Notes on the Religiosity of Ivan III

Abstract

In this paper, the question of the religiosity of Ivan III is considered through the prism of his church policy. The behavior of the Grand Duke in various situations is also analyzed to trace some of the features of his religiosity as compared to the traditional view.

Before the eyes of astonished contemporaries, the large-scale military and political affairs of Ivan III changed the map of Eastern Europe. No less significant undertakings were carried out by the Grand Duke in the field of culture with the active use of the knowledge and experience of foreigners (unorthodox). It is also known that the time of the great reign of Ivan III is characterized by a significant increase of tension in relations with the Church. In this regard, the question of the specific religiosity of Ivan III has attracted the attention of researchers for a long time. In the Soviet historiography, the question of the unorthodox religiosity of Ivan III was generally developed on the basis of observations over the policy of the Grand Duke in relation to church and monastic patrimonies, with respect to which an attempt at secularization was made at the Church Council of 1503.¹ Researchers have also paid attention to the patronage over Judaizer heretics at the court of Ivan III and some objectors of monastic patrimonies, i.e., “nonpossessors.”² In the sociopolitical constructions of historiographers, the role of secularization ideologists was assigned to both groups, and the Grand Duke was portrayed as a pragmatic politician, who used religious rhetoric for his own purposes. For example, N.S. Borisov concluded: “Obviously, Prince Ivan was a religious man, but, however, he was quite free in everything that concerns the formal side of the matter. At the same time, he honored the rites and knew the mysterious magic of the ritual.”³ On the other hand, there was a certain freedom of the Grand Duke from morality, which allowed him, in violation of the duty of a Christian, to oppress his brothers and deal with his closest associates.⁴ These actions of Ivan III are readily considered as manifestations of the traits of a “Renaissance personality” free from the norms of Christian morality and prone to hedonism.

First of all, it is worth noting that the desire of researchers, noticeable in the historiography of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, to distinguish the formal and intrinsic side in medieval religiosity is a heritage of the “Age of Enlightenment” with its repeatedly expressed deep contempt for the “Era of Faith.” According to the approach prevailing in modern historical science, the understanding of religion was not individual until the era of Confessionalization in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Western Europe, and the details of rituals and ceremonies that seem insignificant today were perceived in indissoluble unity with the embodiment of faith truths. Just the facts of Grand Duke’s interference in the Church’s affairs indicate his deep interest in the matters of faith. The medieval ruler felt responsible for the correct execution of canonical rules and regulations. Let us recall the statement of M. Blok that “when kings tried to rule the church, they ruled it as a kind of  “churchmen,” and that is how others looked at their actions.”⁵ For this reason, it will be correct to pose the question not about how free the Grand Duke was from the religiosity of his modern era,⁶ but about his religious consciousness, why this consciousness gave rise to a series of conflicts when confronted with the sphere of traditional religiosity.

Ivan III can hardly be reproached for indifference to religious matters or, moreover, accused of a propensity to paganism or hedonism. He provided many examples of his pious attitude to Orthodox shrines. The Grand Duke erected an unprecedented number of stone churches in Moscow, and the ancient temples of Vladimir and Dmitrov were reconstructed by his order. In the era of Ivan III, the core of the pantheon of stain patrons of Moscow was formed and, alongside with the ecumenical saints, the hierarchs of Northeastern Russia, Metropolitans Peter and Alexei, the Bishop of Rostov Leonty, and Reverends Sergius, Varlaam, and Kirill, were included in it. Ivan III’s desire to show special reverence to his patron saints, John Chrysostom and Saint Nicholas, is notable. The Grand Duke did not neglect the duty to defend the Orthodox faith in the Lithuanian state.⁷ The first sovereign of All Russia took the initiative to build the Assumption Cathedral and participated in transferring Saint Peter’s relics. He favored such ascetics of piety as Metropolitan Philip, Metropolitan of Rostov Vassian Rylo, Paisii Yaroslavov, an elder from the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery, Reverend Nil Sorsky, and others.

