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

Abstract: The article analyzes the epistles of Pope Gregory the Great (590-604), directed against the title “ecumenical” (οiκουμενικός) of the patriarchs of Constantinople. It is shown that the pope opposed the title throughout his pontificate, although the nature of this confrontation changed depending on various circumstances, up to the temporary cessation of direct polemics. The latter fact forces some researchers to assume a qualitative change in the attitude of Pope Gregory to the title. However, the analysis of sources shows the opposite: not receiving sufficient support from the emperor Maurice and the Eastern patriarchs Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius I of Antioch, while not wanting to cause a church schism and, as a result, reducing the intensity of the dispute, the pope at the same time maintained a negative opinion about the title and more than once used the opportunities presented to resume the promotion of his position. In search of allies, in 599 he included the Illyrian metropolitans, and later the emperor Phocas, in the circle of his addressees, and until the last years of his pontificate he wrote about the need to renounce the title to patriarch Cyriacus II of Constantinople. Summarizing, the author identifies and characterizes four stages of the dispute, and also, filling a gap in the available literature, examines the views of Pope Gregory on the semantic content of the title.

the title ‘ecumenical’, primacy in church, papal primacy, Universal Church, Pope Gregory the Great, John the Faster of Constantinople, Cyriacus II of Constantinople, Emperor Mauricius, Emperor Phocas, Eulogius of Alexandria, Anastasius I of Antioch

1. Aigrain R. (1971) “San Gregorio Magno. La sua politica italiana”, in L. Bréhier, R. Aigrain (eds) Storia della Chiesa dalle origini al nostri giorni, Torino: Editrice S.A.I.E., vol. 5, pp. 51–101.
2. Batiff ol P. (1928) Saint Grégoire le Grand. Paris: Librairie Lecoff re.
3. Baus K. (1980) “The Papacy between Byzantium and the German Kingdoms from Hilary (461–468) to Serguis I (687–701)”, in H. Jedin, J. Dolan (eds) History of the Church, New York: The Seabury Press, vol. 2, pp. 614–636.
4. Beck H.-G. (1959) Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich. München: С.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
5. Bertolini O. (1941) Roma di fronte a Bisanzio e ai Longobardi. Bologna: Licinio Cappelli.
6. Bertolini O. (1972) Roma e i Longobardi. Città di Castello: Istituto di studi Romani.
7. Booth Ph. (2013) “Gregory and the Greek East”, in B. Neil, M. Dal Santo (eds) A Companion to Gregory the Great. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
8. Bréhier L., Aigrain R. (eds) (1971) Storia della Chiesa dalle origini al nostri giorni, vol. 5. Torino: Editrice S.A.I.E..
9. Bréhier L. (1971) “Le relazioni fra Roma e Costantinopoli dall’elezione di Gregorio Magno alla caduta di Foca (590–610)”, in L. Bréhier, R. Aigrain (eds) Storia della Chiesa dalle origini al nostri giorni, Torino: Editrice S. A. I. E., vol. 5, pp. 103–129.
10. Caspar E. (1933) Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft, vol. 2. Tübingen: Verlag von J. C. Β. Μοhr (Ρaul Siebeck).
11. Collins R. (2009) Keepers of the Keys of Heaven: A History of the Papacy. New York: Basic Books.
12. Chadwick H. (2001) The Church in Ancient Society: from Galilee to Gregory the Great. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
13. Dagens C. S. (1977) Grégoire le Grand. Culture et expérience chrétiennes. Paris: Cerf, 1977.
14. Dal Santo M. (2013) “Gregory the Great, the Empire and the Emperor”, in B. Neil, M. Dal Santo (eds) A Companion to Gregory the Great. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
15. Demacopoulos G.E. (2009) “Gregory the Great and the Sixth-Century Dispute over the Ecumenical Title”. Theological Studies, 2009, vol. 70, pp. 600–621.
16. Demacopoulos G. E. (2015) Gregory the Great. Ascetic, Pastor, and First Man of Rome. Notre Dame; Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
17. Demacopoulos G. E. (2013) The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
18. Durliat J. (1994) “Grégoire Ier”, in Ph. Levillain (ed.) Dictionnaire historique de la papauté. Paris:Fayard, pp. 736–740.
19. Durliat J. (1994) “Sabinien”, in Ph. Levillain (ed.) Dictionnaire historique de la papauté. Paris: Fayard, pp. 1495–1496.
20. Dvornik F. (1966) Byzantium and the Roman Primacy. New York: Fordham University Press.
21. Eich P. (2016) Gregor der Große. Bischof von Rom zwischen Antike und Mittelalter. Padeborn: Ferdinand Schöningh.
22. Ekonomou A. J. (2007) Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes. Eastern Infl uences on Rome and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A. D. 590–752. Lanham; Boulder; New York; Toronto: Plymouth, Rowman & Littlefi eld Publishers, INC.
23. Evans G. R. (1986) The thought of Gregory the Great. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Fischer E. H. (1950) “Gregor der Große und Byzanz. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der päpstlichen Politik”. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung, 1950, vol. 36/1, pp. 15–144.
25. Forlin Patrucco M. (2014) “Apocrisarius (or aprocrisiarius)” in A. di Bernardino (ed.) Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press Academic, vol. 1, pp. 170.
26. Goubert P. (1967) “Patriarches d’Antioche et d’Aléxandrie contemporains de Saint Grégoire le Grand. Notes de prosopographie Byzantine”. Revue des Études Byzantines, 1967, vol. 25, pp. 65–76.
27. Gratsianskiy M., Migalnikov A. (2021) “Polemicheskie pis′ma papy Grigoriia Velikogo o titule “vselenskii” Konstantinopol′skogo patriarkha. Vstupitel′naia stat′ia, perevod s latinskogo i kommentarii” [Polemical letters of Pope Gregory the Great concerning the Title ‘Ecumenical’ of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Introduction, Russian translation from Latin and commentary]. Prichernomor′e v Srednie veka, vol. 11, pp. 9–67 (in Russian).
28. Gratsianskiy M. (2019) “Chetvertyi Vselenskii sobor i problema pervenstva rimskogo episkopa” [The fourth ecumenical council and the issue of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome]. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia 4. Istoriia. Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, 2019, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 255–271 (in Russian).
29. Gratsianskiy M. (2014) “Vozniknovenie i razvitie kontseptsii papskogo primata v I–V vv” [The emergence and further development of the idea of papal primacy in the 1st — 4th centuries]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, vol. 52 (2), pp. 9–29 (in Russian).
30. Grego I. (1988) “San Gregorio Magno e i Patriarchi d’Oriente”. Studia Orientalia Christiana, 1988, vol. 21, pp. 267–293.
31. Haller J. (1950) Das Papsttum. Idee und Wirklichkeit, vol. 1. Stuttgart: Port Verlag.
32. Jenal G. (1984) “Gregor I der Große”, in M. Greschat (ed.) Das Papsttum, Stuttgart; Berlin; Köln; Mainz: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, vol. 1, pp. 83–99.
33. Kelly J. N. D. (1986) “Gregory I, st”, in J. N. D. Kelly. The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 65–68.
34. Laurent V. (1948) “Titre de patriarche oecuménique et la signature patriarcale”. Revue des études byzantines, 1948, vol. 6, pp. 5–26.
35. Markus R. A. (1981) “Gregory the Great’s Europe”. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 1981, vol. 31, pp. 21–36.
36. Markus R. A. (1997) Gregory the Great and His World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. Martyn J. R. C. (2002) “Four Notes on the Registrum of Gregory the Great”. Parergon, 2002, vol. 19/2, pp. 5–38.
38. McNally R. E. (1978) “Gregory the Great (590–604) and His Declining World”. Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, 1978, vol. 16, pp. 7–26.
39. Moorhead J. (2005) Gregory the Great. New York: Routledge.
40. Müller B. (2009) Führung im Denken und Handeln Gregors des Grossen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
41. Neil B., Dal Santo M. (eds) (2013) A Companion to Gregory the Great. Leiden; Boston: E. J. Brill.
42. Neil B. (2013) “The Papacy in the Age of Gregory the Great”, in B. Neil, M. Dal Santo (eds) A Companion to Gregory the Great. Leiden; Boston: E. J. Brill, pp. 3–27.
43. Nicholson G. (1998) “The Understanding of Papal Supremacy as revealed in the Letters of Pope Gregory the Great”. Academic Essays. History, 1998, vol. 1:2, pp. 49–66.
44. Niespolo A. (2004) “Authority and Service in Gregory the Great”. The Downside Review, 2004, vol. 122, pp. 113–128.
45. Norberg D. (ed.) (1982) Gregorii Magni Registrum epistularum, vol. 1–2. Turnholti: Brepols. (Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina, vol. 140–140A.)
46. Piccirillo M. (2004) “Gregorio Magno e le Province orientali di Palestina e Arabia”. Liber Annuus, 2004, vol. 54, pp. 321–341.
47. Pietri L., Fraisse-Coué Ch. (1998) “Gregor der Große und das wachsende Ansehen des Apostolischen Stuhls”, in L. Pietri (ed.) Eine Untersuchung anhand seiner Briefe. Der lateinische Westen und der byzantinische Osten (431–642). Freiburg; Basel; Wien: Herder, pp. 890–961. (Die Geschichte des Christentums. Religion — Politik — Kultur; 3).
48. Pohl W. (2008) “Gregorio Magno e il regno dei Longobardi”, in C. Azzara (ed.) Gregorio Magno, l’Impero e i «regna». Atti dell’incontro internazionale di studio dell’università degli studi di Salerno. Fisciano, 30 settembre — 1 ottobre 2004, Firenze: SISMEL Edizioni del Galluzzo, pp. 15–28.
49. Pollard R. M. (2013) “A Cooperative Correspondence: The Letters of Gregory the Great”, in B. Neil, M. Dal Santo (eds) A Companion to Gregory the Great. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
50. Richards J. (1980) Consul of God: The Life and Times of Gregory the Great. London; Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
51. Richards J. (1979) The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages, 476–752. New York: Routledge.
52. Tuilier A. (1986) “Grégoire le Grand et le titre de patriarche oecuménique”, in Grégoire le Grand. Actes de colloque à Chantilly (Centre culturel Les Fontaines) 15–17 septembre 1982, Paris: Éditions du Сentre national de la recherche scientifique, pp. 69–82.
53. Tuilier A. (1964) “Le sens de l’adjectif «oecuménique» dans la tradition patristique et dans la tradition byzantine”. Nouvelle revue théologique, 1964, vol. 86/3, pp. 260–271.
54. Ullmann W. (2003) Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages. London; New York: Routledge.
55. Western J. (2015) “The Papal Apocrisiarii in Constantinople during the Pontifi cate of Gregory I, 590–604”. Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 2015, vol. 64/4, pp. 697–714.
56. Wickham C. (1981) Early Medieval Italy: Central Power and Local Society 400–1000. London; Basingstoke: Macmillan.
57. Woliń ska T. (1993) “Spór o tytuł patriarchy ekumenicznego pomiędzy papieżem Grzegorzem Wielkim a biskupami Konstantynopola w świetle walki o prymat w kościele powszechnym”. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia Historica, 1993, vol. 48, pp. 95–126.

