The Number 1666 in Russian Book Culture of the Mid to Third Quarter of the 17th Century

By T.A. Oparina, Novosibirsk.

Calculations regarding the date of the end of the world or the final falling away to the Antichrist in 1666 were extraordinarily widespread in Old Believer literature and have not lost their relevance in it even to the present day. Let us attempt to trace the sources of Old Believer theories.

The sacred date was obtained by adding two numbers named in the Apocalypse: 1000 (Rev. 20:3,7) and 666 (Rev. 13:8). Despite the apparent simplicity of the calculation and the possibility of its independent and parallel emergence, the date of the end of the world in 1666 did not gain widespread acceptance in all Christian traditions. It acquired the greatest significance in English Reformation literature, partly in Greek, as well as in Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox literature. Meanwhile, in Russia time was reckoned from the creation of the world, and the commonly used date for the end of the world was “the eighth millennium.” The concept based on chronology from the Nativity of Christ was most likely borrowed.

Apocalyptic numbers attracted authors throughout Christian history and received specific interpretations in various traditions. The number 666 was deciphered by Christian writers as the name of the Antichrist. When constructing the date 1666, the “number of the beast” was interpreted as the date of the “last times,” which is not entirely usual.

The number 1000 (Rev. 20:3,7) had an even more complex exegesis. In the prophecies of the Apocalypse, it speaks of the “binding” of Satan for a thousand years. The biblical text describes the events of the Second Coming of Christ, when, after the final battle at Armageddon, the victorious Christ will lock Satan away for 1000 years and establish an earthly kingdom of the righteous (the first resurrection). The second resurrection in the Apocalypse is understood as the bodily resurrection of sinners who appear at the Last Judgment. When the thousand-year date is applied to the future Second Coming, it served as the foundation for chiliastic (millenarian) teachings about the establishment of the thousand-year kingdom of God on earth between the first and second resurrections of the dead.

In the atmosphere of the approaching end of the world (the onset of the 6th millennium from the creation of the world), Blessed Augustine sharply criticized chiliastic teachings. He achieved the condemnation of chiliasm by creating the doctrine of the two cities-kingdoms.

One of the founders of Catholic theology carried out the demythologization of the Apocalypse, introducing a historical approach. Blessed Augustine linked the Apocalypse’s account of the 1000 years to the earthly life of Christ, His first coming. In his interpretation, the events of the Apocalypse describing the thousand-year kingdom belong to the past, not the future. In doing so, he removed the chiliastic understanding of this number, which was fixed by Christian canon. The idea of the “binding” of Satan during the period of Christ’s first coming underlies the dogma of the Descent into Hell, confirmed by the iconographic formula.

In contrast to earlier interpretations, Blessed Augustine put forward a spiritualistic understanding of the words of the Apocalypse. The thousand-year kingdom of Christ on earth, in Augustine’s interpretation, has already arrived, and the radiance of Christ’s glory in the Church has already begun. In his exegesis, Christ bound Satan at the moment of the first coming, as a result of which the Christian Church (the City of God) appeared on earth. The Church is a projection of the heavenly into the perishable world and will exist for 1000 years, which must be understood as an analogy of eternity.

In the Byzantine tradition, Basil the Great similarly interpreted the thousand-year kingdom as the Christian Church. At the same time, in the works of most Greek authors, the thousand-year kingdom was identified with the Byzantine Empire. Constantinople was understood as the kingdom of God on earth, indestructible until the end of the world. Thus, in the Catholic tradition the number 1000 was interpreted as the Church; in the Byzantine (with the coincidence of the boundaries of church and state) — as the state.

A consequence of the spiritualistic approach was a categorical rejection of determining the date of the end of the world. But in reality, this canonical postulate did not eliminate eschatological calculations. Despite the spiritualistic interpretation of the apocalyptic date, the approach of the year 1000 in the reckoning from the Nativity of Christ provoked eschatological fears in the West. The year 1000 became one of the dates of the end of the world, universally expected in Western Europe. The prophecy found reflection, for example, in Scandinavian sagas and French literature. Eschatological moods served as one of the ideological reasons for the Crusades, when Muslims were perceived as forerunners of the Antichrist, from whom it was necessary to liberate the Lord’s Sepulchre. The triumph of Christians in the Holy City would mean the establishment of the thousand-year kingdom on earth, the new Jerusalem.

In the Christian East, this period was also characterized by a revival of eschatological fears, but with reference to a different date — 6500 from the creation of the world. It is not excluded that Western teachings also gave impetus to the development of eschatological moods in the Eastern Christian world. Thus, the Baptism of Rus’ took place on an eschatological wave, which was reflected in Russian monuments of the initial period.

A new impetus to the development of prophecies related to the apocalyptic numbers 1000 and 666 was given by Protestantism. Orthodox Protestants, turning to “1000,” interpreted the number within the Augustinian tradition. For Lutherans and Calvinists, the thousand-year kingdom had already come and passed. But in Martin Luther’s version, Satan was released from prison. In his opinion, Satan began to act again after being imprisoned between the years 1000 and 1300. In addition, Martin Luther linked the release of Satan from the thousand-year captivity with the schism of the Church. A similar interpretation is characteristic of the Puritan Englishman Bale and the author of the commentaries on the Geneva Bible (1603). They believed that the appearance of Satan occurred during the pontificate of Sylvester II (999–1003). Radical Protestants (Anabaptists, Antitrinitarians, “Fifth Monarchy Men”) revived medieval chiliasm.

A number of authors combined the numbers 1000 and 666. The number 1666 appears in the works of the Frenchman Richard Roussat and the Jesuit of the Collegium Romanum in Rome, the Dutchman by origin Cornelius a Lapide (Cornelis Cornelissen van den Steen).

England played a special role in the development of concepts about the number 1666. From the emergence of Puritanism (1550s) until the Restoration (1660), England became the main center for the development of eschatological themes. The Reformation of Henry VIII, the persecution and flight of Puritans whose texts were printed in Holland, gave impetus to the development of chiliastic teachings.

One of the first English texts to point to the fatal date was a 1610 pamphlet interpreting the predictions of the Old Testament Third Book of Ezra. Combining the prophecies about the world kingdoms from the Ezra codex with the numbers of the Apocalypse, the treatise predicted terrible events in 1666.

In Orthodox literature, similar views developed in some Greek texts. George Koresios addressed the interpretation of the apocalyptic “1000.” In the spirit of the Augustinian tradition, he did not tie the number to a strictly limited time period.

Constructions involving the number 666 are found among Greek authors influenced by Protestantism. An example can be the works of Zacharias Gerganos, whose Catechism (Wittenberg, 1622) and Commentary on the Apocalypse, surviving in manuscript in the Oxford Library, were written under strong influence of Lutheran ideas. In his works, the apocalyptic number 666 was deciphered as “the Pope.” The interactions between Gerganos and the author of another pro-Protestant (in this case pro-Calvinist) Catechism — Constantinople Patriarch Cyril Lucaris — are unknown. What is certain is that their work occurred during the same period and was closely connected with the English tradition. One can very cautiously suggest that through the mediation of Cyril Lucaris, who taught in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from 1594 to 1597 (in Ostrog and Vilnius, where he was rector of the Brotherhood of the Holy Spirit), and later became the de jure head of the Kiev Orthodox Metropolis, the transfer of Calvinist calculations into Ukrainian-Belarusian Orthodox literature could have occurred. Ukraine and Belarus, being on the border of the Western and Eastern Christian worlds, easily absorbed Western influences.

In the 1620s, the prophecy about the number 1666 appears in the literature of the Kiev Orthodox Metropolis. A developed teaching about it is presented in the fundamental anti-Catholic work of Zacharias Kopystensky, “Palinodia.” The text appeared around 1622. In the preface to “Palinodia,” a logical scheme of successive fallings away to the world of the Antichrist is constructed. Zacharias Kopystensky combined variations on the theme of the numbers 1000 and 666, the theory of the pentarchy, ideas of the apostasy of the Western Church, and the “Russian” chosenness by God.

