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

This article is a response to the publications of A. Yu. Vinogradov and M. I. Korobov which deal with the acquisition by Crimean Goths of the writing system designed in the 4th century by Wulfi la, the Gothic bishop from a Danubian region. The article studies critically the statement that the Nicene-Arian controversy was refl ected in Christian inscriptions of the Crimea. Main attention is paid to a possible link between the spread of Wulfi la’s writing system in the Crimea and the Orthodox mission among the Goths initiated by St. John Chrysostom. The hypothesis of A. Yu. Vinogradov and M. I. Korobov is regarded as quite tenable, but alternative possibilities are also taken into account, particularly the use of Wulfi la’s writing system in the framework of the hypothetic missionary undertakings of bishops of Bosporus in the second half of the 4th century or missionary activities of “Arians” in the 5th — 6th centuries. Particular attention is paid to the status of bishop Unila who was ordained by St. John Chrysostom for the Goths of the Bosporan region (or adjacent territories). Unila may have been head of the Gothic Christian community (stationary or mobile) and may have occupied the Bosporan see, if the Bosporan Kingdom was controlled by the Goths during this period.

Northern Black Sea region, Goths, Wulfila, Unila, Early Christianity, Kingdom of Bosporus, St. John Chrysostom

1. Aibabin A. (1999) Etnicheskaia istoriia ranevizantiiskogo Kryma [Ethnic History of the Early Byzantine Crimea]. Simferopol’ (in Russian).
2. Kazanski M. (1991) Les Goths (Ier–VIIe siècles ap. J.-C.). Paris.
3. Kazanskii M. (2019) “Nachalo epokhi Velikogo pereseleniia narodov na Bospore Kimmeriiskom: itogi i perspektivy” [The Initial Period of the Great Migrations in the Cimmerian Bosporus: Results and Prospects], in XX Bosporskie chteniia: Bospor Kimmeriiskii i varvarskii mir v period antichnosti i srednevekov’ia. Osnovnye itogi i perspektivy issledovanii [XX Bosporan readings: Cimmerian Bosporus and Barbaric World in Antiquity and Middle Ages. Main Results and Prospects of Study]. Simferopol’; Kerch’, pp. 256–265 (in Russian).
4. Mathisen R. W. (2014) “Barbarian ‘Arian’ Clergy, Church Organization, and Church Practices”, in G. M. Berndt, R. Steinacher (eds) Arianism: Roman Heresy and Barbarian Creed. Farnham; Burlington, pp. 145–191.
5. Shchukin M. (2005) Gotskii put’ (goty, Rim i cherniakhovskaia kul’tura) [The Gothic Way (Goths, Rome, and Chernyakhov Culture)]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
6. Vasiliev A. (1936) The Goths in the Crimea. Cambridge (Mass.).
7. Vinogradov A. (2018) “Kogda zhe Pantikapei stal Vosporom?” [When did Panticapaeum Become Bosporus?], in CHERSONOS THEMATA: imperiia i polis. X Mezhdunarodnyi Vizantiiskii Seminar (Sevastopol’ — Balaklava 28 maia — 1 iiunia 2018 g.). Materialy nauchnoi konferentsii [CHERSONOS THEMATA: Empire and Polis. 10th International Byzantine Workshop (Sevastopol — Balaclava, May 28 — June 1, 2018). Conference Proceedings]. Sevastopol’; Simferopol’, pp. 49–52 (in Russian).
8. Vinogradov A., Korobov M. (2015) “Gotskie graffi ti iz Mangupskoi baziliki” [Gothic graffi ti from the Mangup Basilica]. Srednie veka, 76 (3–4), pp. 57–75 (in Russian).
9. Vinogradov A., Korobov M. (2018) “O vremeni i obstoiatel’stvakh khristianizatsii gotov Bospora i Dori” [On the Time and Circumstances of Christianisation of Goths in Bosporus and Dory], in Drevnosti Kubani [Antiquities of Kuban’ Region], 23, Rostov-on-Don, pp. 41–48 (in Russian).
10. Zakharov G.. (2014) Illiriiskie tserkvi v epokhu arianskii sporov (IV — nachalo V v.) [Illyrian Churches in the Period of the Arian Controversy (4th — Early 5th Centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).

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 dedicated to the study of the acts of the session of the Roman clergy, held in December 531 under the chairmanship of Pope Boniface II (530–532), which have been preserved as an introduction to the so-called Collectio Thessalonicensis. This collection is a compilation of papal letters addressed to the Illyrian bishops, especially to those of Thessalonica, which were read out during that session. The article analyzes the circumstances of the deposition by the Patriarch of Constantinople of the metropolitan Stephanus of Larissa, the Primate of the churches of Thessaly, the latter being a province of the Roman Empire located in the Prefecture of Illyricum. During the session, Stephanus' representatives handed in petitions, which referred to that case, and, according to the acts, brought with them the Collectio itself. The article analyzes the content of the petitions of Stephanus and his comrades, as well as the statements contained in the acts, with the aim of demonstrating the perception by Stephanus' suffragans of the Roman ecclesiology, that was founded upon the doctrine of the prerogatives of power of the bishop of Rome and the prerogatives of the See of Rome as the supreme judicial instance in the Church, which were allegedly canonical. As a result of the analysis, the author concludes that those passages in the petitions, which speak about the pope’s exclusive rights of jurisdiction over all Churches, including the Illyrian ones, as well as the remark, made by the Bishop of Echinus Theodore, that preceded the presentation of the Collectio Thessalonicensis, are in all likelihood interpolated. The author conducts a critical review of the opinions existing in science regarding the provenance of the Collectio from Thessalonica. As a result, he comes to the conclusion that the materials presented during the sessions of 531 by Theodore of Echinus cannot originate either from Illyricum in general or Thessalonica in particular. The author postulates their Roman origin, and substantiates a thesis on the artifi cial combination of the acts of 531 with the Collectio Thessalonicensis, that was carried out presumably during the pontifi cate of Nicholas I (858–867).

