No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
KINSHIP, PROPERTY RELATIONS, AND THE SURVIVAL OF DOUBLE MONASTERIES IN THE EASTERN CHURCH
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 July 2019
Abstract
The article examines the enduring phenomenon of double monasticism, the type of religious organization whereby a single monastic unit combined a male and a female community that followed the same rule, recognized the authority of the same superior, and functioned within the boundaries of the same monastic compound or in close proximity to each other, but not in shared quarters. After centuries of evolution since late antiquity, double monasteries effectively ceased to exist in the Latin West by the high middle ages, but demonstrated remarkable staying powers in the sphere of historic Byzantine cultural influences, particularly in Orthodox Eastern Europe and Christian Middle East, where this archaic type of monastic institution survived into the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Based on previously unexplored archival material from the Orthodox lands of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and later the Ukrainian Hetmanate, a semi-autonomous state ruled by elective officers who recognized the tsar of Muscovy as their suzerain, the article analyses the place of kinship structures, economic and political factors, legal frameworks, and the role of the imperial state in the evolution and ultimate decline of the double monastery.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019
References
1 Stramara, Daniel F. Jr, ‘Double monasticism in the Greek East, fourth through eighth centuries’, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 6 (1998), p. 274CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Elm, Susanna, ‘Virgins of God’: the making of asceticism in late antiquity (Oxford, 1994), p. 206Google Scholar.
3 Ibid., pp. 207–23. For a recent translation of the Rule (also known as St Basil of Caesarea's Small Asceticon), see Silvas, Anna M., trans., The Rule of St Basil in Latin and English: a revised critical edition (Colville, MI, 2013)Google Scholar.
4 Saliba, Sabine M., Les monastères maronites doubles du Liban: entre Rome et l'Empire ottoman (XVIIe–XIXe siècles) (Paris, 2008), pp. 47–8Google Scholar.
5 This definition is in Stramara, ‘Double monasticism in the Greek East, fourth through eighth centuries’, p. 269; cf. Trone, Robert H., ‘A Constantinopolitan double monastery of the fourteenth century: the Philanthropic Saviour’, Byzantine Studies, 10 (1983), p. 81Google Scholar; and Saliba, Les monastères maronites doubles du Liban, pp. 47, 65. Alison Jeppesen, however, calls for a further clarification of the term ‘double monastery’, arguing that emphasis should be placed not on the degree of the separation of sexes, but on the level of subordination between the heads of the male and the female communities: Jeppesen, Alison, ‘A reassessment of monastic organisation’, Studia Patristica, 39 (2006), pp. 385–92Google Scholar. For the disappearance of double monasticism in the medieval Latin West, see Ranft, Patricia, Women and the religious life in premodern Europe (New York, NY, 1996), pp. 52, 54, 56–7Google Scholar.
6 Despite the earlier historiographical tendency to regard Muscovy as a fairly centralized state, a growing consensus exists that effective control from the centre could have been an illusion deliberately created by Muscovite state and church administration to impress the tsars’ subjects into willing obedience. For example, see Poe, Marshall, ‘The central government and its institutions’, in Perrie, Maureen, ed., The Cambridge history of Russia: from early Rus’ to 1689 (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 451–3Google Scholar; Brian Davies, ‘Local government and administration’, in ibid., pp. 464–85; Michels, Georg, ‘The patriarch's rivals: local strongmen and the limits of church reform during the seventeenth century’, in Kotilaine, J. and Poe, M., eds., Modernizing Muscovy: reform and social change in seventeenth-century Russia (London, 2004), pp. 317–41Google Scholar.
7 Stramara, ‘Double monasticism in the Greek East, fourth through eighth centuries’, pp. 308–9; for a discussion of the nomenclature, see ibid., pp. 271–3.
