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

In the IInd century the Christian concept of heresy (denoting Christians opponents and / or doctrinal deviance) was meant to emphasize the claim of Christian philosophy to be unique and unitary and therefore superior to pagan philosophies. The concept of `heresy´ denounced Christian diversity as illegitimate. In the IIIrd centuries synods established procedures how to judge the doctrinal deviance or otherwise of individual clergy. We know one case (Paul of Samosata as bishop of Antioch) where it was the emperor who decided the question as to who was the legitimate bishop. In the IVth to VIth centuries a succession of councils decided about the doctrinal views of individual theologians and in the process developed a Trinitarian and Christological orthodoxy. As in the IIIrd century, the church needed the support of the state in order to impose its orthodoxy: An elaborate anti-heretical legislation was developed and codified in the Codex Theodosianus and the Codex Justinianus. However, the anti-heretical legislation was anything but systematic, it was the product of circumstances, often reacted to very specific situations and local initiatives and its scope was often geographically limited. Its effectiveness is difficult to assess; with its vituperative and sometimes violent language it aimed at intimidation and conversion. The Christian concept of `heresy´ was a novelty as a legal term. However, the assumption that the religious policy of the Christian emperors was more efficiently repressive than that of their pagan predecessors should not be accepted without discussion. In this respect I see more continuity than discontinuity between the pagan emperors of the IInd and IIIrd centuries and their Christian successors and also between the Constantinian dynasty and the Theodosian dynasty.

emperor Aurelian, emperor Theodosius I, Codex Theodosianus, heresy, councils, synods, Eunomians, Paul of Samosata, Photinus of Sirmium, philosophy, Serapion of Antioch, Sozomen

1. Barnes T. D. Athanasius and Constantius, Cambridge, Mass., 1993.
2. Boys-Stones G. Post-Hellenistic Philosophy, Oxford, 2001.
3. Brox N. (1984) „Häresie“, in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, Stuttgart, 1984, vol. 13, pp. 248–297.
4. Goodspeed E. J. (Hrsg.) Die ältesten Apologeten. Texte mit kurzen Einleitungen, Göttingen, 1984.
5. Errington R. M. (1997) “Christian accounts of the Religious Legislation of Theodosius I” in Klio, 1997, vol. 79.
6. Escribano Pano M. V. (2010) “Heretical Texts and Maleficium in the Codex Theodosianus (CTH. 16. 5. 34) “, in R. L. Gordon, F. M. Simón (eds.). Magical Practices in the Latin West, Leiden, 2010.
7. Jones А. H. M. Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, Cambridge, 1971, Vol.1.
8. Le Boulluec A. La notion d´hérésie dans la littérature grecque IIe–IIIe siècle, P., 1985, vol. 1–2.
9. Lietzmann H. Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule, Tübingen, 1904.
10. Löhr W. (2011) “The Continuing Construction of Heresy: Hippolyt´s Refutatio in Context”, in Aragione G., Norelli E. (éds) Des évêques, des écoles et des hérétiques. Actes du colloque international sur la “Réfutation de toutes les hérésies” (Génève, 13–14 juin 2008), Prahin, 2011, pp. 25–42.
11. Morgenstern F. (1993) „Die Kaisergesetze gegen die Donatisten in Nordafrika (Mitte 4.Jh, bis 429) im Zusammenhang mit dem antidonatistischen Wirken des Augustinus von Hippo“, in Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 1993, vol. 110, pp. 103–123.
12. Noethlichs K.-L. Die gesetzgeberischen Massnahmen der christlichen Kaiser des vierten Jahrhunderts gegen Häretiker, Heiden und Juden. Diss. phil., Köln, 1971.
13. Pharr C. The Theodosian Code, Princeton, 1952.
14. Skarsaune O. (1987) “A neglected detail in the creed of Nicaea (325)”, in Vigiliae Christianae, 1987, vol. 41, pp. 34–54.
15. Staats R. Das Glaubensbekenntnis von Nizäa-Konstantinopel. Historische und theologische Grundlagen, Darmstadt, 1999.
16. Vaggione R. P. Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution, Oxford, 2000.
17. Zinser H. (2002) „Religio, secta, hairesis in den Häresiegesetzen des Codex Theodosianus (16,51/66) von 438“, in Hutter M., Klein W., Vollmer U. (Hrsg.) Hairesis (FS Karl Hoheisel), Münster, 2002.

