/

St. Tikhon’s University Review . Series II: History. Russian Church History

St. Tikhon’s University Review II :89

ARTICLES

Zakharov Georgy

Phenomenon of a Church Faction in the corpus of letters of St. Basil the Great

Zakharov Georgy (2019) "Phenomenon of a Church Faction in the corpus of letters of St. Basil the Great ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2019, Iss. 89, pp. 9-26 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201989.9-26
This article studies the views of St. Basil the Great on such signifi cant phenomenon in the church history of the 4th century as a church faction. The article distinguishes macrofactions (group of bishops which is extensive and heterogeneous from the doctrinal and church-political points of view and united by the adherence to the heritage of one of the great councils) and microfactions (small consolidated group of bishops who share the same views). St. Basil includes himself into the group of supporters of St. Meletius of Antioch, to which he referred with a range of concepts, namely “synod”, “participants of communion”, “we”, “our Church”. The saint sought to overcome diff erences of opinion between the Orthodox supporters of the Nicene macrofaction and to exclude the heterodox groups (Marcellians, Apollinarians, Eustathians). He considered the confession of the Nicene faith and dissociation from the idea of the creation of the Holy Spirit to be the basis for a doctrinal consensus. In addition, St. Basil actively defended the doctrine of the three Divine Hypostases. He interpreted the Holy Scripture and the Nicene faith in the light of the liturgical practice and patristic legacy, thus revealing the continuity of church tradition. St. Basil the Great sought to return the terrestrial Church to its original state of universal orthodoxy and mutual love, in a certain sense wishing to integrate the entire Church into a sui generis microfaction, if by the the latter we understand the union of like-minded friends.
Arian controversy, St. Basil the Great, Antioch, church factions, ecclesiastical tradition, councils, church organisation
  1. Amand de Mendieta D. (1954) “Damase, Athanase, Pierre, Mélèce et Basile. Les rapports de communion ecclésiastique entre les Églises de Rome, dʼAlexandrie, dʼAntioche et de Césarée de Cappadoce (370‒379)”, in 1054‒1954: LʼÉglise et les Églises, vol. I, Chevetogne, pp. 261‒277.
  2. Amand de Mendieta E. (1963) “Basile de Cesarée et Damase de Rome: Les cause de l’échec de leurs négociations”, in Biblical and Patristic Studies: in Memory of R. P. Casey, Freiburg, pp. 122‒166.
  3. Amand de Mendieta E. (1965) “The Pair Κήρυγμα and Δόγμα in the Theological Thought of St. Basil of Caesarea”. The Journal of Theological Studies. NS., vol. 16(1), pp. 129‒142.
  4. Ayres L. (2004) Nicaea and its Legacy. An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford, New York.
  5. Barnes M. (1998) “The Fourth Century as Trinitarian Canon” in L. Ayres, G. Jones (eds.) Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric and Community. London, New York, pp. 47‒67.
  6. Behr J. (2004) Formation of Christian Theology. Vol. II: The Nicene Faith. Crestwood, pt. 1.
  7. Brennecke H. (2014) “Introduction: Framing the Historical and Theological Problems”, in G. M. Berndt, R. Steinacher (eds.) Arianism: Roman Heresy and Barbarian Creed. Farnham, Burlington, pp. 1‒19.
  8. Courtonne Y. (1973) Un témoin du IVe siècle oriental. Saint Basile et son temps dʼaprès sa correspondance. Paris.
  9. Fedwick P. (1979) The Church and the Charisma of Leadership in Basil of Caesarea. Toronto.
  10. Field L. (2004) On the Communion of Damasus and Meletius: Fourth-Century Synodal Formulae in the Codex Veronensis LX (with critical edition and translation). Toronto.
  11. Florovsky G. (1972) “The Function of Tradition in the Ancient Church”, in G. Florovsky. Collected Works, vol. I. Belmont (Mass), pp. 73‒92.
  12. Graumann Th. (2002) Die Kirche der Väter. Vätertheologie und Väterbeweis in den Kirchen des Ostens bis zum Konzil von Ephesus (431). Tübingen.
  13. Gribomont J. (1975) “Rome et l’Orient: Invitations et reproches de S. Basile”. Seminarium, vol. 27, pp. 336‒354.
  14. Grumel V. (1922) “Saint Basile et le Siège Apostolique”. Échos d’Orient, vol. 21, pp. 280‒292.
  15. Gwynn D. M. (2007) The Eusebians. The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the “Arian Controversy”. Oxford.
  16. Hanson R. (1968) “Basil’s Doctrine of Tradition in Relation to the Holy Spirit”. Vigiliae Christianae, vol. 22 (4), pp. 241‒255.
  17. Hauschild W.-D. (1995) “Basilius von Cäsarea und die Beziehungen zwischen Ostkirche und Rom”, in Geist und Kirche. Festschrift für E. Lessing. Frankfurt am Main, pp. 230‒248.
  18. Lienhard J. (1993) “The “Arian” Controversy: some Сategories reconsidered”, in Doctrines of God and Christ in the Early Church. New York, London, pp. 415‒437 (87‒109).
  19. Löhr W. (2014) “Izmenchivyi obraz inakomysliia: eres’ v rannekhristianskii period” [The Changing Construction of Doctrinal Dissent: Heresy in Early Christian Times]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, vol. 4 (59), pp. 9‒27 (in Russian).
  20. Markschies Сh. (2000) “Was ist lateinischer “Neunizänismus”? Ein Vorschlag für eine Antwort”, in Ch. Markschies. Alta Trinità beata. Gesammelte Studien zur altkirchlichen Trinitätstheologie. Tübingen, pp. 238‒264.
  21. Martin A. (1996) Athanase d’Alexandrie et l’Église d’Egypte au IVe siècle (328‒373). Rome.
  22. Métivier S. (2005) La Cappadoce (IVe–VIe siècle). Une histoire provinciale de l’Empire romain d’Orient. Paris.
  23. Parvis S. (2014) “Was Ulfi la really a Homoian?”, in G. M. Berndt, R. Steinacher (eds.) Arianism: Roman Heresy and Barbarian Creed. Farnham, Burlington, pp. 49‒65.
  24. Pietri Ch. (1976) Roma Christiana. Recherches sur l’Eglise de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixte III (311‒440). Rome.
  25. Pouchet J.-R. (1992) Basile le Grand et son univers dʼamis dʼaprès sa correspondance. Une stratégie de communion. Rome.
  26. Reutter U. (2009) Damasus, Bischof von Rom (366‒384). Leben und Werk. Tübingen.
  27. Rousseau Ph. (1994) Basil of Caesarea. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
  28. Sesboüé B. (1998) Saint Basile et la Trinité. Un acte théologique au IVe siècle. Le rôle de Basile de Césarée dans l’élaboration de la doctrine et du langage trinitaires. Paris.
  29. Simonetti M. (2006) “Dal nicenismo al neonicenismo. Rassegna di alcune pubblicazioni recenti”, in M. Simonetti. Studi di cristologia postnicena. Roma, pp. 269‒289.
  30. Taylor J. (1973) “St. Basil the Great and Pope Damasus”. Downside Review, vol. 91, pp. 186–203, 262-274.
  31. Vasilij (Krivoshein), archbishop (2011) “Ekkleziologiia svt. Vasiliia Velikogo” [Ecclesiology of St. Basil the Great], in Vasilij (Krivoshein), archbishop. Bogoslovskie trudy [Theological Works]. Nizhny Novgorod, pp. 536‒564 (in Russian).
  32. Vries W. de (1981) “Die Obsorge des hl. Basilius um die Einheit der Kirche im Streit mit Papst Damasus”. Orientalia Christiana Periodica, vol. 47, pp. 55‒86.
  33. Williams D. (1996) “Another Exception to Later Fourth-Century “Arian” Typologies: The Case of Germinius of Sirmium”. Journal of Early Christian Studies, vol. 4, pp. 335‒357.
  34. Zakharov G. (2014) Illiriiskie Tserkvi v epokhu arianskikh sporov (IV — nachalo V v.) [Illyrian Churches in the Period of the Arian Controversy (4th - Early 5th Centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
  35. Zakharov G. (2019) Vneshniaia kommunikatsiia i bogoslovskaia traditsiia Rimskoi Tserkvi v epokhu arianskikh sporov [External Communication and Theological Tradition of the Roman Church in the Period of the Arian Controversy]. Moscow (in Russian).

