Christianization of Russia PDF

T h e Christianization of Ancient Russia
A Millennium: 988-1988
T h e Christianization
of Ancient Russia
A Millennium: 988-1988
Edited by Yves Hamant
U N E S C O
The authors are responsible for the choice and the
presentation of the facts contained in this book and
for the opinions expressed therein, which are not
necessarily those of U N E S C O and do not commit the
Organization.
Published in 1992 by the United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization
7 place de Fontenoy, 75700 Paris, France
Typeset by the U N E S C O Press
Printed by Imprimerie de la Manutention, Mayenne
ISBN 92-3-102642-9
French edition (1989): 92-3-202642-2
© U N E S C O 1992
Printed in France
Preface
T h e thousandth anniversary of the introduction of Christianity into R u s ' was

celebrated by a n u m b e r of cultural events, including a symposium organized by
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization from 28
to 30 June 1988. T h e present work assembles the papers delivered o n that occa-
sion which gave some thirty leadingfiguresfrom religious, scientific and uni-
versity circles an opportunity to consider the Christianization of ancient - or
Kievan - Rus' from a wide variety of viewpoints.
T h e participants began by studying the baptism of Vladimir and the inhab-
itants of Kiev in 988, and the events leading up to it, in an attempt to throw
light o n its circumstances and consequences. T h e event w a s clearly of m o m e n -
tous religious and spiritual significance. It denoted the expansion of the Kievan
State and its entry into the ranks of the great nations, while heralding the birth
of Eastern Slav culture. T h e n again it demonstrated the original w a y in which
Rus' had assimilated the Byzantine heritage through the work of Cyril and
Methodius and their disciples.
T h e Symposium was further intended to examine the impact of the con-
version to Christianity o n the entire historical and socio-cultural development
of the Eastern Slavs up to the present day. T h e situation could not of course be
viewed from every angle; however, the participants proposed guidelines and
marked out the terrain for future research.
T h e Christianization of ancient Rus' is a living proof of the dialectical link
between what constitutes cultural unity as the distinct m o d e of h u m a n exis-
tence, and plurality of cultures as specific to particular societies. 'Art springs
from t w o founts of music,' noted Blok in his Diary, 'one of creative individual-
ity and one sounding at the very soul of an entire people, a collective soul.' Dif-
ferent cultures, by enriching one another, have contributed to the advance of
civilizations by drawing from the innermost sources of the evangelical message.
In the same way, the influence of Byzantium and of the heritage of Cyril and
Methodius contributed to the emergence of a n e w community without extin-
guishing the identity and ethnic distinctness of the peoples of Rus'.
Christianity therefore was already displaying its capacity not to absorb the
culture of peoples converting to it. O n e of the lessons to be drawn from Vladi-
mir's conversion is that m a n looks to knowledge, creation and faith in order to
find the reasons for his existence and the strength to reach beyond himself. So,
whether such faith be scientific, ethical or religious in nature, it shares in the
culture of individuals and societies and in the assertion of individual and collec-
tive personalities. A s a secular Organization, U N E S C O is aware that, if it is to
fulfil its ethical role, it has to muster the sum of forces regulating the spiritual
dimension of h u m a n existence. T h e Russian word doukhovnyi means both 'intel-
lectual' and 'spiritual'. F e w words could express more pithily the nature of
U N E S C O ' s work, which aims to develop the intelligence and its fruits, and to
harness these for the c o m m o n good by ensuring that intellectual processes are
oriented, guided and stimulated by a spiritual impetus, whether it be a philo-
sophical ideal, an attachment to moral values, or religious faith.
'Yet,' as Jean Guéhenno wrote, 'inequality is an insuperable barrier to c o m -
munication of the faith. Being alone in one's beliefs is nothing in itself. Faith
cannot live or give warmth unless it is shared and comes to fulness quite nat-
urally in c o m m o n prayer.' In these times of rapid economic, social and cultural
change, the development of the means of communication is compressing dis-
tances and enmeshing the globe in a net of interdependency that n o one can
ignore. Each of us is a m e m b e r sutgeneris of a community that is both unique and
highly diverse and promises to remain indivisible in the future. This pre-
ordained community exists already. It falls to us to transform it into cultural
reality. N o such policy of life can conceivably be carried out without a surge of
solidarity between individuals, societies and nations. Yet this moral and indeed
compassionate message of fraternal love, and hence of peace — for there can be
no peace without knowledge of others — is uttered by every religion in the
world. Hence receptivity to faith m a y contribute to achieving n o less an aspira-
tion of today's world than the survival of the h u m a n race. However, solidarity
is important for other reasons too: it enjoins that above and beyond any diffe-
rences that exist, the whole h u m a n race - not just individuals and governments,
but religions too — should strive to create a worldwide environment in which
all may live freely and happily in a spirit of fraternity with their neighbours,
whoever they m a y be. Only those w h o strive with each new day to overstep the
limits of the possible can hope to change reality hereafter. A n d that is precisely
where solidarity takes root.
Federico M a y o r
Director-General of U N E S C O
To the reader
The country whose inhabitants were baptized in the year 988 w a s k n o w n in

their language as Rus' (the apostrophe indicates the palatalization of the preced-
ing consonant) and is transliterated thus in these pages to indicate the Medieval
Kievan State. That state was quite distinct from the political entity that was to
appear in the fourteenth century around M o s c o w under the Russian n a m e of
'Kossiya'. T o avoid confusion and conform to increasingly c o m m o n practice in
scientific publications, the term 'Russia' has been used here in place of 'Kossiya'.
Proper nouns in Slavonic languages employing the Cyrillic alphabet are
given the usual transcription in the main body of the work (e.g. Prince Yaros-
lav, Pushkin the poet), while great names in history and those of leading
churchmen are anglicized as a rule (e.g. Prince A n d r e w , Bishop Porphyrus).
O n the other hand, for the quotations and notes, the transliteration recom-
mended by the International Organization for Standardization has been used
(e.g. Puskin, Lihacev, Porfirij).
Yves Hamant
Contents
Part O n e CHRISTIANITY REACHES KIEVAN RUS':

THE SOURCES
Archpriest Nikolai ShivarovT h e W o r k of Cyril and Methodius in Bulgaria and its

transmission to Kievan Rus' 15
Dimiter Angelov T h e introduction of Christianity into Rus': the work of
Cyril and Methodius 29
Nikolai Todorov T h e conversion of R u s ' to Christianity 37
Boris Kauschenbach T h e development of Kievan Rus' in the w a k e of
Christianization 43
Yaroslav Shchapov T h e assimilation by Kievan R u s ' of the classical and
Byzantine heritage: the role of Christianization 55
Iannis Karayannopoulos Christianization: a turning-point in the history of Rus' 65
Miguel Arranz, S.J. T h e baptism of Prince Vladimir 75
Jean-Pierre Arrignon T h e religious achievements of Yaroslav the Wise 95
Vladimir Vodoff T h e conversion of Rus': a subject of international historical
research 105
Part T w o CHRISTIANITY, ART A N D CULTURE
Svetan Grozdanov Macedonia, Serbia and Russian medieval art 115

Stanislav Martselev Christianity and the development of architecture and art in
Western R u s ' 127
Yves Marnant T h e evolution of Russian ecclesiastical architecture in the
seventeenth century 135
Sergey Averintsev T h e baptism of Rus' and the path of Russian culture 139
Aristide Wirsta T h e Byzantine origins of medieval sacred music in Kievan
Rus' 149
Elena Smorgunova T h e role of the book in the Christianization of Rus' 155
Part Three T H E T H E M E O F ' H O L Y RUSSIA'
Vladimir Zielinksy T h e gift and enigma of'Holy Russia' 161

Dimitri Schakhovskqy T h e genesis and permanence of 'Holy Russia' 179
Frank Kämpfer T h e image of Russian Christianity in the West and the
concept of 'Holy Russia' 193
Part Four CHRISTIANITY A N D SOCIETY
Francis Conte Paganism and Christianity in Russia: 'double' or 'triple'

faith? 207
Metropolitan Philaret T h e influence of Christianity o n the cultural and spiritual
development of society 217
Stanislav Koltunyuk T h e Millennium of the conversion of Rus' to
Christianity 229
Metropolitan Juvenal T h e Russian Orthodox Church: past and present 233
Nikita Struve Atheism and religion in the Soviet Union 255
Part Five I N T E R C H U R C H RELATIONS Y E S T E R D A Y

AND TODAY
Yury Kochubey T h e Russian Orthodox Church in the Ukraine and its ties
with the Christian East 263
Fr Mircea Pàcurariu Ecclesiastical and cultural relations between Romania and
Russia 269
Todor Sabev T h e Russian Orthodox Church and the ecumenical
m o v e m e n t 281
Part Six HISTORICAL L A N D M A R K S
Yves Hamant Historical landmarks 303
APPENDICES
S u m m a r y of the proceedings of the symposium 325

Message from Patriarch Pimen 335
Message from Patriarch Dimitrios 337
Part One
CHRISTIANITY
REACHES KIEVAN RUS':
THE SOURCES
The work of Cyril and Methodius
in Bulgaria and its transmission
to Kievan Rus'
Archpriest Nikolai Shivarov
Culture is an important and noteworthy part of life in h u m a n society. In its his-

torical aspect it undoubtedly includes m a n ' s relationship to the world around
him (both nature and society) and to himself and all the material and spiritual
values created by him. In this sense literature, science and music are integral
parts of culture, while still standing apart from or parallel to it.1
T h e history of a people is also formed by the mutual relations between it
and its neighbours. Its culture includes not only its o w n creative experience and
the traditional heritage of previous generations, but also the cultural achieve-
ments of other countries and peoples. T h e wide variety of forms of culture and
the links between them show the unacceptability of either cultural diffusionism
involving an odd amalgamation, or of cultural relativism strangely isolating
each particular people. Undoubtedly, w h e n ancient states disappear from the
historical scene, m u c h of their civilization disappears. All the same, it does not
all perish. Outstanding cultural achievements remain and sooner or later pass
into the treasury of succeeding times. Each successive stage in the history of a
people is also linked to the one that went before. T o a greater or lesser degree,
great achievements are passed on from generation to generation, albeit often
reinterpreted.
Historical research shows that the Eastern R o m a n Empire, k n o w n m u c h
later as the Byzantine Empire, was composed of m a n y nationalities. Through its
eastern provinces the cultural values of the civilization of the ancient Near East
passed into it, and within its territory lived peoples w h o were bearers of their
o w n culture (including Slavs) and even those w h o had their o w n written lan-
guage (such as the Phrygians, Cappadocians and Aramaic Syrians). T h e classical
Greek heritage left a deep mark and the Greek language acted as a unifying fac-
tor. Even in this, however, the spirit of a n e w age could be felt. Despite the aspi-
16 Archpriest Nikolai Shivarov
ration to preserve the purity of the ancient Attic language o n a level cor-
responding to the language of the ancient authors which served as a model,
m a n y barbarisms crept into the language, as did the n e w terminology of church
and doctrine, while, almost imperceptibly, a n e w vernacular c a m e into being.2
T h e Byzantine Church was the heir of the early Christian Church both in its
theological and its general religious aspects. T h e fourth century, the classical
age both of theology and of theological literature, while marking the furthest
point of development of the Church u p to that time, laid the foundations for
the subsequent evolution of Byzantine theological thought. Beginning in the
fourth century the capital of the Eastern R o m a n Empire, Constantinople or the
' N e w R o m e ' , gradually became the centre of all cultural life. This is w h y the
main works o n the history of theological literature in the Byzantine Empire
begin from the sixth century.3
T h e work of the teachers of the Slavs, SS Cyril and Methodius, is inextric-
ably linked to the cultural development of the East. They were born and edu-
cated in Byzantium and inspired by the Fathers of the Eastern Church. T h e
extended life of St Cyril witnesses to the deep respect he felt for St Gregory
Nazianzen and the profound influence this eminent theologian and writer had
on him. 4 T h e t w o brothers translated the Eastern Liturgy, which is based o n
that of Antioch and later underwent the beneficial influence of the Church of
Jerusalem.5 They served it in Byzantium (in particular, o n M o u n t O l y m p u s in
Asia Minor), and also in Moravia and Pannonia. T h e teaching that the t w o
brothers offered to their Slav spiritual children was truly Orthodox. It is consis-
tent with the spirit of the confession of the Early Church, which found its
expression in the Ecumenical Councils and in the works of the Eastern Fath-
ers.6 They maintained its purity (in particular, they objected to the introduction
of the 'filioque' into the Nicene Creed). They regarded themselves as emissaries
of the Patriarch of Constantinople and subjects of the Byzantine Empire, but
avoided involvement in the struggle between R o m e and Constantinople. T h u s
they bore witness to the fact that theirfirsttask was the establishment of the Sla-
vonic written literature and culture, which, far from leading to schism in the
world, could serve to link the R o m a n and Byzantine cultures. In this respect,
too, the two brothers are an example of communication and co-operation.
T h e Bulgarian State was formed in 681 at an important crossroads. Chris-
tianity spread a m o n g the Slav population within its territory and even reached
the K h a n ' s court long before the baptism of the whole nation in 865. Its ruler,
Prince Boris, sent young Bulgarians to Byzantium, where they received an edu-
cation that later allowed them to contribute to the development of Bulgarian
culture. In 886, after enduring the hardships of wandering and persecution in
Moravia, eminent disciples of SS Cyril and Methodius reached the territory of
Bulgaria: SS Clement, N a h u m and Angelarius. Other disciples joined them, or
perhaps (as suggested by some historical sources) preceded them. Here, in their
The work of Cyril and Methodius in Bulgaria 17
and its transmission to Kievan Rus'
o w n land, together with other talented compatriots, they extended their great
and fruitful activities, which resulted in the brilliant period of Bulgarian history
that Pavel Safarik was later to call 'the Golden A g e of ancient Bulgarian liter-
ature and culture'.
This n e w , second stage in the development of Slavonic written literature
and culture w a s remarkable, o n the o n e hand, for itsfidelityto the essence of
the w o r k of SS Cyril and Methodius, and, o n the other, for the establishment of
intensely active centres of learning. Very soon, creative monastic life began,
with extensive building andflourishingmaterial culture and art (icon-painting,
frescoes, miniatures, carvings, etc.).
T h e Bulgarians quickly assimilated the achievements of Byzantium's multi-
national culture. E v e n the most cursory glance at works translated into the
ancient Bulgarian language in the ninth and tenth centuries s h o w s this without
a s h a d o w of doubt. W o r k s from various lands were translated: from Alexandria
and Jerusalem, Cyrus and Edessa, Antioch, Caesarea of Cappadocia and C o n -
stantinople. T h e authors translated belonged to various autocephalous
Churches: the Churches of Alexandria (St Athanasius), Jerusalem (St Cyril),
Antioch (St J o h n Chrysostom), Georgia (Peter the Iberian), and were of diffe-
rent ethnic origin: Greek, A r a b , Aramaic Syrian, etc. In the Bulgarian capital of
Preslav a variety of works, representing variousfieldsof knowledge of the time
and various genres, was selected: dogmatic and philosophical (the works of St
J o h n D a m a s c e n e and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite), homiletic with a
moral and social tendency (the sermons of St J o h n Chrysostom, separately or
collected in the anthology called the Zlatostrui (Golden Stream), exegetic (a n u m -
ber of commentaries, etc. o n biblical books), apologetic (the sermons of St A t h -
anasius against the Arians), geographical (the Topography of C o s m a s Indico-
pleustes) and others. A m o n g the anthologies an important place belongs to the
Sbornik of Tsar Simeon of 915. There was a marked tendency for wider interpre-
tation even of the same field of theology. For the interpretation of the Psalms,
for example, the commentaries of Hesychius of Jerusalem (from the moderate
tendency of the school of Alexandria) and of the Blessed Theodiritis of Cyrus
(School of Antioch) were taken. O n this strong foundation original ancient
Bulgarian literature w a s also created: the acrostic prayer a n d Forty-second
C o m m e n t a r y o n the Gospel of Bishop Constantine of Preslav, the Shestodnev
(Hexameron) of J o h n the Exarch, the treatise On the Letters of the m o n k Khrabr
(Opismeneh cernorizcaXrabra), the Talks of the priest C o s m a s and poetic liturgical
works (the C a n o n s with Three O d e s for the forefeasts of the Nativity of Christ
and the Epiphany and a cycle of sticherae for these feasts), sermons and Lives of
the Saints.
T h e miracle (in the words of Academician D . S. Likhachev) of the rapid
flowering of Slavonic culture in Bulgaria and the rise of the Bulgarian Church
and State can be explained by the circumstance that the Bulgarian people
proved capable of receiving this culture, drawing from the wealth of the East-
ern C h u r c h , cultivating it and enriching its o w n heritage. T h e Bulgarian people

'transplanted' Byzantine book-learning a n d culture, grafting it creatively and
successfully and adapting it to the Bulgarian, Slavonic soil.
Byzantine literature in this case played the important role of an intermedi-
ary. It should also be noted that the attention of the Bulgarians w a s attracted
mainly to the classical Eastern Christian literature of the fourth andfifthcentu-
ries. S o far n o translations of the works of Byzantine authors of the ninth and
tenth centuries have c o m e to light. T h e opinion that in this case they looked for
what w a s most easily assimilated cannot be accepted. T h e works of great theolo-
gians such as SS Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Athanasius of Alex-
andria and J o h n Chrysostom are not easy to translate, especially into a language
only starting to evolve into a literary o n e , nor are they readily accessible to a
poorly educated public. T h e b o o k m e n , led by Prince Boris and Tsar S i m e o n ,
looked for sources of authentic faith, the classic works of Eastern theology, in
order to lay a firm foundation for Orthodoxy in Bulgaria. T h e y drew from the
treasury of patristic thought that values highly each individual nation while at
the s a m e time having a universal view of the h u m a n race, based o n biblical
texts. Spiritually, ecclesiastically and culturally the Bulgarian people c o m m u n e d
with the great and universal Eastern c o m m u n i t y , without dissolving in it.
Recognizing the historical role of their people and of the Slav race, the Bulgar-
ian authors escaped the pitfall of cultural assimilation. Using original works in
Greek, they avoided u n d u e admiration for the rich cultural traditions of their
neighbour, the Byzantine State, and did not stray onto the path of loss of
national identity. T h u s , the ancient Bulgarians paid h o m a g e to the achieve-
ments of other nations, while recognizing the talents of their o w n brothers and
sisters w h o s e feats they praised. These were the favourable conditions for the
establishment of fraternal links with the Eastern Slavs.
It w o u l d not be premature to say that this idea of universality and at the
same time attachment to one's o w n nation, o n which the w o r k of SS Cyril and
Methodius w a s founded a n d which flourished in Bulgaria in the ninth and
tenth centuries, w a s assimilated by Kievan R u s ' by w a y of ancient Bulgarian lit-
erature. It is best expressed in Slovo o zakone i blagodati {The Sermon on Law and Grace)
of Metropolitan Hilarión of Kiev. T h e first part of the sermon speaks of the
universal nature of Christianity, of w h i c h the Russians are an inseparable part,
while the second speaks of Russian Christianity and the third turns to the bap-
tizer of R u s ' , Prince Vladimir. 'Hilarión glorifies R u s ' and her Enlightener,
Vladimir. Following in the steps of the great Bulgarian enlighteners, Cyril and
Methodius, Hilarión expounds the teaching of the equal rights of all nations
and his theory of world history as the gradual and equal ascent of all nations to
the culture of Christianity.'7
In the ninth and tenth centuries the Eastern Slavs, and in particular R u s ' ,
were in territorial proximity to the Bulgarian State along the lower reaches of
the river Dniester. W h e n at that time the people of Tver settled o n the territory
of present-day Moldavia, they became a link between Bulgaria and R u s ' .
T h r o u g h the Bulgarian Slavs, w h o had settled there, Christianity took its course
to the north-east. Pectoral crosses found in the villages of the Tver people point
to the fact that a Christian mission existed,8 despite the raids of the Magyars and
Pechenegs w h o hindered contacts. T h e seeds of the w o r d fell o n fertile ground
which had long been prepared to receive it. T h e preaching of Christianity to the
Eastern Slavs had already begun in the diocese of Onugursk a m o n g the proto-
Bulgarians, w h o then lived in the extensive territories of w h a t is n o w southern
Ukraine.
T h e Eastern Slavs were also able to acquaint themselves with Christianity
w h e n Russian merchants visited the Bulgarian Black Sea ports, especially w h e n
en route to Constantinople. In the course o f these contacts, the Russians a n d
Greeks frequently required interpreters. T h e y found t h e m , in all probability,
a m o n g the Bulgarians. It has long been k n o w n that the Treaty of 912 between
the Russians and Byzantines w a s translated by a Bulgarian, a n d moreover from
Greek to the ancient Bulgarian language. There is n o doubt that these Bulgarian
translators (of Slav origin) were Christians and zealots of Christian literature.
T h r o u g h t h e m the Christian mission also c a m e to the Russians. It is quite pos-
sible that in the Church of the Prophet Elijah in Kiev the service was held in the
Old Bulgarian (Slavonic) language. For this reason the priest Gregory, w h o
accompanied Princess Olga to Byzantium, might have been m e t with hostility
in Constantinople. S o m e Slavists, such as M . A . Obolensky and Archimandrite
Leonid, identify h i m with the Bulgarian writer, Gregory the Priest-Monk, a n d
A . I. Sobolevsky with 'Gregory, Bishop o f Misia'9 w h o is mentioned in the
calendar of saints of the Ostromir Gospel (1056/57). Unfortunately there is not
enough evidence for this question to be solved definitively.
It is an undoubted fact, however, that Prince Svyatoslav and his retinue
c a m e into direct contact with the Bulgarian Church and with centres of Bulgar-
ian literature and learning, especially with Preslav. This took place, in partic-
ular, during his second campaign (969-71), w h e n there w a s an alliance between
the Russians and the Bulgarians. S o m e Byzantine military leaders became noto-
rious for their looting of Bulgarian churches, as Lev the D e a c o n bears witness.10
T h e n e w s of this was probably m e t with alarm and displeasure by the Bulgarian
clergy, especially in the major ecclesiastical centre of Drastar, w h e r e Svyatoslav
stayed for s o m e time. F r o m this the conclusion m a y be d r a w n that not only did
Bulgarian military leaders a n d warriors, w h o were sure to be persecuted by the
Byzantines, retreat to Kievan R u s ' , but so too did clergy discontented with
Byzantine p o w e r and zealous for literature in O l d Bulgarian.
Slavonic scholars consider that this campaign furthered the spread of
Christianity to the Eastern Slavs from Bulgaria. T h e n u m b e r of Bulgarians w h o
then emigrated can hardly have been very considerable as a consequence, per-
haps, also of the defeat o n the Dnieper, a n d therefore there is n o reliable direct
historical evidence. After the defeat of Tsar S a m u e l by the Byzantine E m p e r o r
Basil II Bulgaroctonos, a n e w w a v e of Bulgarian emigration m o v e d to the lands
north of the D a n u b e .
Contemporary information about the baptism in 9 8 8 is extremely scanty.
There are various Russian legends, for example, about the place w h e r e Prince
Vladimir w a s baptized and w h o it w a s baptized h i m . Therefore a n u m b e r of
questions still remain o p e n to discussion. T h e w e l l - k n o w n Russian C h u r c h his-
torian E . Golubinsky is inclined to accept the information of the Russian
m o n k , Jacob (before 1072), a n d considers that the ruler of K i e v received b a p -
tism in Kiev itself from the local priests.11 It is hard to say with certainty
whether there were Bulgarians a m o n g t h e m , but there is n o doubt that the
actual baptism of the people w a s performed by the clergy of the capital city,
a m o n g w h o m there m a y have been Bulgarians.
T h e baptism of R u s ' in 9 8 8 w a s an act of great significance. It opened a n e w
era in the life of the Eastern Slavs, and through t h e m in that of the peoples liv-
ing in the territory of the later Russian State, w h o received Orthodoxy f r o m
Russian missionaries. Christianity brought these peoples into the family of lead-
ing E u r o p e a n nations from the point of view of both literature and culture, or,
in the w o r d s of Patriarch P i m e n of M o s c o w and all Russia, the event of 9 8 8
gave Russian history
a n e w positive content and helped the Russian land to take a worthy place in the
world historical process. With the acceptance of Christianity, Kievan Rus' asserted
its originality and created a culture majestic in its dignity, classically lucid in style
and refined in spirituality and inner nobility as early as the pre-Mongol period.12
Ancient Russian chronicles recorded active Bulgarian assistance in the w o r k of

organizing the C h u r c h and spreading Christianity after the Baptism of R u s ' in
988. T h e organization of the C h u r c h began very soon, within t w o or three
years. T h e Chronicle of J o a c h i m mentions that in the capital the first bishop
(literally 'Metropolitan') w a s 'Michael, a m o s t learned and devout m a n , a B u l -
garian', w h o c a m e with four bishops and a multitude of priests, deacons a n d
singers 'from a m o n g the Slavs', i.e. the Bulgarian Slavs.13
Educated Bulgarians w h o had earlier c o m e to Kiev probably assisted in the
organization of the C h u r c h a n d of religious instruction. T h e y were active in
this even at the court of Prince Vladimir. A s Vasily Tatishchev remarks,
according to Joachim, S S Boris and Gleb w e r e the sons of Princess A n n a w h o
w a s probably the daughter of the Bulgarian Tsar Peter, grand-daughter of
E m p e r o r R o m a n I Lecapenos and niece of E m p e r o r s Basil and Constantine,
although the chronicler Nestor calls her their sister.14 M o r e o v e r , Priselkov
draws attention to the baptismal n a m e s of Boris and Gleb — R o m a n and D a v i d .
It w a s the custom for persons of princely lineage w h o converted to have as
and its transmission to Kievan EMS'
their godparents persons of equal or higher rank, w h o s e n a m e s they took. W h o

were the godfathers of Boris and Gleb? T h e historical information available so
far offers one possibility: Boris probably received the n a m e of the Bulgarian
Tsar R o m a n , and Gleb that of David, the elder brother of Tsar Samuel. 1 5 This
extremely tempting hypothesis is consistent with the fact of the transfer of Old
Bulgarian manuscripts to Kievan R u s ' at that time, as w e shall see below.
T h e fraternal assistance of the Bulgarians w a s felt not only in ruling circles.
According to one ancient report, which the eminent Czech Slavonic scholar
Pavel Safarik concludes can be believed, before Prince Yaroslav (1019-34) all
church choristers in R u s ' were Bulgarians.16 E v e n if only s o m e of t h e m were
and if this information is exaggerated, these choristers must have brought their
church service books and other necessary works with them. T h e subsequent
establishment by Prince Yaroslav of a literary school from local m e n of letters
consequently bears witness, o n the o n e hand, to the flourishing of letters and,
o n the other, to the fact that, with the defeat of Bulgaria by Byzantium in 1018,
there w a s a considerable decline in the influx of Bulgarian writers and copyists
to R u s ' .
The.Kiev collection of chronicles, k n o w n as the Metropolian Svod {Metropol-
itan's Collection) also records for 1037 the lively ecclesiastical and educational
activities under the patronage of Prince Yaroslav. B o o k s were translated from
Greek, ' A n d . . . our Christian faith began to multiply and spread, the n u m b e r
of m o n k s began to increase and monasteries were established.' This informa-
tion m a y reflect a tendency to glorify the time of the Greek Metropolitan T h e o -
pemptos. Probably for this reason w h a t w a s already achieved in the time of
Prince Vladimir, and especially the links with Bulgaria and facts about the con-
tribution of O l d Bulgarian, are passed over in silence.17
T h e Kievan priest Hilarión (later, for a short time, the Metropolitan), in
his Sermon on Law and Grace, draws a picture of flourishing cultural life in the
reign of Prince Yaroslav not in contrast to, but as a consequence of, w h a t had
already been achieved under Prince Vladimir. Hilarión addresses the baptizer
with the following words:
They did not destroy your statutes but confirmed them, did not diminish what was
achieved by your piety but added to it, did not demolish but established, and
achieved what you had not completed.18
Undoubtedly baptism would have remained only a sacramental act leading into
the Christian Church, without any special consequences for the culture of the
vast masses of the Slavs, or for society as a whole, if it had not been for the w o r k
of SS Cyril and Methodius. T h e literature in the comprehensible Slavonic lan-
guage that reached Kiev c a m e almost exclusively from Bulgaria. It w a s the car-
rier of outstanding cultural achievements, opening u p a n e w world and
22 Archpriest Nikolai Sbivarov
imparting n e w knowledge about it. A s Soviet Professor N . K . G u d z y concludes:
Russian literature and culture together with the other Slav literatures and cultures
o w e their flowering to Cyril and Methodius. T h e extremely rich literature of
Kievan Rus' made use of the vast riches created by Cyril and Methodius and their
closest disciples, the Bulgarians.19
For his part, a few decades before this, P . A . Lavrov remarked that the Russian
people accepted the heritage of Cyril and Methodius ' w h e n they accepted Chris-
tianity from the Greeks through the intermediary of the riches of the earliest
Slavonic written culture and its continued flowering in Bulgaria'.20
Cultural and literary influence from the south c a m e into R u s ' from Byzan-
tium as a continuation of the age-old links with the Greek culture of the north
coast of the Black Sea w h e n it coupled with Bulgarian influence at the e n d of
the tenth century. These t w o influences formed a single trend that, even in its
individual manifestations, is indivisible and inseparable, as Academician D . S.
Likhachev stresses.21
T h e transfer of O l d Bulgarian literature to R u s ' did not take place all at
once. T h e hypotheses advanced by Slavists based o n the study of the m a n u -
scripts that have c o m e d o w n to us, as well as o n historical data, can be s u m m e d
u p as follows:
1. T h efirsttransfer, which took place at the beginning of the tenth century,
w a s the w o r k of merchants, translators and perhaps also clergy.
2. T h e campaigns of Svyatoslav Igorevich in Bulgaria led not only to contact
with Christianity and the Bulgarian Church. It would be naive to think that
there was n o b o d y in the Kievan Prince's retinue w h o understood the
i m m e n s e value of the manuscripts which, being sumptuously illustrated and
decorated with illuminations, m a d e a strong impression even o n the igno-
rant. A n u m b e r of historians and Slavonic scholars have concluded that at
this time w o r k s in O l d Bulgarian found their w a y to Kiev.
3. After the fall of Preslav in 971, the Byzantine E m p e r o r J o h n Cimisces car-
ried off all the treasures of the conquered city to Constantinople. A short
time later, following the Baptism of R u s ' in 9 8 8 , Byzantine State a n d C h u r c h
leaders m a y have sent s o m e of the royal library of Preslav to Kiev. 2 2
4. W h e n there w a s emigration from Bulgaria due to the devastating wars of the
tenth century, especially after 1013/14, books in O l d Bulgarian were also
moved.23
Certain important preconditions favoured the transfer of literature and its
acceptance. First, the acceptance of Christian culture by Bulgaria w a s a long-
term process that developed and w a s completed at a steady pace, especially after
886. It was also a time w h e n n e w social forms were appearing to w h i c h O l d
Bulgarian literature also contributed. T h e historical requirements of R u s ' in the
tenth and eleventh centuries were similar. T h e country w a s faced with the task
of forming a n e w , Christian being with a n e w world-view and a m o r e perfect
morality, and with that of organizing and developing the Church, which w o u l d
lead her children forward in allfieldsof life. Secondly, the creativity of O l d
Bulgarian writers w a s initially intended to meet wide local needs. In their
essence, however, neither translations nor original works were confined to o n e
nation, as they had at the s a m e time a national and an open, universal nature.
T h e authors' inspiration w a s of significance for all Slavs (for example, in the
Acrostic Prayer by Bishop Constantine of Preslav and the Treatise on Letters by the
m o n k Khrabr and in such works as the Hexameron by J o h n the Exarch) and their
relevance to all m a n k i n d is apparent, as is s h o w n by their use by other, n o n -
Slavonic peoples. T h e language of the w o r k s of the O l d Bulgarian writers w a s
naturally the language of the Bulgarian Slavs with a certain influence of the
riches of proto-Bulgarian, in such words as cr'tog" (chamber), k"nig"ci (books)
and kumir" (idol), and its dialects were reflected to a greater or lesser degree in
different books. 24 H o w e v e r , the phonetic, grammatical, lexical and stylistic sys-
tem includes elements understandable to other Slav peoples of the time, so they
did not feel it w a s an incomprehensible or foreign language. There is n o need to
explain w h y this language w a s called 'Slavonic'. This w a s , as O . M . Vodyansky
notes, the language of the Slavs w h o lived in 'Slavonia', w h i c h occupied the
northern part of Macedonia and former Misia, and then Bulgaria; an area in
w h i c h the Slavs mixed with the protp-Bulgarians25 or, as it is felicitously put by
the eminent Slavonic scholar I. I. Sreznevsky, the language of the ancient G l a -
golitic texts is Slavonic with Bulgarian contributions,26 w h i c h c a m e into being
after the separation and the formation of the Bulgarian Slavs into o n e nation
with the proto-Bulgarians.
Old Bulgarian literature w a s well received in Rus'. T h e works translated in
Bulgaria reflected Byzantine cultural experience transplanted o n Slavonic soil
in response to the need for social transformation felt at the time. This literature
was o n a par with the achievements of medieval Europe. 'This mature medieval
culture w a s m a d e accessible to Bulgaria, a n d then both directly from Byzantium
and through Bulgaria, in its Bulgarian national form, to R u s ' , ' stresses D . S.
Likhachev. A s Byzantine literature is the intermediary of the rich cultural herit-
age of the East and, in particular, of the Eastern Church, so too w a s O l d Bulgar-
ian literature an intermediary literature. D . Likhachev is right to stress, first,
that it does not derive from Byzantine literature but rather from Byzantine cul-
ture and, secondly, that it is a product of local selection, a n d that therefore it
was not individual works that were transplanted but an entire culture 'with its
inherent religious, aesthetic, philosophical a n d juridical concepts'.27 T h u s a lit-
erature c o m m o n to the Eastern and Southern Slavs c a m e into being. This took
place naturally o n the basis of all the literature translated and written by the
Slavs themselves. There w a s active assimilation. All that w a s transferred w a s
24 Archpriest Nikolai Sbivarov
'transplanted'. E v e n the copyist played an important role. Often he w a s an 'edi-

tor w h o did not hesitate to adapt the text to the needs and tastes of his time and
environment'. 28
Old Bulgarian literature stimulated the creation of Russian literature in a
remarkably short time. For example, w e have the findings of D . S. Likhachev's
research o n the influence of J o h n the Exarch's Hexameron o n Vladimir M o n o -
m a k h ' s Poucbenie (Instruction) both as a source and from the point of view of m a n -
ner and style. T h e same holds true of The Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land.
The Heavens by J o h n the Exarch inspired the author of the w o r k The History, Pas-
sion and Panegyric ofthe Holy Martyrs Boris and Gleb, which creatively assimilated the
Old Bulgarian work. 2 9 Similar instances occurred in later times, w h e n Russian
literature w a s already flourishing.
It is essential to note another factor that contributed to this fraternal
exchange. In Bulgaria the foundations were laid for the c o m m u n i t y of Slav p e o -
ples w h o accepted the Eastern Church tradition and created their o w n auto-
cephalous Orthodox Churches. In Slavonic studies Ricardo Picchio refers to
this c o m m u n i t y as 'slavia orthodoxa'.30 This term, though still o p e n to discussion,
nevertheless suggests the important observation that Orthodoxy m e a n s faith-
fulness, not to ideas and views o n individuals or local Churches, nor rigidity,
but faithfulness to the creed and to the essence of divine service and Christian
ethics. This is h o w it is understood by SS Cyril and Methodius, according to the
sources. Orthodoxy is universal in nature and at the same time fosters the deve-
lopment of individual peoples. T h e Eastern Church had m a n y centuries of
experience of the creation of autocephalous Churches, both in major centres of
the Eastern R o m a n E m p i r e and in small nations beyond its reach (Armenia and
Georgia). Orthodoxy is consequently understood not as something closed in o n
itself, but open to exchange and apprehension of the achievements of others,
for example as concerns theology or liturgy. It is precisely for this reason that
the two brothers had recourse to the so-called Liturgy of St Peter w h o s e canon
corresponds to the practice of the early Eastern Church, while the rest w a s
formed under Western influence. They and their disciples in Bulgaria lived at a
time of creation, w h e n m a n y liturgical h y m n s were written in Byzantium. St
Clement of Okhrid and Bishop Constantine of Preslav, for example, m a d e an
innovative contribution. A s has been s h o w n by the latest research o n the acros-
tics, they composed canons of three odes and sticherae for the Nativity and the
Epiphany. 31 Regrettably, however, the medieval aspiration to uniformity put
the brakes o n this creative trend. T h e w o r k of the pioneer faded out in liturgical
practice and survived only in s o m e places, including the land of Russia where
discovered manuscripts prove their presence.32 Nevertheless in a n u m b e r of
cases (including M o s c o w and Kiev), the following centuries s a w Orthodox
liturgical thought and literature opening u p to a greater or lesser degree to crit-
ical thinking and the reception of ideas from outside, despite the regrettable
polemic that c a m e in the w a k e of the schism of 1054. T h e n e w ecumenical

m o v e m e n t , in w h i c h all O r t h o d o x hierarchs a n d theologians have participated
since the 1920s a n d 1930s, has given slavia orthodoxa opportunities for rapproche-
ment a n d mutual cultural a n d spiritual enrichment, in the spirit of S S Cyril and
Methodius.
Bulgaria w a s not the only factor in the Christiani2ation of K i e v a n R u s ' ,
though its contribution proved extremely fruitful. ' B y creating a literature c o m -
m o n to all the O r t h o d o x Slav countries,' she 'helped relations between all the
O r t h o d o x Slav countries.'33 In fact, as Academician A . I. Sobolevsky notes, 'All
the translated literature of ancient Bulgaria, beginning with the books of Holy
Scripture, a n d including the lesser a m o u n t of original Bulgarian literature,
passed to Russia a n d there b e c a m e Russian.' T h e y form 'the m a i n b o d y of R u s -
sian literature o f the p r e - M o n g o l period'. 34 Y e t the relationship w a s not one-
sided. There w a s reciprocity and co-operation. T h e Russian people s h o w e d
their genius a n d skill while the Russian O r t h o d o x C h u r c h m a d e its o w n contri-
bution. S o m e t i m e s works w e r e created jointly with the Southern Slavs. T i m e
and time again, Russian literature returned southwards, as in the case of origi-
nal, compilatory a n d translated works, such as the Office of SS Boris a n d Gleb,
The Sermon on Law and Grace by Metropolitan Hilarión, The Sermon on the Faith ofthe
Varangians by St Theodosius of the Kiev Caves, a n d The Parable of the Wearer ofthe
White Garment by St Cyril of T u r o v . These are all indications of considerable
fraternal support, especially in the face of the alien yoke.
[Translated from Russian]
NOTES
1. A . M o l ' , Sotsiodinamika kul'tury [The Sociodynamics of Culture], p . 35, M o s c o w ,

1973.
2. R . Bolgar, ' T h e Classical Tradition: Legend and Reality', in M . Mullet and R . Scott
(eds.), Byzantium and the Classical Tradition, pp. 7 et seq., Birmingham, 1981; C .
M a n g o , 'Discontinuity with the Classical Past in Byzantium', in Mullet and Scott,
op. cit., pp. 48 et seq.; V . Pashuto, ' T h e Place of Ancient Rus' in the History of
Europe', in I. Trakvina and V . Levina (eds.), The Comparative Historical Method in Soviet
Medieval Studies, p. 41, M o s c o w , 1979; the author stresses that the Greeks were'a
minority in the Byzantine Empire.
3. H . G . Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich [The Church and
Theological Literature in the Byzantine Empire], pp. 279 et seq., 398 et seq., 413 et
seq., 422 et seq., 425 et seq., Munich, 1959.
4. Prostrannoe zitie sv. Kirilla [The Extended Life of St Cyril], 3.
5. H . J. Schultz, Die byzantinische Liturgie [The Byzantine Liturgy], 2nd ed., pp. 12,17, 37
et seq., Trier, 1980; H . A . J. W e g m a n , Geschichte der Liturgie in Westen und Osten [His-
tory of the Liturgy in West and East], p. 65, Regensburg, 1979.
26 Arcbpriest Nikolai Shivarov
6. Prostrannoe zitie sv. Mefodija [The Extended Life of St Methodius], 1,12; Prostrannoe zitie
sv. Kirilla, o p cit., 6, 9 ; G . U'inskij, Napisanie opravej vere Konstantina Filosofa [The Writ-
ings o n the True Faith of Constantine the Philosopher], p p . 6 3 - 8 9 , Sofia, 1925
(Collection in H o n o u r of Vasil N . Zlatarski).
7. D . S. Lihacev, 'Slovo o zakone i blagodati Ilariona [The S e r m o n o n L a w and Grace
by Hilarión]', Selected Works, Vol. 2 , p p . 3 3 , 3 5 - 6 , M o s c o w , 1987, 3 vols.
8. G . B . Scukin, 'Gorodisce Enimauci v Moldavii [The Site of Enimautsi in M o l d a -
via]', in Arxitektumoe nasledie [Architectural Heritage], V o l . 8, 1957, p . 2 3 ; E . Mixai-
lov, 'Rusi i b"lgari prez rannoto srednovekovie (602-954) [The Russians and Bul-
garians in the Early Middle Ages (602-954)]', Yearbook of the University of Sofia, Faculty
of History, N o . 6 (1972/73), Sofia, 1975.
9. L . Graseva, 'Grigorij Prezviter [Gregory the Priest]', in Kirillo-Metodievska enciklope-
dija [Encyclopedia of S S Cyril and Methodius], Vol. 1, p . 5 4 4 , Sofia, 1985.
10. Leontius Diaconus, Historia, Vol. 9, p p . 1 1 7 - 8 7 2 , M i g n e , P G .
11. L . Golubinski, Istorija Russkoj cerkvi [History of the Russian Church], 2nd ed., Vol. 1,
N o . 1, pp. 112-13, M o s c o w , 1901.
12. Izvestija, N o . 100, 9 April 1988, p . 3.
13. M . N . Tixomirov, ' O russkih istocnikah "Istorii Rossijskoj" [On the Russian Sources
of "Russian History"]', in V . N . Tatiscev (ed.), Istorija Rossijskaja [Russian History],
Vol. 1, p. 112, Moscow/Leningrad, 1962.
14. Tatiscev, op. cit, V o l . 2 , p . 227.
15. M . D . Priselkov, Ocerkipo cerkovno-politiceskoj istorii Kievskoj Rusi X-XII vv [Essays o n
the Ecclesiastical and Political History of Kievan R u s ' from the Tenth to the
Twelfth Centuries], p . 3 7 , St Petersburg, 1913.
16. P . Safarik, Rascvet slavjanskojpis'mennosti v Bulgarii [The Flowering of Slavonic Writing
in Bulgaria], pp. 2 2 - 3 , M o s c o w , 1848.
17. Priselkov, op. cit., p . 83. In the opinion of D . S. Lihacev, the most ancient Kievan
codex did not exist. In the years 1 0 3 0 - 4 0 , the b o o k m e n of the Kievan Metropolia
wrote d o w n the oral traditions that m a y be given the conventional n a m e of 'narra-
tions of the earliest propagation of Christianity in R u s ' '. This written record w a s of
an anti-Byzantine nature. A t the same time in this group of sources there are evident
omissions (on Russian aid to Byzantium, the organization of the Church at the time
of Prince Vladimir, etc.), which m a y be explained only by a tendency in favour of
Byzantine influence. Given this position, the question arises as to whether it might
be possible to explain the existence of t w o tendencies (Byzantine and anti-Byzan-
tine) discovered by specialists as the result of an attempt at compromise by a book-
m a n of a slightly later time (about the time of the death of Prince Yaroslav) in order
to satisfy the desire of the Russian hierarchy to assert itself, and those w h o wished to
assert the influence of the Byzantine State and C h u r c h through a Metropolitan sent
by Constantinople. H o w e v e r these questions m a y be settled, the fact of the gaps in
the information remains incontrovertible, both as concerns the Church in R u s ' dur-
ing thefirstdecades of its existence, and as concerns Bulgarian assistance, which is
irrefutable in view of the linguistic data of ancient manuscripts and historical data
in the chronicles.
18. ' O zakone M o i s e o m d a n e e m e m u i o kaganu nasemu Vladimiru [ O n the L a w of
Moses Given to Him and on Our Ruler Vladimir] ', in N. I. Prokofiev, Drevnjaja russ-kaja liter-
atura. Hrestomatija [Ancient Russian Literature: a Chrestomathy], p . 3 1 , M o s c o w ,
1980; Slavia, p. 2 , Prague, 1963.
19. N . P . Gudzij, 'Vklad russkih i ukrainskih ucenyh v izucenie Kirillo-Mefodievskogo
voprosa [Contribution of Russian and Ukrainian Scholars to the Study of the W o r k
of SS Cyril and Methodius]', T'rzfst venna sesia za 1100 godisninata na slavjanskata pis-
mennost: 863-1963 [Record of the Solemn Session Organized for the Eleven H u n -
dredth Anniversary of Slavonic Writings: 863-1963], p. 119, Sofia, 1965.
20. P . A . Lavrov, 'Materialy p o istorii vozniknovenija drevnejsej slavjanskoj pis'men-
nosti [Materials on the History of the Emergence of the Earliest Slavonic Writing]',
Works of the Slavonic Commission of the Academy of Sciences ofthe USSR, Vol. 1, p. 11, Lenin-
grad, 1930.
21. D . S. Lihacev, 'Razvitie russkoj literatury X - X V I I vekov [The Development of
Russian Literature from the Tenth to the Seventeenth Century]', Selected Works, o p .
cit., Vol. 1, pp. 38-9.
22. M . V . Séepkina, 'Kizuceniju Izbornika 1073 g [Contributions to the Study of the
1073 Collection]', in B . A . Rybakov (ed.), Izbornik Svjatoslava 1073 g. Sbornik statej
[Svjatoslav's Collection of 1073. Collection of Articles], pp. 2 3 2 - 3 , M o s c o w , 1977.
23. L . P . Zukovskaja, 'Izbornik 1073 g [The 1073 Collection]', in ibid., p. 224.
24. R . Zlatanova, 'Starob"lgarski ezik [The O l d Bulgarian Language]', Uvod v izucavaneto
najuznoslavjanskite ezici [Introduction to the Study of the South Slav Languages], p p .
47 et seq., Sofia, 1986.
25. O . M . Vodjanskij, ' O drevnejsem svidetel'stve, ¿to cerkovno-kniznyj jazyk est' slav-
jano-bolgarskij [On the Earliest Proof that the Liturgical and Literary Language is
Slavono-Bulgarian]', ¿MNP, N o . 6, 1843, p p . 8, 9.
26. I. I. Sreznevskij, 'Drevnija pis'mena slavjanskija [Ancient Slavonic Writing]',
¿MNP, N o . 7, 1848, p. 43.
27. Lihacev, op. cit., Vol. 1, p p . 36, 52.
28. N . K . Gudzij, Istorija drevnej russkoj literatury [History of Ancient Russian Literature],
p. 15, M o s c o w , 1966.
29. D . S. Lihacev, 'Socinenija knjazja Vladimira M o n o m a h a [The W o r k s of Prince Vla-
dimir M o n o m a k h ] ' , in Lihacev, op. cit., V o l . 2 , pp. 146 et seq.; ' "Slovo o pogibeli
Russkoj zemli" i "Sestodnev" Ioanna Ekzarha Bolgarskogo [The Tale of the Destruction
of the hand of Russia and the Hexameron by J o h n Exarch of Bulgaria]', Issledovanija po
drevnerusskoj literature [Research o n Ancient Russian Literature], p p . 226 et seq.,
Leningrad, 1986.
30. R . Pikio (Picchio), 'Mjato na starata b"lgarska literatura v kulturata na srednove-
kovna [The Place of Old Bulgarian Literature in the Culture of Medieval Europe]',
Literaturna mis"l [Literary Thought], N o . 25, Vol. 8, 1981, pp. 19-36; D . S. Lihacev,
'Neskol'ko zameyanij p o povodu stat'i Rikardo Pikio [A F e w Remarks o n the Sub-
ject of Ricardo Picchio's Article]', Trudy otdela drevnerusskoj literatury [Transactions of
the Department of Ancient Russian Literature], Vol. 19, 1961, pp. 675-8 et seq.
31. G . Popov, 'Triodni proizvedenija na Konstantin Preslavski [The Canons with
Three O d e s of Constantine of Preslav]', Kirilo-Metodievski studii [Studies o n Cyril and
Methodius], Vol. 2 , pp. 3 3 - 5 9 , Sofia, 1985.
28 Arcbpriest Nikolai Sbivarov
32. Ibid, pp. 47, 67-8 et seq.

33. D . S. Lihacev, 'Svoeobrazie istoriceskogo puti russkoj literatury X - X V I I I w [The
Originality of the Historical Path of Russian Literature from the Tenth to the
Eighteenth Centuries]', Prvsloe-buduscemu [The Past to the Future], pp. 225-6, Lenin-
grad, 1985.
34. A . I. Sobolevskij, htorija russkogo literaturnogo jazyka [History of the Russian Literary
Language], pp. 28, 33, Leningrad, 1980.
The introduction of Christianity
into Rus': the work of Cyril
and Methodius
Dimiter A n g e l o v
Occurring as it did during the reign of Grand Prince Vladimir, the adoption of
Christianity as the official religion by Kievan Rus' m a y be viewed from two
angles:first,as an event in Russo-Byzantine relations at the close of the tenth
century and, secondly, as a further stage in the cultural evolution of Russian
society in the Middle Ages. That stage is linked to the conversion of the newly
converted population to Slavonic writing as well as to the appearance of a cul-
tivated class consisting of priests, teachers and scholars w h o used a language
that was familiar to all in order to preach, read and write. This was the time of
the introduction of the Slavonic principle. It is in the manner in which that
principle was applied, and which brought about profound changes in the his-
tory of the Eastern Slavonic world, that w e should look for the sense of the mis-
sion carried out by the brother saints, Cyril and Methodius, and their disciples.
It is clear that a century before the conversion of Kievan Rus', the mission
of the educators from Thessalonika, which had been a failure in Moravia, conti-
nued and expanded in Slavonic Bulgaria through the efforts of their closest dis-
ciples w h o went there after 885, and thanks to the enlightened policy of the
Bulgarian rulers of the period. Pliska, Preslav and Okhrid became the sites of
thefirstproperly organized centres of learning. Celebrated authors of Old Bul-
garia such as Clement of Okhrid, N a o u m of Preslav, Bishop Constantine,
Khrabr the M o n k (Cernorizec Hrab"r), Gregory the M o n k and John the
Exarch carried o n intense teaching and literary activities there. It was the birth-
place of books written in the Slavonic (or Old Bulgarian) language and of tran-
slation into Slavonic of secular, religious, official or apocryphal texts. It was
Bulgaria too that saw the application of the thesis according to which Slavonic
belonged to the so-called 'sacred' languages, in contradiction to the 'trilingual
d o g m a ' , and which was proclaimed and upheld by Cyril and Methodius and by
30 Dimiter Angelov
Khrabr the M o n k in his polemical w o r k entitled O pismeneh {Treatise on Writing).

T h e 'trilingual d o g m a ' was voiced at the council convened at Preslav in 893 to
promote Slavonic (or Old Bulgarian) as an official language, the language of the
Church and of literature. It w a s this language that Cyril and Methodius used in
translating the first theological works that they had brought with them to
Moravia to carry out their mission. It w a s the language of the Bulgarian pop-
ulation already settled at that time in Mesia, Thrace and Macedonia. Bulgaria
was the first country to proclaim the value of the witness of the t w o saintly edu-
cators from Thessalonika and of their most faithful disciples.1 T h e whole pro-
cess took place in a fairly short lapse of time which w a s marked by the reign of
S i m e o n (893-927) and is k n o w n as the Golden A g e of Bulgarian Culture. This
has been the subject of very m a n y studies by well-known Bulgarian, Russian and
Soviet literary and linguistic theorists. Today it falls to Academician D . S. Lik-
hachev, one of the greatest experts o n Cyril and Methodius and o n the role of
medieval Bulgaria, to confirm the scope of their work.
Bulgaria's primordial position at the time meant that Kievan R u s ' turned
to it for the Slavonic writing it had needed since its conversion in 988. T h e fact
that Old Bulgarian and Old Russian were very similar enabled educated circles
in Russian society to read and understand Bulgarian books almost as well as the
Bulgarians themselves. This accounts for the large n u m b e r of works, both in
the original and in translation, that went from Bulgaria to Rus'. T h e books that
travelled there included the Gospelhy Ostromir, the Psalter oí the Monastery of
the Miracle, the Acrostic Prayer and the Gospel with Commentary by Bishop C o n -
stantine, the Treatise on Writing by Khrabr the M o n k , the Hexameron by John the
Exarch and a large n u m b e r of the sermons of Clement of Ohrid and the well-
k n o w n Collection by King Simeon prepared between 915 and 920 and comprising
m o r e than 350 articles o n d o g m a , philosophy, literature and ethics. Mention
m a y also be m a d e of the Zlatostruj {Golden Stream) anthology, containing the ser-
m o n of St John Chrysostom, and the Treatise against the Bogomils by C o s m o s the
Priest, in addition to m a n y others.2
It is generally believed that this transfer of Bulgarian literature began with
Prince Svyatoslav's campaigns in 9 6 8 and 969. N o n e the less, there can be n o
doubt that the deluge of books w a s related to the conversion of 988 and came in
response to the attendant need felt by educated circles in the society of the time
for Slavonic writing and culture. Accordingly, immediately after the conver-
sion, a school w a s opened in Kiev o n the instructions of Prince Vladimir for
the children of the nobility (Poslav' nacapoimati u narocitye cadi d'ti i dajati naca na
ucen'e knizxoe).3
It m a y be supposed that the pupils were taught to read Slavonic and that
the teachers, w h o probably hailed from Bulgaria, had been employed with this
in m i n d . F r o m Bulgaria too c a m e armies of book-laden m o n k s , s o m e of w h o m
were forced to flee the country following the collapse of the k i n g d o m and the
The introduction of Christianity into Rus': 31
the work of Cyril and Methodius
conquest by Byzantium in 1018. T h e r e is n o doubt that s o m e of these scholars

h a d a perfect k n o w l e d g e of G r e e k a n d w e r e in a position to translate different
Byzantine w o r k s w h i c h proved useful to the civil a n d religious authorities in
R u s ' . H o w e v e r , the n e w sovereign, Prince Yaroslav, w h o w a s Vladimir's suc-
cessor, carried o n the w o r k begun b y his father, a n d encouraged translation
w o r k . This fact is borne out by The Tale of Bygone Years w h i c h informs us that
Yaroslav w o u l d read by day a n d by night a n d that h e h a d 'assembled very m a n y
scribes w h o translated from G r e e k into Slavonic (i sobra pise'mnogy iprekladase ot
grek" na slov'enskoepismo)'.4
A m o n g the m a n y books to c o m e f r o m Bulgaria, a n d about w h i c h there can
be n o doubt that they w e r e well k n o w n in R u s ' in the eleventh century, w e r e the
Gospel by Ostromir (1056) a n d the Collection by S i m e o n , a b o o k that w a s m u c h
admired at the court of the Kievan Prince. Prince Svyatoslav ordered a copy to
be m a d e of it, a n d this b e c a m e k n o w n as Svyatoslav's Collection.5 It is very likely
that s o m e manuscript w o r k s giving a n account of parts of Bulgarian history also
c a m e to R u s ' . S o m e such w o r k s m a y well have been used by the first Russian
Chronicler, Nestor, w h o s e Tale ofBygone Years contains s o m e information o n the
history of Bulgaria, e.g. o n the conversion of the Bulgarians, the wars w a g e d by
K i n g S i m e o n against Byzantium, a n d so forth. Bulgarian w o r k s continued to be
disseminated in this fashion in the course of the following centuries a n d s o m e
in particular, such as the Treatise by C o s m a s the Priest a n d the Treatise on Writing
by K h r a b r the M o n k , w e r e copied again a n d again. T w e n t y copies of the Treatise
by C o s m a s 6 are k n o w n to exist in Russian, as well as sixty-three copies of the
Treatise on Writing, also in Russian. 7
A large n u m b e r of w o r k s that c a m e from Bulgaria a n d w e r e recognized in
R u s ' recount the life a n d w o r k of Cyril a n d Methodius as the founders of Sla-
vonic writing a n d culture. T h e m o s t important of these are the Detailed Live/
a n d the Calendar of Saints' Lives, the so-called ' c o m m o n ' Panegyric a n d m a n y
offices. These w o r k s w e r e k n o w n to Nestor in K i e v , since in The Tale of Bygone
Years h e reports their mission to M o r a v i a a n d the recognition of Slavonic writ-
ing by the R o m a n P o p e . 9 In this w a y the Russian stocks were enriched with
large n u m b e r s of v o l u m e s o n Cyril a n d Methodius w h i c h are so vital to the
proper study of the w o r k of the t w o saints.
A t the s a m e time, Cyril a n d M e t h o d i u s were the subject of increasing a d m i -
ration a n d respect. A memorial o n Cyril contained in the Gospel by Ostromir
appears to indicate that h e w a s considered as o n e of the saints of the Russian
O r t h o d o x C h u r c h from the mid-eleventh century o n w a r d s . T h e n again the Pro-
logue attributed to L o b k o v a n d written in the twelfth century includes a m e m -
orial o n Methodius. 1 0 H o w e v e r , their cult w a s developed chiefly b y Macaire,
Metropolitan of M o s c o w , w h o arranged for the insertion of the Detailed Lives of
the brothers into a sixteenth-century hagiographie collection.11
In a similar m a n n e r , Dimitri of Rostov, by m e a n s of his Book on the Lives of
32 Dimiter Angelov
the Saints, which appeared between 1689 and 1711,12 contributed largely to the
cult of SS Cyril and Methodius.
Looking at medieval Russian literature, w e realize that an attempt w a s
m a d e at that time to link the w o r k of Cyril and Methodius to the history of Rus-
sian civilization by emphasizing the importance of the two brothers' missionary
activity not just for Slavs in general but also, and in particular, for Russians.
This Russification turns u p in a large n u m b e r of works o n their lives in which
terms such as 'apostles of the Russians' are added to 'apostles of the Slavs'.
Methodius is referred to as 'master of the Russians' (ouctlja rus'skago) in the four-
teenth-century Prologue attributed to Proloutz13 as well as in the March Semester of
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries14 and in a Calendar of Saints' hives of the
eighteenth century.15 A s for Cyril, he is called the 'apostle of the Slavs, Bulgar-
ians and Russians' {pucitel slovenem i bl"garem i rusem) in a saints' life m a d e u p of
extracts from Detailed hives, while the Condensed hife by Cyril, a thirteenth- and
fourteenth-century16 manuscript, refers to him as the 'chief master of the Rus-
sians and of all the Slavs (pervago nastavnika rodu rossishomu i vsemu jazyku sloven-
skomu)'}1 This trend towards Russification also lends weight to the theory,
expounded in m a n y works, that Cyril, k n o w n as Constantine the Philosopher,
translated from Greek into Russian (¿zeprelozi rus'kujugramotu sgreceshoè). E x a m -
ples include m o r e than ten copies of biographies and other works o n the life
and activities of Cyril (two fourteenth-century commemorative offices, fif-
teenth- and seventeenth-century psalters, breviaries, etc.).18 This idea pene-
trated the Russian literary tradition all the m o r e easily and profoundly that the
Cyrillic alphabet, which was called after its creator, was adopted by the Russian
people and the m a n y books written in Old Bulgarian using this alphabet were
directly accessible to the local population. A passage from the biography of Ste-
phen of Perm (1340-96), written at the close of the fourteenth century by Epi-
phanius the Wise (d. c. 1420) strengthens this conception. 'Toj nam gramotu sot-
voril"i knigy perelozil"s greceskago jazyka na rouskyj (Constantine the Philosopher
k n o w n as Cyril, m a d e the alphabet for us and translated works from Greek into
Russian)', states the author w h o draws heavily o n Khrabr the M o n k ' s Treatise on
Writing}''
A text added to the Panegyric by the two brothers in an a n o n y m o u s seven-
teenth-century w o r k brings out Constantine the Philosopher's role as the crea-
tor of an alphabet specially m a d e for the Russian people. T h e author writes that
the Slavonic letters were designed by Cyril in Constantinople — and nowhere
else, as other commentators will have it — at the request of the 'Russian Princes'
(knzia russki) Rostislav of Moravia, Svyatopolk of Tourov and Coztlian, Prince
of Pannonia. 20 This text, in its report of events that occurred eight centuries
before, is studded with errors and anachronisms. W h a t is indeed of interest,
however, is the fact that the author conveys the notion current in his day that
the alphabet created by Cyril was passed o n to Russian Princes.
Another thesis, less widely distributed yet every bit as revealing, had it that
Rus' was converted directly by Constantine the Philosopher. It can be found in
a Russian collection of annotated extracts from the Old Testament (Paleja, fif-
teenth century), which also contains fragments of Cyril's Detailed Ltfe. A t the
end of the narrative o n King Solomon's cup, and which is one of the most
interesting episodes, w e read that Constantine the Philosopher went to Rus' and
converted Prince Vladimir there.21 A more recent version of the Russian chron-
icles refers to h i m as the apostle w h o Christianized the Russians.22 It is impor-
tant to remember, however, that some works, of both Bulgarian and Eastern
Slavonic origin, link Cyril's n a m e to the conversion of the Bulgarians.23 Alth-
ough inaccurate, this notion is historically plausible in that Christianity was
adopted as the state religion in Bulgaria during the lifetime of Constantine the
Philosopher. O n the other hand, any statement to the effect that he converted
the Russians during Vladimir's reign is a serious anachronism indicating insuf-
ficient knowledge and a desire to establish the closest possible link between this
great missionary and the Russian land. There is not enough space here to give
other examples of attempts to Russify the w o r k of Cyril and Methodius. W h a t is
certain is that, following the adoption of Christianity by Rus' in 988, the work
of the t w o brothers and their disciples w a s to have a lasting and fruitful
influence o n Russian society. It provided an objective basis that enabled the
converted Russian people to adopt the Slavonic writing and civilization that
had originated in Bulgaria. This process was accompanied by an objective desire
to Russify that writing and civilization.
T h e work of Cyril and Methodius lies at the roots of the spiritual link be-
tween the Bulgarians and the Russians which has grown ever stronger d o w n the
centuries.
NOTES
1. D . Angelov, 'Slavjanskijat svjat prez I X - X v. i deloto na Kiril i Metodij v knizov-

nata tradicija [The Slavonic World in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries and the W o r k
of Cyril and Methodius in the Literary Tradition]', Paleobulgarica/StaroV'lgaristika
(Sofia), N o . 4 , 1985, pp. 12 et seq.
2. B . S. Angelov, ' K voprosu o nacale russko-bolgarskih literaturnyh svjazej [Concern-
ing the C o m m e n c e m e n t of Russo-Bulgarian Literary Contacts]', Trudy otdelenja drev-
nerusskoj literatury (Leningrad, Instituta russkoj literatury (Puskinskogo D o m a ) A N
SSSR), N o . 14, 1958, pp. 132 et seq.; S"scijat. Izistorijata narusko-flgarskite literaturni
vr"zMi [On Russo-Bulgarian Relations], pp. 26 et seq., Sofia, 1977; D . Angelov,
'Srednovekovna B"lgarija i Kievska Rusija [Medieval Bulgaria and Kievan Rus']',
B"lgaro-ukrainski vr"zki prezvekovete, pp. 53 et seq., Sofia, Ñaué, izsl., 1983; K . Kuev,
S"dbata na staroV'lgarskata r"kopisna knigaprez vekovete [The Fate of Old Bulgarian M S S
through the Centuries], pp. 14 et seq., Sofia, 1986.
3. Povest' vremennyh let [Tale of Bygone Years], Part 1, p. 81 (Text arranged by D . S.
34 Dimiter Angelov
Lihacev, translated by D . S. Lihacev and B . A . R o m a n o v , edited by V . P . Adria-

nova-Peretc), Moscow/Leningrad, 1950; I. Snegarov, Duhovnokultumi vr"zhi mezdu
B"lgarija i Rustjaprez srednite vekove (X-XV v.) [Spiritual and Cultural Relations bet-
w e e n Bulgaria and R u s ' in the Middle Ages], p . 36, Sofia, 1950; E . G . Zikov,
'Zametki o russko-bolgarskih literaturnyh svjazjah starsej pory ( X - X I w . ) [Notes
o n Russo-Bulgarian Literary Links in Ancient Times (tenth-eleventh centuries)]',
Kussko-bolgarskiefol'kJornye i literaturnye svjazi (Leningrad), Vol. 1, 1976, p. 11.
4. Povest' vremennyh let, op. cit., p. 102.
5. K . K u e v , 'Simeonovijat sbornik i negovite potomci [The Collection of Simeon and
of his Posterity]', Gov. Sof. Univ. (Sofia, Fac. Slav. Phil), Vol. 67, N o . 2 , 1974, p p .
1-47; Izbornik Svjatoslava 1073. Sbornik statej [Sviatoslav's Collection of 1073. Collec-
tion of Articles], pp. 1-340, M o s c o w , 1977; B . S. Angelov, 'Pohvala za car S i m e o n i
nejnoto pronikvane v staroslavjanski tvorbi [King Simeon's Panegyric and its
Influence on Ancient Slavonic Texts]', Iz istorijata na russko-V'lgarskite literaturni vr"z
(Sofia), B o o k 2 , 1980, pp. 7 et seq.
6. J. K . Begunov, Kozma Presviter v stavjanskih literaturah [Cosmos the Priest in Slavonic
Literature], pp. 19 et seq., Sofia, 1973.
7. K . K u e v , Cernorizec hraV'r [Khrabr the M o n k ] , pp. 164 et seq., Sofia, 1957.
8. 'Prostranni zitija na Kiril i Metodij [Comprehensive Lives of Cyril and Methodius]'
edited by B . S. Angelov and H . K o d o v , in K . Ohridski (ed.), S"bran¿ s"cinenija [ C o m -
plete Works], Vol. 3, p p . 30 et seq., 160 et seq., Sofia, 1973.
9. Povest' vremennyh let, op. cit., pp. 21 et seq. In the matter of this account by Nestor,
k n o w n as Skazanie o prelozenii knig {Memoir on the Translation of Books), can be found
m a n y literary studies of and discussions o n its Old Bulgarian or West Slavonic ori-
gin. This author feels that there is a better case for its origin being Bulgarian. See K .
M e c e v , ' Z a proizhoda na staroruskija letopisen razkaz "Skazanie o prelozenii knig"
[Concerning the Origin of the Account of the Old Russian Chronicle entitled
Memoir on the Translation of Books', Istoriceski pregled, N o . 2 , p. 88, 1974; M . Kaj-
m a k a m o v a , 'Starobalgarskata letopisna tradicija v "Povest' vremennyh let" [The
Tradition of the O l d Bulgarian Chronicle in The Tale of Bygone Years]', B"lgarskosred-
novekovie [The Bulgarian Middle Ages] (B"lg.-s"vetski sbornik v cëst na prof. I. D u j -
cev), p . 212, Sofia, 1980; D . Angelov, 'Slavjanskijat svjat. . .', op. cit., p . 2 4 .
10. Snegarov, op. cit., p p . 4 6 et seq.
11. Ohridski, op. cit., Vol. 3 , p . 11.
12. Ibid.
13. B . S. Angelov, 'Slavjanski izvori za Kiril i Metodij [Slavonic Sources Relating to
Cyril and Methodius]', Izvestija na Wrzavnata biblioteka "V. Kolarov" za 1956, 1958, p.
189; K . K u e v , 'Proloznite zitija na Kiril i Metodij v Leningradskite hranilisca [The
Detailed hives of Cyril and Methodius in the Leningrad Archives]', Palaeobulgarica/
Starob"lgaristika, N o . 1, 1985, p. 24.
14. K u e v , op. cit., pp. 2 5 , 2 7 .
15. Ibid., p . 32.
16. B . S. Angelov, Izstarata b"lgarska, ruska isr"bska literatura [Ancient Bulgarian, Russian
and Serbian Literature], Vol. 2 , p. 28, Sofia, 1963.
17. Ohridski, op. cit., Vol. 3, p . 44.
18. B . S. Angelov, 'Slavjanski izvori . . .', op. cit., pp. 200-7; Kuev, op. cit., pp. 14, 19.
19. Kuev, Cernoriec Hrab"r, op. cit., p. 175.
20. See corresponding text in Ohridski, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 45.
21. B . S. Angelov, 'Slavjanski izvori. . .', op. cit., p. 211.
22. Ibid.
23. D . Angelov, 'Slavjanskijat svjat . . .', op. cit., pp. 21-4.
T h e conversion of R u s ' to Christianity
Nikolai T o d o r o v
Historians have long since ceased dividing the history of humanity into t w o
periods - before and after the adoption of Christianity. These criteria cannot,
therefore, explain the interest aroused by the celebration of the Millennium of
the conversion of Rus', especially as the event drew the attention, not only of
ecclesiastical circles, which was only to be expected, but also of the scientific
world and of international opinion.
This Millennium is an opportunity to m a k e a thorough analysis of the his-
torical processes and to study the roots of Russian culture, which is a m o n g
those that have had a decisive influence o n world progress in our century. T h e
conversion of R u s ' to Christianity m a d e a very real and lasting impact not only
on the Russian people and state of past times, but also on South-eastern Europe
as a whole. It paved the w a y for cultural achievements that rank a m o n g the
treasures of world civilization.
W e shall focus particular attention o n three aspects of this complex pro-
cess: (a) the very real revolutionary changes that took place in Russian society in
the tenth century and their historical importance; (b) the place and role of Bul-
garia in this process; and (c) the historical consequences for South-eastern
Europe of the integration of Russian society into the Christian world.
It was in the tenth century that Russian society, like the other pagan Sla-
vonic peoples of Europe, emerged from the stage of patriarchal development.
Slavonic paganism had s h o w n that it was incapable of forming a n e w kind of
stable society. This is borne out as m u c h by the failure of the Eastern and some
of the Western Slavs to form durable states as by their fruitless attempts to erect
a mythological pantheon to serve as an ideological standard and institutional
basis for the state as a more advanced type of organization than clan alliances.
There is n o record of the creation of any such pantheon by the Southern Slavs
38 Nikolai Toäorov
in view of the fact that they were incorporated at an early stage into various
states, whether Byzantium, the Frankish Empire or Bulgaria. T h e Slavonic
principalities in the Balkans from the seventh to the ninth century and Great
Moravia in the West in the ninth century were evidence of the fact that, coinci-
dent with the end of the invasions, Slavonic mythological beliefs had exhausted
their potential to form a society to match the n e w conditions.
T h e conversion of the Slavs to Christianity in the ninth and tenth centuries
amounted to an adherence (ecclesiastical, institutional, political and cultural) to
the traditional and classical European models that had been under attack by the
great invasions for four hundred years. This Christianization ensured conti-
nuity in the development of European civilization, a continuity that was of the
utmost importance for Central and South-eastern Europe.
In this respect Byzantium carried out a consistent policy that led to the mis-
sion conducted by Cyril and Methodius to Great Moravia in 863, the appoint-
ment of Methodius as Archbishop of the diocese of Pannonia and the con-
version of Bulgaria to Christianity in 8 6 4 / 6 5 . A century later, Byzantium was
to further the conversion of Rus' to Christianity. This brought the Slav tribes
and peoples of the East into the fold of Mediterranean civilization, k n o w n as
'Byzantine' civilization, that asserted itself in South-eastern Europe and the
Near East as an amalgam of the classical heritage and of Christianity. Indeed
this integration was nothing less than an adherence to one of the most advanced
civilizations in the world and, most importantly, gave Russian society access to
the achievements of over 1,000 years of philosophical thought, the social and
natural sciences and otherfieldsof learning. In this w a y R u s ' developed its o w n
institutions in line with the model of the European community as a whole from
the state to episcopates and from schools to courts of law. It fostered written
communication in every social sphere and moulded its international relations
in harmony with the tradition long established in Europe. It was thus that the
regions of Eastern Europe adopted the European social structure.
B y converting to Christianity, R u s ' not only adopted the Byzantine model
of Christianity but also c a m e into possession of the rich heritage of Cyril and
Methodius which offered and asserted a n e w type of integration, that is, the
creation of a social community that upheld ethnic identity and character. T h e
work of Cyril and Methodius dates from the middle of the ninth century (855-
85) and is part of the social blossoming of Byzantium following the triumph of
the veneration of icons (842). Permeated with the democratic spirit of the n e w
forces sweeping it along, it was planned and carried out with the consent of the
Byzantine Emperor and Patriarch as a means of forming a Slavic-Byzantine
community preserving the Slavonic language and its local ethnic customs. A t
the outset, the work of Cyril and Methodius was welcomed by the West Slavs
(863-85), Great Moravia and the Archdiocese of Pannonia; after 855, follow-
ing the development of unfavourable conditions there, it m o v e d to Bulgaria.
The conversion of EMS' to Christianity 39
For a century in Bulgaria, and hence in its natural linguistic environment,

Old Bulgarian, and with the full support of the state, Slavonic written culture
developed its manifold features deriving from Slavonic cultural traditions and
from a dynamic struggle with the assimilative encroachments of Byzantinism
combined with proto-Bulgarian political experience and conceptions.
T h e second half of the ninth and the tenth centuries in Bulgaria saw a
series of important achievements that are milestones in the country's history.
First, the definitive settlement of the theological, cultural and ethnical
argumentation in favour of the written Slavonic language as the n e w language
of Christian worship and instruction. This argumentation is based on the postu-
lates defended by Constantine the Philosopher (Cyril) in countless discussions,
and which went on to win R o m e ' s approval in the papal bulls of Adrian II and
John VIII. It was developed by Methodius, Archbishop of Pannonia (869-85),
and by his disciples in Great Moravia under Prince Svatopluk. T h e resistance of
some of the Byzantine clergy in Bulgaria was successfully overcome. 0 pismeneh
{Treatise on Writing) by Khrbar the M o n k (Cernorizec Hrab"r) (in the second half
of the ninth century) consecrated this argumentation and demonstrated the his-
toric authenticity of Slavonic books based o n the experience of Eastern cul-
tures. T h e thesis of this work was adopted by Rus' and spread to every part of
the world in the course of the centuries. M o r e than 100 Russian copies have
c o m e d o w n to us.
Second, the penetration into Bulgaria of translations by Cyril and Metho-
dius of the liturgical texts. In the capital, Preslav, scholars around Tsar Simeon
drew up what are k n o w n as the 'second versions', aimed not only at polishing
the means of expression of the Slavonic language but also at providing a full
translation of the liturgical texts.
Third, the appearance of a complete c o m p e n d i u m of laws in Slavonic pre-
pared by Tsar Simeon's circle of scholars along the lines of the Byzantine
patriarchal Nomokanon (882) and the n e w law books which subsequently
appeared in Constantinople. T h e Nomokanon is based on R o m a n law updated
under Justinian (sixth century) and related to the Christian canons of the ecu-
menical and local councils. Simeon's code introduced the legacy of R o m a n law
into the Slavonic world. Rus' also adopted another collection of laws, Arch-
bishop Methodius's Nomokanon, which was translated from the Greek (881/82)
and is thought to have been borrowed directly from Great Moravia. T h e text
was preserved and reproduced at the beginning of a thirteenth-century m a n u -
script entitled Ustjuzskaja kormcaja, while Simeon's Nomokanon is found in
another eleventh-century manuscript, Efremovskaja kormcaja.
Fourth, the foundation in Bulgaria of a well-stocked Slavonic library with
a collection of works of theology and d o g m a , translated or original, treatises o n
the natural sciences, such as the encyclopedias written in Old Bulgarian by John
the Exarch, The Heavens a nd the Hexameron, the Tract against the Bogomi/s by C o s -
40 Nikolai Todorov
m a s the Priest, the works of Clement of Okhrid in thefieldsof hagiography,

hymnography and rhetoric, and m a n y others preserved in dozens of Russian
copies.
Fifth, the creation in Bulgaria of the second Slavonic alphabet, k n o w n as
Cyrillic (ninth-tenth centuries). This was the fruit of the propitious cultural
conditions existing in Bulgaria where Greek was read and written. T h e Cyrillic
alphabet adopted those letters of the Greek alphabet w h o s e phonemes cor-
responded to Slavonic ones. T h e Glagolitic letters of Constantine-Cyril were
retained for specifically Slavonic phonemes. T h e Cyrillic alphabet follows the
order established by Cyril in accordance with the phonetic articulation of the
letters. T h e codifier of the Cyrillic alphabet is thought to have been Clement of
Okhrid (916). It was this Cyrillic alphabet created in Bulgaria that Rus' adopted.
It is hoped that this brief account gives some idea of the vast politico-
cultural p r o g r a m m e that Christianized R u s ' inherited from the tradition
inspired by Cyril and Methodius. It was not merely a matter of adopting specific
texts and ideas, but of becoming part of a vast programme of civilization and
the principles of cultural communication with Byzantium that had already been
adopted by other Slav societies. T h e close of the tenth century brought about
the proper conditions for the establishment of direct relations between R u s ' a n d
Byzantium and also with the written culture of slavia orthodoxa.
Medievalists are in agreement that bilingualism was one of the outstanding
features of Christian cultural communities in the Middle Ages, necessitated by
the universal nature of Christian culture and the theory of sacred languages.
Cyril and Methodius created a n e w type of bilingualism - the Slavonic model:
universal knowledge deserted thefieldof the three sacred languages in favour of
a living mother tongue. This kind of bilingualism paved the w a y for concepts
and ideas rooted in local traditional culture, so that written culture was n o lon-
ger the preserve of a cast or élite, but instead was m a d e accessible to the people.
Such bilingualism also provided prospects for subsequent democratic intellec-
tual movements by strengthening the ethnic awareness of the Slav peoples.
Yet another salient feature of the undertaking of Cyril and Methodius is the
importance attached to selectivity as the pivot of cultural interaction between
Byzantium and the Slavonic world to the detriment of imitation. This accounts
for the appearance of what is called the Slavonic diglossia: the c o m m o n Cyrillo-
Methodian literary language acquired the specific traits of the vernacular, first
of all in particular versions, such as the Russian one, and later in the form of
autonomous literary languages.
T h u s the conversion of Russian society to Christianity enabled it to m a k e
substantial progress in the social, political and culturalfields.T h e Russian Prin-
cipality provided a focus around which the Eastern Slav peoples united. Fol-
lowing the Ottoman conquest (fourteenth andfifteenthcenturies), the Russian
State felt duty bound to defend the Orthodox states and protect their political
The conversion of Rus' to Christianity 41
and cultural traditions. T h e dynamic nature of this p r o g r a m m e w a s s u m m e d u p

in the overall concept of M o s c o w as 'the Third R o m e ' .
T h e conversion of R u s ' to Christianity brought with it an influx of texts
written in Slavonic in Great Moravia, not to mention the i m m e n s e Slavonic
library in O l d Bulgarian. T h e impact of this heritage o n the Russian people,
coupled with faith in the divine mission of Cyril and Methodius w h o had been
sent to save the Slavonic world, gave rise to the idea of continuity between the
Russians and the t w o brothers from Thessalonika. This resulted in the growth
of legends such as the so-called Cherson legend according to w h i c h Prince Vla-
dimir w a s converted to Christianity by Cyril himself and w a s the source of reli-
gious and mystical visions that are mirrored in works claiming that R u s ' w a s
blessed by the Apostle A n d r e w , to give but o n e example. All these ideas were
embodied in Russian Messianism for the salvation of humanity and the authen-
tication of the faith. W h i l e they comprised a measure of mystical extremism,
such ideas always embodied a sense of duty towards the Slav world and of the
need to protect and unite it. Despite the markedly reactionary nature of the Sla-
vophile politico-social m o v e m e n t in Russia in the nineteenth century, this very
Messianism constituted, in democratic circles, the driving force behind the
Russian policy of liberating the Balkans during the wars between Russia and the
O t t o m a n E m p i r e in the eighteenth arid nineteenth centuries.
A s early as the tenth century, the cultural development of R u s ' materialized
within the cultural unity of slavia orthodoxa. If, during the tenth and early
eleventh centuries, R u s ' w a s mainly o n the receiving end, the fact remains that,
in the centuries that followed, w h e n the Southern Slavs c a m e under O t t o m a n
domination (fifteenth to eighteenth centuries), it b e c a m e the centre for written
Slavonic culture and its stimulation. It w a s here that m o d e r n Slavonic literature
and culture began to develop. In view of their traditional kinship, the Balkan
Slavs took to Russian literature because they felt it corresponded to their o w n
stage of cultural development and formed a part of their o w n heritage. A single
example, that of the Slavonic alphabet, is sufficient to illustrate this. R u s ' had
borrowed the Cyrillic alphabet from Bulgaria and all the texts had been copied
and later printed in Cyrillic letters. Russia introduced a n e w type of character-
face in the eighteenth century. This secular Cyrillic alphabet w a s adopted for
Bulgarian and Serbian books and is still used by several Soviet peoples to this
day.
Russia's potent cultural influence over the Balkan Slavs in the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries and the feeling of cultural and ideological kinship still
shared by Slavs in general are due not so m u c h to the part played by any partic-
ular ideologist as to these deep-rooted processes.
T h e conversion of R u s ' to Christianity was a favourable factor in the de-
velopment of civilization throughout South-eastern Europe. In the context of
ancient times, w h e n s o m e of the Western and all of the Southern Slavs were
42 Nikolai Toäorov
converted to Christianity, w h e n the Bulgarian State was a power to be reckoned

with in the Balkans, and Georgia and Armenia had been elaborating a written
Christian culture in their o w n language for centuries, the adherence of Rus' to
Christianity through the agency of Byzantium opened up a vast hinterland to
Christian civilization in the Black Sea basin and paved the w a y for the contin-
uous and steady development of this important Eurasian cultural region. In the
face of the Arab expansion threatening Byzantium, followed some time later by
the invasion of Europe by tribes and peoples from Asia, the Black Sea cultural
region with its sturdy traditions became a European bulwark against such inva-
sions. A t various times and in differentfields,the Islamic world m a d e its pre-
sence and influence felt: initially this was the case of the Volga Bulgars, and
later, following the consolidation of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans and
Central Europe, part of the Balkans and the Crimean peninsula became a
stronghold of Islam. However, the development of Russia and the other Black
Sea countries that belonged to European civilization ensured their strength and
prevented this crossroads of the world from becoming a migratory zone with a
destabilizing effect o n settled civilizations. This ethnico-cultural stability in
southern and western Europe contributed from the tenth to the eighteenth cen-
turies to the development of the old continent and provided the conditions that
placed it in the vanguard of world civilization at the time.
In modern times, w h e n Christianity's model of society and state had
already fulfilled its purpose and socio-cultural change gave the world n e w chal-
lenges, Russia launched forth in a n e w direction, enriched by the secular heri-
tage of its culture in the mother-tongue and aware of its historic calling as a
centre of accelerated development for the world as a whole.
The development of Kievan Rus' in
the wake of Christianization
Boris R a u s c h e n b a c h
T h e Millennium of the introduction of Christianity into Rus' was celebrated in

