In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • The Heart of Russia: Trinity-Sergius, Monasticism, and Society after 1825 by Scott M. Kenworthy
  • Thomas Allan Smith
Scott M. Kenworthy . The Heart of Russia: Trinity-Sergius, Monasticism, and Society after 1825. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2010. Pp. xv + 528. Cloth, US$74.00. ISBN 978-0-19-973613-3.

That monasticism plays a central role in the drama of Eastern Orthodoxy will come as no surprise to readers of this journal; what may surprise them and most others interested in the historical expressions of Christianity is the precarious existence it has led in Russia since the eighteenth century. In 1764 Empress Catherine II the Great introduced reforms to monasticism in the Russian Empire whose effect was far more damaging to the survival of monasticism there than were similar projects of state control over monasteries enacted by contemporary rulers in the West. In a certain sense, bringing to completion the measures first introduced by Peter i the Great, her policies saw the total number of monasteries reduced from 1,052 to 479, and the number of monks and nuns cut in half. While some monasteries fared relatively well during this period of rationalization, including the Trinity-Sergius monastery, the majority endured great economic and spiritual hardship. Monasticism, like the Church itself in this Synodal Period (1721-1918), stagnated. Yet, as Scott M. Kenworthy demonstrates in his fascinating study of the Trinity-Sergius monastery, Catherine's reforms also had a purifying impact on monasticism, so that by the middle of the nineteenth century, not only this most important of Russian monasteries recovered its vigour but so too did hundreds of other smaller ascetic communities.

Kenworthy draws attention to a recurring pattern of government repression and monastic rebirth, which can be traced back to the Muscovite period of Russian history, and which appeared with special virulence twice in the twentieth century: during the Terror of 1937-1938 instigated by Joseph Stalin, and again in the so-called Thaw after 1954 under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev. The bulk of his book looks at the fortunes of the Trinity-Sergius monastery after 1825 until the Second World War, with an epilogue on the fortunes of the monastery after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. [End Page 187]

Kenworthy draws on newly accessible archival material, personal interviews and on-site visits to argue that, contrary to a widely held opinion among scholars, the modernization of Russian society did not lead to the evisceration of Christianity in general and of monasticism in particular; rather, monasticism was able to adapt itself to changing social circumstances and attract thousands of people searching for spiritual guidance. Especially noteworthy in this regard is the increase in popular participation in pilgrimages to monasteries during the nineteenth century, and connected with this the veneration of relics and the experience of miracles. Kenworthy takes this as evidence that in the Russian context modernity is not necessarily at odds with religion. He writes of the democratization of the monastic populace, with a marked increase in monks who had been townsmen or peasants, and a similar decline in those from the privileged classes. The latter were not entirely estranged from monasticism, however, as they supported monasteries materially.

There were, of course, critics of monasticism throughout the period examined in this book who regarded monasticism as an unwanted holdover from pre-modern society; monasteries were held to be extremely wealthy institutions exploiting the peasantry and working class, their monks supposedly leading debauched lives. The Church and monastic leadership responded forcefully to such criticisms; Church and state cooperated to ensure that those who wished to pursue a monastic vocation were sincere in their desires and fully cognizant of the responsibilities that monastic tonsure entailed. Kenworthy shows that the monasteries were not in fact wealthy institutions, but instead managed their resources skilfully and expended thousands of roubles annually to support the indigent. During the extremely difficult times immediately following the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, the monasteries again made efforts to reorganize themselves in accordance with the new society planned by the Soviets and won a brief respite, until the Terror in the late 1930s almost obliterated them and the Church.

But...

pdf

Share