Most important was Nikon's effort to bring order and uniformity to Russian worship through a new series of printed service books. The printing program in the last years of Joseph's patriarchate had already contributed to the sense of special dignity and destiny that Nikon felt about the Russian Church. Publication of a Book of the One True and Orthodox Faith in 1648, an edited version of Mogila's Catechism in 1649, ar,d tne Pilot Book (Kormchaia Kniga) in 1650 provided Muscovy with, respectively, an encyclopedia of polemic materials directed largely against Uniats and Jews; "its first manual for popular religious instruction";32 and its first systematic corpus of canon law. The first two works (and the apocalyptical Book of Cyril, which was also enjoying new popularity in Moscow of the late forties) came to Moscow from Kiev, the Pilot Book from Serbia. Moscow was rapidly becoming the focal point for all the hopes of the Orthodox East. As Muscovy launched its successful attack on Poland in the early years of Nikon's patriarchate, its sense of holy mission and special calling grew apace. Even non-Slavic Orthodox principalities, such as Moldavia and Georgia, began to explore the possibilities of a protectorate status under Moscow similar to that which Khmelnitsky's Cossacks accepted in 1653. Meanwhile the Greek-speaking monk Arsenius Sukhanov, who had accompanied Paissius back to Jerusalem on the first of two lengthy trips to gather books and information from the rest of the Orthodox world, reported that Orthodoxy had been corrupted in the Mediterranean area by Latin errors. He revived the long quiescent theme of Moscow as the third and last Rome, and added that "all Christendom" awaited the liberation of Constantinople by Russian force.33 While Alexis led Russian troops
?
into battle against foreign enemies of the faith, Nikon led his miscellaneous array of editors into combat against alleged corruptions within.
Between his deletions from a new psalter in October, 1652, and the appearance of new service books in 1655-6, Nikon sponsored an extensive and detailed series of reforms.34 He changed time-honored forms of worship: substituting three fingers for two in the sign of the cross; three hallelujahs for two; five consecrated loaves for seven at the offertory; one loaf rather than many on the altar; processions against rather than with the direction of the sun. Nikon eliminated some practices altogether (the twelve prostrations accompanying the prayer of Ephrem the Syrian during Lent, the blessing of the waters on Epiphany eve); introduced textual changes affecting all three persons of the Holy Trinity. He altered the form of addressing God in the Lord's prayer, the description of the Holy Spirit in the creed, and the spelling of Jesus' name (from Isus to Iisus) in all sacred writings.
At the same time, Nikon tried to impose a new, more austere artistic style, ordering the elimination of florid, northern motifs from Russian architecture (tent roofs, onion domes, seven- and eight-pointed crosses, and so on). In their place he introduced a neo-Byzantine emphasis on spherical domes, classical lines, and the use of the plain, four-pointed Greek cross. Two buildings that he constructed in the first years of his patriarchate launched this effort to transplant the imagined glories of the Greek East to Russia: the patriarchal church of the Twelve Apostles, within the Moscow Kremlin, and the ensemble of buildings for the new Iversky Monastery on Valdai Island.
All of this was accompanied by a determined effort to heighten the personal authority of the patriarch and that of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Prior to accepting the patriarchate, Nikon had exacted an unprecedented pledge from the Tsar to obey Nikon "as your first shepherd and father in all that I shall teach on dogma, discipline, and custom."35 This promise was taken from a ninth-century Byzantine defense of separate but equally absolute temporal and ecclesiastical authority. Like matter and form, body and soul, the two realms were supposed to co-exist harmoniously within the Christian commonwealth. Such a strong assertion of patriarchal authority was altogether unheard of in Muscovy. It seemed to challenge not only the Tsar, but the new law code, which had made the monasteries (and thus the church hierarchy) subject to secular jurisdiction. Nor was Nikon's program very securely based in Byzantine tradition. The reforms were rapidly and secretly drawn up, and based on the selective use of Western compilations of Byzantine texts by an inadequately equipped research team.38
To counter the power of the civil estate, Nikon issued a revised edition of the Pilot Book in 1653, and in the following year persuaded the Tsar to instruct provincial voevodas to make more general use of canon law in criminal matters.37 Nikon brought in a steady stream of foreign patriarchs to approve his reforms and foreign relics and icons to sanctify them (beginning with the Georgian Mother of God, which Nikon had procured from Mt. Athos as early as 1648). He set up an academy in the Zaikonospassky Monastery for translating Greek and Latin texts and instructing priests in useful secular knowledge as well as theology. During the plague of 1653-4, for instance, the best of his imported Kievan translators, Epiphanius Slavinetsky, was diverted from a proposed translation of the Bible to a translation of Vesalius' work on human anatomy; and Nikon's book purchaser in the Greek East spent much of his time seeking out savants and manuscripts that would offer additional medical guidance.38
Nikon had the profound misfortune of introducing his program into Russia at a time of great suffering through plague and war. He soon became a focal point of resentment for those who were anxious for a scapegoat and jealous of his closeness to the Tsar. His position was made untenable by the opposition of influential boyars, bureaucrats, and monastic leaders (often one and the same person) and by his own mixing of political and religious considerations. In his campaign against new trends in icon painting, for instance, Nikon ordered the streltsy to confiscate icons forcibly, to gouge out the eyes of the painted figures, and parade them through Moscow-warning that anyone henceforth painting similar icons would be treated in the same way. Nikon himself publicly shattered each of the mutilated pictures- naming just before each "burial" the high state official from whom it had been taken. This action terrified the bureaucracy and led the confused and superstitious Moscow mob to conclude that Nikon was a complete iconoclast responsible for the plague. In his campaign to gain acceptance for the new rituals, Nikon censured uncooperative boyars and anathemized priests during regular church services. He aroused opposition to his program among the proud and conservative monks of Solovetsk by trying to establish patriarchal control even over such sensitive disciplinary matters as drinking habits. He solidified popular feeling in the north behind the monks of Solovetsk by trying to found a rival monastery in the area and giving it a Greek name {Stavros, "cross").
