Навигация – План сайта

ГлавнаяNuméros57/2-3Valeurs familialesDesirable Ubiquity?

Valeurs familiales

Desirable Ubiquity?

Family strategies of donation and commemoration in Muscovy
Désirable ubiquité  ? Stratégies familiales de donation et de commémoration en Moscovie
Ludwig Steindorff
p. 641‑665

Резюме

The study is designed to check an assumption according to which donors to monasteries were interested in being present “with the saints” at as many places as possible in order to secure the spiritual advantage of commemoration for their relatives. Comparison of documents from different monasteries appears to be the most promising methodology to learn more about the distribution of donations. The author starts with the table in the appendix to the edition of the book of feasts (Kormovaia kniga) of the Iosifo‑Volokolamskii monastery that dates from 1581. The table contains 216entries of persons who were commemorated by an annual korm at that time. According to the donation books and feast books of the Troitse‑Sergiev, Kirillov, and Simonov monasteries, 72of these persons were commemorated in one or more of these cloisters. The results of the differentiation of the data by “estates,” gender, by lay persons and by monks fit with the results of former research on the basis of other source groups. The higher the estate, the higher the share of women, the lower the share of monks, and the more probable the presence at different monasteries. The distribution of commemorations at other monasteries reflects the dominating position of the Troitse‑Sergiev monastery. Donors tended to concentrate their large donations on one monastery and avoid scattering their fortunes. Last, the author argues that in general the network of places at which people from Muscovy were used to being commemorated is contained within the territory of Muscovy.

Верх страницы

Полное изложение текста

1The topic “Family relations and social mobility in Russia from the 16th to the 18thcentury,” to which this volume is devoted, includes numerous aspects of accesses to research: marriage patterns, the economic and social situation of families, household and everyday life, piety, patterns of career, the attitude towards children, the care of the sick and disabled, etc. It includes also the attitude towards death and the dead: behavior in expectation of the death of someone within the family, burial ceremonies, sepulchral culture, and finally, the permanent commemoration of the dead in churches and monasteries on the basis of larger and smaller donations.

  • 1 On the compilation of these lists cf. Ludwig Steindorff, Memoria in Altrußland : Untersuchungen zu (...)

2The relevant sources concerning commemoration in Russia are quite well known: deeds, donation books, memorial books with thousands of names for commemoration, among them the copies of the famous Sinodik opal´nykh, the “Memorial book of the Disgraced,” containing the long list of victims of the persecutions by Tsar IvanIV the Terrible, for whom the Tsar himself later secured commemoration on the basis of huge donations.1 Most of all, researchers have used these sources as a basis for studies on economic history or for prosopographical investigations. But contemporary research is getting more and more interested also in the social and religious practice itself, for which these sources were produced. It is a fascinating aspect of the history of Muscovy, and it offers opportunities for comparison with other Christian and non‑Christian cultures.

3The elite of the Muscovite state spent a considerable amount of its fortune on donations to churches and monasteries for the commemoration of their dead. Corresponding to the unquestioned religious belief regarding the use and the necessity of care for the deceased, the donation was one of the means of memorial practice besides prayer and charity. The donation was made for the salvation of one’s own soul or the souls of relatives and other persons. At the same time, donating was a matter of prestige; it was a kind of “symbolic capital.” The donor, or his relatives (or both) obtained liturgical commemoration from the receiver as a gift in return.

4Based on traditions that had developed starting in late antiquity and had been transferred via Byzantium to the Rus´, a strict system of commemoration and corresponding donations had been shaped in Muscovy by the beginning of the 16thcentury. According to available data, the system appears to have been organized in a similar way in all or most of the larger monasteries in Muscovy. It was bound to an elaborate pragmatic literacy. It allowed the commemoration of names on different levels corresponding to the size of the donation as well as the social and economic status of the donor.

5As for its religious and social functions, we may compare this system to the practice of commemoration in Western monasteries, where it already flourished, particularly during the High Middle Ages. In the West as well as in Muscovy it served to integrate the different groups of the elite. The economic rise of the monasteries from the 15th until the 17thcentury was mainly based on the practice of donating.

  • 2 For a general introduction cf. Ludwig Steindorff, “Donations and Commemorations in the Muscovite Re (...)

6The well‑organized system declined in the 17thcentury. It was suffocated by the ever‑increasing, vast number of names; at the same time it lost its attraction for the elite in the same measure as it became a part of popular religious culture. Nevertheless, on a more modest level, giving money for the reading of names has remained a part of the religious practice in Russian Orthodoxy, continuing into the present.2

7When I started working on the social practice of donating and commemoration in Old Russia, I assumed that donors were interested in being present “with the saints” at as many places as possible in order to secure this spiritual advantage for their relatives. I supposed that frequently one person would make donations to numerous monasteries and that the name of that one person would appear in the different types of memorial lists in many places.

  • 3 Steindorff, Memoria in Altrußland, 178, 209.
  • 4 Das Speisungsbuch von Volokolamsk. Kormovaia kniga Iosifo‑Volokolamskogo monastyria : Eine Quelle z (...)
  • 5 The table itself comprises 219 entries : We have included Tsar Ivan IV Vasil´evich as no. 1, althou (...)

8Indeed, in my monograph “Memoria in Altrußland” I introduced a few examples of such cases.3 And when I worked with some younger colleagues on the edition of the Kormovaia kniga, the Feast Book of the Iosifo‑Volokolamskii monastery from 1581, I hoped that my assumption would be confirmed by the “Konkordanz,” a table in the appendix.4 This table contains a list of all 216persons to whom a korm, an annual memorial feast at Iosifov, is secured based on the entries in the Kormovaia kniga, which is organized following the days of commemoration of persons within the year, chronologically following the calendar, starting from 1September. The table notes whether the person is mentioned in deeds, in the Vkladnaia kniga, the Donation Book of Iosifov, in the Feast Book itself5 and/or in other lists relevant to the liturgical commemoration at Iosifov. We made a note in additional columns whenever the person is commemorated in the Troitse‑Sergiev monastery or in the Kirillo‑Belozerskii monastery.

9When we had finalized the table, which fills more than twenty pages, I was quite surprised by how empty the columns referring to the other two monasteries remained. In the following publications I just stated generally that the same family names appear in many monasteries, but the individual donor usually concentrated on one monastery.

  • 6 A.A. Zimin, ed., Akty Iosifo‑Volokolamskogo monastyria = Akty feodal´nogo zemlevladeniia i khoziais (...)

10There are exceptions: in his last will, which he composed between 1547 and 1565, Prince Iurii Andreevich Obolenskii testified that he had made donations to the Troitse‑Sergiev monastery, to the Uspenskii monastery in Staritsa, to the Novo‑Devichii monastery and the Simonov monastery in Moscow, and finally to the Iosifo‑Volokolamskii monastery.6 So I considered it might be possible to find out more about the behavior of donors by collecting information from testaments.

  • 7 The catalogue of 519 testaments, which was composed by Daniel Kaiser, would be a good starting poin (...)

11Of course, I was conscious of the problem that the number of preserved testaments is certainly much fewer than that of preserved deeds or of entries in donation books. While the deeds and the donation books were comparatively well kept in the monasteries, testaments, which remained in private hands, were much more easily lost. Furthermore, the preserved testaments are scattered over many collections and various editions.7

  • 8 Steindorff, Memoria in Altrußland, 103‑109, 167‑169.

12But independently of these circumstances, I soon jettisoned my intention for another reason. It was predictable that there would be very few chances to encounter many more such impressive examples as that of Prince Iurii. His testament is an exception not only for the number of donations, but for the fact that the donations are mentioned in it at all, since normally testaments do not contain any information about the big donations that secure permanent commemoration. Besides dispositions concerning the family in his last will, the testator makes provisions concerning the intensive commemoration that should begin immediately after his death, especially the sorokoust, a series of forty liturgies. Testaments often enumerate numerous smaller and bigger churches to which the donor is personally linked—mostly in the region where he lives and has his estates. But the amounts given for a sorokoust are comparatively small because they represent a short, limited period of commemoration.8 In contrast, the big donations for permanent commemoration within the liturgical cycles were normally made within one’s lifetime, even if the donor remained the usufructuary until his death.

  • 9 This refers especially to the Feast book at Iosifov. For instance, the entries in the Feast books o (...)

