History of Old Belief

INTRODUCTION

Before proceeding to the study of the history of Old Belief, it is necessary to say a few words about what Old Belief actually is.

Having accepted the Christian Orthodox faith from the Greeks in 988 under Prince Vladimir the Saint, the Russians faithfully and inviolably preserved it until the 17th century and came to regard it as their inviolable national shrine.

During this same period, however, the Greeks, under the influence of various political circumstances, gradually introduced numerous innovations into their rites that differed greatly from the ancient ones.

In the 17th century, Patriarch Nikon and the Russian government, for political reasons, adopted all the innovations that had accumulated among the Greeks without subjecting them to critical evaluation or verification. This provoked a powerful reaction in Russia, and from that time the Russian Orthodox Church split into two hostile camps: the Old Believers and the New Ritualists.

The New Ritualists (“Orthodox” in the official sense) are the followers of Patriarch Nikon who accepted his reforms, carried out according to contemporary Greek models, as correct and who rejected the ancient Russian rites and the ancient church governance. Nikon was joined by the higher clergy, which was dependent on the patriarch and the government, as well as by the ruling class. Over time, the New Ritualist Church, relying on autocratic power, moved ever further away from Russian antiquity, and after the Russian Revolution it splintered into numerous small churches hostile to one another.

The Old Believers (also called “Old Ritualists”) are those people who remained faithful to Russian ecclesiastical antiquity, who recognised no innovations, and who wished to preserve their native ancient faith in the future as well. Its defenders turned out to be that portion of the Russian clergy and higher class which placed the interests of the faith above personal interests, as well as the entire Russian people. Despite all the terrible persecutions and oppressions to which the Old Believers were subjected for 250 years, Old Belief did not die out and scarcely diminished in numbers. Driven underground by the government and the New Ritualists, it at first split into many separate concordances and groupings, but once it obtained freedom it rapidly began to move toward unification and the creation of a single Old Believer Church that sacredly preserves the precepts of native antiquity. In recent times certain attempts at reconciliation have been noticeable on the part of the New Ritualists, but these cannot be regarded as sincere so long as the anathemas of the councils remain in force. The New Ritualists, however, do not wish to lift those anathemas for political reasons.

Old Belief has had to travel a sorrowful path. Oppressed and persecuted, driven into hiding and terrorized, Old Belief neither dared nor was able to speak anything in its own defense. The false view imposed by everyone – the view of the Synodal historians that Old Belief originated as the fruit of the ignorance of its first teachers – remained dominant for entire centuries and, unfortunately, has not disappeared even to the present day. Only the works of scholars in recent times have begun to reveal the complete incorrectness and falsity of this view, and little by little the truth is beginning to rise again.

The entire history of Old Belief must be divided into several periods:

I. The period of “struggle” – from 1652–1667: from the beginning of Nikon’s patriarchate until the council that imposed anathemas on the old rites.
II. The “martyrdom” period – from 1667–1762: the period of the most intense persecutions.
III. From 1762–1823: the period of relaxations and the legalisation of Old Belief.
IV. From 1823–1862 (the text says 1823–1826, which appears to be a printing error): the second period of persecutions and the destruction of Old Believer monasteries.
V. From 1862–1904: the second period of certain relaxations.
VI. 1904–1917: the period of liberation.
VII. From 1917 to the present day: the period of full freedom of confession and the equality of Old Believers with other religions abroad, and the struggle against the godless in Russia.

Such are the principal stages of the long and difficult path of Old Belief.

Now, after a centuries-long slumber, Old Belief is beginning to awaken and to take an interest both in the new life that surrounds it and in those ideals for which it fought.

Until now only one of the contending parties has spoken; now the time has come when the second party also begins to speak and to sum up the results.

HISTORY OF OLD BELIEF

Chapter I. Moscow – the Third Rome

Having accepted the Christian faith from Byzantium in 988 under the Kiev prince Vladimir the Saint, the Russians at the same time received from the Greeks the entire order of church worship, customs and rites, as well as church governance.

The first metropolitans in Rus’ were Greeks, but later Russian ones began to appear more and more frequently. Even so, they still travelled to the Patriarch of Constantinople for their consecration, since the entire Russian Church fell within his jurisdiction. Therefore the Greeks regarded the Russian Church not as independent, but as subordinate to themselves.

Thus Patriarch Photius, after the baptism of Prince Vladimir, wrote: “The so-called Russes have now exchanged the Hellenic and impious teaching which they formerly held for the pure and unadulterated Christian faith, lovingly placing themselves in the rank of subjects and friends.”

This view of the Russians as subjects of the Greeks persisted for a very long time. Even in the 14th century Greek emperors included the title “Tsar of the Russians” in their own titulature, and Patriarch Philotheos of Constantinople wrote to the Russian princes: “God has set our Moderation as the leader of all Christians throughout the universe, as the guardian and keeper of their souls; therefore all depend on me as on a common father and teacher.”

Thus it is perfectly clear that the Patriarch of Constantinople considered himself the sole head of the Russian Church.

Meanwhile, although the Russians continued to maintain relations with the Greeks, over time these contacts became ever rarer and more difficult. The internecine wars of the princes, the raids of the nomads, the transfer of Rus’’ centre from Kiev to the more distant north, the Tatar devastation and yoke – none of this could favour lively communication with the Greeks. Hard times had come upon Rus’, and it seemed the country was approaching its end, for the Tatars were ravaging the conquered land with great violence. Moreover, the Russian princes did not cease their disputes and internecine strife.

Only the clergy, in that era, remained at the height of its calling: it sustained the national spirit among the people and saved the remnants of Russian national culture. Monasteries became centres of enlightenment. The faith, carefully preserved and handed down from generation to generation, was the small flame that sustained the self-awareness of the popular masses. Moreover, even after accepting Islam, the Tatars themselves treated the Russian faith with tolerance.

Little by little, among the numerous Russian appanage principalities, the Principality of Moscow began to rise. Its elevation – thanks to the strong support of the clergy – began under Ivan Kalita. Particular mention must be made of the activity of the holy Metropolitans Peter and Alexis. Moscow began to flourish and grow so strong that it started to fight the Tatars and, finally, under Grand Prince Ivan III, cast off the hateful Tatar yoke, freeing the Russian land from the oppression of the infidels.

But even before that time Russian princes had begun to regard themselves as the sole defenders of the Orthodox faith, because Byzantium, pressed by the Turks, was already beginning to fall.

In order to escape the Turks and obtain help from the West, the Greeks concluded a union with the Pope at the Council of Florence in 1439. The Russian representative at that council was Metropolitan Isidore of Moscow (accompanied by Bishop Simeon of Suzdal’), who also accepted the union; upon his return to Moscow he was condemned and deprived of his see.

The Greeks’ conclusion of the union produced the most negative impression upon the Russians, who began to look upon the Greeks as apostates. “Rejoice, Orthodox Prince Vasily, adorned with all the crowns of the Greek Orthodox faith,” wrote Bishop Simeon in his Tale of the Eighth Council. “There, in the Greek lands, evil began with the Greek Emperor John, the silver-loving Greeks and their metropolitans. Here, however, the Russian land has been confirmed in Orthodoxy by the Christ-loving Grand Prince Vasily Vasilyevich.”

From 1448 Russian metropolitans ceased travelling to Constantinople for consecration by the patriarch; instead they were appointed by a council of Russian hierarchs.

In 1453 Byzantium fell – an event which, as the Russians of the time explained, God had permitted because of her apostasy from the faith. Soon afterwards Grand Prince Ivan III married Sophia, the niece of the last Greek emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos. Sophia had been accustomed to the luxury and splendour of the Byzantine imperial court. Arriving in Moscow, she tried to introduce the same customs there. Undoubtedly under her influence Ivan resolved to fight the Tatars, and in 1480 succeeded in throwing off their yoke. Moscow became a strong, independent state. The Grand Prince surrounded himself with a splendid court; the former simplicity and accessibility of the ruler disappeared. The Grand Prince adopted a new view of the loftiness of his authority and began to regard himself as an autocrat and as the only Orthodox sovereign in the entire East, the protector of Orthodoxy, whose centre was now Moscow. Ivan III adopted the Byzantine coat of arms – the double-headed eagle – to show that he was the heir and successor of the Greek emperors. Attempts were made to obtain the imperial title, though this was achieved only by Ivan IV.

To confirm the important mission of Rus’ as the centre of Orthodoxy and of its sovereigns as defenders of the true faith, a whole series of tales appeared in Rus’ at that time. The chief ones were:
1) The Tale of the White Cowl,
2) The Tale of the Babylonian Kingdom,
3) The Tale of the Vladimir Princes, and
4) The Epistle of Spiridon-Savva.

In The Tale of the White Cowl it is related that Emperor Constantine the Great, out of reverence, presented Pope Sylvester with a white cowl that symbolised true Orthodoxy, its purity and holiness. The cowl remained with the popes as long as they held the true faith; but when they began to fall into heresy, they developed an aversion to the white cowl. Finally Pope Formosus, who had fallen into the Apollinarian heresy, sent the cowl to distant lands. It was brought to Constantinople to Patriarch Philotheos. An angel appeared to the patriarch in a dream and commanded him to send the cowl to Rus’, to Novgorod: “For there now the faith of Christ is truly glorified.” The patriarch hesitated, but Constantine the Great and Pope Sylvester appeared to him in a dream. Sylvester said: “Just as grace, glory and the honour of Orthodoxy were taken away from Rome, so too shall the grace of the Holy Spirit be taken from the imperial city into the captivity of the Hagarenes, and all holy things will be given by God to the great Russian land in due season; the Lord will exalt the Russian tsar above many nations, and many kings of foreign tongues will be under his authority. The patriarchal rank will likewise be given from this imperial city (Constantinople) to the Russian land in due season. Old Rome fell away from the glory and from the faith of Christ through pride and its own will; in the new Rome, which is Constantinople, the Christian faith will likewise perish through the violence of the Hagarenes; but in the third Rome, which is in the Russian land, the grace of the Holy Spirit will shine forth. And know, Philotheos, that all Christian kingdoms will come to an end and will converge into the single kingdom of Russia, for the sake of Orthodoxy…”

The same idea – that Rus’ is chosen by God and that only here is the true faith preserved – runs through the other tales as well. But its fullest expression is found in the letters of the Pskov monk Philotheos, who lived in the 16th century.

In a letter to Grand Prince Vasily Ivanovich he wrote: “Let your sovereignty know, most pious Tsar, that all the kingdoms of Orthodox Christian faith have converged into your single kingdom; you alone under heaven are called the most holy and pious tsar of Christians.”

And in his letter to Munechin he says: “We shall utter a few words concerning the most luminous and most exalted sovereignty of our sovereign, the only tsar of Christians in the whole universe, the holder of the bridle of the holy thrones of God’s holy universal apostolic church – the church that stands in the God-saved city of Moscow, of the most holy and glorious Dormition of the most pure Theotokos, which shines in the universe more brightly than the sun. Know, lover of Christ and lover of God, that all Christian kingdoms have come to an end and have converged into the single kingdom of our sovereign, in accordance with the prophetic books – that is, into the Russian kingdom: two Romes have fallen, the third stands, and there will not be a fourth.”

Thus the idea was finally worked out that the first Rome had fallen because of its deviation into the heresy of Apollinarius; the second Rome – Constantinople – had fallen because of its betrayal of Orthodoxy at the Eighth (Florentine) Council; the third Rome – Moscow – stands, and in it reigns the true faith. If Moscow too betrays it, then the Second Coming will follow.

This idea gained wide currency and became ever more firmly rooted in the people’s consciousness – a process further assisted by the establishment of the patriarchate in Rus’.

It reached its apogee at the time of Patriarch Nikon’s patriarchate, when, after the devastation of the Time of Troubles, Rus’ revived and flourished once more. The idea of “Moscow – the Third Rome” became even more firmly established, but it also began to split in two. While the Tsar and Patriarch Nikon saw in it the necessity of uniting the entire East around the Third Rome by changing everything Russian to the Eastern (Greek) pattern, the defenders of Russian antiquity – the founders of Old Belief – saw in this a betrayal of everything Russian, which would bring about the downfall of the Third Rome. They regarded the Russian Orthodox Church as the only correct one, confessing the true faith. They applied all their efforts to maintain it at the proper height and to prevent the penetration into it of the new Greek rites.

Chapter II. The Greeks

As early as 1054, the Church finally split into the Western – “Catholic” – under the authority of the Pope with its centre in the city of Rome, and the Eastern – “Orthodox” – with its centre in the city of Constantinople, under the protection of the Byzantine (Greek) emperors.

From that time a deep enmity began between Greek Orthodoxy and “Latin” Catholicism.

This enmity was transferred to Rus’ as well, where the Greeks instilled in the Russians not only hatred toward Catholicism, but toward everything Western in general. Having adopted this point of view, the Russians began to look with horror and apprehension at everything coming from the West, especially in matters of faith.

Meanwhile, the once splendid and mighty Byzantium, under pressure from Arabs, Slavs, Crusaders and others, gradually began to decline and finally perished completely under the blows of the Turks (1453).

As early as the 7th century the onslaught of the Muslims against Byzantium had begun. First the Arabs, then the Turks, seized the entire south of the empire. Soon all of Palestine, which had also been part of the empire, passed into their hands. Jerusalem, with all the holy places dear to every Christian, found itself in the hands of the infidel Muslims. Since the Greeks were powerless to fight the Muslims on their own, beginning in 1095 expeditions known as the “Crusades” were organised from the West to rescue the Lord’s Tomb. The warriors who took part in them were called Crusaders. The first crusades passed through Constantinople; the East was flooded with Catholic preachers. In 1099 the Crusaders captured Jerusalem and founded the Kingdom of Jerusalem there, giving full scope to the preaching of the Catholic clergy, which treated the Orthodox clergy with intolerance. In 1187 Jerusalem was recaptured by the Arabs, and new crusades were gathered in the West to rescue it. One of these ended with the conquest not of Jerusalem, but of Constantinople together with the whole of Byzantium; the Latin Empire was founded, which lasted from 1204 to 1261. A Catholic patriarch was appointed in Constantinople, Orthodox churches were closed and destroyed, and the people were forcibly converted to Catholicism. Union was planted everywhere.

When the Crusaders were driven out in 1261, Byzantium’s situation did not improve, for the Turks again began pressing the Greeks. Greek strength was exhausted, and the state was rapidly heading for ruin. The cultural level fell sharply, and education declined. There were very few schools, and teaching in them was extremely poor. Everything had to be borrowed from the West or studied in Latin schools, where renunciation of Orthodoxy and conversion to Latinism were an obligatory condition.

“You will have everything,” wrote Metropolitan Bessarion in his instructions to Sophia Palaiologina, “if you imitate the Latins; otherwise you will receive nothing.” And indeed, they imitated them in many things. Brought up in foreign schools, Greek youth easily absorbed various Latin and Protestant ideas; returning home, as people with higher education, they took posts as teachers, priests and bishops. The views they had acquired at school they now put into practice in Greece itself, introducing all sorts of novelties and changes both in daily life and in the Church.

Even Greek books themselves suffered serious corruption because the Greeks, having no opportunity to set up printing presses of their own, printed books abroad – mainly in Venice – where various Latin innovations were often inserted into Greek books. Books printed at the Greek college were subject to Jesuit censorship, and the Jesuits corrected them at their own discretion. The Greek Metropolitan Theophanes spoke thus about Greek books: “The Papists and Lutherans have Greek printing presses and daily print theological books of the Holy Fathers, and in those books they insert deadly poison – their own foul heresy.”

At the beginning of the 15th century, no longer hoping in their own strength, the Greek Emperor John Palaiologos went to the Pope to ask for help against the Turks. To win the Pope’s favour, he accepted Catholicism. On 6 July 1439, at the Council of Florence, the conclusion of a union with the Greeks and the union of the churches was proclaimed. The conclusion of this union dealt a heavy blow to the Greeks’ authority in Rus’, where they began to be regarded as traitors and money-lovers who had sold their faith for gold. The subsequent fall of Constantinople on 29 May 1453 was seen by the Russians as God’s punishment for betraying Orthodoxy. The position of the Greeks under Turkish rule was very difficult: the Turks began to oppress and persecute Christians severely, and the Greek clergy also became greatly impoverished, since the aid formerly provided by the Greek emperors had ceased. Naturally the Greeks began to look for new sources of income, and their gaze turned northward to the only Orthodox state left – Moscow.

After the Florentine Union and the fall of Constantinople, however, the Russians began to organise their own church independently and to manage their internal life without reference to the Greeks, among whom new rites had appeared – three-fingered crossing, the triple Alleluia, and others. Even among the Greeks themselves voices began to be heard accusing them of unorthodoxy. All this could not help but lower the Greeks’ authority in Rus’. Moreover, most of the Greeks who came to Rus’ turned out to be adventurers and swindlers who came only for easy gain. More and more often they were accused of Latinism and placed under supervision for correction; the same was done with people from Kiev and Belarus.

The Russians were also repelled by the extreme carelessness in divine services and the complete lack of reverence for holy things. When Jerusalem Patriarch Theophanes visited in 1620, there was even a clash between the Russian and Greek clergy because the Greeks, entering the church, placed their service books, vestments and sticharia straight on the altar. After this incident the patriarch asked the Russians: “Show us according to your custom how things are done here; I am glad to serve,” and thereafter he tried to perform everything in the Russian manner.

In one of his letters the patriarch admitted: “You have enlightened me by your piety and watered the thirsty land with the water of your pious teaching, and for that I bow low to you many times.”

The Greeks who came to Moscow often displayed no high qualities and frequently showed their greed. “Money-loving Greeks, under the cover of piety, wander needlessly about our lands and commit acts contrary to the holy canons, whereby good church order is undermined. They turn every holy thing into merchandise… and are ready to sell Christ to us a thousand times, whereas Judas sold Him only once. For money they permit every kind of marriage and allow one husband to change five or six wives, sending the old ones to a monastery. For money they absolve people of their sins without confession or repentance; they give absolving letters to whoever pays, and thus send the soul straight to hell. For money they sell their chrism. For money they wander about, invent excuses for begging and ask for alms.” Thus wrote the Serb Juraj Križanić, who lived in Rus’ at the beginning of the 17th century. He also relates how a certain Greek impostor, Sophronius, forced him to forge a letter purporting to come from the Patriarch of Constantinople.

An interesting testimony is also given by Paul, archdeacon of Aleppo. He tells of Jerusalem Patriarch Paisius, who arrived in Moscow with a huge retinue. At first this retinue numbered about thirty-five persons, but the patriarch later added all sorts of riff-raff to his companions and listed them as priests, archimandrites and clerics of various monasteries – all so as to receive more alms, for he took for himself all the donations that were given to his companions and their monasteries. Merchants too were fleeced in the same way.

Thus not only ordinary Greeks, but even very high-ranking ones were distinguished neither by their behaviour nor by their morality, as is reported, for example, in the “denunciation of Deacon Gabriel.”

All this could not help but destroy the former high authority of the Greeks; among the Russians a sharply negative attitude was formed toward everything that came from the Greeks.

Moreover, the Greek patriarchs themselves spoke with great praise of Russian piety and condemned their own Greek practice. Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople said: “The great Russian realm, the Third Rome, has surpassed all in piety; all the pious realms have been gathered into your single realm, and you alone under heaven are called Christian tsar (Theodore Ivanovich) among all Christians in the whole universe…” Patriarch Theophanes of Jerusalem, addressing the tsar, said: “I have seen in the east and in the south the desolation of God’s holy churches and the great violence and destruction suffered by Orthodox Christians of the holy Greek law, and there is no consolation from anywhere except the report of a pious Christian tsar, for you alone in the whole world are the sovereign and guardian of Christ’s infallible faith.”

A striking opinion about the Greeks is given by the Moscow deacon Arseny Sukhanov, who travelled to the East for books. Addressing the Greeks, he said: “Tell me, whom have you watered from your spring and enlightened with your teaching? One may say that almost all of you have become Muslim, living beside the pagans; your churches have been turned into mosques, and – to put it plainly – one can only just see the trace that Christianity once existed among you and then passed away.”

It was hard for the Greeks to argue against the obvious, yet fearing that the Russians would finally turn away from them completely, they looked for ways to maintain their position in Rus’. Therefore the turmoil that began in Rus’ under Patriarch Nikon played into the Greeks’ hands. By interfering in the affairs of the Russian Church they tried to restore their shaken and fallen authority. Once again the possibility opened up for Russian gold to flow into the bottomless Greek pockets. The only people who stood in their way were the defenders of Russian antiquity; therefore these had to be removed at all costs and all opposition to themselves destroyed. As for the fact that this would condemn thousands of people to execution and torment, the Greeks were indifferent – the Russians were, after all, a foreign people to them.

Chapter III. The Stoglav Council

In the 16th century a momentous event took place in the life of the Russian Church: Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible convened a council for the ordering of church affairs that came to be known as the “Stoglav” (Hundred Chapters) Council.

The conviction that the Greeks had fallen into unorthodoxy, that the “Latin heresy” had penetrated among them, and that only in Moscow was the true faith still preserved had become so firmly rooted in the consciousness of the Russian people that it was decided to hold the council without the Greeks. The Russians no longer needed Greek tutelage or guidance; they did not turn to them for advice or confirmation, but by their own efforts passed resolutions that confirmed all the ancient customs and rites, wishing thereby to protect themselves from Greek innovations. The Stoglav Council was convened in 1551 by Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible at the insistence of Metropolitan Macarius, one of the most remarkable and, for that time, most learned shepherds of the Church.

Metropolitan Macarius (1482–1563) took monastic vows early and spent his entire youth in various monasteries. In 1526, while archimandrite of the Mozhaisk monastery, he was consecrated Archbishop of Novgorod; in 1542 he was elevated to the throne of the Metropolitans of Moscow, where he remained until 1563, earning the respect of both the Tsar and the entire people. Engaging in politics not at all, he devoted all his strength to the Russian Church.

Under Metropolitan Macarius councils were frequently convened at which various questions concerning church organisation, improvements in churches, popular morality were examined, and newly appeared heresies were condemned. At the councils of 1547 and 1549 many Russian saints were canonised.

Under the patronage of Metropolitan Macarius the first Russian printing house was opened in Moscow (in 1563) for printing books according to newly corrected exemplars. The first book printed was the Acts of the Apostles (Apostol) in 1564. The first printers were the deacon Ivan Fyodorov and Pyotr Mstislavets. Soon after Metropolitan Macarius’s death the printing house was destroyed and the first printers fled from Russia.

Metropolitan Macarius wrote many works. Having gathered together all the “books that are read which are found in the Russian land,” he compiled an enormous collection known as the Great Reading-Menaion (Velikie Minei-Chetii), which also included the lives of Russian saints. The lives of the saints were arranged according to the day of their commemoration for every day of every month of the year. To the lives were added separate homilies suited to be read on the saint’s day, as well as entire collections of his words. Descriptions of miracles that occurred after the saint’s repose were also included.

In addition, Metropolitan Macarius is credited with compiling the Consolidated Nomocanon (Kormchaya Kniga) and the Great Book of Rules for Cell and Journey.

