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

The article is devoted to the Council of Turin in 398 or 399, at which the Italian bishops tried to help resolve a number of problems in the ecclesiastical life of Gaul. In particular, the controversy about the metropolitan status in the province of Vienne between the sees of Vienne and Arles, as well as the metropolitan rights of Proculus of Marseille in relation to the bishops of the province of Narbonensis II, were discussed. In the first case, the council proposed to the bishops of Arles and Vienne that they reach an amicable agreement, dividing the province into two metropolitanates. In the second case, the rights of the metropolitan were retained for Proculus, but they were thought as personal, and not belonging to the see of Marseille. The article critically examines the conception of the American historian R. Mathisen, who assesses both the format of the council and its decisions as non-canonical. The contextual interpretation of the council allows us to consider it as a rare case of horizontal arbitration. This term refers to the mediating participation of the episcopate of one ecclesiastical region in resolving a conflict in another ecclesiastical region. Horizontal arbitration does not imply a subordinate position of the disputing parties in relation to the chairman of the council considering the case. Roman see at the beginning of the 5th century actually opposed this kind of practice on the basis of the principle of hierarchical inter-church relations. The result of this was an attempt to endow the See of Arles with a preeminent position in Gaul, as well as the encouragement of the practice of transferring the most significant issues to the court of the Roman See.

Council of Turin, Gaul, Italy, Arles, canons, church organization, Roman Church

1. Barnard L. W. (1983) The Council of Serdica: 343 A. D. Sofia.
2. Batiff ol P. (1924) Le siège apostolique (359–451). Paris.
3. Bleckmann B. (2003) “Arelate metropolis: Überlegungen zur Datierung des Konzils von Turin und zur Geschichte Gallien im 5. Jahrhundert”. Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte, 2003, vol. 98, pp. 162–173.
4. Dunn G. D. (2019) “Epistolary Sleight of Hand: Diplomatic Manipulation in Zosimus’ Letter to Patroclus of Arles (Quid de Proculi)”. Vigiliae Christianae, 2019, vol. 73, pp. 254–270.
5. Dunn G. D. (2015) “Placuit apostolicae (Ep. 1) of Zosimus of Rome and the Ecclesiastical Reorganization of Gaul”. Journal of Early Christian Studies, 2015, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 559–581.
6. Dunn G. D. (2015) “...quid habuerit antiqua consuetudo: Zosimus of Rome and Hilary of Narbonne”. Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 2015, vol. 110, pp. 31–55.
7. Dunn G. D. (2016) “The Ecclesiastical Reorganisation of Space and Authority in Late Antique Gaul: Zosimus’ Letter Multa contra (JK 334 = J3 740)”. Journal of the Australian Early Medieval Association, 2016, vol. 12, pp. 1–33.
8. Dunn G. D. (2015) “Zosimus’ Synod of Rome in September 417 and his letters to Western bishops (Cum aduersus)”. Antiquité Tardive, 2015, vol. 23, pp. 395–405.
9. Duval Y.-M. (2005) La décretale Ad Gallos Episcopos: son texte et son auteur. Leiden; Boston.
10. Frye D. (1991) “Bishops as Pawns in Early Fifth-Century Gaul”. Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 1991, vol. 42, pp. 349–361.
11. Gratsianskii M. (2022) “Popytka tserkovno-administrativnoi reorganizatsii Iuzhnoi Gallii v pontifi kat papy Zosima (417–418): motivy i posledstviia”, in Vizantiiskie ocherki: Trudy rossiiskikh uchenykh k XXIV Mezhdunarodnomu kongressu vizantinistov, St. Petersburg, pp. 24–52 (in Russian).
12. Gratsianskii M. (2021) “Rimskie episkopy i razvitie tserkovno-administrativnykh struktur ‘sverkhprovintsial¢nogo’ urovnia v nachale V v.”. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2021, vol. 101, pp. 9–33 (in Russian).
13. Gratsianskii M., Norkin K. (2020) “Na sluzhbe imperii: papa Zosim i Rimskii sobor 417 goda”. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia 4: Istoriia. Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, 2020, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 6–23 (in Russian).
14. Griff e É. (1964) La Gaule chrétienne à l’époque romaine, vol. 1, Paris.
15. Gryson R. (1980) “Introduction”, in R. Gryson (ed.) Scolies ariennes sur le concile d’Aquilée (Sources Chrétiennes, vol. 267), Paris, pp. 23–200.
16. Hess H. (2002) The Early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica. Oxford.
17. Jalland T. (1941) The Life and Times of St. Leo the Great. London; New York.
18. Kulikowski M. (1996) “Two Councils of Turin”. Journal of Theological Studies. N. S., 1996, vol. 47, pp. 159–168.
19. Marcos M. (2013) “Papal Authority, Local Autonomy and Imperial Control: Pope Zosimus and the Western Churches (a. 417–418)”, in A. Fear, J. F. Urbiña, M. Marcos (eds) The Role of the Bishop in Late Antiquity: Confl ict and Compromise, London, pp. 145–166.
20. Mathisen R. W. (2013) “The Council of Turin (398/399) and the Reorganization of Gaulca. 395/406”. Journal of Late Antiquity, 2013, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 264–307.
21. Norkin K. (2019) “Stanovlenie tserkovnogo pervenstva Arlia v Gallii i rimskie papy (398–432 gg.)”. Vizantiiskii vremennik, 2019, vol. 103, pp. 53–70 (in Russian).
22. Palanque J.-R. (1935) “Les dissensions des Églises des Gaules à la fi n du IVe siècle et la date du concile de Turin”. Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France, 1935, vol. 21, no. 93, pp. 481–501.
23. Pietri Ch. (1976) Roma Christiana. Recherches sur l’Église de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixte III (311–440). Rome.
24. Poveda Arias P. (2023) “Threatening Metropolitan Authority in Fifth-Century Gaul”, in S. Panzram, P. Poveda Arias (eds) Bishops under Threat. Contexts and Episcopal Strategies in the Late Antique and Early Medieval West, Berlin; Boston, pp. 27–54.
25. Reutter U. (2009) Damasus, Bischof von Rom (366–384). Leben und Werk. Tübingen.
26. Zakharov G. E. (2024) Apostol’skie prestoly v universal’noj ekkleziologii latinskih otcov rubezha IV i V vv. Moscow (in Russian) (in press).
27. Zakharov G. (2015) “Papskii prestol, Gallskie Tserkvi i Vezegotskoe korolevstvo v seredine V veka: k probleme ischeznoveniia granitsy mezhdu rimskim i varvarskim mirom”, in Tsivilizatsiia i varvarstvo, Moscow, vol. 4, pp. 303–312 (in Russian).

Zakharov Georgy

*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 with the financial support of the Russian Science Foundation within the framework of the scientific project No. 23-28-00165 "The Correlation of Territorial and Ethno-Political Principles of Church Organization in Late Antique Gaul".

