(School of Antioch) were taken. O n this strong foundation original ancient
Bulgarian literature was also created: the acrostic prayer and Forty-second
Commentary on the Gospel of Bishop Constantine of Preslav, the Shestodnev
(Hexameron) of John the Exarch, the treatise On the Letters of the monk Khrabr
(Opismeneh cernorizcaXrabra), the Talks of the priest Cosmas and poetic liturgical
works (the Canons with Three Odes for the forefeasts of the Nativityof Christ
and the Epiphany and a cycle of sticherae for these feasts), sermons and Lives of
the Saints.
The miracle (in the words of Academician D. S. Likhachev) of the rapid
flowering of Slavonic culture in Bulgaria and the rise of the Bulgarian Church
and State can be explained by the circumstance that the Bulgarian people
proved capable of receiving this culture, drawing from the wealth of the East-
ern Church, cultivating it and enriching its own heritage. The Bulgarian people
'transplanted' Byzantine book-learning and culture, grafting it creativelyand
successfullyand adapting it to the Bulgarian, Slavonic soil.
Byzantine literature in this case played the important role of an intermedi-
ary. It should also be noted that the attention of the Bulgarians was attracted
mainly to the classical Eastern Christian literature of the fourth and fifth centu-
ries. So far no translations of the works of Byzantine authors of the ninth and
tenth centuries have come to light. The opinion that in this case they looked for
what was most easily assimilated cannot be accepted. The works of great theolo-
gians such as SS Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Athanasius of Alex-
andria and John Chrysostom are not easy to translate, especially into a language
only starting to evolve into a literaryone, nor are they readily accessible to a
poorly educated public. The bookmen, led by Prince Boris and Tsar Simeon,
looked for sources of authentic faith, the classic works of Eastern theology, in
order to lay a firm foundation for Orthodoxy in Bulgaria. They drew from the
treasuryof patristic thought that values highlyeach individual nation while at
the same time having a universal view of the human race, based on biblical
texts. Spiritually, ecclesiasticallyand culturallythe Bulgarian people commune d
with the great and universal Eastern community, without dissolving in it.
Recognizing the historical role of their people and of the Slav race, the Bulgar-
ian authors escaped the pitfall of cultural assimilation. Using original works in
Greek, they avoided undue admiration for the rich cultural traditions of their
neighbour, the Byzantine State, and did not strayonto the path of loss of
national identity. Thus, the ancient Bulgarians paid homage to the achieve-
ments of other nations, while recognizing the talents of their own brothers and
sisters whose feats they praised. These were the favourable conditions for the
establishment of fraternal links with the Eastern Slavs.
It would not be premature to say that this idea of universalityand at the
same time attachment to one's own nation, on which the work of SS Cyril and
Methodius was founded and which flourished in Bulgaria in the ninth and
tenth centuries, was assimilated byKievan Rus' byway of ancient Bulgarian lit-
erature. It is best expressed inSlovo o zakone i blagodati {The Sermon on Law and Grace)
of Metropolitan Hilarin of Kiev. The first part of the sermon speaks of the
universal nature of Christianity, of which the Russians are an inseparable part,
while the second speaks of Russian Christianityand the third turns to the bap-
tizer of Rus' , Prince Vladimir. 'Hilarin glorifies Rus' and her Enlightener,
Vladimir. Following in the steps of the great Bulgarian enlighteners, Cyril and
Methodius, Hilarin expounds the teaching of the equal rights of all nations
and his theory of world historyas the gradual and equal ascent of all nations to
the culture of Christianity.'
7
In the ninth and tenth centuries the Eastern Slavs, and in particular Rus' ,
were in territorial proximity to the Bulgarian State along the lower reaches of
the river Dniester. W h e n at that time the people of Tver settled on the territory
of present-day Moldavia, they became a link between Bulgaria and Rus' .
Through the Bulgarian Slavs, wh o had settled there, Christianitytook its course
to the north-east. Pectoral crosses found in the villages of the Tver people point
to the fact that a Christian mission existed,
8
despite the raids of the Magyars and
Pechenegs wh o hindered contacts. The seeds of the word fell on fertile ground
which had long been prepared to receive it. The preaching of Christianityto the
Eastern Slavs had alreadybegun in the diocese of Onugursk among the proto-
Bulgarians, wh o then lived in the extensive territories of what is now southern
Ukraine.
The Eastern Slavs were also able to acquaint themselves with Christianity
when Russian merchants visited the Bulgarian Black Sea ports, especiallywhe n
en route to Constantinople. In the course of these contacts, the Russians and
Greeks frequently required interpreters. They found them, in all probability,
among the Bulgarians. It has long been known that the Treaty of 912 between
the Russians and Byzantines was translated by a Bulgarian, and moreover from
Greek to the ancient Bulgarian language. There is no doubt that these Bulgarian
translators (of Slav origin) were Christians and zealots of Christian literature.
Through them the Christian mission alsocame to the Russians. It is quite pos-
sible that in the Church of the Prophet Elijah in Kiev the service was held in the
Old Bulgarian (Slavonic) language. For this reason the priest Gregory, wh o
accompanied Princess Olga toByzantium, might have been met with hostility
in Constantinople. S ome Slavists, such as M . A. Obolensky and Archimandrite
Leonid, identifyhim with the Bulgarian writer, Gregory the Priest-Monk, and
A. I. Sobolevsky with 'Gregory, Bishop of Misia'
9
wh o is mentioned in the
calendar of saints of the Ostromir Gospel (1056/57). Unfortunately there is not
enough evidence for this question to be solved definitively.
It is an undoubted fact, however, that Prince Svyatoslav and his retinue
came into direct contact with the Bulgarian Church and with centres of Bulgar-
ian literature and learning, especiallywith Preslav. This took place, in partic-
ular, during his second campaign (969-71), whe n there was an alliance between
the Russians and the Bulgarians. S ome Byzantine military leaders became noto-
rious for their looting of Bulgarian churches, as Lev the Deacon bears witness.
10
The news of this was probablymet with alarm and displeasure by the Bulgarian
clergy, especiallyin the major ecclesiastical centre of Drastar, where Svyatoslav
stayed for some time. From this the conclusion may be drawn that not only did
Bulgarian military leaders and warriors, wh o were sure to be persecuted by the
Byzantines, retreat toKievan Rus' , but so too did clergy discontented with
Byzantine power and zealous for literature in Old Bulgarian.
Slavonic scholars consider that this campaign furthered the spread of
Christianityto the Eastern Slavs from Bulgaria. The number of Bulgarians wh o
then emigrated can hardlyhave been very considerable as a consequence, per-
haps, also of the defeat on the Dnieper, and therefore there is no reliable direct
historical evidence. After the defeat of Tsar Samuel by the Byzantine E mperor
Basil II Bulgaroctonos, a ne w wave of Bulgarian emigration move d to the lands
north of the Danube.
Contemporary information about the baptism in 988 is extremely scanty.
There are various Russian legends, for example, about the place where Prince
Vladimir was baptized andwh o it was baptized him. Therefore a number of
questions still remain open to discussion. The well-known Russian Church his-
torian E . Golubinsky is inclined to accept the information of the Russian
monk, Jacob (before 1072), and considers that the ruler of Kiev received bap-
tism in Kiev itself from the local priests.
11
It is hard to say with certainty
whether there were Bulgarians among them, but there is no doubt that the
actual baptism of the people was performed by the clergyof the capital city,
among wh om there may have been Bulgarians.
The baptism of Rus' in988 was an act of great significance. It opened a ne w
era in the life of the Eastern Slavs, and through them in that of the peoples liv-
ing in the territoryof the later Russian State, wh o received Orthodoxy from
Russian missionaries. Christianitybrought these peoples into the family of lead-
ing European nations from the point of view of both literature and culture, or,
in the words of Patriarch Pimen of Moscow and all Russia, the event of 988
gave Russian history
a new positive content and helped the Russian land to take a worthy place in the
world historical process. With the acceptance of Christianity, Kievan Rus' asserted
its originalityand created a culture majestic in its dignity, classicallylucid in style
and refined in spiritualityand inner nobilityas earlyas the pre-Mongol period.
12
Ancient Russian chronicles recorded active Bulgarian assistance in the work of
organizing the Church and spreading Christianity after the Baptism of Rus' in
988. The organization of the Church began very soon, within two or three
years. The Chronicle of Joachim mentions that in the capital the first bishop
(literally'Metropolitan') was 'Michael, a most learned and devout man, a Bul-
garian', wh o came with four bishops and a multitude of priests, deacons and
singers 'from among the Slavs', i.e. the Bulgarian Slavs.
13
Educated Bulgarians wh o had earlier come to Kiev probably assisted in the
organization of the Church and of religious instruction. They were active in
this even at the court of Prince Vladimir. As Vasily Tatishchev remarks,
according to Joachim, S S Boris and Gleb were the sons of Princess Anna wh o
was probably the daughter of the Bulgarian Tsar Peter, grand-daughter of
E mperor Roman I Lecapenos and niece of Emperors Basil and Constantine,
although the chronicler Nestor calls her their sister.
14
Moreover, Priselkov
draws attention to the baptismal names of Boris and Gleb Roman and David.
It was the custom for persons of princely lineage wh o converted to have as
and its transmission to Kievan EMS'
their godparents persons of equal or higher rank, whose names they took. W h o
were the godfathers of Boris and Gleb? The historical information available so
far offers one possibility: Boris probably received the name of the Bulgarian
Tsar Roman, and Gleb that of David, the elder brother of Tsar Samuel.
15
This
extremely tempting hypothesis is consistent with the fact of the transfer of Old
Bulgarian manuscripts to Kievan Rus' at that time, as we shall see below.
The fraternal assistance of the Bulgarians was felt not only in ruling circles.
According to one ancient report, which the eminent Czech Slavonic scholar
Pavel Safarik concludes can be believed, before Prince Yaroslav (1019-34) all
church choristers in Rus' were Bulgarians.
16
E ven if onlysome of them were
and if this information is exaggerated, these choristers must have brought their
church service books and other necessaryworks with them. The subsequent
establishment by Prince Yaroslav of a literaryschool from local me n of letters
consequently bears witness, on the one hand, to the flourishing of letters and,
on the other, to the fact that, with the defeat of Bulgaria byByzantium in 1018,
there was a considerable decline in the influx of Bulgarian writers and copyists
to Rus' .
The.Kiev collection of chronicles, known as the Metropolian Svod {Metropol-
itan's Collection) also records for 1037 the lively ecclesiastical and educational
activities under the patronage of Prince Yaroslav. Books were translated from
Greek, ' And . . . our Christian faith began to multiplyand spread, the number
of monks began to increase and monasteries were established.' This informa-
tion may reflect a tendency to glorifythe time of the Greek Metropolitan Theo-
pemptos. Probably for this reason what was alreadyachieved in the time of
Prince Vladimir, and especiallythe links with Bulgaria and facts about the con-
tribution of Old Bulgarian, are passed over in silence.
17
The Kievan priest Hilarin (later, for a short time, the Metropolitan), in
his Sermon on Law and Grace, draws a picture of flourishing cultural life in the
reign of Prince Yaroslav not in contrast to, but as a consequence of, what had
alreadybeen achieved under Prince Vladimir. Hilarin addresses the baptizer
with the following words:
They did not destroyyour statutes but confirmed them, did not diminish what was
achieved byyour pietybut added to it, did not demolish but established, and
achieved what you had not completed.
18
Undoubtedly baptism would have remained only a sacramental act leading into
the Christian Church, without any special consequences for the culture of the
vast masses of the Slavs, or for societyas a whole, if it had not been for the work
of SS Cyril and Methodius. The literature in the comprehensible Slavonic lan-
guage that reached Kiev came almost exclusivelyfrom Bulgaria. It was the car-
rier of outstanding cultural achievements, opening up a new world and
22
Archpriest Nikolai Sbivarov
imparting new knowledge about it. As Soviet Professor N . K. Gudzy concludes:
Russian literature and culture together with the other Slav literatures and cultures
owe their flowering to Cyril and Methodius. The extremely rich literature of
Kievan Rus' made use of the vast riches created by Cyril and Methodius and their
closest disciples, the Bulgarians.
19
For his part, a few decades before this, P. A. Lavrov remarked that the Russian
people accepted the heritage of Cyril and Methodius ' when they accepted Chris-
tianityfrom the Greeks through the intermediary of the riches of the earliest
Slavonic written culture and its continued flowering in Bulgaria'.
20
Cultural and literaryinfluence from the south came intoRus' from Byzan-
tium as a continuation of the age-old links with the Greek culture of the north
coast of the Black Sea when it coupled with Bulgarian influence at the end of
the tenth century. These two influences formed a single trend that, even in its
individual manifestations, is indivisible and inseparable, as Academician D. S.
Likhachev stresses.
21
The transfer of Old Bulgarian literature to Rus' did not take place all at
once. The hypotheses advanced by Slavists based on the study of the manu-
scripts that have come down to us, as well as on historical data, can be summe d
up as follows:
1. The first transfer, which took place at the beginning of the tenth century,
was the work of merchants, translators and perhaps also clergy.
2. The campaigns of Svyatoslav Igorevich in Bulgaria led not only to contact
with Christianityand the Bulgarian Church. It would be naive to think that
there was nobody in the Kievan Prince's retinue wh o understood the
immense value of the manuscripts which, being sumptuously illustrated and
decorated with illuminations, made a strong impression even on the igno-
rant. A number of historians and Slavonic scholars have concluded that at
this time works in Old Bulgarian found their way to Kiev.
3. After the fall of Preslav in 971, the Byzantine Emperor John Cimisces car-
ried off all the treasures of the conquered cityto Constantinople. A short
time later, following the Baptism of Rus' in 988, Byzantine State and Church
leaders may have sent some of the royal libraryof Preslav to Kiev.
22
4. W h e n there was emigration from Bulgaria due to the devastating wars of the
tenth century, especially after 1013/14, books in Old Bulgarian were also
moved.
23
Certain important preconditions favoured the transfer of literature and its
acceptance. First, the acceptance of Christian culture by Bulgaria was a long-
term process that developed and was completed at a steadypace, especially after
886. It was also a time when ne w social forms were appearing to which Old
Bulgarian literature also contributed. The historical requirements of Rus' in the
tenth and eleventh centuries were similar. The countrywas faced with the task
of forming a new, Christian being with a ne w world-view and amore perfect
morality, and with that of organizing and developing the Church, which would
lead her children forward in all fields of life. Secondly, the creativity of Old
Bulgarian writers was initiallyintended tomeet wide local needs. In their
essence, however, neither translations nor original works were confined to one
nation, as they had at the same time a national and an open, universal nature.
The authors' inspiration was of significance for all Slavs (for example, in the
Acrostic Prayer byBishop Constantine of Preslav and the Treatise on Letters by the
monk Khrabr and in such works as the Hexameron by John the Exarch) and their
relevance to all mankind is apparent, as is shown by their use by other, non-
Slavonic peoples. The language of the works of the Old Bulgarian writers was
naturally the language of the Bulgarian Slavs with a certain influence of the
riches of proto-Bulgarian, in such words ascr'tog" (chamber), k"nig"ci (books)
and kumir" (idol), and its dialects were reflected to a greater or lesser degree in
different books.
24
However, the phonetic, grammatical, lexical and stylistic sys-
tem includes elements understandable to other Slav peoples of the time, so they
did not feel it was an incomprehensible or foreign language. There is no need to
explain wh y this language was called 'Slavonic'. This was, as O . M . Vodyansky
notes, the language of the Slavs wh o lived in 'Slavonia', which occupied the
northern part of Macedonia and former Misia, and then Bulgaria; an area in
which the Slavs mixed with the protp-Bulgarians
25
or, as it is felicitouslyput by
the eminent Slavonic scholar I. I. Sreznevsky, the language of the ancient Gla-
golitic texts is Slavonic with Bulgarian contributions,
26
which came into being
after the separation and the formation of the Bulgarian Slavs into one nation
with the proto-Bulgarians.
Old Bulgarian literature was well received inRus' . The works translated in
Bulgaria reflected Byzantine cultural experience transplanted on Slavonic soil
in response to the need for social transformation felt at the time. This literature
was on a par with the achievements of medieval Europe. 'This mature medieval
culture was made accessible to Bulgaria, and then both directlyfrom Byzantium
and through Bulgaria, in its Bulgarian national form, toRus' ,' stresses D. S.
Likhachev. As Byzantine literature is the intermediary of the rich cultural herit-
age of the East and, in particular, of the Eastern Church, so too was Old Bulgar-
ian literature an intermediary literature. D. Likhachev is right to stress, first,
that it does not derive from Byzantine literature but rather from Byzantine cul-
ture and, secondly, that it is a product of local selection, and that therefore it
was not individual works that were transplanted but an entire culture 'with its
inherent religious, aesthetic, philosophical and juridical concepts'.
27
Thus a lit-
erature c ommon to the Eastern and Southern Slavs came into being. This took
place naturallyon the basis of all the literature translated and written by the
Slavs themselves. There was active assimilation. All that was transferred was
24
Archpriest Nikolai Sbivarov
'transplanted'. E ven the copyist played an important role. Often he was an 'edi-
tor wh o did not hesitate to adapt the text to the needs and tastes of his time and
environment'.
28
Old Bulgarian literature stimulated the creation of Russian literature in a
remarkably short time. For example, we have the findings ofD. S. Likhachev's
research on the influence of John the Exarch's Hexameron on Vladimir Mono-
makh' s Poucbenie (Instruction) both as a source and from the point of view of man-
ner and style. The same holds true of The Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land.
The Heavens by John the Exarch inspired the author of the work The History, Pas-
sion and Panegyric of the Holy Martyrs Boris and Gleb, which creatively assimilated the
Old Bulgarian work.
29
Similar instances occurred in later times, when Russian
literature was already flourishing.
It is essential to note another factor that contributed to this fraternal
exchange. In Bulgaria the foundations were laid for the community of Slav peo-
ples wh o accepted the Eastern Church tradition and created their own auto-
cephalous Orthodox Churches. In Slavonic studies Ricardo Picchio refers to
this community as 'slavia orthodoxa'.
30
This term, though still open to discussion,
nevertheless suggests the important observation that Orthodoxy means faith-
fulness, not to ideas and views on individuals or local Churches, nor rigidity,
but faithfulness to the creed and to the essence of divine service and Christian
ethics. This is h ow it is understood bySS Cyril and Methodius, according to the
sources. Orthodoxy is universal in nature and at the same time fosters the deve-
lopment of individual peoples. The Eastern Church hadmany centuries of
experience of the creation of autocephalous Churches, both in major centres of
the EasternRoman Empire and in small nations beyond its reach (Armenia and
Georgia). Orthodoxy is consequently understood not as something closed in on
itself, but open toexchange and apprehension of the achievements of others,
for example as concerns theology or liturgy. It is precisely for this reason that
the two brothers had recourse to the so-called Liturgy of St Peter whose canon
corresponds to the practice of the earlyEastern Church, while the rest was
formed under Western influence. They and their disciples in Bulgaria lived at a
time of creation, when many liturgical hymns were written inByzantium. St
Clement of Okhrid and Bishop Constantine of Preslav, for example, made an
innovative contribution. As has been shown by the latest research on the acros-
tics, theycomposed canons of three odes and sticherae for the Nativityand the
Epiphany.
31
Regrettably, however, the medieval aspiration to uniformity put
the brakes on this creative trend. The work of the pioneer faded out in liturgical
practice and survived only insome places, including the land of Russia where
discovered manuscripts prove their presence.
32
Nevertheless in anumber of
cases (includingMoscow and Kiev), the following centuries saw Orthodox
liturgical thought and literature opening up to a greater or lesser degree to crit-
ical thinking and the reception of ideas from outside, despite the regrettable
polemic that came in the wake of the schism of 1054. The ne w ecumenical
movement, inwhich all Orthodox hierarchs and theologians have participated
since the 1920s and 1930s, has givenslavia orthodoxa opportunities forrapproche-
ment and mutual cultural and spiritual enrichment, in the spirit of S S Cyril and
Methodius.
Bulgaria was not the only factor in the Christiani2ation of Kievan Rus' ,
though its contribution proved extremely fruitful. ' By creating a literature com-
mon to all the Orthodox Slav countries,' she 'helped relations between all the
Orthodox Slav countries.'
33
In fact, as Academician A. I. Sobolevsky notes, 'All
the translated literature of ancient Bulgaria, beginning with the books of Holy
Scripture, and including the lesser amount of original Bulgarian literature,
passed to Russia and there became Russian.' They form 'the main body of Rus-
sian literature of the pre-Mongol period'.
34
Yet the relationshipwas not one-
sided. There was reciprocityand co-operation. The Russian people showed
their genius and skill while the Russian Orthodox Church made its own contri-
bution. Sometimes works were created jointlywith the Southern Slavs. Time
and time again, Russian literature returned southwards, as in the case of origi-
nal, compilatory and translatedworks, such as the Office of SS Boris and Gleb,
The Sermon on Law and Grace by Metropolitan Hilarin, The Sermon on the Faith of the
Varangians by St Theodosius of the Kiev Caves, andThe Parable of the Wearer of the
White Garment by St Cyril of Turov. These are all indications of considerable
fraternal support, especially in the face of the alien yoke.
[Translated from Russian]
NOTES
1. A. Mol' , Sotsiodinamika kul'tury [The Sociodynamics of Culture], p. 35, Moscow,
1973.
2. R. Bolgar, ' The Classical Tradition: Legend and Reality', inM. Mullet andR. Scott
(eds.), Byzantium and the Classical Tradition, pp. 7 et seq., Birmingham, 1981; C.
Mango, 'Discontinuitywith the Classical Past inByzantium', in Mullet and Scott,
op. cit., pp. 48 et seq.; V. Pashuto, ' The Place of Ancient Rus' in the History of
Europe', in I. Trakvina andV. Levina (eds.), The Comparative Historical Method in Soviet
Medieval Studies, p. 41, Moscow, 1979; the author stresses that the Greeks were'a
minority in the Byzantine Empire.
3. H . G . Beck, Kirche und theologische Literaturim byzantinischen Reich [The Church and
Theological Literature in the Byzantine Empire], pp. 279 et seq., 398 et seq., 413 et
seq., 422 et seq., 425 et seq., Munich, 1959.
4. Prostrannoe zitie sv. Kirilla [The Extended Life of St Cyril], 3.
5. H . J. Schultz, Die byzantinische Liturgie [The Byzantine Liturgy], 2nd ed., pp. 12,17, 37
et seq., Trier, 1980; H . A. J. W egman, Geschichte der Liturgie in Westen und Osten [His-
tory of the Liturgy inWest and East], p. 65, Regensburg, 1979.
26 Arcbpriest Nikolai Shivarov
6. Prostrannoe zitie sv. Mefodija [The Extended Life of St Methodius], 1,12; Prostrannoe zitie
sv. Kirilla, op cit., 6, 9; G . U'inskij, Napisanie opravej vere Konstantina Filosofa [The Writ-
ings on the True Faith of Constantine the Philosopher], pp. 63-89, Sofia, 1925
(Collection inHonour of Vasil N . Zlatarski).
7. D. S. Lihacev, 'Slovo o zakone i blagodati Ilariona [The S ermon on Law and Grace
by Hilarin]', Selected Works, Vol. 2, pp. 33, 35-6, Moscow, 1987, 3 vols.
8. G . B. Scukin, 'Gorodisce Enimauci v Moldavii [The Site of Enimautsi inMolda-
via]', inArxitektumoe nasledie [Architectural Heritage], Vol. 8, 1957, p. 23; E . Mixai-
lov, 'Rusi i b"lgari prez rannoto srednovekovie (602-954) [The Russians and Bul-
garians in the EarlyMiddle Ages (602-954)]', Yearbook of the University of Sofia, Faculty
of History, N o. 6 (1972/73), Sofia, 1975.
9. L. Graseva, 'Grigorij Prezviter [Gregory the Priest]', inKirillo-Metodievska enciklope-
dija [Encyclopedia of SS Cyril and Methodius], Vol. 1, p. 544, Sofia, 1985.
10. Leontius Diaconus, Historia, Vol. 9, pp. 117-872, Migne, PG .
11. L. Golubinski, Istorija Russkoj cerkvi [Historyof the Russian Church], 2nd ed., Vol. 1,
N o. 1, pp. 112-13, Moscow, 1901.
12. Izvestija, N o. 100, 9 April 1988, p. 3.
13. M. N . Tixomirov, ' O russkih istocnikah "Istorii Rossijskoj" [On the Russian Sources
of "Russian History"]', in V. N . Tatiscev (ed.), Istorija Rossijskaja [Russian History],
Vol. 1, p. 112, Moscow/Leningrad, 1962.
14. Tatiscev, op. cit, Vol. 2, p. 227.
15. M . D. Priselkov, Ocerkipo cerkovno-politiceskoj istorii Kievskoj Rusi X-XII vv [Essays on
the Ecclesiastical and Political History of Kievan Rus' from the Tenth to the
Twelfth Centuries], p. 37, St Petersburg, 1913.
16. P. Safarik, Rascvet slavjanskojpis'mennosti v Bulgarii [The Flowering of Slavonic Writing
in Bulgaria], pp. 22-3, Moscow, 1848.
17. Priselkov, op. cit., p. 83. In the opinion ofD. S. Lihacev, the most ancient Kievan
codex did not exist. In the years 1030-40, the bookmen of the Kievan Metropolia
wrote down the oral traditions that may be given the conventional name of 'narra-
tions of the earliest propagation of Christianity in Rus' '. This written record was of
an anti-Byzantine nature. At the same time in this group of sources there are evident
omissions (on Russian aid to Byzantium, the organization of the Church at the time
of Prince Vladimir, etc.), which may be explained only by a tendency in favour of
Byzantine influence. Given this position, the question arises as to whether it might
be possible to explain the existence of two tendencies (Byzantine and anti-Byzan-
tine) discovered by specialists as the result of an attempt at compromise by a book-
man of a slightly later time (about the time of the death of Prince Yaroslav) in order
to satisfythe desire of the Russian hierarchy to assert itself, and those wh o wished to
assert the influence of the Byzantine State and Church through a Metropolitan sent
by Constantinople. However these questions may be settled, the fact of the gaps in
the information remains incontrovertible, both as concerns the Church in Rus' dur-
ing the first decades of its existence, and as concerns Bulgarian assistance, which is
irrefutable in view of the linguistic data of ancient manuscripts and historical data
in the chronicles.
18. ' O zakone Moiseom daneem e mu i o kaganu nasemu Vladimiru [On the Law of
Moses Given to Him and on Our RulerVladimir] ', in N. I. Prokofiev, Drevnjaja russ-kaja liter-
atura. Hrestomatija [Ancient Russian Literature: a Chrestomathy], p. 31, Moscow,
1980; Slavia, p. 2, Prague, 1963.
19. N . P. Gudzij, 'Vklad russkih i ukrainskih ucenyh v izucenie Kirillo-Mefodievskogo
voprosa [Contribution of Russian and Ukrainian Scholars to the Study of the W ork
of SS Cyril and Methodius]', T'rzfst venna sesia za 1100 godisninata na slavjanskata pis-
mennost: 863-1963 [Record of the Solemn Session Organized for the Eleven H un-
dredth Anniversary of Slavonic Writings: 863-1963], p. 119, Sofia, 1965.
20. P. A. Lavrov, 'Materialy po istorii vozniknovenija drevnejsej slavjanskoj pis'men-
nosti [Materials on the History of the Emergence of the Earliest Slavonic Writing]',
Works of the SlavonicCommission of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Vol. 1, p. 11, Lenin-
grad, 1930.
21. D. S. Lihacev, 'Razvitie russkoj literaturyX - X VII vekov [The Development of
Russian Literature from the Tenth to the Seventeenth Century]', Selected Works, op.
cit., Vol. 1, pp. 38-9.
22. M. V. Sepkina, 'Kizuceniju Izbornika 1073 g [Contributions to the Study of the
1073 Collection]', inB. A. Rybakov (ed.), Izbornik Svjatoslava 1073 g. Sbornik statej
[Svjatoslav's Collection of 1073. Collection of Articles], pp. 232-3, Moscow, 1977.
23. L. P. Zukovskaja, 'Izbornik 1073 g[The 1073 Collection]', in ibid., p. 224.
24. R. Zlatanova, 'Starob"lgarski ezik [The Old Bulgarian Language]', Uvod v izucavaneto
najuznoslavjanskite ezici [Introduction to the Study of the South Slav Languages], pp.
47 et seq., Sofia, 1986.
25. O . M . Vodjanskij, ' O drevnejsem svidetel'stve, to cerkovno-kniznyj jazyk est' slav-
jano-bolgarskij [On the Earliest Proof that the Liturgical and LiteraryLanguage is
Slavono-Bulgarian]', MNP, N o. 6, 1843, pp. 8, 9.
26. I. I. Sreznevskij, 'Drevnija pis'mena slavjanskija [Ancient Slavonic Writing]',
MNP, No. 7, 1848, p. 43.
27. Lihacev, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 36, 52.
28. N . K. Gudzij, Istorija drevnej russkoj literatury [History of Ancient Russian Literature],
p. 15, Moscow, 1966.
29. D. S. Lihacev, 'Socinenija knjazja Vladimira Monomah a [The W orks of Prince Vla-
dimir Monomakh] ' , in Lihacev, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 146 et seq.; ' "Slovo o pogibeli
Russkoj zemli" i "Sestodnev" Ioanna Ekzarha Bolgarskogo [The Tale of the Destruction
of the hand of Russia and the Hexameron by John Exarch of Bulgaria]', Issledovanija po
drevnerusskoj literature [Research on Ancient Russian Literature], pp. 226 et seq.,
Leningrad, 1986.
30. R. Pikio (Picchio), 'Mjato na starata b"lgarska literatura v kulturata na srednove-
kovna [The Place of Old Bulgarian Literature in the Culture of Medieval Europe]',
Literaturna mis"l [LiteraryThought], N o. 25, Vol. 8, 1981, pp. 19-36; D. S. Lihacev,
'Neskol'ko zameyanij po povodu stat'i Rikardo Pikio [A Few Remarks on the Sub-
ject of Ricardo Picchio's Article]', Trudy otdela drevnerusskoj literatury [Transactions of
the Department of Ancient Russian Literature], Vol. 19, 1961, pp. 675-8 et seq.
31. G . Popov, 'Triodni proizvedenija na Konstantin Preslavski [The Canons with
Three Odes of Constantine of Preslav]', Kirilo-Metodievski studii [Studies on Cyril and
Methodius], Vol. 2, pp. 33-59, Sofia, 1985.
28 Arcbpriest Nikolai Sbivarov
32. Ibid, pp. 47, 67-8 et seq.
33. D. S. Lihacev, 'Svoeobrazie istoriceskogo puti russkoj literaturyX - X VIII w [The
Originality of the Historical Path of Russian Literature from the Tenth to the
Eighteenth Centuries]', Prvsloe-buduscemu [The Past to the Future], pp. 225-6, Lenin-
grad, 1985.
34. A. I. Sobolevskij, htorija russkogo literaturnogo jazyka [History of the Russian Literary
Language], pp. 28, 33, Leningrad, 1980.
The introduction of Christianity
into Rus': the work of Cyril
and Methodius
Dimiter Angelov
Occurring as it did during the reign of Grand Prince Vladimir, the adoption of
Christianityas the official religion byKievan Rus' may be viewed from two
angles: first, as an event in Russo-Byzantine relations at the close of the tenth
century and, secondly, as a further stage in the cultural evolution of Russian
societyin the Middle Ages. That stage is linked to the conversion of the newly
converted population to Slavonic writing as well as to the appearance of a cul-
tivated class consisting of priests, teachers and scholars who used a language
that was familiar to all in order to preach, read and write. This was the time of
the introduction of the Slavonic principle. It is in the manner in which that
principle was applied, and which brought about profound changes in the his-
toryof the Eastern Slavonic world, that we should look for the sense of the mis-
sion carried out by the brother saints, Cyril and Methodius, and their disciples.
It is clear that a century before the conversion of Kievan Rus', the mission
of the educators from Thessalonika, which had been a failure in Moravia, conti-
nued and expanded in Slavonic Bulgaria through the efforts of their closest dis-
ciples wh o went there after 885, and thanks to the enlightened policyof the
Bulgarian rulers of the period. Pliska, Preslav and Okhrid became the sites of
the first properly organized centres of learning. Celebrated authors of Old Bul-
garia such as Clement of Okhrid, N aoum of Preslav, Bishop Constantine,
Khrabr the Monk (Cernorizec Hrab"r), Gregory the Monk and John the
Exarch carried on intense teachingand literary activities there. It was the birth-
place of books written in the Slavonic (or Old Bulgarian) language and of tran-
slation into Slavonic of secular, religious, official or apocryphal texts. It was
Bulgaria too that saw the application of the thesis according to which Slavonic
belonged to the so-called 'sacred' languages, in contradiction to the 'trilingual
dogma' , and which was proclaimed and upheld by Cyril and Methodius and by
30 DimiterAngelov
Khrabr the Monk in his polemical work entitledO pismeneh {Treatise on Writing).
The 'trilingual dogma' was voiced at the council convened at Preslav in 893 to
promote Slavonic (or Old Bulgarian) as an official language, the language of the
Church and of literature. It was this language that Cyril and Methodius used in
translating the first theological works that they had brought with them to
Moravia to carryout their mission. It was the language of the Bulgarian pop-
ulation already settled at that time in Mesia, Thrace and Macedonia. Bulgaria
was the first country to proclaim the value of the witness of the two saintlyedu-
cators from Thessalonika and of their most faithful disciples.
1
The whole pro-
cess took place in a fairlyshort lapse of time which was marked by the reign of
Simeon (893-927) and is known as the GoldenAge of Bulgarian Culture. This
has been the subject of verymany studies by well-known Bulgarian, Russian and
Soviet literaryand linguistic theorists. Today it falls to AcademicianD. S. Lik-
hachev, one of the greatest experts on Cyril and Methodius and on the role of
medieval Bulgaria, to confirm the scope of their work.
Bulgaria's primordial position at the time meant that Kievan Rus' turned
to it for the Slavonic writing it had needed since its conversion in 988. The fact
that Old Bulgarian and Old Russian were very similar enabled educated circles
in Russian societyto read and understand Bulgarian books almost as well as the
Bulgarians themselves. This accounts for the large number of works, both in
the original and in translation, that went from Bulgaria toRus' . The books that
travelled there included the Gospelhy Ostromir, the Psaltero the Monastery of
the Miracle, the Acrostic Prayer and the Gospel with Commentary byBishop Con-
stantine, the Treatise on Writing byKhrabr the Monk, the Hexameron by John the
Exarch and a large number of the sermons of Clement of Ohrid and the well-
known Collection byKing Simeon prepared between 915 and 920 and comprising
more than 350 articles on dogma, philosophy, literature and ethics. Mention
may also be made of the Zlatostruj {Golden Stream) anthology, containing the ser-
mon of St John Chrysostom, and the Treatise against the Bogomils byCosmos the
Priest, in addition to many others.
2
It is generally believed that this transfer of Bulgarian literature began with
Prince Svyatoslav's campaigns in 968 and 969. N one the less, there can be no
doubt that the deluge of books was related to the conversion of 988 and came in
response to the attendant need felt by educated circles in the societyof the time
for Slavonic writing and culture. Accordingly, immediately after the conver-
sion, a school was opened in Kiev on the instructions of Prince Vladimir for
the children of the nobility(Poslav' nacapoimati u narocitye cadi d'ti i dajati naca na
ucen'e knizxoe).
3
It may be supposed that the pupils were taught to read Slavonic and that
the teachers, wh o probably hailed from Bulgaria, had been employed with this
in mind. From Bulgaria too came armies of book-laden monks, some of wh om
were forced to flee the country following the collapse of the kingdom and the
The introduction of Christianity into Rus': 31
the work of Cyril and Methodius
conquest byByzantium in1018. There is no doubt that some of these scholars
had a perfect knowledge of Greek and were in a position to translate different
Byzantine works which proved useful to the civil and religious authorities in
Rus' . However, the ne w sovereign, Prince Yaroslav, wh o was Vladimir's suc-
cessor, carried on the work begun by his father, and encouraged translation
work. This fact is borne out byThe Tale of Bygone Years which informs us that
Yaroslav would read by day and by night and that he had 'assembled verymany
scribes wh o translated from Greek into Slavonic (i sobra pise'mnogy iprekladase ot
grek" na slov'enskoepismo)'.
4
Among the many books to come from Bulgaria, and about which there can
be no doubt that theywere well known in Rus' in the eleventh century, were the
Gospel by Ostromir (1056) and the Collection byS imeon, a book that was much
admired at the court of the Kievan Prince. Prince Svyatoslav ordered a copy to
be made of it, and this became known as Svyatoslav's Collection.
5
It is very likely
that some manuscript works giving an account of parts of Bulgarian history also
came toRus' . S ome such works may well have been used by the first Russian
Chronicler, Nestor, whose Tale of Bygone Years contains some information on the
historyof Bulgaria, e.g. on the conversion of the Bulgarians, the wars waged by
King S imeon against Byzantium, and so forth. Bulgarian works continued to be
disseminated in this fashion in the course of the following centuries and some
in particular, such as the Treatise byCosmas the Priest and the Treatise on Writing
by Khrabr the Monk, were copied again and again. Twenty copies of the Treatise
by Cosmas
6
are known to exist in Russian, as well as sixty-three copies of the
Treatise on Writing, also in Russian.
7
A large number of works that came from Bulgaria and were recognized in
Rus' recount the life and work of Cyril and Methodius as the founders of Sla-
vonic writing and culture. The most important of these are the Detailed Live/
and the Calendar of Saints' Lives, the so-called ' c ommon' Panegyric and many
offices. These works were known to Nestor inKiev, since inThe Tale of Bygone
Years he reports their mission to Moravia and the recognition of Slavonic writ-
ing by the Roman Pope.
9
In this way the Russian stocks were enriched with
large numbers of volumes on Cyril and Methodius which are so vital to the
proper study of the work of the two saints.
At the same time, Cyril and Methodius were the subject of increasing admi-
ration and respect. A memorial on Cyril contained in the Gospel by Ostromir
appears to indicate that he was considered as one of the saints of the Russian
Orthodox Church from the mid-eleventh centuryonwards. The n again the Pro-
logue attributed toLobkov and written in the twelfth century includes ame m-
orial on Methodius.
10
However, their cult was developed chieflyby Macaire,
Metropolitan of Moscow, wh o arranged for the insertion of the Detailed Lives of
the brothers into a sixteenth-centuryhagiographie collection.
11
In a similar manner, Dimitri of Rostov, bymeans of his Book on the Lives of
32 DimiterAngelov
the Saints, which appeared between 1689 and 1711,
12
contributed largely to the
cult of SS Cyril and Methodius.
Looking at medieval Russian literature, we realize that an attempt was
made at that time to link the work of Cyril and Methodius to the historyof Rus-
sian civilizationby emphasizing the importance of the two brothers' missionary
activitynot just for Slavs in general but also, and in particular, for Russians.
This Russification turns up in a large number of works on their lives in which
terms such as 'apostles of the Russians' are added to 'apostles of the Slavs'.
Methodius is referred to as 'master of the Russians' (ouctlja rus'skago) in the four-
teenth-centuryPrologue attributed to Proloutz
13
as well as in the March Semester of
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries
14
and in aCalendar of Saints' hives of the
eighteenth century.
15
As for Cyril, he is called the 'apostle of the Slavs, Bulgar-
ians and Russians' {pucitel slovenem i bl"garem i rusem) in a saints' life made up of
extracts from Detailed hives, while the Condensed hife by Cyril, a thirteenth- and
fourteenth-century
16
manuscript, refers tohim as the 'chief master of the Rus-
sians and of all the Slavs (pervago nastavnika rodu rossishomu i vsemu jazyku sloven-
skomu)'}
1
This trend towards Russification also lends weight to the theory,
expounded inmany works, that Cyril, known as Constantine the Philosopher,
translated from Greek into Russian( zeprelozi rus'kujugramotu sgrecesho). E xam-
ples include more than ten copies of biographies and other works on the life
and activities of Cyril (two fourteenth-century commemorative offices, fif-
teenth- and seventeenth-century psalters, breviaries, etc.).
18
This idea pene-
trated the Russian literary tradition all the more easilyand profoundly that the
Cyrillic alphabet, which was called after its creator, was adopted by the Russian
people and the many books written in Old Bulgarian using this alphabet were
directlyaccessible to the local population. A passage from the biography of Ste-
phen of Perm (1340-96), written at the close of the fourteenth century byEpi-
phanius the Wise (d. c. 1420) strengthens this conception. 'Toj nam gramotu sot-
voril"i knigy perelozil"s greceskago jazyka na rouskyj (Constantine the Philosopher,
known as Cyril, made the alphabet for us and translated works from Greek into
Russian)', states the author wh o draws heavily on Khrabr the Monk' s Treatise on
Writing}''
A text added to the Panegyric by the two brothers in an anonymous seven-
teenth-centurywork brings out Constantine the Philosopher's role as the crea-
tor of an alphabet speciallymade for the Russian people. The author writes that
the Slavonic letters were designed by Cyril in Constantinople and nowhere
else, as other commentators will have it at the request of the 'Russian Princes'
(knzia russki) Rostislav of Moravia, Svyatopolk of Tourov and Coztlian, Prince
of Pannonia.
20
This text, in its report of events that occurred eight centuries
before, is studded with errors and anachronisms. W hat is indeed of interest,
however, is the fact that the author conveys the notion current in his day that
the alphabet created by Cyril was passed on to Russian Princes.
Another thesis, less widely distributed yet every bit as revealing, had it that
Rus' was converted directlyby Constantine the Philosopher. It can be found in
a Russian collection of annotated extracts from the Old Testament (Paleja, fif-
teenth century), which also contains fragments of Cyril'sDetailed Ltfe. At the
end of the narrative on King Solomon's cup, and which is one of the most
interesting episodes, we read that Constantine the Philosopher went toRus' and
converted Prince Vladimir there.
21
A more recent version of the Russian chron-
icles refers to him as the apostle who Christianized the Russians.
22
It is impor-
tant to remember, however, that some works, of both Bulgarian and Eastern
Slavonic origin, link Cyril's name to the conversion of the Bulgarians.
23
Alth-
ough inaccurate, this notion is historicallyplausible in that Christianitywas
adopted as the state religion in Bulgaria during the lifetime of Constantine the
Philosopher. O n the other hand, any statement to the effect that he converted
the Russians during Vladimir's reign is a serious anachronism indicating insuf-
ficient knowledge and a desire to establish the closest possible link between this
great missionary and the Russian land. There is not enough space here to give
other examples of attempts to Russify the work of Cyril and Methodius. W hat is
certain is that, following the adoption of ChristianitybyRus' in 988, the work
of the two brothers and their disciples was to have a lasting and fruitful
influence on Russian society. It provided an objective basis that enabled the
converted Russian people to adopt the Slavonic writing and civilization that
had originated in Bulgaria. This process was accompanied by an objective desire
to Russify that writing and civilization.
The work of Cyril and Methodius lies at the roots of the spiritual link be-
tween the Bulgarians and the Russians which has grown ever stronger down the
centuries.
NOTES
1. D. Angelov, 'Slavjanskijat svjat prez IX - X v. i deloto na Kiril i Metodij v knizov-
nata tradicija[The Slavonic W orld in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries and the W ork
of Cyril and Methodius in the LiteraryTradition]', Paleobulgarica/StaroV'lgaristika
(Sofia), N o. 4, 1985, pp. 12 et seq.
2. B. S. Angelov, ' K voprosu o nacale russko-bolgarskih literaturnyh svjazej [Concern-
ing the Commencement of Russo-Bulgarian LiteraryContacts]', Trudy otdelenja drev-
nerusskoj literatury (Leningrad, Instituta russkoj literatury(PuskinskogoDoma) A N
SSSR), N o. 14, 1958, pp. 132 et seq.; S"scijat. Izistorijata narusko-flgarskite literaturni
vr"zMi [On Russo-Bulgarian Relations], pp. 26 et seq., Sofia, 1977; D. Angelov,
'Srednovekovna B"lgarija i Kievska Rusija [Medieval Bulgaria and Kievan Rus']',
B"lgaro-ukrainski vr"zki prezvekovete, pp. 53 et seq., Sofia, au, izsl., 1983; K. Kuev,
S"dbata na staroV'lgarskata r"kopisna knigaprez vekovete [The Fate of Old BulgarianMS S
through the Centuries], pp. 14 et seq., Sofia, 1986.
3. Povest' vremennyh let [Tale of Bygone Years], Part 1, p. 81 (Text arranged byD. S.
34
Dimiter Angelov
Lihacev, translated byD. S. Lihacev andB. A. Romanov, edited byV. P. Adria-
nova-Peretc), Moscow/Leningrad, 1950; I. Snegarov, Duhovnokultumi vr"zhi mezdu
B"lgarija i Rustjaprez srednite vekove (X-XV v.) [Spiritual and Cultural Relations bet-
ween Bulgaria and Rus' in the Middle Ages], p. 36, Sofia, 1950; E . G . Zikov,
'Zametki o russko-bolgarskih literaturnyh svjazjah starsej pory(X - X I w. ) [Notes
on Russo-Bulgarian LiteraryLinks inAncient Times (tenth-eleventh centuries)]',
Kussko-bolgarskiefol'kJornye i literaturnye svjazi (Leningrad), Vol. 1, 1976, p. 11.
4. Povest' vremennyh let, op. cit., p. 102.
5. K. Kuev, 'Simeonovijat sbornik i negovite potomci [The Collection of Simeon and
of his Posterity]',Gov. Sof. Univ. (Sofia, Fac. Slav. Phil), Vol. 67, N o. 2, 1974, pp.
1-47; Izbornik Svjatoslava 1073. Sbornik statej [Sviatoslav's Collection of 1073. Collec-
tion of Articles], pp. 1-340, Moscow, 1977; B. S. Angelov, 'Pohvala za car Simeon i
nejnoto pronikvane v staroslavjanski tvorbi [King Simeon's Panegyric and its
Influence on Ancient Slavonic Texts]', Iz istorijata na russko-V'lgarskite literaturni vr"zki
(Sofia), Book 2, 1980, pp. 7 et seq.
6. J. K. Begunov, Kozma Presviterv stavjanskih literaturah [Cosmos the Priest in Slavonic
Literature], pp. 19 et seq., Sofia, 1973.
7. K. Kuev, Cernorizec hraV'r [Khrabr the Monk] , pp. 164 et seq., Sofia, 1957.
8. 'Prostranni zitija na Kiril i Metodij [Comprehensive Lives of Cyril and Methodius]'
edited byB. S. Angelov andH . Kodov, inK. Ohridski (ed.), S"bran s"cinenija [Com-
plete W orks], Vol. 3, pp. 30 et seq., 160 et seq., Sofia, 1973.
9. Povest' vremennyh let, op. cit., pp. 21 et seq. In the matter of this account byNestor,
known as Skazanie o prelozenii knig {Memoir on the Translation of Books), can be found
many literarystudies of and discussions on its Old Bulgarian or West Slavonic ori-
gin. This author feels that there is a better case for its origin being Bulgarian. See K.
Mecev, ' Za proizhoda na staroruskija letopisen razkaz "Skazanie o prelozenii knig"
[Concerning the Origin of the Account of the Old Russian Chronicle entitled
Memoir on the Translation of Books', Istoriceski pregled, No . 2, p. 88, 1974; M. Kaj-
makamova, 'Starobalgarskata letopisna tradicija v "Povest' vremennyh let" [The
Tradition of the Old Bulgarian Chronicle inThe Tale of Bygone Years]', B"lgarskosred-
novekovie [The Bulgarian Middle Ages] (B"lg.-s"vetski sbornik v cst na prof. I. Duj-
cev), p. 212, Sofia, 1980; D. Angelov, 'Slavjanskijat svjat. . .', op. cit., p. 24.
10. Snegarov, op. cit., pp. 46 et seq.
11. Ohridski, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 11.
12. Ibid.
13. B. S. Angelov, 'Slavjanski izvori za Kiril i Metodij [Slavonic Sources Relating to
Cyril and Method ius]' , Izvestija na Wrzavnata biblioteka "V. Kolarov" za 1956, 1958, p.
189; K. Kuev, 'Proloznite zitija na Kiril i Metodij v Leningradskite hranilisca [The
Detailed hives of Cyril and Methodius in the Leningrad Archives]', Palaeobulgarica/
Starob"lgaristika, No . 1, 1985, p. 24.
14. Kuev, op. cit., pp. 25, 27.
15. Ibid., p. 32.
16. B. S. Angelov, Izstarata b"lgarska, ruska isr"bska literatura [Ancient Bulgarian, R ussian
and Serbian Literature], Vol. 2, p. 28, Sofia, 1963.
17. Ohridski, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 44.
18. B. S. Angelov, 'Slavjanski izvori . . .', op. cit., pp. 200-7; Kuev, op. cit., pp. 14, 19.
19. Kuev, Cernoriec Hrab"r, op. cit., p. 175.
20. See corresponding text in Ohridski, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 45.
21. B. S. Angelov, 'Slavjanski izvori. . .', op. cit., p. 211.
22. Ibid.
23. D. Angelov, 'Slavjanskijat svjat . . .', op. cit., pp. 21-4.
The conversion of Rus' to Christianity
Nikolai Todorov
Historians have long since ceased dividing the historyof humanity into two
periods - before and after the adoption of Christianity. These criteria cannot,
therefore, explain the interest aroused by the celebration of the Millennium of
the conversion of Rus', especiallyas the event drew the attention, not only of
ecclesiastical circles, which was only to be expected, but also of the scientific
world and of international opinion.
This Millennium is an opportunityto make a thorough analysis of the his-
torical processes and to study the roots of Russian culture, which is among
those that have had a decisive influence on world progress in our century. The
conversion of Rus' to Christianitymade a very real and lasting impact not only
on the Russian people and state of past times, but also on South-eastern Europe
as a whole. It paved the way for cultural achievements that rank among the
treasures of world civilization.
W e shall focus particular attention on three aspects of this complex pro-
cess: (a) the very real revolutionarychanges that took place in Russian societyin
the tenth century and their historical importance; (b) the place and role of Bul-
garia in this process; and (c) the historical consequences for South-eastern
Europe of the integration of Russian society into the Christian world.
It was in the tenth century that Russian society, like the other pagan Sla-
vonic peoples of Europe, emerged from the stage of patriarchal development.
Slavonic paganism had shown that it was incapable of forming a new kind of
stable society. This is borne out as much by the failure of the Eastern and some
of the Western Slavs to form durable states as by their fruitless attempts to erect
a mythological pantheon to serve as an ideological standard and institutional
basis for the state as a more advanced type of organization than clan alliances.
There is no record of the creation of any such pantheon by the Southern Slavs
38 Nikolai Toorov
in view of the fact that theywere incorporated at an early stage into various
states, whether Byzantium, the Frankish Empire or Bulgaria. The Slavonic
principalities in the Balkans from the seventh to the ninth century and Great
Moravia in the West in the ninth centurywere evidence of the fact that, coinci-
dent with the end of the invasions, Slavonic mythological beliefs had exhausted
their potential to form a societyto match the new conditions.
The conversion of the Slavs to Christianityin the ninth and tenth centuries
amounted to an adherence (ecclesiastical, institutional, political and cultural) to
the traditional and classical European models that had been under attack by the
great invasions for four hundred years. This Christianization ensured conti-
nuityin the development of European civilization, a continuity that was of the
utmost importance for Central and South-eastern Europe.
In this respect Byzantium carried out a consistent policy that led to the mis-
sion conducted by Cyril and Methodius to Great Moravia in 863, the appoint-
ment of Methodius as Archbishop of the diocese of Pannonia and the con-
version of Bulgaria to Christianityin 864/65. A century later, Byzantium was
to further the conversion of Rus' to Christianity. This brought the Slav tribes
and peoples of the East into the fold of Mediterranean civilization, known as
'Byzantine' civilization, that asserted itself in South-eastern Europe and the
Near East as an amalgam of the classical heritage and of Christianity. Indeed
this integrationwas nothing less than an adherence to one of the most advanced
civilizations in the world and, most importantly, gave Russian societyaccess to
the achievements of over 1,000 years of philosophical thought, the social and
natural sciences and other fields of learning. In this way Rus' developed its own
institutions in line with the model of the European community as a whole from
the state to episcopates and from schools to courts of law. It fostered written
communication in every social sphere and moulded its international relations
in harmony with the tradition long established in Europe. It was thus that the
regions of Eastern Europe adopted the European social structure.
By converting to Christianity, Rus' not only adopted the Byzantine model
of Christianitybut also came into possession of the rich heritage of Cyril and
Methodius which offered and asserted a new type of integration, that is, the
creation of a social community that upheld ethnic identityand character. The
work of Cyril and Methodius dates from the middle of the ninth century (855-
85) and is part of the social blossoming of Byzantium following the triumph of
the veneration of icons (842). Permeated with the democratic spirit of the new
forces sweeping it along, it was planned and carried out with the consent of the
Byzantine Emperor and Patriarch as a means of forming a Slavic-Byzantine
community preserving the Slavonic language and its local ethnic customs. At
the outset, the work of Cyril and Methodius was welcomed by the West Slavs
(863-85), Great Moravia and the Archdiocese of Pannonia; after 855, follow-
ing the development of unfavourable conditions there, it moved to Bulgaria.
The conversion of EMS' to Christianity 39
For a century in Bulgaria, and hence in its natural linguistic environment,
Old Bulgarian, and with the full support of the state, Slavonic written culture
developed its manifold features deriving from Slavonic cultural traditions and
from a dynamic struggle with the assimilative encroachments of Byzantinism
combined with proto-Bulgarian political experience and conceptions.
The second half of the ninth and the tenth centuries in Bulgaria saw a
series of important achievements that are milestones in the country's history.
First, the definitive settlement of the theological, cultural and ethnical
argumentation in favour of the written Slavonic language as the new language
of Christian worshipand instruction. This argumentation is based on the postu-
lates defended by Constantine the Philosopher (Cyril) in countless discussions,
and which went on to win Rome' s approval in the papal bulls of Adrian II and
John VIII. It was developed byMethodius, Archbishop of Pannonia (869-85),
and by his disciples in Great Moravia under Prince Svatopluk. The resistance of
some of the Byzantine clergyin Bulgaria was successfullyovercome. 0 pismeneh
{Treatise on Writing) by Khrbar the Monk (Cernorizec Hrab"r) (in the second half
of the ninth century) consecrated this argumentation and demonstrated the his-
toric authenticityof Slavonic books based on the experience of Eastern cul-
tures. The thesis of this work was adopted byRus' and spread to every part of
the world in the course of the centuries. More than 100 Russian copies have
come down to us.
Second, the penetration into Bulgaria of translations by Cyril and Metho-
dius of the liturgical texts. In the capital, Preslav, scholars around Tsar Simeon
drew upwhat are known as the 'second versions', aimed not only at polishing
the means of expression of the Slavonic language but also at providing a full
translation of the liturgical texts.
Third, the appearance of a complete compendium of laws in Slavonic pre-
pared by Tsar Simeon's circle of scholars along the lines of the Byzantine
patriarchal Nomokanon (882) and the new law books which subsequently
appeared in Constantinople. The Nomokanon is based onRoman law updated
under Justinian (sixth century) and related to the Christian canons of the ecu-
menical and local councils. Simeon's code introduced the legacy of Roman law
into the Slavonic world. Rus' also adopted another collection of laws, Arch-
bishop Methodius'sNomokanon, which was translated from the Greek (881/82)
and is thought to have been borrowed directlyfrom Great Moravia. The text
was preserved and reproduced at the beginning of a thirteenth-centurymanu-
script entitled Ustjuzskaja kormcaja, while Simeon's Nomokanon is found in
another eleventh-century manuscript, Efremovskaja kormcaja.
Fourth, the foundation in Bulgaria of a well-stocked Slavonic librarywith
a collection of works of theology and dogma, translated or original, treatises on
the natural sciences, such as the encyclopedias written in Old Bulgarian by John
the Exarch, The Heavens and the Hexameron, the Tract against the Bogomi/s byCos-
40 Nikolai Todorov
mas the Priest, the works of Clement of Okhrid in the fields of hagiography,
hymnography and rhetoric, andmany others preserved in dozens of Russian
copies.
Fifth, the creation in Bulgaria of the second Slavonic alphabet, known as
Cyrillic (ninth-tenth centuries). This was the fruit of the propitious cultural
conditions existing in Bulgaria where Greek was read and written. The Cyrillic
alphabet adopted those letters of the Greek alphabet whose phonemes cor-
responded to Slavonic ones. The Glagolitic letters of Constantine-Cyril were
retained for specificallySlavonic phonemes. The Cyrillic alphabet follows the
order established by Cyril in accordance with the phonetic articulation of the
letters. The codifier of the Cyrillic alphabet is thought to have been Clement of
Okhrid (916). It was this Cyrillic alphabet created in Bulgaria that Rus' adopted.
It is hoped that this brief account gives some idea of the vast politico-
cultural programme that Christianized Rus' inherited from the tradition
inspiredby Cyril and Methodius. It was not merely a matter of adopting specific
texts and ideas, but of becoming part of a vast programme of civilization and
the principles of cultural communication with Byzantium that had alreadybeen
adopted by other Slav societies. The close of the tenth centurybrought about
the proper conditions for the establishment of direct relations between Rus' and
Byzantium and also with the written culture of slavia orthodoxa.
Medievalists are in agreement that bilingualism was one of the outstanding
features of Christian cultural communities in the Middle Ages, necessitated by
the universal nature of Christian culture and the theory of sacred languages.
Cyril and Methodius created a new type of bilingualism - the Slavonic model:
universal knowledge deserted the field of the three sacred languages in favour of
a living mother tongue. This kind of bilingualism paved the way for concepts
and ideas rooted in local traditional culture, so that written culture was no lon-
ger the preserve of a cast or lite, but insteadwas made accessible to the people.
Such bilingualism also provided prospects for subsequent democratic intellec-
tual movements by strengthening the ethnic awareness of the Slav peoples.
Yet another salient feature of the undertaking of Cyril and Methodius is the
importance attached to selectivityas the pivot of cultural interaction between
Byzantium and the Slavonic world to the detriment of imitation. This accounts
for the appearance of what is called the Slavonic diglossia: the common Cyrillo-
Methodian literarylanguage acquired the specific traits of the vernacular, first
of all in particular versions, such as the Russian one, and later in the form of
autonomous literarylanguages.
Thus the conversion of Russian societyto Christianityenabled it to make
substantial progress in the social, political and cultural fields. The Russian Prin-
cipalityprovided a focus around which the Eastern Slav peoples united. Fol-
lowing the Ottoman conquest (fourteenth and fifteenth centuries), the Russian
State felt dutybound to defend the Orthodox states and protect their political
The conversion of Rus' to Christianity
41
and cultural traditions. The dynamic nature of this programme was summe d up
in the overall concept of Moscow as 'the Third Rome ' .
The conversion of Rus' to Christianitybrought with it an influx of texts
written in Slavonic in Great Moravia, not to mention the immense Slavonic
libraryin Old Bulgarian. The impact of this heritage on the Russian people,
coupled with faith in the divine mission of Cyril and Methodius wh o had been
sent to save the Slavonic world, gave rise to the idea of continuitybetween the
Russians and the two brothers from Thessalonika. This resulted in the growth
of legends such as the so-called Cherson legend according to which Prince Vla-
dimir was converted to Christianityby Cyril himself and was the source of reli-
gious and mystical visions that are mirrored in works claiming that Rus' was
blessed by the Apostle Andrew, to give but one example. All these ideas were
embodied in Russian Messianism for the salvation of humanity and the authen-
tication of the faith. W hile they comprised ameasure of mystical extremism,
such ideas always embodied a sense of duty towards the Slav world and of the
need to protect and unite it. Despite the markedly reactionary nature of the Sla-
vophile politico-social movement in Russia in the nineteenth century, this very
Messianism constituted, indemocratic circles, the driving force behind the
Russian policyof liberating the Balkans during the wars between Russia and the
Ottoman Empire in the eighteenth arid nineteenth centuries.
As earlyas the tenth century, the cultural development of Rus' materialized
within the cultural unity of slavia orthodoxa. If, during the tenth and early
eleventh centuries, Rus' was mainly on the receiving end, the fact remains that,
in the centuries that followed, whe n the Southern Slavs came under Ottoman
domination (fifteenth to eighteenth centuries), it became the centre for written
Slavonic culture and its stimulation. It was here that modern Slavonic literature
and culture began to develop. In view of their traditional kinship, the Balkan
Slavs took to Russian literature because they felt it corresponded to their own
stage of cultural development and formed a part of their own heritage. A single
example, that of the Slavonic alphabet, is sufficient to illustrate this. Rus' had
borrowed the Cyrillic alphabet from Bulgaria and all the texts had been copied
and later printed in Cyrillic letters. Russia introduced a ne w type of character-
face in the eighteenth century. This secular Cyrillic alphabet was adopted for
Bulgarian and Serbian books and is still used by several Soviet peoples to this
day.
Russia's potent cultural influence over the Balkan Slavs in the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries and the feeling of cultural and ideological kinship still
shared by Slavs in general are due not so much to the part played by any partic-
ular ideologist as to these deep-rooted processes.
The conversion of Rus' to Christianitywas a favourable factor in the de-
velopment of civilization throughout South-eastern Europe. In the context of
ancient times, wh e n some of the W estern and all of the Southern Slavs were
42
Nikolai Toorov
converted to Christianity, when the Bulgarian State was a power to be reckoned
with in the Balkans, and Georgia and Armenia had been elaborating a written
Christian culture in their own language for centuries, the adherence of Rus' to
Christianitythrough the agency of Byzantium opened up a vast hinterland to
Christian civilization in the Black Sea basin and paved the way for the contin-
uous and steadydevelopment of this important Eurasian cultural region. In the
face of the Arab expansion threatening Byzantium, followed some time later by
the invasion of Europe by tribes and peoples from Asia, the Black Sea cultural
region with its sturdy traditions became a European bulwark against such inva-
sions. At various times and in different fields, the Islamic world made its pre-
sence and influence felt: initially this was the case of the Volga Bulgars, and
later, following the consolidation of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans and
Central Europe, part of the Balkans and the Crimean peninsula became a
stronghold of Islam. However, the development of Russia and the other Black
Sea countries that belonged to European civilization ensured their strength and
prevented this crossroads of the world from becoming a migratoryzone with a
destabilizing effect on settled civilizations. This ethnico-cultural stabilityin
southern and western Europe contributed from the tenth to the eighteenth cen-
turies to the development of the old continent and provided the conditions that
placed it in the vanguard of world civilization at the time.
In modern times, when Christianity's model of societyand state had
already fulfilled its purpose and socio-cultural change gave the world new chal-
lenges, Russia launched forth in a new direction, enriched by the secular heri-
tage of its culture in the mother-tongue and aware of its historic calling as a
centre of accelerated development for the world as a whole.
The development of Kievan Rus' in
the wake of Christianization
Boris Rauschenbach
The Millennium of the introductionof Christianity intoRus' was celebrated in
1988. This is, of course, an arbitrarydate; taken from the chronicle's account of
the baptism of Rus' , it indicates the moment when Christianitybecame the
country's official religion. In actual fact Christianization was a gradual process
and began much earlier than this.
If we discount the legend that the Apostle Andrew preached on the banks
of the Dnieper, the first clear evidence of the beginning of Christianityamong
the ancient Russian tribes dates from the ninth century. This is mentioned in a
number of sources, but perhaps the strongest proof is archaeological. Burials
dating back to the ninth and tenth centuries, with all the features of Christian
funerary rites, have been found in Kiev and the territoryof the Polyane. Prince
Igor's treatywith Byzantium, dating from the first half of the tenth century, was
signed on behalf of Kievan Rus' not onlyby pagans but alsoby Christians. This
treaty attests that pagans and Christians had equal rights. It is interesting to note
that the oath on conclusion of the treatywas taken by the Russian Christians in
the Cathedral of the Prophet Elijah in Kiev. The use of the word 'cathedral'
indicates that there were already several Christian churches in Kiev. There were
also Christian communities in Novgorod.
Thirteen years after this treatywas concluded, the Great Princess Olga
went to Byzantium where she was baptized. O n her return to Kiev, she contri-
buted greatly to the spread of Christianity. Thus, long before the official bap-
tism of Rus' , Christianitywas alreadywell known there and was widely appre-
ciated.
Very probably, the steadyspread of Christianityaroused serious concern in
the circles of the pagan priesthood, whose influence was great. This may
explain the persecution of Christians (going as far as massacre) that began after
44
Boris Rauschenbach
the death of Olga and continued during the reign of Vladimir until the time of
his baptism.
W hat reasons induced Vladimir and his court (which could be called the
'government' of Rus') to adopt Christianityas a state religion despite open resis-
tance from the pagan priests? To answer this question, the situation, both inter-
nal and international, of Kievan Rus' should first be examined. In the ninth
century, Rus' had alreadybegun to form a unified, albeit unstable, state in the
form of an association of Slavonic tribes. The Prince at its head was constantly
faced with the attempts of one tribe or another to usurp his authority, which
led to constant campaigns against recalcitrants. Within the tribes (and con-
sequently in the state as a whole), the primitive order was gradually breaking
down and feudalism developing (albeit still without the feudal form of land-
holding).
In 978, when the young Prince Vladimir ascended the throne of Kiev, his
most urgent task was to make Rus' more cohesive. For this reason he aban-
doned lengthy militarycampaigns and took up permanent residence in his
country's capital, Kiev, so as to remain in control of the country's political life
at all times. More importantly, he decided to strengthen the union of Slavonic
tribes byimposing a single form of paganism on them as a state religion. W e
know from the chronicle and from archaeological excavations that a state pan-
theon of six gods, headed by the Prince's god, Perun, was established at Kiev.
Worship of Perun was also introduced in Novgorod. Such efforts may have had
some positive effects, but these were not enough to solve the basic problems.
It should first be pointed out that the pagan religion and the legal concepts
and customs associated with it in no way fostered the development of feudal-
ism; if anything, theyeven hindered it. Completely attuned to a primitive tribal
system that was now on the wane, theywere incapable of inspiringmembers of
societywith ideals of behaviour appropriate to the age of feudalism. They
looked backwards and not forwards.
The international situation of Rus' presented Vladimir with even more
serious problems. During the previous century the young state had proved itself
a power to be reckoned with militarily, and Russian merchants had come to
take a constant part in international trade. The countries surrounding Rus' that
could have presented a threat to her (such as the Khazar kaganate) had been
defeated, and Vladimir had fortified the frontiers against warlike nomads.
There may have been some temptation to continue as before, but this was no
longer possible. The policy of militarycampaigns for purpose of plunder had
reached a dead end. Subjugation of the comparatively close, brilliant and
powerful Byzantine Empire was clearlyimpossible. The only realistic aim was
to seek to rise to the level of Byzantium and the other advanced states, drawing
strength from Rus's own resources. This was preciselythe aim that Vladimir set
himself.
The development ofKievan Rus' in 45
H e understood that it would be futile to wait for his pagan state to develop
gradually until it caught up with the feudal monarchies. W hat was needed was a
leap forward, boldly taking from the developed countries their culture, science,
crafts, building skills in a nutshell, everything that made of Byzantium and
similar feudal monarchies the most advanced states of their time. It was clear
that the model should be adopted in its entirety, including religion. In Byzan-
tium, for example, state and church were so closely linked and interwoven that
it was practicallyimpossible to separate religious from secular activity. More-
over, Vladimir had no need to do so.
The Byzantine version of Christianity(which we shall call 'Orthodox',
though the formal schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches only
took place in 1054) was the one that best lent itself to the unification of Rus' . It
was well suited to the needs of a feudal society(being borrowed from a feudal
country) but it had two other important features.
First, unlike the Western Church, the Orthodox Church was not a political
force independent of the Emperor. The Church did not have its own forces,
and it is quite impossible to imagine the Byzantine Empire as the scene of bat-
tles such as those that opposed the armies of popes and kings. Vladimir, whose
aim was to unite his country, needed a Church just like this, obedient to his will
(in political matters), rather than another disruptive force in the state.
Secondly, Rus's neighbour was Orthodox Bulgaria, which had been con-
verted approximately 100 years earlier. Bulgaria alreadyhad church service
books in the Bulgarian language as a result of the activityof the evangelists of
the Slavonic peoples, Cyril and Methodius and their successors. At that time the
ancient Bulgarian and Russian languages were so close that, unlike Greek
books, Bulgarian books did not need to be translated, just copied. W hat is more,
the Bulgarian clergycould easily, without interpreters, preach the new religion
and conduct church services in Rus' . As Christianityhad to supplant the pagan
religion whose priests used the country's language, the use of Latin or Greek in
Christian church services would have constituted an enormous and totally
unnecessary obstacle to the spread of the ne w religion (this is confirmed by his-
tory: when, at a later date, the Byzantine clergyattempted to introduce Greek as
a liturgical language in Rus' , theywere forced to give it up immediately). Bulga-
ria had to a certain extent alreadyprepared the ground for the rapid conversion
of its close neighbour and was later to take an active part in its baptism.
Such were the internal and external political preconditions of the baptism
of Rus' . It should again be stressed that Vladimir regarded the baptism not only
as a religious act, but as an accompaniment to far-reaching feudal reform, mak-
ing it possible within a short period to draw level with the progressive feudal
monarchies in all the most important fields. The introduction into Rus' of
Christianitybased on the Byzantine Church appeared ideal for Vladimir's
plans, yet an obstacle of principle barred the way. W e have alreadyseen that
46 Boris Rauschenbacb
Church and state were very closely linked in Byzantium. Therefore, from the
Byzantine point of view, a state receiving its baptism from Constantinople auto-
maticallybecame the latter's vassal. However, the purpose of Vladimir's
reforms was to raise Rus' to the level of the most advanced countries of his
time, and certainlynot to lose its independence.
It is difficult to sayhow events would have developed if the Byzantine
Emperor, Basil II (with his brother and co-ruler Constantine VIII, who,
however, played only a secondary role, so that hereinafter only Basil II will be
mentioned), had not suffered a crushing defeat in 986 and even been in serious
danger of losing his throne in 987 when his commander-in-chief, Phocas,
rebelled, declared himself Emperor and advanced with his forces on Constanti-
nople. Basil's onlyhope of keeping his throne lay in seeking help from Vladi-
mir, which he did forthwith.
Vladimir agreed, but set very harsh conditions. First, the baptism of Rus'
should not make the country an official vassal of Constantinople, and, secondly,
he was to receive the hand of the Emperor's sister, Anna, in marriage. The lat-
ter demand was of an almost scandalous nature, as it was completely out of
keeping with existing Byzantine practice in foreign relations. Seeing no other
way out, however, Basil II agreed to these conditions.
Vladimir needed to marry Anna for political reasons. Such a marriage
would immediately raise him to the rank of the foremost royal houses of
Europe. It is certain that Vladimir's aid saved Basil IPs throne. The latter then
tried to renege on his obligations, but Vladimir's rapid militaryresponse (the
taking of Cherson, an important Byzantine stronghold on the Black Sea, and
the threat of an advance on Constantinople) forced the Byzantine Emperor to
honour the conditions of the treaty. Anna became Vladimir's wife (by church
marriage) and the mass baptism of the population of Rus' began.
The question naturally arises as to whether there was resistance to baptism
on the part of the people. W as this baptism 'forced' as is sometimes claimed? It
should first be noted that the baptism was an internal affair of Rus' ; it took place
on the basis of a decision freelytaken by Vladimir and his court, what could be
called the 'government' of Kievan Rus'. It would therefore be terminologically
inexact to apply the word 'forced' to the carrying out of a lawful government's
decision. However, to analyse the problem in greater depth, what was the atti-
tude of the different strata of the population of Kievan Rus'?
The Prince and his court and retinue had nothing to lose from baptism,
rather it was to their advantage. The Prince, for example, became a monarch by
the grace of God and not of men. It was also advantageous for the merchants as
their relationships with counterparts in European Christian states were facil-
itated and improved. The ordinarymembers of the tribal community did not
lose anything either (intensive feudalization did not take place until later), and
slaves only gained, since slaverywas not typical of feudalism and the Church
The development ofKievan Rus' in Al
condemned it, especiallythe sale of fellow tribesmen to the 'infidel'. As a result
of all this, Christianityspread surprisinglyquicklyand painlesslyas compared
with other countries that were baptized at approximately the same time, such as
Sweden and Norway.
The only privileged class that lost everything was the pagan priesthood.
E ven before the official baptism of the country this class was aware of the threat
represented by Christianitywith its growing numbers of adherents. As has
alreadybeen said, the pagan priests attempted to strike a forestallingblow at
Christianityby persecuting Christians under Svyatoslav and at the start of Vla-
dimir's reign, but the inexorable laws of the development of societymade the
downfall of paganism inevitable. The resistance of paganism to the baptism was
an expression of the general law bywhich the ne w and progressive always
encounters resistance from the old and obsolete.
The reaction of the pagan priests to Vladimir's reforms was twofold. S ome
of the priestlycaste openlyopposed the Prince and his reforms, followed by
some of the populace, on the usual pretext in such circumstances of fidelityto
ancestral custom. Vladimir put down armed rebellion by force of arms. It
should, however, be borne in mind that it was not so much resistance to the
new religion that he suppressed as resistance to the system of feudal reforms.
This can be seen from his reaction to the tactics of another wing of the priestly
caste that did not openlyoppose him but withdrew to remote parts of the coun-
try and continued to perform pagan rituals there. Vladimir was aware of this
but did not interfere with these priests, as they presented no danger to his main
project - feudal reform. H e understood that these survivals of paganism would
graduallydie out.
In this way, the baptism was immediately followed by a transitional period,
during which paganism co-existed with the main religion, Christianity, albeit
mainly in outlying areas. Its survival can be partlyexplained by the fact that its
priests carried out certain sociallyuseful functions, such as treating the sick.
This transitional period continued for approximately100 years. If the ordinary
people willinglyrepudiated their tribal andc ommon Slavonic gods, belief in
friendlyand local spirits (such as house and forest spirits) continued in places
up to the twentieth century. This was not only because theywere sometimes
regarded as members of the family or village community, but also because it was
easy to reconcile their existence with the Christian religion. W e know from the
Lives of the Saints that spirits of a lower order demons - often tempted the
saints or tried to frighten them. In the minds of the people, house, forest and
other spirits came to be seen as demons, taking on as a result of this 'adaptation'
a negative character. Therefore continuing belief in household spirits is in no
way evidence of the survival of paganism as is sometimes claimed.
To conclude our consideration of the question of whether the people
resisted conversion to Christianity, a few words should be said about the 'sor-
48 Boris Kauschenbach
cerers' revolts' as mentioned in the chronicles. The most important took place
in the years 1026 and1071. The chroniclers interpret these popular disturbances
as attempts at restoring paganism. However the description in the chronicles of
these events gives a completely different picture. In both cases the risings took
place in famine years. At that time, a decade after the baptism of Rus' , the pro-
cess of feudalization had increased in pace. The formerly free tribal commun-
ities had become hierarchical and their leaders, graduallybecoming feudal
lords, had taken possession of the communities' lands and reduced their me m-
bers to serfdom. This process became particularlyintense in years of famine
when, hiding their supplies, the leaders of the community showed particular
crueltyto its other members, wh o had formerly shared equal rights with them.
It is not surprising that in years of particular shortages there were spontaneous
uprisings against feudalism (and therefore against the Prince's power), but the
rebels struck mainly at the former tribal leaders. The pagan priests joined in
these justified popular disturbances in an attempt to exploit them to restore
paganism. The princes forcefullycrushed the uprisings, not because of their
pagan character but because theywere anti-feudal. After all, before the risings
the princes had calmly observed the activities of the pagan priests, leaving it to
the Church to struggle with them. It was advantageous to the chroniclers, wh o
represented the interests of feudalism, to stress the pagan and anti-Christian
nature of the uprisings, in order to avoid the need to describe the oppression of
the feudal class coming into being. That is why these popular disturbances were
given the name of 'sorcerers' revolts'.
To sum up, it may be said with confidence that Prince Vladimir's reforms
were well received by the vast majority of the population and supported by it.
Their results were felt in all branches of the country's life: religious, political,
socio-economic and cultural.
As for the religious aspect of the question, the change-over from paganism
to Christianitywas a transition from a barbarous religion (with human sacrif-
ice, etc.) to a civilizedone. Most important (especiallyin later times) was the
centralized organization of the Church (headed by a Metropolitan with control
over the bishops at diocesan level wh o, in turn, had priests under their author-
ity). This organizational unity of the Church, unknown to paganism, played a
markedly positive role in the country's history, as will be seen below.
Prince Vladimir's reforms immediatelybegan to influence all aspects of the
life of ancient Russian society. The introduction of Christianity required
priests. Bulgaria was able to help with this to a certain degree, but first of all
there was an urgent need to train clergy locally. Accordingly schools were es-
tablished, andmany children forced to attend them. There is evidence that not
only children from the upper classes, but also poor children attended school.
This is quite understandable, bearing in mind that by the end of Vladimir's
reign there were several hundred churches in Kiev alone. The mass training of
the wake of Christianiization
clergyled to a notable increase in literacy. In time, learning reached all parts, as
can be seen from the birch-bark manuscripts found inNovgorod, written by
both me n andwome n belonging to various strata of society.
N ot only service books but icons, too, were necessary for church services.
At first theywere imported from Byzantium, but it was both impossible and
inappropriate to supply the many thousands of churches springing up on the
territoryof Rus' with imported icons. Foreign artists were invited toRus' to
paint frescoes in the great churches of the principal towns, and to train Russian
icon-painters. In a similar way local masters learnt the art of building in stone.
As a result, during the reign of Vladimir's son, Yaroslav, all the main work of
building and decorating churches (and also buildings such as the princes'
palaces) was carried out by Russian craftsmen.
Rus' s borrowings from Byzantium were not limited to those directlycon-
nected with worship. As has alreadybeen noted, amore developed way of life
was borrowed as a whole. The process was not limited to crafts; agriculture too
was stimulated and horticulture appeared. Increasingly intensive trade with
other countries led the Kievan State under Vladimir to begin minting its own
gold coins.
It is difficult today to describe Vladimir's radical reforms in greater detail.
The ancient Russian chronicles (only those written after the death of Vladimir
have come down to us) have one astonishing peculiarity: describing in detail
Vladimir's activities as a pagan, the baptism of Rus' {The Cherson hegend) and the
foundation of the main church inKiev (the Church of the Tithe), they say
nothing of his many years of activityfollowing the baptism. The authors of the
chronicle do not appear tohave approved of all the Prince's acts. S ome
researchers link this to the fact that the chronicle was kept at the outset by
Byzantine writers wh o had come to Rus' , and the political line taken by Vladi-
mir was based on the interests of Rus' and did not take those of Byzantium suffi-
ciently into account. There is indirect confirmation of this in folklore: the
Prince is remembered in it under the name of Vladimir the Radiant Sun, in folk
epics (byliny) he is called the 'sweet prince' and the image of a prince beloved by
the whole people shines through all the later accretions.
This calls for a few words on the nature of human happiness. The feeling of
happiness is in no way connected with wealth. If a man has everything, he does
not experience happiness, but rather the tedium of surfeit. This is the condition
depicted so well by Fellini in his filmL Dolce Vita. True happiness for man is
movement towards something better, with today being better than yesterday
and tomorrow better than today. It is the rate at which life improves and not
the standard of living that should be taken as the measure of happiness, and it
was in Vladimir's day, whe n the pace of change in all aspects of life in Rus' was
greatest, that people must have had a particularlystrong feeling of happiness
and of satisfaction with life.
50 Boris Rauschenbach
This was also helped by one specific feature of religious life at the time of
Vladimir. Although Byzantium was taken as a model by Russian Christians, the
Russian Church was markedly different from that of Byzantium. This diff-
erence appeared first and foremost in the absence of monasticism (which, as is
well known, played a very important role inByzantium), and consequently in
that of the ascetic element in religious life. This made it possible for some his-
torians to describe the beginnings of Christianity inRus' as 'joyful'.
W h y were there no monasteries in Rus' at the time of Vladimir? The
answer is probably that even though children can be forced to go to school, the
forcible creation of monasteries is completely impossible. A monastery is a
refuge for people who have taken the tonsure of their own free will, and at the
time of Vladimir there were not yet any such people: to feel the desire to enter a
monastery, a person must have become accustomed to the ideals of Christianity,
preferablyfrom childhood. W hat is more, the Christians of the first generation
considered the very fact of their baptism such a feat of personal piety that there
seemed no need to add to it the strictures of monastic life. Therefore of all the
Christian virtues, love of one's neighbour took first place.
Vladimir put this love into practice intwo ways. First, he held banquets for
hundreds of people, though it is true that these banquets also had a political
purpose, rallying together the retinue and tribal aristocracyfrom which the feu-
dal class was formed. Secondly, Vladimir gave assistance to the poorest of his
people. At his court any citizen of Kiev and any traveller could receive free
meals, and food was taken to the homes of the sick and the old. Vladimir
redeemed prisoners (slaves) and set them free, giving them means to live on. It
is not surprising that the people remembered him as 'Vladimir the Radiant
Sun'.
After the death of Vladimir in1015 and the internecine war between his
sons, Yaroslav the Wise (1015-54) became Prince. He continued his father's
policy energeticallyby founding schools, fostering trade (minting not only gold
coins, but silver ones too), constructing fortresses on the frontiers and building
churches. In his reign, however, anew element was introduced.
A civilized state cannot exist without a standard written code of law for the
whole country, and under Yaroslav the Russkaya Pravda (Russian Justice) code and
a number of other written statutes were drawn up. These legal documents
replaced the tribal customs that had existed inpagan times.
Another of Yaroslav's concerns was that of raising the cultural level of
society. To vie with Byzantium, literacywas not enough; Rus' needed itsown
writers and philosophers. During the Middle Ages the monasteries were centres
of learning, and under Yaroslav Russian monasticism came into being, monas-
teries were founded and works of literature, not only of a theological, but also of
a philosophical and political nature, were written.
For a better understanding of the political nature of the literature of Kie-
The development ofKievan EMS' in 51
the wake ofChristianization
van Rus' , one peculiarityof Rus's relations with Byzantium should be me n-
tioned. As has alreadybeen said, after the conversion to Orthodoxy, Byzantium
tried to treat Rus' as its vassal, while the ancient Russian State was very sensitive
to anything that might be interpreted as a limitation of its sovereignty. It would
probably be an exaggeration to describe the policyof the Princes of Kiev as anti-
Byzantine, but Kievan Rus' insisted on equalitywith Byzantium, as is borne out
very clearlyby that remarkable work of ancient Russian literature, the Sermon on
Law and Grace by Metropolitan Hilarin.
This renownedSermon would appear to be a treatise on a classical theolog-
ical theme. The question of the relationshipbetween the Old Testament (Law)
and the N e w Testament (Grace) had alreadybeen raised by the Apostle Paul
(Heb. 10:28-29). In complete agreement with the Apostle, Hilarin, giving
many examples from the Bible, comes to the conclusion that Grace is higher
than the Law, that is to say, what is new and young is better than the old. His
words can be interpreted as a refutation of the thesis of the superiorityof Byzan-
tium (baptized long since) over Rus'. This thought is expressed even more expli-
citlyin parts where Hilarin compares Vladimir to the Apostles wh o preached
Christianityto many nations. This is a bold comparison, to say the least, as in it
the merit for the baptism of Rus' is ascribed to Vladimir alone, and neither
Byzantium nor Bulgaria is even mentioned. This is followed by a detailedcom-
parison between Vladimir's actions and those of the Byzantine Emperor Con-
stantine, wh o had alsomade Christianityhis country's state religion. In conclu-
sion, Hilarin asserts that Vladimir is in no way inferior to Constantine and is
consequentlyworthy of the same gloryand honour that he received, that is, that
he should be numbered among the saints.
The Sermon speaks very clearlyof the equal honour of Rus' and Byzantium,
and any relationshipof vassalage between the two countries is out of the ques-
tion. In this way Hilarin makes a classical theological theme into a politically
topical one. This work of literature also shows the high level of culture reached
towards the end of Yaroslav's reign. Its complex structure presupposes in its
readers an excellent knowledge of a large number of texts, and Hilarin himself
mentions this at the beginning of his work: 'After all, we are not writing for the
ignorant, but for those wh o have alreadysavoured the sweetness of books.' Kie-
van Rus' was becoming not only literate but also trulycultured, as can also be
seen from the further development of ancient Russian literature, which is not
confined to Metropolitan Hilarion'sSermon. At the turn of the eleventh and
twelfth centuries the monk Nestor of the Kiev Caves Monastery wrote The Tale
of Bygone Years, the first account of Russian history. His work is no bare summary
of facts but a work of literature. As in Hilarion's work, but to a much greater
extent, this work gives support for the idea of Rus's independence of Byzan-
tium. The middle of the twelfth centurysaw the composition of the works of
the first Russian philosopher, Metropolitan Clement Smolyatich, and of Cyril,
52 Boris Rauschenbach
Bishop of Turov, as well as many others. Secular literature also began to appear;
a representative masterpiece isThe Song of Igor's Campaign.
The aspiration to equal Byzantium in everything can also be seen in Yaros-
lav's building activity: by analogy with that of Constantinople, the magnificent
Cathedral of St Sophia was built in Kiev, and the citywalls of Kiev were beaut-
ified, as in Constantinople, with a Golden Gate. Abbot Daniel's Travels (late ele-
venth century) are quite revealing; in them he writes that on seeing at the Holy
Sepulchre a large number of candelabra (votive lamps) from different countries,
including Byzantium, he obtained permission from King Baldwin to place a
candelabrum there in the name of the land of Rus' . Rus' should be in no way
inferior toByzantium.
It was a circumstance of great significance for the country's culture, not
only at the time of Yaroslav, but also later, that Rus's conversion to Christianity
gave it architects, artists and writers. These artists did not simplycopyByzan-
tine examples, but created something ne w - ancient Russian culture. This cul-
ture had a clearlymarked national character. It is impossible to confuse an
ancient Russian church with its Byzantine or Bulgarian counterpart. The
ancient Russian icon was also distinct from those of other countries. This new
Russian culture was an organic synthesis of the Byzantine element with a purely
national one, with deep roots in the pagan culture of the past age, which in its
own way had been highlydeveloped.
The energetic implementation of the well-considered programme of
reforms begun by Vladimir and completed by Yaroslav made Rus' an advanced
centralized monarchy in no way inferior to the foremost countries of its time,
whether in terms of its economy or culture or the degree of development of its
politico-economic structure. The swift rise of Rus' aroused in its neighbours
sincere admiration and the desire to enlist the support of this new strong and
enlightened power. This factor is well illustrated by the dynastic marriages that
were concluded. If Vladimir had tohave recourse toarms to win a wife ' wor-
thy' of him, by the time of Yaroslav the most distinguished royal houses of
Europe regarded it as an honour to allythemselves with the monarch of Kiev.
