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

This article is devoted to the historical signifi cance and ecclesiology of the council of Rome, 382. It considers this council to be the fi nal point in the history of the Arian crisis in the Latin West. The original plan of the Western emperor Gratianus, supported by the Roman pope Damasus and St. Ambrose of Milan, to hold the council in the general format, was not fully implemented due to the convening by the Eastern emperor Theodosius of the parallel council in Constantinople. In spite of this, the Roman council took a number of important decisions, both ecclesiastico-political and doctrinal. Our study proceeds following the traditional attribution of the third part of the so-called Decretum Gelasianum to the Roman council of 382. The ecclesiology of the council was the result of a compromise: on the one hand, it expresses the desire of St. Damasus to demonstrate the unique character of the Roman primacy and its Divine, rather than synodal origin; on the other hand, the Roman see divides the primacy with the two eastern sedes Petri, i.e. Alexandria and Antioch. The article points to the importance of the theme of the primacy of Peter and the special authority of the Roman see in the ecclesiology of St. Ambrose of Milan. At the same time, we come to the conclusion that for him the Roman primacy was inseparably linked with the idea of the conciliar consent of the Western episcopate and its “superiority” over the Eastern. The expression of this consensus of the Roman see with the episcopate of the West was the council of Rome, 382.

Roman council of 382, St. Damasus of Rome, St. Ambrose of Milan, Arian controversy, Roman primacy, Decretum Damasi, ecclesiology, church councils

1. Alzati C. “Ubi fuerit Imperator”. Chiesa della residenza imperiale e comunione cristiana tra IV e V secolo in Occidente // Alzati C. Ambrosiana ecclesia: Studi su la chiesa milanese e l’ecumene cristiana fra tarda antichità e medioevo. Milano, 1993. P. 3–21.
2. Bernardi J. Saint Grégoire de Nazianze. Le Théologien et son temps (330–390). P., 1995.
3. Braschi F., “Obraz apostola Petra v trudakh sv. Amvrosiya Mediolanskogo i v amvrosianskoj traditsii”, in: Zakharov G. E., red., Bozhestvennaya vlast’, cerkovnaya ierarhiya i duhovnyj avtoritet v rannekhristianskoj latinskoj traditsii, Moscow, 2016, 74–93.
4. Campenhausen H. F., von. Ambrosius von Mailand als Kirchenpolitiker. Berlin; Leipzig, 1929.
5. Caspar E. Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft. Bd. I. Tübingen, 1930.
6. Chapman J. On the Decretum Gelasianum De Libris recipiendis et non recipiendis // Revue bénédictine. 1913. Vol. 30. P. 187–207, 315–333.
7. De Vries W. Orient et Occident: les structures ecclésiales vues dans l’histoire des sept premiers conciles oecuméniques. P., 2011.
8. Dobschütz E., von. Das Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis in kritischem Text. Leipzig, 1912.
9. Dufourcq A. Vues nouvelles sur le décret gélasien et sur le pape Damase // Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. 1909. Vol. 53. № 11. P. 820–825.
10. Duval Y.-M. La décretale Ad Gallos Episcopos: son texte et son auteur. Leiden; Boston, 2005.
11. Dvornik F. Byzance et la primauté romaine. P., 1964.
12. Field L. L. Liberty, Dominion, and the Two Swords: On the Origins of Western Political Theology (180–398). Notre Dame, 1998.
13. Field L. L. On the Communion of Damasus and Meletius: Fourth-Century Synodal Formulae in the Codex Veronensis LX (with critical edition and translation). Toronto, 2004.
14. Gallay P. La vie de saint Grégoire de Nazianze. Lyon; P., 1943.
15. Galtier P. Le “Tome de Damase”. Date et origine // Recherches de science religieuse. 1936. Vol. 26. P. 385–418; 563–578.
16. Girardet K. M. Gericht über den Bischof von Rom // Historische Zeitschrift. 1994. Bd. 259. S. 1–38.
17. Gryson R. Le prêtre selon Saint Ambroise. Louvain, 1968.
18. Howorth H. H. The Decretal of Damasus // Journal of Theological Studies. 1913. Vol. 14. P. 321–337.
19. Joannou P.-P. Die Ostkirche und die Cathedra Petri im 4. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart, 1972.
20. Kelly J. N. D. Jerome: His Life, Writings and Controversies. N. Y., 1975.
21. L’Huillier P., The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils, Crestwood (N. Y.), 1996.
22. Marot H. Les conciles romains des IVᵉ et Vᵉ siècles et le développement de la primauté // Istina. 1957. Vol. 4. P. 435–462.
23. McGuckin J. A. St. Gregory of Nazianzus. An Intellectual Biography. Crestwood (N. Y.), 2001.
24. McLynn N. B. Ambrose of Milan. Church and Court in a Christian Capital. Berkeley; Los Angeles; L., 1994.
25. Monachino V. Il primato nella controversia Ariana // Miscellanea Historiae Pontifi ciae. Vol. XXI: Saggi storici intorno al papato. Roma, 1959. P. 17–89.
26. Pietri Ch. Roma Christiana. Recherches sur l’Eglise de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixte III (311–440). Rome, 1976.
27. Reutter U. Damasus, Bischof von Rom (366–384). Leben und Werk. Tübingen, 2009.
28. Schwartz E. Zum Decretum Gelasianum // Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. 1930. Bd. 29. S. 161–168.
29. Siniscalco P. Sant’Ambrogio e la Chiesa di Roma // Nec timeo mori: Atti del Congresso internazionale di studi ambrosiani nel XVI centenario della morte di sant’ Ambrogio (Milano 4–11 Aprile 1997). Milano, 1998. P. 141–160.
30. Turner C. H. Latin List of Canonical Books: I. The Roman Council under Damasus, A.D. 382 // Journal of Theological Studies. 1900. Vol. 1. P. 554–560.
31. Ullmann W. Gelasius I. (492–496): Das Papsttum an der Wende der Spätantike zum Mittelalter. Stuttgart, 1981.
32. Waarden J., van. Priscillian of Avila’s Liber ad Damasum and the Inability to Handle a Confl ict // Violence in Ancient Christianity: Victims and Perpetrators / A. C. Geljon, R. Roukema, eds. Leiden; Boston, 2014. P. 132–150.
33. Zakharov G. E., “Rimskij sobor 378 g. i razvitie idei papskogo primata v rannekhristianskoj traditsii”, in: Posternak A. V., Zakharov G. E., eds., Prikosnovenie k vechnosti: Sbornik statej, Moscow, 2017, 65–85.

