The place of the schism in Russia in 17thcentury Russian history
1. The schism can be regarded as a peculiar "destruction" of medieval Russian philosophy of history, resting on the conceptions of the passing on of power (translatio imperii) and the preservation of the true faith till the coming of the latter days ("Moscow third Rome"). The victory of the followers of Nikon meant the triumph of political pragmatism over forms of religious thinking regarded as traditional in the Russia of the 15th to 17th centuries. In that respect, Nikon's Greekstyle reforms directly prepared the Westernstyle reforms of Peter I since the demolition of eschatological barriers, the rationalization of the historical process made significantly easier the movement towards the first Rome of the empire, i.e. towards Western Europe.
2. Along with the passing of traditional eschatology, the traditional refusal of scientific knowledge, of "external wisdom" also disappeared from Russian "high" culture. In the context of Filofey's general eschatological conception, salvation was to be achieved not by science but by the preservation of the true faith. The possibility of cultural evolution or cultural borrowing was ruled out by the system of values, of 15th17thcentury Russian society, permeated with eschatologism. What was desirable was simply the preservation of already established religious, cultural and behavioral norms. The Greek, Southern and Western Russian Orthodox theologians around Nikon claimed to be the representatives of scholarship, and consistently accused the Muscovite Orthodox of ignorance. In their efforts to prove that adherence to traditions to ignorance, the followers of Nikon, regardless of their original motifs, asserted the value of knowledge in itself, thereby again proving to be the forerunners of the reformers of the era of Peter.
3. Although the first half of the 17th century saw the efforts is equal to strengthen the Church and its educational role in the state, by the end of the century the Church would be the greatest loser through the events of the schism. On the one hand, a significant part of believers, indeed, that adhering most strongly to religious traditions, having become schismatic, the resistance of Pravoslavism against nonPravoslav or secularizing influences had been weakened. On the other hand, after the deposition of Nikon, the Church was forced into a completely subordinate position to the state. This predetermined the ecclesiastical policies of Peter I, who even deprived the Church of its formal independence, and the priesthood of all ecclesiastical authority.
4. The ideal the religious figures of the 17th century were striving to achieve was the priciple of the harmony, or "symphony" between ecclesiastical and secular powers. At the same time, this principle could be realized (or violated) in a great number of ways in Byzantine and Russian history. The events of the schism would seem to have outlined three basic models of the relationship between church and state. The first, followed by the members of the Godloving circle (including at that time the Tsar and Nikon), was based on the relationship between the young Ivan the Dread and church authorities in the mid16th century. This model was given symbolic expression in 1652 by the ceremonial canonization of Metropolite Filipp (1566-1568) murdered by the oprichniks of Ivan the Dread. The act of canonization was supposed to symbolically heal the rift between the imperial and metropolitan authorities as expressed in the murder of Metropolite Filipp as well as to restore the relations between church and state to their status prior to the murder. Later, in his patriarchal activities and utterances, Nikon expressed another view, which indicated Latin influences; this was essentially the strict separation of the jurisdictions of state and church, and asserting the primacy of the church over the state. However, instead of either of these models, the view represented by Tsar Aleksei Mihailovich, having come of age in the mean time, and expressed at the synod of 1667 prevailed; it contained the unconditional primacy of the authority of the Tsar.
5. When the activities of Peter I are assessed, he is often accused of (or praised for) the nihilistic attitude he showed toward the national tradition. However, it is again Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Aleksey Mihailovich who should be given the "credit" for being the first to condemn in public this tradition. In that sense, Peter indeed was not an innovator. What he did was merely to change the source of the borrowing and emulation according to his own practical needs and purposes, and thereby fortified and deepened the state of disruption, turning it from an ecclesiastical into a cultural and social schism.