1988. This is, of course, an arbitrary date; taken from the chronicle's account of
the baptism of Rus', it indicates the m o m e n t w h e n Christianity became the
country's official religion. In actual fact Christianization was a gradual process
and began m u c h earlier than this.
If w e discount the legend that the Apostle A n d r e w preached o n the banks
of the Dnieper, thefirstclear evidence of the beginning of Christianity a m o n g
the ancient Russian tribes dates from the ninth century. This is mentioned in a
number of sources, but perhaps the strongest proof is archaeological. Burials
dating back to the ninth and tenth centuries, with all the features of Christian
funerary rites, have been found in Kiev and the territory of the Polyane. Prince
Igor's treaty with Byzantium, dating from thefirsthalf of the tenth century, was
signed on behalf of Kievan R u s ' not only by pagans but also by Christians. This
treaty attests that pagans and Christians had equal rights. It is interesting to note
that the oath o n conclusion of the treaty was taken by the Russian Christians in
the Cathedral of the Prophet Elijah in Kiev. T h e use of the w o r d 'cathedral'
indicates that there were already several Christian churches in Kiev. There were
also Christian communities in Novgorod.
Thirteen years after this treaty was concluded, the Great Princess Olga
went to Byzantium where she was baptized. O n her return to Kiev, she contri-
buted greatly to the spread of Christianity. T h u s , long before the official bap-
tism of Rus', Christianity was already well k n o w n there and was widely appre-
ciated.
Very probably, the steady spread of Christianity aroused serious concern in
the circles of the pagan priesthood, whose influence was great. This m a y
explain the persecution of Christians (going as far as massacre) that began after
44 Boris Rauschenbach
the death of Olga and continued during the reign of Vladimir until the time of
his baptism.
W h a t reasons induced Vladimir and his court (which could be called the
'government' of Rus') to adopt Christianity as a state religion despite open resis-
tance from the pagan priests? T o answer this question, the situation, both inter-
nal and international, of Kievan Rus' shouldfirstbe examined. In the ninth
century, Rus' had already begun to form a unified, albeit unstable, state in the
form of an association of Slavonic tribes. T h e Prince at its head was constantly
faced with the attempts of one tribe or another to usurp his authority, which
led to constant campaigns against recalcitrants. Within the tribes (and con-
sequently in the state as a whole), the primitive order was gradually breaking
d o w n and feudalism developing (albeit still without the feudal form of land-
holding).
In 978, w h e n the young Prince Vladimir ascended the throne of Kiev, his
most urgent task was to m a k e Rus' m o r e cohesive. For this reason he aban-
doned lengthy military campaigns and took up permanent residence in his
country's capital, Kiev, so as to remain in control of the country's political life
at all times. M o r e importantly, he decided to strengthen the union of Slavonic
tribes by imposing a single form of paganism on them as a state religion. W e
k n o w from the chronicle and from archaeological excavations that a state pan-
theon of six gods, headed by the Prince's god, Perun, was established at Kiev.
Worship of Perun was also introduced in Novgorod. Such efforts m a y have had
some positive effects, but these were not enough to solve the basic problems.
It shouldfirstbe pointed out that the pagan religion and the legal concepts
and customs associated with it in n o w a y fostered the development of feudal-
ism; if anything, they even hindered it. Completely attuned to a primitive tribal
system that was n o w o n the wane, they were incapable of inspiring m e m b e r s of
society with ideals of behaviour appropriate to the age of feudalism. T h e y
looked backwards and not forwards.
T h e international situation of R u s ' presented Vladimir with even m o r e
serious problems. During the previous century the young state had proved itself
a power to be reckoned with militarily, and Russian merchants had c o m e to
take a constant part in international trade. T h e countries surrounding R u s ' that
could have presented a threat to her (such as the Khazar kaganate) had been
defeated, and Vladimir had fortified the frontiers against warlike n o m a d s .
There m a y have been some temptation to continue as before, but this was n o
longer possible. T h e policy of military campaigns for purpose of plunder had
reached a dead end. Subjugation of the comparatively close, brilliant and
powerful Byzantine Empire was clearly impossible. T h e only realistic aim was
to seek to rise to the level of Byzantium and the other advanced states, drawing
strength from Rus's o w n resources. This was precisely the aim that Vladimir set
himself.
The development ofKievan Rus' in 45
H e understood that it would be futile to wait for his pagan state to develop
gradually until it caught u p with the feudal monarchies. W h a t was needed w a s a
leap forward, boldly taking from the developed countries their culture, science,
crafts, building skills — in a nutshell, everything that m a d e of Byzantium and
similar feudal monarchies the most advanced states of their time. It w a s clear
that the model should be adopted in its entirety, including religion. In Byzan-
tium, for example, state and church were so closely linked and interwoven that
it w a s practically impossible to separate religious from secular activity. M o r e -
over, Vladimir had n o need to d o so.
T h e Byzantine version of Christianity (which w e shall call 'Orthodox',
though the formal schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches only
took place in 1054) w a s the one that best lent itself to the unification of R u s ' . It
was well suited to the needs of a feudal society (being borrowed from a feudal
country) but it had t w o other important features.
First, unlike the Western Church, the Orthodox C h u r c h was not a political
force independent of the E m p e r o r . T h e C h u r c h did not have its o w n forces,
and it is quite impossible to imagine the Byzantine E m p i r e as the scene of bat-
tles such as those that opposed the armies of popes and kings. Vladimir, w h o s e
aim w a s to unite his country, needed a C h u r c h just like this, obedient to his will
(in political matters), rather than another disruptive force in the state.
Secondly, Rus's neighbour w a s Orthodox Bulgaria, which had been con-
verted approximately 100 years earlier. Bulgaria already had church service
books in the Bulgarian language as a result of the activity of the evangelists of
the Slavonic peoples, Cyril and Methodius and their successors. A t that time the
ancient Bulgarian and Russian languages were so close that, unlike Greek
books, Bulgarian books did not need to be translated, just copied. W h a t is m o r e ,
the Bulgarian clergy could easily, without interpreters, preach the n e w religion
and conduct church services in Rus'. A s Christianity had to supplant the pagan
religion w h o s e priests used the country's language, the use of Latin or Greek in
Christian church services would have constituted an enormous and totally
unnecessary obstacle to the spread of the n e w religion (this is confirmed by his-
tory: w h e n , at a later date, the Byzantine clergy attempted to introduce Greek as
a liturgical language in R u s ' , they were forced to give it u p immediately). Bulga-
ria had to a certain extent already prepared the ground for the rapid conversion
of its close neighbour and w a s later to take an active part in its baptism.
Such were the internal and external political preconditions of the baptism
of R u s ' . It should again be stressed that Vladimir regarded the baptism not only
as a religious act, but as an accompaniment to far-reaching feudal reform, m a k -
ing it possible within a short period to d r a w level with the progressive feudal
monarchies in all the most important fields. T h e introduction into R u s ' of
Christianity based o n the Byzantine C h u r c h appeared ideal for Vladimir's
plans, yet an obstacle of principle barred the way. W e have already seen that
46 Boris Rauschenbacb
Church and state were very closely linked in Byzantium. Therefore, from the
Byzantine point of view, a state receiving its baptism from Constantinople auto-
matically became the latter's vassal. However, the purpose of Vladimir's
reforms was to raise Rus' to the level of the most advanced countries of his
time, and certainly not to lose its independence.
It is difficult to say h o w events would have developed if the Byzantine
Emperor, Basil II (with his brother and co-ruler Constantine VIII, w h o ,
however, played only a secondary role, so that hereinafter only Basil II will be
mentioned), had not suffered a crushing defeat in 986 and even been in serious
danger of losing his throne in 987 w h e n his commander-in-chief, Phocas,
rebelled, declared himself Emperor and advanced with his forces o n Constanti-
nople. Basil's only hope of keeping his throne lay in seeking help from Vladi-
mir, which he did forthwith.
Vladimir agreed, but set very harsh conditions. First, the baptism of Rus'
should not m a k e the country an official vassal of Constantinople, and, secondly,
he was to receive the hand of the Emperor's sister, A n n a , in marriage. T h e lat-
ter demand was of an almost scandalous nature, as it was completely out of
keeping with existing Byzantine practice in foreign relations. Seeing n o other
w a y out, however, Basil II agreed to these conditions.
Vladimir needed to marry A n n a for political reasons. Such a marriage
would immediately raise h i m to the rank of the foremost royal houses of
Europe. It is certain that Vladimir's aid saved Basil IPs throne. T h e latter then
tried to renege o n his obligations, but Vladimir's rapid military response (the
taking of Cherson, an important Byzantine stronghold on the Black Sea, and
the threat of an advance on Constantinople) forced the Byzantine Emperor to
honour the conditions of the treaty. A n n a became Vladimir's wife (by church
marriage) and the mass baptism of the population of Rus' began.
T h e question naturally arises as to whether there was resistance to baptism
on the part of the people. W a s this baptism 'forced' as is sometimes claimed? It
shouldfirstbe noted that the baptism was an internal affair of Rus'; it took place
o n the basis of a decision freely taken by Vladimir and his court, what could be
called the 'government' of Kievan Rus'. It would therefore be terminologically
inexact to apply the word 'forced' to the carrying out of a lawful government's
decision. However, to analyse the problem in greater depth, what was the atti-
tude of the different strata of the population of Kievan Rus'?
T h e Prince and his court and retinue had nothing to lose from baptism,
rather it was to their advantage. T h e Prince, for example, became a monarch by
the grace of G o d and not of m e n . It was also advantageous for the merchants as
their relationships with counterparts in European Christian states were facil-
itated and improved. The ordinary members of the tribal community did not
lose anything either (intensive feudalization did not take place until later), and
slaves only gained, since slavery was not typical of feudalism and the Church
The development ofKievan Rus' in Al
c o n d e m n e d it, especially the sale of fellow tribesmen to the 'infidel'. A s a result

of all this, Christianity spread surprisingly quickly and painlessly as compared
with other countries that were baptized at approximately the same time, such as
S w e d e n and N o r w a y .
T h e only privileged class that lost everything w a s the pagan priesthood.
E v e n before the official baptism of the country this class was aware of the threat
represented by Christianity with its growing numbers of adherents. A s has
already been said, the pagan priests attempted to strike a forestalling blow at
Christianity by persecuting Christians under Svyatoslav and at the start of Vla-
dimir's reign, but the inexorable laws of the development of society m a d e the
downfall of paganism inevitable. T h e resistance of paganism to the baptism was
an expression of the general law by which the n e w and progressive always
encounters resistance from the old and obsolete.
T h e reaction of the pagan priests to Vladimir's reforms was twofold. S o m e
of the priestly caste openly opposed the Prince and his reforms, followed by
s o m e of the populace, o n the usual pretext in such circumstances offidelityto
ancestral custom. Vladimir put d o w n armed rebellion by force of arms. It
should, however, be borne in m i n d that it w a s not so m u c h resistance to the
n e w religion that he suppressed as resistance to the system of feudal reforms.
This can be seen from his reaction to the tactics of another w i n g of the priestly
caste that did not openly oppose h i m but withdrew to remote parts of the coun-
try and continued to perform pagan rituals there. Vladimir w a s aware of this
but did not interfere with these priests, as they presented n o danger to his main
project - feudal reform. H e understood that these survivals of paganism would
gradually die out.
In this w a y , the baptism w a s immediately followed by a transitional period,
during which paganism co-existed with the m a i n religion, Christianity, albeit
mainly in outlying areas. Its survival can be partly explained by the fact that its
priests carried out certain socially useful functions, such as treating the sick.
This transitional period continued for approximately 100 years. If the ordinary
people willingly repudiated their tribal and c o m m o n Slavonic gods, belief in
friendly and local spirits (such as house and forest spirits) continued in places
u p to the twentieth century. This w a s not only because they were sometimes
regarded as m e m b e r s of the family or village c o m m u n i t y , but also because it was
easy to reconcile their existence with the Christian religion. W e k n o w from the
Lives of the Saints that spirits of a lower order — d e m o n s - often tempted the
saints or tried to frighten them. In the minds of the people, house, forest and
other spirits c a m e to be seen as d e m o n s , taking o n as a result of this 'adaptation'
a negative character. Therefore continuing belief in household spirits is in n o
w a y evidence of the survival of paganism as is sometimes claimed.
T o conclude our consideration of the question of whether the people
resisted conversion to Christianity, a few words should be said about the 'sor-
48 Boris Kauschenbach
cerers' revolts' as mentioned in the chronicles. T h e most important took place

in the years 1026 and 1071. T h e chroniclers interpret these popular disturbances
as attempts at restoring paganism. H o w e v e r the description in the chronicles of
these events gives a completely different picture. In both cases the risings took
place in famine years. A t that time, a decade after the baptism of Rus', the pro-
cess of feudalization had increased in pace. T h e formerly free tribal c o m m u n -
ities had become hierarchical and their leaders, gradually becoming feudal
lords, had taken possession of the communities' lands and reduced their m e m -
bers to serfdom. This process became particularly intense in years of famine
w h e n , hiding their supplies, the leaders of the c o m m u n i t y showed particular
cruelty to its other m e m b e r s , w h o had formerly shared equal rights with them.
It is not surprising that in years of particular shortages there were spontaneous
uprisings against feudalism (and therefore against the Prince's power), but the
rebels struck mainly at the former tribal leaders. T h e pagan priests joined in
these justified popular disturbances in an attempt to exploit them to restore
paganism. T h e princes forcefully crushed the uprisings, not because of their
pagan character but because they were anti-feudal. After all, before the risings
the princes had calmly observed the activities of the pagan priests, leaving it to
the Church to struggle with them. It w a s advantageous to the chroniclers, w h o
represented the interests of feudalism, to stress the pagan and anti-Christian
nature of the uprisings, in order to avoid the need to describe the oppression of
the feudal class coming into being. That is w h y these popular disturbances were
given the n a m e of 'sorcerers' revolts'.
T o s u m up, it m a y be said with confidence that Prince Vladimir's reforms
were well received by the vast majority of the population and supported by it.
Their results were felt in all branches of the country's life: religious, political,
socio-economic and cultural.
A s for the religious aspect of the question, the change-over from paganism
to Christianity was a transition from a barbarous religion (with h u m a n sacrif-
ice, etc.) to a civilized one. Most important (especially in later times) w a s the
centralized organization of the Church (headed by a Metropolitan with control
over the bishops at diocesan level w h o , in turn, had priests under their author-
ity). This organizational unity of the Church, u n k n o w n to paganism, played a
markedly positive role in the country's history, as will be seen below.
Prince Vladimir's reforms immediately began to influence all aspects of the
life of ancient Russian society. T h e introduction of Christianity required
priests. Bulgaria was able to help with this to a certain degree, butfirstof all
there w a s an urgent need to train clergy locally. Accordingly schools were es-
tablished, and m a n y children forced to attend them. There is evidence that not
only children from the upper classes, but also poor children attended school.
This is quite understandable, bearing in m i n d that by the end of Vladimir's
reign there were several hundred churches in Kiev alone. T h e mass training of
the wake of Christianiization
clergy led to a notable increase in literacy. In time, learning reached all parts, as
can be seen from the birch-bark manuscripts found in N o v g o r o d , written by
both m e n and w o m e n belonging to various strata of society.
N o t only service books but icons, too, were necessary for church services.
A t first they were imported from Byzantium, but it w a s both impossible and
inappropriate to supply the m a n y thousands of churches springing u p o n the
territory of R u s ' with imported icons. Foreign artists w e r e invited to R u s ' to
paint frescoes in the great churches of the principal towns, and to train Russian
icon-painters. In a similar w a y local masters learnt the art of building in stone.
A s a result, during the reign of Vladimir's son, Yaroslav, all the m a i n w o r k of
building and decorating churches (and also buildings such as the princes'
palaces) w a s carried out by Russian craftsmen.
Rus's borrowings from Byzantium w e r e not limited to those directly c o n -
nected with worship. A s has already been noted, a m o r e developed w a y of life
w a s borrowed as a whole. T h e process w a s not limited to crafts; agriculture too
w a s stimulated and horticulture appeared. Increasingly intensive trade with
other countries led the Kievan State under Vladimir to begin minting its o w n
gold coins.
It is difficult today to describe Vladimir's radical reforms in greater detail.
T h e ancient Russian chronicles (only those written after the death of Vladimir
have c o m e d o w n to us) have o n e astonishing peculiarity: describing in detail
Vladimir's activities as a pagan, the baptism of R u s ' {The Cherson hegend) a n d the
foundation of the m a i n church in Kiev (the C h u r c h of the Tithe), they say
nothing of his m a n y years of activity following the baptism. T h e authors of the
chronicle d o not appear to have approved of all the Prince's acts. S o m e
researchers link this to the fact that the chronicle w a s kept at the outset by
Byzantine writers w h o had c o m e to R u s ' , a n d the political line taken by Vladi-
mir w a s based o n the interests of R u s ' and did not take those of Byzantium suffi-
ciently into account. There is indirect confirmation of this in folklore: the
Prince is r e m e m b e r e d in it under the n a m e of Vladimir the Radiant S u n , in folk
epics (byliny) he is called the 'sweet prince' a n d the image of a prince beloved by
the w h o l e people shines through all the later accretions.
This calls for a few words o n the nature of h u m a n happiness. T h e feeling of
happiness is in n o w a y connected with wealth. If a m a n has everything, h e does
not experience happiness, but rather the tedium of surfeit. This is the condition
depicted so well by Fellini in his film L Ö Dolce Vita. True happiness for m a n is
m o v e m e n t towards something better, with today being better than yesterday
and t o m o r r o w better than today. It is the rate at w h i c h life improves a n d not
the standard of living that should be taken as the measure of happiness, a n d it
w a s in Vladimir's day, w h e n the pace of change in all aspects of life in R u s ' w a s
greatest, that people must have had a particularly strong feeling of happiness
and of satisfaction with life.
This was also helped by one specific feature of religious life at the time of
Vladimir. Although Byzantium was taken as a model by Russian Christians, the
Russian Church was markedly different from that of Byzantium. This diff-
erence appearedfirstand foremost in the absence of monasticism (which, as is
well k n o w n , played a very important role in Byzantium), and consequently in
that of the ascetic element in religious life. This m a d e it possible for some his-
torians to describe the beginnings of Christianity in Rus' as 'joyful'.
W h y were there n o monasteries in R u s ' at the time of Vladimir? T h e
answer is probably that even though children can be forced to go to school, the
forcible creation of monasteries is completely impossible. A monastery is a
refuge for people w h o have taken the tonsure of their o w n free will, and at the
time of Vladimir there were not yet any such people: to feel the desire to enter a
monastery, a person must have become accustomed to the ideals of Christianity,
preferably from childhood. W h a t is more, the Christians of thefirstgeneration
considered the very fact of their baptism such a feat of personal piety that there
seemed no need to add to it the strictures of monastic life. Therefore of all the
Christian virtues, love of one's neighbour tookfirstplace.
Vladimir put this love into practice in two ways. First, he held banquets for
hundreds of people, though it is true that these banquets also had a political
purpose, rallying together the retinue and tribal aristocracy from which the feu-
dal class was formed. Secondly, Vladimir gave assistance to the poorest of his
people. At his court any citizen of Kiev and any traveller could receive free
meals, and food was taken to the homes of the sick and the old. Vladimir
redeemed prisoners (slaves) and set them free, giving them means to live on. It
is not surprising that the people remembered him as 'Vladimir the Radiant
Sun'.
After the death of Vladimir in 1015 and the internecine war between his
sons, Yaroslav the Wise (1015-54) became Prince. H e continued his father's
policy energetically by founding schools, fostering trade (minting not only gold
coins, but silver ones too), constructing fortresses on the frontiers and building
churches. In his reign, however, a n e w element was introduced.
A civilized state cannot exist without a standard written code of law for the
whole country, and under Yaroslav the Russkaya Pravda (Russian Justice) code and
a number of other written statutes were drawn up. These legal documents
replaced the tribal customs that had existed in pagan times.
Another of Yaroslav's concerns was that of raising the cultural level of
society. T o vie with Byzantium, literacy was not enough; Rus' needed its o w n
writers and philosophers. During the Middle Ages the monasteries were centres
of learning, and under Yaroslav Russian monasticism came into being, monas-
teries were founded and works of literature, not only of a theological, but also of
a philosophical and political nature, were written.
For a better understanding of the political nature of the literature of Kie-
The development ofKievan EMS' in 51
the wake ofChristianization
van Rus', one peculiarity of Rus's relations with Byzantium should be m e n -

tioned. A s has already been said, after the conversion to Orthodoxy, Byzantium
tried to treat R u s ' as its vassal, while the ancient Russian State was very sensitive
to anything that might be interpreted as a limitation of its sovereignty. It would
probably be an exaggeration to describe the policy of the Princes of Kiev as anti-
Byzantine, but Kievan Rus' insisted on equality with Byzantium, as is borne out
very clearly by that remarkable work of ancient Russian literature, the Sermon on
Law and Grace by Metropolitan Hilarión.
This renowned Sermon would appear to be a treatise o n a classical theolog-
ical theme. T h e question of the relationship between the Old Testament (Law)
and the N e w Testament (Grace) had already been raised by the Apostle Paul
(Heb. 10:28-29). In complete agreement with the Apostle, Hilarión, giving
m a n y examples from the Bible, comes to the conclusion that Grace is higher
than the L a w , that is to say, what is n e w and young is better than the old. His
words can be interpreted as a refutation of the thesis of the superiority of Byzan-
tium (baptized long since) over Rus'. This thought is expressed even m o r e expli-
citly in parts where Hilarión compares Vladimir to the Apostles w h o preached
Christianity to m a n y nations. This is a bold comparison, to say the least, as in it
the merit for the baptism of R u s ' is ascribed to Vladimir alone, and neither
Byzantium nor Bulgaria is even mentioned. This is followed by a detailed c o m -
parison between Vladimir's actions and those of the Byzantine E m p e r o r C o n -
stantine, w h o had also m a d e Christianity his country's state religion. In conclu-
sion, Hilarión asserts that Vladimir is in n o w a y inferior to Constantine and is
consequently worthy of the same glory and honour that he received, that is, that
he should be numbered a m o n g the saints.
T h e Sermon speaks very clearly of the equal honour of R u s ' and Byzantium,
and any relationship of vassalage between the t w o countries is out of the ques-
tion. In this w a y Hilarión makes a classical theological theme into a politically
topical one. This work of literature also shows the high level of culture reached
towards the end of Yaroslav's reign. Its complex structure presupposes in its
readers an excellent knowledge of a large n u m b e r of texts, and Hilarión himself
mentions this at the beginning of his work: 'After all, w e are not writing for the
ignorant, but for those w h o have already savoured the sweetness of books.' Kie-
van Rus' was becoming not only literate but also truly cultured, as can also be
seen from the further development of ancient Russian literature, which is not
confined to Metropolitan Hilarion's Sermon. A t the turn of the eleventh and
twelfth centuries the m o n k Nestor of the Kiev Caves Monastery wrote The Tale
of Bygone Years, thefirstaccount of Russian history. His work is n o bare s u m m a r y
of facts but a w o r k of literature. A s in Hilarion's work, but to a m u c h greater
extent, this w o r k gives support for the idea of Rus's independence of Byzan-
tium. T h e middle of the twelfth century saw the composition of the works of
the first Russian philosopher, Metropolitan Clement Smolyatich, and of Cyril,
Bishop of Turov, as well as m a n y others. Secular literature also began to appear;

a representative masterpiece is The Song of Igor's Campaign.
T h e aspiration to equal Byzantium in everything can also be seen in Yaros-
lav's building activity: by analogy with that of Constantinople, the magnificent
Cathedral of St Sophia w a s built in Kiev, and the city walls of Kiev were beaut-
ified, as in Constantinople, with a Golden Gate. Abbot Daniel's Travels (late ele-
venth century) are quite revealing; in t h e m he writes that o n seeing at the Holy
Sepulchre a large n u m b e r of candelabra (votive lamps) from different countries,
including Byzantium, he obtained permission from K i n g Baldwin to place a
candelabrum there in the n a m e of the land of Rus'. R u s ' should be in n o w a y
inferior to Byzantium.
It w a s a circumstance of great significance for the country's culture, not
only at the time of Yaroslav, but also later, that Rus's conversion to Christianity
gave it architects, artists and writers. These artists did not simply copy Byzan-
tine examples, but created something n e w - ancient Russian culture. This cul-
ture had a clearly marked national character. It is impossible to confuse a n
ancient Russian church with its Byzantine or Bulgarian counterpart. T h e
ancient Russian icon w a s also distinct from those of other countries. This n e w
Russian culture was an organic synthesis of the Byzantine element with a purely
national one, with deep roots in the pagan culture of the past age, which in its
o w n w a y had been highly developed.
T h e energetic implementation of the well-considered p r o g r a m m e of
reforms begun by Vladimir and completed by Yaroslav m a d e R u s ' an advanced
centralized monarchy in n o w a y inferior to the foremost countries of its time,
whether in terms of its e c o n o m y or culture or the degree of development of its
politico-economic structure. T h e swift rise of R u s ' aroused in its neighbours
sincere admiration and the desire to enlist the support of this n e w strong and
enlightened power. This factor is well illustrated by the dynastic marriages that
were concluded. If Vladimir had to have recourse to arms to w i n a wife ' w o r -
thy' of h i m , by the time of Yaroslav the most distinguished royal houses of
Europe regarded it as an honour to ally themselves with the m o n a r c h of Kiev.
T h e death of Yaroslav was followed by a period of feudal disintegration,
the country gradually splitting up into a n u m b e r of practically independent
principalities, constantly contending with one another. T h e Prince reigning in
Kiev became a mere figurehead, as became abundantly clear w h e n in the
twelfth century Andrei Bogolyubsky, after seizing Kiev and taking the title of
Great Prince, refused to settle there and instead m a d e the t o w n of Vladimir the
capital of R u s ' . This break-up had the same causes as similar processes in
Europe. T h e role of the Church as a powerful unifying factor became partic-
ularly important at this time. First of all, it should be noted that if R u s ' , which
had once been united, had become divided into warring principalities, this did
not happen to the Church. T h e Russian Church was led by a single Metropol-
itan w h o s e power over the bishops at the head of the dioceses was incomparably
greater than that of the Great Prince of Kiev over the other princes.
Basically, it is easy to see that any prince taking hostile military action
against another prince always did so in the hope of improving his position.
Seizing someone else's territories always enriched the aggressor and increased
his strength. Yet military action between Russian principalities was contrary to
the interests of the Church, as it brought ruin to the c o m m o n people and so
reduced the Church's revenues. Internal w a r w a s further unacceptable from the
point of view of the love towards one's neighbour preached by the Church and
fidelity to the obligations taken o n by the princes.
For these reasons the Church acted as a political and ideological factor
counteracting the centrifugal effect of the princes' internal struggles. T h e
organization of the Church formed a political structure, echoing, often m o r e
effectively, the corresponding state or princely structure of authority. For this
reason the role of the Church as a factor resisting the division of Rus' into inde-
pendent principalities seems to have been extremely beneficial and important.
This unifying role of the Church becomes even clearer as w e m o v e away
from the period immediately following the adoption of Christianity. It became
particularly important in the fourteenth century w h e n R u s ' was to cast off the
intolerable and humiliating yoke of the Golden Horde.
In the pre-Mongol, Kievan period of Russian history, the Church counter-
acted feudal fragmentation by opposing internal struggles between princes, as
can be seen from the works of literature that have c o m e d o w n to us. In the four-
teenth century, R u s ' , already fragmented and oppressed by the Golden Horde,
was faced with an even harder task - that of establishing a n e w national unity
and of armed struggle against the oppressors. T h e n e w centre around which the
country united was to be M o s c o w .
W h e n M o s c o w was only beginning to rise and no one could yet imagine its
future role, Metropolitan Peter, then at the head of the Russian Church, m o v e d
his residence to M o s c o w , thus distinguishing it from the other capitals of prin-
cipalities. His successor, Metropolitan Alexis, continued to live in M o s c o w and
governed not only the Church but all of fragmented R u s ' in the n a m e of Prince
Dimitri w h o was still in his infancy. Metropolitan Alexis's diplomatic skills did
m u c h to strengthen the role of M o s c o w as the n e w centre of Rus'.
At this time, in addition to the normal ecclesiastical hierarchy, a n e w reli-
gious and political centre c a m e into being in R u s ' , the Troitse-Sergieva M o n a s -
tery. Its founder, Sergius of Radonezh, astonished his contemporaries by the
strictness of the monastic rule that he introduced, by the simple w a y of life led
by h i m and his m o n k s , and, most of all, by his preaching of the unacceptability
of internal warring between the Russian princes and of the need for them to
unite to free R u s ' from the foreign yoke. St Sergius c a m e to e m b o d y the national
conscience. His authority w a s enormous.
In 1380, w h e n the forces of the Golden Horde advanced o n Rus' under the
c o m m a n d of M a m a i , it became clear that this invasion could not be repelled by
the princes' retinues alone. T h e whole nation had to be mustered. It is hard to
overestimate the help that Sergius of Radonezh, with his nationwide authority,
gave to Prince Dimitri Donskoy in this. Sergius not only blessed Dimitri before
the battle, but also sent to the battlefield two of his m o n k s , former warriors, to
give the coming battle the nature of a holy war, as all those taking part in the
battle - princes, retinue and warriors - represented only their o w n principal-
ities, whereas the warrior-monks — Peresvet and Oslyablya — stood for the
Church, and hence for all Rus'. Contrary to all the rules of military theory, the
Russian people's army, the humble infantry, given heart by Sergius and Dimitri
Donskoy, withstood the terrible impact of M a m a i ' s cavalry and, acting in con-
cert with the princes' retinues,finallycarried the day.
The role of Sergius of Radonezh in the unification of the Russian lands
around M o s c o w was not limited to this victory. Succeeding where others had
failed, he reconciled princes w h o had long been at odds. His word carried m o r e
weight than the military victory of either side in the internecine struggles be-
tween princes.
The examples given here are sufficiently convincing evidence of the unify-
ing role of the Church, which was so essential during the period of the feudal
fragmentation of Rus'.
The conversion of Rus' to Christianity constituted a revolution beneficial
to all aspects of social life in ancient Russian society. T h e sweeping nature of
Prince Vladimir's reforms entitles them to be considered as a comprehensive
programme of feudal reforms. This unfamiliar appellation gives a deeper
understanding of the innovations brought in by Vladimir's reforms, which
were not limited to religion. W e today should be grateful to our far-sighted
ancestors, and above all to Vladimir and Yaroslav, w h o spared no effort to m a p
out the future course of the Russian people.
The boldness, decisiveness and lack of compromise of Vladimir, w h o
aspired to raise comparatively backward pagan Rus', in what was historically an
extremely short period, to the level of a great European power, stand compari-
son with those of Peter the Great w h o embarked upon a similar endeavour in
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It is interesting to note that, even in
his methods, Peter frequently (perhaps unconsciously) followed Vladimir's
example. H e also took an advanced country as a model and boldly introduced a
whole series of innovations to serve as standards in all aspects of life in Russia as
a whole.
T h e assimilation by Kievan Rus'
of the classical and Byzantine heritage:
the role of Christianization
Yaroslav S h c h a p o v
T h e adoption of Christianity in R u s ' attracts the attention both of the general

public with an interest in Russia's past and of specialist historians w h o study
that past professionally. International conferences, scholarly works and plans
for the publication of source material and reference books and m a n y popular
books are all part of the celebration of the Millennium. In the Soviet Union
there is tremendous interest both a m o n g scholars and the general public in the
subject of the conversion of Rus' to Christianity. For more than half a century
little work has been done o n this theme (the works of S. V . Bakhrushin and
M . T . Tikhomirov are, however, worthy of note), and it has been m o r e or less
passed over in general works o n the history of Kievan Rus' (with the notable
exception of N . F. Lavrov's article in the collective study: History ofthe Culture of
Ancient Rus' edited by B . D . Grekov and M . I. Artamonov). In recent years,
however, several articles and books have appeared in which these questions
have again been given consideration and a large n u m b e r of monographs and
collective works, specially written for the jubilee by the scholars of the A c -
ademy of Sciences and the universities, were published in 1988-90. T h e works
published over recent years are unequal in quality; some are merely shallow and
biased and not of course a criterion for the present research.
H o w , o n the basis of the knowledge accumulated, can the principal features
of the adoption of Christianity in R u s ' best be described today? Let usfirstcon-
sider the fact that the n e w religion and ecclesiastical organization replaced and
supplanted in R u s ' another religion, that is, paganism, which had existed in the
region since the second millennium B . C . Furthermore, the adoption of Chris-
tianity took place at a time w h e n the ancient Russian State had already existed
for 150 years, that is, since the ninth century, with its authorities,financialand
military systems, law and culture that had c o m e into being under paganism. For
56 Yaroslav Sbchapov
this reason the process of supplanting the old religion by the n e w could not be
easy or fast. T h e branches of paganism that had taken root so deeply here intert-
wined with the young shoots of the n e w religious system being fostered b y the
n e w Church organization in liaison with the prince's authority.
In the change taking place in religious systems in R u s ' , the socio-political
factor, itself determined by the internal conditions of the country's develop-
m e n t , was perhaps the most important, though other factors should not be left
out of the reckoning. T h e pagan religion and the world-view that w e n t with it
were determined by early stages in the development of mankind: the primeval
equality of people, m a n ' s dependence o n nature, prompting h i m to seek m e a n s
of influencing it through magic rites. Division into classes and the appearance
of political authority and the state led to the evolution of primitive beliefs and a
stratification of the gods — raising to pre-eminence those w h o were most in
keeping with the conditions of the n e w society. This process w a s reflected in
Prince Vladimir'sfirst(pagan) religious reform, which the chronicler dates to
the year 980, eight years before the adoption of Christianity. During this
reform, the pantheon w a s limited to six deities not only of Slavonic but also of
Iranian origin, with the warrior god, Perun, at its head. Pagan worship, devised
to counter the spread of Christianity, w a s accompanied by h u m a n sacrifice.
H o w e v e r , thisfirstreform proved unsuccessful. Could the fairly primitive
system of Slavonic religion be adapted to the n e w requirements springing from
the appearance of class society and the state? These requirements could best be
satisfied by a world religion, created in the conditions of late classical society
and adapted to the feudal social structure, thus suited to the stage of develop-
m e n t that R u s ' w a s entering. Medieval Christianity deified the inequality of
classes, domination and submission, the feudal and hierarchical structure of
society and the authority of the state.
T h e unifying role of a state religion w a s also important. Kievan R u s ' ,
which continued to extend its territories in the tenth and eleventh centuries,
included, together with the East Slavonic peoples, the non-Slavonic tribes of
the Baltic coast, the Volga region and the southern steppes w h o had their o w n
pagan gods. T h e consolidation of the ruling class and the state contributed to
their replacement by the single, developed Christian religious system.
T h e international political aspect of the religious c o m m u n i t y w a s also
extremely important, however conventional the nature of its content. During
the Middle Ages, despite the politically self-contained nature of feudal c o m -
munities such as manors, c o m m u n e s and towns, international communication
played an important role. It was expressed in trade between different countries,
political and matrimonial alliances, recourse to foreign craftsmen and military
mercenaries in retinues, foreign craftsmen and cultural exchanges. In these con-
ditions the rulers of all European states had an interest in the adoption of a sin-
gle religion - Christianity. This m a d e t h e m at least formally equal to each other,
The assimilation by Kievan Rus' 57
of the classical and Byzantine heritage
belonging to the s a m e cultural world as opposed to pagan barbarians. A t the

s a m e time this did not exclude but rather presupposed that actual political c o n -
ditions a n d other factors m u s t lead to active struggle in this world and the aspi-
ration of s o m e countries to subordinate others to t h e m . Marriages between the
royal a n d princely houses of E u r o p e w e r e widespread a n d were a f o r m of
expression of political a n d military alliances. These marriages presupposed that
both bride and g r o o m belonged to the s a m e faith.
The Tale of Bygone Years narrates the legend of Prince Vladimir's choice of
one faith out of four: Islam, Judaism, Western a n d Eastern Christianity. T o
w h a t degree can it be said that this legend reflects the conditions that actually
existed in Kiev in the tenth century? There is n o doubt that thefirstt w o , Islam
and Judaism, could not have b e c o m e predominant in K i e v and the other t o w n s
of R u s ' . Although there w e r e relations with the Bulgarian State o n the Volga,
the territories of the Khazars a n d the Transcaucasian a n d Central Asian lands,
Rus's ancient agricultural civilization and its Slavonic a n d general E u r o p e a n
links m e a n t that only Christianity, w h i c h h a d b e c o m e widespread in the second
half of thefirstmillennium A . D . , looked a promising replacement for paganism.
Cultural and historical conditions m a d e R u s ' look towards Byzantium in
the tenth century rather than to Western E u r o p e , t h o u g h the Princes of K i e v
maintained close relations with Scandinavia, the G e r m a n states, Poland and
Czechia. Indeed, since antiquity natural c o m m u n i c a t i o n s h a d led R u s ' to the
Black Sea, the Balkans and Asia M i n o r . T h e great medieval empire of B y z a n -
tium, guardian of the classical a n d N e a r Eastern heritage, w h i c h h a d spread
Christian culture in all directions, with its brilliant capital, Constantinople,
attracted the Russians by its political authority a n d wealth. Olga, the first
k n o w n Christian princess to sit o n the throne of Kiev, had been converted to
the n e w doctrine b y representatives of the Eastern, Byzantine rite. H e r grand-
son Vladimir followed in her footsteps.
T h e leaning towards Constantinople rather than R o m e and the choice of
Eastern rather than Western Christianity w a s determined by a n u m b e r of cir-
cumstances. Perhaps o n e of the m o s t important of these w a s the recognition in
the East of the right to liturgy in local languages a n d the translation of the H o l y
Scripture into these languages with the use of its o w n system of writing for each
of t h e m . T h e Western countries, m o s t of w h i c h had inherited the territory, peo-
ples a n d institutes of the former R o m a n E m p i r e , could use Latin for liturgical,
administrative a n d literary purposes. In Eastern Christianity, w h i c h brought
together not only different languages and peoples, but different states a n d cul-
tures, it w a s impossible to keep to a single liturgical language. In these condi-
tions, naturally R u s ' looked not to R o m e , but to Constantinople, w h i c h offered
the possibility of using the Slavonic language a n d alphabet. This w a s even m o r e
important because, thanks to the w o r k of the Enlighteners of the Slavs, Cyril
and Methodius a n d their followers, the Slavonic liturgy already existed and,
58 Yaroslav Sbcbapov
what is more, thanks to their work and that of the Bulgarian scribes, a large
body of books of the Bible, hymnological compositions, works of the Fathers of
the Church, chronicles and other literature had already been translated into Sla-
vonic. All these works were accessible in Rus' without recourse to the study of
Latin or Greek.
Researchers also consider that the relationship that grew u p between the
secular power of the state and the Church in Byzantium was an important factor
in the Prince of Kiev's preference for the Eastern Rite. Byzantium had pre-
served the tradition of strong imperial power. In the Western world, where
there were m a n y feudal states, the power of the Church was marked by greater
stability than that of the king. Desiring to establish a Church organization in
Rus' that was not insubordinate to the secular power, the Prince of Kiev,
according to these scholars, turned to the Byzantine rather than the R o m a n
model. However, there is an inclination to think that this factor did not play
such an important role in the tenth century, as the considerable strengthening
of the R o m a n Church and the Papacy is linked to the late tenth and early
eleventh centuries, the reforms of Cluny and the activities of Pope Gregory VII.
In any case, there are grounds for considering that the Princes of Kiev chose
the version of Christianity and the tradition that were most in keeping with
Russian conditions.
W h e n discussing the adoption of Christianity, it is important to realize also
that the reasons w h y Rus' repudiated paganism and opted for Christianity were
not purely objective. A number of subjective factors also hastened the process
and account for the fact that the conversion took place at the end of the tenth
century, fully 1,000 years ago.
During the 980s the Byzantine Empire was in a state of continuous uphea-
val caused by representatives of the higher provincial aristocracy. In August
987 one of them, Phocas, in c o m m a n d of military forces in the East, declared
himself Emperor and, with the support of the higher military leaders, subdued
all Asia Minor and besieged Constantinople. T h e position of the Emperor
Basil, w h o was also hard pressed by the Bulgarians in the Balkans, was so dan-
gerous that he turned to Prince Vladimir of Kiev, promising untold recom-
pense in return for his help. According to Yahya of Antioch (an Arab Christian
historian of the eleventh century), by the terms of the treaty Prince Vladimir
m a d e available to Emperor Basil a force of 6,000 m e n . T h e Emperor, o n his
part, was to give his sister A n n a in marriage to the Prince of Kiev, the 'Emperor
of the Russians' as he called him. In addition, both the Prince himself and R u s '
as a whole were to adopt Christianity.
It seems that for Vladimir marriage with the princess of Constantinople
was the most important requirement. By this means Vladimir aspired to take u p
a high position a m o n g the European monarchs of his time. After all, not one of
them was married to an Emperor's sister, born in an imperial palace. T h e son of
E m p e r o r Otto the Great of G e r m a n y , the future Otto II, h a d earlier been

refused the h a n d of a princess born in the purple. H e had eventually married
Princess T h e o p h a n o , the k i n s w o m a n of J o h n Zimisces. It is clear that the
change of religion w a s a secondary consideration for Kiev, subsidiary to the
m a i n a i m of a n alliance of kinship with the E m p e r o r s . This can b e explained
only by the fact that Kiev w a s inwardly prepared for the change of religion;
long-standing acquaintance with Christianity in R u s ' and the ripening of inter-
nal conditions for its adoption h a d m a d e this process easier for Prince Vladimir
of Kiev and his court than for his father and grandmother.
Russian forces were immediately put at the E m p e r o r ' s disposal, and with
their help in 9 8 8 / 8 9 Basil crushed the armies of Bardas Phocas. H o w e v e r , the
resistance of the Byzantine side to fulfilment of the treaty delayed the adoption
of Christianity.
In preparation for his marriage with the princess, Vladimir himself m u s t
have been baptized as early as in 9 8 7 or at the beginning of 9 8 8 w h e n the treaty
was concluded, so there w o u l d be n o formal impediments to his plan. H e took
the n a m e of Basil, that of the E m p e r o r himself. T h e E m p e r o r , h o w e v e r ,
delayed sending the bride and the necessary n u m b e r s of clergy to convert the
people of Kiev: they were not sent in 9 8 8 . In the w o r k of the Kievan m o n k
Jacob ( Y a k o v M n i h ) , it says that in the year following his baptism (i.e. 9 8 8 ) ,
Vladimir w e n t 'to the rapids of the Dnieper', m o s t likely to m e e t his bride. S h e
did not c o m e , however.
Vladimir's campaign against the Byzantine t o w n of Cherson in the Crimea
and his capture of it after a n i n e - m o n t h siege w e r e a m e a n s of putting pressure
o n Constantinople and m a k i n g the E m p e r o r Basil respect the conditions of the
treaty. A s Kievan writers of the eleventh century s a w it, Vladimir's campaign
against Cherson w a s specifically linked to the need to force the Byzantines to
provide clergy to instruct the people of Kiev in the Christian faith (Jacob the
M o n k ) . Consequently, R u s ' h a d to w i n by force the right to be the equal of
proud Byzantium. Indeed, it is quite likely that the fact that Vladimir w a s h i m -
self baptized, while his retinue a n d the aristocracy of Kiev and the other towns
remained pagan, w a s every bit as unpleasant as the deception over his marriage.
This military action finally brought Vladimir success a n d he not only
returned to Kiev with the princess, w h o h a d been sent to Cherson where she
b e c a m e the Princess of R u s ' , but also brought with h i m the clergy w h o h a d
accompanied her from Constantinople, s o m e priests from Cherson and relics,
a m o n g others, of St Clement of R o m e . These helped h i m in performing the
mass baptism of the population of Kiev and other towns. Following an ancient,
and therefore pre-Christian Slavonic, tradition Vladimir graciously presented
Cherson to his brother-in-law, the E m p e r o r .
T h e conversion of Kiev to Christianity w a s followed by the introduction of
the n e w religion into other towns. T h e evidence of both written and archae-
60 Yaroslav Shchapov
ological sources is important for the study of the spread of Christianity in R u s '
once it had been adopted as the state religion. In the course of the eleventh cen-
tury Christianity spread only in the towns and the princes' outlying estates
where stone and w o o d e n churches were built. T h e conversion of the rural p o p -
ulation to Christianity continued into the thirteenth century w h e n the practice
of celebrating marriage according to pagan traditions and burying the dead in
barrows was still carried on.
It is important to determine the role of Christianity a m o n g other factors
that were simultaneously influencing the social and political development of
Rus'. Ancient Russian society had g r o w n u p and the state had c o m e into being
in the eighth and ninth centuries without the contribution the classical heritage
had m a d e in these respects in s o m e countries of Western and Southern Europe.
Rus's social structures were formed as a result of the internal processes of the
break-up of the patriarchal w a y of life a m o n g the Slavonic tribes, the formation
in the basins of the Dnieper, Volkhov and Upper Volga of early intertribal
alliances with elementary class systems a n d a proto-state structure and the
merger of these in the ancient Russian State with its centre at Kiev. T h e 'extra-
territorial' nature of R u s ' in relation to the old R o m a n E m p i r e of course
excluded the possibility of the appearance of any R o m a n - t y p e social and polit-
ical institutions, such as those found in former provinces of the R o m a n E m p i r e .
A t the same time, this 'extraterritoriality' did not prevent the population of the
great East European plain, and particularly that of Rus', from having economic
and political links with the territory of the R o m a n Empire and its direct histor-
ical heirs. Trade links dated back to the time of the so-called Chernyakov
archaeological culture. There is proof of this in the considerable inflow of
R o m a n denarii. T h e similarity in weight of Russian monetary units and corn
measures to the R o m a n equivalent shows just h o w old were the links with
Rome.
However, for Rus', as for a number of other Slavonic and Germanic peo-
ples of Europe, what proved particularly important was their secondary
recourse to the classical heritage w h e n their societies were approaching state
structures. T h e peoples of Central, Eastern and Northern Europe in their
heterogeneous development in the early Middle Ages, w h e n ecclesiastical and
social communities which later stabilized had not yet taken their definitive
form, c a m e separately to an awareness of the need for a considerable widening
of their stock of ideological and cultural resources, to bring t h e m up to the level
of the developed states with their long-standing traditions.
In this, a certain role m a y have been played by communication with their
near neighbours, w h o also had only recently acquired state structures; in partic-
ular, contacts with the Khazar kaganate in the eighth and ninth centuries, from
which R u s ' probably borrowed the title of 'kagan' meaning a paramount ruler
and equivalent to 'tsar' a n d 'emperor', and borne as a title by the Princes of
K i e v from the ninth to the eleventh centuries. T h e involvement o f Scandi-

navian a n d Western Slav groupings at a similar stage of development should
also b e taken into consideration. H o w e v e r , doubtless, the m o s t important
source d r a w n o n b y Kiev in creating its state institutions w a s the heritage of
ancient civilizations in those forms that existed in countries contemporaneous
with R u s ' , a n d above all in Byzantium, as well as in M o r a v i a a n d Bulgaria.
T h e study of the ancient c o m p o n e n t s incorporated into ancient Russian
culture a n d of other areas of life s h o w s that the formation of class structure and
the State in R u s ' as a result of the evolution o f Slavonic society created such a
great potential that it w a s impossible to exploit it using local resources only.
T h e inadequacy of the country's superstructure and, above all, its cultural disad-
vantages, could only b e a m e n d e d b y the expedient of m a k i n g active use of the
achievements of classical culture a n d of contemporaneous countries that h a d
preserved a n d refined it for their needs. H o w e v e r , R u s ' w a s very selective in
this. In m a n y fields of life that h a d already taken shape a n d were fully in keep-
ing with the needs of feudal society, such as agriculture a n d basic crafts, build-
ing o f dwellings a n d workshops, local princely a n d c o m m u n a l l a w , organ-
ization of the state, forms of g o v e r n m e n t , the system of taxation, etc., analogous
foreign models w e r e of n o use. Information o n s o m e of t h e m in the translated
books turned out to b e redundant, a n d the efforts of G r e e k hierarchs to import
their models into R u s ' enjoyed n o success. A t the s a m e time, a fairly w i d e range
of arts a n d technologies that did not have local roots but had developed from
classical traditions w e r e imported 'ready-made', e.g. church architecture in
stone, written literature and the b o o k , the manufacture of glass a n d mosaics,
etc. O n l y with time, in the process o f their use in local conditions, did these
achievements, while keeping their classical roots, change their nature.
It is hard to exaggerate the cultural significance of the adoption of Chris-
tianity for R u s ' , or for other medieval states. Christianity influenced the upper
strata of society m o s t , but it w a s also important for every m a n in his relation-
ship with nature. If paganism w h i c h deified natural p h e n o m e n a w a s based o n
the idea that m a n is a part of nature, dependent o n elemental forces, Christian-
ity gave m a n another role. M a n , created according to biblical legend o n the last
day of creation in the image and likeness of G o d , h a d received at his disposal all
that h a d been created before: land a n d water, plants, birds a n d animals. M a n ' s
vocation w a s to feel himself the master of nature. This contributed to the great
success achieved by the ancient Russian people in the colonization o f the spaces
of the East E u r o p e a n plain, in the creation of conditions for life in areas w h e r e
agriculture presented risks. W h a t is m o r e , w e still feel the consequences of this
attitude to nature today, w h e n w e are faced with ecological problems arising
from m a n ' s destructive use of land, water a n d other natural resources.
T h e Cyrillic alphabet w a s not brought to R u s ' b y Christianity. It h a d been
k n o w n earlier, as c a n be seen from archaeological finds dating to the tenth cen-
62 Yaroslav Shchapov
tury. But a strong boost was given to the spread of this written language and its
use, not only for the keeping of business records, as before, but also for liturgical
purposes, the writing of statutes, the creation of literature, historiography and
correspondence.
Together with Christianity and through the m e d i u m of translated Chris-
tian works, R u s ' assimilated m a n y achievements of world civilization, not only
in the liturgical and theologicalfields,but also in those of chronicle writing and
the natural sciences, and became acquainted with works about nature (e.g. the
Hexameron), calendar calculations a n d celestial p h e n o m e n a . A t the end of the
tenth and the beginning of the eleventh century, building began o n a large
n u m b e r of stone and w o o d e n churches, mosaics and frescoes were created, the
manufacture of enamel and glass w a s organized, and icon-painting and the
writing of manuscript books appeared.
T h e adoption of Christianity intensified not only the social, but also the
cultural stratification of ancient Russian society. This stratification already
existed in the ninth century. T h e readiness of educated circles of Russian society
not only to accept Christian ideology, but also to create works in w h i c h it found
n e w expression, m a d e it possible as early asfiftyyears after the adoption of
Christianity, that is, during the lifetime of the next generation, to create such an
outstanding w o r k in the ancient Russian literary language as The Sermon on Law
and Grace by Metropolitan Hilarión, and 120 or 130 years later the unique histor-
ical w o r k , The Tale oflfygone Years, and 200 years later the w o r k of genius, The
Song of Igor's Campaign.
H o w e v e r , w h e n studying the consequences of the replacement of paganism
by Christianity, w e also see the regrettable cultural losses to which it led. Chris-
tianity brought n e w church anthems to Rus, while vigorously opposing those
forms of folk art that did not fit into the traditional canons. These werefirstof
all musical instruments: the gusli, the gudok (an ancient Russian violin), early
types offlute,etc., which could only be used a m o n g the c o m m o n people. T h e y
were suppressed by the Church and therefore did not develop in R u s ' as concert
instruments. Another important type of art suppressed by the C h u r c h was danc-
ing. W e are familiar with classical Indian and African ritual dances which
attained a high level of development. Ancient Russian choreography, sup-
pressed by the Christian Church, never developed and subsisted in the form of
folk dances, mainly restricted to the villages. Ancient Russian mythology w a s
practically obliterated: traces of it survive in The Song of Igor's Campaign and in
jewellery with mythological motifs found in archaeological excavations.
W h e n considering the consequences of the adoption of Byzantine rather
than R o m a n Christianity, w e must admit that, together with such positive
aspects as the assimilation of Byzantine culture and the spread of writing, liter-
ature and law in the national language far earlier than in Western countries,
conditions were created that impeded close cultural contact with other Euro-
pean countries and the use of the learning acquired through the assimilation of
Christian culture.
In the socio-political sphere w e can see that the C h u r c h tried to adapt to
traditions that had c o m e into being in pre-Christian times. For example,
C h u r c h organization w a s provided for by Prince Vladimir through a centralized
tithe from the tribute paid to the Prince, in other words in the s a m e w a y as the
pagan religion had been supported. T h e continuation of the p a y m e n t of a cen-
tralized tithe by the Prince during the eleventh and early twelfth centuries w a s a
consequence of the insufficient development of freehold, that is, feudal private
property, and, in its turn, could not but maintain the existence of state, princely
and c o m m u n a l land property to the detriment of feudal private property. This
therefore delayed the development of the feudal system.
In the field of culture the Byzantine bishops did little to encourage transla-
tions from Greek to the ancient Russian language; all the credit for this should
go to the Princes of Kiev, w h o also founded schools and libraries.
Christianity gave powerful support to the state structure of R u s ' by esta-
blishing a Metropolitan See in K i e v and eleven to sixteen dioceses in the m a i n
centres of feudal principalities. T h e bishops w e r e not only C h u r c h administra-
tors but also performed the important function of ecclesiastical judges. It w a s
the religious courts that set out to introduce the practice of m o n o g a m y , the reg-
ulation of divorces and the banning of marriages within close degrees of kin-
ship. Also, those secular standards that were absent from state a n d princely law,
but existed in that of the c o m m u n e , were also used by the C h u r c h and incorpo-
rated into ecclesiastical law. These standards were concerned with the protec-
tion of w o m e n ' s honour, the duty of parents to give their daughters in marriage
during their lifetime and the regulation of relationships in the family.
T o s u m u p , it should be stressed that ancient R u s ' , as a country and state,
grew u p in an area of Eastern E u r o p e that h a d never been part of the R o m a n
E m p i r e or any other ancient state, in other words, in a region w h e r e in the
socio-economic and political spheres there h a d never been any union or syn-
thesis of the slave-owning and primitive c o m m u n a l systems in their final stage
of development. In m a n y countries of Western E u r o p e there had been such a
synthesis that often maintained continuity with the R o m a n system. R u s ' had
not inherited R o m a n institutions, so that access to the achievements of classical
civilization w a s possible only through a synthesis in the sphere of the super-
structure, in that of religion, culture and law.
There are therefore grounds for maintaining that for R u s ' , Christianity w a s
even m o r e important than for s o m e countries of Western E u r o p e . It passed o n
to the society and State of R u s ' m u c h that w a s essential for cultural growth,
strengthening its central organization and enabling it to take its rightful place
a m o n g the European powers.
Christianization: a turning-point
in the history of R u s '
Iannis Karayannopoulos
T h efirstcontact between the Byzantines and the people of Rus' was of a hostile
nature. In 860, the people of Rus', Scandinavian merchants and warriors, took
advantage of the fact that the Byzantines were engaged in a war with the Arabs
in Asia Minor to launch theirfirstmajor attack on Constantinople.1 Only then
did the Byzantines realize h o w serious was the n e w threat from the north.2
Patriarch Photius immediately placed the Church at the service of the state:
he set about converting the invaders' country and consecrated a bishop for the
purpose.3 His successor, Patriarch Ignatius, followed u p this approach, going so
far as to raise the Russian bishop to the rank of Metropolitan. A t the same time
Emperor Basil I strove to strengthen links with the people of Rus' and to make
lasting peace with them. 4
Although not all the efforts of Photius and Ignatius were successful, never-
theless Christianity gradually spread throughout Rus'. Archaeological excava-
tions in the Kiev region have brought to light burial places of the ninth and
tenth centuries bearing traces of Christian burial rites.
However, fresh events soon changed the situation. Prince Oleg, to w h o m
Rurik had entrusted the guardianship of his young son, Igor,5 seized Kiev and
m a d e it the capital of Rus'. Kiev became the 'mother of Russian cities'.6
However, Oleg was a pagan and so the Church, which had been founded by the
Byzantines, was left without support and faded away, though groups of Chris-
tians survived.
T h e sovereignty of the Prince of Kiev was recognized by the other princes
of Rus'. Active trade developed between the n e w state and Byzantium; it was
regulated by the treaties of 907 and 911 which are mentioned in The Tale ofBygone
Years. By virtue of these treaties, Russian merchants were able to go to Constan-
tinople in s u m m e r . Even though Oleg's successor, Igor, launched a second,
66 Iannis Karayannopoulos
unsuccessful, attack o n Byzantium in 941, these treaties were renewed in 9 4 5

and 971. 7
In spite of the rule of a pagan in Kiev and the cooling of Byzantium's mis-
sionary zeal, Christianity continued to spread from Cherson and m a n y of the
inhabitants were converted. T h e tenth century witnessed the establishment of a
Christian c o m m u n i t y with a church in Kiev. 8 It is noteworthy that, as Boris
Rauschenbach pointed out, the treaty between Byzantium and R u s ' concluded
by Igor in 945 w a s signed o n behalf of R u s ' not only by pagans but also by
Christians, a fact that testifies to the equality of the t w o religions.
T h e baptism of Princess Olga, w h o visited the Christian E m p e r o r s ' city in
957, 9 unquestionably bears witness to the spread of the n e w religion a m o n g all
social classes in R u s ' . O n her return to Kiev, Olga strove to inform people about
Christianity which w a s already widespread a m o n g the population of R u s ' , long
before becoming the official religion. It is thought — quite correctly, in m y view
— that the expansion of Christianity caused considerable disquiet a m o n g the
pagans, which perhaps accounts for the persecutions endured by the Christians
between the death of Olga and the baptism of Vladimir.
This situation, w h i c h threatened to undermine the unity of his state, forced
Vladimir to seek solutions. Seeing that his efforts to impose the pagan religion
were in vain, he realized that he had n o option but to adopt a n e w religion. H e
chose Christianity, the Christianity of Byzantium.
W e m a y well w o n d e r w h y Vladimir opted for Christianity. W h y did he not
choose Islam w h i c h w a s closer to the nature of m a n as an earthly being, or else
Judaism? A further question, linked to thefirst,should be asked. O n c e he had
chosen Christianity, w h y did he prefer the Byzantine Church to the Western
one? In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to examine all the factors
that m a y have entered into Vladimir's decision.
First let us consider w h y he chose Christianity. T h e answer is fairly simple:
Christianity was the religion of advanced states. Islam practised by the Bulgars
and the Jewish religion of the Khazars did not interest the people of R u s ' , for
Svyatoslav10 had already defeated these t w o peoples while Vladimir sought
closer ties with strong states. These however were Christian. Furthermore, the
Khazar State had been destroyed by the Pechenegs11 so that thenceforth the road
to Kiev was open to all w h o sought to invade it.12 T h e Pechenegs were a threat
to R u s ' and there could be n o question of alliance with them. T h e Western
Slavs were Christians, but their Christianity relied o n outside forces that
appeared quite likely to oppose political authority, w h i c h might be a source of
trouble in Vladimir's eyes. T h e Varangians (Vikings), w h o c a m e originally
from Scandinavia, had just been converted and R u s ' could not rely o n such neo-
phytes w h o did not yet have an organized Church. T h e Christians of the W e s t
or North-west were a threat to R u s ' , quite as m u c h as the peoples of the South
or South-east.
Christianization: a turning-point in the history of Rus' 67
Other considerations also influenced Vladimir in making his decision.

Byzantium was a wealthy and extensive empire. T h e Russian merchants had
had ample opportunity to appreciate this fact w h e n they beheld the wealth of
the capital, the legendary Tsargrad, where so m a n y treasures were accumulated.
Moreover, even though the Byzantines werefirst-classwarriors, as the wars
waged by Svyatoslav had shown, they represented n o threat for Rus', which
they had never attempted to attack. Furthermore, since 969, both R u s ' and
Byzantium had been threatened by the Pechenegs, a factor that drove them to
seek unity.13
In addition to such considerations of foreign policy, an internal factor m a y
have been of some importance. T h e unity of Rus' about the person of its Prince
could not but be strengthened by a Church of the Byzantine type. That Church
was not opposed to the Emperor: quite the contrary, it gave him its full support
and Prince Vladimir specifically desired a church that would help h i m thus to
consolidate his authority. T h e example of Bulgaria showed h o w a ruler had
been able to receive the support of the Church to strengthen his authority and,
although the Bulgarian Church was dependent upon that of Byzantium, Bul-
garia none the less had not become a vassal of the Emperor. 14 O n the other
hand, an imperial ideology had developed in both Bulgaria and Byzantium,
which the prince could very usefully 'transplant' to his o w n state.
Finally, Western Christianity used Latin, which the peoples of Rus' could
not understand, whereas Byzantium m a d e n o attempt to introduce Greek into
the liturgy; a striking example of this was to be found in Moravia, and above all
in Bulgaria. T h e Byzantine Church therefore permitted the n e w converts to use
their o w n language, and had proved this. In the words of J. MeyendorfF and
N . H . Baynes,15 'The greatest and most lasting gift of the N e w R o m e to Russia
was undoubtedly the Byzantine liturgy in the Slavonic language.'
T h e texts of the n e w religion were ready; translated and written in a Sla-
vonic language, they could be read and understood with little difficulty by the
people of Rus'. Furthermore, Christianity had already been introduced into
Rus' by the Greeks and there were Greek Christian colonies there. T h e choice
of Byzantine Christianity therefore seemed quite a natural one. It was simply a
matter of time.16
Unexpected political events precipitated Prince Vladimir's decision: the
Byzantine Emperor Basil II, sensing a threat in the pronunciamentos of Bardas
Skleros and Bardas Phocas, appealed to Vladimir for military aid. A n agree-
ment was reached: Vladimir was to send soldiers and be converted, and in
return he would receive the hand of Basil's sister, A n n a . In the spring of 988, a
body of 6,000 men-at-arms reached Constantinople and contributed in n o small
manner to victory a year later (13 April 989). That year the Byzantine court,
after lengthy hesitation, was forced to consent to the marriage of A n n a to
Prince Vladimir w h o had brought pressure to bear by taking Cherson (in the
68 Iannis Karayannopouks
s u m m e r of 989). O n his return to Kiev, Vladimir had his subjects baptized en

masse}1
T h e conversion of Prince Vladimir and of his people in 989 was a turning-
point in history. A s a result of the baptism, the influence of Byzantium pen-
etrated deep into R u s ' which had closely copied the Byzantine model. Ortho-
doxy brought with it n e w artistic and literary forms, while the w a y of life
became m o r e developed. It has been said, quite justifiably, that the history of
Russia cannot be properly grasped without knowledge of the history of Byzan-
tium. N o n e the less, unlike the course of events in the Slav countries of the Bal-
kans, Byzantine influence did not affect the social structure or the organization
of the state or, m o r e importantly, the distinctly Russian character of the culture.
W e cannot m a k e a detailed study of the different aspects of that influence;
w e shall therefore inspect t h e m briefly in order to illustrate the universal nature
of the Byzantine influence.
First in importance stands the preponderant role of the Church. T h e
Church of R u s ' was modelled o n that of Constantinople.18 It w a s placed under
the authority of the Patriarch and was headed by a Greek (all but two Metropol-
itans prior to 1237 were Greeks). This enabled the Patriarch to control every-
thing in an effective w a y without involving himself in the Church's internal
affairs.19
The unity of the Church of Rus' (headed by a single Metropolitan) contri-
buted to political unity at a time of conflict between the local princes. T h e
Metropolitan's immunity from their disputes enabled him to play a conciliatory
role, and this continued even after he had transferred his see from Kiev to Vla-
dimir-on-the-Klyazma in 1249. 20 T h e same community of faith later enabled
Alexander Nevsky to lead the Russians to victory over the Swedes in 1240.21
Church unity helped to buttress the central authority against the power-
seeking schemes of local princes. At the same time the Church supported the
sovereigns' policy of independence towards the Byzantine Church. Thus, w h e n
Prince Yaroslav the Wise took a n u m b e r of decisions of an ecclesiastical nature
(for example, proclaiming Boris and Gleb martyrs, upgrading the bishopric to a
metropolitan see or consecrating Hilarión, a court chaplain, as Metropolitan)
without seeking the agreement of the Patriarch, the Church, in the person of
Hilarión himself, gave h i m its support. Prince Vladimir, wrote Hilarión, had
adopted Christianity of his o w n accord, free will and virtue and o n his o w n ini-
tiative; the people of Rus' were fully entitled to organize their o w n Church as
they saw fit.22
Referring to Byzantine legal concepts of Church and state, the Church of
Rus' formulated its o w n theocratic conception which, subsequently associated
with the idea of an eternal R o m e , gave rise to the Messianic doctrine of M o s c o w
as the Third R o m e . 2 3
Byzantine influence w a s particularly marked in thefieldof law. A c o m p e n -
dium (entitled Kormcaja Kniga) reproduced the Nomokanon and the instructions of
Vladimir and Yaroslav. T h e oldest Russian legislative text, Russian Justice (Russ-
kajaPravda), a civil code, presents Slavonic c o m m o n law supplemented by rules
laid d o w n by the Russian princes, yet it was drawn up o n the basis of the Prochei-
ros Nomos. T h e different versions of the Russkaja Pravda, drawn up between the
tenth and twelfth centuries, bear witness to the growing influence of Byzan-
tium. However, both compendia, Kormcaja Kniga and Russkaja Pravda, which
have c o m e d o w n to us together,24 have an unmistakable affinity with Russian
L a w in their tendency to avoid capital punishment and mutilation of convicts,
and instead to impose fines.25
I shall leave to those of m y colleagues w h o are m o r e expert in these fields
the task of dealing with Byzantine influence on language, literature and art. I
would simply point out that the Greek texts, translated into Bulgarian and then
into Old Russian, m a d e an outstanding contribution to the formation of the
Russian language and the creation of an individual literature.
T h e first Greek texts to reach Rus' in Bulgarian translation were of a reli-
gious nature. Russian literature too was mainly religious. O f the 240 writers
w h o can be listed prior to the sixteenth century, 210 were clerics or m o n k s and
only 30 were laymen. Russian hagiography is so similar to its Byzantine coun-
terpart that one m a y well ask whether the lives of certain saints (e.g. that of St
Sergius of Radonezh) were not borrowed from Byzantine hagiography.26
Russian literature, however, is the only one in the Slav family to have so
quickly broken free of mere imitation to adopt its o w n particular traits, as can
be seen in the traditional heroic songs (bylini) of the tenth to twelfth centuries.
T h e same is true of The Chronicle of Nestor and The Chronicle of Novgorod. T h e
former is an anonymous work from the Kiev Caves Monastery providing an
overview of all Russian history based o n a specifically Russian concept of the
state, while The Chronicle of Novgorod, though closer to the Byzantine chronicles,
gives, at least in its last section, a genuinely Russian historical account.27
T h e n e w religion needed n e w places of worship. Inspiration for this also
came from Byzantium. However, technical difficulties and the climate c o m -
pelled the Russian master craftsmen to build churches with three naves o n a
square plan with a central cupola covering only the comparatively small space
of the central nave. This was an innovation of Russian architecture, distin-
guishing it from the Byzantine prototype and setting the course for its sub-
sequent development. Novgorod's heyday c a m e after 1240 with the develop-
ment of an original school of art in which Byzantine influences merged with
distinctly Russian elements, such as the onion d o m e , built in this way in order
to withstand the weight of the s n o w that is so abundant in the region.28
This art, in keeping with its Byzantine prototype, is neither illusionist nor
naturalistic. It is in keeping with d o g m a and the liturgy. T h e only freedom
granted to the artist is in the choice of colours. T h e purpose of such art is to
70 Iannis Karayatmopoitfas
transport the faithful to a world w h e r e they can find the peace that escapes t h e m
o n earth. Simple a n d austere, it appeals to the simple a n d h u m b l e as m u c h as to
the learned a n d powerful. Its language is understood by all a n d so reflects the
universal nature o f the Christian faith.29
Byzantine influence w a s equally important in the decorative arts. B o x e s
decorated with e n a m e l w o r k w e r e either imported into or imitated in R u s ' , as
w e r e multicoloured glass objects o f every shape a n d sort.30
Byzantine influence also m a d e itself felt in day-to-day matters. T h e cultiv-
ation of the vine, for instance, c a m e from B y z a n t i u m ; as did a variety of fruits
that w e r e u n k n o w n to the people o f R u s ' . Agriculture w a s given a stimulus.
Vegetable gardening began, as Boris R a u s c h e n b a c h points out. M e n t i o n m a y
also b e m a d e o f the manufacture of tiles a n d bricks while a n y n u m b e r o f
i m p r o v e m e n t s w e r e m a d e in shipbuilding a n d the production o f a r m s . W i t h
regard to the art of war, The Ipatiev Chronicle and The Song of Igor's Campaign both
refer to a 'livingfire'which several researchers have interpreted as being 'Greek
fire'.31 Trade links were strengthened and thefirstRussian gold coins struck at
the time of Vladimir. This was an indication to the world at large that the
former barbarians had n o w b e c o m e a civilized state.
It m a y be seen from the above just h o w extensive, varied and lasting w a s
Byzantine influence on Rus'. It is not inappropriate to repeat here the words of
R . Browning w h o wrote that Byzantium was a cultural treasure from which
other societies drew and borrowed; this enabled them to lay the basis for their
o w n rich and independent cultural development, Russia being the outstanding
example of this.32 W e m a y truthfully say that the starting point of that cultural
development was the baptism whose Millennium w e are n o w commemorating.
NOTES
1. F. C u m o n t , 'Anécdota Bruxellensia I, Chroniques byzantines du M s . 11.376', Recueil

de travaux publiés par la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres [Collection of W o r k s Published
by the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters], N o . 9, p. 33, Ghent, 1984; C . de Boor,
'Der Angriff der Rhos auf Byzanz [The Assault of the Rhos on Byzantium]', Byzanti-
nische Zeitschrift (Leipzig), Vol. 4 , 1985, p. 445; A . A . Vasiliev, Byzance et les Arabes
[Byzantium and the Arabs], pp. 240 et seq., Brussels, 1935; also gives a historical
survey of the various attempts at dating the event.
2. T h e sermons by Photius o n this event in V . Laourda, Photiou Omiliae [Sermons of
Photius], pp. 34-41, Thessalonika, 1959; C . M a n g o , ' T h e Homilies of Photius,
Patriarch of Constantinople', Dumbarton Oaks Studies (Cambridge, Mass.), Vol. 3,
1958, pp. 72-110; G . Laer, 'Die Anfänge des russischen Reiches [The Beginnings of
the Russian Empire]', Historische Studien (Berlin), 1930, p. 91.
3. Photius, Enghyklios epistolipros tous tis Anatolis arhieratikoús thrónous [Encyclicals to
Eastern Pontifical Sees] ( A . D . 867), P . G . 102, st. 736; F. Dvornik, Les Slaves, Byzance
et Rome au IXe siècle [The Slavs, Byzantium and R o m e in the Ninth Century], p. 143,
Paris, 1926; E . Hanisch, Geschichte Russlands [History of Russia], V o l . 1, p . 3, Frei-

burg, 1940; N . H . Baynes, Byzanz [Byzantium], p . 164, M u n i c h , 1964.
4. Baynes, o p . cit., p. 444.
5. Hanisch, o p . cit., pp. 9 - 1 0 .
6. Ibid., p . 11.
7. A s H . Cross has noted, so far the exact date of the treaties mentioned in the Russian
chronicle has not been established. Are these treaties of the period or else Slavonic
translations of earlier Greek texts m a d e at a later date in Kiev? It is not very likely
that the Princes of Rus' in the tenth century attributed m u c h importance to such
'documents' and, moreover, the fact that only the merest allusion w a s m a d e to them
on the Byzantine side m a y indicate that the Byzantine authorities too regarded them
as a diplomatic gesture rather than as proper treaties. Baynes, o p . cit., p . 444.
8. Specific mention of the fact that the Christians took the oath in the 'Cathedral
Church' of St Elijah in Kiev presupposes the existence of other churches there.
9. Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De caeremoniis [ O n the Ceremonies], p p . 544 et seq.
T h e question of the circumstances and site of Olga's baptism has not been defin-
itively answered. S o m e researchers accept Constantinople as the site of her baptism
(E. Hanisch, M . Arranz, M . Levcenko, A . R a m b a u d , et al.). Others consider that
Olga was already baptized w h e n she came to the city (A. Vasiliev, L . Bréhier, et al.);
M . V . Levcenko (Ocerkipo istorii russko-vizantijskih otnosenij [Survey of the History of
Russo-Byzantine Relations], p p . 217 et seq., M o s c o w , 1956) discusses the various
points of view; G . Ostrogorsky {Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates [History of the
Byzantine State], p. 263, n . 1, M u n i c h , 1940) gave three further arguments against
the opinion that Olga was baptized at Constantinople: (a) the total silence of C o n -
stantinus Porphyrogenitus o n this event; (b) the fact that the priest Gregory accom-
panied her; and (c) the fact that Russian chronicles give 954 (or 955) as the date of
her baptism, whereas Olga visited Constantinople in 957. H o w e v e r , the following
could be put forward in opposition to the arguments of G . Ostrogorsky: (a) in C o n -
stantinus' narrative, there is n o mention of a visit to and a mass at St Sophia, which
could have been expected o n the occasion of the arrival of a neophyte of such high
rank; (b) failure to mention the baptism could be explained by Byzantine modesty
preventing mention of an event requiring a w o m a n to appear undressed; (c) the pre-
sence of the priest Gregory can be explained easily: he was her catechist; and (d)
chronological accuracy is not a strong point of Russian chronicles. T h u s , in view of
the foregoing, the author considers that the question should be re-examined.
10. In 955 and 9 6 7 ; Hanisch, o p . cit., p. 16.

11. J. Scylitzes, Historia [History], p p . 455 et seq.
12. Hanisch, o p . cit., p. 16.
13. Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio [ O n the Administration of
the Empire], Vol. 1, pp. 48 et seq., Vol. 2, pp. 5 0 et seq.; K . A m a n d o s , Istoría Vjzan-
tinoú Krátous [History of the Byzantine State], p . 112, Athens, 1957.
14. Hanisch, o p . cit., p . 15.
15. Baynes, o p . cit., p. 465.
16. T h e Russian chronicle informs us that before deciding o n his choice of religion,
Vladimir had received missions sent by the Volga Bulgarians (Muslims), the G e r -
72 Iannis Karayannopoulos
m a n s (Latins), the Khazars (Jews) and the Greeks (Orthodox); each mission sug-
gested that he convert to its religion. Before replying, Vladimir in his turn sent
envoys to these nations in order to form their o w n opinion. T h e 'ecclesiastical
beauty' (krasota cerkovnajd) of the Greek liturgy celebrated in the Church of St Sophia
disposed h i m in favour of the Greek Orthodox religion.
17. T h e question of the chronology of Vladimir's baptism has not yet been settled.
According to the latest theory, that of A . Poppe w h o tried to reconcile, o n the one
hand, the information given in the t w o principal twelfth-century Slavonic sources,
the Cherson version of Povesf vremennyh let (The Tale of Bygone Years) and the Kievan
version of the Pamjat' ipohvala lakova mniha i Zftie knjazja Vladimira (Memorial and Pan-
egyric of Jacob the Monk and Life of Prince Vladimir), and, o n the other hand, that of
Byzantine sources, the events took place as follows. In 9 8 7 , Byzantium asked and
received assistance from Vladimir. O n condition of his baptism, he was promised
the hand of Princess A n n a . O n 2 January 988, Vladimir w a s baptized in Kiev. In the
spring of 988, A n n a went to Kiev and married Vladimir. In 989, Vladimir took
possession of Cherson (a city allied to the Emperor's opponents) and handed it over
to the Byzantines. This theory, however, raises difficulties that cannot be solved
even by making, as D . Obolensky does, a distinction between the prima signatio and
the baptism itself. See also M . V . Levcenko, Byzance [Byzantium], pp. 211 et seq.,
Paris, 1949.
18. Baynes, op. cit., pp. 446 et seq.; N . Baynes, The Byzantine Empire, p. 233, L o n d o n ,
1925.
19. Ibid., p. 234; Levcenko, op. cit., p. 4 4 9 .
20. Ibid., pp. 449 et seq.
21. H . v o n Rimscha, Geschichte Russlands [History of Russia], p p . 83 et seq., 9 3 et seq.,
Darmstadt, 1970.
22. K . Rose, Grund und Quellort des russischen Geisteslebens [Foundation and Origin of R u s -
sian Spiritual Life], pp. 167-80, Berlin, 1956; B . Widera, 'Wechselseitige politische
Beziehungen zwischen Deutschland, Byzanz und der Rus' v o m 9. Jhr. bis z u m M o n -
goleneinfall [Political Relations between G e r m a n y , Byzantium and R u s ' from the
Ninth Century to the M o n g o l Invasions]', Byzanz in der europäischen Staatenwelt [Byzan-
tium in the System of European State Relations], p . 112, Berlin, 1983.
23. I. H . Karayannopoulos, Politiki theoria ton Vyzantinón [Political Theory of the Byzan-
tines], p. 13, Thessalonika, 1988. T h e origins of this theory are doubtless to be
found in analogous Bulgarian ideas. In the Bulgarian version of Manasses, it is the
n e w tsargrad, Tirnovo, that succeeds R o m e , rather than Constantinople. W h e n the
Bulgarian Empire w a s conquered by the Turks in 1393, s o m e Bulgarians w e n t in
exile to M o s c o w and there spread the n e w theory that, after the fall of Tirnovo, this
could n o w apply only to M o s c o w . A Russian Council in 1504 formulated the theory
for thefirsttime and it soon took its definitive form under the pen of the m o n k Phi-
lotheus from a monastery at Pskov: ' Y o u alone', he wrote to the sovereign, 'are
E m p e r o r for the Christians in this world. . . . N o w the Holy Apostolic Church is
that of the n e w , third R o m e . . . the Church that spreads the light in place of the
Churches of R o m e and Constantinople. All Christian kingdoms are united in your
kingdom, two R o m e s have fallen but the third stands and there will not be a fourth.'
- Baynes, Byzanz, o p . cit., pp. 4 5 7 et seq.; H . Schaeder, Moskau, das dritte Korn [Mos-
c o w , T h e Third R o m e ] , Darmstadt, 1957.
24. This shows, according to Kljucevskij, that the texts of Russkaja Pravda (Russian Justice)
are a compilation m a d e by the clergy for use in ecclesiastical courts; Baynes, Byzanz,
op. cit., p. 452.
25. V o n Rimscha, op. cit., pp. 5 2 et seq.; Hanisch, op. cit., p p . 4 2 et seq.; Baynes,
Byzanz, op. cit., pp. 451 et seq.; H . W . Haussig, Kulturgeschichte von Byzanz [Cultural
History of Byzantium], p p . 364 et seq., Stuttgart, 1959.
26. Baynes, Byzanz, op. cit., pp. 449 et seq.; Haussig, op. cit., pp. 364 et seq.; S. Runci-
m a n , Byzantine Civilization, p. 227, N e w York, 1958.
27. Baynes, Byzanz, op. cit., p . 449; Runciman, op. cit., p . 227.
28. L . Bréhier, ha civilisation byzantine [Byzantine Civilization], p . 556, Paris, 1950; H a u s -
sig, op. cit., pp. 3 6 0 - 1 .
29. Baynes, Byzanz, o p . cit., p . 457; Bréhier, op. cit., p . 565.
30. W . Hensel, Slawen [The Slavs], p. 162; M . A . Bezbodorov, 'Glasherstellung bei den
slawischen Völkern an der Schwelle des Mittelalters [The Manufacture of Glass
a m o n g the Slav Nations o n the Threshold of the Middle Ages]', Wiss. Zeitschrift d.
Humboldt-Univ. Berlin, 1958/59, pp. 187-93 (Gesellschafts- u. sprachwiss, 8); J. Phi-
lippe, 'Glas [Glass]', Reallexikon d. byz. Kunst, pp. 831 et seq.; J. Philippe, 'Byzance et
la verrerie des pays slaves [Byzantium and Glass in Slav Countries]', journal of Glass
Studies, Vol. 9, 1967; K . P. Matschke, 'Südost- und Osteuropa als Vermittler byzanti-
nischer Kultur. Die ökonomischen Verbindungen und ihre Bedeutung, Byzanz in
der europäischen Staatenwelt [South-eastern and Eastern Europe as an Intermedi-
ary of Byzantine Culture: E c o n o m i c Relations and their Significance]', Byzanz in der
europäschen Staatenwelt. . ., op. cit., p . 9 3 .
31. D . A . Advusin, 'Materialnaja kul'tura drevnej Rusi [The Material Culture of
Ancient Russia]', Voprosy istorii, N o . 7 , 1972, 180, p . 4 4 4 ; Matschke, op. cit., p . 93.
32. R . Browning, The Byzantine Empire, p. 160, London, 1960.
The baptism of Prince Vladimir
Miguel Arranz, S.J.
Historical background
There are t w o ancient Russian traditions o n the adoption of Christianity and
the actual baptism of Prince Vladimir of Kiev. According to thefirst,which is
the most classical and traditional, this baptism took place in the city of Korsun'
(Cherson) in the Crimea, Pliny's Chersonesus Táurica, immediately after the city
was besieged and taken by Vladimir.' According to the second tradition, less
widely held but better grounded in history, the baptism took place in Kiev
itself, one or two years before the conquest of Cherson.
T h e Cherson theory is supported by a twelfth-century document k n o w n as
The Tale of Bygone Years.2 T h e Kiev theory relies o n another manuscript of
roughly the same period, the Memoirs and Panegyric of the Monk Jacob and Life of
Prince Vladimir.1 W e had occasion to examine these two documents in a paper o n
'The Rite of Catechumenate and Baptism in Ancient Rus' ', which was pre-
sented in February 1988 at the Leningrad Conference as part of the preparations
for the official celebrations of the Millennium of the Introduction of Christian-
ity in Russia.4 That study was revised and extended as Catechumenate and Baptism
at the Time of Vladimir to appear in Spanish in a special issue of the review of the
Pontifical Oriental Institute in R o m e , Orientalia Christiana Periodica, devoted to
the Millennium. 5 A n article of general interest on the same theme, 'Where and
h o w did Prince Vladimir become a Christian?', appeared in the Vatican news-
paper Osservatore Romano.6
T h e location of Vladimir's baptism has always been problematic; The Tale of
Bygone Years itself admits that certain believe ('mistakenly') that it took place in
Kiev, others at Vasil'evo and yet others that it took place elsewhere.7
By agreeing with the opinion of André Poppe, 8 w h o has m a d e a n e w study
76 Miguel Arranz, S.J.
of the question of the date of the taking of Cherson by Vladimir, w e also opt for
the data of the Memoirs rather than for those of The Tale, w h o s e credibility is
reduced by its apologetic rhetoricfilledwith anachronisms. So w e have n o diffi-
culty in accepting the tentative chronology suggested by A . P o p p e w h o believes
that Vladimir received baptism in Kiev at the beginning of the year 9 8 8 -
which is, moreover, the official date of the Millennium — following a sincere
catechumenate which was the rule throughout the Middle Ages in Byzantium.
T h e most probable date of the baptism was either 6 January, the Feast of the
Epiphany, or Easter night, 7 / 8 April 988. T h e people of Kiev would have been
baptized after the Prince o n one of the dates set by the Sacramentary or E u c h o -
logion.9
Recently, J.-P. Arrignon, in a fine w o r k of scholarship for the general
reader,10 suggested an interesting synthesis reconciling the data of The Tale with
those of the Memoirs. H e suggests that Vladimir took his first decisive step
towards the faith by receiving in Kiev a 'probationary baptism' or prima signado,
which w a s a ceremony by which a pagan became a catechumen and conse-
quently received a place in Christian society. This, according to Lucien Musset,
was a tradition observed by Scandinavian chiefs. B y becoming a catechumen,
Vladimir became a Christian; thus Vladimir appears to have b e c o m e a Chris-
tian in Kiev. Arrignon's opinion is confirmed by the Euchologion of Constan-
tinople of the tenth century and even by the Potrebnik of M o s c o w of the seven-
teenth century (see Notes 14 and 17 below). O n the other hand, Arrignon's
second theory of the 'symbolic' baptism of the people of Kiev does notfindany
justification in these books.
According to the ancient Euchologion of Constantinople, the Jewish or
Manichaean proselyte w h o had just pronounced the formula of abjuration of his
previous religion before beginning his catechumenate was already considered a
Christian, a 'non-baptized Christian' o n the same grounds as the children of
Christian families awaiting baptism according to our ritual books (see Note 26).
It was an old Byzantine tradition already mentioned in the fourth century
by the Archbishop of Constantinople, St Gregory Nazianzen, and still existing
in Russia in the eleventh century, not to baptize children until the age of three
or four years, in order to allow them a certain active participation in the rites of
their initiation." T h e child in Constantinople became a m e m b e r of the Church
— he was 'churched' (a literal translation of a Greek neologism in our books) —
by being presented in the church o n the fortieth day after birth. F r o m this
m o m e n t he was a catechumen, a non-baptized Christian, until the day of his
baptism.
According to this C h u r c h practice and in agreement with Arrignon's
hypothesis, Vladimir could have b e c o m e a catechumen Christian in Kiev dur-
ing the visit of the Byzantine delegation (see Note 9) and have been baptized
only one or t w o years later, w h e n Cherson was taken and in the presence of
The baptism of Prince Vladimir 11
Princess A n n a . H e could in no circumstances have married her before receiving

the definitive rite of baptism. O n the subject of the exact time at which Vladi-
mir became a Christian, there is also a philological question to be considered:
the technical term for 'baptism' (baptisma o baptists) is 'kreshchenie' in the Slav lan-
guages (also used in the Slavonic text of the Bible, cf. Matt. 28:19), although
etymologically it should have been'pogruzhenie")}2T h e word 'kreshchenie' comes
from the w o r d 'krest' (cross) and thus its exact translation should correspond to
the imposition of the sign of the Cross (the prima signatio) which marks the
beginning of the catechumenate, the entry into the category of Christians not
yet baptized. Thus, reconciling The Tale ofbygone Years and the Memoirs, w e m a y
conclude that Vladimir became a Christian in Kiev in A . D . 988.
Remarks on ritual
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
In this part of our work w e shall constantly refer to the rites of admission and
baptism in Constantinople from the time of the iconoclastic crisis (eighth cen-
tury) to that of the taking of the city by the Latins in 1204. This is the period
during which the conversion of Russia took place. W e shall refer to our earlier
work to avoid repeating here the arguments w e have already presented elsewh-
ere.13
O u r work is based on the study of manuscripts of this period of the Sacra-
mentary or Euchologion of Constantinople, referring for certain additional
information to the Canonary-Synaxary, also called the Typikon of the Great
Church, as well as to other books of St Sophia.14
A s the introduction of Christianity into R u s ' and the baptism of Vladimir
were the work of Greek clerics from Constantinople, it can be assumed that
they observed their o w n rite and very probably used their o w n language, which
was Greek, using an interpreter for certain occasional parts of the ritual as pro-
vided for in the Euchologion. W e followed this line of argument in various stu-
dies written on the occasion of the celebrations in 1985 of the eleventh century
of the death of St Methodius, Apostle of the Slavs.15 Near literal translations of
the texts of the Greek Euchologion are to be found in m a n y manuscripts of the
Slavonic Potrebnik or Trebnik of the following centuries, which were studied and
particularly published by liturgical historians in Russia at the end of the last
century.16
W e were helped by exceptional evidence of the survival of ancient Greek
texts in a Slavonic version in a printed work referred to above: the Potrebnik of
M o s c o w of 1623.17 It also contains most of the Slavonic texts partly reported by
the Russian liturgists w h o m w e have just mentioned. 18
Without wishing to repeat the argumentation used in other longer works

(see Note 4), w e believe w e can say quite confidently that w e are dealing with a
constant tradition of baptismal rites within which not only the baptism of Vla-
dimir but also those of Olga and of thefirstByzantine Christians of Russia are
situated.
In the following pages w e shall confine ourselves to making the most con-
cise description possible of these rites o n the basis of the data of the Eucholo-
gion of Constantinople that w e have studied in our o w n w o r k o n this subject,
but seen from the point of view of the Potrebnik of the seventeenth century,
which is particularly valuable evidence of the preservation of the ancient tradi-
tions of Constantinople.
FIRST CATECHUMENATE
Potrebnik (Book 297, Chapter 71, p . 1):
W h e n a person comes to be presented to the Orthodox Faith, he shouldfirstbe

made a catechumen by the prayer of the catechumens and the action of a priest. . . .
Whether it be one or many, the same standards are observed. . . . The bishop or the
priest begins by ordering them to kneel on the threshold of the church, he makes
the sign of the Cross over them three times and reads the following prayer, giving
them the name of a saint whose feast falls in the week:
Prayer of the catechumens: Blessed art Thou, Lord God.. . Who hast chosenfor Thyself
a peoplefrom all races...; bless Thy servant here present who has come to Thy holy Church, uncover
his eyes... open his ears. . . unite him to the catechumens of Thy people, so that in due course he may
be worthy of the laver of regeneration. . . P
In the middle of this prayer the priest stopped to inscribe the candidate's n a m e
in the list of catechumens. This rite corresponded to the prayer said over the
child at the door of the church o n the eighth day after birth, in which h e was
given a n a m e , 2 0 and m o r e especially to those of the fortieth day which w e have
already mentioned and which accompanied the child into the church and into
the sanctuary.21
In the case of healthy children thisfirstcatechumenate lasted a few years;
the decision was left to the parents as m a y be deduced from the rubrics referring
to the beginning of the second catechumenate (see below). In the case of adults
n o rubric is given in the Euchologion but there are rubrics in the Russian
manuscripts and in the Potrebnik; forty days was the normal period. Potrebnik
(idem):
A n d once the abjuration has been made [the Potrebnik was mainly concerned with
heretics], the priest enjoins the catechumen to fast for forty days and to be diligent at
evening, m o r n i n g and mid-day prayers and every time there is a service in church,
teaching him the Psalms, the Gospel. . . the Paternoster, the Creed . . ., the 'Jesus
Prayer'22 and certain psalms; and thus he becomes worthy of the Orthodox faith.23
Potrebnik (2v): 'Every Thursday the candidate will have a talk with the bishop or
with the priest, because n o one should be baptized without proper knowledge of
the faith.'24 (In the Potrebnik, this is followed by special instructions and long
formulae of abjuration for Latin and Lutheran converts.)
Potrebnik (17): ' A n d he blesses h i m and dismisses h i m and from henceforth
considers h i m a catechumen. A n d the bishop or the priest w h o has so far
instructed the catechumens individually converses and speaks with t h e m [in
public].' A prayer is then said for the catechumens. 25
Potrebnik (17v-18): ' A n d in abjuring he becomes a Christian, which m e a n s
that h e is considered as a 'non-baptized Christian', like the children w h o have
yet to be baptized.'26
This sentence, w h i c h referred either to adult converts after their abjuration
or to small children w h o had m a d e their entrance into the church o n the for-
tieth day after birth and were waiting to be baptized, can also be applied quite
justifiably to adults converting from paganism after their entry into the catech-
umenate. W e d o not k n o w h o w long the catechumenate of these adults lasted in
the tenth century at the time of Vladimir; it could not have lasted the three or
four years provided for infants. W e k n o w that in Russia in the Middle Ages, and
u p to the seventeenth century, it lasted forty days, so that w e m a y presume that
this w a s the duration in the tenth century also.
SECOND CATECHUMENATE
According to the Canonary of St Sophia, o n the second and third Sundays of

Lent very solemn announcements were m a d e during the Mass inviting the
faithful to bring to church those m e m b e r s of their families w h o m they wished
to have baptized at Easter beginning o n the M o n d a y of the fourth w e e k of Lent,
to have them blessed with the Sign of the Cross, protected (by exorcisms) and
instructed.27
T h e second catechumenate of children, which followed the dates of Lent
and Holy W e e k , only lasted four weeks; during this time the c o m m u n i t y prayed
especially for 'those to be illuminated', and a special litany for them w a s added
to the midday and evening services.28
In the Slavonic manuscripts, as in the Potrebnik, the second catechumenate
lasted only eight days, giving just e n o u g h time to spread over separate days those
ceremonies that could not be performed one after another without losing their
true liturgical nature, such as exorcisms, which were repeated ten times: but this
arrangement making it possible to compress the whole second catechumenate
into eight days supposed a celebration of a private character. W h a t w a s the
time-scale in the case of Vladimir? Y e t again, w e m u s t limit ourselves to

hypotheses. If h e w a s baptized o n Easter night in 9 8 8 in K i e v , his second
catechumenate very probably lasted the four w e e k s provided for in the E u c h o -
logion. If h e w a s baptized outside the Easter period, o n the Feast of the E p i -
p h a n y 9 8 8 in K i e v , as s e e m s m o s t likely, or elsewhere at another date, then a
second catechumenate of eight days w o u l d h a v e b e e n e n o u g h . A tentative time-
scale is given at the e n d of this chapter.
Let us return, h o w e v e r , to the ceremonies themselves. Potrebnik (18) states:
T h e following day at the time of vespers, the priest places [the candidate] undressed
and barefooted in front of the doors of the church, looking towards the East; he
blows on h i m three times, makes the sign [of the Cross] o n his forehead, m o u t h and
chest and says this prayer:29 In Thy Name, 0 Lord God of truth, Hay my hand upon Thy ser-
vant N. who hath been found worthy. . . . Inscribe him in Thy Book of Life, and unite him to the
flock of Thine inheritance. . . . H e then converses with the catechumens, instructing
them, and says a prayer30 for them . . ., and he blesses them and dismisses them.
S y m e o n of Thessalonika (d. 1430) d r a w s a parallel b e t w e e n the scene of the

n a k e d m a n at the doors of the c h u r c h a n d the situation of A d a m in paradise,
w h o s e s h a m e the c a t e c h u m e n should also share. 31
A c c o r d i n g to the Potrebnik (21), o n the following day, after matins, the
exorcisms begin at the d o o r of the church. T h e s e are three texts still in use, 32
w h i c h in Constantinople a n d in ancient Russia w e r e repeated ten times, p r o b -
ably p r o n o u n c i n g only o n e exorcism per day, w h i c h could m a k e the exorcisms
last thirty days, that is, the four w e e k s provided for the second catechumenate.
This w a s a delicate operation intended to protect the c a t e c h u m e n ' s soul from
possible spiritual dangers. S y m e o n of Thessalonika ruled that priests w h o pro-
n o u n c e d the exorcisms badly w e r e answerable for the spiritual a n d psycholog-
ical sufferings o f certain Christians. Following the three exorcisms, said only
o n c e according to the Potrebnik, the priest indicated that the very s o l e m n prayer
m a r k i n g the e n d of the catechumenate should b e p r o n o u n c e d : 3 3
Thou Who in verity existest ( Y H W H ) . . . Who hast created man in Thine own likeness. . .; deli-
vering this Thy creature from the bondage of the enemy . . ., open the eyes of his understanding that
the light of Thy Gospel may shine brightly in him;yoke unto his life a radiant Angel. . ., expel from
him every evil and impure spirit which hideth and maketh its lair in his heart. . ., and make him a
reason-endowed sheep in the holy flock . . ., an honourable member of Thy Church . . ., a child of
light. . . .
T h e Potrebnik (24) prescribes a further conversation a n d instruction a n d also a

prayer for the catechumens; 3 4 the service ends with the blessing a n d dismissal.
Y e t again the Potrebnik (25v) insists o n the need for sufficient time for the
preparation o f the c a t e c h u m e n , quoting a text w h i c h the ancient E u c h o l o g i o n
intended for M a n i c h a e a n s w h o h a d already received the exorcisms: ' A n d thus
the catechumen w h o is being instructed spends his time in the church and lis-
tens to Scripture.'35
T h e Potrebnik backs this up with the canons of the Councils and the Fathers,
which it interprets by affirming that the catechumenate should coincide with
the fasting of Lent. This is followed by other instructions (26v): baptism should
not be performed outside the church, a catechumen w h o has already received
c o m m u n i o n in good faith should be baptized immediately, a person possessed
by a d e m o n should not be baptized unless in danger of death and the baptism of
a w o m a n w h o is menstruating should be postponed. A last instruction also
attributed to the Councils says that even if baptism removes all sin, if any per-
son falls into sin during the second catechumenate he should postpone his bap-
tism and perform penance for three years, but if he falls yet again he is excluded
from baptism.
RENUNCIATION-ADHERENCE
In Constantinople o n G o o d Friday, between the midday service or Tritoekti36

and the Vespers of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts,37 the catechumens
w h o were to be baptized the next day took part in an evocative ceremony called
the 'Catechesis' and presided over by the Patriarch.38 F r o m the height of the
a m b o in the middle of the church of St Sophia, the Patriarch read the catech-
u m e n s a very beautiful sermon which has survived in all the manuscripts of the
Euchologion: 'This is the end of your catechumenate: the time of your deliverance has
arrived. Today you will sign with Christ the document of your faith. . . ,' 39
In the middle of this sermon, the catechumens, looking towards the west
and with their arms raised, answered the Patriarch's questions and thus
renounced Satan; then, turning towards the east, they lowered their arms and
joined themselves to Christ by saying the Creed; the content of the formulae w a s
the same as that of those still used in the present rite during a private baptism.40
After the sermon, the catechumens raised their hands and for thefirsttime
participated actively in an official prayer by reciting the Kyrie eleison. T h e service
finished with two prayers read by the bishop41 w h o then laid his hands o n each
of the candidates.
T h e Potrebnik42 repeats the text of the ancient Euchologion exactly but
admits that this ceremony can be held o n any day other than G o o d Friday, w h e -
never the catechumens are ready. T h efidelityof the Potrebnik to the ancient
Euchologion is such that it even repeats the mention of the Liturgy of the Pre-
sanctified Gifts o n G o o d Friday, which in the seventeenth century was n o lon-
ger celebrated o n that day, and also the text of the prayers of the procession to
the chamber of relics and the baptistry of St Sophia. 43
BAPTISM
'Illumination' at St Sophia took place in the evening of the Saturday of H o l y

W e e k . Between vespers and the mass (or liturgy of St Basil) the catechumens
received baptism and confirmation; during the mass they m a d e theirfirstc o m -
munion.
T h e Potrebnik (33v) adds very few details to the Euchologion: Baptism is
celebrated o n the fortieth day, o n the Saturday. . . . If it is Holy W e e k and the
catechumens have observed the fast during the whole of L e n t . . . they receive
the 'holy illumination' o n the Saturday of Holy W e e k or Easter Sunday. T h e
Potrebnik notes that in ancient times baptism w a s always administered o n the
Saturday of Holy W e e k , at the beginning of the second lesson of Vespers (Isa.
60:1), but that n o w , with the bishop's permission, it m a y be celebrated w h e -
never o n e wants. Potrebnik (34):
The candidates arrive at the church. . . . T h e Bishop is waiting for them on his
throne, and the priest in the church; the catechumens undress at the church door or
near the river; the bishop . . . comes out of the church to go to theriveror to the
'Jordan' of the baptistry [krestU'ni]; he dons white vestments and white shoes, water
is poured into the font [kupei'],4* the bishop censes it all around and blesses it with
the candelabrum.45
T h e rite begins with an ovation that in Constantinople had opened the celebra-
tion of vespers: 'Blessed is the kingdom of the Father and the Son and of the Holy
Spirit.
T h e deacon begins the litany 'of peace'. 46 This is followed by three prayers,
thefirstsaid in secret for the celebrant himself:47 '0 compassionate and merciful God
Who triest the heart.
T h e second prayer, very long and solemn, is for the blessing of the water;
this text contains an exposition of the theology of baptism:48 'Great art Thou, O
Lord, and marvellous are Thy works.
T h e third prayer is for the blessing of oil held by the deacon: 'Master . . .
Who didst send the dove unto them that were in the ark of Noah. ' 49
A little oil is placed in the baptismal water, according to the Euchologion
by pouring it directly from the vessel, and according to the Potrebnik by dipping
a b u n c h of leaves or a brush first in the oil a n d then in the water, because oil w a s
obviously a rare product in Russia.
This w a s followed (Potrebnik (38v)) b y the pre-baptismal unction per-
formed by the bishop o n the head, chest and back of the catechumen (in C o n -
stantinople, even in the presence of the bishop, it was a priest w h o performed
these unctions);50 a deacon or server anointed the rest of the body. 51 Potrebnik
(39):
T h e catechumen makes the sign of the cross and enters the font or the river up to
his chest; the bishop places his hand on his head and says: The servant of God"N. is bap-
tized in the Name of the Father, Amen; the second time: and of the Son, Amen; and the third
time: and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.52
Potrebnik (39):
A n d if it is necessary to baptize in a deep river . . . a piece of white linen is wrapped

round the catechumen's chest and under his arms and people hold it firmly by the
ends. The bishop immerses him three times as already mentioned... . A n d after the
baptism, the godfather receives the baptized person in his arms . . . dresses him in
the white tunic that he has prepared and which the baptized person will wear until
the eighth day.53
A n d the verse of P s a l m 32: 'Blessed is h e w h o s e transgression is forgiven, w h o s e

sin is covered', 54 is sung three times. This is followed by a litany ( u n k n o w n in
this place in the other documents), after w h i c h a prayer serving as a transition
between the baptism and the chrismation is read out: 55 'Blessed art Thou, 0 Lord
God Almighty... Who sheddestforth upon them that were in darkness the light ofsalvation.
. . .' Potrebnik (40v): ' A n d they sing, As many of you as have been baptized into Christ
have put on Christ, Alleluia [Gal. 3:27].'
A t this m o m e n t the bishop anointed the baptized person with the holy
chrism (myron), m a k i n g the sign o f the cross o n his forehead, eyes, nostrils,
m o u t h a n d t w o ears a n d saying, 'The seal of the giß of the Holy Spirit. ' 56 In St Sophia
P s a l m 3 2 w a s continued and the n e w l y baptized persons, accompanied b y the
Patriarch, twelve bishops, priests, deacons a n d singers, left the baptistry build-
ing a n d proceeded towards the central doors o f the church; the entry into St
Sophia took o n a very great solemnity. 57 T h e procession ended the lessons of
vespers and the m a s s began with the Epistle a n d Gospel. It seems that o n this
day the newly baptized received c o m m u n i o n in the sanctuary next to the altar.
This ritual o f Easter night w a s slightly simplified o n the other four occa-
sions w h e n the Patriarch administered baptism after matins: the day of Epi-
p h a n y in the great baptistry (as o n Easter night) a n d the Sunday of Pentecost,
the Saturday before P a l m S u n d a y a n d the m o r n i n g of the Saturday of H o l y
W e e k in the lesser baptistry.
O u r manuscripts m a k e n o m e n t i o n of the possible administration o f bap-
tism in less s o l e m n circumstances n o r of other persons than the Patriarch; in
the Euchologion, h o w e v e r , there are indications suggesting that 'private' bap-
tism also existed.
T h e Potrebnik, w h i c h does not contain the impressive conclusion o f the
baptismal rites of St Sophia, adds here a n u m b e r of rites that did not exist at the
time of the conversion of R u s ' , t h o u g h s o m e of t h e m are mentioned b y S y m e o n
of Thessalonika in the fifteenth century, as follows:
Potrebnik (41v): Placing of a cross on the neck.

