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

The object of this study is process of evolution of church organization in the 4th century, especially the relationships between Roman primacy and synodal institution in the epoch of the Arian controversy. The author examines evolution of the institution of the Roman synod and practice of participation of the Roman See in church councils outside Rome, focusing on the unsuccessful attempt to convene the general council in Rome in 382. Analysis of historical data shows that the ability of the Roman see to organize in a short time a representative council (mainly of the Italian bishops) allowed Rome to claim for a special status within the church communion. In the same time the Roman See did not become in the 4th century the center of conciliar activity at the universal level. Participation of Rome in Ecumenical and Western councils was quite passive. In the second part of the paper the author attempts to reconstruct various models of church organization, which were typical for the western and the eastern episcopate in the 4th century. The author concludes that the real initiator of the development of universal primacy of Rome was not originally the pope, but the western episcopate (council of Serdica, 343). In the second part of the 4th century pope Damasus developed this conception, putting the principle of primacy of the Roman See as the chair of Peter above principle of synodal consensus. At the same time eastern bishops considered the Roman chair as the center of the West, rather than the head of the whole Church. Sometimes they invited bishop of Rome and other western bishops to act as arbiters in the eastern conflicts, but more often they defended the idea of full autonomy of the East.

Roman primacy, church councils, East and West, church organization, bishop’s power, early Christian ecclesiology, Julius I, Liberius, Damasus I, St. Athanasius the Great, St. Basil the Great.

1. Zaharov G. E. 2014 “Bogoslovskaja pozicija Rimskoj cerkvi v arianskih sporah” (Theological Position of the Catholic Church in Arian Controversies), in: Zaharov G. E. (ed.) Communio et traditio: Kafolicheskoe edinstvo Cerkvi v rannehristianskij period, Moscow, 2014, pp. 29–45.
2. «…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.
3. Zaharov G. E. Illirijskie cerkvi v jepohu arianskih sporov (IV — nachalo V v.) (Illyrian Churches in Time of Arian Controversies), M., 2014.
4. 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.
5. Mattei P. 2012 “Rimskij primat v vosprijatii afrikanskih hristian: predystorija, soderzhanie i istoricheskie sledstvija” (Rome Primacy in Perception of Africab Christian: Prehistory, Content and Historical Consequences), in Vestnik PSTGU. Serija II: Istorija. Istorija Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, 2012, vol. 4, pp. 40–61.
6. Petr (L’Juil'e), arhiep. Pravila pervyh chetyreh Vselenskih soborov (Rules of First Four Ecumenical Councils), Moscow, 2005.
7. Barnes T. D. 1992 “Capitulation of Liberius and Hilary of Poitiers”, in Phoenix, 1992, vol. 46/3, pp. 256–265.
8. Batiffol P. Cathedra Petri: études d’histoire ancienne de l’Eglise, Paris, 1938.
9. De Vries W. Orient et Occident: les structures ecclésiales vues dans l’histoire des sept premiers conciles oecuméniques, Paris, 2011.
10. Dvornik F. Byzance et la primauté romaine, Paris, 1964.
11. 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.
12. Gryson R. Prêtre selon saint Ambroise, Louvain, 1968.
13. Hess H. The Early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica, Oxford, 2002.
14. Just P. Imperator et Episcopus. Zum Verhältnis von Staatsgewalt und christlicher Kirche zwischen dem 1. Konzil von Nicaea (325) und dem 1. Konzil von Konstantinopel (381), Stuttgart, 2003.
15. Maccarrone M. Romana ecclesia — cathedra Petri, Roma, 1991, vol. 1.
16. Marot H. 1957 “Les conciles romains des Ive et Ve siècles et le développement de la primauté”, in Istina, 1957, vol. 4, pp. 435–462.
17. McLynn N. B. Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital, Berkeley, 1994.
18. Monachino V. 1959 “Il primato nella controversia Ariana”, in Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae, Roma, 1959. vol. 21: Saggi storici intorno al papato, pp. 17–89.
19. Pietri Ch. Roma Christiana. Recherches sur l’Eglise de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixte III (311–440), Roma, 1976.
20. Reutter U. Damasus, Bischof von Rom (366–384). Leben und Werk, Tübingen, 2009.
21. Roethe G. 1937 “Zur Geschichte der römischen Synoden im 3. und 4. Jahrhundert“, in Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte, Stuttgart, 1937, Bd. 11.
22. Sieben H.-J. 1970 “Zur Entwicklung der Konzilsidee. Werden und Eigenart der Konzilsidee des Athanasius von Alexandrien“, in Theologie und Philosophie, 1970, vol. 45, pp. 353–389.

Zakharov Georgii

In attention center of this work is a Chronograph compiled by Astrakhan’ archbishop Pahomiy in the middle of 17^th century. This is one of the so-called ‘chronographs with special composition’ based on later variants of Russian Chronograph. This unpublished monument of Russian historical literature of 17^th century was a most popular text of this group. There are 21 manuscript copies and seven different editions of Pahomiy’s Chronograph. The main conclusions of article: 1) Chrongraphwas very interesting for 17^th c. amateur historians by its conceptionof legendary Rus’ history. Pahomiy’s Chronograph contains all of the most well-known legendary tales of its time, such as ‘The Tale of Sloven and Rus’, ‘The Tale of Monomakh’s Gifts’ and some others. This compilation of historical legends makes Pahomiy’s Chronograph an important source for researching influences and relations inside an extant round of Russian historical manuscripts of 17^th century. 2) In 17^th century compilative chronographs were the popular among well-educated people as an instrument for fixing private historical experience.

