Russian Monasteries Research Articles

Lectio Orthodoxorum: Libraries of the Orthodox Monasteries of the Lviv Eparchy in the Late 16th–17th Centuries

The problem of the «readers’ canon» representation in the Ukrainian Orthodox monasteries in the Early Modern period is studied by examining the libraries of the Krekhiv, St. Onuphrius in Lviv, Pidhirci and Terebovlya monasteries in the Lviv Eparchy. The book culture of the monasteries of the “Kyivan tradition” is considered in comparison with the book culture of the Catholic monasteries in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In general, the mentioned libraries were small in comparison with the Catholic monastery libraries; for example, the largest one in Krekhiv consisted of approximately 100 volumes. Lectio Orthodoxorum is represented, besides liturgical books, by the thematic “triad” of patristic, hagiography, and preaching literature. And it does not look peculiarly, because similar literature was in Russian or Bulgarian Orthodox monastery libraries. For instance, Bulgarian monastery libraries mostly consisted of manuscript liturgical books, collections of sermons, etc. However, the same monasteries under consideration, such as Basilian in the 18th Century, were completely different according to the thematic review. Additionally, Lectio Orthodoxorum was almost entirely composed of literature in Cyrillic. Only a few books were in Latin or in Polish. It means that the monasteries under study were not examples of so called «Polonica Orthodoxe», and the monks were not the part of contemporary Latin respublica litterarum. «Secular», and especially ancient literature, which was considered fundamental for a Westernoriented humanistic educational system, was lacking in the mentioned monasteries, and so were the books in Latin. This presents an indirect evidence about the degree and kind of education of those monks. It also suggests that, in general, the monks in these monasteries did not need a larger or more differentiated kind of literature. The liturgical cycle in the monasteries determined all their monastic life, and they were basically focused on prayer: intellectual activity, including reading of books, was probably beyond their scope and needs.

О некоторых шведских фрагментах славянского рукописного Пролога

ABSTRACTLarisa Viktorovna Prokopenko: On Some Swedish Fragments of Slavonic Manuscripts of the PrologueThe article deals with fragments of the Prologue manuscripts from Russian monasteries and churches which are preserved in Swedish archives. Especially two of the fragments are considered in detail. The palaeographic and linguistic analysis, as well as the reconstruction of the text of the first fragment (National Library of Sweden A 787a 27), prove that it derives from one of the most ancient manuscripts of the Prologue (early thirteenth century) that includes the lives of saints, and the so-called didactic articles. It most likely originates in Novgorod. The second fragment (National Library of Sweden A 787a 8) dating from the first half of the fourteenth century shows a lot of features suggesting that the scribe was a native speaker of the Pskov dialect. Moreover, this fragment turns out to be very close textually to another earlier Pskov codex of the Prologue (Russian State Archives of Ancient Documents, Typ. 156) dating from the second half of the thirteenth century.

Профессионально-музыкальное искусство в монастырях России XVI—XVII вв.

Preservation and development of the ancient church singing as the high musical art occupied an important place in the spiritual life of Russian monasteries in the 16th – 17th centuries. On the basis of the documents the author reveals the activities of the monastic choirs, their composition and structure, information about the peculiarities of the chanting repertoire, the system of salaries for the singers and their service and off-duty employment. The researcher also presented the most outstanding monastic chanting masters’ creative works of their authorship which have gained recognition among their contemporaries

Сложение образа монастыря в русском искусстве XIV–XVI веков.

ОмфалиRussian art of the second half of the 14th century demonstrates significant interest towards monastic themes. During this period the first depictions of Blachernai monastery appear in early icons of Intercession. In the mid. 15th century, the iconography of Russian monasteries started to develop. Particularly, there is an image of the Holy Trinity Monastery, founded by St Sergius of Radonezh, depicted on the walls of the St Sergius Church in Novgorod (1459–1463), and the Church of the Miracle of the Archangel Michael at Chonae founded by St. Alexios, the bishop of Moscow, is depicted on the icon of St. Alexios with scenes of his life painted in the 1480s. In the 16th century, sights of Russian monasteries, depicted as churches surrounded by walls, sometimes with scenes of miracles, became subjects for icon-painting. Among them, we should mention the “House of Sts. Zosimas and Sabbatius” with views of the Solovetski Monastery. Architecture became the main content of the plot of those icons. Another interesting subject is the “House of St Sabbatius of Tver”, the subject that, however, never fully developed. It contains scenes from the Bible and the New Testament integrated into the space of monastery. They probably had in mind the so-called proskynetarion icons containing sights of Jerusalem and the Holy Land with scenes from the Holy Writ. The author underlines that the interest towards architecture of monasteries is a distinctive feature of Russian art. It can be tied with the fact that most of the Russian monasteries in the 16th century were coenobian, which in Russian climate meant a large number of buildings. Technical drawings, as well as views of the Holy Land, played an important role in generating such subjects.