Many other works were composed by Metropolitan Macarius; particularly noteworthy among those that have come down to us are his instructions and discourses, distinguished by great simplicity and clarity of thought.

Yet the chief labour of Metropolitan Macarius was the convocation of the Stoglav Council. At the council, which met under the presidency of Metropolitan Macarius, there gathered nine archbishops and bishops, many archimandrites, hegumens, elders and priests. Representatives of the secular authorities were also present.

The council was opened by Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich on 23 February 1551. The Tsar addressed the council with a speech in which he explained its purpose, pointing out that many customs had “become corrupted or had been introduced arbitrarily according to personal whims, or the handed-down laws had been violated, or the work of God’s commandments had been done weakly and negligently,” and therefore the Tsar “requires the counsel of the hierarchs and wishes to deliberate with you in God, to set in order that which is disordered for the good.” He further said that they should “judge according to the rules of the holy apostles and holy fathers and confirm in common agreement together.” Then thirty-seven royal questions were put to the council, to which thirty-two more were later added.

After this the council began to draw up answers, which it completed by the beginning of May of the same year.

All the decisions of the Stoglav Council are recorded in the book Stoglav (from the number of chapters in which the acts of the council are described).

The council’s decrees covered various aspects of church life. Most of them dealt with divine services, which were to be performed in full (ch. 6) according to the Typicon, in an orderly manner and without haste (ch. 16); with the ordination of priests who were “good, skilled, of blameless life” (chs. 6, 77, 81), their age (ch. 25), and the ordination of other church ranks (chs. 8, 86–90); with order in church and at services (chs. 7–16); with the performance of the mysteries – baptism (ch. 17) and marriage (chs. 18–24); with the painting of icons (chs. 27–43); with the copying of books (ch. 28); with the behaviour of priests (chs. 29–30, 34, 83, 96); with various rites – the two-fingered sign of the cross (chs. 31–32), the Alleluia (ch. 42), the consecration of churches (chs. 44, 47), fasting and forbidden foods (chs. 90–91).

Other decrees concerned episcopal courts, their regulation and the elimination of various abuses (chs. 53–68), the non-interference of laymen in trials of clergy (ch. 65), and the proper collection of marriage fees (chs. 46, 48, 69).

Further decrees dealt with monasteries, their properties and the removal of various vices in monasteries (chs. 49, 50, 75–76, 82, 85, 97, 100).

Finally, there were decrees concerning lay people and measures for the eradication of various vices such as drunkenness (chs. 42, 92), games (ch. 92), sorcery (ch. 93), pagan amusements (ch. 41), the prohibition of performances by skomorokhi (buffoons) (chs. 99, 41), etc. (ch. 41).

Decrees were also issued on the establishment of schools (ch. 26), the ransoming of captives (ch. 72), the founding of almshouses (ch. 73), care for the poor (ch. 71), and the like.

Apart from the aforementioned decrees on the two-fingered sign and the double Alleluia, noteworthy is the decree on the reading of the Creed with the inclusion of the words “true and life-giving” (ch. 9). Thus the use of the word “true” raised no doubts and had been employed by all from ancient times. Then, in chapter 31 it is stated that the two-fingered sign is to be used: “and to make the sign of the cross upon oneself with two fingers, as the holy fathers handed down… Likewise it befits all Orthodox Christians to arrange the hand and with two fingers to depict the sign of the cross upon their face and to bow.” Finally, chapter 42, which speaks of the Alleluia: “henceforth all Orthodox Christians are to say the double Alleluia and not to make it triple… it is not fitting to say the holy Alleluia thrice, but twice: Alleluia, Alleluia, and the third time: Glory to Thee, O God.”

Thanks to its decrees, the significance of the Stoglav Council is extraordinarily great, for it compiled a summary of all the ancient Russian customs and rites that the Russians had sacredly preserved and handed down from ancient times. At the same time, at the council the Russians showed that they had matured sufficiently to be independent of the Greeks in church life, to free themselves from their tutelage, and to order their own church independently.

Chapter IV. The Correction of Books

The idea that Moscow was the sole guardian of the pure Orthodox faith, that Moscow was the Third Rome, reached its highest apogee under Tsar Feodor Ivanovich, during whose reign the patriarchate was established in 1589.

The first patriarch was Job (1589–1605), then Hermogen (1606–1612). The patriarchal authority attained its greatest splendour and flowering under Patriarch Philaret (1619–1633), who was the father of Tsar Michael Feodorovich. Since the son was still young and inexperienced, the state was actually governed by Patriarch Philaret, who was styled “Great Sovereign” on an equal footing with the Tsar; all government documents were issued in the name of both. After him the patriarchs were Joasaph (1634–1642) and Joseph (1642–1652), after which the patriarchal throne was occupied by Nikon (1652–1666), under whom the unity of the Russian Church came to an end and it split into two irreconcilable halves. Under the first patriarchs the Russian Church attained its greatest independence.

The decrees and wishes of the Stoglav Council were put into practice, and various improvements were introduced into church life and administration. The patriarchs had to expend much effort to halt the excessively strong influence of Latinised Kiev, the Greeks, and the Lutherans. Much was also done to carry out the Stoglav Council’s decree on the correction of books, which stated in chapter 27:
“And whatever holy books – Gospels, Apostols, Psalters and other books – you find in any church that are uncorrected and full of copyists’ errors, you are to correct all the holy books collectively from good translations; for the sacred canons forbid this and do not allow uncorrected books to be brought into church or anything to be sung from them…”
And in chapter 28:
“Copy (books) from good translations, and having copied them, correct them… and do not sell uncorrected books… And if you strive to correct these things with thanksgiving and a willing heart, then joyfully expect a double reward from God and the kingdom of heaven.”

Thus the Stoglav Council was not only not opposed to the correction of books; it even recommended it, requiring only that the correction be made “from good translations” and not from hastily made ones of any kind – exactly the opposite of what Patriarch Nikon later did.

The correction of books had long been carried out in Rus’. But it was undertaken with particular intensity from the middle of the fifteenth century, when in 1469 the Grand Prince married the Greek princess Sophia Palaiologina. Upon arriving in Rus’, the princess brought with her a great many rare and very ancient books and manuscripts. Since the prince himself already possessed a large collection of ancient books in Slavonic, a very rich grand-princely library was formed. Grand Prince Vasily III Ivanovich paid serious attention to it and wished many books to be translated from Greek into Slavonic. In 1515 a request was sent to the monastery on Mount Athos to send the elder Savva for translation work. Because of Savva’s great age, the monk Maximus was sent instead. Although he did not know Russian, he was very learned and widely read, so it was supposed that “he would quickly master the Russian language.”

On arriving in Russia, where he was received with great honour, Monk Maximus set about translating. With the help of Russian interpreters he first translated the Explanatory Psalter – a book of enormous size. The translation won full approval from the clergy and a “double reward” from the Grand Prince. After this, Maximus the Greek was asked to continue his work of translation and correction of books on the basis of ancient originals. He corrected the Triodion, the Horologion, the Festal Menaion, and the Apostol. But soon the activity of St Maximus came to an end: he became involved in court intrigues and openly denounced the Grand Prince. Moreover, many of his actions aroused dissatisfaction among the Russian clergy. In 1525 a council was convened at which Maximus was accused of many offences and exiled to the Volokolamsk Monastery, and later to an even harsher exile in the Otroch Monastery in Tver, where he languished for more than twenty years. He died in 1556, leaving behind many writings.

After the Stoglav Council, work on the correction of books intensified. Especially much was accomplished under Patriarch Philaret. At the very beginning of his tenure, at the patriarch’s insistence, the case of the correctors Dionysius, Arsenius and Ivan was reviewed. Having been accused of distorting books, they were pardoned, and the books they had corrected were approved. In 1620 the Moscow printing house was reopened, and special premises for correctors and a library were set up there; ancient parchment manuscripts were ordered to be brought from all over Russia. The printing house produced a very large number of books: twelve Monthly Menaia, the Psalter, the Great Catechism, the Euchologion, and many service books, many of which were personally verified by the patriarch himself. Others were corrected by specially chosen correctors – the most learned men of the time. The patriarch strictly ensured that books were corrected in accordance with the texts of ancient Slavonic and Greek manuscripts. The chief correctors were the Trinity elders Anthony Krylov and Arsenius the Deaf, and for oversight of them were appointed Hegumen Elias and the priest Ivan Nasedka.

Under Patriarch Philaret numerous representatives of the Greek and Eastern Orthodox churches frequently arrived seeking alms, but they did not accuse the Russians of departing from Orthodoxy – as they later did under Nikon.

Under Patriarch Joasaph the work of correcting books continued; during his time up to twenty-three corrected editions were published. Besides the elder Arsenius, the chief correctors were the hegumens Abraham and Barlaam, the elder Savvaty, and others.

Under Patriarch Joseph up to thirty-eight titles were published (a total of 116 editions), many of them in several printings. In all these editions the ancient Russian rites and customs were confirmed. The chief correctors under Patriarch Joseph were Protopope Michael Rogov, the key-keeper of the Dormition Cathedral Ivan Nasedka (later the monk Joseph), the elder Savvaty, and the laymen Shestoy Martemyanov and Zachary Afanasyev; in 1651 Archimandrite Sylvester was added, and later Zachary Novikov and Sila Grigoryev – men who for that time were educated and well-read. They corrected books with extraordinary care, paying much attention to correctness of language and observance of grammatical rules. In their corrections they used not only ancient Slavonic manuscripts but also ancient Greek ones. Externally too the books were produced with exceptional care, on good paper and printed in very clear type – the finest editions of the seventeenth century.

All these corrections of books led to no church disputes or quarrels whatsoever. The Russian clergy and people perfectly understood that handwritten books needed proper correction by collation with ancient manuscripts, since accidental errors and copyists’ mistakes could inadvertently creep in. Therefore corrections were made, and the corrected books were accepted without objection by the Russian clergy and laity.

But when Nikon appeared and began not to correct books but to distort them, adapting them not to ancient originals but to contemporary Latinised Greek and Kiev books, driving out the old correctors and replacing them with Greek adventurers and former Uniate monks, then of course such books could not be accepted without protest and were bound to provoke fierce opposition from both the Russian clergy and laity – which is exactly what happened. Nikon’s excessive ambitions led to the splitting of the Russian Church and Russian society into two halves, between which opened a vast and impassable abyss whose existence is now approaching its three-hundredth year.

Chapter V. Patriarch Nikon

The chief culprit of the schism that divided the Russian Orthodox Church into two halves was Nikon. A man of majestic appearance, richly endowed with talents, intelligent, cunning, and extremely ambitious, widely read, possessing the gift of eloquence, able to please everyone, to dissemble when necessary, knowing no limits to his designs, hot-tempered, cruel, harsh, a frightful despot, yet at the same time petty and deeply suspicious – such was Nikon.

The main force that drove him toward the schism was his boundless lust for power. It pushed him ever higher and higher, raised him to an unattainable height, so that Nikon already imagined himself the sole chosen head of the entire Eastern Church and of the Russian realm. By this he alienated everyone, and he fell headlong. The higher the ascent, the more terrible the fall. In the end the proud patriarch was transformed into a half-crazed little monk.

The exact year of Nikon’s birth is not established: according to some sources 1605, according to certain Old-Believer “tales” 1613. His parents were poor peasant Mordvins from the village of Valdemanóvo (Kurmýshovo) in Nizhny-Novgorod province. Soon after the birth of Nikita (Nikon’s baptismal name) his mother died, and his father married again. The stepmother took a dislike to her stepson and oppressed and beat him severely. Unable to endure the torment, Nikita, at the age of twelve, secretly fled to the Makary-Zheltovodsky Monastery, where he grew accustomed to church services. When he grew up, at the age of twenty Nikita married and was made a reader, then a priest. After ten years of married life, when all his children had died, Nikita – dissatisfied with his life and driven by ambition – compelled his wife to enter a monastery, while he himself took monastic vows under the name Nikon. After wandering among various monasteries, he came to the Anzersky Skete, where he stayed for a time, but soon quarrelled with the hegumen and the brethren and departed for the Kozheozersky Monastery, where he was elected hegumen.

But such a modest position could of course not satisfy the ambitious Nikon, and he bent every effort to gain the support of the powerful. While in Moscow he joined the circle headed by the Tsar’s confessor Stefan Vonifatiev. For the time being concealing his true intentions, he won the favour of the archpriest and through him made the acquaintance of the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, upon whom he made a strong impression both by his appearance and by his speeches. Soon Nikon was appointed archimandrite of the Novo-Spassky Monastery in Moscow; at this time he grew still closer to the Tsar, gradually taking him into his own hands and making him act according to his wishes. At the same time, seeing the strength of Vonifatiev’s circle, he drew near to all its members and entered into friendship with them, fawning upon those whom he would later begin to persecute, repaying with the blackest ingratitude the people who had helped him rise.

In 1648, in violation of the canons and while Metropolitan Afoniy was still alive and had not resigned, the Tsar forced Nikon’s appointment as Metropolitan of Novgorod. From this time he began to show his Grecophilia, introducing various “novelties” in the Greek manner. Word of this reached Patriarch Joseph, who sent an order forbidding the alteration of ancient customs and rites; but Nikon, relying on the Tsar, paid no attention to the demands of the aged patriarch, who himself felt his own powerlessness and saw that “they want to change me, to cast me down.” Soon afterwards, because he interceded for the Tsar’s governors, Nikon was severely beaten by the rebellious populace, for which he entered even deeper into the Tsar’s favour. After the cruel suppression of the rebels (whose trial had been entrusted to him), Nikon was summoned to the Tsar for counsel. He was charged with bringing the relics of St Metropolitan Philip from the Solovetsky Monastery to Moscow. On the journey he greatly oppressed his companions – the boyars – and so displayed his obstinate character that the boyars sent complaints to the Tsar and to their families. At the Solovetsky Monastery Nikon made the acquaintance of the Greek Arsenius who had been exiled there, and they quickly became friends.

On 15 April 1652 Patriarch Joseph died. The Tsar informed Nikon of the patriarch’s death by letter, demanding that he return speedily for the election of a patriarch and hinting that the patriarch was to be Nikon himself.

On 9 July the holy relics of Metropolitan Philip, accompanied by Nikon, arrived in Moscow and were met outside the city by the Tsar, the boyars, and the sacred council. Having returned to Moscow, Nikon began to treat everyone “like a fox – bowing and greeting,” wishing to win everyone over and draw them to his side. Women greatly helped him in this. In the end Nikon succeeded so cleverly that the members of the “circle” submitted a petition to the Tsar asking that Nikon be recognised as patriarch, and even Archpriest Avvakum himself “put his hand” to it.

On 22 July 1652 Nikon was elected patriarch. But the election was staged in a wholly unusual manner: when the patriarchate was offered to Nikon, he began to refuse. After long entreaties from the Tsar, Nikon solemnly demanded that the Tsar, the boyars, and the whole people swear that they would keep all the church commandments and laws and in all matters of faith and the Church would obey him, Nikon, “as chief and shepherd and most excellent father.” This was done, and only then did Nikon accept the patriarchate.

Thus Nikon had reached heights beyond which there was nowhere further to climb. But even this was not enough for the ambitious Nikon: he dreamed of the papal tiara.

Moscow was the Third Rome. In the first Rome sat the Pope, whose power was immense: he was not only ecclesiastical sovereign and lawgiver, but also a secular ruler possessing his own state. All Europe listened to his voice, and there spiritual authority stood above secular.

Why should this not be introduced in Moscow, the chief centre of Orthodoxy? Greece had fallen; the Eastern Church was in bondage; the Orthodox patriarchs enjoyed almost no authority. Meanwhile Moscow was strong; the Muscovite realm was ever more flourishing, and the eyes of the entire East were turned toward it. The authority of the Moscow patriarch was very great and his power enormous; the other patriarchs came to him to bow and to beg alms in wealthy Muscovy. Clearly, if he, Nikon, were to seize secular power in his hands or at least force recognition that spiritual authority was higher than secular, the other patriarchs – for the handouts they had already grown accustomed to receiving – would agree to recognise Nikon as the Eastern Pope.

It seemed that Nikon would encounter no special obstacles on this path. The only possible obstacles were Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself and, as a stronger second obstacle, the difference in rites that existed between the Greek and Russian churches.

The first obstacle could be removed comparatively easily: the “most peaceful” Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich trusted his “ especial friend” completely and obeyed him without question. Nikon told the Tsar that he was the sole Orthodox sovereign who ought to enjoy authority among all Orthodox peoples. Yet this was hindered by the differences that had arisen in church rites. Therefore it was first of all necessary to change all Russian church rites to the Greek pattern, so that there should be no difference in faith.

The Tsar agreed and gave Nikon full freedom; after that Nikon became master of the entire church administration, into which the Tsar no longer interfered at all. At the same time, having entered into an agreement with Nikon which they kept secret from others, the Tsar admitted Nikon to participation in state affairs: Nikon received the title “Great Sovereign” and in all documents began to be mentioned alongside the real sovereign. In the end he began to eclipse the Tsar himself, and when the Tsar went off to the war with Poland, Nikon for two years governed all state affairs as sovereign. He forced the most eminent boyars who headed the prikazy to appear before him daily with reports, keeping a boyar waiting in the cold for a long time before receiving him standing and forcing him to make earth-bows upon entering. He treated everyone with extreme arrogance and rudeness. Nikon finally decided that the power granted him by the Tsar was his by right and that spiritual authority stood above secular, which ought to be subject to it. Nikon wrote: “God has chosen for the leadership and provision of His people this most wise dyad – the Great Sovereign Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and the Great Sovereign His Holiness Patriarch Nikon… who justly and fittingly adorn the cities entrusted to them… May He grant them, the sovereigns, that under their single sovereign command all Orthodox peoples everywhere may glorify with joyful songs the true God who raised them up.”

In the Tsar’s absence Nikon sent out various decrees beginning with the words: “The Sovereign and Grand Prince Alexei Mikhailovich of all Rus’ has decreed, and we, the Great Sovereign…” Many decrees were issued in the name of the patriarch alone. Even the Tsar himself seemed to bow before Nikon’s authority and acknowledge his primacy, emphasising this everywhere – calling himself Nikon’s “son,” kissing his hand, raising the first toast at banquets to Nikon, etc.

Since the Moscow patriarchs possessed an enormous number of estates and lands, they were the richest landowners in Rus’. Even these riches seemed insufficient to Nikon, and by every means he increased his holdings still further, often resorting to purchases forbidden to the clergy. With the Tsar’s help Nikon built the wealthiest monasteries in order to outshine the Greek ones and gather still more lands around them. Finally he began the construction of his future Vatican – the Resurrection New-RitualistsJerusalem Monastery, where the Lord’s Tomb and other Jerusalem holy places were exactly reproduced. No expense was spared on the monastery: the Tsar donated several villages and estates; Nikon himself donated much and continued buying up land around the new monastery; he spared no money on its adornment and created the richest monastery, preparing for himself a residence there – which, however, he never managed to enjoy.

It seemed that Nikon had already achieved everything; one more step and he would be pope – especially since his church reform was also nearing its end: all opponents had been destroyed – some tortured to death, some exiled – and the Russian Church had already accepted all the new Greek rites.

But at the very moment when Nikon reached the pinnacle of his glory, fate turned against him: the Tsar’s eyes were opened to Nikon’s true designs; listening to the voice of the boyars and becoming alarmed, the Tsar cooled toward Nikon. The overweening patriarch, declaring that “the Tsar’s help is neither fitting nor needful to me; indeed I spit and blow my nose upon it,” resolved upon a break and struggle with the Tsar. In July 1658, after a minor clash over the beating of one of his boyars, the final rupture occurred: the Tsar became enraged at Nikon and ordered that he no longer be styled “Great Sovereign.” The patriarch, after serving in the Dormition Cathedral, announced to the people that he would no longer be patriarch, and “if I ever think to be patriarch again, let me be anathema.” After this he removed his vestments and wished to leave the cathedral, but the people would not let him go. Messengers were sent to inform the Tsar of everything. The Tsar sent a boyar with entreaties; Nikon, however, wanted the Tsar himself to come and beg. When this did not happen, Nikon withdrew to the Resurrection Monastery, from where he began his struggle against the Tsar – a struggle that continued right up to the council of 1666. Now he began to call himself Patriarch of New Jerusalem and continued to manage church affairs. He wrote a work in which he tried to prove that spiritual authority is higher than secular: “The priesthood is far greater than the kingdom… The authority of the priesthood is as much better than civil authority as heaven is higher than earth – nay, much more… The patriarch is a living and animated image of Christ,” he wrote. This opinion about the superiority of spiritual over secular authority gathered many supporters, and at the council of 1667 it had to be proved that they were “Nikonising and Papising,” attempting to destroy the realm. But the struggle with the Tsar proved beyond Nikon’s strength, and little by little the proud patriarch changed, becoming more and more a mere grumbling little monk who recalled the luxurious royal banquets where he had been “fed like a calf for slaughter with many rich foods,” who begged monetary handouts from the Tsar, who saw around him non-existent plots against his life. At the same time Nikon’s arbitrary actions began – both in secular matters, where he showed himself by seizing and appropriating neighbours’ lands, and in church matters, where he poured out excommunications, anathemas, and the like.

Finally, in order to put an end to all the disturbances, the Tsar decided to convene a council to judge Nikon. After Nikon’s unsuccessful attempt in 1664 to return to the patriarchate on his own authority, a council was assembled in 1666, and Nikon was presented with many accusations, among which were: appropriating to himself the name of patriarch-pope, styling himself Patriarch of New Jerusalem, attempting to usurp the place of the Patriarch of Antioch through forged letters and signatures, refusing to recognise the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria as legitimate, possessing eighty sakkoi (of which he would change up to twenty during a single liturgy), equating himself with the saints, wearing a crown upon his head, etc. After long sessions and a personal interrogation of Nikon, the council convicted him on many counts: of voluntarily abandoning his see, of arbitrarily removing and torturing Bishop Paul of Kolomna, of insulting the Russian Church and the Eastern patriarchs, and so forth. Nikon was sentenced to deposition, deprivation of rank, and exile to a monastery. On 13 December 1666 Nikon was sent into exile to the Ferapontov Monastery, where he lived as a simple monk. Exile broke the proud patriarch, and he turned into a feeble-spirited old man whose interests extended no further than concern for good food. After the death of Alexei Mikhailovich, his son Tsar Feodor petitioned the Eastern patriarchs for Nikon’s restoration. The patriarchs issued letters of absolution, for which the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem took 300 thalers each, the Alexandrian 150, the Antiochian 100, and in addition enormous sums were distributed as donations to the patriarchs, their councils, etc. When the letter of absolution reached Rus’, Nikon was no longer alive. He died on the way from exile to Moscow on 17 August 1681.

Chapter VI. Nikon’s Assistants

Scarcely had Nikon ascended the patriarchal throne in 1652 when he set about his reforms, in which he was given active assistance by Greek adventurers and Kievans who already possessed considerable experience in “corrections,” since exactly the same kind of reforms had earlier been carried out in Kiev by Metropolitan Peter Mogila.

