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

This article deals with the introductory speech of St. Marcus Eugenicus at the first meeting of Ferrara-Florentine Council (10.08.1438) in the context of the Byzantine tradition of understanding the causes of the Great Schism. The article shows that the saint in his speech continues the tendency of polemical theology of the 14th century, which linked the division of the Churches with the development in Latin Christianity of the concept of the Pope’s exclusive teaching power. Byzantine thinkers connected their hopes for the restoration of unity with the institution of Ecumenical Councils — with an appeal to the traditional collegial way of making decisions on issues in church life. At the same time, the very nature of schism received a diff erent interpretation depending on the dogmatic views of a specifi c polemicist: the authors of the Palamite circle interpreted it as a deviation by the Latin side from the historical tradition, while, for example, Barlaam of Calabria saw in it only an external division caused by the lack of Christian love. The article shows that St. Marcus considered the unity of the Church in Christ as a gift from God, which, however, can be preserved only by observing the principle of collegiality in church administration, the best expression of which is the institution of Ecumenical Councils. The collegial administration of the Church is according to St. Marcus a fulfi llment of the commandment of love, without the preservation of which it is impossible to keep the divine gift of the piece. In this regard, the papacy appears not just as a deviation from historical tradition, but as an institutionalised sin, and conciliar discussion is a kind of general church ascetic feat that allows one to overcome the consequences of this sin and restore the unity of the Church.

Marcus Eugenicus, Graeco-Latin polemics, Council of Ferrara-Florence, Great Schism, papal primacy, Ecumenical Councils, ecclesiology

1. Bucossi A., Calia A. (eds) (2020) Contra Latinos et Adversus Graecos: The Separation between Rome and Constantinople from the Ninth to the Fifteenth Century. Leuven.
2. Dendrinos Charalambos (2007) “Refl ections on the failure of the Union of Florence”. Annuarium historiae conciliorum, 2007, vol. 39, pp. 131–148.
3. Hofmann G. (1937) “Die Konzilsarbeit in Ferrara, II”. Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 1937, vol. 3, pp. 403–455.
4. Kappes Chr. (2016) “Mark of Ephesus, the Council of Florence, and the Roman Papacy” in J. Cryssavgis (ed.) Primacy in the Church: The Office of Primacy and the Authority of Councils. New York, vol. 1, pp. 109–150.
5. Kanaeva E. (2018) “Varlaam Kalabriiskii i ego bogoslovie v zashitu unii” [Barlaam of Calabria and His Theology in Defense of Uniatism]. Khristianskoe chtenie, 2018, no. 1, pp. 85–95 (in Russian).
6. Khomiakov A. (2018) Tserkov′ odna [The Church is One]. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Khondzinskii P. (2017) “Tserkov ne est′ akademiia”: russkoe vneakademicheskoe bogoslovie XIX veka [“The Church is not an Academy”: Russian lay theology of the 19th century]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Meiendorf I. (2018) “Apostol Petr v vizantiiskom bogoslovii” [Apostle Peter in the Byzantine theology], in I. Meiendorf. Tserkov′ v istorii [Church in history]. Moscow, pp. 66–90 (in Russian).
9. Meiendorf I. (2018) “Proizoshla li vo Florentsii vstrecha mezhdu Vostokom i Zapadom?” [Was there an encounter between East and West in Florence?], in I. Meiendorf. Tserkov′ v istorii [Church in history]. Moscow, pp. 151–176 (in Russian).
10. Nichols A. (1987) “The Reception of St. Augustine and his Work in the Byzantine-Slav Tradition”. Angelicum, 1987, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 437–452.

Pashkov Petr

Published in the town of Vievis by Vilna Orthodox fraternity, “Dioptra ili Zertsalo” (Diopter or Mirror, and Image of Human Life in this World, 1612) is an interesting example of moral-ascetic literature of the early 17th century. Reprinted several times before the end of the century, this book was also popular among Old Believers. “Dioptra” of Vievis had long been identifi ed with “Dioptra” (The Mirror) of Phillip the Recluse; it was also considered to be a translation of an unknown Greek text. This article examines the statement made by Cassian Sakowicz in “Desiderosus” (Cracow, 1625) that “Dioptra ili Zertsalo” is a translation of the Latin version of “Libro de la vanidad del mundo” (Toledo, 1562) written by the Spanish Franciscan Diego de Estella. The article also studies the functional role of numerous rhyming fragments in “Dioptra ili Zertsalo”; the question is raised as to which fragments and quotations from ancient literature and theological works were included in “Dioptra ili Zertsalo” through its Latin source; another question is about sources of erudition of the Vievis “Dioptra” author, Abbot Vitaliy. Besides, the article analyses the so-called “library resource” of the first preface to “Dioptra ili Zertsalo”, compiled by its publishers. A hypothesis is suggested about the familiarity of Vilna Orthodox fraternity’s members with comments on the “Four Books of Sentences” by Peter the Lombard, written in 1586 by the professor of the Cracow Academy, the Italian Franciscan Hannibala Rosselli. The “case” in question is part of a larger problem, i.e. that of the sources of erudition of the Orthodox writers and authors of the early 17th century in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Orthodox literature, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, early 17th century, Abbot Vitaliy, Diego de Estella, Vilna Orthodox fraternity, sources of erudition