Ecological and soil conditions of black pine (Pinus nigra Arn.) stands in the area of the Russian Monastery at Mount Athos

In this study, organic matter and nutrients (N, P, K, Ca, Mg and Na) concentration were estimated at the forest floor and soil of Pinus nigra stands growing in the area of the Russian Monastery at Mount Athos and compared with three other Pinus nigra stands at higher altitudes in Northern Greece. Results show higher concentration of organic matter and nutrients at the forest floor of Pinus nigra stands on Mount Athos. Climate, low altitude and possibly the provenance of the species are the main reasons for the high accumulation of organic matter and nutrients found at the forest floor.

The Sermon to the Coenobitic Monastic Brotherhood: On the Formation of the Monastic Disciplinary Charter in Rus’

This article is devoted to the study of sources transmitting the Sermon to the Coenobitic Monastic Brotherhood and its spheres of influence. The article determines authentic copies of this text and considers several elements: charters of the founders of several Russian monasteries and lectures to the brotherhood of the coenobitic monasteries and to their new members. Authors of Old Russian disciplinary charters were guided by apostolic and patristic texts; these sources were used not in their original language but in translation. Quotations from these authoritative compositions were often incorporated into charters through other texts, both translated and Russian. In their borrowings, the authors of these charters also used material that had been borrowed by their predecessors, who relied on their own authoritative texts. The Sermon to the Coenobitic Monastic Brotherhood is known in the Russian manuscript tradition from the beginning of the 15th century. Among its sources, there are compositions by Basil of Caesarea, Ephrem the Syrian, and a certain anonymous author. The Sermon influenced the Charter of Cornelius of Komel and some texts from the starchestvo tradition. The Sermon to the Coenobitic Monastic Brotherhood functioned as a link, a bridge between the Byzantine and Russian tradition of the monastic disciplinary charter.

Mihail Suslov, The Utopia of ‘Holy Russia’ in Today’s Geopolitical Imagination of the Russian Orthodox Church: a Case Study of Patriarch Kirill

The paper focuses on the myth of ‘Holy Russia,’ as restored and promoted by the Russian Orthodox Church under Patriarch Kirill (Gundiaev), and explores the new imagining identities and spatial configurations generated by this myth. While before ‘Holy Russia’ was a metaphor, associated with relics, deposited in Russian monasteries and churches, Kirill ‘geo-politicized’ it, informing it with practical political meaning, and as such it is viewed as including Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and on many occasions Moldova, and less often – Kazakhstan. The paper discusses the metaphor of ‘Holy Russia’ as a geopolitical utopia, as a postcolonial invention, and as a method of mental mapping. It uncovers Kirill’s modernist philosophy of history, based on Messianic meta-narrations of enslavement and subsequent liberation. As such, ‘Holy Russia’ does not stop colonial practices, but perpetuates them in many aspects. It continues the ‘internal re-colonization’ of the Russian population by ‘re-churchizing’ it, and by claiming to be the cultural center of the Western civilization.

NEW TYPOLOGICAL TASKS OF ORTHODOX TEMPLE - COMPLEX INSIDE MODERN SETTLEMENT’S STRUCTURE

This article deals with a concept of one of the possible variants of opposing of destructive processes that lead to degradation and disappearance of Russian small settlements and towns, ruining areas identity basics, loss of places distinctive characteristics, living standards gap, loss of spirital alternative to the market. As an object - catalyst of positive changes and Russian areas regeneration, it is suggested to use the temple complex typology, with altered contents and purpose - a sort of Science Town, that will follow the best traditions of Russian monasteries of past times, but will base on modern tasks and tendencies of social development and well-being of provincial Russian settlements.

The importance of Mount Athos and the Ohrid Archbishopric for the policy of Basil II in the Balkans

The essay ascertains that the monastic center located on Mount Athos and the Ohrid Archbishopric played a very important role in the policies pursued by Basil II. It was during his rule that the first foreign monasteries, which later Greek sources refer to as monastic communities ??????? ??????? (Iveron and Amalfi), were established. The third monastery displaying this characteristic was the Serbian monastery Hilandar. Since Hilandar had been established after the Bulgarian and Russian monasteries, the question arose why sources dating from the late 12th century do not mention Zographou and St. Panteleimon?s monastery among the ??????? ??????? monasteries. The answeris to be found in the circumstances surrounding the establishment of Slavic monasteries on Mount Athos. The essay also assesses the importance of Mount Athos and the Ohrid Archbishopric for the process of deeper integration of Slavs into the Byzantine religious and political-ideological system.