Collectio Thessalonicensis, Illyricum, Thessaly, pope Boniface II, Stephan of Larissa, Theodore of Echinus, Roman ecclesiology, papal primacy, appeal to Rome

1. Anastos M. V. (1979) “The Transfer of Illyricum, Calabria and Sicily to the Jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 732–33”, in M. V. Anastos. Studies in Byzantine Intellectual History. London, pp. 14–31.
2. Betti M. (2014) The Making of Christian Moravia (858–882). Papal Power and Political Reality. Leiden; Boston.
3. Blaudeau Ph. (2012) Le Siège de Rome et l’Orient (448–536). Étude géo-ecclésiologique. Rome.
4. Brandes W. (2014) “Das Schweigen des Liber Pontifi calis. Die „Enteignung“ der päpstlichen Patrimonien Siziliens und Unteritaliens in den 50er Jahren des 8. Jahrhunderts”, in W. Brandes, L. M. Hoff mann, K. Maksimovič (eds). Fontes Minores XII. Frankfurt-am-Main, pp. 97–204.
5. Brandes W., Leppin H. (2011) “Die Collectio Thessalonicensis — ein Forschungsdesiderat”. Rechtsgeschichte – Legal History, 18, pp. 263–266.
6. Gratsianskiy M. (2019) “Haeres Petri sive vicarius Petri: Obosnovanie iskliuchitel’nykh vlastnykh prerogativ rimskogo episkopa papoi L’vom Velikim” [“Haeres Petri sive vicarius Petri. Arguments of Pope Leo the Great for the Exceptional Prerogatives of Power for the Bishop of Rome”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 89, pp. 27–48 (in Russian).
7. Greenslade S. L. (1945) “The Illyrian Churches and the Vicariate of Thessalonica, 378–95”. The Journal of Theological Studies, 46, pp. 17–30.
8. Grumel V. (1952) “Le Vicariat de Thessalonique et le premier rattachement de l’Illyricum oriental au patriarcat de Constantinople”, in Annuaire de l’École des Législations Religieuses 1950– 1951. Paris, pp. 49–63.
9. Grumel V. (1951–1952) “L’annexion de l’Illyricum oriental, de la Sicile et de la Calabre au patriarcat de Constantinople”. Recherches de Science Religieuse, 1951–1952, 40, pp. 191– 200.
10. Haller J. (1950) Das Papsttum. Idee und Wirklichkeit. Vol. 1. Urach; Stuttgart.
11. Jasper D., Fuhrmann H. (2001) Papal Letters in the Early Middle Ages. Washington.
12. Kéry L. (1999) Canonical Collections of the Early Middle Ages (ca. 400–1140). A Bibliographical Guide to the Manuscripts and Literature. Washington.
13. Koder J., Hild F. (1976) Tabula Imperii Byzantini. Vol. 1. Wien.
14. Lotter F., Bratož R., Castritius H. (2003) Völkerverschiebungen im Ostalpen-Mitteldonau-Raum zwischen Antike und Mittelalter (375–600). Berlin; New York.
15. Macdonald J. (1961) “Who Instituted the Papal Vicariate of Thessalonica?”. Studia Patristica, 4, pp. 478–482.
16. Moreau D. (2016) “The Papal Appeal Court in the Sixth Century. The Example of the Roman Synod of 531”, in R. Haensch (ed.). Recht haben und Recht bekommen im Imperium Romanum. Das Gerichtswesen der römischen Kaiserzeit und seine dokumentarische Evidenz. Ausgewählte Beiträge einer Serie von drei Konferenzen an der Villa Vigoni in den Jahren 2010 bis 2012. Warschau, pp. 365–403.
17. Moreau D. (2017) “La partitio imperii et la géographie des Balkans: entre géopolitique et géoecclésiologie”, in Costellazioni geo-ecclesiali da Costantino a Giustiniano: Dalle chiese ‘principali’ alle chiese patriarcali. XLIII Incontro di Studiosi dell’ Antichità Cristiana (Roma, 7–9 maggio 2015). Roma, pp. 255–285.
18. Pietri Ch. (1984) “La géographie de l’Illyricum ecclésiastique et ses relations avec l’Église de Rome (Ve–VIe siècles)”, in Villes et peuplement dans l’Illyricum protobyzantin. Actes du colloque de Rome (12–14 mai 1982). Rome, pp. 21–62.
19. Powell D. (2008) “Haeres Petri: Leo I and Church Order”. International Journal for the Study ofthe Christian Church, 8, pp. 203–210.
20. Schwartz E. (1931) “Die sogenannte Sammlung der Kirche von Thessalonich”, in Festschrift Richard Reitzenstein zum 2. April 1931 dargebracht von Ed. Fraenkel [und anderen], Leipzig; Berlin, pp. 137–159.
21. Streichhan F. (1922) “Die Anfänge des Vikariates von Thessalonich”. Zeitschrift der Savigny- Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung, 12, pp. 330–384.
22. Streichhan F. (1928) “Nochmals die Anfänge des Vikariats von Thessalonich”. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung, 17, pp. 538–548.
23. Ullmann W. (1981) Gelasius I. (492–496). Das Papsttum an der Wende der Spätantike zum Mittelalter. Stuttgart.
24. Ullmann W. (1960) “Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy”. Journal of Theological Studies, 11, pp. 25–51.
25. Ullmann W. (1970) The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages. A Study in the Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power. London.
26. Völker W. (1928) “Studien zur päpstlichen Vikariatspolitik im 5. Jh., 2: Der Streit um die Echtheit der Collectio Thessalonicensis”. Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 46, pp. 355–380.
27. Zeiller J. (1927) “Une ébauche de vicariat pontifi cal sous le pape Zosime”. Revue Historique, 155, pp. 326–332.

