Научная статья на тему 'Listening to voices from the East: nineteenth century Anglicans and the Russian Orthodox Church'

Listening to voices from the East: nineteenth century Anglicans and the Russian Orthodox Church Текст научной статьи по специальности «Искусствоведение»

CC BY
512
100
i Надоели баннеры? Вы всегда можете отключить рекламу.
Журнал
Текст. Книга. Книгоиздание
Scopus
ВАК
ESCI
Область наук
Ключевые слова
ЦЕРКОВЬ АНГЛИИ / РУССКАЯ ПРАВОСЛАВНАЯ ЦЕРКОВЬ / ОКСФОРДСКОЕ ДВИЖЕНИЕ ВНУТРИ АНГЛИКАНСТВА / CHURCH OF ENGLAND / RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH / OXFORD MOVEMENT WITHIN ANGLICANISM

Аннотация научной статьи по искусствоведению, автор научной работы — Courtney Julia

This article explores some contacts between members of the Church of England and the Russian Orthodox Church throughout the nineteenth century, seeking to understand the motives and emotions which drew English believers to the Russian Church. Any such endeavour must start with the effects of the Oxford Movement within Anglicanism. Transforming the liturgy, spirituality and church architecture of the Church of England, the Movement affirmed the authority of the Anglican Church by formulating the Branch Theory, which saw the Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England as three authentic successors to the early church of Gospel times. At a time of public suspicion of 'Popery' the prospect of cooperation, or even union between the Anglican and Orthodox branches of the Church had obvious attractions.

i Надоели баннеры? Вы всегда можете отключить рекламу.
iНе можете найти то, что вам нужно? Попробуйте сервис подбора литературы.
i Надоели баннеры? Вы всегда можете отключить рекламу.

Текст научной работы на тему «Listening to voices from the East: nineteenth century Anglicans and the Russian Orthodox Church»

YflK 261.8

J. Courtney

LISTENING TO VOICES FROM THE EAST: NINETEENTH CENTURY ANGLICANS AND THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

This article explores some contacts between members of the Church of England and the Russian Orthodox Church throughout the nineteenth century, seeking to understand the motives and emotions which drew English believers to the Russian Church. Any such endeavour must start with the effects of the Oxford Movement within Anglicanism. Transforming the liturgy, spirituality and church architecture of the Church of England, the Movement affirmed the authority of the Anglican Church by formulating the Branch Theory, which saw the Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England as three authentic successors to the early church of Gospel times. At a time of public suspicion of ‘Popery ’ the prospect of cooperation, or even union between the Anglican and Orthodox branches of the Church had obvious attractions.

Keywords: Church of England, Russian Orthodox Church, Oxford Movement within Anglicanism.

This chapter explores some contacts between members of the Church of England and the Russian Orthodox Church throughout the nineteenth century, seeking to understand the motives and emotions which drew English believers to the Russian Church. Any such endeavour must start with the effects of the Oxford Movement within Anglicanism before examining the careers of William Palmer, John Mason Neale and others, several of whom visited Russia, corresponded with lay and clerical Orthodox believers and in various way spread knowledge of Orthodox faith and practice to Anglican readers. The interplay of two religious traditions, both undergoing change and both affected by internal and international politics was mediated by and through some singular personalities: complications which make this aspect of nineteenth century ecumenism a challenging example of cultural cross currents.

The Oxford Movement constituted a religious revival which transformed the spirituality, practice, liturgy and architecture of the Church of England. From its inception in the early 1830s, the Movement sought to restore the Catholic heritage of the Anglican Church while maintaining, even strengthening, her intrinsic and individual national character. The Movement’s leaders expressed their convictions in the series Tracts for the Times. Published between 1833 and 1841, the Tracts sparked the

nickname Tractarians to distinguish adherents of the Movement. A key tenet of the Movement was the Branch Theory. The Branch Theory was to be a driving force for ecumenism/church unity as it proposed that the primitive church as founded by Christ and defined by the early Fathers and Councils of the first four centuries had persisted through Apostolic Succession (consecration of Bishops via laying on of hands in a direct succession from St Peter) in three branches: the Western (Roman) and Eastern Churches which had separated in 1054 and the Anglican Church, splitting from Rome at the Reformation but retaining Apostolic validity.1 Eager to justify the Church of England’s Catholic and Apostolic credentials to both Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics, embattled Tractarians found obvious advantages in the Orthodox tradition of autocephalous churches, married clergy, an active monastic life and undeniably ancient origins; as Michael Chandler notes in his biography of John Mason Neale ‘High Church Anglicans had learned to delight in the existence of the Eastern Orthodox Church as a body which was undeniably Catholic yet without the disadvantages of Roman Catholic centralisation in its organisation and regulations’ [2. P. 149]. In addition, John Mason Neale’s famous panegyric gives some indication of the qualities which attracted a series of nineteenth century Anglicans to the Orthodox Church.

‘[S]he is now as she was at the beginning, multiplex in her arrangements, simple in her faith, difficult of comprehension to strangers, easily intelligible to her sons, widely scattered in her branches, hardly beset by her enemies, yet still, and evermore what she delights to call herself— One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic’2.

