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

The article analyses three epistles of Popes Innocent I (402–417) and Zosimus (417–418), which endow the primates of Antioch, Thessalonica and Arles with special prerogatives. These epistles are of interest from the point of view of the church-administrative model, which for various reasons was promoted by these popes in the aforementioned churches. The use of this model is seen as a concrete practical expression of a certain stage in the development of the concept of papal primacy of power, which was based on the idea of the exclusive “apostolic” status of the Roman see. In fact, it was about the creation of special ecclesiastical and administrative districts, vertically integrated with the Roman see, in which the popes assumed a modification of the system of administration, providing for the emergence of the figure of the bishop-primate at the “superprovincial” level, and for the special jurisdiction of this bishop. In relation to each of the regions, this model had some peculiarities, expressed in the way of functioning of the synodal institutions, the role and place of the metropolitans, and the relationship of the primate with the Roman see.

Pope Innocent I, Pope Zosimus, Alexander of Antioch, Rufus of Thessalonica, Patroclus of Arles, Collectio Thessalonicensis, primacy of power, dioceses, metropoles, councils

1. Bartoshek M. (1989) Rimskoe pravo. Poniatie, terminy, opredeleniia [The Roman Law. Notion, Terms, Defi nitions]. Moscow: Iuridicheskaia literatura (in Russian).
2. Beck H.-G. (1959) Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich. München: С H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
3. Behrends O. (1969) “Der assessor zur Zeit der klassischen Rechtswissenschaft”. Zeitschrift für Rechtsgeschichte, 1969, vol. 86, pp. 192–226.
4. Berger A. (1953) Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society.
5. 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.
6. Burini De Lorenzi C. (2017) “Innocenzo I: Lettera Decretale a Decenzio vescovo di Gubbio”. In M. Monfrinotti (ed.). La decretale di papa Innocenzo I al vescovo di Gubbio Decenzio. Atti del Convegno internazionale (Roma, 18 marzo 2016), Roma: Pontificio Ateneo Sant’Anselmo, pp. 5–24.
7. Caspar Erich. (1930) Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft. Vol. 1. Tübingen: Verlag von J.C.Β. Μοhr (Ρaul Siebeck).
8. Chastagnol A. “L’administration du Diocèse Italien au Bas-Empire”. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, 1963, vol. 12/3, pp. 348–379.
9. Devreesse R. (1945) Le patriarcat d’Antioche depuis la paix de l’église jusqu’a la conquête arabe. Paris: Librairie Lecoff re.
10. Downey G. (1958) “The Claim of Antioch to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over Cyprus”. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 1958, vol. 102/3, pp. 224–228.
11. Downey G. (1961) A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
12. Dozhdev D.V. (1996) Rimskoe chastnoe parvo [The Roman Private Law]. Moscow: Infra M-Norma (in Russian).
13. Dunn G. D. (2009) “Innocent I and Rufus of Thessalonica”. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 2009, vol. 59, pp. 51–64.
14. Dunn G. D. (2011) “The Roman Response to the Ecclesiastical Crises in the Antiochene Church in the Late-Fourth and Early-Fifth Centuries”. In D.C. Sim, P. Allen (eds.). Ancient Jewish and Christian Texts as Crisis Management Literature. London: T&T Clark, pp. 112–128.
15. Dunn G. D. (2012) “Innocent I’s Appointment of Boniface as Papal Legate to Constantinople?” Sacris Erudiri, 2012, vol. 51, pp. 135–149.
16. 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. 23/4, pp. 559–581.
17. Dunn G. D. (2017) “Innocent I and the Authority of the Roman Church: The Letter to Decentius of Gubbio”. In M. Monfrinotti (ed.). La decretale di papa Innocenzo I al vescovo di Gubbio Decenzio. Atti del Convegno internazionale (Roma, 18 marzo 2016), Roma: Pontificio Ateneo Sant’Anselmo, pp. 43–68.
18. 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.
19. Dunn G. D. (2020) “Church and State in the Dispute over the Vicariate of Thessaloniki during the Pontificate of Boniface I”. Journal of Early Christian History, 2020, vol. 10/1, pp. 37–60.
20. Dydynskii F. (1997) Latinsko-russkii slovar’ k istochnikam rimskogo prava. Po izdaniiu 1896 goda [Latin-Russian Dictionary for the Sources of the Roman Law. According to the Edition of 1896]. Moscow: Spark (in Russian).
21. Fabricius C. (1926) “Die Litterae Formatae im Frühmittelalter”. Archiv für Urkundenforschung, 1926, vol. 9, pp. 39–86, 168–194.
22. Fichtenau H. (1957) Arenga. Spätantike und Mittelalter im Spiegel von Urkundenformeln. Graz; Köln: Verlag Hermann Böhlaus Nachf.
23. Fuhrmann H. (1953) “Studien zur Geschichte mittelalterlicher Patriarchate”. Zeitschrift der Savigny- Stiftung. Kanonische Abteilung, 1953, vol. 39, pp. 112–176.
24. Gratsianskiy M. V., Norkin K. V. (2020) “Na sluzhbe imperii: papa Zosim i Rimskii sobor 417 goda” [In the Service of the Empire: Pope Zosimus and the Roman Synod of 417]. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia 4, Istoriia. Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, 2020, vol. 25/6, pp. 6–23 (in Russian).
25. Gratsianskiy M. V. (2019) “Haeres Petri sive vicarius Petri: Obosnovanie iskliuchitel’nykh vlastnykh prerogativ rimskogo episkopa papoi L’vom Velikim” [Haeres Petri sive vicarius Petri. Arguments of Pope Leo the Great for the Exceptional Prerogatives of Power for the Bishop of Rome]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2019, vol. 89, pp. 27–48 (in Russian).
26. Gratsianskiy M. V. (2020) “Iurisdiktsiia konstantinopol’skogo patriarkha v Vostochnom Illirike po dannym “Fessalonikskogo sobraniia”” [Jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople in Eastern Illyricum according to Collectio Thessalonicensis]. Izvestiia Ural’skogo federal’nogo universiteta. Seriia 2: Gumanitarnye nauki, 2020, vol. 22/1, pp. 11–28 (in Russian).
27. Gratsianskiy M. V. (2020) “Papa Siritsii (384–399) i rimskaia ekkleziologiia v epokhu posle okonchaniia arianskikh sporov” [Pope Siricius (384–399) and Roman Ecclesiology during the Period after the End of Arian Controversy]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2020, vol. 88, p. 11–29 (in Russian).
