Monachophobia in Russia: Peter the Great and His Influence

Abstract

The reforms of Russian Tsar Peter I (1682–1725) touched all spheres of life, including the Church. The purpose of this paper is to bring into focus his approach to the reform of monasticism. It reflects on Peter’s personal remarks as reported both by his Russian and his foreign interlocutors, his legislation, including law drafts, and practical measures such as the All-Joking, All-Drunken Synod. The principal conclusion is that it was this Russian ruler who was the first to call into question the very existence of monasticism and who came close to the ultimate dissolution of monasteries. He did not abolish monasticism not because it was a too radical step but because he devised measures of reform to raise its standards and improve its public utility. His treatment of the monastic tradition should be interpretated not as secularization but rather as modernization. Peter’s personal “monachophobia” is best understood as a modernizing impulse. His objective was the creation of a “modern” state whose Church and clergy represented contemporary values. Traditional, unreformed monasticism presented an obstacle in his progress towards this goal. The legacy of Peter’s policy was an increasing monachophobia in Russia apparent from the 18th century onwards.

1. Introduction

The first monasteries appeared in Russia soon after Christianization, in the 11th century. The monastic presence grew in importance and influence over time. A rapid increase of monks and expansion of monasteries can be traced from the 14th to the 17th centuries. Monks served as spiritual and moral exemplars for laypeople who did not themselves follow the monastic path. A monastic prayer was considered peculiarly powerful, a direct point-of-contact with God. A pilgrimage to monasteries was very popular, laypeople made contributions to them, and even practiced some of their traditions (for example, the oprichniki1 were similar to a monastic commune and wore black clothes) and sometimes settled near cloister walls (Sinitsyna 2002, pp. 109–11).

Numerous texts, for example hagiographies, reflected the monastic ideal yet at the same time laypeople criticized monks for their drunkenness, greed, and taste for luxury (monks of aristocratic origin aimed to enjoy privileges inside the cloister). Criticism was voiced by the same people who honored the monastic ideal, including tsars such as Ivan the Terrible (1533–1584). They kept a close watch on the life of monks and condemned them for any deviation. Good brothers were close to God, but evil ones deserved no mercy (Emchenko 2000). We may conclude that the criticism was the reverse side of the investment in the monastic ideal in the Middle Ages and it stopped short of any existential threat to the monasticism.

The position of monasteries in Russia was challenged for the first time by Tsar (later Emperor) Peter I the Great (1682–1725). Tsar Peter possessed a strong impulse to innovate, to see Russia take advantage of the discoveries and developments emerging across western Europe. He tried to acquire new knowledge and skills for himself in many spheres; in doing so, he was extremely strong-willed, energetic, and cruel. In matters of religion, Peter inherited the pious traditions of his predecessors but rejected or transformed them through a process of reform. Peter I was ahead of his time. He shocked his contemporaries with his ideas and innovations, but many of them would later become commonplace (Kartashev 1959, vol. 2, p. 367).

The Russian Orthodox Church in the late 17th century was a vast institution extending its reach over all Russia, including eastern Ukraine, and headed by the Patriarch of Moscow. With a cumbersome administration, it increasingly fell under the control of the tsars. One of the most notable features of the Russian Church was the vast monastic establishment: some 1200 cloisters, many of them rich, commanding land and the labor of many serfs.

In 1721, Peter I abolished the patriarchy and replaced church councils with the Most Holy Synod—a permanent body, part of the state apparatus under his own control. His personal approach to monks and monasteries is a particular, not-so-well-studied topic. Here, it is suggested that it represents an important turning point in Russian history.

There are many works about the Church reform of Peter I that touch on his policy towards monasteries (Verkhovskoi 1916; Cracraft 1971; Bulygin 1977; Zhivov 2004; Sedov 2013). There are also several articles devoted to the monastic policy in the first half of the 18th century. Their authors describe the practical actions, but not emperors’ views (Bodrin 2013; Nechaeva 2016; Nechaeva 2020). Usually, these actions were examined through conceptions of governmentalization of the Church, secularization, separation of the new secular culture. In past decades, these theories were criticized (Freeze 1985; Lavrov 2000; Zitser 2004). For example, for the Petrine epoch, the theory of secularization cannot explain tsar’s efforts to solve problems of the Church, to strengthen its influence, or to enhance the religious discipline of people. Generally, in the sociology of religion, the theory of secularization has lost its position (Uzlaner 2019).