Donning of the tunic by the priest w h o reads a verse from Isaiah.
(42v): Cruciform tonsure and keeping the hair cut.58
(43): Putting o n of a hood. 59
Procession of the priest, the newly baptized and the godfather around the font
during the singing of Gal. 3:27. 60
Veneration of the altar by the newly baptized.61
(43v): Final exhortation by the bishop.
(44v): Litany and dismissal; it is also stipulated that if there is a mass the newly
baptized participate holding two candles at the procession of the offertory
and w h e n receiving c o m m u n i o n .
Return h o m e holding lighted candles.
During the whole week, the newly baptized comes to church, always with his
candles, for vespers, matins and mass; during the whole of this week he
does not eat meat and does not wash his face so as not to remove the holy
chrism.62
ABLUTION OF THE EIGHTH D A Y 6 3
Potrebnik (45):
T h e ablution of the holy chrism takes place eight days after the baptism as in the
ancient Euchologion. T h e priest removes the newly baptized person's white tunic
and after the initial exclamation says the prayer:64 0 Thou Who through holy Baptism hast
given unto Thy servants. . . .
T h e priest washes the parts of the body that have been anointed with a sponge or
cloth dipped in water, usually reciting an appropriate text; this follows t w o prayers
that today are said before the ablution.65
O u r article o n The Sacraments of the Ancient Constantinopolitan Euchologion (see N o t e

13 (9) b e l o w ) contains additional information in the f o r m of a text o n the ablu-
tion o f the Russian Tsars eight days after their coronation, because they w e r e
anointed with the s a m e rite as the n e w l y baptized, w h i c h w a s not the case w i t h
the Byzantine E m p e r o r s . 6 6
A c c o r d i n g to this d o c u m e n t o f the late sixteenth century describing the
coronation ritual o f the Great Princes of M o s c o w shortly after the time o f Ivan
the Terrible (although the copyist clumsily introduced the n a m e of that Tsar
a n d o f the other m e m b e r s o f his family into the text),67 the Tsar is anointed o n
the forehead, ears, chest, back a n d h a n d s to the w o r d s o f the post-baptismal
incantation: 'The seal of the gift. . . .' (In Constantinople the E m p e r o r w a s
anointed only o n the vertex, with the w o r d ' H o l y ' , p r o n o u n c e d b y the Patriarch
a n d repeated b y the clergy a n d the people.) Immediately the bishop r e m o v e d
the holy chrism w i t h cotton w h i c h h e then b u r n e d in the sanctuary. T h e Tsar
was given a special cloth to wipe his hands whenever necessary, because he
could neither wash nor change his clothes until the eighth day; then he bathed
and the coronation robes were washed in the river with every care to prevent
defilement of the holy chrism.
Conclusions
W e have described baptism as practised by the Greeks in normal circumstances
at the time of Olga and Vladimir. (At the same time w e have referred constantly
to the seventeenth-century Potrebnik to s h o w the survival of the same rites in
Russia, even if thenceforth celebrated only in exceptional circumstances.) W e
stated at the outset w h y it appeared to us that there would not be any exceptions
in the case of the baptism of the Russian princes and w h y it was most probable
that they followed the general rule. W e are almost certain of this regarding the
rites themselves, because this was the only ritual used by the Greek clergy, and
fairly certain in the matter of the duration of the catechumenate. H o w could
Vladimir have sought to escape the normal discipline of the Church in the eyes
of his fellow nobles w h o were already Christian and k n e w of his far from edify-
ing life, and especially in the eyes of the fastidious Byzantine court and even
m o r e so of the Princess born in the purple w h o had been so unwilling to marry
a barbarian?
In conclusion, w e suggest the following hypotheses for the timing of Vladi-
mir's baptism.
First, if, as The Tale indicates, Vladimir w a s baptized at Cherson i m m e -
diately after the taking of the city (assuming that he had had a long catechum-
enate begun in Kiev as suggested by Arrignon), the whole problem is to esta-
blish the date of the taking of Cherson, which according to Poppe could not
have taken place before late S u m m e r 989 at the earliest.
Secondly, if Vladimir received baptism in Kiev in 988, one or t w o years
before the taking of Cherson — according to the Memoirs — this could have been
on one of three possible dates, if w e suppose that Constantinopolitan tradition
was respected, i.e. Epiphany, Easter or Pentecost of the year 988: 68
Baptism: Epiphany, 6 January 988; renunciation of Satan, o n the eve, 5 January;
beginning of the second catechumenate (at least ten days), around Christ-
mas-time; beginning of thefirstcatechumenate (at least forty days), about
15 N o v e m b e r 9 8 7 (at that time the Advent Fast was not yet kept in C o n -
stantinople).
Baptism: Easter night, 7 - 8 April 988; renunciation of Satan o n the eve, G o o d
Friday, 6 April; beginning of the second regular catechumenate: the fourth
M o n d a y of Lent, 12 M a r c h ; beginning of thefirstcatechumenate: Carnival
Sunday, 12 February, or the Sunday of the Prodigal Son, 5 February 9 8 8 .
Baptism: Pentecost Sunday, 2 7 M a y 9 8 8 ; renunciation o f Satan: o n the eve,

Saturday, 2 6 M a y ; beginning of the second catechumenate: about A s c e n -
sion, 17 M a y ; beginning of thefirstcatechumenate: during the w e e k after
Easter, about 15 April 9 8 8 .
T h a t is a s u m m a r y of w h a t the liturgical texts c o n v e y in the disputed matter of
the date of Vladimir's baptism.
Norms'
1. There is an echo of this tradition in the unpublished manuscript by Rev. Sergej Bul-
gakov, 'U sten Xersonessa, Yalta 'De Profanáis' [Beneath the Walls of Chersonese, Yalta
' D e Profundis']', Yalta, 1922.
2. D . Lihacev, Povesf Vremennyh Let [T^\c of Bygone Years], Vol. 1, pp. 59-83, 257-82,
Moscow/Leningrad, 1950; of the m a n y editions of this document, see 'Se povest'
vremennyh let. Lavrentievskaja Letopis'. Drevnij tekst Letopisi Nestora [This is the
Tale of Bygone Years. Laurentian Chronicles. Ancient Text of the Chronicle of
Nestor]', Polnoe Sobranie Russkix Letopisej [Complete Collection of Russian Chron-
icles], Vol. 1. St Petersburg, 1846; see annotated English translation: S. H . Cross and
O . P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor, The Russian Primary Chronicle. Laurentian Text, Cambridge,
Mass.; this work will be referred to hereinafter simply as The Tale.
3. A . Zimin, 'Pamjat' i poxvala Jakova Mnixa i zitie knjazja Vladimira po drevnemu
spisku [Memoir and Panegyric of the M o n k Jacob and Life of Prince Vladimir in
the Most Ancient Manuscript]', Kratikie Soobscenija Instituto Slavjanovedenija [Sho
Reports of the Institute of Slavonic Studies], Vol. 37, pp. 66-73, 1963; this w o r k
will be referred to hereinafter simply as Memoirs.
4. M . Arranz, 'Cin oglasenija i krescenija v drevnej Rusi [The Rite of Reception of
Catechumens and Baptism in Ancient Russia]', Proceedings of the Third International
Scientific and Ecclesiastical Conference, Leningrad, 1988.
5. M . Arranz, 'Catecumenado y bautismo en tiempos de Vladimir [Catechumenate and
Baptism at the T i m e of Vladimir]', Orientalia Christiana Periodica (OCP), R o m e .
6. M . Arranz, ' D o v e e c o m e il principe Vladimiro divenne Cristiano [Where and H o w
Prince Vladimir Became a Christian]', Osservatore Romano, 14 April 1988.
7. T h e Tale states that the events of the year 988 took place very quickly: the military
campaign, siege and taking of the city of Cherson, the mission to Constantinople
offering the city in exchange for the hand of the sister of the reigning emperors, the
arrival of the princess, the baptism of Vladimir with the n a m e of Basil by the
Bishop of Cherson during which Vladimir's failing eyesight was restored, the mar-
riage, the departure of the princes for Kiev and the mass baptism of the city's inhab-
itants. At this point of the narration, The Tale turns back and gives us an improbable
profession of faith made by Vladimir at his baptism, composed of several elements:
(a) the incipit of the Creed of the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople; (b) a s u m -
mary of the dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation (apparently based o n the
treatise of Michael Synkellos); (c) acceptance of thefirstseven Ecumenical Councils
referred to by the n a m e of the town where each was held, the numbers of bishops
participating and the doctrine defined; (d) rejection of the doctrine of the Latins as a
whole and in particular of their custom offiliallykissing the earth; and (e) h o m a g e
to the ancient Church of R o m e for its role in the seven above-mentioned Councils
(the seven Popes are mentioned together with the Eastern Patriarchs w h o were pro-
tagonists of these Councils); the statement that the Church of R o m e has n o w
declined due to a certain Peter the Stammerer. For an analysis of this document,
which cannot be from the time of Vladimir, see Cross and Sherbowitz-Wetzor, op.
cit., p. 26, n n . 97 and 98.
A . Poppe, ' T h e Political Background to the Baptism of Rus'. Byzantine-Russian
Relations Between 9 8 6 - 9 ' , Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 30, 1976, pp. 195-244.
O n the basis of the scientific dating of the taking of Cherson and using the data con-
tained in the ' M e m o i r and Panegyric', (see Note 3 above), Poppe suggests the fol-
lowing chronology of the facts w e are concerned with: M a y / J u n e 987: departure
from Constantinople to Kiev of a mission seeking military aid, possibly under the
guidance of Theophylact, the former Metropolitan of Sebeste whose see was occu-
pied by rebel Byzantine armies; July/August 987: arrival of Byzantine legates in
Kiev; September 987: conclusion of a treaty providing for 20,000 Russian reinfor-
cements for the Byzantine army, the adoption of Byzantine Christianity by the Rus-
sians, the marriage of Princess A n n a to Vladimir and return of part of the mission
to Constantinople while Theophylact and other clerics m a y have begun to prepare
the people of Kiev for baptism. T h efirstday of baptism provided by the Greek
liturgical books of the time w a s 6 January 988 (Epiphany) followed by 7 April
(Easter) or 2 7 M a y (Pentecost) of the same year; but not 15 August, the day of the
Assumption, as this was not a day of baptism a m o n g the Byzantines. Given that
baptism was only performed by the bishop, w h o baptized each candidate by triple
immersion, and that the Dnieper is covered with ice in winter, it m a y be supposed
that the Kievans were baptized little by little and not all together, atfirstin the
Church of St Elijah which already existed, and then in the river, but observing a
very precise ritual about which w e are quite well informed and to which w e shall
return. In the s u m m e r of 988 the Russian soldiers arrived in Constantinople; in
January 989 they took part in the battle of Chrysopolis and o n 13 April that of A b y -
dos. It was only after this that Vladimir's campaign against Cherson took place.
J.-P. Arrignon and F. Guida, La Russia ha mille anni. Storia e dossier [Russia is a T h o u -
sand Years Old. History and File], Supplement N o . 15, February 1988, pp. 7-8; J.-P.
Arrignon, La chaire métropolitaine de Kiev des origines à 1240 [The Metropolitan See of
Kiev from the Beginning to 1240], University of Lille, 1987.
Letter 40,28 of Gregory Nazianzen ( P G 36,400); reply of Metropolitan John of
Kiev (d. 1080), Russkaja Istoriceskaja Biblioteka [Russian Historial Library] (St Peters-
burg), Vol. 6, 1880, pp. 1-2.
In Byzantine liturgical books the technical term for the act of baptism itself is
'illumination' (phatisma' in Greek, prosvescenie' in Slavonic).
See also the nine articles by M . Arranz in Orientalia Christiana Periodica (OCP) (1981-
88) o n the subject of Christian initiation a m o n g the Byzantines: Les sacrements de
l'ancien Eucholqge constantinopolitain [The Sacraments of the Ancient Constantinopol-
itan Euchologion]:
(1) Preliminary Study of Sources, OCP, Vol. 4 8 , 1982, pp. 284-335.
(2) 1. Admission into the Church of Converts from Heresies or Other Religions
(Non-Christians), OCP, Vol. 49, 1983, p p . 4 2 - 9 0 .
(3) 2 . Admission into the Church of the Children of Christian Families ('First
Catechumenate'), OCP, Vol. 4 9 , 1983, p p . 284-302.
(4) 3a. Preparation for Baptism, Chapter 1: Second Catechumenate, OCP, Vol. 5 0 ,
1984, p p . 4 3 - 6 4 .
(5) 3b. Chapter 2: Renunciation of Satan and Adhesion to Christ, OCP, V o l . 5 0 ,
1984, p p . 3 7 2 - 9 7 .
(6) 4a. T h e 'Illumination' of Easter Night, Chapter la: Blessing of the Baptismal
Water and Oil, OCP, Vol. 51, 1985, p p . 6 0 - 8 6 .
(7) 4b. Chapter lb: Blessing of the Baptismal Water and Oil (Continuation and
Conclusion), OCP, Vol. 5 2 , 1986, p p . 1 4 5 - 7 8 .
(8) 4c. Chapter 2: Pre-baptismal Unction; Chapter 3: Baptismal Immersion; C h a p -
ter 4 : Post-baptismal Unction; Chapter 5: Entry into the Church and Liturgy;
Appendix: T h e Other D a y s of Baptism, OCP, Vol. 53, 1987, p p . 59-106.
(9) 4d. Chapter 6: T h e Ablution (and Tonsure) of Neophytes o n the Eighth D a y
after Baptism. OCP (in press).
These articles will be hereinafter referred to by the initials OCP, the year and the
first page of the text in question.
14. T h e principal manuscripts of the ancient Constantinopolitan Euchologion, pre-
ceded by the initials w e shall use here are:
B A R : 'Sanctus Marcus', Barberini 336 (eighth century).
P O R : 'Porfirij Uspenskij', Leningrad 2 2 6 (tenth century).
S I N : Sinai 959 (eleventh century).
B E S : 'Bessarion', Grottaferrata G . b. 1. (twelfth century).
E B E : Atenas 662 (thirteenth century).
T A K : Taktikon of John Cantacuzene, Sinodal'nyj 279 ( M o s c o w , Lenin Library).
For a presentation and description of the first five, see OCP, 1982, p . 2 8 4 .
T h e main editions of the present Byzantine Euchologion referred to are:
G O A : J. Goar, Euchologion sive rituale graecorum . . ., 2nd ed., Venice, 1730 (Graz,
1960).
Z E R : Euchologion to mega, 2 n d ed., Venice, 1862 (Athens, 1970).
R O M : Euchologion to mega, R o m e , 1873.
In O l d Slavonic translation: T E B : Trebnik, M o s c o w , 1963.
N . B . T h e Slavonic Trebnik (like the R o m a n Ritual) only contains sacraments and
sacramentáis served by a simple priest, except for the mass; in this w a y it does not
correspond exactly to the Greek Euchologion which contains every rite performed
by the priest or bishop. T h e two books therefore contain the baptismal rites, the
only ones with which our study is concerned. See also J. Mateos, ' L e Typicon de la
Grande Église [The Typicon of the Great Church]', M S . Ste Croix, N o . 4 0 , V o l . 2 ,
Orientalia Christiana Analecta ( R o m e ) , V o l . 166, 1963, pp. 31 et seq.
15. M . Arranz, ' L a tradition liturgique de Constantinople au I X e siècle et l'Euchologe
slave de Sinai [The Liturgical Tradition of Constantinople and the Slavonic E u c h o -
logion of Sinai]', Slavenska misija svete brace Cirila iMetoda. II: Krscanska Europa u IXstol-
jecu [The Slavonic Mission of the Brother Saints Cyril and Methodius. 2 : Christian
E u r o p e in the Ninth Century]; Krscanska Sadasnjot [The Christian Present], Zagreb;

M . Arranz, 'Liturgiceskaja praktika Konstantinopolja v I X - o m veke i Sinaiskij Sla-
vianskij Evhologij [Liturgical Practice in Constantinople in the Ninth Century and
the Slavonic Euchologion of Sinai]', Report on the International Symposium on the Role and
Significance ofSt Cyril and Methodiusfor Spiritual and Cultural Co-operation between the Balkan
Nations from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Centuries, Sofia, 1 0 - 1 6 June 1985; M . Att&nz,
' L a Liturgie de FEuchologe slave d u Sinaï [The Liturgy of the Slavonic Eucholo-
gion of Sinai]', Proceedings of the Congress on 'II cristianismo tra gli Slavi' [Christianity
a m o n g the Slavs], R o m e , 8 - 1 2 October, 1985; M . Arranz, 'Sostav konstantino-
pol'skogo Evkhologija v I X - o m veke [The Content of the Constantinopolitan
Euchologion of the Ninth Century]', Report on the International Symposium on the Life-
work of ¿he Disciples and Followers of the Brother Saints Cyril and Methodius in Bulgaria and its
Effect in Other Countries, Sofia, 2 4 - 2 8 N o v e m b e r 1986.
T h e principal Russian authors w h o have written o n the history of baptismal rites in
Russia are: N . Odincov, Porjadok obscestvennogo i castnogo bogosluzenija v drevnej Rossii do
XVI veka [The Order of Public and Private Divine Services in Ancient Russia u p to
the Sixteenth Century], St Petersburg, 1 8 8 1 ; A . Dmitrievskij, 'Bogosluzenie v Russ-
koj Cerkvi za pervye piat' vekov [Divine Service in the Russian Church during the
First Five Centuries]', Pravoslavnyi Sobesednik [Orthodox Interlocutor], 1 8 8 2 / 8 3
(Odincov's recension); A . Dmitrievskij, Bogosluzenie v Russkoj Cerkvi v XVI veke
[Divine Service in the Russian Church during the Sixteenth Century], V o l . 1, p p .
3 2 2 - 5 2 , Kazan, 1884 (Appendix (Prilozenie) with o w n pagination); A . A l m a z o v ,
Istorija cinoposledovanij Krescenija i Miropomazamja [History of the Ritual of Baptism and
Chrismation], Kazan, 1884 (Appendix with o w n pagination).
Potrebnik by Patriarch Filaret (Romanov), Moscow, 1623-25. (Reprint Edinovercy
Press, Moscow, 1877), OCP, 1987, pp. 67, 72, 88.
The Constantinopolitan texts collected in the Potrebnik are situated inside a compo-
site rite of local origin for the reception of Latins and Lutherans into the Russian
Patriarchal Church. This rite occupies all Chapter 71 of the Potrebnik, numbered in
pages beginning with page 1. According to a document in Chapter 70 of the same
Potrebnik, entitled Sobornoe Izlozenie (Exposition of the Council): ' O f all the religions that
have existed, the Latin is the worst of all a n d contains all their errors . . .' (pp. 4 et
seq.). A n d so, in an a m a l g a m of texts containing m a n y sometimes contradictory
repetitions, were applied to Latins being converted all the rites which the ancient
C h u r c h of Constantinople applied either to heretics received without a n e w baptism
(Arians, etc.) or to non-Christians received through baptism (Manichaeans, Jews,
etc.) or even to m e r e pagans (see OCP, 1 9 8 3 , pp. 4 2 - 9 0 ) . Baptism had begun to be
administered to Latins by a decision of 2 8 M a y 1484 of Patriarch S y m e o n of C o n -
stantinople as a reaction to the consequences of the Council of Florence of 1439
(OCP, 1983, p. 84); but already in the years 1 6 5 4 - 5 6 , during hisfirstvisit to Russia,
Patriarch Macarius of Antioch had persuaded Patriarch N i k o n of M o s c o w by argu-
ments from the Fathers of the Church to cease the practice of re-baptizing Latins;
see L . Lebedev, 'Russkaja Pravoslavnaja Cerkov' serediny X V I I veka v vosprijatii
arhidjakona Pavla Aleppskogo [The Russian Orthodox Church in the M i d -
Seventeenth Century as Seen by Archdeacon Paul of Aleppo]', Journal of the Moscow
Patriarchate, N o . 5, 1985, p . 7 2 .
19. T h e same text in the Euchologion, OCP, 1983, p . 8 2 [Bl/IV].
20. OCP, 1983, p . 290 [Bl: 1]; T E B 6. In the pages of OCP referred to in the present
work references can usually be found to the main Greek manuscripts and books
containing the same text or its codicological variants, which w e are omitting here
for the sake of conciseness. W e shall, however, refer to the present Trebnik of the
Russian Church ( T E B - see Note 14 above) where the text in question is extant.
21. OCP, 1983, p. 292 [Bl: 21]; T E B 9.
22. This is probably the ejaculatory prayer made popular in the thirteenth century by
the hesychast monks: 'Lord Jesus Christ, Son of G o d , have mercy o n m e [a sinner]'.
23. See this same text (without the mention of the 'Jesus Prayer' and the second m e n -
tion of the psalms) as a preparation (from ten tofifteendays) prior to the abjuration
of the Arians: OCP, Vol. 49, p. 56 [CI]; of the Manichaeans: OCP, Vol. 49, p. 64
[Bl/III]; and of the Saracens: OCP, Vol. 49, p. 77 [Bl/VI]. In Russia, later on, forty
days of preparation (and notfifteenas in the Euchologion) were required before the
abjuration of heretics, Muslims, Jews and pagans, w h o were baptized eight days later
(see Almazov, op. cit., pp. 61 and 118); thus thefirstcatechumenate lasted forty
days and the second eight days. According to Bishop Nifont (d. 1156), the catech-
umens took neither meat nor milk (ibid., p. 101). T h e Potrebnik required Latins to
remain the whole forty days in the narthex of the church during services, prostrate
themselves 300 times a day and say 600 'Jesus Prayers' and 700 'Hail Marys', prac-
tise abstinence and eat not more than one meal a day, except on Saturdays and Sun-
days.
24. Potrebnik (3): ' A t the start of the forty-day period, the Latin convert will be entrusted
to an educated priest with a good knowledge of the Bible, w h o will be his spiritual
guide and will also try to get to k n o w the candidate well.'
25. OCP, 1983, p. 66 [Bl/III: 1] (cf. G O A 700): but this is a prayer to follow the abjura-
tion of the Manichaeans.
26. 7 proceeproklinjavyj byvaet hristianin i tako ¡meet (imeem) togojako nekrescena hristjaninajako
ze sut' hristiarískija deti hotjascajasja krestiti (Then the m a n w h o has pronounced the
anathema is a Christian and so w e regard h i m as a non-baptized Christian as are
Christian children w h o are to be baptized)', O C P , 1983, p. 69, n . 3 8 ( G O A 282).
[Bl/II]: ' O n c e the [Jewish] proselyte has said this [the anathema] before the Church,
w e m a k e h i m a Christian, i.e. w e consider h i m to be a "non-baptized Christian" as
are the children of Christians awaiting baptism'; see also O C P , 1983, p . 63, n. 3 4
[Bl/III] and O C P , 1983, p . 6 5 , n . 35 ( G O A 701) [Bl/IIIb], 1983: ' O n c e the heretic
[Manichaean] has said the anathema, he becomes a Christian, in other words he is
considered to be a "non-baptized Christian" as is usual for the children of Christians
w h o have yet to be baptized.'
27. OCP, 1984, p. 46.
28. OCP, 1983, pp. 43, 78; OCP, 1984, pp. 47, 339.
29. OCP, 1984, p. 52 [B2: 1]; T E B 13.
30. OCP, 1978, p. 123 ( G O A 36): V E S [XII], prayer for the catechumens at the vespers
of the ancient asmatikos service of St Sophia, still in use up to the thirteenth century,
and further evidence that the Potrebnik contains archaic texts.
31. P G , pp. 155, 212 et seq.

32. OCP, 1984, p. 55 [B2: 2] [B2: 3] [B2: 4]; T E B 14.
33. OCP, 1984, p. 61 [B31]; TEB 16v.
34. OCP, 1981, p. 130 ( G O A 45): O R T [XIII]: prayer of the catechumens at the matins
of the asmatikos service (see Note 30).
35. OCP, 1983, p. 67.
36. OCP, 1977, pp. 70, 90. This office was celebrated from M o n d a y to Friday only dur-
ing the weeks of Lent and Holy W e e k .
37. OCP, 1981, pp. 332, 368. The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts was celebrated o n
the same days as the Tritoekti, except for the Thursday of Holy W e e k w h e n mass was
said.
38. OCP, 1984, pp. 377-93 ( G O A 279-81) [B4/II].
39. OCP, 1984, p. 381.
40. OCP, 1984, p. 394 [B4/I]; T E B 17.
41. OCP, 1984, pp. 387 and 369 [B4/IL 1]; T E B 17. Also OCP, 1984, p. 388 [B4/II: 2];
this second prayer does not survive in the present rite.
42. OCP, 1978, p. 125: V E S [XVIII-XXII]'. O n the site of the relics chamber (skeuophy-
lakiori) and the baptistries of St Sophia: see OCP, 1987, p. 74. Many topographical
details of the Potrebnik are due simply to the exact translation of the texts of the
Euchologion of St Sophia.
43. At St Sophia, well equipped with baptistries and pools, baptism in water courses or
in the sea was not envisaged. In Russia, churches do not appear to have had real
baptistries and so, if people were unable to reach a river, they used receptacles suffi-
ciently large to allow the immersion of an adult up to chest-level. T h e Slavonic
word 'kupeï ' corresponds to the Greek word 'kolymbithra'.
44. For a description of this ceremony at St Sophia, see OCP, 1985, p. 66.
45. OCP, 1985, p. 74, and 1986, p. 147; T E B 21. T h e text of this litany belonging to the
baptismal rite varies from manuscript to manuscript.
46. OCP, 1985, p. 75, and 1986, p . 150 [B5: 1]; T E B 22v.
47. OCP, 1985, p. 79, and 1986, p. 153 [B5: 2-1, II, III]; T E B 23v.
48. OCP, 1984, p. 84, and 1986, p. 167 [B5: 3]; T E B 25v.
49. See OCP, 1986, p. 167, on the possible meaning of this unction, which did not have
the character of an exorcism that it had in Jerusalem and in the West and which cer-
tain Byzantine authors sometimes attribute to it.
50. M a n y manuscripts of the ancient Euchologion of Constantinople (OCP, 1982, pp.
291, 297, 311: A 4 ; G O A 218) include the rite of ordiftation of deaconesses, or
w o m e n deacons; they probably exercised certain ministries devoted to w o m e n , such
as this, for example, and the service of the c o m m u n i o n chalice.
51. OCP, 1987, p. 65; T E B 26v; yet this acclamation appears in all the manuscripts and
printed texts before the pre-baptismal unction.
52. See OCP, 1987, p. 70; the same rite and formula (without A m e n ) in the Eucholo-
gion; but see the large number of variants in the different manuscripts and printed
texts; according to some manuscripts the A m e n was said by the congregation and
not by the celebrant.
53. W e have not repeated here all the details of the Trebnik on the garment worn by the
92 Miguel Arrume, S.J.
baptized person, as they are the result of repeated revisions and are often confused.
In present practice the person being baptized wears a tunic for the sake of decency
and this seems already to have been the case in Russia in the seventeenth century,
but not in thefifteenthcentury in Thessalonika (see Note 31 above).The Eucholo-
gion did not mention the need for any garment during the baptism (nor at the
beginning of the second catechumenate, nor during the renunciation of Satan). T h e
books of St Sophia simply said that, following baptism and chrismation, the newly
baptized m a d e their entry into the church dressed in white, like the Patriarch and
other members of the clergy: OCP, 1987, pp. 80 and 94.
54. See OCP, 1987, pp. 70, 94 and 102, o n the chanting of this psalm traditionally asso-
ciated with baptism; T E B 27.
55. OCP, 1987, p. 79 [B5: 4]; T E B 28.
56. OCP, 1987, p. 80. For chrismation w e left the Potrebnik to present the simple rite of
the ancient Euchologion of Constantinople which is that which the clerics w h o
baptized the Russians must have used. In present practice, unction of the chest,
hands and feet is added and the formula is repeated o n each occasion ( T E B 29).
Other manuscripts add or omit unctions and vary the text of the formulae. In Russia
before the liturgical reform of Patriarch Nikon, the rite of chrismation was very
complex and it is this tradition that the Potrebnik reflects: OCP, 1987, p. 8 8 , and
Note 49 above.
57. See different descriptions in OCP, 1987, p. 94.
58. In present practice, this tonsure is performed on the eighth day after baptism: T E B
33v. In the ancient Euchologion there were rites for cutting the hair and the beard,
but they were not directly connected with baptism. See our article in OCP, Note 13
(9) above.
59. Only Symeon witnesses to the existence of this custom: P G 155, 232.
60. T E B 29. A vestige of the ancient procession of entry into the church.
61. A ceremony replacing the churching of children forty days after birth; in the case of
adults, this should take place at the beginning of their catechumenate. It could also
be a remnant of the ancient practice of the c o m m u n i o n of the newly baptized at the
altar (OCP, 1987, p. 100).
62. OCP, 1987, p. 101.
63. For the whole question of the post-baptismal ablution and the (non-clerical) ton-
sure of the child, see our article in OCP, Note 13 (9) above.
64. Ibid. [B6: 1]; T E B 31.
65. Ibid. [B6: 3] and [B6: 4a]; T E B 31v.
66. M . Arranz, 'L'aspect rituel de l'onction des empereurs de Constantinople et des tsars
de Moscou [The Ritual Aspect of the Anointing of the Emperors of Constantinople
and the Tsars of M o s c o w ] ' , Roma, Constantinopoli, Mosca. Da Roma alia terza Roma. Doc-
ument! e studi. Studi I. [Rome, Constantinople, M o s c o w . F r o m R o m e to the Third
R o m e . Documents and Studies. Study I]', pp. 407-15, R o m e , Università L a
Sapienza, 1981.
67. E . Barsov, Old Russian Documents of the Sacred Coronation of Tsars to Reign, Compared with
the Greek Originals.. ., pp. 63, 87-8, M o s c o w , 1883 (in Russian); o n the doubtful his-
toricity of the document, see N . Pokrovskij, 'The Rite of Coronation of Sovereigns
in History', Cerkovnyj Vestnik (Church Bulletin of the Theological Academy of St

Petersburg), 9 M a y 1896, N o . 19, pp. 600-8 (published o n the occasion of the cor-
onation of the last Tsar, Nicholas II - in Russian).
68. Other days of baptism in Constantinople were Lazarus Saturday before Palm Sun-
day (31 March 988) and the morning of Holy Saturday; the fact that on these days
the sacrament of baptism was performed in the lesser baptistry in St Sophia suggests
that they were reserved for infants, rather than adults such as Prince Vladimir.
T h e religious achievements of
Yaroslav the Wise 1
Jean-Pierre Arrignon
T h e death of Vladimir on 15 July 10152 on the princely estate of Berestovo, near

Kiev, plunged the recently constituted State of R u s ' into civil war. It was only
after the elimination of his three brothers, the martyr-princes {strastoterpcyf
Boris, Gleb and Svyatoslav, assassinated by Svyatopolk4 at the end of 1015, and
the murder of the latter four years later,5 that Yaroslav came to power, having
to share it with his other brother, Mstislav.6 It was not until Mstislav died in
1036 that the land of Rus' was reunited under the authority of Prince Yaroslav,
n o w the acknowledged 'autocrat' of the territories of Rus', and Kiev again took
on all the functions of a capital.
O u r sole concern in this chapter is with Yaroslav's religious policy, whose
three main achievements are recorded by history: the foundation of the Metro-
politan Cathedral of St Sophia in Kiev which it was intended should be 'unriv-
alled for splendour and glory in the north or from east to west';7 the creation of
a genuine Slavonic written culture, which developed around the scriptorium of
St Sophia and,finally,the organization of the early Russian Church. W e shall
examine these three aspects in turn.
T h e construction of a metropolitan cathedral in Kiev to outshine all that

existed throughout the north, east and west - with the exception of the south
where the Cathedral of St Sophia stood in Constantinople - could not be over-
looked in the Russian chronicles. Unfortunately, however, the contradictory
information they give has led to disagreement a m o n g researchers.
Without wishing to enter into scholarly discussions o n the hypothetical
existence of a w o o d e n Cathedral of St Sophia anterior to the building erected by
Yaroslav,8 w e shall attempt to identify the function that Yaroslav sought to
96 Jean-Pierre Arrignon
assign to the structure that he wished to give 'to the n e w people whose heart
and m i n d had been converted [by G o d ] ' . 9
If the saga of Ejmund 1 0 is to be believed, relations were strained between
the t w o brothers, Yaroslav and Mstislav. O n the initiative of Ingigerd-Irene,
Yaroslav's wife, peace w a s restored o n the basis of an agreement to share garda-
riki, as Kievan Rus' w a s called in Scandinavian sources. Yaroslav received the
western and northern parts with H o l m g a r d (Novgorod) as capital and Mstislav
the eastern and southern parts centred o n Kenugard (Kiev). It w a s not until
1036, w h e n R u s ' w a s reunified under Yaroslav's rule, that Kiev once again
became the country's sole capital and Yaroslav began carrying out his vast deve-
lopment projects, the jewel of which was to be the Metropolitan Cathedral of St
Sophia.
For the site of this m o n u m e n t which he intended as the centre of his cap-
ital, Yaroslav chose the plateau lying to the south-west of 'Vladimir's city'11 o n
the vacant spot where he had just w o n a decisive victory over the Pechenegs,
thus giving a certain sacredness to the place.12
Building c o m m e n c e d in 1037 and within four years was almost finished. It
was completed in 1045 w h e n work began o n the Cathedral of St Sophia of N o v -
gorod, engaging s o m e of the teams w h o had helped in the construction of the
Kiev cathedral.
T h e remarkable speed with which the building was erected lends it a sense
of overall unity in terms of both plan and decoration. This unity has led
researchers to speculate o n the extent of the financial resources that the Prince
could devote to the construction, the n u m b e r and quality of the craftsmen
employed there and, finally, the master builder or builders w h o designed such a
well-knit artistic whole.
St Sophia is a vast building with five naves, each ending in an apse. This
core is an almost perfect square measuring 29.3 X 29.5 m and covering an area
of 860 m 2 , including 2 6 0 m 2 for the choir. This central core is flanked by t w o
rows of galleries o n the north, south and west. T h e whole edifice forms a
quadrilateral figure measuring 54.6 X 41.7 m and covering a total area of 2.25
hectares.13 T h e transept crossing is topped by a cupola m o u n t e d o n a d r u m with
twelve w i n d o w s to light the choir. T h e side-aisles include a massive raised dais
where the prince's family worshipped. T h e western part has t w o large r o o m s at
the upper level lit by w i n d o w s built into the drums bearing the side cupolas of
which there are twelve.
T h e external decoration of the edifice consists of ornamental arrangements
of bricks and rows of blind recesses. Traces of external murals have been found
o n the north wall, proving that at least parts of the building were painted. T h e
walls are built of bricks laid in rows separated by thick layers of rose-coloured
mortar into which large blocks of stone are inserted.
T h e internal decoration is in striking contrast to the restraint of the exte-
The religious achievements of Yaroslav the Wise 97
rior. T h e ornamentation here is unusually magnificent. T h e central apse, the

b e m a and the whole central square are decorated with mosaics; the rest of the
building is covered with frescoes.
T h e mosaics date from the eleventh century and even today cover an area
of some 260 m 2 . They are arranged according to the traditional pattern govern-
ing the decoration of large Byzantine religious buildings.14
F r o m the entrance the immense Virgin Oranta stands out against the gol-
den background of the conch of the central apse. Her impressive height of 5.5
m makes her the central component of the décor, attracting the attention of
those entering the church. Placed on the dividing line between earth and hea-
ven, she provides a link between the enthroned Christ at the heart of the central
cupola and the earthly Church represented o n the wall of the central apse in
three tiers, one above the other. The top tier shows the distribution by Christ as
priest, depicted twice in this composition, of the Eucharist in its two forms to
the apostles ranged in two lines, led respectively by Peter, wearing a deacon's
star, and Paul. T h e middle tier is a frieze depicting the Fathers of the Church;
the lower one is a simple frieze with ornamental designs.15
T h e rest of the building is covered with frescoes, m a n y of which have n o w
all but disappeared. These depict scenes from the Old and N e w Testaments.
T h e north, south and west walls of the nave are decorated with representations
of members of the princely family. Their interpretation is still a subject of dis-
cussion a m o n g specialists.
T h e fresco on the west wall, n o w demolished, which w e k n o w about from
drawings m a d e in 1651 by the Dutch artist A . V a n Westerfeld, presented a
group offivefigures identified by V . N . Lazarev:16 in the centre, the enthroned
Christ flanked on His left by Yaroslav and o n His right by Ingigerd-Irene, fol-
lowed respectively by their eldest son, Vladimir Yaroslavich, and their eldest
daughter, Elizabeth. T h e procession of the princely couple's other children
continued o n the south wall with the girls and the north wall with the boys.
This arrangement has been reconsidered quite convincingly by S. A . Vysot-
17
sky. Noting that the identification proposed by V . N . Lazarev entailed revers-
ing the places customarily reserved for the Prince and Princess in Byzantine
iconography, the Soviet researcher proposed restoring that order by placing
Yaroslav o n the right of the enthroned Christ and Ingigerd-Irene o n His left;
consequently, the sons of the princely couple have their rightful place o n the
south wall and the daughters on the north, and not the reverse.
Yaroslav's two eldest sons are depicted o n this south wall holding candles
in their left hand. This detail is a reminder of Byzantine customs. Whenever the
emperor went in procession to the 'Great Church' of Constantinople, he gave
thanks to G o d by making a triple b o w with candle in hand at each sanctuary
lining the imperial route.
Finally, S. A . Vysotsky arguesforcefullythat the five figures depicted o n
the west wall should be seen as Christ enthroned in the centre, with Vladimir
and Yaroslav o n His right and Olga and Ingigerd-Irene o n His left.
Iconography accordingly gave Vladimir and Olga the same standing as the
rulers 'equal to the apostles', Constantine the Great and Helena; like them, they
were natural intercessors with G o d , presented as such by Yaroslav and Ingig-
erd-Irene. Moreover, this interpretation of the iconographical scheme decorat-
ing the nave of St Sophia in Kiev is perfectly in line with the ideology expressed
by Metropolitan Hilarión in his celebrated Sermon on haw and Grace written about
1050. 18
T h e frescoes adorning the interior of the Cathedral of St Sophia form such
a united whole that it is m o r e than likely that a single and cohesive group of
persons planned the entire iconographical p r o g r a m m e that the artists were
given to carry out for the glory of the n e w Church of Rus' and the reigning
dynasty at Kiev.
Whereas the construction of the Metropolitan Cathedral of St Sophia
called for substantial funds and the assistance of experienced master craftsmen,
the planning of the iconographie p r o g r a m m e could not be entrusted to any but
learned clerics, perfectly familiar with Byzantine traditions. V . N . Lazarev sug-
gests o n good authority that the Greek Metropolitan Theopemptus (1035-40)
and his successor Hilarión (1051-54) were the m o v i n g spirits behind the pro-
g r a m m e of mosaics and frescoes in St Sophia's at Kiev; hence the importance of
making a symbolic interpretation of this decoration.
T h e Virgin Oranta is portrayed as the 'Indestructible Wall' 19 at which all
m a y find protection and aid, and the Prince an assurance of salvation and vic-
tory over his foes. In imitation of Constantinople, Kiev was also placed under
the protection of the Mother of G o d ; it rose accordingly to the exalted rank of a
'city protected by G o d ' ; it was entitled to call itself 'mother of Russian cities',
the place where the Prince reigned.
T h e purpose of the extensive representation of the princely family o n the
walls of the central nave was to consecrate the reigning dynasty to which G o d
had entrusted power. This was all the m o r e important in that the Russian polit-
ical system as yet had n o ceremonies for the coronation or anointing of the
ruler.20
Interpretation of the frescoes and mosaics decorating St Sophia's in Kiev
shows clearly the Byzantine influences that inspired the scholars in Yaroslav's
circle w h o designed them. T h e same group of scholars are also thought to have
m a d e a fundamental contribution to the development of Russian written cul-
ture at the scriptorium of St Sophia.
T h e passage of The Tale of Bygone Years for the year 1037 is eloquent about
Yaroslav's love of books which he was in the habit of reading night and day.21
T h e interpretation of this particular passage is the subject of discussions a m o n g
scholars w h i c h shed n e w light o n the role to be attributed to Yaroslav in the

genesis of early Russian written culture.
H . G . Lunt, a learned linguist w h o has m a d e a m o s t careful study of this
passage in The Tale, has reported h o w m u c h his interpretation is indebted to the
readings already proposed by A . A . S h a k h m a t o v 2 2 a n d D . S. Likhachev. 2 3
Following a close linguistic study of all angles of the passage in question o n
the basis of the five manuscripts regarded as being closest to the original text,
a n d bearing in m i n d the historical background, H . G . L u n t invites us to c o n -
sider that Yaroslav's role consisted primarily of obtaining Slavonic books a n d
arranging for t h e m to be copied. 24 If o n e accepts such an interpretation, the pas-
sage is left without a single reference to any translation activities organized by
Yaroslav at St Sophia's in Kiev. T h e functional m e a n i n g of the verb 'prêkladati',
n o form of w h i c h has been uncovered before the m o d e r n age, appears to be 'to
convey from o n e place to another' or 'to import'. 25 T h e manuscripts w e r e prob-
ably imported from Greece, in other w o r d s , from the Byzantine E m p i r e w h i c h ,
since 1018, had encompassed the entire territory of the first Bulgarian E m p i r e ,
including the monasteries of Macedonia, A t h o s , Thrace, Mesie a n d beyond
Constantinople a n d Asia M i n o r .
In that case, the passage in The Tale merely recalls a tradition dating from
the e n d of the eleventh century, substantiating the idea that Yaroslav had
encouraged the use of Slavonic in the churches a n d n e w monasteries by dis-
seminating Slavonic texts imported from the Byzantine E m p i r e a n d copied in
Kiev. This interpretation, w h i c h contradicts the w h o l e of Soviet historiograph-
ical tradition,26 should be viewed with s o m e reserve.
T o begin with, the prefix 'pré-' of the verb'prêkladati's h o w s that it is a liter-
ary verb that could only have been used by an educated person. Furthermore,
there is ample evidence of the use of this verb to m e a n 'to translate from o n e
language into another' a m o n g the W e s t Slavs, that is, the Poles a n d Czechs. 27
Finally it should be r e m e m b e r e d that Kievan R u s ' maintained continual close
relations with the Poles throughout the eleventh century. In 1018, Boleslav
drove Yaroslav out of Kiev a n d enthroned Svyatopolk 28 there, while Boleslav II
in his turn entered Kiev in 1069. 29
These relations maintained b y R u s ' with the W e s t Slavs, including the
Czech monastery of Sazava, give support to the idea that linguistic interpénétra-
tion w a s possible, particularly a m o n g the learned circles that formed part of a
prince's entourage. N o r can it be completely ruled out that the use of the verb
'prêkladati' to m e a n 'to translate from one language into another' w a s a b o r r o w -
ing from W e s t Slavonic, all the m o r e so because the replacement of this form by
'prélagati' in the Radziwill and A c a d e m y manuscripts m a y simply be d u e to the
scribe's wish to m a k e the text intelligible to a less educated readership.
Finally, H . G . L u n t pointed out quite pertinently that the e t h n o n y m in the
expression 'ot Grek' is in the genitive plural a n d concluded that it should be read
to m e a n 'coming from Greece'. 30 This interpretation is not in our opinion at all

inconsistent with a reading of the verb 'prëkladati' as meaning 'to translate'. T h e
passage in the Chronicle m a y therefore be read as follows: ' T h e y translated
[books] from Greece into Slavonic'
This campaign by the East Slavs to disseminate written culture either
through copies or translations w a s not in evidence in R u s ' before the fifth
decade of the eleventh century.31 It should therefore be associated with the
m o v e m e n t to create thefirstepiscopal sees.32
This cultural and artistic upsurge marking the closing decades of Yaroslav's
reign is chiefly attributed to the activities of the Metropolitan See of Kiev, held
at the time by exceptionalfiguressuch as Theopemptus the Greek and his suc-
cessor, the Russian Hilarión, w h o earned the title of kniznik (scholar).33 That
title, however, indicated a knowledge of Greek. Consequently it should be
stressed that the educated persons a m o n g Yaroslav's entourage w h o inspired his
religious and cultural policy were deeply imbued with Greek culture, which w a s
then going through a magnificent renaissance in Constantinople under the gui-
dance of E m p e r o r Constantine M o n o m a c h u s I X (1042-55). In addition, the
creation of a scriptorium at St Sophia's in Kiev for the copying and translation
of texts from Greece was as m u c h a part of Yaroslav's political activities to pro-
vide a sound basis for the recently founded Church of R u s ' as it w a s of the
broader canvas of the humanist renaissance then triumphing in Constantinople
which put its stamp o n the training of prelates sent to R u s ' .
O n e further aspect of Yaroslav's religious policy that deserves to be mentioned

is the creation and organization of thefirstRussian dioceses.34
T h e Notitiae episcopatum of the Codex atheniensis N o . 1371, which A . P o p p e
puts prior to 1165, places the Great Russian Metropolia in sixty-second position
and lists the eleven suffragan dioceses of the Kiev Metropolia. O f these, only
one, the diocese of Belgorod, was founded during Vladimir's reign by Metro-
politan John I in about the year 1000 35 to establish the proto-see of the Metro-
polia there. T h e next three dioceses, those of Novgorod, Chernigov and K a n e v ,
were also founded during Yaroslav's reign by Metropolitan Theopemptus.
Novgorod, the most important city in R u s ' after Kiev, was the principal
economic centre of the North and gateway to the Baltic at the northernmost
end of the 'road from the Varangians [Vikings] to the Greeks'. 36 It w a s so
important for the Princes of Kiev to control this city that they established the
practice of stationing their eldest son there.37 T h e population of the city, of
mixed Slav, Finno-Ugric and Scandinavian origin, w a s very attached to pagan-
ism. T h e fact that n o clergy were present during the events of 1018 leads us to
believe that at that date Novgorod had not yet received an episcopal see. T h e
first certain proof of its existence dates to the time of the consecration of L u k e
Zhidiata (Luka Zidjata) in 1036 to occupy the see of w h i c h h e w a s in all prob-

ability thefirsttitular.38
It is even m o r e difficult to fix the date of the foundation of the Diocese of
Chernigov because of the almost total lack of written documentation o n the
subject. Archaeological research permits us to place the foundation of this see at
s o m e time between 1036 a n d 1050. 39
T h e diocese of K a n e v and Yuriev w a s established, as has been s h o w n b y A .
P o p p e , after 1036 following Yaroslav's decisive victory over the Pechenegs. 40
T h e creation of this last episcopal see w a s the final act in the w o r k of
Metropolitan T h e o p e m p t u s . T h e goal h e h a d set himself w a s to achieve C h u r c h
control over the 'road from the Varangians to the Greeks', and this w a s
achieved at the close of Prince Yaroslav's reign. T h e slow pace at w h i c h the net-
w o r k of Russian dioceses w a s formed m a y cause us s o m e surprise. H o w e v e r , it
w a s probably d u e partly to the resistance of Slavonic paganism and partly to the
lack of sufficient resources available to the Metropolitan See of Kiev for its esta-
blishment in a country w h e r e the smallest diocese covered a n expanse of terri-
tory equivalent to that of several metropolitan sees of the C h u r c h of Constanti-
nople.
T h e establishment of this network of dioceses w a s also accompanied by the
dissemination of Byzantine law as translated from the c o m p e n d i u m of c a n o n
law k n o w n as The Syntagma in Fourteen Titles.^ This c o m p e n d i u m , translated into
O l d Bulgarian shortly after 912, b e c a m e k n o w n in R u s ' in this version probably
as early as thefirsthalf of the eleventh century42 through the efforts of M e t r o -
politan T h e o p e m p t u s . Accordingly, the C h u r c h of R u s ' already had canon law,
thereby enabling it not only to act in the field of family a n d matrimonial law,
but also to m o u l d relations between C h u r c h a n d state o n the basis of the vital
symphonia of powers that w o u l d ensure taxis, i.e. order a n d peace. 43
If the credit for sowing the seed o n Russian soil by holy baptism is d u e to
Vladimir, that of bringing h o m e the harvest should be attributed to Yaroslav.
T h r o u g h his activities, under the able guidance of such scholarly Metropolitans
as T h e o p e m p t u s and Hilarión, Yaroslav w a s able to provide his capital K i e v
with a metropolitan cathedral that had n o equal in northern Europe. K i e v at
the time could claim to be not only the ' M o t h e r of Russian cities', but also the
m a i n pole of the extension of Eastern Christianity a m o n g the East Slavs. T h e
creation of a scriptorium at St Sophia's w a s d u e as m u c h to the role assigned to
the n e w metropolitan see as to the personality of the first Metropolitans,
inspired as they were by the ideas of the Constantinople renaissance. It is doubt-
less here that the Slavonic liturgical collections brought from the E m p i r e w e r e
copied, a n d translations m a d e of the original G r e e k texts brought to R u s ' b y the
s a m e Metropolitans. T h e libraries that developed from t h e m provided for the
training of a highly educated élite w h o s e most eminent m e m b e r s w e r e
honoured with the title of kni&iik (scholar).
102 Jtan-Pum Arrignon
T h e entry o f R u s ' into the Byzantine oikouméni and the adoption of B y z a n -

tine c a n o n law enabled the clergy to devote themselves to transforming a p a g a n
society into a Christian c o m m u n i t y . T h e process w a s only beginning and w o u l d
take m a n y years. T h e Rurikid dynasty w a s thus provided w i t h a political ideol-
ogy allowing it to rally the peoples of R u s ' a r o u n d the prince reigning in K i e v .
It is not, therefore, surprising that the prince w h o m a n a g e d to lead and success-
fully i m p l e m e n t such a policy earned the n a m e of 'the W i s e ' . It w a s , after all,
Metropolitan Hilarión w h o first c o m p a r e d Yaroslav to S o l o m o n .
NOTES
1. V . Vodoff, Naissance de la chrétienté russe. La conversion du prince Vladimir de Kiev (988)

ses conséquences (Xle-Xlle siècle) [The Birth of Russian Christianity. T h e Conversion of
Prince Vladimir of Kiev (988) and its Consequences (Eleventh-Twelfth Centu-
ries)], Paris, Fayard, 1988, 496 pp.
2. A . A . Zimin, 'Pamjat' i pohvala Jakova mniha i zitie knjazja Vladimira po drevnej-
semu spisku [Memorial and Panegyric of Jacob the M o n k and Life of Prince Vladi-
mir in the Most Ancient Version]', Kratkte soobscenija Instituía Slavjanovedenija, Vol. 3
1963, p. 72.
3. F. von Lilienfeld, 'Die ältesten russischen Heiligenlegenden [The Most Ancient
Russian Legends of the Saints], Studien zu den Anfängen der russischen Hagio-
graphie und ihr Verhältnis z u m byzantinischen Beispiel', Aus der byzantinischen Arbeit
der DDK, Vol. 1, 1957, pp. 237-71.
4. J. Fennell and A . Stokes, Early Russian Literature, p . 13, L o n d o n , 1974.
5. O . M . Rapov, Knjazeskie vladenija na Rusi v X-pervoj polovine XIII v [Princely Estates in
Rus' from the Tenth to the First Half of the Thirteenth Century], pp. 35-6, M o s -
cow, 1977.
6. Ibid., p. 3 7 .
7. L . Müller, Des Metropoliten Ilarion Lobrede auf Vladimir den Heiligen und Glaubensbekenntnis
[Panegyric of Saint Vladimir and Profession of Faith of Metropolitan Hilarión], p .
123, Wiesbaden, 1962; A . M . Moldovan, Slovo o ztikone i blagodati Ilariona [Sermon o n
L a w and Grace of Hilarión], p. 97, Kiev, 1984.
8. A . Poppe, 'The Building of the Church of St Sophia in Kiev', Journal of Medieval His-
tory, Vol. 7,1981, pp. 15-66; referred to in A . Poppe, The Rise of Christian Russia, Vol.
4, London, 1982.
9. D . S. Lihacev (trans.) and O . V . Tvorogov (ed.), Povest' vremennyh let [Tale of Bygone
Years], Pamjatniki literatury Drevnej Rusi. Nacalo russkoj literatury. XI - nacalo XII veka
138, M o s c o w , 1978 (referred to hereinafter as PVL); S. H . Cross and O . P. Sherbo-
witz-Wetzor, The Russian Primary Chronicle, Laurentian Text, Cambridge, Mass., 1953,
p. 120 (referred to hereinafter as RPC).
10. E . A . Rydzevskaja, Drevnjaja Rus' i Skandinavija v IX-XIV v. [Ancient Rus' and Scan-
dinavia, Ninth-Fourteenth Centuries], p . 103, M o s c o w , Materialy i Issledovanija,
1978.
11. P. P. Tolocko, Drevnij Kiev [Ancient Kiev], pp. 64-82, Kiev, 1983; M . A . Sagajdak,
The religious achievements of Y aroslav the Wise 103
Velikij gorod Jaroslava [The Great City of Yaroslav], Kiev, 1982, 96 pp.
12. PVL, p. 164; RPC, pp. 136-7.
13. N . K . Karger, Drevnij Kiev [Ancient Kiev], Vol. 2, M o s c o w , 1961, pp. 98-206; P . A .
Rappoport, 'Russkaja arhitektura X - X I I I v. [Russian Architecture: Tenth-Thir-
teenth Centuries]', Arheologija SSSR, svod arheologiceskih istocnikov, N o . 10, El-47, 1982,
pp. 11-18.
14. J. Lafontaine-Dosogne, Histoire de l'art byzantin et chrétien d'Orient [History of Byzan-
tine and Eastern Christian Art], pp. 1 0 5 - 9 , 125-6, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1987.
15. V . N . Lazarev, 'Regard sur l'art de la Russie prémongole [A Review of the Art of
Pre-Mongol Russia], I L'architecture de Kiev, Tchernigov, Polotsk et Smolensk au
X e , Xle et Xlle siècles, Il L e système de la décoration murale de Sainte-Sophie',
Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, N o . 3, 1970, pp. 196-208, N o . 3, 1971, pp. 2 2 1 - 3 8 .
16. V . N . Lazarev, ' N o v y e dannye o mozaikah i freskah Sofii Kievskoj. Gruppovoj por-
tret semejstva Jaroslava [ N e w Data o n the Mosaics and Frescoes of St Sophia in
Kiev. Portrait of the Family of Yaroslav]', Vizantijskij Vremennyh, Vol. 15, 1959, p .
151.
17. S. A . Vysoc'kij, Pro Ico rozpovily davni stiny [What the Ancient Walls Tell], pp. 5 5 - 1 0 1 ,
Kiev, 1978.
18. J.-P. Arrignon, 'Remarques sur le titre de Kagan attribué aux princes russes d'après
les sources occidentales et russes des I X e - X I e siècles [Remarks o n the Title of
Kagan Attributed to Russian Princes as Conveyed by Ninth-Eleventh-Century
Russian and Western Sources]', Recueil de l'Institut d'études byzantines (Belgrade), Vol.
23, 1984, pp. 63-71.
19. C . M a n g o , The Homilies of Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople, p. 102, Cambridge, Mass.,
1958.
20. A . Poppe, 'Le prince et l'Église en Russie de Kiev depuis lafindu X e siècle jusqu'au
début du Xlle siècle [The Prince and the Church in Kievan R u s ' from the E n d of
the Tenth Century to the Beginning of the Twelfth Century]', Acta Poloniae Histórica,
Vol. 20, 1969, pp. 112-13; referred to in Poppe, The Rise . . ., op. cit., Vol. 9.
21. PVL, p. 166; R P C p. 137.
22. A . A . Sahmatov, Povest' vremennyh let [Tale of Bygone Years], p. 308, Prague, 1916.
23. Lihacev, op. cit., p. 167.
24. H . G . Lunt, ' O n Interpreting the Russian Primary Chronicle: T h e Year 1037', Sla-
vonic and East European journal, Vol. 32, 1988, pp. 1-11.
25. Ibid., p. 6.
26. Ibid., p. 8; A . S. L ' v o v , Leksika 'Povest' vremennyh let' [The Vocabulary of The Tale of
Bygone Years], pp. 3 3 4 - 5 , M o s c o w , 1975.
27. Ibid., p. 334.
28. PVL, pp. 156-8; RPC, p. 132.
29. PVL, p. 186; RPC, PP- 149-50.
30. Lunt, op. cit., pp. 5 - 6 .
31. Ibid., p. 7.
32. A . Poppe, 'L'organisation diocésaine de la Russie aux Xle-XIIe siècles [The Dioce-
san Organization of Russia in the Eleventh-Twelfth Centuries]', Byzantion, Vol. 40,
1971, pp. 165-217; reprinted in Poppe, The Base. . ., op. cit., Vol. 8; J.-P. Arrignon,
La chaire métropolitaine de Kiev des origines à 1240 [The Metropolitan See of Kiev from
its Origins to 1240], pp. 214-50, Lille, 1986.
33. A . F. Zamaleev and V . A . Zoc, Mysliteli kievskoj Rusi [Thinkers of Kievan Rus'], pp.
33-51, Kiev, 1981.
34. Ibid., n. 32.
35. Poppe, 'L'organisation . . .,' op. cit., pp. 172-4; Arrignon, op. cit., pp. 217-18.
36. Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio [On the Organization of the
Empire], pp. 57-63, text translated by R . Jenkins and assembled by G . Moravcski,
Washington, D . C . , 1967.
37. Rapov, op. cit., p. 39.
38. Poppe, 'L'organisation . . .,' op. cit., pp. 174-84; Arrignon, op. cit., pp. 218-21.
39. Ibid., pp. 177-84, 222-3.
40. Ibid., pp. 2 0 1 - 5 , 237-9.
41. Poppe, 'Le prince et l'Eglise . . .', op. cit., pp. 107-9.
42. J. N . Sëapov, Vizantijskoe i juznoslavjanskoe pravovoe nasledie na Rusi v XI-XIII v [Th
Legal Heritage of Byzantium and the Southern Slavs in Rus', Eleventh-Thirteenth
Centuries], pp. 234-5, M o s c o w , 1978.
43. H . Ahrweiler, L'idéologie politique de l'empire byzantin [The Political Ideology of the
Byzantine Empire], pp. 129-47, Paris, 1975.
T h e conversion of Rus': a subject
of international historical research
Vladimir V o d o f f
Although the broad outline of the history of the introduction of Christianity to

Kievan Rus' is fairly well k n o w n , very m a n y aspects of it are still unclear. This
is only to be expected in view of the fact that it was only after the introduction
of Christianity that medieval Russian historiography began in Kiev, and later
o n in other centres. A m o n g the questions to which only conjectural answers
can thus far be m a d e are those of the 'first conversion of the Russians' attested
by Patriarch Photius in the mid-ninth century, the circumstances and precise
date of the baptism of Princess Olga and the personal conversion of Prince Vla-
dimir and the baptism of his people, the beginnings of ecclesiastical organ-
ization in the country, and m a n y more. This historiographical chapter will
attempt to consider the last two items.
A t the d a w n of the modern age, the historiography of the conversion of
Rus' took place in the context of the ideological conflicts sparked off by the
Counter-Reformation both in the Polish-Lithuanian State and o n a broader
European scale. In thefirstcase, two works stand out defending respectively the
part apparently played by the R o m a n See in the beginnings of Russian Chris-
tianity and that played by the Patriarchate at Constantinople: they are Obrona
iednosci cerkiewney (The Defence of Church Unity) by Leon Krevza (Vilna, 1617) and
the Palinodija (Palinodia) by Zacharie Kopystenski (1621).' In the West, one of the
first attempts at a synthesis was m a d e by Cardinal Caesar Baronius w h o m e n -
tioned the conversion of Rus' in his Annales ecclesiastici, affirming in particular,
on the basis of Greek sources, the thesis of a conversion in the middle of the
ninth century or, in other words, long before the break between R o m e and
Constantinople that at the time was supposed to have occurred in the fateful,
albeit disputed, year of 1054; furthermore, the author included in his study the
106 Vladimir Vodoff
entire population of East Slavs, from Ukrainians and Byelorussians living in the
Polish State (Recz Pospolita) to Muscovites (Russians).2
Following that period of fairly violent controversy, the history of the
beginnings of Russian Christianity took the same course in the Empire of Peter
the Great as the general history of the East Slavs which need not be dealt with
here in any detail.3 Little by little, from the beginning of the nineteenth century,
Church historians appeared w h o were mainly members of the hierarchy:
Eugene Bolokhvitinov, Ambrose Ornatsky, Philaret Gumilevsky and Macarius
Bulgakov. 4 Generally speaking, these scholars accepted the version of events
passed o n by Russian sources and thus took their place in the direct line of the
historiographical tradition that started in Kiev in the middle of the ninth cen-
tury. This research reached its apogee at the start of the twentieth century with
the publication by E . E . Golubinsky of an unrivalled body of facts backed by
critical acumen equal to that of the historians of the G e r m a n or French
schools.5 Like all his predecessors, Golubinsky used mainly Russian sources, for
example, Povest' vremennyh let (The Tale of Bygone Years), Pamjat' i pohvala Jakova
Mniha (The Memorial and Panegyric of Jacob the Monk), The Sermon on Law and Grace by
the future Metropolitan Hilarión, and the lives of thefirstRussian saints, Boris
and Gleb. H e was a m o n g thefirstto m a k e a critical analysis of s o m e of the evi-
dence of The Tale of Bygone Years, by showing the improbability of Vladimir's
baptism at Cherson. H e drew u p a chronology of facts which, in its general out-
line, is still accepted today, situating Vladimir's baptism in 987 and the taking
of Cherson in 989. Golubinsky also examined the matter of the jurisdictional
status of the recently founded Russian Church without, however, reaching any
firm conclusion. While he accepted, in the same uncritical fashion as his prede-
cessors, the dependence of the Russian metropolia o n Constantinople, he did
not rule out the possibility that the Russian Church had managed to acquire an
independent status from the start.6
T h e Russian philological and historical school has continued to take this
direction. T h e study carried out by A . A . Shakhmatov and his followers of the
background of that composite work, The Tale of Bygone Years, and in particular
the fact that thefirstGreek Metropolitan it refers to, Theopemptus, is not m e n -
tioned before 1039, led to the thesis propounded by M . D . Priselkov in 1913 and
sometimes repeated today, according to which the Russian Church was placed
from the beginning under the supreme authority of the Bulgaro-Macedonian
archdiocese of Okhrid. 7
This direction in the study of Russian narrative sources continued in the
U S S R after the 1917 Revolution. Without going into the various editions or
m o d e r n Russian translations that have appeared there, mention m a y be m a d e of
the interesting theory put forward by Academician D . S. Likhachev concerning
the existence towards the middle of the eleventh century of afirsthistory of
Russian Christianity, fragments of which have c o m e d o w n to us in The Tale}
The conversion of Rus': 107
a subject of international historical research
Studies or critical editions of other Russian written sources have also appeared,
such as The Memorial and Panegyric b y A . A . Z i m i n a n d The Sermon on Law and Grace
by A . M . M o l d o v a n , w h i c h w a s published quite recently.9 H o w e v e r the latter
text has also appeared in the form o f a critical re-edition of A . V . Gorsky's 1844
edition by the G e r m a n scholar Ludolf Müller, 10 w h o also prepared reprints and
critical studies of the hagiographie texts o n Boris a n d Gleb. 1 1 It is regrettable
that w o r k s o f this nature are overlooked in manuals or anthologies published in
the U S S R . 1 2
A m o n g the studies o f Russian sources carried out in recent years, particular
attention should be paid to the w o r k o f Y . N . S h c h a p o v o n the legal a n d c a n o n -
ical texts o f the Russian C h u r c h in the p r e - M o n g o l period: the statutes (ustavy)
of the princes, in particular the texts attributed to Vladimir a n d Yaroslav, a n d
c o m p e n d i a translated from the G r e e k (Kormcaja knigd). This w o r k has not only
led to a n e w edition o f s o m e of these sources but has also clarified a large n u m -
ber of details of the history of the Russian C h u r c h a n d shed light o n the circum-
stances in w h i c h certain legends about the beginnings of Russian Christianity
originated a n d developed. 13
It goes without saying that it is to Soviet scholarship that w e o w e the dis-
covery of a considerable a m o u n t o f n e w information o n the earliest Christian
architectural m o n u m e n t s a n d their decoration or inscriptions. In K i e v itself,
M . K . Karger a n d his team have m a d e noteworthy efforts in the field of archae-
ology, as has S . A . Vysotsky in that o f epigraphy, while P . A . R a p p o p o r t has pre-
pared an excellent report o f results obtained b y archaeologists in various
towns. 1 4 T h e greater part of the w o r k , h o w e v e r , of applying this information
a n d c o m p a r i n g it with the evidence o f Russian or foreign written accounts has
been d o n e b y Andrzej P o p p e , the W a r s a w historian, w h o has d r a w n the m o s t
conclusive lessons for the history o f the beginnings o f the Russian C h u r c h from
that of the earliest religious buildings in Kiev (the C h u r c h of the Virgin of the
Tithe a n d the Cathedrals o f St Sophia, Vladimir, a n d Yaroslav) a n d N o v g o r o d
(the t w o Cathedrals of St Sophia). 15
Y e t another category o f sources, sigillographie evidence, has been the sub-
ject of joint study b y Russian a n d foreign researchers. Continuing the w o r k car-
ried out b y N . P . Likhachev at the beginning of the century, V . L . Y a n i n , a n
archaeologist, searches for lead matrices in the g r o u n d , ensures publication of
their impressions a n d frequently m a k e s evocative prosopographic descriptions
of both princes a n d prelates. This research is carried out in liaison with that of
specialists in Byzantine sigillography, in particular Vitalien Laurent, s o m e of
w h o s e findings, at least as concerns Russia, have also been applied b y Alexandre
Soloviev in G e n e v a . 1 6
Y e t it is above all in the analysis of events that the conversion o f Russia is
n o w a subject of international research. S o m e t i m e s not without ulterior
motives of an ideological or denominational nature, various authors in the past
108 Vladimir Vodoff
have formulated a variety of theses as to the origins of Russian Christianity, the

precise part played in the conversion of Rus' by the various centres of Christian-
ity at that time and the canonical status of the Russian Church. T h e thesis of
independence was still being upheld about 1950 by N . Zernov. Prior to that, N .
de Baumgarten and M . Jugie attempted to show that the Russian Church was of
R o m a n i a n origin, while A . M . A m m a n n claimed that the country was evangel-
ized by missionary bishops of unspecified allegiance. M o r e recently, M . Chubaty
m a d e further clumsy attempts to dissociate the tenth- and eleventh-century
Russian Church from Constantinople. Other researchers, in view of the silence
of Russian sources o n the ecclesiastical hierarchy in Vladimir's day, turned their
attention to the Crimea and linked the Russian Church either to the titular
archdiocese of Tmutarakan (G. Vernadsky) or to the See of Cherson (F. D v o r -
nik). Finally, even s o m e of those historians w h o admit the existence of a Rus-
sian ecclesiastical province subject to Constantinople have used the mere m e n -
tion of a 'metropolia' that appears to have existed at Pereyaslav as an indication
that the Primate of the Russian Church had hisfirstresidence there. These dif-
ferent theses were quite justly criticized by Ludolf Müller17 as soon as n e w ele-
ments drawn from non-Russian sources by other specialists, particularly V .
Laurent and E . H o n i g m a n n , were introduced into the discussion. Such sources
include the testimonies of the Arab Christian historian, Yahya of Antioch, w h o
lived at the time of the events, the G e r m a n chronicler, Thietmar of Merseburg,
writing a few years after Vladimir's death (1015), the eleventh-to-twelfth-cen-
tury Greek Notitiae episcopatum, recently re-edited in France by J. Darrouzès, and
the Byzantine Church historian, Nicephorus Callistos Xanthopoulos, w h o
wrote in the fourteenth century but used older sources. This research has not
only s h o w n beyond any shadow of doubt that Christianity and ecclesiastical
structures reached Rus' from Byzantium, which tallies with the historical con-
text in which the events of 987-89 occurred, but also provided a n u m b e r of
details about the history of thefirstperiod of Russian Christianity. T h e identity
of the head of the Russian Church at the beginning of the eleventh century,
Metropolitan John, has been established with substantial certainty from the
lives of Boris and Gleb, and a Bull discovered by V . Laurent at D u m b a r t o n
Oaks in the United States. It would appear that his predecessor was Theophy-
lactus, the former Metropolitan of Sebasteia in Armenia. T h e residence of these
first metropolitans of Rus', w h o like the majority of their colleagues exercising
their pastoral ministry in barbarian lands did not include the n a m e of their see
in their title, indeed appears to have been Kiev, since the See at Pereyaslav, like
that at Chernigov, was a titular metropolia for a few years only (c. 1060-78).
T h e most recent, and so far undisputed, clarifications of all of these points were
m a d e by the Polish historian Andrzej Poppe, both in his 1968 thesis and in a
series of articles that have recently appeared in the form of a collection.18 T h e
conversion of R u s ' w a s presented at almost the s a m e time in a far wider context

in D . Obolensky's The Byzantine Commonwealth.™
P o p p e also pieced together the historic facts behind the Millennium n o w
being celebrated. In a study published in 1976 h e succeeded in reconciling a p p a -
rently contradictory information from Russian sources o n the date a n d place of
the baptism of Vladimir a n d of the people of Kiev. T o this e n d , h e replaced the
events in their Byzantine context: the civil w a r of 9 8 7 - 8 9 between, o n the o n e
h a n d , E m p e r o r s Basil II a n d Constantine VIII, a n d , o n the other, the usurpers
Bardas Phocas a n d Bardas Skleros. Concentrating mainly o n the part played in
this event by Varangian troops provided by Vladimir, the Polish historian pro-
p o u n d e d the following scenario for the conversion of R u s ' :
In 9 8 7 the E m p e r o r s appealed to the Prince of K i e v for military assistance, pro-
mising in return the h a n d of their sister A n n a , providing that Vladimir
e m b r a c e d the Christian faith, w h i c h h e did o n or about 1 January 9 8 8 .
His betrothed reached K i e v in the spring a n d , shortly after their marriage, V l a -
dimir performed the collective baptism of the population of Kiev before
e m b a r k i n g o n a c a m p a i g n in the C r i m e a to capture the t o w n of C h e r s o n
w h i c h h a d sided with the rebels (989).
Vladimir returned from his c a m p a i g n bearing liturgical objects a n d sacred texts
a n d bringing priests to Kiev.
These, together with those w h o arrived in the entourage of the princess, helped
to develop Christian worship in Kiev. 2 0
There is n o d o u b t that the matter of the C h e r s o n c a m p a i g n , with its circum-
stances a n d purpose, raises the m o s t questions.21 In a n attempt to sustain the tes-
timony of the text c o m m o n l y k n o w n as The Cherson hegend, w h i c h relates that
Vladimir w a s baptized in that city, Obolensky p r o p o u n d e d the theory that, in
K i e v in 9 8 7 , Vladimir only received the first rite of initiation into the Christian
religion, the prima signatio, w h i c h is attested b y the Scandinavians but is appa-
rently unrecorded in Byzantium. 2 2 Accordingly, of all the theories that have
been put forward, Poppe's appears to be the soundest.
It is n o w generally accepted that Russian Christianity is o f Byzantine ori-
gin, even if, as s o m e people hold, the situation of the Russian C h u r c h prior to
1037 is still unclear. 23 H o w e v e r , the specific argumentsfirstput forward by V .
Laurent a n d E . H o n i g m a n n have not yet been considered in certain publica-
tions. F o r instance, in the w o r k entitled The Introduction of Christianity into Rus
{Vvedenie hristianstva na Rust) w h i c h appeared o n the occasion of the Millennium,
the ecclesiastical subordination of K i e v to Constantinople is acknowledged
either implicitly or, a contrario, o n the basis of the fact that submission to R o m e
appears to be ruled out. Y e t , as the text indicates, ' n o o n e so far has provided
convincing proof to support this thesis', whereas the s a m e b o o k refers to the
w o r k of Ludolf Müller in w h i c h h e summarizes the very arguments put forward
by different scholars advocating this theory. It should be pointed out, h o w e v e r ,
110 Vladimir Vodoff
that the present author has m a d e use neither of Obolensky's w o r k nor, in par-
ticular, that of Poppe. A further study in the s a m e collection challenges the
chronology d r a w n u p b y P o p p e , though n o attempt is m a d e to examine his
work.24
T h e present author m a y be permitted, following this cursory a n d all too
fragmentary glance at the studies of the history of the conversion of R u s ' , to
m a k e a few observations o f a general nature. First, it is cheering to see that
major progress has been m a d e in every field through collaboration between
scholars in different countries and, n o less importantly, in different fields.
Unfortunately, as has already been pointed out, the circulation of bibliograph-
ical data is frequently far from perfect, as can be seen from the difficulties n o w
being experienced in the publication of a review with this very purpose in view,
Russia Mediaevalis. H o w e v e r , there are s o m e grounds for optimism in the future:
in the course of the discussions o n perestroika in the historical sciences
published in a recent issue of the M o s c o w review Voprosy istorii (Histórica/ Mat-
ters), o n e contributor, I. Y . Froyanov, bewailed the fact that 'Soviet historical
science is illegally cut off from world historical science'.25 It is to be h o p e d that
this appeal for the free circulation of bibliographical data does not g o unheard,
and not only in the U S S R , since the libraries of M o s c o w a n d Leningrad are not
the only ones w h e r e there is a dearth of publications from abroad. T h e m o s t
important cultural institution in the world is without doubt the ideal f o r u m in
w h i c h to appeal to all those o n w h o m the material aspects of research depend.
In fact, for over a year the desire for co-operation between experts from diffe-
rent countries and cultural backgrounds has m a d e itself distinctly felt at inter-
national scientific events, a n d it is to be h o p e d that the Millennium of the c o n -
version of R u s ' will b e r e m e m b e r e d as a n important stage in the organization of
fruitful international research o n the history of Eastern E u r o p e .
NOTES
1. A . Martel, La langue polonaise dans les pays ruthines [The Polish Language in Ruthenian
Lands], pp. 137-8, Lille, 1938 (Travaux et mémoires de l'Université de Lille, n e w
series: Droit et lettres, 20).
2. Giovanna Brogi-Bercoff, ' T h e History of Christian Rus', Annales ecclesiastic!, by C .
Baronius', Harvard Ukrainian Studies (Proceedings of the symposium held at Ravenna,
April 1988).
3. Ocerki istorii istoriceskoj nauki v SSSR [Essays o n the History of the Historical Sciences
in the U S S R ] , Vol. 1, pp. 169-244, 273-414, M o s c o w , 1955.
4. A . V . Kartasev, Ocerki po istorii russkoj cerkvi [Essays on the History of the Russian
Church], Vol. 1, pp. 12-31, Paris, 1959. It is surprising to note that an essay m e n -
tioning the person of Metropolitan Makarij Bulgakov completely overlooks his con-
tribution to Church history; see L . Weichenrieder, 'Grands théologiens [Great The-
ologians]', La Sainte Russie [Holy Russia], p. 131, Paris, 1987.
5. E . E . Golubinskij, Istorija russhoj cerkvi [History of the Russian Church], Vol. 1, M o s -

c o w , 1 9 0 1 - 0 4 , 2 vols.
6. Ibid, p p . 163, 2 6 7 - 7 0 .
7. M . D . Priselkov, Ocerkipo cerhovno-politiceskoj istorii KJevskoj Rusi, X-XII w [Essays o n
the Ecclesiastical and Political History of Kievan R u s ' , Tenth-Twelfth Centuries],
St Petersburg, 1913.
8. D . S. Lihacev, Russkie Utopist i ib kul'turno-istoriceskoe znacenie [Russian Chronicles and
their Cultural and Historical Significance], p p . 5 8 - 7 5 , M o s c o w / L e n i n g r a d , 1947;
L . Müller, 'Ilarion u n d die Nestorchronik [Hilarión and the Chronicle of Nestor]',
Harvard Ukrainian Studies, op. cit.
9. A . A . Z i m i n , 'Pamjat' i pohvala Jakova m n i h a i zitie knjazja Vladimira p o drevnej-
s e m u spisku [Memorial and Panegyric of Jacob the M o n k and Life of Prince Vladi-
mir in the Most Ancient Version]', Kratkie soobscenija Instituto slavjanovedenija, Vol. 37,
1963, pp. 6 6 - 7 5 ; A . M . M o l d o v a n , Slovo o zakone i blagodati Ilariona [Sermon o n L a w
and Grace of Hilarión], Kiev, 1984.
10. L . Müller, Des Metropoliten Ilarion Lobrede auf Vladimir den Heiligen und Glaubensbekenntnis
[Panegyric of Saint Vladimir and Profession of Faith of Metropolitan Hilarión],
Wiesbaden, 1962 (Slavistische Studienbücher, 2); supplemented by ' N e u e Untersu-
chungen z u m Text der W e r k e des Metropoliten Ilarion [ N e w Research o n the Text
of the W o r k of Metropolitan Hilarión]', Russia Mediaevalis, V o l . 2 , 1975, pp. 3 - 9 ; V .
Laurent, ' A u x origines d e l'Eglise russe. L'établissement de la hiérarchie byzantine
[ O n the Origins of the Russian Church. T h e Establishment of the Byzantine Hie-
rarchy]', Echos d'Orient, V o l . 3 8 , 1 9 3 9 , pp. 2 7 9 - 9 5 ; E . H o n i g m a n n , 'Studies in Slavic
Church History. T h e Founding of the Russian Metropolitan Church According to
Greek Sources', Byzantion, Vol. 17, 1 9 4 4 / 4 5 , p p . 128-62.
11. L . Müller (ed.), Die altrussischen bagiographischen Erzählungen und liturgischen Dichtungen
über die heiligen Boris und Gleb [Old Russian Hagiographical Narrations and Liturgical
Texts o n S S Boris and Gleb], M u n i c h , 1 9 6 7 (Slavische Propyläen, 14); contains
references to the author's earlier works. Nevertheless Müller's theses are contested
by A . P o p p e , ' L a naissance d u culte de Boris et Gleb [The Origins of the Veneration
of Boris and Gleb]', Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, Vol. 2 4 , 1981, pp. 2 9 - 5 3 .
12. D . S. Lihacev (ed.), Istorija russkoj literatury X-XVII vekov [History of Russian Liter-
ature, Tenth-Seventeenth Centuries], M o s c o w , 1980; see also the various volumes
of Pamjatniki drevne-russkoj literatury [Works of Ancient Russian Literature] that have
appeared since 1978.
13. J . N . Scapov, Knjazeskie ustavy i cerkov' v drevnej Rusi XI-XIV vv [Princely Statutes and
the Church in R u s ' , Eleventh-Fourteenth Centuries], M o s c o w , 1972; Vizantijskoe i
juznoslavjanskoe pravovoe nasledie na Rusi [The Legal Heritage of Byzantium and of the
Southern Slavs in Rus'], M o s c o w , 1978; J. N . Scapov (ed.), Drevnerusskie knjaéskie
ustavy XI-XV vv [Princely Statutes of Rus', Eleventh-Fifteenth Centuries], M o s c o w ,
1976.
14. M . K . Karger, Drevnij Kiev [Ancient Kiev], V o l . 2 , Kiev, 1961; S. A . Vysockij, Drev-
nerusskie nadpisi SofiiKievskojXI-XIV vv [The O l d Russian Inscriptions of St Sophia in
Kiev, Eleventh-Fourteenth Centuries], V o l . 1, Kiev, 1966; Srednevekovye nadpisi Sofii
Kievskoj, po materialam graffiti XI-XVII vv [The Medieval Inscriptions of St Sophia in
112 Vladimir Vodqff
Kiev from Graffiti, Eleventh-Seventeenth Centuries], Kiev, 1976; P . A . R a p p o -

port, Russkaja arhitektura X-XIII vv, Katalog pamjatnihov [Russian Architecture,
Tenth-Thirteenth Centuries, Catalogue of M o n u m e n t s ] , Leningrad, 1982 (Arheo-
logija S S S R , Svod arheologiceskih istocnikov, E 1-47).
15. A . Poppe, ' T h e Building of the Church of St Sophia in Kiev'', Journal ofMedieval His-
tory, Vol. 7 , 1981, pp. 1 5 - 6 6 .
16. V . L . Janin, Aktovye pecati Drevnej Rusi X-XV vv [The Seals of Ancient R u s ' , T e n t h -
Fifteenth Centuries], V o l . 1, M o s c o w , 1970, with references to the partly u n p u -
blished works of N . P . Lihacev; V . Laurent, Le Corpus des sceaux de l'empire byzantin, V :
L'Église, Première Partie - L'église de Constantinople, (A) La Hiérarchie [Corpus of Seals of
the Byzantine Empire, V : T h e Church, Part I - T h e Church of Constantinople, ( A )
T h e Hierarchy], Paris, 1964; A . Soloviev, ' U n sceau gréco-russe au X l e siècle [ A
Graeco-Russian Seal of the Eleventh Century]', Byzantion, Vol. 3 1 , 1961, pp. 4 3 5 - 6 ;
'Metropolitensiegel des Kiewer Russlands [The Metropolitan's Seal in Kievan
Rus']', Byzantinische Zeitschrift, V o l . 55, 1962, p p . 292-301; V o l . 5 6 , 1963, p p .
317-20.
17. L . Müller, Zum Problem des hierarchischen Status und der Jurisdiktionellen Abhängigkeit
russischen Kirche vor 1039 [ O n the Problem of the Hierarchical Status and the Juris-
dictional Subordination of the Russian Church before 1039], Cologne, 1959 (Osteu-
ropa und der deutsche Osten, Beiträge aus Forschungsarbeiten u n d Vorträgen der
Hochschulen des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, 3, 6).
18. A . Poppe, Paústwo i Kosciólna Rusi w XI wieku [State and Church in R u s ' in the Ele-
venth Century], W a r s a w , 1968 (Rozprawy Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 36); The
Rise of Christian Russia, L o n d o n , 1982 (see, in particular, the article ' T h e Original Sta-
tus of the O l d Russian Church'); Acta Poloniae histórica, Vol. 3 9 , 1979, pp. 5 - 4 5 . F o r
editions of Notitiae, see Jean Darrouzès, Notitiae episcopatuum ecclesiae Constantinopo
itanae, critical text, introduction, notes, Paris, 1981 (Géographie ecclésiastique de
l'empire byzantin [Ecclesiastical Geography of the Byzantine Empire], 1); s o m e of
the documents it contains confirm hypotheses formulated by the Polish historian.
19. Dimitri Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth, 500-1453, L o n d o n , 1971; contains
references to the author's other works.
20. A . Poppe, ' T h e Political Background to the Baptism of R u s ' . Byzantine Russian
Relations between 9 8 6 - 9 8 9 ' , Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 3 0 , 1976, pp. 197-244;
reprinted in collection mentioned in Note 11 above.
21. See, for instance, the report by S. Franklin o n the collection ' T h e Rise of Christian
Russia', in Slavonic and East European Review, V o l . 63, N o . 195, p p . 4 4 8 - 9 .
22. Obolensky, op. cit., pp. 195-6; Poppe, ' T h e Political Background . . .', op. cit., N o .
5, p. 199.
23. Poppe, ' T h e Original Status . . .', op. cit., N o . 14, p . 11.
24. Vvedenie hristianstva na Rusi [The Introduction of Christianity into Rus'], M o s c o w ,
1987, pp. 2 2 - 3 , 51, 70, 86.
25. Voprosy istorii, N o . 3, 1988, p . 15.
Part Two
CHRISTIANITY, ART
AND CULTURE
Macedonia, Serbia and Russian
medieval art
Svetan G r o z d a n o v
Relations between Rus' and the South Slavs in the field of art, especially in
ornament and the illumination of books written in Cyrillic, began to be studied
from the end of the nineteenth century after the publication of V . Stasov's1
large album o n Slavonic and oriental ornament which gave rise to a scientific
discussion that has continued to the present day. Interest in this question was
aroused not only by the similarity between South Slavonic and Russian orna-
ment of the eleventh to fourteenth centuries, but was also linked to the elucida-
tion of other historical and cultural-historical relations that w e shall only touch
on in this essay.
All w h o have studied the ornament and illuminations of Russian m a n u -
scripts from the eleventh century onwards agree in recognizing that Slavonic
liturgical books, after the adoption of Christianity in Russia, came from the
Okhrid and Preslav school. T h e question of the artistic origin of Russian illum-
inations is closely linked to that of the adoption of Christianity, the organ-
ization of the Church and its rank and hierarchical place in the light of the
Christian community as a whole. T h e opinion that Russia adopted Christianity
from R o m e , upheld by N . Baumgarten 2 and M . Jugie,3 has been firmly rejected
by historians, and with good reason. E . H o n i g m a n n 4 and G . Ostrogorsky5 cur-
rently confirm that Russia adopted Christianity from Byzantium and was under
the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and, o n the basis of crit-
ical investigations of primary sources, consider the role of Byzantium in the
adoption of Christianity to be definitively elucidated. However, in 1913 M . P .
Priselkov expressed the opinion that the organization of the Church in Kievan
R u s ' was the work of the Patriarchate of Samuel, with its see at Okhrid. 6 Alth-
ough this hypothesis encountered strong resistance from the above-mentioned
authors, at the present time it has found support from A . V . Kartashev,7 and
116 Svetan Grozdanov
more recently from V . A . Moshin. 8 T h e outstanding specialist o n this question,

A . V . Soloviev, remarks that there is insufficient information o n the activities
of Russian metropolitans, especially in the towns of Kiev and Novgorod u p to
1037, and hence, of course, some uncertainty as to the organization of the
Church hierarchy following the adoption of Christianity.9 It is interesting to
note that it was precisely in 1037 that the death occurred of the head of the
Church of Okhrid, Archbishop John (Ioann) w h o was a Slav, and that he was
succeeded by Leon, a Greek.
It is, however, an indisputable fact that at the time of the adoption of
Christianity, military and political contacts were established between the
monarchs, Tsar Samuel and Prince Vladimir, w h o were contemporaries, and
that these contacts continued. T h e literature of Samuel's time was to play an
important role in the process of the Christianization of Rus', irrespective of the
hierarchical order of Russian Church organization, for several decades after
988.
A question m u c h m o r e important than the philological dependence of el-
eventh-century Russian books o n the Okhrid and Preslav school is that of their
illuminations. Concretely this refers to the decoration of the Ostromir Gospel
of 1056/57, and the Mstislav Gospel of 1113-17, belonging to the same stylistic
group.10 T h e dominant artistic trait in these manuscripts, especially in their
illuminations, is the famous Constantinople coloured-leaf style,11 forming a
frame surrounding thefigureswhich reflect a possible Western influence.12 El-
ements of fantasy, which were alien to the Court of Constantinople but were to
be predominant in twelfth-century art a m o n g the Southern Slavs and in R u s ' ,
first appear in the initials of the Ostromir Gospel. It has been asserted, without
justification, that the style of the illuminations in these manuscripts was in its
origin directly linked to the scriptoria of Tsar Simeon at Preslav, the literary
school of Clement and the reign of Samuel, which served as a model for the
scriptoria of Kiev and Novgorod. This opinion is defended by V . A . Moshin 1 3
and, surprisingly, by A . Grabar, a great connoisseur of the European miniature
of this period;14 in particular V . A . Moshin asserts that it is possible to deter-
mine the appearance and stylistic nature of the ornament of Cyrillic books at
the courts of Tsars Simeon and Samuel, specimens of which have not c o m e
d o w n to us, from Russian examples of the eleventh-century illustration. This
opinion is based mainly o n philological and historical arguments. W h e n speak-
ing of the Novgorod pages, V . Moshin insists o n their Okhrid origin and their
direct influence o n the composition of the Ostromir Gospel. 15
It is worth mentioning that art historians16 generally are of the opinion that
the coloured-leaf style was formed in the scriptoria of Constantinople during
the late tenth and early eleventh centuries. Therefore the Preslav school of
Boris and Simeon and Clement's Okhrid school prior to Simeon's reign could
not have played an indirect or any other role in the coloured-leaf style of Rus-
Macedonia, Serbia and Russian medieval art 117
sian miniatures because that style was u n k n o w n to these schools. T h e Preslav

school, which reached its heyday at the beginning of. the tenth century, could
not have adopted the coloured-leaf style from Constantinople as this style had
not yet evolved.
Moreover, the ornamentation of the impressive manuscript of Okhrid lit-
erary circles of the time of Tsar Samuel, the Codex Assemani, which is written in
Glagolitic, has n o Byzantine characteristics, but follows the traditions of Cyril
and Methodius, based o n p r e - R o m a n Western models. 17 T h e initials in the N o v -
gorod pages that have c o m e d o w n to us, it should be stressed, are far m o r e m o d -
est than the elaborate initials of the Ostromir Gospel, w h i c h is not from the
artistic point of view a copy of the N o v g o r o d pages. H o w e v e r , the developed
coloured-leaf style appears in the mosaics of St Sophia in Kiev, and later also in
the mosaics of St Michael's C h u r c h in Kiev after 1037, where craftsmen from
Constantinople are k n o w n to have been involved.18 There is n o doubt that the
appearance of the coloured-leaf style in Russian art from the m i d eleventh to
the early twelfth centuries is based o n direct study of art trends at that time in
Constantinople, where coloured-leaf ornament reached the apogee of its devel-
o p m e n t at the end of the eleventh century and directly influenced the art of
Okhrid after the fall of Samuel. 19
In the twelfth century a n e w phase in the ornamentation of Cyrillic books
began, which has long aroused great interest a m o n g scholars and is marked by
the important place given in the initials and illuminations of Southern Slav and
Russian Cyrillic manuscripts to teratological ornament with a predominance of
fantastic beasts, monsters and dragons entwined with straps and with palmettes
in their mouths. 2 0 Later, in the thirteenth century, this fantastic folk ornament
takes o n a m o r e elaborate compositional appearance with adorsed birds, griffins
or other monstrous beasts. A t the suggestion of Shchepkin, this phase in thir-
teenth-century ornament is called 'technical teratology',21 w h i c h in fact reflects
the geometrical design of drawings and illuminations of this type.22 Technical
teratology is very marked in the decoration of thirteenth-century books in
Macedonia, Serbia and Bulgaria, especially in the Slav monasteries o n M o u n t
Athos, while in R u s ' it reached its greatest flowering in the art of N o v g o r o d in
the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Although the development of terat-
ological ornaments had certain specific traits a m o n g the Southern Slavs and in
R u s ' , nevertheless m a n y c o m m o n elements can be seen in t h e m , unambiguously
showing their interdependence. W e shall limit ourselves to mentioning as vivid
examples of the old folk-fantastic teratology such Macedonian works as the
Apóstolîtom Sleptse ( N o . 101, Lenin Public Library), V . Grigorovich's Collection
from the Khilandari Monastery ( N o . 1685, Lenin Public Library), the Triodion
from the Yugoslav A c a d e m y of Arts and Crafts, dating from the twelfth cen-
tury, and Serbian works such as the Khilandari Parameinik (collection of read-
ings from the Old Testament - N o . 313) and Theodore the Studite from Khilandari
(No. 387).23 A s for Russian manuscripts, the largest proportion of teratological

elements are to be found in Dobrilovo's Gospel of 1164 and the earlier Yuriev
Gospel of 1120-28. 24 T h e Serbian Miroslavovo Gospel of the late twelfth cen-
tury, however, which occupies the most prominent place in Slavonic illum-
ination, is of very special value and quality.25 A s F. Buslaev stresses, the Sleptse
Apóstol and the Khilandari Parameinik go beyond the limits of illumination and
take fantasy to the limit of recognition.26 In Russian manuscripts of the thir-
teenth century, unlike the South Slavonic manuscripts mentioned above, the
initials have a tectonic firmness that shows their Byzantine origin.
Later, during the phase of technical teratology in the thirteenth century, as
has already been said, adorsed monsters or birds, intertwined with snakes or
belts, are depicted in the illuminations. In North Russian manuscripts of the
late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, ornate architectural decorations
with elements of Russian architecture appear.
Discussion a m o n g scholars of thefirstappearance of technical teratology
began with the study of the Okhrid Boulogne Psalter, dating from the time of
Tsar Ivan Asen II (1218-41),27 then the Serbian Khilandari manuscript of the
Shestodnev (Hexameroti) of Exarch John in the M o s c o w Historical M u s e u m , 2 8 and
later the study of the Draganov Menaion, the Radomir Psalter, the Khilandari
Gospel N o . 12 and other South Slavonic examples of technical teratology.29
This style is represented in Russia by the Gospel (No. 104, Lenin Public
Library, M o s c o w ) , 3 0 dating from thefirsthalf of the thirteenth century, and the
Novgorod Gospel (No. 105, Lenin Public Library),31 dating from 1270.
Despite the fact that the similarity of these books written in Cyrillic cannot
be questioned, there is still discussion on the appearance of teratological ele-
ments in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and their origin. F. Buslaev, N .
Kondakov and V . Shchepkin give preference to the influence of the Byzantine
style and Greek manuscripts of Eastern Christian art, containing teratological
elements. Eastern Christian influence, however, extended to all European art.
According to these authors, this teratological wave came from the South Sla-
vonic lands to Rus', and there developed in its o w n way under the influence of
local Russian art.
In the inter-war period W . Born produced a more substantial work of
scholarship, stressing a Scandinavian influence on the appearance of Russian
teratology. A t the same time he expressed the opinion that technical teratology
penetrated to the Balkans thanks to Russian manuscripts, and that chronolog-
ically they came before Macedonian examples of this type.32 Despite the fact
that his view was not shared by others, it helped to clarify the criteria applying
in the study of Slavonic teratology. It should be remembered that V . Moshin
consistently defends the thesis that from the very beginning (i.e. the eleventh
and twelfth centuries) the sources of Russian illumination and ornament should
be sought in Byzantium and a m o n g the South Slavs. At the same time, even he
considers that the appearance of technical teratology in the South Slavonic

environment in the thirteenth century took place under Russian influence.33
T h e great expert o n this subject, S. Radojcic, insists o n the e n o r m o u s impor-
tance of southern Italian R o m a n scriptoria in the development of South Sla-
vonic fantastic teratology. H o w e v e r , his explanation of the appearance of tech-
nical teratology is that it arose from the copying of manuscripts of the time of
SS Cyril and Methodius, containing animal imagery inspired by the West. 3 4
According to h i m , neither Born's Scandinavian theory nor Moshin's opinion
o n the Russian origins of South Slavonic technical teratology is confirmed by
any manuscript.
T o round off our survey of the teratology of Cyrillic manuscripts in Russia,
Macedonia, Serbia and Bulgaria, it should be stressed that there is n o doubt that
these manuscripts are closely related and that they present identical forms and
m e t h o d of artistic treatment, thereby confirming the links between them. A t
the same time specific traits stemming from local conditions can also be clearly
seen. T h e y had c o m m o n points of communication,firstof all o n M o u n t Athos,
in the Slav monasteries of Zograph, St Panteleimon and Khilandari. A s for the
origin of teratological ornament in Cyrillic manuscripts in the Slav world, this
question has yet to be studied, especially in regard to relations with By2antium
and pre-Romanic Western manuscripts dating from before the appearance of
Slavonic teratology.
T h e parallels that can be established between Macedonia and R u s ' in the
eleventh century in thefieldof m o n u m e n t a l painting are of another character.
Here whatfirstsprings to the eye is the stylistic and iconographie similarity bet-
w e e n St Sophia in Kiev and St Sophia at Okhrid. It is interesting that the dating
of the mosaics in Kiev to 1043-46 3 5 and of the frescoes at Okhrid to i m m e -
diately after 1037 3 6 indicates that these t w o greatest ensembles in art of the
Byzantine style and in European art of the eleventh century c a m e into being at
the same time.
W e shouldfirstpoint to the striking similarity of the thematic material of
the t w o cathedrals. In the lower zone of the altar in the apse in Kiev and Okhrid
there are frontal figures of the great Fathers of the Church led by St Basil the
Great, St J o h n Chrysostom, St Gregory the Divine, St Athanasius of Alexandria
and others; and here are also outstanding deacons. In Kiev and Okhrid, in
another part of the t w o cathedrals, the Eucharist is represented in a very similar
w a y , a special version of the C o m m u n i o n of the Apostles. W e should also
r e m e m b e r the Deisis, positioned similarly in the t w o churches under the tri-
u m p h a l arches in the altar and with the s a m e iconographie significance.
T h e restoration of the paintings in the choir galleries of St Sophia in Kiev,
w h o s e frescoes date from 1061-67, is of the greatest interest. Here four c o m p o -
sitions depict The Sacrifice of Abraham, The Hospitality of Abraham, The Meeting of
Abraham with the Three Strangers and The Three Youths in the Fiery Furnace. T h e same
compositions decorate the main sanctuary of St Sophia at Okhrid together with

three m o r e liturgical subjects.
It is k n o w n that in medieval theological literature A b r a h a m and Isaac are
treated as Old Testament prototypes of the sacrament of the Eucharist. Abra-
h a m sacrificing his son Isaac is treated as G o d the Father sacrificing Christ, as
earlier illustrated in the mosaics in the altar of San Vitale at Ravenna, Italy. T h e
composition The Three Youths in the Fiery Furnace also contains a symbolism of
suffering, sacrifice and resurrection, which is the fundamental d o g m a of Chris-
tianity.37 T h e artistic ensembles of the cathedrals of Kiev and Okhrid, apart
from their thematic similarities, also have obvious stylistic points of contact.
T h e mosaics in Rus' and the frescoes in Macedonia are severe, heavy and rich in
contrasts of light and dark (chiaroscuro). However classical their basis, they are
suffused with elements of Byzantine aesthetics, created in theological circles.38
In this they differ from works executed for court circles and marked by the Hel-
lenistic style offigures,their elegance and ideal nature.
B y mentioning this closeness of the two ensembles, w e are not suggesting
that they influenced each other. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that their the-
matic and stylistic closeness reflects the dominant influence of Byzantine theo-
logical circles. Despite the great distance between them, in the mid-eleventh
century identical problems of the liturgy and eucharist were treated in a similar
artistic language.
A s for the assertion that the figures of the teachers of the Slavs and other
South Slavonic saints in the Church of St Cyril of Alexandria in Kiev date to
the end of the twelfth century,39 w e so far abstain from expressing an opinion.
W e share the opinion of those researchers w h o consider that the figures of SS
Cyril, Methodius and Clement were depicted later, i.e. in the nineteenth cen-
tury,40 and await definitive confirmation of this. W e believe that there were
direct contacts between the painting of Macedonia, Serbia and Rus', but that
these developed in the fourteenth century, and this is what w e shall discuss
below.
T h e question of the links between the South Slavs and Russian painting of
the fourteenth century was raised by V . N . Lazarev in his article on the frescoes
of the Church of the Transfiguration of Christ in the Kovalevo Monastery in
Novgorod. H e also saw a relationship between the Church of the Annunciation
at Gorodishche near Novgorod (c. 1370) and Serbian painting of the Moravian
school.41 In the opinion of S. Radojcic, the frescoes at Volotovo and those in the
Church of St Theodore Stratilates in Novgorod can also be included in this
group. 42 V . N . Lazarev concentrated o n the paintings of Kovalevo, dated to
1380, which, in his opinion, cannot be linked either to the Russian style or to
the artistic tradition of Theophanes the Greek. H e also mentions a n u m b e r of
iconographie and stylistic elements of Kovalevo that have analogies only with
works found in Macedonia, Serbia and at M o u n t Athos; he also considers that
the N o v g o r o d frescoes were the w o r k of South Slavonic masters or their R u s -

sian pupils. In confirmation of this thesis the author dwells especially o n the
iconographie type At Thy Right Hand Did Stand the Queen, a composition painted
o n the north wall of the church, next to the Transfiguration. T h e M o t h e r of
G o d is depicted dressed as a queen to the right of Christ dressed in the vest-
ments of a bishop. T h e picture does not include the third figure of St J o h n the
Baptist or of King David, the ninth verse of w h o s e Psalm 45 inspired this c o m -
position. T h e author stressed that in Russian art this t h e m e is represented in an
icon in the Cathedral of the Dormition in M o s c o w where Christ is depicted in
the vestments of the Great H i g h Priest between the M o t h e r of G o d and St J o h n
the Baptist. A fifteenth-century icon in the Tretyakov Gallery has the s a m e
theme.
Lazarev writes that all these images are of Serbian or South Slavonic origin,
or were created by the hands of Balkan artists. This outstanding researcher also
dwells o n the composition, Do Not Weep For Me, O Mother in the Kovalevo
Church and its Serbian and Macedonian equivalents. H e gives consideration
too to the iconographie and stylistic similarity of the major feasts of this church,
which in the opinion of Gabriel Millet belong to the Macedonian school.43
H o w far the paintings of this N o v g o r o d church are the w o r k of South Sla-
vonic masters or their Russian pupils is a question that has not yet been eluci-
dated by scholars. Nevertheless, specialists in Yugoslavian art history have
recently m a d e important discoveries o n the composition At Thy Right Hand Did
Stand the Queen, which tend to confirm Lazarev's thesis.
All the versions of the composition with Christ as K i n g and the M o t h e r of
G o d as Q u e e n dating to the fourteenth century, an increasing n u m b e r of w h i c h
have been discovered in recent years, are of Macedonian origin. T h e oldest of
those so far discovered is at Treskavica near Prilep and dates from around 1340.
During the fifteenth century, this type of composition became widespread in
Macedonia, after which it began to spread to other countries of Byzantine cul-
ture, basically in the Balkans and in Rus'. 4 4 It is not yet possible to determine
w h e n this composition first appeared, but w e suppose that its development w a s
influenced by Thessalonika and the Holy Mountain ( M o u n t Athos), though
fourteenth-century examples of this composition have not been found there.
In all the examples from Macedonia, together with the Deisis and At Thy
Right Hand Did Stand the Queen, warrior saints are depicted in the clothes of
boyars, wearing boyar caps and with staffs of office in their hands, as mentioned
by Pseudo-Kodin. In thefirstexample k n o w n to us, at Treskavica, King David,
the author of the psalm that inspired the illustration, is depicted next to Christ
as K i n g and the M o t h e r of G o d as Q u e e n . Later K i n g David w a s replaced by St
John the Baptist ( Z a u m , 1361) or else both K i n g David and J o h n the Baptist are
depicted together with Christ as K i n g and the Mother of G o d as Q u e e n (Mar-
kov Monastery, 1376).45 In the church at Kovalevo Christ and the Mother of
G o d appear o n their o w n .
A s early as the late fourteenth century and around 1400, Christ is depicted
in Macedonia as both King and High Priest at the same time (in an icon at
Okhrid). It was above all in Thessalonika and Macedonia, at the time of the
Zographs (painters), Michael and Eutichius and their contemporaries, that
Christ began to be frequently depicted as High Priest in eucharistie themes,
especially in the C o m m u n i o n of the Apostles (St Nikita near Skopje and St
Nicholas Orphanos in Thessalonika).
During the fourteenth century, Christ was already depicted in Macedonia
and Serbia as a High Priest in the Liturgy or C o m m u n i o n of the Apostles
(Polosko, Lesnovo, Markov Monastery, Ravanica, etc.).46 These works form a
homogeneous stylistic and iconographie group which continued to develop
throughout the fourteenth century and n o equivalent homogeneous group can
be found in other countries. It is therefore understandable that Russian e x a m -
ples with the figure of Christ as High Priest and King with the Mother of G o d
as Queen are closely linked to the South Slavonic compositions mentioned
above.
W h e n considering this artistic homogeneity in Macedonia, in the context
of the medieval Serbian State under Kings Dusan and Uros and later in the
reigns of local Macedonian lords, w e expressed the opinion that compositions
depicting Christ as King and the Mother of G o d as Queen were not inspired
solely by the ninth verse of the Psalm of David (Ps. 45:9) but were also of
eucharistie significance.
In our opinion they are represented in this w a y o n the basis of the eucharis-
tie texts of the h y m n s and prayers of the Great Entry of the Divine Liturgy and
of the liturgy of the catechumens. Christ appears at the same time as sacrifice for
the salvation of mankind and as a king enthroned in glory. During the second
half of the fourteenth century, as increasing emphasis was placed o n the eucha-
ristie significance of the theme, Christ as King was gradually replaced by Christ
as a bishop celebrating the liturgy and at the same time offering himself as a
sacrifice.47 T h efirstdated example of Christ attired as High Priest and the
Mother of G o d as Queen is certainly that in the Kovalevo Monastery, whereas
in other Russian examples, as already mentioned, he is depicted as both K i n g
and High Priest.48
W h e n studying the earliest representation of Christ as King and the
Mother of G o d as Queen from Treskavica near Prilep, w e should ask w h e n and
where this theme was devised and developed. It seems to us that it was not a
provincial theme o n the sideline of By2antine art, as V . N . Lazarev considered,
but that it arose in the wave of thematic innovations that appeared in Byzantine
art about 1300 and in the course of the following decades, and m a d e itself felt
most strongly in Constantinople, Thessalonika, Macedonia, Serbia and o n
M o u n t Athos. This t h e m e did not arise under the influence of hesychastic phi-
losophy a n d literature, chiefly because it appeared in the visual arts before the
triumph of the teaching of St Gregory Palamas. W e consider that it developed
in the fourteenth century mainly in the Okhrid archdiocese a n d under the spir-
itual influence of Thessalonika.
This t h e m e does not appear in any w o r k of the Palaeologue style (after the
dynasty reigning in Constantinople from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centu-
ries) in Constantinople. In Russian art it does not appear in the w o r k s of T h e -
ophanes the G r e e k or A n d r e y Rublev, both of w h o m had close contacts with
the art of Constantinople. Therefore the appearance of Christ as H i g h Priest
and the M o t h e r of G o d as Q u e e n in the composition At Thy Right Hand Did
Stand the Queen in the C h u r c h of the Transfiguration at Kovalevo can be justi-
fiably linked to South Slavonic w o r k s , showing contacts between the artists of
N o v g o r o d a n d those of the South Slavonic regions.
Later, after the loss of national independence a n d the vassaldom of Chris-
tian rulers in Serbia and M a c e d o n i a in thefifteenthcentury a n d later, contacts
with R u s ' in all fields b e c a m e wider a n d m o r e varied. C h u r c h organizations and
monasteries in M a c e d o n i a and Serbia were impoverished, a n d so bishops a n d
m o n k s from these places began to turn frequently for material support to R u s ' ,
while at the s a m e time emigrant Zographs received commissions from wealthy
Russian boyars a n d C h u r c h leaders. Artistic contacts in this period form a sep-
arate t h e m e a n d are beyond the scope of this chapter.
NOTES
1. V . Stasov, Slavjanskij i vostocnyj ornament [Slavonic and Oriental Ornamentation], Vol.
1, St Petersburg, 1884.
2. N . Baumgarten, 'St Vladimir et la conversion de la Russie [St Vladimir and the
Conversion of Russia]', Orientalia Christiana (Rome), N o . 27, 1932, p. 97.
3. M . Jugie, 'Les origines de l'Église russe [The Origins of the Russian Church]', Echos
d'Orient, Vol. 36, 1937, p. 257.
4. E . Honigmann, 'Studies in Slavic Church History', Byzzntion, Vol. 18, 1944/45, pp.
128-62.
5. G . Ostrogorski, Istorija Vizantije [History of Byzantium], pp. 289-90, Belgrade,
1969.
6. M . D . Priselkov, Ocerkipo cerkovno-politiceskoj istorii Kievskoj Rusi X-XII vv [Essays on
the Ecclesiastical and Political History of Kievan R u s ' from the Tenth to the Thir-
teenth Century], pp. 38-43, 63-4, St Petersburg, 1913.
7. A . V . Kartasev, Ocerkipo istorij Russkoj cerkvi [Essays o n the History of the Russian
Church], Vol. 1, p. 135, Paris, 1959.
8. V . Mosin, 'Novgorodski listiéi i Ostromirovo jevandjelje [The Novgorod Chron-
icles and Ostromir's Gospel]', Arheografski prilozi (Belgrade), Vol. 5, 1983, pp.
15-23.
124 Stvían GrozÂanov
9. A . V . Soloviev, ' L e patriarchat d'Okhrid et l'Église de Russie depuis 988 [The

Patriarchate of Okhrid and the Church of Russia since 988]', lijadagodini od vostanieto
na komitopulite i sozdavanieto na Samoilovata drzava [1,000th Anniversary of the Rising of
the Insurgents and the Establishment of the State of Samuel], p. 254, Skopje, 1971.
10. V . N . Lazarev (ed.), htorija russkogo iskusstva [History of Russian Art], V o l . 1, p p .
2 2 4 - 3 1 , M o s c o w , 1953.
11. C . Grozdanov, 'Ornamentikata na rascvetani lisja vo umetnosta na Ohrid v o X I -
XII vek [Flower and Leaf Ornamentation in the Art of Okhrid in the Eleventh and
Twelfth Centuries]', Uhnid (Okhrid), Vol. 6, 1988, pp. 11-20.
12. A . Grabar, Srednjovekovna umetnost htocne Evrope [Medieval Art in Eastern Europe], pp.
148-9, Novi Sad, 1969.
13. V . Mosin, ' O r n a m e n t juznoslovenskih rukopisa XI-XIII veka [The Ornamentation
of South Slavonic Manuscripts from the Eleventh to the Thirteenth Century]',
Radovi [Works], pp. 19-21, Sarajevo, 1957.
14. Grabar, op. cit., p . 148.
15. Mosin, 'Novgorodski listici . . .', op. cit., p . 14.
16. Grozdanov, 'Ornamentikata . . .', op. cit., pp. 11-20.
17. C . Grozdanov, ' L a miniatura dei manuscritti macedoni [The Miniature in M a c e d o -
nian Manuscripts]', Gloria a San Cirilo, p p . 3 0 - 2 , R o m e , 1971.
18. A . Grabar, Vmntija [Byzantium], pp. 138-47, Novi Sad, 1969.
19. Grozdanov, 'Ornamentikata . . .', op. cit., pp. 11-20.
20. F . N . Buslaev, Socinenija [Works], Vol. 3, pp. 75-147, M o s c o w , Izd. Akademii N a u k
SSSR, 1930; N . P . Kondakov, Makedonija [Macedonia], pp. 54-60, St Petersburg,
1909.
21. V . Scepkin, Bolon'skaja psaltir' [The Boulogne Psalter], pp. 37-47, St Petersburg,
1906.
22. Grozdanov, 'La miniatura . . .', op. cit., pp. 30-4.
23. S. Radojcic, 'Umetnicki spomenici manastira Hilandara [The M o n u m e n t s of the
Monastery of Khilandari]', Zbomik radova Vizantoloskog Instituía (Belgrade), Vol. 3,
1955, pp. 164-6; A . Dzurova, 1,000 godini b"lgarska r"kopisna kniga [1,000 Years of
Bulgarian Manuscripts], pp. 35-6, Sofia, 1981.
24. Buslaev, op. cit., p . 85; Lazarev, op. cit., Vol. 1, p . 228.
25. V . J. Djuric, htorija srpskog naroda [History of the Serbian People], Vol. 1, p p . 293-5,
Belgrade, 1981.
26. Buslaev, op. cit., p . 102; Kondakov, op. cit., p . 56.
27. I. Dujcev, Bolonskipsaltir [The Boulogne Psalter], Vol. 17, Sofia, 1968.
28. S. Radojcic, 'Naslovna zastava hilandarskog Sestodneva iz 1263 godine [The Title
Vignette in the Hexameron of Khilandari Monastery]', Odabrani clanci i studije, pp.
167-81, Belgrade, 1982.
29. Dzurova, op. cit., pp. 3 5 - 7 .
30. W . Born, Das Tiergeflecht in der nordrussischen Buchmalerei [Animal Strapwork in North
Russian Illuminations], Vol. 2 , p . 95 (fourth Seminarium Kondakovianum,
Prague, 1933); N . V . Arcihovskij, htorija russkogo iskusstva, Vol. 2 , p . 286, M o s c o w ,
1954.
31. Lazarev, op. cit., Vol. 2 , p. 288.
32. Born, op. cit., Vol. 3, pp. 72-4.

