No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Author of Poslanie Mnogoslovnoe: A Fontological Inquiry
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2017
Extract
Poslanie mnogoslovnoe, an example of Muscovite antiheretical polemics, can be analyzed to add to our substantive knowledge of pre-Petrine Russian history and perhaps to refine our methodological tools for a critical evaluation of the sources for this period. Poslanie has long been regarded as a principal source of information about the life and ideas of its presumed author, the midsixteenth century Novgorodian monk Zinovii Otenskii, whose accomplishments as a theologian and publicist of the medieval Russian Orthodox church have traditionally been ranked only behind those of Iosif Volotskii and Maksim Grek. In conjunction with Zinovii's Istiny pokazanie, Poslanie provides our only detailed exposition of the teachings of the runaway slave Feodosii Kosoi, whose alleged criticisms of state and church constitute the most extreme rejection of the established order articulated in medieval Muscovy. In addition to its value for the interpretive study of Russian religious and intellectual history, Poslanie presents us with a methodological problem typical of early Russian documents: The work is anonymous and undated, and basic questions about its authorship, time of composition, and provenance have not been satisfactorily answered. The lack of information on either Zinovii or Kosoi and the contradictions in the pictures of both Zinovii and his heretical opponents presented in Poslanie, Istiny, and other, less detailed works, attributed to the monk, make solving these problems all the more interesting
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1991
References
I am grateful to the International Research and Exchanges Board for giving me the opportunity to do the research in Soviet archives on which this article is based and would also like to thank David M. Goldfrank, S. V. Utechin, and Donald Ostrowski for their contributions to the development and completion of my project. The original version of this article was presented to the New England Slavic Association conference of March 1984.
1. “Poslanie mnogoslovnoe. Sochineniia inoka Zinoviia, po rukopisi XVI veka (s prilozheniem duykh snimkov): Trad Andreia Popova,” in Chteniia v obshchestve istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh pri Moskovskom universitete [hereafter PM], 1880, book 2.
2. For a detailed analysis of the historical literature on Zinovii and on many other topics treated in this article, see Nancy Yanoshak, “A Fontological Analysis of the Major Works Attributed to Zinovii Otenskii,” (Ph.D. diss., Georgetown University, 1981), 31-83. On Iosif Volotskii, the chief ideologist of Muscovy's “church militant,” see la. S. Lur'e, Ideologicheskaia bor'ba v russkoipublitsistike kontsa XV-nachala XVI veka (Moscow-Leningrad: Akademiia nauk, 1960). On Maksim Grek, the scholar-monk brought to Muscovy in 1515 to translate and correct defective religious texts, see N. V. Sinitsyna, Maksim Grek v Rossii (Moscow: Nauka, 1977).
3. Istiny pokazanie was published on the basis of seventeenth century copies as “Istiny pokazanie k voprosivshim o novom uchenii. Sochinenie Inoka Zinoviia,” Pravoslavnyi sobesednik (Kazan', 1863-1864). It was also issued as a separate work (Kazan', 1863). Citations in this article are from the latter edition, hereafter referred to as IP. On Kosoi, see Zimin, A A., S. Peresvetov i ego sowemenniki (Moscow: Akademiia nauk, 1958), 182–214 Google Scholar; Klibanov, A. I., Reformatsionnye dvizheniia v Rossii v XlV-pervoipolovine XVI vv. (Moscow: Akademiia nauk, 1960), 207–209, 265-284, 291-302, 357-358, 381–383 Google Scholar; Klibanov, A. I., Narodnaia i sotsial'naia utopiia v Rossii (Moscow: Nauka, 1977), 55–82, 100–102 Google Scholar. He was accused, among other things, of anti-Trinitarianism; refusing to honor saints, holy images, relics, and ecclesiastical and secular officials; pacifism; denying the right of the state to levy taxes; and advocating the holding of property in common.
4. Nothing written by Kosoi has come down to us. With one exception—a brief, not quite accurate, account by the Polish Protestant Andrzej Vegierskii (pseud. Adrian Regenvolscius) written in 1652 (Libri Quattuor Slavoniae Reformatae [Amsterdam, 1679; rpt. Warsaw: Panstwowe wydawn. Naukowe] 1973, 262-263)—all of the works containing information on him were produced by his Orthodox opponents. The dates of birth and death of both Zinovii and Kosoi are uncertain, and the only information we possess about Zinovii, outside of his attributed works, is an undated inscription at Otnia hermitage that provides contradictory figures for the year of his death. Several compositions associated with Zinovii's name are anonymous in all copies and most contain no direct evidence of when they were written.
5. In addition to Istiny and Poslanie, Zinovii has been credited with three missives and three homilies. For the missives, see V. I. Koretskii, “Novye poslaniia Zinoviia Otenskogo,” Pamiatniki russkoi literature X-XVII vv., Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury [hereafter TODRL] 25 (1970): 119-134; and A. I. Klibanov and V.I. Koretskii, “Poslanie Zinoviia Otenskogo D'iaku la. V. Shishkinu,” TODRL 17 (1961): 201-224. For the homilies, see Kalugin, F., Zinovii, inok Otenskii i ego bogoslovsko-polemicheskie i tserkovno-uehitet'nye proizvedeniia (St. Petersburg: A. Katanskii, 1894)Google Scholar [hereafter, KZO]; Prilozhenie no. 2, “Slovo inoka Zinoviia ob otkrytii moshchei arkhiepiskopa Iony Novgorodskago” [hereafter, KZO “Iona “], 17-26, Archbishop Iona; Koretskii, “Vnov’ naidennoe protivoereticheskoe proizvedenie Zinoviia Otenskogo,” TODRL 21 (1965): 166-182 [hereafter “Vnov’ naidennoe “], on the fourth century Bishop Hypatius of Gangra; and Gosudarstvennaia ordena Trudovo Krasnogo znameni Publichnaia biblioteka imeni M. E. Saltykova-Shchedrina (Leningrad) [hereafter GPB], Sofiiskoe Sobranie No. 1356 (dated 1598), 1 °, folios 306-364v [hereafter Sof. 1356] on the twelfth century Novgorodian Bishop Nikita.