The death of Yaroslav was followed by a period of feudal disintegration,
the country gradually splitting up into a number of practicallyindependent
principalities, constantlycontending with one another. The Prince reigning in
Kiev became a mere figurehead, as became abundantly clear when in the
twelfth centuryAndrei Bogolyubsky, after seizing Kiev and taking the title of
Great Prince, refused to settle there and insteadmade the town of Vladimir the
capital of Rus' . This break-up had the same causes as similar processes in
Europe. The role of the Church as a powerful unifying factor became partic-
ularlyimportant at this time. First of all, it should be noted that if Rus' , which
had once been united, had become divided into warring principalities, this did
not happen to the Church. The Russian Church was led by a single Metropol-
itan whose power over the bishops at the head of the dioceses was incomparably
greater than that of the Great Prince of Kiev over the other princes.
Basically, it is easy to see that any prince taking hostile militaryaction
against another prince always did so in the hope of improving his position.
Seizing someone else's territories always enriched the aggressor and increased
his strength. Yet militaryaction between Russian principalities was contrary to
the interests of the Church, as it brought ruin to the common people and so
reduced the Church's revenues. Internal war was further unacceptable from the
point of view of the love towards one's neighbour preached by the Church and
fidelityto the obligations taken on by the princes.
For these reasons the Church acted as a political and ideological factor
counteracting the centrifugal effect of the princes' internal struggles. The
organization of the Church formed a political structure, echoing, often more
effectively, the corresponding state or princely structure of authority. For this
reason the role of the Church as a factor resisting the division of Rus' into inde-
pendent principalities seems to have been extremely beneficial and important.
This unifying role of the Church becomes even clearer as we move away
from the period immediately following the adoption of Christianity. It became
particularlyimportant in the fourteenth centurywhen Rus' was to cast off the
intolerable and humiliating yoke of the Golden Horde.
In the pre-Mongol, Kievan period of Russian history, the Church counter-
acted feudal fragmentation byopposing internal struggles between princes, as
can be seen from the works of literature that have come down to us. In the four-
teenth century, Rus' , alreadyfragmented and oppressed by the Golden Horde,
was faced with an even harder task - that of establishing a new national unity
and of armed struggle against the oppressors. The new centre around which the
country united was to be Moscow.
W h e n Moscow was only beginning to rise and no one could yet imagine its
future role, Metropolitan Peter, then at the head of the Russian Church, moved
his residence toMoscow, thus distinguishing it from the other capitals of prin-
cipalities. His successor, Metropolitan Alexis, continued to live inMoscow and
governed not only the Church but all of fragmented Rus' in the name of Prince
Dimitri wh o was still in his infancy. Metropolitan Alexis's diplomatic skills did
much to strengthen the role of Moscow as the new centre of Rus' .
At this time, in addition to the normal ecclesiastical hierarchy, a new reli-
gious and political centre came into being in Rus' , the Troitse-Sergieva Monas-
tery. Its founder, Sergius of Radonezh, astonished his contemporaries by the
strictness of the monastic rule that he introduced, by the simple way of life led
by him and his monks, and, most of all, by his preaching of the unacceptability
of internal warring between the Russian princes and of the need for them to
unite to free Rus' from the foreign yoke. St Sergius came to embody the national
conscience. His authoritywas enormous.
54
Boris Rauschenbach
In 1380, when the forces of the Golden Horde advanced onRus' under the
command of Mamai, it became clear that this invasion could not be repelled by
the princes' retinues alone. The whole nation had to be mustered. It is hard to
overestimate the help that Sergius of Radonezh, with his nationwide authority,
gave to Prince Dimitri Donskoy in this. Sergius not only blessed Dimitri before
the battle, but also sent to the battlefieldtwo of his monks, former warriors, to
give the coming battle the nature of a holywar, as all those taking part in the
battle - princes, retinue and warriors - represented only their own principal-
ities, whereas the warrior-monks Peresvet and Oslyablya stood for the
Church, and hence for all Rus' . Contrary to all the rules of militarytheory, the
Russian people's army, the humble infantry, given heart by Sergius and Dimitri
Donskoy, withstood the terrible impact of Mamai' s cavalryand, acting in con-
cert with the princes' retinues, finallycarried the day.
The role of Sergius of Radonezh in the unification of the Russian lands
around Moscow was not limited to this victory. Succeeding where others had
failed, he reconciled princes wh o had long been at odds. His word carriedmore
weight than the military victory of either side in the internecine struggles be-
tween princes.
The examples given here are sufficientlyconvincing evidence of the unify-
ing role of the Church, which was so essential during the period of the feudal
fragmentation of Rus' .
The conversion of Rus' to Christianity constituted a revolution beneficial
to all aspects of social life in ancient Russian society. The sweeping nature of
Prince Vladimir's reforms entitles them to be considered as a comprehensive
programme of feudal reforms. This unfamiliar appellation gives a deeper
understanding of the innovations brought in byVladimir's reforms, which
were not limited to religion. W e today should be grateful to our far-sighted
ancestors, and above all to Vladimir and Yaroslav, who sparedno effort to map
out the future course of the Russian people.
The boldness, decisiveness and lack of compromise of Vladimir, wh o
aspired to raise comparativelybackward pagan Rus' , in what was historicallyan
extremely short period, to the level of a great European power, stand compari-
son with those of Peter the Great who embarked upon a similar endeavour in
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It is interesting to note that, even in
his methods, Peter frequently (perhaps unconsciously) followed Vladimir's
example. H e also took an advanced country as a model and boldly introduced a
whole series of innovations to serve as standards in all aspects of life in Russia as
a whole.
T he assimilation by Kievan R us'
of the classical and Byzantine heritage:
the role of Christianization
Yaroslav Shchapov
The adoption of Christianityin Rus' attracts the attention both of the general
public with an interest in Russia's past and of specialist historians who study
that past professionally. International conferences, scholarlyworks and plans
for the publication of source material and reference books andmany popular
books are all part of the celebration of the Millennium. In the Soviet Union
there is tremendous interest both among scholars and the general public in the
subject of the conversion of Rus' to Christianity. For more than half a century
little work has been done on this theme (the works of S. V. Bakhrushin and
M. T. Tikhomirov are, however, worthy of note), and it has been more or less
passed over in general works on the history of Kievan Rus' (with the notable
exception ofN . F. Lavrov's article in the collective study: History of the Culture of
Ancient Rus' edited byB. D. Grekov andM. I. Artamonov). In recent years,
however, several articles and books have appeared in which these questions
have again been given consideration and a large number of monographs and
collective works, speciallywritten for the jubilee by the scholars of the Ac-
ademy of Sciences and the universities, were published in 1988-90. The works
published over recent years are unequal in quality; some are merely shallow and
biased and not of course a criterion for the present research.
H ow, on the basis of the knowledge accumulated, can the principal features
of the adoption of Christianityin Rus' best be described today? Let us first con-
sider the fact that the new religion and ecclesiastical organization replaced and
supplanted in Rus' another religion, that is, paganism, which had existed in the
region since the second millennium B.C. Furthermore, the adoption of Chris-
tianitytook place at a time when the ancient Russian State had already existed
for 150 years, that is, since the ninth century, with its authorities, financial and
militarysystems, law and culture that had come into being under paganism. For
56 Yaroslav Sbchapov
this reason the process of supplanting the old religion by the new could not be
easy or fast. The branches of paganism that had taken root so deeply here intert-
wined with the young shoots of the new religious system being fostered by the
new Church organization in liaison with the prince's authority.
In the change taking place in religious systems in Rus' , the socio-political
factor, itself determined by the internal conditions of the country's develop-
ment, was perhaps the most important, though other factors should not be left
out of the reckoning. The pagan religion and the world-view that went with it
were determined by early stages in the development of mankind: the primeval
equalityof people, man' s dependence on nature, prompting him to seek means
of influencing it through magic rites. Division into classes and the appearance
of political authorityand the state led to the evolution of primitive beliefs and a
stratification of the gods raising to pre-eminence those wh o were most in
keeping with the conditions of the ne w society. This process was reflected in
Prince Vladimir's first (pagan) religious reform, which the chronicler dates to
the year 980, eight years before the adoption of Christianity. During this
reform, the pantheon was limited to six deities not only of Slavonic but also of
Iranian origin, with the warrior god, Perun, at its head. Pagan worship, devised
to counter the spread of Christianity, was accompanied byhuman sacrifice.
However, this first reform proved unsuccessful. Could the fairlyprimitive
system of Slavonic religion be adapted to the new requirements springing from
the appearance of class societyand the state? These requirements could best be
satisfied by a world religion, created in the conditions of late classical society
and adapted to the feudal social structure, thus suited to the stage of develop-
ment that Rus' was entering. Medieval Christianity deified the inequalityof
classes, domination and submission, the feudal and hierarchical structure of
societyand the authorityof the state.
The unifying role of a state religion was also important. Kievan Rus' ,
which continued to extend its territories in the tenth and eleventh centuries,
included, together with the East Slavonic peoples, the non-Slavonic tribes of
the Baltic coast, the Volga region and the southern steppes wh o had their own
pagan gods. The consolidation of the ruling class and the state contributed to
their replacement by the single, developed Christian religious system.
The international political aspect of the religious community was also
extremely important, however conventional the nature of its content. During
the Middle Ages, despite the politicallyself-contained nature of feudal com-
munities such as manors, communes and towns, international communication
played an important role. It was expressed in trade between different countries,
political and matrimonial alliances, recourse to foreign craftsmen and military
mercenaries in retinues, foreign craftsmen and cultural exchanges. In these con-
ditions the rulers of all European states had an interest in the adoption of a sin-
gle religion - Christianity. This made them at least formallyequal to each other,
The assimilation by Kievan Rus' 57
of the classical and Byzantine heritage
belonging to the same cultural world as opposed to pagan barbarians. At the
same time this did not exclude but rather presupposed that actual political con-
ditions and other factors must lead to active struggle in this world and the aspi-
ration of some countries to subordinate others to them. Marriages between the
royal and princelyhouses of Europe were widespread and were a form of
expression of political and military alliances. These marriages presupposed that
both bride and groom belonged to the same faith.
The Tale of Bygone Years narrates the legend of Prince Vladimir's choice of
one faith out of four: Islam, Judaism, W estern and Eastern Christianity. To
what degree can it be said that this legend reflects the conditions that actually
existed in Kiev in the tenth century? There is no doubt that the first two, Islam
and Judaism, could not have become predominant in Kiev and the other towns
of Rus' . Although there were relations with the Bulgarian State on the Volga,
the territories of the Khazars and the Transcaucasian and Central Asian lands,
Rus' s ancient agricultural civilization and its Slavonic and general European
links meant that only Christianity, which had become widespread in the second
half of the first millenniumA. D. , looked a promising replacement for paganism.
Cultural and historical conditions made Rus' look towards Byzantium in
the tenth century rather than to W estern Europe, though the Princes of Kiev
maintained close relations with Scandinavia, the G e rman states, Poland and
Czechia. Indeed, since antiquity natural communications had led Rus' to the
Black Sea, the Balkans and Asia Minor. The great medieval empire of Byzan-
tium, guardian of the classical and Near Eastern heritage, which had spread
Christian culture in all directions, with its brilliant capital, Constantinople,
attracted the Russians by its political authorityand wealth. Olga, the first
known Christian princess to sit on the throne of Kiev, had been converted to
the ne w doctrine by representatives of the Eastern, Byzantine rite. Her grand-
son Vladimir followed in her footsteps.
Th e leaning towards Constantinople rather than Rome and the choice of
Eastern rather than W estern Christianitywas determined by a number of cir-
cumstances. Perhaps one of the most important of these was the recognition in
the East of the right to liturgyin local languages and the translation of the Holy
Scripture into these languages with the use of its own system of writing for each
of them. The W estern countries, most of which had inherited the territory, peo-
ples and institutes of the former Roman Empire, could use Latin for liturgical,
administrative and literarypurposes. In Eastern Christianity, which brought
together not only different languages and peoples, but different states and cul-
tures, it was impossible to keep to a single liturgical language. In these condi-
tions, naturallyRus' looked not toRome , but to Constantinople, which offered
the possibilityof using the Slavonic language and alphabet. This was even more
important because, thanks to the work of the Enlighteners of the Slavs, Cyril
and Methodius and their followers, the Slavonic liturgyalready existed and,
58 Yaroslav Sbcbapov
what is more, thanks to their work and that of the Bulgarian scribes, a large
body of books of the Bible, hymnological compositions, works of the Fathers of
the Church, chronicles and other literature had alreadybeen translated into Sla-
vonic. All these works were accessible in Rus' without recourse to the study of
Latin or Greek.
Researchers also consider that the relationship that grew upbetween the
secular power of the state and the Church in Byzantium was an important factor
in the Prince of Kiev's preference for the Eastern Rite. Byzantium had pre-
served the tradition of strong imperial power. In the Western world, where
there were many feudal states, the power of the Church was marked by greater
stabilitythan that of the king. Desiring to establish a Church organization in
Rus' that was not insubordinate to the secular power, the Prince of Kiev,
according to these scholars, turned to the Byzantine rather than the Roman
model. However, there is an inclination to think that this factor did not play
such an important role in the tenth century, as the considerable strengthening
of the Roman Church and the Papacy is linked to the late tenth and early
eleventh centuries, the reforms of Cluny and the activities of Pope Gregory VII.
In any case, there are grounds for considering that the Princes of Kiev chose
the version of Christianityand the tradition that were most in keeping with
Russian conditions.
W h e n discussing the adoption of Christianity, it is important to realize also
that the reasons why Rus' repudiated paganism and opted for Christianitywere
not purely objective. A number of subjective factors also hastened the process
and account for the fact that the conversion took place at the end of the tenth
century, fully1,000 years ago.
During the 980s the Byzantine Empire was in a state of continuous uphea-
val caused by representatives of the higher provincial aristocracy. In August
987 one of them, Phocas, incommand of militaryforces in the East, declared
himself Emperor and, with the support of the higher militaryleaders, subdued
all Asia Minor and besieged Constantinople. The position of the Emperor
Basil, who was also hard pressed by the Bulgarians in the Balkans, was so dan-
gerous that he turned to Prince Vladimir of Kiev, promising untold recom-
pense in return for his help. According to Yahya of Antioch (an Arab Christian
historian of the eleventh century), by the terms of the treatyPrince Vladimir
made available to Emperor Basil a force of 6,000 men. The Emperor, on his
part, was to give his sister Anna in marriage to the Prince of Kiev, the 'Emperor
of the Russians' as he called him. In addition, both the Prince himself and Rus'
as a whole were to adopt Christianity.
It seems that for Vladimir marriage with the princess of Constantinople
was the most important requirement. By this means Vladimir aspired to take up
a high positionamong the European monarchs of his time. After all, not one of
them was married to an Emperor's sister, born in an imperial palace. The son of
E mperor Otto the Great of Germany, the future Otto II, had earlier been
refused the hand of a princess born in the purple. H e had eventuallymarried
Princess Theophano, the kinswoman of John Zimisces. It is clear that the
change of religion was a secondary consideration for Kiev, subsidiaryto the
main aim of an alliance of kinship with the Emperors. This can be explained
only by the fact that Kiev was inwardly prepared for the change of religion;
long-standing acquaintance with Christianityin Rus' and the ripening of inter-
nal conditions for its adoption had made this process easier for Prince Vladimir
of Kiev and his court than for his father and grandmother.
Russian forces were immediately put at the Emperor' s disposal, and with
their help in 988/ 89 Basil crushed the armies of Bardas Phocas. However, the
resistance of the Byzantine side to fulfilment of the treatydelayed the adoption
of Christianity.
In preparation for his marriage with the princess, Vladimir himself must
have been baptized as earlyas in 987 or at the beginning of 988 wh e n the treaty
was concluded, so there would be no formal impediments to his plan. H e took
the name of Basil, that of the E mperor himself. The E mperor, however,
delayed sending the bride and the necessary numbers of clergyto convert the
people of Kiev: theywere not sent in 988. In the work of the Kievan monk
Jacob (Yakov Mnih), it says that in the year following his baptism (i.e. 988),
Vladimir went 'to the rapids of the Dnieper', most likelyto meet his bride. S he
did not come , however.
Vladimir's campaign against the Byzantine town of Cherson in the Crimea
and his capture of it after a nine-month siege were a means of putting pressure
on Constantinople and making the E mperor Basil respect the conditions of the
treaty. As Kievan writers of the eleventh century saw it, Vladimir's campaign
against Cherson was specificallylinked to the need to force the Byzantines to
provide clergyto instruct the people of Kiev in the Christian faith (Jacob the
Monk). Consequently, Rus' had to win by force the right to be the equal of
proud Byzantium. Indeed, it is quite likely that the fact that Vladimir was him-
self baptized, while his retinue and the aristocracyof Kiev and the other towns
remained pagan, was every bit as unpleasant as the deception over his marriage.
This military action finallybrought Vladimir success and he not only
returned to Kiev with the princess, wh o had been sent to Cherson where she
became the Princess of Rus' , but also brought with him the clergywh o had
accompanied her from Constantinople, some priests from Cherson and relics,
among others, of St Clement of Rome . These helped him in performing the
mass baptism of the population of Kiev and other towns. Following an ancient,
and therefore pre-Christian Slavonic, tradition Vladimir graciously presented
Cherson to his brother-in-law, the Emperor.
The conversion of Kiev to Christianitywas followed by the introduction of
the ne w religion into other towns. The evidence of both written and archae-
60 Yaroslav Shchapov
ological sources is important for the study of the spread of Christianity in Rus'
once it had been adopted as the state religion. In the course of the eleventh cen-
tury Christianityspread only in the towns and the princes' outlying estates
where stone and wooden churches were built. The conversionof the rural pop-
ulation to Christianitycontinued into the thirteenth centurywhen the practice
of celebrating marriage according to pagan traditions and burying the dead in
barrows was still carried on.
It is important to determine the role of Christianityamong other factors
that were simultaneously influencing the social and political development of
Rus' . Ancient Russian societyhad grown up and the state had come into being
in the eighth and ninth centuries without the contribution the classical heritage
had made in these respects insome countries of Western and Southern Europe.
Rus's social structures were formed as a result of the internal processes of the
break-upof the patriarchal way of life among the Slavonic tribes, the formation
in the basins of the Dnieper, Volkhov and Upper Volga of early intertribal
alliances with elementary class systems and a proto-state structure and the
merger of these in the ancient Russian State with its centre at Kiev. The 'extra-
territorial' nature of Rus' in relation to the oldRoman Empire of course
excluded the possibility of the appearance of any Roman-type social and polit-
ical institutions, such as those found in former provinces of the Roman Empire.
At the same time, this 'extraterritoriality' did not prevent the population of the
great East European plain, and particularly that of Rus' , from having economic
and political links with the territoryof the Roman Empire and its direct histor-
ical heirs. Trade links dated back to the time of the so-called Chernyakov
archaeological culture. There is proof of this in the considerable inflow of
Roman denarii. The similarity in weight of Russian monetary units and corn
measures to the Roman equivalent shows just h ow old were the links with
Rome.
However, for Rus', as for a number of other Slavonic and Germanic peo-
ples of Europe, what proved particularlyimportant was their secondary
recourse to the classical heritage when their societies were approaching state
structures. The peoples of Central, Eastern and Northern Europe in their
heterogeneous development in the earlyMiddle Ages, when ecclesiastical and
social communities which later stabilized had not yet taken their definitive
form, came separately to an awareness of the need for a considerable widening
of their stock of ideological and cultural resources, to bring them up to the level
of the developed states with their long-standing traditions.
In this, a certain role may have been playedby communication with their
near neighbours, wh o alsohad only recentlyacquired state structures; in partic-
ular, contacts with the Khazar kaganate in the eighth and ninth centuries, from
which Rus' probablyborrowed the title of 'kagan' meaning a paramount ruler
and equivalent to 'tsar' and 'emperor', and borne as a title by the Princes of
Kiev from the ninth to the eleventh centuries. The involvement of Scandi-
navian and Western Slav groupings at a similar stage of development should
also be taken into consideration. However, doubtless, the most important
source drawn on byKiev in creating its state institutions was the heritage of
ancient civilizations in those forms that existed in countries contemporaneous
with Rus' , and above all inByzantium, as well as inMoravia and Bulgaria.
The study of the ancient components incorporated into ancient Russian
culture and of other areas of life shows that the formation of class structure and
the State inRus' as a result of the evolution of Slavonic society created such a
great potential that it was impossible to exploit it using local resources only.
The inadequacy of the country's superstructure and, above all, its cultural disad-
vantages, could only be amended by the expedient of making active use of the
achievements of classical culture and of contemporaneous countries that had
preserved and refined it for their needs. However, Rus' was very selective in
this. Inmany fields of life that had alreadytaken shape and were fully inkeep-
ing with the needs of feudal society, such as agriculture and basic crafts, build-
ing of dwellings and workshops, local princely andcommunal law, organ-
ization of the state, forms of government, the system of taxation, etc., analogous
foreign models were of no use. Information on some of them in the translated
books turned out to be redundant, and the efforts of Greek hierarchs to import
their models intoRus' enjoyed no success. At the same time, a fairlywide range
of arts and technologies that did not have local roots but had developed from
classical traditions were imported ' ready-made' , e.g. church architecture in
stone, written literature and the book, the manufacture of glass and mosaics,
etc. Only with time, in the process of their use in local conditions, did these
achievements, while keeping their classical roots, change their nature.
It is hard to exaggerate the cultural significance of the adoption of Chris-
tianity for Rus' , or for other medieval states. Christianityinfluenced the upper
strata of societymost, but it was also important for everyman in his relation-
ship with nature. If paganism which deified natural phenomena was based on
the idea that man is a part of nature, dependent on elemental forces, Christian-
itygave man another role. Man, created according to biblical legend on the last
day of creation in the image and likeness of G od, had received at his disposal all
that had been created before: land and water, plants, birds and animals. Man' s
vocation was to feel himself the master of nature. This contributed to the great
success achieved by the ancient Russian people in the colonization of the spaces
of the East European plain, in the creation of conditions for life in areas where
agriculture presented risks. W h at is more, we still feel the consequences of this
attitude to nature today, whe n we are faced with ecological problems arising
from man' s destructive use of land, water and other natural resources.
The Cyrillic alphabet was not brought toRus' by Christianity. It had been
known earlier, as can be seen from archaeological finds dating to the tenth cen-
62 Yaroslav Shchapov
tury. But a strong boost was given to the spread of this written language and its
use, not only for the keeping of business records, as before, but also for liturgical
purposes, the writing of statutes, the creation of literature, historiographyand
correspondence.
Together with Christianityand through the medium of translated Chris-
tian works, Rus' assimilatedmany achievements of world civilization, not only
in the liturgical and theological fields, but also in those of chronicle writing and
the natural sciences, and became acquainted with works about nature (e.g. the
Hexameron), calendar calculations and celestial phenomena. At the end of the
tenth and the beginning of the eleventh century, building began on a large
number of stone and wooden churches, mosaics and frescoes were created, the
manufacture of enamel and glass was organized, and icon-painting and the
writing of manuscript books appeared.
The adoption of Christianity intensified not only the social, but also the
cultural stratification of ancient Russian society. This stratification already
existed in the ninth century. The readiness of educated circles of Russian society
not only to accept Christian ideology, but also to create works in which it found
ne w expression, made it possible as earlyas fiftyyears after the adoption of
Christianity, that is, during the lifetime of the next generation, to create such an
outstanding work in the ancient Russian literarylanguage as The Sermon on Law
and Grace by Metropolitan Hilarin, and 120 or 130 years later the unique histor-
ical work, The Tale oflfygone Years, and 200 years later the work of genius, The
Song of Igor's Campaign.
However, when studying the consequences of the replacement of paganism
by Christianity, we also see the regrettable cultural losses to which it led. Chris-
tianitybrought new church anthems to Rus, while vigorouslyopposing those
forms of folk art that did not fit into the traditional canons. These were first of
all musical instruments: the gusli, the gudok (an ancient Russian violin), early
types of flute, etc., which could only be used among the common people. They
were suppressed by the Church and therefore did not develop in Rus' as concert
instruments. Another important type of art suppressed by the Church was danc-
ing. W e are familiar with classical Indian and African ritual dances which
attained a high level of development. Ancient Russian choreography, sup-
pressed by the Christian Church, never developed and subsisted in the form of
folk dances, mainly restricted to the villages. Ancient Russian mythology was
practically obliterated: traces of it survive in The Song of Igor's Campaign and in
jewellerywith mythological motifs found in archaeological excavations.
W h e n considering the consequences of the adoption of Byzantine rather
than Roman Christianity, we must admit that, together with such positive
aspects as the assimilation of Byzantine culture and the spread of writing, liter-
ature and law in the national language far earlier than in Western countries,
conditions were created that impeded close cultural contact with other Euro-
pean countries and the use of the learning acquired through the assimilation of
Christian culture.
In the socio-political sphere we can see that the Church tried to adapt to
traditions that had come into being in pre-Christian times. For example,
Church organization was provided for by Prince Vladimir through a centralized
tithe from the tribute paid to the Prince, in other words in the same way as the
pagan religion had been supported. The continuation of the payment of a cen-
tralized tithe by the Prince during the eleventh and early twelfth centuries was a
consequence of the insufficient development of freehold, that is, feudal private
property, and, in its turn, could not but maintain the existence of state, princely
and communal land property to the detriment of feudal private property. This
therefore delayed the development of the feudal system.
In the field of culture the Byzantine bishops did little to encourage transla-
tions from Greek to the ancient Russian language; all the credit for this should
go to the Princes of Kiev, wh o also founded schools and libraries.
Christianitygave powerful support to the state structure of Rus' by esta-
blishing a Metropolitan See in Kiev and eleven to sixteen dioceses in the main
centres of feudal principalities. Th e bishops were not onlyChurch administra-
tors but also performed the important function of ecclesiastical judges. It was
the religious courts that set out to introduce the practice of monogamy, the reg-
ulation of divorces and the banning of marriages within close degrees of kin-
ship. Also, those secular standards that were absent from state and princely law,
but existed in that of the commune , were also used by the Church and incorpo-
rated into ecclesiastical law. These standards were concerned with the protec-
tion of wome n' s honour, the duty of parents to give their daughters in marriage
during their lifetime and the regulation of relationships in the family.
T o sum up, it should be stressed that ancient Rus' , as a country and state,
grew up in an area of Eastern Europe that had never been part of the Roman
Empire or any other ancient state, in other words, in a region where in the
socio-economic and political spheres there had never been anyunion or syn-
thesis of the slave-owning and primitive communal systems in their final stage
of development. In many countries of W estern Europe there had been such a
synthesis that often maintained continuitywith the Roman system. Rus' had
not inheritedRoman institutions, so that access to the achievements of classical
civilization was possible only through a synthesis in the sphere of the super-
structure, in that of religion, culture and law.
There are therefore grounds for maintaining that for Rus' , Christianitywas
even more important than for some countries of Western Europe. It passed on
to the societyand State of Rus' much that was essential for cultural growth,
strengthening its central organization and enabling it to take its rightful place
among the European powers.
Christianization: a turning-point
in the history of Rus'
Iannis Karayannopoulos
The first contact between the Byzantines and the people of Rus' was of a hostile
nature. In 860, the people of Rus' , Scandinavian merchants and warriors, took
advantage of the fact that the Byzantines were engaged in a war with the Arabs
in Asia Minor to launch their first major attack on Constantinople.
1
Only then
did the Byzantines realize how serious was the new threat from the north.
2
Patriarch Photius immediately placed the Church at the service of the state:
he set about converting the invaders' country and consecrated a bishop for the
purpose.
3
His successor, Patriarch Ignatius, followed up this approach, going so
far as to raise the Russian bishop to the rank of Metropolitan. At the same time
Emperor Basil I strove to strengthen links with the people of Rus' and to make
lasting peace with them.
4
Although not all the efforts of Photius and Ignatius were successful, never-
theless Christianitygraduallyspread throughout Rus'. Archaeological excava-
tions in the Kiev region have brought to light burial places of the ninth and
tenth centuries bearing traces of Christian burial rites.
However, fresh events soon changed the situation. Prince Oleg, to wh om
Rurik had entrusted the guardianship of his young son, Igor,
5
seized Kiev and
made it the capital of Rus'. Kiev became the 'mother of Russian cities'.
6
However, Oleg was a pagan and so the Church, which had been founded by the
Byzantines, was left without support and faded away, though groups of Chris-
tians survived.
The sovereigntyof the Prince of Kiev was recognized by the other princes
of Rus'. Active trade developed between the new state and Byzantium; it was
regulated by the treaties of 907 and 911 which are mentioned inThe Tale of Bygone
Years. By virtue of these treaties, Russian merchants were able to go to Constan-
tinople in summer. Even though Oleg's successor, Igor, launched a second,
66 Iannis Karayannopoulos
unsuccessful, attack on Byzantium in 941, these treaties were renewed in 945
and 971.
7
In spite of the rule of a pagan in Kiev and the cooling of Byzantium's mis-
sionary zeal, Christianitycontinued to spread from Cherson and many of the
inhabitants were converted. The tenth century witnessed the establishment of a
Christian community with a church in Kiev.
8
It is noteworthy that, as Boris
Rauschenbach pointed out, the treatybetween Byzantium and Rus' concluded
by Igor in 945 was signed on behalf of Rus' not only by pagans but also by
Christians, a fact that testifies to the equalityof the two religions.
The baptism of Princess Olga, wh o visited the Christian Emperors' cityin
957,
9
unquestionably bears witness to the spread of the ne w religionamong all
social classes in Rus' . O n her return to Kiev, Olga strove to inform people about
Christianitywhich was alreadywidespread among the population of Rus' , long
before becoming the official religion. It is thought quite correctly, in my view
that the expansion of Christianitycaused considerable disquiet among the
pagans, which perhaps accounts for the persecutions endured by the Christians
between the death of Olga and the baptism of Vladimir.
This situation, which threatened to undermine the unityof his state, forced
Vladimir to seek solutions. Seeing that his efforts to impose the pagan religion
were in vain, he realized that he had no option but to adopt a new religion. H e
chose Christianity, the Christianityof Byzantium.
W e may well wonder why Vladimir opted for Christianity. W h y did he not
choose Islam which was closer to the nature of man as an earthlybeing, or else
Judaism? A further question, linked to the first, should be asked. Once he had
chosen Christianity, wh y did he prefer the Byzantine Church to the Western
one? In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to examine all the factors
that may have entered into Vladimir's decision.
First let us consider wh y he chose Christianity. The answer is fairlysimple:
Christianitywas the religion of advanced states. Islam practised by the Bulgars
and the Jewish religion of the Khazars did not interest the people of Rus' , for
Svyatoslav
10
had already defeated these two peoples while Vladimir sought
closer ties with strong states. These however were Christian. Furthermore, the
Khazar State had been destroyed by the Pechenegs
11
so that thenceforth the road
to Kiev was open to all wh o sought to invade it.
12
The Pechenegs were a threat
to Rus' and there could be no question of alliance with them. The Western
Slavs were Christians, but their Christianity relied on outside forces that
appeared quite likelyto oppose political authority, which might be a source of
trouble in Vladimir's eyes. The Varangians (Vikings), wh o came originally
from Scandinavia, had just been converted and Rus' could not relyon such neo-
phytes wh o did not yet have an organized Church. The Christians of the W est
or North-west were a threat to Rus' , quite as much as the peoples of the South
or South-east.
Other considerations also influenced Vladimir in making his decision.
Byzantium was a wealthy and extensive empire. The Russian merchants had
had ample opportunityto appreciate this fact when theybeheld the wealth of
the capital, the legendaryTsargrad, where so many treasures were accumulated.
Moreover, even though the Byzantines were first-class warriors, as the wars
waged by Svyatoslav had shown, they represented no threat for Rus', which
theyhad never attempted to attack. Furthermore, since 969, both Rus' and
Byzantium had been threatened by the Pechenegs, a factor that drove them to
seek unity.
13
In addition to such considerations of foreign policy, an internal factor may
have been of some importance. The unityof Rus' about the person of its Prince
could not but be strengthened by a Church of the Byzantine type. That Church
was not opposed to the Emperor: quite the contrary, it gave him its full support
and Prince Vladimir specificallydesired a church that would help him thus to
consolidate his authority. The example of Bulgaria showed how a ruler had
been able to receive the support of the Church to strengthen his authorityand,
although the Bulgarian Church was dependent upon that of Byzantium, Bul-
garia none the less had not become a vassal of the Emperor.
14
O n the other
hand, an imperial ideologyhad developed in both Bulgaria and Byzantium,
which the prince could very usefully 'transplant' to his own state.
Finally, Western Christianityused Latin, which the peoples of Rus' could
not understand, whereas Byzantium made no attempt to introduce Greek into
the liturgy; a striking example of this was to be found in Moravia, and above all
in Bulgaria. The Byzantine Church therefore permitted the new converts to use
their own language, and had proved this. In the words of J. MeyendorfF and
N . H . Baynes,
15
'The greatest and most lasting gift of the N e w Rome to Russia
was undoubtedly the Byzantine liturgyin the Slavonic language.'
The texts of the new religion were ready; translated and written in a Sla-
vonic language, theycould be read and understood with little difficultyby the
people of Rus' . Furthermore, Christianityhad alreadybeen introduced into
Rus' by the Greeks and there were Greek Christian colonies there. The choice
of Byzantine Christianity therefore seemed quite a natural one. It was simply a
matter of time.
16
Unexpected political events precipitated Prince Vladimir's decision: the
Byzantine Emperor Basil II, sensing a threat in the pronunciamentos of Bardas
Skleros and Bardas Phocas, appealed to Vladimir for militaryaid. An agree-
ment was reached: Vladimir was to send soldiers and be converted, and in
return he would receive the hand of Basil's sister, Anna. In the spring of 988, a
body of 6,000 men-at-arms reached Constantinople and contributed in no small
manner to victorya year later (13 April 989). That year the Byzantine court,
after lengthy hesitation, was forced to consent to the marriage of Anna to
Prince Vladimir who had brought pressure to bear by taking Cherson (in the
68 Iannis Karayannopouks
summer of 989). O n his return to Kiev, Vladimir had his subjects baptizeden
masse}
1
The conversion of Prince Vladimir and of his people in 989 was a turning-
point in history. As a result of the baptism, the influence of Byzantium pen-
etrated deep into Rus' which had closelycopied the Byzantine model. Ortho-
doxy brought with it new artistic and literaryforms, while the way of life
became more developed. It has been said, quite justifiably, that the historyof
Russia cannot be properlygrasped without knowledge of the historyof Byzan-
tium. N one the less, unlike the course of events in the Slav countries of the Bal-
kans, Byzantine influence did not affect the social structure or the organization
of the state or, more importantly, the distinctlyRussian character of the culture.
W e cannot make a detailed study of the different aspects of that influence;
we shall therefore inspect them brieflyin order to illustrate the universal nature
of the Byzantine influence.
First in importance stands the preponderant role of the Church. The
Church of Rus' was modelled on that of Constantinople.
18
It was placed under
the authorityof the Patriarch and was headed by a Greek (all but two Metropol-
itans prior to 1237 were Greeks). This enabled the Patriarch to control every-
thing in an effective way without involving himself in the Church's internal
affairs.
19
The unityof the Church of Rus' (headed by a single Metropolitan) contri-
buted to political unity at a time of conflict between the local princes. The
Metropolitan's immunity from their disputes enabled him to play a conciliatory
role, and this continued even after he had transferred his see from Kiev to Vla-
dimir-on-the-Klyazma in1249.
20
The same community of faith later enabled
Alexander Nevsky to lead the Russians to victoryover the Swedes in1240.
21
Church unityhelped to buttress the central authority against the power-
seeking schemes of local princes. At the same time the Church supported the
sovereigns' policyof independence towards the Byzantine Church. Thus, when
Prince Yaroslav the Wise took a number of decisions of an ecclesiastical nature
(for example, proclaiming Boris and Gleb martyrs, upgrading the bishopric to a
metropolitan see or consecrating Hilarin, a court chaplain, as Metropolitan)
without seeking the agreement of the Patriarch, the Church, in the person of
Hilarin himself, gave him its support. Prince Vladimir, wrote Hilarin, had
adopted Christianityof his own accord, free will and virtue and on his own ini-
tiative; the people of Rus' were fully entitled to organize their own Church as
they saw fit.
22
Referring to Byzantine legal concepts of Church and state, the Church of
Rus' formulated its own theocratic conception which, subsequently associated
with the idea of an eternal Rome , gave rise to the Messianic doctrine of Moscow
as the Third Rome .
23
Byzantine influence was particularlymarked in the field of law. A compen-
dium (entitledKormcaja Kniga) reproduced the Nomokanon and the instructions of
Vladimir and Yaroslav. The oldest Russian legislative text, Russian Justice (Russ-
kajaPravda), a civil code, presents Slavonic common law supplemented by rules
laiddown by the Russian princes, yet it was drawn up on the basis of the Prochei-
ros Nomos. The different versions of the Russkaja Pravda, drawn up between the
tenth and twelfth centuries, bear witness to the growing influence of Byzan-
tium. However, both compendia, Kormcaja Kniga andRusskaja Pravda, which
have come down to us together,
24
have an unmistakable affinitywith Russian
Law in their tendency to avoid capital punishment and mutilation of convicts,
and instead toimpose fines.
25
I shall leave to those of my colleagues wh o are more expert in these fields
the task of dealing with Byzantine influence on language, literature and art. I
would simply point out that the Greek texts, translated into Bulgarian and then
into Old Russian, made an outstanding contribution to the formation of the
Russian language and the creation of an individual literature.
The first Greek texts to reach Rus' in Bulgarian translation were of a reli-
gious nature. Russian literature too was mainly religious. O f the 240 writers
wh o can be listed prior to the sixteenth century, 210 were clerics or monks and
only 30 were laymen. Russian hagiography is so similar to its Byzantine coun-
terpart that one may well ask whether the lives of certain saints (e.g. that of St
Sergius of Radonezh) were not borrowed from Byzantine hagiography.
26
Russian literature, however, is the only one in the Slav family tohave so
quicklybroken free of mere imitation to adopt its own particular traits, as can
be seen in the traditional heroic songs (bylini) of the tenth to twelfth centuries.
The same is true ofThe Chronicle of Nestor and The Chronicle of Novgorod. The
former is an anonymous work from the Kiev Caves Monastery providing an
overview of all Russian historybased on a specificallyRussian concept of the
state, while The Chronicle of Novgorod, though closer to the Byzantine chronicles,
gives, at least in its last section, a genuinely Russian historical account.
27
The new religion needed new places of worship. Inspiration for this also
came from Byzantium. However, technical difficulties and the climate com-
pelled the Russian master craftsmen to build churches with three naves on a
square plan with a central cupola covering only the comparatively small space
of the central nave. This was an innovation of Russian architecture, distin-
guishing it from the Byzantine prototype and setting the course for its sub-
sequent development. Novgorod's heydaycame after 1240 with the develop-
ment of an original school of art inwhich Byzantine influences merged with
distinctlyRussian elements, such as the onion dome, built in this way in order
to withstand the weight of the snow that is so abundant in the region.
28
This art, in keeping with its Byzantine prototype, is neither illusionist nor
naturalistic. It is in keeping with dogma and the liturgy. The only freedom
granted to the artist is in the choice of colours. The purpose of such art is to
70
Iannis Karayatmopoitfas
transport the faithful to a world where theycan find the peace that escapes them
on earth. Simple and austere, it appeals to the simple and humble as much as to
the learned and powerful. Its language is understood by all and so reflects the
universal nature of the Christian faith.
29
Byzantine influence was equallyimportant in the decorative arts. Boxes
decorated with enamelwork were either imported into or imitated in Rus' , as
were multicoloured glass objects of everyshape and sort.
30
Byzantine influence alsomade itself felt in day-to-day matters. Th e cultiv-
ation of the vine, for instance, came from Byzantium; as did a varietyof fruits
that were unknown to the people of Rus' . Agriculture was given a stimulus.
Vegetable gardening began, as Boris Rauschenbach points out. Mention may
also be made of the manufacture of tiles and bricks while anynumber of
improvements were made in shipbuilding and the production of arms. W ith
regard to the art of war, The Ipatiev Chronicle andThe Song of Igor's Campaign both
refer to a 'living fire' which several researchers have interpreted as being 'Greek
fire'.
31
Trade links were strengthened and the first Russian gold coins struck at
the time of Vladimir. This was an indication to the world at large that the
former barbarians had now become a civilized state.
It may be seen from the above just how extensive, varied and lasting was
Byzantine influence on Rus'. It is not inappropriate to repeat here the words of
R. Browning wh o wrote that Byzantium was a cultural treasure from which
other societies drew and borrowed; this enabled them to lay the basis for their
own rich and independent cultural development, Russia being the outstanding
example of this.
32
W e may truthfullysay that the starting point of that cultural
development was the baptism whose Millennium we are now commemorating.
NOTES
1. F. Cumont, 'Ancdota Bruxellensia I, Chroniques byzantines du Ms. 11.376', Recueil
de travaux publis par la Facult de Philosophie et Lettres [Collection of W orks Published
by the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters], N o. 9, p. 33, Ghent, 1984; C. de Boor,
' Der Angriff der Rhos auf Byzanz [The Assault of the Rhos on Byzantium]', Byzanti-
nische Zeitschrift (Leipzig), Vol. 4, 1985, p. 445; A. A. Vasiliev,Byzance et les Arabes
[Byzantium and the Arabs], pp. 240 et seq., Brussels, 1935; also gives a historical
survey of the various attempts at dating the event.
2. The sermons by Photius on this event in V. Laourda, Photiou Omiliae [Sermons of
Photius], pp. 34-41, Thessalonika, 1959; C. Mango, ' The Homilies of Photius,
Patriarch of Constantinople', Dumbarton Oaks Studies (Cambridge, Mass.), Vol. 3,
1958, pp. 72-110; G . Laer, 'Die Anfnge des russischen Reiches [The Beginnings of
the Russian Empire]', Historische Studien (Berlin), 1930, p. 91.
3. Photius, Enghyklios epistolipros tous tis Anatolis arhieratikos thrnous [Encyclicals to the
Eastern Pontifical Sees] (A.D. 867), P.G. 102, st. 736; F. Dvornik, Les Slaves, Byzance
et Rome au IXe sicle [The Slavs, Byzantium and Rome in the Ninth Century], p. 143,
Paris, 1926; E . Hanisch, Geschichte Russlands [Historyof Russia], Vol. 1, p. 3, Frei-
burg, 1940; N . H . Baynes, Byzanz [Byzantium], p. 164, Munich, 1964.
4. Baynes, op. cit., p. 444.
5. Hanisch, op. cit., pp. 9-10.
6. Ibid., p. 11.
7. As H . Cross has noted, so far the exact date of the treaties mentioned in the Russian
chronicle has not been established. Are these treaties of the period or else Slavonic
translations of earlier Greek texts made at a later date in Kiev? It is not very likely
that the Princes of Rus' in the tenth century attributedmuch importance to such
'documents' and, moreover, the fact that only the merest allusionwas made to them
on the Byzantine side may indicate that the Byzantine authorities too regarded them
as a diplomatic gesture rather than as proper treaties. Baynes, op. cit., p. 444.
8. Specific mention of the fact that the Christians took the oath in the 'Cathedral
Church' of St Elijah in Kiev presupposes the existence of other churches there.
9. Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De caeremoniis [On the Ceremonies], pp. 544 et seq.
The question of the circumstances and site of Olga's baptism has not been defin-
itivelyanswered. S ome researchers accept Constantinople as the site of her baptism
(E. Hanisch, M. Arranz, M. Levcenko, A. Rambaud, et al.). Others consider that
Olga was already baptizedwhe n she came to the city(A. Vasiliev, L. Brhier, et al.);
M. V. Levcenko (Ocerkipo istorii russko-vizantijskih otnosenij [Survey of the History of
Russo-Byzantine Relations], pp. 217 et seq., Moscow, 1956) discusses the various
points of view; G . Ostrogorsky{Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates [Historyof the
Byzantine State], p. 263, n. 1, Munich, 1940) gave three further arguments against
the opinion that Olga was baptized at Constantinople: (a) the total silence of Con-
stantinus Porphyrogenitus on this event; (b) the fact that the priest Gregoryaccom-
panied her; and (c) the fact that Russian chronicles give 954 (or 955) as the date of
her baptism, whereas Olga visited Constantinople in 957. However, the following
could be put forward in opposition to the arguments of G . Ostrogorsky: (a) inCon-
stantinus' narrative, there is no mention of a visit to and a mass at St Sophia, which
could have been expected on the occasion of the arrival of a neophyte of such high
rank; (b) failure to mention the baptism could be explained by Byzantine modesty
preventing mention of an event requiring a woman to appear undressed; (c) the pre-
sence of the priest Gregory can be explained easily: he was her catechist; and (d)
chronological accuracy is not a strong point of Russian chronicles. Thus, in view of
the foregoing, the author considers that the question should be re-examined.
10. In 955 and 967; Hanisch, op. cit., p. 16.
11. J. Scylitzes, Historia [History], pp. 455 et seq.
12. Hanisch, op. cit., p. 16.
13. Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio [On the Administration of
the Empire], Vol. 1, pp. 48 et seq., Vol. 2, pp. 50 et seq.; K. Amandos, Istora Vjzan-
tino Krtous [Historyof the Byzantine State], p. 112, Athens, 1957.
14. Hanisch, op. cit., p. 15.
15. Baynes, op. cit., p. 465.
16. The Russian chronicle informs us that before deciding on his choice of religion,
Vladimir had received missions sent by the Volga Bulgarians (Muslims), the Ger-
72 Iannis Karayannopoulos
mans (Latins), the Khazars (Jews) and the Greeks (Orthodox); each mission sug-
gested that he convert to its religion. Before replying, Vladimir in his turn sent
envoys to these nations in order toform their own opinion. The 'ecclesiastical
beauty' (krasota cerkovnajd) of the Greek liturgycelebrated in the Church of St Sophia
disposed him in favour of the Greek Orthodox religion.
17. The question of the chronology of Vladimir's baptism has not yet been settled.
According to the latest theory, that of A. Poppe who tried to reconcile, on the one
hand, the information given in the two principal twelfth-centurySlavonic sources,
the Cherson version of Povesf vremennyh let (The Tale of Bygone Years) and the Kievan
version of the Pamjat' ipohvala lakova mniha i Zftie knjazja Vladimira (Memorial and Pan-
egyric of Jacob the Monk and Life of Prince Vladimir), and, on the other hand, that of
Byzantine sources, the events took place as follows. In987, Byzantium asked and
received assistance from Vladimir. O n condition of his baptism, he was promised
the hand of Princess Anna. O n2 January988, Vladimir was baptized in Kiev. In the
spring of 988, Anna went toKiev and married Vladimir. In989, Vladimir took
possession of Cherson (a city allied to the Emperor's opponents) and handed it over
to the Byzantines. This theory, however, raises difficulties that cannot be solved
even bymaking, as D. Obolenskydoes, a distinction between the prima signatio and
the baptism itself. See alsoM. V. Levcenko, Byzance [Byzantium], pp. 211 et seq.,
Paris, 1949.
18. Baynes, op. cit., pp. 446 et seq.; N . Baynes, The Byzantine Empire, p. 233, London,
1925.
19. Ibid., p. 234; Levcenko, op. cit., p. 449.
20. Ibid., pp. 449 et seq.
21. H . von Rimscha, Geschichte Russlands [Historyof Russia], pp. 83 et seq., 93 et seq.,
Darmstadt, 1970.
22. K. Rose, Grund und Quellort des russischen Geisteslebens [Foundation and Origin of Rus-
sian Spiritual Life], pp. 167-80, Berlin, 1956; B. Widera, 'Wechselseitige politische
Beziehungen zwischen Deutschland, Byzanz und der Rus' vom 9. Jhr. bis zum Mon-
goleneinfall [Political Relations between Germany, Byzantium and Rus' from the
Ninth Century to the Mongol Invasions]',Byzanz in der europischen Staatenwelt [Byzan-
tium in the System of European State Relations], p. 112, Berlin, 1983.
23. I. H . Karayannopoulos, Politiki theoria ton Vyzantinn [Political Theory of the Byzan-
tines], p. 13, Thessalonika, 1988. The origins of this theory are doubtless to be
found in analogous Bulgarian ideas. In the Bulgarian version of Manasses, it is the
new tsargrad, Tirnovo, that succeeds Rome , rather than Constantinople. W h e n the
Bulgarian Empire was conquered by the Turks in1393, some Bulgarians went in
exile toMoscow and there spread the new theory that, after the fall of Tirnovo, this
couldnow apply only toMoscow. A Russian Council in 1504 formulated the theory
for the first time and it soon took its definitive form under the pen of the monk Phi-
lotheus from a monastery at Pskov: ' You alone', he wrote to the sovereign, 'are
Emperor for the Christians in this world. . . . N ow the Holy Apostolic Church is
that of the new, thirdRome . . . the Church that spreads the light in place of the
Churches of Rome and Constantinople. All Christian kingdoms are united inyour
kingdom, two Romes have fallen but the third stands and there will not be a fourth.'
Christianization: a turning-point in the history of Rus'
73
- Baynes, Byzanz, op. cit., pp. 457 et seq.; H . Schaeder,Moskau, das dritte Korn [Mos-
cow, The ThirdRome ] , Darmstadt, 1957.
24. This shows, according to Kljucevskij, that the texts of Russkaja Pravda (Russian Justice)
are a compilation made by the clergy for use in ecclesiastical courts; Baynes, Byzanz,
op. cit., p. 452.
25. Von Rimscha, op. cit., pp. 52 et seq.; Hanisch, op. cit., pp. 42 et seq.; Baynes,
Byzanz, op. cit., pp. 451 et seq.; H . W . Haussig, Kulturgeschichte von Byzanz [Cultural
History of Byzantium], pp. 364 et seq., Stuttgart, 1959.
26. Baynes, Byzanz, op. cit., pp. 449 et seq.; Haussig, op. cit., pp. 364 et seq.; S. Runci-
man, Byzantine Civilization, p. 227, N e w York, 1958.
27. Baynes, Byzanz, op. cit., p. 449; Runciman, op. cit., p. 227.
28. L. Brhier, ha civilisation byzantine [Byzantine Civilization], p. 556, Paris, 1950; Haus-
sig, op. cit., pp. 360-1.
29. Baynes, Byzanz, op. cit., p. 457; Brhier, op. cit., p. 565.
30. W . Hensel, Slawen [The Slavs], p. 162; M. A. Bezbodorov, 'Glasherstellung bei den
slawischen Vlkern an der Schwelle des Mittelalters [The Manufacture of Glass
among the Slav Nations on the Threshold of the Middle Ages]', Wiss. Zeitschrift d.
Humboldt-Univ. Berlin, 1958/59, pp. 187-93 (Gesellschafts- u. sprachwiss, 8); J. Phi-
lippe, 'Glas [Glass]', Reallexikon d. byz. Kunst, pp. 831 et seq.; J. Philippe, 'Byzance et
la verrerie des pays slaves [Byzantium and Glass in Slav Countries]', journal of Glass
Studies, Vol. 9, 1967; K. P. Matschke, 'Sdost- und Osteuropa als Vermittler byzanti-
nischer Kultur. Die konomischen Verbindungen und ihre Bedeutung, Byzanz in
der europischen Staatenwelt [South-eastern and Eastern Europe as an Intermedi-
ary of Byzantine Culture: Economic Relations and their Significance]',Byzanz in der
europschen Staatenwelt. . ., op. cit., p. 93.
31. D. A. Advusin, 'Materialnaja kul'tura drevnej Rusi [The Material Culture of
Ancient Russia]', Voprosy istorii, N o. 7, 1972, 180, p. 444; Matschke, op. cit., p. 93.
32. R. Browning, The Byzantine Empire, p. 160, London, 1960.
The baptism of Prince Vladimir
Miguel Arranz, S.J.
Historical background
There are two ancient Russian traditions on the adoption of Christianityand
the actual baptism of Prince Vladimir of Kiev. According to the first, which is
the most classical and traditional, this baptism took place in the cityof Korsun'
(Cherson) in the Crimea, Pliny'sChersonesus Turica, immediately after the city
was besieged and taken by Vladimir.' According to the second tradition, less
widely held but better grounded in history, the baptism took place in Kiev
itself, one or two years before the conquest of Cherson.
The Cherson theoryis supported by a twelfth-centurydocument known as
The Tale of Bygone Years.
2
The Kiev theory relies on another manuscript of
roughly the same period, the Memoirs and Panegyric of the Monk Jacob and Life of
Prince Vladimir.
1
W e had occasion to examine these two documents in a paper on
' The Rite of Catechumenate and Baptism in Ancient Rus' ', which was pre-
sented in February1988 at the Leningrad Conference as part of the preparations
for the official celebrations of the Millennium of the Introduction of Christian-
ity in Russia.
4
That studywas revised and extended asCatechumenate and Baptism
at the Time of Vladimir to appear in Spanish in a special issue of the review of the
Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome , Orientalia Christiana Periodica, devoted to
the Millennium.
5
An article of general interest on the same theme, ' W here and
how did Prince Vladimir become a Christian?', appeared in the Vatican news-
paper Osservatore Romano.
6
The locationof Vladimir's baptism has always been problematic; The Tale of
Bygone Years itself admits that certain believe ('mistakenly') that it took place in
Kiev, others at Vasil'evo and yet others that it took place elsewhere.
7
By agreeing with the opinion of Andr Poppe,
8
wh o has made a new study
76 Miguel Arranz, S.J.
of the question of the date of the taking of Cherson by Vladimir, we also opt for
the data of the Memoirs rather than for those of The Tale, whose credibilityis
reduced by its apologetic rhetoric filled with anachronisms. So we have no diffi-
cultyin accepting the tentative chronology suggested byA. Poppe wh o believes
that Vladimir received baptism in Kiev at the beginning of the year 988 -
which is, moreover, the official date of the Millennium following a sincere
catechumenate which was the rule throughout the Middle Ages in Byzantium.
The most probable date of the baptism was either 6 January, the Feast of the
Epiphany, or Easter night, 7 / 8 April 988. The people of Kiev would have been
baptized after the Prince on one of the dates set by the Sacramentary or Eucho-
logion.
9
Recently, J.-P. Arrignon, in a fine work of scholarship for the general
reader,
10
suggested an interesting synthesis reconciling the data of The Tale with
those of the Memoirs. H e suggests that Vladimir took his first decisive step
towards the faith by receiving in Kiev a 'probationarybaptism' or prima signado,
which was a ceremony bywhich a pagan became a catechumen and conse-
quently received a place in Christian society. This, according to Lucien Musset,
was a tradition observed byScandinavian chiefs. By becoming a catechumen,
Vladimir became a Christian; thus Vladimir appears to have become a Chris-
tian in Kiev. Arrignon's opinion is confirmed by the Euchologion of Constan-
tinople of the tenth century and even by the Potrebnik of Moscow of the seven-
teenth century (see Notes 14 and 17 below). O n the other hand, Arrignon's
second theory of the 'symbolic' baptism of the people of Kiev does not find any
justification in these books.
According to the ancient Euchologion of Constantinople, the Jewish or
Manichaean proselyte wh o had just pronounced the formula of abjuration of his
previous religion before beginning his catechumenate was already considered a
Christian, a 'non-baptized Christian' on the same grounds as the children of
Christian families awaiting baptism according to our ritual books (see Note 26).
It was an old Byzantine tradition alreadymentioned in the fourth century
by the Archbishop of Constantinople, St Gregory Nazianzen, and still existing
in Russia in the eleventh century, not to baptize children until the age of three
or four years, in order to allow them a certain active participation in the rites of
their initiation." The child in Constantinople became a member of the Church
he was 'churched' (a literal translation of a Greek neologism in our books)
by being presented in the church on the fortieth day after birth. From this
moment he was a catechumen, a non-baptized Christian, until the day of his
baptism.
According to this Church practice and in agreement with Arrignon's
hypothesis, Vladimir could have become a catechumen Christian in Kiev dur-
ing the visit of the Byzantine delegation (see Note 9) and have been baptized
only one or two years later, when Cherson was taken and in the presence of
11
Princess Anna. H e could in no circumstances have married her before receiving
the definitive rite of baptism. O n the subject of the exact time at which Vladi-
mir became a Christian, there is also a philological question to be considered:
the technical term for 'baptism' (baptisma o baptists) is 'kreshchenie' in the Slav lan-
guages (also used in the Slavonic text of the Bible, cf. Matt. 28:19), although
etymologically it should have been'pogruzhenie")}
2
The word 'kreshchenie' comes
from the word 'krest' (cross) and thus its exact translation should correspond to
the imposition of the sign of the Cross (the prima signatio) which marks the
beginning of the catechumenate, the entry into the category of Christians not
yet baptized. Thus, reconcilingThe Tale of bygone Years and the Memoirs, we may
conclude that Vladimir became a Christian in Kiev inA. D. 988.
Remarks on ritual
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
In this part of our work we shall constantly refer to the rites of admission and
baptism in Constantinople from the time of the iconoclastic crisis (eighth cen-
tury) to that of the taking of the cityby the Latins in 1204. This is the period
during which the conversion of Russia took place. W e shall refer to our earlier
work to avoid repeating here the arguments we have already presented elsewh-
ere.
13
Our work is based on the study of manuscripts of this period of the Sacra-
mentary or Euchologion of Constantinople, referring for certain additional
information to the Canonary-Synaxary, also called the Typikon of the Great
Church, as well as to other books of St Sophia.
14
As the introduction of Christianity intoRus' and the baptism of Vladimir
were the work of Greek clerics from Constantinople, it can be assumed that
they observed their own rite and very probablyused their own language, which
was Greek, using an interpreter for certain occasional parts of the ritual as pro-
vided for in the Euchologion. W e followed this line of argument in various stu-
dies written on the occasion of the celebrations in 1985 of the eleventh century
of the death of St Methodius, Apostle of the Slavs.
15
Near literal translations of
the texts of the Greek Euchologion are to be found in many manuscripts of the
Slavonic Potrebnik or Trebnik of the following centuries, which were studied and
particularlypublished by liturgical historians in Russia at the end of the last
century.
16
W e were helped by exceptional evidence of the survival of ancient Greek
texts in a Slavonic version in a printedwork referred to above: the Potrebnik of
Moscow of 1623.
17
It also contains most of the Slavonic texts partlyreported by
the Russian liturgistswh om we have just mentioned.
18
Without wishing to repeat the argumentation used in other longer works
(see Note 4), we believe we can say quite confidently that we are dealing with a
constant tradition of baptismal rites within which not only the baptism of Vla-
dimir but also those of Olga and of the first Byzantine Christians of Russia are
situated.
In the following pages we shall confine ourselves to making the most con-
cise description possible of these rites on the basis of the data of the Eucholo-
gion of Constantinople that we have studied in our own work on this subject,
but seen from the point of view of the Potrebnik of the seventeenth century,
which is particularlyvaluable evidence of the preservation of the ancient tradi-
tions of Constantinople.
FIRST CATECHUMENATE
Potrebnik (Book 297, Chapter 71, p. 1):
W hen a person comes to be presented to the Orthodox Faith, he should first be
made a catechumen by the prayer of the catechumens and the action of a priest. . . .
Whether it be one or many, the same standards are observed. .. . The bishop or the
priest begins by ordering them to kneel on the threshold of the church, he makes
the sign of the Cross over them three times and reads the following prayer, giving
them the name of a saint whose feast falls in the week:
Prayer of the catechumens: Blessed art Thou, Lord God.. . Who hast chosen forThyself
a people from all races...; bless Thy servant here present who has come to Thy holy Church, uncover
his eyes... open his ears. . . unite him to the catechumens of Thy people, so that in due course he may
be worthy of the laverof regeneration. . . P
In the middle of this prayer the priest stopped to inscribe the candidate's name
in the list of catechumens. This rite corresponded to the prayer said over the
child at the door of the church on the eighth day after birth, inwhich he was
given aname,
20
and more especially to those of the fortieth daywhich we have
alreadymentioned and which accompanied the child into the church and into
the sanctuary.
21
In the case of healthy children this first catechumenate lasted a few years;
the decision was left to the parents as may be deduced from the rubrics referring
to the beginning of the second catechumenate (see below). In the case of adults
no rubric is given in the Euchologion but there are rubrics in the Russian
manuscripts and in the Potrebnik; fortydays was the normal period. Potrebnik
(idem):
And once the abjuration has been made [the Potrebnik was mainly concerned with
heretics], the priest enjoins the catechumen to fast for fortydays and tobe diligent at
evening, morning and mid-day prayers and everytime there is a service in church,
teaching him the Psalms, the Gospel. . . the Paternoster, the Creed . . ., the 'Jesus
Prayer'
22
and certain psalms; and thus he becomes worthy of the Orthodox faith.
23
Potrebnik (2v): 'Every Thursday the candidate will have a talk with the bishop or
with the priest, because no one should be baptized without proper knowledge of
the faith.'
24
(In the Potrebnik, this is followed by special instructions and long
formulae of abjuration for Latin and Lutheran converts.)
Potrebnik (17): ' And he blesses him and dismisses him and from henceforth
considers him a catechumen. And the bishop or the priest wh o has so far
instructed the catechumens individuallyconverses and speaks with them [in
public].' A prayer is then said for the catechumens.
25
Potrebnik (17v-18): ' And in abjuring he becomes a Christian, which means
that he is considered as a 'non-baptized Christian', like the childrenwh o have
yet to be baptized.'
26
This sentence, which referred either to adult converts after their abjuration
or to small childrenwh o had made their entrance into the church on the for-
tieth day after birth and were waiting to be baptized, can also be applied quite
justifiablyto adults converting from paganism after their entry into the catech-
umenate. W e do not know h ow long the catechumenate of these adults lasted in
the tenth century at the time of Vladimir; it could not have lasted the three or
four years provided for infants. W e know that in Russia in the Middle Ages, and
up to the seventeenth century, it lasted fortydays, so that we may presume that
this was the duration in the tenth century also.
SECOND CATECHUMENATE
According to the Canonary of St Sophia, on the second and third Sundays of
Lent verysolemn announcements were made during the Mass inviting the
faithful to bring to church those members of their families wh om theywished
to have baptized at Easter beginning on the Monday of the fourth week of Lent,
to have them blessed with the Sign of the Cross, protected (by exorcisms) and
instructed.
27
The second catechumenate of children, which followed the dates of Lent
and HolyW eek, only lasted four weeks; during this time the community prayed
especiallyfor 'those to be illuminated', and a special litanyfor them was added
to the midday and evening services.
28
In the Slavonic manuscripts, as in the Potrebnik, the second catechumenate
lasted only eight days, giving just enough time to spread over separate days those
ceremonies that could not be performed one after another without losing their
true liturgical nature, such as exorcisms, which were repeated ten times: but this
arrangement making it possible to compress the whole second catechumenate
into eight days supposed a celebration of a private character. W hat was the
time-scale in the case of Vladimir? Yet again, we must limit ourselves to
hypotheses. If he was baptized on Easter night in 988 in Kiev, his second
catechumenate very probably lasted the four weeks provided for in the E ucho-
logion. If he was baptized outside the Easter period, on the Feast of the Epi-
phany 988 in Kiev, as seems most likely, or elsewhere at another date, then a
second catechumenate of eight days would have been enough. A tentative time-
scale is given at the end of this chapter.
Let us return, however, to the ceremonies themselves. Potrebnik (18) states:
The following day at the time of vespers, the priest places [the candidate] undressed
and barefooted in front of the doors of the church, looking towards the East; he
blows on him three times, makes the sign [of the Cross] on his forehead, mouth and
chest and says this prayer:
29
In Thy Name, 0 Lord God of truth, Hay my hand upon Thy ser-
vant N. who hath been found worthy. . . . Inscribe him in Thy Book of Life, and unite him to the
flock of Thine inheritance. . . . H e then converses with the catechumens, instructing
them, and says a prayer
30
for them . . ., and he blesses them and dismisses them.
S yme on of Thessalonika (d. 1430) draws a parallel between the scene of the
naked man at the doors of the church and the situation of Adam in paradise,
whose shame the catechumen should also share.
31
According to the Potrebnik (21), on the following day, after matins, the
exorcisms begin at the door of the church. These are three texts still in use,
32
which in Constantinople and in ancient Russia were repeated ten times, prob-
ably pronouncing only one exorcism per day, which couldmake the exorcisms
last thirtydays, that is, the four weeks provided for the second catechumenate.
This was a delicate operation intended to protect the catechumen' s soul from
possible spiritual dangers. S yme on of Thessalonika ruled that priests wh o pro-
nounced the exorcisms badlywere answerable for the spiritual and psycholog-
ical sufferings of certain Christians. Following the three exorcisms, said only
once according to the Potrebnik, the priest indicated that the verysolemn prayer
marking the end of the catechumenate should be pronounced:
33
Thou Who in verity existest ( Y H W H ) . . . Who hast created man in Thine own likeness. . .; deli-
vering this Thy creature from the bondage of the enemy . . ., open the eyes of his understanding that
the light of Thy Gospel may shine brightly in him;yoke unto his life a radiant Angel. . ., expel from
him every evil and impure spirit which hideth and maketh its lairin his heart. . ., and make him a
reason-endowed sheep in the holy flock . . ., an honourable member of Thy Church . . ., a child of
light. . . .
Th e Potrebnik (24) prescribes a further conversation and instruction and also a
prayer for the catechumens;
34
the service ends with the blessing and dismissal.
Yet again the Potrebnik (25v) insists on the need for sufficient time for the
preparation of the catechumen, quoting a text which the ancient Euchologion
intended for Manichaeans wh o had already received the exorcisms: ' And thus
81
the catechumen wh o is being instructed spends his time in the church and lis-
tens to Scripture.'
35
The Potrebnik backs this up with the canons of the Councils and the Fathers,
which it interprets by affirming that the catechumenate should coincide with
the fasting of Lent. This is followedby other instructions (26v): baptism should
not be performed outside the church, a catechumen wh o has already received
communion in good faith should be baptized immediately, a person possessed
by a demon should not be baptized unless in danger of death and the baptism of
a woman wh o is menstruating should be postponed. A last instruction also
attributed to the Councils says that even if baptism removes all sin, if any per-
son falls into sin during the second catechumenate he should postpone his bap-
tism and perform penance for three years, but if he falls yet again he is excluded
from baptism.
RENUNCIATION-ADHERENCE
In Constantinople on Good Friday, between the midday service or Tritoekti
36
and the Vespers of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts,
37
the catechumens
wh o were to be baptized the next day took part in an evocative ceremony called
the 'Catechesis' and presided over by the Patriarch.
38
From the height of the
ambo in the middle of the church of St Sophia, the Patriarch read the catech-
umens a very beautiful sermon which has survived in all the manuscripts of the
Euchologion: 'This is the end of your catechumenate: the time of your deliverance has
arrived. Today you will sign with Christ the document of your faith. . . ,'
39
In the middle of this sermon, the catechumens, looking towards the west
and with their arms raised, answered the Patriarch's questions and thus
renounced Satan; then, turning towards the east, they lowered their arms and
joined themselves to Christ by saying the Creed; the content of the formulae was
the same as that of those still used in the present rite during a private baptism.
40
After the sermon, the catechumens raised their hands and for the first time
participated activelyin an official prayer by reciting the Kyrie eleison. The service
finished with two prayers read by the bishop
41
wh o then laid his hands on each
of the candidates.
The Potrebnik
42
repeats the text of the ancient Euchologion exactlybut
admits that this ceremony can be held on any day other than Good Friday, whe -
never the catechumens are ready. The fidelityof the Potrebnik to the ancient
Euchologion is such that it even repeats the mention of the Liturgy of the Pre-
sanctified Gifts on Good Friday, which in the seventeenth centurywas no lon-
ger celebrated on that day, and also the text of the prayers of the procession to
the chamber of relics and the baptistryof St Sophia.
43
BAPTISM
'Illumination' at St Sophia took place in the evening of the Saturday of Holy
W eek. Between vespers and the mass (or liturgyof St Basil) the catechumens
received baptism and confirmation; during the mass theymade their first com-
munion.
The Potrebnik (33v) adds very few details to the Euchologion: Baptism is
celebrated on the fortieth day, on the Saturday. . . . If it is HolyW e e k and the
catechumens have observed the fast during the whole of Lent. . . they receive
the 'holy illumination' on the Saturday of Holy W e e k or Easter Sunday. The
Potrebnik notes that in ancient times baptism was always administered on the
Saturday of HolyW eek, at the beginning of the second lesson of Vespers (Isa.
60:1), but that now, with the bishop's permission, it may be celebrated wh e -
never one wants. Potrebnik (34):
The candidates arrive at the church. . . . The Bishop is waiting for them on his
throne, and the priest in the church; the catechumens undress at the church door or
near the river; the bishop . . . comes out of the church to go to the river or to the
'Jordan' of the baptistry[krestU'ni]; he dons white vestments and white shoes, water
is poured into the font [kupei'],
4
* the bishop censes it all around and blesses it with
the candelabrum.
45
The rite begins with an ovation that in Constantinople had opened the celebra-
tion of vespers: 'Blessed is the kingdom of the Fatherand the Son and of the Holy
Spirit.
The deacon begins the litany'of peace'.
46
This is followed by three prayers,
the first said in secret for the celebrant himself:
47
'0 compassionate and merciful God
Who triest the heart.
The second prayer, very long and solemn, is for the blessing of the water;
this text contains an exposition of the theology of baptism:
48
'Great art Thou, O
Lord, and marvellous are Thy works.
The third prayer is for the blessing of oil held by the deacon: 'Master . . .
Who didst send the dove unto them that were in the ark of Noah. '
49
A little oil is placed in the baptismal water, according to the Euchologion
by pouring it directlyfrom the vessel, and according to the Potrebnik by dipping
a bunch of leaves or a brush first in the oil and then in the water, because oil was
obviously a rare product in Russia.
This was followed (Potrebnik (38v)) by the pre-baptismal unction per-
formed by the bishop on the head, chest and back of the catechumen (inCon-
stantinople, even in the presence of the bishop, it was a priest wh o performed
these unctions);
50
a deacon or server anointed the rest of the body.
51
Potrebnik
(39):
83
The catechumen makes the sign of the cross and enters the font or the river up to
his chest; the bishop places his hand on his head and says: The servant of God"N. is bap-
tized in the Name of the Father, Amen; the second time: and of the Son, Amen; and the third
time: and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.
52
Potrebnik (39):
And if it is necessary to baptize in a deep river ... a piece of white linen is wrapped
round the catechumen's chest and under his arms and people hold it firmlyby the
ends. The bishopimmerses him three times as alreadymentioned... . And after the
baptism, the godfather receives the baptized person in his arms . . . dresses him in
the white tunic that he has prepared and which the baptized person will wear until
the eighth day.
53
And the verse of Psalm 32: 'Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose
sin is covered',
54
is sung three times. This is followed by a litany(unknown in
this place in the other documents), after which a prayer serving as a transition
between the baptism and the chrismation is read out:
55
'Blessed art Thou, 0 Lord
God Almighty... Who sheddest forth upon them that were in darkness the light of salvation.
. . .' Potrebnik (40v): ' And they sing, As many of you as have been baptized into Christ
have put on Christ, Alleluia [Gal. 3:27].'
At this mome nt the bishop anointed the baptized person with the holy
chrism (myron), making the sign of the cross on his forehead, eyes, nostrils,
mouth and two ears and saying, 'The seal of the gi of the Holy Spirit. '
56
In St Sophia
Psalm 32 was continued and the newly baptized persons, accompanied by the
Patriarch, twelve bishops, priests, deacons and singers, left the baptistrybuild-
ing and proceeded towards the central doors of the church; the entry into St
Sophia took on a very great solemnity.
57
The procession ended the lessons of
vespers and the mass began with the Epistle and Gospel. It seems that on this
day the newly baptized receivedcommunion in the sanctuary next to the altar.
This ritual of Easter night was slightlysimplified on the other four occa-
sions wh e n the Patriarch administered baptism after matins: the day of Epi-
phany in the great baptistry (as on Easter night) and the Sunday of Pentecost,
the Saturday before Palm Sunday and the morning of the Saturday of Holy
W e e k in the lesser baptistry.
O ur manuscripts make no mention of the possible administration of bap-
tism in less solemn circumstances nor of other persons than the Patriarch; in
the Euchologion, however, there are indications suggesting that 'private' bap-
tism also existed.
Th e Potrebnik, which does not contain the impressive conclusion of the
baptismal rites of St Sophia, adds here a number of rites that did not exist at the
time of the conversion of Rus' , though some of them are mentioned by S yme on
of Thessalonika in the fifteenth century, as follows:
Potrebnik (41v): Placing of a cross on the neck.
Donning of the tunic by the priest wh o reads a verse from Isaiah.
(42v): Cruciform tonsure and keeping the hair cut.
58
(43): Putting on of a hood.
59
Procession of the priest, the newly baptized and the godfather around the font
during the singing of Gal. 3:27.
60
Veneration of the altar by the newly baptized.
61
(43v): Final exhortation by the bishop.
(44v): Litanyand dismissal; it is also stipulated that if there is a mass the newly
baptized participate holding two candles at the procession of the offertory
and when receiving communion.
Return home holding lighted candles.
During the whole week, the newly baptized comes to church, always with his
candles, for vespers, matins and mass; during the whole of this week he
does not eat meat and does not wash his face so as not to remove the holy
chrism.
62
ABLUTION OF THE EIGHTH DAY
63
Potrebnik (45):
The ablution of the holychrism takes place eight days after the baptism as in the
ancient Euchologion. The priest removes the newly baptized person's white tunic
and after the initial exclamation says the prayer:
64
0 Thou Who through holy Baptism hast
given unto Thy servants. . . .
The priest washes the parts of the body that have been anointed with a sponge or
cloth dipped in water, usually reciting an appropriate text; this follows two prayers
that today are said before the ablution.
65
O ur article onThe Sacraments of the Ancient Constantinopolitan Euchologion (see N ote
13 (9) below) contains additional information in the form of a text on the ablu-
tion of the Russian Tsars eight days after their coronation, because they were
anointed with the same rite as the newly baptized, which was not the case with
the Byzantine E mperors.
66
According to this document of the late sixteenth century describing the
coronation ritual of the Great Princes of Mosc ow shortly after the time of Ivan
the Terrible (although the copyist clumsily introduced the name of that Tsar
and of the other me mbe rs of his family into the text),
67
the Tsar is anointed on
the forehead, ears, chest, back and hands to the words of the post-baptismal
incantation: 'The seal of the gift. . . .' (In Constantinople the E mpe ror was
anointed only on the vertex, with the word ' Holy' , pronounced by the Patriarch
and repeated by the clergy and the people.) Immediately the bishopremoved
the holychrism with cotton which he then burned in the sanctuary. Th e Tsar
was given a special cloth to wipe his hands whenever necessary, because he
could neither wash nor change his clothes until the eighth day; then he bathed
and the coronation robes were washed in the river with every care to prevent
defilement of the holy chrism.
Conclusions
W e have described baptism as practised by the Greeks in normal circumstances
at the time of Olga and Vladimir. (At the same time we have referred constantly
to the seventeenth-centuryPotrebnik to show the survival of the same rites in
Russia, even if thenceforth celebrated only in exceptional circumstances.) W e
stated at the outset why it appeared to us that there would not be any exceptions
in the case of the baptism of the Russian princes andwhy it was most probable
that they followed the general rule. W e are almost certain of this regarding the
rites themselves, because this was the only ritual used by the Greek clergy, and
fairlycertain in the matter of the duration of the catechumenate. H ow could
Vladimir have sought to escape the normal discipline of the Church in the eyes
of his fellow nobles wh o were already Christian and knew of his far from edify-
ing life, and especiallyin the eyes of the fastidious Byzantine court and even
more so of the Princess born in the purple wh o had been so unwilling to marry
a barbarian?
In conclusion, we suggest the following hypotheses for the timing of Vladi-
mir's baptism.
First, if, as The Tale indicates, Vladimir was baptized at Cherson imme -
diately after the taking of the city(assuming that he had had a long catechum-
enate begun in Kiev as suggested by Arrignon), the whole problem is to esta-
blish the date of the taking of Cherson, which according to Poppe could not
have taken place before late S umme r 989 at the earliest.
Secondly, if Vladimir received baptism in Kiev in 988, one or two years
before the taking of Cherson according to the Memoirs this could have been
on one of three possible dates, if we suppose that Constantinopolitan tradition
was respected, i.e. Epiphany, Easter or Pentecost of the year 988:
68
Baptism: Epiphany, 6 January988; renunciation of Satan, on the eve, 5 January;
beginning of the second catechumenate (at least ten days), around Christ-
mas-time; beginning of the first catechumenate (at least fortydays), about
15 November 987 (at that time the Advent Fast was not yet kept in Con-
stantinople).
Baptism: Easter night, 7 -8 April 988; renunciation of Satan on the eve, Good
Friday, 6 April; beginning of the second regular catechumenate: the fourth
Monday of Lent, 12 March; beginning of the first catechumenate: Carnival
Sunday, 12 February, or the Sunday of the Prodigal Son, 5 February 988.
Baptism: Pentecost Sunday, 27 May 988; renunciation of Satan: on the eve,
Saturday, 26 May; beginning of the second catechumenate: about Ascen-
sion, 17 May; beginning of the first catechumenate: during the week after
Easter, about 15 April 988.
That is a summary of what the liturgical texts convey in the disputed matter of
the date of Vladimir's baptism.
Norms'
1. There is an echo of this tradition in the unpublished manuscript byRev. Sergej Bul-
gakov, 'U sten Xersonessa, Yalta 'De Profanis' [Beneath the Walls of Chersonese, Yalta
' De Profundis']', Yalta, 1922.
2. D. Lihacev, Povesf Vremennyh Let [T^\c of Bygone Years], Vol. 1, pp. 59-83, 257-82,
Moscow/Leningrad, 1950; of the many editions of this document, see 'Se povest'
vremennyh let. Lavrentievskaja Letopis'. Drevnij tekst Letopisi Nestora [This is the
Tale of Bygone Years. Laurentian Chronicles. Ancient Text of the Chronicle of
Nestor]', Polnoe Sobranie Russkix Letopisej [Complete Collection of Russian Chron-
icles], Vol. 1. St Petersburg, 1846; see annotated English translation: S. H . Cross and
O . P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor, The Russian Primary Chronicle. Laurentian Text, Cambridge,
Mass.; this work will be referred to hereinafter simply as The Tale.
3. A. Zimin, 'Pamjat' i poxvala Jakova Mnixa i zitie knjazja Vladimira po drevnemu
spisku [Memoir and Panegyric of the Monk Jacob and Life of Prince Vladimir in
the Most Ancient Manuscript]', Kratikie Soobscenija Instituto Slavjanovedenija [Short
Reports of the Institute of Slavonic Studies], Vol. 37, pp. 66-73, 1963; this work
will be referred to hereinafter simply asMemoirs.
4. M. Arranz, 'Cin oglasenija i krescenija v drevnej Rusi [The Rite of Reception of
Catechumens and Baptism in Ancient Russia]', Proceedings of the Third International
Scientificand Ecclesiastical Conference, Leningrad, 1988.
5. M. Arranz, 'Catecumenado y bautismo en tiempos de Vladimir [Catechumenate and
Baptism at the Time of Vladimir]', Orientalia Christiana Periodica (OCP), Rome .
6. M. Arranz, ' Dove e come il principe Vladimiro divenne Cristiano [Where and H ow
Prince Vladimir Became a Christian]', Osservatore Romano, 14 April 1988.
7. The Tale states that the events of the year 988 took place very quickly: the military
campaign, siege and taking of the cityof Cherson, the mission to Constantinople
offering the cityin exchange for the hand of the sister of the reigning emperors, the
arrival of the princess, the baptism of Vladimir with the name of Basil by the
Bishop of Cherson during which Vladimir's failing eyesight was restored, the mar-
riage, the departure of the princes for Kiev and the mass baptism of the city's inhab-
itants. At this point of the narration,The Tale turns back and gives us an improbable
profession of faith made by Vladimir at his baptism, composed of several elements:
(a) the incipit of the Creed of the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople; (b) a sum-
mary of the dogmas of the Trinityand the Incarnation (apparentlybased on the
treatise of Michael Synkellos); (c) acceptance of the first seven Ecumenical Councils
referred to by the name of the town where each was held, the numbers of bishops
participating and the doctrine defined; (d) rejection of the doctrine of the Latins as a
87
whole and in particular of their custom of filiallykissing the earth; and (e) homage
to the ancient Church of Rome for its role in the seven above-mentioned Councils
(the seven Popes are mentioned together with the Eastern Patriarchs who were pro-
tagonists of these Councils); the statement that the Church of Rome has now
declined due to a certain Peter the Stammerer. For an analysis of this document,
which cannot be from the time of Vladimir, see Cross and Sherbowitz-Wetzor, op.
cit., p. 26, nn. 97 and 98.
A. Poppe, ' The Political Background tothe Baptism of Rus'. Byzantine-Russian
Relations Between 986-9' , Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 30, 1976, pp. 195-244.
O n the basis of the scientific dating of the taking of Cherson and using the data con-
tained in the ' Memoir and Panegyric', (see Note 3 above), Poppe suggests the fol-
lowing chronology of the facts we are concerned with: May/June 987: departure
from Constantinople to Kiev of a mission seeking militaryaid, possiblyunder the
guidance of Theophylact, the former Metropolitan of Sebeste whose see was occu-
pied by rebel Byzantine armies; July/August 987: arrival of Byzantine legates in
Kiev; September 987: conclusion of a treatyproviding for 20,000 Russian reinfor-
cements for the Byzantine army, the adoption of Byzantine Christianityby the Rus-
sians, the marriage of Princess Anna to Vladimir and return of part of the mission
to Constantinople while Theophylact and other clerics mayhave begun to prepare
the people of Kiev for baptism. The first day of baptism provided by the Greek
liturgical books of the time was 6 January 988 (Epiphany) followed by 7 April
(Easter) or 27 May (Pentecost) of the same year; but not 15 August, the day of the
Assumption, as this was not a day of baptism among the Byzantines. Given that
baptism was only performed by the bishop, wh o baptized each candidate by triple
immersion, and that the Dnieper is covered with ice in winter, it may be supposed
that the Kievans were baptized little by little and not all together, at first in the
Church of St Elijah which already existed, and then in the river, but observing a
very precise ritual about which we are quite well informed and to which we shall
return. In the summer of 988 the Russian soldiers arrived in Constantinople; in
January989 they took part in the battle of Chrysopolis and on 13 April that of Aby-
dos. It was only after this that Vladimir's campaign against Cherson took place.
J.-P. Arrignon and F. Guida, La Russia ha mille anni. Storia e dossier [Russia is a Thou-
sand Years Old. Historyand File], Supplement N o. 15, February1988, pp. 7-8; J.-P.
Arrignon, La chaire mtropolitaine de Kiev des origines 1240 [The Metropolitan See of
Kiev from the Beginning to 1240], Universityof Lille, 1987.
Letter 40,28 of Gregory Nazianzen (PG 36,400); replyof Metropolitan John of
Kiev (d. 1080), Russkaja Istoriceskaja Biblioteka [Russian Historial Library] (St Peters-
burg), Vol. 6, 1880, pp. 1-2.
In Byzantine liturgical books the technical term for the act of baptism itself is
'illumination' (phatisma' in Greek, prosvescenie' in Slavonic).
See also the nine articles byM. Arranz inOrientalia Christiana Periodica (OCP) (1981-
88) on the subject of Christian initiationamong the Byzantines: Les sacrements de
l'ancien Eucholqge constantinopolitain [The Sacraments of the Ancient Constantinopol-
itan Euchologion]:
(1) PreliminaryStudy of Sources,OCP, Vol. 48, 1982, pp. 284-335.
88
Miguel Arranz, S.J.
(2) 1. Admission into the Church of Converts from Heresies or Other Religions
(Non-Christians), OCP, Vol. 49, 1983, pp. 42-90.
(3) 2. Admission into the Church of the Children of Christian Families ('First
Catechumenate'), OCP, Vol. 49, 1983, pp. 284-302.
(4) 3a. Preparation for Baptism, Chapter 1: Second Catechumenate, OCP, Vol. 50,
1984, pp. 43-64.
(5) 3b. Chapter 2: Renunciation of Satan and Adhesion to Christ, OCP, Vol. 50,
1984, pp. 372-97.
(6) 4a. The 'Illumination' of Easter Night, Chapter la: Blessing of the Baptismal
Water and Oil, OCP, Vol. 51, 1985, pp. 60-86.
(7) 4b. Chapter lb: Blessing of the Baptismal Water and Oil (Continuation and
Conclusion), OCP, Vol. 52, 1986, pp. 145-78.
(8) 4c. Chapter 2: Pre-baptismal Unction; Chapter 3: Baptismal Immersion; Chap-
ter 4: Post-baptismal Unction; Chapter 5: Entry into the Church and Liturgy;
Appendix: The Other Days of Baptism, OCP, Vol. 53, 1987, pp. 59-106.
(9) 4d. Chapter 6: The Ablution (and Tonsure) of Neophytes on the Eighth Day
after Baptism. OCP (in press).
These articles will be hereinafter referred to by the initialsOCP, the year and the
first page of the text in question.
14. The principal manuscripts of the ancient Constantinopolitan Euchologion, pre-
ceded by the initials we shall use here are:
B AR: 'Sanctus Marcus', Barberini 336 (eighth century).
PO R: 'Porfirij Uspenskij', Leningrad 226 (tenth century).
SIN: Sinai 959 (eleventh century).
BE S : 'Bessarion', Grottaferrata G . b. 1. (twelfth century).
E B E : Atenas 662 (thirteenth century).
T AK : Taktikon of John Cantacuzene, Sinodal'nyj 279 (Moscow, Lenin Library).
For a presentation and description of the first five, see OCP, 1982, p. 284.
The main editions of the present Byzantine Euchologion referred to are:
G O A : J. Goar, Euchologion sive rituale graecorum . . ., 2nd ed., Venice, 1730 (Graz,
1960).
ZE R: Euchologion to mega, 2nd ed., Venice, 1862 (Athens, 1970).
R O M: Euchologion to mega, Rome , 1873.
In Old Slavonic translation: T E B: Trebnik, Moscow, 1963.
N . B . The Slavonic Trebnik (like the Roman Ritual) only contains sacraments and
sacramentis served by a simple priest, except for the mass; in this way it does not
correspond exactlyto the Greek Euchologion which contains every rite performed
by the priest or bishop. The two books therefore contain the baptismal rites, the
only ones with which our study is concerned. See also J. Mateos, ' Le Typicon de la
Grande glise [The Typicon of the Great Church]', MS . Ste Croix, N o. 40, Vol. 2,
Orientalia Christiana Analecta (Rome), Vol. 166, 1963, pp. 31 et seq.