Lohr Winrich

In his two homilies dedicated to the Arian controversy (the only surviving of the original five) Photios uses different methods to actualize the matter for the broad Byzantine public, mainly in connection with the patriarch’s main concern during his fi rst tenure: the polemics against Iconoclasm. The Arianism was chosen as a purely logical juxtaposition to the latter, where the real gradual progress of iconoclast tendencies is compared to a theoretical construction of Arianism which has little to do with the actual developments in the IVth century. The comparison of the Iconoclast heresiarch John the Grammarian to Arius is chiefly aimed at justifying the permanent deposition of Iconoclast priests even in case of repentance, declared by the Patriarch Nikephoros in 815 and carried out by Methodios in 843. The triadological considerations in the Homily XVI do not in fact pertain to anti- fi lioque polemics, but rather represent a traditional Eastern conception. This, as well as the intense and negative attention to the Council of Sardica suggest the date 861, when Photios had to argue against the applicability of this council’s 10th canon to his promotion to patriarch from a layman.

S. Photios of Constantinople, Byzantine literature, Arian controversy, Anti-Latin polemic, Council of Sardica

1. Afinogenov D. E. (1997) “Patriarshestvo sv. Mefodija I (843–847): bor'ba za preemstvennost' v Vizantijskoj Cerkvi“ (Period of Patriarch St. Methodius I (843–847): Struggle for Succesion in Byzantine Church), in Vizantijskij vremennik, 1997, vol. 57, pp. 130–156.
2. Afinogenov D. (2003–2004) “The new edition of «The Letter of the Three Patriarchs»: problems and achievements”, in Symmeikta, 2003–2004, vol. 16, pp. 9–33.
3. Afinogenov D. (2010) “The condemnation of Anthony of Syllaion in 814: the procedure and the political context”, in Nomos. Kwartalnik Religioznawczy, 2010, vol. 71/72, pp. 9–16.
4. Afinogenov D. Mnogosložnyj Svitok: the Church Slavonic translation of the Letter of the Three Oriental Patriarchs to Emperor Theophilos, Parsis, 2014.
5. Alexander P. The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople, Oxford, 1958.
6. Chryssostalis A. (2009) “La reconstitution d’un vaste traité iconophile écrit par Nicéphore de Constantinople (758–828)”, in Semitica et Classica, 2009, vol. 2, pp. 203–215.
7. Dvornik F. (1953) “The Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm”, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 1953, vol. 7, pp. 67–97.
8. Jugie M. De processione Spiritus Sancti ex fontibus revelationis et secundum orientales dissidents, Rome, 1936.
9. Mango C. (1977) “The Liquidation of Iconoclasm and the Patriarch Photius”, in Iconoclasm. Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, 1977, pp. 133–140.

Afinogenov Dmitrii

In the present article the quantity and social structure of Russian generalship of the XVIIIth century is to be analysed. The main task is to consider the generational evolution, social origin and levels of education of generals of Russian Empire. Increase in the total number of generals is connected with reduction of the proportion of foreigners and with increase of the percentage of non-highborn nobility. Non-nobility for the entire studied period occurs here only as an exception. Proportion of people with «regular» education was low, but gradually increased. The groups combined on the basis of proximity of two main criteria: the time of birth and time of entry into service constitute generations. Generation means the community of people united in the sociocultural context, in this research we will concentrate on the initial conditions of socialization (social origin, education). The fi rst generation began service in the XVIIth century and at the beginning of the reign of Peter I, and received general’s offices in the same reign. Generals of the second generation got position of generals only at the beginning of the next period of Russian history - the era of palace revolutions. The third generation came into service in the era of palace revolutions, and reached general’s rank in the same period, or during the reign of Catherine II. Small amount entered into service after 1762, and received grades 1-2 class at the time of Paul I. In the first generation one can consider the greatest number of representatives of the higher ranks of the Moscow state serving nobility. In the second generation there are some children of Peter’s generals (more than half of the composition) also closely associated with the old Moscow aristocracy. In the third generation the proportion of those whose fathers had the rank of general, is also slightly more than half. Since the reign of Catherine II, representatives of small and medium service nobility began to receive the generals’ position of first two higher ranks in mass. Elite that was established during the modernization of Peter the Great, was based on meritocratic principles, and it was genetically related to the old Moscow nobility. For those who did not belong by birth to the serving elite a military education was a jumping-off place for a career.

general officers, nobility, career advancement, social status.

