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

The cultus of St. Vincentius was so popular in Early Medieval Europe that it generated several redactions of his Passio. The original redaction, made in the 4th century, was read in church on the saint’s natal day in the time of St. Augustine of Hippo. This redaction was previously believed to be the most widespread version of the text, BHL 8630, which is now, however, dated to the 6th or 7th centuries. Another existing redaction is BHL 8631, published in 1956 by Manlio Simonetti, who believed it to be very close to the original 4th century version (if not the original version itself). Viktor Saxer, on the other hand, dated this redaction to the 6th century. This article is based on comparing the redaction of BHL 8631 not only with the works of St. Augustine and Prudentius devoted to St. Vincentius, which was done by many scholars before, but also with other martyrologic literary texts, as well as on analysing the evolution of the whole genre of Passio in course of time. Such approach allows one to see that the redaction of BHL 8631 has a number of features that are distinctive for the 4th century, and certain aspects are rather non-characteristic of the martyrological tradition in general. These features can also be found in works of Prudentius, which indicates that the redaction was composed in the time and place close to when and where this poet lived. The article thus gives additional arguments in support of Simonetti’s view, according to which the redaction BHL 8631 was made in the 4th century and, probably, in Hispania. If this is really the case, it makes the redaction of BHL 8631 one of the earliest examples of Passion épique written after the persecution was over.

St. Vincent, acta martyrum, hagiography, Great Persecution, martyrdom, problem of dating, Prudence, Roman Spain, St. Augustine, Christianisation of Roman Empire

1. Cooper K. (1999) The Virgin and the Bride. Cambridge; London.
2. Koptsev A. (2018) “El’virskii sobor: k voprosu ob ikonoborcheskikh tendentsiiakh v khristianstve” [The Council of Elvira: the question of iconoclastic tendencies in Christianity]. Khristianskoe chtenie, 4, pp. 79‒85 (in Russian).
3. Lacger L. de (1927) “Saint Vincent de Sarragosse”. Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France, 13 (60), pp. 307–358.
4. Lapidge M. (2018) The Roman Martyrs: Introduction, Translations, and Commentary. Oxford.
5. Lebedev A. (2006) Epokha gonenii na khristian i utverzhdenie khristianstva v greko-rimskom mire pri Konstantine Velikom [The epoch of persecution of Christians and the establishment of Christianity in Graeco-Roman world in the period of Constantine the Great]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
6. Manns P. (1975) Die Heiligen—Alle Biographien zum Regionalkalender für das deutsche Sprachgebiet. Mainz.
7. Rosenblum E. (2008) “Ideal povedeniia muchenika v poeme Prudentsiia ‘O ventsakh’” [The ideal behaviour of a martyr in Prudentius’ ‘Peri stephanon’], in ANTIQVITAS IVVENTAE, 4, pp. 150–175 (in Russian).
8. Rosenblum E. (2014) “‘Akty Karpa, Papila i Agafoniki’ kak istochnik po istorii pravoslavnomontanistskoi polemiki” [The ‘Acts of Carpus, Papylus and Agaphonica’ as a source for the history of the Montanist controversy]. Dialog so vremenem, 48, pp. 216–224 (in Russian).
9. Salzman M. R. (2000) “Elite realities and “mentalités”: the Making of a Western Christian Aristocracy”. Arethusa, 33 (3), pp. 347–362.
10. Saxer V. (2002) Saint Vincent diacre et martyr: culte et légendes avant l’An Mil. Brussels.
11. Simonetti M. (1956) “Una Redazione poco conosciuta della Passione di S. Vincenzo”. Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana, 32, pp. 219–241.

Rosenblum Eugene

The author is grateful to Rev. Prof. Francesco Giordano (the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas "Angelicum") who has helpfully provided him with the publications necessary for writing this article.