6. GPB, O. I. no. 63 (8 °, 457 folios, including three blank folios) [hereafter O. I. 63] is described in detail in Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 476-482.
7. On Novgorodian dialect in Zinovii's attributed works generally, see KZO, 81, 81n2, and on the dialect specifically in O.I. 63, see Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 330-331n9. Also, apparently linking Istiny to Otnia hermitage is its indication that the debate with Kosoi's followers took place at a church of the “Three Saints” (IP, 11). On Otnia's church of that name, see Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (hereafter PSRL), 32 vols. (St. Petersburg, Petrograd, Leningrad, Moscow-Leningrad, Moscow, 1841-1975) 3: 141, 210. For the internal evidence on the 1566 terminus a quo for Istiny, see IP, 56, 57, 59. Watermark evidence will be discussed below. For the text of the inscription, which may not have been made until the beginning of the nineteenth century, see KZO, 82. On the reliability of its information, see Koretskii, “Khristologicheskie spory v Rossii,” Voprosy istorii religiia i ateizma [hereafter VIRA] 11 (1963): 334-335, and Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 380-382.
8. Kalugin arrived at the 1565 date for the homily by comparing its information on the timing of various holy days (Sof. 1356, folios 307-308) with sixteenth century Paschal tables (KZO, 321-322, 322nl6). On its attribution to Zinovii, see KZO, 320-321. GPB, Sobranie Kirillo-Belozerskogo monastyria No. 31/1108 (4 °, 277 folios of text; 12 blank folios) [hereafter K-B 31/1108] was the basis for the published version. The 1836 copy made of it, GPB Novgorod-Sofiiskoe no. 1241 (4 °, 258 folios), attributes the anonymous original to Zinovii, but neither the basis for, nor the author of, this attribution is known. For a detailed description of K-B 31/1108, see Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 483-494; on Novgorod-Sofiiskoe no. 1241, see KZO, 278, and Metropolitan Makarii (M. P. Bulgakov), Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 12 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1857-1883) 7: 516n401. On the Novgorodian dialect in K-B 31/1108, see P. Nikolaevskii, “Istiny pokazanie k voprosivshim o novom uchenii. (Sochinenie inoka Zinoviia). Izdanie Kazanskoi dukhovnoi akademii,” Dukhovni Vestnik, year 4, book 11 (May 1865): 38.
9. The historians who credit Zinovii with Poslanie include Nikolaevskii, “Istiny,” esp. 37-45; Makarii, Tserkvi 7: 516-517; Sokolov, I. I., Otnoshenieprotestantizma kRossii vXVI iXVII vekakh (Moscow: E. Lissner i Iu. Roman, 1880), 266Google Scholar; A. M. Popov (PM, I); N. E. Andreev, “Zinovii Otenskii ob ikonopochitanii i ikonopisanii,” Seminarium Kondakovianum 8 (1936): 259 Google Scholar; Budovnits, I. U., Russkaia Publitsistika XVI veka (Moscow-Leningrad: Akademiia nauk, 1947), 273 Google Scholar; R. G. Lapshina, “Feodosii Kosoi-ideolog krest'ianstva XVI veka,” TODRL 9 (1953): 236; D. K. Shelestov, “Svobodomyslie v uchenii Feodosiia Kosogo (50-60 gody XVI v),” VIRA 2 (1954): 197-198; VI. Koretskii, , “K voprosu o sotsial'noi sushchnosti ‘novogo ucheniia’ Feodosiia Kosogo,” Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta, Seriia 9, Istoriia-Filologiia, (1956), no. 2: 107 Google Scholar; and Zimin, Peresvetov. 190-192.
10. Scholars doubting or denying Zinovii's authorship of Poslanie include A. S(obolev)skii, “Poslanie mnogoslovnoe. Sochinenie inoka Zinoviia, po rukopisi XVI veka (s prilozheniem dvukh snimkov) Trud Andreia Popova M. 1880,” Istoricheskii vestnik, no. 12 (December 1880): 859-861; V. F. Botsianovskii, “Zinovii inok Otenskii i ego bogoslovsko-polemicheskie i tserkovno-uchitel'nye proizvedeniia, Izsledovanie F. Kalugina S.-Pb. 1894,” Zhurnal ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniia [hereafter ZhMNP], part 296, no. 11 (November 1894): 218-222; Golubinskii, E. E., Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 2 vols, in 4 pts. (Moscow, 1901-1911) 2 (pt. 1): 827–828Google Scholar; Vilinskii, S. G., “Vopros ob avtore ‘Mnogoslovnago poslaniia,” Izvestiia otdeleniia russkago iazyka i slovesnosti imperatorskoi Akademii nauk 10 (1905): 146–176 Google Scholar; Mainka, Rudolf M., Zinovij von Oteri': ein russischer Polemiker und Theologe der Mine des 16 Jahrhunderts. Orientalia Christiana Analecta, Band 160 (Rome: Pontifical Institute of Oriental Studies, 1961): 85–92 Google Scholar; Morozova, L. E., “Voprosy atributsii ‘Poslaniia mnogoslovnogo’ polemicheskogo proizvedeniia XVI veka,” Istoriia SSSR, no. 1 (1975): 101–109Google Scholar; and Klibanov, Utopiia, 55-56.
