Inventing a Saint: Religious
Fiction in Post-Communist Russia
This article deals with the narrative of a Russian Orthodox priest, Father
Arseny—a Soviet era martyr in the eyes of his adherents—whose memories are said to be collected by some of his followers. However, the
origins of the story (first published in the 1990s) remain controversial.
Russian Orthodox supporters, in conjunction with the translator of
Father Arseny’s hagiography, have been at the forefront to give credibility to the memory of Father Arseny. At the same time, critical voices
have constantly disputed the biographical reality of the saint and the
fictional character of his book. Remarkably, some who deny the reality of
Father Arseny value the narrative for its spiritual quality. In this article,
we describe the processes of authentication that are at work in this case.
We show that the different truth claims which are at stake here point to
different ideas of what true religion is and what it should offer people.
A POPULAR HAGIOGRAPHY
HAGIOGRAPHY, THE DESCRIPTION OF A SAINT’S LIFE, is a
genre which has regained popularity in Eastern Europe since perestroika.
*Dr Katya Tolstaya, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Theology, Director of INaSEC (Institute
for the Academic Study of Eastern Christianity), e-mail: [email protected]; Peter Versteeg, VU
University Amsterdam, Faculty of Theology, e-mail: [email protected]. This case study was
presented at the ISORECEA conference “Twenty Years after: Secularization and Desecularization in
Central and Eastern Europe” (December 17, 2010, Brno) and at the Meeting of the Section of
Dogmatics and Ecumenics (Faculty of Theology, VU University Amsterdam, February 14, 2012). We
would like to express our gratitude to Frank Bestebreurtje (VU University Amsterdam), Stella Rock
(Baylor University), Nadieszda Kizenko (University at Albany), Sabine Zurschmitten (Universität
Bern), Irina Paert (University of Tartu), and Anton van Harskamp (VU University Amsterdam) for
their comments on earlier versions of this article.
Journal of the American Academy of Religion, March 2014, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 70–119
doi:10.1093/jaarel/lft070
Advance Access publication on December 6, 2013
© The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the American Academy of
Religion. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
Katya Tolstaya, and Peter Versteeg*
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
71
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
A clear-cut definition of hagiography is yet a desideratum.2 Stephanos
Efthymiadis (2011: 2) offers a modern definition of hagiography as, on
the one hand, “literature which in particular fashion celebrates the deeds
and sayings of holy men and women as well as their afterlife as a sacred
memory among members of a Christian community, and, on the other,
as a research field, the discipline, devoted to its study.” We take this genre
1
Father Arseny has been published in two books in English translation. We refer to these two titles,
but for reasons of convenience we will talk about “the book” in the text. As the translation is not
complete, we could not add parallel places to all references from Vorob’ëv (2005). We use the British
Standard transliteration system throughout, except for Russian names which are in common usage.
2
Witness the aim of the International Conference: “Narrative Pattern and Genre in Hagiographic
Life Writing,” held March 2–3, 2012 in Hamburg: “The conference aims to be a step on the way to
defining ‘hagiography’ and its use as a cross-cultural category, focusing on uncovering narrative
patterns and genre across texts and cultures. Eleven contributors coming from various disciplines will
apply the varied tools from narratologies” (Universität Hamburg 2011). See also Stephen Wilson’s
comments (1985).
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
This article is a case study of Father Arseny (1998, 2001), a best-selling
work that can be categorized as hagiography, which describes the life of
the Russian Orthodox priest-monk Arseny and his influence on the life
of his followers.1 Although there is no official campaign to canonize the
main character of Father Arseny, to many believers he is unquestionably a
saintly figure. However, the biographical identity of Father Arseny is
highly dubious. Our article explores the complex process of creating a
fictive saint. We first outline the theoretical and interdisciplinary
approach and concepts with which we tackle the problem of Father
Arseny’s existence. Second, we introduce the narrative in the book Father
Arseny and relate it to the tradition of hagiography. Third, we discuss an
example of the way the narrative is continued beyond the book by the
erection of a cenotaph for Arseny. Fourth, we give an overview of the
research Katya Tolstaya has undertaken toward the actual documentation
of Arseny’s existence. Fifth, we consider the interpretive problems emerging from the narrative and discuss the implications of making different
hermeneutic choices in understanding the book. Overall, we argue that
Father Arseny presents a case of competing forms of religious authenticity
that are an aspect of a wider transformation of religion, namely the (re-)
authorization of new and established sources of religious experience.
Finally, we draw attention to how approaching the case from the perspectives of anthropology, hermeneutics, and theology leads to quite different
evaluations.
72
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
3
Hagiography as discipline does not regard an official canonization as a prerequisite for defining a
life (vita) as hagiography. “The Byzantine (and hence the Orthodox) Church never admitted a
process of official canonization, deeming as saints all those holy figures who were regarded as such by
the people. Hagiography is one of the tools which would contribute to this process and to making an
ascetic or a monastic abbot known. It is not the case of modern times where writing a saint’s life
came to be out of fashion. Yet, in case a saint might have not ever existed, hagiography or related
writings can still play a decisive role in acknowledging one’s sainthood” (Personal e-mails from
Stephanos Efthymiadis to Tolstaya, March 13 and 16, 2012). In the exposition below, we will make
clear that the question of the factual existence of a saint is decisive for (inter)disciplinary perspectives.
On this, see Wilson (1985: 15–16), Averintsev (1993: 35), Schmidt (1996), Zhivov (n.d.), and
McGuckin (2011: 292–293).
4
Lunde speaks of the activity of an author of a vita, “creating (the illusion of ) faithful
reproduction”; we quote her definition of enargeia as a characteristic feature of Russian hagiography
further on in the text.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
definition as literature in its broader sense here, leaving aside the ecclesial
connotation of the official canonization of a saint.3 This broader definition includes the possibility of fictive accounts of saintly persons, as we
argue is the case with Father Arseny. This leads to the question of how
one understands the claimed biographical authenticity of a person.
We define authenticity in this context as a quality that refers to the
essence and truth of phenomena (see Lindholm 2008: 1). As such, we see
that authenticity is produced within particular contexts for particular
reasons and constitutes an authorization process. This process is aimed at
adapting or transforming existing or new religious phenomena to fit an
established tradition. In the case of Father Arseny, his authenticity as a
real person (that he really lived) is maintained by certain groups, for specific interests and reasons (to be clarified below). However, Arseny’s story
also elicits other ideas of authenticity among readers, ideas which deem
historical fact and biographical reality less essential to the spiritual credibility of the story. Surprisingly, there is a link here to traditional (Russian)
hagiography, because the recipients are not interested in a “faithful reproduction, but rather . . . a different kind of authenticity and truth, a deeper
understanding of what is represented. This is done by establishing a particular relation to the represented speech (event), a relationship marked
by immediacy, visual clarity, presence and simultaneity (the main features
of enargeia)” (Lunde 2011: 374).4
But what are the implications of the supposed authenticity or truth of
the book for different audiences, including different research perspectives? Interestingly, working from two disciplinary angles provides us
with at least two different answers to that question. From an anthropological perspective, readers’ evaluations of the book’s veracity are important,
as is what kind of normativity they ascribe to it, either as truth or fiction.
From a theological perspective, the problem of authorship—related to the
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
73
THE BOOK FATHER ARSENY
When one first reads Father Arseny, one is easily convinced that it is a
true story.6 The stories in the book unambiguously present Father Arseny
as a real person. The subtitle of Father Arseny (1998) reads: “narratives
compiled by the servant of God Aleksandr concerning his spiritual
father.” Furthermore, the text states that Aleksandr showed Father
Arseny his writings, asking him if his account was right. “Often he would
correct some details in what I had written” (Father Arseny 1998: 2). By
showing how he obtained information from witnesses and how Father
Arseny would edit certain fragments, the narrator Aleksandr gives the
story a frame of credibility. Aleksandr’s modesty underscores this credibility too: “The search was difficult, but as a result of it much information
5
Up till now responses have been rather few, though interesting. See http://in-a-sec.com/blog.
For convinced receptions, see, for example, Nezhnȳi (2000), Devyatova (2003a, 2003b), and a
response to the contestation by Protsenko (2003).
6
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
authorization process—is crucial. For both disciplines, then, it is necessary to understand how the story is authenticated: anthropology will
focus on the social and cultural aspect, on what authenticity means for
people. Theology will tend to focus on the relation of the story or case at
stake to established Church tradition.
The meaning attached to truth changes drastically depending on the
perspective from which the story is told. Thus, it is important to understand how the character and his behavior are portrayed in the story and
in the narrative that readers construct about this character. In fact, we
argue that the Father Arseny narrative is not closed but is, in a way, continuing to be written.
The research for this study was spread over four years and was
divided into two periods. In 2008, Katya Tolstaya, a systematic theologian
with a specific interest in the relationship between tradition (dogmas),
ethics, and politics in the modern Russian Orthodox Church (henceforth
ROC), studied the (original) source materials and formulated the edifying
aspects and the theological and hermeneutical problems concerning
Father Arseny. Subsequently, she suggested five possibilities for the origin
and authorship of the book (Tolstaya 2008). As none of the questions
raised could be answered with any certainty, further inquiry was needed.
In 2010–12, she researched all potential indicators in the book to Arseny
as a real person, as well as sources that have commented on the publications. In 2011, Tolstaya published a blog post about the case to involve
“informed readers” in the interdisciplinary discussion.5
74
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
7
The book contains some pro-Communist and anti-Semitic remarks, especially obvious in the
Russian version.
8
The total print run of the book at St. Tikhon’s was about five hundred thousand (e-mail from
Dr. I. V. Shchelkacheva to Tolstaya, August 2, 2010). Personal permission for publication has been
granted for each source used in this article.
9
Aleksandr Marshal, Отец Арсений, available at www.1000plastinok.com/song6940.html.
Accessed July 25, 2011.
10
E-mail from Dr. I. V. Shchelkacheva to Tolstaya, July 30, 2010.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
is gathered here. It is not perfect in the way it is written, but it does recreate before us the image and the life of Father Arseny” (Father Arseny
1998: 1–2).
From a hagiographical disciplinary perspective, “it is plausible as a
general rule that the more literary a vita is the more we should suspect a
saint to have been fictitious or, more accurately, that he was shaped by
the hagiographer’s creative imagination” (Efthymiadis 2006: 168). Here
we confront the difficulty of attributing genre characteristics to Father
Arseny. The book is not a stylistic miracle, details are sometimes inconsistent, and there are a few ideological “flaws.”7 However, these irregularities
could be attributed to the specific character of the book as a collection of
different sources, gathered under difficult circumstances (Vorob’ëv 2005:
651, 739). We might even say that this unevenness adds to the authenticity of an account of a saint’s life under Soviet oppression.
The first three parts of the book must have been known in samizdat
form in the 1970s (Vorob’ëv 2005: 7, 467). They were published in 1993
by St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Theological Institute (now University) in
Moscow.8 The book has been reprinted five times by this publisher and
numerous times internationally. A further two extensive parts were added
by Vladimir Vladimirovich Bȳkov in the fourth edition in 2000.
Currently, the full version is also available as an audio book.
Furthermore, the work has inspired a well-known Russian musician to
create a music album, which was published in 2003 with the blessing of
Patriarch Aleksiĭ II.9
The English translation was published by the largest Orthodox publisher in the United States, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press (Father Arseny
1998, 2001/03). Response from readers has been extensive; the Russian
and Anglophone internet is full of articles, blogs, and forum discussions
about the Arseny books. The book has also been translated into Greek,
Bulgarian, French, Spanish, Romanian, and Latvian.10 By 2005, over a
million copies had been published (Buzȳkina 2005). Because of this wide
availability, interest in Father Arseny is no longer exclusively Russian or
Orthodox (Bouteneff 2010). In fact, the story of Arseny appears to suit
the current global spiritual market due to its edifying features, and
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
75
11
In the United States, the book seems to have gained popularity in prisons. See St. Vladimir’s
Orthodox Theological Seminary (2008, 2009).
12
In the book, there are indications that Father Arseny might have been a so-called noncommemorator (cf. Vorob’ëv 2005: 435, 631). “Non-commemorators” is a term for a group of clergy
who, from 1927 onwards, refused to name the “collaborationist” Metropolitan Sergiĭ (Stragorodskiĭ)
when celebrating the liturgy. This group ceased to exist legally and went underground in 1933, when
its last church was closed. See, for example, Regel’son (1977). For a most valuable systematic
revaluation of the ROC underground during the Soviet period, see Beglov (2008).
13
««Отец Арсений»—это сборник литературно обработанных свидетельств очевидцев о
жизни современного исповедника—их духовного отца, а также их рассказы о своей жизни»
(Vorob’ëv 2005: 4). This text is also widely available on the internet.
14
However, in the English version, translator Vera Bouteneff states regarding Arseny’s year of birth:
“It appears from the text that he was born in the first decade of the twentieth century” (Father Arseny
1998: viii).
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
already the book is proving popular with a diverse audience of readers
who are constantly looking for new inspirational literature, regardless of
the tradition it comes from.11
The text explicitly claims to be composed of Arseny’s own recollections and recollections about him and his faith experiences from the
members of his illegal parish.12 Thus, for example, the colophon of the
Russian edition reads: “Father Arseny is a collection of testimonies of eyewitnesses, adapted for publication, about the life of a modern confessor—
their spiritual father, and also their stories about their lives.”13
Furthermore, all of the stories in the book clearly state that Father Arseny
was a real person; there is even a section on “Brief biographical information about Father Arseny” in the last two Russian editions (Vorob’ëv
2005: 11–12).
The book recounts that Father Arseny (born Pëtr Andreevich
Strel’tsov, 1894–1973 or 1975) studied art history at the University of
Moscow from 1911 till 1916 or 1917.14 Before he was ordained as a priest,
he earned an academic reputation as the author of a series of studies
about Russian monasteries and church architecture. In 1917, after a long
illness, he went on a spiritual quest to the famous monastery of Optina,
where he became a novice under the guidance of starets Anatoliĭ the
Elder and starets Nektariĭ. In 1919, he returned as a priest-monk to
Moscow. Until his first arrest in 1927, he served in a relatively large
Moscow parish mainly comprised of intellectuals and artists. Arseny is
said to have been the spiritual father of the well-known poet Maksimilian
Voloshin, among others. These social references seem not without
significance, since the book is mainly popular among people with higher
education.