Migalnikov Aleksei

The article is devoted to the analysis of the ideas of metropolitan Eugene (Bolkhovitinov) about the theological school, realized in his educational activities. The author sets himself the task of comparing the views of two religious enlighteners of metropolitan Eugene (Bolkhovitinov) and his mentor metropolitan Platon (Levshin) on the theological school of the and identify their interrelation.Two bishop went through the same school. metropolitan Platon (Levshin) studied at the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy (1746-1757), taught Latin and Russian poetry there (1757-1758), and in 1775 was appointed its director. One of the students of the Academy and metropolitan Platon (Levshin) in 1785-1788 was Evfimy Bolkhovitinov, later metropolitan Eugene.Platon strove to bring the education of future pastors of the Church beyond the framework of narrow-class. For this purpose, new academic subjects were introduced at the Academy, new forms and methods of teaching were introduced. One of the ways to broaden the horizons of students was to send students to Moscow University, where they listened to lectures by European scientists, improved their knowledge of foreign languages, and received literary and translation experience.The Moscow Academy was one of the centers for the formation of Russian scholarly monasticism. Its director, Archbishop Platon considered monastic solitude and spiritual concentration as the most favorable conditions for scientific work. He persistently inclined to monasticism those pupils in whom he noticed the necessary qualities for scientific work. Archbishop's Platon pupils held important church posts and continued the work of their mentor to develop the system of theological education in different parts of Russia. Evfimiy Bolkhovitinov was one of such pupils, but he took monasticism not at the Academy, but ten years after its graduation.Formed during his student years at the Moscow Academy, Bolkhovitinov's ideas about the nature of theological education, he implemented in theological schools of Voronezh, Petersburg, Novgorod, Vologda, Kaluga, Pskov and Kiev. Metropolitan Eugene was the author of one of the projects of the reform of theological education in 1804, a member of the Commission of theological schools (1825-1837). Eugene's educational activity consisted mainly in the development of the scientific direction of theological schools and his own contribution to church history.

The Age of Enlightenment, the Russian religious enlightenment, the scholarly monasticism, metropolitan Eugene (Bolkhovitinov), metropolitan Platon (Levshin), theological school, church history