Solovetsk was thus emboldened to begin the organized resistance to Nikon, refusing to accept his new service books in 1657. A few months later three appointed heads of newly created provincial dioceses refused to leave their Moscow sinecures for the distant posts to which Nikon had assigned them. In the following summer the head of the Tsar's imperial household
beat Nikon's chief official assistant as the latter was in the official act of arranging the order of religious procedure for a dinner in honor of the Orthodox crown prince of Georgia. When the Tsar failed to rebuke his official and subsequently the Tsar himself failed to appear at several worship services, Nikon reacted with a characteristic sense of drama.
Following a special liturgy in the Cathedral of the Assumption, Nikon announced that he was retiring to his new monastery, the New Jerusalem, outside Moscow until the Tsar reaffirmed confidence in him and his program. Not for eight years, however, did Nikon receive the Tsar's summons; and then it was to appear before a church council to be formally deposed as Patriarch and sentenced to life exile in a distant northern monastery. Most of his modifications of church worship were formally approved by this council of 1667; but the heart of his program-the attempt to establish a theocratic state under a powerful and disciplined hierarchy-was rejected definitively. It is a tribute to the power and magnetism of Nikon that it took the prikaz of secret affairs and other servants of the new secular state nearly a decade to depose him formally.39 But never again was the church hi
erarchy to exercise or even claim comparable political power in Russia. The abolition of the patriarchate and the thorough subordination of church to state was to follow in a few decades under Peter the Great.
The Fundamentalist Answer
At the same time that Nikon was heading off to exile and oblivion, another clerical figure was secretly taken even farther north to an even more grisly fate. Superficially, the Archpriest Avvakum was very similar to Nikon. He was a dedicated priest from northeast Russia, passionately opposed to Western influence and deeply determined to keep the Orthodox faith and ritual as the controlling force in Russian life. Avvakum had, indeed, been a friend of Nikon in Moscow during the late 1640's, when both were "zealots of the old devotion." They agreed that the Russian Church must be kept free of Western contamination and secularization. They both supported the first important church reform of the 1650's: the elimination of the "forty-mouthed" simultaneous readings of different offices within the churches.40
However, in the years that followed, Avvakum came to view the need for reform in totally different terms, and indeed to consider Nikon his deepest foe. Avvakum made himself the spokesman and martyr for the fundamentalist position. Like the theocratic view of Nikon, Awakum's
fundamentalism summarized and brought into focus attitudes that had been developing for more than a century.
The fundamentalist position was mainly advanced by the "white" or parish priests in the provinces and was a faithful reflection of the conservatism, superstition, and vitality of the Eastern frontier. It was less a clearly articulated position than a simple equation of trouble with innovation, innovation with foreigners, and foreigners with the devil. The past that the fundamentalists sought to maintain was the organic religious civilization that had prevailed in Russia prior to the coming of "guile from beyond the seas." To do this, they began to urge strict puritanical decrees against such Western innovations as tobacco ("bewitched grass," "the devil's incense") and hops ("bewitched Lithuanian grapes"). Instrumental music and representational art were particularly suspect. The burning of six carriages full of musical instruments in Moscow in 1649 was a graphic illustration of the anti-foreign and puritanical activities of the early years of Alexis' reign.41
Specially hated by the fundamentalists were the "Frankish icons" that had worked their way into Russian churches in imitation of representational art of Holland in the early seventeenth century. "They paint the image of Our Savior," cried Avvakum, "with a puffy face, red lips, curly hair, fat arms and muscles, and stout legs and thighs. All this is done for carnal reasons."42 Although Nikon formally shared their views on icons,43 he had permitted churches near the Kremlin to be decorated with frescoes based on German models, and he was shortly to follow the unprecedented course of posing for a portrait by a Dutch painter.44
Morbid excess, masochism, and heretical dualism often lay just below the surface of puritanical extremism. The numerous though still obscure communities founded north of Yaroslavl in the 1630's by a strange figure known only as Kapiton appear to have discarded Christian doctrine along with ecclesiastical authority. The leader wore heavy chains held down by two huge weights, practiced extreme fasting and mortification of the flesh as well as certain Jewish rites, such as circumcision and abstention from pork. He enjoyed a sufficient following to escape repeatedly from the imprisonment which local officials imposed on him.45
Puritanical and xenophobic discontent was given focus by a revival of prophecy within the established church. Leadership came primarily from a group of the married white clergy who held the title of "archpriest" (protopop), the highest open to the non-monastic clergy. The first of the archpriests, Ivan Neronov, championed a revival of the old trans-Volga tradition of piety, poverty, and prophecy. As a young preacher in Nizhny Novgorod on the upper Volga he was known as "the second Chrysostom." He attracted attention by opposing the war against Poland in 1632 and by