Zakharov Georgy

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The article is written in 2018 within the framework of the project "Relations between Eastern and Western Churches in the era of Aryan disputes" supported by PSTGU Development Foundation.

This article deals with church life in Sardinia in the 6th century and is based on material from the letters of Gregory the Great. Metropolitan of Sardinia, Januarius, was not able to keep the island in order and to control his subordinate clerics; moreover, he himself was involved in crimes several times. The article studies various examples of violation of church discipline by clerics of Sardinia and their negligence of ordinances of church councils. Thus, priests often behaved in an improper and corrupt manner, did not obey the metropolitan, baptised incorrectly. The provincial council was rarely convened; several sees remained without a bishop due to Januarius’ negligence. All this much upset St. Gregory the Great, who did his best at trying to strengthen church discipline in the island. In his letters addressed to Januarius, the Pope scrutinised mistakes and faults of the latter appealing to the Bible and ordinances of conciliar canons. Typically, St. Gregory always provides arguments for his position. At the same time, he tried to raise Januarius’ authority in the eyes of the clergy, which he regarded as the base for order and stability. The letters of St. Gregory the Great demonstrate that church life in the region directly depended on metropolitan’s personality and character. This conclusion accords with the Cura pastoralis by St. Gregory which describes the epitome of a bishop: the bishop is able to manage his community and set his fl ock and clergy on the right path only on condition that he possesses certain moral standards.

Gregory I, letters of Gregory the Great, Sardinia, canon law, image of bishop, church discipline, crimen