The book is particularly notable for its depiction of Christian life in
the Gulag. In total, Father Arseny spent nine years in exile and eighteen
76
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
15
In his Kolyma Tales (1994), Varlam Shalamov shows a more anthropophagous picture of man:
the more difficult survival gets, the less human a human being gets. See for theological complications
Tolstaya (2013).
16
Zhivov (n.d.) distinguishes diverse genres within the broader genre of hagiography. For the
genesis of Slavic hagiography, see Schmidt (1996).
17
See the concluding paragraph of Gzhibovskaya (2009).
18
Already the founder of the Société des Bollandistes, the Jesuit Jean Bolland (1596–1665) built on
the work of his fellow brother Heribert Rosweyde (1569–1629). On this, see Société des Bollandistes
(n.d). See also Tentler (2003: 269).
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
years in Stalin’s camps, seventeen of which were spent in a camp with a
“special regime” (no correspondence or visiting rights). According to the
stories, Arseny’s life in the camp differed from that of other detainees.
Not only did Arseny have the energy to pray amid the harshest circumstances of hunger, cold, and exhausting labor, but he also helped whomever he could. Normally, prisoners would only help people in their own
social group (e.g., criminals, party members, intellectuals).15
Because of the flexibility of the genre of hagiography, there has not yet
been a strictly scholarly typology: “Unlike theology and historiography,
hagiography represents a fluid, flexible and everchanging format”
(Efthymiadis 2006: 167).16
The development of the Russian academic tradition for dealing with
questions of hagiography and authenticity should be addressed briefly.
In his standard work on the history of the canonization of saints in the
ROC, the famous Russian church historian E. Golubinskiĭ contested the
authenticity of many ancient sources on which canonizations of Russian
saints were based (1998 [1903]). These contestations provoked a major
discussion among Russian Orthodox theologians, historians, liturgists,
and philologists.17 A commensurable development changed the landscape of Byzantine hagiography as a result of the efforts of Hippolyte
Delehaye: “The mission of ‘critical hagiography’ . . . was no other than to
reconstruct a saint’s historical profile through literary and liturgical documentation and place it in its topographical and chronological coordinates.
Critical examination of Passions, Lives and Miracles of saints involved a
two-fold activity: bringing their issues to the scholarly fore and removing
superstition without fearing to scandalize the Christian flock by distinguishing between what was historically true and what was false”
(Efthymiadis 2011: 4).
The key difference between the western scholarly and the Russian
Orthodox disciplines of hagiography is that Delehaye’s effort stood in a
long academic tradition,18 while there appeared to be less of a historical
foundation for the development of such a Russian tradition. Nevertheless,
by the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries,
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
77
19
Moreover, both Russian hagiography and Byzantine studies operated with very exacting
standards of scholarship. See, most notably, Klyuchevskiĭ (1871), Barsukov (1882), and Kadlubovskiĭ
(1902). Golubinskiĭ’s relatively less sophisticated approach was criticized by N. Suvorov and the
Bollandist P. Peeters, see Suvorov (1903) and Peeters (1914)—note Peeters’ obvious respect for
Russian scholars in this review of Golubinskiĭ. See also Wilson (1985: 16). Alexakis et al. (1998: 3)
still call the study of the Russian scholar A. P. Rudakov (1917) “pioneering.” This study was
rediscovered and elaborated on in the late twentieth century.
20
For some difficulties in the work of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints, see
Maksimov (2004: 16–17).
21
Without “individual features” (Ikonopisnaya masterskaya Favor 2009), but with a certain room
for different levels of the author’s engagement; see Damaskin (1992: 6).
22
Lunde observes “literary means of representation” (i.e., “use of light symbolism”) already in
Nestor’s Life of Boris and Gleb (composed in the 1070s or early 1080s) and in Epifanii’s Life of Sergii
of Radonezh (ca. 1417–18) (2011: 378, 372); see also Zhivov (n.d.).
23
See the discussion of hagiographic influences in modern Russian literature in Ziolkowski (1988).
24
Lobbying for canonization is an obvious purport in other contemporary writings on saintly
figures, for example, in the case of Hegumen Savva (Ostapenko).
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
several seminal works of Russian scholarly study of hagiography indicated
that a methodologically sophisticated critique of Russian saints’ lives had
begun to flourish.19 Golubinskiĭ called into question the Lives (zhitiya) of
saints, some of whom were indisputably real historical persons, and the
overwhelming majority of whom had been officially canonized by the
ROC, while the case of Father Arseny implicates contemporary readers in
the middle of a process of creating a saint. Nevertheless, a break with this
strong prerevolutionary scholarly tradition of relating critically to hagiographical sources can be observed in cases such as that of Father Arseny.20
An official ecclesial hagiography is written according to “certain literary canons, which change with time and are different for different
Christian traditions” (Zhivov n.d.). Certainly, there is a spectrum of genre
possibilities and literary varieties within hagiography; there is a large
corpus that abstracts from the psychological/carnal aspects of life to stress
a special way to salvation.21 By contrast, in Father Arseny, the soteriological way is shown through many literary descriptions and psychological
details (we discuss some examples below).22 In this respect, the book
appears close to modern literature, which in some aspects shows some
affinity with Russian hagiography.23 Arseny is described in all of the
stories in the book as a saintly figure. There is, however, no indication
that the book in any way aims at Arseny’s official canonization.24
Arseny’s saintliness is a given in the book. He is introduced explicitly as a
saint in the first three and in the two parts added later. Thus, in the
“Introduction to the First Edition” (1993), the chief editor and rector of
St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Theological University, archpriest Vladimir
Vorob’ëv, writes: “Everyone, whom the Lord has vouchsafed to personally
communicate with the witnesses of that time, immediately recognizes in
78
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
FATHER ARSENY AS STARETS: THE CHARACTER
In Russian Orthodoxy, priests are counselors for spiritual as well as
for more worldly, everyday matters. Parishioners are called the “spiritual
children” of a priest. Father Arseny was not only seen as a counselor, but
he also had the characteristics of a starets: he was a seer and a confessor
(see Father Arseny 1998: 241, 250; 2001: 82; Vorob’ëv 2005: 282, 293, 458,
528, 571),27 and he gave his spiritual children the feeling that their souls
were enclosed in his soul.28
25
«Всякий, кого сподобил Господь лично общаться с исповедниками того времени, сразу
узнает в отце Арсении образ святого старца, исполненного любви, смирения, кротости,
христианского трезвения и рассуждения, пребывающего в молитве, давно вручившего себя
всецело воле Божией, наделенного благодатными дарами прозорливости и чудотворений.» See
Vorob’ëv (2005: 4, 7). Even in the “Preface to the First Part” of Father Arseny, “the servant of God
Aleksandr” calls Arseny a “zealot of godliness” (Vorob’ëv 2005: 17). For the “archetypal”
characteristics of Russian saints, see Men’ (2001).
26
This becomes clear from research on articles published on the internet both in Russian and in
English, and has been confirmed during Tolstaya’s interviews (see below). See also the “Preface to the
First Edition”: “Few hagiographies of ascetics and martyrs of the twentieth century, although also
revealing the triumph of love over evil and death, which is so characteristic of the ancient lives of the
saintly martyrs, do that to such an extent as the book Father Arseny, which is the work of an
unknown compiler” [«Немногочисленные жизнеописания подвижников и мучеников XX века
хотя и являют торжество любви над злом и смертью, столь характерное для древних житий
святых мучеников, но редко в такой степени, как книга «Отец Арсений», принадлежащая
неизвестному составителю»] (Vorob’ëv 2005: 7). There are three noteworthy aspects of this
description: (1) the book is perceived here as hagiography, whereby no distinction is made between a
“zhitië” and a “zhizneopisanie”; (2) hagiography is conceived in the broader sense, that is without the
criterion of the ecclesial canonization of the saint; (3) the book is described as compiled by an
anonymous author, and “the servant of God Aleksandr” is not mentioned.
27
We use the conventional masculine form (starets), intending to include both genders in the
phenomenon of starchestvo.
28
See Vorob’ëv: “He took in his soul sufferings and hardships of his spiritual children and carried
them in the name of God, Love, People . . .” (2005: 150). See also Dostoevsky: “So, what is a starets? A
starets is the one who takes your soul, your will into his soul and his will” (1991: 27).
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
Father Arseny an image of a holy elder, imbued with love, humility,
meekness and Christian sobriety and reasoning, [an image of someone]
who abided in prayer, who long ago entrusted himself entirely to the will
of God, who was endowed with the blessed gifts of clairvoyance and
miracle working”25 (Vorob’ëv 2005: 9).
Even if the stories about Father Arseny were not initially compiled as
traditional hagiography, since the publication of the first version in 1993,
they have increasingly been received as such.26 The process by which this
text has evolved from a compilation of spiritual tales or memoirs into a
saint’s Life, was at least enhanced, or even initiated by, the compiler(s),
the editor, and the translator.
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
79
29
Within hagiographies, topoi are “commonplace motifs frequently repeated,” which “reflect a
collective mentality which is of considerable interest to the historian” (Alexakis et al. 1998: 2).
30
An example would be veneration of his photos. This phenomenon is common in contemporary
Russian religiosity, and spiritual children will usually disseminate photos of their spiritual fathers/
mothers for private veneration. During field research in the Ukraine (autumn 2011), Tolstaya
observed a kind of a modern PR campaign surrounding a monk who is perceived by his adherents as
a starets. Many photos and an oil painting of this person were hanging at his residence. For a
discussion of photos in modern Russian sanctity, see Kizenko (2000).
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
In her study of the phenomenon of starchestvo (eldership), Irina Paert
gives a description of a starets: “an elder was someone reputed for their
virtues (especially humility), their deep love of God, and their knowledge
of scripture. Virtue and asceticism were not sufficient qualifications
alone; the elder needed to be endowed with spiritual gifts by God (charisma) such as discernment of spirits, revelation, power over demons,
prognostication, healing, and prophecy. In addition, the performance of
miracles demonstrated the enormous power that the holy man possessed”
(2010: 21). All aspects of this description are certainly applicable to Fr.
Arseny.
One of the central traditional characteristics of a starets is that he is a
molitvennik (a man of prayer). In this respect, an admirer characterizes
Arseny thus: “I think there isn’t more to be said about Fr. Arseny other
than that he is a Great Intercessor with God and a Helper of the people”
(Vorob’ëv 2005: 148). Another person testifies in a similar vein: “The
Great Intercessor and Advocate Fr. Arseny enlightened and still enlightens the spiritual path of a great many people” (Vorob’ëv 2005: 148).
These and similar aspects (elaboration of the topoi)29 provide Father
Arseny with a special place within the genre of modern Russian popular
hagiography, especially as contrasted to those hagiographies in which
romantic and sugary content and style prevail. Father Arseny is portrayed
as a remarkably modest person, who does not explicitly accentuate his
spiritual gifts. For example, he does not make much of his clairvoyance,
although in Russian Orthodoxy, this is traditionally an important gift distinguishing saintly people (see Father Arseny 1998: 117–118; 550). Nor is
there anything in the text pointing to veneration by his adherents.30
In Father Arseny, romanticism is often far away and the problems of
life that people face are never solved by spectacular intervention from the
other side/Heaven. Even given the unusual contexts, such as life in a
Stalin camp or ministry within an illegal parish, the problematic situations described are common and everyday: adultery, lies, bitterness, and
the need for forgiveness. A change or betterment of the situation, usually
through prayer, is embedded in the everyday context. This grants the
stories credibility. As a characteristic of a true Christian life, the prayers of
80
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
PRAYERS
According to Eastern Orthodoxy, prayer requires the participation of
the whole person.31 The culmination of this view can be found in the
practice of the Jesus prayer (“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy
on me, a sinner”).32 The first mention of this prayer dates back to the
sixth century.33 Continual repetition of the prayer’s words (using a
special breathing technique) even in sleep or during daily pursuits has as
an ultimate goal the deification of the human person (theosis).34
The Jesus prayer constitutes one of the most important elements of
modern Orthodox spirituality. Fr. Arseny continuously practiced the
Jesus prayer and celebrated the liturgy on a daily basis (Father Arseny
1998: 6, 135, 137; Vorob’ëv 2005: 22, 137, 738). He attached special
meaning to a prayer called “молитва по соглашению” (“A Prayer in
Accord”), which is presumed to be from the sixteenth century and was
31
“Das wahre Gebet wird nicht ausgesprochen, sondern durch unausgesprochene Worte geäußert.
Es geht um einen unverbalisierbaren Zustand, in dem man mit der göttlichen Energie gnadenhaft
(selbst das Gebet wird als Geschenk Gottes aufgefaßt) erfüllt wird. Das Ziel des Gebets ist nicht,
seitens des Menschen etwas dem Göttlichen mitzuteilen, sondern im Betenden etwas darzutun, das
von Gott kommt. Das Gebet ist kein phonetischer, sondern ein noetischer Ausdruck. Deshalb heißt
es Herzens- oder Geistesgebet. . . . Das Beten beginnt mit einer ständigen Wiederholung des Satzes,
wobei das Sprechen allmählich aufhört und das Gebet geistig weiterklingt. Die Wiederholung zielt
gerade auf das Verstummen jeden Sprechens und Denkens, damit sich der Geist rein zu Gott erheben
kann. Das Beten im Geiste ist dabei keine bloß intellektuelle Handlung, sondern ein Ausdruck der
gesamten menschlichen Existenz ” (Kapriev 2005: 241–242).
32
On hesychasm and monasticism, see, for example, Kallistos Ware (1995) and John McGuckin
(2001).
33
See Slenczka (1988: 59) and Kapriev (2005: 242).
34
In “The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” deification is called “the
ultimate goal and calling of man” (Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow
Patriarchate 2000). See also Staniloae (1985, I: 293–297). The second part of vol. I is entitled “Die
Welt als Werk der Liebe Gottes, dazu bestimmt, vergöttlicht zu werden”. For an exploration of the
notions of imago dei and theosis in the recently accepted doctrinal documents of the ROC against the
background of theology after Auschwitz and Gulag, see Tolstaya (2013).
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
Fr. Arseny affect the reader (see the example below) and add to Arseny’s
authority as a saintly person. Narrations of miracles, for example, of healings that have taken place following prayer, are what we might expect to
find in an average hagiography, since these are elements of hagiographical
message: “What matters today is rather the text itself and its context: its
hero or heroes, author, language, writing style and models and, finally,
the audience it addressed and its underlying message” (Efthymiadis 2006:
164). To approach Father Arseny as literature, in other words to illustrate
the book’s features which have generated popularity among readers, we
reflect on some forms of prayer depicted in Father Arseny.