Ivan III does not give such vivid examples of religious exaltation as his grandson Ivan IV. The piety of the first sovereign of all Russia cannot be judged by literature papers, which vividly reflected the personal religiosity of Ivan III. Without claiming the finality of conclusions, let us try to consider consistently the attitude of Ivan III to the church hierarchy, to monasteries, to eschatological expectations relevant during his reign, to unorthodoxies, and to heretics.

Owing much to metropolitans for their ascension, the Moscow princes from the time of Dmitrii Donskoi had begun to enter into acute conflicts with them. However, the reign of the first sovereign of all Russia is outstanding in the growth of tension in the relationships between the state and the Church even against this background. Before Ivan III, the resignation of the head of the Russian Church was an unprecedented case in Russian history.⁸ Submissive to the will of the Moscow autocrat, Metropolitans Theodosius (1461–1464), Zosima (1490–1494), who headed the Russian Church, left their chairs; Archbishop Theophilus of Novgorod was imprisoned and renounced his rank under duress (1480–1482); and Archbishop Joasaph of Rostov was forced to leave his chair (1489). Serious conflicts arose between Ivan III and Metropolitans Philip (1472) and Gerontius (1478, 1479–1481, 1483). The post of head of the Russian Church remained vacant for more than a year after the death of Metropolitan Gerontius on May 28, 1489, until Metropolitan Zosima was appointed on September 26, 1490.

It is illustrative that the subject of conflicts was often not the traditional right of grieving for the disgraced, but matters that were strictly within the hierarchs’ competence, such as the order of church consecration, the questions of canonization, etc.

The construction of the new Assumption Cathedral gave rise to a number of disputes in society. The need for transferring the metropolitan tombs caused some attempts to canonize the Metropolitans Theognost and Philip. Both attempts encountered the opposition of the Grand Duke and brought the reproaches of impiety upon him.⁹ It is remarkable that the Grand Duke and Metropolitan Gerontius had proven to be of the same mind when refusing to beatify Theognost, but the metropolitan’s initiative to canonize Philip was emphatically suppressed by the Grand Duke.¹⁰ A serious temptation for the clergy of the Assumption Cathedral was also the situation with transferring the relics of Saint Peter the Enlightener and Thaumaturge.¹¹ Many more disputes were raised by the proper consecration of churches by “walking cum sole” (Traditionally, this ritual was performed in the clockwise direction, but counterclockwise since the end of the 14th century).¹² The Grand Duke vehemently defended the traditional custom against the opinion of the metropolitan and most clergy and yielded only due to circumstances.¹³ At the same time, the first sovereign of All Russia was not only prone to religious exaltation, but also purely pragmatically preferred political and economic benefits to evangelical norms.

In 1488, Ivan III made a very strange oath “by heaven and earth and mighty God”¹⁴ for his brother, the appanage Prince Andrei Uglitsky. Here, it is necessary to recall the biblical context. When turning to the Bible, it is possible to convince that the formula of the oath with the mention of God, heaven, and earth was explicitly forbidden: “Do not swear by my name in a lie, and do not dishonor the name of your God” (Leviticus, 19:12); “My brethren, do not swear by heaven or earth” (James, 5:12); “But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, because it is the throne of God, nor by the earth, because it is the foot of his feet, nor by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great king. Do not swear by your head, because you cannot make a single hair white or black” (Matthew, 5:34–5:36). As follows from the penitential questions that existed in Russia, such oaths were strictly condemned: “Have you sworn to be a liar and on the right by the name of God, and by the Most Holy Mother of God, and by the church, and by the honest cross, by heaven and earth, and by all the saints?”¹⁵