Yet as I hope to demonstrate, some of the foremost students of Orthodoxy were not typical Tractarians. And interestingly given the Hellenist influence of Victorian male classical education in many cases it was the Russian, rather than the Greek, branch of the Eastern Church which fascinated them. For example William Palmer was described as ‘an ecclesiastical Don Quixote’3 theologically situated ‘out on a peninsula’ [5. P. 199] and John Mason Neale has been defined by both Owen Chadwick

1 For a very clear account of Palmer’s views, see: [1. P. V—VII].

2 John Mason Neale, quoted in: [3. P. 17].

3 G. Florovsky in [4. P. 171-217, 198].

and more recently Leon Litvack as ‘not... a Tractarian’ [6. P. 4], being involved with the ecclesiological Cambridge Camden Society rather than with the Oxford Movement.

While many leading Tractarians expressed general interest in the distant Eastern Church, with Edward Bouverie Pusey saying that ‘we hear [the voices of Orthodoxy] as sounds floating on the breeze’ [7. P. 83] relatively few made the journey to Russia ‘to stand face to face with the Eastern Church’1. One who did was William Palmer (1811-1879) of Magdalen College Oxford.

When William Palmer made his first journey to Russia in July 1840 there was already some religious interchange between the two nations. The future Tsar Alexander II had visited Oxford in 1839 and there were English Chaplains at Cronstadt/St Petersburg and Moscow; R.W. Black-more, the Anglican chaplain to the Russia Trading Company at Cron-stadt, was a skilled linguist who supplied The Christian Remembrancer periodical with translated material bringing Russian affairs to the notice of English readers.

Palmer’s visit was initially prompted by purely doctrinal motives. He was the eldest son of an Anglican clerical family; William’s formidable troop of twelve younger siblings eventually included a Lord Chancellor, two clergymen, one clergy wife and a member of an Anglican Sisterhood. He was from the first a highly gifted and determined individualist. His brother wrote that ‘He had by nature a powerful intellect, strong will, and ambitious temperament’; ‘the virtues of his character were alloyed with some combativeness, perhaps with excessive tenacity’ [9. P. 52, 258]. A High Church thinker whose conclusions often anticipated the more prominent Oxford leaders, William Palmer determined to put the Branch Theory to the test by approaching the Russian Church not as a would be convert but as a fellow Catholic Christian seeking communion from the hands of an Orthodox priest. Armed with a letter from his college principal Dr Routh but without endorsement from the cautious Archbishop of Canterbury, Palmer set out for St Petersburg making it clear that he went not as a representative of the Church of England but as an individual on his own spiritual quest. He remained in Russia, mainly in St Petersburg and Moscow, for almost a year, learning Russian with some difficulty and

1 H.P. Liddon, in [8. P. 284], № 456.

engaging in multi-lingual religious discussion1 with a variety of priestly and lay members of the Russian Church; while knowing little of the Church of England, most of his contacts were shrewd enough to recognise that Palmer did not speak for more than a small minority of Anglicans. He also met Mr Blackmore the Cronstadt chaplain, who was equally mystified by Palmer’s motives. While Blackmore enjoyed cordial relations with both clerical and lay Russian Christians, he seems to have felt little attraction towards their way of worship, while remaining isolated from the exciting doctrinal debates raging back in Oxford, his excuse being the expense of having books and periodicals sent from England.

As his brother Roundell Palmer said, ‘Of William’s entire theological system, the keystone was ecclesiastical authority, not the authority of any particular church, but the authority (to be in some practical way discovered and realised) of the Church Catholic as a whole’ [9. P. 420]. In Russia he found the apparent paradox of a Church which strongly upheld its credentials as the one true repository of ancient and essential Christian faith and practice while at the same time showing marked tolerance to sincere believers in other traditions; for example ‘the Priest Maloff’ declared to Palmer that ‘there are Christians everywhere. and the great thing is the religion of the heart’ [1. P. 175]. Anglican doctrinal wrangles were also alien to a faith described as ‘grounded primarily in practice and experience.. in ways that bypassed the cognitive’ and where ‘[t]he sensory and experiential dominated over the textual’ [10. P. 10].

One of Palmer’s most significant interlocutors was the Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret (1782-1867, V.M. Drozdov) whose career illustrates the fluctuating relationship between church and state in early nineteenth century Russia; since the time of Peter the Great, the Russian Church had been directed by the Most Holy Synod, a body consisting of both lay and clerical dignitaries admitting firm government control. Philaret’s formative years were spent under Alexander I whose interest in German pietism and mysticism gave the Russian clergy access to Protestant influence and allowed the formation of a Russian Bible Society. Under Alexander’s successor Nicholas I, reaction to the Decembrist Rising of 1825 and the Tsar’s watchword policy of Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality resulted in censorship even of theological works. The Bible Society was

1 Several of Palmer’s interlocutors spoke English; with others he conversed in French or Latin, until he had mastered enough Russian.