The number 1000 acquired enormous significance for the Orthodox theologian. Zacharias Kopystensky interprets it in the Augustinian tradition as something already accomplished and proceeds from the position of the “binding” of Satan for 1000 years at the moment of the first coming. However, the Ukrainian author perceives “1000” not as an analogy of eternity, but as a past and time-limited period. Zacharias Kopystensky writes about the release of Satan in the year 1000 from the Nativity of Christ, which finds echoes in Protestant texts. Reproducing the interpretation of Protestant authors, he proves that, after the expiration of the magical number 1000, the released Satan was able to interfere in human affairs and subjugate those least steadfast in faith — from Zacharias Kopystensky’s point of view, representatives of the Roman Catholic Church.

In Zacharias Kopystensky’s interpretation, from the year 1000 Satan established himself in Rome. The connection between the year 1000 and the activity of the Roman popes was noted by many Ukrainian and Belarusian writers. Similar Protestant views are also characteristic of the author of the marginal notes in the Ostrog Bible. The so-called “Volhynian freethinker” commented on chapter 20 of the Apocalypse in a similar manner: “for a thousand years Satan was bound… and now… he is unbound and in Rome. And from Rome… he extends his power, commanding them as he wishes and whatever he wishes. And they obey him and bear his seal upon themselves.” These assertions corresponded to the widespread theory in Protestant and Ukrainian Orthodox traditions of the Roman pope as the Antichrist.

Thus, Zacharias Kopystensky applied the number 1000 in anti-Latin polemic. He explained the division of the Christian Church into Catholicism and Orthodoxy by the triumph of the Antichrist in Rome from the year 1000 of the Nativity of Christ. The Ukrainian author linked the unity of the Christian world to the absence of an “active” Satan. The released Satan, in Zacharias Kopystensky’s understanding, brought about the schism of the Church.

The schism, in the interpretation of all Orthodox authors, began with the insertion of the filioque into the Creed. In Zacharias Kopystensky’s version, the introduction of the filioque was carried out by Pope Sylvester II (999–1003) and protested by Constantinople Patriarch Sergius II. The decisive conflict and breaking of contacts, followed by the schism of the Church, thus fell in his interpretation on the year 1000. In the spirit of Greek anti-Latin texts, Zacharias Kopystensky interpreted the schism of the Christian Church as the “falling away” of the Catholics from the true faith. From the moment of the division, in his account, the Roman bishops were deprived of all the legitimate privileges of members of the Christian community and relegated to the rank of those to whom the number 666 — the number of the “beast” (Rev. 13:18) — applied. Using an ancient eschatological prophecy, he explained that in the year 1000 there occurred not the conquest of the world by the Antichrist nor the end of the world, but only the subjection to Satan’s power of one region — the Roman Church.

Further, Zacharias Kopystensky introduced a new interpretation, turning to events of the East Slavic Church. Looking back to the idealized past, he emphasized the fact of the Baptism of Rus’. The episode of the Baptism of Rus’ by Prince Vladimir acquired special significance in the “Palinodia” as proof of the importance of the East Slavic Church within the system of the universal Church. Probably reproducing the eschatological subtext of the Baptism, Zacharias Kopystensky introduced it into the course of world history by employing the theory of the pentarchy and chronological calculations. In his version, the schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy disrupted the harmonious existence of the Christian Church, whose unity was conceived as the mutual agreement of the five sees.

By rounding the dates of the schism and the Baptism of Rus’, Zacharias Kopystensky arrived at the eschatologically significant date of 1000. In the preface to the “Palinodia” he created an original eschatological concept based on a mystical (in his understanding) coincidence: in the apocalyptic year 1000, when the end of the world was universally expected, there occurred not only the schism of the Christian Church but also the Baptism of Rus’. For Zacharias Kopystensky the coincidence of the apostasy of the Roman see and the Baptism of Rus’ was not accidental. In his interpretation it meant that Rome had fallen away from the true faith, but Rus’ had entered the Church, taking Rome’s place in the pentarchy. The Baptism was conceived as a messianic act.

Next, Zacharias Kopystensky turned to the following apocalyptic number, “666.” The addition of the two dates yielded the year 1666 and defined for the Ukrainian author new stages in the path of the Antichrist’s advance. Zacharias Kopystensky broke the number down into successive stages: 1000–1600–1660–1666. The well-known Ukrainian theologian identified almost every one of them with a church schism. According to the logic of his reasoning, the Antichrist, having established himself in the Catholic Church after the schism, in the year 1600 launched a new assault on the true faith — and specifically on that part of the Christian world which preserved the heritage of the baptizer of Rus’ — the Kiev Metropolis. This method of revealing the symbolic meaning of the number was facilitated by the approximate coincidence of the dates 1600 and 1596. Zacharias Kopystensky saw a new mystical indication of the inner meaning of the events unfolding before his eyes. In his interpretation, the signing of the Union of Brest (1596) between the Catholic and the Ukrainian-Belarusian Orthodox Churches determined the next “falling away” — the apostasy of the Uniates.

Zacharias Kopystensky explained the conclusion of the Union of Brest as the machinations of the Roman pope-Antichrist and perceived it as an event of cosmic scale. In his understanding, the fate of the world now depended on the confrontation between the Uniates and the supporters of Orthodoxy. Obviously, in the event of the further preservation of the union, he implied the intervention of heavenly forces. According to biblical prophecies, the Second Coming would begin for Christ to save His persecuted chosen ones, pursued by the Antichrist. Undoubtedly, Zacharias Kopystensky saw the last community of true believers on earth in the Kiev Orthodox Metropolis. According to the prophecy of the “Palinodia,” the further development of events connected with the Antichrist would occur in 1660 and, finally, in 1666. These dates denoted the next steps of falling away. In the text of the “Palinodia” they had no specific historical anchors. Exactly what would happen in the final year, 1666 — the end of the world or the earthly incarnation of the Antichrist — Zacharias Kopystensky did not specify precisely. His scheme could be interpreted in either direction.

Similar ideas about successive fallings away were developed in his writings by one of the most radical Ukrainian-Belarusian publicists, Ivan Vyshensky. He spoke of the apostasy of the Uniates, who by their reckless actions had placed the fate of the world in jeopardy. In the works of Ivan Vyshensky it was asserted that, thanks to several fallings away, the Antichrist was already triumphing over the world, and the end of the world and the hour of reckoning for those who submitted to Satan were near. However, Ivan Vyshensky cited no specific numbers.

The works of Zacharias Kopystensky and Ivan Vyshensky exerted considerable influence on Russian publicistic literature through the Muscovite polemical printed compilations: the “Kirillova Kniga” (Moscow, 1644), which included a letter of Ivan Vyshensky, and the “Kniga o Vere” (Book of Faith, Moscow, 1648), which transmitted the ideas of Zacharias Kopystensky.

Between 1632 and 1643 the text of Zacharias Kopystensky was reworked by an unknown Ukrainian author (Hegumen Nafanail?) into a work that received its title from the first chapter: “Vera i uchenie otkuda izydi” (“Faith and Teaching Whence It Came Forth”) — the “Kniga o Vere.” The “Kniga o Vere” gained wide circulation in the manuscript tradition of Ukraine and Belarus. It is most likely that the Ukrainian author also composed the final, 30th chapter, “On the Antichrist,” whose origin has long been debated among scholars. The chapter consisted of authorially edited paraphrases of the preface to Zacharias Kopystensky’s “Palinodia.”