1. Campanelli М. (2019) “Marsilio Ficino’s Portrait of Hermes Trismegistus and its Afterlife”. Intellectual History Review, 2019, vol. 29 (1), pp. 53–71.
2. DiSalvo Аngelo (1993) “Estella, Diego de”, in G. Bleiberg, M. Ihrie, J. Pérez (eds) Dictionary of the Literature of the Iberian Peninsula. London, pp. 571–572. Juvenal (1994) Satires. V. S. Durov (ed.). S.-Petersburg: Aleteja (Russian translation).
3. Kruming A. (2009) “Podrazhanie ‘Podrazhaniiu’. Rimeiki knigi Fomy Kempiiskogo v slavianorusskoi pis′mennosti. Bibliografi cheskii obzor” [Imitation of “Imitation”. Remakes of Thomas à Kempis “The Imitation of Christ” in the Slavic-Russian literature. Bibliographic outline], in Thomas à Kempis, О podrazhanii Khristu [The Imitation of Christ]. V. A. Zacharov, I. A. Nastenko (eds.). Moscow, pp. 267–284 (in Russian).
4. Mid J. R. S. (2014) Thrice Greatest Hermes. Moscow (Russian translation).
5. Minenko Iu. (2018) “Epigramy igumenia Vitaliia — zrazok barokovoi′ identychnosti” [Epigrams of Abbot Vitaly — sample of Baroque identity]. Studia Methodologica, 2018, vol. 46, pp. 60–70 (in Ukrainian).
6. Murawiec W. (1989) “Hannibal Rosselli — professor Akademii Krakowskiej i autor Pymandra”. Folia Historica Cracoviensia, 1989, vol. 1, pp. 33–53.
7. Myc′ko I. (1990) Ostroz′ka slov′iano-greko-latyn′ska akademiia: 1576–1636 [Ostrog Slavonic- Greek-Latin Academy: 1576–1636]. Кiev (in Ukrainian).
8. Turilov A. (2004) “Vitalii”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox encyclopaedia], 8, pp. 557–558 (in Russian).
9. Wichowa M. (2013) “‘Dignitas humana’ i ‘humanitas christiana’ w poradniku medytacji Diega de Estella O wzgardzie świata i próżności jego w przekładzie Augustyna Kochańskiego (1611)”, in M. Kurań, K. Kaczor-Scheitler, D. Szymczak (eds) Piśmiennictwo zakonne w dobie staropolskiej. Łódź, pp. 157–169.
10. Wichowa M. (2009) “Traktat Diega de Estella O wzgardzie świata i próżności iego w przekładzie Augustyna Kochańskiego — dyskurs religij ny de contemptu mundi. Problemy komunikacji literackiej jako procesu wywierania presji na odbiorców dzieła”. Napis. Seria XV, 2009, pp. 17–31.

Korzo Margarita

*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.

Hieromonk Arseny, laic name Alexei Ivanov Lobovikov (1830–1907), was the author of scientifi c publications on the history of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra and Sergievski Posad. His works are widely used by present-day historians, but almost nothing is known about his life. Using archival sources has helped to reconstruct the biography of this learned monk. A. Lobovikov comes from the rural clergy of Vyatka diocese, received a systematic spiritual education and at the age of 23 decided to devote himself to the “vows of monastic life” in Trinity-Sergius monastery. From that moment on, his obedience was determined, this was work with manuscripts at the library of the Lavra. For several years, he successively passed through several stages of the monastic hierarchy: he was enrolled as a novice (1854), tonsured a monk (1856), ordained a hierodeacon (1858), and then a hieromonk (1860). In 1897, he was awarded a silver medal on the Alexander Ribbon to be worn on his chest in memory of the late Emperor Alexander III. The initial direction of the study of the history of the famous monastery was by the 1880s transformed into a study of Sergievski posad settlement that emerged from the villages and settlements surrounding the monastery. Until that moment, its history was in the shadow of the grandiose history of the Lavra and did not attract the attention of researchers. The articles of Hieromonk Arseny about the four parishes of the city were written with the involvement of a large number of sources, starting with legislative acts and princely charters, and ending with monastic clerical documentation and documents of the church population registration. They passed serious scientifi c testing in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities at the Moscow Imperial University and were published in its periodical, Readings. Hieromonk Arseny, born in the time of Emperor Nicholas I, lived during the reign of four monarchs and died in the time of Emperor Nicholas II. Before his death, he confessed and received communion, and after his death was buried in the monastery cemetery in the Lavra. His works are still in demand today.

historiography, sources, historical science, local lore, learned monasticism, Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Sergievski posad, Hieromonk Arseny

1. Baldin V. (1968) “Arkhitektura” [Architecture], in Troitse-Sergiieva lavra. Khudozhestvennye pamiatniki [Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Monuments of art], Moscow, pp. 15–71 (in Russian).
2. Belobrova O. (1968) “Zhivopis′ XVI–XVII vekov” [Painting of the 16th — 17th centuries], in Troitse-Sergiieva lavra. Khudozhestvennye pamiatniki [Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Monuments of art], Moscow, pp. 94–107 (in Russian).
3. Chetyrina N. (2006) Sergievskii posad v kontse XVIII — nachale XIX vv. (Posad kak tip gorodskogo poseleniia) [Sergievski Posad in the late 18th — early 19th centuries (Posad as a type of urban settlement)]. Moscow; St. Petersburg (in Russian).
4. Kurbatova Zh. (2015) “Biblioteka Troitse-Sergievoi lavry v XIX stoletii” [Library of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra in the 19th century]. Moskovskie Eparkhialnye Vedomosti, 2015, vol. 12, pp. 182–184 (in Russian).
5. Nikolaeva S. (2009) Troitse-Sergiev monastyr′ v XVI — nachale XVIII v. Vklady, vkladchiki, sostav monasheskoi bratii [Trinity-Sergius Monastery in the 16th — early 18th century. Contributions, contributors, members of the monastic brethren]. Sergiev Posad (in Russian).
6. Nikolaeva T. (1968) “Prikladnoe iskusstvo” [Applied arts], in Troitse-Sergiieva lavra. Khudozhestvennye pamiatniki [Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Monuments of art], Moscow, pp. 140–166 (in Russian).
7. Nikolaeva T. (1968) “Sobranie drevnikh rukopisey” [Collection of ancient manuscripts], in Troitse-Sergiieva lavra. Khudozhestvennye pamiatniki [Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Monuments of art], Moscow, pp. 167–175 (in Russian).

Chetyrina Natalia

*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 studies the relationship between right-wing monarchist parties and unions of the Russian Empire in the early 20th century (Black Hundreds) and Russian Old Believers. Using materials of right-wing party manifestos and speeches of Black-Hundred leaders, the article demonstrates that by and large they construed Old Believers as a valuable resource for extension of the social base of monarchist movement. In an attempt to bring Old Believers to their side, the right-wingers initially gained some ground but could not achieve the wide-sweeping of Old Ritual followers into the ranks of right-wing parties and unions. Drawing on publications in Old Ritual printed media, it is shown that right-wingers overestimated the conservatism of Russian Old Believers, most of whom did not sympathise with the “Ancient Regime” and hoped for its renovation, preferring opposition political forces to right-wing parties. Protection of the dominant position of the Orthodox Church by right-wingers and disinclination to accept the equal rights of Old Believer spiritual leaders by the Orthodox clergy resulted in a situation when Black-Hundred unions began to be left by some Old Believers who previously supported the right-wing monarchist movement. Activists of the Orthodox clergy who were members of right-wing unions and kept on looking on Old Ritual followers as a fringe group and a politically unreliable element also contributed to the reluctance of Old Believers to join Black Hundreds. It appears that from the sacred for Black Hundreds triad “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality”, Old Believers were ready to support only the third item, which was obviously insuffi cient for the emergence of an alliance of right-wingers and Old Believers. As a result, for the majority of politically active Old Believers the promises of the opposition to give equal rights to all religious denominations turned to be more seductive than ideological attitudes of right-wingers.

