Bloody Dispute. The State Church Persecuted Old Believers More Zealously Than the State Itself
In the Tretyakov Gallery, one cannot miss the enormous painting by Vasily Perov, Nikita Pustosvyat. Dispute on Faith. At the center of the composition is a figure that evokes little sympathy: an elder with a frenzied, crazed expression—Nikita Dobrynin, an Old Believer priest. This is a caricatured, biased portrayal. The term “Pustosvyat” (meaning “false saint”) was a derogatory label given to him by the adherents of the new rites. Destroying a person by branding them with a humiliating epithet is an age-old tradition. At the Church Council of 1666–1667, 350 years ago, Nikita Dobrynin was anathematized.
Yet, to a sympathetic researcher, Dobrynin emerges as a brilliant thinker, the author of remarkable polemical texts, a well-read cleric with a peaceful disposition. At least, this is how Old Believer historian Fyodor Melnikov described him.
As for the artist Perov, he likely harbored no specific animosity toward the Old Believers, as he also depicted officials of the official Church in a caricatured manner, as seen in Rural Easter Procession. Similarly, Vasily Surikov’s Boyarynya Morozova contributes to a misunderstanding of Old Belief. This great work of art portrays Morozova as a fanatic. However, prominent scholar of Russian antiquity Alexander Panchenko noted that Morozova possessed a profound spiritual depth. Both Dispute on Faith and Boyarynya Morozova perpetuate the misconception that Old Believers were stubborn defenders of minor ritual details.
The Beginning of a Sorrowful Path
Dobrynin’s date of birth is unknown. However, it is documented that during the patriarchate of Joseph (1642–1652), Dobrynin, already a priest, was engaged in editing liturgical books alongside notable clerics such as Avvakum Petrov, Stefan Vonifatyev, and others.
His primary role was serving at the Nativity of the Virgin Church in Suzdal. His relationship with the Suzdal archbishop Stefan was strained, as Dobrynin considered Stefan not only a state criminal but also a heretic. Patriarch Nikon’s reforms, supported by most bishops, were already taking shape, and Dobrynin opposed them, maintaining a critical stance toward the church hierarchy. He reported to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich that Stefan, while officiating in church during the “Trisagion,” held the cross in his left hand instead of his right, as if disregarding the symbol of Christian salvation. Unsatisfied with this, Dobrynin publicly condemned the archbishop in church, causing confusion among the congregation.
This protest cost him dearly: he was stripped of his priestly duties. Nevertheless, he continued his struggle, submitting a new petition to the authorities listing Stefan’s transgressions.
Dobrynin’s petitions were not in vain. At the Church Council of 1660, Stefan’s case was reviewed, and he sought forgiveness from the council members. The council exiled the hierarch to a monastery under the supervision of a “good elder” (monasteries often served as prisons). However, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich came to Stefan’s defense. To deflect blame, Dobrynin was accused and sent to a secular court “for false accusations,” as his detractors claimed. The council also excommunicated Dobrynin from the Church.
Six years later, the excommunicated Dobrynin appealed to Alexei Mikhailovich: “I, your supplicant, cannot serve the liturgy and am deprived of the divine sacraments… I am perishing, and all these years I have feared the hour of death. Command, Sovereign, the holy hierarchs to absolve my soul.”
From 1660 to 1665, he likely lived in Suzdal, reflecting on the church reforms with which he still disagreed, occasionally traveling to Moscow to preach his ideas. In Suzdal, such preaching was hardly necessary, as the local population was inclined toward tradition.
Dobrynin continued writing petitions in response to Nikon’s reforms. Each was carefully thought out, reviewed by like-minded individuals, and revised. His “Great” petition, spanning 178 pages, contained a particularly impassioned appeal: “Great Sovereign… command a conciliar judgment to determine what we should follow… or the newly introduced and deceitful Nikonite book, compiled by the known thief and enemy of Christ, Arseny the monk (Arseny Sukhanov, one of Nikon’s assistants. – NGR).”
In 1878, Professor Nikolai Subbotin published this petition, allowing insight into its qualities. It is compelling in its apologetic approach. The style is clear, accessible, relatively light, and even flexible. Despite its emotional intensity, it contains no abusive language. The author analyzes facts, favoring logically sound arguments. The petition, which expounded the Old Believers’ teachings, was written over seven years.