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
81
35
The experience of the cell changing into a church happens after the praying of “A Prayer in
Accord” (Father Arseny 1998: 34). The story resonates with the biblical story of the men in the fiery
oven from the book of Daniel.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
never included in any prayer book. “As a rule when tragedies or sorrows
arise, several Orthodox Christians agree to read this prayer at the same
time of day and ask God for the healing of the sick one, for mercy to the
fallen one, for the salvation of a soldier or a captive” (Father Arseny 2001:
213). The prayer is based on the well-known New Testament text: “For
where there are two or three gathered in my name, I am among them”
(Matt. 18:19–20). This text is engraved on the reverse of Fr. Arseny’s
cenotaph.
The book describes several examples of the efficacy of this prayer.
These accounts in particular seem to attract readers to the spirituality of
Father Arseny. For instance, the Father Arseny Society, an ecumenical
prayer group in Lincoln, Nebraska, founded in 2006, says this particular
prayer forms the basis of their group. Every morning at ten o’clock, the
members of this “non-denominational group” pray this “Prayer in
Accord” (Leiter 2006).
A recollection of an incident in the Gulag by a student named Alekseĭ
offers a striking example of this prayer. When Alekseĭ was beaten up by
a powerful criminal, Father Arseny intervened and thereby humiliated
the criminal in front of the whole barracks. To get his revenge, the criminal reported the fight to the camp authorities. As a consequence, Arseny
and Alekseĭ were locked up in an unheated isolation cell for forty-eight
hours in a temperature of minus thirty degrees Celsius. The two weakened
and beaten men were doomed to die after two days without food or
drink.
Alekseĭ remembers that Father Arseny immediately began praying
aloud after the doors were closed, and how he, a former nonbeliever,
began to pray with him. At a certain moment, he saw the cell open and
change into a church. He saw Father Arseny clothed in priest’s vestments,
celebrating the liturgy with two other men, who, in his understanding,
were sent by God to help them. When the camp guards opened the cell,
they were astonished to find the two prisoners alive (Father Arseny 1998:
31–37; Vorob’ëv 2005: 50–58).35 After his release, Alekseĭ also became a
priest and after the death of Father Arseny took over the pastoral care of
his parishioners.
As indicated, Lunde observes “the enargetic character” as typical of
Russian hagiography. This notion consigns “the great role played in the
texts by rhetorical enargeia. Enargeia is the power of language to create a
vivid presence of that which is set out in words. Thus, visual and
82
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
GODFORSAKENNESS DURING PRAYER
The aim of a hagiography is to edify,36 giving comfort and direction
to the reader. Furthermore, a hagiographic story is concerned with the
transformation of reality: the dead become alive, the sick are healed, and
the divine manifests itself. The stories in Father Arseny, however, are pure
narrative and do not contain an explanation of any miracles which
happen. In this respect, the story of Arseny distinguishes itself in critical
ways from the hagiographical genre. The following example makes this
clear.
Arseny himself recounts a prayer experience from 1957 that we could
call a strong awareness of being forsaken by God. At this time, Arseny
had endured sixteen years in a special regime camp. After Stalin’s death,
the rules in the camp became less strict. On and off, Fr. Arseny was
allowed to walk outside the camp, and on these occasions, he could pray
aloud, an activity which was forbidden in the camp. One spring day, he
was praying at a mass grave beside the camp. He was overwhelmed by a
feeling of despair and by the absolute silence of nature; the force of his
prayer faded. A wailing sound suddenly broke the silence to cover the
“whole limitless field, filling [Arseny’s] soul with a sadness unknown to
[Arseny] before.” In the sound, Arseny hears the weeping of the souls of
all those buried there. This sound stopped at the moment when Arseny
36
See Efthymiadis: “collections of miracles, edifying stories and all other types of literature which in
modern times came to be classified as hagiography” (2011: 9).
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
ekphrastic elements are particularly significant, as are any linguistic and
stylistic devices employed in order to enhance the presence ‘in words’ of
that which is absent ‘in reality’” (Lunde 2011: 374; see also note 4). The
book presents this story as an oral narrative collected from Alekseĭ and
retold by other members of Father Arseny’s illegal parish. The fact that
this story is told without any obvious attempt to emotionally manipulate
the reader is important for understanding the position of this story
within the broader context of the genre. That the cell really changed into
a church is not explicitly articulated. Nor is it clearly indicated that the
image should be seen as a metaphor, or that the vision was caused by
Alekseĭ’s mental and physical condition. In other words, although the situation could be called miraculous and extraordinary, no speculations
about the nature of the event are made. The imagery is not used to underscore the inescapable truth of divine intervention. It seems as if the storyteller wants to leave room for his listeners’ own interpretations.
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
83
37
“Lowering” of all that is spiritual, exalted, ideal, and noble to the material (trivial) level is,
according to Bakhtin, the essential principle of grotesque realism.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
exclaimed “O Lord, my Lord, show me Thy mercy!” followed “by the sign
of the cross” (Father Arseny 1998: 88–92, here 90).
Nothing is added to this event. Nothing miraculous happens and
there is no categorization of good and evil, although Father Arseny is
standing in what the Dutch artist Armando would call a “guilty landscape,” a landscape which has passively watched atrocities (Van Alphen
2000: 46, 175). This is remarkable, since a hagiographic story generally
moves from “evil” to “better” or “good” without asking about the origin
of the evil.
When the prayer of the priest regains strength and Arseny overcomes
his doubt through prayer, the sounds of nature return and the wailing
sound ceases: it turns out to be the sound of a nearby chainsaw. There is
no sign of a supernatural event, even though this would be the predictable
outcome for a story about a saint. On the contrary, the experience is
brought to a rather mundane closure, which frames the event in a different, nonmiraculous way of reasoning. At that moment, Arseny hears the
“answer” to the question of suffering, namely to help others and pray for
them no matter what the circumstances are. Because of God, life will
always continue. Therefore, one should not despair but understand one’s
calling to serve God and help others (Father Arseny 1998: 91–92).
Although in the earlier mentioned story of Alekseĭ, the narrator does
not comment on the account in the cell, leaving possible interpretation
relatively open, it is more typical for hagiography than the story about the
prayer on the mass grave because it clearly relates something extraordinary, challenging the reader’s imagination to interpret it miraculously.
However, the story about Fr. Arseny’s prayer at the mass grave radically
exceeds the boundaries of hagiography. First, the story clearly poses the
question of the reason for suffering. Second, it is very unusual in hagiography for psychological details to be elaborated upon through the reciprocal interaction of human and nature. However, such flexibility is
appropriate to the genre: “Though ridden with stereotypes and clichés,
hagiography is a genre more open to literary invention and creative imagination than, say, historiography or court poetry. . . . Hagiography certainly echoes the voice of society and is influenced by contemporary
trends; yet, this is done differently, case by case, and not according to literary schools” (Efthymiadis 2006: 166). This experience, third, does not
culminate in a miracle but in a moment of bathos, something the Russian
literary critic M. M. Bakhtin (1993) calls “lowering.”37
84
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
BIOGRAPHICAL NARRATIVES
So far, we have considered Father Arseny in the context of Russian
hagiography. But one of the most striking features of this case is that the
narrative is pursued beyond the text. For example, the installation of the
cenotaph40 for Father Arseny also becomes part of this narrative about
his identity. The cenotaph represents, on the one hand, his real bodily
existence as a holy person, yet on the other hand, as a site of memory it
suggests that something is absent, namely the remains of that holy
person, proof of his bodily existence (see, for example, The Synodal
Commission on the Canonization of Saints 1991). The Orthodox
formula “[Name of the saint], pray to God for us” reflects this soteriological and mediational character in a nutshell (see Wilson 1985: 25). In the
controversial context of the Father Arseny narrative, the cenotaph
becomes a porous and ambiguous symbol, which undermines what it
summons. Thus, the Father Arseny narrative itself becomes porous and
available for different interpretations. This fact is illustrated further
below.
38
«В память о преподобном старце иеромонахе Арсении (1894–1975), исповедническим
подвигом и молитвой приведшем ко Христу множество людей.»
39
Golubinskiĭ’s distinction between a “zhitie” for older hagiographic documents and
“zhisneopisanie” for the newer ones seems to be useful here (1998: 3).
40
Golubinskiĭ uses the term cenotaph with an explanation of its original meaning of a tomb or a
shrine above a burial of a saint in a church (1998: 42). We use this term in the sense of a grave
monument for someone buried elsewhere.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
Prayer is also being used in the authorization process of Arseny’s narrative within the Russian Orthodox tradition and ultra vires, involving
the Arseny story in the process of the transformation of religion. The
English edition records the inscription on the front of his gravestone in
Rostov as follows: “On his grave, a granite stone carries the simple
inscription: Father Arseny 1894–1975.” For the authorization process
and, as we will see later, theologically, it is important that this text is, in
fact, more extensive. On the front of the monument is engraved: “In
memory of the holy starets hieromonk Arseny (1894–1975), who by his
spiritual feat as a confessor and by prayer has brought many to Christ”
(Vorob’ëv 2005: 480).38 We show in the following paragraphs that the
more ecclesiastical institutions and hierarchs became involved in the
authorization process, the more the book has been perceived as a traditional hagiography.39
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
85
THE STORY OF THE CENOTAPH
Literally a month ago no one knew about the upcoming installation of a
memorial monument to Fr. Arseny in Rostov. And the book Father
Arseny itself was read, perhaps, only by a very few. But about two weeks
ago a corresponding paper from St. Tikhon’s Theological Institute was
addressed to the city fathers and was immediately approved. The case is
41
See the announcement on the site of St. Tikhon’s University at http://www.pstbi.ru/cgi-bin/code.
exe/sbt/o_arseni.htm?ans; personal page at St. Tikhon’s web site: http://pstgu.ru/faculties/art/
departments/graduate/history_theory/Teach_structure/Voronova/ (accessed December 7, 2010).
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
An important dynamic in the authentication of Father Arseny as a
historical figure was caused by the establishment of a memorial stone for
Father Arseny in Rostov. The story of the cenotaph discloses the role of
different factors in the life of a story. In the case of Arseny, these factors
are finances, a clash of powers and of ideologies, theology in the sense
of belonging to a religious tradition, and—not least—randomness.
Altogether, it is very likely that coincidence rather than a carefully
planned strategy has played a large part in the authentication of Father
Arseny as a real saintly person. In this section, we focus on their
intertwinement.
Vera Bouteneff had heard about Arseny’s “missing grave” in Rostov
and felt that there should be a new grave. She took upon herself the
financing of a monument. St. Tikhon’s University commissioned a staff
member of the Faculty of Church Arts, Ariadna Aleksandrovna
Voronova, to design a monument.41 In 2001, Vera Bouteneff traveled to
Russia for the first time in her life, accompanied by her grandson, to
attend the blessing of the cenotaph. The monument was erected on May
25, 2001 in the “Воинское” (“Military”) cemetery situated in the western
part of Rostov. The monument blessing and a prayer service was led by
Fr. Vladimir Vorob’ëv (Father Arseny 2001: 8).
One day before this event, Oleg Gonozov published an article in a
Yaroslavl’ daily, “Золотое кольцо” [“Golden Ring”], describing some relevant facts and explicitly contesting the very existence of Father Arseny.
As this story discloses a layer of the Arseny-reception within some groups
of Rostov intelligentsia, whose perception appears radically different from
that of those who, for various reasons, are interested in maintaining
Arseny’s authenticity (in the first place those associated with St. Tikhon’s
University and St. Vladimir’s Seminary, as well as clerics related to the
compiler Bȳkov), we quote it at length as evidence.
86
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
that the benefactress of the monument returns to the USA at the end of
the month, and she would really like to attend the opening.
However, the ever-active Rostov artist ***,42 thought that to place a stele
at the ownerless grave and to place a stele at all, oriented towards the
south, would be a non-Christian way. He immediately went to the
capital, to Fr. Vladimir Vorob’ëv, and persuaded him to erect a monument not at the location of someone else’s burial place which, after centuries, might be seen as the real grave of Fr. Arseny, but at another place,
and to orient it, according to Orthodox tradition, towards the east. On
May 25, taking these observations into account, the monument to the
saint who, judging by the book, after a long term in Stalin camps had
found his peace in the ancient land of Rostov, was installed on the left
side of the entrance to the Military cemetery. (Gonozov 2001)43
In Yaroslavl’ diocese, the Arseny story is not widely known; clergymen
who were directly involved in the process of erection of the cenotaph in
Rostov seem to perceive this authorization process as something related
to “higher” (i.e., Moscow) church politics. Tolstaya’s two interviews with
the then-rural dean of Rostov district, archpriest Vladimir Sachivko, who
attended the ceremony, correspond factually with the information in the
article. According to Fr. Sachivko, Fr. Vorob’ëv was the initiator of the
monument. “He convinced His Eminence Mikheĭ (Kharkharov [then
archbishop of Yaroslavl’ and Rostov]), who had never heard of Fr. Arseny
before,44 of the reality of his existence. He was also the one to bring the
monument.”45
42
We decided to remove the name here.
Gonozov published another two articles in 2001 and one in 2006 on this theme. “The Yaroslavl’
Eparchy Bulletin” [«Ярославские епархиальные ведомости»] reacted to the quoted article in the
very next issue (June 2001/120: 4–5). In this article, the author presupposes the reality of Arseny’s
existence.
44
Matters concerning the veneration of local saints traditionally belonged to a diocesan bishop
(Golubinskiĭ 1998: 29, 42).
45
Interviews on August 17, 2010, and October 21, 2010. However, neither Archbishop Mikheĭ
(Kharkharov) nor the mayor of Rostov attended the opening liturgy.
43
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
And then, in haste, a place was chosen at the Military cemetery and a
trench was dug for the foundation of the memorial monument. It was
somehow intended to install the monument with the inscription towards
the south, while all Orthodox burials are oriented from west to east. The
organizers of the obelisk themselves explained this by the fact that the
memorial monument is not a gravestone, under which a burial place can
usually be found, and in this manner they are especially emphasizing
that.
