Old Believer Confession for an Icon Painter

-G. V. Markelov.

In the Russian Orthodox Church, the sacrament of repentance as a divinely instituted sacred act acquired its final forms only in the 17th century. The rite of repentance, known as the Order of Confession, was already included in pre-Nikonian printed books and, in this most ancient version with only minor changes and additions, was transferred into the liturgical practice of the Old Believers. The Old Russian Order of Confession was a ritual dialogue between the Christian who came to repent and the priest who examined him. This dialogue included obligatory elements that constituted its canonical form.

In the most general terms, repentance proceeded as follows. The priest was obliged to question the penitent in detail about his identity, the nature of his transgressions and violations of God’s commandments, and about where, how, when, and from what motive the violation occurred. The penitent was required to answer the questions fully and directly. After that, the priest demanded that he recite the Symbol of Faith (the Creed) to confirm that the person coming to confession believed in an orthodox manner without doubt. Then the priest either “absolved” the penitent (i.e., forgave his sins) if the repentance was sincere, or imposed appropriate penances (epitimia). Penances had long been regulated in detail by the various rules of the Nomocanon or “Book of the Pilot” (Kormchaia Kniga). Minor sins were forgiven on the spot through the “absolutory” prayer, and the penitent, having received admonitions, was admitted to Holy Communion.[1]

The order described above is found primarily in numerous manuscript Trebniks (Books of Needs) of the 14th–16th centuries. With insignificant differences, the same structure appears in printed Trebniks of the 16th–17th centuries. The particular variations in the Order of Confession found in Old Russian books were caused chiefly by differences in the social categories of those confessing. Thus, already in 16th-century Trebniks there appear special sections containing particular questions addressed to princes, boyars, boyars’ children, secular rulers and nobles in general, as well as to clerks and officials serving the authorities. There are also specific questions for peasants and merchants. Printed Trebniks further contain more differentiated sections addressed to married or unmarried men, maidens or married women, widows, children of both sexes, the literate or “those who do not know letters,” etc. Finally, among 17th-century texts one even encounters special questions for the confession of a patriarch or of the tsar himself.[2]

Often the texts of the Order of Confession consist not only of questions about the penitent’s sins but also include the penitents’ answers. These “standard” answers essentially repeat the sequence of questions and are phrased in the affirmative with the introductory verb “согреших” (“I have sinned in this and that, at such-and-such a time and place”).[3] Such responses at confession were called “ponovlenie” (renewal), because sincere repentance not only frees a Christian from the burden of sins but renews his soul, as it were, by a second baptism.[4]

As is well known, the priestless Old Believers (bespopovtsy) preserved the sacrament of confession and were forced to concentrate in it a significant part of their religious feeling, since they rejected certain other important church sacraments. For this reason the priestless Order of Confession constantly underwent corrections that expanded both the range of articles and the regulation of penitential discipline itself.[5]

A curious example of such an expanded Old Believer order of confession is a 19th-century text that has come down to us in a manuscript from the Ancient Manuscripts Repository of the Pushkin House (Institute of Russian Literature), collection of I. A. Smirnov, No. 7. The manuscript was first mentioned by V. I. Malyshev as the “Pomorian Order of Confession.”[6] In the 1960s, when describing I. A. Smirnov’s collection, A. S. Demin called this manuscript a “Pomorian Trebnik.”[7]

Below is a description of the manuscript with the present author’s title:

Confessional Miscellany. Early 19th century, quarto, 178 leaves. Leaves 2–162 are written in a semi-uncial hand close to the Pomorian type; leaves 163–171 in a rapid semi-uncial; leaves 172–175 imitate printed type; leaves 1, 176–178 are blank. Headings and initials are in cinnabar; binding: boards covered with embossed leather, one of the two original copper clasps survives. Paper with factory watermarks dated 1806 and 1807. On the upper flyleaf a pencil note “Ivan Stepanovich Ukashchin” (?), a note about the manuscript’s acquisition by the Pushkin House manuscript department in 1956, and a pencil note “G. Skachkov?” (in the hand of V. I. Malyshev?). On leaf 1 the ink stamp of the library of Ivan Alekseevich Smirnov.