Russian history of 17th century, Astrakhan,’ archbishop Pahomiy, Chronographs, historical legends

1. Afferika D. 1980 “K voprosu ob opredelenii russkih rukopisej M. M. Shherbatova v Jermitazhnom sobranii Gosudarstvennoj Publichnoj biblioteki im. M. E. Saltykova-Shhedrina” (To Question about Definition of Russian Manuscripts of M. M. Shherbatov in Collection of Ermitage of State Public. M. E. Saltykova-Shhedrin-Library), in TODRL, Leningrad, 1980, vol. 35, pp. 376–393.
2. Bogdanov A. P. 1993 “Isidor Snazin” (Isidor Snazin), in Slovar' knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnej Rusi, Saint-Petersburg, 1993, vol. 3/2, pp. 122–124.
3. Bogdanov A. P. 1990 “Letopisec russkogo voevody XVII v.” (Annalist of Russian Voevode of XVII Century), in Prometej, Moscow, 1990, vol. 16, pp. 100–110.
4. Bogdanov A. P. 1994 “Letopisec 1686 g. i patriarshij letopisnyj skriptorij” (Annalist of 1686 and Patriarch Chronicle Scriptorium), in Knizhnye centry Drevnej Rusi. XVII v. Raznye aspekty issledovanija, Saint-Petersburg, 1994, pp. 64–89.
5. Volkonskaja E. G. Rod knjazej Volkonskih (Family of Princes Volkonskije), Saint-Petersburg, 1900.
6. Gol'dberg A. L. 1982 “Legendarnaja povest' XVII v. o drevnejshej istorii Rusi“, (Legendary Tale of XVII Century about Oldest History of Rus‘) in Vspomogatel'nye istoricheskie discipliny, Leningrad, 1982, vol. 13, pp. 50–63.
7. Ziborov V. K. 1993 “Kubasov Sergej Ievlevich” (Kubasov Sergej Ievlevich), in Slovar' knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnej Rusi, Saint-Petersburg, 1993, vol. 3/2, pp. 203–206.
8. Popov A. (ed.) Izbornik slavjanskih i rossijskih sochinenij, voshedshih v hronografy russkoj redakcii (Collection of Slavic and Russian Works, Included to Chronographers of Russian Edition), Moscow, 1869.
9. Ikonnikov V. S. Opyt russkoj istoriografii (Experience of Russian Historiography), Kiev, 1908, vol. 2/2.
10. Leonid. Sistematicheskoe opisanie rukopisej grafa A. S. Uvarova (Systematic Description of Manuscripts of Graf A. S. Uvarov), Moscow, 1894, vol. 3.
11. Nasonov A. N. 1955 “Letopisnye pamjatniki hranilishh Moskvy: Novye materialy” (Annal Memorials of Depots of Moscow: New Materials), in Problemy istochnikovedenija, Moscow, 1955, vol. 4, pp. 268–271.
12. 1902 “Pahomij” (Pahomij), in Russkij biograficheskij slovar', Saint-Petersburg, 1902, vol. 13, p. 413.
13. Popov A. [H.] Obzor hronografov russkoj redakcii (Review of Chronographers of Russian Edition), Moscow, 1869, vol. 2.
14. Rybin V. A., Tvorogov O. V. 1976 “Materialy k klassifikacii spiskov Russkogo hronografa” (Materials of Classification of Copies of Russian Chronographer), in Metodicheskie rekomendacii dlja sostavlenija svodnogo kataloga slavjano-russkih rukopisej, hranjashhihsja v SSSR, Moscow, 1976, vol. 2/1, pp. 140–156.
15. Savinov M. A. 2008 “O Hronografe Pahomija i Letopisce 1686 g.” (About Chronograper of Pahomij and Annalist of 1686), in Letopisi i hroniki: Novye issledovanija, Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, 2008, pp. 280–289.
16. Sirenov A. V. Stepennaja kniga i russkaja istoricheskaja mysl' XVI–XVII vv. (Book of Royal Degrees and Russian Historical Thought of XVI–XVII Cent.), Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, 2010.
17. Solodkin Ja. G. Istorija pozdnego russkogo letopisanija (History of Late Russian Chronicles), Moscow, 1997.
18. Stroev P. M. Rukopisi slavjanskie i rossijskie, prinadlezhashhie pochjotnomu grazhdaninu i Arheograficheskoj komissii korrespondentu I. N. Carskomu (Slavic and Russian Manuscripts, Belonging to Noble Citizen and Correspondent of Archaeographical Commission I. N. Carskij), Moscow, 1848.
19. Tvorogov O. V. 1996 “Hronografy” (Chronographers), in Literatura Drevnej Rusi: Biobibliograficheskij slovar', Moscow, 1996, p. 228.

Savinov Mikhail

The article deals with the peasants of the Solovetsky monastery at the eve of the secularization that took place in 1764. Description of the monastic estates and the feudal homage of the peasants is the subject of the article. The article uses archival documents stored in the Fund number 1201 («the Solovetsky monastery») and the Fund number 280 («Kollegia Jekonomii”) of the Russian state archive of ancient acts. The author asserts that the estates of the Solovetsky monastery could be divided into three groups according to their geographical location which determined the character of the basic obligations of the peasants. The estates located on the shore of the White sea or near it were allocated into the first group. About 81 % of monastic peasants leaved there. They executed mixed duties: different works in combination with monetary and food products servage. Working in the monastic salt mines was their main duty. They also had to deliver wood and send workers to the monastery. Money servage collected from these peasants was about the tenth part of the cash receipts of the monastic Treasury. The estates located on the banks of the Northern Dvina and Onega, the major Pomorian rivers (11 % of monastic peasants) composed the second group. Majority of peasants belonging to this group were “polovniki” whose duty was to work the monastic arable for half of the harvest. The monastic estates located in the Central districts of the country composed the third group (8 % of monastic peasants). The peasants belonging to this group had relatively weak connection with the monastery due to their geographical remoteness from the Solovetsky archipelago. Performing forced labor they provided bread for the Moscow monastic farmstead and Marchukova hermitage belonging to the monastery.

