1 Surely this is not a new problem. See Keleher, Serge, “Orthodox Rivalry in the Twentieth Century: Moscow versus Constantinople,” Religion, State and Society 25, no. 2 (1997): 125–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Curanović, Alicja, “The Attitude of the Moscow Patriarchate towards Other Orthodox Churches,” Religion, State and Society 35, no. 4 (2007): 301–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Willems, Joachim, “The Religio-political Strategies of the Russian Orthodox Church as a ‘Politics of Discourse,’” Religion, State and Society 34, no. 3 (2006): 287–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boris Knorre, “Rossiyskoe pravoslavie. Postsekulyarnaya institutsionalizatsiya v prostranstve vlasti, politiki i prava,” [Russian Orthodoxy: Post-secular institutionalization in the space of power, politics and law], in Montazh i demontazh sekulyarnogo mira [Construction and deconstruction of the secular world], ed. Aleksei Malashenko and Sergei Filatov (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2014), 42–10; Stoeckl, Kristina, “Postsecular Conflicts and the Global Struggle for Traditional Values,” State, Religion, Church 3, no. 2 (2016): 102–16Google Scholar.

3 Russian Orthodox Church, Osnovy Sotsial'noi Kontseptsii Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkv / The Bases of the Social Conception of the Russian Orthodox Church (2000), https://mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/ (hereafter the Social Doctrine.) The document was adopted at the Sacred Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on August 14, 2000. I translate the Russian kontseptsiia as social doctrine, not concept. See Social Doctrine, “Church and State,” at III.4. Subsequent citations to the Social Doctrine are parenthetical.

4 Koselleck, Reinhart, Sediments of Time: On Possible Histories (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Skinner, Quentin, From Humanism to Hobbes: Studies in Rhetoric and Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Stoeckl, Kristina, “The Russian Orthodox Church as Moral Norm Entrepreneur,” Religion, State and Society 44, no. 2 (2016): 132–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Agadjanian, Alexander, “Exploring Russian Religiosity as a Source of Morality Today,” in Multiple Moralities and Religions in Post-Soviet Russia, ed. Zigon, Jarrett (Oxford: Berghahn, 2011), 16–24Google Scholar.

7 Irina Papkova, The Orthodox Church and Russian Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).

8 See, for example, Stoeckl, Kristina, “Political Hesychasm? Vladimir Petrunin's Neo-Byzantine Interpretation of the Social Doctrine of the Russian Orthodox Church,” Studies in East European Thought 62, no. 1 (2010): 125–33Google Scholar.

9 Konstitutsiia Rossiiskoi Federatsi [Konst. RF] [Constitution] art. 14 (Russ.).

10 On the attempts of the Russian Orthodox Church to intertwine symphonia and other theological concepts of the Social Doctrine into the prevailing political culture, see Richters, Katja, The Post-Soviet Russian Orthodox Church: Politics, Culture and Greater Russia (Abington: Routledge, 2013), 18–35Google Scholar; Agadjanian, Alexander, “Liberal Individual and Christian Culture: Russian Orthodox Teaching on Human Rights in Social Theory Perspective,” Religion, State and Society 38, no. 2 (2010): 97–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Ponomariov, Alexander, The Visible Religion: The Russian Orthodox Church and her Relations with State and Society in Post-Soviet Canon Law (1992–2015) (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Possible philosophical perspectives for such a reconciliation and for intertwining the Eastern-Orthodox intellectual tradition into modernism would rather require introduction of new types of political modernity. See Stoeckl, Kristina, Community after Totalitarianism: The Russian Orthodox Intellectual Tradition and the Philosophical Discourse of Political Modernity (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2008)Google Scholar; Agadjanian, Alexander, “Breakthrough to Modernity, Apologia for Traditionalism: The Russian Orthodox View of Society and Culture in Comparative Perspective,” Religion, State and Society 31, no. 4 (2003): 327–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Hilarion, “The Theology of Freedom: Christianity and Secular Power from the Edict of Milan to the Present,” Russian Orthodox Church (October 18, 2014), https://mospat.ru/en/2014/10/18/news109757/.