Apparently, when creating — roughly in the 1630s–1640s — an eschatological concept, the author of the article “Sermon on the Antichrist and on the End of the World” took as his foundation Zacharias Kopystensky’s judgments concerning the possible appearance of the Antichrist (or the end of the world) in 1666. The ideas of Zacharias Kopystensky are recorded in the section both in the form of direct quotations from the “Palinodia” (for example, “concerning him [the Antichrist] the number six hundred sixty-six of the man of the Antichrist, which whoever knows, but in those years, 1666, clearer forerunners of him but not himself will be shown”), and in the form of authorial rephrasing: “And Saint John the Evangelist in the Apocalypse in chapter 20 writes of the binding of Satan for a thousand years and then of his loosing. The devil returns to his former beloved place, where he wished to be from heaven. And from that time he infected the West with a heavy pestilence. You may understand more about this in chapter 21. After the thousandth year, when the six-hundredth year was coming to an end, the apostasy and seduction of those calling themselves Uniates from the holy Eastern Church to the Western Church became manifest. Concerning this see chapters 23 and 24. And upon the fulfillment of the years of the number 1666, a worse evil, or the Antichrist himself, will appear, for which, whoever lives to see those times, prepare yourself for a terrible war with the devil himself; the time also approaches for the end of the world and the terrible judgment.” Obviously this chapter was compiled last, since it contains references to the chapters of the main text. Besides Zacharias Kopystensky, the author referred to the eschatological constructions of the Greek (Constantinople Patriarch Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos) and Ukrainian (Stefan Zizania) authors. The biblical prophecies cited by the author of the “Kniga o Vere,” as in the “Palinodia,” are extraordinarily actualized. The universal catastrophe is perceived not so much as a distant, infinitely remote outcome of world development, but as a real and imminent event: “since we have come very near to the end of the world.”

The Ukrainian manuscript of the “Kniga o Vere” reached Russia before 1644, when its text, originally in the “simple language,” was translated into Church Slavonic in Moscow. It is not excluded that the treatise arrived in Russia in the same year and was sent by the head of the Ukrainian-Belarusian Church. In 1644 a representative of Kiev Metropolitan Peter Mohyla, the elder Anthony, was in Moscow. During the negotiations he apparently requested the recently published “Kirillova Kniga” (Moscow, 1644). Five copies of the “Kirillova Kniga” were sent from the Printing House to the Ambassadorial Chancery for the elder Anthony.

The envoy of the Kiev Metropolitan found himself in Russia during the stormy debates concerning the possibility of uniting the Russian ruling house with a non-Orthodox dynasty. Tsar Michael Fyodorovich planned to conclude a dynastic marriage between his daughter Irina Mikhailovna and the Danish prince Valdemar. Peter Mohyla was involved in these disputes. At the request of the Russian court, he acted as mediator in negotiations with the Moldavian hospodar Vasile Lupu, who constantly provided financial support to Constantinople Patriarch Parthenios. With the help of Peter Mohyla, the Russian government hoped — as later became clear, unsuccessfully — to obtain from the Constantinople Patriarch confirmation of the canonicity of mixed marriages.

In the unfolding disputes the “Kirillova Kniga” was actively used. It is not excluded that in this context Peter Mohyla, having familiarized himself with the sent “Kirillova Kniga,” forwarded to the sovereign another theological compilation of similar theme — the manuscript of the “Kniga o Vere.” One may speculate that the “Kniga o Vere” was sent in 1644 and perhaps used in the debates with the pastor of the Danish prince Valdemar. Traces of the influence of the “Kniga o Vere” can be discerned in the second, most significant letter of Patriarch Joseph to the prince.

In any case, the text brought from the Kiev Metropolis was published four years after its translation and already under a new ruler of Russia. Obviously the initiative for publication came from the circle of the young Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich. As the deacon Fyodor testifies, the publication of the “Kniga o Vere” in 1648 occurred “through the efforts” of the sovereign’s spiritual father, Stefan Vonifatyev. In the printed codex the connection of the “Kniga o Vere” with the debates concerning Valdemar is noted. During publication an additional chapter was inserted into the collection, not listed in the table of contents and without its own numbering — “From the Dispute with the Latin Chaplain.” It represented a brief excerpt from the second letter of Patriarch Joseph to the Danish prince. The text was evidently added to the “Kniga o Vere” at the last moment.

In the publication of the 30th chapter of the “Kniga o Vere,” the Russian translator (editor?) apparently subjected only certain phrases to revision. Assuming the chapter was of authorial origin, in Moscow only one fragment was added to this section: “That after a thousand years from the incarnation of the Word of God, Rome fell away from the Eastern Church. And in the one thousand five hundred ninety-fifth year, the inhabitants of Little Rus’ joined the Roman Church; and they gave him a charter of submission at the full will of the Roman pope; this is the second tearing away of Christians from the Eastern Church. Guarding against this, it is written: when 1666 years are fulfilled, may we not suffer from the previous causes, but through repentance appease God.” Ascending to the preface of Zacharias Kopystensky’s “Palinodia,” this fragment in the printed version implied a certain detachment from the East Slavic lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in acknowledging the accomplished “falling away” of them to the kingdom of the Antichrist (“the inhabitants of Little Rus’ joined the Roman Church…”).

The meaning of Zacharias Kopystensky’s statements in the East Slavic lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth differed substantially from the way they were perceived in Russia. Zacharias Kopystensky, by criticizing the leaders of the Uniate movement — who in his opinion had placed the existence of Christianity and the world as a whole in jeopardy — sought to purify and improve the piety of the Kiev Metropolis. In Russia his constructions were reinterpreted, and the struggle between apostates and the “chosen” implied by the author was discarded. The Kiev Orthodoxy was stamped with the seal of “falling away” under the power of the Antichrist, accomplished as a result of the Union of Brest. Whereas in Zacharias Kopystensky’s interpretation the Antichrist was to appear in the East Slavic lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth thanks to the actions of the Uniates, in the “Kniga o Vere” the triumph of the Antichrist on earth depended on the decline of piety in the Muscovite state. By repeating the stages of the Antichrist’s advance named by Zacharias Kopystensky, an impression was formed of the irreversible change and corruption of Kiev’s piety.

In general, the prophetic 30th chapter — “Sermon on the Antichrist and on the End of the Age” — in the printed codex reproduced the preface to the “Palinodia.” However, when employing Zacharias Kopystensky’s calculations, one intermediate number was omitted in it — 1660. In the version of the printed “Kniga o Vere,” Zacharias Kopystensky’s theory acquired a tripartite form (1000–1600–1666). Thus, the published “Kniga o Vere” formulated the theory of three fallings away, the third of which referred to a future time.

In the version of the 30th chapter of the printed “Kniga o Vere,” compared with the constructions of Zacharias Kopystensky, the element of uncertainty in the fulfillment of the predictions about the number 1666 is strengthened. In the collection published in 1648, the fateful year appeared closer than in the Ukrainian source. In the printed variant, the moment of warning against an unrighteous life predominates. Failure to observe Orthodox norms on the eve of the kingdom of the Antichrist (which had already extended its power over the Kiev Metropolis) could, in the view of the Russian editor, lead to the loss of piety in Russia and to the end of the world in 1666. The proximity of the fateful year did not allow the editors of the printed “Kniga o Vere” to speak definitively about what would happen in 1666. The 30th chapter served more as a warning that deviation from the rules of Christian life could entail terrible consequences in that year.

The prophecies of Zacharias Kopystensky were published at the Moscow Printing House several years before the church-ritual reform of Patriarch Nikon, which provoked a schism in the Russian Church, epidemics of plague, and the Russo-Polish War. Expectations of the end of the world, conditioned in Russia at the beginning of the century by the events of the Time of Troubles, gained a new momentum by the middle of the century. The schism of the Russian Church occurred on an eschatological wave. The opponents of the reforms perceived their course in an eschatological perspective.

One of the main interpreters of the reforms as the embodiment of predictions about the coming of the end of the world was the first leader of the Old Believers — Ivan Neronov. From 1645, having become protopope of the Kazan Cathedral on Red Square, he distinguished himself among other pastors by his vivid sermons (a genre that had been forgotten in Russian church life). It can be assumed that his instructions, which attracted the attention of all Moscow and were posted on the walls of the church, were in tune with the ideas of the 30th chapter of the printed “Kniga o Vere”: the strengthening of Christian ethics in the atmosphere of the approaching “last times.” It should be taken into account that Ivan Neronov, through his activity, carried on the tradition extending from the Time of Troubles, with its pronounced eschatologism, to the Old Belief. Probably the eschatological theme was a through-line in his work. But if initially it sounded as a warning, a fear of the triumph of the Antichrist in the fateful years, a call to avoid the destruction of faith through personal ascetic effort, then after the reforms he spoke of the embodiment of the worst omens. From the very beginning of the reforms, the theme of the end of the world became dominant in his writings. Already in his first letters Ivan Neronov formulated the main points of criticism of the reform: eschatological prophecies and the comparison of events occurring in the Russian Church with the Union. Ivan Neronov identified Nikon’s actions with the conclusion of a union, which in his reasoning testified to the machinations of the Antichrist. The introduction of a “union” on Holy Rus’ signified for Ivan Neronov the approach of the Last Judgment. In 1652 (the year Nikon ascended the patriarchal throne) Ivan Neronov wrote to Stefan Vonifatyev: “may Rus’ not suffer today as the Uniates have.” However, Ivan Neronov’s warnings were not accompanied by any calculations.

