| HISTORICAL RESEARCH should
lead us along the road to reconciliation, not up the warpath. It seems better
to bury hatchet and make peace than to flourish it triumphantly at the risk
of causing conflict.
 However,
scholars intent on establishing the truth contend that research should be
uninhibited and its results freely revealed, no matter the consequences.
It is the spirit with which facts are discovered and diffused as well as
how they are received, not the facts themselves, that can further concord
or foment discord.
I
read with interest that the Chancellor of the British Priory of the Sovereign
Order of the Orthodox Knights Hospitaller of St John of Jerusalem. Fr Michael
Foster, had completed "a book on the origin and continued validity and legitimacy
of the Orthodox Grand Priory of Russia instituted by Emperor Paul I of
Russia".
My
immediate reaction was to wonder whether the publication of this new book,
revealing the results of valuable research on a very sensitive matter, would
be positively received. I asked myself: Could it lead to a rapprochement
between the Catholic Sovereign Military and Hospitaller Order of St John
of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta (SMOM) and the Orthodox Knights Hospitaller
of St John of Jerusalem?
Since
1963 the SMOM has maintained relations with an alliance of non-Catholic orders
and commanderies of St John, including the German Johanniterorden and
the British Grand Priory of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St
John of Jerusalem; founded in 1888 by Queen Victoria.
Cannot
the Orthodox Knights Hospitaller of St John of Jerusalem join this alliance?
This was the question uppermost in my mind when I interviewed Fr Foster about
the results of his scholarly work. This development would surely by very
much in the ecumenical spirit of our times, fostered not least of all by
Pope John Paul II, as evidenced by his recent apostolic journeys, including
his unforgettable two-day stay among us in Malta.
Fr.
Michael, I understand that you have conducted some specialised research on
the difficult period the Order of St John went through after Grand Master
Hompesch was expelled from Malta by Napoleon Bonaparte. Can you tell us something
about the conclusions you have drawn from this research?
There is a Chinese curse;
"May you live in interesting times" and certainly the end of the 18th and
beginning of the 19th centuries was an interesting time. The French Revolution
was being exported, and the Order was in its dying days in Malta, and almost
begging to be put out of its misery. There was moral laxity and with the
loss of the French Commanderies a severe loss of income - besides the Christian
nations' accommodation with Turkey - the Order had lost its purpose.
If
the Order had been undisturbed by Napoleon, it would have probably come to
an end sooner than later - overturned by the Maltese and thence replaced
by a administration perhaps under a World power - which is what happened,
except in our historical reality its "Russian interlude" extended its life.
The
present day Order in it's various guises and imitations is a world away from
the historic Order, which occupied Malta. Even though such words as "military"
and "sovereign" are employed for some organisations claiming an identity
with the historic Order, the meanings or reality of those words are a world
away from what they meant, say at the close of the 16th
century!My main preoccupation is on the Russian tradition of
the Order of St John created in the period in question. The fact of the creation
of that tradition is beyond doubt - also that a Russian Johannine tradition
survived within Russia to the Revolution and thence in the exile community
of Russian nobles is also historically verifiable. What is in question is
the status given to that tradition, by its critics.
These
are the historic facts:
1.
Emperor Paul I was declared Grand Master of the Order in 1798 creating a
schism resolved when in 1799 Hompesch under pressure abdicated in favour
of Paul I.
2.
Paul created for Russian Nobles a "new institution" of 98 Commanderies, the
largest element in the Order. Later in 1799 expanded by a further 20
Commanderies, with the addition of 21 Family Commanderies making 139 Commanderies
all producing incomes for both the incumbents and the Order. In 1799 this
became the Russian Grand Priory.
In
addition there were Knights who belonged to the Russian Grand Priory, who
did not have Commanderies - and did not rely upon any income from Commanderies,
some of which were hereditary - five such Knights are listed in the Annals
for 1799.
3.
On July 21st (old style) 1799, Paul issued a decree (ukase) governing
the family commanderies, not only providing hereditary rights to the commanderies
but to the heirs of those commanderies! That is, they are not governed by
instruments of the Roman Catholic Order, but were subject to a Russian
understanding.
4.
After Paul's murder Alexander instructed the Lieutenant Grand Master who
had replaced the Bailiff de Litta to organise the election of a new Grand
Master - subsequently deferring for one time only (but then becoming the
pattern) the choice to the Pope.
5.
