/

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

St. Tikhon’s University Review II :91

ARTICLES

Izotova Olga

Five patriarchs in letters of St. Theodore the Studite

Izotova Olga (2019) "Five patriarchs in letters of St. Theodore the Studite ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2019, Iss. 91, pp. 11-27 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201991.11-27
This article analyses various aspects of the patriarch’s ministry in the corpus of letters of St. Theodore the Studite. St. Theodore’s statements about the pope and the four eastern patriarchs are studied in the light of various opinions of scholars as to the role of St. Theodore in approving the primacy of the Roman see and the system of the pentarchy. Attitude to St. Theodore, as a defender of the primacy of Rome, turns out to be insuffi ciently grounded, since neither the addresses to popes in the preambles of the letters, nor the magnifi cent praises to them, look unique if one compares them both with the addresses to the other four patriarchs by St. Theodore and the traditional addresses to patriarchs in Byzantine epistolography in general. Special attention which St. Theodore the Studite pays to the Roman and Jerusalem patriarchs also fi nds its explanation in the historical context of the period. It is just from these hierarchs that St. Theodore could expect real help facing persecution by the iconoclast emperors. The doctrine of St. Theodore about the “fi ve-headed (πεντακόρυφος) body of the Church” implies the special role of the patriarchs as heirs of the apostles in resolving issues of faith. The ministry of the patriarch is fundamentally diff erent from the ministry of an ordinary bishop, which is understood by St. Theodore primarily in relation to his congregation and in terms of following the canons. Correction of a patriarch who has fallen into heresy is possible only by his equals and is not subject to the will of the emperor or of all Orthodox emperors. The assembly of patriarchs, the fi ve heads of the body of the church, is independent from emperors and from those whose subjects they are in the earthly dimension. The existence of this assembly does ensure the preservation of the dogmata of the faith.
Theodore the Studite, epistolography, letter, pentarchy, primacy, pope, bishop, ecclesiology, church, apostolic succession
  1. Afinogenov D. (2013) “«Mnogoslozhnyi svitok» — slaviianskii perevod poslaniia trekh vostochnykh patriarkhov imperatoru Feofi lu [“Manifold Scroll”: the Church Slavonic Translation of the Letter of the Three Oriental Patriarchs to Emperor Theophilos]. Bogoslovskie trudy, 45, pp. 238–271 (in Russian).
  2. Afinogenov D. (1997) Konstantinopol+skii patriarkhat i ikonoborcheskii krizis v Vizantii (784–847) [Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium]. Moscow (in Russian).
  3. Kazhdan A. (2002) Istoriia vizantiiskoi literatury (650‒850 gg.) [History of Byzantine Literature]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  4. 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).
  5. Maksimovich K. (2010) “Patriarkh Mefodii I (843–847) i teoriia «pentarkhii»” [Patriarch Methodius I (843–847) and the Theory of «Pentarchy»”], in ХХ Ezhegodnaia Bogoslovskaia konferenttsiia PSTGU 9–14 oktiabria 2009 g. Materialy [20th Annual Theological Conference of St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for Humanities. Proceedings]. Moscow. Pp. 173–178 (in Russian).
  6. Smetanin V. (1987) Vizantiĭskoe obshchestvo XIII–XV vv. [Byzantine Society of the 13th — 15th Centuries]. Sverdlovsk (in Russian).
  7. Alexakis A. (1994) “A Florilegium in the Life of Nicetas of Medicion and a Letter of Theodore of Studios”. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. 48, pp. 179‒197.
  8. Beck H. (1959) Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich. München.
  9. Beihammer A. (2007) Griechische Briefe und Urkunden aus dem Zypern der Kreuzfahrerzeit. Die Formularsammlung eines königlichen Sekretärs im Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 367 (=Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte Zyperns. Вd. 57). Nicosia.
  10. Fatouros G. (1991) “Die Abhängigkeit des Theodoros Studites als Epistolographen von den Briefen Basileios des Grossen”. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 40, pp. 61‒72.
  11. Gahbauer F. (1993) Die Pentarchietheorie. Ein Modell der Kirchenleitung von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (= Frankfurter theologische Studien. Bd. 42). Frankfurt am Main.
  12. Griffi th S. (1988) “The Monks of Palestine and the Growth of Christian Literature in Arabic”. The Muslim World, 78, pp. 1‒28.
  13. Grünbart M. (2015) “From Letter to Literature: a Byzantine Story of Transformation”, in Ch. Høgel, E. Bartoli (eds) Medieval Letters: between Fiction and Document. Turnhout. Pp. 291‒306.
  14. Hatlie P. (1996) “Redeeming Byzantine Epistolography”. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 20, pp. 213‒248.
  15. Karlyn-Hayter P. (1994) “A Byzantine Politician Monk: Saint Theodore Studite”. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 44, pp. 217–232.
  16. Krausmüller D. (2006) “Patriarch Methodius, the First Hagiographer of Theodore of Stoudios”. Symbolae Oslonses, 81, pp. 144‒150.
  17. Mullett M. (1979) “The Classical Tradition in the Byzantine Letter”, in M. Mullett, R. Scott (eds) Byzantium and the Classical Tradition. University of Birmingham, Thirteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies. Birmingham. Pp. 75–93.
  18. Pratsch Th. (1998) Theodoros Studites (759–826): Zwischen Dogma und Pragma. Der Abt des Studiosklosters in Konstantinopel im Spannungsfeld von Patriarch, Kaiser und eigenem Anspruch (= Berliner Byzantinistische Studien. Bd. 4). Frankfurt am Main.
  19. Queenan A. (1967) “The Pentarchy: Its Origin and Initial Development”, Diakonia, 2, pp. 338–351.

Izotova Olga


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for Humanities; 23B Novokuznetskaya Str., Moscow 115184, Russian Federation;
Post: lecturer;
ORCID: 0000-0002-0953-5752;
Email: matroskin2@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.

Lavrinovich Maya

Modernisation of poor relief in Russia: selecting for the “worthy poor” in Sheremetev’s almshouse (the 1800s)