Contents: Table of Contents (leaf 2), Preliminary Admonition to the Confessor (leaf 4 ob.), Preliminary Instruction concerning Newcomers (leaf 9 ob.), Order of Confession (leaf 11 ob.). Questions about Sins. Article 1. General (leaf 18), Article 2. Various Questions according to Rank and Station – To Spiritual Fathers (leaf 39 ob.), Article 3. To Chanters (leaf 43), Article 4. To Icon Painters (leaf 44 ob.), Article 5. To Masters/Landlords (leaf 46), Article 6. To Merchants and Traders (leaf 47), Article 7. To Goldsmiths (leaf 48), Article 8. To Silk Workers (leaf 48 ob.), Article 9. To Tailors (leaf 49), Article 10. To Gold-Embroiderers and Pearl-Stringers (leaf 49 ob.), Article 11. To Shoemakers (leaf 50), Article 12. To Coppersmiths (leaf 50 ob.), Article 13. To Blacksmiths (leaf 51), Article 14. To Millers (leaf 51 ob.), Article 15. To Day-Laborers and Workers (leaf 52), Article 16. To Farmers and Haymakers (leaf 52 ob.), Article 17. To Beggars (leaf 53), Article 18. To Writing Teachers (leaf 53 ob.?), Article 19. To Judges (leaf 54), Article 20. To Unmarried Men (leaf 55), Article 21. Questions to Married Men (leaf 57), Article 22. To Widowers (leaf 64), Article 23. Questions to the Female Sex – To Maidens (leaf 65), Article 24. To Married Women (leaf 67), Article 25. To Widows (leaf 75).

Ponovleniia (Renewals/Standard Responses). To Article 1, general (leaf 76 ob.), To Article 2 – Various according to Rank and Station: Spiritual Fathers (leaf 89), Chanters (leaf 92 ob.), Icon Painters (leaf 94), Masters/Landlords (leaf 95), Merchants (leaf 96 ob.), Goldsmiths and Silversmiths (leaf 96 ob.), Silk Workers (leaf 97), Tailors (leaf 97 ob.), Gold-Embroiderers and Pearl-Stringers (leaf 98), Shoemakers (leaf 98 ob.), Coppersmiths (leaf 99), Blacksmiths (leaf 99 ob.), Millers (leaf 100), Day-Laborers etc. (leaf 100 ob.), Farmers and Haymakers (leaf 101), Beggars (leaf 101 ob.), Writing Teachers (leaf 102), Judges (leaf 102 ob.), Unmarried Men who have fallen into fornication (leaf 103), Married Men (leaf 104), Widowers (leaf 107 ob.), Maidens (leaf 108), Married Women (leaf 109 ob.), Widows (leaf 113).

Conclusion after the confession of all sins… (leaf 114), Instruction to the Penitent (leaf 119 ob.), Consideration of Penances (leaf 128), Questions for the Illiterate (belonging to the beginning of confession) (leaf 130), The Ten Commandments (leaf 131 ob.), Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy (leaf 133), Seven Corporal Works of Mercy (leaf 134 ob.), List of Various Sins (leaf 136), Sins that Cry to Heaven (leaf 137 ob.), Sins against the Son of Man (leaf 139 ob.), Sins against the Holy Spirit (leaf 140 ob.), Sins arise from four causes (leaf 143 ob.), On the Detail of Questions (leaf 144), From the Book of Penances (leaf 153), On the Saving Fruits of Confession (leaf 163), How Repentance Should Be Offered in Good Time (leaf 165 ob.), That Christ, moved by tears and confession of sins, inclines to forgiveness (leaf 167 ob.), On God’s Mercy toward repentant sinners (leaf 169 ob.), Extracts from the Order of Confession (without title) (leaf 172).

