i.

The Christanization of Serbia took place as a parallel phenomenon to the development of the Serbian state in the first half of the 9th century. Simultaneously, the rise of the Franks in the west, and the Christianization of Bulgaria to the north showed this time as one of the expansion of Christianity just prior to the formal date of the western schism in 1054. It had been papal policy for some time (as explained in chapter III) to Latinize the entire Balkan peninsula, which was a major operative reason for the sack of Byzantium in 1204 (the real date of the western schism). St. Photios the Great, patriarch of Constantinople, used the mission of Sts Cyril and Methodius to counter papal designs in the area. The liturgical offices done in native Slavic created a Slavic literary language and an ethnic bulwark against Latinization.

The Church of Bulgaria was centered on the famous See of Ohrid. Ohrid was the central channel for Greek influence in the region, and, prior to the work of St. Sava, all Serbia was also under this See. As Byzantium fell to the crusaders, the work of Stepan Nemanjia began, uniting all Serb lands, and creating at least the institutional outlines of an independent Serbian church and liturgical tradition.

Four centuries had elapsed from the beginning of Christianization on the one hand, and the granting of Serbian autocephalicity, on the other. The Latinization of the Serbian coastlands and the increased pressure on the interior saw Sava quickly depart for Nicea, the rump of the Byzantine state, to lobby for church independence. The manipulations of the popes were forcing nearly all Slavic princes to see him as their overlord. Church independence and the existence of a Slavic liturgical language put a stop to this. Of course, Stepan Nemanjia’s absorption of Zeta helped put a stop to Latin pressure for a time.

The history of Serbian Orthodoxy has been forged in the crucible of suffering. The Serbian Orthodox church almost never came into existence, given the immense of wealth of Venice which acted as a papal battering ram within the major trading posts along the Adriatic coastlands and especially in Dubrovnik (Ragusa). St. Sava traveled back to Athos to recruit his bishops for one reason: that the Athonites had been the consistent defenders of Orthodox tradition, including to the point of martyrdom, and therefore, if Serbia was to maintain the pure faith, she would have to “contract out” to the Serbian presence on the Holy Mountain. His first nine dioceses were based around monastic establishments and manned by Athonite monks.

On the Feast of the Ascension, 1221, a church/state sabor was held in Zica monastery, where the kingdom of Serbia was officially proclaimed as a Christian and monastic entity. She was to be centered on Orthodoxy, and Orthodoxy was to be her defining feature. Especially given the militant Latin pressure on the merchant classes along the coast. Not surprisingly, Ohrid rejected autocephalicity, for it broke the Serb dioceses away from her. They accused Sava of “meddling in politics.”

Significantly, St. Sava made sure that his own successors in the Serbian church would be like him, scholarly and deeply ascetic. He could not have asked for better: after the move of the archpastoral see to Pec in 1253, out of fear of barbarian invasions, the bishop of Pec, Sts. Nikodim (1317-1324) and Danilo II (1324-1337) were first rank scholars and translators, bringing the entirety of Greek culture to Serbia. In fact, archbishop Danilo’s work on the history of the Serb kings remains our only significant source for information about them.

After St. Sava, the church grew, and the rulers such as Dragutin, Milutin and Stepan Dusan massively increased the wealth of the realm as well as enhanced her security. In Skoplye in 1346, Tsar Dusan called a council to proclaim the See of Pec as a patriarchate. The patriarch of Bulgaria, and bishop of Ohrid, many Greek bishops and many from the Holy Mountain were in attendance to give their consent to the move. The sees of Skoplye, Raska, Zeta and Prizren were elevated to metropolitanates. Eventually the Byzantines recognized the patriarchate in 1375, but only because of the pleading of so many Serbian rulers as the Turks closed in, including Despot Ugljesa Mrnjavcevic, who was the first in the Turk line of fire. Many Serbs on Mt. Athos eventually persuaded the Greek patriarchate to rescind her earlier rejection, in the form of a excommunication.

It should be noted that the practice of hesyechasm was very influential in Serbia largely because of the closeness of the Serb church to Athos. However, as the Turks advanced, many Serbian monks fled to the protection of Tsar St. Lazar’s realm, and he himself became imbued with the spirit of mental prayer. One of the later patriarchs in this times was Ephraim, who was a hesychast. The economy was recovered to a great extend under Lazar’s son Stepan Lazarevic. More monasteries were built under his reign such as at Kalenic and Resava. Even George Brankovic (1427-1456) loudly rejected the council of Florence, and told the arrogant Franciscan Capostrano that “I would rather die than abandon the faith of my fathers.” Here, George was rejecting Latin aid even as he knew he could hold out for long against the Turks. He, following the example of St. Lazar, chose martyrdom over political expedience.

