The Icon Debate

← 16 | 17 →

Chapter I. The Muscovite Orthodox Church in the Face of Heresy: the 15^th and the 16^th Centuries

‘It should be the greatest concern of an arch-shepherd in his area that talented icon painters and their disciples use the old patterns, rather than their own imagination and speculation to describe the deity’ – stated the Council of the Hundred Chapters in one of its resolutions during a session in Moscow in 1551. The Council, or Stoglav, advised that all bishops and archbishops ‘in all cities and monasteries subject to their authority’ would be required to extend ‘protection over icon painters’ and see to that ‘no evil nor depravation penetrate into their work.’³⁰ Following these provisions the Muscovite Orthodox Church was to safeguard the canons of religious art. At the same time it was the first document of this kind issued by the Russian Orthodox Church, or the Eastern Orthodox Church in general. This fact, as well as the unequivocal wording of the Stoglav’s decrees have stirred much controversy among scholars of the subject. At its heart lay the question of compatibility of the decisions taken by the council with the Orthodox tradition and ‘spirit’, as well as the differences in their assessment – the Stoglav was seen as either a symbol of the ‘ossification’ of Russian culture, a ‘crisis of the medieval worldview’, or a sign of changes taking place in Russia in the 16^th century.

The decrees of the council of 1551 were an attempt at defining the position of the Orthodox Church in the face of a transformation that swept through the Muscovy under Ivan IV (1533–1584; crowned emperor in 1547),³¹ while the ← 17 | 18 → questions of art which engaged the Stoglav were merely a part of the issues relating to liturgy and worship debated at the time. What, then, was the reason that both the hierarchs and the young tsar deemed it necessary to extend the control of the Orthodox Church over icon painting? And what, in essence, was the subject and form of this control?

In answering the above questions one should bear in mind the fact that, although the Stoglav compelled the Orthodox Church to take a position on many issues hitherto not discussed publicly, it was hardly the first instance of breaking the ‘intellectual silence’ characteristic of the Russian Orthodox Church in the earlier ages.³² The Church began taking an interest in the issues of faith already in the mid-15^th century, and the revival of the theological reflection brought about the first theological writings on religious art.

To be sure, the growing number of theoretical texts about icons was connected with the development of Russian reflection on aesthetics towards the end of the 14^th century, as described by Victor Bychkov. It was, the scholar argued, related to the expanding horizons of the ‘reading audience’ stemming from a growing number of texts translated from the Greek into the Church Slavonic.³³ An important factor in this process was the fact that in the 15^th and the 16^th centuries Russian Christianity had been following not only the Byzantine but also its own tradition. It enjoyed a certain degree of cultural distinctiveness, and had begun to tap into these indigenous values. However, the vital impulses for the development of the reflection on art came from the changes in the cultural canon taking place from the end of the 15^th and throughout the 16^th century – a canon that, up until this point, functioned as a prevalent axiological system defined in unequivocal, doctrinal terms. This was a period when the Muscovite Orthodox Church had greatly intensified its social and cultural presence.³⁴ In response to the polarisation of approaches to tradition, as well as the emergence of new, foreign elements within the Russian culture that were at odds with the current doctrine – some among the hierarchs chose to boost the authority of the Orthodox Church and promote theological writing in order to clarify the controversial issues that surfaced in debates on Russian Orthodoxy.³⁵ ← 18 | 19 → This was a time when the high-ranking clergy saw the struggle against the anti-Orthodox movements as one of its key tasks. This issue was widely explored by the Orthodox apologists, in the light of their writings the appearance of the Strigolniki, followed by the Judaisers and other sects, emerges as a threat to the ontological foundations of Russian culture.³⁶

The Judaisers, or zhidovstvuyushchiye (жидовствующие), also known as the Sect of Skhariya the Jew, were a movement thought to have originated in Novgorod in 1470. The existing writings make it possible to assume that their teachings reached a significant part of society: the citizens of Novgorod, the Muscovite clergy, the court, including Ivan III (1462–1505) himself – who admitted to being sympathetic to the heretics in 1504 – but also the peasants in the Muscovite countryside.³⁷ While the content of these teachings is known to us relatively well, it should be noted that most of the sources mentioning them fall within the genre of apologetics and were written at the initiative of the Russian champions of the Orthodox tradition. Despite the common assumption that the Judaisers had a thriving literary culture, the fact that we have no access to their writings in full makes it impossible for a precise reconstruction of the views of even those heretics who came to be considered the movement’s leaders: the archpriest Alexei, priest Denis and Feodor Kuritsyn (d. after 1500). The metropolitan Zosima (1490–1494), allegedly sympathetic to the heresy, was relieved of his post for abuse of alcohol and negligence inside the Church – it is very difficult to verify if his behaviour was actually as radical as his adversaries claimed.³⁸ What follows from the writings of the Orthodox authors, however, is that the teachings and actions of the Judaisers were aimed against the dogmas, ceremonies, and symbols of the faith, the Gospels, the writings of the Apostles and the Church Fathers. The gravest charges included challenging the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, denying the role of Jesus as saviour and his divine status, renouncing the Eucharist as well as the worship of the cross and the icons. The Judaisers were also ← 19 | 20 → said to renounce monasticism, claiming that the monks have rejected the life in accordance with the Holy Scripture for the sake of freethinking and wilfulness.³⁹