13If donations for the permanent commemoration in monasteries or in important churches consist of landed property, they are fixed in deeds as well as in the donation books. If they consist only of money or movable property, they are registered in the donation books alone. It is possible that the donor obtained a receipt for any donation in cash or movable property, but so far I do not know of any preserved example of such a receipt. When a donation included the establishment of a korm, the information from the donation book was repeated in the feast book in an abbreviated way.9

  • 10 Cf. Russell Martin, “Gifts for the Dead : Death, Kinship, and Commemoration in Muscovy : The Case o (...)

14We can hypothesize another method to gain information about the distribution of donations by one person and within one family: did families or individuals keep records about the donations they made? It seems this happened only in rare cases! I know of only one example: in this list, which derives obviously from the family archive of the princes Mstislavskii, all, or at least many, donations made by members of the family from 1550 up to 1620 are registered.10

15Under these circumstances, obviously, the comparison of documents from different monasteries remains the most promising methodology to learn more about the distribution of donations.

Premises : regularities in memorial practice ; the sources

16And so I have decided to return to my starting point, the table in the appendix to the edition of the Iosifov Kormovaia kniga, as a first attempt to gain exact figures on the question of how many places, and where, elite individuals and families arranged commemorative prayers.

17As mentioned above, the table contains 216entries of persons who were commemorated by an annual korm at the time of the composition of the book in 1581.

  • 11 The numbers after persons refer to the number in the “Konkordanz” in the appendix to Das Speisungsb (...)

18Only 71 of these persons are commemorated in the Troitse‑Sergiev monastery or at Kirillov, or at both places. For the present article I have additionally verified which individuals from the Kormovaia kniga are commemorated at the Simonov monastery in Moscow. As it turned out, in the list of 216persons, only one person arranged commemoration at Simonov alone, as an addition to Iosifov: the arkhimandrit of Simonov, Aleksii Stupishin (no.211).11 In other words, all other persons in the table of Iosifov’s Feast Book for whom were arranged prayers at Simonov were commemorated at a third monastery as well. So, out of the 216persons who are commemorated by a korm at Iosifov, seventy‑two persons, exactly one third, are commemorated also in at least one of the three other monasteries.

19Of course, I am conscious of the circumstance that probably a portion of the 216people whose commemoration is registered in the Kormovaia kniga from Iosifov is commemorated also elsewhere in other larger or smaller monasteries. I have chosen just the three here not only because of the accessibility of the sources, but also under the assumption that there is a comparatively high probability that families and individuals arranged for commemoration in these prestigious places.

  • 12 Ludwig Steindorff, “Chto bylo novogo v kul´ture pominaniia v Iosifo‑Volotskom monastyre ? Peresmotr (...)
  • 13 Cf. the table of namings from 13 monasteries in Steindorff, Memoria in Altrußland, 252‑254.

20Before we start any further investigations, we have to specify the levels of commemoration in the different books that we are referencing and shall use for comparison. As I have demonstrated in numerous publications, the memorial practice in Muscovy consisted of a system of three levels that remained mostly stable from the end of the 15thcentury until the beginning of the 17th.12 Independently of the somewhat different terminology used in other monasteries and of the variations in the naming of sources even at Iosifov,13 the practice is obviously similar at all or most large monasteries. Here I shall keep steadily to the terminology that is used most frequently at Iosifov. The tariff, as we encounter it at many big monasteries, looked like this:

  • 14 This is a special list besides the list with permanent entries, cf. Steindorff, Memoria in Altrußla (...)

Value of the donation

Entry in the vechnyi sinodik

Entry in the urochnyi povsednevnyi spisok for one year14

Entry in the povsednevnyi spisok for ever

korm, “Feast”

¼ rouble

X

1 rouble

X

X

50 roubles

X

X

100 roubles

X

X

X

  • 15 Ex. RGADA (Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnikh aktov), f. 1192, op. 2, no. 561.
  • 16 Vkladnaia kniga Iosifo‑Volokolamskogo monastyria [The Donation Book of the Iosifov‑Volokolamskii mo (...)

21By limiting our research to the entries in the Kormovaia kniga of Iosifov, we have excluded all persons for whom less than 100roubles‑worth had been donated in cash, movable, or immovable property. These more modest donors were commemorated solely in the less expensive, yet still comparatively valuable povsednevnyi spisok, the so‑called “daily list”15 following the dominant terminology at Iosifov, or even in the inexpensive vechnyi sinodik. As mentioned before, all donations that allowed a permanent entry in the daily list were registered in the Vkladnaia kniga.16

  • 17 Cf. Ludwig Steindorff, “Sravnenie istochnikov ob organizatsii pominaniia usopshikh v Iosifo‑Volokol (...)

22Of course this does not exclude the possibility that in the Daily List of Iosifov we would meet entries of additional persons who are commemorated at other monasteries as well, but this question is out of the scope of our present research. Approximately one third of the persons commemorated in the daily list appear also in the Feast Book.17 However, every person mentioned in the Feast Book appears in the Daily List as well, since the higher level of commemoration always included the lower ones. Since the lists were considered of great value and importance, they were carefully maintained and contain very few mistakes.

  • 18 Extant vechnye sinodiki from Iosifov from the 16th century : IRLI (Institut russkoi litera­tury), r (...)

23In addition to the name of the person who was commemorated in the povse­dnevnyi spisok, his whole rod, his clan, was entered in the vechnyi sinodik.18 These books contain many thousands of names and were of less liturgical and prestigious value, since—different from the povsednevnyi spisok—they were read independently of the ongoing daily liturgical cycle. Since the entries in the vechnyi sinodik are not relevant at all to my source base, the entries in the Kormovaia kniga from Iosifov, they will not play a role in this article.

  • 19 Kormovaia kniga Troitse Sergieva monastyria [The Feast Book of the Trinity Sergius monastery] in A. (...)

24The so‑called Kormovaia kniga from the Troitse‑Sergiev monastery19 is in fact organized like a donation book, i. e. not in the order of the calendar, but approximately following the chronological order of the donations; a special chapter at the start of the book is devoted to the donations of the Tsar. It includes only donations by which a korm was established in the monastery, i. e. gifts whose values amounted to at least 100roubles. So, a person registered here as well as in the Kormovaia kniga from Iosifov was commemorated on the same level in both monasteries. Because this book was composed starting in the nineties of the 16thcentury, it covers the whole period under investigation.

  • 20 Vkladnaia kniga Troitse‑Sergieva monastyria [The Donation Book of the Trinity Sergius monastery], e (...)

25The Vkladnaia kniga Troitse‑Sergieva monastyria from 167320 includes, in principle, all donations of at least 50roubles for permanent commemoration in the Daily List or even a korm. It is organized by donor families and within the families in chronological order of the donations. Although the information within one entry is much scarcer than in the Vkladnaia kniga Iosifo‑Volokamskogo monastyria, it functionally corresponds to the latter. So, persons from our table who appear only in the Vkladnaia kniga, but not in the so‑called Kormovaia kniga Troitse‑Sergieva monastyria, obtained a lower level of commemoration here than at Iosifov.

  • 21 Kormovaia kniga Kirillo‑Belozerskogo monastyria [The Feast Book of the Kirillo‑Belozerskii monaster (...)

26Similarly, we can follow both cases at Kirillov: those who obtained a korm can be found in the Kormovaia kniga Kirillo‑Belozerskogo monastyria, published by I.P.Sakharov.21

  • 22 A.I. Alekseev, ed., Pervaia redaktsiia vkladnoi knigi Kirillo‑Belozerskogo monastyria : 1560‑e gg. (...)

27Thanks to the publication of the oldest copy of the Vkladnaia kniga from Kirillov, by A.I.Alekseev some years ago22, we know also about some persons who obtained commemoration on the level of a korm at Iosifov, but are commemorated only on the level of the Daily List at Kirillov. We may suppose that this group was in fact even a little larger, since this copy of the Vkladnaia kniga was used for entries only up to the late sixties of the 16thcentury. Of course the Vkladnaia kniga, similarly to the ones from Iosifov and Troitse‑Sergiev, registers also the large donations that include a korm.

  • 23 A.I. Alekseev, A.V. Mashtafarov, eds., Vkladnaia i kormovaia kniga Moskovskogo Simonova monastyria (...)

28Also, regarding the Simonov monastery, we are able to make the distinction between donations for a korm or only for the Daily List. The manuscript, which was published by A.I.Alekseev, includes two parts: a donation book as well as a Kormovaia kniga, a feast book.23 Those persons for whom enough had been donated to establish a korm appear twice, in both books. Those who were commemorated only in the daily list, appear only in that part of the donation book.