28. Gratsianskiy M. V. (2020) “Rol’ i mesto Rimskoi Tserkvi v mezhtserkovnykh otnosheniiakh v pontifikat Innokentiia I (402–417)” [The Role and Place of the Roman Church in Inter-Church Relations in the Pontificate of Innocent I (402–417)]. Vizantiiskii vremennik, 2020, vol. 104, pp. 77–78 (in Russian).
29. Gratsianskiy M. V. (2020) “Tserkovno-administrativnoe soderzhanie termina “ekzarkh diotseza” 9-go i 17-go pravil Khalkidonskogo sobora i vopros o podsudnosti del protiv mitropolita” [Church-Administrative Connotation of the Term “Exarch of a Diocese” in the Ninth and Seventeenth Canons of the Council of Chalcedon and the Issue of Jurisdiction in Cases against a Metropolitan]. Antichnaia drevnost’ i srednie veka, 2020, vol. 48, pp. 53–73 (in Russian).
30. Griffe É. (1964) La Gaule chretienne à l’époque romaine. Vol. 1. Paris: Letouzey et Ané.
31. Griffe É. (1966) La Gaule chrétienne à l’époque romaine. Vol. 2. Paris: Letouzey et Ané.
32. Haensch R. (1997) Capita provinciarum. Statthaltersitze und Provinzialverwaltung in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
33. Hajjar J. (1962) Le synode permanent (Synodos endemousa) de l’Eglise byzantine des origines jusqu’ au XIe siècle. Roma.
34. Haller J. (1950) Das Papsttum. Idee und Wirklichkeit. Vol. 1. Urach; Stuttgart: Port Verlag.
35. Heinzelmann M. (1976) Bischofsherrschaft in Gallien. Zur Kontinuität römischer Führungsschichten vom 4. bis zum 7. Jahrhundert. Soziale, prosopographische und bildungsgeschichtliche Aspekte. München: Artemis Verlag Zürich und München.
36. Jones A. H. M. (1964) The Later Roman Empire 284–602. Vol. 1. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
37. Jones A. H. M. (1971) The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. London: Clarendon Press.
38. Kaser M., Hackl K. (1996) Das römische Zivilprozessrecht. München: Verlag C.H. Beck.
39. Langgärtner G. (1964) Die Gallienpolitik der Päpste im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert. Eine Studie über den apostolischen Vikariat von Arles. Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlag.
40. Levillain L. (1927) “Saint Trophime, confesseur et métropolitain d’Arles, et la mission des Sept en Gaule. Étude d’un texte de Grégoire de Tours et d’un passage de la Passion de saint Saturnin”. Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France, 1927, vol. 13/59, pp. 145–189.
41. Monachino V. (1965) “La lettera decretale di Innocenzo I a Decenzio vescovo di Gubbio”. In Ricerche sull’Umbria Tardo-antica e Preromanica. Atti del II convegno di studi umbri (Gubbio, 24–28 maggio 1964), Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofi a dell’Università degli Studi di Perugia. Perugia, pp. 211–234.
42. Moreau D. (2017) “La partitio imperii et la géographie des Balkans: entre géopolitique et géoecclésiologie”. In Costellazioni geo-ecclesiali da Costantino a Giustiniano: Dalle chiese ‘principali’ alle chiese patriarcali. XLIII Incontro di Studiosi dell’ Antichità Cristiana (Roma, 7–9 maggio 2015). Roma: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, pp. 255–285.
43. Moreau D. (2018) “Le processus de compilation des collections canoniques italiennes pendant l’Antiquité”. Cristianesimo nella storia, 2018, vol. 39, pp. 45–46.
44. Norkin K. V. (2019) “Stanovlenie tserkovnogo pervenstva Arlia v Gallii i rimskie papy (398–432 gg.)” [“The Formation of the Ecclesiastical Primacy of Arles in Gaul and the Popes of Rome in 398–432”]. Vizantiiskii vremennik, 2019, vol. 103, pp. 53–69 (in Russian).
45. Pietri Ch. (1976) Roma Christiana. Recherches sur l’Eglise de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixte III (311–440). Vol. 2. Rome: École française de Rome.
46. Pietri L., Heij mans M. (eds.) (2013) Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire. Vol. 4/1. Paris: Association des amis du Centre d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance.
47. Schima S. (2005) “Innozenz I. – Ein Zeitgenosse des Johannes Chrysostomus und sein Kirchenbild“. In Giovanni Crisostomo. Oriente e Occidente tra IV e V secolo. XXXIII incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana, Roma, 6–8 maggio 2004. Roma, pp. 665–686.
48. Stein E. (1959) Histoire du Bas-Empire. Vol. 1. Paris; Brussels; Amsterdam: Desclée de Brouwer.
49. Streichhan F. (1922) “Die Anfänge des Vikariates von Thessalonich”. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung, 1922, vol. 12/1, pp. 330–384.
50. Streichhan F. (1928) “Nochmals die Anfänge des Vikariats von Thessalonich”. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung, 1928, vol. 17/1, pp. 538–548.
51. Troitsky S. V. (1961). “O smysle 9-go i 17-go kanonov Khalkidonskogo Sobora” [On the Meaning of Canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon]. Zhurnal Moskovskoi patriarkhii, 1961, vol. 2, pp. 57–65.
52. Ullmann W. (1981) Gelasius I. (492–496). Das Papsttum an der Wende der Spätantike zum Mittelalter. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann.
53. Villegas Marin R. (2017) “La primacía de Arlés en las iglesias galas durante el episcopado de Patroclo (411/413–426)”. In Costellazioni geo-ecclesiali da Costantino a Giustiniano: dalle chiese ‘principali’ alle chiese patriarcali: XLIII Incontro di Studiosi dell’Antichità Cristiana (Roma, 7–9 maggio 2015). Roma: Institutum Pontifi cium Orientale, pp. 307–318.
54. Völker W. (1928) “Studien zur päpstlichen Vikariatspolitik im 5. Jh., 2: Der Streit um die Echtheit der Collectio Thessalonicensis”. Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 1928, vol. 46, pp. 355–380.
55. Wieling H. (2000) “Assessoren in der Spätantike”. In œ. Βελισσαροπούλου-Καράκωστα (ed.). Timai Iōannou Triantafyllopoulou [Honours to Ioannes Triantaphyllopoulos]. Athens, pp. 339–356.
56. Wojtowytsch M. (1981) Papsttum und Konzile von den Anfängen bis zu Leo I. (440–461). Studien zur Entstehung der Überordnung des Papstes über Konzile. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann.
57. Zakharov G. E. Vneshniaia kommunikatsiia i bogoslovskaia traditsiia Rimskoi Tserkvi v epokhu arianskikh sporov [External Communication and Theological Tradition of the Roman Church at the Epoch of the Arian Controversy]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo PSTGU, 2019 (in Russian).