suppressed and Philaret was forced to recant some of his writings, although his early study of Scripture remained with him; in a four-page Christmas sermon translated by Blackmore for The Christian Remembrancer in 1845 Philaret quoted from six Old Testament and eight New Testament sources. It’s also likely that the more relaxed attitudes of his student years informed Philaret’s encouragement of contacts between Anglicans and Orthodoxy. When Palmer met him he was already revered for his holiness, wisdom and ascetic life style. By the time Anglican clergyman A.P.Stanley visited Russia in 1857 ‘His transparent, aged features looked as if they were far above any outward thing’ as he preached to a packed congregation ‘commanding breathless attention and admiration from a congregation consisting mainly of men’1. In the last year of Philaret’s life Bishop Eden of the Scottish Episcopal Church declared ‘There is not, I believe, in the whole Russian Empire a man more venerated or more justly and universally beloved than the venerable Philaret. Gentle, humble, and pious, simple in his mode of life, he gives away in charity almost the whole of his large income’ [11. P. 29].

Palmer’s Notes of a Visit to the Russian Church, 1840-1841 include a vivid account of his spiritual encounters with orthodoxy as well as his doctrinal debates.

Soon after arriving in St Petersburg he experienced his first Russian liturgy at The Cathedral of Our Lady of Kazan. He noted,

the separation of the sanctuary, its richly ornamented screen, and the severe supernatural expression of the older icons, made on one an impression of mystery and awe. There was an abundance of pious gesticulations, bowing and crossing, kissing the icons, prostrating and touching the ground with the forehead (sometimes with an audible thump), and bowing and crossing again and again, and by men, young and old, as well as by women; the impression made by this church on the whole was that of great splendour and magnificence, and of neatness too. That made on me (on this my first visit) by the outward devotion of the people was one of wonder, curiosity, suspicion, and a certain repugnance (all being so contrary to English habits, and going far beyond those of Roman Catholics), mixed at the same time with respect for the simplicity and reverence, and for the almsgiving, with which they were joined [1. P. 39/41].

1 Quoted in: [11. P. 16-38, 25].

By the end of his stay, Palmer had come to see the contrast between English and Russian ‘habits’ of worship as a reflection of national culture:

you have a warmth and impulsiveness which is ever expressing itself outwardly; you are forever bowing and kissing each other, and it would be strange indeed if you stopped short of that in your bearing toward the visible representations of our lord, his mother, and his saints, which you instance in almost everything else [1. P. 491].

Five days after his experience in the Kazan Church Palmer ‘came upon the Church of the Ascension’ where he was so struck by the singing (in the Orthodox Church voices are always unaccompanied)

and the life and feeling with which the crowd joined in chanting frequent responses of Hospode pomilui (Kyre Eleison) that I remained riveted in attention for an hour or more, although I understood nothing. as I stood behind in the throng, I had never before heard anything so stirring and congregational in divine worship [1. P. 51/52].

These initial responses to the Orthodox Liturgy are strikingly similar to those of the staunch Tractarian H.P. Liddon during his 1867 visit to St Petersburg. He found the liturgy ‘elaborately complex.bewildering’ while for his less Ritualistic travelling companion Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) it was ‘beyond all hope of comprehension’ [8. P. 285, 287]. But in Liddon’s enthusiastic view ‘there was an aroma of the fourth century about the whole which was quite marvellous. the devotion of many of the people was exuberant, passionate.’

Although already attuned to the Tractarian emphasis on reverence, awe and ceremony in which formal earthly actions connect with spiritual allegory and typology1, Palmer was unusual in penetrating beyond the initially bewildering ceremonial of the Orthodox Liturgy. On August 15 he attended the liturgy for the Feast of the Assumption and this time was able to give a very detailed account of the ritual. Some months later on a visit to the Monastery of St Sergius Palmer was ‘placed within the sanctuary’ and as a deacon (he had been ordained deacon in 1836) wore his ‘gown and cassock. ’ Near the end of his stay he visited the New Jerusalem Monastery where he venerated the tomb of the Patriarch Nikon in the

1 See: [12].

Russian manner: ‘one or two peasants [were] crossing themselves and kissing it, and I felt it a privilege to join them in doing the same’ [1. P. 526]. By now, Palmer had come to accept the Orthodox position on veneration of icons, invocation of saints, devotion to the Virgin Mary and perhaps most significantly, on the Filioque clause in the Creed, a major cause of the rupture between East and West in 1054. He proclaimed that ‘I am in heart and wish a member of your church while I am here’ [1. P. 216] adding

I was much struck when I first came to Russia, how much more the national character seemed to be tinctured with humility, brotherly kindness, and warm feeling as well as reverence for holy things and religious faith, than our own is. I knew of course before I came here, that we could be accused of pride and egoisme, but I had no idea of the extent of the evil till I was here, and saw the contrast [1. P. 495/6].