14 Alexander F. C. Webster, James George Jatras, and Victor Potapov, “Patriarch Kirill and Russian Orthodoxy Deserve Respect Not Insults: An Open Letter to George Weigel,” Pravoslavie.ru, September 3, 2015, http://www.pravoslavie.ru/82093.html.

15 See, for example, Hovorun, Cyril, “Is the Byzantine ‘Symphony’ Possible in Our Days?” Journal of Church and State 59, no. 2 (2016): 280–96Google Scholar.

16 As translated and quoted in the Social Doctrine, III.4, ¶ 5.

17 As translated and quoted in Meyendorff, John, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church 450–680 A.D. (Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1989), 209Google Scholar. Meyendorff interprets this conceptualization of symphonia in terms of “an authentic attempt to view human life in Christ as a whole” where “both Church and state cooperated in preserving the faith and in building a society based on charity and humaneness.” Meyendorff, John, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, 2nd ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), 214–15Google Scholar.

18 Schmemann, Alexander, Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy (Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Norwich, John Julius, Byzantium: The Early Centuries (New York: Knopf, 1988)Google Scholar.

19 Eusebius, Life of Constantine, trans. Averill Cameron and Stuart G. Hall (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999).

20 “Consubstantial with the Father as to his Divinity, and the Same consubstantial with us as to his humanity . . . known in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation” (my translation). The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith: The Creed of Nicaea, Three Epistles of Cyril, The Tome of Leo, The Chalcedonian Definition, ed. T. Herbert Bindley and F. W. Green (London: Greenwood Press, 1950), 193 [Greek]. This formula of consubstantiality seems to be revealed also in the church-state symphonia, in which the church participates at the same time through its divine (Corpus Christi) and social natures. It might be questioned whether the attempts of rationalization of this consubstantiality by the Catholic Church in the Filioque controversy formed one of the intellectual pillars of the Papal Revolution, which gave birth to the modern state. Berman, Harold J., Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), 115Google Scholar.

21 Meyendorff, John, “Justinian, the Empire and the Church,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 22 (1968): 45–60, at 49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Ostrogorsky, George, “The Byzantine Emperor and the Hierarchical World Order,” The Slavonic and East European Review 35, no. 84 (1956): 1–14Google Scholar.

23 In Steven Runciman's description, the patriarch “could refuse to crown an Emperor-designate of whom he disapproved. He could refuse to co-operate with a policy distasteful to him. The Emperor might pack a synod which would depose and replace him, but only if public opinion supported him. If public opinion was on the Patriarch's side the Emperor had to yield. Steven Runciman, “Byzantium, Russia and Caesaropapism,” Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne Des Slavistes, no. 2 (1957): 1–10, at 4.

24 Schmemann, Alexander, “Byzantine Theocracy and the Orthodox Church,” CrossCurrents 4, no. 2 (1954): 109–23Google Scholar.

25 O'Meara, Dominic J., Platonopolis: Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003), 145–97Google Scholar.

26 There can be another standpoint, according to which church's views prevailed in Byzantium despite emperors’ attempts to meddle with church's affairs, while picturing symphonia as a sign of caesaropapism is erroneous and due to Western orientalization of Orthodox Christianity.

27 John Meyendorff, “The Christian Gospel and Social Responsibility: The Eastern Orthodox Tradition in History,” in Continuity and Discontinuity in Church History: Essays Presented to George Huntston Williams on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. F. Forrester Church and Timothy George (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 118–30, at 125. See the brilliant analysis of the intellectual context of this phrase: James C. Skedros, “You Cannot Have a Church without an Empire: Political Orthodoxy in Byzantium,” in Christianity, Democracy, and the Shadow of Constantine, ed. George E. Demacopoulos and Aristotle Papanikolaou (New York: Fordham University, 2017), 219–31.

28 Vasilios N. Makrides, “Orthodox Christianity and State/Politics Today,” in Orthodox Religion and Politics in Contemporary Eastern Europe, ed. Tobias Köllner (New York: Routledge, 2019), 235–54.

29 John Witte Jr., “Facts and Fictions about the History of Separation of Church and State,” Journal of Church and State 48, no. 1 (2006): 15–45.