11. Both manuscripts are neatly, even calligraphically written, O. I. 63 in a small cursive and K-B 31/1108 in semi-uncial. For detailed paleographic analyses, see Morozova, “Atributsii,” 102-103. Compare the earlier comments by Popov (PM, I, v-vii).
12. For the text of “Skazanie” see PM, 1-8. Popov (PM, iii-iv), Kalugin (KZO, 280-281), and Zimin (Peresvetov, 191-192) thought the two works had a common author. Makarii (Tserkvi 7: 517), Vilinskii ( “Vopros,” 160-163), and Morozova ( “Atributsii,” 102) disputed this assertion.
13. The argument that both internal and external evidence relating to Poslanie and Istiny can preclude their common authorship has been advanced before, very briefly by Sobolevskii and, in somewhat more detail, by Morozova, whose work is valuable but not error free and does not deal with all dimensions of the attribution problem.
14. A lithograph of the inscription is appended to the published edition of Poslanie. It reads “ot tshchatel'stva i pisaniia ruka startsa Zinoviia na Feodosiia Kosago. “
15. Sets of small dots, lines, crosses, arcs, letters, and commas in O. I. 63 signify changes in word order, word substitutions, and so forth. For a comparison of the hands of the marginal notes and the Istiny text proper in O. I. 63, see Morozova, “Atributsii,” 103. The final section of O. I. 63 lacks a statement that it has ended, while all of the preceding sections contain such a statement (see Mainka, Zinovij, 35n42).
16. Morozova, “Atributsii,” 103. For the texts of these passages, see IP, 11 1. 13-12 1.1.
17. See O. I. 63, folio 440-443 for the passage in question. The Istiny copies used as the basis for the published edition omit the phrase crossed out in the former (here underlined): “chaiati vel'mozham. Maksimu prishedshu siemo iz sviatyia gory. Slovo ono proiskhodia zhe” (IP 966 1.16). Compare the opinion of the Istiny editors, IP 633nl, 634n2.
18. The first scholar to comment in any detail on the differences between the two redactions of Istiny was Kalugin, who also provided a list of the Istiny copies known to him (KZO, 91-100).
19. All of these manuscripts, with the exception of O.I. 63, date from the seventeenth century.
20. See KZO, 94-95 on the first-redaction copies and [I. la. Porfir'ev et al.] Opisanie rukopisei Solovetskago monastyria, nakhodiashchikhsia v biblioteke Kazanskoi dukhovnoi Akademii, 3 pts. (Kazan': Imperatorskii Universitet, 1881-1896) 1: 518; compare A. V. Gorskii and K. I. Nevostruev, Opisanie Slavianskikh rukopisei Moskovskoi-sinodal'noi (patriarshei) biblioteki, 6 vols. (Moscow, 1855-1917) 1 (section 2, pt. 3): 308-326 on the second-redaction copies. One of these, now Gosudarstvennoi Istoricheskii Muzei (Moscow) [hereafter GIM], Sobranie Sinodal'noe no. 783 is listed as no. 270 in the latter catalog.
21. Gosudarstvennaia ordena Lenina Biblioteka SSR imeni V. I. Lenina (Moscow) [hereafter GBL], Moskovskaia Dukhovnaia Akademiia Fundamental'naia biblioteka no. 50 (formerly no. 61) [hereafter MDA 59-61], was the basis for the main text of the published edition of Istiny. GPB, Solovetskoe Sobranie no. 605-321 [hereafter Sol. 605-321] was used for the variants of the published edition of Istiny. For additional information on these manuscripts, see IP, x-xii. I was not able to consult the manuscripts directly; citations of these works will be from the published edition of Istiny.
22. Kalugin also compared MDA 59-61 and Sol. 605-321 to O.I. 63, and he was the first to argue that O.I. 63 is primary to other lstiny copies. See KZO, 102-113 and compare 100 for a list of the major textual variants that he noted. My analysis of the manuscript tradition of lstiny on the whole confirms Kalugin's, although I disagree with his contention (KZO, 91) that Zinovii himself was responsible for both redactions. See Mainka, Zinovij, 35-36, 36-37n51, and Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 320-328 on the seventeenth century origins of the second redaction, and Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 441-475, for the variant readings found in my comparison of the three lstiny copies under discussion.
23. For some examples of the scribal errors, see Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 452-453. For a partial list of the conscious editorial decisions, see KZO, 102-103. The text of the missing chapters corresponds to O.I. 63, folios 230-233 to 390-393 and IP, 550-868; for the Sol. 605-321 error in chapter numbering, see IP, 887n5. Kalugin's comments indicate that at least three other second-redaction copies also omit the chapters in question (KZO, 95-96). At this point I do not know if these manuscripts also misnumber chapter 45. For a discussion of a further intentional structural change in the second redaction that involves a misreading of the author's use of formularies to demarcate major sections of his work, see Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 303-305. To my knowledge, the lapse in chapter 44 was first noted by Mainka (Zinovij, 36n47). The reference to the earlier passage appears on IP, 874 (O.I. 63, folios 393-396), and the passage itself on IP, 667-674 (O.I. 63, folios 290-293-293-296v).