Lavrinovich Maya (2019) "Modernisation of poor relief in Russia: selecting for the “worthy poor” in Sheremetev’s almshouse (the 1800s) ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2019, Iss. 91, pp. 28-46 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201991.28-46
At the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries, the new ideas on poor relief began to find their way into Russia. On the one hand, they were based on the assessment of need, and on the other hand, on the moral qualities of the potential recipient. N. P. Sheremetev and A.F. Malinovskiy, who managed the construction of the Almshouse and developed its system of in- and outdoor relief, drew their attention to the “Rumford system” and the related practice of Hamburg Patriotic Society that developed the principles of selection of the recipients of outdoor relief. These systems focused on the “new poor”, i.e. working people whose earnings were not suffi cient to provide for themselves and their families. The adherents of this system did not consider poverty to be a consequence of personal immorality, as the British social reformers insisted. Still, these systems complemented each other. The Hamburg society applied the assessment of need and an individual approach when granting assistance; B. Thompson Rumford taught the inmates of the workhouse labor skills and fed the poor on the regular basis. Sheremetev and Malinovskiy decided to cut off “parasites” and “vagabonds”, because they did not aim to reeducate them, thus having excluded the lower urban strata. They also abandoned the idea of “Rumford soup” but did not abandon the idea of selecting the needy who would be “worth” to be granted allowances. They took into account not only the objective criteria (large family or illness) but also the years of “immaculate” service, one’s industry and “decency”. As a result, the Moscow middle-ranking offi cials and officers, who belonged to Malinovskii’s milieu and had obtained recommendations from the well-known persons, prevailed as the perspective recipients of the outdoor poor relief, and social status turned to be the main criterion of selection.
institutions of poor relief, social status, «worthy poor», Sheremetev’s Almshouse, Nikolai Sheremetev, Aleksei Malinovskii, Benjamin Thompson Rumford, Alexander I, Hamburg Patriotic Society
  1. Barlova Yuliya E. (2010) “‘Nadzor i pribyl’. Obshchestvennoe prizrenie i sotsial’naya pomoshch v teoreticheskikh konstruktakh Ieremii Bentama” [“‘Surveillance and Profi t.’ Social Relief and Social Assistance in the Theoretical Constructions of Jeremiah Bentham”] in Dialog so vremenem. Al’manakh intellektual’noy istorii, vol. 33, Moscow: Institut vseobshchei istorii, p. 166–186 (in Russian).
  2. Barlova Yuliya E. (2010) “Bednost’, nishcheta i sotsial’noye prizreniye v obshchestvenno-politicheskoy mysli Rossii XVIII — XIX vv.” [“Poverty, Indigence and Social Relief in the Socio-Political Thought in Russia in the 18th and 19th Centuries”]. Nauka i shkola, 2010, #2, pp. 118–121 (in Russian).
  3. Barlova Yuliya E. (2018) “Kartofel’ i sup v bor’be s bednost’yu: propaganda ‘ekonomnoy kulinarii’ v istorii Anglii novogo vremeni” [“Potatoes and Soup in the Fight against Poverty: the Advocacy of ‘Economical Cooking’ in the History of Modern England”], in Sokolov A.B. (ed.) Britaniya: Istoriya, kul’tura, obrazovaniye, vyp. 4, Yaroslavl’: Yaroslavskii gosudarstvennyy pedagogicheskiy universitet, p. 454–459 (in Russian).
  4. Baudus Florence de, Somov Vladimir A. (2015) “Amabl’ de Bodyus, Monsieur ‘Le Spectateur du Nord’, i ego russkie znakomstva” [“Amable de Baudus, Monsieur ‘Le Spectateur du Nord’, and His Russian Connections”], in Kochetkova Natal’ya Dmitrievna (ed.) XVIII vek: Sbornik statey, vol. 28, Moscow; St. Petersburg, p. 236–287 (in Russian).
  5. Cavallo Sandra (1991) “Conceptions of Poverty and Poor Relief in Turin in the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century”, in S. Woolf (ed.) Domestic Strategies: Work and Family in France and Italy, 1600–1800, Cambridge; Paris: Cambridge University Press and Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, p. 148–199.
  6. Dolgova Svetlana R. (1992) “Aleksey Fedorovich Malinovskii”, in Маlinovskiy Aleksei F. Obozrenie Moskvy, Moscow: Moskovskiy rabochiy, p. 176–234 (in Russian).
  7. Gorski Philipp S. (2003) The Disciplinary Revolution: Calvinism and the Rise of the State in Early Modern Europe. Сhicago: University of Chicago Press.
  8. Hartley Janet (1990) “Philanthropy in the Reign of Catherine the Great”, in R. Bartlett, J. Hartley (eds.) Russia in the Age of Enlightenment. Essays for Isabel de Madariaga, London: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 167–202.
  9. Hartley Janet (1994) Alexander I. London, New York: Longman.
  10. Kiselev Nikolay P. (2005) Iz istorii russkogo rozenkreitserstva [From the History of the Russian Rosencrucianity]. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo imeni N.I. Novikova (in Russian).
  11. Kozlova Nataliya V. (2010) Lyudi dryakhlye, bol’nye, ubogie v Moskve XVIII veka [The Decrepit, Sick, and Miserable People in Moscow of the XVIII Century]. Moscow: ROSSPEN (in Russian).
  12. Lavrinovich Maya B. (2016) “Kak possorilis’ Nikolay Petrovich i Aleksei Fedorovich” [How Nikolay Petrovich Quarreled with Aleksei Fedorovich: Patron-Client Relations in the Russian Society at the Turn of the 18th – 19th centuries]. Rossiyskaya istoriya, #3, p. 91–110 (in Russian).
  13. Lavrinovich Maya B. (2018) “A servant of two masters? The role of patronage and clientage in the career strategies of a Moscow official in the late 18th and early 19th centuries”. Cahiers du Monde Russe, vol. 59 (1), p. 7–36.
  14. Lavrinovich Maya B. [Lavrinovič, Maja] (2009) Social Capital vs. Social Discipline: Sheremetev’s Almshouse and Its Residents in 1810–1811, available at: http://www.perspectivia.net/content/publikationen/vortraege-moskau/Lavrinovic_Seremetev-Armenhaus (30.07.2019) (in Russian).
  15. Lindemann Mary (1990) Patriots and Paupers: Hamburg, 1712–1830, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  16. Lindenmeyr Adele (1996) Poverty Is Not a Vice: Charity, Society, and the State in Imperial Russia, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  17. Martin Аlexander М. (2008) «Sewage and the City: Filth, Smell, and Representations of Urban Life in Moscow, 1770-1880”. Russian Review, vol. 67 (2), p. 243–274.
  18. Martin Аlexander М. (2014) Enlightened Metropolis: Constructing Imperial Moscow, 1762–1855. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  19. Otto H. (1999) “Kirchliche Armenpfl ege in Norddeutschen Städten zwischen Aufklärung und Erweckung”, in C. Butterweck (Hg.) Pietismus und Neuzeit. Ein Jahrbuch zur Geschichte des neueren Protestantismus, Bd. 25, Göttingen.
  20. Redlich Fritz (1971) “Science and Charity: Count Rumford and His Followers”. International Review of Social History, vol. 16 (2), p. 184–216.
  21. Rosslyn Wendy (2007) Deeds, Not Words: The Origins of Women’s Philanthropy in the Russian Empire, Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
  22. Ul’yanova Galina N. (2005) Blagotvoritel’nost’ v Rossiyskoy imperii, XIX – nachalo XX veka, Moscow: Nauka (in Russian).

Lavrinovich Maya


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: National Research University “Higher School of Economics”; 21/4-3 Staraya Basmanaya Str., Moscow 105066, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-1071-1469;
Email: mlavrinovich@hse.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.

