by
The Reverend Michael Foster S.S.C. M.I.W.O.
This essay need to be read in conjunction with James J Algrant's essay "The Russian Connection".
James Algrant provides us with a excellent introduction to the subject of the Russian tradition of St. John. However his treatment needs additional clarification and comment over a number of points he has raised.
A) Who represents the Russian tradition?
James Algrant seems to have lumped all such groups together.
Under the banner of those who claim a Russian heritage for their
Order of St. John organisation there are five distinct groups
which could be listed.
1) The Hereditary Commanders of the Russian Grand Priory.
In the West, a revival of this tradition took place in Paris,
June 1928, via Russian Nobles who were in exile. The initiative
of the Hereditary Commanders continued in the USA from the mid
1970s onwards; The Sovereign Order of the Orthodox Knights
Hospitaller of St. John of Jerusalem.
2) A group of organisations emerging from the
"American Grand Priory", which had no historic
connection to the Russian Grand Priory, but claimed to have been
started by Hereditary Commanders of the Russian Grand Priory in
New York in 1908. The driving force of this group was Charles
Louis Thourot-Pichel.
3) The King Peter Constitution organisations. In 1963 King
Peter II of Yugoslavia supported one of the groups to emerge from
group 2). The King's group fragmented both during his
membership, and after his death. The King as a Monarch who had
never abdicated possessed a "fons honorum" so his group
was transformed by this fact, into a knightly fraternity. Whether
this can remain the fact, following his death, and the refusal of
his son, the present head of the Yugoslavian Royal House, to
support his father's former groups, is questionable. The King was
also trustee to the relics of St. John, following his father. The
sisters of the last Czar passed the relics onto King Alexander
for safe keeping, in 1928. However the relics were lost to the
Germans in the War, and apart from rumour, have never been seen
since. This point then, as a means of authenticating a connection
with the Russian tradition is academic, but never-the-less is
accepted as a valid point by at least one respected academic.
4) Various groups claiming a Russian connection, but of
uncertain origin.
5) The Most Holy Orthodox Hospitallers. This is an Order
of Chivalry founded in 1972 by Archbishop Makarios, (Head of
Church and President of Cyprus) within the Orthodox tradition,
inspired by the creation of Paul I. It is a recognised State
Order of Cyprus. It continues to carry the recognition of the
Head of the Cypriot Church, and the recognition of the President
and State of Cyprus.
The only organisation which can trace itself the Russian Grand Priory that existed before the Russian Revolution of 1917 (and therefore the only legitimate claimant to the Russian tradition) is that of Group 1), The Sovereign Order of the Orthodox Knights Hospitaller of St. John of Jerusalem. The pedigree of the Paris group which proceeded the New York group is assured with its well documented beginnings and has not appeared to have produced the plethora of offshoots to which the groups in 2), 3), and 4) appear to have given birth.
Prince Paul Alexandrovitch Demidoff who was listed in the
Almanach de St. Petersbourg 1913-1914 page 178 as "ancient
officer du reg. des chevaliers gardes, commandant Hereditaire de
l'Ordre de Malte" was one of the Hereditary Commanders who
re-established the Russian Grand Priories activities in exile,
and was one of the signatories in the Declaration signed at Paris
June 1928, which re-established the activities of the Russian
Grand Priory in exile, thereby providing unquestionable proof of
the continuous existence of the Russian tradition of the Order of
St. John of Jerusalem.
In 1976 a fresh initiative in the life of the Russian Grand
Priory was embarked upon by Count Nicholas A. Bobrinskoy, an
Hereditary Commander (a descendant of the Empress Catherine the
Great), who had discussed the need for continuing its activities
with a number of other Hereditary Commanders. The life of the
Priory was continued under the name of 'The Sovereign Order of
the Orthodox Knights Hospitaller of St. John of Jerusalem' and
was officially established on the 20th April 1977. Initially the
eldest son of Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, Prince Andrei
Alexandrovich became Protector, and after his death in 1981, his
younger brother, Prince Vassili took on the role. Following the
death of Prince Vassili, the Orthodox Knights came under the
Protection of Prince Michael of Russia.