Zakharov Georgy


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University; 23b, Novokuznetskaya st., Moscow 115184, Russian Federation;
Post: Head of the Department of Systematical Theology and Patrologу;
ORCID: 0000-0002-3406-2088;
Email: g.e.zakharov@gmail.com.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Gratsianskiy Mikhail

Haeres Petri sive vicarius Petri. Arguments of pope Leo the Great for the exceptional prerogatives of power for the bishop of Rome

Gratsianskiy Mikhail (2019) "Haeres Petri sive vicarius Petri. Arguments of pope Leo the Great for the exceptional prerogatives of power for the bishop of Rome ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2019, Iss. 89, pp. 27-48 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201989.27-48
This article examines the concept of the power of bishop of Rome on the basis of the statements of Pope Leo the Great (440–461) presented in his sermons and epistles. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the “Petrinology” of Pope Leo, i.e. his views on the role and place of Apostle Peter, who combines the apostolic and episcopal dignity and thus naturally turns out to be the fi rst bishop of Rome, which is the fi rst city of the Roman Empire. According to Leo’s views, Apostle Peter, preserving the gifts given to him by the Lord, continuously and directly controls the Roman Church and occupies the Roman see. This latter fact raises the question about the actual status of the current Roman bishop. In Leo’s writings, there are allegations that the Roman bishop is either the “heir” (haeres) or the “deputy” (vicarius) of the apostle. The article concludes that these designations essentially exclude each other, since, on the one hand, the Pope could hardly inherit the gifts of Saint Peter, individually handed over to him by Christ, and, on the other hand, if considered to be his deputy, he could not claim the integrity of his episcopal status, since the Roman see was considered to be occupied forever by Apostle Peter. Despite these contradictions, Leo considered Roman bishops to be fully legitimate “representatives” of the head of the Church, the Apostle Peter, thus having authority within the entire Church. Leo asserted his views in practice by using in his epistles the phraseology and terminology characteristic of the Roman administrative institutions and designed to emphasise the authority of the Roman Church with regard to other local churches.
Apostle Peter, Pope Leo the Great, Roman Church, Roman ecclesiology, papal primacy
  1. Alzati C. (2015) “Ripensando alle vices Apostolicae Sedis nelle lettere di papa Leone I al presule di Tessalonica. Contributo alla storia dell’ecclesiologia in Occidente”, in Synthesis. Ejournal of the Faculty of Theology of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 2015, vol. 4 (1), pp. 1–34.
  2. Arens H. (1982) Die christologische Sprache Leos des Großen. Analyse des Tomus an den Patriarchen Flavian. Freiburg, Basel, Wien.
  3. Arnauld D. (2001) Histoire du christianisme en Afrique. Paris.
  4. Baron Iu. (2005) Sistema rimskogo grazhdanskogo prava [The System of the Roman Civil Law]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  5. Batiff ol P. (1925) “Papa, sedes apostolica, apostolates”. Rivista di archeologia Cristiana, 1925, vol. 2 (3‒4), pp. 99‒116.
  6. Batiff ol P. (1924) “Petrus initium episcopatus”. Revue des Sciences Religieuses, 1924, vol. 4 (3), pp. 440‒453.
  7. Batiff ol P. (1924) Le siège apostolique (359–451). Paris.
  8. Blaudeau Ph. (2001) “Vice mea. Remarques sur les représentations pontifi cales auprès de l’empereur d’Orient dans la seconde moitié du Ve siècle (452–496)”. Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome, 2001, vol. 113 (2), pp. 1059‒1123.
  9. Blaudeau Ph. (2012) “Between Petrine Ideology and Realpolitik. The See of Constantinople in Roman Geo-Ecclesiology (449–536)”, in L. Grig, G. Kelly (eds.). Two Romes. Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity, Oxford, New York, pp. 364–384.
  10. Borovoi V. (2017) Rim, Konstantinopol’ i khristianskii Vostok v period “akakianskoi skhizmy” (484–518 gg.) [Rome, Constantinople, and the Christian Orient during the Period of the “Acacian Schism” (484‒518)]. Minsk (in Russian).
  11. Caspar E. (1933) Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft, vol. 1. Tübingen.
  12. Congar Y. (1984) “Note sur une valeur des termes «ordinare, ordinatio»”. Revue des Sciences Religieuses, 1984, vol. 58, pp. 7‒14.
  13. Dozhdev D. (1996) Rimskoe chastnoe parvo [Roman Private Law]. Moscow (In Russian).
  14. Dvornik F. (1958) The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew. Cambridge (Mass).
  15. Gratsianskiy M. (2000) “Akakianskaia skhizma” [Acacian Schism], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, vol. 1. Moscow, p. 362 (in Russian)
  16. Gratsianskiy M. (2014) “Vozniknovenie i razvitie kontseptsii papskogo primata v I‒V vv.” [“Emergence and Further Development of the Idea of Papal Primacy in I‒IV centuries”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, 2014, vol. 2 (52), pp. 9–29 (in Russian).
  17. Gratsianskiy M. (2015) “Apostol Petr i ‘Akakianskaia skhizma’” [“Apostle Peter and the ‘Acacian Schism’”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, 2015, vol. 3 (59), pp. 9‒19 (in Russian).
  18. Gratsianskiy M. (2015) “Prichiny i obstoiatel’stva nachala ‘akakianskoi’ skhizmy (484 g.)” [“Causes and Circumstances of the Beginning of the ‘Acacian Schism’ (AD 484)”], in Iresiona. Antichnyi mir i ego nasledie. Vypusk IV. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov k 50-letiiu professora N. N. Bolgova, Belgorod, pp. 188‒200 (in Russian).
  19. Gratsianskiy M. (2016) “‘Akakianskaia’ ili vse zhe ‘felikianskaia’ skhizma? Problema obosnovannosti odnogo istoriografi cheskogo klishe” [“‘Acacian’ or Rather ‘Felician’ Schism? The Problem of Acceptability of One Historiographic Cliché’]. Vizantiiskii Vremennik, 2016, vol. 100, pp. 44‒63 (in Russian).