Such calculations appeared in the writings of the second major author of the initial period of the schism — Spiridon Potemkin. He was the first among the Old Believers to turn to the prophecies about the number 1666 long before the fateful year, when they had not yet become relevant to the Old Belief. He succeeded in connecting this highly authoritative date with his own eschatological expectations. Spiridon Potemkin, a native of Polish Smolensk who received his education in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, was undoubtedly well acquainted with the conclusions of the works of Ukrainian-Belarusian polemicists. Most likely, Spiridon Potemkin drew directly on the work of Zacharias Kopystensky for his prophecies. He believed that the incarnation of Christ and the “binding” of Satan conditioned the creation of the Church on earth: in Word 3 — “In the midst… that is, between the two comings of Christ, the Lord created His Church thus… so firm, so unyielding and immovable… never to err.” The Church is unchangeable, and any reformation leads to falling away. These began in 1000.

For Spiridon Potemkin, just as for Zacharias Kopystensky, “1000” acquires special significance. He highlights it, accompanying it with expressive epithets: “O most blessed thousand years!”; “O longed-for holy thousand years!” Spiridon Potemkin addressed the apocalyptic thousand in every letter, two of which are specifically devoted to the interpretation of verses 1–3 of chapter 20 of the Apocalypse: Word 4 — “On the fulfillment of the Church and on the binding of Satan and again on his loosing and on the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”; and Word 6, named at the same time as an interpretation of the Psalm — “On the Wisdom of God which built herself a house and established a sevenfold pillar.”

Spiridon Potemkin several times raises the theme connected with “1000” of the first resurrection, which should have testified to the revival of chiliastic ideas directly from the biblical text: “O longed-for holy thousand years!, in which our enemy died, and we came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years… How could we reign with Christ a thousand years, when we were born. And now only, to reign with Christ 1000 years.” As noted, in the text of the Apocalypse the first resurrection, after which the thousand-year kingdom of God on earth arrives, is the resurrection of the righteous. The concept of the “first resurrection” is important: through it Spiridon Potemkin realizes the special role of the opponents of the reforms, introducing the theme of chosenness: “The Wisdom of God reveals to us… which in a thousand years, which the Spirit of God called the first resurrection, when Satan was bound”; “On this thousand years the Holy Spirit of God called the first resurrection, saying that blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection; over such the second death has no power… But do not be troubled about this, for every believer can have part in that first resurrection, except those who have fallen away from the true faith.” Spiridon Potemkin does not clarify whether the 1000 years refer to the future reward of the righteous or to the past, to the first coming of Christ. From his text it is not entirely clear with which coming of Christ the apocalyptic number is connected. Most likely, for Spiridon Potemkin the first resurrection has passed, but at the same time the future participation in it of all fighters against Nikon’s innovations is the core of the narrative. In any case, he does not further develop the chiliastic complex of ideas laid down in the Apocalypse, but moves on to the scheme of Zacharias Kopystensky.

Strictly following Zacharias Kopystensky in his interpretations, though without referring to him, Spiridon Potemkin identifies the biblical number with the year 1000 from the Nativity of Christ and the schism of the Church. Describing the apostasy of Catholicism, Spiridon Potemkin consistently uses the apocalyptic image of “the stars that fell” and the calculations of Zacharias Kopystensky. In Word 1 he wrote: “After the completion of 1000 years [the serpent] leaped out of the abyss, and with his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, which is the falling away from the faith of the church stars, and gave his power and throne to the motley beast.” He returns to this interpretation in every letter. In Word 5: “After the completion of a thousand years and after the loosing of the crafty Satan, the enemy of Christ’s Church, how he persecutes her worse than before, how with his tail he drew away the third part of all Christianity.” In Word 2: “Let all know… that the Romans fell away from the faith in the last times near the coming of the Antichrist… After the completion of 1000 years he is loosed according to Scripture for a short time to deceive the nations. And immediately leaping out of the abyss, he drew with his tail, with the Roman popes, the third part of the church stars and cast them to the earth, that is, under his feet, to rule over them”; in Word 7: “Behold the prophecy of the fall of Rome, that he will be cut off… Satan… ascended to the church heaven and with his tail drew the third part of the church stars and cast them to the earth. And at that time Rome fell away from the Christian faith and transgressed Christ’s teaching… and received from the black serpent his power and his throne and great authority and called himself the vicar of Christ.”

Undoubtedly, Spiridon Potemkin was a supporter of the idea of the Roman pope as the Antichrist, so popular in the literature of the Kiev Metropolis. He wrote: “that all may worship the motley beast, that is, the Roman pope”; “with his tail, the Roman popes”; [the serpent], “who nested in the West.” In his interpretations the “serpent” — the Antichrist — established himself on the papal throne from 1000.

The subsequent fallings away in Spiridon Potemkin’s interpretation were conditioned by the second apocalyptic number — 666. Posing the question “What contains the wall between the two comings of Christ?”, he pointed to chapter 13 of the Apocalypse: “For the Holy Spirit speaks in the Revelation of the Theologian. If anyone has understanding, let him count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666. Concerning this we ought to ask even those who are considered teachers, if they are from God, that they reveal this mystery to us… if they have understanding, let them count.” Spiridon Potemkin consistently breaks down the sum of the two apocalyptic numbers.

The second falling away of the center of the true faith to the world of the Antichrist in Spiridon Potemkin’s view was the conclusion of the Union of Brest: In Word 1: “After the completion of six hundred years again he cunningly contrived, by the working of evil, a second falling away from the faith of the church stars.” In Word 7: “After this in six hundred the devil taught Ragoza the Uniate with his companions to rise up against the mind of God and the words of Christ… That same Ragoza with his companions, to their own destruction, renounced the ‘true’ one by the working of Satan… and for that reason wars and strifes and hatred arose in the Polish and Lithuanian lands for many times.”

Most importantly, the number 1660, which remained uninterpreted in the “Palinodia,” Spiridon Potemkin connected with events of Russian church history. He called the patriarchate of Nikon the third falling away. Spiridon Potemkin identified the year of the prophecy with Nikon’s enthronement (rounded from 1653) and the Moscow local council of 1660, which removed Nikon from his see although without depriving him of his rank. In Word 1 he supposed: “And again after the completion of sixty years the enemy cunningly contrived a third falling away from the faith of the church stars.” Spiridon Potemkin, like Ivan Neronov, identified Patriarch Nikon’s reforms with the establishment of a union on Rus’. Characterizing Nikon’s supporters, Spiridon Potemkin said: “that they may be gathered into one union, that is, into the Roman union, for it, inflamed in the Roman apostasy, has not yet been quenched even to this day.” Probably, emphasizing the continuing onslaught of the Roman pope-Antichrist, he narrated about the acute religious conflicts of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which in his opinion had passed also to the Muscovite Tsardom. In his understanding, the persecution of the Uniates against the Orthodox of the Kiev Metropolis proved identical to the actions of the Muscovite secular authorities toward the Old Believers.

Spiridon Potemkin did not live to see the fateful year 1666 and could not specifically predict its events. He died in 1665, on the eve of the number indicated in the “Palinodia,” and wrote indefinitely in Word 1: “As for what comes after six years we do not know.” But he was convinced that terrible cataclysms, still unknown to him, would be connected with that year: “The fourth falling away has not yet been revealed and whether it will be soon according to what has been foretold, but in any case it will be according to Scripture, which is 1666” (Word 7).