The greatest interest in the miscellany is aroused by texts unknown from other Old Believer manuscripts, which begin with the second article (leaf 39). These contain lists of questions that were to be asked at confession to various categories (“ranks”) of members of the priestless community. The range of questions touches on the specific aspects of each profession or station. After the questions, the manuscript provides the corresponding “ponovleniia” (standard renewal responses) for each category. The manuscript concludes with instructional texts for penitents, discussions of penances, lists of evil and good deeds, etc.

Among the articles of the miscellany, our attention was drawn to the texts connected with the veneration of icons and with icon painters. Already in the opening section of the manuscript, in “Article One – General,” there are questions about icons that were to be asked at the very beginning of confession to every parishioner who came, because these questions contained the most important points of a confessional nature. Among them are the following:

“For the sake of Christ’s Cross or holy icons, in order to confirm something as true, did you kiss them or lead others to do so, or advise anyone to do so?
Did you raise an icon in your hands while swearing an oath, lead others to do this, or advise anyone to do so? …
Did you blaspheme the writing of holy icons, lead others to do so, or think or say anything unseemly and blasphemous about holy icons?
Do you call holy icons God and render them divine honor, or teach others to do so?
Do you place special hope or trust in certain holy icons?
Did you falsely invent miracles attributed to holy icons, teach anyone to do so, or advise anyone to do so?
Do you light candles or pour oil only out of regard for the icon itself and not for the one depicted on it, or do you do this only for vainglory?
Did you make icon covers (oklad not to honor the saint whose icon it is, but for vainglory? Or did you make covers using someone else’s money while wronging your neighbor?
Did you rob holy icons or secretly take anything from them? Did you intend to rob a holy icon or secretly take from it something you liked – a cross, a stone, a pearl, or anything else – or teach or advise anyone to do so?
Did you falsely collect candles, oil, or incense for the covers of holy icons, teach anyone to do so, or advise anyone to do so?”

Questions about one’s attitude toward icons, which from ancient times belonged among the obligatory general questions at confession, are found in all Old Russian Trebniks. In our manuscript at least two important aspects stand out: questions about the desecration of icon images and about false worship of icons as if they were “gods.” One may suppose that for the Old Believer spiritual fathers who, in the early nineteenth century, brought their flock to confession and repentance, these questions retained their doctrinal significance. In everyday consciousness various attitudes toward icons were permitted (recall the Russian proverbs “If it’s good – pray to it; if it’s no good – cover pots with it,” “If an icon falls – someone will die,” or the saying “I’ll even take the icon off the wall” (to swear by it)), rooted in the primordial duality of faith among the common people.

The manuscript in question contains a unique text: a special confession and ponovlenie (standard response) for icon painters that reveals certain features of their private life and professional activity. We present these texts in full:

Leaf 44 ob. “Article 4. For Icon Painters.”

Do you paint and have you painted holy icons with true intent, for honor and veneration?
Do you strive to depict the holy images truly, so that they resemble the prototypes and are not distorted in appearance?
Have you deceived anyone by selling an icon painted without skill, claiming that it was of the very highest craftsmanship?
For painting holy icons, have you taken an immoderate price and thereby wronged your neighbor?
Have you slandered a fellow icon painter out of envy, disparaging his skill for your own gain?
When giving work to someone for your assistance, have you wronged him in payment for his labor or disparaged a well-painted icon?
When restoring someone’s icons, have you exchanged them, keeping the better one for yourself and returning a poorer one to the owner?
Have you wronged your workers or apprentices in wages, food, or clothing, or beaten them without cause?
After being with your wife and without washing, have you begun or even continued to paint holy icons?
Have you painted or sold holy icons to heretics or those of other faiths for mockery and derision?

Leaf 94. “PONOVLENIIA (Standard Responses) to Article 4. For Icon Painters.”