The true character of this heresy is yet to be established. Mateusz Mieses in his work Judaisers in Eastern Europe argued that the origins of the so-called heresy of Novgorod, initiated by a ‘scribe’ from Kiev by the name of Skhariya, are to be found in the ‘attempt at converting a substantial group of Muscovites to Judaism’⁴⁰. Natalia Kazakova and Yakov Lurie (Soviet scholars to whom we owe the most extensive account of the Judaisers and who published the sources related to the movement), having analysed the existing accounts came to the conclusion that the heresy had little to do with Judaism as such and were more inclined to consider it a socio-political manifestation.⁴¹ John Fine, on the other hand, emphasised that Laodician Epistle of Feodor Kuritsyn includes echoes of Judaism and Talmudic teachings, but at the same time dismissed the possibility of a considerable number of converts to Judaism in Russia as unlikely. Heretics, according to this line of thinking, considered themselves Christians rather than followers of Judaism, and saw the latter merely as a source of answers to the questions that were largely rooted in their anti-ecclesiastical views.⁴² Juszczyk proposed a different view, arguing that the heresy was essentially Jewish in character. This claim seems to be supported by a number of sources (among them the charges made by the Orthodox Church against the heretics, of celebrating Saturday as the holy day, Judaist worship, and the fact that they were, allegedly, ‘praying in a Jewish manner’).⁴³ Another interesting, albeit not entirely reliable, it seems, hypothesis, was advanced by Gelian Prokhorov, who identified the Judaisers with the Crimean Karaites.⁴⁴ ← 20 | 21 →

It appears that the debate over the Judaisers in the Russia is bound to remain inconclusive, notably due to the character of the known sources, the majority of which was authored by the opponents of the movement. This also holds true for other heretical groups in the face of which the Orthodox apologists were, at best, to quote Ewa Wipszycka, willing to ‘discuss the views of the opponents not in the form they were professed, but rather as statements drawn from them with extreme, at times absurd consistency.’⁴⁵ This feature is particularly noticeable in the second significant heresy of the period that originated in the Transvolga, and later in the Volhynia, from the teachings of Feodosy Kosoy (d. after 1575) and Matvei Bashkin (d. in 1554 or after). Mieses and, in consequence, Juszczyk, identified the movement with the Judaisers,⁴⁶ a hypothesis that seems highly unlikely, even with the small number of sources at our disposal. According to those attacking Bashkin (who considered himself an Orthodox), him and his comrades blasphemed against Christ, rejected the fact he was equal with God the Father, saw the gifts of the liturgy as nothing more than bread and wine, used the word church to denote a community of believers rather than a physical structure, and claimed icons to be idols. In addition, they rejected the sacrament of penance, the resolutions of the councils, the Orthodox traditions and the scriptures of the fathers. At the heart of their teachings lay love for god and for neighbour. Kosoy represented what seemed to be a similar, although less radical, view that was based on the belief in one, indivisible, and invisible God in heaven. He also rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and that of Christ, renounced Orthodox rites, icons, the worship of saints, and called for the abolishment of books written after the Seventh Ecumenical Council.⁴⁷

The most prominent opponent of Kosoy’s heresy, the monk Zinovyi of Otynia (d. after 1570) claimed that its birth alone was marked by vice. In his account ‘certain serfs’ (i.e. Kosoy, Ignatyi, and Vassian, the disciple of monk Artemyi), having stolen from their masters, ran away from Moscow into the Belozersk region, where they entered a monastery and then, after the council of 1553–1554 that condemned them, they fled to Lithuania. While travelling through Russia the ‘spread their wicked heresy everywhere.’⁴⁸ Kosoy’s ← 21 | 22 → teachings, as portrayed by Zinovyi, include a great number of surprising and conflicting elements. Basing on his account, however, we are able to say that Kosoy was not – as R. G. Lapshina had argued – an ‘ideologue of the peasantry’,⁴⁹ while, indeed, his teachings had a distinct social component and could have impacted this group, even for the fact that they were directed against monasteries and the clergy, notably their lavishness, excess, and life at odds with the Gospels.⁵⁰ To be sure, Kosoy was also not a Judaiser, although he did claim that after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple no new temples should be built. However, in denying the deity of Christ, he saw him as the teacher of people and eagerly quoted the Gospels,⁵¹ a fact that should be seen as an argument against his potential Jewish orientation.

In The Account of the New Heresy from the early 16^th century the author, representing the position of the Orthodox Church – quite possibly Joseph of Volokolamsk (ca. 1439–1515) – described the essence of the ‘sins’ committed by the Judaisers. He wrote that they reject the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, and claim that the Saviour is yet to be born, Adam is yet to be redeemed, and, in consequence the whole of mankind too. This is why they believe they should observe the Old Testament laws, the Holy Trinity should not be depicted in icons as three angels, nor should people worship objects fashioned by men. The Judaisers would then reject the worship of the cross, the icons, liturgical objects, the Gospels, the Eucharist, as well as reverence for rulers and people on the earth. Moreover, they proclaimed the end of the world would come 7000 years after its creation, that is in 1492, and did not believe in the second coming. They challenged the scriptures of the Church Fathers (including Ephrem the Syrian, which the author of The Account emphasised), as well as criticised monasticism.⁵²

The list of charges indicates that, as far as the doctrine is concerned, the Russian Judaisers can be seen as a sect in the vein of groups promoting Non-Trinitarianism, rather than followers of Judaism. What is striking is the similarity between their teachings and those of the Strigolniki centred around Pskov in the early 15^th century. The Strigolniki were thought to reject the Orthodox ecclesiastical hierarchy, the Eucharist, the liturgy, the doctrine of the Trinity, and in ← 22 | 23 → consequence, the icons depicting the Holy Trinity.⁵³ Basing on The Account of the New Heresy alone, one may assume that, among the problems emerging in the debate with the Judaisers, the questions of icons and their worship were treated with much more importance than in the case of the Strigolniki. The Orthodox Church saw these questions as essential – this fact was attested to especially by the council of 1490, which convened for the purpose of countering heresies and their teachings, and which presented the desecration of icons and crosses as the primary charge against these groups.⁵⁴

The most extensive debate over the teachings of the Judaisers was included in the Book Against the Novgorod Heretics, or Enlightener (Просветитель), written by Joseph of Volokolamsk, probably in the early years of the 16^th century. Three Sermons on Icons, included in the book, focused on the defence of images.⁵⁵ In the face of heresy, the Orthodox Church, whose position Joseph represented, acted as the defender of the Orthodox faith and its dogmas, a necessary move considering its status was threatened. The views of the head of the Volokolamsk monastery were quite possibly representative for the majority of the elites of the Russian clergy. Nonetheless, in spite of the fact that short anti-heretical treatises – e.g. Admonition Against the Heretics by Stephen of Perm (d. 1396)⁵⁶ – were written before, Joseph’s work was pioneering in many ways.