  20. Gratsianskiy M. (2016) “Papa Gelasii I (492‒496) i ego ekkleziologicheskie vozzreniia” [“Pope Gelasius I (492–496) and His Ecclesiological Views”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, 2016, vol. 3 (65), pp. 25‒41 (in Russian).
  21. Gratsianskiy M. (2016) “Papa Lev Velikii i ego tolkovanie 6-go nikeiskogo kanona” [“Pope Leo the Great and his Interpretation of the Sixth Nicene Canon”]. In Tserkov’ v istorii Rossii. Sb. 11: K 70-letiiu Nikolaia Nikolaevicha Lisovogo. Moscow, pp. 159‒175 (in Russian).
  22. Gratsianskiy M. (2016) “Secundum Calchedonensem synodum haec ab apostolica sede gesta: Papa Gelasii I i eres’ Akakiia Konstantinopol’skogo” [Secundum Calchedonensem synodum haec ab apostolica sede gesta: Pope Gelasius I and the Heresy of Acacius of Constantinople”]. In Vizantiiskie ocherki. Trudy rossiiskikh uchenykh k XXIII Mezhdunarodnomu kongressu vizantinistov. St. Petersburg, pp. 62‒73 (in Russian).
  23. Gratsianskiy M. (2018) “Bor’ba rimskogo papy L’va Velikogo za tserkovnoe pervenstvo v kontekste vostochnykh soborov i imperatorskoi tserkovnoi politiki” [“The Struggle of Pope Leo the Great for Primacy in the Context of the Eastern Councils and the Church Policy of the Emperors”]. Vizantiiskii Vremennik, 2018, vol. 102 (in Russian).
  24. Haller J. (1950) Das Papsttum. Idee und Wirklichkeit, vol. 1. Stuttgart.
  25. Hornung Ch. (2011) “Haeres Petri: Kontinuitat und Wandel in der Bischofsnachfolge des Siricius von Rom”, in J. Leemans, P. Van Nuff elen, S. W. J. Keough, C. Nicolaye (eds.) Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity, Göttingen, pp. 375‒388.
  26. Jalland T. (1941) The Life and Times of St. Leo the Great. London. Jasper D., Fuhrmann H. (2001) Papal Letters in the Early Middle Ages. Washington.
  27. Jones A. (1964) The Later Roman Empire, 284–602, vol. 1. Oxford.
  28. Kissling W. (1921) Das Verhältnis zwischen Sacerdotium und Imperium nach den Anschauungen der Päpste von Leo dem Großen bis Gelasius I. Paderborn.
  29. Klinkenberg H. (1952) “Papsttum und Reichskirche bei Leo dem Großen”. Zeitschrift der Savigny- Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung, 1952, vol. 38 (1), pp. 37‒112.
  30. Maccarone M. (1957) “L’antico titolo papale Vicarius Petri e la concezione del Primato”. Divinitas, 1957, vol. 1, pp. 365‒371.
  31. Maccarrone M. (1991) “Sedes Apostolica — Vicarius Petri. La perpetuità del primato di Pietro nella sede e nel vescovo di Roma (Secoli III‒VIII)”, in M. Maccarrone (ed.) Il primato del vescovo di Roma nel primo millennio. Ricerche e testimonianze. Atti del Symposium storicoteologico. Roma, 9‒13 Ottobre 1989, Città del Vaticano, pp. 275‒362.
  32. Maccarrone M. (1960) “La dottrina del Primato papale dal IV all’ VIII secolo nelle relazioni con le Chiese occidental”, in Le Chiese nei regni dell’ Europa Occidentale e i loro rapporti con Roma sino all’ 800. [Settimane di studio del Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo, VII], vol. 2, Spoleto, pp. 633‒742.
  33. Maccarrone M. (1962) “Cathedra Petri und die Idee der Entwicklung des päpstlichen Primats vom 2. bis 4. Jahrhundert”. Saeculum, 1962, vol. 13, pp. 278‒292.
  34. McCready W. (1973) “Papal Plenitudo Potestatis and the Source of Temporal Authority in Late Medieval Papal Hierocratic Theory”. Speculum, 1973, vol. 48/4, pp. 654‒674.
  35. McShane P. (1979) Romanitas et le pape Léon le Grand. Tournai, Montréal.
  36. Michel A. (1953) “Der Kampf um das politische oder petrinische Prinzip der Kirchenführung”, in A. Grillmeier, H. Bacht (eds.) Das Konzil von Chalkedon, vol. 1, Würzburg, pp. 500‒524.
  37. Miller J. (1980) The Divine Right of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology. Rome.
  38. Pietri Ch. (1961) “Concordia apostolorum et renovatio urbis (Culte des martyrs et propagande pontifi cale)”. Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire, 1961, vol. 73, pp. 275‒322.
  39. Powell D. (2008) “Haeres Petri: Leo I and Church Order.” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church, 2008, vol. 8(3), pp. 203‒210.
  40. Rivière J. (1925) “In partem sollicitudinis. Evolution d’une formule pontifi cale”. Revue des Sciences Religieuses, 1925, vol. 5(2), pp. 210‒231.
  41. Schmidt K. (1936) “Papa Petrus ipse”. Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 1936, vol. 54, pp. 267‒275.
  42. Schweizer Ch. (1991) Hierarchie und Organisation der römischen Reichskirche in der Kaisergesetzgebung vom vierten bis zum sechsten Jahrhundert. Bern, Berlin, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Paris.
  43. Stephanou P. (1967) “Sedes Apostolica, Regia Civitas”. Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 1967, vol. 33, pp. 563‒582.
  44. Stockmeier P. (1976) “Römische Kirche und Petrusamt im Licht frühchristlicher Zeugnisse”. Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, 1976, vol. 14, pp. 357‒372.
  45. Studer B. (1980) “Leo der Grosse und der Primat des römischen Bischofs”. In J. Brantschen, P. Selvatico (ed.) Unterwegs zur Einheit: Festschrift für Heinrich Stirnimann, Freiburg, pp. 617‒630.
  46. Uhalde K. (2009) “Pope Leo I on Power and Failure”. The Catholic Historical Review, 2009, vol. 95 (4), pp. 671‒688.
  47. Ullmann W. (1960) “Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy”. Journal of Theological Studies, 1960, vol. 11, pp. 25‒51.
  48. Ullmann W. (1981) Gelasius I. (492‒496). Das Papsttum an der Wende der Spätantike zum Mittelalter. Stuttgart.
  49. Wessel S. (2008) Leo the Great and the Spiritual Rebuilding of a Universal Rome. Leiden, Boston.
  50. Wilks M. (1962) “The Apostolicus and the Bishop of Rome, I”. The Journal of Theological Studies, 1962, vol. 13 (2), pp. 290‒317.
  51. Wilks M. (1963) “The Apostolicus and the Bishop of Rome, I”. The Journal of Theological Studies, 1963, vol. 14 (2), pp. 311‒354.
  52. Wojtowytsch M. (1981) Papsttum und Konzile von den Anfängen bis zu Leo I. (440‒461). Studien zur Entstehung der Überordnung des Papstes über Konzile. Stuttgart.