This article studies the historiography of the topic of attitude to the “wrong” death in Russia in the 15th — 17th centuries. During the two hundred years of studies, a great amount of work has been done, though a number of important issues remain unclear. It has been found out that the memorial practice came to Russia with the adoption of Christianity. But alongside the Orthodox tradition of commemorating this kind of dead, there was a so-called folk practice which was diff erent from the traditional Christian practice. Scholars paid close attention to the problem of perception of unnatural death in a medieval society as a sociocultural phenomenon. This question has given rise to a discussion as to the the nature of this phenomenon and its specific manifestations. In addition, a question was raised when in Russia appeared the practice of commemorating those dead who died the “vain” death. Preliminary observations have allowed us to state that it emerged in the fi rst half of the 13th century. Among the least studied is the question of the theological component of the problem.

Old Russian spiritual culture, commemoration practice, “wrong” (“vain”) death, burial, potter’s fi elds

1. Afanasiy (Sakharov), bishop (1995) O pominovenii usopshikh po ustavu Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi [Commemoration of the dead according to the statute of the Orthodox Church]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
2. Afanasyeva I. (2018) “Pominanie umershikh vsiakogo roda smertiami (po materialam drevneishikh Sinodikov-pomiannikov)” [Commemoration of the dead who died from all kinds of death (based on the oldest ‘Sinodiki-pomianniki’)]. Istoricheskii zhurnal: nauchnye issledovaniia, 5 (37), pp. 19‒35 (in Russian).
3. Alekseev A. (2002). Pod znakom kontsa vremen: Ocherki russkoi religioznosti kontsa XIV — nachala XVI v. [Under the sign of the end of time. Essays on Russian religiosity of the the late 14th — early 16th centuries]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
4. Alekseev A. (2016) Dukhovnaia kul’tura Srednevekovoi Rusi [Spiritual culture of medieval Russia]. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Avdeev A. (2019) “Sueveriia, pominal’naia kul’tura i starorusskaia epigrafi ka” [Superstition, commemoration culture and Old Russian epigraphy]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2 (86), pp. 61‒80 (in Russian).
6. Bulychev A. (2005) Mezhdu sviatymi i demonami [Between the saints and the demons]. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Bulychev A. (2007) “Pominanie pavshikh na Kulikovom pole vo Vselenskom Sinodike russkoi mitropolii kontsa XV v.” [Commemoration of the fallen on Kulikovo Field in the Ecumenical Synodic of the Russian Metropolis of the late 15th Century]. Verkhnee Podon’e: priroda, arkheologiia, istoriia, 2 (2), pp. 39‒47 (in Russian).
8. Dergacheva I. (1988) “K literaturnoi istorii drevnerusskogo Sinodika XV‒XVII vv.” [On the literary history of the Old Russian Synodic of the 15th — 17th centuries]. Literatura Drevnei Rusi. Istochnikovedenie. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov [Literature of Ancient Russia. Study of sources. Collection of articles]. Leningrad. Pp. 63‒76 (in Russian).
9. Dergacheva I. (2001) Vselenskii Sinodik v drevnei i srednevekovoi Rossii [The Ecumenical Synodic in ancient and medieval Russia]. Drevniaia Rus’. Voprosy medievistiki, 1 (3), pp. 18‒30 (in Russian).
10. Dergacheva I. (2001) “Sinodik s literaturnymi predisloviiami: istoriia vozniknoveniia i bytovaniia na Rusi” [Synodic with literary forewords: history of origin and existence in Russia]. Drevniaia Rus’, 4, pp. 89‒96 (in Russian).
11. Dergacheva I. (2002) “Istoriko-bogoslovskii aspekt literaturnykh predislovii Sinodika kak liturgicheskogo sbornika s chetiei funktsiei” [Historical and theological aspect of the Syno dic’s literary foreword as a liturgical collection]. Drevniaia Rus’. Voprosy medievistiki, 2 (8), pp. 62‒65 (in Russian).
12. Dergacheva I. (2004) Posmertnaia sud’ba i “inoi mir” v drevnerusskoi knizhnosti [Fate after death and the “other world” in Old Russian booklore]. Moscow (in Russian).
