Russian Christianity: Old Believers
Despite his tangent into a marriage and children, Nikon received his call from God at a very early age. When Nikon renounced the material world and sent his wife into the monastic life, Nikon joined the Solovki monastery, which was a desolate, isolated retreat, surrounded by harsh wintry conditions. The Solovki monastery is located on the White Sea. He liked the rituals of mortifying his flesh and fasting and was very devout. One can conclude that Nikon reveled in this type of harsh and painful practice after his detour into married life.�¯�¿�½
After a falling out with the monks at Solovki and he joined the monastery of Kojeozersk. Nikon left the Solovki monastery after a disagreement with his fellow monks over the use of convent funds and his inability to adhere to dictation, and authority. At Kojeozersk Nikon’s gained a reputation as being extraordinarily pious man. This reputation gained him a leadership role in the monastery. He became the superior of the Kojeozerk monastery. As fate would have it, the Kojeozerk monastery was the one a young Tsar Alexei attended.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½
A friendship was born out of the contact between Nikon and Tsar Alexei. Historian Donald A. Lowrie describe Nikon as “Large-framed and handsome” and having a interesting personality. A friendship soon deepened with the Tsar showing increasing confidence on Nikon. One can conclude from the descriptions of Nikon that he was physically strong, interesting and charismatic. This mix of good looks, and charm perhaps got him into the position of power with Alexei. Nikon seems to have been a man who knew how to network and take charge. Even at his first monastery, he left over a disagreement over funds. This shows his controlling nature and strength of character the young Tsar thought was very impressive.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½
The relationship between Nikon and Tsar Alexis was a match that fit perfectly. Alexander was young and impressionable and Nikon was a strong and persuasive, pious patriot. Alfred F. Heard says of Nikon, “The strength and originality of Nikon’s character, the bold frankness of his disposition, his eager, self-sacrificing zeal, his lofty and far sighted genius, both in political and ecclesiastical matters, his indomitable courage and independence, his generous spirit and high sense of justice, made him a fit counselor for the sovereign,” shows the powerful positive impression Nikon could have made not only on young Alexei but on many. Nikon also subordinated his personal ambitions to his purification of the church and restoring the faith.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½
Alexei found great comfort in his new companion. Alexei enjoyed the conversations with the pious monk and leaned on Nikon with complete confidence. Alexei made Nikon the Metropolitan of Novgorod. Nikon built a wood fortress for Alexei’s visits in Novgorod. Nikon, while Metropolitan, exerted great power over all church affairs and he showed his energy and zeal. He built hospitals and houses for refuge during a great famine that devastated Novgorod, and took great care in helping the poor and suffering. Nikon cemented his position with Alexei with the protection of Novgorod against the Swedes and people he thought had helped the Swedes; traitors to Russia.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½
The union of Tsar Alexei and Nikon not only resulted in a friendship, it resulted in a marriage between state and church power. In 1652 an event led to the cementation of Nikon’s power. The former Patriarch of the church, Joseph died allowing for Nikon’s appointment by Alexei to the role of Patriarch. Nikon himself was unsure of the proposed elevation by Tsar Alexei and at first refused the title because he did not feel that he was in a position of authority to take the title and declined. This refusal brought Alexei to his knees in front of the ruling factions in the Russian State and begged that Nikon given the authority to take the title of Patriarch. Nikon finally accepted the title Patriarch on the conditions that members of nobility regard him as father in all spiritual affairs and assist him in building up the church. The six years after his appointment of Patriarch of the Orthodox Christian Church in Russia caused the flourishing of the friendship between Alexis and Nikon. Nikon was himself called Tsar by Tsar Alexei and a dual monarchy resulted, only this time unlike past church-state unions, Nikon had the office because of his virtue and merit, not a as a result of a birthright like many past Patriarchs. When Alexei was away at wars, Nikon ruled the state. At one point Nikon amassed his own army numbering 10,000 soldiers, which he placed on the fields of war. With his new power, Nikon built great monasteries and a grand palace that rivaled the imperial palace. The latter caused the first instance of anger towards Nikon by other clergy members. In response, Nikon did not care about the concerns of either the clergy or nobilityÃ?¯Ã?¿Ã?½
The reforms of Nikon ensured his place in the history books. Nikon had grand ideas about changing the nature of the Orthodox Church in Russia. Not surprisingly, Tsar Alexei supported Nikon and the changes. To the many changes by Nikon and Tsar Alexei resistance arose. This resistance came in the form of a group of people known as the Old Believers. Old Believers resistance a culture and way of life for a large group of people in Russia who developed their own literature, religious practices, politics, and art.�¯�¿�½