Overall, Spiridon Potemkin, recreating the scheme of Zacharias Kopystensky, spoke of four stages of falling away: 1000–1600–1660–1666. He filled the notions of the coming of the “last times” with symbolic dates drawn from Zacharias Kopystensky’s “Palinodia,” linking them to concrete events. Clearly working with the text of the “Palinodia,” he gave due credit to the printed “Kniga o Vere” and highly valued it. Thus, he includes it in the list of important books rejected and forbidden by Patriarch Nikon, though in his account this did not correspond to reality: “If some say that Patriarch Nikon does not accept the Kirillova Kniga, they lie. For Nikon accepts it with love in many places. And not only Cyril does he accept, but he accepts the Stoglav and accepts the Book of Faith. This is attested by the Skrizhal, his book.” Spiridon Potemkin gathered the main block of eschatological prophecies, selected the circle of quotations used by later Old Believer authors. He introduced the prophetic calculations of the Ukrainian authors. It was precisely in his texts that the union of Russian and Ukrainian ideas about the coming end of the world took place. His “Book” in many ways determined the further development of Old Believer eschatological teachings.

It should be noted that during the period when Spiridon Potemkin was developing his variations on the theme of the number 1666, similar calculations were also characteristic of Western Christianity. In that year, the end of the world was expected in a number of regions of Europe. As the fateful number approached, authors from various traditions turned to it more and more frequently. The greatest interest in the number 1666 manifested itself in the polemical literature of England, where many Reformation authors linked the fateful number to the course of the revolutionary war, and the number 666 to the name of Oliver Cromwell. The end of the world in 1666 was predicted for him, though he did not live to see it (he died in 1658). In most English texts, the reading of this date also assumed the sequential breakdown of the apocalyptic number into 1600–1660–1666. After the end of military operations in 1660, theories about the number 1666 lost their relevance, although the “Great Plague” of 1665, the comet of 1665, and the almost apocalyptic Great Fire of London in 1666 rekindled the moods that had begun to fade.

Prophecies concerning the number 1666 are also found in the Greek author Anastasios Gordios. In his treatise the number 666 is identified with the Roman pope, and “1000” with the division of the churches. Thus, in his works the apocalyptic “1000” is interpreted as the subjection of Rome to the power of the Antichrist. For him, however, the thousand-year kingdom lasted from the time the Apocalypse was written (around 100 AD) until the schism (1054).

In Portugal, a year before the fateful number, the work of António Vieira was published, threatening the end of the world in 1666.

In anticipation of the fateful year, the French Catholic priest Isaac Peyer (1596–1676) turned to the exegesis of the Apostle Paul’s epistles concerning the “last days.” Among other signs of the Last Judgment, the Apostle Paul (Rom. 9:27) spoke of the conversion of the Jewish people to Christianity. In 1642 Isaac Peyer went to Palestine as the place of the future Second Coming and the “new world.”

The connection between apocalypticism and Jewish messianism was even more clearly reflected in the movement of Sabbatai Zevi, thanks to which expectations of the end of the world in 1666 swept across the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. A year before the predicted date, one member of the Jewish community declared himself the Messiah who would bring liberation and deliverance from dispersion to the Jewish people. As scholars have demonstrated, Sabbatai Zevi borrowed the number 1666 not from Kabbalistic, but from Christian literature. Messianic moods in the Jewish milieu had been strong since the mass pogroms of Bogdan Khmelnytsky, which fell precisely on the eschatological year of Jewish literature — 1648. The surviving members of the communities of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth saw in Sabbatai Zevi the fulfillment of prophecies about the acquisition of the Promised Land on the Day of Judgment. Sabbatai Zevi’s preaching attracted a significant number of followers; having gathered them, he attempted to return to the Holy City. Sabbatai Zevi set out for Jerusalem, which in his version was to be given to him as the king of the Jews. The ruler of Jerusalem, the sultan, ordered the rebel arrested. In captivity Sabbatai Zevi converted to Islam, and later was executed.

The Sabbatean movement had considerable resonance in the Christian world, to which the role assigned to the Jews in Christian New Testament and medieval literature contributed in no small measure. As noted, in the epistle of the Apostle Paul it was said that the Jews would be convinced of the truth of Christ the Messiah at the end of world history. Sabbatai Zevi’s actions did not fit the scheme fixed by Christian canon: he converted to Islam, not Christianity. But there existed another interpretation of the role of the Jews in eschatological teaching: the establishment of Jewish power in Jerusalem signified the coming of the Antichrist. Therefore, the powerful movement of Sabbatai Zevi for possession of Jerusalem was perceived by Christians as a sign of the imminent end of the world. It reinforced the predictions of the end of the world in 1666.

In the Orthodox literature of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the response to the Sabbatean movement was the work “The True Messiah,” created by the well-known Ukrainian author Ioannikii Galiatovskii. The refutation of Sabbatai Zevi’s prophecies was written in 1667, published in Kiev in the “simple language” in 1669, and in Polish in the same city in 1672. Ioannikii Galiatovskii’s main argument was the dogma of the Incarnation: in Christianity the only Messiah of the prophetic books can be interpreted solely as Jesus Christ. The work, for the first time in Orthodox anti-Jewish literature, introduced arguments of “chimeric” antisemitism from Polish literature of similar theme (blood libels, abducted and murdered Christian infants, as well as other ritual murders, desecration of the host, conspiracies against Christians). In 1669 Ioannikii Galiatovskii sent the publication to Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich, and in 1670 personally brought it to Moscow. The work gained circulation in Russia.

The course of Sabbatai Zevi’s actions was followed not only in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The vicissitudes of the movement were described in detail in numerous Western European newspapers and pamphlets. One such pamphlet was also quoted by Ioannikii Galiatovskii. For example, the Sabbatean movement also influenced English eschatology.

Western newspapers about Sabbatai Zevi also reached the Muscovite state. Here, since the first half of the 17th century, there existed the practice of translating news letters, newspapers, and pamphlets in the Ambassadorial Chancery, which received the name Kuranty (Courants). The information was reported to the Boyar Duma and the sovereign. Kuranty containing news about Sabbatai Zevi and his prophecies of the end of the world in 1666 clearly aroused interest and were preserved in the Ambassadorial Chancery. Several pamphlets were translated at once. Although the Kuranty were intended only for an extremely narrow circle, it was not uncommon for such translations to pass into the popular milieu and spread as clandestine leaflets. The mechanism of such a transition, though on a different text, has been traced by S. M. Shamin. It is unclear whether this happened with the Kuranty about Sabbatai Zevi. What is certain is that they became known to the elite of society and, most likely, were read to the sovereign. It can be assumed that Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich followed the course of events concerning Sabbatai Zevi, took an interest in them, and listened to the rumors circulating in Europe.

It is difficult to say to what extent the tsar — during whose reign, and perhaps with whose participation, the “Kniga o Vere” was published — believed the prophecies about the number 1666. In any case, he did not wait and was not afraid to convene in the foretold year the Consecrated Church Council, which was called upon to resolve two problems destabilizing society: the absence of a head of the church and the presence of powerful opposition. The Council of 1666–1667, which became a kind of Orthodox analogue of an Ecumenical Council, put an end to the inter-patriarchal period and gave an assessment of the Old Belief. Nikon was finally removed from his see and deprived of his rank, while the Old Believers were anathematized, removed from church jurisdiction, and placed outside the law.

Undoubtedly, after the council eschatologism in the Old Believer milieu developed with increasing intensity. The prophecies about the number 1666 were seen as having been fulfilled. The teaching of Spiridon Potemkin proved to be in demand. It was assimilated by Old Believer literature on the expanding wave of expectations of the end of the world.

The first to take up the constructions of Spiridon Potemkin was his spiritual son, one of the most educated Old Believer authors — Deacon Fyodor Ivanov of the Moscow Annunciation Cathedral. According to the work “On the Questioning of the Unholy Authorities by the Hierodeacon Fyodor,” while in confinement he posed to the judges a series of questions concerning the exegesis of verses 1–3 of chapter 20 and chapter 13 of the Apocalypse: “Tell me: why was Satan bound for 1000 years? …And what did Christ accomplish in the Church during that time, while the enemy of the Church lay bound in the abyss? And why was he loosed for a short time, to deceive the nations?… Tell me, what is the beast, and what is his number?” The authorities, as the text indicates, could find no answer to these prophecies, and they increased the punishment of Fyodor, who knew their meaning, while concealing him from his flock. Fyodor himself in this work merely referred to the letters of his teacher: “There were also the words of the God-wise elder Spiridonion against the opponents of the Church, written with heavenly philosophy, exceedingly useful to the Church.”