In 1810 Alexander I removed the property and income from the ordinary
commanderies, and disallowed any monies to be paid to the Order's Roman Catholic
headquarters, creating a real fiscal and legal separation. However the
ukase makes its clear that the Order in Russia Continued! In 1811
by ukase, the property of the family commanderies, which had been
under question for 18 months was made the property of the Commanders themselves
- via a one-off payment, or, as under the rules of 1799 by instalments.
The State income from this process was to be used to
pay the expenses of the domestic Order!
6.
In 1817 there was a ministerial decision issued not to allow a Russian Army
Officer and his brothers to wear the Decoration awarded by the Roman Catholic
Order - the decision states that the awarding Priory "was not in existence
any longer in Russia". This ukase has been subject to classic
misinformation begun in a book by Panov and Zamyslovsky called A Brief
Account of the Russian Orders and their Statutes published in St Petersburg
in 1891.
The
book provided a reworking of the original words of 1817 to read "After the
death of the Commanders of the Order of St John, their heirs will not have
the right to be Commanders of the Order and will not be allowed to wear the
badges and decorations of the Order any longer because the latter does not
exist any more in the Russian Empire" (pages 28-33). This is a gross misreading
of the original texts, intruding words, which did not exist in the originals
and ignores other evidence available to a thorough author. Sadly authors
critical to the Russian tradition have fallen headlong into repeating the
errors of the book - easily corrected by reading the original
ukases!
The
awards in question were being issued by the Roman Catholic Order, using the
rules of its Russian Priory. The discouragement for the awards would have
prevented further sums of money going to the Roman Catholic
headquarters. |
7.
In comparison to that Decision of 1817 are the existence of records of
permissions by the emperors to allow Orthodox Christians to wear the Order
who were not members of the Roman Catholic Order, dating 1867, 1889, 1912.
There will be others. Also anyone examining collections of Russian Portraits
painted in the period post 1817 (i.e. after the alleged statement that no-one
could were the decoration - and not just Roman Catholic members!) will be
surprised at the large number of nobles wearing the Order's
decoration.
8.
The listing of Russian members in the Court Almanacs right up until 1914.
With a listing in 1914 specifically using the term "Hereditary Commander".
9.
In 1907, Grand Duke Nicolas Mikhailovitch published a book on Russian Portraits
in which he includes a biography of Prince Tufiakine - created from the State
Documents. It is reported (I quote from my records) that "Prince Tufiakine
emigrated abroad, where he passed the rest of his life. In 1841, he was stripped
of his functions of Actual Chamberlain, and of his dignities of Master of
the Court and of Commander of the Order of Malta. He spent his last years
in Paris, where he died on 19 February 1845."
(i)
In terms of the Order of Malta if it is a Roman Catholic Order member then
the Russian State cannot strip him of that dignity.
(ii)
if the Order in Russian was suppressed in 1810/1811/1817 - then the Russian
State cannot strip him of that dignity - it has already been done! We are
forced to conclude that a legal responsibility was continued by the State
for the Russian Order in 1841. Nicolas Mikhailovitch in his books also provides
biographies on a number of the other original Family Commanders.
10.
We know that the Orthodox Church was involved in the Order. The Metropolitan
Bishops for St. Petersburg were members of the Russian Grand Priory. Other
clergy were members. Feasts of the Order were celebrated within Orthodoxy,
and were found in the official Service books up to the Revolution in 1917.
11.
In 1928, 12 Russian exiles, hereditary commanders (every one who could at
that time be traced, except a thirteenth who joined in 1929) met in Paris
to proclaim the continuation of the Russian Grand Priory, including the member
listed in the Court Almanac of 1914.
12.
After contacting Grand Duke Cyril, a Danish group was given contact with
Grand Duke Andrew who had responsibility for the Russian Grand Priory. From
this a Danish Priory was created in 1939.
13.
If the issue of the survival of the Russian tradition was being tested in
the Courts - expert witnesses would be called. Whilst there is no shortage
of non Russians to pronounce on the survival of the Russian tradition, or
as it often is alleged - its suppression, the expert witness is Russian-born
Baron Michael de Taube. He was Professor of Law at St Petersburg University
before the Revolution, was a member of the Council of the Empire, a Russian
Senator and first advisor to the Foreign Office under Emperor Nicholas II.
In
1929 he became the legal advisor to the Paris group of Hereditary Commanders.
His legal opinion has been recorded in his book (in French) Emperor Paul
I and his Russian Grand Priory, published in Paris in 1955. He states the
Russian Grand Priory continued legally.