33. Mosin, op. cit., pp. 62-72.
34. Radojcic, 'Naslovna . . .', op. cit., pp. 170, 181.
35. V . N . Lazarev, lstorija vizantijskoj zjvopisi [History of Byzantine Painting], p. 77, M o s -
c o w , 1986.
36. V . J. Djuric, Vizantijske freske u Jugoslaviji [Byzantine Frescoes in Yugoslavia], pp. 9,
179-80, Belgrade, 1984.
37. V . N . Lazarev, 'Novye otkrytija v Sofii Kievskoj [ N e w Discoveries in St Sophia's
Cathedral in Kiev]', X mezdunarodnyj kongresspo vizantinovedeniju [Tenth International
Congress of Byzantinology], p. 17, M o s c o w , 1955.
38. C . Grozdanov, Sveta Sofija vo Ohrid [St Sophia at Okhrid], pp. 10-11, Zagreb, 1980.
39. lstorija russkogo iskusstva, Vol. 1, p. 218, M o s c o w , 1953.
40. C . Grozdanov, Portreti na svetitelite od Makedonija [Portraits of Saints in Macedonia], p.
27, Skopje, 1983.
41. V . N . Lazarev, 'Kovalevskaja rospis' i problema juznoslavjanskih svjazej v russkoj
zivopisi X I V veka. [The Frescoes of Kovalevo and the Problems of South Slavonic
Connections in Russian Art of the Fourteenth Century]', Russkaja srednevekovaja zivo-
pis' [Medieval Russian Painting], pp. 249-60, M o s c o w , 1970; V . N . Lazarev, in
Vestnik Akademii Nauk SSSR, Vol. 8 / 9 , pp. 139-40, M o s c o w , 1946.
42. S. Radojcic, 'Veze izmedju srpske i ruske umetnosti u srednjem veku [The Links bet-
ween Serbian and Russian Art in the Middle Ages]', Zbornik Filosofskogfakulteta (Bel-
grade), Vol. 1, 1948, p. 244.
43. Lazarev, 'Kovalevskaja . . .', op. cit., p. 242.
44. C . Grozdanov, Ohridsko zfdno slikarstvo XIV veka [Monumental Painting in Okhrid in
the Fourteenth Century], pp. 106-8, Belgrade, 1980; C. Grozdanov, 'Hristos car,
Bogorodica carica [Christ the King, the Virgin Queen]', Kulturno nasledstvo XII-XIII,
pp. 5-16, Skopje, 1988.
45. C . Grozdanov, 'Iz ikonografije markovog manastira [The Iconography of Markov
Monastery]', Zograf, Vol. 11, pp. 87-92, Belgrade, 1980.
46. V . J. Djuric, Ravanicki zivopis i liturgija [The Painting of Racanitsa and the Liturgy],
pp. 57-60, Ravanica, 1981.
47. Grozdanov, 'Hristos car . . .', op. cit., pp. 5-13.
48. V . Pucko, 'Ikona "Predsta carica" v moskovskom Kremle [The Icon At Thy Right
Hand Did Stand the Queen in the M o s c o w Kremlin]', Zbornik ?# likovne umetnosti, pp.
59-74, Novi Sad, 1969; E . Ostasenko, ' O b ikonografii tipa ikony "Predsta carica"
Uspenskogo sobora moskovskogo Kremlia [On the Iconography of the Type At Thy
Right Hand Did Stand the Queen in the Cathedral of the Dormition in the M o s c o w
Kremlin]', Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo [Ancient Russian Art], pp. 175-87, M o s c o w , 1977.
Christianity and the development
of architecture and art in Western R u s '
Stanislav Martselev
While celebrating the official adoption in 988 of Christianity in its Eastern,

Byzantine tradition by Kievan Rus', w e wish to stress the great significance of
this momentous act for the development of our history and culture and the for-
mation of the Russian State. At the beginning, Christianity spread mainly in
major towns, but subsequently the n e w religion slowly but surely supplanted
pagan beliefs and became predominant, even in remote areas lacking reliable
communications with major administrative and cultural centres. T h e introduc-
tion of Christianity came to influence all aspects of life in ancient Rus'.
T h e aim of the present chapter is to give a general picture of the develop-
ment of ancient architecture and art in the territory of the present-day Byelo-
russian SSR in the context of the spread of Christianity in that region.
T h e territory of present-day Byelorussia, through which in ancient times
the w a y 'from the Varangians to the Greeks' passed and through which there
were trade links between southern Rus', Byzantium and the Arab East with
northern Rus', the Baltic and Scandinavia, was already in the tenth century an
integral part of Kievan Rus'. Written sources from the ninth to the fourteenth
centuries record overfiftytowns there, including Polotsk (founded in 862),
Turov (980), Zaslavl (tenth century), Brest (1019), Vitebsk (1021), Kopys
(1059), Braslav (1065) and Minsk (1067). T h e chronicles bear witness to the
advanced level of economic and cultural development of the region. T h e tribe
of the Krivichi, or, as the chroniclers called them, the 'Polochane', w h o occu-
pied the basin of the Western Dvina and from the mid-ninth century had their
o w n principality, were part of Kievan Rus' from the time of its establishment.
During the tenth century the tribe of the Dregovichi, w h o inhabited the basin
of the Pripyat' and had their o w n principality, and the tribe of the Rodomichi,
w h o inhabited the left bank of the Dnieper and the basin of the Sozh, were
128 Stanislav Martsekv
incorporated into Kievan Rus'. T h e lands adjoining the N i e m e n and B u g were

subsequently joined to this state.
Culture and art had a special place a m o n g the wide variety of means used
by the n e w religion to advance and increase its influence o n minds. Hence the
heightened attention paid by the n e w religion and its clergy to church architec-
ture, the effective use of the potential of the spoken sermon and literature, dep-
ictive art and music, and the theatrical qualities of the Orthodox church ser-
vice. Solving its ideological problems, the Church acquainted wide strata of the
people with the works of art that it took into its service.
T h e creation of a network of churches and monasteries formed a powerful
base of support for the spread and strengthening of Christianity. Churches were
first built in the centres of principalities and large settlements, and later in other
places. In Kiev, the centre of the ancient Russian State, building with brick and
stone began at the end of the tenth century w h e n thefirstmonumental church,
the Church of the Tithe, was built with the help of Byzantine architects. Infor-
mation about thefirstchurches built of w o o d in Byelorussia has not c o m e d o w n
to us. There is, however, information about churches constructed in brick and
stone. T h e talent and long labour of the people brought forth the third (after
Kiev and Novgorod) Cathedral of St Sophia in Polotsk in the eleventh century.
T h e precise years of its construction are u n k n o w n , but the Cathedral was
already in use around 1060, as mentioned in the masterpiece of ancient Russian
literature, The Song of Igor's Campaign. Subsequently the church was reconstructed
m a n y times and its original architectural appearance changed substantially. T h e
Cathedral of St Sophia in Polotsk has been studied thoroughly in recent decades
by archaeologists, historians and restorers and very reliable information is n o w
available o n the initial appearance of this cathedral. It m a y , for example, be
assumed that the craftsmen w h o built the Cathedral of St Sophia in Polotsk
were familiar with the architecture of the Cathedrals of St Sophia in Kiev and
Novgorod and saw the Cathedral of Polotsk as a simplified version of the Cath-
edral of St Sophia in Kiev. They did not m a k e an exact copy of the type of
church chosen earlier, but introduced substantial changes into it, dictated by
the conditions of their commission, local peculiarities and the nature of the
building materials available. T h e plan of the Cathedral of St Sophia in Polotsk
is very similar to that of the Cathedral of St Sophia in Novgorod: it has not got
five apses (as in Kiev) but only three and the inner arcades are not triple but
double. Unlike the one in Kiev, the Cathedral of St Sophia in Polotsk has one,
not two, galleries. During restoration in the mid-eighteenth century, a n e w
sanctuary apse was added and an entrance and t w o high baroque towers con-
structed at the south side. T h e longitudinal axis of the church is n o w perpendic-
ular to its original orientation. Only the lower parts of the ancient pillars
remain, hidden under the w o o d e n floor of the m o d e r n building. T h e Cathedral
of St Sophia in Novgorod was a cruciform, d o m e d church, fairly rare in Rus'.
Christianity and the development Y19
of architecture and art in Western Rus'
Between 1120 and 1130, the Great Cathedral of the Belchitsy Monastery - a
six-pillared church with three apses - w a s built near Polotsk. T h e craftsmen
w h o built this cathedral m o s t probably took as a pattern the C h u r c h of the
Saviour in the Prince's village of Berestovo near Kiev. T h e Churches of S S
Boris and Gleb and of Paraskeva-Pyatnitsa, as well as the nameless stone
churches in Belchitsy, were built in the mid-twelfth century. T h e C h u r c h of St
Ephrosynia and the Saviour, built between 1152 and 1161, is the best expression
of the creative search of the Polotsk architect, Ioann, w h o aimed at giving the
building a dynamic d o m e d appearance. T h e C h u r c h of SS Boris and Gleb has a
large n u m b e r of features in c o m m o n with that of St Ephrosynia and the
Saviour. In the opinion of m a n y researchers, it, too, w a s built by Ioann. T h e
remains of a small, single-apse church, similar in plan to o n e in Putivl and also
to ancient churches o n M o u n t Athos, in Bulgaria, Serbia and R o m a n i a , have
also been discovered in the grounds of the former monastery in Belchitsy. In
the construction of the buildings in Polotsk the Kievan building tradition
k n o w n as 'striped brickwork' w a s used, in the form of alternating rows of pro-
jecting and recessed brickwork with lining, a n d also the treatment of the surface
of the pilasters in the form of half-columns, found in churches of the twelfth
and early thirteenth centuries in neighbouring Smolensk.
T h e Cathedral of the Annunciation at Vitebsk, of w h i c h only a small part
remains, dates from the beginning of the twelfth century. F r o m its plan it is
possible to judge h o w the Byzantine d o m e d cruciform system w a s adapted in
Western R u s ' . T h e building w a s extended along its longitudinal axis and the
middle nave m a d e wider than the side ones, w h i c h is also a trait of the churches
in the Polotsk area. T h e eastern wall culminated in a massive apse, while the
side ones were in the angle parts of the wall. T h e remains of a twelfth-century
six-pillared three-naved church discovered by archaeologists at T u r o v s h o w the
similarity of its basic proportions to those of the Cathedral of the Dormition in
Vladimir-Volynsky. Several architectural m o n u m e n t s at G r o d n o - the lower
church, built in thefirsthalf of the twelfth century, the C h u r c h of SS Boris a n d
Gleb in Kolozha, built at the e n d of the twelfth century, and the fortified stone
d o m e s of the old castle - are of great historical and artistic value. Despite cer-
tain features shared by the churches of G r o d n o with those at Polotsk, S m o -
lensk, Galicia a n d Volhyia, they are distinguished by the rich polychrome orna-
m e n t of both their exterior and interior. D u r i n g excavations of the castle site in
M i n s k , the ruins of a stone church, similar in plan to those of twelfth-century
churches in Polotsk and Vitebsk, were discovered. H o w e v e r , the presence of a n
inner facing of the walls with slabs of porous limestone a n d masonry with
slightly squared stone blocks gives it a certain individuality. In this w a y , the
architecture of Byelorussia from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries reflects
very clearly the influence of Byzantine traditions and their interpretation b y
local craftsmen.
130 Stanislav Martselev
Very few works of depictive art of thefirstcenturies of Christianity in R u s '

have c o m e d o w n to us. T h e most widespread were, of course, icons, murals and
then illuminations and works of applied art. S o m e ancient churches (the Cath-
edral of St Sophia and the Church of St Ephrosynia and the Saviour in Polotsk,
the Church of the Annunciation in Vitebsk) still have remains of wall paintings
which give an idea of their merits and characteristics. For example, it is possible
to have an idea of the wall paintings in the Church of SS Boris and Gleb from
the remaining outlines of individual figures of saints and from ornamental
motives. In their iconography they stem from the traditional type of images of
saints in the Cathedral of St Sophia in Kiev. T h e paintings of the Churches of St
Paraskeva-Pyatnitsa and SS Boris and Gleb in Polotsk have analogies with the
frescoes of the Church of St Michael at Astser near Chernigov.
T h e characteristic feature of m a n y frescoes is the psychological and e m o -
tional depth and the spiritual intensity of the images. All the wall paintings
mentioned above also bear witness to the fact that the artists of Polotsk were
well acquainted with the classical Byzantine painting tradition of the eleventh
and twelfth centuries. T h e close links between the princely dynasty of Polotsk
and the Byzantine court in the early twelfth century fostered the artistic
influence of the Byzantine Comnenus style (called after the dynasty reigning in
Byzantium in the twelfth century), as can be seen particularly vividly in the
frescoes of the Belchitsy Monastery and the miniatures of the Khutyn Hierat-
icon (Siuzhebnik). The early-thirteenth-century art of Polotsk bears the imprint
of the Palaeologue style, as is convincingly shown by the miniatures of the
Orsha Gospel.
T h efirsticons were brought to Byelorussia from Kiev and Byzantium. It is
also k n o w n that the grand-daughter of Prince Vseslav Brachislavich, Ephrosy-
nia of Polotsk, requested the kinsman of the Princes of Polotsk, the Byzantine
Emperor Manuel C o m n e n u s , to send an ancient icon, painted, according to tra-
dition, by St Luke the Evangelist, to her church. W h e n she received this icon,
Ephrosynia decorated it richly with gold, silver and precious stones. It is
believed that in 1239, o n the occasion of Alexander Nevsky's marriage to the
daughter of Prince Brachislavich of Polotsk, this icon was m o v e d to the town of
Toropets in the Pskov region, and is at present in the Russian M u s e u m in
Leningrad, under the n a m e of The Hodigitria of Toropets. O n e of the icons brought
from Byzantium, the Umiknie {Virgin of Tenderness), dating from the fourteenth
century, is in the M u s e u m of Ancient Byelorussian Culture of the Institute of
Fine Art, Ethnography and Folklore of the Academy of Sciences of the Byelo-
russian SSR. By the nature of their painting, the icons of that time were dis-
tinguished by an impressive range of colours, flat treatment offiguresand
objects and the absence of perspective. O n the whole the development of art in
the western lands of Rus' took place on the basis of a combination of folk tradi-
tions and the best Byzantine examples.
Christianity and the development 131
Only a small proportion of the objects that decorated the interiors of

palaces and churches have come d o w n to us, though archaeological excavations
have revealed remains such as crosses, chessmen from Volkovysk and m a n y
other articles from that era. T h e famous cross of Ephrosynia of Polotsk, a rare
example of the work in gold of the period, was kept for a longtime in Polotsk in
the Cathedral of St Sophia and the Church of St Ephrosynia and the Saviour. It
was decorated with gold, enamel and many-coloured precious stones. T h e cross
was commissioned by Princess Ephrosynia and m a d e by a citizen of Polotsk,
Lazar Bogsh, in 1161. Until 1941 it was exhibited in the M u s e u m of Mogilev. It
disappeared during the Nazi occupation of the town in the Second World W a r
and has so far not been traced.
T h e spread of Christianity also had a considerable influence on other fields
of the nation's spiritual life. Long before its baptism, R u s ' had a written culture
with works of literature, which were of varying quality but sufficiently wide in
range. A t the end of the tenth century, historical works appeared in the form of
chronicles. T h e main centres where they were written were Kiev and N o v -
gorod. Texts written in Polotsk, Pskov, Rostov, Vladimir, Chernigov and other
towns are also k n o w n .
E v e n though it is not determined solely by the actions of a few outstanding
figures, history is obviously not featureless. It cannot, in fact, be reduced to a
mere series of periods and epochs. It is at the same time an endless gallery of
figures, in which respect one cannot but recognize that the Church gave Rus' n o
small number of distinguished contributors to her culture. A m o n g them was
Bishop Cyril of Turov (1130-82) w h o was an outstanding writer, publicist,
churchman and statesman. His works were k n o w n far beyond the borders of
the western territories of Rus'. Princess Ephrosynia of Polotsk (1120-73), the
Abbess of the Convent of the Saviour there, also m a d e a great contribution to
the development of culture. N o small number of other names are also k n o w n to
us. Chronicles were written in monasteries; not only liturgical books but also
works of secular literature were copied there. Wider opportunities for learning
became available, as there were books in every church. T h e birch-bark letters
and other documents discovered by archaeologists working in Byelorussia show
that literacy was widespread not only a m o n g the clergy and feudal nobility but
also a m o n g tradesmen and craftsmen.
T h e next steps in the spread of literacy are linked to the development of
printing. T h e founder of Byelorussian printing was the outstanding humanist,
Frantsisk Skorina. H e was born in Polotsk, the son of a merchant, and received
his basic education there. In 1506 he graduated with a Bachelor's degree from
the University of Cracow and in 1512 received both a Doctorate in Arts and a
Doctorate in Medicine. Skorina created books that were real masterpieces based
on the well-developed local manuscript book design and o n the achievements
of foreign, in particular Czech, printers. During the existence of Skorina's first
132 Stanislav Martselev
printing-house in Prague (1517-19) almost the w h o l e O l d Testament (22 books)

and the Psalter w e r e published. In the 1520s Skorina m o v e d to Vilno and
published the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles a n d the Malaya podorozhnaya knizhitsa
(Wayfarer's Notes). In the prefaces to the books he translated and published in
Prague and Vilno, Skorina spoke out as a clear proponent of the ideas of
humanism.
T h e spread of manuscript and printed books led to the intense develop-
m e n t of book illustration. M a n y books were decorated with miniatures and
engravings. Especially noteworthy is the fourteenth-century Orsha Gospel,
decorated with miniatures of the Apostles, illuminations and ornamented let-
ters in headings composed of stylized drawings of h u m a n figures, beasts and
plant ornaments. Unlike the flat treatment of objects in icon painting of the
time, the h u m a n figures and objects in the engravings in Skorina's books are
s h o w n three-dimensionally and in perspective, and indicate the author's inten-
tion of basing the treatment of mythological characters on the features of real
people.
Such innovations in the design of Skorina's books as title pages, two-colour
printing, skilful use of cinnabar, reduced size for greater convenience of use,
storiated initials, illuminations, colophons, etc. w e r e adopted by later Byelorus-
sian printers. A b o u t 1560 a printing-house w a s founded in Nesvizh. Slightly
later the small printing-house of Vasily Tyapinskii began to operate (perhaps o n
his family estate of Tyapino). T h e w o r k s of St B u d n y i (the Catechism a n d On the
Justification of a Sinful Man before God), printed in 1562 in the Nesvizh printing-
house, also continued the artistic traditions of Skorina. There w e r e printing-
houses in Vilno a n d Eviev, w h i c h from the second quarter of the sixteenth cen-
tury gradually gave w a y to those of the O r t h o d o x Brotherhoods at Kuteino,
near Orsha, a n d at Mogilev. O v e r twenty years, Ioil Trutsevich's printing-
house at Kuteino published s o m e thirteen volumes. T h e printing-house of Spi-
ridon Sobol, w h i c h operatedfirstin Kiev, then at Kuteino, Buinichi a n d M o g i -
lev, w a s closely linked to those of the Brotherhood. There w a s a temporary
revival of the activities of the Mogilev E p i p h a n y Printing-house - the last of
the Brotherhood printing-houses in Byelorussia - at the end of the seventeenth
century, w h e n the Brotherhood rented it to a w e l l - k n o w n m o n k of the Mogilev
Monastery, M a x i m V a s h c h e n k o . This craftsman w a s the first to use copper
engraving in Byelorussian Cyrillic printing. O f the other engravers a n d w o o d -
cut makers of this printing-house, M a x i m V a s h c h e n k o ' s son Vasily, a certain
Athanasius a n d T h e o d o r e Azhileika are k n o w n .
T h e spread of Christianity played a positive role in the development of the
art of singing, w h i c h had already reached a very high level in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries. In the fourteenth a n d fifteenth centuries in Polotsk,
M i n s k , Vitebsk, Slutsk and Mogilev there were church schools in w h i c h choris-
ters were trained. A t that time the form of chant called znamennyi napev w a s
Christianity and the development 133
created, as w a s an original system of musical notation that m a d e it possible for

singers to learn n e w works m o r e quickly, to assimilate the musical text m o r e
easily and to record the pitch of notes m o r e correctly. F r o m the second half of
the sixteenth century, polyphony with division of voices into parts (descant,
tenor, alto and bass) w a s introduced into church singing. Choral music w a s
closely linked to the high culture of the cantata. Often Byelorussian cantatas
and psalms took o n the nature a n d form of folk-songs. In time the process of
interpénétration and fusion of religious and ecclesiastical poetry and folk m e l o -
dies gave birth to the original genre of 'spiritual verses'. M a n y monasteries
played a significant role in the development of musical education. At the end of
the sixteenth century each O r t h o d o x Brotherhood in Byelorussia had schools in
w h i c h o n e of the m a i n subjects w a s liturgical singing. Its study began in the
junior classes from text-books a n d 'linear notes'.
In this w a y , the cultural development o f K i e v a n R u s ' w a s very closely
linked to the spread of Christianity. E v e n in this early period, the talents of the
people had already brought into being a culture majestic in its dignity, classi-
cally lucid in style a n d refined in spirituality a n d inner nobility. T h e w o r k s of
architecture and art created during the age of Kievan R u s ' and the following
centuries are extremely precious m o n u m e n t s of the country's history a n d cul-
ture. W e see it as our vocation a n d our duty to society a n d as citizens to study
the cultural heritage in greater depth, m a k e skilful use of it in aesthetic educa-
tion and for educational purposes, and cherish the w o r k s of the people's genius
for the benefit of present and future generations.
T h e evolution of Russian ecclesiastical
architecture in the seventeenth century
Yves Hamant
This chapter considers o n e particular aspect of the evolution of Russian ec-

clesiastical architecture in the seventeenth century. T h e evolution of the style of
icons is better k n o w n , but the t w o appear to be comparable and to relate to
similar basic trends.
Evolution of icons in the seventeenth century

It is well k n o w n that icon painting w e n t through profound changes in the
seventeenth century. Iconographers strove to impart v o l u m e to flesh, using the
play of light and shade, and to represent space by m e a n s of linear perspective.
A t the s a m e time, icons continued to amass decorative details as they had begun
doing in the sixteenth century.
T h e development of realism in icons led to keen controversy and w a s the
subject of harsh criticism, particularly from Archpriest A v v a k u m , o n e of the
leaders of the ' O l d Believers' w h o were opposed to the liturgical reforms of
Patriarch N i k o n . A v v a k u m c o n d e m n e d the n e w style w h i c h h e described as
'unseemly' in these terms:
The image of Emanuel the Saviour is painted with a chubby face, red lips, curly
hair, muscular hands and arms, fatfingersand broad hips like a corpulent and pot-
bellied German, lacking nothing but a sabre at his side! All this is the fruit of carnal
thoughts because heretics adore the power of the flesh and turn from lofty
thoughts.'
W h a t A v v a k u m had clearly understood, a n d expressed in his o w n fashion with

his o w n vocabulary and concepts, w a s that the evolution of iconography in the
136 Yves Hamant
course of the seventeenth century indicated a change not only of style but also
the idea behind it.
A n icon of the Virgin painted about 1670 by Nikita Pavlovets2 illustrates
the n e w manner of treating space that has undoubted associations with the evo-
lution of architecture. T h e Virgin herself is still represented quite convention-
ally, and her dress, although richly decorated withfloralpatterns, has almost n o
volume. O n the other hand, she is not depicted against a plain coloured back-
ground or in a setting of buildings or fantastically shaped rocks. Behind her
stretches a rectangular garden whose perspective draws the eye of the onlooker.
Domed cruciform churches
For m a n y centuries the basic structure of Russian churches underwent little or

n o change. W h e n , following the baptism in 988, the princes of Kiev decided to
build churches in stone or brick, they arranged for architects to c o m e from
Byzantium where, ever since the iconoclastic crisis, churches had been built
with cupolas mounted o n a d r u m and planned in the form of a Greek cross
inscribed in a square. This is the model that was introduced into Rus'.
In three of the churches that were a m o n g thefirstto be built following the
baptism, that is, the three cathedrals n a m e d after St Sophia in Kiev, Novgorod
and Polotsk, the model presented a complex variant combining a Constantino-
politan plan having five naves with a number of pre-iconoclastic architectural
features, n o doubt in order to meet a series of specific requirements.3 Sub-
sequently it took a simpler form with three naves, four or six pillars and usually
a single d o m e resting on a d r u m supported by four barrel vaults arranged in cru-
ciform fashion with the load balanced by lateral compartments. These were
narrower than the central bays though they were almost as high, so that, viewed
from the exterior, the edifice had a cubic aspect giving the misleading impres-
sion that it was a cube surmounted by a cupola. T h e external volume was not
planned atfirst.T h e four pillars bearing the d r u m and cupola were the heart of
the building around which all the other components were arranged.4 This cen-
tral structure moreover w a s highly symbolic: the cross formed by the vaults
borne by the pillars was the link between the square or rectangular base of the
edifice symbolizing the created world and the circle of the cupola symbolizing
the uncreated or divine.
T h e model spread throughout the Kievan State. Following the Mongol
invasion, it survived with a number of innovations in Novgorod and Pskov and
spread in Muscovy. F r o m the end of the fifteenth century it was adapted to
larger buildings topped by five cupolas, albeit with a similar structure.
The evolution of Russian ecclesiastical architecture 137
in the seventeenth century
T h e pillars
The pillars, which were massive, in addition to supporting the building, served
to organize and divide up the interior, somewhat in the w a y of axonometric
perspective and the reversed perspective of icons. Surprisingly, the architects
made n o attempt to replace them with columns. This is a constant feature of
ancient Russian architecture. In the earliest church in R u s ' that can be defi-
nitely dated, the Cathedral of the Transfiguration of the Saviour at Chernigov
(begun in 1036), the master-builders, w h o probably came from Constantinople,
placed pillars where the current practice in the Byzantine capital was to put
columns. 5 M o r e than four centuries later, the Italians building the Church of
the Dormition in the Kremlin (1467-79) placed the central cupola on columns.
Although this cathedral was later regarded as a model to be imitated, no archi-
tect was ever to copy the columns. Those of the Church of the Dormition are
the only ones of their kind in all pre-eighteenth-century Russian architecture.
Pillarless churches
A few churches without pillars were built in Pskov at the close of the fifteenth
century as well as in M o s c o w where the so-called 'crossed' type of vault (krescatyj
svod)firstm a d e its appearance. Russian architects in the sixteenth century also
created an entirely n e w type of edifice that m a y be described as a tower-church
topped by a sort of elongated pyramid (later). However, the special function of
the churches built in this style, which appears to have been mainly a m o n u -
mental one, at least originally, sets them somewhat apart.
N o n e the less, these few churches with crossed vaults and the pyramidal
style of the sixteenth century m a y have paved the way for the appearance, fol-
lowing the period of troubles, of a n e w model of parish church that assumed a
commanding position throughout most of the seventeenth century, and a good
example of which is the Church of the Trinity at Nikitniki (1625-53) in M o s -
cow.
The central section is covered by an arched cloister vault: accordingly it
does not have any pillars and the internal space is open as in a palace hall {na
palatnoe deld) and lit by huge windows let into the façades; it is instantly open to
the eye and has the same effect as linear perspective.
O n the outside, the base of the central d r u m is no longer o n the same level
as the tops of the façades, and this difference in level is offset by rows of arches
stacked in the form of ornamental corbelling (kokosnik) without any supporting
function. Only the central d r u m opens onto the vault, while the lateral cupolas
and drums are also purely decorative. T h e external division of the façades, seg-
mented vertically by pilasters or columns engaged in the wall and horizontally
138 Yves Hamant
by two rows of w i n d o w s separated in s o m e cases by a frieze, also has a purely

decorative function. Such divisions do not correspond to the internal structure
of the edifice. There is n o link therefore between the internal and external
space, since the latter is n o longer a reflection of the former.
A s in all churches without pillars, the internal space is reduced and the
architects have added additional structures to the central part: a vast exonarthex
(trapeznaja), a pyramidal bell-tower {safer), side chapels allowing several liturgies
to be celebrated o n the s a m e day, and a n u m b e r of access galleries. It is as
though the building were broken up into a series of volumes placed side by side.
There is an abundance of external decoration: a multitude of encorbelled
arches, rows of coffers (sirinka), columns swelling in the form of a m e l o n
(dyn'kd) at mid-height, w i n d o w s framed b y small columns, multi-coloured
ceramic tiles (izrazec), and so forth.
T h e development of parish churches of this type w a s a turning-point in
architectural design several decades prior to the appearance of w h a t is k n o w n as
Moscovite Baroque or Naryshkin style. It is clear, therefore, that ecclesiastical
architecture in n o w a y escaped the overall evolutionary process that marked all
Russian culture in the seventeenth century and led inter alia to the religious
crisis.
NOTES
1. N . K . Gudzij, Hrestomatija po drevnerusskoj literature Xl-XVII vekov [Anthology o

Russian Literature from the Eleventh to the Seventeenth Century], Moscow, 1962,
p. 502. For a French translation of the passage quoted, see M . Laran and J. Saussay,
L a Russie ancienne [Ancient Russia], p. 311, Paris, Masson, 1975.
2. For a description of this icon, see V . I. Antonova and N . E . Mneva, Katalog drev-
nerusskoj zivopisi [Catalogue of Ancient Russian Painting], Vol. 2, p. 391, M o s c o w ,
1963.
3. P . N . Maksimov, Tvorceskie metody drevnerusskih zodcih [The Creative Methods
Ancient Russian Architects], pp. 12-13, Moscow, 1976.
4. K . N . Afanas'ev, Postroenie arhitektumoj formy drevnerusskimi zodcimi [The Develop
of Architectural Forms by the Architects of Ancient Rus'], p. 209, Moscow, 1961.
5. A . I. K o m e c , 'Spaso-Preobrazenskij Sobor v Cernigove. Kharakteristike nacal'nogo
perioda razvitija drevnerusskoj arhitektury [The Cathedral of the Transfiguration of
the Saviour in Chernigov: A Study of the Features of the Beginning of Ancient Rus-
sian Architecture]', Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo. Zarubeznye svjazi [Ancient Russian A
Links with Other Countries], pp. 9-10, M o s c o w , 1975.
The baptism of Rus' and the path
of Russian culture
Sergey Averintsev
Whatever m a y have been the riches of the indigenous traditions of Eastern Slav
paganism, stressed by such researchers as Academician B . A . Rybakov, only
with the adoption of Christianity, through contact with Byzantium, did Russian
culture overcome its local limitations and take on universal dimensions. It
came into contact with biblical and Hellenistic sources c o m m o n to the Euro-
pean cultural family (which, to a certain degree, also relate it to Islamic culture).
It became aware of itself and its place in an order going far beyond the limits of
m u n d a n e things; it became a culture in the full sense of the word.
E v e n the earliest Russian literati already sought to situate the various
periods in a universal perspective, establishing links between them. T h e speed
at which this happened is quite astounding. T h e most vivid m o n u m e n t of early
Russian 'historiosophy' - The Sermon on Law and Grace by Metropolitan Hilarión
- m a y be dated to withinfiftyyears of the baptism of Rus'. Only a short time
before, the customs of h u m a n sacrifice and ritual self-sacrifice were still being
practised, and Prince Vladimir had m a d e a last attempt to raise paganism to the
status of a state religion by erecting six idols at his palace; yet already attitudes
had changed completely. Horizons had become so m u c h wider that Metropol-
itan Hilarión seems to take in the Christian world as a whole: 'For grace-filled
Faith has spread over the whole earth, and has reached our Russian nation. . . .'
History is n o longer a matter of the epic, almost natural 'rhythm' of wars,
victories and disasters, but appears as a phenomenon of 'meaning', which in its
complexity requires interpretation, as a system of far-reaching links, in which
A b r a h a m and King David, the Greek philosophers and Alexander the Great,
the characters of the N e w Testament and the Emperor Constantine are all
involved.
T h e birth of the young culture in the spirit of Christian-Hellenistic uni-
140 Sergej Averintsev
versalism began with the translation of G r e e k books into 'Slavonic writing',

mentioned in The Tale of Bygone Years, which associates the early flowering of this
translating activity with the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, the builder of the Cath-
edral of St Sophia in Kiev, in other words with the time of Metropolitan Hila-
rión, w h o has already been mentioned. His e n c o m i u m of Yaroslav, as the conti-
nuer of Vladimir's w o r k , passes into an e n c o m i u m of books, adopted from the
Greeks:
Thus his father, Vladimir, ploughed and softened the earth, that is, enlightened the
land with Baptism; while he sowed the hearts of believing people with the words of
books, and w e harvest, accepting the teaching of books. . . . For w e acquire wisdom
and temperance from the words of books: for they are rivers satisfying the thirst of
the universe, they are sources of wisdom; in books there is immeasurable depth, w e
are consoled by them in sorrow, they are a bridle of temperance.1
Russian literary culture, w h i c h is n o w celebrating its Millennium, w a s from its

very beginning shaped by the international literary m o v e m e n t from Byzantium
that spread to the Southern Slavs and to R u s ' a n d w a s reborn a n d gained n e w
strength in the fourteenth century. This m o v e m e n t (analysed in depth in the
works of Academician D . S. Likhachev) can be considered a late but authentic
fruit of the Hellenistic tradition. Generally speaking, Greek literature, which
reached self-awareness and conscious linguistic w o r k in the p h e n o m e n o n of
rhetoric, is the source and paradigm for everything that is understood as specif-
ically 'artistic' a n d specifically 'literary' in all the literatures of Europe. 2 This is
the fundamental c o m m o n ground shared by Russians with the cultures of the
W e s t . H o w e v e r , the Greek art of rhetoric operated o n t w o levels. T h efirstlevel,
w h i c h w e shall call the 'exoteric' level, consists of 'figures of thought' and
'figures of speech', intellectually assimilable patterns of technique that can be
transferred from o n e language to another in such a w a y that n o particular
changes take place within the linguistic nature of the language that adopts
t h e m . T h e second, m o r e 'esoteric', level is invariably associated to a greater or
lesser degree with the physiognomy of the language as such. It is here that the
paths of Balkan-Russian Slav and R o m a n o - G e r m a n i c Western culture diverge.
Orthodox m e n of letters turned to the example of Greek ornate speech
directly, without the intermediary of Latin. T h e y were not to adopt just the
'figures of thought' and 'figures of speech'. Let us begin with w h a t is most
obvious and tangible: they m a d e wide use of models of w o r d formation - the
intricate structure of words formed from t w o or m o r e roots typical of the Greek
language. Such are the key w o r d s of traditional Russian ethics and aesthetics,
e.g. celomudrie (chastity, in Greek: aco(ppocrt>vT|), bJago-obrazie (beauty, nobility, in
Greek: eooxnuoauvn) and blago-lepie (splendour, in Greek: efj7ipérceia). Everyone
w h o has read G r e e k and Byzantine poets in the original k n o w s h o w important
this is for access to the deep, 'esoteric' level of the Greek literary tradition. O v e r
The baptism of Rus' and the path of Russian culture 141
centuries and over thousands of years, it w a s precisely in words like these that
the language's potential both for solemnity and for subtlety found its expres-
sion. Without t h e m the magnificence of Aeschylus' tragedies w o u l d have been
impossible - all these 'hippalectrions' and 'tragelaphs' which at a later date
Aristophanes w a s to parody with such tenderness - and without t h e m the
Byzantine elegance of church h y m n s would also have been impossible. T h e
beauty of whole clusters of w o r d s joined together in a single w o r d is very cha-
racteristic of the G r e e k language, and one w h i c h b e c a m e and remains dear to
the heart of the Russian people.
W e shall not call to witness a n erudite lover of C h u r c h Slavonic borrow-
ings such as the Symbolist poet Vyacheslav Ivanov, or even a specialist in the
finer points of ecclesiastical life and collector of linguistic rarities, such as the
remarkable Russian prose writer Nikolai Leskov. N o r shall w e turn to conser-
vative romantics of the Slavophile or neo-Slavophile persuasion. O u r witness
will be that most sober of realists, A n t o n Pavlovich C h e k h o v .
C h e k h o v wrote a study of customs called The Holy Night, published in 1886,
just over a century ago. In it w e hear the voice of a completely simple m a n , the
novice Hieronymus (Ieronim), w h o rapturously expresses his attachment to the
m o s t complex w o r d s , weightily solemn in the G r e e k m a n n e r , that are current in
Orthodox hymnography:
'Drevo svetloplodovitoe (tree fruitful with light), drevo blagosennolistvennoe (tree whose
leaves give pleasant shade)'. . . . But where did he find such words? W a s it the Lord
W h o gave him such a talent! For brevity he joins m a n y words and thoughts into a
single word, and h o w flowing and felicitous this turns out for him! 'Svetopodatel'na
svetil'nika suscim... (lamp giving light to those w h o are . . . ) ' , it says in the Akathist to
Jesus the Sweetest. Giving light! There is no such word in the spoken language, nor
in books, but he invented it, found it in his m i n d ! . . . A n d each exclamation should
be worded in such a way that it is flowing and easy o n the ear.
W i t h his childlike lips the simple-hearted H i e r o n y m u s expresses not only his

veneration for the holiness of religion but also unfeigned a n d natural enthu-
siasm for the play with w o r d s , this play, full of solemnity and the m o s t serious
merriment, w h i c h is called vitijstvo (ornate style) in Russian. This w o r d in its
very essence, in the fulness of its connotations a n d emotional overtones, is
untranslatable; it does not fully coincide with the concepts of 'rhetoric' or 'elo-
quence', because its shades of m e a n i n g are too closely linked to the specific p h y -
s i o g n o m y of C h u r c h Slavonic a n d Byzantine G r e e k stylistics.
W i t h o u t this element of vitijstvo, the w h o l e of the traditional Russian cul-
ture of speech w o u l d b e unthinkable, especially, of course, in the days before
Peter the Great, but also m u c h later. E v e n the great Pushkin, w h o did so m u c h
in the footsteps of K a r a m z i n a n d his followers for the modernization of the
Russian language, that is, for its emancipation from the tutelage of C h u r c h Sla-
142 Sergey Averintsev
vonic, even he paid his tribute to vitijstvo, if only in his paraphrases of the Song of
Songs where he appears as an elder brother of the h u m b l e H i e r o n y m u s .
Let us return, however, to Hieronymus. All the w o r d formations from
m a n y roots with w h i c h h e is so enraptured, without exception, have their
prototypes in Greek. 'Tree fruitful with light' is '5év8pov uyAaóraprcov', 'tree
w h o s e leaves give pleasant shade' is 'CuXov eúcnaó<puAA.ov', and both epithets are
borrowed from the famous early Byzantine h y m n that is called in G r e e k ' Y ^ v o ç
'AKaGiatoç' and in Russian ' T h e Akathistus to the M o s t Holy M o t h e r of G o d ' .
' L a m p giving light to those w h o are [in darkness]' is taken from a late Byzantine
h y m n , called in Russian the 'Akathistus to Jesus the Sweetest' and is a slight
adaptation of the lexical material of the earlier Akathistus to the M o t h e r of
God.
A s recently as the twentieth century, it was not a philologist but a Russian
poet aware of philology w h o expressed his concept of Russian speech as fol-
lows:
The Russian language is a Hellenistic language. A s a result of a whole number of

historical conditions, the living forces of Hellenic culture, yielding the West to
Latin influences and not lingering long in childless Byzantium, rushed into the
bosom of the Russian language, communicating to it the distinctive mystery of the
Hellenistic world-outlook, the mystery of free incarnation, and for this reason the
Russian language became precisely resounding and speaking flesh.
These are the w o r d s of Osip Mandelstam, w h o also said: ' T h e Hellenistic nature
of the Russian language can be identified with its closeness to the essence of
life.'3 T h e latter statement seems particularly true. F r o m their G r e e k heritage,
the Russian disciples adopted their faith in the material existence, the sub-
stantiality of the w o r d w h i c h is not only verbum and not only ' pfl|ia' but also
'Àoyoç'. Here the w o r d is not only a sound and a sign, a purely 'semiotic' reality,
but a precious and sacred substance. T h e s a m e figures of the s a m e rhetoric have
a different nature in Russian vitijstvo and in Western European euphuism; and in
the final analysis this difference is a result of a difference in the context of the
culture and the psychology of the confession that gave vitijstvo a degree of
seriousness in w h i c h the civilized g a m e of euphuism w a s lacking, and also of
the specific nature of the Slavonic-Russian w o r d , nurtured not by Latin but by
G r e e k examples.
T h e idiosyncratically grandiose Utopia of the twentieth-century Russian
futurist, Velemir Khlebnikov, w h o strove to turn the Russian language towards
pure paganism and towards 'Scythianism', as it were to w a s h the seal of baptism
from Russian speech, is at odds with history, for it ignores the fruitful trustful-
ness with w h i c h the original Russian element of speech w e l c o m e d Hellenistic
eloquence, in order to merge with it for ever into o n e indivisible whole. This
synthesis is a constant of Russian literary culture. It continued to live, even after
Peter the Great, in classical vitijstvo, festive in Derzhavin a n d meditative in T y u -

chev. E v e n today it is still alive and is in n o w a y confined to the consciously
archaistic experiments of the symbolist Vyacheslav Ivanov or even the peasant
poet Nikolai Klyuev. N o , let us take an extreme case, that of such a rebel against
all tradition as Vladimir Mayakovsky: even his poetry is unthinkable without
the heavyweight energy of c o m p l e x - c o m p o u n d w o r d formations such as dvukh-
metrovorosty (two metres in height), w h i c h , in the final analysis, are guided by
Graeco-Slavonic models. His practice in n o w a y confirms his half-jocular decla-
ration in his autobiography Ya sam (I myself) of total dislike for Slavonisms.
There is n o need to say anything about the liturgical intonations in his lyrics
since Boris Pasternak wrote: 'Pieces of church songs and readings were dear . . .
to M a y a k o v s k y in their literalness, as extracts from the living w a y of life. . . .
These deposits of ancient creativity suggested to M a y a k o v s k y the parodie struc-
ture of his p o e m s . ' 4 This latter example s h o w s that the long-term consequences
of events that occurred a thousand years ago are in n o w a y limited in their effect
to that part of m o d e r n Russian poetry w h i c h w a s directly inspired by O r t h o d o x
themes, but are in truth universal.
A very particular t h e m e is the relationship of Russian tradition to the icon.
It is remarkable that in the sixteenth century, that is, during the classical period
of the W a r s of Religion, the Jesuit A n t o n i o Possevino, w h o attempted unsuc-
cessfully to convert Ivan the Terrible to Catholicism and retained from his fai-
lure a certain irritation against everything Russian, c o m m e n t e d o n this aspect
of Russian life with invariable praise, noting the 'modesty and severity' of the
art of icon painters, in such marked contrast to the practice of the Renaissance
and m a n n e r i s m , and the reverence of those w h o venerated the icons.
Is it not this same characteristic of moral seriousness in the face of beauty -
of course, in the framework of a completely different world outlook - that s y m -
pathetic foreign connoisseurs have m o r e than once noted as being a feature of
nineteenth-century Russian literature? T h o m a s M a n n spoke of 'holy Russian
literature'; of course this is a metaphor, but it is not a simple one.
Already 1,000 years ago, if w e are to believe the chronicler's account, our
ancestors w h e n choosing their faith put their trust in beauty as evidence of
truth. Apparently, in n o n e of the various legends of the adoption of Christian-
ity by the peoples of E u r o p e is there anything like the w e l l - k n o w n episode of
the 'testing of faiths'. W e r e m e m b e r the account of The Tale of Bygone Years too
well to be still astonished by it. Muslims, Catholics and Khazar Jews had already
talked with Prince Vladimir. H e had already heard the preaching of a G r e e k
'philosopher', combining biblical history with a brief catechism. It would seem
that this should be enough, for is it not said in St Paul's Epistle to the R o m a n s
that 'faith c o m e t h from hearing' ( R o m . 10:17)? In this case, however, it w a s not
preaching, doctrine or catechization that settled the matter. It is essential not
only to hear but to see. T h e Prince's emissaries had to see for themselves the vis-
144 Sergej Averintsev
ible reality of each 'faith', as it appeared in its ritual. Neither the prayerful
m o v e m e n t s of the Muslims n o r the Latin rite gave t h e m , apparently, any aes-
thetic satisfaction. In Constantinople, h o w e v e r , the Patriarch s h o w e d t h e m at
last 'the beauty of the C h u r c h ' , and they told Vladimir:
W e do not k n o w whether w e were in heaven or on earth: for nowhere on earth is

there such a sight and such beauty, and w e do not k n o w h o w to tell about it; w e only
k n o w that there G o d dwells with m e n , and their divine service is better than in any
other countries. W e cannot forget that beauty.5
T h e w o r d 'beauty' is repeated again and again, and the experience of beauty

becomes the decisive theological argument in favour of the reality of the pre-
sence of heaven o n earth; 'there G o d dwells with m e n ' .
Historical criticism of this account n o longer interests us today. Whatever
historical facts it m a y be backed by, it expresses a certain understanding of
things w h i c h , in itself, is a historical fact. E v e n if this w a s not h o w Prince Vla-
dimir thought, it w a s at least h o w the chronicler thought. E v e n if the w h o l e
account w a s invented, there is s o m e sense in it, and this sense is unexpectedly
close to that formulated in the present century by the Russian thinker Pavel
Florensky, w h o wrote, thinking of the m o s t famous of Russian icons, the Trinity
by A n d r e y Rublev: ' O f all the philosophical proofs of the existence of G o d , the
one that sounds most convincing is precisely the o n e that is not even mentioned
in textbooks; it can be approximately constructed by the deduction " T h e Trinity
of Rublev exists, therefore G o d exists".'
O f course there is m u c h that is dissimilar between the ancient account a n d
the philosophical argument. T h e chronicler is simple-hearted, but the philo-
sopher is not: he is expressing a very refined paradox and is, of course, aware of
this. There is n o similarity in anything save the simplest logical sense: the high-
est beauty is a criterion of truth and, besides, of the most important of truths.
During the age of intensive development of scholasticism in the W e s t , in
R u s ' the philosophical w o r k of the m i n d expressed itself in the tangible form of
icons. Gothic art, of course, is also imbued with philosophical speculation, but
it presupposes the parallel existence of scholasticism and is functionally d e m a r -
cated from it. Its aim is to give a n 'illustration', in the highest sense of the w o r d ,
the sense in w h i c h the final line of Dante's Divine Comedy - 'L 'amor che move il sole e
l'altre stelle (The love that m o v e s the sun a n d the other stars)' - is a popular-
ization of the cosmological thesis of Aristotle and Boëthius. This illustrative
nature, h o w e v e r , is contrary to ancient Russian art, as can be seen distinctly
from the history of the deterioration of the style in the sixteenth and seven-
teenth centuries. Generally, Gothic art takes for itself the 'affective' side of the
soul, yielding the 'intellectual' side to scholasticism. It is impossible to c o m p a r e
the highest achievements of art according to the principle of w h a t is 'better':
Rublev's Trinity is not 'better' than the statue of the Virgin of R h e i m s , because
nothing can be better than this statue; and conversely, because nothing can be
better than Rublev's Trinity. T h e spirituality of these two masterpieces is,
however, different. T h e Virgin of Rheims appeals to the emotions and the
imagination, because scholasticism exists that appeals to the intellect. These
domains are demarcated: feeling is one thing and cognition is another. There-
fore the spirituality of the Gothic statue is imbued with emotionality - noble
chivalrous rapture before the pure charm of womanliness. T h e Gothic master
can allow himself this because he has been relieved of the burden of 'proving'
spiritual truths - the syllogisms of the doctors exist to provide proofs. T h e Rus-
sian master is in a different position: he wants not to inspire, not to touch, not
to act o n the emotions, but to s h o w truth itself and bear witness to it indis-
putably. This duty forces him to the greatest restraint: instead of enthusiasm,
instead of the Gothic transport (raptus), what is required is silence (hésykhid).
Rus' inherited veneration of the icon from Byzantium; but Rus' exalted the
icon-painter too. W h e n attributing sanctity to the icon, however, Byzantium
did not expect sanctity from the icon-painter. In all Byzantine hagiography
there are n o depictions of the personalities of icon-painters, such as the legen-
dary Alipius of the Kiev Caves and Andrey Rublev, w h o m a d e a fully tangible
mark in the history of Russian art. T h e latter can perhaps be compared with his
contemporary Fra Giovanni da Fiesole, usually k n o w n as Beato Angélico. E v e n
here, though, there is a fundamental difference. T h e spiritual purity of Fra Gio-
vanni, as depicted by Giorgio Vasari, is a trait of his personal biography, a cha-
racteristic of the artist, but not of his art. O n the other hand, the righteousness
of Andrey Rublev, as understood by Russian tradition, recorded, for example,
by the famous churchman and writer of thefifteenthand sixteenth centuries,
Joseph of Volokolamsk, is completely inseparable from the sanctity associated
with icon-painting as such.
For it to be possible to believe in beauty, this must be of a special kind. T h e
indulgence of sensuousness, even if 'sublimated', and the cult of art for art's
sake are ruled out. It is precisely because so m u c h depends on the reliability and
high quality of beauty that very stringent demands are m a d e on it. T h e hero of
Dostoevsky's story, The Adolescent, heard the wanderer Makar Ivanovich, a m a n
of the people, use the ancient word blagoobrazie (the Greek eüa%T|uoo"úvn), ex-
pressing the idea of beauty as holiness and holiness as beauty, which touched his
soul to its very depths. Beauty is closely linked in Russian folk psychology to the
effort of self-denial. It is enough to remember the folklore songs about the
Tsarevich Ioasaf (Joasaph) w h o , like the Indian Shakyamuni, left the luxury of
the royal palace for the inclement wilderness; yet it is precisely this wilderness
that is celebrated as 'the fair wilderness' that promises not only hardship and
sorrow, but the fulness of chaste joy for the sight and hearing, w h e n 'the trees
clothe themselves with leaves, and o n the trees a bird of paradise begins to sing
in an archangelic voice'. Nowhere in Russian folk poetry, apparently, is such
146 Sergey Averintsev
free range given to the theme of the beauty of the landscape as in these songs
w h i c h glorify renunciation of the temptations of riches and thoughtless volup-
tuousness. O n l y the severe m e a n i n g of the w h o l e justifies this admiration of
beauty before the judgement of traditional Russian spirituality, vouching that
this beauty will not degenerate into outward s h o w and hedonistic caprice, but
will remain blagoobrazie.
Against this historical background Dostoevsky's famous w o r d s about the
beauty that will save the world appear as something greater than the d r e a m of a
romantic. Tradition gives a hidden dimension to their meaning.
T h e specifically ethical aspect of the thousand-year-old tradition of Russian
Orthodoxy is too great and complex a subject, too rich in inner contrasts, for it
to be possible to elucidate it in a few words. There are parallels with the great
images of the medieval West: it w a s just as easy for Sergius of R a d o n e z h to es-
tablish friendly relations with the bear of the Russian forest as for Francis of
Assisi with the wolf from G u b b i o (so that the Russian saint too has certain
rights to a place a m o n g the leaders of the present ecological m o v e m e n t ) ; the
active kindness of Juliana Lazarevskaya, w h o did without bread herself in order
to feed the people in the famine years, reminds us of her Western sister Eliza-
beth of Hungary (and if the everyday sobriety of Juliana's life, written by her
o w n son, omits the beautiful miracle in w h i c h bread w a s changed into roses, w e
should r e m e m b e r that this miracle is also absent from the m o s t authentic
accounts of Elizabeth, even in The Golden Legend by Jacob Voraginsky). A t least
t w o specific traits, however, should be noted.
First, the only form of love of w h i c h the ancient Russian w a s not ashamed
to speak w a s compassionate love, maternal love or love close in its nature to
maternal love. Unlike in the medieval W e s t with its culture of adoration of the
lady (courtly love), which extended as far as the field of religion, the Virgin
M a r y or, as she is k n o w n in Russia, the M o t h e r of G o d , is never here the object
of courtly love, but exclusively a source of motherly pity, the M o t h e r of G o d , of
m a n k i n d and of all creation. E v e n w h e n referring to married love, in its ideal
form, in Russian villages the verb 'to pity' w a s quite recently still used: ' h e pities
her', 'she pities h i m ' . T h e Russian w o m a n first appears in Russian poetry as
Yaroslavna in The Song of Igor's Campaign, and w h o , with her feminine c o m p a s -
sion, feels affected by the w o u n d s and thirst of her husband and his warriors;
while, at the s a m e time, she feels a mother's grief over the d r o w n i n g of Prince
Rostislav, growing into a whole landscape of compassion, ' T h e flowers drooped
with mournfulness, and the trees bent to the earth with sorrow.'
There is yet another trait that is specific to R u s ' . O n l y the Russians adopted
the type of Christian ascesis that is k n o w n to Byzantium but o n the w h o l e
u n k n o w n to the W e s t (although analogies to it m a y be found in the behaviour
of certain Western saints, from the early Franciscans to Benoît Labre): this is
that of the so-called 'fools for Christ' w h o , in the n a m e of a radical understand-
ing of the ideal of the Gospel, keep their distance from every establishment,
including the monastic one. T h e r e w a s , h o w e v e r , a substantial difference bet-
w e e n Byzantium a n d R u s ' . T h e Byzantine fool for Christ, concerned with
s h a m i n g vain pride in himself a n d others, challenging the fear of the opinion of
others a n d in this w a y continuing the w o r k o f the cynics of ancient times, as a
rule remained indifferent to social ethics. O n the other h a n d , in times o f
national disaster the Russian fool for Christ grieved for the people and m a d e use
of his freedom from the usual ties to say to the face of a powerful m a n , cruel a n d
intoxicated with his o w n impunity, even to Ivan the Terrible himself, the truth
that n o o n e else dared say. Nikola of Pskov d e n o u n c e d Ivan the Terrible, in the
w o r d s of his Life, 'with terrible w o r d s ' . T h e imagination o f the Englishman,
Fletcher, w a s struck b y the fool for Christ speaking against the G o d o u n o v
family in the streets. T h e fool for Christ w h o , in Pushkin's Boris Godounov, calls
the Tsar 'Tsar-Herod' a n d 'Infanticide-Tsar', as though h e w e r e the voice of the
people forced to remain silent, is not only a n artistically convincing image, but
also a n historically accurate o n e , judging from the chronicles a n d biographies of
the period.
NOTES
1. 'Povest' vremennyh let [Tale of Bygone Years]', Pamjatniki literatury drevnej Rusi, XI-
nacala XII v [Monuments of the Literature of Ancient Rus' of the Eleventh and
Early Twelfth Centuries], p. 167, M o s c o w , 1978.
2. In this regard, refer to E . R . Curtius, ha littérature européenne et le Moyen-Age latin
[European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages], Paris, Agora, 1986, 2 vols.
3. O . Mandelstam, Slave i kul'tura [Word and Culture], p. 58, M o s c o w , 1987.
4. B . Pasternak, Collected Works, Vol. 2 , p. 263, M o s c o w , Khudozhesvennaya Literatura
Publishers, 1985.
5. 'Povest' . . .', op. cit., pp. 123, 125.
The Byzantine origins of medieval
sacred music in Kievan Rus'
Aristide Wirsta
The term 'Rus'
In the mid-ninth century, the Slavic tribes inhabiting the region of Kiev formed
a state and called it Rus' (Rusaa, Rxthenia in Latin). This state, also referred to in
historiography as the 'State of Kiev', gradually conquered neighbouring regions
and in this way became the greatest power in Eastern Europe, extending over
an area of more than 1 million k m 2 . It was a vast empire consisting of Rus' and
possessions which, for all practical purposes, came under the authority of Kiev.
Ukrainian and Russian historians in this regard stress the fact that the
n a m e 'Rus' ' referred originally, and right up to the twelfth and thirteenth cen-
turies, to the territory around Kiev or, more precisely, the area comprising the
cities of Pereyaslav, Kiev and Chernigov.1 In other words, until the thirteenth
century, this n a m e referred only to the centre and centre-north of the present-
day Ukraine. T h e other regions, in particular the principalities of Polotsk, S m o -
lensk, Novgorod and Rostov-Su2dal, were not called Rus'. 2
It should be noted at this point that it was here, on this territory called
Rus', that the n a m e 'Ukraine' c a m e into being in the twelfth century; the ear-
liest mention of the n a m e is found in a chronicle dating from 1187.3 This fact
has enabled Ukrainian historians, beginning with M . Hroushevsky,4 to use the
term 'Rus'-Ukraine' w h e n referring to the history of the period.
T h e n e w n a m e of the country was used increasingly in subsequent centu-
ries so that, during the so-called 'Cossack' period in the sixteenth and seven-
teenth centuries, it became generalized and naturally was used by cartographers.
Thus the French engineer and cartographer, Guillaume Le Vasseur de Beau-
plan, w h o had spent seventeen years in the service of the King of Poland, Jan-
150 Aristide Wirsta
Kasimir, and w h o had stayed m a n y times in the Ukraine, m a d e m a p s of the

country and published his renowned Description of the Ukraine in Rouen in 1651.
Moreover, Hroushevsky 5 has clearly identified the major features distin-
guishing the Kievan State from that of Vladimir-Moscow: to begin with, the
two were not related, since the State of Kiev, with its laws and culture, was the
product of one particular people, i.e. the Ukrainian people, whereas the State of
Vladimir-Moscow was that of another, i.e. the Russian people.
This introduction should m a k e it possible to avoid ambiguity w h e n consi-
dering the subject of the present chapter.
Byzantine origins of medieval sacred music

in Kievan R u s '
Prior to the schism of 1054, which marked a definitive breach between the Pope
and the Byzantine Emperor, numerous contacts were kept up between Constan-
tinople and the m a n y religious centres in Western Europe. It was only to be
expected therefore that there should be contacts and influence in the field of
sacred music.
E g o n Wellesz6 has paved the w a y for musicological research through the
publication of his invaluable work o n Byzantine music. It is n o w established
that m a n y hymns of the R o m a n rite descend not only from Greek melodies, but
also, in some cases, from Greek texts. Olivier Strunk7 has even managed to
identify those that Charlemagne heard during the visit of a Byzantine embassy
to Aix-la-Chapelle, so that Greek and Latin texts and melodies can n o w be
compared.
N o n e the less, the influence of Byzantine h y m n o d y can be felt far m o r e
strongly in Slavic countries, particularly in the Kiev region. After nearly a cen-
tury of research, it is n o w possible to determine the date w h e n Byzantine
musical practices and the neumatic notationfirstreached Kievan Rus': in the
eleventh century, during the reign of Yaroslav (1019-54).
E v e n n o w , the medieval sacred music of Kievan Rus' has unbosomed only
a few of its secrets. Despite the progress that has been mentioned, the present
state of our knowledge makes it difficult to provide any concrete information
about songs of worship from pagan times (before the tenth century). W e m a y
venture to assume, however, that traces of those songs are preserved in the
music of the Christian offices of the early period, thereby lending added interest
to the study of the latter.
T h e earliest manuscripts that have c o m e d o w n to us in Old Slavonic date
only from the twelfth century. Is this because earlier manuscripts were des-
troyed, or is it because they never existed? W a s liturgical chant handed d o w n
The Byzantine origins of medieval sacred music 151
in Kievan Rus'
and taught by oral tradition until that time? Such questions have yet to be
answered.
Christianity w a s brought to Kiev by the Greeks a n d the Bulgarians. It
should be noted that the latter w e r e the first to use the Slavonic versions of
Byzantine liturgical texts.
It is quite possible that local melodies w e r e used as early as the twelfth cen-
tury. These are k n o w n as kievskij napiv. T h e chant and notation (napiv) are m o r e
Bulgarian 8 than Greek.
If w e are to put our faith in a sixteenth-century collection, the Stepenaja
kniga, w h i c h uses ancient sources, there appear to have been three types of chant
following the arrival of Greek cantors at K i e v in 1053: a chant based o n the
eight m o d e s , the so-called demestvennoe chant a n d the trisostavnoe, sladkoglasovanie or
'triple-melody' chant. Opinions o n the latter are divided; s o m e , h o w e v e r ,
regard it, albeit o n inadequate grounds, as a polyphony similar to 'Western
descant'.
T h e Troparion
'Troparion' is the generic term for poetic compositions of variable length w h o s e
r h y t h m is based o n the tonic accent. T h e tremendous importance of such c o m -
positions in the Eastern Churches is borne out by the fact that troparia so m u l -
tiplied as to virtually supplant psalms and readings of the office.
Their origin m a y be sought in the kontakion.9 R o m a n the Sweet Singer, a
deacon in Beirut and later in Constantinople (in the early sixth century) a n d a
true master of the kontakion, appears to have been inspired b y the poetical forms
of St E p h r a i m the Syrian.10 T h e kontakion w a s really a h y m n . Its use spread
throughout the Eastern C h u r c h , except a m o n g the A r m e n i a n s (about the
twelfth century).
Notation
Notation underwent changes that should be described in v i e w of the influence
it inevitably had o n the development and interpretation of the chant itself:
1. Palaeo-Byzantine notation (900-1200), w h i c h has not so far been deci-
phered.
2. Middle Byzantine notation (1200-1300).
3. Neo-Byzantine notation (1400-1821), also called Koukouzelean notation
after Ioannis Koukouzeles.
T h e sixteenth century s a w the introduction in Kiev of the three-part chant
k n o w n as strocnoe penie. T h e text is headed b y three lines of neumes. T h e middle
152 Aristide Wirsta
one, calledj&#/' and printed in red, provides the melody. T h e other two, printed
in black and termed verb (upper line) and niz (lower line), indicate the vocal
accent, usually in thefifthor the octave.
T h e Kievan m o d e probably springs from the ancient znamenny chant w h i c h
evolved in the Ukraine between the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries.11 A s a
further canonic m o d e , the Kievan m o d e w a s added to the znamenny m o d e ,
notated in neumatic fashion without lines and based o n the general principle of
typical combinations of different melodic 'tropes'. T h e melodies of the Kievan
m o d e are constructed according to the principle of a regular and periodic alter-
nation of a very few melodic phrases of recitative type. H e n c e they are readily
adaptable to the texts of different syllabic compositions. This quality of the Kie-
van m o d e m a d e it extremely practical, so that it was frequently used in place of
znamenny chant.
It should be noted that in Galicia and Bukovina (provinces occupied by the
Austrians from the eighteenth to the twentieth century),12 the Ukrainians, m o r e
faithful in this than the Russians, have preserved the ancient hirmologium with
these eight tones and the kievskij napiv melodies. Their scale is purely diatonic,
consisting of four linked tetrachords. T h e influence of native melodies m a y ,
however, be detected. T h e chant is national, as is the liturgical language. Y e t
the text is everywhere the same. In a large proportion of the regions that joined
the Orthodox Church, polyphony gained s o m e ascendency over m o n o d i c chant
which, however, despite everything, will never be completely supplanted.
NOTES
1. M . Brajcevskij, Poiodzenmja Kusi [The Origins of Rus'], p. 162, Kiev, 1968; P . N .
Tretjakov, U istokov drevnerusskoj narodnosti [At the Sources of the People of Ancient
Rus'], p. 74, Leningrad, 1970.
2. Tretjakov, op. cit., p. 73.
3. Tpatievskaja letopis' [Ipatiev Chronicle]', Polnoe sobrante russkih letopisej [Complete
Collection of Russian Chronicles], Vol. 2, p. 653, M o s c o w , 1962.
4. M . Hrusevskij, Istorija Ukrajny-Rusi [History of Rus'-Ukraine], Lvov/Kiev, 1898-
1909, 1913, 10 vols.; 2nd ed., N e w York, 1954-80.
5. Ibid.
6. E . Wellesz, Eastern Elements in Western Chant, Boston, 1947.
7. O . Strunk, 'Intonations and Signatures of the Byzantine Modes', Musical Quarterly,
1945.
8. E . B . Tonseva, Iz bolgarskih rospev [Bulgarian Chants], Sofia, 1981.
9. Used in the liturgy up to the twelfth century, this poem, which consisted of from
eighteen to twenty-four stanzas (troparia), was then reduced to two, thereby giving
way to a n e w poetical form, the canon.
10. A priest of Edessa (born at Nisilis c. 310, died at Edessa in 373), author of a large
number of works of prose and poetry. The kontakion is thought to have evolved from
the hymnography of St Ephraim.
The Byzantine origins of medieval sacred music 153
in Kievan Rus'
11. A . Wirsta, 'La musique ukrainienne', Encyclopédie des musiques sacrées [Encyclopedia of
Church Music], Vol. 2, pp. 188-93, Paris, 1969.
12. Galicia was governed by Poland from 1918 to 1939, and Bukovina by Romania
from 1918 to 1940.
T h e role of the book in the
Christianization of R u s '
Elena S m o r g u n o v a
This chapter considers the role of the book in the Christianization of Rus'
which was the subject of a U N E S C O exhibition, Russian Manuscripts and Printed
Books of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.
Christianity, in R u s ' as elsewhere, from its very beginnings gave books a
special place as o n e of the main objects or instruments of the divine service. In
this sense the appearance of printing can be considered as the second stage in
the Christianization,firstof Europe, and then of Russia.
Moreover, due to the special nature of printing, this second stage in the
spread of Christianity lasted less than 100 years, unlike the manuscript stage
which continued for several centuries from the tenth century until 1564, which
w e regard as the year w h e n Russian printing began with the publication by Ivan
Fedorov of his famous Apostle. W h a t is m o r e , reformist tendencies in Church
life both in Western Europe and Russia can from a certain point of view be
understood as the result of a large n u m b e r of influences of which books were
a m o n g the most important. T h u s , in Western Europe, Martin Luther published
the Bible before anything else. In Russia Patriarch N i k o n began with the cor-
rection of church books which led to a spiritual m o v e m e n t with wide repercus-
sions in the Russian Church, remained very m u c h alive for several centuries
and is still relevant today. Thanks to this in particular, w e still find in current
use today a large n u m b e r of manuscripts and books published before the mid-
seventeenth century.
It should be noted that if, o n the one hand, the manuscript books of ancient
R u s ' are striking in their variety and range of different genres, a m o n g which,
together with travels, moral tales and cosmography, the spiritual genre is the
leading but not the overwhelmingly predominant one, o n the other hand the
first books printed in Russia (as in Western Europe) were exclusively of a spiri-
156 Elena Smorgunova
tuai nature. T h e U N E S C O exhibition illustrated this aspect of the initial stage

of Russian printing.
T w o brief examples should suffice to make this clear. In 1574 in Lvov, Ivan
Fedorov, 'printer of books heretofore unseen', published an ABC 'for infants to
learn quickly', according to the epilogue. In his exhortation to parents, Ivan
Fedorov, distancing himself from the precepts of 'Domostroi" then predomi-
nant in the life of Russian society, defends children against the arbitrary author-
ity of fathers and calls o n the latter to bring them u p 'in mercy and prudence'.
T h e ABC's epilogue states: ' A n d ye fathers, provoke not your children to
wrath, but bring them u p in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, with
mercy and prudence, with all lowliness and meekness and long-suffering, for-
bearing and forgiving one another in love.'
Thus, at the d a w n of Russian printing, the author speaks as a proponent of
h u m a n e teaching methods. Ivan Fedorov's ABC had a substantial influence o n
m a n y later works. Almost all textbooks in basic literacy, which was thefirststep
in the acquisition of spiritual culture and elementary Christian knowledge,
were based on it, including Pervoe ucenie otrokam (First Learning for Children) by the
scholar, translator and poet, Theophanes Prokopovich (1721), and the M o s c o w
ABC of Vasili Burtsov (1654); all presented teaching materials in the same w a y
as Ivan Fedorov.
T h e second example dates from August 1724 w h e n , in the printing-house
of the Aleksander Nevsky Monastery in St Petersburg, Gavril Buzhinsky
published his translation of Wilhelm Stratemann's Latin book, The Theatre, or the
Historical Spectacle. In his lengthy introduction addressed 'to the amateur histor-
ian of goodwill', the author praises the book in these words: 'It protects against
malice and teaches the virtues.' This is a direct continuation of the Chronicle's
words which schoolchildren in our country learn from the start: 'Books are riv-
ers, sources of w i s d o m slaking the thirst of the universe, a consolation in sor-
r o w , a bridle of temperance.'
A s modern civilization is unimaginable without books, so is knowledge of
the past likewise impossible. Ancient books are the concrete expression of the
m e m o r y of mankind. These ancient books are living springs feeding the peo-
ple's national cultural life. All the books displayed at the exhibition marking
this Millennium Symposium showed this concretely and visibly. T h e collection
illustrated what the book was in R u s ' and its role in people's religious and daily
life through examples, each of which is precious both artistically and histor-
ically. T h e notes o n the books exhibited, which c a m e from private collections,
revealed the names of the owners, the paths the books had taken, and their
value and prices at different times. T h e names mentioned in s o m e of them
brought m a n y historicfiguresback to life: famous linguists of the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries, leaders of the Old Believers M o v e m e n t in the seven-
teenth century and the famous brothers Boris Ivanovich and Gleb Ivanovich
The role of the book in the Christianization of Rus' 157
Morozov. O n e of the books exhibited carried the autograph signature of Prince

Ivan Fadeevich Schakhovskoy, and others a dedication by Gavril Pushkin and
an ex libris of Stepan Gavrilovich Pushkin (two ancestors of the poet Alexander
Pushkin). Peasants and members of the service nobility w h o lived in the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries in different parts of the land of Russia also left
their names in some of the books. O n e of the pearls of the exhibition was a fine
specimen of the Ostrog Bible printed by Ivan Fedorov and remarkable in its
history: its pages still bear notes by the m a n y people w h o possessed it over a
period of 300 years. Textbooks and dictionaries giving information of a very
special kind o n the culture and state of knowledge of a period were represented
by an edition of Meleti Smotritsky's Grammar, which was the textbook of m a n y
generations of Russians and which, together with Magnitsky's Arithmetic, Push-
kin called the 'first gates of learning'. Translations from Latin and various Slav
languages and multilingual dictionaries also bore witness to the links between
Russian Christian culture and the cultures of other peoples.
I should like to conclude this short survey of the initial stage of printing in
Russia by expressing the deep gratitude that all of us, their descendants, feel
towards those m a n y , and often nameless, authors, copyists, editors, printers and
proof-readers, and to the present owners and curators of such books and m a n u -
scripts. They give us the joys of contact with magnificent m o n u m e n t s of our
country's culture, allowing us to read them, d o research and extract precious
seeds of goodness and wisdom from them.
Part Three
THE THEME
OF 'HOLY RUSSIA'
The gift and enigma of 'Holy Russia'
Vladimir Zielinksy
In a letter to his mother, Alexander Blok gives his impressions of Mussorgsky's

opera, Khovansbchina, saying that it 'is not yet a work of genius (i.e. not the breath
of the Holy Spirit), just as all Russia, in which the future is still only being pre-
pared, is not a w o r k of genius. But it stands in the very centre, precisely in that
narrow strip where the breath of the Spirit blows'.
Blok spent all his life seeking this centre, and was attracted to it. For to
h i m , in it lay hidden the musical theme of Russia, echoes of which reached h i m
in the steppe, the winds, snowstorms, revolutions and even in Stranger and Beau-
tiful Lady. But despite its multitudinous incarnations, even w h e n they showed
genius, this theme always remained agonizingly incomplete, not fully revealed,
as if it had not taken place in the Holy Spirit. Blok was one of the last witnesses
of the eschatological enigma of Russia; what is of genius and genuine in it,
'obedient to the spirit of the music', to quote the poet, has not s h o w n itself yet
and will only find its incarnation in the future. But whether in the future here
or that of the world to c o m e , he could give n o answer.
Hence this very 'poetic' and seductive confusion of the 'spirit of music'
with the Holy Spirit. Blok was a true son of his age of decadence, in which, in
the words of Tyutchev, 'the dove-grey shadows were gathering'. It was granted
to h i m to perceive the world through its musicality and beauty, but he did not
have the gift of 'distinguishing spirits', which is acquired only through a life of
prayer. These t w o gifts, however, sometimes c o m e together, and w e find them
unified in s o m e of the Greek Fathers. ' T h e W o r d , which created the world from
nothingness,' said St Gregory of Nyssa, 'proceeding from a certain musical con-
formity, secretly makes of it a joyful h y m n . ' This conformity is already suffused
with a different, tranquil spirit: in it the rhythm of creation, the original beauty
of the world can be divined.
162 Vladimir Zielinksy
Every land has such an original beauty, such a 'musical conformity'. F r o m

its rhythms, from the radiation of spiritual energy, it is possible to divine what-
ever in it corresponds to the original intention or the eternal W o r d concerning
it. Blok was right: this beauty and this genius should be sought 'precisely in that
narrow strip where the breath of the Spirit blows'. T h e theme of Russia is the
action of this Spirit, its achieved or discovered holiness.
The blessing of Andrew the Apostle

' T h e Church Universal', in the words of the Blessed Augustine, 'comes forward
to meet the most remote peoples with increasingly abundant gifts.' T h e very
essence of the Church is expressed in this mysterious law: as it spreads, spir-
itually it does not squander but gathers and replenishes. In every nation the
Church is born anew, even if it comes from a neighbouring country. A n d its
birth always takes place 'naturally', just as if each nation had awaited its appea-
rance, revealing in it what had been granted to it from the beginning.
Every person and every nation o n receiving baptism obtainsfirstand fore-
most the pledge of holiness. This is a vocation that still has to be discovered and
accomplished. Every nation has its gift, in keeping with its 'nature', its assimila-
tion of the Christian faith, the path s h o w n to it for salvation. If there exists a
multitude of national types, there also exists a multitude of ways of confessing
one faith. A n d one calling to holiness can be invisibly linked to another for
'there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit' (1 Cor. 12:4). A n d for this rea-
son the voice of 'Holy Russia' can only be distinguished and understood
properly, not o n its o w n , but in the choir of other Christian peoples.
Its beginning is beyond the bounds of Russian history, and very likely
beyond those of its geography too. T h e history of'Holy Russia' should probably
begin w'ith the tale of h o w the Apostle A n d r e w came to the territory of R u s '
before it even existed. This is related in one of the most ancient chronicles, The
Tale of Bygone Years. Historians disagree o n the authenticity of this event, which
it is hardly possible to prove from a historical point of view. But it belongs
rather to what Mircea Eliade calls 'sacral time', in other words it belongs to
metahistory. A n y n u m b e r of reasons m a y be advanced to provide an explana-
tion for this legend, but what is important for us is not h o w and whence it
arose, but the fact that by its very emergence it witnesses to the turning of Rus-
sian religious consciousness to the age of the Apostles, its mystical link with the
Church founded by Christ Himself. It is as if by this tale the future Rus' brought
to us tidings that it also, in the person of the Apostle A n d r e w , was a m o n g the
Apostles o n the day of Pentecost, that the Holy Spirit descended o n it too, and
that one of the tongues in which Christ's disciples began to speak was the lan-
guage of Russian holiness, as yet u n k n o w n to anyone.
The gift and enigma of 'Holy Russia' 163
' A n d he sailed to the m o u t h of the Dnieper,' according to The Tale of St

Nestor the Chronicler, ' a n d from there w e n t u p the Dnieper. A n d it c a m e to
pass that he c a m e and stood at the foot o f the hills o n the bank. A n d in the
m o r n i n g he arose and said to the disciples w h o were with h i m , " D o y o u see
these hills? O n these hills the grace of G o d will shine forth a n d G o d will raise
u p m a n y churches . . ." '
T h e conciliar personality
T h e Spirit, w h i c h speaks to people and Churches, never addresses crowds or
faceless collectives. It addresses only personalities, even if these are collective,
national ones. Russian holiness is national, w h i c h m e a n s that it has a deeply
personal nature. T h e traits of this character are strikingly co-ordinated - a n d
this also gives us the right to speak of a hidden rhythm, an inner conformity - as
if the Russian Saints were, in the words of the Acts of the Apostles (4:32), ' o n e
soul'.
Dostoevsky and the Slavophiles spoke of 'national' or 'conciliar' personal-
ity, but this idea can also be found in the G e r m a n romantics as well as in Herzen
and Michelet. If w e accept this idea of a personality joining together all the c o n -
crete historical manifestations of national life, then in its depth w e should seek
w h a t it is that forms the basis of every h u m a n personality a n d is infinitely grea-
ter than it. T h e nation is a personality, but only to the degree to which it finds
itself in this W o r d , to the degree to which it can serve in its unity as an icon of
the M o s t Holy Trinity.
This m e a n s that the 'conciliar personality' of one nation or another in n o
w a y belongs to it by right of ownership. Neither does it belong to any c o n v e n -
tional or legendary past. T h e personality of the nation is w h a t that nation still
has to acquire, the depth to w h i c h it still has to seek the w a y , the W o r d about it
of w h i c h it still has to b e c o m e worthy.
Everyone k n o w s Nietzsche's formula, ' M a n is something that must b e
transcended'; Christianity says that m a n is a thing that has to be restored, to
w h o m his lost dignity must be returned. W e cannot equate the 'conciliar' or any
other personality with the concrete bearer of this personality, and for this rea-
son the anthropology of the nation as personality begins with that with w h i c h
Christian anthropology generally begins: with the ability to distinguish in m a n
both h o w he appears o n the surface of being or concrete history, and w h a t h e is
called u p o n to be, h o w he w a s created for eternity, h o w he should enter into the
K i n g d o m of H e a v e n . A n d this ability is acquired only from within, a n d it
begins with conversion, with a change of m i n d , with penitence.
W e are living in the days of the Millennium of the Russian Church. W e are
entitled to speak of its political role or its cultural mission. But within it lives
164 Vladimir Zieiinksy
another millennium, one that is rarely remembered today - the millennium of

penitence. D i d not the sacrament of baptism also include renunciation o f
Satan? ' A n d there w a s joy in heaven and o n earth over so m a n y souls saved,' w e
read in the s a m e Tale of Bygone Years, 'but the Devil said, groaning, " W o e is m e !
T h e y are driving m e from hence!" ' T h e Devil will return again to Rus', a n d
again and again, with his idols and national passions, but, behind all his masks,
the face of another Russia, the real one, the penitent one, will never be effaced.
The time of 'Holy Russia': 'the fulness of time'

Penitence c o m e s in a particular time, quite different to the time in which his-
torical events take place. Whereas the baptism of R u s ' is a historical fact, the
conversion of R u s ' , the assimilation of baptism by it, is already an event of a dif-
ferent time. This conversion is n o less relevant for us today than it was 1,000
years ago. T h e path of penitence assumes a breach with this fallen world, that is,
above all, liberation from the dominion of time.
T h e path of history and the path of holiness were almost always at odds in
R u s ' . Holiness m o v e d back the limits of earthly time, transfigured it, clothed it
in liturgical time. ' T h e Church . . . always dwells in the "latter days" ', writes
Father Alexander S c h m e m a n n in his w o r k The Eucharist, 'and her life, in the
words of the Apostle Paul, "is hidden with Christ in G o d " . In each liturgy she
meets the c o m i n g Lord and has the fulness of the K i n g d o m , c o m i n g in force.'
A n d if in their quest for the K i n g d o m the Saints c a m e into the fulness of the
Church and discovered her gifts, then they entered the 'latter', that is, eschat-
ological time that has broken with or cast off from itself historical or simply
everyday time.
'Let us cast aside every worldly care' is sung in the Cherubic H y m n of the
Liturgy of St J o h n Chrysostom. This h y m n pervades the entire history of R u s -
sian holiness, or rather that of Russia's calling to holiness. T h e idea that w h a t
are called 'worldly cares', occupying this earthly time, are quite unsalutary a n d
unrighteous has always lived in the Russian religious consciousness. A n d for
this reason, the Tsars, even such Tsars as Ivan the Terrible, felt a longing
throughout their lives for the quiet monastic cloister, often accepting the ton-
sure o n the threshold of death, as princes accepted it, leaving their patrimony,
and warriors holding as nought the glory of their exploits, and merchants aban-
doning their riches like a handful of dust, including the riches of knowledge,
w i s d o m or simply good repute. 'Strive to open for m e the embrace of the
Father', is sung at the office of monastic tonsure, 'for I have wasted m y life as a
prodigal, I have sinned before Heaven and before thee!'
T i m e 'in the embrace of the Father' already passes as the time of penitence.
But even in those cases w h e n holiness was not linked specifically with the 'feat'
Theffftand enigma of "Holy Russia' 165
of monasticism, it always insisted o n a break with 'worldly cares', with the

'delusions of this age'. Sometimes it required renunciation even of life itself. It
is striking that the story of Russian holiness can almost be said to begin and
reach its culmination in such renunciation. I refer to the sacrifice of the pas-
sion-bearing Princes Boris and G l e b in the eleventh century and the exploit of
the n e w martyrs of the twentieth century.
Boris and Gleb, the sons of Prince Vladimir, did not resist their brother
Svyatopolk, called the Accursed, w h o wished to kill t h e m in order to seize the
G r a n d Principality by force. B y refusing to take part in the civil wars between
prince», by their voluntary death, they indeed wished to 'fulfil the law of Christ'
(Gal. 6:2), divined by t h e m with true religious genius. Their deaths were not
completely heroic: the young Gleb cried o n parting with life, but they died with
such faith, with such love for Christ, that they b e c a m e his living icon. T h e y
renounced earthly life and entered Christ's time, time that is transparent, time
that does not oppress, does not drive forward, does not impose itself, does not
enter into dispute with any 'historical necessity'. In this time, 'the fulness of
time' (Gal. 4:4) is reflected as an image of eternity.
In exactly the s a m e w a y the Martyrs of our century d o not enter into alter-
cations with this fallen historical time, which weighs d o w n u p o n t h e m with all
its mass and all its laws; they allow themselves to be killed, like Boris and Gleb,
with a prayer for their butchers, but by their 'quiet' and often u n k n o w n death
they overcome the weight of history, are victorious over the d e m o n s that have
taken possession of it, and n o w w e see today h o w these d e m o n s flee before s o m e
invisible spiritual force. Svyatopolk the Accursed fled from his crime, and today
the tribe of the accursed cannot find rest, though the graves of their fallen vic-
tims m o r e often than not remain u n k n o w n . T h e time of 'Holy Russia' does not
always remain outside time, it is always close to Russian history, and this close-
ness, this imponderable 'fulness o f time', perhaps, is m o r e easily perceptible
precisely in contrast with its weight, with its all too well-known historico-
political necessity.
T h e land of 'Holy Russia': wilderness or

City of Kitezh?
'Definitive' or eschatological time pervades historical time but is never c o m -

bined with it. W i t h any attempt to take possession of it, it becomes invisible.
This is reflected in the well-known legend of the City of Kitezh, the city of
saints that was concealed at the bottom of a lake o n the approach of the godless
K i n g Batyi's hordes. G o d hides His elect, keeps t h e m safe from the world, and
the forces of evil cannot find the w a y to t h e m . ' T h u s towards the end of our
166 Vladimir Zitlinksy
tumultuous and sorrowful age,' relates The Tale of the City ofKitezh, 'the Lord
covered that city with his hand and it b e c a m e invisible by the prayers and peti-
tions of those w h o worthily and righteously b o w e d d o w n before h i m , w h o will
not see grief and sorrow from the Beast Antichrist.'
Russian holiness has ever been a pilgrimage to this invisible city. For even
from ancient times cities seemed to s o m e of our ancestors too full of vanity and
noise, and they w e n t out from t h e m to seek tranquillity in places w h e r e n o sin-
gle living soul can be encountered a n d there spent years and years. T h e territory
of ' H o l y Russia' is the City of Kitezh w h i c h w a s not situated o n the bed of a lake
but in the depths of the forest. This is the site of the cosmic battle with the 'spi-
rits of malice under the heavens' w h i c h the ancient Lives of the Saints recount.
I d o not m e a n that Russian holiness always hid itself in forests, but rather
that the path to it w a s the most w o r n of all. T h e point is that ancient R u s ' w a s
nurtured o n the lives of the desert-dwellers of Egypt and Palestine, though the
life of a hermit as a special feat, as a w a y to union with Christ, w a s rather
divined by it, as passion-bearing w a s divined. This w a s the fulfilment of the gift
granted to it from the beginning. T h e life of a hermit holds in itself all the para-
doxical tension of the Christian attitude to the world; it does not judge the
world, does not pronounce judgement o n it from without, but strives to over-
c o m e it and be victorious over it from within.
Everything that is granted to us through grace begins with love. Hermits
leave the world for the love of prayer; even the quiet monasteries in the forest
sometimes seemed to t h e m an abode of tumult and noise. 'St Paul of O b n o r a , '
w e read in Georgi Fedotov's The Tragedy of Russian Holiness,
asked leave of the Venerable Sergius to go into seclusion, being unable to bear the
coenobitic monastic life 'as there is n o difference between empty talk in the wilder-
ness and in the cities'. H e called silence the mother of all the virtues. In the forests
of Obnora, St Paul settled in a hollow tree, and Sergius of N u r o m , another great
lover of the wilderness, found him there in the company of a bear and wild beasts,
feeding birds which perched on his head and shoulders: this image alone is enough
to justify the n a m e of Thebaid given by the Russian hagiographer to the ascetic life
of the north.
Silence does not consist of standing in o n e place, but involves intensive labour,
the result of w h i c h is a certain paradisiacal reconciliation, not fully divined,
with nature, with all its trees, creatures, plants a n d natural elements. T h e ex-
perience of the Saints involved the achievement of unity between the inner and
outer worlds, and in this, perhaps, w e should today seek salvation from ecolog-
ical catastrophes. Lovers of silence learntfirstof all to listen, found s o m e hid-
d e n rhythm in the 'wilderness' surrounding t h e m a n d were able to join in it.
A n d w h e n churches began to reach u p to heaven a m o n g the lakes a n d forests,
they b e c a m e the extension of this mysterious r h y t h m of the earth.
Having mastered this rhythm, the Saints also learned to c o m m a n d it. For
the great m e n of prayer, everything around them w a s fruitful, everything fed
them and everything in its o w n w a y sang and glorified. It w a s as if their prayer
found that language of the w o r d in w h i c h G o d 'speaks' to his creation, ' m a i n -
tains' it with his power and calls it to life. A n d it w a s as if life around t h e m
answered their prayer. W h e n St Seraphim of Sarov spoke of the acquisition of
the Holy Spirit as the aim of any Christian life, the cold of the winter's day
retreated from him and his companion and the faces of both became like suns of
dazzling brightness.
I think that those of the ascetics w h o s e m e m o r y the Church has kept (and
here w e have only been able to mention a few) are only a handful of those saints
w h o once went out to save their souls in the forests and never returned. T h e y
dissolved in these forests andfields,melted into their silence and their sounds,
lay in this earth and b e c a m e it, giving it the n a m e of 'Holy Russia'.
'The hidden man of the heart'