The purpose of this paper is to bring into focus Peter’s own view of monasticism and the place of the monasteries in his program of reform. We examine Peter’s personal remarks about monks and monasteries as recorded by both of his Russian and foreign interlocutors, his legislative measures, including law drafts, and practical actions such as the All-Joking, All-Drunken Synod of Fools and Jesters. We will also trace his legacy in the 18th–20th centuries.

2. The Outlook of Peter the Great

Many factors influenced Peter the Great: old orthodox traditions, the experience of former tsars, Protestant ideas and practices, the idea of the benefit of Russia, economic needs of the state, etc. We will examine these factors in more detail.

The tsar had absorbed the devotional traditions of Muscovite Russia. His closest relatives expected traditional behavior from him, and he had to respect it, especially early in his reign (Ustrialov 1858, vol. 2, p. 399).

But Peter I was open to other influences. He engaged with foreign diplomats, officers, engineers, and merchants who lived in Moscow, and he visited several Protestant countries when he traveled to Europe (the so-called Grand Embassy in 1697–1698 when Peter I arrived incognito in Livonia, Courland, Brandenburg, the Netherlands, and England). The idea that his reform scheme for Russian Church was informed by a Protestant model is popular (Verkhovskoi 1916; Ivanov 2020), although some have cautioned that these influences should not be exaggerated, noting his Orthodox conception of the emperor’s role in the Church (Härtel 1970). Ultimately, Peter I remained Orthodox, but he did show an interest in Protestant ideas. For example, he recognized faith as the core of religion, while outward manifestations had much less importance for him. The dissolution of monasteries in western Europe surely attracted his attention, although for Russia, it represented a radical measure of policy.

This tsar was the first ruler in Russian history who declared the duty of an individual to serve the state; it applied to himself and to everyone under him. From this point of view, the Church, clergy, and monasticism must serve not only God but also the state as well, and to bring benefits to it. For the standardized society he aimed to inculcate in Russia under his rule, monks were an undesirable element. They had left their social groups by their own free will and were lost for the state.

Previous rulers had sometimes used the Church’s funds for their own urgent needs as was common throughout medieval Europe. But Russian tsars had been unable to appropriate monasteries’ lands and serfs because of their perceived inviolability: these properties were seen as sacral because they had been donated under the last will of their original owners. These gifts of property committed monks to the perpetual liturgical commemoration of their benefactors. Consequently, the monasteries’ landlordship lent them near-immunity from interference (Steindorff 1994).

In the new reality, this problem had to be solved in favor of the state. In 1700–1721, the underfunded state was engaged in the major Great Northern War. It was costly, and the Church was forced to contribute.

Peter I could not forget the divisive role of monks during the Schism of the Russian Church in the 17th century (for example, the uprising of the Solovetsky monastery2), during rebellions of the streltsy3 in 1682 and 1698, and the conflict between the tsar and his son Alexei at the beginning of the 18th century.4

Like his predecessors, Peter I saw himself as a defender of true faith. He believed he held a moral right to correct the abuses of secular and monastic clergy; indeed, for him, it was a matter of priority.

3. Peter’s Attitude towards Monasticism

Tsar Peter acted within the pious traditions of Muscovite Russia. He was a benefactor to a number of monasteries early in his reign. For example, he gave money, building materials, and a copper chandelier to the Meschovsky monastery near Kaluga (Leonid (Kavelin) 1870, pp. 143–45). He made pilgrimages to monastic churches early in his reign although it was a pretext to visiting shipyards in the neighborhood (Ustrialov 1858, vol. 2, p. 399). His interest in pilgrimage receded over the course of his reign. In 1718 Friedrich Christian Weber, a German diplomat at the Russian court, wrote that Peter I did not practice pilgrimage, in contrast to his ancestors (Barsov 1872, col. 1620).

Nonetheless, the tsar did establish new monasteries and also restored a number of ancient foundations. In 1696, Russian troops took the fortress in Azov from the Turks, and the tsar ordered the establishment of a monastery dedicated to John the Baptist. In 1710, during the Great Northern War with Sweden, Peter I inaugurated the Saint Alexander Nevsky monastery in the new capital, Saint Petersburg, on land recaptured from the Swedes. In both cases, the tsar did not want to increase the number of cloisters but rather to control new territories. The naming of the last monastery after Alexander Nevsky had a symbolic sense: this Russian prince had defeated the Swedes in 1240 near that place so that he would become a guardian of this land. Peter I ordered to move his relics from Vladimir to the new cloister (Smolitsch 1953, p. 388).