One of Nikon’s chief assistants was Arsenius the Greek. A native of the city of Trikala in Greece, he had been baptised in the Orthodox faith, but as a child he was taken to Italy, where he studied with the Jesuits in Venice and Rome, living with a Uniate metropolitan. Returning to Greece, after he had accepted the Latin heresy, he was tonsured a monk, a year later ordained deacon, then priest, and finally made hegumen. Not content with this, he left the monastery to become a teacher. But he did not remain a teacher long either, and soon his wanderings through various lands began. It must be presumed that it was precisely at this time that he accepted Islam, though he himself claimed he had been forcibly made a Muslim.

Finally he arrived in Kiev, where in 1649 he attached himself to the retinue of Jerusalem Patriarch Paisius, who was then travelling to Moscow for alms. Since there was a great demand in Rus’ for learned men, they asked Paisius to recommend some learned Greek who could establish a school in Moscow. The patriarch’s choice fell upon Arsenius, and the latter was recommended to Patriarch Joseph and to the Tsar. But scarcely had the patriarch left Russian territory when he sent a letter reporting that he suspected Arsenius of instability in the faith and recounting that Arsenius “had been a Muslim,” and then, having fallen into Poland, had accepted Uniatism.

A trial was held over Arsenius, and by the Tsar’s decree he was exiled to the Solovetsky Monastery for the correction of his faith and kept there in an earthen prison. When Nikon came to Solovki in 1652 to fetch the relics of Metropolitan Philip, Arsenius addressed him with a request to remember him “when the time comes” – that is, when he became patriarch. Soon Nikon’s election took place, and he summoned Arsenius to Moscow. Although Arsenius was still kept under supervision “for the correction of his Orthodox Christian faith,” he was nevertheless made one of the chief correctors of ancient Russian books and rites.

Such was one of the new “learned” correctors.

Another corrector was the Athonite archimandrite Dionysius, who lived in Russia from 1655 to 1669. Little information about him has been preserved, but what there is suffices to paint a clear picture of the man.

All Dionysius’s cares boiled down to extracting as much money as possible from the Russians; and satisfying his greed was exceedingly difficult. Besides his salary and various one-time gifts, upon his departure for Greece he received a parting gift of 200 roubles – a very large sum for those days – but even this provoked from him a complaint that he had needlessly ruined his health and that, had he known in advance, he would not have worked for the Tsar and the cathedral church for such money.

Being a very cunning man, he always tried to be on the side of the strong. Having first befriended Nikon, he quickly renounced him, went over to the government’s side, and took the liveliest part in Nikon’s condemnation. Appointed interpreter for the patriarchs, he persuaded them of the necessity of fulfilling the government’s wishes, frightening them with the prospect that they would receive no alms.

The extent of his influence upon the patriarchs is evident from the fact that many of the council’s decrees are almost literal extracts from his writings against the old faith. This work is divided into four parts: “On the Alleluia,” “On the Honourable Cross,” “On the Four-ended Cross which is called the Kruzh,” and “On the Jesus Prayer,” in which Dionysius tries to refute the old rites and prove the truth of the new ones. The arguments are extremely weak, mostly groundless, and at times outright blasphemous or bordering on heresy. Therefore one must strongly doubt the learning of this corrector.

At the same time, according to the testimony of all contemporaries, Dionysius led the most scandalous life; in the words of Archpriest Avvakum he was “a thief and a mocker,” and Deacon Theodore says of him that “such a rogue was deliberately assigned to them (the patriarchs) – exactly the same sort as they themselves were.”

The third corrector was the hieromonk Epiphanius Slavinetsky, a learned Kiev monk.

For a long time the Russians had looked askance at the Orthodoxy of the Kievans. As early as 1448 the Russian metropolis had been divided into the Moscow and Kiev metropolises, the Moscow one gaining full independence while the Kiev one remained within the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Moreover, Kievan Rus’, which had become part of the Lithuanian state, passed to Poland, and with this the influence of the Catholic clergy upon the church life of Little Russia increased.

An era began of severe oppression and persecution of Orthodoxy, and finally Uniatism was established, into which a great mass of the Orthodox went over. The wide spread of Uniatism caused the Russians to look with suspicion upon all Orthodox who came to Rus’ from the West, for everyone was suspected of Uniatism. That is why at the council of 1620 Patriarch Philaret insistently demanded that not only those coming from Latinism but all Belarusians from Lithuania and Poland be rebaptised.

Nevertheless, in Kievan Rus’ many ancient customs and rites were preserved until the beginning of the seventeenth century; they disappeared only from the time when the metropolitan throne was occupied by Peter Mogila. Peter Mogila came from a very noble family and had received a European education. Having by chance exchanged a military career for a spiritual one, upon being made Metropolitan of Kiev he set about broad reforms of the Kiev church and at the same time the remaking of all rites in the Greek manner and the correction of books, using Latin service-books for this purpose and inventing much himself. Against such innovations of Mogila the former Kiev metropolitan Isaya rose up, accusing Mogila of unorthodoxy and a desire to Latinise the church – “to abolish the Russian books.” But unfortunately the elder soon died.

It is clear what kind of correctors Nikon could obtain from the new Kiev Orthodoxy.

And such a corrector was Epiphanius Slavinetsky, who had studied not only in Kiev but also abroad – “an elegant teacher of philosophy and theology.” Upon arriving in Moscow he soon became Nikon’s assistant and zealously began correcting books, hastily changing everything to the Kiev manner. In his translations he wrote in such a dreadful language that much of it is impossible to understand. Moreover, he often resorted to inventing his own words when he could not find suitable ones.

Such were Nikon’s other assistants as well, and it is understandable that from them one could in no way expect a careful attitude toward antiquity or any understanding of it. They were too blind and unswervingly pursued one goal – to arrange everything as it was among themselves and to prove that Moscow was by no means the Third Rome, that Moscow had become too proud, that piety in her did not stand at the height the Russians supposed, that only the Greeks – from whom the Russians had received their faith – were the guardians of the true faith, and therefore Moscow, which thought too much of herself, had to be put in her place; it was not she, but the Greeks who must again be the leading authority.

Chapter VII. Nikon’s Reforms

As soon as Nikon ascended the patriarchal throne, he set about his reforms, beginning with a root-and-branch destruction of all the old customs and rites, striving to replace them with new ones.

In 1653, during Great Lent, he issued a “Memorandum” addressed to the priests, in which he declared:
“According to the tradition of the holy apostles and holy fathers, it is not fitting in church to make prostrations on the knees, but you should make bows from the waist; and you should sign yourselves with three fingers.”

This epistle of the patriarch caused great disturbance both among the clergy and the laity; it poured out into muffled discontent and then into open protest on the part of the defenders of antiquity, who at that time were led by the archpriests Ioann Neronov, Avvakum, Daniel, Loggin and others. Avvakum and Daniel wrote a petition against Nikon’s decrees and submitted it to the Tsar. The Tsar accepted it and passed it on to Nikon. Nikon dealt very harshly with the opponents: Ioann Neronov was exiled to a monastery, Loggin was defrocked, Daniel was deprived of his rank and exiled to Astrakhan, Avvakum to Siberia.

But this not only failed to bring calm; on the contrary it provoked an even greater explosion of protest that embraced still wider circles of society. Then Nikon, in order to quiet the raging passions, decided to convene a council.

At the end of March 1654 a council was assembled at which, under the presidency of the Tsar and Nikon, there were present five metropolitans, four archbishops, and only one bishop – Paul of Kolomna. The council was opened with a speech by Nikon, who justified himself before the assembly by saying that he was introducing no novelties; on the contrary, he wished to correct all Russian books and rites “in accordance with the old parchment manuscripts and the Greek ones.” Such a formulation of the question could arouse no objections from the council. In any case, objections were impossible because only persons who would not contradict Nikon had been invited to the council.

Nevertheless, even among them there was found a hierarch who resolved to oppose Nikon on the question of prostrations, citing ancient manuscripts in his possession. This was Bishop Paul of Kolomna. But this only led to a brutal beating administered personally by Nikon; after which, stripping him of his hierarchical vestments, he sent Bishop Paul into exile to the Paleostrovsky Monastery.

The question of the finger-sign was not examined at all at this council. Meanwhile the elder Arseny Sukhanov – who had already twice been to the East – was sent there for books. Of his first journeys he had compiled reports entitled “Articles List” with an appendix “Disputations on the Faith” which he had held with Athonite elders; of his second journey he wrote the Proskinitarion. From his travels he carried away the most negative impression and depicted the Eastern clergy in the darkest colours – their corruption, abasement, and flattery. He came to the conclusion that the faith had not been corrupted among us, but in the East. In his “Disputations on the Faith” he recounts his arguments with the Athonite monks about the two-fingered sign, the correctness of which they were unable to refute. But while Arseny was travelling for books, the “correction” was already proceeding at full speed.

Immediately after the council, in the summer of 1654, Nikon also turned against icons – both the new ones painted after Italian models and the old ones. He ordered such icons to be collected everywhere and brought to him. There he personally gouged out their eyes, after which they were carried through the streets with warnings to the people not to paint such icons. This led to a popular uprising that was suppressed by military force.

Wishing to justify himself, Nikon sent a letter to Patriarch Paisius of Constantinople asking for resolutions on various questions and at the same time denouncing Bishop Paul and Archpriest Ioann Neronov, accusing them of having introduced novelties. Deacon Theodore, recounting this, writes that Nikon in his letter “justifying himself and slandering them like the devil, as if they had composed new prayers and church rites and were thereby corrupting the people and separating them from the cathedral church – Nikon the enemy wrote untruth, but slandered righteous men.” For they “had neither added a single new prayer nor troparion nor one corrupt word into our old books anywhere at all; there had been no schism among them in the church, they had never sat at the correction of books in the printing yard nor been among the compositors – the whole of Moscow knows this.”

Understanding from the denunciation that in Moscow certain persons had appeared who supposedly wished to introduce novelties and were opposing Nikon, Patriarch Paisius in his reply advised Nikon to excommunicate such persons until they renounced their novelties.

In 1655 the Patriarch of Antioch, Macarius, arrived in Moscow for alms. The chief purpose of his visit was to obtain as much money as possible from the Moscow government – something the Greeks were extremely greedy for. Having acquainted himself with the state of affairs in the Russian Church and understood the situation, seeing that the young Tsar was entirely in Nikon’s hands, that Nikon’s power was enormous, and that the size of the alms also depended solely on Nikon, the cunning Greek began to humour Nikon in everything and to justify all his actions.

On the Sunday of Orthodoxy, after the conclusion of the service – which had been celebrated with the participation of three patriarchs: Nikon, Macarius, and Gabriel of Serbia – Nikon delivered a sermon in which he sharply denounced the incorrect painting of icons. The patriarchs present confirmed the correctness of Nikon’s denunciations and pronounced anathema upon those who painted icons incorrectly. After this Nikon took some of these icons, raised them high above his head for the people to see, then hurled them onto the stone floor, smashing them to pieces, and ordered the remains to be burned. The patriarchs watched all this impassively; only the Tsar was indignant and began begging Nikon not to burn the icons but to bury them in the earth.

Having finished with the icons, Nikon continued his sermon, denouncing the people for the two-fingered sign and declaring that the only correct way was the three-fingered sign; this was eagerly confirmed by Patriarch Macarius as well.

In March 1655 Nikon convened a second council at which, besides the Russian hierarchs, the Patriarchs Macarius of Antioch and Gabriel of Serbia were present. According to Paul of Aleppo, the council lasted a week and was convened at Macarius’s wish.

Macarius, noticing the difference between certain Russian and contemporary Greek rites, proposed changing them to the Greek manner, and this was immediately accepted; Nikon declared that although “I am a Russian and the son of a Russian, yet my convictions and my faith are Greek.” To which some members of the council obsequiously replied that “the light of faith in Christ and all the rites of religion and its mysteries shone upon us from the lands of the East.” Others, remembering the example of Bishop Paul of Kolomna, kept silent in displeasure or said to themselves: “We will not change our books and rites which we received from antiquity.”

These changes concerned the form of the antimensia, the number of particles taken from the prosphorae, the Creed (from which the word “true” was removed), the finger-sign, and the rebaptism of Catholics, whom the Greeks now accepted without baptism.

After this they proceeded to print new service-books, supposedly corrected on the basis of ancient books but in reality reprinted from a Venetian edition. In the preface to the service-book Nikon recounts the council of 1655 somewhat differently. He asserts that a letter had been received from Patriarch Paisius in which the latter approved Nikon’s activity and advised him to continue it steadfastly and zealously.

But this assertion is false: the letter was received after the council – the council took place in March, and the letter only arrived in May; moreover, the content of the letter itself was rather different from what Nikon would have liked. The patriarch advises Nikon to be cautious in carrying out his rapid reforms, to understand Christian doctrine more loftily, and on the question of two fingers versus three says that “this makes no difference whatsoever.”

Nikon further asserts that all the new books were carefully compared with ancient Slavonic and Greek ones.

But this assertion too is untrue: the council sessions lasted only a week, and in so short a time it was impossible to examine all the corrected books – still less, as Nikon tries to assure us, “carefully.” Moreover, among those sitting there were not only no outstanding but not even good experts who knew both Slavonic and Greek simultaneously.

The matter was simpler: the service-book had indeed been corrected, but from the Venetian edition. How good that edition was is evident from the fact that soon afterwards, by Nikon’s own order, it was commanded to collect and burn it.

The other books too were “carefully” corrected. The corrector Sylvester Medvedev testifies that under Nikon all books were corrected according to contemporary Greek Venetian editions.

Moreover, in the very same books issued under Nikon one finds in subsequent editions passages each time corrected and translated differently, because the correctors were concerned not so much with the correctness of the translations as with inserting whatever personally seemed to them more suitable or necessary.

Thus, making a cursory survey of all Nikon’s reforms and book corrections, one is forced to conclude that they were carried out far too hastily, without any preparation, thoughtlessly; that most of them were utterly senseless and unnecessary; that they did not answer the needs and demands of the Russian people; and that the harm produced by these reforms is incalculable.

Chapter VIII. Nikon’s Novelties

Nikon’s book “corrections” and reforms deepened year by year and went ever further.

Since all the corrections were carried out extremely carelessly, without plan or sense, many books began to contradict one another. It became necessary to await confirmations and proofs of the truth of what had been written; and since such proofs could not always be found, frequent recourse was had to forgeries.

One of these has already been mentioned above; soon afterwards there were issued the “Act of the Council against the Armenian Heretic Martin the Monk” and the “Theognost Trebnik,” in which the former asserted that all the old rites had been invented by a certain heretic monk Martin the Armenian who in fact had never existed and who had supposedly been condemned by a council in 1157; while the “Trebnik,” supposedly written by St Theognost, furnished the necessary proofs.

In the end the excessively rapid carrying out of the “reform” – despite the people’s opposition and its forcible imposition upon them – led to the splitting of the Russian Church and the Russian people into two halves: one half, the more democratic and national, stood for the old faith and customs; the second, the governmental half, stood for the new faith and inclined toward the West.

The differences between them on purely religious questions consisted in the following divergences:

1. The New-RitualistsRitualists began to assert that one must pray only according to the new books supposedly corrected by Nikon. The Old Believers maintained that the books of the Joseph edition were far better than Nikon’s and that divine services could be celebrated only according to the old books.

2. In the eighth article of the Creed the New-RitualistsRitualists removed the word “true,” reading: “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-giver…”

3. The New-RitualistsRitualists recognised only the three-fingered sign, and for blessing began to use the finger-arrangement that spells the name of Jesus Christ (following the tradition of a certain Meletius Malaxos and contrary to the oaths of the ancient Orthodox Church). The Old Believers recognise that only the two-fingered sign is the ancient church custom.

4. During church processions the New-RitualistsRitualists began to walk against the sun; the Old Believers, in accordance with church tradition and the Typicon, walk with the sun (posolon’).

5. The New-RitualistsRitualists recognised the four-ended cross as correct and called the eight-ended one “Brynnian” or “schismatic.”

6. The name of Jesus Christ the New-RitualistsRitualists began to write with two i’s – “Iisus” – instead of the former “Isus” accepted by the Old Believers. According to the explanation of Metropolitan Dimitry of Rostov, the name “Isus” in translation means “equal-eared,” “monstrous and signifying nothing.”

7. The Alleluia began to be pronounced three times; the double Alleluia they consider “the God-abominated Macedonian heresy.”

8. The Liturgy began to be served on five prosphorae, declaring that otherwise “the true Body and Blood of Christ cannot be.” According to the old rites, however, it must be served on seven prosphorae.

9. In the baptism of infants they began to allow pouring, contrary to the decrees of the ancient Church which required the rebaptism of those who had been poured.

10. They ceased to count the violation of fasts and the shaving of beards as sin.

11. They permitted marriages with non-Orthodox and with persons in degrees of kinship forbidden by the Church.

12. They destroyed the ancient canonical church structure and recognised the secular authority as head of the Church.

13. They legalised oaths by Almighty God Himself, contrary to the teaching of Christ.

14. They laid an anathema upon all who cross themselves with two fingers, follow the old rites, and pray according to the old books, condemning them after death to be “with Judas the betrayer, with the Jews who crucified Christ, with Arius and with the other accursed heretics.”

15. Instead of the ancient chant they introduced new Italian-style singing.

16. New icons began to be painted not according to ancient originals but after Western models, more resembling pictures than icons.

17. The New-RitualistsRitualists abolished the ancient custom of electing clergy by the parish and replaced it with appointment by the hierarchy (and, moreover, by secular persons).

There were also certain other divergences which, with the passage of time, increased because the Old Believers were left without a hierarchy.

Recognising its full necessity, yet at the same time seeing that true piety had fallen and finding confirmation in Sacred Scripture, one part of the Old Believers ceased to accept newly ordained priests, considering it better to manage entirely without priests than to accept apostates.

Thus there arose priestless Old Belief, which – despite all the persecutions and oppressions inflicted by the Russian government and clergy – nevertheless found in itself the strength to survive for two and a half centuries; not only did it not disappear, but it has preserved itself, carrying the old customs and rites intact and undamaged down to our own time.

Chapter IX. Archpriest Avvakum

One of the chief opponents of Patriarch Nikon and one of the most steadfast defenders of ancient piety was Archpriest Avvakum. The entire life of this great man passed in ceaseless struggle for the righteous cause; yet neither the struggle itself, nor exile, nor torment could break the iron will and spirit of the “hero-archpriest,” as one great Russian scholar called him.

Even his outward appearance attracted and won people over: tall, powerfully built, with regular features framed by a handsome beard, and above all with great eyes that drew one in – now shining with kindness and an inexpressible warmth, now blazing with the terrible fire of fanaticism and unyielding resolve. A brilliant orator, an outstanding writer of his time, one of the foremost experts in Holy Scripture – such was Archpriest Avvakum, whose name every person who calls himself an Old Believer must cherish and preserve with reverence.

Archpriest Avvakum was born around 1620 in the village of Grigorovo in Nizhny-Novgorod province. His father Peter was a poor village priest. Thanks to his pious mother Marfa – a great faster and woman of prayer – he was brought up in the fear of God and became for his whole life a fiery zealot for the true faith. From childhood the lively and impressionable boy grew accustomed to pondering the vanity of all earthly things and to caring for the salvation of his soul. Once, seeing a dead animal at a neighbour’s, Avvakum rose in the night, stood before the icon and “wept long over his own soul, remembering death – that I too must die.” From that night he accustomed himself to pray every night.

Avvakum’s father died early, and the family endured many hardships. It was probably at this time that he first met those who would later be his co-workers and opponents: Hilarion, Ananias, Nikon.

When the time came for Avvakum to marry, his mother found him a bride – the very pious maiden Anastasia Markovna, daughter of a wealthy blacksmith – “a helpmeet unto salvation,” as Avvakum himself called her. Soon after the marriage his mother entered a monastery, took monastic vows, and lived there in “great ascetic labour” until her death.

Avvakum moved to the village of Lopatitsy, where at the age of twenty-one he was ordained deacon; two years later he was made priest, and eight years after that he became archpriest.

Avvakum carried out his duties with extraordinary conscientiousness. Living a pious life himself, he not only healed spiritual ailments but bodily ones as well: he cast out demons and cured various diseases.

Yet while leading a personally righteous life, he demanded from others strict observance of all church rules and rites, and for this he made many enemies among the powerful. He suffered much at their hands. Once, because he demanded that a certain “chief” return a girl he had abducted to her widowed mother, the man “raised a storm” against him: bursting into the church with a band of followers, he beat Avvakum and dragged him by the feet along the ground still in his vestments. Another “chief” grew angry with Avvakum because he served too long according to the Typicon, contrary to the man’s wishes: twice he shot at Avvakum, then seized his house and drove him and his family out altogether.

Avvakum went to Moscow and sought help from the Tsar’s confessor Stefan Vonifatiev and from Archpriest Ioann Neronov. Valuing him as an educated man, a great expert in Holy Scripture, and a strict zealot for church rites, they gave him protection and introduced him to the Tsar. Avvakum was granted a royal charter; Vonifatiev blessed him with an icon of St Philip the Metropolitan and gave him a book of Ephraim the Syrian, and Avvakum returned to Lopatitsy.

But Avvakum did not remain long in his ruined nest. Soon he again clashed with a “chief” – this time over skomorokhi (wandering minstrels). The minstrels had arrived and begun their revels. Not long before, in 1648, a strict royal decree had forbidden such performances: the minstrels were to be seized, their instruments broken and burned. Avvakum too would not tolerate lawless revelry in his village: he drove the minstrels out, smashed their masks and drums, and set their bears free. The minstrels complained to Boyar Sheremetev. The boyar summoned Avvakum, cursed him for a long time, then ordered him to bless his son. Avvakum, seeing the son with a “fornicator’s face” (he shaved), refused to bless him. The boyar ordered Avvakum thrown into the Volga, then had him severely beaten and released.

Soon afterwards Avvakum was driven out again. He moved to Moscow and was appointed archpriest in the town of Yuryevets-Povolsky. There he strove to introduce greater order in the services and to improve the singing. In his sermons he sharply denounced the vices of the local population, thereby making many enemies – especially among the local clergy, who were accustomed to a freer life with various relaxations.

Avvakum himself lived a very strict life. Here is how he describes his daily routine: before serving the Liturgy he scarcely slept – “I myself kindle the fire and read a book. When it is time for Matins, I do not wait for the sexton; I go myself to ring the bell. The sexton comes running. After bowing, I go into the church and begin the Midnight Office; by the time the chanters assemble I have finished it. If someone is late – God forgive him; but if someone sulks, he is welcome to the chain: don’t puff your moustaches at me.” After the long Matins came the Hours and the Communion rule. After the Liturgy a sermon was read. Having eaten, Avvakum slept two hours, then took up a book and read until Vespers. “When I have sung Vespers with Compline, after supper I begin the rule.” Then a long series of prayers was sung, many prostrations were made, “then we put out the light, and I, my wife, and other willing souls bow before Christ in the darkness: I make 300 prostrations and 600 Jesus Prayers, 100 to the Mother of God; my wife makes 200 prostrations and 400 prayers, for the little children are crying.”

