1652-80]

Poland and the Cossacks

505

Hopeless of carrying on the contest alone, he now turned to the Power which seemed the natural protector of the Orthodox and sent an embassy to the Tsar (1652). Alexis called a Sobor to discover whether

the realm was prepared to resume the strife with Poland; the assembly declared for war; and a commission was sent to receive oaths of allegiance from the Hetmantand the Little Russians (1653). This war, in which Moscow won the stake, was waged by the Tsar with a measure of humanity and moderation which it was unusual for a Muscovite army to practise, and was attended with a success which would almost certainly have led to the annexation of White Russia, if another Power had not intervened. Charles X of Sweden came down from the north, seized Posen, Warsaw, and Cracow, and entered into relations with Chmielnicki, whose real desire was not subjection to Russia, but independent sovereignty. In the situation thus created Alexis saw that his only course was to come to terms with Poland, and make common cause against the Swede. In this enterprise he was successful; he conquered a great part of Livonia, though only for a brief term. The Peace of Kardis (1661) restored to Sweden the Livonian fortresses which the Russians had occupied; but the danger of a Swedish Poland was averted for the time. The Poles, however, having driven out the Swedes, refused to execute their treaty with Alexis, and war was renewed. It lingered on till 1667, when the Treaty of Andrusovo restored to the Tsar Smolensk and the other places which had been ceded in 1634, and also gave him Little Russia up to the Dnieper, along with the sacred city of Kieff.

This was a gain which at first caused to Moscow as much trouble as it had caused to Warsaw. The Cossacks were not inclined to enter into the strict conditions of the life of an organised State; and during the next years Ukraine was the scene of trouble and disturbance. At the same time the Cossacks of the Don, hitherto at rest, rose under Stenka Razin, who formed a huge army of brigands recruited by fugitive adventurers from the Dnieper regions. His authority and his rapine ranged to the shores of the Caspian, and he won an enormous reputation, as a hero whom enchantments had rendered invulnerable, through southeastern Russia. The Government thought to paralyse the movement by offering him a pardon; he accepted it, but soon resumed his career of rebellion, and his rule reached from Astrakhan to Nizhni-Novgorod. At last he was captured and put to death, in 1671. The steppes of southern Russia, inhabited by an unruly and shifting population, were an impediment to the progress of civilisation; and the same conditions still prevailing produced a hundred years later the formidable insurrection of Pugacheff in the reign of Catharine II. It must be added that the Little Russian lands on the right bank of the Dnieper were contested with Poland by Turkey (1672-6); then the Hetman threw himself into the arms of Russia, and a short Turkish war was followed by the Treaty of

506

Alexis and Nikon

[1652-80

Bakchi-serai (1680) with the Sultan and the Crimean Khan, whereby the Ukraine and Zaporogia were left to Russia.

The reign of Alexis was agitated by ecclesiastical dissensions, a struggle between the Tsar and the head of the Church, and a struggle within the Church itself. The Patriarchate of Moscow had been founded in 1589 with the consent of the Patriarchs of the East, and it had not failed to add to the prestige of Russia, especially in those countries which belonged to the Greek confession. We saw the part which Hermogenes played at a critical juncture, but the dignity of the office was considerably enhanced when Philaret filled it and helped his son to govern the realm. But the Patriarchs were generally the creatures of the Tsars. The history of the Patriarchaté embraces little more than a century, for it was abolished by Peter the Great; and of the ten who discharged its duties in that period only two were men of great prominence and ability, Philaret and Nikon. The power and influence which were associated with the office in the hands of Philaret endangered the principle laid down by Ivan the Terrible, that it is the business of monks to hold their tongues, inasmuch as Church and State are separate spheres. The conflict of Alexis with Nikon showed that the dyarchy of Michael and Philaret could not be repeated.