One cannot overestimate the centrality of Orthodoxy and monasticism on medieval Serbia. She was a literate and highly cultured society, largely due to the monastic presence, itself taken from Greek and Bulgarian teachers. St. Nikolaij says that in Serbia, “each house became a little monastery.” Keep in mind that, in medieval times, all throughout the Balkans, regular services, usually daily, were celebrated in even the smallest churches. A far cry from the modern McParish, which lays empty all week, Serb, Greek and Russian parishes throughout their history featured much of the Athonite typica in its daily services, as well as regularly singing the various Akathists, canons and other prayer services. Everything revolved around prayer and the public presence of the church: weddings, engagements, births, slavas, death, eating, baptisms, planting, harvesting, anniversaries, business ventures, all, and much more, was done liturgically, through the many and varied services of the church. Priests were educated at monasteries, and many of them had access to the classical work of the Greek world. Serbia, as well as Bulgaria, were major conduits for the Orthodox tradition into Vladimir, Tver and Moscow.

ii.

St. Sava was born about 1173, of the royal lineage of the Nemanjas. He had some contact with the Athonites (as many passed through Serbia), and Sava’s connection there helped define Serbian monasticism until the present. For Sava, the worldly life was a burden, and both power and marriage held out the distasteful life of one dependent upon the world. His father took up with him later to Athos, showing an oddly Serbian view of power and its many discomforts. He was well received at Athos and even became a negotiator with Byzantium from Vatopedi monastery. He lived in the eremitic form of monastic life, basically alone.

Serbia was being town apart after the 4th crusade. The pope made inroads into Serbia after 1204, and the Orthodox eventually threw in their lot with Bulgaria. With Hungarian assistance, Serbia was split along princely lines, with Montenegro going its own way. Many wished Sava to return home to restore peace to the country. Stepan needed his brother Sava home to help against Vukasin, Sava’s older brother. Sava, bringing his father’s remains back to Serbia, brought peace between the two brothers over the myrrh-streaming and incorrupt relics of the first Nemanjid. St. Sava traveled extensively through Serbia from his home base as abbot at Studentsia. He was building the infrastructure of Orthodox ethnic nationalism with many helpers from Athos.

As Stepan was crowed by the Latins in 1217, Sava, by providence, had returned home to shore up Orthodoxy in the country. Part of the reason Byzantium eventually accepted Serbian ecclesial independence was they needed a strong, pro-Byzantine and Orthodox country to help them fight the Latins. St. Sava was astute enough politically to understand the politics of the empire of Nicea.

The waning of Byzantine political power was the central issue of the eastern middle ages. However, their influence never retreated, only their money and political power. Slavic churches benefitted from this as a means whereby Nicea could extend its influence by granting freedom to ethnic churches, and building alternative structures to fight the Latin heretics. Byzantium was temporarily destroyed, and the only thing Nicea could do is grant independence, while still maintaining its cultural influence over its former subjects. Therefore, Serbian, Bulgaria and Russia could be completely independent of the Greeks while still being Byzantinists.

There was a political reason for the division of the dioceses: for example, as M. Purkovic says, the diocese of Zeta, based around the monastery of St. Michael was built to physically confront the Catholics at the Bay of Kotor. The monastery of St Nicholas was the center of the Dabar diocese, and was built to confront the Bogomils.

Sava eventually gave his student, Arsen, leadership of the Serb church so Sava could see how the legitimate modes of succession would work and that his edifice would continue to function after his repose. The tendencies towards secessions among the princes of Serbia ensured that any church leader needed to be a strong political figure as well.

Sava crossed tribal feelings among specific geographical branches of Serbs and helped mold them into a real nation, subjectively aware of their oneness. This was his greatest secular achievement. The government had been granted its purpose and general cohesion though Sava. After him, Serbia developed into a major center for learning and the arts, specifically frescos, poetry and architecture. She quickly developed her own choir of saints, from holy monks to saintly kings. She was now an integral part of world Orthodoxy and had taken her place as an equal to them all.