At the same time, it should be noted that the authorship of Letter to the Icon Painter is hardly unambiguous. Borovkova-Majkova, and later Lurie, pointed to the fact that the text was highly influenced by the Epistle of the Spiritual Father to a Brother by Nil Sorsky (1433–1508), which attested to the ideological proximity of the two characters in the face of a threat from the Novgorod heretics.⁵⁷ All Orthodox writers in the 15^th- and the 16^th-century Russia agreed ← 23 | 24 → as to the fact that heresies are a source of evil and they should be condemned. What remained open to debate were the methods of combating them, yet these were not directly related to art. The main tool of countering iconoclasm was writing, and statements on icons were very often part of larger theological treatises, such as Joseph’s Enlightener, or Testimony of Truth (Истины показание) by Zinovyi of Otynia from 1566, both emerged as a response to the 16^th century movements.

In The First Sermon of his treatise on the icons, Joseph harshly condemned the Judaisers who, as he claimed, quoted an Old Testament prohibition and declared that worshipping any images crafted by men is forbidden. ‘Defiling them with obscene things and hideous hands, they, like mad dogs, bite with their teeth and hurl into unclean places the honourable crosses, the sacred icons, as well as other God’s and consecrated items, saying one should not bow before things created by man’s hand (…). How is it, they say, that disregarding God’s prohibition, you fashion likenesses, and bow down to them, and served them?’⁵⁸ Seen as iconoclastic, the heretics’ treatment of objects commonly regarded as sacred caused great indignation among the Orthodox clergy.

According to the archbishop Gennady of Novgorod (d. 1505), the Judaisers would defile crosses by tying ravens to them, they would also turn icons upside down and spattering them with excrement. The council of 1490 accused the Judaisers of blasphemy against the sacred icons, claiming they made insults, burned, hurled them to the ground and splashed them with mud.⁵⁹ In reality, as Fairy von Lilienfeld went on to prove, acts of iconoclasm were marginal among the Judaisers; more than anything else, they resulted from abuse of alcohol and vandalism, although they might have also been an element of magical practices.⁶⁰ This, in all likelihood, was the reason behind tying ravens to crosses, an act described as ‘sinister’ in folklore; in popular imagination these birds represented misfortune and death.⁶¹ Due to their preference for carrion, ravens came to be perceived as unclean and ‘invidious’, a symbol of man possessed by the devil ← 24 | 25 → (which is also how they were described in Jewish beliefs). In the Russian tradition, the bird was seen to represent the Jews – just like the raven that left Noah, the Jews have rejected Christ by selling him to Pilate.⁶² The magical intentions of some of the iconoclasts are attested by Gennady’s mention of the fact that they added a representation of ‘female or male genitals’⁶³ onto the crosses.

No such descriptions can be found in the Letter to the Icon Painter, which could indicate that Gennady’s account was grossly exaggerated. What does follow from Joseph’s charges, is the assumption that the Judaisers considered worshipping icons as equal to serving them – an act of adoration which is due only to God – and, much like the iconoclasts, accused followers of Eastern Orthodoxy of idolatrous cult.⁶⁴ The Chronicle of Novgorod, in an entry from a period of intense activity of the heretical movements, noted that, according to the Judaisers ‘images are but a work of human hands, they have lips yet they do not speak (…), and such shall be all those who create them and put their faith in them.’⁶⁵ Thus expressed, this view referred to the fact that the icon worshippers went against the Old Testament prohibition made by God to the Israelites (Ex 20:4; Dt 5:8).

Basing on to the sources of the Orthodox Church, it is possible to say that Protestants held similar views: claiming that the Gospels, the writings of the Apostles and the prophets, did not permit the creation of images by men. Such an opinion ‘against the Lutherans’ was held by Maximus the Greek (ca. 1470–1555/1556, fig. 1)⁶⁶; and such was the judgement of Ermolai-Erasmus in his Book on the Holy Trinity (1550–1555)⁶⁷; and similar charges against the Protestants, among ← 25 | 26 → them Simon Budny, were made by the monk Artemyi (d. after 1571) in the letters from Lithuania he wrote after 1556.⁶⁸ The question of protestant iconoclasm emerged in Russian sources in the second half of the 16^th century, notably in the context of their bestiality. Andrey Kurbsky (ca. 1528–1583) in his History of the Great Muscovite Prince (before 1573) expressed his horror at the fact that certain Germans committed blasphemy by first calling an icon depicting the Virgin and the Child an idol and then setting it on fire, which led to the fire of Narva and, in consequence, forced them to flee the city. ‘This is the payment’ – commented Kurbsky – ‘awaiting those who liken the idols of pagan gods to the image of Christ in flesh and his Mother!’⁶⁹

The most comprehensive overview of views held by iconoclasts in the 16^th century is to be found in the apologetic writings of Zinovyi of Otynia. According to the author, the followers of the heresy of Kosoy mocked the ‘Pious Christians’ saying they lost their way pursuing ‘human inventions’, which included the worship of the icons, the cross, and the relics. They called the icons ‘idols’, and the relics ‘Hellenic cadavers.’⁷⁰ According to Zinovyi, Kosoy pronounced that ‘there should be no worship of icons of Christ and his Mother, the angels, and the martyrs, and the Church Fathers’, as they come from ‘an evil spirit.’ He sought to prove his point by quoting suitable fragments of the Old Testament. Kosoy claimed that, since the destruction of the Old Testament temple, no Orthodox temples could be built, as, essentially, they would be no more than idols providing shelter to gold trinkets.⁷¹ Similarly to the Judaisers, Kosoy preached that ‘icons, like idols, have painted eyes, and ears, and nostrils, and lips, and hands, and legs, but they are inert and unable to move.’ He also dismissed the cult of the cross, which he claimed to be a symbol of disgrace: ‘God hates the cross, as it was used to kill his Son; for this reason, God is equally is with those who ← 26 | 27 → worship the cross – the murderer of his Son.’⁷² Kosoy preached: ‘Russia proclaims itself Orthodox, while they [the clergy] are the servants of the people and the worshippers of idols, because they erected temples, and inside, they placed icons on pieces of wood – dead as idols – and put the dead in the boxes (…), and they pray to these dead, asking them for help, they burn candles before them, bring incense, and thus drag people away from God, toward the dead, and demand they serve the icons; they know no God and cannot know him, as they have entered into the service of idols.’⁷³