1. Andreev A. Ju. Russkie studenty v nemeckih universitetah XVIII — pervoj poloviny XIX veka (Russian Students in German Universities of XVIII — First Half of XIX Centuries), Moscow, 2005.
2. Anisimov M. Ju. (2005) “Rossijskij diplomat A. P. Bestuzhev-Rjumin (1693–1766)“ (Russian Diplomat A. P. Bestuzhev-Rjumin (1693–1766)), in Novaja i novejshaja istorija, 2005, vol. 6, pp. 175–192.
3. Bezotosnyj V. M. Donskoj generalitet i ataman Plahov v 1812 godu (Donskoj Generals and Ataman Plahov in 1812), Moscow, 1999.
4. Vodarskij Ja. E. Naselenie Rossii v konce XVII – nachale XVIII veka (Population of Russia in End of XVII — Begin of XVIII Centuries), Moscow, 1977.
5. Volkov S. V. Generalitet Rossijskoj imperii: Jenciklopedicheskij slovar' generalov i admiralov ot Petra I do Nikolaja II (Generals of Russian Empire: Encyclopaedical Dictionary of Generals and Admirals from Petr I to Nikolaj II), vol. 1–2. Moscow 2009.
6. (1880) “Imennoj spisok Eja Imperatorskogo Velichestva Lejb-Kampanii chinam 1741–1759 godov” (Names List of Her Majesty Leib-Campain Ranks of 1741–1759), in Russkij arhiv, 1880, vol 2, pp. 3–143.
7. Mangejm K. (1998) “Problema pokolenij” (Problem of Generations), in Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 1998, vol 2/30, pp. 7–47.
8. Miloradovich G. A. Materialy dlja istorii Pazheskogo E.I.V. korpusa 1711–1875 (Materials for History of Her Majesty Pages Corps in 1711–1875), Kiev, 1876.
9. Pol'skoj S. V. (2013) “Dvor i «pridvornoe obshhestvo» v poslepetrovskoj Rossii” (Court and “Court Society” in Russia after Petr I), in Pravjashhie jelity i dvorjanstvo Rossii vo vremja i posle petrovskih reform (1682– 1750), Moscow, 2013, pp. 320–368.
10. Feofanov A. M. (2013) „Rossijskij generalitet XVIII veka: social'naja dinamika pokolenij” (Russian Generals of XVIII Century: Social Dynamics of Generations), in Vestnik Volzhskogo universiteta im. V. N. Tatishheva, 2013, vol. 4/14, pp. 221–229.
11. Frejman O. R. Pazhi za 185 let: Biografii i portrety byvshih pazhej s 1711 po 1896 g. (Pages for 185 Years: Biographies and Portraits of Former Pages from 1711 to 1896), Fridrihsgamn, 1897.
12. (1891) “Chislo krest'janskih dvorov, nahodivshihsja vo vladenii kozackoj starshiny v polovine XVIII veka” (Number of Peasant Homesteads, that Were in Posession of Kozak Foreman in Half of XVIII Century), in Kievskaja starina, 1891, T. 34.
13. Chernikov S. V. (2009) “Generaly Elizavety Petrovny” (Generals of Elizaveta Petrovna), in Rodina, 2009, vol 2, pp. 93–96.
14. Chernikov S. V. (2013) “Voennaja jelita Rossii 1700–1725 gg.: meritokraticheskie i aristokraticheskie tendencii v kadrovoj politike Petra I” (Military Elite of Russia of 1700–1725: Meritocratic and Aristocratic Tendencies in Manpower Policy of Petr I), in Pravjashhie jelity i dvorjanstvo Rossii vo vremja i posle petrovskih reform (1682–1750), Moscow, 2013, pp. 45–62.
15. Shanin T. (2005) “Istorija pokolenij i pokolencheskaja istorija” (History of Generations and Generational History), in Otcy i deti: Pokolencheskij analiz sovremennoj Rossii, Moscow, 2005, pp. 17–38.