8 Ibid., pp. 310–11.
9 Stramara, Daniel F. Jr, ‘Double monasticism in the Greek East: eighth through fifteenth centuries’, Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 43 (1998), pp. 190–2Google Scholar; cf. Talbot, Alice-Mary, ‘A comparison of the monastic experience of Byzantine men and women’, Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 30 (1985), p. 6Google Scholar. The history of the Premonstratensian Order offers a clear example that suppressing double monasteries could become an uphill struggle even in the medieval Catholic West: Ranft, Women and the religious life in premodern Europe, pp. 50–2.
10 Suvorov, N., ‘Zametki o muzhesko-zhenskikh monastyriakh v drevnei Rossii’, Arkhiv istoricheskikh i prakticheskikh svedenii, otnosiashchikhsia do Rossii, 4 (1860–1), pp. 39–45Google Scholar; Kuchumov, V. A., ‘Russkoe starchestvo’, in Sinitsyna, N. V., ed., Monashestvo i monastyri v Rossii, XI–XX veka: istoricheskie ocherki (Moscow, 2002), p. 233Google Scholar; E. B. Emchenko, ‘Zhenskie monastyri v Rossii’, in ibid., pp. 255–6.
11 Stramara, ‘Double monasticism in the Greek East: eighth through fifteenth centuries’, p. 185.
12 Here and subsequently, with the exception of the place names, whose spelling, especially with regard to a given historic time period, is long established in academic English (e.g. ‘Kiev’ rather than ‘Kyiv’, ‘Wilno’ rather than ‘Vilnius’, and ‘Moscow’ rather than ‘Moskva’), toponyms in this article are presented in the language of their country.
13 On the history and military-political organization of the Hetmanate, see Gajecky, George's comprehensive The Cossack administration of the Hetmanate (2 vols., Cambridge, MA, 1978)Google Scholar. For a more concise treatment, see Smolii, V. A., ‘Ukrains'ka kozats'ka derzhava’, Ukrains'kyi istorychnyi zhurnal, 4 (1991), pp. 5–19Google Scholar; Magocsi, Paul Robert, History of Ukraine (Toronto, ON, 1996), pp. 207–76Google Scholar; Subtelny, Orest, Ukraine: a history (4th edn, Toronto, ON, 2009), pp. 105–98Google Scholar. On the incorporation of the Ukrainian Hetmanate into Russian imperial state, see Kohut, Zenon, Russian centralism and Ukrainian autonomy: imperial absorption of the Hetmanate, 1760s–1830s (Cambridge, MA, 1988)Google Scholar.
14 A detailed survey of the history of Byzantine double monasteries is provided in Stramara, ‘Double monasticism in the Greek East, fourth through eighth centuries’, pp. 269–312, and idem, ‘Double monasticism in the Greek East: eighth through fifteenth centuries’, pp. 185–202; on the same subject, see also Bateson, Mary, ‘Origin and early history of double monasteries’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 13 (1899), pp. 137–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pargoire, J., ‘Les monastères doubles chez les Byzantins’, Échos d'Orient, 9 (1906), pp. 21–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Trone, ‘A Constantinopolitan double monastery’, pp. 81–7; Jeppesen, ‘A reassessment of monastic organisation’, pp. 385–92; Mitsiou, E., ‘Das Doppelkloster des Patriarchen Athanasios I in Konstantinopel: Historisch-prosopographische und wirtschaftliche Beobachtungen’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 58 (2008), pp. 87–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar; eadem, ‘Frauen als Gründerinnen von Doppleklöstern im byzantinische Reich’, in L. Theis, M. Mullett, and M. Grünbart, eds., Female founders in Byzantium and beyond, Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, lx/lxi (Vienna, 2011–12), pp. 333–43.
