Ivan III of Moscow. The L’vov chronicler reports that he received Afanasy’s notes in 1475 and incorporated them into his annalistic record, but was unable to locate any further information on the traveler.
The first historians to study his notes saw Afanasy as a daring explorer and patriot. Looking at the journey in commercial perspective, however, historian Janet Martin concludes that although Afanasy did travel farther than other Russian travelers of his era, and visitied places they did not, his notes reveal him as a cautious, even conservative merchant who made a series of discrete, limited decisions to continue his journey on the basis of information about markets conveyed by merchants that he met. He initially planned to take advantage of a lull in hostilities between Muscovy and the Great Horde to bring furs to the Caucasus and the lower Volga, a venture which had good prospects for high profits. His journey to Iran followed a well-established trade route, with extended stops at towns known for their bazaars. Afanasy indicates that his decision to continue to India was based on information from Muslim merchants whom he met in Iran. His notes on India, a market unfamiliar to Russian merchants, contain the most detailed information on goods and markets, as well as advice on finding shelter and warnings about the high customs fees exacted against Christians and the pressures to convert to Islam. This information would have been of great value to merchants considering such a venture. Only when he concluded that further travel would not bring new opportunities for commerce did he decide to return to Russia.
Long passages in creolized Arabic containing prayers and expression of fears about the traveler’s inability to practice Christianity in India have inspired a variety of hypotheses. Nikolai Trubetskoy characterized Afanasy’s notes as a lyrical tale of a committed Orthodox Christian who suffered from his religious isolation, but kept the faith of his homeland; the foreign terms and phrases added local color to the narrative, shaping its unique artistic structure, while concealing the traveler’s most intimate thoughts from all but a handful of readers. Others questioned Afanasy’s faith. Yuri Zavadovsky noted Afanasy’s extensive knowledge of Muslim prayers and of the requirements for conversion to Islam. Afanasy’s reports of his own behavior suggested to historian Gail Lenhoff that he was a social convert to Islam. This decision to convert appears to have been initially dictated by commercial interests, since Muslims did not have to pay taxes or customs duties and could trade more freely in the Deccan markets. His conversion obligated him to pray in Arabic and to observe Muslim customs in public. The increasing proportion of Arabic prayers in the autobiography and the existence of a final prayer of thanks to Allah for surviving a storm, uttered as he approached Christian soil and duly recorded in his diary, could
1055
indicate that by the end of his journey Afanasy had assimilated the Muslim faith. See also: FOREIGN TRADE; ISLAM; MERCHANTS
Lenhoff, Gail and Martin, Janet. (1989). “The Commercial and Cultural Context of Afanasij Nikitin’s Journey Beyond Three Seas.” Jahrb?cher f?r Geschichte Osteuropas 37 (3):321-344. Major, Richard H., ed. (1857). “The Travels of Athana-sius Nikitin,” tr. Mikhail M. Wielhorsky. In India in the Fifteenth Century. Hakluyt Society, ser. 1. volume 22. London: Hakluyt Society. Martin, Janet. (1985). “Muscovite Travelling Merchants: The Trade with the Muslim East (Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries).” Central Asian Studies 4 (3):21-38. Trubetskoy, Nikolay S. (1978). “Afanasij Nikitin’s Journey Beyond Three Seas as a Work of Literature.” In Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views, ed. Ladislav Matejka and Krystyna Po-morska. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Slavic Publications.
(1605-1681), patriarch of Moscow and all Russia; implemented a program of church reform that inspired vociferous opposition, ultimately culminating in the schism and the emergence of Old Belief.
Nikita Minich or Minov (as a monk, Nikon) was born to a peasant couple in the village of Velde-manov near Nizhny Novgorod. His mother died shortly after his birth, and the child was sent to a local tutor who taught him to read. As a youth, he continued his studies at the Makariev Zhel-tovodsky monastery, not far from Nizhny Novgorod. The author of Nikon’s Life reports that the young man was an avid student and attracted to the monastic life. Nonetheless, in 1625 he obeyed his dying father’s request to return home. He married a year later and obtained a position as a deacon at a nearby village church. Soon he was ordained a priest, and he and his wife moved to Moscow.