During the 1840s and early 1850s Palmer became embroiled in theological disputes both at home and abroad while maintaining ‘a lengthy correspondence.with Aleksei Khomiakov, the leading theologian of the Slavophile circle’ [13. P. 680-706, 684]. He made further visits to Russia, eventually seeking full admission to the Eastern Church. But here he encountered an obstacle in that while the Russian Church was prepared to receive him without rebaptism, this was not the case with the Greeks. Palmer was distressed by this evidence of disunion in the Eastern Church and had also become aware of the extent to which the Russian Church was subordinated to governmental policy. After much heartsearching, in 1855 he was received into the Roman Catholic Church, becoming a close friend of Cardinal Newman, to whom he left his Notes of a Visit to the Russian Church for editing and publication. Palmer died in 1879 and the Notes appeared in 1882 prefaced by a brief description of Palmer’s career and character. ‘Mr Palmer ‘, wrote Newman,

was a difficult man to understand.. .But whatever might be the criticisms of those who saw him casually, no one who saw him much could be insensible to his many and winning virtues; to his simplicity, to his unselfishness, to his gentleness and patience, to his singular meekness, to his zeal for the Truth, and his honesty... [His was] a soul set upon realities and actuated by a severe conscientiousness [1. P. XV, XVI].

While Palmer’s family often failed to understand his views they clearly loved and respected ‘dear, dear William’ maintaining a life long contact which contradicts the usual interpretations of religious ‘partings of the ways.’

There are many ways in which Palmer approximates to the Russian cultural figure of the Holy Fool, as comments on his Quixotic character suggest. Like the unworldly itinerants who wander the pages of Russian literature and popular legend, Palmer was ‘not particular’ about social status or physical discomfort in his quest for spiritual knowledge, as evidenced by his account of vermin clustered in the ‘crevices and corners’ of his room attacked by his host Fr Fortunatov with a lighted candle into which they ‘frizzled and fell. and almost put it out’ [1. P. 288]. Correspondence with his father is also revealing; when the elder Palmer refers to ‘the sacrifice you appear to be making of your own fortunes, and some place or station. for which you might be fitted’ William responded that he ‘would wish to be a layman in the church of England rather than a deacon, a woman rather than a man, a child rather than a woman...rather to be poorer and lower in worldly rank or station’ and added that ‘in conformity with the custom of the Russians, which some call idolatrous I kissed the last paragraph’ of his father’s affectionate letter [9. P. 409/411].

While Palmer was clearly a pioneer in the field of Anglican/Orthodox ecumenism, accounts often neglect him in favour of John Mason Neale.

In 1994 Leon Litvack published his John Mason Neale and the Quest for Sobornost (where ‘sobornost is a Slavonic word which means conciliarity, harmony and unanimity’ [6. P. 1]) and Michael Chandler’s The Life and Work of John Mason Neale appeared in the following year. These two studies have done much to consolidate Neale’s position as a driving force in nineteenth century Anglican/Orthodox contacts and mutual understanding. During his short life (1818-1866) Neale wrote hymns, devotional works, fiction and a monumental History of the Eastern Church (1847, 1850 and posthumously 1878). He also founded the Sisterhood of St Margaret, defending the Sisters against often physically expressed public hostility. At the same time, as W.J. Birkbeck wrote in 1895

Dr Neale himself, who perhaps did more than any other writer since the beginning of the great Anglican revival of the present century to acquaint English Churchmen with the history, doctrines and services of the Orthodox Church, never himself went to Russia; indeed his whole per-

sonal experience of the Eastern Church was confined to a visit of a few days to the capital of the little principality of Montenegro [14. P. XVI].

Neale also attended liturgy at the Russian Embassy Chapel in London, for his main channel of communication with Russia was via the Chaplain, Eugene Popov. Appointed in response to Palmer’s 1840 contacts, Popov worked with Pusey, Newman and especially Neale whom he described as appreciating ‘all aspects’ of Orthodoxy, ‘not only the dogmatic side’; Neale’s home was ‘filled with the spirit of peace, love and unity’ [6. P. 15]. In 1851 Popov was able to tell Neale of the grant of £100 made by ‘His Majesty the Emperor of Russia in acknowledgement of your arduous and useful work on ‘The History of the Holy Eastern Church’ [2. P. 154]. Philaret too encouraged Neale, sending him a copy of a rare Russian liturgy and some icons, while Popov and the Russian Archimandrite Stratuli took part in the 1865 laying of the foundation stone of Neale’s Convent at East Grinstead. It was at this point, just one year before his death, that Neale commented, ‘I had no idea till now...how big a man I was in Russia’ [2. P. 155].

Litvack suggests that it was Neale’s Camden Society ecclesiology, his intense concern with the formal qualities of church buildings, furnishings and liturgical performance, which drew him to listen to Voices from the East, as Neale himself titled his 1859 collection of ‘documents on the present state and working of the Oriental Church’1.