Grechushkin Dmitriy, priest

Religious education in the years of the great reforms with Voronezh diocesan girl’s college as an example

Grechushkin Dmitriy (2019) "Religious education in the years of the great reforms with Voronezh diocesan girl’s college as an example ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2019, Iss. 91, pp. 47-60 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201991.47-60
The issue of improving education of the clergy by the mid-19th century was raised not only in state and synodal institutions, but was also vividly discussed in secular and church-related press. The great reforms undertaken by emperor Alexander II implied qualitative changes in the system of education of the clergy and their children. The new statute of theological seminaries and colleges of 1867 was very positively evaluated by the clergy and teachers, the main reason for which was the increased funding of educational institutions. However, despite the eff orts of the state to strengthen and modernise religious education, seminaries and colleges were in the acute need of suffi cient fi nancial support, whereas the state was not able to provide it under the current circumstances. This article aims to show how religious education was developing in the period of domestic reforms with Voronezh diocesan girls’ college. It studies the work of priests and laymen of Voronezh diocese in organising the diocesan college for girls in 1865 as well as the education process and everyday life of the fi rst dicesan educational institution for daughters of the clergy in the 1860s and 1870s. Using archival data, periodicals and published sources, the article describes the performance of the students, regulations of their everyday life, traits of their religious and moral state. A prominent event which demonstrated positive material change in the girls’ college was the construction and consecration of the house church with the acquisition of all necessary utensils. The article concludes that the changes that took place in religious education in the course of the reforms had undoubtedly positive results, but the liberal character of the changes had created grounds for the future systemic problems.
Russian Orthodox Church, Russian Empire, Great Reforms, Voronezh and Zadonsk diocese, diocesan school for girls, religious education
  1. Dneprov E., Usacheva R. (2009) Zhenskoe obrazovanie v Rossii [Women’s Education in Russia]. Moscow (in Russian).
  2. Ikonnikov S. (2014) Prikhodskoe dukhovenstvo Voronezhskoi eparkhii (vtoraia polovina XIX — nachalo XX veka) [Parish Clergy of Voronezh Diocese (2nd Half of the 19th — Early 20th Centuries)]. Voronezh (in Russian).
  3. Mramornov A. (2007) Dukhovnaia seminariia Rossii nachala XX veka: krizis i vozmozhnosti ego preodoleniia (na saratovskikh materialakh) [Theological Seminary in Russia of the Early 20th Century: the Crisis and Means to Overcome it (with materials from Saratov as an example)]. Saratov (in Russian).
  4. Nikol’skii P. (2011) Istoriia Voronezhskoi dukhovnoi seminarii [History of Voronezh Theological Seminary]. Voronezh (in Russian).
  5. Pyl’nev Iu., Rogachev S. (1999) Istoriia shkoly i narodnogo prosveshcheniia Voronezhskogo kraia. XVIII — nachalo XX veka [History of School and People’s Education of Voronezh Region 18th — Early 18th Centuries)]. Voronezh (in Russian).
  6. Rimskii S. (1999) Rossiiskaia Tserkov’ v epokhu Velikikh reform. Tserkovnye reformy v Rossii 1860‒1870-kh godov [Russian Church in the Epoch of the Great Reforms. Church Reforms in Russia in the 1860s — 1870s]. Moskva (in Russian).
  7. Smirnov V. (1954) Reforma nachal’noi i srednei shkoly v 60-kh godakh XIX v. [Reform of the Elementary and Secondary School in the 1860s]. Moscow (in Russian).
  8. Sushko A. (2010) Dukhovnye seminarii v poreformennoi Rossii [Theological Seminaries in Post- Reform Russia]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  9. Vessel’ N. (1959) Ocherki ob obshchem obrazovanii i sisteme narodnogo obrazovaniia v Rossii [Essays on Compulsory Education in the System of People’s Education in Russia]. Moscow (in Russian).

Grechushkin Dmitriy, priest


Student status: Graduate student;
Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: SS Cyril and Methodius theological institute of post-graduate studies; 4/2 Pyatnitskaya Str., Moscow 115035, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-3724-926X;
Email: dmitry-ministr@rambler.ru.
Seleznev Fedor

Nicholas II and divorce of spouses Butovich (1908–1909)