29We can differentiate these sources also in a table:

Table 1. Function of the sources

Monastery

Source which informs about donations of at least 50 roubles and commemorations which include at least the entry in the daily list or even a korm

Source which informs about donations of at least 100 roubles and commemorations which include a korm compulsorily

Iosifo‑Volokolamskii monastery

Vkladnaia kniga Iosifo‑Volokolamskogo Monastyria, ed. Titov

Das Speisungsbuch von Volokolamsk. Kormovaia kniga Ios. vol. mon., ed. Steindorff

Troitse‑Sergiev monastery

Vkladnaia kniga Troitse‑Sergieva Monastyria, ed. Klitina et al.

Kormovaia kniga Troitse‑Sergieva Monastyria, ed. arkhimandrit Leonid

Kirillo‑Belozerskii monastery

Pervaia redaktsiia vkladnoi knigi Kirillo‑Belozerskogo monastyria, ed. Alekseev

Kormovaia kniga Kirillo‑Belozerskogo monastyria, ed. Sakharov

Simonov monastery

Vkladnaia i kormovaia kniga Moskovskogo Simonova monastyria, ed. Alekseev, p. 16‑79

Vkladnaia i kormovaia kniga Moskovskogo Simonova monastyria, ed. Alekseev, p. 79‑87

  • 24 Cf. Steindorff, Memoria in Altrußland, 192 ; Das Speisungsbuch von Volokolamsk, 340.
  • 25 Different from the “Konkordanz”, in this group are registered all hierarchs and abbots, independent (...)
  • 26 The distinction between “princes” and “non‑princely persons” follows the terminology of the sources (...)

30We could limit the research to the whole of the 72persons, commemorated by a korm at Iosifov monastery and also commemorated at least at one of the three monasteries. But it will be more reasonable to make also a differentiation between the various “estates,” as I shall call these groups conditionally. We shall follow the order of estates in the “Konkordanz,” which is mainly based on the order of the entries in the Povsednevnyi spisok.24 The groupings will be: the Tsar’s family; udel´nye kniaz´ia, the appanage princes; clergy (hierarchs, abbots, priests) and startsy, elders from Iosifov25; princes26; and non‑princely persons. The three monastyrskie slugi, service men of the monastery, who had afforded donations for a commemoration by korm (nos.38, 39, 40), are included in the group of non‑princely persons. None of them is commemorated in any of the other three monasteries.

31On the basis of the premise of these groupings we can put forward four central questions now:

32-How is the smaller group of 72individuals differentiated compared to the larger group of all 216people, for whom a korm was established at Iosifov?

33-How many individuals from our list of 72people were commemorated in which of the three other monasteries?

34-What is the share of the three other monasteries in the distribution of comme­morations elsewhere besides Iosifov?

35-Which combinations of donations appear among the places of commemoration?

Differentiation by “estates”

36Let us have a look at the following table, which is presented also in the form of a diagram in an appendix to this paper.

  • 27 The figures in the parentheses refer to numbers in the “Konkordanz.” – “Elsewhere” in the head of t (...)

Table 2 : Share of commemorations at other monasteries within the “estates”27

Korm. kn. Ios. vol. mon.

Commemorated also elsewhere at least in the daily list

 % within the estate

Commemorated also elsewhere by a korm

 % within the estate

Family of the Tsar (2‑10)27

9

9

100.0

8

88.9

Udel´nye kniaz´ia (11‑24)

14

9

64.3

9

64.3

Clergy, startsy (25‑37, 97, 110, 117, 134, 177, 191, 194, 196, 197, 211, 213)

24

4

16.7

1

4.2

Princes (41‑96)

56

27

48.2

13

23.2

Non‑princely persons, including service men of the monastery (38‑40, 97‑219 except for 193, 195)

113

23

20.4

15

13.3

Totals

216

72

33.3

46

21.1

Totals, apart from the family of the Tsar

207

63

29.0

38

18.4

37As we see from this table, all members of the Tsar’s family are commemorated also in other places, and only one person, the Tsaritsa Anna Grigor´evna Vasil´chikova (no.5) receives no korm in any of the three monasteries. Not all of the group of the udelnye kniaz´ia is commemorated in other monasteries (only 9 out of 14), but among these 9, all are commemorated at least at one other place, in every case by a korm. Except for the Tsar’s family, the share is clearly declining from the whole estate within the Kormovaia kniga to commemoration at least by an entry in the daily list, and, except for the appanage princes, further to the commemoration by a korm. At the same time, we remark that the percentages within a column are clearly declining in the order: Tsar’s family; udel´nye kniaz´ia; princes, non‑princely people; clerics, startsy. We may formulate our expected findings more generally: The higher the status of a person, the more likely the person is commemorated in the daily list or even by a korm in other monasteries. Or vice versa: the more observances that are done for the commemoration of a person, the lower is the share of non‑princely people including clerics and startsy.

  • 28 Vkladnaia i kormovaia kniga Simonova monastyria, l. 55ob.‑56.
  • 29 This is easy to verify thanks to a comparison of the “Konkordanz” and the catalogue of monks at Ios (...)

38Except for three persons, the Metropolitan Makarii (no.26), Archbishop Trifon of Polotsk (no.213) and Bishop Gurii Zabolotskii of Smolensk (no.218), none of the fifteen hierarchs registered in the “Konkordanz” is commemorated at any of the other three monasteries. Only one out of the three abbots is commemorated elsewhere besides Iosifov: Arkhimandrit Aleksii Stupishin (no.213) at Simonov, his own monastery.28 This is influenced by the general circumstance that the high clergy of Muscovy was recruited not from the princely nobility, but mostly from the stratum of the service nobility. Another factor is certainly as important: hierarchs as well as abbots kept to the monasteries where they had spent a part of their lives. Out of the 15hierarchs who are commemorated by a korm at Iosifov, thirteen of them had once belonged to the brotherhood of Iosifov!29 Among the four hierarchs and abbots who are commemorated elsewhere, Metropolitain Makarii is the only one who had never lived at Iosifov.

39None of the four startsy from Iosifov (nos.32‑35) and none of the two priests, the one from Moscow, the other from Volokolamsk (nos.36, 37), within the group of 216 were commemorated in one of the three other investigated monasteries.

  • 30 The figures in the parentheses refer to numbers in the “Konkordanz”.

Table 3 : Share of females within the different “estates“ – cf. also diagram 230

Korm. Kn.

 % females out of the group

Commemo-rated also elsewhere at least in the daily list

 % females out of the group

Commemo-rated also elsewhere by a korm

 %

females out of the group

Family of the Tsar (2‑10)30

9/6 F

66.7

9/6 F

66.7

8/5 F

62.5

Udel´nye kniaz´ia (11‑24)

14/4 F

28.6

9/2 F

22.2

9/2 F

22.2

Clergy, startsy (25‑37, 97, 110, 117, 134, 177, 191, 194, 196, 197, 211, 213)

24/0 F

0.0

4/0 F

0.0

1/0 F

0.0

Princes (41‑96)

56/18 F

32.1

27/7 F

25.9

13/2 F

14.3

Non‑princely persons, including service men of the monastery (38‑40, 97‑219 except for 193, 195)

113/18 F

15.9

23/5 F

21.7

15/1 F

6.6

Totals

216/46 F

21.3

72/20 F

27.3

46/10 F

21.7

Totals, apart from the family of the Tsar

207/40 F

19.3

63/14 F

22.2

38/5 F

13.1

40Within the “estates” of the Tsar’s family and of the udel´nye kniaz´ia the share of females does not differ very much, depending on the column: persons in the Kormovaia kniga from Iosifov, persons commemorated at other monasteries at least in the daily list, or persons commemorated by a korm in at least one monastery. But within the “estates” of the princes and non‑princely persons the share is clearly decreasing, from 32.1% to 14.3% respectively from 15.9% to 6.6%.

  • 31 Ludwig Steindorff, “Equality under Reserve : Men and Women in Donations and Commemoration in Muscov (...)

41Also the differences between the “estates” are significant: the share of women is much higher among the princely ranks, including the Tsar’s family and the udel´nye kniaz´ia, which corresponds to the results of former research. Women participate in the system of donating and commemoration, but to a lesser degree. The higher the position of the women, the higher is their share within the group,31 and the greater is the probability that they are commemorated at different places.