I have sinned: sometimes with flattering intent and without striving for true depiction I painted holy icons.
I have sinned: when selling icons I sometimes practiced deceit and fraud, calling and assuring that low-quality work was high and excellent craftsmanship.
I have sinned: for painting holy icons I sometimes took an excessive price from the ignorant, and those whom I gave work to for my assistance I wronged in payment for their labor.
I have sinned: sometimes out of envy I slandered a fellow icon painter and disparaged his skill.
I have sinned: sometimes out of envy I slandered a fellow icon painter.
I have sinned: when restoring someone’s icons I sometimes exchanged them, keeping the better one for myself and giving the owner one of low quality.
I have sinned: sometimes I wronged my workers and apprentices in wages.
I have sinned: sometimes, after being with my wife and without washing, for various reasons I began and even painted holy icons.
I have sinned: sometimes I painted holy icons for outsiders, though not for mockery and derision, but according to their zeal for honor and veneration.

Let us recall that in our manuscript the section for icon painters stands, in the list of those confessing, between the spiritual fathers and the chanters. Such a relatively high position of icon painters in the church hierarchy of the Old Believer community has ancient roots. Among Old Russian monuments this is witnessed, in particular, in the Stoglav. In chapter 43 of the monument the church authorities are instructed: “…to take care of the various church ranks, and especially of holy icons, of painters, and of the other church ranks…”[11] With regard to particularly outstanding masters the Stoglav calls upon the tsar to reward such painters and the bishops to protect and honor them “above ordinary people…”[12] From the text of our confession it is clear that in Old Believer communities of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in accordance with the most ancient tradition, icon painters were still recognized “above ordinary people,” coming immediately after the spiritual fathers-mentors.

Let us turn directly to the content of the confession questions. The first question concerns the icon painter’s personal attitude toward his work. It was assumed that a pious icon painter paints icons for pious veneration and not for gain. The second question speaks of the “truthfulness” (istovost’) of the icon image – that is, its conformity with the “prototypes.”[13] It concerns the established correspondence of newly painted icons to the iconographic canon. This most important aspect of church-Orthodox art is formulated in chapter 5 of the Stoglav, in the third royal question about holy icons: “…according to the divine rules, according to the image and likeness and in every essence to paint the image of God and of the most pure Mother of God and of every saint, God’s pleasing ones, and there is testimony about all this in God’s Scriptures…”[14] Further, in chapter 41 of the Stoglav this provision is made more concrete: “Paint icons from the ancient models, as the Greek icon painters painted and as Andrei Rublev and other renowned icon painters wrote… and not to invent anything from one’s own imagination.”[15] In chapter 43 “On Painters and Honorable Icons” the Stoglav once again instructs icon painters: “…with very great diligence to paint and depict on icons and walls our Lord Jesus Christ and His most pure Mother… and all the saints according to the image, likeness, and essence, looking at the image of the ancient painters and signing from good models.”[16]

The third question of the confession concerns honesty in the sale of an icon. According to ancient tradition a finished icon could not be sold in the marketplace like ordinary handicraft, for the sacred nature of the image itself did not allow it (holy things are not sold). Therefore the actual sale of icons that did take place was called in old times by euphemisms: “to exchange,” “to trade,” “to barter,” etc. The content of the third question corresponds to the text of the Stoglav. In chapter 43 the monument states: “…and those icon painters who until now have painted without learning, by their own will and self-invention and not according to the image, and have cheaply sold such icons to simple ignorant peasants – let such icons be placed under ban so that they may learn from good masters; and to whom God grants to paint according to the image and likeness, let him paint thus, and to whom God does not grant it, let them henceforth cease from such work, lest the name of God be blasphemed by such painting. And those who do not cease from such work shall be punished by the tsar’s severity…”[17] In the appendix to the main text of the Stoglav there is yet another decree concerning the sale “in the rows” of poorly painted icons: “To inform the sovereign about the icon painters so that in Moscow and in all cities the unskillful icons sold in the marketplaces be collected, the painters of them be questioned, and henceforth they be forbidden to paint icons until they have learned from good masters.”[18]