Gratsianskiy Mikhail


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Academic Degree: PhD in Philosophy;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 4a Likhov per., Moscow, 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: Leading Researcher;
ORCID: 0000-0002-6981-3216;
Email: gratsianskiy@mail.ru.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Laushkin Aleksei

The entry of the newly-ordained bishop Pachomius to Rostov on 28 january 1215: the choice of the day for the solemn ceremony

Laushkin Aleksei (2019) "The entry of the newly-ordained bishop Pachomius to Rostov on 28 january 1215: the choice of the day for the solemn ceremony ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2019, Iss. 89, pp. 49-66 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201989.49-66
The article is devoted to the calendar component of the solemn entries of the newly-consecrated bishops into their diocesan capitals in Rus’ until the end of the 13th century. The author shows that, in their absolute majority, ceremonies of this kind dated in sources occur on Sundays or holidays, or their eves. This makes it possible to speak of a meaningful choice of time for their holding and of life in Rus’ (at least from the beginning of the 12th century, when the earliest data appear) of a pronounced “festive strategy” in their planning. Against this background stands out the entrance to Rostov after Bishop Pachomius was ordained on January 28, 1215, it occurred on an ordinary Wednesday. Analyzing the preserved sources, the author suggests that the organizers of the ceremony were attracted by the feast of St. Ephraim Sirin that was celebrated on that day, when in Rostov they could prayerfully commemorate the eponymous bishop who once led the Rostov diocese. The author believes that the timing of the ceremony for such a day was relevant in the context of a sharp political struggle that began in Suzdal land after the death of Grand Prince Vsevolod the Big Nest in 1212 and led, among other things, to the schism of the previously united Rostov Diocese in 1214– 1215. According to the author, the possibility of such an interpretation is confi rmed by the attentive attitude of Prince Konstantin Vsevolodovich, who ruled in Rostov at that time, to the choice of days for solemn ceremonies in which he took part.
the Old Rus; Russian Church History; the Church calendar; temporality; the dates of the secular and ecclesiastical ceremonies
  1. Afanasii (Sakharov), bishop (1995) O pominovenii usopshikh po ustavu Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi [On the Commemoration of the Diceased in Accordance with the Rules of the Orthodox Church]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  2. Berezhkov N. (1963) Khronologiia russkogo letopisaniia [The Chronology of Russian Chronicle-Writing]. Moscow (in Russian).
  3. Fennell J. (1989) The Crisis of Medieval Russia 1200—1304. Moscow (Russian translation.)
  4. Gaidukov P., Engovatova A. (2018) “Novaia vislaia aktovaia pechat’ iz raskopok v Yaroslavle” [“The New Pendent Act Seal from the Excavations in Yaroslavl”], in Arheologiia: istoriia i perspektivy: Vos’maia mezhregional’naia konferentsiia [Archaeology: History and Prospects. The 8th Inter-Regional Conference]. Yaroslavl’, pp. 40–43 (in Russian).
  5. Kagan M. (1987) “Ioann episkop Rostovskij ” [Ioann, Bishop of Rostov], in Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnej Rusi [Dictionary of Book People and Book Culture of Ancient Rus’]. Leningrad, vol. 1, pp. 211–213 (in Russian).
  6. Karpov A. (2008) “Efrem” [Ephraim], in Pravoslavnaya enciklopediya [The Orthodox Encyclopaedia]. Moscow, vol. 19, p. 56 (in Russian).
  7. Kuznetsov A. (2006) Vladimirskii kniaz’ Georgii Vsevolodovich v istorii Rusi pervoi treti XIII v. [Prince Georgy Vsevolodovich of Vladimir in the History of Rus’ in the fi rst Third of the 13th Century]. Nizhniy Novgorod (in Russian).
  8. Kuznetsov A. (2009) “Politicheskaia istoriia Severo-Vostochnoi Rusi v 1211–1218 gg.: istochnikovedcheskii aspekt” [Political History of North-Eastern Rus’ in 1211–1218: A Source Study Aspect”]. Ruthenica, 2009, vol. VIII, pp. 66–96 (in Russian).
  9. Laushkin A. (2013) “Vybor dnei dlia kniazhich’ikh postrigov v Drevnei Rusi” [“Selection of Days for Princes’ Infant Sons’ Tonsures in Old Rus’”], in Rus’, Rossiia: Srednevekov’e i Novoe vremia [Rus’, Russia: the Middle Ages and the New Time]. Moscow, vol. 3, pp. 93–99 (in Russian).
  10. Laushkin A. (2014) “K probleme pochitaniia kniagini Ol’gi i kniazia Vladimira v domongol’skoe vremia” [“On the Problem of Veneration of Princess Olga and Prince Vladimir in Pre- Mongolian Time”], in TODRL [Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature]. St. Petersburg, vol. 63, pp. 45–57 (in Russian).