Seleznev Fedor (2019) "Nicholas II and divorce of spouses Butovich (1908–1909) ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2019, Iss. 91, pp. 61-73 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201991.61-73
This article analyses the causes and consequences of the infl uence of Nicholas II on the divorce process of the spouses Butovich. It examines the background of the process and the role of General V.A. Sukhomlinov in it. General V. A. Sukhomlinov wanted to marry Ekaterina Butovich. Her husband, Vladimir Butovich, sent a complaint against Sukhomlinov to the tsar. Ekaterina Butovich left her husband. She asked Nicholas II to dissolve her marriage because of her husband’s oppression. The tsar sympathized with her and General Sukhomlinov. Nicholas II wished to resolve the issue of the divorce by means of his supreme right. However, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod P. P. Izvolskiy claimed that in the Orthodox Church there can be no divorce by decree of the emperor. The next Chief Prosecutor S. M. Lukyanov and members of the Synod also insisted on strict compliance with the current norms of divorce-related legislation. According to the law, the only reason for divorce was adultery. Only when these formal proofs were presented, the Synod gave consent to the divorce. However, church hierarchs were dissatisfi ed with the pressure on them. On the other hand, Nicholas II had reasons to accuse the members of the Synod that they put the formal side of human relations above the moral one. The article concludes that the case of the Butoviches aggravated the alienation between the tsar and the higher clergy.
Nicholas II, V. A. Sukhomlinov, Holy Synod, P. P. Izvolskiy, S. M. Lukyanov, divorce in Russian Empire, Russian Orthodox church
  1. Babkin M. (2011) Sviashhenstvo i Tsarstvo (Rossiia, nachalo XX v. — 1918 g.). Issledovaniia i materialy [Priesthood and Tsardom (Russia, Beginning of the 20th Century — 1918). Studies and Materials]. Moscow (in Russian).
  2. Belonogova Yu. (2002) “Otnoshenie ierarkhov Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi i gosudarstvennoi vlasti v nachale XX v. [Relations between the Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church and State Authorities in the Early 20th Century], in Ezhegodnaia bogoslovskaia konferentsiia Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo Bogoslovskogo Instituta. Materialy [Annual Theological Conference of St. Tikhon Orthodox Theological Institute. Proceedings]. Moscow (in Russian).
  3. Butovich Ya. (2013) Loshadi moego serdtsa. Iz vospominanii konnozavodchika [The Horses of my Heart. From the Memories of the Horse Breeder]. Moscow (in Russian).
  4. Firsov S. (2002) Russkaia tserkov’ nakanune peremen (konets 1890-kh — 1918 gg.) [Russian Church on the Threshold of the Changes (the late 1890s — 1918)]. Moscow (in Russian).
  5. Firsov S. (2017) Nikolai II: Plennik samoderzhaviia [Nicholas II: Prisoner of Autocracy]. Moscow (in Russian).
  6. Freeze G. (2003) “The Orthodox Church and Emperor Nicholas II: A Confrontation over Divorce in Late Tsarist Russia”, in Stranitsy russkoi istorii. Problemy, sobytiia, liudi. Sbornik statei v chest’ Borisa Vasil’evicha Anan’icha. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  7. Friz G. (1991) “Tserkov’, religiia i politicheskaia kul’tura na zakate staroi Rossii” [Church, Religion and Political Culture at the Sunset of Old Russia]. Istoriia SSSR, 2, pp. 107–119 (in Russian).
  8. Fuller U. (2009) Vnutrennii vrag : shpionomaniia i zakat imperatorskoi Rossii [The Inner Foe: Mania of Treason and the End of Imperial Russia]. Moscow (in Russian).
  9. Gaida F. (2013) “Sviashhenstvo i tsarstvo v zhanre fentezi (Retsenziia na: Babkin M. Sviashchenstvo i Tsarstvo (Rossiia, nachalo XX v. — 1918 g.). Issledovaniia i materialy. Moscow, 2011)” [The Priesthood and the Tsardom in the Fantasy Genre (Rev. of: Babkin M. Priesthood and Tsardom (Russia, Beginning of the 20th Century — 1918). Studies and Materials]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia 2: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 5 (54), pp.131–143 (in Russian).
  10. Machikin E. (ed.) (2014) Sukhomlinov. Dnevnik. Pis’ma. Dokumenty [Sukhomlinov. Diary. Letters. Documents]. Moscow (in Russian).
  11. Mironenko S. (ed.) (2013) Dnevniki imperatora Nikolaia II (1894–1918) [Diaries of Emperor Nicholas II], vol. 2, pt. 1. Mocow (in Russian).
  12. Mishin I. (2018) “Vospriiatie vysshei tserkovnoi ierarkhiei samoderzhtsa kak glavy Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi v 1905–1917 gg. [Idea about the Tsar as Head of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1905–1917 among the Higher Clergy]. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriia: Istoriia Rossii, 17/2, pp. 388–407 (in Russian).
  13. Nizhnik N. (2012) “«Zhenit’ba est’, a razzhenit’by net…»: o probleme rastorzheniia braka v Rossiiskoj imperii” [“There is Marriage, but there is no Dismarriage...”: the Problem of Divorce in the Russian Empire]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta MVD Rossii, 1 (53), pp. 27–33 (in Russian).
  14. Paozerskii M. (1991) “Nikolai II, Sukhomlinov i Sinod (K kharakteristike polozheniia russkoi tserkvi pered revoliutsiei)” [Nicholas II, Sukhomlinov, and the Synod (On the Position of the Russian Church before the Revolution)], in F. Lur’e (ed.) “Byloe”: neizdannye nomera zhurnala [“Byloe”. Unpublished Issues of the Journal], book 1. Leningrad. Pp. 79–94 (in Russian).
  15. Polivanov A. (1924) Iz dnevnikov i vospominanii po dolzhnosti voennogo ministra i ego pomoshhnika 1907–1916 gg. [From Diaries and Memories of the Minister of Defence and his Assistant 1907‒1916]. Moscow (in Russian).
  16. Shchegolev P. (ed.) (1924) Padenie tsarskogo rezhima. Stenografi cheskie otchety doprosov i pokazanii, dannykh v 1917 g. v Chrezvychainoi Sledstvennoi Komissii Vremennogo pravitel’stva [The Fall of the Tsar’s Regime. Records of Interrogations and Testimonies Given in 1917 in the Ad Hoc Commission of Inquiry of the Provisional Government]. Vol. 1. Doprosy: A. N. Khvostova, E. K. Klimovicha, A. D. Protopopova, S. S. Khabalova, A. T. Vasil’eva, B. V. Shtiurmera, V. L. Burtseva, A. N. Naumova, kn. M. M. Andronikova [Interrogations of A. N. Khvostov, E. K. Klimovich, A. D. Protopopov, S. S. Khabalov, A. T. Vasil’ev, B. V. Shtiurmer, V. L. Burtsev, A. N. Naumov, Prince M. M. Andronikov]. Leningrad (in Russian).
  17. Sukhomlinov V. (1926) Vospominaniia Sukhomlinova [Memoirs of Sukhomlinov]. Moscow; Leningrad (in Russian).
  18. Yanenko O. (2013) “Rastorzhenie braka v Rossiiskoi imperii na rubezhe XIX–XX vv.” [Divorce in the Russian Empire at the Turn of the 19th and 20th Centuries]. Vestnik Yuzhnoural’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 13 (1), pp. 192–194 (in Russian).

Seleznev Fedor


Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in History;
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Academic Rank: Professor;
Place of work: Lobachevsky Nizniy Novgorod State University; 23 Prospekt Gagarina, Nizhniy Novgorod 603950, Russian Federation;
Post: professor;
ORCID: 0000-0002-0934-3312;
Email: fseleznev@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.