1. Anan′eva T. (2017) ““Daby sii drevnosti byli v Kievskom muzeume”: k istorii sozdaniia Muzeia drevnostei Universiteta Sviatogo Vladimira” [“These antiquities have to be in Kiev Museum”: on the history of creating the Museum of Antiquities of the University of St. Vladimir]. Opus Mixtum, 2017, vol. 5, pp. 63–65 (in Russian).
2. Anan′eva T. (1998) “Evgeniy Bolhovitinov i izuchenie kievskikh drevnostei v pervoi polovine XIX v.” [Eugene Bolkhovitinov and the study of Kiev antiquities in the fi rst half of the 19th century], in Ocherki istorii otechestvennoi arkheologii [Essays on the history of Russian archeology], Moscow, vol. 2, pp. 42–62 (in Russian).
3. Chaunu P. (1971) La Civilisation de l’Europe des Lumières. Paris (RUssian translation, 2008).
4. Cherniaev A. (2013) “Russkoe “uchenoe monashestvo”: arkhimandrit Kiprian (Kern) i prot. Georgii Florovskii” [Russian “learned monasticism”: Archimandrite Kiprian (Kern) and Archpriest Georgy Florovsky]. Vestnik slavianskikh kul′tur, 2013, vol. 1 (27), pp. 5–13 (in Russian).
5. Florovskii G. (2009) Puti russkogo bogosloviia [The ways of Russian theology]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Glukhov A. (2005) “Pastyr′ na nive kul′tury” [Shepherd in the field of culture]. Mir bibliografii, 2012, vol. 4, рр. 38–43 (in Russian).
7. Grosul V. (2003) “Russkoe obshchestvo XVIII–XIX vekov: traditsii i novatsii [Russian society of the 18th — 19th centuries: traditions and innovations]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Karpuk D. (2013) “Aleksandro-Nevskaia Lavra — tsentr uchenogo monashestva v nachale XX v.” [Alexander Nevsky Lavra as a centre of learned monasticism at the beginning of the 20th century], in Sbornik materialov konferentsii “300 let Sviato-Troitskoi Aleksandro-Nevskoi Lavry” [Proceedings of the conference “300 years of the Holy Trinity Alexander Nevsky Lavra”], St. Petersburg, pp. 218–228 (in Russian).
9. Kozlov V. (1981) Kolumby rossiiskikh drevnostei [Ground-breakers of Russian antiquities]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Malkin S. (2018) “Mitropolit Novgorodskii Amvrosii (Podobedov) i mitropolit Kievskii Evgenii (Bolkhovitinov)” [Metropolitan Amvrosy of Novgorod (Podobedov) and Metropolitan of Kiev Evgeny (Bolkhovitinov)], in Kadashevskie chteniia: sbornik dokladov konferentsii [Kadashevskie readings: collection of papers], Moscow, pp. 28–36 (in Russian).
11. Rukavіtsina-Gordzієvs′ka E. (2010) Kiivs′kii mitropolit Evgenіi (E. O. Bolkhovіtіnov). Bіobіblіografіia. Bіblіoteka. Arkhіv [Metropolitan of Kiev Evgeny (O. Bolkhovitinov). Biobibliography. Library. Archive]. Kiev (in Ukrainian).
12. Saraskina L. (2003) Graf N. P. Rumiantsev i ego vremia [Count N. P. Rumiantsev and his time]. Moscow (in Russian).
13. Shafazhinskaia N. (2009) “Russkoe uchenoe monashestvo XIX veka: istoriko-kul′turnoe znachenie” [Russian learned monasticism of the 19th century: their historical and cultural significance]. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta kul′tury i iskusstv, 2009, vol. 2, pp. 53–59.
14. Sukhova N. (2007) “Dukhovno-uchebnye printsipy mitropolita Platona (Levshina) i ikh razvitie v istorii vysshego dukhovnogo obrazovaniia” [Theological and educational principles of Metropolitan Platon (Levshin) and their development in the history of higher theological education], in Tret′i ezhegodnye Platonovskie chteniya. 01.12.2006. Sbornik materialov [3rd Annual Platonovskie readings. 01.12.2006. A collection of papers], Moscow, pp. 86–103 (in Russian).
15. Sukhova N. (2007) “Uchenoe monashestvo v Rossii: nauchno-bogoslovskaia deiatel′nost′ i problema konsolidatsii” [Learned monasticism in Russia: academic and theological activity and the problem of consolidation], in Vertograd nauk dukhovnyi: sbornik statey po istorii vysshego dukhovnogo obrazovaniia v Rossii XIX — nachala XX veka [Spiritual Orchard of Sciences: a collection of articles on the history of higher theological education in Russia in the 19th — early 20th centuries], Moscow, pp. 304–325 (in Russian).
16. Tsapina O. (2004) “Pravoslavnoe prosveshchenie — oksiumoron ili istoricheskaia real′nost′?” [Orthodox enlightenment — an oxymoron or a historical reality?], in Evropeyskoe Prosveshchenie i tsivilizatsiia Rossii [European Enlightenment and the Russian civilisation], Moscow, pp. 301–313 (in Russian).
17. Zhivov V. (1996) Iazyk i kul′tura v Rossii XVIII v [Language and culture in Russia in the 18th century]. Moscow (in Russian).
18. Zyrianov P. (2002) Russkie monastyri i monashestvo v XIX i nachale XX v. [Russian monasteries and monks in the 19th and early 20th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).

Klochkova Marina

*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 was prepared within the framework of the "Platonic Academy" project: students of Met. Platon (Levshin) in the context of the Russian Enlightenment "with the support of PSTGU and the Living Tradition Foundation.

The article examines the relationship of the Tobolsk and Siberian diocesan bishops with the governors and governors-general in the synodal period. It is noted that during the entire period under review, these relations were correct and generally constructive. There were no cases of acute irreconcilable conflicts between representatives of the spiritual and secular authorities at the level of the diocese - the province. In some cases, these relationships went beyond formal communication. It is indicated that the subject of common concern and active interaction was, first of all, the issues of Christianization of the indigenous population of the region. There has been an evolution from energetic support for missionary activity from governors to a more cautious, restrained attitude. The secular authorities feared the unrest of the "foreigners", complications with the payment of yasak, so interference in their internal affairs began to be perceived as an attempt on the usual world order that had developed in previous years. It is noted that the Tobolsk rulers sought to use secular power as an additional tool to control the behavior of parishioners, their timely observance of Orthodox rituals. At the same time, governors and governors-general relied on diocesan bishops in solving a number of important social and political tasks, while making sure that the clergy did not go beyond the competencies outlined by legislation. It is concluded that the cooperation of the spiritual and secular authorities unfolded on a wide range of problems: from the popularization of medical knowledge among the rural population to the creation of Orthodox public organizations, from agitation against participation in the uprising of E. Pugachev to translations into "foreign" languages of the texts of the Holy Scriptures and legislative acts.

Russian Orthodox Church, Tobolsk diocese, Western Siberia, diocesan bishops, Siberian and Tobolsk governors, clergy, Christianization