  11. Laushkin A. (2017) “Vkhody novopostavlennykh novgorodskikh vladyk v svoi gorod: khronologicheskii aspekt (XII–XIII vv.)” [The Entries of the Newly-Ordained Bishops of Novgorod to their City: A Chronological Aspect (XII—XIII Centuries)”]. Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki, 2017, vol. 3 (69), pp. 71–72 (in Russian).
  12. Laushkin A. (2019) “Prazdnichnye vykhody na voinu v domongol’skoi Rusi” [“Festive Departures to Military Campaigns in Pre-Mongol Rus”]. Drevnyaya Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki, 2019, vol. 1 (75), pp. 53‒57 (in Russian).
  13. Limonov Yu. (1987) Vladimiro-Suzdal’skaya Rus’ [Vladimir-Suzdal Rus’]. Leningrad (in Russian).
  14. Litvina A., Uspensky F. (2006) Vybor imeni u russkikh kniazei v X–XVI vv.: Dinasticheskaia istoriia skvoz’ prizmu antroponimiki [Choice of Name by Russian Princes in the 10‒16th Centuries: Dynastic History through the Prism of Anthroponymics]. Moscow (in Russian).
  15. Litvina A., Uspensky F. (2008) “Vremia zhit’ i vremia umirat’: Tekstologiia drevneishikh russkikh letopisei ili kniazheskaia semeinaia traditsiia?” [“Time to Live and Time to Die: Textology of the Most Ancient Russian Chronicles, or a Family Tradition of the Princes?”], in Fakty i znaki: Issledovaniia po semiotike istorii [Facts and Symbols: Essays on Semiotics of History]. Moscow, vol. 1, pp. 108–121 (in Russian).
  16. Loseva O. (2001) Russkie mesiatseslovy XI–XIV vekov [Russian Menologies of the 11th — 14th Centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
  17. L[oseva] O. (2005) “Georgii: Pochitanie na Rusi” [George: Veneration in Rus’], in Pravoslavnaya enciklopediya [The Orthodox Encyclopaedia]. Moscow, vol. 10, pp. 675–676 (in Russian).
  18. Mahan’ko M., Saenkova E. (2006) “Relikvii po izvestiyam russkih letopisej XI–XVII vekov” [“Relics in the Accounts of Russian Chronicles of the 11th — 17th Centuries”], in Relikvii v Vizantii i Drevnej Rusi: Pis’mennye istochniki [Relics in Byzantium and Ancient Rus’: Written Sources]. Moscow, pp. 317–422 (in Russian).
  19. Nazarenko A. (2008) “Efrem” [“Ephraim”], in Pravoslavnaya enciklopediya [The Orthodox Encyclopaedia]. Moscow, vol. 19, pp. 36–38 (in Russian).
  20. Nazarenko A. (2009) Drevniaia Rus’ i slaviane (istoriko-filologicheskie issledovaniia) [Ancient Rus’ and the Slavs: Historico-Philological Studies]. Moscow (in Russian).
  21. Nazarenko A. (2014) “Pereiaslavskaia mitropoliia na Rusi na rubezhe XI–XII vv. (dinasticheskaia i vneshnepoliticheskaia podopleka tserkovnoi geografii)” [Metropolis of Pereyaslav in Rus’ at the Turn of the 11th — 12th Centuries (Dynastic and Foreign-Policy Background of Church Geography)], in Kniga kartiny Zemli: Sbornik statej v chest’ I.G. Konovalovoi [The Book of the Description of the Earth: Collection of Articles in Honour of I. G. Konovalova]. Moscow, pp. 192–211 (in Russian).
  22. Nasonov A. (1969) Istoriia russkogo letopisaniia XI — nachala XVIII veka: Ocherki i issledovaniia [The History of Russian Chronicles of the 11th — Beginning of the 18th Centuries: Essays and Studies]. Moscow (in Russian).
  23. Tal’berg N. (1959) Istoriia Russkoi Tserkvi [History of the Russian Church]. Jordanvill (in Russian).
  24. Turilov A. (2008) “Efrem Sirin: Slavianskie perevody, rukopisnaia i staropechatnaia traditsiia do XIX v.” [Ephraim the Syrian: Slavonic Translations, Handwritten and Old-Print Tradition until the 19th Century”], in Pravoslavnaya enciklopediya [The Orthodox Encyclopaedia]. Moscow, vol. 19, pp. 99–100 (in Russian).
  25. Shablova T. (2012) “Predislovie” [Preface], in Kormovoe pominovenie v Uspenskom Kirillo- Belozerskom monastyre v XVI–XVII vekah [The Kormovoe Commemoration in the Kirillo- Belozersky Monastery in the 16th — 17th Centuries]. St Petersburg, pp. 3–82 (in Russian).
  26. Shchapov Ya. (1989) Gosudarstvo i Tserkov’ Drevnei Rusi X–XIII vv. [The State and the Church in Ancient Rus’ of the 10th — 13th Centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
  27. Shokarev S. (2003) “Russkii srednevekovyi nekropol’: obriady, predstavleniia, povsednevnost’” [“Russian Medieval Necropolis: Rituals, Beliefs, Everyday Life”], in Kul’tura pamyati: Sbornik nauchnykh statei [The Culture of Memory: Collection of Scientifi c Articles]. Moscow, pp. 141–187 (in Russian).
  28. Voronin N. (1965) “K voprosu o nachale rostovo-suzdal’skogo letopisaniia” [“On the Question of the Beginning of the Rostov-Suzdal Chronicle”], in Arheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 1964 god [Archaeographic Yearbook for 1964]. Moscow, pp. 19–39 (in Russian).
  29. Zheltov M. (2010) “Intronizatsiia” [“Enthronement”], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [The Orthodox Encyclopaedia]. Moscow, vol. 23, pp. 124–131 (in Russian).
  30. Zhilenko I., Nazarenko A. (2008) “Efrem: Sud’ba moshchei, pochitanie” [Ephraim: The Fate of the Relics, Veneration], in Pravoslavnaia enciklopediia [The Orthodox Encyclopaedia]. Moscow, vol. 19, pp. 38–39 (in Russian).