30 David Knowles, “Church and State in Christian History,” Journal of Contemporary History 2, no. 4 (1967): 3–15.

31 Addressing all possible interpretations of symphonia in the Byzantine history is beyond the scope of this article, as is a detailed analysis of the literature that sheds a different light on this problem. However, see, for example, Steven Runciman, Byzantine Civilisation (London: Arnold, 1933); Percy N. Ure, Justinian and His Age (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1951); Alexander A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 324–1453 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1952), vol. 1; Jaroslav Pelikan Jr., The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 5 vols. (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1973–1974), vols. 1 and 2; Joan M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); Petros Vassiliadis, “Orthodox Christianity,” in God's Rule: The Politics of World Religions, ed. Jacob Neusner (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 85–105; John A. McGuckin, The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008); Lucian N. Leuştean, “The Concept of Symphonia in Contemporary European Orthodoxy,” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 11, no. 2–3 (2011): 188–202. I am grateful to the anonymous referee for this bibliographic indication.

32 George Vernadsky, “The Status of the Russian Church during the First Half-Century Following Vladimir's Conversion,” Slavonic Year-Book, no. 1 (1941): 294–314, at 305. The text of the Statute: “Synod Copy of Church Statute of Prince Volodimir [Vladimir, ca. 1019–54]” in The Laws of Rus’: Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries, ed. and trans. Daniel H. Kaiser (Salt Lake City: Charles Schlacks, 1992): 42–44. In Ferdinand Feldbrugge's opinion, this statute laid the “foundations of the relationship between Church and state in Russia as it was to survive for many centuries.” Ferdinand J. M. Feldbrugge, A History of Russian Law: From Ancient Times to the Council Code (Ulozhenie) of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich of 1649 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 149.

33 “Statute of Prince Jaroslav [1019–54]” in Kaiser, The Laws of Rus’, 45.

34 Ilarion, “Eulogy on St. Vladimir,” Anthology of Russian Literature from the Earliest Period to the Present Time, Pt.1, trans. Leo Wiener (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1902), 48.

35 Georgy P. Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind, vol. I (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966), 399; see also Nikolay Zernov, “Vladimir and the Origin of the Russian Church,” Slavonic and East European Review 70, no. 28 (1949): 123–38.

36 Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind, 399.

37 Elizabeth Warner, Heroes, Monsters and Other Worlds from Russian Mythology (London: Peter Lowe, 1985).

38 Janet Martin, Medieval Russia: 980–1584 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 9.

39 Wallace L. Daniel, The Orthodox Church and Civil Society in Russia (College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 2006), 12 (emphasis in original).

40 Feldbrugge, A History of Russian Law, 57–58.

41 Ilarion, “Sermon on Law and Grace,” in Sermons and Rhetoric of Kievan Rus’, trans. Simon Franklin (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), 3–30

42 Ilarion, “Sermon on Law and Grace,” 23.

43 John L. Fennell, A History of the Russian Church to 1488 (Abingdon: Routledge, 2013), 113–16.

44 Feldbrugge, A History of Russian Law, 494–95.

45 The Chronicle of Novgorod, 1016–1471, trans. Robert Mitchell and Neville Forbes (London: Royal Historical Society, 1914), 187–88.

46 George P. Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind: Kievan Christianity. The 10th to the 13th Centuries (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 268–303.

47 See, for example, Michael C. Paul, “Episcopal Election in Novgorod, Russia 1156-1478,” Church History 72, no. 2 (2003): 251–75.

48 Feldbrugge, A History of Russian Law, 563.

49 James W. Warhola, “Revisiting the Russian ‘Constrained Autocracy’: ‘Absolutism’ and Natural Rights Theories in Russia and in the West,” in Civil Society and the Search for Justice in Russia, eds. Christopher Marsh and Nicholas Gvosdev (Lanham: Lexington, 2002), 19.

50 Michel Bouchard, “The Medieval Nation of Rus’: The Religious Underpinnings of the Russian Nation,” Ab Imperio 3 (2001): 97–122.

51 James W. Warhola, “Revisiting the Russian ‘Constrained Autocracy’: ‘Absolutism’ and Natural Rights Theories in Russia and in the West,” in Civil Society and the Search for Justice in Russia, ed. Christopher Marsh and Nicholas Gvosdev (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2002), 19–39.