1. Aksenova G., Sokol′nikov E. (2018) Zhiznennyi put′ i osobennosti sluzheniia preosviashchennogo episkopa Iakutskogo i Viliuiskogo Iakova (Domskogo) [Life and the ministry of Bishop Jacob (Domskii) of Yakutsk and Viliui]. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriia: Istoriia Rossii, vol. 17, no 2, p. 408–439 (in Russian).
2. Iakunin V. (1999) Istoriia Samarskoi eparkhii v portretakh ee arkhiereev [The history of Samara diocese in the portraits of its bishops]. Tol′jatti (in Russian).
3. Isakov S., Dmitrienko N. (2002) Tomskie arkhierei: Biografi cheskii slovar′. 1834–2002 [Tomsk bishops: Biographical dictionary. 1834–2002] Tomsk (in Russian).
4. Koshelev V. (2018) “Vzaimootnosheniia gosudarstva i Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi v Orlovsko-Sevskoi eparkhii vtoroi poloviny XIX veka” [The relationship between the state and the Russian Orthodox Church in Oryol-Sevsk diocese in the 2nd half of the 20th century]. Uchenye zapiski Orlovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, no. 2 (79), p. 20–24 (in Russian).
5. Matkhanova N. (2015) “Vzaimootnosheniia predstavitelei svetskoi i tserkovnoi administratsii Vostochnoi Sibiri v XIX v.” [Relationships between representatives of the secular and church administration of Eastern Siberia in the 20th century], in Religioznye i politicheskie idei v proizvedeniiakh deiatelei russkoi kul′tury XVI–XXI vv. [Religious and political ideas in the works of prominent figures of the Russian culture]. Novosibirsk, p. 172–184 (in Russian).
6. Minenko N. (1975) Severo-Zapadnaia Sibir′ v XVIII — pervoi polovine XIX v.: Istorikoetnografi cheskii ocherk [North-Western Siberia in the 19th — the fi rst half of the 20th centuries: Historical and ethnographic outline]. Novosibirsk (in Russian).
7. Smolich I. (1996) Istoriia Russkoi Tserkvi. 1700–1917 [History of the Russian Church. 1700–1917], vol. XVIII,1. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Sofronov V. (1998) Svetochi zemli sibirskoi: Biografi i arkhipastyrei Tobol′skikh i Sibirskikh (1620–1918 gg.) [Luminaries of the Siberian land: Biographies of Tobolsk and Siberian archpriests (1620–1918)]. Ekaterinburg (in Russian).
9. Sulotskii A. (2000) “Arkhiepiskop Tobol′skii Amvrosii (Kelembet)” [Archbishop of Tobolsk Amvrosiy (Kalembet)], in Sochineniia v trekh tomakh. T. 2: O sibirskom dukhovenstve [Works in 3 vols. Vol. 2: On the Siberian clergy]. Tyumen′, p. 555–616 (in Russian).
10. Sulotskii A. (2000) “Zametki k tseremonialu pogrebeniia Tobol′skogo arkhiepiskopa Varlaama I” [Notes to the burial ceremony of Tobolsk Archbishop Varlaam I], in Sochineniia v trekh tomakh. T. 2: O sibirskom dukhovenstve [Works in 3 vols. Vol. 2: On the Siberian clergy]. Tyumen′, p. 537–547 (in Russian).
11. Sulotskii A. (2000) “Sekretar′ odnoi iz sibirskikh konsistorii [Secretary of one of the Siberian consistories], in Sochineniia v trekh tomakh. T. 2: O sibirskom dukhovenstve [Works in 3 vols. Vol. 2: On the Siberian clergy]. Tyumen′, p. 653–669 (in Russian).
12. Sulotskii A. (2000) “Speranskii v Tobol′ske” [Speransky in Tobolsk], in Sochineniia v trekh tomakh. T. 2: O sibirskom dukhovenstve [Works in 3 vols. Vol. 2: On the Siberian clergy]. Tyumen′, p. 737–770 (in Russian).
13. Sulotskii A. (2000) “Tobol′skie arkhipastyri Antonii (Znamenskii), Evgenii (Kazantsev) i Georgii (Iashchurzhinskii)” [Tobolsk archpriests Antony (Znamensky), Evgeny (Kazantsev), and Georgy (Yashchurzhinsky)], in Sochineniia v trekh tomakh. T. 2: O sibirskom dukhovenstve [Works in 3 vols. Vol. 2: On the Siberian clergy]. Tyumen′, p. 521–536 (in Russian).
14. Sulotskii A. (2000) “Tobol′skie i tomskie arkhipastyri” [Tobolsk and Tomsk archpriests], in Sochineniia v trekh tomakh. T. 2: O sibirskom dukhovenstve [Works in 3 vols. Vol. 2: On the Siberian clergy]. Tyumen′, p. 501–520. (in Russian).
15. Templing V. (ed.) (2006) Surgutskii uezd v dokumental′nykh pamiatnikakh XVIII–XIX vv.: istochniki [Surgut district in documentary monuments of the 18th — 20th centuries: sources]. Tyumen′. (in Russian).
16. Pokrovskii N. (ed.) (1994) Tobol′skii arkhiereiskii dom v XVII veke [Tobolsk bishop’s house in the 17th century]. Novosibirsk (in Russian).
17. Turov S. (2005) “Novoe o deiatel′nosti Obdorskoi missii Tobol′skoi eparkhii pervoi poloviny 30 gg. XIX veka” [New data on the activities of Obdorsk mission of Tobolsk diocese in the first half of the 1830s], in Russkoe osvoenie Iamala do nachala XX veka (dokumenty i issledovaniia) [Russian development of Yamal till the 20th century]. Ekaterinburg, p. 229–237 (in Russian).
18. Templing V. (ed.) (2003) ““I zdes′ poiavliaetsia zaria khristianstva…” (Obdorskaia missiia, 30–80 gg. XIX v.): Istochniki [“And here the dawn of Christianity appears...” (Obdorskaya mission, 1830s — 1880s: Sources]. Tyumen′ (in Russian).
19. Templing V. (ed.) (2004) Iz istorii Obdorskoi missii: Istochniki [From the history of Obdorsk mission: Sources]. Tyumen′ (in Russian).
20. Templing V. (ed.) (2005) “Tserkvi Obdorska: letopis′ v dokumentakh. I: Vasil′evskaia tserkov′ (1746–1824)” [Churches of Obdorsk: a chronicle in documents. I: St. Basil’s Church (1746–1824)]. Tyumen′ (in Russian).
21. Templing V. (ed.) (2005) “Tserkvi Obdorska: letopis′ v dokumentakh. II: Petropavlovskaia tserkov′ (1824–1894)” [Churches of Obdorsk: a chronicle in documents. II: Peter and Paul’s Church (1824–1894)]. Tyumen′ (in Russian).
22. Tsys′ O. (2012) “Surgutskaia pravoslavnaia missiia 1867–1898 gg.: vozniknovenie, sostav, osnovnye napravleniia i rezul′taty deiatel′nosti” [Surgut Orthodox mission, 1867–1898: origin, structure, main directions and results of activity]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia 2: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi tserkvi, no. 3 (46), p. 16–29 (in Russian).

Valeriy Tsys

*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.

Tsys′ Ol′ga

The article presents a little-studied aspect of religious life in Russia during the First World War, associated with mass conversions to the Orthodox faith of prisoners of war of the Slavs – former soldiers and officers of the Austro-Hungarian army. The study was based on sources representative of the stated problem – the records of the birth books of Orthodox churches in Omsk for 1915–1917, the official church magazine «Omsk Eparchialnye Vedomosti» and reports of the Omsk gendarme administration. The connection of the issue under study with historiography is given, on the basis of which the controversial issue related to the number of prisoners of war of the Slavs attached to Orthodoxy in Omsk is indicated. The anthropological approach, problem-chronological, statistical and historical-comparative methods formed the methodological basis of the study. This theoretical combination made it possible to analyze the process under study in maximum detail, to identify qualitative indicators, linking everything that happened with the specific historical situation and the personalities of the church hierarchs who served in Western Siberia. The factors that determined the decision to convert to Orthodoxy of captured Slavs who were in Omsk during the First World War – Czechs, Rusins, Poles are indicated. The authors come to the conclusion about the «Omsk phenomenon» of the Slavs prisoners of war joining Orthodoxy, thanks to the ascetic activity of the missionaries of the Omsk and Pavlodar dioceses, who were headed by Bishop Sylvester (Olshevsky). As can be seen from the study, the dynamic development of this process was ensured by the official ideology that dominated the Russian Empire, based on Orthodox values. The issue studied in the article is analytically stated in terms of aspects related to the quantitative, ethnic, confessional, and social characteristics of the converts. The authors emphasize that the fall of the monarchy as a result of the Russian Revolution led to a change in the paradigm of the country's development and immediately put an end to the mass conversions of Slavs prisoners of war to Orthodoxy in Omsk. The publication may be of interest to researchers of the peoples of Eastern Europe, military and social history, as well as national and religious politics.

Russian Orthodox Church, proselytism, Czechs, Rusins, Poles, World War I, Russian Revolution, prisoners of war, bishop Sylvester, Omsk diocese, Omsk

