Unlike the first Romanov Duumvirate, the second Russian Duumvirate of Church and State was not a family affair. There was a continuity there, however, and predictably, a departure from a practice which was not to become a pattern for the future.
As we remember, Patriarch Philaret dominated the first Duumvirate, de facto ruling Russia single-handedly, at the expense of his son Tsar Mikhail I Fedorovich. Now, the latter’s son and the former’s grandson, Tsar Alexei I Mikhailovich was not related to his own Patriarch Nikon, but instantly fell under his magnetic spell, guaranteeing Nikon fast promotion to the highest place in the Russian Church.
Nikon was the ultimate self-made man. Son of a Mordovian peasant, he had an overwhelming urge for good education and wanted to become a monk for that since an early age. Obeying his father, however, he entered into a marriage, becoming a married priest, but later convinced his wife to become a nun, while he himself realized his wish to become a monk. His exceptional qualities were immediately recognized. He was made a hegumen (head of a monastery), and having made a trip to Moscow in this capacity in 1646, was introduced to Tsar Alexei. At the time of their first meeting, Nikon was forty-one, and the young Tsar was seventeen. Alexei was so much impressed by Nikon that he brought him close, and at the time when the Sixth Patriarch Joseph died in 1652 everyone had long known whom the Tsar wished to see as the Seventh Patriarch. Consequently the main contender for this position promptly withdrew his candidacy, and Nikon was naturally proclaimed Patriarch.
Meanwhile, the second Romanov Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was a commendably learned, but mild and soft-spoken man, initially under the control of his childhood tutor and chaperon Boyar Boris Ivanovich Morozov (1590-1661). Morozov was himself a well-educated man with a great interest in the technical, military, and cultural advances of the West, which interest he eagerly and fairly successfully cultivated in his young ward. He was, however, a corrupt man, and his excesses resulted in his downfall in 1648 and exile to a monastery, from which he was however soon returned and remained under the Tsar’s protection, privately advising him still, but never having his former position restored to him.
No matter how much influenced was Tsar Alexei by his beloved mentor, the word duumvirate cannot apply to him, as it implies political power, which he lost irretrievably in the fourth year of Alexei’s thirty-one year reign. A different situation developed between the Tsar and Starets/Patriarch Nikon, who was of course the most powerful figure in Moscow almost ever since his arrival in 1646, until his scandalous fall in 1666, and even after that, it must be noted, the Nikonian reforms had a profound and lasting influence on the Russian society, an influence which still exists to present day.
Nikon is most remembered today as the Russian Church reformer. In 1653-1655, as Patriarch, he was given charge over the correction of the Russian Church Books, laying down the rules of uniform religious practice across the land. In doing so, he took the side of the existing Greek practices, overruling the old customs that had existed in Russia for centuries. Although most of the Russian clergy desired to have a balance between the old and the new, Nikon used his authority to go much further, and effectively outlawed most of Russia’s religious tradition, accusing the “starovers” of heresy, unless they repented and converted to the new Greek practice. Amazingly, his was so powerful a push that, even after his fall from political-ecclesiastical power, his reforms survived and flourished, and the leader of the starovers Protopop Avvakum was burned to death as late as in 1682, when his nemesis Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich had already both been dead.
So, to repeat myself, Nikon is mostly remembered today as the most sweeping Church reformer in Russian history. But this is only a part of the story. Having exercised considerable influence on the impressionable Tsar, Nikon would not limit himself to Church matters, but tried to dominate other State affairs, including Russia’s foreign relations. Being smart, he realized that his intrusion would not long remain unpunished, as besides the malleable tsar, there were his very capable and angry courtiers, who would sooner or later unite in their mutual hatred of him and gang up on the insolent intruder. In order to prevent this move, he offered Alexei an explicit Church-State duumvirate, in which he graciously opted to serve a subservient role. What he underestimated, however, was that the Tsar, continually egged on by the angry boyars, was beginning to be annoyed by Nikon’s relentless pushiness and the tension, having not reached a boiling point yet, had been for quite some time on the way there.
Nikon’s eventual fall in 1666 was a result of his own bluff. Sort of emulating Tsar Ivan Grozny, who, at one point, had “laid down” his crown, removing himself to a nearby monastery, so that his terrified “orphans” would rush to the monastery to beg him to come back, Nikon “laid down” his Patriarchal duties, removing himself to a monastery, where he expected the Tsar’s call back to power in a renewed position of strength. But in his short absence the Tsar’s advisors worked on him rather effectively, and instead of begging Nikon to please come back, Alexei Mikhailovich accused him of dereliction of duty and ordered his forcible return to Moscow to face trial. The trial was harsh, stripping Nikon of his Patriarchal title and exiling him forever to a distant monastery, where he was to be treated as a penitent convict, with little deference to his erstwhile glories. Although the Tsar rather badly missed Nikon from then on, the latter was barred from coming back to Moscow during Alexei’s life (Alexei died in 1676), and only shortly before Nikon’s own death (in 1681) was the permission granted, but the decrepit ex-Patriarch fell short of his last wish to reach Moscow to end his life there, dying on his way back to the city of his glory while crossing the Kotorosl river near the city of Yaroslavl.
And finally, summarizing Russia’s accomplishments during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, we are likely to mention the military and monetary reforms and the successes in the further exploration of Siberia, but the most singular event of his reign was the reunification of Russia and Ukraine. Yet it is difficult to ascribe this and other successes to a particular forcefulness of Alexei’s character, which he apparently did not possess to any prominent degree. There was a certain continuity of success, present in Russia since the installation of the Romanov dynasty and leading up to the vibrant revolutionary reign of Peter the Great, but that continuity is more ascribable to the Russian nation’s-as-such spectacular rise from the ashes of the Time of Troubles than to the personal merits of any of the Romanov monarchs before Peter.
