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

The article studies the attitude of the Southeast Russian Church Council toward rather an inhomogeneous politically White Movement. This council took place in Stavropol in 1919. Various socio-political forces, represented at the council, tried to take advantage of that assembly in order to use its authority for political causes, but the council successfully ignored such attempts. According to the council the main purpose of the Church was to work constructively in a religious and moral sphere. Since the White Army became an ally of the Church in its struggle with militant atheism, the leader of the White Movement General Anton Denikin was the only political fi gure who received a special support from the council

Russian Orthodox Church, South-Eastern Russian Church Council, the Provisional Supreme Church Authority, the Russian Civil War, the White Russian Movement, General Anton Denikin

1. Butakov Ja. A. Osoboe soveshhanie pri Glavnokomandujushhem vooruzhennymi silami na Juge Rossii (1918–1919 gg.) (Special Conference by Commander in Chief of Armed Forces of South of Russia (1918–1919)), in: http://www.antibr.ru/dictionary/ae_ossov_gk.html (Date: 14.02.2014)).
2. Kostrjukov A. A. 2008 “Stavropol'skij sobor 1919 g. i nachalo nezavisimoj cerkovnoj struktury na Juge Rossii” (Stavropolskij Council of 1919 and Begin if Independent Church Structur in South of Russia), in Ural'skij istoricheskij vestnik, 2008, vol. 4, pp. 71–75.
3. Krjachko N., prot. 2012 “Arhiv Jugo-Vostochnogo russkogo cerkovnogo sobora 1919 g. kak istochnik po istorii Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi perioda Grazhdanskoj vojny” (Archive of Russian Church Council of South-East of 1919 as Source for History of Russian Orthodox Church in Period of the Civil War), in Vestnik cerkovnoj istorii, 2012, vol 1/2 (25/26), pp. 158–216.
4. Molchanov L. A. 2008 “My ne dali verujushhim vsego togo, chto dolzhny byli dat' (Vremennoe vysshee cerkovnoe upravlenie na Juge Rossii)” (We Did not Give to Believers All that We Should Give (Temporary High Church Governance in South of Russia)), in Belaja gvardija: Russkaja Pravoslavnaja Cerkov' i Beloe dvizhenie, Moscow: Posev, 2008, p. 34.
5. Puchenkov A. S. 2012 “Denikin i Kuban' v 1919 godu: dva jepizoda otnoshenij” (Denikin and Kuban’ in 1919: Two Episodes of Relations), in Russkij sbornik: issledovanija po istorii Roscii, Moscow: «Regnum», 2012, pp. 385–406.
6. Cvetkov V. 2008 “Zh. Cerkov' i vlast' v gody «Russkoj smuty» (otnoshenie Svjatejshego Patriarha Tihona k antibol'shevistskomu dvizheniju v 1917–1920 gg.)” (“Live Church” and Power in Time of “Russian Revolt” (Relation of Holy Patriarch Tikhon to Antibolshevist Movement in 1917–1920)), in Belaja gvardija: Russkaja Pravoslavnaja Cerkov' i Beloe dvizhenie, Moscow: Posev, 2008 (http://www.dk1868.ru/statii/tixon.htm (Date: 01.02.2014)).