The answers are presented in another of his works: “Letter to a Monk.” Deacon Fyodor believed that before the coming of Christ the world was engulfed by the vices of the once God-chosen Jewish people, who thereby violated the covenant with God. The corruption of faith is described in extraordinarily emotional terms: “For when Satan was not bound before the coming of Christ, he brought the whole universe into idolatry and made even the chosen Jewish tongue and the land empty of piety. But Christ… abolished his deception [Satan’s] by His first coming to earth.” The appearance of Christ and His victory over Satan in Deacon Fyodor’s exposition marked the removal of sin and the approach of humanity to God. In his explanation, Christ at the moment of the first coming bound Satan, thereby establishing the thousand-year kingdom of God on earth. This kingdom of Christian piety, the kingdom of the saints, in the eyes of Deacon Fyodor is the Christian Church of the times of the apostles, martyrs, and then the Ecumenical Councils: “And after the binding of Satan and after Christ’s ascension into heaven, the saints and martyrs appeared for Christ, pouring out their blood… and with it they cleansed the whole earth of the piety of the apostolic teaching. And then Christ established the seven Ecumenical Councils… and by these holy Ecumenical Councils Christ filled His holy Church with dogmas sent down from heaven.” His reasoning fully accords with the teaching of Blessed Augustine.

At the same time, Deacon Fyodor, repeating Spiridon Potemkin, and the latter the biblical text, linked the thousand-year kingdom to the first resurrection: “And this thousand years Scripture called the first resurrection.” Unlike the text of the Apocalypse, Deacon Fyodor perceives the first resurrection — of the righteous — as having already occurred. It can be assumed that similar views were characteristic of his teacher as well. In this case Deacon Fyodor merely expounded them in detail. According to his reasoning, the first resurrection has already touched the righteous — the saints of the Christian Church (apostles, martyrs, fathers of the Church). They have risen, are in paradise, and the second death does not touch them: “Blessed and holy, he says, is he who has part in the first resurrection; over such the second death has no power.” Those Christians who preserve the original tradition of the thousand-year kingdom also become partakers of the first resurrection and, consequently, immortality in paradise: “And if anyone even now holds to that transmitted faith, he has part in that first resurrection with those saints.”

In Deacon Fyodor’s exposition, the circle of adherents of the thousand-year kingdom and, accordingly, participants in the first resurrection constantly narrows. The Christian Church loses its supporters as a result of fallings away. While reconstructing the history of the Christian Church, Deacon Fyodor follows his teacher.

The earliest texts of Deacon Fyodor connected with this problematics can evidently be found in the work “Answer of the Orthodox,” composed in the Pustozersk prison on behalf of the four leaders of the Old Belief, including Avvakum and Lazar. According to N. S. Demkova and L. V. Titova, the “Answer of the Orthodox” reflects Deacon Fyodor’s preparatory materials for the council of 1666–1667. In the “Answer of the Orthodox,” Deacon Fyodor, in accordance with the logic of his teacher, deciphered the apocalyptic numbers. Reproducing Word 1 “On the Cross” of Spiridon Potemkin, he wrote: “After a thousand years from the suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ, the ancient serpent, Satan, was loosed for a short time to deceive the nations, as it is said in the Revelation of the Theologian, chapter 20. And when, leaping out of the abyss, he came to his former place, to the West, where he had been cast down from heaven, there with his tail, that is, with the Roman pope, he drew away the third part of the stars of heaven, that is, the Orthodox from the faith — from the church heaven — and cast them to the earth, that is, to carnal wisdom, which is called enmity against God, according to the apostle. And that Satan made the Roman kingdom in the West, where his throne is, the mother and receptacle of all heresies and the source of all impiety.”

The next stage of falling away for Deacon Fyodor was the Union of Brest: “And when the Scripture was fulfilled, and the present time revealed the mystery in the Revelation of the Theologian. According to the number of the beast 600, after the Roman apostasy, then Little Rus’ fell away from the faith, those who are called Uniates.” It should be emphasized that in the writings of Deacon Fyodor the emphasis in the evaluation of the events of the Union of Brest noticeably shifts. This corresponded to the interpretation fixed in the printed version of the “Kniga o Vere.” If the Ukrainian theologians Zacharias Kopystensky and Spiridon Potemkin fiercely fought against the union and defended the rights and piety of the Kiev Orthodox Metropolis, in Russia the boundary between the Kiev Uniate and Kiev Orthodox metropolises was erased. The fact of the conclusion of the Union of Brest in Russia imprinted a mark of impiety on Ukrainian-Belarusian Orthodoxy in the eyes of Russian society. Therefore it is not surprising that Deacon Fyodor, repeating the words of the printed “Kniga o Vere,” spoke of the falling away of all “Little Rus’.” Moreover, he extended the apostasy of the Uniates to Ukrainian-Belarusian Orthodoxy even more explicitly than in the collection. In his version the theory of fallings away recognized the Kiev Orthodox Church as subject to the world of the Antichrist.

Deacon Fyodor described the further path of the Antichrist by textually reproducing the reasoning of Spiridon Potemkin, and spoke of the number 1660: “And thereafter, when sixty years had passed [after 1600], then God, permitting Satan to complete his work, alas, with his tail he drew away our Great Russian Tsardom through Nikon.” Deacon Fyodor repeated the assertion of Spiridon Potemkin (and Ivan Neronov) regarding the identity of the Union of Brest and the Russian church-ritual reforms. In the indicated fragment of the “Answer of the Orthodox,” the description of the Antichrist’s advance ends at the number 1660, as in Spiridon Potemkin. The resulting scheme was 1000–1600–1660.

In another fragment of the “Answer of the Orthodox” a tripartite scheme is also presented, but one that already includes the stages 1000–1600–1666. It is probable that the use of these three stages goes back to the printed “Kniga o Vere.” Yet the author relied in this case on the texts of Spiridon Potemkin. Here he repeated Word 7 of Spiridon Potemkin. Deacon Fyodor summarized: “First, when after 1000 years, upon the loosing of Satan from the abyss, Rome fell and corrupted the Creed by adding ‘and from the Son,’ and thereafter composed many other heresies. Second, the Uniates, when after 1000 years they fell away from the faith, according to the number of the beast 600 was fulfilled, then likewise they corrupted their Creed, united with the Latins, and eradicated the ‘true’ one, as we said above concerning Meletius, Bishop Smotrytsky.”

Deacon Fyodor appealed to the scheme of Spiridon Potemkin with a noticeable difference. He lived through the fateful year 1666 and filled the vacant stage of the final falling away, falling on that year, with a description of the events that had occurred: “And thereafter, when it came and was fulfilled according to the number of the beast, after 600 years, 66 — oh woe and alas — in Great Russia corruption of the faith arose more cunningly and more wisely than the former….” Thus, Deacon Fyodor linked the last stage with the council of 1666–1667. In another work he emphasized the prophetic gift of his teacher, who, in his opinion, had foretold the conflicts of the council of 1666–1667: “Father Spiridonion was a prophet; what he said concerning the apostate council came to pass exactly.”

In the “Letter to a Monk,” Deacon Fyodor combined the two tripartite schemes, creating a four-part theory of fallings away. In this work Deacon Fyodor again reproduced Word 1 of Spiridon Potemkin, but now with the addition of the next stage of 1666: “After the completion of 1000 years Satan was loosed from his prison for a short time, that he might again deceive the nations.” Further: “And when, leaping out of the abyss, he drew with his tail the third part of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. The serpent is to be understood as Satan, his tail as the Roman pope, the stars as the peoples of the faithful, heaven as the firmament of the Church. For then Satan with his tail, the heretical pope, drew away the third part of the universe, the Roman kingdom with all the Western lands, from the right Christian faith and cast them to the earth, that is, to earthly wisdom; Satan subjected them under his feet and walks upon them, and works his will in them as he wishes… And thereafter, whoever has understanding, let him count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.” And the continuation: “When 600 years were fulfilled after the Roman fall, then the peoples of Little Russia fell away to the Roman Church from the Eastern Church of Christ… And when after that sixty years were fulfilled, then in Great Russia a great confusion arose among us, and likewise the falling away was accomplished… And after six years following the sixty, I think, the complete torment of the Antichrist has already begun.”