The article contains a critical analysis of the opinion prevailing in russian historiography that the metropolitan of All Russia Joasaph (Skripitsyn), unlike his predecessor Daniil, was a supporter of the so-called «non-possessors» - representatives of russian monasticism who called for renouncement of monasteries from land estates. Based on the sources cited in the article, the author comes to the conclusion that the opinion that metropolitan Joasaph (Skripitsyn) belongs to the «non-possessors» should be recognized as unfounded. It seems that in the context of modern ideas about the controversy between "Josephites" and "non-possessors" it would be generally incorrect to raise the question of the "non-possessiveness" of Ioasaph (Skripitsyn). Russian monasticism in the second quarter of the 16th century. was not totally divided on the issue of attitude to the monastic lands into two irreconcilable camps. The presence in his midst of groups of "Josephites" and "nonpossessors" who occupied extreme positions on the issue of church land ownership does not mean that all the rest certainly had to decide on such a "party" affiliation. Joasaph (Skripitsyn), unlike Metropolitan Daniel and Vassian (Patrikeev), most likely was alien to such a biased view of both the problem of monastic lands and monasticism in general.

Orthodoxy, Russian Church, metropolitan, monasticism, «non-possessors», «Josephites»,

1. Antonov A. (2003) “Vkladchiki Uspenskogo Goritskogo monastyria”, in Russkii diplomatarii, Moscow, vol. 9, pp. 3–37 (in Russian).
2. Dmitrieva R. (1988) “Ioasaf (Skripitsyn)”, in Slovar; knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, Leningrad, vol. 2, pt. 1, pp. 409–414 (in Russian).
3. Dmitrieva R. (1991) “Ioasaf Skripitsyn — knizhnik i bibliofi l XVI v.”, in Knizhnye tsentry Drevnei Rusi: XI–XVI vv.: Raznye aspekty issledovaniia, St. Petersburg, pp. 300–312 (in Russian).
4. Emchenko E. (2000) Stoglav: issledovanie i tekst. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Makarii (Veretennikov), archimandrite (2010) “Ioasaf (Skripitsyn), svt.”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, Moscow, vol. 25, pp. 148–153 (in Russian).
6. Pokrovskii N., Shmidt S. (eds) (1971) Sudnye spiski Maksima Greka i Isaka Sobaki. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Sinitsyna N. (2006) Skazaniia o prepodobnom Maksime Greke. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Smirnov I. (1958) Ocherki politicheskoi istorii Russkogo gosudarstva 30–50-kh gg. XVI v. Moscow; Leningrad (in Russian).
9. Turilov A. (2011) “Isaak Sobaka”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, Moscow, vol. 27, pp. 9–11 (in Russian).
10. Zimin A. (1960) Reformy Ivana Groznogo: Ocherki sotsialno-ekonomicheskoi i politicheskoi istorii Rossii serediny XVI v. Moscow (in Russian).
11. Zimin A. (1977) Krupnaia feodal;naia votchina i sotsial;no-politicheskaia bor;ba v Rossii (konets XV–XVI v.). Moscow (in Russian).

Petrushko Vladislav

*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 author has made an attempt to find out the metropolitan Dionisii’s status in the world and the place of taking him the monastic vows. Earlier he was the abbot of the Novgorod Spaso-Khutynskii monastery. On the base of some historical sources the author makes presupposition that Dionisii soon after taking the monastic vows became the abbot of the Otenskii monastery protected by the secular and the church authorities in the third quarter of the 16th century. There are data about Dionisii’s son - the priest Matfey who took the monastic vows and following the father went to the Spaso-Khutynskii monastery. The son must have inherited the father’s status in the world. Thus Dionisii was from the white clergy. This promoted his turbulent career. In the world he could already acquired many skills which were necessary for the leaders of the church. The epidemics of the 1560-70s could also play their role: a lot of elderly experienced monks who could became abbots and bishops dead. Soon after taking the monastic vows no later than the august of 1572 Dionisii became the abbot of the important Otenskii monastery. After that probably thanks to the acquaintance with Ivan IV no later than the 26th October of 1577 he became the abbot of the Spaso-Khutynskii monastery and then the metropolitan. Taking into consideration that after his dismissal in 1586 he lived for 18 years the author presupposes that he became the abbot and metropolitan in the relatively early age. The research is based on the data from the chronicles, acts, colophons and the records on the objects of church art.

16th century, Metropolitan Dionysius (1581–1586), Spaso-Khutyn Monastery, Otensky Monastery, episcopate, Church Council, church hierarchy, epidemics

1. Abelentseva O. (2003) “Formuliarnik novgorodskogo arkhiepiskopa Feodosiia (RNB, Q.XVII.50) i ego rukopisnaia traditsiia v XVI–XVII vv.”, in TODRL, St. Petersburg, vol. 53, pp. 122–158 (in Russian).
2. Andreev V. (2005) “Zhalovannye gramoty XVI v. novgorodskomu Khutynskomu monastyriu”, in Proshloe Novgoroda i Novgorodskoi zemli, Veliky Novgorod, pp. 97–102 (in Russian).
3. Ankudinov I., Baranov K. (2003) “Akty Novgorodskogo Dukhova monastyrya 1574–1595 godov”, in Russkii diplomatarii, Moscow, vol. 9, pp. 339–353 (in Russian).
4. Antipov I. (2009) Novgorodskaia arkhitektura vremeni arkhiepiskopov Evfi miia II i Iony Otenskogo. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Bobrik M. (2011) “Tolkovyi Apostol v Velikikh Chet¢ikh Mineiakh: dva spiska — dve redaktsii”, in Lingvisticheskoe istochnikovedenie i istoriia russkogo iazyka (2010–2011), Moscow, pp. 52–102 (in Russian).
6. Cherkasova M. (1997) “Ivan Groznyi o monastyriakh i monashestve svoego vremeni”, in Kirillov: kraevedcheskii almanakh, Vologda, pp. 27–37 (in Russian).
7. Ignashina E. (2003) Drevnerusskoe litsevoe i ornamental;noe shit;e v sobranii Novgorodskogo muzeia. Katalog. Veliky Novgorod (in Russian).
8. Igoshev V. (2001) “Novgorodskie serebrianye potiry XVI–XVII vv. K voprosu o tipologii tserkovnoi utvari”, in Iskusstvo khristianskogo mira, Moscow, vol. 5, pp. 227–238 (in Russian).
9. Klibanov A., Koretskii V. (1961) “Poslanie Zinoviia Otenskogo d¢iaku Ia.V. Shishkinu”, in TODRL. Moscow; St. Petersburg, vol. 17, pp. 201–224 (in Russian).
10. Kolobkov V. (2004) Mitropolit Filipp i stanovlenie moskovskogo samoderzhaviia. Oprichnina Ivana Groznogo. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
11. Krom M. (2010) “Vdovstvuyushchee tsarstvo”: Politicheskii krizis v Rossii 30–40-kh godov XVI veka. Moscow (in Russian).
12. Makarii (Veretennikov) (1996) Moskovskii mitropolit Makarii i ego vremia. Moscow (in Russian).
13. Makarii (Veretennikov) (2006) Iz istorii russkoi ierarkhii XVI veka. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Makarii (Veretennikov) (2007) “Dionisii”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, Moscow, vol. 15, pp. 269–271 (in Russian).
15. Morozov B. (2001) “Avtobiografiia Iony Solovetskogo (1561–1621)”, in Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 2000 g., Moscow, pp. 450–453 (in Russian).
16. Morozova L. (1990) Sochineniia Zinoviia Otenskogo. Moscow (in Russian).
17. Solodkin Ia. (2009) “Kuda soslali byvshego mitropolita moskovskogo Dionisiia i ego “sobesednika” Varlaama?”. Drevnyaya Rus;. Voprosy medievistiki, 2009, vol. 3 (37), pp. 109–110 (in Russian).
18. Usachev A. (2014) “Starost glubokaia″ v XIV–XVI vv.: demograficheskie realii i ikh vospriiatie sovremennikami (na materiale pismennykh istochnikov)”. Drevniaia Rus;. Voprosy medievistiki, 2014, vol. 1 (55), pp. 58–68 (in Russian).
19. Usachev A. (2017) “Pochemu zakonchilas¢ §volokolamskaia gegemoniia″ v Russkoi tserkvi XVI v.?”. Rossiiskaia istoriia, 2017, vol. 5, pp. 97–113 (in Russian).
20. Usachev A. (2018) Knigopisanie v Rossii XVI veka: po materialam datirovannykh vykhodnykh zapisei, vols 1–2. Moscow; St. Petersburg (in Russian).
21. Usachev A. (2018) “Vologodskii episkop Antonii i Russkaya Tserkov v period borby za vlast pri dvore v seredine 1580-kh gg.”. Rossiiskaia istoriia, 2018, vol. 6, pp. 136–146 (in Russian).
22. Usachev A. (2019) “Knigopisanie i problemy sotsial¢no-ekonomicheskogo razvitiia v Rossii XVI v.”. Rossiiskaia istoriia, 2019, vol. 6, pp. 180–201 (in Russian).
23. Usachev A. (2022) “Principles of Staffing the Church Elite in Russia in the 16th Century: The Episcopate”. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2022, vol. 92, suppl. 10, pp. 991–998.
24. Veselovskii S. (1963) Issledovaniia po istorii oprichniny. Moscow (in Russian).
25. Veselovskii S. (1975) Diaki i pod;iachie XV–XVII vv. Moscow (in Russian).
26. Yadryshnikov V. (1999) “Formirovanie ansamblia Sviato-Dukhova monastyria v Novgorode”. Novgorodskii arkhivnyi vestnik, 1999, vol. 1, pp. 27–36 (in Russian).
27. Zimin A. (1977) Krupnaia feodalnaia votchina i sotsialno-politicheskaia borba v Rossii (konets XV–XVI v.). Moscow (in Russian).