Solovetsky monastery, patrimonies, peasants, secularization

1. Baranov M. A. Krest'jane monastyrskih votchin nakanune sekuljarizacii (po dokumentam Spas-Evfimieva monastyrja v g. Suzdale). Dis. … kand. ist. nauk (Peasants of Monastery Estates before Secularization (according to Documents of Spas-Evfimiev Monastery in Suzdal). Dissertation), Moscow, 1954.
2. Bogdanova A. V. 2013 “K voprosu o tom, krupnym li votchinnikom byl Soloveckij monastyr' nakanune sekuljarizacii 1764 g.” (To Question, whether Soloveckij Monastery Was a Big Estater before Secularization of 1764), in Rus', Rossija: Srednevekov'e i Novoe vremja. Tret'i chtenija pamjati akademika RAN L. V. Milova (materialy mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferencii), Moscow, 2013, vol. 3, pp. 248–258.
3. Bogdanova A. V. 2014 “O «zimnih vyezdah» soloveckih nastojatelej v XVIII v., ob odnom korablekrushenii i utonuvshih knigah” (About “Winter Departures” of Soloveckije Abbots in XVIII Cent., about One Shipwreck and Sunken Books), in Soloveckoe more: istoriko-literaturnyj al'manah, Arhangel'sk, Moscow, 2014, vol. 13, pp. 87–95.
4. Bogdanova A. V. 2014 “Soljanoj promysel Soloveckogo monastyrja nakanune sekuljarizacii 1764 g.” (Salt Business of Soloveckij Monastery before Secularization of 1764), in Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. II: Istorija. Istorija Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, Moscow, 2014, vol. 1/56, pp. 31–49.
5. Bulygin I. A. 1970 “Krest'jane vologodskogo Spaso-Priluckogo monastyrja v pervoj polovine XVIII v.” (Peasants of Spaso-Priluckij Monastery in Vologda in First Half of XVIII Cent.), in Agrarnaja istorija Evropejskogo Severa SSSR, Vologda, 1970, pp. 108–120.
6. Vodarskij Ja. E. Naselenie Rossii v konce XVII — nachale XVIII veka (Population of Russia in End of XVII — Begin of XVIII Century), Moscow, 1977.
7. Gromyko M. M. 1963 “Krest'jane cerkovnyh votchin Zapadnoj Sibiri v 40–60-h godah XVIII v.” (Peasants of Church Estates of Western Siberia in 40–60-s Years of XVIII Cent.), in Ezhegodnik po agrarnoj istorii Vostochnoj Evropy, Riga, 1963, pp. 262–270.
8. Kabuzan V. M. 2000 “Naselenie Rossijskoj imperii v XVIII v.” (Population of Russian Empire in XVIII Cent.), in Issledovanija po istorii Rossii XVI–XVIII vv., Moscow, 2000, pp. 42–75.
9. Prohorov M. F., Chekunova A. E. 1997 “Votchinnoe hozjajstvo Donskogo monastyrja v XVII–XVIII vv.” (Estate Economy of Donskoj Monastery in XVII–XVIII Cent.), in Monastyri v zhizni Rossii. Materialy nauchnoj konferencii, posvjashhennoj 600-letiju prepodobnogo Pafnutija Borovskogo i 550-letiju osnovanija im Rozhdestva Bogorodicy Pafnut'ev-Borovskogo monastyrja (19–20 aprelja 1994 goda), Kaluga, Borovsk, 1997, pp. 60–65.
10. Semevskij V. I. Krest'jane v carstvovanie imperatricy Ekateriny II (Peasants in Time of Empress Ekaterina II), Saint-Petersburg, 1901, vol. 2.

Bogdanova Aleksandra

In the present article mechanisms of penetration of persons of clergy origin into the elite of Russian Empire in XVIII - fi rst quarter of XIX century is to be analysed. The term «elite» means the military and state «generals», which achieved 1-5 ranks under the Table of Ranks. We found an extremely small number of people of clergy origin among the elite of Russian Empire. What hindered the advancement of clergy? The author proposes that the significance of the Table of Ranks and of the system of promotion in rank as a social elevator for persons of not-noble origin was overpriced, and also highlights the inertia of pre-Petrine localism. The system of matrimonial ties and of patronage to relatives backed by the economic power based on large land ownership allowed boyar aristocracy get a strong position and high ranks among the new elite during the reforms of Peter the Great. Therefore it was quite difficult for people of clergy and else not-noble origin to achieve high ranks. In addition the Church administration cared about its own personnel and resisted moving of talented seminarists to the civil service. The analysis of the data shows that patronage was one of the decisive factors of vertical social mobility for persons of clergy origin. Many former seminarists entered the civil service, but three cases of seven mentioned in the article are connected with military service. Everyone was under patronage of a powerful authority, often serving as an aide-decamp or a secretary. There were two barriers: the rejection of aristocracy to the priests’ sons and the corporatism of Church administration and education and in general the closedness of clergy of the Synodal period