Black Hundreds, right-wing parties, royalists, Old Believers, Old Ritualists, Union of Russian People, Russian monarchist party, Russian Assembly, Orthodox Church

1. Bondarenko K. (2010) Pravye partii i ikh organizatsii v Belarusi (1905—1917) [Right-wing parties and their organisations in Belarus (1905–1917)]. Mogilev (in Russian).
2. Chemakin A. (2019) “Soiuz russkikh natsional′nykh obshchin v 1918–1920 gg.: istoriia sozdaniia, ideologiia i deiatel′nost′” [The union of Russian National Communities in 1918–1920: history of creation, ideology and activity]. Rusin, 2019, no. 55, pp. 133–148 (in Russian).
3. Eremeev P. (2016) ““I vse zhe, dva milliona ili dvadtsat′?” Chislennost′ staroobriadtsev Rossiiskoi imperii v XIX — nachale KhKh vv.” [“And after all, two or twenty million?” The number of Old Believers in the Russian Empire in the 19th — early 20th centuries]. Istoriia, 7/7 (in Russian).
4. Ivakin G. (2011) Istoriografiia chernosotennogo dvizheniia: etapy stanovleniia [Historiography of the Black Hundred movement: Stages of formation], in Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov′ v Rossii i za rubezhom [State, religion, church in Russia and abroad], 3–4, pp. 397–408 (in Russian).
5. Karpukhin D. (2009) “Chernaia sotnia”: Vekhi osmysleniia v Rossii (The Black Hundred: milestones of reflection in Russia). Moscow (in Russian).
6. Kir′ianov Iu. (2001) Pravye partii v Rossii. 1911—1917 [Right-wing parties in Russia. 1911–1917]. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Kir′ianov Iu. (1998) “Predislovie” [Introduction], in Pravye partii. 1905—1917. Dokumenty i materialy [Right-wing parties. 1905–1917. Documents and materials], vol. 1, Moscow, pp. 5—65. (in Russian).
8. Kliukina Iu. (2003) Staroobriadtsy i politicheskie partii (1905–1917) [Old Believers and political parties (1905–1917)], in Problemy istorii Rossii [Problems of Russian history], vol. 5: Na perekrestkakh epokh i traditsii [At the crossroads of eras and traditions]. Yekaterinburg, pp. 327—349 (in Russian).
9. Lavrinovich D. (2003) “Uchastie staroobriadtsev v monarkhicheskom dvizhenii v Belarusi (1905—1907)” [Participation of Old Believers in the monarchist movement in Belarus (1905–1907)], in Staroobriadchestvo kak istoriko-kul′turnyi fenomen: materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii 27—28 fevralia 2003 g. [Old Belief as a historical and cultural phenomenon: materials of the International Scientifi c and Practical Conference, February 27–28, 2003]. Gomel’, pp. 148–150 (in Russian).
10. Mikhailova E. (2008) “Pravoslavnyi vserossiiskii bratskii Soiuz russkogo naroda” [Orthodox All-Russian Fraternal Union of the Russian People], in A. Stepanov, A. Ivanov (eds) Chernaia sotnia. Istoricheskaia entsiklopediia. 1900–1917 [Black Hundred. Historical encyclopaedia, 1900–1917]. Moscow, pp. 412–413 (in Russian).
11. Moshnenko A. (2014) “Pravoslavnoe dukhovenstvo i Soiuz russkogo naroda: problemy vzaimootnoshenii” [Orthodox clergy and the Union of the Russian People: Problems of relationship]. Scientific Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations, 19/4, pp. 14–22 (in Russian).
12. Omelyanchuk I. (2006) Chernosotennoe dvizheniye v Rossiiskoy imperii (1901–1914) [The Black Hundred movement in the Russian Empire (1901–1914)]. Kiev (in Russian).
13. Razmolodin M. (2020) Ideologiia chernosotennykh organizatsii v Rossii v nachale XX veka [The ideology of Black Hundred organisations in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century] (in Russian).
14. Seleznev F. (2005) “D.V. Sirotkin i vserossiiskie s»ezdy staroobriadtsev v nachale XX veka” [D. V. Sirotkin and the All-Russian Congresses of Old Believers at the beginning of the 20th century]. Otechestvennaia istoriia, 5, pp. 78–90. (in Russian).
15. Seleznev F. (2008) “Sud′ba zakonoproekta o staroobriadcheskikh obshchinakh (1905–1914)” [Fate of the bill on Old-Believer communities (1905–1914)]. Vestnik nizhegorodskogo universiteta, 1, pp. 130–140 (in Russian).
16. Stepanov S. (2013) Chernaia sotnia. Chto oni sdelali dlia velichiia Rossii? [Black Hundred. What have they done for the greatness of Russia?]. Moscow (in Russian).

Ivanov Andrey

*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 20-09-00105.

This article presents the results of the study of the concept of “religiosity” in the writings of Lev Platonovich Karsavin (1882–1952). As a result of a comparative analysis of the texts of writings of various types (dissertation, medieval studies, historiosophy, philosophy studies), the peculiarities of understanding the concept of “religiosity”, as well as its evolution, were revealed. Religiosity is the main object of study in various writings of Karsavin. In his early works, L.P. Karsavin still does not differentiate the concepts associated with the study of religiosity. In his doctoral dissertation “Foundations of medieval religiosity in the XII–XIII centuries, mainly in Italy”, L. P. Karsavin not only propose a detailed defi nition of the concept of “religiosity”. He proposed a system of conceptual apparatus, give defi nitions to such concepts as “mysticism”, “faith”, “metaphysical”, “religious fund”, “the average man”. According to L. P. Karsavin religiosity is state of mind, “mental structure”. Karsavin seeks to group specifi c manifestations of religious life around several main systems, namely polytheistic, dualistic, monotheistic, pantheistic, which characterise the main types of religious life. In historiosophical works, the ideas of L. P. Karsavins become more abstract. The concept of “religiosity” is considered as a fundamental criterion for the study and classifi cation of culture. In later works on philosophy, the idea of the fundamental signifi cance of religiosity in human life is developed.