14.
In 1973 a group of hereditary commanders met at the home of one of the members
of the 1928 group in New York to add to the Paris initiative a priory in
New York. This became the basis for the headquarters in 1977 following the
death of all the leading members of the Paris Group (most hereditary commanders
were to be found in the USA by then).
From
all of these points, any reasonable scholar is forced to conclude a Russian
tradition of the Order has survived to this day! Those within the tradition
claim they are continuing, the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of St John
of Jerusalem.
The
full story of the survival of the Russian tradition has not been told.
What has got in the way, is (a) those who wish to discount the survival (using
some form of suppressionist theory) and (b) the many mimic "Russian Orders"
originating in the USA from a group led by a Charles Pichel 1953 onwards,
who supplied a pre-history to his group, dating the beginnings to 1908 and
crediting the beginnings to Russian hereditary commanders.
There
is more than enough material on the Internet to discount Pichel's theory,
rather than deal with it in this interview. But my aim is to tell the story
fully in a book, hopefully later this year, or early next year. In this book
I deal with those issues which get in the way, and to tell the full story.
I also touch upon the main organisation, the Sovereign Military Order of
Malta and its allies, plus the mimic "Orders" ending with a plea, for a
re-assessment of the historical place of the Russian Order.
You
are Chancellor of the Priory of the British Isles of the Sovereign Order
of Orthodox Knights Hospitaller of St. John of Jerusalem. Do you consider
it a separate Order from the Sovereign Military Order of Malta or a separate
branch? Also, given your membership of an Order, how independent can your
research be?
I
have already touched upon the survival of the Russian tradition of St John.
The headquarters are in New York. For an Order which claims to be Russian,
the day to day leadership is of Russian Nobles Count Nicholas Bobrinskoy
is the Grand Prior. I am secretary to the British branch. Again membership
includes those of Russian hereditary commander's families, who are entitled
to join by virtue of the rules on 1799. Some may question how we are an "Order",
when there is the "Sovereign Military Order of Malta" (SMOM) who consider
themselves to be the only survivors of the ancient medieval Order.
While some may consider the
British Royal Order as part of the Order, and the Johanniterorden,
from what I have read, thw SMOM accept them on the basis that the former
is a Royal Order (it is not a British State Order), and the latter has state
recognition.
Some
of the perceptions are rooted in essential theological differences. The Catholics
Church is monarchical in its leadership, and see itself as the Church. In
Orthodoxy, the Church is considered as collegiate in leadership, and consists
of self-governing units, which are collectively, the Church.
The
Catholic Order (SMOM) considers itself to be the Order of St John/Malta.
Members of the Russian tradition of St John, consider themselves to be members
of "the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of St John of Jerusalem", a part
of the Order, but not The Order.
Technically,
the Russian Grand Priory was founded by Paul I, when he was de facto
Grand Master of the Order of St John. It was founded by imperial proclamation,
and subject to imperial ukases in its government. It thus could never
be a canonical part of a Catholic Order. It had a fiscal relationship with
the Order, and came under the authority of the Order's de-facto Grand
Master.
 |
Although the fiscal relationship was broken in 1810/1811, since
1809 the Russian Grand Priory has never had its own Grand Master, but has
always acknowledge the Grand Magistracy of Rome - a fact which separates
it from the many mimic "Russian Orders".
The
present name, which introduced the question, was one, forced on the Order,
when registering a corporate status in the USA in 1977. Sadly the many mimic
Orders had taken the proper title, or variations of it.
As
to independence of research - of course I come to the matter from a specific
point of view. In the book I am writing, I warn people about that, and ask
them to make an allowance. Both writings critical of the Russian tradition
and apologising for it share one thing in common - they come from certain
viewpoints. However the book is fully annotated, and makes reference to
documentary evidence, which can be followed up by the reader. Some of the
items are already on the Internet
"www.knights-of-st-john.co.uk".
The
Jesuit Order, which was suppressed in Catholic countries by a papal decree,
was saved from extinction, ironically enough, by Catherine the Great of Russia
and Frederick the Great of Prussia. Did something similar happen in the case
of the Knights of Malta?
This
observation about the Jesuits does have some bearing on our subject. In his
Political Testament of 1752, Frederick the Great made it clear that he considered
religion as superstition and would not declare himself for one religion or
another. In that Testament he positively he discouraged all religious
persecution, valuing all people irrespective of their beliefs.