42Independently of this statement, the extremely high share of women within the Tsar’s family should be explained by the individual case: here we find three deceased wives of the Tsar, his mother, and two daughters. And only due to the figures in the line “Family of the Tsar” it looks in the line “Totals,” as if the share of women is quite stable in all three groups, as presented in the columns. The decline of the percentage in the line “Totals” apart from the “Family of the Tsar” presents a much more suitable generalization.

  • 32 The figures in the brackets refer to the numbers in the “Konkordanz.”
  • 33 Besides the 22 hierarchs and monks appear a protopop and a sviashchenik (nos. 36, 37).

Table 4 : Share of monks and nuns (M) within the “estates” – cf. also diagram 33233

Korm. kn.

 % monks or nuns of all

Commemo‑rated also elsewhere at least in the daily list

 % monks or nuns

Commemo‑rated also elsewhere by a korm

 % monks or nuns

Family of the Tsar (2‑10)32

9/1 M

11.1

9/1 M

11.1

8/1 M

12.5

Udel´nye kniaz´ia (11‑24)

14/6 M

42.9

9/3 M

33.3

9/3 M

33.3

Clergy, startsy (25‑37, 97, 110, 117, 134, 177, 191, 194, 196, 197, 211, 213)33

24/22 M

91.7

4/4 M

100.0

1/1 M

100.0

Princes (41‑96)

56/23 M

41.1

27/12 M

44.4

13/4 M

30.8

Non‑princely persons, including service men of the monastery (38‑40, 97‑219 except for 193, 195)

113/68 M

56.2

23/12 M

52.2

15/3 M

20.0

Totals

216/120 M

55.6

72/32 M

44.4

46/12 M

26.1

  • 34 Comparison of the “Konkordanz” and the catalogue of monks at Iosifov composed by Dykstra, “Inochesk (...)

43The share of monks and nuns among the persons commemorated by a korm at Iosifov is extremely high: more than half of the total number—120 out of 216.34 Of course, we have to take into account that among these monks and nuns are many who were tonsured as elderly people or on their death beds. Only the smaller portion of them had chosen the way of a monk for the greater part of life.

  • 35 Tom Dykstra, Russian Monastic Culture : “Josephism” and the Iosifo‑Volokolamsk monastery 1479‑1607 (...)

44Only twenty‑one out of the 109monks—besides eleven nuns out the 120persons, who were commemorated by a korm at Iosifov—had lived as brethren or in a higher position in that cloister until their deaths or had spent some time at the cloister, among them the starets Kassian bosoi, the “barefooted” (no.32), whose commemoration by a korm on 11February was based on an annual assignment by Tsar IvanIV, since Kassian had held him when he was baptized. Most brethren of Iosifov could not afford donations worth more than 50roubles. Instead many of them appear in the so called Zapisnaia kniga, the “notebook,” regarding donations of a few roubles for an entry in the Daily List for a certain number of years.35

45Except for the family of the Tsar, within which appears only one monk anyhow, Grand Prince VasiliiIII Ivanovich (the monk Vassian [no.2]), in all “estates” the share of monks is significantly lower within the subset of people who are commemorated in the Daily List in at least one other monastery, as well. Within the subset of persons for whom a korm is established elsewhere in addition to Iosifov, the share of monks is even lower, only 12 out of 46 or 26.1%, and within the non‑princely group only 20.0%! No one within the group of 33monks or nuns who were also commemorated elsewhere was a monk from Iosifov.

46Obviously, the results reflect two intertwining tendencies: On the one hand, the higher the “estate,” the greater the tendency for the share of monks and nuns to decrease. Concomitantly, the lower the “estate,” the higher the share of monks. This is even more obvious, when we consider that all persons within the “estate” of “Clergy, startsy” are of non‑princely origin and when we sum up these lines:

Table 5 : Share of priests, monks and nuns (M) within the “estate” of non‑princely persons, including clergy and startsy from Iosifov

Korm. kn.

 % monks or nuns within the group

Commemo-rated also elsewhere at least in the daily list

 % monks or nuns within the group

Commemo-rated also elsewhere by a korm

 % monks or nuns within the group

Clergy, startsy

24/22 M

91.7

4/4 M

100,0

1/1 M

100,0

Non‑princely persons

113/68 M

56.2

23/12 M

52.2

15/3 M

20.0

Non‑princely persons, including clergy, startsy

137/90 M

66.0

27/16 M

59.3

16/4 M

25.0

47On the other hand, because of the weaker economic position of the lower “estates,” monks and nuns or their families cannot afford as much for donations as monks and nuns from higher “estates”: the lower the “estate,” the more likely that members of more modest families were tonsured, but they could not afford large donations to more than one monastery.

Places of commemoration

48Let us now turn to the next question: Since 72people were commemorated in at least one of the three monasteries investigated besides Iosifov, in which of those monasteries, and at how many of them, was each individual commemorated?

Table 6 : Distribution of the commemoration at other monasteries besides Iosifov

Comme‑morated also at other mon.

Tr. Serg. mon. at least in the daily list

Tr. Serg. mon. : incl. a korm

Kir. Bel. mon. at least in the daily list

Kir. Bel. mon. : incl. a korm

Sim. mon. : at least in the daily list

Sim. mon. : incl. a korm

Com‑mem. else‑where at least in the daily list

Com‑mem. else‑where incl. a korm

Family of the Tsar

9

9

7

8

8

9

8

26

23

Udel´nye kniaz´ia

9

9

9

5

4

3

1

17

14

Clergy, startsy

4

2

0

2

1

2

0

6

1

Princes

27

26

5

15

11

4

1

45

17

Non‑princely persons

23

20

6

11

8

8

2

39

16

Totals

72

66

27

41

32

26

12

133

71

Figures in Italics : only commemorations by korm

  • 36 The results of my case study fit only partly with the official rankings of Muscovite monasteries in (...)

49First of all we notice a clear hierarchy of attractiveness (cf. also diagrams4 a‑b): Almost everybody among the individuals who were commemorated by a korm not only at Iosifov, but also in other monasteries, was commemorated in the Daily List of the Troitse‑Sergiev monastery (66 out of 72). Despite the great distance between Kirillov and the central regions of Muscovy, in our case study this monastery was obviously more attractive (41 out of 72) than Simonov, which was located on the close periphery of the capital city (26 out of 73).36

50Clerics do not play any important role here; the startsy from Iosifov do not appear at all. Metropolitan Makarii (no.26) is commemorated by a korm at Troitse‑Sergiev and at Kirillov; Gurii, the former bishop of Smolensk (no.218) was entered in the Daily List at Troitse‑Sergiev. Two brothers from the Stupishin family appear: Arkhimandrit Aleksii of Simonov and Archbishop Trifon of Polotsk, who had been the predecessor of Aleksii at Simonov (nos.211, 213), were commemorated in the Daily list at Simonov, the latter also at Kirillov.

51Only within the family of the Tsar and within the udel´nye kniaz´ia is almost everybody commemorated everywhere, not only in the Daily List but also by a korm. For those of princely rank and the non‑princely persons, a korm was established for only a part of the group representing those who were commemorated at another monastery besides Iosifov. For instance, as many as 26 out of 27princes were commemorated at Troitse‑Sergiev in its Daily List, but only six of those by a korm.

52When we sum up the commemorations in the three monasteries, we remark that the figure is much higher than 72: As many as 133times individuals were commemorated at the very least in the Daily List of another monastery, and on 71occasions by a korm. This is of course due to the circumstance that people were commemorated in more than one other monastery beside Iosifov.

53For instance, for the first wife of Tsar IvanIV Vasil´evich, Anastasiia Romanovna (no.4), kormy were established at Troitse‑Sergiev, Kirillov and Simonov. His second wife Mariia Temriukovna (no.6) was commemorated on the same level. But, as noted above, the much less beloved fifth wife, Tsaritsa Anna Grigor´evna Vasil´chikova (no.5), was commemorated only at Troitse‑Sergiev and Simonov and only on the level of the Daily List.

54Prince Vasilii Mikhailovich Glinskii (no.59) had donated 100roubles to Iosifov, on the basis of which a korm was established. The korm in his memory at Troitse‑Sergiev was based on his own donations and donations from Tsar IvanIV. For his korm at Kirillov his mother in law, Agrafena, the wife of Ivan Fedorovich Sitskii, had sent 200roubles.

  • 37 I have collected all these donations by the Tsar to Iosifov, Troitse‑Sergiev and Kirillov in Ludwig (...)