1. Anufriev A., Kozlov D. (2019) “Metricheskie knigi kak istochnik po istorii prebyvaniia voiennoplennykh v Sibiri (1914–1920)” [Parish registers as a source on the history of prisoners of war in Siberia (1914–1920)], in Grazhdanskaia voina na vostoke Rossii: vzgliad skvoz′ dokumental′noe nasledie: materialy III Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii [Civil War in the East of Russia: a look through the documentary heritage: conference materials]. Omsk, pp. 10–13 (in Russian).
2. Dulatov B. (2019) “Voprosy repatriatsii byvshikh grazhdan Avstro-Vengerskoi imperii iz Povolzh′ ia i Sibiri v 1920-e gody” [Issues of repatriation of former citizens of the Austro-Hungarian Empire from the Volga region and Siberia in the 1920s]. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia 4: Istoriia. Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, 2012, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 148–161 (in Russian).
3. Fedotova D. (2018) “Voennoplennye v Rossii v period Pervoi mirovoi voiny: povsednevnaiia zhizn′ (po materialam Tobol′skoi gubernii)” [Prisoners of war in Russia during the First World War: everyday life (based on the materials of the Tobolsk province)]. Nauchnyi dialog, 2018, no. 11, pp. 303–311 (in Russian).
4. Feodosii (Protsiuk), Metropolitan (2006) V vere li vy? Zhitie i trudy sviashchennomuchenika Sil′vestra, arkhiepiskopa Omskogo [Are you in the faith? Life and works of Hieromartyr Sylvester, Archbishop of Omsk]. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Gergileva A. (2007) Voennoplennye Pervoi mirovoi voiny na territorii Sibiri [Prisoners of war of the First World War in Siberia]. Krasnoyarsk (in Russian).
6. Grekov N. (1997) “Germanskie i avstriiskie plennye v Sibiri (1914−1917)” [German and Austrian prisoners of war in Siberia (1914−1917)], in Nemtsy. Rossiia. Sibir′ [Germans. Russia. Siberia]. Omsk, pp. 154–180 (in Russian).
7. Ieremin I. (2007) “Voennoplennye Pervoi mirovoi voiny v Zapadnoi Sibiri” [Prisoners of war of the First World War in Western Siberia]. Izvestiia Tomskogo politekhnicheskogo universiteta, 2007, vol. 310, no. 1, pp. 259–263 (in Russian).
8. Ippolitov S. (2020) “Russkie voennoplennye Pervoi mirovoi voiny kak gumanitarnaia problema” [Russian prisoners of war of the First World War as a humanitarian problem]. Izvestiia Smolenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2020, no. 2, pp. 174–188 (in Russian).
9. Kaindina T. (2014) “Ispol′zovanie truda voiennoplennykh (po dokumentam Istoricheskogo arkhiva Omskoi oblasti)” [Using the labour of prisoners of war (based on the documents from the Historical Archive of Omsk Region)], in Pervaia mirovaia voina. Sbornik dokumentov i materialov Istoricheskogo arkhiva Omskoi oblasti [World War I. A collection of documents and materials from the Historical Archive of Omsk Region]. Omsk, pp. 159–165 (in Russian).
10. Khrapova N. (2015) “Metricheskie knigi omskikh tserkvei kak istochnik izucheniia sotsial′nopoliticheskoi obstanovki goroda v 1915–1919 gg.” [Parish registers of Omsk churches as a source for the study of the socio-political situation of the city in 1915–1919], in Grazhdanskaia voina na vostoke Rossii: ob»iektivnyi vzgliad skvoz′ dokumental′noe naslediye: materialy Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii [Civil war in the east of Russia: an objective look through the documentary heritage. Conference materials]. Omsk, pp. 183–187 (in Russian).
11. Kozlov D., Anufriev A. (2020) ““Zamyslil ia pobeg”: vozmozhnosti antropologicheskogo podkhoda k fenomenu begstva iz plena v gody Pervoi mirovoi voiny” [“I have conceived an escape”: Possibilities of an anthropological approach to the phenomenon of escape from captivity during the First World War], in Dikhotomiia voiny i mira: prigranichnye regiony v perelomnye istoricheskie epokhi. Sbornik materialov Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi onlain-konferentsii [Dichotomy of war and peace: Border regions in critical historical periods. Conference materials]. Pskov, pp. 128–139 (in Russian).
12. Lebedeva N. (2003) Khramy i molitvennye doma Omskogo Priirtysh′ia [Churches and prayer houses of Omsk and Irtysh region]. Omsk (in Russian).
13. Nam I., Naumova N., Zinovieva V. (2019) “Organizatsii voennoplennykh rusinov v Sibiri i vlast′: konflikt interesov (1918–1919 gg.)” [Organisations of Rusyns — prisoners of war in Siberia and the state authorities: A conflict of interests (1918–1919)]. Rusin, 2019, no. 57, pp. 84–98 (in Russian).
14. Novikov P. (2014) “Omskii voennyi okrug v gody Pervoi mirovoi voiny” [Omsk military district during the First World War]. Irkutskii istoriko-ekonomicheskii yezhegodnik. Irkutsk, pp. 411–416.
15. Pervaia mirovaia voina. Sbornik dokumentov i materialov Istoricheskogo arkhiva Omskoi oblasti (2014) [World War I. Collection of documents and materials from the Historical Archive of Omsk Region]. Omsk (in Russian).
16. Petin D. (2018) ““Ia derus′ so vsemi, kotorye ne tak postupayut, kak Kommunistu sleduet…” Pis′mo F. A. Zemita N. N. Krestinskomu o fi nansovoi rabote v Sibiri. 5 ianvaria 1920 g.” [“I fight with everyone who does not do what the Communist should do...” A letter from F. A. Zemit to N. N. Krestinsky about financial work in Siberia. January 5, 1920]. Vestnik arkhivista, 2018, no. 4, pp. 1137–1148 (in Russian).
17. Petrov I., Puchenkov A. (2019) “Temnaia lichnost′ na fone temnoi epokhi? (K voprosu o sluzhenii arkhiepiskopa Varnavy na Tobol′skoi kafedre v 1914–1917 gg.)” [Dark personality against the background of a dark era? (The issue of the ministry of Archbishop Varnava at Tobolsk see in 1914–1917)]. Omskii nauchnyi vestnik. Seriia: Obshchestvo. Istoriia. Sovremennost′, 2019, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 73–78 (in Russian).
18. Shakherov V. (2020) “Uchastie voennoplennykh Pervoi Mirovoi voiny v emissionnoi deiatel′nosti sibirskikh pravitel′stv v 1919–1921 gg.” [Participation of prisoners of war of the First World War in the emission activities of the Siberian governments in 1919–1921]. Izvestiia Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Istoriia, 2020, vol. 31, pp. 13–23 (in Russian).
19. Surzhikova N. (2011) “Voennoplennye Pervoi mirovoi voiny na Urale. K rekonstruktsii kollektivnogo portreta” [Prisorers of war of the First World War in the Urals. Towards the reconstruction of a collective portrait]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta: Istoriia, 2011, no. 3, pp. 57–64 (in Russian).
20. Surzhikova N. (2014) Voennyi plen v rossiiskoi provintsii (1914–1922 gg.) [Captivity in the Russian province (1914–1922)]. Moscow (in Russian).
21. Sushko A. (2018) “K otsenkam revoliutsii v Rossii v masshtabakh mirovoi i natsional′noi istorii” [To the assessments of the revolution in Russia on the scale of world and national history]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Istoriia, 2018, no. 55, p. 48–55 (in Russian).
22. Talapin A. (2009) “Inostrannye voennoplennye Pervoi mirovoi voiny v 1918—1925 gg. v Zapadnoy Sibiri” [Foreign prisoners of war of the First World War in 1918–1925 in Western Siberia]. Izvestiia Omskogo gosudarstvennogo istoriko-kraevedcheskogo muzeia, 2009, no. 15, pp. 139–143 (in Russian).
23. Talapin A. (2013) “Inostrannye voennoplennye v Sibiri (1914–1920 gg.)” [Foreign prisoners of war in Siberia (1914–1920)], in V. Shishkin (ed.) Vlast′ i obshchestvo v Sibiri v XX veke [Authorities and society in Siberia in the 20th century]. Novosibirsk, 2013, pp. 18–49 (in Russian)
24. Talapin A. (2017) “Dukhovnoe popechenie pravoslavnoi tserkvi o voennoplennykh Pervoi mirovoi voiny v Tomskoi gubernii (1914–1917)” [Spiritual care of the Orthodox Church for prisoners of war of the First World War in Tomsk province (1914–1917)]. Vestnik Omskoi Pravoslavnoi Dukhovnoi Seminarii, 2017, no. 1, pp. 42–45 (in Russian).
25. Tsareva E. (2012) “Voennoplennye Pervoi mirovoi voiny v muzykal′noi zhizni Sibiri” [Prisoners of war of the First World War in the musical life of Siberia]. Iuzhno–Rossiiskii muzykal′nyi al′manakh, 2012, no. 1, pp. 78–88 (in Russian).