An offense against the law of God and placing trust in false and inanimate objects – these two primary charges made by the heretics against the followers of Orthodoxy can be inferred from the texts directed against them. Another fact worth remembering is that the 16^th century was a time of religious upheaval, with new movements emerging in the West that (just like those in Russia) debated on the issues of religious art and challenged it. At the same time, it seems, some of the heretical groups in Russia could have had a connection with those existing in Poland – a country described by the Englishman Edwin Sandys in 1599 in the following words: ‘if a man have lost his religion, let him goe seeke it in Poland, and he shall be sure to find it, or else make accompt it is vanished out of the world.’⁷⁴ On the other hand, the religious movements in Russia of the day had neither the force nor the influence of their counterparts in any of the two states of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Moreover, none of the Muscovite heresies developed views clear and consistent enough to be associated with a specific strain of Reformation in the West.

The phenomenon of heresies in Russia has been widely discussed and much was written both about the origins as well as the specific character of these movements. It would, however, be worthwhile to consider their nature and social bearing with respect to specific issues, such as the heretics’ views of on art and Orthodox rituals, the actual impact these views had on icon painting and the approach to this painting on the part of the faithful and the clergy. What is certain is the fact that both the heretics in the Russia as well as the defenders of Orthodoxy lacked the knowledge of their Byzantine predecessors. At the same ← 27 | 28 → time, the debate on art involved some of the greatest authorities of the late 15th and the early 16^th century, including the tsar Ivan IV. Due to the social structure of Russia at the time, low literacy rate, as well as the highly abstract nature of the discussed issues, all such debates must have been largely limited to the elites. Yuriy Begunov went as far as to claim that the close circle of heretics in 1490 amounted to 33 followers in Novgorod and no more than 24 in Moscow, which would mean that the group had a very limited impact on both religious and public life.⁷⁵

Archbishop Gennady himself wrote: ‘People here are simple, they lack judgement even with regard to regular books so it is better not to engage them in any debate on faith.’⁷⁶ Considering the above, it seems unlikely that the complex issues of faith, such as the nature of the Holy Trinity, were to be considered by a wide community of the faithful with little or no education. At the same time Joseph wrote this in one of his letters: ‘now, at homes, on roads, and in market squares, monks and lay men, and all others, gather to discuss issues of faith.’⁷⁷ Perhaps the above fragment then describes not so much the reality in Russia at the turn of the 15th and the 16^th century, as echoes the oft-quoted lines of Gregory of Nyssa who used similar terms to convey the atmosphere of Constantinople before the council of 381, when all citizens were supposedly engaged in theological discussions.⁷⁸ Was this, then, a purely rhetorical technique with which Joseph made intentional references to Byzantine texts speaking of a society was rocked by heresy? The 16^th century sources offer little help in this respect, while placing strong emphasis on the influence of heretical teachings on the common people. At the council of 1553–1554 Ivan Viskovatyi was accused of inciting opposition ‘among the people, many of them Orthodox Christians’,⁷⁹ against the new icons ← 28 | 29 → at the Cathedral of the Annunciation in Moscow. Zinovyi, in turn, accused the followers of Kosoy of teaching the ‘simple-hearted people’, and deceiving them with their heresies.⁸⁰

What follows from the analysis of Russian texts concerning icons is that the representatives of the Orthodox clergy made considerable effort to make the heretical movements known in order to expose and ridicule them. The ‘procession’ of the Judaisers organised by archbishop Gennady in Novgorod is of particular significance in this context. They had been seated on horses, back to front, facing west so that they could see the depths of hell was prepared for them.⁸¹ On their heads, they had helmets of birch bark (considered the devils’ headwear in popular imagination), with the following inscription: ‘Behold the Satan’s Army.’ Gennady had them marched through the city, spat and called at: ‘Enemies of God and blasphemers!’⁸² The efforts to eliminate the heretics and prevent their contacts with the faithful made by the Orthodox high ranking clergy frequently meant portraying them as ‘devils’ that also were laughed and mocked at.

The Orthodox authors saw the origins of the heresy of Novgorod in the ‘erroneous explanation of the “divine scriptures”’, that drove the faithful away from Christianity and into the arms of the Jewry.⁸³ The heretics were held responsible for letting themselves be deceived by fables, abandoning the truth, committing ‘the sin of the mind,’ ‘bowing down to the devil.’ They were accused of practising ‘unclean’ sciences: astrology, sorcery and witchcraft, and indulging in ← 29 | 30 → homosexuality.⁸⁴ The heretics’ actions directed at icons and described above were seen as ‘reverse behaviour,’ or anti-behaviour. Already following the council of 1504, when the heretics were tried and executed, Joseph recalled that the evil done by them ‘cannot be described in words, nor grasped by the mind.’⁸⁵ According to the Russian worldview as described by Lotman and Uspensky, the heretics were most likely seen as dissenters, and thus ‘sorcerers and changelings’, while the sciences they practiced as a fruit of knowledge that ‘makes man suspected of having yielded to heresy.’⁸⁶ It should be noted that Joanna Tokarska-Bakir, who analysed the cultural phenomena in Western Europe, observed a similar parallel between the perception of Jews and witches and sorcerers,⁸⁷ while Joshua Trachtenberg in his work The Devil and the Jews noted that the stereotype of the Jew as a sorcerer or magician was a distant echo of the writings of Origen and John Chrysostom, both of which portrayed the Jews as having a penchant for practicing black magic.⁸⁸ Perhaps this was the source of the popular belief that heretics were, as if naturally, attracted toward Judaism, while the Jews were an archetypally heretic group. It would be appropriate to quote Aleksander Naumow who described such identification of all ‘infidel’ in following words: ‘thus connected, they belong to the realm of lies and deceit, a realm with no God, no salvation, the realm of anti-culture.’⁸⁹ ← 30 | 31 →