Since Neale’s knowledge of the Russian Church was largely textual, it is tempting to compare it with the first hand experiences of William Palmer. Litvack makes it clear that Neale admired Palmer and drew on his expertise while writing the History. I also think it likely that one of Neale’s two short stories with a Russian setting derives from Palmer’s account of the story of St Metrophanes’ defiance of Peter the Great. In some ways Neale was less daring than Palmer, downplaying Orthodox devotion to Our Lady in the face of accusations of Mariolatry; and although he gladly accepted gifts of icons from his Russian contacts he referred to one as ‘a very pretty Madonna’ an expression showing little real understanding of the nature of icons. Yet he could be a combative individualist, taking an uncompromisingly pro-Russian stance during the Crimean War; most High Church Anglicans were torn between dismay at

1 Published by Joseph Masters, London.

British support of Muslim Turkey against Christian Russia on the one hand and patriotic pride in military gallantry on the other.

Neale was also a founder member of the Eastern Churches Association which inspired Liddon’s 1867 visit mentioned above. Henry Parry Liddon (1829-1890) was a celebrated preacher and Tractarian apologist; he was particularly struck by the vibrancy of the Orthodox Church, commenting

I cannot understand anybody coming here and saying that the Eastern Church is a petrefaction. Right or wrong, it is a vast, energetic, and most powerful body, with an evident hold upon the heart of the largest of the European empires; indeed, a force within the limits of Russia to which I believe there is no moral parallel in the West1.

In discussion with Leonid (L.V.Krasnopevkov) Bishop of Dmitrovsk Liddon noted that the Bishop was eager to promote knowledge of the English Church amongst his Russian brethren, seeing both churches united in the struggle against unbelief and the spiritual difficulties raised by the Biblical criticism of contemporary German theologians2.

This sense of the bonds between believers faced by moral, theological and social problems also inspired Arthur Penryn Stanley’s visits to Russia. Stanley’s Anglicanism differed from that of Palmer, Neale and Liddon; educated at Thomas Arnold’s Rugby school (he is said to be the model for George Arthur in Hughes’ Tom Brown’s School Days) his was a more liberal and Broad Church faith. Kasinec points out that Stanley’s first visit to Russia in 1857 took place very shortly after the Crimean War, but he was able to meet and communicate with a range of lay and clerical Orthodox believers while gathering material for his Lectures on the Eastern Orthodox Church, published in 1861. Appointed Dean of Westminster in 1863, Stanley (18151881) was close to the Royal family (Queen Victoria favoured Broad Church doctrines) and was chosen to return to Russia in the winter of 1874 to take part in the wedding of the Queen’s second son Prince Alfred to Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna.

It could be argued that Palmer, Liddon and Stanley, if not Neale, shared their thoughts and experiences of Orthodoxy with a rather rarefied male university educated audience. But by the 1860s bulletins and dis-

1 Quoted in: [11. P. 30/1].

2 Today Liddon’s travelling companion Lewis Carroll is far better known than Liddon. A recent article encouraged tourists to visit Russia on a Lewis Carroll trail: [15].

cussions of Russian religious customs were appearing in ‘one of the first teenage magazines ever written’ [16]. The Monthly Packet of Evening Readings for Younger Members of the English Church edited by the immensely popular novelist Charlotte M Yonge. Writing to her publisher Alexander MacMillan in January 1866, Yonge noted ‘how many advances have been made towards communion with us by the [Orthodox] and how much more they understand of us than at the time of Mr Palmer’s isolated endeavour’ [17], a comment indicating that for her as for Liddon and Stanley Church unity was a two way process.

The Monthly Packet had its own Russian correspondent in Harriet Catherine Romanoff, an Englishwoman married to a Russian and a regular contributor to the magazine between 1861 and 1877. Born Harriet Catherine Carr in 1827/28, she died in Kishinieff, Russia (Kishinev, Moldova) in 1897. Her contributions variously signed HCR, H C Romanoff or Madame Romanoff, included fiction set in Russia, occasional news items (‘The Late Attempt on the Tzar’s Life’, 1866 , ‘The Princess Dagmar’s Admission to the Greco-Russian Church’, 1867 etc) and a long running series of ‘Sketches of the Offices [later the Customs] of the Greco-Russian Church’. Harriet Romanov was clearly a very competent linguist, offering translations from Russian, evidently able to communicate fluently with Russian speakers and to follow Old Church Slavonic (‘Sclave’) in church. Despite her very detailed accounts of Orthodox services she probably remained an Anglican; in describing Confession she gives the priest’s questions ‘as far as I could ascertain’ [18. P. 135]. Her version of Russian life and faith is almost entirely positive. The Russian people are patriotic, loyal, friendly, hospitable and family centred. Their customs and costumes are picturesque, even glamorous and their faith is deeply held, devoutly practised and central to their national identity. It has to be said that Harriet Romanov seems to have mixed exclusively with the upper and middle social classes; labouring peasants are rarely visible and servants are often ‘characters’ exhibiting quaint habits and superstitions. She was of course writing for a fairly young audience, although her lengthy account of Russian funeral practices is not for the faint hearted.