Sushko Aleksey

*According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.

Petin Dmitriy

*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 was prepared with the support of the Russian Science Foundation project, 21-18-00266 "Religious factor in Russia during the Civil War: phenomenon, significance and regional specificity", implemented at St. Petersburg State University.

The article is devoted to a detailed analysis of two documents of 1923 from the city of Poltoratsk (now the capital of Turkmenistan, the city of Ashgabat), stored in the fund of the Chancellery of the Holy Synod in the Russian State Historical Archives. Addressed to Patriarch Tikhon, they contain facts from the history of the Russian Orthodox Church in Central Asia. This information is for the first time introduced into scientific circulation with the necessary clarifications and comments. The messages are signed, but their authorship is questionable, therefore, in order to identify the persons who participated in the process of creating the documents, their comparative stylistic analysis, comparative content analysis are carried out, hidden intentions and ideological context are clarified.As a result of the study, it turns out that among the unspecified authors of one of the documents was Bishop Andrei (Ukhtomsky) of Ufa, who, being in Turkmen exile at that time, tried to implement in Central Asia his program of Church decentralization, to carry out the task of overcoming the Old Believer schism of the Russian Church and to organize an autonomous Trans-Caspian Orthodox Church. Additional facts from the church history of Turkmenistan brought into the study give grounds to conclude that the ideas of decentralization did not find mass support among the clergy of the Trans-Caspian deanery. The article also puts forward a number of hypotheses that require further research to confirm.

Russian Orthodox Church in Central Asia, Trans-Caspian church district, repression of church in Soviet Union, exiled clergy in Turkmenistan, Bishop Andrei (Ukhtomsky), Bishop Ioann (Shirokov)

1. Gundogdyev O. (1998) Nekotorye dannye o khristianstve v Zakaspiiskoi oblasti (konets XIX — nachalo XX vv.) [Some data on Christianity in the Trans-Caspian region (late 19th — early 20th centuries)], in K istorii khristianstva v Srednei Azii (XIX–XX vv.) [On the history of Christianity in Central Asia (19–20 centuries)], Tashkent, pp. 198–200 (in Russian).
2. Kalugina L. (1992) Tserkvi blagochiniia Sredneaziatskoi zheleznoi dorogi [Сhurches of the Central Asian Railway]. Slovo Zhizni, Tashkent, no. 40, p. 4 (in Russian).
3. Kalugina L. (1992) Pravoslavnye hramy Zakaspij skoj oblasti [Orthodox churches of the Transcaspian region] in Slovo Zhizni, Tashkent, no. 28, p. 3 (in Russian).
4. Klaving V. (2002) Voennye khramy Rossii [Military churches of Russia], in Pravoslavnyi letopisets Sankt-Peterburga [Orthodox chronicler of St. Petersburg], St. Petersburg, no. 2 (in Russian).
5. Odintsov M. (1999) Russkie patriarkhi XX veka. Sud′by Otechestva i Tserkvi na stranitsakh arkhivnykh dokumentov [Russian patriarchs of the 20th century. The fate of the Fatherland and the Church on the pages of archival documents]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Vladimir (Ikim), archbishop (2000) Bol′shoy polet krylatogo konya. Dukhovnoe nasledie Turkmenistana i ego khristianskie traditsii [Great flight of the winged horse. Spiritual heritage of Turkmenistan and its Christian traditions]. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Zegzhda A. (2009) Aleksandro-Nevskoe bratstvo: dobrym primerom, zhitiem i slovom [Alexander Nevsky brotherhood: by good example, life and word]. Naberezhnye Chelny (in Russian).
8. Zelenogorsky M. (2011) Zhizn′ i trudy arkhiepiskopa Andreia (kniazia Ukhtomskogo) [Life and works of Archbishop Andrei (Prince Ukhtomsky)]. Moscow (in Russian).

Ozmitel Ekaterina

*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 the reaction of Soviet circles to the expulsion of the Patriarch of Constantinople (1924-1925) Konstantin (Araboglu) by the Turks. The top party leadership-the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP(b) – did not delve into the problem. The NKID of the USSR had to deal with the issue mainly. Also, the pro-Soviet schismatics-renovationists, who were secretly closely connected with the OGPU, who sought to rely on the Fanar in the fight against the Orthodox Russian Church, showed special concern about the fate of Constantine VI. The expulsion of the Greek patriarch and the international reaction to this event were covered in sufficient detail by the leading Soviet periodicals (the newspapers “Pravda” and “Izvestia”), and if at first the presentation of information was relatively neutral, then the position of the Turkish side became more justified. The decisive point was the view of the Commissar of Foreign Affairs G. V. Chicherin, who was convinced that the Soviet Union should not “get involved in this matter” and “perceive the old tsarist function of patronage of the Orthodox Church in the East”. The profile Anti-Religious Commission under the Central Committee of the RCP(b), in which there was a strong influence of representatives of the OGPU, it seemed that it was possible to use the intrigue around Araboglu in the interests of the USSR, but in the end the position of the NKID prevailed. The appeals of the Renovationists to Chicherin to intercede for Patriarch Konstantin were consistently rejected by the Commissar. The Patriarchal Orthodox Russian Church did not defend Constantine VI, both for objective and subjective reasons. As a result, the crisis was resolved without any far-reaching church-political consequences.

Patriarch of Constantinople Konstantin VI (Araboglu), Fanar, the Renovationist schism ,the “Living Church synod”, the Greek-Turkish conflict, the NKID of the USSR, G. V. Chicherin, the Anti-Religious Commission under the Central Committee of the RCP(b), the OGPU.

1. Chibisova A., Ermilov P. (2018) “Vsepravoslavnyi lider”: Lozannskaia konferentsiia i rol′ konstantinopol′ skogo patriarkhata v pravoslavnom mire [“The Pan-Orthodox Leader”: the Lausanne Conference and the role of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Orthodox world]. Dialog so vremenem. 2018, vol. 63, p. 186–199 (in Russian).
2. Lobanov V. (2014) Protokoly Komissii po provedeniiu otdeleniia tserkvi ot gosudarstva pri TsK RKP(b)–VKP(b) (Antireligioznoi komissii). 1922–1929 gg. [Protocols of the Commission for the separation of Church and the state at the Central Committee of the RCP(b)–CPSU(b) (Anti-Religious Commission). 1922–1929]. Moscow: Izdatel′stvo PSTGU, 2014 (in Russian).
3. Mazyrin A. (2020) “V interesakh usileniia vliianiia i prestizha SSSR na Blizhnem Vostoke”. Donesenie sovetskogo predstavitelia v Turtsii rukovodstvu NKID SSSR o polozhenii Konstantinopol′skogo patriarkhata v 1924 g. [“In the interests of strengthening the infl uence and prestige of the USSR in the Middle East”. The report of the Soviet representative in Turkey to the leadership of the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs of the USSR on the situation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1924]. Vestnik PSTGU. II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2020, vol. 94, pp. 131–140 (in Russian).
4. Mazyrin A., Kostriukov A. (2017) Iz istorii vzaimootnoshenii Russkoi i Konstantinopol′skoi Tserkvei v XX veke [From the history of relations between the Russian and Constantinople Churches in the 20th century]. Moscow: Izdatel′stvo PSTGU (in Russian).
5. Pokrovsky N., Petrov S. (1997–1998) Arkhivy Kremlia. Politbiuro i Tserkov′: 1922–1925 gg. [The archives of the Kremlin. Politburo and the Church: 1922–1925]. Novosibirsk–Moscow: Sibirskii khronograf; ROSSPEN (in Russian).
6. Safonov D. (2013) Sviatitel′ Tikhon, Patriarkh Moskovskii i vseia Rossii, i ego vremia [St. Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, and his time]. Moscow: Pokrov (in Russian).
7. “Sovershenno sekretno”: Lubianka — Stalinu o polozhenii v strane (1922–1934 gg.) [“Top Secret”: Lubyanka — to Stalin about the situation in the country (1922–1934)]. Vol. 3. Moscow: Institut rossiiskoi istorii RAN; Tsentral′nyi arkhiv FSB RF, 2002 (in Russian).