Flight into the wilderness isflightfrom the 'world', and, in the words of St
Isaac the Syrian, one of the favourite teachers of the Russian ascetics, the
'world' is a collective n a m e , embracing all the passions. O n e cannot, however,
flee from oneself, and the desert-dwellers k n e w this even better than w e d o .
H e n c e their violent struggle, not with their body, but with their rebellious
spirit, with the imagination, with that root of the 'passions' that the Apostle
John the Divine calls 'the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and worldly
pride'. This struggle must of course begin with the body, w h i c h they treated so
as to 'exhaust the one w h o exhausts us', as St Seraphim of Sarov expressed it. B y
long fasting, withstanding cold and heat, vigils, the wearing of chains and hair
shirts, suffering mosquito bites and burying themselves in the ground, they
wished not to humiliate their body but to liberate their soul from captivity.
Russian asceticism grew out of recognition of extreme danger 'from w h i c h
there is n o other salvation than in the Lord Jesus Christ' (St T h e o p h a n the
Recluse). It is said of one hermit that, having withdrawn into the forest, at first
he would cry aloud all night long to the Lord for help for fear of the beasts of
prey in the forest. This is the image of true prayer, if w e r e m e m b e r that these
beasts of prey lie in wait for us within. St Cyril of the White Lake, w h e n a y o u n g
m o n k , spent the nights watching thefirein the monastery stove, meditating o n
the difficulty of salvation from hell-fire.
But the fear of G o d is, according to Scripture, only the beginning of W i s -
d o m . Salvation from eternalfireis only the pledge of true salvation. Salvation
should already begin here, w h e n the 'passions', that is, our physical, and even
m o r e our spiritual, attachment to everything earthly, are mortified and all the
168 Vladimir Zitünksy
energy that has been given to us, which w a s previously dissipated and weakened
by sin, is gathered together and turns into love of G o d . Fear and love are forces
in constant interaction and stand at the sources of holiness, but love is by far the
greater of the two.
It is difficult to explain to m o d e r n m a n w h a t love for G o d m e a n s , and yet it
is the very essence of Christian faith. There is n o faith without this love, there
are only 'religious convictions', in which w e express ourselves but d o not open
ourselves to G o d . T h e love that the saints k n e w w a s least of all a contemplative
love, involving the imagination, for it began with purification from every sort
of wish, with the dying of our 'nature', that is, with the destruction of that bar-
rier of 'passions', of captivity by the 'world' that separates us from G o d . L o v e
for G o d is in its very essence a sacramental mystery not a concept, not even a
mere feeling; it is the mystery of dying with Christ and of rising again with h i m .
A n d then the whole world, w h i c h even yesterday still 'lay in evil', flowers in the
light of the resurrection. This m e a n s that in the eyes of a saint both the world
and the saint himself open u p to love.
Love for G o d is above all m a n ' s response to the infinite love of G o d for
m a n . According to the saints, G o d beseeches m a n to return His love: 'Behold, I
stand at the door and knock' (Apoc. 3:20). This door opens in our heart, but it
can be opened only with great effort - by intense prayer, ascesis and penitence.
But it only has to open for this to be manifested in a marvellous lightness and
sweetness of prayer, in the gift of tears, insight into the thoughts of others,
active compassion and other tokens - as a heart of stone, in the words of the
ascetics, becomes a heart of flesh, an 'understanding heart', a true 'dwelling of
God'.
T h u s in the monastery or the 'desert', the 'hidden m a n of the heart which is
not corruptible even the ornament of a m e e k and quiet spirit' (1 Pet. 3:4) is born
u n k n o w n to any. This m a n is freed from his fallen nature to such a degree that
G o d makes h i m his dwelling place (3 K g s . 8:30), makes h i m his temple, his ves-
sel, grants h i m to feel the bliss and closeness of his presence, grants h i m to see
himself and the whole world with his eyes. In the Way of the Pilgrim, a book by an
u n k n o w n author, which appeared in the middle of the last century and m a n -
aged to express the very spirit and experience and, dare I say it, the 'sweetness'
of Russian holiness, the awakening of this 'hidden m a n ' is described as follows:
From that time [after acquiring constant prayer of the heart] I began to feel various
periodical feelings in m y heart and m y mind. Sometimes it happened that in some
way there was an ebullience in m y heart, in it there was such lightness, freedom and
consolation that I changed completely and went into a rapture. Sometimes I felt
ardent love for Jesus Christ and for all God's creation. Sometimes of their o w n
accord there flowed sweet tears of gratitude to the Lord w h o had been merciful to
m e , an accursed sinner. Sometimes I felt inside myself the greatest joy from calling
on the name of Jesus Christ and realized the meaning of his words: T h e K i n g d o m of
G o d is within you.
'Poor raiment', alms-giving
T h e Venerable Theodosius of the K i e v Caves Monastery (eleventh century),

w h o is revered as the founder of Russian monasticism, even before h e entered
the monastery chose a n occupation considered d e m e a n i n g for a high-born
youth: the baking of altar bread. In reply to his mother's wrath and reproaches,
he spoke to her of Christ's humility a n d self-abasement. After b e c o m i n g foun-
der a n d abbot of the Kiev Caves Monastery, revered by all ancient R u s ' , begin-
ning with the Prince himself, h e shared in all the brethren's heaviest physical
labour. T h e ancient hagiographers noted his 'poor raiment', the wretched outer
garment that he always wore, signifying by this the 'form of a servant' taken o n
by Christ o n earth.
All the Russian saints, at least the ancient ones, w e r e specially aware of the
image of Christ as humiliated, undistinguished, persecuted and suffering volun-
tary death and, most important of all, casting off His heavenly glory, a n d they
bore his image. There w a s to be n o earthly glory, not even a purely monastic
one - that of fasting, outwardly visible feats, the p o w e r of prayer. ' T h e hidden
m a n of the heart' w a s to be kept concealed, and that s a m e Theodosius of the
Caves w h o spent his nights in prayer a n d weeping always fell silent, pretending
to be asleep w h e n s o m e o n e approached his cell. ' H o l y Russia' kept in its
m e m o r y the Testament of the great hermit St Nil of Sorsk, w h o wished to keep
his 'poor raiment', i.e. revilement and ignominy, even after death:
I enjoin on you as to myself, m y eternal lords and brethren, people of m y dis-

position, abandon m y body in this remote place so that the beasts and birds may
devour it, for it sinned greatly before G o d and is unworthy of burial. If you do not
do this then, having dug a deep pit in the place where w e live, bury m e there with
every dishonour.
O n entering s o m e churches or abandoned monasteries, w e sometimes notice

graves beneath our feet; here are buried people w h o wished to be trampled
under the feet of the living after their death. Sometimes, perhaps, this w a s a ges-
ture that h a d b e c o m e purely symbolic, but nevertheless behind it w e catch a
glimpse of the mystery of the quiet humility that colours all Russian holiness.
W e speak of a mystery that can in n o w a y be divided into parts, though it is pos-
sible to distinguish three elements in it. T h efirstand most important m a r k of
true humility is always to consider oneself a wretched a n d accursed sinner, w o r -
thy neither of G o d ' s gifts nor of his mercies, yet never to abandon firm h o p e in
170 Vladimir Zieiinhsy
this mercy, never to despair of one's salvation. T h e second mark of it is the reli-
gious sanctification of everything that life sends, the acceptance of all that is
brought to us by the present day, even if evil, painful and unbearable, with rev-
erence and meekness. For the Orthodox consciousness the formula of humility
consists in identifying all exterior circumstances, whether those of daily life or
of history, with the will of G o d . F r o m this not infrequently follows renuncia-
tion of control over these circumstances and, most important, the cutting off of
one's o w n will. ' D o not allow, O Most Pure O n e , m y will to be done, for it is
not meet, but m a y the will of thy Son and m y G o d be done', it says in one of the
evening prayers. T h e third mark of humility is voluntary, reverent and penitent
acceptance of one's death. There is a deep link between humility and death, so
that a righteous death is sometimes equal to an ascetic exploit, overshadowing
an unrighteous life. A n easy and sudden death sometimes aroused fear. It was
necessary 'to k n o w h o w to die', to give up one's spirit to G o d , whatever sort of
death he might send. 'Only grant unto m e , O Lord, repentance before m y death'
- this is the basic theme of the 'Penitential C a n o n to O u r Lord Jesus Christ'.
But together with all this humility and fasting, 'poor raiment' and other
mortifications, the Russian saints maintained an acute sense of pity for every
suffering creature, mercy for ordinary people and compassion for their weak-
nesses and sicknesses. St Vladimir, the Baptizer of Rus', had already c o m -
m a n d e d 'every poor and sick person to c o m e to the Prince's court and take
everything that he might need, food and drink and money from the treasury'
(The Tale ofBygone Years). A n d to those w h o were unable to c o m e he sent food on
carts, asking ' W h e r e is there a sick or poor person, or one w h o cannot walk?' In
later centuries, in times of plague or famine, 'Holy Russia' fed the Russia of the
people, suffering Russia, and thus hundreds and even thousands of people were
fed by the monasteries and saved in hard times. W e meet love of alms-giving in
m a n y ancient Lives of the Saints - in those of Theodosius, w h o m w e have
already mentioned, Sergius of Radonezh, Joseph of Volokolamsk and m a n y
others.
Social justice, martyrdom

There is an inner dialectic in the development of Russian holiness: in the c o m -
bination of social justice and non-resistance to evil, in other words humility
before everything that G o d sends. This humility, like its meek dignity, Russia
found in the midst of all forms of violence and injustice: princes waged war
against one another, the boyars were high-handed with their servants, high-
w a y m e n robbed o n the roads. A n d if in the midst of this morass there existed
s o m e sort of firm ground, where the sense of honour remained, of being true to
one's word, of compassion for the downcast and wretched, s o m e idea of the
equal dignity of all people before G o d , this firm ground w a s the lively aware-
ness of Christ, merciful but awe-inspiring. Dostoevsky wrote about this in the
last century:
The people sin and do evil every day, but in the best minutes, in Christ's minutes,
they are never mistaken as to the truth. This, precisely, is what is important, what
the people believe in as their truth, where they believe it stands, h o w they see it,
what they hold to be their dearest wish, what they love, what they beseech of G o d ,
what they pray for with tears. A n d the people's ideal is Christ.
In ancient times the e m b o d i m e n t of the fulness of this ideal could still be the
monastery, which w a s able to c o m b i n e asceticism, self-abasement and 'poor rai-
m e n t ' with love for the sorrowful and suffering world. But the monastery could
also be a little island of social justice, the idea of which w a s associated in ancient
times, or a m o n g the saints, with monasticism. T h e abbot w a s often the confes-
sor, adviser and even the accuser of the Great Prince himself. Humility could g o
together with firmness, and faith did not cut itself off from righteousness and
justice in the world. Perhaps it w a s necessary to renounce the world, to b e c o m e
different from it, in order to hold firmly to a n d e m b o d y righteousness in it;
hence, probably, Dostoevsky's dream, so 'strange' for the second half of the
nineteenth century, of the 'Russian m o n k ' w h o , rather than the nihilist or the
revolutionary, should set about reforming Rus'. Perhaps this d r e a m c a m e before
its time.
But if w e take a w a y from faith the sense of what is right, or the Gospel as a
standard to live by, w e get the most unalloyed servility, w h a t used to be k n o w n
as obsequiousness. Today, too, as in ancient times, faith is o n the whole admis-
sible in so far as it is expressed only in church services and the performance of
ritual, but faith as absolutefidelityto Christ in every action and step taken in
life, in one's moral and social position, is, as before, a miracle or a m a r k of sanc-
tity.
' W h e r e is m y faith if I a m silent?' These w o r d s of St Philip, Metropolitan of
M o s c o w , were spoken to the face of one of the seemingly most pious but in real-
ity most ferocious of Russian rulers. This m o n a r c h w a s in n o w a y opposed to
the 'observance of religious cults' or the 'satisfaction of religious needs', as peo-
ple say nowadays. H e even displayed particular 2eal in the matter; only he dis-
liked it w h e n the heads he had cut off were counted. St Philip could not recon-
cile his faith to these executions, and so he perished, not just for his faith, but
for the justice of that faith. H e spoke words that expressed its very essence, for
they bring together the mystery of the B o d y and Blood of the Lord with the
mystery of brotherhood and mercy. 'Here w e offer the bloodless sacrifice, but
outside the sanctuary guiltless Christian blood is being shed', he once flung in
the Tsar's face. If w e today h a d been able to repeat these words, or rather to
bring together these t w o mysteries, to take the liturgy as the c o m m o n w o r k of
172 Vladimir Zitlinksy
love for G o d and our neighbour, Rus' would have remained holy until n o w .
But let us not forget either that before he was strangled by Ivan the Terrible's
executioner, Metropolitan Philip had been condemned by his brother bishops.
It must be said that St Philip's exploit was rare in Rus', but it was followed
in their o w n w a y by m a n y confessors of the twentieth century, of w h o m
Patriarch Tikhon should be n a m e d as thefirst.In his post-revolutionary epistles
w e feel the same strength, the same fearlessness, the same readiness to call
things by their proper names. ' W e wished to create a paradise o n earth, but
without G o d and His holy c o m m a n d m e n t s . G o d is not mocked. A n d n o w w e
hunger and thirst and are naked in a land that is blessed with plentiful gifts'
(from the Epistle of 8 August 1918). 'Whatever names evil deeds m a y be hidden
under, murder, violence and robbery will always remain serious sins and crimes
that cry out to Heaven' (26 October 1918). Patriarch Tikhon later had to retract
m a n y of these and similar words, as others had to pay for them with their blood,
but truth does not lose its lustre even w h e n it is denied. Today it is knocking
increasingly loudly, increasingly insistently at the doors even of unbelieving
souls and calling them to penitence, to acceptance of responsibility for their
past, and even to moral judgement. But it can bring forth true fruit only w h e n it
is named aloud, in a voice not restrained by silence or politics, turning to the
source of all truth, in the n a m e of which Patriarch Tikhon once spoke.
T h e accepted gift
Everything that m a n can d o in his aspiration to attain holiness, even to per-
forming spiritual feats, is a h u m a n act. But he does not have the power to grant
himself holiness, which is the work of G o d . M a n offers his gift to G o d , but
whether it is accepted or not depends o n G o d ' s will.
'Holy Russia' is holy by virtue of the fact that w e believe and k n o w for sure
that her gift has been accepted, that it was pleasing to G o d and hence is holy,
that is, sealed with the seal of the Holy Spirit.
' T h e fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, good-
ness, mercy, faith, meekness [and] temperance' (Gal. 5:22-3). Let us add also
the gift of healing, which m a n y Russian saints had, and also, of course, that of
miracle-working. Let us add too the gift of clairvoyance together with yet
another 'divined' type of Russian holiness - that of eldership. Eldership is a spe-
cial path of spiritual guidance, w h e n in confession the disciple entrusts to his
chosen teacher all his h u m a n will, giving himself up totally to his guidance,
confessing not only his visible sins but also his secret thoughts. Such a renuncia-
tion of one's will can be intolerable slavery if it is not founded o n 'the liberty
wherewith Christ hath m a d e us free' (Gal. 5:1), if it is not backed up by extraor-
dinary spiritual gifts, making this 'yoke' light and beneficial, for the will of the
elder and confessor becomes transparent and permeable to the will of Christ
Himself. T h e gift of eldership is the gift of seeing another's soul in all its dark-
ness, the gift of seeing the spark of G o d in it, the gift of healing it, and this gift
was so obvious that in the last century the greatest Russian people sought the
advice of the elders of the Optina Wilderness. T w o such teachers - Paissius Vel-
ichkovsky (late eighteenth century) and A m b r o s e of Optina (late nineteenth
century) - were canonized at the most recent Local Council of the Russian
Orthodox Church.
But there are also especially grace-filled gifts w h i c h our tongue does not
even have the right to touch. It is all the m o r e difficult to "speak of t h e m because
the majority of saints concealed t h e m , and only a little in this field of direct c o n -
tact between m a n and h i m w h o m w e address in our prayers b e c o m e s k n o w n to
us.
T h e Russian saints had special devotion for the M o t h e r of G o d , and she
herself c a m e d o w n to her chosen ones. T h u s she s h o w e d St Cyril of the W h i t e
Lake the w a y to this lake that w a s still u n k n o w n to h i m but w h e r e he w a s to g o
in search of his salvation. A n d h e obeyed her a n d , setting out for the lake, found
a m o n g the waters precisely that 'very fair' place w h i c h the M o t h e r of G o d her-
self had s h o w n h i m in a vision.
Grace-filled visits of the M o t h e r of G o d run through the w h o l e life-story of
the Venerable Sergius, one of the greatest Russian saints. O n c e the disciples of
the saint, serving the liturgy with h i m , saw a fourth priest, w h o m they did not
k n o w , in the sanctuary. W h e n they asked w h o h e w a s , Sergius revealed his
secret to them: he always served together with a n Angel of the Lord. But w h e n
he told t h e m this, h e ordered t h e m not to tell a n y o n e about this miracle. O n e of
St Sergius's disciples, Isaac, asked his blessing to m a k e a v o w of perpetual
silence. A n d w h e n his teacher blessed h i m , 'a great flame proceeded from his
hand and completely enveloped Isaac'.
W e d o not yet k n o w properly, and shall probably never k n o w , the secret of
these visits, but w e see that the K i n g d o m of G o d and those w h o dwell in it
c o m e d o w n to earth visibly. Their land is the very personality of the Saint, his
life, his prayer, his liturgy, in a w o r d , his very holiness, in w h i c h all the fulness
of the C h u r c h is expressed. It w a s granted to o n e of the most recent saints, Sera-
p h i m of Sarov, to express the e n i g m a of this holiness in a few words. T h e aim of
Christian life (which is precisely the achievement of holiness) is the acquisition
of the Holy Spirit, a n d all the rest is done for this purpose: fasting, prayer, vigil,
alms and all the g o o d deeds that w e d o for Christ's sake. St Seraphim says that
prayer is w h a t helps the most in this acquisition, but w h e n the Holy Spirit des-
cends o n e should cease praying. Penitence ceases, our gift has been accepted and
w e are already in the K i n g d o m of H e a v e n , w h i c h has found its dwelling in us.
In St Seraphim's short talk about the acquisition of the Spirit, it w a s as if
centuries of monastic silence had begun to speak: the fear of G o d , penitence,
the gift of tears - all this w a s transformed into joy. N o t for nothing did Sera-
p h i m meet everyone w h o came to h i m with the paschal greeting, 'Christ is
risen, m y joy!' H e expressed in himself the mystery of monasticism, the mystery
of holiness, k n o w n before h i m only to G o d and the angels w h o serve him. T h e
essence of this mystery is that all offerings to G o d , all exploits and gifts accum-
ulated in the Church, all martyrs, hermits, unmercenary physicians and m o n a s -
tics observing the v o w of silence, w h o are k n o w n to none - n o things, nor per-
sons, are lost for the Church but remain in her m e m o r y and are invisibly
present w h e n commemorated. A n d w h e n the time comes this m e m o r y will
express itself by the lips of one of the last saints. There is such a thing as the
inner development of the Spirit that is always 'rewarded', not in the worldly
sense, but o n the level of the economy of the Church, in the mystery of salva-
tion. But in this accumulation there is n o 'history' in the traditional sense. ' T h e
Spirit breathes where it wills.' It m a y dry up for several centuries, or burst out
afresh and pour forth quite suddenly.
C a n any link be found between the Holy Spirit, expressed in the words and
experience of St Seraphim, and the witness of a martyr of the twentieth century?
Logically it would seem not, but from the point of view of the e c o n o m y of the
Spirit this link exists for ' n o m a n can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy
Ghost' (1 Cor. 12:3). Confession and martyrdom m e a n truly calling the n a m e of
Jesus, coming from the ancient Church. A n d this confession as calling also con-
tributed to that 'accumulation' of the Spirit that was acquired by Russian holi-
ness. This 'luggage' has practically not been opened yet. With what outpouring
of holiness will the twenty-first century meet us, w h o will be the saints of
tomorrow, the heirs of the millennial gift of 'Holy Russia? Russia has her tradi-
tion, but there is also freedom. 'The Spirit breathes where it wills.'
The eschatological enigma of 'Holy Russia'

I have not yet said anything about holy bishops, about the holy princes of
ancient times, about holy w o m e n . I have not said anything either about fools
for Christ, w h o renounced reason, seemliness, the 'middle way' in life and
sometimes even the outer virtues, for the sake of that same 'poor raiment',
which already covered their entire existence and not infrequently aroused dis-
gust and mockery. But the fools for Christ were also citizens of 'Holy Russia'. In
medieval society they played the role of prophets, disturbers of calm and at the
same time blessed ones, 'fools', w h o spoke the truth to all, and this truth w a s
often completely defenceless before the world and at the same time threatening
to it and frightening. M a n y of them lived as if close to s o m e apocalyptic fire,
they had the gift of recognizing evil spirits which they often saw under the mask
of prosperity and piety. T h e lives of the earliest fools for Christ say that they
were G e r m a n s or aliens, and if this is a legend it can be seen as a reflection of

their condition of aliens to the life surrounding them, of pilgrims o n the earth.
Whether they were G e r m a n s or not, in any case they expressed the Russian feel-
ing of the precariousness of existence o n earth and the eschatological state of
being d o o m e d that the earth imposed.
T h e work done by the fools for Christ was in principle the same as that of
the hermits of the forest and other wildernesses. T h e hermits retreated to their
wildernesses, while the holy fools lived in the cities, a m o n g the crowds, in the
market places, but each of them - the hermits by their withdrawal and w o r k of
prayer and the holy fools by their homeless 'foolishness' - reminded the world
of Christ's words: ' M y kingdom is not of this world' (John, 18:36). They
recalled this as m u c h by their torn clothing, their chains clanking o n their bare
shoulders, and their bare feet fearing neither ice nor snow, as by their prophe-
cies and denunciations.
T h e kingdom of G o d comes 'in power' and is revealed through the saints,
but it does not c o m e 'in a perceptible w a y ' and does not say 'it is here' or 'it is
there'. For behold, 'the K i n g d o m of G o d is within you' (Luke 17:21). 'Holy
Russia' is an image, or rather one of m a n y images of this invisible K i n g d o m ; it
lives within sinful Russia, historical Russia, and it is never possible to say of it
that 'it is here' or 'it is there'. It is a symbol and not s o m e materialized reality
and, so as not to forget this, w e always write these words within inverted c o m -
mas.
For w h e n reduced to something one can place one's finger on, in terms of
'it is here' at a certain place, at a certain time, in certain forms - let us say in a
particular ascetic discipline, in external practices, in the observance of proper
liturgical forms and in proper ecclesiastical order, finally in the symphony bet-
w e e n the Church and K i n g d o m , in ' M o s c o w the Third R o m e ' - 'Holy Russia'
proved in thefinalanalysis not to be holy at all. T h e n from the 'letter' of holi-
ness its spirit tookflight,and then the pursuit and search for it began, seeking it
in ancient Rus', in the idea of 'the God-bearing people', in the idealized peasant
c o m m u n e , in the idealized power of the Tsar; in a w o r d some earthly dwelling
of 'Holy Russia' was sought, but the house often turned out to be empty.
This was the tragedy of 'Josephism', of that direction in Church life that
took its inspiration from St Joseph of Volokolamsk (1439-1515). Its essence was
in the sanctification of a fixed earthly order,firstof all as the magnificence of
the Church, as strictness of liturgical practice and monastic discipline, in which
every step and gesture is provided for and described. Such an order required
power and control of the world, its forced sacralization, in which the Church
could and had to torture and execute heretics, and the monastery had to o w n
villages and serfs. B y the sacralization of order and ecclesiastical orderliness,
Joseph wished, as it were, to overcome the sin and chaos of the world, but in the
final analysis brought greater sin and greater chaos into the world. A century
and a half after the victory of Joseph's followers over the 'non-possessors', the
followers of St Nil of Sora, those same hermits w h o retreated into the forest and
dissolved in it, in the midst of those same followers of Joseph the great schism
took place which struck and deprived the entire Russian Church of its strength.
'Holy Russia' can even be frightening w h e n it becomes an idol that can be
touched and before which one can b o w d o w n as such. But it would also be
w r o n g to reduce it nostalgically to s o m e m e m o r y that has melted away. It is first
of all a radiance of spiritual beauty. T h e experience of the Christian East is
founded o n the Philokalia, that is, love of good, love of the beauty created by
G o d that can be discovered and at the same time built by m a n . T h e world, in
the words of St M a x i m the Confessor, is called o n to become 'the burning bush
that is not consumed, suffused with the light of G o d ' . It should b e c o m e a cos-
mic liturgy solemnized throughout all creation. Perhaps 'Holy Russia' is this
very cosmic liturgy, that is invisibly solemnized in the heart of the Russian
Church, within its 1,000 years of history. It is the secret rhythm of this history,
its h y m n and its symbol.
T h e symbol is the ring that w a s broken by friends before parting as a pledge
of their future meeting. 'Holy Russia' is only half the ring, and the other half w e
will not find o n earth. It is the eschatological theme of Russia, its preparation
for 'the life of the world to c o m e ' .
Eschatology teaches about the end of time, but it is closely linked to the his-
tory of holiness which, accumulated in time, simultaneously overcomes it. It is
gathered in small crumbs - and not necessarily only from saints - and remains
in the m e m o r y of the Church. Holiness determines from within the face of the
country, the personality of a nation, and the meaning, exploit and aim of
national life can be determined as the patient and penitent search for this perso-
nality - within the very b o s o m of the Most Holy Trinity. Naturally this path
and this search are as far from any nationalism as they are from any heathen
idol.
Seclusion. Silence. Ascesis and the labour of prayer. 'Poor raiment', renun-
ciation of the glory and sweetness of the world and compassion for all creation.
T h e gift of tears, the tears of penitence. Faithfulness to Christ in everything and
unto death. M a r t y r d o m , non-resistance to evil and resistance to unrighteous-
ness, social exploits. Humility, meekness, the ' w a r m t h of G o d ' , driving out
h u m a n passions. Service to one's neighbour and the ability to rejoice in beauty,
the pitch and 'musical conformity' of the whole cosmos, of all creation. A n d
finally the appearance of angels, the visits of the M o s t Holy Mother of G o d , the
acquisition of the Holy Spirit. All this is the gift of newly baptized Russia,
revealed by her and accomplished by her. N o r let us forget the spiritualization
of nature, outer ?.rt and inner art, sacred art and so m u c h else.
This gift will open out to the full in the future - under a n e w heaven and o n
a n e w earth. T h e n every 'not yet' about which Blok spoke will be wiped away
and Russia will discover her genius and her personality, created throughout the
course of her entire earthly history. She will b e c o m e the radiance of that Spirit
that was accumulated over all the centuries or millennia of her holiness.

The genesis and permanence
of 'Holy Russia'
Dimitri Schakhovskoy
W h e n e v e r w e speak of 'Holy Russia' w e d o so undoubtedly because n o other

term can d o greater justice to the tremendous significance of the celebration of
the Millennium of its baptism which is b o u n d to reverberate in people's minds
for a long time as part of a new-found sense of awareness. Those t w o words,
'Holy Russia', s u m m o n u p the past, present and future of a country that can
only find fulfilment by resurrecting the alliance concluded o n the banks of the
Dnieper in 988.
Russia comes first, followed by holiness. There is evidence of the term
'Russian' from the very beginning, m o r e specifically in a m o n u m e n t of the
country's literature dating from thefirsthalf of the eleventh century, The Sermon
on Law and Grace delivered by Metropolitan Hilarión1 (c. 1049/50), 2 which m e n -
tions a single land, thenceforth k n o w n as Rus' and Rossia.3 Hilarión stressed that
thefirstRussian princes and Vladimir 'were not rulers of a miserable and igno-
rant land, but rather of the Russian land that is k n o w n and famed to the very
ends of the earth'.
[Vladimir] became the ruler of his land and subdued theneighbouring peoples,. . .
he embraced the Christian faith and converted the whole country to Christianity...
and ordained that his entire people should be baptized in the name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Ghost in order that the name of the Holy Trinity should
be worshipped openly and aloud in every town Thus our whole land began
with one accord to praise Christ with the Father and the Holy Ghost.4
N o w it is clear that, even if initially the term referred to the Kiev region, con-
temporaries such as Hilarión understood it as meaning the whole territory
governed by St Vladimir's descendants. Awareness of this unity is even m o r e
pronounced in the w o r k of his great-grandson Vladimir M o n o m a k h . 5 His con-
180 Dimitri Schakhovskqy
cern for the welfare of the Russian land led h i m to forgive Prince Oleg Svyatos-
lavovich of Chernigov, his cousin, for the death of his o w n son. 6 A t that time,
this unity w a s cultural as well as political. This is best borne out in architecture,
art and literature. Despite obvious differences, which were only to be expected
over such a vast area, there is n o doubt as to the existence of linguistic unity
because the literary heritage is c o m m o n . Differentiation appeared s o m e time
later, and w a s due mainly to a particular historical context, that of the M o n g o l
invasion and Polish-Lithuanian ascendancy. T h e question should be asked,
however, as to w h a t the forces were that b o u n d this vast territory together. It
was in fact a single and c o m m o n spiritual awareness rooted in the conversion
that was the driving force behind the building of churches dedicatedfirsta n d
foremost to the Holy M o t h e r of G o d and to St Sophia (the Divine W i s d o m ) at
the two extremities of this territory at Kiev a n d N o v g o r o d ; a religious tradition
that, as pointed out by Hilarión, could already describe itself as Orthodox in so
far as, despite the fact that there was as yet n o official division, the process of
schism had long been at w o r k in the Churches and even m o r e so since the start
of the ninth century. Vladimir's merit is particularly great in that 'above all h e
had constantly heard talk of Greece and its Orthodox faith, unwavering in its
love of Christ; a n d . . . that both in Orthodox villages and in towns, all were zea-
lous in prayer and remained standing in the presence of G o d ' . 7 Hilarión pays
h o m a g e to Prince Vladimir for not having separated substance from form a n d
thanks h i m for a heritage w h i c h he defines as Orthodox:
R o m e praises Peter and Paul through w h o m it received faith in Jesus Christ, the Son
of G o d ; Asia, Ephesus and Patmos praise St John the Divine; India praises St T h o -
mas; Egypt praises St Mark; the whole world, each city and nation, honours and
glorifies its masters w h o taught it the Orthodox faith. W e too, as far as lies in our
power, sing praises, however insufficient, to our master and preceptor . . . Vladi-
mir.8
This allowed h i m to exclaim before anyone else: 'Rejoice, apostle a m o n g sove-

reigns.'9 T h u s , in addition to its importance, Vladimir's choice w a s a guarantee
of the unity of the n e w state that had just been formed and gave it a definite
place in the structure of medieval Europe. T h e alliances formed by his posterity
bear this out.10
In geographical terms, historians define this territory as an area bound by
the Carpathians, the Baltic Sea and the junction of the Volga and the O k a . Its
political unity w a s ensured by a single dynasty, that of the Rurikids. It began to
break u p following the death of Yaroslav the Wise, the process being hastened
by the M o n g o l conquest a n d further still by the transfer of the western part of
this Russian territory to Lithuanian, later Polish-Lithuanian and,finally,Polish
control, representing an occupation that w a s to have considerable linguistic a n d
other repercussions. H o w e v e r , whatever terms are used to designate o n e or
The genesis and permanence of 'Holy Russia' 181
other of these parts, whether white, black, red, great, small, border or any other,
there is a single c o m m o n denominator, the adjective 'Russian' and the term
Rus', Rossia (Russia), united around M o s c o w . "
It is essential at this point to look back at history. In the thirteenth century
the imposition of the M o n g o l yoke had the effect of cutting off almost the
w h o l e of Russia from the rest of E u r o p e in the s a m e w a y as the separation of the
Churches, n o w m a d e m o r e painful by the shock of the sack of Constantinople
by the Crusaders (1204). Russia, accustomed to threat from the Asian steppes,
found itself exposed to assaults from the W e s t w h i c h endangered its identity.
T h e ambiguous policy of Prince Daniel R o m a n o v i c h of Galicia foreshadowed
the situation in w h i c h Byzantium w a s to find itself t w o centuries later. Prince
Alexander Nevsky's victories preserved the identity of northern Russia. Both
these factors account for the attraction felt for these northern regions by Metro-
politan Cyril of Kiev, a Galician w h o s e investiture w a s the w o r k of his prince,
and finally for the choice of Vladimir-on-the-Klyazma, and later M o s c o w , as
the Kievan Metropolitan See b y a n ecclesiastical authority hailing from the
south.
Ancient Russia w a s already divided by the expansion of the y o u n g Lithua-
nian principality, w h i c h , with its annexations, w a s encountering Orthodoxy.
Its successes were to bring it, s o m e w h a t in the lead, into competition with the
principality of M o s c o w in the process of accumulating territory. A n alliance
with the M o n g o l s and its accord with Poland c o m p r o m i s e d its chances, espe-
cially once religious proselytism led to the emigration of the m e m b e r s of the
Lithuanian-Russian élite to M o s c o w . 1 2 T h e final turning-point w a s the rejection
of the Council of Florence by M o s c o w in 1441. T h e marriage of Ivan III and
Sophia Palaeologue crystallized once and for all the aspirations of the n e w state,
while Russia's vocation to holiness w a s to be the o u t c o m e of these trials. T h e
attachment to a single Church w a s to bind it in a n e w unity and protect its iden-
tity, at a critical m o m e n t , o n the threshold of the seventeenth century, in its
confrontation with another Slavonic Messianism, the Latin one. 1 3
Bearing in m i n d the historical context, such a miraculous survival is due
above all to the C h u r c h and to a n indestructible fidelity to the faith that had
been passed o n b y St Vladimir. Vladimir M o n o m a k h in his day placed love of
one's neighbour above all other considerations.14 A t the time of the trials of the
Tartar yoke, Bishop Serapion of Vladimir said: ' W h a t must w e d o to put an end
to the evils that torment us? R e m e m b e r what is written in the holy books: the
most important c o m m a n d m e n t of our Saviour himself is to love o n e another,
to have pity o n each m a n , to love our neighbour as ourself.'15 It w a s the C h u r c h
that maintained unbroken unity with the O r t h o d o x world, ensured the u n c o m -
promising defence of spiritual identity in the face of the n o n - O r t h o d o x in the
W e s t and lent support to the age-old struggle against the M o n g o l yoke in the
East. This process w a s to find expression in the unification of Russian lands and
182 Dimitri Scbakbovskoy
principalities. H o w e v e r , spiritual concerns took precedence over temporal

ones, and one in particular: loyalty to the O r t h o d o x faith. It had a very special
meaning. It united clergy and laity. In the view of the Elder Philotheus,16 Joseph
of Volokolamsk a n d Metropolitan Macarius, the Tsar w a s the protector of
Orthodoxy: 1 7 ' Y o u , Lord, have been chosen by G o d to take his place o n earth
and he raised you to the throne, entrusting to y o u the protection and life of all
of great Orthodoxy.' 1 8 O n the other h a n d , an unjust ruler 'is not the servant of
G o d , but of the devil'.19
Ivan I V addressed the Council of the H u n d r e d Chapters, 20 calling o n all the
saints, and particularly the Russian saints, in the following words:
Through the intercession . . . of all the pious tsars, all the believing Orthodox tsarit-
sas w h o have fought to defend the faith; of the saints and great miracle-workers
w h o , on the soil of Great Russia, are noted for their miracles;... of all the martyrs,
all the venerable monastics, all those w h o have donned spiritual poverty for Christ;
of the whole royal family, the princes and boyars; of all the Orthodox Christians
w h o have shone forth by their good works and w h o m G o d has glorified through
great miracles; of the great miracle-workers w h o have w o n renown in more recent
times in the Russian kingdom that I hold from G o d and from m y forebears; of all
the saints w h o , since the creation of the world, have been pleasing to God: 2 1 . . . I
pray and call to witness Our Lord Jesus Christ, the apostles, his divine disciples, the
seven venerable Ecumenical Councils, the local holy councils and all those vener-
able saints whose names I have invoked. In the n a m e of G o d , set your hearts to res-
toring our Christian faith, true and untainted, to reforming, faithful to the Holy
Scriptures, our Church, to applying the rule of proper laws in the kingdom, to esta-
blishing order in the country in order to enlighten and revive our immortal souls,
all of which hail from a single source, so as to confirm the true Orthodox Christian
faith, to place it on unshakable foundations from generation to generation through
all the length of centuries, and to protect it against the devouring wolves, against
the malice of its enemies. 2 2 ... I a m your son: instruct m e , teach m e all the pious
practices, tell m e h o w praiseworthy it is for a Tsar to establish just laws in his king-
d o m , to live in the true faith and in purity. M a y m y brother, may all the princes, all
the boyars, all the Orthodox Christians be the object of your patient attention: teach
them wisdom, open their eyes, instruct them so that they m a y observe, beyond
reproach, the true Christian law.23
Faithful to the principles expressed above, he c o m m i t s himself in his o w n n a m e

and in the n a m e of all his subjects:
Remember the commitment you subscribed to in the Holy Church at the time of
your investiture: 'If the princes and boyars ordered m e to act contrary to the laws of
the Holy Fathers, if the sovereign himself were to compel m e to such an act, even if
I were threatened with death, I should not obey them.' A s you see, bishops are ready
to face even death in order to defend Christ's law.24
If, at the instigation of demons, and through neglect on your part, a dubious
thought becomes entwined with the divine laws in our Christian legislation, and n o
voice is heard to denounce it, I have no share in your error: you yourselves will
answer for it on the day of the terrible judgement.
If m y resistance to your unanimous feelings should run counter to the dictates of
divine law, do not remain silent; if I disobey you, exercise your interdiction fear-
lessly to ensure the life of m y soul and ofthat of all m y subjects, to maintain in all its
purity the true Orthodox Christian law, so that it m a y bring victory to the august
n a m e of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, n o w and in time to come, for ever
and ever. A m e n . 2 5
This is w h y , because of persecutions that h a d g r o w n intolerable following the

unilateral union of Brest-Litovsk (1596), the restoration of Great Russia b e c a m e
inevitable; the declaration of B o g d a n Khmelnitsky during the R a d a of Pereyas-
lav (1654) left n o r o o m for doubt o n that score:
W e are living without a ruler in our country, spilling our blood in endless combats
with our oppressors and enemies w h o are set o n wiping out the Church of G o d so
that the designation Russian m a y never again be pronounced in our land. W e are all
weary of this state of affairs and realize that w e cannot go o n living without a Tsar.
T h e only possible candidature w a s that of the ' O r t h o d o x ruler of Great Russia,

Alexis Mikhailovich, Great Prince of all R u s ' and autocratic Tsar of the East'.
T h e Polish alternative w a s not viable since ' n o n e of y o u need to be reminded of
the slavery w e have suffered under t h e m , nor of the Christian blood that has
been pitilessly spilled b y these oppressors!' This 'great O r t h o d o x Christian
ruler, Tsar of the East, has the s a m e devotion as ourselves for the G r e e k law, the
s a m e religion; w e constitute o n e and the s a m e body of the O r t h o d o x C h u r c h of
Great Russia with Jesus Christ at its head*. T h e response w a s immediate, with
the 'entire people' clamouring: ' W e prefer to die under the unwavering protec-
tion of the O r t h o d o x Tsar of the East in our fervent faith rather than obey a
p a g a n e n e m y of Christ', and adding: 'Let G o d confirm, let G o d strengthen this
decision, so that w e m a y be reunited for ever m o r e ' . 2 6 It is clear that, while not
excluding the ethnic aspect, the restoration of the territory of ancient Russia
w a s d u e to a denominational awareness that h a d merely been heightened b y the
U n i o n of Brest-Litovsk.
Is it then possible to speak of the existence of national awareness? In the
sixteenth century Ivan I V had been a candidate to the Polish throne. A t the
beginning of the seventeenth century M o s c o w had offered the throne to Vladis-
lav, the son of the K i n g of Poland. T h e only obstacle w a s a denominational o n e .
T h a t is w h y w e have to speak of a unique religious consciousness that from the
fifteenth century linked the adjective ' H o l y ' with the n a m e of 'Russia'. This per-
ception is d u e above all to the fact that, until the seventeenth century, the m a i n
concern of Russian society w a s of an eschatological nature and found exprès-
184 Dint i tri Scbakbovskoy
sion in the ideology of the T h i r d R o m e , formulated by the Elder Philotheus in

his epistle to Vasily III of M o s c o w :
It is meet, Tsar, that you keep the realm in the fear of G o d . . . . D o not, Tsar, go
against the c o m m a n d m e n t instituted by your ancestors: Constantine, the blessed St
Vladimir, the great Yaroslav chosen by G o d and the other blessed saints of the stock
from which you yourself c o m e . . . . A n d if you order your realm rightly, you shall be
a son of light and citizen of the Heavenly Jerusalem, and I recall to you once again
what I wrote above: listen and remember, most pious Tsar, that all the Christian
kingdoms have gathered in your kingdom, that t w o R o m e s have fallen, but that the
third still stands and that there can never be a fourth: your Christian kingdom will
never be replaced by any other.27
T h e idea of salvation is u p p e r m o s t . T h e expression of this attitude, w h i c h c a n

b e found at the beginning of the seventeenth century in the service to St S o p h i a
(the Divine W i s d o m ) , 2 8 foreshadows the philosophical quests o f the intelligent-
sia at the e n d o f the eighteenth century. 29
T h e changes that took place in Russia during the A g e of E n l i g h t e n m e n t
h a d a divisive effect o n the mentality of Russian society. Support for W e s t e r n
philosophical systems did not preclude a desire for spirituality a n d led s o m e ,
such as N o v i k o v , to seek to assuage it in F r e e m a s o n r y . This crisis i m p o s e d a
return to primary sources a n d a redefining o f ecclesiology b y l a y m e n : hence the
considerable merit of the thinking of K h o m y a k o v a n d the Slavophiles in the
nineteenth century. A m a n as well informed as C h a a d a e v could not help d r e a m -
ing that
Russia had the formidable task of fulfilling, before any other land, all the promises
of Christianity because Christianity there had remained untainted by contact with
the passions of m e n and worldly interests, because it had, like its divine Founder,
restricted its action to prayer and humility and because it was probably for that rea-
son that it would be the object of his last and most wonderful inspirations.30
In this w a y , despite the shift f r o m ' H o l y ' to ' G r e a t ' Russia, the ideal r e m a i n e d
a n d w a s kept alive b y such great monastic centres as Optina. 3 1 T h e greatest R u s -
sian writers, G o g o l , Dostoevsky a n d Tolstoy, looked to it to satisfy their thirst
for spirituality. After 1917, O p t i n a 'is dying, slipping into a p r o f o u n d winter
sleep. T h e cycle of its life, o f its blossoming, of its fecundity is e n d e d . Will there
be a n e w spring? Will w a r m t h a n d love ever breathe again? Will O p t i n a Pustyn'
ever reawaken to life? G o d alone k n o w s ' , w r o t e Fr Chetverikov in 1925. 3 2 This
year of the celebration of the M i l l e n n i u m o f the baptism of R u s ' , Optina has
b e e n restored to the C h u r c h a n d this m e d i a event forms a bridge b e t w e e n past
a n d future.
Literature too is part o f this process a n d poetry in particular provides
incomparable examples of this. T h e best k n o w n illustration of this perception is

undoubtedly to be found in the following verses by Tyuchev:
These impoverished villages,

This frugal nature,
Dear and long-suffering land,
Y o u are the land of the Russian people!
The foreigner's proud glance

Could never grasp or even notice
W h a t appears and gleams secretly
Through your humble nakedness.
Weighed d o w n by the burden of the cross,

From end to end, O native land,
Under the guise of bondage, the King of Heaven
Has walked over you, blessing you. 33
' H o l y Russia' and 'Great Russia' are found not only in the research and dis-
cussions of Slavophiles and Westernists, but in all ranks of society.
T h e C h u r c h and the authorities were fully aware of this w h e n the Council
of Uniate Bishops, meeting at Polotsk for O r t h o d o x y W e e k o n 12 February 1839
- a meeting inspired by the exalted life of A b b o t Athanasius Filippovich34 -
solemnly decided to return to the b o s o m of the M o t h e r C h u r c h and the Tsar
gave his consent to this, writing: T thank G o d a n d accept', and a medal w a s
struck bearing the inscription: 'Separated b y force (1596), reunited by love
(1839)'; 35 so too in the manifesto of the liberation of the serfs in 1861 ending
with the following words: ' M a k e the sign of the cross, O r t h o d o x people, a n d
with us call d o w n G o d ' s blessing o n your free labour, the pledge of the well-
being of your households and of the good of society.'36 Here too the terminol-
ogy stresses the link between 'Russia' and ' O r t h o d o x y ' and throws additional
light o n Belinsky's words:
Yes, the conscience of the Russian people fuses marvellously into the word 'Tsar':
for them this word isfilledwith poetry and wondrous meaning. . . . The Tsar e m -
bodies out freedom because from him springs our n e w civilization and our education
as well as our life . . . . Every step forward by the Russian people, every act of social
development has invariably been an act of the Tsar's authority; yet that authority
has never been abstract or capriciously arbitrary since, mysteriously, it has always
been as one with the purposes of providence . . . , it is time w e realized that w e have
a reasonable right to take pride in our love for the Tsar, in our boundless submission
to his sacred will in much the same way as the English are proud of their state sys-
tem of government and the North American States proud of their liberty . . . the
mysterious seed, root, substance and living pulse of the life of our people are all con-
veyed by the word 'Tsar'.37
186 Dimitri Scbakbovskoy
In 1877 the w h o l e of Russian society w a s electrified by the liberation of the Bal-

kans from the O t t o m a n yoke that had heaped u p Christian skulls under the
indifferent eye of a E u r o p e absorbed above all in an illusory European balance
of p o w e r . It m a y quite justly be pointed out that, o n the eve of the upheavals
that the following century w a s to bring, Russia w a s already well aware o f the
problems at issue. In 1898, Tsar Nicholas II organized the H a g u e Conference in
an attempt to halt the unceasing arms build-up in Europe. 3 8 It was this act that
led to the foundation of the international organizations of our day. F o r m a n y
people, however, such as the poet Alexander Blok, the dark side of the nine-
teenth century w a s n o n e other than the triumph of abstract, materialistic a n d
e c o n o m i c ideas that eclipsed the renaissance of a Christian philosophical
thought w h o s e hour had c o m e . 3 9 T h e ideal o f ' H o l y Russia' remained. Nicholas
II gave an example of this w h e n he found h e had to put a n end to the o n o m a t o -
dox 4(J quarrel o n the eve of Easter 1914:
At this feast of feasts w h e n the hearts of the faithful reach out in love to G o d and
their fellow m e n , m y heart bleeds for the Athonite m o n k s deprived of the joy of
c o m m u n i n g with the sacred mysteries and the consolation of attending church. Let
us put this quarrel behind us, for it is not for us to judge that most holy of treasures,
the N a m e of G o d , and thereby draw d o w n the wrath of G o d on our fatherland.41
That w a s only a few years before the restoration of the Patriarchate.

T h e beginning of the twentieth century w a s indeed m a r k e d by a renewal
and a tension to be found in the great m i n d s of the time such as Florensky, Bul-
gakov, Berdyaev and a host of others. T h e period was also m a r k e d by a sense of
foreboding as to the spiritual and historic identity of Russia. This c o m e s
through in the verses of Alexander Blok and other poets:
Those w h o were born in the dark years

Cannot recall their way,
W e are the children of Russia's terrible years,
Without the strength to forget the least thing,
Years offire,are you the harbinger
of madness or of hope? . . .
Those w h o are more worthy, O G o d , O G o d ,

M a y they k n o w Thy kingdom! 42
W h e n the magazine Put' {The Path) w a s founded, Berdyaev, as a philosopher,

and then Kartashev, as a C h u r c h historian, with a few others were well able to
see a n d express the currents that the spirit of ' H o l y Russia' w a s to follow. All
the m o r e so because they at once strove to d r a w lessons from the trials they had
been through from 1914 to 1922. T h e existence of the St Serge Theological Insti-
tute in Paris testifies to this. Unequivocal proofs are the survival of the Russian
Church, its martyrdom and resurgence and the celebration of itsfirstthousand

years.43 Its influence cannot, however, be accounted for merely by the perpet-
uation of a particular heritage. In this regard, the part played by L . Zander, a
pioneer of ecumenism, is frequently overlooked. T h e all-round development of
Orthodoxy was ensured not only by these children of 'Holy Russia', but also by
the next generation, as m u c h in thefieldof theology with Vladimir Lossky as in
that of the study of icons with Leonid Ouspensky.
T o explain this awareness, w e have to return to the source, to the circum-
stances of the baptism of the Russian land as described in Metropolitan Hila-
rion's Sermon on Law and Grace:
Remember us, O Lord, when thou comest into thy Kingdom. In this manner, by
believing in him and maintaining the tradition of the Holy Fathers of the Seven
Councils, we pray to God again and again to urge and guide us in the path of his
commandments. 44
This is both a legacy and a duty. H e stresses this by passing into direct speech in
his prayer to St Vladimir:
Look at thy grandchildren and great-grandchildren, at h o w they are living, h o w the

Lord protects them, how they keep the true faith that thou didst entrust to them.45
. . . Pray to the Lord for the land and for the m e n that thou dost rule, inspired by the
faith, so that thou mayest keep them in peace and in the true faith, received from
thee; so that the true faith may be glorified in them and all heresy accursed.46
Hilarión returns to this in his prayer:
W e shall not raise our hands to another god, w e shall not follow any false prophet,
w e shall not believe in any heretical doctrine. . . . A n d , at thy dread judgement,
grant that w e may stand at thy right hand and that w e may share in the blessing of
the just. A n d as long as the world continues, do not let assaults and temptations rain
upon us, do not let us fall into alien hands so that thy city may not be called a cap-
tive city nor thyflockcalled strangers in their o w n land . . . , make thy Church to
grow; save thine inheritance.47
W e find in these words a conscious expression of the calling to salvation of

w h i c h the ideal of the 'Third R o m e ' was to be the eschatological expression of
faithfulness, especially in adversity, to inherited tradition, and of the sig-
nificance attached to the evangelical law expressed by the martyrdom of Princes
Boris and Gleb and the writings of Vladimir M o n o m a k h .
T h e testimony of faithfulness to that baptism w a s to be the legacy of St
Vladimir that m a y be defined as the conformity of rite to ecclesiological teach-
ing, the identity of the vehicle and w h a t it conveys, the kernel of that spirit of
'Holy Russia' that is still with us today.
188 Dimitri Stbakbwskoy
NOTES
1. Le baptême de la Rous: Discours sur la Loi et la Grâce par Hilarión de Kiev (Calendrier 1988)
[The Baptism of Rus': Sermon o n L a w and Grace, by Hilarión of Kiev (Calendar
1988)], Milan, 1987. For quotations w e shall refer to this edition, adding references
from the synodal version by A . M . Moldovan, Slovo o zakone i blagodati Ilariona [Ser-
m o n on L a w and Grace, by Hilarión], pp. 78-100, Kiev, 1984, and Idejno-filosqfskoe
nasledie Ilariona Kievskogo [The Philosophical Heritage of Hilarión of Kiev], Parts 1-2,
pp. 11-41, M o s c o w , 1986.
2. V . Vodoff, La naissance de la chrétienté russe [The Birth of Russian Christianity], p . 64,
Paris, 1988.
3. Evidence for thefirstc o m e s mainly from A r a b sources and, for the second, from
Greek sources. O n the use of these terms, see ibid., p . 379.
4. Le baptême . . ., o p . cit., pp. 3 0 - 3 2 ; M o l d o v a n , Slovo . . ., op. cit., p p . 185a-186b.
5. For a French translation, see L . Léger, La Chronique dite de Nestor, translated from the
Russian-Slavonic text with an introduction and critical commentary, pp. 2 4 3 - 6 2 ,
Paris, 1884; for original text a n d Russian translation, see A . S . Orlov, Vladimir
Monomakh, M o s c o w / L e n i n g r a d , A N S S S R , 1949, republished in Slavistic Printings and
Reprintings, N o . 9 3 , T h e Hague/Paris, M o u t o n , 1969. T h e most authoritative edition
is: D . S. Lihacev and B . A . R o m a n o v (eds.) under the direction of V . P . Adrianova-
Peretc, Povest' vremennyh let [Tale of Bygone Years], Vols. 1-2, M o s c o w / L e n i n g r a d ,
ANSSSR, 1950.
6. Ibid., pp. 2 5 8 , 260.
7. Le baptême . . ., op. cit., p . 30; M o l d o v a n , Slovo . . ., o p . cit., pp. 185a-186a.
8. Le baptême . . ., op. cit., p . 84b; M o l d o v a n , Slovo . . ., op. cit., p . 184b.
9. Le baptême . . ., o p . cit., p . 4 6 ; M o l d o v a n , Slovo . . ., op. cit., p . 193b.
10. T h e most complete study is N . d e Baumgarten, 'Généalogies et mariages occiden-
taux des Rurikides russes du X e au X H I e siècle [Genealogies and Western Marriages
of the Russian Rurikides from the Tenth to the Thirteenth Century]', Orientalia
Christiana ( R o m e ) , Vol. 3 5 , 1927.
11. L . Niederle, La race slave. Statistique, démographie, anthropologie [The Slav Race. Statistic
D e m o g r a p h y , Anthropology], p . 16, Paris, Alean, 1911, translated from the Czech
by L . Léger. F o r one of the best elucidations of this process, see I. I. L a p p o , Zapad-
naja Rossija i ee soedinenie s Pol'seju v ih istoriceshomproslom [Western Russia and its U n i o n
with Poland in their Historic Past], Prague, Plamja, 1924.
12. D . Schakhovskoy, 'Racines et milieu social de Tchaadaev [Roots and Social Back-
ground of Chuadncv]', Revue des études slaves (Paris), Vol. 55, N o . 2 , 1 9 8 3 , p p . 3 2 7 - 3 4 .
13. S. M . Solov'ev, Istoria Rossii s drevnejsih vremen [History of Russia Since its Origins],
Vol. 4 , p p . 4 9 6 - 5 0 1 , M o s c o w , Izd. Social'no-ekonomiceskoj Literatury, 1960;
Lappo, op. cit., p . 66.
14. Orlov, op. cit.
15. Pamjatniki literatury drevnej Rusi. XIII vek. [Works of Ancient Russian Literature, Thir-
teenth Century], pp. 4 8 - 9 , M o s c o w , H u d . Lit., 1981; E . V . Petuhov, Serapion Vladi-
mirskij, russkijpropovednik XIII veka [Serapion of Vladimir, A Russian Preacher of the
Thirteenth Century], St Petersburg, 1884; M . Laran and J. Saussay, La Russie ancienne:
IXe-XVIIe siècle [Ancient Russia from the N i n t h to the Seventeenth Century], p .

100 (Preface by F . Braudel), Paris, Masson, 1975. (Series of D o c u m e n t s o n the His-
tory of Civilizations.)
16. ' N o w , the holy Apostolic C h u r c h is that of the n e w , third R o m e , that of your all-
powerful k i n g d o m , which, m o r e splendid than the sun, m a k e s the O r t h o d o x Chris-
tian faith shine forth to the ends of the universe. M a y it be k n o w n to your Majesty,
most pious Tsar, that all the States of the O r t h o d o x Christian faith are gathered
together in your kingdom: you alone are E m p e r o r for Christians in this world.' -
Pamjatniki literatury drevnej Rusi. Konec X V - pervajapolovina XVI v [Works of Old R u s -
sian Literature. F r o m the Late Fifteenth to the First Half of the Sixteenth Century],
pp. 4 3 6 - 4 1 , M o s c o w , H u d . Lit., 1984; V . Malinin, Starec Eleazarova monastyrja Filofej i
ego poslanija [The Elder Philotheus of the Eleazar Monastery a n d his Epistles], p p .
4 9 - 5 6 , Kiev, Prilozenija, 1901; Laran and Saussay, op. cit., p p . 1 5 4 - 5 .
17. V . V . Zen'kovskij, Istorija russkojfilosofii[History of Russian Philosophy], Vol. 1, p .
49, Paris, 1948.
18. B . Zenkovsky, Histoire de la philosophie russe [History of Russian Philosophy], V o l . 1, p .
46 (translated from the Russian by C . Andronikoff), Paris, N R F , 1953.
19. Ibid., p . 4 7 .
20. Le Stoglav ou les cent chapitres. Recueil des décisions de l'Assemblée ecclésiastique de Moscou, 1551
[The Stoglav or H u n d r e d Chapters. Collection of Decisions of the C h u r c h
Assembly of M o s c o w , 1551] (translation with introduction a n d c o m m e n t a r y by E .
Duchesne), Paris, C h a m p i o n , 1920 (Bibliothèque de l'Institut Français de Petro-
grad). For original text, see Rossijskoe zakonodatel'stvo X - X X vehov. Zakonodatel'stvo
perioda obrazovanija i ukreplenija Russkogo centralizovannogo gosudarstva [Russian Legislation
from the Tenth to the Twentieth Century. Legislation of the Period of Formation
and Consolidation of the Centralized Russian State], Vol. 2 , p p . 258-67, M o s c o w ,
1985.
21. Ibid., pp. 8 - 9 .
22. Ibid., p 10.
23. Ibid., p. 17.
24. Ibid., p. 18.
25. Ibid., p. 19.
26. Laran and Saussay, op. cit., p p . 284-5.
27. Malinin, op. cit.
28. C . Andronikoff, 'L'office de la Sophie Sagesse de Dieu [The Service to Sophia, T h e
W i s d o m of G o d ] ' , Liturgie, spiritualité, cultures. Conférences Saint-Serge, XXIXe semaine
d'études liturgiques [Liturgy, Spirituality, Culture. St Sergius Lectures, Twenty-ninth
W e e k of Liturgical Studies], R o m e , Edizioni Liturgiche, 1983, p p . 1 7 - 4 0 .
29. D . M . Schakhovskoy, 'Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der russischen Intelligencija
(Ende 16./Anfang 17. Jh.)', in K . C . Felmy, G . Kretschmar, F . v o n Lilienfeld, and
C.-J. Roepke (eds.), Tausend Jahre Christentum in Russland [A Thousand Years of Chris-
tianity in Russia], pp. 377-90, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988.
30. P. J. Caadaev, Soánenija ipis'ma [Works and Letters], Vol. 1, p. 258 (edited by M . Ger-
senzon), M o s c o w , 1913.
31. S. Cetverikov, Optina Pustyn', 2 n d ed., Paris, Y M C A Press, 1988; S. Cetverikov, Starec
190 Dimtri Sebakbovskoy
Paisij Velickovskij [The Elder Paissius Velichkovsky], Vols. 1-2, Pecery, 1938. F o r a
m o r e complete version of the s a m e w o r k in R o m a n i a , see Paisie, Staretul Mânâstiri
Neamtului din Moldava, Viata, invatatura si influenta lui asupra Bisericii Ortodoxe, 1933. See
articles by S. Cetverkov in Put': N o . 1, September 1925, p p . 9 9 - 1 1 5 ; N o . 3, M a r c h /
April 1926, p p . 6 5 - 8 3 ; N o . 7 , April 1 9 2 7 , p p . 2 3 - 4 9 ; G . Florovskij, Puti russkogo
bogoslovija [The Paths of Russian Theology], 2 n d ed., Paris, Y M C A Press, 1 9 8 1 ; E .
Behr-Sigel, Prière et sainteté dans l'Eglise russe [Prayer and Sanctity in the Russian
C h u r c h ] , p p . 2 2 2 - 3 , N e w rev. and enl. ed., Paris, 1982 (Spiritualité orientale).
32. See articles by S. Cetverikov in Put, N o . 1, September 1925, p. 116.
33. F. I. Tjutcev, Polnoe sobranie stihotvorenij [Complete Poetic W o r k s ] , p. 201, Leningrad,
Sovetskij Pisatel' (Biblioteka poeta, bol'saja serija).
34. H e was canonized and is honoured by the Church as a martyr o n 20 July and 5 Sep-
tember according to the Julian calendar - A . Korsunov, Afanasij Filippovic. Zizn itvor-
cestvo [Athanasius Filippovich, Life and W o r k ] , Minsk, A N B S S R , 1965.
35. N . Tal'berg, htorija russkoj cerkvi [History of the Russian Church], p . 784, Jordanville,
N . Y . , Holy Trinity Monastery, 1959.
36. Khrestomatijapo istorii SSSR [Anthology o n the History of the U S S R ] , Vol. 3 ( 1 8 5 7 -
94), p. 71, Moscow, 1952.
37. V . G . Belinskij, Polnoe sobranie socinenij [Complete Works], Vol. 3, pp. 2 4 6 - 8 , M o s c o w ,
ANSSSR, 1953.
38. P S Z III. T . X X , N . 18540. Adapted from: S. G . Puskarev, Rossija v XIX veke 1801-
1914 [Russia in the Nineteenth Century, 1801-1914], pp. 3 3 9 - 4 0 , N e w Y o r k , 1956.
39. A . Blok, Sobranie socinenij [Collected W o r k s ] , Vol. 3, pp. 2 9 5 - 3 4 4 , 6 0 2 - 2 5 , M o s c o w /
Leningrad, H u d . Lit., 1960; see also the p o e m 'Vozmezdie [Punishment]' in ibid.
40. For this question, see A . Nivière, ' L e m o u v e m e n t onomatodoxe. U n e querelle théo-
logique parmi les moines russes du m o n t Athos (1907-14) [The O n o m a t o d o x
M o v e m e n t . A Theological Dispute a m o n g the Russian M o n k s of M o u n t Athos
(1907-14)]', Vols. 1 and 2 , Paris, Sorbonne, 1987 (unpublished doctoral thesis).
41. T h e original text of this note is: 'V etot Prazdnik Prazdnikov kogda serdca verujuscih strem-
jatsja ljuboviju k Bogu i k blizjiim dusa moja skorbit ob afonskih inokah, u kotoryh otnjata rad
priobssenija Sv\jatyh\ Tain i utesenie prebyvanija v brame. Zabudem rasprju — ne namsudit' o vel-
icajsej svjatyne: Imeni Boziem i tern navlekat'gnev Gospoden' na rodinu; sud deduct otmenit' i vse
inokov, po primeru rasporjazenija Mitrop[olita] Flaviana, razmestit' po monastyrjam, vozvrati
im monaseskij san i razresit' im svjascennosluzfnie. ' Pripiska ot ruki: 'Soversenno sekreten. G
dar' Imperator Heno izpolil peredat' etu sobstvennorueno im nacertannuju zapisku v Livadii 15
aprelja 1914 goda ober prokuror Svjatejsego Sinoda Vladimir Sabler. See C G I A S S S R , F . 7 9 7 ,
o p . 8 3 , d. 5 9 , pp. 1 6 7 - 9 and I. S. Kacnel'son, Po neizvedannym zemljam Efiopii [Over
the Unexplored Territories of Ethiopia], p . 187, M o s c o w , N a u k a , 1975.
42. Blok, 'Vozmezdie', op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 278.
43. N . Berdjaev, 'Duhovnye zadaci russkoj emigracii [The Spiritual Tasks of the Russian
Emigration]', Put', N o . 1, January 1926, pp. 3-8; A . Kartasev, 'Cerkov' v ee istor-
iceskom ispolnenii [The Church in its Historical Expression]', Put', N o . 47, April-
June 1935, pp. 15-27; N . Berdjaev, 'Russkij duhovnyj renessans nacala X X v i zur-
nal Put' [The Russian Spiritual Renaissance of the Beginning of the Twentieth Cen-
tury and the Magazine Put"]' (On the tenth anniversary of Put1), Put', N o . 49,
October-December 1935, pp. 3-22; A . V . Kartasev, Vossozdanie Sv. Rust [The Resto-
ration of Holy Russia], Paris, 1956.
44. Le baptême . . ., op. cit., p. 26; Moldovan, Slovo . . ., op. cit., p. 183a.
45. Le baptême . . ., op. cit., p. 193a.
46. Le baptême . . ., op. cit., p. 48; Moldovan, Slovo . . ., op. cit., p. 194b.
47. Le baptême . . ., op. cit., p. 50; Moldovan, Slovo . . ., op. cit., pp. 198a-199a.
The image of Russian Christianity
in the West and the concept of 'Holy
Russia'
Frank K ä m p f e r
The land of Rus' during the time of the Tartar yoke, from 1240 to 1480, m a y be
called the least-known country of Europe. W h a t took place at the Ecumenical
Council in Florence in 1438-45, w h e n the Byzantine and Catholic Churches
were striving towards union, can be seen as symbolic of this. The Russian dele-
gation was headed by a Greek, Metropolitan Isidore, a fervent advocate of
union. Nobody in Italy took any interest in the Russian members of the delega-
tion, and so they joined the small group of bitter opponents of union, without
attracting any attention.
F r o m then until the beginning of the sixteenth century, ideas about Russia
and Russian Christianity were formed under the influence of Polish clerics in
R o m e and Papal legates in Poland, all of w h o m were prolific polemicists and
propagandists of the Catholic faith. They raised the perennial conflict between
the Polish-Lithuanian and Muscovite states over the western territories of the
former Kievan Rus' to the dignity of a war between Europe and Asia, with
Poland conferring on herself the honorific title of 'front-line defences of Chris-
tianity' {antemurale Cbristianitatis).
O n the other side of these defences was Muscovy (Moscovia), a land of
schismatics and savages alien to the world of European civilization. Moscovia,
Moscovita, Moscoviticus, these political names are used to denote Orthodox
Russians under the rule of the Grand D u k e of M o s c o w and as distinct from
those under the Polish-Lithuanian monarchy. In connection with this, the
remark of the celebrated G e r m a n diplomat Siegmund von Herberstein o n the
various distinctions in political terminology of Eastern Europe is very typical:
Principium, qui nunc Russiae imperant, primus est magnus dux Moscovviae, qui maiorum e/us par-
tem obttnet, secundus magnus dux hitvvaniae, tertius est rex Poloniae, qui nunc et Poloniae et
194 Frank Kämpfer
L.ithvvaniae praeest. (Of the princes w h o n o w rule Rus', thefirstis the Grand D u k e of
Moscow, the second the Grand D u k e of Lithuania and the third the King of
Poland, w h o n o w rules both Poland and Lithuania.)1
Herberstein's b o o k Commentary on the Affairs of Muscovy (abbreviated below as

Commentary) describes the political situation of the 1520s, w h e n the O r t h o d o x
Russian population w a s under the authority of three states.
During the time of the G e r m a n Reformation, a n e w epoch began during
w h i c h the religion of the Russians attracted the interest of Western Europeans;
not only the curiosity of individual clerics, but also that of a wider public. In the
heat of the struggle between the old and n e w forces of Christianity in the Holy
R o m a n E m p i r e , both sides turned to Orthodoxy, possibly also in order to find
an ally in it. F r o m the very beginning of the Reformation, in 1519, during the
debate between Martin Luther a n d Johannes E c k in the city of Leipzig, the
question of the significance of the O r t h o d o x C h u r c h w a s raised. W h e n
Johannes E c k applied the expressions 'schismatics' and 'heretics' to the Ortho-
dox, Luther objected that it was impossible to reject so m a n y saints from the
C h u r c h , for the G r e e k C h u r c h had stood firm for centuries and w o u l d be eter-
nal.2
Information about Russian Orthodoxy spread in Western E u r o p e as a
result of the diplomatic relations of the G r a n d D u k e Vasily III (b. 1479, reigned
1 5 0 5 - 3 3 ) with Western powers during the 1520s. Apart from their political
tasks, the Russian diplomats, w h o were extremely learned, also served as
sources of information for Europe, acquainting her with the mighty nation o n
the other side of the Polish-Lithuanian-Livonian barrier. During his stay in
R o m e in 1523, the Russian interpreter Dimitri G e r a s i m o v talked about the land
and customs of the Russians with the Italian humanist Paulius Jovius, w h o
reported this conversation in a w e l l - k n o w n b o o k , published in Basle in 1525,
entitled Libellus de legatione Basilii Magniprincipis Moscoviae ad dementem VII, Ponti
icem Maximum, in qua situs Regionis antiquis incognitus, Religio gentis, mores et causae
tionisfidelissimereferuntur (Book on the Embassy of Vasily, Grand Duke of Muscovy, to
Pope Clement VII, Being a True Account of the Situation of the Country, Unknown to
Ancient Authors, the Religion and the Customs of this Tribe and of the Reasons for the
Embassy). H o w e v e r Jovius was not particularly interested in Russian Christians,
he w a s concerned mainly with the state, the various peoples of the land and
their customs.
A t the s a m e time a major b o o k about Russian Orthodoxy c a m e into being
in the same w a y from a conversation between a Russian diplomat a n d a W e s t -
ern humanist. In 1525, w h e n the Russian embassy w a s resting in Tübingen after
a difficult journey in Spain and awaiting a letter of reply from Ferdinand of
Austria, one of the latter's counsellors, Doctor J o h a n n Fabri, w e n t to the R u s -
sian A m b a s s a d o r to h a n d over gifts for the G r a n d D u k e Vasily III. M a k i n g use
The image of Russian Christianity in the West 195
and the concept of 'Holy Russia'
of their stay in Tübingen, J o h a n n Fabri questioned the Russians in detail, in

particular the interpreter Vlas Ignat'ev. Shortly after the departure o f the
embassy, at the beginning o f 1526, in Basle, Fabri published a b o o k o n the reli-
gion of the Russians, Moscovitarum iuxta mare glaciale religio (The Religion of the Musco-
vites who Live near the Arctic Ocean)}
T h e interview in Tübingen w a s far from successful, although the meeting
had been carefully prepared. N o t for nothing w a s D r Fabri a m o n g the m o s t fer-
vent preachers of Catholicism a n d therefore a passionate o p p o n e n t of Martin
Luther a n d other reformers of the C h u r c h . H e w a s concerned with discovering
the m o s t important d o g m a s , rituals a n d religious customs of Russian Christian-
ity in order to use t h e m in the struggle against the opponents o f the Catholic
faith. Nevertheless, his w a s a highly significant w o r k o n this t h e m e , marking a
n e w stage in relations between Western a n d Russian Christianity.
This n e w stage w h i c h began with k n o w l e d g e of Russian O r t h o d o x y w a s
distinguished not only by n e w information about the life of the Russian C h u r c h
a n d the Russian faith, but also by a n e w feeling of sympathy a n d respect. J o h a n n
Fabri, for example, w a s thefirstperson in the W e s t to write with respect about
the Russians' veneration o f icons, adding his o w n observations o n the d e v o -
tional icons of the embassy. H e propagated the story that the Russian land h a d
received baptism from the Apostle A n d r e w , the brother of the Apostle Peter.
This legend w a s later confirmed b y Herberstein:
Rutheni in annalibus suis apertegloriantur ante Vvolodimerum et Olham terram Russiae esse bap-
tizfltam et benedictam ad Andrea Christi apostólo. (In their chronicles the Russians openly
glory in the fact that, before Vladimir and Olga, the Russian land was baptized and
blessed by Andrew, the Apostle of Christ.)4
Fabri wrote that Russian O r t h o d o x y h a d not changed since that time, that the
Russian people, without the slightest wavering, kept firmly to the teachings o f
the Apostles:
Constantiori ¡taque animo quam plerique nostrum in hac primafideperseverare soient, quam ab
apostólo Andrea, suisque successoribus, sanctisquepatribus didicerunt, atque ab ubere materno suxe-
runt. (Thus they - m o r e constant in spirit than m a n y of us - maintain this original
faith w h i c h they were taught b y the Apostle A n d r e w and his successors, the holy
fathers, a n d w h i c h they sucked from their mothers' breasts.)5
This opinion is also found in Herberstein's b o o k : Russia ut coepit ita in hum usque
diem in fide ChristirituGraeco persévérât (Rus', as She Began, So She Maintains to the Pre-
sent Day the Faith of Christ of the Greek Rite).6
It can be said that the w o r k s of J o h a n n Fabri a n d S i e g m u n d v o n Herberstein,
w h i c h were frequently republished in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,
while Herberstein's Commentary w a s also translated into other languages, spread
196 Frank Kämpfer
a very favourable idea of Russian Christianity. It goes without saying that in the
book of the eyewitness Herberstein, there is also m u c h that is critical. This is
very understandable, as after all w e also find sharp criticism of Orthodox
society in the Codices of Russian Church Councils, such as the Stoglav Sobor of
1551.
W h a t was the nature of Russian Christianity at the time when the books of
Fabri and Herberstein were written? After the conquest of Constantinople by
the Turks in 1453, the Russian Church became the only Orthodox Church in
the world that was not under the Muslim yoke. W h a t is more, the Russians con-
sidered that the Greek Church was no longer truly Orthodox, as at the Council
of Florence in 1438-45 it had betrayed the Orthodox into the Union. Their feel-
ing of isolation slowly but surely changed into an awareness of their o w n dig-
nity, expressed in the conceptions of ' M o s c o w as the Third R o m e ' and 'Holy
Russia' which embody the eschatological significance of Rus' and perhaps her
historical significance for the world as a whole.
Let usfirstconsider the concept of 'Holy Russia'. This term appeared for
thefirsttime in the epistle of the Elder Philotheus of Pskov to Vasily III (c.
1511). T h e learned Elder calls the Grand D u k e 'the holder of the reins of
government of All Holy and Great Russia and the mother of the Churches'. 7
According to him, the source of the holiness of the Russian land is its status as a
chosen land in the latter days of world history.
Another sixteenth-century author, Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky, a
very pious m a n , but above all a Russian patriot in Polish emigration, and a pol-
itician by temperament, in the 1570s (probably after 1578) uses the expressions
'the Holy Russian Empire', 'the Holy Russian Land' and 'the Empire of Holy
Russia'.8 This is clearly an echo of the political term Sacrum Komanum Imperium
(Holy R o m a n Empire) which was well k n o w n to the Prince.
In what, exactly, did the holiness of the Russian soil consist for Prince
Kurbsky? During the hard times of the oprichnina of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, the
emigrant Prince Kurbsky lamented the faded piety of Muscovite Rus', in the
territories of which the churches and monasteries used to shine like the stars in
the skies.9 'Holy Russia', a land filled with churches, monasteries and altogether
with every sort of piety is something completely different from the 'Holy Rus-
sia' of the Pskov Elder Philotheus.
T h e Elder Philotheus of the Eleazar Wilderness (perhaps the monastic
n a m e of the distinguished politician and 'free-thinker' Fedor Kuritsyn) deve-
loped and spread the theory of ' M o s c o w as the Third R o m e ' , in which, as m e n -
tioned above, he called the Russian land by the Greek n a m e 'Pcûma', 'Holy Rus-
sia'. This teaching he develops in his epistle to Vasily III in the following
words, ' M a y it be k n o w n to Your Majesty, O pious Tsar, that all the kingdoms
of the Orthodox Christian faith have c o m e together in your single kingdom.
Y o u alone are the King of Christians in this world.'10
Later Philotheus sums u p in a formula the whole of his teaching that the
Muscovite State (or, AS pars pro toto the capital city of M o s c o w ) is n o w the dwell-
ing-place of the Holy Spirit: 'For t w o R o m e s have fallen, and the third o n e
stands, and there will not be a fourth.'
T h e Christianity of Rus' is n o w the defence of the Church Universal: ' N o w
in its Orthodox Christian faith, this Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of
the third n e w R o m e , of Y o u r Majesty's k i n g d o m , shines to the ends of the uni-
verse m o r e brightly than the sun.' 11
This teaching of the worldwide mission of the Russian C h u r c h permeated
the consciousness of Russians in the sixteenth century. N o t for nothing was it
quoted in 1589 in the Act raising the Metropolitan See of Russia to the dignity
of a Patriarchate. T h e expression 'Holy Russia' has the same significance, albeit
without the connotations of universality.
A s can be seen from the works of Johann Fabri and Siegmund v o n Herber-
stein, Westerners regarded the 'Holy Russia' of the time of Vasily III with
curiosity and critical interest. A t the end of the reign of Ivan the Terrible (born
1530, reigned 1533-84) this w a s to change completely. T h e events of the long
and bloody w a r over Livonia aroused a w a v e of 'Russophobia' throughout the
West, except in England. O n the other hand, English trading and diplomatic
observers in M u s c o v y did not s h o w any sympathy for the religion of the R u s -
sians. F r o m the point of view of Western creeds, Russian Orthodoxy amounted
to sumptuous ceremonies, rich monasteries, uneducated priests and an i m p o v -
erished populace. T h u s Western Europeans s a w only an outer appearance,
devoid of spiritual life.
There is n o need to say m u c h about the Jesuit Antonio Possevino w h o ,
having failed in 1581/82 to persuade Ivan the Terrible of the need for Church
union, later in his writings taxed Russian Orthodoxy with every error and
superstition.
It has to be admitted that in the eyes of learned Western travellers Russian
Christianity could not but have appeared outdated. T h e Russians in n o w a y
conformed to the criteria of the age of Western rationalism, w h e n both Cath-
olic and Protestant bishops saw the basis of faith in the intellectual education of
the faithful. T h e struggle between the Church of R o m e and northern European
Protestants w a s settled by knowledge, argument, deduction - but there w a s
n o n e of this in Russian Orthodoxy. T h e haughty attitude of the Italian Posse-
vino, the F r e n c h m a n Jacques Margeret, the G e r m a n A d a m Olearius and m a n y
others, w h o looked d o w n from the height of Western learning at the simple,
pious Russian people, is quite understandable.
T o take an example of a well-meaning, but nevertheless mistaken, view of
the essence of Russian Christianity, the Jesuit Paulus C a m p a n a , a travelling
companion and helper of Antonio Possevino, spoke with great respect in his
198 Frank Kämpfer
report of the devoutness and pious life of Russian people and especially m o n k s ,
whose asceticism he describes most vividly:
Monachos enim hie castissimos, puros et uptime videos carnis macerationi et devotioni addictiss
mos, itidem et episcopos et archiepiscopos et metropolitas - si excipias schisma - sánete et p
caste viven et in magna proinde apud suos populos veneratione haberi. ( Y o u see m o n k s c o m -
pletely chaste, pure, most given to the mortification of the flesh a n d to devotion a n d
similarly bishops and archbishops and metropolitans - if y o u excuse their schism -
living holily, piously and chastely and for this reason held in great respect by their p e o -
pie.)
Paulus C a m p a n a spoke with astonishment of the poverty of the m o n k s , ítanta

enim est parsimonia, tanta victus frugalitas (for there is such poverty and such
meagre life)', but his upringing prevented h i m being delighted atfindingso
m u c h self-abnegation and asceticism in the present age. It should be added that
Johann Fabri did express such delight, though he was not an eye-witness and
had only heard of it. Here is what C a m p a n a wrote on the subject:
Cum in magna veneratione sint apud populos fere eleemosine Ulis errogatae sumptus hos superant;
me miserai valde illorum, quod cum ad pietatis speciem ita educentur, nullam tarnen institutio
habent; ignorantiam summam Ulis videos licet rerum omnium. (As they are greatly respected
by the people, their alms are far greater than the needs of their life. But I pity t h e m
greatly, for although they are brought u p to this form of piety, yet they have n o edu-
cation. Y o u can see their great ignorance in all matters.)12
It seems to m e that the example of the Jesuit Campana is very typical of the
point of view of a favourably disposed Western European, w h o does not con-
ceal his positive impressions. Not only in the sixteenth century, but throughout
the whole age of rationalism and enlightenment, Western observers saw Rus-
sian Orthodox people as illiterate, uneducated, ill-read, unenlightened, lacking
in judgement and 'without words'. This evaluation is almost unquestioned, but
in view of the age-old anti-intellectualism of Orthodox monasticism, it is not to
the point because for them the essence of Christianity is not in knowledge or in
learning, but in love, humility and piety. I again quote the Elder Philotheus,
w h o m one contemporary compared to H o m e r :
I w a s not born in Athens,

nor did I study with wise philosophers,
nor did I converse with any such;
I studied from the books of divine grace,
by w h i c h I might save m y sinful soul . . . ' , 3
W i s d o m does not consist in speaking, but in knowing w h e n to speak: be silent

according to reason, speak according to reason! Think before you speak and
answer appropriately! D o not boast of your wisdom, for n o one knows any-
thing. T h efinalaim is to reproach oneself and hold oneself inferior to all.14

Being wise, rather than knowing, being silent and listening, not speaking; being humble,
not boasting - these are the precepts of the Elder Philotheus.
In s u m m i n g u p thefirstcentury of close acquaintance of Western Europe
with Russian Christianity, it m a y be said that Russian Orthodox people began
to feel not only isolated but exceptional, the people of 'the Third R o m e ' , of
'Holy Russia'. Westerners without exception saw in t h e m an alien world, inac-
cessible to intellectual judgement. It would appear that the essence of the matter
is that the Orthodox form of Christianity, based o n humility, o n uncomplain-
ing obedience to G o d , o n mortification, was incomprehensible to Westerners.
European travellers and writers of the seventeenth, eighteenth and even
the first half of the nineteenth century shared this point of view. T h e great
intellectual upsurge of the A g e of Enlightenment encouraged a contemptuous
attitude to religion in general, especially in relation to the supposed emptiness
of the sumptuous rituals of Russian Orthodoxy. A n example of this is h o w
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in his letters called o n Peter the Great to cast out
barbarism from Russia and cultivate it. This does not refer directly to religion,
yet it does include it. Referring to Russian sectarianism and its fanatical charac-
teristics, a picture of a fundamentally divided and contradictory society is
d r a w n in books about the Russian Empire.
F r o m the time of Peter the Great, the official Church, subordinate to the
state, deprived of a chief hierarch and controlled, so the story went, by a retired
general, was considered an institution similar to Western Churches of the A g e
of Absolutism. T h e aspiration of progressive Church leaders to renew the spir-
itual life of Russian Christians w a s seen as implying recognition of the back-
wardness of Orthodoxy, which w a s in need of m o r e m o d e r n m e a n s of c o m m u -
nication, such as sermons and a complete printed Bible (first published in 1751
and running to seven editions before 1800).
Napoleon's well-known witticism, 'Scratch a Russian and you'll find a Tar-
tar', w a s typical of the general contempt for Russian culture in thefirsthalf of
the nineteenth century. Anti-Russian opinions b e c a m e particularly widespread
in French journalism,15 culminating in the harsh criticism of the Marquis de
Custine w h o saw in Russian society 'des minuties de Byzance et de laférocité de la horde,
des vertus sauvages de l'Asie et des luttes d'étiquette du Bas-Empire (the pettiness of
Byzantium and the ferocity of the horde, the savage virtues of Asia and the con-
test of etiquette of the Empire in decline)'. W e also find a contemptuous atti-
tude to Russian Christianity in Jean-François Georgel's influential b o o k Voyage
à Saint-Pétersbourg (1818):
La religion russe n'étant qu'un tissu de mômeries extérieures qui laisse un libre essor aux passions les
plus dépravées, il ne doit pas être étonnant que la moralité soit si peu respectée. ( A s Russian reli-
gion is nothing but a fabric of outer s h o w , leaving unleashed the m o s t depraved
200 Frank Kämpfer
passions, it should cause n o surprise that morality is so little respected.)
T h e same m a y be said of Jacques-François G a m b a ' s book, Voyage dans la Russie

Méridionale (Journey in Southern Russia) (1824-26) in which w e read:
Mais quelle distance entre la vie d'anachorète des raskolniks, entre cette exaltation qui détermin
l'abstinence de tous plaisirs, et le fanatisme horrible qui a réuni en une secte nouvelle des hommes
consentent à une entière mutilation! (But w h a t a distance between the hermit's life of the
raskolniks [Old Believers], between this exaltation that inspires t h e m to abstain
from all pleasures, a n d the horrible fanaticism that has gathered together a n e w sect
of m e n w h o submit to total mutilation!)
In the conclusion to his book Russia (1828), Niellon-Gilbert wrote, 'Les Russes,
chrétiens en apparence, sont idolâtres défait (The Russians, Christians in appearan
are in fact idolaters).'
T o explain this Russophobia, which was equally widespread in England
and in the G e r m a n lands, attention should again be focused o n the theories of
the 'Third R o m e ' and 'Holy Russia'. A s a religious concept this idea disappears
completely from official culture and only in circles of Old Believers is it trans-
mitted from manuscript to manuscript. O n the other hand, during the time of
the growing political might of the Russian Empire the idea of the liberation of
the Balkan Christians was revived under the n a m e of the 'Greek Project' of
Catherine II, n o longer expressing a religious thought, but a political doctrine.
T h e wars against Napoleon had brought the Russian Cossacks to Paris, and in
the Balkan wars of the nineteenth century the Russians almost managed to con-
quer Istanbul and restore the Emperor's throne in Constantinople. Russia was
threatening the political positions of the Great Powers, thus arousing the hostil-
ity of the entire Western press. In this w a v e of Russophobic propaganda that
swept over public opinion until the Treaty of Paris ended the Crimean W a r , an
important place was occupied by what was called Russian religious Messianism,
referring to the Slavophile m o v e m e n t and, during the time of imperialism, the
Panslavic M o v e m e n t .
T o return to thefieldof spiritual culture, the importance of Romanticism
for the renaissance of the lesser Slav peoples is generally k n o w n , but it can also
be said to have fostered better understanding of Russian Christianity. T h e phi-
losophers of G e r m a n romanticism, especially Friedrich Schelling and the phi-
losopher of religion Friedrich Schleiermacher, opposed to rationalism a n e w
positive philosophy with a positive interpretation of the religious feelings and
spiritual powers of m a n . Under the influence of this philosophy, after visiting
the universities of Leipzig, Göttingen and Heidelberg, the Polish Slavophile,
Count A d a m Gurowski, published a book in 1840 entitled La civilisation et la Rus-
sie (Civilization and Russia) in which, true to the spirit of the Russian Slavophiles,
he wrote:
L'Église russe, propriété individuelle de la nation, en s'appropriant la langue slave comme moyen de
développement, lui donne un caractère de vigueur qui semble révéler en elle, comme dans la race à
laquelle elle appartient, l'avenirfécond qui leur est réservé. (The Russian Church, the exclu-
sive possession of the nation, by adopting the Slavonic language as its m e d i u m of
development, gives it an intrinsic vigour that would seem to portend, both for it
and for the race to which it belongs, the fruitful future reserved for them.) 16
Especially revealing for the picture of Russian Orthodoxy current during the
period of Romanticism is the fact that o n e of the outstanding personalities of
European culture, Johann Wolfgang v o n G o e t h e , w a s a m o n g thefirstto study
Russian religious art. Well acquainted with Russian church singing (which he
heard in the Russian Church of the G r a n d Duchess Maria Pavlova in W e i m a r ) ,
Goethe w a s also interested in icon-painting. In 1814 he wrote a letter to Maria
Pavlova requesting information o n the ancient and m o d e r n art of icon-paint-
ing. This request received the personal attention of the Minister of Internal
Affairs in St Petersburg and of the historian, Karamzin. A t length a written
statement w a s sent to W e i m a r together with four large icons w h i c h never c a m e
into the hands of the great writer. It is interesting that through his contacts with
Russians at the Court of W e i m a r , Goethe gained a very positive impression of
Russian spirituality and, above all, its aesthetic values.17
O n e of the m o s t important nineteenth-century authors in this -respect is
Baron August v o n Haxthausen (1792-1867). O n the invitation of Tsar Nicholas
I, this G e r m a n agrarian specialist travelled through the Russian E m p i r e in
1843, in particular the southern provinces, as far as Transcaucasia. This W e s t -
phalian conservative, a n e p h e w of the Tsar, w a s also invited to counteract the
harshly negative influence of French and English publicists o n European
public opinion. Haxthausen travelled all over the 'Russian L a n d ' in the true
sense of the w o r d , in other w o r d s he travelled through the countryside and con-
versed with Russian peasants, and he also talked to the pre-eminent Russian
philosopher and Professor of the M o s c o w Theological A c a d e m y , F . A . G o l u -
binsky. T h e deep spirituality of the latter, reminiscent of that of ancient R u s ' ,
and the simple spirituality of the Russian peasants, m a d e a deep impression o n
Haxthausen.
His w o r k appeared with s o m e delay (two volumes in 1847 a n d the third in
H a n o v e r in 1853), and the French translation, Études sur la situation intérieure, la vie
nationale et les institutions rurales de la Russie {Studies on the Internal Situation, National
L.ife and Rural Institutions of Russia), w a s published as early as 1 8 4 8 . A m u c h -
abridged English edition, The Russian Empire, Its People, Institutions and Resources,
w a s published during the C r i m e a n W a r , the w o r k being adapted to m a k e it top-
ical. It w a s translated into Russian and published in M o s c o w in 1870.18
T h e publication o f H a x t h a u s e n ' s b o o k in the m a i n foreign languages wit-
nesses to the fact that the Catholic B a r o n ' s v i e w s w e r e n o t w i t h o u t influence o n
202 Frank Kämpfer
public opinion. His theory about the outstanding role of the rural c o m m u n e
{mir) in the formation o f the Russian character w a s well k n o w n . H i s v i e w o f
Russian Christianity is also very interesting:
It is a well-known fact that the Russians are unusually religious. T h e religiosity of

the c o m m o n people issues primarily from a profound and instinctive feeling per-
vading the whole m a n , his thoughts, his opinions, his emotions. It is the air without
which he cannot breathe. Every aspect of life is endowed with religious emotions....
Religious patriotism attributes national character to G o d Himself; H e is the 'Rus-
sian G o d ' . . . . This religious patriotism is the source and foundation of Russia's
unity and of her moral and physical strength. Religion and its bearer, the Church,
constitute the true power, the spiritual and mysterious force that has fused this
country and its people into an indivisible whole. So dominant and powerful is this
historical fact that even the Old Believers, w h o broke with the Church, never could
or wanted to withdraw from its unifying bond. 1 9
T h e W e s t e r n E u r o p e a n v i e w of Russian O r t h o d o x y , t h o u g h influenced b y pol-

itical events such as the Balkan w a r s , the Polish Rising, the revolutions of
1 8 4 8 / 4 9 a n d the Russian social m o v e m e n t of Slavophilism, w a s nevertheless
f o r m e d in the first place in the field of literature. T h e acceptance of Russian
classical literature in the W e s t w a s a c c o m p a n i e d by a n e w v i e w of Russian
Christianity. Russian literature directs the attention of the W e s t e r n reader not
to the magnificent rituals of the C h u r c h , but to the significance for h u m a n i t y as
a w h o l e of Russian spirituality, the essence of w h i c h is Christian love a n d
h u m a n compassion. Already in A l e x a n d e r Pushkin's w o r k s , Westerners read of
the love of suffering of the simple Russian, a n d in L e v Tolstoy this appears as a
characteristic of the Russian soul as a w h o l e , as a distinctive trait of the Russian
interpretation of Christianity. T h e d e e p religious a n d psychological analysis o f
characters in Dostoevsky's novels w a s received enthusiastically in the W e s t .
T h e giants of Russian literature, a n d with t h e m all Russian literature in transla-
tion, created a n e w the i m a g e of the Russian Christian that h a d aroused the
astonishment of earlier observers.
Tolstoy a n d D o s t o e v s k y e m b o d i e d the polarization of m o d e r n Russian
Christianity. O s w a l d Spengler in his b o o k Der Untergang des Abendlandes (The
Decline of the West; translated into Russian as Zakat Evropj, M o s c o w , 1923), w h i c h
b e c a m e a sort of 'Bible' of G e r m a n conservatism after the First W o r l d W a r ,
describes Dostoevsky a n d Tolstoy thus: 'In t h e m the beginning a n d e n d collide.
D o s t o e v s k y is a saint a n d Tolstoy only a revolutionary.' W e m i g h t also a d d this
(slightly obscure) prophetic passage:
Das Russentum der Tiefe lässt heute eine noch priesterlose, auf dem Johannesevangelium au
gebaute dritte Art des Christentums entstehen, die der magischen unendlich viel näher steht a
faustischen, die deshalb auf einer neuen Symbolik der Taufe beruht und, weit entfernt von Korn
The. image of Russian Christianity in the West 203
Wittenberg, in einer Vorahnung künftiger Kreuzzüge über Byzanz hinweg nach Jerusalem blickt.
(The depths of Russia are n o w giving birth to a Christianity of the third type, so far
without priests, based o n the Gospel of St John, which is infinitely closer to magic than
to the Faustian, which is therefore based o n a n e w symbolism oí baptism and which,
very far from R o m e and Wittenberg, portending future crusades, turns beyond
Byzantium to Jerusalem.)20
W h a t does Spengler m e a n ? H e expresses the fear o f the W e s t faced with the p r o -

found religious p o w e r s o f the Russian people, w h o did n o t enlist either w i t h the
First or the S e c o n d R o m e , let alone Wittenberg, the capital of Protestantism.
T h i s 'Russia o f the depths' looks to the H o l y L a n d a n d awaits (which is pre-
cisely w h a t arouses the fear o f the G e r m a n philosopher) the apocalyptic w a r s o f
the future. S u c h is, e v e n after the Revolution of 1917, the W e s t e r n E u r o p e a n
picture o f ' H o l y Russia'.
NOTES
1. S. v o n Herberstein, Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentant, 1st ed., p . 15, Vienna, 1949,