Meanwhile, a new church council approached. In his petition, Dobrynin expressed readiness to accept the council’s decisions, striving for church unity and leaning toward a reasonable compromise. He awaited the council, hoping it would resolve his doubts about the new liturgical books.
However, his petition led to his arrest in late 1665 or early 1666. In February 1666, the council convened. This was a significant year in the spiritual life of Russia and Europe, marked by apocalyptic expectations. In a sense, these fears came true—not for all humanity, but for the Russian Old Believers, whose hopes were shattered, marking the beginning of harsh persecutions and suffering.
On May 10, after a two-day investigation, the council stripped Dobrynin of his rank and anathematized him. Interrogations and exhortations preceded this, but despite threats, he did not waver, transforming from a peaceful preacher into a fervent advocate of tradition.
The Church Council disappointed not only Dobrynin. Its decisions were draconian: Old Believers faced curses and anathemas, paving the way for a church schism. Opponents of the council’s rulings faced brutal punishments: cutting off ears, noses, and tongues, severing hands, whipping with ox sinews, and imprisonment. Truly sadistic measures!
The council condemned Dobrynin’s “Great” petition. The rebuttal, titled The Staff of Governance, was authored by Simeon Polotsky, a participant in Nikon’s “innovations.” In 1667, The Staff was published. The text focused less on the practical concerns of the Old Believers and more on dialectical subtleties. By then, Dobrynin was already confined in the Ugresha Monastery near Moscow, where the fiery protopriest Avvakum was also exiled. Metropolitan Paisius Ligarides of Gaza (Jerusalem Patriarchate) also attempted to denounce Dobrynin, but his work remained unpublished.
Some sources claim that on June 21, 1666, Dobrynin expressed “heartfelt contrition,” and the council, continuing its work, ordered him to repent publicly in crowded places in Moscow, promising forgiveness.
It is believed that on April 21, 1667, unwilling to “perish outside the fold of Christ,” he returned to the Church’s bosom. However, his priestly rank was not restored.
In the 1670s, the church authorities again subjected Dobrynin to “reprimands,” highlighting the turbulent nature of his life. This was a time of great change. In 1679, his opponent, Archbishop Stefan, was also stripped of his rank.
A Dispute Costing a Life
Convinced that the people opposed Patriarch Nikon, Dobrynin set his sights on public debates about faith, confident in his ability to prevail. He particularly relied on the support of the streltsy (musketeers) and their commander, Ivan Khovansky, who favored tradition.
The opportunity for debate arose in 1682, after the death of Tsar Fyodor Alexeyevich, when hopes emerged that the new, underage rulers, Ivan and Peter, might be more pliable. Yet, the times were troubled. The Solovetsky monks’ rebellion against Nikon had been crushed, Feodosia Morozova and Evdokia Urusova had been tortured to death, and Bishop Paul of Kolomna, Protopriest Avvakum, and other defenders of tradition had been executed. In the eyes of the Old Believers, two figures now stood out: Khovansky and Dobrynin.
Dobrynin proposed the idea of a new council. By then in his sixties, he had extensive experience in debates and defending his views.
On the morning of April 23, a group of Old Believers led by Dobrynin, holding a cross, approached Khovansky. They stopped at the “red” porch and were received. Dobrynin handed Khovansky a petition addressed to the yet-to-be-crowned Ivan and Peter, as well as Patriarch Joachim (Savelov). It contained a request—almost a demand—for a council to hold public debates on faith.
Knowing that Dobrynin had crowds of supporters behind him, the patriarch feared the debates, lacking confidence in his position. He persuaded the tsars to postpone the discussions until Wednesday, June 28. However, a coronation was scheduled for Sunday, and Dobrynin insisted that the ceremony follow the old liturgical books. Khovansky promised to secure this.
On Sunday, having prepared seven prosphora—the number used by Old Believers for the liturgy—Dobrynin arrived at the cathedral where the coronation was to take place but was denied entry. Khovansky seemed to have vanished. According to Old Believer accounts, through the patriarch’s “deceptions” and cunning, some of the streltsy began to doubt the old ways, leading to a “great dispute” among them. Though Khovansky betrayed Dobrynin before the coronation, he continued to support him afterward. Nevertheless, due to this “dispute,” the council did not convene on June 28.
Meanwhile, Dobrynin preached: “Stand firm, Orthodox people, for the true faith…” Preparations for the debates continued, with Red Square designated as the gathering point for the Old Believers. The only question remaining was where to hold the council. The Old Believers proposed the Kremlin square near the Dormition Cathedral. Khovansky also requested a public debate in the square. However, the patriarch resisted, knowing it would be easier to control the outcome in private chambers.