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
87
46
From Tolstaya’s research in Rostov and Moscow, it became clear that for some reason, the group
from St. Tikhon’s feared a clash with an ultra-right monarchist group, the Black Hundreds. The
activities of the artist *** were interpreted as having more at stake than their own sensitivities, and ***
was considered a mouthpiece of the Black Hundreds.
47
Tolstaya has visited the monument twice, in the summer and late autumn of 2010. Additional
research is needed to reveal statistics, but there seems to be an increase in the number of children
named after Arseny in Rostov nowadays. A comparable situation is the revitalized cult of Kseniya of
St. Petersburg (b. 1719–30, d. circa 1803), whose actual existence is being questioned by historians.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
Another respondent (from St. Tikhon’s) directly involved in the
process confirms the course of events as described in the above-quoted
article. In our own words, the contingent from St. Tikhon’s obviously
wanted to have the sponsor, Mrs. Bouteneff, as a guest at the blessing of
the monument. They had all the official authorization documents for the
erection of the cenotaph and had even dug a ditch at a place chosen
earlier. But they were thwarted by the Rostov artist and patriot ***, whose
main objection was the choice of location. According to his sources there
were burials from WWII there. He went to Moscow to persuade Vladimir
Vorob’ëv to choose another place. The staff at St. Tikhon’s bowed to this
pressure by installing the monument at an empty spot and in the direction indicated by ***.
Notwithstanding voices which questioned the existence of Father
Arseny as a real person, the group from St. Tikhon’s apparently did not
inform Mrs. Bouteneff about the controversies surrounding the existence
of Father Arseny as a real person, and the ceremony took place after all.
We may conclude that the donation of money for a monument by the
translator and her presence at the installation of the cenotaph added a
crucial dimension to the creation of the biographical saint Father Arseny.
Thus, the factors of randomness and the clash of ideological and
power interests46 led to an intriguing theological development.
Apparently, as mentioned in the article above, the contingent from
St. Tikhon’s intended the monument to be oriented toward the south,
stressing in this manner the cenotaph-character of the stone. But now the
monument is oriented toward the east, according to Orthodox tradition.
This makes it almost impossible for anyone not familiar with the story to
notice that it is not a real grave of a real person. The expression “в
память” (“in memoriam”) in the actual inscription can either indicate a
grave or a cenotaph. The monument is well attended and decorated with
garlands of flowers and devotional objects such as crosses. As such, the
blessed empty space marks Arseny’s real existence: the cenotaph, oriented
to the east, suggests a grave, and the blessing ceremony, memorialized in
a photograph published in the Russian edition (Vorob’ëv 2005: 480), signifies a formal, clerical acknowledgment of Arseny’s holiness.47
88
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
FATHER ARSENY, BIOGRAPHICAL DATA
Arseny, hieromonk
1894—born in Moscow.
1911—finished a non-classical secondary school (реальное училище);
entered Moscow Imperial University.
1917—Moscow Imperial University; wrote the first art history works on
ancient Russian architecture.
Lived in Optina Hermitage. Received a blessing to take monastic vows
and priestly rank.
1919—hieromonk. With the blessing of the Patriarch Tikhon, served in
the churches of Moscow.
1921—dean of a church; a religious community was created at the
church.
1927—arrested and exiled to the North.
1929—returned from exile with a prohibition on living within 100 km of
Moscow.
Dean of a church.
1931—arrested. Exiled for 5 years to the Vologda federal district.
Arrested again. In custody (1 year), exiled again.
1938—after his return from exile received permission to live in Vologda,
Vladimir and Archangel’skiĭ federal districts.
1939—third exile to Siberia and thereafter to the Urals.
1940—at the end of the year is taken into custody in one of the Ural
camps.
1942—was in a special-purpose camp.
1958, March—after release lived in Rostov Velikiĭ, Yaroslavl’ federal district.
1975—year of death.
Buried in Rostov Velikiĭ.
See Bodin (2009: 231–254). The difference is that in our case we are dealing not with the twentiethcentury revival of a cult of an eighteenth-century saint, but with the actual authorization process of a
saint being invented in contemporary Russia. See Wilson (1985: 15, 21) and Kizenko (2003).
48
E-mail from Dr. I. V. Shchelkacheva to Tolstaya, July 18, 2008. First edition: Vorob’ëv 1997 109.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
Still, irrespective of the official status of the cenotaph, the question
remains: did Arseny exist or not?
A “biographic reference” to Father Arseny, signed by the compiler
V. V. Bȳkov and the rector of St. Tikhon’s, Vladimir Vorob’ëv, was published in Part I of St. Tikhon’s volume За Христа пострадавшие
[Those who suffered for Christ].48
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
89
Despite this biographical entry, published in a dictionary by a respected
Orthodox academic institution, there still is debate over whether the book
is about a historical or a fictional character. Furthermore, the identity of the
author (or compiler) of Father Arseny remains unclear to this day. Doubts
have been generated among readers by the fact that names and surnames
are often missing, as are names of places and churches. These doubts
are reflected in the above-quoted “biographical reference.” It is not only the
style, for example, the use of the folksy archaism for the participle
“усумнившись” (“doubting”) or the expression “dared to maintain even in
the press,” which is striking here. It is also odd that Bȳkov, who states in
the book that he was Arseny’s spiritual son for years,50 here confesses not
to have known “any biographical data” for a long time.
A photo can be conceived as an important link to reality and thus, in
our case, would contribute to the process of the invention of a saint.
Amongst the forty-two pictures in the latest Russian edition, there is no
photograph of Father Arseny or any of the members of his Moscow
parish, except one of Bȳkov with the book’s chief editor, Vorob’ëv.51
VERSIONS OF FATHER ARSENY’S ORIGIN
In Russia itself the historical truth of Father Arseny has been fiercely
contested. The most extreme accusation against the book is summarized
by the title of Nikolaĭ Dmitriev’s article (2004): “The book Father Arseny
49
For methodological reasons, Tolstaya has tried to maintain stylistic peculiarities in her
translation.
50
As he writes in the book, they first met in 1966: see Vorob’ëv (2005: 734).
51
Bȳkov features in an interview which was published as an obituary after his death in October
2004 (Buzȳkina 2005).
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
The book gives such a striking and unusual image of a saintly staretsconfessor for a modern reader, that some, doubting (усумнившись),
dared to maintain even in the press that it is a generalized literary character or even a fictional result of a writer-romanticist. For a long time,
unfortunately, there was no success in finding any biographical data
more detailed than those mentioned in the book. Now, however, we
know many dates from Fr. Arseny’s life. Still, his real name remains
unknown. It has been changed in the book for reasons of secrecy. About
him is also known that in the 1930s he performed the divine services at
home, several times secretly came to Moscow, also secretly met bishop
Afanasiĭ (Sakharov), when the church hierarch wanted to ordain some
of the spiritual children of Fr. Arseny as priests.49
90
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
52
A similar accusation was made in an article in the American Journal Orthodox Christian Witness
(2004), in which Father Arseny is described as a fraud by a certain clerical faction who wanted to
cover up their complicity with the Soviet authorities. According to the author of that article,
St. Vladimir’s Press, the American publisher of the book, originally described Father Arseny as “a
fictional account.” See, for example, the stories “Irina” (Vorob’ëv 2005: 171–184) and “A Joy” (Father
Arseny 1998: 73–77).
53
This opinion is expressed, for example, in an article by the director of the Smol’nȳĭ Collegium
(University of St. Petersburg), published by a Dutch newspaper (Chapaeva 2009).
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
is an unmistakable forgery, created in the depths of the KGB system.”52
Because of the high percentage of former KGB employees in the current
Russian administration, the government would have demanded that
former KGB employees or members of the party or of government bodies
be portrayed in books and films as pious and courageous people, people
able to guide the country in the contemporary situation of Orthodox
revival. In the slipstream of the increasing confluence between Church
and state in Russian society, this would lead to a better popular image of
the KGB[/FSB].53 This conspiracy theory also features in an article by
Vladimir Hubir’yants on his personal web site, which states that Bȳkov,
the compiler of parts 4 and 5 of Father Arseny, followed orders from the
authorities out of fear (Hubir’yants 2007).
A more moderate opinion about the book is that Father Arseny is not
a real person, but a composite and generalized character. Protsenko
(2003) proposes two versions of the origin of the book. It might, he suggests, be “an apocryphon,” which he describes as a literary work based on
reality, or Father Arseny might be a generalized character. Protsenko
himself is probably leaning toward the first possibility when he claims:
“Authenticity of the published texts is the compulsory condition for
memoirs” (Protsenko 2003). A similar perception of the book as an apocryphon is articulated by Sergeĭ Bȳchkov. He mentions that one of his
“Moscow friends,” inspired by a real starets, started writing about a fictional figure, Father Arseny (Bȳchkov 2008: 8).
The book provides different accumulative viewpoints on Father
Arseny. Whereas both compilers (Aleksandr and V. V. Bȳkov) base their
account on the different testimonies of people who knew Father Arseny,
English translator Vera Bouteneff and Vladimir Vorob’ëv form another
layer of the account. As examples of the few (verifiable) sources, they also
make an important contribution to the story. By telling the reader how
the book came about, Bouteneff and Vorob’ëv grant authority to it.
How Bouteneff recommends the book herself is intriguing: Father
Arseny is not a biography, but a spiritual encounter. “It introduces us to a
man whom we can love and respect, whose example can lead us throughout our life” (Father Arseny 1998: viii). Although in the latter sentence,
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
91
Dear Mrs. Tolstaya,
In answer to your letter I inform you:
In the grim years of the Soviet period I took part in the preservation of
the materials about Father Arseny, collected by Vladimir Vladimirovich
Bȳkov. Like you, I also was interested in the question: is Father Arseny a
historical figure?—Vladimir Vladimirovich evaded a direct answer and
led the conversation in a different direction. Only in the last years of his
life, when the state system changed, he replied: “Yes, Father Arseny
existed, I knew him and met him.”—I believed his words . . . I thank God
for His mercy. . . .
“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John
20, 29).
54
In an interview, Fr. Valerian Krechetov confirms that Bȳkov, the uncle of his mother, knew
Father Arseny personally (Seryubin 2005; see also Kuligin 2005). For a lay presentation of Arseny as a
real starets, see Devyatova (2003a). This situation is far from being univocal. There were, for example,
voices from amongst the Rostov clergy raised against an ecclesiastically unreflected erection of the
gravestone/cenotaph. See the discussion at http://www.cirota.ru/forum/view.php?subj=3372.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
Arseny is again drawn into the genre of hagiography as biographical narrative, the juxtaposition of life story and spiritual encounter, in favor of
the latter, in fact draws attention away from biographical fact and toward
the possibility of fiction. This may sound inconsistent, but the persuasion
of a deep and spiritual narrative begs the reader to surrender to it, often
only for the time being, just as participating in a liturgy may carry even
the staunchest of nonbelievers away. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that
to Vera Bouteneff, Father Arseny was a real person.
Staff members of St. Tikhon’s continuously affirm the reality of
Arseny’s existence, although they do not seem to have reflected theologically on the book. Fr. Vorob’ëv, explicitly in the “Preface to the fourth
edition” (Vorob’ëv 2005: 5–6) and implicitly by authorizing the erection
of Arseny’s commemorative monument, refuted the possibility that
Father Arseny is a fictional character. Some data from Tolstaya’s personal
correspondence with the rector’s assistant, Dr. Shchelkacheva, are quoted
above, and we discuss other data from this correspondence below.
Other individuals from both clergy and laity also maintain that Father
Arseny was a real person.54 An illustrative example is given in the answer
of the honorary professor of the Moscow Theological Academy,
K. E. Skurat, to Tolstaya’s inquiry:
92
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
I am sorry, but I know nothing else.
With kindest regards and respect,
Konstantin Efimovich Skurat
4 September 2010.55
Our own search for the real Father Arseny did not confirm his identity. As mentioned earlier, during the second research period, Tolstaya
systematically studied all the links to Father Arseny in the book and as
summarized in a “biographic reference” sent to her on July 18, 2008, by
Dr. I. V. Shchelkacheva, assistant to the rector of St. Tikhon’s University.
In this section, we focus on these data.
The conversations with the individuals and institutions involved took
place in Russian, by regular post, e-mail, and telephone and in personal
conversations. Tolstaya either recorded these conversations with the
explicit permission of the interviewee or wrote them out in detail on the
basis of notes made during the conversation.
Tolstaya’s official contact person at St. Tikhon was Dr. Shchelkacheva,
who was not quite sure whether the names in the book had been changed.
According to her, the name Arseny is most likely unchanged, yet Arseny’s
lay name, Pëtr Andreevich Strel’tsov, which is mentioned in the book,
could have been changed. Among other things, she provided Tolstaya with
the address and telephone number of Dr. Aleksandr Vladimirovich Bȳkov,
the son of the compiler who had died in 2005.
In 2010, Tolstaya conducted two interviews with A. V. Bȳkov. Contrary
to Dr. Shchelkacheva, Dr. A. V. Bȳkov thought that the name Arseny had
been changed, while his lay name had been retained. As other respondents
and sources indicated the possibility that a Pëtr Andreevich Strel’tsov had
really existed, Tolstaya checked the links to reality using this name.
Most of the personal files of the Moscow University graduates are
kept in fond no. 418 at the Central Historical Archive of Moscow, with
some additional information held in the Archive of the Moscow State
University. Tolstaya’s research in both archives did not unearth any
55
Received in an e-mail on September 7, 2010, from the Moscow Theological Academy.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
OUR OWN RESEARCH BASED ON THE SOURCES
OF ST. TIKHON’S UNIVERSITY
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
93
THE LINKS TO MAKSIMILIAN VOLOSHIN
AND S. N. DURY LIN
One of the most useful links in the book seemed to be that to the
famous Russian poet Maksimilian Aleksandrovich Kirienko-Voloshin
(1877–1932). According to the book, Voloshin was introduced to Fr.
Arseny by another real and traceable person, the theologian, poet, and literature and theater expert Sergeĭ Nikolaevich Durȳlin (1886–1954). The
book relates meetings between Voloshin and Father Arseny in Moscow
during the years 1924–27.
Since it is of methodological importance to show how different
factors intertwine in the process of the authorization and creation of a
myth/saint, we decided to include these parts of our research in this
article.
Tolstaya first called the Voloshin Museum in Koktȳbel’ (Crimea) and
asked a researcher whether anything was known about Voloshin having
had a spiritual father in the twenties. To hear that “it is now almost
certain that it was hieromonk Arseny” and that it even seemed possible to
find some archival materials was a fortunate surprise.