Mazyrin Aleksandr, priest

*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 was prepared within the framework of the project "Development of relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and other Local Churches in 1917-1945 in the light of changes in the political situation and the peculiarities of ecclesiological views of leading church figures of that time" with the support of the PSTSU and the Living Tradition Foundation.

The article deals with an influential church figure of the XX century. Leonid Dmitrievich Aksenov, a friend of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, and in the 1930s a consultant to the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens (later Patriarchal Locum Tenens) of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). The work traces Aksenov's life path, starting from his studies at the Pskov Theo-logical Seminary to his martyrdom in 1937. A lawyer, a full state councilor, and a philanthropist, he was always at the center of church life: he participated in the congress of learned monasticism held in July 1917, and was a member of the Local Council of 1917-1918. The documents pre-sented in the article show that L. D. Aksenov was closely connected with His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon. After the October Revolution of 1917, Aksenov actively worked in the Orthodox frater-nities of Petrograd, provided legal support to the clergy, and financially helped the exiled. For helping the repressed and active church activities, he was arrested several times by the OGPU authorities. Twice he served his sentence in correctional labor camps. Until his last arrest, he helped Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), advised him, and dealt with problems of the liturgi-cal language. In 1937, along with other church leaders close to Metropolitan Sergius, he was ar-rested and shot after an investigation.

Russian Orthodox Church, terrorist attacks at universities, All-Russian Congress of Learned Monasticism in 1917, persecution of the Church, Orthodox brotherhoods in Leningrad, Alexander Nevsky Lavra, Patriarch Tikhon, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), lists of bishops

1. Chernysheva T. (2015) “Deyatel′nost′ Sankt-Peterburgskogo Arkhiereiskogo (Mitropolich′ego) khora v kontse XIX — nachale XX vv.” [Work of St. Petersburg Episcopal (Metropolitan) Choir in the late 19th — early 20th centuries]. Khristianskoe chtenie. 2015, no. 2, pp. 251–295 (in Russian).
2. Davydov Z., bishop. “S''ezd uchenogo monashestva” [Congress of Learned Monasticism], available at https://monasterium.ru/publikatsii/stati/2206-s-ezd-uchenogo-monashestva (23.11.2021; in Russian).
3. Golovkova L. (2005) “Poslednii podvig sviashchennomuchenika Serafi ma (Chichagova)” [The last feat of the Holy Martyr Seraphim (Chichagov)]. Ezhegodnaia bogoslovskaia konferentsiia PSTGU [Annual Theological Conference of St. Tikhon Orthodox University], 2005, pp. 298–305). Moskow (in Russian).
4. Korob′in G. “Ispravlenie bogosluzhebnykh knig v nachale XX veka” [Correction of liturgical books at the beginning of the 20th century], available at https://apologet.spb.ru/ru/225 (23.11.2021; in Russian).
5. Kravetskii A. (2007) “Sviatitel′ Afanasii Kovrovskii: Biografi cheskii ocherk” [St. Afanasiy of Kovrov: An outline of biography].Vladimir (in Russian).
6. Mazyrin A. (2007) “Popytki vosstanovleniia Patriarshestva v 1935–1937 gody: Maloizvestnye stranitsy istorii” [Attempts to restore the Patriarchate in 1935–1937: Little-known pages of history]. Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii. 2007, no. 3, pp. 31–33 (in Russian).
7. Shkarovskii M. (2003) Aleksandro-Nevskoe bratstvo, 1918–1932 gody [Alexander Nevsky Brotherhood, 1918–1932]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
8. Shkarovskii M. (2018) “Novyi svyashchennomuchenik Sankt-Peterburgskikh duhovnykh shkol protoierei Khristofor Varfolomeev” [The new hieromartyr of St. Petersburg theological schools, Archpriest Khristofor Varfolomeev]. Vestnik Istoricheskogo obshchestva, 2018, no. 2, pp. 68–35 (in Russian).
9. Shkarovskii M. “Sviato-Troitskaia Aleksandro-Nevskaia Lavra v 1918–1922 gg., chast′ 2” [Holy Trinity Alexander Nevsky Lavra in 1918–1922, pt. 2], available at https://bogoslov.ru/article/3041971 (23.11.2021; in Russian).
10. Zegzhda S. (2009) “Aleksandro-Nevskoe bratstvo: dobrym primerom, zhitiem i slovom” [Alexander Nevsky Brotherhood: by a good example, life, and word]. Naberzhnye Chelny (in Russian).

Kosik Olga

*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.

Among the materials included in the collection of manuscript books Archim. Leonid (Kavelin) at the Research Department of Manuscripts of the Russian State Library, the author's attention was drawn to a source that had previously come to the attention of scientists. In the inventory of the fund, it is called "An article by an unidentified author about Nikon, Patriarch of Moscow." An unknown author of a publicistic essay attempted to compare two significant figures in the history of Russia: Patriarch Nikon and the Russian public and statesman M.M. Speransky. In the present study, the observation is made that. The "Article" is part of a larger work. The part that has not survived, apparently, was dedicated only to M.M. Speransky. The "Article" was written in the 1870s-1880s, when its author, a sincere admirer of Patriarch Nikon, as well as a Little Russian, as evidenced by the language and style of presentation, became known to the main publications about the life, deeds and veneration of His Holiness. The first publications of fragments of works and letters of M.M. Speransky and his biography date back to the same time. The study is structured in accordance with the logic of the presentation of the material in the source. First, an assessment is given to the features of the similarities and differences of the two persons listed by the author of the “Article”; then the cursory biography of Patriarch Nikon is critically interpreted; further, following the author of the "Article", the attention of the researcher is focused on the key points of the "case" of Nikon; in the end — conclusions are drawn. This is the first time that the text "Articles by an Unidentified Author" is published. This publication substantially supplements the assessments of the personality and activities of His Holiness Nikon known in pre-revolutionary social thought. Enabling Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin) of the newly found document in his collection of materials about Patriarch Nikon proves not only the breadth of interests of a remarkable and profound scientist, but testifies to his personal veneration of the Moscow Primate, whose arduous deeds and difficult biography he studied and comprehended with great love and enduring interest.