On July 5, the proceedings began with a service in the Kremlin’s Dormition Cathedral. The service was deliberately prolonged, as the patriarch hoped some of the crowd gathered outside would disperse. To the Old Believers’ dismay, the patriarch, leveraging all available administrative resources, achieved his goal: the debates were scheduled to take place in the Faceted Chamber. Moreover, on Joachim’s orders, texts denouncing Dobrynin were distributed.
The Faceted Chamber was opened. The Old Believers who entered set up their lecterns, holding lit candles in their hands.
The council began under the oversight of Tsarevna Sophia, who would later rule as regent. The patriarch spoke first, attempting to argue that the architects of the church reform had introduced nothing of their own. The hierarchs mostly remained silent. Dobrynin’s speech, “on the correction of the Orthodox faith, so that the Church of God might be in peace and unity, not in discord and turmoil,” stunned many. The patriarch, unable to counter his arguments, resorted to calling Dobrynin a “Pustosvyat” (false saint).
Meanwhile, the Old Believers grew increasingly emboldened. Their petition, detailing errors in the new liturgical books, was read aloud. Tsarevna Sophia interrupted the reader with critical remarks. The Old Believers did not stay silent. The issue of the two-fingered sign of the cross sparked particular fervor. Raising their hands with two fingers extended, the Old Believers, as if on cue, shouted, “Thus, thus, so, so…” Sophia, the patriarch, and all opponents of the Old Believers were stunned. Archbishop Afanasy (Lyubimov) was particularly shaken—Perov depicted him sitting on the floor. This moment of the debate is captured in the artist’s painting.
As evening fell, the council was adjourned, with plans to resume on July 7. Amid the ringing of bells, the Old Believers left the Kremlin chambers, almost triumphant.
However, having secured the support of the streltsy through bribery and intoxication, the authorities did not continue the debates. Instead, Dobrynin was seized and imprisoned at the Lykov Yard. On July 11, he was brought to Red Square, where he was declared a state criminal and, at two in the afternoon, beheaded. His remains were thrown to the dogs. The patriarch advocated for these brutal measures. Khovansky was also executed.
The Successors of Patriarch Joachim
The executions and persecutions of Old Believers did not end in 1682. The reasons to recall Feodosia Morozova’s words grew: “Is this Christianity, to torment a person so?” In their persecution of Old Believers, the official clergy surpassed the state in persistence, malice, and intransigence. Archival materials provide ample evidence of this. The history of these persecutions spanned several centuries.
In 1840, Bishop Anatoly (Martynovsky) of the Synodal Church wrote: “Here (in the Yekaterinburg district – NGR), the police, at our request, managed to seize… a schismatic,” as if apprehending a dangerous criminal. However, the police were more restrained than the clergy. “The Kyshtym schismatics slip through thanks to the local official, who protects them,” lamented the next Yekaterinburg vicar.
“The official is a patron of schism. Oh, these officials!” fumed Archbishop Arkady (Fedorov) of Perm under Nicholas I. On another occasion, he criticized the governor and his subordinates: “Oh, local secular authorities! It’s time they understood the value of service to the Fatherland”—by “service,” he meant cruelty toward Old Believers.
Remarkable intolerance toward defenders of tradition was also shown by Arkady’s successor, Archbishop Neofit (Sosnin), contradicting the benevolent image of him portrayed by Leskov in Trifles of Episcopal Life. In 1862, when the case of the arrested Old Believer bishop Gennady (Belyaev) was transferred to the Yekaterinburg district court, Sosnin was outraged: “What will the court do? It will treat him as a fugitive schismatic, subject him to admonishment, and send him back to his former residence… It will be impossible to resolve the matter if the guilty escapes…” Through the efforts of figures like Sosnin, the Old Believer bishop did not regain his freedom, ending up in a Suzdal prison, where they intended to let him perish.
The dispute over faith continued—not with words, but with the sword, as it had begun. The cruelty of the persecutions left many historians aghast. Today, many are beginning to reflect on the need for repentance for these atrocities, akin to the repentance offered for the Inquisition and other dark chapters of the past, which Roman pontiffs continue to acknowledge.
About the Author: Valery Viktorovich Vyatkin is a Candidate of Historical Sciences and a member of the Russian Writers’ Union.