2nd ed., Frankfurt/Main, 1960; Russian translation by A . I. Malei, Baron Sigizmund
Gerberstejn. Zapiski o moskovitskih delah [Commentary o n Muscovite Affairs], St Peters-
burg, 1908; French translation: L a Moscovie du seizième siècle [Muscovy in the Six-
teenth Century], Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1965; F . Kämpfer, 'Rerum Moscoviticarum
Commentarii als religionsgeschichtliche Quelle [S. v o n Herberstein's Rerum Moscovit-
icarum Commentarii as a Source for Historical Research o n Religion]', Siegmund von Her-
berstein. Kaiserlicher Gesandter und Begründer der Russland-künde und die Europäische Diplo-
matie [S. v o n Herberstein: Imperial Ambassador and Founder of Russian Science
and European Diplomacy], Graz, 1988 (Steiermark Federal State Archive Publica-
tions, 17).
2. E . Benz, Die Ostkirche im Lichte der protestantischen Geschichtsschreibung [The Eastern
Church in the Light of Protestant Historiography], p . 10, Freiburg, 1952.
3. Johann Fabri (ed.), Ad Streniss. principem Ferdinandum archiducem Austriae, Moscovitarum
iuxta mare glaciale religio, Basle, 1526; Kämpfer, op. cit.
4. Herberstein, op. cit., p . 77.
5. Fabri, op. cit., p . B 2 ; o n icons, see p p . D 2 et seq.
6. Herberstein, op. cit., p . 77.
7. V . Malinin, Starte Eleazarova monastyrja Filofej i egoposlanija. Istoriko-literatumoe isledovanie
[The Elder Philotheus of the Eleazar Monastery and his Epistles. A Historical and
Literary Study], Kiev, 1901; n e w edition, with appendices, p. 50,1971; H Schaeder,
' M o s k a u das dritte R o m [Moscow, T h e Third R o m e ] ' , Studien zur Geschichte der pol-
itischen Theorien in der slavischen Welt [Studies of the History of Political Theory in the
Slavonic World], 2 n d ed., Darmstadt, 1957; A . V . Soloviev, Holy Russia. The History
of a Religious-Social Idea, T h e Hague, 1959; F . Kämpfer, 'Beobachtungen zu den Send-
schreiben Filofejs [Observations o n the Epistles of Philotheus]', Jahrbücher für Ges-
204 Frank Kämpfer
chichte Osteuropas [Yearbook of East E u r o p e a n History], V o l . 1 8 , 1 9 7 0 , p p . 1 - 4 6 , in

particular p . 3 , n . 9 ; F . K ä m p f e r , ' M o s k a u das dritte R o m ' , in T . M e y e r (ed.), 1000
Jahre Christliches Russland [1,000 Years of Christian Russia], p p . 4 5 - 5 6 , Recklinghau-
sen, 1 9 8 8 .
8. Prince A. M . Kurbskj's History of Ivan IV, p p . 1 5 6 , 1 6 8 , 2 2 4 , 2 2 8 ; published with tran-
slation a n d notes by J. L . I. Fennell, C a m b r i d g e , 1965.
9. Schaeder, o p . cit., p . 1 2 4 .
10. Malinin, o p . cit., Appendices, p . 5 0 .
11. Ibid., p . 5 5 .
12. A . M . A m m a n n and P . C a m p a n i , 'Relatio d e itinere moscovítico', Antemurale, V o l .
6, 1 9 6 0 / 6 1 , p p . 1-85, in particular p p . 2 7 - 8 .
13. Malinin, o p . cit., Appendices, p . 33. This expression can already b e found in Daniel
the Recluse (Daniil Zatocnik) a n d in the Life of St Stephen of P e r m . In a n epistle by
Fedor K a r p o v , the w o r k s of the Elder Philotheus are quoted as 'being written with
talent, without the slightest trace of barbarism or ignorance, respecting H o m e r i c
style a n d rhetoric'; K ä m p f e r , 'Beobachtungen . . .', o p . cit., p p . 3 0 et seq.
14. Malinin, o p . cit., Appendices, p . 1 2 .
15. R . T . M c N a l l y , ' D a s Russlandbild in der Publizistik Frankreichs zwischen 1 8 1 4 u n d
1843 [French publicists' I m a g e of Russia between 1 8 1 4 and 1843]', Forschungen zur
osteuropäischen Geschichte [Research o n East E u r o p e a n History], V o l . 6 , 1 9 5 8 , p p . 8 2 -
169, especially p p . 109, 1 3 2 , 1 3 5 , 157.
16. Ibid., p . 1 4 4 .
17. M . P . Alekseev, 'Goethe-Miszellen: G o e t h e u n d die altrussische Malerei [Goethe
Miscellany: G o e t h e and O l d Russian Painting]', Germanoslavica, V o l . 2 , 1 9 3 2 / 3 3 , p p .
6 0 - 4 ; H . W a h l , 'Goethes Anstoss zur russischen Ikonenforschung [Goethe's C o n -
tribution to the Study of Russian Icons]', Goethe, p p . 2 1 9 - 2 6 , W e i m a r , 1 9 4 7 ( N . F .
des Jahrbuches der Goethe-Gesellschaft, 10).
18. U n d e r the title: lzsledovanija vnutrennih otnosenij, narodnoj zízni, i v osobennosti sel'skih uc
denij Rossii harona Gakstgauzena.
19. A . v o n Haxthausen, Studien über die inneren Zustände, das Volksleben und insbesondere di län
dlichen Einrichtungen Russlands [Studies o n the Internal Situation, National Life and
Especially Rural Institutions of Russia], Vols. 1 - 3 , Hanover/Berlin, 1847-52; A .
v o n Haxthausen, Die ländliche Verfassung Russlands, Ihre Entwicklungen und Ihre Fest-
stellung in der Gesetzgebung von 1861 [The Rural Situation in Russia], Leipzig, 1866;
n e w annotated English translation: S. F . Starr (ed.), Studies on the Interior of Russia.
August von Haxthausen, C h i c a g o / L o n d o n , 1972; Haxthausen, Die ländliche..., o p . cit.,
p. 260.
20. O . Spengler, Umrisse einer Kulturmorphologie der Weltgeschichte [Outlines of a Cultural
M o r p h o l o g y of W o r l d History], p p . 7 9 3 , 1 1 8 2 , M u n i c h , 1 9 8 0 .
Part Four
CHRISTIANITY A N D SOCIETY
Paganism and Christianity in Russia:
'double' or 'triple' faith?
Francis C o n t e
T o play devil's advocate for a few moments, I should like to s h o w by a concrete

example (that of a fertility rite) the vitality of Slav paganism and its importance
in the formation of folk beliefs in Russia. Christianity did not systematically
eradicate the world-view that gave rise to paganism; in Russia w e can even
speak of a certain 'peaceful coexistence' of the pagan and Christian world-
views. This was not a true syncretism, but rather the simultaneous existence of
composite strata, which, in the felicitous expression of Claude Lévi-Strauss,
could be called 'foliated'. T h e question is therefore one of discovering the most
obvious causes of this p h e n o m e n o n .
Undoubtedly the long duration of the medieval period in Eastern Europe
largely explains the importance of the pagan substratum that continued to exist
alongside official Orthodoxy right up to the beginning of the present century.
In m y opinion, the continuance of rural civilizations within the framework
of authoritarian regimes fostered a number of functional archaisms, especially
in the more isolated areas. In Western Europe, o n the contrary, the pagan sub-
stratum was swept away, for reasons that are both complex and convergent, of
which I shall mention only three.
First, the pressure of the Catholic Church, less tolerant of heterodox prac-
tices than the Orthodox clergy; secondly, the absence of the 'second serfdom'
that weighed so heavily o n the daily life and o n the mentality of the Eastern
European peasants, w h o m the Russian élite classified as 'the ignorant people'
(temnyj narod) while going into raptures over their 'holiness'; and,finally,the
rapid secularization of attitudes that marked Western Europe, with those long
periods of intellectual upheaval that Eastern Europe did not undergo to the
same degree, which it sometimes experienced at a later time or under other
forms, or did not experience at all. T h e reference here is in particular to the
208 Francis Conte
Renaissance of the sixteenth century and the rediscovery of the heritage of the
ancient world, the European revolutions, the discovery of the rights of the indi-
vidual and the concept of happiness during the A g e of Enlightenment and
finally the industrial and urban upsurge of the nineteenth century, ending in the
'disenchantment' with the natural world finally experienced by Western
Europe.
T o elucidate the Eastern European peasant world-view, one major ques-
tion shouldfirstbe considered: that of 'explanatory' myths of pre-Christian ori-
gin in the system of folk culture.
Explanatory myths and folk culture

Whatever his level of development, m a n has always sought to understand the
universe around h i m in order tofithis desires and actions into it. H e applies
himself to organizing the world, giving it a structure and codifying it: he thus
refuses to let himself dissolve into it and chooses to affirm his independence of
spirit. T h e m o r e his knowledge is fragmentary and uncertain, the m o r e the
individual needs to create explanatory schemes of myths, expressed by 'texts'
(invocations) or by rituals. These set a value o n h u m a n activities; they help to
solve the problems both of daily life and the other world. Within the frame-
work of these structures, which link the individual to the supernatural - space,
time, the elements, the enigmas of life and death, the natural cycles - myth can
be based o n elements of reality. Nevertheless its aim is not to take account of
this reality; its essential purpose is rather to e n d o w it with meaning. Myths
serve to s h o w that the destiny of m a n and the nature of the world have a cohe-
rence, continuity andfinality.This is w h y the imagination of the individual or
group seeks above all to penetrate the inexplicable, that which is mysterious and
consequently sacred.
In Kiev as elsewhere, the advent of Christianity doubtless marked the
beginning of the 'disenchantment of the world' mentioned above, but only the
beginning. For longer than others, the peasant continued to perceive the super-
natural lurking in this tangible universe that he k n e w so well; he saw it conti-
nually manifested therein, like afluidtaking o n solid form, whether in objects
or beings. T h e plough became effective, tears gave fertility, w h e n the word and
the ritual caused the sacred to stand guard.
In this sense, sharp breaks between systems of beliefs were never as radical
as appears atfirstsight. Whatever the system of beliefs, belieffirstsprings from
the wish to believe. M a n ' s n e w view of the sacred does not necessary relegate
the old one to oblivion, as though it were a system that has gone out of use,
mental equipment violently rendered obsolete. Representations of the world
and the supernatural are superimposed o n each other rather than eliminated:
Paganism and Christianity in Russia: 209
'double' or 'triple'faith?
they m a y be distinct, syncretic or contradictory, they m a y also be used in turn,

according to the need o f the m o m e n t .
A t present Slav anthropologists are trying to penetrate this archaic spiritual
field w h i c h is so little k n o w n to us. Their first task is to distinguish b e t w e e n its
c o m p o n e n t s , Slav a n d non-Slav, p a g a n a n d Christian, to m a k e it possible to
reconstruct these t w o approaches to the sacred, these t w o attitudes correspond-
ing to t w o types of perception o f the world.
I shall limit myself here to considering a tiny part of this purzle w h i c h is to
be put together; a fertility ritual involving water, w h i c h w a s mentioned in turn
by t w o of Russia's greatest poets, Alexander Pushkin a n d Sergey Yesenin.
Water, chaos and world order

Apparently the role o f water does not derive only f r o m consideration of its util-
itarian aspect. Its importance springs from the fact that it represents a funda-
mental element, essential for the existence o f m a n a n d plants. F o r the Slavs,
w h o w e r e above all agriculturalists a n d settlers, harvests w e r e sources o f life and
also o f trade; the water from heaven o n w h i c h they d e p e n d e d therefore played a
leading role in the system of explanatory m y t h s constituting their v i e w of the
world. C a n w e try to reconstruct the functional aspect o f the m y t h of water 1 and
of the rituals intended to m a k e rain fall?2 Certain current research m a k e s it pos-
sible to attempt this experiment.
F o r the Slavs, this m y t h is linked to the total balance of the w o r l d a n d the
forces that give life to it, divine or chthonic p o w e r s , those o f heaven or earth.
T h e activities of beasts a n d m e n , w h o are positive or negative intermediaries,
take place between t h e m . T h u s the birds a n n o u n c e the return of the s u n a n d the
rain w h i c h gives fertility; snakes o r frogs are sacrificed to m a k e the rain c o m e ;
as for h u m a n s , they h a v e different roles depending o n their profession or status:
w o m e n , w h o are linked b y their very nature to the fertility of D a m p M o t h e r
Earth, c a n contribute b y appropriate rituals to call forth rain, while potters or
brick-makers are very likely to h a v e a n unfavourable influence, as are also the
unsatisfied dead.
For the pagan Slavs, the rain falling o n the soil corresponded to divine seed
fertilizing the earth. If this seed s e e m e d to run dry, it h a d to be induced by a
series o f magic rituals based primarily o n parallels b e t w e e n p h e n o m e n a : any
water that w a s caused to flow - b y watering, b y sprinkling, b y shedding tears -
should m a k e the rain c o m e forth. Opposite rituals w e r e used if the seed from
h e a v e n appeared to b e about to flood the earth a n d d r o w n the crops.
D u r i n g a drought, archaic m a n noted the chaos threatening the w o r l d a n d
his o w n existence. In his o w n w a y , h e tried to restore the order of things favour-
able to h i m ; h e sought to intervene in the operation o f the world b y m e a n s of a
210 Francis Conte
magic interference that seemed to h i m able to avert the causes of the evil that
befell him.
For this, the h u m a n imagination had to conceive of h o w the universe func-
tioned. It established a link between the water of earth and the water of heaven.
All the water flowing on the surface of the earth (rivers large and small), all the
water born of the earth (wells), all the water gushing from the earth (springs)
then acquired a sense greater than its material meaning.
In the world of ideas of the pagan Slavs, the spring and the well were the
most favourable place from which to act on the heavenly world. They repre-
sented an outlet of underground life to the surface of the earth, embodying for
its part the magic frontier linking the realm of infernal powers to the heavenly
realm. M o r e than a frontier, it is the 'place of contact and neutralization' be-
tween these t w o realms, which encounter each other by virtue of the antithet-
ical principle of high/low; they are at the same time linked and reflected by the
surface of the mirror earth. T h e liquid elements crash onto the earth or gush
therefrom to reappear on its surface and to fertilize it. Obstruction of ground-
water reserves leads to blockage of the waters from heaven. It is therefore essen-
tial to open up, to unblock springs that are blocked in a time of drought.
For this reason, the magic ceremony did not consist only in praying to the
springs, lakes or rivers, and making sacrifices to them (as noted by Procopius of
Caesarea in his description of the Slavs in the sixth century). This veneration of
the waters was accompanied by other ritual acts: keys had to be placed o n the
bed of the dried-up river, ditches dug in the roads or their surface ploughed (as
Soviet research shows to this day). F r o m this point of view, the river and the
road were seen as parallels. Later the well was seen as the symbol of the passage
of groundwater towards the mirror surface formed by the earth: it is an active
intermediary linked to the water of heaven o n the principle of communicating
vessels.
Thus, parallel with the Christian blessing of water and the equivalent of
Rogation in the West, in Slav country areas offerings were still m a d e to rivers,
springs and wells: rituals were performed involving, for example, beating the
water, pouring water from a well o n to a girl covered with foliage, erecting a
cross near a well and decorating it with specially embroidered cloths, casting
seeds representing rain into the well or shedding tears which also symbolize it,
and so forth.
Water and tears

O n e fertility ritual is mentioned by Pushkin in Eugene Onegin and by Yesenin in
an untitled p o e m written in 1914. These two references are of interest primarily
because they were not understood until they attracted the attention of eth-
nologists a few years ago. Unfortunately for French readers, the recently
published French translations of the works of Pushkin skimmed over this diffi-
culty. T h e French version of Stanza X X X V of Chapter II, describing the life of
the Larins, Tatyana's parents, is as follows:
Cette existence pacifique

Bornait encore son horizon
Et plus d'une coutume antique
Se conservait dans la maison:
Aux époques de pénitence
On j pratiquait l'abstinence
Tandis qu'en temps de carnaval
De crêpes c'était un régal;
Ils aimaient les chants populaires,
Buvaient du kvas en quantité
Et, le jour de la Trinité,
Mêlaient trois pleurs à leurs prières;
Même ils suivaient dans les repas,
Le tchin pour présenter les plats.
(This peaceful existence

Still had limited horizons
A n d m o r e than one ancient custom
W a s kept u p in the house:
A t the times of penitence
Fasting w a s observed
While at the time of carnival
There w a s a feast of pancakes;
T h e y liked folk songs,
D r a n k vast amounts of kvas
A n d , o n the Feast of the Trinity,
Mingled three tears with their prayers;
A t mealtimes they even observed
T h e chin [order] of serving courses.)
In fact, although the translator has m a d e every effort to respect P u s h k i n ' s

'novel in verse', h e has passed o v e r w h a t , for u s , is the essence o f the stanza, the
' c u s t o m s o f the g o o d old d a y s ' {privycki miloj stariny) w h i c h correspond to n o n -
Christian rituals in a n O r t h o d o x e n v i r o n m e n t . T h e translator leaves out c o m -
pletely the t w o rituals m e n t i o n e d b y P u s h k i n : o n the o n e h a n d , fortune-telling
rites (podbljudnye pesni), a n d , o n the other h a n d , a fertility rite, described b o t h
precisely a n d poetically, w i t h a m u s e m e n t b u t accurately:
V den' Troicyn, kogda narod

Zevaya slusaet moleben,
212 Francis Conte
Umil'no na pucok zart

Oni ronjali slezki tri . . .
(On the day of Pentecost, while the peasants

Listened to the service yawning,
They [the Larins] with tender feeling shed
Three little tears on a bunch of . . .)
These four lines give the outline of the rite very clearly: w e learn who w e e p s (a
family w h o k n o w and respect the past), when (during the religious service at
Pentecost), where (in church) and for what reason (pucok zari) they are weeping.
T h e combination of these t w o words (pucok zari) m a y appear astonishing at
first sight, if the w o r d 'zarja' is translated by ' d a w n ' (or 'twilight' in Russian, as
it m e a n s in general a red colouring of the sky). In fact, the w o r d 'zarja' or 'zorja'
has another meaning in Russian: a plant with the botanical n a m e of Ligusticum
Levisticum.
Ethnographers of the last century give very revealing information about it:
this plant, well k n o w n in the Ukraine and very beautiful with its vivid flowers,
was believed to have medicinal and even magic properties: love-sick girls used
it to attract and enchant boys.
T h u s the non-Christian context begins to appear: it w a s even so evident in
the nineteenth century that, in thefirstedition of Eugene Onegin, the w h o l e of
Stanza X X X V w a s deleted and replaced by dots, as this stanza alluded too ex-
plicitly to rituals considered to be pagan, and the Orthodox C h u r c h expressed
its disapproval by censorship. T h e censor w a s the famous ethnographer, I. M .
Snegirev, w h o w a s then working o n four seminal volumes o n Russian folk cus-
toms. 3
It so happened that Snegirev w a s most scrupulous in keeping his diary.
U n d e r 2 6 September 1826 he wrote:
I went to Alexander Pushkin w h o showed m e , in m y capacity as censor, Chapter III

of his Onegin; he accepted m y comment that he should delete or change some lines;
he told m e that in some places there still exists the custom of sweeping the graves of
parents with the flowers of Pentecost in order to wipe their eyes.4
In the present state of ethnographic knowledge, it is hard to establish the link of

cause and effect between these three very distinct elements: the graves, the eyes
and the flowers. W e can only w o n d e r w h y it should be necessary to wipe the
parents' eyes. W h y at Pentecost? W h y with this particular flower? W a s it
because of the Christian feast-day, because this plant flowered at Pentecost a n d
was the only o n e that could wipe their eyes (we k n o w it w a s renowned for its
magic effects)? A r e w e dealing precisely with those 'foliated strata' that w e m e n -
tioned earlier, with a mixture of Christian and pagan elements? E v e n if w e take
this last point into account, w h y should this action be considered sacrilegious
by the O r t h o d o x C h u r c h , w h i c h allowed ritual meals o n the graves without
raising a n eyebrow? W a s it necessary to w i p e the parents' eyes because they h a d
wept? H a d they w e p t of their o w n accord or because s o m e o n e h a d interceded
with t h e m ? W h a t , then, w a s the m e a n i n g o f these ritual tears?
This m e a n i n g largely escapes us today, w h e r e a s Pushkin a n d Snegirev cer-
tainly k n e w it, judging by the importance they attached to it: Snegirev in delet-
ing these references a n d Pushkin in restoring t h e m , as h e did in successive edi-
tions.
A t present, almost all that can b e d o n e is to ask questions. In attempting to
reconstruct the m e a n i n g of this ritual, w e h a v e only o n e piece of recent evi-
dence at our disposal, though it is true that it does have the advantage of dealing
with a magic context including elements comparable o n the level of time, place
a n d s o m e of the ritual behaviour.
In 1970, the ethnographer L . A . Tultseva noted the following during a n
expedition in R y a z a n ' province:
In the village of Zaulki ( K a d o m o v o district, Ryazan' province), the following rite

has been practised up to recent years: after the liturgy o n the Saturday of Pentecost,
w o m e n , mainly elderly, went to their parents' graves and after decorating a birch
tree with clothes - a skirt, blouse, apron, head-scarf and necklace - carried it in pro-
cession to the church, shouting ' 0 / let] [It is summer].' 5
Unfortunately the ethnographer does not specify w h a t the m e a n i n g of this rite

m i g h t be. S h e does, h o w e v e r , give several sequences that could hold our atten-
tion: (a) the service of Pentecost; (b) the visit to the cemetery, to the graves, in
very special conditions, a sort of resurrection through a figure decorated with
all the attributes of a h u m a n being (a parallel could perhaps be d r a w n with the
Serbian or Bulgarian dodola); a n d (c) the return to the church a n d the songs that
greet the arrival of s u m m e r , w h i c h in the context of rural cultures m e a n s first
and foremost harvest time.
W a s it a fertility ritual of w h i c h Pushkin revealed only the first part to us?
This thesis is perhaps probable if w e take into consideration a c o m p l e m e n t a r y
rite that the s a m e ethnographer noted during a n expedition to the R y a z a n '
region:
At Novopanskoe, tradition requires that the bunches of flowers [above, the birch
tree] taken to church o n Pentecost morning be moistened with tears; the believers
bring them back to church for vespers, kneel d o w n and raise them to their faces in
the palms of their hands, weeping.
T h e s a m e tradition h a d been observed by the ethnographer L . B . Z e r n o v a at the

e n d of the 1920s in the north of the M o s c o w region (district of D m i t r o v s k o e ) :
214 Fratuü Conte
At the time of the mass of Pentecost, girls standing to the left of the sanctuary had to
shed a few tears on a bunch of birch twigs. This bunch is then carefully kept; it is
considered to protect against drought the following summer. 6
Here w e have the m o s t complete evidence. A n s w e r i n g the principle of ' s y m -

pathetic' magic, the m e a n i n g of the ancient rite w o u l d be as follows: the tears
shed by the girls correspond to rain, as the part stands for the whole: o n this
point, the folk poetry of the Slav world identifies rain with the tears of the Vir-
gin or the saints, weeping over the misfortunes and sins of poor h u m a n s . In the
rite developed by Pushkin in his conversation with Snegirev, the living could
thus ask their dead - their lares or household deities - to w e e p in order to bring
rain, then their eyes w o u l d be wiped with the magic flowers, unless these s a m e
flowers are used to cause their tears? A s for the herb, the flowers, the twigs or
figures m a d e from birch trees, these are the equivalents of the vegetation the
peasant desires.
Rain waters and fertilizes the earth, it m a k e s it possible for plants a n d thus
harvests toflourish.Moreover, in the region of Poles'je (Polesie), the rain that
falls after invocations a n d magic acts is called bleb (bread), while the Poles call it
zito (meaning a cereal, barley or rye) or else sokrovisce (treasure).
A s recently as the early 1970s, a team of ethnographers led by Academician
N . I. Tolstoy observed a ritual of invocation of rain practised in the s a m e region
of Polesie. T o prevent drought, the peasant w o m e n gather together around the
village well in order to invoke a mythical person w h o m they call M a k a r ( M a c -
arius), 'Little Macarius, beloved son, c o m e out of the water, shed your tears
u p o n our earth.'7
A t the beginning of the present century, Sergey Yesenin k n e w this custom
perfectly. H e was, in fact, born in the region of Ryazan' w h e r e the ethnographer
L . A . Tultseva conducted long investigations. In a p o e m written in 1914, h e
mentions the m o r n i n g of Pentecost (Troicyno utro). H e refers directly to this par-
ticular rite as if he w e r e going to take part in it, 'Japojdu k obedne plakat' na cvety
(I shall go to mass to w e e p o n the flowers)'.8
T h e t w o poets, Yesenin and Pushkin, had integrated these ancient if not
archaic rituals perfectly into their intellectual experience. This s h o w s the
remarkable knowledge they had of folk piety, and the vitality of these customs.
T h e y have survived for so long because they were useful and not merely 'dec-
orative'. Their study and the attempt to decode the Russian folk world-view
m a y m a k e it possible to have a grasp, h o w e v e r incomplete, of the essence of its
individuality, within the framework of w h a t is conventionally k n o w n as ' d o u -
ble faith' (dvoeveriè). In fact, as in the case of everything 'conventional', this label
is undoubtedly not the most exact o n e : together with original Slav paganism,
together with O r t h o d o x Christianity w h i c h from the end of the tenth century
b e c a m e dominant in R u s ' , should w e not speak of a 'third faith? This term
w o u l d at least have the advantage of s h o w i n g that rural beliefs, in their Russian

version, form a w h o l e or, m o r e exactly, a functional system. T h e y form a viable
a n d coherent w h o l e , that can, w h e n required, be divided u p in order to use the
stratum, Christian or pagan, that is best suited to the needs of the m o m e n t .
Naturally these peasants, w h o never described themselves as 'Russian' or
'Ukrainian', but as ' O r t h o d o x ' as c o m p a r e d with other peoples of Catholic,
Protestant, Jewish or M u s l i m religion, h a dfirstrecourse to the O r t h o d o x faith
in case of major difficulty. Nevertheless, if this did not prove sufficient, they h a d
recourse to the m o r e obscure faith of ancient customs, e v e n if they h a d lost the
thread of the general outline of w h a t w a s recently called 'the genius of Chris-
tianity'. These 'alternative recourses' h a v e c o m e d o w n to us within the specific
f r a m e w o r k of the rural world distinctive of that 'other E u r o p e ' that attracts our
special attention a n d curiosity today.
NOTES
1. V . Ivanov and V . Toporov, ' L e mythe indo-européen de l'Orage poursuivant le ser-
pent [The Indo-European M y t h of the Storm Pursuing the Snake]', Echanges et com-
munications. Mélanges offerts à Claude Lévi-Strauss à l'occasion de son 60ème anniversaire
[Exchanges and Communications. A Miscellany for Claude Lévi-Strauss o n his Six-
tieth Birthday] (Texts assembled by J. Pouillon and P. Maranda), Vol. 2, pp. 1 1 8 0 -
1260, T h e Hague/Paris, 1970.
2. N . I. Tolstye and S. M . Tolstye, 'Zametki p o slavjanskomu jazycestvu. 1: Vyzyvanie
dozdja u kolodca [Notes o n Slav Paganism. Part 1: Invocation of Rain at the Well]',
Russkij fol'klor [Russian Folklore], Vol. 25, Leningrad, 1981; Part 2 (published pre-
viously), 'Vyzyvanie dozdja v Poles'e [Invocation of Rain at Polesie]', Slavjanskij i bal-
kaskijfol'klor [Slavonic and Balkan Folklore], pp. 95-130, M o s c o w , 1978; two c o m -
plementary studies by S. M . Tolstye, 'Pahanie reki, dorogi [Ploughing the River, the
Road]' and 'Ljaguska, uz i drugie zivotnye v obrjadah vyzyvanija i ostanovki dozdja
[Frogs, Snakes and Other Animals in Rituals of Invocation and for Stopping Rain]',
Slavjanskij . . ., op. cit., pp. 18-27, 1986.
3. Les Russes et leurs proverbes [The Russians and their Proverbs], M o s c o w , 1831-34;
Fetes,rituelset croyances du peuple russe [Feasts, Rituals and Beliefs of the Russian Peo-
ple], M o s c o w , 1837-39.
4. A . S. Puskin, Polnoe sobranie socinenij [Complete Works], Vol. 5, M o s c o w , 1957, 10
vols.
5. See Sovetskaja etnografija [Soviet Ethnography], N o . 6, 1970, pp. 111-18 for the c o m -
plete article; for a partial translation see Sociologie rurale [Rural Sociology] (Paris),
1976, p. 268.
6. 'Materialy po sel'skohozjajstvennoj magii v Dmitrovskom krae [Materials o n Agri-
cultural Magic in the Dmitrov Region]', Sovetskaja Etnografija, N o . 3 (or 9), 1932,
p. 30.
7. N . I. Tolstye, 'Plakat'na cvety [Weeping o n Flowers]', Russkaja Rec, N o . 4 , 1976,
p. 28.
8. S. Esenin, Izfrrannye socinenija [Selected Works], Vol. 1, p. 118, M o s c o w , 1961.
T h e influence of Christianity on
the cultural and spiritual development
of society
Metropolitan Philaret
Rarely has any jubilee ever been marked as widely and in so m a n y ways as that
of the baptism of Rus'. It is true that the adoption by Rus' of Christianity in its
Eastern, Byzantine tradition was an important historical event that had reper-
cussions o n all aspects of the country's life, enriched its national history and
helped Russia to play an enviable role in the development of world culture and
civilization.
This was discussed in detail at three international conferences of scholars
in Kiev, M o s c o w and Leningrad o n the eve of the celebration of the Millen-
nium of the baptism of Rus', which brought together theologians, church his-
torians, scholars and specialists in variousfieldsof culture and science from
more thanfiftycountries worldwide. Similar learned symposia, conferences
and seminars were held in m a n y countries of Europe and other continents. It
may be said without exaggeration that the whole Christian world took part in
the celebration of the Millennium of the Russian Orthodox Church through
church services, sermons, large numbers of publications, exhibitions of pho-
tographs, learned symposia and concerts of Russian church music. T h e mass
media participated extensively, both in the Soviet Union and abroad, thereby
drawing the attention of the public all over the world to the celebrations.
All the Orthodox Churches and other Christian Churches, as well as the
main religions of the world, were represented at the ceremonies marking the
solemn celebration of the Millennium in M o s c o w , Kiev, Vladimir and Lenin-
grad in June 1988, around which similar ceremonies were held in more than
eighty of the principal Christian centres of Europe, Asia, Africa and America.
By calling on its 159 M e m b e r States to celebrate the event, U N E S C O gave
the Millennium of the introduction of Christianity in Rus' the distinction of a
state event. T h e Russian Orthodox Church is deeply grateful to U N E S C O for
218 Metropolitan Philaret
the great interest s h o w n in the Millennium, and in particular for organizing the
s y m p o s i u m and exhibition of works of art.
T h e celebration of the Millennium took place in a setting of perestroika,
democratization and glasnost in the Soviet U n i o n , and of the development of
n e w international political thinking initiated by the Soviet leadership.
His Holiness Patriarch P i m e n , evaluating the process taking place in the
Soviet U n i o n , said in a n interview in the newspaper Izvestia o n 9 April 1988:
T h e salutary process of perestroika, penetrating deeper every day into all aspects of
the life of Soviet society, also affects our Church, which calls on its clergy and laity
to participate actively in it. O n the same subject, the Pre-Jubilee Epistle of the
Patriarch and Holy Synod of 21 June 1987 says, 'Each of us, children of the Church,
is n o w called upon, as his civic and religious duty, to participate zealously in the
development and improvement of our society. It is with great joy that w e welcome
the process of the strengthening of basic spiritual and moral principles in the
nation's personal, family and social life and our country's aspiration to give a stron-
ger position to the moral standards shared by all mankind in international relations.
Although perestroika and glasnost directly affect Soviet society, their positive
influence can also be felt in the w h o l e international climate. T h e n e w interna-
tional political thinking based o n moral principles is already giving positive
results. It is in tune with Christian understanding. Christianity, w h i c h is uni-
versal in its vocation, sees m a n k i n d as a whole, for w e are all brothers a n d sis-
ters, children of the s a m e Heavenly Father, Creator of heaven and earth. Nature
itself and the w h o l e universe around us are seen by Christianity as being inex-
tricably linked to m a n and m a n k i n d . Just as m a n is the temple of the H o l y Spi-
rit, so the world is the dwelling place of the Spirit of G o d .
In this connection the celebration of the Millennium of the baptism of R u s '
took o n tremendous importance for the development of the n e w international
political thinking, the creation of a n e w moral climate and the strengthening of
trust between East and W e s t .
In this age of scientific and technical revolution, w h e n science a n d tech-
nology have m a d e unparalleled progress, the invention of the nuclear b o m b and
the exploration of space have opened u p a great breach between material and
spiritual values. M a n k i n d is gradually slipping into a state of spiritual sterility.
N o w as never before people are aware of the negative results of the gap between
the spiritual and the material. D r u g addiction a n d alcoholism, the break-up of
the family and destruction of the h u m a n personality, sexual permissiveness, the
deterioration of the environment, the wealth and c o n s u m e r psychology of s o m e
people, and the poverty, hunger, illness and illiteracy of others, the creation of
the risk of a nuclear catastrophe a n d the threat to the very existence of life o n
earth - all these are the fruits of the devaluation of spiritual culture a n d the
results of social injustice.
The influence of Christianity on the cultural 219
and spiritual development of society
A t the s a m e time a n inner thirst for spiritual culture is a w a k e n i n g in the

world c o m m u n i t y , a n d the rich spiritual heritage o f the Russian O r t h o d o x
C h u r c h that celebrated its Millennium in 1988 is part o f the world spiritual her-
itage.
F r o m the theological point o f v i e w , the start o f the Christian era w a s not
only a moral, but a truly ontological turning-point in h u m a n history. ' A n
entirely n e w factor - the C h u r c h - c a m e into the world. It w a s the start o f the
crystallization of m a n k i n d around this principle that unites the divine a n d the
h u m a n . A n d the C h u r c h fired the w o r l d with spiritual energy w h o s e content is
eternal life.'1
T h e adoption o f Christianity b y K i e v a n R u s ' a n d the formation o f the R u s -
sian O r t h o d o x C h u r c h were the key factors in a stage of world history that
m a r k e d a radical m o r a l turning-point. It w a s n o less than the spiritual trans-
formation of this vast a n d mighty Eastern E u r o p e a n state.
F r o m the time o f the baptism o f R u s ' the p a g a n age w a s cast out of history.
F r o m the e n d of the tenth century, the reign of Prince Vladimir w a s m a r k e d by
radical changes, w h i c h w o u l d n o w b e called revolutionary, in all fields of R u s -
sian life. This coincided with the beginning of the long and bitter struggle of the
State o f Kiev, n o w b e c o m i n g Christian, against the m a s s of the Russian Slavs
w h o remained p a g a n , especially in northern R u s ' , w h e r e the old N o r s e p a g a n
religious traditions o f N o v g o r o d w e r e stronger, as w a s the ancient Slavonic
pagan w a y of life.
T h e C h u r c h w a s the transforming force in ancient Russian society that not
only defined the m o r a l ideals of ancient R u s ' but also h a d a purely spiritual a n d
religious influence o n the conscience a n d soul o f the Russian people. T h e m o r a l
ideals o f ancient R u s ' w e r e enriched b y the characteristic traits of O r t h o d o x y :
sanctity, asceticism, humility, compassionate love, self-sacrifice a n d other
Christian virtues. In the w o r d s o f A c a d e m i c i a n D . S . Likhachev:
A great role in the creation of these ideals was played by the literature of the Hesy-
chasts, the ideas of retreat from the world, self-renunciation and the casting aside of
all worldly cares, which helped the Russian people to bear their hardships, to face
the world and act with love and kindness to others and reject all forms of violence.2
T h e d e e p roots of o u r people, from w h i c h our Christian understanding of the

world w a s to g r o w , g o back to K i e v a n R u s ' . T h e s e are not simply 'ideas' or a
'philosophy', but a primordial principle that goes through the flesh a n d blood
of our nation a n d lives in the people's conscience from generation to gener-
ation, the divine spark a n d voice of G o d that reacts a n d judges m o r e correctly
than e v e n the m o s t perfect legality, legal system or logic.
F r o m ancient times our country has been called H o l y Russia. History invo-
luntarily draws our attention to the fact that the reason for this n a m e is to be
220 Metropolitan Philar«t
found in the ideals of the Russian people, w h i c h are to this day preserved in the
innermost recesses of the Russian soul. W h e n w e speak of the Russian soul or
the Russian people, w e refer not only to those of Russian nationality, but also to
Ukrainians and Byelorussians w h o c o m e from the s a m e root of Kievan R u s ' .
Russian ideals remain alive in the oral as well as in the written and material
traditions, in the lives of the saints and in prayers, in the folk epic, in songs and
in the daily life of the people. All Russian literature w a s nurtured by the Chris-
tian spirit. T h e spiritual ideals of m a n y generations are reflected by the m a n y
Orthodox churches and monasteries, w h i c h sheltered the inner life of the R u s -
sian people, and also by iconography and art. These ideals were best expressed
by the m a n y saints of our land, w h o aspired not only to their personal salvation,
but to the salvation of the whole people. Aspiring to these ideals, Russian peo-
ple often strayed from the right path, but they never lost sight of t h e m .
Russian piety d r e w from Holy Scripture and the Tradition of the C h u r c h
its intransigent, eternal values, the righteousness and sanctity that can radically
change the inner world of the soul. All the noble aspirations of Russians to
divine truth and moral beauty find their definitive and highest justification in
Holy Scripture. O n e should not forget, either, the writings of the ascetics and
the Fathers of the Church, for they played an important role in furthering the
spiritual life of the Russian people.
Spiritual life found its h o m e in the monasteries, through w h i c h the C h u r c h
influenced the people's moral life. T h efirstmonasteries appeared in R u s ' dur-
ing thefirsthalf of the eleventh century: St A n t h o n y , w h o began his monastic
life o n M o u n t Athos, founded the Kiev Caves Monastery w h o s e A b b o t and
organizer w a s St Theodosius. T h e w o r k of great ascetics, this institution b e c a m e
a m o d e l for other Russian monasteries and the cradle of Russian monasticism.
It w a s of great significance not only for the spiritual and moral life but also for
the cultural life of the Russian people. M a n y distinguished c h u r c h m e n and
ascetics c a m e from it. T h efirstRussian chronicles were written in this m o n a s -
tery, which b e c a m e a centre of ancient Russian literature and learning. For our
knowledge of Kievan R u s ' , w e are indebted to the learned and diligent m o n k s
of the Kiev Caves Monastery,firsta m o n g w h o m is St Nestor the Chronicler
(second half of the eleventh century).
Following the Kiev Caves Monastery m a n y other monasteries appeared in
R u s ' , and these were to b e c o m e centres of intense spiritual and moral activity
and also carry out an educational and civilizing mission. T h e founding father of
monasticism in north-eastern Russia w a s St Sergius of Radonezh, w h o built a
monastery, later k n o w n as the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, of a n e w type, being in
the wilderness. W h e r e a s earlier monasteries had been built in or near great
towns, St Sergius and his disciples founded monasteries in the depths of the for-
ests of north-eastern Russia and thus, going farther and farther northwards, the
Russian wilderness-dwellers reached the shores of the White Sea and the Arctic
Ocean, opening up that region and developing it economically.
T h e ascetic life of the monasteries and their economic activities m a d e a
deep mark on ancient Russian literature and had enormous influence o n
ancient Russian society; considered as a sublime and truly Christian ideal,
monasticism developed and spread throughout the country.
T h e predominance of ascetic ideals in Russia can be explained not only by
religious and moral views and the influence of religious literature, but also by
the historical circumstances of the life of the Russian people. These were harsh
and unstable. T h e havoc wrought by constant n o m a d raids, the internecine
wars between Russian princes, the long years of the Tartar Mongol yoke all
struck heavy blows at the material well-being of the Russian people and h u m i -
liated them. Frequent epidemics of plague, devastatingfires,disastrous famine
caused by bad harvests and other natural disasters confirmed the people's view
of the world as 'sinful' and 'dwelling in evil'. In such a world, it seemed difficult
to save one's soul for eternal life, and the harsher and more joyless life was, the
greater the love and hope with which Russian people looked towards the other
world, the world beyond.
Through its religious and moral authority and ideals, the Russian Church
had a vast influence o n Russian society as a whole, acting mainly through its
rules and institutions, not so m u c h on the political order as o n relations bet-
ween citizens. Instead of directly and openly breaking d o w n deeply entrenched
customs and prejudices, it gradually instilled n e w ideas and attitudes in the pop-
ulation. T h e Church reformed the mentality and customs of the Russian people,
preparing them to accept n e w standards and ideas, and in this way penetrated
deeply into the moral life of society. In R u s ' the Church did not stand apart
from the life of society with its needs and concerns, but acted in alliance and co-
operation with secular society and the state.
Throughout its history the Russian Church carried out vast social activ-
ities. For example, in ancient R u s ' there was a category of 'church people', c o m -
posed of people of various classes w h o found themselves in difficult circum-
stances, such as the poor, the homeless, orphans and pilgrims, and sometimes
even a prince in difficulty. T h e ecclesiastical Statute of Prince Vsevolod (twelfth
century) numbered a m o n g the church people the so-called 'outcasts' or people
w h o had lost the rights pertaining to their class. The church people were not a
n e w class under the leadership of the clergy, but a society set apart in which
people of different secular classes joined together in the n a m e of equality and
for religious and moral motives.
Basically the Russian monasteries carried out philanthropic activities. In
years of natural disasters or of poor harvests, large and wealthy monasteries
such as the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, the Monastery of St Cyril of the White Lake,
that of St Joseph of Volokolamsk and others gave help to the starving p o p -
ulation, opening to them their plentiful granaries. Elderly or disabled Russians

w h o had been in the service of the state also found a place of rest and were pro-
vided for there. In R u s ' there w a s a saying, ' T h e wealth of the Church is the
wealth of the poor.' T h e monasteries of R u s ' welcomed not only m o n k s but also
lay people, and had hospitals, almshouses and hostels for pilgrims. For example,
according to the description of the Monastery of the White Lake in the year
1601, its hospital sheltered ninety poor m e n and there were twelve people in its
almshouse, in a community of 150 m o n k s in all. A t the same time the Russian
monasteries acted as a sort of insurance, giving loans to peasants w h e n there
were poor harvests or livestock diseases. T h e Russian Church considered that
the practice of drawing profit and interest from loans w a s unnatural and repre-
hensible. T h e Stoglav Council of 1550 decreed o n the basis of C a n o n L a w that,
in the matter of loans to peasants, bishops and monasteries should not charge
interest to peasants for m o n e y or corn lent to them.
Under the influence of Christianity important changes also took place in
family life. T h e Church created a strong Christian family, reconstituting the
pagan family o n the principles of Christian morality. It m a d e obsolete such
coarse pagan customs as polygamy, marriage by abduction, vendetta, etc., and
indirectly increased the authority of mothers and the role of w o m e n in civil
society.
F r o m the very beginning the Russian Church began to break u p the pagan
tribal system and to create family unions based o n Christian love, the mutual
consent of bride and bridegroom, their equality before the law and a legal settle-
m e n t between them, giving the wife property rights. T h e Church struggled
against polygamy and concubinage and arbitrary divorce by which m e n freed
themselves of wives they were bored with by making them take the veil. Yaros-
lav's Statute restrained the unlimited power of parents over their children's m a r -
riages by making parents responsible for their daughters' chastity and punished
children w h o beat their parents, regarding this as a crime in the eyes of both
Church and state. T h e Church tolerated 'unblessed' marriages, quite widespread
in Russia a m o n g the simple people, and recogni2ed t h e m as legally binding.
Yaroslav's Statute imposes a fine for the arbitrary dissolution of such marriages.
T h e strong family created by Christianity formed the basis of Russian society
which through the m a n y centuries of its history withstood various trials.
Christianity m a d e a profoundly h u m a n e m a r k o n ancient Russian civil law.
Russian criminal, civil, property, family and matrimonial law w a s transformed
under the influence of the collection of Greek laws, the Nomokanon. T h e basic
secular and ecclesiastical collections of laws in Kievan R u s ' were Russkaya
Pravda (Russia» Justice), Vladimir's Statute, Yaroslav's Statute and the Pedalion, th
Russian version of the Nomokanon. In accordance with these legal documents the
Church fought against sin and the state against crime.
T h e Church considered every crime a sin, though the state did not necessa-
rily do so. Sin is a moral crime, an infringement of the inner law of conscience
and the law of G o d . T h e Church was empowered to judge sins even w h e n there
was n o crime. Actions which were both sinful and criminal were judged by the
secular courts.
The influence of the Church o n ancient Russian legislation consisted
mainly in its opposition to the commission of sin, thereby preventing crime
through a type of prophylactic work. T h e Church extended and deepened the
scope of responsibility, judging even those infringements that were not held
blameworthy by pagan customs and the law. For example, insulting words,
which were not condemned by pagan custom, were regarded as a sin in a bap-
tized Russian. This aroused in pagans w h o adopted Christianity a feeling of res-
pect for h u m a n dignity. Christian legislation, by nipping sin in the bud, pre-
vented crime, even if the Church did not always succeed in eradicating base
h u m a n vices and failings.
T h e baptism of Rus' marked the beginning of the spread of education and
written culture a m o n g the ancient Russian population. Unlike the Germanic
peoples w h o heard the Gospel in the alien Latin tongue, Kievan R u s ' received
Christian enlightenment in its o w n Slavonic language. T h e translation of Holy
Scripture and the Church service books into Slavonic by SS Cyril and Meth-
odius lent an ecclesiastical aura to the most substantial feature of the Slavonic
ethnic group - its language. Thus Christianity came to Rus' in a comprehensible
language and cultural form.
T h e Slavonic language in its ancient Bulgarian form was adopted by the
educated classes of Kiev in the tenth century, even before the adoption of Chris-
tianity. T h e official adoption of Christianity contributed even more to its es-
tablishment as the language of the Kievan aristocracy. T h e Slavonic literary
language became the language of the clergy, the educated classes and all edu-
cated people. It was used in conversation, writing, church services, sermons and
solemn addresses.
T h e language of Kiev passed to other centres of ancient Rus', and from
there by various paths spread to the rural world and to the very heart of the
masses of the people, playing an important role in the unification of the state.
T h e language of the Church became the language of all Rus', and by virtue of
this, united all the different East European tribes into a single nation.
With the adoption of Christianity, Prince Vladimir, o n the advice of the
Metropolitan of Kiev, opened the first schools in R u s ' 'for the strengthening of
the faith and the education of the children of the aristocracy, middle classes and
poor'. 3 T h e Metropolitan ordered the foundation of a school at every church so
that people would 'understand the words of books' and learn 'good morals,
righteousness and love, the beginning of wisdom which is the fear of G o d , pur-
ity and chastity'.4 Church schools established an indivisible unity between
book-learning, scholarship and religious and moral upbringing.
In the schools of ancient Rus', the principles of theology, history, singing,

calendar calculations and the Greek and Slavonic languages were taught. In
992, the Russian bishops founded schools at the bishops' residences in all the
towns of Kievan Rus'. Even the little town of Vasil'kov near Kiev had its
school where in his youth St Theodosius of the Caves received his education.
T h e clergy were the main workers in thefieldof education. They consi-
dered it their sacred duty to teach the people the Christian faith and morality,
realizing that the spread of literacy was necessary for the successful preaching of
Christianity.
Kiev's first school, founded by Prince Vladimir, had up to 300 pupils. In
1030 Prince Yaroslav the Wise founded a similar school in Novgorod. In 1086,
at the Convent of St A n d r e w in Kiev, Princess A n n a Vsevolodovna, w h o had
taken the veil, founded a school for 300 orphans, girls and w o m e n of all classes,
w h o m she herself taught to read, sing, write and d o needlework. Ephrosynia of
Polotsk and Ephrosynia of Suzdal', renowned for their great learning, also
opened schools for girls in their convents. In ancient Rus' education was avail-
able not only to the rich, but to the poor also, and to w o m e n as well as m e n .
The range of subjects taught in the schools at the bishops' residences was
comparable to that of European universities of the early Middle Ages. Higher
education then consisted of the study of Holy Scripture, Church service books
and the works of the Fathers of the Church. Through the study of these works a
knowledge of secular learning was also acquired. For example, in ancient Rus',
the study of the works of Dionysius the Areopagite acquainted readers with
Neoplatonic philosophy. Such colleges were to be found in sixteen towns in
Rus', while at that time there were only forty-eight universities in all of Cath-
olic Europe.
In his concern to educate his people, Yaroslav the Wise not only opened
schools but founded the country's first library which was accessible to all and
acquired a great reputation. Yaroslav himself read a great deal and taught his
children foreign languages. His son, Vsevolod, spoke five languages fluently.
Prince R o m a n Rostislavovich of Smolensk was interested in the sciences, built
up valuable libraries and opened schools for the study of ancient languages.
W h e n A n n a Yaroslavovna m o v e d to France o n her marriage to Henri I of
France, she astonished everyone by her education, whereas the king himself
could barely sign his n a m e . After the king's death she ruled France during the
minority of her son Philip. She died in 1075.
The Caves Monastery in Kiev was a centre of religious education. T h e Stu-
dite Rule followed by this monastery obliged every m o n k to read books. T h e
monastery had its o w n library. T h e m o n k s themselves copied and bound books
and even spun the thread for sewing the bindings. B y the mid-thirteenth cen-
tury the monastery had provided the Church with eighty very learned bishops.
M a n y other monasteries were centres of Christian book-learning, each
with its o w n school and library. For example, the inventory of 1641 records that
there were up to 700 manuscripts in the library of the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra.
T h e Tartar-Mongol invasion and the ensuing devastation of towns led to
the closure of m a n y schools and m a n y of the colleges at bishops' residences.
F r o m the period of the Mongol yoke right u p to the sixteenth century, school
learning was confined to parish schools. Nevertheless, despite the decline of
schools, the Church did not allow education to die out in Russia.
With the adoption of Christianity translated literature came to Rus' from
Bulgaria. Russian scribes did not lag behind, but also worked o n numerous tran-
slations from Greek to Slavonic. Christianity gave a stimulus not only to tran-
slated literature but also to the writing of original Russian works. T h e most out-
standing example of this ancient Russian literature is the deeply patriotic work
of the eleventh century, The Sermon on Law and Grace by Metropolitan Hilarión,
which a Church historian, Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), describes as fol-
lows, ' O n e cannot but be amazed at the intellectual maturity, the depth of feel-
ing, the wide theological learning, the lively oratory and the art that mark this
exemplary sermon.' 5
St Nestor, a m o n k of the Kiev Caves Monastery w h o died in 1114, was the
founding father of the Russian chronicle. It was he w h o composed The Tale of
Bygone Years which, according to Academician B . D . Grekov, is ' a m o n g the
achievements of h u m a n genius', while Academician D . S. Likhachev calls it 'a
complete history of Rus' in literary form'. St Nestor the Chronicler was also the
founder of Russian hagiographie literature. H e wrote the Life of SS Boris and
Gleb (d. 1015) and also the Life of St Theodosius of the Caves (d. 1074).
Bishop Cyril of Turov, w h o died after 1182, an outstanding ecclesiastical
writer of that time and k n o w n as the 'Russian Chrysostom', composed m a n y
festal sermons and ascetic and hymnographic works.
T h e outstanding specialist o n Kievan R u s ' , Academician B . D . Grekov,
describes this period as follows, 'There were already m a n y educated and
talented people in Rus' at that time. O f course, not all were of the calibre of
Hilarión or even approached the talent of the u n k n o w n author of The Song of
Igor's Campaign, but, after all, at n o time are there dozens of people like these in
any country.'6
Not only religious works such as sermons, pastoral epistles, polemic works
against heretics and adherents of different faiths, were written and copied in the
monasteries of ancient Rus', but also works of great national and cultural
importance such as chronicles and compilations. In addition to chronicles, the
m o n k s composed separate accounts of memorable historical events, such as the
account of A b r a h a m Palitsin, the cellarer of the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, of the
siege of the monastery by Sapieha and Lissowski and the events of the 'Time of
Troubles'.
Christianity also had an enormous influence o n the cultural development
of Kievan R u s ' . It formed the basis of medieval Russian culture and thus linked
the Slavonic cultural world and Kievan R u s ' with the culture of the Christian
peoples of East and West.
Christian culture c a m e to R u s ' from Byzantium, w h i c h at that time w a s at
its peak. Western and Central Europe w e r e in n o w a y culturally superior to
R u s ' . In comparison with Byzantium the W e s t w a s at an incomparably lower
level: this w a s a time of decline of culture, science and social ethics. In the tenth
century, R u s ' could have d r a w n n o learning or spiritual enrichment from there.
O n the contrary, 'Byzantine civilization struck its contemporaries by its spir-
ituality, inner nobility, exquisite forms and the brilliance of its technical
achievements.' 7
For this reason the culture that c a m e to R u s ' from Byzantium w a s majestic
in its dignity, classically lucid in its style and refined in its spirituality and inner
nobility.
A s Academician D . S. Likhachev so rightly remarks:
W e were accustomed to think of the culture of ancient Rus' as being backward . . .

but the closer w e get back to ancient Rus' and the more intently w e begin to look at
it... the clearer it appears to us that ancient Rus' had highly developed and original
culture.8
T h e adoption of Byzantine Christianity by R u s ' m a d e Kiev one of the most

beautiful, wealthy and cultured cities of Europe. A t the time of Yaropolk, Kiev
w a s in fact considered the cultural centre of Europe. Western travellers were
delighted by its brilliance. European m o n a r c h s regarded it as an honour to form
matrimonial alliances with the family of the Princes of Kiev. T h e unbiased jud-
gements of foreign visitors w h o visited the capital give us s o m e idea of the
beauty and magnificence of Kiev. Bishop Thietmar of Merseburg (974-1018)
wrote that m a n y foreigners lived in Kiev, and there were about 4 0 0 churches
and eight markets there. T h e great fire of 1070 destroyed 7 0 0 churches. These
figures alone s h o w the rate at w h i c h churches were being built and decorated.
A d a m of B r e m e n , describing the magnificence of the palaces of Kiev, consi-
dered Kiev the rival of Constantinople. T h e contemporary Belgian historian
Pirenne says, 'In the tenth century the State of N o v g o r o d and Kiev w a s the
centre of the continent's civilization.'
T h e culture of ancient R u s ' w a s expressed in architecture, icon-painting
and frescoes, ancient Russian literature and Russian choral music, and in the
decorative arts and embroidery. T h e churches of the eleventh and twelfth cen-
turies are the pride of Russian architecture. These include the Cathedral of St
Sophia in Kiev (1037), the Cathedral of St Sophia in N o v g o r o d (1045-50), the
Cathedral of the Transfiguration in Chernigov (eleventh century), the Cath-
edral of the Dormition in the Kiev Caves Monastery (1073-89), destroyed by the
Nazis during the S e c o n d W o r l d W a r , the Cathedrals of the D o r m i t i o n (1158—

60) a n d St Demetrius (1194-97) at Vladimir-on-the-Klyazma, the C h u r c h of the
Intercession at Nerli (1165) a n d the C h u r c h of the Saviour of Nereditsa (1198) in
N o v g o r o d , w h i c h are all examples of high m o n u m e n t a l art with splendid
mosaics and frescoes. Russian icons are recognized as masterpieces of world art,
to the eternal glory of their painters. T h e w h o l e w o r l d k n o w s A n d r e y Rublev
for his icon The Holy Trinity w h i c h expresses complete unity in love.
W i t h the adoption of Christianity, R u s ' b e c a m e a full participant in the
w o r l d historical process and in the cultural tradition of Byzantium. W h a t is
m o r e , considering itself the successor of great a n d learned Byzantium, R u s ' in
fact took its place in the O r t h o d o x Christian w o r l d , taking o n the mission of
acting as a link between East a n d W e s t . T h e Russian C h u r c h w a s a powerful fac-
tor in the d e v e l o p m e n t of culture not only during the period of K i e v a n R u s '
a n d M u s c o v y , but also in later times. Christianity h a d a n influence o n the deve-
l o p m e n t of various areas of culture: literature a n d poetry, religious a n d philo-
sophic thought a n d Christian social thought a n d all forms of art: architecture,
painting, iconography, music a n d so forth. T h e C h u r c h w a s not only the spir-
itual guide of the simple believing people. Its influence w a s reflected in the life
a n d w o r k of m a n y outstanding writers, poets, artists, thinkers a n d public figures
of the second half of the nineteenth a n d the beginning of the twentieth century.
Despite the fact that from the time of Peter I the Russian C h u r c h w a s trans-
f o r m e d into a g o v e r n m e n t department, it remained faithful not only to its call-
ing as a witness of Christ to m a n y peoples w h o m it converted to Christianity,
but also to its vocation to sanctity a n d spirituality in its inner life, a n d to its duty
to stimulate the creativity of workers of Russian culture and religious a n d philo-
sophic thought.
F o r the past seventy years o u r C h u r c h has b e e n living and witnessing to the
G o s p e l of Christ in n e w historical circumstances. In the conditions of socialist
society it has found the path to people's hearts a n d n e w w a y s to witness a n d to
serve, while remaining faithful to its thousand years of O r t h o d o x tradition,
devoted to its people and the holy cause of salvation, ready to share with t h e m
their joys and sorrows, successes a n d failures, a n d actively participate in the
building of a socialist society. D u r i n g the years of the personality cult, the
C h u r c h carried the burden with the w h o l e Soviet people. D u r i n g the Second
W o r l d W a r our people suffered m o r e than others from N a z i s m a n d the destruc-
tion it caused, a n d lost 2 0 million lives. T h e Russian C h u r c h has therefore
actively joined with all people of goodwill in the search for peace, raising its
voice together with all peace-loving forces, both religious a n d secular, against
the nuclear threat a n d in defence of the salvation of the sacred gift of life.
A t the present time the Russian C h u r c h has tens of millions of believers
and a n e w generation of y o u n g Christians is g r o w i n g u p . O u r churches are filled
with worshippers a n d n e w churches are being o p e n e d a n d built, t h o u g h not as
228 Metropolitan Phikrtt
rapidly as they were suppressed during the years of the personality cult a n d
voluntarism. Increasing numbers of people, while keeping their o w n world-
view, react with sympathy and understanding to the Church's service in social-
ist society. O u r testimony also finds support in the hearts and minds of millions
of people beyond our frontiers. O u r Church's experience shows that Christian
testimony o n questions of peace and justice is the true message of the early
Church.
Actively involved in perestroika for the improvement of our socialist
society, Soviet literature and culture are turning to the past, to the great tradi-
tion of Russian literature. A real moral renaissance is under w a y in literature
and society. A n u m b e r of outstanding Soviet writers have appeared. Their
works are in the best traditions of Russian literature. Although they d o not
write from openly Christian positions, they in fact continue the struggle against
moral evil in m a n and society in the spirit of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. This
humanist literature is steeped in the spirit of Christian spiritual and moral
values.
W h a t is n o w going o n in our literature and journalism can be described as a
search for lost moral values in order to create a better future. T h e spiritual,
social and cultural atmosphere that has grown u p o n the basis of perestroika,
democratization and glasnost encourages the formation of a n e w m o d e of inter-
national political and moral thinking.
T h e process taking place in our country is a witness to the vitality of Chris-
tian culture created over 1,000 years. This is one reason w h y w e are hoping for a
peaceful and just future for all mankind o n the threshold of the n e w millen-
nium.
NOTES
1. P. Florovskij, 'Ponjatie Cerkvi v Svjascennom Pisanii [The Concept of the Church

in Holy-Scripture]', Bogoslovskie trudy [Theological Works], N o . 12, p. 175.
2. D . S. Lihacev, 'Zametki o russkom [Thoughts on Being Russian]', Novyj mir, N o . 3,
1980, p. 33.
3. N . Lavrovskij, O drevnerusskih ucitiscah [On Ancient Russian Schools], p. 31, Kharkov,
1854.
4. Ibid.
5. B . D . Grekov, Kievskaja Rus' [Kievan Rus'], p. 478, 1953.
6. V . O . Kljucevskij, Sobrannye socinenija [Collected Works], Vol. 1, p. 255.
7. Z . V . Udal'cova, 'Kul'turnye svjazi Vizantii, s Drevnej Rus'ju [Cultural Links bet-
ween Byzantium and Ancient Rus']', Problemy izucenija kul'turnogo nasledija [Problem
Arising in the Study of the Cultural Heritage], p. 16, Moscow, 1985.
8. Lihacev, op. cit, p. 33.
The Millennium of the conversion
of Rus' to Christianity
Stanislav Koltunyuk
U N E S C O ' s decision to organi2e a symposium on the Millennium of the intro-

duction of Christianity in Rus' is an initiative of world-wide importance and
has doubtless contributed to the process of bringing peoples and religions closer
together and strengthening mutual understanding between all people of good-
will, striving for a nuclear-free world and for the survival of the h u m a n race.
In the Soviet Union, in particular, the public participated widely in the
celebration of the Jubilee. In Kiev, for instance, which is k n o w n as the mother
of Russian towns, being the cradle of the three sister-nations - Russia, Byelorus-
sia and the Ukraine - a wide range of functions was organized. By a resolution
of the Council of Ministers of the Ukrainian S S R , the Church regained the right
to use a number of the ecclesiastical buildings and architectural monuments of
the famous Kiev Caves Monastery complex. This transfer of part of the Kiev
Caves Monastery to the Exarchate is a further expression of the government's
realistic approach to the religious question, its firm intention to keep its word to
believers, and the strengthening of socialist legality in relations between the
state and the Church. In a word, this action is a reflection of perestroika, which
is taking place today in all fields of life and activity in our society. Other
churches have also been handed over to believers.
Today there is a pressing need to strengthen and widen the unity of believ-
ers and non-believers in joint participation in c o m m o n tasks. T h e separation of
the Church from the state in n o way means its separation from society. ' W e
have a c o m m o n history, a c o m m o n fatherland and a c o m m o n future,' states
Mikhail Gorbachev. Believers are also Soviet people and patriots and are quite
entitled to express their convictions with dignity. Perestroika, democratization
and glasnost affect them too, completely and without any limitations. This is
the approach n o w featured in relations between the people of the country.
230 Stanislav Kolttmjuk
It should be noted that the introduction of Christianity into the first

ancient Russian State - Kievan Rus' - was not the only factor that determined
the progress of ancient Russian society. Research into the culture of ancient
R u s ' witnesses to the fact that the ground was already prepared for the incorpo-
ration of ancient Rus' into world culture by the great communication link lead-
ing 'from the Varangians to the Greeks', that is, as early as the ninth century,
and that there already existed very rich foundations in the form of folklore and
a developed legal system.
In the history of Kievan R u s ' the introduction of Christianity was, indeed,
a m o m e n t o u s event, not only from the religious but also from the social and
political points of view, for it had a significant influence o n the formation and
development of our country's statehood, e c o n o m y and culture. Christianity
accelerated the emergence of Slav literature, bringing together and integrating
under its aegis written culture, literature, sculpture and architecture in a syn-
thesis that is well illustrated, to give but one example, by that architectural m a s -
terpiece, the Cathedral of St Sophia in Kiev. This, however, did not grow out of
nothing.
Archaeological evidence shows that, during the period of pre-Christian
'darkness', people did not really live as though in the dark. T h e y already had a
broad outlook and strove persistently to understand and explain the world
around them. In a word, history until n o w bears witness that in pagan times
ancient R u s ' had a culture that was quite perfect in its o w n way. It was as
though Christianity was being added on to the existing East Slav culture. There
can be no doubt that the introduction of Christianity m a d e it possible for Kie-
van Rus' to b e c o m e a state of world importance, while Kiev itself became a
competitor and serious rival of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine
Empire. E v e n n o w , the city of Kiev, capital of the Soviet Ukraine, which
recently celebrated the 1,500th anniversary of its foundation, is one of the great
industrial and cultural centres of the Soviet Union.
M a n y cultural values dating back to ancient Rus' are carefully preserved
and nurtured a m o n g the people up to the present. This can be seen in architec-
ture, in folk art and crafts and in the folk-songs of the people living in the terri-
tories of Russia, the Ukraine and Byelorussia.
Another extremely important aspect of the question should be mentioned.
Research shows that the Orthodox Church in R u s ' strove from the start to esta-
blish good relations between people of goodwill, to build bridges of peace and
neighbourly relations and achieve mutual understanding and co-operation bet-
w e e n nations, and that it was in n o w a y the fault of the Church that Kievan
R u s ' fell under the blows of alien invaders after little m o r e than 250 years of
existence. It is symbolic that the first stone church of ancient R u s ' - the Church
of the Tithe in Kiev - became a bulwark and protection for the Russian people;
The Millennium of the conversion of Rus' to Christianity 231
simple laypeople and warriors and clergy, w h o fell together with their church
for their fatherland.
In the present day the Russian Orthodox Church, which for 1,000 years has
taken a firm stand as an advocate of peace and neighbourly relations, continues
to strive untiringly to strengthen them. Public opinion in the Ukraine and in
the Soviet Union as a whole, and the m a n y representatives of international
organizations and national organizations in foreign countries striving to
achieve peace and halt the arms race, set a high value o n the activities of the
Russian Orthodox Church, its leaders and wide circles of the clergy and the
faithful for the protection of peace and welfare and the safeguard of life o n
earth.
It was with genuine satisfaction that the Soviet people greeted the govern-
ment's decision to confer the highest state awards o n a group of senior Church
leaders, including Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev and Galicia, Exarch of the
Ukraine, and Metropolitan Juvenal of Krutitsa in view of their activities for the
promotion of peace and to m a r k the occasion of the Millennium of the baptism
of Rus'.
The Russian Orthodox Church:
past and present
Metropolitan Juvenal
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the ¥ at her, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
(Matt. 28:19-20)
W e begin with these words because the whole 2,000-year-long history of Chris-
tianity is founded o n this c o m m a n d m e n t of the Risen Saviour Christ to the
Holy Apostles and their successors, and in the fulfilment of which the Church
has influenced various aspects of h u m a n life and continues to do so, thus m a k -
ing its indelible mark on history.
' O n e day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one
day' (2 Pet. 3:8). These words of the Holy Apostle Peter are a key to the mean-
ing and significance of the 1,000-year-long history of Christianity in our coun-
try. Guided by the wisdom of this divine revelation, w e can speak of the deve-
lopment of sanctity and spirituality, national culture and the all-round
contribution of the Russian Orthodox Church to the treasury of world spir-
ituality, bridging in our thoughts the gap between past and present.
Millennia, centuries, years, days . . . A s I see it, the relationship between
these measurements of h u m a n history is best revealed by comparing them to
Eternity. T h e value of the fruits of h u m a n history, in other words the works of
world culture, is, as a rule, related to the degree to which they partake in the
Eternal. For a believer this is not surprising: after all, w h e n m a n , afiniteand
created being, creates, he himself becomes a creator, and thus, in history, in our
finite and created world, he himself becomes an image of the Creator. A n d the
more perfect and beautiful the work of h u m a n hands and h u m a n genius, the
234 Metropolitan Juvenal
m o r e clearly its participation in the Eternal is revealed. A proper understanding

of Christian culture requires a realistic idea of the true tasks of Christ's Church,
its inner life and order.
' W h e n the fulness of the time was c o m e . . .' (Gal. 4:4), the Second Person
of the Triune G o d , the Most Holy Trinity, the Most Heavenly Logos became
incarnate in h u m a n history; G o d the W o r d appeared in the world, taking upon
himself our h u m a n nature in all its fulness, except for sin. T h e earthly service of
our Lord Jesus Christ began. H e healed the physical and spiritual sicknesses of
m e n , preached, taught and proclaimed divine truths.
A n d n o w w e see before us the mystery of Golgotha and the Resurrection.
T h e salvation of the h u m a n race from enslavement to sin and death has been
accomplished. Faith in him w h o was crucified and rose again opens the way for
m a n to a previously u n k n o w n spiritual reality - to the K i n g d o m of G o d , the
kingdom of freedom and grace. This K i n g d o m is revealed in the Church, an
institution which is both divine and h u m a n and which the Apostle Paul calls
'the Body of Christ' (1 Cor. 12:27; E p h . 1: 23, 4:12). T h e Head of this Body is
Christ, and w e w h o believe in h i m are the various members or limbs of this
Body, performing various functions as in any normal organism.
People are mistaken if they understand the Church as meaning only the
clergy. T h e Church is all the fulness of the people of G o d , from the Apostles
w h o themselves s a w G o d the Incarnate W o r d , the martyrs for the faith of
Christ, Kings and Princes Equal to the Apostles, theologians, thinkers, poets,
artists and hymnographers whose very names are pronounced with deep respect
not only by Christians but by all people w h o hold h u m a n culture dear - d o w n
to the socially humblest of our contemporaries with their ardent faith and fer-
vour.
Precisely for this reason the life of the Church does notfitinto the narrow
framework of the secular study of culture. In the spiritual treasury of the
Church there is m u c h that 'eye hath not seen nor ear heard' (1 Cor. 2:9). O n e of
the most vivid examples of this is prayer. O f course a vast n u m b e r of liturgical
texts and prayers are kept in the m e m o r y of the Church, in Holy Tradition.
M o d e r n scholars such as philologists, historians and liturgists have at their dis-
posal innumerable works of literature of this type. O n the basis of their analysis
very m a n y interesting facts can be discovered and m a n y well-argued theories
constructed, for example, about the formation of written expression, the deve-
lopment of language and cultural contacts between peoples. Nevertheless, the
main thing - the living beat of the h u m a n heart aspiring to G o d - remains hid-
den from the researcher, if he himself has not tasted the sweetness of prayer. In
this aspect the life of the Church remains 'hid with Christ in G o d ' (Col. 3:3),
and it can be revealed in its fulness only to those w h o participate in it.
T h e Church's main work is to proclaim to the world the G o o d N e w s of the
accomplishment of m a n ' s salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ and to c o m m u n -
The Russian Orthodox Church: past and present 235
icate the fruits of this salvation to people. All the Church's activity is sub-
ordinated to this mission of salvation. T h e m e a n s used by the C h u r c h for this
w o r k include, in particular, such cultural p h e n o m e n a asfigurativeart, architec-
ture, music and literature. O n the other hand, in view of the fact that Christians
have played an important role in the development of world culture and science
for close o n 2,000 years, the religion confessed by t h e m cannot but have left a
certain m a r k o n their creative w o r k in those fields of h u m a n intellectual activ-
ity that are not specifically connected with the Church.
In connection with this, the words of the outstanding Russian historian,
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky, spring to m i n d :
The Church has its o w nfieldof action separate from the activities of the state. It has
its o w n territory, which is the believing conscience, its o w n politics which are the
defence of this conscience from sinful inclinations. But, while nurturing the
believer for the city to come, it also gradually renews and reconstructs the city here
abiding. This reconstruction of secular society under the influence of the Church is a
mysterious and edifying process in the life of Christian societies.1
All this should be borne in m i n d w h e n w e c o m e to consider the cultural mis-

sion of the Russian O r t h o d o x Church. Together with Rev. Professor Georgy
Florovsky w e m a y say with confidence that 'the history of Russian culture
begins with the baptism of Rus'. T h e pagan age w a s left behind, outside his-
tory.'2 This refers specifically to the m a i n line of development of our culture as
opposed to that which w a s left o n the periphery of the people's consciousness,
where the vestiges of paganism still m a k e themselves felt in areas in which the
Church's influence is less manifest. This is also noted by the eminent American
researcher of Russian culture, D r James Billington, Director of the United
States Library of Congress, w h o took part in the w o r k of the international con-
ferences of scholars and c h u r c h m e n held by the M o s c o w Patriarchate in con-
nection with the Millennium of the baptism of Rus'. In his w o r k o n the history
of Russian culture, he recognizes Eastern Orthodoxy as o n e of the most impor-
tant sources of our national awareness: ' H o w e v e r fascinating pagan survivals,
however magnificent earlier Scythian art, O r t h o d o x Christianity created the
first distinctly Russian culture and provided the basic forms of artistic expres-
sion and the framework of belief for m o d e r n Russia.'3 In the scholar's opinion,
religion w a s to play a leading role in writing the full history of Russian culture,
where it w a s not only o n e aspect of civilization but a p o w e r suffusing the whole.
T h e jubilee of the baptism of R u s ' has stirred in the consciousness of m a n y
people o n earth the w e l l - k n o w n events that took place 1,000 years ago in R u s -
sian history. O n the subject of the beginnings of the Russian Church, of the
Russian people's culture, morality and creativity, the immortal w o r d s of St N e s -
tor the Chronicler spring to m i n d , telling h o w the Great Prince Vladimir of
Kiev, after promising the Christian G o d , w h o m he did not yet k n o w , that he
236 Metropolitan ]menai
would accept baptism, postponed it continually and was suddenly struck blind.
H e then said to those w h o assured h i m that baptism would restore his sight:
'If what you say is indeed fulfilled, then truly the Christian G o d is great,' and
ordered them to baptize him forthwith. Then the Bishop of Cherson with the
Empress's priests, after making Vladimir a catechumen, baptized him. A n d when
the Bishop laid his hand on him, Vladimir immediately regained his sight. . . Rea-
lizing that he had suddenly been cured, he glorified G o d [saying]: ' N o w I k n o w the
true G o d . ' 4
T h u s was baptized the great Russian Prince w h o baptized R u s ' and was k n o w n
by his grateful people as Vladimir the Bright Sun. O n his return to Kiev h e
ordered all the townspeople to c o m e to the River Dnieper o n an appointed day.
W h e n the inhabitants had gathered, then, according to The Tale of Bygone Years,
They went into the water and stood there, some up to the neck, others up to the
chest, the young near the bank up to their chests, some held children and the adults
walked about, and the priests stood still, saying prayers. A n d heaven and earth
could be seen to rejoice at the salvation of so many souls.5
F r o m that m o m e n t churches were built in R u s ' , thus laying the foundations of

Russian architecture, schools were opened, literacy developed and book-learn-
ing became accessible to all. Chronicles were compiled and works of literature
appeared.
Christianity acquainted the Slavs with the history of mankind and gave
t h e m the basis for a n e w world-view w h i c h in its turn gave birth to Russian
Christian art and culture. It brought awareness and social m e m o r y . F r o m the
time of the baptism of the people of Kiev, the history of the separate Slavonic
tribes b e c a m e their shared Russian history, and each m a n took u p his place o n
earth with all his responsibility before the coming generations. Peace became a
b o o n to be preserved, nature a gift of G o d to be cherished and faith a treasure to
be kept.
It was not by mere coincidence that, looking o n his newly baptized fellow-
countrymen, Prince Vladimir exclaimed: 'Christ G o d , Creator of heaven and
earth, look u p o n these n e w people and grant them, Lord, to k n o w T h e e , the
true G o d , as the Christian lands have c o m e to k n o w T h e e . Confirm in t h e m a
true and unswerving faith!'6
A s w e g o through the pages of the history of our Church w e encounter
n a m e s and images, each of which could be the e m b o d i m e n t of a whole age. In
Russian literature there are Nestor the Chronicler, Clement Smolyatich, Metro-
politan Hilarión, and Cyril, Bishop of Turov. A m o n g the Russian ascetics there
are SS A n t h o n y and Theodosius, M a r k the Cave Dweller and Nicolas Svyatosha
of the Kiev Caves Monastery, or their spiritual successors Barlaam of K h u t y n ,
Zosima and Sabbatius of Solovki or the M o s c o w fool for Christ Vasily
(Basil the Blessed). T h u s imperceptibly, in meagreness and poverty, Russian

morality gradually became m o r e enlightened; it was in great disappointment
that a peasant, w h o had c o m e to St Sergius' Monastery to see the famed and m a j -
estic abbot, exclaimed, 'It's all so poor, so beggarly, so desolate.' Yet before his
eyes stood the m a n w h o s e n a m e has gone d o w n in Russian history as being of
perhaps incomparable significance.
T h e Russian Church laid strong foundations for family life. W o m a n
became an equal m e m b e r of society and the family. In the words of the histor-
ian Klyuchevsky, w h o m w e have already mentioned:
The Church based the legal capacity and maternal authority of w o m a n on her moral
perfection and the loftiness of her duty in the family, and if Russian w o m a n ex-
amines the legal and moral interests by which she lives, everything that society
values most in her and that she values most in herself, in other words all her special
moral status, this she owes mainly to the Church, to its preaching and its legisla-
tion.7
In present-day society, historically nurtured o n Christian culture, the very

notion of slavery seems strange, absurd a n d unnatural. It is our morality pecu-
liar to Christian doctrine that has m a d e us aware that it is i n h u m a n . In pre-
Christian Russia, however, slavery was considered perfectly normal. A m o n g
Rus's non-Christian neighbours, such as the H o r d e , it did not die out until as
late as the sixteenth century, whereas with the adoption of Christianity a m o n g
us, it very soon dwindled a n d disappeared completely. A s the same historian
says:
The main responsibility for this break-up, which facilitated the stamping out of ser-
vitude, I recognize as being that of the Church: servile bondage melted away under
the influence of Church confession and testaments. Freely, for the salvation of his
soul, the slave-owner mitigated hisrightsor even gave them up for the benefit of his
serf; personal expressions of philanthropy grew into habits and customs that were
then enshrined in legal standards.8
M a n y m o d e r n legal and juridical concepts are based o n ideas laid d o w n in

ancient R u s ' by the Church. It is interesting to read w h a t Prince Vsevolod
Mstislavovich, the grandson of Vladimir M o n o m a k h , w h o reigned in N o v -
gorod in the thirteenth century and m a d e certain adaptations to Prince Vladi-
mir's original legal statutes, wrote about particularly complicated legal ques-
tions: 'All these I order the Bishop to deal with, by consulting the Nomokanon,
freeing our soul of all responsibility for t h e m . ' 9
In the mid-thirteenth century a calamity struck R u s ' . A s w e are informed
in The Tale of the Destruction of Ryazan' by Batyi, 'There w a s then m u c h anguish and
sorrow, and tears and sighs and fear and trembling caused by those evil m e n
w h o attacked us.' 10 In these menacing times too the C h u r c h w a s with the peo-
pie. Serapion, Bishop of Vladimir, boldly and fearlessly raised his pastoral
voice:
Let us marvel, brethren, at this our God's love for mankind. . . . Having seen h o w
our sins have increased, having seen us casting aside his commandments, after
showing us m a n y signs, he sent us much fear and taught us m u c h through his ser-
vants - but w e would not learn! Then he sent upon us a merciless people, a savage
people, a people w h o spare neither the beauty of the young, nor the weakness of the
old nor the infancy of children. W e have aroused against ourselves the wrath of our
G o d , for, as David asks, ' W h y doth thine anger smoke against the sheep of thy pas-
ture?' [Ps. 74:1]. The churches of G o d are destroyed, the holy vessels are defiled, the
honourable crosses and the holy books, the holy places are trampled underfoot, the
bishops have become the prey of the sword, the bodies of the righteous martyrs are
cast out to be eaten by birds and the earth is soaked with the blood of our fathers and
brethren as with an abundance of water. . . . "
A t this grim time, the C h u r c h , in the person of its bishops, Peter and Alexis,
began to gather the Russian lands around M o s c o w , as yet u n k n o w n . T h e
Princes understood that their people's strength lay in the shared religious faith,
unanimity and like-mindedness that could only c o m e from the Church. T h e
great Russian military leader w h o w a s later canonized, Prince Alexander N e v -
sky, sought the blessing of the Church for all his deeds: 'Prince Alexander
decided to g o to the king in the H o r d e , and Bishop Cyril blessed h i m . A n d K i n g
Batyi saw h i m a n d marvelled, a n d said to his dignitaries, " T h e y spoke the truth
w h e n they told m e that there is n o prince like h i m . . . . " ' W h a t w a s the purpose
of the Prince's journey? His Life informs us: ' A t that time there w a s great vio-
lence from the infidel, they persecuted the Christians and forced t h e m to fight
o n their side. T h e Great Prince Alexander w e n t to the K i n g to beg for his p e o -
ple's deliverance from this misfortune.'12
' O n e of the distinctive traits of a great nation,' in Klyuchevsky's words, 'is
its capacity to rise again after a fall. H o w e v e r deep its humiliation, w h e n the
time c o m e s it gathers together its lost moral strength w h i c h is embodied in o n e
great m a n or in several great people, w h o bring it back onto the straight path of
history w h i c h it had left for a time.' 13 Klyuchevsky described St Sergius of R a d o -
nezh as such a personality.
T h e importance of the C h u r c h and of the personality of St Sergius in the
struggle to free R u s ' from the n o m a d e n e m y is very well illustrated in the story
of the Battle of the Field of Kulikovo. Before the battle Prince Dimitri D o n s k o y
addressed his soldiers with the words:
M y fathers and brethren,fightfor the sake of the Lord and for the sake of the holy
churches and for the sake of the Christian faith, for n o w death is not death for us
but eternal life; and do not think, brethren, of anything earthly, for w e will not
retreat, and then Christ, the G o d and Saviour of our souls, will crown us with
crowns of victory. O great N a m e of the All-Holy Trinity, O Most Holy Lady and
Mother of G o d , help us by the prayers of this monastery and its venerable Abbot
Sergius.14
In the history of our C h u r c h w e r e fulfilled the w o r d s of the Apostle Paul, w h o

said that in the C h u r c h of G o d ' . . . there is neither G r e e k nor J e w . . . Barbarian,
Scythian, b o n d , n o r free: but Christ is all, a n d in all' (Col. 3:11). A t various
stages of its existence the Russian C h u r c h has spread over the territories of
m a n y peoples a n d lands: Poland, Finland, the V o l g a region, the Caucasus,
Western Siberia, Yakutia, K a m c h a t k a , the A m u r valley, Alaska, the Aleutian
Islands, from N o r t h A m e r i c a to California, Japan, K o r e a a n d s o m e areas of Iran
a n d China. Ethnically even today o u r C h u r c h is not very heterogenous, a n d its
historical n a m e , the Russian O r t h o d o x C h u r c h , conveys the idea of the O r t h o -
d o x C h u r c h in Russia. A s a result o f the Russian C h u r c h ' s missionary activity,
m o r e than forty different peoples h a v e been converted to Christianity, thus
bringing t h e m into the c o m m o n history a n d culture of m a n k i n d . O u r C h u r c h
also introduced m a n y of these peoples to the art of writing a n d to the founda-
tions of architecture, music a n d l a w .
T h e Russian C h u r c h also put n o small effort into the preservation of the
places in the H o l y L a n d that hold m e m o r i e s for Christians. T h e vast n u m b e r of
articles donated b y the Russian C h u r c h , a n d w h i c h can be found in abundance
throughout the H o l y L a n d , n o w bear witness to these constant links a n d pil-
grimages m a d e b y Russians to Palestine. Already in the twelfth century, A b b o t
Daniel, the author o f the w e l l - k n o w n Travels, wrote, ' M a n y , having visited the
H o l y City of Jerusalem and failed to see .everything, return there in the h o p e of
covering the g r o u n d again.'15 T h e s a m e A b b o t spoke of the m a n y objects
donated by Russian people in Jerusalem, a n d h e himself h a d a votive l a m p
placed at the H o l y Sepulchre o n behalf of all R u s ' .
In the ancient Russian State, the C h u r c h h a d a very special position:
At that time, the Russian Church was responsible for m u c h that later became the
direct responsibility of the state. E v e n then the Church did not interfere in the
affairs of the state, but the state itself involved the Church in its affairs, as it was not
yet in a position to handle all of these. Even in Byzantium the work of the Church
hierarchy was not confined solely to the sphere of spiritual matters: in addition to
its participation in government and the law courts, it also assisted the state in the
organization of charity, protection of the weak and oppressed, maintenance of
social order and proper family behaviour. Clergy from Byzantium brought the first
ideas of such institutions and relations to Russia; neither the state nor society was
able to take responsibility for them in the newly enlightened country; but, judging
by the account in the chronicle of the charitable activities of Prince Vladimir, it is
possible to think at least that the government very soon grasped their importance
for public order. T h e clergy indicated principles and rules for the organization of
such matters in the precepts that they adopted and which, in the eyes of Russian
Christians, had immutable canonical force or constituted a moral obligation. Local

legislation had merely to adapt such principles and rules to the level of development
and the requirements of local society. T h e local state authority entrusted this task,
accompanied by the necessary legislative powers, to the Church hierarchy, begin-
ning by authorizing it to take whatever institutional measures it considered neces-
sary. Thus the Church hierarchy worked in close co-operation with the government
in the ordering of the state and, in addition to wide jurisdiction, received the legisla-
tive authority to establish certain secular relations.16
It is noteworthy that the newly created Russian legislation w a s influenced by

Christian piety to a far greater degree than its Byzantine prototype. M o r e o v e r ,
there w a s an attempt to e n d o w the law with moral a n d religious motives. ' T h e
introduction of such moral motives into Russian legislation w a s a bold attempt
to challenge rational certainty a n d reasoned argument and to replace fear of
material sanctions or physical punishment b y a sense of order or duty.'17
H o w e v e r paradoxical this m a y seem, m a n y years later these s a m e ideals were
inscribed o n the banners of our country's lovers of justice w h o consciously
rejected all forms of religious axiology. ' B y introducing moral motivations into
secular legislation, the C h u r c h in this w a y w e n t deep into the life of the secular
c o m m u n i t y , setting its relationships o n a moral basis. This w a s the second task
of the C h u r c h , closely linked to the first one.' 1 8
T h e process of the spread of Christianity in R u s ' w a s lengthy a n d m a n y -
sided. Byzantium, Bulgaria and Moravia b e c a m e sources of Christian culture for
our people. It w a s from these countries that the n e w - b o r n Russian C h u r c h
received in abundance a rich heritage of cultural traditions. Together with
Christianity, the latest achievements of European culture of the time c a m e to
R u s ' : Slavonic writing and literature, a highly developed musical art, traditions
of painting and a c a n o n of architecture.
T h r o u g h the labours of the brothers, S S Cyril a n d Methodius, equal in this
to the Apostles, a n d that of their successors, the Slavs obtained their o w n writ-
ing. H o l y Scripture b e c a m e accessible to the Slav peoples in their native lan-
guage. In the w o r d s of the outstanding philologist of the Slav languages, Ignaty
Vikentievich Jagic (1838-1923), at the beginning of the ninth century Bulgaria
'could confidently stand comparison, for its superb literary works of a n eccle-
siastical and religious nature, with the richest literatures of the time (Greek and
Latin), in this respect excelling all other E u r o p e a n literatures.'19
N o t half a century h a d passed since the year 9 8 8 w h e n the seeds s o w n in
the Russian land under Vladimir began to bear fruit. ' T h e Autocrat of the R u s -
sian land [Prince Yaroslav] loved books and had written m a n y , placing t h e m in
the C h u r c h of St Sophia w h i c h h e founded himself.' Independent w o r k o n the
translation of Byzantine literature began in R u s ' , ' a n d Yaroslav loved the Typi-
k o n of the C h u r c h , greatly loved the priests a n d especially m o n k s , a n d studied
books w h i c h he often read by night a n d by day, and collected m a n y scribes, and
they translated works from Greek to Slavonic, and copied m a n y books and
obtained them, from which the faithful people can learn, taking delight in the
Divine teaching'.20 Right u p to the end of the seventeenth century, Russian
learning, language and literature developed almost exclusively within the
framework of religious and ecclesiastical themes.
All Russian learning of thefirstseven centuries of the existence of Russian
statehood was inextricably linked to the Church. T h e first k n o w n library in the
country's history w a s in the Cathedral of St Sophia in Kiev. T h e founder of this
library was none other than the noble Prince Yaroslav the Wise: it w a s not only
a book depository (library) but also a publishing-house (scriptorium) where
m o n k s copied books for distribution. It is held that it w a s before the scribes
working in this scriptorium that Metropolitan Hilarión pronounced his famous
Sermon on Law and Grace. Copies and translations of books brought from Bul-
garia, Moravia and Byzantium were kept and copied in the library of St Sophia
and then distributed throughout Russia. T h e historical fate of thefirstRussian
library was the same as that of Kievan Rus': during Batyi's invasion in 1240 this
centre of culture perished together with Kiev.
T h e monasteries were the most important centres for the writing of books.
A s early as the start of the eleventh century, The Tale ofBygone Years w a s written
in the Kiev Caves Monastery. A well of ancient Russian spirituality, the Kiev
Caves Paterikon, w a s created there by several generations of m o n k s . It is a reli-
gious text written in the traditions of Eastern ascetic literature, albeit drawing
its inspiration from the rich history of the monastery. T h e libraries of sketes and
coenobitical monasteries became the country's m a i n libraries. Russian m o n k s
considered the copying of books to be one of the most important forms of
monastic work.
These treasures of ancient Russian learning are n o w in state libraries. T h e
collections of the Kiev Caves Monastery, the C h u d o v Monastery in the M o s c o w
Kremlin, the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, the Monastery of St Cyril of the White
Lake, the Solovetsky Monastery, the Monastery of St Joseph of Volokalamsk,
the Monastery of the Resurrection in N e w Jerusalem, Optina Pustyn' and Sia
Monastery (Siiskii Monastyr) have all survived.
In the fourteenth century, at the Primate's See of M o s c o w , a remarkable
collection of books w a s started, which in time w a s to b e c o m e one of the richest
in the country. A special contribution was m a d e to it by Metropolitan Makarius
of M o s c o w (d. 1563), the creator of the Great Chet'i Minei, a body of books read
in Russia, including the lives of the Saints and homilies of the Fathers of the
Church. Another administrator of the library w a s Patriarch N i k o n (d. 1681), o n
w h o s e orders the cellarer of the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, Arsenius (Sukhanov),
brought from M o u n t Athos a magnificent collection of Greek church books
dating from the ninth to the sixteenth century.
A real pearl of the M o s c o w Patriarchal Library ( n o w in the State Historical
M u s e u m ) is the Bible of Archbishop Gennadius of N o v g o r o d (d. 1505). This

w a s thefirstcomplete Slavonic compilation of Holy Scripture, created as a syn-
thesis of Byzantine, ancient Russian and Latin traditions at the see of this
remarkable hierarch at the end of thefifteenthcentury (1499).
A t present a Synodal Library is being established at the Spiritual and A d m i -
nistrative Centre in the Danilov Monastery in M o s c o w as a collection of reli-
gious literature.
W e should note the important place of Holy Scripture in our country's
written culture. ' T h e history of the Slavonic languages and written culture in
the first centuries of its existence is studiedfirstof all o n the basis of m a n u -
scripts of Holy Scripture.'21 This is not surprising, for several reasons including:
(a) the proportion of manuscripts with texts of Holy Scripture immeasurably
exceeds that of all other works of literature; (b) Holy Scripture was not only
considered the most authoritative source for argumentation in the religious and
moral field, but w a s also the basis of cosmological, historical, socio-political
and economic ideas; and (c) 'Biblical books were the source of subjects, quota-
tions and turns of phrase and therefore had considerable influence o n the
choice of subject and stylistic characteristics of ancient Russian literature.'22
During the Middle Ages the translation of Holy Scripture into a language
in which it had not previously existed was nothing short of the birth of a
nation's written literature. T h e creation of the next biblical translation within
the framework of an already existing Church tradition as a rule reflects a transi-
tion to a n e w phase of the development of its language and culture. This w a s
also the case with Holy Scripture in our country. Having c o m m e n c e d in the
tenth century its activity of spreading the W o r d of G o d simply by copying bibli-
cal books, by the beginning of the twentieth century, the Russian Orthodox
C h u r c h , apart from translating the Bible into Russian, had spread Holy Scrip-
ture in the languages of about forty peoples from the shores of the Black Sea and
the Baltic to California.
Church services in the Slavonic language led to the spread, together with
churches and monasteries, of translated church-service books, including not
only hymnographic material, but also homilies. T h e liturgical literature of
Byzantium, which c a m e to R u s ' with the introduction of Christianity, included
a large n u m b e r of significant works of European poetical culture of the time. It
w a s o n this refined poetry that the Russian hymnographers based their works.
In the course of time, the Russian Orthodox Church c a m e to possess a vast trea-
sury of liturgical works that still lift u p the souls of m a n y millions of Orthodox
worshippers. 'Readings' or 'Homilies' prescribed in the liturgy familiarized
Russian congregations with the best examples of classical Eastern homiletics.
Acquaintance with patristics, which began practically with thefirstdecades of
Christian preaching, gave unusual breadth to the intellectual outlook of Russian
society. Very soon great Russian preachers appeared. It is enough to r e m e m b e r
Metropolitan Hilarión, the author of the famous Sermon on the haw Given through
Moses and Grace and Truth through Jesus Christ, Bishop Cyril of Turov, preacher and
hymnographer and author of festal 'Sermons' o n the twelve major feasts and the
Sundays of the Paschal cycle, Metropolitan Clement Smolyatich, 'scholar and
philosopher', w h o used the allegorical m e t h o d of interpreting Holy Scripture,
and Bishop Ephraim of Pereyaslavl', the hagiographer and preacher.
Hagiography, represented b y a n u m b e r of remarkable works, enjoyed great
popularity a m o n g Russian m e n of letters, and, it should be noted, still arouses
great interest a m o n g Orthodox readers. M a n y Russian classical writers of the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries turned to themes borrowed from the Lives
of the Saints.
T h e Church brought to R u s ' not only the religious culture of the Christian
East, but also knowledge of secular sciences. Approximately from the seventh
century there began to appear in By2antium anthologies of short historical
accounts, sayings and aphorisms, taken not only from the works of the Fathers
of the Church, but also from the works of ancient philosophers and historians.
T h e ancient Russian version of such anthologies, k n o w n in our literary history
under the n a m e of Pchela {The Bee), includes translations of three Greek anthol-
ogies, which in the original c a m e from the pen of St M a x i m the Confessor and
Antony Melissa (the n a m e of the latter in fact means 'bee').
A special place in ancient Russian literature is occupied by the works
k n o w n under the generic n a m e of Hexameron. They are all translated works,
devoted to questions of cosmogony, and interpreted from the viewpoint of the
accounts of thefirstchapters of the B o o k of Genesis. T h e first Hexameron c a m e
from the pen of Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. M a n y
compilations of this w o r k were in circulation, not only in R u s ' but in various
Slav countries too. Nevertheless, the full translation of this w o r k into Slavonic
only appeared in 1656; it was the w o r k of Epiphanius Slavinetsky. T h e other
versions of the Hexameron took this work to s o m e extent as their prototype.
Although from the point of view of ' m o d e r n science', including theology,
the cosmic and other 'scientific' ideas of these ancient works m a y appear naive
and outdated, any evaluation of their influence o n the culture of their time has
to take account of the following factors:first,the general state of European
science of the time did not go beyond the limits of these ideas; second, the reli-
gious and ethical interest that often tends to replace natural history by axiolog-
ically directed moral historiosophy prevails over the purely scientific (in the
m o d e r n sense) world-view; and third, certain apologetic arguments, directed
against equally ancient refutations of the cosmological ideas of Holy Scripture,
sometimes remain convincing for believers of our time with the highest educa-
tion in the natural sciences.
T h e patristic philosophical tradition introduced from thefirstdays of the
existence of the Russian Orthodox Church had a considerable influence o n
specifically Russian themes of the search for w i s d o m . Both Russian and foreign
researchers note that the m a i n interest of Russian philosophy is not in the field
of gnoseology or ontology, but rather in the practical field. Yet, according to
the division of philosophical sciences that has been in general use since the time
of Kant, 'practical philosophy' relates above all to ethics.
M a n y Russian thinkers with a worldwide reputation for creativity stress
this concept of the 'practicality' of our country's philosophy. In this connection
it is interesting to note that this preference for ethics remains, even in the w o r k s
of m o d e r n Soviet philosophers.
T h efirstfruits of the newly awakened Russian national consciousness w e r e
the chronicles. It is here that w e encounter for thefirsttime an attempt to sit-
uate national history in the context of world history. T h e most perfect example
of the Russian chronicle is rightly considered to be The Tale of Bygone Years by
Nestor, a m o n k of the Kiev Caves Monastery w h o lived in the eleventh a n d
early twelfth centuries.
T h e ancient Russian chronicles are the most important sources of informa-
tion o n Russian national history. T h e y can be considered the most significant
works of the thought and culture of the people of Rus'. O n e of the most charac-
teristic features of the ancient chronicles is their religious interpretation of the
historical process. Every event is seen as depending o n Divine Providence.
W e a v i n g into their account legends, episodes from byliny (epics), treaties, legis-
lative documents and those of princes' and church archives, the Russian chron-
iclers always remained religious thinkers, considering history from a soteriolog-
ical point of view. They always evaluated socio-political questions in terms of
religious and moral categories which, in all probability, resulted mainly from
the eschatological direction of their world-view.
Let us n o w turn to the aspect of C h u r c h culture best k n o w n to the secular
consciousness. A t the present time the works offigurativeart created by O r t h o -
dox artists are the most widespread witnesses to the C h u r c h culture of Eastern
Christianity. T h e Russian icon, 'philosophy in paint', expresses most graph-
ically the essence of Russian Orthodox spirituality. Such eminent classical theo-
logians as the R e v . Pavel Florensky and Prince E v g e n y Trubetskoy have
devoted entire studies to the theological understanding of this p h e n o m e n o n of
Orthodox culture.
Russian icon painting can be regarded as the most valuable contribution of
the Russian people to European and world culture. O n e cannot but agree with
G . P . Fedotov w h o stated that 'In painting at least, one m a y venture to say that
neither the nineteenth nor the twentieth centuries have produced a genius
equal to A n d r e y Rublev.' 23
T h e mystic life and feat of prayer of such great Russian saints as SS Sergius
of Radonezh, Nil of Sora or Seraphim of Sarov are but poorly represented in
their Lives or other literary works.
T h e best proof of the vitality of the precepts of St Sergius of Radonezh o n

the worship of the Most Holy Trinity is the w o r k of St Andrey Rublev. His
works of icon painting, created within the framework of the traditional canon,
recorded for all ages the experience of the believing soul's encounter with G o d .
Rublev's icon of The Holy Trinity shows a deep understanding of the funda-
mental d o g m a of Christianity that n o other w o r k has achieved. The Saviourfrom
the Chin ofZvenigorod portrays the mystery of the Incarnation of G o d with unsur-
passed strength.
A t the same time, icon painting cannot be appreciated in all its fulness out-
side the architectonics of the Orthodox Church. T h e icon is one of the most
essential components of the w o r k of prayer. T h e very arrangement of the icons
o n the iconostasis tells the believer m u c h about the K i n g d o m of G o d . T h e strict
canon in iconography and architecture defines a true ' K i n g d o m of Freedom' for
the creative activity of m a n .
Today, even those w h o are far from the Church often express great enthu-
siasm w h e n the conversation turns to the subject of church architecture.
Delight is sometimes aroused simply by the skill with which the church build-
ing is situated in the setting of the landscape. A t the same time, the church as a
work of architecture is always considered by the believing heart as a reflection
of the world above in the one below and a call to 'set [the] affection o n things
above, not o n things of the earth' (Col. 3:2). Church architecture proves to be a
graphic presentation of the mystery of the Church.
O n e of the most essential elements of church services is the music. In
accordance with centuries of tradition, only vocal music is used in the Ortho-
dox Church liturgy. N o musical instruments intervene in the expression of the
believing soul's prayerful c o m m u n i o n with G o d . It is also very significant that
even this exclusively vocal expression of prayer has its fixed canon by which the
distinction is m a d e between what is permitted and what is forbidden in church
singing.
T h e history of Russian church music shows that it has deep roots in the
national spiritual culture. T h e nation's soul is perhaps nowhere expressed as
vividly as in our liturgical singing. Perhaps it is precisely for this reason that
m a n y great Russian composers have turned to the traditional themes of church
hymnography, seeing this as the w a y to reach deeply into the heart of the peo-
ple's spiritual life.
In this w a y the Russian Orthodox Church is the guardian of the treasures of
spiritual experience of 2,000 years of Christian culture. T h e faithful children of
the Russian Church have enriched this treasury in every w a y over the 1,000
years of the existence of the Russian State.
W h a t is the life and role of the Russian Church in today's world? Only
twenty years ago, I was often asked, ' W h a t message does your Church have for
the modern world? Is it really still repeating what it said 1,000 years ago? After
all, in recent times humanity has changed so m u c h , learnt and discovered so

m u c h ; it n o w has different concerns and interests, different problems and diffi-
culties that require n e w answers for their solution.' Today these questions d o
not sound quite so relevant. Yet it is appropriate that a churchman should m e n -
tion the p h e n o m e n a w h e n celebrating the Millennium of the baptism of Rus'.
T h e technological revolution of recent years m a y well justify our referring
to the present time as the second great period in the history of humanity after
the appearance of agriculture in the Stone A g e . O u r generation's scientific and
technical achievements can be called a miracle, an extraordinary leap forward
in the gradual evolutionary process of the development of the h u m a n race. In
actual fact, it has been calculated o n the basis of 50,000 years of h u m a n history,
and an average life expectation of 62 years, that w e are n o w living in the 800th
generation, of which 650 lived in caves. Writing began a mere seventy gener-
ations ago and the printed word became widely available only six generations
ago; only four generations have been acquainted with the accurate measure-
m e n t of time and the electric motor was created only t w o generations ago.
Today, however, m a n is already colonizing the cosmos.
T h e scientific and technical progress m a d e by our generation is truly
astounding and unprecedented, and exceeds even the boldestflightsof fancy of
Jules Verne and m a n y futurologists. W h o , however, believes that what is hap-
pening really is the fulfilment of the dreams and hopes of all those thinkers of
the past, and that reality does in fact justify, for example, the historico-philo-
sophical optimism of the French Encyclopedists?
O v e r a short time, dissatisfaction with the technologizing of society has
b e c o m e almost general. Increasing numbers of scientists hold that a rate of pro-
gress that is so incredible both in quality and in quantity shows a certain i m -
balance. Increasing doubt is being cast o n the dogmatic belief, which only
recently seemed unshakable, that science and technology are the key to uni-
versal h u m a n happiness, that progress is inevitable and takes place m o r e or less
automatically.
T h e present international situation with its innumerable crises, conflicts
and contradictions, o n the one hand, and the rapid pace of scientific and tech-
nical progress, o n the other, have unleashed a headlong arms race and brought
mankind to the verge of destruction. T h e problem of the very existence of life
o n our planet, and of whether our civilization will survive or be reduced to dust
and ashes, is n o w m o r e acute than ever before. W e are faced with the increas-
ingly certain threat of ecological catastrophe.
A t the same time humanity has been brought u p against an unprecedented
increase in ideological confrontations, collisions of socio-political and national
interests, the growth of exploitation, indebtedness, mass hunger and poverty.
T o this should be added such problems as racism, sexism, infringement of
h u m a n rights and social injustice. All this creates a horrifying picture of the
realities of the m o d e r n world.
There is only o n e possible conclusion to be d r a w n : the worldwide nature of

the problems facing the entire h u m a n race m e a n s that the only solution is
through the concerted action of the whole h u m a n race.
T o d a y it is apparently b e c o m i n g clear to m a n y that m o d e r n crises reflect
the disturbance of that h a r m o n y of existence that can only be achieved through
the implementation of absolute moral values in life. This entitles us to say,
without underestimating the role of political, economic, historical a n d other
factors that influence the course of m o d e r n crises, that the initial causes of these
are to be sought in the h u m a n spirit, and are of a moral order. If this is so, and
the h u m a n race is to unite in order to face these crises, it should be o n the basis
of shared moral principles.
Morality should be a categorical imperative of both personal and social life,
serving as a guide both for international relations and for scientific a n d tech-
nical progress. Moral values should be given the highest priority in the solution
of problems arising in the course of history. T h e w e l l - k n o w n Russian religious
philosopher and thinker Vladimir Solovev (d. 1900) maintained that, despite all
the variety and uniqueness of each h u m a n personality, 'there exists a n indis-
soluble basis of morality shared b y the w h o l e h u m a n race and o n this every
structure should be based'.24
For us O r t h o d o x Christians, peace, in its highest sense, 'is identified with
the restoration of the order of things in their initial integrity that existed before
the Fall, w h e n m a n lived and breathed the life-giving breath of a creature m a d e
in the image and likeness of G o d , in other w o r d s it should be seen as the restora-
tion of a relationship and of peace between G o d and m a n . ' Therefore the mis-
sion of the C h u r c h is centred o n m a n and aims at improving h i m and bringing
h i m closer to the majesty and beauty with w h i c h he w a s first created. W e con-
sider that the C h u r c h can and should encourage the achievement of
ideals of peace, freedom and brotherhood, love and social justice between peoples,
preaching the Christian faith about m a n and peace as it has continued to do
throughout its history in order to transfigure the spiritual and cultural essence of the
world. The Christian faith in the divine origin and unity of the human race and the
world, always inextricably linked with the sanctity, independence and lofty dignity
of the h u m a n personality, secretly underlies the modern international dialogue on
peace, social justice and h u m a n rights. The idea that these ideals are c o m m o n to all
. . . would be almost unthinkable without... the doctrine of the ontological unity of
the h u m a n race.25
For m a n y centuries the Church has taught a n d preached that G o d m a d e m a n

responsible for everything that takes place o n earth. T h e c o m m a n d m e n t that
H e gave to the first people ( G e n . 2:16-17) describes m a n as a being of excep-
tional significance, w h o s e actions will have either beneficial or fatal con-
sequences both for himself a n d his descendants and for the world h e lives in.
Considering life as G o d ' s greatest gift, the Church must serve as the ' h e
w h o n o w letteth' (2 Thess. 2:7), w h o can stop the suicidal spirit of nuclear des-
truction and bar the path to an atomic apocalypse. Reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19)
combined with denunciation of the enemies of peace (Hab. 2:12), w e believe,
has always been, and still is, the social calling of the Church.
For us Orthodox Christians, peacemaking involves constant prayer and
decisive action. For the latter, nourished and strengthened by such prayer, and
thus by G o d ' s help, are the renewal and expression in our daily life of our faith
in the 'Prince of Peace' (Isa. 9:6).
A t each service the Church prays that the Lord 'will give peace to the
world', to all people and all creation, and calls o n believers to be faithful in life
to their Christian calling, 'for G o d hath called us to peace' (1 Cor. 7:15).
Having lived through the horrors of the Second World W a r with the R u s -
sian people and shared their struggle, the Orthodox Church has never ceased to
participate actively in the pacifist m o v e m e n t . T h e experience of inter-faith co-
operation within the country w a s extended to the international level w h e n , in
1977, at the initiative of the Russian Church, a world conference of Religious
Workers for Lasting Peace, Disarmament and Just Relations between Peoples
w a s held in M o s c o w .
T h e participants in the conference declared w a r and military preparations
alien to the spiritual world order and m a n ' s moral principles, and stressed the
importance of further inter-faith co-operation in thefieldof peacemaking. It is
interesting to note that it w a s at that very conference that the Russian Orthodox
Church put forward the idea of freeing our planet from nuclear weapons by the
2,000th anniversary of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
T h e problem of disarmament w a s also considered at the W o r l d Conference
of Religious Workers for the Salvation of the Sacred Gift of Life from Nuclear
Catastrophe which, at the invitation of our Church, was also held in M o s c o w in
1982.
T h e participants declared unanimously that the religions of the world
should raise their voices in unison to condemn as a moral evil the manufacture,
development, testing and deployment of all forms of nuclear weapons, that the
threat of nuclear war was very real and its consequences would be catastrophic
for the whole planet, and that to allow such a war would be suicidal for the
h u m a n race.
F r o m then until 1987, inter-faith round tables have been held in M o s c o w
on topical questions of peacemaking. In February 1987, a religious unit worked
a m o n g the various commissions representing different professions and interests
at the International Forum for a Nuclear-Free World, for the Survival of
Humanity held in M o s c o w . T h e Call to Joint Action adopted by the partici-
pants at the conclusion of their work also gave a summary of inter-faith con-
tacts a n d the C h u r c h ' s co-operation with people of goodwill in recent years.