Gratsianskiy Mikhail

*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 reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 21-011-44125\21.

This study is devoted to one of the episodes of the Russian-Manchu conflict of the 17th century, when the head of the garrison of the Albazin fortress, which had been blocked by the Manchus for a long time, sent a pie to the camp of his enemies. This case caused a wide response in publications devoted to the history of this confl ict in the 18th century, and continues to excite researchers today. The interpretation of these events, made by G.F. Miller, became canonical, but a careful study of the circumstances of the incident leads to the conclusion that it is historically inconsistent. A detailed analysis of the events of this period makes it possible to supplement this episode with details, which in turn make it possible to identify other motives that prompted the defenders of the fortress to commit this act. To understand the psychology of the Albazinians, it is important to take into account the following circumstances: despite signifi cant combat and non-combat losses caused by disease, the garrison retained its combat capability; by this time, a decision had already been made to conclude a truce between the confl icting parties for peace negotiations, in connection with which the Manchus had to lift the blockade of the fortress and retreat. But most importantly, most of the Albazin defenders were Christians, and the presentation of the cake took place on the day of the celebration of the Resurrection of Christ. Therefore, the most important aspect of a diff erent interpretation of these events is that this pie had a ritual significance, and when presenting the Easter pie to their opponent, the Albazinians could not help but invest in this act the symbolic meaning of their involvement in the divine power of the Resurrection as a symbol of the victory of life over death.

Albazin fortress, Amur region, Russian-Manchu confl ict of the 17th century, pie, Easter bread, Easter, Athanasius Beyton

1. Agapkina T. (2014) “Pragmatika i funktsii paskhal′nogo khleba (regional′nyi aspekt)” [Pragmatics and functions of Easter bread (regional aspect)]. Zhivaia starina, 2014, no 2, pp. 2–5 (in Russian).
2. Aleksandrov V. (1984) Rossiia na dal’nevostochnykh rubezhakh (vtoraia polovina XVII v.) [Russia at the Far Eastern borders (second half of the 17th century)]. Khabarovsk (in Russian).
3. Artem’ev A. (1999) Goroda i ostrogi Zabaikal′ia i Priamur′ia vo vtoroi polovine XVII–XVIII vv. [Cities and fortresses of Transbaikalia and Amur Region in the second half of the XVII– XVIII centuries]. Vladivostok (in Russian).
4. Demidova N., Miasnikov V., Tikhvinskiy S. (eds) (1972) Russko-kitaiskie otnosheniia v 17 veke: materialy i dokumenty [Russian-Chinese relations in the 17th century: materials and documents]. Moscow, vol. 2 (in Russian).
5. Fetisova L. (2013) “Istoriia Dal′nego Vostoka Rossii v regional′nom povestvovatel′nom fol′klore” [History of the Russian Far East in the regional narrative folklore]. Vestnik DVO RAN, 2013, no 4 (170), pp. 105–113 (in Russian).
6. Gura A. (2009) “Pirog” [Pie], in Slavianskie drevnosti: Etnolingvisticheskii slovar′ [Slavic antiquities: an ethnolinguistic dictionary]. Moscow, vol. 4, pp. 47–52 (in Russian).
7. Lutovinova I. (2005) Slovo o pishche russkoi [A word about Russian food]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
8. Novikov-Daurskii G. (1961) Istoriko-arkheologicheskie ocherki. Stat′i. Vospominaniia [Historical and archaeological sketches. Articles. Memories]. Blagoveshhensk (in Russian).
9. Pokhliobkin V. (2015) Kulinarnyi slovar’ [Culinary dictionary]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Smolitskaia G. (ed.) (1989) Slovar′ russkogo iazyka XI–XVII vv. [Dictionary of the Russian language of the 11th — 17th centuries]. Moscow, vol. 15 (in Russian).
11. Slovtsov P. (2006) Istoriia Sibiri. Ot Ermaka do Ekateriny II [History of Siberia. From Ermak to Catherine II]. Moscow (in Russian).
12. Vorob′iov P. (1936) “K istorii russko-kitaiskikh otnoshenii v XVII veke” [Towards the history of Russian-Chinese relations in the 17th century], in Trudy instituta vostokovedeniia AN SSSR [Proceedings of the Institute of Oriental Studies, USSR Academy of Sciences]. Moscow, vol. XVII, pp. 167–183 (in Russian).
13. Zabiiako A., Cherkasov A. (eds) (2019) Albazinskii Ostrog: Istoriia, arkheologiia, antropologiia narodov Priamur′ia [Albazin fortress. History, archaeology, anthropology of the Amur peoples]. Novosibirsk (in Russian).
14. Zheltov M., Ruban Iu. (2001) “Artos”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia]. Moscow, vol. 3, pp. 470–472 (in Russian).
15. Zuev A. (2000) “Zabytyi geroi: shtrikhi k biografi i Afanasiia Ivanovicha Beitona” [Forgotten hero: notes on the biography of Afanasy Ivanovich Beiton], in Nemetskii etnos v Sibiri: Al’manah gumanitarnykh issledovanii [German ethnos in Siberia: Almanac of studies in the humanities]. Novosibirsk, issue 2, pp. 173–183 (in Russian).

Pushkarev Vladimir

*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.