the clergy, elite, generals, social mobility

1. Afanas'ev M. N. Klientelizm i rossijskaja gosudarstvennost' (Clientism and Russian State System), Moscow, 2000.
2. Danilevskij R. Ju. 1999 “Popov Vasilij Stepanovich” (Popov Vasilij Stepanovich), in Slovar' russkih pisatelej XVIII veka, Saint-Petersburg, 1999, vol. 2, p. 467.
3. Djomkin A. V. Lejb-kompanija imperatricy Elizavety Petrovny. (1741–1762 gg.) (Life-Guard Company of Empress Elizaveta Petrovna), Moscow, 2009.
4. Zajonchkovskij P. A. Pravitel'stvennyj apparat samoderzhavnoj Rossii v XIX v. (Government Apparatus of Autocratic Russia in XIX Cent.), Moscow, 1978.
5. Znamenskij P. V. Duhovnye shkoly v Rossii do reformy 1808 g. (Spiritual Schools in Russia before the Reform of 1808), Saint-Petersburg, 2001.
6. Kochetkova N. D. 1999 “Pavlovskij Lev” (Pavlovskij Lev), in Slovar' russkih pisatelej XVIII veka, Saint-Petersburg, 1999, vol. 2, p. 398.
7. Mironenko S. V. Samoderzhavie i reformy: Politicheskaja bor'ba v Rossii v nachale XIX v. (Autocracy and Reforms: Political Struggle in Russia in Begin of XIX Cent.), Moscow, 1989.
8. Mironov B. N. Social'naja istorija Rossii perioda imperii (XVIII — nachalo XX v.): Genezis lichnosti, demokraticheskoj sem'i, grazhdanskogo obshhestva i pravovogo gosudarstva (Social History of Russia of Imperial Period (XVIII — Begin of XX Cent.): Genesis of Peerson, Democratic Family, Civil Society and Law State), Saint-Petersburg, 2003.
9. Moiseeva G. N. 1988 “Avramov Mihail Petrovich” (Avramov Mihail Petrovich), in Slovar' russkih pisatelej XVIII v., Leningrad, 1988, vol. 1, p. 20.
10. Panchulidzev S. A. Sbornik biografij kavalergardov (Collection of Documents of Chevalier Guards), Saint-Petersburg, 1901, vol. 1 (1724–1762).
11. Pisar'kova L. F. Gosudarstvennoe upravlenie Rossii s konca XVII do konca XVIII veka: Jevoljucija bjurokraticheskoj sistemy (State Government in Russia from End of XVII Cent. till Begin of XVIII Centuries: Evolution of Bureaucratic System), Moscow, 2007.
12. Platon (Levshin), mitropolit. Avtobiografija (Autobiography), Moscow, 1887.
13. 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.
14. Pravjashhaja jelita Russkogo gosudarstva IX — nachala XVIII v.: ocherki istorii (Ruling Elite of Russian State of IX — Begin of XVIII Cent.: Essays of History), Saint-Petersburg, 2006.
15. Serkov A. I. Russkoe masonstvo. 1731–2000 gg.: Jenciklopedicheskij slovar' (Russian Masonry. 1731–2000: Encyclopedic Dictionary), Moscow, 2001.
16. Serov D. O. Administracija Petra I (Administration of Petr I), Moscow, 2008.
17. Smirnov S. K. Istorija Moskovskoj Slavjano-greko-latinskoj akademii (History of Moscoe Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy), Moscow, 1885.
18. Tomsinov V. A. Speranskij, Moscow, 2006.
19. Troickij S. M. Russkij absoljutizm i dvorjanstvo v XVIII veke. Formirovanie bjurokratii (Russian Absolutism and Nobility in XVIII Century. Forming of Bureaucracy), Moscow, 1974.
20. Travnikov S. N. 1988 “Annenskij Nikolaj Il'ich” (Annenskij Nikolaj Il'ich), in Slovar' russkih pisatelej XVIII veka, 1988, vol. 1, p. 43.
21. Uortman R. S. Vlastiteli i sudii: Razvitie pravovogo soznanija v imperatorskoj Rossii (Rulers and Judges: Development of Law Consciousness in Empire Russia), Moscow, 2004.
22. Feofanov A. M. 2014 “Voennyj i statskij generalitet Rossijskoj imperii XVIII veka: social'naja dinamika pokolenij” (Military and State Generals in Russian Empire of XVIII Century: Social Dynamics of Generations), in Vestnik PSTGU. Serija 2, 2014, vol. 4/59, pp. 40–57.
23. Frolov E. V., Frolova Je. V. Kovrovskij kraj pushkinskoj pory (Kovrovskij District of Time of Pushkin), Kovrov, 1999.
24. Horunzhenko O.I. Dvorjanskie diplomy XVIII veka v Rossii (Noble Diplomas of XVIII Century in Russia), Moscow, 1999.
25. Shabanov L. V., Malinnikov M. V. 2012 “Favoritizm kak faktor formirovanija tradicii rossijskogo gosudarstvennogo upravlenija (na primere sanovnikov XVIII — nachala XIX v.)” (Favoritism as Factor of Forming of Tradition of Russian State Gouvernment (on Example of Dignitaries of XVIII — Begin of XIX Cent.)), in Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Istorija, 2012, vol. 3, p. 10.
26. Shilov D. N. Gosudarstvennye dejateli Rossijskoj imperii. Glavy vysshih i central'nyh uchrezhdenij. 1802–1917: Biobibliograficheskij spravochnik (State Figures of Russian Empire. Heads of High and Central Institutions. 1802–1917; Biobibliographical Reference Book), Saint-Petersburg, 2002.
27. Shilov D. N., Kuz'min Ju. A. Chleny Gosudarstvennogo soveta Rossijskoj imperii, 1801–1906: Biobibliograficheskij spravochnik (Members of Government Board of Russian Empire, 1801–1806: Biobibliographical Reference Book), Saint-Petersburg, 2007.
28. Jerren L. 2012 “Rossijskoe dvorjanstvo XVIII veka na sluzhbe i v pomest'e” (Russian Nobility of XVIII Century in Service and in Patrimony), in Dvorjanstvo, vlast' i obshhestvo v provincial'noj Rossii XVIII veka, Moscow, 2012, p. 5

Feofanov Aleksandr

This article explores the first period of the academic degrees system in Russia (“Candidate”-“Master”-“Doctor”), from its state approval by the Preliminary Rules of Public Education 1803 up to the introduction of the new Regulations on the promotions to the academic degrees 1819. The details are revealed, which describe the implementation of this system of degrees in the Russian universities, and the misbalance and certain incompleteness of the initial law base of this system are shown. The practices of the fi rst promotions in Moscow, Kharkov and Kazan’ universities were subjected to thorough study. It is demonstrated, that the transfer of certain principles of corporation promotion (based on the traditions of the European universities in the Middle Ages) came into collision with the requirements of the state attestation given to the universities. Thus a general conclusion has been made on the character of the processes of state regulation on this sphere which corresponded the same calims of university “modernization” as were formulated in Europe, led to the new image of “classical” university.

academic degrees, Russian universities, Ministry for Public Education, attestation, diploma, exam, dissertation, Candidate, Master, Doctor.