The group's claim to be in succession to the 1928 Association was
strengthened by the membership of Prince Serge S.
Belosselsky-Belozersky who was a signatory to the 1928
Declaration. The other groups cannot claim a Russian identity in
the same way.
In the article by James Algrant he states "The
exclusively Catholic Sovereign Order, they assert, came
into being on 16 September 1802 by an initiative of Pope Pius VII
and has nothing in common with their Order which is the one
founded in the eleventh century in the Holy Land." - the 'they'
being 'The would-be orders claim that they are survivals of a
non-Catholic Grand Priory set up by Paul when he was elected
seventy-second Grand Master of the Order of St. John' However the
'they' is too sweeping in its generalisation.
The rejection of the SMOM, or Papal Order was the official
position of group 2) in our list. But, this certainly was
not the position of the Russian Hereditary Commanders.
As a matter of history, and fact, there is on record the previous
acceptance by the Russian Grand Priory of;
Lieutenant Grand Master, Count Soltykoff 1801-1803, appointed by
Alexander I;
Grand Master, Giovanni Battista Tommasi di Cortona 1803-1805,
appointed by the Pope with the agreement of the Order's Sacred
Council at St. Petersburg;
Grand Master Elect, Bailiff Giuseppe Caracciolo di Sant Eramo
1805-1809 (By 1816 Caracciolo had given up his title of Grand
Master Elect), Caracciolo was backed by the Russian Priories
after he gained the majority of votes. The Russian Priories under
pressure from Alexander then switched their backing in 1809, to;
Lieutenant Grand Master, Innico-Maria Guevara-Suardo 1805-1814
(appointed by Tommasi in 1805, confirmed in post by the Pope in
1807).
This historic acceptance is one which is still owned by the Hereditary Commanders. The Russian Grand Priory has never appointed a rival Grand Master, happily accepting as the universal Grand Master, the head of the SMOM.
B) The Revived Russian Grand Priory in
Exile.
In his essay (at the end) James Algrant writes; "Its
Imperial connections were reinforced by having as its first
president Grand Duke Alexander and as its second, Alexander's
nephew, Grand Duke Andrew. This, however, cannot be construed as
evidence that the Union was the continuation of the Russian
Orthodox Grand Priory, nor did the Union ever claim to be
such."
Contrast that statement with the 1928 Paris Declaration of the Hereditary Commanders. Below is an extract of the Paris Declaration;
"Later events have limited the activity of the Grand
Priory of Russia; a revolution had provoked a deficiency in the
legitimate power throughout the Empire; yet nothing could weaken
our hereditary right as a regular affiliation and as a sovereign
order of chivalry. We were born with this privilege and we retain
it without further question in law. Circumstances dictate that we
should now sustain without futile and vain ostentation, the
prerogatives acquired by our ancestors. The tragic test which
overwhelmed our Fatherland calls us to an activity full of
abnegation and sacrifice worthy of the best traditions of the
illustrious Order of St John of Jerusalem. It is, therefore, our
duty that all of us shall initiate the following:
1) Re-establish the activity of the Russian Grand Priory of the
Order of Malta created and regularised by a treaty signed on the
4th-15th January, 1799, between the Throne of Russia and the
Sovereign Order of Malta.
2) Appeal to direct descendants of other Russian Hereditary
Knights of Malta in order to urge them to rally with us within
the fold of the Grand Priory of Russia which we are
reconstituting abroad."
On the 31st July, 1950 Andrei Grand Duke of Russia, made a declaration concerning the Russian Grand Priory. The relevant portion states;
"3. The initiative of a group of descendants of Russian
Hereditary Commanders who by declaration made in Paris on 24th
June, 1928, proclaimed the fact of the Sovereignty of the Russian
Grand Priory of the Order of Malta in order to revive its
humanitarian activity and to have it officially recognized by
all, must be approved."
"4. In the circumstances, and similar to my late cousin,
Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovitch of Russia, I declare myself
ready to assume the functions of Protector of this Russian Grand
Priory of the Order of Malta with all the possible ramifications
outside the territories of the ancient Russian Empire."