52 In this case, the state acted against its own interest to expropriate the monastic lands which coincided with the requirements of the non-possessors. See Donald Ostrowski, “Church Polemics and Monastic Land Acquisition in Sixteenth-Century,” Slavonic and East European Review 64, no. 3 (1986): 355–79.

53 John Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church: Its Past and Its Role in the World Today (Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1981), 95–99.

54 It is emblematic that Patriarch Philaret's full title was Our Father, the Great Sovereign, the very Holy Patriarch Philaret Nikitich of Moscow and all of Russia. Such a title displayed the authority of the patriarch who was on the same level as the tsar in both secular and ecclesiastical affairs. Lee Trepanier, Political Symbols in Russian History: Church, State, and the Quest for Order and Justice (Lexington: Lexington Books), 75–76.

55 James H. Billington, Face of Russia: Anguish, Aspiration, and Achievement in Russian Culture (Eugene: Resource Publications, 2008), 58.

56 Ihor Sevcenko, “A Neglected Byzantine Source of Muscovite Political Ideology,” Harvard Slavic Studies, no. 2 (1954): 141–79.

57 Quoted in Michael Cherniavsky, Tsar and People: Studies in Russian Myths (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961), 38.

58 Michael Cherniavsky, Tsar and People: Studies in Russian Myths, 38.

59 Chapter 62 of the Decision of the 1551 Moscow Hundred-Chapters Council (Stoglav) of Russian Orthodox Church reproduced the principle of symphonia from Justinian's Sixth Novel, giving to it thereby the force of law.

60 Serge A. Zenkovsky, “The Russian Schism: Its Background and Repercussions,” Russian Review 16, no. 4 (1957): 37–58.

61 Richard Pipes, Russia under the Old Regime (New York: Scribner, 1974), 241–43.

62 Peter the Great, The Spiritual Regulation (1721), as cited by Geoffrey Hosking, Russia and the Russians: A History (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2001), 199.

63 C. J. Nederman, “Body Politics: The Diversification of Organic Metaphors in the Later Middle Ages,” Il Pensiero Politico Medievale, no. 2 (2004): 59–87.

64 Feofan Prokopovich, “Justice of Monarch's Right to Appoint the Heir to His Throne,” in Peter the Great: His Law on the Imperial Succession in Russia, 1722, trans. Anthony Lentin (Oxford: Headstart History, 1996), 122–281.

65 Nikolas Gvosdev, An Examination of Church-State Relations in the Byzantine and Russian Empires with an Emphasis on Ideology and Models of Interaction (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2001).

66 My analysis is limited to the Slavophiles-Westernizers debate and to the ideas of Vladimir Soloviev. In this respect, conservative ideas of many other Russian authors of that period of time could also have been examined, especially the Byzantism of Konstantin Leontiev, the Panslavism of Nikolay Danilevsky, the Monarchism of Konstantin Pobedonostsev or Lev Tikhomirov, and others. To keep this research at a manageable length, these ideas will not be examined here. See, for example, Pavel Rakitin, “Byzantine Echoes in the Nineteenth Century Press and in the Writings of Russian Intellectuals,” Opuscula Historiae Artium 62, Supplementum (2013): 98–109; Lora Gerd, Russian Policy in the Orthodox East: The Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1878–1914 (Warsaw: De Gruyter, 2014), 20–39.

67 Andrzej Walicki, The Slavophile Controversy: History of a Conservative Utopia in Nineteenth-Century Russian Thought, trans. Hilda Andrews-Rusiecka (London: Oxford University Press, 1975), 83–117.

68 Peter Chaadaev, “Philosophical Letters in Teleskop,” in Russian Philosophy, vol. 1, The Beginnings of Russian Philosophy, the Slavophiles, the Westernizers, ed. James Edie, James P. Scanlan, and Mary-Barbara Zeldin (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1976), 106–154, at 116.

69 Peter Chaadaev, “The Apologia of a Madman,” in Philosophical Works of Peter Chaadaev, ed. Raymond McNally and Richard Tempest (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991), 102–11.