Here, it is impossible to say with certainty why, but it is unlikely that Ivan III used this strange form of oath by accident.¹⁶ As a historical parallel, which may relate to the episode with the oath “by mighty God,” it is necessary to mention an episode from Moldavian history. The mention of “mighty God” can be found in the Moldavian Chronicles as dated to 1471. The future relative of the Grand Duke, the Moldavian ruler Stefan (the father of Grand Duchess Elena Voloshanka), defeated his rival. “In the summer of 6979 on March 7, Thursday the voevoda Radul was robbed near Sochi and the voevoda Stephen had managed to beat them much by mercy and help of mighty God Sabaoth.”¹⁷ Six years earlier, in 1465, the same voivode Stefan “ordered his metropolitans and bishops and all the priests to thank God for the gift to him from God Sabaoth, who rested on cherubim.”¹⁸ However, what is interesting: “In the summer of 6983, January 10 Tuesday, there was a battle on Vaslui with the forces of Turks, and the voevoda Stefan defeated them by the mercy of God and the help of Jesus Christ, the living God’s son born from the Blessed Virgin for our salvation.”¹⁹ Perhaps, the formula of an oath or gratitude with the mention of Old Testament Sabaoth was allowed for use in cases of victory over faith allies, and gratitude to Jesus Christ was given in case of victories over Muslims? In any case, the formula of Ivan III’s oath has some secret subtext and is worth attention.²⁰

In this respect, the further fate of Prince Andrei Uglitsky is indicative. In September 1492, the Grand Duke arrested his brother Andrei in Moscow, and, after a while, he died in prison.²¹ The severity of this crime was also increased by the fact that, apparently, there was also cross-kissing violation. In this case, it is possible to say that most blame falls on the existing Metropolitan Zosima, who apparently acted as a guarantor of Prince Andrew’s security and had the right to “grieve” for the disgraced person, who was neglected by him. Ivan III repented of his brother’s death “that by his sin and carelessness he had killed him in need”²² before three bishops only on October 26, 1496, long after Zosima’s resignation.

Having planned a grandiose reconstruction in the center of the capital, the Grand Duke ordered the removal of the churches and old cemeteries, in place of which new streets and gardens appeared.²³ The desecration of altars and the violation of the rest of the dead was a blatant violation of Orthodox tradition and greatly embarrassed his contemporaries. Archbishop of Novgorod Gennady wrote to Metropolitan Zosima about the excitement caused among the Kiev Jews by the rumors about the transfer of churches in Moscow: “Here came a newly baptized Jew named Daniel, and he is now a Christian, but he told me at the table to all people that he came from Kiev to Moscow, but we began to snarl at this Jew: Dog, where are you dressed up to? The Prince, Great in Moscow, sweeps the churches away from the city,” and this was told to your boyarian son before Vyatka, what a disorder and dishonor had been committed for the great state!”²⁴ From the same Message, it follows that the arguments used by the supporters of the Grand Duke also included some indication to the practice of divine services in camp tent churches and numerous cases of burning the churches. It is difficult to say who acted as an adviser to the Grand Duke in this case, but we can point to the explicitly practical, not canonical nature of this argument. Archbishop Gennady dismisses this argument by pointing to the long-term existence of altars, for which any use of their places is considered as desecration. The Fourth Rule of Metropolitan John II prescribed that, when transferring dilapidated churches, their sites should be carefully protected from any desecration by peoples or animals: “…when the wooden churches are transferred to a different place, they do not stand in that place, and the altar site, where the sacraments take place, should be inviolably and honestly protected and preserved, as this is holy and honest, when there is no need in it for priesthood, and it is not right when the holy is trampled on.”²⁵

At the same time, it is possible to single out a number of representatives of the church hierarchy who were closest to the Grand Duke. Among them are Archbishop of Rostov Vassian Rylo,²⁶ the elder Paisii Yaroslavov,²⁷ and Gennady Gonzov,²⁸ when he was the archimandrite of the Chudov Monastery. Vassian was the confessor of the Grand Duke and, together with Paisii, received Prince Vasily-Gabriel from the font. Vassian together with Gennady supported Ivan III in the conflict with the metropolitan on the question of “walking cum sole” during their disputes about the consecration of the Assumption Cathedral.²⁹ It is interesting that the Grand Duke’s ally in the dispute over this problem in 1482 was Archbishop Joasaph, Vassian’s successor at the Rostov cathedra.³⁰ This circumstance implies that there were various traditions of church consecration in the Russian Church, and the Grand Duke appealed just to the Rostov customs. In the autumn of 1480, Paisii Yaroslavov acted as an intermediary between the Grand Duke and his rebellious brothers and was the abbot of the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery for several months at the insistence of the Grand Duke. At the same time, it is known with what pathos Vassian denounced the cowardice of his spiritual son in the messages to the Ugra, and Gennady did not enjoy the confidence of the Grand Duke while being the Archbishop of Novgorod. It can be seen clearly that the Grand Duke willingly used the services of these people for his own purposes, but the question of whether Vassian had a real influence on his spiritual son remains debatable. It is also necessary to mention the Metropolitan Zosima, who was elevated by the will of Ivan III to the metropolitan throne in 1490 from the archimandrites of the Simonov Monastery,³¹ and left it as soon as 1494 for unclear reasons.³²

