Power, Sainthood, and the Art of Myth
Pierre Gonneau, A l'aube de la Russie muscovite: Serge de Radonege et Andre Roublev. Legendes et images (XIVe-XVIIe siecles) (At the Dawn of Muscovite Russia: Sergius of Radonezh and Andrei Rublev. Legends and Images [14th-17th Centuries]). 357 pp., illus., appendices. Paris: Institut d'etudes slaves, 2007. ISBN-13 978-2720404351. 24.00 [euro]. Elisabeth Teiro, L'Eglise des premiers saints metropolites russes (The Church of the First Saintly Russian Metropolitans). 418 pp., illus., appendices. Paris: Institut d'etudes slaves, 2009. ISBN-13 978-2720404511. 24.00 [euro]. During the Soviet era, publications covering the religious life of medieval and early modern Rus' tended to emphasize land issues and the condition of the peasantry. The scope of this area of scholarship has broadened considerably in recent years to encompass the cultural and spiritual aspects of Muscovite church history. This expansion has been aided significantly by the publication of documents supplementing fundamental collections of source materials created in the 20th century. Rich collections in Russian museums and art restorers' revelations are becoming increasingly accessible through the bountiful production of high-quality albums and exhibit catalogues as well as the development of websites devoted to art and architecture. The two excellent monographs reviewed here will further expand our understanding of the formative period of the Muscovite polity because they underscore the crucial interconnections that permitted church leaders and Moscow's princes to construct the symbiotic relationships that promoted their mutual success. Both books reveal the importance of sainthood as the social and political "glue" holding together the rising status of rulers and church hierarchs, while simultaneously laying out the widely divergent itineraries for future saints to follow during their earthly lives. The saints who figure in Elisabeth Teiro's examination of the Russian metropolitanate during the 14th to 16th centuries are cut from very different cloth from the legendarily humble monk Sergius of Radonezh--adviser of princes, conciliator, counterpart of St. Francis in giving away worldly possessions, and source of inspiration for unity against the Tatars and rebuilding Russian spirituality. In contrast, the saintly metropolitans contribute to the building of church and state as political activists who move to Moscow and thereafter link the destiny of their church to that of the local rulers. Sergius and the metropolitans alike were then posthumously claimed as wonder-working intercessors for Moscow, an image fostered both by church hierarchs and by Moscow's rulers. Teiro's study begins with Peter's relocation of the seat of the metropolitan to Moscow, his initiation of the construction of the Dormition Cathedral, and his burial in 1326 in his unfinished church. His relatively rapid recognition as the first saint associated with the principality of Moscow was initiated by his successor, Theognost, backed by Ivan Kalita of Moscow; and the Byzantine patriarch agreed to canonization. Metropolitans before Peter had not been the focus of special veneration, but thereafter his successors came to be given serious consideration for this status. Analyzing the grounds for sainthood, Teiro concludes that after Peter "admission to the ranks of the saints" (199) rather than canonization, with its connotation of the procedure used in the Roman Catholic Church, better describes the process at work in Muscovy, especially before Metropolitan Makarii's councils of 1547-49 made glorification a more formal process. Incorrupt relics served as an indication of worthiness for sainthood, but the indispensable requirement was that the potential saint perform miracles, in life or after death (and a candidate's record in this regard might be "improved" to strengthen his claim). After the Russian church became autocephalous in 1448, candidates native to the Russian lands were more likely to be canonized. …
Economic Reconstruction or Corporate Raiding?: The Borisoglebskii Monastery in Torzhok and the Ascription of Monasteries in the 17th Century
In spite of a recent revival of interest in medieval Russian monastic life, the administrative regime of Muscovite monasteries and hermitages and their political and economic aspirations are still incompletely understood. In seeking to counter the negative bias of Soviet-era studies of Russian monasteries, which focus primarily on monastic houses as landholding institutions that exploited their peasants, the Western and newer Russian scholarship has concentrated on the intellectual and cultural life of medieval Russian monasticism and rightfully stressed its spiritual aspects. (1) Due to the paucity of 17th-century sources, however, we still have only a vague understanding of how medieval Russian monasteries interpreted their various economic, political, and spiritual functions and resolved possible tensions among them. While scholars have investigated the rote and function of some of Russia's largest monasteries, such as the Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery, the Volokolamsk Monastery, and the Solovetskii Monastery, we lack studies for smaller regional monastic institutions. (2) Our understanding of medieval Russian monastic life is particularly murky for the 17th century, since the Time of Troubles left many of Russia's monastic institutions