Zapisnaia kniga (Donation Records) of Volokolamsk Monastery, for 1550-1607

Early modern Russian monasteries kept detailed records of donations by laity and by the monks themselves from before and after their tonsure. Gifts large enough to endow annual celebrations were generally recorded in the vkladnaia kniga (endowment donation book) and the kormovaia kniga (book of feasts), while smaller donations were recorded in the zapisnaia kniga (note book). The zapisnaia kniga translated here includes donations made over more than half a century to the Iosifo-Volokolamsk monastery, one of the largest in Russia in the sixteenth century. The donors form a broad cross-section of Russian society -- peasants and princes, men and women, parish priests and archbishops. The records provide detailed evidence of the material culture of their time, since donations were mostly in-kind. And the information they provide calls into question preconceived notions about how closely social class and wealth were tied together in Russia in this period.

Administrating a Right Life: Secular and Spiritual Guidance at Solovki Monastery in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries

The spiritual and economic endeavors of Russian monasteries in the pre-modern period have often been studied as separate issues by scholars researching the internal life and/or impact of cloisters in a particular region. However, these two areas of monastic life worked not just in tandem, but were mutually supportive as can be observed in the responsibilities and duties of monastic leaders and officers. Solovki Monastery, with its extensive wealth and strong spiritual leadership in northern Russia, provides an excellent example for exploring the manner in which spiritual leadership and spiritual labor dovetailed with economic responsibilities and labors. A broad variety of economic records as well as pious literature and instructional texts provide evidence for the merged spiritual and temporal/economic roles of the leaders, cellarers, treasurers, bailiffs, and other individuals and groups that had designated duties or titles within the cloister. It can be observed that spiritual power and economic success were considered mutually reinforcing among the monks and the surrounding population of Solovki, and at other monasteries of pre-Petrine Russia.

Synodikons in the Russian Monastery Book of the 16th–17th centuries: Specificity and Functions

The paper provides an overview of the synodikons — a kind of monastic books. It is difficult to determine unambiguously their type and purpose. There are traced the gradual expansion of their composition, the appearance of new editions, depending on changes of their functions in a monastic book culture.

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. …

Οι Σλάβοι στην Αθωνική μονή του Αγίου Παντελεήμονος

  <p>Cyril Pavlikianov</p><p>The Slavs in the Athonite Monastery of Saint Panteleimon</p><p>The article analyzes the prosopographical data concerning the presence of Slavs in the athonite monastery of Saint Panteleimon. The chronological frame of the survey extends from 998 to 1661. During the period 1262-1661 thirty-six monks of Slavic origin are identified. Thirteen of them (39.3%) appear as lingually neutral, three can be described as Russians (9%), seven use Bulgarian vernacular (21%), and seven seem to be Serbs (21%). It is obvious that the Russian-speaking monks prevailed during the earlier period, whereas the Serbs and the Bulgarians took their place after the middle of the 14th century. According to the evidence available, in 1395-1396 and 1469, the monastery of Saint Panteleimon had some contacts with the Bulgarian monasteries of Rila and Bačkovo. It is clear that in the 16th centuty the monastery was strongly influenced by the Serbs, so one may state that after the Turkish conquest the connection with the Russian lands was gradually lost in favour of the Balkan Slavs. However, Saint Panteleimon continued being perceived by the other athonite monks as a Russian monastery, even during the 17th century when the Turkish raids (1618) diminished its Slavic population.</p><p> </p>

Modern Greek Studies Yearbook (review)