As far as can be judged from the available sources, the confessor of the Grand Duke before or simultaneously with Vassian was an unknown archpriest widower. In the story about the marriage of Ivan III to Sophia Palaiologos, the Lviv Chronicle reports that the Kolomna archpriest Oseya crowned the grand-ducal couple and “as he did not allow the local archpriest or his confessor, as they were widowed.”³³ The fact that the Grand Duke kept a widowed priest as his confessor for some years is of considerable interest. Disputes about whether widowed clergymen are worthy of their dignity were actively conducted from the second half of the fourteenth century and, as far as we can judge on the basis of chronicle news and the monuments of ecclesiastical and polemical literature, aroused hardly idle interest in society.³⁴ Some attempts at prohibiting widowed priests and deacons from performing religious rites were made by Metropolitans Peter and, probably, Cyprian.³⁵ The matter concerned not only the attempt to bring the practice in line with the norms of canonical law. Doubts about the efficacy of sacraments performed by “unworthy” priests troubled the minds of medieval townsfolk, who were ready to see the consequences of improperly performed mysterious rituals in numerous disasters. It is enough to refer to the numerous conflicts over widowed priests in Pskov.³⁶ It should be presumed that the canonical consciousness of the strictest bishops and the nearly fanatic rigor of ordinary parishioners clashed with the staunch opposition of most clergy and secular authorities. At the same time, the former were guided by their desire to preserve their places and incomes, while the latter wanted to preserve the traditional centuries-old order that allowed them to do without acute conflicts and confrontations.

It is characteristic that the chroniclers specifically noted the fact of the origin of bishops from the white clergy every time and, behind these comments, an acute dislike can be always guessed. For example, in the Typographic Chronicle to 1481, we can read: “In the same summer, Archbishop Iasaf was put in Rostov, Prince Obolensky was there and brought him from the Belozero St. Ferapont Monastery, and Gerasim was put in Kolomna from Borovsk from the St. Paphnuty Monastery, and Semion was put in Ryazan after this priest was a layman in Kolomna and further was among the metropolitan friars. Alas, alas! The Blessed has died from the earth for our sins, according to David: “Save me, Lord, for there is no righteous, for there are no faithful among the sons of men.”³⁷

The appointment of widowed white priests to hierarchies during the reign of Ivan III was not an isolated case. For example, in 1484, the elder of the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery, “the former Bogoroditsk archpriest Semyon,” was appointed as the Archbishop of Novgorod.³⁸ The position of Ivan III on the problem of widowed priests and deacons had grounds in canon law. The canonical arguments in favor of the right of widowed priests to serve the liturgy were put forward later by Grigory Skripitsa and Vassian Patrikeev and, at the Moscow Council of 1667, by the Eastern patriarchs.³⁹

The Council’s verdict forbidding the widowed priests to serve was adopted only on September 1, 1503, during the serious illness of the Grand Duke under pressure from the monastic party of “Josephites.”⁴⁰ As in the disputes about “walking cum sole,” in the disputes over widowed priests, the Grand Duke defended the position of traditional piety and opposed the aspirations of hierarchies to tighten disciplinary authority over the white clergy, perhaps without pursuing independent political goals.