Usachev Andrei

*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.

The study was funded by the Russian Science Foundation, project no. 20-18-00218, https://rscf.ru/project/20-18-00218/.

The article examines the process of discussion and approval of the Foundation Act of the Dorpat University, which formalized in Russian legislation the basic principles of university jurisdiction, which later became part of all university bills of the early 19th century. The initiator of the appearance of the Foundation Act was the professor and first rector of the University of Dorpat G. F. Parrot, who sought to include this higher educational institution in the all-imperial system of managing educational institutions. However, it was impossible to overcome the resistance of most of the leaders of the newly created Ministry of Public Education, who did not want the appearance of the medieval principle of autonomy in the university bill, without the active intervention of Emperor Alexander I. The monarch participated in the consideration of comments and amendments to the text at least seven times. It should be especially noted that the approval of the Foundation Act of the University of Dorpat became one of the few reforms of the beginning of the reign that were fully completed. The article uses Parrot's memoirs, his extensive correspondence with the emperor, as well as documents from Parrot's archive, currently stored in the Russian State Historical Archive. The researchers determined the circle of persons who were directly involved in editing the preliminary versions of the text of the Act. The authors come to the conclusion that Emperor Alexander I showed undoubted interest and personal perseverance in the work on the Foundation Act, involving in this work both figures of educational reforms, such as Minister P. V. Zavadovsky, M. N. Muravyov, S. O. Pototsky, and the circle of closest friends, primarily N. N. Novosiltsev and P. A. Stroganov.

Emperor Alexander I, G. F. Parrot, University autonomy, University of Dorpat, Foundation Act,Ministry of Public Education,

1. Andreev A. (2006) “Imperator Aleksandr I i professor G. F. Parrot: k istorii vozniknoveniya §universitetskoi avtonomii″ v Rossii”. Otechestvennaia istoriia, 2006, vol. 6, pp. 19–30 (in Russian).
2. Andreev A. (2009) Rossiiskie universitety XVIII — pervoj poloviny XIX veka v kontekste universitetskoi istorii Evropy. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Andreev A. (2021) “Professor-romantik″ G. F. Parrot i ego druzhba s imperatorom Aleksandrom I”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II. Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2021, vol. 101, pp. 79–100 (in Russian).
4. Andreev A. (2023) Kafedra i tron: perepiska imperatora Aleksandra I i professora G. F. Parrota. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Andreev A., Posokhov S. (2012) Universitet v Rossiiskoj imperii XVIII — pervoi poloviny XIX veka. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Mironenko S. (1989) Samoderzhavie i reformy. Politicheskaia bor;ba v Rossii v nachale XIX v. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Safonov M. (1988) Problema reform v pravitel;stvennoi politike Rossii na rubezhe XVIII i XIX vv. Leningrad (in Russian).
8. Tamul V. (1998) “Die Dörptsche Universität — Landes- oder Reichsuniversität? Zum Verhältnis von Deutschbalten, Stadt und Universität im 19. Jahrhundert”, in H. von Piirimäe, C. Sommerhage (eds) Zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Dorpat, Tartu, pp. 85–110.

Andreev Andrei

*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.

Gracheva Yulia

*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 funded by the Russian Science Foundation, project no. 23-18-00048, https://rscf.ru/project/23-18-00048/.

Slavist and Polish Slavophil M.E. Zdzekhovsky came to the attention of Russian scientists relatively recently and has not yet taken its due place in domestic research. 2023 marks the 85th anniversary of his death. A Pole by origin, baptized in the Catholic faith, he remained a representative of a single space of the Slavic world and was close to that part of the Polish and Russian intelligentsia, which at the beginning of the 20th century began to be called "religious", since it put the question at the center of its worldview. about the necessity for the social development of states - religious consciousness. At the end of the XIX century. Zdzekhovsky became an admirer of L.N. Tolstoy, and then imbued with his teaching on the moral essence of Christianity. Having taken the post of professor at the University of Krakow and having moved to Austria-Hungary, Zdziechovsky continued his epistolary communication with the Russian intelligentsia and with L.N. Tolstoy, whom he called his teacher. He carried a respectful attitude towards the writer through the years of his passion for modernism (1890-1914) in the Roman Catholic Church, contact with which he found in Tolstoy's moralism. The article, based on letters and books (1890–1914) by Zdziechowski, analyzes the evolution of the attitude of the Polish “neo-Catholic” towards Tolstoy as a thinker. Not accepting Tolstoy's "Christian anarchism", Zdziechowski did not condemn his apostasy from the Church, putting the moral aspect of his search, based on epistemological pessimism, at the center of his understanding of Tolstoy's phenomenon. The author concludes that M.E. Zdziechowski's work of the writer and the moral apology of Christianity in modernism, played a leading role in Zdziechowski's attitude towards Tolstoy.