1. Boesch Gajano S., Gregorio Magno. Alle origini del Medioevo, Roma, 2004.
2. Castaldi L., “Il Registrum epistolarum di Gregorio Magno”, in: Filologia mediolatina. Studies in Medieval Latin Texts and their Transmission. Rivistadella Fondazione Ezio Franceschini, XI, 2004, 55–98.
3. Dudden F. H., Gregory the Great. His place in History and Thought, London, 1905, I.
4. Eidenschink J. A., The election of bishops in the letters of Gregory the Great with an appendixon the pallium, Washington, 1945.
5. Forlin Patrucco M., “Registrum epistolarum” in: Scrittura e storia. Per una lettura delle opere di Gregorio Magno, Firenze, 2005, 339–356.
6. Giordano L., Giustizia e potere giudiziario ecclesiastico nell’epistolario di Gregorio Magno, Bari, 1997.
7. Giordano L., “I “crimina” di Gianuario”, in: Ricci L. G. G., ed., Gregorio Magno e la Sardegna, Firenze, 2007, 151–160.
8. Guillou A., “L’évêque dans la société méditerranéenne du VIe–VIIe siècles. Un modèle” in: Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes, vol. 131, Paris, 1973, 5–19.
9. Guillou A., Régionalisme et indépendance dans l’Empire Byzantin au VIIe siècle. L’exemple de l’exarchat et de la Pentapole d’Italie, Rome, 1969.
10. Marey E., “Kodeks Feodosia ob ob’azannost’ah vikarija i namestnikov provintsij”, in: Istoricheskij Vestnik, 19, 2017, 320–336.
11. Markus R. A.,Gregory the Great and his World, Cambridge, 1997.
12. Markus R. A., “Gregory the Great’s pagans”, in: Gameson R., Leyser H., eds. Belief & Culture in the Middle Ages, Oxford, 2001, 23–34.
13. Martínez Díez G., Rodríguez F., La colección canónica hispana. Vol. III: Concilios griegos y africanos, Madrid, 1982.
14. Meloni P., “La missione del vescovo in san Gregorio Magno”, in: Ricci L. G.G., ed., Gregorio Magno e la Sardegna, Firenze, 2007, 59–68.
15. Norberg D.,“Qui a composé les lettres de saint Grégoire le Grand?”, in: Studi medievali, 21:1, 1980, 1–18.
16. Norberg D., ed. S. Gregorii Magni Registrum epistolarum (Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina. Vol. 190A), T. 1–2, Turnholti, 1982.
17. Padoa-Schioppa A.,“Gregorio Magno giudice”, in: Studi medievali, 51:2, 2010, 581–610.
18. Recchia V., Gregorio Magno e la società agricola, Roma, 1978.
19. Richards J., Consul of God. The Life and Times of Gregory the Great, London, 1980.
20. Sv’atoj Grigorij Velikij (Dvoeslov), Pravilo pastyrskoe, ili o pastyrskomsluzhenii, Мoscow, 2011.

Marey Elena

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The article is written in 2018 within the framework of the project "Interpretation of Roman legal concepts in the works of Gregory the Great and the formation of the legal culture of the middle Ages" supported by Presidential Grants Foundation.

This article is devoted to the famous book by Philippe Duplessis-Mornay “The Mystery of Iniquity”. This book is an example of the French church historiography of the early 17th century and of inter-confessional polemic. The purpose of the study is an analysis of the image of Pope Alexander VI as it is presented in “The Mystery of Iniquity”. The “black legend” of Borgia had existed before the creation of “The Mystery of Iniquity”. Duplessis-Mornay included some elements of this “black legend” in the text; the present article analyses them. Above all, these elements are historical events which contrasted the Pope to Charles VIII, King of France. These events are connected with the Italian campaign of the king. An important aspect is the religious interpretation of this opposition and the idea of “royalism”, namely “Pope-devil” versus “King of France”. The murder of the King of France, Henri IV, became one of the reasons for writing this book. Another reason was the fact that King Louis XIII was a minor and his entourage pursued the policy coordinated with Rome. Duplessis-Mornay reminds to the King that Rome was always the antagonist of French monarchy. The image of Pope Alexander VI was extended on the entire Catholic Church.

Ph. Duplessis-Mornay, Pope Alexander VI, the Borgia, Charles VIII, Louis XIII, the black legend, royalism, Reformation, Gallicanism, France, Church of France, Papacy