24. For a list of some defective readings in MDA 59-61 and Sol. 605-321, see Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 443-453. See ibid., 454-470 for a list of the passages in MDA 59-61 and Sol. 605-321 that follow the changes suggested in O.I. 63. Significantly, in one instance the writer of O.I. 63 neglected to indicate where a particular correction written on the margins should be inserted, and in Sol. 605-321 it is left on the margins (compare O.I. 63, folio 425-428 and IP, 941-942, 942nl). Kalugin (KZO, 100-101) first identified the misplaced leaf in O.I. 63 [corresponds to IP, 937 1.3 -939 1.8] as the cause of a break in the sense of the lstiny text in other copies of both redactions and speculated on its textual implications. It belongs between folios 426v-429v and 427-430v.
25. Charles M. Briquet, Les Filigranes, 4 vols. (Geneva: A. Jullien, 1907) 1: 150, identified the watermark. All watermarks discussed in this article have been matched with representations of their dated analogues in Briquet's work or in D.S. Likhachev's Paleograficheskaia znachenie bumazhnykh vodianykh znakov, 3 vols. (St. Petersburg: V.S. Balashev, 1899) and will be referred to by the number assigned the tracings in these albums. Space does not peanit a full discussion of the theory and practice of dating by watermark analysis. Briefly, my approach is based, with modifications, on the work of Briquet and V. N. Shchepkin on the calculation of the use-period of a given watermark—which entails a corrective of plus or minus one to five years that should in some cases be applied to a mark for which a dated analogue has been found—and the work of Alan Stevenson on the changes in watermarks produced by the deterioration of their molds, on the identification of twin watermarks, and on the relative importance, for dating purposes, of long series or “runs” of the same mark in a book or manuscript as contrasted to marks that occur only once or twice. Recognition of the different stages or “states” of deterioration that marks go through during the short lives of their molds and of twin watermarks is important in distinguishing marks produced in the same period from the same set of molds from marks that resemble each other but are of different origins and ages. In dating a work assigning equal weight to watermark runs and infrequently occurring “remnant” marks in a work cannot produce an accurate time frame. Dating calculations should be based on runs of watermarks because they tend to come from stocks of paper used very shortly after they were produced, while remnants tend to be left over from earlier projects. A manuscript constitutes a smaller sample of evidence than does a book, which exists in a number of exemplars. Also sixteenth century manuscripts were written on paper imported into Rus’ where conditions affecting the paper trade are still imperfectly known. These factors make it unwise to ignore the testimony of remnants altogether. Thus, while giving prime consideration to watermark runs, I have employed the use-dates for marks appearing only once or twice as a check. (See Briquet, Filigranes 1: xviii—xxiii; V. N. Shchepkin, Russkaia Paleografiia, ed. M. V. Shchepkina, 2nd ed. (Moscow: Nauka, 1967), 202-209 [this is a reprint of a 1920 edition entitled Uchebnik russkoi paleografii]; Alan Stevenson's introduction to Briquet, Charles M., The New Briquet: Jubilee Edition, 4 vols. (Geneva: A. Jullien, 1907)Google Scholar; reprint of Les Filigranes, with supplementary materials (Amsterdam: Paper Publication Society 1968) 1: 33; Stevenson, Alan, The Problem of the Missale Speciale (London: Bibliographical Society, 1967 Google Scholar; A Stevenson, lan, “Watermarks are Twins,” Studies in Bibliography, Papers of the Bibliographic Society of the University of Virginia 4 (1951 — 1952): 57–91, 235Google Scholar; and Nancy Yanoshak, “Watermarks and the Dating of Old Russian Manuscripts: The Case of Poslanie mnogoslovnoe,” paper presented at the national convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, November 1984. In The New Briquet asterisks are used to distinguish Stevenson's introductory material from Briquet's.
26. Popov was the first scholar to argue that K-B 31/1108 may be an author's rough draft (PM, iv-vii), although he did not develop his arguments sufficiently to carry his point and was mistaken in his interpretation of several relevant features of the manuscript and its text (see Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 136-140, 149-150).
27. Personal interpretive comments can be found scattered throughout the Poslanie text and appear regularly in subsections entitled V'spisanie. They generally begin with a rhetorical question (PM, 91, 161) or an imperative sentence (PM, 262) directing the reader to a passage just cited, and interpretive marginal comments tend to be introduced in similar fashion (PM, 247n2; 216nl; 244n*).
28. Folio 269-270v corresponds to 300 of the published version of Poslanie. The dual folio numbering reflects an attempt, made by a later hand in pencil, to correct a mistake, beginning at folio 92, in the original arabic numeration. The second number provides the accurate folio count. In addition to the 277 arabicnumbered folios in the manuscript, three folios without any text were designated by roman numerals; the manuscript also contains ten folios lacking both text and numeration that I have designated folios 0, -010. Folio I is attached to the inside front cover and is not included in my count for the manuscript; folios II and 0l -04 preceed “Skazanie” and the Poslanie text; folios 03-06 separate the latter from an additional text, a homily by Basil of Caesarea; and folio III and folios 0, -010 follow this homily.