In the Russian sources the notion of the heretic was typically tantamount to those of the dissenter and the Jew – all of them were referred to as ‘bloodthirsty animals’, ‘dogs’, ‘maggots’, ‘filthy’, ‘fools’, ‘living in the darkness.’⁹⁰ The monk Savva in his Letter Against Jews and Heretics from the end of the 16^th century claimed that, even an emperor, or a powerful and wealthy man, if he does not worship the icon of Christ ‘is a maggot and is damned.’⁹¹ ‘You too should know’ – wrote sometime later Maximus the Greek – ‘that the devil is the beginning of all heresy’, thus arguing that the Orthodox doctrines are the weapon which Christians use to shut the mouth of their enemies.⁹² Possession, madness, loss of senses – all this is the work of Satan. This, in all likelihood, is the source of the motif of healing a mental illness, found frequently in hagiographies, which typically stands for banishing an evil spirit. The 16^th-century accounts also mention the fact that if a refusal to pay respect to icons is a sign of possession, such man ‘has no memory nor reason.’⁹³ Essentially, this is a yet another example of reverse behaviour, signifying heresy and madness at the same time.

The view, shared by at least part of the elites, on how the dissenters should be treated was formulated clearly by Joseph and Gennady, who called for the most severe punishment of heretics, including burning and hanging. Moreover, Gennady, convincing the Orthodox clergy that there should be no debate with the dissenters, quoted the example of the Spanish king who effectively ‘purged’ his lands of heresy.⁹⁴ Maximus the Greek, it seems, shared similar views, and highly praised the institution of the Inquisition.⁹⁵ Since, however, driving heresy from Russia was no easy task, and the dispute over the icons became an element of countering the Novgorod heresy and all other to come, the defenders ← 31 | 32 → of the Orthodox Church were drawn into the argument with dissenters and, in consequence, forced to provide answers to a number of questions pertaining to the worship of the icons. Hence, the bulk of Russian texts about art concerned controversy over icons and were written in connection to the fact that their status was threatened. At the same time, it should be noted that even the Greek theologians failed to develop a consistent theology of the image. It was only the challenging of the status and the role of the icons that created the need to put the basic principles of their worship into words. The doctrinal definitions formulated by the councils of the Byzantine Church were essentially an expression of a theological victory over the heretics. The same was true for Russia.

In spite of the plethora of polemical texts it is symptomatic that the defenders of icons in Russia did not see the difference between iconoclasm as such, and magical practices aimed against the customs and traditions of the Orthodox Church. The desecration of icons was seen as an expression of an iconoclastic ideology. The Orthodox Church in Russia saw the Judaisers as a new massive wave of heresy, and their defeat was symbolically validated in the early 16^th century where the anathemas against the Judaisers were included in the text of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy.⁹⁶

In consequence and somehow paradoxically, the debate with the heretics held in Russia became a sign of continuity of the Byzantine tradition. As it was this tradition, rather than a genuine discussion with the Judaisers or the followers of Kosoy, that the Orthodox authors drew upon when describing their adversaries as holding views typical of Byzantine iconoclasts. Such practice was justified inasmuch as the Byzantine apologists too compared the iconoclasts to Jews;⁹⁷ numerous anti-Jewish passages in Russian texts had their source in the works of John Chrysostom and, notably, John of Damascus.⁹⁸ While analysing the way the Jews were identified with the iconoclasts it is useful to mention the miniatures from the Chludov Psalter (9^th cent.), depicting, among other things, iconoclasts attacking an image of Christ which bleeds heavily, or a similar scene contrasted ← 32 | 33 → with that of the Crucifixion – the latter, it was believed, had been brought about by the Jews.⁹⁹

It should be noted, however, that the actions of the Judaisers and other sects, branded as iconoclastic by their adversaries, were a far cry from the teachings of the Byzantine iconoclasts, notably with respect to the worship of the cross and the question of the Eucharist. Thus, the position adopted by Joseph and the others was little else than a reference to a cultural pattern existing in the Byzantine era. The events of the period of iconoclasm were referenced by all those involved in the debate on art. Ivan Viskovatyi (d. 1570) called the Byzantine iconoclasts ‘the enemies of truth’, who rightfully deserved the anathema of the Church.¹⁰⁰ What is more, the reaction of the Church in the Russia to the teachings of the Judaisers, and, subsequently, to the heresy of Kosoy and Protestantism became essentially an echo of the reaction of the Byzantine Church to the subsequent heresies, especially the iconoclasm, rather than a genuine discussion with the dissenters.

This is corroborated by numerous texts. Ermolai-Erasmus in his Book on the Holy Trinity, used an updated analogy, straight out of popular Byzantine beliefs of the post-iconoclastic period, quoting a tale about the trial a ‘council of Jews’ held over an icon of the Saviour. Just like at the Crucifixion – the author lamented – the Jews pierced Christ’s feet, hands, and his side, and there came streams of blood and water. This miracle, Erasmus added, caused a great many healings and the conversion of whole masses of Jews.¹⁰¹ He developed his analogy further, identifying the above crime of the Jews with the attacks on the icons perpetrated by the heretics in his own time. On another occasion, the author is more specific, calling the heretics ‘damned Lutherans.’¹⁰² In his account, therefore, the heretics of the day, including the Protestants, are not only ascribed with the violent actions allegedly committed by the Jews, but Lutheranism is also equated with Judaism. What is important is that also Artemyi, in his anti-Protestant Letter, accuses the heretics that, even though they call themselves Christians, they have ← 33 | 34 → embraced the Jewish faith which, as he goes on to argue, is best proven by the fact that they value the Ten Commandments over the Gospels.¹⁰³