The history of Old Believers has been shrouded in controversy. Traditional Orthodox theory on the dissenters has been harsh, deeming the group as backward, ignorant, superstitious, stubborn peasants who were not enlightened or willing to tell the difference between symbols and dogma. Secular populist points of view of the Old Believers see the group as defenders of ancient Russian traditions. These traditions include self-rule, freedom from serfdom, and the authority of local government over central rule. Despite the theories, the Old Believers rejected Nikon’s reforms, initiated between 1656 and 1666 and believed in Russian Orthodoxy of pre-seventeenth century reforms. Old Believers believed that a ritual life could help them achieve a closer relationship with God; divination. To the Old Believers, the religious schism was not only a symbolic break in tradition; it was “subverted chance for salvation.” The group was persecuted thanks the support Nikon received from Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and that persecution was not stopped until 1905, with the Act of Toleration.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½
One of the most tragic events in Russian history centers on the Old Believers and conflict with Nikon and Tsar Alexei. By the end of the seventeenth century, Old Believers were ardently against both the Patriarch and Tsar. This dissent resulted in the rounding up of Old Believer leaders who were either burned at the state, executed, or imprisoned. Many believers were held as prisoners in monasteries. The most tragic even though occurred when 20,000 Old Believers burned themselves to death. Author Dimitry Pospielovsky explains the mass deaths “believing that the age of Antichrist had arrived and seeking to die a martyr’s death for Jesus” was the reason for the mass immolation.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½
The spark that led to the rise of the Old Believers was the introduction of Greek language religious books in Russia. During the seventeenth century there were many in Russia that favored the Greek language, however, some Russians felt that Greek was not superior to the Slavic languages spoken in Russia. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, southern Slavs living in the Ottoman empire supported the idea that Muscovy should be the center of the Orthodox religion because it was the only remaining country that had both Orthodox religious and political sovereignty. At the time, Russia was the only Orthodox country who was not under the rule of a foreign power like the Ottomans. Many Greeks, as well as other groups in the eastern Orthodoxy center, also felt that Muscovy should become the new center, with the Greek language as the new center of all Orthodox faith. To people outside of Russia, Muscovy seemed like the only country that could preserve the old Orthodox piety and culture. It is true that the Greeks also saw this as a way to expand the Greek culture through the Orthodox religion, which would cause problems later for Greek supporter Patriarch Nikon�¯�¿�½
The Greeks started a campaign of complaints about the falsity and corruption of books printed in non-Orthodox countries and those complaints caused suspicion of the books in Muscovy which were being converted from Greek into the Slavic languages. At the same time as Greeks were suspicious of the Orthodox books in Russia, Russian clergy were superstitious of Greek itself. In 1654 Patriarch Nikon stirred the debate over the role of the Greek language in Russia by officially declaring the prestige of Greek language and culture. Nikon started the practice of reforming the Russian Orthodox church by revising old books and rituals in the Greek style.�¯�¿�½
It is important to realize Nikon’s motivations for adopting the Greek language and culture for his county. One can surmise that concerns over the authenticity of Orthodox books and the quest for maintaining the true faith were not the only factors in adopting the Greek culture. A political-religious motivation is very probable for the acceptance of the non-Russian culture. In his book The Orthodox Church in the History of Russia, author Dimitry Pospielovsky says “the patriarch and the young Tsar were now dreaming of liberating the Balkan Christians from the Turkish Yoke, restoring the Byzantine Empire, with the Russian Tsar and the Moscow Patriarch celebrating the midnight Paschal service with the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople,” showing the possible drive to a far reaching Orthodox Empire. This idea of Russia being the head of an Orthodox Empire was supported by Balkan pilgrims who fled to Russia and flattered the Tsars when they were given gold and furs. These Balkan pilgrims enhanced Russian Orthodoxy ego stating that all the Christians in the Balkans would support Russia, if the power ever sent an army into the area to defeat the Ottomans. A foreshadow of the difficulties this new Empire would encounter would be, the differences between the Greek traditions and Russian traditions within the Orthodox faith. Nikons concerns were also increased when visiting Greek clergy criticized Russian practice and telling him the Russian were wrong. A combination of embarrassment, promises of a large united empire and promises of power are probable motivations for Nikon’s reforms.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½
