Keeping the Faith: Russian Orthodox Monasticism in the Soviet Union, 1917-1939

Preface

Preface
,   monasteries and convents have had important functions in Russian culture, in both the spiritual and the political realm. As centers of spiritual wisdom, they attracted pilgrims from all walks of life. One of the most famous monasteries in Central Russia, Optina Pustyn, became the site of a religious revival in the nineteenth century . Hundreds of thousands of pilgrims, among them the famous writers Nikolai Gogol and Fyodor Dostoevsky, journeyed to this monastery to receive advice from the elders. Politically, the monasteries played a vital role in the church hierarchy. Two types of priests serve in the Orthodox Church, the “white” clergy and the “black” clergy. The former were married priests who served a parish. The latter were monks. According to Orthodox canon law, bishops, archbishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs cannot marry. Therefore, all of the church hierarchy necessarily came from the monasteries. This fact combined with the conservative character of monasticism made the monasteries potential political rivals in the minds of the Bolsheviks. Additionally, most monasteries owned land and employed peasants. As part of the Bolsheviks’ promise to give land to the peasants, they necessarily targeted monasteries.1 For women, monasticism offered one of the few opportunities to hold prominent positions in society. Although female monasteries have usually been portrayed as places of exile for former wives of the nobility, women of all classes were drawn to monasticism. Although women could not be ordained as priests, as nuns they could assist in some of the sacraments such as communion. The abbess of a women’s monastery also occupied a prominent position in the community. Many laypeople sought out nuns and eldresses for advice and spiritual guidance. Orthodox monasteries continued to provide spiritual strength throughout the Soviet period, despite severe persecution. This oppression reached its zenith during the period of collectivization in the late s and s and abated with the advent of World War II. Although the Soviets deprived them of citizenship and other basic rights, monks and nuns struggled clandestinely to uphold the traditions of monasticism and the Orthodox Church. Their partial success against heavy odds enabled them to provide a counterculture to the totalitarian Soviet regime. Indeed, of all the pre- institutions, religion proved the most resilient. Why and how it managed to persevere in spite of the enormous hostility against it is a topic that continues to fascinate both the general public and historians. My study of the monasteries should contribute to a fuller understanding of the resiliency of Russian Orthodoxy. Historiography My reasons for studying the history of the monasteries during this period are threefold. While many historians of Russian religion have focused on the essentially negative character of this period, specifically the closing and destruction of the monasteries and churches,2 my aim is to examine ways in which monks and nuns were able to preserve their way of life despite hardship. In other words, although the Soviet authorities closed all of the monasteries and convents by , monasticism as a way of life continued.3 Recently, historians have focused on popular resistance to Soviet antireligious propaganda. William Fletcher was one of the earliest historians to do so, but his books, although informative and innovative, were published more than twenty years ago and mainly use secondary sources. More recently, Glennys Young’s book examines the methods that both rural clergy and laity used to preserve their faith. The village soviet was often used to keep the churches open, and there are many accounts of parish priests being members of these soviets.4 The most recent work focusing on religion is William Husband’s book on atheism and society in Soviet Russia during the interwar period.5 However, some of these studies have serious flaws. Despite their excellence in research, they tend to underestimate the depth of religious feeling among the laity, especially peasants. Sheila Fitzpatrick, Moshe Levin, and William Husband in particular dismiss any peasant resistance to government antireligious campaigns as “the desire to defend what was simply familiar and enjoyable.”6 The evidence from petitions and memoirs provides a picture of a laity x +  who often risked their lives to protect monastics and church relics. It is hard to believe that laypeople would risk so much merely in the name of nostalgia. Historians have thus far almost completely neglected the monasteries’ important role in this story. Monks and nuns also displayed the ability to adapt to a new way of life...