Gratsianskiy Mikhail

*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 ideology of reforming monasticism in the 18th-century Russia, from Peter I to Catherine II. The study of legislative documents reveals that the reform declared by Peter I was aimed at fundamental change in the social functions of monasticism and admission to monasticism in harmony with state-related duties existing in the secular world, and stricter observation of standards of monastic life. The successors of Peter I implemented mainly a system of social restrictions on monks. The impossibility for peasants to become monks led to a sharp reduction in the number of monks, which resulted in an imbalance in the management of monastic farms and a change in the demographic characteristics of monasticism. The practice of reform has shown the demand for other forms of charity than those provided for by the reform. Empress Elizabeth corrected the reform in that the care for retired military personnel was withdrawn from the public functions of the monasteries, external management of monastic estates was introduced, the income of which was to be used for the purposes of charity. Empress Catherine II, introducing the ranks in 1764, completely deprived the monasteries of the functions of public charity and transformed monasticism into the category of persons under state charity. The consequence of the reforms was the reduction of monasticism by the end of the 18th century to critically low numbers, a change in its social composition, and a decline in the culture of monastic life. Monastic service, understood in the pre-Peter’s era as socially signifi cant, in the context of the secularised Russian society of the 18th century was pushed into the domain of private life.

monasticism, monasteries, Russian Empire, Synodal period, secularisation, modernisation, charity, retired military, Russia, Middle Urals

1. Bulygin I. (1977) Monastyrskie krest’iane Rossii v pervoi chetverti XVIII veka [Monastic Peasants of Russia in the First Quarter of the 18th Century]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Fedorov V. (2003) Russkaia pravoslavnaia tserkov’ i gosudarstvo: Sinodal’nyi period (1700‒1917) [Russian Orthodox Church and the State: Synodal Period (1700‒1917)]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Komissarenko A. (1990) Russkii absoliutizm i dukhovenstvo v XVIII veke: (Ocherki istorii sekuliarizatsionnoi reformy 1764 g. [Russian Absolutism and the Clergy in the 18th Century (Essays in the History of the Secularisation Reform of 1764)]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Komissarenko A. (1998) “Razrabotka zakonodatel’nykh aktov sekuliarizatsionnoj reformy 1764 g.” [“Development of Legislative Acts of the Secularisation Reform of 1764”. Problemy istorii Rossii. Vypusk 2: Opyt gosudarstvennogo stroitel’stva XV‒XX vv. Ekaterinburg, pp. 34‒47 (in Russian).
5. Kozlova N. (2009). “„Za starost’iu i bolezniami ot sluzhby otstavlen…” [“Due to Old Age and Illnesses Dismissed from Service...”]. Rodina, 2, pp. 99‒103 (in Russian).
6. Kustova E. (2013) “Monahi i „srodniki: iz istorii social’nykh otnoshenii v monastiriakh Viatskoi i Velikopermskoi eparkhii v XVIII v.” [Monks and “Kinsmen”: History of Social Relations in Monasteries of Vyatka and Great Perm’ Dioecese in the 18th Century]. Istoricheskie, filosofskie, politicheskie i iuridicheskie nauki, kul’turologiia i iskusstvovedenie. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 6 (32), II, pp. 94‒98 (in Russian).
7. Kustova E. (2013) “Prizrenie bol’nykh monashestvuiushchikh v viatskikh i permskikh monastyriakh v XVIII v.” [Care for Sick Monks in Vyatka and Perm’ Monasteries in the 18th Century]. Istoricheskie, filosofskie, politicheskie i iuridicheskie nauki, kul’turologiia i iskusstvovedenie. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 12 (38), I, pp. 113–116 (in Russian).
8. Kustova E. (2014) “Sluzhba i sluzhenie: otstavnye voennye v viatskih i permskih monastyriakh v XVIII veke” [The Offi ce and the Service: Retired Military in Vyatka and Perm’ Monasteries in the 18th Century”]. Voenno-istoricheskii zhurnal, 2, pp. 58–65 (in Russian).
9. Lisovoi N. (2002) “Vosemnadtsatyi vek v istorii russkogo monashestva” [The Eighteenth Century in the History of Russian Monasticism], in Monashestvo i monastyri v Rossii XI‒XX veka [Monasticism and Monasteries in Russia of the 11th — 20th Centuries]. Moscow, pp. 186‒222 (in Russian).
10. Nechayeva M. (2016) Monashestvo Srednego Urala sinodal’nogo perioda: printsipy formirovaniia i sotsial’nyi sostav [Monasticism of the Middle Urals of the Synodal Period: Principles of Formation and Social Strata]. Ekaterinburg (in Russian).
11. Sedov P. (2013) “„Vse de nyne gosudarevo: traditsii i novatsii v tserkovnoi reforme Petra I” [“Everything Now Belongs to the Sovereign”: Traditions and Innovations in the Church Reform of Peter I], in Fenomen reform na zapade i vostoke Evropy v nachale Novogo vremeni (XVI‒XVIII vv.) [Phenomenon of Reforms in the West and East of Europe at the Beginning of the New Time (16th — 18th Centuries)]. St Petersburg, pp. 122‒142 (in Russian).
12. Smolich I. (1997) Russkoe monashestvo: 988–1917; Zhizn’ i uchenie startsev: Prilozhenie k «Istorii Russkoi Tserkvi» [Russian Monasticism: 988–1917; The Life and Teaching of the Elders: Appendix to the “History of the Russian Church”]. Moscow (in Russian).