Biriukova Iuliia

The article features an analysis of the nature and dynamic of church-state relations in Estonia during the first years following its integration into the USSR. In 1944 the religious situation in the republic was characterized by a number of distinctive attributes. The local population, which had lived prior to the accession of the Baltics to the USSR in 1944 in an atmosphere of relative religious freedom, presented the Soviet authorities with a new phenomenon that would have to be reckoned with. The Plenipotentiaries for Estonia appointed by the Council on ROC Affairs at the USSR Council of Ministers were able to convince their superiors of the need to tread carefully in light of the local specifics. The article deals with an analysis of the distinctive features of the Estonian Orthodox Church. As a secondary denomination in the region, it felt the powerful influence of Lutheran customs and rites. The ethnic heterogeneity of the fold and pronounced language barrier determined the choice of candidacy for the ruling eparchy. The Estonian diocese was rather well endowed with cathedrals, meaning that the main problem of church life in the USSR since the easing of persecution in 1944-1947 - the opening of new parishes - was not an issue in Estonia. On the whole, the church-state relations that dominated the republic in 1944-1947 were quite stable, just as they were around the country; moreover, they were typified by a cautious policy on the part of the Soviet authorities. In 1948-1949 the situation began to deteriorate across the country and Estonia was no exception. The difference was in the methods used: in Estonia, the decision was made to fight the Church and its clergy primarily through collectivization, which was actively pursued in the Baltics beginning in the early 1950s. Collectivization left rural parishes and their clergy in dire straits, and religious life in the countryside began to wane. Yet, the arrival from the central regions of the USSR of a Russian-speaking population tasked with elevating the republic’s industrial base resulted in a revitalization of church life in the cities where it was stationed, causing tremendous alarm at the Council on ROC Affairs. As a consequence, Estonian orthodoxy began to gradually change its ethic composition. The nationwide trend towards the ramping-up of religious persecution, begun in the early 1950s, made its way to Estonia. The crackdown included the arrest of clergy, the closure of cathedrals, and even a campaign to close Pühtitsa Convent. Religious pilgrims from neighboring USSR republics began converging on the monastery - to the great consternation of the central authorities. Thanks to their well-considered, systematic actions, the ruling Estonian eparchy managed to keep church life in the republic alive, yet, beginning in the early 1950s, church-state relations within the territory of Estonia were increasingly marked by nationwide trends.

state-church relations in Estonia, church-state relations in Estonia, the Orthodoxy in Estonia, the Council on ROC Aff airs, Estonian Orthodox Church, Estonian eparchy, the accession of the Baltics to the USSR

1. Aleksij II, Patriarh. Pravoslavie v Jestonii (Orthodoxy in Estonia), Moscow, 1999.
2. Vasil'eva O. Ju. Russkaja Pravoslavnaja Cerkov' v politike sovetskogo gosudarstva v 1943–1948 gg. (Russian Orthodox Church in Politics of Soviet State in 1943–1948), Moscow, 1999.
3. Zotova-Pecherskaja T. Kogda uvodjat v vechnost'. Zhizneopisanie episkopa Pecherskogo Ioanna (Bulina) (When One Goes to Eternity. Life of Bishop of Pechery Ioann (Bulin)), Moscow, 2006.
4. Nikolaj Balashov, prot., Igor' Prekup, prot. Problemy pravoslavija v Jestonii. O knige arhimandrita Grigorija Papatomasa «Neschast'e byt' malen'koj cerkov'ju v malen'koj strane)» (Problems of Orthodoxy in Estonia. About the Book of Archimandrite Grigorij Papatomas “Misfortune to be a Small Church in a Small Land”), Tallin, 2013.
5. Pravoslavie v Jestonii. Issledovanija i dokumenty (Orthodoxy in Estonia. Studies and Documents), Moscow, 2010, vol. 2.
6. Chumachenko T. A. Gosudarstvo, pravoslavnaja cerkov', verujushhie. 1941–1961 gg. (State, Orthodox Church, Belivers. 1941–1961), Moscow, 1999.
7. Russkaja Pravoslavnaja Cerkov' pri Staline i Hrushheve (Russian Orthodox Church by Stalin and Khrushchev), Moscow, 2005.

Nepochatova Marina

In the years of World War I in Russia 24 military colleges and 49 schools of ensigns of land forces worked. Data on promotion of officers on each from these military schools are provided in article, allowing visually to present not he general quantitative indices of training of officers in military schools in the years of World War I, but also to track dynamics of this process. The personal accounting of officers on the basis of primary materials - orders on promotion allowed to establish that in military colleges not less than 92 thousand officers, and at schools of ensigns - about 140 thousand were prepared, that is it is significantly more, than it was considered to be (about 80 thousand and about 110 thousand)

World War I, Russian offi cers, military colleges, schools of ensigns

1. Volkov S. V. 2011 “Pervaja mirovaja vojna i russkij oficerskij korpus” (The First World War and Russian Officer Corps), in Vestnik PSTGU. Serija II. Istorija. Istorija Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, 2011, vol. 1/38, p. 112.
2. Demeter K. The German Officer Corps in Society and State, 1650–1945, London, 1965.