Gudilina Ekaterina

In search of the Way: Christian brotherhood of struggle and its programme

Gudilina Ekaterina (2019) "In search of the Way: Christian brotherhood of struggle and its programme ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2019, Iss. 91, pp. 74-91 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201991.74-91
This article studies the ideology of the religious and political organisation Christian Brotherhood of Struggle, which existed in the period from 1905 to 1908 and represents a vivid example of the Russian religious revival. The Christian Brotherhood of Struggle not only formulated the views on socio-economic and political relations through the prism of Christianity, but also made attempts at active political struggle for putting the church ideal into practice. The programme of the Christian Brotherhood of Struggle (the Programme of the Brotherhood, a number of “addresses” of the Brotherhood to the public, as well as the essays Vzyskuyushchim Grada ‘To those Looking for the City’, Pis’ma ko Vsem ‘Letters to All’, and Khristianskoe otnoshenie k vlasti i nasiliiu ‘Christian Attitude to Power and Violence’) contain a religious and social ideal, the reconstruction of which is the purpose of the article. The interaction between social and religious elements in the construction of the ideal led to the Brotherhood’s peculiar vision of the concepts of Christian society and Christian public service, of freedom and violence, of true communication and the election principle. According to the Christian Brotherhood of Struggle, individual salvation should be supplemented by an active struggle for the religious and social ideal and by the involvement of the church and believers in the political sphere and in the struggle for power. The vision of the Christian Brotherhood of Struggle of an ideal structure of society is a specifi c mixture of utopian, “necessarily fi nal ideal”, fi lled with eschatological expectations, with real policy that takes into account the needs and requirements of the individual and guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms. The stance of the Christian Brotherhood of Struggle about distinguishing in its Programme the programme-minimum in the economic and political spheres only emphasised the features of the Christian policy, which extends not only to the spiritual sphere of social relations, but also to the whole society. At the same time, an exclusively instrumental approach to religion and the church, the aspiration to use them in politics can lead to the desacralisation and devaluation of these phenomena of social life.
Christian Brotherhood of Struggle, Christian politics, Christian society, election principle, freedom, violence, Russian religious revival
  1. Antonov K. (2014) “Politicheskoe izmerenie russkoi religioznoi fi losofi i” [The Political Dimension of Russian Religious Philosophy]. Gosudarstvo, religiia, Tserkov v Rossii i za rubezhom, 3 (32), pp. 265‒294 (in Russian).
  2. Berlin I. (2001) “Dva ponimaniia svobody” [“Two Concepts of Liberty”], in Filosofiia svobody. Evropa [The Philosophy of Liberty. Europe], pp. 122–185 (Russian translation).
  3. Bulgakov S. (1906) “Tserkový i gosudarstvo” [“Church and the State”], in Voprosy religii [Problems of Religion]. Moscow (in Russian).
  4. Chertkov S. (2010) “V. P. Sventsitskii, ego posledovateli i epigony (I. A. Ilýin, D. S. Merezhkovskii, N. Berdiaev)” [V. P. Sventsitsky, his Adherents and Epigones (I. A. Ilyin, D. S. Merezhkovsky, N. Berdyaev]. Filosofiia i kultura, 5 (29), pp. 102–114 (in Russian).
  5. Chertkov S. (ed.) (2017) Nashedshie Grad. Istoriia Khristianskogo bratstva borby v pismakh i dokumentakh [Those who Found the City. History of the Christian Brotherhood of Struggle in Letters and Documents]. Moscow (in Russian).
  6. Isupov K. (2010) Sudby klassicheskogo naslediia i fi losofsko-esteticheskaya kultura serebrianogo veka [The Fates of the Classical Heritage and the Philosophical and Aesthetic Culture of the Silver Age]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  7. Keidan V. (ed.) (1997) Vzyskuiushchie grada. Khronika chastnoi zhizni russkikh religioznykh filosofov v pis+makh i dnevnikakh [Those Looking for the City. Chronicle of the Private Life of Russian Religious Philosophers in Letters and Diaries]. Moscow (in Russian).
  8. Kolerov M. (1996) Ne mir, no mech. Russkaia religiozno-filosofskaia pechat ot “Problem idealizma” do “Vekh”. 1902–1909 [Not Peace, but a Sword. Russian Religious and Philosophical Press from “Problems of Idealism“ to “Vekhi”. 1902–1909]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  9. Luzina T. (2013) “V. P. Sventsitskii vremeni Khristianskogo bratstva borýby i «golgofskogo khristianstva»” [V. P. Sventsitsky in the Period of the Christian Brotherhood of Struggle and «Golgotha Christianity»], in Tserkov i gosudarstvo v istorii russkoi mysli. Sviato-Troitskie chteniia v RKhGA [Church and the State in the History of Russian Thought. Sviato-Troitskie Readings in the Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities] (in Russian).
  10. Ostanina O. (1991) Obnovlenchestvo i reformatorstvo v Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi v nachale ХХ veka [Renovationism and Reformism in the Russian Orthodox Church in the Early 20th Century]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  11. Sherer Yu. (2000) “V poiskakh «khristianskogo sotsializma» v Rossii” [In Search of “Christian Socialism” in Russia]. Voprosy filosofii, 12, pp. 88–133 (in Russian).
  12. Skinner K. (2018) Istoki sovremennoi politicheskoj mysli [The Foundations of Modern Political Thought], vol 1. Moscow (Russian translation).
  13. Vorontsova I. (2013) “«Svobodnoe khristianstvo» ep. Mikhaila (Semenova) i «sotsialýnye» programmy 1905‒1915 gg.” [“Free Christianity” of Bishop Mikhail (Semenov) and “Social” Programmes of 1905‒1915]. Gumanitarnye nauki v Sibiri, 2, pp. 52‒56 (in Russian).
  14. Vorontsova I. (2013) “Arkhimandrit Feodor (A. M. Bukharev) i problema «ploti i dukha» v «neokhristianstve». Na materiale pisem k diakonu A. A. Lebedevu” [Archimandrite Feodor (A. M. Bukharev) and the Issue of “the Flesh and the Spirit” in “Neo-Christianity” (On the Materials of the Letters to Deacon A. A. Lebedev)]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2, pp. 7–21 (in Russian).
  15. Vorontsova I. (2015) “«Sotsialýnoe khristianstvo» S. N. Bulgakova, Khristianskogo bratstva borýby i N. N. Nepliueva (1905‒1908)” [“Social Christianity” of S. N. Bulgakov, Christian Brotherhood of Struggle, and N. N. Nepliuev (1905‒1908)]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato- Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 3 (64), pp. 18‒30 (in Russian).
  16. Vorontsova I. (2018) “V poiskakh khristianskogo sotsialýnogo ideala: «neokhristiane» i «khristianskie sotsialisty» (1890–1908)” [In Search of Christian Social Ideal: “Neo-Christians” and “Christian Socialists” (1890–1908)]. Trudy Nizhegorodskoj dukhovnoj seminarii, 16, pp. 349‒365 (in Russian).
  17. Weber M. (1990) Izbrannye proizvedeniia [Selected Works]. Moscow (Russian translation).
  18. Zernov N. (1974) Russkoe religioznoe vozrozhdenie ХХ veka [Russian Religious Revival of the 20th Century]. Paris (in Russian).
  19. Zhukova O. (2014) “Imperskii poriadok i metafi zika svobody: khristianskii sotsializm V. F. Erna” [The Imperial Order and Metaphysics of Freedom: Christian Socialism of V. F. Ern], in Imperskaia i monarkhicheskaia sostavliaiushchaia liberalnoi ideologii: Sbornik materialov Vserossiiskoi nauchnoi konferentsii. 24‒26 sentiabrya 2014 g. [Imperial and Monarchic Component in Liberal Ideology. Proceedings of a Conference, 24‒26 September 2014]. Orel. Pp. 103–114 (in Russian).

Gudilina Ekaterina


Student status: Graduate student;
Student status: Graduate student;
Academic Rank: Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
Place of study: St. Petersburg State University; 1/3-7 Smol’nogo Str., St. Petersburg 191124, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-0435-1671;
Email: ek.gudilina@gmail.com.
Kiyashko Nikita

The Church in the system of formation of power institutions of the voluntary movement in the South of Russia: peculiarities of establishing the Black sea diocese in 1918‒1919