L. P. Karsavin, history of concepts, the concept of “religiosity”, culture, conceptual apparatus, “religious fund”, methods of historical research

1. Barabanov N. (2005) “Problema narodnoi religioznosti v sovremennoi istoriografi i: uroki medievistiki” [The problem of public religiosity in modern historiography: lessons of medieval studies]. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia 4: Istoriia. Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, vol. 10, pp. 154–161 (in Russian).
2. Bedeker H. (ed.) (2010) Begriff sgeschichte, Diskursgeschichte, Metapherngeschichte. Moscow (Russian translation).
3. Buzeskul V. (1931) “Vseobshchaia istoriia i ee predstaviteli v Rossii v XIX — nachale XX vekov” [World history and its representatives in Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries]. Leningrad (in Russian).
4. Grebeshev I. (2009) “Metafizika lichnosti v istoriosofii L. P. Karsavina” [The metaphysics of personality in L.P. Karsavin’s historiosophy]. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta. Seriya: Istoriya i politicheskie nauki, no. 3, pp. 60–67 (in Russian).
5. Iastrebitskaia A. (2003) “U istokov istoricheskoi antropologii v Rossii: L.P. Karsavin (stat′ia)” [At the origins of historical anthropology in Russia: L.P. Karsavin (article)]. Istoricheskoe znanie na rubezhe stoletii: Sbornik obzorov i referatov. Moscow, 2003. pp.113–160 (in Russian).
6. Istoricheskie poniatiia i politicheskie idei v Rossii XVI–XX veka (2006) [Historical concepts and political ideas in Russia: sixteenth to twentieth centuries]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
7. Malgina N. (2012) “Ideal′noe srednevekov′e” L.P. Karsavina: medievistika i fi losofi ya istorii [The “Ideal Middle Ages” of L.P. Karsavin: medieval history and philosophy of history]. Vestnik Rossijskogo universiteta druzhby narodov, no. 4, pp. 161–169 (in Russian).
8. Timofeev D. (2011) “V poiskakh novykh podkhodov k izucheniiu obshchestvenno-politicheskikh nastroenii v Rossii pervoi chetverti XIX veka: opyt sistemnogo analiza istorii poniatii” [Looking for new approaches to the study of social and political agenda in Russia of the first quarter of the 19th]. Мoscow, pp. 391–402 (in Russian).
9. Slovar′ osnovnykh istoricheskikh poniatii: Izbrannye stat′i [Dictionary of main historical conceptions. Selected Articles]. Moscow, 2004 (in Russian).
10. Shchedrina T. (2012) “Vladimir Ivanovskii i Gustav Shpet: metodologicheskii proekt “istorii ponyatii” [Vladimir Ivanovskii and Gustav Shpet: methodological project “history of concepts”]. Voprosy filosofii, vol. 11, pp. 10–18 (in Russian).
11. Veber D. (2017) “Issledovanie religioznoi kul′tury v trudakh L.P. Karsavina” [The study of religious culture in Leo Karsavin’s works]. Religious Studies, no. 1, pp. 109–116 (in Russian).
12. Zhivov V., Kagarlitskii Iu. (eds) (2012) Evoliutsiia poniatii v svete istorii russkoi kultury [The evolution of concepts in the context of Russian cultural history]. Moscow (in Russian).

Shekhorina Anna

The next year 2022 marks the 100th anniversary of the Renovationist schism in the Russian Church. The question of whether post-revolutionary Renovationism was a continuation of the reform movement in the Russian Church at the beginning of the 20th century is still debated among historians, and this fact forces us to turn to poorly studied primary sources. One of sources is the journal Soborny Razum. Created in 1917 by the future leaders of the Renovationist schism, the All-Russian Union of Orthodox Democratic Clergy and Laity did not have its own press, and in 1918 the journal Soborny Razum began to be published on the basis of the Association of Spiritual Writers. It published articles by both the reformers of the beginning of the century and the post-revolutionary Renovationists, who in 1922 became the central fi gures of the Renovationist schism. In this journal, the principles of church renewal that belonged to the left-wing reformers of the early 20th century and remained relevant for the postrevolutionary renovationism were laid down. The article presents the results of a study of the issues of the journal for 1918 and off ers an answer to the questions: “whether reformism and post-revolutionary renovationism were one movement”, and “whether it is possible to agree that post-revolutionary renovationism is an exclusively political phenomenon”.

Russian Orthodox Church, Renovationism, year 1918, E. Belkov, I. Egorov, journal Soborniy Razum, Cooperative Association of Spiritual Writers