Marian Zdziechowski, Leo, Tolstoy, Roman, Catholic, modernism, moral apology for Christianity

1. Dianova V., Skochinskii J. (2017) “Zhizn i mirovozzrenie Mariana Zdzekhovskogo”. Voprosy filosofii, 2017, vol. 6, pp. 82–91 (in Russian).
2. Gawlik M. (2007) “Marian Zdziechowski (1861–1938) wobec modernizmu katolickiego”. Roczniki Teologiczne, 2007, vols LIII–LIV, no. 7, pp. 165–176.
3. Obolevich T. (2015) “Polskie filosofy i Peterburg: Foma Parchevskii i drugie”. Soloviovskie issledovaniia, 2015, vol. 2 (46), pp. 130–158 (in Russian).
4. Persidok А. (2018) Rev. of: Rogalski M. Producenci margaryny? Marian Zdziechowski i polski modernizm katolicki. Kraków. 2018. Warszawskie Studia Tejlogiszne, 2018, vol. XXXI, no. 3, pp. 186–193.
5. Pyda J. (2017) “Marian Zdziechowski jako czytelnik twórczości Zygmunta Krasińskiego. O filozoficznych uwikłaniach dziejów recepcji”. Tekstualia, 2017, vol. 3 (50), pp. 85–100.
6. Rogalski M. (2018) Producenci Margapyny? Marian Zdziechowski i polski modernism katolicki. Kraków.
7. Vorontsova I. (ed.) (2010) “§Mezhdu nami ne mozhet byt¢ ni malejshego spora…″: Pis¢ma S. N. Bulgakova M. E. Zdzekhovskomu o neobkhodimosti tserkovnogo obnovleniia. 1905–1907 gg.”. Otechestvennye arkhivy, 2010, vol. 4, pp. 101–111 (in Russian).
8. Vorontsova I. (2011) “My zhivem na povorote mirovoi istorii…″: Voprosy khristianskogo modernizma v perepiske neokhristian″ i neokatolika″ M. E. Zdzekhovskogo”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2011, vol. 2, pp. 35–47 (in Russian).
9. Vorontsova I. (2017) “Statia neokatolika″ M. E. Zdzekhovskogo Modernistskoe dvizhenie v R.-K. Tserkvi″ kak istochnik po rimo-katolicheskomu modernizmu: opyt kriticheskogo analiza”. Voprosy filosofii, 2017, vol. 2, pp. 140–153 (in Russian).
10. Zdziechowski М. (2003) “Pismo Lvu Tolstomu”. Novaia Polsha, 2003, vol. 7–8, pp. 58–61 (in Russian).

Vorontsova Irina

*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 paper offers a reconstruction of the history of the Russian Orthodox parish formed around the church of Our Lady of Kazan in the village of Aleksashkino, Saratov region (formerly Samara province) in the 19th-20th century. The reconstruction is based on the previously unstudied documents from the state archives of Samara and Saratov regions, archives of the Federal Security Service (Saratov region), and “Samara Diocesan Gazette” materials, as well as interviews with village elders.The study aims to recreate the life of the typical Russian Orthodox parish in the Volga region and examine the evolution of the social institutions connected with the church. The parish history appears in a context of interrelations with the secular government that took a dramatic turn in the Soviet period. The evolvement of the village’s educational institutions receives special attention. Another essential part of the proposed reconstruction is tracing the personalities who stood behind the parish activities – priests, churchwardens, and village teachers. Their names and details of their lives are an inseparable part of the suggested reconstruction. The paper offers a periodization of the parish history that includes five stages, starting from the preaching house and finishing with the 1951 fire. Each period is considered within a separate paper section, while the conclusion summarizes the data on the modern village church. References accompanying the data offer vast opportunities for the further investigation of the Orthodox parishes in the Volga region.

19th-20th centuries, social history, parish register, village parish, Volga region, Aleksashkino, education

1. Ageev E. (2016) “Polveka iz zhizni Donskogo khutora: prikhodskaia letopis Panteleimonovskoi tserkvi khutora Letovskogo stanitsy Kremenskoi Ust-Medveditskogo okruga oblasti Voiska Donskogo (1873–1929)”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2016, vol. 73, pp. 91–106 (in Russian).
2. Blokhin V. (2016) “Patrioticheskie i mirotvorcheskie initsiativy kak faktor ukrepleniia armianorusskikh tserkovnykh sviazei v seredine XX v.” Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriia: Istoriia Rossii, 2016, vol. 1, pp. 101–107 (in Russian).
3. Budkin V. (2007) “Gosudarstvo i religiia na postsovetskom prostranstve”. Kavkaz i globalizatsiia, 2007, vol. 5, pp. 25–48 (in Russian).
4. Bushueva E. (2013) “Istoriia stroitelstva Nerchinskoi Uspenskoi tserkvi v dokumentakh gosudarstvennogo arkhiva Zabaikalskogo kraia”. Vestnik Buriatskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2013, vol. 7, pp. 160–163 (in Russian).
5. Fedotov S. (2016) “Istoriia dialoga russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi i predstavitelei §assotsiatsii vostochnykh tserkvei″ Anglikanskoi tserkvi”. Istoriia: fakty i simvoly, 2016, vol. 3 (8), pp. 130–134 (in Russian).
6. Geraskin Yu., Mikhailovskii A. (2010) “Problema periodizatsii istorii otnoshenii sovetskogo gosudarstva i Russkoi pravoslavnoi Tserkvi”. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2010, vol. 3 (11), pp. 110–122 (in Russian).
7. Kirianova O. (2020) “Periodizatsiia istorii razvitiia muzeinogo dela Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi (1950–2020 gg.)”. Kul;turnoe nasledie Rossii, 2020, vol. 2, pp. 85–90 (in Russian).
8. Latypov I. (2011) “K voprosu otnoshenii staroobriadtsev Kazanskoi gubernii s gosudarstvom v period pravleniia Nikolaia I”. Via in tempore. Istoriia. Politologiia, 2011, vol. 13 (108), pp. 96–100 (in Russian).
9. Makarii (Veretennikov) (2015) “O periodizatsii istorii Russkoi Tserkvi”. Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, 2015, vol. 4 (12), pp. 13–30 (in Russian).
10. Ovchinnikov V. (2015) “K voprosu o periodizatsii istorii Russkoi pravoslavnoi Tserkvi v Sibiri v sovetskii period (1917–1991)”. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2015, vol. 1 (61), pp. 72–80 (in Russian).
11. Shushkanova E. (2018) “Zhizn selskogo prikhoda Rossii nakanune 1917 g. (na primere Eniseiskoi gubernii)”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2018, vol. 82, pp. 53–67 (in Russian).
12. Skolota R. (2011) “Obshchestvennye nastroeniia v 1920–1925 gg. v kontekste gosudarstvennotserkovnykh otnoshenii (na primere Astrakhanskoi gubernii)”. Izvestiia Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta, 2011, vol. 3 (57), pp. 82–86 (in Russian).
13. Spichak A. (2016) “Kharakteristika arkhivnykh materialov po istorii prihodskikh tserkvei Tobolskoi eparkhii XVIII — nachala XX v.” Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2016, vol. 409, pp. 139–144 (in Russian).
14. Tsyrempilova I. (2008) “Iz istorii vzaimootnoshenii gosudarstva i Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi Baikalskoi Sibiri v 1930-e gg.”. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2008, vol. 314, pp. 95–98 (in Russian).
15. Vasilev A. (2014) “Dokumentatiia o stroitelstve selskikh tserkvei kak istoricheskii istochnik (na primere Tomskoi gubernii)”. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2014, vol. 389, pp. 139–144 (in Russian).