Volkov Sergei

Desertion is one of the most active forms of ordinary resistance of the people to the state pressure during the low-popular war which is conducting for the purposes unclear for the people. At the same time, mass desertion is a manifestation of «total» war in the world conflicts of the XX century. During World War I in all armies of the world there was the desertion often accepting mass character. In the Russian army, as well as in other, deserters appeared from the war beginning. Desertion scales in the Russian army explained as objective factors - diffi cult fights, shortage of supply, defeat at the front, and subjective - unwillingness to participate in war, melancholy for the house, desire to help a family the work. Desertion in different years of war had various forms. If at the beginning of war there were mainly «self-arrows», in 1915, during defeats at the front - evasion from entrenchments. By the end of 1916, because of the general fatigue from war, desertion takes the real form - flight from the front to the back. After February revolution desertion becomes mass in which hundreds thousands military personnel take part already. Disorder of army and development of revolutionary process extremely strengthen desertion scales that is explained by the actual lack of punishment for this crime. Destruction of the Russian state during revolution became the main reason of coming to power of Bolsheviks, an exit of Russia from war and the army demobilization which essential part in 1917 already deserted from the front.

desertion, ≪self-arrows≫, military criminal prosecution, capital punishment, military oath, escape, vagrancy, military police, rural guards, ordinary resistance

1. Averbah E. I. Zakonodatel'nye akty, vyzvannye vojnoj. 1914–1915 g. (Law Acts, Caused by War. 1914–1915), Petrograd, 1915, vol. 1.
2. Andreev A. M. Soldatskie massy garnizonov russkoj armii v Oktjabr'skoj revoljucii (Solder Masses of Garrison Russian Army in October Revolution), Moscow, 1975.
3. Velikij neznakomec: krest'jane i fermery v sovremennom mire (Great Stranger: Peasants and Farmers in Modern World), Moscow, 1992.
4. Vlast' i reformy. Ot samoderzhavnoj k Sovetskoj Rossii (Power and Reforms. From Autocratic to Soviet Russia), Moscow, 2006.
5. Golovin N. N. Voennye usilija Rossii v Mirovoj vojne (Military Effors of Russia in the World War), Mocow, 2001.
6. Grekov N. V. 2006 “Dejatel'nost' kontrrazvedki «Smersh» po presecheniju izmeny i dezertirstva v vojskah v gody Velikoj Otechestvennoj vojny 1941–1945 gg.” (Activity of Counter-Intelligence “Smersh” for Suppression of Treason and Desertion in Army in Time of the Great Patrioti War of 1941–1945), in Voenno-istoricheskij zhurnal, 2006, vol. 2.
7. Mal'kov A. A. Dejatel'nost' bol'shevikov sredi voennoplennyh russkoj armii (1915–1919) (Activity of Bolsheviks amidst of Capturers of Russian Army (1915–1919)), Kazan', 1971.
8. Nagornaja O. S. «Drugoj voennyj opyt»: rossijskie voennoplennye Pervoj mirovoj vojny v Germanii (1914–1922) (“Another Military Experience”: Russian Capturers of the First World War in Germany (1914–1922)), Moscow, 2010.
9. Os'kin M. V. 2013 “Policija Rossijskoj imperii v gody Pervoj mirovoj vojny: bor'ba s dezertirstvom” (Police of Russian Empire in Time of the First World War: Struggle against Desertion), in Sovremennye problemy prava i upravlenija. 3-ja Mezhdunarodnaja nauchnaja konferencija, Tula, 2013, vol. 1.
10. Pirejko A. V tylu i na fronte imperialisticheskoj vojny (In Home Front and Battlefront of Imperialistic War), Leningrad, 1926.
11. Poslednjaja avstro-vengerskaja vojna. Izdanie avstrijskogo voennogo arhiva (The Last Austrian-Hungarian War. Edition of Austrian War Archive), Moscow, 1929, vol. 1.
12. Rodin G. S. Po sledam minuvshego (Following the Scent of the Passed), Tula, 1968.
13. Serebrjannikov V. V. 2002 “Chelovek i vojna v zerkale sociologii” (Human and War in Mirror of Sociology), in Voenno-istoricheskaja antropologija, Ezhegodnik, Moscow, 2002.