1. Bloch M., Les rois thaumaturges. Etude sur le caractère surnaturel atribué à la puissance royale particulièrement en France et en Angleterre, Paris, 1983.
2. Cloulas I., Les Borgia, Paris, 1987.
3. Crouzet D., La nuit de la Saint-Barthélemy. Un rêve perdu de la Renaissance. Postface inédite, Paris, 2012.
4. Daussy H., Les huguenots et le roi. Le combat politique de Philippe Duplessis-Mornay (1572–1600), Genève, 2002.
5. Daussy H., Servir Dieu, le roi et l’État. Philippe Duplessis-Mornay (1549–1623). Études réunies par Hugues Daussy et Véronique Ferrer, Paris, 2006.
6. Daussy H., “En débattant la religion, les religieux se gâtent. Duplessis-Mornay, Languet et Danzay en guerre contre les théologiens”, in: L’Humaniste, le Protestant et le Clerc, 18, 2003, 93–103.
7. Delumeau J., Uzhasy na Zapade: Issledovanie protsessa vozniknoveniya strakha v stranakh Zapadnoj Evropy, XIV–XVII vv., Moscow, 1994.
8. Hillgarth J. N., “The image of Alexander VI and Cesare Borgia in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries” in: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 59, 1996, 119–129.
9. Kantorowicz E., Dva tela korolia. Issledovanie po srednevekovoi politicheskoi teologii, Moscow, 2014.
10. Le Roy Ladurie E., The Royal French State: 1460–1610, Oxford, 1994.
11. Mousnier R., L’assassinat d’Henri IV, Paris, 1964.
12. Razuvaev V., Kommentarii k “Gosudariu” Makiavelli, Moscow, 2014.

Shapovalova Elena

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

This article studies the time-varying mechanisms of fi nancing privatdozentur in universities of the Russian Empire in 1803–1884. It takes into account the variety of available forms of payment for privatdozentur and the specifi city of particular universities. Special attention is paid to the policy of the Ministry of Education which directly determined the amount of funding and its distribution among universities. A considerable proportion of the total amount of payment for the work of privatdocents was assumed by educational institutions themselves; nevertheless, the comparative value of their contribution varied signifi cantly, changing from university to university. In these conditions, the study of practices of each university, conducted on the basis of archival sources, makes it possible to clarify a rather opaque scheme of fi nancing of Russian privatdozentur. Recognising the fi nancial issue as a key factor in the existence and development of any educational organisation, we examine the reasons for the survival of the institution of privatdozentur under the circumstances of extremely low levels of funding from the state and universities; the situation was further complicated by instability and lack of fi nancial guarantees for privat-docents. As a result of comparison of the Russian model of fi nancing privatdozentur with its prototype in German universities, the conclusion has been made about the fundamental diff erence between these two systems, which points to the special position of privatdozentur in the overall picture of adapting university ideas to Russian educational practice.

Privatdozentur, Ministry of Public Education, universities, university statute, professorship, fees, academic funding

1. Universitety v Rossiiskoi imperii XVIII — pervoi poloviny XIX veka, Moscow, 2012.
2. Petukhov E. V., Imperatorskii Iur’evskii, byvshii Derptskii universiteta za sto let ego sushchestvovaniia(1802–1902), 1, Iur’ev, 1902.
3. Piskunov I. V., “Problemy razvitiia rossii skoi privat-dotsentury v diskussii po universitetskomu voprosu 60-kh gg. XIX veka”, in: Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta, seria 8, istoriia, 1, 2015, 29–42.
4. Piskunov I. V., “Pravovoe polozhenie privatdotsentov rossiiskikh universitetov (1803–1884)”, in: Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-
5. Tikhonovskogo universiteta. seria 2, istoriia, Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 4 (59), 2014, 98–117.
6. Eimontova R. G., Russkie universitety na putiakh reformy: shestidesiatye gody XIX veka, Moscow, 1993.
7. Shchetinina G. I., Russkie universitety i ustav 1884 goda, Moscow, 1976.

Piskunov Ilia

This article is devoted to the problem of relationships between the historian Robert Wipper and his students. While working at the Department of World History of the Faculty of History and Philology of the Imperial Moscow University, professor Wipper could propose candidates for working at the University with the aim of subsequent preparation for professorship. We found twelve people who were left at the Department at the request of Wipper and who thus can be considered his disciples. All of them wrote their fi rst degree dissertations under his supervision. They typically became acquainted during Wipper’s seminars in World History. None of Wipper’s students managed to defend their theses before the Revolution, nor did most of them pass master’s exams. The most signifi cant achievement was the title of Privatdozent received by G. M. Prigorovsky and N. M. Lukin. After the Revolution, most of Wipper’s students continued to do research and to teach, obtaining academic degrees in the Soviet period. The Professor was popular among the “leftist” students; there were a number of Marxist historians among his students who become major scientifi c functionaries and cooperated with Soviet authorities. One of them, V. P. Volgin, criticised Wipper’s views during his teaching in Latvia. Though staying in line with Soviet historical science, Wipper’s students continued to develop themes that originated before the Revolution.