Zarubin Dmitry

The authors are indebted to G. G. Kuznetzov, a local historian from Saratov, for his valuable advice on the archive documents research; I. N. Panisheva, the principal of the secondary school in Aleksashkino, for organizing interviews with village elders; V. S. Merenkova and A. S. Ashmarov for conducting the interviews with the elders of the Aleksashkino village.

The paper includes a publication of a Latin translation of the Epistle Placuit apostolicae of Pope Zosimus to the bishops appointed in the dioceses of Galliae (Northern Gaul) and of Septem Provinciae (Southern Gaul), as well as a historical commentary and an introductory article. At the beginning of the paper, the historical context of the Epistle is described, then its content is considered. The Epistle sheds light on the relationship between the see of Rome and the sees of churches of Gaul (primarily, the Church of Arelate). Placuit apostolicae was written in the early days of the pontificate of Pope Zosimus (March 22, 417), probably as a reaction to the appeal of Patroclus of Arles who wanted to expand his influence and jurisdiction over the province of Viennensis and neighboring provinces of the South Gallic diocese, which contradicted the decisions of the synod of Turin in 398. In his letter to the Gallic bishops, Pope Zosimus expresses support for Patroclus and confirms special rights of the see of Arles: the right of the metropolitan bishop of Arles to ordinate bishops in the provinces of Viennensis, Narbonnensis I and Narbonnensis II; the privilege of issuing to Gallic bishops special cover letters (formatae) and recognition of primacy of the metropolitan bishop of Arles in Gaul (although the latter is not said expressiss verbis, but is implied); transfer of some controversial parishes in favor of Arles. With the help of these decisions, Zosimus was able to strengthen the influence of the Roman see in Gaul. Realizing that administrative decisions alone are not enough to fulfill these aspirations, Zosimus substantiates the rights of the see of Arles by appealing to the authority of Saint Trophimus, who, according to the legend first set forth in the letter, founded the first episcopal see in the Gallic lands and became the first bishop of Arles. It follows from this that the bishop of Arles enjoys the advantage of power in the region as Trophimus' heir. Through this narrative, Zosimus defended the interests of the see of Rome, which had sent Trophimus to christianize Gaul, and in the letter he actually constituted a hierarchical connection between the Churches of Gaul and Rome, asserting for Patroclus the right to issue formatae. Trying to change the ecclesiastical and administrative structure of Southern Gaul, Zosimus delegitimizes the decisions of the synod of Gallic Bishops in Turin.

Pope Zosimus, Patroclus of Arles, Apostle Trophimus, Synod of Turin, Church of Gaul, Roman Gaul, Arles, Church organization

1. Anashkin A. (2022) “Poslanie rimskogo papy Siksta (Ksista) III k Proklu, arkhiepiskopu Konstantinopol¢skomu”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2022, vol. 104, pp. 135–144 (in Russian).
2. Bleckmann B. (2003) “Arelate metropolis: Überlegungen zur Datierung des Konzils von Turin und zur Geschichte Galliens im 5. Jahrhundert”. Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte, 2003, vol. 98, pp. 162–173.
3. Caspar E. (1930) Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft, vol. 1, Tübingen.
4. Dunn G. D. (2019) “Epistolary Sleight of Hand: Diplomatic Manipulation in Zosimus’ Letter to Patroclus of Arles (Quid de Proculi)”. Vigiliae Christianae, 2019, vol. 73, pp. 254–270.
5. Dunn G. D. (2015) “Placuit apostolicae (Ep. 1) of Zosimus of Rome and the Ecclesiastical Reorganization of Gaul”. Journal of Early Christian Studies, 2015, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 559–581.
6. Dunn G. D. (2015) “… quid habuerit antiqua consuetudo: Zosimus of Rome and Hilary of Narbonne”. Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 2015, vol. 110, pp. 31–55.
7. Dunn G. D. (2016) “The Ecclesiastical Reorganisation of Space and Authority in Late Antique Gaul: Zosimus’ Letter Multa contra (JK 334 = J3 740)”. Journal of the Australian Early Medieval Association, 2016, vol. 12, pp. 1–33.
8. Dunn G. D. (2015) “Zosimus’ Synod of Rome in September 417 and His Letter to Western Bishops (Cum aduersus)”. Antiquité Tardive: Revue internationale d’histoire et d’archéologie, 2015, vol. 23, pp. 395–405.
9. Gratsianskii M. (2021) “Krizis avtoriteta Rimskoi Tserkvi v pontifi katy Zosima (417–418) i Bonifatsiia (418–422)”. Vizantiiskii vremennik, 2021, vol. 105, pp. 40–59 (in Russian).
10. Gratsianskii M. (2022) “Popytka tserkovno-administrativnoi reorganizatsii Iuzhnoi Gallii v pontifi kat papy Zosima (417–418): motivy i posledstviia”, in Vizantiiskie ocherki. Trudy rossiiskikh uchenykh k XXIV Mezhdunarodnomu kongressu vizantinistov, St. Petersburg, pp. 24–52 (in Russian).
11. Gratsianskii M. (2021) “Rimskie episkopy i razvitie tserkovno-administrativnykh struktur sverkhprovintsialnogo″ urovnia v nachale V v.”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2021, vol. 101, pp. 9–33 (in Russian).
12. Gratsianskii M., Norkin K. (2020) “Na sluzhbe imperii: papa Zosim i Rimskii sobor 417 goda”. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia 4: Istoriia. Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, 2020, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 6–23 (in Russian).
13. Heinzelmann M. (1976) Bischofsherrschaft in Gallien. Zur Kontinuität römischer Führungsschichten vom 4. bis zum 7. Jahrhundert. Soziale, prosopographische und bildungsgeschichtliche Aspekte (Beihefte der Francia, vol. 5). Munich.
14. Langgärtner G. (1964) Die Gallienpolitik der Päpste im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert. Eine Studie über den apostolischen Vikariat von Arles. Bonn.
15. Mathisen R. W. (2013) “The Council of Turin (398/399) and the Reorganization of Gaulca. 395/406”. Journal of Late Antiquity, 2013, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 264–307.
16. Mekhamadiev E. (2014) “Sobory Gallskoi tserkvi v kontse IV — pervoi chetverti V vv., nadpis Gally Platsidii i grecheskaya nadpis iz Arabii: novyi vzgliad na datirovku zapadnogo i vostochnogo spiska Notitia Dignitatum”. Nauchnye vedomosti Belgorodskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Istoriia. Politologiia. Ekonomika. Informatika, 2014, vol. 30, no. 8 (170), pp. 34–42 (in Russian).
17. Munier Ch. (1963) Concilia Galliae. A. 314 — A. 506 (CCSL 148). Turnhout.
18. Norkin K. (2019) “Stanovlenie tserkovnogo pervenstva Arlia v Gallii i rimskie papy (398–432 gg.)”. Vizantiiskii vremennik, 2019, vol. 103, pp. 53–69 (in Russian).
19. Panzram S. (2023) “Bishops under Threat — Between Ascetics and Combative Creatures″”, in Bishops under Threat. Contexts and Episcopal Strategies in the Late Antique and Early Medieval West (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, vol. 150), Berlin; Boston, pp. 1–24.
20. Poveda Arias P. (2023) “Threatening Metropolitan Authority in Fifth-Century Gaul”, in Bishops under Threat. Contexts and Episcopal Strategies in the Late Antique and Early Medieval West(Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, vol. 150), Berlin; Boston, pp. 27–54.
21. Pietri Ch. (1976) Roma Christiana. Recherches sur l’Église de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixte III (311–440). Rome.
22. Sieben H.-J. (ed.) (2015) Vetustissimae epistulae Romanorum pontifi cum (Die ältesten Papstbriefe), vol. 3, Freiburg; Basel; Wien.
23. Zaitsev D. (2014) “Zosima”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, Moscow, vol. 20, pp. 339–341 (in Russian).
24. Zakharov G. (2022) “Ekkleziologicheskie osnovaniia i istoricheskie istoki Fessalonikiiskogo vikariata”, in Ekkleziologicheskaia traditsiia i tserkovnaia organizatsiia Illirika v konce IV — pervoi polovine V v.: Issledovaniia i perevody, Moscow, pp. 69–114 (in Russian).