13. Dergacheva I. (2011) Drevnerusskii Sinodik. Issledovaniia i teksty [Old Russian Synodic. Studies and texts]. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Erusalimskii A. (2010) “Mezhdu kanonizirovannymi i demonizirovannymi: kazni Ivana Groznogo v kulturno-simvolicheskoi interpretatsii” [Between the consecrated and the demonised: Executions of Ivan the Terrible in cultural and symbolic interpretation], in A. Chubar’ian, S. Luchitskaia (eds). Odissei: Chelovek v istorii. Puteshestvie kak istoriko-kul’turnyi fenomen [Odysseus. Man in history. Travels as a historical and cultural phenomenon]. Moscow. Pp. 361–390 (in Russian).
15. Kashtanov S. (1993) “Tsarskii sinodik 50-kh gg. XVI v.” [Tsar’s Synodic of the 1550s]. Istoricheskaia genealogiia, 2, pp. 44‒67 (in Russian).
16. Kobrin V. (1989) Ivan Groznyi [Ivan The Terrible]. Moscow (in Russian).
17. Koziurenok O. (1995) “Skudelnitsy v Pskove v XV‒XVI vv.” [Potter’s fi elds in Pskov in the 15th — 16th centuries]. Tserkovnaia arkheologiia, 2. St Petersburg; Pskov. Pp. 117‒120 (in Russian).
18. Labutina I. (1985) Istoricheskaia topografi ia Pskova v XIV/XV vv. [Historical topography of Pskov in the 14th — 15th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
19. Mokeev G. (2007) “Sviashchennye skudelnitsy Kremlia” [Sacred potter’s fi elds of the Kremlin]. Novaia kniga Rossii: Pravoslavnyi illiustrirovannyi ezhemesiachnyi zhurnal-obozrenie, 4, pp. 32‒33 (in Russian)
20. Rozov N. (1969) “Sluzhebniki Novgorodsko-Sofi iskoi biblioteki” [Liturgical books of Novgorod- Sofia library], in Izuchenie russkogo iazyka i istochnikovedenie [Study of the Russian language and source criticism]. Moscow. Pp. 55‒67 (in Russian).
21. Rykov Iu. (2010) “Maloizvestnaia zapis’ Sinodika Moskovskogo Arkhangelskogo sobora o detiakh boiarskikh, pogibshikh v boiakh za rekoi Oshitom vo vremia pokhoda russkogo voiska iz Kazani i Sviiazhska v iuune 1556 g.” [A little-known Synodic record of Moscow Archangel Cathedral about children of the gentry who died in battles over the Oshit river during the campaign of Russian troops from Kazan and Sviyazhsk in June 1556], in Sosloviia, instituty i gosudarstvennaia vlast’ v Rossii. Sredine veka i ranee Novoe vremia [Social strata, institutions and state power in Russia. Middle Ages and Earlier New Time]. Moscow. Pp. 113‒136 (in Russian).
22. Shablova T. (2004) Sinodik Iosifo-Volokolamskogo monastyria (1479/1510-e gg.) [Synodic of Iosifo-Volokolamsk monastery]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
23. Shablova T. (2012) Kormovoe pominovenie v Uspenskom Kirillo-Belozerskom monastyre v XVIXVII vv. [“Kormovoe” commemoration in the Assumption Kirill-Belozersky monastery in the 16th — 17th centuries]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
24. Shablova T. (2017) Novgorodskie sinodiki XIV/XVII vv. [Synodics of Novgorod of the 14th — 17th centures]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
25. Skrynnikov R. (1994) Tragediia Novgoroda [The tragedy of Novgorod]. Moscow (in Russian).
26. Sorokin A. (2015) “Skudelnitsy drevnego Novgoroda (k voprosu ob osobennostiakh pogrebalnogo obriada v chrezvychainykh situatsiiakh)” [Potter’s fi elds of ancient Novgorod (on the features of the funeral rite in an emergency situation)]. Istoricheskie issledovaniia, 3, pp. 236‒262 (in Russian).
27. Sukhova O. (2012) “Sinodiki kak istochniki po istoricheskoi demografi i (na primere Muromskikh rukopisnykh sinodikov kontsa XVII — nachala XVIII v.) [Synodics as sources of historical demography (Murom manuscript synodics of the late 17th — early 18th centuries as examples)]. Istoricheskaia demografiia, 2, pp. 47‒54 (in Russian).
28. Sukina L. (2007) “Pravoslavnaia vera i blagochestie riadovogo naseleniia Rossiiskogo tsarstva glazami sovremennikov (po dannym pis’mennykh istochnikov XVI‒XVII vv.) [Orthodox faith and piety of the ordinary population of the Russian tsardom through the eyes of contemporaries (with written sources of the 16th — 17th centuries as examples)]. Religiovedenie: Nauchnoteoreticheskii zhurnal. Blagoveshchensk, 2, pp. 31‒43 (in Russian).
29. Sukina L. (2010) “Sinodiki XVI — nachala XVIII veka i otrazhenie v nikh norm povsednevnogo blagochestiia” [Synodics of the 16th — beginning of the 18th centuries and the refl ection therein of standards of everyday piety]. Problemy istochnikovedeniia, 2 (13), pp. 231‒264(in Russian).
30. Tikhomirov M. (1947) Drevniaia Moskva (XII/XV vv.) [Ancient Moscow (12th — 15th centures)]. Moscow (in Russian).
31. Veselovskii S. (1963) Issledovaniia po istorii oprichniny [Studies in the history of oprichnina]. Moscow (in Russian).
32. Veselovskii S. (1969) Issledovaniia po istorii klassa sluzhilykh zemlevladel’tsev [Studies in the history of the class of serving landowners]. Moscow (in Russian).