However, the answer Tolstaya received from the director of the
Voloshin Museum, Natal’ya Miroshnichenko, in response to her official
56
Алфавитный список студентов и посторонних слушателей императорского
Московского университета за 1911–1912 академический год, idem за 1913–1914; 1914–1915 and
1915–1916 (Moscow: Moscow State University Printing House, 1911, 1914, 1915, 1916), respectively.
Алфавитный список студентов и посторонних слушателей императорского Московского
университета was published annually until the revolution of 1917. It gives information about the
faculty, the year of entrance, the year and place of birth, class origin, denomination, and the public
school of origin. While St. Tikhon’s “biographical reference” names 1917 as the year of Arseny’s
graduation, Father Arseny contains two references on his graduation: first, 1916 (Vorob’ëv 2005: 11);
the second time (Vorob’ëv 2005: 679), the year of graduation is not mentioned, but it is stated that
Arseny “graduated ahead of schedule.”
57
Both the book and St. Tikhon’s biographical reference name 1975 as the year of Arseny’s death.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
relevant information. Nor did the compendium The Alphabetical List of
the students and extraneous students of the Imperial Moscow University. 56
A request to the Civil Registry Office (ЗАГС) of Rostov Velikiĭ, which
holds a record of each citizen who dies in the city, elicited the following
answer for the period from January 1, 1970, to June 23, 1980:57 “A record
of the death of Pëtr Andreevich Strel’tsov, born in 1894, the native of the
city of Moscow, is absent.” Given the uncertainty about the real name, it
made no sense to continue searching for biographical data, for example,
ordination records, studies about Russian monasteries and church architecture, or the allocation of the Moscow parish.
94
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
request to provide her with information about Voloshin’s possible contacts with Father Arseny left no doubt that there are absolutely
no grounds to consider the link to M. A. Voloshin as reliable:
Miroshnichenko had garnered her information on Voloshin and Arseny
from the book.58 S. N. Durȳlin’s autobiographical book In One’s Own
Corner (2006) gives no clues to Fr. Arseny either.
Dr. Aleksandr Vladimirovich Bȳkov was born in 1946. He works at
one of the Institutes which belong to the Russian Academy of Sciences
(ILAN). The main message of the two interviews with Dr. Bȳkov is that
he does not know much about the history of the book, nor about its characters. Dr. Bȳkov’s response to Tolstaya’s question as to whether he knew
Arseny was negative. He explained this as a result of a kind of alienation
between himself and his parents since he was sixteen. Dr. Bȳkov said he
had read only the first edition of the book (from 1993), in which parts 4
and 5, compiled by his father, were not yet included.
During both interviews, however, Dr. Bȳkov referred to the book as if
it was his father’s work. He never questioned the existence of Father
Arseny as a real person. He was not greatly impressed by the book.
Nevertheless, it can be concluded from his various utterances that he is
proud of his father’s achievement. In the interview, he described himself
as a “невоцерковленный” (literally “not churched,” i.e., not a committed
church-goer), the Church meaning for him the Church as an institution.
From Tolstaya’s (recorded) interview with Dr. Bȳkov on November
23, 2010, concerning the question of the total secrecy of Arseny’s identity
and the authorship of the book:
But, Katya, it is important to understand why it is so concealed. Why
and wherefore. We cannot ask my father anymore. No, I can guess,
I have assumptions, as to why it is hidden. Naturally, in the Soviet years
such things were concealed. And it is possible to imagine a situation in
which already back then he [V. V. Bȳkov] gave his word to conceal it.
I agree with you, now different times have come. But the word was given,
and we cannot ask anymore. Perhaps, that’s how my father understood
this issue. I don’t know. . . .
I told already that it is a mysterious story, there is no information. . . .
The ends are concealed very well for some reason. I do not know the
58
Personal e-mail from N. Miroshnichenko to Tolstaya on August 27, 2010.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
LINK TO DR. ALEKSANDR VLADIMIROVICH BY KOV
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
95
reason. To get into this reason—my father did not want it to become
known. Why should I want it? Firstly, I don’t believe that it is possible to
find any ends. Or, something will come to light somewhere itself. Like a
miracle. This whole story is non-random. This is a certain natural phenomenon. It has to develop on a natural base. No matter how long we
will dig, [we won’t find anything]. Like anthropologists, archeologists
search for an interlink [between man and ape], and find something all
the time. And what? The way only gets longer.
At first sight, Tolstaya was intrigued by the similarities in the names
of the compiler Vladimir Vladimirovich Bȳkov and Sergeĭ Sergeevich
Bȳchkov, who in the “Preface” to his book on Tavrion (Batozskiĭ) states
that Father Arseny is a book about a fictional person, written by one of
his “Moscow friends” who was inspired by the real starets Tavrion
(Batozskiĭ) (Bȳchkov 2008: 8).
Dr. Bȳchkov turned out to be a journalist for Moskovskiĭ
Komsomolets and a church historian. During the period of Tolstaya’s
research, they corresponded regularly. Dr. Bȳchkov gave Tolstaya three
extensive interviews. He has summarized his information on several occasions in an article written at her request.59
In contrast to many admirers of the book, and like A. V. Bȳkov,
Bȳchkov is not at all enchanted by its literary qualities. He evaluates the
style of writing (for example, Arseny’s speech) as poor.60 He, though,
sees the work of the compiler(s) of the fourth and fifth parts as being
much better than that of his acquaintance. In his article, Dr. Bȳchkov
uses a number of arguments to dispute the descriptions of the Stalin
camps in the book.
The first group of arguments concerns the factual side of the descriptions. According to Bȳchkov, they are borrowed not from personal experiences in the Stalin camps, but from information about the Nazi camps,
which was easier to obtain in the USSR of the 1970s (for example, from
films), when the book was written. Referring to a number of scientific
works on Stalin labor camps, he contested the authenticity of many
details in the descriptions in Father Arseny, such as the use of machine
guns in the camps in the late thirties, the method of splitting wood
described in the book, the way of dividing and heating a barracks, or the
usage of aspirin (which was absolutely unavailable in the camps of the
59
Bȳchkov (2012).
This point is shared by Protsenko (2003).
60
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
SERGEĬ SERGEEVICH BY CHKOV
96
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
LINK TO THE SERVANT OF GOD ALEKSANDR
According to Bȳchkov, to I. V. Shchelkacheva, and to A. V. Bȳkov, the
compiler of the first three parts of the book is, indeed, called Aleksandr.
According to Bȳchkov, he is also the compiler of the last two parts.
However, the little factual information about this person that Tolstaya
managed to collect throughout her research appears contradictory:
61
Главное Управление исправительно-трудовых Лагерей [Chief Administration of Corrective
Labor Camps and Colonies].
62
In a documentary, an interviewee who personally knew starets Tavrion, archimandrite Pëtr
(Kuchser), asks a rhetorical question, which is applicable to Arseny as a real person. See «Соль
земли: Архимандрит Таврион» (“Salt of the earth: Archimandrite Tavrion,” 2008, directed by Sergeĭ
Bogdanov): “Well, how can such a luminary remain unknown, how can such a candle hide?” If there
was a starets of Arseny’s format under the Soviet regime, he would certainly be known within the
then very tight ROC community. Although this documentary is (for different reasons than the
Arseny case) of dubious nature, this particular statement is valid: all the fractions of the ROC are
interested in venerating saints, contributing to “tradition . . . understood as a collective memory,”
which is “essentially a reconstruction of the past” (Paert 2010: 5–6).
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
Stalin period) mentioned in one of the stories. Even the expression “camp
of special regime” is disputed, as in 1930 a central system of camps, the
Gulag,61 was established. Not all of these arguments seem equally plausible. The term “special” (“особый”), for example, was known even after
the 1930s, and the “special” camps were officially reestablished in 1948.
The second line of argument is ecclesiological. Fr. Arseny is positioned
apart from church life. This brings Bȳchkov to the question of whether
Arseny belonged to the “non-commemorators” (“непоминающие”). And
why, Bȳchkov continues, if Arseny did not belong to the “non-commemorators,” did he not serve in the churches? Yet in the book, there are strong
indications that Arseny might have been a “non-commemorator” (see
Vorob’ëv 2005: 435, 631).
But the most important objection to Bȳchkov’s version of the Arseny
case is that except for a comparable period in the Stalin camps and both
having been anti-Sergians, “modernists,” and pro-Catholics to some
degree, there are no further similarities between Arseny and Tavrion. The
most serious dissimilarity is the social layer: Tavrion (Batozskiĭ) was a
man of little education (which shows in the style and the content of his
preaching), while Arseny was a renowned art historian with a University
degree and corresponding interests and speech idioms.62 We have to conclude that the link to Tavrion (Batozskiĭ) does not seem plausible.
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
97
Bȳchkov has sent Tolstaya photos of the manuscript of the samizdat
version of Father Arseny with the author’s (Aleksandr’s) pencil markings,
as proof that he knows Aleksandr personally. Obviously, these copies can
only confirm that Dr. Bȳchkov possesses some pages of the manuscript
with pencil markings. Tolstaya’s inquiry at the archives of Keston Center
for Religion, Politics and Society (Baylor University), the Open Society
Archives in Budapest, and the International Historical-Enlightenment
Human Rights and Humanitarian Society “Memorial” (Moscow) revealed
that none of these archives contains information on a samizdat version of
Father Arseny.
Finally, the statement of the Synodal Commission for the
Canonization of Saints and of the Foundation of the New Martyrs (the
two organizations confined themselves to one answer) reads: “As far as
we know, Father Arseny—this is a collective image. Attempts to determine the exact person, using analysis of the various episodes of his biography, and applying to the archives, led to naught. At the present
moment, who was the prototype of Father Arseny is, for a fact,
63
Dr. I. V. Shchelkacheva in her e-mail to K. Tolstaya on August 3, 2010. The anonymous author of
the “Preface to the First Part” writes that they spent some time in the Gulag with Arseny. See
Vorob’ëv (2005: 17).
64
Dr. S. S. Bȳchkov in his e-mail to Tolstaya on October 7, 2010.
65
Interview, November 23, 2010. Significantly, A. V. Bȳkov calls Aleksandr “father,” as if he were a
priest.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
- According to I. V. Shchelkacheva, “V. V. Bȳkov said that he personally
knew Aleksandr. Now Bȳkov has died, and Aleksandr, probably [has]
too.”63
- Commenting on this information, S. S. Bȳchkov wrote that “in the late
70s he [Aleksandr] was barely 26–27 years old. So it would be too early
to bury him.”64 According to Dr. Bȳchkov, Aleksandr knew the compiler V. V. Bȳkov and was the one to introduce him to Vorob’ëv.
Bȳchkov continues to maintain his acquaintance with Aleksandr, but is
not willing to disclose Aleksandr’s identity for “ethical reasons.”
- Dr. A. V. Bȳkov responded to Tolstaya’s question as to whether he
knows anything about his namesake, the compiler Aleksandr, thus:
“I don’t know, I simply think, that it was a group of people who were
acquainted with Fr. Arseny. As far as I understand, my father knew
them as well, and then some notes came into Fr. Aleksandr’s possession. . . . They were, after all, territorially separated to a very great
extent, and a search for some notes was carried out. . . . Some they got
from Fr. Aleksandr, some from the others. There is nothing else, I can
tell. I only assume, I don’t know.”65
98
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
unknown.”66 From all this, we may conclude that there is no clear and
positive information on the existence of either Arseny or Strel’tsov, and
neither is there any evidence of a prototype of the book’s main character
whatsoever.
THE QUESTION OF HERMENEUTICS
66
E-mail(s) to Tolstaya from March 9, 2012: «Насколько нам известно, о. Арсений—это
собирательный образ. Попытки установить точное лицо с помощью анализа различных
эпизодов его биографии и обращения к архивам ни к чему не привели. В настоящее время
достоверно неизвестно, кто явился прообразом о. Арсения.»
67
Terms such as true fiction or fictional reality should be seen as positions on a spectrum between
fiction and factual account. See, for example, the case of a best-seller, the Holocaust memoir “‘Misha:
A Mémoire of the Holocaust Years,’ translated into 18 languages and adapted for the French feature
film ‘Surviving With Wolves,’” which turned out to be fiction (Gelder 2008).
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
Having presented the data in detail, we can discuss the interdisciplinary aspects of the Arseny case. The main aspect may be that of
hermeneutics.
Every story makes use of fictional performance, and even made-up
lives become literature (see Leibovici 2009: 9). In the case of a “true”
story, fictional performance is often used in a paradoxical way, namely to
enhance the authenticity of the narrative. There is a difference, however,
between “true fiction” (see Kloos 1990) and a fictional account which is
claimed to be true.67 True fiction is the presentation of contextual
research facts in the form of a fictional narrative, but the fictional “true”
story can only proclaim itself to be true, and it will look for an audience
that can be persuaded to believe it and thereby confirm the truth of the
narrative. The truth claim distinguishes the fictional “true” story from the
novel, which only speaks a truth when the reader can and wants to let
that truth speak.
In the case of spiritual literature, two forms of authenticity are at
stake: one is the authenticity of historical fact, the “what-really-happened,” and the other is the authenticity of the spiritual truth(s)
embedded in the story. This is exactly what can be seen in the controversy
surrounding Father Arseny. The authenticity of what-really-happened is a
precondition; it is a soteriological claim, resting in the perception of
saints as mediators and intercessors between believers and God on the
way of salvation, a truth that demands conversion or rejection. The
authenticity of a spiritual story, on the other hand, is relative, because it
depends much more on individual religious preference which makes use
of a more individualized frame of meaning. As such, the case of Father
Arseny shows us two contemporary positions within the field of religious
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
99
68
Latria is the adoration of the ( persons) of the Holy Trinity, according to Roman Catholic
doctrine.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
change/transformation: on the one hand, a continued attempt to monopolize and defend tradition in a self-protective and communitarian way
(see Agadjanian and Roudometof 2005: 8–9), and on the other, a more
subjectivized understanding of religious truth. And perhaps a compelling
spiritual story finds especially fertile ground in social contexts in which
people have an eclectic way of dealing with religion and where religious
information has become fragmented for most people, which is the case in
contemporary Russia (Kääriäinen 1998).
In local and transnational religious contexts, processes of authorization are continuously taking place. The question of “real” biographical
evidence has been part of the religious history of many traditions.