Os'kin Maksim

The article is devoted to the study of military materials periodicals of the early XX century. At the end of the Russo-Japanese war, it became obvious that the Russian army is in need of reform. In 1905-1912, the war Department began to reform, which broadly reflected on the pages of the military press. The military community is actively discussed the ongoing reforms and through the press offered Military Ministry options for certain reforms. Among the military publicists was known to contemporaries military experts, and unknown officers active duty and reserve officers. A wide range of authors assumed a comprehensive and open discussion of the reforms. In turn, the reforms undertaken by the Ministry, often consistent with the proposals of the military community. This was due to the existing cooperation mechanisms of the Ministry of war and the military community through military print. On the one hand the Ministry of war could provoke discussion of any problems, in order to identify the opinions of the majority. On the other hand, the military community is often performed with the primary initiative, supported by the Ministry of war.

Military periodicals, the defense Ministry, the military community, the reform of the Russian army, interaction and cooperation

1. Ajrapetov O. R. Generaly, liberaly i predprinimateli: rabota na front i na revoljuciju. 1907–1917 (Generals, Liberals and Businessmen: Work for the Front and Revolution), Moscow, 2003.
2. Belogurov S. B.Istorija voennoj periodicheskoj pechati v Rossii (XIX – nachalo XX vv.). Dis. … dokt. ist. nauk (History of Military Press in Russia (XIX — Begin of XX Centuries). Dissertation), Moscow, 1997.
3. Beskrovnyj L. G. Ocherki po istochnikovedeniju voennoj istorii Rossii (Essays on Source Study of Military History of Russia), Moscow, 1957.
4. Zajonchkovskij P. A. Samoderzhavie i russkaja armija na rubezhe XIX–XX stoletij (Autocracy and Russian Army at the Turn of the XIX–XX Centuries), Moscow, 1973.
5. Uzhegov T. I., Belogurov S. B. Otechestvennaja voennaja zhurnalistika (Russian Military Journalism), Moscow, 1995, vol. 1. XVIII – nach. XX v. (XVIII — Begin of XX Centuries).

Pirogov Dmitrii

The article examines the labour organization of Russian sisters of mercy during World War One. The author indicates two periods which took place before and after the February Revolution. Based on archive documents and offi cial publications the article describes general structure of Russian Red Cross Society institutions and basic principles of sisters of mercy communities’ work. It examines the rules of new sisters’ employment, their training, service assignment and professional duties. The emphasis is put on nurses’ work in wartime. During first years of war sisters’ position was stable. Due to specifi c hierarchy in the managing structure sisters’ work was productive and demanded. After the February Revolution the managing system changed drastically as well as the status of sisters of mercy and their reception in society. The author gives a thorough examination of sisters’ position after reorganization of Russian Red Cross Society. In time of political instability Russian sisters of mercy were able to organize themselves into one big organization thus creating All-Russian Union of Sisters of Mercy. This article for the first time ever implements into scientific research a huge amount of documents which allowed a signifi cant extension of views on Bolsheviks’ political approaches to Russian Red Cross Society and institution of sisters of mercy.

World War One, Russian Red Cross Society, sisters of mercy communities, All-Russian Union of Sisters of Mercy, reorganization of Russian Red Cross Society, Central Committee of Russian Red Cross Society

1. Konohova A. S. 2012 “Sestry miloserdija v gody revoljucii i Grazhdanskoj vojny” (Sisters of Charity in Time of Revolution and Civil War), in Novejshaja istorija Rossii, 2012, vol. 1, pp. 91–99.
2. Kunkite M. I. 2009 “Jevoljucija obraza sestry miloserdija v rossijskom obshhestve v gody Pervoj mirovoj vojny” (Evolution of Image of a Sister of Charity in Russian Society in Time of the First World War), in Materialy Otkrytoj gorodskoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii «Voprosy uchastija srednego medicinskogo personala v krupnyh lokal'nyh voennyh konfliktah XIX–XXI vv.», Saint-Petersburg, 2009, pp. 26–30.
3. Levina I. 2006 “Sestrinskoe delo — nauka i iskusstvo” (Nurse Business — Science and Art), in Medicina i zdorov'e, 2006, vol. 12/08, pp. 32–33.
4. Mihajlov D. Krasnyj Krest i sestry miloserdija v Rossii i za granicej (Red Cross and Sisters of Charity in Russia and Abroad), Petrograd, 1914.