Peter’s actions towards monasteries often clothed pragmatism in the guise of tradition. For example, the tsar ordered the collection of signatures of bishops, archimandrites, and hegumens under the Spiritual Regulation, published in 1721 (Voskresenskii 2020, vols. 2/3, pp. 379–82). Their opinions and attitude towards the Church reform did not matter. The act was Peter’s brainchild, but these signatures imitated the tradition of church councils in which bishops and priors had taken part. This measure was to appease the opponents of the reform.

He sent female members of his family who lost his trust (his sisters Sophia, Marfa, and Feodosia, and his first wife Eudoxia Lopukhina) to monasteries by force; it was an old tradition of the tsars’ family and a convenient way to solve modern dynastical problems as well. He seized monasteries’ bells and smelted them for cannons during the Great Northern War. He obliged the famous Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius to build several warships. Peter I, in need of funds during the war, turned to monasteries in general to channel their resources to the state treasury (Sedov 2013, pp. 131–34).

Peter the Great often referred to monastics in pejorative terms, repeating traditional stereotypes. He called them “bearded men”, “hypocrites”, “sluggards”, and “spongers” (Voskresenskii 2020, vols. 2/3, pp. 427–33). The first characterization highlighted their conservatism and hostility towards reforms (the monarch fought against beards of laypeople; it was a part of his modernization policy). He also cast them as hypocrites, because they showed external signs of piety but in fact were far from sanctity (PSZ 1830, vol. 6, p. 513). Peter considered hypocrisy one of the greatest sins. In his own commentary on the Ten Commandments, he called hypocrisy the only crime against all commandments and the only one Christ had warned apostles to guard against (Voskresenskii 2020, vols. 2/3, pp. 393–94). The images of the “sluggard” and “sponger” referenced the unearned wealth of monks (especially priors), drawn from lands worked by others’ hands. According to notes attributed to Peter’s interlocutor Andrei Nartov, the tsar once said: “Our monks got fat <…>. I shall clear the way to heaven for them by bread and water, not by sterlet5 and wine” (Maykov 1891, p. 58). Reflecting on his son Alexei’s conspiracy: “If not a nun and not a monk6 <…> Alexei would not dare such an unheard evil. Oh, bearded men! Elders and priests are a root of much evil” (Maykov 1891, p. 101).

This criticism was not without justification since the conduct of many monastic communities was far from the ideal and did set themselves against measures of reform (Smolitsch 1953, p. 389). But Peter’s criticism was unprecedented for Russia in its outspoken radicalism. It may reasonably be characterized as monachophobia.

The All-Joking, All-Drunken Synod of Fools and Jesters7 was an example of a radical assault on the monasteries, a parody of the monastic tradition. A part of this society was called “the sleepless monastery”: this name meant not a continuous prayer as in real sleepless cloisters but a constant drinking (Bergholtz 2018). Another group, which probably was a branch of the All-Joking, All-Drunken Synod, was called the British Monastery or the Bung College. It existed in Saint Petersburg; most of its members were British, and they bore ecclesiastical titles (Cross 1997, pp. 32–34). Monasticism was among the main targets of the mockery.

Participants of the All-Joking, All-Drunken Synod used new obscene names that began with the same letter as their real names; it followed a monastic tradition, but in this case, was a rude parody. Monastic ranks were given to some people. They changed a letter in the word “monakhinia” (nun) that turned it into an obscene word. Some members of the clownish club wore monks’ or nuns’ habits, Orthodox or Catholic (abbots and abbesses, Jesuites and Franciscans, etc.) (Berdnikov 2019). It is known that Peter the Great did not like the Catholic Church (on the contrary, he sympathized with Protestants). But in this case, it was more important that all types of monasticism (Orthodox, Catholic, British) were under attack. For Peter I, the problem was not in an Orthodox or concrete Russian version, in male or female monasteries, but in monasticism itself.