In Christianity, this very question has been, and to a certain extent still is,
pivoted on discussion about the existence of Jesus of Nazareth himself,
and it has recurred in a different fashion in the way (the Western) church
and believers have dealt with relics of saintly persons. Nowadays, other
notions of religious authenticity come into play, including authenticity
that does not rely on historical and material reality but derives from true
faith and piety in relation to a certain object. One may think here of
Joseph Görres’ view on the Holy Coat of Christ in Trier (1845) in nineteenth-century Germany. Although convinced that the object was inauthentic, the Catholic Görres deemed the belief of the people in the Holy
Coat of great value, precisely because it stimulated faith and unity among
German Catholics.
In a similar spirit, the church historian E. Iserloh (1963) writes that
the veneration of the Holy Coat is independent from the Coat’s genuineness. According to Iserloh, the Holy Coat is for Catholicism a sign of
“Glaubenssinn” and the veneration accorded it should be regarded as a
“cultus latriae relativus Jesus Christus.”68 Thus, besides the realist and the
relativist viewpoint, another perspective is possible, one that sees intention as the decisive quality of the practice of faith. This idea, although
born in a different Christian context, sees the value of the story, the
symbol, and the emotion as means of inspiring people to greater faith
and unity. In defining what counts as true religion, fact and fiction may
clash, but in the practice of faith, the enchantment of the narrative is of
paramount importance (see the hagiographical view of enargeia above).
Being enchanted/edified by narrative/stories is seen as a worthy form of
worship and a narrative is regarded as true because it is able to stir true
worship of the Christian God.
100
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
69
See, on the importance of bodily remains for veneration, Wilson (1985: 10–11).
See Wilson: “The martyrs were regarded as precious witnesses to the truth of the faith for which
they had died” (1985: 3).
70
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
The intentional perspective thus is a hermeneutical position, but it
cannot be reconciled with realist hermeneutics which views fiction as
potentially harmful in the hands of church representatives. The realist
urges us to take the authenticity of “what really happened” seriously, and
to voice doubts concerning manipulation and falsification. This is also
the point at which interdisciplinarity becomes crucial. For an anthropological approach, mapping and understanding the diverse individual (and
community) responses to a case like that of Arseny are primary considerations. The “authenticity” is then examined as an aspect of the reception
of the cult, but not as a question directly concerning the research or the
research object itself. For a theological approach, it is exactly the question
of “authenticity” which should direct the evaluation of this diversity in
reception. In that regard, theology itself is called upon to respond to the
authenticity question.
From a theological viewpoint, the interpretation of the account as biographical fact or fiction has crucial consequences. If within the framework of Orthodox tradition, a saint is viewed as a person who is related to
God in a special and intimate way, a locus of contact between divine and
human and thus a mediator in the process of personal salvation, it is clear
that a nonexisting saint is in no way compatible with this view. He or she
is nothing but an empty space, at best a pious fantasy.69 A nonexisting
saint is not in touch with God; therefore, praying to him or her for intercession is futile. If one considers the role of saints as examples of faith,
their nonexistence would make no sense either. This is also clear when
one looks at martyrdom or suffering; it is in real suffering that the grace
of endurance and faith becomes visible.70 The reality of suffering experienced by a real person opens up our empathetic imagination and
identification—we can imagine ourselves being with him, praying, suffering, weeping. At the same time, one of the characteristics of fiction is that
it exactly enables the reader to identify and to have empathy with fictional
characters. Fiction, so to speak, may open up a space where the divine
spirit dwells. It is then a matter of the kind of theological viewpoint one
takes whether this sort of fictional truth is acceptable. This aspect appears
to matter even more for ecclesial theology, obviously not bound by confession. While (Orthodox) hagiography as a discipline can view “writings
on the lives and legends of the saints, generally without any modern
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
101
71
Alexakis et al. distinguish between two disciplinary approaches in hagiography, one of which
focuses on the ecclesial, biographical, and historical reality behind a saint’s life. This approach “has
been laid by the Bollandist Fathers in Brussels with their monumental publication of Greek and Latin
saints’ lives, the Acta Sanctorum, in 71 volumes (Paris 1863–1940), in their journal Analecta
Bollandiana (1882–present), and in the Subsidia Hagiographica (81 volumes to date). . . . Another
approach adopted by a number of western medievalists and Byzantinists has been to study the
information which the vitae provide about the civilizations that produced them, data not only about
material culture, but also about the mentality of the audiences for whom vitae were an edifying as
well as entertaining form of literature” (1998: 2).
72
The project of the revision of the sacred calendar goes back to Pius XII. In 1947, he established a
committee for liturgical revision. While the committee compounded an extended hagiographical
dossier, it did not propose revision of the sacred calendar. This happened after Vaticanum II as an
elaboration of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium. See also Mornin
(2006: 14–15).
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
critical claim to veracity or verification” (Prokurat et al. 1996: 149)71 the
official ecclesial perspective is based on the real existence of a saint. In the
Roman Catholic Church, the importance of the historicity of the saints
eventually led to a revision of the sacred calendar after Vatican II in 1969
(see Jounel 1986).72
The Orthodox tradition defines its theology as normative (see
Schmemann 2002: 223–225; Pomazanskiĭ 2005: 5–20; Malinovskiĭ 2010:
1–69). The question of whether historical authenticity is a requirement
for faith belongs to the domain of systematic theology or dogmatics. In
Eastern Orthodoxy in particular, every interpretation (including the use
of metaphors) points to the mystical reality of the existence of Jesus, the
saints, and the living signs of bread and wine in the Eucharist. Social scientific and literary approaches can only study normativities and hence
different claims of authentic religiosity as belonging to a particular social
context. Truth, then, as a particular marker of authenticity is equally
important for these approaches, as they will want to understand what
makes something true for the people believing in that truth. The prerequisite of a saints’ real existence explains the maintenance of Arseny’s real
existence by several Russian Orthodox groups who are, in one way or
another, related to the Church as an institution (see below).
However, from any disciplinary viewpoint, this case requires an
understanding of a religiosity that takes fiction as real. Furthermore, any
actual systematic-theological question should be considered against the
background of the current sociopolitical setting in Russia and the role of
the ROC within it. Precisely because of theological normativity and the
sociopolitical setting of the story, the case of Father Arseny is highly
interesting for interdisciplinary research: it brings theological, hermeneutical, and ethical questions to the fore, the answers to which are not as
obvious as they might initially seem.
102
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
73
The entries on beliefnet.com could no longer be found directly, but were accessed through
waybackmachine.com on May 10, 2011.
74
Peter Bouteneff also gives public lectures as well as leading retreats about Father Arseny.
Bouteneff regards Father Arseny as a real figure, although he acknowledges that fiction has been used
to a large extent to tell the story. His idea is that Father Arseny was erased by the authorities, which
would explain that there is no material evidence to his existence. On Bouteneff and the question of
the historicity of narrative, see Bestebreurtje (2014).
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
The reception of Father Arseny largely reflects the dilemma sketched
above. Both the book and its supporters present Father Arseny as an
example of “authentic Orthodox spirituality.” Alekseĭ Sagan’ discusses
the genre problem of Father Arseny in the context of whether the probable falsity of the book has any influence on its devotional content.
Sagan’ places the book without doubt within church literature, under the
label hagiography. He concludes that the question of biographical authenticity is of no importance to the edifying nature of the book. His argument is that “art is a special form of human life” (2002); art has its own
truth and persuasion.
Responses in a similar spirit can be found on the internet, for
example, on the religious infotainment portal Beliefnet.com (November
27, 2009).73 A reader named John E. writes: “Even if they are just pious
legends, they are good legends. If they are true, so much the better.”
Another reader, Cecelia, responds: “I am inclined to agree with John
E. that it doesn’t matter if Fr. Arseny was a single living person or not. It
is how the stories about him or attributed to him inspire people that
matter. . . . One way or another—the stories and writings reflect human
experience in the Gulag.”
On “Mystagogy,” a Greek Orthodox opinion blog, a respondent by the
name of Pavel calls Father Arseny his “best orthodox experience up to
date” (February 4, 2010). However, he started doubting the reality of
Arseny after hearing a podcast by Peter Bouteneff. Bouteneff, a theologian
at St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary and the son of translator
Vera Bouteneff, published a podcast about the question of whether Father
Arseny was a real person or not.74 Although Bouteneff draws the conclusion that Father Arseny must have lived, the respondent Pavel finds the
facts pointing instead in the opposite direction. He mentions reading about
the “new” saints in the book by Ivan Andreev (1982) and notices that they
are similar and that this is “indirect proof” that there is truth in Father
Arseny. In other words, according to Pavel, the book offers a real experience
of a saintly life, even though he believes the story is fictional.
These views may be valid when an author—that is, an actually living
person—writes a fictional life of a saint without any theological (e.g., salvation) claim. However, when the rector of the largest Russian Orthodox
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
103
(1) a fictional account, commissioned by and written in cooperation
with the KGB;
(2) a fictional account, commissioned by and written out of fear of the
KGB;
(3) a literary project based on fiction, which got out of hand;
(4) a literary project based on an edition of true stories, which got out of
hand;
(5) a collection of slightly edited true stories, written down as commissioned by a starets.
These are the possibilities, the hermeneutic keys, so to speak. Although
the title of our article already indicates that we rule out a few options, we
think that every one of these possibilities should be taken into account
when claims of the missionary success of this book are at stake.
St. Tikhon’s University formulates its main objective as “the spiritualmoral revival of the Russian peoples.”76 A hagiography such as Father
75
For the sacrality and status of Russian Orthodox ordination, see, for example, Alfeev (1996),
Veniamin (2006: 294–298), Kremen’ (2008: 230–231), Nefedov (2008: 199–203), and Ioann (2010).
76
Homepage of St. Tikhon’s University: http://do.pstbi.ru/page48.htm. On its site, St. Tikhon’s
explicitly appeals to the position of the ROC within the Russian current sociopolitical context. For
controversy within the formal process of Catholic canonizations, for political reasons among others,
see Woodward (1990); on the function and origin of the veneration of saints in Late Antiquity, see
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
University in his elaborate defense of the hagiography’s authenticity
claims the “benevolent effect on the souls of our generation” with the
argument that “many have found the Christian faith through this book”
(Vorob’ëv 2005: 5), the question becomes more complicated. In his office
of archpriest,75 the rector’s distinction as a church representative legitimized, and through the photo in the Russian edition continues to legitimize, the erection of the cenotaph. Whatever the intrinsic relations and
interests were at the time of the cenotaph erection, it is significant that the
Russian edition mentions that the monument was placed with the blessing
of Archbishop Mikheĭ of Yaroslavl’ and Rostov, and that it (as the photo in
the Russian and English editions shows) was attended by other representatives of the clergy. The engraving on the monument is a recognition of
Arseny as a real existing holy starets and hieromonk. What are the implications of this blessing and recognition by church representatives?
The fact that St. Tikhon’s University does not substantiate its viewpoint with solid evidence means that we cannot self-evidently read the
book on its own terms. When people start believing, it is not unimportant
to evaluate what made them believe. In the case of Father Arseny, it does
make a difference whether the book is:
104
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
Brown (1982). For “creating” saints also in Protestant contexts, see McLeod (2006: 618–636) and
Schmidt (1996: 238).
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
Arseny should obviously advance this objective. The hermeneutics
assume an ethics, because it is important that the reader should determine their own position, in this case in relation to the author and to the
main character of the book, their beliefs, and the reader’s own beliefs. For
the reader to be treated with integrity, he or she should be informed as
completely as reasonably possible.
We will illustrate this on the basis of the first possibility. A reader who
is edified by the book should at least know that they have been brought to
faith by an author of dubious religious position and on the basis of a
forgery, particularly when there are political/ideological motives involved.
The reader can then draw her own conclusions, which are mainly a personal matter of faith and conscience. But a theological university has to
account for the way it contributes to its mission through its own material.
The publisher should be clear about the authenticity of the sources,
because otherwise it robs its audience of the possibility of reflection. It is
strange that St. Tikhon’s does not recognize a responsibility to give as
much clarity as possible regarding the Father Arseny book, precisely
because its controversial nature is no secret to the public. Reviewing ecclesiastical policy in this respect, we may ask whether Father Arseny will
lead to theological reflection.
The question of hermeneutics immediately touches upon the prayers
the book tells us about. How can the prayers be used to edify if the book
is fictional? Do they not become twisted exactly at the mediatory and salvational level, that is, on the level they are aimed at? And to add another
dimension to this problem: the monument in the Rostov graveyard serves
to commemorate the “real” person Arseny, “so that people would know
where to come and to pray for him, or to him,” as Vera Bouteneff puts it
(Father Arseny 2001: 7). Prayerful communion [молитвенное общение]
with the saints is a crucial aspect of Eastern Orthodox life, ecclesiology,
and soteriology. It is “an actual realization of the connection of Christians
on earth with the heavenly Church. . . . Holy Scripture gives many examples in which the saint can see and hear and know much of what is inaccessible to normal perception during their earthly life. These gifts are
inherent to them all the more when they took off flesh and are in heaven”
(Pomazanskiĭ 2005: 379).
This soteriological aspect becomes equally relevant according to the
position of Peter Bouteneff as a systematic theologian. Bouteneff’s
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
105
position, quoted below, demarcates the hermeneutical line to be drawn
between a skeptical and soteriological perception of Arseny’s case:
To pose the above question in another way: what does prayer to a fictional
person mean for the prayer practice of the one who prays? How does a
prayer to a nonexistent person affect the Eastern Orthodox concept of
prayer? Is there not a theological difference between Father Arseny as a
generalized character and, for example, a monument to an Unknown
Soldier? What consequences does belief in a nonexistent saint have for
the concept of salvation (soteriology)? Is there any coherence between
this case and the canonizations of the most recent period of Russian
Church history? And on a metalevel, how do these dogmatic changes/
developments affect the common (Russian) Orthodox theological perception of its own tradition as unchangeable? We do not believe we can give
a definite answer to these questions; our interest is in postulating them as
a problem. In the end, these matters should be reflected on within the
Orthodox tradition itself.