Trukhin Vladimir

Despite the wide popularity of the collection of the same name in the Central State Archive of Moscow, the archive of Moscow Theological Consistory is a unique and understudied phenomenon of the cultural heritage of the Russian Orthodox Church. The large documentary complex has for decades served as a breeding ground for research in a wide variety of fi elds of church-historical science. However, for almost two centuries, the formation of the archive itself, in contrast to genealogical research or the compilation of annals of individual churches, was almost out of focus of research attention. Meanwhile, the analysis of a wide range of documentary materials provides a much more accurate picture of the peculiarities of building an archive than the consideration of any private aspects of its functioning related to a particular group of documents. The establishment of the Consistory Archive in the fi rst half of the 18th century is seen as one of the least known events in its almost two-hundredyear existence. The reason for the emergence of many documents from its predecessor institutions and their future fate remains unknown. The 44th chapter of the General Regulations marked the beginning of the rapid growth of systematic archival work in the Russian Empire. The development of secular archives is much better aff ected in this respect than church archives. The documents in the MDK collection, despite their loss, provide an opportunity to study this process in detail in a church context. One of the most popular documentary complexes of its time is being developed in the consistory. The article, based on published and unpublished sources, attempts to reconstruct the early composition of documents, the infl uence of predecessor institutions on the grouping of material, the perception of the archive by the Consistorians, and the work of employees with the archive until the creation of the permanent position of archivist in 1749.

Moscow spiritual consistory, dikastery, archivist, General Regulations, clerk, parish, diocesan archive, secretary of consistory, systematisation of documents

1. Avtokratov V. (2001) Teoreticheskie problemy otechestvennogo arkhivovedeniia [Theoretical problems of Russian archival science]. Мoscow (in Russian).
2. Budylina M. (1951) “Tiunskaya izba” [Tiunskaia hut]. Architectural Heritage, 1, pp. 9–13 (in Russian).
3. Ivanov I. (2019) “Dokumenty` RGADA o deiatel′nosti inkvizitorskogo prikaza Iosifo-Volokolamskogo monastyrya (1721–1723 gg.)” [Documents from the RGADA of the Inquisitorial Order of St Joseph and Volokolamsky Monastery (1721–1723)]. Otechestvennye arkhivy, 4, pp. 44–53 (in Russian).
4. Kapterev N. (2018) Patriarkh Nikon i tsar′ Aleksei Mikhailovich [Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich]. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Liseitsev D., Rogozhin N., Eskin Iu. (2015) Prikazy Moskovskogo gosudarstva XVI–XVII vv.: Slovar′-spravochnik [Prikazes of the Moscow state of XVI–XVII centuries: Dictionary and reference book]. Мoscow; St. Petersburg (in Russian).
6. Marasinova E. (2003) “Biurokratiya i vlast′ v Rossiiskoi imperii (XVIII–XX v.): postanovka problemy” [Bureaucracy and power in the Russian Empire (XVIII–XX centuries): raising the issue], in Psikhologicheskie svoistva sovremennogo istoricheskogo znaniia. Materialy II mezhdunarodnogo rabochego seminara po istoricheskoi psikhologii [Psychological properties of contemporary historical knowledge. Materials of the 2nd International Workshop on Historical Psychology]. Krasnodar, pp. 120–134 (in Russian).
7. Matveeva E. (2015) “Dukhovnaia konsistoriia kak vysshaia tserkovno-sudebnaia instantsiia dlia prikhodskogo dukhovenstva v Rossiiskoi imperii” [Spiritual consistory as the highest churchjudicial office for the parish clergy in the Russian Empire]. Srednerusskii vestnik obshestvennykh nauk, 4, pp. 140–143 (in Russian).
8. Matveeva E. (2014) Tserkovnoe sudoproizvodstvo Orlovskoi gubernii vtoroi poloviny XIX — nachala XX veka [Church litigation of Orel province in the second half of the 19th — beginning of the 20th centuries]. Orel (in Russian).
9. Olevskaia V. (2009) “K voprosu o stanovlenii moskovskogo eparkhial′nogo upravleniia v nachal′nyi sinodal′nyi period” [To the question of formation of Moscow diocesan administration in the early Synodal period]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia “Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi”, 32, pp. 7–17 (in Russian).
10. Smolich K. (1997) “Istoriia Russkoi Tserkvi” [History of the Russian Church]. Istoriia Russkoi Tserkvi, VIII (2). Moscow (in Russian).
11. Solov′iov S. (1962). Istoriya Rossii [History of Russia]. Moscow (in Russian).
12. Shenkova O. (2010) Zemlevladeniia moskovskikh tserkovnykh prikhodov. “Popovka” kontsa XVII — nachala XX v. [Landownership of Moscow church parishes. “Popovka” of the late 17th — early 20th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).

Ivanov Ilya

The author of the article is grateful to the staff of the Department of History of the Archives of the Russian State University of Humanities - Doctor of Historical Sciences Tatyana Innokentyevna Khorkhorordina and Candidate of Historical Sciences Oleg Sanin for valuable methodological guidelines.

The article analyses activities of Georg Friedrich Parrot, professor at the University of Dorpat, related to the emergence and development of primary schools in Ostsee provinces of the Russian Empire. The local nobility, who maintained parish schools at their own expense, wanted to control them even after the approval of the school charter on November 5, 1804. In order to place primary education under the control of the University of Dorpat, as well as to increase the number of primary schools in the territories of Livonian, Estland, Courland and Finland provinces, Professor Parrot proposed for approval to Emperor Alexander I his project on the establishment of parish schools in the district, which diff ered from those already adopted ministerial decrees. Despite the approval of the project by the Emperor, with whom Parroth had close friendship, the Dorpat professor’s plan received signifi cant objections from the members of the Main schools’ directorate. The author comes to the conclusion that the difficult financial situation caused by the military confl ict with France did not allow the Tsar to approve a special system of primary schools in the Baltic States, which required signifi cant fi nancial help from the treasury. The still unpublished correspondence between the Emperor and the Dorpat professor is introduced into scientifi c circulation, which makes it possible to signifi cantly supplement the current notion of the reforms of public education in the fi rst decade of the 19th century.