55In the early 1560s, Prince Petr Mikhailovich Shcheniatev, the later monk Pimen (no.84), made large donations to Iosifov, Kirillov and Simonov, all of which were sufficient for a korm. But his donation to Troitse‑Sergiev was sufficient only for an entry in the Daily List. Later, in 1583, Tsar IvanIV donated in favor of Petr at Kirillov and Simonov. These donations belong to the huge sums which the Tsar spent for the commemoration of the victims of his own persecutions.37 To avoid persecution, Petr had fled to a monastery in 1568 and had been tonsured there, but he was soon caught and tortured to death.

56It would be possible to tell many similar case stories that could be integrated into the general history of Muscovy at that time.

What combinations of places of commemoration appear ?

57Finally, I have differentiated the entries by various possible combinations: 1) at which monastery beside Iosifov any one person was commemorated; and 2) commemorations listed in all three other monasteries beside Iosifov that appear in a list at only one other cloister. We meet six different combinations. The combination of Iosifov paired only with Simonov does not appear at all.

58Because the liturgical value of the korm is much higher than the entry in the Daily List, I have counted the extant combinations three times: all combinations of commemorative arrangements (first figure in each field of Table7); exclusively cases including a korm in at least one other monastery (second figure); exclusively cases including a korm in every monastery (third figure). If all persons included in the first figure of a field obtain a korm in all the monasteries where they are commemorated, the figures within one field do not change, otherwise the second and the third figures are smaller than the first one.

Table 7 : Combinations of commemoration at Iosifov and the other three monasteries

ITKS

ITK

ITS

IKS

IT

IK

IS

Cross sum

Family of the Tsar

8/8/7

1/0/0

9/8/7

Udel´nye kniaz´ia

3/3/1

2/2/1

4/4/4

9/9/5

Clergy

1/1/0

1/0/0

1/0/0

1/0/0

4/1/0

Princes

3/2/0

11/8/2

1/1/1

12/1/1

27/12/4

Non‑princely persons

3/3/0

5/3/1

5/1/0

7/3/3

3/2/2

23/12/5

Totals

17/16/8

19/14/4

6/1/0

2/1/1

24/8/8

3/2/2

1/0/0

72/42/21

I = Iosifov ; T = Troitse‑Sergiev ; K = Kirillov ; S = Simonov

59Looking at the intersection of the line “Totals” and the column “Cross sum”, we can see that 72persons were commemorated at one or more of the three other investigated monasteries (cf. diagram5), but only 42 of them obtained a korm in at least one other monastery where they were commemorated. And only 21 out of this group obtained a korm at every monastery where they were commemorated. This implies that 30persons among the 72 were not commemorated by any korm beside the korm at Iosifov. Everywhere else they were entered only in the daily list.

60Again we note the clear preference of the Troitse‑Sergiev monastery and the weakest position of Simonov. As for all commemorations including or not including a korm, 24 out of 72cases refer to the combination Iosifov plus Troitse‑Sergiev. The next most frequent combination includes commemorations at all monasteries: 17 out of 72. Nineteen times individuals are commemorated at Iosifov, Troitse‑Sergiev and Kirillov as well. But only three times is the second place of commemoration Kirillov (in addition to Iosifov, of course), Simonov appears only once not in combination with at least two other monasteries: six times with Iosifov and Troitse‑Sergiev, two times with Iosifov and Kirillov.

61The preponderance of the Tsar’s family is obvious. Eight of 17cases in which commemoration was secured at all four monasteries refer to the Tsar’s family, and seven of these cases were based on kormy in all monasteries. Of course, the attitude of the Tsar towards commemoration served as a role model for the whole society, but more importantly, the Tsar’s family distinguished itself from all other “estates” also by its strong position in commemoration.

62There is only one more case in which a person is commemorated by kormy in all monasteries: Prince Georgii Ivanovich Dmitrovskii (no.11). Putting the Tsar’s family and the udel´nye kniaz´ia together, their distinction compared to the other groups is still obvious.

63While (following Table1) the whole “estate” of non‑princely persons who obtain commemoration by a korm at Iosifov is more than twice as large as the “estate” of princes, the size of both “estates” is approximately equal within the 72cases, when persons are commemorated also at other monasteries (cf. Tables6 and 7). The share of non‑princely persons who are commemorated by kormy elsewhere is even a little bigger than in the case of the princes! The group of non‑princely persons who can afford commemoration at more places than just a korm at Iosifov behaves in the same way as the “estate” of the princes.

64The differentiation by levels of commemoration within the “estate” of the princes and within the “estate” of the “non‑princely persons” is quite similar. In both “estates” there are three cases of commemoration in all four monasteries, and in none of these cases is a korm included in all monasteries. Most princes as well as non‑princely persons who were commemorated only at the Troitse‑Sergiev Monastery in addition to Iosifov did not obtain a korm there.

  • 38 Sinodik Iosifo‑Volokolamskogo monastyria, 201 (no. 35 of the table of entries) ; as for the dating (...)
  • 39 This would also correspond to the distribution of land acquisitions mainly by donations in the grap (...)

65I regret that so far I am unable to supply a complete dating indicating when each commemoration was secured at each place. There is one preliminary dating possible. Only seven out of the 72commemorations appear in the list of donors within the oldest sinodik from Iosifov (nos.16, 17, 18, 19, 42, 108, and 159). This list was composed by one hand sometime before about 1515. Among the additions by other hands is only Prince Fedor Borisovich Volotskii (no.17)38, but he had died in 1513. So all the other sixty‑five cases refer to later periods, and in general we may suppose that they are concentrated around the period from the 1540s to the early 1570s.39

General conclusions

  • 40 Cf. Daniel H. Kaiser : “Death and Dying in Early Modern Russia,” in Nancy Shields Kollmann, ed., Ma (...)

66Of course I am conscious about the fact that I am working on a comparatively small number of figures and that my analysis is far from big data research. But still, the figures do allow some conclusions, and these are confirmed by the circumstance that they are in accordance with many case studies as well as with other quantifying methods of accessing data40:

67-Donors tend to concentrate their large donations on one monastery. They avoid scattering their fortunes, which would prevent the establishment of a high level of commemoration in at least one monastery.

68-The higher the social position and the corresponding fortune, the greater the likelihood that persons are commemorated by an entry in the Daily List or even a korm at more than one monastery.

69-Women are not excluded from this practice, but their position is weaker. The higher the status of the family, the greater the share of women.

70-The hierarchy of attraction of the monasteries as places of commemoration corresponds to a certain degree to the official reputation of these monasteries.

  • 41 Especially Steindorff, “Sravnenie istochnikov” ; Steindorff, “Kto blizhnie moi ?”

71As I have demonstrated in previous articles41, large donations for commemoration of high liturgical value concentrate on a comparatively small circle of recipients: for the donor himself, and in second place for the donor and his wife. So in our exclusive group of 72persons we meet eight couples, among them six from princely families:

72-Prince Vladimir Andreevich Staritskii, as Monk Iakinf (no.13) and his wife Evfrosiniia, as Nun Evdokiia (nos.13, 14),

73-Prince Boris Vasil´evich Volotskii and his wife Iuliana (nos.16, 19),

74-Prince Fedor Moleigdavorich Dolgoliadskii and his wife Evdokiia (nos.56, 55),

75-Prince Dmitrii Ivanovich Ersh Nemogo Obolenskii, the monk Dionisii, and his wife Mariia, as Nun Marfa (nos.74, 77),

76-Prince Petr Mikhailovich Shcheniatev, as Monk Pimen, and his wife Anna, as Nun Anastasiia (nos.84, 85),

77-Prince Semen Fedorovich Sitskii, as Monk Serapion, and his wife Mariia, as Nun Marfa (nos.88, 87),

78-Nikita Afanas´ev Klushin‑Funikov, his first wife Ekaterina and his second wife Mariia, as Nun Marem’iana (nos. 132, 137, 138),

79-Ivan Vasil´ev Polev, as Monk Iona, and his wife Anna, as Nun Anis´ia (nos.170, 167).

80There are a few cases in which other generations are included, for instance Prince Andrei Ivanovich Staritskii, the monk Evgenii (no.12), the father of Prince Vladimir Andreevich Staritskii, or the nun Marfa, mother of Ivan Andreev Zhikhor´ Riabchikov (nos.185, 185) and his brother Fedor, the monk Feodosii (no.184).