The famous Church Council of 1503 gives reason to pose the question about the attitude of Ivan III to monasteries and their patrimonies.⁴¹ The very fact of raising the question about the right of monasteries to keep villages gives evidence in favor of the statement that both the Grand Duke himself and the government circles in Moscow were at least not convinced of the justification of the practice of land contributions per soul. Some material for judging the religiosity of Ivan III is provided by observations over spiritual letters. The mother of Ivan III, Grand Duchess Maria Yaroslavna, made an unprecedented monetary contribution to the St. Cyril Belozero Monastery in 1477, i.e., 495 rubles with the obligation to spend the entire sum by 1492.⁴² The brothers of Ivan III, Prince Yuri Dmitrovsky and Andrei Vologgodskii, and their cousin Mikhail Vereysky, used a lot of space allocated in their wills to the list of contributions for their souls that were to be made to monasteries.⁴³ In the will of Ivan III, the topic of contributions per soul, however, does not appear, and this fact is most likely not an exception, but a tradition. Apparently, the contributions from the head of the Moscow House became the responsibility of the Grand Duchess and the children.⁴⁴

As far as can be judged on the basis of the known monastic contribution and food books, Ivan III made large contributions to monasteries. In 1462–1466, Ivan III granted fishing on Vladychna Lake to the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery.⁴⁵ In 1466–1476, the Grand Duke transferred the Ilemna patrimony to the monastery, fulfilling the will of his uncle Pyotr Dmitrievich and Princess Euphrosyne.⁴⁶ Later on, Ivan III came into acute conflict with the monastery because of this volost. In 1505–1506 Vasilii III gave a contribution of 60 rubles for his soul.⁴⁷

The St. Cyril Belozero Monastery received a significant land grant from the Grand Duke in 1482–1484 and, as soon as in 1484–1485, refused it in exchange for a bread prestimony.⁴⁸ Near 1481, the Simonov Monastery was granted by the Grand Duke with the village of Vatolino in the Mozhaisk district with the obligation to commemorate him on the day of his memory and death.⁴⁹ Ivan Vasilyevich made a trip on pilgrimage to monasteries only when seriously ill in September–October 1503.⁵⁰ This pilgrimage was accompanied by contributions “for himself and for his parents,” about which the “autocrat” was so stingy for most of his reign.

On the whole it can be concluded that Ivan III was a highly moderate contributor, who was alien to the desire to buy expensive prayer support of monks in the afterlife. In this regard, the position of Ivan III was based on the authoritative tradition of Byzantium and Russia. The collection belonging to Metropolitan Zosima, a protege of the Grand Duke, contains a number of extracts on the topic of afterlife salvation.⁵¹ For example, in an article entitled “From Anastasius of Sinai,” we read: “It is appropriate for us to take care of our mouths for the whole life, but we do not hope to be forgiven after death.”⁵² It is followed by an extract from Dionysius the Areopagite with an eloquent statement: “Everyone who has done with the body, either good or evil, will be received with a prayer of righteous in the present life to pray until death.”⁵³ Similar ideas are contained in the other papers of this collection, which were extracted from the writings of John of Damascus, Grigory Dvoeslov, etc. In the mouth of Joseph Volotskii, these ideas, which were undoubtedly shared by Zosima, are presented as Sadducean heresies, i.e., disbelief in the afterlife: “If one died, he died, this is the matter of fact.”⁵⁴

Since the 1480s, researchers have revealed a sharp decrease in the total number of land contributions from the “secular counterparties” of monasteries.⁵⁵ A number of original land certificates for monastic possessions were requested in Moscow, obviously for revision of the ownership rights.⁵⁶ At the same time, a well-known prohibition that “no patrimonies must be sold in Tver, Mikulin, Torzhok, and Obolensk on Belozero in Ryazan by peoples of these cities to the peoples of other cities, and no contributions for souls are allowed by them to make to monasteries without a report.”⁵⁷ The orders of Ivan III allowed the secular patrimony owners to redeem the ancestral patrimonies from a monastery, being in immediate relation with the violation of the commemoration right.⁵⁸ Two other orders of the Grand Duke forbade the volost lands to be “put in pledge” or “contributed for a soul,” and the lands given to the Perm lord for souls were unsubscribed from him and returned back to the volost.⁵⁹