Nikon owed his appointment as Patriarch (1652) to the sincere friendship of the Tsar, who genuinely admired his stronger will and superior intellect; and it seemed that he might be to the son what Philaret had been to the father. When Alexis left Moscow to take part in the war for Little Russia, he made Nikon his vicegerent in secular affairs. The nature of the Patriarch was hard and despotic, and he made himself generally hated by his arrogance. He assumed the title "Great Ruler," which had been borne by Philaret, not however as Patriarch but on account of his relationship to the Tsar. Alexis returned in 1656, but he was no longer the same man. Life in the camp and experience of military operations seem to have developed his character and made him more manly, independent, and self-confident. The results of this development were not compatible with the continuation of Nikon's power. The temper of Alexis was mild, but Nikon had no tact he was spoiled by his extraordinary success, and, as a Russian historian has said, "was not one of those who know where to stop." The old friendly relations gradually cooled. A conflict was inevitable, when Nikon began to brandish the same theory which had been so often used by the Bishops of Rome, the immeasurable superiority of ecclesiastical to secular authority. Nikon's numerous enemies, including the Tsaritsa (Maria Miloslavskaia), fanned the mutual distrust; and in 1658 Alexis took a decisive step by requiring him to explain how he came to designate himself "Great Ruler." This was equivalent to a rupture; Nikon withdrew to a monastery, probably expecting to be recalled; but the Tsar, although, profoundly devoted

1503-1667] Bigotry of the Russian Church.

Nil Sorski 507

as he was to the Church, his victory must have cost him dear, remained firm; and Nikon by intrigues with the oriental Patriarchs laid himself open to the charge of compromising the government in the eyes of foreigners. It was considered that his aim was to establish a popedom in Russia. He was tried at a Church Council (1667) and condemned to deprivation and confinement in a monastery. To the suppression of this exceptionally able ecclesiastical potentate it was due that the Church was kept in her own sphere, and subordinate to the State, and Peter averted the rise of another Nikon by abolishing the Patriarchate.

But, if Nikon failed in the attempt to usurp secular power, he was successful in an enterprise of Church reform, which had momentous consequences. The Russian Church, through its dead formalism, through the ignorance of its clergy, through a bigotry seldom equalled and never surpassed, was and still is one of the most effective obstacles to progress. Its formalism may be imputed to its Byzantine parentage; but, had it profited more by the influence and example of Byzantium, it would at least have appropriated some theological learning. The rule of the Tartars does not explain the gross ignorance of the ecclesiastics; for, through the astute policy of the tolerant khans the Church had been the one favoured institution, and consequently had never attempted to organise a national resistance to their yoke. If Greek had originally been made the ecclesiastical language, theology would have been in a different position; for the writings of the Fathers would have been known in a country where the clergy were forced to learn Greek; but as the liturgy was in Old Slavonic (the language of the Macedonian Slavs, which, though not identical with Russian, was easily learned), practically no training was necessary for the peasants who became priests (popes) or monks. Yet heresies, which are always a sign that the life of a Church is not extinct, did not fail to arise. A man occasionally appeared who, having come in contact with a wider world, lit a dim candle in the darkness. In the reign of Ivan the Great, Nil, a brother of the monastery of the White Lake (Bielo ozero), had wandered as a pilgrim in the East, learned Greek, and sojourned on Mount Athos. When he returned, he could not endure the spiritual deadness of his old cloister, and he built himself a cell, some twelve miles away, on the banks of the Sora; whence he was known as Nil Sorski. Some comrades joined him, and the anchoret's dwelling grew into a little community of a primitive monastic type. Nil laid no weight on external forms or outer works of piety, which may lead, he said, to the worst of sins, pride; the only thing that mattered in his eyes was the state of the thoughts and the spirit. Better, he said, to drink wine with reason than water unreasonably. At a Synod held in 1503, he proposed to disendow all Russian monasteries on the ground that those who renounced the world had no business with worldly property. Such views raised up hosts of enemies, who sought to destroy