29. Popov has argued that the midtext “konets” was originally meant to signal the end of Poslanie and that the passage in question was an author's correction. The earlier supraline heading that it paraphrases is located across the tops of folios 243-244-267-268 (PM, 280nl) and reads “Oblichenie na tshcheslavie lozhnoe ereticheskoe i na bezbozhnuiu ikh prelest’ i zlodeistvoe. “
30. In all cases, the supratext headings in K-B 31/1108, most of which are in cinnabar, alert the reader to material in the text either directly below or very shortly following. SeePM, 10nl, 106n2, 113nl, 129nl, 145n*, 154n*, 161n2, 183n2, 208n2, 220nnl, 2, 230n*, 235n3, 298nl.
31. Vilinskii advanced two interpretations of the “konets” page and he believed either interpretation could indicate that a copyist could have made the changes as easily as the author ( “Vopros,” 153-154). His arguments force us to posit a scribe with pretentions to editorship of his text, who had to correct not only the mistakes (apparent or real) of his author but also those which he made himself. The idea that the final section of Poslanie was added by the author to include something not originally intended is reinforced by the phrasing of its introductory marginal “Vspisanie,” unlike any other in the manuscript, which makes it appear as an afterthought: “Paky v “spisanie k voprosivshim o izvestii blgochstia” (PM, 300).
32. Popov, the only previous scholar to note the presence of the homily, did not analyze its implications for the study of Poslanie but did, however, remark that it was in the same hand as the rest of the text (PM, II), and my own observations confirm this. For the Latin and Greek texts, see Migne, Jacques-Paul, Patrologiae cursus completes, series Graeca, 161 vols. (Paris, 1857-1894) 31 Google Scholar: Homilia XIX, cols. 507.-526.1 was not able to copy the entire work from K-B 31/1108, but the text I do have clearly implies that it was reproduced in its entirety there (Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 176-177n28). The homily deals with the fate of forty Christians who maintained their faith in the face of temptations and threats by a pagan ruler and then cheerfully submitted to a painful death at his hands, rather than renounce their faith. These themes obviously mesh with those in Poslanie, which devotes a long section to the veneration of saints (PM, 221-255).
33. For further information on the quire structures and signatures in K-B 31/1108, see Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 161-164, 487-488.
34. The twelve-folio gathering begins with folio 267-268 and ends with folio 276-277, with folios 05-06 intervening between folio 274-275 (where the published text breaks off) and folio 275-276 (where the Forty Martyr homily begins). The inner eight leaves (269-270-06) contain a set of closely matched (presumably twin) marks that correspond to Likhachev 1872, arranged as would be expected if these leaves constituted a regular eight-folio quire. The top half of one mark is on the first folio of the group (269-270), its lower half on the eighth (06); the other is on the third folio, its lower half on the sixth. The four outer leaves are similarly arranged and connected to each other: The second folio of this group (268-269) contains the top half of its mark (vaguely resembling Likhachev 1853 or Likhachev 1892) and its second folio (275-276) contains its bottom half.
35. Otherwise, the extra half-quire would not have “enclosed” the normal-sized gathering as it does but, rather, would have come after it.
36. Since Poslanie is less polished than Istiny, researchers who consider Zinovii its author have concluded that it preceded the latter, a conclusion that leaves an inordinately short time separating the Zinovian Nikita homily that Poslanie mentions, Poslanie itself, and lstiny. To reconcile this short period with attribution of all three works to Zinovii, Kalugin speculated that the Nikita homily might have been produced several years before it was formally delivered in 1565 (KZO, 309-310). Some Soviet historians who agree with these attributions have dated Poslanie to the late 1550s but have been able to do so only by ignoring Kalugin's original dating of the Nikita homily to 1565 (Zimin, Peresvetov. 192, 190, compare 188; Koretskii, “K voprosu,” 107).
37. This exception is discussed below; see note 46.
38. Muz. 4065 is GIM, Muzeiskoe sobranie no. 4056 (1°, 554 folios; formerly Obshchestvo liubitelei drevnei pis'mennosti F VII 380; OIDR 328 is GBL fond 205, Sobranie Obshchestva istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh no. 328 (1°, 420 folios). In the Soviet Union I examined both manuscripts and thus can base my analysis of the watermark evidence on a first-hand comparison of dated analogues for nearly all filigranes of K-B 31/1108. No tracing of the marks of any of the manuscripts (including those inO. I. 63) was permitted, however, and the examination of Muz. 4056 and OIDR 328 was, of necessity, carried out quickly. Thus the results of my analysis cannot be considered conclusive until they can be verified by some more reliable means of watermark reproduction. The sixteen marks in K-B 31/1108 appear seventy-one times. Those representing the longest runs in the manuscript correspond to Likhachev 1878, 1879, 1901, and 1902, and their design features, frequency, and distribution suggest the first two and the last two might each be twins. The 1878 and 1879 originals are taken from Muz. 4056, where they are found in short runs in earlier and later states and also appear (unnoted by Likhachev) in runs in OIDR 328. Together these four marks plus five K-B 31/1108 remnants found either in Muz. 4056 (Likhachev 1872, 1888, 1892) or OIDR 328 (Likhachev 1905 and 1907) account for sixty-three of the seventy-one watermarks in the manuscript. The seven remaining K-B 31/1108 marks are also remnants. Two have 1567 use-dates (Likhachev 3356 which may also appear in Muz. 4056, although identification is not certain, and Likhachev 1920). The other five match or resemble marks in use in the early to mid-1560s, and none have a use-date beyond 1567 (Likhachev 3146; Likhachev 1856 or 4090; mark sharing design features with Briquet 11028, Likhachev 1878 or 1879, Briquet 11027, and Likhachev 3354; mark sharing design features with Likhachev 3440, Briquet 14029, and Likhachev 1913; mark vaguely resembling Likhachev 1853 or 1892). If, like most remnants, they represent marks at the end of their use-periods (normally five years or less), they confirm the 1567 use-date indicated by the main stocks of paper in the manuscript.