1. Andreev A. Ju. Moskovskij universitet v obshhestvennoj i kul'turnoj zhizni Rossii nachala XIX veka (Moscow University in Social and Cultural Life of Russia in Begin of XIX Century), Moscow, 2000.
2. Andreev A. Ju. 2004 “«Griboedovskaja Moskva» v dokumentah semejnogo arhiva knjazja I. D. Shherbatova” (“Moscow of Griboedov’ in Documents of Family Archive of Prince I. D. Shherbatov), in Mil'china V., Jurganov A. (eds.) «Cep' nepreryvnogo predanija…»: Sb. pamjati A. G. Tartakovskogo, Moscow, 2004, pp. 105–139.
3. Andreev A. Ju. 1997 “«Misticheskij» drug Chaadaeva: Zhizn' i tvorcheskaja sud'ba D. A. Obleuhova” (Mystical Friend of Chaadaev: Life and Creative Destiny of D. A. Obleuhov), in Russkaja literatura, 1997, vol. 2, pp. 103–123.
4. Bagalej D. I. 2004 “Opyt istorii Har'kovskogo universiteta (po neizdannym materialam)” (Experience of Hisotry of Har’kov University (according Non-Edited Materials)), in Bagalij D. I. Vibrani pracit, Harkiv, 2004, vol. 3/1.
5. Bulich N. N. Iz pervyh let Kazanskogo universiteta (1805–1819): Rasskazy po arhivnym dokumentam (From First Years of Kazan’ University (1805–1819): Stories according to Archive Documents), Kazan', 1891, vol. 1–2.
6. Vasil'chikov A. A. Semejstvo Razumovskih (Family of Razumosvskije), Saint-Petersburg, 1880, vol. 2.
7. Vishlenkova E. A. Kazanskij universitet Aleksandrovskoj jepohi (Kazan’ University of Time of Alexander I), Kazan', 2003.
8. Zvjagincev E. A. Moskovskij kupec-kompanejshhik Mihail Gusjatnikov i ego rod (Moscow Merchant Mihail Gusjatnikov and His Family), Moscow, 1926.
9. Ivanov A. E. Uchenye stepeni v Rossijskoj imperii. XVIII v. — 1917 g. (Academic Degrees in Russian Empire. XVIII Cent. — 1917), Moscow, 1994.
10. Andreev A. Ju., Cygankov D. A. (eds.) Imperatorskij Moskovskij universitet. 1755–1917: Jenciklopedicheskij slovar' (Emperor Moscow University. 1755–1917: Encyclopedic Dictionary), Moscow, 2010.
11. Inostrannye professora rossijskih universitetov (vtoraja polovina XVIII — pervaja tret' XIX v.): Biograficheskij slovar' (Foreign Professors of Russian Universities (Second Half of XVIII — First Third of XIX Cent.)), Moscow, 2011.
12. Vul'fson G. N. (ed.) Kazanskij universitet. 1804–2004: Biobibliograficheskij slovar' (Kazan’ University. 1804–2004: Biobibliographic Dictionary), Kazan', 2002, vol. 1 (1804–1904).
13. Krichevskij G. G. 1985 “Uchenye stepeni v universitetah dorevoljucionnoj Rossii” (Academic Degrees in Universities of Russia before Revolution), in Istorija SSSR, 1985, vol. 2, pp. 141–153.
14. Krichevskij G. G. Magisterskie i doktorskie dissertacii, zashhishhennye na juridicheskih fakul'tetah universitetov Rossijskoj imperii (1755–1918): Bibliograficheskij ukazatel' (Master and Doctor Dissertations, Defended on Faculties of Law of Universities of Russian Empire (1755–1918): Bibliographical Reference), Stavropol', 1998.
15. Krichevskij G. G. Magisterskie i doktorskie dissertacii, zashhishhennye na istoriko-filologicheskih fakul'tetah universitetov Rossijskoj imperii (1755–1919): Bibliograficheskij ukazatel' (Master and Doctor Dissertations, Defended on Faculties of History and Philology of Universities of Russian Empire (1755–1919)), Stavropol', 1999.
16. Medicinskij fakul'tet Har'kovskogo universiteta za pervye 100 let ego sushhestvovanija. 1805–1905 (Faculty of Medicine of Har’kov University for First 100 Years of Its Existence. 1805–1905), Har'kov, 1905, vol. 2: Biograficheskij slovar' professorov i prepodavatelej (Biographical Dictionary of Professors and Teachers).
17. Petrov F. A. Formirovanie sistemy universitetskogo obrazovanija v Rossii (Forming of System of University Education in Russia), Moscow, 2002, vol. 2.
18. Petuhov E. V. Imperatorskij Jur'evskij, byvshij Derptskij universitet za sto let ego sushhestvovanija (Emperor Jur’ev, Former Derpt University for First Hundred Years of Its Existence), Jur'ev, 1902.
19. Stochik A. M., Pal'cev M. A., Zatravkin S. N. Medicinskij fakul'tet Moskovskogo universiteta v reformah prosveshhenija pervoj treti XIX veka (Faculty of Medicine of Moscow University in Reforms of Enlightenment of First Third of XIX Century), Moscow, 2001.
20. Suhova N. Ju. Sistema nauchno-bogoslovskoj attestacii v Rossii v XIX — nachale XX v. (System of Scientific-Theological Attestation in Russia in XIX — Begin of XX Cent.), Moscow, 2009.
21. Suhomlinov M. I. Materialy dlja istorii prosveshhenija v Rossii v carstvovanie Aleksandra I (Materials for History of Enlightenment in Russia in Time of Alexander I), Sant-Petersburg, 1866.
22. Tamul V. 1991 “«Professora est' dostojnye…» (Professorskij institut v 1828–38 gg.)” (“There are Approachable Professors” (Professor Institute in 1828–38)), in Tallinn, 1991, vol. 1.
23. Andreev A. Ju., Posohov S. I. (eds.) Universitet v Rossijskoj imperii XVIII — pervoj poloviny XIX veka (University in Russian Empire in XVIII — First Half of XIX Centuries), Moscow, 2012.
24. Uchenye stepeni v Rossii: XVIII — 1918 g. (Academic Degrees in Russia: XVIII — 1918), Moscow, Stavropol', 1996, vol. 1/1–2.
25. Feofanov A. M. 2011 “Uchenye stepeni v Moskovskom universitete vo vtoroj polovine XVIII v.” (Academic Degrees in Moscow University in Second Half of XVIII Cent.), in Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Svjato-Tihonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Serija II «Istorija. Istorija Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi», 2011, vol. 4/41, pp. 7–14.
26. Posohov S. I. (ed.) Harkivs'kij universitet XIX — pochatku XX stolittja u spogadah jogo professoriv ta vihovanciv (Har’kov University of XIX — Begin of XX Centuries in Memoires of Its Professors and Graduates), Harkiv, 2008, vol. 1.
27. Shevyrev S. P. Istorija Imperatorskogo Moskovskogo universiteta (History of Emperor Moscow University), Moscow, 1855.
28. Jakushev A. N. Organizacionno-pravovoj analiz podgotovki nauchnyh kadrov i prisuzhdenija uchenyh stepenej v universitetah i akademijah Rossii (1747–1918): istorija i opyt realizacii. Diss. na soisk. uch. step. kand. jurid. nauk (Analysis of Organization and Law of Training of Scientific Staff and Awarding of Academic Degrees in Russian Universities and Academies (1747–1918): History and Experience of Realization. Dissertation), Saint-Petersburg, 1998.
29. Koch. J. F. W. (ed.) Die preussischen Universitäten. Eine Sammlung der Verordnungen, welche die Verfassung und Verwaltung dieser Anstalten betreffen, Berlin, 1839, vol. 1: Die Verfassung der Universitäten im Allgemeinen.
30. Prahl H. W. Sozialgeschichte des Hochschulwesens, München, 1978.
31. Rasche U. 2007 “Die deutschen Universitäten und die ständische Gesellschaft. Über institutionengeschichtliche und sozioökonomische Dimensionen von Zeugnissen, Dissertationen und Promotionen in der Frühen Neuzeit“, in Müller R. A. (ed.) Bilder — Daten — Promotionen. Studien zum Promotionswesen an deutschen Universitäten der frühen Neuzeit, Stuttgart, 2007.
32. Schwinges R. Ch. (ed.) Examen, Titel, Promotion. Akademisches und staatsliches Qualifikationswesen vom 13. bis zum 21. Jahrhundert, Basel, 2007.
33. Wollgast S. Zur Geschichte der Promotionswesens in Deutschland, Bergisch Gladbach, 2001.