Efthymiadis (2006: 167) states that in order to approach the medieval
mentality properly, “we must first make a distinction between hagiography
and the cult of saints on the one hand, and between hagiography as literature and as ancilla historiae on the other. Among other things, this means
that hagiography as a method (one of many) of promoting a saint’s cult is
not identical with the cult itself and that its literary value is not dependent
upon its historical value.” Applied to our case of contemporary religious
transformation and authorization, it seems that we are on the one hand
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
So, we are left with this situation. I have given you very few data that you
might not have known before. Because there is not much more else to
give and there is little point in hoping for more to surface. So the question then gets turned back to us. Namely, what do we do with this fact?
Here is what I would say: if you believe that Father Arseny actually
existed, if you, perhaps, even pray with him, or for him, or to him, by all
means—continue in your conviction of faith. If, on the other hand, you
are pretty positive that he did not exist, o, what more can I tell you?
I imagine that the stories are still deeply meaningful to you on that level,
and, furthermore, I am sure that you can imagine that the stories that
you read here are in fact true to countless of the amazing circumstances
and amazing elders, who by God’s grace [were] shown out the most
awful circumstances of concentration camps. Now, if you are not sure
one way or another, there is not a lot I can say other than: keep your
inquisitiveness, keep it alive, be open to the possibility that he did exist,
and, as much as possible, be at peace, for God knows everything and
redeems everything. (2010)
106
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
dealing with a process of creating a historical cult through or due to the literary value of the text, and on the other thus making history/reality a handmaiden of hagiography. What is interesting is that hagiography as an
academic discipline is not interested in the historical reality behind a story.
As we continuously saw in the utterances of the individuals from
St. Tikhon’s, Church (representatives) cannot consent to abandon this
reality, perceiving hagiography as the description of a life of a saint who
actually existed. If the story of Arseny is confirmed as a hagiography in this
sense, the status of the story immediately changes. Hermeneutically, it
means that the Church grants the main character “real” or historical status
and thus a soteriological identity and efficacy. Although formally only a
Church council or official canonization would grant this story such a
status, the common reader (via such facts as the cenotaph, the photo of the
blessing ceremony, and the editorship of Fr. V. Vorob’ëv) easily gets the
impression that the authorization process by the ROC is complete. As long
as the origin of the text is not clarified, there can be no real authorization,
but many representatives of the Orthodox Church have, by their actions,
already authorized the text. If its factual truth is rejected, however, Father
Arseny will leave a symbolic vacuum and it will lose its status as a unique
spiritual biography. The spiritual power of the story will not so easily be
vanquished, however. The skeptical is not the only alternative to the soteriological, and some people will find truth in fiction that brings light in a
dark world.
Viewed from two disciplinary ends (and trying also to elaborate on
hagiography as discipline), authenticity proves to be a problematic
concept. As a value of what is deemed real within a particular context,
authenticity is an important term to understand why stories are told in a
particular way—namely, to reveal their truth to a particular group of
people. Father Arseny is undoubtedly true in the sense that the story
exemplifies Christian suffering and endurance in the Gulag and more
broadly under the communist regime. As such, its truth is consolation
and inspiration. But as soon as claims are made beyond this realm—by
church representatives or historians, for example—authenticity assumes
another meaning. The origin of the book has not yet been verified—not
least by the people who would have the greatest interest in its verification.
For Arseny’s churchly adherents, the truth of the story had to culminate
in the biographical representation of the saint, foremost through the
ambiguity of the Rostov cenotaph. In other words, the story of Arseny
has been forced from its fictional nature and has been reconstructed as
evidence of its own historical truth. It must come as no surprise that a
realist and critical hermeneutics will put this reconstruction to the test.
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
107
EPILOGUE
During the review process of our article, Tolstaya pursued the investigation further. The most important new facts are related to the appearance of a film “Отец Арсений” by director Boris Kostenko, and
Tolstaya’s contact with the supposed author of the first three parts, the
“servant of God Aleksander.” A detailed account of the new information
and a hermeneutical analysis has to wait for another occasion. The supposed author and Fr. Vladimir Vorob’ëv share the same position, which
may be summarized in the following utterance of Fr. Vorob’ëv in the
film: “[T]his [= Father Arseny] is a real person, but it was different
people.”78 This we can only interpret to mean that Father Arseny is a
fiction, and not a real person. In fact, we see Fr. Vorob’ëv changing his
position. Yet the way he has done this until now remains problematic
exactly in light of our discourse above: within Orthodox theology and tradition in the broader sense, the belief in the historical reality of the
77
We do not give any sources for these questions exactly because of the fundamental character of
these problems and the obvious desideratum of approaching them in an extended academic
discourse.
78
«[Э]то подлинный человек, но это были paзныe люди». http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=XtBbtrsG1LY (accessed June 25, 2012).
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
The hermeneutical problems, the given socio- and Church-political
settings, and the development of Russian academic theology bring to the
fore some interconnected questions which cannot be addressed in this
article, but should be at least hinted at. First, there is the content of tradition, perceived by all factions within the ROC as normative and
unchangeable. Second, sociopolitical questions: what consequences does
the symbiosis between Church and state have for critical theological
reflection on social developments? And, third, there are questions arising
from the Orthodox paradigm itself. Does not the dogmatic paradigm,
according to which oral and written tradition are seen as normative,
definitive and unchangeable, preclude possible criticism of both tradition
and contemporary developments within the ROC?77 Obviously, a scientific–critical frame of theological reference, similar to that in the West, is
needed in the Russian context. The intention of this article is to stimulate
existing academic developments. In our article, we have explored the
various heterogeneous aspects of this case: (1) interdisciplinary connotations and problems; (2) genre definition connotations and problems;
(3) ethical-hermeneutical connotation and problems. There are still many
open questions. This case is not closed.
108
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
REFERENCES
Agadjanian, Alexander
and Victor Roudometof
2005
“Introduction: Eastern Orthodoxy in a Global
Age—Preliminary Considerations.” In Eastern
Orthodoxy in a Global Age: Tradition Faces the
Twenty-first Century, ed. V. Roudometof,
A. Agadjanian and J. Pankhurst, 1–26. Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Alexakis, Alexander,
Stephanos Efthymiadis,
Stamatina McGrath et al.
1998
Dumbarton Oaks Hagiography Database.
Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Trustees for
Harvard University. Available at http://www.
doaks.org/document/hagiointro.pdf. Accessed
March 31, 2012.
Alfeev, Hegumen Ilarion
1996
“Священство.” In Таинство веры. Введение в
православное догматическое богословие.
Available at http://azbyka.ru/hristianstvo/
dogmaty/alfeev_tainstvo_veru_53g-all.shtml. In
English: The Mystery of Faith. Introduction to the
Teaching and Spirituality of the Orthodox
Church. London, UK: Darton, Longman and
Todd, 2002.
Alphen Van, Ernst
2000
Armando: Shaping Memory. Rotterdam, the
Netherlands: NAi Publishers.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
person or event in question is crucial. Vorob’ëv does not give any account
for the publications of the biographical details of Father Arseny by
St. Tikhon’s (not only in all of the editions of the book, but also in the
publication “За Христа Пострадавшие”), the status of the cenotaph, or
the relation of these two to Orthodox doctrines of salvation, sainthood,
prayer, and ethics.
The contention that a person is at the same time different people is
untenable in several regards: (a) a fundamental logical error; (b) a semantic error (mixing singular and plural); (c) an ontological error (the suggestion that one person can be more than one person); (d) a hermeneutic
error (mixing a fictional character and living person(s)); (e) a theological
error (of anthropomorphic attribution of hypostatic categories, which
has, besides Trinitarian, also Christological consequences, as the unicity
of Jesus Christ is at stake); and (f ) an ethical error by apparently supposing the audience will not see these errors in relation to St. Tikhon’s agogical claim on their site, referred to above.
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
Andreev, Ivan
1982
Russia’s Catacomb Saints: Lives of the New
Martyrs. Platina, AK: Saint Herman of Alaska
Press.
“Агиография.” In Христианство.
Энциклопедический словарь, vol. 1
[Christianity. Encyclopedic Dictionary]: 35.
Bakhtin, Mikhail
1993 [1941]
Rabelais and His World. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press.
Источники русской агиографии [The Sources
of Russian Hagiography], St. Petersburg, OLDP,
No. 81/А, No. 1164. Available at http://krotov.
info/lib_sec/02_b/ar/sukov_isto.htm. Accessed
March 18, 2012.
Beglov, Alekseĭ
2008
В поисках «безгрешных катакомб». Церковное
подполье в СССР [Searching for “the Sinless
Catacombs.” The Underground Church in the
USSR]. Moscow, Russia: Izdatel’skiĭ sovet Russkoĭ
Pravoslavnoĭ Tserkvi.
Bestebreurtje, Frank
2014
“Postmodern Orthodoxy? Text, Interpretation, and
History in Orthodox Scholarship.” In Orthodox
Paradoxes: Heterogeneities and Complexities in
Contemporary Russian Orthodoxy. Proceedings
from the 1st INaSEC Conference (Institute for the
Academic Study of Eastern Christianity), ed.
Katya Tolstaya. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill,
forthcoming.
Bodin, Per-Arne
2009
Bouteneff, Peter C.
2010
Brown, Peter
1982
Language, Canonization and Holy Foolishness:
Studies in Postsoviet Russian Culture and the
Orthodox Tradition. Stockholm, Sweden: Acta
Universitatis Stockholmiensis.
Father Arseny: Fact or Fiction? Sweeter than
Honey ( podcast). January 28. Available at http://
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/sweeter/father_arseny_
fact_or_fiction. Accessed December 6, 2010.
The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in
Latin Christianity. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
Averintsev, Sergeĭ S., ed.
1993
Barsukov, Nikolaĭ
Platonovich
1882
109
110
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
“Настоящая вера от гонений только
умножалась” [“True Faith Has Only Been
Growing Because of the Persecutions”].
Нескучный сад. Журнал о православной жизни
[Not a Boring Garden. Journal about Orthodox
Life] 4/11, January 2. Available at http://www.nsad.
ru/articles/nastoyashhaya-vera-ot-gonenij-tolkoumnozhalas. Accessed October 31, 2013.
Bȳchkov, Sergeĭ S.
2008
“Страдный путь архимандрита Тавриона.
Предисловие” [“The Via Dolorosa of
Archimandrite Tavrion. An Introduction”].
January 10. Available at http://www.portal-credo.
ru/site/print.php?Act=lib&id=1991. Accessed
December 5, 2010.
2012
Chapaeva, Dina
2009
“Два старца Арсения. Проблема и истоки
мистификаций в русской духовной
литературе” [“Two elders Arseny. The problem
and the origins of mystifications in the Russian
spiritual literature”]. Вестник русского
христианского движения [Bulletin of the
Russian Christian Movement] 199/1: 92–120.
“Geschiedenis zonder herinnering” [“History
without Memory”], Trouw [Faithfulness],
January 24. Available at http://www.trouw.nl/
tr/nl/4324/Nieuws/article/detail/1130629/2009/
01/24/Geheugenverlies-Geschiedenis-zonderherinnering.dhtml. Accessed October 30, 2013.
Damaskin (Orlovskiĭ, hieromonk)
1992
Мученики, исповедники и подвижники
благочестия Российской Православной
Церкви ХХ столетия. Жизнеописания и
материалы к ним [Martyrs, Confessors and
Zealots of Piety of the Russian Orthodox Church
of the Twentieth Century. Hagiographies and
Related materials], vol. I, Tver’, Russia: “Bulat.”
Department for External
Church Relations of the
Moscow Patriarchate
2000
“The Bases of the Social Concept of the
Russian Orthodox Church.” Available at http://
orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx. Accessed
January 9, 2012.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
Buzȳkina, Veronika
2005
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
Devyatova, Svetlana
2003a
2003b
111
“Старец Арсений (Стрельцов Пётр Андреевич)”
[“Starets Arseny (Strel’tsov Pëtr Andreevich)”].
Православные старцы ХХ века [Orthodox
Startsy of the Twentieth Century]. Available at http://
svet77-77.narod.ru/star-Arsenij-Strelnikov.html.
Accessed December 22, 2010.
Dmitriev, Nikolaĭ
2004
“Убить всё живое. Книга ‘Отец Арсений’—
несомненная фальшивка, изготовленная в
недрах системы КГБ” [“To Kill All [that is]
Living. The Book Father Arseny is an
Unmistakeable Fabrication, Created in the
Depths of the KGB system”]. Русский общевоинский союз [The Russian Military Union],
November 19, New York. Available at http://
www.krotov.info/history/20/1980/arseny.htm.
Accessed December 21, 2010.
Dostoevsky, Fyodor M.
1991 [1880]
The Brothers Karamazov, trans. Richard Pevear
and Larissa Volokonsky, New York, NY: Vintage
Classics.
Durȳlin, Sergeĭ
Nikolaevich
2006
Efthymiadis, Stephanos,
ed.
2006
2011
В своем углу [In One's Own Corner]. Moscow,
Russia: Molodaya Gvardiya.
“New Developments in Hagiography: The
Rediscovery of Byzantine Hagiography.” In
Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of
Byzantine Studies, London, August 21–26, 2006.
Volume 1: Plenary Papers, ed. Elizabeth Jeffreys
and Fiona K. Haarer, 157–173. Farnham, UK:
Ashgate Publishing.
The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine
Hagiography: Volume I: Periods and Places.
Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
Father Arseny, 1893–1973: Priest, Prisoner,
Spiritual Father. Trans. V. Bouteneff. Crestwood,
NY: SVS Press.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
“Старец Арсений” [“Starets Arseny”].
Христианский сайт «Для тебя» [The
Christian Site “For You”]. Available at http://
www.foru.ru/slovo.1196.1.html. Accessed
December 21, 2010.
112
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
Father Arseny: A Cloud of Witnesses.
Trans. V. Bouteneff. Crestwood, NY: SVS Press.
“Holocaust Memoir Turns Out to Be Fiction.”
The New York Times, March 3. Available at http://
www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/books/03arts-HO
LOCAUSTMEM_BRF.html. Accessed March 9,
2012.
Golubinskiĭ, Evgeniĭ
1998 [1903]
История канонизации святых в Русской
Церви [The History of Canonizations of Saints in
the Russian Church]. Repr. Moscow, Russia:
Krutitskoe Patriarshee Podvor’e.
Gonozov, Oleg
2001
“Страсти по отцу Арсению” [“The Passion of
Father Arseny”]. In Золотое кольцо [Golden
Ring] March 24: 3.
Görres, Joseph
1845
Die Wallfahrt nach Trier. Regensburg, Germany:
Verlag G.J. Manz.
Gzhibovskaya, Ol’ga V.