1. Balakshina Yu. V. (2010) Ioann Fedorovich Egorov: Pravoslaviye i zhizn v nem [John Fedorovich Egorov: Orthodoxy and life in it]. Svet Khristov prosveshchayet vsekh: almanakh Svyato- Filaretovskogo pravoslavno-khristianskogo instituta, 2. Moscow, pp. 156—181 (in Russian).
2. Balakshina Iu. (2019) “Ot revoliutsii tserkovnoi k revoliutsii sotsial′noi: deiateli dvizheniia revnitelei tserkovnogo obnovleniia v 1917 g.” [From church revolution to social revolution: zealots of church renovationism in 1917]. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov′ v Rossii i za rubezhom, 2019, no. 1–2 (37), pp. 207–225 (in Russian).
3. Golovushkin (2009) Fenomen obnovlenchestva v russkom pravoslavii pervoy poloviny 20th veka [The phenomenon of Renovationism in Russian Orthodoxy of the fi rst half of the 20th century]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
4. Fedorov V. Vserossij skij soyuz demokraticheskogo duhovenstva i miryan. [All-Russian Union of Democratic Clergy and Laity] // Pravoslavnaya enciklopediya. T. 9. M.: Pravoslavnaya enciklopediya. 2005 (in Russian).
5. Kovyrzin K. (2020) “Pagubnaia izmena Tserkvi”: vopros o “tserkovnom bol′shevizme” v deiatel′nosti Pomestnogo sobora Rossiiskoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi 1917–1918 gg.” [Pernicious treason of the church»: the question of “Ecclesiastical Bolshevism in the activities of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 1917–1918]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnoro universiteta. Seria II: Istoriia, 2020, no. 97, pp. 120–136 (in Russian).
6. Krivosheeva N. A. (2009) “Vseceloe prisposoblenie k duxu vremeni” [“The whole adaptation to the spirit of the time”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnoro universiteta. Seria II, 31, pp. 21–39 (in Russian).
7. Kuznetsov A. (2002) “Obnovlencheskii raskol v Russkoi Tserkvi” [The Renovationist Schism in the Russian church], in Obnovlencheskii raskol [The Renovationist schism], Moscow, 2002, pp. 104–537 (in Russian).
8. Levitin A., Shavrov V. (1996) “Ocherki po istorii russkoi tserkovnoi smuty” [Essays on the history of the Russian church tumult]. Materialy po istorii Tserkvi [Materials on church history], 9. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Lavrinov V. (2016) “Obnovlencheskii raskol v portretakh ego deiatelei” [The Renovationist Schism in the portraits of its leaders]. Materialy po istorii Tserkvi [Materials on church history], 54. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Mazyrin A. (2018) “Sviatoi patriarkh Tikhon i obnovlencheskii raskol: sovmestimost′ nesovmestimogo” [Holy Patriarch Tikhon and the Renovationist Schism: compatibility of the incompatible]. Khristianskoe chtenie, 2018, no. 3, pp. 275–283 (in Russian).
11. Martsinkovskii V. Zapiski veruyushchego: Iz istorii religioznogo dvizheniia v Sovetskoi Rossii 1917– 1923 g. [Notes of a believer. From the history of the religious movement in Soviet Russia, 1917–1923]. Novosibirsk; Moscow (in Russian).
12. Soloviev I. V. (2002) A brief history of the so-called “Renovationist schism in the Orthodox Russian Church in the light of newly published historical documents. “Obnovlencheskii raskol” [Renovationist schism]. Materialy po istorii tserkvi [Materials on church history], 27. Moscow, pp. 2–55 (in Russian).
13. Solov′ev I. (ed.) “Obnovlencheskii raskol” [Renovationist schism]. Materialy po istorii tserkvi [Materials on church history], 27. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Shkarovskii M. (1999) Obnovlencheskoe dvizhenie v Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi XX veka [The Renovationist movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
15. Stepanov I (1922) “O zhivoi tserkvi” [On the living church]. Moscow (in Russian).
16. Vorontsova I. (2014) “Diskussiia o khristianizatsii povsednevnoi zhizni v srede peterburgskogo dukhovenstva 1907–1908 gg.” [Discussion on the Christianisation of everyday life of St. Petersburg clergy in 1907–1908]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnoro universiteta. Seria II, 2014, no. 3, pp. 9–23 (in Russian).
17. Voronczova I. V. (2020) «Zakoldovanny`j krug russkogo soznaniya…»: Problemy` social`no-religioznogo poiska v pravoslavnoj Rossii vtoroj poloviny` 19th — nachala 20th veka [“The Enchanted Circle of Russian Consciousness...”: Problems of socio-religious search in Orthodox Russia in the second half of the 19th - early 20th century]. Moscow, St. Petersburg (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 article examines the attempt of the anti-Bolshevik dictatorship of General M. K. Dieterichs, undertaken in August–October 1922, to rely on the Orthodox parish in the matter of state building in the White Primorye (“parish reform”). The intellectual origins of “parish building”, according to the author, are associated with Slavophilism and the activities of Archbishop Andrey (Ukhtomsky) in the East of Russia. It was Archbishop Andrew in 1918–1919 (and earlier) who put forward the thesis about the priority of the parish in the life of the Church and strove for “parish democracy” in practice. In his decrees, Dieterichs outlined the general principles of the reform, but developing the legislation on parishes was delegated to Priamurskaya Zemskaya Duma. The anti-Bolshevik community proposed various options to build the parish system, the main problem was the ratio of “the church” and “the civil” in the parish. The issue was raised during the National Congress in Nikolsk-Ussuriisky on September 15–20, 1922, where the project how to organise parishes was discussed in several speeches. The idea of organising social and political life on the basis of the parish was actively articulated in the press of White Primorye. Right-wing pro-government newspapers propagated the idea that creation of parishes would raise the consciousness of citizens of Priamursky Zemsky Krai and their initiative and would disaccustom them to rely on the state apparatus too much. The lack of normative legal acts clarifying the procedure of creating a parish together with poor informing were the reasons why by October 1922 only a very small number of parishioners were registered in the parishes. One of the aspects of the local self-government was self-defense, and the Dieterichs’ regime tried to encouraged the population to create it (the army forces were involved in the battlefront and could not maintain order in the rear). The stake on the parish led to an intensification of the campaign against Zemstvo, which was anti-Bolshevik. Thus, Dieterichs’ initiative became an extraordinary attempt to build a “white state” (and at the same time a project of the Russian political nation) on the basis of local selfgovernment and adherence to religion. The hopeless position of White Primorye by the autumn of 1922 prevented the implementation of these plans.

church parish, White movement, Priamursky Zemsky Krai, parish democracy, M. K. Dieterichs, Archbishop Andrey (Ukhtomsky), conservatism, local government

1. Chernomaz V. (2018) “Stanovlenie militsii Primor′ia (1917–1922 gg.)” [Development of the police in Primorie (1917–1922)]. Gumanitarnye issledovanij a v Vostochnoj Sibiri i na Dal’nem Vostoke, no. 2 (44), рр. 122 — 134 (in Russian).
2. Gerasimov I. (ed.) (2017) Novaia imperskaia istoriia Severnoi Evrazii. Chast′ 2: Balansirovanie imperskoi situatsii: XVIII–XX vv [New imperial history of Northern Eurasia. Part 2: Balancing of the situation in the empire: 18th — 20th centuries]. Kazan (in Russian).
3. Friz G. (2019) “Gubitel′noe blagochestie”: Rossiiskaia tserkov′ i padenie imperii: sbornik statei [“Ruinous piety”: Russian Church and the fall of the empire: collection of articles]. St. Petersburg (Russian translation).
4. Kulikova S. (2019) Konservatory i zemstvo: plany i rezul′taty deiatel′nosti 1864–1914 gg. [Conservatives and Zemstvo: plans and results of sctivities in 1864–1914]. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Liakhov D. (2015) Nebol′shevistskie modeli politicheskogo ustroistva Dal′nego Vostoka Rossii (konets 1919–1922 gg.) [Non-Bolshevik models of political system in the Russian Far East (late 1919 — 1922)]. Khabarovsk (in Russian).
6. Osipova I., Sikorskaia L. (eds) (2012) “Ia khochu prinadlezhat′ tol′ko Sv. Tserkvi…” Sviashhennomuchenik Andrei, arkhiepiskop Ufi mskii. Trudy, obrashcheniia, propovedi, pis′ma, dokumenty [“I want to belong only to the Holy Church...” Hieromartyr Andrei, Archbishop of Ufa. Works, appeals, sermons, letters, documents]. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Potapova N. (2014) Evangel′skoe khristianstvo i baptizm v Rossii v 1917–1922 gg. (na materialakh Dal′nego Vostoka) [Evangelical Christianity and Baptism in Russia in 1917–1922 (materials from the Far East)], vol. 1. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk (in Russian).
8. Sablin I. (2020) The Rise and Fall of Russia’s Far Eastern Republic 1905–1922. Nationalisms, imperialisms, and regionalisms in and after the Russian Empire. Moscow (Russian translation).
9. Saevskaia M. (2021) Konservativnye kontseptsii zemskogo samoupravleniia (1864–1905 gg.) [Conservative conceptions of Zemstvo self-government (1864–1905)]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Sakharov K. (2018) Belaia Sibir′. Vnutrenniaia voina 1918–1920 gg. [The White Siberia. The internal war in 1918–1920]. Moscow (in Russian).
11. Stark Iu. (2015) Poslednii oplot. Otchet o deiatel′nosti Sibirskoi fl otilii 1920–1924 [The last stronghold. Report on the activities of the Siberian Flotilla, 1920–1924]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
12. Tsvetkov V. (2019) Beloe delo v Rossii: 1917–1919 gg. [White Cause in Russia: 1917–1919]. Moscow (in Russian).
13. Tsvetkov V. et al. (eds) (2004) General Dieterichs. Moscow (in Russian).