As Byzantium regained some of its former splendor, they made an agreement with the Latins at Lyon in 1274 for a unia – the independence of the Slav churches permitted th sucessors of Sava to ignore this crass and cynical move. Lyon and the later council at Florence were rejected by the overwhelming majority of Orthodox, as it was seen solely as a means to garner Latin support.

King Milutin (d. 1321) began Serbia’s rise to secular empire status, fed by the successes of Uros I, who developed Serbia’s mining. Coining of silver provided Serbs with economic independence. Dusan’s empire could not have been possible with Uros and Milutin. Dusan’s empire also elevated the Serbian archbishopric to the level of patriarch. As the empire grew, it absorbed other Orthodox jurisdictions such as Ohrid (Bulgaria was neutralized both by war and Duasn’s marriage to Helena of Bulgaria), and several independent metropoles loyal to Constantinople. A major sabor of bishops was held in 1338 and dealt with these two major issues. Dusan was coronated emperor in 1346 by the new patriarch, Eustathius II. The Bulgarian patriarch was also present, as well as a delegation from Athos, further solidifying the Athonite nature of Serbian life and politics.

Though the Greek patriarch Callistus excommunicated the Serb church, this was likely due to the extreme issues engendered by Serb expansion and by small revolts carried out by Greek clergy against the Serb domination of the new lands of the empire, where some Greeks had been expelled from their sees. In 1355, Dusan died, and with him, the leadership necessary to maintain the Orthodox empire. Uros IV was unable to stop these disintegrative tendencies. Prince Lazar of the Morava River Valley, Patriarch Sava IV and Isaiah, the mystic of Athos, met together to plan the defense of a weakened Serbia agaisnt the Turk. Isaiah smoothed things over with Constantinople. Patriarch Sava IV died in 1375 and his position was very difficult to fill due to the political situation. So now, the church did not speak with a unified voice, making the situation much more dire. The local rulers settled on Ephraim, a former hermit in Bulgaria.

Disputes were raging thought Serbia as monasteries and villages were not paying taxes due to the division of power in the country. Ephraim, an elderly holy man, was not up to the challenge. This certainly does not reflect badly on him, due to the severity of the situation. Spiridon took his place, and it was under his patriarchy that the famous battle of 1389 took place. The Brankovic family was the strongest after Lazar died, and they continued to launch probing attacks to check for Turk weaknesses. The Turk was already imposing tribute when Ephraim took the reins again after Spiridon died.

Stepan Lazarovic was still able to exploit comparative Turk weakness by playing off Hungary and Turkey, and he still had some mines under his control. Even in these times, Stepan built churches and monastic settlements. He was the rump of the Serbian state.

iii.

The Serbian slava is the single most distinctive aspect of the Serbian orthodox church, given only superficial examination in Mylonas’ poor book. It is saturated with Orthodox symbolism and it is rather rare to read a full and competent description of it.

Slava has a pagan predecessor, based around the family protectors, or ancestors fetishized into “gods.” The ancestors of the Christian race are the saints, and specifically the major feasts of the church as St John or St Nicholas. The slava is the celebration and the mysterion of the family as the center of church life. During the Turk occupation, it took the place of many sacraments and liturgies due to the shortage of priests. All the family in invited to attend, all all family members including in-laws partake of the patron saint (there are no name days in Serbia). Pavlovic has given us a very good summary of the slava cake, the only one in English that I know of. First, the bread is baked with pure white flour, symbolizing purity. Second, prayers are said before baking, specifically prayers of repentance. After baking, the bread is then considered the family phosphora, or communion bread. Baptism is represented by placing a few drops of holy water into the flour. The cake is a circle symbolizing eternity and the rings of marriage.

Sometimes spices such as the royal leaf (basil) are used to represent the descent of the Holy Spirit. The prayers the family chants are those for matrimony as the priest cuts the bread into a cross. Wine is poured into the slava bread, symbolizing Christ’s blood. The Eucharist and priesthood are represented here. (Though during the Turk occupation the head of the zadruga blessed the bread). Pavlovic mentions something I have never hard of before, that some of the bread is crushed, stored and used in next years flour, creating continuity from year to year.

A wheat dish is also prepared, heavily with water, symbolizing the central aspects of life: water and bread. It represents the holy mother as she fed the baby Jesus. The wheat germs are rinsed with cold water representing the washing away of all sins after martyrdom.