Further to the declarations of the Hereditary Commanders, on the 15th February 1955, in conformity to French law the Union of Hereditary Commanders registered as the "Russian Grand Priory of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem" (see Zeiniger de Borja, Count H C, Le Grand-Prieure Russe de l'Ordre de Saint Jean de Jerusalem, in the Journal of the International Institute of Genealogy and Heraldry, Madrid, September 15th 1956).
With reference to the various statements made by the Hereditary Commanders, we are left in no doubt that they claimed they were continuing the Russian Grand Priory. In this point James Algrant's conclusion needs revising.
C. The relationship of the Hereditary
Commanders with other Groups.
Various individual Hereditary Commanders have been mixed up with
the King Peter organisations, but not the Union of Hereditary
Commanders.
Initially the Union of Hereditary Commanders repudiated Pichel
group with its claimed descent from the Russian Priory.
Later after King Peter II became involved in one of the groups
which had fragmented from Pichel's group, a respected academic
was recruited - Harrison Smith, who defended the American Grand
Priory, and provided a reasonable apologetic. Some of this was
made more credible by treating the Paris Group and the American
Grand Priory of Pichel, as being of the same pedigree. The
arguments justifying the Paris group, were employed to strengthen
the claim for the American group. This coupled with the
leadership of an Orthodox Monarch, who was by lineage connected
to the Russian Royal House, lifted the status of the group up in
the eyes of a few of the Hereditary Commanders, who then joined
the King's group.
D. Hereditary Commanders.
The Order of Malta, did provide Commanderies to be enjoyed by
families, prior to the Russian Connection, but the idea was
strengthened in the creation by Imperial Authority of the Russian
Commanderies for the Nobles of the Empire (for all Christians,
Heterodox as well as Orthodox), this became known as the Russian
Grand Priory (mistakenly known by modern authors as the Orthodox
Grand Priory).
With the critics of the Russian tradition, the claim to any
hereditary title is dismissed as a misunderstanding of the term
'jus patronat'. In entertaining these assertions of the critics,
what is important, is not what a Westerner in the 1990s believes
about the term 'jus-patronat', but what the official accounts
make of the term.
Contemporary to the events. N.N. Bantys-Kamenskij compiled a
digest of official documents dealing with foreign relations up
until 1800. This was completed in 1802. The work was not
published until 1896 in Moscow. According to this official work
the 'rodovye, or jus-patronatskie komandorstva' were founded in
favour of the holder's descendants, with permission to extend the
right of inheritance. Added to this reference is the 1785 Charter
of Nobility of Catherine the Great, which reinforces the
hereditary rights of Russian Nobility.
Thus the jus-patronat commanderies, according to an official
account complied under Czar Alexander I, carried the notion of an
hereditary principle.
According to recent research, the notion of the Russian "jus
patronatus" has several elements. 1. A dignity, 2, a means
of transmitting fiefs by indirect line when the direct line fails
and 3. A heritable dignity which they assimilated to their
hereditary status as nobles under Catherine's charter of
nobility. - Dr Michael Brett Crowther MSc, PhD. As an academic
who is not a member of any St. John Order, he has a balanced and
well researched view. His Archbishop of Canterbury S.Th Thesis
was accepted and passed by the Archbishop's Academic Council.
Also counted in the survey of evidence by such academics (rather
than polemics!) is the meeting of Russian Nobles in 1928, who
claimed to continue the Russian tradition of St. John via
hereditary rights. In other words, whatever the status and
understanding of family Commanderies had been within the Catholic
Order, the principle was strengthened, within the Russian
understanding of hereditary honours, in the creation of the
Russian tradition by Czar Paul I.
Conclusions.
James Algrant's survey of evidence for the survival of a Russian
tradition until 1917 speaks for itself, but by confusing the
genuine continuation after the Russian Revolution with the groups
he apply describes as apocryphal, he discounts its further
survival. This essay seeks to be a corrective to this deficiency.