15. M. Arranz, ' La tradition liturgique de Constantinople au IX e sicle et l'Euchologe
slave de Sinai [The Liturgical Tradition of Constantinople and the Slavonic E ucho-
logion of Sinai]', Slavenska misija svete brace Cirila iMetoda. II: Krscanska Europa u IXstol-
jecu [The Slavonic Mission of the Brother Saints Cyril and Methodius. 2: Christian
Europe in the Ninth Century]; Krscanska Sadasnjot [The Christian Present], Zagreb;
M . Arranz, 'Liturgiceskaja praktika Konstantinopolja v IX - om veke i Sinaiskij Sla-
vianskij Evhologij [Liturgical Practice in Constantinople in the Ninth Century and
the Slavonic Euchologion of Sinai]', Report on the International Symposium on the Role and
Significance of St Cyril and Methodius for Spiritual and Cultural Co-operation between the Balkan
Nations from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Centuries, Sofia, 10-16 June 1985; M. Att&nz,
' La Liturgie de FEuchologe slave du Sina [The Liturgy of the Slavonic Eucholo-
gion of Sinai]', Proceedings of the Congress on 'II cristianismo tra gli Slavi' [Christianity
among the Slavs], Rome , 8-12 October, 1985; M . Arranz, 'Sostav konstantino-
pol'skogo Evkhologija v IX - om veke [The Content of the Constantinopolitan
Euchologion of the Ninth Century]' , Report on the International Symposium on the Life-
work of he Disciples and Followers of the Brother Saints Cyril and Methodius in Bulgaria and its
Effect in OtherCountries, Sofia, 24-28 N ovember 1986.
The principal Russian authors wh o have written on the historyof baptismal rites in
R ussia are: N . Od incov, Porjadok obscestvennogo i castnogo bogosluzenija v drevnej Rossii do
XVI veka [The Order of Public and Private Divine Services in Ancient Russia up to
the Sixteenth Century], St Petersburg, 1881; A. Dmitrievskij, 'Bogosluzenie v Russ-
koj Cerkvi za pervye piat' vekov [Divine Service in the Russian Church during the
First Five Centuries]', Pravoslavnyi Sobesednik [Orthodox Interlocutor], 1882/ 83
(Odincov's recension); A. Dmitrievskij, Bogosluzenie v Russkoj Cerkvi v XVI veke
[Divine Service in the Russian Church during the Sixteenth Century], Vol. 1, pp.
322-52, Kazan, 1884 (Appendix (Prilozenie) with own pagination); A. Almazov,
Istorija cinoposledovanij Krescenija i Miropomazamja [History of the Ritual of Baptism and
Chrismation], Kazan, 1884 (Appendix with own pagination).
Potrebnik by Patriarch Filaret (Romanov), Moscow, 1623-25. (Reprint Edinovercy
Press, Moscow, 1877), OCP, 1987, pp. 67, 72, 88.
The Constantinopolitan texts collected in the Potrebnik are situated inside a compo-
site rite of local origin for the reception of Latins and Lutherans into the Russian
Patriarchal Church. This rite occupies all Chapter 71 of the Potrebnik, numbered in
pages beginning with page 1. According to a document in Chapter 70 of the same
Potrebnik, entitled Sobornoe Izlozenie (Exposition of the Council): ' Of all the religions that
have existed, the Latin is the worst of all and contains all their errors . . .' (pp. 4 et
seq.). And so, in an amalgam of texts containing many sometimes contradictory
repetitions, were applied to Latins being converted all the rites which the ancient
Church of Constantinople applied either to heretics received without a new baptism
(Arians, etc.) or to non-Christians received through baptism (Manichaeans, Jews,
etc.) or even to mere pagans (see OCP, 1983, pp. 42-90). Baptism had begun to be
administered to Latins by a decision of 28 May1484 of Patriarch S ymeon of Con-
stantinople as a reaction to the consequences of the Council of Florence of 1439
(OCP, 1983, p. 84); but already in the years 1654-56, during his first visit to Russia,
Patriarch Macarius of Antioch had persuaded Patriarch Nikon of Moscow by argu-
ments from the Fathers of the Church to cease the practice of re-baptizing Latins;
see L. Lebedev, 'Russkaja Pravoslavnaja Cerkov' seredinyX VII veka v vosprijatii
arhidjakona Pavla Aleppskogo [The Russian Orthodox Church in the Mid-
Seventeenth Century as Seen byArchdeacon Paul of Aleppo]' , Journal of the Moscow
Patriarchate, N o. 5, 1985, p. 7 2.
19. The same text in the Euchologion, OCP, 1983, p. 82 [Bl/IV].
20. OCP, 1983, p. 290 [Bl: 1]; T E B 6. In the pages of OCP referred to in the present
work references can usuallybe found to the main Greek manuscripts and books
containing the same text or its codicological variants, which we are omitting here
for the sake of conciseness. W e shall, however, refer to the present Trebnik of the
Russian Church (TEB - see Note 14 above) where the text in question is extant.
21. OCP, 1983, p. 292 [Bl: 21]; TE B 9.
22. This is probably the ejaculatoryprayer made popular in the thirteenth century by
the hesychast monks: 'Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me [a sinner]'.
23. See this same text (without the mention of the 'Jesus Prayer' and the secondmen-
tion of the psalms) as a preparation (from ten to fifteen days) prior to the abjuration
of the Arians: OCP, Vol. 49, p. 56 [CI]; of the Manichaeans: OCP, Vol. 49, p. 64
[Bl/III]; and of the Saracens: OCP, Vol. 49, p. 77 [Bl/VI]. In Russia, later on, forty
days of preparation (and not fifteen as in the Euchologion) were required before the
abjuration of heretics, Muslims, Jews and pagans, who were baptized eight days later
(see Almazov, op. cit., pp. 61 and 118); thus the first catechumenate lasted forty
days and the second eight days. According to Bishop Nifont (d. 1156), the catech-
umens took neither meat nor milk (ibid., p. 101). The Potrebnik required Latins to
remain the whole fortydays in the narthex of the church during services, prostrate
themselves 300 times a day and say 600 'Jesus Prayers' and 700 'Hail Marys', prac-
tise abstinence and eat not more than one meal a day, except on Saturdays and Sun-
days.
24. Potrebnik (3): ' At the start of the forty-day period, the Latin convert will be entrusted
to an educated priest with a good knowledge of the Bible, who will be his spiritual
guide and will also try to get toknow the candidate well.'
25. OCP, 1983, p. 66 [Bl/III: 1] (cf. G O A 700): but this is a prayer to follow the abjura-
tion of the Manichaeans.
26. 7 procee proklinjavyj byvaet hristianin i tako meet (imeem) togojako nekrescena hristjaninajakovy
ze sut' hristiarskija deti hotjascajasja krestiti (Then the man wh o has pronounced the
anathema is a Christian and so we regard him as a non-baptized Christian as are
Christian children wh o are to be baptized)', OCP, 1983, p. 69, n. 38 ( G O A 282).
[Bl/II]: ' O nce the [Jewish] proselyte has said this [the anathema] before the Church,
we make him a Christian, i.e. we consider him to be a "non-baptized Christian" as
are the children of Christians awaiting baptism'; see alsoOCP, 1983, p. 63, n. 34
[Bl/III] and OCP, 1983, p. 65, n. 35 ( G O A 701) [Bl/IIIb], 1983: ' O nce the heretic
[Manichaean] has said the anathema, he becomes a Christian, in other words he is
considered to be a "non-baptized Christian" as is usual for the children of Christians
wh o have yet to be baptized.'
27. OCP, 1984, p. 46.
28. OCP, 1983, pp. 43, 78; OCP, 1984, pp. 47, 339.
29. OCP, 1984, p. 52 [B2: 1]; TE B 13.
30. OCP, 1978, p. 123 ( G O A 36): VE S [XII], prayer for the catechumens at the vespers
of the ancient asmatikos service of St Sophia, still in use up to the thirteenth century,
and further evidence that the Potrebnik contains archaic texts.
31. PG , pp. 155, 212 et seq.
32. OCP, 1984, p. 55 [B2: 2] [B2: 3] [B2: 4]; T E B 14.
33. OCP, 1984, p. 61 [B31]; TEB 16v.
34. OCP, 1981, p. 130 ( G O A 45): O RT [XIII]: prayer of the catechumens at the matins
of the asmatikos service (see Note 30).
35. OCP, 1983, p. 67.
36. OCP, 1977, pp. 70, 90. This office was celebrated from Monday to Friday only dur-
ing the weeks of Lent and Holy W eek.
37. OCP, 1981, pp. 332, 368. The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts was celebrated on
the same days as the Tritoekti, except for the Thursday of HolyW eek when mass was
said.
38. OCP, 1984, pp. 377-93 ( G O A 279-81) [B4/II].
39. OCP, 1984, p. 381.
40. OCP, 1984, p. 394 [B4/I]; T E B 17.
41. OCP, 1984, pp. 387 and369 [B4/IL 1]; T E B 17. AlsoOCP, 1984, p. 388 [B4/II: 2];
this second prayer does not survive in the present rite.
42. OCP, 1978, p. 125: VE S [XVIII-XXII]'. O n the site of the relics chamber (skeuophy-
lakiori) and the baptistries of St Sophia: see OCP, 1987, p. 74. Many topographical
details of the Potrebnik are due simply to the exact translation of the texts of the
Euchologion of St Sophia.
43. At St Sophia, well equipped with baptistries and pools, baptism in water courses or
in the sea was not envisaged. In Russia, churches do not appear tohave had real
baptistries and so, if people were unable to reach a river, they used receptacles suffi-
ciently large to allow the immersion of an adult up to chest-level. The Slavonic
word 'kupe ' corresponds to the Greek word 'kolymbithra'.
44. For a description of this ceremony at St Sophia, see OCP, 1985, p. 66.
45. OCP, 1985, p. 74, and1986, p. 147; TE B 21. The text of this litanybelonging to the
baptismal rite varies from manuscript to manuscript.
46. OCP, 1985, p. 75, and1986, p. 150 [B5: 1]; T E B 22v.
47. OCP, 1985, p. 79, and 1986, p. 153 [B5: 2-1, II, III]; TE B 23v.
48. OCP, 1984, p. 84, and1986, p. 167 [B5: 3]; T E B 25v.
49. See OCP, 1986, p. 167, on the possible meaning of this unction, which did not have
the character of an exorcism that it had in Jerusalem and in the West and which cer-
tain Byzantine authors sometimes attribute to it.
50. Many manuscripts of the ancient Euchologion of Constantinople (OCP, 1982, pp.
291, 297, 311: A4; G O A 218) include the rite of ordiftation of deaconesses, or
wome n deacons; they probably exercised certain ministries devoted towome n, such
as this, for example, and the service of the communion chalice.
51. OCP, 1987, p. 65; T E B 26v; yet this acclamation appears in all the manuscripts and
printed texts before the pre-baptismal unction.
52. See OCP, 1987, p. 70; the same rite and formula (without Amen) in the Eucholo-
gion; but see the large number of variants in the different manuscripts and printed
texts; according tosome manuscripts the Ame n was said by the congregation and
not by the celebrant.
53. W e have not repeated here all the details of the Trebnik on the garment worn by the
92 Miguel Arrume, S.J.
baptized person, as they are the result of repeated revisions and are often confused.
In present practice the person being baptized wears a tunic for the sake of decency
and this seems already to have been the case in Russia in the seventeenth century,
but not in the fifteenth century in Thessalonika (see Note 31 above).The Eucholo-
gion did not mention the need for anygarment during the baptism (nor at the
beginning of the second catechumenate, nor during the renunciation of Satan). The
books of St Sophia simply said that, following baptism and chrismation, the newly
baptizedmade their entry into the church dressed in white, like the Patriarch and
other members of the clergy: OCP, 1987, pp. 80 and94.
54. See OCP, 1987, pp. 70, 94 and 102, on the chanting of this psalm traditionallyasso-
ciated with baptism; T E B 27.
55. OCP, 1987, p. 79 [B5: 4]; TE B 28.
56. OCP, 1987, p. 80. For chrismation we left the Potrebnik to present the simple rite of
the ancient Euchologion of Constantinople which is that which the clerics wh o
baptized the Russians must have used. In present practice, unction of the chest,
hands and feet is added and the formula is repeated on each occasion (TE B 29).
Other manuscripts add or omit unctions and vary the text of the formulae. In Russia
before the liturgical reform of Patriarch Nikon, the rite of chrismation was very
complex and it is this tradition that the Potrebnik reflects: OCP, 1987, p. 88, and
Note 49 above.
57. See different descriptions inOCP, 1987, p. 94.
58. In present practice, this tonsure is performed on the eighth day after baptism: T E B
33v. In the ancient Euchologion there were rites for cutting the hair and the beard,
but theywere not directlyconnected with baptism. See our article inOCP, Note 13
(9) above.
59. OnlySymeon witnesses to the existence of this custom: PG 155, 232.
60. T E B 29. A vestige of the ancient procession of entry into the church.
61. A ceremony replacing the churching of children fortydays after birth; in the case of
adults, this should take place at the beginning of their catechumenate. It could also
be a remnant of the ancient practice of the communion of the newly baptized at the
altar(OCP, 1987, p. 100).
62. OCP, 1987, p. 101.
63. For the whole question of the post-baptismal ablution and the (non-clerical) ton-
sure of the child, see our article inOCP, Note 13 (9) above.
64. Ibid. [B6: 1]; TE B 31.
65. Ibid. [B6: 3] and[B6: 4a]; T E B 31v.
66. M. Arranz, 'L'aspect rituel de l'onction des empereurs de Constantinople et des tsars
de Moscou [The Ritual Aspect of the Anointing of the Emperors of Constantinople
and the Tsars of Moscow]' , Roma, Constantinopoli, Mosca. Da Roma alia terza Roma. Doc-
ument! e studi. Studi I. [Rome, Constantinople, Moscow. From Rome to the Third
Rome . Documents and Studies. Study I]', pp. 407-15, Rome , Universit La
Sapienza, 1981.
67. E . Barsov, Old Russian Documents of the Sacred Coronation of Tsars to Reign, Compared with
the Greek Originals.. ., pp. 63, 87-8, Moscow, 1883 (in Russian); on the doubtful his-
toricityof the document, see N . Pokrovskij, ' The Rite of Coronation of Sovereigns
in History', Cerkovnyj Vestnik (Church Bulletin of the Theological Academy of St
Petersburg), 9 May 1896, N o. 19, pp. 600-8 (published on the occasion of the cor-
onation of the last Tsar, Nicholas II - in Russian).
68. Other days of baptism in Constantinople were Lazarus Saturday before Palm Sun-
day (31 March 988) and the morning of Holy Saturday; the fact that on these days
the sacrament of baptism was performed in the lesser baptistry in St Sophia suggests
that theywere reserved for infants, rather than adults such as Prince Vladimir.
The religious achievements of
Yaroslav the Wise
1
The death of Vladimir on 15 July1015
2
on the princely estate of Berestovo, near
Kiev, plunged the recently constituted State of Rus' into civil war. It was only
after the elimination of his three brothers, the martyr-princes {strastoterpcyf
Boris, Gleb and Svyatoslav, assassinated by Svyatopolk
4
at the end of 1015, and
the murder of the latter four years later,
5
that Yaroslav came to power, having
to share it with his other brother, Mstislav.
6
It was not until Mstislav died in
1036 that the land of Rus' was reunited under the authority of Prince Yaroslav,
now the acknowledged 'autocrat' of the territories of Rus' , and Kiev again took
on all the functions of a capital.
Our sole concern in this chapter is with Yaroslav's religious policy, whose
three main achievements are recorded by history: the foundation of the Metro-
politan Cathedral of St Sophia in Kiev which it was intended should be 'unriv-
alled for splendour and glory in the north or from east to west';
7
the creation of
a genuine Slavonic written culture, which developed around the scriptorium of
St Sophia and, finally, the organization of the earlyRussian Church. W e shall
examine these three aspects in turn.
The construction of a metropolitan cathedral in Kiev to outshine all that
existed throughout the north, east and west - with the exception of the south
where the Cathedral of St Sophia stood in Constantinople - could not be over-
looked in the Russian chronicles. Unfortunately, however, the contradictory
information they give has led to disagreement among researchers.
Without wishing to enter into scholarly discussions on the hypothetical
existence of a wooden Cathedral of St Sophia anterior to the building erected by
Yaroslav,
8
we shall attempt to identifythe function that Yaroslav sought to
96
assign to the structure that he wished to give 'to the new people whose heart
and mind had been converted [byGod]' .
9
If the saga of Ejmund
10
is to be believed, relations were strained between
the two brothers, Yaroslav and Mstislav. O n the initiative of Ingigerd-Irene,
Yaroslav's wife, peace was restored on the basis of an agreement to share garda-
riki, as Kievan Rus' was called in Scandinavian sources. Yaroslav received the
western and northern parts with Holmgard (Novgorod) as capital and Mstislav
the eastern and southern parts centred on Kenugard (Kiev). It was not until
1036, when Rus' was reunified under Yaroslav's rule, that Kiev once again
became the country's sole capital and Yaroslav began carrying out his vast deve-
lopment projects, the jewel of which was to be the Metropolitan Cathedral of St
Sophia.
For the site of this monument which he intended as the centre of his cap-
ital, Yaroslav chose the plateau lying to the south-west of 'Vladimir's city'
11
on
the vacant spot where he had just won a decisive victoryover the Pechenegs,
thus giving a certain sacredness to the place.
12
Building commenced in1037 and within four years was almost finished. It
was completed in1045 when work began on the Cathedral of St Sophia of N ov-
gorod, engaging some of the teams wh o had helped in the construction of the
Kiev cathedral.
The remarkable speed with which the buildingwas erected lends it a sense
of overall unityin terms of both plan and decoration. This unityhas led
researchers to speculate on the extent of the financial resources that the Prince
could devote to the construction, the number and qualityof the craftsmen
employed there and, finally, the master builder or builders wh o designed such a
well-knit artistic whole.
St Sophia is a vast building with five naves, each ending in an apse. This
core is an almost perfect square measuring29.3 X 29.5 m and covering an area
of 860 m
2
, including 260 m
2
for the choir. This central core is flanked by two
rows of galleries on the north, south and west. The whole edifice forms a
quadrilateral figure measuring 54.6 X 41.7 m and covering a total area of 2.25
hectares.
13
The transept crossing is topped by a cupola mounted on a drum with
twelve windows to light the choir. The side-aisles include a massive raised dais
where the prince's familyworshipped. The western part has two large rooms at
the upper level lit bywindows built into the drums bearing the side cupolas of
which there are twelve.
The external decoration of the edifice consists of ornamental arrangements
of bricks and rows of blind recesses. Traces of external murals have been found
on the north wall, proving that at least parts of the building were painted. The
walls are built of bricks laid in rows separated by thick layers of rose-coloured
mortar into which large blocks of stone are inserted.
The internal decoration is in striking contrast to the restraint of the exte-
rior. The ornamentation here is unusuallymagnificent. The central apse, the
bema and the whole central square are decorated with mosaics; the rest of the
building is covered with frescoes.
The mosaics date from the eleventh centuryand even today cover an area
of some 260 m
2
. They are arranged according to the traditional pattern govern-
ing the decoration of large Byzantine religious buildings.
14
From the entrance the immense Virgin Oranta stands out against the gol-
den background of the conch of the central apse. Her impressive height of 5.5
m makes her the central component of the dcor, attracting the attention of
those entering the church. Placed on the dividing line between earth and hea-
ven, she provides a link between the enthroned Christ at the heart of the central
cupola and the earthlyChurch represented on the wall of the central apse in
three tiers, one above the other. The top tier shows the distribution by Christ as
priest, depicted twice in this composition, of the Eucharist in its two forms to
the apostles ranged in two lines, led respectivelyby Peter, wearing a deacon's
star, and Paul. The middle tier is a frieze depicting the Fathers of the Church;
the lower one is a simple frieze with ornamental designs.
15
The rest of the building is covered with frescoes, many of which have now
all but disappeared. These depict scenes from the Old and N e w Testaments.
The north, south and west walls of the nave are decorated with representations
of members of the princelyfamily. Their interpretation is still a subject of dis-
cussion among specialists.
The fresco on the west wall, now demolished, which we know about from
drawings made in 1651 by the Dutch artist A. Van Westerfeld, presented a
group of five figures identified byV. N . Lazarev:
16
in the centre, the enthroned
Christ flanked on His left by Yaroslav and on His right by Ingigerd-Irene, fol-
lowed respectivelyby their eldest son, Vladimir Yaroslavich, and their eldest
daughter, Elizabeth. The procession of the princelycouple's other children
continued on the south wall with the girls and the north wall with the boys.
This arrangement has been reconsidered quite convincinglybyS. A. Vysot-
sky.
17
Noting that the identification proposed byV. N . Lazarev entailed revers-
ing the places customarily reserved for the Prince and Princess in Byzantine
iconography, the Soviet researcher proposed restoring that order by placing
Yaroslav on the right of the enthroned Christ and Ingigerd-Irene on His left;
consequently, the sons of the princelycouple have their rightful place on the
south wall and the daughters on the north, and not the reverse.
Yaroslav's two eldest sons are depicted on this south wall holding candles
in their left hand. This detail is a reminder of Byzantine customs. Whenever the
emperor went in procession to the 'Great Church' of Constantinople, he gave
thanks toGod bymaking a triple bow with candle inhand at each sanctuary
lining the imperial route.
Finally, S. A. Vysotsky argues forcefully that the five figures depicted on
98 Jean-Pierre Arrignon
the west wall should be seen as Christ enthroned in the centre, with Vladimir
and Yaroslav on His right and Olga and Ingigerd-Irene on His left.
Iconography accordinglygave Vladimir and Olga the same standing as the
rulers 'equal to the apostles', Constantine the Great and Helena; like them, they
were natural intercessors with God, presented as such by Yaroslav and Ingig-
erd-Irene. Moreover, this interpretation of the iconographical scheme decorat-
ing the nave of St Sophia in Kiev is perfectlyin line with the ideology expressed
by Metropolitan Hilarin in his celebratedSermon on haw and Grace written about
1050.
18
The frescoes adorning the interior of the Cathedral of St Sophia form such
a united whole that it is more than likely that a single and cohesive group of
persons planned the entire iconographical programme that the artists were
given to carryout for the glory of the new Church of Rus' and the reigning
dynasty at Kiev.
Whereas the construction of the Metropolitan Cathedral of St Sophia
called for substantial funds and the assistance of experienced master craftsmen,
the planning of the iconographie programme could not be entrusted to any but
learned clerics, perfectly familiar with Byzantine traditions. V. N . Lazarev sug-
gests on good authority that the Greek Metropolitan Theopemptus (1035-40)
and his successor Hilarin (1051-54) were the moving spirits behind the pro-
gramme of mosaics and frescoes in St Sophia's at Kiev; hence the importance of
making a symbolic interpretation of this decoration.
The Virgin Oranta is portrayed as the 'Indestructible Wall'
19
at which all
may find protection and aid, and the Prince an assurance of salvation and vic-
toryover his foes. In imitation of Constantinople, Kiev was also placed under
the protection of the Mother of God; it rose accordingly to the exalted rank of a
'cityprotected byGod' ; it was entitled to call itself 'mother of Russian cities',
the place where the Prince reigned.
The purpose of the extensive representation of the princelyfamily on the
walls of the central nave was to consecrate the reigning dynasty to which G od
had entrusted power. This was all the more important in that the Russian polit-
ical system as yet had no ceremonies for the coronation or anointing of the
ruler.
20
Interpretation of the frescoes and mosaics decorating St Sophia's in Kiev
shows clearlythe Byzantine influences that inspired the scholars in Yaroslav's
circle who designed them. The same group of scholars are also thought to have
made a fundamental contribution to the development of Russian written cul-
ture at the scriptorium of St Sophia.
The passage of The Tale of Bygone Years for the year 1037 is eloquent about
Yaroslav's love of books which he was in the habit of reading night and day.
21
The interpretation of this particular passage is the subject of discussions among
scholars which shed ne w light on the role to be attributed to Yaroslav in the
genesis of earlyRussian written culture.
H . G . Lunt, a learned linguist wh o has made a most careful study of this
passage in The Tale, has reported h ow much his interpretation is indebted to the
readings alreadyproposed byA. A. Shakhmatov
22
and D. S. Likhachev.
23
Following a close linguistic study of all angles of the passage in question on
the basis of the five manuscripts regarded as being closest to the original text,
and bearing in mind the historical background, H . G . Lunt invites us to con-
sider that Yaroslav's role consisted primarilyof obtaining Slavonic books and
arranging for them to be copied.
24
If one accepts such an interpretation, the pas-
sage is left without a single reference to any translation activities organized by
Yaroslav at St Sophia's in Kiev. Th e functional meaning of the verb'prkladati',
no form of which has been uncovered before the modern age, appears to be 'to
conveyfrom one place to another' or 'to import'.
25
The manuscripts were prob-
ably imported from Greece, in other words, from the Byzantine E mpire which,
since 1018, had encompassed the entire territoryof the first Bulgarian Empire,
including the monasteries of Macedonia, Athos, Thrace, Mesie and beyond
Constantinople and Asia Minor.
In that case, the passage in The Tale merely recalls a tradition dating from
the end of the eleventh century, substantiating the idea that Yaroslav had
encouraged the use of Slavonic in the churches and ne w monasteries by dis-
seminating Slavonic texts imported from the Byzantine Empire and copied in
Kiev. This interpretation, which contradicts the whole of Soviet historiograph-
ical tradition,
26
should be viewed with some reserve.
T o begin with, the prefix'pr-' of the verb'prkladati' shows that it is a liter-
ary verb that could onlyhave been used by an educated person. Furthermore,
there is ample evidence of the use of this verb to me an 'to translate from one
language into another' among the W est Slavs, that is, the Poles and Czechs.
27
Finallyit should be remembered that Kievan Rus' maintained continual close
relations with the Poles throughout the eleventh century. In 1018, Boleslav
drove Yaroslav out of Kiev and enthroned Svyatopolk
28
there, while Boleslav II
in his turn entered Kiev in 1069.
29
These relations maintained by Rus' with the W est Slavs, including the
Czech monastery of Sazava, give support to the idea that linguistic interpntra-
tion was possible, particularlyamong the learned circles that formed part of a
prince's entourage. N or can it be completely ruled out that the use of the verb
'prkladati' to me an 'to translate from one language into another' was a borrow-
ing from W est Slavonic, all the more so because the replacement of this form by
'prlagati' in the Radziwill and Academy manuscripts may simply be due to the
scribe's wish to make the text intelligible to a less educated readership.
Finally, H . G . Lunt pointed out quite pertinently that the ethnonym in the
expression 'ot Grek' is in the genitive plural and concluded that it should be read
to mean 'coming from Greece'.
30
This interpretation is not in our opinion at all
inconsistent with a reading of the verb'prkladati' as meaning 'to translate'. The
passage in the Chronicle may therefore be read as follows: ' They translated
[books] from Greece into Slavonic'
This campaign by the East Slavs to disseminate written culture either
through copies or translations was not in evidence in Rus' before the fifth
decade of the eleventh century.
31
It should therefore be associated with the
movement to create the first episcopal sees.
32
This cultural and artistic upsurge marking the closing decades of Yaroslav's
reign is chiefly attributed to the activities of the Metropolitan See of Kiev, held
at the time by exceptional figures such as Theopemptus the Greek and his suc-
cessor, the Russian Hilarin, wh o earned the title of kniznik (scholar).
33
That
title, however, indicated a knowledge of Greek. Consequently it should be
stressed that the educated persons among Yaroslav's entourage wh o inspired his
religious and cultural policywere deeplyimbued with Greek culture, which was
then going through a magnificent renaissance in Constantinople under the gui-
dance of Emperor Constantine Monomachus IX (1042-55). In addition, the
creation of a scriptorium at St Sophia's in Kiev for the copying and translation
of texts from Greece was as much a part of Yaroslav's political activities to pro-
vide a sound basis for the recentlyfounded Church of Rus' as it was of the
broader canvas of the humanist renaissance then triumphing in Constantinople
which put its stamp on the training of prelates sent to Rus' .
O ne further aspect of Yaroslav's religious policy that deserves to be mentioned
is the creation and organization of the first Russian dioceses.
34
The Notitiae episcopatum of the Codex atheniensis N o. 1371, which A. Poppe
puts prior to 1165, places the Great Russian Metropolia in sixty-second position
and lists the eleven suffragan dioceses of the Kiev Metropolia. O f these, only
one, the diocese of Belgorod, was founded during Vladimir's reign byMetro-
politan John I in about the year 1000
35
to establish the proto-see of the Metro-
polia there. The next three dioceses, those of Novgorod, Chernigov and Kanev,
were also founded during Yaroslav's reign by Metropolitan Theopemptus.
Novgorod, the most important city inRus' after Kiev, was the principal
economic centre of the North and gateway to the Baltic at the northernmost
end of the 'road from the Varangians [Vikings] to the Greeks'.
36
It was so
important for the Princes of Kiev to control this city that they established the
practice of stationing their eldest son there.
37
The population of the city, of
mixed Slav, Finno-Ugric and Scandinavian origin, was very attached to pagan-
ism. The fact that no clergywere present during the events of 1018 leads us to
believe that at that date Novgorod had not yet received an episcopal see. The
first certain proof of its existence dates to the time of the consecration of Luke
Zhidiata (Luka Zidjata) in 1036 to occupy the see of which he was in all prob-
abilitythe first titular.
38
It is even more difficult to fix the date of the foundation of the Diocese of
Chernigov because of the almost total lack of written documentation on the
subject. Archaeological research permits us to place the foundation of this see at
some time between 1036 and 1050.
39
The diocese of Kanev and Yuriev was established, as has been shown byA.
Poppe, after 1036 following Yaroslav's decisive victoryover the Pechenegs.
40
The creation of this last episcopal see was the final act in the work of
Metropolitan Theopemptus. The goal he had set himself was to achieve Church
control over the 'road from the Varangians to the Greeks' , and this was
achieved at the close of Prince Yaroslav's reign. The slow pace at which the net-
work of Russian dioceses was formed may cause us some surprise. However, it
was probably due partlyto the resistance of Slavonic paganism and partlyto the
lack of sufficient resources available to the Metropolitan See of Kiev for its esta-
blishment in a countrywhere the smallest diocese covered an expanse of terri-
toryequivalent to that of several metropolitan sees of the Church of Constanti-
nople.
The establishment of this network of dioceses was also accompanied by the
dissemination of Byzantine law as translated from the compendium of canon
law known asThe Syntagma in Fourteen Titles.^ This compendium, translated into
Old Bulgarian shortly after 912, became known in Rus' in this version probably
as earlyas the first half of the eleventh century
42
through the efforts of Metro-
politan Theopemptus. Accordingly, the Church of Rus' already had canon law,
thereby enabling it not only to act in the field of family and matrimonial law,
but also to mould relations between Church and state on the basis of the vital
symphonia of powers that would ensure taxis, i.e. order and peace.
43
If the credit for sowing the seed on Russian soil by holy baptism is due to
Vladimir, that of bringing h ome the harvest should be attributed to Yaroslav.
Through his activities, under the able guidance of such scholarlyMetropolitans
as Theopemptus and Hilarin, Yaroslav was able to provide his capital Kiev
with a metropolitan cathedral that had no equal in northern Europe. Kiev at
the time could claim to be not only the ' Mother of Russian cities', but also the
main pole of the extension of Eastern Christianityamong the East Slavs. The
creation of a scriptorium at St Sophia's was due as much to the role assigned to
the ne w metropolitan see as to the personalityof the first Metropolitans,
inspired as theywere by the ideas of the Constantinople renaissance. It is doubt-
less here that the Slavonic liturgical collections brought from the Empire were
copied, and translations made of the original Greek texts brought to Rus' by the
same Metropolitans. The libraries that developed from them provided for the
training of a highly educated lite whose most eminent members were
honoured with the title of kni&iik (scholar).
102 Jtan-Pum Arrignon
Th e entry of Rus' into the Byzantine oikoumni and the adoption of Byzan-
tine canon law enabled the clergy to devote themselves to transforming a pagan
society into a Christian community. The process was only beginningand would
take many years. Th e Rurikid dynastywas thus provided with a political ideol-
ogy allowing it to rallythe peoples of Rus' around the prince reigning in Kiev.
It is not, therefore, surprising that the prince wh o managed to leadand success-
fullyimplement such a policyearned the name of 'the W ise' . It was, after all,
Metropolitan Hilarinwh o first compared Yaroslav to S ol omon.
NOTES
1. V. Vodoff, Naissance de la chrtient russe. La conversion du prince Vladimirde Kiev (988) et
ses consquences (Xle-Xlle sicle) [The Birth of Russian Christianity. The Conversion of
Prince Vladimir of Kiev (988) and its Consequences (Eleventh-Twelfth Centu-
ries)], Paris, Fayard, 1988, 496 pp.
2. A. A. Zimin, 'Pamjat' i pohvala Jakova mniha i zitie knjazja Vladimira po drevnej-
semu spisku [Memorial and Panegyric of Jacob the Monk and Life of Prince Vladi-
mir in the Most Ancient Version]', Kratkte soobscenija Institua Slavjanovedenija, Vol. 37,
1963, p. 72.
3. F. von Lilienfeld, 'Die ltesten russischen Heiligenlegenden [The Most Ancient
Russian Legends of the Saints], Studien zu den Anfngen der russischen Hagio-
graphie und ihr Verhltnis zum byzantinischen Beispiel', Aus der byzantinischen Arbeit
der DDK, Vol. 1, 1957, pp. 237-71.
4. J. Fennell and A. Stokes, Early Russian Literature, p. 13, London, 1974.
5. O . M. Rapov, Knjazeskie vladenija na Rusi v X-pervoj polovine XIII v [Princely Estates in
Rus' from the Tenth to the First Half of the Thirteenth Century], pp. 35-6, Mos-
cow, 1977.
6. Ibid., p. 37.
7. L. Mller, Des Metropoliten Ilarion Lobrede auf Vladimirden Heiligen und Glaubensbekenntnis
[Panegyric of Saint Vladimir and Profession of Faith of Metropolitan Hilarin], p.
123, Wiesbaden, 1962; A. M . Moldovan, Slovo o ztikone i blagodati Ilariona [Sermon on
Law and Grace of Hilarin], p. 97, Kiev, 1984.
8. A. Poppe, ' The Building of the Church of St Sophia inKiev', Journal of Medieval His-
tory, Vol. 7,1981, pp. 15-66; referred to inA. Poppe, The Rise of Christian Russia, Vol.
4, London, 1982.
9. D. S. Lihacev (trans.) and O . V. Tvorogov (ed.), Povest' vremennyh let [Tale of Bygone
Years], Pamjatniki literatury Drevnej Rusi. Nacalo russkoj literatury. XI - nacalo XII veka, p.
138, Moscow, 1978 (referred to hereinafter as PVL); S. H . Cross and O . P. Sherbo-
witz-Wetzor, The Russian Primary Chronicle, Laurentian Text, Cambridge, Mass., 1953,
p. 120 (referred to hereinafter as RPC).
10. E . A. Rydzevskaja, Drevnjaja Rus' i Skandinavija v IX-XIV v. [Ancient Rus' and Scan-
dinavia, Ninth-Fourteenth Centuries], p. 103, Moscow, Materialy i Issledovanija,
1978.
11. P. P. Tolocko, Drevnij Kiev [Ancient Kiev], pp. 64-82, Kiev, 1983; M. A. Sagajdak,
The religious achievements of Y aros lav the Wise 103
Velikij gorod Jaroslava [The Great City of Yaroslav], Kiev, 1982, 96 pp.
12. PVL, p. 164; RPC, pp. 136-7.
13. N . K. Karger, Drevnij Kiev [Ancient Kiev], Vol. 2, Moscow, 1961, pp. 98-206; P. A.
Rappoport, 'Russkaja arhitektura X -X III v. [Russian Architecture: Tenth-Thir-
teenth Centuries]', Arheologija SSSR, svod arheologiceskih istocnikov, N o. 10, El-47, 1982,
pp. 11-18.
14. J. Lafontaine-Dosogne, Histoire de l'art byzantin et chrtien d'Orient [History of Byzan-
tine and Eastern ChristianArt], pp. 105-9, 125-6, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1987.
15. V. N . Lazarev, 'Regard sur l'art de la Russie prmongole [A Review of the Art of
Pre-Mongol Russia], I L'architecture de Kiev, Tchernigov, Polotsk et Smolensk au
X e , X le et Xlle sicles, Il Le systme de la dcoration murale de Sainte-Sophie',
Cahiers de civilisation mdivale, N o. 3, 1970, pp. 196-208, N o. 3, 1971, pp. 221-38.
16. V. N . Lazarev, ' Novye dannye o mozaikah i freskah Sofii Kievskoj. Gruppovoj por-
tret semejstva Jaroslava [New Data on the Mosaics and Frescoes of St Sophia in
Kiev. Portrait of the Family of Yaroslav]', Vizantijskij Vremennyh, Vol. 15, 1959, p.
151.
17. S. A. Vysoc'kij, Pro Ico rozpovily davni stiny [What the Ancient Walls Tell], pp. 55-101,
Kiev, 1978.
18. J.-P. Arrignon, 'Remarques sur le titre de Kagan attribu aux princes russes d'aprs
les sources occidentales et russes des IX e-X Ie sicles [Remarks on the Title of
Kagan Attributed to Russian Princes as Conveyed byNinth-Eleventh-Century
Russian and Western Sources]', Recueil de l'Institut d'tudes byzantines (Belgrade), Vol.
23, 1984, pp. 63-71.
19. C. Mango, The Homilies of Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople, p. 102, Cambridge, Mass.,
1958.
20. A. Poppe, ' Le prince et l'glise en Russie de Kiev depuis la findu X e sicle jusqu'au
dbut du Xlle sicle [The Prince and the Church inKievan Rus' from the E nd of
the Tenth Century to the Beginning of the Twelfth Century]', Acta Poloniae Histrica,
Vol. 20, 1969, pp. 112-13; referred to inPoppe, The Rise . . ., op. cit., Vol. 9.
21. PVL, p. 166; RPC p. 137.
22. A. A. Sahmatov, Povest' vremennyh let [Tale of Bygone Years], p. 308, Prague, 1916.
23. Lihacev, op. cit., p. 167.
24. H . G . Lunt, ' O n Interpreting the Russian Primary Chronicle: The Year 1037', Sla-
vonicand East European journal, Vol. 32, 1988, pp. 1-11.
25. Ibid., p. 6.
26. Ibid., p. 8; A. S. L' vov, Leksika 'Povest' vremennyh let' [The Vocabulary ofThe Tale of
Bygone Years], pp. 334-5, Moscow, 1975.
27. Ibid., p. 334.
28. PVL, pp. 156-8; RPC, p. 132.
29. PVL, p. 186; RPC, PP- 149-50.
30. Lunt, op. cit., pp. 5-6.
31. Ibid., p. 7.
32. A. Poppe, 'L'organisation diocsaine de la Russie aux Xle-XIIe sicles [The Dioce-
san Organization of Russia in the Eleventh-Twelfth Centuries]', Byzantion, Vol. 40,
1971, pp. 165-217; reprinted in Poppe, The Base. . ., op. cit., Vol. 8; J.-P. Arrignon,
La chaire mtropolitaine de Kiev des origines 1240 [The Metropolitan See of Kiev from
its Origins to1240], pp. 214-50, Lille, 1986.
33. A. F. Zamaleev andV. A. Zoc, Mysliteli kievskoj Rusi [Thinkers of Kievan Rus'], pp.
33-51, Kiev, 1981.
34. Ibid., n. 32.
35. Poppe, 'L'organisation . . .,' op. cit., pp. 172-4; Arrignon, op. cit., pp. 217-18.
36. Constantinus Porphyrogenitus,De Administrando Imperio [On the Organization of the
Empire], pp. 57-63, text translated byR. Jenkins and assembled byG . Moravcski,
Washington, D. C. , 1967.
37. Rapov, op. cit., p. 39.
38. Poppe, 'L'organisation . . .,' op. cit., pp. 174-84; Arrignon, op. cit., pp. 218-21.
39. Ibid., pp. 177-84, 222-3.
40. Ibid., pp. 201-5, 237-9.
41. Poppe, ' Le prince et l'Eglise . . .', op. cit., pp. 107-9.
42. J. N . Sapov, Vizantijskoe i juznoslavjanskoe pravovoe nasledie na Rusi v XI-XIII v [The
Legal Heritage of Byzantium and the Southern Slavs inRus', Eleventh-Thirteenth
Centuries], pp. 234-5, Moscow, 1978.
43. H . Ahrweiler, L'idologie politique de l'empire byzantin [The Political Ideology of the
Byzantine Empire], pp. 129-47, Paris, 1975.
The conversion of Rus' : a subject
of international historical research
Vladimir Vodoff
Although the broad outline of the historyof the introduction of Christianityto
Kievan Rus' is fairlywell known, verymany aspects of it are still unclear. This
is only to be expected in view of the fact that it was only after the introduction
of Christianity that medieval Russian historiographybegan in Kiev, and later
on in other centres. Among the questions to which only conjectural answers
can thus far be made are those of the 'first conversion of the Russians' attested
by Patriarch Photius in the mid-ninth century, the circumstances and precise
date of the baptism of Princess Olga and the personal conversion of Prince Vla-
dimir and the baptism of his people, the beginnings of ecclesiastical organ-
ization in the country, and many more. This historiographical chapter will
attempt to consider the last two items.
At the dawn of the modern age, the historiographyof the conversion of
Rus' took place in the context of the ideological conflicts sparked off by the
Counter-Reformation both in the Polish-Lithuanian State and on a broader
European scale. In the first case, two works stand out defending respectivelythe
part apparentlyplayed by the Roman See in the beginnings of Russian Chris-
tianityand that played by the Patriarchate at Constantinople: they are Obrona
iednosci cerkiewney (The Defence of Church Unity) byLeon Krevza (Vilna, 1617) and
the Palinodija (Palinodia) by Zacharie Kopystenski (1621).' In the West, one of the
first attempts at a synthesis was made by Cardinal Caesar Baronius wh o men-
tioned the conversion of Rus' in his Annales ecclesiastici, affirming in particular,
on the basis of Greek sources, the thesis of a conversion in the middle of the
ninth century or, in other words, long before the break between Rome and
Constantinople that at the time was supposed tohave occurred in the fateful,
albeit disputed, year of 1054; furthermore, the author included in his study the
106 VladimirVodoff
entire population of East Slavs, from Ukrainians and Byelorussians living in the
Polish State (Recz Pospolita) to Muscovites (Russians).
2
Following that period of fairlyviolent controversy, the historyof the
beginnings of Russian Christianitytook the same course in the Empire of Peter
the Great as the general historyof the East Slavs which need not be dealt with
here in any detail.
3
Little by little, from the beginning of the nineteenth century,
Church historians appeared wh o were mainly members of the hierarchy:
Eugene Bolokhvitinov, Ambrose Ornatsky, Philaret Gumilevsky and Macarius
Bulgakov.
4
Generally speaking, these scholars accepted the version of events
passed on by Russian sources and thus took their place in the direct line of the
historiographical tradition that started in Kiev in the middle of the ninth cen-
tury. This research reached its apogee at the start of the twentieth century with
the publication byE . E . Golubinsky of an unrivalled body of facts backed by
critical acumen equal to that of the historians of the German or French
schools.
5
Like all his predecessors, Golubinsky used mainly Russian sources, for
example, Povest' vremennyh let (The Tale of Bygone Years), Pamjat' i pohvala Jakova
Mniha (The Memorial and Panegyricof Jacob the Monk), The Sermon on Law and Grace by
the future Metropolitan Hilarin, and the lives of the first Russian saints, Boris
and Gleb. H e was among the first to make a critical analysis of some of the evi-
dence of The Tale of Bygone Years, byshowing the improbabilityof Vladimir's
baptism at Cherson. H e drew up a chronology of facts which, in its general out-
line, is still accepted today, situating Vladimir's baptism in 987 and the taking
of Cherson in 989. Golubinsky also examined the matter of the jurisdictional
status of the recentlyfounded Russian Church without, however, reaching any
firm conclusion. While he accepted, in the same uncritical fashion as his prede-
cessors, the dependence of the Russian metropolia on Constantinople, he did
not rule out the possibility that the Russian Church had managed to acquire an
independent status from the start.
6
The Russian philological and historical school has continued to take this
direction. The study carried out byA. A. Shakhmatov and his followers of the
background of that composite work, The Tale of Bygone Years, and in particular
the fact that the first Greek Metropolitan it refers to, Theopemptus, is not men-
tioned before 1039, led to the thesis propounded byM. D. Priselkov in 1913 and
sometimes repeated today, according to which the Russian Church was placed
from the beginning under the supreme authorityof the Bulgaro-Macedonian
archdiocese of Okhrid.
7
This direction in the study of Russian narrative sources continued in the
U S S R after the 1917 Revolution. Without going into the various editions or
modern Russian translations that have appeared there, mention may be made of
the interesting theory put forward byAcademician D. S. Likhachev concerning
the existence towards the middle of the eleventh century of a first historyof
Russian Christianity, fragments of which have come down to us in The Tale}
The conversion of Rus': 107
a subject of international historical research
Studies or critical editions of other Russian written sources have also appeared,
such asThe Memorial and Panegyric byA. A. Zimin andThe Sermon on Law and Grace
by A. M . Mol dovan, which was published quite recently.
9
Howe ve r the latter
text has also appeared in the form of a critical re-edition of A. V. Gorsky' s 1844
edition by the G e rman scholar Ludolf Mller,
10
wh o also prepared reprints and
critical studies of the hagiographie texts on Boris and Gleb.
11
It is regrettable
that works of this nature are overlooked in manuals or anthologies published in
the U S S R.
1 2
Among the studies of Russian sources carried out in recent years, particular
attention should be paid to the work of Y . N . S hchapov on the legal and canon-
ical texts of the Russian Church in the pre-Mongol period: the statutes (ustavy)
of the princes, in particular the texts attributed to Vladimir and Yaroslav, and
compendia translatedfrom the Greek (Kormcaja knigd). This work has not only
led to a ne w edition of some of these sources but has also clarified a large num-
ber of details of the history of the Russian Church and shed light on the circum-
stances in which certain legends about the beginnings of Russian Christianity
originated and developed.
13
It goes without saying that it is to Soviet scholarship that we owe the dis-
covery of a considerable amount of ne w information on the earliest Christian
architectural monume nts and their decoration or inscriptions. In Kiev itself,
M . K . Karger and his team have made noteworthy efforts in the field of archae-
ology, as has S . A. Vysotsky in that of epigraphy, while P. A. Rappoport has pre-
pared an excellent report of results obtained by archaeologists in various
towns.
14
Th e greater part of the work, however, of applying this information
and comparing it with the evidence of Russian or foreign written accounts has
been done byAndrzej Poppe, the W arsaw historian, wh o has drawn the most
conclusive lessons for the history of the beginnings of the Russian Church from
that of the earliest religious buildings in Kiev (the Church of the Virgin of the
Tithe and the Cathedrals of St Sophia, Vladimir, and Yaroslav) and N ovgorod
(the two Cathedrals of St Sophia).
15
Yet another category of sources, sigillographie evidence, has been the sub-
ject of joint studyby Russian and foreign researchers. Continuing the work car-
ried out byN . P. Likhachev at the beginning of the century, V. L. Yanin, an
archaeologist, searches for lead matrices in the ground, ensures publication of
their impressions and frequentlymakes evocative prosopographic descriptions
of both princes and prelates. This research is carried out in liaison with that of
specialists in Byzantine sigillography, in particular Vitalien Laurent, some of
whose findings, at least as concerns Russia, have also been applied by Alexandre
Soloviev in Geneva.
16
Yet it is above all in the analysis of events that the conversion of Russia is
now a subject of international research. S ometimes not without ulterior
motives of an ideological or denominational nature, various authors in the past
108 VladimirVodoff
have formulated a varietyof theses as to the origins of Russian Christianity, the
precise part played in the conversion of Rus' by the various centres of Christian-
ity at that time and the canonical status of the Russian Church. The thesis of
independence was still being upheld about 1950 byN . Zernov. Prior to that, N .
de Baumgarten andM. Jugie attempted to show that the Russian Church was of
Romanian origin, while A. M. Ammann claimed that the countrywas evangel-
ized by missionary bishops of unspecified allegiance. More recently,M. Chubaty
made further clumsy attempts to dissociate the tenth- and eleventh-century
Russian Church from Constantinople. Other researchers, in view of the silence
of Russian sources on the ecclesiastical hierarchy in Vladimir's day, turned their
attention to the Crimea and linked the Russian Church either to the titular
archdiocese of Tmutarakan (G. Vernadsky) or to the See of Cherson (F. Dvor-
nik). Finally, even some of those historians who admit the existence of a Rus-
sian ecclesiastical province subject to Constantinople have used the mere men-
tion of a 'metropolia' that appears to have existed at Pereyaslav as an indication
that the Primate of the Russian Church had his first residence there. These dif-
ferent theses were quite justly criticized byLudolf Mller
17
as soon as new ele-
ments drawn from non-Russian sources by other specialists, particularlyV.
Laurent andE . Honigmann, were introduced into the discussion. Such sources
include the testimonies of the Arab Christian historian, Yahya of Antioch, who
lived at the time of the events, the German chronicler, Thietmar of Merseburg,
writing a few years after Vladimir's death (1015), the eleventh-to-twelfth-cen-
turyGreek Notitiae episcopatum, recently re-edited in France by J. Darrouzs, and
the Byzantine Church historian, Nicephorus Callistos Xanthopoulos, who
wrote in the fourteenth century but used older sources. This research has not
onlyshown beyond anyshadow of doubt that Christianityand ecclesiastical
structures reached Rus' from Byzantium, which tallies with the historical con-
text inwhich the events of 987-89 occurred, but also provided a number of
details about the historyof the first period of Russian Christianity. The identity
of the head of the Russian Church at the beginning of the eleventh century,
Metropolitan John, has been established with substantial certaintyfrom the
lives of Boris and Gleb, and a Bull discovered byV. Laurent at Dumbarton
Oaks in the United States. It would appear that his predecessor was Theophy-
lactus, the former Metropolitan of Sebasteia in Armenia. The residence of these
first metropolitans of Rus' , who like the majority of their colleagues exercising
their pastoral ministry in barbarian lands did not include the name of their see
in their title, indeed appears to have been Kiev, since the See at Pereyaslav, like
that at Chernigov, was a titular metropolia for a few years only(c. 1060-78).
The most recent, and so far undisputed, clarifications of all of these points were
made by the Polish historian Andrzej Poppe, both in his 1968 thesis and in a
series of articles that have recentlyappeared in the form of a collection.
18
The
conversion of Rus' was presented at almost the same time in a far wider context
in D. Obolensky' s The Byzantine Commonwealth.
Poppe also pieced together the historic facts behind the Millennium now
being celebrated. In a study published in 1976 he succeeded in reconciling appa-
rentlycontradictoryinformation from Russian sources on the date and place of
the baptism of Vladimir and of the people of Kiev. T o this end, he replaced the
events in their Byzantine context: the civil war of 987 - 89 between, on the one
hand, E mperors Basil II and Constantine VIII, and, on the other, the usurpers
Bardas Phocas and Bardas Skleros. Concentrating mainly on the part played in
this event by Varangian troops provided by Vladimir, the Polish historian pro-
pounded the following scenario for the conversion of Rus' :
In 987 the E mperors appealed to the Prince of Kiev for military assistance, pro-
mising in return the hand of their sister Anna, providing that Vladimir
embraced the Christian faith, which he did on or about 1 January 988.
His betrothed reached Kiev in the spring and, shortly after their marriage, Vla-
dimir performed the collective baptism of the population of Kiev before
embarking on a campaign in the Crimea to capture the town of Cherson
which had sided with the rebels (989).
Vladimir returned from his campaign bearing liturgical objects and sacred texts
and bringing priests to Kiev.
These, together with those wh o arrived in the entourage of the princess, helped
to develop Christian worship in Kiev.
20
There is no doubt that the matter of the Cherson campaign, with its circum-
stances and purpose, raises the most questions.
21
In an attempt to sustain the tes-
timony of the text commonl y known as The Cherson hegend, which relates that
Vladimir was baptized in that city, Obolensky propounded the theory that, in
Kiev in 987 , Vladimir only received the first rite of initiation into the Christian
religion, the prima signatio, which is attested by the Scandinavians but is appa-
rentlyunrecorded in Byzantium.
22
Accordingly, of all the theories that have
been put forward, Poppe' s appears to be the soundest.
It is now generallyaccepted that Russian Christianityis of Byzantine ori-
gin, even if, as some people hold, the situation of the Russian Church prior to
1037 is still unclear.
23
However, the specific arguments first put forward byV.
Laurent and E . H onigmann have not yet been considered in certain publica-
tions. For instance, in the work entitled The Introduction of Christianity into Rus
{Vvedenie hristianstva na Rust) which appeared on the occasion of the Millennium,
the ecclesiastical subordination of Kiev to Constantinople is acknowledged
either implicitlyor, a contrario, on the basis of the fact that submission to Rome
appears to be ruled out. Yet, as the text indicates, ' no one so far has provided
convincing proof to support this thesis', whereas the same book refers to the
work of Ludolf Mller in which he summarizes the very arguments put forward
by different scholars advocating this theory. It should be pointed out, however,
110 Vladimir Vodoff
that the present author has made use neither of Obolensky's work nor, in par-
ticular, that of Poppe. A further study in the same collection challenges the
chronology drawn up byPoppe, though no attempt is made toexamine his
work.
24
The present author may be permitted, following this cursory and all too
fragmentary glance at the studies of the historyof the conversion of Rus' , to
make a few observations of a general nature. First, it is cheering to see that
major progress has been made in every field through collaboration between
scholars in different countries and, no less importantly, in different fields.
Unfortunately, as has alreadybeen pointed out, the circulation of bibliograph-
ical data is frequently far from perfect, as can be seen from the difficulties now
being experienced in the publication of a review with this very purpose in view,
Russia Mediaevalis. However, there are some grounds for optimism in the future:
in the course of the discussions on perestroika in the historical sciences
published in a recent issue of the Moscow reviewVoprosy istorii (Histrica/ Mat-
ters), one contributor, I. Y . Froyanov, bewailed the fact that 'Soviet historical
science is illegallycut off from world historical science'.
25
It is to be hoped that
this appeal for the free circulation of bibliographical data does not go unheard,
and not only in the U S S R, since the libraries of Moscow and Leningrad are not
the onlyones where there is a dearth of publications from abroad. The most
important cultural institution in the world is without doubt the ideal forum in
which to appeal to all those onwh om the material aspects of research depend.
In fact, for over a year the desire for co-operation between experts from diffe-
rent countries and cultural backgrounds has made itself distinctly felt at inter-
national scientific events, and it is to be hoped that the Millennium of the con-
version of Rus' will be remembered as an important stage in the organization of
fruitful international research on the historyof Eastern Europe.
NOTES
1. A. Martel, La langue polonaise dans les pays ruthines [The Polish Language in Ruthenian
Lands], pp. 137-8, Lille, 1938 (Travaux et mmoires de l'Universit de Lille, new
series: Droit et lettres, 20).
2. Giovanna Brogi-Bercoff, ' The History of Christian Rus', Annales ecclesiastic!, byC.
Baronius', Harvard Ukrainian Studies (Proceedings of the symposium held at Ravenna,
April 1988).
3. Ocerki istorii istoriceskoj nauki v SSSR [Essays on the History of the Historical Sciences
in the US S R], Vol. 1, pp. 169-244, 273-414, Moscow, 1955.
4. A. V. Kartasev, Ocerki po istorii russkoj cerkvi [Essays on the History of the Russian
Church], Vol. 1, pp. 12-31, Paris, 1959. It is surprising to note that an essaymen-
tioning the person of Metropolitan Makarij Bulgakov completely overlooks his con-
tribution to Church history; see L. Weichenrieder, 'Grands thologiens [Great The-
ologians]', La Sainte Russie [Holy Russia], p. 131, Paris, 1987.
5. E . E . Golubinskij, Istorija russhoj cerkvi [History of the Russian Church], Vol. 1, Mos-
cow, 1901-04, 2 vols.
6. Ibid, pp. 163, 267-70.
7. M. D . Priselkov, Ocerkipo cerhovno-politiceskoj istorii KJevskoj Rusi, X-XII w [Essays on
the Ecclesiastical and Political History of Kievan Rus' , Tenth-Twelfth Centuries],
St Petersburg, 1913.
8. D . S. Lihacev, Russkie Utopist i ib kul'turno-istoriceskoe znacenie [Russian Chronicles and
their Cultural and Historical Significance], pp. 58-75, Moscow/Leningrad, 1947;
L. Mller, 'Ilarion und die Nestorchronik [Hilarin and the Chronicle of Nestor]',
Harvard Ukrainian Studies, op. cit.
9. A. A. Zimin, 'Pamjat' i pohvala Jakova mniha i zitie knjazja Vladimira po drevnej-
semu spisku [Memorial and Panegyric of Jacob the Monk and Life of Prince Vladi-
mir in the Most Ancient Version]' , Kratkie soobscenija Instituto slavjanovedenija, Vol. 37,
1963, pp. 66-7 5; A. M . Moldovan, Slovo o zakone i blagodati Ilariona [Sermon onLaw
and Grace of Hilarin], Kiev, 1984.
10. L. Mller, Des Metropoliten Ilarion Lobrede auf Vladimir den Heiligen und Glaubensbekenntnis
[Panegyric of Saint Vladimir and Profession of Faith of Metropolitan Hilarin],
Wiesbaden, 1962 (Slavistische Studienbcher, 2); supplemented by' Neue Untersu-
chungen zum Text der W erke des Metropoliten Ilarion[N ew Research on the Text
of the W ork of Metropolitan Hilarin]', Russia Mediaevalis, Vol. 2, 1975, pp. 3-9; V.
Laurent, ' Aux origines de l'Eglise russe. L'tablissement de la hirarchie byzantine
[On the Origins of the Russian Church. The Establishment of the Byzantine Hie-
rarchy]',Echos d'Orient, Vol. 38,1939, pp. 27 9-95; E . Honigmann, 'Studies in Slavic
Church History. The Founding of the Russian Metropolitan Church According to
Greek Sources', Byzantion, Vol. 17, 1944/ 45, pp. 128-62.
11. L. Mller (ed.), Die altrussischen bagiographischen Erzhlungen und liturgischen Dichtungen
berdie heiligen Boris und Gleb [Old Russian Hagiographical Narrations and Liturgical
Texts on SS Boris and Gleb], Munich, 1967 (Slavische Propylen, 14); contains
references to the author's earlier works. Nevertheless Mller's theses are contested
byA. Poppe, ' La naissance du culte de Boris et Gleb[The Origins of the Veneration
of Boris and Gleb]', Cahiers de civilisation mdivale, Vol. 24, 1981, pp. 29-53.
12. D. S. Lihacev (ed.), Istorija russkoj literatury X-XVII vekov [History of Russian Liter-
ature, Tenth-Seventeenth Centuries], Moscow, 1980; see also the various volumes
of Pamjatniki drevne-russkoj literatury [Works of Ancient Russian Literature] that have
appeared since 1978.
13. J . N. Scapov, Knjazeskie ustavy i cerkov' v drevnej Rusi XI-XIV vv [Princely Statutes and
the Church inRus' , Eleventh-Fourteenth Centuries], Moscow, 1972; Vizantijskoe i
juznoslavjanskoe pravovoe nasledie na Rusi [T he Legal Heritage of Byzantium and of the
Southern Slavs in Rus'], Moscow, 1978; J. N . Scapov (ed.), Drevnerusskie knjaskie
ustavy XI-XV vv [Princely Statutes of Rus', Eleventh-Fifteenth Centuries], Moscow,
1976.
14. M . K. Karger, Drevnij Kiev [Ancient Kiev], Vol. 2, Kiev, 1961; S. A. Vysockij, Drev-
nerusskie nadpisi SofiiKievskojXI-XIV vv [The Old Russian Inscriptions of St Sophia in
Kiev, Eleventh-Fourteenth Centuries], Vol. 1, Kiev, 1966; Srednevekovye nadpisi Sofii
Kievskoj, po materialam graffiti XI-XVII vv [T he Med ieval Inscriptions of St Sophia in
112 Vladimir Vodqff
Kiev from Graffiti, Eleventh-Seventeenth Centuries], Kiev, 1976; P. A. Rappo-
port, Russkaja arhitektura X-XIII vv, Katalog pamjatnihov [Russian Architecture,
Tenth-Thirteenth Centuries, Catalogue of Monuments], Leningrad, 1982 (Arheo-
logijaS S S R, Svod arheologiceskih istocnikov, E 1-47).
15. A. Poppe, ' The Building of the Church of St Sophia in Kiev'', Journal ofMedieval His-
tory, Vol. 7, 1981, pp. 15-66.
16. V. L. Janin, Aktovye pecati Drevnej Rusi X-XV vv [The Seals of Ancient Rus' , Tenth-
Fifteenth Centuries], Vol. 1, Moscow, 1970, with references to the partlyunpu-
blished works ofN . P. Lihacev; V. Laurent, Le Corpus des sceaux de l'empire byzantin, V:
L'glise, Premire Partie - L'glise de Constantinople, (A) La Hirarchie [Corpus of Seals of
the Byzantine Empire, V: The Church, Part I - The Church of Constantinople, (A)
The Hierarchy], Paris, 1964; A. Soloviev, ' U n sceau grco-russe au X le sicle [A
Graeco-Russian Seal of the Eleventh Century]', Byzantion, Vol. 31, 1961, pp. 435-6;
'Metropolitensiegel des Kiewer Russlands [The Metropolitan's Seal in Kievan
Rus']', Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Vol. 55, 1962, pp. 292-301; Vol. 56, 1963, pp.
317-20.
17. L. Mller, Zum Problem des hierarchischen Status und der Jurisdiktionellen Abhngigkeit der
russischen Kirche vor1039 [On the Problem of the Hierarchical Status and the Juris-
dictional Subordination of the Russian Church before 1039], Cologne, 1959 (Osteu-
ropa und der deutsche Osten, Beitrge aus Forschungsarbeiten und Vortrgen der
Hochschulen des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, 3, 6).
18. A. Poppe, Pastwo i Koscilna Rusi w XI wieku [State and Church in Rus' in the Ele-
venth Century], W arsaw, 1968 (Rozprawy Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 36); The
Rise of Christian Russia, London, 1982 (see, in particular, the article ' The Original Sta-
tus of the Old Russian Church'); Acta Poloniae histrica, Vol. 39, 1979, pp. 5-45. For
editions of Notitiae, see Jean Darrouzs, Notitiae episcopatuum ecclesiae Constantinopol-
itanae, critical text, introduction, notes, Paris, 1981 (Gographie ecclsiastique de
l'empire byzantin [Ecclesiastical Geography of the Byzantine Empire], 1); some of
the documents it contains confirm hypotheses formulated by the Polish historian.
19. Dimitri Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth, 500-1453, London, 1971; contains
references to the author's other works.
20. A. Poppe, ' The Political Background to the Baptism of Rus' . Byzantine Russian
Relations between 986-989' , Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 30, 1976, pp. 197-244;
reprinted in collection mentioned in Note 11 above.
21. See, for instance, the report byS. Franklin on the collection ' The Rise of Christian
Russia', inSlavonicand East European Review, Vol. 63, N o. 195, pp. 448-9.
22. Obolensky, op. cit., pp. 195-6; Poppe, ' The Political Background . . .', op. cit., N o.
5, p. 199.
23. Poppe, ' The Original Status . . .', op. cit., N o. 14, p. 11.
24. Vvedenie hristianstva na Rusi [The Introduction of Christianity intoRus'], Moscow,
1987, pp. 22-3, 51, 70, 86.
25. Voprosy istorii, N o. 3, 1988, p. 15.
Part Two
CHRISTIANITY, ART
AND CULTURE
Macedonia, Serbia and Russian
medieval art
Svetan Grozdanov
Relations between Rus' and the South Slavs in the field of art, especiallyin
ornament and the illumination of books written in Cyrillic, began to be studied
from the end of the nineteenth century after the publication of V. Stasov's
1
large album on Slavonic and oriental ornament which gave rise to a scientific
discussion that has continued to the present day. Interest in this question was
aroused not only by the similaritybetween South Slavonic and Russian orna-
ment of the eleventh to fourteenth centuries, but was also linked to the elucida-
tion of other historical and cultural-historical relations that we shall only touch
on in this essay.
All who have studied the ornament and illuminations of Russian manu-
scripts from the eleventh centuryonwards agree in recognizing that Slavonic
liturgical books, after the adoption of Christianityin Russia, came from the
Okhrid and Preslav school. The question of the artistic origin of Russian illum-
inations is closely linked to that of the adoption of Christianity, the organ-
ization of the Church and its rank and hierarchical place in the light of the
Christian community as a whole. The opinion that Russia adopted Christianity
from Rome , upheld byN . Baumgarten
2
andM. Jugie,
3
has been firmly rejected
by historians, and with good reason. E . Honigmann
4
andG . Ostrogorsky
5
cur-
rentlyconfirm that Russia adopted Christianityfrom Byzantium and was under
the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and, on the basis of crit-
ical investigations of primary sources, consider the role of Byzantium in the
adoption of Christianityto be definitivelyelucidated. However, in 1913 M. P.
Priselkov expressed the opinion that the organization of the Church in Kievan
Rus' was the work of the Patriarchate of Samuel, with its see at Okhrid.
6
Alth-
ough this hypothesis encountered strong resistance from the above-mentioned
authors, at the present time it has found support from A. V. Kartashev,
7
and
116 Svetan Grozdanov
more recentlyfrom V. A. Moshin.
8
The outstanding specialist on this question,
A. V. Soloviev, remarks that there is insufficient information on the activities
of Russian metropolitans, especially in the towns of Kiev and Novgorod up to
1037, and hence, of course, some uncertainty as to the organization of the
Church hierarchyfollowing the adoption of Christianity.
9
It is interesting to
note that it was precisely in1037 that the death occurred of the head of the
Church of Okhrid, Archbishop John (Ioann) wh o was a Slav, and that he was
succeeded byLeon, a Greek.
It is, however, an indisputable fact that at the time of the adoption of
Christianity, militaryand political contacts were established between the
monarchs, Tsar Samuel and Prince Vladimir, who were contemporaries, and
that these contacts continued. The literature of Samuel's time was to play an
important role in the process of the Christianization of Rus' , irrespective of the
hierarchical order of Russian Church organization, for several decades after
988.
A question much more important than the philological dependence of el-
eventh-century Russian books on the Okhrid and Preslav school is that of their
illuminations. Concretely this refers to the decoration of the Ostromir Gospel
of 1056/57, and the Mstislav Gospel of 1113-17, belonging to the same stylistic
group.
10
The dominant artistic trait in these manuscripts, especially in their
illuminations, is the famous Constantinople coloured-leaf style,
11
forming a
frame surrounding the figures which reflect a possible Western influence.
12
El-
ements of fantasy, which were alien to the Court of Constantinople but were to
be predominant in twelfth-century art among the Southern Slavs and inRus' ,
first appear in the initials of the Ostromir Gospel. It has been asserted, without
justification, that the style of the illuminations in these manuscripts was in its
origin directlylinked to the scriptoria of Tsar Simeon at Preslav, the literary
school of Clement and the reign of Samuel, which served as a model for the
scriptoria of Kiev and Novgorod. This opinion is defended byV. A. Moshin
13
and, surprisingly, byA. Grabar, a great connoisseur of the European miniature
of this period;
14
in particularV. A. Moshin asserts that it is possible to deter-
mine the appearance and stylistic nature of the ornament of Cyrillic books at
the courts of Tsars Simeon and Samuel, specimens of which have not come
down to us, from Russian examples of the eleventh-century illustration. This
opinion is based mainly on philological and historical arguments. W h e n speak-
ing of the Novgorod pages, V. Moshin insists on their Okhrid origin and their
direct influence on the composition of the Ostromir Gospel.
15
It is worth mentioning that art historians
16
generallyare of the opinion that
the coloured-leaf style was formed in the scriptoria of Constantinople during
the late tenth and earlyeleventh centuries. Therefore the Preslav school of
Boris and Simeon and Clement's Okhrid school prior to Simeon's reign could
not have played an indirect or any other role in the coloured-leaf style of Rus-
Macedonia, Serbia and Russian medieval art 117
sian miniatures because that style was unknown to these schools. The Preslav
school, which reached its heyday at the beginning of. the tenth century, could
not have adopted the coloured-leaf style from Constantinople as this style had
not yet evolved.
Moreover, the ornamentation of the impressive manuscript of Okhrid lit-
erary circles of the time of Tsar Samuel, the Codex Assemani, which is written in
Glagolitic, has no Byzantine characteristics, but follows the traditions of Cyril
and Methodius, based on pre-Roman Western models.
17
The initials in the N ov-
gorod pages that have come down to us, it should be stressed, are far more mod-
est than the elaborate initials of the Ostromir Gospel, which is not from the
artistic point of view a copy of the Novgorod pages. However, the developed
coloured-leaf style appears in the mosaics of St Sophia in Kiev, and later also in
the mosaics of St Michael's Church inKiev after 1037, where craftsmen from
Constantinople are known tohave been involved.
18
There is no doubt that the
appearance of the coloured-leaf style in Russian art from the mid eleventh to
the early twelfth centuries is based on direct study of art trends at that time in
Constantinople, where coloured-leaf ornament reached the apogee of its devel-
opment at the end of the eleventh century and directlyinfluenced the art of
Okhrid after the fall of Samuel.
19
In the twelfth century a ne w phase in the ornamentation of Cyrillic books
began, which has long aroused great interest among scholars and is marked by
the important place given in the initials and illuminations of Southern Slav and
Russian Cyrillic manuscripts to teratological ornament with a predominance of
fantastic beasts, monsters and dragons entwined with straps and with palmettes
in their mouths.
20
Later, in the thirteenth century, this fantastic folk ornament
takes on a more elaborate compositional appearance with adorsed birds, griffins
or other monstrous beasts. At the suggestion of Shchepkin, this phase in thir-
teenth-centuryornament is called 'technical teratology',
21
which in fact reflects
the geometrical design of drawings and illuminations of this type.
22
Technical
teratology is verymarked in the decoration of thirteenth-centurybooks in
Macedonia, Serbia and Bulgaria, especially in the Slav monasteries on Mount
Athos, while in Rus' it reached its greatest flowering in the art of Novgorod in
the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Although the development of terat-
ological ornaments had certain specific traits among the Southern Slavs and in
Rus' , nevertheless manycommon elements can be seen in them, unambiguously
showing their interdependence. W e shall limit ourselves to mentioning as vivid
examples of the old folk-fantastic teratologysuch Macedonian works as the
Apstoltom Sleptse (No. 101, Lenin Public Library), V. Grigorovich's Collection
from the Khilandari Monastery(No. 1685, Lenin Public Library), the Triodion
from the Yugoslav Academy of Arts and Crafts, dating from the twelfth cen-
tury, and Serbian works such as the Khilandari Parameinik (collection of read-
ings from the Old Testament - N o. 313) andTheodore the Studite from Khilandari
(No. 387).
23
As for Russian manuscripts, the largest proportion of teratological
elements are to be found in Dobrilovo's Gospel of 1164 and the earlier Yuriev
Gospel of 1120-28.
24
The Serbian Miroslavovo Gospel of the late twelfth cen-
tury, however, which occupies the most prominent place in Slavonic illum-
ination, is of very special value and quality.
25
As F. Buslaev stresses, the Sleptse
Apstol and the Khilandari Parameinik go beyond the limits of illumination and
take fantasyto the limit of recognition.
26
In Russian manuscripts of the thir-
teenth century, unlike the South Slavonic manuscripts mentioned above, the
initials have a tectonic firmness that shows their Byzantine origin.
Later, during the phase of technical teratologyin the thirteenth century, as
has alreadybeen said, adorsed monsters or birds, intertwined with snakes or
belts, are depicted in the illuminations. In North Russian manuscripts of the
late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, ornate architectural decorations
with elements of Russian architecture appear.
Discussion among scholars of the first appearance of technical teratology
began with the study of the Okhrid Boulogne Psalter, dating from the time of
Tsar Ivan Asen II (1218-41),
27
then the Serbian Khilandari manuscript of the
Shestodnev (Hexameroti) of Exarch John in the Moscow Historical Museum,
28
and
later the study of the Draganov Menaion, the Radomir Psalter, the Khilandari
Gospel N o. 12 and other South Slavonic examples of technical teratology.
29
This style is represented in Russia by the Gospel (No. 104, Lenin Public
Library, Moscow),
30
dating from the first half of the thirteenth century, and the
Novgorod Gospel (No. 105, Lenin Public Library),
31
dating from 1270.
Despite the fact that the similarityof these books written in Cyrillic cannot
be questioned, there is still discussion on the appearance of teratological ele-
ments in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and their origin. F. Buslaev, N .
Kondakov and V. Shchepkin give preference to the influence of the Byzantine
style and Greek manuscripts of Eastern Christian art, containing teratological
elements. Eastern Christian influence, however, extended to all European art.
According to these authors, this teratological wave came from the South Sla-
vonic lands to Rus' , and there developed in its own way under the influence of
local Russian art.
In the inter-war period W . Born produced a more substantial work of
scholarship, stressing a Scandinavian influence on the appearance of Russian
teratology. At the same time he expressed the opinion that technical teratology
penetrated to the Balkans thanks to Russian manuscripts, and that chronolog-
icallytheycame before Macedonian examples of this type.
32
Despite the fact
that his view was not shared by others, it helped to clarifythe criteria applying
in the study of Slavonic teratology. It should be remembered that V. Moshin
consistentlydefends the thesis that from the very beginning (i.e. the eleventh
and twelfth centuries) the sources of Russian illumination and ornament should
be sought in Byzantium and among the South Slavs. At the same time, even he
considers that the appearance of technical teratology in the South Slavonic
environment in the thirteenth centurytook place under Russian influence.
33
The great expert on this subject, S. Radojcic, insists on the enormous impor-
tance of southern ItalianRoman scriptoria in the development of South Sla-
vonic fantastic teratology. However, his explanation of the appearance of tech-
nical teratology is that it arose from the copying of manuscripts of the time of
SS Cyril and Methodius, containing animal imagery inspired by the West.
34
According tohim, neither Born's Scandinavian theory nor Moshin' s opinion
on the Russian origins of South Slavonic technical teratology is confirmed by
any manuscript.
To round off our survey of the teratology of Cyrillic manuscripts in Russia,
Macedonia, Serbia and Bulgaria, it should be stressed that there is no doubt that
these manuscripts are closely relatedand that they present identical forms and
method of artistic treatment, therebyconfirming the links between them. At
the same time specific traits stemming from local conditions can also be clearly
seen. Theyhad c ommon points of communication, first of all on Mount Athos,
in the Slav monasteries of Zograph, St Panteleimon and Khilandari. As for the
origin of teratological ornament in Cyrillic manuscripts in the Slav world, this
question has yet to be studied, especially in regard to relations with By2antium
and pre-Romanic Western manuscripts dating from before the appearance of
Slavonic teratology.
The parallels that can be established between Macedonia and Rus' in the
eleventh century in the field of monumental painting are of another character.
Here what first springs to the eye is the stylistic and iconographie similaritybet-
ween St Sophia in Kiev and St Sophia at Okhrid. It is interesting that the dating
of the mosaics inKiev to1043-46
35
and of the frescoes at Okhrid toimme -
diately after 1037
36
indicates that these two greatest ensembles in art of the
Byzantine style and inEuropean art of the eleventh centurycame into being at
the same time.
W e should first point to the striking similarityof the thematic material of
the two cathedrals. In the lower zone of the altar in the apse in Kiev and Okhrid
there are frontal figures of the great Fathers of the Church led by St Basil the
Great, St John Chrysostom, St Gregory the Divine, St Athanasius of Alexandria
and others; and here are also outstanding deacons. InKiev and Okhrid, in
another part of the two cathedrals, the Eucharist is represented in a very similar
way, a special version of the Communion of the Apostles. W e should also
remember the Deisis, positioned similarly in the two churches under the tri-
umphal arches in the altar and with the same iconographie significance.
The restoration of the paintings in the choir galleries of St Sophia in Kiev,
whose frescoes date from 1061-67, is of the greatest interest. Here four compo-
sitions depict The Sacrifice of Abraham, The Hospitality of Abraham, The Meeting of
Abraham with the Three Strangers and The Three Youths in the Fiery Furnace. The same
compositions decorate the main sanctuary of St Sophia at Okhrid together with
three more liturgical subjects.
It is known that in medieval theological literature Abraham and Isaac are
treated as Old Testament prototypes of the sacrament of the Eucharist. Abra-
ham sacrificing his son Isaac is treated as God the Father sacrificing Christ, as
earlier illustrated in the mosaics in the altar of San Vitale at Ravenna, Italy. The
composition The Three Youths in the Fiery Furnace also contains a symbolism of
suffering, sacrifice and resurrection, which is the fundamental dogma of Chris-
tianity.
37
The artistic ensembles of the cathedrals of Kiev and Okhrid, apart
from their thematic similarities, also have obvious stylistic points of contact.
The mosaics inRus' and the frescoes in Macedonia are severe, heavy and rich in
contrasts of light and dark (chiaroscuro). However classical their basis, they are
suffused with elements of Byzantine aesthetics, created in theological circles.
38
In this they differ from works executed for court circles and marked by the Hel-
lenistic style of figures, their elegance and ideal nature.
By mentioning this closeness of the two ensembles, we are not suggesting
that they influenced each other. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that their the-
matic and stylistic closeness reflects the dominant influence of Byzantine theo-
logical circles. Despite the great distance between them, in the mid-eleventh
century identical problems of the liturgyand eucharist were treated in a similar
artistic language.
As for the assertion that the figures of the teachers of the Slavs and other
South Slavonic saints in the Church of St Cyril of Alexandria inKiev date to
the end of the twelfth century,
39
we so far abstain from expressing an opinion.
W e share the opinion of those researchers who consider that the figures of SS
Cyril, Methodius and Clement were depicted later, i.e. in the nineteenth cen-
tury,
40
and await definitive confirmation of this. W e believe that there were
direct contacts between the painting of Macedonia, Serbia andRus' , but that
these developed in the fourteenth century, and this is what we shall discuss
below.
The question of the links between the South Slavs and Russian painting of
the fourteenth centurywas raised byV. N . Lazarev in his article on the frescoes
of the Church of the Transfiguration of Christ in the Kovalevo Monastery in
Novgorod. He also saw a relationshipbetween the Church of the Annunciation
at Gorodishche near Novgorod (c. 1370) and Serbian painting of the Moravian
school.
41
In the opinion of S. Radojcic, the frescoes at Volotovo and those in the
Church of St Theodore Stratilates inNovgorod can also be included in this
group.
42
V. N . Lazarev concentrated on the paintings of Kovalevo, dated to
1380, which, in his opinion, cannot be linked either to the Russian style or to
the artistic tradition of Theophanes the Greek. He also mentions a number of
iconographie and stylistic elements of Kovalevo that have analogies only with
works found in Macedonia, Serbia and at Mount Athos; he also considers that
the Novgorod frescoes were the work of South Slavonic masters or their Rus-
sian pupils. In confirmation of this thesis the author dwells especially on the
iconographie type At Thy Right Hand Did Stand the Queen, a composition painted
on the north wall of the church, next to the Transfiguration. The Mother of
G od is depicted dressed as a queen to the right of Christ dressed in the vest-
ments of a bishop. The picture does not include the third figure of St John the
Baptist or of King David, the ninth verse of whose Psalm 45 inspired this com-
position. The author stressed that in Russian art this theme is represented in an
icon in the Cathedral of the Dormition inMoscow where Christ is depicted in
the vestments of the Great High Priest between the Mother of G od and St John
the Baptist. A fifteenth-centuryicon in the Tretyakov Gallery has the same
theme.
Lazarev writes that all these images are of Serbian or South Slavonic origin,
or were created by the hands of Balkan artists. This outstanding researcher also
dwells on the composition, Do Not Weep ForMe, O Mother in the Kovalevo
Church and its Serbian and Macedonian equivalents. H e gives consideration
too to the iconographie and stylistic similarityof the major feasts of this church,
which in the opinion of Gabriel Millet belong to the Macedonian school.
43
H ow far the paintings of this Novgorod church are the work of South Sla-
vonic masters or their Russian pupils is a question that has not yet been eluci-
dated by scholars. Nevertheless, specialists in Yugoslavian art historyhave
recentlymade important discoveries on the compositionAt Thy Right Hand Did
Stand the Queen, which tend to confirm Lazarev's thesis.
All the versions of the composition with Christ as King and the Mother of
G od as Queen dating to the fourteenth century, an increasing number of which
have been discovered in recent years, are of Macedonian origin. The oldest of
those so far discovered is at Treskavica near Prilepand dates from around 1340.
During the fifteenth century, this type of composition became widespread in
Macedonia, after which it began to spread to other countries of Byzantine cul-
ture, basicallyin the Balkans and inRus' .
44
It is not yet possible to determine
when this composition first appeared, but we suppose that its development was
influenced byThessalonika and the Holy Mountain (Mount Athos), though
fourteenth-centuryexamples of this composition have not been found there.
In all the examples from Macedonia, together with the Deisis andAt Thy
Right Hand Did Stand the Queen, warrior saints are depicted in the clothes of
boyars, wearing boyar caps and with staffs of office in their hands, as mentioned
by Pseudo-Kodin. In the first example known to us, at Treskavica, King David,
the author of the psalm that inspired the illustration, is depicted next to Christ
as King and the Mother of G od as Queen. Later King David was replaced by St
John the Baptist (Zaum, 1361) or else both King David and John the Baptist are
depicted together with Christ as King and the Mother of G od as Queen (Mar-
kov Monastery, 1376).
45
In the church at Kovalevo Christ and the Mother of
G od appear on their own.
As earlyas the late fourteenth century and around1400, Christ is depicted
in Macedonia as both King and High Priest at the same time (in an icon at
Okhrid). It was above all in Thessalonika and Macedonia, at the time of the
Zographs (painters), Michael and Eutichius and their contemporaries, that
Christ began to be frequently depicted as High Priest in eucharistie themes,
especially in the Communion of the Apostles (St Nikita near Skopje and St
Nicholas Orphanos in Thessalonika).
During the fourteenth century, Christ was already depicted inMacedonia
and Serbia as a High Priest in the Liturgy or Communion of the Apostles
(Polosko, Lesnovo, Markov Monastery, Ravanica, etc.).
46
These works form a
homogeneous stylistic and iconographie group which continued to develop
throughout the fourteenth century and no equivalent homogeneous group can
be found in other countries. It is therefore understandable that Russian exam-
ples with the figure of Christ as High Priest and King with the Mother of G od
as Queen are closely linked to the South Slavonic compositions mentioned
above.
W h e n considering this artistic homogeneity inMacedonia, in the context
of the medieval Serbian State under Kings Dusan and Uros and later in the
reigns of local Macedonian lords, we expressed the opinion that compositions
depicting Christ as King and the Mother of G od as Queen were not inspired
solelyby the ninth verse of the Psalm of David (Ps. 45:9) but were also of
eucharistie significance.
In our opinion they are represented in thisway on the basis of the eucharis-
tie texts of the hymns and prayers of the Great Entry of the Divine Liturgy and
of the liturgyof the catechumens. Christ appears at the same time as sacrifice for
the salvation of mankind and as a king enthroned in glory. During the second
half of the fourteenth century, as increasing emphasis was placed on the eucha-
ristie significance of the theme, Christ as King was gradually replaced by Christ
as a bishop celebrating the liturgyand at the same time offering himself as a
sacrifice.
47
The first dated example of Christ attired as High Priest and the
Mother of God as Queen is certainly that in the Kovalevo Monastery, whereas
in other Russian examples, as alreadymentioned, he is depicted as both King
and High Priest.
48
W h e n studying the earliest representation of Christ as King and the
Mother of G od as Queen from Treskavica near Prilep, we should ask when and
where this theme was devised and developed. It seems to us that it was not a
provincial theme on the sideline of By2antine art, as V. N . Lazarev considered,
but that it arose in the wave of thematic innovations that appeared in Byzantine
art about 1300 and in the course of the following decades, and made itself felt
most strongly in Constantinople, Thessalonika, Macedonia, Serbia and on
Mount Athos. This theme did not arise under the influence of hesychastic phi-
losophy and literature, chieflybecause it appeared in the visual arts before the
triumph of the teaching of St GregoryPalamas. W e consider that it developed
in the fourteenth centurymainly in the Okhrid archdiocese and under the spir-
itual influence of Thessalonika.
This theme does not appear in anywork of the Palaeologue style (after the
dynasty reigning in Constantinople from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centu-
ries) in Constantinople. In Russian art it does not appear in the works of The-
ophanes the Greek or Andrey Rublev, both of wh om had close contacts with
the art of Constantinople. Therefore the appearance of Christ as High Priest
and the Mother of G od as Queen in the composition At Thy Right Hand Did
Stand the Queen in the Church of the Transfiguration at Kovalevo can be justi-
fiablylinked to South Slavonic works, showing contacts between the artists of
Novgorod and those of the South Slavonic regions.
Later, after the loss of national independence and the vassaldom of Chris-
tian rulers in Serbia and Macedonia in the fifteenth century and later, contacts
with Rus' in all fields became wider and more varied. Church organizations and
monasteries in Macedonia and Serbia were impoverished, and so bishops and
monks from these places began to turn frequently for material support to Rus' ,
while at the same time emigrant Zographs received commissions from wealthy
Russian boyars and Church leaders. Artistic contacts in this period form a sep-
arate theme and are beyond the scope of this chapter.
NOTES
1. V. Stasov, Slavjanskij i vostocnyj ornament [Slavonic and Oriental Ornamentation], Vol.
1, St Petersburg, 1884.
2. N . Baumgarten, 'St Vladimir et la conversion de la Russie [St Vladimir and the
Conversion of Russia]', Orientalia Christiana (Rome), N o. 27, 1932, p. 97.
3. M. Jugie, 'Les origines de l'glise russe [The Origins of the Russian Church]', Echos
d'Orient, Vol. 36, 1937, p. 257.
4. E . Honigmann, 'Studies in Slavic Church History', Byzzntion, Vol. 18, 1944/45, pp.
128-62.
5. G . Ostrogorski, Istorija Vizantije [History of Byzantium], pp. 289-90, Belgrade,
1969.
6. M. D. Priselkov, Ocerkipo cerkovno-politiceskoj istorii Kievskoj Rusi X-XII vv [Essays on
the Ecclesiastical and Political History of Kievan Rus' from the Tenth to the Thir-
teenth Century], pp. 38-43, 63-4, St Petersburg, 1913.
7. A. V. Kartasev, Ocerkipo istorij Russkoj cerkvi [Essays on the History of the Russian
Church], Vol. 1, p. 135, Paris, 1959.
8. V. Mosin, 'Novgorodski listii i Ostromirovo jevandjelje [The Novgorod Chron-
icles and Ostromir's Gospel]', Arheografski prilozi (Belgrade), Vol. 5, 1983, pp.
15-23.
124 Stvan Grozanov
9. A. V. Soloviev, ' Le patriarchat d'Okhrid et l'glise de Russie depuis 988 [The
Patriarchate of Okhrid and the Church of Russia since 988]', lijadagodini od vostanieto
na komitopulite i sozdavanieto na Samoilovata drzava [1,000th Anniversary of the Rising of
the Insurgents and the Establishment of the State of Samuel], p. 254, Skopje, 1971.
10. V. N . Lazarev (ed.), htorija russkogo iskusstva [Historyof Russian Art], Vol. 1, pp.
224-31, Moscow, 1953.