Professor G.F. Parrot, Emperor Alexander I, primary education, Ostsee provinces, Dorpat school district, parish schools

1. Andreev A. (2006) “Imperator Aleksandr I i professor G. F. Parrot: k istorii vozniknoveniia “universitetskoi avtonomii” v Rossii” [Emperor Alexander I and Professor G. F. Parrot: on the origin of “university autonomy” in Russia]. Otechestvennaia istoriia, 6, pp. 19–30 (in Russian).
2. Andreev A. (2019) “Perepiska imperatora Aleksandra I i professora G. F. Parrota (1802–1825) kak istochnik po izucheniiu politicheskikh reform v Rossiiskoi imperii” [Correspondence of Emperor Alexander I and Professor G. F. Parrot (1802–1825) as a source for the study of political reforms in Russian Empire]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 89, pp. 67–82 (in Russian).
3. Gavrilina I. (2017) “Rektor G. F. Parrot i popechitel′ F. M. Klinger: dva vzgliada na razvitie Derptskogo universiteta v pervye gody ego sushchestvovaniia (1802–1803)” [Rector G. F. Parrot and curator F. M. Klinger: two views on the development of Dorpat University in the early years of its existence (1802–1803)]. Klio, 10, pp. 47–56 (in Russian).
4. Gracheva Yu. (2017) “K voprosu ob ustroistve prikhodskikh uchilishch v Derptskom okruge” [To the question about the structure of parochial schools in the district of Dorpat]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 74, pp. 85–92 (in Russian).
5. Zharova E. (2013) “Imperator Aleksandr I po vospominaniiam professora Derptskogo universiteta G. F. Parrota” [Emperor Alexander I according to the memoirs of G. F. Parrot, professor at the University of Dorpat]. Vestnik arkhivista, 4, pp. 267–279 (in Russian).
6. Kuzber Ia. (2018) Vospitanie elit i narodnoe obrazovanie v Rossiiskoi imperii XVIII — pervoi poloviny XIX veka. Diskurs, zakonodatel’stvo, real’nost’ [The upbringing of the elites and public education in the Russian Empire in the 18th — fi rst half of the 19th century. Discourse, legislation, reality]. Moscow (in Russian).

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.

A native German, Georg Friedrich Parrot (1767–1852) moved to the Russian Empire in 1795, became a professor at Dorpat University in 1801 and corresponded with Emperor Alexander I for a quarter of a century, during which period both correspondents discussed the political transformations of the Russian state in the spirit of the ideas of liberalism. Drafts of Parrot’s letters and copies of the letters of Alexander I in French were preserved in the archive and were newly transcribed in full by the author of this article. The purpose of the article is to review the content of this correspondence in the context of the development of the relationship between both actors. An important role for achieving this goal is played by approaches from the fi eld of the history of emotions, thanks to which it is necessary to record not only events and ideas, but the personal experiences of people interpreted as a part of the emotional culture of a given historical period. An analysis of the correspondence not only allows one to determine Parrot’s place in the circle of friends of Emperor Alexander I and assess the degree of his infl uence on reforms, but to take a fresh look at the personality of the Emperor himself, which in turn helps to fi nd new interpretations for the character and results of the reign of Alexander I.

Emperor Alexander I, professor G. F. Parrot, letter exchange, liberalism, political reforms, history of emotions

1. Andreev A. (2019) “Perepiska imperatora Aleksandra I i professora G. F. Parrota (1802–1825) kak istochnik po izucheniiu politicheskih reform v Rossiiskoi imperii” [Correspondence of Emperor Alexander I and Professor G. F. Parrot (1802–1825) as a source for the study of political reforms in Russian Empire]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 89, pp. 67–82 (in Russian).
2. Аndreev A., Tosato-Rigo D. (2014) Imperator Aleksandr I i Frederik-Sezar Lagarp. Pis’ma. Dokumenty [The Emperor Alexander I and Frédéric-César La Harpe. Letters. Documents]. Vol. 1 (1782–1802). Moscow (in Russian).
3. Gavrilina, I. (2017) “Rektor G. F. Parrot i popechitel F. M. Klinger: dva vzgliada na razvitie Derptskogo universiteta v pervye gody ego suschestvovaniia (1802–1803)” [The Rector G. F. Parrot and the curator F.M. Klinger: two views on the development of the University of Dorpat]. Klio, 130 (10), pp. 47–56 (in Russian).
4. Plamper J. (2015) The History of Emotions: An Introduction. Oxford University Press.
5. Plamper Ia. (2018) Istoriia emotsii [The history of emotions]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Safonov M. (1988) Problema reform v pravitel’stvennoi politike Rossii na rubezhe XVIII i XIX vv. [Problem of reforms in the govermental politics of Russia at the border of the 18th and 19th centuries]. Leningrad (in Russian).
7. Sapozhnikova N. (2008) “Epistoliarno-panoramnaia proiektsia “Russkogo XIX veka” v pis′makh “cheloveka vtorogo plana”. Akademik-romantik G.F. Parrot” [The epistolary-panoramic projection of the “Russian 19th century” in the letters of the “person of second rank”. The romantic Academician G. F. Parrot”], in Chelovek vtorogo plana v istorii: sbornik nauchnykh statei [A person of the second rank in history: a collection of scientific articles], 5. Rostov-na-Donu, pp. 104–113. (in Russian).
8. Stearns P. N., Stearns C. Z. (1985) “Emotionology: Clarifying the History of Emotions and Emotional Standards”. American Historical Review, 90 (4), pp. 813–836.
9. Zorin A. (2016) Poiavlenie geroia: iz istorii russkoi emotsional′noi kul′tury kontsa XVIII — nachala XIX veka [The emergence of a hero: from the history of Russian emotional culture of the late 18th — early 19th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).

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.

