by Riazanovsky
Next came the boyars, followed by the less aristocratic "free servants" of a prince who performed a similar function. The boyars and the free servants made contracts with their prince, and they were at liberty to leave him and seek another master. The boyars had their own retinues, sometimes quite numerous. For instance, in 1332 a boyar with a following of 1,700 persons entered the service of the grand prince of Moscow, while shortly
after his arrival another boyar with a retinue of 1,300 left it. As already emphasized, members of the upper classes of appanage Russia were landlords. They acted as virtual rulers of their large estates, levying taxes and administering justice, although it is worth noting that, as Moscow rose, the immunities which they received to govern their lands no longer extended to jurisdiction in cases of major crimes. Votchiny, that is, hereditary land-holdings, prevailed in the appanage period. However, with the rise of Moscow, the pomestie, that is, an estate granted by a prince to a servitor during the term of his personal service, became common. The earliest extant reference to a pomestie goes back to Ivan Kalita's testament, but the pomestie system developed on a large scale only in the fifteenth and subsequent centuries. We shall meet it again when we discuss Muscovite Russia.
Traders, artisans, and the middle class as a whole experienced a decline during the appanage period. Except in Novgorod and a few other centers, members of that layer of society were relatively few in number and politically ineffective.
Peasants constituted the bulk of the population. It is generally believed that their position worsened during the centuries which followed the collapse of the Kievan state. Political division, invasions, and general insecurity increased the peasant's dependence on the landlord and consequently his bondage, thus accelerating a trend which had already become pronounced in the days of Kiev. While serfdom remained incomplete even at the end of the appanage period - for the peasant could still leave his master once a year, around St. George's day in late autumn, provided his accounts had been settled - it grew in a variety of forms. Principal peasant obligations were of two types: the as yet relatively little developed barshchina, or corvee, that is, work for the landlord, and obrok, or quitrent, that is, payment to the landlord in kind or in money. It should be noted, however, that many peasants, especially in the north, had no private landlords, a fortunate situation for them, even though they bore increasingly heavy obligations to the state.
The slaves, kholopy, of the Kievan period continued to play a significant role in the Russian economy, performing all kinds of tasks in the manorial households and estates. In fact, a small upper group of kholopy occupied important positions as managers and administrators on the estates. Indeed Diakonov suggested that in the Muscovite principality, as in France, court functionaries and their counterparts in most noble households were originally slaves, who were later replaced by the most prominent among the free servitors.
In the period which followed the fall of Kiev, the Church in Russia maintained and developed its strong and privileged position. In a time of division it profited from the best and the most widespread organization in the country, and it enjoyed the benevolence of the khans and the protection of Rus-
sian, especially Muscovite, princes. Ecclesiastical lands received exemptions from taxation and sweeping immunities; also, as in the West - although this is a controversial point - they probably proved to be more attractive to the peasants than other estates because of their relative peace, good management, and stability. The Church, or rather individual monasteries and monks, often led the Russian penetration into the northeastern wilderness. Disciples of St. Sergius alone founded more than thirty monasteries on or beyond the frontier of settlement. But the greatest addition to ecclesiastical possessions came from continuous donations, in particular the bequeathing of estates or parts of estates in return for prayers for one's soul, a practice similar to the granting of land in free alms to the Catholic Church in the feudal West. It has been estimated that at the end of the appanage period the Church in Russia owned over 25 per cent of all cultivated land in the country. As we shall see, these enormous ecclesiastical, particularly monastic, holdings created major problems both for the religious conscience and for the state.
The unification of Russia under Moscow meant a victory for a northeastern political system, characterized by the dominant position of the prince. Princes, of course, played a major part in the appanage period. It was during that time that they acted largely as managers and even proprietors of their principalities, as illustrated in the celebrated princely wills and testaments which deal indiscriminately with villages and winter coats. Princely activities became more and more petty; public rights and interests became almost indistinguishable from private. With the rise of Moscow, the process was reversed. The rulers "of Moscow and all Russia" gained in importance until, at about the time of Ivan III, they instituted a new era of autocratic tsardom. Yet, for all their exalted majesty, the tsars retained much from their northeastern princeling ancestry, combining in a formidable manner sweeping authority with petty despotism and public goals with proprietary instincts. Their power proved to be all the more dangerous because it went virtually unopposed. After the absorption of Novgorod, Pskov, and Viatka, the veche disappeared from Russian politics. The third element of the Kievan system of government, the boyar duma, it is true, continued to exist side by side with the princes and with the tsars. However, as will be indicated in later chapters, the duma in Muscovite Russia supported rather than effectively circumscribed the authority of the ruler. The evolution of Russia in the appanage period led to autocracy.