Sribnaia Anna

The diary of Metropolitan of Novgorod and Staraya Russa Arseny (Stadnitsky) for a period of 1880-1917 is kept in the State Archive of the Russian Federation. However, during the First World War when Right Reverend Arseny was Archbishop, not all notebooks of the diary were saved. One notebook was absent and it covered a period from November 1916 to August 1917 when the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church was open as the last preserved diary notebook was dedicated to the Council events and was titled “At the Council”. But even this incomplete material of the diary is of the greatest importance. Archbishop Arseny, a member of the State Council and present member of the Holy Synod and Doctor of Church history had a very serious attitude to his diary and described there the most important (from his point of view) documents and events in the state, social and church life of that time. In the notebooks of the 1914-1916 years there are letters from the front, letters of Archbishop of Warsaw and Privislinsky Region Nikolay (Ziorov) and of Mother Superior of the Holy Trinity - St. Sergius convent in Riga Sergiya (Mansurova). Right Reverend Arseny covered many problems in the Novgorod eparchy and in the Russian Church as a whole during the First World War such as front events and assistance of the population to the front; - aid to the wounded and their families, the families of killed in action and orphans; - refugees and evacuation of the monasteries and orphanages; - evacuation of church valuables from eparchies close to the front; - applications of some hierarchs to the Holy Synod about sending them to the front as army priests; - food problems; - church life and divine services during the war and other issues.

the First World War, Russian Orthodox Church, Holy Synod, State Council, Novgorod eparchy, Eparchial home, Eparchial aid committee to the front, Eparchial hospital, refugees, church valuables

Efremova Ol'ga

In the given text the author attempts to offer a statement of the question about relations between theological and historical methodologies. Universal categories - History and Truth - work as a general scheme of discourse. They are examined in their widest meaning and in the ultimate concrete sense. As has been shown in the conclusion both universals are equally important for historical research as well as for theological. Both academic disciplines expose given generalities from their own point of view accomplishing thereby their mission. In the first part the contemplation is devoted to survey, identification and definition of some integrated theological method that could be found in different theological systems as the most general tool for this type of science. There are the following versions: method of subalternation, method of referring, method of hermeneutical referring, method of correlation, transcendental method. The author proceeds proposing detection and identification of fi ve principles of theological operation with their proper representations: confessionality, historicity, twofold contextuality, verification and systemacy. This part is of the most innovative nature: selection and definition of this five principals is a result of multiple discussions in various scientific colloquiums and conferences with high rate of representativeness. Moreover these systematic propositions could be used not only in the theological fi eld but also in other humanities with relevant content. At last the third part deals with the general elements of historical methodology compared to their theological equivalents: source of historical research, drawing up of historical text, subject area of historical study.

theological methodology, historical methodology, theories of truth, confessionality, historicity, contextuality, verifi cation, systemacy, historical source

1. Blok M. Apologija istorii, ili Remeslo istorika (Apology of History, or Occupation of a Historian), Moscow, 1986.
2. Bolotov V. V. Lekcii po istorii drevnej Cerkvi (Lectures for History of the Ancient Church), Moscow, 1994, vol. 1.
3. Kollingvud R. Dzh. Ideja istorii: Avtobiografija (Idea of History: Autobiography), Moscow, 1980.
4. Le Goff Zh. Istorija i pamjat' (History and Memory), Moscow, 2013.
5. Lonergan B. Metod v teologii (Method in Theology), Moscow, 2010.
6. Pol'skov K. O. 2010 “K voprosu o nauchnom bogoslovskom metode” (To the Question about Scientific Theological Method), in Voprosy filosofii, 2010, vol. 7, pp. 93–101.
7. Tillih P. Sistematicheskoe bogoslovie (Systematic Theology), Saint-Peterburg, 1998.
8. Trubeckoj S. N. 1994 “Uchenie o Logose v ego istorii” (Teaching about Logos in Its History), in Trubeckoj S. N. Sochinenija, Moscow, 1994.
9. Florovskij G. V. Puti russkogo bogoslovija (Ways of the Russian Theology), Paris, 1982.
10. Florovskij G. V. 2005 “Zatrudnenija istorika-hristianina” (Problems of a Christian Historian), in Florovskij G. V. Hristianstvo i civilizacija, Saint-Petersburg, 2005.
11. Shestov L. Lekcii po istorii grecheskoj filosofii (Lectures for History of Greek Philosophy), Moscow, Paris, 2001.
12. Shmeman A., prot. Dnevniki. 1973–1983 (Diaries. 1973–1983), Moscow, 2005.
13. Chenu M.-D. Lа théologie comme science au XIII siècle, Paris, 1957.
14. Duby G., Lardreau G. Dialogues, Paris, 1980.
15. Delacroix C., Dosse F., Garcia P., Offenstadt N. (eds.) Historiographies: Concepts et débats, Paris, 2010, vol. 1–2.
16. Kasper W. The Methods of Dogmatic Theology, Toronto, 1969.
17. Mpegzos M. To mellon tou parelthontos. Kritike eisagoge ste theologia tes Orthodoxias (The Future of the Past. Introductory Criticism of the Orthodox Theology), Athena, 1993.
18. Ricœur P. 1961 “Histoire de la philosophie et historicité”, in L’histoire et ses interprétations. Entretiens autour d’Arnold Toynbee, Paris, Le Haye, 1961 pp. 214–227.