70 “[I]n the West we find a dichotomy of the spirit, a dichotomy of thought, a dichotomy of learning, a dichotomy of the state, a dichotomy of estates, a dichotomy of society, a dichotomy of familial rights and duties, a dichotomy of morals and emotions . . . . We find in Russia, in contrast, a predominant striving for wholeness of being, both external and inner, social and individual, intellectual and workaday, artificial and moral.” Kireevsky, Ivan, “On the Nature of European Culture and on Its Relationship to Russian Culture,” in On Spiritual Unity: A Slavophile Reader, trans. Jakim, Boris and Bird, Robert (Hudson: Lindisfarne, 1998), 189–232, at 229Google Scholar.

71 Gleason, Abbott, European and Muscovite: Ivan Kireevsky and the Origins of Slavophilism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972)Google Scholar.

72 Georges Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology, trans. Robert L. Nichols, 2 vols. (Belmont: Nordland, 1979), 2:17.

73 Engelstein, Laura, Slavophile Empire: Imperial Russia's Illiberal Path (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009)Google Scholar.

74 Berdyaev, Nicolas, The Russian Idea (New York: Macmillan, 1948), 42Google Scholar.

75 Aleksi Osipov, “The Theological Conceptions of the Slavophiles,” in The Holy Russian Church and Western Christianity, ed. Giuseppe Alberigo and Oscar Beozzo (London: SCM Press, 1996), 33–48.

76 Thus, Metropolitan Hilarion, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church's Department for External Church Relations, draws a conceptual link between the Slavophile idea of sobornost’ (which he translates as synodality) and the church's ideal of church organization. Hilarion, “Primacy and Synodality from an Orthodox Perspective,” Russian Orthodox Church, November 9, 2014, https://mospat.ru/en/2014/11/09/news111091/.

77 Berdyaev, The Russian Idea, 112.

78 Paul Valliere, “Russian Orthodoxy and Human Rights,” in Religious Diversity and Human Rights, ed. Irene Bloom, Paul Martin, and Wayne L. Proudfoot (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), 278–312, at 282.

79 Whittaker, Cynthia H., “The Ideology of Sergei Uvarov: An Interpretive Essay,” Russian Review 37, no. 2 (1978): 158–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Riasanovsky, Nicholas, Nicholas I and Official Nationality in Russia, 1825–1855 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 Uvarov, Sergei, “Memorandum 1834,” in Russia and the West from Peter to Khrushchev, ed. Oliva, Lawrence J. (Boston: Heath, 1965), 90–91, at 90Google Scholar.

81 “The ultimate moral significance of society ‘is determined by the religious or mystical principle in man, by virtue of which all members of society are not limits for each other, but rather internally fulfill each other in the free unity of spiritual love, which must be immediately realized in a spiritual society or the church. Thus, the normative society has as its foundation a spiritual union or the church, which defines its absolute ends.’” Vladimir S. Soloviev, Kritika otvlechennykh nachal [Critique of abstract principles], as cited by Randall A. Poole, “The Greatness of Vladimir Soloviev: A Review Essay,” Canadian Slavonic Papers 50, no. 1–2 (2008): 201–23, at 217–18.

82 Vladimir Solovyev's Lectures on Godmanhood, ed. Peter P. Zouboff (Poughkeepsie: Harmon, 1944).

83 Vladimir Zenkovsky, A History of Russian Philosophy, trans. George L. Kline, 2 vols. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1953), 2:500; see also Wozniuk, Vladimir, “In the Shadow of the Anthill: Religious Faith, Individual Freedom, and the Common Good in the Thought of V. S. Solov'ev,” Russian Review 67, no. 4 (2008): 622–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Obolevitch, Teresa, “The Metaphysical Foundations of The Ecumenical Project of Vladimir Soloviev,” Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 67, no. 1–2 (2015): 31–43Google Scholar.

84 Solovyov, Vladimir, The Justification of the Good: An Essay on Moral Philosophy, trans. Duddington, Natalie A., ed. Jakim, Boris (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2005), 394Google Scholar.