Nechayeva Marina

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

This article studies for the fi rst time how the administrative staff of the Bishop’s house of Tver diocese, one of the oldest in Russia, developed into elite. The period in question began in 1675, when the Church Council substantially limited the role of secular bishops’ offi cials, and ended in the 1740s with the formation of spiritual consistories, where the majority of clerical ministers were transferred from the bishops’ houses. During this period, the elite of the Bishop’s house offi cials was represented by officers holding “commanding” (prikaznoi) positions, as well as the positions of dyaks (clerks; late secretaries) of the Bishop’s administrations (prikaz). The sources for the study are cadastres and census books, records, confessional registers, registers of births, and other materials. The analysis of Tver Bishop’s house’s elite made it possible to identify all persons who held these positions during the relevant period, to fi nd out facts about their social origin, biographies and wealth status. The relevant materials show that these officers were recruited mainly from families which had been serving for Tver bishops for a long time (in some cases, since the 16th century), and key vacancy fillings sometimes were openly made by inheritance. The article also provides data on land ownership patterns, cash and non-cash salaries of offi cers and clerks (secretaries) of Tver Bishop’s house; it also deals with biographies of their descendants.

Tver diocese, Bishop’s house, clerks, nobility, land holdings, genealogy, prosopography

1. Cherkasova M. (2017) «Novyi istochnik iz arhiva Vologodskogo arkhiereiskogo doma XVII v.» [A New Source from Vologda Bishop’s House Archive of the 17th Century]. Vestnik Vologodskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: gumanitarnye, obshchestvennye, pedagogicheskie nauki, b3 (6), pp. 15‒18 (in Russian).
2. Demidova N. (2011) Sluzhilaia biurokratiia v Rossii XVII v. (1625‒1700): Biografi cheskii spravochnik [Serving Bureaucracy in Russia in the 17th Century (1625‒1700): Biographical Reference Book]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Gnevashev D. (2001) “Dvor Vologodskogo arkhiepiskopa v XVII v.” [The Court of Vologda Archbishop in the 17th Century]. Regional’nye aspekty istoricheskogo puti pravoslaviia: arkhivy, istochniki, metodologiia issledovanii: materialy mezhregional’noi nauchnoi konferentsii. Vol. 7: Istoricheskoe kraevedenie i arkhivy. Vologda, pp. 139‒149 (in Russian).
4. Matison A. (2019) “Iskazheniia rodoslovnykh potomkami arkhiereiskikh sluzhitelei pri utverzhdenii v potomstvennom dvorianstve” [Distortions of Pedigrees by Descendants of Bishops’ Servicemen when Approving Nobility by Birth]. Vestnik arkhivista, 2, pp. 572‒582 (in Russian).
5. Nikulin I. (2014) “Struktura Tobol’skogo arkhiereiskogo doma v 90-e gody XVII v.” [Structure of the Bishop’s House in the 17th Century]. Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, 2 (8), pp. 120‒138 (in Russian).
6. Ustinova I. (2014) “Sluzhebnaia biografi ia arkhiereiskogo d’iaka Danily Ignat’ieva: k voprosu o svetskom elemente v russkom tserkovnom upravlenii XVII v.» [Offi cial Biography of Archibishop’s Clark Danila Ignat`yev: on the Question about Secular Element in the Administration of Russian Church in the 17th Century]. Trudy Instituta rossiiskoi istorii RAN, 12. Moscow, pp. 83‒92 (in Russian).
7. Veselovskii S. (1975) D’iaki i pod’iachie XV–XVII vv. [Dyaki and Podyachie in the 15th — 17th Centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).

Matison Andrey

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

This article deals with an interesting yet relatively little studied episode in modern Russian historiography, namely potato riots in the Trans-Urals region in 1842 and 1843. This peasants’ uproar aff ected many regions of Russia, in particular the Middle Volga, Vyatka, Orenburg and Perm provinces. One of the reasons for the riots was the reforms carried out by the Minister of State Property Count P. D. Kiselev and his department. The purpose of the reforms was to streamline the life of state peasants. It was supposed to improve the administrative and tax collection system, open new schools and hospitals, and secure food supplies in case of crop failure. Fearing of famine, the department issued an order to plant potatoes in small plots of state land. This action coincided with rumours that during the reforms, state peasants will be transferred to private individuals and become serfs. The peasants of the Trans-Urals thought that the culprits were representatives of rural administration who sold them to the landlords, and in return received not only money, but privileges, in particular the right to wear a uniform. These rumours provoked mass demonstrations of peasants in 1842 in Shadrinsk and Kamyshlov districts of Perm province. The unrest was suppressed, but in the next year, 1843, arose again in Chelyabinsk district of Orenburg province and in the southern parts of Shadrinsk district which remained calm in 1842. During the riots, the peasants demanded that they should be given a “charter of sale” (Russ. «грамотa о продаже»), smashed administrative offi ces and churches. Representatives of the rural administration and clergy were tortured and humiliated because they refused to issue the non-existent “charter”. In some cases, the insults lasted several days; some secretaries of the rural government were killed or died from wounds. The riots were suppressed, but they showed the distrust of the peasants in the central and local administration. The clergy became a target of the attack because it was part of the state church and was supposed to inform the peasants about the decisions of the government. It was in the church that the crowd wanted to find a non-existent “charter”.