Feofanov Aleksandr

The article is devoted to charitable works of Alexander Andreevich Zhelobovskiy, and his participation in various charitable General communities. He was the first Russian protopresbyter of the military clergy and did much to shape the staff of experienced and knowledgeable priests who actively worked not only to ensure religious worship in the army, but also for the Patriotic upbringing of soldiers. In these purposes and based on personal beliefs, Zhelobovskiy set up several scholarships for talented students studying in the Theological Academies. In addition, Zhelobovskiy made a great contribution to provision of pensions little-haves elderly priests, as well as to their widows and orphans. To help the poor, by Zhelobovskiy’s own money was built candle factory, profit from which amounted to “orphan’s capital”. The scope of the paper includes the activities of the first Russian protopresbyter of the military clergy on the planting and construction of military and regimental churches in various cities. Until 1901 military churches were required to actively participate in the search of philanthropists. One of the themes of this article is the charity organization and own philanthropy activities Zhelobovskiy during the Russo-Japanese war. Special attention is paid to the contribution of Zhelobovskiy in the case of charity on his «small Motherland». Where Zhelobovskiy not only built the temple, but also established the hospice and also did much to Belozersky spiritual school.

Synod, protopresbyter, the military clergy, the priests’ meeting, Church charity, regimental temple, an almshouse, an orphanage, candle factory, the Russo-Japanese war.

1. Bronzov A. A. Belozerskoe duhovnoe uchilishhe za sto let ego sushhestvovanija (1809–1909 gg.) (Belozerskoe Church College for 100 Years of Its Existence), Sergiev Posad, 1909, vol. 1.
2. Zhukova L. V. (2002) “Mery po usovershenstvovaniju dejatel'nosti voennogo duhovenstva v nachale XX veka, predlozhennye protopresviterom A. A. Zhelobovskim” (Arrangements for Improvement of Activity of Army Clergy in Begin of XX Century, Offered by Protopriest A. A. Zhelobovskij), in Klio, 2002, vol. 3/18, pp. 161–168.
3. Isakova E. V., Shkarovskij M. V. Sobor Svjatoj Zhivonachal'noj Troicy Lejb-gvardii Izmajlovskogo polka (Cathedral of St. Trinity by the Life Guard’s Izmailovskij Regiment), Saint-Petersburg, 2009.
4. Isakova E. V., Shkarovskij M. V. Hramy Kronshtadta (Churches of Kronstadt), Saint-Petersburg, 2005.
5. Kotkov V. M., Kotkova Ju. V. Voennoe duhovenstvo Rossii (Army Clergy of Russia), Saint-Petersburg, 2005.
6. Laskeev F. Istoricheskaja zapiska ob upravlenii voennym i morskim duhovenstvom za minuvshee stoletie (1800–1900) (Historical Notice about Managing of Army and Navy Clergy for the Past Century (1800–1900)), Saint-Petersburg, 1900.
7. Mal'cev M. G. Protopresviter voennogo i morskogo duhovenstva Aleksandr Zhelobovskij (Protopriest of Army and Navy Clergy Aleksandr Zhelobovskij), Saint-Petersburg, 2011.
8. Nevdachin I. I. Svjato-Troickij sobor l.-gv. Izmajlovskogo polka (Cathedral of St. Trinity by the Izmailovskij Regiment), Saint-Petersburg, 1910.
9. Nevzorov N. Istoricheskij ocherk upravlenija duhovenstvom voennogo vedomstva v Rossii (Historical Survey about Managing of Clergy of Military Office in Russia), Saint-Petersburg, 1875.
10. Pravoslavnye hramy v Severnoj Man'chzhurii (Orthodox Churches in North Manchuria), Harbin, 1931.
11. Citovich G. A. Hramy armii i flota (Churches of Army and Navy), Pjatigorsk, 1913.

