/
Search results


Гайда Ф. А. В. Н. Коковцов в поисках политического курса (1911–1914) // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия II: История. История Русской Православной Церкви. 2011. Вып. 1 (38). С. 89-110.
PDF
the top bureaucracy, the Council of Ministers, on the third of June monarchy, Nicholas II, Kokovtsov, the State Duma, the Octobrists, the nationalists, the cadets
Гайда Ф. А. Священство и царство в жанре фэнтези // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия II: История. История Русской Православной Церкви. 2013. Вып. 5 (54). С. 131-143. — Rev. op.: Бабкин М. А. Священство и Царство (Россия, начало XX в. — 1918 г.). Исследования и материалы. М.: Индрик, 2011
PDF
Гайда Ф. А. Совет министров о проблемах Православной Российской Церкви (1906–1914) // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия II: История. История Русской Православной Церкви. 2014. Вып. 2 (57). С. 23-37. DOI: 10.15382/sturII201457.23-37
The article focuses on representations of the Russian government on the main problems of the Orthodox Church in the early twentieth century. The fi rst Russian revolution of 1905-1907 led to the proclamation of the principle of freedom of conscience, which must be reconciled with the maintaining principle of the dominant Church. For political reasons, the government embarked on a search for union with the Old Believers, but the Church was against this trend. The procurator of the Holy Synod P. P. Izvolsky tried to defend its interests in the government, but rarely found support. Meanwhile, Stolypin`s government feared complications of their relationship with the Synod. The government originally set itself the task of fully implement all the principles of the decree 17 April 1905. The revival of parish life was the main task in the field of Church according to the government. This problem was more urgent as political stability was realized. These particular problems are identified the appointment of V. C. Sabler to offi ce of the procurator of the Holy Synod. Sabler adjusted its policies in the confrontation with the III State Duma. It castigated the Synod and the alleged abolition of parochial schools. Sabler drafted a reform of the parish, which unlike Izvolsky and Duma`s projects did not imagine electing clergy, moreover, he retained bishop`s control over the parish council. Sabler developed parish reform, but its implementation is complicated by the opposition of the executive and legislative powers. However Sabler could not get consent from the Council of Ministers in carrying out reforms parish bypassing legislative chambers. Policy of the Council of Ministers are supported by the monarch, who used his supreme power by the prime minister or the procurator only in special cases.
Russian Orthodox Church, Orthodox parish, clergy, the Council of Ministers, Russian Empire, P. A. Stolypin, P. P. Izvolskii, V. K. Sabler, the State Duma, the freedom of conscience, the Old Believers

1. Belov Ju. S. Pravitel'stvennaja politika po otnosheniju k nepravoslavnym veroispovedanijam Rossii v 1905–1917 gg. Dis. ... kand. ist. nauk (Government’s Politics for Attitude of Non-Orthodox Confessions in Russia in 1905–1917. Dissertation), SPb., 1999.
2. Gajda F. A. (2008) “Russkaja politicheskaja obshhestvennost' poslednih let Imperii o vere i Cerkvi” (Russian Politic Publicity of the Last Years of Empire about Faith and Church), in Materialy Mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferencii «1917-j: Cerkov' i sud'by Rossii. K 90-letiju Pomestnogo Sobora i izbranija Patriarha Tihona», M.: Izd-vo PSTGU, 2008, pp. 16–24.
3. Djakin V. S. Samoderzhavie, burzhuazija i dvorjanstvo v 1907–1911 gg. (Autocracy, Bourgeoisie and Nobility in 1907–1911), L., 1978.
4. Ilarion (Alfeev), ep. Svjashhennaja tajna Cerkvi: Vvedenie v istoriju i problematiku imjaslavskih sporov (Saint Mystery of the Church: Introduction in the History of Problems of Imiaslavie Disputes), SPb., 2007.
5. Lukojanov I. V. U istokov rossijskogo parlamentarizma: istoriko-dokumental'noe izdanie (Sources of Russian Parliamentarism: Historical-Documental Edition), SPb., 2003.
6. Pinkevich V. K. Veroispovednye reformy v Rossii v period dumskoj monarhii (1906–1917 gg.) (Confession Reforms in Russia in Time of Duma’s Monarchy (1906–1917)), M., 2000.