As we remember, Patriarch Philaret dominated the first Duumvirate, de facto ruling Russia single-handedly, at the expense of his son Tsar Mikhail I Fedorovich. Now, the latter’s son and the former’s grandson, Tsar Alexei I Mikhailovich was not related to his own Patriarch Nikon, but instantly fell under his magnetic spell, guaranteeing Nikon fast promotion to the highest place in the Russian Church.
Nikon was the ultimate self-made man. Son of a Mordovian peasant, he had an overwhelming urge for good education and wanted to become a monk for that since an early age. Obeying his father, however, he entered into a marriage, becoming a married priest, but later convinced his wife to become a nun, while he himself realized his wish to become a monk. His exceptional qualities were immediately recognized. He was made a hegumen (head of a monastery), and having made a trip to Moscow in this capacity in 1646, was introduced to Tsar Alexei. At the time of their first meeting, Nikon was forty-one, and the young Tsar was seventeen. Alexei was so much impressed by Nikon that he brought him close, and at the time when the Sixth Patriarch Joseph died in 1652 everyone had long known whom the Tsar wished to see as the Seventh Patriarch. Consequently the main contender for this position promptly withdrew his candidacy, and Nikon was naturally proclaimed Patriarch.
Meanwhile, the second Romanov Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was a commendably learned, but mild and soft-spoken man, initially under the control of his childhood tutor and chaperon Boyar Boris Ivanovich Morozov (1590-1661). Morozov was himself a well-educated man with a great interest in the technical, military, and cultural advances of the West, which interest he eagerly and fairly successfully cultivated in his young ward. He was, however, a corrupt man, and his excesses resulted in his downfall in 1648 and exile to a monastery, from which he was however soon returned and remained under the Tsar’s protection, privately advising him still, but never having his former position restored to him.
No matter how much influenced was Tsar Alexei by his beloved mentor, the word duumvirate cannot apply to him, as it implies political power, which he lost irretrievably in the fourth year of Alexei’s thirty-one year reign. A different situation developed between the Tsar and Starets/Patriarch Nikon, who was of course the most powerful figure in Moscow almost ever since his arrival in 1646, until his scandalous fall in 1666, and even after that, it must be noted, the Nikonian reforms had a profound and lasting influence on the Russian society, an influence which still exists to present day.
Nikon is most remembered today as the Russian Church reformer. In 1653-1655, as Patriarch, he was given charge over the correction of the Russian Church Books, laying down the rules of uniform religious practice across the land. In doing so, he took the side of the existing Greek practices, overruling the old customs that had existed in Russia for centuries. Although most of the Russian clergy desired to have a balance between the old and the new, Nikon used his authority to go much further, and effectively outlawed most of Russia’s religious tradition, accusing the “starovers” of heresy, unless they repented and converted to the new Greek practice. Amazingly, his was so powerful a push that, even after his fall from political-ecclesiastical power, his reforms survived and flourished, and the leader of the starovers Protopop Avvakum was burned to death as late as in 1682, when his nemesis Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich had already both been dead.
So, to repeat myself, Nikon is mostly remembered today as the most sweeping Church reformer in Russian history. But this is only a part of the story. Having exercised considerable influence on the impressionable Tsar, Nikon would not limit himself to Church matters, but tried to dominate other State affairs, including Russia’s foreign relations. Being smart, he realized that his intrusion would not long remain unpunished, as besides the malleable tsar, there were his very capable and angry courtiers, who would sooner or later unite in their mutual hatred of him and gang up on the insolent intruder. In order to prevent this move, he offered Alexei an explicit Church-State duumvirate, in which he graciously opted to serve a subservient role. What he underestimated, however, was that the Tsar, continually egged on by the angry boyars, was beginning to be annoyed by Nikon’s relentless pushiness and the tension, having not reached a boiling point yet, had been for quite some time on the way there.
Nikon’s eventual fall in 1666 was a result of his own bluff. Sort of emulating Tsar Ivan Grozny, who, at one point, had “laid down” his crown, removing himself to a nearby monastery, so that his terrified “orphans” would rush to the monastery to beg him to come back, Nikon “laid down” his Patriarchal duties, removing himself to a monastery, where he expected the Tsar’s call back to power in a renewed position of strength. But in his short absence the Tsar’s advisors worked on him rather effectively, and instead of begging Nikon to please come back, Alexei Mikhailovich accused him of dereliction of duty and ordered his forcible return to Moscow to face trial. The trial was harsh, stripping Nikon of his Patriarchal title and exiling him forever to a distant monastery, where he was to be treated as a penitent convict, with little deference to his erstwhile glories. Although the Tsar rather badly missed Nikon from then on, the latter was barred from coming back to Moscow during Alexei’s life (Alexei died in 1676), and only shortly before Nikon’s own death (in 1681) was the permission granted, but the decrepit ex-Patriarch fell short of his last wish to reach Moscow to end his life there, dying on his way back to the city of his glory while crossing the Kotorosl river near the city of Yaroslavl.
And finally, summarizing Russia’s accomplishments during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, we are likely to mention the military and monetary reforms and the successes in the further exploration of Siberia, but the most singular event of his reign was the reunification of Russia and Ukraine. Yet it is difficult to ascribe this and other successes to a particular forcefulness of Alexei’s character, which he apparently did not possess to any prominent degree. There was a certain continuity of success, present in Russia since the installation of the Romanov dynasty and leading up to the vibrant revolutionary reign of Peter the Great, but that continuity is more ascribable to the Russian nation’s-as-such spectacular rise from the ashes of the Time of Troubles than to the personal merits of any of the Romanov monarchs before Peter.
No comments:
Post a Comment