Anashkin Anton

*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 supported by the grant of Russian Science Foundation № 23-28-00165 «The Correlation of Territorial and Ethnopolitical Principles of Church Organization in Late Antique Gaul»

This article publishes a translation of the 513–514 epistles of pope Symmachus (498–514) to the bishops of Gaul and Caesarius of Arles (502–543). The main issues discussed in the epistles are the claims of the see of Arles for regional primacy in Southern Gaul, women's monasticism and church discipline. The conflict between the sees of Arles and Vienne over ecclesiastical primacy dates back to the end of the 4th century and was connected with the fact that Arles became the political capital of Southern Gaul. During the 5th century, the papal position in this dispute was variable and was not accepted as a valid argument by all the bishops of Gaul. Symmachus confirmed the decisions of pope Leo I the Great on the division of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the province of Vienne, and for the first time granted the bishop of Arles the privilege of wearing the pallium. Although Caesarius became the pope's representative in Southern Gaul, there was no real opportunity for the bishop to exercise this privilege for some time because of the political situation in the region. Regarding the property of the convent at Arles, Symmachus' decision could not satisfy Caesarius because of the vagueness of the pope's wording. As for church discipline, Symmachus could only once again condemn its violations.

church cathedra, church discipline, metropolitan city, bishop, papacy, Symmachus, Caesarius of Arles, Southern Gaul, Arles

1. Jones A. H. M. (1997) Gibel; antichnogo mira. Rostov-on-Don (Russian translation).
2. Ferreiro А. (2006) “Petrine Primacy and Episcopal Authority in Caesarius of Arles”. Studia Patristica, 2006, vol. 43, pp. 367–372.
3. Gaudemet J. (ed.) (1977) Conciles gaulois du IVe siècle (Sources Chrétiennes. 241). Paris.
4. Gratsianskii M. (2014) “Vozniknovenie i razvitie kontseptsii papskogo primata v I–V vv.”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, 2014, vol. 2 (52), pp. 9–29 (in Russian).
5. Gratsianskii M. (2022) “Popytka tserkovno-administrativnoi reorganizatsii Iuzhnoi Gallii v pontifikat papy Zosima (417–418): motivy i posledstviia”, in Vizantiiskie ocherki: Trudy rossiiskih uchenykh k XXIV Mezhdunarodnomu kongressu vizantinistov, St. Petersburg, рр. 24–52 (in Russian).
6. Gratsianskii M. (2021) “Rimskie episkopy i razvitie tserkovno-administrativnykh struktur sverkhprovintsialnogo″ urovnia v nachale V veka”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2021, vol. 101, рр. 9–33 (in Russian).
7. Gratsianskii M. (2019) “Haeres Petri sive vicarius Petri: Obosnovanie iskliuchitelnykh vlastnykh prerogativ rimskogo episkopa papoi Lvom Velikim”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2019, vol. 89, рр. 27–48 (in Russian).
8. Griffе É. (1947). La Gaule chrétienne à ľépoque romaine. 1: Des origines chrétiennes à la fin du IVе siècle. Paris; Toulouse.
9. Hess H. (2002) The Early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica. Oxford.
10. Jourjon M. (1983) “À propos du conflit entre le pape Léon et Hilaire, évêque d´Arles”, in La patrie Gauloise d´Agrippa au VIème siècle. Actes du colloque. Lyon, 1981, Paris, pp. 267–271.
11. Klingshirn W. (2004) Caesarius of Arles. The Making of a Christian Community in Late Antique Gaul. Cambridge.
12. Kopylov I. (2012) “Arianskaia tserkov¢ v Korolevstve vestgotov”, in Vestgotskaia pravda (Kniga prigovorov). Latinskii tekst. Perevod. Issledovanie, Moscow, рр. 173–187 (in Russian).
13. Lebedev A. (2006) Dukhovenstvo drevnei Vselenskoi Tserkvi ot vremion apostol;skih do Х veka. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
14. Marcus R. A. (1974) Christianity in the Roman World. New York.
15. Martindale J. R. (1980) The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. Vol. II: А.D. 395–527. Cambridge.
16. Mathisen R. W. (2008) “D’Aire-sur-l’Adour à Agde: Les relations entre la loi séculière et la loi canonique à la fi n du royaume de Toulouse”, in Le Bréviaire d’Alaric. Aux origines du Code civil (Cultures et civilisations médiévales 44), Paris, pp. 41–52.
17. Mejendorff J. (2012) Edinstvo imperii i razdeleniia khristian: tserkov; v 450–680 gody. Moscow (Russian translation).
18. Morin G., Delage M.-J., Heijmans M. (eds) (2010) Vie de Césaire d’Arles. (Sources Chrétiennes.536). Paris.
19. Munier Ch. (ed.) (1963) Concilia Galliae 314–506 (Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina, 148). Turnhout.
20. Norkin K. (2019) “Stanovlenie tserkovnogo pervenstva Arlia v Gallii i rimskie papy (398–432 gody)”. Vizantiiskii vremennik, 2019, vol. 103, рр. 53–71 (in Russian).
21. Omelchenko D. (2009) “Tsezarii Arelatskii i ego §Zaveshchanie″”, in Cursor Mundi: Chelovek antichnosti, srednevekov;ia i Vozrozhdeniya, Ivanovo, vol. 2, рр. 204–212 (in Russian).
22. Ozoline A. (2008) Trésors de la Gaule chrétienne: histoire et restauration des reliques textiles de saint Césaire d’Arles, 470–542. Arles; Marseille.
23. Pietri Ch. (1976) Roma Christiana. Recherches sur l’Église de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixte III (311–440). Rome.
24. Pontal O. (1989) Histoire des conciles mérovingiens. Paris.
25. Sterk A. (2004) Renouncing the World Yet Leading the Church. The Monk-Bishop in Late Antiquity. London.
26. Tamás H. (2022) “Practice and Function of Ecclesiastical Recommendation in Late Antiquity (Fourth — Fifth Centuries AD)”, in New Europe College Yearbook. Ștefan Odobleja Program 2021–2022, Bucharest, pp. 285–316.
27. Tkachenko A. (2005) “Gallikanskii obriad”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, Moscow, vol. 10, рр. 358–368 (in Russian).
28. Tyulenev V. (2014) “Ennodii i Tsezarii Arelatskii”, in Cursor Mundi: Chelovek antichnosti, srednevekov;ia i Vozrozhdeniia, Ivanovo, vol. 6, рр. 60–65 (in Russian).
29. Vogué A., de, Courreau J. (eds) (1988) “Testamentum sancti Caesarii”, in Césaire d’Arles. Oeuvres monastiques, Paris, vol. 1, pp. 381–397.
30. Zaikov A. (2012) Rimskoe chastnoe pravo v sistematicheskom izlozhenii. Moscow (in Russian).
31. Zaitsev D. (2005) “Arelatskie sobory”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, Moscow, vol. 3, рр. 193–194 (in Russian).