39. IP, 75, 439. Compare the similar comments by Golubinskii (Tserkvi 2 [pt. 2]: 227), Mainka (Zinovij, 86-87), and Morozova ( “Atributsii,” 105-108) on Zinovii as logician and theologian.
40. PM, 274-275, 143-145, 217, 284, 286.
41. The closing sections of Poslanie contain the insistent plea that the heretics be punished severely and imply that only if they are killed will the sin in their souls be destroyed and cease to threaten the faithful (PM, 299-300; compare 293-294). For Zinovii's views on the punishment of heretics see IP, 874-886, 964, 968-969. For his acceptance of heretics’ penance, see especially IP, 878.
42. For the Poslanie author's laconic affirmation of the right of ecclesiastical organizations to own villages, see PM, 206-207n2. For Zinovii's specific and extensive defense of monastic landholding and his polemics against Maksim Grek and Vassian Patrikeev (the alleged representatives of the contrary Non-Acquisitor position associated with the Transvolgan elders), see IP, 891, 892-898, 899-900, 904-918, 920-927. See also Mainka (Zinovij, 86-89, 90-91) for comments on additional differences between the .two authors, for example, in Mariology and the choice of church authorities to refute the heresy.
43. Compare Morozova, “Atributsii,” 103-104. In addition to dealing with sensitive subjects important to Orthodox Christians, a work of the scope of Istiny clearly required access to a library of considerable holdings since its author was familiar not only with Scripture and more than forty patristic works, but also with Russian hagiography, pagan religions, and a smattering of Greek mythology (KZO, 271-274; Morozova, “Atributsii,” 107). Thus Istiny may have been sponsored by someone in authority and its composition entrusted to a writer known for his ability and the reliability of his views (Compare Klibanov, Utopiia, 57-58). As Andreev has pointed out, Zinovii was held in high enough esteem by his colleagues at Otnia to have been buried alongside Archbishop Iona, the monastery's canonized patron ( “Ikonopochitanii,” 261n9). In addition to his criticisms of Maksim and Vassian Patrikeev, Zinovii also defends Volotskii's writings (IP, 927-934). For his opposition to the Stoglav decision forbidding monks distilled wines and strong drink (on the grounds that it discriminated against poorer monks who could not afford the imported wines that were allowed), see IP, 902-904.
44. IP, 13; compare 205. Although he had already written the Nikita homily, which is unequivocally directed against Kosoi (see Sof. 1356 esp. folios 309v, 311v, 347v) and the Hypatius homily, which may not relate specifically to Kosoi himself, but which does deal with anti-Trinitarianism ( “Vnov’ naidennoe,” 175-176), Zinovii would have his readers believe that he did not even know what name to apply to the heresy. When informed that it was called the New Teaching, he showed that any teaching that purported to be new was false and could not have come from God (IP, 13-17). For the evidence supporting Zinovii's authorship of the Hypatius homily, see “Vnov’ naidennoe,” 166-172.
45. PM, 9-12; compare PM, 3.
46. See Morozova, “Atributsii,” 102, for the semi-uncial hands. For a detailed comparison of the letter formation in “Skazanie” and Poslanie and an evaluation of Popov's unsuccessful attempt (PM, iii-iv) to argue that the hand of “Skazanie” was merely a larger version of the hand of Poslanie, see Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 190-193, 211-212nn27-28. The “Skazanie” mark is a good-to-very good likeness of Likhachev 3146, taken from a French document. The folios of “Skazanie” were numbered with the rest of the texts in K-B 31/1108 only when arabic numerals were later added to the manuscript. According to Florinsky, arabic numerals did not gain general acceptance in Russia until the eighteenth century (Michael T. Florinsky, Russia: A History and an Interpretation, 2 vols. [New York: Macmillan, 1953] 1: 300).
47. The available evidence implies that K-B 31/1108 was written in northern Rus', very likely somewhere in Novgorod or its environs (Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 280-293). The five blank folios (folio II, folios 0, -04) preceding “Skazanie” contain one mark that corresponds to Likhachev 1905; those on the blank folios following the Basilean homily (folio III, folios 07-010) correspond to Likhachev 1907 or 3450 (these may be versions of the same mark). Likhachev 1905 and 1907 are taken from OIDR 328; 3450, from the printed Muscovite ApostoV of 1564.
48. The significance of the third-person reference was first noted by Metropolitan Makarii (Tserkvi 7: 517). For a discussion of Zimin's unsuccessful attempt to argue that the third person usage in “Skazanie” need not support a dual author thesis (Peresvetov, 192), see Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 183-184. The biblical stories are mentioned in PM, 4. For the section of the Poslanie text referred to in “Skazanie,” see PM, 78-80. The criticism of Kosoi's teaching on monastic landholding is on PM, 1. Morozova first drew attention to this difference in emphasis ( “Atributsii,” 102; compare 109), which she then used in an unconvincing attempt to connect the latter with the Non-Acquisitors (Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 372-379). (See Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 207, 354-355, 363-364, and Vilinskii, “Vopros,” 163, on the evidence precluding Zinovii's authorship of “Skazanie. “)
49. The Poslanie author states (PM, 237-238) that the homily is “on the appearance of the body of Nikita of Great Novgorod,” wording that recalls part of the title of the Zinovian work (Sof. 1356, folio 306) and that it contains more information on several biblical stories about reverence for the departed than he has provided. This work does indeed mention such stories (Sof. 1356, folios 31 l-312v; compare folio 314).