The article is devoted to one of the least studied episodes in the history of the Russian theological school, i.e. the activities of the Committee for the revision of the “abstracts of seminar teaching” (1840–1847). The work of this committee was initiated by the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N. A. Protasov (1836–1855) as part of a project to transform church-educational system. At the same time, many leaders of the theological and educational environment took part in the development and implementation of the transformations: prominent theologians and hierarchs of their time, who had their own theological view of the training of a pastor. The relevance of considering the work of the committee is due to the fact that its work stands at the intersection of internal theological-academic processes and the infl uence of an external context. In part, there is a strengthening of what was decided in the framework of the reform of 1808–1814; in part, what was laid down for the future is being revealed. In the theological context, this is refl ected in the allocation of new areas of theological knowledge from its general structure, their active development; in the spiritual and educational context, there is a search for new educational models within the private initiative of rectors of theological schools. At the same time, the question was raised of clarifying the goal of education in theological seminaries, a call was made to bring the spiritual and educational process closer to the goal — the preparation of the pastor of the Church — which, within the framework of the spiritual and educational reform of 1808–1814, was only implicitly laid down in the fi nal documents, along with another task — to educate children of the clergy. But the work of such committees raises the question of correlating the theological and pastoral ideas of the era with the immediate results of their work. To what extent was the theological thought of the era taken into account in the framework of the sessions, was it suffi ciently developed to conceptualise the curriculum, or was it just organisational problems that caused the failures? Thus, based on the results, a conclusion is made about the reasons for the failures of Protasov’s reforms through the prism of the work of the main committee of this era. Proceeding from the tasks, the structure of the article is built according to the chronological principle, and the period under consideration covers the operation of the charter of theological schools: the 1820–1860s. According to the results of the study, it is possible to establish that the Committee was assigned a key role in promoting the initiatives of various fi gures of the spiritual and educational environment and the development of a meaningful theological concept of transformations, for which the institution of the chief prosecutor was only an external stimulus. However, the fi nal result of the Committee’s work was infl uenced by a number of organisational problems of the synodal theological and educational system, and the lack of unity among the members of the Synod regarding views on the preparation of a pastor. The presented conclusions show an inextricable connection between the spiritual educational process and the theological understanding of pastorship, and the problem of preparing a pastor is gradually being realized as a key one for the theological school.

history of Russian Church, Russian ecclesiastical schools, pastoral training, count N. A. Protasov

1. Druzhinin A. (2019) “Kontseptualizatsiia idei pastyrskoi podgotovki v rossiiskikh dukhovnykh shkolakh (1814–1869 gg.)” [Conceptualisation of the idea of pastoral training in Russian theological schools (1814–1869)], in Khristianskie tsennosti v kul’ture sovremennoi molodezhi. Sbornik dokladov VII mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii studentov, magistrantov i aspirantov (26 oktjabria 2018 g.) [Christian values in the culture of modern youth. Collection of reports of the VII international conference of students, undergraduates and postgraduates (October 26, 2018)], 2019, Minsk, pp. 173–184 (in Russian).
2. Druzhinin A. (2020) “Pastorologicheskie aspekty dukhovnogo obrazovaniia v kontekste reformy 1808–1814 gg.” [Pastorological aspects of spiritual education in the context of the reform of 1808–1814], in Aktual’nye voprosy tserkovnoi nauki: nauchnyi zhurnal [Topical issues in church science: a scientific journal], 2020, no 1, pp. 41–44 (in Russian).
3. Fedoruk V. (2010) “Reforma dukhovno-uchebnykh zavedenii pri ober-prokurore N. A. Prota sove” [Reform of spiritual and educational institutions under the Oberprosecutor N. A. Protasov]. Srednerusskii vestnik obshhestvennykh nauk, 2010, no. 2, pp. 176–181 (in Russian).
4. Smolich I. (1996) Istoriia Russkoi Tserkvi: 1700–1917 [The history of the Russian Church: 1700– 1917]. Vol. 8, Moscow, 1996 (in Russian).
5. Sukhova N. (2001) “Istoriia tsentral′nykh organov upravleniia dukhovno-uchebnymi zavedeniiami v Rossii 1807–1918 gg.” [The history of the central authorities of spiritual and educational institutions in Russia, 1807–1918]. Vestnik arkhivista, 2001, no. 6 (66), pp. 264–302 (in Russian).
6. Zaitseva L. (2014) “Obshchii ustav imperatorskikh rossiiskikh universitetov 1835 g.: genezis «universitetskogo» zakonodatel’stva” [The general charter of the imperial Russian universities of 1835: the genesis of “university” legislation]. Lex Russica, 2014, no. 7, pp. 862–875 (in Russian).

Druzhinin Andrei

Sukhova Nataliya

*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 reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 19-39-90062

The article is devoted to the activities of the recently canonised Serbian saint Mardary Uskokovich during his studies at St. Petersburg (Petrograd) Theological Academy. The emphasis is on the intermediate and fi nal study results in the context of his participation in various Slavic societies in the early years of the First World War. The article is based on an analysis of the Mardary’s student case preserved in the Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg, still unused as a historical source, as well as some other cases from the same archive (some of them are publishing in the appendix to the article) and the text of his candidate (PhD) thesis from the National Russian Library collection, also not studied earlier. As a result, the article presents a reconstruction of the events that led to the accusation of Hieromonk Mardary of espionage in favour of Austria-Hungary and his removal from Petrograd, and later to his departure from Russia. It also analyses Mardary’s attitude to study and social activities, reveals his inclination to the studied sciences. Mardary’s studies at St. Petersburg Theological Academy and his activities in St. Petersburg were not studied in detail. It is concluded that, despite the extremely low results, the study at the theological academy in Petrograd had a great influence on the future saint, primarily through his acquaintance with the works of Russian religious philosophers, in particular A. Khomyakov. Mardary himself highly appreciated this acquaintance with the Russian thought, rather than formal results of education. Thanks to his studies at the academy, he gained an opportunity to take part in the activities of social movements and attract the attention of the political elite.

St. Mardary (Uskokovich), St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Slavic charitable societies, history of Russian Orthodox Church, history of Serbian Orthodox Church, World War I, espionage