A slightly different view was taken by another contributor, E.M.B whose ‘Summer days in a Russian Country House’ appeared in February 1874, MP issue 98. I have not been able to identify this author; E.M.B may possibly be male since s/he mentions wanting to shoot the hawks

pilfering the household’s chickens and seems to be travelling unaccom-panied1. The discomforts of travel and the general cheerful disorganisation of Russian life are stressed; the clergy are unfavourably compared with their Anglican counterparts and with limited Russian and no ‘Sclave’ the visitor is unable to benefit from the Liturgy.

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of E.M.B’s article is the account of the ‘visit’ of an icon and the blessing of waters and crops. The description of events exactly parallels, while the narrative tone contrasts with, the nineteenth century Russian sources cited in Vera Shevzov’s Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of Revolution . For although E.M.B gives a clear report of the arrival of the visiting icon borne by monks, its overnight lodgement in the village church and the procession and services in individual homes, this is a rather sceptical, even condescending passage. Significantly, the term ‘icon’ is never used; the writer refers to icons throughout as picture (s), rarely and at best holy pictures. A. P. Stanley and Harriet Romanov also refer only to ‘pictures’. In Stanley’s case, that of a Broad Church Anglican unlikely to share High Church reverence for sacred statues and represntations (and perhaps not the full extent of High Church reverence for the Mother of God) this is possibly less surprising. Harriet Romanov however is at such pains to convey the religious beliefs and emotions of her Russian family and friends that the omission is hard to explain unless perhaps she fears to corrupt her young readers with ‘Mariolatry’.

Having commented on the unprepossessing aspect of the monks, E.M.B remarks, ‘What miracles the picture had worked or continues to work, I failed to make out; but that it is greatly reverenced, and believed sincerely by all to be endowed with miraculous powers, is beyond doubt.’ From E.M.B’s description of the provenance and appearance of the visiting ‘Black Virgin’ icon, it could be Theotokos Fyodorovskaya:

I had the opportunity of closely investigating the picture, which resembled all those in the Greek Church and with which the Exhibitions of 1851 and 1862 in London have made most English familiar. It was entirely covered with thin plates of metal, either gold or silver, with the ex-

1 E.M.B mentions having been in Moscow for ‘the Exhibition’ which is probably the 1873 Exhibition of works selected to go to the Vienna World Fair. Works included Repin’s Barge-Haulers on the Volga.

2 See: [19].

ception of the hands and face which were painted, but were so black from age that you could distinguish no lines whatever; and as far as I could observe there were no jewels set about the face. They had with unaccountably bad taste, hung wreaths and very dirty and tawdry artificial flowers over the picture, which tended to dissipate entirely any feelings of reverence its subject and age would inspire.

Unsurprisingly E.M.B was the only person present who did not kiss and reverence the icon [18. P. 194/5].

Writing in the post reform period, E.M.B. offers some general comment on changing conditions in Russia, although in his/her opinion they are not changing fast enough:

until the clergy are taken from a better rank of life, and are themselves more highly educated and trained, with some hope of preferment, it seems vain to hope for much improvement in education, or that religious knowledge should make much progress among the peasantry

[although] The rapid advance effected during the last ten years, gives fair hope that ere long, greater facilities of communication with the interior will be organised and a good system of roads commenced; the people will then soon evince greater desire to improve, and make livelier efforts to emerge out of the well-worn grooves in which, for do many generations, they have been content to plod [20. P. 184-199, 189, 199].

As regards ecumenism the author remarks reassuringly, Russians in general I find if at all interested in the subject regard the Church of England with much liberality, esteem her not so very far from the Orthodox Faith, and much less committed to heresy than that of Rome; in emergency they will therefore attend our Service in preference to any other [20. P. 196].

Kasinec has argued that in the later 1870s and 80s ‘the Eastern Churches Association slowly became moribund; only towards the end of the nineteenth century was a new generation successful in reviving Western interest in the Eastern churches’ with the founding of the more proactive Anglican and Eastern Churches Union1 [11. P. 34]. A link between the two generations was formed by W.J. Birkbeck (1859-1916). Like Palmer, Neale and Liddon, Birkbeck was a High Church Anglican with

1 Possible reasons might include increasingly hostile relations with the Russian Empire, and Anglo-Catholic absorption in domestic debates.

conservative social views. And like many of his fellow countrymen, he was initially entranced by the experience of Orthodox liturgical worship; while some foreigners were repulsed by the elaborate and to them incomprehensible nature of the Services, others reacted as Birkbeck did in 1888 when he attended Vespers in the Church of St Andrew in Kiev:

‘Words cannot describe the beauty of the scene-the officiant surrounded by the other clergy, amidst numerous burning tapers and clouds of fragrant incense, raising the Cross on high and blessing the people.’1.