11. C. Grozdanov, 'Ornamentikata na rascvetani lisja vo umetnosta na Ohrid vo X I-
X II vek [Flower and Leaf Ornamentation in the Art of Okhrid in the Eleventh and
Twelfth Centuries]', Uhnid (Okhrid), Vol. 6, 1988, pp. 11-20.
12. A. Grabar, Srednjovekovna umetnost htocne Evrope [Medieval Art in Eastern Europe], pp.
148-9, Novi Sad, 1969.
13. V. Mosin, ' Ornament juznoslovenskih rukopisa X I-X III veka [The Ornamentation
of South Slavonic Manuscripts from the Eleventh to the Thirteenth Century]',
Radovi [Works], pp. 19-21, Sarajevo, 1957.
14. Grabar, op. cit., p. 148.
15. Mosin, 'Novgorodski listici . . .', op. cit., p. 14.
16. Grozdanov, 'Ornamentikata . . .', op. cit., pp. 11-20.
17. C. Grozdanov, ' La miniatura dei manuscritti macedoni [The Miniature in Macedo-
nian Manuscripts]', Gloria a San Cirilo, pp. 30-2, Rome , 1971.
18. A. Grabar, Vmntija [Byzantium], pp. 138-47, Novi Sad, 1969.
19. Grozdanov, 'Ornamentikata . . .', op. cit., pp. 11-20.
20. F. N . Buslaev, Socinenija [Works], Vol. 3, pp. 75-147, Moscow, Izd. Akademii Nauk
SSSR, 1930; N . P. Kondakov, Makedonija [Macedonia], pp. 54-60, St Petersburg,
1909.
21. V. Scepkin, Bolon'skaja psaltir' [The Boulogne Psalter], pp. 37-47, St Petersburg,
1906.
22. Grozdanov, 'La miniatura . . .', op. cit., pp. 30-4.
23. S. Radojcic, 'Umetnicki spomenici manastira Hilandara [The Monuments of the
Monastery of Khilandari]', Zbomik radova Vizantoloskog Institua (Belgrade), Vol. 3,
1955, pp. 164-6; A. Dzurova, 1,000 godini b"lgarska r"kopisna kniga [1,000 Years of
Bulgarian Manuscripts], pp. 35-6, Sofia, 1981.
24. Buslaev, op. cit., p. 85; Lazarev, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 228.
25. V. J. Djuric, htorija srpskog naroda [Historyof the Serbian People], Vol. 1, pp. 293-5,
Belgrade, 1981.
26. Buslaev, op. cit., p. 102; Kondakov, op. cit., p. 56.
27. I. Dujcev, Bolonskipsaltir [The Boulogne Psalter], Vol. 17, Sofia, 1968.
28. S. Radojcic, 'Naslovna zastava hilandarskog Sestodneva iz 1263 godine [The Title
Vignette in the Hexameron of Khilandari Monastery]', Odabrani clanci i studije, pp.
167-81, Belgrade, 1982.
29. Dzurova, op. cit., pp. 35-7.
30. W . Born, Das Tiergeflecht in der nordrussischen Buchmalerei [Animal Strapwork in North
Russian Illuminations], Vol. 2, p. 95 (fourth Seminarium Kondakovianum,
Prague, 1933); N . V. Arcihovskij, htorija russkogo iskusstva, Vol. 2, p. 286, Moscow,
1954.
31. Lazarev, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 288.
32. Born, op. cit., Vol. 3, pp. 72-4.
33. Mosin, op. cit., pp. 62-72.
34. Radojcic, 'Naslovna . . .', op. cit., pp. 170, 181.
35. V. N . Lazarev, lstorija vizantijskoj zjvopisi [Historyof Byzantine Painting], p. 77, Mos-
cow, 1986.
36. V. J. Djuric, Vizantijske freske u Jugoslaviji [Byzantine Frescoes in Yugoslavia], pp. 9,
179-80, Belgrade, 1984.
37. V. N . Lazarev, ' Novye otkrytija v Sofii Kievskoj [New Discoveries in St Sophia's
Cathedral in Kiev]', X mezdunarodnyj kongresspo vizantinovedeniju [Tenth International
Congress of Byzantinology], p. 17, Moscow, 1955.
38. C. Grozdanov, Sveta Sofija vo Ohrid [St Sophia at Okhrid], pp. 10-11, Zagreb, 1980.
39. lstorija russkogo iskusstva, Vol. 1, p. 218, Moscow, 1953.
40. C. Grozdanov, Portreti na svetitelite od Makedonija [Portraits of Saints in Macedonia], p.
27, Skopje, 1983.
41. V. N . Lazarev, 'Kovalevskaja rospis' i problema juznoslavjanskih svjazej v russkoj
zivopisi X IV veka. [The Frescoes of Kovalevo and the Problems of South Slavonic
Connections in Russian Art of the Fourteenth Century]', Russkaja srednevekovaja zivo-
pis' [Medieval Russian Painting], pp. 249-60, Moscow, 1970; V. N . Lazarev, in
Vestnik Akademii Nauk SSSR, Vol. 8/ 9, pp. 139-40, Moscow, 1946.
42. S. Radojcic, 'Veze izmedju srpske i ruske umetnosti u srednjem veku [The Links bet-
ween Serbianand RussianArt in the Middle Ages]', Zbornik Filosofskogfakulteta (Bel-
grade), Vol. 1, 1948, p. 244.
43. Lazarev, 'Kovalevskaja . . .', op. cit., p. 242.
44. C. Grozdanov, Ohridsko zfdno slikarstvo XIV veka [Monumental Paintingin Okhridin
the Fourteenth Century], pp. 106-8, Belgrade, 1980; C. Grozdanov, 'Hristos car,
Bogorodica carica [Christ the King, the Virgin Queen]', Kulturno nasledstvo XII-XIII,
pp. 5-16, Skopje, 1988.
45. C. Grozdanov, 'Iz ikonografije markovog manastira [The Iconographyof Markov
Monastery]', Zograf, Vol. 11, pp. 87-92, Belgrade, 1980.
46. V. J. Djuric, Ravanicki zivopis i liturgija [The Paintingof Racanitsa and the Liturgy],
pp. 57-60, Ravanica, 1981.
47. Grozdanov, 'Hristos car . . .', op. cit., pp. 5-13.
48. V. Pucko, 'Ikona "Predsta carica" v moskovskom Kremle [The IconAt Thy Right
Hand Did Stand the Queen in the Moscow Kremlin]', Zbornik ?# likovne umetnosti, pp.
59-74, Novi Sad, 1969; E . Ostasenko, ' O b ikonografii tipa ikony "Predsta carica"
Uspenskogo sobora moskovskogo Kremlia [On the Iconographyof the Type At Thy
Right Hand Did Stand the Queen in the Cathedral of the Dormition in the Moscow
Kremlin]', Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo [Ancient Russian Art], pp. 175-87, Moscow, 1977.
Christianityand the development
of architecture and art in Western Rus'
Stanislav Martselev
While celebrating the official adoption in 988 of Christianity in its Eastern,
Byzantine tradition byKievan Rus' , we wish to stress the great significance of
this momentous act for the development of our historyand culture and the for-
mation of the Russian State. At the beginning, Christianityspread mainly in
major towns, but subsequently the new religion slowly but surelysupplanted
pagan beliefs and became predominant, even inremote areas lacking reliable
communications with major administrative and cultural centres. The introduc-
tion of Christianitycame to influence all aspects of life in ancient Rus'.
The aim of the present chapter is to give a general picture of the develop-
ment of ancient architecture and art in the territoryof the present-dayByelo-
russianSSR in the context of the spread of Christianityin that region.
The territoryof present-day Byelorussia, through which in ancient times
the way 'from the Varangians to the Greeks' passed and through which there
were trade links between southern Rus', Byzantium and the Arab East with
northern Rus', the Baltic and Scandinavia, was already in the tenth century an
integral part of Kievan Rus'. Written sources from the ninth to the fourteenth
centuries record over fiftytowns there, including Polotsk (founded in862),
Turov (980), Zaslavl (tenth century), Brest (1019), Vitebsk (1021), Kopys
(1059), Braslav (1065) and Minsk (1067). The chronicles bear witness to the
advanced level of economic and cultural development of the region. The tribe
of the Krivichi, or, as the chroniclers called them, the 'Polochane', who occu-
pied the basin of the Western Dvina and from the mid-ninth century had their
own principality, were part of Kievan Rus' from the time of its establishment.
During the tenth century the tribe of the Dregovichi, who inhabited the basin
of the Pripyat' and had their own principality, and the tribe of the Rodomichi,
who inhabited the left bank of the Dnieper and the basin of the Sozh, were
128 Stanislav Martsekv
incorporated into Kievan Rus'. The lands adjoining the Niemen and Bug were
subsequently joined to this state.
Culture and art had a special place among the wide varietyof means used
by the new religion to advance and increase its influence on minds. Hence the
heightened attention paid by the new religion and its clergy to church architec-
ture, the effective use of the potential of the spoken sermon and literature, dep-
ictive art and music, and the theatrical qualities of the Orthodox church ser-
vice. Solving its ideological problems, the Church acquainted wide strata of the
people with the works of art that it took into its service.
The creation of a network of churches and monasteries formed a powerful
base of support for the spread and strengthening of Christianity. Churches were
first built in the centres of principalities and large settlements, and later in other
places. In Kiev, the centre of the ancient Russian State, building with brick and
stone began at the end of the tenth centurywhen the first monumental church,
the Church of the Tithe, was built with the help of Byzantine architects. Infor-
mation about the first churches built of wood in Byelorussia has not come down
to us. There is, however, information about churches constructed in brick and
stone. The talent and long labour of the people brought forth the third (after
Kiev and Novgorod) Cathedral of St Sophia in Polotsk in the eleventh century.
The precise years of its construction are unknown, but the Cathedral was
already in use around 1060, as mentioned in the masterpiece of ancient Russian
literature,The Song of Igor's Campaign. Subsequently the church was reconstructed
many times and its original architectural appearance changed substantially. The
Cathedral of St Sophia in Polotsk has been studied thoroughly in recent decades
by archaeologists, historians and restorers and very reliable information is now
available on the initial appearance of this cathedral. It may, for example, be
assumed that the craftsmen wh o built the Cathedral of St Sophia in Polotsk
were familiar with the architecture of the Cathedrals of St Sophia in Kiev and
Novgorod and saw the Cathedral of Polotsk as a simplified version of the Cath-
edral of St Sophia in Kiev. They did not make an exact copy of the type of
church chosen earlier, but introduced substantial changes into it, dictated by
the conditions of their commission, local peculiarities and the nature of the
building materials available. The plan of the Cathedral of St Sophia in Polotsk
is very similar to that of the Cathedral of St Sophia in Novgorod: it has not got
five apses (as in Kiev) but only three and the inner arcades are not triple but
double. Unlike the one in Kiev, the Cathedral of St Sophia in Polotsk has one,
not two, galleries. During restoration in the mid-eighteenth century, a new
sanctuary apse was added and an entrance and two high baroque towers con-
structed at the south side. The longitudinal axis of the church is now perpendic-
ular to its original orientation. Only the lower parts of the ancient pillars
remain, hidden under the wooden floor of the modern building. The Cathedral
of St Sophia in Novgorod was a cruciform, domed church, fairlyrare in Rus'.
Christianity and the development Y19
Between 1120 and 1130, the Great Cathedral of the BelchitsyMonastery - a
six-pillared church with three apses - was built near Polotsk. The craftsmen
wh o built this cathedral most probably took as a pattern the Church of the
Saviour in the Prince's village of Berestovo near Kiev. The Churches of S S
Boris and Gleb and of Paraskeva-Pyatnitsa, as well as the nameless stone
churches in Belchitsy, were built in the mid-twelfth century. The Church of St
Ephrosynia and the Saviour, built between 1152 and 1161, is the best expression
of the creative search of the Polotsk architect, Ioann, wh o aimed at giving the
building a dynamic domed appearance. The Church of SS Boris and Gleb has a
large number of features in c ommon with that of St Ephrosynia and the
Saviour. In the opinion of many researchers, it, too, was built byIoann. The
remains of a small, single-apse church, similar in plan to one in Putivl and also
to ancient churches on Mount Athos, in Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania, have
also been discovered in the grounds of the former monastery in Belchitsy. In
the construction of the buildings in Polotsk the Kievan building tradition
known as 'striped brickwork' was used, in the form of alternating rows of pro-
jectingand recessed brickwork with lining, and also the treatment of the surface
of the pilasters in the form of half-columns, found in churches of the twelfth
and early thirteenth centuries in neighbouring Smolensk.
The Cathedral of the Annunciation at Vitebsk, of which only a small part
remains, dates from the beginning of the twelfth century. From its plan it is
possible to judge h ow the Byzantine domed cruciform system was adapted in
Western Rus' . The building was extended along its longitudinal axis and the
middle nave made wider than the side ones, which is also a trait of the churches
in the Polotsk area. The eastern wall culminated in a massive apse, while the
side ones were in the angle parts of the wall. The remains of a twelfth-century
six-pillared three-naved church discovered by archaeologists at Turov show the
similarityof its basic proportions to those of the Cathedral of the Dormition in
Vladimir-Volynsky. Several architectural monuments at Grodno - the lower
church, built in the first half of the twelfth century, the Church of SS Boris and
Gleb in Kolozha, built at the end of the twelfth century, and the fortified stone
domes of the old castle - are of great historical and artistic value. Despite cer-
tain features shared by the churches of Grodno with those at Polotsk, S mo-
lensk, Galicia and Volhyia, they are distinguished by the rich polychrome orna-
ment of both their exterior and interior. During excavations of the castle site in
Minsk, the ruins of a stone church, similar in plan to those of twelfth-century
churches in Polotsk and Vitebsk, were discovered. However, the presence of an
inner facing of the walls with slabs of porous limestone and masonry with
slightlysquared stone blocks gives it a certain individuality. In this way, the
architecture of Byelorussia from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries reflects
very clearlythe influence of Byzantine traditions and their interpretation by
local craftsmen.
130 Stanislav Martselev
Veryfew works of depictive art of the first centuries of Christianityin Rus'
have come down to us. The most widespread were, of course, icons, murals and
then illuminations and works of applied art. S ome ancient churches (the Cath-
edral of St Sophia and the Church of St Ephrosynia and the Saviour in Polotsk,
the Church of the Annunciation in Vitebsk) still have remains of wall paintings
which give an idea of their merits and characteristics. For example, it is possible
to have an idea of the wall paintings in the Church of SS Boris and Gleb from
the remaining outlines of individual figures of saints and from ornamental
motives. In their iconography theystem from the traditional type of images of
saints in the Cathedral of St Sophia in Kiev. The paintings of the Churches of St
Paraskeva-Pyatnitsa and SS Boris and Gleb in Polotsk have analogies with the
frescoes of the Church of St Michael at Astser near Chernigov.
The characteristic feature of many frescoes is the psychological ande mo-
tional depth and the spiritual intensityof the images. All the wall paintings
mentioned above also bear witness to the fact that the artists of Polotsk were
well acquainted with the classical Byzantine painting tradition of the eleventh
and twelfth centuries. The close links between the princely dynasty of Polotsk
and the Byzantine court in the early twelfth century fostered the artistic
influence of the Byzantine Comnenus style (called after the dynasty reigning in
Byzantium in the twelfth century), as can be seen particularly vividly in the
frescoes of the BelchitsyMonastery and the miniatures of the Khutyn Hierat-
icon(Siuzhebnik). The early-thirteenth-century art of Polotsk bears the imprint
of the Palaeologue style, as is convincinglyshown by the miniatures of the
Orsha Gospel.
The first icons were brought to Byelorussia from Kiev and Byzantium. It is
alsoknown that the grand-daughter of Prince Vseslav Brachislavich, Ephrosy-
nia of Polotsk, requested the kinsman of the Princes of Polotsk, the Byzantine
Emperor Manuel Comnenus, to send an ancient icon, painted, according to tra-
dition, by St Luke the Evangelist, to her church. W h e n she received this icon,
Ephrosynia decorated it richlywith gold, silver and precious stones. It is
believed that in1239, on the occasion of Alexander Nevsky's marriage to the
daughter of Prince Brachislavich of Polotsk, this icon was moved to the town of
Toropets in the Pskov region, and is at present in the Russian Museum in
Leningrad, under the name ofThe Hodigitria of Toropets. O ne of the icons brought
from Byzantium, the Umiknie {Virgin of Tenderness), dating from the fourteenth
century, is in the Museum of Ancient Byelorussian Culture of the Institute of
Fine Art, Ethnography and Folklore of the Academy of Sciences of the Byelo-
russianSSR. By the nature of their painting, the icons of that time were dis-
tinguished by an impressive range of colours, flat treatment of figures and
objects and the absence of perspective. O n the whole the development of art in
the western lands of Rus' took place on the basis of a combination of folk tradi-
tions and the best Byzantine examples.
Christianity and the development 131
Only a small proportion of the objects that decorated the interiors of
palaces and churches have come down to us, though archaeological excavations
have revealed remains such as crosses, chessmen from Volkovysk andmany
other articles from that era. The famous cross of Ephrosynia of Polotsk, a rare
example of the work in gold of the period, was kept for a longtime in Polotsk in
the Cathedral of St Sophia and the Church of St Ephrosynia and the Saviour. It
was decorated with gold, enamel and many-coloured precious stones. The cross
was commissioned by Princess Ephrosynia andmade by a citizen of Polotsk,
Lazar Bogsh, in 1161. Until 1941 it was exhibited in the Museum of Mogilev. It
disappeared during the Nazi occupation of the town in the Second World W ar
and has so far not been traced.
The spread of Christianityalso had a considerable influence on other fields
of the nation's spiritual life. Long before its baptism, Rus' had a written culture
with works of literature, which were of varying quality but sufficientlywide in
range. At the end of the tenth century, historical works appeared in the form of
chronicles. The main centres where theywere written were Kiev andNov-
gorod. Texts written in Polotsk, Pskov, Rostov, Vladimir, Chernigov and other
towns are also known.
Even though it is not determined solelyby the actions of a few outstanding
figures, history is obviously not featureless. It cannot, in fact, be reduced to a
mere series of periods and epochs. It is at the same time an endless gallery of
figures, in which respect one cannot but recognize that the Church gave Rus' no
small number of distinguished contributors to her culture. Among them was
Bishop Cyril of Turov (1130-82) wh o was an outstanding writer, publicist,
churchman and statesman. His works were known far beyond the borders of
the western territories of Rus'. Princess Ephrosynia of Polotsk (1120-73), the
Abbess of the Convent of the Saviour there, also made a great contribution to
the development of culture. N o small number of other names are also known to
us. Chronicles were written in monasteries; not only liturgical books but also
works of secular literature were copied there. Wider opportunities for learning
became available, as there were books in every church. The birch-bark letters
and other documents discovered by archaeologists working in Byelorussia show
that literacywas widespread not onlyamong the clergyand feudal nobilitybut
also among tradesmen and craftsmen.
The next steps in the spread of literacyare linked to the development of
printing. The founder of Byelorussian printing was the outstanding humanist,
Frantsisk Skorina. H e was born in Polotsk, the son of a merchant, and received
his basic education there. In 1506 he graduated with a Bachelor's degree from
the University of Cracow and in 1512 received both a Doctorate in Arts and a
Doctorate in Medicine. Skorina created books that were real masterpieces based
on the well-developed local manuscript book design and on the achievements
of foreign, in particular Czech, printers. During the existence of Skorina's first
132 Stanislav Martselev
printing-house in Prague (1517-19) almost the whole Old Testament (22 books)
and the Psalter were published. In the 1520s Skorina moved to Vilno and
published the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles and the Malaya podorozhnaya knizhitsa
(Wayfarer's Notes). In the prefaces to the books he translated and published in
Prague and Vilno, Skorina spoke out as a clear proponent of the ideas of
humanism.
The spread of manuscript and printed books led to the intense develop-
ment of book illustration. Many books were decorated with miniatures and
engravings. Especiallynoteworthy is the fourteenth-century Orsha Gospel,
decorated with miniatures of the Apostles, illuminations and ornamented let-
ters in headings composed of stylized drawings of human figures, beasts and
plant ornaments. Unlike the flat treatment of objects in icon painting of the
time, the human figures and objects in the engravings in Skorina's books are
shown three-dimensionallyand in perspective, and indicate the author's inten-
tion of basing the treatment of mythological characters on the features of real
people.
Such innovations in the design of Skorina's books as title pages, two-colour
printing, skilful use of cinnabar, reduced size for greater convenience of use,
storiated initials, illuminations, colophons, etc. were adopted by later Byelorus-
sian printers. About 1560 a printing-house was founded in Nesvizh. Slightly
later the small printing-house of Vasily Tyapinskii began to operate (perhaps on
his family estate of Tyapino). The works of St Budnyi (the Catechism andOn the
Justification of a Sinful Man before God), printed in 1562 in the Nesvizh printing-
house, also continued the artistic traditions of Skorina. There were printing-
houses in Vilno and Eviev, which from the second quarter of the sixteenth cen-
turygradually gave way to those of the Orthodox Brotherhoods at Kuteino,
near Orsha, and at Mogilev. Over twenty years, Ioil Trutsevich's printing-
house at Kuteino published some thirteen volumes. The printing-house of Spi-
ridon Sobol, which operated first in Kiev, then at Kuteino, Buinichi andMogi-
lev, was closelylinked to those of the Brotherhood. There was a temporary
revival of the activities of the Mogilev Epiphany Printing-house - the last of
the Brotherhood printing-houses in Byelorussia - at the end of the seventeenth
century, whe n the Brotherhood rented it to a well-known monk of the Mogilev
Monastery, Maxi m Vashchenko. This craftsman was the first to use copper
engraving in Byelorussian Cyrillic printing. O f the other engravers andwood-
cut makers of this printing-house, Maxim Vashchenko' s son Vasily, a certain
Athanasius and Theodore Azhileika are known.
The spread of Christianityplayed a positive role in the development of the
art of singing, which had already reached a very high level in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in Polotsk,
Minsk, Vitebsk, Slutsk and Mogilev there were church schools in which choris-
ters were trained. At that time the form of chant calledznamennyi napev was
Christianity and the development 133
created, as was an original system of musical notation that made it possible for
singers to learn ne w works more quickly, to assimilate the musical text more
easilyand to record the pitch of notes more correctly. From the second half of
the sixteenth century, polyphony with division of voices into parts (descant,
tenor, alto and bass) was introduced into church singing. Choral music was
closely linked to the high culture of the cantata. Often Byelorussian cantatas
and psalms took on the nature and form of folk-songs. In time the process of
interpntration and fusion of religious and ecclesiastical poetryand folk melo-
dies gave birth to the original genre of 'spiritual verses'. Many monasteries
played a significant role in the development of musical education. At the end of
the sixteenth centuryeach Orthodox Brotherhood in Byelorussia had schools in
which one of the main subjects was liturgical singing. Its studybegan in the
junior classes from text-books and 'linear notes'.
In this way, the cultural development of Kievan Rus' was very closely
linked to the spread of Christianity. E ven in this earlyperiod, the talents of the
people had alreadybrought into being a culture majestic in its dignity, classi-
cally lucid in style and refined in spiritualityand inner nobility. The works of
architecture and art created during the age of Kievan Rus' and the following
centuries are extremely precious monuments of the country's history and cul-
ture. W e see it as our vocation and our duty to society and as citizens to study
the cultural heritage in greater depth, make skilful use of it in aesthetic educa-
tion and for educational purposes, and cherish the works of the people's genius
for the benefit of present and future generations.
T he evolution of R ussian ecclesiastical
architecture in the seventeenth century
Yves Hamant
This chapter considers one particular aspect of the evolution of Russian ec-
clesiastical architecture in the seventeenth century. The evolution of the style of
icons is better known, but the two appear to be comparable and to relate to
similar basic trends.
Evolution of icons in the seventeenth century
It is well known that icon painting went through profound changes in the
seventeenth century. Iconographers strove to impart volume to flesh, using the
play of light and shade, and to represent space bymeans of linear perspective.
At the same time, icons continued to amass decorative details as they had begun
doing in the sixteenth century.
The development of realism in icons led to keen controversy andwas the
subject of harsh criticism, particularlyfrom Archpriest Avvakum, one of the
leaders of the ' Old Believers' wh o were opposed to the liturgical reforms of
Patriarch Nikon. Avvakum condemned the ne w style which he described as
'unseemly' in these terms:
The image of Emanuel the Saviour is painted with a chubby face, red lips, curly
hair, muscular hands and arms, fat fingers and broad hips like a corpulent and pot-
belliedGerman, lacking nothing but a sabre at his side! All this is the fruit of carnal
thoughts because heretics adore the power of the flesh and turn from lofty
thoughts.'
W hat Avvakum had clearlyunderstood, and expressed in his own fashion with
his own vocabulary and concepts, was that the evolution of iconography in the
136 Yves Hamant
course of the seventeenth century indicated a change not only of style but also
the idea behind it.
An icon of the Virgin painted about 1670 by Nikita Pavlovets
2
illustrates
the new manner of treating space that has undoubted associations with the evo-
lution of architecture. The Virgin herself is still represented quite convention-
ally, and her dress, although richlydecorated with floral patterns, has almost no
volume. O n the other hand, she is not depicted against a plain coloured back-
ground or in a setting of buildings or fantasticallyshaped rocks. Behind her
stretches a rectangular garden whose perspective draws the eye of the onlooker.
Domed cruciform churches
For many centuries the basic structure of Russian churches underwent little or
no change. W h e n, following the baptism in 988, the princes of Kiev decided to
build churches in stone or brick, theyarranged for architects to come from
Byzantium where, ever since the iconoclastic crisis, churches had been built
with cupolas mounted on adrum and planned in the form of a Greek cross
inscribed in a square. This is the model that was introduced intoRus'.
In three of the churches that were among the first to be built following the
baptism, that is, the three cathedrals named after St Sophia in Kiev, Novgorod
and Polotsk, the model presented a complex variant combining a Constantino-
politan plan having five naves with a number of pre-iconoclastic architectural
features, no doubt in order tomeet a series of specific requirements.
3
Sub-
sequently it took a simpler form with three naves, four or six pillars and usually
a single dome restingon a drum supported by four barrel vaults arranged in cru-
ciform fashion with the load balanced by lateral compartments. These were
narrower than the central bays though theywere almost as high, so that, viewed
from the exterior, the edifice had a cubic aspect giving the misleading impres-
sion that it was a cube surmounted by a cupola. The external volume was not
planned at first. The four pillars bearing the drum and cupola were the heart of
the building around which all the other components were arranged.
4
This cen-
tral structure moreover was highlysymbolic: the cross formed by the vaults
borne by the pillars was the link between the square or rectangular base of the
edifice symbolizing the created world and the circle of the cupola symbolizing
the uncreated or divine.
The model spread throughout the Kievan State. Following the Mongol
invasion, it survived with a number of innovations in Novgorod and Pskov and
spread inMuscovy. From the end of the fifteenth century it was adapted to
larger buildings topped by five cupolas, albeit with a similar structure.
The evolution of Russian ecclesiastical architecture 137
in the seventeenth century
The pillars
The pillars, which were massive, in addition to supporting the building, served
to organize and divide up the interior, somewhat in the way of axonometric
perspective and the reversed perspective of icons. Surprisingly, the architects
made no attempt to replace them with columns. This is a constant feature of
ancient Russian architecture. In the earliest church in Rus' that can be defi-
nitelydated, the Cathedral of the Transfiguration of the Saviour at Chernigov
(begun in 1036), the master-builders, wh o probablycame from Constantinople,
placed pillars where the current practice in the Byzantine capital was to put
columns.
5
More than four centuries later, the Italians building the Church of
the Dormition in the Kremlin (1467-79) placed the central cupola on columns.
Although this cathedral was later regarded as a model to be imitated, no archi-
tect was ever to copy the columns. Those of the Church of the Dormition are
the onlyones of their kind in all pre-eighteenth-century Russian architecture.
Pillarless churches
A few churches without pillars were built in Pskov at the close of the fifteenth
century as well as inMoscow where the so-called 'crossed' type of vault (krescatyj
svod) first made its appearance. Russian architects in the sixteenth century also
created an entirelynew type of edifice that may be described as a tower-church
topped by a sort of elongated pyramid (later). However, the special function of
the churches built in this style, which appears to have been mainly a monu-
mental one, at least originally, sets them somewhat apart.
None the less, these few churches with crossed vaults and the pyramidal
style of the sixteenth centurymay have paved the way for the appearance, fol-
lowing the period of troubles, of a new model of parish church that assumed a
commanding position throughout most of the seventeenth century, and a good
example of which is the Church of the Trinityat Nikitniki (1625-53) in Mos-
cow.
The central section is covered by an arched cloister vault: accordingly it
does not have any pillars and the internal space is open as in a palace hall {na
palatnoe deld) and lit byhuge windows let into the faades; it is instantlyopen to
the eye and has the same effect as linear perspective.
O n the outside, the base of the central drum is no longer on the same level
as the tops of the faades, and this difference in level is offset byrows of arches
stacked in the form of ornamental corbelling(kokosnik) without any supporting
function. Only the central drum opens onto the vault, while the lateral cupolas
and drums are also purely decorative. The external division of the faades, seg-
mented verticallyby pilasters or columns engaged in the wall and horizontally
138 Yves Hamant
by two rows of windows separated insome cases by a frieze, also has a purely
decorative function. Such divisions do not correspond to the internal structure
of the edifice. There is no link therefore between the internal and external
space, since the latter is no longer a reflection of the former.
As in all churches without pillars, the internal space is reduced and the
architects have added additional structures to the central part: a vast exonarthex
(trapeznaja), a pyramidal bell-tower {safer), side chapels allowing several liturgies
to be celebrated on the same day, and a number of access galleries. It is as
though the building were broken up into a series of volumes placed side by side.
There is an abundance of external decoration: a multitude of encorbelled
arches, rows of coffers (sirinka), columns swelling in the form of a melon
(dyn'kd) at mid-height, windows framed bysmall columns, multi-coloured
ceramic tiles(izrazec), and so forth.
The development of parish churches of this type was a turning-point in
architectural design several decades prior to the appearance of what is known as
Moscovite Baroque or Naryshkin style. It is clear, therefore, that ecclesiastical
architecture inno way escaped the overall evolutionary process that marked all
Russian culture in the seventeenth century and ledinteralia to the religious
crisis.
NOTES
1. N . K. Gudzij, Hrestomatija po drevnerusskoj literature Xl-XVII vekov [Anthologyof Old
Russian Literature from the Eleventh to the Seventeenth Century], Moscow, 1962,
p. 502. For a French translationof the passage quoted, see M. Laran and J. Saussay,
La Russie ancienne [Ancient Russia], p. 311, Paris, Masson, 1975.
2. For a description of this icon, see V. I. Antonova and N . E . Mneva, Katalog drev-
nerusskoj zivopisi [Catalogue of Ancient Russian Painting], Vol. 2, p. 391, Moscow,
1963.
3. P. N . Maksimov, Tvorceskie metody drevnerusskih zodcih [The Creative Methods of
Ancient Russian Architects], pp. 12-13, Moscow, 1976.
4. K. N . Afanas'ev, Postroenie arhitektumoj formy drevnerusskimi zodcimi [The Development
of Architectural Forms by the Architects of Ancient Rus'], p. 209, Moscow, 1961.
5. A. I. Komec, 'Spaso-Preobrazenskij Sobor v Cernigove. Kharakteristike nacal'nogo
perioda razvitija drevnerusskoj arhitektury[The Cathedral of the Transfigurationof
the Saviour in Chernigov: A Studyof the Features of the Beginningof Ancient Rus-
sian Architecture]', Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo. Zarubeznye svjazi [Ancient Russian Art.
Links with Other Countries], pp. 9-10, Moscow, 1975.
The baptism of Rus' and the path
of Russian culture
Sergey Averintsev
Whatever may have been the riches of the indigenous traditions of Eastern Slav
paganism, stressed bysuch researchers as Academician B. A. Rybakov, only
with the adoption of Christianity, through contact with Byzantium, did Russian
culture overcome its local limitations and take on universal dimensions. It
came into contact with biblical and Hellenistic sources common to the Euro-
pean cultural family(which, to a certain degree, also relate it to Islamic culture).
It became aware of itself and its place in an order going far beyond the limits of
mundane things; it became a culture in the full sense of the word.
Even the earliest Russian literati already sought to situate the various
periods in a universal perspective, establishing links between them. The speed
at which this happened is quite astounding. The most vividmonument of early
Russian 'historiosophy' - The Sermon on Law and Grace by Metropolitan Hilarin
- may be dated to within fiftyyears of the baptism of Rus' . Only a short time
before, the customs of human sacrifice and ritual self-sacrifice were still being
practised, and Prince Vladimir had made a last attempt to raise paganism to the
status of a state religion by erecting six idols at his palace; yet already attitudes
had changed completely. Horizons had become so much wider that Metropol-
itan Hilarin seems to take in the Christian world as a whole: 'For grace-filled
Faith has spread over the whole earth, and has reached our Russian nation. . . .'
History is no longer a matter of the epic, almost natural 'rhythm' of wars,
victories and disasters, but appears as a phenomenon of 'meaning', which in its
complexity requires interpretation, as a system of far-reaching links, in which
Abraham and King David, the Greek philosophers and Alexander the Great,
the characters of the N e w Testament and the Emperor Constantine are all
involved.
The birth of the young culture in the spirit of Christian-Hellenistic uni-
140 Sergej Averintsev
versalism began with the translation of Greek books into 'Slavonic writing',
mentioned inThe Tale of Bygone Years, which associates the earlyflowering of this
translating activitywith the reign of Yaroslav the W ise, the builder of the Cath-
edral of St Sophia in Kiev, in other words with the time of Metropolitan Hila-
rin, wh o has alreadybeen mentioned. His encomium of Yaroslav, as the conti-
nuer of Vladimir's work, passes into an encomium of books, adopted from the
Greeks:
Thus his father, Vladimir, ploughed and softened the earth, that is, enlightened the
land with Baptism; while he sowed the hearts of believing people with the words of
books, and we harvest, accepting the teaching of books. ... For we acquire wisdom
and temperance from the words of books: for they are rivers satisfying the thirst of
the universe, they are sources of wisdom; in books there is immeasurable depth, we
are consoled bythem in sorrow, they are a bridle of temperance.
1
Russian literaryculture, which is now celebrating its Millennium, was from its
very beginning shaped by the international literarymovement from Byzantium
that spread to the Southern Slavs and to Rus' and was reborn and gained ne w
strength in the fourteenth century. This movement (analysed in depth in the
works of Academician D. S. Likhachev) can be considered a late but authentic
fruit of the Hellenistic tradition. Generally speaking, Greek literature, which
reached self-awareness and conscious linguistic work in the phenomenon of
rhetoric, is the source and paradigm for everything that is understood as specif-
ically 'artistic' and specifically 'literary' in all the literatures of Europe.
2
This is
the fundamental c ommon ground shared by Russians with the cultures of the
W est. However, the Greek art of rhetoric operated on two levels. The first level,
which we shall call the 'exoteric' level, consists of 'figures of thought' and
'figures of speech', intellectuallyassimilable patterns of technique that can be
transferred from one language to another in such a way that no particular
changes take place within the linguistic nature of the language that adopts
them. The second, more 'esoteric', level is invariably associated to a greater or
lesser degree with the physiognomy of the language as such. It is here that the
paths of Balkan-Russian Slav and Romano-Germanic Western culture diverge.
Orthodox me n of letters turned to the example of Greek ornate speech
directly, without the intermediary of Latin. They were not to adopt just the
'figures of thought' and 'figures of speech'. Let us begin with what is most
obvious and tangible: theymade wide use of models of word formation - the
intricate structure of words formed from two or more roots typical of the Greek
language. Such are the keywords of traditional Russian ethics and aesthetics,
e.g. celomudrie (chastity, in Greek: aco(ppocrt>vT|), bJago-obrazie (beauty, nobility, in
Greek: eooxnuoauvn) andblago-lepie (splendour, in Greek: efj7iprceia). Everyone
wh o has read Greek and Byzantine poets in the original knows h ow important
this is for access to the deep, 'esoteric' level of the Greek literary tradition. Over
The baptism of Rus' and the path of Russian culture 141
centuries and over thousands of years, it was preciselyin words like these that
the language's potential both for solemnity and for subtletyfound its expres-
sion. Without them the magnificence of Aeschylus' tragedies would have been
impossible - all these 'hippalectrions' and 'tragelaphs' which at a later date
Aristophanes was to parody with such tenderness - and without them the
Byzantine elegance of church hymns would also have been impossible. The
beauty of whole clusters of words joined together in a single word is verycha-
racteristic of the Greek language, and one which became and remains dear to
the heart of the Russian people.
W e shall not call to witness an erudite lover of Church Slavonic borrow-
ings such as the Symbolist poet Vyacheslav Ivanov, or even a specialist in the
finer points of ecclesiastical life and collector of linguistic rarities, such as the
remarkable Russian prose writer Nikolai Leskov. N or shall we turn to conser-
vative romantics of the Slavophile or neo-Slavophile persuasion. O ur witness
will be that most sober of realists, Anton Pavlovich Chekhov.
Chekhov wrote a study of customs calledThe Holy Night, published in 1886,
just over a century ago. In it we hear the voice of a completely simple man, the
novice Hieronymus (Ieronim), wh o rapturouslyexpresses his attachment to the
most complex words, weightilysolemn in the Greek manner, that are current in
Orthodox hymnography:
'Drevo svetloplodovitoe (tree fruitful with light), drevo blagosennolistvennoe (tree whose
leaves give pleasant shade)'. . . . But where did he find such words? W as it the Lord
W h o gave him such a talent! For brevityhe joins many words and thoughts into a
single word, andhow flowing and felicitous this turns out for him! 'Svetopodatel'na
svetil'nika suscim... (lamp giving light to those wh o are . . . )' , it says in the Akathist to
Jesus the Sweetest. Giving light! There is no such word in the spoken language, nor
in books, but he invented it, found it in his mind!... And each exclamation should
be worded in such a way that it is flowing and easy on the ear.
W ith his childlike lips the simple-hearted Hieronymus expresses not only his
veneration for the holiness of religion but also unfeigned and natural enthu-
siasm for the play with words, this play, full of solemnity and the most serious
merriment, which is calledvitijstvo (ornate style) in Russian. This word in its
very essence, in the fulness of its connotations and emotional overtones, is
untranslatable; it does not fullycoincide with the concepts of 'rhetoric' or 'elo-
quence' , because its shades of meaning are too closelylinked to the specific phy-
siognomy of Church Slavonic and Byzantine Greek stylistics.
W ithout this element of vitijstvo, the whole of the traditional Russian cul-
ture of speech would be unthinkable, especially, of course, in the days before
Peter the Great, but alsomuch later. E ven the great Pushkin, wh o did so much
in the footsteps of Karamzin and his followers for the modernization of the
Russian language, that is, for its emancipation from the tutelage of Church Sla-
142 Sergey Averintsev
vonic, even he paid his tribute tovitijstvo, if only in his paraphrases of the Song of
Songs where he appears as an elder brother of the humble Hieronymus.
Let us return, however, toHieronymus. All the word formations from
many roots with which he is so enraptured, without exception, have their
prototypes inGreek. 'Tree fruitful with light' is '5v8pov uyAaraprcov', 'tree
whose leaves give pleasant shade' is'CuX ov ecna<puAA.ov', and both epithets are
borrowed from the famous earlyByzantine h ymn that is called inGreek ' Y^ vo
'AKaGiato' and in Russian ' The Akathistus to the Most HolyMother of God' .
' Lamp giving light to those wh o are [in darkness]' is taken from a late Byzantine
h ymn, called in Russian the 'Akathistus to Jesus the Sweetest' and is a slight
adaptation of the lexical material of the earlier Akathistus to the Mother of
God.
As recentlyas the twentieth century, it was not a philologist but a Russian
poet aware of philologywho expressed his concept of Russian speech as fol-
lows:
The Russian language is a Hellenistic language. As a result of a whole number of
historical conditions, the living forces of Hellenic culture, yielding the West to
Latin influences and not lingering long in childless Byzantium, rushed into the
bosom of the Russian language, communicating to it the distinctive mystery of the
Hellenistic world-outlook, the mystery of free incarnation, and for this reason the
Russian language became preciselyresounding and speaking flesh.
These are the words of Osip Mandelstam, wh o also said: ' The Hellenistic nature
of the Russian language can be identified with its closeness to the essence of
life.'
3
The latter statement seems particularly true. From their Greek heritage,
the Russian disciples adopted their faith in the material existence, the sub-
stantialityof the word which is not onlyverbum and not only ' pfl|ia' but also
'oyo'. Here the word is not only a sound and a sign, a purely 'semiotic' reality,
but a precious and sacred substance. The same figures of the same rhetoric have
a different nature in Russian vitijstvo and in Western European euphuism; and in
the final analysis this difference is a result of a difference in the context of the
culture and the psychology of the confession that gave vitijstvo a degree of
seriousness inwhich the civilizedgame of euphuism was lacking, and also of
the specific nature of the Slavonic-Russian word, nurtured not by Latin but by
Greek examples.
The idiosyncraticallygrandiose Utopia of the twentieth-centuryRussian
futurist, Velemir Khlebnikov, wh o strove to turn the Russian language towards
pure paganism and towards 'Scythianism', as it were to wash the seal of baptism
from Russian speech, is at odds with history, for it ignores the fruitful trustful-
ness with which the original Russian element of speech welcomed Hellenistic
eloquence, in order tomerge with it for ever into one indivisible whole. This
synthesis is a constant of Russian literaryculture. It continued to live, even after
Peter the Great, in classical vitijstvo, festive in Derzhavin and meditative in Tyu-
chev. E ven today it is still alive and is in no way confined to the consciously
archaistic experiments of the symbolist Vyacheslav Ivanov or even the peasant
poet Nikolai Klyuev. N o, let us take an extreme case, that of such a rebel against
all tradition as Vladimir Mayakovsky: even his poetry is unthinkable without
the heavyweight energy of complex-compound word formations such as dvukh-
metrovorosty (two metres inheight), which, inthe final analysis, are guided by
Graeco-Slavonic models. His practice in no way confirms his half-jocular decla-
ration inhis autobiography Ya sam (I myself) of total dislike for Slavonisms.
There is no need to say anything about the liturgical intonations in his lyrics
since Boris Pasternak wrote: 'Pieces of church songs and readings were dear . . .
to Mayakovsky in their literalness, as extracts from the livingway of life. . . .
These deposits of ancient creativitysuggested to Mayakovsky the parodie struc-
ture of his poems.'
4
This latter example shows that the long-term consequences
of events that occurred a thousand years ago are in no way limited in their effect
to that part of modern Russian poetrywhich was directlyinspired byOrthodox
themes, but are in truth universal.
A very particular theme is the relationshipof Russian tradition to the icon.
It is remarkable that in the sixteenth century, that is, during the classical period
of the W ars of Religion, the Jesuit Antonio Possevino, wh o attempted unsuc-
cessfullyto convert Ivan the Terrible to Catholicism and retained from his fai-
lure a certain irritation against everything Russian, commented on this aspect
of Russian life with invariable praise, noting the 'modesty and severity' of the
art of icon painters, in such marked contrast to the practice of the Renaissance
and mannerism, and the reverence of those wh o venerated the icons.
Is it not this same characteristic of moral seriousness in the face of beauty -
of course, in the framework of a completely different world outlook - that sym-
pathetic foreign connoisseurs have more than once noted as being a feature of
nineteenth-centuryRussian literature? Thomas Mann spoke of 'holy Russian
literature'; of course this is ametaphor, but it is not a simple one.
Already 1,000 years ago, if we are to believe the chronicler's account, our
ancestors whe n choosing their faith put their trust inbeauty as evidence of
truth. Apparently, in none of the various legends of the adoption of Christian-
ity by the peoples of Europe is there anything like the well-known episode of
the 'testing of faiths'. W e remember the account of The Tale of Bygone Years too
well to be still astonished by it. Muslims, Catholics and Khazar Jews had already
talked with Prince Vladimir. H e had alreadyheard the preaching of a Greek
'philosopher', combining biblical historywith a brief catechism. It would seem
that this should be enough, for is it not said in St Paul's Epistle to the Romans
that 'faith cometh from hearing' (Rom. 10:17)? In this case, however, it was not
preaching, doctrine or catechization that settled the matter. It is essential not
only to hear but to see. The Prince's emissaries had to see for themselves the vis-
144 Sergej Averintsev
ible realityof each 'faith', as it appeared in its ritual. Neither the prayerful
movements of the Muslims nor the Latin rite gave them, apparently, any aes-
thetic satisfaction. In Constantinople, however, the Patriarch showed them at
last 'the beauty of the Church' , and they told Vladimir:
W e do not know whether we were in heaven or on earth: for nowhere on earth is
there such a sight and such beauty, and we do not know how to tell about it; we only
know that there God dwells with men, and their divine service is better than in any
other countries. W e cannot forget that beauty.
5
The word 'beauty' is repeated again and again, and the experience of beauty
becomes the decisive theological argument in favour of the realityof the pre-
sence of heaven on earth; 'there G od dwells with me n' .
Historical criticism of this account no longer interests us today. W hatever
historical facts it may be backed by, it expresses a certain understanding of
things which, in itself, is a historical fact. E ven if this was not h ow Prince Vla-
dimir thought, it was at least h ow the chronicler thought. E ven if the whole
account was invented, there is some sense in it, and this sense is unexpectedly
close to that formulated in the present century by the Russian thinker Pavel
Florensky, wh o wrote, thinking of the most famous of Russian icons, the Trinity
by Andrey Rublev: ' O f all the philosophical proofs of the existence of G od, the
one that sounds most convincing is preciselythe one that is not even mentioned
in textbooks; it can be approximately constructed by the deduction "The Trinity
of Rublev exists, therefore G od exists".'
O f course there is much that is dissimilar between the ancient account and
the philosophical argument. The chronicler is simple-hearted, but the philo-
sopher is not: he is expressing a very refined paradox and is, of course, aware of
this. There is no similarityin anything save the simplest logical sense: the high-
est beauty is a criterion of truth and, besides, of the most important of truths.
During the age of intensive development of scholasticism in the W est, in
Rus' the philosophical work of the mind expressed itself in the tangible form of
icons. Gothic art, of course, is also imbued with philosophical speculation, but
it presupposes the parallel existence of scholasticism and is functionallydemar-
cated from it. Its aim is to give an 'illustration', in the highest sense of the word,
the sense in which the final line of Dante's Divine Comedy - 'L'amor che move il sole e
l'altre stelle (The love that moves the sun and the other stars)' - is a popular-
ization of the cosmological thesis of Aristotle and Bothius. This illustrative
nature, however, is contraryto ancient Russian art, as can be seen distinctly
from the historyof the deterioration of the style in the sixteenth and seven-
teenth centuries. Generally, Gothic art takes for itself the 'affective' side of the
soul, yielding the 'intellectual' side to scholasticism. It is impossible to compare
the highest achievements of art according to the principle of what is 'better':
Rublev's Trinity is not 'better' than the statue of the Virgin of Rheims, because
nothing can be better than this statue; and conversely, because nothing can be
better than Rublev's Trinity. The spiritualityof these two masterpieces is,
however, different. The Virgin of Rheims appeals to the emotions and the
imagination, because scholasticism exists that appeals to the intellect. These
domains are demarcated: feeling is one thing and cognition is another. There-
fore the spiritualityof the Gothic statue is imbued with emotionality- noble
chivalrous rapture before the pure charm of womanliness. The Gothic master
can allow himself this because he has been relieved of the burden of 'proving'
spiritual truths - the syllogisms of the doctors exist to provide proofs. The Rus-
sian master is in a different position: he wants not to inspire, not to touch, not
to act on the emotions, but to show truth itself and bear witness to it indis-
putably. This duty forces him to the greatest restraint: instead of enthusiasm,
instead of the Gothic transport (raptus), what is required is silence (hsykhid).
Rus' inherited veneration of the icon from Byzantium; but Rus' exalted the
icon-painter too. W h e n attributing sanctityto the icon, however, Byzantium
did not expect sanctityfrom the icon-painter. In all Byzantine hagiography
there are no depictions of the personalities of icon-painters, such as the legen-
dary Alipius of the Kiev Caves and Andrey Rublev, wh o made a fully tangible
mark in the historyof Russian art. The latter can perhaps be compared with his
contemporary Fra Giovanni da Fiesole, usuallyknown as Beato Anglico. Even
here, though, there is a fundamental difference. The spiritual purityof Fra Gio-
vanni, as depicted by Giorgio Vasari, is a trait of his personal biography, a cha-
racteristic of the artist, but not of his art. O n the other hand, the righteousness
of Andrey Rublev, as understood by Russian tradition, recorded, for example,
by the famous churchman and writer of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,
Joseph of Volokolamsk, is completely inseparable from the sanctity associated
with icon-painting as such.
For it to be possible to believe in beauty, this must be of a special kind. The
indulgence of sensuousness, even if 'sublimated', and the cult of art for art's
sake are ruled out. It is preciselybecause so much depends on the reliabilityand
high qualityof beauty that very stringent demands are made on it. The hero of
Dostoevsky's story,The Adolescent, heard the wanderer Makar Ivanovich, a man
of the people, use the ancient word blagoobrazie (the Greek ea%T|uoo"vn), ex-
pressing the idea of beauty as holiness and holiness as beauty, which touched his
soul to its very depths. Beauty is closely linked in Russian folk psychology to the
effort of self-denial. It is enough to remember the folklore songs about the
Tsarevich Ioasaf (Joasaph) who, like the Indian Shakyamuni, left the luxury of
the royal palace for the inclement wilderness; yet it is precisely this wilderness
that is celebrated as 'the fair wilderness' that promises not only hardship and
sorrow, but the fulness of chaste joy for the sight and hearing, when 'the trees
clothe themselves with leaves, and on the trees a bird of paradise begins to sing
in an archangelic voice'. Nowhere in Russian folk poetry, apparently, is such
146 Sergey Averintsev
free range given to the theme of the beauty of the landscape as in these songs
which glorifyrenunciation of the temptations of riches and thoughtless volup-
tuousness. Only the severe meaning of the whole justifies this admiration of
beauty before the judgement of traditional Russian spirituality, vouching that
this beauty will not degenerate into outward show and hedonistic caprice, but
will remainblagoobrazie.
Against this historical background Dostoevsky's famous words about the
beauty that will save the world appear as something greater than the dream of a
romantic. Tradition gives a hidden dimension to their meaning.
The specifically ethical aspect of the thousand-year-old tradition of Russian
Orthodoxy is too great and complex a subject, too rich in inner contrasts, for it
to be possible to elucidate it in a few words. There are parallels with the great
images of the medieval W est: it was just as easy for Sergius of Radonezh to es-
tablish friendly relations with the bear of the Russian forest as for Francis of
Assisi with the wolf from Gubbio (so that the Russian saint too has certain
rights to a place among the leaders of the present ecological movement); the
active kindness of Juliana Lazarevskaya, wh o did without bread herself in order
to feed the people in the famine years, reminds us of her Western sister Eliza-
beth of Hungary (and if the everyday sobrietyof Juliana's life, written by her
own son, omits the beautiful miracle in which bread was changed into roses, we
should remember that this miracle is also absent from the most authentic
accounts of Elizabeth, even in The Golden Legend by Jacob Voraginsky). At least
two specific traits, however, should be noted.
First, the onlyform of love of which the ancient Russian was not ashamed
to speak was compassionate love, maternal love or love close in its nature to
maternal love. Unlike in the medieval W est with its culture of adoration of the
lady (courtlylove), which extended as far as the field of religion, the Virgin
Mary or, as she is known in Russia, the Mother of G od, is never here the object
of courtlylove, but exclusivelya source of motherly pity, the Mother of G od, of
mankind and of all creation. E ven whe n referring to married love, in its ideal
form, in Russian villages the verb 'to pity' was quite recently still used: ' he pities
her', 'she pities him' . The Russian woman first appears in Russian poetryas
Yaroslavna in The Song of Igor's Campaign, andwh o, with her feminine compas-
sion, feels affected by the wounds and thirst of her husband and his warriors;
while, at the same time, she feels a mother's grief over the drowning of Prince
Rostislav, growing into a whole landscape of compassion, ' The flowers drooped
with mournfulness, and the trees bent to the earth with sorrow.'
There is yet another trait that is specific to Rus' . Only the Russians adopted
the type of Christian ascesis that is known to Byzantium but on the whole
unknown to the W est (although analogies to it may be found in the behaviour
of certain Western saints, from the earlyFranciscans to Benot Labre): this is
that of the so-called 'fools for Christ' wh o, in the name of a radical understand-
ing of the ideal of the Gospel, keep their distance from every establishment,
including the monastic one. There was, however, a substantial difference bet-
ween Byzantium andRus' . The Byzantine fool for Christ, concerned with
shaming vain pride in himself and others, challenging the fear of the opinion of
others and in this way continuing the work of the cynics of ancient times, as a
rule remained indifferent to social ethics. O n the other hand, in times of
national disaster the Russian fool for Christ grieved for the people and made use
of his freedom from the usual ties to say to the face of a powerful man, cruel and
intoxicated with his own impunity, even to Ivan the Terrible himself, the truth
that no one else dared say. Nikola of Pskov denounced Ivan the Terrible, in the
words of his Life, 'with terrible words' . The imagination of the Englishman,
Fletcher, was struck by the fool for Christ speaking against the Godounov
family in the streets. The fool for Christ wh o, in Pushkin's Boris Godounov, calls
the Tsar ' Tsar-Herod' and 'Infanticide-Tsar', as though he were the voice of the
people forced to remain silent, is not only an artisticallyconvincing image, but
also an historicallyaccurate one, judging from the chronicles and biographies of
the period.
NOTES
1. 'Povest' vremennyh let [Tale of Bygone Years]', Pamjatniki literatury drevnej Rusi, XI-
nacala XII v [Monuments of the Literature of Ancient Rus' of the Eleventh and
EarlyTwelfth Centuries], p. 167, Moscow, 1978.
2. In this regard, refer to E . R. Curtius, ha littrature europenne et le Moyen-Age latin
[European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages], Paris, Agora, 1986, 2 vols.
3. O . Mandelstam, Slave i kul'tura [Word and Culture], p. 58, Moscow, 1987.
4. B. Pasternak, Collected Works, Vol. 2, p. 263, Moscow, Khudozhesvennaya Literatura
Publishers, 1985.
5. 'Povest' . . .', op. cit., pp. 123, 125.
The Byzantine origins of medieval
sacred music in Kievan Rus'
Aristide Wirsta
The term 'Rus'
In the mid-ninth century, the Slavic tribes inhabiting the region of Kiev formed
a state and called it Rus' (Rusaa, Rxthenia in Latin). This state, also referred to in
historiography as the 'State of Kiev', graduallyconquered neighbouring regions
and in this way became the greatest power in Eastern Europe, extending over
an area of more than 1 millionkm
2
. It was a vast empire consisting of Rus' and
possessions which, for all practical purposes, came under the authorityof Kiev.
Ukrainian and Russian historians in this regard stress the fact that the
name ' Rus' ' referred originally, and right up to the twelfth and thirteenth cen-
turies, to the territoryaround Kiev or, more precisely, the area comprising the
cities of Pereyaslav, Kiev and Chernigov.
1
In other words, until the thirteenth
century, this name referred only to the centre and centre-north of the present-
day Ukraine. The other regions, in particular the principalities of Polotsk, S mo-
lensk, Novgorod and Rostov-Su2dal, were not calledRus' .
2
It should be noted at this point that it was here, on this territorycalled
Rus' , that the name 'Ukraine' came into being in the twelfth century; the ear-
liest mention of the name is found in a chronicle dating from 1187.
3
This fact
has enabled Ukrainian historians, beginning with M. Hroushevsky,
4
to use the
term 'Rus'-Ukraine' when referring to the historyof the period.
The new name of the countrywas used increasingly in subsequent centu-
ries so that, during the so-called 'Cossack' period in the sixteenth and seven-
teenth centuries, it became generalized and naturallywas used by cartographers.
Thus the French engineer and cartographer, Guillaume Le Vasseur de Beau-
plan, wh o had spent seventeen years in the service of the King of Poland, Jan-
150
Aristide Wirsta
Kasimir, and wh o had stayed many times in the Ukraine, made maps of the
country and published his renownedDescription of the Ukraine in Rouen in 1651.
Moreover, Hroushevsky
5
has clearly identified the major features distin-
guishing the Kievan State from that of Vladimir-Moscow: to begin with, the
two were not related, since the State of Kiev, with its laws and culture, was the
product of one particular people, i.e. the Ukrainian people, whereas the State of
Vladimir-Moscow was that of another, i.e. the Russian people.
This introduction should make it possible to avoid ambiguitywhen consi-
dering the subject of the present chapter.
Byzantine origins of medieval sacred music
in Kievan Rus'
Prior to the schism of 1054, which marked a definitive breach between the Pope
and the Byzantine Emperor, numerous contacts were kept up between Constan-
tinople and the many religious centres in Western Europe. It was only to be
expected therefore that there should be contacts and influence in the field of
sacred music.
Egon Wellesz
6
has paved the way for musicological research through the
publication of his invaluable work on Byzantine music. It is now established
that manyhymns of the Roman rite descend not onlyfrom Greek melodies, but
also, in some cases, from Greek texts. Olivier Strunk
7
has even managed to
identifythose that Charlemagne heard during the visit of a Byzantine embassy
to Aix-la-Chapelle, so that Greek and Latin texts and melodies can now be
compared.
N one the less, the influence of Byzantine hymnody can be felt far more
stronglyin Slavic countries, particularlyin the Kiev region. After nearlya cen-
turyof research, it is now possible to determine the date when Byzantine
musical practices and the neumatic notation first reached Kievan Rus' : in the
eleventh century, during the reign of Yaroslav (1019-54).
Even now, the medieval sacred music of Kievan Rus' has unbosomed only
a few of its secrets. Despite the progress that has been mentioned, the present
state of our knowledge makes it difficult to provide any concrete information
about songs of worship from pagan times (before the tenth century). W e may
venture to assume, however, that traces of those songs are preserved in the
music of the Christian offices of the earlyperiod, thereby lending added interest
to the study of the latter.
The earliest manuscripts that have come down to us in Old Slavonic date
onlyfrom the twelfth century. Is this because earlier manuscripts were des-
troyed, or is it because they never existed? W as liturgical chant handed down
The Byzantine origins of medieval sacred music 151
in Kievan Rus'
and taught by oral tradition until that time? Such questions have yet to be
answered.
Christianitywas brought to Kiev by the Greeks and the Bulgarians. It
should be noted that the latter were the first to use the Slavonic versions of
Byzantine liturgical texts.
It is quite possible that local melodies were used as earlyas the twelfth cen-
tury. These are known as kievskij napiv. The chant and notation(napiv) are more
Bulgarian
8
than Greek.
If we are to put our faith in a sixteenth-century collection, the Stepenaja
kniga, which uses ancient sources, there appear to have been three types of chant
following the arrival of Greek cantors at Kiev in 1053: a chant based on the
eight modes, the so-calleddemestvennoe chant and the trisostavnoe, sladkoglasovanie or
'triple-melody' chant. Opinions on the latter are divided; some, however,
regard it, albeit on inadequate grounds, as a polyphony similar to ' W estern
descant'.
The Troparion
'Troparion' is the generic term for poetic compositions of variable length whose
rhythm is based on the tonic accent. The tremendous importance of such com-
positions in the Eastern Churches is borne out by the fact that troparia so mul -
tiplied as to virtuallysupplant psalms and readings of the office.
Their origin may be sought in the kontakion.
9
Roman the Sweet Singer, a
deacon in Beirut and later in Constantinople (in the early sixth century) and a
true master of the kontakion, appears to have been inspired by the poetical forms
of St Ephraim the Syrian.
10
The kontakion was reallya h ymn. Its use spread
throughout the Eastern Church, except among the Armenians (about the
twelfth century).
Notation
Notation underwent changes that should be described in view of the influence
it inevitablyhad on the development and interpretation of the chant itself:
1. Palaeo-Byzantine notation (900-1200), which has not so far been deci-
phered.
2. Middle Byzantine notation (1200-1300).
3. Neo-Byzantine notation (1400-1821), also called Koukouzelean notation
after Ioannis Koukouzeles.
The sixteenth century saw the introduction in Kiev of the three-part chant
known as strocnoe penie. The text is headed by three lines of neumes. The middle
152 Aristide Wirsta
one, calledj&#/' and printed in red, provides the melody. The other two, printed
in black and termedverb (upper line) andniz (lower line), indicate the vocal
accent, usuallyin the fifth or the octave.
The Kievan mode probably springs from the ancient znamenny chant which
evolved in the Ukraine between the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries.
11
As a
further canonic mode, the Kievan mode was added to the znamenny mode,
notated in neumatic fashion without lines and based on the general principle of
typical combinations of different melodic 'tropes'. The melodies of the Kievan
mode are constructed according to the principle of a regular and periodic alter-
nation of a very few melodic phrases of recitative type. Hence they are readily
adaptable to the texts of different syllabic compositions. This qualityof the Kie-
van mode made it extremely practical, so that it was frequentlyused in place of
znamenny chant.
It should be noted that in Galicia and Bukovina (provinces occupied by the
Austrians from the eighteenth to the twentieth century),
12
the Ukrainians, more
faithful in this than the Russians, have preserved the ancient hirmologium with
these eight tones and the kievskij napiv melodies. Their scale is purely diatonic,
consisting of four linked tetrachords. The influence of native melodies may,
however, be detected. The chant is national, as is the liturgical language. Yet
the text is everywhere the same. In a large proportion of the regions that joined
the Orthodox Church, polyphony gained some ascendency over monodic chant
which, however, despite everything, will never be completely supplanted.
NOTES
1. M. Brajcevskij, Poiodzenmja Kusi [The Origins of Rus'], p. 162, Kiev, 1968; P. N .
Tretjakov, Uistokov drevnerusskoj narodnosti [At the Sources of the People of Ancient
Rus'], p. 74, Leningrad, 1970.
2. Tretjakov, op. cit., p. 73.
3. Tpatievskaja letopis' [Ipatiev Chronicle]', Polnoe sobrante russkih letopisej [Complete
Collection of Russian Chronicles], Vol. 2, p. 653, Moscow, 1962.
4. M. Hrusevskij, Istorija Ukrajny-Rusi [History of Rus'-Ukraine], Lvov/Kiev, 1898-
1909, 1913, 10 vols.; 2nd ed., N e w York, 1954-80.
5. Ibid.
6. E . Wellesz, Eastern Elements in Western Chant, Boston, 1947.
7. O . Strunk, 'Intonations and Signatures of the Byzantine Modes' , Musical Quarterly,
1945.
8. E . B. Tonseva, Iz bolgarskih rospev [Bulgarian Chants], Sofia, 1981.
9. Used in the liturgyup to the twelfth century, this poem, which consisted of from
eighteen to twenty-four stanzas (troparia), was then reduced to two, thereby giving
way to a new poetical form, the canon.
10. A priest of Edessa (born at Nisilisc. 310, died at Edessa in 373), author of a large
number of works of prose and poetry. The kontakion is thought to have evolved from
the hymnography of St Ephraim.
The Byzantine origins of medieval sacred music 153
in Kievan Rus'
11. A. Wirsta, ' La musique ukrainienne', Encyclopdie des musiques sacres [Encyclopedia of
Church Music], Vol. 2, pp. 188-93, Paris, 1969.
12. Galicia was governed byPoland from 1918 to 1939, and Bukovina byRomania
from 1918 to 1940.
The role of the book in the
Christianization of Rus'
Elena S morgunova
This chapter considers the role of the book inthe Christianization of Rus'
which was the subject of aU N E S CO exhibition, Russian Manuscripts and Printed
Books of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.
Christianity, in Rus' as elsewhere, from its very beginnings gave books a
special place as one of the main objects or instruments of the divine service. In
this sense the appearance of printing can be considered as the second stage in
the Christianization, first of Europe, and then of Russia.
Moreover, due to the special nature of printing, this second stage in the
spread of Christianity lasted less than 100 years, unlike the manuscript stage
which continued for several centuries from the tenth century until 1564, which
we regard as the year when Russian printing began with the publication by Ivan
Fedorov of his famous Apostle. W hat ismore, reformist tendencies in Church
life both in Western Europe and Russia can from a certain point of view be
understood as the result of a large number of influences of which books were
among the most important. Thus, in Western Europe, Martin Luther published
the Bible before anything else. In Russia Patriarch Nikon began with the cor-
rection of church books which led to a spiritual movement with wide repercus-
sions in the Russian Church, remained verymuch alive for several centuries
and is still relevant today. Thanks to this in particular, we still find in current
use today a large number of manuscripts and books published before the mid-
seventeenth century.
It should be noted that if, on the one hand, the manuscript books of ancient
Rus' are striking in their varietyand range of different genres, among which,
together with travels, moral tales and cosmography, the spiritual genre is the
leading but not the overwhelmingly predominant one, on the other hand the
first books printed in Russia (as in Western Europe) were exclusivelyof a spiri-
156 Elena Smorgunova
tuai nature. The U N E S CO exhibition illustrated this aspect of the initial stage
of Russian printing.
T wo brief examples should suffice to make this clear. In 1574 in Lvov, Ivan
Fedorov, 'printer of books heretofore unseen', published anABC 'for infants to
learn quickly', according to the epilogue. In his exhortation to parents, Ivan
Fedorov, distancing himself from the precepts of 'Domostroi" then predomi-
nant in the life of Russian society, defends children against the arbitraryauthor-
ity of fathers and calls on the latter to bring them up 'inmercy and prudence'.
The ABC's epilogue states: ' And ye fathers, provoke not your children to
wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, with
mercy and prudence, with all lowliness and meekness and long-suffering, for-
bearing and forgiving one another in love.'
Thus, at the dawn of Russian printing, the author speaks as a proponent of
humane teaching methods. Ivan Fedorov's ABC had a substantial influence on
many later works. Almost all textbooks in basic literacy, which was the first step
in the acquisition of spiritual culture and elementary Christian knowledge,
were based on it, includingPervoe ucenie otrokam (First Learning forChildren) by the
scholar, translator and poet, Theophanes Prokopovich (1721), and the Moscow
ABC of Vasili Burtsov (1654); all presented teaching materials in the same way
as Ivan Fedorov.
The second example dates from August 1724 when, in the printing-house
of the Aleksander Nevsky Monastery in St Petersburg, Gavril Buzhinsky
published his translation of Wilhelm Stratemann's Latin book, The Theatre, or the
Historical Spectacle. In his lengthy introduction addressed 'to the amateur histor-
ian of goodwill', the author praises the book in these words: 'It protects against
malice and teaches the virtues.' This is a direct continuation of the Chronicle's
words which schoolchildren in our country learn from the start: 'Books are riv-
ers, sources of wisdom slaking the thirst of the universe, a consolation in sor-
row, a bridle of temperance.'
As modern civilization is unimaginable without books, so is knowledge of
the past likewise impossible. Ancient books are the concrete expression of the
memory of mankind. These ancient books are living springs feeding the peo-
ple's national cultural life. All the books displayed at the exhibition marking
this Millennium Symposium showed this concretelyand visibly. The collection
illustratedwhat the book was in Rus' and its role in people's religious and daily
life through examples, each of which is precious both artisticallyand histor-
ically. The notes on the books exhibited, which came from private collections,
revealed the names of the owners, the paths the books had taken, and their
value and prices at different times. The names mentioned insome of them
brought many historic figures back to life: famous linguists of the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries, leaders of the Old Believers Movement in the seven-
teenth century and the famous brothers Boris Ivanovich and Gleb Ivanovich
The role of the book in the Christianization of Rus' 157
Morozov. O ne of the books exhibited carried the autograph signature of Prince
Ivan Fadeevich Schakhovskoy, and others a dedication by Gavril Pushkin and
an ex libris of Stepan Gavrilovich Pushkin (two ancestors of the poet Alexander
Pushkin). Peasants and members of the service nobilitywho lived in the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries in different parts of the land of Russia also left
their names insome of the books. O ne of the pearls of the exhibitionwas a fine
specimen of the Ostrog Bible printed byIvan Fedorov and remarkable in its
history: its pages still bear notes by the many people who possessed it over a
period of 300 years. Textbooks and dictionaries giving information of a very
special kind on the culture and state of knowledge of a period were represented
by an edition of Meleti Smotritsky'sGrammar, which was the textbook of many
generations of Russians and which, together with Magnitsky's Arithmetic, Push-
kin called the 'first gates of learning'. Translations from Latinand various Slav
languages and multilingual dictionaries also bore witness to the links between
Russian Christian culture and the cultures of other peoples.
I should like to conclude this short survey of the initial stage of printing in
Russia by expressing the deep gratitude that all of us, their descendants, feel
towards those many, and often nameless, authors, copyists, editors, printers and
proof-readers, and to the present owners and curators of such books and manu-
scripts. They give us the joys of contact with magnificent monuments of our
country's culture, allowing us to read them, do research and extract precious
seeds of goodness and wisdom from them.
Part Three
THE THEME
OF ' HOLY RUSSIA'
The gift and enigma of 'Holy Russia'
Vladimir Zielinksy
In a letter to his mother, Alexander Blok gives his impressions of Mussorgsky's
opera, Khovansbchina, saying that it 'is not yet a work of genius (i.e. not the breath
of the Holy Spirit), just as all Russia, inwhich the future is still only being pre-
pared, is not a work of genius. But it stands in the very centre, preciselyin that
narrow stripwhere the breath of the Spirit blows'.
Blok spent all his life seeking this centre, and was attracted to it. For to
him, in it lay hidden the musical theme of Russia, echoes of which reached him
in the steppe, the winds, snowstorms, revolutions and even inStranger andBeau-
tiful Lady. But despite its multitudinous incarnations, even when theyshowed
genius, this theme always remained agonizinglyincomplete, not fullyrevealed,
as if it had not taken place in the Holy Spirit. Blok was one of the last witnesses
of the eschatological enigma of Russia; what is of genius and genuine in it,
'obedient to the spirit of the music', to quote the poet, has not shown itself yet
and will only find its incarnation in the future. But whether in the future here
or that of the world tocome, he could give no answer.
Hence this very 'poetic' and seductive confusion of the 'spirit of music'
with the Holy Spirit. Blok was a true son of his age of decadence, inwhich, in
the words of Tyutchev, 'the dove-greyshadows were gathering'. It was granted
to him to perceive the world through its musicalityand beauty, but he did not
have the gift of 'distinguishing spirits', which is acquired only through a life of
prayer. These two gifts, however, sometimes come together, and we find them
unified in some of the Greek Fathers. ' The W ord, which created the world from
nothingness,' said St Gregory of Nyssa, 'proceeding from a certain musical con-
formity, secretlymakes of it a joyful hymn.' This conformity is already suffused
with a different, tranquil spirit: in it the rhythm of creation, the original beauty
of the world can be divined.
162
Vladimir Zielinksy
Every land has such an original beauty, such a 'musical conformity'. From
its rhythms, from the radiation of spiritual energy, it is possible to divine what-
ever in it corresponds to the original intention or the eternal W ord concerning
it. Blok was right: this beauty and this genius should be sought 'preciselyin that
narrow stripwhere the breath of the Spirit blows'. The theme of Russia is the
action of this Spirit, its achieved or discovered holiness.
The blessing of Andrew the Apostle
' The Church Universal', in the words of the Blessed Augustine, 'comes forward
to meet the most remote peoples with increasinglyabundant gifts.' The very
essence of the Church is expressed in this mysterious law: as it spreads, spir-
ituallyit does not squander but gathers and replenishes. In every nation the
Church is born anew, even if it comes from a neighbouring country. And its
birth always takes place 'naturally', just as if each nation had awaited its appea-
rance, revealing in it what had been granted to it from the beginning.
Every person and every nation on receiving baptism obtains first and fore-
most the pledge of holiness. This is a vocation that still has to be discovered and
accomplished. Every nation has its gift, in keeping with its 'nature', its assimila-
tion of the Christian faith, the path shown to it for salvation. If there exists a
multitude of national types, there also exists a multitude of ways of confessing
one faith. And one calling to holiness can be invisiblylinked to another for
'there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit' (1 Cor. 12:4). And for this rea-
son the voice of 'Holy Russia' can only be distinguished and understood
properly, not on its own, but in the choir of other Christian peoples.
Its beginning is beyond the bounds of Russian history, and very likely
beyond those of its geography too. The historyof'Holy Russia' should probably
begin w'ith the tale of h ow the Apostle Andrew came to the territoryof Rus'
before it even existed. This is related in one of the most ancient chronicles, The
Tale of Bygone Years. Historians disagree on the authenticityof this event, which
it is hardly possible to prove from a historical point of view. But it belongs
rather to what Mircea Eliade calls 'sacral time', in other words it belongs to
metahistory. Any number of reasons may be advanced to provide an explana-
tion for this legend, but what is important for us is not how and whence it
arose, but the fact that by its veryemergence it witnesses to the turning of Rus-
sian religious consciousness to the age of the Apostles, its mystical link with the
Church founded by Christ Himself. It is as if by this tale the future Rus' brought
to us tidings that it also, in the person of the Apostle Andrew, was among the
Apostles on the day of Pentecost, that the Holy Spirit descended on it too, and
that one of the tongues in which Christ's disciples began to speak was the lan-
guage of Russian holiness, as yet unknown to anyone.
The gift and enigma of 'Holy Russia' 163
' And he sailed to the mouth of the Dnieper,' according toThe Tale of St
Nestor the Chronicler, 'and from there went up the Dnieper. And it came to
pass that he came and stood at the foot of the hills on the bank. And in the
morning he arose and said tothe disciples wh o were with him, "Do you see
these hills? O n these hills the grace of G od will shine forth andG od will raise
up many churches . . ." '
The conciliar personality
The Spirit, which speaks to people and Churches, never addresses crowds or
faceless collectives. It addresses only personalities, even if these are collective,
national ones. Russian holiness is national, which means that it has a deeply
personal nature. The traits of this character are strikinglyco-ordinated - and
this also gives us the right to speak of a hidden rhythm, an inner conformity - as
if the Russian Saints were, in the words of the Acts of the Apostles (4:32), ' one
soul'.
Dostoevsky and the Slavophiles spoke of 'national' or 'conciliar' personal-
ity, but this idea can also be found in the G e rman romantics as well as in Herzen
and Michelet. If we accept this idea of a personality joining together all the con-
crete historical manifestations of national life, then in its depth we should seek
what it is that forms the basis of everyh uman personalityand is infinitelygrea-
ter than it. The nation is a personality, but only to the degree towhich it finds
itself in this W ord, to the degree to which it can serve in its unityas an icon of
the Most Holy Trinity.
This means that the 'conciliar personality' of one nation or another in no
way belongs to it by right of ownership. Neither does it belong to anyconven-
tional or legendary past. The personalityof the nation is what that nation still
has to acquire, the depth to which it still has to seek the way, the W ord about it
of which it still has tobecome worthy.
Everyone knows Nietzsche's formula, ' Man is something that must be
transcended'; Christianitysays that man is a thing that has to be restored, to
wh om his lost dignitymust be returned. W e cannot equate the 'conciliar' or any
other personalitywith the concrete bearer of this personality, and for this rea-
son the anthropology of the nation as personalitybegins with that with which
Christian anthropology generallybegins: with the ability to distinguish inman
both h ow he appears on the surface of being or concrete history, and what he is
called upon to be, h ow he was created for eternity, h ow he should enter into the
Kingdom of Heaven. And this ability is acquired only from within, and it
begins with conversion, with a change of mind, with penitence.
W e are living in the days of the Millennium of the Russian Church. W e are
entitled to speak of its political role or its cultural mission. But within it lives
164 Vladimir Zieiinksy
another millennium, one that is rarelyremembered today - the millennium of
penitence. Did not the sacrament of baptism also include renunciation of
Satan? ' And there was joy in heaven and on earth over so many souls saved,' we
read in the same Tale of Bygone Years, 'but the Devil said, groaning, "W oe isme !
They are drivingme from hence!" ' The Devil will return again toRus' , and
again and again, with his idols and national passions, but, behind all his masks,
the face of another Russia, the real one, the penitent one, will never be effaced.
The time of 'Holy Russia': 'the fulness of time'
Penitence comes in a particular time, quite different to the time inwhich his-
torical events take place. W hereas the baptism of Rus' is a historical fact, the
conversion of Rus' , the assimilation of baptism by it, is alreadyan event of a dif-
ferent time. This conversion is no less relevant for us today than it was 1,000
years ago. The path of penitence assumes a breach with this fallen world, that is,
above all, liberation from the dominion of time.
The path of historyand the path of holiness were almost always at odds in
Rus' . Holiness moved back the limits of earthlytime, transfigured it, clothed it
in liturgical time. ' The Church . . . always dwells in the "latter days" ', writes
Father Alexander S chmemann in his work The Eucharist, 'and her life, in the
words of the Apostle Paul, "is hidden with Christ in God". In each liturgyshe
meets the coming Lord and has the fulness of the Kingdom, coming in force.'
And if in their quest for the Kingdom the Saints came into the fulness of the
Church and discovered her gifts, then they entered the 'latter', that is, eschat-
ological time that has broken with or cast off from itself historical or simply
everyday time.
'Let us cast aside every worldly care' is sung in the Cherubic H ymn of the
Liturgyof St John Chrysostom. This h ymn pervades the entire historyof Rus-
sian holiness, or rather that of Russia's calling to holiness. The idea that what
are called 'worldly cares', occupying this earthlytime, are quite unsalutaryand
unrighteous has always lived in the Russian religious consciousness. And for
this reason, the Tsars, even such Tsars as Ivan the Terrible, felt a longing
throughout their lives for the quiet monastic cloister, often accepting the ton-
sure on the threshold of death, as princes accepted it, leaving their patrimony,
and warriors holding as nought the gloryof their exploits, and merchants aban-
doning their riches like a handful of dust, including the riches of knowledge,
wisdom or simplygood repute. 'Strive toopen for me the embrace of the
Father', is sung at the office of monastic tonsure, 'for I have wastedmy life as a
prodigal, I have sinned before Heaven and before thee!'
Time 'in the embrace of the Father' already passes as the time of penitence.
But even in those cases when holiness was not linked specificallywith the 'feat'
The ff ft and enigma of "Holy Russia'
165
of monasticism, it always insisted on a break with 'worldly cares', with the
'delusions of this age'. Sometimes it required renunciation even of life itself. It
is striking that the storyof Russian holiness can almost be said to begin and
reach its culmination in such renunciation. I refer to the sacrifice of the pas-
sion-bearing Princes Boris and Gleb in the eleventh century and the exploit of
the ne w martyrs of the twentieth century.
Boris and Gleb, the sons of Prince Vladimir, did not resist their brother
Svyatopolk, called the Accursed, wh o wished to kill them in order to seize the
Grand Principalityby force. By refusing to take part in the civil wars between
prince, by their voluntarydeath, they indeed wished to 'fulfil the law of Christ'
(Gal. 6:2), divined bythem with true religious genius. Their deaths were not
completely heroic: the young Gleb cried on parting with life, but they died with
such faith, with such love for Christ, that they became his living icon. They
renounced earthly life and entered Christ's time, time that is transparent, time
that does not oppress, does not drive forward, does not impose itself, does not
enter into dispute with any 'historical necessity'. In this time, 'the fulness of
time' (Gal. 4:4) is reflected as an image of eternity.
In exactlythe same way the Martyrs of our century do not enter into alter-
cations with this fallen historical time, which weighs down upon them with all
its mass and all its laws; they allow themselves to be killed, like Boris and Gleb,
with a prayer for their butchers, but by their 'quiet' and often unknown death
theyovercome the weight of history, are victorious over the demons that have
taken possession of it, andnow we see todayh ow these demons flee before some
invisible spiritual force. Svyatopolk the Accursed fled from his crime, and today
the tribe of the accursed cannot find rest, though the graves of their fallen vic-
tims more often than not remain unknown. The time of ' Holy Russia' does not
always remain outside time, it is always close to Russian history, and this close-
ness, this imponderable 'fulness of time', perhaps, is more easily perceptible
precisely in contrast with its weight, with its all too well-known historico-
political necessity.
The land of 'Holy Russia': wilderness or
City of Kitezh?
'Definitive' or eschatological time pervades historical time but is never com-
bined with it. W ith any attempt to take possession of it, it becomes invisible.
This is reflected in the well-known legend of the City of Kitezh, the cityof
saints that was concealed at the bottom of a lake on the approach of the godless
King Batyi's hordes. G od hides His elect, keeps them safe from the world, and
the forces of evil cannot find the way tothem. ' Thus towards the end of our
166 Vladimir Zitlinksy
tumultuous and sorrowful age,' relates The Tale of the City ofKitezh, 'the Lord
covered that citywith his hand and it became invisible by the prayers and peti-
tions of those wh o worthily and righteouslybowed down before him, wh o will
not see grief and sorrow from the Beast Antichrist.'
Russian holiness has ever been a pilgrimage to this invisible city. For even
from ancient times cities seemed to some of our ancestors too full of vanity and
noise, and theywent out from them to seek tranquillityin places where no sin-
gle living soul can be encountered and there spent years and years. The territory
of ' Holy Russia' is the City of Kitezh which was not situated on the bed of a lake
but in the depths of the forest. This is the site of the cosmic battle with the 'spi-
rits of malice under the heavens' which the ancient Lives of the Saints recount.
I do not mean that Russian holiness always hid itself in forests, but rather
that the path to it was the most worn of all. The point is that ancient Rus' was
nurtured on the lives of the desert-dwellers of Egypt and Palestine, though the
life of a hermit as a special feat, as a way to union with Christ, was rather
divined by it, as passion-bearing was divined. This was the fulfilment of the gift
granted to it from the beginning. The life of a hermit holds in itself all the para-
doxical tension of the Christian attitude to the world; it does not judge the
world, does not pronounce judgement on it from without, but strives to over-
come it and be victorious over it from within.
Everything that is granted to us through grace begins with love. Hermits
leave the world for the love of prayer; even the quiet monasteries in the forest
sometimes seemed to them an abode of tumult and noise. 'St Paul of Obnora,'
we read in Georgi Fedotov's The Tragedy of Russian Holiness,
asked leave of the Venerable Sergius to go into seclusion, being unable to bear the
coenobitic monastic life 'as there is no difference between empty talk in the wilder-
ness and in the cities'. He called silence the mother of all the virtues. In the forests
of Obnora, St Paul settled in a hollow tree, and Sergius of Nurom, another great
lover of the wilderness, found him there in the company of a bear and wild beasts,
feeding birds which perched on his head and shoulders: this image alone is enough
to justifythe name of Thebaid given by the Russian hagiographer to the ascetic life
of the north.
Silence does not consist of standing in one place, but involves intensive labour,
the result of which is a certain paradisiacal reconciliation, not fullydivined,
with nature, with all its trees, creatures, plants and natural elements. The ex-
perience of the Saints involved the achievement of unitybetween the inner and
outer worlds, and in this, perhaps, we should today seek salvation from ecolog-
ical catastrophes. Lovers of silence learnt first of all to listen, found some hid-
den rhythm in the 'wilderness' surrounding them and were able to join in it.
And whe n churches began to reach up to heaven among the lakes and forests,
theybecame the extension of this mysterious rhythm of the earth.
Having mastered this rhythm, the Saints also learned tocommand it. For
the great me n of prayer, everything around them was fruitful, everything fed
them and everything in its own way sang and glorified. It was as if their prayer
found that language of the word in which G od 'speaks' to his creation, ' main-
tains' it with his power and calls it to life. And it was as if life around them
answered their prayer. W h e n St Seraphim of Sarov spoke of the acquisition of
the Holy Spirit as the aim of any Christian life, the cold of the winter's day
retreated from him and his companion and the faces of both became like suns of
dazzling brightness.
I think that those of the ascetics whose memory the Church has kept (and
here we have onlybeen able to mention a few) are only a handful of those saints
wh o once went out to save their souls in the forests and never returned. They
dissolved in these forests and fields, melted into their silence and their sounds,
lay in this earth and became it, giving it the name of ' Holy Russia'.
'The hidden man of the heart'
Flight into the wilderness is flight from the 'world', and, in the words of St
Isaac the Syrian, one of the favourite teachers of the Russian ascetics, the
'world' is a collective name, embracing all the passions. O ne cannot, however,
flee from oneself, and the desert-dwellers knew this even better than we do.
Hence their violent struggle, not with their body, but with their rebellious
spirit, with the imagination, with that root of the 'passions' that the Apostle
John the Divine calls 'the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and worldly
pride'. This struggle must of course begin with the body, which they treated so
as to 'exhaust the one wh o exhausts us', as St Seraphim of Sarov expressed it. By
long fasting, withstanding cold and heat, vigils, the wearing of chains and hair
shirts, suffering mosquito bites and burying themselves in the ground, they
wished not to humiliate their body but to liberate their soul from captivity.
Russian asceticism grew out of recognition of extreme danger 'from which
there is no other salvation than in the Lord Jesus Christ' (St Theophan the
Recluse). It is said of one hermit that, having withdrawn into the forest, at first
he would cry aloud all night long to the Lord for help for fear of the beasts of
prey in the forest. This is the image of true prayer, if we remember that these
beasts of prey lie in wait for us within. St Cyril of the W hite Lake, when a young
monk, spent the nights watching the fire in the monastery stove, meditating on
the difficultyof salvation from hell-fire.
But the fear of G od is, according to Scripture, only the beginning of W is-
dom. Salvation from eternal fire is only the pledge of true salvation. Salvation
should alreadybegin here, when the 'passions', that is, our physical, and even
more our spiritual, attachment to everything earthly, are mortified and all the
168 Vladimir Zitnksy
energy that has been given to us, which was previously dissipated and weakened
by sin, is gathered together and turns into love of God. Fear and love are forces
in constant interaction and stand at the sources of holiness, but love is by far the
greater of the two.
It is difficult to explain to modern man what love for G od means, and yet it
is the very essence of Christian faith. There is no faith without this love, there
are only 'religious convictions', in which we express ourselves but do not open
ourselves toG od. The love that the saints knew was least of all a contemplative
love, involving the imagination, for it began with purification from every sort
of wish, with the dying of our 'nature', that is, with the destruction of that bar-
rier of 'passions', of captivityby the 'world' that separates us from God. Love
for G od is in its very essence a sacramental mystery not a concept, not even a
mere feeling; it is the mystery of dying with Christ and of rising again with him.
And then the whole world, which even yesterday still 'lay in evil', flowers in the
light of the resurrection. This means that in the eyes of a saint both the world
and the saint himself open up to love.
Love for G od is above all man' s response to the infinite love of G od for
man. According to the saints, G od beseeches man to return His love: 'Behold, I
stand at the door and knock' (Apoc. 3:20). This door opens in our heart, but it
can be opened only with great effort - by intense prayer, ascesis and penitence.
But it only has to open for this to be manifested in a marvellous lightness and
sweetness of prayer, in the gift of tears, insight into the thoughts of others,
active compassion and other tokens - as a heart of stone, in the words of the
ascetics, becomes a heart of flesh, an 'understanding heart', a true 'dwelling of
God'.
