Imperium e sacerdotium nella Russia del Cinquecento fra Filofej di Pskov e Massimo il Greco

IMPERIUM AND SACERDOTIUM IN SIXTEENTH-CENTURY RUSSIA:FILOFEI OF PSKOV AND MAXIMUS THE GREEK The relationship between imperium and sacerdotium was a fundamental issue inRussia between the 15th and 16th centuries, when the autocephaly of the Russian Church was established and the great principality of Moscow became an empire.Among the most significant reflections on the relationship between imperial power and the priestly function are two works that have marked the cultural history of Russia in very different ways: the Letter of the monk Filofei of the Eleazar Monastery ofPskov to the d’jak M.G. Misyur-Munekhin, considered the manifesto of the “Moscow— the Third Rome” doctrine, and the Discourse on Instabilities and Disorders,one of the most important writings of Maximus the Greek.In his short treatise, in the form of an epistle, Filofei sets out to illustrate the upheavalsof the cosmic and world order by articulating a complex reflection that can bereconstructed based on quotations from Holy Scripture and, more generally, from the‘holy books’ at historical and theological level. In the Russian monk’s argument,Rome’s universal mission is not based on the ‘unshakeability’ of power, but rather ondoctrinal orthodoxy, guaranteed by fidelity to ecclesiastical canons. The Moscow rulerhas now become ‘the sole emperor of Christians’ and his role is to ‘hold the reins of the divine holy thrones of the holy universal apostolic church, which in place of theRoman and Constantinopolitan churches, is in the city of Moscow, saved by God’.In his Discourse Maximus the Greek, taking his cue from the songs of GirolamoSavonarola, develops a complex argument that, in the wake of Holy Scripture andtradition, seeks to interpret the crisis of the present times by illustrating the exercise ofpower and the role of the ecclesiastical magisterium. His reflection, however, does notdevelop at historical and sacramental theological level, as philosophy does, but ratherin the exegetical and moral sphere. The careful choice of passages, especially from theOld Testament, above all from the Book of Wisdom, serves to develop a radical critiqueof the moral behaviour of the rulers of his time. From this perspective, the functionof the priest does not appear to be primarily sacred, but rather prophetic, whichprompts Maximus to expound a severe criticism of the rulers. The form of the dialogue,the cogent argumentation, and above all the implicit references to themes andconcepts present in modern Western thought, illustrate the development of an originalreflection urging the renewal of Eastern Christian thought.Despite their different approaches, both writers come together in the image of thewidow in the desert, recalling the apocalyptic and eschatological dimension. Theirdifferent interpretations of the relationship between imperium and sacerdotium, moreover,do not appear to contradict each other, but are easy to integrate, complementingeach other and illustrating enduring constants in the cultural history of Russia and, atthe same time, a drive for renewal within the Eastern tradition.