The badnyak feast is done on Christmas eve. The head of the household cuts down a oak sapling, after a prayer said to the east. The swing of the axe was to come from the east, representing the rising of the sun. Roast pig on a spit was the Nativity meal, with much slivovitz, as always. The log was placed over the glowing embers of the fire, upon which wheat kernels were sprinkled, representing the same things they do during the slava. The house was blessed by its head, and straw strewn thought ut the house. A wheat dish was prepared, lit by a taper. Early morning was marked by pistol shots. Families would stand outside their homes until a specially chosen male, the polozhainik, entered, poking the badnyak log, sending sparks throughout the chimney, chanting that “as many sparks, shall there also be my animals this coming year.”

These are just a few smatterings of specifically Serbian customs connected with the church, but so much was lost between the destruction of Serbia by the Turk, then what was wrought by the Titiote regime in the 20th century. Today, monasteries are being ransacked by savage Albanian Muslims, with U.S. support, destroying more priceless artifacts and documents in Kosovo, called Rasca in the Middle Ages. The slava and the badnyak log are the two traditions maintained in all Serbian churches today.

iv.

One of St. Sava’s literary accomplishments was the Typicon of the Serbian monastery of Hilandar on Mt., Athos, or more specifically, one of its small dependencies at Karyes, the administrative center of Athos. While it is very short, a careful reading will permit the student to read behind the lines and to discern the real theological mentality behind the typicon itself.

It is extremely rare to find a scholar of the Slavic world that is even remotely familiar with the basic doctrinist and practices of Orthodoxy, let alone that of monasticism. This is certainly true in the case of Russia. However, in the Serbian case, monasteries played a greater role than in Russia, and during the Turkish occupation, monasteries, those that were permitted to function, were th literal manifestations of Heavenly Serbia on earth.

For the sake of clarity, it might be noted that there are two types of monasticism. The first is the cenobitic sort, where a rather large group of monks form under the guidance of an elected abbot. They live in a central building near the catoltikon, or the main church. They have their labors divided up by the abbot, who himself is elected (but remains under the jurisdiction of the local bishop). It is a highly social form of monasticism, and some very large a and beautiful forms of this are soon throughout he world today.

On the other hand, there is the skete form of monasticism. This is where a handful of monks, often in a remote region, come together to live in small huts, separate from one another by maybe 100 yards to even the distance of a few miles. There is usually a small church where the brotherhood comes together for services. They may even eat in a common refectory (though this depends on the monastery), but they essentially live alone.

These two forms of monasticism have always been at the heart of Orthodox tradition. The two are considered equal in Orthodox thought, and they differ only because of the personality of the various monks involved. Some need a more structured, social environment, many others need solitude. Thousands of saints have been canonized from both traditions.

Now, it is often the case that a skete forms a dependency of a larger cenobitic monastery. Over the course of the development of the large institution, a few monks will develop the desire for more solitude and less structured surroundings. With both the permission of the abbot and the monk’s personal spiritual father, a few monks may be given permission to leave the monastery and found a new skete some distance away. It is for one of these that St. Sava writes his short typikon. There is a theological mentality that undergirds the skete life, and it differs from the cenobitic in some significant ways. First, the skete mentality is highly hesychastic, that is to say, the unstructured life of the institution makes it possible for monks to live in solitude and cultivate, without distraction, the habits and structure of mental prayer. Second, there is usually a far more intense regimen at the sketes. Again because of the solitude, the monks who form the sketes are willing to fast even more intensely than in the larger monasteries. The monks who usually wish to form a skete are precisely those who have reached such a stage, and thus are given permission to leave. Therefore, skete life is more ascetically intense than the larger monasteries (keep in mind that this is not a qualitative distinction , all forms of monastic life are considered equal).

Third, members of a skete are highly jealous of their independence. Few skete monks ever return to the mother monastery (though it is not unknown). The comparative freedom and open spaces of skete life, for some monks, open up entirely new ways of prayer and asceticism. The histories of the “skete” saints and hermits reveal many interesting and frankly innovative means whereby prayer has been reached to new heights given the lack of constraint. Only a few are capable of these heights, however.

The typikon begins with an exhortation to struggle. For those who study monasticism, the terms struggle and monastic should be synonymous. A monks life is stable, but it is not easy. For the skete life, all aspects of property are given up, and the skete cell is little more than four wooden walls and a roof, with maybe a few books and icons. This remains the only property of the monk throughout his life.