The 16^th-century authors could have relied on the tradition of the Kievan Rus. Anti-Jewish motifs were not uncommon in polemical texts of the day, already in the 11^th century the Jews were frequently compared to Roman Catholics due to the customs and traditions of the latter, notably the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist and the lack of proper reverence for icons.¹⁰⁴ The dislike for the Jews had – if one may say so – an evangelical character, just like in Byzantium they were seen as the tormentors and murderers of Christ. This view was already reflected in The Sermon on Law and Grace from the 11^th century: ‘We do not curse like Jews but rather bless like Christians. We do not plot to crucify him, but rather bow down before the Crucified. We do not crucify the Saviour, but rather raise our arms to him. We do not pierce his side, but rather drink from it like form the fountain of invincibility. We do not take thirty pieces of silver for him, but give unto him one another and the whole of our life.’¹⁰⁵ The Jews were portrayed in a similar manner by the metropolitan of Kiev Gregory Tsamblak (d. ca. 1419–1420), his Service in the Honour of St. John the New from the early 15th century includes a passage in which the Jews (on another occasion portrayed, incidentally, as no different from Muslims) have been violating the Law for centuries: killing the prophets sent by God, and the Son of God himself, and they have not ceased, as they still kill Christian martyrs.¹⁰⁶ In the 16^th century the Jews were repeatedly blamed for Christ’s death, and suspected of being ready and willing to treat the objects worshipped by the followers of Eastern Orthodoxy just as they had treated the Saviour.¹⁰⁷

The other powerful comparison found in 16^th-century apologetic writings consisted in likening the heretical actions of the day to those of the Byzantine period, especially the acts of the ‘archetypal heretic’ Arius. Describing his apostasy Zinovyi was actually reckoning with the teachings of Bashkin and Kosoy. Arius, which is significant, was branded by Zinovyi as ‘the new Judas’, a ‘senseless’ one ← 34 | 35 → ‘insulting his singular deity’, deceived by ‘Hellenic fables.’¹⁰⁸ The comparison between the heretics and the followers of Arianism in the second half of the 16^th century was, it seems, exceptionally powerful and carried certain political associations. Writing of a sect headed by Ignatyi, Kosoy’s comrade, that ‘nearly infested the whole of Volhynia’, Kurbsky called them ‘thrice worse than Arius.’¹⁰⁹ Tsar Ivan IV, speaking of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, claimed that ‘where there is Arian faith, there can be no Christ’s name, as Arius is the greatest adversary of the name of the Christ.’¹¹⁰ While Zinovyi described the heretics of the day as ‘crawling toads’, ‘mute pigs’ who ‘quack mindlessly, repeating Arius’ heresies’, they know no suitable, beneficial writings, and even if they did, they wouldn’t be able to read them.¹¹¹ It should be added that after 1596 the supporters of the Union of Brest were also likened to Arius.¹¹²

In the context of statements stressing the deficiencies in the education and the narrow-mindedness of the heretics in Russia, the information about the meeting between the reformer Johannes a Lasco and Kosoy, provided by Jan Utenhove, is of particular interest. The two met in Vilnius in 1557 where Kosoy and his comrades had fled following the ‘anti-heretical’ council of 1554. ‘Master a Lasco’ – wrote Utenhove – ‘aided by an interpreter, inquired the most important of the brothers, a figure of great influence with the citizens of Moscow, who seemed to excel the others both in authority, age, and knowledge of the Scripture; and he answered so shrewdly the key questions of religion, including the doctrine of the Eucharist, that there could hardly be a better answer; then we recognised our friends in them, and acknowledged them as brothers (…). We recognised the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit in the one God had chosen. It was so because those persons do not owe their knowledge to our friends in the slightest (as they do not understand their writings), but to those whom God called to service in Moscow through his Spirit.’¹¹³ The difference in ← 35 | 36 → the assessment of Kosoy between the representatives of the Muscovite Church and those of one of the most intellectually vibrant spiritual movements of 16^th-century Europe is striking. Nonetheless, if we were to consider other surviving information about the Russian heretic, the ‘friendly convention’ between a Lasco and Kosoy (that could have led to a Lasco’s acknowledging the affinity of their views) would seem doubtful in the least. At the same time, the legitimacy of some of the claims raised by Russian heretics can hardly be disputed. Quite often they were levelled at the customs that were far from the principles of orthodoxy. For instance, the Orthodox Church saw heresy in the views of one Porfiryi (disciple of Artemyi), who was accused based on his alleged refusal to acknowledge St. Nicholas the Miracleworker.¹¹⁴ While a monk by the name of Athanasius, an adherent of Kosoy, accused the followers of Eastern Orthodoxy of ‘worshipping Nicholas like God’ in which he saw as deviation from the principles of faith.¹¹⁵

The list of charges made against the heretics by the well-read, or knizhniky, was more or less uniform and included ‘committing blasphemy’ (which meant nothing else than challenging the authority of the ecumenical councils). This charge, however, was what both actual heretics and all dissenters had to face. Blasphemy was invariably attributed to Roman Catholics, but the arguments levelled against them were a striking mixture of theological, ceremonial and purely emotional thinking, testifying to the fact that xenophobia was also an important factor. As early as in the 11^th century Theodosius of Kiev accused the followers of the Latin Church that they ‘do not kiss the icons, nor the holy relics, and, having traced a cross on the ground, they kiss it, but tread on in when they stand up.’¹¹⁶ This problem is evident in the fragment concerning the confession of faith of Vladimir Sviatoslavich the Great, included in The Primary Chronicle under the year 988: ‘Do not accept the teachings of the Latins, whose instruction is vicious. For when they enter the church, they do not kneel before the images, but they stand upright before kneeling, and when they have knelt, they trace a cross upon the ground and then kiss it, but they stand upon it when they arise. Thus while prostrate they kiss it, and yet upon arising they trample it underfoot.’¹¹⁷ This accusation was meant to expose the Roman Catholics who were breaking ← 36 | 37 → the resolutions of the Council in Trullo.¹¹⁸ This fact was also echoed in the in the charges made by Ivan IV in his dispute with Antonio Possevino, in which he reproached the Roman pope for wearing the sign of the cross on his shoes.¹¹⁹