R. W. Wipper, Wipper’s students, system of training of researchers in history, academic community of historians of Moscow University, successor in science, intellectual dialogue, research tradition

1. Antoshchenko A. V.,“Istoriia odnoi professorskoi otstavki”, in: Kazus. Individual’noe i unikal’noe v istorii, 4, 2002, 234–272.
2. Botvinnik M. B.V. N. Pertsev, Minsk, 1978.
3. Galkin I. S. N. M. Lukin — revoliutsioner, uchenyi, Moscow, 1984.
4. Dunaevskii V. A., Porshnev B. F., “Izuchenie zapadnoevropeiskogo utopicheskogo sotsializma v sovetskoi istoriografi i (1917–1963)” in: Istoriia sotsialisticheskikh uchenii, Moscow, 1964, 3–91.
5. El’nitskii L. A., “Pamiati S. A. Liaskovskogo (1887–1968)”, in: Journal of Ancient History, 4, 1969, 231–232.
6. Ivanova T. N., Miagkov G. P.,“Shkola V. I. Ger’e: osnovnye cherty I mesto v nauchnom prostranstve Rossii” in: Dialog so vremenem. Al’manakh intellektual’noi istorii, Moscow, 44, 2013, 165–185.
7. Ivanova Iu. V., “Petr Fedorovich Preobrazhenskii: zhiznennyi put’ I nauchnoe nasledie” in: Repressirovannye etnografy, Moscow, 1, 1999, 235–264.
8. Ippolitova A. B., “Istoriia Muzeia narodov SSSR v Moskve”, in: Ethnographic Review, 2, 2001, 144–160.
9. “K 75-letnemu ubileiu professor Vladimira Nikolaevicha D’iakova”, in: Journal of Ancient History, 4, 1957, 200–201.
10. Koval’chuk S. N., “Istoriki ego istoriia: Robert Iur’evich Vipper”, in: Russkii mir I Latviia: al’manakh, 25, 2011, 200–210.
11. Pavlovskaia A. I., “Konstantin Konstantinovich Zel’in (1892–1983) (k 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia)”, in: Journal of Ancient History, 2, 1992, 220–230.
12. Tsygankov D. A., “Avtoritet uchitelia I nauchnye konfl ikty v soobshchestve moskovskikh istorikov v kontse XIX — nachale XX v.”, in: Klio, 8, 2016, 54–61.
13. Tsygankov D. A., “Korelin kak prepodavatel’ vysshei shkoly”, in: Klio, 10, 2017, 167–173.
14. Tsygankov D. A., “Professor Moskovskogo universiteta V. I. Ger’e (1837–1919)”, in: Modern and Current History Journal, 5, 2002, 219–230.
15. Tsygankov D. A., “R. Iu. Vipper ego put’ v sovetskui uistoricheskuiu nauku”, in: Istoriia I istoriki v prostranstve natsional’noii mirovoi kul’tury XVIII — nachala XXI v., Cheliabinsk, 2011, 241–245.
16. Tsygankov D. A., “Soobshchestvo moskovskikh vseobshchikh istorikov vo vtoroi polovine XIX veka”, in: Terra Europa: intellektual’noe prostranstvo moskovskikh istorikov vtoroi poloviny XIX veka, Moscow, 2014, 11–173.
17. Tsygankov D. A., “Universitetskaia povsednevnost’ na stranitsakh dnevnika Mikhaila Korelina”, in: Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University History, 3, 2016, 120–134.
18. Chudinov A. V., “N. M. Lukin: u istokov nauchnoi kar’ery”, in: Istoricheskoe soznanie i vlast’ v zerkale Rossii 20 veka. Nauchnye doklady, St. Petersburg, 2006, 81–90.

Naumov Pavel

This article studies the role of rural Orthodox clergy of West Siberia in the struggle against alcoholism. It also pays attention to the participation of the clergy in all-Russian anti-alcohol movement. Based on Russian and foreign sources, the article shows that alcoholisation level of Russian society was signifi cantly lower than in Western countries. Even so, the general public, including clerical, was concerned about the rate of alcohol consumption in industrial centres and in rural areas. Orthodox clergy came to play an active role in the struggle against the increase in alcoholism, particularly in rural areas. In West Siberia, the alcohol problem was not as pressing as in the European part of the Russian Empire; nevertheless, the local rural clergy became involved in the struggle against this social evil. Priests delivered sermons and homilies against alcoholism, participated in all-Russian anti-alcohol conventions, established sobriety societies, shared their expertise in church press. Parochial management designed and published methodological manuals for the rural clergy. It was published in form of conventional promises (“vows”), templates for homilies and sermons, programmes for holding sobriety feasts. Certain success that had been achieved by 1914 was halted by the beginning of the First World War.