81My research for this paper confirms conclusions on the basis of former research: In most cases families keep to a particular monastery within one or two generations. The next generation and other branches favor another monastery. Looking at individuals, many of them do not intend or succeed to be present by commemoration at as many monasteries as possible. Only due to the circumstance that so many very distantly related people carry the same family name do we gain the impression that families are present at as many monasteries as possible.

  • 42 This assumption is strongly supported by the position in the ranking of the monasteries : Iosifov i (...)

82I have limited my research to commemorations at three other monasteries beside Iosifov. I have not analyzed the other direction, how frequently persons commemorated for instance at the Troitse‑Sergiev monastery, appear also in the memorial lists of Iosifov. But on the basis of the research done by Tom Dykstra regarding the social composition of the donors to Iosifov and of the fact that its founder, Iosif Sanin, was far less popular than Saint Sergii Radonezhskii or Saint Kirill Belozerskii, we are allowed to suppose that Iosifov would reach the popularity of Simonov at best, and this would correspond to the ranking of Iosifov in official Muscovite documents.42 And certainly we are allowed to suppose that the share of families that are present at Troitse‑Sergiev through more than one generation is higher than at Iosifov.

83Of course, it would be very helpful to continue such research on the presence of commemorated persons at different monasteries on a larger scale. We can hypothesize that the results would quite possibly enforce the validity of our conclusions, but there may be surprising other findings.

  • 43 I.Z. Liberzon, ed., Akty Solovetskogo monastyria 1479‑1571 gg. [Documents of the Solovetskii monast (...)
  • 44 Spock, The Solovki Monastery, 50.

84One monastery that plays a central role in the modern Russian historical consciousness was, for all that we know, not really included in this network of monasteries as receivers of donations from the Muscovite elite: the Uspenskii monastery on the island of Solovki in the White Sea. The two almost identical deeds of Ivan Ivanovich Polev to Iosifov and to Solovki, both from 1555, are a rare exception.43 As Jennifer Spock has shown in her monograph, most donors to that cloister lived in the Russian North and made comparatively small donations.44

Post scriptum : Commemoration abroad

85While starting on the preparation of this article, I intended to include a special fourth monastery beside Iosifov in the analysis. But I am afraid, as it proved, no person in the Kormovaia kniga of the donation book of Iosifov can be identified with a person who is commemorated in that fourth monastery. I had been seduced by the same family names, but as far as I succeeded in identifying persons whose Christian or monastic names fit with a name from Iosifov, it turned out that these persons belong to a different generation or branch of a clan.

  • 45 S.T. Golubev, ed., Drevnii pomiannik Kievo‑Pecherskoi lavry [The old memorial book of the Kievan Ca (...)

86I have in mind a memorial book of the Kievan Caves monastery, the old pomiannik Kievo‑pecherskoi lavry, published by S.T.Golubev in 1892. The edition as well as the manuscript itself are now accessible online. This pominanie, as it calls itself, replaced the old one which had been burnt when the Tatars of khan Mengli‑Girei had attacked the monastery in 1482. The entries in the basic part concentrate on the period from the end of the 15th until the middle of the 16thcentury, but younger entries follow.45

  • 46 Drevnii pomiannik Kievo‑Pecherskoj lavry, 29 for the first time. – For the numerous possible identi (...)
  • 47 Drevnii pomiannik Kievo‑Pecherskoj lavry, 30.

87Looking at the organization of the entries, this book corresponds to a vechnyi sinodik in Muscovy. The book contains entries for whole families, many entries consisting of dozens of names. From the beginning of the last third of the text onwards, at the head of many entries it is noted when they were written in the book. But the year is not indicated, only the feast within the year, the solemn moment of the entry.46 We meet among the donors such high‑ranking individuals as Grand Prince IvanIII Vasil´evich. He ordered the entry probably soon after the death of his eldest son Ivan, who had died in 1490. Before him, the father, the mother and the first wife of the Grand Prince are enumerated: Vasilii (†1462), Mariia, the nun Marfa (†1484), and Mariia (†1467). The following long series of names will be hard to identify.47

  • 48 Drevnii pomiannikKievo‑Pecherskoj lavry, 24. – This street in the Liudin konets is shown for instan (...)

88Most of the entries of this pomiannik undoubtedly refer to Orthodox families on the Polish‑Lithuanian territory, since many times the title pan appears. But there are also numerous entries of families from the Muscovite state. These are identified by s Moskvy. We even find the entry Rod Petra Kalinina Velikogo Nova goroda s chernichiny ulitsy [The family of Peter Kalinin from Great Novgorod from the street of the nuns], the street in the quarter Liudin konets in the South West of the city that runs to the nunnery Desiatinnyi monastyr´.48

  • 49 Of course, these conclusions need further verification on a larger scale : How “permeable” were sta (...)

89Despite numerous attempts, at the end I did not succeed in a reliable identification of any name from the pomiannik with any person on the lists which I used for the foregoing research. Of course the probability of such identifications is comparatively low due to the different periods the lists refer to. All the lists from Muscovy that I analyzed concentrate on the period from the second third of the 16thcentury onwards, while the pomiannik of the Kievan Caves monastery, except for some additions, ends by that time already. Still, it was worthwhile to have a look at this source for investigating the main question of this article. It proves that Orthodox monasteries abroad could attract donors also, and there existed a consciousness about the religious importance of the Caves monastery.49 But in general we may conclude that the network of places at which people from Muscovy were used to being commemorated is contained within the territory of the Muscovy. The social and religious practice of donation and commemoration was a means of integrating the state.

Annexe

Верх страницы

Заметки

1 On the compilation of these lists cf. Ludwig Steindorff, Memoria in Altrußland : Untersuchungen zu den Formen christlicher Totensorge (Stuttgart : Steiner, 1994), 226‑230 ; most recently on the tradition : S.V. Nikolaeva, “Spisok pominanii opal´nykh tsaria Ivana Groznogo v sinodikakh Troitse‑Sergieva monastyria [The list of commemorations of the disgraced under tsar Ivan the Terrible in the Sinodiki of the Trinity Sergius monastery],” in T.N. Manushina, ed., Troitse‑Sergieva Lavra v istorii, kul´ture i dukhovnoi zhizni Rossii : Materialy III Mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii [The Trinity Sergius Laura in history, culture and spiritual life of Russia](Sergiev Posad : Sergievo‑Posadskii gosudarstvennyi istoriko‑khudozhestvennyi muzei‑zapovednik, Ves´ Sergiev Posad, 2004), 141‑151.

2 For a general introduction cf. Ludwig Steindorff, “Donations and Commemorations in the Muscovite Realm : A Medieval or Early Modern Phenomenon ?,” in Ludwig Steindorff, ed., Religion und Integration im Moskauer Russland : Konzepte und Praktiken, Potentiale und Grenzen, 14.‑17. Jahrhundert (Wiesbaden : Harrassowitz, 2010), 477‑498 ; Russian translation : “Vklady i pominanie v Moskovskom gosudarstve : iavlenie srednevekov´ia ili rannego novogo vremeni ?,” in A.S. Petrukhno, ed., Zubovskie chteniia : Vypusk piatyi : Pamiati vydaiushchegosia rossiiskogo uchenogo Alekseia Il´icha Komecha [Zubov lectures : Fifth volume : In memory of the outstanding Russian scholar Aleksei Il´ich Komech], (Aleksandrov : Muzei‑zapovednik “Aleksandrovskaia sloboda,” 2010), 113‑136.

3 Steindorff, Memoria in Altrußland, 178, 209.

4 Das Speisungsbuch von Volokolamsk. Kormovaia kniga Iosifo‑Volokolamskogo monastyria : Eine Quelle zur Sozialgeschichte russischer Klöster im 16. Jahrhundert, ed. and transl. by Ludwig Steindorff in cooperation with Rüdiger Koke, Elena Kondrashkina, Ulrich Lang and Nadja Pohlmann (Köln – Weimar – Wien : Böhlau, 1998), 342‑366.

5 The table itself comprises 219 entries : We have included Tsar Ivan IV Vasil´evich as no. 1, although there is no entry for his commemoration in the Feast Book, because he died only in 1584. Furthermore, we have included the parents of the founder Iosif Sanin (nos. 193, 195), who are not commemorated by a korm, but on a lower level, in the povsednevnyi spisok (for this source type see below).