Popov Fedor

The article is devoted to the interwar story of the Russian diaspora in Finland and focuses primarily on the fate of the Orthodox Church. The Finnish Orthodox Church grew out of the Diocese of Vyborg and Finland of the Russian Orthodox Church, from which, after the declaration of the independence of Finland, it received autonomy in 1921. In 1923, the young church came, with canonical violations, under the omophorion of the Constantinople Patriarch. A jurisdictional crisis and a calendar split in the Orthodox congregation accompanied this move. The Russian diaspora was opposed to acts of the local church authorities, but the situation of Russian refugees was such as it did not allow them to infl uence the decisions of the authorities. It had its own diffi culties, which, in general, were similar to those experienced by the entire Russian emigration. There were also specifi c features which are described in the article. During the years 1917–1939, about 44,000 refugees from Soviet Russia moved to Finland, many of them later went on to Europe and America. Russian Orthodox Christians who remained in 1926–1927 were able to register two old-style autonomous Orthodox communities in Vyborg and Helsinki, which came under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky) at fi rst, and in 1945 were passed to Moscow Patriarchate and became the basis of the modern Patriarchal Deanery of the Russian Church. The Orthodox Church in Finland, in addition to economic, social and political problems, faced such phenomena as nationalism and interethnic hostility; nevertheless, it was able to preserve a canonical structure and served as a buff er, conciliating hatred and enmity in people who experienced hardships of the time. As a result, in the postwar period it was able to restore the lost churches, to gain authority in society and to achieve normalisation of relations with the Russian Orthodox Mother Church.

Russian Orthodox Church, Finnish Orthodox Church, Russian Church diaspora, emigration, immigration, Russian diaspora, calendar schism, Finnish Archdio cese of Patriarchate of Constantinople, Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Patriarchal parishes in Finland