Thus in the monastery or the 'desert', the 'hiddenman of the heart which is
not corruptible even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit' (1 Pet. 3:4) is born
unknown to any. This man is freed from his fallen nature to such a degree that
G od makes him his dwelling place (3 Kgs. 8:30), makes him his temple, his ves-
sel, grants him to feel the bliss and closeness of his presence, grants him to see
himself and the whole world with his eyes. In the Way of the Pilgrim, a book by an
unknown author, which appeared in the middle of the last century andman-
aged to express the very spirit and experience and, dare I say it, the 'sweetness'
of Russian holiness, the awakening of this 'hiddenman' is described as follows:
From that time [after acquiring constant prayer of the heart] I began to feel various
periodical feelings inmy heart andmy mind. Sometimes it happened that in some
way there was an ebullience inmy heart, in it there was such lightness, freedom and
consolation that I changed completely and went into a rapture. Sometimes I felt
ardent love for Jesus Christ and for all God's creation. Sometimes of their own
accord there flowed sweet tears of gratitude to the Lord who had been merciful to
me, an accursed sinner. Sometimes I felt inside myself the greatest joyfrom calling
on the name of Jesus Christ and realized the meaning of his words: The Kingdom of
God is within you.
'Poor raiment', alms-giving
The Venerable Theodosius of the Kiev Caves Monastery (eleventh century),
wh o is revered as the founder of Russian monasticism, even before he entered
the monastery chose an occupation considered demeaning for a high-born
youth: the baking of altar bread. In reply to his mother's wrath and reproaches,
he spoke to her of Christ's humility and self-abasement. After becoming foun-
der and abbot of the Kiev Caves Monastery, revered by all ancient Rus' , begin-
ning with the Prince himself, he shared in all the brethren's heaviest physical
labour. The ancient hagiographers noted his 'poor raiment', the wretched outer
garment that he always wore, signifying by this the 'form of a servant' taken on
by Christ on earth.
All the Russian saints, at least the ancient ones, were speciallyaware of the
image of Christ as humiliated, undistinguished, persecuted and suffering volun-
tarydeath and, most important of all, casting off His heavenly glory, and they
bore his image. There was to be no earthlyglory, not even a purelymonastic
one - that of fasting, outwardly visible feats, the power of prayer. ' The hidden
man of the heart' was to be kept concealed, and that same Theodosius of the
Caves wh o spent his nights in prayer and weeping always fell silent, pretending
to be asleep whe n someone approached his cell. ' Holy Russia' kept in its
me mory the Testament of the great hermit St Nil of Sorsk, wh o wished to keep
his 'poor raiment', i.e. revilement and ignominy, even after death:
I enjoin on you as to myself, my eternal lords and brethren, people of my dis-
position, abandon my body in this remote place so that the beasts and birds may
devour it, for it sinned greatlybefore God and is unworthy of burial. If you do not
do this then, having dug a deep pit in the place where we live, buryme there with
every dishonour.
O n enteringsome churches or abandoned monasteries, we sometimes notice
graves beneath our feet; here are buried people wh o wished to be trampled
under the feet of the living after their death. Sometimes, perhaps, this was a ges-
ture that had become purelysymbolic, but nevertheless behind it we catch a
glimpse of the mystery of the quiet humility that colours all Russian holiness.
W e speak of a mystery that can in noway be divided into parts, though it is pos-
sible to distinguish three elements in it. The first and most important mark of
true humility is always to consider oneself a wretched and accursed sinner, wor-
thy neither of God' s gifts nor of his mercies, yet never to abandon firm hope in
170 Vladimir Zieiinhsy
this mercy, never to despair of one's salvation. The second mark of it is the reli-
gious sanctification of everything that life sends, the acceptance of all that is
brought to us by the present day, even if evil, painful and unbearable, with rev-
erence and meekness. For the Orthodox consciousness the formula of humility
consists in identifying all exterior circumstances, whether those of daily life or
of history, with the will of God. From this not infrequentlyfollows renuncia-
tion of control over these circumstances and, most important, the cutting off of
one's own will. ' Do not allow, O Most Pure O ne , my will to be done, for it is
not meet, but may the will of thySon andmy G od be done', it says in one of the
evening prayers. The thirdmark of humility is voluntary, reverent and penitent
acceptance of one's death. There is a deep link between humility and death, so
that a righteous death is sometimes equal to an ascetic exploit, overshadowing
an unrighteous life. An easy and sudden death sometimes aroused fear. It was
necessary 'to know how to die', to give up one's spirit toGod, whatever sort of
death he might send. 'Only grant untome , O Lord, repentance before my death'
- this is the basic theme of the 'Penitential Canon toOur Lord Jesus Christ'.
But together with all this humility and fasting, 'poor raiment' and other
mortifications, the Russian saints maintained an acute sense of pity for every
suffering creature, mercy for ordinary people and compassion for their weak-
nesses and sicknesses. St Vladimir, the Baptizer of Rus' , had already com-
manded 'every poor and sick person tocome to the Prince's court and take
everything that he might need, food and drink and money from the treasury'
(The Tale of Bygone Years). And to those wh o were unable to come he sent food on
carts, asking ' W here is there a sick or poor person, or one wh o cannot walk?' In
later centuries, in times of plague or famine, 'Holy Russia' fed the Russia of the
people, suffering Russia, and thus hundreds and even thousands of people were
fed by the monasteries and saved in hard times. W e meet love of alms-giving in
many ancient Lives of the Saints - in those of Theodosius, wh om we have
already mentioned, Sergius of Radonezh, Joseph of Volokolamsk and many
others.
Social justice, martyrdom
There is an inner dialectic in the development of Russian holiness: in the com-
bination of social justice and non-resistance to evil, in other words humility
before everything that God sends. This humility, like its meek dignity, Russia
found in the midst of all forms of violence and injustice: princes waged war
against one another, the boyars were high-handed with their servants, high-
waymen robbed on the roads. And if in the midst of this morass there existed
some sort of firm ground, where the sense of honour remained, of being true to
one's word, of compassion for the downcast and wretched, some idea of the
equal dignity of all people before G o d , this firm ground was the lively aware-
ness of Christ, merciful but awe-inspiring. Dostoevsky wrote about this in the
last century:
T he people sin and d o evil every day, but in the best minutes, in Christ's minutes,
they are never mistaken as to the truth. This, precisely, is what is important, what
the people believe in as their truth, where they believe it stands, how they see it,
what they hold to be their dearest wish, what they love, what they beseech of G od ,
what they pray for with tears. A nd the people's ideal is Christ.
In ancient times the embod iment of the fulness of this ideal could still be the
monastery, which was able to combine asceticism, self-abasement and ' poor rai-
ment' with love for the sorrowful and suffering world . But the monastery could
also be a little island of social justice, the idea of which was associated in ancient
times, or a mo ng the saints, with monasticism. T he abbot was often the confes-
sor, adviser and even the accuser of the Great Prince himself. Humility could go
together with firmness, and faith did not cut itself off from righteousness and
justice in the world . Perhaps it was necessary to renounce the world , to become
different from it, in order to hold firmly to and embod y righteousness in it;
hence, probably, Dostoevsky' s d ream, so 'strange' for the second half of the
nineteenth century, of the ' R ussian mo nk ' w h o , rather than the nihilist or the
revolutionary, should set about reforming R us' . Perhaps this d ream came before
its time.
But if w e take away from faith the sense of what is right, or the Gospel as a
standard to live by, w e get the most unalloyed servility, what used to be k no w n
as obsequiousness. T od ay, too, as in ancient times, faith is on the whole ad mis-
sible in so far as it is expressed only in church services and the performance of
ritual, but faith as absolute fidelity to Christ in every action and step taken in
life, in one' s moral and social position, is, as before, a miracle or a mark of sanc-
tity.
' W her e is my faith if I a m silent?' T hese word s of St Philip, Metropolitan of
Mo s c o w, were spoken to the face of one of the seemingly most pious but in real-
ity most ferocious of R ussian rulers. T his monarch was in no way opposed to
the ' observance of religious cults' or the 'satisfaction of religious need s' , as peo-
ple say nowad ays. He even displayed particular 2eal in the matter; only he dis-
liked it when the head s he had cut off were counted . St Philip could not recon-
cile his faith to these executions, and so he perished, not just for his faith, but
for the justice of that faith. He spoke word s that expressed its very essence, for
they bring together the mystery of the Bod y and Blood of the Lord with the
mystery of brotherhood and mercy. ' Here w e offer the bloodless sacrifice, but
outside the sanctuary guiltless Christian blood is being shed ' , he once flung in
the Tsar' s face. If w e today had been able to repeat these word s, or rather to
bring together these two mysteries, to take the liturgy as the c o mmo n work of
172 Vladimir Zitlinksy
love for G od and our neighbour, Rus' would have remained holy until now.
But let us not forget either that before he was strangled by Ivan the Terrible's
executioner, Metropolitan Philiphad been condemned by his brother bishops.
It must be said that St Philip's exploit was rare in Rus' , but it was followed
in their own way bymany confessors of the twentieth century, of wh om
Patriarch Tikhon should be named as the first. In his post-revolutionary epistles
we feel the same strength, the same fearlessness, the same readiness to call
things by their proper names. ' W e wished to create a paradise on earth, but
without G od and His holycommandments. G od is not mocked. And now we
hunger and thirst and are naked in a land that is blessed with plentiful gifts'
(from the Epistle of 8 August 1918). 'Whatever names evil deeds may be hidden
under, murder, violence and robbery will always remain serious sins and crimes
that cry out to Heaven' (26 October 1918). Patriarch Tikhon later had to retract
many of these and similar words, as others had to pay for them with their blood,
but truth does not lose its lustre even when it is denied. Today it is knocking
increasingly loudly, increasingly insistentlyat the doors even of unbelieving
souls and calling them to penitence, to acceptance of responsibilityfor their
past, and even to moral judgement. But it can bring forth true fruit onlywhe n it
is named aloud, in a voice not restrained by silence or politics, turning to the
source of all truth, in the name of which Patriarch Tikhon once spoke.
The accepted gift
Everything that man can do in his aspiration to attain holiness, even to per-
forming spiritual feats, is a human act. But he does not have the power to grant
himself holiness, which is the work of God. Man offers his gift toGod, but
whether it is accepted or not depends on God' s will.
'Holy Russia' is holyby virtue of the fact that we believe and know for sure
that her gift has been accepted, that it was pleasing toGod and hence is holy,
that is, sealed with the seal of the Holy Spirit.
' The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, good-
ness, mercy, faith, meekness [and] temperance' (Gal. 5:22-3). Let us add also
the gift of healing, which many Russian saints had, and also, of course, that of
miracle-working. Let us add too the gift of clairvoyance together with yet
another 'divined' type of Russian holiness - that of eldership. Eldership is a spe-
cial path of spiritual guidance, when in confession the disciple entrusts to his
chosen teacher all his human will, giving himself up totallyto his guidance,
confessing not only his visible sins but also his secret thoughts. Such a renuncia-
tion of one's will can be intolerable slavery if it is not founded on 'the liberty
wherewith Christ hath made us free' (Gal. 5:1), if it is not backed up by extraor-
dinary spiritual gifts, making this 'yoke' light and beneficial, for the will of the
elder and confessor becomes transparent and permeable tothe will of Christ
Himself. The gift of eldership is the gift of seeing another's soul in all its dark-
ness, the gift of seeing the spark of G od in it, the gift of healing it, and this gift
was so obvious that inthe last centurythe greatest Russian people sought the
advice of the elders of the Optina Wilderness. T wo such teachers - Paissius Vel-
ichkovsky (late eighteenth century) and Ambrose of Optina (late nineteenth
century) - were canonized at the most recent Local Council of the Russian
Orthodox Church.
But there are also especially grace-filled gifts which our tongue does not
even have the right to touch. It is all the more difficult to "speak of them because
the majorityof saints concealed them, and only a little in this field of direct con-
tact between man and him wh om we address inour prayers becomes known to
us.
The Russian saints had special devotion for the Mother of G od, and she
herself came down toher chosen ones. Thus she showed St Cyril of the W hite
Lake the way to this lake that was still unknown to him but where he was to go
in search of his salvation. And he obeyed her and, setting out for the lake, found
among the waters precisely that 'very fair' place which the Mother of G od her-
self had shown him ina vision.
Grace-filled visits of the Mother of G od run through the whole life-storyof
the Venerable Sergius, one of the greatest Russian saints. O nce the disciples of
the saint, serving the liturgywith him, saw a fourth priest, wh om theydid not
know, in the sanctuary. W h e n theyasked wh o he was, Sergius revealed his
secret to them: he always served together with an Angel of the Lord. But whe n
he told them this, he ordered them not to tell anyone about this miracle. O ne of
St Sergius's disciples, Isaac, asked his blessing tomake a vow of perpetual
silence. And whe n his teacher blessed him, 'a great flame proceeded from his
hand and completely enveloped Isaac'.
W e do not yet know properly, and shall probably never know, the secret of
these visits, but we see that the Kingdom of G od and those wh o dwell in it
come down to earth visibly. Their land is the very personalityof the Saint, his
life, his prayer, his liturgy, in a word, his very holiness, in which all the fulness
of the Church is expressed. It was granted to one of the most recent saints, Sera-
phim of Sarov, to express the enigma of this holiness in a few words. The aim of
Christian life (which is preciselythe achievement of holiness) is the acquisition
of the Holy Spirit, and all the rest is done for this purpose: fasting, prayer, vigil,
alms and all the good deeds that we do for Christ's sake. St Seraphim says that
prayer is what helps the most in this acquisition, but whe n the Holy Spirit des-
cends one should cease praying. Penitence ceases, our gift has been accepted and
we are already inthe Kingdom of Heaven, which has found its dwelling in us.
In St Seraphim's short talk about the acquisition of the Spirit, it was as if
centuries of monastic silence had begun tospeak: the fear of G od, penitence,
174
Vladimir Zielinksy
the gift of tears - all this was transformed into joy. Not for nothing did Sera-
phim meet everyone wh o came to him with the paschal greeting, 'Christ is
risen, my joy!' H e expressed in himself the mystery of monasticism, the mystery
of holiness, known before him only toG od and the angels wh o serve him. The
essence of this mystery is that all offerings toGod, all exploits and gifts accum-
ulated in the Church, all martyrs, hermits, unmercenary physicians and monas-
tics observing the vow of silence, wh o are known to none - no things, nor per-
sons, are lost for the Church but remain in her memory and are invisibly
present when commemorated. And when the time comes this memory will
express itself by the lips of one of the last saints. There is such a thing as the
inner development of the Spirit that is always 'rewarded', not in the worldly
sense, but on the level of the economy of the Church, in the mystery of salva-
tion. But in this accumulation there is no 'history' in the traditional sense. ' The
Spirit breathes where it wills.' It may dry up for several centuries, or burst out
afresh and pour forth quite suddenly.
Can any link be found between the Holy Spirit, expressed in the words and
experience of St Seraphim, and the witness of a martyr of the twentieth century?
Logicallyit would seem not, but from the point of view of the economy of the
Spirit this link exists for ' noman can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy
Ghost' (1 Cor. 12:3). Confession and martyrdom mean truly calling the name of
Jesus, coming from the ancient Church. And this confession as calling also con-
tributed to that 'accumulation' of the Spirit that was acquired by Russian holi-
ness. This 'luggage' has practicallynot been opened yet. W ith what outpouring
of holiness will the twenty-first centurymeet us, wh o will be the saints of
tomorrow, the heirs of the millennial gift of 'Holy Russia? Russia has her tradi-
tion, but there is also freedom. ' The Spirit breathes where it wills.'
The eschatological enigma of 'Holy Russia'
I have not yet said anything about holy bishops, about the holy princes of
ancient times, about holywome n. I have not said anything either about fools
for Christ, wh o renounced reason, seemliness, the 'middle way' in life and
sometimes even the outer virtues, for the sake of that same 'poor raiment',
which alreadycovered their entire existence and not infrequentlyaroused dis-
gust and mockery. But the fools for Christ were also citizens of 'Holy Russia'. In
medieval societythey played the role of prophets, disturbers of calm and at the
same time blessed ones, 'fools', wh o spoke the truth to all, and this truth was
often completely defenceless before the world and at the same time threatening
to it and frightening. Many of them lived as if close to some apocalyptic fire,
they had the gift of recognizing evil spirits which they oftensaw under the mask
of prosperityand piety. The lives of the earliest fools for Christ say that they
were Germans or aliens, and if this is a legend it can be seen as a reflection of
their condition of aliens to the life surrounding them, of pilgrims on the earth.
Whether theywere Germans or not, in any case they expressed the Russian feel-
ing of the precariousness of existence on earth and the eschatological state of
being doomed that the earth imposed.
The work done by the fools for Christ was in principle the same as that of
the hermits of the forest and other wildernesses. The hermits retreated to their
wildernesses, while the holy fools lived in the cities, among the crowds, in the
market places, but each of them - the hermits by their withdrawal and work of
prayer and the holy fools by their homeless 'foolishness' - reminded the world
of Christ's words: ' My kingdom is not of this world' (John, 18:36). They
recalled this as much by their torn clothing, their chains clanking on their bare
shoulders, and their bare feet fearing neither ice nor snow, as by their prophe-
cies and denunciations.
The kingdom of God comes 'in power' and is revealed through the saints,
but it does not come 'in a perceptible way' and does not say 'it is here' or 'it is
there'. For behold, 'the Kingdom of G od is within you' (Luke 17:21). 'Holy
Russia' is an image, or rather one of many images of this invisible Kingdom; it
lives within sinful Russia, historical Russia, and it is never possible to say of it
that 'it is here' or 'it is there'. It is a symbol and not some materialized reality
and, so as not to forget this, we always write these words within invertedcom-
mas.
For when reduced to something one can place one's finger on, in terms of
'it is here' at a certain place, at a certain time, in certain forms - let us say in a
particular ascetic discipline, in external practices, in the observance of proper
liturgical forms and in proper ecclesiastical order, finallyin the symphony bet-
ween the Church and Kingdom, in' Moscow the ThirdRome ' - 'Holy Russia'
proved in the final analysis not to be holy at all. Then from the 'letter' of holi-
ness its spirit took flight, and then the pursuit and search for it began, seeking it
in ancient Rus' , in the idea of 'the God-bearing people', in the idealized peasant
commune, in the idealized power of the Tsar; in a word some earthlydwelling
of 'Holy Russia' was sought, but the house often turned out to be empty.
This was the tragedy of 'Josephism', of that direction inChurch life that
took its inspiration from St Joseph of Volokolamsk (1439-1515). Its essence was
in the sanctification of a fixed earthlyorder, first of all as the magnificence of
the Church, as strictness of liturgical practice and monastic discipline, in which
every step and gesture is provided for and described. Such an order required
power and control of the world, its forced sacralization, inwhich the Church
could and had to torture and execute heretics, and the monastery had toown
villages and serfs. By the sacralization of order and ecclesiastical orderliness,
Joseph wished, as it were, to overcome the sin and chaos of the world, but in the
final analysis brought greater sin and greater chaos into the world. A century
176 Vladimir Zielinksy
and a half after the victoryof Joseph's followers over the 'non-possessors', the
followers of St Nil of Sora, those same hermits wh o retreated into the forest and
dissolved in it, in the midst of those same followers of Joseph the great schism
took place which struck and deprived the entire Russian Church of its strength.
'Holy Russia' can even be frighteningwhen it becomes an idol that can be
touched and before which one can bow down as such. But it would also be
wrong to reduce it nostalgicallyto some memory that has melted away. It is first
of all a radiance of spiritual beauty. The experience of the Christian East is
founded on the Philokalia, that is, love of good, love of the beauty created by
G od that can be discovered and at the same time built byman. The world, in
the words of St Maxim the Confessor, is called on to become 'the burning bush
that is not consumed, suffused with the light of God' . It should become a cos-
mic liturgysolemnized throughout all creation. Perhaps 'Holy Russia' is this
very cosmic liturgy, that is invisiblysolemnized in the heart of the Russian
Church, within its 1,000 years of history. It is the secret rhythm of this history,
itsh ymn and its symbol.
The symbol is the ring that was broken by friends before parting as a pledge
of their future meeting. 'Holy Russia' is only half the ring, and the other half we
will not find on earth. It is the eschatological theme of Russia, its preparation
for 'the life of the world tocome' .
Eschatology teaches about the end of time, but it is closely linked to the his-
toryof holiness which, accumulated in time, simultaneouslyovercomes it. It is
gathered in small crumbs - and not necessarilyonlyfrom saints - and remains
in the memory of the Church. Holiness determines from within the face of the
country, the personality of a nation, and the meaning, exploit and aim of
national life can be determined as the patient and penitent search for this perso-
nality - within the verybosom of the Most Holy Trinity. Naturally this path
and this search are as far from any nationalism as they are from any heathen
idol.
Seclusion. Silence. Ascesis and the labour of prayer. 'Poor raiment', renun-
ciation of the gloryand sweetness of the world and compassion for all creation.
The gift of tears, the tears of penitence. Faithfulness to Christ in everything and
unto death. Martyrdom, non-resistance to evil and resistance to unrighteous-
ness, social exploits. Humility, meekness, the ' warmth of God' , driving out
human passions. Service to one's neighbour and the abilityto rejoice in beauty,
the pitch and 'musical conformity' of the whole cosmos, of all creation. And
finallythe appearance of angels, the visits of the Most Holy Mother of God, the
acquisition of the Holy Spirit. All this is the gift of newly baptized Russia,
revealed by her and accomplished by her. Nor let us forget the spiritualization
of nature, outer ?.rt and inner art, sacred art and so much else.
This gift will open out to the full in the future - under a new heaven and on
a new earth. Then every 'not yet' about which Blok spoke will be wiped away
The gift and enigma of 'Holy Russia'
177
and Russia will discover her genius and her personality, created throughout the
course of her entire earthly history. She will become the radiance of that Spirit
that was accumulated over all the centuries or millennia of her holiness.
The genesis and permanence
of 'Holy Russia'
Dimitri Schakhovskoy
W henever we speak of 'Holy Russia' we do so undoubtedly because no other
term can do greater justice to the tremendous significance of the celebration of
the Millennium of its baptism which is bound to reverberate in people's minds
for a long time as part of a new-found sense of awareness. Those two words,
'Holy Russia', summon up the past, present and future of a country that can
only find fulfilment by resurrecting the alliance concluded on the banks of the
Dnieper in 988.
Russia comes first, followed by holiness. There is evidence of the term
'Russian' from the very beginning, more specificallyin a monument of the
country's literature dating from the first half of the eleventh century, The Sermon
on Law and Grace delivered by Metropolitan Hilarin
1
(c. 1049/50),
2
which me n-
tions a single land, thenceforth known as Rus' andRossia.
3
Hilarin stressed that
the first Russian princes and Vladimir 'were not rulers of a miserable and igno-
rant land, but rather of the Russian land that is known and famed to the very
ends of the earth'.
[Vladimir] became the ruler of his land and subdued theneighbouring peoples,. . .
he embraced the Christian faith and converted the whole country to Christianity...
and ordained that his entire people should be baptized in the name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Ghost in order that the name of the Holy Trinityshould
be worshipped openly and aloud in everytown Thus our whole land began
with one accord to praise Christ with the Father and the Holy Ghost.
4
N ow it is clear that, even if initiallythe term referred to the Kiev region, con-
temporaries such as Hilarin understood it as meaning the whole territory
governed by St Vladimir's descendants. Awareness of this unityis even more
pronounced in the work of his great-grandson Vladimir Monomakh.
5
His con-
180 Dimitri Schakhovskqy
cern for the welfare of the Russian land led him to forgive Prince Oleg Svyatos-
lavovich of Chernigov, his cousin, for the death of his own son.
6
At that time,
this unitywas cultural as well as political. This is best borne out in architecture,
art and literature. Despite obvious differences, which were only to be expected
over such a vast area, there is no doubt as to the existence of linguistic unity
because the literaryheritage is common. Differentiation appeared some time
later, and was due mainly to a particular historical context, that of the Mongol
invasion and Polish-Lithuanian ascendancy. The question should be asked,
however, as to what the forces were that bound this vast territorytogether. It
was in fact a single andc ommon spiritual awareness rooted in the conversion
that was the driving force behind the building of churches dedicated first and
foremost to the Holy Mother of G od and to St Sophia (the Divine W isdom) at
the two extremities of this territoryat Kiev and Novgorod; a religious tradition
that, as pointed out by Hilarin, could already describe itself as Orthodox in so
far as, despite the fact that there was as yet no official division, the process of
schism had long been at work in the Churches and even more so since the start
of the ninth century. Vladimir's merit is particularlygreat in that 'above all he
had constantly heard talk of Greece and its Orthodox faith, unwavering in its
love of Christ; and... that both in Orthodox villages and in towns, all were zea-
lous in prayer and remained standing in the presence of God' .
7
Hilarin pays
homage to Prince Vladimir for not having separated substance from form and
thanks him for a heritage which he defines as Orthodox:
Rome praises Peter and Paul through wh om it received faith in Jesus Christ, the Son
of God; Asia, Ephesus and Patmos praise St John the Divine; India praises St Tho-
mas; Egypt praises St Mark; the whole world, each cityand nation, honours and
glorifies its masters who taught it the Orthodox faith. W e too, as far as lies in our
power, sing praises, however insufficient, to our master and preceptor . . . Vladi-
mir.
8
This allowed him to exclaim before anyone else: 'Rejoice, apostle among sove-
reigns.'
9
Thus, in addition to its importance, Vladimir's choice was a guarantee
of the unity of the new state that had just been formed and gave it a definite
place in the structure of medieval Europe. The alliances formed by his posterity
bear this out.
10
In geographical terms, historians define this territoryas an area bound by
the Carpathians, the Baltic Sea and the junction of the Volga and the O ka. Its
political unitywas ensured by a single dynasty, that of the Rurikids. It began to
break up following the death of Yaroslav the W ise, the process being hastened
by the Mongol conquest and further still by the transfer of the western part of
this Russian territoryto Lithuanian, later Polish-Lithuanian and, finally, Polish
control, representing an occupation that was to have considerable linguistic and
other repercussions. However, whatever terms are used to designate one or
other of these parts, whether white, black, red, great, small, border or any other,
there is a single c ommon denominator, the adjective 'Russian' and the term
Rus', Rossia (Russia), united around Moscow."
It is essential at this point to look back at history. In the thirteenth century
the imposition of the Mongol yoke had the effect of cutting off almost the
whole of Russia from the rest of Europe in the same way as the separation of the
Churches, now made more painful by the shock of the sack of Constantinople
by the Crusaders (1204). Russia, accustomed to threat from the Asian steppes,
found itself exposed to assaults from the W est which endangered its identity.
The ambiguous policyof Prince Daniel Romanovich of Galicia foreshadowed
the situation in which Byzantium was to find itself two centuries later. Prince
Alexander Nevsky's victories preserved the identityof northern Russia. Both
these factors account for the attraction felt for these northern regions byMetro-
politan Cyril of Kiev, a Galician whose investiture was the work of his prince,
and finallyfor the choice of Vladimir-on-the-Klyazma, and later Moscow, as
the Kievan Metropolitan See by an ecclesiastical authority hailing from the
south.
Ancient Russia was alreadydivided by the expansion of the young Lithua-
nian principality, which, with its annexations, was encountering Orthodoxy.
Its successes were to bring it, somewhat in the lead, into competition with the
principalityof Moscow in the process of accumulating territory. An alliance
with the Mongols and its accord with Poland compromised its chances, espe-
ciallyonce religious proselytism led to the emigration of the members of the
Lithuanian-Russian lite toMoscow.
1 2
The final turning-point was the rejection
of the Council of Florence byMoscow in 1441. The marriage of Ivan III and
Sophia Palaeologue crystallized once and for all the aspirations of the ne w state,
while Russia's vocation to holiness was to be the outcome of these trials. The
attachment to a single Church was to bind it in a ne w unityand protect its iden-
tity, at a critical mome nt, on the threshold of the seventeenth century, in its
confrontation with another Slavonic Messianism, the Latin one.
13
Bearing in mind the historical context, such a miraculous survival is due
above all to the Church and to an indestructible fidelityto the faith that had
been passed on by St Vladimir. Vladimir Monomakh in his day placed love of
one's neighbour above all other considerations.
14
At the time of the trials of the
Tartar yoke, Bishop Serapion of Vladimir said: ' W hat must we do to put an end
to the evils that torment us? Re me mbe r what is written in the holybooks: the
most important commandme nt of our Saviour himself is to love one another,
to have pityon each man, to love our neighbour as ourself.'
15
It was the Church
that maintained unbroken unitywith the Orthodox world, ensured the uncom-
promising defence of spiritual identityin the face of the non-Orthodox in the
W est and lent support to the age-old struggle against the Mongol yoke in the
East. This process was to find expression in the unification of Russian lands and
182 Dimitri Scbakbovskoy
principalities. However, spiritual concerns took precedence over temporal
ones, and one in particular: loyalty to the Orthodox faith. It had a very special
meaning. It united clergyand laity. In the view of the Elder Philotheus,
16
Joseph
of Volokolamsk and Metropolitan Macarius, the Tsar was the protector of
Orthodoxy:
17
' You, Lord, have been chosen byG od to take his place on earth
and he raised you to the throne, entrusting to you the protection and life of all
of great Orthodoxy.'
18
O n the other hand, an unjust ruler 'is not the servant of
G od, but of the devil'.
19
Ivan IV addressed the Council of the Hundred Chapters,
20
calling on all the
saints, and particularlythe Russian saints, in the following words:
Through the intercession ... of all the pious tsars, all the believing Orthodox tsarit-
sas who have fought to defend the faith; of the saints and great miracle-workers
who, on the soil of Great Russia, are noted for their miracles;... of all the martyrs,
all the venerable monastics, all those who have donned spiritual poverty for Christ;
of the whole royal family, the princes and boyars; of all the Orthodox Christians
who have shone forth by their good works andwh om God has glorified through
great miracles; of the great miracle-workers who have won renown in more recent
times in the Russian kingdom that I hold from God and from my forebears; of all
the saints who, since the creation of the world, have been pleasing toGod:
21
. . . I
pray and call to witness Our Lord Jesus Christ, the apostles, his divine disciples, the
seven venerable Ecumenical Councils, the local holy councils and all those vener-
able saints whose names I have invoked. In the name of God, set your hearts to res-
toring our Christian faith, true and untainted, to reforming, faithful to the Holy
Scriptures, our Church, to applying the rule of proper laws in the kingdom, to esta-
blishing order in the country in order to enlighten and revive our immortal souls,
all of which hail from a single source, so as to confirm the true Orthodox Christian
faith, to place it on unshakable foundations from generation to generation through
all the length of centuries, and to protect it against the devouring wolves, against
the malice of its enemies.
22
... I am your son: instruct me , teach me all the pious
practices, tell me how praiseworthy it is for a Tsar to establish just laws in his king-
dom, to live in the true faith and in purity. May my brother, may all the princes, all
the boyars, all the Orthodox Christians be the object of your patient attention: teach
them wisdom, open their eyes, instruct them so that theymay observe, beyond
reproach, the true Christian law.
23
Faithful to the principles expressed above, he commits himself in his own name
and in the name of all his subjects:
Remember the commitment you subscribed to in the Holy Church at the time of
your investiture: 'If the princes and boyars orderedme to act contraryto the laws of
the Holy Fathers, if the sovereign himself were to compel me to such an act, even if
I were threatened with death, I should not obeythem.' As you see, bishops are ready
to face even death in order to defend Christ's law.
24
If, at the instigation of demons, and through neglect on your part, a dubious
thought becomes entwined with the divine laws in our Christian legislation, and no
voice is heard todenounce it, I have no share in your error: you yourselves will
answer for it on the day of the terrible judgement.
If my resistance to your unanimous feelings should run counter to the dictates of
divine law, do not remain silent; if I disobeyyou, exercise your interdiction fear-
lesslyto ensure the life of my soul and ofthat of all my subjects, to maintain in all its
puritythe true Orthodox Christian law, so that it may bring victoryto the august
name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, now and in time to come, for ever
and ever. Ame n.
25
This iswh y, because of persecutions that had grown intolerable following the
unilateral union of Brest-Litovsk (1596), the restoration of Great Russia became
inevitable; the declaration of Bogdan Khmelnitsky during the Rada of Pereyas-
lav (1654) left no room for doubt on that score:
W e are living without a ruler in our country, spilling our blood in endless combats
with our oppressors and enemies who are set on wiping out the Church of God so
that the designation Russianmay never again be pronounced in our land. W e are all
weary of this state of affairs and realize that we cannot go on living without a Tsar.
The only possible candidature was that of the ' Orthodox ruler of Great Russia,
Alexis Mikhailovich, Great Prince of all Rus' and autocratic Tsar of the East'.
The Polish alternative was not viable since ' none of you need to be reminded of
the slaverywe have suffered under them, nor of the Christian blood that has
been pitilessly spilled bythese oppressors!' This 'great Orthodox Christian
ruler, Tsar of the East, has the same devotion as ourselves for the Greek law, the
same religion; we constitute one and the same body of the Orthodox Church of
Great Russia with Jesus Christ at its head*. The response was immediate, with
the 'entire people' clamouring: ' W e prefer to die under the unwavering protec-
tion of the Orthodox Tsar of the East in our fervent faith rather than obey a
pagan enemy of Christ', and adding: 'Let G od confirm, let G od strengthen this
decision, so that we may be reunited for ever more' .
26
It is clear that, while not
excluding the ethnic aspect, the restoration of the territoryof ancient Russia
was due to a denominational awareness that had merelybeen heightened by the
Union of Brest-Litovsk.
Is it then possible to speak of the existence of national awareness? In the
sixteenth centuryIvan IV had been a candidate to the Polish throne. At the
beginning of the seventeenth centuryMoscow had offered the throne to Vladis-
lav, the son of the King of Poland. The only obstacle was a denominational one.
That iswh y we have to speak of a unique religious consciousness that from the
fifteenth century linked the adjective ' Holy' with the name of 'Russia'. This per-
ception is due above all to the fact that, until the seventeenth century, the main
concern of Russian societywas of an eschatological nature and found exprs-
184 Dint i tri Scbakbovskoy
sion in the ideology of the Third Rome , formulated by the Elder Philotheus in
his epistle to Vasily III of Moscow:
It is meet, Tsar, that you keep the realm in the fear of God. . . . Do not, Tsar, go
against the commandment instituted by your ancestors: Constantine, the blessed St
Vladimir, the great Yaroslav chosen byGod and the other blessed saints of the stock
from which you yourself come . . . . And if you order your realm rightly, you shall be
a son of light and citizen of the Heavenly Jerusalem, and I recall to you once again
what I wrote above: listen and remember, most pious Tsar, that all the Christian
kingdoms have gathered in your kingdom, that two Romes have fallen, but that the
third still stands and that there can never be a fourth: your Christian kingdom will
never be replaced by any other.
27
Th e idea of salvation is uppermost. Th e expression of this attitude, which can
be found at the beginning of the seventeenth centuryin the service to St Sophia
(the Divine W isdom),
2 8
foreshadows the philosophical quests of the intelligent-
sia at the end of the eighteenth century.
29
The changes that took place in Russia during the Age of Enlightenment
had a divisive effect on the mentalityof Russian society. Support for W estern
philosophical systems did not preclude a desire for spiritualityand led some ,
such as Novikov, to seek to assuage it in Freemasonry. This crisis imposed a
return to primary sources and a redefining of ecclesiologybylaymen: hence the
considerable merit of the thinking of Kh omyakov and the Slavophiles in the
nineteenth century. A man as well informed as Chaadaev could not helpdream-
ing that
Russia had the formidable task of fulfilling, before any other land, all the promises
of Christianitybecause Christianity there had remained untainted by contact with
the passions of me n and worldly interests, because it had, like its divine Founder,
restricted its action to prayer and humilityand because it was probably for that rea-
son that it would be the object of his last and most wonderful inspirations.
30
In this way, despite the shift from ' Holy' to ' Great' Russia, the ideal remained
and was kept alive by such great monastic centres as Optina.
31
Th e greatest Rus-
sian writers, Gogol, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, looked to it to satisfy their thirst
for spirituality. After 1917, Optina 'is dying, slipping into a profound winter
sleep. The cycle of its life, of its blossoming, of its fecundityis ended. Will there
be a ne w spring? Will warmth and love ever breathe again? Will Optina Pustyn'
ever reawaken to life? G od alone knows' , wrote Fr Chetverikov in 1925.
32
This
year of the celebration of the Millennium of the baptism of Rus' , Optina has
been restored to the Church and this media event forms a bridge between past
and future.
Literature too is part of this process and poetry in particular provides
incomparable examples of this. The best known illustration of this perception is
undoubtedly to be found in the following verses byTyuchev:
These impoverished villages,
This frugal nature,
Dear and long-suffering land,
You are the land of the Russian people!
The foreigner's proud glance
Could never grasp or even notice
W hat appears and gleams secretly
Through your humble nakedness.
Weighed down by the burden of the cross,
From end to end, O native land,
Under the guise of bondage, the King of Heaven
Has walked over you, blessing you.
33
' Holy Russia' and 'Great Russia' are found not only in the research and dis-
cussions of Slavophiles and Westernists, but in all ranks of society.
The Church and the authorities were fullyaware of this wh e n the Council
of Uniate Bishops, meeting at Polotsk for OrthodoxyW e e k on 12 February 1839
- a meeting inspired by the exalted life of Abbot Athanasius Filippovich
34
-
solemnly decided to return to the bosom of the Mother Church and the Tsar
gave his consent to this, writing: T thank G od and accept', and a medal was
struck bearing the inscription: 'Separated by force (1596), reunited by love
(1839)';
35
so too in the manifesto of the liberation of the serfs in 1861 ending
with the following words: ' Make the sign of the cross, Orthodox people, and
with us call down God' s blessing on your free labour, the pledge of the well-
being of your households and of the good of society.'
36
Here too the terminol-
ogy stresses the link between 'Russia' and ' Orthodoxy' and throws additional
light on Belinsky's words:
Yes, the conscience of the Russian people fuses marvellously into the word 'Tsar':
for them this word is filled with poetryand wondrous meaning. . . . The Tsar em-
bodies out freedom because from him springs our new civilization and our education
as well as our life .... Every stepforward by the Russian people, every act of social
development has invariablybeen an act of the Tsar's authority; yet that authority
has never been abstract or capriciously arbitrarysince, mysteriously, it has always
been as one with the purposes of providence . . . , it is time we realized that we have
a reasonable right to take pride in our love for the Tsar, in our boundless submission
to his sacred will in much the same way as the English are proud of their state sys-
tem of government and the North American States proud of their liberty. . . the
mysterious seed, root, substance and living pulse of the life of our people are all con-
veyed by the word 'Tsar'.
37
186 Dimitri Scbakbovskoy
In 1877 the whole of Russian societywas electrified by the liberation of the Bal-
kans from the Ottoman yoke that had heaped up Christian skulls under the
indifferent eye of a Europe absorbed above all in an illusoryEuropean balance
of power. It may quite justlybe pointed out that, on the eve of the upheavals
that the following centurywas to bring, Russia was alreadywell aware of the
problems at issue. In1898, Tsar Nicholas II organized the Hague Conference in
an attempt to halt the unceasing arms build-up inEurope.
38
It was this act that
led to the foundation of the international organizations of our day. For many
people, however, such as the poet Alexander Blok, the dark side of the nine-
teenth centurywas none other than the triumph of abstract, materialistic and
economic ideas that eclipsed the renaissance of a Christian philosophical
thought whose hour hadcome.
39
The ideal of' Holy Russia' remained. Nicholas
II gave an example of this whe n he found he had to put an end to the onomato-
dox
4(J
quarrel on the eve of Easter 1914:
At this feast of feasts when the hearts of the faithful reach out in love to God and
their fellow men, my heart bleeds for the Athonite monks deprived of the joy of
communing with the sacred mysteries and the consolation of attending church. Let
us put this quarrel behindus, for it is not for us to judge that most holy of treasures,
the N ame of God, and therebydraw down the wrath of God on our fatherland.
41
That was only a few years before the restoration of the Patriarchate.
The beginning of the twentieth century was indeed marked by a renewal
and a tension to be found in the great minds of the time such as Florensky, Bul-
gakov, Berdyaev and a host of others. The period was also marked by a sense of
foreboding as to the spiritual and historic identity of Russia. This comes
through in the verses of Alexander Blok and other poets:
Those who were born in the dark years
Cannot recall their way,
W e are the children of Russia's terrible years,
Without the strength to forget the least thing,
Years of fire, are you the harbinger
of madness or of hope? . . .
Those who are more worthy, O God, O God,
May theyknow Thy kingdom!
42
W h e n the magazine Put' {The Path) was founded, Berdyaev, as a philosopher,
and then Kartashev, as a Church historian, with a few others were well able to
see and express the currents that the spirit of ' Holy Russia' was to follow. All
the more so because they at once strove todraw lessons from the trials they had
been through from 1914 to 1922. The existence of the St Serge Theological Insti-
tute in Paris testifies to this. Unequivocal proofs are the survival of the Russian
Church, its martyrdom and resurgence and the celebration of its first thousand
years.
43
Its influence cannot, however, be accounted for merely by the perpet-
uation of a particular heritage. In this regard, the part played byL. Zander, a
pioneer of ecumenism, is frequentlyoverlooked. The all-round development of
Orthodoxywas ensured not only by these children of 'Holy Russia', but also by
the next generation, as much in the field of theology with Vladimir Lossky as in
that of the study of icons with Leonid Ouspensky.
To explain this awareness, we have to return to the source, to the circum-
stances of the baptism of the Russian land as described in Metropolitan Hila-
rion'sSermon on Law and Grace:
Remember us, O Lord, when thou comest into thyKingdom. In this manner, by
believing in him and maintaining the tradition of the Holy Fathers of the Seven
Councils, we pray to God again and again to urge and guide us in the path of his
commandments.
44
This is both a legacy and a duty. H e stresses this by passing into direct speech in
his prayer to St Vladimir:
Look at thy grandchildren and great-grandchildren, at how theyare living, how the
Lord protects them, how theykeep the true faith that thou didst entrust to them.
45
... Pray to the Lord for the land and for the men that thou dost rule, inspired by the
faith, so that thou mayest keep them in peace and in the true faith, received from
thee; so that the true faith may be glorified in them and all heresy accursed.
46
Hilarin returns to this in his prayer:
W e shall not raise our hands to another god, we shall not follow any false prophet,
we shall not believe in any heretical doctrine. . . . And, at thy dread judgement,
grant that we may stand at thy right hand and that we may share in the blessing of
the just. And as long as the world continues, do not let assaults and temptations rain
upon us, do not let us fall into alien hands so that thy citymay not be called a cap-
tive citynor thy flock called strangers in their own land . . . , make thyChurch to
grow; save thine inheritance.
47
W e find in these words a conscious expression of the calling to salvation of
which the ideal of the 'ThirdRome ' was to be the eschatological expression of
faithfulness, especiallyin adversity, to inherited tradition, and of the sig-
nificance attached to the evangelical law expressed by the martyrdom of Princes
Boris and Gleb and the writings of Vladimir Monomakh .
The testimony of faithfulness to that baptism was to be the legacy of St
Vladimir that may be defined as the conformity of rite to ecclesiological teach-
ing, the identityof the vehicle and what it conveys, the kernel of that spirit of
' Holy Russia' that is still with us today.
188 Dimitri Stbakbwskoy
NOTES
1. Le baptme de la Rous: Discours sur la Loi et la Grce par Hilarin de Kiev (Calendrier 1988)
[The Baptism of Rus': Sermon onLaw and Grace, by Hilarin of Kiev (Calendar
1988)], Milan, 1987. For quotations we shall refer to this edition, adding references
from the synodal version byA. M. Moldovan, Slovo o zakone i blagodati Ilariona [Ser-
mon onLaw and Grace, by Hilarin], pp. 78-100, Kiev, 1984, andIdejno-filosqfskoe
nasledie Ilariona Kievskogo [The Philosophical Heritage of Hilarin of Kiev], Parts 1-2,
pp. 11-41, Moscow, 1986.
2. V. Vodoff, La naissance de la chrtient russe [The Birth of Russian Christianity], p. 64,
Paris, 1988.
3. Evidence for the first comes mainlyfrom Arab sources and, for the second, from
Greek sources. O n the use of these terms, see ibid., p. 379.
4. Le baptme . . ., op. cit., pp. 30-32; Moldovan, Slovo . . ., op. cit., pp. 185a-186b.
5. For a French translation, see L. Lger, La Chronique dite de Nestor, translated from the
Russian-Slavonic text with an introduction and critical commentary, pp. 243-62,
Paris, 1884; for original text and Russian translation, see A. S. Orlov, Vladimir
Monomakh, Moscow/Leningrad, AN S S S R, 1949, republished inSlavistic Printings and
Reprintings, N o. 93, The Hague/Paris, Mouton, 1969. The most authoritative edition
is: D. S. Lihacev and B. A. Romanov (eds.) under the direction of V. P. Adrianova-
Peretc, Povest' vremennyh let [Tale of Bygone Years], Vols. 1-2, Moscow/Leningrad,
ANSSSR, 1950.
6. Ibid., pp. 258, 260.
7. Le baptme . . ., op. cit., p. 30; Moldovan, Slovo . . ., op. cit., pp. 185a-186a.
8. Le baptme . . ., op. cit., p. 84b; Moldovan, Slovo . . ., op. cit., p. 184b.
9. Le baptme . . ., op. cit., p. 46; Moldovan, Slovo . . ., op. cit., p. 193b.
10. The most complete study is N . de Baumgarten, 'Gnalogies et mariages occiden-
taux des Rurikides russes du X e au X HIe sicle [Genealogies and Western Marriages
of the Russian Rurikides from the Tenth to the Thirteenth Century]', Orientalia
Christiana (Rome), Vol. 35, 1927.
11. L. Niederle, La race slave. Statistique, dmographie, anthropologie [The Slav Race. Statistics,
Demography, Anthropology], p. 16, Paris, Alean, 1911, translated from the Czech
byL. Lger. For one of the best elucidations of this process, see I. I. Lappo, Zapad-
naja Rossija i ee soedinenie s Pol'seju v ih istoriceshomproslom [Western Russia and its Union
with Poland in their Historic Past], Prague, Plamja, 1924.
12. D. Schakhovskoy, 'Racines et milieu social de Tchaadaev [Roots and Social Back-
ground ofChuadncv]', Revue des tudes slaves (Paris), Vol. 55, N o. 2,1983, pp. 327 -34.
13. S. M. Solov'ev, Istoria Rossii s drevnejsih vremen [History of Russia Since its Origins],
Vol. 4, pp. 496-501, Moscow, Izd. Social'no-ekonomiceskoj Literatury, 1960;
Lappo, op. cit., p. 66.
14. Orlov, op. cit.
15. Pamjatniki literatury drevnej Rusi. XIII vek. [Works of Ancient Russian Literature, Thir-
teenth Century], pp. 48-9, Moscow, Hud. Lit., 1981; E . V. Petuhov, Serapion Vladi-
mirskij, russkijpropovednik XIII veka [Serapion of Vladimir, A Russian Preacher of the
Thirteenth Century], St Petersburg, 1884; M. Laran and J. Saussay, La Russie ancienne:
IXe-XVIIe sicle [Ancient Russia from the Ninth to the Seventeenth Century], p.
100 (Preface by F. Braudel), Paris, Masson, 197 5. (Series of Documents on the His-
tory of Civilizations.)
16. ' N ow, the holy Apostolic Church is that of the ne w, thirdRome , that of your all-
powerful kingdom, which, more splendid than the sun, makes the Orthodox Chris-
tian faith shine forth to the ends of the universe. May it be known to your Majesty,
most pious Tsar, that all the States of the Orthodox Christian faith are gathered
together in your kingdom: you alone are E mperor for Christians in this world.' -
Pamjatniki literatury drevnej Rusi. Konec X V - pervajapolovina XVI v [W orks of Old Rus-
sian Literature. From the Late Fifteenth to the First Half of the Sixteenth Century],
pp. 436-41, Moscow, H ud. Lit., 1984; V. Malinin, Starec Eleazarova monastyrja Filofej i
ego poslanija [The Elder Philotheus of the Eleazar Monastery and his Epistles], pp.
49-56, Kiev, Prilozenija, 1901; Laran and Saussay, op. cit., pp. 154-5.
17. V. V. Zen'kovskij, Istorija russkoj filosofii [History of Russian Philosophy], Vol. 1, p.
49, Paris, 1948.
18. B. Zenkovsky, Histoire de la philosophie russe [History of Russian Philosophy], Vol. 1, p.
46 (translatedfrom the Russian byC. Andronikoff), Paris, N RF, 1953.
19. Ibid., p. 47 .
20. Le Stoglav ou les cent chapitres. Recueil des dcisions de l'Assemble ecclsiastique de Moscou, 1551
[The Stoglav or Hundred Chapters. Collection of Decisions of the Church
Assembly of Moscow, 1551] (translation with introduction andcommentary byE .
Duchesne), Paris, Champion, 1920 (Bibliothque de l'Institut Franais de Petro-
grad). For original text, see Rossijskoe zakonodatel'stvo X - X X vehov. Zakonodatel'stvo
perioda obrazovanija i ukreplenija Russkogo centralizovannogo gosudarstva [Russian Legislation
from the Tenth to the Twentieth Century. Legislation of the Period of Formation
and Consolidation of the Centralized Russian State], Vol. 2, pp. 258-67, Moscow,
1985.
21. Ibid., pp. 8-9.
22. Ibid., p 10.
23. Ibid., p. 17.
24. Ibid., p. 18.
25. Ibid., p. 19.
26. Laran and Saussay, op. cit., pp. 284-5.
27. Malinin, op. cit.
28. C. Andronikoff, 'L'office de la Sophie Sagesse de Dieu [The Service to Sophia, The
W isdom of G od] ' , Liturgie, spiritualit, cultures. Confrences Saint-Serge, XXIXe semaine
d'tudes liturgiques [Liturgy, Spirituality, Culture. St Sergius Lectures, Twenty-ninth
W e e k of Liturgical Studies], Rome , Edizioni Liturgiche, 1983, pp. 17 -40.
29. D. M. Schakhovskoy, 'Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der russischen Intelligencija
(Ende 16./Anfang 17. Jh.)', inK. C. Felmy, G . Kretschmar, F. von Lilienfeld, and
C.-J. Roepke (eds.), Tausend Jahre Christentum in Russland [A Thousand Years of Chris-
tianityin Russia], pp. 377-90, Gttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988.
30. P. J. Caadaev, Sonenija i pis'ma [Works and Letters], Vol. 1, p. 258 (editedbyM. Ger-
senzon), Moscow, 1913.
31. S. Cetverikov, Optina Pustyn', 2nd ed., Paris,Y M C A Press, 1988; S. Cetverikov, Starec
190 Dimtri Sebakbovskoy
Paisij Velickovskij [The Elder Paissius Velichkovsky], Vols. 1-2, Pecery, 1938. For a
more complete version of the same work inRomania, see Paisie, Staretul Mnstiri
Neamtului din Moldava, Viata, invatatura si influenta lui asupra Bisericii Ortodoxe, 1933. See
articles byS. Cetverkov inPut': N o. 1, September 1925, pp. 99-115; N o. 3, March /
April 1926, pp. 65-83; N o. 7, April 1927, pp. 23-49; G . Florovskij, Puti russkogo
bogoslovija [The Paths of Russian Theology], 2nd ed., Paris, Y M C A Press, 1981; E .
Behr-Sigel, Prire et saintet dans l'Eglise russe [Prayer and Sanctity in the Russian
Church], pp. 222-3, N e w rev. and enl. ed., Paris, 1982 (Spiritualit orientale).
32. See articles by S. Cetverikov inPut, N o. 1, September 1925, p. 116.
33. F. I. Tjutcev, Polnoe sobranie stihotvorenij [Complete Poetic W orks], p. 201, Leningrad,
Sovetskij Pisatel' (Biblioteka poeta, bol'saja serija).
34. He was canonizedand is honoured by the Church as a martyr on 20 Julyand 5 Sep-
tember accordingto the Julian calendar - A. Korsunov, Afanasij Filippovic. Zizn itvor-
cestvo [Athanasius Filippovich, Life and W ork], Minsk, A N BS S R, 1965.
35. N . Tal'berg, htorija russkoj cerkvi [Historyof the Russian Church], p. 784, Jordanville,
N . Y . , Holy TrinityMonastery, 1959.
36. Khrestomatijapo istorii SSSR [Anthology on the History of the U S S R] , Vol. 3 (1857-
94), p. 71, Moscow, 1952.
37. V. G . Belinskij,Polnoe sobranie socinenij [Complete Works], Vol. 3, pp. 246-8, Moscow,
ANSSSR, 1953.
38. PS Z III. T. X X , N . 18540. Adapted from: S. G . Puskarev, Rossija v XIX veke 1801-
1914 [Russia inthe Nineteenth Century, 1801-1914], pp. 339-40, N e w York, 1956.
39. A. Blok, Sobranie socinenij [CollectedW orks], Vol. 3, pp. 295-344, 602-25, Moscow/
Leningrad, Hud. Lit., 1960; see also the poem 'Vozmezdie [Punishment]' in ibid.
40. For this question, see A. Nivire, ' Le mouvement onomatodoxe. U ne querelle tho-
logique parmi les moines russes du mont Athos (1907-14) [The Onomatodox
Movement. A Theological Dispute among the Russian Monks of Mount Athos
(1907-14)]', Vols. 1 and2, Paris, Sorbonne, 1987 (unpublished doctoral thesis).
41. The original text of this note is: 'V etot Prazdnik Prazdnikov kogda serdca verujuscih strem-
jatsja ljuboviju k Bogu i k blizjiim dusa moja skorbit ob afonskih inokah, u kotoryh otnjata radost'
priobssenija Sv\jatyh\ Tain i utesenie prebyvanija v brame. Zabudem rasprju ne namsudit' o vel-
icajsej svjatyne: Imeni Boziem i tern navlekat'gnev Gospoden' na rodinu; sud deduct otmenit' i vseh
inokov, po primeru rasporjazenija Mitrop[olita] Flaviana, razmestit' po monastyrjam, vozvratit'
im monaseskij san i razresit' im svjascennosluzfnie. ' Pripiska ot ruki: 'Soversenno sekreten. Gosu-
dar' ImperatorHeno izpolil peredat' etu sobstvennorueno im nacertannuju zapisku v Livadii 15
aprelja 1914 goda oberprokuror Svjatejsego Sinoda VladimirSabler. See CG I A S S S R, F. 7 97 ,
op. 83, d. 59, pp. 167 -9 and I. S. Kacnel'son, Po neizvedannym zemljam Efiopii [Over
the Unexplored Territories of Ethiopia], p. 187, Moscow, Nauka, 1975.
42. Blok, 'Vozmezdie', op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 278.
43. N . Berdjaev, 'Duhovnye zadaci russkoj emigracii [The Spiritual Tasks of the Russian
Emigration]',Put', No. 1, January1926, pp. 3-8; A. Kartasev, 'Cerkov' v ee istor-
iceskom ispolnenii [The Church in its Historical Expression]',Put', No. 47, April-
June 1935, pp. 15-27; N . Berdjaev, 'Russkij duhovnyj renessans nacalaX X v i zur-
nal Put' [The Russian Spiritual Renaissance of the Beginning of the Twentieth Cen-
tury and the Magazine Put"]' (On the tenth anniversary of Put
1
), Put', N o. 49,
October-December 1935, pp. 3-22; A. V. Kartasev, Vossozdanie Sv. Rust [The Resto-
ration of Holy Russia], Paris, 1956.
44. Le baptme . . ., op. cit., p. 26; Moldovan, Slovo . . ., op. cit., p. 183a.
45. Le baptme . . ., op. cit., p. 193a.
46. Le baptme . . ., op. cit., p. 48; Moldovan, Slovo . . ., op. cit., p. 194b.
47. Le baptme . . ., op. cit., p. 50; Moldovan, Slovo . . ., op. cit., pp. 198a-199a.
The image of Russian Christianity
in the West and the concept of 'Holy
Russia'
Frank Kmpfer
The land of Rus' during the time of the Tartar yoke, from 1240 to1480, may be
called the least-known country of Europe. W hat took place at the Ecumenical
Council in Florence in 1438-45, when the Byzantine and Catholic Churches
were striving towards union, can be seen as symbolic of this. The Russian dele-
gation was headed by a Greek, Metropolitan Isidore, a fervent advocate of
union. Nobody in Italytook any interest in the Russian members of the delega-
tion, and so they joined the small group of bitter opponents of union, without
attracting any attention.
From then until the beginning of the sixteenth century, ideas about Russia
and Russian Christianitywere formed under the influence of Polish clerics in
Rome and Papal legates in Poland, all of wh om were prolific polemicists and
propagandists of the Catholic faith. They raised the perennial conflict between
the Polish-Lithuanian and Muscovite states over the western territories of the
former Kievan Rus' to the dignityof a war between Europe and Asia, with
Poland conferring on herself the honorific title of 'front-line defences of Chris-
tianity' {antemurale Cbristianitatis).
O n the other side of these defences was Muscovy (Moscovia), a land of
schismatics and savages alien to the world of European civilization. Moscovia,
Moscovita, Moscoviticus, these political names are used to denote Orthodox
Russians under the rule of the Grand Duke of Moscow and as distinct from
those under the Polish-Lithuanian monarchy. In connection with this, the
remark of the celebratedGerman diplomat Siegmund von Herberstein on the
various distinctions in political terminology of Eastern Europe is very typical:
Principium, qui nunc Russiae imperant, primus est magnus dux Moscovviae, qui maiorum e/us par-
tem obttnet, secundus magnus dux hitvvaniae, tertius est rex Poloniae, qui nunc et Poloniae et
194 Frank Kmpfer
L.ithvvaniae praeest. (Of the princes who now rule Rus', the first is the Grand Duke of
Moscow, the second the Grand Duke of Lithuania and the third the King of
Poland, who now rules both Poland and Lithuania.)
1
Herberstein's book Commentary on the Affairs of Muscovy (abbreviated below as
Commentary) describes the political situation of the 1520s, whe n the Orthodox
Russian population was under the authorityof three states.
During the time of the Ge rman Reformation, ane w epoch began during
which the religion of the Russians attracted the interest of Western Europeans;
not only the curiosityof individual clerics, but also that of a wider public. In the
heat of the struggle between the old andnew forces of Christianityin the Holy
Roman Empire, both sides turned to Orthodoxy, possibly also in order to find
an allyin it. From the very beginning of the Reformation, in1519, during the
debate between Martin Luther and Johannes E ck in the cityof Leipzig, the
question of the significance of the Orthodox Church was raised. W h e n
Johannes Eck applied the expressions 'schismatics' and 'heretics' to the Ortho-
dox, Luther objected that it was impossible to reject somany saints from the
Church, for the Greek Church had stood firm for centuries and would be eter-
nal.
2
Information about Russian Orthodoxy spread in Western Europe as a
result of the diplomatic relations of the Grand Duke Vasily III (b. 1479, reigned
1505-33) with Western powers during the 1520s. Apart from their political
tasks, the Russian diplomats, wh o were extremely learned, also served as
sources of information for Europe, acquainting her with the mighty nation on
the other side of the Polish-Lithuanian-Livonian barrier. During his stayin
Rome in1523, the Russian interpreter Dimitri Gerasimov talked about the land
and customs of the Russians with the Italian humanist Paulius Jovius, wh o
reported this conversation in a well-known book, published in Basle in 1525,
entitledLibellus de legatione Basilii Magniprincipis Moscoviae ad dementem VII, Pontif-
icem Maximum, in qua situs Regionis antiquis incognitus, Religio gentis, mores et causae lega-
tionis fidelissime referuntur(Book on the Embassy of Vasily, Grand Duke of Muscovy, to
Pope Clement VII, Being a True Account of the Situation of the Country, Unknown to
Ancient Authors, the Religion and the Customs of this Tribe and of the Reasons forthe
Embassy). However Jovius was not particularly interested in Russian Christians,
he was concerned mainly with the state, the various peoples of the land and
their customs.
At the same time a major book about Russian Orthodoxycame into being
in the same way from a conversation between a Russian diplomat and a W est-
ern humanist. In1525, when the Russian embassywas resting in Tbingen after
a difficult journey in Spain and awaiting a letter of replyfrom Ferdinand of
Austria, one of the latter's counsellors, Doctor Johann Fabri, went to the Rus-
sian Ambassador to hand over gifts for the Grand Duke Vasily III. Making use
The image of Russian Christianity in the West 195
and the concept of 'Holy Russia'
of their stay inTbingen, Johann Fabri questioned the Russians in detail, in
particular the interpreter Vlas Ignat'ev. Shortly after the departure of the
embassy, at the beginning of 1526, in Basle, Fabri published a book on the reli-
gion of the Russians, Moscovitarum iuxta mare glaciale religio (The Religion of the Musco-
vites who Live nearthe Arctic Ocean)}
Th e interview inTbingen was far from successful, although the meeting
had been carefullyprepared. N ot for nothing was Dr Fabri among the most fer-
vent preachers of Catholicism and therefore a passionate opponent of Martin
Luther and other reformers of the Church. H e was concerned with discovering
the most important dogmas, rituals and religious customs of Russian Christian-
ity in order to use them in the struggle against the opponents of the Catholic
faith. Nevertheless, his was a highly significant work on this theme, marking a
ne w stage in relations between W estern and Russian Christianity.
This ne w stage which began with knowledge of Russian Orthodoxy was
distinguished not onlybyne w information about the life of the Russian Church
and the Russian faith, but also by a ne w feeling of sympathy and respect. Johann
Fabri, for example, was the first person in the W est to write with respect about
the Russians' veneration of icons, adding his own observations on the devo-
tional icons of the embassy. H e propagated the story that the Russian land had
received baptism from the Apostle Andre w, the brother of the Apostle Peter.
This legend was later confirmed byHerberstein:
Rutheni in annalibus suis aperteglorianturante Vvolodimerum et Olham terram Russiae esse bap-
tizfltam et benedictam ad Andrea Christi apostlo. (In their chronicles the Russians openly
glory in the fact that, before Vladimir and Olga, the Russian land was baptized and
blessed byAndrew, the Apostle of Christ.)
4
Fabri wrote that Russian Orthodoxy had not changed since that time, that the
Russian people, without the slightest wavering, kept firmly to the teachings of
the Apostles:
Constantiori taque animo quam plerique nostrum in hac prima fide perseverare soient, quam ab
apostlo Andrea, suisque successoribus, sanctisquepatribus didicerunt, atque ab ubere materno suxe-
runt. (Thus they - more constant in spirit thanmany of us - maintain this original
faith which theywere taught by the Apostle Andre w and his successors, the holy
fathers, and which theysucked from their mothers' breasts.)
5
This opinion is also found in Herberstein's book: Russia ut coepit ita in hum usque
diem in fide Christi ritu Graeco persvrt (Rus', as She Began, So She Maintains to the Pre-
sent Day the Faith of Christ of the Greek Rite).
6
It can be said that the works of Johann Fabri and Siegmund von Herberstein,
which were frequentlyrepublished in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,
while Herberstein's Commentary was also translated into other languages, spread
196 Frank Kmpfer
a very favourable idea of Russian Christianity. It goes without saying that in the
book of the eyewitness Herberstein, there is alsomuch that is critical. This is
very understandable, as after all we also find sharp criticism of Orthodox
societyin the Codices of Russian Church Councils, such as the Stoglav Sobor of
1551.
W hat was the nature of Russian Christianityat the time when the books of
Fabri and Herberstein were written? After the conquest of Constantinople by
the Turks in 1453, the Russian Church became the onlyOrthodox Church in
the world that was not under the Muslim yoke. W hat is more, the Russians con-
sidered that the Greek Church was no longer trulyOrthodox, as at the Council
of Florence in 1438-45 it had betrayed the Orthodox into the Union. Their feel-
ing of isolation slowly but surelychanged into an awareness of their own dig-
nity, expressed in the conceptions of ' Moscow as the ThirdRome ' and 'Holy
Russia' which embody the eschatological significance of Rus' and perhaps her
historical significance for the world as a whole.
Let us first consider the concept of 'Holy Russia'. This term appeared for
the first time in the epistle of the Elder Philotheus of Pskov to Vasily III (c.
1511). The learned Elder calls the Grand Duke 'the holder of the reins of
government of All Holy and Great Russia and the mother of the Churches'.
7
According to him, the source of the holiness of the Russian land is its status as a
chosen land in the latter days of world history.
Another sixteenth-century author, Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky, a
very pious man, but above all a Russian patriot in Polish emigration, and a pol-
itician bytemperament, in the 1570s (probably after 1578) uses the expressions
'the Holy Russian Empire', 'the Holy Russian Land' and 'the Empire of Holy
Russia'.
8
This is clearlyan echo of the political termSacrum Komanum Imperium
(HolyRoman Empire) which was well known to the Prince.
In what, exactly, did the holiness of the Russian soil consist for Prince
Kurbsky? During the hard times of the oprichnina of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, the
emigrant Prince Kurbsky lamented the faded pietyof Muscovite Rus' , in the
territories of which the churches and monasteries used to shine like the stars in
the skies.
9
'Holy Russia', a land filled with churches, monasteries and altogether
with every sort of pietyis something completely different from the 'Holy Rus-
sia' of the Pskov Elder Philotheus.
The Elder Philotheus of the Eleazar Wilderness (perhaps the monastic
name of the distinguished politician and 'free-thinker' Fedor Kuritsyn) deve-
loped and spread the theoryof ' Moscow as the ThirdRome ' , in which, as men-
tioned above, he called the Russian land by the Greek name 'Pcma', 'HolyRus-
sia'. This teaching he develops in his epistle to Vasily III in the following
words, ' May it be known to Your Majesty, O pious Tsar, that all the kingdoms
of the Orthodox Christian faith have come together in your single kingdom.
You alone are the King of Christians in this world.'
10
Later Philotheus sums up in a formula the whole of his teaching that the
Muscovite State (or, AS pars pro toto the capital cityof Moscow) is now the dwell-
ing-place of the Holy Spirit: ' For two Rome s have fallen, and the third one
stands, and there will not be a fourth.'
The Christianityof Rus' is now the defence of the Church Universal: ' N ow
in its Orthodox Christian faith, this Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of
the thirdne w Rome , of Your Majesty's kingdom, shines to the ends of the uni-
verse more brightlythan the sun.'
11
This teaching of the worldwide mission of the Russian Church permeated
the consciousness of Russians in the sixteenth century. Not for nothing was it
quoted in 1589 in the Act raising the Metropolitan See of Russia to the dignity
of a Patriarchate. The expression ' Holy Russia' has the same significance, albeit
without the connotations of universality.
As can be seen from the works of Johann Fabri and Siegmund von Herber-
stein, Westerners regarded the ' Holy Russia' of the time of Vasily III with
curiosityand critical interest. At the end of the reign of Ivan the Terrible (born
1530, reigned 1533-84) this was to change completely. The events of the long
and bloody war over Livonia aroused a wave of 'Russophobia' throughout the
W est, except in England. O n the other hand, English trading and diplomatic
observers in Muscovy did not show anysympathy for the religion of the Rus-
sians. From the point of view of Western creeds, Russian Orthodoxyamounted
to sumptuous ceremonies, rich monasteries, uneducated priests and an impov-
erished populace. Thus Western Europeans saw only an outer appearance,
devoid of spiritual life.
There is no need to saymuch about the Jesuit Antonio Possevino wh o,
having failed in 1581/82 to persuade Ivan the Terrible of the need for Church
union, later in his writings taxed Russian Orthodoxy with every error and
superstition.
It has to be admitted that in the eyes of learned Western travellers Russian
Christianitycould not but have appeared outdated. The Russians in no way
conformed to the criteria of the age of Western rationalism, whe n both Cath-
olic and Protestant bishops saw the basis of faith in the intellectual education of
the faithful. The struggle between the Church of Rome and northern European
Protestants was settled byknowledge, argument, deduction - but there was
none of this in Russian Orthodoxy. The haughty attitude of the Italian Posse-
vino, the Frenchman Jacques Margeret, the G e rman Adam Olearius and many
others, wh o looked down from the height of Western learning at the simple,
pious Russian people, is quite understandable.
To take an example of a well-meaning, but nevertheless mistaken, view of
the essence of Russian Christianity, the Jesuit Paulus Campana, a travelling
companion and helper of Antonio Possevino, spoke with great respect in his
198
Frank Kmpfer
report of the devoutness and pious life of Russian people and especiallymonks,
whose asceticism he describes most vividly:
Monachos enim hie castissimos, puros et uptime videos carnis macerationi et devotioni addictissi-
mos, itidem et episcopos et archiepiscopos et metropolitas - si excipias schisma - snete et pie,
caste viven et in magna proinde apud suos populos veneratione haberi. (You see monks com-
pletelychaste, pure, most given to the mortification of the flesh and to devotion and
similarlybishops and archbishops and metropolitans - if you excuse their schism -
livingholily, piously and chastely and for this reason held in great respect by their peo-
pie.)
Paulus Campana spoke with astonishment of the poverty of the monks,
tanta
enim est parsimonia, tanta victus frugalitas (for there is such poverty and such a
meagre life)', but his upringing prevented him being delighted at finding so
much self-abnegation and asceticism in the present age. It should be added that
Johann Fabri did express such delight, though he was not an eye-witness and
had only heard of it. Here is what Campana wrote on the subject:
Cum in magna veneratione sint apud populos fere eleemosine Ulis errogatae sumptus hos superant; sed
me miserai valde illorum, quod cum ad pietatis speciem ita educentur, nullam tarnen institutionem
habent; ignorantiam summam Ulis videos licet rerum omnium. (As they are greatlyrespected
by the people, their alms are far greater than the needs of their life. But I pitythem
greatly, for although they are brought up to this form of piety, yet theyhave no edu-
cation. Y ou can see their great ignorance in all matters.)
12
It seems tome that the example of the Jesuit Campana is very typical of the
point of view of a favourablydisposed Western European, who does not con-
ceal his positive impressions. Not only in the sixteenth century, but throughout
the whole age of rationalism and enlightenment, Western observers saw Rus-
sian Orthodox people as illiterate, uneducated, ill-read, unenlightened, lacking
in judgement and 'without words'. This evaluation is almost unquestioned, but
in view of the age-old anti-intellectualism of Orthodox monasticism, it is not to
the point because for them the essence of Christianityis not in knowledge or in
learning, but in love, humility and piety. I again quote the Elder Philotheus,
wh om one contemporarycompared toHomer:
I was not born inAthens,
nor did I studywith wise philosophers,
nor did I converse with anysuch;
I studied from the books of divine grace,
by which I might save my sinful soul . . . '
,3
W isdom does not consist in speaking, but inknowing when to speak: be silent
according to reason, speak according to reason! Think before you speak and
answer appropriately! Do not boast of your wisdom, for no one knows any-
thing. The final aim is to reproach oneself and hold oneself inferior to all.
14
Being wise, rather than knowing, being silent and listening, not speaking; being humble,
not boasting - these are the precepts of the Elder Philotheus.
In summing up the first century of close acquaintance of Western Europe
with Russian Christianity, it may be said that Russian Orthodox people began
to feel not only isolated but exceptional, the people of 'the ThirdRome ' , of
' Holy Russia'. Westerners without exception saw in them an alien world, inac-
cessible to intellectual judgement. It would appear that the essence of the matter
is that the Orthodox form of Christianity, based on humility, on uncomplain-
ing obedience to G od, on mortification, was incomprehensible to Westerners.
European travellers and writers of the seventeenth, eighteenth and even
the first half of the nineteenth century shared this point of view. The great
intellectual upsurge of the Age of Enlightenment encouraged a contemptuous
attitude to religion in general, especiallyin relation to the supposed emptiness
of the sumptuous rituals of Russian Orthodoxy. An example of this is h ow
Gottfried W ilhelm Leibniz in his letters called on Peter the Great to cast out
barbarism from Russia and cultivate it. This does not refer directlyto religion,
yet it does include it. Referring to Russian sectarianism and its fanatical charac-
teristics, a picture of a fundamentally divided and contradictory societyis
drawn in books about the Russian Empire.
From the time of Peter the Great, the official Church, subordinate to the
state, deprived of a chief hierarch and controlled, so the storywent, by a retired
general, was considered an institution similar to Western Churches of the Age
of Absolutism. The aspiration of progressive Church leaders to renew the spir-
itual life of Russian Christians was seen as implying recognition of the back-
wardness of Orthodoxy, which was in need of more modern means of c ommu-
nication, such as sermons and a complete printed Bible (first published in 1751
and running to seven editions before 1800).
Napoleon's well-known witticism, 'Scratch a Russian and you'll find a Tar-
tar', was typical of the general contempt for Russian culture in the first half of
the nineteenth century. Anti-Russian opinions became particularlywidespread
in French journalism,
15
culminating in the harsh criticism of the Marquis de
Custine wh o saw in Russian society'des minuties de Byzance et de la frocit de la horde,
des vertus sauvages de l'Asie et des luttes d'tiquette du Bas-Empire (the pettiness of
Byzantium and the ferocityof the horde, the savage virtues of Asia and the con-
test of etiquette of the Empire in decline)'. W e also find a contemptuous atti-
tude to Russian Christianityin Jean-Franois Georgel's influential book Voyage
Saint-Ptersbourg (1818):
La religion russe n'tant qu'un tissu de mmeries extrieures qui laisse un libre essor aux passions les
plus dpraves, il ne doit pas tre tonnant que la moralit soit si peu respecte. (As R ussian reli-
gion is nothing but a fabric of outer s how, leaving unleashed the most d epraved
200
Frank Kmpfer
passions, it should cause no surprise that morality is so little respected.)
The same may be said of Jacques-Franois Gamba' s book, Voyage dans la Russie
Mridionale (Journey in Southern Russia) (1824-26) in which we read:
Mais quelle distance entre la vie d'anachorte des raskolniks, entre cette exaltation qui dtermine
l'abstinence de tous plaisirs, et le fanatisme horrible qui a runi en une secte nouvelle des hommes qui
consentent une entire mutilation! (But what a distance between the hermit's life of the
raskolniks [Old Believers], between this exaltation that inspires them to abstain
from all pleasures, and the horrible fanaticism that has gathered together a ne w sect
of me n wh o submit to total mutilation!)
In the conclusion to his book Russia (1828), Niellon-Gilbert wrote, 'Les Russes,
chrtiens en apparence, sont idoltres dfait (The Russians, Christians in appearance,
are in fact idolaters).'
To explain this Russophobia, which was equallywidespread in England
and in the German lands, attention should again be focused on the theories of
the 'ThirdRome ' and 'Holy Russia'. As a religious concept this idea disappears
completelyfrom official culture and only in circles of Old Believers is it trans-
mitted from manuscript to manuscript. O n the other hand, during the time of
the growing political might of the Russian Empire the idea of the liberation of
the Balkan Christians was revived under the name of the 'Greek Project' of
Catherine II, no longer expressing a religious thought, but a political doctrine.
The wars against Napoleon had brought the Russian Cossacks to Paris, and in
the Balkan wars of the nineteenth centurythe Russians almost managed to con-
quer Istanbul and restore the Emperor's throne in Constantinople. Russia was
threatening the political positions of the Great Powers, thus arousing the hostil-
ity of the entire Western press. In this wave of Russophobic propaganda that
swept over public opinion until the Treaty of Paris ended the CrimeanW ar, an
important place was occupied bywhat was called Russian religious Messianism,
referring to the Slavophile movement and, during the time of imperialism, the
Panslavic Movement.
To return to the field of spiritual culture, the importance of Romanticism
for the renaissance of the lesser Slav peoples is generallyknown, but it can also
be said to have fostered better understanding of Russian Christianity. The phi-
losophers of German romanticism, especially Friedrich Schelling and the phi-
losopher of religion Friedrich Schleiermacher, opposed to rationalism a new
positive philosophy with a positive interpretation of the religious feelings and
spiritual powers of man. Under the influence of this philosophy, after visiting
the universities of Leipzig, Gttingen and Heidelberg, the Polish Slavophile,
Count Adam Gurowski, published a book in 1840 entitledLa civilisation et la Rus-
sie (Civilization and Russia) in which, true to the spirit of the Russian Slavophiles,
he wrote:
L'glise russe, proprit individuelle de la nation, en s'appropriant la langue slave comme moyen de
dveloppement, lui donne un caractre de vigueurqui semble rvleren elle, comme dans la race
laquelle elle appartient, l'avenirfcond qui leurest rserv. (The Russian Church, the exclu-
sive possession of the nation, byadopting the Slavonic language as its medium of
development, gives it an intrinsic vigour that would seem to portend, both for it
and for the race to which it belongs, the fruitful future reserved for them.)
16
Especially revealing for the picture of Russian Orthodoxy current during the
period of Romanticism is the fact that one of the outstanding personalities of
European culture, Johann W olfgang von Goethe, was among the first to study
Russian religious art. Well acquainted with Russian church singing (which he
heard in the Russian Church of the Grand Duchess Maria Pavlova in W eimar),
Goethe was also interested in icon-painting. In 1814 he wrote a letter to Maria
Pavlova requesting information on the ancient and modern art of icon-paint-
ing. This request received the personal attention of the Minister of Internal
Affairs in St Petersburg and of the historian, Karamzin. At length a written
statement was sent to W eimar together with four large icons which never came
into the hands of the great writer. It is interesting that through his contacts with
Russians at the Court of W eimar, Goethe gained a very positive impression of
Russian spiritualityand, above all, its aesthetic values.
17
O ne of the most important nineteenth-century authors in this -respect is
Baron August von Haxthausen (1792-1867). O n the invitation of Tsar Nicholas
I, this German agrarian specialist travelled through the Russian Empire in
1843, in particular the southern provinces, as far as Transcaucasia. This W est-
phalian conservative, a nephew of the Tsar, was also invited to counteract the
harshly negative influence of French and English publicists on European
public opinion. Haxthausen travelled all over the 'Russian Land' in the true
sense of the word, in other words he travelled through the countryside and con-
versed with Russian peasants, and he also talked to the pre-eminent Russian
philosopher and Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy, F. A. Golu-
binsky. The deep spiritualityof the latter, reminiscent of that of ancient Rus' ,
and the simple spiritualityof the Russian peasants, made a deep impression on
Haxthausen.
His work appeared with some delay (two volumes in 1847 and the third in
Hanover in 1853), and the French translation,tudes surla situation intrieure, la vie
nationale et les institutions rurales de la Russie {Studies on the Internal Situation, National
L.ife and Rural Institutions of Russia), was published as early as 1848. A muc h -
abridged English edition, The Russian Empire, Its People, Institutions and Resources,
was published during the Crimean W ar, the work being adapted to make it top-
ical. It was translated into Russian and published in Moscow in 1870.
18
Th e publication of Haxthausen' s book in the main foreign languages wit-
nesses to the fact that the Catholic Baron' s views were not without influence on
202 Frank Kmpfer
public opinion. His theory about the outstand ing role of the rural c o mmune
{mir) in the formation of the R ussian character was well k no w n. His view of
R ussian Christianity is also very interesting:
It is a well-known fact that the R ussians are unusually religious. T he religiosity of
the c o mmo n people issues primarily from a profound and instinctive feeling per-
vad ing the whole ma n, his thoughts, his opinions, his emotions. It is the air without
which he cannot breathe. Every aspect of life is end owed with religious emotions....
Religious patriotism attributes national character to G o d Himself; He is the ' R us-
sian G od ' . . . . T his religious patriotism is the source and foundation of Russia's
unity and of her moral and physical strength. Religion and its bearer, the Church,
constitute the true power, the spiritual and mysterious force that has fused this
country and its people into an indivisible whole. So d ominant and powerful is this
historical fact that even the Old Believers, w h o broke with the Church, never could
or wanted to withd raw from its unifying bond .
19
T h e W est ern E uropean view of R ussian Ort hod oxy, t hough influenced by pol-
itical events such as the Balkan wars, the Polish R ising, the revolutions of
184 8/ 4 9 and the R ussian social mo v ement of Slavophilism, was nevertheless
f ormed in the first place in the field of literature. T h e acceptance of R ussian
classical literature in the W es t was accompanied by a ne w view of R ussian
Christianity. R ussian literature directs the attention of the W est ern read er not
to the magnificent rituals of the Chur c h, but to the significance for humanit y as
a whole of R ussian spirituality, the essence of whic h is Christian love and
h uma n compassion. Alread y in Alexand er Pushkin' s works , Westerners read of
the love of suffering of the simple R ussian, and in Lev T olstoy this appears as a
characteristic of the R ussian soul as a whole, as a distinctive trait of the R ussian
interpretation of Christianity. T h e d eep religious and psychological analysis of
characters in Dostoevsky' s novels wa s received enthusiastically in the W es t .
T h e giants of R ussian literature, and with t hem all R ussian literature in transla-
tion, created a new the image of the R ussian Christian that had aroused the
astonishment of earlier observers.
T olstoy and Dostoevsky embod ied the polarization of mo d er n R ussian
Christianity. Os wald Spengler in his b o o k Der Untergang des Abendlandes (The
Decline of the West; translated into R ussian as Zakat Evropj, Mo s c o w , 1923), whi c h
b ec ame a sort of ' Bible' of G er ma n conservatism after the First W o r l d W a r ,
d escribes Dostoevsky and T olstoy thus: ' In t hem the beginning and end collide.
Dostoevsky is a saint and T olstoy only a revolutionary.' W e might also ad d this
(slightly obscure) prophetic passage:
Das Russentum der Tiefe lsst heute eine noch priesterlose, auf dem Johannesevangelium auf-
gebaute dritte Art des Christentums entstehen, die der magischen unendlich viel nher steht als der
faustischen, die deshalb auf einer neuen Symbolik der T aufe beruht und, weit entfernt von Korn und
The. image of Russian Christianity in the West 203
Wittenberg, in einerVorahnung knftigerKreuzzge berByzanz hinweg nach Jerusalem blickt.
(The depths of Russia are now giving birth to a Christianity of the third type, so far
without priests, based on the Gospel of St John, which is infinitelycloser to magic than
to the Faustian, which is therefore based on a new symbolism o baptism and which,
very far from Rome and Wittenberg, portending future crusades, turns beyond
Byzantium to Jerusalem.)
20
W h at does Spengler me an? H e expresses the fear of the W e st faced with the pro-
found religious powers of the Russian people, wh o did not enlist either with the
First or the Second Rome , let alone Wittenberg, the capital of Protestantism.
This 'Russia of the depths' looks to the Holy Land and awaits (which is pre-
ciselywhat arouses the fear of the G e rman philosopher) the apocalyptic wars of
the future. S uch is, even after the Revolution of 1917, the W estern E uropean
picture of ' Holy Russia'.
NOTES
1. S. von Herberstein, Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentant, 1st ed., p. 15, Vienna, 1949,
2nd ed., Frankfurt/Main, 1960; Russian translation byA. I. Malei, Baron Sigizmund
Gerberstejn. Zapiski o moskovitskih delah [Commentary on Muscovite Affairs], St Peters-
burg, 1908; French translation: LaMoscovie du seizime sicle [Muscovy in the Six-
teenth Century], Paris, Calmann-Lvy, 1965; F. Kmpfer, 'Rerum Moscoviticarum
Commentarii als religionsgeschichtliche Quelle [S. von Herberstein's Rerum Moscovit-
icarum Commentarii as a Source for Historical Research on Religion]',Siegmund von Her-
berstein. KaiserlicherGesandterund BegrnderderRussland-knde und die Europische Diplo-
matie [S. von Herberstein: Imperial Ambassador and Founder of Russian Science
and European Diplomacy], Graz, 1988 (Steiermark Federal State Archive Publica-
tions, 17).
2. E . Benz, Die Ostkirche im Lichte der protestantischen Geschichtsschreibung [The Eastern
Church in the Light of Protestant Historiography], p. 10, Freiburg, 1952.
3. Johann Fabri (ed.), Ad Streniss. principem Ferdinandum archiducem Austriae, Moscovitarum
iuxta mare glaciale religio, Basle, 1526; Kmpfer, op. cit.
4. Herberstein, op. cit., p. 77.
5. Fabri, op. cit., p. B2; on icons, see pp. D2 et seq.
6. Herberstein, op. cit., p. 77.
7. V. Malinin, Starte Eleazarova monastyrja Filofej i egoposlanija. Istoriko-literatumoe isledovanie
[The Elder Philotheus of the Eleazar Monastery and his Epistles. A Historical and
LiteraryStudy], Kiev, 1901; new edition, with appendices, p. 50,1971; H Schaeder,
' Moskau das dritte Rom [Moscow, The Third Rome] ' , Studien zurGeschichte derpol-
itischen Theorien in der slavischen Welt [Studies of the History of Political Theory in the
Slavonic World], 2nd ed., Darmstadt, 1957; A. V. Soloviev, Holy Russia. The History
of a Religious-Social Idea, The Hague, 1959; F. Kmpfer, 'Beobachtungen zu den Send-
schreiben Filofejs [Observations on the Epistles of Philotheus]', Jahrbcher fr Ges-
204 Frank Kmpfer
chichte Osteuropas [Yearbook of East European History], Vol. 18, 197 0, pp. 1-46, in
particular p. 3, n. 9; F. K mpfer, ' Moskau das dritte Rom' , in T . Meyer (ed.), 1000
Jahre Christliches Russland [1,000 Years of Christian Russia], pp. 45- 56, Recklinghau-
sen, 1988.
8. Prince A. M . Kurbskj's History of Ivan IV, pp. 156, 168, 224, 228; published with tran-
slation and notes by J. L. I. Fennell, Cambridge, 1965.
9. Schaeder, op. cit., p. 124.
10. Malinin, op. cit., Appendices, p. 50.
11. Ibid., p. 55.
12. A. M. Amma nn and P. Campani, 'Relatio de itinere moscovtico', Antemurale, Vol.
6, 1960/ 61, pp. 1-85, in particular pp. 27 -8.
13. Malinin, op. cit., Appendices, p. 33. This expression can already be found in Daniel
the Recluse (Daniil Zatocnik) and in the Life of St Stephen of Perm. In an epistle by
Fedor Karpov, the works of the Elder Philotheus are quoted as 'being written with
talent, without the slightest trace of barbarism or ignorance, respecting Homeric
style and rhetoric'; Kmpfer, ' Beobachtungen . . .', op. cit., pp. 30 et seq.
14. Malinin, op. cit., Appendices, p. 12.
15. R. T. McNally, ' Das Russlandbild in der Publizistik Frankreichs zwischen 1814 und
1843 [French publicists' Image of Russia between 1814 and1843]' , Forschungen zur
osteuropischen Geschichte [Research on East European History], Vol. 6, 1958, pp. 82-
169, especiallypp. 109, 132, 135, 157.
16. Ibid., p. 144.
17. M . P. Alekseev, 'Goethe-Miszellen: Goethe und die altrussische Malerei [Goethe
Miscellany: Goethe and Old Russian Painting]', Germanoslavica, Vol. 2, 1932/ 33, pp.