1. Dragutinoviћ D. (2017) “Zhivotopis Vladike Mardariјa” [Biography of Bishop Mardari]. Nova Grachanitsa, 1992 (in Serbian).
2. Firsov S. (2004) Russkaia tserkov’ nakanune peremen (konets 1890-kh — 1918 gg.) [The Russian Church on the eve of change (late 1890s — 1918)]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Gerd L. (2012) “Russkie proekty budushchego Palestiny posle okonchaniya Pervoy mirovoy voyny” [Russian projects for the future of Palestine after the end of the First World War], in Religii mira. Istoriya i sovremennost’. Moscow, pp. 551–578 (in Russian).
4. Ignatiy (Shestakov), hegumen (2016) “Mardariy (Uskokovich)”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 43, Moscow, pp. 441–442 (in Russian).
5. “Mitrofan (Ban)” (2017), in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 45, Moscow, pp. 479–480 (in Russian).
6. Pecherin A., Sukharev Iu. (2018) “Pomestnyi sobor Rossiiskoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi i Pervyi chrezvychainyi vserossiiskii s»ezd dukhovenstva i mirian v vospominaniiakh ekaterinburgskogo protoiereia Aleksiia Ignat’eva” [The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church and the First Extraordinary All-Russian Congress of Clergy and Laity in the Memoirs of Yekaterinburg Archpriest Alexy Ignatiev”]. Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoy dukhovnoy seminarii, 2018, vol. 2 (22), pp. 148–180 (in Russian).
7. Popovkin A. (2012) “Deyatel’nost’ slavyanskikh obshchestv Rossii v kontekste sotsial’nogo razvitiya slavyanskikh narodov (1858–1917 gg.)” [The activities of the Slavic societies of Russia in the context of the social development of the Slavic peoples (1858–1917)]. Vestnik Tambovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: gumanitarnye nauki, 2012, vol. 6 (110), pp. 234–247 (in Russian).
8. Puzoviħ V. (2018) “Ivan Savich Paљmov kao istrazhivach srpsketsrkvene istoriјe” [Ivan Savic Paljmov as a researcher of Serbian church history], in Z. Boјoviћ (ed.) Prilozi za knjizevnost, jezik, istoriju i folklore, vol. 84, Belgrade, pp. 63–73 (in Serbian).
9. Puzoviħ V. (2017) Ruski putevi srpskog bogoslovlya. Shkolovaњe Srba na ruskim dukhovnim akademij ama 1849–1917 [Russian ways of Serbian theology. Education of Serbs at Russian theological academies 1849–1917]. Belgrade (in Serbian).
10. Puzoviħ V. (2019) “Russkie dorevoliutsionnye dukhovnye shkoly v vospominaniiakh ikh serbskikh vypusknikov” [Russian pre-revolutionary theological schools in the memoirs of their Serbian graduates]. Khristianskoe chtenie, 2019, vol. 5, pp. 199–213 (in Russian).
11. Puzoviћ P. (1996) “Eparkhiјe Srpske pravoslavne tsrkve u raseјanju” [Dioceses of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the Diaspora], Bogoslovљe, 1996, №40 (1–2), pp. 87–96 (in Serbian).
12. Sava, bishop of Sumadij a (1998) History of the Serbian Orthodox Church in America and Canada: 1891–1941. Kragujevac.
13. Shchegolev P. (ed.) (1925) Padenie tsarskogo rezhima: Stenograficheskie otchety doprosov i pokazaniy, dannykh v 1917 g. v Chrezvychaynoy Sledstvennoy Komissii Vremennogo Pravitel’stva [The fall of the tsarist regime: Verbatim records of interrogations and testimonies given in 1917 at the Extraordinary Investigative Commission of the Provisional Government], vol. 4: Zapiski A. D. Protopopova i S. P. Beletskogo. Leningrad (in Russian).
14. Sliјepcheviћ Ђ. (2002) Istoriјa Srpske Pravoslavne Tsrkve, vol. III, Za vreme drugog svetskog rata i posle njega [History of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Vol. III. During and after World War II]. Belgrade (in Serbian).
15. Smelov E. (2009) Vospominaniia o godakh obucheniia v Sankt-Peterburgskoi dukhovnoi seminarii (1912–1918 gg.) [Memoirs of the study years at St. Petersburg Theological Seminary (1912–1918)]. Moscow; St. Petersburg (in Russian).
16. Sukhova N. (2013) “Stoiashche biakhu nogi nashia vo dvorekh tvoikh, Ierusalime”: palomnichestva professorov i studentov Kievskoy dukhovnoy akademii v Sviatuiu Zemliu (1870–1914 gg.)” [“Our feet shall stand within thy gates, O Jerusalem”: pilgrimages of professors and students of Kiev Theological Academy to the Holy Land (1870–1914)”]. Trudy Kievskoy dukhovnoy akademii, 2013, vol. 18, pp. 234–249 (in Russian).
17. Sukhova N. (2014) “Palomnichestvo na Pravoslavnyy Vostok studentov dukhovnykh akademii letom 1914 g.” [Pilgrimage to the Orthodox East by the students of theological academies in the summer of 1914]. Pravoslavnyi Palestinskii sbornik, 109, pp. 189–218 (in Russian).
18. Surzhikova N. (2012) “Rossiiskii plen 1914–1917 gg. kak prostranstvo politiko-ideologicheskikh manipulyatsiy: teorii tsentra i praktiki periferii” [Russian captivity of 1914–1917 as a space of political and ideological manipulations: theories of the centre and the practice of the periphery]. Cahiers du Monde russe, 2012, vol. 53/1, pp. 247–266 (in Russian).
19. “Sveti Mardariјe Љeshansko–Libertivilski i Sveamerikanski. Zhitiјe, sluzhba i akatist” [Saint Mardarije of Ljeshan and Libertyville and All-American. Life, service and Akathist] (2016). Cetiwe (in Serbian).

Kostromin Konstantin, archpriest

*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 article is devoted to the phenomenon of the capital’s monastic houses at the beginning of the 20th century using the example of the construction of a house of Pühtitsa Assumption Convent of Riga Diocese (now a stauropegic monastery in Estonia). The case was faced with numerous, typical in such cases, diffi culties: the choice of location, which has changed several times; lack of funds for construction, which was usually covered by private donations; the cautious attitude of the metropolitan hierarchy towards the arrangement of offi ces diff erent from those of St. Petersburg. The originally considered plot in Peterhof was donated to the monastery by the well-off peasant family of the Gvozdevs, whose representative was the famous Athonite schema-monk Parthenius. The decisive role in the arrangement of the house on another site in St. Petersburg together with Tikhvin church (made of stone, 1903– 1906) was played by the Baltic Orthodox Brotherhood of Christ the Saviour and of the Protection of Theotokos under the chairmanship of M. Galkin-Vraskoy and the merchant benefactor K. Ivanova, as well as St. John of Kronstadt and Archbishop Agafangel (Preobrazhensky).The author of the project of the church in Moscow- Yaroslavl version of the Russian style, civil engineer V. Bobrov, himself rebuilt it in 1929 as a department store. The rebuilt building still exists today. Despite the short period of its existence, Pühtitsa house was a centre of spiritual life of the Harbour, the area actively built up at the beginning of the 20th century, and the construction dominant element of the capital’s suburbs. Pühtitsa novice Anna Markina established another women’s house, of Tvozhkovsky Trinity Monastery in the 1910s that was built on her own land in St. Petersburg (now completely lost).