Reforms of Count Kiselev, riots, potato riots, Trans-Urals region, Russian peasantry, rural administration, rural clergy, social psychology, rumours, mentality

1. Druzhinin N. (1946; 1958). Gosudarstvennye krest’iane i reforma P. D. Kiseleva [State Peasants and the Reform of P. D. Kiselev]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Laptinskaya S. (2017) Dukhovenstvo Viatskoi i Permskoi gubernii v period kartofel’nykh buntov 1830–1850 godov [Clergy of Vyatka and Perm Provinces during the Period of Potato Riots of 1830‒1850]. Sinergiia nauk, 15, рр. 781–789 (in Russian).
3. Menshchikov I., Pavlutsky T. (2018) Osobennosti soznaniia russkikh krest’ian i kartofel’nyie bunty 1842–1843. [Characteristic Features of Mentality of Russian Peasants and Potato Riots of 1842–1843]. Vestnik Kostromskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 1, рр. 146–150 (in Russian).
4. Menshchikov I., Fedorov S. (2017) Volostnyie sudy i krest’ianskoie pravosudiie v Iuzhnom Zaural’ie [Country Courts and Peasant Justice in the South Trans-Urals Region]. Kurgan (in Russian).
5. Mironov B. (2000) Sotsial’naia istoriia Rossii perioda imperii (XVIII — nachalo XX v.) [Social History of Russia during the Imperial Period (18th — Early 20th Century], vol. 1. St Petersburg (in Russian).
6. Pavlutskikh T. (2018). Dokumenty Dalmatovskogo monastyria o krest’ianskikh vystupleniiakh 1841–1843 gg. [Documents of the Dalmatian Monastery on Peasant Riots of 1841–1843], in Dokument. Arkhiv. Istoriia. Sovremennost’. Materialy VII Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii [Document. Archive. Modernity. Proceedings of the 7th All-Russian Conference]. Yekaterinburg, рр. 336‒341. (in Russian).
7. Poberezhnikov I. (1995) Slukhi v sotsial’noi istorii: tipologiia i funktsii. Po materialam vostochnykh regionov Rossii XVIII‒XIX vv [Rumours in Social History: Typology and Functions. Based on Materials from Eastern Regions of Russia of the 18th — 19th Centuries]. Yekaterinburg (in Russian).
8. Shkerin V. (1992) Primeneniye teorii psikhicheskoi ustanovki pri izuchenii volnenii gosudarstvennykh krest’ian Zaural’ia 1842‒1843 gg. [Application of the Theory of Mental Agenda in the Study of Unrest of State peasants of the Trans-Urals in 1842‒1843], in Gosudarstvennye krest’iane Urala v epokhu feodalizma [State Peasants of Ural Region during the Feudalism Period]. Yekaterinburg, рр. 85‒100 (in Russian).
9. Tokarev S. (1939) Krest’ianskie kartofel’nye bunty [Peasants’ Potato Riots]. Kirov (in Russian).

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.

Pavlutckikh Timofei

In the mid-19th century, different views on the development of charitable activities of women were being formed by public fi gures and representatives of the clergy in Russia. One of the options was off ered by priest Aleksandr Gumilevskiy, who in 1860 drafted the statute of Orthodox deaconesses for Krestovozdvizhenskaya community of sisters of mercy in St Petersburg on “Church-nationwide” foundations. The project was submitted to the trustee, Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna, but was not approved, and Revd. Aleksandr was dismissed from the community. This article analyses the views of Revd. Aleksandr on the revived female order, i.e. what the deaconesses should be, what the meaning of their ministry is, how to organise their life, subordination, appearance. The article makes comparisons between this project and Early Christian and Mediaeval texts and shows similarities and diff erences between the “new” and ancient deaconesses as well as the reasons why the project was not implemented. In particular, the article studies the charitable and church-related functions of deaconesses, the age, the reasons for the disappearance of women’s ancient ministry, the correlation of the status of deaconesses with the role of maidens and widows (“church widows”). The project became a non-realised attempt at institualisation of the new women’s ministry in Russia. The article aims to demonstrate the signifi cance of such a historical reconsstruction for the public life and church aff airs in Russia of the mid-19th century.

deaconesses, Early Christianity, Orthodox Church, priest Nikolay Gumilevsky, Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna, charity, Krestovozdvizhenskaya community of sisters of mercy