He
admired the Jesuits' provision of good education. Catherine the Great, was
by origin also a Prussian, and had converted from Lutheranism to Orthodoxy
in preparation for marriage into the Russian Royal Family. I believe that
her admiration for the Jesuits was pragmatic, as the Jesuits offered a role
model and practical assistance for the reforms in Clergy education within
the Orthodox Church. It is from the Jesuits in Russia, (who were through
Catherine's intervention exempted legally from the general Papal edict of
suppression), that the Society was revived worldwide.
The
Jesuit society in Russia began the provision of a cultural expatriate society
for Europeans/Latin Christians. Catherine's interest in the Knights of Malta,
I suspect was limited to their possible contribution in defeating Turkey.
After the Knights had only offered assistance with naval training, when Catherine
took her share in Poland she was not in a hurry to allow the revenues from
the Polish Priory to be restored to the Order. Emperor Paul I, did rescue
the Knights from oblivion. Even those originally supporting Hompesch subsequently
flocked to St Petersburg, such as the Knight O'Hara.
He
records that if were not for Paul I, the Order would have been totally ruined
through to confiscation of properties throughout Europe. Paul was fascinated
by a romantic view of the Order of St John. He idealised them as a model
for chivalric behaviour - a model for his nobility to follow.
Such
devotion to an idealised view of the Order dominated Paul's thinking to the
extent that it blinded him from a more cautious approach in his political
management and thus his undoing. Within the expatriate Latin Christian Community
there was a great deal of contact between the Jesuits and the Knights of
St John. It was home from home - French Theatre, Italian Opera, and good
company - records O'Hara.
This
influence from Latin Rite Christians was viewed jealously by the Orthodox
- again contributing to the support to get rid of Paul.
Like the Jesuits, it was the
Russian rump of the Order of St John, which became the salvation of a renewed
Order. It was the Council at St Petersburg led by Soltikoff, the Lieutenant
Grand Master which began the process to elect a new Grand Master - and thus
restored as a Catholic Order.
The
Order could have disappeared so easily had it existed only in those territories
dominated by Napoleon. Even the restored Nations were only too happy to keep
the revenues once belonging to the Order - for example France never restored
the lost Commanderies! Thus the Russian interlude was able to keep the tradition
alive over a short but critical period (1798-1803). Even after this Russian
money continued to support the Order until the fiscal separation of the Russian
Priories with the Catholic headquarters by imperial ukase 1810 and
1811.
In
my book Preservation and Progress, A Tale of Two Towns: Kaster and Bedburg
ISBN: 99909 41-22-x (Pietà, Malta, 1995), I tell a story of how
civil and religious strife between Catholics and Protestants was appeased
through a farsighted plan for unity proposed by Knights in Malta, This
anticipated and reflected the cordial relationship that exists between the
Johanniter and the Malteser, the Catholic and the Protestant Knights of St
John, SMOM and the "Alliance Order". Cannot a similar
arrangement be negotiated between SMOM and the Orthodox Knights Hospitaller
of St John of Jerusalem?
First
there was a long gestation period before the present situation was reached.
The SMOM in the post-war period sought the possibility of becoming trustees
of the holy sites in Jerusalem. Any support was valuable. The British Royal
Order, until then distanced from the SMOM, also welcomed, and perhaps sought,
some form of recognition.
The
Alliance Orders (before 1962), the Johanniterorden in central Europe and
Scandinavia, found a relationship with the British Order whose patron was
the Queen.
Just
after this (1963), an agreement between the SMOM and the British Royal Order
was made, but avoided any mention of recognition of the British Royal Order
as being accepted as a historic part of the Order of St John - Malta. In
1987 the London declaration was signed by the Johanniterorden, the British
Order and the SMOM. Even in this agreement, only the SMOM is identified with
the historic order. The Alliance Orders are accepted within the "Hospitaller
tradition". The document states that the Orders are accepted within their
own countries.
In
any move towards the SMOM, first a historic reappraisal of the Russian tradition
needs to be made, with a clear distinction between the very genuine Russian
Grand Priory led by Russian nobles and the scores of mimic Russian Orders.
I am sure then, if there is a willingness within the SMOM,
a form of words could be found to allow them to take under their mantle the
remaining part of the hospitaller tradition the Russian tradition - as they
did with the Alliance Orders in 1987. It took the Alliance Orders 30 years
to achieve a rapprochement with the SMOM. Once a reasonable account of the
Russian tradition has been made, hopefully dialogue will follow!
|
Russian Grand Priory Research
Page
