the offices of the state bureaucracy, and a corps of servitors - laymen as well as clergy - to manage them and serve as his retinue.
He adopted practical and symbolic measures to preserve the purity of Muscovite Orthodoxy. Fearing the corrupting influence of the Uniate movement, he insisted that only Orthodox baptism by triple immersion was valid and therefore that all foreigners - even Orthodox believers from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - had to be rebaptised in order to be received into the Russian Church. In 1620, a church council in Moscow adopted his policy.2
Finally, the 'Gutenberg revolution' belatedly took root in Muscovite Russia in the early seventeenth century, long after the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had experienced its impact. Printing presented the church with an opportunity and a challenge. Well aware of the dangers of public discussion in print, tsars and patriarchs maintained a virtual monopoly over this revolutionary technology: the official Printing Office (Pechatnyi Dvor) published the overwhelming majority of books that appeared in Russia during the seventeenth century Printing made it possible to provide parishes and monasteries with reliable copies of the service books that the Orthodox liturgy requires. Even so, there were perils, for publishing uniform editions of liturgical books requires the editors to establish authoritative texts. Given centuries of evolving liturgical practice within the Orthodox commonwealth, leading to different usages in different churches, and the inevitable variations in hand-copied manuscripts, how were editors in Russia - or, for that matter, Ukraine - to decide which variant was truly Orthodox?
As soon as he returned to Moscow, Filaret faced a crisis over this issue. In his absence, Tsar Michael had commissioned Abbot Dionisii of the Trinity-St Sergii monastery, the only important centre of learning in a devastated cultural landscape, to prepare new editions of fundamental liturgical texts beginning with the Sluzhebnik (Missal). He and his collaborators, Arsenii Glukhoi and Ivan Nasedka, compared recent Muscovite editions with a selection of earlier Slavonic and Greek texts and found a number of passages that, in their eyes, were illogical or tinged with heresy. Their work elicited a violent reaction. In 1618, a local ecclesiastical council attacked their editions, condemned Dionisii and the others as heretics, and defrocked them.
2 Metropolitan Makarii, Istoriia russkoi tserkvi (Diisseldorf:Briicken-Verlag, 1968-69), xi, 3-8, 23-33; A. V Kartashev, Ocherkipo istorii russkoi tserkvi (Moscow: Nauka, 1991), ii, 96-9; P. Pascal, Avvakum et les débuts du raskol (Paris and The Hague: Mouton, 1969), 25-7; S. A. Zenkovsky, Russkoe staroobriadchestvo; dukhovnye dvizheniia semnadtsatogo veka [Forum Slavicum xxi] (Munich: W. Fink, 1970), 70-4; P. Bushkovitch, Religion and society in Russia: the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 52-3.
Was this article helpful?