Andreev Andrei

A little-known aspect of N.Turgenev foreign-policy activity within the period from 1813 to 1816 is analysed in the article, supported by new archival sources. It was an important period for Russia in the context of development of its foreign policy. Post-Napoleonic restructuring of the world, new system of relationship between European countries - all this was a good school of diplomacy for Turghenev. By his wit and brilliance he won sympathies of such competent persons as Baron Friedrich Stein, diplomat D.M.Alopeus, Count K.V.Nesselrode, Foreign Collegium Minister. Turgenev started his diplomatic carrier as a Russian Commissary of the Central Administrative Department of allied governments and shortly became a private secretary and a right-hand man of Baron Friedrich Stein, Head of Central Department. Upon termination of the Central Department, Turgenev continued his diplomatic activities as Russian representative in the Liquidation Commission, then he becomes assistant of Alopeus, Administer of Lotharingia, and Nesselrode, Foreign Minister. He was entrusted with important practical tasks. Participation right of the Russian Empire in most income items of the conquered territories, transfer of Saxony under the jurisdiction of Russia, turning back the attempts of Hannover to gain part of Russian share in French and Dutch debts, and an inconsiderably small sum as compared with the sums of other states, which Russia had to pay to the allied countries - all this can be considered as merits of N.I.Turgenev, who though having no diplomatic experience at the beginning of his carrier with Stein, had acquired by the moment of returning to Russia the skills good enough to compete in doing business with a good many of diplomats of that time.

N. I. Turgenev, Central Department, Liquidation Commission, Post Napoleonic reorganization of the world, Baron Stein, reparation.

1. Tarasov E. I. Nikolaj Ivanovich Turgenev v Aleksanrovskuju jepohu (Nikolaj Ivanovich Turgenev in Time of Alexander I), Samara, 1925.
2. Dovnar-Zapol'skij M. V. Idealy dekabristov (Ideals of Decembrists), Saint-Petersburg, 1907.
3. Semevskij V. I. Krest'janskij vopros v XVIII– pervoj polovine XIX veka (Question of Peasants in XVIII — First Half of XIX Century), Saint-Petersburg, 1888.
4. Andreev A. Ju. Russkie studenty v nemeckih universitetah XVIII — pervoj poloviny XIX v. (Russian Students in German Universities of XVIII — First Half of XIX Cent.), Moscow, 2005.
5. Pertz G. H. Das Leben des Ministers Freiherrnvom Stein, Berlin, 1850–1855.
6. Vishnicer M. 1908 “Baron Shtejn i Nikolaj Turgenev” (Baron Stein and Nikolaj Turgenev), in Minuvshie gody, 1908, vol. 8.

Piskunova Anastasiia

The articledeals with the problemsof the educationalandupbringing process inparochial schoolsin Transbaikalia in the late XIX - earlyXXcenturies.This type ofschoolswasthe most widespread on the territory ofthe Transbikalregion.Parochial schoolsplayed an importantrole in the culturaldevelopment of the regionin thelate XIX - earlyXX centuries, they became an integralpart of thehistorical andcultural process.The history of their formation, analysis of their activitiesareof great scientifi c andpractical interestfor the history of culture, education, religious studies.The author concludesthat theeducational processinparochial schoolswas organized in the form of unifiededucational system, aimedat religiousand moral education ofcomprehensively developed personality. According to “Regulations on the parochial schools” (1884), the main purpose of-such a school is“to approvethe orthodox doctrineof the Christianfaith and morals among people, andto transfer the initialuseful knowledge”.Therefore,the most important componentof the educational systemof church-maintained schoolswas the subjects ofpurely religious education, but comprehensiveeducational componentof church-maintained schoolswas notso narrow too, as evidenced bythe schools’ schedule. In addition tothe Law of God, Church Slavonic languageandchurch musicstudents learnedreading, writing, arithmetic, history, geography, calligraphy, Russianlanguage, drawing. In some schoolsvocational classesand societies of crafts, drawing, choral singing were created. Educational process wasbuildingon the basisof main requirementsof the educational programs, the content of whichwassaturatedand to some extend included detailedlesson plans. Eachsection of the programwas provided by the list ofmanuals andguidelines for teachers. The church-maintained schools were run by parish priest, trustees. Schoolswere often locatedin the homes ofclergymen, but many priestsnoted thatonly havingits own building, the school is ableto organizecomlex educational process. That’s why theimportance and significance ofproper organization ofeducational processin schoolswas being anounced bythe heads of Transbaikaldiocese. Graduallythe need of foundation of separate buildingsfor schoolshas also becamean important issue, as well as the construction of temples. In the research paperthe author analyzed thematerial basis, subject environment, curriculum contentandforms of activities realized by the parochial schools, the system of rewards and punishments. The article presentsstatistics on the numberof parochial schoolsin Transbaikaliain the late XIX -early XX centuries

The Russian Orthodox Church, Orthodox parochial school, Transbaikalia, Transbaikal diocese of the Orthodox education.