But demands for such a strict life were not to the parishioners’ liking, and after only eight weeks the archpriest was beaten and driven out of Yuryevets. Once more he was in Moscow. Here a circle of clergy gathered – zealots for true piety who set themselves the aim of preserving the purity of the Church and strengthening it by the restoration of ancient ritual strictness. At the head of the circle stood the Tsar’s confessor Stefan Vonifatiev and Archpriest Ioann Neronov; besides them were the archpriests Daniel of Kostroma and Loggin of Murom, the priests Lazar of Romanov and Nikita of Suzdal, the learned deacon Theodore of the Annunciation Cathedral, and many others.

By the time Avvakum appeared in Moscow, the circle enjoyed enormous influence – both because of the Tsar’s support (he highly valued the piety and godliness of its members) and because of the intellectual and moral superiority of the circle’s members over the rest of the clergy.

At first Nikon – then still Metropolitan of Novgorod – was friendly with the circle and shared their views. But when, after Patriarch Joseph’s death, he was appointed patriarch, he quickly broke with Vonifatiev’s circle and went over to the Kiev circle headed by the visiting Kiev monk Epiphanius Slavinetsky, who demanded that the Moscow Church turn onto the Kiev-Greek path – the path of abolishing antiquity and introducing new rites.

Nikon began the “correction” of our books according to Greek books; the correctors were for the most part unlearned men who sometimes did not even know Slavonic, or outright swindlers and adventurers like Arsenius the Greek. The former correctors – Ivan Nasedka (the monk Joseph), the elder Savvaty, the layman Sila Grigoryev, and others – who disagreed with Nikon’s new undertakings, were dismissed. Persecution began against the circle that had risen against Nikon. First Archpriest Neronov was exiled, and soon Avvakum’s turn came. After Neronov’s exile Avvakum had submitted a petition to the Tsar interceding for his friend and at the same time denouncing Nikon for introducing novelties. This gave the patriarch grounds to deal with the archpriest – especially since Avvakum, refusing to obey Nikon’s order to pray according to the new rites, had parted company with the rest of the clergy of the Kazan Cathedral (St Basil’s) and begun to serve in a drying-shed in Neronov’s courtyard. Many parishioners gathered there, saying that “for a time even a stable is better than a church.” But soon, by Nikon’s order, a detachment of streltsy appeared: they seized Avvakum, beat him, pulled his hair, and took him in chains to the Androniev Monastery. Nikon decided to defrock the archpriest. When they brought him to the cathedral church to be shorn, Nikon kept him standing a long time on the porch until finally the Tsar intervened, interceded for Avvakum, and persuaded Nikon to limit himself to exiling the archpriest to Tobolsk.

All along the way Avvakum everywhere denounced Nikon’s heresies, exhorting the people to stand firm for the old faith. In Tobolsk, appointed to serve at the church of the Holy Protection, Avvakum continued his zealous preaching. Word of his sermons finally reached Moscow; the patriarch ordered him exiled still farther into the depths of Siberia, to the river Lena. In 1655 Avvakum set off for the new place, but in Yeniseisk he was overtaken by another order – to be attached to the expedition of Pashkov, who had been charged with conquering the lands along the Amur. The campaign was extraordinarily difficult and full of privations; the archpriest suffered especially, for he did not get along with the violent and cruel voevoda. The voevoda oppressed and mocked him in every way: for interceding for people oppressed by Pashkov, the archpriest was mercilessly beaten with knouts and iron chains, shackled in irons, kept in the cold under the rain and in an earthen prison where, in mockery, he was chained together with dogs.

It is impossible to describe all the terrible torments and sufferings the great martyr endured during his six years of wandering in the inhospitable, wild Dauria. The sufferings were made still greater because his family travelled with him. Here is how the archpriest himself describes the journey: “At the portage they began dragging the boats, but the voevoda had taken away my workers and would not let others give us drink; the children were small, there was no one to pull. The poor archpriest made a sledge himself and all winter wandered at the portage. Other people had dogs in harness, but I had none; only once my two little sons Ivan and Prokopy pulled the sledge with me like little dogs. The portage was about a hundred versts; the poor things barely managed to drag it, while the archpriest’s wife carried the flour and the baby on her back, and daughter Agrafena trudged along, climbed onto the sledge, and her brothers slowly pulled her with me… The children grew faint and fell on the snow; their mother gave them a piece of gingerbread, they ate it and pulled the strap again…”

The terrible sufferings were immense; it seemed there would be no end to them. “For five weeks we travelled on the bare ice in sledges. The voevoda gave me two nags for the children and baggage, while I and the archpriest’s wife trudged on foot, stumbling on the ice. It was a barbarian land, the natives hostile; we dared not fall behind the horses, yet could not keep up with them – hungry and weary people. Sometimes the poor archpriest’s wife trudged and trudged, then fell and could not rise. Another weary one fell nearby; both struggled but could not get up. Later the poor woman reproached me: ‘How long, archpriest, will this torment last?’ And I said to her: ‘Markovna, until death itself.’ She answered: ‘So be it, Petrovich; let us trudge on further.’”

Thus, encouraging one another, they completed the hard journey. To these privations were added terrible sufferings from hunger. Rations were very meagre: “in spring one sack of malt was given to ten men for the whole summer,” and they were not allowed to leave work: “even to pluck a bit of willow into the porridge and brew it – for that a blow on the forehead with a stick.” They had to eat whatever they could find: “we wandered in the steppes and forests, dug grass and roots; sometimes God gave us horseflesh; sometimes we found bones of beasts wounded by wolves and gnawed what the wolf had left; some even ate frozen wolves and foxes. Two of my sons died in those hardships.”

But an end came even to the unbearable sufferings: soon after Nikon’s removal, Avvakum received a royal order to return to Moscow. In Moscow he found the struggle between Nikon’s supporters and the defenders of ancient piety already in full swing. At first Avvakum was received very warmly: he was caressed by the Tsar and the boyars; but soon, because he began sharp preaching against Nikon’s novelties – which displeased the Grecophile government – Avvakum was exiled again. In 1664 he was sent to Mezen, where he was imprisoned. But new sufferings could not shake the archpriest’s firm convictions; even from prison he zealously continued the struggle for ancient piety, sending epistles everywhere.

Meanwhile in Moscow it was decided to give official form to Nikon’s reforms, and for this purpose a council of Russian and Greek hierarchs was convened in 1666. On 1 March of that year Archpriest Avvakum was brought to Moscow for trial.

But the archpriest “brought neither repentance nor submission; he remained stubborn and even reproached the holy council, calling them unorthodox.” Despite all exhortations and promises, he remained firm in his convictions. He was at once publicly disgraced: defrocked, his beard was shorn, he was anathematised, imprisoned, and then exiled to Pustozersk together with his friends – Archpriest Lazar of Romanov, Deacon Theodore, and the monk Epiphanius – who were also defrocked, and in addition their tongues were cut out.

In Pustozersk earthen prisons were built for the prisoners – log huts sunk into the ground: each sat in solitary confinement under guard. Only rarely at night could the prisoners speak to one another. Yet even here Archpriest Avvakum did not lose heart; from there he continued his preaching as before, upholding the spirit of his like-minded brethren.

Left without bishops or priests, the defenders of antiquity were perplexed as to how they should now act and live. Various other questions arose. Avvakum sent epistles everywhere, resolving the questions as far as possible. It was he who worked out the foundations of the priestless way. At the same time in 1660 Avvakum sent a petition to the Tsar urging him to cast aside Nikon’s novelties; but this epistle only resulted in Avvakum being thrown into an earthen pit and put on bread and water, while the other prisoners had the fingers of their right hands cut off and their tongues completely cut out so that they could neither teach nor write epistles.

For ten days Avvakum took no food, “but the brethren commanded” him to eat, and then he divided his clothes and sat naked on the cold earth. His wife and two sons were also thrown into an earthen pit, but this did not break the preacher’s firm spirit. He wrote an epistle to his wife begging her “not to lay down her hands; to fight to the end for Christ’s faith.” And in an “epistle to the faithful” he wrote of this: “My Markovna sits in the earth with the children like in a cage, supplied by God’s grace. And I sing to my God while I still live.”

For thirteen years the archpriest had to endure sufferings in Pustozersk imprisonment; yet he never lost heart and fought unceasingly for the righteous cause until his last breath. During that time he wrote up to forty works – all in defence of the old faith; he called upon everyone to hold fast to ancient piety regardless of any persecutions raised at that time by the government.

In 1676 Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich died. In 1681 Avvakum addressed a petition to his successor, the young Tsar Feodor Alekseevich, exhorting him to return to church antiquity. But at that time the harsh and cruel Patriarch Joachim convened a council to discuss measures against the defenders of the old faith. Soon afterwards came the decree “for great blasphemies against the royal house to burn Avvakum and his comrades.”

On 14 April 1682 Avvakum, together with Lazar, Epiphanius, and Nikiphor, ascended the pyre. Bound to the stake and surrounded by smoke, Avvakum raised high his hand with the two-fingered sign of the cross and until his last breath called upon all to pray with that cross.

The fire engulfed them all; one of the condemned cried out. Avvakum bent toward him, exhorting him, but soon himself perished in the flames. Afterwards a cross was erected on that spot.

Thus ended his much-suffering life the great fighter for the true faith.

Chapter X. Boyaryna Morozova

One of the most remarkable followers of Avvakum, who did not fear to lay down her life for the righteous cause, was the great martyr – one of the greatest women of her time – Boyaryna Feodosiya Prokopyevna Morozova, “the second martyr Catherine,” as Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself called her. Though it was by his order that she was tormented, even her tormentors had to bow before the strength of will and steadfastness of the martyr.

Boyaryna Feodosiya Prokopyevna came from the Sokovnin family. She was married to the illustrious boyar Gleb Ivanovich Morozov, brother of the Tsar’s tutor Boris Morozov, whom the Tsar honoured “as his own father.” Left a young, rich widow after Morozov’s death, the boyaryna devoted herself to raising her little son. Since Boyar Boris Morozov had married for the second time the Tsarina’s sister, Boyaryna Morozova became related to the royal family and was one of the foremost among the court ladies, bearing the title “Kravchaya of the Tsar’s realm.” Surrounded by luxury, wealth, a huge throng of servants who watched only to fulfil her every wish, the reverence of all around her and the Tsar’s love, the boyaryna seemed completely happy and carefree. Her outings were famous throughout Moscow. She rode in an enormous carriage drawn by twelve horses; up to three hundred servants followed the carriage to guard “her honour and health,” while huge crowds of people ran alongside, catching the money that flew from the carriage window. Many suitors of the highest rank wooed the rich widow, but all received the same refusal. The boyaryna longed for no earthly bridegroom, but a heavenly one.

She made the acquaintance of Archpriest Avvakum; his passionate speeches and long conversations made a deep impression upon her. When Nikon’s novelties began and persecutions fell upon all adherents of ancient piety, Boyaryna Morozova, together with her sister Princess Evdokia Urusova and the wife of a streltsy colonel Maria Danilova, became the soul of the circle of zealots for ancient piety. The boyaryna gave material help to the exiled, offered shelter in her house to the poor, the wretched, and the persecuted, and maintained active correspondence with all opponents of Nikon. Archpriest Avvakum stayed with her upon his return from Siberian exile, calling her “the staff and support, the strength and confirmation of my feeble old age.” All the women disciples of Archpriest Avvakum found refuge with her.

In connection with this the boyaryna gradually began to withdraw from worldly life, from all earthly things, and to lead an ascetic life: she renounced all pleasures, kept a strict fast, put on a hair-shirt, and finally withdrew completely from society, taking monastic vows under the name Theodora.

Meanwhile at court it was noticed that the boyaryna appeared rarely and shunned worldly life. The Tsar ordered an investigation, and it became clear that the boyaryna had already taken monastic vows and stood for the old faith. The Tsar summoned her and began to exhort her not to oppose his will. To this the boyaryna replied that she was always obedient to the Tsar, but “to Nikon’s novelties she dared not join, for she had been brought up by her parents in pious customs, from infancy had been accustomed to Holy Scripture, and therefore could not reject the holy traditions of the fathers; she feared and trembled before the holy oaths of the fathers upon those who transgress church rules.” For “exhortation” Archimandrite Joachim of the Chudov Monastery (the future patriarch) was sent to her with streltsy. But the boyaryna was unyielding and yielded to neither promises nor exhortations. Then she and her sister Princess Urusova were shackled in chains on their feet, hands, and necks.

No longer in a rich carriage drawn by twelve horses, no longer in princely attire, but on a simple wood-sledge drawn by one horse, dressed in black monastic garb, shackled in chains and thrown upon straw, the boyaryna was driven through all Moscow to increase her shame. But her journey proved not a spectacle of disgrace but a triumph. Raising high her hand with the two-fingered sign of the cross, the boyaryna called upon all to stand firmly for antiquity. The people followed the sufferer with tears; the shameful procession, instead of frightening the people, only strengthened their faith.

The boyaryna was taken to the Pechersk podvorye. There she was again exhorted, but she stood firm. It was decided to subject her, her sister, and Danilova (Akinfia) to torture. In the torture chamber they were subjected to the most inhuman torments: they were completely stripped, their arms were wrenched, they were shaken on the rack, then tied by hands and feet and beaten with knouts. But even this was of no avail; they did not change their opinion. Then it was decided to burn the sufferers. Log huts filled with straw were built beyond the Moscow River. But at the last moment the Tsar, at the insistence of the boyars, changed the order and commanded the martyrs to be exiled to the town of Borovsk. There into an earthen prison-pit were thrown Boyaryna Morozova, her sister Princess Urusova, Akinfia, and the nun Justina. The prison-grave was damp and dark, swarming with vermin; there the executioners starved the prisoners.

Yet even there tidings from the world reached them secretly and rarely, conveyed by “our own.” Sometimes epistles came from Avvakum in which he encouraged the sufferers and begged them to endure for the faith. For one such epistle the nun Justina suffered: because she refused to show the letter she had received, she was burned in a log hut together with Boyaryna Morozova’s faithful servant Ivanushka. The executioners forced the other prisoners to be present at the burning.

After this they were transferred to another, even worse prison into which not a single ray of light penetrated, for it was built underground. Endless night began. It was impossible even to tell the time, for no sound reached there; the guard rarely brought rye rusks and water and did not speak. Princess Evdokia Urusova was the first to succumb to the torment and quietly died (11 September 1672); and on the night of 2 November 1675 the great sufferer Boyaryna Feodosiya Prokopyevna Morozova also fell asleep in the sleep of the righteous.

On the spot of her martyr’s death, beneath birch trees, lies a huge stone slab placed by the brethren with the date of her repose.

Chapter XI. Fellow-Strugglers of Archpriest Avvakum

Besides Boyaryna Morozova and Archpriest Avvakum it is necessary to become acquainted with several other remarkable fighters for the old faith.

The nursery from which the strongest fighters for the true faith emerged was the circle of zealots of piety. It was formed at the beginning of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, and its head was the Tsar’s confessor, Archpriest Stefan Vonifatiev of the Annunciation Cathedral. Leading a strict life and caring for church piety and order, he began to gather around himself a circle consisting of persons distinguished by great learning and teaching ability, steadfast fighters and denouncers of social vices and shortcomings. Such persons were: his closest helper Archpriest Ioann Neronov; the archpriests Avvakum, Loggin, Lazar, Daniel and others; and also Bishop Paul of Kolomna.

The circle set itself the task of struggling against various church disorders and, by means of sermons, establishing true Christian piety among the people.

Stefan Vonifatiev himself – “a man of understanding and virtuous life, having the word of teaching in his mouth” – acquired strong influence over the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, “always exhorting the young Tsar with tears to every good work.” Not only the Tsar but the boyars too “listened to him with delight, honoured him and loved him with all their soul as a true father.”

Under his influence the Tsar issued a series of decrees on the observance of fasts, on proper attendance at God’s churches, on the abolition of unseemly revels among the people, etc.

As his closest assistant in church preaching Stefan Vonifatiev chose Archpriest Ioann Neronov.

Ioann Neronov came from peasants of Vologda province. Learning to read was difficult for him: “he studied one primer for a year and six months.” But perseverance and desire conquered all book-learning, and soon he understood Scripture better than all his peers. From early years he was distinguished by “fiery zeal” for piety; while still a youth, once seeing mummers at Christmastide, “he was inflamed in spirit” and “began to denounce them boldly,” for which he was cruelly beaten.

Moving to the village of Nikolskoe, he married the daughter of the local priest and was enrolled as a reader; Ioann zealously performed the church services, but at the same time, seeing the priests of the area “leading a corrupt life, he ceaselessly denounced them for drunkenness and much disorder.” For this the priests wrote a denunciation against him to Patriarch Philaret.

Then Neronov withdrew to the Trinity Lavra, where he made the acquaintance of the very enlightened Archimandrite Dionysius, who took much care for his education.

When the falsity of the denunciation became clear, Neronov was ordained deacon and returned to Nikolskoe. A year later he was ordained priest, but persecuted by his ill-wishers he withdrew to the village of Lyskovo to the priest Ananias (later the monk Anthony), who “was very skilled in divine Scripture.” Under his guidance Neronov made great progress in the study of Holy Scripture and, on Ananias’s advice, took the almost parishless church of the Resurrection of Christ in Nizhny Novgorod.

Here no one hindered Neronov, and he began to perform the services indefatigably and devoutly, thereby attracting worshippers. He often delivered sermons from which the people were moved and spread his words everywhere. Neronov himself carried his preaching to the streets and squares; he walked through the city proclaiming “to all the way of salvation, and many listened.”

Word of the extraordinary preacher spread far, and worshippers began to flock to Neronov in crowds. Donations flowed in, with which Neronov built a stone church and began to help the poor and wretched, distributing alms and setting tables for a hundred or more people daily. Parents began to send their children to him “for book-learning.”

At the same time Neronov did not abandon his denunciations and especially the struggle against the skomorokhi; sometimes Neronov and his disciples “fought” with them, and it happened that the skomorokhi “filled with rage beat God’s priest.”

Finally Neronov reached even the voevoda Sheremetev himself – a very cruel and harsh boyar. He began to denounce him too, but was seized by the voevoda’s order, beaten with sticks, and thrown into prison.

But when rumours of this reached Moscow, the Tsar ordered him released, and soon afterwards Neronov was transferred to Moscow and appointed archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral.

Here too he introduced strict order and began to deliver sermons to the people frequently. “When he had read the holy books to the people, tears flowed from his eyes like a stream, and he could scarcely utter the word of divine Scripture through his sobbing; he explained every passage with interpretation so that it might be understood by all Christians.” Such masses of people gathered to hear his sermons that the walls of the vast cathedral could not contain them all, and whole crowds stood around the church. The Tsar himself often came with his family to hear the preacher.

Soon Neronov rose to first place and overshadowed Vonifatiev. At this time Nikon issued his “Memorandum,” and Neronov with his friends resolved to enter into struggle with him. Seeing that “winter was coming,” Neronov left his church in Avvakum’s care and withdrew to the Chudov Monastery, where for a whole week he prayed with tears before the icon of the Saviour. Finally he was granted a vision: from the icon a voice was heard proclaiming that the time of sufferings had come, for Russia was threatened with falling away from the faith, and therefore it was necessary to resist.

A petition against Nikon’s novelties was submitted to the Tsar, but the result was Nikon’s reprisal against the opponents: after long torments Neronov was sent to the Spaso-Kamenny Monastery on Lake Kubenskoye. Soon he took monastic vows under the name Gregory. In 1656 the wavering Vonifatiev – who had hesitated between Nikon and his old friends – died, and in the same year a council was assembled at which Neronov was condemned in absentia: he was excommunicated and anathematised.

The harsh reprisal of the stern patriarch did not spare the other members of the circle either. Archpriest Daniel, who had first been archpriest in Kostroma but was driven out by enemies for his zeal, moved to Moscow and took the liveliest part in the circle’s work; together with Archpriest Avvakum he signed the petition to the Tsar against Nikon’s novelties. For this Nikon ordered him seized and brought before him. There he cursed and mocked him in every way, shorn his head, and sent him to the Chudov Monastery. After long tortures and mockeries – to the point of placing a crown of thorns upon him – the archpriest was exiled to Astrakhan, where he was thrown into a dark earthen prison. After long privations and sufferings Archpriest Daniel died, starved to death.

Archpriest Loggin of Murom arrived in Moscow from Murom in the last months of Patriarch Joseph’s reign. Here he joined the circle and soon came out with the others against Nikon. On the false denunciation of the Murom voevoda, who accused Loggin of supposedly blaspheming icons, the patriarch ordered Loggin seized; after a trial that acted entirely on the patriarch’s instructions, Nikon shorn the archpriest in church, then tore off his outer garment. Then Loggin, inflamed with zeal, began to denounce Nikon, spat in his eyes, tore off his own shirt and hurled it at Nikon, who was standing in the altar. By Nikon’s order chains were at once put on the archpriest and he was dragged from the church; he was beaten with brooms and clubs, dragged to the Bogoyavlensky Monastery and thrown naked into a tent in the frost. The next morning, after inhuman tortures and torments, the archpriest was sent into exile, where he was put to death by Nikon’s order.

Bishop Paul of Kolomna was one of the first to rise against Nikon’s “novelties.” At the council convened by Nikon to confirm his “reforms,” Bishop Paul expressed his disagreement and instead of his signature on the council’s decrees wrote: “If anyone takes away from or adds to the traditions of the holy cathedral church or in any way corrupts them, let him be anathema.”

This signature drove the violent patriarch into a frenzy; he rushed at the bishop and struck him. The bishop remained firm in the faith and denounced Nikon, saying that all his references to grammar in his novelties were utterly absurd and insignificant. Then he cursed “the destroyer of the fathers’ statutes and church customs.” Nikon subjected him to cruel corporal punishment and exiled him to the Paleostrovsky Monastery, then farther to the Novgorod region, where after long torments Bishop Paul was burned in a log hut.

Thus one after another the bold defenders of the old faith perished.

All these were steadfast people of strong will whose sole support was the deep consciousness of their righteousness. And this consciousness made them offer even their lives as a sacrifice for the whole country and the whole people, for they saw that not only the faith was perishing but all Russian antiquity was disappearing under the heel of foreigners. They saw that “winter was coming,” that little by little the Russian spirit would begin to vanish and Rus’ herself would disappear, and upon her ruins a half-Prussian foreign Russia would be enthroned. “There will not be a fourth Rome,” they said; yet in the third Rome wavering and changes had suddenly begun which could scarcely lead to its stability. A “wolf in sheep’s clothing” had appeared who had joined the apostates – the Greeks, who had long ago lost the purity of the faith and were now encroaching even upon the Russian land. There was a foundation for the struggle – a great foundation – for which it was not a pity to lay down one’s life.

And they laid down their lives, and thousands of the people followed them, believing that for an unrighteous faith people would not so boldly go to the pyres, would not subject themselves to torments and sufferings.

In vain do our opponents assure us that all these were illiterate ignoramuses who knew and understood nothing – these were the best people of their time, the strongest representatives of their nation – its cream, its flowers.