60-4; H . W ah l , 'Goethes Anstoss zur russischen Ikonenforschung [Goethe's Con-
tribution to the Study of Russian Icons]', Goethe, pp. 219-26, W e imar, 1947 (N.F.
des Jahrbuches der Goethe-Gesellschaft, 10).
18. Under the title: lzsledovanija vnutrennih otnosenij, narodnoj zzni, i v osobennosti sel'skih ucrez-
denij Rossii harona Gakstgauzena.
19. A. von Haxthausen, Studien berdie inneren Zustnde, das Volksleben und insbesondere di ln-
dlichen Einrichtungen Russlands [Studies on the Internal Situation, National Life and
EspeciallyRural Institutions of Russia], Vols. 1-3, Hanover/Berlin, 1847-52; A.
von Haxthausen, Die lndliche Verfassung Russlands, Ihre Entwicklungen und Ihre Fest-
stellung in derGesetzgebung von 1861 [The Rural Situation in Russia], Leipzig, 1866;
new annotated English translation: S. F. Starr (ed.), Studies on the Interiorof Russia.
August von Haxthausen, Chicago/London, 1972; Haxthausen, Die lndliche..., op. cit.,
p. 260.
20. O . Spengler, Umrisse einerKulturmorphologie derWeltgeschichte [Outlines of a Cultural
Morphology of W orld History], pp. 793, 1182, Munich, 1980.
Part Four
CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIETY
Paganism and Christianity in Russia:
' d ouble' or 'triple' faith?
Francis Conte
To play devil's advocate for a few moments, I should like to show by a concrete
example (that of a fertility rite) the vitalityof Slav paganism and its importance
in the formation of folk beliefs in Russia. Christianitydid not systematically
eradicate the world-view that gave rise topaganism; in Russia we can even
speak of a certain 'peaceful coexistence' of the pagan and Christian world-
views. This was not a true syncretism, but rather the simultaneous existence of
composite strata, which, in the felicitous expression of Claude Lvi-Strauss,
could be called 'foliated'. The question is therefore one of discovering the most
obvious causes of this phenomenon.
Undoubtedly the long duration of the medieval period in Eastern Europe
largely explains the importance of the pagan substratum that continued to exist
alongside official Orthodoxy right up to the beginning of the present century.
Inmy opinion, the continuance of rural civilizations within the framework
of authoritarian regimes fostered a number of functional archaisms, especially
in the more isolated areas. In Western Europe, on the contrary, the pagan sub-
stratum was swept away, for reasons that are both complex and convergent, of
which I shall mention only three.
First, the pressure of the Catholic Church, less tolerant of heterodox prac-
tices than the Orthodox clergy; secondly, the absence of the 'second serfdom'
that weighed so heavilyon the daily life and on the mentalityof the Eastern
European peasants, wh om the Russian lite classified as 'the ignorant people'
(temnyj narod) while going into raptures over their 'holiness'; and, finally, the
rapid secularization of attitudes that marked Western Europe, with those long
periods of intellectual upheaval that Eastern Europe did not undergo to the
same degree, which it sometimes experienced at a later time or under other
forms, or did not experience at all. The reference here is in particular to the
208 Francis Conte
Renaissance of the sixteenth century and the rediscovery of the heritage of the
ancient world, the European revolutions, the discovery of the rights of the indi-
vidual and the concept of happiness during the Age of Enlightenment and
finallythe industrial and urban upsurge of the nineteenth century, ending in the
'disenchantment' with the natural world finallyexperienced byWestern
Europe.
To elucidate the Eastern European peasant world-view, one major ques-
tion should first be considered: that of 'explanatory' myths of pre-Christian ori-
gin in the system of folk culture.
Explanatory myths and folk culture
Whatever his level of development, man has always sought to understand the
universe around him in order to fit his desires and actions into it. H e applies
himself to organizing the world, giving it a structure and codifying it: he thus
refuses to let himself dissolve into it and chooses to affirm his independence of
spirit. The more his knowledge is fragmentary and uncertain, the more the
individual needs to create explanatoryschemes of myths, expressed by 'texts'
(invocations) or by rituals. These set a value on human activities; they help to
solve the problems both of daily life and the other world. Within the frame-
work of these structures, which link the individual to the supernatural - space,
time, the elements, the enigmas of life and death, the natural cycles - myth can
be based on elements of reality. Nevertheless its aim is not to take account of
this reality; its essential purpose is rather toendow it with meaning. Myths
serve toshow that the destiny of man and the nature of the world have a cohe-
rence, continuityand finality. This is why the imagination of the individual or
group seeks above all to penetrate the inexplicable, that which is mysterious and
consequently sacred.
In Kiev as elsewhere, the advent of Christianitydoubtless marked the
beginning of the 'disenchantment of the world' mentioned above, but only the
beginning. For longer than others, the peasant continued to perceive the super-
natural lurking in this tangible universe that he knew so well; he saw it conti-
nually manifested therein, like a fluid taking on solid form, whether in objects
or beings. The plough became effective, tears gave fertility, when the word and
the ritual caused the sacred to stand guard.
In this sense, sharp breaks between systems of beliefs were never as radical
as appears at first sight. Whatever the system of beliefs, belief first springs from
the wish to believe. Man' s new view of the sacred does not necessary relegate
the old one to oblivion, as though it were a system that has gone out of use,
mental equipment violentlyrendered obsolete. Representations of the world
and the supernatural are superimposed on each other rather than eliminated:
Paganism and Christianity in Russia: 209
'double' or 'triple'faith?
theymay be distinct, syncretic or contradictory, theymay also be used in turn,
according to the need of the mome nt.
At present Slav anthropologists are trying to penetrate this archaic spiritual
fieldwhich is so little known tous. Their first task is to distinguish between its
components, Slav and non-Slav, pagan and Christian, tomake it possible to
reconstruct these two approaches to the sacred, these two attitudes correspond-
ing to two types of perception of the world.
I shall limit myself here to considering a tinypart of this purzle which is to
be put together; a fertility ritual involving water, which was mentioned in turn
by two of Russia's greatest poets, Alexander Pushkin and SergeyYesenin.
Water, chaos and world order
Apparently the role of water does not derive onlyfrom consideration of its util-
itarian aspect. Its importance springs from the fact that it represents a funda-
mental element, essential for the existence of man and plants. For the Slavs,
wh o were above all agriculturalists and settlers, harvests were sources of life and
also of trade; the water from heaven on which theydepended therefore played a
leading role in the system of explanatorymyths constituting their view of the
world. Can we try to reconstruct the functional aspect of the myth of water
1
and
of the rituals intended tomake rain fall?
2
Certain current research makes it pos-
sible to attempt this experiment.
For the Slavs, this myth is linked to the total balance of the world and the
forces that give life to it, divine or chthonic powers, those of heaven or earth.
Th e activities of beasts andme n, wh o are positive or negative intermediaries,
take place between them. Thus the birds announce the return of the sunand the
rain which gives fertility; snakes or frogs are sacrificed tomake the rain come;
as for humans, theyhave different roles depending on their profession or status:
wome n, wh o are linked by their very nature to the fertilityof Damp Mother
Earth, can contribute by appropriate rituals to call forth rain, while potters or
brick-makers are very likely tohave an unfavourable influence, as are also the
unsatisfied dead.
For the pagan Slavs, the rain fallingon the soil corresponded to divine seed
fertilizing the earth. If this seed seemed to run dry, it had to be induced by a
series of magic rituals based primarily on parallels between phenomena: any
water that was caused toflow - bywatering, by sprinkling, byshedding tears -
should make the raincome forth. Opposite rituals were used if the seed from
heaven appeared to be about to flood the earth and drown the crops.
During a drought, archaic man noted the chaos threatening the world and
his own existence. In his own way, he tried to restore the order of things favour-
able tohim; he sought to intervene in the operation of the world bymeans of a
210
Francis Conte
magic interference that seemed to him able to avert the causes of the evil that
befell him.
For this, the human imagination had to conceive of how the universe func-
tioned. It established a link between the water of earth and the water of heaven.
All the water flowing on the surface of the earth (rivers large and small), all the
water born of the earth (wells), all the water gushing from the earth (springs)
then acquired a sense greater than its material meaning.
In the world of ideas of the pagan Slavs, the spring and the well were the
most favourable place from which to act on the heavenly world. They repre-
sented an outlet of underground life to the surface of the earth, embodying for
its part the magic frontier linking the realm of infernal powers to the heavenly
realm. More than a frontier, it is the 'place of contact and neutralization' be-
tween these two realms, which encounter each other by virtue of the antithet-
ical principle of high/low; they are at the same time linked and reflected by the
surface of the mirror earth. The liquid elements crash onto the earth or gush
therefrom to reappear on its surface and to fertilize it. Obstruction of ground-
water reserves leads to blockage of the waters from heaven. It is therefore essen-
tial to open up, to unblock springs that are blocked in a time of drought.
For this reason, the magic ceremony did not consist only in praying to the
springs, lakes or rivers, and making sacrifices to them (as noted by Procopius of
Caesarea in his description of the Slavs in the sixth century). This veneration of
the waters was accompanied by other ritual acts: keys had to be placed on the
bed of the dried-up river, ditches dug in the roads or their surface ploughed (as
Soviet research shows to this day). From this point of view, the river and the
road were seen as parallels. Later the well was seen as the symbol of the passage
of groundwater towards the mirror surface formed by the earth: it is an active
intermediary linked to the water of heaven on the principle of communicating
vessels.
Thus, parallel with the Christian blessing of water and the equivalent of
Rogation in the W est, in Slav country areas offerings were still made to rivers,
springs and wells: rituals were performed involving, for example, beating the
water, pouring water from a well on to a girl covered with foliage, erecting a
cross near a well and decorating it with speciallyembroidered cloths, casting
seeds representing rain into the well or shedding tears which also symbolize it,
and so forth.
Water and tears
O ne fertility ritual is mentioned by Pushkin inEugene Onegin and by Yesenin in
an untitledpoem written in 1914. These two references are of interest primarily
because theywere not understood until they attracted the attention of eth-
nologists a few years ago. Unfortunately for French readers, the recently
published French translations of the works of Pushkin skimmed over this diffi-
culty. The French version of StanzaX X X V of Chapter II, describing the life of
the Larins, Tatyana's parents, is as follows:
Cette existence pacifique
Bornait encore son horizon
Et plus d'une coutume antique
Se conservait dans la maison:
Aux poques de pnitence
On j pratiquait l'abstinence
Tandis qu'en temps de carnaval
De crpes c'tait un rgal;
Ils aimaient les chants populaires,
Buvaient du kvas en quantit
Et, le jour de la Trinit,
Mlaient trois pleurs leurs prires;
Mme ils suivaient dans les repas,
Le tchin pour prsenter les plats.
(This peaceful existence
Still had limited horizons
And more than one ancient custom
W as kept up in the house:
At the times of penitence
Fasting was observed
W hile at the time of carnival
There was a feast of pancakes;
They liked folk songs,
Drank vast amounts ofkvas
And, on the Feast of the Trinity,
Mingled three tears with their prayers;
At mealtimes theyeven observed
The chin [order] of serving courses.)
In fact, although the translator has made every effort to respect Pushkin' s
' novel in verse', he has passed over what, for us, is the essence of the stanza, the
' customs of the good old days' {privycki miloj stariny) which correspond tonon-
Christian rituals in an O rthodox environment. Th e translator leaves out c om-
pletely the two rituals mentioned byPushkin: on the one hand, fortune-telling
rites (podbljudnye pesni), and, on the other hand, a fertility rite, described both
precisely and poetically, with amuse me nt but accurately:
V den' Troicyn, kogda narod
Zevaya slusaet moleben,
212 Francis Conte
Umil'no na pucok zart
Oni ronjali slezki tri . . .
(On the day of Pentecost, while the peasants
Listened to the service yawning,
They [the Larins] with tender feeling shed
Three little tears on a bunch of . . .)
These four lines give the outline of the rite very clearly: we learnwho weeps (a
family wh o know and respect the past), when (during the religious service at
Pentecost), where (in church) and for what reason (pucok zari) they are weeping.
The combination of these two words (pucok zari) may appear astonishing at
first sight, if the word 'zarja' is translated by' dawn' (or 'twilight' in Russian, as
it means in general a red colouring of the sky). In fact, the word 'zarja' or 'zorja'
has another meaning in Russian: a plant with the botanical name of Ligusticum
Levisticum.
Ethnographers of the last century give very revealing information about it:
this plant, well known in the Ukraine and very beautiful with its vivid flowers,
was believed to have medicinal and even magic properties: love-sick girls used
it to attract and enchant boys.
Thus the non-Christian context begins to appear: it was even so evident in
the nineteenth century that, in the first edition of Eugene Onegin, the whole of
StanzaX X X V was deleted and replaced by dots, as this stanza alluded too ex-
plicitlyto rituals considered to be pagan, and the Orthodox Church expressed
its disapproval by censorship. The censor was the famous ethnographer, I. M .
Snegirev, wh o was then working on four seminal volumes on Russian folk cus-
toms.
3
It so happened that Snegirev was most scrupulous in keeping his diary.
Under 26 September 1826 he wrote:
I went to Alexander Pushkin who showed me , in my capacityas censor, Chapter III
of his Onegin; he accepted my comment that he should delete or change some lines;
he toldme that in some places there still exists the custom of sweeping the graves of
parents with the flowers of Pentecost in order to wipe their eyes.
4
In the present state of ethnographic knowledge, it is hard to establish the link of
cause and effect between these three very distinct elements: the graves, the eyes
and the flowers. W e can onlywonder wh y it should be necessary to wipe the
parents' eyes. W h y at Pentecost? W h y with this particular flower? W as it
because of the Christian feast-day, because this plant flowered at Pentecost and
was the only one that could wipe their eyes (we know it was renowned for its
magic effects)? Are we dealing preciselywith those 'foliated strata' that we me n-
tioned earlier, with a mixture of Christian and pagan elements? E ven if we take
this last point into account, wh y should this action be considered sacrilegious
by the Orthodox Church, which allowed ritual meals on the graves without
raising an eyebrow? W as it necessary to wipe the parents' eyes because they had
wept? H ad theywept of their own accord or because someone had interceded
with them? W h at, then, was the meaning of these ritual tears?
This meaning largelyescapes us today, whereas Pushkin and Snegirev cer-
tainlykne w it, judging by the importance they attached to it: Snegirev in delet-
ing these references and Pushkin in restoring them, as he did in successive edi-
tions.
At present, almost all that can be done is to ask questions. In attempting to
reconstruct the meaning of this ritual, we have only one piece of recent evi-
dence at our disposal, though it is true that it does have the advantage of dealing
with a magic context including elements comparable on the level of time, place
and some of the ritual behaviour.
In 1970, the ethnographer L. A. Tultseva noted the following during an
expedition in Ryazan' province:
In the village of Zaulki (Kadomovo district, Ryazan' province), the following rite
has been practised up to recent years: after the liturgyon the Saturday of Pentecost,
wome n, mainly elderly, went to their parents' graves and after decorating a birch
tree with clothes - a skirt, blouse, apron, head-scarf and necklace - carried it in pro-
cession to the church, shouting' 0/ let] [It is summer].'
5
Unfortunately the ethnographer does not specifywhat the meaning of this rite
might be. She does, however, give several sequences that could hold our atten-
tion: (a) the service of Pentecost; (b) the visit to the cemetery, to the graves, in
very special conditions, a sort of resurrection through a figure decorated with
all the attributes of a h uman being (a parallel could perhaps be drawn with the
Serbian or Bulgariandodola); and (c) the return to the church and the songs that
greet the arrival of summer, which in the context of rural cultures means first
and foremost harvest time.
W as it a fertility ritual of which Pushkin revealed only the first part to us?
This thesis is perhaps probable if we take into consideration a complementary
rite that the same ethnographer noted during an expedition to the Ryazan'
region:
At Novopanskoe, tradition requires that the bunches of flowers [above, the birch
tree] taken to church on Pentecost morning be moistened with tears; the believers
bring them back to church for vespers, kneel down and raise them to their faces in
the palms of their hands, weeping.
The same tradition had been observed by the ethnographer L. B. Zernova at the
end of the 1920s in the north of the Moscow region (district of Dmitrovskoe):
214 Fratu Conte
At the time of the mass of Pentecost, girls standing to the left of the sanctuaryhad to
shed a few tears on a bunch of birch twigs. This bunch is then carefullykept; it is
considered to protect against drought the following summer.
6
Here we have the most complete evidence. Answering the principle of ' sym-
pathetic' magic, the meaning of the ancient rite would be as follows: the tears
shed by the girls correspond to rain, as the part stands for the whole: on this
point, the folk poetry of the Slav world identifies rain with the tears of the Vir-
gin or the saints, weeping over the misfortunes and sins of poor humans. In the
rite developed byPushkin in his conversation with Snegirev, the living could
thus ask their dead - their lares or household deities - to weep in order to bring
rain, then their eyes would be wiped with the magic flowers, unless these same
flowers are used to cause their tears? As for the herb, the flowers, the twigs or
figures made from birch trees, these are the equivalents of the vegetation the
peasant desires.
Rain waters and fertilizes the earth, it makes it possible for plants and thus
harvests to flourish. Moreover, in the region of Poles'je (Polesie), the rain that
falls after invocations and magic acts is calledbleb (bread), while the Poles call it
zito (meaning a cereal, barleyor rye) or else sokrovisce (treasure).
As recentlyas the early1970s, a team of ethnographers led byAcademician
N . I. Tolstoy observed a ritual of invocation of rain practised in the same region
of Polesie. To prevent drought, the peasant wome n gather together around the
village well in order to invoke a mythical personwh om they call Makar (Mac-
arius), 'Little Macarius, beloved son, come out of the water, shed your tears
upon our earth.'
7
At the beginning of the present century, SergeyYesenin knew this custom
perfectly. H e was, in fact, born in the region of Ryazan' where the ethnographer
L. A. Tultseva conducted long investigations. In apoe m written in1914, he
mentions the morning of Pentecost (Troicyno utro). H e refers directlyto this par-
ticular rite as if he were going to take part in it, 'Japojdu k obedne plakat' na cvety
(I shall go tomass toweep on the flowers)'.
8
The two poets, Yesenin and Pushkin, had integrated these ancient if not
archaic rituals perfectly into their intellectual experience. This shows the
remarkable knowledge they had of folk piety, and the vitalityof these customs.
They have survived for so long because theywere useful and not merely 'dec-
orative'. Their study and the attempt todecode the Russian folk world-view
may make it possible tohave a grasp, however incomplete, of the essence of its
individuality, within the framework of what is conventionally known as ' dou-
ble faith' (dvoeveri). In fact, as in the case of everything 'conventional', this label
is undoubtedly not the most exact one: together with original Slav paganism,
together with Orthodox Christianitywhich from the end of the tenth century
became dominant inRus' , should we not speak of a 'third faith? This term
would at least have the advantage of showing that rural beliefs, in their Russian
version, form a whole or, more exactly, a functional system. They form a viable
and coherent whole, that can, wh e n required, be divided up in order to use the
stratum, Christian or pagan, that is best suited to the needs of the mome nt.
Naturally these peasants, wh o never described themselves as 'Russian' or
'Ukrainian', but as ' Orthodox' as compared with other peoples of Catholic,
Protestant, Jewish or Muslim religion, had first recourse to the Orthodox faith
in case of major difficulty. Nevertheless, if this did not prove sufficient, they had
recourse to the more obscure faith of ancient customs, even if they had lost the
thread of the general outline of what was recently called 'the genius of Chris-
tianity'. These 'alternative recourses' have come down to us within the specific
framework of the rural world distinctive of that 'other E urope' that attracts our
special attention and curiositytoday.
NOTES
1. V. Ivanov andV. Toporov, ' Le mythe indo-europen de l'Orage poursuivant le ser-
pent [The Indo-European Myth of the Storm Pursuing the Snake]', Echanges et com-
munications. Mlanges offerts Claude Lvi-Strauss l'occasion de son 60me anniversaire
[Exchanges and Communications. A Miscellany for Claude Lvi-Strauss on his Six-
tieth Birthday] (Texts assembled byJ. Pouillon and P. Maranda), Vol. 2, pp. 1180-
1260, The Hague/Paris, 1970.
2. N . I. Tolstye and S. M. Tolstye, 'Zametki po slavjanskomu jazycestvu. 1: Vyzyvanie
dozdja u kolodca [Notes on Slav Paganism. Part 1: Invocation of Rain at the Well]',
Russkij fol'klor [Russian Folklore], Vol. 25, Leningrad, 1981; Part 2 (published pre-
viously), 'Vyzyvanie dozdja v Poles'e [Invocation of Rain at Polesie]', Slavjanskij i bal-
kaskijfol'klor [Slavonic and Balkan Folklore], pp. 95-130, Moscow, 1978; two com-
plementary studies byS. M. Tolstye, 'Pahanie reki, dorogi [Ploughing the River, the
Road]' and 'Ljaguska, uz i drugie zivotnye v obrjadah vyzyvanija i ostanovki dozdja
[Frogs, Snakes and Other Animals in Rituals of Invocation and for Stopping Rain]',
Slavjanskij . . ., op. cit., pp. 18-27, 1986.
3. Les Russes et leurs proverbes [The Russians and their Proverbs], Moscow, 1831-34;
Fetes, rituels et croyances du peuple russe [Feasts, Rituals and Beliefs of the Russian Peo-
ple], Moscow, 1837-39.
4. A. S. Puskin, Polnoe sobranie socinenij [Complete Works], Vol. 5, Moscow, 1957, 10
vols.
5. See Sovetskaja etnografija [Soviet Ethnography], N o. 6, 1970, pp. 111-18 for the com-
plete article; for a partial translation see Sociologie rurale [Rural Sociology] (Paris),
1976, p. 268.
6. 'Materialy po sel'skohozjajstvennoj magii v Dmitrovskom krae [Materials on Agri-
cultural Magic in the Dmitrov Region]', Sovetskaja Etnografija, N o. 3 (or 9), 1932,
p. 30.
7. N . I. Tolstye, 'Plakat'na cvety[Weeping on Flowers]', Russkaja Rec, N o. 4, 1976,
p. 28.
8. S. Esenin, Izfrrannye socinenija [SelectedW orks], Vol. 1, p. 118, Moscow, 1961.
T he influence of Christianity on
the cultural and spiritual d evelopment
of society
Rarelyhas any jubilee ever been marked as widelyand in somany ways as that
of the baptism of Rus'. It is true that the adoption by Rus' of Christianity in its
Eastern, Byzantine traditionwas an important historical event that had reper-
cussions on all aspects of the country's life, enriched its national history and
helped Russia to play an enviable role in the development of world culture and
civilization.
This was discussed in detail at three international conferences of scholars
in Kiev, Moscow and Leningrad on the eve of the celebration of the Millen-
nium of the baptism of Rus', which brought together theologians, church his-
torians, scholars and specialists in various fields of culture and science from
more than fiftycountries worldwide. Similar learned symposia, conferences
and seminars were held inmany countries of Europe and other continents. It
may be said without exaggeration that the whole Christian world took part in
the celebration of the Millennium of the Russian Orthodox Church through
church services, sermons, large numbers of publications, exhibitions of pho-
tographs, learned symposia and concerts of Russian church music. The mass
media participated extensively, both in the Soviet Union and abroad, thereby
drawing the attention of the public all over the world to the celebrations.
All the Orthodox Churches and other Christian Churches, as well as the
main religions of the world, were represented at the ceremonies marking the
solemn celebration of the Millennium inMoscow, Kiev, Vladimir and Lenin-
grad in June 1988, around which similar ceremonies were held in more than
eighty of the principal Christian centres of Europe, Asia, Africa and America.
By callingon its 159 Member States to celebrate the event, U N E S CO gave
the Millennium of the introduction of Christianity inRus' the distinction of a
state event. The Russian Orthodox Church is deeply grateful toU N E S CO for
218 Metropolitan Philaret
the great interest shown in the Millennium, and in particular for organizing the
symposium and exhibition of works of art.
The celebration of the Millennium took place in a setting of perestroika,
democratization and glasnost in the Soviet Union, and of the development of
ne w international political thinking initiated by the Soviet leadership.
His Holiness Patriarch Pimen, evaluating the process taking place in the
Soviet Union, said in an interview in the newspaper Izvestia on 9 April 1988:
The salutaryprocess of perestroika, penetrating deeper everyday into all aspects of
the life of Soviet society, also affects our Church, which calls on its clergyand laity
to participate actively in it. O n the same subject, the Pre-Jubilee Epistle of the
Patriarch and HolySynod of 21 June 1987 says, 'Each of us, children of the Church,
is now called upon, as his civic and religious duty, to participate zealously in the
development and improvement of our society. It is with great joy that we welcome
the process of the strengthening of basic spiritual and moral principles in the
nation's personal, familyand social life and our country's aspiration to give a stron-
ger position to the moral standards shared by all mankind in international relations.
Although perestroika and glasnost directly affect Soviet society, their positive
influence can also be felt in the whole international climate. The ne w interna-
tional political thinking based on moral principles is already giving positive
results. It is in tune with Christian understanding. Christianity, which is uni-
versal in its vocation, sees mankind as a whole, for we are all brothers and sis-
ters, children of the same Heavenly Father, Creator of heaven and earth. Nature
itself and the whole universe around us are seen by Christianityas being inex-
tricablylinked toman and mankind. Just as man is the temple of the Holy Spi-
rit, so the world is the dwelling place of the Spirit of G od.
In this connection the celebration of the Millennium of the baptism of Rus'
took on tremendous importance for the development of the ne w international
political thinking, the creation of a ne w moral climate and the strengthening of
trust between East and W est.
In this age of scientific and technical revolution, wh e n science and tech-
nologyhave made unparalleled progress, the invention of the nuclear bomb and
the exploration of space have opened up a great breach between material and
spiritual values. Mankind is gradually slipping into a state of spiritual sterility.
N ow as never before people are aware of the negative results of the gap between
the spiritual and the material. Drug addiction and alcoholism, the break-up of
the familyand destruction of the h uman personality, sexual permissiveness, the
deterioration of the environment, the wealth and consumer psychology of some
people, and the poverty, hunger, illness and illiteracyof others, the creation of
the risk of a nuclear catastrophe and the threat to the very existence of life on
earth - all these are the fruits of the devaluation of spiritual culture and the
results of social injustice.
The influence of Christianity on the cultural 219
and spiritual development of society
At the same time an inner thirst for spiritual culture is awakening in the
world community, and the rich spiritual heritage of the Russian Orthodox
Church that celebrated its Millennium in1988 is part of the world spiritual her-
itage.
From the theological point of view, the start of the Christian era was not
only a moral, but a trulyontological turning-point in h uman history. ' An
entirelyne w factor - the Church - came into the world. It was the start of the
crystallization of mankind around this principle that unites the divine and the
h uman. And the Church fired the world with spiritual energywhose content is
eternal life.'
1
Th e adoption of ChristianitybyKievan Rus' and the formation of the Rus-
sian Orthodox Church were the key factors in a stage of world history that
marked a radical moral turning-point. It was no less than the spiritual trans-
formation of this vast and mighty Eastern European state.
From the time of the baptism of Rus' the pagan age was cast out of history.
From the end of the tenth century, the reign of Prince Vladimir was marked by
radical changes, which would now be called revolutionary, in all fields of Rus-
sian life. This coincided with the beginning of the long and bitter struggle of the
State of Kiev, now becoming Christian, against the mass of the Russian Slavs
wh o remained pagan, especially in northernRus' , where the old Norse pagan
religious traditions of Novgorod were stronger, as was the ancient Slavonic
pagan way of life.
Th e Church was the transforming force in ancient Russian society that not
only defined the moral ideals of ancient Rus' but also had a purely spiritual and
religious influence on the conscience and soul of the Russian people. Th e moral
ideals of ancient Rus' were enriched by the characteristic traits of Orthodoxy:
sanctity, asceticism, humility, compassionate love, self-sacrifice and other
Christian virtues. In the words of Academician D. S. Likhachev:
A great role in the creation of these ideals was played by the literature of the Hesy-
chasts, the ideas of retreat from the world, self-renunciation and the casting aside of
all worldly cares, which helped the Russian people to bear their hardships, to face
the world and act with love and kindness to others and reject all forms of violence.
2
The deep roots of our people, from which our Christian understanding of the
world was to grow, go back to Kievan Rus' . These are not simply 'ideas' or a
'philosophy', but a primordial principle that goes through the flesh and blood
of our nation and lives in the people's conscience from generation to gener-
ation, the divine spark and voice of G od that reacts and judges more correctly
than even the most perfect legality, legal system or logic.
From ancient times our country has been called Holy Russia. Historyinvo-
luntarilydraws our attention to the fact that the reason for this name is to be
220 Metropolitan Philart
found in the ideals of the Russian people, which are to this day preserved in the
innermost recesses of the Russian soul. W h e n we speak of the Russian soul or
the Russian people, we refer not only to those of Russian nationality, but also to
Ukrainians and Byelorussians wh o come from the same root of Kievan Rus' .
Russian ideals remain alive in the oral as well as in the written and material
traditions, in the lives of the saints and in prayers, in the folk epic, in songs and
in the daily life of the people. All Russian literature was nurtured by the Chris-
tian spirit. The spiritual ideals of many generations are reflected by the many
Orthodox churches and monasteries, which sheltered the inner life of the Rus-
sian people, and also by iconography and art. These ideals were best expressed
by the many saints of our land, wh o aspired not only to their personal salvation,
but to the salvation of the whole people. Aspiring to these ideals, Russian peo-
ple often strayed from the right path, but theynever lost sight of them.
Russian pietydrew from Holy Scripture and the Tradition of the Church
its intransigent, eternal values, the righteousness and sanctity that can radically
change the inner world of the soul. All the noble aspirations of Russians to
divine truth and moral beauty find their definitive and highest justification in
Holy Scripture. O ne should not forget, either, the writings of the ascetics and
the Fathers of the Church, for theyplayed an important role in furthering the
spiritual life of the Russian people.
Spiritual life found itsh ome in the monasteries, through which the Church
influenced the people's moral life. The first monasteries appeared inRus' dur-
ing the first half of the eleventh century: St Anthony, wh o began his monastic
life on Mount Athos, founded the Kiev Caves Monasterywhose Abbot and
organizer was St Theodosius. The work of great ascetics, this institutionbecame
a model for other Russian monasteries and the cradle of Russian monasticism.
It was of great significance not only for the spiritual and moral life but also for
the cultural life of the Russian people. Many distinguished churchmen and
ascetics came from it. The first Russian chronicles were written in this monas-
tery, which became a centre of ancient Russian literature and learning. For our
knowledge of Kievan Rus' , we are indebted to the learned and diligent monks
of the Kiev Caves Monastery, first among wh om is St Nestor the Chronicler
(second half of the eleventh century).
Following the Kiev Caves Monasterymany other monasteries appeared in
Rus' , and these were tobecome centres of intense spiritual and moral activity
and also carryout an educational and civilizing mission. The founding father of
monasticism in north-eastern Russia was St Sergius of Radonezh, wh o built a
monastery, later known as the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, of a ne w type, being in
the wilderness. W hereas earlier monasteries had been built in or near great
towns, St Sergius and his disciples founded monasteries in the depths of the for-
ests of north-eastern Russia and thus, going farther and farther northwards, the
Russian wilderness-dwellers reached the shores of the White Sea and the Arctic
Ocean, opening up that region and developing it economically.
The ascetic life of the monasteries and their economic activities made a
deep mark on ancient Russian literature and had enormous influence on
ancient Russian society; considered as a sublime and trulyChristian ideal,
monasticism developed and spread throughout the country.
The predominance of ascetic ideals in Russia can be explained not only by
religious and moral views and the influence of religious literature, but also by
the historical circumstances of the life of the Russian people. These were harsh
and unstable. The havoc wrought by constant nomad raids, the internecine
wars between Russian princes, the long years of the Tartar Mongol yoke all
struck heavyblows at the material well-being of the Russian people and humi-
liatedthem. Frequent epidemics of plague, devastating fires, disastrous famine
caused by bad harvests and other natural disasters confirmed the people's view
of the world as 'sinful' and 'dwelling in evil'. In such a world, it seemed difficult
to save one's soul for eternal life, and the harsher and more joyless life was, the
greater the love and hope with which Russian people looked towards the other
world, the world beyond.
Through its religious and moral authorityand ideals, the Russian Church
had a vast influence on Russian societyas a whole, acting mainly through its
rules and institutions, not so much on the political order as on relations bet-
ween citizens. Instead of directlyand openly breaking down deeply entrenched
customs and prejudices, it gradually instillednew ideas and attitudes in the pop-
ulation. The Church reformed the mentalityand customs of the Russian people,
preparing them to accept new standards and ideas, and in this way penetrated
deeply into the moral life of society. InRus' the Church did not stand apart
from the life of societywith its needs and concerns, but acted in alliance and co-
operation with secular societyand the state.
Throughout its historythe Russian Church carried out vast social activ-
ities. For example, in ancient Rus' there was a categoryof 'church people', com-
posed of people of various classes who found themselves in difficult circum-
stances, such as the poor, the homeless, orphans and pilgrims, and sometimes
even a prince in difficulty. The ecclesiastical Statute of Prince Vsevolod (twelfth
century) numbered among the church people the so-called 'outcasts' or people
who had lost the rights pertaining to their class. The church people were not a
new class under the leadership of the clergy, but a societyset apart inwhich
people of different secular classes joined together in the name of equalityand
for religious and moral motives.
Basicallythe Russian monasteries carried out philanthropic activities. In
years of natural disasters or of poor harvests, large and wealthy monasteries
such as the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, the Monastery of St Cyril of the White Lake,
that of St Joseph of Volokolamsk and others gave help to the starving pop-
ulation, opening to them their plentiful granaries. Elderlyor disabled Russians
wh o had been in the service of the state also found a place of rest and were pro-
vided for there. InRus' there was a saying, ' The wealth of the Church is the
wealth of the poor.' The monasteries of Rus' welcomed not onlymonks but also
lay people, and had hospitals, almshouses and hostels for pilgrims. For example,
according to the description of the Monastery of the W hite Lake in the year
1601, its hospital sheltered ninetypoor me n and there were twelve people in its
almshouse, in a community of 150 monks in all. At the same time the Russian
monasteries acted as a sort of insurance, giving loans to peasants when there
were poor harvests or livestock diseases. The Russian Church considered that
the practice of drawing profit and interest from loans was unnatural and repre-
hensible. The Stoglav Council of 1550 decreed on the basis of Canon Law that,
in the matter of loans to peasants, bishops and monasteries should not charge
interest to peasants for money or corn lent tothem.
Under the influence of Christianityimportant changes also took place in
family life. The Church created a strong Christian family, reconstituting the
pagan family on the principles of Christian morality. It made obsolete such
coarse pagan customs as polygamy, marriage by abduction, vendetta, etc., and
indirectlyincreased the authorityof mothers and the role of wome n in civil
society.
From the very beginning the Russian Church began to break up the pagan
tribal system and to create family unions based on Christian love, the mutual
consent of bride and bridegroom, their equalitybefore the law and a legal settle-
ment between them, giving the wife property rights. The Church struggled
against polygamy and concubinage and arbitrarydivorce bywhich me n freed
themselves of wives theywere bored with bymaking them take the veil. Yaros-
lav's Statute restrained the unlimited power of parents over their children's mar-
riages bymaking parents responsible for their daughters' chastityand punished
children wh o beat their parents, regarding this as a crime in the eyes of both
Church and state. The Church tolerated 'unblessed' marriages, quite widespread
in Russia among the simple people, and recogni2ed them as legallybinding.
Yaroslav's Statute imposes a fine for the arbitrary dissolution of such marriages.
The strong family created by Christianityformed the basis of Russian society
which through the many centuries of its historywithstood various trials.
Christianitymade a profoundlyhumane mark on ancient Russian civil law.
Russian criminal, civil, property, family and matrimonial law was transformed
under the influence of the collection of Greek laws, the Nomokanon. The basic
secular and ecclesiastical collections of laws inKievan Rus' were Russkaya
Pravda (Russia Justice), Vladimir's Statute, Yaroslav's Statute and the Pedalion, the
Russian version of the Nomokanon. In accordance with these legal documents the
Church fought against sin and the state against crime.
The Church considered every crime a sin, though the state did not necessa-
rilydo so. Sin is a moral crime, an infringement of the inner law of conscience
and the law of God. The Church was empowered to judge sins even when there
was no crime. Actions which were both sinful and criminal were judged by the
secular courts.
The influence of the Church on ancient Russian legislation consisted
mainly in its opposition to the commission of sin, thereby preventing crime
through a type of prophylactic work. The Church extended and deepened the
scope of responsibility, judging even those infringements that were not held
blameworthy bypagan customs and the law. For example, insulting words,
which were not condemned bypagan custom, were regarded as a sin in a bap-
tized Russian. This aroused in pagans who adopted Christianitya feeling of res-
pect for human dignity. Christian legislation, by nipping sin in the bud, pre-
vented crime, even if the Church did not always succeed in eradicating base
human vices and failings.
The baptism of Rus' marked the beginning of the spread of education and
written culture among the ancient Russian population. Unlike the Germanic
peoples who heard the Gospel in the alien Latin tongue, Kievan Rus' received
Christian enlightenment in its own Slavonic language. The translation of Holy
Scripture and the Church service books into Slavonic bySS Cyril and Meth-
odius lent an ecclesiastical aura to the most substantial feature of the Slavonic
ethnic group - its language. Thus Christianitycame to Rus' in a comprehensible
language and cultural form.
The Slavonic language in its ancient Bulgarian form was adopted by the
educated classes of Kiev in the tenth century, even before the adoption of Chris-
tianity. The official adoption of Christianity contributed even more to its es-
tablishment as the language of the Kievan aristocracy. The Slavonic literary
language became the language of the clergy, the educated classes and all edu-
cated people. It was used in conversation, writing, church services, sermons and
solemn addresses.
The language of Kiev passed to other centres of ancient Rus', and from
there by various paths spread to the rural world and to the very heart of the
masses of the people, playing an important role in the unification of the state.
The language of the Church became the language of all Rus', and by virtue of
this, united all the different East European tribes into a single nation.
With the adoption of Christianity, Prince Vladimir, on the advice of the
Metropolitan of Kiev, opened the first schools in Rus' 'for the strengthening of
the faith and the education of the children of the aristocracy, middle classes and
poor'.
3
The Metropolitan ordered the foundation of a school at every church so
that people would 'understand the words of books' and learn 'good morals,
righteousness and love, the beginning of wisdom which is the fear of God, pur-
ity and chastity'.
4
Church schools established an indivisible unity between
book-learning, scholarship and religious and moral upbringing.
224
In the schools of ancient Rus', the principles of theology, history, singing,
calendar calculations and the Greek and Slavonic languages were taught. In
992, the Russian bishops founded schools at the bishops' residences in all the
towns of Kievan Rus'. Even the little town of Vasil'kov near Kiev had its
school where in his youth St Theodosius of the Caves received his education.
The clergywere the main workers in the field of education. They consi-
dered it their sacred duty to teach the people the Christian faith and morality,
realizing that the spread of literacywas necessary for the successful preachingof
Christianity.
Kiev's first school, founded by Prince Vladimir, had up to300 pupils. In
1030 Prince Yaroslav the Wise founded a similar school in Novgorod. In 1086,
at the Convent of St Andrew in Kiev, Princess Anna Vsevolodovna, who had
taken the veil, founded a school for 300 orphans, girls andwome n of all classes,
wh om she herself taught to read, sing, write and do needlework. Ephrosynia of
Polotsk and Ephrosynia of Suzdal', renowned for their great learning, also
opened schools for girls in their convents. In ancient Rus' educationwas avail-
able not only to the rich, but to the poor also, and towome n as well as men.
The range of subjects taught in the schools at the bishops' residences was
comparable to that of European universities of the earlyMiddle Ages. Higher
education then consisted of the study of Holy Scripture, Church service books
and the works of the Fathers of the Church. Through the study of these works a
knowledge of secular learningwas also acquired. For example, in ancient Rus',
the study of the works of Dionysius the Areopagite acquainted readers with
Neoplatonic philosophy. Such colleges were to be found in sixteen towns in
Rus' , while at that time there were only forty-eight universities in all of Cath-
olic Europe.
In his concern to educate his people, Yaroslav the Wise not onlyopened
schools but founded the country's first librarywhich was accessible to all and
acquired a great reputation. Yaroslav himself read a great deal and taught his
children foreign languages. His son, Vsevolod, spoke five languages fluently.
Prince Roman Rostislavovich of Smolensk was interested in the sciences, built
up valuable libraries and opened schools for the study of ancient languages.
W h e n Anna Yaroslavovna moved to France on her marriage to Henri I of
France, she astonished everyone by her education, whereas the king himself
could barely sign his name. After the king's death she ruled France during the
minority of her son Philip. She died in1075.
The Caves Monastery in Kiev was a centre of religious education. The Stu-
dite Rule followed by this monastery obliged everymonk to read books. The
monastery had itsown library. The monks themselves copied and bound books
and even spun the thread for sewing the bindings. By the mid-thirteenth cen-
turythe monastery had provided the Church with eighty very learned bishops.
Many other monasteries were centres of Christian book-learning, each
with its own school and library. For example, the inventory of 1641 records that
there were up to 700 manuscripts in the libraryof the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra.
The Tartar-Mongol invasion and the ensuing devastation of towns led to
the closure of many schools and many of the colleges at bishops' residences.
From the period of the Mongol yoke right up to the sixteenth century, school
learningwas confined to parish schools. Nevertheless, despite the decline of
schools, the Church did not allow education to die out in Russia.
With the adoption of Christianity translated literature came to Rus' from
Bulgaria. Russian scribes did not lag behind, but also worked on numerous tran-
slations from Greek to Slavonic. Christianitygave a stimulus not only to tran-
slated literature but also to the writing of original Russian works. The most out-
standing example of this ancient Russian literature is the deeply patriotic work
of the eleventh century, The Sermon on Law and Grace by Metropolitan Hilarin,
which a Church historian, Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), describes as fol-
lows, ' O ne cannot but be amazed at the intellectual maturity, the depth of feel-
ing, the wide theological learning, the livelyoratory and the art that mark this
exemplarysermon.'
5
St Nestor, a monk of the Kiev Caves Monasterywho died in 1114, was the
founding father of the Russian chronicle. It was he who composed The Tale of
Bygone Years which, according to Academician B. D. Grekov, is ' among the
achievements of human genius', while Academician D. S. Likhachev calls it 'a
complete historyof Rus' in literaryform'. St Nestor the Chronicler was also the
founder of Russian hagiographie literature. He wrote the Life of SS Boris and
Gleb (d. 1015) and also the Life of St Theodosius of the Caves (d. 1074).
Bishop Cyril of Turov, wh o died after 1182, an outstanding ecclesiastical
writer of that time and known as the 'Russian Chrysostom', composed many
festal sermons and ascetic and hymnographic works.
The outstanding specialist on Kievan Rus' , Academician B. D. Grekov,
describes this period as follows, 'There were already many educated and
talented people in Rus' at that time. O f course, not all were of the calibre of
Hilarin or even approached the talent of the unknown author of The Song of
Igor's Campaign, but, after all, at no time are there dozens of people like these in
any country.'
6
Not only religious works such as sermons, pastoral epistles, polemic works
against heretics and adherents of different faiths, were writtenand copied in the
monasteries of ancient Rus', but also works of great national and cultural
importance such as chronicles and compilations. In addition to chronicles, the
monks composed separate accounts of memorable historical events, such as the
account of Abraham Palitsin, the cellarer of the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, of the
siege of the monasteryby Sapieha and Lissowski and the events of the ' Time of
Troubles'.
Christianity also had an enormous influence on the cultural development
of Kievan Rus' . It formed the basis of medieval Russian culture and thus linked
the Slavonic cultural world and Kievan Rus' with the culture of the Christian
peoples of East and W est.
Christian culture came to Rus' from Byzantium, which at that time was at
its peak. Western and Central Europe were in no way culturallysuperior to
Rus' . In comparison with Byzantium the W est was at an incomparably lower
level: this was a time of decline of culture, science and social ethics. In the tenth
century, Rus' could have drawn no learning or spiritual enrichment from there.
O n the contrary, 'Byzantine civilization struck its contemporaries by its spir-
ituality, inner nobility, exquisite forms and the brilliance of its technical
achievements.'
7
For this reason the culture that came to Rus' from Byzantium was majestic
in its dignity, classicallylucid in its style and refined in its spiritualityand inner
nobility.
As Academician D. S. Likhachev so rightlyremarks:
W e were accustomed to think of the culture of ancient Rus' as being backward . . .
but the closer we get back to ancient Rus' and the more intentlywe begin to look at
it... the clearer it appears to us that ancient Rus' had highlydeveloped and original
culture.
8
The adoption of Byzantine Christianityby Rus' made Kiev one of the most
beautiful, wealthyand cultured cities of Europe. At the time of Yaropolk, Kiev
was in fact considered the cultural centre of Europe. Western travellers were
delighted by its brilliance. European monarchs regarded it as an honour to form
matrimonial alliances with the familyof the Princes of Kiev. The unbiased jud-
gements of foreign visitors wh o visited the capital give us some idea of the
beautyand magnificence of Kiev. Bishop Thietmar of Merseburg (974-1018)
wrote that many foreigners lived in Kiev, and there were about 400 churches
and eight markets there. The great fire of 1070 destroyed 700 churches. These
figures alone show the rate at which churches were being built and decorated.
Adam of Bremen, describing the magnificence of the palaces of Kiev, consi-
dered Kiev the rival of Constantinople. The contemporary Belgian historian
Pirenne says, 'In the tenth centurythe State of Novgorod and Kiev was the
centre of the continent's civilization.'
The culture of ancient Rus' was expressed in architecture, icon-painting
and frescoes, ancient Russian literature and Russian choral music, and in the
decorative arts and embroidery. The churches of the eleventh and twelfth cen-
turies are the pride of Russian architecture. These include the Cathedral of St
Sophia in Kiev (1037), the Cathedral of St Sophia in Novgorod (1045-50), the
Cathedral of the Transfiguration in Chernigov (eleventh century), the Cath-
edral of the Dormition in the Kiev Caves Monastery (1073-89), destroyed by the
Nazis during the Second W orld W ar, the Cathedrals of the Dormition (1158
60) and St Demetrius (1194-97) at Vladimir-on-the-Klyazma, the Church of the
Intercession at Nerli (1165) and the Church of the Saviour of Nereditsa (1198) in
Novgorod, which are all examples of high monumental art with splendid
mosaics and frescoes. Russian icons are recognized as masterpieces of world art,
to the eternal gloryof their painters. The whole world knows Andrey Rublev
for his icon The Holy Trinity which expresses complete unityin love.
W ith the adoption of Christianity, Rus' became a full participant in the
world historical process and in the cultural tradition of Byzantium. W h at is
more, considering itself the successor of great and learned Byzantium, Rus' in
fact took its place in the Orthodox Christian world, taking on the mission of
acting as a link between East and W est. The Russian Church was a powerful fac-
tor in the development of culture not only during the period of Kievan Rus'
and Muscovy, but also in later times. Christianityhad an influence on the deve-
lopment of various areas of culture: literature and poetry, religious and philo-
sophic thought and Christian social thought and all forms of art: architecture,
painting, iconography, music and so forth. Th e Church was not only the spir-
itual guide of the simple believing people. Its influence was reflected in the life
and work of many outstanding writers, poets, artists, thinkers and public figures
of the second half of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century.
Despite the fact that from the time of Peter I the Russian Church was trans-
formed into a government department, it remained faithful not only to its call-
ing as a witness of Christ to many peoples wh om it converted to Christianity,
but also to its vocation to sanctityand spiritualityin its inner life, and to its duty
to stimulate the creativityof workers of Russian culture and religious and philo-
sophic thought.
For the past seventy years our Church has been living and witnessing to the
Gospel of Christ in ne w historical circumstances. In the conditions of socialist
societyit has found the path to people's hearts andne w ways to witness and to
serve, while remaining faithful to its thousand years of Orthodox tradition,
devoted to its people and the holy cause of salvation, ready to share with them
their joys and sorrows, successes and failures, and actively participate in the
building of a socialist society. During the years of the personality cult, the
Church carried the burden with the whole Soviet people. During the Second
W orl d W ar our people sufferedmore than others from Nazism and the destruc-
tion it caused, and lost 20 million lives. Th e Russian Church has therefore
activelyjoined with all people of goodwill in the search for peace, raising its
voice together with all peace-loving forces, both religious and secular, against
the nuclear threat and in defence of the salvation of the sacred gift of life.
At the present time the Russian Church has tens of millions of believers
and a ne w generation of young Christians is growing up. O ur churches are filled
with worshippers andne w churches are being opened and built, though not as
228
Metropolitan Phikrtt
rapidly as theywere suppressed during the years of the personality cult and
voluntarism. Increasing numbers of people, while keeping their own world-
view, react with sympathy and understanding to the Church's service in social-
ist society. Our testimony also finds support in the hearts and minds of millions
of people beyond our frontiers. O ur Church's experience shows that Christian
testimony on questions of peace and justice is the true message of the early
Church.
Actively involved in perestroika for the improvement of our socialist
society, Soviet literature and culture are turning to the past, to the great tradi-
tion of Russian literature. A real moral renaissance is under way in literature
and society. A number of outstanding Soviet writers have appeared. Their
works are in the best traditions of Russian literature. Although they do not
write from openly Christian positions, they in fact continue the struggle against
moral evil in man and societyin the spirit of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. This
humanist literature is steeped in the spirit of Christian spiritual and moral
values.
W hat is now going on in our literature and journalism can be described as a
search for lost moral values in order to create a better future. The spiritual,
social and cultural atmosphere that has grown up on the basis of perestroika,
democratization and glasnost encourages the formation of a new mode of inter-
national political and moral thinking.
The process taking place in our country is a witness to the vitalityof Chris-
tian culture created over 1,000 years. This is one reason why we are hoping for a
peaceful and just future for all mankind on the threshold of the new millen-
nium.
NOTES
1. P. Florovskij, 'Ponjatie Cerkvi v Svjascennom Pisanii [The Concept of the Church
in Holy-Scripture]', Bogoslovskie trudy [Theological Works], N o. 12, p. 175.
2. D. S. Lihacev, 'Zametki o russkom [Thoughts on Being Russian]', Novyj mir, N o. 3,
1980, p. 33.
3. N . Lavrovskij, O drevnerusskih ucitiscah [On Ancient Russian Schools], p. 31, Kharkov,
1854.
4. Ibid.
5. B. D. Grekov, Kievskaja Rus' [Kievan Rus'], p. 478, 1953.
6. V. O . Kljucevskij, Sobrannye socinenija [CollectedWorks], Vol. 1, p. 255.
7. Z. V. Udal'cova, 'Kul'turnye svjazi Vizantii, s Drevnej Rus'ju [Cultural Links bet-
ween Byzantium and Ancient Rus']', Problemy izucenija kul'turnogo nasledija [Problems
Arising in the Study of the Cultural Heritage], p. 16, Moscow, 1985.
8. Lihacev, op. cit, p. 33.
The Millennium of the conversion
of Rus' to Christianity
Stanislav Koltunyuk
U N E S CO ' s decision to organi2e a symposium on the Millennium of the intro-
duction of Christianity inRus' is an initiative of world-wide importance and
has doubtless contributed to the process of bringing peoples and religions closer
together and strengthening mutual understanding between all people of good-
will, striving for a nuclear-free world and for the survival of the human race.
In the Soviet Union, in particular, the public participated widely in the
celebration of the Jubilee. In Kiev, for instance, which is known as the mother
of Russian towns, being the cradle of the three sister-nations - Russia, Byelorus-
sia and the Ukraine - a wide range of functions was organized. By a resolution
of the Council of Ministers of the Ukrainian S S R, the Church regained the right
touse a number of the ecclesiastical buildings and architectural monuments of
the famous Kiev Caves Monasterycomplex. This transfer of part of the Kiev
Caves Monastery to the Exarchate is a further expression of the government's
realistic approach to the religious question, its firm intention to keep its word to
believers, and the strengthening of socialist legalityin relations between the
state and the Church. In a word, this action is a reflectionof perestroika, which
is taking place today in all fields of life and activityin our society. Other
churches have also been handed over to believers.
Today there is a pressing need to strengthenand widen the unity of believ-
ers and non-believers in joint participation incommon tasks. The separation of
the Church from the state in noway means its separation from society. ' W e
have a common history, a common fatherland and a common future,' states
Mikhail Gorbachev. Believers are also Soviet people and patriots and are quite
entitled to express their convictions with dignity. Perestroika, democratization
and glasnost affect them too, completely and without any limitations. This is
the approach now featured in relations between the people of the country.
230 Stanislav Kolttmjuk
It should be noted that the introduction of Christianity into the first
ancient Russian State - Kievan Rus' - was not the only factor that determined
the progress of ancient Russian society. Research into the culture of ancient
Rus' witnesses to the fact that the ground was already prepared for the incorpo-
ration of ancient Rus' into world culture by the great communication link lead-
ing 'from the Varangians to the Greeks', that is, as early as the ninth century,
and that there already existed very rich foundations in the form of folklore and
a developed legal system.
In the historyof Kievan Rus' the introduction of Christianitywas, indeed,
a momentous event, not onlyfrom the religious but also from the social and
political points of view, for it had a significant influence on the formation and
development of our country's statehood, economy and culture. Christianity
accelerated the emergence of Slav literature, bringing together and integrating
under its aegis written culture, literature, sculpture and architecture in a syn-
thesis that is well illustrated, to give but one example, by that architectural mas-
terpiece, the Cathedral of St Sophia in Kiev. This, however, did not grow out of
nothing.
Archaeological evidence shows that, during the period of pre-Christian
'darkness', people did not really live as though in the dark. They alreadyhad a
broad outlook and strove persistently to understand and explain the world
around them. In a word, history until now bears witness that in pagan times
ancient Rus' had a culture that was quite perfect in its own way. It was as
though Christianitywas being added on to the existing East Slav culture. There
can be no doubt that the introduction of Christianitymade it possible for Kie-
van Rus' to become a state of world importance, while Kiev itself became a
competitor and serious rival of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine
Empire. Even now, the city of Kiev, capital of the Soviet Ukraine, which
recently celebrated the 1,500th anniversaryof its foundation, is one of the great
industrial and cultural centres of the Soviet Union.
Many cultural values dating back to ancient Rus' are carefullypreserved
and nurturedamong the people up to the present. This can be seen in architec-
ture, in folk art and crafts and in the folk-songs of the people living in the terri-
tories of Russia, the Ukraine and Byelorussia.
Another extremely important aspect of the question should be mentioned.
Research shows that the Orthodox Church inRus' strove from the start to esta-
blish good relations between people of goodwill, to build bridges of peace and
neighbourly relations and achieve mutual understanding and co-operation bet-
ween nations, and that it was in no way the fault of the Church that Kievan
Rus' fell under the blows of alien invaders after little more than 250 years of
existence. It is symbolic that the first stone church of ancient Rus' - the Church
of the Tithe in Kiev - became a bulwark and protection for the Russian people;
The Millennium of the conversion of Rus' to Christianity 231
simple laypeople and warriors and clergy, wh o fell together with their church
for their fatherland.
In the present day the Russian Orthodox Church, which for 1,000 years has
taken a firm stand as an advocate of peace and neighbourly relations, continues
to strive untiringly to strengthen them. Public opinion in the Ukraine and in
the Soviet Union as a whole, and the many representatives of international
organizations and national organizations in foreign countries striving to
achieve peace and halt the arms race, set a high value on the activities of the
Russian Orthodox Church, its leaders and wide circles of the clergy and the
faithful for the protection of peace and welfare and the safeguard of life on
earth.
It was with genuine satisfaction that the Soviet people greeted the govern-
ment's decision to confer the highest state awards on a group of senior Church
leaders, including Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev and Galicia, Exarch of the
Ukraine, and Metropolitan Juvenal of Krutitsa in view of their activities for the
promotion of peace and to mark the occasion of the Millennium of the baptism
of Rus' .
The Russian Orthodox Church:
past and present
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the at her, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
(Matt. 28:19-20)
W e begin with these words because the whole 2,000-year-long historyof Chris-
tianity is founded on this commandment of the Risen Saviour Christ to the
Holy Apostles and their successors, and in the fulfilment of which the Church
has influenced various aspects of human life and continues to do so, thus mak-
ing its indelible mark on history.
' One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one
day' (2 Pet. 3:8). These words of the Holy Apostle Peter are a key to the mean-
ing and significance of the 1,000-year-long history of Christianity in our coun-
try. Guided by the wisdom of this divine revelation, we can speak of the deve-
lopment of sanctity and spirituality, national culture and the all-round
contribution of the Russian Orthodox Church to the treasury of world spir-
ituality, bridging in our thoughts the gapbetween past and present.
Millennia, centuries, years, days . . . As I see it, the relationshipbetween
these measurements of human history is best revealed bycomparing them to
Eternity. The value of the fruits of human history, in other words the works of
world culture, is, as a rule, related to the degree towhich they partake in the
Eternal. For a believer this is not surprising: after all, when man, a finite and
created being, creates, he himself becomes a creator, and thus, in history, in our
finite and created world, he himself becomes an image of the Creator. And the
more perfect and beautiful the work of human hands and human genius, the
234
more clearlyits participation in the Eternal is revealed. A proper understanding
of Christian culture requires a realistic idea of the true tasks of Christ's Church,
its inner life and order.
' W h e n the fulness of the time was come . . .' (Gal. 4:4), the Second Person
of the Triune God, the Most Holy Trinity, the Most HeavenlyLogos became
incarnate in human history; God the W ord appeared in the world, taking upon
himself our human nature in all its fulness, except for sin. The earthly service of
our Lord Jesus Christ began. H e healed the physical and spiritual sicknesses of
me n, preached, taught and proclaimed divine truths.
And now we see before us the mystery of Golgotha and the Resurrection.
The salvation of the human race from enslavement to sin and death has been
accomplished. Faith in him wh o was crucified and rose again opens the way for
man to a previouslyunknown spiritual reality - to the Kingdom of God, the
kingdom of freedom and grace. This Kingdom is revealed in the Church, an
institution which is both divine and human and which the Apostle Paul calls
'the Body of Christ' (1 Cor. 12:27; E ph. 1: 23, 4:12). The Head of this Body is
Christ, andwe wh o believe in him are the various members or limbs of this
Body, performing various functions as in anynormal organism.
People are mistaken if they understand the Church as meaning only the
clergy. The Church is all the fulness of the people of God, from the Apostles
wh o themselves saw G od the Incarnate W ord, the martyrs for the faith of
Christ, Kings and Princes Equal to the Apostles, theologians, thinkers, poets,
artists and hymnographers whose verynames are pronounced with deep respect
not only by Christians but by all people wh o hold human culture dear - down
to the sociallyhumblest of our contemporaries with their ardent faith and fer-
vour.
Preciselyfor this reason the life of the Church does not fit into the narrow
framework of the secular study of culture. In the spiritual treasury of the
Church there is much that 'eye hath not seen nor ear heard' (1 Cor. 2:9). O ne of
the most vivid examples of this is prayer. O f course a vast number of liturgical
texts and prayers are kept in the memory of the Church, inHoly Tradition.
Modern scholars such as philologists, historians and liturgists have at their dis-
posal innumerable works of literature of this type. O n the basis of their analysis
verymany interesting facts can be discovered and many well-argued theories
constructed, for example, about the formation of written expression, the deve-
lopment of language and cultural contacts between peoples. Nevertheless, the
main thing - the living beat of the human heart aspiring toGod - remains hid-
den from the researcher, if he himself has not tasted the sweetness of prayer. In
this aspect the life of the Church remains 'hid with Christ in G od' (Col. 3:3),
and it can be revealed in its fulness only to those wh o participate in it.
The Church's main work is to proclaim to the world the Good N e ws of the
accomplishment of man' s salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ and tocommun-
The Russian Orthodox Church: past and present
235
icate the fruits of this salvation to people. All the Church' s activity is sub-
ordinated to this mission of salvation. T he means used by the Church for this
work include, in particular, such cultural phenomena as figurative art, architec-
ture, music and literature. O n the other hand , in view of the fact that Christians
have played an important role in the d evelopment of world culture and science
for close on 2,000 years, the religion confessed by them cannot but have left a
certain mar k on their creative work in those fields of h uma n intellectual activ-
ity that are not specifically connected with the Church.
In connection with this, the word s of the outstanding R ussian historian,
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky, spring to mind :
T he Church has its own field of action separate from the activities of the state. It has
its own territory, which is the believing conscience, its own politics which are the
defence of this conscience from sinful inclinations. But, while nurturing the
believer for the city to come, it also gradually renews and reconstructs the city here
abiding. This reconstruction of secular society under the influence of the Church is a
mysterious and edifying process in the life of Christian societies.
1
All this should be borne in mind when w e c ome to consider the cultural mis-
sion of the R ussian Orthod ox Church. T ogether with R ev. Professor Georgy
Florovsky w e ma y say with confidence that 'the history of R ussian culture
begins with the baptism of R us' . T he pagan age was left behind , outside his-
tory.'
2
T his refers specifically to the main line of d evelopment of our culture as
opposed to that which was left on the periphery of the people' s consciousness,
where the vestiges of paganism still make themselves felt in areas in which the
Church' s influence is less manifest. T his is also noted by the eminent American
researcher of R ussian culture, Dr James Billington, Director of the United
States Library of Congress, w h o took part in the work of the international con-
ferences of scholars and churchmen held by the Mo s c o w Patriarchate in con-
nection with the Millennium of the baptism of R us' . In his work on the history
of R ussian culture, he recognizes Eastern Orthod oxy as one of the most impor-
tant sources of our national awareness: ' However fascinating pagan survivals,
however magnificent earlier Scythian art, Orthod ox Christianity created the
first distinctly R ussian culture and provid ed the basic forms of artistic expres-
sion and the framework of belief for mod ern R ussia.'
3
In the scholar's opinion,
religion was to play a leading role in writing the full history of R ussian culture,
where it was not only one aspect of civilization but a power suffusing the whole.
T he jubilee of the baptism of R us' has stirred in the consciousness of ma ny
people on earth the well-known events that took place 1,000 years ago in R us-
sian history. O n the subject of the beginnings of the R ussian Church, of the
R ussian people' s culture, morality and creativity, the immortal word s of St Nes-
tor the Chronicler spring to mind , telling h o w the Great Prince Vlad imir of
Kiev, after promising the Christian G o d , w h o m he did not yet kno w, that he
236 Metropolitan ]menai
would accept baptism, postponed it continuallyand was suddenly struck blind.
H e then said to those wh o assured him that baptism would restore his sight:
'If what you say is indeed fulfilled, then trulythe Christian God is great,' and
ordered them to baptize him forthwith. Then the Bishop of Cherson with the
Empress's priests, after making Vladimir a catechumen, baptizedhim. And when
the Bishop laid his hand on him, Vladimir immediately regained his sight. . . Rea-
lizing that he had suddenlybeen cured, he glorifiedGod [saying]: ' N ow I know the
true God.'
4
Thus was baptized the great Russian Prince wh o baptizedRus' and was known
by his grateful people as Vladimir the Bright Sun. O n his return to Kiev he
ordered all the townspeople to come to the River Dnieper on an appointed day.
W h e n the inhabitants had gathered, then, according to The Tale of Bygone Years,
They went into the water and stood there, some up to the neck, others up to the
chest, the young near the bank up to their chests, some held children and the adults
walked about, and the priests stood still, saying prayers. And heaven and earth
could be seen to rejoice at the salvation of so many souls.
5
From that moment churches were built in Rus' , thus laying the foundations of
Russian architecture, schools were opened, literacydeveloped and book-learn-
ing became accessible to all. Chronicles were compiled and works of literature
appeared.
Christianityacquainted the Slavs with the historyof mankind and gave
them the basis for a new world-view which in its turn gave birth to Russian
Christian art and culture. It brought awareness and social memory. From the
time of the baptism of the people of Kiev, the historyof the separate Slavonic
tribes became their shared Russian history, and each man took up his place on
earth with all his responsibilitybefore the coming generations. Peace became a
boon to be preserved, nature a gift of G od to be cherished and faith a treasure to
be kept.
It was not bymere coincidence that, looking on his newly baptized fellow-
countrymen, Prince Vladimir exclaimed: 'Christ God, Creator of heaven and
earth, look upon these ne w people and grant them, Lord, to know Thee, the
true God, as the Christian lands have come to know Thee. Confirm in them a
true and unswerving faith!'
6
As we go through the pages of the historyof our Church we encounter
names and images, each of which could be the embodiment of a whole age. In
Russian literature there are Nestor the Chronicler, Clement Smolyatich, Metro-
politan Hilarin, and Cyril, Bishop of Turov. Among the Russian ascetics there
are SS Anthony and Theodosius, Mark the Cave Dweller and Nicolas Svyatosha
of the Kiev Caves Monastery, or their spiritual successors Barlaam of Khutyn,
Zosima and Sabbatius of Solovki or the Moscow fool for Christ Vasily
237
(Basil the Blessed). Thus imperceptibly, in meagreness and poverty, Russian
morality graduallybecame more enlightened; it was in great disappointment
that a peasant, wh o had come to St Sergius' Monastery to see the famed andmaj-
estic abbot, exclaimed, 'It's all so poor, so beggarly, so desolate.' Yet before his
eyes stood the man whose name has gone down in Russian historyas being of
perhaps incomparable significance.
The Russian Church laid strong foundations for family life. W oman
became an equal member of societyand the family. In the words of the histor-
ian Klyuchevsky, wh om we have alreadymentioned:
The Church based the legal capacityand maternal authorityof woman on her moral
perfection and the loftiness of her duty in the family, and if Russianwoman ex-
amines the legal and moral interests bywhich she lives, everything that society
values most in her and that she values most in herself, in other words all her special
moral status, this she owes mainly to the Church, to its preachingand its legisla-
tion.
7
In present-day society, historicallynurtured on Christian culture, the very
notion of slaveryseems strange, absurd and unnatural. It is our moralitypecu-
liar to Christian doctrine that has made us aware that it is inhuman. In pre-
Christian Russia, however, slaverywas considered perfectlynormal. Among
Rus's non-Christian neighbours, such as the Horde, it did not die out until as
late as the sixteenth century, whereas with the adoption of Christianityamong
us, it verysoon dwindled and disappeared completely. As the same historian
says:
The main responsibilityfor this break-up, which facilitated the stamping out of ser-
vitude, I recognize as being that of the Church: servile bondage melted away under
the influence of Church confession and testaments. Freely, for the salvation of his
soul, the slave-owner mitigated his rights or even gave them up for the benefit of his
serf; personal expressions of philanthropygrew into habits and customs that were
then enshrined in legal standards.
8
Many modern legal and juridical concepts are based on ideas laiddown in
ancient Rus' by the Church. It is interesting to read what Prince Vsevolod
Mstislavovich, the grandson of Vladimir Monomakh , wh o reigned inN ov-
gorod in the thirteenth century andmade certain adaptations to Prince Vladi-
mir's original legal statutes, wrote about particularlycomplicated legal ques-
tions: 'All these I order the Bishop to deal with, by consulting the Nomokanon,
freeing our soul of all responsibility for them.'
9
In the mid-thirteenth century a calamity struck Rus' . As we are informed
inThe Tale of the Destruction of Ryazan' by Batyi, 'There was thenmuch anguish and
sorrow, and tears and sighs and fear and trembling caused by those evil me n
wh o attacked us.'
10
In these menacing times too the Church was with the peo-
238
pie. Serapion, Bishop of Vladimir, boldlyand fearlessly raised his pastoral
voice:
Let us marvel, brethren, at this our God's love for mankind. . . . Having seenhow
our sins have increased, having seen us casting aside his commandments, after
showing us many signs, he sent us much fear and taught us much through his ser-
vants - but we would not learn! Then he sent upon us a merciless people, a savage
people, a people who spare neither the beauty of the young, nor the weakness of the
old nor the infancyof children. W e have aroused against ourselves the wrath of our
God, for, as David asks, ' W h y doth thine anger smoke against the sheep of thy pas-
ture?' [Ps. 74:1]. The churches of God are destroyed, the holy vessels are defiled, the
honourable crosses and the holybooks, the holy places are trampled underfoot, the
bishops have become the prey of the sword, the bodies of the righteous martyrs are
cast out to be eaten by birds and the earth is soaked with the blood of our fathers and
brethren as with an abundance of water. . . . "
At this grim time, the Church, in the person of its bishops, Peter and Alexis,
began to gather the Russian lands around Moscow, as yet unknown. Th e
Princes understood that their people's strength lay in the shared religious faith,
unanimity and like-mindedness that could onlycome from the Church. The
great Russian military leader wh o was later canonized, Prince Alexander N e v-
sky, sought the blessing of the Church for all his deeds: 'Prince Alexander
decided to go to the king in the Horde, and Bishop Cyril blessed him. And King
Batyi saw him and marvelled, and said to his dignitaries, "They spoke the truth
whe n they toldme that there is no prince like h im...." ' W hat was the purpose
of the Prince's journey? His Life informs us: ' At that time there was great vio-
lence from the infidel, they persecuted the Christians and forced them to fight
on their side. The Great Prince Alexander went to the King to beg for his peo-
ple's deliverance from this misfortune.'
12
' O ne of the distinctive traits of a great nation,' inKlyuchevsky's words, 'is
its capacity to rise again after a fall. However deep its humiliation, whe n the
time comes it gathers together its lost moral strength which is embodied in one
great man or in several great people, wh o bring it back onto the straight path of
historywhich it had left for a time.'
13
Klyuchevsky described St Sergius of Rado-
nezh as such a personality.
The importance of the Church and of the personalityof St Sergius in the
struggle to free Rus' from the nomad enemy is very well illustrated in the story
of the Battle of the Field of Kulikovo. Before the battle Prince Dimitri Donskoy
addressed his soldiers with the words:
My fathers and brethren, fight for the sake of the Lord and for the sake of the holy
churches and for the sake of the Christian faith, for now death is not death for us
but eternal life; and do not think, brethren, of anything earthly, for we will not
retreat, and then Christ, the God and Saviour of our souls, will crown us with
crowns of victory. O great N ame of the All-Holy Trinity, O Most HolyLady and
Mother of God, help us by the prayers of this monastery and its venerable Abbot
Sergius.
14
In the historyof our Church were fulfilled the words of the Apostle Paul, wh o
said that in the Church of G od ' ... there is neither Greek nor J e w. . . Barbarian,
Scythian, bond, nor free: but Christ is all, and in all' (Col. 3:11). At various
stages of its existence the Russian Church has spread over the territories of
many peoples and lands: Poland, Finland, the Volga region, the Caucasus,
W estern Siberia, Yakutia, Kamchatka, the Amur valley, Alaska, the Aleutian
Islands, from North America to California, Japan, Korea and some areas of Iran
and China. Ethnicallyeven today our Church is not very heterogenous, and its
historical name , the Russian Orthodox Church, conveys the idea of the Ortho-
dox Church in Russia. As a result of the Russian Church' s missionary activity,
more than forty different peoples have been converted to Christianity, thus
bringing them into the c ommon historyand culture of mankind. O ur Church
also introduced many of these peoples to the art of writing and to the founda-
tions of architecture, music and law.
The Russian Church also put no small effort into the preservation of the
places in the HolyLand that hold memories for Christians. The vast number of
articles donated by the Russian Church, and which can be found in abundance
throughout the Holy Land, now bear witness to these constant links and pil-
grimages made by Russians to Palestine. Already in the twelfth century, Abbot
Daniel, the author of the well-known Travels, wrote, ' Many, having visited the
Holy Cityof Jerusalem and failed to see .everything, return there in the hope of
covering the ground again.'
15
Th e same Abbot spoke of the many objects
donated by Russian people in Jerusalem, and he himself had a votive lamp
placed at the Holy Sepulchre on behalf of all Rus' .
In the ancient Russian State, the Church had a very special position:
At that time, the Russian Church was responsible for much that later became the
direct responsibilityof the state. Even then the Church did not interfere in the
affairs of the state, but the state itself involved the Church in its affairs, as it was not
yet in a position to handle all of these. Even in Byzantium the work of the Church
hierarchywas not confined solelyto the sphere of spiritual matters: in addition to
its participation in government and the law courts, it also assisted the state in the
organization of charity, protection of the weak and oppressed, maintenance of
social order and proper family behaviour. Clergyfrom Byzantium brought the first
ideas of such institutions and relations to Russia; neither the state nor societywas
able to take responsibilityfor them in the newly enlightened country; but, judging
by the account in the chronicle of the charitable activities of Prince Vladimir, it is
possible to think at least that the government verysoon grasped their importance
for public order. The clergy indicated principles and rules for the organization of
such matters in the precepts that they adopted and which, in the eyes of Russian
240
Christians, had immutable canonical force or constituted a moral obligation. Local
legislation had merely to adapt such principles and rules to the level of development
and the requirements of local society. The local state authority entrusted this task,
accompanied by the necessary legislative powers, to the Church hierarchy, begin-
ning by authorizing it to take whatever institutional measures it considered neces-
sary. Thus the Church hierarchyworked in close co-operation with the government
in the ordering of the state and, in addition to wide jurisdiction, received the legisla-
tive authority to establish certain secular relations.
16
It is noteworthy that the newly created Russian legislationwas influenced by
Christian piety to a far greater degree than its Byzantine prototype. Moreover,
there was an attempt toendow the law with moral and religious motives. ' The
introduction of such moral motives into Russian legislationwas a bold attempt
to challenge rational certaintyand reasoned argument and to replace fear of
material sanctions or physical punishment by a sense of order or duty.'
17
However paradoxical this may seem, many years later these same ideals were
inscribed on the banners of our country's lovers of justice wh o consciously
rejected all forms of religious axiology. ' By introducing moral motivations into
secular legislation, the Church in this way went deep into the life of the secular
community, setting its relationships on a moral basis. This was the second task
of the Church, closely linked to the first one.'
18
The process of the spread of ChristianityinRus' was lengthy andmany-
sided. Byzantium, Bulgaria and Moravia became sources of Christian culture for
our people. It was from these countries that the new-born Russian Church
received in abundance a rich heritage of cultural traditions. Together with
Christianity, the latest achievements of European culture of the time came to
Rus' : Slavonic writing and literature, a highlydeveloped musical art, traditions
of painting and a canon of architecture.
Through the labours of the brothers, SS Cyril and Methodius, equal in this
to the Apostles, and that of their successors, the Slavs obtained their own writ-
ing. Holy Scripture became accessible to the Slav peoples in their native lan-
guage. In the words of the outstanding philologist of the Slav languages, Ignaty
Vikentievich Jagic (1838-1923), at the beginning of the ninth centuryBulgaria
'could confidently stand comparison, for its superb literaryworks of an eccle-
siastical and religious nature, with the richest literatures of the time (Greek and
Latin), in this respect excelling all other European literatures.'
19
N ot half a century had passed since the year 988 whe n the seeds sown in
the Russian land under Vladimir began to bear fruit. ' The Autocrat of the Rus-
sian land [Prince Yaroslav] loved books and had writtenmany, placing them in
the Church of St Sophia which he founded himself.' Independent work on the
translation of Byzantine literature began inRus' , ' and Yaroslav loved the Typi-
kon of the Church, greatlyloved the priests and especiallymonks, and studied
books which he often read by night and by day, and collectedmany scribes, and
they translated works from Greek to Slavonic, and copied many books and
obtained them, from which the faithful people can learn, taking delight in the
Divine teaching'.
20
Right up to the end of the seventeenth century, Russian
learning, language and literature developed almost exclusively within the
framework of religious and ecclesiastical themes.
All Russian learning of the first seven centuries of the existence of Russian
statehood was inextricably linked to the Church. The first known libraryin the
country's historywas in the Cathedral of St Sophia in Kiev. The founder of this
librarywas none other than the noble Prince Yaroslav the Wise: it was not only
a book depository (library) but also a publishing-house (scriptorium) where
monks copied books for distribution. It is held that it was before the scribes
working in this scriptorium that Metropolitan Hilarin pronounced his famous
Sermon on Law and Grace. Copies and translations of books brought from Bul-
garia, Moravia and Byzantium were kept and copied in the libraryof St Sophia
and then distributed throughout Russia. The historical fate of the first Russian
librarywas the same as that of Kievan Rus' : during Batyi's invasion in 1240 this
centre of culture perished together with Kiev.
The monasteries were the most important centres for the writing of books.
As earlyas the start of the eleventh century, The Tale of Bygone Years was written
in the Kiev Caves Monastery. A well of ancient Russian spirituality, the Kiev
Caves Paterikon, was created there by several generations of monks. It is a reli-
gious text written in the traditions of Eastern ascetic literature, albeit drawing
its inspiration from the rich historyof the monastery. The libraries of sketes and
coenobitical monasteries became the country's main libraries. Russian monks
considered the copying of books to be one of the most important forms of
monastic work.
These treasures of ancient Russian learning are now in state libraries. The
collections of the Kiev Caves Monastery, the Chudov Monastery in the Moscow
Kremlin, the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, the Monastery of St Cyril of the White
Lake, the SolovetskyMonastery, the Monastery of St Joseph of Volokalamsk,
the Monastery of the Resurrection in N e w Jerusalem, Optina Pustyn' and Sia
Monastery (Siiskii Monastyr) have all survived.
In the fourteenth century, at the Primate's See of Moscow, a remarkable
collection of books was started, which in time was to become one of the richest
in the country. A special contribution was made to it by Metropolitan Makarius
of Moscow (d. 1563), the creator of the Great Chet'i Minei, a body of books read
in Russia, including the lives of the Saints and homilies of the Fathers of the
Church. Another administrator of the librarywas Patriarch Nikon (d. 1681), on
whose orders the cellarer of the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, Arsenius (Sukhanov),
brought from Mount Athos a magnificent collection of Greek church books
dating from the ninth to the sixteenth century.
A real pearl of the Moscow Patriarchal Library(now in the State Historical
242
Muse um) is the Bible of Archbishop Gennadius of Novgorod (d. 1505). This
was the first complete Slavonic compilation of Holy Scripture, created as a syn-
thesis of Byzantine, ancient Russian and Latin traditions at the see of this
remarkable hierarch at the end of the fifteenth century(1499).
At present a Synodal Library is being established at the Spiritual and Admi-
nistrative Centre in the Danilov Monastery inMoscow as a collection of reli-
gious literature.
W e should note the important place of Holy Scripture in our country's
written culture. ' The history of the Slavonic languages and written culture in
the first centuries of its existence is studied first of all on the basis of manu-
scripts of Holy Scripture.'
21
This is not surprising, for several reasons including:
(a) the proportion of manuscripts with texts of Holy Scripture immeasurably
exceeds that of all other works of literature; (b) Holy Scripture was not only
considered the most authoritative source for argumentation in the religious and
moral field, but was also the basis of cosmological, historical, socio-political
and economic ideas; and (c) 'Biblical books were the source of subjects, quota-
tions and turns of phrase and therefore had considerable influence on the
choice of subject and stylistic characteristics of ancient Russian literature.'
22
During the Middle Ages the translation of Holy Scripture into a language
in which it had not previously existed was nothing short of the birth of a
nation's written literature. The creation of the next biblical translation within
the framework of an already existing Church tradition as a rule reflects a transi-
tion to anew phase of the development of its language and culture. This was
also the case with Holy Scripture in our country. Having commenced in the
tenth century its activityof spreading the W ord of G od simplyby copying bibli-
cal books, by the beginning of the twentieth century, the Russian Orthodox
Church, apart from translating the Bible into Russian, had spread Holy Scrip-
ture in the languages of about fortypeoples from the shores of the Black Sea and
the Baltic to California.
Church services in the Slavonic language led to the spread, together with
churches and monasteries, of translated church-service books, including not
only hymnographic material, but also homilies. The liturgical literature of
Byzantium, which came toRus' with the introduction of Christianity, included
a large number of significant works of European poetical culture of the time. It
was on this refined poetry that the Russian hymnographers based their works.
In the course of time, the Russian Orthodox Church came to possess a vast trea-
sury of liturgical works that still lift up the souls of many millions of Orthodox
worshippers. 'Readings' or 'Homilies' prescribed in the liturgyfamiliarized
Russian congregations with the best examples of classical Eastern homiletics.
Acquaintance with patristics, which began practicallywith the first decades of
Christian preaching, gave unusual breadth to the intellectual outlook of Russian
society. Very soon great Russian preachers appeared. It is enough toremember
Metropolitan Hilarin, the author of the famous Sermon on the haw Given through
Moses and Grace and Truth through Jesus Christ, Bishop Cyril of Turov, preacher and
hymnographer and author of festal 'Sermons' on the twelve major feasts and the
Sundays of the Paschal cycle, Metropolitan Clement Smolyatich, 'scholar and
philosopher', wh o used the allegorical method of interpreting Holy Scripture,
and Bishop Ephraim of Pereyaslavl', the hagiographer and preacher.
Hagiography, represented by a number of remarkable works, enjoyed great
popularityamong Russian me n of letters, and, it should be noted, still arouses
great interest among Orthodox readers. Many Russian classical writers of the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries turned to themes borrowed from the Lives
of the Saints.
The Church brought toRus' not only the religious culture of the Christian
East, but also knowledge of secular sciences. Approximatelyfrom the seventh
century there began to appear in By2antium anthologies of short historical
accounts, sayings and aphorisms, taken not onlyfrom the works of the Fathers
of the Church, but also from the works of ancient philosophers and historians.
The ancient Russian version of such anthologies, known in our literaryhistory
under the name of Pchela {The Bee), includes translations of three Greek anthol-
ogies, which in the original came from the pen of St Maxim the Confessor and
Antony Melissa (the name of the latter in fact means 'bee').
A special place in ancient Russian literature is occupied by the works
known under the generic name of Hexameron. They are all translated works,
devoted to questions of cosmogony, and interpreted from the viewpoint of the
accounts of the first chapters of the Book of Genesis. The firstHexameron came
from the pen of Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. Many
compilations of this work were in circulation, not only inRus' but in various
Slav countries too. Nevertheless, the full translation of this work into Slavonic
only appeared in1656; it was the work of Epiphanius Slavinetsky. The other
versions of the Hexameron took this work to some extent as their prototype.
Although from the point of view of ' modern science', including theology,
the cosmic and other 'scientific' ideas of these ancient works may appear naive
and outdated, any evaluation of their influence on the culture of their time has
to take account of the following factors: first, the general state of European
science of the time did not go beyond the limits of these ideas; second, the reli-
gious and ethical interest that often tends to replace natural historyby axiolog-
icallydirected moral historiosophy prevails over the purely scientific (in the
modern sense) world-view; and third, certain apologetic arguments, directed
against equally ancient refutations of the cosmological ideas of Holy Scripture,
sometimes remain convincing for believers of our time with the highest educa-
tion in the natural sciences.
The patristic philosophical tradition introduced from the first days of the
existence of the Russian Orthodox Church had a considerable influence on
244 Metropolitan Juvenal
specificallyRussian themes of the search for wisdom. Both Russian and foreign
researchers note that the main interest of Russian philosophy is not in the field
of gnoseology or ontology, but rather in the practical field. Yet, according to
the division of philosophical sciences that has been in general use since the time
of Kant, 'practical philosophy' relates above all to ethics.
Many Russian thinkers with a worldwide reputation for creativity stress
this concept of the 'practicality' of our country's philosophy. In this connection
it is interesting to note that this preference for ethics remains, even in the works
of modern Soviet philosophers.
The first fruits of the newlyawakened Russian national consciousness were
the chronicles. It is here that we encounter for the first time an attempt to sit-
uate national historyin the context of world history. The most perfect example
of the Russian chronicle is rightlyconsidered to be The Tale of Bygone Years by
Nestor, a monk of the Kiev Caves Monasterywh o lived in the eleventh and
early twelfth centuries.
The ancient Russian chronicles are the most important sources of informa-
tion on Russian national history. They can be considered the most significant
works of the thought and culture of the people of Rus' . O ne of the most charac-
teristic features of the ancient chronicles is their religious interpretation of the
historical process. Every event is seen as depending on Divine Providence.
W eaving into their account legends, episodes from byliny (epics), treaties, legis-
lative documents and those of princes' and church archives, the Russian chron-
iclers always remained religious thinkers, considering historyfrom a soteriolog-
ical point of view. They always evaluated socio-political questions in terms of
religious and moral categories which, in all probability, resulted mainlyfrom
the eschatological direction of their world-view.
Let us now turn to the aspect of Church culture best known to the secular
consciousness. At the present time the works of figurative art created by Ortho-
dox artists are the most widespread witnesses to the Church culture of Eastern
Christianity. The Russian icon, 'philosophy in paint', expresses most graph-
icallythe essence of Russian Orthodox spirituality. Such eminent classical theo-
logians as the Rev. Pavel Florensky and Prince Evgeny Trubetskoy have
devoted entire studies to the theological understanding of this phenomenon of
Orthodox culture.
Russian icon painting can be regarded as the most valuable contribution of
the Russian people to European and world culture. O ne cannot but agree with
G . P. Fedotov wh o stated that 'In painting at least, one may venture to say that
neither the nineteenth nor the twentieth centuries have produced a genius
equal to Andrey Rublev.'
23
The mystic life and feat of prayer of such great Russian saints as SS Sergius
of Radonezh, Nil of Sora or Seraphim of Sarov are but poorly represented in
their Lives or other literaryworks.
The best proof of the vitalityof the precepts of St Sergius of Radonezh on
the worship of the Most Holy Trinityis the work of St Andrey Rublev. His
works of icon painting, created within the framework of the traditional canon,
recorded for all ages the experience of the believing soul's encounter with God.
Rublev's icon of The Holy Trinity shows a deep understanding of the funda-
mental dogma of Christianity that no other work has achieved. The Saviourfrom
the Chin ofZvenigorod portrays the mystery of the Incarnation of God with unsur-
passed strength.
At the same time, icon painting cannot be appreciated in all its fulness out-
side the architectonics of the Orthodox Church. The icon is one of the most
essential components of the work of prayer. The very arrangement of the icons
on the iconostasis tells the believer much about the Kingdom of God. The strict
canon in iconography and architecture defines a true ' Kingdom of Freedom' for
the creative activityof man.
Today, even those who are far from the Church often express great enthu-
siasm when the conversation turns to the subject of church architecture.
Delight is sometimes aroused simply by the skill with which the church build-
ing is situated in the setting of the landscape. At the same time, the church as a
work of architecture is always considered by the believing heart as a reflection
of the world above in the one below and a call to 'set [the] affection on things
above, not on things of the earth' (Col. 3:2). Church architecture proves to be a
graphic presentation of the mystery of the Church.
O ne of the most essential elements of church services is the music. In
accordance with centuries of tradition, only vocal music is used in the Ortho-
dox Church liturgy. N o musical instruments intervene in the expression of the
believing soul's prayerful communion with God. It is also very significant that
even this exclusivelyvocal expression of prayer has its fixed canon bywhich the
distinction is made between what is permitted and what is forbidden in church
singing.
The historyof Russian church music shows that it has deep roots in the
national spiritual culture. The nation's soul is perhaps nowhere expressed as
vividlyas in our liturgical singing. Perhaps it is preciselyfor this reason that
many great Russian composers have turned to the traditional themes of church
hymnography, seeing this as the way to reach deeply into the heart of the peo-
ple's spiritual life.