1. Basalaev A. E. 1998 “Vospitanie i obrazovanie naselenija dorevoljucionnogo Zabajkal'ja cherez sistemu nachal'nyh shkol vedomstva pravoslavnogo ispovedanija” (Training and Education of Population of Zabajkal’e before Revolution per a System of Elementary Schools of Department of Orthodox Confession), in Nacional'naja ideja: obrazovanie i vospitanie (filosofsko-metodicheskie i regional'nye aspekty), Chita, 1998.
2. Volnina N. N. Kul'turno-prosvetitel'skaja dejatel'nost' Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi v Zabajkal'e (kon. XVII – nach. XX v.) (Cultural-Enlightenment Activity of Russian Orthodox Church in Zabajkal'e (End of XVII — Begin of XX Cent.)), Chita, 2013.
3. Volnina N. N. 2014 “Sistema cerkovno-shkol'nogo upravlenija v Zabajkal'skoj oblasti (kon. XIX – nach. XX v.)” (System of Church-School Management in Province of Zabajkal'e (End of XIX — Begin of XX Cent.)), in Istorija i kul'tura narodov Zabajkal'skogo kraja: muzejno-vystavochnyj kompleks ZabGU, Chita, 2014, pp. 97–106.
4. Dulov A. V. Pravoslavnaja cerkov' v Vostochnoj Sibiri v XVII – nachale XX v. (Orthodox Church in Eastern Siberia in XVII — Begin of XX Cent.), Irkutsk, 2006.
5. Krasnickaja T. A. (ed.) Istorija cerkovno-shkol'nogo obrazovanija v Rossii (XIX – nachalo XX v.): Materialy mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferencii, Shuja, 21 sentjabrja 2012 g. (History of Church-Schoo Education in Russia (XIX — Begin of XX Cent.): Materials of International Scientific Conference, Shuja, 21 September 2012), Shuja, 2012.
6. Kuznecova L. 1992 “Iz istorii prosveshhenija v Sibiri” (From History of Enlightenment in Siberia), in Razyskanija: Istoriko-kraevedcheskij al'manah, 1992, vol. 2, pp. 22–28.
7. Kulakova A. V. 2001 “Cerkov' i shkola: uroki proshlogo, nastojashhego i perspektivy” (Church and School: Lessons of Past, Present and Perspectives), in Pravoslavie na rubezhe tysjacheletij: Sb. statej k 2000-letiju Rozhdestva Hristova, Chita, 2001, pp. 135–144.
8. Harchenko L. N. Missionerskaja dejatel'nost' pravoslavnoj cerkvi v Sibiri (vtoraja polovina XIX v. — fevral' 1917 g.): Ocherk istorii (Missionary Activity of Orthodox Church in Siberia (Second Half of XIX Cent. — Februaru 1917): History Survey), Saint-Petersburg, 2004.
9. Harchenko L. N. Rasprostranenie pravoslavnoj duhovnoj literatury i duhovnogo prosveshhenija v Vostochnoj Sibiri (XVII – vtoroj polovine XIX v.): Ocherki istorii (Spreading of Orthodox Spiritual Literature and Spiritual Enlightenment in Eastern Siberia (XVII — Second Half of XIX Cent.): History Surveys), Irkutsk, 2001.
10. Shilov A. I. Nachal'naja i srednjaja shkola Vostochnoj Sibiri v konce XIX – nachale XX v. (Elementary and Middle Schools of Eastern Siberia in End of XIX — Begin of XX Cent.), Krasnojarsk, 2008.

Volnina Natal'ia

The articleconsidersthe main sourcesof fi nancialrevenuesof the Tomsk andTobolskdepartmentsof the Imperial OrthodoxPalestine Society. The funds collected were subsequentlyused to addresscultural, educational, charitable andscientific issues as well as to deal with the questions of enforcementand strengtheningRussia’s presencein the Holy Land. The money raised by the Western Siberian departments of the Imperial Orthodox-Palestine Society came from several sources. First of all, donations were made by local business and political elite, though they were so meager that they hardly ever reached the regional departments; secondly, there were one-time and annual membership dues, which were particularly large in the early years of departments. Other sources included kruzhechnye church plate collections, made with the help of stationary containers which were put in crowded places; donations for the holy places, given for the commemoration of relatives or for the health of relatives or friends; money raised from selling publications of the Imperial OrthodoxPalestine Society as well as religious literature; donations made after the Palestine reading forums. The article points out that the main revenue was generated through the annual Palm Sunday collections organized during Vayi week in all parishes of the Tomsk and Tobolsk eparchies. As a result, their total revenue was bigger than that of all the Western-Siberian departments, reaching 2,200 roubles a year in the Tobolsk and 6,400 roubles in the Tomsk departments. The article also considers the measures taken by Western-Siberian departments to raise more money, by publishing calls in city and eparchy newspapers for “actions to make the Palm Sunday collections better-organized”; by sending out invitations to parish clergy, which in fact were mandatory statements; by popularizing among various groups of society the information about the past and present of the Holy Land through after-sermon meetings and readings; distributing Palestine leafl ets. The authors conclude that donations reached the highest level by the beginning of the XX century, which was also the period of the most heightened activity of the Imperial OrthodoxPalestine Society. During and after the first Russian Revolution contributions to the departments tended to obviously go down. The article also reveals the reasons for the gradual cutbacks of contributions into the Imperial OrthodoxPalestine Society. One of them was the increasing number of various collections for charity or other needs when devout believers had to make a choice - where to give their scanty means to? They were likely to prefer to send donations to establishments which could produce concrete and more tangible results such as a parish church, school, migrants’ needs, etc. Another reason for cutbacks was secularization of the society particularly of city dwellers and younger generation. The key reason though was the Revolution of 1905-1907 which signifi cantly affected the situation in the country and made the Russian mentality more radical.

Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society, Tomsk department,Tobolsk department, donations, revenue, andkruzhechnyeplate collections.