Chapter XII. The Councils of 1666 and 1667

Although Alexei Mikhailovich bore the title of Tsar of “Great, Little, and White Rus’,” the question of the annexation of Little and White Rus’ was far from settled, and war with Poland over them was still being waged. The good fortune that had accompanied the Russians at the beginning of the war had somewhat deserted them, and the scales were now wavering. Moreover, the new subjects – the Ukrainians – were not entirely satisfied with their new sovereign. Almost three hundred years had passed since Kievan Rus’ had been conquered by the Lithuanians and then fallen under Polish rule, losing nearly all connection with Moscow, which was flourishing at that time and where the Church had gradually emerged from beneath the authority of the Greek patriarchs and from the sixteenth century had possessed its own patriarchate.

Meanwhile, Kievan Rus’ – heavily Polonised and having formed a new Ukrainian people – belonged to the Patriarchate of Constantinople and had gradually adopted from there all the newly appeared church rites, which differed greatly from the old Moscow ones. Furthermore, having borrowed much from the West, the Kievans began to look upon the “Moscovites” as completely alien people – poorly educated and even foreign in faith.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich would have been content with the annexation of Kiev. But here the difference in church rites was a great obstacle – a difference that Nikon had begun to eliminate. With his removal the matter had come to a halt, and church disorder had set in, which had to be ended at all costs. And so the Tsar decided to convene a council.

Before the council was convened, the opponents of Nikon’s reform were summoned and began to be “exhorted” in long and stormy disputations. How these “exhortations” were conducted may be seen from the account of the monk Abraham concerning his exhortation by Metropolitan Paul of Krutitsa: “Taking me by the beard with his left hand, he began to hold my beard firmly – nay, rather to tear it. And while doing this the hierarch, grieving over me, tested my beard to see whether it was strong…” and then “he began to bless my cheeks plentifully with his right hand, and he blessed my nose plentifully as well. And he grew very angry with me, knocked off my klobuk and kamilavka onto the floor, and dragged me about the chamber by the beard, leaving me bare-headed…” It is clear that exhortations of this kind could hardly contribute much to reconciliation of the parties – not to mention how canonical such actions of hierarchs were.

Before the council the Tsar took every measure to destroy all opposition and to push through in advance all the decisions planned for the council. Therefore, immediately before the opening of the council, it was decided first to “examine and inquire” how the hierarchs invited to the council regarded the Greek patriarchs, the Greek books, the newly corrected Russian ones, the council of 1654, etc. In February all the hierarchs sent in their written statements on these questions, and only on 29 April 1666 did the council begin its sessions, which lasted until 2 July.

No authentic records of the council’s proceedings have come down to us; only the notes of the Kiev monk Simeon of Polotsk exist, who depicted everything in his own way. For us it is noteworthy that this council consisted exclusively of Russian hierarchs. The Tsar opened the council with a speech, after which all kissed the symbols of faith in the Greek book Chrysobull as a sign of recognition of Nikon’s corrections. Then the exhortations of the opponents began. It started with Bishop Alexander of Vyatka, who yielded very hastily – so hastily that one cannot help suspecting this was done deliberately to influence the others. However, Archpriest Avvakum and the rest remained unyielding and were immediately exiled. Some seemed to incline toward agreement but later again refused it.

On 2 July the council concluded its work, issuing a decree that recognised and legalised all Nikon’s corrections but at the same time said nothing about the old rites and books – evidently finding nothing sinful or shameful in them.

But such a decision of the council could not satisfy the Tsar, for it turned out that although the council had recognised the new rites as correct and recommended them, it had at the same time recognised the decrees of the Stoglav Council as correct and had not condemned the adherents of antiquity – so that the church disputes were not ended by this. At the same time the question of Nikon as patriarch remained open.

Therefore the Tsar decided to convene a new council – this time with the participation of Greek hierarchs. Among the Greeks Nikon had many friends, such as Metropolitan Athanasius of Iconium, who had been sent to Moscow in 1664 supposedly by his uncle Patriarch Dionysius of Constantinople in order to reconcile Nikon with the Tsar. Meanwhile the Greek hierodeacon Meletius, sent by the Tsar to the East, had returned, reporting that the patriarchs themselves could not come and would not send exarchs, but were sending a letter signed by all the patriarchs in which Nikon was condemned. However, Athanasius declared the letters forged and wrote to Nikon about them that “the Greeks bring false letters only to get money.” Indeed, later the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem assured everyone that they had given no signatures. But among the same Greeks there were also irreconcilable enemies of Nikon, such as the adventurer Paisius Ligarides, who passed himself off as Metropolitan of Gaza and who, having gained the Tsar’s confidence, bent every effort to have Nikon condemned in some way. Under his influence new royal letters were sent asking that Paisius be appointed exarch of the Patriarch of Constantinople (who could not come personally without special permission from the Turkish government); the other Eastern patriarchs were asked to come in person. A new embassy headed by Meletius was sent to the East. Patriarch Nectarius of Jerusalem categorically refused either to come himself or to send an exarch for the trial. Patriarch Dionysius of Constantinople also refused but agreed to the appointment of Paisius as exarch. Paisius used this letter to destroy his enemy Nikon completely – Nikon who had accused him of being an impostor – but here Athanasius again intervened, asserting that these letters too were forged. Disputes began again, and then the Tsar decided to send a Russian envoy to clarify everything, since the Greeks could not be trusted. The cellarer of the Chudov Monastery, Savva, was sent, and he brought back a letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople in which the patriarch exposed both Athanasius and Paisius, writing of Paisius that “I do not call him Orthodox… he is a Papist and a cunning man.” Paisius was “ordained by the Pope and served the liturgy for the Pope in many Latin churches.” Thus at last it became clear that all the letters received up to then were forged and the Greeks impostors. Paisius then began to beg the Tsar to let him go home.

Nevertheless, the Tsar had to depose Nikon at all costs and, finding no one better, he – paying no attention to the patriarchal letter – placed his trust in Paisius and entrusted him with the conduct of the council.

In June 1666, via Astrakhan, two patriarchs arrived for the trial of Nikon: Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch. The Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Constantinople refused not only to come but even to send their exarchs. Learning that the Eastern patriarchs were coming, the delighted Tsar sent them welcoming letters and orders for their reception, but at the same time secretly ordered an investigation – not trusting the Greeks – into the authenticity and legitimacy of the arriving patriarchs. At the same time strict surveillance was established to ensure that no letters or messages from Nikon reached the patriarchs. After five months’ journey from Astrakhan, on 2 November 1666 the patriarchs arrived in Moscow, where a solemn reception was arranged for them. After their reception by the Tsar, Paisius Ligarides was appointed as their interpreter and began preparing the patriarchs for the trial of Nikon in the direction desired by Ligarides and the Tsar. And indeed he succeeded: the council sessions began, and by the end of 1666 Nikon was condemned and deposed.

After this, in February 1667, the council – consisting of Greek adventurers and former patriarchs – proceeded to judge Russian church antiquity. “Former” patriarchs because by this time they had been deposed for their unauthorised journey to Russia and others had been elected in their places; however, news of this had not yet reached Moscow, and they continued to be regarded as genuine patriarchs.

Justice must be done them: the trial was swift, and Russian antiquity – sanctified by time and by the holy saints of the Russian land – was condemned. This had to be done by the Greeks, who had their own special personal interests: they needed at all costs to raise their badly shaken authority; they themselves wrote that all their actions were aimed “so that we might again hope to come to our former freedom, honour, and glory which we had of old.” Therefore “for the sake of the common honour and the beauty of our race” it was necessary to humiliate all Russian antiquity, to shake the authority of the Stoglav Council and to annul its decrees, which had exalted everything Russian too much at the expense of the Greek, and also to condemn the defenders of Russian antiquity, whom the Greeks regarded as personal enemies because they “seemingly denounced Nikon but in essence denounced the Romans (Greeks) as having fallen away from Orthodoxy, from the faith handed down by the fathers, from conscience.”

On 31 January the new Patriarch Joasaph II was elected, and from the end of February 1667 the council sessions began for the trial of Russian antiquity. Of course the verdict had been prepared in advance and was issued in the direction desired by the Greeks. The council decreed the confirmation of all Nikon’s chief corrections and novelties concerning the correction of books, the Creed, the Alleluia, the sign of the cross, the Jesus Prayer, the folding of the fingers for blessing, and others. The decree ends with the following words:

“This our conciliar command and testament we hand down to all the above-mentioned ranks of the Orthodox and command all to keep it unchangingly and to submit to the holy Eastern Church. But if anyone does not obey what is commanded by us and does not submit to the holy Eastern Church and this holy council, or begins to contradict and oppose us, such an opponent, by the authority given us from the All-holy and Life-giving Spirit – if he be of the sacred order – we depose and strip of all priestly function and subject to anathema; if he be of the lay order, we excommunicate and make him a stranger to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and subject him to curse and anathema as a heretic and disobedient, and cut him off from the Orthodox fellowship and flock and from the Church of God until he come to understanding and return to the truth by repentance. And he who does not come to understanding and does not return to the truth by repentance but remains in his obstinacy until his end, let him be excommunicated even after death, and let his portion and his soul be with Judas the betrayer, with the Jews who crucified Christ, with Arius and the other accursed heretics. Let iron, stones, and wood be destroyed and decay, but let him remain unabsolved and undecayed, like a tympanum for ever and ever. Amen.”

With such terrible curses the council falls upon all defenders of church antiquity. Whereas the council of 1666 had treated Russian church antiquity comparatively mildly, imposing no oaths or prohibitions and recognising the ancient rites as Orthodox in the same way as the new ones, the council of 1667 – guided by the Greeks – condemned all antiquity and demanded the introduction of all Greek rites, which it found to be the only correct ones.

But even this seemed insufficient to the council, and to destroy finally the defenders of antiquity it ordered them to be “punished with civil punishments” consisting of “tormenting them with various torments and different tortures; thus some had their tongues cut out, some their hands cut off, some their ears and noses, and they were put to shame in the marketplace, and afterwards sent into imprisonment until their end.” And this was fully applied by the Russian government.

Thus was sanctified and blessed the entire subsequent policy of persecuting the Old Believers.

The Stoglav Council was not forgotten either; concerning it was said:
“And the council… that wrote about the sign of the honourable cross – that is, about the folding of two fingers – and about the double Alleluia and about the rest that was written unreasonably, through simplicity and ignorance, in the book Stoglav, and the oath which they laid unrighteously and without discernment – we Orthodox patriarchs, Kyr Paisius, Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and Judge of the Universe, and Kyr Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch and of all the East, and Kyr Joasaph II, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, and the whole holy council – that unrighteous and unreasonable oath of Macarius and that council we loose and destroy, and that council we count as no council, and the oath as no oath, but reckon it as nothing, as though it had never been: for that Macarius the metropolitan and those who thought with him reasoned unreasonably through their ignorance, as they wished, by themselves, not agreeing with the Greek and ancient parchment Slavonic books, nor taking counsel with the most holy ecumenical patriarchs about it, nor even asking them.”

Thus the Greeks, in order to prop up their badly shaken authority, did not scruple even to raise their hand against one of the most revered of all Russians – one of the most remarkable shepherds and most learned men of his time. The Greeks needed to blacken and spit upon him only because he “reasoned through ignorance,” not having invited the Greeks to the council and not having asked their approval.

Because of the unreasonable and unjust decision of the council of 1667 the Russian Church was split, and the people had to endure whole centuries of cruel oppression and persecution.

Chapter XIII. The Greeks and the Council of 1666–1667

To better understand the Council of 1666–1667, we must first become more closely acquainted with the Greeks who presided over it, namely the patriarchs Maсarius of Antioch and Paїsios of Alexandria, as well as Paїsios Ligarides.

Patriarchs Paїsios and Maсarius travelled to Moscow against the express wish of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Constantinople, for which they were subsequently deposed by a council. The chief reason that drove them to Moscow was the desire to obtain as much alms and gifts as possible – something to which the Greeks were notoriously partial – and which had been promised them by the archdeacon Meletios.

Their expectations were indeed fully justified. Scarcely had they set foot on Russian soil, surrounded by a large retinue, when the most lavish royal benefactions and gifts began to flow, never ceasing throughout their entire stay in Moscow. Gifts poured in not only from the Tsar, but from the Tsarina, the royal family, boyars, hierarchs, and monasteries. According to the calculations of Prof. Kapтерев, during their time in Moscow the patriarchs each received gifts worth approximately 100 thousand gold dollars (in the currency of the 1920–1930s). Yet besides gifts, the patriarchs procured money by other means as well. Receiving full maintenance both in cash and in provisions so abundant that they could not consume it all, they did not scruple to sell the surplus; and surplus there was in abundance, since along the entire route they were fed in monasteries and cities. The patriarchs also drew income from their numerous retinue, which consisted not only of clergy but of laymen; maintenance was provided for all of them, and rich gifts were bestowed upon them too. The lay portion of the retinue consisted of so-called “nephews” and relatives of the patriarchs – in reality simple Greek merchants who travelled under the patriarchs’ protection in order to trade duty-free in Russia; for this privilege they paid the patriarchs an appropriate bribe.

The patriarchs themselves did not disdain trade and, wherever possible, sold whatever they could. Maсarius himself writes to the Tsar: “We gave certain items to the elder and his companions to sell in that country.” Upon departing, the patriarchs begged the Tsar for charters granting them permission to come to Moscow every three years for alms, on account of the great injuries and violence suffered from the ungodly Hagarenes. Such charters were also issued to two Egyptian monasteries.

But no sooner had the patriarchs returned home than they again began begging the Tsar for alms and aid, complaining that they had suffered losses from the sale of the gifted sables. Paїsios soon landed in prison for certain commercial misdeeds; the Tsar had to ransom the patriarchs with money and intercessions before the Turkish Sultan – and here too gifts were indispensable.

Thus the visit of these Greek “saints” cost a very pretty penny indeed.

A highly interesting figure is also Paїsios Ligarides. Arriving in Moscow in 1662 and having first carefully ascertained (as befits a well-trained pupil of the Jesuits) the true state of affairs, he took the Tsar’s side and “became the soul and guiding spirit of all Nikon’s enemies.”

We have already spoken of who he was and how he conducted himself at the council.

It is clear that the council owed its decisions chiefly to him, for, taking the most active part in all its affairs, he was in fact its real leader.

The arriving patriarchs knew perfectly well that Paїsios was an adventurer and impostor, yet seeing that the Tsar listened to him “as to a prophet of God” and having, one must presume, received a substantial bribe, they did not unmask Paїsios but acted in concert with him.

When letters arrived that exposed Paїsios, the Tsar nevertheless took his side and began efforts for his restoration, sparing no money for gifts. In the end, however, all his efforts proved fruitless, and Paїsios was definitively rejected as a “Latiniser” who “works for the popes of Rome and has left his flock without a shepherd for fifteen years.”

In 1673 Paїsios was given money and letters requesting his restoration, and he himself set off for the East. But having reached Kyiv, he evidently received unfavourable news and decided to remain there, where he stayed for three years. Afterwards he again travelled to Moscow, but had already lost trust, and soon set out once more for Palestine; he got no farther than Kyiv, and there, after some time, he died in 1678.

Such were the principal Greek representatives at the Council of 1666–1667 who condemned all the truly ancient Russian (and formerly Greek) ecclesiastical rites and customs.

It took 250 years for the truth at last to be revealed and clarified, and for the New-RitualistsRitualists themselves to be forced to acknowledge the complete absurdity of the accusations of ignorance and benightedness levelled against the Old Believers.

It was not the Old Believers who proved ignorant – those who defended the truth – but rather the Russian hierarchs who “meekly and obediently signed whatever was dictated to them by the Eastern patriarchs together with the other Greeks” (Prof. Kapтерев).

Chapter XIV. The Solovetsky Monastery

Monasteries played an enormous role in the history of the Russian state. In the grievous years of calamity and woe that befell Rus’, they were the sole strongholds and guardians of faith and enlightenment. More than once their steadfastness encouraged the rest of the people, calling them to resist the external foe, and often, not content with mere calls, they set a real example of courageous defence – as happened with the Trinity-Sergius Lavra.

In the history of the Old Belief, too, monasteries played no small part.

The first to show an example of lofty steadfastness and unshakeable resolve, preferring to break with the government rather than betray the faith, was the Solovetsky Monastery.

Situated on islands in the icy White Sea, the Solovetsky Monastery was founded in the 14th century by the venerable Zosima and Savvatii. It quickly grew and became the centre of the entire northern region. Pilgrims flocked here from all over Rus’. Being one of the richest and most independent monasteries in Rus’, Solovetsky was very little subject to Moscow. Standing apart, it suffered few great misfortunes and was regarded as one of the chief preservers of piety.

And so, when Nikon’s innovations began, the monastery displayed its firmness and resolve in defence of the old faith, and from its ranks produced many zealous champions of ancient piety.

In 1654 the superior of the Solovetsky Monastery was Archimandrite Ilya. While present at the council he signed its decisions, but in his heart he remained an opponent of Nikon’s innovations. When the new books were sent to the monastery in 1657, he refused to accept them, and the rest of the monks agreed with him. On 8 June 1658 a “black council” of the entire brotherhood was convened, at which Archimandrite Ilya explained the situation and ardently called upon them “that God might grant us to die in the Orthodox faith, as our fathers died, and that we accept no Latin service.” In reply the brethren unanimously supported their superior and resolved not to accept the new books; and if certain priests should begin serving according to the new books, they would not receive communion from them. The sentence was signed by all the literate priests and monks on behalf of themselves and all the illiterate. Informers immediately sent a denunciation to Nikon, but Nikon himself had already fallen into disgrace.

In 1659 Archimandrite Ilya died, and Bartholomew was chosen as hegumen in his place. He turned everything to the new way, but his activity only brought discord to the monastery and protests from the defenders of antiquity. Despite all the new hegumen’s manoeuvres, the brethren stood firmly for the old ways. At this time the elder Gerasim Firsov wrote a “letter to a brother” containing numerous proofs and testimonies in defence of the two-fingered sign of the cross, while the elder Feoktist composed a “Discourse on the Antichrist and his secret kingdom,” in which he proved that the Antichrist already reigned spiritually in the world and that Nikon was his forerunner.

In 1666 Bartholomew was summoned to the council. Through him the brethren sent a petition begging that their ecclesiastical order and rule not be changed. But upon arriving at the council, Bartholomew concealed the document. Since rumours had reached Moscow that the brethren refused to accept the new books, the elder Gerasim Firsov was summoned. When the matter was clarified and the document hidden by the hegumen was read aloud, the council drafted a special epistle to the brethren exhorting them to accept the new books and threatening excommunication in case of resistance.

To persuade them, the following were sent: Archimandrite Sergius of the Yaroslavl monastery, the Moscow priest Vasily Fedorov, the hieromonk Ioasaf, the hierodeacon Adrian, and two patriarchal officials – the boyar’s son G. Chernovsky and the under-clerk Guryev.

At that time two petitions reached the Tsar: in one the brethren complained about Bartholomew, accusing him of unseemly conduct; in the other, Bartholomew’s supporters tried to blacken his opponents. After Bartholomew had justified himself in writing, the same Archimandrite Sergius was charged with conducting an “investigation” in the monastery.

On 4 October 1666 Sergius arrived at Solovki but immediately met with united opposition. When, in the presence of the brethren assembled in the main cathedral, he read the epistle and the decrees, the brethren refused to obey the council’s decisions, saying that they were obedient to the sovereign’s will but could not accept the new rites. Archimandrite Nikanor spoke out strongly against the three-fingered sign, declaring that he alone was ready to go to Moscow for all of them and suffer. This greatly affected the whole brotherhood, and they unanimously declared that they were ready to suffer but would not accept the new faith, teaching, or books. After disputes and arguments about the faith, Sergius – who had been received most inhospitably by the brethren – conducted no investigation, achieved nothing from the steadfast monks, and departed back to Moscow. Before leaving (6 October) the brethren gave him a petition to deliver to the Tsar, in which they wrote that they obeyed the Tsar and prayed for him but begged to be left in their former piety. A few days later (12 October) three more petitions were sent, again requesting that they be left with the old books and rites and explaining why they could not accept the new ones; in the third they complained about Sergius and asked for a new superior to be appointed. Soon afterwards the elders sent yet another petition to the Tsar, once more affirming their firm intention to defend the old faith and writing that “by bloodshed and laying down of heads we all with one mind and with the utmost zeal are ready to bear witness.” The petition was carried by the monk Alexander Stukolov and the former archimandrite Nikanor. At the council the patriarchs so cleverly dealt with Nikanor that he “repented” and was sent back with Bartholomew and Joseph to persuade the rest of the brethren. But upon returning to the monastery Nikanor repented of his repentance, while Bartholomew and Joseph returned to Moscow. From there came an order summoning Nikanor to Moscow, but the brethren would not let him go and instead sent the elder Gerasim Firsov, who was “most skilled both in holy writings and in secular learning.” Upon arriving in Moscow, by order of the ecclesiastical authorities he was strangled. After this the Tsar sent a voevoda with a hundred streltsy with the proposal to the monks either to submit or “receive the bitterest death.” At a council the elders resolved not to submit and that all should stand in defence of the old faith; the infirm and faint-hearted were offered the chance to leave the monastery. But there proved to be exceedingly few such, and 1,500 persons remained within. The monks shut themselves behind the high stone walls, appointing as their leader Savvatiy Abryutin (from the Moscow nobility). Thus began an unparalleled siege that lasted from 1667 to 1677.

The voevoda blockaded the monastery, letting no one out; if a fugitive was caught, after prolonged tortures he was put to a cruel death. Thus perished the hermit Pimen, his disciple Grigory, Ivan Zakharyev, the monks Sila and Alexey, and others. Here is how they tortured Ivan Zakharyev: first they broke his arms by shaking, then beat him with the knout, then set fire to his body, and finally the voevoda “ordered the ribs to be torn out of the scorched flesh with red-hot pincers”; then, having shaved his head, for many long hours they poured cold water on the crown of his head. Only on the third day of torment, by the voevoda’s order, was his head cut off.

After four years of siege the voevoda Volokhov was replaced by the colonel (commander) Ievlev, now with 1,000 streltsy. He burned everything around the monastery, but falling ill he was replaced (after two years) by the voevoda Meshcherinov with 1,300 fresh troops. Meshcherinov too could not take the monastery by force. Meanwhile a terrible disease – scurvy – broke out inside, carrying off up to 700 persons. Meshcherinov, abandoning the idea of taking the monastery by storm, began a proper siege, bombarding it with cannon and muskets and terrifying the besieged, who nevertheless remained firm in their resolve to hold out to the end. Every day in the besieged monastery prayers were offered and two molebens served. The defenders’ spirits were also strengthened by rumours of various miracles and visions.

Meshcherinov dug trenches around the monastery and built wooden towers equal in height to the monastery walls; tunnels were driven and powder mines laid. At last an assault began, which ended in complete failure for the Muscovites. The attack was repulsed.