adding special buildings for feeding and housing the poor to the new cathedral which he took over in Moscow. Neronov began the grass roots opposition of the parish priesthood to Nikon's reforms early in 1653 by speaking in defense of another archpriest whom Nikon had deposed for insolence to civil authority. Though Neronov was also punished for his defiance, he rallied a number of other archpriests to his defense, including Avvakum, who rapidly became Nikon's most violent critic. The diaspora of the protesting archpriests began in September with the banishment of Avvakum to distant Tobol'sk in Siberia, and was continued the following year by a Church council which anathemized and exiled Neronov. Neronov set the pattern for the future Old Believers by rejecting the authority either of the Church council (which he likened to the Jewish court that had tried Christ) or of Nikon (who was unworthy to hold office because of his "voevodish tricks" and "lack of respect to the priestly class").46
Intertwined with their objections to Nikon's authoritarianism was the archpriests' profound opposition to any change in the familiar forms of worship. Changing the two-fingered sign of the cross (the form used on Russian icons and in all the reverences of the Russian peasant) and the double hallelujah meant to them destroying symbols of Christ's divine-human nature. Changing the spelling of Jesus (one of the few words that all could read in old Muscovy) implied a change in God Himself. Changing the form of address in the Lord's Prayer from "our Father" to "our God" seemed to remove God from the intimate relationship most easily understood in a patriarchal society.
Many of the changes seemed to shorten and simplify the worship service at a time when the puritanical archpriests felt there should be more rather than less demands. Changes in the creed seemed to weaken the relevance and immediacy of God to human history. Nikon changed the traditional Russian reading in the creed that Christ's kingdom "has no end" to "shall have no end." From representing Christ as "sitting" at the right hand of God, the new creed read "was seated"; and from affirming belief in the "true and life-giving Holy Spirit," the new creed substituted "life-giving Holy Spirit." Though these changes were intended merely to rid the Russian church of uncanonical accretions, their effect to the fundamentalists was to imply that Christ was now sometimes on and sometimes off his throne (like a seventeenth-century monarch) and that the Holy Spirit merely participates in truth (like any student of the worldly sciences). The most passionate and irrational defenders of fundamentalism were women. Indeed, without the initial support of influential noblewomen, no coherent movement of schismatics would probably have emerged from the religious crisis. The attachment of women to the old ways was more deep
and purely spiritual than that of the men; for they shared none of the earthly rewards and glory that Muscovy had to offer. Left to the isolation of the upper chamber (terem) and relegated to an inferior position in every aspect of Muscovite life, many of them nonetheless developed a passionate attachment to the religious ritual which gave meaning and sanctity to their world. The most tender and saintly devotional passages in all of Old Believer literature are found in the letters of Avvakum's feminine supporters in Moscow, such as the Boyarina Morozova, widowed scion of the wealthy Morozov family. Avvakum was indebted to his own mother for his religious upbringing; and the most moving figure in his Autobiography is, in many ways, his long-suffering wife, who accompanied him on all his arduous missions. The greatest retrospective artistic study of an Old Believer theme is, appropriately, Surikov's large canvas of the black figure of Morozova on a sledge taking her to martyrdom, with her hand extended upward in a defiant, two-fingered sign of the cross.47
If the women simply clung to the old ways, the restless men required some kind of explanation, or program for resistance. As the archpriests' despair deepened over securing repeal of the reforms, they began to turn to the belief that Russia was entering the last stage of earthly history.
The natural connection between Byzantine fundamentalism and apocalypticism provides a key to understanding the formation of the schismatic tradition in Russia. However animistic their identification of faith with form, however confused the
ir understanding of tradition, the fundamentalists stood on solid Byzantine ground in insisting that inherited church traditions were begun by Christ, sanctified by the Holy Spirit at the early church councils, and must be preserved inviolably until His coming again. Jesus' last assurance to the apostles that "I am with you always, even to the end of time" applied to the ideas and forms of His Holy Church. If these were to be changed on a large scale by human decree, it must necessarily mean that the "end of time" is at hand.
Unlike Protestant fundamentalists these fundamentalists of Russian Orthodoxy identified God not with the words of scripture but with the forms of worship. Indeed, the only parts of scripture they knew were the psalms and those passages from the prophets and New Testament which were read orally in regular worship services. Some extremists among the Russian fundamentalists even took the position that the Bible itself was a secular book, since it contained many worldly and even pornographic stories and had first come to Russia by means of the "guileful" printing presses of corrupted Western Slavs.48
The Icon and the Axe Page 21