The All-Joking, All-Drunken Synod mocked not the whole Church but some of its traditions, rites, ceremonies, and the ecclesiastical hierarchy. It was not only an element of the carnival culture, entertainment, or a psychological relief but also a provocation against the old culture with its formality. Perhaps it was a means of making Peter’s inner circle free, liberated, and modern without denying faith and the Orthodox identity.8 Monasticism was one of the Church’s outward manifestations, which was supposed to be an obstacle to the modernization and progress. Peter’s childhood tutor, lifelong friend, and advisor Nikita Zotov, who was called “patriarch” and “prince-pope”, headed the clownish hierarchy of the All-Joking, All-Drunken Synod for many years; but when he decided to enter a real monastery, the tsar refused him (Berdnikov 2019).

There was also an assault on monastic life in the texts of laws issued under Peter’s authority. His ecclesiastical actae were formulated with the assistance of archbishop Feofan (Prokopovitch) who, though he had taken vows himself, demonstrated dislike for monastic traditions, too. Some of the texts were born from the tsar’s notes; he participated in the editing of laws, paying attention to details. We may say that these two persons had similar views and influenced each other.

The Addition to the Spiritual Regulation of May 1722 included a short judgment on the monastic establishment: ancient monasticism had been a model of repentance and improvement for all Christianity, and the modern one became corrupted and went on a rampage (PSZ 1830, vol. 6, p. 708).

The “Announcement” of 31 January 1724 added further detail (PSZ 1830, vol. 7, pp. 226–33). This legislative act begins with a historical treatise: early monasticism, it suggested, had been true and perfect; these pioneers had retired from the secular world into the desert and supported themselves by labor. However, very soon, lazy monks appeared, and cloisters moved to cities, where they became dependent on the laity. The “Announcement” called these “fake holy sites”, arguing that the devotion of Byzantine emperors to them had been a cause of that empire’s downfall. The implication was clear: the spread of monasteries was a threat to the state.

Then, the monastic tradition began to develop rapidly in Russia. Here, almost all monks were peasants. At home, they served their families, the landowner, and the state; they took vows in order to enjoy an all-expenses-paid life, but for the state, it was a loss. In the first drafts of the “Announcement”, monasticism was compared with gangrene,9 but later, Peter struck out this rude word (Voskresenskii 2020, vols. 2/3, p. 432). He also softened some other expressions in the document. For example, at first, all modern monks were called spongers, then he inscribed the words “vast majority”, and at last, retained only the word “majority” (Voskresenskii 2020, vols. 2/3, p. 427). Notwithstanding these corrections, both the first and final drafts conveyed the same negative verdict. The life of modern brothers was called a shame, a temptation, a root of schisms and heresies. Of course, they prayed, but it did not excuse them because everybody prayed. “What is the profit for society from this?” asked the lawmaker (PSZ 1830, vol. 7, p. 230).

The subtitle of the “Announcement” calls for the correction of modern monks “at least in a certain likeness of the ancient [monasticism]” (PSZ 1830, vol. 7, p. 227). This formulation prompted readers to the point that a complete correction was impossible. Below, the lawmaker asserted that modern Russian brothers could not become “right monks” for not only subjective but objective reasons. For example, the northern climate gives no chance to do without the help of laymen, as ancient monks living in “very warm places” did (PSZ 1830, vol. 7, pp. 227, 230).

And even perfect ancient monasticism, from Peter’s point of view, had not been divine but a human affair, for it had appeared only in the 4th century. In the Addition to the Spiritual Regulation, the words of Christ are cited: “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or farms for My sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life” (Matt. 19:29). The lawmaker explains that this phrase has nothing to do with monasticism but with cases when one’s relatives were infidels or similar (PSZ 1830, vol. 6, pp. 708–9). Christ did not create monasteries but called on his disciples to serve the poor. That is why Peter valued charity above even ancient monasticism quite apart from its contemporary form.

From here, it was natural to question the continued existence of monasteries. The question was posed directly in the first drafts of the “Announcement” (Voskresenskii 2020, vols. 2/3, p. 432). The answer was affirmative: monasteries are necessary for those who wish to become a monk and for the preparation of future hierarchs. Even so, the evidence of this chapter shows that Peter I admitted the possibility of the abolition of monasticism. His criticism was something of a new departure: for the first time in Russian history, a ruler called into question not only the morality of monks but the very institution of monasticism.