Yet the monastery, which had withstood a long siege and assaults, finally fell through treachery. On 8 November the monk Feoktist came to the voevoda and declared that he knew a secret passage. The voevoda gave Feoktist soldiers, but it turned out the passage was guarded and they could not get through. They had to wait. On 28 January 1677 a fearful storm and blizzard arose. The attackers took advantage of this to creep unnoticed into the monastery. The chronicler relates that the centurion Loggin, who was on duty that night, fell asleep and in a dream heard a voice awakening him and calling him to rise because enemies were entering the monastery. Three times the same vision came. After the third, Loggin went to the elders and told them what had happened. The whole brotherhood rose from sleep and began to serve a moleben, then matins and the midnight office. Since nothing happened, everyone went back to their cells. Deep darkness reigned, and the enemy took advantage of it to penetrate the monastery. Stealthily creeping in, they broke the locks on the main gates, opened them, and let in the rest of the troops. When dawn broke and the morning watch arrived, they already saw enemies on the walls. A short battle began, in which the enemy quickly cut down those who resisted; the rest scattered to their cells and locked themselves in. The voevoda sent word that they should come out fearlessly and that no harm would be done to them; but when the monks who believed him appeared in a procession with crosses, they were attacked, the icons were taken away, and all were placed under guard. The reprisal began. First the centurion Samuil was beaten to death; then Archimandrite Nikanor was brought to the voevoda – already unable to walk from old age. For his bold speech the voevoda, flying into a rage, began to beat him with a staff until he knocked out the elder’s last teeth, then ordered him tied by the feet and dragged outside the monastery enclosure. The elder, thrown into a ditch, lay all night on the ice in only his shirt, torn and with his head smashed, and only in the morning gave up his soul. Then were tortured to death: the elder Makariy, frozen on the ice; the elder Khrisanf; Feodor with his disciple Andrey, to whom the voevoda ordered “hands and feet to be cut off, and then their very heads”; afterwards another sixty persons were executed – some hanged by the neck, some by the feet; “many more had their ribs cut open with sharp iron, a hook thrust through, and each hung on his own hook.” And the chronicler further relates that “the blessed sufferers joyfully placed their necks in the noose; joyfully prepared their feet to run toward heaven; joyfully offered their ribs to be cut and even commanded that they be cut more widely.” “Others the beast-hearted tormentor ordered to be roped by the feet, mercilessly tied to horses’ tails and dragged along the ice until they gave up the ghost.”

The sick and the aged were not spared. All were dragged to the seashore, where a huge waterless hole was cut in the ice; there, bound two by two, 150 persons were placed and water gradually let in. Since the frost was fierce, the water froze and all the sufferers were encased in ice.

Thus were tortured to death from 400 persons “or up to five hundred, as some say.” All the rest were sentenced to exile. The monastery stood empty; the voevoda began to plunder “the monastery’s possessions, daring even to lay hands on the holy icons.” Soon recalled to Moscow and afterwards appointed to Vologda, he died in terrible agonies, rotting alive.

The bodies of all the executed were gathered and buried on a separate island in the sea – Zhenskaya Korga.

The monastery perished, but its cause did not perish. Not in vain did so many people perish; their steadfastness and courage served as an example to the whole Russian people who stood for the old faith. The monks, scattered throughout Rus’, carried everywhere the tidings of the Solovetsky martyrs, calling all to follow the sufferers’ example. Among the monks of the Solovetsky Monastery who especially laboured in preaching and laid down their lives for the true faith, the following should be noted:

1. Epifaniy, who preached much in the Onega region and then in Moscow, where he laboured greatly together with Protopope Avvakum. Finally the elder was seized, long confined “in an earthen prison,” and “having twice endured the cutting of his tongue – miraculously healed by God – spoke again.” Burned in Pustozersk in 1681.

2. Savvatiy, who laboured much in various monasteries. Executed in Moscow.

3. The deacon Ignatiy – distinguished by extraordinary learning and knowledge of Holy Scripture. Preached in the Onega and Kargopol regions. Burned in the Paleostrovsky Monastery.

4. German “the humble-minded and meek,” burned together with Ignatiy.

5. The deacon Serapion and

6. Loggin, who lived thirty years in complete silence on one of the islands of the White Sea; they led the strictest life in an earthen cave they had dug, and there they reposed.

7. Evfimiy,

8. Gennadiy, and many others who became renowned for their righteous life and gave an example of strict living and asceticism.

Chapter XV. The Priest Nikita Dobrynin

Dissatisfaction with Patriarch Nikon’s reforms spread ever more widely throughout Rus’ and penetrated even into its most remote corners. “And in many cities of thy pious realm,” wrote the priest Nikita to the Tsar, “and especially in the villages, the churches of God are greatly troubled; whithersoever I have travelled much, I have not found two or three churches wherein they serve and sing uniformly, but in all there is diversity and great discord: in one church they serve and sing according to Nikon’s books, and in another according to the old… And from this, great Sovereign, many Christian souls of the simple folk, the faint-hearted, perish; they have fallen into despair, have begun to go to the churches of God less often, and some do not go at all, and have ceased to have spiritual fathers.”

Thus the seed sown by Patriarch Nikon began to bear evil fruit: the crack that had appeared in the Russian Church grew wider year by year and divided the Russian people. Year by year the defenders of antiquity separated themselves, who, as before, zealously upheld their convictions and openly defended them. But the time was already approaching when open defence of the old faith would become impossible and cruel persecutions would begin.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, even after the Council of 1667, despite all the conciliar oaths and the apparent victory of the reformers, still harboured doubts in his soul as to the correctness of the chosen path. He died in 1676; his heir, Tsar Fedor Alexeevich, issued a series of decrees directed against the defenders of antiquity, but reigned only a short time. After his death (1682) a struggle for power began, which the defenders of antiquity hoped to use in order to reopen the disputed question of Patriarch Nikon’s reforms once more.

At the head of the defenders of antiquity on this occasion stood the priest Nikita Dobrynin. Very little information about him has survived. It is known that until 1650 he had been a priest in the city of Suzdal. Dissatisfied with the actions of Archbishop Stefan of Suzdal, who was introducing Nikon’s innovations, he submitted a petition to the Tsar. Archbishop Stefan, convicted of various offences, was removed from his see, and the priest Nikita set about composing a “great” petition exposing Nikon’s innovations. It was written with extraordinary skill, clarity, and cogency, with numerous citations from Holy Scripture. But the government, learning of it, ordered the petition confiscated and Nikita arrested and brought for trial to Moscow. In Moscow it was commanded that a refutation be composed; the task was entrusted to Paisios Ligarides, who did not know Slavonic, and to Simeon of Polotsk. Paisios produced thirty-one “refutations,” and Simeon, basing himself on them, composed his Rod of Governance, which was confirmed by the Council of 1666. Since Nikita remained unyielding and even accused the hierarchs of ignorance, he was excommunicated and imprisoned (in May 1666). After some time he submitted a plea for mercy and in 1667 was released; thereafter he settled in Moscow. In 1682 he again came forward against Nikon’s innovations.

At that time, immediately after the death of Tsar Fedor Alexeevich, at the instigation of Princess Sophia, a revolt of the streltsy broke out, which ended with the proclamation of Princess Sophia Alexeevna as regent during the minority of the “tsars” Ivan and Peter. On the third day after the uprising (15 May 1682) the streltsy held counsel about ancient piety, desiring to restore it once more in Rus’. They resolved to draw up a petition and for this purpose turned to their like-minded comrades Kurbatov, Borisov, and Savva Romanov, who went to a certain monk Sergius, most pious and steadfast in the ancient Orthodoxy. With his blessing they began to compose a petition in the name of all the streltsy and the inhabitants of the black suburbs. After the petition had been solemnly read and approved by the streltsy, who desired “above all to stand firm for the ancient Orthodox Christian faith, and if need be, to shed their blood,” and after consultation with Prince Khovansky, it was decided, for the forthcoming disputation on the faith, to invite the Suzdal priest Nikita. Prince Khovansky promised to obtain the holding of a council to settle the disputes about the faith; it was resolved to ask that the council be held either on Lobnoe Mesto or in the Kremlin square in the presence of the tsars and the tsarina. Friday was appointed as the day of the council, since the coronation of the tsars was planned for Sunday (23 June). On Friday, after a moleben, the priest Nikita took the cross, monk Sergius the Gospel, and monk Savvatiy the “vessel of God,” and at the seventh hour they came to the Kremlin accompanied by a great multitude of people. They were received by Prince Khovansky, to whom they set forth their request that the patriarch be commanded “righteously to examine the matter with testimony from divine Scripture: why the patriarch will not serve according to the old printed books and forbids others to do so, while those lovers of God who, zealous for the fathers’ doctrines, hold fast to the true law, he anathematizes by council and sends into prisons to die.” Prince Khovansky delivered the petition to the sovereigns for their perusal, after which the council, at the patriarch’s request, was postponed until Wednesday.

Meanwhile the patriarch, in fear, began to bribe the streltsy and win them over with favours. This had its effect, and discord began in some strelets regiments. Nevertheless, delegates from the regiments, headed by Pavel and Savva Romanov, were sent to the patriarch. A dispute about the true faith began, in which the defenders of antiquity gained the upper hand. On Wednesday (5 July) all the zealots of ancient piety, taking the cross, the Gospel, and the “vessel of God,” with candles, walked in good order and reverence to the council, while “certain God-loving people carried the holy books upon their heads.” The streltsy went with them for protection, together with a great multitude of people. The patriarch ordered the delegates to be invited into the Faceted Palace, but they feared treachery, especially since they had only just been attacked on the square by parish priests and deacons. Finally, after Prince Khovansky’s guarantee, the delegates entered the Faceted Palace, where, having set up an analoy, they placed the honourable cross, the holy Gospel, and icons upon it and lit candles before them. After this they bowed to the ground before the tsarina and the princesses. The patriarch addressed them with a speech, reproaching them for disobedience and assuring them of the correctness of the correction of the books, saying that “ye have not even touched grammatical understanding and know not what power it containeth.” Nikita replied that they had not come to speak about grammar but about church dogmas, and then put a question concerning one of the new insertions in the liturgy. The patriarch made no answer, but the Bishop of Kholmogory stepped forward “and rushed upon him furiously like a wild beast.” Nikita “gently pushed him aside with his hand,” saying that he was speaking not to him but to the patriarch. Princess Sophia fell upon him. After a rebuke they proceeded to read the petition, which was soon interrupted again by a remark from Princess Sophia. The reading continued thereafter, frequently interrupted now by Princess Sophia, now by the clergy, who wished to defend themselves but did so unsuccessfully. When the reading was finished neither the patriarch nor the hierarchs offered any reply, and the people, dismissed “in peace” by the princess, left the palace, after which a discussion between the monks and the people was held on Lobnoe Mesto.

Meanwhile neither the patriarch nor the clergy wished to acknowledge themselves defeated and besought Sophia not to deliver them “to mockery and reproach.” Their request was granted, and the number of martyrs for the old faith increased: a week later (11 July) the priest Nikita’s head was cut off on Lobnoe Mesto, and all the remaining fathers were imprisoned in various monasteries. After the execution the faithful gathered the remains of the priest Nikita and buried them in the town of Gzhatsk in Smolensk province.

Thus ended yet another attempt at reconciliation with the militant New-RitualistsRitualists. During the regency of Princess Sophia the extremely harsh Twelve Articles were promulgated against the zealots of antiquity, which ordered even those “who repented” to be put to death, and those who sheltered the faithful were subjected to enormous monetary fines. The consequence of all this was the flight of the faithful into the forests and abroad.

Chapter XVI. The Vyg Desert

The idea of the supremacy of the clergy over secular authority, which still lingered among the Russian clergy, received its final blow from Peter the Great, whose despotic nature could not reconcile itself to submission to the will of a patriarch. In the clergy he wished to see only persons subordinate to him, obeying the monarch’s will in all things and helping to instil his views and reforms into the people.

In the early years of his reforms, Peter, preoccupied as he was, had little time for church disputes. Although the old harsh laws and decrees against adherents of the ancient piety remained in force, the civil authorities took little interest in church affairs and left the struggle to the clergy.

But in 1714, having learned from Bishop Pitirim that the number of people holding the old faith was very great, Peter decided to turn them into a new source of state revenue. To this end he ordered a double poll-tax to be imposed on all who adhered to the old faith, while permitting them to register openly without doubt or fear. Thus Tsar Peter openly acknowledged the existence of the Old Believers and in a sense granted them sanction for open existence within the state.

At the same time, however, there arose before the people of the “old faith” – most of whom were forced to hide in forests on the outskirts of the realm, where they built monasteries and settled around them with their families, or crossed the border into Lithuania, Poland, Courland, Prussia, and elsewhere – the question of how to organise their own church. Until then the defenders of the old faith had still been able to hope for reconciliation with the New-RitualistsRitualists or, more accurately, that the New-RitualistsRitualists would return to the old faith. But with the beginning of Peter’s reforms, seeing his turn toward the West and his disdain for church affairs, they had to abandon all such hopes and set about working out the foundations for independent existence.

The question of priests was especially acute. It has already been said that after the death of Bishop Pavel of Kolomna, who had not managed to ordain a successor, there remained no bishops of the old faith. There was no one to ordain new priests, and the old ones were gradually dying out. Thus arose the question: how were they to continue? A search began for a way out of the situation, which led to the fragmentation of the Old Belief into various sects. The question of the priesthood was resolved in the most diverse ways. Some set out in search of any bishop of ancient piety who might by chance have survived somewhere – searches that went on for about 150 years and yielded no results; others began to accept runaway priests from the New-RitualistsRitualists; still others decided to manage entirely without priests.

It has already been mentioned that the consequence of Princess Sophia’s harsh decrees was the flight of Old Believers into the forests and abroad. The chief places of Old Believer settlement were: the Kerzhenets forests along the Kerzhenets River, where the Kerzhenets monasteries were founded; the Starodub forests in Chernigov province; the Don; Siberia; and Pomorye.

But even there the government would not let the Old Believers live in peace. Frequent unrest broke out throughout the country, which often had to be suppressed by military force. The result was the terrible spread of self-immolation or voluntary starvation.

Yet even in those dreadful years of cruel persecution, in the deepest forest wilderness, great strongholds of the Old Belief – monasteries – began to arise.

One of the most renowned monasteries in the Old Belief was the Vyg Monastery in Pomorye, near the great Lake Vyg on the Vyg River. Its founder was Daniil Vikulov, who became its first superior. The desert was established in 1694. Its historian Ivan Filippov, speaking of its beginning, says: “There gathered together into this common life men chosen by God: Daniil, the golden rule of Christ’s meekness; Peter, the vigilant eye of the church rule; Andrey, the precious treasure of wisdom; Simeon, the sweet-voiced swallow and unceasing mouth of theology; and other wondrous men, lamps of true piety and storehouses of honourable virtue.”

In 1702, after the departure of the hieromonk Pafnutiy from Solovki, the question arose of choosing a chief superior for the desert. When Daniil refused, Andrey Denisov was elected.

The brothers Andrey (1674–1730) and Semyon (1682–1741) Denisov came from the noble princely family of Myshetsky. From childhood both firmly held the old faith, having been instructed by the Solovetsky monk Ignatiy. In 1692 Andrey, together with his friend Ioann, withdrew into the “desert” – the forests – where they led an exceedingly strict life and endured many hardships. Soon Andrey met Daniil Vikulov and together with him founded the Vyg community. Thither came Andrey’s sister Solomonia, and many people began to gather. Thanks to Andrey Denisov’s tireless labours, who managed all the community’s economy, the settlement quickly grew and strengthened. Travelling repeatedly on community business throughout Russia and visiting Moscow and Kyiv, he studied there “the grammatical and rhetorical arts.” Possessed of extraordinary eloquence – “so cunning and sweet was he in speech that none such is found among Christians today; and in church dogmas and Orthodoxy he knew Holy Scripture so thoroughly, saw to the very end, that it is said there will not be another such; in short, he was a house of wisdom and a dwelling-place of Christian philosophy, like unto John Chrysostom” – he won the hearts of all around him and upheld their spirit in the difficult years of persecution. His Pomorskie Otvety (“Pomor Answers”) became the cornerstone of all Old Believer views, and from his desert sprang the Old Pomor agreement. To his pen also belong: “History of the Fathers and Sufferers of Solovki,” in which is related in detail the siege of the monastery and the torments endured by its defenders, and “The Russian Vineyard,” in which are gathered the lives of the chief figures of the Old Belief.

It cost Denisov great inner struggle to consent to his election as superior of the Vyg Desert. He long refused, even in writing, and accepted only after the brethren promised to obey the rules of the “common-life charter” he had drawn up, in which he demanded the strictest life: all were to lead a modest monastic life, avoiding worldly temptations; to eat only two “portions” a day; unswervingly to attend divine services, etc.

The whole brotherhood expressed full agreement with everything and granted Andrey the right to punish severely those who disobeyed.

And so, under the wise leadership of Andrey Denisov, the desert began to grow, expand, and prosper. Already in 1706 the women were separated from the Vyg Desert and established their own community on the Leksa River, twenty versts away. Its first spiritual mother “for knowledge of Holy Scripture” was Solomonia, sister of the Denisovs, and its hegumenia was the elderess Fevronia.

The deserts were built up and populated more and more. Surrounded by high fences, they occupied a considerable area where stood a chapel with a bell-tower, numerous cells (sometimes whole buildings), a refectory, hospital, almshouse, guesthouse, cattle yards, and many service buildings. Around the monasteries lay the “suzemok” – a settlement of separate sketes administered by elected elders subordinate, like the deserts themselves, to the chief church council.

The council consisted of the mentors, the ekklesiarch, the treasurer, the cellarer, the elder of the sketes, and elected representatives. It met in a special cell under the chairmanship of the superior. All the chief affairs of the desert, both spiritual and temporal, were decided there, and the council’s resolutions were binding. Decisions were taken by majority vote; in case of a tie, preference was given to the side on which the eldest members sat. These resolutions could apply to all members, beginning with the superior himself; any transgressions were punished very strictly, even with expulsion or corporal punishment.

Since everything was conducted “according to monastic order,” the greatest attention was paid to worship.

At first on Vyg things were “very poor”: there were no skilled singers, very few icons, services had to be held by splint-light; there were no bells, and a board was struck instead.

But when two men knowledgeable in Holy Scripture came from Moscow, “they began to sing all-night vigils on feast days according to church rule, and likewise on Sundays.” The reading of books was introduced: “they read the books with great zeal, and what was read was understood most wisely by all who listened.”

Little by little the lack of books and icons was made good, thanks to Andrey Denisov’s tireless efforts in collecting them on his journeys throughout Russia. Soon a huge and extremely rich library was formed. Bells were acquired. A school was established for teaching singing, literacy, “correct writing,” and icon-painting.

Every day vespers, matins, the hours, and molebens were served; on feasts great vespers and all-night vigil, and services lasted very long. Homilies were often delivered. At the sound of the bell all lined up two by two and walked in good order to the prayer-house, where each took his appointed place. The young who came from the world stood separately with their overseers, apart from the elders and schema-monks clad in ancient monastic garb. All held lestovki in their hands. In the prayer-house strict order and decorum were maintained.

The rest of the time everyone was obliged to engage in ceaseless labour, both spiritual and physical. The chief occupations of the Vyg inhabitants were cattle-breeding and farming, but they also engaged in fishing, hunting, sea trades, and later began to build their own factories: brick, tannery, sawmill.

Generous donations flowed from all sides into the desert, which began to flourish and become the centre of the entire Old Belief.

At first the government regarded the desert favourably, but the New-RitualistsRitualist clergy could not look indifferently upon the community’s prosperity and did everything possible to oppress it and lay snares.

Nevertheless, the community existed for almost 150 years for the good of the whole Old Belief until, in the harsh reign of Emperor Nicholas I, it was ravaged and destroyed, like most Old Believer monasteries. The destruction began in 1836, when the Vyg inhabitants were forbidden to acquire real estate; in 1837 thirteen bells were sealed and ringing taken away; in 1854 the desert and sketes were closed, the Old Believers expelled, and peasants from Pskov province settled in their place; the prayer-houses were given to the New-RitualistsRitualists and New-RitualistsRitualist parishes opened. An entire region was laid waste and a rich land turned into desert.

Yet the existence of the Vyg Desert was not in vain and left a deep mark on the entire life of priestless Old Belief.

Its tireless leaders Andrey and Semyon Denisov, besides organising the community, cared also for the ordering of the whole Old Belief. To this end, together with other experts, they performed the enormous labour of compiling the Pomorskie Otvety (“Pomor Answers”).

Chapter XVII. The “Pomorian Answers”

The chief compiler of the Answers was Andrey Denisov, but he was greatly assisted by his brother Semyon.

Semyon Denisov (1682–1741) settled in the Vyg community in 1697 together with his father Dionisiy and his brother Ioann. His brother Andrey helped him, as he did several others, in his studies, paying particular attention “to writing correctly and speaking well, to knowing the power of Holy Scripture, to understanding church dogmas, and to strengthening the rest of the brethren in the Orthodox Christian faith.” Semyon travelled much throughout Russia, striving to complete his education. Having studied grammar, rhetoric, poetics, and part of philosophy, he never ceased to occupy himself with the study of Holy Scripture, which, thanks to his extraordinary memory, he knew perfectly. In natural gifts he was in no way inferior to his brother, and he expended much labour for the good of the Old Belief.

For his zeal for the old faith he had to suffer no little. Thus in 1715, on account of a denunciation, he was seized in Novgorod and kept in prison for four years. In 1739, already being superior, he was again arrested on the denunciation of Krugly and kept under guard in the town of Shunga. Incessant labours and privations undermined his health, and in 1741 the second great luminary of the Old Belief also passed away.

Of the numerous works left by the Denisov brothers, the most valuable for us are the Pomorskie Otvety (“Pomorian Answers”).

The history of their composition is as follows. With the establishment of the Synod, its activity was immediately directed against the Old Believers. Seeing that harsh measures taken against them were achieving nothing, the Synod in 1722 issued a decree that Old Believers should appear before the Synod to receive “instruction.” Two months later a new decree followed, in which specific dates were already appointed for disputations about the faith. But no one responded to these invitations, and therefore it was decided to send clergy to conduct disputations in the localities. Thus to Pomorye was dispatched the hieromonk Neofit, who was given extensive instructions from which one may conclude that the Synod placed less hope in Neofit’s knowledge and ability than in the support of the civil authorities – a support to which later “missionaries” also loved to resort.

Arriving in Petrozavodsk in December 1722, Neofit drew up 106 questions, which he sent to Vyg and demanded answers by the end of December.

In so short a time it was obviously impossible to answer numerous questions requiring thorough consideration and enormous labour. Nevertheless, having received a decree “commanding under severe prohibition that answers be written to his questions,” and in which it was mentioned that if the answers were not delivered they would “be liable to civil execution,” the Vyg inhabitants, after fasting and fervent prayers, immediately set about composing the answers.

The chief work was done by Andrey Denisov, as the chronicler relates: “Andrey Dionisiev took upon himself great care in this matter and added labour upon labour night and day… For he himself read each question carefully and wrote the answer with authentic testimonies and searches. His brother Semyon and Trifon Petrov assisted him, examining and confirming everything by common counsel. But Andrey wrote everything himself, and always laid it before the council for attestation, reading it aloud, discussing and consulting.”