162 Reviews practical outlets in the form of public oratory had almost ceased to exist. Sophists were, however, much sought after and, according to Cavafy, bitchily competitive. If their spiritual descendants are today to be found in the research seminars and teaching posts of university arts faculties, surely Cavafy, for one, would have approved. Roderick Beaton King's College London University of London Theofanis G. Stavrou, ed., Modern Greek Studies Yearbook, Vol. 1, no. 1, 1985. Pp. xii + 253 $20.00. It is unusual as well as difficult to review a learned journal because of the disparity of contents any given issue contains. The fact that the issue under review is a new venture, under the sponsorship of the Modern Greek Studies Program at the University of Minnesota , and that its very existence ought to interest readers of this Journal , makes reviewing reasonable, but does not make it easier. As explained in the prefatory Editor's Note, this enterprise was conceived in 1982 when two older journals in the field were in difficulties -- Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, edited in England, and Neo-Hellenica, edited in Texas. As the Journal of the Modern Greek Studies is an heir and successor of the former English journal, so the Modern Greek Studies Yearbook is at least the indirect successor to Neo-Hellenica. The editor proposes to interpret his journal's concern with the Greek world broadly. He will seek articles dealing with the Greeks abroad as well as within Greece and with ancient and Byzantine as well as more modern times. The Yearbook seeks to be international in its scholarship, with contributions from Greece and from the United States alongside every other land in which Greek studies on a scholarly level exist. Finally, the editor intends to combine historical and literary scholarship and will publish translations of significant Greek texts into English with whatever critical apparatus they require . Book reviews and a list of "Books Received" completes the scheme of the Yearbook. In general, then, the new Yearbook covers nearly the same ground as the JMGS, and the two editors are bound to find themselves competing for contributions from the same stable of authors. Whether the number of good articles will be sufficient to sustain high Reviews 163 scholarly quality for both periodicals is a question for the future. In the present case, Th. Stavrou has indeed succeeded in gathering an impressive group of articles for his initial issue; and the format of publication and editorial accuracy are entirely admirable. The lead article "The Orthodox Elders (Startsy) of Imperial Russia" by Robert L. Nichols is by all odds the most impressive contribution in this issue. It traces, with easy mastery, the origins and diffusion of a new style of holiness in Russian monasteries from the 18th to the 20th centuries. This is new stuff, at least for me. Our Russian studies have been so hypnotized by the Revolutions of 1917 that little attention has been given to so very different a pattern of response to modernity as that embodied by the Russian monastic "elders," with their perpetual "Jesus prayer" and habit of giving advice to lay persons who came to seek what we might call psychiatric help. Yet, as Nichols makes clear, this monastic movement was also in opposition (of a sort) to official Tsarism and constituted as complex a reaction to the cross currents of modernity within Russia as anything found within the more familiar revolutionary sects. This, and a second article on Russian fund-raising efforts within the framework of the Orthodox Church on behalf of the Greeks during the revolutionary struggle, deal with Russian rather than Greek history in any exact sense. Yet as the editor explains in his prefatory note, even Nichol's article does relate to the Greek world, since the techniques of holiness that distinguished the Russian elders of the 19th and 20th centuries had, in fact, been pioneered at Mt. Athos in the 14th and reached Russia anew in the 18th century from Balkan sources. The late bloom of Hesychast piety in the north is therefore an episode in the history of the extended "Byzantine Commonwealth " that Dimitry Obolensky sketched so elegantly some years ago...

The Historical, Cultural and Political Background

I Do not have to relate the story of the partitions of Poland, 1772, 1793 and 1795. In two decades Russia took the greatest part of Poland, including in the first place all those now so-called eastern Polish borderlands, which had coexisted with Poland for exactly four centuries. After the Napoleonic War and the Congress of Vienna Russia obtained even more, because to these lands was added the central part of Poland, called the Kingdom of Poland. Poland fought against this domination— in the insurrection of Kosciuszko in 1794, the insurrection of 1830–31, the insurrection of 1863, the revolutionary movements of 1905. These insurrections and these movements produced three results: (l) they maintained and preserved the spirit of independence in the nation; (2) they maintained and preserved in European public opinion the still international character of the political question, of which they became a bloody symbol; (3) they augmented and deepened the Russian oppression. Indeed, most of the cultural achievements that Poland had made were destroyed; on the other hand, nothing was done to continue the natural development of the country, which, just because of that constant arrest of its development, was not able to follow the march of time. The University of Wilno was liquidated; the Lyceum of Krzemieniec was liquidated, and with its wealth the Russians organized their Russian University of Kiev. Museums, libraries, collections of art were confiscated and evacuated. Catholic churches were converted into Russian churches and monasteries.

Some Notes on Russia: The Russian Church and a Russian Monastery

Some Notes on Russia: The Russian Church and a Russian Monastery

Some Notes on Russia: The Russian Church and a Russian Monastery

Some Notes on Russia: The Russian Church and a Russian Monastery

Some Notes on Russia: The Russian Church and a Russian Monastery

Some Notes on Russia: The Russian Church and a Russian Monastery