50. The Nikita homily attributed to Zinovii is the third version of the life of Nikita (see Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 219-221, 266-269, 221-222, 270).
51. He indicates that the biblical stories on reverence for the departed were dealt with “in a homily” (PM, 237-238). Mainka has also noted that the Poslanie author does not claim the Nikita homily as his own (Zinovij, 89). For the Poslanie author's reference to the heretics’ claim about his knowledge of their teachings, seePM, 11-12.
52. PM, 11-12.
53. The subsection of Poslanie that mentions a Nikita homily also contains biblical references with antiheretical arguments related to those in similar sections of both the Zinovian homily and Istiny. All three of these polemics defend the practice of worshipping departed saints from the heretics’ admonition that the living should not seek help from the dead (PM, 234-238; IP, 442-473; Sof. 1356, folios 310-313). No phrases in these passages in Poslanie, however, are identical to those in Zinovii's works, nor do the three works use in precisely the same way the one Gospel text (Luke 20: 37-38) that each quotes at any length in this context (compare PM, 235; Sof. 1356, folio 310v; IP, 442-443; compare 445).
54. Compare the phrases “po iavlenii proslavlen byv” and “divnaia Bozhiia blagodat'” (KZO, “Iona,” 23) with the first lines of the “Nikita homily “: “O bozhiei blagodati byvshei chudesy, iavleniem i proslavleniem sviashchennago telese izhe vo sviatykh ottsa nashego Nikity” (Sof. 1356, folio 306).
55. The Iona homily author says only that certain “Godless monks who had been slaves” and had been tried at a church council headed by Metropolitan Makarii, fled their earthly master and their faith. They were accused of abusing saints, icons, and the priesthood and of hypocritically professing themselves to be Christians (KZO, “Iona,” 21-23).
56. If the Iona homily is indeed referring to the “Zinovian” Nikita homily, its composition would have had to have come after 1565 and, in any case, it indicates that Metropolitan Makarii was deceased (KZO, “Iona,” 23) and thus cannot have been written until after the latter's death in January 1564 (PSRL 4: 315).
57. The contrast between the treatment of the heresy in the Nikita homily and the work on Iona is not as great as that between Istiny and the latter; nevertheless, the Nikita homily unquestionably provides a good deal more specific information on the heretics’ lives and teachings than is contained in the Iona homily. The part of the Iona homily in which the heretics are charged with hypocrisy does have parallels in Poslanie and Istiny (KZO, “Iona,” 22-23; IP, 47, 110; PM, 276-278). While textual borrowing cannot be ruled out, no phrases in any of the three works correspond exactly, and those that come closest in the Iona homily (KZO, “Iona,” 22) and Istiny (IP, 47) can be explained by the common use of Heb. 3: 12, those closest in the homily and Poslanie by the use of a presumably common phrase for the taking of holy orders (PM, 276: “v popy … postavliaiutsia “; KZO, “Iona,” 22: “v popy … postavliatsia “). The discussions of the heretic's pose as a Christian in both Poslanie and Istiny are far more sophisticated and detailed than that found in the Iona homily, which lacks any analysis either of its causes or its full implications. The Iona homily exists in only one full copy, folios 336-351 of GBL, fond 256, Sobranie N. P. Rumiantseva, no. 154 (4°, 421 folios, including two unnumbered leaves), a heterogeneous late sixteenth-early seventeenth century codex of saints’ lives, which is made up of what appear to be four originally separate manuscripts. It has been attributed to Zinovii mainly because an excerpt from Istiny (folios 351v-360v; corresponds to IP, 493-509) is attached to the homily's final folios in this codex. The folios of this excerpt were mixed up, producing a completely unintelligible text (KZO, 353) that, even with its leaves properly arranged, has no direct connection to the subject matter of the homily beyond the fact that both deal in some fashion with the worship of saints and their relics. Moreover, the excerpt is from a second redaction text of Istiny (KZO, 353n22), which was a later version of the work.
58. The only other figure who has seriously been put forth as the author of any part of K-B 31/1108 is Elder Artemii (Botsianovskii, “Zinovii inok,” 219-222). For the factors arguing against this attribution, see Vilinskii, “Vopros,” 163-164, 167-176; Zimin, Peresvetov, 154; and Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 206-207, 370-371.
59. Lur'e, Ideologicheskaia bor'ba, 413-417, 474-481, 485-486, 505-507, 509; Zimin, Peresvetov, 71-84; Marc Szeftel, “Joseph Volotsky's Political Ideas in a New Historical Perspective,” Jahrbucherfur Geschichte Osteuropas, n.f., Band 13, Heft 1 (April 1965): 19-29.