Zhukova Lekkha

The article’s purpose is the analysis of the evolution process and all its main aspects in the history of Moscow Slavonic-greek-latin Academy of the specified period. At the beginning of the XVIII century Moscow Academy was found on a basis of European «pre-classical» university pattern and became the first higher institute for all social estates in Russia. After the Peter’s the Great death the Academy experiences reduction of material security and contraction of the students’ social estate. Another tendency is also observed - the penetration of European university modernization ideas in Russia provokes the start of several national university projects. During the Catherine’s the Second reign these ideas influence on the evolution of the Academy as well as already generated Academy educational tradition influences the specified university projects. This reciprocal effect leads the creation of separate higher educational systems: secular, under the Ministry of National Enlightenment, and theological, under the Holy Synod. The sources allow tracking the participation of higher state and church fi gures working together on both structures. As a result Moscow Academy served as a sample for other theological academies and thus has become the foundation of the whole theological education system

charter, education reform, higher education, higher institute of learning, protector, rector, Slavonic-greek-latin Academy, theological education, university, university autonomy, university statutes

1. Andreev A. Ju. Rossijskie universitety XVIII — pervoj poloviny XIX veka v kontekste universitetskoj istorii Evropy (Russian Universities of XVIII — First Half of XIX Centuries in Context of University History of Europe), Moscow, 2009.
2. Andreev A. Ju. Russkie studenty v nemeckih universitetah XVIII — pervoj poloviny XIX veka (Russian Students in German Universities of XVIII — First Half of XIX Centuries), Moscow, 2005.
3. Verhovskij P. V. Naselennye nedvizhimye imenija Sv. Sinoda, Arhierejskih domov i monastyrej pri blizhajshih preemnikah Petra Velikogo (Populated Estates of Holy Synod, Bishop Houses and Monasteries by Nearest Successors of Petr the Great), Saint-Petersburg, 1909.
4. Petrov F. A. Formirovanie sistemy universitetskogo obrazovanija v Rossii, vol. 1: Rossijskie universitety i Ustav 1804 goda (Forming of System of University Education in Russia, vol. 1: Russian Universities and the Regulations of 1804), Moscow, 2002.
5. Rozhdestvenskij S. V. Ocherki po istorii sistem narodnogo prosveshhenija v Rossii v XVIII — XIX vekah (Surveys on History of Systems of People Enlightenment in Russia in XVIII–XIX Centuries), Saint-Petersburg, 1912, vol. 1.
6. Smirnov S. K. Istorija Moskovskoj Slavjano-Greko-Latinskoj Akademii (History of Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy), Moscow, 1855.
7. Smolich I. K. Istorija Russkoj Cerkvi (1700–1917) (History of Russian Church (1700–1917)), Moscow, 1996, vol. 1.
8. Harlampovich K. V. Malorossijskoe vlijanie na velikorusskuju cerkovnuju zhizn' (Malorussian Influence on Velikorussian Church Life), Kazan', 1914, vol. 1.
9. Cygankov D. A. (2010) “Universitetskij popechitel' v Rossii: mezhdu cennostjami evropejskoj nauki i gosudarstvennoj sluzhby (vtoraja polovina XVIII — pervaja tret' XIX veka)” (University Curator in Russia: between Values of European Science and State Service (Second Half of XVIII — First Third of XIX Centuries)), in Polijetnichnost' Rossii v kontekste istoricheskogo diskursa i obrazovatel'nyh praktik XIX — XXI vv., Cheboksary, 2010, pp. 515–527.
10. Ruegg W. (ed.) A History of the University in Europe., Cambridge University Press, 1997, vol. 2: Universities in Early Modern Europe (1500–1800).

Larionov Aleksei

In the represented work the problems of the system of teaching the Law of God in the Russian Empire at the end of the XVIIIth - first half of the XIXth century are examined. This subject was compulsory in all educational programs of secondary schools. However, despite considerable government support, certain problems of religious education were revealed in schools. In this article the issues of teaching the Law of God in Russian schools at the end of the XVIIIth - first half of the XIXth century are considered on the basis of documentary materials from the four archives: Central state historical archive of St. Petersburg, the Russian state historical archives, the national archives of the Republic of Karelia, State archive of Archangelsk region. Memoirs of pupils published in the Central and regional periodicals and in the memoirs of the second half of the XIXth - beginning of the XXth century were used in the studying. In Russian historiography the issue of religious education in the pre-reform school remains little- known chapter of national education history. Researchers were more interested in the activities of the Spiritual Department and the Ministry of national education on organization and formation of the network of educational institutions. Currently, issue of teaching “Bases of Orthodox culture” in Russian schools becomes a special subject. In this connection attention to the origin of putting a compulsory subject of the law of God into the school program, and the participation of the clergy in educational work in educational institutions in the first half of the XIXth century is vital today. The present work provides a new look at studying of the problem and gives new directions for research.