Finally, Ivan III grossly violated the testamentary orders of his appanage brothers in the clause on transferring villages and rural settlements to monasteries.⁶⁰ The contribution made for Prince Andrei Vasilyevich was replaced by monetary payments with the knowledge of the authorities of St. Cyril Belozero Monastery.⁶¹ The patrimonies of the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery were confiscated in the Pereyaslavl, Belozero, and Vologda counties. As concluded by M.S. Cherkasova, “In general, the pace of acquiring villages as the most important and valuable type of land possessions decreased in the second half of the fifteenth century by nearly three times as compared with the previous period.”⁶²

The most acute conflict occurred because of the Ilemn volost, which belonged to the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery.⁶³ The hegumen of St. Paphnuty Monastery Joseph Sanin (later, the founder and hegumen of the Volotsk monastery) favored by Ivan III, apparently, due to the patronage of Vassian Rylo, another incomer from the St. Paphnuty Monastery, stated that “Some monastic orphans were sold, and some were beaten, and the others were taken as slaves.”⁶⁴

Recalling the general atmosphere of those years, Joseph Volotskii wrote: “For many monastic clergy living in monasteries and deserts, as well as noble and Christ-loving lay peoples, their hearts were wrung, and their souls were filled with many sorrows and sadness … Those who are not guilty are condemned by imprisonment from the sovereign and suffer many sorrows, bonds, and despoliation of their possessions. Those who had suffered from them take comfort not in exile, but in scripture and bodily needs and are satisfied with a little, which is contrary and reproachful against the heretical word, the exhortation from the divine writings is sent to the heretic, being opposed by a heretic.”⁶⁵

According to L.V. Cherepnin’s conclusion, “the general direction of the Moscow government’s policy towards attempts to restrict monasteries in their right to receive land contributions is beyond doubt.”⁶⁶ Hence, the central core of the restrictive policy of Ivan III was the measures limiting the consequences of propagating the practice of making a contribution for one’s soul.

In general, the attitude of Ivan III to monasticism can be judged on the basis of a small number of facts, but they are quite eloquent. As follows from the 11th “word” of “Enlightener,” the Judaizers who succeeded at the court of the Grand Duke criticized the institution of monasticism.⁶⁷ An unknown archimandrite of the Kremlin’s Chudov Monastery was publicly whipped for forging a paper without regard to his rank.⁶⁸

Let us also mention another curious episode. Among the numerous foreigners (and unorthodox ones) at the court of Ivan III, we also encountered a certain “chaplain of the white clergy of Augustinian law, Ivan the Savior, an organist.”⁶⁹ As follows from the Nikon Chronicle, in 1492, this “chaplain” left the priesthood and got married: “In the same spring, the month of May 17, Ivan Fryazin the Savior, the tonsured chaplain of the Augustinian law from the white clergy, renounced his law and left the priesthood, got married, and took the wife of Serikov Alexiev for himself, and the great prince granted him a village.”⁷⁰ It does not follow from the above communication that the “defrocked chaplain” converted to the Orthodox faith, although this is likely, but it is indicative that this act of the Grand Duke appeared reprehensible in the eyes of the chronicler in any case.

Together with the information about the iconoclastic mood of heretics, it is also possible to think about the attitude of the Grand Duke to icons. N.K. Goleizovskii summarized a number of interesting facts in his monograph about the icon painter Dionysius. According to the researcher’s conclusion, the greatest painter of this era, Dionysius, “was not a court master of Ivan III and did not live in Moscow where, apparently, there were no sufficiently qualified domestic painters at that time, otherwise it would not have been necessary, out of fear that Dionysius would not come anymore, to hurry with painting the Annunciation Cathedral, which turned out to be very dilapidated; the burnt Ascension "Hodegetria” would not have had to wait for renewal for five years, and Metropolitan Gerontius (1473–1489) would not have had to resort to the mediation of the Rostov Archbishop Vassian Rylo (1467–1481) to order the famous masters subordinate to him “icons, feasts, and prophets” for the Moscow Assumption Cathedral.”⁷¹

The newly built Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin remained without interior decoration for a long time, and modern research has revealed that the original paintings were made in the form of a floral ornament excluding the possibility of making any iconographic images.⁷² Clearly, the available data are fragmentary to conclude that Ivan III was a supporter of iconoclasm. However, it is possible to think that the Grand Duke could have shared some aspects from the teachings of heretics who criticized iconolatry.