In the “Letter to a Monk,” Deacon Fyodor formulated the final version of the theory of four accomplished fallings away: 1000 — the division of the churches; 1600 — the Union of Brest; 1660 — Nikon’s reform and the council concerning him; 1666 — the council against the Old Believers.

He repeats it in the “Letter to His Son Maxim”: “All this came to pass that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. For after a thousand years Rome fell away, as the Book of the True Faith says. And after 600 years Little Rus’ fell away to Rome.” Echoing the “Answer of the Orthodox,” he characterizes the church changes made by the Uniates: “Again when in Little Russia those Uniates fell away from our right faith to the accursed Roman pope, the Kiev Metropolitan Ragoza with his companions, then they too altered their old books according to the new desires of their apostasy. From their Creed the apostate bishop Meletius Smotrytsky removed the ‘true’ one.”

Continuing to reconstruct the picture of the fallings away, Deacon Fyodor in the “Letter to Maxim” again pointed to the reform of Patriarch Nikon: “And after sixty years Great Russia was transformed into various impieties and many motley things.” Deacon Fyodor fully shared the assertion of Spiridon Potemkin (and Ivan Neronov) regarding the identity of the Union of Brest and the Russian church-ritual reforms. He compared the religious persecutions in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (and in the Roman Empire in the times of early Christianity) with the situation in the Muscovite Tsardom: “And in Rome at that time and in Little Russia there were many martyrs for the old piety of the faith, who suffered unto death from their apostates. So too here, in Great Rus’, concerning the transformation of the faith now everyone knows… And many likewise suffered here for the old Orthodoxy from the new apostates with all manner of deaths everywhere.” In his explanation the Old Believers are the direct continuators of the early Christian, and then the Ukrainian, martyrs for the faith. But their sufferings surpass all previous ones, and the Second Coming, bringing salvation to the chosen, is already near: “And after six years by their wicked assembly a great persecution and torment will be raised against the faithful, such as has never been anywhere. And after this the Lord will avenge the blood of His sons and will take vengeance and render retribution to the enemies according to Scripture.”

For Deacon Fyodor the predicted dates had been embodied in real events. The prophecies had come true, Deacon Fyodor reasoned, and the last stronghold of Orthodoxy — Moscow — had been drawn into the kingdom of the Antichrist. He clearly summarizes this in the famous phrase from the “Letter to Ioann Avvakumovich”: “There will be no other falling away anywhere else: for it has happened everywhere; the last Rus’ is here.” In the situation of the final, total falling away, the legacy of the Christian Church before the division, that is, the thousand-year kingdom of the saints, is preserved only by the community chosen by God — the Old Believers. They thus become participants in the first resurrection.

It should be noted that in the “Letter to a Monk” Deacon Fyodor, having repeated the constructions of Spiridon Potemkin, considered it necessary to refer them to the version of the printed 30th chapter of the “Kniga o Vere.” The latter, however, used different phrasing and spoke of three stages. In the “Letter to All the Faithful” Deacon Fyodor confirms the authority of the “Kniga o Vere”: “Seek no more than this [the 30th chapter of the Book of the True Faith] and do not be wise about yourselves.”

Thus, even in the works of Deacon Fyodor a reorientation of authorities occurred from the texts of Spiridon Potemkin to the printed codex of the “Kniga o Vere.” Later, in the writings of other Old Believer authors, direct appeal to the 30th chapter of the printed “Kniga o Vere,” where nothing was said about the number 1660, закрепило the use of the tripartite version of the theory of fallings away. In almost all interpretations the reading of the fateful number assumed its sequential breakdown: 1000–1600–1666. It is possible that the authors needed to reconcile the concept of fallings away with the complex of ideas widespread in Old Believer texts of Moscow as the Third Rome. There was, and could not have been, any theory of the Third Rome in Spiridon Potemkin: this concept was never accepted in Ukraine and Belarus. In Russia, however, and especially among the Old Believers, it occupies an important place in the system of eschatological and historical views. Perhaps it is precisely for this reason that the stage of 1660 drops out in the constructions of Old Believer authors. All the more so after 1666 it no longer carried the same semantic load as in the texts of Spiridon Potemkin, for whom 1660 was the last of those that had come to pass. After the passage of several years, when all the prophecies had clearly been embodied, the last stage, in the opinion of the Old Believers, became the foretold 1666.

Having concentrated the eschatological constructions on the number 1666, Old Believer authors begin to expand the circle of witnesses to it. Already Deacon Fyodor sought to rely on broader authorities. In the “Letter to Ioann Avvakumovich” he strengthens the argumentation and introduces additional names. In addition to the Apocalypse and the “Kniga o Vere,” Deacon Fyodor uses the text of pseudo-Hippolytus, which he was probably well acquainted with from the Sobornik (Moscow, 1647): “And their apostasy is indicated by the Holy Spirit, the True One, in the Apocalypse, chapter 13, according to the number of the beast 666, and the Book of the True Faith, chapter 30, and Saint Hippolytus, Pope of Rome.”

A follower of Deacon Fyodor, the monk Avraamii, actively used the theory of fallings away, often repeating a similar block of arguments. In his famous petition to Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich he exactly reproduced the questions to chapters 20 and 13 of the Apocalypse presented in Deacon Fyodor’s “Questioning of the Authorities.” But he did not answer them, remarking meaningfully: “And concerning this I will keep silence and sprinkle with tears.”

Evidently the answer to the questions was the work of Avraamii “On the Roman Apostasy,” textually connected with Deacon Fyodor’s “Letter to a Monk.” It may have come down without introductory phrases. In the surviving text the narrative begins immediately with the falling away in 1000: “Before this, about 1000 years from Christ [Rome] fell away from the faith. It is written there [in the Book of the True Faith]. Thereafter this too is recalled. And in our most radiant Russian land up to these times the all-cunning enemy has often looked in, plotting to tear us away from the right faith. But God did not permit it then, since the Scripture and the number of the beast 1666 had not yet been fulfilled.” “And when the Scripture was fulfilled and the present time revealed the mystery in the Revelation of the Theologian, according to the number of the beast 600 was fulfilled after the Roman apostasy, then Little Rus’ fell away from the faith, those who are called Uniates.” Further Avraamii reproduced from the “Letter to a Monk” the fragment about Patriarch Nikon: “And thereafter, when sixty years came, then God permitting Satan to complete his work, alas, he drew away our Great Russian Tsardom with his tail through Nikon.”

In other cases the monk Avraamii formulated his views on the changes occurring in the Russian Church with the help of exact quotations from the “Kniga o Vere.” In the “Letter to the God-Lover” and in the “Letter to His Spiritual Daughter (Boyarynya Morozova)” he gave an almost exact reference to the printed collection: “And the time of him [the Antichrist] is at the fulfillment of this number [666]. Concerning this the compiler of the Book of the True Faith writes clearly and says: That after 1000 years from the incarnation of the Word of God Rome fell away with all the Western lands from the Eastern Church. And in the one thousand five hundred ninety-fifth year the inhabitants of Little Rus’ fell away from the faith and gave the Roman pope a charter of submission in all things. And this is the second tearing away of Christians from the Eastern Church. And then Lithuania fell away from the faith. Guarding also our Muscovite state he wrote: when 1666 years from the incarnation of the Word of God are fulfilled, then it behooves us also to be on guard, lest we suffer likewise as the Romans and Lithuania.”