national education, Saint Synod, God’s Law, teacher of Law, Sacred history, the priest, the Orthodox law studying

1. Aleshincev I. A. Istorija gimnazicheskogo obrazovanija v Rossii (v XVIII i XIX veke) (History of Gymnasium Education in Russia (in XVIII and XIX Centuries)), Saint-Petersburg, 1912.
2. Bratcev V. (1879) “Zhertvy nerazumnogo vospitanija” (Victims of Unwise Education), in Strannik, 1879, vol. 3/2, pp. 288–320.
3. Vishlenkova E. A. Zabotjas' o dushah poddannyh: religioznaja politika v pervoj chetverti XIX veka (Caring about Souls of Nationals: Religious Politics in First Quarter of XIX Century), Saratov, 2002.
4. Vzgljad Filareta, mitropolita Moskovskogo, na nachal'noe obrazovanie (View of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, on the Elementary Education), Moscow, 1884.
5. Vsenarodnoe rasprostranenie gramotnosti v Rossii (National-Wide Expansion of Literacy in Russia), Moscow, 1819.
6. Voronov A. S. Istoriko-statisticheskoe obozrenie uchebnyh zavedenij S.-Peterburgskogo uchebnogo okruga s 1829 po 1853 g. (Historical-Statistical Survey of Schools of School District of Saint-Petersburg from 1829 till 1853), Saint-Petersburg, 1855.
7. Grigor'ev V. V. Istoricheskij ocherk russkoj shkoly (Historical Survey of Russian School), Moscow, 1890.
8. Knjaz'kov S. A., Serbov N. I. Ocherk istorii narodnogo obrazovanija v Rossii do jepohi Aleksandra II (Survey of History of People Education in Russia till the Time of Emperor Alexandr II), Moscow, 1910.
9. Megorskij P. (1875) “O narodnyh uchilishhah v byloe vremja v Kondushskom prihode Vytegorskogo uezda” (About People Schools in Old Time in Kondushskoj Parish of Vytegorskij District), in Oloneckie gubernskie vedomosti, 1875, vol. 9.
10. Otto N. K. (1866) “Vologodskaja direkcija uchilishh do 1850 g.” (Vologodskaja Direction of Schools till 1850), in Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshhenija, 1866, vol. 132, pp. 1–198.
11. (1821) “O chtenii Novogo Zaveta v gimnazijah, uezdnyh i prihodskih uchilishhah” (About Reading of the New Testament in Gymnasiums, District and Parish Schools), in Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshhenija, 1821, vol. III.
12. Popov V. (1857) “Opisanie Kokshen'gi (Totemskogo uezda)” (Description of Koksen’ga (of Totemskij District)), in Vologodskie gubernskie vedomosti, 1857, vol 24.
13. Smolich I. K. (2000) “Istorija Russkoj Cerkvi (1700–1917)” (History of Russian Church (1700–1917)), in Narodnoe obrazovanie v trudah istorikov russkoj cerkvi, Vladivostok, 2000, pp. 153–190.
14. Sokolov D. P. (1900) “Istoricheskij ocherk prepodavanija Zakona Bozh'ego v svetskih uchebnyh zavedenijah” (Historical Survey of Teaching of Religion in Secular Schools), in Sobranie pedagogicheskih statej o prepodavanii Zakona Bozhija, otpechatannyh (1861–1888 gg.) v razlichnyh povremennyh izdanijah, Saint-Petersburg, 1900, pp. 145–178.
15. Tihomirova E. E. (2013) “Prepodavanie Zakona Bozh'ego v gimnazii glazami sovremennikov (vtoraja polovina XIX – nachalo XX veka” (Teaching of Religion in Gymnasium in the Eyes of Contemporaries (Second Half of XIX — Begin of XX Centuries)), in: www. gf.nsu.ru/rizhsky 01.12.2013.