Meanwhile Neofit pressed for the answers and, despite all the Vyg inhabitants’ requests to postpone the deadline, insisted on their speedy submission, unwilling to give time for the composition of serious replies. Nevertheless the Vyg people did not send the answers, wishing to complete them thoroughly, and in order to calm the impatient Neofit they sent for the disputations Manuil Petrov and Ivan Akindinov. The disputations began and went very badly for Neofit. When it finally became clear to him that “the Vyg people had no desire whatever to hear the voice of instruction and guidance, but resolved with obstinacy to defend their opinions” – or, more simply, that Neofit proved unequal to his task and lacked sufficient knowledge, having no other proofs than those cited in the Rod of Governance, the Spiritual Regulation, the Investigation, and the Prashchitsa – he again resorted to new decrees against Vyg and to reports to the Synod.

All this compelled the Vyg people to hasten the completion of their work, yet, not wishing “the answer to be unworthy of consideration,” they were able to finish only in June. On 28 June the delegates presented the answers, written in two copies, to the office of the Petrovsky factories.

One cannot but marvel and bow before the enormous labours of the Vyg people in composing such detailed answers in the short space of six months. For this much zeal and effort were required.

When Neofit became acquainted with the answers, he began to postpone the disputation with the Vyg people concerning them. Finally, after insistent requests from the Vyg inhabitants “for the reading of the answers and the conclusion of the discussion,” disputations were appointed for September.

When the disputations began, Neofit refused to read the answers and only, again after insistent requests from the Vyg people, prepared his written reflections on the answers, in which he distorted everything in his own way. After vigorous protests from the Vyg side and exposures of falsehood, the hieromonk Neofit was forced to fall silent and end the disputations, after which the Vyg people were released. To all their requests that his written refutations be handed over to them for examination, Neofit refused, evidently feeling the full weakness of them.

Thus Neofit’s attempt at a contest with the Old Believers ended in complete failure, but on another field he proved equal to the task: “seeking out Old Believers, by every kind of compulsion and deceit bringing them to his church; those who did not submit he cast into prisons and fetters, and in the chancelleries by cunning interrogations he brought them to the innovations and by force to his church; while those who stood firm he registered under the double tax and exacted money from them even for past years from the time the decree was issued. And there was from him great persecution and oppression of Christians.” In the end a petition was sent against him by the people driven to despair – which, however, helped little, and only his soon-following death delivered the people from the ferocious oppressor.

The content of the Pomorskie Otvety is as follows: first are set forth the 106 questions posed by the Synod, and to each question a most detailed answer is given, with numerous citations from Holy Scripture, the Kormchaya, etc.; many historical confirmations are also adduced. Questions 1–4 treat “of the Orthodoxy of the ancient Russian Church” and its agreement with the Eastern Church; 5–15 – of the sign of the cross; 16–24 – of alleluia; 25 – “of the all-Russian agreement before the Stoglav Council”; 26–31 – “of the correction of scribal errors”; 32–35 – “of the customs of the former patriarchs and the newly introduced ones”; 36–39 – of the Kirillova Kniga; 40–47 – again of the sign of the cross; 48–51 – of the innovations in the Great-Russian Church; 52 – of the Tsar and the Synod; 53 – of alleluia; 54–64 – of prosphorae and services upon them; 65–71 – of the cross; 72–74 – of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich; 75–78 – of ancient church piety and the new; 79–97 – of Nikon’s correction of the books, the councils of 1654–66, and the Greeks; 98–100 – of ancient church piety; 101 – of the church without priests; 102–103 – of baptism in necessity and confession to elders; 104–106 – of those who receive communion, of those not ordained, and of the writing of the number of the Antichrist.

In addition, the book contains a preface, an exhortation, and an epilogue. Of particular importance is the preface addressed to Neofit, in which the Vyg people in a sense confess their entire faith. First all the chief Nikonian innovations are enumerated; then it is said that the Old Believers are “the remnants of the ancient Orthodox Church,” who have introduced no novelties or new dogmas; “we abide in the ancient Orthodox Church, according to the divine Chrysostom: the church is not walls and roof, but faith and life; not church walls, but church laws” (Margarit, ch. 10). It is further proved that salvation is possible even without the priesthood. Mentioning that they have composed the answers, though under compulsion, yet “not for reproach or scorn, but for information and confession we offer them to your wisdom, that your teaching may see that we abide firmly and without doubt in the ancient Orthodox patristic traditions.” The preface ends with a detailed confession of the foundations of the faith: “Thus we confess the Orthodox Catholic faith, and all the Gospel and apostolic commandments we accept with all our heart; the instructions of the holy fathers we honour with all reverence; the traditions and teachings of the holy councils we kiss with all submission. All the church mysteries performed according to the tradition of the holy apostles and holy fathers we confess with all our heart, accept and honour with all reverence. And if by reason of necessary circumstances we cannot obtain something, yet we believe, desire, and confess it with all our heart; and in such circumstances we abide as the saints of old abode in times of necessity.”

The significance of the Answers for the Old Belief is extraordinarily great, for in them all Nikon’s innovations are thoroughly exposed, and then the very essence of the Old Belief is set forth, together with the possibility of its existence under the new conditions without priesthood.

The Old Believers who accepted the view of church order set forth in the Pomorskie Otvety came to be called priestless Old Believers of the Pomor agreement.

Chapter XVIII. Government Decrees and Self-Immolations

The Russian people’s faith in the immutability of the foundations of the faith and in their unchangeableness led to the fact that, as soon as Nikon’s innovations began, people started speaking of the imminent end of the world, of the Antichrist, and of the Second Coming. Various proofs were adduced to confirm the nearness of the Coming, and Nikon was compared to the Antichrist who was destroying the Church. Great significance was attached to the apocalyptic number “666,” which was linked to the year 1666 and to the council of that same year.

When nearly thirty years had passed and the Second Coming still had not occurred, in connection with Peter’s reforms and his sharp attacks both on the Church and on antiquity, the people began to see the Antichrist in Peter himself.

When that reign too had passed, the eschatological expectations were altered once more, and among the Old Believers the view became dominant that the Antichrist reigned spiritually in the world.

Since in the early times the Second Coming was expected from day to day, when government agents appeared trying to seize people of the old faith in order to convert them by force, or to imprison or execute them, many began to resort to self-immolation in order to escape violence.

The government took the following measures against the Old Believers.

As early as 1667 the first decree against the Old Believers was issued, by which they were subjected not only to church punishments but also to “the Tsar’s, that is, civic laws and executions…” The first to fall under this decree were Protopope Avvakum, Protopope Nikifor, the priest Lazar, and Epifaniy, of whom it was ordered: “having cut out their tongues, send them… to Pustozersk.” “Punishments” began against others as well, with the result that, as Protopope Avvakum relates, “they gathered in courtyards with wives and children and burned themselves of their own free will.” In the period 1676–1683 in Poshekhonsky district alone, in the single parish of St Paraskeva-Pyatnitsa, as many as 1,920 persons burned themselves, besides those who burned in other parishes. In 1679 in Tobolsk district the monk Daniil, having gathered the faithful around him, withdrew to the Berezovka River where he founded a hermitage. The Tsar’s voevodas learned of this and immediately sent “exhorters” to the hermitage. They carried out their “exhortations and persuasions” so zealously that the believers were compelled to seek escape in self-immolation. “On the night of 6 January, in that settlement the monk Daniil with his like-minded companions burned themselves in their huts.” In all, 1,700 persons perished then. On 4 February of the same year in the same district many more people burned themselves.

In the same year in the village of Mostovka (Siberia) forty persons again burned themselves, driven to it by the oppressions of the Tsar’s voevodas. Preparing for death they wrote a “tale” to Tsar Fedor Alexeevich in which they said: “They say of us that for the sake of delusion we have shut ourselves in a courtyard and wish to set fire to ourselves; yea, yea, Sovereign, God knows that we know no evil design in ourselves, only we hold to the old piety… These books we hold, for them we suffer and die… And further, Sovereign, they force us to cross ourselves with three fingers, with a pinch… they command us to believe thus… Merciful Sovereign, Tsar, command us to remain in the old former faith, and grant us a charter under the sovereign seal so that the officials do not come, do not ruin us poor ones; we write and weep from the grief of our hearts, that we may not accept the new faith, but God forbid that we should even think it, and we are ready at the hour of death to suffer from them and to burn in fire, as those who suffered with the priest Daniil. For Christ we are willing to suffer, because, Sovereign, we dare not go with wives and children to torture, we dare not be separated from them to the end.”

Thus wrote people who were utterly worn out, hunted down, seeing no way out, writing with the blood of their hearts and vainly begging mercy from the government.

But the government continued its former policy, and the result was new and ever new self-immolations.

There is no need to enumerate all the cases of self-immolation that swept across Rus’ – people burned in Siberia, in Pomorye, in the Novgorod region. Many shut themselves up and perished of hunger; others “were buried alive in graves and thus deprived themselves of their wretched life.”

In 1685 new decrees followed, recommending still harsher measures against the Old Believers, among which was the provision that “after thrice questioning them at the place of execution – burn them in a log-house and scatter the ashes…” The result of this decree was a new wave of self-immolations. Especially great was the mass self-immolation in the Paleostrovsky Monastery, where on 4 March 1687, led by the Solovetsky monk Ignatiy, “2,700 persons ended their lives by fire for the ancient piety.”

And on 9 August of the same year, led by “the most pure deacon from Great Novgorod and truly holy monk, father Pimen,” seeing “the cruel assault, the harsh ferocity, the beastly insolence – they trembled to fall into merciless hands,” 1,000 persons burned themselves.

People burned everywhere throughout Rus’, sometimes a hundred, sometimes 150, sometimes 300, and in most cases the number of those who burned cannot even be established.

And the government continued as before to shower decree upon decree, each stricter than the last, with the result that armed clashes between Old Believers and government troops became frequent. One such case occurred at the same Paleostrovsky Monastery, which had been seized by Emelyan Ivanov at the head of an armed band. The government sent a detachment that besieged the monastery; however, the troops could not take it at once, and the siege dragged on for nine weeks; on 25 September 1688 all the besieged burned themselves. In all, 1,500 persons perished.

On 1 August 1693, during the siege of the village of Strokino, after a long battle 800 persons burned themselves.

In the reign of Peter the Great the former decrees remained in force, and in 1714 new additional ones were issued. Although the government in a sense recognised the existence of the Old Believers and agreed to regard them as citizens, it did so with enormous restrictions: they were forced to wear special clothing and copper badges, to pay a tax for beards, they were forbidden to hold authority over others, their testimony in court against “Orthodox” was not accepted, in marriages with “Orthodox” they were ordered to be converted to “Orthodoxy,” and for cohabitation without church marriage they were to be handed over to court; their children were to be taken away and baptised in “Orthodoxy.” Moreover, “an Old Believer who seduced even one of the Orthodox was to be executed, and secret Old Bel &ievers were to be sent to hard labour,” etc.

Self-immolations began again. Among those who burned were people of high rank: thus Prince Peter Myshetsky burned himself in his Novgorod estate together with about a hundred of his co-believers.

After the establishment of the Synod, its measures and decrees against the Old Believers began, leading to new cases of self-immolation. There were especially many cases in Siberia, and the reasons were always the same: “we abandon our homes and all our possessions and go to voluntary death for the old-printed books of the seven councils, as the saints taught us and set forth…”

In 1723 the Synod issued a decree forbidding “Old Believers to build sketes and hermitages for themselves.” Zealous bishops began to destroy the sketes; the result – self-immolations.

Finally, the “Orthodox” clergy began to force Old Believers to confess and commune with them annually and by every means compelled them to convert to their faith. Then the people, defending their faith, began to abandon their native places and all their goods, either resorting to self-immolation, fleeing into impassable wilderness, or emigrating abroad.

The short reigns of Catherine I and Peter II passed quickly, bringing nothing new to the continuing struggle for the faith. Upon Peter II’s accession there had been bright hopes for relief, since the people saw in him the son of Alexei Petrovich, who had perished for the old faith at his father’s hand, but the young emperor’s reign lasted only three years.

The already difficult situation of the Old Believers worsened still more in the reign of Anna Ioannovna (1730–1740). Enormous taxes were doubled and mercilessly exacted, ruining the people. Mass flight began. No small number of Old Believers settled at that time in our region (ed. – in the Baltic provinces).

In Russia itself special investigative commissions subordinate to the Secret Chancellery and the Schism Office acted against the Old Believers. True, executions and tortures were at that time applied relatively rarely, but the taxes and dues reached incredible proportions. Therefore self-immolations again began to occur everywhere. This time the centre became Vyg, where in 1732, for the ancient piety, 75 persons burned themselves in various hermitages, then 12, then 30, then 85. In 1733 a mass of people burned “in the forest in Murom woods,” and those “saved” from self-immolation were seized and “beaten with the knout.” In Pomorye 50 persons burned, and perhaps many more. In 1734 in the same place – 200 in January and 200 in summer.

Finally the Synod turned its attention to the increasing cases of self-immolation and tried to work out measures against it. They ordered the seizure of ringleaders, detailed investigation, reports on everything, etc. In a word, measures were taken that were either purely police measures or purely bureaucratic.

But cases of self-immolation continued. Among the most notable cases one should mention the self-immolation in 1739 in the village of Shadrina in Siberia, caused by the terrible oppressions of the manager Kartashev, who forcibly made people attend church, “cross themselves with a pinch,” and in case of disobedience “break their arms,” etc. Between 300 and 500 persons burned then.

Empress Elizabeth Petrovna (1741–1761) extremely loved all kinds of church services and, in connection with this, the clergy. Therefore the number of clergy increased enormously under her, and at the same time the clergy formed a new closed estate into which access from other estates was almost barred. Special “missionaries” appeared to fight the Old Believers, who caused no little harm.

Although no new special decrees were issued in this reign except those directed against self-immolations, the situation of the Old Believers remained extremely bad and even worsened owing to the strengthening of serfdom. Therefore flights continued, chiefly to Siberia, as well as frequent cases of self-immolation caused by the actions of punitive military detachments. The Synod as before continued to prescribe that “having caught them, they be sent for exhortation to the spiritual authorities.” In spite of all oppressions and all the efforts of the authorities, the number of Old Believers did not decrease. Thus one report states that on the Mezen there are numerous sketes where live “some of noble origin, others of distinguished Moscow and other city merchants,” yet others “contractors,” as well as “no small number of monastics, laymen and laywomen of both sexes,” and others. The result of this report was the dispatch of a military detachment, the destruction of the sketes, and self-immolations. From the long list of self-immolations of this period the most notable for the number of victims was in 1753 in Tyumen district in Siberia, where a great many people burned, the names of 200 of them being recorded. People of all ages burned: men, women, and children, often with all their property. In the same year in Ustyzhensky district 170 persons burned, etc. In 1756 in Tomsk district 172 persons burned; the self-immolation took place after a prolonged siege by a military detachment and lengthy negotiations, during which the Old Believers asked that they cease persecuting them and then they would disperse to their homes and “live until God sends us death,” but as it was they were certain that “all the pious will be given over to execution, impaled on stakes”; moreover they were “ruined by exactions and state labour – better to die.”

Only in 1761, terrified by the incredible stubbornness of those who burned themselves, did the government decide to change somewhat the methods of struggle against the Old Belief that had been practised until then and issued a decree stating that “they be assured that the investigations carried out concerning them (the Old Believers) are now ordered to be annulled,” and that all those held under guard be released to their homes.

Thus ended the first century of the Old Belief’s existence, which passed under the sign of persecution and martyrdom. The government demanded complete submission, but the people persisted and steadfastly held to their old faith. The harsher the measures the government took, the more embittered the people became, resorting to concealment in impassable forests and thickets, flight, suicide, death by starvation, drowning, or self-immolation – the number of whose victims must be counted in tens of thousands.

Usually self-immolation took place as follows. Having learned that the government had discovered their dwelling-place and was sending a military detachment headed by an “Orthodox” priest and some officer for “exhortation,” the people gathered in a chapel, prayer-house, or simply a huge hut, dragging in straw, hay, brushwood, birch-bark, setting barrels of tar, scattering gunpowder, etc. As soon as the military detachment appeared, all gathered in the building and firmly boarded up windows and doors. General prayer began. The detachment sent a negotiator. The people asked to be left in peace and that they go away, that they could never recognise the new church and threatened to burn themselves. The detachment commanders would not even hear of leaving and insisted on their demands. Finally, seeing that persuasion was useless, the troops began the siege and went on the attack. At that moment clouds of smoke rose, flames lit up everything around, cries and groans of the burning were heard; the soldiers retreated a little from the heat, unable to save anyone, and after some time on the site of the fire there remained only charred skeletons of tens and hundreds of people.

And everywhere it was the same. If at the beginning of the persecutions the government itself tortured and burned the first fighters, the subsequent ones voluntarily went to execution so as not to fall into the hands of the enemy.

Thus passed the second “martyrdom” period of the Old Believers’ existence.

Chapter XIX. The Fedoseevtsy

Soon after the founding of the Vyg community and the establishment of the Pomor agreement, a new branch separated from it – the so-called Fedoseev agreement.

Its founder was the well-known Novgorod teacher of Scripture, Feodosiy Vasiliev, who came from the boyar family of the Urusovs. Having served as a deacon in Krestetsky Yam, he joined the Old Belief and attached himself to the Pomor agreement, receiving at baptism the name Dionisiy. In 1699 he moved to Poland, to Nevelsky district, where he was received by a certain Polish nobleman, Pan Kunitsky. “His departure became known in Russia,” and a multitude of Christians from towns, villages, and hamlets, “inflamed with love, ran after him, desiring… to remain under his guidance.” In all, there gathered around Feodosiy “up to 600 males and up to 700 maidens and women” of various estates. For them, near the village of Rusanova in Kropivenskaya volost, two communities were built – one for men and one for women. Feodosiy, together with his assistant, the nobleman Zakhar Bedrinsky, “instructed all in a life pleasing to God according to the monastic rules of Basil the Great, and established common life.” “In these communities divine service was performed – vespers, great vespers, midnight office, matins, the hours, molebens, and pannikhidas – with reading and sweet singing, everything according to the old printed holy books, in due order and very beautifully, every day without fail.” At meals “there was one table for all.” Bread and other food were held in common. Clothing, footwear, and other things “were distributed from the common treasury.” They were occupied chiefly with agriculture. Feodosiy himself took an active part in all the work. They had to pay an annual quit-rent of 30 roubles per person.

Thus they lived there for nine years, when Polish troops began to oppress and plunder them severely, seeking riches; they had to think about further existence. It was decided to look for new places to settle, and meanwhile, during these nine years, Feodosiy finally broke with the Vyg community and formed his own separate agreement. The chief point of disagreement was the question of marriage.

Expecting the imminent coming of the Antichrist and having no priesthood among themselves, the Pomortsy rejected all marriages, including those performed by New-RitualistsRitualist priests. The Fedoseevtsy, however, began to regard such marriages as lawful and to recognise them. This was the cause of the dispute.

An exchange of epistles followed, which did not, however, convince the opponents. In 1703 Feodosiy visited Vyg, where many discussions were held, but without reaching any agreement they parted peacefully. In 1706 Feodosiy, with his disciples, again visited Vyg in the absence of Andrey Denisov, but this time after long disputes a complete break occurred; Feodosiy, “leaving the community, shook the dust from his feet, crying out that they would have neither honour nor portion with those fathers.” This time the disputes were not only about marriage but also about the titulus on the cross. The Vyg people wrote on the cross “King of Glory, Jesus Christ Ni-Ka,” while the Fedoseevtsy taught that it should be written I. N. Ts. I. Because of these differences a final rupture took place.

In 1708 Andrey Denisov, while in Novgorod, attempted reconciliation with Feodosiy, but without success. Then in 1710 Denisov wrote an epistle in which he set forth the whole history of the disputes with Feodosiy and his own views on marriage.

Very soon after this, however, both sides changed their views on marriage. The Pomortsy, seeing that the Second Coming still did not occur, revised their position and began to require celibacy only for those living in the sketes; for laypeople marriages were recognised – both those performed by New-RitualistsRitualist priests and those contracted without a wedding – and Denisov himself ate, drank, and prayed together with them. Later the Pomortsy even began to bless those entering married life, and finally, at the end of the 18th century, a special rite of marriage was introduced.

The Fedoseevtsy also changed their original view of marriage.

In 1708 Feodosiy received a charter from Prince Menshikov permitting him to move from Poland with all his “brethren” to Menshikov’s estate, promising them “freedom in their faith” and permission to pray “according to the old printed books, as their order is.”

Having received the charter, the majority of the Fedoseevtsy moved to Pskov province, to Velikolutsky district. But the land in the new place proved very poor, and “great want and need” ensued, as a result of which Feodosiy petitioned again for resettlement, and Prince Menshikov allowed them to move to Yuryevsky district, to the Ryapina manor. During the negotiations for the move, Feodosiy, having come to Novgorod, was arrested and died in prison in 1711.

In Feodosiy’s place stood his son Evstrat. Under him the Fedoseevtsy settled on the Ryapina manor and lived there until 1719, when, on a denunciation, a military detachment was sent to investigate them. In fear the Fedoseevtsy abandoned everything and fled wherever they could. Evstrat fled to Poland, others to Courland, Livonia, Wallachia, Starodubye, and other places, thanks to which the Fedoseev teaching spread throughout Russia.

In 1752 a Fedoseev council was convened in Poland which issued resolutions known as the “Polish articles.” One of the chief questions was that of marriage. All married people were divided into “old-married” and “New-Ritualistsmarried.” It was decided to treat the “old-married” leniently: their marriages were to be regarded as lawful and prayer with them permitted, but if children were born – for the first child excommunication from prayer for half a year, for the second for a year, for the third for two years. With the “New-Ritualistsmarried” it was decreed not to pray and not to share food or drink, etc. However, such harsh measures as the prohibition of baptising the children of the “New-Ritualistsmarried” provoked protest even among the Fedoseevtsy themselves. Soon one of them, Ivan Alexeev, wrote a work “On the Mystery of Marriage” in which he defended married life. A new “New-Ritualistsmarried” society was formed. Nevertheless, the Fedoseevtsy remained opponents of marriage, and many peculiarities, even external ones, in the ordering of their family life persisted until recent times. Thus married persons were forbidden not only to stand on the kliros but even to pray in the prayer-house; in the family itself unmarried children did not pray with their parents and did not eat together with them. The children had their own “servile” dishes, distinct from the rest which were “worldly.” The Fedoseevtsy were hostile toward the Pomortsy, and only before the war did views change and hostility begin to disappear.

Soon after the separation of the Fedoseevtsy, a new sect – the Filippovtsy – separated from the Vyg community.

