The Cult of Old Believers’ Domestic Icons and the Beginning of Old Belief in Russia in the 17th-18th Centuries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article presents theological discussion in Russia from patriarch Nikon time to the modern era. Because there are not enough publications in English about the Old Believers movement in Russia, the text will be received by readers with interest, that way should be publish. The first illustration is very fascinated, because presents a Molenia in Vilnius, and it is connected with Lithuanian and Polish History. Important is the history of Old Believers who left Russian empire, because of repression of of tsar regime and official Orthodox church. Will be interesting to read in the future about Old Believers Diaspora in Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, where in different places survived colonies and churches, so called Molenia. I this article they are icons of Believers from the National Museum in Warsaw. It is an example of Russian collection abroad.

Maybe you can change some illustrations from the National Museum to the other icons from the Russian Collection. You can ask about some illustrations Natasha Komashko from tne Rublov Museum in Moscow.

Author Response

I am grateful to the reviewer for the favorable review. I used the icons from the collection of National Museum in Warsaw, which has big and almost unknown collection of Old Believers art, because of the photos from the NM in Warsaw are in open access and can be freely published and there is a problem with the on-line publication of Russian collections. I made small corrections in the article that concerns the presence of the Old Believers in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Reviewer 2 Report

Content

Generally speaking, the article is interesting. But there are major flaws that need to be fixed before one can state that this article makes a strong contribution to scholarship.

1) The author should look deeper into the historiography and interact with it more in the introduction: it is not enough to simply say 'Various aspects of the Old Believers’ culture, especially icons, require further research. Hitherto, the Old Believers’ domestic icons have not been discussed in detail' (lines 38-39). Firstly, it is only true that Old Believer iconography has been little examined in western languages: in Russian, there is a substantial amount of modern literature. Secondly, the author has not cited Roy Robson's book Old Belief in Modern Russia, which has valuable insights on the role of Old Believer liturgical activity in the formation of community life and identity. Furthermore, while Old Believer icons have received little attention in English, the role of icons in Russian Orthodox communities in imperial Russia has been explored: the author absolutely must consult the trail blazing works of Vera Shevzov on this matter, since she deals precisely with the role of icons in the formation of a sense of religious community (esp. see Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of the Revolution: this is available in Russian translation as well).

2) On page 7, the author discusses the role of iconography in Old Believer doctrinal documents. In this context, it would be advisable to explore in further depth the role of iconography in Old Believer confessional identity, perhaps with reference to the historiographical paradigm of confessionalisation (see Georg Michels work on the applicability of confessionalisation to Old Belief). In essence, I would like the author to more thoroughly explore how the Old Believer concords used icon painting to distinguish themselves from each other and from the official church. This relates more generally to an overall flaw in the article, the absence of any overarching conceptualisation or serious interaction with the existing historiography.

3) pp. 8-9: this raises the question of ecclesiastical authority, which deserves to be examined in more depth. Was the reason behind the prohibition on private icons in church aimed at bringing sacred spaces and the behaviour of believers under greater control and public supervision by the Church? Given Nikon's (and the Synod's) general intention to extend the authority of the Church, I would say so. 

4) p. 16: again, the author needs to consult Shevzov, especially her recent edited book Framing Mary.

5) I think the author should bring to attention how Old Believer icons were one of the foci in state/official persecution campaigns against Old Belief. Under Nicholas I, for instance, thousands of icons were seized by police: these were either destroyed, kept in museums, or given to Orthodox/edinoverie churches. The petitions that Old Believers wrote to try and have the icons returned to them (esp. after 1905) are interesting precisely in terms of the community/individual ownership dynamic: Old Believers applied individually for icons since the law about their return stated that only icons which belonged to private persons had to be returned: but it is clear that in some cases these were community icons. In other words, state persecution against icons and efforts to have them returned reveals the blurred character of icon ownership among Old Believers. 

6) The conclusion here is very short: the author needs to use this opportunity to explore some of the deeper aspects raised by Old Believer patterns of icon usage. 

7) A general point: I am somewhat confused by the absence of a chronological framework of the article. There seems to be a very heavy focus on the 17th century: that is fine, but this chronological focus needs to be stated in either the title or the introduction. If the author wants this to be a more extensive overview, then a) the wider chronology needs to be specified in the title or introduction and b) there needs to be less focus on 17th century and more on the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.

8) I am somewhat disappointed by the lack of archival research in the article. The author could fix this quite easily by using the RGADA fund of the Belaia Krinitsa hierarchy, all of which is available online.

9) Lines 149-150: 'Icons of bespopovtsy are more traditional and icons of popovtsy – more innovative and decorative': in what sense are these icons 'more traditional' and 'more innovative'? 

Style

Generally, the English is understandable, but there are many errors: the article needs proofreading by a native speaker.

1) In my opinion, it is very odd to use both Old Believers/Old Belief and Old Ritualists/Old Ritualism. I would chose one form to use throughout.

2) It is better to translate protopop as archpriest.

3) Houses of prayer - it is better to write prayer houses.

4) (four-handed) - it is better to write 'four-pointed' when discussing crosses.

5) Lines 76-77: 'noticed that after the liturgy Nikon for a long time, and despite the cold in the church, spoke about icons'. This sentence is not clear: why is the temperature in the church relevant?

6) Lines 253-255: 'One should remember that Old Believers were a group persecuted by both the Russian state and the official Church. It is worth noting that the Old Believers were persecuted by both the Russian state and the official Church.' Repetition, delete one of these sentences.

Author Response

I’d like to thank very much for the review. I accept all the comments regarding the style. I tried to correct mistakes and asked for proofreading my colleague – academic with the fluent English.

In my intention the article is about the early period of the Old Believers’ movement (also because of the main topic of the issue), that’s why I tried not to go beyond the 18^th century. Thank you for paying attention for interesting paper of Elena Boeck, published in Framing Mary. It will be useful for me in my further work. I really appreciate the books of Roy R. Robson and Vera Shvezov, but they (like most authors of articles in Framing Mary) relate to a little later period, mainly the beginning of 20^th century. Similarly, the archive of Belaya Krinitsa hierarchy relates to the period 1887  to 1917. I wanted to focused on the mid-17^th-mid 18^th c., which is why I regretfully omitted the very significant events of the campaign against the Old Believers in 19^th c. 

I understand it was not clear in my text, so I tried to highlight the chronology in the title and in the introduction. I decided to expand the text, adding footnotes and several publications: Vera Shvezov, Roy Robson, Robert Crummey and Paul Bushkovith, Elena Boeck and Irina Pozdeeva. Some illustrations show icons from beginning of the 19^th century, but they refer to the earlier problems.

I have doubts about the application of paradigm of confessionalisalion to religious tradition of the Old Believers and even to the situation in the official Church. It seems to me that this paper on private icons was not a good place to consider that issue. In early Old Believers writings I don’t see the attempts to deliberately distinguish their icons from art of the official Church. I have my doubts, whether such a process took place among the Old Believers before the end of 19^th - 20^th c. In my opinion the problem of the patterns of icon usage is really interesting, but – to explore it deeper – it would be necessary to considerably widen the text and I am afraid that the main topic would be missed. The issue of iconographic patterns, including prints, of Old Believers icon is complicated and I think it is necessary to consider separately workshops of popovtsy and workshop of bespopotsy, from many regions of Russia, while the worship of domestic icons is common to all groups.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has made sufficient changes to the manuscript for it to be published.