In this way the Russian Orthodox Church is the guardian of the treasures of
spiritual experience of 2,000 years of Christian culture. The faithful children of
the Russian Church have enriched this treasuryin everyway over the 1,000
years of the existence of the Russian State.
W hat is the life and role of the Russian Church in today's world? Only
twenty years ago, I was often asked, ' W hat message does your Church have for
the modern world? Is it really still repeating what it said 1,000 years ago? After
all, in recent times humanity has changed somuch, learnt and discovered so
much; it now has different concerns and interests, different problems and diffi-
culties that require ne w answers for their solution.' Today these questions do
not sound quite so relevant. Yet it is appropriate that a churchman should me n-
tion the phenomena whe n celebrating the Millennium of the baptism of Rus' .
The technological revolution of recent years may well justifyour referring
to the present time as the second great period in the historyof humanity after
the appearance of agriculture in the Stone Age. Our generation's scientific and
technical achievements can be called a miracle, an extraordinary leap forward
in the gradual evolutionary process of the development of the human race. In
actual fact, it has been calculatedon the basis of 50,000 years of human history,
and an average life expectation of 62 years, that we are now living in the 800th
generation, of which 650 lived in caves. Writing began a mere seventygener-
ations ago and the printed word became widely available only six generations
ago; only four generations have been acquainted with the accurate measure-
ment of time and the electric motor was created only two generations ago.
Today, however, man is already colonizing the cosmos.
The scientific and technical progress made by our generation is truly
astounding and unprecedented, and exceeds even the boldest flights of fancy of
Jules Verne andmany futurologists. W h o, however, believes that what is hap-
pening reallyis the fulfilment of the dreams and hopes of all those thinkers of
the past, and that realitydoes in fact justify, for example, the historico-philo-
sophical optimism of the French Encyclopedists?
Over a short time, dissatisfaction with the technologizing of society has
become almost general. Increasing numbers of scientists hold that a rate of pro-
gress that is so incredible both in qualityand in quantityshows a certain im-
balance. Increasing doubt is being cast on the dogmatic belief, which only
recentlyseemed unshakable, that science and technology are the key to uni-
versal human happiness, that progress is inevitable and takes place more or less
automatically.
The present international situation with its innumerable crises, conflicts
and contradictions, on the one hand, and the rapid pace of scientific and tech-
nical progress, on the other, have unleashed a headlong arms race and brought
mankind to the verge of destruction. The problem of the very existence of life
on our planet, and of whether our civilization will survive or be reduced to dust
and ashes, is now more acute than ever before. W e are faced with the increas-
ingly certain threat of ecological catastrophe.
At the same time humanity has been brought up against an unprecedented
increase in ideological confrontations, collisions of socio-political and national
interests, the growth of exploitation, indebtedness, mass hunger and poverty.
To this should be added such problems as racism, sexism, infringement of
human rights and social injustice. All this creates a horrifying picture of the
realities of the modern world.
247
There is only one possible conclusion to be drawn: the worldwide nature of
the problems facing the entire h uman race means that the only solution is
through the concerted action of the whole h uman race.
Today it is apparentlybecoming clear tomany that modern crises reflect
the disturbance of that harmony of existence that can only be achieved through
the implementation of absolute moral values in life. This entitles us to say,
without underestimating the role of political, economic, historical and other
factors that influence the course of modern crises, that the initial causes of these
are to be sought in the human spirit, and are of a moral order. If this is so, and
the h uman race is to unite in order to face these crises, it should be on the basis
of shared moral principles.
Morality should be a categorical imperative of both personal and social life,
serving as a guide both for international relations and for scientific and tech-
nical progress. Moral values should be given the highest priorityin the solution
of problems arising in the course of history. The well-known Russian religious
philosopher and thinker Vladimir Solovev (d. 1900) maintained that, despite all
the varietyand uniqueness of each human personality, 'there exists an indis-
soluble basis of moralityshared by the whole h uman race and on this every
structure should be based'.
24
For us Orthodox Christians, peace, in its highest sense, 'is identified with
the restoration of the order of things in their initial integrity that existed before
the Fall, whe n man lived and breathed the life-giving breath of a creature made
in the image and likeness of G od, in other words it should be seen as the restora-
tion of a relationshipand of peace between G od and man. ' Therefore the mis-
sion of the Church is centred on man and aims at improving him and bringing
him closer to the majesty and beauty with which he was first created. W e con-
sider that the Church can and should encourage the achievement of
ideals of peace, freedom and brotherhood, love and social justice between peoples,
preaching the Christian faith about man and peace as it has continued to do
throughout its historyin order to transfigure the spiritual and cultural essence of the
world. The Christian faith in the divine origin and unityof the human race and the
world, always inextricablylinked with the sanctity, independence and loftydignity
of the human personality, secretlyunderlies the modern international dialogue on
peace, social justice and human rights. The idea that these ideals are common to all
... would be almost unthinkable without... the doctrine of the ontological unityof
the human race.
25
For many centuries the Church has taught and preached that G od made man
responsible for everything that takes place on earth. The commandme nt that
H e gave to the first people (Gen. 2:16-17) describes man as a being of excep-
tional significance, whose actions will have either beneficial or fatal con-
sequences both for himself and his descendants and for the world he lives in.
Considering life as God' s greatest gift, the Church must serve as the 'he
wh o now letteth' (2 Thess. 2:7), wh o can stop the suicidal spirit of nuclear des-
truction and bar the path to an atomic apocalypse. Reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19)
combined with denunciation of the enemies of peace (Hab. 2:12), we believe,
has always been, and still is, the social calling of the Church.
For us Orthodox Christians, peacemaking involves constant prayer and
decisive action. For the latter, nourished and strengthened bysuch prayer, and
thus byGod' s help, are the renewal and expression in our daily life of our faith
in the 'Prince of Peace' (Isa. 9:6).
At each service the Church prays that the Lord 'will give peace to the
world', to all people and all creation, and calls on believers to be faithful in life
to their Christian calling, 'for G od hath called us to peace' (1 Cor. 7:15).
Having lived through the horrors of the Second W orld W ar with the Rus-
sian people and shared their struggle, the Orthodox Church has never ceased to
participate actively in the pacifist movement. The experience of inter-faith co-
operation within the countrywas extended to the international level when, in
1977, at the initiative of the Russian Church, a world conference of Religious
Workers for Lasting Peace, Disarmament and Just Relations between Peoples
was held inMoscow.
The participants in the conference declared war and militarypreparations
alien to the spiritual world order and man' s moral principles, and stressed the
importance of further inter-faith co-operation in the field of peacemaking. It is
interesting to note that it was at that very conference that the Russian Orthodox
Church put forward the idea of freeing our planet from nuclear weapons by the
2,000th anniversary of the nativityof our Lord Jesus Christ.
The problem of disarmament was also considered at the W orld Conference
of Religious W orkers for the Salvation of the Sacred Gift of Life from Nuclear
Catastrophe which, at the invitation of our Church, was also held inMoscow in
1982.
The participants declared unanimously that the religions of the world
should raise their voices in unison tocondemn as a moral evil the manufacture,
development, testing and deployment of all forms of nuclear weapons, that the
threat of nuclear war was very real and its consequences would be catastrophic
for the whole planet, and that to allow such a war would be suicidal for the
human race.
From then until 1987, inter-faith round tables have been held inMoscow
on topical questions of peacemaking. In February1987, a religious unit worked
among the various commissions representing different professions and interests
at the International Forum for a Nuclear-Free World, for the Survival of
Humanity held inMoscow. The Call to Joint Action adopted by the partici-
pants at the conclusion of their work also gave a summary of inter-faith con-
tacts and the Church' s co-operation with people of goodwill in recent years.
That document will serve as aprogramme of action for years tocome . It states:
Believers are faced with special tasks, in particular: working for unityamong peo-
ples; broadening contacts, overcoming divisions; improving the spiritual and
prayerful life of human communities; helping to eliminate pre-conceived images of
the enemy; and intensifying education in the spirit of peace.
W e call upon all people to devote themselves wholeheartedly to the task of
creating the foundations for common securitytoday. The time has come to ask one-
self the eternal questions, 'If not I, then who? If not now, then when?'
Th e events taking place in today's world give us signs of great hope that a
nuclear-free world will in fact be achieved. Political leaders are now becoming
increasinglyaware of the values and interests c ommon to the h uman race and
insisting on their priorityin international relations and practice over individual
interests. This approach has been given the name of the ' ne w thought'.
It should be stressed that the ne w political thinking arising in the process of
the reconstruction - perestroika - of the U S S R is actuallyan ethical concept,
recognizing the existence of standards of moralityc ommon to the h uman race
and stressing their importance for modern politics and social life. Thus, in the
words of the Soviet president, Mikhail Gorbachev:
The nuclear powers should stepover their nuclear shadow into a nuclear-free
world, and thus make an end of the divorce between politics and the moral standards common to
humanity . . . For the 'humanization' of international relations, corresponding
actions are needed in the humanitarian field. This can create moral guarantees for the
maintenance of peace and thus contribute to the development of material guarantees.
In this connection Gorbachev' s offer to create aW orld Consultative Council
under the aegis of the United Nations is worthy of attention. This Council
would bring together the 'intellectual lite of the world' with the participation
of major politicians, scientists, workers in the fields of culture, literature and
art, and eminent churchmen for the 'enrichment of the spiritual and ethical
potential of modern world polities'.
Th e Russian Church takes an active part in the implementation of the
peacemaking and other programmes of the W orl d Council of Churches, the
Christian Peace Conference, the Conference of European Churches and other
ecumenical and peacemaking organizations.
Co-operation with Local Orthodox Churches is among the most important
peacemaking activities of the Russian Church. Thus the theme of the 'contribu-
tion of Local Orthodox Churches to the triumph of Christian ideals of peace,
freedom, brotherhood and love between peoples and the elimination of racial
discrimination' is on the agenda of the imminent Holy and Great Council of the
Orthodox Churches. At the Third Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Meeting held in
250
Metropolitan juvenal
1986, this theme was studied thoroughly and in detail and presented as a conclu-
sion for study in the Local Churches.
The participants at the meeting stressed that Orthodoxy should declare
without hesitation that it is opposed to all forms of weaponry, whether conven-
tional, nuclear or cosmic, whatever their source. Nuclear war is inadmissible
from every point of view, both physical and moral. It is a crime against human-
ity and a deadly sin against G od, whose work it destroys.
For several decades, the Russian Orthodox Church has been involved not
only in the discussion of denominational problems but also in peacemaking ser-
vice in its bilateral relations with various Churches and religious organizations.
A good example of this, I think, is the practice of the joint prayers of representa-
tives of the U S S R and United States for the success of summit meetings between
our countries' leaders, witnessing to the ties of friendship and co-operation in
peacemaking between citizens of the United States and the Soviet Union.
The Russian Church bases its peacemaking on the principle that neither
the denomination nor the lack of religious faith of people of goodwill should
prevent their joint service to human society, and so, whe n world and national
organizations for the strengthening of peace and prevention of a new war began
to appear, the Orthodox Church immediately joined in the work. Representa-
tives of the Russian Church also take an active part in All-Union social organ-
izations.
In 1986 a Social Commission on Links with Religious Circles Defending
Peace was appointed by the Soviet Peace Committee. This Commission
includes representatives of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism as well
as eminent Soviet public figures, scientists and cultural workers.
Another very important aspect of the Russian Orthodox Church's peace-
making activity that should be mentioned is instilling the spirit of peace in
believers. This is an essential mission for the Church in our society. Already in
the fourth centurythe great saint of the Orthodox Church, St Gregory of Nyssa
said, ' N one can communicate to another what he does not have himself, and so
it is desirable that you yourself should be filledwith the benefits of peace, and
then supply such wealth to those wh o need it.'
As I come to the end of this part of my address, I should like to remind you
that the Russian Orthodox Church has expounded its attitude and position on
the most important modern problems in its synodal Epistle On Warand Peace in
the NuclearAge, which it published in 1986.
The activities of the Russian Orthodox Church in the ecumenical field are
directlylinked with its peacemaking activity, in all aspects of this many-sided
concept. This was clearlyformulated in 1966 by the late Metropolitan Nikodim
of Leningrad (d. 1978), wh o remarked:
The ecumenical dialogue essential in the search for Christian unityis also a dialogue
of peace, as Christian unityis achieved not only nor yet as much through the study
of differences and their elimination through theology and scholarship, though this
in itself is also important and necessary, as through the deep reconciliation of the
separated Sister Churches or Christian communities when theymeet again. This
affirmation in no way underestimates the significance of differences between
denominations, but only stresses the importance of a correct understanding of the
nature of ecumenical dialogue as a dialogue of service.
26
Since 1961 the Russian Orthodox Church has been amember of the W orld
Council of Churches. I have chosen not to give a list of the innumerable occa-
sions on which representatives of the Russian Church have taken part inecu-
menical contacts. This aspect of the Church's activity is very well known. I
should not, however, like to create the impression that the Russian Orthodox
Church's ecumenical activities are limited to its activities abroad. Although the
Orthodox Church is the one that the vast majorityof Christians in the Soviet
Union belong to, what could be called the 'historical' Church of Russia, it
maintains fraternal relations with other Christian Churches and with the ad-
herents of non-Christian religions. It should be noted that this is favoured very
much by our joint participation in peacemaking activities and the service of our
people and of society.
There is now considerable interest in the life of the Russian Church both in
the U S S R and abroad. This was made very clear by the three international con-
ferences of scholars in Kiev, Moscow and Leningrad leading up to the jubilee of
the Millennium of the baptism of Rus' . It was a source of great satisfaction to us
that the participants included not only theologians, but also eminent scholars
from the Soviet Union and abroad.
W e are extremely grateful toU N E S CO for its resolution calling on all
Me mbe r States of the Organization tomark the date of the Millennium of the
baptism of Rus' as a significant event inEuropean and world history.
W ith regard to the jubilee celebrations in the Soviet Union, I should partic-
ularly like to stress two points - the canonization of new Russian saints and the
adoption of the Church Rule. The canonization of saints has always been
understood as a triumph of the Church. The present glorification of righteous
people wh o lived at various periods of Russian history is an edifying example
for us believers, calling on us to rejoice with the Church and work together with
its saints for our own improvement and the preaching of Christ's Gospel. The
adoption of the Rule is intended to encourage the development of Church life
in modern society.
The post-revolutionary period in the historyof our Church was not simple.
It remained with the people and experienced everything that they experienced
at that time. It graduallyfound its place in the new social conditions.
In the present atmosphere of glasnost and perestroika in the Soviet Union,
the link between the development of societyand the moral condition of its
members is being stressed and emphasis laid on the need for the spiritual
improvement of the personality. For us as Christians, there is something very
moving in the declarations of the Soviet leaders and scientists about the impor-
tance of spiritual values and the supreme dignity of man, which transcend the
barriers of class and political contradictions. These are principles that the
Church of Christ has always maintained and preached throughout its historical
existence.
There is no doubt that these conclusions, drawn from the complicated pro-
cess of our society's development and formation, will considerablybroaden the
existing opportunities for co-operation between the Church and Soviet society.
Over the last few years the Russian Orthodox Church has been takingan
increasingly active part in existingand newly established social organizations.
Among them, I should particularly like to mention the Soviet Cultural Fund
and the Russian Cultural Fund, which are involved in the conservation and res-
toration of the country's cultural and historical monuments, including places of
worship.
A new quality of co-operation has commenced between our theologians
and theological academies and scientific circles in the Soviet Union. In addition
to the traditional co-operation between the Russian Orthodox Church and the
Russian Palestine Society at the Academy of Sciences of the U S S R, Soviet scho-
lars are participating increasingly in peacemaking conferences and conferences
of scholars and theologians held by the Church. Together with the Academy of
Sciences of the U S S R, the Moscow Patriarchate is developing links and contacts
with foreign scholars. For example, there has been an exchange of delegations
with Greek scholars specializing in the study of the historical and cultural trea-
sures of Mount Athos. A joint delegation of theologians and scholars from the
U S S R visited Greece, and this was followed by a return visit of Greek scholars
wh o studied manuscripts in libraries in the Soviet Union and had meetings in
the Moscow Patriarchate and the Academy of Sciences of the U S S R. The list of
examples of beneficial results of perestroika is endless.
While we assess the past and look into the future as the Russian Orthodox
Church enters its second millennium, we should like to say that the Church of
Christ, through God' s mercyand grace, is still carrying out its service of salva-
tion to the world throughout our land as it did1,000 years ago. It was, is now
and always will be with itsown flock, itsown people.
^Translated from Russian]
NOTES
1. V. O . Kljucevskij, 'Sodejstvie Cerkvi uspeham russkogo grazdanskogo prava i por-
jadka [The Church's Contribution to the Success of Russian Secular Law and
Order]', Ocerki i reci, Vtoroj sbornik statej V. KJjucevskogo [Collected Essays and
Speeches], p. 91, Moscow, 1913.
2. G . Florovskij, Puti russkogo bogoslovija [The Paths of Russian Theology], p. 2, Paris,
1983.
3. J. H . Billington, The Icon and the Axe, p. x, N e w York, 1970.
4. 'Povest' vremennyh let [Tale of Bygone Years]', Pamjatniki literatury Drevnej Rusi
[Monuments of the Literature of Ancient Rus'], Vol. 1, p. 127.
5. Ibid., p. 133.
6. Ibid.
7. Kljucevskij, op. cit.
8. Ibid., p. 38.
9. Ibid., p. 14.
10. 'Povest' o razorenii Rjazani Batyem [Tale of the Destruction of Rjazan' byBatyj]',
Pamjatniki. . ., op. cit., p. 197.
11. 'Slovo Serapiona episkopa Vladimirskogo [Sermons of Serapion, Bishop of Vladi-
mir]', Pamjatniki. . ., op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 449.
12. 'Zitie Aleksandra Nevskogo [Life of Alexander Nevsky]', Pamjatniki . . ., op. cit.,
Vol. 3, p. 437.
13. Kljucevskij, op. cit., p. 45.
14. 'Skazanie oMamae vom poboisce [The Tale of the Battle with Mamaj]' , Pamjatniki..
., op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 173.
15. 'Hozdenie igumena Daniila [The Travels of Abbot Daniel]', Pamjatniki . . ., op. cit.,
Vol. 2, p. 27.
16. Kljucevskij, op. cit.
17. Ibid., p. 103.
18. Ibid.
19. Florovskij, op. cit., p. 7.
20. Letopis' Nestora [Nestor's Chronicle], p. 53, St Petersburg, Russkaja Klassiceskaja
Biblioteka, 1893.
21. Slovar' kniznikov i knii&iosti Drevnej Rtisi [Dictionary of Bookmen and Book-learning in
Ancient Rus'], 1st ed., p. 69, Leningrad, 1987.
22. Ibid.
23. G . P. Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind, Vol. 2, p. 344, Cambridge, 1964.
24. V. Solov'ev, 'Pervicnye dannye nravsvennosti [Primary Facts of Morality]', Voprosy
filsofii ipsihologii, Vol. 24, N o. 4, 1894, p. 361.
25. Third Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Meeting, Chambry, 28 October to 6 November
1986 - ' The Contribution of the Orthodox Church to the Triumph of Peace, Free-
dom, Brotherhood and Love between Peoples and the Elimination of Racial and
other Discrimination'.
26. Metropolitan Nikodim of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical
Movement, Problema edinenija [The Problem of Unification], p. 10 (manuscript in the
archives of the Department of Foreign Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate).
Atheism and religion in
the Soviet Union
Nikita Struve
Atheism is nothing new and has always existed; yet, in 1917, for the first time in
history, atheism ceased to be a private opinion, an opposition tendency or an
attitude of defiance. W ith the October Revolution, a radicallynew phenome-
non came into being: atheistical materialism acquired power and became a rule
of conduct, a plan for the life of the individual, the community or even the
whole planet, with unlimited means at its disposal. Having existed for over
seventy years as a social, political and cultural reality, atheism can now be
judged by its fruits.
At first sight this identification of Communist power with atheism appears
open to question, as its aims above all are ostensibly political and economic.
However, the intrinsic link between atheism and historical materialism can be
found expressed in very clear terms in the works of Marx. To his mind, as is
well known, 'religious alienation has the same origin as economic alienation'. A
fantastic and illusoryshadow, religion has no existence of its own and will dis-
appear of its own accord when society finds its moral order with the establish-
ment of social Communism.
Engels and Lenin were to draw their philosophical conclusions from this
Marxist postulate: the first was to rid cosmic order of transcendence by reducing
being to nature, and the second, to fill the resulting gap, was to absolutize nature
by declaring it to be without beginning or end, and to replace the deist concept
of the first cause by the dialectic law of the unityand struggle of opposites, thus
situatingmovement inside nature. Formulated in these terms, the atheist basic
principles of Marxism-Leninism do not necessarilyimply an open and declared
war on religion, as this is expected to die away of itsown accord. However,
Marxism has always denied that it is pure theoryby stressing the unityof the
theoretical and practical. In fact, both in Marx and even more so in his succs-
256 Nikita Struve
sors, Marxism appears as a soteriology, a doctrine of salvation for the whole
human race, completely incompatible with the metaphysical soteriologies of
religions. As a truth that is not only unique, but scientificallyestablished and
called on to materialize itself in historyaccording to irrevocable laws, Marxism
brooks no refusal. N o one opposes a truth that is theoreticallyunimpeachable
and historicallyineludible other than from ill-will, stubbornness or blindness,
which should be repressed or treated. In so far as historical determinism is iden-
tified with good, anyone wh o opposes it is either evil or mad.
Yet this is not all. In Marx and in Lenin alike, from the very beginning, an
irrational, visceral hatred of G od and all that is transcendent can be seen. It is
known that in Marx atheism came before historical materialism and that Lenin
was an atheist before becoming a Marxist. In Marx especially, this takes the
form of a Promethean defiance, a desire to be equal to God. 'Like the gods,'
wrote the young Marx to his fiance, 'givingmy words the force of action, I
shall feel myself the equal of the Creator.' The same visceral atheism could be
found among the Russian intelligentsia in the second half of the last century,
among those wh o paved the way for the Revolution and made it possible. 'For
Man to exist, G od must be killed': this dialectic, exposed by Dostoevsky inThe
Possessed, animates and feeds revolutionary activity.
Only this combination of conceptual atheism and irrational, psychological
antitheism can possibly explain the relentless nature and insane furyof the war
waged against religion. Under Lenin the 'pure', Stalin the 'hardliner' and
Khrushchev the 'revisionist', the war against religionwas the top priority, the
very heart of ideological militancy. This anti-religious fury lost some of its
keenness during the twenty years of Brezhnev's power. Today, with perestroika,
it seems in the process of being abandoned, which would give grounds for pred-
icting a most profound transformation of Marxist ideology.
Communism' s war against religion was therefore no chance misunder-
standing. From the very first months after October 1917 right up to the fall of
Khrushchev in 1964 (though, it is true, with certain periods of respite), the
Soviet regime presented the face of 'atheist fanaticism', which appeared to be its
very essence. Unlike the religious fanaticism of the theocracies that fight indif-
ference or religious error in the name of a positive faith that in principle creates
values, the fanaticism of atheocracy has no excuse. 'It is an Inquisition without
faith and a religious indifferentism without tolerance', or, if one prefers, 'a reli-
gion free from any religious experience and an unbelief marked with the seal of
intolerance'.
It was long believed in the West, and is still asserted bysome, that the
Soviet regime attacked the Church as an institution compromised for better or
for worse by its association with the ancien rgime. This view is mistaken. From
the very beginning, Bolshevik ideology made it very clear that through the
institution theywere aiming at religion itself:
W e must act in such a way that all the blows that strike the traditional structures of
the Church hit religion itself.... It would be regrettable if faith, deprived of some of
its means of action, were to withdraw to positions from which it would be harder to
dislodge it; the ship of faith must sink completely.
In the 1920s and 1930s the war against religion, the 'assault on heaven', reached
an intensitynever seen before in history. Its course took two main directions:
physical annihilation and atheist indoctrination. The closing and subsequent
destruction of churches, arrest and deportation of clergyand committed lay
people, destruction of sacred books and icons, all the iconoclastic violence that
was at its peak during and immediately after the Civil W ar, then again during
collectivization and finally in1937 / 38, was almost completely successful. In
1939 not more than a handful of ministers of religion were still practising while
barely100 churches remained open. The country's vast expanse, relations with
foreign countries and finallythe annexation immediately before the war of ne w
territories where religious life was unimpaired had made it impossible to
achieve a neat 'Albanian-type' solution.
At the same time, on the ideological front, a large-scale anti-religious
movement endowed with vast resources was developing. The League of the
Godless, founded in 1925 by Emilian Gubelman-Yaroslavsky, launched itsown
five-year plans with no less ambitious targets than those of the economic plan.
In 1932 Yaroslavskyannounced triumphantly that the number of the godless
had risen to nearly30 million. O n the strength of these results, the second five-
year plan was to culminate in1937 in the total eradication of religious feeling.
Atheist newspapers, magazines and books poured out in editions of hundreds of
thousands, or even millions of copies, while the Church did not have the right
to publish even an in-house newsletter.
The Second W orld W ar was to upset all these predictions. To deprive the
Ge rman occupiers of amonopoly of religious freedom, and to guarantee the
support of the whole population, state atheism had to beat a retreat and permit
the existence, even if only on the fringe of society, of religious institutions. It
did so only under force of circumstance, grudgingly, while continuing to extend
its control over the education of the working population. These were the years
whe n all expression of religious feeling was banished from literature, wh e n
authors such as Dostoevsky and Leskov were banned. If the state in no way
renounced atheism, it soft-pedaled the anti-religious movement. Yaroslavsky,
the leading light of the anti-religious movement, conveniently died.
This situation continued for about fifteen years. Against all expectation,
after a few years of tolerance, Nikita Khrushchev, probably worried at seeing
the official ideologyshaken by destalinization, decided to put state atheism into
practice: the war against religionwas taken up with increased vigour; the lead-
ers anticipated that it would culminate in 1980 with the definitive establish-
258 Nikita Struve
ment of Communism and the total eradication of religion. Khrushchev's fall
from power put an end to direct persecution, but for a quarter of a century every
precaution was taken not to let go of the advantages that atheism had thus
helped toacquire: a fall inthe number of places of worship from 20,000 to
6,500, monasteries from eightyto eighteen, theological colleges from eight to
three. Control over sacramental life, in particular over baptisms, was even
steppedup, and, as in the past, believers were still deprived of even the most ele-
mentary rights of any religious group. Nevertheless, despite its unlimited power
and at times almost insane fury, state atheism has few grounds for feeling tri-
umphant.
First, from the sociological point of view: atheism inpower does not
appear to have achieved anymore impressive results than the less concentrated
atheism of Western societies. From certain sociological surveys conducted in
the U S S R, it appears that the number of convinced atheists hardlyexceeds 7 per
cent, while that of believers or regular worshippers is in the region of 10 per
cent. As for the number of the undecided and of those wh om Le Bras calls 'sea-
sonal believers', it is far greater than that of unbelievers. However, these statis-
tics, which are very approximate in the absence of regular in-depth surveys,
should not deceive us, the more so as societyis ruled by the atheist minority. If
we are far from the extinction of religious feeling as promised first for 1937 and
then for 1980, the de-Christianization of the country is very real and is likelyto
spread. The victoryof atheism, however, contains the seeds of its defeat: the
'Homo areligiosus' thus obtained, despiritualized and demoralized (in both senses
of the word, that is, deprived of moral sense and of vital force), is increasingly
seen as a serious socio-anthropological failure and, a contrario, forms an argu-
ment infavour of religion. Despiritualization has progressed throughout the
world, yet the atheist or agnostic in Western societies is still nurtured on reli-
gious culture. In the U S S R, the opposite phenomenon may be observed: even
when well-disposed towards religion, Soviet people seem strangely lacking in
religious culture. For religion signifies not only acceptance of a doctrine (which
one cannot but know very badly), but a whole structure of behaviour, attitudes
and knowledge conveyed by a culture handed down from generation to gener-
ation. Deprived of this heritage, Soviet people find themselves cut off from
their genetic, social and national history, as if cast into a present that makes
them unhappy. They are as if alienated from themselves.
The third failure is in the cultural and intellectual field, and it is certainly
here that atheism is most ill at ease. As the years pass the breach between mate-
rialist ideology and culture appears increasingly irreparable. Atheocracy has
proved incapable of furthering creative values. So-called socialist realism has
been swept aside by indisputable masterpieces of religious, or even explicitly
Christian, inspiration, of which it may be enough to mention The Master and
Margarita byBulgakov and Pasternak's DoctorZhivago. The literature of the last
thirtyyears, that of Sotehenitsyn, the peasant school of writers and Vasil Bykov,
openly advocates a return to Christian values. A reference to Christ, even in a
secularized form, has become indispensable, as Chingiz Aitmatov showed in his
novel. It was also a Soviet film director, albeit one exiled from his country, wh o
managed to reintroduce a trulymetaphysical dimension into the cinema.
Today the greatest atheist power in the world has changed its policy. Faced
with the abyss opening beneath its feet - in the words of the Soviet writer, N .
Shmelev, an economic, ecological, moral and even spiritual abyss - the atheist
authorities are relentingand recognizingthe permanence or even legitimacyof
the existence of religion. If not a mere tactic (like Stalin's actions in 1943), this
would be a major turning point in the historyof Communism. It would not be a
return to Leninism (even if the Decree on the Separation of Church and state
provides the new legislation), but a change-over to a concept of Marxism that is
less religious, less dogmatic, less scientific and less soteriological. For this type
of Marxism, 'religion should die out naturally' without any attempt being made
to hasten its demise by blows great or small. If it is to die out naturallyand not
under coercion, religion must have the same rights as atheism. Yet we are still
very far from achieving such equality of rights. Today the problem arises in all
its acuteness: will state atheism find sufficient strength in itself to give religion,
persecutedby it for so long, the place that rightlybelongs to it inany civilized
society?
Part Five
INTERCHURCH RELATIONS
YESTERDAY AND TODAY
The Russian Orthodox Church
in the Ukraine and its ties with the
Christian East
Yury Kochubey
The adoption of the Byzantine form of ChristianitybyKievan Rus' predeter-
mined the development of its ties and cultural contacts with the peoples of the
Near East and the Eastern Churches. The culture of Byzantium had itself
absorbed many ingredients of Hellenistic traditions and bore the imprint of the
civilizations of the East, as noted bymany scholars (Z. V. Udaltsova, A. A.
Beletsky, et al.). O n penetrating into Kievan Rus' , it helped to familiarize the
inhabitants with the Eastern world and the life and spiritual heritage of the peo-
ples of the Near East. The existence of a large number of common features in
the art of the two regions led the Soviet scholar L. A. Lelekov to speak of a his-
torico-cultural zone formed byRus' , Byzantium and South-west Asia.
In the first place, Rus' gained a wealth of knowledge about the peoples of
the Near and Middle East from the Bible (Old and N e w Testaments) and from
patristic and doctrinal writings.
Quite naturally, the young Christian countrydrew on Byzantium and the
allied Eastern Churches for everything relating to the organization of churches
and monasteries, as well as liturgy, dogma and rites. After all, the East was the
scene of the main events of Christian history, and Christian doctrine was grow-
ing out of the conflict between the various currents of belief. The harmonious
system of Orthodox worship was elaborated with the active participation of
hierarchs and remarkable religious thinkers of the East both before and after
the schism. Theological works reached Rus' in Greek or Old Bulgarian and
were subsequently translated and made available to the educated circles of the
day.
W h e n we speak of the East, we are deliberatelyleaving Constantinople on
one side in order to identifylinks*with the peoples of the Near East themselves.
The religious literature produced by Christians representing the Eastern peo-
264 Yury Kochubey
pies, and which was mainly in Greek, it should be added, became the heritage of
Kievan Rus' and helped to promote theology on Russian soil.The Source of Know-
ledge by the Arab John of Damascus, which contained The Precise Exposition of the
Orthodox Faith, an interpretation of the Holy Scripture and the Exhortation
(Paraenesis) byEphraem Syrus were translated into Old Slavonic. In 1611, in the
then Ukrainian cultural centre of Ostrog, a translationwas made from Greek of
the treatises against Islam by the representative of Arab-Christian theological
literature, Theodor Aboukar, bishop of Harran, while in the late eighteenth
century the writings of Isaac of Nineveh were translated from Greek by that
eminent figure of Orthodoxy and native of Poltava, Paissius Velichkovsky.
The compositions and chanting of the Russian Church were heavily
influenced by the hymnographic works of John of Damascus (for example, his
Octoechos formed the basis of the Octoechos composed in 1604 in Derman Monas-
tery) and of two Syrians, Ephraem Syrus and Romanos Melodos. Despite the
fact that their works were written in Greek, scholars have noted that theycon-
tain features of the musical culture of the peoples of the Near East (Syrians,
Aramaeans and Arabs).
It is noteworthy that the chronicles of Nikon and Joachim assert that the
first Kievan Metropolitan, Michael, wh o arrived in Cherson in 988 with the sis-
ter of the Byzantine Emperors, Anna, and there expounded the basic tenets of
Christianityto Vladimir the Great, was of Syrian origin. S ome scholars such as
M. Braichevsky assign the baptism of Rus' and the chronicling of the event to
an earlier period. However, the reconstructed text, known as The Chronicles of
Askold, feature the same 'Michael the Syrian'. Thus it would appear that the
ceremony of the christening of the Kievans on the banks of the Dnieper was
performed by a Syrian, though some specialists dispute this.
There were direct contacts, too, between the inhabitants of Rus' and the
Orthodox East, mainly through visits to Palestine by individuals and groups of
pilgrims. S ome educated pilgrims left notes on their travels, which were often
beset with great difficulties, so that information survives to this day on the
towns and peoples of Palestine, Sinai and Egypt. A Russian monastery is known
to have existed in Jerusalem as long ago as the twelfth century.
The most ancient example of Russian and Ukrainian pilgrim literature is
The Life and Travels by Daniel, Father Superior of a Chernigov monasterywho
visited Palestine in 1106-08. He gave a particularly detailed descriptionof Jeru-
salem. W e may also read the notes of the prior monk of the Chernigov Bori-
soglebsk Monastery, Hippolytus Vishensky, who visited Jerusalem, Sinai and
Mount Athos in 1707-09, the prior of the NikolaevskyMonastery of Rykhlov,
Silvester, and Nicodemus who visited Constantinople and Jerusalem in 1722,
not forgetting those of Father Luke Yatsenko-Zelensky of Poltava, and others.
The Notes by Vasily Grigorovich-Barsky, who travelled in the East between
1723 and 1745, constitute a remarkable page in the historyof pilgrim literature.
The Russian Orthodox Church in the Ukraine 265
and its ties with the Christian East
H e visited Palestine, Sinai, Egypt, Syria and the Aegean Islands. His notes and
sketches reflect the life of the people in the places he visited, giving vivid
descriptions of their ways. His voluminous work has yet to be properly
researched.
Contacts between the Orthodox Church in the Ukraine and the Eastern
Churches in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries played an important role
whe n there was a real danger of disintegration of the Orthodox Church and
total extinction of its hierarchy in the lands ruled by the Polish kings. The
Patriarch of Jerusalem Theophanes III (1608-44), in response to requests from
the clergy and laity, restored the hierarchy of the Orthodox Church in the
Ukraine despite the threats and injunctions of the royal authorities, raising Iov
Boretsky to the dignityof Metropolitan of Kiev. This enabled the Church to
continue to act within the Orthodox ecclesiastical canon, which at the time was
naturallyof the utmost importance.
Striving for national survival in difficult political circumstances under the
impact of Catholicism, the Ukrainian people achieved a form of organization in
the shape of fraternities bringing together Orthodox citizens - craftsmen, mer-
chants and clergy - for the defence of their faith and their national and cultural
identity. The fraternities that were soon organized inmany Ukrainian cities
made a substantial contribution to the development of Ukrainian culture in
education, printing, literature and the arts. The fraternities, having sprung up
spontaneously, were inneed of official support to face up to the royal author-
ities. It was provided by the hierarchs of the Eastern Churches, wh o often
visited the Ukraine on their way toMoscow.
Thus in1586 Joachim, Patriarch of Antioch, gave a 'confirmatory charter'
to the Uspensky fraternityin Lvov and appealed to the population to help him
build a printing shop, a school, a church and a hospital. Later the Patriarch of
Constantinople, Hieremia Tranos, issued the Lvov fraternitywith a grant of the
right of stauropegion, that is, it was exempted from the jurisdiction of the local
church authorities and was permitted to teach and print books. H e also granted
a 'confirmatory charter' to the Krasnostav fraternity. Theophanes, Patriarch of
Jerusalem, issued an instrument establishing a fraternityunder the auspices of
the Church of the Annunciation at Peremysl (1650), while the Exarch Meletius
of Ephesus confirmed the statutes of a fraternity at S ambor (1644).
In Kiev, the Patriarch of Jerusalem approved in1620 a fraternityschool in
which Greek and Latin were taught, thereby angering the Polish administration
which had been endeavouring to preclude higher education in its Ukrainian
territories. It is also worth mentioning that, whe n the Bishop of Lvov, Gideon
Balaban (1530-1607), prepared a prayer book for publication, he requested the
Patriarch of Alexandria, Meletios Pigas, at the time also at the head of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople (1597-99), to revise the text and accordingly
sent him a Greek translation of the book. The Patriarch made the necessary
266 Yury Kochubey
amendments and gave the work his imprimatur. It was he, too, who addressed
the Orthodox faithful of the Ukraine and Byelorussia in connection with the
proclamation of the Union of Brest-Litovsk, in an epistle that was later
published in Ostrog.
A further example of mutual assistance is the storyof the adoption of the
Orthodox Confession of Faith prepared by the Metropolitan of Kiev, Peter Mogila.
In 1640 his text was examined at a synod in Kiev and subsequently sent to
Patriarch Parthenius in Constantinople, who transmitted it for examination to
the Grand Synod of Iai in 1642. It was then sent with amendments to all the
Eastern patriarchs. The Patriarch of Jerusalem, Nactarius, made every effort to
have it published in 1662. It was adopted by the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 and
became a 'symbolic' work for all Orthodox Churches as an exposition of the
doctrine of Eastern Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Confession of Faith, linked to the
name of Peter Mogila, is an authoritative work to this day. The work was tran-
slated from Greek into Arabic by Christodoulos of Gaza in 1675.
Concerning the Ukraine in the seventeenth century, a great deal may be
learned from the travel notes of Patriarch Makarius of Antioch, written up by
Archdeacon Paul of Aleppo (1627-69), and which speak with love and under-
standing of the Ukrainian people, that 'people of Cossacks', and their leader, the
hetmn Bogdan Khmelnitsky. They twice visited the Ukraine during the war of
national liberation and gave an objective account of the atmosphere surround-
ing the events that played such an important part in the historyof the Ukraine.
It is important to note that the Ukrainian hetmen also gave material assis-
tance to the Christians of the Ottoman Empire, and in particular to the Patriar-
chate of Jerusalem, of which there is documentary evidence. Funds provided by
the hetmn Mazzepa provided for the publication of a Gospel in Arabic in
Aleppo in 1708. This is an example of material assistance to the Eastern Ortho-
dox faithful from the Ukraine. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, St
Catherine's Monastery in Kiev belonged to the Sinai Monastery of the same
name.
Kiev's interest in the Eastern Christians continued into later times, partic-
ularlyin the Kiev Ecclesiastical Academy, which in a sense continued the work
of the Kiev-Moguilane Academy. The Academy's Proceedings often printed mate-
rial on the historyof the peoples of the Near East, ecclesiastical historyand
biblical archaeology, including the works of Bishop PorphiryUspensky (1804-
85), a former teacher at the Lyce Richelieu in Odessa, who was the first person
to bring news to Europe of the celebrated Sinai Codex of the Bible, subsequently
taken to St Petersburg by Konstantin von Tischendorf. Also printed were the
works of a graduate of the Academy, the Archimandrite Antonin Kaupustin
(1817-94), who headed the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem for
twenty-eight years and conducted extensive archaeological investigations in
parts of Palestine connected with the historyof Christianity.
The Russian Orthodox Church in the Ukraine 267
and its ties with the Christian East
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it may be added, institu-
tions of ecclesiastical education in Kiev, Odessa and other cities attractedmany
students from Arab countries, many of wh om contributed notably to the cultu-
ral history of the Arab people.
The fraternal links established inChurch matters down the centuries and
the mutual assistance afforded in difficult times have served and are serving as a
firm basis for the strengthening of friendshipbetween the Soviet people and the
peoples of the Near East today.
Ecclesiastical and cultural relations
between R omania and Russia
Fr Mircea Pcurariu
The Millennium of the Christianization of Rus' is indeed a good opportunity
for deeper study of the circumstances in which this major event in the historyof
Rus' occurred. Yet this anniversary should also give rise to wider research on
the links that the Russian Orthodox Church has maintained over the centuries
with its sister Orthodox Churches, in particular the Romanian Orthodox
Church.
For a better understanding of this theme, we shall first give a brief sum-
mary of the historyof the Romanian Church, both before and after the Chris-
tianization of Rus'. Historical research has shown that on part of the territoryof
present-dayRomania, between the Danube and the Black Sea, at one time the
province of Scythia Minor with a mixed population of Geto-Dacians and
Romans andnow called Dobrogea, the Apostle Andrew preached the Christian
Gospel. It is probably he who ordained bishops, priests and deacons for this
geographical area, just as St Paul did on his missionary travels. W hat is certain is
that around the year 300 there was a diocese at Tomis, headed by eminent bish-
ops, some of wh om achieved recognition in patristic theology, including Vetra-
nion (fourth century), John (fifth century) and Valentinian (sixth century).
Scythia Minor was the country of origin of John Cassian (360-435) and Diony-
sius the Lesser (470-545), known for their works as well as their activities; in
addition, the 'Scythian monks' (Leontius, John Maxentius, Peter the Deacon,
etc.) in the early sixth century are all considered to be precursors of Romanian
theologystricto sensu. In the rest of the territoryof Romania - formerlyDacia -
Christian doctrine spread sporadically, and above all after 106 when Dacia was
conquered by the Romans who brought settlers there from all regions of the
Empire, including Christians who were to contribute to the spread of the new
doctrine among the original inhabitants, the Dacians. Similarly, a large number
270
FrMircea Pcurariu
of priests, chorepiscopi and even bishops contributed to the spread of the Chris-
tian faith among the masses in Dacia or to its 'generalization'.
From the sixth centuryonwards, large groups of Slavs settled on the terri-
toryof present-dayRomania and in time adopted Christianityand became assi-
milated with the local proto-Romanian population, a process that was com-
pleted by the eighth and early ninth centuries. It is during this period that Latin,
used until then by the Romanians in worship as a liturgical language, gradually
began to be superseded by Slavonic in a process that was due to both internal
and external factors. It is known that Slavs wh o settledamong the Romanians
as conquerors were for a short time politicallydominant. It is thus natural that
once their leaders became Christian, theywished to hear the liturgyand other
services in their own language and not in that of the local people. O n the other
hand, by the ninth century, when the foundations of the culture of the Slavonic
language had been laid in Great Moravia, then in Bulgaria, and in the following
century with the birth of the culture of Rus' , the Romanians were surrounded
on all sides exclusivelyby Slavs who had adopted a Church organization in the
Byzantine tradition and Old Church Slavonic for worship according to the
Byzantine rite. O f the three liturgical languages that then existed - the Greek of
distant Byzantium, the Latin of Rome , which had alreadybecome a dead lan-
guage even for Romanians, and the Slavonic of the peoples around them which,
for political reasons and with the support of Byzantium, had become the third
language of medieval European culture - the Romanians accepted Slavonic.
With the adoption of the Byzantine-Slavonic ritual, the Romanians became the
sole people of Latin origin and language to practise the Orthodox rite. This
'synthesis of Latinityand Orthodoxy' proved a real support for the Romanians
throughout their historyas, due to their neo-Latin language, they did not iden-
tifythemselves with the Slav world around them, while thanks to their Ortho-
doxy they kept their national individuality, not identifying themselves with the
Catholic peoples of the neighbouring West.
1
In the political situation of medi-
eval Europe, the Romanians kept Slavonic as a liturgical language until it was
graduallyreplaced byRomanian in the seventeenth century.
After the tenth century, the Romanians lived in small states, called kne-
zates and voivodates, and also had a corresponding ecclesiastical organization
headed by bishops and chorepiscopi. In the fourteenth century the independent
'Romanian countries' of Wallachia and Moldavia were established, and were
then joined by Transylvania, which is known tohave existed as a voivodate
since the twelfth century. Also in the fourteenth century, the canonical organ-
ization of these three countries was completed, establishing direct links with the
Patriarchate of Constantinople. Nevertheless, throughout the 'Middle Ages' of
Romania, the Churches of the three countries enjoyed a quasi-autocephalous
status in relation to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, unlike the other Ortho-
dox Churches, with the exception of the Russian Church after 1448.
Ecclesiastical and cultural relations 271
between Romania and Russia
This favourable situation gave the Romanians not only access to Byzantine
literature, both patristic and post-patristic, but also contacts with the neigh-
bouring Slav Orthodox Churches, including the Russian Church. Ecclesiastical
and cultural links between the Romanians and the Russians (which have conti-
nued unbroken over the centuries) took various forms: through Romanian
bishops or theologians some of whose activities took place within the Russian
Church, through Russian theologians who lived and worked among the Rom-
anians, through visits of Romanians to Russian ecclesiastical centres and of
Russians to Romanian monasteries, through exchanges of monks, printers, reli-
gious artists and singers, and through translations of Russian theological works
into Romanian or the circulation of Russian Slavonic manuscripts and liturgi-
cal books among the Romanians. It would not be possible to cover all Rom-
anian-Russian contacts in a single chapter, so I shall confine myself to describ-
ing certain essential aspects and certain personalities whose activities had
consequences not only for the Russian and Romanian Churches but for Ortho-
doxy as a whole. Shared faith, the same liturgical language and geographical
proximity, a common interest in puttinga stop to the expansion of the Ottoman
Empire and liberating of certain Slav peoples of the southern Danube area con-
quered by the Turks - all these factors continually consolidated the bilateral
contacts established soon after the Christianization of Rus' and have continued
without interruption up to the present. The chronicler Nestor, for example,
recorded both the presence of 'Wallachians' (i.e. Romanians) in the territories
they still occupy today, and also the wars theywaged against the Hungarians in
896.
2
A certain number of Russian pilgrims, on their way to Mount Athos or
the Holy Places, also stopped in Romanian territoryand left travellers' notes
with interesting information about the Romanians, their customs and their
works of art. In addition, from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, some
Romanian bishops were sent as diplomatic envoys to the Tsars of Russia.
For the first half of the seventeenth century, we shall mention the great
scholar of Romanian origin, Peter Mogila (Petru Movil) (d. 1646), who led and
reorganized the Ukrainian Church within the Kingdom of Poland after the
Union of Brest in 1596, former Abbot of the Kiev Caves Monastery (1627-33)
and then Metropolitan of 'Kiev, Galich and All Rus' '(1633-46). He was the
author of the famous Confession of the Orthodox Faith approved by the Synod which
met at Iai in 1642. The most recent research indicates that the Latin version of
the Confession was printed for the first time in Amsterdam in 1643 under the title
of Confessio fidei orthodoxae, the second edition in Leipzig in 1659 and the first
Greek version, again in Amsterdam, in 1667. Thus Western theologians and
scholars had an opportunityto become acquainted with Orthodoxy. Mogila was
also the founder of the College of Kiev, which later became the Theological
Academy, and other colleges, hospitals and printing-houses (where many litur-
gical books were printed) and the restorer of many Orthodox churches and
272
Fr Mircea Pcurariu
monasteries. In his work, Metropolitan Peter Mogila belongs not to the Roma-
nians, the Russians or the Poles but to the whole of Orthodoxy, though in spirit
he always remained attached to the Romanian territories where his father, some
of his brothers and other members of his family reigned. T wo of his books were
dedicated to the Romanian Voivodes Moses Movil of Moldavia, his brother
(with a lot of useful advice for a future reigning prince), Matei Basarab of W al -
lachia and Vasile Lupu of Moldavia. The frontispieces of some of his printed
books bore the emblem of the Movil family or that of Wallachia and Mol -
davia. The printing equipment set up at the time at Cmpulung in Wallachia
and Iai in Moldavia was sent by Metropolitan Peter Mogila, together with the
necessary trained staff. The first professors of the Higher School of Iai
(founded by Vasile Lupu in1640 and modelled on the Kiev Academy) were also
sent byMetropolitan Peter Mogila wh o had chosen them from among the
learned clerics of Kiev. His Confession of the Orthodox Faith was repeatedly tran-
slated and printed inRomanian, nineteen editions of it appearing between 1691
and 1981. It was also translated intomany European languages and has been
widely circulated, even in non-Orthodox Churches. In this way, Metropolitan
Peter Mogila contributed to the cultural rebirth not only of the Orthodox
Ukrainians in the Kingdom of Poland, but also to that of his compatriots in
Wallachia and Moldavia.
3
Another great Romanian cultural figure involved in Russian Church life
was Metropolitan Dosoftei of Moldavia (1671-86). After being taken to Poland
by King Jan Sobiesky and forced to spend the rest of his life (he died in1693) in
the fortress of Stryi, near Zolkew (now Nesterov), the learned Metropolitan
took part in certain theological disputes being waged at the time in the Russian
Church. Thus, at the request of Metropolitan Varlaam (Barlaam) Yasinsky of
Kiev and of Patriarch Joachim of Moscow, he translated several patristic and
post-patristic polemic dogmatic works, mainly on transubstantiation, from
Greek to Russian Slavonic. Among other works, he translated twelve letters of
St Ignatius the God-bearer (of which, in fact, onlyseven are authentic), the Con-
stitutions of the Holy Apostles, the Church History and Mystical Contemplation byGerma-
nus of Constantinople (which is, in fact, an explanation of the liturgy), the Dia-
logue against the Heresies andOn our Faith bySimeon of Thessalonika, a collection
of the talks of the Holy Fathers and a collection of patristic and liturgical texts
under the title On the Transubstantiation of the Holy Species.
1
'
During the reign of Tsar Peter the Great, three eminent Romanian scholars
lived in Russia and, though laymen, wrote theological works of interest to both
Churches. O ne of these was the Moldavian Nicolae Milescu (1636-1708), diplo-
mat, historian, philologist, geographer, ethnologist and memoir-writer, the
author of the translation of the Old Testament intoRomanian included in the
Bucharest Bible of 1688. In addition to an apologetical work written in Stock-
holm in1667 and published in Paris in1669 under the title Enhiridion sive Stella
Orientalis Occidentali splendens, id est sensus Ecclesiae Orientalis, scilicet Graecae, de trans-
substantione corporis Domini, allisque controversiis..., he wrote several theological and
philosophical works (on arithmology, ethics, etc.) after 1671 wh e n he settled in
Russia. After being sent on a mission toChina by the Russian Tsars, Nicolae
Milescu published the Siberian Diary and the Description of China}
Another Romanian, Dimitri Kantemir (Cantemir) (1673-1723), spent the
second half of his life inRussia. Voivode of Moldavia for a very short time
(1710-11), historian, philosopher, musicologist and orientalist, he left to poster-
itysome historical works of considerable learning as well as philosophical and
theological works, such asLoca obscura in Cathechisi quae ab anonyme authore slaveno
idiomate edita et 'Pervoe ucenie otrokom' intitulata est {Obscure Passages in the Catechism
Published in Slavonic under the Title 'First Instruction for Children'), which was tran-
slated into Russian by his secretary, Ivan Ilinsky. This work (245 manuscript
pages) was in response to the catechism modelled on contemporary Protestant
catechisms published in1720 by Theophanes (Feofan) Prokopovich, Bishop of
Pskov and later Archbishop of Novgorod and President of the Synod esta-
blished by Peter the Great to rule the Russian Church.
Kantemir explains the Orthodox teachings incorrectly interpretedbyThe-
ophanes Prokopovich under the influence of Protestantism and voices objec-
tions to the plan of the catechism and its presentation.
6
His work The System of the
Muslim Religion, written in Russia in Latin, then translated into Russian and
published in St Petersburg in 1722, may be considered as the first book written
by a Romanian on the doctrine of another religion.
Another cultural figure of Kantemir's time was Teodor Corbea, the son of
a priest of Brasov wh o studied in Russia. After serving Constantin Branco-
veanu, the Voivode of Wallachia, he entered the service of Peter the Great and
settled in Russia. He wrote a metric version of 150 psalms which he dedicated to
the Tsar.
7
During the eighteenth centurymany young Romanians studied at the The-
ological Academy of Kiev, and Romanian bishops, priests and monks travelled
to Russia to acquaint themselves with the country's cultural and spiritual life
and also the historical monuments of Kiev, Moscow, Novgorod, St Petersburg
and other centres. Many Russian theological works were translated intoRom-
anian, some of which were published.
During the second half of the eighteenth century, the Elder Paissius Vel-
ichkovsky(1722-94), a celebrated reformer of monastic life, worked among the
Romanians. Born in Poltava in the Ukraine, he became a monk in three Ukrai-
nian monasteries, then in three monasteries in Wallachia and, subsequently, on
Mount Athos; he settled permanently inMoldavia after 1763 and lived in the
monasteries of Dragomirna, Secu (1775) and Neamt (1779) which he directed
in turn as Elder. He also founded an important 'school' of translators of the
works of the Fathers of the Church and the great ascetics from Greek into
274
FrMinea Pcurariu
Romanian and Slavonic; about 300 manuscripts have come down to us from his
time, including forty written in his own hand. He also wrote original works,
including one on the 'prayer of the heart'. An edition of his Philokalia in Russian
Slavonic was published in 1793 in St Petersburg by the Metropolitan of St
Petersburg and Novgorod, Gabriel Popov.
There were more than 700 Moldavian, Wallachian and Transylvanian
monks at Neamt, and their ranks also included Russians, Byelorussians, Ukrai-
nians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs and even Jewish converts to Christianity. Hun-
dreds of other 'brethren' lived inSecu, Sihstria, Pocrov, Sihla or in the sur-
rounding forests. Thus a genuine movement for the renewal of monastic life,
known as the 'Paissian' revival, was born.
The rules introduced by the Elder Paissius in the three Moldavian monas-
teries had a beneficial influence not only in the Romanian lands (through the
Elder Gheorghe of Cernica and Cldrusani and other disciples), but also in
Russia. His Russian, Byelorussian and Ukrainian disciples spread out tomore
than 100 Russian monasteries, especiallythose of Valaam, Solovki, St Alexan-
der of Svirsk in the north, the Alexander Nevsky Lavra in St Petersburg, the
Monastery of Optina in Central Russia, the St Simon (Simonov) Monastery and
the N e w Monastery of the Saviour (Novospassky Monastyr') inMoscow, the
Kiev Caves Monastery, N e w Athos in the Caucasus and a number of convents
for women. The Paissian spiritual movement also influenced some of the great
Russian thinkers of the nineteenth century, such as Dostoevsky and Khomia-
kov. In this way, the Elder Paissius contributed to the rebirth of monastic life
both in the Romanian lands and in his country of origin.
8
In the historyof Orthodox theology in the first half of the nineteenth cen-
tury, a special place belongs to the great apologist of Orthodoxy, Alexandru
Scarlat Sturza (1791-1854), born at Iai into a family of Moldavian boyars. His
father had studied in Leipzig and had connections with the famous Greek theo-
logians, Nicephorus Theotokis and Eugenius Vulgaris. After the peace of Iai in
1792, he emigrated with his family to Russia, where he became a diplomat and
was sent on missions to various European countries. Towards the end of his
life, he settled inOdessa, where he carried out intense philanthropical and cul-
tural activities. He visited his native land several times and accepted the post of
head of the Administrative Council of the Iai Seminary.
Alexandru Scarlat Sturza wrote many works in Russian, Greek and French
on sociological, pedagogical, linguistic, aesthetic and, above all, theological
subjects, making him one of the most remarkable apologists of Orthodoxy of
the nineteenth century. A large number of his theological works were also tran-
slated into Romanian soon after they appeared, including the Manual of the
Orthodox Christian which was translated by the learned Archimandrite Eufrosim
Poteca, former professor at the St Sava National College of Bucharest, from the
edition published in Athens inmodern Greek, and printed in Bucharest in
1832. T wo more of his works were translated byArchimandrite Filaret Scriban,
a former student of the Kiev Theological Acade my: Epistles or Letters on the Duties
of the Sacred Ministry of the Priesthood (Iai, 1843, in two volumes, translated from
Russian), a pastoral work, andReligious, Moral and Historical Teachings (Iai, 1844,
translated from French), a dogmatic and apologetic work. Another work was
translated from French by the Archimandrite and future Bishop Neofit Scriban:
The Church before the Papacy and the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century (Iai, 1851).
This apologetic and polemical work presents, in two large chapters, the diffe-
rences between the Orthodox Church and the Protestant and Catholic
Churches. Other works by Sturza were translated from French or adapted in
Romanian during the first half of the present century, by the priest and profes-
sor Hie Beleut of Sibiu, including the Historical Considerations on the Doctrine and
Spirit of the Orthodox Church (1931) which also deals with the Christianization of
Rus' and the influence of Christianityon the life of the Russian people.
Apart from these works, which are alsoknown tothe Romanians, Alex-
andra Scarlat Sturza wrote others of a dogmatic, moral and pastoral nature, and
also homilies, including Talks on the Holy Eucharist, Faith and H u m a n Knowledge and
On the Activities of Russian Preachers of Orthodoxy.
To make the life and teachings of the Orthodox Church known in the
West, he translated a series of Russian theological works into French, including
the sermons of Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow and the Arch-
bishopof Kharkov, the liturgyof St John Chrysostom (Paris, 1846) and a collec-
tion of prayers (Paris, 1852). After his death, all of his original works were
published in Paris in five volumes under the title Posthumous Religious, Historical,
Philosophical and'Literary Works (1859-61).
Alexandru Scarlat Sturza was therefore an exceptional theologian and
thinker, a remarkable figure of pan-Orthodoxy. His name has its place in the
roll of honour, together with the other representatives of Romanian culture
mentioned above wh o carried out some of their activities in Russia andmade a
valuable contribution by their theological works to knowledge of Orthodoxy in
the Protestant and Catholic worlds, as well as strengthening cultural and eccle-
siastical links between Romanians and Russians.
9
Translations of theological works from Russian toRomanian and vice
versa led to improved mutual knowledge of the two Churches and the indivi-
dual concerns of each. S ome Romanian theologians wh o studied at the Kiev
Theological Acade my translated into Romanian or adapted various textbooks
used in theological seminaries in Russia, wh e n theythemselves became teachers
in Romanian theological schools. They include Filaret Scriban, Melchisadec
Stefnescu, Teoctist Scriban, Ghenadie E nceanu and loan Gherm nescu.
Following the foundation of the Faculty of Theology in Bucharest in 1881,
the lack of textbooks forced the teachers to turn to Russian Orthodox theology,
translatingsome of the works of the great nineteenth-century Russian theo-
276 FrMinea Pcurariu
logians. For example, Archimandrite Gherasim Timus, later bishop of Arges,
translated the Introduction to Orthodox Theology byMacarius Bulgakov, Rector first
of the St Petersburg Theological Academy and then that in Moscow, from the
French edition (Paris, 1857). Gherasim Timus also translated the same author's
Orthodox Dogmatic Theology in two volumes from the French edition (Paris, 1859/
60). Another teacher, Archimandrite Silvestru Blnescu, a former student of
the Kiev Academy and later Bishop of Husi (1886-1900), translated the Eccle-
siastical TAW by Professor Ivan S. Berdnikov of the Faculty of Law of the Uni-
versityof Kazan (Bucharest, 1892). He also undertook to translate the five vol-
umes of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology with its historical presentation of dogmas by
Sylvester Malevansky, former professor at the Kiev Academy and later Bishop
of Kanev and Rector of the Academy. S ome of this work was translated by
Archimandrite Sylvester himself, and the rest byformer students of the Kiev
Academy, the priests Constantin Nazarie and Nicolae Filipand Archimandrite
Gherasim Miron (Bucharest, 1896-1906). The priest Constantin Nazarie, Prin-
cipal of the Seminary of Roman and later professor at the Faculty of Theology
of Bucharest, also translated the two-volume Christian Apologetics by Professor
Nikolai Rozhdestvensky of the Theological Academy of St Petersburg in 1897.'
In their turn, many Romanian theological works were translated intoRus-
sian, including the Compendium of Canon Taw by Metropolitan Andrei Saguna of
Transylvania (Sibiu, 1868), translated first intoGerman and later into Russian
from the German edition and published in St Petersburg in 1872 (under the title
of Kratkoe zlozenie kanoniceskogo prava).
During the second half of the nineteenth century, many Russian theolo-
gians began to take an interest in the historyof the Romanian Church and
nation, including the learned bishop Porphyrius Uspensky (1804-85), author of
the imposing ten-volume work The Christian East, the greater part of which deals
with the historyof Mount Athos and especiallythe help given byRomanians to
the monasteries of the Holy Mountain. Teacher Evgeny Golubinsky of the
Moscow Theological Academy wrote aHistory of the Bulgarian, Serbian and Rom-
anian Orthodox Churches (Moscow, 1879), of which the section dealing with the
Romanians was translated and printed at Iai; this work, however, has been
criticized byRomanian historians as containingmany errors. Arsenius Stadnit-
sky (1862-1936), born in Eastern Moldavia, teacher at the Seminaryof Chisinu
and later Archbishop of Novgorod, published works on the historyof the
Romanian Church and also travelled to Romania to study. Studies of the history
and organization of the Romanian Church in the nineteenth centurywere
published by teachers V. Kolokoltev and Kurganov of Kazan and by several
laymen wh o visitedRomania to carry out research, including the great Slavist I.
A. Yatimirsky, author of several studies of ancient Romanian Slavonic manu-
scripts.
11
During the first half of the present century, the most outstanding theolo-
gian to make a contribution to the knowledge of Russian theological literature
in the Romanian Church was Nicodim Munteanu (1864-1948), a former stu-
dent of the Kiev Theological Academy, Bishop of Husi, Metropolitan of Mol -
davia and Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Thanks to his efforts,
dozens of volumes of works by Archbishops Sergius of Vladimir and Innocent
of Odessa, teacher A. Lopukhin, the priests Konstantin Stratilatov, Grigory
Petrov and Sergei Chetverikov, and Lev Tolstoy and other Russian writers
appeared in Romanian translations. Thanks to the translations of Patriarch
Nicodim, Romanian Orthodox theologians and priests became acquainted with
the valuable contributions of Russian bishops and theologians to the overall
progress of Orthodox theology.
All these contacts and cultural and theological relations between the Rus-
sian and Romanian Orthodox Churches contributed to better mutual know-
ledge, the consolidation of inter-Orthodox links and the affirmation of Ortho-
doxy in the Christian world.
NOTES
1. D. Stniloae, 'Rolul Ortodoxiei n formarea si pstrarea fiintei poporului roman si a
unittii nationale [The Role of Orthodoxy in the Formation of the Romanian Peo-
ple and in the Maintenance of its Existence and National Unity]', Ortodoxia, Vol. 30,
N o. 4, 1978, p. 599.
2. Izpoarele istoriei romnilor [The Sources of the History of the Romanians], Vol. 7, pp.
22-3, 33-4, 38, 47 ; Chronicle of Nestor, translation and commentaries, Bucharest,
1935.
3. O f the rich bibliographyon the Metropolitan of Kiev, we shall mention only a few
works dealing with his links with the Romanians: P. P. Panaitescu, L'influence de
l'uvre de Pierre Moghila, Archevque de Kiev, dans les Principauts roumains [The Influence
of the W ork of Peter Mogila, Archbishopof Kiev, in the Romanian Principalities],
Paris, 1926, 97 pp.; P. P. Panaitescu, 'Petru Movil si romana [Peter Mogila and the
Romanians]', Contributti la istoria culturii romnesti [Contributions to the History of
Romanian Culture], pp. 575-95, Bucharest, 1971; G . Mihail, ' Dou scrieri literare
ale lui Petru Movil adresate compatriotilor sai [Two LiteraryW orks of Peter
Mogila Addressed to his Compatriots]', Contributii la istoria culturii si literaturii romane
vechi [Contributions to the Study of Ancient Romanian Culture and Literature], pp.
183-228, Bucharest, 1972.
4. S. Ciobanu, Dosofiei mitropolitulMoldovei si activitatea lui itrera [Dosoftei, Metropolitan
of Moldavia, and his LiteraryW ork] , translated from Russian by Stefan Berechet,
Iai, 1918, iv + 200 pp. (Russian version published in Kiev in 1915), with docu-
mentary appendices; A. Elian, 'Mitropolitul Dosoftei si literatura patrstica [Metro-
politan Dosoftei and Patristic Literature]', Biserica Ortodoxa Romana, Vol. 92, 1974,
N o. 1/2, pp. 1350-75; N . Vornicescu, 'Mitropolitul Dosoftei traductor si editor al
unor texte patristice [Metropolitan Dosoftei as Translator and Editor of Patristic
Texts]', Mitropolia Moldovei si Sucevei, Vol. 50, 1974, N o. 9/ 12, pp.
Fr Minea Pcurariu
748-52; 'Scrieri patristice si postpatristice n preocuprile mitropolitului Dosoftei
[Patristic and Post-Patristic Writings in the Preoccupations of Metropolitan Dosof-
tei]',Mitropolia Olteniei, Vol. 26, 1974, N o. 9/ 10, pp. 718-31; 'Dosoftei, mitropolitul
Moldovei apartor al epiclezei euharistice [Metropolitan Dosoftei, Defender of the
Eucharistie Epiclesis]', Biserica Ortodoxa Romana, Vol. 95, 1977, N o. 7 / 8, pp. 727-53.
E . Picot, 'Notice biographique sur Nicolas Spathar Milescu, ambassadeur du tsar
Alexis Mihajlovi en Chine [Biographical Notes on Nicolas Spathar Milescu,
Ambassador of Tsar Alexis Mihajlovi to China]', Mlanges orientaux, p. 60, Paris,
1883; P. P. Panaitescu, 'Nicolas Spathar Milescu (1636-1703)', Mlanges de l'cole
roumaine en France [Miscellany of the Romanian School in France] (Paris), Vol. 1, pp.
35-181, 1925 (Romanian version, Iai, 1987, xli +110 pp.); C. Giurescu, 'Nicolae
Milescu Sptarul. Contributiuni la opera sa literar [Nicolas Spathar Milescu. Con-
tributions to his LiteraryW ork]' , An. Acad. Rom., Mem. Sect. Ist., S. 3, Vol. 7, 1927,
pp. 231-84; D. Cristescu, 'Opera teolgica si apologtica a spfarului Nicolae
Milescu [The Theological and Apologetic W orks of Nicolas Spathar Milescu]', Orto-
doxia, Vol. 10, N o. 4, 1958, pp. 495-510; A. I. Ciurea, 'Mrturisirea de credint a
sptarului Nicolae Milescu: Stella Orientalis Occidentali splendens [The 'Profession
of Faith' of Nicolas Spathar Milescu: Stella Orientalis Occidentali splendens]', Orto-
doxia, Vol. 10, N o. 4, 1958, pp. .511-38; N . Milescu, Aritmologhia, Etica si orignatele lor
latine [The Arithmology, the Ethics and their Latin Originals], critical andmono-
graphic study, translation, notes and indexes by Pndele Olteanu, Bucharest, 1982,
p. 408.
D. Cantemir, 'Lora Obscura, Translation and Commentary byTeodor Bodogae',
Biserica Ortodoxa Romana, Vol. 91, N o. 9/ 10, 1973, pp. 1063-111 (extract).
S. Metes, ' Din relatiile noastre cu Rusia. Fratii David si Teodor Corbea in slujba
popurului roman ca lupttori contra unirii cu Roma, ca diplomati si scriitori [Our
Relations with Russia. The Brothers David and Theodore Corbea in the Service of
the Romanian People in their Struggle Against Union with Rome , and their Diplo-
matic and LiteraryActivity]', Mitropolia Ardealului, Vol. 5, N o. 11/ 12, 1960, pp.
836-62.
O f the copious bibliography on Paissius, we shall cite only the most recent works: S.
Cetverikov, Moldavskij starec Paisij Velicikovskij. Ego zizn', ucenie i vlijanie napravoslavnoe
monasestvo [The Moldavian Elder Paissius Velicikovsky. His Life, Teaching and
Influence on Orthodox Monasticism], Paris, Y M CA Press, 1976, 307 pp.; C. D.
Hainsworth, Staretz Paisy Velichikovsky (1722-1974). Doctrine of Spiritual Guidance, p.
89, Rome , 1976; A. E . Tachisos, The Revival of Byzantine Mysticism among Slavs and
Romanians in the Eighteenth Century, Thessalonika, 1986, lv + 296 pp.
For further information, see M . Menicovici, ' U n apartor al Ortodoxiei la Curtea
tarului Alexandru I [A Defender of Orthodoxy at the Court of Tsar Alexander I]',
Viata romneasc (Iai), Vol. 16, N o. 9, 1924, pp. 318-35; G . Bezviconi, Din trecutul
nostru [Our Past], Vol. 4, pp. 1-81, Chiinu, 1936; E . Haivas, 'Alexandre de
Stourdza (1791-1854). Sa vie et son uvre [Alexandru Sturza (1791-1854). His Life
and W ork]' , Mlanges de l'Ecole roumaine en France, op cit., Vol. 14, 1938/39; E . Vasi-
lescu, Apologeti crestini, romani si strini [Romanian and Foreign Christian Apologet-
ics], pp. 136-44, Bucharest, 1942; loan Irimia, 'Viata si opera religioas a lui Alex-
andru Scarlat Sturza [Life and Religious W orks of Alexandra Scarlat Sturza]', Biserica
Ortodoxa Romana, Vol. 63, N o. 11/ 12, 1945, pp. 657-67 and Vol. 64, 1946; C. Buz-
dugan, 'Alexandra Scarlat Sturza (1791-1854) i rolul sa In Biserica Ortodoxa
[Alexandra Scarlat Sturza (1791-1854) and his Role in the Orthodox Church]', Stu-
dii Teologice [Theological Studies], Vol. 24, N o. 3/ 4, 1972, pp. 255-65.
10. M. Pcurariu, 'Traducen romnesti din literatura teolgica rusa pina la sfiritul
secolului X IX [Romanian Translations of Russian Theological Literature up to the
E nd of the Nineteenth Century]', Studii Teologice, op cit., Vol. 11, N o. 3/ 4, 1959, pp.
182-212.
11. G . Bezviconi, Contributii la istoria relatiilorromno-ruse [Contributions to the History of
Romanian-Russian Relations], Bucharest, 1962; M. Pcurariu, Istoria Bisericii Orto-
doxe Romane [History of the Romanian Orthodox Church], Vol. 3, pp. 37 3-8, 415,
Bucharest, 1981.
The Russian Orthodox Church and
the ecumenical movement
Todor Sabev
The aspiration towards unity in past centuries
During the harsh days of Ottoman domination, various inter-Church contacts
and meetings and countless acts of solidarityand mutual aid between Orthodox
and non-Orthodox faithful awakened recognition of Christian unity. This
increased the emphasis laidon the idea of the catholicityand universality of the
Church. From the eighteenth centuryonwards, this process developed through
increasing openness towards Western European culture and education, bilateral
church relationships, the religious and theological revival and the formulation
of new ideals of unity in the nineteenth century. An ardent desire for common
witness to the faith, promoting renewal of the Church and reuniting Christians,
inspired the pioneers and moved all the participants to dialogue both East and
West.
The Russian Orthodox Church took part in the movement from the very
beginning of this period and played an active role throughout the course of the
eager quest for Christian unity.
1
The influence of the Russian Orthodox Church
in the creation of the modern ecumenical movement
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, influential representatives of
Russian theology stimulated the revival of patristics and encouraged various
initiatives towards arapprochement between Eastern and Western thought. In his
Conversation between the Seekerand the RelieverConcerning the Truth (Orthodoxy) of the
282
TodorSabev
Eastern Graeco-Russian Church,
2
Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow (1821-67) sug-
gests how the basic ecumenical issue of the canonical and charismatic limits of
the Church should be approached: 'I do not presume to call false any Church
that believes that Jesus is the Christ.' This eminent hierarch believed that divine
Providence would bring the Churches, as the glorious Body of Christ, to full
unity and perfection. Later, Metropolitan Platon of Kiev (d. 1891) stated that
the divisions between the Churches ('our earthly partitions') do not reach as far
as heaven.
After 1871, representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church attended sev-
eral meetings of the Old Catholic movement. In1892 a Russian theological
commission was set up to examine the question of unity. During the same
period (1888-97), contacts between the Anglican Church and the Russian
Orthodox Church also became more frequent, and in1910 the Lambeth Confe-
rence decided to speed up the process of rapprochement. The all-Russian local
council in 1917/18 encouraged further studies regarding a possible union with
the Old Catholics and Anglicans.
T wo visits byDr John Mott to Russia in1899 and 1909 aroused ecumenical
interest and stimulated subsequent activities of the Student Movement: the Rus-
sian Orthodox Church joined in the initial preparations for the World Confe-
rence on Faith and Order and the International Conference on Life and W ork.
3
The Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III of 12 June 1902 to
the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Churches raised important issues of co-
operation inside the Orthodox family, the matter of relations with Roman
Catholics and Protestants, and the question of a new Church calendar. The Rus-
sian Orthodox Church responded positively. The Encyclical issued in January
1920 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and addressed to 'all the Churches of
Christ' set out the main lines of a programme of modern ecumenism and pro-
posed that it should be organized as a 'League of Churches'. It called for the
repudiation of mistrust and bitterness, proselytism and hatred, the strengthen-
ing of mutual love and the establishment of practical means of co-operation
between the Churches in order to work together against social evils and to pro-
mote goodwill and respect for the principles of justice and charity. The Encycli-
cal suggested that doctrinal disagreements should not prevent the Churches
from joint action. The time hadcome tomove towards closer fellowship and
common Christian witness.
4
These ideas met with a favourable reaction in the Russian Orthodox
Church but the pressures of the new socio-political conditions in the Soviet
Union, the problems of the large Russian diaspora in Europe, questions of juris-
diction and other factors made their mark on inter-church relations and ecu-
menical activities outside the country.
The Russian Orthodox Church and the ecumenical movement 283
Participation of Russian Orthodoxy in the ecumenical
movement from the 1920s to the 1960s
Most Churches already believed that at least rudimentary communion existed
between them, based specificallyon the fact that theyhad 'certain great, abso-
lutely central convictions in common' (a tenet later adopted by Vatican II).
5
The year 1920 marked anew period in the historyof the ecumenical movement.
For two decades the Orthodox Church played an increasingly energetic part in
activities under the auspices of Faith and Order, Life and W ork and the World
Alliance for Promoting International Friendship through the Churches
(founded in 1914/15). The Russian Student Christian movement, fostered and
helped by the American Young Men' s Christian Association ( Y MCA) , also
became active in many European countries, particularlyin France and the
United Kingdom. Its presence at student conferences, a number of tours of the
Russian student choir, and lectures and liturgical celebrations making the
Eucharist the central element of spiritual life and ecumenical reflections deeply
impressed its Western partners. The Anglo-Orthodox Fellowship of St Alban
and St Sergius made a great contribution to strengthening links of co-operation
and unity. Founded in 1928, this Fellowship organized a series of Anglo-
Orthodox conferences, numerous courses and lectures, fruitful exchanges of
professors and students and visits of English Christians to Orthodox centres
and publishedmany works on topical ecumenical themes and on Russian Chris-
tian culture. Within the framework of these activities, members of St Basil's
House in London, founded in 1944 bymembers of the Fellowship of St Alban
and St Sergius, had the idea of establishing the Ecumenical Institute at Bossey in
1948 as a place of meeting and dialogue for leaders of Eastern and Western
Christendom.
6
Representatives of the Russian diaspora (the Russian Church in Exile) took
an active part at the Lausanne (1927) and Edinburgh (1937) Faith and Order
Conferences and at the Stockholm (1925) and Oxford (1937) Conferences of the
Life and W ork Movement.
7
Russian youth organizations were represented at
the Amsterdam (1939) and Oslo (1947) Conferences, as well as at the First
Assembly (1948) of the World Council of Churches (W CC).
8
All these ecumenical endeavours were prepared and carried out in close
collaboration with the circle of eminent theologians and philosophers asso-
ciated with the St Sergius Theological Institute in Paris (founded in 1925), and,
after the Second W orld W ar, with some of the professors of the St Vladimir
Theological Seminary in N e w York.
In the long range of pioneers in inter-Church relationships and ecumenical
encounter, a special place belongs to the first generation of scholars represented
by N . Berdyaev, S. Frank, B. Vysheslavtzev, V. Zenkovsky, Fr S. Bulgakov, V.
Lossky, G . Fedotov, L. Zander, Fr G . Florovsky, P. Evdokimov, N . Zernov and
284
TodorSabev
many others. They were soon joined in their noble task by a new generation of
highly qualified theologians including FrN . Afanassiev, Fr A. S chmemann, Fr
J. Meyendorff, Fr B. Bobrinskoy, N . Lossky andO . Clement. The number of
publications byRussian specialists in the form of monographs, collections of
studies and articles, year books and periodicals inWestern European cultural
centres and inN e w York exceeds 500. To this great number should be added
various articles and works by representatives of the Russian diaspora in the Bal-
kan lands and other countries of the Orthodox East, the periodicals of the Mos-
cow Patriarchate and of its Exarchate in Western Europe and a certain number
of scholarlyworks and dissertations written in the Theological Academies of
Zagorsk and Leningrad.
The scope and content of these works cover all the major theological dis-
ciplines: biblical studies, Church history, patristics and systematic and practical
theology. Theymark significant developments in the fields of dogmatics, moral
theology, social ethics, spiritualityand liturgical life, ascetics and hagiology.
Particular attention is paid to Trinitarian theology, Christologyand pneumatol-
ogy, ecclesiology and eschatology, creation and anthropology. They offer an
Orthodox interpretation of the pressing issues of the ecumenical agenda: Scrip-
ture and Church tradition; the Universal Church and the local Churches; unity
and apostolicityof the Church; the Apostolic Succession; Catholicity, conciliar-
ity and conciliarism (sobornosi); the ecclesiology of communion; ways to unity;
the sacraments (especially the Eucharist); the Eucharist and unity; the Eucha-
ristie celebration as the eschatological self-fulfilment of the Church; the proces-
sion of the Holy Spirit (Filioque); the Holy Spirit and Church unity; primacy
and autocephality; sacramental sources of Church life; theosis (divinization);
the role of non-theological factors inChurch division and in the quest for reu-
nion; the theology of culture; unity and ethnicity; Church and state; and so
forth. These show a creative approach to the common search for better under-
standing, reconciliation and unitybetween the Christian East and West.
9
From
the early1930s to the 1960s Russian theologians addressed the crucial issues of
the ecumenical debate with audacity, honestyand commitment in a number of
works and articles.
10
The Russian Orthodox Church joins the World
Council of Churches (W CC)
After the Second W orld W ar most of the Orthodox Churches felt the need to
come together to tackle the problems of social service and the task of witnessing
to the faith in anew society. In1946 the Provisional Committee of the W CC,
which was then being formed, took the initiative of a meeting with representa-
tives of the Moscow Patriarchate to explore the possibilityof the Russian
Church becoming a member. The Patriarchate requested a postponement of the
discussion. The Conference of Primates and Representatives of Orthodox
Churches held inMoscow in July1948, which discussed relationships with the
Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion and the W CC, decided 'to
decline participation in the ecumenical movement in its present form'. This
position was motivated byarguments of a doctrinal nature and the W CC' s line
on social and political matters. Only the Russian Exarchate in Western Europe
was represented at the Constitutive Assembly of the W C C in Amsterdam in
1948. The Russian Orthodox Church in America became a me mbe r of the W C C
in 1954.
In 1958, leaders of the W C C and delegates of the Russian Orthodox Church
met in Utrecht (Holland) and established a basis for ne w relations. In the course
of further mutual visits, certain obstacles were overcome. At the N e w Delhi
Assembly (1961), the Moscow Patriarchate became a me mbe r of the W orld
Council of Churches.
In a statement made in 1968, the late Metropolitan Nikodim (of Leningrad
and Novgorod)
11
explained that this decision of the Russian Orthodox Church
was prompted by the nature and aim of the W CC, that is, to work for the unity
of all Christians and jointlyserve the human race
in the spirit of the Gospel's commandments to love and to be loyal toGod's will. . ..
Through close co-operation, mutual enrichment and the sharing of experience . . .
[it is hoped]... that Christians will become a great and living force, earning the res-
pect of all who long for peace, justice and true human relationships.
The Russian Orthodox Church's contribution to
the W CC' s understanding of ecumenism
At the Utrecht meeting in 1958, the Russian representatives emphasized their
concern for visible Church unity, 'the reunion of all Christians', common voic-
ing of belief and joint efforts to tackle the principal international problems such
as disarmament, atomic warfare and nuclear arms tests and to establish 'world
peace with justice and freedom'.
12
In his message to the Central Committee of
the W C C at Rhodes in 1959, the late Metropolitan Nicholas of Krutitsywrote:
' Our sympathy with the ecumenical move me nt. . . is inspired by the fact that,
in spite of separation, all Christians . . . keep the W ord of G od.' The main task
of the ecumenical movement, he stated, is 'the unity of faith that is divided by
differing interpretations. W e Christians must stand above the political contrad-
ictions of our time and give to the divided peoples an example of unity and
286 TodorSabev
peace, brotherhood and love, removing ourselves from all self-sufficient isola-
tionism and unfriendly relations to each other.'
13
In 1968, Metropolitan Nikodim
14
spoke of his conviction that ' ecumenism
invites us to grow gradually closer to other confessions with great attention to
and understanding of the true Christian values that have been preserved by
these confessions. Ecumenism must strengthen in us the sense of the need to
discern more clearlywhat is good and healthy', what we should receive from
and give to the other churches in a process of mutual learning and enrichment.
Only the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church . . . possesses full unity. . . .
Outside its limits . . . it can be incomplete, or may almost disappear. . . . Perfect
unitycan be appropriated by the whole Oikoumene hot through a simple 'manif-
estation'. . ., but solelyby re-building the broken unity, by returning to complete
obedience to the truth.
15
O n his visit to the W orld Council Headquarters in Geneva in 1973, His Holi-
ness Patriarch Pimen voiced the opinion that 'the W CC should exert greater
efforts in those fields that directly pertain to the spiritual life of believers, espe-
ciallyin dogmatic and confessional questions'. O n another occasion, he
declared that the concern to strengthen international co-operation and brother-
hood should be seen as organically linked to the quest for the restoration of
unity in the O ne , Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
16
Ecumenism should
take into consideration not only unity in faith among Christians, but also divi-
sion and hostilityin the human race and in all creation.
The unity of the Church and of all Christians is the image of the unity,
truth and love of the Holy Trinity. The Orthodox conception of unity is based
on Orthodox ecclesiology. The Church is an icon of the Holy Trinity, an incar-
nation of the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Spirit of Truth. Koinonia is
her fundamental characteristic. The unity of Christians and of the Church as a
divine-human organism is a community of conciliar life, a true communion
and harmony in Jesus Christ. It is sacramental and Eucharistie. The holy
Eucharist is the mystical centre and spiritual source of both life and unity. The
concept of the Body of Christ, a living organism, presupposes organic unity in
diversity. The reunion of different Churches cannot be achieved by 'absorption'
of all others byone Church, but in Eucharistie revival, common confession of
the Apostolic faith, the re-establishment of confidence and the spirit of shared
membership of the household of Christ.
17
The Orthodox Church's contribution to consideration
of the Faith and Witness Programme
Since the start of this new period of participation in the ecumenical movement,
the Russian Orthodox Church has joined in a wide range ofW CC endeavours.
It has testified a particular commitment to the cause of the 'visible unit' and a
predominant interest in the Faith and Order Programme.
In 1963 a large delegation of the Moscow Patriarchate attended the fourth
W orld Conference on Faith and Order in Montreal and played a creative role in
the theological meeting on a full agenda covering most of the basic ecumenical
themes of the time, but concentrating in particular on 'Tradition and Tradi-
tions'. Tradition shouldbe seen in a Trinitarian perspective. It is the whole pro-
cess inwhich the Holy Trinity enters time and history in order to bring about
their fulfilment in Christ. It is the Gospel itself and the Christian faith in its
wholeness, transmitted from generation to generation in and by the Church
through the power of the Holy Spirit. Onlywhen it is in accordance with the
Apostolic faith and acceptedby the whole Church can Tradition be recognized
as being Holy and Universal. Tradition has vital implications for mission and
unity. Traditions in the history of the Church are expressions and manif-
estations in diverse forms of the one divine Truth and.reality. Their value
depends on their faithfulness to Tradition. In this connection it is important to
perceive the latter not so much as a historical reality, but rather as a charismatic
principle. The adaptation of the Tradition to a particular periodand its incor-
poration into life are delicate theological and ecumenical tasks. This implies
explaining the doctrine of the Church in modern terms, according to the needs
and the understanding of each people, which brings us to the question of ' Gos-
pel and Culture'. The Church embraces human cultures in all their diversity,
but should not be identified with any particular culture.
18
Over the past twenty years many Russian theologians have written books
and studies on the theme of 'Catholicity - Conciliarity - Sobornosf as a vital pro-
blem for the ecumenical dialogue on ecclesiology, unityand common witness.
Catholicitybelongs to the very essence of the Church. The Church is 'catholic'
because it covers the entire world. Catholicity, however, means alsoand above
all the integrityand completeness of the Truth - the faith, teachingand life of
the Church. Catholicityand unity are closely interrelated. The Church is cath-
olic in so far as it is unitedby truth and love just as the ' Bodyof Christ' is united
to its divine Head. Through the bond of unityand mutual love of all Christians,
this Body is one indissoluble whole. The Church isUna Sancta despite the empir-
ical divisions between local Churches. Catholicity'admonishes the Church to
strive not towards an autonomous isolation of separate parts, but rather towards
a... unification... throughout the whole world'. The significance of Catholic-
ity is expressed very well bySS Cyril and Methodius' translation of the term
288 Todor Sabtv
from Greek into Slavonic by the choice of the word 'sobornaja', depicting the
Church as an assembly or 'council' (sobor) and describing the 'conciliar' nature
of the Christian faith. Sobornost postulates a unitywhich is 'above and indepen-
dent of all fragmentation', a 'full and free unityof spirit and of thought', and the
'equal importance of all members of the Church' . The 'catholicityof the
Church is constantlyin the process of being discovered, but also of gradual real-
ization'. It is 'an unalterable axiom for us all.. ., our task and aim . . ., insepar-
ably linked to the mission and witness of the Church.'
19
In his pronouncements and articles on ecumenism, Patriarch Pimen of
Moscow and All Russia expressed concern for conciliarityandsobornost. Conci-
liarityshould be distinguished from catholicity. It denotes a series of historical
forms of ' Church government' exercised through various kinds of councils,
synods or other consultative bodies. 'Sobornost is not simply conciliarity.' It is an
ontological qualityof the Church that finds in Christ not only its substance but
also its accomplishment. Any principle of domination bywhich external auth-
ority that is not the expression of a conciliar will, nor the voice of a conscience
springing from the plenitude of the Church, can wield power over and inside
the Church is alien tosobornost.