It should be remembered that the second half of the fifteenth century was a time of increasing eschatological expectations, which increasingly determined the type of collective behavior of medieval society. Here, it is time to ask the following question: in what relation was the personal religiosity of the first sovereign of all Russia to the religious background of the epoch. Already I. Khrushchev drew attention to the fact that, on the eve of the expected end of time, the Moscow Prince pursued an active foreign policy and actively rebuilt the Kremlin and Moscow.⁷³ N.S. Borisov remarks about the behavior of Ivan III: “He ruled as if he did not notice that the terrible angel was already at the door.”⁷⁴ At the same time, the attitude of most sovereigns of Europe to the Orthodox church on the eve of the expected end of the world (at the turn of 1000) was extremely respectful. There were close relations between the Emperor Otto III and the head of Western Christianity Pope Sylvester, the King of France Robert was nicknamed the Pious, King Rudolf III of High Burgundy was full of religious exaltation, etc.

The political ambitions of Ivan III strongly contrasted with the eschatological sentiments of the Orthodox hierarchy. The abrupt strengthening of Muscovite Russia against the background of the consistent collapse of Orthodox states forced him to search for a justification for his mission outside the circle of traditional ideas. In the collection belonging to Bishop of Perm Philotheus, for example, it is possible to read the following excerpt from the Message of the Moldavian voivode Stefan to Ivan III “How many states existed, Greek not only one, and Serbian, and Bulgarian, and Albanian, and Bosna, which also was conquered by God dividing it for pagans because of our sins, and now the Turks have crossed the Black Sea and already seized Kafa, but we have seen nothing yet.”⁷⁵

Victorious sentiments spread in the Grand Duke’s entourage after the happy outcome of “standing on the Ugra” for Russia in 1480, when the invasion of Khan Akhmat was repelled. The court was clearly ready to challenge the feelings of fear and despair cultivated by church institutions. However, only the echoes of these disputes have reached us. In the Typographical Chronicle based on the Rostov Lord’s List under 1481, it is possible to read “… but let them not boast of misunderstanding in their madness, who say "We will save the Russian land with our weapons, but they will give glory to God and the Most Holy Mother of God who saved us, and to get rid of such madness, but become good and courageous, you who have heard this, to face battle for battle and courage for courage for Orthodox Christianity against immanence and feel mercy from God in such a life and be conferred with the title Grand Duke from the sovereign…. Strive to protect your fatherland, the Russian land, from the pagans, do not spare your heads so that your eyes will never see the destruction and plundering of your houses, the killing of your children, and the violation of your wives and your daughters, as the other great and glorious lands have suffered from the Turks, such as Blgare, Skrbi, Greece, Trapizon, Amorea, Arbanas, Hrvaty, Bosna, Mankup, Kafa, and many other lands, who did not have courage and perished with the ruin of their fatherhood, land, and state….”⁷⁶

The aforementioned collection of Metropolitan Zosima contains an excerpt from the “Dioptra,” which refutes the opinion about the connection between the end of the seventh thousand years from the Creation and the end of the world.⁷⁷ There is no doubt that Ivan III was familiar with this authoritative line of argumentation, which refuted the eschatological fears of the turn of 7000.

As mentioned above, it was Zosima who compiled the “Presentation of Paschal,” where Moscow was first assimilated into Jerusalem and then into Constantinople, and the Grand Duke Ivan III was proclaimed as the new tsar Constantine.⁷⁸ Before the doctrine of Moscow as the Second Constantinople was established, the Grand Duke could find support for his political ambitions in appealing to alternative systems of chronology, first of all, to the Jewish one.

In our opinion, two sides can be distinguished in the religious behavior of the sovereign of All Russia: adherence to the elements of the traditional religious worldview and interest in assimilating the elements of other faiths.