T h a t d o c u m e n t will serve as a p r o g r a m m e of action for years to c o m e . It states:
Believers are faced with special tasks, in particular: working for unity a m o n g peo-
ples; broadening contacts, overcoming divisions; improving the spiritual and
prayerful life of h u m a n communities; helping to eliminate pre-conceived images of
the enemy; and intensifying education in the spirit of peace.
W e call upon all people to devote themselves wholeheartedly to the task of
creating the foundations for c o m m o n security today. The time has c o m e to ask one-
self the eternal questions, 'If not I, then w h o ? If not n o w , then w h e n ? '
T h e events taking place in today's world give us signs o f great h o p e that a

nuclear-free world will in fact b e achieved. Political leaders are n o w b e c o m i n g
increasingly aware of the values a n d interests c o m m o n to the h u m a n race a n d
insisting o n their priority in international relations a n d practice over individual
interests. This approach has b e e n given the n a m e of the ' n e w thought'.
It should be stressed that the n e w political thinking arising in the process of
the reconstruction - perestroika - of the U S S R is actually a n ethical concept,
recognizing the existence of standards of morality c o m m o n to the h u m a n race
and stressing their importance for m o d e r n politics a n d social life. T h u s , in the
w o r d s of the Soviet president, Mikhail G o r b a c h e v :
T h e nuclear powers should step over their nuclear shadow into a nuclear-free
world, and thus m a k e an end of the divorce between politics and the moral standards common to
humanity . . . For the 'humanization' of international relations, corresponding
actions are needed in the humanitarian field. This can create moral guarantees for the
maintenance of peace and thus contribute to the development of material guarantees.
In this connection G o r b a c h e v ' s offer to create a W o r l d Consultative Council

under the aegis of the United Nations is w o r t h y of attention. This Council
w o u l d bring together the 'intellectual élite o f the world' with the participation
of major politicians, scientists, workers in thefieldsof culture, literature a n d
art, a n d e m i n e n t c h u r c h m e n for the 'enrichment of the spiritual a n d ethical
potential of m o d e r n world polities'.
T h e Russian C h u r c h takes a n active part in the implementation o f the
p e a c e m a k i n g a n d other p r o g r a m m e s of the W o r l d Council o f Churches, the
Christian Peace Conference, the Conference o f E u r o p e a n C h u r c h e s a n d other
ecumenical a n d peacemaking organizations.
Co-operation with Local O r t h o d o x C h u r c h e s is a m o n g the m o s t important
p e a c e m a k i n g activities of the Russian C h u r c h . T h u s the t h e m e of the 'contribu-
tion of Local O r t h o d o x C h u r c h e s to the t r i u m p h of Christian ideals of peace,
freedom, brotherhood a n d love between peoples a n d the elimination of racial
discrimination' is o n the agenda of the i m m i n e n t H o l y a n d Great Council of the
O r t h o d o x Churches. A t the Third P a n - O r t h o d o x Pre-Council Meeting held in
250 Metropolitan juvenal
1986, this t h e m e was studied thoroughly a n d in detail and presented as a conclu-

sion for study in the Local Churches.
T h e participants at the meeting stressed that Orthodoxy should declare
without hesitation that it is opposed to all forms of weaponry, whether c o n v e n -
tional, nuclear or cosmic, whatever their source. Nuclear w a r is inadmissible
from every point of view, both physical and moral. It is a crime against h u m a n -
ity and a deadly sin against G o d , w h o s e w o r k it destroys.
For several decades, the Russian O r t h o d o x Church has been involved not
only in the discussion of denominational problems but also in peacemaking ser-
vice in its bilateral relations with various Churches and religious organizations.
A good example of this, I think, is the practice of the joint prayers of representa-
tives of the U S S R and United States for the success of s u m m i t meetings between
our countries' leaders, witnessing to the ties of friendship and co-operation in
peacemaking between citizens of the United States and the Soviet U n i o n .
T h e Russian Church bases its peacemaking o n the principle that neither
the denomination nor the lack of religious faith of people of goodwill should
prevent their joint service to h u m a n society, and so, w h e n world and national
organizations for the strengthening of peace and prevention of a n e w w a r began
to appear, the Orthodox C h u r c h immediately joined in the w o r k . Representa-
tives of the Russian C h u r c h also take an active part in All-Union social organ-
izations.
In 1986 a Social C o m m i s s i o n o n Links with Religious Circles Defending
Peace w a s appointed by the Soviet Peace Committee. This C o m m i s s i o n
includes representatives of Christianity, B u d d h i s m , Islam and Judaism as well
as eminent Soviet public figures, scientists and cultural workers.
Another very important aspect of the Russian Orthodox Church's peace-
m a k i n g activity that should be mentioned is instilling the spirit of peace in
believers. This is an essential mission for the Church in our society. Already in
the fourth century the great saint of the O r t h o d o x C h u r c h , St Gregory of Nyssa
said, ' N o n e can communicate to another w h a t he does not have himself, a n d so
it is desirable that you yourself should befilledwith the benefits of peace, a n d
then supply such wealth to those w h o need it.'
A s I c o m e to the end of this part of m y address, I should like to remind y o u
that the Russian Orthodox Church has expounded its attitude and position o n
the most important m o d e r n problems in its synodal Epistle On War and Peace in
the Nuclear Age, which it published in 1986.
T h e activities of the Russian Orthodox C h u r c h in the ecumenical field are
directly linked with its peacemaking activity, in all aspects of this many-sided
concept. This was clearly formulated in 1966 by the late Metropolitan N i k o d i m
of Leningrad (d. 1978), w h o remarked:
The ecumenical dialogue essential in the search for Christian unity is also a dialogue
of peace, as Christian unity is achieved not only nor yet as much through the study
of differences and their elimination through theology and scholarship, though this
in itself is also important and necessary, as through the deep reconciliation of the
separated Sister Churches or Christian communities when they meet again. This
affirmation in no way underestimates the significance of differences between
denominations, but only stresses the importance of a correct understanding of the
nature of ecumenical dialogue as a dialogue of service.26
Since 1961 the Russian Orthodox C h u r c h has been a m e m b e r of the World

Council of Churches. I have chosen not to give a list of the innumerable occa-
sions o n which representatives of the Russian Church have taken part in ecu-
menical contacts. This aspect of the Church's activity is very well k n o w n . I
should not, however, like to create the impression that the Russian Orthodox
Church's ecumenical activities are limited to its activities abroad. Although the
Orthodox Church is the o n e that the vast majority of Christians in the Soviet
U n i o n belong to, what could be called the 'historical' Church of Russia, it
maintains fraternal relations with other Christian Churches and with the ad-
herents of non-Christian religions. It should be noted that this is favoured very
m u c h by our joint participation in peacemaking activities and the service of our
people and of society.
There is n o w considerable interest in the life of the Russian Church both in
the U S S R and abroad. This was m a d e very clear by the three international con-
ferences of scholars in Kiev, M o s c o w and Leningrad leading u p to the jubilee of
the Millennium of the baptism of R u s ' . It was a source of great satisfaction to us
that the participants included not only theologians, but also eminent scholars
from the Soviet U n i o n and abroad.
W e are extremely grateful to U N E S C O for its resolution calling o n all
M e m b e r States of the Organization to m a r k the date of the Millennium of the
baptism of R u s ' as a significant event in European and world history.
W i t h regard to the jubilee celebrations in the Soviet Union, I should partic-
ularly like to stress t w o points - the canonization of n e w Russian saints and the
adoption of the Church Rule. T h e canonization of saints has always been
understood as a triumph of the Church. T h e present glorification of righteous
people w h o lived at various periods of Russian history is an edifying example
for us believers, calling o n us to rejoice with the Church and w o r k together with
its saints for our o w n improvement and the preaching of Christ's Gospel. T h e
adoption of the Rule is intended to encourage the development of Church life
in m o d e r n society.
T h e post-revolutionary period in the history of our Church w a s not simple.
It remained with the people and experienced everything that they experienced
at that time. It gradually found its place in the n e w social conditions.
In the present atmosphere of glasnost and perestroika in the Soviet Union,
the link between the development of society and the moral condition of its
m e m b e r s is being stressed and emphasis laid o n the need for the spiritual
improvement of the personality. For us as Christians, there is something very
m o v i n g in the declarations of the Soviet leaders and scientists about the impor-
tance of spiritual values and the supreme dignity of m a n , which transcend the
barriers of class and political contradictions. These are principles that the
C h u r c h of Christ has always maintained and preached throughout its historical
existence.
There is n o doubt that these conclusions, d r a w n from the complicated pro-
cess of our society's development and formation, will considerably broaden the
existing opportunities for co-operation between the C h u r c h and Soviet society.
O v e r the last few years the Russian Orthodox C h u r c h has been taking an
increasingly active part in existing and newly established social organizations.
A m o n g them, I should particularly like to mention the Soviet Cultural F u n d
and the Russian Cultural F u n d , w h i c h are involved in the conservation and res-
toration of the country's cultural and historical m o n u m e n t s , including places of
worship.
A n e w quality of co-operation has c o m m e n c e d between our theologians
and theological academies and scientific circles in the Soviet Union. In addition
to the traditional co-operation between the Russian Orthodox C h u r c h and the
Russian Palestine Society at the A c a d e m y of Sciences of the U S S R , Soviet scho-
lars are participating increasingly in peacemaking conferences and conferences
of scholars and theologians held by the Church. Together with the A c a d e m y of
Sciences of the U S S R , the M o s c o w Patriarchate is developing links and contacts
with foreign scholars. For example, there has been an exchange of delegations
with Greek scholars specializing in the study of the historical and cultural trea-
sures of M o u n t Athos. A joint delegation of theologians and scholars from the
U S S R visited Greece, and this w a s followed by a return visit of Greek scholars
w h o studied manuscripts in libraries in the Soviet U n i o n and had meetings in
the M o s c o w Patriarchate and the A c a d e m y of Sciences of the U S S R . T h e list of
examples of beneficial results of perestroika is endless.
While w e assess the past and look into the future as the Russian Orthodox
C h u r c h enters its second millennium, w e should like to say that the Church of
Christ, through G o d ' s mercy and grace, is still carrying out its service of salva-
tion to the world throughout our land as it did 1,000 years ago. It w a s , is n o w
and always will be with its o w n flock, its o w n people.
^Translated from Russian]
NOTES
1. V . O . Kljucevskij, 'Sodejstvie Cerkvi uspeham russkogo grazdanskogo prava i por-

jadka [The Church's Contribution to the Success of Russian Secular L a w and
Order]', Ocerki i reci, Vtoroj sbornik statej V. KJjucevskogo [Collected Essays
Speeches], p. 9 1 , M o s c o w , 1913.
2. G . Florovskij, Puti russkogo bogoslovija [The Paths of Russian Theology], p. 2 , Paris,
1983.
3. J. H . Billington, The Icon and the Axe, p . x, N e w Y o r k , 1970.
4. 'Povest' vremennyh let [Tale of Bygone Years]', Pamjatniki literatury Drevnej Rusi
[Monuments of the Literature of Ancient Rus'], Vol. 1, p . 127.
5. Ibid., p. 133.
6. Ibid.
7. Kljucevskij, op. cit.
8. Ibid., p . 38.
9. Ibid., p. 14.
10. 'Povest' o razorenii Rjazani Batyem [Tale of the Destruction of Rjazan' by Batyj]',
Pamjatniki. . ., op. cit., p. 197.
11. 'Slovo Serapiona episkopa Vladimirskogo [Sermons of Serapion, Bishop of Vladi-
mir]', Pamjatniki. . ., op. cit., Vol. 3, p . 449.
12. 'Zitie Aleksandra Nevskogo [Life of Alexander Nevsky]', Pamjatniki . . ., op. cit.,
Vol. 3, p. 437.
13. Kljucevskij, op. cit., p. 45.
14. 'Skazanie o M a m a e v o m poboisce [The Tale of the Battle with Mamaj]', Pamjatniki..
., op. cit., Vol. 4 , p . 173.
15. 'Hozdenie igumena Daniila [The Travels of Abbot Daniel]', Pamjatniki . . ., op. cit.,
Vol. 2, p. 27.
16. Kljucevskij, op. cit.
17. Ibid., p. 103.
18. Ibid.
19. Florovskij, op. cit., p . 7.
20. Letopis' Nestora [Nestor's Chronicle], p. 53, St Petersburg, Russkaja Klassiceskaja
Biblioteka, 1893.
21. Slovar' kniznikov i knii&iosti Drevnej Rtisi [Dictionary of B o o k m e n and Book-learning in
Ancient Rus'], 1st ed., p. 69, Leningrad, 1987.
22. Ibid.
23. G . P . Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind, Vol. 2 , p . 344, Cambridge, 1964.
24. V . Solov'ev, 'Pervicnye dannye nravsvennosti [Primary Facts of Morality]', Voprosy
filsofii ipsihologii, Vol. 2 4 , N o . 4 , 1894, p. 361.
25. Third Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Meeting, Chambéry, 28 October to 6 N o v e m b e r
1986 - ' T h e Contribution of the Orthodox Church to the T r i u m p h of Peace, Free-
d o m , Brotherhood and Love between Peoples and the Elimination of Racial and
other Discrimination'.
26. Metropolitan Nikodim of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical
M o v e m e n t , Problema edinenija [The Problem of Unification], p. 10 (manuscript in the
archives of the Department of Foreign Relations of the M o s c o w Patriarchate).
Atheism and religion in
the Soviet Union
Nikita Struve
Atheism is nothing n e w and has always existed; yet, in 1917, for thefirsttime in
history, atheism ceased to be a private opinion, an opposition tendency or an
attitude of defiance. With the October Revolution, a radically n e w p h e n o m e -
n o n c a m e into being: atheistical materialism acquired power and became a rule
of conduct, a plan for the life of the individual, the community or even the
whole planet, with unlimited means at its disposal. Having existed for over
seventy years as a social, political and cultural reality, atheism can n o w be
judged by its fruits.
At first sight this identification of Communist power with atheism appears
open to question, as its aims above all are ostensibly political and economic.
However, the intrinsic link between atheism and historical materialism can be
found expressed in very clear terms in the works of M a r x . T o his mind, as is
well k n o w n , 'religious alienation has the same origin as economic alienation'. A
fantastic and illusory shadow, religion has n o existence of its o w n and will dis-
appear of its o w n accord w h e n societyfindsits moral order with the establish-
ment of social C o m m u n i s m .
Engels and Lenin were to draw their philosophical conclusions from this
Marxist postulate: thefirstwas to rid cosmic order of transcendence by reducing
being to nature, and the second, tofillthe resulting gap, was to absolutize nature
by declaring it to be without beginning or end, and to replace the deist concept
of thefirstcause by the dialectic law of the unity and struggle of opposites, thus
situating m o v e m e n t inside nature. Formulated in these terms, the atheist basic
principles of Marxism-Leninism d o not necessarily imply an open and declared
war o n religion, as this is expected to die away of its o w n accord. H o w e v e r ,
Marxism has always denied that it is pure theory by stressing the unity of the
theoretical and practical. In fact, both in Marx and even m o r e so in his succès-
256 Nikita Struve
sors, Marxism appears as a soteriology, a doctrine of salvation for the whole

h u m a n race, completely incompatible with the metaphysical soteriologies of
religions. A s a truth that is not only unique, but scientifically established and
called o n to materialize itself in history according to irrevocable laws, Marxism
brooks n o refusal. N o one opposes a truth that is theoretically unimpeachable
and historically ineludible other than from ill-will, stubbornness or blindness,
which should be repressed or treated. In so far as historical determinism is iden-
tified with good, anyone w h o opposes it is either evil or m a d .
Yet this is not all. In M a r x and in Lenin alike, from the very beginning, an
irrational, visceral hatred of G o d and all that is transcendent can be seen. It is
k n o w n that in M a r x atheism c a m e before historical materialism and that Lenin
w a s an atheist before becoming a Marxist. In M a r x especially, this takes the
form of a Promethean defiance, a desire to be equal to G o d . 'Like the gods,'
wrote the young M a r x to his fiancée, 'giving m y words the force of action, I
shall feel myself the equal of the Creator.' T h e same visceral atheism could be
found a m o n g the Russian intelligentsia in the second half of the last century,
a m o n g those w h o paved the w a y for the Revolution and m a d e it possible. 'For
M a n to exist, G o d must be killed': this dialectic, exposed by Dostoevsky in The
Possessed, animates and feeds revolutionary activity.
Only this combination of conceptual atheism and irrational, psychological
antitheism can possibly explain the relentless nature and insane fury of the w a r
waged against religion. U n d e r Lenin the 'pure', Stalin the 'hardliner' and
Khrushchev the 'revisionist', the w a r against religion was the top priority, the
very heart of ideological militancy. This anti-religious fury lost s o m e of its
keenness during the twenty years of Brezhnev's power. Today, with perestroika,
it seems in the process of being abandoned, which would give grounds for pred-
icting a most profound transformation of Marxist ideology.
C o m m u n i s m ' s war against religion w a s therefore n o chance misunder-
standing. F r o m the veryfirstm o n t h s after October 1917 right u p to the fall of
Khrushchev in 1964 (though, it is true, with certain periods of respite), the
Soviet regime presented the face of 'atheist fanaticism', which appeared to be its
very essence. Unlike the religious fanaticism of the theocracies that fight indif-
ference or religious error in the n a m e of a positive faith that in principle creates
values, the fanaticism of atheocracy has n o excuse. 'It is an Inquisition without
faith and a religious indifferentism without tolerance', or, if one prefers, 'a reli-
gion free from any religious experience and an unbelief marked with the seal of
intolerance'.
It was long believed in the West, and is still asserted by s o m e , that the
Soviet regime attacked the C h u r c h as an institution compromised for better or
for worse by its association with the ancien régime. This view is mistaken. F r o m
the very beginning, Bolshevik ideology m a d e it very clear that through the
institution they were aiming at religion itself:
Atheism and religion in the Soviet Union 257
W e must act in such a way that all the blows that strike the traditional structures of
the Church hit religion itself.... It would be regrettable if faith, deprived of some of
its means of action, were to withdraw to positions from which it would be harder to
dislodge it; the ship of faith must sink completely.
In the 1920s and 1930s the w a r against religion, the 'assault o n heaven', reached
an intensity never seen before in history. Its course took t w o m a i n directions:
physical annihilation a n d atheist indoctrination. T h e closing a n d subsequent
destruction of churches, arrest a n d deportation of clergy a n d committed lay
•people, destruction of sacred b o o k s a n d icons, all the iconoclastic violence that
w a s at its peak during a n d immediately after the Civil W a r , then again during
collectivization and finally in 1 9 3 7 / 3 8 , w a s almost completely successful. I n
1939 not m o r e than a handful of ministers of religion were still practising while
barely 100 churches remained o p e n . T h e country's vast expanse, relations with
foreign countries andfinallythe annexation immediately before the w a r of n e w
territories w h e r e religious life w a s unimpaired had m a d e it impossible to
achieve a neat 'Albanian-type' solution.
A t the s a m e time, o n the ideological front, a large-scale anti-religious
m o v e m e n t e n d o w e d with vast resources w a s developing. T h e League of the
Godless, founded in 1925 by Emilian Gubelman-Yaroslavsky, launched its o w n
five-year plans with n o less ambitious targets than those of the economic plan.
In 1932 Yaroslavsky announced triumphantly that the n u m b e r of the godless
had risen to nearly 3 0 million. O n the strength o f these results, the second five-
year plan w a s to culminate in 1937 in the total eradication of religious feeling.
Atheist newspapers, magazines a n d books poured out in editions of hundreds of
thousands, or even millions of copies, while the C h u r c h did not have the right
to publish even an in-house newsletter.
T h e Second W o r l d W a r w a s to upset all these predictions. T o deprive the
G e r m a n occupiers of a m o n o p o l y of religious freedom, a n d to guarantee the
support of the w h o l e population, state atheism h a d to beat a retreat and permit
the existence, even if only o n the fringe of society, of religious institutions. It
did so only under force of circumstance, grudgingly, while continuing to extend
its control over the education of the working population. These were the years
w h e n all expression of religious feeling w a s banished from literature, w h e n
authors such as Dostoevsky a n d Leskov were banned. If the state in n o w a y
renounced atheism, it soft-pedaled the anti-religious m o v e m e n t . Yaroslavsky,
the leading light of the anti-religious m o v e m e n t , conveniently died.
This situation continued for about fifteen years. Against all expectation,
after a few years of tolerance, Nikita K h r u s h c h e v , probably worried at seeing
the official ideology shaken by destalinization, decided to put state atheism into
practice: the w a r against religion w a s taken u p with increased vigour; the lead-
ers anticipated that it w o u l d culminate in 1 9 8 0 with the definitive establish-
258 Nikita Struve
m e n t of C o m m u n i s m and the total eradication of religion. Khrushchev's fall

from p o w e r put an end to direct persecution, but for a quarter of a century every
precaution w a s taken not to let go of the advantages that atheism had thus
helped to acquire: a fall in the n u m b e r of places of worship from 20,000 to
6,500, monasteries from eighty to eighteen, theological colleges from eight to
three. Control over sacramental life, in particular over baptisms, w a s even
stepped up, and, as in the past, believers were still deprived of even the most ele-
mentary rights of any religious group. Nevertheless, despite its unlimited p o w e r
and at times almost insane fury, state atheism has few grounds for feeling tri-
umphant.
First, from the sociological point of view: atheism in power does not
appear to have achieved any m o r e impressive results than the less concentrated
atheism of Western societies. F r o m certain sociological surveys conducted in
the U S S R , it appears that the n u m b e r of convinced atheists hardly exceeds 7 per
cent, while that of believers or regular worshippers is in the region of 10 per
cent. A s for the n u m b e r of the undecided and of those w h o m L e Bras calls 'sea-
sonal believers', it is far greater than that of unbelievers. H o w e v e r , these statis-
tics, which are very approximate in the absence of regular in-depth surveys,
should not deceive us, the m o r e so as society is ruled by the atheist minority. If
w e are far from the extinction of religious feeling as promisedfirstfor 1937 and
then for 1980, the de-Christianization of the country is very real and is likely to
spread. T h e victory of atheism, however, contains the seeds of its defeat: the
'Homo areligiosus' thus obtained, despiritualized and demoralized (in both senses
of the w o r d , that is, deprived of moral sense and of vital force), is increasingly
seen as a serious socio-anthropological failure and, a contrario, forms an argu-
m e n t in favour of religion. Despiritualization has progressed throughout the
world, yet the atheist or agnostic in Western societies is still nurtured o n reli-
gious culture. In the U S S R , the opposite p h e n o m e n o n m a y be observed: even
w h e n well-disposed towards religion, Soviet people seem strangely lacking in
religious culture. For religion signifies not only acceptance of a doctrine (which
one cannot but k n o w very badly), but a whole structure of behaviour, attitudes
and knowledge conveyed by a culture handed d o w n from generation to gener-
ation. Deprived of this heritage, Soviet people find themselves cut off from
their genetic, social and national history, as if cast into a present that m a k e s
them unhappy. They are as if alienated from themselves.
T h e third failure is in the cultural and intellectualfield,and it is certainly
here that atheism is most ill at ease. A s the years pass the breach between mate-
rialist ideology and culture appears increasingly irreparable. Atheocracy has
proved incapable of furthering creative values. So-called socialist realism has
been swept aside by indisputable masterpieces of religious, or even explicitly
Christian, inspiration, of which it m a y be enough to mention The Master and
Margarita by Bulgakov and Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago. T h e literature of the last
Atheism and religion in the Soviet Union 259
thirty years, that of Sotehenitsyn, the peasant school of writers and Vasil Bykov,
openly advocates a return to Christian values. A reference to Christ, even in a
secularized form, has b e c o m e indispensable, as Chingiz Aitmatov showed in his
novel. It was also a Soviet film director, albeit one exiled from his country, w h o
managed to reintroduce a truly metaphysical dimension into the cinema.
Today the greatest atheist p o w e r in the world has changed its policy. Faced
with the abyss opening beneath its feet - in the words of the Soviet writer, N .
Shmelev, an economic, ecological, moral and even spiritual abyss - the atheist
authorities are relenting and recognizing the permanence or even legitimacy of
the existence of religion. If not a m e r e tactic (like Stalin's actions in 1943), this
would be a major turning point in the history of C o m m u n i s m . It w o u l d not be a
return to Leninism (even if the Decree on the Separation of Church and state
provides the n e w legislation), but a change-over to a concept of Marxism that is
less religious, less dogmatic, less scientific and less soteriological. For this type
of Marxism, 'religion should die out naturally' without any attempt being m a d e
to hasten its demise by blows great or small. If it is to die out naturally and not
under coercion, religion must have the same rights as atheism. Yet w e are still
very far from achieving such equality of rights. T o d a y the problem arises in all
its acuteness: will state atheism find sufficient strength in itself to give religion,
persecuted by it for so long, the place that rightly belongs to it in any civilized
society?
Part Five
INTERCHURCH RELATIONS
YESTERDAY AND TODAY
T h e Russian Orthodox Church
in the Ukraine and its ties with the
Christian East
Yury Kochubey
T h e adoption of the Byzantine form of Christianity by Kievan R u s ' predeter-

mined the development of its ties and cultural contacts with the peoples of the
Near East and the Eastern Churches. T h e culture of Byzantium had itself
absorbed m a n y ingredients of Hellenistic traditions and bore the imprint of the
civilizations of the East, as noted by m a n y scholars (Z. V . Udaltsova, A . A .
Beletsky, et al.). O n penetrating into Kievan Rus', it helped to familiarize the
inhabitants with the Eastern world and the life and spiritual heritage of the peo-
ples of the Near East. T h e existence of a large n u m b e r of c o m m o n features in
the art of the two regions led the Soviet scholar L . A . Lelekov to speak of a his-
torico-cultural zone formed by Rus', Byzantium and South-west Asia.
In thefirstplace, Rus' gained a wealth of knowledge about the peoples of
the Near and Middle East from the Bible (Old and N e w Testaments) and from
patristic and doctrinal writings.
Quite naturally, the young Christian country drew on Byzantium and the
allied Eastern Churches for everything relating to the organization of churches
and monasteries, as well as liturgy, d o g m a and rites. After all, the East was the
scene of the main events of Christian history, and Christian doctrine was grow-
ing out of the conflict between the various currents of belief. T h e harmonious
system of Orthodox worship was elaborated with the active participation of
hierarchs and remarkable religious thinkers of the East both before and after
the schism. Theological works reached Rus' in Greek or Old Bulgarian and
were subsequently translated and m a d e available to the educated circles of the
day.
W h e n w e speak of the East, w e are deliberately leaving Constantinople o n
one side in order to identify links*with the peoples of the Near East themselves.
T h e religious literature produced by Christians representing the Eastern peo-
264 Yury Kochubey
pies, and which was mainly in Greek, it should be added, became the heritage of
Kievan Rus' and helped to promote theology on Russian soil. The Source of Know-
ledge by the Arab John of Damascus, which contained The Precise Exposition of the
Orthodox Faith, an interpretation of the Holy Scripture and the Exhortation
(Paraenesis) by E p h r a e m Syrus were translated into Old Slavonic. In 1611, in the
then Ukrainian cultural centre of Ostrog, a translation was made from Greek of
the treatises against Islam by the representative of Arab-Christian theological
literature, Theodor Aboukar, bishop of Harran, while in the late eighteenth
century the writings of Isaac of Nineveh were translated from Greek by that
eminent figure of Orthodoxy and native of Poltava, Paissius Velichkovsky.
T h e compositions and chanting of the Russian Church were heavily
influenced by the hymnographic works of John of Damascus (for example, his
Octoechos formed the basis of the Octoechos composed in 1604 in D e r m a n M o n a s -
tery) and of two Syrians, Ephraem Syrus and R o m a n o s Melodos. Despite the
fact that their works were written in Greek, scholars have noted that they con-
tain features of the musical culture of the peoples of the Near East (Syrians,
Aramaeans and Arabs).
It is noteworthy that the chronicles of Nikon and Joachim assert that the
first Kievan Metropolitan, Michael, w h o arrived in Cherson in 988 with the sis-
ter of the Byzantine Emperors, A n n a , and there expounded the basic tenets of
Christianity to Vladimir the Great, was of Syrian origin. S o m e scholars such as
M . Braichevsky assign the baptism of Rus' and the chronicling of the event to
an earlier period. However, the reconstructed text, k n o w n as The Chronicles of
Askold, feature the same 'Michael the Syrian'. Thus it would appear that the
ceremony of the christening of the Kievans on the banks of the Dnieper was
performed by a Syrian, though some specialists dispute this.
There were direct contacts, too, between the inhabitants of R u s ' and the
Orthodox East, mainly through visits to Palestine by individuals and groups of
pilgrims. S o m e educated pilgrims left notes on their travels, which were often
beset with great difficulties, so that information survives to this day o n the
towns and peoples of Palestine, Sinai and Egypt. A Russian monastery is k n o w n
to have existed in Jerusalem as long ago as the twelfth century.
T h e most ancient example of Russian and Ukrainian pilgrim literature is
The Life and Travels by Daniel, Father Superior of a Chernigov monastery w h o
visited Palestine in 1106-08. H e gave a particularly detailed description of Jeru-
salem. W e m a y also read the notes of the prior m o n k of the Chernigov Bori-
soglebsk Monastery, Hippolytus Vishensky, w h o visited Jerusalem, Sinai and
M o u n t Athos in 1707-09, the prior of the Nikolaevsky Monastery of Rykhlov,
Silvester, and Nicodemus w h o visited Constantinople and Jerusalem in 1722,
not forgetting those of Father Luke Yatsenko-Zelensky of Poltava, and others.
T h e Notes by Vasily Grigorovich-Barsky, w h o travelled in the East between
1723 and 1745, constitute a remarkable page in the history of pilgrim literature.
The Russian Orthodox Church in the Ukraine 265
and its ties with the Christian East
H e visited Palestine, Sinai, Egypt, Syria a n d the A e g e a n Islands. His notes and
sketches reflect the life of the people in the places h e visited, giving vivid
descriptions of their ways. His voluminous w o r k has yet to b e properly
researched.
Contacts between the Orthodox C h u r c h in the Ukraine and the Eastern
Churches in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries played an important role
w h e n there w a s a real danger of disintegration of the Orthodox C h u r c h and
total extinction of its hierarchy in the lands ruled by the Polish kings. T h e
Patriarch of Jerusalem Theophanes III (1608-44), in response to requests from
the clergy and laity, restored the hierarchy of the O r t h o d o x C h u r c h in the
Ukraine despite the threats and injunctions of the royal authorities, raising Iov
Boretsky to the dignity of Metropolitan of Kiev. This enabled the C h u r c h to
continue to act within the Orthodox ecclesiastical c a n o n , which at the time was
naturally of the utmost importance.
Striving for national survival in difficult political circumstances under the
impact of Catholicism, the Ukrainian people achieved a form of organization in
the shape of fraternities bringing together O r t h o d o x citizens - craftsmen, m e r -
chants and clergy - for the defence of their faith a n d their national a n d cultural
identity. T h e fraternities that were soon organized in m a n y Ukrainian cities
m a d e a substantial contribution to the development of Ukrainian culture in
education, printing, literature and the arts. T h e fraternities, having sprung u p
spontaneously, were in need of official support to face u p to the royal author-
ities. It w a s provided by the hierarchs of the Eastern Churches, w h o often
visited the Ukraine o n their w a y to M o s c o w .
T h u s in 1586 Joachim, Patriarch of Antioch, gave a 'confirmatory charter'
to the Uspensky fraternity in L v o v and appealed to the population to help h i m
build a printing shop, a school, a church and a hospital. Later the Patriarch of
Constantinople, Hieremia Tranos, issued the L v o v fraternity with a grant of the
right of stauropegion, that is, it w a s exempted from the jurisdiction of the local
church authorities and w a s permitted to teach and print books. H e also granted
a 'confirmatory charter' to the Krasnostav fraternity. Theophanes, Patriarch of
Jerusalem, issued an instrument establishing a fraternity under the auspices of
the C h u r c h of the Annunciation at Peremysl (1650), while the Exarch Meletius
of Ephesus confirmed the statutes of a fraternity at S a m b o r (1644).
In Kiev, the Patriarch of Jerusalem approved in 1620 a fraternity school in
w h i c h Greek and Latin were taught, thereby angering the Polish administration
w h i c h had been endeavouring to preclude higher education in its Ukrainian
territories. It is also worth mentioning that, w h e n the Bishop of L v o v , G i d e o n
Balaban (1530-1607), prepared a prayer b o o k for publication, he requested the
Patriarch of Alexandria, Meletios Pigas, at the time also at the head of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople (1597-99), to revise the text and accordingly
sent h i m a Greek translation of the book. T h e Patriarch m a d e the necessary
266 Yury Kochubey
amendments and gave the work his imprimatur. It was he, too, w h o addressed
the Orthodox faithful of the Ukraine and Byelorussia in connection with the
proclamation of the Union of Brest-Litovsk, in an epistle that w a s later
published in Ostrog.
A further example of mutual assistance is the story of the adoption of the
Orthodox Confession of Faith prepared by the Metropolitan of Kiev, Peter Mogila.
In 1640 his text w a s examined at a synod in Kiev and subsequently sent to
Patriarch Parthenius in Constantinople, w h o transmitted it for examination to
the Grand Synod of Ia§i in 1642. It was then sent with amendments to all the
Eastern patriarchs. T h e Patriarch of Jerusalem, Nactarius, m a d e every effort to
have it published in 1662. It was adopted by the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 and
became a 'symbolic' work for all Orthodox Churches as an exposition of the
doctrine of Eastern Orthodoxy. T h e Orthodox Confession of Faith, linked to the
n a m e of Peter Mogila, is an authoritative work to this day. T h e work was tran-
slated from Greek into Arabic by Christodoulos of Gaza in 1675.
Concerning the Ukraine in the seventeenth century, a great deal m a y be
learned from the travel notes of Patriarch Makarius of Antioch, written up by
Archdeacon Paul of Aleppo (1627-69), and which speak with love and under-
standing of the Ukrainian people, that 'people of Cossacks', and their leader, the
hetmán Bogdan Khmelnitsky. They twice visited the Ukraine during the war of
national liberation and gave an objective account of the atmosphere surround-
ing the events that played such an important part in the history of the Ukraine.
It is important to note that the Ukrainian hetmen also gave material assis-
tance to the Christians of the Ottoman Empire, and in particular to the Patriar-
chate of Jerusalem, of which there is documentary evidence. Funds provided by
the hetmán Mazzepa provided for the publication of a Gospel in Arabic in
Aleppo in 1708. This is an example of material assistance to the Eastern Ortho-
dox faithful from the Ukraine. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, St
Catherine's Monastery in Kiev belonged to the Sinai Monastery of the same
name.
Kiev's interest in the Eastern Christians continued into later times, partic-
ularly in the Kiev Ecclesiastical A c a d e m y , which in a sense continued the work
of the Kiev-Moguilane Academy. T h e Academy's Proceedings often printed mate-
rial o n the history of the peoples of the Near East, ecclesiastical history and
biblical archaeology, including the works of Bishop Porphiry Uspensky (1804-
85), a former teacher at the Lycée Richelieu in Odessa, w h o was thefirstperson
to bring news to Europe of the celebrated Sinai Codex of the Bible, subsequently
taken to St Petersburg by Konstantin von Tischendorf. Also printed were the
works of a graduate of the A c a d e m y , the Archimandrite Antonin Kaupustin
(1817-94), w h o headed the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem for
twenty-eight years and conducted extensive archaeological investigations in
parts of Palestine connected with the history of Christianity.
The Russian Orthodox Church in the Ukraine 267
and its ties with the Christian East
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it m a y be added, institu-

tions of ecclesiastical education in Kiev, Odessa and other cities attracted m a n y
students from Arab countries, m a n y of w h o m contributed notably to the cultu-
ral history of the Arab people.
T h e fraternal links established in Church matters d o w n the centuries and
the mutual assistance afforded in difficult times have served and are serving as a
firm basis for the strengthening of friendship between the Soviet people and the
peoples of the Near East today.
[TranslatedfromRussian]
Ecclesiastical and cultural relations
between R o m a n i a and Russia
Fr Mircea Päcurariu
The Millennium of the Christianization of Rus' is indeed a good opportunity

for deeper study of the circumstances in which this major event in the history of
Rus' occurred. Yet this anniversary should also give rise to wider research on
the links that the Russian Orthodox Church has maintained over the centuries
with its sister Orthodox Churches, in particular the Romanian Orthodox
Church.
For a better understanding of this theme, w e shallfirstgive a brief sum-
mary of the history of the Romanian Church, both before and after the Chris-
tianization of Rus'. Historical research has s h o w n that on part of the territory of
present-day Romania, between the Danube and the Black Sea, at one time the
province of Scythia Minor with a mixed population of Geto-Dacians and
R o m a n s and n o w called Dobrogea, the Apostle Andrew preached the Christian
Gospel. It is probably he w h o ordained bishops, priests and deacons for this
geographical area, just as St Paul did on his missionary travels. W h a t is certain is
that around the year 300 there was a diocese at Tomis, headed by eminent bish-
ops, some of w h o m achieved recognition in patristic theology, including Vetra-
nion (fourth century), John (fifth century) and Valentinian (sixth century).
Scythia Minor was the country of origin of John Cassian (360-435) and Diony-
sius the Lesser (470-545), k n o w n for their works as well as their activities; in
addition, the 'Scythian monks' (Leontius, John Maxentius, Peter the Deacon,
etc.) in the early sixth century are all considered to be precursors of Romanian
theology stricto sensu. In the rest of the territory of Romania - formerly Dacia -
Christian doctrine spread sporadically, and above all after 106 w h e n Dacia was
conquered by the R o m a n s w h o brought settlers there from all regions of the
Empire, including Christians w h o were to contribute to the spread of the n e w
doctrine a m o n g the original inhabitants, the Dacians. Similarly, a large number
270 Fr Mircea Pâcurariu
of priests, chorepiscopi and even bishops contributed to the spread of the Chris-
tian faith a m o n g the masses in Dacia or to its 'generalization'.
F r o m the sixth century onwards, large groups of Slavs settled on the terri-
tory of present-day Romania and in time adopted Christianity and became assi-
milated with the local proto-Romanian population, a process that was c o m -
pleted by the eighth and early ninth centuries. It is during this period that Latin,
used until then by the Romanians in worship as a liturgical language, gradually
began to be superseded by Slavonic in a process that was due to both internal
and external factors. It is k n o w n that Slavs w h o settled a m o n g the Romanians
as conquerors were for a short time politically dominant. It is thus natural that
once their leaders became Christian, they wished to hear the liturgy and other
services in their o w n language and not in that of the local people. O n the other
hand, by the ninth century, w h e n the foundations of the culture of the Slavonic
language had been laid in Great Moravia, then in Bulgaria, and in the following
century with the birth of the culture of Rus', the Romanians were surrounded
on all sides exclusively by Slavs w h o had adopted a Church organization in the
Byzantine tradition and Old Church Slavonic for worship according to the
Byzantine rite. O f the three liturgical languages that then existed - the Greek of
distant Byzantium, the Latin of R o m e , which had already become a dead lan-
guage even for Romanians, and the Slavonic of the peoples around them which,
for political reasons and with the support of Byzantium, had become the third
language of medieval European culture - the Romanians accepted Slavonic.
With the adoption of the Byzantine-Slavonic ritual, the Romanians became the
sole people of Latin origin and language to practise the Orthodox rite. This
'synthesis of Latinity and Orthodoxy' proved a real support for the Romanians
throughout their history as, due to their neo-Latin language, they did not iden-
tify themselves with the Slav world around them, while thanks to their Ortho-
doxy they kept their national individuality, not identifying themselves with the
Catholic peoples of the neighbouring West. 1 In the political situation of medi-
eval Europe, the Romanians kept Slavonic as a liturgical language until it was
gradually replaced by Romanian in the seventeenth century.
After the tenth century, the Romanians lived in small states, called kne-
zates and voivodates, and also had a corresponding ecclesiastical organization
headed by bishops and chorepiscopi. In the fourteenth century the independent
'Romanian countries' of Wallachia and Moldavia were established, and were
then joined by Transylvania, which is k n o w n to have existed as a voivodate
since the twelfth century. Also in the fourteenth century, the canonical organ-
ization of these three countries was completed, establishing direct links with the
Patriarchate of Constantinople. Nevertheless, throughout the 'Middle Ages' of
Romania, the Churches of the three countries enjoyed a quasi-autocephalous
status in relation to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, unlike the other Ortho-
dox Churches, with the exception of the Russian Church after 1448.
Ecclesiastical and cultural relations 271
between Romania and Russia
This favourable situation gave the Romanians not only access to Byzantine
literature, both patristic and post-patristic, but also contacts with the neigh-
bouring Slav Orthodox Churches, including the Russian Church. Ecclesiastical
and cultural links between the Romanians and the Russians (which have conti-
nued unbroken over the centuries) took various forms: through Romanian
bishops or theologians some of whose activities took place within the Russian
Church, through Russian theologians w h o lived and worked a m o n g the R o m -
anians, through visits of Romanians to Russian ecclesiastical centres and of
Russians to Romanian monasteries, through exchanges of monks, printers, reli-
gious artists and singers, and through translations of Russian theological works
into Romanian or the circulation of Russian Slavonic manuscripts and liturgi-
cal books a m o n g the Romanians. It would not be possible to cover all R o m -
anian-Russian contacts in a single chapter, so I shall confine myself to describ-
ing certain essential aspects and certain personalities whose activities had
consequences not only for the Russian and Romanian Churches but for Ortho-
doxy as a whole. Shared faith, the same liturgical language and geographical
proximity, a c o m m o n interest in putting a stop to the expansion of the Ottoman
Empire and liberating of certain Slav peoples of the southern Danube area con-
quered by the Turks - all these factors continually consolidated the bilateral
contacts established soon after the Christianization of Rus' and have continued
without interruption up to the present. T h e chronicler Nestor, for example,
recorded both the presence of 'Wallachians' (i.e. Romanians) in the territories
they still occupy today, and also the wars they waged against the Hungarians in
896. 2 A certain number of Russian pilgrims, o n their way to M o u n t Athos or
the Holy Places, also stopped in Romanian territory and left travellers' notes
with interesting information about the Romanians, their customs and their
works of art. In addition, from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, some
Romanian bishops were sent as diplomatic envoys to the Tsars of Russia.
For thefirsthalf of the seventeenth century, w e shall mention the great
scholar of Romanian origin, Peter Mogila (Petru Movilä) (d. 1646), w h o led and
reorganized the Ukrainian Church within the Kingdom of Poland after the
Union of Brest in 1596, former Abbot of the Kiev Caves Monastery (1627-33)
and then Metropolitan of 'Kiev, Galich and All Rus' '(1633-46). H e was the
author of the famous Confession of the Orthodox Faith approved by the Synod which
met at Ia§i in 1642. The most recent research indicates that the Latin version of
the Confession was printed for thefirsttime in Amsterdam in 1643 under the title
of Confessiofideiorthodoxae, the second edition in Leipzig in 1659 and the first
Greek version, again in Amsterdam, in 1667. Thus Western theologians and
scholars had an opportunity to become acquainted with Orthodoxy. Mogila was
also the founder of the College of Kiev, which later became the Theological
Academy, and other colleges, hospitals and printing-houses (where many litur-
gical books were printed) and the restorer of m a n y Orthodox churches and
272 Fr Mircea Pâcurariu
monasteries. In his w o r k , Metropolitan Peter Mogila belongs not to the R o m a -

nians, the Russians or the Poles but to the whole of Orthodoxy, though in spirit
he always remained attached to the R o m a n i a n territories where his father, s o m e
of his brothers and other m e m b e r s of his family reigned. T w o of his books were
dedicated to the R o m a n i a n Voivodes Moses Movilá of Moldavia, his brother
(with a lot of useful advice for a future reigning prince), Matei Basarab of W a l -
lachia and Vasile L u p u of Moldavia. T h e frontispieces of s o m e of his printed
books bore the e m b l e m of the Movilá family or that of Wallachia and M o l -
davia. T h e printing equipment set u p at the time at C î m p u l u n g in Wallachia
and Ia§i in Moldavia w a s sent by Metropolitan Peter Mogila, together with the
necessary trained staff. T h e first professors of the Higher School of Ia§i
(founded by Vasile L u p u in 1640 and modelled o n the Kiev A c a d e m y ) were also
sent by Metropolitan Peter Mogila w h o had chosen t h e m from a m o n g the
learned clerics of Kiev. His Confession of the Orthodox Faith was repeatedly tran-
slated and printed in R o m a n i a n , nineteen editions of it appearing between 1691
and 1981. It was also translated into m a n y European languages and has been
widely circulated, even in non-Orthodox Churches. In this w a y , Metropolitan
Peter Mogila contributed to the cultural rebirth not only of the Orthodox
Ukrainians in the K i n g d o m of Poland, but also to that of his compatriots in
Wallachia and Moldavia. 3
Another great R o m a n i a n cultural figure involved in Russian Church life
was Metropolitan Dosoftei of Moldavia (1671-86). After being taken to Poland
by K i n g Jan Sobiesky and forced to spend the rest of his life (he died in 1693) in
the fortress of Stryi, near Zolkew ( n o w Nesterov), the learned Metropolitan
took part in certain theological disputes being waged at the time in the Russian
Church. Thus, at the request of Metropolitan Varlaam (Barlaam) Yasinsky of
Kiev and of Patriarch Joachim of M o s c o w , he translated several patristic and
post-patristic polemic dogmatic works, mainly o n transubstantiation, from
Greek to Russian Slavonic. A m o n g other works, he translated twelve letters of
St Ignatius the God-bearer (of which, in fact, only seven are authentic), the Con-
stitutions of the Holy Apostles, the Church History and Mystical Contemplation by G e r m a
nus of Constantinople (which is, in fact, an explanation of the liturgy), the Dia-
logue against the Heresies and On our Faith by Simeon of Thessalonika, a collection
of the talks of the Holy Fathers and a collection of patristic and liturgical texts
under the title On the Transubstantiation of the Holy Species.1'
During the reign of Tsar Peter the Great, three eminent R o m a n i a n scholars
lived in Russia and, though laymen, wrote theological works of interest to both
Churches. O n e of these w a s the Moldavian Nicolae Milescu (1636-1708), diplo-
mat, historian, philologist, geographer, ethnologist and memoir-writer, the
author of the translation of the O l d Testament into R o m a n i a n included in the
Bucharest Bible of 1688. In addition to an apologetical w o r k written in Stock-
h o l m in 1667 and published in Paris in 1669 under the title Enhiridion sive Stella
Orientalis Occidentali splendens, id est sensus Ecclesiae Orientalis, scilicet Graecae, de trans-
substantione corporis Domini, allisque controversiis..., h e wrote several theological a n d
philosophical w o r k s (on arithmology, ethics, etc.) after 1671 w h e n h e settled in
Russia. After being sent o n a mission to C h i n a by the Russian Tsars, Nicolae
Milescu published the Siberian Diary a n d the Description of China}
A n o t h e r R o m a n i a n , Dimitri K a n t e m i r (Cantemir) (1673-1723), spent the
second half o f his life in Russia. V o i v o d e o f M o l d a v i a for a very short time
(1710-11), historian, philosopher, musicologist a n d orientalist, h e left to poster-
ity s o m e historical w o r k s of considerable learning as well as philosophical a n d
theological w o r k s , such as Loca obscura in Cathechisi quae ab anonyme authore slaveno
idiomate edita et 'Pervoe ucenie otrokom' intitulata est {Obscure Passages in the Catechism
Published in Slavonic under the Title 'First Instruction for Children'), w h i c h w a s tran-
slated into Russian by his secretary, Ivan Ilinsky. This work (245 manuscript
pages) was in response to the catechism modelled o n contemporary Protestant
catechisms published in 1720 by Theophanes (Feofan) Prokopovich, Bishop of
Pskov and later Archbishop of Novgorod and President of the Synod esta-
blished by Peter the Great to rule the Russian Church.
Kantemir explains the Orthodox teachings incorrectly interpreted by T h e -
ophanes Prokopovich under the influence of Protestantism and voices objec-
tions to the plan of the catechism and its presentation.6 His work The System ofthe
Muslim Religion, written in Russia in Latin, then translated into Russian and
published in St Petersburg in 1722, m a y be considered as thefirstbook written
by a Romanian on the doctrine of another religion.
Another culturalfigureof Kantemir's time was Teodor Corbea, the son of
a priest of Brasov w h o studied in Russia. After serving Constantin Branco-
veanu, the Voivode of Wallachia, he entered the service of Peter the Great and
settled in Russia. H e wrote a metric version of 150 psalms which he dedicated to
the Tsar.7
During the eighteenth century m a n y young Romanians studied at the T h e -
ological Academy of Kiev, and Romanian bishops, priests and m o n k s travelled
to Russia to acquaint themselves with the country's cultural and spiritual life
and also the historical monuments of Kiev, M o s c o w , Novgorod, St Petersburg
and other centres. M a n y Russian theological works were translated into R o m -
anian, some of which were published.
During the second half of the eighteenth century, the Elder Paissius Vel-
ichkovsky (1722-94), a celebrated reformer of monastic life, worked a m o n g the
Romanians. Born in Poltava in the Ukraine, he became a m o n k in three Ukrai-
nian monasteries, then in three monasteries in Wallachia and, subsequently, o n
M o u n t Athos; he settled permanently in Moldavia after 1763 and lived in the
monasteries of Dragomirna, Secu (1775) and N e a m t (1779) which he directed
in turn as Elder. H e also founded an important 'school' of translators of the
works of the Fathers of the Church and the great ascetics from Greek into
274 Fr Minea Päcurariu
Romanian and Slavonic; about 300 manuscripts have c o m e d o w n to us from his

time, including forty written in his o w n hand. H e also wrote original works,
including one o n the 'prayer of the heart'. A n edition of his Philokalia in Russian
Slavonic was published in 1793 in St Petersburg by the Metropolitan of St
Petersburg and Novgorod, Gabriel Popov.
There were more than 700 Moldavian, Wallachian and Transylvanian
m o n k s at N e a m t , and their ranks also included Russians, Byelorussians, Ukrai-
nians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs and even Jewish converts to Christianity. H u n -
dreds of other 'brethren' lived in Secu, Sihästria, Pocrov, Sihla or in the sur-
rounding forests. Thus a genuine m o v e m e n t for the renewal of monastic life,
k n o w n as the 'Paissian' revival, was born.
T h e rules introduced by the Elder Paissius in the three Moldavian monas-
teries had a beneficial influence not only in the Romanian lands (through the
Elder Gheorghe of Cernica and Cáldárusani and other disciples), but also in
Russia. His Russian, Byelorussian and Ukrainian disciples spread out to more
than 100 Russian monasteries, especially those of Valaam, Solovki, St Alexan-
der of Svirsk in the north, the Alexander Nevsky Lavra in St Petersburg, the
Monastery of Optina in Central Russia, the St Simon (Simonov) Monastery and
the N e w Monastery of the Saviour (Novospassky Monastyr') in M o s c o w , the
Kiev Caves Monastery, N e w Athos in the Caucasus and a number of convents
for w o m e n . T h e Paissian spiritual m o v e m e n t also influenced some of the great
Russian thinkers of the nineteenth century, such as Dostoevsky and K h o m i a -
kov. In this w a y , the Elder Paissius contributed to the rebirth of monastic life
both in the Romanian lands and in his country of origin.8
In the history of Orthodox theology in thefirsthalf of the nineteenth cen-
tury, a special place belongs to the great apologist of Orthodoxy, Alexandru
Scarlat Sturza (1791-1854), born at Ia§i into a family of Moldavian boyars. His
father had studied in Leipzig and had connections with the famous Greek theo-
logians, Nicephorus Theotokis and Eugenius Vulgaris. After the peace of Ia§i in
1792, he emigrated with his family to Russia, where he became a diplomat and
was sent o n missions to various European countries. Towards the end of his
life, he settled in Odessa, where he carried out intense philanthropical and cul-
tural activities. H e visited his native land several times and accepted the post of
head of the Administrative Council of the Ia§i Seminary.
Alexandru Scarlat Sturza wrote m a n y works in Russian, Greek and French
o n sociological, pedagogical, linguistic, aesthetic and, above all, theological
subjects, making h i m one of the most remarkable apologists of Orthodoxy of
the nineteenth century. A large number of his theological works were also tran-
slated into Romanian soon after they appeared, including the Manual of the
Orthodox Christian which was translated by the learned Archimandrite Eufrosim
Poteca, former professor at the St Sava National College of Bucharest, from the
edition published in Athens in modern Greek, and printed in Bucharest in
1832. T w o m o r e of his w o r k s w e r e translated b y Archimandrite Filaret Scriban,

a former student of the K i e v Theological A c a d e m y : Epistles or Letters on the Duties
of the Sacred Ministry of the Priesthood (Ia§i, 1843, in t w o v o l u m e s , translated f r o m
Russian), a pastoral w o r k , a n d Religious, Moral and Historical Teachings (Ia§i, 1 8 4 4 ,
translated f r o m French), a dogmatic a n d apologetic w o r k . A n o t h e r w o r k w a s
translated f r o m French b y the Archimandrite a n d future Bishop Neofit Scriban:
The Church before the Papacy and the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century (Ia§i, 1851).
This apologetic a n d polemical w o r k presents, in t w o large chapters, the diffe-
rences b e t w e e n the O r t h o d o x C h u r c h a n d the Protestant a n d Catholic
Churches. Other w o r k s b y Sturza w e r e translated from F r e n c h or adapted in
R o m a n i a n during the first half o f the present century, by the priest a n d profes-
sor Hie Beleutä of Sibiu, including the Historical Considerations on the Doctrine and
Spirit of the Orthodox Church (1931) which also deals with the Christianization of
Rus' and the influence of Christianity on the life of the Russian people.
Apart from these works, which are also k n o w n to the Romanians, Alex-
andra Scarlat Sturza wrote others of a dogmatic, moral and pastoral nature, and
also homilies, including Talks on the Holy Eucharist, Faith and H u m a n Knowledge a n d
On the Activities of Russian Preachers of Orthodoxy.
T o m a k e the life and teachings of the Orthodox Church k n o w n in the
West, he translated a series of Russian theological works into French, including
the sermons of Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) of M o s c o w and the Arch-
bishop of Kharkov, the liturgy of St John Chrysostom (Paris, 1846) and a collec-
tion of prayers (Paris, 1852). After his death, all of his original works were
published in Paris in five volumes under the title Posthumous Religious, Historical,
Philosophical and'Literary Works (1859-61).
Alexandru Scarlat Sturza w a s therefore a n exceptional theologian a n d
thinker, a remarkable figure of p a n - O r t h o d o x y . His n a m e has its place in the
roll of h o n o u r , together with the other representatives of R o m a n i a n culture
m e n t i o n e d above w h o carried out s o m e of their activities in Russia a n d m a d e a
valuable contribution b y their theological w o r k s to k n o w l e d g e o f O r t h o d o x y in
the Protestant a n d Catholic worlds, as well as strengthening cultural a n d eccle-
siastical links between R o m a n i a n s a n d Russians. 9
Translations of theological w o r k s from Russian to R o m a n i a n a n d vice
versa led to i m p r o v e d mutual k n o w l e d g e of the t w o C h u r c h e s a n d the indivi-
dual concerns of each. S o m e R o m a n i a n theologians w h o studied at the K i e v
Theological A c a d e m y translated into R o m a n i a n or adapted various textbooks
used in theological seminaries in Russia, w h e n they themselves b e c a m e teachers
in R o m a n i a n theological schools. T h e y include Filaret Scriban, Melchisadec
Stefänescu, Teoctist Scriban, G h e n a d i e E n á c e a n u a n d loan G h e r m ä n e s c u .
Following the foundation o f the Faculty o f Theology in Bucharest in 1881,
the lack o f textbooks forced the teachers to turn to Russian O r t h o d o x theology,
translating s o m e of the w o r k s o f the great nineteenth-century Russian theo-
276 Fr Minea Pácurariu
logians. For example, Archimandrite Gherasim Timus, later bishop of Arges,

translated the Introduction to Orthodox Theology by Macarius Bulgakov, Rector first
of the St Petersburg Theological A c a d e m y and then that in M o s c o w , from the
French edition (Paris, 1857). Gherasim T i m u s also translated the same author's
Orthodox Dogmatic Theology in two volumes from the French edition (Paris, 1 8 5 9 /
60). Another teacher, Archimandrite Silvestru Bälänescu, a former student of
the Kiev A c a d e m y and later Bishop of Husi (1886-1900), translated the Eccle-
siastical TAW by Professor Ivan S. Berdnikov of the Faculty of L a w of the Uni-
versity of Kazan (Bucharest, 1892). H e also undertook to translate the five vol-
umes of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology with its historical presentation of dogmas by
Sylvester Malevansky, former professor at the Kiev A c a d e m y and later Bishop
of Kanev and Rector of the Academy. S o m e of this work was translated by
Archimandrite Sylvester himself, and the rest by former students of the Kiev
Academy, the priests Constantin Nazarie and Nicolae Filip and Archimandrite
Gherasim Miron (Bucharest, 1896-1906). T h e priest Constantin Nazarie, Prin-
cipal of the Seminary of R o m a n and later professor at the Faculty of Theology
of Bucharest, also translated the two-volume Christian Apologetics by Professor
Nikolai Rozhdestvensky of the Theological A c a d e m y of St Petersburg in 1897.'°
In their turn, m a n y Romanian theological works were translated into Rus-
sian, including the Compendium of Canon Taw by Metropolitan Andrei Saguna of
Transylvania (Sibiu, 1868), translatedfirstinto G e r m a n and later into Russian
from the G e r m a n edition and published in St Petersburg in 1872 (under the title
of Kratkoe ¿zlozenie kanoniceskogo prava).
During the second half of the nineteenth century, m a n y Russian theolo-
gians began to take an interest in the history of the Romanian Church and
nation, including the learned bishop Porphyrius Uspensky (1804-85), author of
the imposing ten-volume work The Christian East, the greater part of which deals
with the history of M o u n t Athos and especially the help given by Romanians to
the monasteries of the Holy Mountain. Teacher Evgeny Golubinsky of the
M o s c o w Theological A c a d e m y wrote a History of the Bulgarian, Serbian and Rom-
anian Orthodox Churches (Moscow, 1879), of which the section dealing with the
Romanians was translated and printed at Ia§i; this work, however, has been
criticized by Romanian historians as containing m a n y errors. Arsenius Stadnit-
sky (1862-1936), born in Eastern Moldavia, teacher at the Seminary of Chisináu
and later Archbishop of Novgorod, published works o n the history of the
Romanian Church and also travelled to Romania to study. Studies of the history
and organization of the Romanian Church in the nineteenth century were
published by teachers V . Kolokoltev and Kurganov of Kazan and by several
laymen w h o visited Romania to carry out research, including the great Slavist I.
A . Yatimirsky, author of several studies of ancient Romanian Slavonic m a n u -
scripts.11
During the first half of the present century, the most outstanding theolo-
gian to m a k e a contribution to the knowledge of Russian theological literature

in the R o m a n i a n C h u r c h was Nicodim M u n t e a n u (1864-1948), a former stu-
dent of the Kiev Theological A c a d e m y , Bishop of Husi, Metropolitan of M o l -
davia and Patriarch of the R o m a n i a n Orthodox Church. Thanks to his efforts,
dozens of volumes of works by Archbishops Sergius of Vladimir and Innocent
of Odessa, teacher A . Lopukhin, the priests Konstantin Stratilatov, Grigory
Petrov and Sergei Chetverikov, and Lev Tolstoy and other Russian writers
appeared in R o m a n i a n translations. Thanks to the translations of Patriarch
Nicodim, R o m a n i a n Orthodox theologians and priests became acquainted with
the valuable contributions of Russian bishops and theologians to the overall
progress of Orthodox theology.
All these contacts and cultural and theological relations between the R u s -
sian and R o m a n i a n Orthodox Churches contributed to better mutual k n o w -
ledge, the consolidation of inter-Orthodox links and the affirmation of Ortho-
doxy in the Christian world.
NOTES
1. D . Stäniloae, 'Rolul Ortodoxiei în formarea si pástrareafiinteipoporului roman si a

unitätii nationale [The Role of Orthodoxy in the Formation of the Romanian Peo-
ple and in the Maintenance of its Existence and National Unity]', Ortodoxia, Vol. 30,
N o . 4, 1978, p. 599.
2. Izpoarele istoriei românilor [The Sources of the History of the Romanians], Vol. 7, pp.
2 2 - 3 , 33-4, 38, 47; Chronicle of Nestor, translation and commentaries, Bucharest,
1935.
3. O f the rich bibliography on the Metropolitan of Kiev, w e shall mention only a few
works dealing with his links with the Romanians: P . P . Panaitescu, L'influence de
l'œuvre de Pierre Moghila, Archevêque de Kiev, dans les Principautés roumains [The Influence
of the W o r k of Peter Mogila, Archbishop of Kiev, in the Romanian Principalities],
Paris, 1926, 97 pp.; P. P . Panaitescu, 'Petru Movilá si r o m a n a [Peter Mogila and the
Romanians]', Contributti la istoria culturii românesti [Contributions to the History of
Romanian Culture], pp. 575-95, Bucharest, 1971; G . Mihailá, ' D o u á scrieri literare
ale lui Petru Movilá adresate compatriotilor sai [ T w o Literary W o r k s of Peter
Mogila Addressed to his Compatriots]', Contributii la istoria culturii si literaturii romane
vechi [Contributions to the Study of Ancient R o m a n i a n Culture and Literature], pp.
183-228, Bucharest, 1972.
4. S. Ciobanu, Dosofiei mitropolitulMoldovei si activitatea lui ¡itérera [Dosoftei, Metropolitan
of Moldavia, and his Literary W o r k ] , translated from Russian by Stefan Berechet,
Ia§i, 1918, iv + 200 pp. (Russian version published in Kiev in 1915), with docu-
mentary appendices; A . Elian, 'Mitropolitul Dosoftei si literatura patrística [Metro-
politan Dosoftei and Patristic Literature]', Biserica Ortodoxa Romana, Vol. 92, 1974,
N o . 1/2, pp. 1350-75; N . Vornicescu, 'Mitropolitul Dosoftei traducätor si editor al
unor texte patristice [Metropolitan Dosoftei as Translator and Editor of Patristic
Texts]', Mitropolia Moldovei si Sucevei, V o l . 5 0 , 1974, N o . 9 / 1 2 , pp.
Fr Minea Pàcurariu
7 4 8 - 5 2 ; 'Scrieri patristice si postpatristice ín preocupárile mitropolitului Dosoftei

[Patristic and Post-Patristic Writings in the Preoccupations of Metropolitan Dosof-
tei]', Mitropolia Olteniei, Vol. 26, 1974, N o . 9 / 1 0 , pp. 7 1 8 - 3 1 ; 'Dosoftei, mitropolitul
Moldovei aparätor al epiclezei euharistice [Metropolitan Dosoftei, Defender of the
Eucharistie Epiclesis]', Biserica Ortodoxa Romana, Vol. 9 5 , 1977, N o . 7 / 8 , p p . 7 2 7 - 5 3 .
E . Picot, 'Notice biographique sur Nicolas Spathar Milescu, ambassadeur d u tsar
Alexis Mihajlovié en Chine [Biographical Notes o n Nicolas Spathar Milescu,
Ambassador of Tsar Alexis Mihajlovié to China]', Mélanges orientaux, p . 6 0 , Paris,
1883; P . P . Panaitescu, 'Nicolas Spathar Milescu (1636-1703)', Mélanges de l'École
roumaine en France [Miscellany of the R o m a n i a n School in France] (Paris), V o l . 1, pp.
3 5 - 1 8 1 , 1925 (Romanian version, Ia§i, 1987, xli + 1 1 0 pp.); C . Giurescu, 'Nicolae
Milescu Spátarul. Contributiuni la opera sa literarä [Nicolas Spathar Milescu. C o n -
tributions to his Literary W o r k ] ' , An. Acad. Rom., Mem. Sect. Ist., S. 3, Vol. 7 , 1927,
p p . 2 3 1 - 8 4 ; D . Cristescu, 'Opera teológica si apologética a spfarului Nicolae
Milescu [The Theological and Apologetic W o r k s of Nicolas Spathar Milescu]', Orto-
doxia, Vol. 10, N o . 4 , 1958, p p . 4 9 5 - 5 1 0 ; A . I. Ciurea, 'Márturisirea de credintá a
spátarului Nicolae Milescu: Stella Orientalis Occidentali splendens [The 'Profession
of Faith' of Nicolas Spathar Milescu: Stella Orientalis Occidentali splendens]', Orto-
doxia, Vol. 10, N o . 4 , 1958, pp. .511-38; N . Milescu, Aritmologhia, Etica si origínatele lor
latine [The Arithmology, the Ethics and their Latin Originals], critical and m o n o -
graphic study, translation, notes and indexes by Pándele Olteanu, Bucharest, 1982,
p. 408.
D . Cantemir, 'Lora Obscura, Translation and C o m m e n t a r y by Teodor Bodogae',

Biserica Ortodoxa Romana, Vol. 9 1 , N o . 9 / 1 0 , 1973, p p . 1063-111 (extract).
S. Metes, ' D i n relatiile noastre cu Rusia. Fratii David si Teodor Corbea in slujba
popurului r o m a n ca luptâtori contra unirii cu R o m a , ca diplomati si scriitori [Our
Relations with Russia. T h e Brothers David and Theodore Corbea in the Service of
the R o m a n i a n People in their Struggle Against Union with R o m e , and their Diplo-
matic and Literary Activity]', Mitropolia Ardealului, V o l . 5, N o . 1 1 / 1 2 , 1960, pp.
836-62.
O f the copious bibliography o n Paissius, w e shall cite only the most recent works: S.
Cetverikov, Moldavskij starec Paisij Velicikovskij. Ego zizn', ucenie i vlijanie napravosl
monasestvo [The Moldavian Elder Paissius Velicikovsky. His Life, Teaching and
Influence o n Orthodox Monasticism], Paris, Y M C A Press, 1976, 3 0 7 p p . ; C . D .
Hainsworth, Staretz Paisy Velichikovsky (1722-1974). Doctrine of Spiritual Guidance, p
89, R o m e , 1976; A . E . Tachisos, The Revival of Byzantine Mysticism among Slavs and
Romanians in the Eighteenth Century, Thessalonika, 1986, lv + 296 p p .
For further information, see M . Menicovici, ' U n aparätor al Ortodoxiei la Curtea
tarului Alexandru I [A Defender of Orthodoxy at the Court of Tsar Alexander I]',
Viata româneascâ (Ia§i), V o l . 16, N o . 9 , 1924, p p . 3 1 8 - 3 5 ; G . Bezviconi, Din trecutul
nostru [Our Past], V o l . 4 , p p . 1 - 8 1 , Chi§ináu, 1936; E . Haivas, 'Alexandre de
Stourdza (1791-1854). Sa vie et son œ u v r e [Alexandru Sturza (1791-1854). His Life
and W o r k ] ' , Mélanges de l'Ecole roumaine en France, o p cit., V o l . 14, 1 9 3 8 / 3 9 ; E . Vasi-
lescu, Apologeti crestini, romani si strâini [Romanian and Foreign Christian Apologet-
ics], pp. 1 3 6 - 4 4 , Bucharest, 1942; loan Irimia, 'Viata si opera religioasá a lui Alex-
andru Scarlat Sturza [Life and Religious W o r k s of Alexandra Scarlat Sturza]', Biserica
Ortodoxa Romana, Vol. 63, N o . 1 1 / 1 2 , 1945, pp. 657-67 and Vol. 64, 1946; C . Buz-
dugan, 'Alexandra Scarlat Sturza (1791-1854) §i rolul saü In Biserica Ortodoxa
[Alexandra Scarlat Sturza (1791-1854) and his Role in the Orthodox Church]', Stu-
dii Teologice [Theological Studies], Vol. 24, N o . 3 / 4 , 1972, pp. 255-65.
10. M . Pácurariu, 'Traducen românesti din literatura teológica rusa pina la sfir§itul
secolului X I X [Romanian Translations of Russian Theological Literature u p to the
E n d of the Nineteenth Century]', Studii Teologice, op cit., Vol. 11, N o . 3 / 4 , 1959, pp.
182-212.
11. G . Bezviconi, Contributii la istoria relatiilor româno-ruse [Contributions to the History of
Romanian-Russian Relations], Bucharest, 1962; M . Pácurariu, Istoria Bisericii Orto-
doxe Romane [History of the Romanian Orthodox Church], Vol. 3, pp. 373-8, 415,
Bucharest, 1981.
The Russian Orthodox Church and
the ecumenical movement
Todor Sabev
The aspiration towards unity in past centuries
During the harsh days of O t t o m a n domination, various inter-Church contacts

and meetings and countless acts of solidarity and mutual aid between Orthodox
and non-Orthodox faithful awakened recognition of Christian unity. This
increased the emphasis laid on the idea of the catholicity and universality of the
Church. F r o m the eighteenth century onwards, this process developed through
increasing openness towards Western European culture and education, bilateral
church relationships, the religious and theological revival and the formulation
of n e w ideals of unity in the nineteenth century. A n ardent desire for c o m m o n
witness to the faith, promoting renewal of the C h u r c h and reuniting Christians,
inspired the pioneers and m o v e d all the participants to dialogue both East and
West.
T h e Russian Orthodox Church took part in the m o v e m e n t from the very
beginning of this period and played a n active role throughout the course of the
eager quest for Christian unity.1
The influence of the Russian Orthodox Church

in the creation of the modern ecumenical movement
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, influential representatives of

Russian theology stimulated the revival of patristics and encouraged various
initiatives towards a rapprochement between Eastern and Western thought. In his
Conversation between the Seeker and the Reliever Concerning the Truth (Orthodoxy) of the
282 Todor Sabev
Eastern Graeco-Russian Church,2 Metropolitan Philaret of M o s c o w (1821-67) sug-

gests h o w the basic ecumenical issue of the canonical and charismatic limits of
the Church should be approached: 'I d o not presume to call false any Church
that believes that Jesus is the Christ.' This eminent hierarch believed that divine
Providence would bring the Churches, as the glorious B o d y of Christ, to full
unity and perfection. Later, Metropolitan Platon of Kiev (d. 1891) stated that
the divisions between the Churches ('our earthly partitions') do not reach as far
as heaven.
After 1871, representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church attended sev-
eral meetings of the O l d Catholic m o v e m e n t . In 1892 a Russian theological
commission was set u p to examine the question of unity. During the same
period (1888-97), contacts between the Anglican Church and the Russian
Orthodox Church also became m o r e frequent, and in 1910 the Lambeth Confe-
rence decided to speed u p the process of rapprochement. T h e all-Russian local
council in 1917/18 encouraged further studies regarding a possible union with
the O l d Catholics and Anglicans.
T w o visits by D r John Mott to Russia in 1899 and 1909 aroused ecumenical
interest and stimulated subsequent activities of the Student M o v e m e n t : the Rus-
sian Orthodox Church joined in the initial preparations for the World Confe-
rence o n Faith and Order and the International Conference on Life and W o r k . 3
T h e Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III of 12 June 1902 to
the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Churches raised important issues of co-
operation inside the Orthodox family, the matter of relations with R o m a n
Catholics and Protestants, and the question of a n e w Church calendar. T h e Rus-
sian Orthodox Church responded positively. T h e Encyclical issued in January
1920 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and addressed to 'all the Churches of
Christ' set out the main lines of a p r o g r a m m e of m o d e r n ecumenism a n d pro-
posed that it should be organized as a 'League of Churches'. It called for the
repudiation of mistrust and bitterness, proselytism and hatred, the strengthen-
ing of mutual love and the establishment of practical m e a n s of co-operation
between the Churches in order to w o r k together against social evils and to pro-
mote goodwill and respect for the principles of justice and charity. T h e Encycli-
cal suggested that doctrinal disagreements should not prevent the Churches
from joint action. T h e time had c o m e to m o v e towards closer fellowship and
c o m m o n Christian witness.4
These ideas m e t with a favourable reaction in the Russian Orthodox
Church but the pressures of the n e w socio-political conditions in the Soviet
Union, the problems of the large Russian diaspora in Europe, questions of juris-
diction and other factors m a d e their m a r k o n inter-church relations a n d ecu-
menical activities outside the country.
The Russian Orthodox Church and the ecumenical movement 283
Participation of Russian Orthodoxy in the ecumenical

movement from the 1920s to the 1960s
M o s t Churches already believed that at least rudimentary c o m m u n i o n existed
between them, based specifically o n the fact that they had 'certain great, abso-
lutely central convictions in c o m m o n ' (a tenet later adopted by Vatican II).5
T h e year 1920 marked a n e w period in the history of the ecumenical m o v e m e n t .
For t w o decades the Orthodox Church played an increasingly energetic part in
activities under the auspices of Faith and Order, Life and W o r k and the World
Alliance for Promoting International Friendship through the Churches
(founded in 1914/15). T h e Russian Student Christian m o v e m e n t , fostered and
helped by the American Y o u n g M e n ' s Christian Association ( Y M C A ) , also
became active in m a n y European countries, particularly in France and the
United K i n g d o m . Its presence at student conferences, a n u m b e r of tours of the
Russian student choir, and lectures and liturgical celebrations making the
Eucharist the central element of spiritual life and ecumenical reflections deeply
impressed its Western partners. T h e Anglo-Orthodox Fellowship of St Alban
and St Sergius m a d e a great contribution to strengthening links of co-operation
and unity. Founded in 1928, this Fellowship organized a series of Anglo-
Orthodox conferences, numerous courses and lectures, fruitful exchanges of
professors and students and visits of English Christians to Orthodox centres
and published m a n y works o n topical ecumenical themes and o n Russian Chris-
tian culture. Within the framework of these activities, m e m b e r s of St Basil's
House in L o n d o n , founded in 1944 by members of the Fellowship of St Alban
and St Sergius, had the idea of establishing the Ecumenical Institute at Bossey in
1948 as a place of meeting and dialogue for leaders of Eastern and Western
Christendom. 6
Representatives of the Russian diaspora (the Russian Church in Exile) took
an active part at the Lausanne (1927) and Edinburgh (1937) Faith and Order
Conferences and at the Stockholm (1925) and Oxford (1937) Conferences of the
Life and W o r k M o v e m e n t . 7 Russian youth organizations were represented at
the Amsterdam (1939) and Oslo (1947) Conferences, as well as at the First
Assembly (1948) of the World Council of Churches ( W C C ) . 8
All these ecumenical endeavours were prepared and carried out in close
collaboration with the circle of eminent theologians and philosophers asso-
ciated with the St Sergius Theological Institute in Paris (founded in 1925), and,
after the Second W o r l d W a r , with some of the professors of the St Vladimir
Theological Seminary in N e w York.
In the long range of pioneers in inter-Church relationships and ecumenical
encounter, a special place belongs to thefirstgeneration of scholars represented
by N . Berdyaev, S. Frank, B . Vysheslavtzev, V . Zenkovsky, Fr S. Bulgakov, V .
Lossky, G . Fedotov, L . Zander, Fr G . Florovsky, P. E v d o k i m o v , N . Zernov and
284 Todor Sabev
m a n y others. They were soon joined in their noble task by a n e w generation of

highly qualified theologians including Fr N . Afanassiev, Fr A . S c h m e m a n n , Fr
J. Meyendorff, Fr B . Bobrinskoy, N . Lossky and O . Clement. T h e n u m b e r of
publications by Russian specialists in the form of monographs, collections of
studies and articles, year books and periodicals in Western European cultural
centres and in N e w Y o r k exceeds 500. T o this great n u m b e r should be added
various articles and works by representatives of the Russian diaspora in the Bal-
kan lands and other countries of the Orthodox East, the periodicals of the M o s -
c o w Patriarchate and of its Exarchate in Western Europe and a certain n u m b e r
of scholarly works and dissertations written in the Theological Academies of
Zagorsk and Leningrad.
T h e scope and content of these works cover all the major theological dis-
ciplines: biblical studies, Church history, patristics and systematic and practical
theology. They m a r k significant developments in the fields of dogmatics, moral
theology, social ethics, spirituality and liturgical life, ascetics and hagiology.
Particular attention is paid to Trinitarian theology, Christology and pneumatol-
ogy, ecclesiology and eschatology, creation and anthropology. T h e y offer an
Orthodox interpretation of the pressing issues of the ecumenical agenda: Scrip-
ture and Church tradition; the Universal Church and the local Churches; unity
and apostolicity of the Church; the Apostolic Succession; Catholicity, conciliar-
ity and conciliarism (sobornosi); the ecclesiology of c o m m u n i o n ; ways to unity;
the sacraments (especially the Eucharist); the Eucharist and unity; the E u c h a -
ristie celebration as the eschatological self-fulfilment of the Church; the proces-
sion of the Holy Spirit (Filioque); the Holy Spirit and Church unity; primacy
and autocephality; sacramental sources of Church life; theosis (divinization);
the role of non-theological factors in Church division and in the quest for reu-
nion; the theology of culture; unity and ethnicity; Church and state; and so
forth. These s h o w a creative approach to the c o m m o n search for better under-
standing, reconciliation and unity between the Christian East and West. 9 F r o m
the early 1930s to the 1960s Russian theologians addressed the crucial issues of
the ecumenical debate with audacity, honesty and c o m m i t m e n t in a n u m b e r of
works and articles. 10
The Russian Orthodox Church joins the World

Council of Churches ( W C C )
After the Second W o r l d W a r most of the Orthodox Churches felt the need to
c o m e together to tackle the problems of social service and the task of witnessing
to the faith in a n e w society. In 1946 the Provisional Committee of the W C C ,
which was then being formed, took the initiative of a meeting with representa-
tives of the M o s c o w Patriarchate to explore the possibility of the Russian

C h u r c h becoming a m e m b e r . T h e Patriarchate requested a postponement of the
discussion. T h e Conference of Primates a n d Representatives of Orthodox
Churches held in M o s c o w in July 1948, w h i c h discussed relationships with the
R o m a n Catholic C h u r c h , the Anglican C o m m u n i o n and the W C C , decided 'to
decline participation in the ecumenical m o v e m e n t in its present form'. This
position w a s motivated by arguments of a doctrinal nature and the W C C ' s line
o n social and political matters. O n l y the Russian Exarchate in Western E u r o p e
w a s represented at the Constitutive Assembly of the W C C in A m s t e r d a m in
1948. T h e Russian O r t h o d o x C h u r c h in A m e r i c a became a m e m b e r of the W C C
in 1954.
In 1958, leaders of the W C C and delegates of the Russian Orthodox C h u r c h
m e t in Utrecht (Holland) and established a basis for n e w relations. In the course
of further mutual visits, certain obstacles w e r e overcome. A t the N e w Delhi
Assembly (1961), the M o s c o w Patriarchate b e c a m e a m e m b e r of the W o r l d
Council of Churches.
In a statement m a d e in 1968, the late Metropolitan N i k o d i m (of Leningrad
and Novgorod) 1 1 explained that this decision of the Russian Orthodox C h u r c h
w a s prompted by the nature and aim of the W C C , that is, to w o r k for the unity
of all Christians and jointly serve the h u m a n race
in the spirit of the Gospel's commandments to love and to be loyal to God's will. . . .
Through close co-operation, mutual enrichment and the sharing of experience . . .
[it is h o p e d ] . . . that Christians will become a great and living force, earning the res-
pect of all w h o long for peace, justice and true h u m a n relationships.
The Russian Orthodox Church's contribution to

the W C C ' s understanding of ecumenism
A t the Utrecht meeting in 1958, the Russian representatives emphasized their

concern for visible C h u r c h unity, 'the reunion of all Christians', c o m m o n voic-
ing of belief and joint efforts to tackle the principal international problems such
as disarmament, atomic warfare a n d nuclear a r m s tests and to establish 'world
peace with justice and freedom'. 12 In his message to the Central Committee of
the W C C at Rhodes in 1959, the late Metropolitan Nicholas of Krutitsy wrote:
' O u r sympathy with the ecumenical m o v e m e n t . . . is inspired by the fact that,
in spite of separation, all Christians . . . keep the W o r d of G o d . ' T h e m a i n task
of the ecumenical m o v e m e n t , h e stated, is 'the unity of faith that is divided by
differing interpretations. W e Christians must stand above the political contrad-
ictions of our time and give to the divided peoples an example of unity a n d
286 Todor Sabev
peace, brotherhood and love, removing ourselves from all self-sufficient isola-
tionism and unfriendly relations to each other.'13
In 1968, Metropolitan Nikodim 1 4 spoke of his conviction that 'ecumenism
invites us to g r o w gradually closer to other confessions with great attention to
and understanding of the true Christian values that have been preserved by
these confessions. E c u m e n i s m must strengthen in us the sense of the need to
discern m o r e clearly what is good and healthy', what w e should receive from
and give to the other churches in a process of mutual learning and enrichment.
Only the O n e , Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church . . . possesses full unity. . . .
Outside its limits . . . it can be incomplete, or may almost disappear. . . . Perfect
unity can be appropriated by the whole Oikoumene hot through a simple 'manif-
estation'. . ., but solely by re-building the broken unity, by returning to complete
obedience to the truth.15
O n his visit to the World Council Headquarters in G e n e v a in 1973, His Holi-

ness Patriarch P i m e n voiced the opinion that 'the W C C should exert greater
efforts in those fields that directly pertain to the spiritual life of believers, espe-
cially in dogmatic and confessional questions'. O n another occasion, h e
declared that the concern to strengthen international co-operation and brother-
hood should be seen as organically linked to the quest for the restoration of
unity in the O n e , Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. 16 E c u m e n i s m should
take into consideration not only unity in faith a m o n g Christians, but also divi-
sion and hostility in the h u m a n race and in all creation.
T h e unity of the C h u r c h and of all Christians is the image of the unity,
truth and love of the Holy Trinity. T h e Orthodox conception of unity is based
o n Orthodox ecclesiology. T h e Church is an icon of the Holy Trinity, an incar-
nation of the B o d y of Christ and the T e m p l e of the Spirit of Truth. Koinonia is
her fundamental characteristic. T h e unity of Christians and of the Church as a
divine-human organism is a c o m m u n i t y of conciliar life, a true c o m m u n i o n
and h a r m o n y in Jesus Christ. It is sacramental and Eucharistie. T h e holy
Eucharist is the mystical centre and spiritual source of both life and unity. T h e
concept of the Body of Christ, a living organism, presupposes organic unity in
diversity. T h e reunion of different Churches cannot be achieved by 'absorption'
of all others by one Church, but in Eucharistie revival, c o m m o n confession of
the Apostolic faith, the re-establishment of confidence and the spirit of shared
membership of the household of Christ.17
The Orthodox Church's contribution to consideration

of the Faith and Witness Programme
Since the start of this n e w period of participation in the ecumenical m o v e m e n t ,
the Russian Orthodox Church has joined in a wide range of W C C endeavours.
It has testified a particular c o m m i t m e n t to the cause of the 'visible unit' and a
predominant interest in the Faith and Order P r o g r a m m e .
In 1963 a large delegation of the M o s c o w Patriarchate attended the fourth
W o r l d Conference o n Faith and Order in Montreal and played a creative role in
the theological meeting on a full agenda covering most of the basic ecumenical
themes of the time, but concentrating in particular o n 'Tradition and Tradi-
tions'. Tradition should be seen in a Trinitarian perspective. It is the whole pro-
cess in which the Holy Trinity enters time and history in order to bring about
their fulfilment in Christ. It is the Gospel itself and the Christian faith in its
wholeness, transmitted from generation to generation in and by the Church
through the power of the Holy Spirit. Only w h e n it is in accordance with the
Apostolic faith and accepted by the whole Church can Tradition be recognized
as being Holy and Universal. Tradition has vital implications for mission and
unity. Traditions in the history of the Church are expressions and manif-
estations in diverse forms of the one divine Truth and.reality. Their value
depends on their faithfulness to Tradition. In this connection it is important to
perceive the latter not so m u c h as a historical reality, but rather as a charismatic
principle. T h e adaptation of the Tradition to a particular period and its incor-
poration into life are delicate theological and ecumenical tasks. This implies
explaining the doctrine of the Church in m o d e r n terms, according to the needs
and the understanding of each people, which brings us to the question of ' G o s -
pel and Culture'. T h e Church embraces h u m a n cultures in all their diversity,
but should not be identified with any particular culture.18
O v e r the past twenty years m a n y Russian theologians have written books
and studies o n the theme of 'Catholicity - Conciliarity - Sobornosf as a vital pro-
blem for the ecumenical dialogue o n ecclesiology, unity and c o m m o n witness.
Catholicity belongs to the very essence of the Church. T h e Church is 'catholic'
because it covers the entire world. Catholicity, however, means also and above
all the integrity and completeness of the Truth - the faith, teaching and life of
the Church. Catholicity and unity are closely interrelated. T h e Church is cath-
olic in so far as it is united by truth and love just as the 'Body of Christ' is united
to its divine Head. Through the b o n d of unity and mutual love of all Christians,
this B o d y is one indissoluble whole. T h e Church is Una Sancta despite the empir-
ical divisions between local Churches. Catholicity 'admonishes the Church to
strive not towards an autonomous isolation of separate parts, but rather towards
a . . . unification... throughout the whole world'. T h e significance of Catholic-
ity is expressed very well by SS Cyril and Methodius' translation of the term
288 Todor Sabtv
from Greek into Slavonic by the choice of the w o r d 'sobornaja', depicting the
C h u r c h as an assembly or 'council' (sobor) and describing the 'conciliar' nature
of the Christian faith. Sobornost postulates a unity w h i c h is 'above a n d indepen-
dent of all fragmentation', a 'full and free unity of spirit and of thought', a n d the
'equal importance of all m e m b e r s of the C h u r c h ' . T h e 'catholicity of the
C h u r c h is constantly in the process of being discovered, but also of gradual real-
ization'. It is 'an unalterable axiom for us all.. ., our task and aim . . ., insepar-
ably linked to the mission and witness of the Church.' 1 9
In his pronouncements and articles o n e c u m e n i s m , Patriarch P i m e n of
M o s c o w and All Russia expressed concern for conciliarity and sobornost. Conci-
liarity should be distinguished from catholicity. It denotes a series of historical
forms of ' C h u r c h government' exercised through various kinds of councils,
synods or other consultative bodies. 'Sobornost is not simply conciliarity.' It is an
ontological quality of the Church that finds in Christ not only its substance but
also its accomplishment. A n y principle of domination by which external auth-
ority that is not the expression of a conciliar will, nor the voice of a conscience
springing from the plenitude of the C h u r c h , can wield p o w e r over and inside
the Church is alien to sobornost.20
A s part of the t h e m e of sobornost, s o m e theologians (such as the late A r c h -
bishop Basil of Brussels) also considered the issues of 'presidency', 'primacy of
honour', and 'primacy of jurisdiction'.21
T h e renewal of the Church can and must be achieved by ecclesiastical
m e a n s , which requires arousing the spirit of sobornost and developing a m o n g
Christians their consciousness of belonging to the people of G o d . 2 2 A s the late
Metropolitan N i k o d i m said in 1968:
The very nature of Orthodoxy . . . lends itself to a peaceful aggiornamento. . . . It is

desirable that all the arguments in favour of the need for renewal in church life
should be subjected to ecumenical discussion; they should be included in the official
documents in an absolutely lucid form, so as to avoid any suspicion, or misun-
derstanding, or unduly vague generalizations.23
In these conditions it is clear that ' O r t h o d o x theology as a scientific discipline'

can also 'develop and achieve perfection'. F r o m this point of view it is possible
even for ecclesiology to pass 'through phases of development a n d renewal.
H o w e v e r , this process cannot be b o u n d by any external standards imposing for-
m a l obligations o n the life of Christ's Church.' 2 4
T h e Russian O r t h o d o x Church m a d e a valuable contribution to the succes-
sive Faith and Order meetings held in Louvain (1971), Accra (1974), Bangalore
(1978), L i m a (1982) and Stavanger (1985), dealing with such basic ecumenical
themes as ' T h e Authority of the Bible', ' H o w the C h u r c h Teaches with Author-
ity Today', 'Conciliar Fellowship', ' C o m m o n Witness and Proselytism', ' B a p -
tism, Eucharist and Ministry', ' T o w a r d s the C o m m o n Expression of the A p o s -
tolic Faith Today', 'Church Unity and Renewal of the H u m a n C o m m u n i t y ' and
' C o m m u n i t y of M e n and W o m e n in the Church'. 2 5
T h e Russian Orthodox Church also contributed to deeper reflection o n
ecclesiology and ecumenism in connection with particular Faith and Order
Programmes in the course of almost thirty consultations and through s o m e
forty publications initiated by the Orthodox staff at the Ecumenical Centre
(Geneva), co-sponsored by sub-units of the W C C and prepared in co-operation
with representatives of local Orthodox Churches.
Within the framework of the conferences and W o r l d Conferences of the
W C C , the Russian Orthodox Church m a d e contributions o n the following
important subjects: 'Salvation in Orthodox Theology', ' H o w D o Orthodox
Look at the Problem of Concepts of Unity and Models of Union?', 'Confessing
Jesus Christ Today', 'Unity and Mission', 'Jesus Christ - the Life of the W o r l d ' ,
and so forth. S o m e of these themes received special attention in the works and
articles of Russian hierarchs and theologians.26
In this context w e should mention the Russian Orthodox understanding of
'Concepts of Unity and Models of U n i o n ' (re-union) and the respective roles of
bilateral dialogues and multilateral talks. Christian reconciliation plays an
important part in the process towards achieving visible unity. Ecumenical dia-
logues, c o m m o n witness and interdenominational co-operation contribute to
the maturity and growth of fellowship between local Churches. 'Conciliar fel-
lowship' is a goal and a noble task for those w h o strive 'for the unity of all'. A
n e w assessment of the present ecumenical situation and of the progress and
quality of the 'pre-conciliar age' is required. Most of the Churches are involved
in bilateral theological dialogues bearing promising fruits. T h e multilateral dia-
logues held by the W C C and particularly by Faith and Order Programmes o n
'Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry' and o n the 'Apostolic Faith' are m o r e c o m -
plex and difficult. T h e y need greater c o m m i t m e n t and full support. Bilateral
dialogues and multilateral conversations are closely related aspects of the quest
for unity, each with its o w n distinct and complementary role to play o n the w a y
to mutual understanding and unity.
In Patriarch Pimen's opinion,27 ' T h e World Council of Churches . . . can
. . . exercise a beneficent influence o n t h e . . . development of historical forms of
organization and conciliar life. T h e calling of the W C C is to prepare for the
advent of the pre-conciliar era but not to convene an Ecumenical Council.'
Since the early 1960s, the Russian Orthodox Church has always had out-
standing representatives o n the governing bodies of the Commission o n W o r l d
Mission and Evangelism and the Dialogue and Church and Society working
groups. Russian delegates m a d e a significant input to the Bangkok (1973) and
Melbourne (1981) World Conferences o n Mission and Evangelism, the Prague
Seminar (1979) o n Christian Witness and Evangelization in Eastern Europe,
and the Consultation o n 'Dialogue in C o m m u n i t y ' (Chiang M a i , 1977). In par-
290 TodorSabev
ticular, they considered the subjects of 'Orthodox Understanding of Mission',