508

Vassian and Maxim the Greek

[1503-1649

him by charges of heresy. They alleged that he criticised the texts of the Slavonic Lives of Saints and stigmatised some passages as interpolations. Russian churchmen regarded the Slavonic versions of Scripture and ecclesiastical literature as sacrosanct, and an enlightened man-rarissima avis - who suggested that being translated from Greek they might contain mistranslations, was considered a dangerous blasphemer for questioning the authorised version. Vassian, a pupil of Nil, applied similar criticism to the Slavonic version of the Byzantine Nomokanon (collection of canon laws); and a long struggle ended in his banishment (1531). In his critical labour Vassian was aided by a man more famous than himself, Maxim the Greek. The "heretics" had at all events convinced the Orthodox that it would not be amiss to have on their side men of some learning, and also that it might be desirable to augment the ecclesiastical literature by new translations from the Greek. For this purpose the great Duke Vasili imported from Mount Athos an Epirote Greek named Maximos. He had visited Italy in his youth, had associated with Aldus the printer at Venice, and at Florence he had heard sermons of Savonarola, whose spirit and ideals made an abiding impression on him. But he was not at home in the atmosphere of the Renaissance - pagan, he thought, and demoralisingand had sought the solitude of the Holy Mount. He set out for Moscow, resolved to imitate the high example of the Florentine monk, and expose sin and error, regardless of consequences. Engaged at first in translating Greek commentaries, with the help of two Russians who knew Latin, he proceeded, when he had learned Russian, to examine the service-books. He discovered false renderings, and thereby set his feet on a perilous path. He was told that by such a suggestion he offended the Russian saints who had used these books and now, on account of their holiness, were enabled to perform miracles. The schismatic sects use the same argument to this day. Maximos went on to criticise severely the clergy and the monks. His career ended in incarceration in a monastery (1531); he had learned too much about the secrets Muscovy to be allowed to return to Mount Athos.

The correction of the liturgy, which Maximos suggested to the great scandal of the Orthodox, was again proposed by an archimandrite of the Troitsa monastery in the reign of Michael; but it was reserved for Nikon, with the approval of the Tsar Alexis, to carry it out. The attention of Nikon was directed to various differences and innovations which had crept into the Russian Church by Paisios, Patriarch of Jerusalem, who visited Moscow in 1649. For instance, it was the custom in Russia to make the sign of the Cross with two fingers, in Greece and the East with three (symbolic of the Trinity). A commissioner was sent to the East, whose report confirmed the criticisms of Paisios. In Little Russia, where there was some theological learning, it was known that the service-books were faulty. On his appointment as Patriarch, Nikon

1649-67] Nikon's ecclesiastical reforms.

The Raskol 509

at first hesitated, for he well realised the difficulties; but further study convinced him of the necessity of undertaking a reform, and he asked the Tsar to summon a Synod, which met in the palace in 1654, and resolved, though all its members were not sincere and some refused to sign the Act, that the books must be conformed to the Greek and ancient Slavonic manuscripts. A second Synod (1655) revised the liturgy and ordained that other ecclesiastical books should be similarly corrected; a third (1656) enacted that the sign of the Cross should be made with three fingers. But there was a large discontented faction, who objected to these changes, drew up a petition to the Tsar against "the great disturber Nikon," and asserted that the Greek books had been corrupted by the Latins. Discussion was futile, and Nikon obtained the degradation and banishment of the leaders of the opposition. The fall of Nikon did not lead, as his enemies hoped, to the undoing of his reforms. But it caused a renewal of the agitation, and Alexis, weary of the petitions of monks and clergy, called a Synod in 1666 "against the schismatics and troublers of the Church who have recently sprung up." Among these the most prominent leader was Avvakum, protopope or rector of a Moscow church, of whom we possess a remarkable autobiography. This assembly generally approved the changes, and another (1667) formally and finally anathematised those who did not accept the reforms which it enumerated. The violence of the opposition in monastic circles is illustrated by the obstinate refusal of the great Solovetski monastery in the White Sea to accept the revised books; the monks stood a siege for several years; and, when the place was taken, many were put to death for their defiance of the Tsar.

The changes introduced by Nikon were trivial; but they led to a consequence of far-reaching importance, the Raskol, or great schism. The Raskolniki or schismatics are those who severed themselves from the Church and would have nothing to do with the inessential alterations made obligatory by the Synods of 1666 and 1667. The spirit of the schism was a product of the ignorance of the people, caused by the stagnation of secular culture, which produced a childish devotion to trivial externalities. In this respect the official Church and the schismatics were on one level, equally unable to distinguish the essential from the inessential. Both parties believed that the soul's salvation depended on the number of fingers with which the Cross was signed; and if the student of the history of religion were not prepared for any and every absurdity, he would find it hard to believe that such a question as the precise spelling of the name "Jesus" in Russian should cause as hot a conflict as if the order of the universe depended on the presence or absence of a single letter. The Raskol was not due to degeneration in the Church; there was no decline, for there had been no better time; the reform merely called into active resistance a mass of ignorance which would otherwise have continued its slumbers. It was in