7. Rozhkov V., prot. Cerkovnye voprosy v Gosudarstvennoj dume (Church Problems in State Duma), M., 2004.
8. Safonov A. A. Pravovoe regulirovanie funkcionirovanija religioznyh ob#edinenij v Rossii v nachale XX veka. Dis. … d-r jurid. nauk (Law Regulation of Functioning of Religious Organizations in Russia in Begin of XX Century. Dissertation), M., 2008.
9. Russkaja Cerkov' nakanune peremen (konec 1890-h — 1918 g.) (Russian Church before Changes (End of 1890-s — 1918)), M., 2002.
Гайда Ф. А. Представления о миссии «интеллигенции» в российской общественной мысли второй половины XIX - начала XX в. // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия II: История. История Русской Православной Церкви. 2020. Вып. 95. С. 53-69. DOI: 10.15382/sturII202095.53-69
The article studies the ideas about the mission of the “intelligentsia” that developed in Russian public thought in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries. This question has not yet been suffi ciently studied in a rich historiographic tradition devoted to the topic of the Russian intelligentsia. This topic remains largely journalistic. However, this issue turned out to be fundamentally important in the context of selfidentifi cation of the “intelligentsia” already at the end of the 19th century. The author of the article considers the formation of relevant ideas among thinkers of the conservative, liberal and socialist directions. The article concludes that discussions about the “intelligentsia” were primarily based on diff erent ideas about its attitude to the people. Both conservative “pochvenniki” (I. S. Aksakov, N. Ya. Danilevsky), and moderate liberals (A. D. Gradovsky), and socialist “narodniki” (G. I. Uspensky, N. K. Mikhailovsky) insisted on the enlightening duty of “intelligentsia”. Without this, this, the “intelligentsia” lost its meaning. Enlightenment was understood in a predominantly ideological sense. The very concept of “intelligentsia” in the discussions was revised, i.e. instead of an “educated society”, it turned into a “bearer of ideas”. Secular understanding was supplemented by religious in the early twentieth century (V. A. Ternavtsev, D. S. Merezhkovsky, Vyach. I. Ivanov, A. A. Blok, S. N. Bulgakov). In this new conception, the “intelligentsia” was to be completely transformed. Nevertheless, the transformation would preserve its leading social role for the “new intelligentsia”.
Russian intelligentsia, I. S. Aksakov, G. I. Uspensky, N. K. Mikhailovsky, V. A. Ternavtsev, D. S. Merezhkovsky, S. N. Bulgakov
  1. Arslanov R., Blokhin V. (2014) “Intelligentsiia v vozzreniiakh rossiiskikh liberalov i reformatorovdemokratov kontsa XIX — nachala XX v.” [Intelligentsia in the views of Russian liberals and democrat reformers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries]. Vestnik RUDN: Istorija Rossii, 2, p. 22‒36 (in Russian).
  2. Kolerov M. (1996) Ne mir, no mech. Russkaia religiozno-fi losofskaia pechat’ ot «Problem idealizma» do «Vekh». 1902–1909 [Not the piece, but the sword. Russian religious and philosophical press from the “Problems of idealism” to the “Milestones”. 1902‒1909]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  3. Nikoliukin A. (2001) “Fenomen Merezhkovskogo” [Phenomenon of Merezhkovsky], in D. S. Merezhkovskij : pro et contra. Lichnost’ i tvorchestvo Dmitriia Merezhkovskogo v otsenke sovremennikov. Antologiia [D. S. Merezhkovsky: pro et contra. Dmitry Merezhkovsky’s personality and literary work in evaluation of contemporaries. An anthology]. St. Petersburg. P. 7‒28.
  4. Vikhavainen T. (2004) Vnutrennii vrag: bor’ba s meshhanstvom kak moral’naia missiia russkoi intelligentsii [Internal enemy: the fi ght against philistinism as a moral mission of the Russian intelligentsia]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
Gayda Fyodor
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in History;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for Humanities; 6/1 Likhov per., Moscow, Russian Federation;
Post: Leading Researcher;
ORCID: 0000-0001-9586-8010;
Email: fyodorgayda@gmail.com. *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.