The author of the Legend of the White Cowl accused the Roman Catholics of following the devil’s device and rejecting the laws of Christ, the Apostles, and the Church Fathers, and, along with them, rejecting the worship of the icons.¹²⁰ According to Maximus the Greek, the distinction between the faith of the ‘Greeks’ and the Latins began with the latter’s adoption of the ‘new law.’ ‘The Latins’ – wrote Maximus – ‘(…) due to their pride and insolence, not only imagined themselves to have the authority to change the word of the Lord, but also renounced the unanimous decisions of the ecumenical councils, owing to which our orthodox faith gained knowledge and was consolidated in truth.’¹²¹ The Stoglav, on the other hand, quoting (otherwise incorrectly) the authority of the Apostles, banned men from ‘shaving beards and ears’, seeing it as a sign of the ‘Latin heresy.’¹²² Thus, as early as the 11^th century, the Greek list of Latin errors included, apart from the issue of filioque, the use of unleavened bread in the Liturgy, celibate for the ‘white’ clergy, the ban on shaving beards.¹²³

Possevino, who met with hostile behaviour towards Catholics during his journey to Moscow (including that on the part of tsar Ivan IV himself), noted that ← 37 | 38 → the inhabitants of Russia are outraged by the behaviour of the westerners who include holy images among secular objects, the people in the West were also thought to have desecrated icons and the cross. Ivan IV himself, in the Letter to Stephen Báthory of 1579, referred to the ‘Latin faith’ as ‘part-Christian’ and reproached the Polish king for the fact that ‘his noblemen follow the iconoclastic Lutheran heresy.’¹²⁴

It is symptomatic that the debates with the Protestants over the worship of icons known from Russian sources portrayed (intentionally or otherwise) the iconoclasm of the latter in demonic terms, as though they were based on the earlier statements about the Judaisers. If the Catholics were accused of improper treatment of the sacred objects, then Maximus the Greek in his Sermon on Worshipping the Holy Icons, directed against the Lutherans, wrote this: ‘O fools! Why do you compare God’s and holy items with idols? Hear this when we say that you yourselves are similar to idols, for you have eyes but fail to notice the truth.’¹²⁵ A more distinct difference between the Latins and the Protestants was noted in the sources of Ruthenia. The Hustynia Chronicle noted the following under the year 1515: ‘There arose in the Saxon lands a great heretic Martin Luther who used to be a monk, a priest and a preacher. He then abandoned the monastic life and took Katherine, a nun, as his wife and took to teaching and writing heresies against the Roman Church. There were many councils summoned against him by pope Leo which disputed with him but could not succeed, until he died as a sinner in the year 7052 [1544]. He had disciples and followers of his heresy: Zwingli, Colompadius (in the original Коломпадіус [Oecolampadius]), Calvin, Melanchton, Korolostadulus (in the original Королостадулус [Karlstadt]) and others. Yet before long, having abandoned Luther’s teachings, each of them came up with their own heresy and preached in his own way. From that time on their heresies have lingered in the German lands.’¹²⁶

Another telling aspect is the fact that, of all of Luther’s undertakings and actions, the author of the Chronicle quoted his marriage with a nun, calling it heretical, and while describing the subsequent generations of the proponents of the Reformation, he or she focused on the short-lived character of the Protestant groups, quite likely in the hopes of convincing the reader that they lacked the truth. Speaking of the rejection of Protestantism among the followers of the Orthodox Christianity in the Polish state, it should be noted ← 38 | 39 → that witnessed a number of Orthodox-Protestant alliances, such as that of the synod of Brest. There, prince Konstanty Ostrogski (ca. 1524/1525–1608) spoke out accompanied by the Protestants. The common interests of the followers of Orthodoxy and Protestantism even led to an attempt at establishing an official political alliance between the two confessions in 1599 in Vilnius.¹²⁷ If there had been any obstacles hindering this dialogue, it was the different approach to rituals, including the worship of images. This fact was made evident in the treatise of Ivan Vyshenskyi (d. after 1621) On Reverend Majesty (late 1670s to early 1680s) in which, in spite of his sympathy for the Protestants, he vehemently condemned the instances of defiling the icons ‘by some of our fellow Christians.’ On the other hand, it should be noted that the followers of orthodoxy met with no less criticism on the part of the adherents of the Reformation. In the early 17^th century, the assemblies of the Lithuanian Church Provincial Union called the Eastern Orthodoxy the ‘Russian idol mania’, and their rites an ‘idolatrous service.’ The Protestants were banned from founding new churches in their lands and evangelical missions were launched among the Orthodox subjects. On the other hand, the magnates following the reformation respected their duties as patrons with regard to their subjects regardless of their denomination. What is more, they often sought to maintain a religious balance and peace in their lands which meant that there was no room for discrimination against Orthodox Christians.¹²⁸

A similar openness on the part of the Orthodox Christians toward the Protestants would have been unthinkable in the Muscovy where all discussions and polemics included a similar set of accusations against the Jews, Muslims, Catholics and Protestants. What is more, these accusations did not differ much from those used against heretical sects. Terms such as ‘Jew’, ‘German’, ‘Lach’, had negative connotations. The 16^th century saw a new wave of accusations against Greeks who were blamed for renouncing Orthodoxy at the council of Florence of 1439 ← 39 | 40 → when the Byzantines, as Ivan Peresvetov had put it in the 16^th century, ‘refused to follow God’s will, committed heresy against him, and fell into heresy.’¹²⁹