At the court of Ivan III, the spirit of religious tolerance prevailed for a long time, bringing accusations of unorthodoxy on the Grand Duke and his entourage.⁷⁹ Attention is also attracted by the fact that Ivan III seems to be completely alien to the biased attitude towards Jews that prevailed in the Catholic countries of Europe.⁸⁰

Periodically repeated persecutions of Jews throughout the thirteenth through fifteenth centuries at the state level took place in France, England, and Germany. In 1492, their communities that refused to join Christianity were expelled from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania by Alexander Jagiellonchik.⁸¹ At the same time, the Judaizers heresy fought by the Orthodox hierarchy headed by Archbishop of Novgorod Gennady with varying success was gaining strength in the state of Ivan III. The position of the Grand Duke in relation to heretics, as shown above, may be called quite patronizing.⁸² At the same time, Metropolitans Gerontius, who was head of the Russian Church, and then Zosima, showed very little zeal to stand up for the purity of the Orthodox faith. The position of the former was explained as “fear of the sovereign,” while the latter himself incurred accusations of heresy.

Indicative, in our opinion, is the episode with the treatment and death of the Grand Duke’s co-ruler Ivan the Young. The healer “Leon the Jew” was invited to the Ivan III’s eldest son who was ill with gout in his legs in 1490. He actively began treatment by cauterizing the ulcers on the Ivan the Young’s legs with tinder. As a result of treatment, the patient became worse and soon died. As a consequence of unsuccessful treatment, the healer was executed.⁸³ Turning to a Jewish healer for healing was strictly condemned in medieval Christianity. In addition, contemporary scribes could hardly ignore the biblical parallel: “And Asa became ill with his legs in the 39th year of his reign, and his illness rose to the upper parts of his body, but he sought not the Lord, but healers in his illness” (2 Chronicles, 16:12). Popular in ancient Russian literature, “The Word of John Chrysostom about persons treated with magi from illness” read: “Christians, why do you call them? Let us confess to the cross and, do not go to God’s enemies, to magis and sorcerers, they are God’s enemies, it is better to die than to go to the enemies. What a benefit the body to heal, and the soul to kill, so the recipient has little benefit here and will be sent to eternal fire with from the demons.”⁸⁴ However, his episode had no effect on the position of Judaizers at the court.

The scanty data of sources do not allow us to make a full-fledged judgment about how the image of Ivan III was perceived in the eyes of the scribal monks. Considering all of the aforesaid, it should be recognized that it was hardly positive. It seems that the excerpt from the Byzantine Chronicle of George Amartol on the murder of the iconoclast emperor Leo was occasionally not included into one of the collections of the Volokolamsk St. Joseph Monastery.⁸⁵

The arguments given here by no means exhaust the topic of Ivan III’s religiosity. Summing up the preliminary results, it can be noted that, as far as the sources allow us to judge, the Grand Duke was a harmonious person, in whom the respect for the Church and the veneration of shrines and monasteries were combined with the desire to implement his ideal of piety imperiously, sometimes entering into acute conflicts with the higher hierarchy.

There are very few opportunities to judge the spiritual evolution of Ivan III. He had exhibited the ability to counteract the metropolitans already in the first years after his accession to the throne and made an attempt to take away the patrimony from the monasteries in the last years of his reign. A sharp change in the consciousness of the first sovereign of All Russia became noticeable only after the church Council of 1503. This change should be associated with a serious illness that suddenly struck the Grand Duke in the midst of council debates.

However, the Grand Duke found it necessary to remove his main opponent in the field of church policy, Gennady Gonzov, from the bishop’s cathedra of Novgorod even after he repented of patronizing heretics and undertook a pilgrimage to monasteries. The story about the refusal of the monastic tonsure by Ivan III from his deathbed in the form given by V.N. Tatishchev is hardly worth trusting.⁸⁶ However, it is characteristics that the tonsure of Ivan III’s son Vasilii II took place under the conditions of an acute conflict between the boyars and the metropolitan, whereas his father Vasilii II the Dark agreed to take the vows of schema, but did not do this because of the resistance of the boyars.

Ivan III should only partially be recognized as a carrier of piety typical for the grand dukes of the Moscow house in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, when zeal for faith was balanced with considerations of current politics, and the church hierarchy authority was opposed by pride in belonging to the descendants of Vladimir the Saint, Alexander Nevsky, and Dmitrii Donskoi.⁸⁷ The openness of the first sovereign of All Russia to communication with the representatives of other faiths should be recognized as unprecedented.