Mikhailov Petr

The subject of this paper is the interpretation of the main trends in the development of church organization in the 4th century in modern Orthodox and Catholic historiography. The analysis of the works of Orthodox (N. Afanasiev, J. Meyendorff) and Catholic (V. Monachino, C. Vogel, V. Twomey, K. Schatz, F. Dvornik) church historians and theologians allows us to find a number of specific confessional prejudgments which have some influence on the studies of the historical material. Orthodox authors pay great attention to the problem of the autonomy of the local church. We also can fi nd certain «democratism» in explaining the mechanisms of decision-making and criticism of the idea of institutional authority over local churches (whether papal, synodal or emperor’s authority). The focus of Catholic authors is the idea of communion of local churches, which has hierarchical structure. The source and the leader of this communion is the Roman chair. Growing influence of Rome and canonical legalization of the idea of primacy are considered as the most important tools in Church’s fight for its freedom against the emperor’s control, as well as for its unity against the regionalization of church order (the development of patriarchates). Thus, in the works of the church historians we can see the echoes of the Catholic-Orthodox theological debates about the relationship between the principles of universal primacy and regional autocephalism in church order.

confessional historiography, Eucharistic ecclesiology, Communioecclesiology, Roman primacy, Arian controversy

1. Afanas'ev N., protopr. 1934 “Dve idei vselenskoj cerkvi” (Two Ideas of Ecumenical Church), in Put', 1934, vol. 45, pp. 16–29.
2. Afanas'ev N., protopr. Cerkov' Duha Svjatogo (Church of Holy Spirit), Kiev, 2010.
3. Afanas'ev N., protopr. Cerkovnye sobory i ih proishozhdenie (Church Councils and Their Origin), Moscow, 2003.
4. Dvornik F. Ideja apostol'stva v Vizantii i legenda ob apostole Andree (Idea of Apostolate in Byzantium and the Legend about Apostle Andrew), Saint-Petersburg, 2007.
5. Zaharov G. E. 2013 “Vselenskij sobor kak sobranie episkopov Vostoka i Zapada v patristicheskom nasledii i cerkovnoj praktike IV veka” (Ecumenical Council as Meeting of Bishop of East and West in Patristic Heritage and Church Praxis of IV Century), in XXIII Ezhegodnaja bogoslovskaja konferencija PSTGU: Materialy, Moscow, 2013, vol. 1, pp. 249–253.
6. Zaharov G. E. «…Ibo nadlezhit byt' i raznomyslijam mezhdu vami»: Jekkleziologicheskaja problematika v istorii arianskih sporov (“No Doubt There Have to be Differences among You”: Ecclesiological Problems in the History of Arian Controversies), Moscow, 2014.
7. Zaharov G. E. Illirijskie cerkvi v jepohu arianskih sporov (IV — nachalo V v.) (Illyrian Churches in Time of Arian Controversies (IV — Begin of V Cent.)), Moscow, 2014.
8. Mattei P. 2013 “Afrikanskie sobory v jepohu sv. Kipriana Karfagenskogo” (African Councils in Time of St. Cyprian of Cartago), in XXIII Ezhegodnaja bogoslovskaja konferencija PSTGU: Materialy, Moscow, 2013. vol. 1, pp. 242–249.
9. Mattei P. 2012 “Rimskij primat v vosprijatii afrikanskih hristian: predystorija, soderzhanie i istoricheskie sledstvija” (Rome Primacy in Perception of African Christians: Prehistorym Content and Historical Consequences), in Vestnik PSTGU. Serija II: Istorija. Istorija Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, 2012, vol. 4, pp. 40–61.
10. Mejendorf I., protopr. Zhivoe Predanie: Svidetel'stvo Pravoslavija v sovremennom mire (Living Tradition: Evidence of Orthodoxy in Modern World), Moscow, 2004.