XIII
APPANAGE RUSSIA: RELIGION AND CULTURE
The Mongol yoke, which dealt a heavy blow to the manufactures of the Russian people in general, could not but be reflected, in a most grievous manner, in the artistic production and technique closely related to manufacturing… The second half of the thirteenth and the entire fourteenth century were an epoch "of oppression of the life of the people, of despair among the leaders, of an impoverishment of the land, of a decline of trades and crafts, of a disappearance of many technical skills."
BAGALEI
If we consider nothing but its literature, the period that extends from the Tatar invasion to the unification of Russia by Ivan III of Moscow may be called a Dark Age. Its literature is either a more or less impoverished reminiscence of Kievan traditions or an unoriginal imitation of South Slavonic models. But here more than ever it is necessary to bear in mind that literature does not give the true measure of Old Russian culture. The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the Dark Age of literature, were at the same time the Golden Age of Russian religious painting.
MIRSKY
The Russian icon was the most significant artistic phenomenon of ancient Russia, the fundamental and preponderant means, and at the same time a gift, of its religious life. In its historical origin and formation the icon was an expression of the highest artistic tradition, while in its development it represented a remarkable phenomenon of artistic craftsmanship.
KONDAKOV
The religion and culture of appanage Russia, like its economic and social development, stemmed directly from the Kievan period. The hard centuries which followed the collapse of a unitary state witnessed, however, a certain retardation, and even regression, in many fields of culture. Impoverishment and relative isolation had an especially adverse effect on education in general and on such costly and difficult pursuits as large-scale building in stone and certain luxury arts and crafts. Literature too seemed to have lost much of its former artistry and elan. Yet this decline in many areas of activity coincided with probably the highest achievements of Russian creative genius in a few fields which included wooden architecture and, especially, icon painting.
Religion in appanage Russia reflected, in its turn, the strong and weak points, the achievements and failings of the period, as it continued to occupy
a central position in the life and culture of the people. In an age of division, the unity and
organization of the Church stood out in striking manner. In the early fifteenth century the Orthodox Church in Russia had, in addition to the metropolitan in Moscow, fifteen bishops, of whom three, those of Novgorod, Rostov, and Suzdal, had the title of archbishop. In 1448, after suspicions of the Greek clergy had been aroused in Russia by the Council of Florence, Jonas became metropolitan without the confirmation of the patriarch of Constantinople, thus breaking the old Russian allegiance to the Byzantine See and inaugurating the autocephalous, in effect independent, period in the history of the Russian Church. Administrative unity within the Russian Church, however, finally proved impossible to preserve. The growing division of the land and the people between Moscow and Lithuania resulted in the establishment, in Kiev, of a separate Orthodox metropoli-tanate for the Lithuanian state, the final break with Moscow coming in 1458.
As we know, the Church, with its enormous holdings and its privileged position, played a major role in the economic and political life of appanage Russia, influencing almost every important development of the period, from the rise of Moscow to the colonization of the northeastern wilderness. But the exact impact of the Church in its own religious and spiritual sphere remains difficult to determine. It has been frequently, and on the whole convincingly, argued that the ritualistic and esthetic sides of Christianity prevailed in medieval Russia, finding their fullest expression in the liturgy and other Church services, some of which became extremely long and elaborate. Fasting, celebrating religious holidays, and generally observing the Church calendar provided further occasions for the ritualism of the Russian people, while icon painting and church architecture served as additional paths in their search for beauty. Still, the ethical and social import of Russian Christianity should not be underestimated in this period any more than during the hegemony of Kiev. Many specialists credit the teaching of the Church with the frequent manumission of slaves by individual masters, realized often by means of a provision in last wills and testaments. And, in a general sense, Christian standards of behavior remained at least the ideal of the Russian people.
Saints continued to reflect the problems and aspirations of the Russians. Figures of the appanage period who became canonized ranged from princes, such as Alexander Nevskii, and ecclesiastical statesmen exemplified by Metropolitan Alexis, to obscure hermits. But the strongest impression on the Russian religious consciousness was made by St. Sergius of Radonezh. St. Sergius, who died in 1392 at the age of about seventy-eight, began as a monk in a forest wilderness and ended as the recognized spiritual leader of Russia. His blessing apparently added strength to Grand Prince Dmitrii and the Russian army for the daring enterprise of Kulikovo, and his word could on occasion stop princely quarrels. Although he refused to be met-
ropolitan, he became in effect the moral head of the Russian Church. As already mentioned, the monastery which St. Sergius founded north of Moscow and which came to be known as the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery, became one of the greatest religious and cultural centers of the country and the fountainhead of a powerful monastic movement. For centuries after the death of St. Sergius tens and hundreds of thousands of pilgrims continued to come annually from all over Russia to his burial place in one of the churches in the monastery. They still come. As in the case of many other saints, the chief explanation of the influence of St. Sergius lies in his ability to give a certain reality to the concepts of humility, kindness, brotherhood, and love which remain both beliefs and hopes of the Christians. It might be added that St. Sergius tried constantly to help all who needed his help and that he stressed work and learning as well as religious contemplation and observance.