Kalinina Elena

Article is devoted to the formation of a special legal position of privatdozentur in Russian universities 1803-1884. The author analyzes a wide range of sources: Russian university statutes, documents and publications of the Ministry of National Education, comments on the draft statute in 1862. The aufer gradually build up the whole picture of the legislation on privatdozentur in its development. Article is thematically divided into sections in which the basic aspects of the Ministry of rulemaking activities are represented. Among them: the problem of privatdozentur, requirements to occupy the post, sources of fi nancing, the rights and obligations of university lecturers. Article is preceded by a brief excursion into the history of privatdozentur and reasoning about the discrepancies in the terminology. The author comes to new conclusions that the basic legislation on university lecturers have been laid already in the Charter of the University of Dorpat in 1803, and the term «privatdozent» came into use in the late 50s. (to fix the statute in 1863). The most important step in the development of institutions was the University Statute of 1863 and the University Statute of 1884 became a closing link in the chain of transformations privatdozentur in the universities of the Russian Empire. After 1884 Russian privatdozentur continued existence in a new environment and on a new qualitive basis, resulting in a tremendous increase in the number of privatdozents. Despite all the changes occurred from 1804 to 1884, following provisions remained constant: privatdozents were university professors, who were not included in the staff, were not involved in lectures, had no salary or other regular sources of funding. Until 1884 when they took office, they had to read a public trial lecture (or two) and defend a thesis pro venia legendi.

Privatdozentur, Ministry of Public Education, universities, University Statute, professorship, test lectures, pro venia legendi.

1. Andreev A. Ju. Rossijskie universitety XVIII — pervoj poloviny XIX veka v kontekste universitetskoj istorii Evropy (Russian Universities of XVIII — First Half of XIX Centuries in Context of University History of Europe), Moscow, 2009.
2. Andreev A. Ju., Posohov S. I. (eds.) Universitet v Rossijskoj imperii XVIII — pervoj poloviny XIX veka (University in Russian Empire of XVIII — First Half of XIX Centuries), Moscow, 2012.
3. Ivanov A. E. Uchenye stepeni v Rossijskoj imperii XVIII v. — 1917 g. (Academic Degrees in Russian Empire from XVIII Cent. to 1917), Moscow, 1994.
4. Krasovskij P. Jur'ev i Jur'evskij universitet. Ocherki, zametki i vospominanija jur'evskogo studenta (Jur’ev and Jur’ev University. Essays, Notices and Memories of Jur’ev Student), Riga, 1904.
5. Petrov F.A. Formirovanie sistemy universitetskogo obrazovanija v Rossii (Forming of the System of University Education in Russia), Moscow, 2003, vol. 3.
6. Petuhov E. V. Imperatorskij Jur'evskij, byvshij Derptskij, universitet za sto let ego sushhestvovanija (1802–1902) (Emperor Jur’ev, Former Derptskij University for Hundred Years of Its Existence (1802–1902)), Jur'ev, 1902, vol. 1.
7. Rozhdestvenskij S. V. (ed.) Sankt-Peterburgskij universitet v pervoe stoletie ego dejatel'nosti (Saint-Petersburg University in the First Age of Its Activity), Petrograd, 1919.
8. Shhetinina G. I. Russkie universitety i ustav 1884 goda (Russian Universities and Regulations of 1884), Moscow, 1976.
9. Jejmontova R. G. Russkie universitety na putjah reformy: shestidesjatye gody XIX veka (Russian Universities on Their Way to Reform: Sixties Years of XIX Century), Moscow, 1993.

Piskunov Il'ia

Recently historian has been paid close attention to the different university institutions. Seminar is one of them. The main purposes of article is to reconstruct the history of the origin of this kind of practice, to determine the value of this Institute in the formation of the curriculum those or other scientific disciplines in the University’s and to explain role in communication and “schoolmaking” practice of the various communities of scientists. Comprehensively analyzing the sources for the study of the seminars: the reports of the persons sent for a scientific purpose abroad, status reports, some offi cial informations of Moscow univercity, memoirs and correspondence, the author comes to the conclusion that the seminars as a type of University institutions appeared at the Moscow University in the mid-1860-ies. The development of this institution in the University continued to 1884. According to the Charter of 1884 seminars are a mandatory form of institutions for historical education. Seminar become a mass, their content is washed out. At the same time Professor of Moscow University Gerier and P. G. Vinogradov tend to keep the research reputation of this institution and, in fact, are at the origin of the transfer of the seminar in a private space in organizing home workshop, original prototype by a team of researchers, seminar became a place for study. The crisis seminars in Moscow falls on the turn of the century. Gerier was not able to transfer accumulated in the framework of the seminar research practices in the Historical society at the Moscow University, and Vinogradov in 1901 leaves the University, enduring traditions of the Moscow seminar in the Anglo-Saxon world universities.

seminar, the community of historians, scientific school, V. I. Gerier, P. G. Vinogradov, Moscow University.