The theory of "Moscow - third Rome" in the mirror of Orthodox ecclesiology and canon law
It is wellknown that this idea first appeared on paper around 1522-1524 in a writing by Filofey, a monk in Pskov, under the title "Letter on bad days and hours." Researchers are still debating about the history, authorship and dating of the texts containing the famous theory. The paper examines, from the perspective of Orthodoxy, the successive (and unhappy) misunderstandings around the Pskov monk's reasoning, which would generate such a loud echo probably despite the intention of the author himself, and the ecclesiological and canon law background of the Pskov idea.
To understand the theory of "Moscow - third Rome" one should profoundly understand the 28th canon of the Fourth Universal Synod (its precedent was the third canon of the Second Universal Synod). According to that, old Rome had right to "honorary" privileges on account of its extraordinary importance as ruling city, and the same went for Constantinople, the new capital city of the empire. Thus the debate between East and West has always focussed on whether the primacy exists on the level of "ecclesiastical law" or on that of "divine law." This is why the Russian Church has officially never claimed the distinguished title for itself, never intensified the theory of "Moscow- third Rome," although after the fall of the Bizantine empire the Tsar of Russia, with certain theocratic pretences, claimed to be recognized as the protector of all the Orthodox peoples, usually suffering under foreign rules, of the world. The metropolia, later patriarchate, of Moscow, never wanted to question the universal primacy of Constantinople within Orthodoxy. On the other hand, Orthodoxy never had inappropriate hopes concerning the external structure of the Church. The infallibility of the Church has never been understood in a local sense, but has always been associated with universal categories. Another, frequently occurring misunderstanding should also be cleared up. The occasional disputes between Moscow and Constantinople were never conducted on the level of ecclesiology or of canon law, but always around the interpretation of one of its points, namely around the interpretation of another passage of the 28th canon of the Fourth Universal Synod, on the basis of which Constantinople claimed further privileges for itself within universal Orthodoxy. This debate, however, was never profound enough to question the unity of Orthodoxy in faith and sacrament.
The theory on "Moscow - third Rome" is related to another problem, which needs further explanation: the issue of catholicity and autocephaly, universal and local church, according to the Orthodox image of the Church. In 1448, due to the wellknown events, the Russian Orthodox Church became de facto autocephalous. "Western" mentality usually sees two easily acceptable models: the centralized and the totally decentralized church images. It does not know very well the delicately balanced combination of the two. There is another misunderstanding, namely that the "Eastern" Church continued dividing after the break with Rome. Nor was the movement for autocepaly, when the situation was ready for it, alien to the universal, undivided Christianity of the first millenium. A good example is the "ecclesiasticalnational synod" summoned to Preslav first in 893, then in 918-919, which formulated the demand for complete autocephaly in the relation of Byzantium. To conclude, according to an even subtler formulation, Orthodoxy, in a strict, ecclesiological and dogmatic sense has neither a "first," nor a "second" nor a "third Rome." At most an "honorary" order among the local churches can be set up. For its centre, its first bishop and great high priest, according to the testimony of the Epistle to the Hebrews, is Jesus Christ of Nazareth Himself. (4:14-15; 8:1, 8:6).
Autocracy, absolutism, divine right: chief characteristics and typology of the 16-17thcentury power ideology in Moscow
According to the author of the essay, the Russian notion of power in the 16th and 17th centuries, on account of its differences in content and form, cannot and must not be described in a terminology characteristic of Western culture. Thus, the term "political ideology" cannot be applied to the period in question - he proposes the use of "power" ideology instead. For political issues were raised as religious issues, and they were discussed not in abstract treatises but in symbols. This is why the author, after D. Rowland, interprets ideology as a system of symbols. Most important of the symbols was the image of the prince as the image and likeness of God/or ruling under divine inspiration. Biblical lines, also occurring as proverbs, like "The Tsar's heart is in God's hand," or "Fear God, respect the Tsar," were key elements of the ideology of power.