Гайда Ф. А. «Православие» в триаде С. С. Уварова // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия II: История. История Русской Православной Церкви. 2021. Вып. 100. С. 32-46. DOI: 10.15382/sturII2021100.32-46
The article is devoted to the fi rst element of the Uvarov triad Orthodoxy. Autocracy. Nationality. The previous historiographic tradition tends to view it as a formality, completely subordinated to the political demands of the autocracy. This article examines the understanding by the Minister of Public Education S. S. Uvarov (1833–1849) of Orthodoxy in the context of his views on the world’s history and Russian history, as well as the views of the Uvarov circle. The greatest infl uence on Uvarov’s ideas was exerted by N. M. Karamzin; one can also talk about the infl uence of A. S. Shishkov and M. P. Pogodin. The article concludes that Orthodoxy was conceived by Uvarov as one of the Russian “national principles” that had been established throughout the entire previous history. The Orthodox Church in Russia was strong because it was the Church of the Russian people, the Orthodox faith became part of the national identity. However, the people themselves were brought up in the spirit of Orthodoxy, which became the guarantee of its correct development. As Uvarov believed, the Orthodox faith was distinguished by the certainty of doctrine and retained its intact appearance. Thanks to this, Orthodoxy had the ability to further spread in the crisis of the Christian world. In Orthodoxy, spiritual freedom was preserved, which Christianity possessed due to its divine nature. Uvarov believed that the rejection of Christian truths inevitably led to a world catastrophe.
Uvarov`s triad, theory of offi cial nationality, Orthodoxy, Orthodox Church, Ministry of Public Education, S. S. Uvarov, N. M. Karamzin, A. S. Shishkov, M. P. Pogodin, Nicholas I
  1. Bezhanidze G. (2019) “Sviatitel’ Filaret Moskovskii i ideologiia nikolaevskogo tsarstvovaniia” [St. Philaret of Moscow and the ideology of Nicholas’ reign]. Filaretovskii al’manakh, 2019, 15, pp. 61–76 (in Russian).
  2. Gajda F. (2018) ““Za Veru, Tsaria i Otechestvo”: k istorii proishozhdenij a znamenitogo rossiiskogo voinskogo deviza” [“For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland”: to the history of the origin of the famous Russian military motto]. Istoriia. Nauchnoe obozrenie, 4. Moscow, pp 5–9 (in Russian).
  3. Gajda F. (2020) “Sviazuiushchee nachalo: o ponimanii “narodnosti” v Rossii 1-oi poloviny XIX v.” [The connecting element: On the understanding of “nationality” in Russia in the first half of the 19th century], in O.R. Airapetov et al. Russkii Sbornik: Issledovaniia po istorii Rossii, vol. XXIX. Moscow, pp. 100–116 (in Russian).
  4. Shevchenko M. (2002) “Poniatie “teoriia ofi tsial’noi narodnosti” i izuchenie vnutrennei politiki imperatora Nikolaia I” [The concept of “the theory of offi cial nationality” and the study of the domestic policy of Emperor Nicholas I]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 8. Istoriia, 2002, vol. 4, pp. 89–104 (in Russian).
  5. Shevchenko M. (2018) “S. S. Uvarov. Politicheskii portret” [S. S. Uvarov. Political portrait], Tetradi po konservatizmu: Al’manakh, 1, pp. 26–50 (in Russian).
  6. Uspenskii B. “Russkaia intelligentsiia kak spetsifi cheskii fenomen russkoi kul’tury” [Russian intelligentsia as a specifi c phenomenon of Russian culture]. Rossiia, 20: Russkaia intelligentsiia i zapadnyi intellektualizm: Istoriia i tipologiia [Russian intelligentsia and Western intellectualism: History and typology]. Moscow, pp. 7 –20 (in Russian).
  7. Whittaker C. (1999) Graf Sergei Semenovich Uvarov i ego vremia [Count Sergei Semenovich Uvarov and his time]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  8. Zhivov V. (2008) “Chuvstvitelnyi natsionalizm: Karamzin, Rostopchin, natsionalnyi suverenitet i poiski natsionalnoi identichnosti” [Sensitive nationalism: Karamzin, Rostopchin, nationalsovereignty and the search for national identity]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 3 (91), pp 114–140 (in Russian).
  9. Zorin A. (2001) “Kormia dvuglavogo orla... Russkaia literatura i gosudarstvennaia ideologiia v poslednei treti XVIII — pervoi treti XIX veka [“Feeding the two-headed eagle...” Russian literature and state ideology in the last third of the XVIII — fi rst third of the XIX century]. Moscow (in Russian).
Gayda Fyodor
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in History;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for Humanities; 6/1 Likhov per., Moscow, Russian Federation;
Post: Leading Researcher;
ORCID: 0000-0001-9586-8010;
Email: fyodorgayda@gmail.com. *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.