6 A.A. Zimin, ed., Akty Iosifo‑Volokolamskogo monastyria = Akty feodal´nogo zemlevladeniia i khoziaistva [Documents of the Iosifo‑Volokolamskii monastery = Documents on feudal landownership and economy] : vol.  2, (M. : Izdatel´stvo akademii nauk SSSR, 1956), no. 207, 209‑210.

7 The catalogue of 519 testaments, which was composed by Daniel Kaiser, would be a good starting point : http://web.grinnell.edu/individuals/kaiser/wills.html (last access 2016, 15 March).

8 Steindorff, Memoria in Altrußland, 103‑109, 167‑169.

9 This refers especially to the Feast book at Iosifov. For instance, the entries in the Feast books of Kirillov do not repeat the information at all. – An entry in the Feast book at Iosifov contains the following information : Date within the calendar – name of the person to be commemorated – name of the donor (if not identical with the person to be commemorated) – donations on the basis of which the feast was established – the menu in the refectory – if relevant, burial place within the monastery (or sometimes also the burial place elsewhere).

10 Cf. Russell Martin, “Gifts for the Dead : Death, Kinship, and Commemoration in Muscovy : The Case of the Mstislavskii Princes,” Russian History. Histoire russe, 26, 2 (1999) : 171‑202 including the publication of the list.

11 The numbers after persons refer to the number in the “Konkordanz” in the appendix to Das Speisungsbuch von Volokolamsk.

12 Ludwig Steindorff, “Chto bylo novogo v kul´ture pominaniia v Iosifo‑Volotskom monastyre ? Peresmotr voprosa [What was new about commemoration in the Iosifo‑Volotskii monastery ? A reassessment],” Drevniaia Rus´. Voprosy medievistiki, no. 55, 1 (Mar. 2014) : 25‑32.

13 Cf. the table of namings from 13 monasteries in Steindorff, Memoria in Altrußland, 252‑254.

14 This is a special list besides the list with permanent entries, cf. Steindorff, Memoria in Altrußland, 226 and Ludwig Steindorff, “Commemoration and Administrative Techniques in Muscovite Monasteries,” Russian History. Histoire Russe, 22 (1995) : 433‑454, here : 436‑437.

15 Ex. RGADA (Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnikh aktov), f. 1192, op. 2, no. 561.

16 Vkladnaia kniga Iosifo‑Volokolamskogo monastyria [The Donation Book of the Iosifov‑Volokolamskii monastery], in : A.A. Titov, Rukopisi slavianskie i russkie, prinadlezhashchie I.A. Vachromeevu [Slavic and Russian manuscripts, belonging to I.A. Vachromeev] : vol.  5. Prilozhenie [Supplement] (M., 1906) : 1‑79.

17 Cf. Ludwig Steindorff, “Sravnenie istochnikov ob organizatsii pominaniia usopshikh v Iosifo‑Volokolamskom i v Troitse‑Sergievom monastyriakh v XVI v [A comparison of the sources on the organization of the commemoration of the deceased in the Iosifo‑Volokolamskii monastery and the Trinity Sergius monastery]”, in Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 1996 (M. : Rossiiskaia akademiia nauk, 1998), 65‑78, 74. – The extant copy of the Daily List contains 965 entries up to the beginning of the 17th century, so for the period before 1581 we have to suppose a lower figure, roughly guessed at about 700. – A contrasting juxtaposition of the Donation Book and the Feast Book would have to take into account that the Donation Book ends in the late sixties of the 16th century.

18 Extant vechnye sinodiki from Iosifov from the 16th century : IRLI (Institut russkoi litera­tury), rukopisnyi otdel, op. 23, no. 52 (published completely : Sinodik Iosifo‑Volokolamskogo monastyria, 1479–1510‑e gody [The Sinodik (Memorial Book) of the Iosifo‑Volokolamskii monastery], ed. by T.I. Shablova, (SPb. : Dmitrii Bulanin, 2004) ; GIM (Gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii muzei), Eparkhial´noe sobranie, no. 411 (668) ; no. 414 (673) ; RGADA, f. 1192, op. 2, no. 559.

19 Kormovaia kniga Troitse Sergieva monastyria [The Feast Book of the Trinity Sergius monastery] in A.V. Gorskii, Istoricheskoe opisanie Sviato‑troitskiia Sergievy lavry, sostavlennoe po rukopisnym i pechatnym istochnikam v 1841 godu. S prilozheniiami arkhimandrita Leonida [Historical description of the Trinity lavra of Saint Sergius, composed on the basis of manuscripts and printed sources in 1841, including supplements by arkhimandrit Leonid] (M., 1890), part 2, 45‑64.

20 Vkladnaia kniga Troitse‑Sergieva monastyria [The Donation Book of the Trinity Sergius monastery], ed. by E.N. Klitina, T.N. Manushina, T.V. Nikolaeva, B.A. Rybakov (M. : Nauka, 1987). – There are three copies of the Daily List of this monastery extant : RGB (Rossiiskaia gosudarstvennaia biblioteka), f. 304/1, nos. 40, 41, 42. Looking at the well‑organized system of commemoration, we can be quite sure to find all names from the Vkladnaia kniga in this list – and of course from the Kormovaia kniga, too.

21 Kormovaia kniga Kirillo‑Belozerskogo monastyria [The Feast Book of the Kirillo‑Belozerskii monastery], ed. by I.P. Sakharov, Zapiski otdeleniia russkoi i slavianskoi arkheologii Imperatorskago arkheologicheskago obshchestva no. 1, 3 (1851) : 46‑105. – So far I have not compared these entries to the published lists in T.I. Shablova, ed., Kormovoe pominovenie v Uspenskom Kirillo‑Belozerskom monastyrie v XVI‑XVII vekakh [Commemoration by a feast in the Kirillo‑Belozerskii monastery of the Dormition in the 16th and 17th centuries] (SPb. : Renome, 2012).

22 A.I. Alekseev, ed., Pervaia redaktsiia vkladnoi knigi Kirillo‑Belozerskogo monastyria : 1560‑e gg. [The first redaction of the Donation Book of the Kirillo‑Belozerskii monastery : Sixties of the 16th century], Vestnik tserkovnoi istorii nos. 3‑4 (2010) : 17‑117, text 25‑65. – Because we did not dispose of this publication at the time, when we were preparing the “Konkordanz”, the corresponding column registers only comemmorations which include a korm. So we missed three commemorations at Kirillov, which are mentioned only in the Vkladnaia kniga and do not include a korm (nos. 65, 76, 213), and the “Konkordanz” registers only 69 cases of commemoration elsewhere.

23 A.I. Alekseev, A.V. Mashtafarov, eds., Vkladnaia i kormovaia kniga Moskovskogo Simonova monastyria [Donation and Feast Book of the Simonov monastery at Moscow], Vestnik tserkovnoi istorii, no. 3 (2006) : 5‑184, text : 16‑91 ; Donation Book, p. 16‑79 (l. 2‑79), Feast Book, p. 79‑87 (l. 79‑88) ; at the end follow additions from the 17th century.

24 Cf. Steindorff, Memoria in Altrußland, 192 ; Das Speisungsbuch von Volokolamsk, 340.

25 Different from the “Konkordanz”, in this group are registered all hierarchs and abbots, independently of whether their family name is known or not. In the “Konkordanz” hierarchs and abbots whose family names are known are registered among the non‑princely people.

26 The distinction between “princes” and “non‑princely persons” follows the terminology of the sources used, since the title of a kniaz / kniaginia, “prince / princess”, is never omitted.

27 The figures in the parentheses refer to numbers in the “Konkordanz.” – “Elsewhere” in the head of the columns refers to the three other monasteries. – The figures in the second column from the right refer to those persons for whom a korm was established at all places where they were commemorated. If a person was commemorated at three places, but only at one by a korm, it appears in the fourth column from the right.

28 Vkladnaia i kormovaia kniga Simonova monastyria, l. 55ob.‑56.

29 This is easy to verify thanks to a comparison of the “Konkordanz” and the catalogue of monks at Iosifov composed by Tom Dykstra, “Inocheskie imena v Moskovskoi Rusi i problemy identifikatsii ikh obladatelei : na materiale istochnikov Iosifo‑Volokolamskogo monastyria : 1479‑1607 [Monastic names in the Muscovite Rus´ and problems about the identification of their bearers],” in F.B. Uspenskii, ed., Imenoslov : Istoricheskaia semantika imeni [Naming : Historical semantics of names], vol.  2 (M. : Indrik, 2007), 238‑298.