After Nikon’s proposal of reforming and conforming to the Greek tradition, Nikon followers were not supportive all of his changes. Nikon supporters questioned the ideas of completely adopting Greek language for all religious books, instead of the Russian vernacular versions. One of Nikon’s supporters, Sil’vestr Medvedev (1641-1691) who supported most of Nikon’s reforms regarding the church, objected to the idea of completely, blind acceptance of everything Greek. Medvedev wrote a book titled Manna (1687) which discussed a case were a book was sent into Russia in the Greek language. This particular book was prepared by the Roman Catholic Church in an attempt to mislead the people of Russia. Medvedev discusses his feeling about the Catholic book that had infiltrated the Orthodox faith, On the Divine Mysteries, “For they know that here, when people see any book in Greek, whether manuscript or printed, it is believed without the slightest deliberation and taken as authoritative.” Medvedev saw the possibility of mass manipulation by any enemies of the Orthodox Church by simply sending false dogma and books to Russia to confuse the masses on matter of faith. Other scholars such as Miconite Ioann Luk’ianov was also highly critical of Nikon’s complete acceptance of the Greek language by Nikon calling the Greeks deceptive and capricious. There was a widespread feeling of mistrust against the Greeks among Nikon supporters which was a signal that people who already did not support any of the Nikon reforms were going to be outraged.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½
As expected, the Old Believers were the most vocal about their negative attitudes towards the introduction of Greek culture and language. Archpriest Avvakum wrote a petition to the Tsar stating “A certain Greek, Archimandrite Dionysios, is teaching Greek letters to Ilarion, Archbiship of Riazan, that is, I say, Greek ways of external wisdom,” rallying against the Greek idea of external wisdom. The Old Believers likened “external wisdom” to learning from the outside, not from within ones own soul and hearts. The Old Believers saw the great idea of liberal arts as detrimental to the Orthodox faith. Many other Old Believers wrote books against the introduction of Greek culture. Epifanii the Most Wise, V. M. Tuchkov, monk Iosif, Simon Azar’in, and monk Feoktist are all renowned Russians who opposed the Greek alterations. Monk Feoktist wrote a line that supports the anti-Greek feelings of his comrades, “For the sake of Athenian wisdom no one will be saved.”Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½
Old Believer literature did not only focus on anti-Greek sentiment. Other significant literary opposition by the Old Believers was in the use of traditional Orthodox writing forms like the “Saint’s lives.” The traditional Saint’s lives, also called vitae, are loosely connected episodes structured into a narrative of a person’s life. A vitae is a “devotional biography of a saint, explaining his role in the development of Orthodox saintliness and the religious mind, and giving the reason for his canonization.” These biographies often overlooked details of the saint’s actual life to highlight their piety. These stories were meant to be examples in piety, not examples of the person’s daily activities.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½
The Old Believers used the format of a Saint’s life and wrote the Tale of Boiarynia Morozova. Morozova was a high-class woman who was friends with Archpriest Avvakum Petrovich, an early renowned Old Believer. This tale was probably written for its propagandist value of highlighting the moral values of Morozova who died in prison. The Tale was copied on a massive scale and read and distributed in many different places to shine light on the deeds of the Believers. Even into the twentieth century, the Tale was printed on Old Believer printing presses. As the centuries progressed and different printings were made, alterations were made to make Morozova more of a martyr.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½
The Tale is also demonstrates changes literature was undergoing due the tumultuous seventeenth century. Secularization was becoming more popular in literature in the seventeenth century, which allowed for traditional genre to be modified. It seems ironic that secularization was a tool in the Old Believers cause to preserve the old faith. Because of the shift away from tradition, the Believers were able to apply the Saint’s life form to Morozova. Literature also moved towards more personalized, detailed accounts of individuals being presented. Despite its personalized style, the Tale is still rich with religious themes and conventions.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½
In the seventeenth century, the Tale was the type of literary dissent the Old Believers turned to against the new Orthodox Church. Morozova’s story is injected with statements about the true faith “She was instructed I the virtuous life and the correct dogma by the holy martyr Archpriest Avvakum. And when Feodosia learned about the true belief, she began to be very zealous and turned away from everything corrupt.” From this primary source, all of the ideologies of the Old Believers are laid out. The Tale also states “And whoever (if they were among her relations) adhered to Nikonianism, Feodosia would expose them without hesitation.” Fedosia was Morozova’s name before she became a nun of the Old Belief. In the mentioned statement also shows the nature of the type of literature being circulated. The message is that God is more important than any type of superficial relationships. The Tale also discuses Morozova’s disobedience directly to Tsar Alexei and the Orthodox Church. One example of her disobedience is discussed in her refusal to attend Alexei’s second wedding “The holy woman did not want to come for this reason: there she would have to call the Tsar pious when she gave his title and to his hand, and there would be no way to avoid the blessing of their high clergy.” This statement makes clear that the disobedience towards authority was justifiable because of her piety and the Tsar lack of it. It can be concluded that these examples were intended to be inspirational to the Russian people who read them. Morozova is represented as the pious, true believer “David” against the evil, Orthodox “Goliath.”Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½