11. Suvorov V., svjashh. 2013 “Problema pervenstva v trudah protopresvitera Nikolaja Afanas'eva” (Problem of Primacy in Works of protopriest Nikolaj Afanas’ev), in Cerkov' i vremja, 2013, vol. 64.
12. Homjakov A. S. 1994 “Neskol'ko slov pravoslavnogo hristianina o zapadnyh veroispovedanijah” (Some Words of an Orthodox Christian about Western Confessions), in Homjakov A. S. Sochinenija, Moscow, 1994, vol. 2, pp. 25–71.
13. Shmeman A., protopr. “Znamenatel'naja burja. Neskol'ko myslej ob avtokefalii, cerkovnom predanii i jekkleziologii” (Significant Storm. Some Thoughts about Autocephaly, Church Tradition and Ecclesiology), in Al'fa i Omega, 1996, vol. 9/10, pp. 141–164.
14. Dvornik F. Byzance et la primauté romaine, Paris, 1964.
15. Florovsky G. 1967 “The Authority of the Ancient Councils and the Tradition of the Fathers. An Introduction”, in Glaube, Geist, Geschichte. Festschrift für E. Benz zum 60. Geburtstage am 17 November 1967, Leiden, 1967, pp. 177–188.
16. Meyendorff J. 1957 “La primauté romaine dans la tradition canonique jusqu’au Concile de Chalcédoine”, in Istina, 1957, vol. 4, pp. 463–482.
17. Monachino V. 1972 “Communio e primato nella controversia ariana”, in Comunione interecclesiale collegialita-primato ecumenismo, Roma, 1972, pp. 319–377.
18. Reutter U. Damasus, Bischof von Rom, (366–384). Leben und Werk, Tübingen, 2009.
19. Schatz K. La primauté du Pape. Son histoire, des origines à nos jours, Paris, 1992.
20. Twomey V. Apostolikos Thronos: The Primacy of Rome as Reflected in the Church History of Eusebius and the Historico-Apologetical Writings of Saint Athanasius the Great, Münster, 1982.
21. Vogel C. 1962 “Unité de l’Église et pluralité des formes historiques d’organisation ecclésiastique du IIIe au Ve siècle“, in Congar Y., Dupuy B.-D. (eds.) L’épiscopat et l’Église universelle, Paris, 1962. pp. 591–636.

Zakharov Georgii

In the present article the concept of “raznochintsy” is to be analysed. The author concludes that the “raznochintsy” cannot be considered as a kind of specific social layer. This name is assigned to a variety of categories of the population, and only one thing combines these categories in common - the opposition to other groups, whether nobles, merchants and clergy, depending on the situation, time and place. “raznochintsy” represent the phenomenon of language and social consciousness. Understanding “raznochintsy” as educated simpletons («radical intellectuals of not-noble origin») comes from Herzen and was canonized in Soviet historiography by authority of Lenin. In this definition the emphasis was placed on the opposition to the government, no gentry origin, revolutionary democracy. In modern historiography “raznochintsy” considered as a social group, located at the junction of the main classes (nobility, clergy, townspeople and peasants). “Raznochintsy” were first of all outsiders, marginals. The very first legal mention of “raznochintsy” (1701) determined them by the method of exclusion, as those who were not under the authority of the church offi ce. In the confessional statements “raznochintsy” could refer to nobles (!) and domestic peasants, farmers (not included in other categories of the rural population), craft students and merchants. “Raznochintsy” in educational system were determined by opposition to other groups of students. For secular (Moscow University), this group were the nobles. In the religious schools (Kyiv-Mohyla, Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy) it was usual to determine “raznochintsy“ by contrast to natives of the clergy, so in the same number of “raznochintsy” nobles may be included.