"An article by an unidentified author about Nikon, Patriarch of Moscow", Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin), Patriarch Nikon, M.M. Speransky, critical reflection on biography, the transformative activity of church and social life, historiography of imperial Russia

1. Prosvirnin A., priest (1972) “Trudy arkhimandrita Leonida (Kavelina) (1822–1891)” [Works of Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin) (1822–1891)]. Bogoslovskie trudy, 9, pp. 226–240 (in Russian).
2. Bubnov N. (2020) “Staroobryadcheskie skazaniya o patriarkhe Nikone [Old Believers’ legends about Patriarch Nikon], in Staroobriadchestvo v istorii i kul′ture Rossii: problemy izucheniya (k 400-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia protopopa Avvakuma) [Old Believers in the history and culture of Russia: current ussues (to the 400th anniversary of Archpriest Avvakum)]. Moscow, pp. 107–128 (in Russian).
3. Dostoevsky F. (1982) Polnoie sobranie sochinenii v 30 t. Publitsistika i pis’ma. Toma XVIII–XXX [Complete works in 30 volumes. Essays and letters. Vols 18–30]. Leningrad, 24 (in Russian).
4. Korf M. (2003) Zapiski [Notes]. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Kruming A. (1982) Rasprostranenie v Rossii rumyno-slavianskogo izdaniia knigi Fomy Kempiiskogo “O podrazhanii Khristu” (Knigovedcheskie materialy) [Circulation in Russia of the Romanian-Slavic edition of the book of Thomas Kempis “On the Imitation of Christ” (book-science materials)], in Fedorovskie chteniya, 1979 [Fedorovske readings, 1979]. Moscow, pp. 153–187 (in Russian).
6. Pentkovskii A. (2001) Liturgicheskie reformy v istorii Russkoi Tserkvi i ikh kharakternye osobennosti [Liturgical reforms in the history of the Russian Church and their characteristic features]. Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii, 2001, 2, pp. 72–80 (in Russian).
7. Sevast′ianova S. (2007) Epistoliarnoe nasledie patriarkha Nikona. Perepiska s sovremennikami: issledovanie i teksty [Epistolary legacy of Patriarch Nikon. Correspondence with contemporaries: research and texts]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Sevast′ianova S. (2021) “Igumeny Kozheozerskii Nikon i Antonievo-Syiskii Feodosii: monashesko-asketicheskii tip nastoiatelia monastyria” [Hegumens Kozheozersky Nikon and Antonievo-Syisky Feodosiy: the monastic-ascetic type of the abbot of the monastery]. Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, 33, pp. 196–226 (in Russian).
9. Sevast′ianova S. (2020) “Tema iurodstva Khrista radi v zhizni patriarkha Nikona” [The theme of the foolishness of Christ in the life of Patriarch Nikon], in Kapterevskie chteniya [Kapterevskie readings], 18, pp. 232–283 (in Russian).
10. Sevast′ianova S. (2017) “Traktat Fomy Kempiiskogo “O podrazhanii Khristu” v novonaidennom sochinenii o Patriarkhe Nikone” [Thomas of Kempis’s treatise “On the Imitation of Christ” in a newly-found text about Patriarch Nikon]. Polzunovskiy al’manakh, 4, vol. 1, pt. 1, pp. 213–217 (in Russian).
11. Sevast′ianova S. (2019) Ukhod Patriarkha Nikona s Moskovskoi pervosviatitel′skoi kafedry v interpretatsii Gazskogo mitropolita Paisiia Ligarida [Departure of Patriarch Nikon from Moscow First Hierarchical See in the interpretation of Metropolitan Paisius Ligarid of Gaz]. Elektronnyy nauchno-obrazovatel′nyi zhurnal “Istoriia”, no. 3 (77), p. 6 (in Russian).
12. Tiganova L., Zeifman N. (1966) Sobranie rukopisnykh knig Leonida (Kavelina). Opisanie. F. № 557 (XVII–XIX vv.) [Collection of handwritten books by Leonid (Kavelin). Description. Fund No. 557 (17–19 centuries)]. Moscow, typescript (in Russian).
13. Tomsinov V. (2016) “Sud′ba opredelila vsem obshchestvam chelovecheskim menyat′ tol′ko poroki”: Speranskii o tekhnologii provedeniya gosudarstvennykh preobrazovanii [“Fate has determined that all human societies should change only vices”: Speransky on the technology of state transformations]. Zakonodatel′stvo, 8, pp. 88–94; 9, pp. 88–94; 10, pp. 88–94; 11, pp. 86–94; 12, pp. 78–85 (in Russian).
14. Vigel′ F. (1928) Zapiski [Notes]. Moscow (in Russian).
15. Vinogradov A. Tserkovnaia reforma XVII veka: evoliutsiya vzgliadov, prichiny ikh proiskhozhdeniia i rasprostraneniia [Church reform of the 17th century: the evolution of views, the reasons for their origin and spread], available at https://bogoslov.ru/article/4252531 (24.11.2021) (in Russian).
16. Vorob′eva N. (2013) Obraz patriarkha Nikona v istoricheskom soznanii i massovoi kul′ture [The image of Patriarch Nikon in historical consciousness and mass culture]. Saarbrücken (in Russian).
17. Viatkin V. “Gordyi absoliutizm” patriarshestva. Vzgliady protivnikov edinolichnogo upravleniia Tserkov′iu v imperskoi Rossii [“Proud absolutism” of the patriarchate. Views of the opponents of the sole rule of the church in imperial Russia], available at https://www.ng.ru/ng_religii/2016-08-17/7_absolutism.html (24.11.2021) (in Russian).
18. Zapol′skaia N. (2000) “Knizhnaia sprava v Moskovskoi Rusi XVII v.” [Amending of books in Muscovite Rus′ of the 17th century]. Vestnik Rossiiskogo gumanitarnogo nauchnogo fonda [Bulletin of the Russian Foundation for the Humanities], 3, pp. 439–453 (in Russian).
19. Zelenskaia G. (2002) “Arkhimandrit Leonid (Kavelin) — nastoyatel′ Voskresenskogo Novo- Ierusalimskogo monastyrya” [Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin), the abbot of the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery], in Nikonovskie chteniia v muzee “Novyi Ierusalim” [Nikonovskie readings in New Jerusalem Museum]. Moscow, pp. 207–215 (in Russian).
20. Zelenskaia G. (2002) “Muzei Sviateyshego Patriarkha Nikona v stavropigial′nom Voskresenskom, Novyi Ierusalim imenuemom, monastyre [Museum of His Holiness Patriarch Nikon in the Resurrection, called New Jerusalem, Monastery], in Nikonovskie chteniia v muzee “Novyi Ierusalim” [Nikonovskie readings in New Jerusalem Museum]. Moscow, pp. 263–272 (in Russian).
21. Zelenskaia G. (2020) “Numerologiia v zhizni i tvoreniiakh Patriarkha Nikona” [Numerology in the life and works of Patriarch Nikon], in Kapterevskie chteniia [Kapterevskie readings]. Moscow, 18, pp. 284–347 (in Russian).
22. Zelenskaia G. (2005) “Parsuna “Patriarkh Nikon s bratiei Voskresenskogo monastyria”” [The picture “Patriarch Nikon with the brethren of the Resurrection Monastery”], in Nikonovskie chteniia v muzee “Novyi Ierusalim” [Nikonovskie readings in New Jerusalem Museum]. Moscow, pp. 87–108 (in Russian).
23. Zelenskaia G. (2005) “Prepodobnyi Eleazar Anzerskii i Sviateishii Patriarkh Nikon” [Reverend Eleazar Anzersky and His Holiness Patriarch Nikon], in Solovetskoe more: Istoriko-literaturnyi al′manakh [Solovetskoe sea: Historical and literary almanac]. Arkhangel′sk; Moscow, pp. 59–66 (in Russian).
24. Zelenskaya G. (2012) Simvolika izraztsov Novogo Ierusalima [The symbolism of the tiles of New Jerusalem], available at http://patriarh-nikon.ru/?p=184 (24.11.2021) (in Russian).
25. Zen′kovskii V. (2001) Istoriia russkoi filosofii [History of Russian philosophy]. Moscow (in Russian).
26. Zyzykin M. (1931–1939) Patriarkh Nikon: ego gosudarstvennye i kanonicheskie idei [Patriarch Nikon: his state and canonical ideas]. Warsaw (in Russian).

Sevastyanova Svetlana

*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.