Thematically connected with the third question is the fourth – about taking an excessive price for an icon. This question also finds a parallel in sixteenth-century sources. In the well-known “Tale of Holy Icons” by Maximus the Greek, chapter 6 contains the following: the icon painter “…should not burden the holy icons with the price of silver, but be content to receive from the one who orders enough for food, clothing, and the materials of the craft.” At the same time the one who commissions the icon should “…not be stingy but satisfy the honest painter as is proper and possible, so that he not be troubled by certain necessary needs.”[19] Note that the writings of Maximus the Greek exerted noticeable influence on the texts of the Stoglav Council decisions, including the formulations concerning icon painting and icon painters themselves.[20]

The fifth question again concerns the personal qualities of the icon painter as a Christian. The question unequivocally condemns envy toward another master. In the Stoglav the sin of envy is also mentioned, but there the object is the painter’s apprentice: “…and if God reveals such craft of icon painting to some apprentice and he begins to live according to the proper rule, but the master out of envy begins to slander him so that he not receive the same honor that he himself received – the bishop, having investigated, shall place such a master under canonical ban and grant the apprentice still greater honor.”[21]

The relationship between master and apprentices (or workers) is also the subject of the sixth and eighth questions of the confession. In the Stoglav the same theme appears as a direct invective: “If any of those painters hides the talent that God gave him and does not pass it on to his apprentices in its essence, such a one will be condemned by God together with those who hid their talent, unto eternal torment”[22] – and further: “…painters, teach your apprentices without any guile, lest you be condemned to eternal torment.”[23]

The seventh question of the confession concerns the restoration (ponovlenie) of icons, which was a common practice among icon painters from ancient times. The Stoglav records an instruction of similar meaning addressed to archpriests and senior priests: “…in all holy churches to inspect the holy icons… and those holy icons that have grown old, order the icon painters to restore them, and those icons that have little oil varnish, order them to be re-varnished…”[24]

The wording of the ninth question of the confession unambiguously testifies to the status of the Old Believer icon painter as a married man. It follows that the text under consideration comes from an Old Believer community that recognized marriage as lawful. Such a community could have been one of the priestless Pomorian-agreement communities settled in Moscow or St. Petersburg.[25] By the time our manuscript was written – the early nineteenth century – there existed, for example, the Moninskaia community in Moscow, headed from 1808 by the spiritual father G. I. Skachkov, whose name we find on the flyleaf of our manuscript. It is noteworthy that G. I. Skachkov organized an icon-painting workshop at the Moninskaia prayer house, which brought the community considerable income and whose works were distributed throughout Russia.[26] It is also known that G. I. Skachkov repeatedly attempted to introduce various rites of his own composition, with the help of which he regulated the ritual practice of the community he led. In particular, Skachkov is the author of: The Order of Matrimonial Prayer, The Order of Reception into the Pomorian Church from the Fedoseevtsy and Filippovtsy, The Order of Purification for a Woman Who Has Borne a Child, The Order Sung at the Time of the Joining in Marriage, and others.[27] In the Historical Dictionary of Pavel Liubopytnyi, one of Skachkov’s works is recorded under the title “A Beautiful, Easy, and Convenient Order of Church Confession, Setting Forth the Sins of People According to the Ranks of Popular Calling”[28] (emphasis mine – G. M.). It is quite possible that the manuscript we are examining contains precisely this work by Skachkov.

The ninth question of the confession also corresponds to a provision of the Stoglav. In chapter 43, the married state of the icon painter is permitted as one “joined in lawful marriage”: “For the painter must be humble and meek, reverent, not a gossip nor a jester, not quarrelsome, not a drunkard, not a murderer, but above all preserve purity of soul and body with all caution; and for those who cannot remain so to the end – to marry according to the law and be joined in wedlock, and to come frequently to spiritual fathers for confession.”[29]

Finally, the tenth question of the confession concerns the presumed sale of icons to persons of other confessions, which was evidently severely condemned in Old Believer communities. This issue is not addressed in the Stoglav, but the already-mentioned work of Maximus the Greek contains the following prohibitive passage: “…and to the unfaithful and foreigners, and especially to the impious and pagan Armenians, one must not paint holy icons nor exchange them for silver or gold. For it is written: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs.”[30] Meanwhile, as the established practice of Russian icon painting testifies, Old Believer icons very often found their way into the daily life of Orthodox “Nikonian” believers. Old Believer icon painters frequently fulfilled orders from “Nikonians” according to their “zeal,” which is unambiguously recorded in the text of the ponovlenie to the ninth question of the confession. In various strata of Orthodox society people loved the traditional icon painted by Old Believers according to the old Russian canons, preferring it to the new ecclesiastical painting created according to the rules of “synodal realism.”