4. Peter the Great’s Reform of Monasticism

Such views required a compelling correction of monasticism, and the strong-willed ruler was certain to carry it through. This correction occupied a modest place among great reforms of the first quarter of the 18th century. Peter’s reign formally began in 1682; the essential act of the Church reform was introduced almost 40 years later, in 1721, when the Spiritual Regulation was signed, the patriarchy was abolished, and the Most Holy Synod emerged. The crucial acts on monasticism appeared even later—in 1722–1724. In his “Announcement” (1724), the emperor declared that, at first, it had been more critical to correct the highest hierarchical power in the Church. Only after that, when all affairs in Russia were placed in order, and he had spare time, was Peter ready to address monasticism in the last years of his reign (PSZ 1830, vol. 7, p. 227).

But that does not mean that earlier, Peter I did not know what to do with the “bearded men”. His first acts of reform occurred even before the turn of the century. In 1696, the tsar obliged monasteries to report income and expenses to the Great Palace Prikaz (a state office) every year. In 1701, he restored the Monastery Prikaz, which also was a state agency, to where he transmitted financial and judicial affairs of monasteries. Through the Monastery Prikaz, cloisters’ lands were gradually falling under the state’s authority, allowing for the government to divert their income to its own, urgent needs. From 1721, the principal authority over the monasteries was the Most Holy Synod (Gorchakov 1868).

The strict control and discipline were blended with a deep distrust. Traditional canonical requirements were repeated and complemented by many other norms. For example, from 1701 several legislative acts declared a prohibition for monks to send letters, to write anything in their cells, and even to keep paper, ink, and stylus under the threat of “the cruel corporal punishment” (PSZ 1830, vol. 6, p. 712). On the face of it, these measures were for the enforcement of monastic silence, but the underlying motive was a suspicion of the monks’ loyalty and obedience to the state. Monks were warned that they should not roam the world, move from one monastery to another without permission, etc. The state also regulated the frequency of participation in sacraments: brothers had to confess and take communion at least four times a year. The prior’s authority was limited: he could not be a father confessor and keep the treasury. Convents should be closed to laypeople; relics had to be gathered in over-the-gate churches so pilgrims could see them without entering a convent (PSZ 1830, vol. 6, pp. 710–12, 714).

The emperor made several considerable steps to reduce the number of monasteries and their size of their populations. In the Addition to the Spiritual Regulation (1722), he prohibited such forms of monastic life as a skete and a pustyn’. They were isolated small communities that appealed to the experience of hermitages in the Near East. But the lawmaker saw this as an attempt to distance themselves from the authorities and live in freedom. Small monasteries with less than 30 brothers had to be brought together (PSZ 1830, vol. 6, p. 713; PSPR 1875, vol. 3, pp. 133–35). It was possible to launch new cloisters only with the permission of the Most Holy Synod. In 1700–1764, about 175 of 1200 monasteries were closed and 37 were opened (Chudetskii 1877, pp. 35–37).

All monasteries had to follow the cenobitic rule. The state limited landowning, building construction, worship services, and other spheres in different acts; for example, regular prayers could be conducted only in three churches in a monastery (PSZ 1830, vol. 6, pp. 711, 713–14).

The lawmaker raised the age of taking vows to 30 years for men and 50–60 years for women. It was an unprecedented restriction in the tradition of Orthodox monasticism.10 Active soldiers and officials, landlord peasants, illiterate peasants, and those who came from another region and were “unknown to honest people” should not become monks (PSZ 1830, vol. 6, pp. 708–9, 713). Every monastery needed a list of brothers with information about their age, social background, education, etc. In 1722–1724, the census of monks was conducted; personal information was gathered centrally (Nechaeva 2016, p. 36). At that time, Peter I also established a staff of inquisitors, and one of their duties was to check the monks’ age by face. Earlier, at the very beginning of the 18th century, several edicts had been published that had prescribed sending away all the bel’tsy11 from cloisters (PSZ 1830, vol. 4, pp. 227–28).

The edict of 28 January 1723 for the first time in Russian history ended (probably for a time) the practice of taking vows (PSZ 1830, vol. 7, p. 18; PSPR 1875, vol. 3, pp. 30–31). Exceptions were made only after Peter’s death: in 1725, for widowed priests and deacons, and in 1729, for retired soldiers—they could become monks. It meant that every year, there would be fewer monks, and they would be older and older. Although represented as an alignment with canonical regulations, in practice the measure made it possible for a monastic community to die.