Omelchenko Darya

*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 funded by the Russian Science Foundation as part of the project no. 23-28-00165 “The Correlation of Territorial and Ethno-Political Principles of Church Organisation in Late Ancient Gaul”.

This article studies the letters of St. Macarius of Optina to the future Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin) in order to be more specific about the biographical details of the church figure. The cause of the correspondence starting and its regularity are revealed. The article analyzes all the publications of the letters from Elder Macarius to L.A. Kavelin: in the general collection of letters to the laity, in a separate brochure and in collections of letters from the Optina elders, as well as the publication of letters based on archival materials. There is given a previously unpublished text of Macarius’ last letter to L.A. Kavelin before he entered the St. John the Forerunner’s skete of Optina pustyn. The cause of the correspondence with St. Macarius is determined by L.A. Kave-lin’s visiting the skete of Optina at the end of 1845, when they got to know each other better, as well as his asking the elder for advice depending on the circumstances. Furthermore, the article reveals an almost three-year break in correspondence, which allegedly arose due to L.A. Kave-lin’s lack of understanding of St. Macarius’ advice. The latter kept him from entering the monas-tery against the will of his parents, who entrusted the support of their two younger sons to their eldest son.

history of the Russian Orthodox Church, correspondence, Optina pustyn, St. John the Forerun-ner’s skete, Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin), St. Macarius of Optina, S.A. Burachek

1. Kashirina V. (2006) Literaturnoe nasledie Optinoi pustyni. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Kashirina V. (2012) “Arkhimandrit Leonid (Kavelin) pered ot»ezdom v Ierusalimskuiu Missiiu”, in Sviataia Zemlia: istoriko-kul;turnyi illiustrirovannyi al;manakh. Iubileinyi vypusk “Russkaia Palestina: liudi i sud;by: k 165-letiiu Russkoi Dukhovnoi missii v Ierusalime”, Moscow, vol. 1, pp. 112–125 (in Russian).
3. Kashirina V. (2021) “Arkhimandrit Leonid (Kavelin) kak agiograf Optinoi pustyni”. Bogoslovskii vestnik, 2021, vol. 3 (42), pp. 239–256 (in Russian).
4. Kudlasevich I. (2022) “Fenomen monashestva arkhimandrita Leonida (Kavelina)”. Tserkovnyi istorik, 2022, vol. 2 (8), pp. 138–156 (in Russian).
5. Kudlasevich I. (2022) “Zhizn do postupleniia v monashestvo”, in L. Belyaev (ed.) Ot Ierusalima do Novogo Ierusalima: k 200-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia arkhimandrita Leonida (Kavelina), Moscow, pp. 18–40 (in Russian).
6. Leonid (Tolmachev) (2022) “Arkhimandrit Leonid (Kavelin) i ego vybor skita Optinoi pustyni mestom monasheskoi zhizni”. Tserkovnyi istorik, 2022, vol. 2 (8), pp. 104–125 (in Russian).
7. Zakharchenko S. (2019) “Epistoliarnoe nasledie prepodobnogo Makariia Optinskogo”, in Sbornik tezisov dokladov Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii “Dukhovnoe i kul;turnoe nasledie monastyrei Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi. K 500-letiiu Moskovskogo Novodevich;ego monastyria”, Moscow, pp. 65–69 (in Russian).
8. Zakharchenko S. (2020) “Podgotovka k izdaniiu epistoliarnogo naslediia prepodobnogo Makariia Optinskogo”. Meridian, 2020, vol. 2 (36), pp. 1–4 (in Russian).

Bishop Леонид (Толмачев Д.)

The publication of two letters of the famous merchant, discoverer of the Northern Sea Route Mikhail Konstantinovich Sidorov to the first Yeniseisk and Krasnoyarsk bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev) is presented. The surviving texts dating back to the 1860s testify to the trusting relationship between these two outstanding contemporaries, emphasize their worldview and range of interests. Among the subjects mentioned in the letters there are M.K. Sidorov's donations in favor of the spiritual educational institutions of the Yeniseisk diocese, his service as an honorary guardian of the Krasnoyarsk Religious School, related with that requests of the archpastor, a conflict around the Yeniseisk Convent. At the same time, their communication was not limited exclusively to issues of church life. The bishop was aware of M.K. Sidorov's plans to search for passage through the northern seas and supported this initiative. As the Yeniseisk archpastor, he was particularly interested in the state of the territory of the diocese entrusted to him in the lower reaches of the Yenisei – the Turukhansk Region. The versatility of Bishop Nikodim's personality is emphasized by the mention of his works on the publication of the biography of the Siberian First Martyr Vasily Mangazeyskiy, as well as the telescope sent to him by M.K. Sidorov – a necessary attribute in long journeys to unfamiliar places. Among other things, the letters contain the names of a number of well-known statesmen, high church hierarchs, and large entrepreneurs, which characterizes the correspondents' acquaintances and connections, their social position.

Russian merchants, epistolary heritage, Mikhail Konstantinovich Sidorov, Russian Orthodox Church, Yeniseisk and Krasnoyarsk Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev), circle of interests, Krasnoyarsk Religious School, development of the North, the Turukhansk region, Northern Sea Route.