Its founder was Filipp (in the world Fotiy), who had formerly served in a strelets regiment and was afterwards received by the Vyg people. At first he was in service with the hermit David, from whom he received the tonsure, and then was elected as a spiritual father. After the death of Andrey Denisov he wished to occupy the place of superior but was not elected. Since he nevertheless continued to seek the superior’s position, a council of elders was convened (14 December 1737) which condemned Filipp. When soon afterwards, because of Krugly’s denunciation, the Vyg people had to compose a troparion “Save, O Lord…” for prayer for the Tsar, Filipp protested against the innovation and withdrew to the Umba River, where he established his own skete. People began to gather around him, and soon a whole skete arose. The Vyg people several times proposed reconciliation, but Filipp remained inflexible. After some time the authorities learned of their existence and sent a military detachment to seize the skete-dwellers. Learning of this, they all gathered in the chapel and there burned themselves (1743). Nevertheless, the Filippov sect continued to exist. Their chief distinguishing feature was that they venerated only the cross without the titulus, did not recognise prayer for the Tsar, and did not venerate all icons.

In the 18th century there also appeared the Spasovo agreement, whose peculiarity was the conviction that “in case of necessity one may be saved by hope alone in the Saviour’s mercy.” Some of them accepted baptism from New-RitualistsRitualist priests – these were the so-called Netovtsy; others baptised themselves – the “self-baptisers”; later their children began to be baptised by midwives – hence their name “babushkiny” (grandmother’s).

Many other sects arose initially among the Old Believers, but little by little they began to disappear and to change their convictions, losing the ideas for which their founders had fought.

Chapter XX. The Popovtsy

The Old Believers who resolved to preserve the priesthood among themselves came to be called Popovtsy.

When the old priests began to die out and a shortage of them was felt, on the advice of Protopope Avvakum it was decided to accept repentant old priests – that is, priests ordained before Nikon. But when even these were gone, “for need’s sake” it was resolved to make do with priests of new ordination but of old baptism; and when even such were no more, they began to accept in general runaway New-RitualistsRitualist priests, whence the Popovtsy began to be called Beglopopovtsy (“runaway-priest” Old Believers). Since at that time many bishops and priests from Little Russia appeared in Rus’, where pouring baptism was often practised, it was decided to accept only Great-Russian priests ordained by Great-Russian hierarchs. At that time the Beglopopovtsy were engaged in ceaseless searches for their own bishop.

The rite of receiving priests was performed differently at different times and in different places. At first it was the custom to rebaptise all who came over. But fearing that at rebaptism the grace of ordination might disappear, sometimes priests were baptised in full vestments. Afterwards they only baptised for appearance’ sake: they read the baptismal rite over the priest received, walked around the font sunwise, but did not immerse the recipient, merely anointing him with chrism. Later even such baptism was abandoned, and they were content with reception by the second rank – only chrismation. Finally, still later, they were satisfied at conversion with the third rank alone – that is, renunciation and anathematisation of the new heresy.

The chief centres of the Popovtsy were Kerzhenets, the Don, Starodubye, and Vetka.

The flourishing of Kerzhenets began already at the end of the 17th century. At the beginning of the 18th century in Nizhny Novgorod province – in Nizhny, Yuryevets, Gorodets, the Chernoramenskie forests, on the Vetluga, and in seven other towns there – the number of Old Believers was 122,258 persons, a figure that for that time was extraordinarily large.

The first teachers here were the hieromonk Avraamiy and the monk Efrem Potemkin. Soon, when persecutions began, Old Believers from all over Rus’ began to flock here and settle in the Chernoramenskie forests, especially along the rivers Kerzhenets and Belbash, where many sketes were quickly built. Among these sketes the most famous were the Onufriev, Safontiev, and Lavrentiev, named after their founders. There were both men’s and women’s sketes, governed by special “fathers” – hegumens – and “mothers” – hegumenias. All the sacraments were performed by priests, who also carried out marriages and communion. Many came from afar to receive communion and then spread the fame of Kerzhenets throughout Rus’.

Soon, however, on Kerzhenets a schism among the Popovtsy almost occurred because the elder Onufriy, having received forged letters of Avvakum, took them for genuine and began to preach various deviations and to fall into heresy in his views on the Most Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ, and the Mother of God. Since he also introduced the reading of Protopope Avvakum’s letters into the services and, having raised him to the rank of holy martyr, began to venerate his icon, a new sect arose which came to be called “Onufrievshchina” and “Avvakumovshchina.” This sect, however, did not last long: after Onufriy’s death in 1717 reconciliation took place, and a peace scroll was signed with the rest of the Popovtsy.

Soon a new sect separated – the so-called “Dyakonovtsy.” Its founder was the deacon Alexander, who, reading Holy Scripture and finding the place about the anathema on those who do not cross themselves with two fingers, took fright and joined the Old Belief. Arriving at Kerzhenets, he was tonsured in the Lavrentiev skete and after Lavrentiy’s death became its superior (1710). Soon he began to introduce certain peculiarities of his own: he recognised the four-ended cross as the true one, began to say the Jesus Prayer with the words “Our God,” introduced processions in the form of a cross instead of the threefold procession previously practised. All this provoked fierce disputes that almost led to a break between the Dyakonovtsy and the rest of the Popovtsy; only the intervention of Vetka and Alexander’s execution in 1720 put an end to the disputes.

Soon terrible persecutions began on Kerzhenets, raised by the New-RitualistsRitualist Bishop Pitirim, from which the majority of the Kerzhentsy fled to Vetka, yet many Kerzhenets sketes continued to exist thereafter.

In the 1760s the Popovtsy also spread to Starodubye in Chernigov province, where the settlements of Demyanka and Ponurovka were especially renowned for their steadfastness, led by the priest Kuzma who had come from Moscow. When decrees of oppression began to arrive, many Old Believers, headed by the priests Kuzma and Stefan, left the Old Believer regions, crossed the Polish border, and settled on the island of Vetka on the River Sozh. Here, at the insistence of the hieromonk Ioasaf, they built a church which was completed and consecrated in honour of the Protection of the Most Holy Theotokos already under his successor, the hieromonk Feodosiy.

Vetka quickly rose and soon became the centre of the entire Beglopopovshchina. The report of freedom of worship granted by the Polish king attracted a mass of settlers, and soon around Vetka there arose fourteen settlements with a population exceeding 30,000 persons. Vetka began to grow rich and rise, even eclipsing the fame of Kerzhenets.

But the Russian government could not reconcile itself to such fame of a Popovtsy centre. Therefore in 1735 Colonel Sytin was sent, who with five regiments surrounded Vetka and destroyed it: all the inhabitants were seized and dispersed to various places in Russia, while the church and buildings were demolished. Soon, however, Vetka recovered: new settlers appeared, a church was rebuilt, and two monasteries were constructed – a men’s monastery where the number of monks reached 1,200, and a women’s. Donations flowed from all sides, and Vetka flourished again, but not for long. In 1764 another military detachment was sent and carried out a second, this time final, “expulsion.” The inhabitants (about 20,000 in number) were seized and sent to Siberia for settlement, while the monastic church and buildings were destroyed. After this Vetka could no longer recover.

Starodubye began to rise again. From Vetka the priest Mikhail Kalmyk moved here and even managed to transport the Vetka church. From that time Starodubye became the centre of the Popovtsy. Here four monasteries were built, up to seventeen churches, and up to sixteen chapels. The chief monastery was the Pokrovsky, where up to 100 monks and 50 lay-brothers lived; then the men’s monasteries: Ostrovsky (of the Dyakonovtsy) and Nikolsky (of the Epifanovtsy), and the fourth – the women’s Kazansky, where the number of nuns reached 700.

There were also many priestless Old Believers in Starodubye, who had two monasteries of their own here: a men’s and a women’s. The chief centre of the priestless was the settlement of Ardon Chernitskaya.

One of the major centres of the Old Belief was also the Don, where chiefly the Popovtsy spread. The chief propagators were the hieromonk Iov, a native of Lithuania, and the hegumen Dosifei. On the bank of the Chir River two monasteries were founded in 1672 – a men’s and a women’s. After Iov’s death in 1680 Dosifei became hegumen; fleeing persecution in 1688 he went to the Kuma River, where he died in 1691. The Chir monastery was destroyed, but the Old Belief did not disappear; on the contrary it spread throughout the whole Don, and from there passed to the Volga, the Kuban, the Kuma, etc.

At that time certain Cossack Old Believer families, led by the ataman Ignatiy Nekrasov (in all about 2,000 persons), went beyond the Kuban River and entered the allegiance of the Turkish Sultan. Lands were allotted to them for settlement in Wallachia, where many fugitives from Russia joined them. In 1827 they moved to new places and settled in Asia Minor.

Many Old Believers also settled in Siberia – both Popovtsy and priestless. The centre of the priestless was Tobolsk province, and of the Popovtsy the city of Ekaterinburg. At the beginning of the 19th century in the provinces of Orenburg, Perm, and Tobolsk the number of Popovtsy exceeded 150,000 persons.

Chapter XXI. The New-Ritualists

The Council of 1666–1667 not only split the Russian Church but also finally cemented the predominance of secular authority over spiritual authority.

The Russian clergy, which for so long had defended its independence against all the encroachments of the Moscow tsars, which had often served as the guiding force of the entire state’s life, which numbered among its ranks the best men of Rus’, and which had attained the highest authority and power under Patriarchs Philaret and Nikon, was now broken. It was compelled to submit to autocracy and to yield the field of action to a new class—the nobility.

At the Council of 1666 the Russian clergy made its last attempt to preserve its independence, but the attempt failed, and it had to renounce its claims. After that council the clergy became obedient in the government’s hands. This was greatly facilitated by the fact that the Russian clergy was forced to give way to the flood of Ukrainian and Belarusian clergy who poured into Rus’, rapidly pushing aside all the Russians and seizing control of the Russian Church into their own hands. At first this happened imperceptibly and gradually. As before, Moscow patriarchs were still chosen from among the Russians—Joasaph II (1667–1673), Pitirim (1673), Joachim (1673–1690), and Adrian (1690–1700)—but they no longer enjoyed any authority, and the secular powers paid them no heed. When the last patriarch, Adrian, died in 1700, Peter the Great forbade the election of a new patriarch and appointed as locum tenens of the patriarchal throne the Ukrainian Stefan Yavorsky, who was then archbishop of Ryazan. Previously it had been the custom for the metropolitan of Krutitsy to deputise for the patriarch; he, however, was still a Russian, and the Russian clergy was hostile to Peter’s reforms. Peter therefore chose the more compliant Yavorsky, in whose hands the supreme ecclesiastical authority now rested.

But before we examine the subsequent history of the Russian Church, it is necessary to become acquainted with the activity of certain Kiev monks who brought great harm both to the Old Believers and to the entire Russian Church.

One of the first to come out against the zealots of the old faith was Simeon of Polotsk.

Simeon of Polotsk (1629–1680), a Belarusian by birth, was educated at the Kiev-Mohyla College, where he absorbed all the Westernising theological wisdom of the time, formed under strong Jesuit influence and expressed in the ability to speak beautifully and obscurely on every possible subject. Having taken monastic vows in Polotsk, he became a teacher, and when Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich visited Polotsk he managed personally to present the tsar with verses he had composed. The tsar took notice of him. In 1664 he moved to Moscow and there took part in the council against Nikon and in the work of the Council of 1666–1667. He wrote, in refutation of the petitions submitted by the priests Lazar and Nikita, a book entitled The Rod of Governance, which so pleased the council that it was published in its name.

The book bears the title: The Rod of Governance over the Mental Flock of the Orthodox-Russian Church, Erected by the Whole Consecrated Council for the Strengthening of Those Wavering in the Faith, for the Chastisement of Disobedient Sheep, and for the Punishment of Fierce-Necked and Rapacious Wolves Attacking Christ’s Flock. Despite such a pompous title, the book possesses no particular merits. It is divided into two parts. The first contains thirty “exposures” of “Nikita’s exposures”; the second, seventy “exposures” of Priest Lazar’s accusations. The first part is not original but a reworking of the work of Paisius Ligarides; the second was composed by Polotsk himself. The book possesses certain literary merits, for it contains much rhetorical flourish, but none whatever in theology, since it adduces no proofs and is instead filled with abuse. Consequently, despite all the council’s support, the book had almost no significance and convinced no one.

In addition, Polotsk wrote many other theological works, among which The Crown of the Catholic Faith is especially interesting. In it Polotsk brought together everything he knew, from apocrypha to astrology, while taking texts from Holy Scripture from the Latin Bible and from Western theologians.

Besides his works, under Patriarch Joachim there appeared against the Old Believers, “for the confirmation of the pious and for the assurance and conversion to repentance of those seduced by the schism from the Holy Church”, a book entitled Spiritual Admonition, which, however, converted and assured very few.

After the death of the last patriarch, Adrian, Stefan Yavorsky became locum tenens of the patriarchal throne.

Stefan Yavorsky (1658–1722) was born in the Polish town of Yavor, and received his education at the Kiev-Mohyla College, where all teaching was conducted in Latin. Having accepted Catholicism, he studied in various Polish cities, and upon returning to Kiev he “repented”, took monastic vows, and began to teach at the college. There he “firmly established the papal teaching in the Kiev schools”, which he continued to do after moving to Russia. In Russia, thanks to his eloquence, he pleased Tsar Peter and was immediately appointed metropolitan and soon afterwards locum tenens of the patriarchal throne. Voices were raised against him accusing him of “pouring” baptism and introducing Latin heresies—an accusation confirmed by Jerusalem Patriarch Dositheus. He was forced to justify himself. Wishing to please the tsar, Stefan everywhere sought to appoint foreigners as bishops and introduced “Latin teaching” in the Moscow academy. Against the Old Believers and those who saw the Antichrist in Peter he wrote a book entitled Signs of the Coming of Antichrist and of the End of the Age from the Divine Scriptures.

But since the tsar was moving ever further away from the Church—first toward Protestantism and then toward complete unbelief—his relations with Stefan also deteriorated.

At that time the tsar brought forward a new figure—Feofan Prokopovich, likewise a native of Ukraine. Having been educated at the college and having passed through Uniatism, he pleased Peter by his complaisance and indifference in matters of faith, and especially by his inclination toward Protestantism. For this reason the tsar appointed him bishop, passing over Yavorsky. On the tsar’s instructions he composed the Spiritual Regulation.

The Spiritual Regulation was written in the spirit desired by the tsar and established a new royal administration in Rus’ whereby the Church became wholly dependent on secular authority. By the tsar’s decree it was signed by the senators and the clergy and entered into force in 1721. Henceforth at the head of the administration of the Russian Church stood a collegium called the Most Holy Synod. Its members took a special oath in which they promised to acknowledge the monarch as the ultimate judge; attached to the Synod was a special secular official—the “eye of the sovereign”, the ober-procurator—who supervised the Synod’s activity, gave his own conclusions, put forward his own proposals, and reported to the tsar. All matters were to be decided unanimously; in case of disagreement the matter was submitted for the tsar’s decision. With the establishment of the Synod the convocation of Russian councils ceased. Candidates for the episcopate were chosen by the Synod, but appointed by the tsar, who became the head of the entire Church. The authority of bishops was greatly reduced, and their activity was watched by special “fiscals”. The sphere of ecclesiastical courts was considerably curtailed. The number of clergy was significantly reduced. Bishops and monasteries were removed from the management of their estates and from the use of their incomes and were placed on fixed salaries. Entry into the monastic life was hedged with great difficulties and for a time was altogether forbidden. For the supervision of ecclesiastical order new posts of superintendents were created. Entry into the ranks of the clergy was made difficult for persons of non-clerical origin, with, as a result of which the clergy became a closed caste in which offices began to be transmitted by inheritance or by various transactions—mainly sales or marriages. The moral level of the clergy fell significantly, a process greatly aided by the decline in material well-being; little by little the clergy was transformed into civil servants who were also endowed with police functions—it was ordered, for example, to ferret out various secrets at confession and to report everything to the authorities. The clergy was obliged to inform also on Old Believers, on those who did not attend church, on those who reviled the government, and so forth. Thus the clergy was turned into informers. As a result, complete estrangement between the clergy and the people began.

Under Peter’s successors the further isolation and decline in the authority of the clergy continued.

In Peter’s reign, besides the aforementioned Stefan Yavorsky, there were several other persons who actively fought against the Old Believers: Metropolitan Job of Novgorod, Dimitry of Rostov, Pitirim, and others.

Job of Novgorod published an “Admonitory Answer from the Scriptures” in response to a work that had appeared entitled “On the Birth of Antichrist”. He disputed much with Semen Denisov and Feodosy Vasiliev concerning the faith, but without success.

Dimitry of Rostov, reckoned a “saint” among the New-Ritualists, was a native of Kiev. Upon arriving in Rus’ he was appointed metropolitan. He warred much against the Old Believers, who at that time were forced to hide from persecution in the vast Bryn forests. Against the Old Believers he wrote a work entitled An Investigation into the Schismatic Bryn Faith, their Teaching, their Deeds, and a Demonstration that their Faith is Wrong, their Teaching Harmful to the Soul, and their Deeds Not Pleasing to God. The work is divided into three parts: “on faith”, “on teaching”, and “on deeds”. Although this work served as the foundation for all subsequent compilers of various rules on how to fight and dispute with the Old Believers, it is very weakly written, without proofs, contains many blasphemies (for example, that the name “Jesus” means “equal-eared”, etc.), is frequently sprinkled with abuse, and is overly permeated with a didactic spirit. He also wrote A Discourse on the Image and Likeness of God in Man in defence of shaving the beard.

Pitirim, bishop of Nizhny Novgorod (1665–1738), became notorious as a fierce persecutor of the Old Believers. Himself originally an Old Believer, Pitirim in mature years accepted the New Rite and took monastic vows in the Pereslavl monastery, where he made the acquaintance of Tsar Peter, who liked him for his fierce hatred of his former faith. The tsar charged him with combating Old Belief. Pitirim began the struggle with the Kerzhenets hermitages, at first conducting “exhortations”. He then drew up 130 questions and demanded answers to them. At that time there were many priestly Old Believers on the Kerzhenets belonging to the “deacon’s” consent. At first, in response to Pitirim’s demand, they sent their own 240 questions, and then presented “answers” written and compiled by Andrey Denisov. Pitirim held a discussion with those who brought the answers and “convinced” them, but when they returned home they again “apostatised”. Pitirim therefore published his reply to the 240 questions entitled The Sling against the Schismatics’ Questions. The Sling turned out very fortunately for the Old Believers, for instead of refutations it contained proofs that clearly showed the old faith to be the true and unshakable one.

Seeing the failure of his missionary activity, Pitirim began persecutions. In 1715 Peter I issued a decree forbidding, on pain of death, any hindrance to Pitirim in his conversion of Old Believers. In one “report” to the tsar Pitirim proposed a series of measures against the Old Believers: all those promoting the spread of Old Belief and standing at its head were to be arrested and sent to prison or “humbled”, but this was to be done secretly. Ordinary Old Believers were to be assessed double tax and barred from holding any offices. The tsar agreed and assigned Captain Rzhevsky to assist him. Terrible persecutions and oppressions began. People were seized, thrown into prisons, tortured, their households ruined, they were exiled to monasteries, sent to hard labour, flogged with the knout, executed…

Only after Peter I’s death did Pitirim have to calm down somewhat, for he ceased to enjoy such broad governmental support. Among other things, for more successful combat against the Old Believers Pitirim even set up a special missionary school whose pupils were mainly apostates who had crossed over from Old Belief. From the pupils of this school especially “distinguished” themselves in the struggle against Old Belief: Neofit, Filaret, Andronik, Joseph, and others.

Among other works written against the Old Believers in the reign of Peter I and his successors were published: Archbishop Feofilakt’s Exposure of the Schismatic Falsehood in refutation of the Pomor Answers; Archbishop Feofan’s True Justification of Christians by Pouring Baptism, proving that the Orthodox Church may permit “pouring” baptism—this work produced a repellent impression on the Old Believers, for it clearly showed where the New-Ritualists were heading and what they really were; Archbishop Rafail’s Demonstration concerning the Two-Fingered and Three-Fingered Sign of the Cross; Abbot Andronik’s work on the folding of the fingers; Pososhkov’s Mirror of Schismatic Foolishness; Florov’s Outpouring upon the Schismatics; Alexey Irodionov, who came from the Old Believers and lived more than fifteen years in the Vyg monastery, after crossing to the New Rite in 1747 wrote several works against the Old Believers: Dialogue on the Schism, Epistle to the Danilov Schismatics, Brief Answers to the Pomor Answers, and others.

All these numerous works were in essence useless and did not achieve their aim, for to the Old Believers they were unconvincing, little read by them, and if read, then only with the preconceived intention of finding something to carp at and in turn to expose. For the New-Ritualists too they were pointless, for they were issued in small numbers, little read, and as guides for disputes these books were also of little use, since they contained very weakly composed proofs that often achieved exactly the opposite aim.

Among all these works not one can be found equal to the Pomor Answers and capable, if not of shattering them, then at least of shaking them. From this point of view the Old Believers, despite their hunted, humiliated, and “ignorant” condition, succeeded in achieving far better results than the New-Ritualists, especially since the works of Old Believer writers were diligently copied and disseminated everywhere.

Only at the end of the eighteenth century did the New-Ritualists begin attempts at a more serious attitude toward Old Belief and its study.

In 1765 there appeared the “Exhortation” of Metropolitan Platon of Moscow, in which he speaks of the ritual church differences between New-Ritualists and Old Believers and of “old Russian customs” in daily life. His chief idea is that the Old Believers “dispute only over trifles” but “in the essence of the faith are in agreement” with the New-Ritualists. The book is written with extreme cunning and flattery; Platon is unstinting with all manner of sighs and exclamations and strains every nerve to attract the Old Believers, saying that we are not to blame for what happened, what is done cannot be undone, and therefore salvation can be found only among the New-Ritualists.

After this many works again began to appear on various questions. The chief among them are: the “Answers” with the “Encyclical Epistle” of Archbishop Nikifor Theotoki; the “Epistle” and “Six Exposures” of Simon Logov—one of the major persecutors of Old Belief; A. Irodionov’s Exposure of the Schismatic False Teaching; Sergey’s Mirror for Old Believers, and others. In 1807 appeared the first Instruction on How to Dispute Correctly with the Schismatics, compiled at the Ryazan Seminary. There also appeared (in 1795) the first historical work, composed by Archpriest Andrey Ioannov, who had crossed from Old Belief to the New Rite. He changed the title of his work several times, and in its final form it came to be called A Complete Historical Account of the Ancient Strigolniki and the New Schismatics; it contains many interesting historical data.

But all these books with their exposures did very little harm to Old Belief; the greatest harm, as the Synodal historians themselves rightly observe, was done to Old Belief by the Old Believers themselves, by their disputes and polemics among themselves. One would have thought that in the terrible time of persecution they should have united in order to offer a common rebuff to their oppressors, but the Old Believers preferred to gnaw at one another, as happened at the Moscow council of 1765 where priestly and Pomor Old Believers came together to decide the question of a bishop, thereby giving their enemies occasion to gloat and to draw all manner of proofs from their writings for the struggle against Old Belief.

The consequence of these disputes was Edinoverie (“United Faith”), which caused the Old Believers very great harm.