Kiyashko Nikita (2019) "The Church in the system of formation of power institutions of the voluntary movement in the South of Russia: peculiarities of establishing the Black sea diocese in 1918‒1919 ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2019, Iss. 91, pp. 92-104 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201991.92-104
This article analyses the reasons for the administrative and territorial transformations of the southern dioceses after the February revolution of 1917 in the context of the internal policy of the government in the Southern Russia. With the active support of A. I. Denikin, who was interested in strengthening church life, the reform had a signifi cant infl uence on the change of the position of the church and led to establishing independent dioceses which were united under the Temporary Supreme Church Administration of Southern Russia. The city of Novorossiysk came to be prominent as one of the centres of the Voluntary Movement, while relations with the socialist government of Abkhasia deteriorated. With this background, the region acquired independence of the church, and a separate Black Sea diocese was established, which corresponded well not only with Denikin’s policy, but also with the actual needs of the population of the region. The formation of a new administrative and church landscape not only intensifi ed church activities, but also provided grounds for the future southern dioceses.
Russian Orthodox Church, Civil War, Church Council in Stavropol of 1919, Temporary Higher Church Administration, Black Sea diocese, dioceses of the South of Russia
  1. Biriukova Iu. (2016) “Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov’ na Iuge Rossii v usloviiakh Grazhdanskoi voiny: Problemy adaptatsii k novym politicheskim usloviiam” [Russian Orthodox Church in the South of Russia under the Circumstances of the Civil War: Problems of Adaptation to the New Historical Conditions], in Iug Rossii i sopredel’nye strany v voinakh i vooruzhennykh konfl iktakh: Materialy Vserossiiskoi nauchnoi konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem. Federal’noe agentstvo nauchnykh organizatsii, Rossiiskaia akademiia nauk, Iuzhnyi nauchnyi tsentr, Institut sotsial’no-ekonomicheskikh i gumanitarnykh issledovanii [South of Russia and Bordering Countries in Wars and Miltary Confl icts. Proceedings of an All-Russian Conference with International Participation. Federal Agency of Academic Institutions, Russian Academy of Sciences, Southern Research Centre, Institute of Social, Economic, and Humanities-Related Studies]. Pp. 434–441 (in Russian).
  2. Biriukova Iu. (2017) “Iugo-Vostochnyi russkii tserkovnyi Sobor 1919 g. v dokumentakh gosudarstvennogo arkhiva Rossiiskoi Federatsii” [South-Eastern Russian Church Council of 1919 in Documents of the State Archive of the Russian Federation]. Gumanitarnye i sotsial’noekonomicheskie nauki, 4 (95), pp. 105–110 (in Russian).
  3. Biriukova Iu. (2017) “Iugo-Vostochnyi russkii tserkovnyi Sobor 1919 g.: poriadok raboty i protsedura priniatiia reshenii v svete dokumental’nogo naslediia” [South-Eastern Russian Church Council of 1919: Order of Operation and the Procedure of Taking Decisions in the Light of the Documentary Legacy]. Gumanitarnye i sotsial’no-ekonomicheskie nauki, 5 (96), pp. 80–84 (in Russian).
  4. Biriukova Iu. (ed.) (2018) Iugo-Vostochnyi Russkii Tserkovnyi Sobor 1919 goda [South-Eastern Russian Church Council of 1919]. Moscow (in Russian).
  5. Biriukova Iu., Kiiashko N.(2018) “Administrativno-territorial’naia reforma iuzhnykh eparkhii Rossii v period Grazhdanskoi voiny” [Administrative and Territorial Reform in Southern Dioceses of Russia in the Period of the Civil War]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 85, pp. 73‒88 (in Russian).
  6. Filimonov A. (2004) “Razgrom Kubanskoi rady (1919 g.)” [Rout of Kubanskaya Rada (1919)], in A. Shkuro. Grazhdanskaia voina v Rossii: Zapiski belogo partizana [Civil War in Russia: White Partisan’s Notebook]. Moscow (in Russian).
  7. Kiiashko N. (2015) “Osobennosti eparkhial’nogo upravleniia i tserkovnoi zhizni na Kubani v 1919 godu” [Characteristic Features of Diocesan Administration in Church Life of Kuban’ Region in 1919]. Voprosy iuzhnorossiiskoi istorii: nauchnyi sbornik, 19. Armavir. Pp. 179‒191 (in Russian).
  8. Kiiashko N. (2016) “Eparkhial’naia vlast’ na Kubani i Chernomor’e v usloviiakh Grazhdanskoi voiny (1918‒1920 gg.)” [Diocesan Authorities in Kuban’ and Black Sea Regions during the Civil War (1918‒1919)], in G. Matishov (ed.) Iug Rossii i sopredel’nye strany v voinakh i vooruzhennykh konfliktakh: materialy Vserossiiskoi nauchnoi konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem (Rostov-na-Donu, 22‒25 iiunia 2016 g.) [South of Russia and Bordering Countries in Wars and Miltary Confl icts. Proceedings of an All-Russian Conference with International Participation. Rostov-na-Donu, 22‒25 June 2016]. Rostov-na-Donu. Pp. 448‒455 (in Russian).
  9. Kiiashko N. (2016) “Sotsiokul’turnaia deiatel’nost’ prikhodskikh obshchestv i bratstv Kubani: praktiki perioda Grazhdanskoi voiny” [Sociocultural Work of Diocesan Societies and Brotherhoods of Kuban’ Region: Practices from the Period of the Civil War], in «Zhelavshii istinno slavy Otechestva svoego…»: materialy XII Mezhdunarodnykh Dvorianskikh chtenii [“He who Truly Sought the Glory for his Motherland...”. Proceedings of the 12th International Readings of the Gentry]. Krasnodar. Pp. 225‒234 (in Russian).
  10. Kiiashko N. (2018) “Dokumenty Rossiiskikh arkhivov po istorii Russkoi Tserkvi na Iuge Rossii v 1918‒1920 gg.” [Documents of Russian Archives on the History of Russian Church in the South of Russia in 1918‒1920]. Otechestvennye arkhivy, 4, pp. 52‒59 (in Russian).

Kiyashko Nikita


Place of work: Ekaterinodar Diocese; 66-1 Chernomorskaya Str., Ilskiy 353230, Krasnodar Region, Russian Federation;
Post: Secretary ,Commission for Canonisation of Saints;
ORCID: 0000-0001-7415-2603;
Email: graf1863@mail.ru.
Zimina Nina; Koroleva Elena

Bishop Nazariy (Andreev) in the modern church history (on the phenomenon of conformism in the Russian Orthodox Church in the 1920s)