15 For example, Golubinskii, E., Istoriia Russkoi tserkvi (2nd edn, 2 vols. in 4 parts, Moscow, 1904–10), i, part 2, pp. 638–9Google Scholar; Crummey, Robert O., The Old Believers and the world of Antichrist: the Vyg community and the Russian state, 1694–1855 (Madison, WI, 1970), pp. 64, 111–13Google Scholar; Smolich, Igor, Russkoe monashestvo 988–1917: zhizn’ i uchenie startsev. Prilozhenie k ‘Istorii Russkoi Tserkvi’ (Moscow, 1997), p. 163Google Scholar; Emchenko, ‘Zhenskie monastyri v Rossii’, pp. 255–8. The nineteenth-century Russian historian Nikolai Suvorov published a short article dedicated to mixed monasteries in medieval and early modern Muscovy: Nikolai Suvorov, ‘Zametki o muzhesko-zhenskikh monastyriakh v drevnei Rossii’, pp. 38–46.
16 Senyk, Sophia, Women's monasteries in Ukraine and Belorussia to the period of suppressions, Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 222 (Rome, 1983), pp. 114–17Google Scholar.
17 For example, Elm, ‘Virgins of God’; Rousseau, Philip, Pachomius: the making of a community in fourth-century Egypt (Berkeley, CA, 1995)Google Scholar; Krawiec, Rebecca, Shenoute and the women of the White Monastery: Egyptian monasticism in late antiquity (Oxford, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 Saliba, Les monastères maronites doubles du Liban.
19 Ibid., p. 56.
20 Sokhan’, Svitlana V., ‘Kyivs'ki Bohoslovs'kyi ta Iordans'kyi zhinochi monastyri XVI–XVIII st.: spletinnia doli v istorychnomu prostori’, Rukopysna ta knyzhkova spadshchyna Ukrainy, 13 (2009), pp. 79–80Google Scholar.
21 Petrov, Nikolai I., Istoriko-topograficheskie ocherki drevnego Kieva (Kiev, 1897), pp. 149–50Google Scholar; Senyk, Women's monasteries, pp. 23–4, 49.
22 Nikolai Kostomarov and Alexander Pypin, eds., Pamiatniki starinnoi russkoi literatury, izdavaemye grafom Grigoriem Kushelevym-Bezborodko (4 vols., St Petersburg, 1860–2), iv, p. 176, col. 2, p. 177, col. 2. I am grateful to Dr Catherine Mary MacRobert of the University of Oxford for providing this reference.
23 The deed transferring the Sts Florus and Laurus Monastery from private ownership of the Hulkevych family is published in Malizhenovskii, N., Kievskii zhenskii Florovskii (Voznesenskii) monastyr’, ed. Krainiaia, O. A. (Kiev, 2010), pp. 215–20Google Scholar.
24 Senyk, Women's monasteries, pp. 37–8, 30, 19–20, 47, 12–13, 40, 115–17; Liubar: Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kiev (CSHAUK), fonds 915, op. 1, no. 8, fos. 1v, 6; Zhabotyn: ibid., fonds 915, op. 1, no. 8, fos. 3v–4, 24; Motrenivka: ibid., fonds 915, op. 1, no. 8, fos. 3v–4, 24.
25 Senyk, Women's monasteries, pp. 30, 116; Manuscript Division, Stephanyk Academic Library, Lviv, MV-412/14 (op. 1, no. 476), fo. 1.
26 Senyk, Women's monasteries, p. 30.
27 N. Iakovenko, ‘Shliakhets'ka pravosvidomist’ u dzerkali obihu pravnychoi literatury na Volyni i Naddniprianshchyni’, in eadem, Paralel'nyi svit: doslidzhennia z istorii uiavlen’ ta idei v Ukraini XVI–XVII st. (Kiev, 2002), pp. 83–4.
28 Derouet, Bernard, ‘Dowry: sharing inheritance or exclusion: timing, destination, and contents of transmission in late medieval and early modern France’, in Johnson, Christopher H. and Sabean, David Warren, eds., Sibling relations and the transformations of European kinship, 1300–1900 (New York, NY, 2013), p. 40Google Scholar.