the clergy, raznochintsy, social class, social mobility

1. Vasil'ev I. I. 1897 “Svedenija o chisle revizskih dush Pskovskoj gubernii, chisljashhihsja za raznymi soslovijami i uchrezhdenijami po perepisi 1756 goda” (Information about Number of Revision People of Pskovskaya Province, that Are on the List of Different Estates and Institution according to Census of 1756), in Sb. trudov chlenov Pskovskogo arheologicheskogo obshhestva za 1896 god, Pskov, 1897.
2. Virtshafter Je. K. Social'nye struktury. Raznochincy v Rossijskoj imperii (Social Structures. Commons in Russian Empire), Moscow, 2002.
3. Vul'fson G. N. Raznochinno-demokraticheskoe dvizhenie v Povolzh'e i na Urale v gody pervoj revoljucionnoj situacii (Common-Democratic Movement in Povolzh’e in Ural in Time of First Revolutional Situation), Kazan', 1974.
4. Ershova N. A. 1997 “Prihodskoe duhovenstvo i formirovanie raznochinnoj intelligencii v XVIII v.” (Parish Clergy and Forming of Common Intelligence in XVIII Cent.), in Problemy istorii vysshej shkoly: Mezhvuzovskij sbornik, Syktyvkar, 1997, pp. 17–25.
5. Zhivov V. M. 1999 “Marginal'naja kul'tura v Rossii i rozhdenie intelligencii” (Marginal Culture in Russia and Birth of Intelligence), in Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 1999, vol. 37, pp. 50–55.
6. Lejkina-Svirskaja V. R. Intelligencija v Rossii vo vtoroj polovine XIX veka (Intelligence in Russia in Second Half of XIX Century), Moscow, 1971.
7. Mangileva A. V. 2013 “Sovremennaja istoriografija istorii duhovnogo soslovija v Rossii XIX — nachala XX v.” (Modern Historiography of History of Clergy Estate in Russia of XIX — Begin of XX Cent.), in Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoj duhovnoj seminarii, 2013, vol. 1, pp. 134–149.
8. Pecherskaja T. I. Raznochincy shestidesjatyh godov XIX veka. Fenomen samosoznanija v aspekte filologicheskoj germenevtiki (Commons of Sixties Years of XIX Century. Phenomenon of Self-Consciousness in Aspect of Philological Hermeneutics), Novosibirsk, 1999.
9. Sidorova I. B. Polozhenie raznochincev v russkom obshhestve. Kand. dis. (Position of Commons in Russian Society. Dissertation), Kazan', 1982.
10. Feofanov A. M. 2007 “Uchashhiesja iz duhovnogo soslovija v Moskovskom universitete. 1755–1825 gody”, in Vestnik PSTGU. Serija II: Istorija. Istorija Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, 2007, vol. 3/24, pp. 42–53.
11. Shtrange M. M. Demokraticheskaja intelligencija v Rossii v XVIII v. (Democratic Intelligence in Russia in XVIII Cent.), Moscow, 1965.

Feofanov Aleksandr

This article continues the publication of archive of Archbishop Seraphim (Samoilovich), situated in research Department recent history of the Russian Orthodox Church of St. Tikhon`s Orthodox University. The article introduces into scientific use Documents, which give a new look on participation of Archbishop Seraphim (Samoilovich) in the preparation of the Declaration on the separation of the Yaroslavl diocese from Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) from 6 February 1928. This draft of the Declaration prepared by Archbishop Seraphim (Samoilovich) and Archpriest Pavel Lahostsky formed the basis of the text of the Yaroslavl Declaration, as hase been shown in the introductory article. Letters of Archpriest Paul to the Archbishop Seraphim about writing this draft of Declaration, reveal the positions of both the authors of the project on the situation in the Church, formed as a result of activity of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) in 1927 - the beginning of 1928. Published documents confirm participation of Metropolitan Agafangel (Preobrazhensky) in the preparation of the Yaroslavl Declaration and non-participation of Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovykh) in the preparation.

Russian Orthodox Church, the Yaroslavl diocese, the Declaration of separation from Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), Archbishop Seraphim (Samoilovich), Archpriest Paul Lehotsky, Metropolitan Agafangel (Preobrazhensky)

Nikolaev Sergei, диакон