60. Ostrowski, Donald, “Church Polemics and Monastic Land Acquisition in Sixteenth Century Muscovy,” Slavonic and East European Review 64 (July 1986): 355-379Google Scholar. The one possible exception to the clustering of the Zinovian polemics, Poslanie, and “Skazanie” in the middle to late 1560s is the Hypatius homily that, as is shown by Koretskii's textual analysis, preceded Istiny ( “Vnov’ naidennoe,” 168, 171 — 172), although it is not certain by how long. For an evaluation of Koretskii's unconvincing attempt to date the homily to 1551, see Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 262-264. For examples of the developmental explanations for the differing portraits of the heresy in Poslanie and Istiny see Kalugin (KZO, 309-310, 73-74), Popov (PM, I), and Sokolov (Protestantizma, “Primechaniia,” 61n9; 270). In his interpretation of the heresy, Kalugin rejected little or nothing of what was said in Istiny and Poslanie and used both interchangeably (KZO, 26-43, 67-68, 75-76). This approach is also used by scholars who question the reliability of Zinovii's testimony (Zimin, Peresvetov, 192-214; Golubinskii, Istoriia 2 [pt. 2]: 225, 227; 2 [pt. l]: 827-828), and by those who question his authorship of Poslanie as well (Klibanov, Utopiia, 55-82). The “Skazanie” author calls Kosoi a pupil of Artemii (PM, 1), information that does not appear in Poslanie or in any of Zinovii's works but is found in the second version of the Nikita homily, written by Ioasaf, subsequently a bishop of Vologda (GBL, fond 304, Troitskoe Sobranie no. 673 [hereafter Troitskoe 673], folio 371v as quoted in Zimin, Peresvetov, 183n313). Also, “Skazanie,” like Poslanie, does not support the charge of anti-Trinitarianism brought against Kosoi in Istiny but does indicate contemporary perceptions of dissemination of Kosoi's teachings in Rus', for he tells us that the heretic tried to propagate his ideas at every place he stopped while leaving the country and “led many astray from the Orthodox faith,” seducing even “God-fearing humble people” (PM, 1).
61. Zinovii implies that Kosoi does not confess Christ in any fashion (IP, 111, 214) but at another point indicates that in a contradictory fashion Kosoi might consider Christ the Son of God after all because the heretic uses a Bogomil argument against veneration of the cross (IP, 509-510; Botsianovskii, “Zinovii inok,” 214-215; Zimin, Peresvetov, 199n445, 203n495). The Poslanie author (PM, 144-145) may also have attributed a Bogomil idea to Kosoi (KZO, 38n59; Botsianovskii, “Zinovii inok,” 215) in presenting the latter's criticism of indiscriminate almsgiving, administered for the benefit of the established church. Even if this is the case, it is consistent with the rest of the Poslanie author's portrayal of the heretic's views (Klibanov, Reformatsionnye dvizheniia, 295, 301). Finally, Zinovii does not confine his imagination to the heretics: He also impugned the characters of Maksim Grek and Vassian Patrikeev by, apparently unfairly, questioning their commitment to the ascetic views they preached (IP, 893, 898-900, 904, 908-909; KZO, 240-241). For the Poslanie author's apology for his previous silence about the heresy, see PM, 9-12.
62. For Istiny passages that ascribe some of the more radical positions of Polish-Lithuanian anti- Trinitarians to Kosoi, along with ideas that could imply a materialist philosophical position, see IP, 43-47, 50-52, 74-75, 110-111, 214-217, 250, 263, 275, 277, 282, 285, 286, 348-349, 358, 438, 439. Only two other sources besides Istiny link Kosoi with anti-Trinitarianism—the Hypatius homily, which attacks some unnamed Muscovite heretics, and a letter the Lithuanian Magnate Kadian Chaplich attributed to Prince A. M. Kurbsky, which would make Kosoi an anti-Trinitarian while in Poland-Lithuania. The testimony of the former is vague, while in the latter the one sentence on Kosoi's views on the Trinity does not appear in all copies and is found only as a marginal comment in some (N. Ustrialov, ed., Skazanie Kniazia Kurbskago, 2 vols. [St. Petersburg: Ekspeditsiia Gosudarstvennykh bumag, 1833] 2:184 var. e; Sochineniia kniazia Kurbskago, vol. 1 [St. Petersburg: M. A. Aleksandrov, 1914], RIB 31:cols. 439-440, 439nn3-4. On Kosoi's rejection of icon worship and the veneration of saints, see PM, 2, 67, 68-69, 80, 222, 240n2; Sof. 1356, folios 347v, 311v; Troitskoe 673, folios 371v-372 as quoted in Zimin, Peresvetov, 205n511; IP, 41, 44, 357, 371-391 passim, 402, 409, 413, 435-440 passim, 449, 478, 482, 487-490 passim, 501; for his critique of the external organization of the church and its institutions, see PM, 2, 143-145, 208, 276; IP, 42, 201, 846, 874-876, 879, 887-888, 921, 923; and for the charge that he was hostile to the established authorities in the secular as well as the religious sphere, see PM, 144-145. His attempts to convince others are presented in Troitskoe 673, folio 371v as quoted in Zimin, Peresvetov, 188; IP, 12,48-49; PM. 1,299-300 (compare 293-294). For the affinity of the charges against Kosoi with those against the early sixteenth century Novgorod heretics, see Zimin, Peresvetov, 197, 199, 200, 202, 203, 204-205, 207, 208, 209, 213.
63. This typology of radical reformation movements is taken from G. H. Williams and A. M. Mergal, eds., Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers: Documents Illustrative of the Radical Reformation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957), 22. For a discussion of the resemblances of Kosoi's teachings to those of the Rakovian evangelical rationalists and the Hutterite Anabaptists, see Yanoshak, “Zinovii,” 412-419.