Laushkin Aleksei


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: Lomonosov Moscow State University; 27/4 Lomonosovskiy prosp., Moscow 119192, Russian Federation; St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 23B Novokuznetskaia Str., Moscow 115184, Russian Federation;
Post: Associate Professor;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2899-9958;
Email: laushkin@list.ru.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Andreev Andrei

Correspondence of Emperor Alexander I and professor G. F. Parrot (1802–1825) as a source for the study of political reforms in Russian Empire

Andreev Andrei (2019) "Correspondence of Emperor Alexander I and professor G. F. Parrot (1802–1825) as a source for the study of political reforms in Russian Empire ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2019, Iss. 89, pp. 67-82 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201989.67-82
This article studies a unique historical source, i.e. the correspondence which for a number of years was kept up between Russian Emperor Alexander I and professor of the University of Dorpat Georg Friedrich Parrot. Their acquaintance in 1802 took place in the period when numerous liberal reforms in Russia were prepared, constitutional projects were discussed, and serfdom was abolished. Parrot also played a rather signifi cant role in the development of public education, in the opening of new schools in the Baltic provinces, and in the improvement of his own university. His impact on government policy was made possible by a special nature of the relationship, the “sincere friendship” that he established with Alexander I, as it was refl ected in their correspondence. The later fate of these letters after Parrot’s death came to be very complicated, and their scientifi c study has not been carried out until now. Much of the work that allowed historians to make themselves familiar with the content of the letters was done more than a hundred years ago, but since then specialists have not used the original source. Its detailed publication should be an immediate task due to the great informative potential contained in the letters and touching upon the key problems of the political development of the Russian Empire.
Russia, Alexander I, Georg Friedrich Parrot, reforms, archives, correspondence, public education, University of Dorpat
  1. Andreev A. (2006) “Imperator Aleksandr I i professor G. F. Parrot: k istorii vozniknoveniia ‘universitetskoi avtonomii’ v Rossii ” [Emperor Alexander I and Professor G. F. Parrot: On the Beginning of the ‘University Autonomy’ in Russia”], in Rossiiskaia istoriia, 2006, 6, pp. 19–30 (in Russian).
  2. Аndreev A. (2009) Rossiiskie universitety XVIII — pervoi poloviny XIX veka v kontekste universitetskoi istorii Evropy [Russian Universities of the 18th and the First Half of the 19th Century in the Context of the History of Universities in Europe]. Moscow (in Russian).
  3. Аndreev A., Tosato-Rigo D. (2014) Imperator Aleksandr I i Frederik-Sezar Lagarp. Pis’ma. Dokumenty [Emperor Alexander I and Frédéric-César La Harpe. Letters. Documents]. Vol. 1 (1782–1802). Moscow (in Russian).
  4. Аndreev A., Tosato-Rigo D. (2017) Imperator Aleksandr I i Frederik-Sezar Lagarp. Pis’ma. Dokumenty [Emperor Alexander I and Frédéric-César La Harpe. Letters. Documents]. Vol. 2 (1802–1815), vol. 3 (1815–1832). Moscow (in Russian).
  5. Gavrilina I. (2017) “Rektor G. F. Parrot i popechitel F. M. Klinger: dva vzgliada na razvitie Derptskogo universiteta v pervye gody ego suschestvovaniia (1802–1803)” [Rector G. F. Parrot and Curator F. M. Klinger: Two Views on the Development of the University of Dorpat], in Klio, 10, vol. 130, pp. 47–56 (in Russian).
  6. Gracheva Iu. (2012) ‘Pozvol’te mne byt’ poleznym!’ Vasilii Nazarovich Karazin na gosudarstvennoi sluzhbe i v obschestvennoi zhizni Rossii pervoi treti XIX v. [‘Let me be Useful!’ Vasilii Nazarovich Karazin in the State Service and in Public Life of Russia in the First Third of the 19th Century]. Moscow (in Russian).
  7. Hempel P. (1999) Deutschsprachige Physiker im alten Sankt-Petersburg: Georg Parrot, Emil Lenz und Moritz Jacobi im Kontext von Wissenschaft und Politik. München.
  8. Loosme I., Rand M. (1992) Georg Friedrich Parroti ja Karl Morgensterni kirjavahetus: 1802–1803. Tartu.
  9. Safonov M. (1988) Problema reform v pravitel’stvennoi politike Rossii na rubezhe XVIII i XIX vv. [Problem of Reforms in the Govermental Politics of Russia at the Turn of the 18th and 19th Centuries]. Leningrad (in Russian).
  10. Sapozhnikova N. (2008) “Epistoliarno-panoramnaia proiektsia ‘Russkogo XIX veka’ v pis’makh ‘cheloveka vtorogo plana’. Akademik-romantik G.F. Parrot” [The Epistolary and Panoramic Projection of the ‘Russian 19th Century’ in Letters of the ‘Second-Class Person’. The Romantic Academician G.F. Parrot], in Chelovek vtorogo plana v istorii: sbornik nauchnykh statei, vol. 5. Rostov-na-Donu (in Russian).
  11. Zharova E. (2012) “G.F. Parrot i dva imperatora” [G.F. Parrot and Two Emperors], in Istoriia v podrobnostiakh, 2012, 9, pp.32–35 (in Russian).
  12. Zharova E. (2013) “Imperator Aleksandr I po vospominaniiam professora Derptskogo universiteta G. F. Parrota” [Emperor Alexander I according to the Memoirs of Professor of Dorpat University G.F. Parrot], in Vestnik arkhivista, 2013, 4, pp. 267–279 (in Russian).

Andreev Andrei


Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in History;
Academic Rank: Professor;
Place of work: Lomonosov Moscow State University; 27/4 Lomonosovskiy prospekt, Moscow, 119992, Russian Federation; Ss. Cyril and Methodius Institute of Postgraduate Studies; 4/2/5 Piatnitskaya Str., Moscow 115035, Russian Federation; St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 23B Novokuznetskaia Str., Moscow, 115184, Russian Federation;
Post: Professor;
ORCID: 0000-0001-7075-6637;
Email: andrejev-goetting@yandex.ru.

*According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.