29 Marrese, Michelle L., A woman's kingdom: noblewomen and the control of property in Russia, 1700–1861 (Ithaca, NY, 2002), pp. 21, 38Google Scholar; cf. Wieckhardt, George, ‘Legal rights of women in Russia, 1100–1750’, Slavic Review, 55 (1996), pp. 13–14Google Scholar.
30 Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Lviv (CSHAUL), fonds 199, op. 1, no. 7, fos. 8–8v; Senyk, Women's monasteries, pp. 19–20, 116–17.
31 ‘Panegirik Pecherskomu arkhimandrity Elisseiu Pletenetskomu, sostavlennyi v 1618 g. A. Mituroiu’, in K. Titov, ed., Materialy dlia istorii knyzhnoi spravy na Vkraini v XVI–XVIII vv.: vsezbirka peredmov do ukrains'kykh starodrukiv (Kiev, 1924), p. [15]. The superiors of principal men's monasteries, in particular those who had jurisdiction over smaller monastic foundations, held the prestigious title of archimandrite, which is synonymous with the title of abbot in the Catholic church. No corresponding title for the mothers superior of important women's monasteries existed, even when their authority extended to more than one convent.
32 See, for example, Wojcicki, W., ed., Latopisiec albo Kroniczka Joachima Jerlicza (2 vols., Warsaw, 1853), i, p. 70Google Scholar.
33 Senyk, Women's monasteries, p. 40.
34 CSHAUK, fonds 915, op. 1, no. 8, fos. 1v, 6.
35 Mentioned in 1754–61: CSHAUK, fonds 915, op. 1, no. 8, fos. 3v–4, 24; exchanges with the metropolitan in 1766–74: ibid., fonds 127, op. 161, no. 160, fos. 18v–33; Institute of the Manuscript, Vernadskyi National Library of Ukraine, Kiev (IR VNLU), fonds 312, no. 444/605, fos. 319–21v. Metropolitan is the title used to define the authority of a senior bishop in the Orthodox church, one who is the head of a local church in canonical union with the patriarchal church rather than merely the administrator of an archdiocese.
36 CSHAUK, fonds 915, op. 1, no. 8, fo. 32.
37 Greek Catholic (or ‘Uniate’) church emerged as a result of the Church Union of Brest (1596). Under its terms, the Greek Orthodox church accepted certain dogmatic teachings of Roman Catholicism (such as the filioque clause and papal primacy), but was allowed to retain its traditional system of religious rites. Supported by the Polish–Lithuanian state, Greek Catholicism flourished in the areas of Ukraine controlled by Poland, but was promptly stamped out of existence in the Hetmanate. A concise analysis of the origins of the Union of Brest is provided in Dmitriev, Mikhail V., ‘Conflict and concord in early modern Poland: Catholics and Orthodox at the Union of Brest’, in Louthan, Howard, Cohen, Gary B., and Szabo, Franz A. J., eds., Diversity and dissent: negotiating religious difference in Central Europe, 1500–1800 (New York, NY, 2011), pp. 114–36Google Scholar; for a more detailed treatment, see Gudziak, Borys A., Crisis and reform: the Kyivan metropolitanate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the genesis of the Union of Brest (Cambridge, MA, 1998)Google Scholar.
38 Stramara, ‘Double monasticism in the Greek East: eighth through fifteenth centuries’, p. 190.
39 Saliba, Les monastères maronites doubles du Liban, p. 57.
40 A copy of the convent's foundation charter: CSHAUK, fonds 142, op. 1, no. 2, fos. 1–1v; also see Senyk, Women's monasteries, p. 29.
41 Michaela Hohkamp, ‘Do sisters have brothers? The search for the “rechte Schwester”. Brothers and sisters in aristocratic society at the turn of the sixteenth century’, in Johnson and Sabean, eds., Sibling relations and the transformations of European kinship, p. 68.
