“BIRKBECK AND THE RUSSIAN CHURCH”¹

Mr. Athelstan Riley, M.P., in publishing his “Birkbeck and the Russian Church” has indicated a real and solid link between our two countries—a link which, I think, may be as eternal as our religious problems and teaching. Mr. Birkbeck was a friend of my brother General Alexander Kiréeff, who was an honorary member of the Moscow Theological Academy. My brother was attached to the Grand Duke Constantine’s Court for about fifty years, but theology, and especially the Greek Orthodox Church, were his predominating objects in life. Kiréeff became deeply interested in Birkbeck, and Birkbeck certainly seemed to be attracted by Kiréeff. The exchange of interesting letters was the natural result of this theological intimacy.

Of course, now that so many churches, museums, palaces and other important buildings have been devastated and ruined during these five or six months, private letters and documents in Russia have also disappeared. But my brother has addressed many letters to his immediate chief, the Grand Duke Constantine, about Birkbeck’s endeavours to explain Eastern Greek Orthodoxy and Anglicanism to each other. Yes, Birkbeck was a real missionary in both countries. He became well known and deservedly praised in several parts of Russia. That was not all. In editing the famous correspondence between Mr. William Palmer and Mr. Khomiakoff he has shown an example of how his great scheme could be developed.

But, before you teach others, you must work and learn yourself with untiring energy, and that is exactly what has been done by Birkbeck. He asked for advice and guidance from Russian people whose authority could be trusted, as, for instance, the clergymen at our Embassy in London, and the celebrated scholar, the Procurator of the Holy Synod, Mr. Pobiedonostzeff, and many others at Petrograd.

Yes, indeed, knowledge is power. Thus, Oxford, with its brilliant representatives, understood how to teach perseverance and love for learning. English theologians know their own theological stars, and Russians know theirs, and exchange of views is quite necessary.

But there is a special point in Birkbeck’s essays and articles just published by Mr. Riley which delighted me, a poor outsider and dilettante. To appreciate certain truths no Greek, Latin, or old Hebrew are essential—only love for your own language, based on solid Slavonic grammar and literature. His pages on that very subject will do—or, rather, ought to do—no end of good, especially at this moment, when some ignorant legislators are recommending even the introduction in our schools, not of the study of Academic Russian, but the different patois which are heard among the uneducated classes of Russia’s numerous Provinces.

Mr. Birkbeck’s book contains, indeed, one chapter on the Slavonic languages (Chapter V.) which is so important and applicable, that I am tempted to quote it largely. It begins by examining the startling charge that is so commonly brought against the Russian Church, to the effect that “the old Slavonic language in which her services are read is not understood by the people.” Mr. Birkbeck has much to say on the subject of this absurd accusation. “If the following remarks,” he tells us, “serve to modify the misunderstandings on this matter which one constantly meets with, even in highly-educated circles, its object will have been attained.”

It is very pleasant to think that the many misleading statements made in this connection have been refuted by such a great English divine as Dr. Neale, who said that “the old Slavonic is the most perfect language for ecclesiastical purposes which the Christian world has yet seen. As subtle and flexible as Greek, as vigorous and terse as Latin, and as clear and precise as either of them, the Slavonic language has the great advantage over both that when Saints Cyril and Methodius first applied it to ecclesiastical purposes, instead of being in a state of decadence, as was the case with the classical languages of antiquity at the time when they were first used by the Church, it was in the full vigour and perfection of youth.”

Mr. Birkbeck is quite right in saying that, “To accuse the Russian Church, as her enemies are so fond of doing, of wilfully obscuring the language of her services in order to keep the people ignorant, is as wanton and baseless a calumny as was ever invented. The English Church justly prides herself upon the work that she has done of late years in translating her formularies into the languages of the various races which she includes within her jurisdiction. But the Russian Church was already doing this long before the idea of administering the Sacraments in English, far less in Welsh or Irish, was even thought of in this country. From the days of St. Stephen of Perm, who, in the fourteenth century, began the conversion of the tribes in the North-Eastern districts of European Russia by inventing an alphabet for the Zyrianian language and then translating the whole of the Church books into it, down to the present day, when her services are read in more than a hundred languages, a service understood by the people has always been her tradition; and I do not suppose there is any National Church, not excepting even the Anglican Church, where the services are read in so many languages. The trouble and expense the ecclesiastical authorities will go to in the matter is quite astonishing. “When I was in Petersburg, in 1889,” says Birkbeck, “a committee of experts were engaged in translating the Liturgy for a small tribe in the North-East of Siberia, numbering under 5,000 souls, whose language contained little over 200 words in all. And this being so, it would seem very improbable that she would intentionally starve her Russian-speaking population by reading to them in a language they cannot understand.”

Mr. Birkbeck draws a very interesting parallel between the Greek Orthodox and the Anglican Churches in their efforts to teach the Christian truth among the various races under their control.

I have allowed myself many quotations from that remarkable chapter V. But if I were to review the other parts of the book, I would yield to the great temptation of making again the same mistake. So, after strongly recommending every page of this precious volume, I think it my duty to stop here.

1. “Birbeck and the Russian Church,” edited by A. Riley. M.P. (S.P.C.K) 3s. 6d. net.