with their physical infrastructure destroyed or damaged, their servant population killed or dispersed, and even the number of monks severely reduced. Soviet statistical studies testify to the gradual recuperation of Muscovite monasteries in the century following the Troubles in spite of efforts by the tsarist government to curtail the acquisition of new properties by these institutions. (3) Scholars, however, have as yet gained little insight into the day-to-day struggle of individual monastic leaders to rebuild their institutions and the methods they employed to promote the economic expansion of their monasteries. In this context, one of the glaring gaps in our knowledge relates to the economic interactions of medium-sized monastic houses and their even less wealthy counterparts. The following study of the economic activities of the Borisoglebskii Monastery in the provincial town of Torzhok, as evident in property deeds, donation charters, petitions, and royal and ecclesiastical decrees, suggests that after the Time of Troubles the head of this medium-sized Russian monastery employed all traditional means available to place his institution once again on a sound economic footing. In the later 17th century, the Borisoglebskii leaders often functioned as shrewd entrepreneurs who manipulated property deeds to receive sanction for their takeover of smaller monasteries and hermitages. Confronted with resistance from the inhabitants and sponsors of these institutions, at least one Borisoglebskii archimandrite, in his campaign to build a successful spiritual house, was not above twisting the truth and using his influence at the Muscovite court to silence complaints about his ruthless exploitation of newly acquired territories. The Borisoglebskii Monastery and the Time of Troubles The first documentary evidence of the Torzhok Borisoglebskii Monastery, which seemingly dates back to the 12th century, appears in a charter by Ivan III from 6 April 1476, which assigns some of the Borisoglebskii lands to the archbishop of Novgorod. The monastery rose to prominence in the early 16th century when the Muscovite ruler granted it jurisdiction, except in matters of high crime, over the monastery's villages in the Torzhok region (uezd) and over a district in the Torzhok suburb (posad). (4) According to a royal charter dating from 30 January 1535, the grand prince's agents and soldiers were not allowed to enter the monastery's lands or take dues from it, and the monks were exempted from all obligations to provide hospitality or transport for them. (5) The monastery's proximity to the town of Torzhok drew it into the town's politics and made the monks unintended targets during the raids the town experienced during the Time of Troubles. …
Russian Monastic Culture. "Josephism" and the Iosifo-Volokolamsk Monastery 1479-1607
Tom E. Dy kstra. Russian Monastic Culture. "Josephism" and the Iosifo-Volokolamsk Monastery 1479-1607. Slavistische Beitrage, 450. Munich: Verlag Otto Sagner, 2006.264 pp. Bibliography. Paper.The present volume is a most welcome addition to the study of medieval Russian monasticism. Certainly for its impact on Muscovite ecclesiastical and political culture, and on the historiography of medieval Russia, Iosif Sanin's monastery of the Dormition deserves the focused attention which Tom E. Dykstra brings in this reworking of his doctoral dissertation. His book joins the burgeoning stream of interest in the Volokolamsk monastery and its literary, economic and architectural contributions to Russian culture by injecting a much needed revision of one of the most enduring and misleading assessments of the work of Iosif Sanin and his monastic community, the belief that he inaugurated a stilling, ritual-bound, and acquisition-obsessed conservatism to the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian political history. The book thus provides a critical reassessment of the work of such leading Soviet historians as M. N. Tikhomirov and A. A. Zimin, and their many western fellow travellers, without, however, succumbing to the temptation to discredit all of their insights; indeed the book is a model of scholarly fairness in its rethinking of what came to be known as Josephism to nineteenth and twentieth century historiography, both secular and ecclesiastical.Dykstra revisits well-known sources, as well as opening newly-published texts and studies, to create a compelling reconstruction of the social characteristics of the monks who made the Volokolamsk monastery their home. Three areas in particular attract his attention: the social background of the monks who populated the monastery, the innovativeness of Iosif s foundation, and the vexed issue of non-possession. Cautious in his evaluation of the sources, Dykstra reaches the conclusion that the monks tended to come from a middle segment of Muscovite society, and that while all social levels were represented in the monastery, social rank had no bearing on a monk's ascent to an authoritative position in the community. Iosif succeeded in inculcating the spirit and practice of equality among his monks, even if external markings of social hierarchy remained after tonsure. Iosif's reflections on the office of igumen/hegumen led him to ground in history and theory the council of elders, who served as a necessary corrective to possible autocratic tendencies in a hegumen and who shared with him the responsibility of governing the monastery. …