30 The figures in the parentheses refer to numbers in the “Konkordanz”.

31 Ludwig Steindorff, “Equality under Reserve : Men and Women in Donations and Commemoration in Muscovite Russia,” Canadian‑American Slavic Studies, 49 (2015) : 193‑210 with references to research by other colleagues, who reached similar results, cf. also Jennifer B. Spock, The Solovki Monastery 1460‑1645 : Piety and Patronage in the Early Modern Russian North (Ann Arbor, MI : University of Michigan Press, 1999), 150‑151.

32 The figures in the brackets refer to the numbers in the “Konkordanz.”

33 Besides the 22 hierarchs and monks appear a protopop and a sviashchenik (nos. 36, 37).

34 Comparison of the “Konkordanz” and the catalogue of monks at Iosifov composed by Dykstra, “Inocheskie imena,” 238‑298. I have not included those persons who are marked by an asterix as “death‑bed tonsures” in the catalogue.

35 Tom Dykstra, Russian Monastic Culture : “Josephism” and the Iosifo‑Volokolamsk monastery 1479‑1607 (Munich : Otto Sagner, 2006), 121‑123.

36 The results of my case study fit only partly with the official rankings of Muscovite monasteries in the lestvicy, and decisions of church councils, cf. Andrei Pavlov, “Tserkovnaia ierarkhiia v sisteme gosudarstvennoi vlasti Rossii i uchrezhdenie patriarshestva [The ecclesiastical hierarchy in the system of State power of Russia and the Establishment of the Patriarchate]”, in Steindorff, ed., Religion und Integration im Moskauer Russland, 65‑80, especially the table p. 74‑77. In the list from about 1570 Troitse‑Sergiev is on the first place within the state, Simonov on the sixth, Kirillov on the twelfth ; Iosifov itself only on the nineteenth out of 39. Independently of other changes in the ranking, these four monasteries remain permanently in the same order.

37 I have collected all these donations by the Tsar to Iosifov, Troitse‑Sergiev and Kirillov in Ludwig Steindorff, “Mehr als eine Frage der Ehre : Zum Stifterverhalten Zar Ivans des Schrecklichen”, Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 51, 3 (2003) : 342‑366.

38 Sinodik Iosifo‑Volokolamskogo monastyria, 201 (no. 35 of the table of entries) ; as for the dating of the other entries see p. 76, 79. – The seven persons appear also in the “Konkordanz” in Das Speisungsbuch von Volokolamsk, 342‑366, col. 4. I had copied the names in the list of donors from the manuscript itself when I worked in the Pushkinskii dom in 1990.

39 This would also correspond to the distribution of land acquisitions mainly by donations in the graph by A.A. Zimin, Krupnaia feodal´naia votchina i sotsial´no‑politicheskaia bor´ba v Rossii, Konets XV – XVI v. [Large feudal possessions and the social‑political fights in Russia at the end of the 15th and during the 16th century] (M. : Nauka, 1977), 175. But of course for an exact determination of the donation activities of the elite we would have to take into account also donations of money. It would correspond also to the distribution of the donations to the Troitse‑Sergiev monastery with a peak during the reign of Ivan IV, cf. David B. Miller, Saint Sergius of Radonezh, His Trinity Monastery, and the Formation of the Russian Identity (DeKalb, IL : Northern Illinois University Press, 2010), 247 (table).

40 Cf. Daniel H. Kaiser : “Death and Dying in Early Modern Russia,” in Nancy Shields Kollmann, ed., Major Problems in Early Modern Russian History (New York : Garland Publishers, 1992), 217‑257 ; David B. Miller, “Motives for Donations to the Trinity‑Sergius Monastery, 1392‑1605 : Gender Matters,” Essays in Medieval Studies, 14 (1997) : 91‑107. On the behavior of women as donors see also Ann M. Kleimola, “‘In accordance with the canons of the Holy Apostles’ : Muscovite dowries and women’s property rights,” Russian Review, 51 (1992) : 204‑229 ; Steindorff, “Sravnenie istochnikov” ; Ludwig Steindorff, “Kto blizhnie moi ? Individ i kul´tura pominoveniia v Rossii rannego novogo vremeni [Who are my closest ones ? Individual and memorial culture in Early Modern Russia]”, in Iu.L. Bessmertnyi, Otto Gerhard Oexle, eds., Chelovek i ego blizkie na Zapade i Vostoke Evropy : do nachala novogo vremeni [Man and his closest ones in the West and and in the East until the beginning of the Modern Era] (M. : Institut vseobshchei istorii RAN, 2000), 208‑239 (on the basis of a comparison of the entries in the Vkladnaia kniga and the Kormovaia kniga from Iosifov).

41 Especially Steindorff, “Sravnenie istochnikov” ; Steindorff, “Kto blizhnie moi ?”

42 This assumption is strongly supported by the position in the ranking of the monasteries : Iosifov is always behind all three other monasteries, cf. Pavlov, Tserkovnaia ierarkhiia, 74‑75.

43 I.Z. Liberzon, ed., Akty Solovetskogo monastyria 1479‑1571 gg. [Documents of the Solovetskii monastery, 1479‑1571], (L. : Nauka, 1988), no. 207, 124‑125 ; Akty Iosifo‑Volokolamskogo monastyria, no. 259, 263‑264 ; about these deeds cf. the article by Ludwig Steindorff, “Memorial practice as a Means of Integrating the Muscovite State”, Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 55 (2007) : 519‑533.

44 Spock, The Solovki Monastery, 50.

45 S.T. Golubev, ed., Drevnii pomiannik Kievo‑Pecherskoi lavry [The old memorial book of the Kievan Caves monastery], Chteniia v istoricheskom obshchestve Nestora letopistsa, Kn. 6, Ot. III (Kiev, 1892) : VII. – Facsimiles of almost all pages of the manuscript are now accessible online : http://www.nibu.kiev.ua/elfond/023/index.html (last access 2016, 15 March).

46 Drevnii pomiannik Kievo‑Pecherskoj lavry, 29 for the first time. – For the numerous possible identifications of the two years when, besides the feast Soshestvie sviatago Dukha, the date within the month is indicated (p. 58, 81), cf. E.I. de Vitte, “Kommentarii k drevneishim pomiannikam Kievo‑Pecherskoi lavry i Kievo‑Zlatoverkho‑Mikhailovskago monastyria [Commentaries to the oldest memorial books of the Kievan Caves monastery and of Saint Michael’s Golden Domed monastery at Kiev]”, Chteniia v istoricheskom obshchestve Nestora letopistsa, Kn. 12, V. 3, Prilozhenie (Kiev, 1910) : 2‑7. The author supposes that the pomiannik was used for entries until the end of the 16th century, but there are marginal additions even from the 17th century. [I thank my student Kyrill Kobsar for this information. He is preparing his master’s thesis on this source.]

47 Drevnii pomiannik Kievo‑Pecherskoj lavry, 30.

48 Drevnii pomiannikKievo‑Pecherskoj lavry, 24. – This street in the Liudin konets is shown for instance on the map of Novgorod in Philippe Frisson, Olga Sevastyanova, eds., Novgorod ou la Russie oubliée : Une république commerçante : xiiexve siècles (P. : La Ver à Soie), 93. The monastery is missing on the map.

49 Of course, these conclusions need further verification on a larger scale : How “permeable” were state borders regarding memorial practice ? Was the value of the donations to the monasteries at Mount Athos or to Saint Catharine on Sinai of statistical significance, or was it, what I would suggest so far, of marginal importance compared to the huge sums of money which remained as donations within the state ?

Верх страницы

Чтобы цитировать эту статью

Ссылка в печатном виде

Ludwig Steindorff, «Desirable Ubiquity? »Cahiers du monde russe, 57/2-3 | 2016, 641‑665.

Электронная ссылка

Ludwig Steindorff, «Desirable Ubiquity? »Cahiers du monde russe [Онлайн], 57/2-3 | 2016, Выложить онлайн 01 avril 2019, Наводить справки в 28 mars 2024. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/monderusse/8376; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/monderusse.8376

Верх страницы

Автор

Ludwig Steindorff

Christian‑Albrechts‑Universität zu Kiel, GermanyHistorisches Seminar, lsteindorff@oeg.uni‑kiel.de

Верх страницы

Авторские права

The text and other elements (illustrations, imported files) are “All rights reserved”, unless otherwise stated.

Верх страницы
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search