The second article describes how Sava acquired some land and built a kellion (translated most appropriately as “cell”) and a small church. It was primarily for monks who needed to make the journey from the regular monasteries on Athos to Karyes, which, depending on where one lived, could be as long as a two day walk on foot. However, Sava also says that he constructed these structures for the “dwelling of two or three brothers,” or the beginnings of skete life.

The third article is the most important: here, Sava legislates that at this tiny monastery, the monks are to have complete independence and shall remain in possession of all the articles necessary to maintain the monastic life.

The “abbot” of the kellion, in this case, is to be elected from among the brethren at the large monastery Hilandar. They are to chose one who is ready and capable for this sort of commitment, and he who is elected is to stay as “housemaster” for life. Article 5 says that the skete is to have complete independence of the larger monasteries, and that no one is to be sent to the skete who has not gone thought the normal ascetic route to achieve the longing for such a life. In other words, the only monks permitted to live there are those who have reached a level of asceticism where this sort of solitude is appropriate. All ascetic labors of any skete monastery are done under the close supervision of a spiritual father, though there are some cases where two or three monks will submit to each other in the course of ascetic life, checking each other and not permitting any flights of fancy or stop any spiritual pride from developing.

Here, it is very clear that for St. Sava, monasticism was to be run on a highly decentralized level. The large monasteries are to be run according to their “abbatial” system, but the small sketes are to be islands in their own right, and self-legislating. The only real relation the mother monastery was to have with the skete was that the larger monastery was to provide the skete with what it needed, so the brethren, in Athonite jargon, can “live without care.” The last article in the typikon (13) repeats the need to maintain the freedom of the skete. This was a central value to Sava, and central to maintain the stability of skete life. Sava pronounces a solemn anathema upon anyone who disturbs the normal running of the skete. This is uncharacteristic speech for Sava, so there must have been a real danger for the skete to be molested in its operation.

The rule Sava legislates for the monastery is simple and not surprising for the student of Orthodox monasticism. In the skete life, it is normal for only one meal a day (on weekdays) to be served, and it is always meatless and dairyless (though it should be said that all Orthodox monks are forbidden to ever taste meat). On Saturday and Sunday, fish and cheese may be served, and two meals will be prepared. The canons have always reserved Saturday and Sunday for a relaxing of the fasting disciplines (even during Lent).

Wine was permitted, but only on the weekends, even during Great Lent. Except during Great Lent, wine was permissible on Tuesdays and Thursdays. In the large monasteries, Monday was not a day set aside for fasting (though there are exceptions.) However, in the skete life, Monday is nearly always so legislated, and, since, in the Orthodox tradition, Monday is a day dedicated to the angels, the Monday fast is called the “Fast of the Angels,” and it was legislated by Sava for his skete. The significance for permitting wine on Tuesdays and Thursdays was that, on Wednesday and Friday, the betrayal of Christ and the crucifixion of Christ were commemorated, respectively, and thus, the fasting rules were stricter for those two days, leaving Tuesdays and Thursdays as slightly less intense in asceticism.

It is also interesting that Sava legislates that the hours should all be read separately. This is another distinction between skete life and life in the cenobia. The hours are rather short during the course of the day, being sung every three hours (Byzantine time). However, given that the skete monks have less responsibility to a large community, the monks at the kellion can sing the hours separately. They had combined the hours into two longer services at the larger institutions in many cases. The rule that the entire psalter be read each day is a rather heavy requirement, and is only possible at the skete. All 151 psalms are to be read throughout the day, to be finished at the midnight office, which also contains the canon to the mother of God, so it is several services in one. The hours, however, might be said in the cell, the midnight office needs to be done at the church, for it is far longer and more formal than the hours proper.

Articles 10 and 11 show the intensity of the monastic life in Sava’s skete. On Saturday night, the vigil needs to be maintained, and this is to last throughout the night (as is assumed, though it does not say so explicitly, it was the Slavic tradition of doing the vigil, then and now). Matins began as a part of the vigil and then the liturgy was to begin. Given the context of this rule, the Saturday evening/Sunday morning service was many hours long. Given the reality of skete life, the vigil likely lasted from 6 pm (American time) through to the liturgy around midnight, ending at sunup. Though this is not explicitly laid out the context seems to suggest it.