1. Agafangel (Daineko) (2010) Sviato-Troitskii Turukhanskii monastyr;. 350 let sluzheniia. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Aksyonova A., Gonina N., Dvoretskaia A., Terskova A. (2019) Mir kultury g. Eniseiska vtoroi poloviny XIX — nachala XX veka: slovar; osnovnykh kharakteristik, poniatii i personalii (k 400-letiiu Eniseiska). Krasnoyarsk (in Russian).
3. Berdnikov L. (1995). Vsia krasnoiarskaia vlast;: Ocherki istorii mestnogo upravleniia i samoupravleniia (1822–1916). Fakty, sobytiia, liudi. Krasnoyarsk (in Russian).
4. Berdnikov L., Lonina S. (2003) Dva veka krasnoiarskogo samoupravleniia. Istoriia i sovremennost; (1822–1917). Krasnoyarsk (in Russian).
5. Bezhanidze G. (2012) “Pisma sviatitelia Filareta, Mitropolita Moskovskogo, iz arkhiva episkopa Nikodima (Kazantseva)”. Filaretovskii almanakh, 2012, vol. 8, pp. 7–17 (in Russian).
6. Bezhanidze G. (2015) “K voprosu o preemnike sviatitelia Filareta Moskovskogo”. Filaretovskii almanakh, 2015, vol. 11, pp. 6–19 (in Russian).
7. Brodneva A. (ed.) (2012) Kasianov Vasilii Dmitrievich, protoierei. Iz dnevnikov 1870–1897 gg., vol. 2. Krasnoyarsk (in Russian).
8. Bykonia G., Fiodorova V., Berdnikov L. (1990) Krasnoyarsk v dorevoliutsionnom proshlom (XVII– XIX veka). Krasnoyarsk (in Russian).
9. Chagin V. (2017) “Minuvshee prokhodit predo mnoiu…”: Puteshestvie v 1863 god. Krasnoyarsk (in Russian).
10. D. B. K. (2018) “Nikodim (Kazantsev)”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, Moscow, vol. 49, pp. 740–744 (in Russian).
11. Fiodorov I. (2022) “Dukhovno-prosvetitelskaia i obrazovatelnaia deiatelnost monastyrei Eniseiskoi eparkhii v XIX–XX vv”, in Pravoslavie i diplomatiia v stranakh Aziatsko-Tikhookeanskogo regiona, Ulan-Ude, pp. 122–128 (in Russian).
12. Komarova T. (ed.) (2016) Vospominaniia Parfent;eva Ivana Fiodorovicha (1777–1898): rukopis iz fondov Krasnoiarskogo kraevogo kraevedcheskogo muzeia. Krasnoyarsk (in Russian).
13. Kytmanov A. (2016) Kratkaia letopis; Eniseiskogo uezda i Turukhanskogo kraia Eniseiskoi gubernii. 1594–1893 god. Krasnoyarsk (in Russian).
14. Malashin G. (2011) Krasnoiarskaia (Eniseiskaya) eparkhiia RPTS: 1861–2011 gg. Krasnoyarsk (in Russian).
15. Matkhanova N. (2007) “Zapiski Nikodima (Kazantseva), episkopa Eniseiskogo i Krasnoiarskogo”. Traditsiia i sovremennost, 2007, vol. 7, pp. 84–96 (in Russian).
16. Molchanov N. (2001) “Gosudarstvennyi kantsler Rossii, graf N. P. Rumiantsev”. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriia: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, 2001, vol. 1, pp. 170–186 (in Russian).
17. Nemirovich-Danchenko V. (2021) Kama i Ural: ocherki i vpechatleniia. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
18. Volkov S. (2016) Vysshee chinovnichestvo Rossiiskoi imperii. Kratkii slovar;. Moscow (in Russian).

Komleva Evgeniya

*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.

This publication was supported by the Russian Science Foundation as part of the project “The Emergence and Development of the Autobiographical Tradition in the Russian Written Culture of the Late 16th — early 20th Centuries in the Context of Studying Changes in the Consciousness of a Person of the New Age”; project no. 22-78-10135, https://rscf.ru/project/22-78-10135/.

In this work, a source study of the report of priest Vasily Yagunov to the dean of the 33rd deanery district of the Tomsk diocese, written in 1913, was carried out. It is permanently stored in the State Archive of the Novosibirsk Region, in the collection of the Siberian Commission of Eastpart. This source is interesting, first of all, because it reflects the contradictory social processes that took place in the distant Siberian province in the chronological period preceding the First World War, the Revolution of 1917 and the Civil War. The increase in the number of archeographic works on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church determines the relevance of the chosen research format. This allows not only to introduce new sources into circulation, but also to make them useful for research on related scientific aspects. Through the analysis of the text of the report, the problem of the decline in the religiosity of the Siberian peasantry, which took place in the early 1910s, was studied. The published source allows you to identify the causes that caused the described phenomenon. In the introductory part of the work, the connection between the issue presented in the publication and the general historiography of the problem under study is given. The theoretical basis of the study was the anthropological approach, the principle of consistency, biographical and historical-genetic methods. This methodological totality made it possible, after an overview characterizing the personality of the author of the document (priest Vasily Yagunov), to analyze the process of moral and religious deviations, which was gaining momentum in the Siberian peasantry, using the example of everyday hooliganism of young people in churches. The published historical source may be of interest to a wide range of readers who study the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, social history, provincial everyday life and Siberian local history.

Russian Orthodox Church, Siberia, Tomsk diocese, rural clergy, everyday life, social deviations, hooliganism.

1. Aksenov V. (2019) “Narodnaia religioznost i obrazy dukhovenstva v gody Pervoi mirovoi voiny i revoliutsii”. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov; v Rossii i za rubezhom, 2019, vol. 1–2, pp. 272–303 (in Russian).
2. Baturin S. (2020) “Pravoslavie v povsednevnoi zhizni sibirskikh krestian-pereselentsev v kontse XIX — nachale XX vekov”. Tendentsii razvitiia nauki i obrazovaniia, 2020, vol. 62–21, pp. 42–48 (in Russian).
3. Baturin S., Deviatkin G. (2020) “Religiia i tserkov v povsednevnoi zhizni sibirskikh krestianpereselentsev v kontse XIX — nachale XX vekov”. Colloquium-Journal, 2020, vol. 5–4 (57), pp. 52–56 (in Russian).
4. Leontieva T. (2014) Vera i progress: pravoslavnoe sel;skoe dukhovenstvo Rossii vo vtoroi polovine ХIХ — nachale XX vv. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Mefodiy (Zinkovskiy), Kirill (Zinkovskiy) (2018) “Russkaia katastrofa 1917 g. ochami sviatykh XX veka: prichiny i uroki”. Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, 2018, vol. 2 (22), pp.17–44 (in Russian).
6. Menshchikov I. (2018) “Borba pravoslavnogo dukhovenstva s pianstvom v russkoi zapadnosibirskoi derevne v nachale XX veka”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2018, vоl. 80, pp. 93–106 (in Russian).
7. Mironov B. (1999) Sotsial;naia istoriia Rossii perioda imperii (ХVIII — nachalo XX vv.). Genezis lichnosti, demokraticheskoi semi, grazhdanskogo obshchestva i pravovogo gosudarstva, vоl. 2. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
8. Oglezneva G. (2012) “Sibirskii sotsium v predstavlenii dukhovenstva Vostochnoi Sibiri (vtoraia polovina ХIХ — nachalo XX vv.)”. Izvestiia Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia “Istoriia”, 2012, vol. 2 (3), рt. 1, pp. 189–193 (in Russian).
9. Petin D. (2019) “Evakuatsiia iz Omska (1919 g.): memuarnye zapiski sluzhashchego Krasnogo Kresta N. N. Volkova”. Severnye arkhivy i ekspeditsii, 2019, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 63–84 (in Russian).
10. Petin D. (2020) “Mify v lokalnoi istorii: obzor raboty kruglogo stola v Omske”. Sibirskii antropologicheskii zhurnal, 2020, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 38–49 (in Russian).
11. Rozov V. (2003) Sviashchennik v dukhovnoi zhizni russkoi derevni. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
12. Smirnov N. (2022) “Nelzya otdeliat tserkov ot grazhdanskoi istorii…″”. Omskii nauchnyi vestnik. Seriia “Obshchestvo. Istoriia. Sovremennost;”, 2022, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 57–64 (in Russian).
13. Yagunov V. Dukhovenstvo Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi v XX veke, available at https://pravoslavnoeduhovenstvo.ru/person/1488/ (accessed 29.09.2022; in Russian).
14. Zhulaeva A. (2014) “Religioznost sibirskikh krest¢ian v 1920-e gody”. Istoricheskie, filosofskie, politicheskie i iuridicheskie nauki, kulturologiia i iskusstvovedenie. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 2014, vol. 3 (41), pt. 2, pp. 79–81 (in Russian).

Sushko Aleksey

*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.

The article was prepared with the support of the Russian Science Foundation project 21-18-00266 The Religious Factor in Russia during the Civil War: Phenomenon, Significance and Regional Specificity, implemented at St. Petersburg State University.