At the same time, Peter I tried to make monasticism more responsive to the needs of society. He cared much about retired, wounded, and elderly officers and soldiers; his idea was to settle them in a monastery and to give them a part of the community’s income. Retired soldiers should replace monks who dropped out of the brotherhood. Nuns were more adapted to serve foundlings and orphans. Monasteries should set up hospitals, almshouses, schools for poor people, and so on. In the “Announcement”, monks were assigned mainly to serve patients in hospitals, retired soldiers, poor people, and orphans. Other men should cultivate the land, and women carry out needlework (PSZ 1830, vol. 7, p. 231). In 1722, archimandrites and hegumens were obliged to promise they would not keep “recluses and hypocrites” in their monasteries (PSZ 1830, vol. 6, p. 513). The state declared social activity rather than prayers and contemplation as the primary aim of monasticism. Along with different restrictions, it worsened the economic situation in monasteries and created a threat of monastic identity loss.

Among all monks, there was a small group that the emperor trusted: learned monasticism. In the 17th century, under the influence of the Catholic educational model, the first Orthodox high schools were established in Kiev and Moscow, and they began to produce educated monks and priests. Peter I paid much attention to them. He tried to gather monks with high education in the newly constructed Saint Alexander Nevsky monastery in Saint Petersburg. At first, young men had to graduate from a seminary, and some could take vows. In the first drafts of the “Announcement”, the author treated this practice as unnatural but “the lesser of two evils” (Voskresenskii 2020, vols. 2/3, p. 429). Then, learned monks had to settle in the Saint Alexander Nevsky monastery. There, they should work with books, translate texts, make their own treatises, and prepare sermons. Monastic rules were not necessary for them: their food, drinks, and clothes should be better than ordinary brothers’. The most dignified monks of this community could become priors of other grand monasteries, directors of high schools, and bishops (PSZ 1830, vol. 7, pp. 232–33).

The edict of 29 November 1715 prescribed the appointment of priors of grand cloisters from brothers of the Saint Alexander Nevsky monastery because “His Royal Majesty was not familiar with monks in regions” (PSZ 1830, vol. 5, p. 184). This remark showed the tsar’s distrust of monasticism and his willingness to rely on monks personally known to him. Later, the Zaikonospassky (of the Holy Mandylion) monastery in Moscow was elected as another center of education for young brothers (PSPR 1875, vol. 3, p. 142, 217–18).

Another reason to retain monasticism was to ensure recruitment into the ecclesiastical hierarchy. In Orthodox Russia, the Church could ordain bishops only from among those already professed as monks. Commenting on this ancient tradition in the “Announcement”, the lawmaker reminded that in the 1st–3rd centuries, bishops had been married and some of them had been saints (Voskresenskii 2020, vols. 2/3, p. 432). It was another gesture towards the possibility of a Church without the monastic estate. But if the monks–bishops were to remain, they should become educated and be worthy of the Age of Enlightenment. That is why they were connected with the learned monasticism.

Russian historian Igor Smolich summarizes this policy in the classical book Russisches Mönchtum: Entstehung, Entwicklung und Wesen. 988–1917 (1953): “Peter literally persecuted monasticism and interfered even with monastic everyday life trifles. He did almost nothing to reform it, to implement some improvements. Instead, Peter did his utmost to decrease the authority of monasticism, to weaken it”. It was “an attempt to push monasticism back on the seat” (Smolitsch 1953, p. 390). Modern historian Marina Nechaeva notes that a monastic prayer in the pre-Petrine epoch had been perceived as a form of social service (it had been necessary for tsars and all the people). “Under conditions of secularizing Russian society of the 18th century, it was pushed to the sphere of private life”. Peter I prescribed other social functions to monasteries: hospitable and charitable (Nechaeva 2020, pp. 39, 44).

Secularization only partly describes the situation. It cannot explain Peter’s care of a learned monasticism that might act in the interest of enlightenment. Modernization is a better characterization. The emperor did not deny the importance of the Church and the Orthodox identity; he aimed to build a modern state with the advanced clergy. In general, monasticism seemed to him completely unsuitable for this purpose. But learned monks were worthy of joining a new ecclesiastical elite not least because their monastic vows were only a formality for them. So, modernization in Russia was connected with monachophobia, sharp hostility towards monasticism, which was considered to be an obstacle to progress.