Zimina Nina, Koroleva Elena (2019) "Bishop Nazariy (Andreev) in the modern church history (on the phenomenon of conformism in the Russian Orthodox Church in the 1920s) ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2019, Iss. 91, pp. 105-132 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201991.105-132
This article studies life and work of Bishop Nazariy (Andreev, 1865–1940), the prominent representative of the conformist episcopate of the 1920s. The use of a large range of previously unknown documents allowed the authors to compile a complete biography and to clarify the bishop’s church-related and political views, to specify the staff of the dioceses under his control, to reveal some methods of the Joint State Political Directorate (Russ. ОГПУ) in designing church schisms. It is shown that bishop Nazariy publicly defended the church after the February and October revolutions. During the Civil War he denounced the ideology of Bolshevism and, at the same time, criticised the policy of the Siberian White governments in connection with the foreign intervention and the involvement of the church in civil confrontation. After the war, he sought to find a compromise with the Soviet authorities and argued that the main task of the clergy was to christianise society and to dissociate from “political gambling”. In September 1922, by the eff orts of the State Political Directorate, he was removed from Yenisey diocese, lapsed into the Renovationist schism and started to support the methods of bishop of Tomsk Sophroniy (Arefyev) in pushing back the radical Renovationist group Living Church from the administration of Siberian dioceses in favour of the more moderate Union of Church Revival. He became one of the founders of the Renovationist episcopate of Siberia. The article gives data on the activities of Bishop Nazariy at the Renovationist see in Rostov-on-Don, his repentance to patriarch Tikhon and his appointment to Syzran, the new lapse into the Renovationist schism. The article shows the role of the State Political Directorate in the seduction of Bishop Nazariy into the Gregorian schism. It also outlines his return to the Orthodox Church and his activity at Chelyabinsk see in 1928. His fate after the arrest and conviction is also described.
conformism, bishop Nazariy (Andreev), Civil War in Siberia, Renovationist schism, Gregorian schism, Joint State Political Directorate, Declaration of Metropolitan Sergiy, bishop Sofroniy (Arefi ev), archbishop Nazariy (Blinov), metropolitan Iosif (Chernov), Alatyr’ vicariate, Krasnoyarsk diocese, Rostov-on-Don diocese, Syzran’ vicariate, Chelyabinsk diocese, Troitsk vicariate
  1. Grigorieva L., Dobronovskaia (Dvoretskaia) A., Ivanova E., Koniakhina I., Limaeva L., Sordia O. (eds) (2002) Religiia i vlast’ na territorii Krasnoiarskogo kraia. 1920–1991: Sbornik arkhivnykh dokumentov i materialov. Kniga 1: 1920–1941 [Religion and Power in the Territory of Krasnoyarsk Region. 1920–1991: Collection of Archival Documents and Materials. Book 1: 1920–1941]. Krasnoyarsk (in Russian).
  2. Iliashenko N. (2014) “Sostav iierarkhii Russkoi Pravoslavnoi tserkvi v preddverii bol’shogo terrora. Spisok arkhiereev iz arkhivno-sledstvennogo dela mitropolita Serafi ma (Aleksandrova) 1937 g.” [“The Hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church on the Threshold of the Great Terror. The List of Bishops from the Archival Legal Case of Metropolitan Seraphim (Alexandrov) of 1937”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 3 (58), pp. 114–146 (in Russian).
  3. Ioann (Snychev) (1993) Tserkovnyie raskoly v Russkoi Tserkvi 20-30 godov XX stoletiya — grigorianskii, iaroslavskii, iosifl ianskii, viktorianskii i drugiie, ikh osobennosti i istoriia [Church Schisms in the Russian Church of the 1920‒30s — Gregorian, Yaroslavl, Josephian, Victorian, and Others, their Features and History]. Sortavala (in Russian).
  4. Ioann (Snychev) (1997) Stoianie v vere: Ocherki tserkovnoi smuty [Standing in Faith: Essays on Church Tumult]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  5. Gubonin M., Griunberg P., Gaida F., Griunberg E., Kirpichev I., Krivosheeva N. (2006) Istoriia ierarkhii Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi. Kommentirovannye spiski ierarkhov po episkopskim kafedram s 862 g. [The History of Hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church. Commented Lists of Hierarchs on Episcopal Sees since 862]. Moscow (in Russian).
  6. Kaplin P., Lavrinov V. (2006) “Grigorianskii raskol” [The Gregorian Schism], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 12. Moscow. Pp. 455–459 (in Russian).
  7. Koniuchenko A. (2001) “Nazarii (Andreev), episkop” [Nazarii (Andreev), Bishop”], in Cheliabinsk: Entsiklopediia [Chelyabinsk: Encyclopaedia]. Chelyabinsk. P. 533 (in Russian).
  8. Lavrinov V. (2016) Obnovlencheskii raskol v portretakh ego deiatelei [The Renovationist Schism in the Portraits of its Personalities]. Moscow (in Russian).
  9. Lavrinov V. (2018) Vremennyi Vysshii Tserkovnyi Sovet i ego rol’ v istorii Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi (1925–1945) [The Temporary Supreme Church Council and its Role in the History of the Russian Orthodox Church (1925–1945)]. Moscow (in Russian).
  10. Lobashev А. (2007) “Veroiu pobezhdali!...”: Kniga o dukhovnom podvige pravoslavnykh iuzhnouraltsev [“By Faith they Won!...”: The Book of the Spiritual Feat of Orthodox Residents of South Ural]. Chelyabinsk (in Russian).
  11. Malashin G. (2011) Krasnoiarskaia (Eniseiskaia) eparkhiia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi: 1861– 2011 gg. [Krasnoyarsk (Yenisey) Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church: 1861–2011]. Krasnoyarsk (in Russian).
  12. Makarii (Veretennikov) (2010) “Iosif (Chernov), mitropolit” [Metropolitan Iosif (Chernov)], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 25. Moscow. Pp. 680–682 (in Russian).
  13. Manuil (Lemeshevskii V.) (1987) Russkie pravoslavnye ierarkhi perioda s 1893 po 1965 gody (vkliuchitel’no): v 6 tomakh [Russian Orthodox Hierarchs of the Period from 1893 to 1965 (inclusively), in 6 vols.], vol. 5. Erlangen. Pp. 11–12 (in Russian)
  14. Soloviov I. (ed.) (2002) “Obnovlencheskii” raskol (Materialy dlia tserkovno-istoricheskoi i kanonicheskoi kharakteristiki) [“Renovationist” Schism (Materials for Church-Historical and Canonical Characteristics)]. Moscow (in Russian).
  15. Shushkanova E. Istoriia Arkhiereiskogo doma. Episkop Nazarii [A History of the House of the Archbishop], part 1, available at http//www.pravsiberia.ru/istoriya-arhierejskogo-domaepiskop-nazarij -chast-pervaya (17.03.2015).
  16. Skala A. (2007) Tserkov’ v uzakh: istoriia Simbirskoi-Ulianovskoi eparkhii v sovetskii period (1917–1991 gody) [The Church in Fetters: History of Simbirsk-Ulyanovsk Diocese in the Soviet Period (1917‒1991)]. Ulyanovsk (in Russian).
  17. Tabunshchikova L., Shadrina A. (eds) (2015) Tserkovnyie raskoly v Donskoi oblasti. 1920–1930-e gody. Sbornik dokumentov i materialov [Church Schisms in the Don Region. 1920–1930s. Collection of Documents and Materials]. Rostov-na-Donu (in Russian).
  18. Teodorovich S., Ivanov B. (1975) “Mitropolit Alma-Atinskii i Kazakhstanskii Iosif. (Nekrolog)” [Metropolitan of Almaty and Kazakhstan Iosif. (Obituary)]. Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii, 12, pp. 10–15 (in Russian).
  19. Zimina N. (2010) “Ioann (Poiarkov), arkhiiepiskop” [Ioann (Poiarkov), Archbishop], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 23. Moscow. Pp. 435–438 (in Russian).
  20. Zimina N. (2013) “«Poluobnovlenchestvo» v Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi v seredine 1920-kh gg.: k voprosu ob otsenke tserkovnoi politiki episkopa Elabuzhskogo Irineia (Shul’mina) i episkopa Sarapul’skogo Aleksiia (Kuznetsova)” [“Semi-Renovationism” in the Russian Orthodox Church in the Mid-1920s: on the Issue of Assessing the Ecclesiastical Policy of Bishop Iriney of Elabuga (Shulmin) and Bishop Alexiy of Sarapul (Kuznetsov)”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 3 (52), pp. 17–41 (in Russian).
  21. Zimina N. (2014) “«Poluobnovlenchestvo» v Patriarshey Tserkvi v seredine 1920-kh gg.: episkop Iakov (Maskaiev) na Orenburgskoi kafedre (1923–1925)” [“Semi-Renovationism” in the Patriarch’s Church in the Mid-1920s: Bishop Iakov (Maskaev) at Orenburg See (1923–1925)]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 6 (61), pp. 91–112 (in Russian).
  22. Zimina N. (2016) “«Poluobnovlenchestvo» i inyie destruktivnyie iavleniia v Patriarshei Tserkvi v 1923‒1925 gg.” [“Semi-Renovationism” and Other Destructive Phenomena in the Patriarch’s Church in 1923‒1925], in Materialy XXVI ezhegodnoi bogoslovskoi konferentsii PSTGU [Materials of the 26th Annual Theological Conference of St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities]. Moscow. Pp. 93–98 (in Russian).
  23. Zimina N. (2017) “Nazarii (Blinov), arkhiepiskop” [Nazarii (Blinov), Archbishop], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 48. Moscow. Pp. 326–328 (in Russian).