In 1636 Minich persuaded his wife to enter a convent. He himself departed for the Anzersky skete in the far north. Upon arrival he took monastic vows and the name Nikon. In 1649 a disagreement with the elder Eliazar prompted Nikon to transfer to the Kozheozersky monastery. Within three years he was made abbot. In 1646 Nikon traveled to Moscow on monastery business. There he attracted the attention of the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The tsar ordered him to remain in Moscow and made him abbot of the New Savior monastery. Energetic and talented, Nikon soon became a confidant and spiritual advisor of the tsar. He also became an important figure in the Zealots of Piety, the circle of reformers gathered around the tsar’s confessor, Stefan Vonifatiev.
In March 1649, Nikon was named metropolitan of the important of see of Novgorod. He maintained contact with the reformers in Moscow and sought to implement their program in Novgorod. Mnogoglasie, the practice of simultaneously performing different parts of the liturgy in order to complete it more quickly, was abolished. Greek and Kievan chants replaced the traditional style of singing. Metropolitan Nikon’s sermons at the episcopal cathedral attracted great crowds. In 1650 severe grain shortages caused famine and inflation in Novgorod. The people responded with violence, and Nikon played an important role in bringing the situation under control without bloodshed.
In the spring of 1652, Metropolitan Nikon was entrusted with the task of traveling to the Solovet-sky monastery, collecting the relics of St. Philip, and returning with them to Moscow. The translation of St. Philip’s relics exemplified the views of the Zealots of Piety. As metropolitan of Moscow, St. Philip had died a martyr’s death for publicly rebuking the cruel and unchristian acts of Tsar Ivan IV (“the Terrible”). St. Philip’s example highlighted the duty of the clergy to remind the laity, including tsars, of their Christian duties. The translation of his relics emphasized the dignity and importance of the church. Nikon was on the return path to Moscow when he received a letter from Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, informing him that Patriarch Joasif had died and assuring him that he would be selected as the next patriarch. A church council convened and duly elected Nikon. On July 25, 1652, Nikon was consecrated patriarch of Moscow and all Russia.
Nikon was chosen patriarch to direct a reform program advocated by the Zealots of Piety and supported by the tsar. If all reformers concurred on the need to elevate popular piety and reform popular religious practices, the revision of the liturgical books to bring them into conformity with
1056
contemporary Greek practice and the exercise of power within the church were more sensitive issues. Consecrated patriarch, Nikon moved decisively to advance the liturgical reform with all possible speed. In February 1653 a revised edition of the Psalter was printed, minus two articles present in earlier editions. An instruction calling for sixteen full prostrations during a Lenten prayer was modified, and a section teaching that the sign of the cross should be made with two fingers was removed. Correctors (spravshchiki) at the government Printing Office, men long associated with the work of the Zealots of Piety, protested the changes. They promptly were removed from their posts and replaced by supporters of Nikon. By the end of the year, Patriarch Nikon assumed direct control of the Printing Office.
In addition, according to later accounts of Nikon’s opponents, shortly after the appearance of the new Psalter, the patriarch sent a communication to Ivan Neronov, archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral, calling attention to the revisions and ordering that they be introduced into the liturgy. Confronted with what he perceived to be an error, Neronov prayed for guidance and then discussed the order with his associates, including Archbishop Paul of Kolomna and the archpriests Avvakum, Daniil, and Login. Avvakum and Daniil gathered evidence against the revisions in the newly printed Psalter and presented a petition to the tsar. The tsar ignored it. By the end of 1653 the archpriests Login and Neronov had been defrocked and exiled. Av-vakum escaped defrocking through the personal intervention of the tsar but was transferred to the distant post of Tobolsk.
Patriarch Nikon’s reform activities were not limited to liturgical reform. During the six years of his active patriarchate, he worked to bring the church under episcopal control, freeing the clergy and church affairs from the