Shevchenko Polina

Secondary military schools of Russia in the first half of the 19th century through the eyes of their alumni

Shevchenko Polina (2019) "Secondary military schools of Russia in the first half of the 19th century through the eyes of their alumni ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2019, Iss. 89, pp. 83-96 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201989.83-96
Russian military educational institutions of the former half of the 19th century are generally described as an embodiment of the worst features of Nikolay’s military system with its unreasonable drilling. Rare positive assessments refer to the contribution of cadet corps to the development of the gentry education in Russia. Opinions that the military schools nourished the true fi ghter’s spirit are very rare. Daily life of the students conformed to the atmosphere of a strictly determined order which was necessary to follow obediently. The whole day had a strict timetable: time of awakening, intake of meals, study time, military exercises, doing the homework and having a rest. The immediate control over the students was exercised by offi cers-tutors. Certain offi cers were loved and respected by the students, others, on the contrary, were afraid of and disliked. Unfortunately, not all tutors always understood their tasks properly, their eff orts were often limited to maintaining purely outward order. However, the shortcomings in this education were sometimes due to the level of pedagogy of that time which was not particularly high. The attitude to the teachers in cadet corps was similar. If the teacher was able to teach his subject in such a fashion that the students were interested, he was respected and popular among the students. Memoirs of the former cadets demonstrate that their opinions as to the study in cadet corps was rather positive. The skills and qualities acquired there made up a foundation for their future service as offi cers of the Russian army. The reform of the 1860s, which abolished cadet corps, did not take into account the experience and opinions of their alumni.
military education, fi rst half of 19th century, history of everyday life, cadet corps
  1. Alpatov N. (1958) Uchebno-vospitatel’naia rabota v dorevolutsionnoi shkole internatnogo tipa [Educational Work in the Pre-Revolutionary Boarding School]. Moscow (in Russian).
  2. Aurova N. (2003) Sistema voennogo obrazovaniia v Rossii: kadetskie korpusa vo vtoroi polovine 18 — pervoi polovine 19 veka [Military Education System in Russia: Cadet Corps in the Second Half of the 18th — First Half of the 19th Centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
  3. Kersnovskiy A. (1993‒1994) Istoriia russkoi armii [The History of the Russian Army], 2‒3. Moscow (in Russian).
  4. Kochakov B. M. Pedagogicheskie kadri voenno-uchebnih zavedeniy v zarskoy Rossii [Teaching staff of military schools in tsarist Russia]. Trudy Vysshego voenno-pedagogicheskogo instituta imeni M. I. Kalinina [Works of the Higher military pedagogical institute named after M. I. Kalinin]. Leningrad, 1947, vol. 2, pp. 154–189 (in Russian).
  5. Vlasov N. (2018) Gelmut fon Moltke. Otets sovremennoi voiny [Helmut von Moltke. Father of the Modern War]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  6. Volkov S. (1993) Russkiy ofi tserskii korpus [Russian Offi cer Corps]. Moscow (in Russian).
  7. Zaionchkovskiy P. (1952) Voennye reformy 1860 — 1870 gg. v Rossii [Military Reforms of the 1860s — 1870s in Russia]. Moscow (in Russian).

Shevchenko Polina


Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: Lomonosov Moscow State University; 27/4 Lomonosovskiy prosp., Moscow 119192, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0001-9976-3857;
Email: scharlotte@inbox.ru.
Andreev Dmitry

Did the “political testament” of Emperor Alexander III to heir Tsesarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich exist? Raising the problem

Andreev Dmitry (2019) "Did the “political testament” of Emperor Alexander III to heir Tsesarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich exist? Raising the problem ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2019, Iss. 89, pp. 97-114 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201989.97-114
In those sources that are available now, there are no indications that Emperor Alexander III, dying in Livadia in October 1894, gave any instructions to Heir Tsesarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich which can be regarded as a sui generis “political testament”. However, there exist opposite opinions in historical essays and fi ction. This question has not yet been specifi cally studied in historiography. This article, drawing on documents of personal origin that belong primarily to those who witnessed the last days of Alexander III, reconstructs the events that might have been interpreted as facts confirming the reality of this “political testament” and giving rise to various rumours and talks. Attention is paid to the contardictions as to some pressing issues that appeared among certain representatives of the dynasty. The article draws parallels between such events and their interpretations and shows the reasons for the changes in evaluation. Particular attention is paid to tracing a dependence between the unstable health condition of Alexander III and the situation in his milieu. The latter, as is seen, served as a nourishing soil for various political assumptions and forecasts. The conclusions of the study do not allow one to either confi rm the existence of the “political testament” or deny it, but they let us trace the origins of some rumours that came to be wide-spread afterwards.
Emperor Alexander III, Heir Tsesarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich, Empress Maria Feodorovna, Livadia, political testament, oath to Emperor, Grand Duke, rumours
  1. Andreev D. (2011) “Dukhovno-religioznye interpoliatsii printsessy Alisy Gessenskoi (velikoi kniazhny Aleksandry Fedorovny) v dnevnike tsesarevicha Nikolaia Aleksandrovicha (imperatora Nikolaia II) za 1894 g.: opyt identifi katsii i interpretatsii” [Spiritual and Religious Interpolations of Princess Alix of Hesse (Alexandra Feodorovna) in the Diary by Tsesarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich (Emperor Nicholas II) in the Year 1894: An Attempt at Identification and Interpretation], in Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 1 (38), pp. 60–76 (in Russian).
  2. Andreev D. (2011) “Imperator Nikolai II v pervye mesiatsy tsarstvovaniia: vneshnie vliianiya i samostoiatel’nye resheniia” [Emperor Nicholas II in the First Months as a Tsar: External Influences and Own Decisions], in Rossiiskaia istoriia, 4, pp. 114–125 (in Russian).
  3. Bokhanov A. (1998) Imperator Aleksandr III [Emperor Alexander III]. Moscow (in Russian).
  4. Khrustaliov V. (2014) Tainy na krovi. Triumf i tragedii Doma Romanovykh [Secrets on Blood. Triumph and Tragedies of the Romanovs’ House]. Moscow (in Russian). Krizis samoderzhaviia v Rossii, 1895–1917 (1984) [Crisis of Absolutism in Russia, 1895‒1917]. Leningrad (in Russian).
  5. Vlast’ i reformy. Ot samoderzhavnoi k sovetskoi Rossii (1996) [Power and Reforms. From the Emperors’ to Soviet Russia]. St Petersburg (in Russian).

Andreev Dmitry


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: Lomonosov Moscow State University; 27/4 Lomonosovskiy prosp., Moscow 119192, Russian Federation;
Post: Associate Professor;
ORCID: 0000-0002-7489-6044;
Email: carpenter2005@yandex.ru.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Tsigankov Dmitry; Naumov Pavel