The content of the questions and ponovleniia of the confession leads to the following conclusions. The text reflects the established practice, in a particular Old Believer milieu, of the icon painter’s regular repentance before his spiritual father.[31] From the meaning of the questions asked one can clearly see the orientation of the icon painters’ lives toward the strict ideals of three centuries earlier, as reflected in a number of articles of the Stoglav.[32] Copies of the Stoglav are found in abundance in various collections of Old Believer manuscripts, since for Old Believer readers the Stoglav served as a fundamental source on many other issues as well. Moreover, selections of articles from the Stoglav, together with the corresponding words of Maximus the Greek, almost always appear as introductory chapters in the special books of Russian icon painters – namely, in the icon-painting podlinniki (pattern books), which served not only as reference works or practical manuals for the craft, but also as comprehensive guides on the theoretical questions of icon painting. It is highly probable that precisely these introductory chapters of the podlinniki served as the textual sources for the author of the confession. The directives of the Stoglav Council of 1551 concerning icon painting and icon painters retained their effective force even at the beginning of the nineteenth century,[33] because they concentrated not only the main principles of the Orthodox attitude toward the icon and toward icon painters, but also the immutable norms of Christian ethics for the painter.

Footnotes (translated)

[1] Novaya Skrizhal’. Moscow, 1992. Vol. 2. Pp. 367–370. Many aspects of Old Russian penitential discipline were studied in S. Smirnov, The Old Russian Confessor. Moscow, 1913.

[2] Almazov A. Secret Confession in the Orthodox Church: An Essay in External History. Odessa, 1894. Vol. 3. Pp. 170, 171, 174, 185, 207.

[3] For example, in a seventeenth-century text of ponovleniia for monks there is the insertion: “To scribes: I have sinned, when copying the holy divine writings of the holy apostles and holy fathers according to my own will and my own misunderstanding, and not as it is written.” See Almazov A. Secret Confession… Vol. 1. P. 368.

[4] In the text of the Order of Confession from a seventeenth-century Trebnik the priest says the following words to the penitent: “Behold, child, now you desire to be renewed (emphasis mine – G.M.) by this holy repentance” (Trebnik. Moscow, 1625. Leaf 162). The text “Skete Repentance,” very common among eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Old Believer manuscripts, is essentially a text of such a general ponovlenie intended for reading at home or in a cell without the participation of a priest or spiritual father.

[5] In V. G. Druzhinin’s index are noted “The Priestless Order of Confession” and “The Vygoresky Rule on Confession” (“Spiritual fathers should properly ask at confession: First, does anyone have hidden silver, money, etc. …”), see Druzhinin V. G. Writings of the Russian Old Believers. St. Petersburg, 1912. P. 462, No. 846; p. 453, No. 804.

[6] Malyshev V. I. Old Russian Manuscripts of the Pushkin House: Survey of Collections. Moscow; Leningrad, 1965. P. 144.

[7] See the description by A. S. Demin in the inventory card of the I. A. Smirnov collection in the Pushkin House Ancient Repository. The manuscript has no self-designation.