The second part of the essay considers the question why the Muscovite ideology of power cannot be called absolutistic. While absolutistic authors described the position of the monarch in legal (philosophical) terms (Roman Law, natural law, fundamental laws), their Russian contemporaries completely lacked this perspective. In what the Russian notion of power was similar to - but not identical with! - that of the Western one was the doctrine about the divine right of kings. In order to express the quality of the similarities and differences, the author proposes to use the following term for the Russian ideology of power in the 16th and 17th centuries: the legally unlimited divine right of Tsars, expressed mainly in theological symbols.
Moisej Ugrin and Ephrem - saints of Orthodox Church
After the foundation of the states and the adoption of Christianity, the 10th and 11th centuries marked a number of social and political changes for both Hungary and the Kievan Rus. The starting period of our observations is the time when Christianity was adopted in a statecontrolled framework (prince Géza, 973; Vladimir, 988).
Hungary and the Kievan Rus as neighbouring states had contacts with one another on all characteristic levels of the feudal system: the members of reigning families even contracted dynastic marriages. Concerning political relations between the two countries, the end of the 10th and the whole of the 11th century can be regarded as a period of sporadic contacts on the evidence of the few sources. This is another reason why the data of religious and ecclesiastic literature are so important.
Both dissimilar and parallel tendencies can be distinguished between the adoption and spreading of Christianity, and the development of the ecclesiastic system. In the time period when the formation of the state and the organized expansion of Christianity were taking place, i.e. at the turn of the 10th and 11th centuries, the schism between Rome and Byzantium was still to come, but the dividing lines between the spheres of influence of the two centres were already taking shape. Although we are aware of the presence of both churches in Hungary as well as in the Kievan Rus (by no means to the same extent, however), we do not know of any clashes of interests leading to significant conflicts. The Russian chronicles (for the year 996) inform us that Vladimir "lived in peace with the princes of the neighbouring countries", including "the Hungarian Stephen" (Ugrorskij Stefan). This peaceful relationship is shown by the fact that among the princes' closest attendants there can be found the representatives of the neighbouring ethnic group. Thus, for instance, one of the favourite servants of Boris (Vladimirovich), who was later worshipped as a saint, was the Hungarian born George (Georgij Ugrin). His two brothers became monks known as Moisej and Ephrem, and they have been canonized by Russian and the Greek Orthodox Churches. The witnesses of the early Hungarian and East Slavic contacts are depicted in their legends (zhitie) as personifications of ideals. These ideals are expounded in our paper.
Georgiy Ugrin, or Hungarian George - a saint hardly known
As it is known, Prince Boris had three Hungarians in his service, indeed three brothers, Moses, Efraim and George. Two of them, Moses and Efraim are wellknown and widely respected saints of the Russian Orthodox Church. The youngest of the brothers, George, is much less known, although his name is mentioned both by the annals and by the legend of Boris and Gleb, the legends of the Holy Moses and Efraim, as well as works on church and monastic history, and a few liturgical texts.
Along with his elder brothers, George also joined the service of Prince Boris, and soon became his close, beloved subject.
The most important question the student of the life of Hungarian George must face is whether he can be regarded as a saint at all. Some sources call him George, others saint George. This is probably related to the fact that neither the documents nor the exact date of his canonization are known.
On what grounds could he be recognised as a saint? (a) We believe he fulfilled with his deed Christ's teaching of the greatest love: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (Jn 15:13). George knew he could not escape, indeed, he knew he would not be able to save his lord either, but still he sacrificed himself voluntarily to fulfil the Christian commandment. (b) George is mentioned twice in Minea, the most authoritative Orthodox liturgical book, at July 26, where the short legend of Holy Moses and the ecclesiastical ceremony to be performed in his honour can be found, and both times he is called saint. (c) Saints always have their own days in the church calendar. The Minea contains clear reference that the Church commemorates George on June 24, two days before his brother, on the same say that Saint Boris is remembered. (d) The no less authoritative Nastolnaya kniga svyashchennotserkovnosluzhitelya" also prescribes June 24 as the day on which to celebrate Saint George's memory. (e) We can also mention as evidence Saint George's head, which was found in Saint Efraim's grave preserved in uncorrupted condition, and which might be found yet again. (f) Saints also have had their icons painted. Saint George has no icon of his own, but he appears in the icons representing Saint Boris and Saint Gleb in important moments of their lives.