monastery houses, house of Pühtitsa Assumption Monastery in St. Petersburg, Baltic Orthodox Brotherhood of Christ the Saviour and of Protection of Theotokos, Archbishop Agafangel (Preobrazhensky), St. John of Kronstadt, Abbess Varvara (Blokhin), schema monk Parthenius (Gvozdev), M. Galkin-Vraskoy, merchant wife K. Ivanova, architect V. Bobrov, N. Shafranov

1. Antonov V., Kobak A. (2010) Sviatyni Sankt-Peterburga [Shrines of St. Petersburg]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
2. Bertash A. (2010) Putevoditel’ po sviatym mestam Sankt-Peterburga [A guide to the holy places of St. Petersburg]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
3. Bertash A. (2021) “Uspenskii sobor Piukhtitskogo monastyria v Estonii kak pamiatnik retrospektivnogo russkogo stilia, ego stroiteli i zhertvovateli” [The Assumption Cathedral of Pühtitsa monastery in Estonia as a monument of the Russian retrospective style, its builders and benefactors]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia V: Voprosy istorii i teorii khristianskogo iskusstva, vol. 41, pp. 132–152 (in Russian).
4. Bertash A. (2021) “Inter’er Uspenskogo sobora Piukhtitskogo monastyria i ego mastera S. A. i P. S. Abrosimovy i F.E. Egorov” [Interior of the Assumption Cathedral of the Pühtitsa Monastery and its master S. and P. Abrosimov and F. Egorov]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia V: Voprosy istorii i teorii khristianskogo iskusstva, vol. 42, pp. 60–78 (in Russian).
5. Bertash A. (2021) Pyuhtitskii v chest’ Uspeniia Presviatoi Bogoroditsy zhenskii stavropigial’nyi monastyr’ [Pukhtitsky stavropegic convent in honor of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos]. Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia. Moscow, vol. 59, pp. 107–124 (in Russian).
6. Bertash A. (2019) “Pouhtickoe podvor’e v Revele-Talline i ego stroitel’ N. N. Nikonov” [Puhtitsa courtyard in Revel-Tallinn and its builder N. Nikonov]. Vos’mye Pjuhtickie chtenija. Materialy mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii [Eighth Puhtitsa Readings. Materials of the international scientific and practical conference]. Kuremae, pp. 154–163 (in Russian).
7. Bertash A., Iakovlev N. (1997) “Sviato-Troitskii Tvorozhkovskii zhenskii monastyr’” [Tvorozhkovsky Trinity Convent]. Nasledie monastyrskoi kul’tury. Materialy nauchnoi konferentsii [The heritage of the monastic culture. Materials of the scientific conference], vol. 1, St. Petersburg, pp. 19–28 (in Russian).
8. Cherepenina N., Shkarovskii M. (1999) Pravoslavnye khramy Sankt-Peterburga. 1917–1945 gg. [Orthodox churches in Saint-Petersburg. 1917–1945]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
9. Gavrilin A. (2006) “Arkhiereiskoe upravlenie na rubezhe XIX–XX stoletii: Ego Preosviashchenstvo episkop Rizhskii i Mitavskii Agafangel (Preobrazhenskii)” [Bishops’ administration at the turn of the 19th — 20th centuries: Bishop of Riga and Mitava Agafangel (Preobrazhensky)]. Rossiia i Baltiia: Chelovek v istorii [Russia and the Baltics: A Man in History], vol. 4, Moscow, pp. 117–134 (in Russian).
10. Gavrilin A. (2005) “Rizhskii period sluzheniia sviashchennoispovednika mitropolita Agafangela” [Riga period of service of the St. Metropolitan Agafangel]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi. Moscow, pp. 47–61 (in Russian).
11. Kotul Т. (2017) “Aleksei Grigor’evich Chadaev, starosta Kazanskogo sobora (1839–1913)” [Alexei Grigorievich Chadaiev, head of Kazan Cathedral (1839–1913)]. Kazanskii sobor [Kazan Cathedral], vol. 5 (137), pp. 11–12 (in Russian).
12. Men’kovа I. (2006) Radi mira tserkovnogo: Zhiznennyi put’ i arkhipastyrskoe sluzhenie sviatitelia Agafangela, mitropolita Iaroslavskogo i Rostovskogo, ispovednika [For the Church’s Peace: The Life Path and Archpastoral Service of St. Agafangel, Metropolitan of Yaroslavl and Rostov, Confessor]. Moscow (in Russian).
13. Musaev V. (2018) Pravoslavie v Pribaltike v 1890-1930-e gg. [Orthodoxy in the Baltic States in the 1890s–1930s]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
14. Russkii Afonski Otechnik XIX–XX vekov (2012) [Russian Athos Otechnik of the XIX–XX centuries]. Vol. 1. Sviataia Gora Afon (in Russian).
15. Shilov D., Kuz’min Iu. (2007) Chleny Gosudarstvennogo soveta Rossiiskoi imperii. 1801—1906 [Members of the State Council of the Russian Empire. 1801–1906]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
16. Troitsky P. (2015) Istoriia russkikh obitelei Afona v XIX — XX vekakh [History of the Russian monasteries of Athos in the 19th — 20th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
17. Varvara (Trofimova), abbess (ed.), Timkina V. (eds) (2016) Piukhtitskaia obitel’i ee pokrovitel’ sviatoi pravednyi Ioann Kronshtadtskii: monastyrskaia letopis’, vospominaniia sester, sviatyni obiteli [Puhtitsa monastery and its patron St. John of Kronstadt: monastery chronicle, memories of sisters, shrines of the monastery]. [Kuremiae] (in Russian).
18. Zubov S. (2017) Mikhail Nikolaevich Galkin-Vraskoi. Saratov (in Russian).

Bertash Alexander, archpriest

*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.