[8] In church and monastic Obikhods there are special “rules” concerning the kissing of icons. For example, in a Pomorian manuscript copy of the obikhods of the Kirillo-Belozersk and Trinity-Sergius monasteries made by F. P. Babushkin, it is said that the brethren, following the hegumen, kiss the icon lying on the analoy “…the image of the Savior on the foot, the Not-Made-by-Hands Image of the Savior on the hair, the image of the Most Holy Theotokos on the hand, and the image of the saint on the hand” (BAN, Druzhinin collection, No. 327, leaf 89 ob.). The custom of kissing icons on various occasions is reflected in the proverb “First kiss the icon, then father and mother, and then bread and salt.” In the Stoglav the kissing of icons is noted in article 38: “Worst of all is to kiss the life-giving cross falsely or the icon of the Most Holy Theotokos or the image of any other saint,” see Stoglav. Edition of D. E. Kozhanchikov. St. Petersburg, 1863. P. 121.

[9] Cf. the question in the Order of Confession: “Have you not blasphemed the craft of icon painting and mocked it?” (from a late-nineteenth-century manuscript of the Ancient Repository, Ust-Tsilemskoe collection, No. 18, leaf 150).

[10] Cf. the question in a nineteenth-century Pomorian Order of Confession: “…did you not call icon images gods?” (from a manuscript of the Ancient Repository, Latgalskoe collection, No. 452, leaf 118 ob.). The prohibition against swearing oaths before icons is connected with the same principle.

[11] Stoglav. P. 150.

[12] Ibid. Pp. 151, 297.

[13] With this question corresponds a text found in monastic penitential texts: “I looked upon holy icons with unseemly thoughts,” see Almazov A. Secret Confession… Vol. 1. P. 215.

[14] Stoglav. P. 42.

[15] Ibid. P. 128.

[16] Ibid. P. 151.

[17] Ibid. Pp. 152–153.

[18] Ibid. P. 310.

[19] Philosophy of Russian Religious Art: Anthology. Moscow, 1993. P. 48. Cf. Tarasov O. Yu. The Icon and Piety: Essays on Icon Affairs in Imperial Russia. Moscow, 1995. Pp. 138–139.

[20] Ivanov A. I. The Literary Heritage of Maximus the Greek. Leningrad, 1969. P. 119, note 56.

[21] Stoglav. P. 152.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid. P. 154.

[24] Ibid. P. 95.

[25] In the priestless Fedoseevtsy communities icon painters could only be celibates, and their status was almost equal to that of the superior. See Tarasov O. Yu. The Icon and Piety… P. 134.

[26] Old Belief: An Encyclopedic Dictionary. Moscow, 1996. P. 260.

[27] A list of G. I. Skachkov’s works is found in Liubopytnyi P. Historical Dictionary and Catalogue of the Library of the Old-Believer Church. Moscow, 1866. Pp. 91–96; Druzhinin V. G. Writings of the Russian Old Believers. St. Petersburg, 1912. Pp. 251–255. The Order of Confession is not mentioned among Skachkov’s works there.

[28] Liubopytnyi P. Historical Dictionary. P. 94, No. 268.

[29] Stoglav. P. 150.

[30] Philosophy of Russian Religious Art. P. 48.

[31] On the necessity of systematic repentance for icon painters the Stoglav says: “…to come frequently to spiritual fathers for confession and to be instructed in everything, and according to their admonition and teaching to abide in fasting and prayer, without any scandal or disorder,” see Stoglav. P. 150.

[32] “The moral code for icon painters was, as a rule, taken from chapter 43 of the Stoglav and reinforced by reference to the written Kormchaia, whose chapter ‘Tale of Icon Painters, How They Ought to Be’ was an extract from Isidore of Pelusium. Their connection is undoubted, since the Kormchaia, as is known, was compiled by Macarius on the eve of the Stoglav Council,” see Tarasov O. Yu. The Icon and Piety. P. 132.

[33] It is characteristic that even at the beginning of the twentieth century “not only the medieval artistic language of the icon was revived, but also the medieval moral-religious model of the icon painter. The orientation toward the Stoglav was clearly sounded at the opening of the (icon-painting) school in Palekh…,” whose students were to be prepared for entry into the training workshop “in accordance with the teaching of the Stoglav,” see Tarasov O. Yu. The Icon and Piety… P. 281.