A scholar and able linguist, Birkbeck worked to extend his knowledge of Russian church history and religious thought; in 1895 he published an edition of William Palmer’s correspondence with Khomiakov. Birkbeck greatly admired this Slavophile leader, adopting his vision of a ‘Holy Russia’ whose future lay in the regeneration of traditionally Russian ways of life and thought together with rejection of ‘Westernizing’ influences. Michael Hughes points out that Birkbeck differed from Khomiakov in defending Peter the Great’s religious reforms (the founding of the Holy Synod and so on) while describing Birkbeck as ‘the English Slavophile’ ‘inclined to construct a utopian picture of [late nineteenth century] Russia that owed as much to his imagination as it did to a realistic examination of the country he devoted his life to understanding’ [13. P. 683, 696/7]. Birkbeck was an assiduous worker for church unity and an acknowledged expert on Russian religion and society, continuing to accompany high ranking Anglican clergy on official and unofficial visits to Russia as the twentieth century began. Vera Shevzov describes the process of reform in the Russian Church after 1905 and argues convincingly for increasing autonomy of laity at this time, while the Russian Church was still debating reform on the eve of Revolution. Hughes says that after 1905 Birkbeck started to take a more sober attitude towards the prospects of reunion between the English and Russian churches during the last ten years of his life, but there was no fundamental change in his ’Slavophile’ orientation. His articles and letters show that he never really grasped the extent of the social and economic changes that transformed the country’s main cities in the twenty five years or so before the 1917 Revolution.

The question of how far Anglican enquirers constructed Orthodoxy in accordance with their own needs and preoccupations must remain open.

1 Quoted in: [13. P. 686].

Further, their stories span the period from about 1839 to 1895, decades when the belief and practice of the Church of England altered considerably, while relations between Great Britain and Russia were affected by the Crimean War and increasing fear of Russian expansionism. And despite accusations of ‘petrification’ the contemporary Russian church was neither unchanging nor entirely coherent in belief. Yet it is likely that Palmer, Neale, Liddon and Birkbeck as well as Philaret, Popov and their fellow Orthodox would all have concurred with this Ectene, a prayer spoken by a deacon in the Orthodox Liturgy:

For the peace that is from above

For the welfare of the holy Churches of God

And for the union of all

Let us pray unto the Lord.

References

1. Newman J.H, ed. Notes of a Visit to the Russian Church by the Late William Palmer. London: Kegan Paul, 1882.

2. Chandler M. The Life and Work of John Mason Neale. Leominster: Gracewing, 1995.

3. A Priest of the English Church and R.F. Littledale, The Holy Eastern Church: A Popular Outline of Its History, Doctrines, Liturgies and Vestments. London: Hayes, 1870.

4. Rouse R., Neill S.C. eds. A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948. London: SPCK, 1967.

5. Chadwick O. The Victorian Church. Vol. 1. London: Black, 1970.

6. Litvack L. John Mason Neale and the Quest for Sobornost. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.

7. Shaw P.E. The Early Tractarians and the Eastern Church London: Mowbray, 1930.

8. Lewis Carroll’s Diaries, vol. 5, ed. E. Wakeling. The Lewis Carroll Society, 1999.

9. Palmer R. Memorials, Part One, Family and Personal, Vol. 1. London: Macmillan, 1896.

10. Kivelson V., GreeneR. Orthodox Russia. Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003.

11. Kasinec E. British Nineteenth Century Travellers and Their Moscow Friends: A Note on Sources // St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 22, № 1 (1978).

12. Nockles P.B. The Oxford Movement in Context. Cambridge: CUP, 1994, esp. Chapter 4.

13. Hughes M. The English Slavophile: W.J. Birkbeck and Russia // The Slavonic and East European Review, 82. № 3.

14. Birkbeck W.J. Russia and the English Church during the Last Fifty Years. London: Rivington, Percival, 1895.

15. http: //www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rbth/culture/10290216/lewis-carroll-rus-sia. html

16. CharlotteM. Yonge fellowship website: http://www.cmyf.org.uk/

17. http://www.yongeletters.com/2101/to-alexander-macmillan-70

iНе можете найти то, что вам нужно? Попробуйте сервис подбора литературы.

18. MP, August 1861, issue 128. Second Series.

19. Shevzov V. Icons: Miracles, Memory and Sacred History // Shevzov V. Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of Revolution. OUP, 2004.

20. E.M.B. Summer days in a Russian Country House //MP, February 174, issue 98 NS.

СЛУШАЯ ГОЛОСА С ВОСТОКА: АНГЛИКАНЦЫ XIX В. И РУССКАЯ ПРАВОСЛАВНАЯ ЦЕРКОВЬ

Текст. Книга. Книгоиздание. 2014, no. 1 (5), с. 89-105.

Джулия Кортни, независимый исследователь (Эпсом, Великобритания). E-mail: julia.courtney1@gmail.com

Ключевые слова: Церковь Англии, Русская православная церковь, Оксфордское движение внутри англиканства.

В статье рассматриваются отдельные контакты между членами Церкви Англии и Русской православной церкви на протяжении XIX в. Цель публикации - понять мотивы и эмоции, которые притягивали английских верующих в Русскую церковь. Исследование открывается обзором последствий Оксфордского движения внутри англиканства. Преобразовав церковную службу, духовность и церковную архитектуру Церкви Англии, Движение утвердило власть Англиканской церкви, сформулировав «Теорию ветвей», согласно которой Православная церковь, Римско-Католическая церковь и церковь Англии — это три подлинных наследника Единой, Святой, Кафолической и Апостольской церкви. Во времена постоянных общественных подозрений священнослужителей в «папизме» перспектива сотрудничества или даже союза между англиканской и православной ветвями церкви имела очевидные преимущества.