1. Baryshnikov V. (1997) Ot prokhladnogo mira k zimnei voine. Vostochnaia politika Finliandii v 1930-e gg. [From the lukewarm peace to the Winter War. Finland’s eastern policy in the 1930s]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
2. Baschmakoff N., Leinonen М. (2001) Russian Life in Finland 1917–1939: A Local and Oral History. Studia Slavica Finlandensia. Helsinki: Institute for Russian and East European Studies Publ., vol. XVIII.
3. Bashmakoff N. (2000) “Strana namekov i nadezhd…”: Meniaiushchiesia nastroeniia russkikh v Finliandii v 1930-e gody [“The land of hints and hopes...”: changing moods of Russians in Finland in the 1930s], in V. Cherniaev (ed.) Zarubezhnaia Rossiya 1917–1939 gg. [Foreign Russia in 1917–1939]. St. Petersburg, pp. 68–77 (in Russian).
4. Bekzhanova N. (ed.) (2003) “A prishlos’ v razluke zhit’ goda...”: rossiskoe zarubezh′e v Finliandii mezhdu dvumia voinami: Materialy k biobibliografi i, 1978–2002 [“One had to live in separation for years...”: Russian diaspora in Finland between the two wars: materials for the bibliography, 1978–2002]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
5. Bocharova Z. (2004) “Pravovoe polozhenie russkikh bezhentsev v Finliandii: Nansenovskii pasport, repatriatsiia” [Legal status of Russian refugees in Finland: Nansen passport, repatriation], in Rossiiskoe zarubezh′e v Finliandii mezhdu dvumia mirovymi voinami [Russian diaspora in Finland between the two World Wars]. St. Petersburg, pp. 32–39 (in Russian).
6. Demidova O. (2004) “Iz Rossii v Finliandiiu: granitsa kak ekzistentsial′naya katastrofa” [From Russia to Finland: the border as an existential catastrophe], in Rossiiskoe zarubezh′e v Finliandii mezhdu dvumia mirovymi voinami [Russian diaspora in Finland between the two World Wars]. St. Petersburg, pp. 3–6 (in Russian).
7. Doronchenkov I. (1996) “Petrograd — Kuokkala. Cherez granitsu. 1920-e gg.” [Petrograd-Kuokkala. Across the border. 1920s]. Minuvshee: istoricheskii al`manakh, 1996, no. 19, pp. 204–219 (in Russian).
8. Dubrovskaia E. (2017) “Mnogomernaia radikalizatsiia: rossiiskie voennye v Finliandii. “Soldatskaia revoliutsiia” i sotsial′nye dvizheniia fi nliandtsev v 1917” [Multifaceted radicalisation: the Russian military in Finland, the “soldiers’ revolution” and Finnish social movements in 1917]. Al′manakh severoevropeiskikh i baltiiskikh issledovanii, 2017, no. 2. pp. 329–253 (in Russian).
9. Dubrovskaia E. (2008) Rossiiskie voennosluzhashchie i naselenie Finliandii v gody Pervoi mirovoi voiny (1914–1918) [Russian military personnel and the population of Finland during the First World War (1914–1918)]. Petrozavodsk (in Russian).
10. Eneeva N. (2008) “Polozhenie Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi v novoobrazovannykh gosudarstvakh, otdelivshikhsia ot Rossii v 1918–1922 gg.” [Position of the Russian Orthodox Church in the newly-formed states that separated from Russia in 1918–1922], in N. Eneeva (ed.) Problemy istorii Russkogo zarubezh′ia: materialy i issledovaniia [Problems of the history of Russian diaspora: materials and studies], vol. 2. Moscow, pp. 47–107 (in Russian).
11. Fedorov M., Shevchenko T. (eds) (2018) “Kireev I. A. Ocherk Finliandskoi revoliutsii 1918 g. i vzaimootnoshenii mezhdu Finliandiei i Rossiei” [Kireev I.A. Essay on the Finnish revolution of 1918 and relations between Finland and Russia], in D. Moskovskaia (ed.) Istoriografiia grazhdanskoi voiny v Rossii: issledovaniia i publikatsii arkhivnykh materialov [Historiography of the Civil War in Russia: studies and publication of archive materials], Moscow, pp. 469–534 (in Russian).
12. Golovin V. (2004) “Ocherk istorii russkikh dereven′ v Finliandii” [An outline of the history of Russian villages in Finland], in Rossiiskoe zarubezh′e v Finliandii mezhdu dvumia mirovymi voinami [Russian diaspora in Finland between the two World Wars], St. Petersburg, pp. 105–114 (in Russian).
13. Iarovoi O., Smirnova I. (1997) Valaamskii monastyr′ i pravoslavnaia tserkov′ v Finliandii, 1880–1930-e gg.: Iz istorii finnizatsii pravoslavnoi konfessii [Valaam Monastery and the Orthodox Church in Finland, 1880–1930: from the history of Finnisation of the Orthodox denomination]. Petrozavodsk (in Russian).
14. Karemaa O. (2004) “Moraalisesta närkästyksestä kansalliseksi ohjelmaksi” [From moral indignation to national programme], in T. Vihavainen (ed.) Venäjän kahdet kasvot: Venäjäkuva suomalaisen identiteetin rakennuskivena [Two faces of Russia: the image of Russia as a building element of Finnish identity], Helsinki, 2004, pp. 226–254 (in Finnish).
15. Karemaa O. (2006) “Rusofobiia v Finliandii i 1917–1923 gg.” [Russophobia in Finland and the years 1917–1923], in Rossiia i Finliandiia: problemy vzaimovospriiatiya. XVII–XX vv.: materialy rossiisko-finliandskikh simpoziumov istorikov [Russia and Finland: problems of mutual perception. 17th — 20th centuries: materials of the Russian-Finnish symposia of historians]. Moscow, pp. 212–220 (in Russian).
16. Karemaa O. (1998) Vihollisia, vainoojia, syöpäläisiä. Venäläisviha Suomessa 1917–1923 [Enemies, pursuers, parasites. Hatred of Russians in Finland in 1917–1923]. Helsinki (in Finnish).
17. Khiamialiainen E. (2003) “Iz zhizni russkikh v Finlyandii” [From the life of Russians in Finland]. Finlindskie Tetradi, 1. Helsinki (in Russian).
18. Khiamialiainen E. (2004) “Khronika kul′turnoi i obshchestvennoi zhizni russkoi diaspory v Finliandii. 1930-e gg.” [Chronicle of the cultural and social life of the Russian diaspora in Finland. The 1930s]. Finliandskie Tetradi, 3. Helsinki (in Russian).
19. Klinge M. (1997) Kaukana ja kotona [In foreign lands and at home]. Helsinki (in Finnish).
20. Leinonen M. (1994) “Helsinki: Die russische Emigration in Finnland”, in Der große Exodus. Die russische Emigration und ihre Zentren 1917 bis 1941, Munich, pp. 154–189.
21. Loima J. (2001) Muukalaisina Suomessa. Kaakkoisen Kannaksen kreikkalaiskatoliset venäläisseurakunnat kansallisena ongelmana 1889–1939 [Aliens in Finland. Russian Orthodox cong regations of South-Eastern Karelian Isthmus as a national problem, 1889–1939]. Helsinki (in Finnish).
22. Magidovich M. (2004) “Russkie khudozhniki v Finliandii — opyt sotsiologicheskogo analiza” [Russian artists in Finland: an attempt at a sociological analysis], in Rossiiskoe zarubezh′e v Finliandii mezhdu dvumia mirovymi voinami [Russian diaspora in Finland between the two World Wars], St. Petersburg, pp. 13–23 (in Russian).
23. Mironova E. (2005) “Stanovlenie russkogo antibol′shevistskogo predstavitel′stva v Finliandii: 1918–1921” [Formation of the Russian anti-Bolshevik representation in Finland: 1918–1921]. Severnaia Evropa: Problemy istorii, 6, pp. 147–174 (in Russian).