Vinogradov's students

Naumov Pavel, Tsigankov Dmitry (2019) "Vinogradov's students ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2019, Iss. 89, pp. 115-147 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201989.115-147
This article is devoted to the problem of relations between professor of Moscow University P. G. Vinogradov and his students. During his work at the Department of World History, Faculty of History and Philology, Imperial Moscow University, Professor Vinogradov had the opportunity to off er candidates to be left at the university with the aim of preparation for professorship. We have identifi ed 14 instances when Vinogradov did this. The nominees were always students well known to the professor. He made their acquaintance during his seminars in World History, they wrote their dissertations under his supervision. Two of his students, A. N. Savin and M. M. Khvostov, became professors of Russian universities, having defended their master’s and doctoral theses before the revolution. D. N. Egorov was a teacher at Moscow University, he obtained professorship in summer 1917. Most students of Vinogradov did not succeed in master’s examinations. However, some of them continued their academic work during Soviet times and came to be prominent fi gures in the academia of the new era. This article identifies all students of Vinogradov at Moscow University (two students were not left for the preparation; one of them, who was considered Vinogradov’s student, was formally left by V. I. Ger’ye), gives an outline of their subsequent career, describes characteristic features of professor’s work with those he was in charge of.
P. G. Vinogradov, Vinogradov’s students, system of training of historians, academic community of historians of Moscow University, successor in science, intellectual dialogue, academic tradition
  1. Antoshchenko A. (2010) Russkii liberal-anglofi l P. G. Vinogradov [Russian Liberal Anglophile P. G. Vinogradov]. Petrozavodsk (in Russian).
  2. Boginskii A. (2012) Istoriya sem’i Gol’denveizer: XIX — XX vv. [History of the Goldenweiser Family: 19th — 20th Centuries], in Nauchnye trudy po iudaike, vol. III/42, pp. 218–234 (in Russian).
  3. Malygin O. (2015) “N. M. Nikol’skii i sozdanie pervogo sovetskogo uchebnika po drevnei istorii dlia shkol” [N. M. Nikolsky and Making the First Soviet Textbook on Ancient History for Schools], in Sbornik nauchnyh statei Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem, posvyashchennyi 85-letiiu so dnia obrazovaniia Hanty-Mansiiskogo avtonomnogo okruga — Iugry [Collection of Scientifi c Articles of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference with International Participation in Honour of the 85th Anniversary of Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Region — Yugra]. Nizhnevartovsk, pp. 218–219 (in Russian).
  4. Miagkov G., Ivanova T. (2013) “Shkola V.I. Ger’e: osnovnye cherty i mesto v nauchnom prostranstve Rossii” [System of Training of V. I. Ger’e: Main Features and Place in the Scientifi c Space of Russia»], in Dialog so vremenem, 44, pp. 165–185 (in Russian).
  5. Moravskaya A. (1997) “130 let so dnia rozhdeniia Sergeia Pavlovicha Moravskogo (1866–1942)” [130th Anniversary of Sergei Pavlovich Moravsky (1866–1942)], in Biulleten’ Vserossijskoi Associacii medievistov i istorikov rannego novogo vremeni, 8, pp. 31–35 (in Russian).
  6. Naumov P. (2018) “Ucheniki R. Yu. Vippera” [Vipper’s students], in Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 80, pp. 77–92 (in Russian).
  7. Sitnik V. (1976) M. N. Kovalenskii — istorik i pedagog [M. N. Kovalensky, Historian and Teacher]. Voronezh (in Russian).
  8. Shakhanov A. (2003) Russkaia istoricheskaia nauka vtoroi poloviny XIX — nachala XX veka [Russian Historical Science of the Second Half of the 19th — Early 20th Centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
  9. Sharova A. (2012) “Aleksandr Nikolaevich Savin: neizvestnaia zhizn’ izvestnogo istorika” [Alexander Nikolaevich Savin: Unknown Life of the Famous Historian], in Odissei: chelovek v istorii, pp. 212–243 (in Russian).
  10. Sharova A. (2012) “«Otstal ot veka?» V.I. Ger’e i A.N. Savin” [“Behind the Century?” V.I. Ger’e and A.N. Savin], in Istoricheskaya nauka i obrazovanie v Rossii i na Zapade: sud’by istorikov i nauchnyh shkol [Historical Science and Education in Russia and the West: Fates of Historians and Academic Schools], pp. 35‒37 (in Russian).
  11. Starkova N. (2005) “Problemy istorii Drevnei Sparty v trudakh kazanskikh antikovedov rubezha 19‒20 vv.” [Problems of History of Ancient Sparta in Works of Scholars of Antiquity from Kazan of the Turn of 19th — 20th Centuries], in Kazanskii universitet kak issledovatel’skoe i sociokul’turnoe prostranstvo [Kazan University as an Academic and Socio-Cultural Space]. Kazan, pp. 266–273 (in Russian).
  12. Tsygankov D. (2014). “Soobshchestvo moskovskikh vseobshchikh istorikov vo vtoroi polovine XIX veka” [Academic Community of World Historians in Moscow], in Terra Europa: Intellektual’noe prostranstvo moskovskikh istorikov vtoroi poloviny XIX veka [Terra Europa: Intellectual Space of Moscow Historians of the Second Half of the 19th Century]. Moscow, pp. 11–173 (in Russian).
  13. Volobuev O. (2014) “Shkol’nye uchebniki nachala XX veka po russkoi istorii: funktsional’nost’ i tipologiia” [School Textbooks on Russian History of the Early Twentieth Century: Functionality and Typology], in Rossiiskaya istoriia, vol. 1, pp. 95–110 (in Russian).
  14. Zabugina E. (2017) “Pedagogicheskaia i obshchestvennaia deiatel’nost’ istorika S. P. Moravskogo” [Pedagogical and Social Work of the Historian S. P. Moravskiy], in Vestnik Samarskogo universiteta. Istoriia, pedagogika, filologiia, 23/l, pp. 21–25 (in Russian).
  15. Zubkov I. (2011) “Nauchnye pedagogicheskie obshchestva. Pedagogicheskoe obshchestvo pri Moskovskom universitete” [Scientific Educational Societies. Educational Society at Moscow University], in Samoorganizaciya rossiiskoi obshchestvennosti v poslednei treti XVIII — nachale XX v. [Self-Organisation of the Russian Public in the Last Third of the 18th — Early 20th Centuries]. Moscow, pp. 651–661 (in Russian).

Tsigankov Dmitry


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 23B Novokuznetskaia Str., Moscow, 115184, Russian Federation; Moscow State University; 27/4 Lomonosovskiy Prospect, Moscow 119192, Russian Federation; Ss Cyril and Methodius Institute of Postgraduate Studies; 4/2/5 Piatnitskaia Str., Moscow 115035, Russian Federation;
Post: Head of Departement of Russian History, Faculty of History; Associate Professor, Department of Russian History in the 19th and the Beginning of the 20th Centuries; Associate Professor, Departement of Church History;
ORCID: 0000-0003-3005-503Х;
Email: tsdm@yandex.ru.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.


Naumov Pavel


Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: Moscow State University; 1 Leninskie Gory str., Moscow, 119192, Russian Federation;
Post: assistant lecturer at the faculty of history at St.Tikhon's Orthodox University;
ORCID: 0000-0002-4353-8711;
Email: pavel_fcsm_1922@mail.ru.