85 Soloviev's formula is reproduced in the Social Doctrine: “The Church should not assume the prerogatives of the state, such as resistance to sin by force, use of temporal authoritative powers and assumption of the governmental functions which presuppose coercion or restriction. At the same time, the Church may request or urge the government to exercise power in particular cases, yet the decision rests with the state” (III.3, ¶ 5). His conception of “Godmanhood” also appears in the directive “the tasks and work of the Church and the state may coincide not only in seeking purely earthly welfare, but also in the fulfilment of the salvific mission of the Church” (III.3, ¶ 3).

86 Vladimir Solovyov, War, Progress, and the End of History: Three Conversations. Including a Short Story of the Anti-Christ, trans. Alexander Bakshy (Hudson: Lindisfarne Press, 1990); see also Judith D. Kornblatt, “Soloviev on Salvation: The Story of the ‘Short Story of the Antichrist,’” in Russian Religious Thought, ed. Judith D. Kornblatt and Richard F. Gustafson (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996), 68–87.

87 Konstantin N. Kostuyk, “Vozniknovenie sotsialnoi doktriny Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi” [The appearance of the social doctrine of the Russian Orthodox Church], Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost’ 6 (2001): 114–131, at 127.

88 Justinian, The Enactments of Justinian, The Novels, VI, in The Civil Law, including the Twelve Tables the Institutes of Gaius, the Rules of Ulpian, the Opinions of Paulus, the Enactments of Justinian, and the Constitutions of Leo, trans. S. P. Scott, vol. 16 (Cincinnati: Central Trust, 1932), Epilogue, https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/Anglica/N6_Scott.htm.

89 This fact is due rather to the political circumstances of Byzantium than to any particular principles of the Orthodox Christianity. On possible Orthodox interpretations of social-contract theory, see, for example, Gvosdev, Nikolas N., “St. John Chrysostom and John Locke: An Orthodox Basis for the Social Contract?,” Philotheos 3 (2003): 150–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90 Danilevskii, Nikolai, Russia and Europe: The Slavic Worlds Political and Cultural Relations with the Germanic-Roman West, trans. Woodburn, Stephen M. (Bloomington: Slavica Publishers, 2013)Google Scholar.

91 Justinian, The Novels, VI, Preface.

92 Papkova, The Orthodox Church and Russian Politics, 38.

93 Kristina Stoeckl, “Moral Argument in the Human Rights Debate of the Russian Orthodox Church,” in Demacopoulos and Papanikolaou, Christianity, Democracy, and the Shadow of Constantine, 11–30, at 18. On the general framework of the Russian Orthodox Church's human-rights conception, see Kristina Stoeckl, The Russian Orthodox Church and Human Rights (London: Routledge, 2014).

94 Feldbrugge, A History of Russian Law, 740.

95 Meyendorff, “Justinian, the Empire and the Church,” 49.

96 Dvornik, Francis, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy: Origins and Background (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 1966), 255Google Scholar.

97 Knox, Zoe, “The Symphonic Ideal: The Moscow Patriarchate's Post-Soviet Leadership,” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 4 (2003): 575–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

98 Giocas, Athanasios, “The Byzantine Legacy of Religious and Legal Pluralism: A Contemporary Reassessment of Byzantine Church–State Relations,” Oxford Journal of Law and Religion 3, no. 1 (2014): 462–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Emmanuel Clapsis, “An Orthodox Encounter with Liberal Democracy,” in Demacopoulos and Papanikolaou, Christianity, Democracy, and the Shadow of Constantine, 111–26.

99 Deliberating on Orthodox Social Doctrine (Ethos) in 2020, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America evokes the concept of symphonia, but prudently adds that symphonia “cannot, however, be invoked as a justification for the imposition of religious orthodoxy on society at large, or for promotion of the Church as a political power. Rather, it should serve to remind Christians that this commitment to the common good—as opposed to the mere formal protection of individual liberties, partisan interests, and the power of corporations—is the true essence of a democratic political order.” Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, “For the Life of the World: Toward a Social Ethos of the Orthodox Church,” accessed June 23, 2020, https://www.goarch.org/social-ethos?p_p_id=56_INSTANCE_<km0Xa4sy69OV&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=1&_56_INSTANCE_km0Xa4sy69OV_languageId=en_US.