anti-alcohol movement, alcoholism in Russia of the early 20th century, rural Orthodox clergy, West-Siberian rural areas, Russian peasantry, all-Russian anti-alcohol convention, Nicholas Buldygin, Tobolsk diocese, deviant behavior, sobriety societies

1. Afanasiev A. L., “Obshchestva trezvosti v Tobol’skoy gubernii i Akmolinskoy oblasti Rossii (1890 — nachalo 1910)”, in: Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Istoria, 1 (13), 2011, 31–37.
2. Veselie Rusi. XX vek. Gradus noveyshey otechestvennoy istorii: ot pianogo budjeta do suhogo zakona, Moscow, 2007.
3. Dmitriev V. K., Kriticheskie issledovsnia o potreblenii alcogola v Rossii, Moscow, 2001.
4. Fedorov S. G., “Gosudarstvennaya akciznaya politika, vinnaya monopoliya i ih posledstviya v konce XIX — nachale XX veka”, in: Omskij nauchnyj vestnik, 2, 2007, 33–36.
5. Kanel V. A., Alcogolism I bor’ba s nim, Moscow, 2001.
6. Kurukin I. V., Nikitina E. A., “Gosudarevo kabatzkoe delo”: ocherki piteynoy politiki I traditziy v Rossii, Moscow, 2005.
7. Takala I. R., Veselie Rusi, Moscow, 2002.
8. Gordon E., The Anti-alcohol Movement in Europe, London, 1913.
9. Herlihy Р., The Alcoholic Empire: Vodka and Politics in Late Imperial Russia, Oxford, 2002.
10. Hristian D., “Vodka and corruption in Russia in age of Emancipation”, in: The Slavic Review, vol. 45, n. 3, 1992.
11. Stevens T., Through Russia on a Mustang, Boston, 1901.
12. White S., Russia Goes Dry: Alcohol, State and Society, Cambridge, 1996.

Menshchikov Igor

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The First World War became a deadly trial for all the peoples involved in it. The fate of the war was decided not only in battlefi elds but also in the rear. Among other tasks, before the Russian state and society arose the problem of succour to the needy. A prominent role in this played Елизаветинский комитет (“Elizabethan Committee”), the statesupported public organisation. Head of the Committee, Grand Duchess Elizaveta Fedorovna, made great eff orts in the area of support for the poor. The state and society did not refrain from this support. Diverse state institutions, e.g. the Ministry of Domestic Aff airs and Ministry of Agriculture, participated in the initiative. The public involvement focused on fi nancial charity, practical work and organisational side. In provincial cities, fundraising initiatives for the poor were organised, canteens for the poor, nurseries for babies, orphanages were built. In rural areas, farmers also helped their neighbours and families of soldiers. As the war became prolonged, the size of support gradually decreased. On the one hand, the population became poorer; on the other hand, there appeared more and more those who needed support. Underpinned by state resources, Elizabethan Committee coordinated eff orts of the regions and provincial communities that were involved in the help for the poor in general and for soldiers’ families in particular. The main task was to overcome the food crisis and to provide victuals to people. Despite many real-life problems, in 1914 — early 1917 the tasks of supporting the poorest population strata was generally accomplished. The most vulnerable groups received the necessary assistance of society and the state. This assistance contributed to self-preservation of Russian society in the dismal wartime.

First World War, Elizabethan Committee, help for the poor, canteens, food supply, food crisis, charity, children’s shelter, soldiers’ families