20
As part of the theme of sobornost, some theologians (such as the late Arch-
bishop Basil of Brussels) also considered the issues of 'presidency', 'primacy of
honour' , and 'primacy of jurisdiction'.
21
The renewal of the Church can and must be achieved by ecclesiastical
means, which requires arousing the spirit of sobornost and developing among
Christians their consciousness of belonging to the people of God.
22
As the late
Metropolitan Nikodim said in 1968:
The very nature of Orthodoxy . . . lends itself to a peaceful aggiornamento. . . . It is
desirable that all the arguments in favour of the need for renewal in church life
should be subjected to ecumenical discussion; they should be included in the official
documents in an absolutely lucid form, so as to avoid any suspicion, or misun-
derstanding, or undulyvague generalizations.
23
In these conditions it is clear that ' Orthodox theology as a scientific discipline'
can also 'develop and achieve perfection'. From this point of view it is possible
even for ecclesiologyto pass 'through phases of development and renewal.
However, this process cannot be bound by any external standards imposing for-
mal obligations on the life of Christ's Church.'
24
The Russian Orthodox Church made a valuable contribution to the succes-
sive Faith and Order meetings held in Louvain (1971), Accra (1974), Bangalore
(1978), Lima (1982) and Stavanger (1985), dealing with such basic ecumenical
themes as ' The Authority of the Bible', ' H ow the Church Teaches with Author-
ityToday' , 'Conciliar Fellowship', ' Common Witness and Proselytism', ' Bap-
tism, Eucharist and Ministry', ' Towards the Common Expression of the Apos-
tolic Faith Today', 'Church Unity and Renewal of the H uman Community' and
' Community of Me n andW ome n in the Church'.
25
The Russian Orthodox Church also contributed to deeper reflection on
ecclesiology and ecumenism in connection with particular Faith and Order
Programmes in the course of almost thirtyconsultations and through some
forty publications initiated by the Orthodox staff at the Ecumenical Centre
(Geneva), co-sponsoredby sub-units of the W CC and prepared in co-operation
with representatives of local Orthodox Churches.
Within the framework of the conferences and W orld Conferences of the
W CC, the Russian Orthodox Church made contributions on the following
important subjects: 'Salvation in Orthodox Theology', ' H ow Do Orthodox
Look at the Problem of Concepts of Unity and Models of Union?', 'Confessing
Jesus Christ Today', 'Unity and Mission', 'Jesus Christ - the Life of the W orld' ,
and so forth. S ome of these themes received special attention in the works and
articles of Russian hierarchs and theologians.
26
In this context we should mention the Russian Orthodox understandingof
'Concepts of Unity and Models of Union' (re-union) and the respective roles of
bilateral dialogues and multilateral talks. Christian reconciliation plays an
important part in the process towards achieving visible unity. Ecumenical dia-
logues, common witness and interdenominational co-operation contribute to
the maturity and growth of fellowshipbetween local Churches. 'Conciliar fel-
lowship' is a goal and a noble task for those wh o strive 'for the unity of all'. A
new assessment of the present ecumenical situation and of the progress and
qualityof the 'pre-conciliar age' is required. Most of the Churches are involved
in bilateral theological dialogues bearing promising fruits. The multilateral dia-
logues held by the W CC and particularlyby Faith and Order Programmes on
'Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry' and on the 'Apostolic Faith' are more com-
plex and difficult. They need greater commitment and full support. Bilateral
dialogues and multilateral conversations are closely related aspects of the quest
for unity, each with its own distinct and complementary role to play on the way
to mutual understanding and unity.
In Patriarch Pimen's opinion,
27
' The W orld Council of Churches . . . can
... exercise a beneficent influence on the... development of historical forms of
organization and conciliar life. The calling of the W CC is to prepare for the
advent of the pre-conciliar era but not to convene an Ecumenical Council.'
Since the early1960s, the Russian Orthodox Church has always had out-
standing representatives on the governing bodies of the Commission on W orld
Mission and Evangelism and the Dialogue and Church and Societyworking
groups. Russian delegates made a significant input to the Bangkok (1973) and
Melbourne (1981) World Conferences on Mission and Evangelism, the Prague
Seminar (1979) on Christian Witness and Evangelization in Eastern Europe,
and the Consultation on 'Dialogue in Community' (Chiang Mai, 1977). In par-
290 TodorSabev
ticular, they considered the subjects of 'Orthodox Understanding of Mission',
'Possibilities and Means of Evangelizing in Socialist Society', 'Proclamation
and Worship', 'Mission and Unity', 'Ethical Aspects and Social Issues in Evan-
gelism', 'Witness to and Dialogue with Non-Christians, and with N on-
Believers', 'Faith and Science', and so on.
28
In 1968 a Joint Commission met in Zagorsk (USSR) to draw up a studydoc-
ument on' Common Witness and Proselytism', benefiting from the experience
of Russian theology and missiology and layingdown basic principles of inter-
relationships and eliminating proselytism as alien to ecumenism andcommu-
nion.
In his paper on 'Dialogue in Society', delivered at the Chiang Mai consulta-
tion, the Russian Orthodox representative gave sound arguments and methods
for dialogue with people of other faiths and with non-religious groups and sec-
ular ideologies. This provided an impetus to the discussions, and helped to clar-
ify the concepts of 'world community' and 'community of communities'.
29
The delegates of the Moscow Patriarchate at the Geneva World Confe-
rence on Church and Societyin 1966 presented illuminating papers on ' The
Dialogue with Roman Catholics on Modern Thought' and ' The Demands and
Applicabilityof Theology in Relation to the Social Revolutions of Our Time'.
30
At the following W CC World Conference on Faith, Science and the
Future, organized by the Sub-unit on Church and Societyat Cambridge, Mass.,
United States, in 1979, two Russian theologians delivered bold addresses on
'Christian Responsibilityfor Nuclear Disarmament' and 'Christian Perspec-
tives on Creation in a Time of Ecological Unsustainability'.
31
The Orthodox Church's contribution to consideration
of the Justice and Service Programme
Russian spirituality, theology and commitment to peace in the post-war period
naturallyled the Moscow Patriarchate to give high priorityto the subject of
Peace and Justice. This is why it has given increasing support to the Commis-
sion of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA). For twenty-five years the
Russian Orthodox Church has played an active part in all major consultations
and conferences on peace and disarmament, human rights, the peaceful solu-
tion of conflicts and the drawing-up and presentation of documents on these
topics at W CC Assemblies. The representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate
have played a pre-eminent role in this field, showing great interest and partici-
pating activelyin the programme 'For Disarmament and Against Militarism
and the Arms Race', clarifying the issue of 'Violence, Non-Violence and Civil
Conflict' and defining the theological basis of peace and justice and the respon-
sibilities of Christians in this regard. T hey have worked with great zeal to estab-
lish confidence-building and co-operation, achieve world social justice and
elaborate basic social, economic and cultural rights. R ussian irenology has
enriched the CCI A ' s theological and ethical approach to ma ny other issues on
its agend a. R ecently it helped in shaping the W C C concerted action programme
for Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation (JPIC). R ussian irenology gave a
new vision and perspective to peace, justice and h uma n rights in the light of the
mystery of the sacraments (especially the Holy Eucharist). In his paper on 'Life
in Unity' , related to the main theme of the Sixth W C C Assembly held in V a n-
couver in 1983, Protopresbyter V . Borovoy stressed the significance of the Sup-
per of Love for the corporate life and social witness of the Church when he said:
If the bread of the Eucharist is the bread of eternal life and if in breaking it we enter
into communion with Christ and each other, this imposes on us an obligation to
fight against hunger, poverty, disease and other manifestations of social injustice
affecting other people, who are our brothers and sisters. If we are called to live out
this unity, then any hostility, discrimination or division of people based on racial,
national, ethnic, linguistic or cultural characteristics, sex, social status or educa-
tional background are incompatible with Christian faith and membership of the
Church.
32
Another area of priority for the R ussian Ort hod ox Church is that of the pro-
grammes of the W C C Commission on the Churches' Participation in Develop-
ment ( CCP D) . Articles and dossiers d rawn up in co-operation with R ussian
theologians have given impetus to the struggle for social justice and h uma n dig-
nity, thus contributing to the analysis of themes such as the ' Search for a Just,
Participatory and Sustainable Society', ' Ecumenical Perspectives on Political
Ethics' , ' G o o d New s to the Poor' and ' T he Development Challenge and the
R ole of the Churches in Eastern Europe' .
33
Contribution to reflection on the Education and
Renewal Programme
In the course of W C C Conferences and Assemblies, R ussian Orthod ox Church
delegates have taken an increasing interest in activities related to the themes of
'Christian and Theological Ed ucation' , ' R enewal and Congregational Life' and
' T he R ole of W o me n in Church and Society'. In a number of papers and publi-
cations, R ussian theologians and ecumenists have dealt with such subjects as
worship and spirituality, the central place of the Bible in the liturgy, the need
for a new life-style in our secularized societies, the continuity and renewal of
the Church, and disabled persons as full and valuable members of both Church
292 TodorSabev
and society. S ome of these questions were the subject of theological discussions
and specific consultations, such as 'Confessing Christ through the Liturgical
Life of the Church Today' (Echmiadzin, 1975), 'OrthodoxW ome n: Their Role
and Participation in the Orthodox Church' (Agapia, 1976), ' The Role and the
Place of the Bible in the Liturgical and Spiritual Life of the Orthodox Church'
(Prague, 1977) and 'Orthodox Theological Education for the Life and Witness
of the Church' (Basle, 1978).
34
The Russian Orthodox Church in the service
of inter-Orthodox relationships
Since 1961 the Moscow Patriarchate has taken an active part in the preparations
for the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. In 1971
Patriarch Pimen of Moscow and All Russia declared, ' Our sacred duty is to con-
solidate pan-Orthodox unity so that it will be effective and fruitful, capable of
responding to the needs of our time with the self-denying service of love.'
Exchanges of visits of primates and church delegations, scholarships offered to
young foreign theologians to study in Russian theological schools, and the
establishment and renovationoimetocbia (in Russianpodvorya, Church legations)
inMoscow and other centres of local Churches, have strengthened unity and
co-operation with all sister Churches.
35
Following the Second W orld W ar, the Moscow Patriarchate also renewed
its old contacts, friendshipand collaboration with the Ancient-Oriental (non-
Chalcedonian) Orthodox Churches.
36
This led to serious studies of the history,
ecclesiologyand present situation of Oriental Orthodoxy, and Russian partici-
pation in preliminary theological conversations (1964-71), opening the way to
official dialogue and closer and more fruitful inter-church relations. The com-
mon tasks and endeavours of the Moscow Patriarchate with both Eastern and
Oriental Churches have touchedon the main issues of church life, as well as on
aspirations and problems in contemporary society.
Through the W orld Fellowship of Orthodox Youth (Syndesmos), the
W orld Student Christian Federation and other connections, the Orthodox
Youth movement has enjoyed the sympathy and support of the Russian
Church.
The Russia Orthodox Church and the ecumenical movement
293
Bilateral dialogues with non-Orthodox Churches
As part of the preparations for the Pan-Orthodox Council, the Moscow Patriar-
chate shared in the work of the Inter-Orthodox Theological Commission for
dialogue with the Old Catholic, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and
Reformed Churches, as well as in some meetings aimed at establishing dialogue
between the two Orthodox Church families.
37
At the same time the Russian
Orthodox Church has maintained its traditional relations of bilateral dialogue
with all these Churches, with contents and scope complementary to the pan-
Orthodox dialogue.
38
This is the case, in particular, with the recent talks bet-
ween the Russian Church and the Roman Catholic Church on the diaconal
function of the Church and Church communion as a service to peace. The Mos-
cow Patriarchate has developed dialogues with the Evangelical-Lutheran
Churches inGermany and Finland, as well as with the Reformed Church in
Hungary. Friendly relationships and collaboration have been strengthened with
many other Churches in Europe, North and South America, Africa, the Middle
East and Asia.
39
The cordial atmosphere created by the Christian World Com-
munities (CMC) helped in this ecumenical work. For many years a representa-
tive of the Moscow Patriarchate has taken part in the annual conferences of the
General Secretaries and ecumenists of all Christian W orld Communities.
Relationships with regional and national
ecumenical bodies
Over the past twenty-five years, the Russian Orthodox Church has activelycon-
tributed through its initiatives to the theological studies and practical activities
of the Conference of European Churches with the aim of promoting visible
unity, reconciliation, peace and human rights inEurope. Within this frame-
work there have also been direct contacts with the Council of European Bish-
ops' Conferences.
40
Since 1956 regular exchanges of delegations and talks on theological and
ecumenical themes have taken place between the Russian Orthodox Church
and other Churches in the Soviet Union and the National Council of the
Churches of Christ in the United States. These partners continue to work for
mutual trust, peace and disarmament and for dialogue andrapprochement between
Churches, nations and culture in the two countries.
41
The Moscow Patriarchate
also co-operates with the National Bishops' Conference in the United States.
During the last two decades, the Russian Church has developed working
relationships with the regional Churches' Conferences of Africa and Asia, the
Middle East Council of Churches and a large number of national ecumenical
294
TodorSabev
bodies, especiallyin Europe. The Russian Orthodox Church also has perma-
nent links with the French Protestant Federationand with the Swiss Protestant
Church Federation.
Russian membership of Syndesmos and the Ecumenical Youth Council of
Europe, frequent W CC contacts with young theologians inMoscow, Leningrad
and Odessa, and hospitalityprovided by the Russian Orthodox Church for
bilateral ecumenical seminars and international meetings have enhanced the
involvement of Christian youth from the Soviet Union in ecumenical activities
on all levels.
Collaboration with Christian peace-making
organi2ations and those of other religions
Following his election in1971, Patriarch Pimen reaffirmed that the Russian
Orthodox Church considers service in the cause of peace 'as the most important
manifestation of active love for one's neighbour'. For more than fortyyears,
this Church has in fact given high priorityto peace-making activities as a major
dimension of the ecumenical movement.
A considerable number of postgraduate studies and dissertations at Russian
theological academies and publications of the Moscow Patriarchate deal with
different aspects of peace and justice. The main subjects dealt with are: The
Theological Basis for Peace and Justice; The Teaching of the Bible and the East-
ern Fathers on these Themes; Reconciliation and Peace in the Liturgical Life;
The Peace-making Role of the Church and its Ecumenical Implications; Dia-
logue and Collaboration for Peace with Non-Christian Religions and with Mar-
xists; Christian Responsibility for Society; Education for Peace and Justice;
Confidence-raisingand Bridge-building; Disarmament andCommon Security;
Facing up to Ecological Problems Today; The Need for a N e w International
Economic and Moral Order in a Renewed World; Respect for Rights in all their
Aspects, Particularlythe Right to Life in its Fulness; and so forth. Numerous
hierarchs, theologians and ecumenists have written studies or articles on these
subjects.
42
With all this work to its credit, the Russian Orthodox Church made a tre-
mendous input to the deliberations of the third Pan-Orthodox Preconciliar
Conference (Geneva, 1986) on the 'Contribution of the Local Orthodox
Church to the Triumph of the Christian Ideals of Peace, Freedom, Fraternity
and Charityamong Peoples and to the Elimination of Racial Discrimination'.
43
Based on Biblical and patristic teaching, the ecclesiology of communion and
the social implications of Eucharistie sharing, the Orthodox took a strong stand
on the Church's responsibilityfor preserving the sacred gift of life, promoting
justice and freedom and combating hunger and povertyand inhuman systems of
oppression and racial discrimination. They have called for reconciliation, con-
cord between religions, co-operation, the elimination of all kinds of intolerance
and fanaticism and the rebirth and regeneration of the human person and
society.
In1952, 1969 and1975, the Russian Orthodox Church held major confe-
rences at the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra in Zagorsk with the participation of leaders
and representatives of all Churches and religious communities in the Soviet
Union working together for peace. In 1973 a similar meeting was held in
Zagorsk for leading Soviet and foreign religious figures involved in the move-
ment for peace and justice.
The Russian Orthodox Church also took part in the campaign for the 'join-
ing of hands for the international co-operation of peace-loving people' under
the auspices of the Union of Soviet Societies for Friendship and Cultural Rela-
tionships with Foreign Countries.
The Church is a founding member of the Christian Peace Conference
(CPC), an 'ecumenical movement that gives expression to Christians' responsi-
bilityfor peace and social justice'. The involvement of the Moscow Patriarchate
and many other Orthodox Churches in the CPChas opened up new possibilities
for inter-Orthodox co-operation and increased participation in the worldwide
ecumenical movement, dialogue with other faiths and ideologies, and research
in the areas of social thought and political service (diakonia) in our time.
44
The
Russian Orthodox Church has also demonstrated its commitment to the cause
of peace and ecumenism through its collaboration with Pax Christi Interna-
tional.
A major Russian contribution to inter-religious dialogue and co-operation
was the 1977 Moscow International Conference of Religious Workers for Last-
ing Peace, Disarmament and Just Relationships between Nations, followed in
1982 by the World Conference of Religious Workers to Save the Sacred Gift of
Life from Nuclear Catastrophe. Between 1984 and 1987, five round-table confe-
rences were organized, bringing together religious thinkers and scientists of
world stature to discuss the economic and moral consequences of nuclear arms,
disarmament and steps toward collective securityand mutually beneficial col-
laboration between all nations.
45
All these activities are aimed at promoting
peace between communities at national and world levels and supporting
programmes of education for peace and inter-cultural and inter-religious
exchanges.
296 Todor Saben
Conclusion
This brief surveyand rapid assessment reflect the dedication and major contri-
bution of the Russian Orthodox Church to the ecumenical movement through-
out its history. This has had tremendous repercussions for religious and cultural
life, the development of Church and society, mutual understanding between the
Christian East and West, and humanity as a whole. Its implications have long
extended far beyond the Russian canonical jurisdiction and geopolitical boun-
daries.
The W CC and the ecumenical movement at large have been challenged
and enriched by Russian Orthodox theology, spirituality, fidelityand commit-
ment. As part of the process of ecumenical sharing, the Russian Orthodox
Church has acquired a new sense of the Church's mission and the witness it
should bear in a world longing for justice, peace and community.
It is our hope that the celebration of the Millennium of Christianityin Rus-
sia will become a source of further common growth and more fruitful inter-
Church relationships within the ecumenical movement as the instrument and
servant of a more united Church Universal and a renewed human community.
NOTES
1. G . Florovsky, ' The Orthodox Churches and the Ecumenical Movement Prior to
\9\Q\AHistory of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517-1948, Vol. l,pp. 170-211, London,
1954; for other articles, see ibid., pp. 281, 312; The Russian Orthodox Church, pp. 18 et
seq., 92, 142-5, 150, Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1982; M . A. Fahey, ' Orthodox
Ecumenism and Theology', Theological Studies, Vol. 44, pp. 641-2, 1983.
2. Metropolitan Philaret,Conversation between the Seekerand the BelieverConcerning the Truth
(Orthodoxy) of the Eastern Graeco-Russian Church, pp. 27 -29, 135, Moscow, 1933 (in
Russian).
3. A History . . ., op. cit., pp. 410 et seq., 528-9, 607, 650; S. Martineau, Pdagogie de
l'cumnisme [Ecumenical Teaching Approach], pp. 287 et seq., 298, Paris, 1965.
4. C. Patelos (ed.), ' The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement' , Documents
and Statements, 1902-1975, pp. 27 -43, Geneva, 1978.
5. W . - A . Wisser t'Hooft, ' The Place of Bilateral Conversations in the Ecumenical
Movement' , Ees dialogues cumniques aujourd'hui. Etudes thologiques, Vol. 5, Chamb sy/
Geneva, Editions du Centre Orthodoxe du Patriarchat cum nique, 1985, p. 137.
6. A History . . ., op. cit., pp. 605 et seq., 662 et seq., 668.
7. Ibid., pp. 423 et seq., 549-50, 589, 654 et seq., 668.
8. Ibid., pp. 667 -8.
9. L. A. Zander (ed.), Eist of the Writings of Professors of the Russian Orthodox Theological Insti-
tute in Paris, 1925-1965, Vols. 1-5; St Vladimir's Theological Seminary Quarterly,
1953-61; Irenikon, Vol. 13, 1935; Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate QMP), N o. 2, 1931;
Nos. 23-24, 1935; N o. 1, 1952; Nos. 1-12, 1953 (and others in succeeding years);
Theological Works, 1959-88, publishedby the Moscow Patriarchate; The Church of God,
An Anglo-Russian Symposium, London, 1934; A. S chmemann, ' The Revival of Theo-
logical Studies in the U S S R' , Religion in the USSR, pp. 29-43, Munich, 1960; Messager
de l'Exarchat du Patriarche Russe en Europe occidentale, N o. 1, 1959.
10. S. Bulgakov, ' O n the Actual Unity of the Divided Church in Faith, Prayer and
Sacraments'', Journal of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius, N o. 22, 1933; S. Bulga-
kov, ' W ays to Church Reunion', Sobornost, N o. 2, 1935; S. Bulgakov, 'Spiritual Inter-
communion' , Sobornost, N o. 4, 1935; L. Zander, ' W hat is Unity?', Student World, N o.
2, 1937; L. Zander, 'Let Us in Unity Praise the All-Holy Spirit', ibid., N o. 2, 1939;
P. Evdokimov, 'Notes prliminaires pour une thologie cumnique', Foi et vie, N o.
6, 1947; N . Zernov, The Reintegration of the Church, London, 1952; N . Zernov, Ortho-
dox Encounter: The Christian East and the Ecumenical Movement, London, 1961; G . Flo-
rovsky, ' The Challenge of Disunity', St Vladimir's . . ., op. cit., N o. 1/2, 1955.
11. Metropolitan Nikodim, ' The Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Move -
ment' , The Russian Orthodox Church . . ., op. cit., pp. 266-8, 275.
12. 'Communiqu of the Meeting of Delegates of the Holy Orthodox Church of Russia
and Delegates of the W CC, Utrecht, August 7-9, 1958', The Ecumenical Review (ER),
Vol. 12, No. 1, 1958, pp. 79-80.
13. F. House, The Russian Phoenix, p. 340, Archives of the Library of the W CC; Minutes
of the Central Committee in Rhodes, 1959, p. 208.
14. Metropolitan Nikodim, ' O n the Contemporary Tasks of Theology',JMP, N o. 12,
1968, pp. 63-7.
15. The Russian Orthodox Church . . ., op. cit., p. 274; G . Florovsky, ' The Church is Infal-
lible and Essentially Indivisible', in' The Doctrine of the Church and the E cumen-
ical Problem', ER, Vol. 2, N o. 2, 1950, p. 157; L. Voronov, 'Theological Founda-
tions of Orthodox Understanding of Ecumenism' (paper presented at the second
International Church HistoryConference on the Theology and Spiritualityof the
Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow, 1987).
16. Patriarch Pimen of Moscow and All Russia, ' An Orthodox View of Contemporary
Ecumenism' (paper readby Patriarch Pimen at the Universityof Joensuu (Finland),
6 May 1974), Archives of the Library of the W CC, p. 3.
17. Zernov, Orthodox Encounter . . ., op. cit., p. 34; G . Florovsky, ' Le corps du Christ
vivant [The Body of the Living Christ]', La Sainte glise Universelle, pp. 10 et seq., 22
et seq., 31 et seq., Neuchtel/Paris, 1948; B. Bobrinskoy, 'Orthodoxy in the Ecu-
menical Movement' , Sobornost, N o. 8, 1963, pp. 435 et seq.
18. 'Fourth World Conference on Faith and Order. The Report from Montreal 1963',
inP. Rodger andL. Vischer (eds.), Faith and OrderPaper (Geneva), N o. 42, pp. 13 et
seq., 16, 18 et seq., 41-90, 92-102, 115; G . Florovsky, 'Sobornost: The Catholicity
of the Church', The Church of God . . ., op. cit., pp. 62 et seq.; J. Meyendorff, 'Tradi-
tionand Traditions', St Vladimir's. .., op cit., N o. 3,1962, pp. 118 et seq.; Bilan de la
thologie du XXe sicle, Vol. 1, pp. 570-1, Paris, 1970; A. Johansen, ' The Writings of
Theologians of the Moscow Patriarchate on Ecumenical Themes', Journal of Ecumen-
ical Studies, N o. 1, 1975, pp. 29-31, 51.
19. Faith and OrderPaper, op. cit., N o. 42, p. 16; V. Borovoy, ' The Meaning of Catholic-
ity', ER, Vol. 16, 1963/64, pp. 26-32; J. Meyendorff, Catholicity and the Church, pp. 7
298 TodorSabev
et seq., N e w York, 1983; Johansen, op. cit., pp. 36-7, 50-1; N . Zabolotsky, Unit de
l'glise - Unit de l'humanit. Une participation chrtienne responsable, pp. 1 et seq., 25 et
seq., 58 et seq., 110 et seq., 148 et seq., 1022 et seq., Geneva, 1982.
20. Patriarch Pimen, op. cit., p. 6; Patriarch Pimen, 'Address ... at a Public Meeting in
the Conference Hall of the W CC Headquarters inGeneva'',JMP, N o. 11, 1973, pp.
47 et seq.
21. Johansen, op. cit.; articles inSt Vladimir's . . ., op. cit., N o. 2/ 3, 1960, pp. 36-7 ,
50-1.
22. Patriarch Pimen, 'Address . . .', op. cit., p. 48.
23. The Russian Orthodox Church, op. cit., p. 277.
24. Ibid., p. 271.
25. Faith and OrderPaper, op. cit., Nos. 59, 71, 92, 112, 113, 131; 'Churches Respond to
B E M' (document on baptism, Eucharist and ministry), Vol. 2; Max Thurian (ed.),
Faith and OrderPaper, op. cit., N o. 132, 1986, pp. 5-12.
26. Johansen, op. cit., pp. 31 et seq., 50-2; N . Augustin, 'Traditionen der russischen
Theologie [Traditions of Russian Theology]', Stimme der Orthodoxie, N o. 12,1981, pp.
33-50; Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev and Galicia, ' The Local Church and the Uni-
versal Church', JMP, Nos. 3-5, 1981; Archbishop Vladimir, 'Ecclesiology inRus-
sian Theology with Regard to the Ecumenical Movement' , JMP, Nos. 10-12, 1979;
N . Zabolotsky, ' The Apostolic Heritage and Certain Questions of Modern Eccle-
siology',JMP, N o. 11, 1973; N . Zabolotsky, ' Growth of CatholicityThrough a Dia-
logue of Faith, Hope andLove is the Path to Unity',JMP, N o. 11, 1978.
27. Patriarch Pimen, An Orthodox View . . ., op. cit., pp. 4-7.
28. Archbishop Antony of Minsk and Byelorussia, ' The World MissionaryConference
in Bangkok', JMP, N o. 3, pp. 56-7; Metropolitan Antony of Leningrad andN ov-
gorod, ' O n Mission and Evangelism', International Review of Mission, Vol. 69, January
1980, October 1980/January1981, pp. 477 et seq.; Metropolitan Antony, ' The Mis-
sion of the Russian Orthodox Church Yesterday and Today', JMP, Nos. 5-6, 1982;
'Christian Witness Today. A Consultation of W CC Member Churches in the Social-
ist Countries of Europe on Questions of Evangelization', Huss Seminar of the
Comenius Faculty, Prague, 1979, pp. 3 et seq., 11 et seq.
29. S. F. Samartha (ed.), 'Dialogue in Community. Initial Points and Conditions in
Faith in the Midst of Faiths. Reflections on Dialogue in Community, Montreux,
1977', JMP, N o. 10, 1977, pp. 59-67.
30. 'Christians in the Technical and Social Revolutions of our Time' , World Conference on
Church and Society. Official Report, pp. 26-7 , 43, Geneva, 1967.
31. 'Faith and Science in an Unjust World', Report of the W C C Conference on Faith, Science
and the Future (Geneva), Vol. 1, 1980, pp. 80-6, 318-23.
32. 'Gathered for Life', in D. Gill (ed.), Official Report of the Sixth W C C Assembly, Van-
couver(Canada), 1983, p. 26, Geneva, 1983.
33. 'Christians' Participation in Development in Socialist Contexts', CCPD Documents
(Geneva), N o. 18, 1980; N . Zabolotsky, Diakonia and the Social Responsibility of the
Church.
34. JMP, No. 12, 1968; No. 9, 1973; No. 6,1976; No. 4,1977; Nos. 3,10, 1981; Nos. 5,
7, 1982; No. 7, 1984; Nos. 2, 5, 1985; Nos. 4-5, 12, 1986; No. 11, 1987.
35. The Russian Orthodox Church, op. cit., pp. 137-65.
36. Ibid., pp. 172 et seq.
37. Les dialogues cumniques . . ., op. cit.
38. Istavridis, 'Historical Presuppositions of the Dialogues', op cit., pp. 142-62; The
Russian Orthodox Church, op. cit., pp. 168 et seq., 176 et seq.
39. Ibid.
40. T. Sabev, 'The Contribution of the Local Orthodox Churches to the Realization of
Peace', Etudes thologiques, op. cit., Vol. 7, 1986, pp. 126-7.
41. The Russian Orthodox Church, op. cit., pp. 121 et seq.; Metropolitan Philaret of Minsk
and Byelorussia, We Choose Life, pp. 7 et seq., 25 et seq., Moscow, 1987.
42. JMP, Nos. 2, 4, 8, 1971; Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8, 10,1972; Nos. 2-4, 11, 1974; Nos. 2, 3,10,
11, 1975; Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 1976; Nos. 5, 10,1977; Nos. 4, 6, 1978; N o. 11, 1979; Nos.
1-4, 10, 11, 1980; Nos. 1-4, 11, 12, 1981; Nos. 7, 9, 10, 12, 1982; Nos. 1, 2, 12,
1983; Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9, 1984; Nos. 3-5, 9, 10, 1985; Nos. 4-7, 9, 10, 1986; Dis-
sertations of Frs M. Rjazantsev and ValryZacharov, Archives of the Moscow
Theologial Academy; Metropolitan Philaret, op. cit.
43. Episkepsis, N o. 366, 1986, pp. 1-23.
44. Sabev, op. cit., pp. 127-8, n. 34.
45. Ibid.; Metropolitan Philaret, op. cit., p. 24.
Part Six
HISTORICAL LANDMARKS
Historical landmarks
Yves Hamant
9-10 C A state with Kiev as its capital, peopled mainlyby Slavs, was esta-
blished on a vast expanse of territoryalong Europe's eastern bor-
ders. The countrywas calledRus' in Western medieval chronicles
and its inhabitants were called Ruthenians.
988 Baptism of Vladimir, Prince of Kiev. Prince Vladimir's decision
to be baptizedwas influenced by a whole series of factors: (a) his
attempt at religious unification of the country through reactiv-
ation of the pagan cults had clearly failed; (b) Christianity, intro-
duced by missionaries of various origins, had begun to arrive in
the country a few decades earlier; and (c) the process of normaliz-
ing relations with Byzantium called for his marriage with the
Emperors' sister, a union that could only be solemnized if he
accepted conversion. H e therefore agreed to be baptized, as did the
inhabitants of Kiev after him, by missionaries sent from Byzan-
tium. The country entered the sphere of influence of the Patriar-
chate of Constantinople at a time when the latter's links with
Rome were already loosening even though the Christian world
was still united. Christianization proceeded apace, helped by the
existence of a liturgyand verymany texts from the scriptures and
the Church Fathers in a Slavonic language, the result of transla-
tion work begun bySS Cyril and Methodius inMoravia (part of
present-dayCzechoslovakia) and continued by their disciples in
Bulgaria. It was a different language from that spoken by the
Ruthenians at the time but sufficiently similar to be immediately
comprehensible. It was to go on being used in the form then
304 Yves Humant
established, with onlyminor modifications, as a church language
(i.e. Old Church Slavonic, still used in the liturgyof the Russian
Orthodox Church). The vernacular language, gradually evolving
and diverging, drew further and further away from it.
1037 The hierarchy that had been established since Vladimir's baptism
was reorganized. Kiev became the see of a Metropolitanwh o con-
secrated the bishops and had full control over the Church of the
Kievan State. The Metropolitanwas consecratedby the Patriarch
of Constantinople. He was usually a Greek.
1054 The break between Rome and Constantinople had no immediate
repercussions on religious relations between Kiev and the West,
which came under strain principallyin the following century and
turned into outright antagonism after the taking of Constanti-
nople by the Crusaders.
12 C Break-up of the Kievan State, whose sovereigns were supplanted
by the princes of peripheral regions, in particular those of Vladi-
mir and Suzdal in the east and Galicia in the west.
1240 Taking of Kiev by the Mongols. Final dismemberment of the Kie-
van State. Its inhabitants were divided into several groups that
went their separate ways politicallyand culturallyand sooner or
later formed their own national identities. The peoples of the
north and east, brought together under the rule of the princes of
Moscow, emerged as the Russian nation. Those of the south and
south-west gave birth to the Ukrainian nation and those of the
west to the Byelorussian nation. The last two groups did not suc-
ceed in forming independent states (except for Galicia until the
mid-fourteenth century) and came under the sway of neighbour-
ing states.
13 C The golden age of Galicia.
14 C Parallel development of Muscovy and Lithuania which annexed
the western and southern territories of the former Kievan State,
including the Kiev region.
1328 The Metropolitan of Kiev, after transferring his residence to Vla-
dimir for a few years, became established in Moscow.
305
The Kievan State in the mid-eleventh century
306 Yves Humant
1337 Foundation by St Sergius of the Trinity (Troitse-Sergieva Lavra)
Monastery to the north of Moscow (present-dayZagorsk).
1349 Galicia, annexed by Poland, came under strong Polish influence.
1380 Victory of the Prince of Moscow over the Mongols at Kulikovo.
1386 Union of the Polish and Lithuanian crowns. Conversion of the
still pagan Lithuanians to Catholicism.
c. 1425 Icon ofThe Trinity painted by Andrey Rublev.
1439 At the Council of Florence, Rome and Constantinople agreed to
the union of the Churches but, without the support of the Greek
clergy, the union soon disintegrated, as had already occurred after
the Council of Lyons in1274. Moscow was represented in Flo-
rence by Metropolitan Isidore, who ratified the union. O n return-
inghome, he was declared a heretic and thrown into prison.
1448 Isidore's successor was appointed by a synod of bishops, indepen-
dently of the Patriarch of Constantinople, who had accepted the
union refused byMoscow. The Church of Moscow thus became
independent and its head was not long in assuming the title of
Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus' (although resident inMos-
cow he had hitherto kept the title of Metropolitan of Kiev and All
Rus'). The Orthodox dioceses of Poland and Lithuania finally
escaped his jurisdiction. Although they had often been adminis-
tered independently of Moscow for close on a century, the unity
of all Ruthenian Orthodox dioceses was regularly restored, if only
for brief periods. From then on the Orthodox Church of Poland
and Lithuania came under the permanent authorityof a Metro-
politan residing in Kiev and appointed by the Patriarch of Con-
stantinople.
1453 Fall of Constantinople to the Turks.
1480 Moscow threw off the Mongol yoke. The Prince of Moscow
became the only independent Orthodox sovereign. Laying claim
to the moral heritage of the emperors of Constantinople, he consi-
dered himself as the protector of the whole of Orthodox Chris-
tianity(the title of 'the ThirdRome' was conferred on Moscow).
1503 Epilogue inMoscow to the controversy over monastic property.
307
Following a period of remarkable growth, Russian monasticism
underwent a crisis in the late fifteenth century that was tosome
extent due to the attraction it exerted.
Since the middle of the fourteenth century, small groups of
monks had been isolating themselves in the depths of the forests,
dividing their life between prayer and farming after first clearing
the land needed for their subsistence. Peasants then settled near by
and helped to support them. The faithful came in flocks to obtain
spiritual counsel. The more wealthymade donations and, more
especially, bequeathed them land. The deprived and disabled
found refuge with them. Involuntarily, the communities became
large and prosperous, with secular activities playing an ever more
important role and monastic life receding. Moreover, the eco-
nomic standing of the monasteries aroused the covetousness of
the sovereigns.
T wo models of reform emerged, represented by the two
monks Nilus Sorski and Joseph of Volokalamsk.
Nilus Sorski had been toMount Athos where he was intro-
duced to Hesychast mysticism based on the hermits' practice of
uninterrupted inner prayer (the 'Jesus Prayer'). H e provided the
example of very small communities whose life did not require
detailed regulation and stressed the need for poverty, not only of
the individual monk but of the entire monastery.
Joseph of Volokalamsk, on the other hand, opposed any
attempt to deprive the monasteries of the assets theyneeded for
their charitable and social work. At the same time, he advocated
severe discipline and drew up a strict and very detailed monastic
rule.
A council held in 1503 considered the matter of monastic
property and found in favour of Joseph of Volokalamsk's posi-
tion. Subsequently, all Joseph of Volokalamsk's ideas were
imposed in monastic life and exerted a lasting influence on the
whole Russian approach to spirituality.
1554 Following the conquest of the Khanate of Kazan by Ivan the
Terrible, Orthodoxy continued toexpand towards the east. A
diocese was established inKazan.
Late 16 C The Jesuits activelyopposed the Reformation throughout the
Polish-Lithuanian State, preaching, publishing and opening
schools. To resist their influence, Orthodox laymen set up
confraternities in Vilno (Vilnius) in Lithuania and Lvov (Lviv) in
308 Yves Hamant
Poland, Lithuania and Muscovy in the early sixteenth century
Galicia and had the full text of the Bible printed in Slavonic (the
Ostrog Bible).
1589 The Metropolitan See of Moscow was raised to the status of
patriarchate: the first Patriarch of Moscow was enthroned by the
Patriarch of Constantinople.
1593-1613 The Time of Troubles in Muscovy (dynastic crisis, struggles for the
throne, riots, Polish and Swedish interventions).
1596 Union of Brest-Litovsk.
Various attempts had alreadybeen made on Polish territory,
but without lasting success, towin over the local Orthodox clergy
to union with the Catholic Church. In the late sixteenth century,
Orthodox bishops of the Polish-Lithuanian State asked to be
united with the See of Rome and, following lengthy negotiations,
union was proclaimed in Brest-Litovsk. The Greek Catholic
Church (known disrespectfullyas the 'uniate' Church) thus came
into being, keeping its own rites and traditions but recognizing the
Pope's authority.
The union, which had been promoted by the sovereign, was
at first widely accepted by the local Orthodox hierarchy andwon
the support of much of the Ukrainian nobility. However, the
Greek Catholic bishops did not enjoy the same rights as the Latin
Rite bishops and the activityof the Latin Catholic Church in the
Ruthenian dioceses was interpreted by the middle classes as an
attempt to Latinize them.
1623 Assassination of the Greek Catholic Archbishop, Josaphat
Kuncevy.
1632 Restoration in Kiev of an Orthodox hierarchyunder the authority
of the Patriarch of Constantinople and recognized by the King of
Poland.
The Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev, Peter Mogila (Movil;
Mohyla) organized a school modelled on the Jesuit colleges.
1648 Cossack uprising against Poland led byBohdan Khmelnytsky.
A vast insecure area to the south of the Black Sea layexposed
to invasion by the Crimean Tartars and the Turks. Lying outside
the jurisdiction of the Polish-Lithuanian administration, it was
inhabited by adventurers of varied originwh o lived by hunting,
Yv*s Hamant
fishingand banditry: the Cossacks. Little by little, theybecame
sufficientlywell organized to resist and retaliate when the Turks
and Tartars attacked. They built forts and their ranks swelled with
peasants attractedby the rich land and the unrestricted freedom it
offered them. Most of all, Cossack numbers were greatlyincreased
by the Union of Lublin, which opened Ukrainian land to Polish
colonization: to escape the feudal levies that the Polish nobility
tried to impose, many peasants sought refuge with the Cossacks,
among wh om the Orthodox Ukrainian element had gained domi-
nance.
The Polish sovereigns attempted to neutralize them and chan-
nel their energies into a Cossack militarycorps and the royal
army. But the Cossacks were averse to all endeavours to curtail
their independence.
The middle classes and Ruthenian peasants seeking to resist
Polish encroachment began to see the Cossacks as a refuge and to
seek their aid in defence of Orthodoxy.
From the end of the sixteenth centuryonwards, the Cossacks
revolted against the Poles several times; however, the insurrection
led by the Cossack chief Bohdan Khmelnytsky in 1648 was on an
exceptionally large scale, with the Ruthenian population joining
in and the entire Dnieper basin rising in revolt. Polish authority
suffered a severe blow and the King of Poland was unable to res-
tore the status quo.
The Cossacks placed themselves under the protection of the Tsar
of Moscow.
A council convened in Moscow by Patriarch Nikon decided
on a liturgical reform based on the desire to correct and standar-
dize the Slavonic liturgical books and to align Russian Church
practices with those of the Greek Church in instances where dis-
crepancies had developed. This reform, prepared in haste, not
always solidlybased and imposed with brutal determination, met
with strong resistance, fanned by the process of secularization of
culture in Russian during the seventeenth century. Its adversaries
viewed the reform decreed by the Patriarch with the Tsar's sup-
port as treacheryand abandonment of the Orthodox faith byRus-
sia, the third and last Christian kingdom according to the theory
of Moscow as the ThirdRome . They therefore interpreted it as a
sign of the end of the world. Led by Archpriest Awakum, the
supporters of the old faith, the Old Believers who opposed the
'Nikonians', declared themselves schismatic (raskolniki) and were
harshly persecuted. But nothing could break the resistance of the
Old Believers, wh o survived up tomodern times (theynumbered
some 10 million at the beginning of the twentieth century). The
schism permanentlyweakened the Russian Church.
1667 Following a period of confusion, Ukraine was divided between
Poland andMoscow. The territories to the west of the Dnieper
(the right bank) remained with Poland and those to the east (the
left bank) became part of Muscovy. This partitionwas confirmed
by the 'eternal peace' concluded in1686 between the two states.
1686 The Orthodox Metropolitanate of Kiev, hitherto subject to the
Patriarch of Constantinople, came under the control of the
Patriarchate of Moscow.
1687 Foundation of the Slavonic/Greek/Latin Academy in Moscow.
1689 Beginning of the personal rule of Peter the Great.
18 C Evangelization of Siberia by Orthodox Russian Missionaries.
1721 Promulgation of the Spiritual Regulation reorganizing the Russian
Church.
O n the death of the last Patriarch of Moscow in1700, Peter
the Great prevented a successor from being appointed. After leav-
ing the see vacant for twenty years, he abolished the patriarchate
and placed a collective body, the HolySynod, at the head of the
Church. The Synod consisted of some ten bishops, the Tsar being
represented by a layman, the Chief Procurator.
1773-95 Dismemberment of Poland.
Following the partition of the Polish-Lithuanian State bet-
ween Prussia, Austria and Russia, Galicia fell to Austria and the
other Ruthenian territories to Russia.
The population of the right bank of the Dnieper and of Byelo-
russia, wh o had been encouraged throughout the eighteenth cen-
tury to convert from Orthodoxy toGreek Catholicism, were now
subjected to contrary pressures in the direction of Orthodoxy.
In Galicia, on the other hand, the Greek Catholic Church
enjoyed relative freedom under Habsburg rule and constituted a
centre of Ukrainian national development.
1808-19 Reform of theological education in Russia. Reorganization of the
312 Yvts Hantant
academies (leading seminaries) of Kiev, St Petersburg andMos-
cow (the latter being transferred to the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra
Monastery, present-dayZagorsk).
1812 A Bible Societywas founded byTsar Alexander I along the lines
of the British Society. After a period of intense activity, it was
closeddown in 1826.
1829 Rise of the Monastery of Optina, which remained highly influen-
tial until the Revolution. Its startsy (elders) were the directors of
conscience of many Russian writers and thinkers: Gogol, Dos-
toevsky, Vladimir Soloviev, etc.
1833 Death of St Seraphim of Sarov.
1837 Death of St Germanus, evangelizer of Alaska.
1839 In Russia, the return of the Greek Catholic Church to Orthodoxy
was sanctioned by an official act. The last surviving traces were
eliminated after the Polish insurrection of 1863.
1861 Foundation of an Orthodox Church in Japan.
1870 Establishment of the Russian Orthodox Missionary Society.
Early 20 C The great flowering and ferment of ideas and cultural creativityin
Russia in the first two decades of the twentieth centurycame to be
known as the Russian Renaissance of the twentieth century. In
contrast with the positivism of most Russian intellectuals in the
second half of the nineteenth century, this movement was of spir-
itual inspiration. Philosophy and religious thought were repre-
sented bySergeyBulgakov, Berdyayev, Fr Florensky, et al. The
need to reform ecclesiastic life and free it from state control was
keenly felt. The HolySynod admitted the need to convene a local
council of the Russian Church (the first since Peter the Great),
and set up pre-council committees to prepare it.
1917 The Russian Revolution.
With the advent of the Provisional Government, the Council
of the Russian Church could finallymeet. Three days after the
Bolshevik take-over (7 November), it decided to restore the
patriarchate and elected Tikhon patriarch one week later.
313
The Russian Empire (western part) in the nineteenth century
314
Yves Hantant
Third apparition of the Virgin at Fatima in Portugal on 13
Julywith a message concerning Russia.
1917-20 Ukraine was the scene of confrontations and fighting involving
the supporters of an independent Ukrainian Republic, the Bolshe-
viks, the Russian armies trying to overthrow the Soviet regime,
the German and Polish armies, the Entente forces and gangs of
anarchists. After a short-lived existence, the Ukrainian Republic
disappeared and the Bolsheviks assumed control. T wo years later,
it became one of the Soviet Socialist Republics established in
1922.
O n the religious level, the Ukrainians' aspiration to indepen-
dence was reflectedamong the clergyand their congregations in a
determination to break away from the Church of Moscow. The
autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church came into being in
1919 and developed alongside the patriarchal Church of Moscow.
1918 O n23 January the Council of People's Commissars published a
decree separating the Church and the state, and schools from the
Church: the Church was thus deprived of the whole basis of its
existence.
From 1920 The civil war in Russia having ended in victoryfor the Bolshe-
viks, some Russians sought refuge abroad and founded Orthodox
parishes. The migr bishops met in a synod established at Kar-
lovci, Yugoslavia, as the provisional administration of the Rus-
sian Church. Subsequently, some of them placed themselves
under the authorityof the patriarchate of Constantinople. Others
rejoined the patriarchate of Moscow, particularlyfollowing the
Second World W ar.
The hierarchy that remained with ' The Synod of Russian
Bishops outside Russia' and transferred its centre to the United
States after the war regarded itself as the sole legitimate heir of the
Patriarchate of Moscow enfeoffed to an atheist power.
In1922 the Soviet authorities expelled more than twenty reli-
gious thinkers and philosophers representing the twentieth-
century Russian Renaissance, who continued their work in exile.
The West thus came in contact with Orthodoxy through the pre-
sence in Western Europe and later in North America of these
communities and brilliant Orthodox intellectuals.
1921 The Treaty of Riga fixed the eastern frontier of a restored Poland,
whose independence had been recognized by the Treaty of Ver-
sailles in 1919. Western Byelorussia, under Russian control since
the late eighteenth century, was joined to Poland together with
Galicia, which had previouslybeen subject to Austria.
The activities of the Greek Catholic Church there until the
Second W orld W ar bore the imprint of its head, the Metropolitan
of Lvov (Lviv), Andrzej Cheptytski, wh o opposed all attempts to
Latinize the Church and subject it to Polish influence.
O n the other hand, the Orthodox Byelorussians were forced
to accept the influence of the Polish Church and some were for-
ciblyconverted to Catholicism.
1921-24 W h e n famine occurred in Russia and the Patriarchate of Moscow
itself took the initiative of collecting funds to help the starving by
selling precious objects from their churches, the authorities began
to requisition property, including sacred objects used in religious
ceremonies, thus provoking opposition among the congregations
and clergy. It was the occasion for a particularly brutal wave of
direct persecution in the form of trials, imprisonment and death
sentences. Over 8,000 priests, monks and nuns lost their lives in
1922 alone. Patriarch Tikhon was released after a year's imprison-
ment, having signed a conciliatorystatement with respect to the
Soviet authorities.
1925 Death of Patriarch Tikhon. All his possible successors were
arrested one after the other.
1929 The Soviet authorities promulgated a decree recapitulating the
various statutoryprovisions concerning religion adopted since the
Revolution and confirming all the existing restrictions on free-
dom of worship. In particular, the text prohibited all forms of
charitable and social work by religious associations, all organized
religious instruction and all meetings of believers other than those
strictlyfor the purpose of religious worship.
This document was published at the beginning of the collec-
tivization process, which was accompanied by a new wave of vio-
lent persecution. Within a few years the Church was almost
entirely obliterated. O n the eve of the Second W orld W ar, only a
few hundred churches remained open in the entire Soviet Union
and only five or six bishops loyal to the patriarchal throne
remained at liberty, about 100 having been shot or having died in
exile since the Revolution.
316 Yves Hamant
In Ukraine, the autocephalous Church was entirelydestroyed.
1939 In accordance with the secret provisions of the German-Soviet
Pact, Soviet troops occupied Western Byelorussia and Galicia.
Religious orders, monasteries, charitable works, seminaries and
the Greek Catholic press were abolished. About forty priests were
deported or executed. Metropolitan Cheptytski secretlyconse-
crated Joseph Slipyj as coadjutant bishop with right of succession.
1941 German troops invaded the Soviet Union on 21 June 1941. As
soon as news of the invasion reachedMoscow, Metropolitan Ser-
gius wrote a pastoral letter to the faithful, urging them to rise in
defence of their country, while Stalin waited ten days before reap-
pearing in public.
Religious life was resumed in the territories occupied by the
Germans, in Russia, Byelorussia and the Ukraine, where the auto-
cephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church reappeared.
In view of the scale of the Soviet defeat, Stalin decided to
come to terms with the Church in order to ensure the co-
operation of the entire population in the struggle against the
invader. He put an end to anti-religious propaganda and author-
ized the reopening of some places of worship and of a seminary
and monastery at Zagorsk.
In 1943, he formally received Metropolitan Sergius and per-
mitted the convening of a council which elected the latter to the
patriarchal see. The Orthodox Church hierarchy was reconsti-
tuted.
In the territories gradually recaptured by the RedArmy,
believers had to reduce their activities but, in general, the
churches that had been reopened during the German occupation
remained open. As a result, there is still a far greater number of
places of worship in the west of the Soviet Union than in the east.
However, the autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church dis-
appeared, surviving onlyamong migrs.
1944 The RedArmy entered Galicia, and the territory, which had
never been part of Muscovy or the Russian Empire, was defin-
itivelyincorporated into the Soviet Union.
1945 A new Council was convened inMoscow. It appointed Metropol-
itan Alexis as successor to Patriarch Sergius (who had died in
1944) and adopted a Regulation for the Administration of the
Church (a compromise between the provisions of the 1917 Coun-
cil and Soviet prohibitory legislation).
Metropolitan Joseph Slipyj, wh o had succeeded Metropolitan
Cheptytski, was arrested together with the entire Greek Catholic
hierarchy. An action group for the reunion of the Greek Catholic
Church with the Orthodox Church, led by three Greek Catholic
priests, was recognized by the Soviet authorities as the onlybody
provisionally controlling the Greek Catholic parishes. The me m-
bers of the action group were secretlyadmitted to Orthodoxy and
two were consecrated Orthodox bishops. In March 1946, a Coun-
cil was convened in Lvov (Lviv), attended by214 priests, the two
bishops who had just been secretlyconsecrated in the Orthodox
Church, and nineteen laypersons. The Council annulled the Brest-
Litovsk Union. The Greek Catholic Church of Galicia was abol-
ished and incorporated into the Orthodox Church. Recalcitrant
priests were imprisoned or deported. However, the new Orthodox
parishes have maintained up to the present many Latin practices
characteristic of the Catholic Church. The Greek Catholic
Church went underground.
1948 An inter-Orthodox conference, convened in the U S S R at the invi-
tation of the Patriarchate of Moscow on the 500th anniversary of
the accession of the Russian Church to autocephaly, launched an
appeal to Christians throughout the world to work for the cause of
peace. Subsequently, it was mainly through its action on behalf of
peace, pursued in conjunction with Soviet diplomatic initiatives
in the same field, that the Patriarchate of Moscow was able to
develop its relations with the rest of the world. For example, the
Patriarchate was activelyinvolved in organizing the Christian
Conference for Peace in Prague, the basis of which was laid in
1958.
The Soviet Committee for the Defence of Peace, set up in
1949, was one of the few Soviet organizations in which the
Church was allowed to hold a seat.
1953 Death of Stalin.
While Stalin did not withdraw the concessions he had made
to the Orthodox Church during the war, since 1948 the author-
ities had been seeking to curtail its activities through different
kinds of pressure, but without resorting to violent persecution.
After Stalin's death, it benefited from the new atmosphere pre-
vailing in relations between the authorities and societyas a whole.
318 Yves Hamant
1959 Beginning of a new wave of religious persecution.
Three years after the Twentieth Congress of the Communist
Party of the U S S R, which ushered in the policy of destalinization,
the Partylaunched a major anti-religious offensive. Within three
or four years, the Orthodox Church saw the number of its
churches reduced from 20,000 to 7,000. The number of priests
authorized to exercise their ministry followed the same trend.
Whereas in 1946 it had about 100 active monasteries in the areas
liberated from German occupation or annexed, soon it had only
seventeen. Five seminaries were closed (Kiev, Minsk, Saratov,
Stavropol and Lutsk), leaving only three (Zagorsk, Leningrad and
Odessa) and its two academies of theology(Zagorsk and Lenin-
grad).
1961 Under pressure from the authorities, an assemblyof bishops
amended the Regulation adopted by the Council of 1945, revert-
ing to a strict application of the provisions of Soviet legislation
concerning religion: priests not only ceased to preside over the
executive body administering their parish, but were deprived of a
seat, becoming mere employees of the parish associations respon-
sible for religious ceremonies.
The Patriarchate of Moscow became a member of the Ecu-
menical Council of Churches.
1962 Metropolitan Joseph Slipyj, in prison since 1945, was released and
authorized to leave the USSR. Having settled in Rome, he was
appointed senior archbishop of Lvov (Lviv) and cardinal, actively
defended the Greek Catholic identity, reinvigorated his Church
and strengthened the organization of its dioceses abroad (since the
First World War many Ukrainians had emigrated, chieflyto
Canada and the United States).
1963 The Patriarchate of Moscow sent observers to the Second Vatican
Council.
1964 Dismissal of Khrushchev.
After the fall of Khrushchev, the frontal attack on the Church
ceased, giving way to soft-pedaled persecution in the form of
administrative constraints, harassment and discrimination. Steps
were taken to tighten control over religious bodies.
At the same time, growing numbers of young people brought
up in atheism turned to the faith. It is difficult to assess the scale of
319
this phenomenon, which became known as the 'spiritual awaken-
ing' or the'religious Renaissance'. According to some estimates,
towards the end of the 1980s, one-third of all churchgoers, at least
in urban parishes, were recent converts.
1965 Establishment of the Council for Religious Affairs attached to the
Council of Ministers of the U S S R.
This Council was the product of a merger of two previous
bodies set up in 1943/ 44. It was responsible for 'implementing
the policy of the Soviet State in religious matters', decidingon the
openingand closing of places of worship, controlling application
of the legislation on religious worship and 'dealing with the mat-
ter of charges against those guiltyof violating it'.
1970 Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad (d. 1978) defended a thesis
on Pope John X X III at the Zagorsk Academy of Theology.
1971 Pimen was elected by a local council to succeed Patriarch Alexis
who had died the previous year.
1975-77 Reactivation of the decree of 1929 on religious associations.
The 1929 text was revised in a series of decrees adoptedby the
Supreme Soviet of each of the Republics constituting the Soviet
Union. It was chieflya matter of bringing legislation up to date
with developments in certain Soviet institutions. There was only
one change of anyimportance: in future, the Council for Reli-
gious Affairs was to take the final decision on all matters relating
to the opening or closure of places of worship.
In the territories annexed by the U S S R after the Second
W orld W ar, the provisions of the 1929 decree were thus officially
introduced for the first time (though they had previouslybeen
applied de facto) immediately after the signing of the Helsinki
Agreements.
1978-80 A series of arrestsand sentences directed against Orthodox figures
active among recently converted believers: Father Dimitri
Dudko, famous as a preacher, Father Gleb Yakunin, wh o fought
indefatigablyfor freedom of conscience and organized a Christian
Committee for the Defence of Believers' Rights in the U S S R,
Alexander Ogorodnikov, Vladimir Poresh and other layOrtho-
dox organizers of a religious studies circle.
1982 Initiatives on behalf of the Greek Catholic Church. From 1982,
320
Yves Humant
particularlyunder the influence of Yossip Terelia, various initia-
tives were taken in western Ukraine by Greek Catholics seeking to
defend their Church or have it legalized. The following year, for
example, aChronicle of the Catholic Church in Ukraine began to be
issued as asamizdat publication.
1983 With a view to the Millennium celebrations, the Soviet author-
ities placed the Monastery of St Daniel at the disposal of the
Patriarchate of Moscow for the installation of its administrative
services.
S ome months after Andropov came to power, a plenum of the
Central Committee of the Party on Current Problems of Ideolog-
ical W ork and Political Education of the Masses by the Party
issued a warning to believers and called for intensification of ath-
eist propaganda.
Condemnation of Zoya Krakhmalnikova, an Orthodox wri-
ter publishing asamizdat religious review.
1985 Designation of Mikhail Gorbachev to the post of Secretary-
General of the Communist Party of the U S S R (11 March).
Article inPravda calling for strengthening of atheistic propa-
ganda (13 September).
1986 Arrest of Orthodox deacon Vladimir Roussak, author of a work
on the history of the Russian Church after the Revolution (22
April).
First conference on the Church and historydevoted to the
Millennium (Kiev, 21-28 July).
Editorial inPravda calling once again for strengthening of
atheistic propaganda (26 September). The Moscow Church Guide, a
six-language monthly, launched by the Moscow Patriarchate.
1987 Fr Gleb Yakunin and other Christians released from prison.
Second conference on the Millennium (Moscow, 11-19 May
1987).
Petitions sent by priests and laypersons to a number of civil
and religious leaders, asking for a revision of Soviet legislation in
religious matters.
Appearance of a number of samizdat news-sheets andmaga-
zines, in particular the Bulletin of the Christian Community and the
reviewVybor (Choice), a philosophical and literaryreview of Chris-
tian Russian culture.
The Soviet Union (western part) today
322
Yves Humant
Encyclical by Patriarch Pimen on preparations for the Mil-
lennium (21 June).
Appeal signed by two bishops, thirty-six priests and monks
and 174 Greek Catholic laypersons announcing their intention of
coming out of hiding and demanding the legalization of the
Ukrainian Catholic Church (4 August).
Dimitrios I, the ecumenical Patriarch, paid a visit to the Rus-
sian Orthodox Church (August).
Restitution to the Russian Orthodox Church of the Optina
Pustyn' Monastery and that of the Tolga, near Yaroslav.
1988 Third conference on the Millennium (Leningrad, 31 January to 5
February).
Publication inIzpestia of a lengthy interview with Patriarch
Pimen (8 April).
Meeting in the Kremlin between Mikhail Gorbachev and
Patriarch Pimen accompanied by the permanent members of the
Holy Synod (29 April).
The celebration of the Millennium commenced inMoscow
on 5 June and continued after that date in Leningrad, Kiev and
other dioceses of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Local council of the Russian Orthodox Church (Zagorsk, 6-9
June). Adoption of a new Church Regulation. Canonization of
nine new saints.
Restoration to the Russian Orthodox Church of part of the
buildings of the Laura of the Caves in Kiev.
APPENDICES
Summary of the proceedings
of the symposium
The significance of the introduction of Christianityin Rus'
for the development of European and world culture and civilization
Introduction
The session was opened on Tuesday, 28 June 1988, by the Assistant Director-
General, Mr Michel de Bonnecorse, who delivered an address on behalf of the
Director-General of U N E S CO . The opening speech was followed by the read-
ing of two messages, the first by Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev and Galicia on
behalf of Patriarch Pimen of Moscow and All Russia, and the second by Metro-
politan Ioannis of Pergamos representing Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios.
The proceedings
The proceedings advanced point by point on the themes presented by the Secre-
tariat:
1. The Christianityof Kievan Rus'
2. Orthodoxy in Russia inthe Moscow and St Petersburg periods
3. The development of Christianityfrom the thirteenth to the eighteenth cen-
turies inWest and East Rus'
4. Christianityand culture
5. Religious art
6. The Orthodox Church and Soviet society(from 1917 to 1988)
7. Christianity springing from the baptism of Vladimir and its contacts with
the cultures of the modern world: the Russian (and Ukrainian, Byelorussian,
etc.) Orthodox Church in Europe, the Americas, Asia (China, Japan, Korea)
and Africa
8. The Orthodox Church and modern Soviet society: Christianityand the
326
development of modern thought in Russia; the dialogue between ancient
and modern
9. The Orthodox Church and international relations: Russian Orthodoxy in
the present-dayecumenical movement.
SESSION OF TUESDAY, 28 JUNE
The first paper, delivered by Professor F. Conte, was entitled 'Paganism and
Christianityin Russia: "Double" or "Triple" Faith?'. He remarked that the con-
version to Christianityof the rural areas of Rus' had been slow and that the
pagan substratum had remained there until the beginning of this centuryalong-
side official Orthodoxy. He proposed to study it on the basis of an example, i.e. a
fertility rite involving water, described by Pushkin inEugene Onegin. In conclu-
sion, he wondered whether the expression 'double faith' was entirelyappro-
priate, and whether one should not add the concept of a 'third faith'. 'This
expression,' he said, 'would have the advantage of showing that rural beliefs, in
their Russian version, form a whole or, more exactly, a functional system'. This
was a viable and coherent whole, from which one could, when required, sep-
arate the stratum - Christian or pagan - which seemed best suited to the needs
of the moment.
During the discussion that followed, N . Todorov asked whether these rela-
tions between Christianityand the pagan substratum could not be observed in
all Christian countries in general. Fr M. Arranz, for his part, stated that the
prayer for the dead at Pentecost in Russia also had its origins in Byzantine wor-
ship, while Mr Meslin considered especially appropriate the introduction of the
concept of a 'third faith'.
The next paper was presented by Fr N . Shivarov on ' The W ork of Cyril and
Methodius in Bulgaria and its Transmission to Kievan Rus' '. H e recounted the
historyof the work of Cyril and Methodius in Bulgaria and, in particular, the
choice made by the translators of their school from among the Byzantine patris-
tic heritage. H e went on to recall the relations between Bulgaria and Rus' and
listed the various phases of the penetration of Bulgarian books intoRus'.
AcademicianD. Angelov gave a paper on ' The Introduction of Christian-
ity intoRus': The W ork of Cyril and Methodius'. He described the translation
work performed by Cyril and Methodius and their followers and gave a list of
works which came to Rus' from Bulgaria. H e wondered about the date when
Bulgarian manuscripts started to reach Rus', admitting that their large-scale
influx began only after the Baptism of 988. He then recalled the Russian literary
tradition and the 'Russification' of the work of Cyril and Methodius, regarded
as the direct teachers of the Russian people.
Academician N . Todorov read a paper on ' The Conversion of Rus' to
Christianity'. For N . Todorov, on inheriting the tradition of Cyril and Metho-
Summary of the proceedings of the symposium 327
dius, Rus' not only received books and concrete ideas, but joined a vast pro-
gramme of civili2ationand a system of communication with Byzantium already
triedand tested byother Slav societies. This was, in particular, a synthesis of
Byzantine traditionand local traditions. In conclusion, N . Todorov said that if
Rus' had originallybeen mainlyon the receivingend, she subsequently contri-
buted to the development of the modern culture of the Southern Slavs.
In the course of the discussion, D. Angelov stressed that the introduction
of writinghad been the essential factor in the creationof the nation. V. Vodoff
for his part wondered whether Bulgarian influence had begun before or after
baptism and said that he himself inclined towards the latter theory. Rector Ahr-
weiler stressed the importance of the Christian community on the Black Sea
and the first conversion to Christianity of 867 , in view of the fact that that of
988 was passed over in silence by Byzantine sources.
Academician B. Rauschenbach then discussed' The Development of Kie-
van Rus' in the W ake of Christianization'. According tohim, the adoption of
Christianityby Vladimir was part of a whole system of reforms, as the Byzan-
tine form of Christianitywas the one best suited to assure the unityof the coun-
try as a whole and not just that of the Slav tribes. It was completely appropriate
to the needs of feudal society. B. Rauschenbach evaluated the effects of the
adoption of Christianity on the society of the time. In conclusion, he drew a
parallel between the work of Peter the Great and that of Vladimir. H e showed
that there were several points incommon. However, whereas Vladimir was the
builder of the Church, Peter's work was destructive of it.
During the discussion that followed, D. Angelov asserted that Christianity
had begun to spread before being recognized as an official religion. S. Averint-
sev, for his part, wondered about the role of Novgorod, while Metropolitan
Juvenal laid particular stress on the importance of the articles of Academician
Rauschenbach in the context of preparations for the Millennium.
Academician Y . Shchapov presented a paper on ' The Assimilationby Kie-
van Rus' of the Classical and Byzantine Heritage: The Role of Christianization'.
Returning to the legend of the Chronicle, Y . Shchapov considered that Judaism
and Islam were not a real alternative for Vladimir. H e then analysed the reasons
for the prince's choice of Byzantine Christianity, raising in particular the possi-
bilityof evangelization of the country in its own language. H e stressed the sig-
nificance of this choice for the development of the culture of the countrywhich
thus, in particular, received the heritage of the ancient world, but he also
asserted that the adoptionof Christianityhad, on the other hand, deprived Rus'
of its original pagan culture (choreography, musical instruments, etc.).
In the course of the ensuing discussion, V. Vodoff wondered whether
Byzantium had always been favourable to local languages and whether, imme -
diately after the baptism, the language of worshipwas Slavonic rather than
Greek.
328
The Tuesday session ended with a paper by Fr M. Arranz entitled ' The
Baptism of Prince Vladimir'. Fr Arranz was concerned to reconstruct the ritual
that might have been followed at the baptism of Vladimir. H e noted that the
Slavonic word for baptism (krescenie) came from the word 'kresi' (cross) and was
not a caique of the Greek word 'bapiisma', meaning immersion. He then
described the rites of admission to baptism practised in Byzantium, which nor-
mally took place in five stages: first catechumenate, second catechumenate,
renunciation/adherence, baptism and ablution of the eighth day. Based on
these stages, he suggested various possible dates for the baptism of Vladimir. In
the discussion that followed, S. Averintsev wondered as to the precise etymol-
ogy of the word 'krescenie'.
MORNING SESSION OF W EDNESDAY, 29 JUNE
The session was opened byProfessor J.-P. Arrignon's paper, ' The Religious
Achievements of Yaroslav the Wise', dealing in particular with the foundation
of the Cathedral of St Sophia in Kiev, the establishment of the scriptorium of St
Sophia and the organization of the earlyChurch. J.-P. Arrignon was concerned
to identify the figures in one of the frescoes of St Sophia in order toshow that
Vladimir and Olga ranked in it together with the rulers 'equal to the apostles',
Constantine and Helena. O n the subject of the scriptorium of St Sophia, J.-P.
Arrignon discussed the theory that manuscripts were only copied and not tran-
slated there. Finally, he pointed out that only one diocese was established under
Vladimir, whereas three were established under Yaroslav. For him, the slow
pace at which the network of dioceses was organized showed the limited
resources at the disposal of the young Church of Kiev.
In reply to a question about paganism, J.-P. Arrignon stated that archaeol-
ogy had given ample proof of the existence of pagan temples and pagan worship
and ceremonies. He recalled in particular that Vladimir had initiallyattempted
to base the confederation of tribes on the worship of Perun.
Professor S. Grozdanov then presented a paper on 'Macedonia, Serbia and
Russian Medieval Art'. H e considered the development of the well-known
Constantinopolitan style of illumination(cvetnolistnyj stW) in the earliest manu-
scripts of Rus' and its links with the schools of Constantinople, Okhrid and
Preslav. Then he dwelt on the teratological elements which appeared from the
thirteenth century in the ornamentation of books among the Southern Slavs
and inRus'. H e described their similarities with the mosaics in St Sophia in
Okhrid, concluding, however, that it was impossible to establish a direct link
between the two. In conclusion, he took up the question of the origin of the
frescoes of the Church of the Transfiguration at Kovalevo, in Novgorod, consi-
dering that it is not yet possible to attribute them definitively to a group of Rus-
sian or Southern Slav painters.
The next paper, ' The Gift and E nigma of "Holy Russia" ', was to have been
presented byV. Zielinskyof Moscow, but he was unfortunatelyunable to attend
the symposium. Professor M . Meslin, First Vice-president of the Universityof
Paris IV, was most anxious to read this text, but was prevented by pressing uni-
versitycommitments. Thus it was F. Conte wh o read the conclusion of V. Zie-
linsky's paper. For V. Zielinsky, ' Holy Russia' is not a material realityand can-
not be identified with 'something one can lay one's finger on' , nor with any
particular ascetic discipline, nor with the liturgy, nor with Moscow as the
'ThirdRome ' . Originally, a symbol was a ring which friends broke before part-
ing in order to have a sign bywhich to recognize each other at their next meet-
ing. ' "Holy Russia" is only half the ring, and the other half we will not find on
earth. It is the eschatological theme of Russia', he stated.
The same questionwas considered from a different point of view in Profes-
sor D. Schakhovskoy's paper, ' The Genesis and Permanence of Holy Russia'. D.
Schakhovskoywas first concerned with defining the very concept of Russia. For
him it was a single territory, stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Carpathian
Mountains and the Volga. H e then stressed the linguistic unityof Russia. If the
whole as thus defined did not constitute one and the same political reality, it
was still moved by the same concern and spiritual awareness, for the awakening
of the nationalities was secondary to this spiritual awareness.
Professor F. Kmpfer then examined ' The Image of Russian Christianityin
the W est and the Concept of "Holy Russia" '. It was mainly at the time of the
Reformation that interest in Orthodoxy, and particularlyRussian Orthodoxy,
began in Western Europe. The first book to give both serious and unprejudiced
information on Russian Orthodoxy was that of Johann Fabri (c. 1526). This
information was added to by Herberstein in the mid-sixteenth century, but the
LivonianW ar aroused a wave of Russophobia in Western Europe, except for
England. Subsequently, Western travellers regarded Orthodoxy with a certain
disdain. The 'Enlightenment', with its contempt for religion in general, did not
favour a change of attitude. It was Romanticism that led the W est to take an
interest in Russia and its religion, especiallywith the success of the great Rus-
sian writers.
In the course of the discussion that followed, Fr M . Arranz mentioned that
Joseph of Volokolamsk and Nil of Sora were representatives of two different
and conflicting traditions. O n the subject of the theoryof ' Moscow the Third
Rome ' , V. VodofF considered the universalityof the mission undertaken by
Russia. For him, Russians at that time identified the universe with their country
which was beginning to expand eastwards. This was not Messianism but rather
spiritual isolationism. D. Schakhovskoy, for his part, stressed the eschatological
aspect of the theoryof ' Moscow the Third Rome ' .
330
AFTERNOON SESSION OF W EDNESDAY, 2) JUNE
The session began with Y . Hamant's paper on ' The Evolution of Russian Eccle-
siastical Architecture in the Seventeenth Century'. It is well known that deep
changes took place in icon-painting in the seventeenth century. Icon-painters
tried to render the volume of flesh and to represent space. These developments
aroused livelyopposition, especiallyamong the Old Believers. Without arous-
ing the same controversy, religious architecture also underwent profound
change. The interior space of the churches was no longer divided upby pillars.
The original symbolism disappeared (four vaults arranged in a cruciform figure
formed the transition between the square base of the building, symbol of the
created world, and the dome, symbol of the uncreated). Similarly, the organic
link between the interior and exterior space disappeared. The domes had
become a decorative element while, as in icons, decorative and picturesque
elements had developed.
D. Kundyuba then read the paper byY . Kochubey, ' The Russian Orthodox
Church in the Ukraine and its Ties with the Christian East'. In his text Y .
Kochubey first listed the translations made in Kievan Rus' of works of religious
writers from the Middle East. He then considered direct contacts between the
inhabitants of ancient Rus' and of the Orthodox East through pilgrimages, and
dwelt on contacts between the Orthodox Church of the Ukraine and the East-
ern Patriarchates in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, mentioning the
role of the brotherhoods and the work of Metropolitan Peter Mogila.
Commenting onY . Kochubey's paper, Mrs M. Papierzynska-Kurek men-
tioned the support given by the Church of Moscow to Orthodoxy in the territo-
ries of the Rzeczpospolita between the time of the Union of Lublin and the
beginning of the eighteenth century.
Professor V. VodofFs paper, ' The Conversion of Rus': A Subject of Inter-
national Historical Research', took stock of the historiographyof the baptism
of Vladimir, especiallyin the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. For the nine-
teenth century, V. Vodoff stressed in particular the contribution of E . Golubin-
sky. For the present period, he singled out the work of the Polish historian, A.
Poppe. Finallyhe made a list of discoveries due to archaeology, sigillography
and so forth. He finished with an appeal for improved circulation of biblio-
graphical information between specialists in different regions interested in the
historyof Christianityand the cultures of Russia.
In the discussion that followed, Fr Shivarov expressed a wish for such cir-
culation to take place in two directions, from the U S S R to Western Europe and
vice versa, and said that this applies particularlyto manuscripts. FrM. Arranz,
for his part, hoped that Western researchers might obtain information more
quickly about manuscripts held in Soviet libraries, as there is sometimes a delay
of up to two years in receiving it.
Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev and Galicia presented a paper on ' The
Influence of Christianity on the Cultural and Spiritual Development of
Society'. H e began by recalling the circumstances in which the celebration of
the Millennium had taken place, i.e. perestroika and glasnost. H e then spoke of
the rift that had appeared in the modern world between material and spiritual
values, and stressed the importance of the spiritual heritage of the Russian
Orthodox Church in this regard. The Metropolitan then reviewed the various
fields of human activityon which the adoption of Christianityin Russia had
beneficial effects, including culture, education, individual and family morality,
and legal codes. In conclusion, he mentioned the last seventy years, during
which the Orthodox Church had had to face up to ne w historical circum-
stances. H e referred in particular to the quest for moral values now beginning to
appear in Soviet literature and the Soviet press.
Professor S. Martselev then presented a paper on 'Christianityand the
Development of Architecture and Art in Western Rus' '. H e mentioned the
building of the Cathedral of St Sophia in Polotsk (in which services were held
from 1060 onwards) and of the church of the Monastery of Belchitsy. H e then
considered icons, and paid special attention to the work of the printer Skorina.
The next talk, that by Professor S. Averintsev, was on ' The Baptism of Rus'
and the Path of Russian Culture'. According to S. Averintsev, following the
baptism of Vladimir, Christian-Hellenistic universalism was introduced into
Rus' . This was particularlythe case in the field of language, which developed in
the tradition of Hellenism. H e gave as examples the Russian caiques of Greek
composite words. This play with composite words forms the basis of vitijstvo, an
untranslatable Russian word which does not correspond exactly either to rhe-
toric or to eloquence. Referring to Mandelstam, S. Averintsev considered that
the word, in Russian, is not only a sound and a sign, a purely semiotic reality,
but a precious and sacred substance. E ven Mayakovsky was familiar with
Graeco-Slavonic models. S. Averintsev then analysed the attitude of Russians
to beauty, starting in particular from the account of the investigation ordered by
Vladimir before his baptism. Quoting Florensky's statement to the effect that
' The Trinityof Rublev exists, therefore G od exists', he sees beauty as a crit-
rium of truth in the Russian tradition.
S. Koltunyuk, First Vice-minister of Culture of the Ukrainian S S R, pre-
sented a paper on ' The Millennium of the Conversion of Rus' to Christianity'.
H e mentioned the recent return to the Orthodox Church of some of the build-
ings of the Kiev Caves Monastery, saying that this should be seen as yet another
expression of the Government' s realistic approach to the religious question. H e
then asserted that the introduction of Christianitywas not the only factor deter-
mining the cultural progress of ancient Russian societyand that before Chris-
tianity, in pagan times, Rus' already had a developed culture. Nevertheless, he
added, the introduction of Christianitymade it possible to transform Kievan
332
Rus' into a state of international importance. In conclusion, he listed all the
achievements of the UkrainianS S R in the field of culture.
In the course of the discussion that followed, N . Lossky, of the University
of Paris X , mentioned the quotation from Florensky, saying that it should be
regarded as a paradox and that if beautywas the criterion of truth, then con-
versely truth should be the criterion of beauty, for otherwise the problem arose
of how to conceive a multitude of individual truths. S. Averintsev replied that,
in his opinion, Florenskywould not have accepted this idea of a multitude of
individual beauties and that beauty could not depend on individual caprice. D.
Angelov then recalled the role of Old Bulgarian as an intermediary between
Old Russian and Greek. H e wondered too whether S. Averintsev had not sug-
gested that true culture had only appeared with Christianity. S. Averintsev
replied that one could not set on the same footing a culture of daily life and
ritual and a culture with awareness of itself, and concluded that a qualitative
change had taken place.
The final paper of the daywas presented by Professor A. Wirsta on ' The
Byzantine Origins of Medieval Sacred Music inKievan Rus". A. Wirsta
recalled in his introductionhow the term ' Rus' ' is defined in the Ukrainian his-
toriographie tradition: until the thirteenth century this name only applied to
the centre of what isnow Ukraine. W hat is more, according to the historian
Hroushevsky, the State of Vladimir andMoscow could not be regarded as
simply the descendent of that of Kiev, since these two states were the work of
two different nations. A. Wirsta then listed the various types of chant intro-
duced in Kiev following the arrival of Greek singers. He also stressed the role of
troparia in the liturgy, and went on to study different systems of notation.
MORNING SESSION OF THURSDAY, 30 JUNE
The session began with the paper by Metropolitan Juvenal of Krutitsyand
Kolomna on' The Russian Orthodox Church, Past and Present'. After quoting
Florovsky, according towh om 'the historyof Russian culture begins with the
baptism of Rus' ', the Metropolitan mentioned all that Christianityhad contri-
buted to the country's development. Besides, he stressed, thanks to its mis-
sionary activities, the Russian Church had contributed to the cultural develop-
ment of a large number of different nations. After recalling the social role of the
Church over the past centuries, he then spoke of its life today, giving, in partic-
ular, certain statistics, then went on to describe the Church's work for peace. In
conclusion, he asserted that the ' new thinking' encouraged within the frame-
work of perestroika had a certain ethical flavour to it and remarked on the quest
for spiritual values expressed inmodern literature.
The next paper, that of FrM. Pcurariu, dealt with the subject of'Ecclesias-
tical and cultural relations between Romania and Russia'. Following a rapid
survey of the historyof the Romanian Church, the originalityof which comes
from a 'synthesis of Latinityand Orthodoxy', Fr Pcurariu mentioned various
figures of Romanian originwh o played a role in Russian religious life, in partic-
ular Peter Mogila (Petru Movila). After mentioning the activities of Paissius
Velichkovsky in Wallachia and Moldavia, he gave more detailed attention to
the influence of Russian Orthodox theology on the Romanian Church in the
nineteenth century.
Professor N . Struve then spoke on 'Atheism and Religion in the Soviet
Union' . H e began by stressing that in 1917, for the first time in history, atheism
ceased to be a private opinion, an opposition movement, and became a power -
'atheocracy'. For him, the permanent nature of the war against religionwaged
in the U S S R could be explained by a combination of conceptual atheism and
irrational psychological antitheism of which he found evidence in both Lenin
and Marx. N . Struve refuted the thesis that the Soviet regime only attacked the
Church because of its involvement with the ancien rgime: through the institu-
tion, religion itself was attacked. Following a rsum of the historyof the reli-
gious policyof the Soviet authorities,N . Struve concluded that atheocracy had
proved a failure at the sociological, anthropological and cultural levels.
In the course of the ensuing discussion, many speakers denied the link bet-
ween Marxism and atheism. Academician B. Rauschenbach considered that,
although in its historical section N . Struve's paper reflected realityin many
points, it did not take sufficiently into account the present development of
Soviet policyin the field of religion and that nowadays the class approach is giv-
ing way to the recognition of universal values. Metropolitan Juvenal wondered
h ow the Russian people, a theophoric people, could have become a people war-
ring against G od, if not because of the sins of the Church. According to N .
Struve, the historical sins of the Church, which should not be underestimated,
could not, however, fullyaccount for this hatred of God.
Mrs E . S morgunova then spoke of the 'Role of the Book in the Christian-
i2ation of Rus' ' in connection with the exhibition organized at the same time as
the symposium.
Professor T. Sabev presented a paper entitled ' The Russian Orthodox
Church and the ecumenical movement' . H e mentioned the role of members of
the Russian Orthodox Church in the development of the ecumenical move -
ment during the twentieth century and recalled the circumstances in which the
Russian Orthodox Church had joined the W orld Council of Churches in 1961.
H e then analysed the specific contribution of the Russian Orthodox Church as
part of the W orld Council of Churches, for example its contribution to the
development of the concept of sobornost' ('conciliarity'). H e went on to speak
about relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and other Orthodox
Churches, in particular as part of the preparations for the Pan-Orthodox Coun-
334
cil, and also its participation in bilateral dialogues with non-Orthodox
Churches.
AFTERNOON SESSION OF THURSDAY, 30 JUNE
The final session began with the reading of the report of the proceedings of the
symposium.
Earlier, in a short address, Academician Shchapov had stressed the deve-
lopment of relations between Church and State in the U S S R, evidenced by the
organization, on the occasion of the Millennium, of several conferences bring-
ing together churchmen and lay scientists and scholars.
Commenting on the summary report, Professor T. Sabev reiterated the
place of the Russian Orthodox Church in the ecumenical movement and the
precise meaning of its function as a witness at the present time.
Rector H . Ahrweiler spoke of the place of relations between Church and
state in the Middle Ages and the importance of politicial and diplomatic sources
in the study of such matters as that of the baptism of Rus'. She also expressed
regret at the absence from the symposium of any Greek scholar who could have
spoken about the Greek heritage received byRus' at its baptism. It was then
decided to invite Professor Karayannopoulos to submit a contribution to figure
with the papers presented at the symposium. As agreed, this text may be found
in the present edition of the proceedings of the symposium.
The proceedings concluded with an address by the Director-General of
U N E S CO , Mr Federico Mayor.
Message
FROM PATRIARCH PIMEN OF MOS COW AN D ALL RUSSIA, DELIVERED
BY METROPOLITAN PHILARET OF KIEV AN D GALICIA
I cordially greet you on behalf of the Russian Orthodox Church as you gather at
this symposium in Paris tomake your own specific scholarly contribution to the
celebrations for the Millennium of the baptism of Rus' .
The theme of the symposium if of great interest not onlyfrom a historical
point of view. At present it is vital as never before. Indeed, the knowledge of
what unites us Europeans as well as the inhabitants of all regions of the globe,
especially in the spiritual sphere, is of exceptional importance for the present
and future that could not be conceived of other than in close, mutually benef-
icial and peaceful cooperation between all peoples.
In this connection it is characteristic that numerous Churches, religious
communities and bodies the world over saw our jubilee as their own, holding
special actsof worshipand conferences, doing research and organizing exhibi-
tions of all kinds, and concerts. W e trust that your symposium will make a sig-
nificant contribution to this joint celebration.
It is with great satisfaction that we learned of the participation of two per-
manent members of the HolySynod: Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev and Gal-
icia, Patriarchal Exarch to the Ukraine, and Metropolitan Juvenal of Krutitsy
and Kolomna, member of the U S S R Commission for U N E S CO .
W e have just concluded the official celebrations of the glorious Jubilee of
the Russian Church. They were held inMoscow and in other historic Church
centres: Kiev, Vladimir and Leningrad. Numerous guestsof honour from home
and abroad attended, including heads and representatives of local Orthodox
Churches, other Churches and religious communities, other faiths, interna-
tional religious bodies and scientific, cultural and social circles. W e especially
note the participation in the celebrations of U N E S CO Assistant Director-
General, Mr Henri Lopes, representing the Director-General, Mr Federico
336
Mayor, and conveying the latter's greetings to the participants. W e take this
opportunity to thank him for his inspiring contribution which highlighted the
joyful nature of that historic event.
It should also be borne in mind that our Church's HolySynod proclaimed
1988 a Jubilee year. At present the celebrations have been extended to all our
dioceses in the Soviet Union and to our institutions abroad.
To return to the official celebrations, the local council of the Russian
Orthodox Church and the other jubilee events were an opportunity to studyour
Church's thousand-year contribution to the religious and moral instruction of
the faithful, the promotion of handwriting, enlightenment, culture and state-
hood of our people, maintaining and consolidating a peaceful way of life in our
countryand establishing a universal and just peace without arms or war, and
protection for God' s whole creation. Much of the wealth of experience and
commitment of the Russian Orthodox Church is as one with the aims and
ideals of U N E S CO , and for this we feel great joy.
Dear brothers and sisters, I wish you every possible success at this sympo-
sium.
May the Lord bless your efforts, and may they contribute to spiritual recon-
ciliation and mutual understanding between nations in an evangelical spirit of
peace and charity.
Message
FROM DIMITRIOS, ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE,
DELIVERED BY METROPOLITAN IOANNIS OF PERGAMOS
His Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Dimitrios, has author-
izedme by decision of the HolySynod, to convey his blessing and fervent good
wishes to you all at this important gathering.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate feels extremelyproud of the historyof 1,000
years during which the Church of Russia developed from a daughter Church
into a beloved sister Church. W h e n inA. D. 988 the people of the Rus' received
their baptism into Christianity, it was the Church of Constantinople that gave it
to them; for many centuries the same Church of Constantinople continued to
provide the Russian Church with her leadership in the person of the Metropol-
itan of Kiev. And when the centre of ecclesiastical life moved to Moscow, again
the Patriarch of Constantinople played the decisive role in thisnew develop-
ment.
Thus, the daycame when Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremas proclaimed the
Church of Russia as an autocephalous church with the status of a Patriarchate,
placing it ever since in fifth place in the canonical order of the Orthodox
Churches.
The Church of Constantinople therefore feels it is entitled to rejoice today
at another celebration of the Millennium of the Russian Church, this time
under the auspices of U N E S CO . A few months ago the Ecumenical Patriar-
chate itself celebrated this important event in Constantinople. Today, through
me , it wishes to congratulate U N E S CO for this initiative and to offer its best
wishes for the success of this scientific symposium as a universal recognition of
the fact that the Orthodox Church of Russia, and through it the Orthodox
Church as a whole, has contributed decisivelyto the culture and civilization of
the entire world.
May the Lord bless abundantly the beloved sister Orthodox Church so that
she may continue to offer her contribution to the peace, culture and civilization
of humanity.

Christianization of Russia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christianization of Russia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Christianization of Ancient Russia

You might also like