'Possibilities and Means of Evangelizing in Socialist Society', 'Proclamation
and Worship', 'Mission and Unity', 'Ethical Aspects and Social Issues in Evan-
gelism', 'Witness to and Dialogue with Non-Christians, and with N o n -
Believers', 'Faith and Science', and so on. 28
In 1968 a Joint Commission met in Zagorsk (USSR) to draw up a study doc-
ument on ' C o m m o n Witness and Proselytism', benefiting from the experience
of Russian theology and missiology and laying d o w n basic principles of inter-
relationships and eliminating proselytism as alien to ecumenism and c o m m u -
nion.
In his paper on 'Dialogue in Society', delivered at the Chiang Mai consulta-
tion, the Russian Orthodox representative gave sound arguments and methods
for dialogue with people of other faiths and with non-religious groups and sec-
ular ideologies. This provided an impetus to the discussions, and helped to clar-
ify the concepts of 'world community' and 'community of communities'. 29
The delegates of the M o s c o w Patriarchate at the Geneva World Confe-
rence on Church and Society in 1966 presented illuminating papers on ' T h e
Dialogue with R o m a n Catholics on Modern Thought' and ' T h e D e m a n d s and
Applicability of Theology in Relation to the Social Revolutions of O u r Time'. 3 0
At the following W C C World Conference on Faith, Science and the
Future, organized by the Sub-unit on Church and Society at Cambridge, Mass.,
United States, in 1979, two Russian theologians delivered bold addresses on
'Christian Responsibility for Nuclear Disarmament' and 'Christian Perspec-
tives on Creation in a Time of Ecological Unsustainability'.31
T h e Orthodox Church's contribution to consideration

of the Justice and Service Programme
Russian spirituality, theology and commitment to peace in the post-war period

naturally led the M o s c o w Patriarchate to give high priority to the subject of
Peace and Justice. This is w h y it has given increasing support to the C o m m i s -
sion of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA). For twenty-five years the
Russian Orthodox Church has played an active part in all major consultations
and conferences on peace and disarmament, h u m a n rights, the peaceful solu-
tion of conflicts and the drawing-up and presentation of documents on these
topics at W C C Assemblies. T h e representatives of the M o s c o w Patriarchate
have played a pre-eminent role in thisfield,showing great interest and partici-
pating actively in the programme 'For Disarmament and Against Militarism
and the A r m s Race', clarifying the issue of 'Violence, Non-Violence and Civil
Conflict' and defining the theological basis of peace and justice and the respon-
sibilities of Christians in this regard. T h e y have w o r k e d with great zeal to estab-

lish confidence-building a n d co-operation, achieve world social justice a n d
elaborate basic social, e c o n o m i c and cultural rights. Russian irenology has
enriched the C C I A ' s theological and ethical approach to m a n y other issues o n
its agenda. Recently it helped in shaping the W C C concerted action p r o g r a m m e
for Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation (JPIC). Russian irenology gave a
n e w vision and perspective to peace, justice a n d h u m a n rights in the light of the
mystery of the sacraments (especially the H o l y Eucharist). In his paper o n 'Life
in Unity', related to the m a i n t h e m e of the Sixth W C C Assembly held in V a n -
couver in 1983, Protopresbyter V . Borovoy stressed the significance of the S u p -
per of L o v e for the corporate life and social witness of the C h u r c h w h e n he said:
If the bread of the Eucharist is the bread of eternal life and if in breaking it w e enter
into communion with Christ and each other, this imposes on us an obligation to
fight against hunger, poverty, disease and other manifestations of social injustice
affecting other people, w h o are our brothers and sisters. If w e are called to live out
this unity, then any hostility, discrimination or division of people based on racial,
national, ethnic, linguistic or cultural characteristics, sex, social status or educa-
tional background are incompatible with Christian faith and membership of the
Church. 32
Another area of priority for the Russian O r t h o d o x C h u r c h is that of the pro-

g r a m m e s of the W C C C o m m i s s i o n o n the Churches' Participation in Develop-
m e n t ( C C P D ) . Articles a n d dossiers d r a w n u p in co-operation with Russian
theologians have given impetus to the struggle for social justice and h u m a n dig-
nity, thus contributing to the analysis of themes such as the 'Search for a Just,
Participatory a n d Sustainable Society', 'Ecumenical Perspectives o n Political
Ethics', ' G o o d N e w s to the Poor' and ' T h e D e v e l o p m e n t Challenge and the
Role of the Churches in Eastern Europe'. 3 3
Contribution to reflection on the Education and

Renewal Programme
In the course of W C C Conferences and Assemblies, Russian O r t h o d o x C h u r c h

delegates have taken an increasing interest in activities related to the themes of
'Christian and Theological Education', ' R e n e w a l and Congregational Life' a n d
' T h e Role of W o m e n in C h u r c h and Society'. In a n u m b e r of papers and publi-
cations, Russian theologians and ecumenists have dealt with such subjects as
worship and spirituality, the central place of the Bible in the liturgy, the need
for a n e w life-style in our secularized societies, the continuity and renewal of
the C h u r c h , and disabled persons as full and valuable m e m b e r s of both C h u r c h
292 Todor Sabev
and society. S o m e of these questions were the subject of theological discussions

and specific consultations, such as 'Confessing Christ through the Liturgical
Life of the Church Today' (Echmiadzin, 1975), 'Orthodox W o m e n : Their Role
and Participation in the Orthodox Church' (Agapia, 1976), ' T h e Role and the
Place of the Bible in the Liturgical and Spiritual Life of the Orthodox C h u r c h '
(Prague, 1977) and 'Orthodox Theological Education for the Life and Witness
of the Church' (Basle, 1978). 34
The Russian Orthodox Church in the service

of inter-Orthodox relationships
Since 1961 the M o s c o w Patriarchate has taken an active part in the preparations
for the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. In 1971
Patriarch P i m e n of M o s c o w and All Russia declared, ' O u r sacred duty is to con-
solidate pan-Orthodox unity so that it will be effective and fruitful, capable of
responding to the needs of our time with the self-denying service of love.'
Exchanges of visits of primates and church delegations, scholarships offered to
young foreign theologians to study in Russian theological schools, and the
establishment and renovation oimetocbia (in Russian podvorya, Church legations)
in M o s c o w and other centres of local Churches, have strengthened unity and
co-operation with all sister Churches. 35
Following the Second W o r l d W a r , the M o s c o w Patriarchate also renewed
its old contacts, friendship and collaboration with the Ancient-Oriental (non-
Chalcedonian) Orthodox Churches. 36 This led to serious studies of the history,
ecclesiology and present situation of Oriental Orthodoxy, and Russian partici-
pation in preliminary theological conversations (1964-71), opening the w a y to
official dialogue and closer and more fruitful inter-church relations. T h e c o m -
m o n tasks and endeavours of the M o s c o w Patriarchate with both Eastern and
Oriental Churches have touched on the m a i n issues of church life, as well as o n
aspirations and problems in contemporary society.
Through the World Fellowship of Orthodox Y o u t h (Syndesmos), the
World Student Christian Federation and other connections, the Orthodox
Youth m o v e m e n t has enjoyed the sympathy and support of the Russian
Church.
The Russia» Orthodox Church and the ecumenical movement 293
Bilateral dialogues with non-Orthodox Churches
As part of the preparations for the Pan-Orthodox Council, the M o s c o w Patriar-

chate shared in the work of the Inter-Orthodox Theological Commission for
dialogue with the Old Catholic, R o m a n Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and
Reformed Churches, as well as in some meetings aimed at establishing dialogue
between the two Orthodox Church families.37 At the same time the Russian
Orthodox Church has maintained its traditional relations of bilateral dialogue
with all these Churches, with contents and scope complementary to the pan-
Orthodox dialogue.38 This is the case, in particular, with the recent talks bet-
ween the Russian Church and the R o m a n Catholic Church on the diaconal
function of the Church and Church c o m m u n i o n as a service to peace. T h e M o s -
c o w Patriarchate has developed dialogues with the Evangelical-Lutheran
Churches in G e r m a n y and Finland, as well as with the Reformed Church in
Hungary. Friendly relationships and collaboration have been strengthened with
m a n y other Churches in Europe, North and South America, Africa, the Middle
East and Asia.39 T h e cordial atmosphere created by the Christian World C o m -
munities ( C M C ) helped in this ecumenical work. For m a n y years a representa-
tive of the M o s c o w Patriarchate has taken part in the annual conferences of the
General Secretaries and ecumenists of all Christian World Communities.
Relationships with regional and national

ecumenical bodies
Over the past twenty-five years, the Russian Orthodox Church has actively con-
tributed through its initiatives to the theological studies and practical activities
of the Conference of European Churches with the aim of promoting visible
unity, reconciliation, peace and h u m a n rights in Europe. Within this frame-
work there have also been direct contacts with the Council of European Bish-
ops' Conferences.40
Since 1956 regular exchanges of delegations and talks on theological and
ecumenical themes have taken place between the Russian Orthodox Church
and other Churches in the Soviet Union and the National Council of the
Churches of Christ in the United States. These partners continue to work for
mutual trust, peace and disarmament and for dialogue and rapprochement between
Churches, nations and culture in the two countries.41 T h e M o s c o w Patriarchate
also co-operates with the National Bishops' Conference in the United States.
During the last two decades, the Russian Church has developed working
relationships with the regional Churches' Conferences of Africa and Asia, the
Middle East Council of Churches and a large number of national ecumenical
294 Todor Sabev
bodies, especially in Europe. T h e Russian Orthodox Church also has perma-

nent links with the French Protestant Federation and with the Swiss Protestant
Church Federation.
Russian membership of Syndesmos and the Ecumenical Youth Council of
Europe, frequent W C C contacts with young theologians in M o s c o w , Leningrad
and Odessa, and hospitality provided by the Russian Orthodox Church for
bilateral ecumenical seminars and international meetings have enhanced the
involvement of Christian youth from the Soviet Union in ecumenical activities
on all levels.
Collaboration with Christian peace-making

organi2ations and those of other religions
Following his election in 1971, Patriarch Pimen reaffirmed that the Russian
Orthodox Church considers service in the cause of peace 'as the most important
manifestation of active love for one's neighbour'. For more than forty years,
this Church has in fact given high priority to peace-making activities as a major
dimension of the ecumenical m o v e m e n t .
A considerable number of postgraduate studies and dissertations at Russian
theological academies and publications of the M o s c o w Patriarchate deal with
different aspects of peace and justice. The main subjects dealt with are: T h e
Theological Basis for Peace and Justice; T h e Teaching of the Bible and the East-
ern Fathers o n these Themes; Reconciliation and Peace in the Liturgical Life;
T h e Peace-making Role of the Church and its Ecumenical Implications; Dia-
logue and Collaboration for Peace with Non-Christian Religions and with M a r -
xists; Christian Responsibility for Society; Education for Peace and Justice;
Confidence-raising and Bridge-building; Disarmament and C o m m o n Security;
Facing up to Ecological Problems Today; T h e Need for a N e w International
Economic and Moral Order in a Renewed World; Respect for Rights in all their
Aspects, Particularly the Right to Life in its Fulness; and so forth. Numerous
hierarchs, theologians and ecumenists have written studies or articles o n these
subjects.42
With all this work to its credit, the Russian Orthodox Church m a d e a tre-
mendous input to the deliberations of the third Pan-Orthodox Preconciliar
Conference (Geneva, 1986) o n the 'Contribution of the Local Orthodox
Church to the Triumph of the Christian Ideals of Peace, Freedom, Fraternity
and Charity a m o n g Peoples and to the Elimination of Racial Discrimination'.43
Based o n Biblical and patristic teaching, the ecclesiology of c o m m u n i o n and
the social implications of Eucharistie sharing, the Orthodox took a strong stand
on the Church's responsibility for preserving the sacred gift of life, promoting
justice and freedom and combating hunger and poverty and inhuman systems of
oppression and racial discrimination. They have called for reconciliation, con-
cord between religions, co-operation, the elimination of all kinds of intolerance
and fanaticism and the rebirth and regeneration of the h u m a n person and
society.
In 1952, 1969 and 1975, the Russian Orthodox Church held major confe-
rences at the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra in Zagorsk with the participation of leaders
and representatives of all Churches and religious communities in the Soviet
Union working together for peace. In 1973 a similar meeting was held in
Zagorsk for leading Soviet and foreign religiousfiguresinvolved in the m o v e -
ment for peace and justice.
T h e Russian Orthodox Church also took part in the campaign for the 'join-
ing of hands for the international co-operation of peace-loving people' under
the auspices of the Union of Soviet Societies for Friendship and Cultural Rela-
tionships with Foreign Countries.
T h e Church is a founding m e m b e r of the Christian Peace Conference
(CPC), an 'ecumenical movement that gives expression to Christians' responsi-
bility for peace and social justice'. The involvement of the M o s c o w Patriarchate
and m a n y other Orthodox Churches in the C P C has opened up n e w possibilities
for inter-Orthodox co-operation and increased participation in the worldwide
ecumenical m o v e m e n t , dialogue with other faiths and ideologies, and research
in the areas of social thought and political service (diakonia) in our time.44 The
Russian Orthodox Church has also demonstrated its commitment to the cause
of peace and ecumenism through its collaboration with Pax Christi Interna-
tional.
A major Russian contribution to inter-religious dialogue and co-operation
was the 1977 M o s c o w International Conference of Religious Workers for Last-
ing Peace, Disarmament and Just Relationships between Nations, followed in
1982 by the World Conference of Religious Workers to Save the Sacred Gift of
Life from Nuclear Catastrophe. Between 1984 and 1987, five round-table confe-
rences were organized, bringing together religious thinkers and scientists of
world stature to discuss the economic and moral consequences of nuclear arms,
disarmament and steps toward collective security and mutually beneficial col-
laboration between all nations.45 All these activities are aimed at promoting
peace between communities at national and world levels and supporting
programmes of education for peace and inter-cultural and inter-religious
exchanges.
296 Todor Saben
Conclusion
This brief survey and rapid assessment reflect the dedication and major contri-
bution of the Russian Orthodox Church to the ecumenical m o v e m e n t through-
out its history. This has had tremendous repercussions for religious and cultural
life, the development of Church and society, mutual understanding between the
Christian East and West, and humanity as a whole. Its implications have long
extended far beyond the Russian canonical jurisdiction and geopolitical boun-
daries.
T h e W C C and the ecumenical m o v e m e n t at large have been challenged
and enriched by Russian Orthodox theology, spirituality,fidelityand c o m m i t -
m e n t . A s part of the process of ecumenical sharing, the Russian Orthodox
Church has acquired a n e w sense of the Church's mission and the witness it
should bear in a world longing for justice, peace and community.
It is our hope that the celebration of the Millennium of Christianity in Rus-
sia will become a source of further c o m m o n growth and more fruitful inter-
Church relationships within the ecumenical m o v e m e n t as the instrument and
servant of a more united Church Universal and a renewed h u m a n community.
NOTES
1. G . Florovsky, ' T h e Orthodox Churches and the Ecumenical M o v e m e n t Prior to

\9\Q\AHistory of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517-1948, Vol. l,pp. 170-211, L o n d o n ,
1954; for other articles, see ibid., pp. 281, 312; The Russian Orthodox Church, pp. 18 et
seq., 92, 142-5, 150, M o s c o w , Progress Publishers, 1982; M . A . Fahey, 'Orthodox
E c u m e n i s m and Theology', Theological Studies, Vol. 44, pp. 6 4 1 - 2 , 1983.
2. Metropolitan Philaret, Conversation between the Seeker and the Believer Concerning the Truth
(Orthodoxy) of the Eastern Graeco-Russian Church, p p . 2 7 - 2 9 , 135, M o s c o w , 1933 (in
Russian).
3. A History . . ., op. cit., pp. 410 et seq., 5 2 8 - 9 , 607, 650; S. Martineau, Pédagogie de
l'œcuménisme [Ecumenical Teaching Approach], pp. 287 et seq., 298, Paris, 1965.
4. C . Patelos (ed.), ' T h e Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical M o v e m e n t ' , Documents
and Statements, 1902-1975, pp. 2 7 - 4 3 , Geneva, 1978.
5. W . - A . Wisser t'Hooft, ' T h e Place of Bilateral Conversations in the Ecumenical
M o v e m e n t ' , Ees dialogues œcuméniques aujourd'hui. Etudes théologiques, Vol. 5, C h a m b é s y
Geneva, Editions d u Centre Orthodoxe du Patriarchat Œ c u m é n i q u e , 1985, p. 137.
6. A History . . ., op. cit., pp. 605 et seq., 662 et seq., 668.
7. Ibid., pp. 423 et seq., 549-50, 589, 654 et seq., 668.
8. Ibid., pp. 6 6 7 - 8 .
9. L . A . Zander (ed.), Eist of the Writings of Professors of the Russian Orthodox Theological Insti
tute in Paris, 1925-1965, Vols. 1-5; St Vladimir's Theological Seminary Quarterly,
1953-61; Irenikon, Vol. 13, 1935; Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate QMP), N o . 2 , 1931;
N o s . 23-24, 1935; N o . 1, 1952; N o s . 1-12, 1953 (and others in succeeding years);
Theological Works, 1959-88, published by the M o s c o w Patriarchate; The Church of God,

An Anglo-Russian Symposium, London, 1934; A . S c h m e m a n n , 'The Revival of T h e o -
logical Studies in the U S S R ' , Religion in the USSR, pp. 29-43, Munich, 1960; Messager
de l'Exarchat du Patriarche Russe en Europe occidentale, N o . 1, 1959.
10. S. Bulgakov, ' O n the Actual Unity of the Divided Church in Faith, Prayer and
Sacraments'', Journal of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius, N o . 22, 1933; S. Bulga-
kov, ' W a y s to Church Reunion', Sobornost, N o . 2 , 1935; S. Bulgakov, 'Spiritual Inter-
c o m m u n i o n ' , Sobornost, N o . 4 , 1935; L . Zander, ' W h a t is Unity?', Student World, N o .
2, 1937; L . Zander, 'Let Us in Unity Praise the All-Holy Spirit', ibid., N o . 2 , 1939;
P. Evdokimov, 'Notes préliminaires pour une théologie œcuménique', Foi et vie, N o .
6, 1947; N . Zernov, The Reintegration of the Church, London, 1952; N . Zernov, Ortho-
dox Encounter: The Christian East and the Ecumenical Movement, London, 1961; G . Flo-
rovsky, 'The Challenge of Disunity', St Vladimir's . . ., op. cit., N o . 1/2, 1955.
11. Metropolitan Nikodim, 'The Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical M o v e -
ment', The Russian Orthodox Church . . ., op. cit., pp. 266-8, 275.
12. 'Communiqué of the Meeting of Delegates of the Holy Orthodox Church of Russia
and Delegates of the W C C , Utrecht, August 7-9, 1958', The Ecumenical Review (ER),
Vol. 12, N o . 1, 1958, pp. 79-80.
13. F. House, The Russian Phoenix, p. 340, Archives of the Library of the W C C ; Minutes
of the Central Committee in Rhodes, 1959, p . 208.
14. Metropolitan Nikodim, ' O n the Contemporary Tasks of Theology', JMP, N o . 12,
1968, pp. 63-7.
15. The Russian Orthodox Church . . ., op. cit., p. 274; G . Florovsky, ' T h e Church is Infal-
lible and Essentially Indivisible', in 'The Doctrine of the Church and the E c u m e n -
ical Problem', ER, Vol. 2, N o . 2 , 1950, p. 157; L . Voronov, 'Theological Founda-
tions of Orthodox Understanding of Ecumenism' (paper presented at the second
International Church History Conference o n the Theology and Spirituality of the
Russian Orthodox Church, M o s c o w , 1987).
16. Patriarch Pimen of M o s c o w and All Russia, ' A n Orthodox V i e w of Contemporary
Ecumenism' (paper read by Patriarch Pimen at the University of Joensuu (Finland),
6 M a y 1974), Archives of the Library of the W C C , p. 3.
17. Zernov, Orthodox Encounter . . ., op. cit., p . 34; G . Florovsky, ' L e corps du Christ
vivant [The Body of the Living Christ]', La Sainte Église Universelle, pp. 10 et seq., 2 2
et seq., 31 et seq., Neuchâtel/Paris, 1948; B . Bobrinskoy, 'Orthodoxy in the Ecu-
menical M o v e m e n t ' , Sobornost, N o . 8, 1963, pp. 435 et seq.
18. 'Fourth World Conference o n Faith and Order. The Report from Montreal 1963',
in P. Rodger and L . Vischer (eds.), Faith and Order Paper (Geneva), N o . 42, pp. 13 et
seq., 16, 18 et seq., 41-90, 92-102, 115; G . Florovsky, 'Sobornost: T h e Catholicity
of the Church', The Church of God . . ., op. cit., pp. 62 et seq.; J. Meyendorff, 'Tradi-
tion and Traditions', St Vladimir's. .., op cit., N o . 3,1962, pp. 118 et seq.; Bilan de la
théologie du XXe siècle, Vol. 1, pp. 570-1, Paris, 1970; A . Johansen, 'The Writings of
Theologians of the M o s c o w Patriarchate on Ecumenical Themes', Journal of Ecumen-
ical Studies, N o . 1, 1975, pp. 29-31, 51.
19. Faith and Order Paper, op. cit., N o . 42, p. 16; V . Borovoy, 'The Meaning of Catholic-
ity', ER, Vol. 16, 1963/64, pp. 26-32; J. Meyendorff, Catholicity and the Church, pp. 7
298 TodorSabev
et seq., N e w York, 1983; Johansen, op. cit., pp. 36-7, 50-1; N . Zabolotsky, Unité de
l'Église - Unité de l'humanité. Une participation chrétienne responsable, pp. 1 et seq.,
seq., 58 et seq., 110 et seq., 148 et seq., 1022 et seq., Geneva, 1982.
20. Patriarch Pimen, op. cit., p . 6; Patriarch Pimen, 'Address . . . at a Public Meeting in
the Conference Hall of the W C C Headquarters in Geneva'', JMP, N o . 11, 1973, p p .
47 et seq.
21. Johansen, op. cit.; articles in St Vladimir's . . ., op. cit., N o . 2 / 3 , 1960, pp. 3 6 - 7 ,
50-1.
22. Patriarch Pimen, 'Address . . .', op. cit., p. 48.
23. The Russian Orthodox Church, op. cit., p. 277.
24. Ibid., p. 271.
25. Faith and Order Paper, op. cit., N o s . 59, 71, 9 2 , 112, 113, 131; 'Churches Respond to
B E M ' (document on baptism, Eucharist and ministry), Vol. 2 ; M a x Thurian (ed.),
Faith and Order Paper, op. cit., N o . 132, 1986, pp. 5-12.
26. Johansen, op. cit., pp. 31 et seq., 50-2; N . Augustin, 'Traditionen der russischen
Theologie [Traditions of Russian Theology]', Stimme der Orthodoxie, N o . 12,1981, p p .
33-50; Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev and Galicia, ' T h e Local Church and the U n i -
versal Church', JMP, N o s . 3 - 5 , 1981; Archbishop Vladimir, 'Ecclesiology in R u s -
sian Theology with Regard to the Ecumenical M o v e m e n t ' , JMP, N o s . 10-12, 1979;
N . Zabolotsky, ' T h e Apostolic Heritage and Certain Questions of Modern Eccle-
siology', JMP, N o . 11, 1973; N . Zabolotsky, ' G r o w t h of Catholicity Through a Dia-
logue of Faith, H o p e and Love is the Path to Unity', JMP, N o . 11, 1978.
27. Patriarch Pimen, An Orthodox View . . ., op. cit., pp. 4 - 7 .
28. Archbishop Antony of Minsk and Byelorussia, 'The World Missionary Conference
in Bangkok', JMP, N o . 3, pp. 56-7; Metropolitan Antony of Leningrad and N o v -
gorod, ' O n Mission and Evangelism', International Review of Mission, Vol. 69, January
1980, October 1980/January 1981, pp. 477 et seq.; Metropolitan Antony, 'The Mis-
sion of the Russian Orthodox Church Yesterday and Today', JMP, N o s . 5-6, 1982;
'Christian Witness Today. A Consultation of W C C M e m b e r Churches in the Social-
ist Countries of Europe o n Questions of Evangelization', Huss Seminar of the
Comenius Faculty, Prague, 1979, pp. 3 et seq., 11 et seq.
29. S. F. Samartha (ed.), 'Dialogue in Community. Initial Points and Conditions in
Faith in the Midst of Faiths. Reflections on Dialogue in Community, Montreux,
1977', JMP, N o . 10, 1977, pp. 59-67.
30. 'Christians in the Technical and Social Revolutions of our T i m e ' , World Conference on
Church and Society. Official Report, pp. 2 6 - 7 , 43, Geneva, 1967.
31. 'Faith and Science in an Unjust World', Report of the W C C Conference on Faith, Science
and the Future (Geneva), Vol. 1, 1980, pp. 8 0 - 6 , 318-23.
32. 'Gathered for Life', in D . Gill (ed.), Official Report of the Sixth W C C Assembly, Van-
couver (Canada), 1983, p . 26, Geneva, 1983.
33. 'Christians' Participation in Development in Socialist Contexts', C C P D Documents
(Geneva), N o . 18, 1980; N . Zabolotsky, Diakonia and the Social Responsibility of the
Church.
34. JMP, No. 12, 1968; No. 9, 1973; No. 6,1976; No. 4,1977; Nos. 3,10, 1981; Nos. 5,
7, 1982; No. 7, 1984; Nos. 2, 5, 1985; Nos. 4-5, 12, 1986; No. 11, 1987.
35. The Russian Orthodox Church, op. cit., pp. 137-65.

36. Ibid., pp. 172 et seq.
37. Les dialogues œcuméniques . . ., op. cit.
38. Istavridis, 'Historical Presuppositions of the Dialogues', o p cit., pp. 142-62; The
Russian Orthodox Church, op. cit., p p . 168 et seq., 176 et seq.
39. Ibid.
40. T . Sabev, 'The Contribution of the Local Orthodox Churches to the Realization of
Peace', Etudes théologiques, op. cit., Vol. 7, 1986, p p . 126-7.
41. The Russian Orthodox Church, op. cit., pp. 121 et seq.; Metropolitan Philaret of Minsk
and Byelorussia, We Choose Life, p p . 7 et seq., 2 5 et seq., M o s c o w , 1987.
42. JMP, Nos. 2, 4, 8, 1971; Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8, 10,1972; N o s . 2-4, 11, 1974; Nos. 2, 3,10,
11, 1975; Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 1976; N o s . 5, 10,1977; N o s . 4, 6, 1978; N o . 11, 1979; Nos.
1-4, 10, 11, 1980; Nos. 1-4, 11, 12, 1981; Nos. 7, 9, 10, 12, 1982; Nos. 1, 2, 12,
1983; Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9, 1984; Nos. 3-5, 9, 10, 1985; Nos. 4-7, 9, 10, 1986; Dis-
sertations of Frs M . Rjazantsev and Valéry Zacharov, Archives of the Moscow
Theologial Academy; Metropolitan Philaret, op. cit.
43. Episkepsis, N o . 366, 1986, pp. 1-23.
44. Sabev, op. cit., pp. 127-8, n. 34.
45. Ibid.; Metropolitan Philaret, op. cit., p. 24.
Part Six
HISTORICAL LANDMARKS
Historical landmarks
Yves H a m a n t
9-10 C A state with Kiev as its capital, peopled mainly by Slavs, was esta-
blished o n a vast expanse of territory along Europe's eastern bor-
ders. T h e country was called Rus' in Western medieval chronicles
and its inhabitants were called Ruthenians.
988 Baptism of Vladimir, Prince of Kiev. Prince Vladimir's decision

to be baptized was influenced by a whole series of factors: (a) his
attempt at religious unification of the country through reactiv-
ation of the pagan cults had clearly failed; (b) Christianity, intro-
duced by missionaries of various origins, had begun to arrive in
the country a few decades earlier; and (c) the process of normaliz-
ing relations with Byzantium called for his marriage with the
Emperors' sister, a union that could only be solemnized if he
accepted conversion. H e therefore agreed to be baptized, as did the
inhabitants of Kiev after him, by missionaries sent from Byzan-
tium. T h e country entered the sphere of influence of the Patriar-
chate of Constantinople at a time w h e n the latter's links with
R o m e were already loosening even though the Christian world
was still united. Christianization proceeded apace, helped by the
existence of a liturgy and very m a n y texts from the scriptures and
the Church Fathers in a Slavonic language, the result of transla-
tion work begun by SS Cyril and Methodius in Moravia (part of
present-day Czechoslovakia) and continued by their disciples in
Bulgaria. It was a different language from that spoken by the
Ruthenians at the time but sufficiently similar to be immediately
comprehensible. It w a s to go o n being used in the form then
304 Yves Humant
established, with only minor modifications, as a church language

(i.e. Old Church Slavonic, still used in the liturgy of the Russian
Orthodox Church). The vernacular language, gradually evolving
and diverging, drew further and further away from it.
1037 The hierarchy that had been established since Vladimir's baptism
was reorganized. Kiev became the see of a Metropolitan w h o con-
secrated the bishops and had full control over the Church of the
Kievan State. The Metropolitan was consecrated by the Patriarch
of Constantinople. H e was usually a Greek.
1054 The break between R o m e and Constantinople had no immediate

repercussions o n religious relations between Kiev and the West,
which came under strain principally in the following century and
turned into outright antagonism after the taking of Constanti-
nople by the Crusaders.
12 C Break-up of the Kievan State, whose sovereigns were supplanted

by the princes of peripheral regions, in particular those of Vladi-
mir and Suzdal in the east and Galicia in the west.
1240 Taking of Kiev by the Mongols. Final dismemberment of the Kie-

van State. Its inhabitants were divided into several groups that
went their separate ways politically and culturally and sooner or
later formed their o w n national identities. T h e peoples of the
north and east, brought together under the rule of the princes of
M o s c o w , emerged as the Russian nation. Those of the south and
south-west gave birth to the Ukrainian nation and those of the
west to the Byelorussian nation. The last two groups did not suc-
ceed in forming independent states (except for Galicia until the
mid-fourteenth century) and came under the sway of neighbour-
ing states.
13 C The golden age of Galicia.
14 C Parallel development of Muscovy and Lithuania which annexed

the western and southern territories of the former Kievan State,
including the Kiev region.
1328 The Metropolitan of Kiev, after transferring his residence to Vla-

dimir for a few years, became established in M o s c o w .
Historical landmarks 305
T h e Kievan State in the mid-eleventh century

306 Yves Humant
1337 Foundation by St Sergius of the Trinity (Troitse-Sergieva Lavra)

Monastery to the north of Moscow (present-day Zagorsk).
1349 Galicia, annexed by Poland, came under strong Polish influence.
1380 Victory of the Prince of Moscow over the Mongols at Kulikovo.
1386 Union of the Polish and Lithuanian crowns. Conversion of the

still pagan Lithuanians to Catholicism.
c. 1425 Icon of The Trinity painted by Andrey Rublev.
1439 At the Council of Florence, R o m e and Constantinople agreed to

the union of the Churches but, without the support of the Greek
clergy, the union soon disintegrated, as had already occurred after
the Council of Lyons in 1274. Moscow was represented in Flo-
rence by Metropolitan Isidore, w h o ratified the union. O n return-
ing home, he was declared a heretic and thrown into prison.
1448 Isidore's successor was appointed by a synod of bishops, indepen-

dently of the Patriarch of Constantinople, w h o had accepted the
union refused by Moscow. The Church of Moscow thus became
independent and its head was not long in assuming the title of
Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus' (although resident in Mos-
cow he had hitherto kept the title of Metropolitan of Kiev and All
Rus'). The Orthodox dioceses of Poland and Lithuania finally
escaped his jurisdiction. Although they had often been adminis-
tered independently of Moscow for close on a century, the unity
of all Ruthenian Orthodox dioceses was regularly restored, if only
for brief periods. From then on the Orthodox Church of Poland
and Lithuania came under the permanent authority of a Metro-
politan residing in Kiev and appointed by the Patriarch of Con-
stantinople.
1453 Fall of Constantinople to the Turks.
1480 Moscow threw off the Mongol yoke. The Prince of Moscow
became the only independent Orthodox sovereign. Laying claim
to the moral heritage of the emperors of Constantinople, he consi-
dered himself as the protector of the whole of Orthodox Chris-
tianity (the title of 'the Third R o m e ' was conferred on Moscow).
1503 Epilogue in Moscow to the controversy over monastic property.

Following a period of remarkable growth, Russian monasticism

underwent a crisis in the latefifteenthcentury that was to s o m e
extent due to the attraction it exerted.
Since the middle of the fourteenth century, small groups of
m o n k s h a d been isolating themselves in the depths of the forests,
dividing their life between prayer and farming afterfirstclearing
the land needed for their subsistence. Peasants then settled near by
and helped to support them. T h e faithful c a m e in flocks to obtain
spiritual counsel. T h e m o r e wealthy m a d e donations and, m o r e
especially, bequeathed t h e m land. T h e deprived and disabled
found refuge with them. Involuntarily, the communities b e c a m e
large and prosperous, with secular activities playing an ever m o r e
important role and monastic life receding. Moreover, the eco-
n o m i c standing of the monasteries aroused the covetousness of
the sovereigns.
T w o models of reform emerged, represented by the t w o
m o n k s Nilus Sorski and Joseph of Volokalamsk.
Nilus Sorski had been to M o u n t Athos where he was intro-
duced to Hesychast mysticism based o n the hermits' practice of
uninterrupted inner prayer (the 'Jesus Prayer'). H e provided the
example of very small communities w h o s e life did not require
detailed regulation and stressed the need for poverty, not only of
the individual m o n k but of the entire monastery.
Joseph of Volokalamsk, o n the other hand, opposed any
attempt to deprive the monasteries of the assets they needed for
their charitable and social w o r k . A t the same time, he advocated
severe discipline and d r e w u p a strict and very detailed monastic
rule.
A council held in 1503 considered the matter of monastic
property and found in favour of Joseph of Volokalamsk's posi-
tion. Subsequently, all Joseph of Volokalamsk's ideas were
imposed in monastic life and exerted a lasting influence o n the
whole Russian approach to spirituality.
1554 Following the conquest of the Khanate of K a z a n by Ivan the

Terrible, Orthodoxy continued to expand towards the east. A
diocese w a s established in Kazan.
Late 16 C T h e Jesuits actively opposed the Reformation throughout the

Polish-Lithuanian State, preaching, publishing and opening
schools. T o resist their influence, Orthodox laymen set u p
confraternities in Vilno (Vilnius) in Lithuania and L v o v (Lviv) in
308 Yves Hamant
Poland, Lithuania and Muscovy in the early sixteenth century

Galicia and had the full text of the Bible printed in Slavonic (the
Ostrog Bible).
1589 T h e Metropolitan See of M o s c o w w a s raised to the status of

patriarchate: thefirstPatriarch of M o s c o w was enthroned by the
Patriarch of Constantinople.
1593-1613 The Time of Troubles in M u s c o v y (dynastic crisis, struggles for the

throne, riots, Polish and Swedish interventions).
1596 U n i o n of Brest-Litovsk.
Various attempts had already been m a d e o n Polish territory,
but without lasting success, to w i n over the local Orthodox clergy
to union with the Catholic Church. In the late sixteenth century,
Orthodox bishops of the Polish-Lithuanian State asked to be
united with the See of R o m e and, following lengthy negotiations,
union w a s proclaimed in Brest-Litovsk. T h e Greek Catholic
Church ( k n o w n disrespectfully as the 'uniate' Church) thus c a m e
into being, keeping its o w n rites a n d traditions but recognizing the
Pope's authority.
T h e union, w h i c h had been promoted by the sovereign, w a s
atfirstwidely accepted by the local Orthodox hierarchy and w o n
the support of m u c h of the Ukrainian nobility. H o w e v e r , the
Greek Catholic bishops did not enjoy the same rights as the Latin
Rite bishops and the activity of the Latin Catholic Church in the
Ruthenian dioceses w a s interpreted by the middle classes as an
attempt to Latinize them.
1623 Assassination of the Greek Catholic Archbishop, Josaphat

Kuncevyç.
1632 Restoration in Kiev of an Orthodox hierarchy under the authority

of the Patriarch of Constantinople and recognized by the K i n g of
Poland.
T h e Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev, Peter Mogila (Movilà;
M o h y l a ) organized a school modelled o n the Jesuit colleges.
1648 Cossack uprising against Poland led by B o h d a n Khmelnytsky.

A vast insecure area to the south of the Black Sea lay exposed
to invasion by the Crimean Tartars and the Turks. Lying outside
the jurisdiction of the Polish-Lithuanian administration, it w a s
inhabited by adventurers of varied origin w h o lived by hunting,
Yv*s Hamant
fishing and banditry: the Cossacks. Little by little, they became

sufficiently well organized to resist and retaliate w h e n the Turks
and Tartars attacked. They built forts and their ranks swelled with
peasants attracted by the rich land and the unrestricted freedom it
offered them. Most of all, Cossack numbers were greatly increased
by the Union of Lublin, which opened Ukrainian land to Polish
colonization: to escape the feudal levies that the Polish nobility
tried to impose, m a n y peasants sought refuge with the Cossacks,
a m o n g w h o m the Orthodox Ukrainian element had gained d o m i -
nance.
T h e Polish sovereigns attempted to neutralize them and chan-
nel their energies into a Cossack military corps and the royal
army. But the Cossacks were averse to all endeavours to curtail
their independence.
T h e middle classes and Ruthenian peasants seeking to resist
Polish encroachment began to see the Cossacks as a refuge and to
seek their aid in defence of Orthodoxy.
F r o m the end of the sixteenth century onwards, the Cossacks
revolted against the Poles several times; however, the insurrection
led by the Cossack chief B o h d a n Khmelnytsky in 1648 was o n an
exceptionally large scale, with the Ruthenian population joining
in and the entire Dnieper basin rising in revolt. Polish authority
suffered a severe blow and the King of Poland was unable to res-
tore the status quo.
T h e Cossacks placed themselves under the protection of the Tsar

of M o s c o w .
A council convened in M o s c o w by Patriarch Nikon decided
on a liturgical reform based o n the desire to correct and standar-
dize the Slavonic liturgical books and to align Russian Church
practices with those of the Greek Church in instances where dis-
crepancies had developed. This reform, prepared in haste, not
always solidly based and imposed with brutal determination, m e t
with strong resistance, fanned by the process of secularization of
culture in Russian during the seventeenth century. Its adversaries
viewed the reform decreed by the Patriarch with the Tsar's sup-
port as treachery and abandonment of the Orthodox faith by Rus-
sia, the third and last Christian kingdom according to the theory
of M o s c o w as the Third R o m e . They therefore interpreted it as a
sign of the end of the world. Led by Archpriest A w a k u m , the
supporters of the old faith, the Old Believers w h o opposed the
'Nikonians', declared themselves schismatic (raskolniki) and were
harshly persecuted. But nothing could break the resistance of the

Old Believers, w h o survived u p to m o d e r n times (they numbered
s o m e 10 million at the beginning of the twentieth century). T h e
schism permanently weakened the Russian Church.
1667 Following a period of confusion, Ukraine w a s divided between

Poland and M o s c o w . T h e territories to the west of the Dnieper
(the right bank) remained with Poland and those to the east (the
left bank) became part of M u s c o v y . This partition was confirmed
by the 'eternal peace' concluded in 1686 between the t w o states.
1686 The Orthodox Metropolitanate of Kiev, hitherto subject to the

Patriarch of Constantinople, came under the control of the
Patriarchate of Moscow.
1687 Foundation of the Slavonic/Greek/Latin Academy in Moscow.
1689 Beginning of the personal rule of Peter the Great.
18 C Evangelization of Siberia by Orthodox Russian Missionaries.
1721 Promulgation of the Spiritual Regulation reorganizing the Russian

Church.
O n the death of the last Patriarch of M o s c o w in 1700, Peter
the Great prevented a successor from being appointed. After leav-
ing the see vacant for twenty years, he abolished the patriarchate
and placed a collective body, the Holy Synod, at the head of the
Church. T h e Synod consisted of s o m e ten bishops, the Tsar being
represented by a layman, the Chief Procurator.
1773-95 D i s m e m b e r m e n t of Poland.
Following the partition of the Polish-Lithuanian State bet-
w e e n Prussia, Austria and Russia, Galicia fell to Austria and the
other Ruthenian territories to Russia.
T h e population of the right bank of the Dnieper and of Byelo-
russia, w h o had been encouraged throughout the eighteenth cen-
tury to convert from Orthodoxy to Greek Catholicism, were n o w
subjected to contrary pressures in the direction of Orthodoxy.
In Galicia, o n the other hand, the Greek Catholic Church
enjoyed relative freedom under Habsburg rule and constituted a
centre of Ukrainian national development.
1808-19 Reform of theological education in Russia. Reorganization of the

312 Yvts Hantant
academies (leading seminaries) of Kiev, St Petersburg and M o s -

c o w (the latter being transferred to the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra
Monastery, present-day Zagorsk).
1812 A Bible Society was founded by Tsar Alexander I along the lines
of the British Society. After a period of intense activity, it was
closed d o w n in 1826.
1829 Rise of the Monastery of Optina, which remained highly influen-

tial until the Revolution. Its startsy (elders) were the directors of
conscience of m a n y Russian writers and thinkers: Gogol, D o s -
toevsky, Vladimir Soloviev, etc.
1833 Death of St Seraphim of Sarov.
1837 Death of St G e r m a n u s , evangelizer of Alaska.
1839 In Russia, the return of the Greek Catholic Church to Orthodoxy

was sanctioned by an official act. T h e last surviving traces were
eliminated after the Polish insurrection of 1863.
1861 Foundation of an Orthodox Church in Japan.
1870 Establishment of the Russian Orthodox Missionary Society.
Early 20 C T h e great flowering and ferment of ideas and cultural creativity in

Russia in the first two decades of the twentieth century came to be
k n o w n as the Russian Renaissance of the twentieth century. In
contrast with the positivism of most Russian intellectuals in the
second half of the nineteenth century, this m o v e m e n t was of spir-
itual inspiration. Philosophy and religious thought were repre-
sented by Sergey Bulgakov, Berdyayev, Fr Florensky, et al. T h e
need to reform ecclesiastic life and free it from state control was
keenly felt. T h e Holy Synod admitted the need to convene a local
council of the Russian Church (thefirstsince Peter the Great),
and set up pre-council committees to prepare it.
1917 T h e Russian Revolution.

With the advent of the Provisional Government, the Council
of the Russian Church couldfinallymeet. Three days after the
Bolshevik take-over (7 November), it decided to restore the
patriarchate and elected Tikhon patriarch one week later.
T h e Russian Empire (western part) in the nineteenth century

314 Yves Hantant
Third apparition of the Virgin at Fatima in Portugal o n 13

July with a message concerning Russia.
1917-20 Ukraine was the scene of confrontations andfightinginvolving

the supporters of an independent Ukrainian Republic, the Bolshe-
viks, the Russian armies trying to overthrow the Soviet regime,
the G e r m a n and Polish armies, the Entente forces and gangs of
anarchists. After a short-lived existence, the Ukrainian Republic
disappeared and the Bolsheviks assumed control. T w o years later,
it became one of the Soviet Socialist Republics established in
1922.
O n the religious level, the Ukrainians' aspiration to indepen-
dence was reflected a m o n g the clergy and their congregations in a
determination to break away from the Church of M o s c o w . T h e
autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church came into being in
1919 and developed alongside the patriarchal Church of M o s c o w .
1918 O n 23 January the Council of People's Commissars published a

decree separating the Church and the state, and schools from the
Church: the Church was thus deprived of the whole basis of its
existence.
F r o m 1920 T h e civil war in Russia having ended in victory for the Bolshe-
viks, some Russians sought refuge abroad and founded Orthodox
parishes. T h e émigré bishops met in a synod established at Kar-
lovci, Yugoslavia, as the provisional administration of the Rus-
sian Church. Subsequently, some of them placed themselves
under the authority of the patriarchate of Constantinople. Others
rejoined the patriarchate of M o s c o w , particularly following the
Second World W a r .
The hierarchy that remained with ' T h e Synod of Russian
Bishops outside Russia' and transferred its centre to the United
States after the war regarded itself as the sole legitimate heir of the
Patriarchate of M o s c o w enfeoffed to an atheist power.
In 1922 the Soviet authorities expelled more than twenty reli-
gious thinkers and philosophers representing the twentieth-
century Russian Renaissance, w h o continued their work in exile.
The West thus came in contact with Orthodoxy through the pre-
sence in Western Europe and later in North America of these
communities and brilliant Orthodox intellectuals.
1921 T h e Treaty of Rigafixedthe eastern frontier of a restored Poland,

w h o s e independence had been recognized by the Treaty of V e r -

sailles in 1919. Western Byelorussia, under Russian control since
the late eighteenth century, w a s joined to Poland together with
Galicia, w h i c h had previously been subject to Austria.
T h e activities of the Greek Catholic Church there until the
Second W o r l d W a r bore the imprint of its head, the Metropolitan
of L v o v (Lviv), Andrzej Cheptytski, w h o opposed all attempts to
Latinize the C h u r c h and subject it to Polish influence.
O n the other hand, the Orthodox Byelorussians were forced
to accept the influence of the Polish C h u r c h and s o m e were for-
cibly converted to Catholicism.
1921-24 W h e n famine occurred in Russia and the Patriarchate of M o s c o w

itself took the initiative of collecting funds to help the starving by
selling precious objects from their churches, the authorities began
to requisition property, including sacred objects used in religious
ceremonies, thus provoking opposition a m o n g the congregations
and clergy. It w a s the occasion for a particularly brutal w a v e of
direct persecution in the form of trials, imprisonment a n d death
sentences. O v e r 8,000 priests, m o n k s and nuns lost their lives in
1922 alone. Patriarch T i k h o n was released after a year's imprison-
m e n t , having signed a conciliatory statement with respect to the
Soviet authorities.
1925 Death of Patriarch Tikhon. All his possible successors were

arrested one after the other.
1929 T h e Soviet authorities promulgated a decree recapitulating the

various statutory provisions concerning religion adopted since the
Revolution and confirming all the existing restrictions o n free-
d o m of worship. In particular, the text prohibited all forms of
charitable and social w o r k by religious associations, all organized
religious instruction and all meetings of believers other than those
strictly for the purpose of religious worship.
This d o c u m e n t was published at the beginning of the collec-
tivization process, which w a s accompanied by a n e w w a v e of vio-
lent persecution. Within a few years the Church w a s almost
entirely obliterated. O n the eve of the Second W o r l d W a r , only a
few hundred churches remained open in the entire Soviet U n i o n
and only five or six bishops loyal to the patriarchal throne
remained at liberty, about 100 having been shot or having died in
exile since the Revolution.
316 Yves Hamant
In Ukraine, the autocephalous Church was entirely destroyed.
1939 In accordance with the secret provisions of the German-Soviet

Pact, Soviet troops occupied Western Byelorussia and Galicia.
Religious orders, monasteries, charitable works, seminaries and
the Greek Catholic press were abolished. About forty priests were
deported or executed. Metropolitan Cheptytski secretly conse-
crated Joseph Slipyj as coadjutant bishop with right of succession.
1941 G e r m a n troops invaded the Soviet Union on 21 June 1941. A s

soon as news of the invasion reached M o s c o w , Metropolitan Ser-
gius wrote a pastoral letter to the faithful, urging them to rise in
defence of their country, while Stalin waited ten days before reap-
pearing in public.
Religious life was resumed in the territories occupied by the
G e r m a n s , in Russia, Byelorussia and the Ukraine, where the auto-
cephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church reappeared.
In view of the scale of the Soviet defeat, Stalin decided to
c o m e to terms with the Church in order to ensure the co-
operation of the entire population in the struggle against the
invader. H e put an end to anti-religious propaganda and author-
ized the reopening of some places of worship and of a seminary
and monastery at Zagorsk.
In 1943, he formally received Metropolitan Sergius and per-
mitted the convening of a council which elected the latter to the
patriarchal see. T h e Orthodox Church hierarchy was reconsti-
tuted.
In the territories gradually recaptured by the R e d A r m y ,
believers had to reduce their activities but, in general, the
churches that had been reopened during the G e r m a n occupation
remained open. A s a result, there is still a far greater number of
places of worship in the west of the Soviet Union than in the east.
However, the autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church dis-
appeared, surviving only a m o n g émigrés.
1944 T h e R e d A r m y entered Galicia, and the territory, which had

never been part of Muscovy or the Russian Empire, was defin-
itively incorporated into the Soviet Union.
1945 A n e w Council was convened in M o s c o w . It appointed Metropol-

itan Alexis as successor to Patriarch Sergius ( w h o had died in
1944) and adopted a Regulation for the Administration of the
Church (a compromise between the provisions of the 1917 C o u n -

cil and Soviet prohibitory legislation).
Metropolitan Joseph Slipyj, w h o had succeeded Metropolitan
Cheptytski, was arrested together with the entire Greek Catholic
hierarchy. A n action group for the reunion of the Greek Catholic
Church with the Orthodox Church, led by three Greek Catholic
priests, was recognized by the Soviet authorities as the only body
provisionally controlling the Greek Catholic parishes. T h e m e m -
bers of the action group were secretly admitted to Orthodoxy and
two were consecrated Orthodox bishops. In March 1946, a C o u n -
cil was convened in L v o v (Lviv), attended by 214 priests, the two
bishops w h o had just been secretly consecrated in the Orthodox
Church, and nineteen laypersons. T h e Council annulled the Brest-
Litovsk Union. T h e Greek Catholic Church of Galicia was abol-
ished and incorporated into the Orthodox Church. Recalcitrant
priests were imprisoned or deported. However, the n e w Orthodox
parishes have maintained up to the present m a n y Latin practices
characteristic of the Catholic Church. T h e Greek Catholic
Church went underground.
1948 A n inter-Orthodox conference, convened in the U S S R at the invi-

tation of the Patriarchate of M o s c o w o n the 500th anniversary of
the accession of the Russian Church to autocephaly, launched an
appeal to Christians throughout the world to work for the cause of
peace. Subsequently, it was mainly through its action o n behalf of
peace, pursued in conjunction with Soviet diplomatic initiatives
in the samefield,that the Patriarchate of M o s c o w was able to
develop its relations with the rest of the world. For example, the
Patriarchate was actively involved in organizing the Christian
Conference for Peace in Prague, the basis of which was laid in
1958.
T h e Soviet Committee for the Defence of Peace, set up in
1949, was one of the few Soviet organizations in which the
Church was allowed to hold a seat.
1953 Death of Stalin.

While Stalin did not withdraw the concessions he had m a d e
to the Orthodox Church during the war, since 1948 the author-
ities had been seeking to curtail its activities through different
kinds of pressure, but without resorting to violent persecution.
After Stalin's death, it benefited from the n e w atmosphere pre-
vailing in relations between the authorities and society as a whole.
318 Yves Hamant
1959 Beginning of a n e w w a v e of religious persecution.

Three years after the Twentieth Congress of the C o m m u n i s t
Party of the U S S R , which ushered in the policy of destalinization,
the Party launched a major anti-religious offensive. Within three
or four years, the Orthodox Church s a w the n u m b e r of its
churches reduced from 20,000 to 7,000. T h e number of priests
authorized to exercise their ministry followed the s a m e trend.
Whereas in 1946 it had about 100 active monasteries in the areas
liberated from G e r m a n occupation or annexed, soon it had only
seventeen. Five seminaries were closed (Kiev, Minsk, Saratov,
Stavropol and Lutsk), leaving only three (Zagorsk, Leningrad and
Odessa) and its two academies of theology (Zagorsk and Lenin-
grad).
1961 Under pressure from the authorities, an assembly of bishops

amended the Regulation adopted by the Council of 1945, revert-
ing to a strict application of the provisions of Soviet legislation
concerning religion: priests not only ceased to preside over the
executive body administering their parish, but were deprived of a
seat, becoming mere employees of the parish associations respon-
sible for religious ceremonies.
T h e Patriarchate of M o s c o w became a m e m b e r of the Ecu-
menical Council of Churches.
1962 Metropolitan Joseph Slipyj, in prison since 1945, was released and
authorized to leave the USSR. Having settled in R o m e , he was
appointed senior archbishop of Lvov (Lviv) and cardinal, actively
defended the Greek Catholic identity, reinvigorated his Church
and strengthened the organization of its dioceses abroad (since the
First World W a r many Ukrainians had emigrated, chiefly to
Canada and the United States).
1963 The Patriarchate of Moscow sent observers to the Second Vatican

Council.
1964 Dismissal of Khrushchev.

After the fall of Khrushchev, the frontal attack on the Church
ceased, giving way to soft-pedaled persecution in the form of
administrative constraints, harassment and discrimination. Steps
were taken to tighten control over religious bodies.
At the same time, growing numbers of young people brought
up in atheism turned to the faith. It is difficult to assess the scale of
this p h e n o m e n o n , which became k n o w n as the 'spiritual awaken-

ing' or the'religious Renaissance'. According to some estimates,
towards the end of the 1980s, one-third of all churchgoers, at least
in urban parishes, were recent converts.
1965 Establishment of the Council for Religious Affairs attached to the

Council of Ministers of the U S S R .
This Council was the product of a merger of two previous
bodies set u p in 1 9 4 3 / 4 4 . It was responsible for 'implementing
the policy of the Soviet State in religious matters', deciding on the
opening and closing of places of worship, controlling application
of the legislation o n religious worship and 'dealing with the mat-
ter of charges against those guilty of violating it'.
1970 Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad (d. 1978) defended a thesis

on Pope John XXIII at the Zagorsk Academy of Theology.
1971 Pimen was elected by a local council to succeed Patriarch Alexis

w h o had died the previous year.
1975-77 Reactivation of the decree of 1929 on religious associations.

T h e 1929 text was revised in a series of decrees adopted by the
Supreme Soviet of each of the Republics constituting the Soviet
Union. It was chiefly a matter of bringing legislation u p to date
with developments in certain Soviet institutions. There was only
one change of any importance: in future, the Council for Reli-
gious Affairs was to take thefinaldecision o n all matters relating
to the opening or closure of places of worship.
In the territories annexed by the U S S R after the Second
World W a r , the provisions of the 1929 decree were thus officially
introduced for the first time (though they had previously been
applied de facto) immediately after the signing of the Helsinki
Agreements.
1978-80 A series of arrests and sentences directed against Orthodox figures

active a m o n g recently converted believers: Father Dimitri
D u d k o , famous as a preacher, Father Gleb Yakunin, w h o fought
indefatigably for freedom of conscience and organized a Christian
Committee for the Defence of Believers' Rights in the U S S R ,
Alexander Ogorodnikov, Vladimir Poresh and other lay Ortho-
dox organizers of a religious studies circle.
1982 Initiatives o n behalf of the Greek Catholic Church. F r o m 1982,

320 Yves Humant
particularly under the influence of Yossip Terelia, various initia-

tives were taken in western Ukraine by Greek Catholics seeking to
defend their Church or have it legalized. T h e following year, for
example, a Chronicle of the Catholic Church in Ukraine began to be
issued as a samizdat publication.
1983 With a view to the Millennium celebrations, the Soviet author-

ities placed the Monastery of St Daniel at the disposal of the
Patriarchate of M o s c o w for the installation of its administrative
services.
S o m e months after Andropov came to power, a plenum of the
Central Committee of the Party o n Current Problems of Ideolog-
ical W o r k and Political Education of the Masses by the Party
issued a warning to believers and called for intensification of ath-
eist propaganda.
Condemnation of Zoya Krakhmalnikova, an Orthodox wri-
ter publishing a samizdat religious review.
1985 Designation of Mikhail Gorbachev to the post of Secretary-

General of the Communist Party of the U S S R (11 March).
Article in Pravda calling for strengthening of atheistic propa-
ganda (13 September).
1986 Arrest of Orthodox deacon Vladimir Roussak, author of a work

on the history of the Russian Church after the Revolution (22
April).
First conference o n the Church and history devoted to the
Millennium (Kiev, 21-28 July).
Editorial in Pravda calling once again for strengthening of
atheistic propaganda (26 September). T h e Moscow Church Guide, a
six-language monthly, launched by the M o s c o w Patriarchate.
1987 Fr Gleb Yakunin and other Christians released from prison.

Second conference o n the Millennium (Moscow, 11-19 M a y
1987).
Petitions sent by priests and laypersons to a number of civil
and religious leaders, asking for a revision of Soviet legislation in
religious matters.
Appearance of a number of samizdat news-sheets and maga-
zines, in particular the Bulletin of the Christian Community and the
review Vybor (Choice), a philosophical and literary review of Chris-
tian Russian culture.
T h e Soviet Union (western part) today

322 Yves Humant
Encyclical by Patriarch Pimen on preparations for the Mil-

lennium (21 June).
Appeal signed by two bishops, thirty-six priests and monks
and 174 Greek Catholic laypersons announcing their intention of
coming out of hiding and demanding the legalization of the
Ukrainian Catholic Church (4 August).
Dimitrios I, the ecumenical Patriarch, paid a visit to the Rus-
sian Orthodox Church (August).
Restitution to the Russian Orthodox Church of the Optina
Pustyn' Monastery and that of the Tolga, near Yaroslav.
1988 Third conference on the Millennium (Leningrad, 31 January to 5

February).
Publication in Izpestia of a lengthy interview with Patriarch
Pimen (8 April).
Meeting in the Kremlin between Mikhail Gorbachev and
Patriarch Pimen accompanied by the permanent members of the
Holy Synod (29 April).
The celebration of the Millennium commenced in Moscow
on 5 June and continued after that date in Leningrad, Kiev and
other dioceses of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Local council of the Russian Orthodox Church (Zagorsk, 6-9
June). Adoption of a new Church Regulation. Canonization of
nine new saints.
Restoration to the Russian Orthodox Church of part of the
buildings of the Laura of the Caves in Kiev.
APPENDICES
Summary of the proceedings
of the symposium
The significance of the introduction of Christianity in Rus'
for the development of European and world culture and civilization
Introduction
The session was opened on Tuesday, 28 June 1988, by the Assistant Director-
General, M r Michel de Bonnecorse, w h o delivered an address on behalf of the
Director-General of U N E S C O . T h e opening speech was followed by the read-
ing of two messages, thefirstby Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev and Galicia o n
behalf of Patriarch Pimen of M o s c o w and All Russia, and the second by Metro-
politan Ioannis of Pergamos representing Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios.
The proceedings
The proceedings advanced point by point on the themes presented by the Secre-
tariat:
1. T h e Christianity of Kievan Rus'
2. Orthodoxy in Russia in the M o s c o w and St Petersburg periods
3. T h e development of Christianity from the thirteenth to the eighteenth cen-
turies in West and East Rus'
4. Christianity and culture
5. Religious art
6. T h e Orthodox Church and Soviet society (from 1917 to 1988)
7. Christianity springing from the baptism of Vladimir and its contacts with
the cultures of the modern world: the Russian (and Ukrainian, Byelorussian,
etc.) Orthodox Church in Europe, the Americas, Asia (China, Japan, Korea)
and Africa
8. T h e Orthodox Church and modern Soviet society: Christianity and the
326
development of modern thought in Russia; the dialogue between ancient

and modern
9. T h e Orthodox Church and international relations: Russian Orthodoxy in
the present-day ecumenical movement.
SESSION OF TUESDAY, 28 JUNE
T h efirstpaper, delivered by Professor F. Conte, was entitled 'Paganism and

Christianity in Russia: "Double" or "Triple" Faith?'. H e remarked that the con-
version to Christianity of the rural areas of Rus' had been slow and that the
pagan substratum had remained there until the beginning of this century along-
side official Orthodoxy. H e proposed to study it o n the basis of an example, i.e. a
fertility rite involving water, described by Pushkin in Eugene Onegin. In conclu-
sion, he wondered whether the expression 'double faith' was entirely appro-
priate, and whether one should not add the concept of a 'third faith'. 'This
expression,' he said, 'would have the advantage of showing that rural beliefs, in
their Russian version, form a whole or, more exactly, a functional system'. This
was a viable and coherent whole, from which one could, w h e n required, sep-
arate the stratum - Christian or pagan - which seemed best suited to the needs
of the m o m e n t .
During the discussion that followed, N . Todorov asked whether these rela-
tions between Christianity and the pagan substratum could not be observed in
all Christian countries in general. Fr M . Arranz, for his part, stated that the
prayer for the dead at Pentecost in Russia also had its origins in Byzantine wor-
ship, while M r Meslin considered especially appropriate the introduction of the
concept of a 'third faith'.
T h e next paper was presented by Fr N . Shivarov on ' T h e W o r k of Cyril and
Methodius in Bulgaria and its Transmission to Kievan Rus' '. H e recounted the
history of the work of Cyril and Methodius in Bulgaria and, in particular, the
choice m a d e by the translators of their school from a m o n g the Byzantine patris-
tic heritage. H e went on to recall the relations between Bulgaria and Rus' and
listed the various phases of the penetration of Bulgarian books into Rus'.
Academician D . Angelov gave a paper o n ' T h e Introduction of Christian-
ity into Rus': T h e W o r k of Cyril and Methodius'. H e described the translation
work performed by Cyril and Methodius and their followers and gave a list of
works which came to Rus' from Bulgaria. H e wondered about the date w h e n
Bulgarian manuscripts started to reach Rus', admitting that their large-scale
influx began only after the Baptism of 988. H e then recalled the Russian literary
tradition and the 'Russification' of the work of Cyril and Methodius, regarded
as the direct teachers of the Russian people.
Academician N . Todorov read a paper o n ' T h e Conversion of Rus' to
Christianity'. For N . Todorov, o n inheriting the tradition of Cyril and Metho-
Summary of the proceedings of the symposium 327
dius, Rus' not only received books and concrete ideas, but joined a vast pro-
g r a m m e of civili2ation and a system of communication with Byzantium already
tried and tested by other Slav societies. This was, in particular, a synthesis of
Byzantine tradition and local traditions. In conclusion, N . T o d o r o v said that if
R u s ' had originally been mainly o n the receiving end, she subsequently contri-
buted to the development of the modern culture of the Southern Slavs.
In the course of the discussion, D . Angelov stressed that the introduction
of writing had been the essential factor in the creation of the nation. V . Vodoff
for his part wondered whether Bulgarian influence had begun before or after
baptism and said that he himself inclined towards the latter theory. Rector A h r -
weiler stressed the importance of the Christian c o m m u n i t y o n the Black Sea
and thefirstconversion to Christianity of 867, in view of the fact that that of
988 was passed over in silence by Byzantine sources.
Academician B . Rauschenbach then discussed ' T h e Development of Kie-
van R u s ' in the W a k e of Christianization'. According to him, the adoption of
Christianity by Vladimir was part of a whole system of reforms, as the Byzan-
tine form of Christianity was the one best suited to assure the unity of the coun-
try as a whole and not just that of the Slav tribes. It was completely appropriate
to the needs of feudal society. B . Rauschenbach evaluated the effects of the
adoption of Christianity o n the society of the time. In conclusion, he drew a
parallel between the w o r k of Peter the Great and that of Vladimir. H e showed
that there were several points in c o m m o n . H o w e v e r , whereas Vladimir was the
builder of the Church, Peter's w o r k was destructive of it.
During the discussion that followed, D . Angelov asserted that Christianity
had begun to spread before being recognized as an official religion. S. Averint-
sev, for his part, wondered about the role of Novgorod, while Metropolitan
Juvenal laid particular stress o n the importance of the articles of Academician
Rauschenbach in the context of preparations for the Millennium.
Academician Y . Shchapov presented a paper on ' T h e Assimilation by Kie-
van R u s ' of the Classical and Byzantine Heritage: T h e Role of Christianization'.
Returning to the legend of the Chronicle, Y . Shchapov considered that Judaism
and Islam were not a real alternative for Vladimir. H e then analysed the reasons
for the prince's choice of Byzantine Christianity, raising in particular the possi-
bility of evangelization of the country in its o w n language. H e stressed the sig-
nificance of this choice for the development of the culture of the country which
thus, in particular, received the heritage of the ancient world, but he also
asserted that the adoption of Christianity had, o n the other hand, deprived R u s '
of its original pagan culture (choreography, musical instruments, etc.).
In the course of the ensuing discussion, V . Vodoff wondered whether
Byzantium had always been favourable to local languages and whether, i m m e -
diately after the baptism, the language of worship was Slavonic rather than
Greek.
328
T h e Tuesday session ended with a paper by Fr M . Arranz entitled ' T h e

Baptism of Prince Vladimir'. Fr Arranz was concerned to reconstruct the ritual
that might have been followed at the baptism of Vladimir. H e noted that the
Slavonic word for baptism (krescenie) came from the word 'kresi' (cross) and was
not a caique of the Greek word 'bapiisma', meaning immersion. H e then
described the rites of admission to baptism practised in Byzantium, which nor-
mally took place in five stages:firstcatechumenate, second catechumenate,
renunciation/adherence, baptism and ablution of the eighth day. Based o n
these stages, he suggested various possible dates for the baptism of Vladimir. In
the discussion that followed, S. Averintsev wondered as to the precise etymol-
ogy of the word 'krescenie'.
MORNING SESSION OF WEDNESDAY, 29 JUNE
The session was opened by Professor J.-P. Arrignon's paper, ' T h e Religious
Achievements of Yaroslav the Wise', dealing in particular with the foundation
of the Cathedral of St Sophia in Kiev, the establishment of the scriptorium of St
Sophia and the organization of the early Church. J.-P. Arrignon was concerned
to identify thefiguresin one of the frescoes of St Sophia in order to show that
Vladimir and Olga ranked in it together with the rulers 'equal to the apostles',
Constantine and Helena. O n the subject of the scriptorium of St Sophia, J.-P.
Arrignon discussed the theory that manuscripts were only copied and not tran-
slated there. Finally, he pointed out that only one diocese was established under
Vladimir, whereas three were established under Yaroslav. For him, the slow
pace at which the network of dioceses was organized showed the limited
resources at the disposal of the young Church of Kiev.
In reply to a question about paganism, J.-P. Arrignon stated that archaeol-
ogy had given ample proof of the existence of pagan temples and pagan worship
and ceremonies. H e recalled in particular that Vladimir had initially attempted
to base the confederation of tribes on the worship of Perun.
Professor S. Grozdanov then presented a paper on 'Macedonia, Serbia and
Russian Medieval Art'. H e considered the development of the well-known
Constantinopolitan style of illumination (cvetnolistnyj stW) in the earliest m a n u -
scripts of R u s ' and its links with the schools of Constantinople, Okhrid and
Preslav. T h e n he dwelt o n the teratological elements which appeared from the
thirteenth century in the ornamentation of books a m o n g the Southern Slavs
and in Rus'. H e described their similarities with the mosaics in St Sophia in
Okhrid, concluding, however, that it was impossible to establish a direct link
between the two. In conclusion, he took u p the question of the origin of the
frescoes of the Church of the Transfiguration at Kovalevo, in Novgorod, consi-
dering that it is not yet possible to attribute them definitively to a group of Rus-
sian or Southern Slav painters.
T h e next paper, ' T h e Gift and E n i g m a of " H o l y Russia" ', w a s to have been
presented by V . Zielinsky of M o s c o w , but he w a s unfortunately unable to attend
the symposium. Professor M . Meslin, First Vice-president of the University of
Paris I V , was m o s t anxious to read this text, but w a s prevented by pressing uni-
versity c o m m i t m e n t s . T h u s it w a s F . Conte w h o read the conclusion of V . Zie-
linsky's paper. For V . Zielinsky, ' H o l y Russia' is not a material reality and can-
not be identified with 'something o n e can lay one's finger o n ' , nor with any
particular ascetic discipline, nor with the liturgy, nor with M o s c o w as the
'Third R o m e ' . Originally, a symbol w a s a ring w h i c h friends broke before part-
ing in order to have a sign by w h i c h to recognize each other at their next meet-
ing. ' "Holy Russia" is only half the ring, and the other half w e will not find o n
earth. It is the eschatological t h e m e of Russia', h e stated.
T h e same question was considered from a different point of view in Profes-
sor D . Schakhovskoy's paper, ' T h e Genesis and Permanence of Holy Russia'. D .
Schakhovskoy w a sfirstconcerned with defining the very concept of Russia. For
h i m it w a s a single territory, stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Carpathian
Mountains and the Volga. H e then stressed the linguistic unity of Russia. If the
w h o l e as thus defined did not constitute o n e and the same political reality, it
w a s still m o v e d b y the same concern and spiritual awareness, for the awakening
of the nationalities w a s secondary to this spiritual awareness.
Professor F . K ä m p f e r then examined ' T h e I m a g e of Russian Christianity in
the W e s t and the Concept of "Holy Russia" '. It w a s mainly at the time of the
Reformation that interest in Orthodoxy, and particularly Russian Orthodoxy,
began in Western Europe. T h efirstbook to give both serious and unprejudiced
information o n Russian Orthodoxy w a s that of J o h a n n Fabri (c. 1526). This
information w a s added to by Herberstein in the mid-sixteenth century, but the
Livonian W a r aroused a w a v e of Russophobia in Western Europe, except for
England. Subsequently, Western travellers regarded Orthodoxy with a certain
disdain. T h e 'Enlightenment', with its contempt for religion in general, did not
favour a change of attitude. It w a s Romanticism that led the W e s t to take an
interest in Russia a n d its religion, especially with the success of the great R u s -
sian writers.
In the course of the discussion that followed, Fr M . Arranz mentioned that
Joseph of Volokolamsk and Nil of Sora were representatives of t w o different
and conflicting traditions. O n the subject of the theory of ' M o s c o w the Third
R o m e ' , V . VodofF considered the universality of the mission undertaken by
Russia. For him, Russians at that time identified the universe with their country
w h i c h w a s beginning to expand eastwards. This w a s not Messianism but rather
spiritual isolationism. D . Schakhovskoy, for his part, stressed the eschatological
aspect of the theory of ' M o s c o w the Third R o m e ' .
330
AFTERNOON SESSION OF W E D N E S D A Y , 2Ç) JUNE
T h e session began with Y . Hamant's paper on ' T h e Evolution of Russian Eccle-

siastical Architecture in the Seventeenth Century'. It is well k n o w n that deep
changes took place in icon-painting in the seventeenth century. Icon-painters
tried to render the volume offleshand to represent space. These developments
aroused lively opposition, especially a m o n g the Old Believers. Without arous-
ing the same controversy, religious architecture also underwent profound
change. The interior space of the churches was n o longer divided u p by pillars.
T h e original symbolism disappeared (four vaults arranged in a cruciform figure
formed the transition between the square base of the building, symbol of the
created world, and the d o m e , symbol of the uncreated). Similarly, the organic
link between the interior and exterior space disappeared. T h e domes had
become a decorative element while, as in icons, decorative and picturesque
elements had developed.
D . Kundyuba then read the paper by Y . Kochubey, 'The Russian Orthodox
Church in the Ukraine and its Ties with the Christian East'. In his text Y .
Kochubeyfirstlisted the translations m a d e in Kievan Rus' of works of religious
writers from the Middle East. H e then considered direct contacts between the
inhabitants of ancient Rus' and of the Orthodox East through pilgrimages, and
dwelt o n contacts between the Orthodox Church of the Ukraine and the East-
ern Patriarchates in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, mentioning the
role of the brotherhoods and the work of Metropolitan Peter Mogila.
Commenting o n Y . Kochubey's paper, Mrs M . Papierzynska-Kurek m e n -
tioned the support given by the Church of M o s c o w to Orthodoxy in the territo-
ries of the Rzeczpospolita between the time of the Union of Lublin and the
beginning of the eighteenth century.
Professor V . VodofFs paper, ' T h e Conversion of Rus': A Subject of Inter-
national Historical Research', took stock of the historiography of the baptism
of Vladimir, especially in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. For the nine-
teenth century, V . Vodoff stressed in particular the contribution of E . Golubin-
sky. For the present period, he singled out the work of the Polish historian, A .
Poppe. Finally he m a d e a list of discoveries due to archaeology, sigillography
and so forth. H efinishedwith an appeal for improved circulation of biblio-
graphical information between specialists in different regions interested in the
history of Christianity and the cultures of Russia.
In the discussion that followed, Fr Shivarov expressed a wish for such cir-
culation to take place in two directions, from the U S S R to Western Europe and
vice versa, and said that this applies particularly to manuscripts. Fr M . Arranz,
for his part, hoped that Western researchers might obtain information more
quickly about manuscripts held in Soviet libraries, as there is sometimes a delay
of u p to two years in receiving it.
Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev and Galicia presented a paper o n ' T h e

Influence of Christianity o n the Cultural and Spiritual D e v e l o p m e n t of
Society'. H e began by recalling the circumstances in w h i c h the celebration of
the Millennium had taken place, i.e. perestroika and glasnost. H e then spoke of
the rift that had appeared in the m o d e r n world between material and spiritual
values, and stressed the importance of the spiritual heritage of the Russian
O r t h o d o x Church in this regard. T h e Metropolitan then reviewed the various
fields of h u m a n activity o n w h i c h the adoption of Christianity in Russia had
beneficial effects, including culture, education, individual and family morality,
and legal codes. In conclusion, he mentioned the last seventy years, during
w h i c h the Orthodox C h u r c h had had to face u p to n e w historical circum-
stances. H e referred in particular to the quest for moral values n o w beginning to
appear in Soviet literature and the Soviet press.
Professor S. Martselev then presented a paper o n 'Christianity a n d the
D e v e l o p m e n t of Architecture and Art in Western R u s ' '. H e mentioned the
building of the Cathedral of St Sophia in Polotsk (in w h i c h services were held
from 1060 onwards) and of the church of the Monastery of Belchitsy. H e then
considered icons, and paid special attention to the w o r k of the printer Skorina.
T h e next talk, that by Professor S. Averintsev, w a s o n ' T h e Baptism of R u s '
and the Path of Russian Culture'. According to S. Averintsev, following the
baptism of Vladimir, Christian-Hellenistic universalism w a s introduced into
R u s ' . This was particularly the case in the field of language, w h i c h developed in
the tradition of Hellenism. H e gave as examples the Russian caiques of G r e e k
composite words. This play with composite words forms the basis of vitijstvo, a n
untranslatable Russian w o r d w h i c h does not correspond exactly either to rhe-
toric or to eloquence. Referring to Mandelstam, S. Averintsev considered that
the w o r d , in Russian, is not only a sound a n d a sign, a purely semiotic reality,
but a precious and sacred substance. E v e n Mayakovsky w a s familiar with
Graeco-Slavonic models. S. Averintsev then analysed the attitude of Russians
to beauty, starting in particular from the account of the investigation ordered by
Vladimir before his baptism. Quoting Florensky's statement to the effect that
' T h e Trinity of Rublev exists, therefore G o d exists', h e sees beauty as a crité-
rium of truth in the Russian tradition.
S. Koltunyuk, First Vice-minister of Culture of the Ukrainian S S R , pre-
sented a paper o n ' T h e Millennium of the Conversion of R u s ' to Christianity'.
H e mentioned the recent return to the O r t h o d o x C h u r c h of s o m e of the build-
ings of the Kiev Caves Monastery, saying that this should be seen as yet another
expression of the G o v e r n m e n t ' s realistic approach to the religious question. H e
then asserted that the introduction of Christianity was not the only factor deter-
mining the cultural progress of ancient Russian society a n d that before Chris-
tianity, in pagan times, R u s ' already had a developed culture. Nevertheless, he
added, the introduction of Christianity m a d e it possible to transform Kievan
332
Rus' into a state of international importance. In conclusion, he listed all the

achievements of the Ukrainian S S R in thefieldof culture.
In the course of the discussion that followed, N . Lossky, of the University
of Paris X , mentioned the quotation from Florensky, saying that it should be
regarded as a paradox and that if beauty was the criterion of truth, then con-
versely truth should be the criterion of beauty, for otherwise the problem arose
of h o w to conceive a multitude of individual truths. S. Averintsev replied that,
in his opinion, Florensky would not have accepted this idea of a multitude of
individual beauties and that beauty could not depend on individual caprice. D .
Angelov then recalled the role of Old Bulgarian as an intermediary between
Old Russian and Greek. H e wondered too whether S. Averintsev had not sug-
gested that true culture had only appeared with Christianity. S. Averintsev
replied that one could not set o n the same footing a culture of daily life and
ritual and a culture with awareness of itself, and concluded that a qualitative
change had taken place.
T h e final paper of the day was presented by Professor A . Wirsta on ' T h e
Byzantine Origins of Medieval Sacred Music in Kievan R u s " . A . Wirsta
recalled in his introduction h o w the term 'Rus' ' is defined in the Ukrainian his-
toriographie tradition: until the thirteenth century this n a m e only applied to
the centre of what is n o w Ukraine. W h a t is more, according to the historian
Hroushevsky, the State of Vladimir and M o s c o w could not be regarded as
simply the descendent of that of Kiev, since these two states were the work of
two different nations. A . Wirsta then listed the various types of chant intro-
duced in Kiev following the arrival of Greek singers. H e also stressed the role of
troparia in the liturgy, and went o n to study different systems of notation.
MORNING SESSION OF THURSDAY, 30 JUNE
T h e session began with the paper by Metropolitan Juvenal of Krutitsy and

K o l o m n a on ' T h e Russian Orthodox Church, Past and Present'. After quoting
Florovsky, according to w h o m 'the history of Russian culture begins with the
baptism of Rus' ', the Metropolitan mentioned all that Christianity had contri-
buted to the country's development. Besides, he stressed, thanks to its mis-
sionary activities, the Russian Church had contributed to the cultural develop-
ment of a large number of different nations. After recalling the social role of the
Church over the past centuries, he then spoke of its life today, giving, in partic-
ular, certain statistics, then went o n to describe the Church's w o r k for peace. In
conclusion, he asserted that the ' n e w thinking' encouraged within the frame-
work of perestroika had a certain ethicalflavourto it and remarked o n the quest
for spiritual values expressed in modern literature.
T h e next paper, that of Fr M . Päcurariu, dealt with the subject of'Ecclesias-
tical and cultural relations between Romania and Russia'. Following a rapid
survey of the history of the R o m a n i a n Church, the originality of w h i c h c o m e s

from a 'synthesis of Latinity and Orthodoxy', Fr Pácurariu mentioned various
figures of R o m a n i a n origin w h o played a role in Russian religious life, in partic-
ular Peter Mogila (Petru Movila). After mentioning the activities of Paissius
Velichkovsky in Wallachia and Moldavia, he gave m o r e detailed attention to
the influence of Russian O r t h o d o x theology o n the R o m a n i a n C h u r c h in the
nineteenth century.
Professor N . Struve then spoke o n 'Atheism and Religion in the Soviet
U n i o n ' . H e began b y stressing that in 1917, for thefirsttime in history, atheism
ceased to be a private opinion, a n opposition m o v e m e n t , and b e c a m e a p o w e r -
'atheocracy'. For h i m , the permanent nature of the w a r against religion w a g e d
in the U S S R could be explained b y a combination of conceptual atheism and
irrational psychological antitheism of which h e found evidence in both Lenin
and M a r x . N . Struve refuted the thesis that the Soviet regime only attacked the
C h u r c h because of its involvement with the ancien régime: through the institu-
tion, religion itself w a s attacked. Following a résumé of the history of the reli-
gious policy of the Soviet authorities, N . Struve concluded that atheocracy had
proved a failure at the sociological, anthropological and cultural levels.
In the course of the ensuing discussion, m a n y speakers denied the link bet-
w e e n M a r x i s m and atheism. Academician B . Rauschenbach considered that,
although in its historical section N . Struve's paper reflected reality in m a n y
points, it did not take sufficiently into account the present development of
Soviet policy in thefieldof religion and that n o w a d a y s the class approach is giv-
ing w a y to the recognition of universal values. Metropolitan Juvenal wondered
h o w the Russian people, a theophoric people, could have b e c o m e a people w a r -
ring against G o d , if not because of the sins of the Church. According to N .
Struve, the historical sins of the C h u r c h , w h i c h should not be underestimated,
could not, however, fully account for this hatred of G o d .
M r s E . S m o r g u n o v a then spoke of the 'Role of the B o o k in the Christian-
i2ation of R u s ' ' in connection with the exhibition organized at the s a m e time as
the symposium.
Professor T . Sabev presented a paper entitled ' T h e Russian Orthodox
C h u r c h and the ecumenical m o v e m e n t ' . H e mentioned the role of m e m b e r s of
the Russian O r t h o d o x Church in the development of the ecumenical m o v e -
m e n t during the twentieth century and recalled the circumstances in which the
Russian Orthodox C h u r c h had joined the W o r l d Council of Churches in 1961.
H e then analysed the specific contribution of the Russian O r t h o d o x Church as
part of the W o r l d Council of Churches, for example its contribution to the
development of the concept of sobornost' ('conciliarity'). H e w e n t o n to speak
about relations between the Russian Orthodox C h u r c h and other Orthodox
Churches, in particular as part of the preparations for the P a n - O r t h o d o x C o u n -
334
cil, and also its participation in bilateral dialogues with non-Orthodox

Churches.
AFTERNOON SESSION OF THURSDAY, 30 JUNE
Thefinalsession began with the reading of the report of the proceedings of the
symposium.
Earlier, in a short address, Academician Shchapov had stressed the deve-
lopment of relations between Church and State in the U S S R , evidenced by the
organization, on the occasion of the Millennium, of several conferences bring-
ing together churchmen and lay scientists and scholars.
Commenting on the summary report, Professor T . Sabev reiterated the
place of the Russian Orthodox Church in the ecumenical movement and the
precise meaning of its function as a witness at the present time.
Rector H . Ahrweiler spoke of the place of relations between Church and
state in the Middle Ages and the importance of politicial and diplomatic sources
in the study of such matters as that of the baptism of Rus'. She also expressed
regret at the absence from the symposium of any Greek scholar w h o could have
spoken about the Greek heritage received by Rus' at its baptism. It was then
decided to invite Professor Karayannopoulos to submit a contribution to figure
with the papers presented at the symposium. A s agreed, this text m a y be found
in the present edition of the proceedings of the symposium.
T h e proceedings concluded with an address by the Director-General of
U N E S C O , M r Federico Mayor.
Message
FROM PATRIARCH PIMEN OF M O S C O W A N D ALL RUSSIA, DELIVERED
BY METROPOLITAN PHILARET OF KIEV A N D GALICIA
I cordially greet you on behalf of the Russian Orthodox Church as you gather at
this symposium in Paris to make your o w n specific scholarly contribution to the
celebrations for the Millennium of the baptism of Rus'.
T h e theme of the symposium if of great interest not only from a historical
point of view. At present it is vital as never before. Indeed, the knowledge of
what unites us Europeans as well as the inhabitants of all regions of the globe,
especially in the spiritual sphere, is of exceptional importance for the present
and future that could not be conceived of other than in close, mutually benef-
icial and peaceful cooperation between all peoples.
In this connection it is characteristic that numerous Churches, religious
communities and bodies the world over saw our jubilee as their o w n , holding
special acts of worship and conferences, doing research and organizing exhibi-
tions of all kinds, and concerts. W e trust that your symposium will m a k e a sig-
nificant contribution to this joint celebration.
It is with great satisfaction that w e learned of the participation of two per-
manent members of the Holy Synod: Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev and Gal-
icia, Patriarchal Exarch to the Ukraine, and Metropolitan Juvenal of Krutitsy
and K o l o m n a , m e m b e r of the U S S R Commission for U N E S C O .
W e have just concluded the official celebrations of the glorious Jubilee of
the Russian Church. They were held in M o s c o w and in other historic Church
centres: Kiev, Vladimir and Leningrad. Numerous guests of honour from h o m e
and abroad attended, including heads and representatives of local Orthodox
Churches, other Churches and religious communities, other faiths, interna-
tional religious bodies and scientific, cultural and social circles. W e especially
note the participation in the celebrations of U N E S C O Assistant Director-
General, M r Henri Lopes, representing the Director-General, M r Federico
336
Mayor, and conveying the latter's greetings to the participants. W e take this
opportunity to thank him for his inspiring contribution which highlighted the
joyful nature of that historic event.
It should also be borne in m i n d that our Church's Holy Synod proclaimed
1988 a Jubilee year. At present the celebrations have been extended to all our
dioceses in the Soviet Union and to our institutions abroad.
T o return to the official celebrations, the local council of the Russian
Orthodox Church and the other jubilee events were an opportunity to study our
Church's thousand-year contribution to the religious and moral instruction of
the faithful, the promotion of handwriting, enlightenment, culture and state-
hood of our people, maintaining and consolidating a peaceful w a y of life in our
country and establishing a universal and just peace without arms or war, and
protection for G o d ' s whole creation. M u c h of the wealth of experience and
commitment of the Russian Orthodox Church is as one with the aims and
ideals of U N E S C O , and for this w e feel great joy.
Dear brothers and sisters, I wish you every possible success at this sympo-
sium.
M a y the Lord bless your efforts, and m a y they contribute to spiritual recon-
ciliation and mutual understanding between nations in an evangelical spirit of
peace and charity.
Message
FROM DIMITRIOS, ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE,
DELIVERED BY METROPOLITAN IOANNIS OF PERGAMOS
His Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Dimitrios, has author-

ized m e by decision of the Holy Synod, to convey his blessing and fervent good
wishes to you all at this important gathering.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate feels extremely proud of the history of 1,000
years during which the Church of Russia developed from a daughter Church
into a beloved sister Church. W h e n in A . D . 988 the people of the Rus' received
their baptism into Christianity, it was the Church of Constantinople that gave it
to them; for m a n y centuries the same Church of Constantinople continued to
provide the Russian Church with her leadership in the person of the Metropol-
itan of Kiev. A n d w h e n the centre of ecclesiastical life m o v e d to M o s c o w , again
the Patriarch of Constantinople played the decisive role in this n e w develop-
ment.
Thus, the day came w h e n Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremías proclaimed the
Church of Russia as an autocephalous church with the status of a Patriarchate,
placing it ever since in fifth place in the canonical order of the Orthodox
Churches.
The Church of Constantinople therefore feels it is entitled to rejoice today
at another celebration of the Millennium of the Russian Church, this time
under the auspices of U N E S C O . A few months ago the Ecumenical Patriar-
chate itself celebrated this important event in Constantinople. Today, through
m e , it wishes to congratulate U N E S C O for this initiative and to offer its best
wishes for the success of this scientific symposium as a universal recognition of
the fact that the Orthodox Church of Russia, and through it the Orthodox
Church as a whole, has contributed decisively to the culture and civilization of
the entire world.
M a y the Lord bless abundantly the beloved sister Orthodox Church so that
she m a y continue to offer her contribution to the peace, culture and civilization
of humanity.

Christianization of Russia PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Christianization of Russia PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

T h e Christianization of Ancient Russia

Edited by Yves Hamant

Published in 1992 by the United Nations Educational,

French edition (1989): 92-3-202642-2

T h e thousandth anniversary of the introduction of Christianity into R u s ' was

The country whose inhabitants were baptized in the year 988 w a s k n o w n in

Part O n e CHRISTIANITY REACHES KIEVAN RUS':

Archpriest Nikolai ShivarovT h e W o r k of Cyril and Methodius in Bulgaria and its

Part T w o CHRISTIANITY, ART A N D CULTURE

Svetan Grozdanov Macedonia, Serbia and Russian medieval art 115

Part Three T H E T H E M E O F ' H O L Y RUSSIA'

Vladimir Zielinksy T h e gift and enigma of'Holy Russia' 161

Part Four CHRISTIANITY A N D SOCIETY

Francis Conte Paganism and Christianity in Russia: 'double' or 'triple'

Part Five I N T E R C H U R C H RELATIONS Y E S T E R D A Y

Part Six HISTORICAL L A N D M A R K S

Yves Hamant Historical landmarks 303

S u m m a r y of the proceedings of the symposium 325

Culture is an important and noteworthy part of life in h u m a n society. In its his-

ern C h u r c h , cultivating it and enriching its o w n heritage. T h e Bulgarian people

Ancient Russian chronicles recorded active Bulgarian assistance in the w o r k of

their godparents persons of equal or higher rank, w h o s e n a m e s they took. W h o

imparting n e w knowledge about it. A s Soviet Professor N . K . G u d z y concludes:

'transplanted'. E v e n the copyist played an important role. Often he w a s an 'edi-

polemic that c a m e in the w a k e of the schism of 1054. T h e n e w ecumenical

[Translated from Russian]

1. A . M o l ' , Sotsiodinamika kul'tury [The Sociodynamics of Culture], p . 35, M o s c o w ,

32. Ibid, pp. 47, 67-8 et seq.

Khrabr the M o n k in his polemical w o r k entitled O pismeneh {Treatise on Writing).

conquest by Byzantium in 1018. T h e r e is n o doubt that s o m e of these scholars

1. D . Angelov, 'Slavjanskijat svjat prez I X - X v. i deloto na Kiril i Metodij v knizov-

Lihacev, translated by D . S. Lihacev and B . A . R o m a n o v , edited by V . P . Adria-

For a century in Bulgaria, and hence in its natural linguistic environment,

m a s the Priest, the works of Clement of Okhrid in thefieldsof hagiography,

and cultural traditions. T h e dynamic nature of this p r o g r a m m e w a s s u m m e d u p

converted to Christianity, w h e n the Bulgarian State was a power to be reckoned

T h e Millennium of the introduction of Christianity into Rus' was celebrated in

c o n d e m n e d it, especially the sale of fellow tribesmen to the 'infidel'. A s a result

cerers' revolts' as mentioned in the chronicles. T h e most important took place

van Rus', one peculiarity of Rus's relations with Byzantium should be m e n -

Bishop of Turov, as well as m a n y others. Secular literature also began to appear;

T h e adoption of Christianity in R u s ' attracts the attention both of the general

belonging to the s a m e cultural world as opposed to pagan barbarians. A t the

E m p e r o r Otto the Great of G e r m a n y , the future Otto II, h a d earlier been

K i e v from the ninth to the eleventh centuries. T h e involvement o f Scandi-

unsuccessful, attack o n Byzantium in 941, these treaties were renewed in 9 4 5

Other considerations also influenced Vladimir in making his decision.

s u m m e r of 989). O n his return to Kiev, Vladimir had his subjects baptized en

1. F. C u m o n t , 'Anécdota Bruxellensia I, Chroniques byzantines du M s . 11.376', Recueil

Paris, 1926; E . Hanisch, Geschichte Russlands [History of Russia], V o l . 1, p . 3, Frei-

10. In 955 and 9 6 7 ; Hanisch, o p . cit., p. 16.

Princess A n n a . H e could in no circumstances have married her before receiving

Without wishing to repeat the argumentation used in other longer works

Potrebnik (Book 297, Chapter 71, p . 1):

W h e n a person comes to be presented to the Orthodox Faith, he shouldfirstbe

According to the Canonary of St Sophia, o n the second and third Sundays of

time-scale in the case of Vladimir? Y e t again, w e m u s t limit ourselves to

S y m e o n of Thessalonika (d. 1430) d r a w s a parallel b e t w e e n the scene of the

T h e Potrebnik (24) prescribes a further conversation a n d instruction a n d also a

In Constantinople o n G o o d Friday, between the midday service or Tritoekti36

'Illumination' at St Sophia took place in the evening of the Saturday of H o l y

A n d if it is necessary to baptize in a deep river . . . a piece of white linen is wrapped

A n d the verse of P s a l m 32: 'Blessed is h e w h o s e transgression is forgiven, w h o s e