42 A noble woman who was taking the veil there pledged a gift of money to the father superior in return for two cells and a lifelong supply of food and firewood: IR VNLU, fonds 307, no. 417/1635, fo. 251; cf. Sokhan’, ‘Kyivs'ki Bohoslovs'kyi ta Iordans'kyi zhinochi monastyri’, p. 82.
43 Crummey, Robert O., ‘Eastern Orthodoxy in Russia and Ukraine at the age of the Counter-Reformation’, in Angold, Michael, ed., The Cambridge history of Christianity, v: Eastern Christianity (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 305–6Google Scholar.
44 Sokhan’, ‘Kyivs'ki Bohoslovs'kyi ta Iordans'kyi zhinochi monastyri’, p. 81; the name of Nikifora's father is listed on the memorial book (sinodik) of the St Michael Monastery, see IR VNLU, fonds 307, no. 537/1743, fos. 65–8.
45 Sokhan’, ‘Kyivs'ki Bohoslovs'kyi ta Iordans'kyi zhinochi monastyri’, p. 85.
46 Sbornik materialov dlia istoricheskoi topografii Kieva i ego okrestnostei (Kiev, 1874), pp. 69–70.
47 IR VNLU, fonds 301, no. 595, St Michael's Women's Monastery, 8 Oct. 1691; another copy dated one week later, ibid., fonds 301, no. 216, St Nicholas (Holy Jordan) women's monastery, 15 Oct. 1691. Monastic cells at the time were single-storey thatched cottages or cabins, each with a small antechamber; some could have more than one room.
48 Petrov, Istoriko-topograficheskie ocherki, pp. 159–60. At that time, Tsarevna Sophia had already entered the Novodevichii Monastery in Moscow as a secular person, without formally taking the veil, which she would be forced to do at a later date.
49 Sokhan’, ‘Kyivs'ki Bohoslovs'kyi ta Iordans'kyi zhinochi monastyri’, pp. 87–90. The date of 1710 as that of the actual relocation, cited by Senyk, is too early, see her Women's monasteries, p. 26.
50 Margolina, I. and Ulianovs'kyi, V., Kyivs'ka obytel’ sviatoho Kyryla (Kiev, 2005), pp. 154–62Google Scholar.
51 CSHAUK, fonds 127, op. 156, no. 32.
52 Margolina and Ulianovs'kyi, Kyivs'ka obytel’ sviatoho Kyryla, p. 346.
53 Ibid., pp. 179–81.
54 Cf. the stipulation in the Rule of St Basil the Great that male superiors of double monasteries were to watch over female communities, but without interfering with the mother's internal rule; their meetings should be infrequent and brief: Silvas, trans., The Rule of St Basil in Latin and English, pp. 284–7; Emchenko, ‘Zhenskie monastyri v Rossii’, pp. 246–7.
55 Charipova, Liudmila V., ‘Virgins and widows: imperial legislation and practices of admission to the novitiate and profession in Ukrainian women's monasteries’, Slavonic and East European Review, 90 (2012), p. 269Google Scholar.
56 CSHAUK, fonds 915, op. 1, no. 6.
57 Margolina and Ulianovs'kyi, Kyivs'ka obytel’ sviatoho Kyryla, p. 147.
58 The pledge that the covent would remain under direct authority of the metropolitan of Kiev: CSHAUK, fonds 127, op. 1021, no. 40, fo. 1. For the comparative ratio of noble women in the three eighteenth-century Kievan convents, see Charipova, ‘Virgins and widows’, p. 272.
59 Margolina and Ulianovs'kyi, Kyivs'ka obytel’ sviatoho Kyryla, p. 196.
60 Sokhan’, ‘Kyivs'ki Bohoslovs'kyi ta Iordans'kyi zhinochi monastyri’, p. 89.
61 CSHAUK, fonds 915, op. 1, no. 6, fo. 15.
62 Senyk, Women's monasteries, p. 114.
63 Iaremenko, M., Kyivs'ke chernetstvo XVIII st. (Kiev, 2007), esp. pp. 22–103Google Scholar.
64 Benton, L., Law and colonial cultures: legal regimes in world history, 1400–1900 (Port Chester, NY, 2001), p. 126CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
65 Iakovenko, ‘Shliakhets'ka pravosvidomist’’, pp. 83–4.
66 Ibid., pp. 85–6.
67 Ibid., pp. 84–5; Ulianovs'kyi, V., Kryzhanivskyi, O., and Plokhii, S., Istoriia tserkvy ta relihiinoi dumky v Ukraini (3 vols., Kiev, 1994), i, p. 127Google Scholar.