1. Aleksandrov A. V., Krasnova Ju. V., “«S miru po nitke…»: blagotvoritel’naja i miloserdnaja dejatel’nost’ Cheljabinskoj uchitel’skoj seminarii v gody Pervoj mirovoj vojny (1914–1915)”, in: Gorohovskie chtenija, Cheljabinsk, 2014, 198–203.
2. Bel’kova N. A., “Zhizn’ provincial’nogo goroda v gody Pervoj mirovoj vojny”, in: Gosudarstvo, obshhestvo, cerkov’ v istorii Rossii XX veka, Ivanovo, 2010, 297–302.
3. Bulgakova L. A., “Privilegirovannye bednjaki: pomoshh’ soldatskimsem’jam v gody Pervoj mirovoj vojny”, in: Na puti k revoljucionnym potrjasenij am. Iz istorii Rossii vtoroj poloviny XIX — nachala XX veka, St. Petersburg, 2001, 429–493.
4. Esikov S. A., Shherbinin P. P., “Gosudarstvennaja podderzhka semej prizvannyh na vojnu krest’jan v pervyj period Pervoj mirovoj vojny 1914–1918 gg.”, in: Gosudarstvennaja vlast’ i krest’janstvo v XX — nachale XXI veka, Kolomna, 2007, 86–91.
5. Katcina T. A., “Blagotvoritel’nye iniciativy Russkoj pravoslavnoj cerkvi v gody Pervoj mirovoj vojny”, in: Pervaja mirovaja vojna: vzgljad spustja stoletie. 1915 god, Moscow, 2016, 368–374.
6. Kolyshnicyna N. V., “Dejatel’nost’ blagotvoritel’nyh obshhestv v Petrograde v gody Pervoj mirovoj vojny”, in: Velikajavojna. Poslednie gody imperii, St. Petersburg, 2014, 249–256.
7. Kosicina A. P., “Blagotvoritel’naja dejatel’nost’ pravoslavnyh religioznyh organizacij v gody Pervoj mirovoj vojny v g. Syzran’ I Syzranskom uezde Simbirskoj gubernii”, in: Pervaja mirovaja vojna v istorii narodov Povolzh’ja, Cheboksary, 2015, 46–53.
8. Kravchenko E. V., “Obshhestvo I vojna: organizacij a pomoshhi sem’jamzapasnyh v 1914 g. (na primere g. Odessy)”, in: Pervaja mirovaja vojna: vzgljad spustja stoletie. 1914 god: ot mira k vojne, Moscow, 2015, 317–325.
9. Pavlova I. P., Social’noe popechenie v Rossii v gody Pervoj mirovoj vojny, Krasnojarsk, 2003.
10. Petrovicheva E. M., Zemstva Central’noj Rossii v period pervoj mirovojvojny, Moscow, 2001.
11. Ul’janova G. N., “Blagotvoritel’naja pomoshh’ obshhestva zhertvam vojny v 1914– 1918 gg.”, in: Rossija v gody Pervoj mirovoj vojny, 1914–1918, Moscow, 2014, 230–238.

Maxim Os’kin

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

This article reconstructs the military track record of the 1st Terek Cossack Division in Donetsk region. The chronological frame of the article is the period between the arrival of the division at the battlefi eld (February 1919) and its retreat from Donetsk region to Kharkov region. The 1st Terek division was the largest Cossack detachment in the Volunteer Army of General A.Z. May-Mayevski and was at the front line through all the above-mentioned period. The methodological base for the article is constituted by the historical-genetic method. The study draws on archival documents of Moscow and Vladikavkaz, published memoirs as well as on periodicals from the period of the Civil War. The article takes into account those armed clashes that Terek detachment took part in. Donetsk region was a territory not well suited for the operation of cavalry, as it had a wide railroad network and rather dense infrastructure. It seemed that there was no suffi cient space for cavalry. However, the leaders of the Volunteer Army used cavalry detachments eff ectively in attacking breaches in enemy lines and undertaking raids on rearwards of the Red army. We make an attempt at describing them in as a detailed way as possible (losses, trophies, notable battle situations). Results of the research have demonstrated that cavalry (including Terek cavalry) was highly functional even in such unusual battlefi eld and made a signifi cant contribution to destroying enemy forces. The prominent role of the cavalry is confi rmed by trophies of Terek detachment, high assessment that the division (and the detachment as a whole) received from the leaders of the Volunteer Army and later from Soviet experts after the Civil war.

armed forces in the south of Russia, cavalry, Civil War, Cossacks, Donbass, General Shkuro, military history, Nestor Makhno, Terek Cossacks, Ukraine, White Army