The disciples of St. Sergius, as already mentioned, spread the Christian religion to vast areas in northern Russia, founding scores of monasteries. St. Stephen of Perm, the most distinguished of the friends of St. Sergius, brought Christianity to the Finnic-speaking tribes of the Zyriane: he learned their tongue and created a written language for them, utilizing their decorative designs as a basis for letters. Thus, following the Orthodox tradition, the Zyriane could worship God in their native language.
In medieval Russia, as in medieval Europe as a whole, intellectual life centered on religious problems, although their ramifications often encompassed other areas of human activity. While, in the main, Russia stayed outside the rationalist and reforming currents which developed in Western Christendom, it did not remain totally unaffected by them. Significantly, Russian religious movements stressing rationalism and radical reform emerged in western parts of the country and especially in Novgorod. As early as 1311 a Church council condemned the heresy of a certain Novgorodian priest who denounced monasticism. In the second half of the fourteenth century, in Novgorod, the teaching of the so-called strigolniki acquired prominence. These radical sectarians, quite similar to the evangelical Christians in the West, denied the authority of the Church and its hierarchy, as well as all sacraments except baptism, and wanted to return to the time of the apostles; an extreme faction within the movement even renounced Christ and sought to limit religious observances to prayer to God the Father. It might be noted that the protest began apparently over the issue of fees for the sacraments, and that the dissidents came rapidly to adhere to increasingly radical views. All persuasion failed, but violent repression by the population and authorities in Novgorod and Pskov, together with disagreements among the strigolniki, led to the disappearance of the sect in the early fifteenth century.
Later in the century, however, new heretics appeared, known as the
Judaizers. Their radical religious movement has been linked to the arrival in Novgorod in 1470 of a Jew Zechariah, or Skharia, and to the spread of his doctrines. The Judaizers in effect accepted the Old Testament, but rejected the New, considering Christ a prophet rather than the Messiah. Consequently they also denounced the Church. Through the transfer of two Novgorodian priests to Moscow, the movement obtained a foothold in the court circles of the capital. Joseph of Volok, an abbot of Volokolamsk, led the ecclesiastical attack on the heretics. They were condemned by the Church council of 1504, and Ivan III, finally ceding to the wishes of the dominant Church party, cruelly suppressed the Judaizers, having their leaders burned at the stake.
Controversies within the Russian Orthodox Church at the time had an even greater historical significance than did challenges to the Church from the outside. The most important and celebrated dispute of the age pitted the "possessors" against the "non-possessors," with Joseph of Volok again occupying a central position as the outstanding leader of the first-named faction. Joseph of Volok and the possessors believed in a close union of an autocratic ruler and a rich and powerful Church. The prince, or tsar, was the natural protector of the Church with all its lands and privileges. In return, he deserved complete ecclesiastical support, his authority extending not only to all secular matters but also to Church administration. The possessors emphasized, too, a formal and ritualistic approach to religion, the sanctity of Church services, rituals, practices, and teachings, and a violent and complete suppression of all dissent.
The non-possessors, who because of their origin in the monasteries of the northeast, have sometimes been called the "elders from beyond the Volga," had as their chief spokesman Nil Sorskii - or Nilus of Sora - a man of striking spiritual qualities. The non-possessors, as their name indicates, objected to ecclesiastical wealth and in particular to monastic landholding. They insisted that the monks should in fact carry out their vows, that they must be poor, must work for their living, and must remain truly "dead to the world." The Church and the State should be independent of each other; most especially, the State, which belonged to a lower order of reality, had no right to interfere in religious matters. The non-possessors stressed contemplation and the inner spiritual light, together with a striving for moral perfection, as against ecclesiastical formalism and ritualism. Furthermore, by contrast with the possessors, they differentiated in the teaching of the Church among Holy Writ, tradition, and human custom, considering on
ly Holy Writ - that is, God's commandments - as completely binding. The rest could be criticized and changed. But even those who challenged the foundations of the Church were to be met with persuasion, never with force.
The Church council of 1503 decided in favor of the possessors. Joseph
of Volok and his associates cited Byzantine examples in support of their position and also argued, in practical terms, the necessity for the Church to have a large and rich establishment in order to perform its different functions, including the exercise of charity on a large scale. Their views, especially on relations of Church and State, suited on the whole the rising absolutism of Moscow, although it seems plausible that Ivan III sympathized with the non-possessors in the hope of acquiring monastic lands. After Joseph of Volok died in 1515, subsequently to be proclaimed a saint, other high clerics continued his work, notably Daniel, who became metropolitan in 1521. At the councils of 1524 and 1531, and even as late as 1554-55, some of Nil Sorskii's chief followers were declared to be heretics. Nil Sorskii himself, however, was canonized.