It can be noted that the monk Avraamii, even more than Deacon Fyodor, increases the number of authorities. In addition to the Apocalypse, the “Kniga o Vere,” and pseudo-Hippolytus, he draws on the works of Irenaeus of Lyons. In his reading Irenaeus of Lyons interpreted the number 666 as a temporal extent: “Saint Irenaeus clearly tells us concerning this number [666], that this number signifies all the years from Adam until the destruction of the beast.” Pseudo-Hippolytus, in his exposition, narrated the descent of Christ into hell and the end of the world in 1666: “Saint Hippolytus, Pope of Rome, interprets [chapter 20 of the Apocalypse] that Satan was bound for 1000 years from the entry of our Lord Jesus Christ into hell, and he says: when 1000 years come from the Lord’s entry into hell, and after those thousand years, when the number of years 666 is fulfilled, and thereafter he said, there will be the consummation and the prophets will come to earth.”

All these numerous testimonies, in his exposition, were fulfilled in the book correction of Patriarch Nikon: “And this number was clearly and manifestly fulfilled in 1666, for in that year Nikon the destroyer issued his heretical Service Books, and commanded that the holy former Service Books, by which our fathers served and pleased the Lord God, be cast out of the church as if they were unfit.”

The monk Avraamii tragically marveled at the authorities’ recklessness in discarding the predictions of the “Kniga o Vere”: “and knowing, they did not fear; Satan through his vessel Nikon destroyed the faith in that year.” “The number was fulfilled.” Most importantly, the monk Avraamii appealed to these chronological calculations in order to answer his followers who had asked questions about the end of the world that had not occurred in 1666. He urged his spiritual children to “take courage and be established in the truth,” foretelling that in approximately twenty years Christ would descend to earth to save His chosen ones and punish the tormentors.

Indeed, the Old Believers, having taken the number 1666 as the foundation of their eschatological theories, initially found themselves in a difficult situation. According to the canon, the triumph of the “prince of this world” would be short-lived and last three and a half years. After that, the Second Coming of Christ and the subsequent end of the world were to take place. Having acknowledged that in 1666 the final falling away had occurred and the world had been completely engulfed by the Antichrist, they saw that in 1669 the end of the world had not come. Obviously, it then followed to understand either that the kingdom of the Antichrist would last longer than three and a half years and perhaps for an indefinite time. The solution was found in the affirmation of the theory of a spiritual or “dismembered” Antichrist.

The number 1666 does not disappear from Old Believer literature; on the contrary, with the development of eschatological teachings, it becomes increasingly important. Nikita Dobrynin (Pustosvyat) also appealed to it, seeing the fulfillment of the prophecies of the 30th chapter of the “Kniga o Vere”: “For we clearly see that everything written there is coming to pass.” In his address to the sovereign he quoted the printed “Kniga o Vere” verbatim: “And we, Sovereign, fear lest we too fall away from the true faith and perish in soul, as the Romans did. For in the Book of the True Faith (chapter 30, folio 272) it is written thus: It behooves all Orthodox always to keep this in memory and to attend to it, that after a thousand years from the incarnation of the Word of God Rome fell away with all the Western lands from the Eastern Church. And in the one thousand five hundred ninety-fifth year after the thousand, the inhabitants of Little Rus’ joined the Roman Church and gave the Roman pope a charter of submission in all things. This is the second tearing away of Christians from the Eastern Church. Guarding against this, it is written: when 1666 years are fulfilled, may we not suffer any evil from the previous causes, but through repentance appease God… And again, Sovereign, in the same chapter, on folio 271, it is written: After the thousandth year, when the 595th year was approaching, the apostasy and seduction of those called Uniates from the holy Eastern Church to the Western Church became manifest. And upon the fulfillment of the years of the number one thousand six hundred sixty-six, it behooves us also to be on guard against these causes, lest we suffer any evil, but to witness the fulfillment of the previously spoken Scriptures.”

The Borisoglebsk priest Lazar expanded the circle of authorities when appealing to the number 1666. In addition to the “Kniga o Vere” and pseudo-Hippolytus, he drew on the texts of Methodius of Patara. He pointed out that in the work of Methodius of Patara the number was deciphered as numerous names of the Antichrist, whereas in Hippolytus, in his reading, it signified not only the name but also the time of the Second Coming: “And if anyone has understanding and wisdom, let him count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, 666. Hippolytus says that in this number many names are found… Thus speaks Saint Hippolytus, not having the present or the future, but the number of years reduced to a sum. Therefore, he says, it is the number of years and the number of a man and the number of the beast, for in those years such things are to arise, and from that time Orthodoxy will be greatly shaken.” Thus, Lazar perceived fragments from the text of pseudo-Hippolytus as an indication of the council of 1666–1667. Following Ivan Neronov, Spiridon Potemkin, and Deacon Fyodor, Lazar identified Patriarch Nikon’s church-ritual reform with the Union of Brest: “and therefore it behooves us also to beware of these [nets of the Antichrist], lest we suffer the same as the Belarusian authorities and Metropolitan Mikhail Ragoza with his companions.”

Avvakum also wrote about the fallings away, but the theory did not become the subject of special elaboration for him. Even when commenting on chapter 13 of the Apocalypse, he avoided turning to chronological constructions.

The prophecies concerning the year 1666 received numerous interpretations and became part of oral tradition. Theological constructions about the number 1666 took the form of rumors or clandestine leaflets. Probably among the rumors recorded in written sources was the work named by Deacon Fyodor “The Book of the Eagle from the Books of Ezra,” now unknown. From Deacon Fyodor’s description it is clear that the work combined the prophecies of the Third Book of Ezra and the number 1666. Deacon Fyodor asserted that Patriarch Nikon had read “The Book of the Eagle” and that “that Eagle drove him from Moscow.” Besides Deacon Fyodor, “The Book of the Eagle” was noted by Yuri Krizhanich. He devoted special sections in his treatise “Interpretation of Historical Prophecies” to the analysis of the teachings about 1666 in the “Kniga o Vere” and in “The Book of the Eagle from the Books of Ezra.”

Overall, elaborations concerning the number 1666 circulated in various strata of Russian culture in the middle and third quarter of the 17th century. Published in the middle of the century in official book culture, the prophecies gradually became firmly established in the sphere of democratic literature and, above all, Old Believer literature.

There were special reasons for the popularity of theories about the number 1666 among Old Believer authors. However, the testimonies of the “Kniga o Vere” were not assimilated by Old Believer literature immediately. The conceptions concerning the number 1666 were accepted into the Old Believer tradition thanks to the elaborations of Spiridon Potemkin, who was familiar with the prophecies even in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and apparently from the source of the “Kniga o Vere” — Zacharias Kopystensky’s “Palinodia.” He was the first to speak of the predictions before 1666. After the council of 1666–1667 the relevance of the prophecies became obvious, and the works of Spiridon Potemkin became in demand. Deacon Fyodor introduced them. The monk Avraamii quoted both the works of Deacon Fyodor and the printed “Kniga o Vere.” Nikita Dobrynin (Pustosvyat) relied only on the printed version. It can be said that after Deacon Fyodor, early Old Believer authors mainly referred to the printed version of the “Kniga o Vere.” The printed collection enters the number of foundational, extremely significant authorities. It should be noted that almost all the named authors of variations on the number 1666 paid cruelly for their constant reminding of the authorities of the fulfilled predictions from the “Kniga o Vere,” published in the only printing house in Russia with the blessing of the tsar and the patriarch. All of them, with the exception of Spiridon Potemkin, who was close to the court and died a natural death, were burned at the stake or beheaded.

In the subsequent Old Believer tradition the number 1666 is drawn into the most diverse constructions. It can be asserted that there is almost no Old Believer work whose author does not appeal in one version or another to the number 1666. Nevertheless, this date goes back to the Ukrainian-Belarusian tradition and finds parallels with Western European, primarily Reformation, conceptions. But in Russia, unlike the Western tradition, the prophecy remained in literature even after the fateful year had passed. While in the West after 1666 variations on it disappear from book culture and oral tradition, becoming an example of an unfulfilled end of the world, in Russia this theme is preserved and actualized. Old Believer teachings about the sensory Antichrist, the spiritual Antichrist, the idea of the changing face of the Antichrist, dates of the end of the world derived from this number — all are connected with conceptions of the number 1666. The theory of fallings away in its tripartite version became the central point of Old Believer literature. Its foundation is the position concerning the last falling away from the faith, which has been continuing from 1666 to the present day. For the Old Believers, in 1666 the course of history came to an end.

source