Zimina Nina


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Biology;
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Biology;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for Humanities; 6/1 Likhov Pereulok, 127051 Moscow, Russian Federation;
Post: Senior Researcher, Research Centre for Modern History of Russian Orthodox Church;
ORCID: 0000-0001-7587-1001;
Email: ZiminaNP@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.


Koroleva Elena


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: Troitsk and South Ural diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church; 457100 Troitsk, Chelyabinskaya Oblast’, Russian Federation;
Post: member of the commission for the canonization of saints;
ORCID: 0000-0002-3876-8571;
Email: korel93@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.

PUBLICATIONS

Beglov Alexey

Plea for help. Letters of orthodox believers to the Pope in 1931: new documents from the Vatican archives

Beglov Alexey (2019) "Plea for help. Letters of orthodox believers to the Pope in 1931: new documents from the Vatican archives ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2019, Iss. 91, pp. 135-152 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201991.135-152
The article makes public new documents from the Vatican archives. These are letters to the pope with requests for help written by Orthodox believers in 1931. The author of the article examines these documents in the context of other attempts of communication of believers in the USSR with citisens of other states and representatives of foreign religious institutions. The latter, it was believed, could put pressure on the Soviet authorities to ease the anti-religious onslaught. Such attempts gained special significance after the “Curzon ultimatum” of 1923, with which Orthodox believers in the USSR associated the release of Patriarch Tikhon from prison. The published letters have a number of common features. All of them are a response to the papal “crusade of prayers”, announced in 1930 in defense of believers in the USSR. As can be seen from these documents, ordinary believers in Soviet Russia positively perceived this maneuver of the Roman pontifex. All letters report some information, which, as their authors supposed, will help the pope to protect believers in the USSR. Thus, the author of one of the letters directly wrote about the possible demolition of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow and asked the pope to prevent this. The authors turn to the pope for help, often quite specifi c (to protect the Church of Christ the Saviour, to prevent the possible expulsion of peasant refugees in the USSR). Thus, the ideas of transmitting information about the situation in the Soviet Union abroad, as well as seeking help from foreign religious leaders were widespread even in the mass consciousness.
Russia (USSR) in 20th century, international relations, Vatican, Vatican archives, “crusade of prayers” of 1930, papal Commission Pro Russia, letters to Vatican, Orthodox believers, Bishop Nestor (Anisimov), Bishop Emmanuel (Shaptal’)
  1. Beglov A. (1998) “Zhiznennyi put’ arkhiepiskopa Varfolomeia” [The Life of Archbishop Varfolomey]. Al’fa i Omega, 4 (18), pp. 119–129 (in Russian).
  2. Beglov A. (2018) “«Krestovyi pokhod molitv» 1930 g. i reaktsiia na nego v SSSR” [“Crusade of Prayers” of 1930 and the Subsequent Response in the USSR]. Istoriia, 9/4 (68), available at https://history.jes.su/s207987840002219-9-1/ (07.11.2019).
  3. Beliakova N. (2017) “Tserkvi v kholodnoi voine. Vvedenie” [Churches in the Cold War. Introduction]. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov’ v Rossii i za rubezhom, 1, pp. 7–18. (in Russian).
  4. Kashevarov A.N. (2005) Pravoslavnaia Rossiiskaia Tserkov’ i sovetskoe gosudarstvo. 1917–1922 [Orthodox Russian Church and the Soviet State. 1917–1922]. Moscow (in Russian).
  5. Kosik O. (ed.) (2005) Vernuvshiisia domoi: Zhizneopisanie i sbornik trudov mitr. Nestora (Anisimova) [The One who Has Returned Home. Life Story and a Collection of Works of Metropolitan Nestor (Anisimov)]. Moscow (in Russian).
  6. Kosik O. (2013) Golosa iz Rossii: Ocherki sbora i peredachi za granitsu informatsii o polozhenii Tserkvi v SSSR (1920-e — nachalo 1930-kh godov) [Voices from Russia: Essays on the Collection and Transmission Abroad of Information on the Situation of the Church in the USSR (1920s — early 1930s)]. Moscow (in Russian).
  7. Krivova N. (1997) Vlast’ i Tserkov’ v 1922–1925 gg. Politbiuro i GPU v bor’be za tserkovnye tsennosti i politicheskoe podchinenie dukhovenstva [State Authorities and the Church in 1922–1925. Politbureau and State Political Directorate in the Struggle for Church Valuables and for Political Submission of the Clergy]. Moscow (in Russian).
  8. Kurenyshev A. (2008) “Krest’ianskie organizatsii russkogo zarubezh’ia” [Peasant Organisations of the Russian Diaspora]. Voprosy istorii, 1, pp. 3–21 (in Russian).
  9. Kurliandskii I. (2011) Stalin, vlast’, religiia (religioznyi faktor vo vnutrennei politike sovetskogo gosudarstva v 1922–1953 gg.) [Stalin, Power, Religion (religious factor in the internal politics of the Soviet state in 1922–1953)]. Moscow (in Russian).
  10. Osipenko M. (2013) “Khraniteli very” [Keepers of the Faith]. Sever, 3–4, pp. 36–37 (in Russian).
  11. Tokareva E. (2016) “Vatican and Catholics in Russia in 1920–1930: Communication Problems”. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, 236, pp. 379–384.

Beglov Alexey


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: Institute of World History, Russian Academy of Sciences; 37A Leninskiy Prospekt, Moskow 119334, Russian Federation;
Post: senior researcher;
ORCID: 0000-0001-8656-1615;
Email: beglov.al@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.

The study was carried out as part of a project supported by the Russian Science Foundation (№ 19-18-00482 “Entangled Histories: Russia and Holy See, 1917-1958”).

BOOK REVIEWS

Filippov Boris

The historical path of Orthodoxy in the Baltic region — Rev. of Православие в Прибалтике: религия, политика, образование 1840-е — 1930-е гг. Тарту: Издательство Тартуского университета, 2018. 515 с.

Filippov Boris (2019) "The historical path of Orthodoxy in the Baltic region". Rev. of Pravoslavie v Pribaltike: religiia, politika, obrazovanie 1840-e — 1930-e gg. Tartu: Izdatelystvo Tartuskogo universiteta, 2018. 515 s., Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2019, Iss. 91, pp. 155-164 (in Russian).

PDF
Dyakin V.S. (1998)Nacional'nyj vopros vo vnutrennej politike carizma (XIX - nach. XX vv.). [The national question in the internal politics of tsarism (XIX - early XX centuries). ].St. Petersburg.Pravoslavie v Pribaltike: religiya, politika, obrazovanie 1840-e - 1930-e gg. [Orthodoxy in the Baltic region: religion, politics, education 1840s - 1930s]Izdatel'stvo Tartuskogo universiteta, 2018.

Filippov Boris


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for Humanities; 23B Novokuznetskaia Str., Moscow 115184, Russian Federation;
Post: professor;
ORCID: 0000-0001-8250-3688;
Email: boris-philipov@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.