68 Benton, Law and colonial cultures, p. 124.
69 Vyslobokov, K., ‘Vyznachna pam'iatka ukrains'koho prava: dzherela, zmist, systema ta sotsial'no-politychni peredumovy stvorennia’, in idem, ed., Prava, za iakymy sudyt'sia malorosiis'kyi narod (Kiev, 1997), pp. xii–xliGoogle Scholar.
70 Kohut, Z., ‘The problem of Ukrainian Orthodox church autonomy in the Hetmanate (1654–1780s)’, Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 14 (1990), pp. 366–7Google Scholar.
71 Ibid., p. 367.
72 Ibid., p. 372.
73 Charipova, ‘Virgins and widows’, pp. 285–6. The process of gradual transformation of the Metropolitanate of Kiev into a part of the unified and disciplined synodal church in the eighteenth century is analysed in Maksym Iaremenko's important recent book Pered vyklykamy unifikatsii ta distsiplinuvannia: Kyivs'ka mytropoliia u XVIII stolitti (Lviv, 2017).
74 See the ferry dispute court file: CSHAUK: fonds 154, op. 1, no. 57, fo. 2. As follows from the text of Ossoliński's charter, the properties had previously been in the monastery's possession, and were given back on the request from the Greek Orthodox Palatine of Kiev Adam Kysil (c. 1600–53), known both for his great political influence and patronage of the church: Vasilenko, N. P., Materialy dlia istorii ekonomicheskogo, iuridicheskogo i obshchestvennogo byta staroi Malorossii (2 vols., Chernihiv, 1901–2), i, p. 225Google Scholar.
75 CSHAUK, fonds 154, op. 1, no. 57, fo. 2v.
76 CSHAUK, fonds 140, op. 1, no. 12, fo. 1 v; CSHAUL, fonds 364, op. 1, no. 187, fo. 35. The word ‘cell’ is used here to describe a rural outpost of an urban monastic foundation, usually established for economic reasons. Because the heads of the Assumption female community retained the name of the original monastery in their title for some time (as mothers superior of the ‘Baturyn and Novi Mlyny Monastery’), Senyk argues that the community of nuns was initially divided between the two locations and that the eventual parting of the ways occurred when the women's portion of the monastery complex in Baturyn burned down in 1683: Senyk, Women's monasteries, p. 35; cf. the entry for 12 Oct. 1683 in Tuptalo, Dimitry's diary: ‘Dnevnye zapiski sviatogo Dimitriia, mitropolita Rostovskogo’, Dushepoleznoe chtenie, 50 (1909), p. 125Google Scholar.
77 Sophie Ruppel, ‘Subordinates, patrons, and most beloved: sibling relationships in seventeenth-century German court society’, in Johnson and Sabean, eds., Sibling relations and the transformations of European kinship, p. 96.
78 Cf. Ruppel's observation that younger siblings, too, had the duty to live honourably so as not to damage the family's reputation: ibid., p. 98.
79 As Marrese observes, in Muscovite and imperial Russia, the death of a brother likewise had the tendency to supply the catalyst for a dispute with his heirs about rights for secular property, Marrese, A woman's kingdom, p. 34.