1. Kravchenko V., “Drozdovtsy v boiakh zimoi i vesnoi 1919 goda”, in: Vooruzhennye sily naIuge Rossii, Moscow, 2004, 159–189.
2. Larionov V. A., “Poslednie iunkera”, in: Uragan. Poslednie iunkera. Romany, Moscow, 2007, 220–424.
3. Leont’ev A. M., “Markovtsy-artilleristy na Donbasse”, in: Vooruzhennye sily na Iuge Rossii, Moscow, 2004, 119–142.
4. “Markovtsy v Donbasse”, in: Vooruzhennye sily na Iuge Rossii, Moscow, 2004, 77–119.
5. Oprits I. N., Leib-Gvardii Kazachii Eia Velichestva polk v gody revoliutsii i Grazhdanskoi voiny 1917–1920 gg., in: Leib-kazaki, Moscow, 2008.
6. Savchenko V. A., “Izmena «bat’ki» Makhnoi «zheleznaiametla» L. D. Trotskogo (Prichiny I sledstviia makhnovskogo miatezha 1919 g.)”, in: Istoriia SSSR, 2, 1990, 75–90.
7. Tragediia kazachestva. Ocherk na temu: kazachestvo I Rossiia, 1934, Praga, 1934, 2.
8. Vlasov A. A., “O bronepoezdakh Dobrovol’cheskoi armii”, in: Vooruzhennye sily na Iuge Rossii, Moscow, 2004, 513–542.

Pyltsyn Yuri

This article deals with the history of publication of Metropolitan Eugene’s letters to his Voronezh friend V. I. Makedonets. The aim of the article is to compare the letter manuscripts kept in two archival collections with their published versions as well as to publish two letters for the fi rst time. The letter exchange between the two friends lasted for twelve years. It started when E. A. Bolkhovitinov left his home town Voronezh and went to St Petersburg, the city where he began his monastic and episcopal service, and fi nished in 1812, the year of V.I. Makedonets’ decease. Several decades later, the manuscripts of Metropolitan Eugene’s letters to V.I. Makedonets were accidentally discovered and saved from destruction by the teacher of Voronezh Cadet Corps E. A. Zavadsky (1830–1862). The fi rst publication of 90 out of 113 currently known letters was carried out by N. E. Severny in Русский архив (“Russian Archive”) in 1870. Later, the originals of the letters were sent to Chertkov Library, and afterwards they arrived at the manuscript collection of the Historical Museum. At present, this part of the letters, united under the same cover, is kept at F. 445 of the Chertkovs at the Department of Written Sources, State Historical Museum. Ten letters were acquired by A. D. Ivanovsky, the staff member of the Emperor’s Public Library, who published fragments of them in Евгениевский сборник (“Yevgeniev Miscellany”) in 1871. Originals of these letters were later included in the collection of Academician Nikolai Petrovich Likhachev (1862–1936), F. 238 of the archival collection of St Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The publication of the manuscript material allows us to broaden out knowledge about Metropolitan Eugene’s personality, obtain some important and even unique data on his personal and scholarly contacts in the process of his formation as an enlightener and representative of learned monasticism.

epoch of Alexander I, Russian religious Enlightenment, letter exchange between friends, manuscripts, Bolkhovitinov’s circle, learned monasticism

1. Akin’shin A. N., “Voronezhskii krug obshcheniia E. A. Bolkhovitinova”, in: Iz istorii Voronezhskogo kraia: Sbornik statei, Voronezh, 2000, 44–56.
2. Vologda v minuvshem tysiacheletii: Ocherki istorii goroda, Vologda, 2006.
3. Kozlov V. P., “Istoriia gosudarstva Rossiiskogo” N. M. Karamzina v otsenkakh sovremennikov, Moscow, 1989.
4. Lasunskii O. G., “Intelligentskie kruzhki v provintsial’nom gorode”, in: Obshchestvennaia zhizn’ v provintsial’noi Rossii v XV — nachale XX v., Voronezh, 1995, 193–201.
5. Marasinova E. N., Psikhologiia elity rossiiskogo dvorianstva poslednei treti XVIII veka (Po materialam perepiski), Moscow, 1999.
6. Pobedimova G. A., Sredinskaia N. B., Rossiiskaia akademiia nauk. Institut Rossiiskoi istorii. Sankt-Peterburgskii filial. Fondy i kollektsii arkhiva: Kratkii spravochnik, St. Petersburg, 1995.
7. Putevoditel’ po fondam lichnogo proiskhozhdeniia otdela pis’mennykh istochnikov Gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeia, Moscow, 1967.
8. Stepanov N. L., “Druzheskoe pis’mo nachala XIX v.”, in: B. Eikhenbaum, Iu. Tynianov, ed., Russkaia proza: Sb. statei, Leningrad, 1926, 74–101.

Klochkova Marina