1. Антощенко А. В. (2009) “Das Seminar: немецкие корни и русская крона (о применении немецкого опыта «семинариев» московскими профессорами во второй половине XIX в.” (Das Seminar: German Roots and Russian Top (about Use of German Experience of “Seminaries” by Moscow Professors in Second Half of XIX Century)), in «Byt' russkim po duhu i evropejcem po obrazovaniju»: universitety Rossijskoj imperii v obrazovatel'nom prostranstve Central'noj i Vostochnoj Evropy XVIII — nachala XX v., Moscow, 2009, pp. 263–278.
2. Antoshhenko A. V., Sveshnikova A. V. (2012) “Istoricheskij seminar kak mesto znanija” (Historical Seminar as Place of Knowledge), in Istoricheskaja kul'tura imperatorskoj Rossii: formirovanie predstavlenij o proshlom, Moscow, 2012.
3. Vorob'eva I. G. Professor-slavist Nil Aleksandrovich Popov (Professor-slavist Nil Aleksandrovich Popov), Tver', 1999.
4. Mjagkov G. P. (2001) “«Nestor nemeckoj istoriografii» ili «kamerdiner istorii»? Istoriki Rossii v sporah o Ranke” („Nestor of German Hagiography“ or „Valet of History“? Russian Historians in Disputes about Ranke), in Dialog s proshlym: Al'manah intellektual'noj istorii, Moscow, 2001, vol. 6.
5. Sveshnikov A. V. Peterburgskaja shkola medievistov nachala XX veka. Popytka antropologicheskogo analiza nauchnogo soobshhestva (Petersburg School of Medieval Scholars of Begin of XX Century. Attempt of Anthropological Analysis of Scientific Society), Omsk, 2010.
6. Cygankov D. A. Professor V. I. Ger'e i ego ucheniki (Professor V. I. Ger’e and His Pupils), Moscow, 2010.

Tsygankov Dmitrii

In the last decades of the XVIIth century in the situation of increasing absolutism, deepening processes of Russian culture secularization and western infl uencing the adherents of Orthodoxy, the patriarch circle writers, who fought for the purity of the Orthodox Faith, intensified their activities. Remaining true to the canonical statutes of the Church, they tried to rethink its significance and its role in the spiritual life of Russian society. Adherents of Orthodoxy supported the ideas of the Sixth Moscow Patriarch Nikon (1652-1658), who stood up for glorifying the Church and strengthening its role both in public life and in the state and also proclaimed the thesis about the superiority of the priesthood over the reign, which had firmly been based on the Byzantine patristic heritage. Within this tradition a number of compositions in defense of the Church and on behalf of the Church had been written. One of them was recently discovered composition about Patriarch Nikon of the 90s of the XVIIth century. In this composition the themes of the greatness of the Church, its spiritual influence on public life, the exaltation of the priesthood were the leading ones. With the reliance on such dogmatic and canonical sources as «The Book of Faith» and «The Tablet», which were especially popular in Russia in the XVIIth century, the anonymous author described essential features of Church, using for this purpose traditional metaphorical images and symbols; he skillfully transferred the symbols of Church - «the ship», «the heaven» and «the grape», embodied by Patriarch Nikon in the church architecture and in art, in verbal formulas. The author showed that the essential characteristics of the Church became more actual and important in the most difficult periods for the Russian Orthodox Church, especially in the days of trial, persecution and infringement of its rights; in such periods the Church is conceptualized as the way of life, as an established liturgical «order», as inside and outside spiritualizing in people’ consciousness.

Russian literature of the end of the XVIIth century, writers of the patriarch circle (the patriarch circle writers), «The Tablet», «The Book of Faith», Patriarch Nikon, symbolic and allegorical definition, metaphorical images of the Church.

Sevast'ianova Svetlana