Двумя выдающимися деятелями этой истории были Джон Мейсон Нил (18181866) и Уильям Палмер (1811-1879). Палмер признавал власть православной церкви, Нил в своих трудах рассказывал западному читателю о духовном богатстве православия. «Я до сегодняшнего дня не знал... насколько я важный человек в России», -восклицал Джон Мейсон Нил в 1860 г., когда его работа «История Святой Церкви Востока» была отмечена Филаретом, митрополитом Московским. Нил сыграл важную роль в создании Ассоциации Восточных церквей в 1860-х гг., в то время, когда Русская православная церковь сама переживала период духовного обновления, связанного с движением славянофилов.

Тем не менее появлению работы Нила предшествовала деятельность Уильяма Палмера из колледжа Магдалины в Оксфорде в начале 1840-х гг. Палмер посещал Россию несколько раз, чтобы установить контакты с православными верующими и изучать их церкви и службы. Он также переписывался с православным богословом Алексеем Хомяковым (1804-1860).

Хотя оба англичанина были тесно связаны с Оксфордским движением внутри англиканства, ни Палмер, ни Нил не казались обычными трактарианцами, как прозвали приверженцев Движения. Палмер, который с его идеализмом напоминал русского юродивого, дважды безуспешно пытался примкнуть к православной церкви, но в конечном итоге стал католиком в 1855 г. Нил остался англиканцем, но, по словам Леона Литвака, не был трактарианцем в верованиях и образе жизни.

В более поздний период XIX в. отношения между английской и русской церквями были в значительной степени обусловлены деятельностью «английского славянофила» У.Дж. Биркбека (1859-1911). Он восхищался работой Хомякова, опубликовав переписку между Хомяковым и Палмером, и черпал вдохновение в концепции «Святой Руси», возможно, более идеалистической, чем практической.

Остается открытым вопрос о том, насколько понимание православия подстраивалось англиканскими исследователями под их собственные потребности и заботы. Кроме того, их деятельность охватывает период примерно с 1839 по 1895 г., десятилетия, когда Церковь Англии претерпевала значительные изменения и отношения между Великобританией и Россией находились под влиянием Крымской войны и растущего страха российского экспансионизма. Тем не менее этот аспект экуменизма XIX в. представляет собой интересный и малоисследованный пример межкуль-турных связей.

References

1. Newman J.H (ed.) Notes of a Visit to the Russian Church by the Late William Palmer. London, Kegan Paul, 1882. 572 p.

2. Chandler M. The Life and Work of John Mason Neale. Leominster, Gracewing Books, 1995. 241 p.

3. Neale J.M. The Holy Eastern Church: A Popular Outline of Its History, Doctrines, Liturgies and Vestments. London, J.T. Hayes, New York, Pott & Amery, 1870. 134 p.

4. Rouse R., Neill S.C. (eds.) A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948. London, SPCK, 1967.

5. Chadwick O. The Victorian Church. Vol. 1. London, Black, 1970.

6. Litvack L. John Mason Neale and the Quest for Sobornost. Oxford, Clarendon, 1994.

7. Shaw P.E. The Early Tractarians and the Eastern Church. London, Mowbray, 1930.

8. Wakeling E. (ed.) Lewis Carroll’s Diaries. Vol. 5. The Lewis Carroll Society, 1999. 415 p.

9. Palmer R. Memorials. London, Macmillan, 1896. Pt. 1. Family and Personal. Vol. 1.

10. Kivelson V., Greene R. Orthodox Russia. Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003.

11. Kasinec E. British Nineteenth Century Travellers and Their Moscow Friends: A Note on Sources. St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 1978, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 17-38.

12. Nockles P.B. The Oxford Movement in Context. Cambridge, CUP, 1994.

13. Hughes M. The English Slavophile: W.J. Birkbeck and Russia. The Slavonic and East European Review, 2004, vol. 82, no. 3.

14. Birkbeck W.J. Russia and the English Church during the Last Fifty Years. London, Rivington, Percival, 1895.

15. Tveritina A. Lewis Carroll in a Russian wonderland of surprises. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rbth/culture/10290216/lewis-carroll-russia.html.

16. CharlotteM. Yonge fellowship website. Available at: http://www.cmyf.org.uk/.

17. Jordan E., Mitchell Ch., Schinske H. (eds.) The Letters of Charlotte Mary Younge (1823-1901). Available at: http://www.yongeletters.com/2101/to-alexander-macmillan-70

18. MP, 1861, Issue 128, August. Second Series.

19. Shevzov V. Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of Revolution. Oxford, OUP, 2004, pp. 174-217.

20. E.M.B. Summer days in a Russian Country House. MP, February 174, issue 98,

NS.

i Надоели баннеры? Вы всегда можете отключить рекламу.