24. Mironova E. (2007) “Russkaia koloniia v Finliandii: istoriia formirovaniia, usloviia vyzhivaniia” [Russian colony in Finland: history of its formation, conditions of survival], in Ezhegodnaia bogoslovskaia konferentsiia PSTGU [Annual theological conference of St. Tikhon Orthodox University for Humanities], Moscow, 2007, vol. 2, pp. 66–71 (in Russian).
25. Musaev V. (2014) Mezhdu Zapadom i Vostokom: Pravoslavie v avtonomnoi i nezavisimoi Finliandii (1890–1930-e gg.) [Between the West and the East: Orthodoxy in the autonomous and independent Finland (1890–1930)]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
26. Musaev V. (2007) “Pravoslavnaia Tserkov′ v nezavisimoi Finlyandii (1918–1930-e gg.)” [The Orthodox church in independent Finland (1918–1930s)”]. Vestnik tserkovnoi istorii, 2007, no. 2 (6), pp. 194–212 (in Russian).
27. Musaev V. (2007) Rossiia i Finliandiia: migratsionnye kontakty i polozheniia diaspor (konets XIX v. — 1930-e gg.) [Russia and Finland: migraton contacts and the situation of diasporas (late 19th century — the 1930s)]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
28. Musaev V. (2005) “Russkie dachi na Karel′skom Peresheike v kontse XIX — nachale XX vv.” [Russian country houses on the Karelian Isthmus at the end of the 19th — beginning of the 20th centuries]. Istoriia Peterburga, 2005, no. 4 (26), pp. 43–47 (in Russian).
29. Nevalajnen P., Leppya M. (eds) (1999) Vyskoi kuin luoja kerjalista. Venajan pakolaiset Suomessa 1917–1939 [Outcasts. Russian refugees in Finland in 1917–1939]. St. Petersburg (Russian translation).
30. Onufrii (Makhanov), hierodeacon (2004) “Ostrov Valaam kak tsentr pravoslavnoi zhizni russkoi emigratsii v Finliandii” [Valaam Island as a centre of Orthodox life of Russian emigration in Finland], in Rossiiskoe zarubezh′e v Finliandii mezhdu dvumia mirovymi voinami [Russian diaspora in Finland between the two World Wars], St. Petersburg, pp. 168–180 (in Russian).
31. Pachmuss T. (1992) Moving River of Tears: Russia′s Experience in Finland. New York.
32. Polian P. (2005) “Emigratsiia: kto i kogda v XX veke pokidal Rossiiu” [Emigration: Who and when left Russia in the 20th century], in O. Glezer, P. Polian (eds) Rossiia i ee regiony v XX veke: territoriia — rasselenie — migratsii [Russia and its regions in the 20th century: territory — settlement — migration], Moscow, pp. 493–519 (in Russian).
33. Rozhkov V., protopriest (ed.) (2004) Tserkovnye voprosy v Gosudarstvennoi dume: Materialy po istorii tserkvi [Church issues in the State Duma: materials for the history of the church], Moscow (in Russian).
34. Rupasov A. (2004) “Debaty v Eduskunte o bezhentsakh iz Rossii. Ianvar′ 1919 g.” [Debates in Eduskunt about refugees from Russia. January 1919], in Rossiiskoe zarubezh′e v Finliandii mezhdu dvumia mirovymi voinami [Russian diaspora in Finland between the two World Wars], St. Petersburg, pp. 24–31 (in Russian).
35. Rupasov A. (2001) Sovetsko-finliandskie otnosheniia: seredina 1920-kh — nachalo 1930-kh gg. [Soviet-Finnish relations: mid-1920s — early 1930s]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
36. Shevchenko T. (2012) Valaamskii monastyr′ i stanovlenie Finliandskoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi 1917– 1957 [Valaam Monastery and establishing of Finnish Orthodox Church 1917–1957]. Moscow (in Russian).
37. Shkarovskii M. (2016) “Russkaia Nikol′skaia obshchina v Khel′sinki v XX v.” [Russian St. Nicholas Community in Helsinki in the 20th century], in Sankt-Peterburg i strany Severnoi Evropy [St. Petersburg and the Nordic Countries], vol. 17 (1), pp. 255–262 (in Russian).
38. Shkarovskii M. (2015) “Russkaia obshchina Pokrova Presviatoi Bogoroditsy v Khel′sinki v XX v.” [The Russian Community of the Intercession of Theotokos in Helsinki in the 20th century], in Sankt-Peterburg i strany Severnoi Evropy [St. Petersburg and the Nordic Countries], vol. 16,pp. 216–224 (in Russian).
39. Siluan (Nikitin), hieromonk (2014) “Aleksandr (Karpin) — pervyi pravoslavnyi episkop Khel′sinki” [Alexander (Karpin), the first Orthodox bishop of Helsinki]. Sretenskii sbornik: nauchnye trudy prepodavatelei Sretenskoi Dukhovnoi Seminarii, 2014, no. 5, pp. 377–404 (in Russian).
40. Sinisalo-Katajisto P. (ed.) (2004) Russian-speaking immigrant population in Finland: seminar in Helsinki, 25–26 September 2003. Helsinki: Studia Slavica Finlandensia, vol. 21.
41. Smolin A. (2000) “Politicheskaia deiatel′nost′ russkoi emigratsii v Finliandii v 1918–1919 gg.” [Political activity of Russian emigration in Finland in 1918–1919], in V. Cherniaev (ed.) Zarubezhnaia Rossiia 1917–1939 gg. [Foreign Russia 1917–1939], St. Petersburg, pp. 65–68 (in Russian).
42. Smolin A. (2012) “Formirovanie antifi nliandskikh nastroenii sredi russkikh bezhentsev v Finliandii v 1918–1920 gg.” [Formation of anti-Finlandic sentiment among Russian refugees in Finland in 1918–1920]. Trudy kafedry istorii Novogo i noveishego vremeni SPbGU, 2012, no. 9, pp. 80–93 (in Russian).
43. Suomela J. (2004) “Rajantakainen Venäjä: venälälais̈ten emigranttien aatteellis-poliittiset mielipiteet Euroopan venäläisissä sanomalehdissä vuonsina 1918-1940” [Russia abroad: ideological and political views of Russian emigrants in European Russian newspapers in 1918– 1940]. St. Petersburg (Russian translation).
44. Teterevleva T. (2005) ““Glukhaia provintsiia russkoi emigratsii”. Poslerevoliutsionnoe Russkoe zarubezh′e na severe Evropy v perepiske emigrantov. 1931–1937 gg.” [“The backwater region of Russian emigration”. Post-revolutionary Russian diaspora in the North of Europe in correspondence of emigrants. 1931–1937]. Istoricheskii arkhiv, 2005, no. 1, pp. 23–55 (in Russian).
45. Teterevliova T. (2014) “Porevoliutsionnaia rossiiskaia emigratsiia v Finliandii (1917–1930-gg.) v narrativakh “populyarnoi kul′turnoi pamiati” [Post-revolutionary Russian emigration to Finland (1917–1930s.) in the narratives of the “popular cultural memory”], in I. Takala, A. Tolstikov (eds) Finliandiia i Rossiia: obrazy obshchego proshlogo [Finland and Russia: images of a shared past], Petrozavodsk, pp. 213–226 (in Russian).
46. Verigin S. (2018) Protivostoianie: bor′ba sovetskoi kontrrazvedki protiv finskikh spetssluzhb 1939– 1944 [Confrontation: the struggle of Soviet counterintelligence against Finnish special services, 1939–1944]. Petrozavodsk (in Russian).
47. Vikhavainen T. (2015) “Otnosheniia Finliandii i Rossii (Sovetskogo Soyuza) 1917–1944 gg.” [Relations of Finland and Russia (Soviet Union) in 1917–1944]. Russkii sbornik, 17, pp. 231–271 (in Russian).
48. Vikhavainen T. (2012) “Stoletiia sosedstva: razmyshleniia o finsko-russkoi granitse” [Centuries of neighbourhood: refl ections on the Finnish-Russian border]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).

Shevchenko Tatyana

*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.