2009
Жития святых в российской историографии
XIX—начала XX вв. [Hagiographies in the
Russian Historiography of the Nineteenth—
Beginning of the Twentieth Century], diss.
Moscow. Available at http://www.dissercat.com/
content/zhitiya-svyatykh-v-rossiiskoi-istoriografiixix-nachala-xx-vv. Accessed March 27, 2013.
Hubir’yants, Vladimir
2007
“Книга ‘Отец Арсений’ подлинное
повествование или выдумка?” [“Is the Book
Father Arseny a True Narrative or a
Fabrication?”]. Владимир Хубирьянц. Личный
Сайт [Vladimir Hubir’yants. Personal Site],
October 27. Available at http://khubir.blogspot.
com/2007/10/blog-post_27.html. Accessed
December 5, 2010.
Ikonopisnaya masterskaya
Favor
2009
“Жития святых.” Словарь иконописца.
Moscow: Ikonopisnaya masterskaya Favor.
Available at http://www.icon-favor.ru/?Page=1144.
Accessed March 12, 2012.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
Gelder, Lawrence van
2008
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
113
Практическое руководство для священноцерковнослужителей при совершении
богослужений в двунадесятые праздники, дни
Постной и Цветной триоди [Practical
Handbook for Priests and Clergymen during
Divine Services on the Twelve Great Feasts, Days of
Lenten and Flowery/Festal Triodion]. Moscow,
Russia: Izdatel’stvo imeni svyatitelya L’va, papȳ
Rimskogo.
Iserloh, E.
1963
“Rock, Heiliger Rock.” Lexikon für Theologie und
Kirche, 1348ff.
Jounel, Pierre
1986
Le Renouveau du culte des Saints dans la liturgie
romaine. Bibl. Ephemerides Liturgicae, Collectio
Subsidia, 36.
Kääriäinen, Kimmo
1998
Religion in Russia after the Collapse of
Communism: Religious Renaissance or Secular
State. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
Kadlubovskiĭ, Arseniĭ P.
1902
Очерки о истории древне-русской
литературы жизни святых [Essays on the
History of the Old Russian Literature of Saints’
Lives]. Warsaw, Poland: tip. Varshavskago
Uchebnago Okruga.
Kapriev, Georgi
2005
Philosophie in Byzanz. Würzburg, Germany:
Königshausen und Neumann.
Kizenko, Nadieszda
2000
A Prodigal Saint: Father John of Kronstadt and
the Russian People. University Park, PA: Penn
State University Press.
2003
“Protectors of Women and the Lower Orders:
Constructing Sainthood in Modern Russia.”
Orthodox Russia: Belief and Practice Under the
Tsars, ed. Robert H. Greene and Valerie Kivelson,
105–124. University Park, PA: Penn State
University Press.
Kloos, Peter
1990
True Fiction: Artistic and Scientific Representations
of Reality. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: VU
University Press.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
Ioann (Maslov,
archimandrite)
2010
114
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
Klyuchevskiĭ, Vasiliĭ
Osipovich
1871
Kremen’, Vladimir, ed.
2008
Древнерусские жития святых как
исторический источник [Old-Russian Lives as
a Historical Source]. Moscow, Russia: Tipografiya
Gracheva.
Тайна православия [The Mystery of
Orthodoxy]. Moscow, Russia: Rodnoe slovo.
“Разговор со священником. (Вопросы и
ответы)” [“A Conversation with a Priest
(Questions and Answers)”]. Храм во имя иконы
Божьей Матери “Державная”, Московский
Патриархат, Санкт-Петербургская Епархия
[The Church in the Name of the Icon of the Mother
of God ‘The Sovereign’, Moscow Patriarchate,
Eparchy of St. Petersburg’], January 20, 2005.
Available at http://www.derzhavnaya.spb.ru/talk/
answer/57.html. Accessed December 21, 2010.
Leibovici, Solange
2009
“Over narrativiteit en fictionalisering in de
(auto)biografische ruimte” [“On narrativity and
fictionalization in the (auto)biographical space”].
Frame 22/1:9–22.
Leiter, Richard
2006
“Description” of Father Arseny Society. http://
web.mac.com/rleiter/Kronstadt_Church/FAS_
Talk.html. Accessed December 22, 2010. [This
link is no longer active. See instead: http://www.
stjohnkronstadtchurch.org/the-father-arseny-society.
Accessed March 30, 2013].
Lindholm, Charles
2008
Culture and Authenticity. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Lunde, Ingunn
2011
“Slavic Hagiography.” In The Ashgate Research
Companion to Byzantine Hagiography: Volume
I: Periods and Places, ed. Stephanos Efthymiadis,
369–385. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
Maksimov, Maksim
2004
О работе Синодальной Комиссии по
канонизации святых Русской Православной
Церкви [On the Work of the Synodal Commission
for the Canonization of Saints of the Russian
Orthodox Church]. Moscow, Russia: “Bulat.”
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
Kuligin, Dmitriĭ
2005
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
115
Malinovskiĭ, Nikolaĭ P.
2010
Очерк православного догматического
богословия [An Outline of Orthodox Dogmatic
Theology]. Moscow, Russia: Izdatel’stvo imeni
svyatitelya L’va, papȳ Rimskogo.
McGuckin,
John Anthony, ed.
2001
Standing in God‘s Holy Fire: The Byzantine
Tradition. London, UK: Darton, Longman and
Todd.
McLeod, Hugh
2006
Men’, Aleksandr
2001
Mornin, Edward and
Lorna Mornin
2006
Mystagogy
n.d.
Nefedov, Gennadiĭ
2008
Nezhnȳĭ, Aleksandr
2000
“Hagiography.” The Encyclopedia of Eastern
Orthodox Christianity, Vol. 1, 292–293. Malden,
UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
“Role Models.” In The Cambridge History of
Christianity, Volume 9: World Christianities
C. 1914–C. 2000, ed. Hugh McLeod, 618–636.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
“Возвращение к истокам” [“Return to
Origins”]. Introductory article in a reprint of the
1931 work by Georgy Fedotov, Святые
Древней Руси [The Saints of Ancient Russia].
Moscow, Russia: Moskovskiĭ Rabochiĭ. Available
at http://www.vehi.net/fedotov/svyatye/intro.html.
Accessed December 13, 2010.
Saints: A Visual Guide. London, UK: Frances
Lincoln.
“The Weblog of John Sanidopoulos.” Available
at http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com. Accessed
May 10, 2011.
Таинства и обряды Православной Церкви.
Учебное пособие по литургике [Sacraments
and Rites of the Orthodox Church. A Textbook on
Liturgics]. Moscow, Russia: Palomnik.
“Погружение во мрак” [“An Immersion into
Darkness”]. Звезда [The Star], 1/2000, 13.
Available at http://magazines.russ.ru/zvezda/
2000/1/negny013.html Accessed December 21,
2010.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
2011
116
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
Orthodox Christian
Witness
2004
Spiritual Elders. Charisma and Tradition in
Russian Orthodoxy. DeKalb, IL: Northern
Illinois University Press.
Peeters, Paul
1914
“La Canonisation des Saints dans l’Eglise Russe.”
Analecta Bollandiana 33:380–420.
Pomazanskiĭ, Mikhail, protopresbyter
2005
Православное догматическое богословие
[Orthodox Dogmatic Theology]. Moscow, Russia:
Izdatel’skiĭ Tsentr Russkoĭ Pravoslavnoĭ Tserkvi.
Prokurat, Michael,
Alexander Golitzin, and
Michael D. Peterson, ed.
1996
Protsenko, Pavel
2003
Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church.
Lanham, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
“Халтура на крови” [“Slapdash on Blood”].
Сайт “Русский журнал” [Site “The Russian
Journal”], June 8, 2003. Available at http://krotov.
info/lib_sec/16_p/pro/zenko.htm. Accessed
December 22, 2010.
Regel’son, Lev
1977
Трагедия Русской Церкви: 1917–1945гг.
[Tragedy of the Russian Church: 1917–1945],
chap. 5. Available at http://krotov.info/history/
20/krasnov/regel_06.html. Accessed December
12, 2010.
Rudakov, Aleksandr P.
1997 [1917]
Очерки византийской культуры по данным
греческой агиографии [Essays on Byzantine
Culture according to the Data of Greek
Hagiography]. Repr. St. Petersburg, Russia:
Aleteiya.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
Paert, Irina
2010
“A Timely Article on the Life of ‘Fr. Arseny’—
An ‘Invented Literary Figure.’” Orthodox
Christian Witness 28/8. Ed. Fr. Neketas
S. Palassis. Available at http://nektarios.home.
comcast.net/~nektarios/1539.html. Accessed
December 21, 2010.
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
117
“Симфония прекрасного и истинного.
(Книжная серия о двух головах)” [“A
Symphony of Beauty and Truth. (A Book Series
with Two Heads)”]. Русский переплет.
Литературный интернет-журнал [A Russian
Cover. A Literature Internet Journal]. Available at
http://www.pereplet.ru/text/sag3.html. Accessed
December 21, 2010.
Schmemann, Alexander
2002
The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy. Repr.
New York, NY: SVS Press.
Schmidt, Wolf-Heinrich
1996
“Probleme einer Theorie der Hagiographie.”
Russian Literature 39/2:235–259.
Seryubin, Sergeĭ
2005
“Самое главное—знать о себе волю Божию!”
[“The Most Important Thing Is to Know What
God Wills for You”]. Православная газета
«Благовест» [The Orthodox Newspaper “Bell
Ringing”], March 4. Available at http://www.cofe.
ru/blagovest/article.asp?Heading=32&article=8814.
Accessed December 5, 2010.
Shalamov, Varlam
1994
Kolyma Tales. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Slenczka, Reinhard
1988
“Die Herzensgemeinschaft durch das JesusGebet. Eine Form russischer Frömmigkeit in
theologischer Sicht.” Tausend Jahre Russische
Orth. Kirche: Beiträge von Geistlichen der
Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche im Ausland und
Wissenschaftlern verschiedener Disziplinen, ed.
Wolfgang Kasack, 57–73. München, Germany:
Verlag Otto Sagner in Kommission.
Société des Bollandistes
n.d.
“Short History of the Société des Bollandistes.”
Available at http://www.kbr.be/~socboll/history.
php. Accessed March 27, 2013.
Staniloae, Dumitru
1985
Orthodoxe Dogmatik I. Ökumenische Theologie,
12. Zürich, Switzerland: Benziger.
St. Vladimir’s Orthodox
Theological Seminary
2008
“SVS Press Title Father Arseny Reaches Thousands
of U.S. prisoners.” Available at http://www.svots.
edu/content/svs-press-title-father-arseny-reachesthousands-us-prisoners. Accessed December 22,
2010.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
Sagan’, Alekseĭ
2002
118
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
“SVS Press Book Supports Prison Ministry.”
Available at http://www.svots.edu/content/svspress-book-supports-prison-ministry. Accessed
December 22, 2010.
Suvorov, Nikolaĭ
1903
“Заметки о канонизации святых” [“Remarks on
the Canonization of Saints”]. Журнал
Министерства Народного Просвещения
[Journal of the Ministry of National Education]
348, 263–308.
The Synodal Commission
on the Canonization of
Saints
1991
Tentler, Thomas N.
2003
Tolstaya, Katya
2008
К канонизации новомученников Российских
[On the Canonization of the New Russian
Martyrs]. Moscow, Russia: Paleya.
“Epilogue: A View from the West.” In Orthodox
Russia: Belief and Practice under the Tsars, ed.
Valerie A. Kivelson and Robert H. Greene,
253–279. University Park, PA: Penn State
University Press.
“Oosters en westers bidden. Uitnodiging tot
reflectie naar aanleiding van een hagiografie”
[“Eastern and western prayer. An invitation to
reflection with reference to a hagiography”].
Kerk en theologie [Church and Theology] 59/4:
344–355.
2013
“Theology and theosis after the Gulag: Varlam
Shalamov’s Challenge to Theological Reflection
in Post-communist Russia.” Just Peace,
Fernando Enns and Annette Mosher, 50–69,
Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Universität Hamburg
2011
“International Conference: ‘Narrative Pattern
and Genre in Hagiographic Life Writing.’”
March 2–3, 2012, University of Hamburg,
Senatssaal Hauptgebäude. Available at http:www.
icn.uni-hamburg.de/node/5671. Accessed March
9, 2012.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
2009
Tolstaya and Versteeg: Inventing a Saint
Veniamin (archbishop of
Nizhniĭ Novgorod and
Arzamas)
2006
Vorob’ëv, Vladimir, ed.
2005
Новая скрижаль. Объяснение о церкви,
литургии и о всех службах и утварях
церковных [New Tablet: An Explanation of the
Church, Liturgy and all Church Services and
Ecclesiastical Vessels]. Pochaev, Russia: SvyatoUspenskaya Pochaevskaya Lavra.
За Христа пострадавшие. Гонения на
Русскую Православную Церковь, 1917–1956:
Биографический справочник. А–К [Those who
suffered for Christ. Persecutions of the Russian
Orthodox Church, 1917–1956: Biographical
handbook. A-K.]. Moscow, Russia: St. Tikhon’s
Theological Institute.
Отец Арсений [Father Arseny]. Moscow,
Russia: St. Tikhon Theological Institute.
Ware, Kallistos
1995
Act out of Stillness: The Influence of FourteenthCentury Hesychasm on Byzantine and Slav
Civilization, ed. Daniel J. Sahas. Toronto, ON:
The Hellenic Canadian Association of
Constantinople and the Thessalonikean Society of
Metro Toronto.
Wilson, Stephen
1985
“Introduction.” Saints and Their Cults: Studies in
Religious Sociology, Folklore and History, 1–53,
ed. Stephen Wilson. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Woodward, Kenneth L.
1990
Zhivov, V. M.
n.d.
Ziolkowski, Margaret
1988
Making Saints. How the Catholic Church
Determines Who Becomes a Saint, Who Doesn’t,
and Why. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
“Агиография” (“Hagiography”). Святость.
Краткий словарь агиографических терминов
(Sanctity. A Short Dictionary of Hagiographical
Terms). Available at http://azbyka.ru/tserkov/
svyatye/zhivov_agiografia_1g3_all.shtml.
Accessed March 9, 2012.
Hagiography and Modern Russian Literature.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Downloaded from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/ at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on September 3, 2015
Vorob’ëv, Vladimir
1997
119