Heretical views were seen as the worst and the most damaging sin, one that could potentially be committed not only by the dissenters, followers of different sects, but also the Russians; general remark, including the clergy. Joseph noted in a very confident tone that not just the heretics should be subject to judgement and punishment, but also those who knew them and failed to notify the judges of the heresy.¹³⁰

Trebnik from the library of the Solovetsky Monastery (16^th cent.) includes a list of cardinal sins of the white clergy, among them: superstition, contacts with sorcerers and playing chess; at the top of the list, however, is blasphemy. The monk who erred by deliberately choosing a solitary vagrant life should avoid ‘visiting a Latin house of prayer’, conversing with the dissenters, that is, the ‘Latins, Armenians, Jews.’¹³¹ At that time, the charge of heresy surfaced in the context of almost every argument concerning the religious doctrine. It even accompanied the debate over the character of the monastic life that ensued between possessors (styazhateli – стяжатели) and non-possessors (nestyazhateli – нестяжатели), or the advocates and the adversaries of holding massive tracts of land by monasteries. According to Vassian Patrikeyev (ca. 1470 – after 1531), he himself as well as his teacher Nil Sorsky, were accused by Joseph of insufficient faith in miracles, blasphemy against both the Greek and the Russian miracle workers, as well as of opposing the ownership of land by the monasteries and, in a way, rejecting icons.¹³² Among the victims of accusations of heresy was Maximus the Greek. At the council of 1525 and 1531 Maximus was charged with incorporating heretical teachings into the books he translated, as well as of criticising church property, supporting a new metropolitan of Moscow without the endorsement ← 40 | 41 → of Constantinople, being sympathetic toward the Turks and, last but not least, committing blasphemy against the Grand Prince of Moscow.¹³³

Accusations of heresy appeared in every debate concerning the icons, not just polemics with the iconoclasts. They resurfaced with great force at the council of 1553–1554, in the context of the dispute about the icons for the Cathedral of the Annunciation, their accordance with the canon and the Orthodox tradition. It seems that both parties to the debate agreed to the principle that divine matters should not be discussed at length or ‘philosophised’ about. Dyak Ivan Viskovatyi, protesting against representations of deity and ‘incorporeal forces’ he described such images as ‘philosophising’ that contradicts the ‘divine scriptures’, he also saw the images of Christ on the cross, protected ‘from disgrace’ by the wings of the cherubs, as ‘Latin heresy.’ Responding to the accusations made against ‘incorporeal forces’ metropolitan Macarius (1542–1563) accused Viskovatyi of supporting the ‘Galatian heresy.’ Eventually, the dyak was judged as a heretic and put on a three year period of ‘recantation.’¹³⁴ Despite that fact, the representations he denounced as being against the tradition stirred more protests later. Zinovyi of Otynia claimed that images such as that of God in ‘the image of David’ are little else than work of ‘heretic philosophising and devilry coming from drunken illiteracy.’¹³⁵

Accusations of heresy were also used in political or purely personal debates. Ivan IV accused Kurbsky of apostasy, desecration of the cross and the icons, claiming he had joined the ‘enemies of Christianity’ and became their ‘ruin.’¹³⁶ In response Kurbsky turned against the tsar’s advisers and ‘accomplices’, denouncing their teachings and actions as ‘idolatrous service’, one that, however, honours not ‘the idol Apollo and his likes, but the Satan himself, as this is the essence of their craving for fame and riches.’¹³⁷ Similar accusations frequently led to the elimination of the individuals inconvenient to the state and religious authorities. Such, without doubt, was the context of the case of Artemyi, the former head of the Monastery of the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius. Summoned to Moscow in 1553 to ‘try with books’ ← 41 | 42 → the heretic Bashkin, he was himself accused of apostasy by the latter. The hierarchs used this fact to put the advocate of poverty and evangelical simplicity on trial before the council, proving him guilty of, among other things, sympathising with the heretics who were punished and of freethinking that bordered on heresy.¹³⁸ The writings of Artemyi differ from the typical texts of 16^th-century Russia. Especially interesting is this ‘heretic’s’ approach to heresy. Artemyi claimed that, each time, at its heart lay ignorance and lack of understanding of the essence of the Scripture. Heresy is the ‘weeds planted from the unholy spirit by people of deprived mind.’ The only ‘cure’ for this condition was learning, that is the study of Scripture. Artemyi wrote, however, that many Russians were abstaining from lecture precisely as they were afraid of falling prey to heresy.¹³⁹

What follows from the above accounts is that the accusations of blasphemy and heresy in the 16^th century could reach virtually anyone, and were directed all the more frequently against the individuals whose intellect made them stand out from the majority. While it is true that many of the accused did follow the teachings that deviated from the Orthodox theology, the criticism reached others as well. The views of the hierarchs bordered on heresy just as frequently. The anxiety and disorientation of the high-ranking clergy of the Orthodox Church stemmed, it seems, from the lack of a clearly defined ‘correct version’ of the Orthodox teachings, while the protests against institutions, such as monasteries, or (as in the case of Kurbsky), the power of the tsar, were seen as a challenge to the supreme authority. At the same time, it could be argued that the approach to anti-Orthodox, heretical, and iconoclastic movements in the writings of the Russian authors was effectively defined by a ‘literary ethics.’ The latter, according to Dmitry Likhachev consisted of: an idea of how the events should proceed, a view of how people should properly behave in a given situation, and, ultimately, a conviction of how the author should portray it. Likhachev went on to argue, ‘with invincible conviction, clothed all that had happened historically in the corresponding ceremonial forms.’ He acted accordingly when describing the present day, where the events, the stance of the characters, as well as his own language were inevitably subject to a predetermined ritual.¹⁴⁰ It should be noted that, throughout the whole 16^th century the lay and religious authorities built their position by eliminating the opponents through ‘labelling’ them heretics and blasphemers. The manner in which heretics in 15^th- and 16^th- century ← 42 | 43 → Russia were described was, quite frequently, a direct repetition of the statements made on the occasion of the greatest conflict over doctrine in the Byzantine church.