5. The Social Influence of Peter the Great

Not all objectives of the reform of monasticism were realized. But the authority of Peter the Great was very high, and his descendants continued his enterprise to some extent. For example, Anna Ioannovna, in the 1730s, severely punished monks who had taken vows in violation of Petrine rules. Catherine II, in 1764, introduced the secularization reform that deprived monasteries of their lands and serfs. It was regarded as a continuation of the policy of Peter I. As a result, the number of monasteries had more than halved by 1800 (Chudetskii 1877).

No less important was the fact that Peter’s radical views about the optionality of the institute of monasticism found their followers. Before the 18th century, in Russia, only marginals, such as the representatives of the heresy of the Judaizers, had been able to propose to abolish monasticism (Alexeev 2012, p. 450). After Peter the Great, this idea was in demand among high society.

Ivan Melissino, the ober-procurator of the Most Holy Synod, prepared the instruction for the clergy deputy at the All-Russian Legislative Commission in 1767. He described monasticism as an institute that did not have absolute authority and had not existed at the beginning of Christian history. From his point of view, the allowance from the treasury for monks was too much, and it was more beneficial to transfer this aid to learned married priests and preachers and to choose bishops from them. It is important to mark that Melissino referred to Peter’s “Announcement” of 1724 (Ivanov 2010, p. 71).

Grigorii Potemkin, one of the most prominent figures of the reign of Catherine II, and her secret spouse, prepared the note “About monasteries” in 1786. He began with a historical excursus that looked very similar to those of Peter’s legislation. Then, Potemkin called the monastic community “a gathering of spongers, a shame of the Church and a community of drunkards”. He wrote: “I do not argue that people for whom it is boring to live in the secular world sometimes find pleasure to be separated from it. Some godly people choose monastic life because of their virtue. But they are so few that they would hardly fill a monastery” (Sinitsyna 2002, p. 201). Potemkin proposed to leave only three cloisters with strict rules and to transform others into schools and hospitals. This idea was close to the complete abolition of monasticism, and it followed Peter’s projects.

These proposals were not realized, but their emergence in the 18th century was indicative of a change in outlook. In the following century, although the authorities became more loyal towards monasteries, social criticism of monastics was widespread. From the late 1850s, in the wake of the rise of public discourse, more and more liberal publicists began to denounce monks and their sins openly. There had always been a tradition of criticism of monasticism but some ideas that were formulated in the second half of the 19th century were of Petrine origin. In his recent book, Andrey Ivanov connects late imperial ecclesiastical liberalism with the distant impact of Reformation and Enlightenment in Russia (Ivanov 2020, pp. 243–44).

Different authors wrote about the crisis of monasticism and the monks’ abandonment of ascetic ideals, they blamed monasteries for enrichment, ignoring of the people’s needs, low social activity and proposed to transform them into philanthropic societies. They also protested against the careerism of learned monks and their usurpation of the power in ecclesiastical schools and in the Church as a whole (“monachomania”) (Belliustin 1858; Rostislavov 1866).

Some authors called the institution of monasticism into question. Priest Ioann Belliustin (1819–1890) said: “Monasticism as it is is non sens in modern life. Monasteries with their great wealth contradict themselves, their vows and their ideal” (Belliustin 1872, p. 236). The books of Dmitrii Rostislavov were full of sarcasm and distaste for monasticism. He wrote about the richness of cloisters, which did not help poor priests and their families. Finally, he claimed that the priesthood was “undoubtedly necessary for the Church, and monasticism maybe not” (Rostislavov 1876, pp. 75, 381).

In the early 20th century, disputes became even sharper. Historian Nikolai Kapterev, studying the history of Russian monasticism, made it clear that it was a human rather accidental establishment, which did not receive divine grace and was not necessary for the Church (Russian State Library. Manuscripts Department. F. 765. K. 13. № 15. L. 14). The Union of adherents of ecclesiastical renewal, which united liberal priests of Saint Petersburg, considered in the published project of reforms (1905) whether monasteries should be reorganized in their idea and purpose or simply be ridden of their faults (Proekt 1906, pp. 82–83). The protocols of State Duma meetings kept speeches of Bolsheviks who named monasteries “crack houses”, which were criminal to support (Obsuzhdenie 1909, p. 807). Monks themselves accepted that the majority of public and journalists were hostile towards monasticism, blackened brothers as spongers, drunkards, and libertines, and presumed monasteries to be dissolved (Arsenii 1908, pp. 29–30).