The present paper discusses one of these icons, which may be the best known, was painted in the 14th century, by a member of the Moscow icon painting school.
Worldly riches, spiritual poverty. The Solovetskiy monastery during the disputes over the monastic property in Russia
Founded in the 15th century in distant Northern Russia, Solovetskiy monastery (later to gain a bad reputation as the darkest prison in the Soviet Union) had become an ecclesiastical and cultural centre by the 16th century, with a peculiar profile and immense estates. The monastic way of life in Solovetskiy created and followed two traditions, which did not oppose each other but reflected different attitudes. Saint Nil of Sora represented the ascetic life following hesychasm, which prescribed mandatory poverty not only for the individual but for the whole monastic community as well. The other was the practice introduced by St Yosif of Volotsk, which opened the gates of the monastery before pilgrims coming from all walks of life in Russia, looked after their bodily and spiritual needs, and they, in return, made the monastery rich with their gifts. Monastic wealth was regarded important by those at the top of ecclesiastical and secular hierarchies because it could be used for what today are called social and charitable activities, for spreading culture and education. For monastic foundations in the 15th and 16th centuries were always associated with colonization (there were still vast uninhabited areas), with the spreading of Christianity, language and civilization. That is why Solovetskiy monastery, hanging on to its possessions since its foundations, could become the greatest ecclesiastical, economic and cultural centre of the White Sea coast. In the period under discussion the economic growth of monasteries was the topic of synods and church pamphlets, though most of the monasteries owned large estates. Although the Russian Church in the 16th century was consistently following Yoseflian views, rich monasteries creating and preserving culture and art were an integral part of the life of the church just as the ascetic monks and hermits living in the woods, incessantly praying.
The human ideal in Russia in the High Middle Ages
The author wishes to find out why interest in man became so important in the 14th and 15th centuries, in the days of Tartar destruction and the rivalries of princes. The importance of the human factor always increases in time of historical disasters, so human personality comes into the foreground during times of social unequilibrium and fragility of socio-politi-cal structures. This human personality expresses itself in ideals, strives toward self-perfection and explains itself in religion since it was Orthodoxy that helped concentrate the intellectual and spiritual reserves of the vanquised. Thus the whole cultural and social life of the era gets creative impulse from the Orthodox religion.
In the 14th and 15th centuries, Russian thought and literature focused their attention on man, who would not break with God, on his feelings, on his various ways to realize and im-prove himself, and on the importance of the self-perfection of the human spirit. This ideal can be observed in certain doctrines of rationalist free-thinkers and religious sects with ideas of individual religiousness, the active role of human personality and the requirement of high morality, as well as in hesychasm with the moral imperative of conscious inner self-perfection, the joint service of church and society and the harmony of active and worshipful life. This ideal is expressed in the image of the secular personality, determined by the change of social hierarchy and the dominance of the Orthodox Church.
Ecclesiastical and secular thinking, as well as literature and the arts place outstanding em-phasis on man. After D. S. Lihachev, these characteristics are called pre- or proto-Renais-sance. The author intends to show that the concept of "humanitas" is present in various de-grees and with different contents throughout the historical development of mankind. Al-though reminiscent of the Renaissance, the characteristics and the new human ideal of 14th and 15th century Russia still remain within the limits of the Middle Ages. This novel atti-tude to man was a specific achievement of the Russian Middle Ages, capable of renewal, but in ways different from Western Europe. Subjective and inductive of self-contemplation, the re-newal, the new human ideal in Russia emerged in the model of the common abstract, in a collective way dissolving in the Orthodox religion. Thus the new ideal of interpreting humman personality does not point to pre-Renaissance, but rather means the flourishing of High Middle Ages in Russia.
Múltidéző: Fejezetek az Orosz Ortodox Egyház Történetéből
Elmélet és módszer