80 Vasilenko, Materialy dlia istorii, i, p. 1.
81 CSHAUK, fonds 154, op. 1, no. 57, fo. 5.
82 CSHAUK, fonds 154, op. 1, no. 57, fos. 3v, 4v.
83 CSHAUK, fonds 154, op. 1, no. 57, fo. 2v. February 1673 is the date cited in Eingorn, V. О., ‘O snosheniiakh malorossiiskogo dukhovenstva s moskovskim pravitel'stvom v tsarstvovanie Alekseia Mikhailovicha’, Chteniia v Obshchestve istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh, 2 (1899), p. 1010Google Scholar.
84 CSHAUK, fonds 154, op. 1, no. 57, fo. 2v.
85 Vasilenko, Materialy dlia istorii, i, pp. 198–9; cf. CSHAUK, fonds 154, op. 1, no. 57, fo. 3v. By that time, the women's monastery was reasonably well off, as the charter also lists two villages, four mills, some urban properties and plots of land. See also Senyk, Women's monasteries, pp. 95–6. A hundred years later, the convent had 445 peasants working on its estates; in addition to the personal possessions they held on entering the convent and kept, the twenty-six nuns enjoyed the income derived from the villages, and the mother superior's quarters consisted of six rooms: ibid., pp. 98, 166.
86 Benton, Law and colonial cultures, p. 108.
87 Ibid., p. 253.
88 CSHAUK, fonds 154, op. 1, no. 57, fo. 2v.
89 ‘Dnevnye zapiski sviatogo Dimitriia’, pp. 123–5, 128–41. The first edition of Dimitry's Lives of the Saints (Chet'i minei) appeared between 1689 and 1705.
90 CSHAUK, fonds 154, op. 1, no. 57, fo. 5. The confirmatory charter was most probably obtained in the course of Dimitry Tuptalo's trip to Moscow on an official visit with Hetman Ivan Mazepa in August 1689.
91 Vasilenko, Materialy dlia istorii, i, pp. 194–7.
92 Senyk, Women's monasteries, pp. 104–5 n. 16.
93 Vyslobokov, ‘Vyznachna pam'iatka’, p. xxix.
94 CSHAUK, fonds 154, op. 1, no. 57, fo. 15v.
95 Although no information on the income from the ferry is available, one in close proximity to a large city like Baturyn would undoubtedly have turned out a handsome profit. By comparison, in the second half of the eighteenth century a ferry that belonged to a different monastery and did not boast such a prime location could bring its owners up to 500 roubles in one summer: Senyk, Women's monasteries, p. 97. At that time, a work horse could be purchased for 5 roubles: CSHAUK, fonds 127, op. 1021, no. 28, fo. 2.
96 CSHAUK, fonds 154, op. 1, no. 57, fo. 15v.
97 Joseph, S., ‘Brother/sister relationships: connectivity, love and power in the reproduction of patriarchy in Lebanon’, American Ethnologist, 21 (1994), p. 61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
98 Ibid., p. 56.
99 Fay, M. A., ‘Women and waqf: property, power, and the domain of gender in eighteenth-century Egypt’, in Zilfi, M. C., ed., Women in the Ottoman empire (Leiden, 1997), p. 33Google Scholar.
100 Elliott, J. H., ‘A Europe of composite monarchies’, Past and Present, 137 (1992), p. 56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
101 Ibid., pp. 62–3.
102 Meehan, Brenda, ‘Popular piety, local initiative, and the founding of women's religious communities in Russia, 1764–1907’, in Batalden, Stephen K., ed., Seeking God: the recovery of religious identity in Orthodox Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia (DeKalb, IL, 1993), pp. 83–105Google Scholar; Wagner, William, ‘Female Orthodox monasticism in eighteenth-century imperial Russia: the experience of Nizhnii Novgorod’, in Marsh, Rosslyn and Tosi, Alessandra, eds., Women in eighteenth-century Russian culture and society, 1700–1825 (Basingstoke, 2007), pp. 191–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marlyn L. Miller, ‘Under the protection of the Virgin: the feminization of monasticism in imperial Russia, 1700–1923’ (Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis, 2009).