Some critics ignored citing Peter I, but their opinions were close to his, and they would not emerge without his Church reform. Strangely, in the early 20th century, this very reform of Peter the Great came under criticism. The synodal system, which had been created by him and still functioned, was declared non-canonical by many people, including those from the clergy, especially after 1905. They required the restoration of church councils and of sobornost’ (conciliarity), of independence of the Church. They criticized the intervention of the state in ecclesiastical affairs, and that is why they were opponents of Peter I (Basil 2005).

The explanation of the paradox is that many critics still were supporters of modernization—they inherited Peter’s pragmatic attitude towards the Church. For example, they were in favor of the abolition of monasteries or transforming them into socially valuable institutions. The difference with the emperor’s views was that new critics demanded from monasteries the benefit not for the state (which was a value in Peters’ times) but for society (a new value in Late Modern Russia). It was a new sort of the same striving for modernization and the same monachophobia.

6. Conclusions

The criticism of monasticism in Russia continued but its character was changed. In the Middle Ages, the accusation had been the reverse side of the contemplative monastic ideal: monks had been blamed if they had not matched that ideal and had not represented a model for laypeople.

The views and policies of Peter the Great ushered in a new pragmatic view of the Church. It was estimated in terms of its benefit for the state. From this point of view, monasticism seemed not ideal but questionable, not a divine but a human affair. Modern cloisters, as the tsar thought, were populated by conservative hypocritical spongers who evaded serving the state. They were a target of mocking by the All-Joking, All-Drunken Synod, which was not only an entertainment and a psychological relief for Peter I but also a provocation against the old culture, a way to make his inner circle free, liberated, and modern without denying the faith and the Orthodox identity.

The monarch did not accept the contemplative ideal of monasteries. In practice, Peter I reduced the number of cloisters and monks, which seemed to be too many. The opportunity of taking vows was strictly limited.

Our main statement is that Peter I became the first man of power in Russian history who called into question the very existence of monasticism and brought monasteries to the line, after which their disappearance could begin. The life of the great emperor showed that he was not afraid of crushing traditions. He really could abolish monasticism. He did not do it not because it was a too radical solution but because he found some ways to make this tradition more practical.

Monasteries were to establish hospitals, almshouses, and schools, while monks mainly had to serve retired soldiers, patients, poor people, and orphans. Another practical service was scientific: monks could receive high education and fill the learned monasticism. The most dignified brothers of this community could become priors of other famous monasteries, directors of high schools, and bishops. The primary purpose of the learned monasticism was to form the new ecclesiastical elite of modern, educated people. Monastic vows were only a formality for them. From Peter’s point of view, it was “the lesser of two evils”.

His views can be characterized as monachophobia, a sharp hostility towards monasticism that was closely related to the modernization but did not signal a rejection of the Church itself. The emperor was building the modern state, which needed an advanced clergy. Monasticism seemed to him completely unsuitable for this purpose; it was supposed to be an obstacle to the modernization and progress. The term “monachophobia” was not used in Russia in the 18th–19th centuries and is almost nonexistent in modern literature. But this concept captures the mood of Tsar Peter I and the spirit of his reforms. While the fight against monasticism had begun in western Europe two centuries before, in Russian history, it was a new phenomenon.

Peter the Great had been ahead of his time. After his reign, many people in Russia still honored the monastic ideal and followed the tradition of pilgrimage. However, the monarch’s radical views about the optionality of the institute of monasticism found many followers among high society, liberal journalists, married clergy, etc.

In the late 19th–early 20th centuries, different critics of monks already did not refer to Peter I; they even blamed his Church reform and the synodal system that had been created by him and still functioned. But their opinions were often close to his; they inherited his pragmatic attitude towards the Church and presumed monasteries to be abolished or entirely transformed. The only difference from the emperor’s views was that they demanded from monasteries the benefit not for the state (as Peter I had done) but for society, which became the new priority by the time of the 1917 Russian revolution. This situation represented a continuation of the impulse for modernization that had remained strong in Russia since the reign of Peter the Great.