1. Afanasiev N. (1957) “„Presvitidy ili predsedatel’nitsy (11-e pravilo Laodikiiskogo sobora)” [“Presvitids or Chairwomen” (11th Rule of Laodician Council)]. Tserkovnyi vestnik, 66, pp. 13–24 (in Russian).
2. Bakonina S. (ed.) (2011) Sluzhenie zhenshchin v Tserkvi: Issledovaniia [Ministry of Women in the Church. Collection of Articles]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Belyakova E., Belyakova N., Emchenko E. (2011) Zhenshchina v pravoslavii: tserkovnoe pravo i rossiiskajia praktika [Woman in Orthodoxy: Church Law and Russian Practices]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Denisova L. (2014) “Zhenshchiny v kontekste diakonicheskogo sluzheniia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi” [Women in the Context of Deaconal Ministry of Russian Orthodox Church»]. Teoriia i praktika obshchestvennogo razvitiia, 17, pp. 157–160 (in Russian).
5. Efimushkina E. (2019) “Obshchina sester miloserdiia v Rossii v predstavleniiakh okruzheniia velikoi kniagini Eleny Pavlovny” [Community of Sisters of Mercy in Russia in the Views of the Milieu of Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Series II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 86, pp. 97–109 (in Russian).
6. Efimushkina E. (2019) “Sankt-Peterburgskaia Krestovozdvizhenskaia obshchina sester miloserdiia” [St Petersburg Holy Cross Community of Sisters of Mercy], in Obshchiny sester miloserdiia Rossiiskoi imperii v 1844–1917 gg.: Entsiklopedicheskii spravochnik [Communities of Sisters of Mercy in Russian Empire in 1844–1917: Encyclopaedic Handbook]. Moscow, pp. 486–491 (in Russian).
7. Eisen U. (1996) Amtsträgerinnen im frühen Christentum: Epigraphische und literarische Studien. Göttingen (in German).
8. Gryson R. (1972) Le ministère des femmes dans l’Église ancienne. Gemblou.
9. Kalsbach A. (1926) “Die altkirchliche Einrichtung der Diakonissen bis zu ihrem Erlöschen”. Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und für Kirchengeschichte, 22.
10. Lepekhin M. (2006) “Gumilevskiy Aleksandr Vasil’ievich”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 13. Moscow, pp. 450–451 (in Russian).
11. Madigan K., Osiek C. (eds) (2005) Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History. Baltimore.
12. Martimort G. (1982) Les Diaconesses: Essai historique. Rome.
13. Posternak A. (ed.) (2015) Sluzhenie zhenshchin v Tserkvi: Istochniki [The Ministry of Women in the Church: Historical Sources]. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Sokolov A. (2006) Blagotvoritel’nost’ v Rossii kak mekhanizm vzaimodeistviia obshchestva i gosudarstva (nachalo XVIII — konets XIX veka) [Charity in Russia as a Mechanism of Interaction between Society and the State (early 18th — late 19th centuries)]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
15. Ul’ianova G. (2005) Blagotvoritel’nost’ v Rossiiskoj imperii XIX — nachala XX veka [Charity in the Russian Empire of the 19th and Early 20th Centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).

Posternak Andrey, priest

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

The article was prepared within the framework of the project «Database "Charitable institutions of the Russian Empire (1721–1917)"» with the support of the development Foundation of St. Tikhon's Orthodox University for the Humanities. The author expresses deep recognition for providing support and necessary materi-als to Ekaterina Vladimirovna Efimushkina and Elena Nikolaevna Kozlovtseva.

This article deals with some episodes in the purchase by the state of the Egyptian collection assembled by Vladimir Golenishchev (1856–1947); its subsequent transfer to one of Russian museums in 1908–1909 is described as well. A fi nancial failure urged Golenishchev, the prominent Russian Egyptologist and heir of a merchant family, to seek a possibility of selling the collection of Ancient Egyptian artefacts that he had been gathering for 30 years. In the fi rst place, he suggested this purchase to the Russian state. His address to the emperor and subsequent petitions of the Imperial Academy of Sciences and of the Russian Archaeological Society resulted in a handover of the case to the Council of Ministers. The Council suggested that this matter should be considered by the State Duma and that a purchase of the collection from the budget funds should be proposed (the relevant bill was passed in April 1909). Archival documents published in the article show a highly important role of Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich, head of the Academy and of the Russian Archaeological Society, in presenting the case before the emperor. Probably, he acted on advice and proposals of the historian Sergey Platonov. It is likely that after the decision of the Council of Ministers in April 1908 took place the last attempt to convince Nicolas II to buy the collection from personal funds on condition of annual rent and not a lump payment to its owner. Like previously, Golenishchev’s colleagues (namely, the Egyptologist Boris Turayev) addressed Platonov to gain support from Grand Duke who was to address the emperor again. This resulted in the ultimate decision of Nicolas II to approve the Council’s decision and to pass the case to the legislature. The documents show that Golenishchev was discontented with the lingering procedure and considered for a while selling the collection outside Russia, though he soon rejected the idea.

Ancient Egyptian artifacts, Vladimir Golenishchev, Sergey Platonov, Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich, Nicolas II, Council of Ministers, Duma