Lament for the Martyrs, an addition to the Tale collection also highlights the vocal objection of the Tsar by the Old Believers. The Lament was written by Archpriest Avvakum shortly after Morozova’s death. The story directly states the Old Believers idea that Tsar Alexei was the antichrist, “âÂ?¦the spy of the Antichrist, came to see her at her house.” The story then describes the illness Morozova succumbed to by accepting the new sign of the cross. Whether or not the immediate illness is a historical inaccuracy, Avvakum demonstrates that Alexei is in fact the real antichrist. Later when Morozova and two other Old Believers are threatened with death they valiantly state “we will be baked like the sweet bread of the Holy Trinity,” showing the martyrdom of the three. This Lamentation reads very powerfully with many details to support all of the theories, both political and religious, against Nikon’s reforms and Tsar Alexei.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½
The Old Believers also rejected all of the religious reforms Nikon made to the Orthodox Church. Old Believers rejected and did not practice the Greek styled changes. There were many religious issues that were important to Old Believer faith. One of the most important symbols in Russia is the sign of the cross and with that is the actual matter in which one makes the cross. In trying to conform to the Greek tradition, Nikon changed the way Orthodox Russians were to make the sign of the cross, which did not alleviate any of the tensions between Nikon and the Old Believers.�¯�¿�½
The traditional way of forming the sign of the cross was as follows; with two fingers extended and three closed. Nikon wanted to change this to the Greek way of three fingers extended and two closed. Even though this seems insignificant, it was very important in the eyes of pious people. The Old Believers, with their attentions to details and symbols, were very distraught over this change. The reason for this anger was for symbolic reasons. The Russian Orthodox way of two fingers extended was and allusion to the double nature of Christ, while the three closed was in tradition of the trinity. In the Greek tradition the two fingers closed represented Christ’s double nature, while the three extended fingers showed the trinity. The difference between the two was the extension of the fingers during the sign for the double nature of Christ. The trinity also used three fingers in each tradition, but again it was a matter in extension. This change over to the Greek tradition for Old Believers was not just a symbolic shift, but a change in dogmatic meanings.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½
Old Believers also disagreed with the many other changes Nikon made to the Orthodox Church during his change to Greek Orthodoxy. The Old Believers disagreed with all of the changes made to church tradition, which in the eyes of the Believers was a change in dogma. The Greek Church used a triple halleluia, honoring the Trinity instead of the Russian double halleluia, referencing the double nature of Christ. The Greek church also believed in saying God reign “is eternal” instead of the Russian’s way of stating God’s reign “shall be eternal.” The Greek’s cross had four points as opposed to the Russian cross having eight points. The Greek prayed to the Savior as “our God” as opposed to the Russian prayer of “the Son of God.” The Greeks spelled the name Jesus Iissous, however, the Russian church spelled the name Jesus Issous. The Greek Church had one alter as opposed to the Russian church, which had many (seven) altars in their churches. The Greeks thought it was right to shave beards, but the Russians thought shaving beards was wrong. The Greek Church processions went against the sun, whereas the Russian processions marched with the sun.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½
The Old Believers also used politics as a way to counteract the changes in Russia by the Orthodox Church. Old Believers lived outside of mainstream society and often formed groups with the larger umbrella of “Old Believers.” Many of these groups continued throughout the initial seventeenth century. The Chashnye was a group of Believers who received sacraments from the Russian Orthodox Church, but performed a shortened church service somewhere else. These services were often held in a member’s cellar, gaining the group the nickname “Cellarers.” This specific group is today seen as a hybrid half Old Believer group that always secretly aligned themselves with the Old Believer agenda. This group felt that the sacrament from the Orthodox Church was a “necessary evil” but that the old rituals and traditions needed to be upheld. There was also a variety of other groups, a priestly group and a non-priestly group who believed those who rejected accommodations of the state and isolated themselves from society. There were many other groups however; who were able to resist the Greek influence of reforms.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½
The Old Believer communities were very successful and appealing because of their democratic, local, and traditional structure. The localization of the communities offered an attractive alternative to the huge centralized, impersonal Orthodox Church. One of the Old Believer values was that each member of the community had a voice in all religious matters. Clergy of the Old faith were also accessible to community members, which made the lay members feel connected and engaged. The communities were also attractive alternatives for women because of the strong role available to them. Women were vital in the spread of the Old Belief. The communities also provided material well being to their members, providing mutual aid, provisions, and wealth. The material wealth that was distributed among the Believers has been noted as being a luring factor in attaining new members and defend themselves against the massive Orthodox Church power and wealth.�¯�¿�½