1. Beglov A. L. 2014 “Pravoslavnyj prihod Rossijskoj imperii kak ob’ekt fiskal'noj politiki svetskih i cerkovnyh vlastej v konce XIX — nachale XX v.” (Orthodox Parish of Russian Empire as an Object of Fiscal Politics of Secular and Church Powers in End of XIX — Begin of XX Cent.), in Vestnik PCTGU. Serija II. Istorija. Istorija Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, 2014, vol. 2/57, pp. 56–81.
2. Vorob'eva I. A. Russkie missii v Svjatoj zemle v 1847–1917 godah (Russian Missions in Holy Land in 1847–1917), Moscow, 2001.
3. Gorodkov N. 1897 “Otkrytie Tobol'skogo Otdela Imperatorskogo Pravoslavnogo Palestinskogo Obshhestva” (Opening of Tobol’sk Department of Emperor Orthodox Palestine Society), in Tobol'skie eparhial'nye vedomosti, 1897, vol. 8, Otdel neofic., pp. 159–160.
4. Dmitrievskij A. A. Imperatorskoe Pravoslavnoe Palestinskoe Obshhestvo i ego dejatel'nost' za istekshuju chetvert' veka: 1882–1907 (Emperor Orthodox Palestine Society and Its Activity for Past Quarter of Age: 1882–1907), Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, 2008.
5. Lisovoj N. N. Russkoe duhovnoe i politicheskoe prisutstvie v Svjatoj Zemle i na Blizhnem Vostoke v XIX — nachale XX v. (Russian Church and Political Presence in Holy Land and Near East in XIX — Begin of XX Cent.), Moscow, 2006.
6. Nechaeva M. Ju. Edinenie vo imja Hrista: Pravoslavnye obshhestvennye organizacii Srednego Urala serediny XIX — nachala XX v. (Unity for the Name of Christ: Orthodox Official Organizations of Middle Ural of Middle of XIX — Begin of XX Cent.), Ekaterinburg, 2008.

Tsys' Valerii

Episcopal Church of the USA in 1976 adopted a positive resolution (1976-B300) regarding women’s ordination to the priesthood and episcopacy. The Church thus legalizes the experience of the Anglican community of the East coast: Philadelphia and Washington where in July 1974 and September 1975, took place women’s ordination. The article is devoted to the history of these ordinations, public reactions to them and theological discussions concerning the permissibility of female ordination in the Episcopal community of the first half of the 1970s. The research is based on the offi cial reports of the Episcopal Church. Believe in the Divine will on the vocation of women to the priesthood was associated with transformation of the Western society: women’s struggle for their rights and public struggle against race discrimination. The Anglican bishops were concerned about the problem of adaptation of the new ministry to modern conditions: the 1970s became a period of transition from traditional to post-Christian society in which gender was considered as a new social function. It will transform the Anglican community where the priesthood will become a form of ministry to the parish and in these conditions women can be ordained .

Episcopal Church, Resolutions of the Lambeth Conferences relating to women, ministry of women, ordination of women, priesthood, episcopacy

1. Armstrong K. The End of Silence Women and the Priesthood, London, 1993.
2. Avis P. Anglican Orders and the Priesting of Women, London, 1999.
3. Barr E., Barr A. Jobs for the Boys? Women Who Became Priests, London, 2001.
4. Baxter K. Gender in Worship, New York, 1978.
5. Bogle J. Women and the Priesthood Looking Ahead, Vox, 1987.
6. Brett W., Watson V. Women Priests, Impossible? London, 1973.
7. Bruce M., Duffi eld G. Why not? Priesthood and the Ministry of Women — a Theological Study, Appleford, 1972.
8. Burgess J. Can Women Serve in the Ordained Ministry?, Minneapolis, 1973.
9. Carter D. Debating the Ordination of Women, London, 1974.
10. Chapman J. The Last Bastion Women Priests — the Case for and Against, London, 1989.
11. Donovan M. Women Priests in the Episcopal Church the Experience of the First Decade, Cincinnati (Oh), 1988.
12. Eldred J. Women Pastors: If God Calls Why not the Church, Valley Forge (PA), 1981.
13. Field-Bibb J. Women Towards Priesthood Ministerial Politics and Feminist Praxis, Cambridge, New York, 1991.
14. Hewitt E., Hiatt S. Women Priests: Yes or No?, New York, 1973.
15. Jewett P. The Ordination of Women: an Essay on the Office of Christian Ministry, Grand Rapids (Mich.), 1980.
16. Law R. Women Are not for Ordination, Kent, 1992.
17. Macy G., Cooke B. A History of Women and Ordination, Lanham (Md.), 2002.
18. Maloney D. The Church Cannot Ordain Women to the Priesthood. Synthesis Series, Chicago, 1978.
19. Peberdy A. Women Priests?, Basingstoke, 1988.
20. Toon P. Let Wo[Men] Be Wo[Men] Equality, Ministry and Ordination, Leominster, 1990.
21. Wilson W. Why No Women Priests?, Worthing, 1988.

Posternak Andrei, priest

The question of the unifi ed field of Church history studies in Russia’s pre-revolutionary era recently became under hot discussion among historians and theologians. Suggesting that the approved program of Church-historical research in this period has not been formed, experts are trying to find the cause of this discrepancy between representatives of secular and ecclesiastical approach and facts about cooperation between them. The proposed publication shows the position of the Department of Church history at Moscow University at the end of 1894, when doctor of theology priest Alexander Ivantsov-Platonov decided to communicate his position to the secular historian and doctor of the universal history Mikhail Sergeyevich Corelin. For Ivantsov-Platonov it was a thought-out position. The Professor wanted to attract student attention and public interest to the problem of Church history. In this regard, in the absence of the nominee to vacancy from Theological Academy, Ivantsov-Platonov wanted to see on his chair secular historian, has already attracted the attention of students studying questions closely connected with the history of the Church. It was a risky option, because secular professors of the University were considered such an option primarily from the practical point of view, especially from the point of view of the curriculum of the faculty. Above all this project was not agreed by The Ministry of national education. This led to the failure of Ivantsov-Platonov project and final marginalization of the Department of Church history at the historical-philological faculty of Moscow University in the early 20th century.

Department of Church history at Moscow University, the curriculum, secularization, V. I. Guerier, M. S. Korelin, A. M. Ivantsov-Platonov, A. P. Lebedev

Tsygankov Dmitrii