1. Baryshnikov M. (2014) “V. S. Golenishchev: nauchnye interesy i sud’ba semeinogo biznesa v nachale ХХ veka” [V. S. Golenishchev: Academic Interests and Fate of the Family Owned Business in the Early 20th Century]. Universitetskii nauchnyi zhurnal (Filologicheskie i istoricheskie nauki, iskusstvovedenie), 7, pp. 68–76 (in Russian).
2. Berlev O. (1997) “Egiptologiia” [“Egyptology”], in А. А. Vigasin, A. N. Khokhlov, P. M. Shastitko (eds) Istoriia otechestvennogo vostokovedeniia s serediny XIX veka do 1917 g. [History of Russian Oriental Studies from the Middle of the 19th Century to 1917]. Moscow pp. 434–459 (in Russian).
3. Bol’shakov A. (2007) “Golenishchev i my” [“Golenishchev and Us”], in A. O. Bol’shakov (ed.) Peterburgskie egiptologicheskie chteniia, 2006. K 150-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia V. S. Golenishcheva. Doklady (Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha 35) [St. Petersburg Egyptological Readings, 2006. Proceedings (Transactions of the State Hermitage 35)]. St. Petersburg, pp. 5–13 (in Russian).
4. Danilova I. (ed.) (1987) Vydaiushchiisia russkii vostokoved V. S. Golenishchev i istoriia priobreteniia ego kollektsii v muzei iziashchnykh iskusstv (1909‒1912) [The Remarkable Russian Orientalist V. S. Golenischev and the History of Acquisition of his Collection by the Museum of Fine Arts (1909‒1912)], Moscow (in Russian).
5. Gardiner A. H. (1947) Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, vols 1–3. Oxford.
6. Gruzdeva E., Kolosova E. (2007) “Zhenskii pedagogicheskii institut na rubezhe epokh (1913–1917)” [Pedagogical Institute for Women at the Trun of Epochs (1913–1917)]. Vestnik Gertsenovskogo universiteta, 5 (43), pp. 22–31 (in Russian).
7. Korostovtsev M. (1963) Vvedenie v egipetskuiu fi lologiiu [Introduction to Egyptian Philology]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Mosolov A. (1938) Pri dvore imperatora [At the Court of the Emperor]. Riga (in Russian).
9. Shmidt S. (ed.) (2005) Akademik S. F. Platonov. Perepiska s istorikami [Academician S. F. Platonov. Correspondence with Historians], vol. 1. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Sobolev V. (1993) Avgusteishii prezident: Velikii kniaz’ Konstantin Konstantinovich vo glave Imperatorskoi akademii nauk, 1889–1915 gg. [The Eminent President: Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich as Head of the Imperial Academy of Sciences]. Moscow (in Russian).
11. Struve V. (1960) “Znachenie V.S. Golenishcheva dlia egiptologii” [Signifi cance of V. S. Golenishchev for Egyptology], in V. Avdiev, N. Shastina (eds) Ocherki po istorii russkogo vostokovedeniia [Essays in the History of Russian Oriental Studies], vol. 3. Moscow, pp. 3–69 (in Russian).

Ladynin Ivan

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

Izosimov Denis

Sennikova Polina

This work is supported by the Russian Science Foundation under grant 19-18-00369 “The Classical Orient: culture, world-view, tradition of research in Russia (based on the monuments in the collection of the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts and archive sources)”

This paper is devoted to the lives of the sisters of Martha and Mary Convent (Moscow) who lived there since 1918, i.e. after the arrest of the founder of the Convent, Grand Duchess Elizabeth. The sisters stayed in the Convent till 1926, the year when the Convent was closed by the government. The article briefl y describes the Convent’s activities during the period in question. It shows the main challenges which the sisters faced; these challenges were rooted in the Bolsheviks’ policy. The paper also reveals the attitude of authorities of the Convent towards the Soviet government, as well as the methods that the sisters used to preserve church way of life in the Convent amidst the newly emerged political situation. Drawing on archival data, the article analyses social backgrounds, age-related strata of the sisterhood, the level of the sisters’ education and the motives that encouraged them to become nuns. While analysing biographical details of the sisters and female employees of the Convent, the article takes into consideration the fact that their personal data were obtained from them during interrogations in the investigating agencies of United Governmental Political Administration (Russ. ОГПУ). The article emphasises that the main merit in preserving Martha and Mary Convent after the coup of October 1917 belongs to the second abbess Valentina Sergeyevna Gordeeva and her main assistants. The author of the article claims that the sisters’ ideological motivation in becoming nuns could play a positive role in the life of the Convent, because this religious organisation remained open for a comparatively long period, notwithstanding the anti-religious legislation of the state.

Martha and Mary Convent, members of sisterhood community, sisters’ motivation, anti-religious policy, preserving church community, female monasticism, monasteries of Moscow

1. Gorinov M., Ivanova E., Sharipov A., Voitikov S. (2009) Marfo-Mariinskaia obitel’ miloserdiia. 1909‒2009. K 100-letiiu sozdaniia Obiteli [Martha and Mary Convent, 1909‒2009. The 100th Anniversary of Establishing the Monastery]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Khristoforov V. (2008) “O zakrytii Marfo-Mariinskoi obiteli miloserdiia” [On the Dissoultion of Martha and Mary Convent]. Vestnik tserkovnoi istorii, 1 (9), pp. 130‒152 (in Russian).
3. Medvednikov G. (1991) “Sestra miloserdiia: ob Aleksandre Vladimirovne Medvednikovoi” [Sister of Mercy: Alexandra Vladimirovna Medvednikova]. Moskovskii zhurnal, 2, pp. 57‒58 (in Russian).
4. Pereslegin N. (2014) “Marfo-Mariinskaia obitel’ miloserdiia v Moskve v kontekste okhrany pamiatnikov arkhitektury (1917‒1991)” [Martha and Mary Convent in Moscow in Context of Protection of Architectural Monuments (1917‒1991)]. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta kul’tury i iskusstv, 3, pp. 83‒87 (in Russian).
5. Ul’ianovskii V. (ed.) (2014) Biografi cheskii slovar’ vypusknikov Kievskoi dukhovnoi akademii: 1819‒1920e gg.: Materialy iz sobraniia prof. protoiereia F. I. Titova i arkhiva KDA [Biographical Dictionary of Graduates of Kiev Theological Academy: 1819‒1920s: Materials from the Collection of Prof. Archpriest F. I. Titov and Archive of Kiev Theological Academy], vol. 2. Kiev (in Russian).
6. Zotova L. (2012) “Sistema zhenskogo obrazovaniia v Rossii v nachale XX veka v sviazi s problemoi vostrebovannosti i perspektiv zhenskogo truda: istoriko-sotsial’nyi aspect” [The System of Female Education in Russia at the Beginning of the 20th Century in Connection with the Problem of Demand and Prospects for Female Labour: A Historical and Social Aspect]. Professional’noe obrazovanie v Rossii i za rubezhom, 1 (5), pp. 11‒15 (in Russian).