The most visible evidence of Old Believer resistance can be seen in art. Pre-seventeenth century art focused are religious themes found in Byzantine art. Early Russian painters were supposed to follow certain accepted iconography compositions, standard representations of the saints, and a standard subject matter of work. In these early iconic paintings, creativity was not as important as conformity to the tradition subject matter and styles. One of the most famous painters in Russian religious tradition was Andrei Rublev. Rublev is known as the father of Russian Icons. Icons were thought to be the prime expression of Russian religious thought and type of piety popular during into introductions in the 15th century. Rublev is recognized for his mastery and skill; his composition, line, rhythm and color. His paintings produce beauty without showing to much emotion of his subjects. The emotion that is expressed through his icons is through his skill and style. One of Rublev’s most famous paintings is The Old Testament Trinity. The trinity is known for it line, color, composition and simple emotion. Compared to the following painting from eighteenth century, one can not how non-political and pleasant this painting is. This painting is “pleasant” do to its neutral color, calming subject matter, the exquisite lines and shadowing showing the artistic technique o be more important to the work than any political message The Old Believers used art as a way of demonstrating the injustices they felt at the new shift in church practices. One painting depicts the forced westernization on the Old Believers by Peter the Great. Peter, the son of Tsar Alexei, continued with the church reforms of his father and Nikon. This image shows Peter cutting off the beard of an objecting man This man is no doubt an old believer is literately trying to resist the changes with the raising of his hand. Historian David C. Waugh in his description of the painting states “Ironically, of course, the Old Believer is wearing Western clothing, an anomaly that seems not to have struck the artist.” During the time of Peter the Great, a cultural assimilation was taking place despite the objection by the Old Believers. The masses of Russia had stopped wearing their traditional clothes and had started shaving their beards. Russians were being sent abroad by Peter in 1697 to study in the Ukraine.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½
The image of Peter cutting the beard has a more symbolic meaning than just the shift in Russian culture to the West. David C. Waugh also notes of the painting “Even a century and a half later, after generations of intense westernization of the Russian elite, the impact of the West in rural Russia was minimal.” Old Believer resistance existed outside of the metropolitan areas, in small villages and communities. The Old Believers rejected the mainstream and tried to stay as far away as possible, and during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, that choice would have been easier compared to today’s globalized world. The Greek westernization that was hitting the cities and elite did not have that much of an impact on those close nit political communities who had already cut them off from the Tsar.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½
I believe the image of Peter cutting the beard of the Old Believer was both a celebration of Old Believer resistance was well a warning to the Old Believer community. Waugh stated that the painter did not notice that the Old Believer in the painting was wearing western clothing but I think that that assumption is wrong. I think the artist was well aware of this paradox. It would be highly egotistical to assume that a modern viewing of an old eighteenth century painting about one of the most detailed, symbol oriented group of people is wrong. Old Believers very foundation of faith was based on minute details and symbols. I think that the dress of the Old Believer was a criticism on some of the groups within the Old Believer community, especially those who still took sacraments from the church. Even though Waugh says that the rural communities were not affected, it is hard to think that these communities lived in a time capsule of the seventeenth century. Probably what was really going on, was the adoption of Western ideals, practices and styles by Old Believers on a widespread scale. I believed what happened is that the Old Believer groups stopped rejecting so much of the modern culture because it was so present; these communities did not live in a bubble. These communities no doubt had interactions with the world around them and saw the changes being made. I believe the painting was more a criticism on Old Believer more than a criticism on Peter the Great. The Old Believer in question is rejecting the shaving of his beard but is still wearing Western dress. I believe the artist was criticizing the practice of absorbing some of the new practices, a selective resistance.�¯�¿�½
The Old Believers created a whole culture out of their resistance to the reforms to the Orthodox Church, which were started in Nikon and Tsar Alexei’s time. Despite the passing of time, the Old Believer resistance never died out, and members of this old faith still remain today. The resistance turned into an alternative way of life with a whole political structure, a different culture with art and literature, as well as political movement. Just like the Old Believers would have had it, the Old Believers symbolize traditional values of Russia, which have been carried down to present day.