Grechushkina Natalia

*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.

I express my gratitude to the abbess of the Martha and Mary Convent of Mercy Mother Superior Elisaveta (Pozdnyakova) for the idea to write the article and its creative discussion, to her scientific adviser, professor, church. History, Ph.D., Fr. Alexander Mazyrin for a scientific discussion of the work and valuable comments, as well as to the management and employees of the Central Archive of the FSB of Russia for the opportunity to work with archival materials.

This article studies the problems in relations between the Serbian Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. In the 1920s and 1930s, Russian refugees were supported by the Serbian Church, and the Russian Church Abroad was granted canonical status. Good relations between the churches continued afterwards as well. However, in the 1960s and 1980s, the party of “zealots” (Russ. ревнители) gained considerable influence in the Russian Church Abroad, accusing the Orthodox world of apostasy and advocating a resolute severance with the local churches, including the Serbian Church. At the same time, many priests valued their relations with world Orthodoxy. The opposition of the two parties is linked to the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad towards bishop Dionysius (Milivojevich), who separated from the Serbian Church in 1963 and established the so-called “Free Serbian Orthodox Church”. At fi rst, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad was ready to fully support the new split, but in 1967 it condemned the new discord. Nevertheless, later representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, including metropolitan Filaret (Voznesensky) made harsh statements against the legitimate Serbian Church. For its part, the Serbian Church avoided conflict with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and continued to protect it. In the early 1970s, Moscow Patriarchate was preparing to condemn the Russian Church Abroad. The issue was discussed at the Local Council in 1971, and it was decided to abandon it. A representative of the Serbian Church, who was present at the Council, also opposed the condemnation of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. This attitude on the part of the Serbian Church was also observed later, in the 1990s too, when relations between Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad were particularly difficult.

Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Moscow Patriarchate, Serbian Orthodox Church, Local Council of 1971, “Serbian Free Orthodox Church”, metropolitan Filaret (Voznesensky), metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov), bishop Dionysius (Milivojevich)

1. Kassia, nun (T. Senina) (ed.) (2007) Stolp ognennyi. Mitropolit N’iu-Iorkskii i Vostochno- Amerikanskii Filaret (Voznesenskii) i Russkaia Zarubezhnaia Tserkov’ (1964–1985) [The Pillar of Fire. Metropolitan of New York and West America Filaret and Russian Church Abroad (1964‒1985]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
2. Kosik V. (2000) Russkaia Tserkov’ v Yugoslavii (20–40-e gg. XX veka) [Russian Church in Yugoslavia (1920s — 1940s). Moscow (in Russian).
3. Kosik V. (2012) Khorvatskaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov’ (ot organizatsii do likvidatsii) (1942– 1945). Vzgliad iz ХХI veka [Croatian Orthodox Church (from establishment to dissolution) (1942‒1945)]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Kostryukov A. (2007) Russkaia Zarubezhnaia Tserkov’ v pervoi polovine 1920kh godov. Organizatsiia tserkovnogo upravleniia v emigratsii i ego otnosheniia s Moskovskoi Patriarkhiei pri zhizni Patriarkha Tikhona [Russian Orthodox Church in the First Half of the 1920s. Organisation of Church Administration in Emigration and its Relations with Moscow Patriarchate during Time of Patriarch Tikhon]. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Kostryukov A. (2011) Russkaia Zarubezhnaia Tserkov’ v 1925–1938 gg. Iurisdiktsionnye konfl ikty i otnosheniia s moskovskoi tserkovnoi vlast’iu [Russian Church Abroad in 1925‒1938. Jurisdiction Conflicts and Relations with Moscow Church Authorities]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Kostryukov A. (2018) Russkaia Zarubezhnaia Tserkov’ v 1939–1964 gg. Administrativnoe ustroistvo i otnosheniya s Tserkov’iu v Otechestve [Russian Church Abroad in 1939‒1964. Administrative Structure and Relations with the Church in the Homeland]. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Psarev A. (2012) Razvitie mirovozzreniia Russkoi Zarubezhnoi Tserkvi v otnoshenii Pomestnykh Tserkvei i inoslaviia [Development of Worldview of Russian Church Abroad as to Local Churches and Heterodoxy], in Deyaniia IV Vsezarubezhnogo Sobora Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi Zagranitsei [Acts of the 4th General Council of Russian Orthodox CHurch Abroad]. Moscow, pp. 180–205 (in Russian).
8. Shkarovskii M. (2009) Istoriia russkoi tserkovnoi emigratsii [History of Russian Church Emigration]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
9. Shkarovskii M. (2019) Pravoslavnye Tserkvi Iugo-Vostochnoi Evropy mezhdu dvumia mirovymi voinami [Orthodox Churches of South-Eastern Europe between Two Waorld Wars]. Moscow (in Russian).

Kostryukov Andrey

*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.