Afanasyeva Irina

Russian historians pay more and more attention to the insuffi ciently investigated problem of history of small nations of Russia and particularly to their relations with neighbour states and their subjects and vassals in modern time. The aim of this article is to attract attention of specialists in the Russian history as well as of those who specialise in Eurasian nomadic societies to the new archive documents concerning the confrontation of Kalmyks and Nogais in the context of Russian-Turkish relations at the beginning of the 18th century. The previous studies underestimated this confl ict which vivdly illustrates the tension on the south borders of Russia since the period of Peter the Great. His government tried to resolve this border confl ict by putting diplomatic pressure on Turkey (the Kuban Horde then lived on the territory of the Turkish vassal, the Crimean Khanate), but these attempts were not eff ective. The only means to resolve this problem was to directly send military help to Kalmyks against their belligerent neighbours. However, the Russian government was not ready to take this step because it could lead to a new war with the Osman Empire.

Kalmyks, Nogais, Kuban, nomads, raids, nomads’ camps, Crimean Khanate, khan Ayuka, Kalmyks’ envoys, Peter’s I government, chancellor G. I. Golovkin, Russian-Turkish relations, south border of Russia, materials of Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts

1. Batirov V. (2006) “Kubanskii pravitel’ Bakhty-Girei vo vzaimootnosheniakh mezhdu Kalmykskim i Krymskim khanstvamy v 18 v.” [The Kuban ruler Bakhty-Girei in relations between Kalmyks and Crimean Khanate in the 18th century]. Sarepta: Istoriko-etnographicheskii vestnik, 2, pp. 35–48 (in Russian).
2. Bichurin N. (1991) Istoricheskoe obozrenie oiratov ili kalmykov v XV veke i do nashego vremeni [Historical Overview of Urad Mongols or Kalmyks from the 15th century till our time]. Elista (in Russian).
3. Boldareva O. (2016) “Kalmykskoe khanstvo v vostochnoi politike Rossii s nachala XVIII veka i do 1771” [The Khanate of the Kalmyks in the Eastern policy of Russia from the beginning of the 18th century till 1771]. Nauka i sovremennost, 1 (7), pp. 256–269 (in Russian).
4. Istoria Kalmykii s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei [History of Kalmykia from ancient times to the present day], vol. 1 (2009). Elista (in Russian).
5. Palmov N. (1926) Etiudy po istorii privolzhkikh kalmykov [Studies in the history of Kalmyks of the Volga region], pt. 1. Astrakhan (in Russian).
6. Pipilchuk Iu. (2015) “Kalmykskoe khanstvo vo vremena pravleniia Aiuki-khana i ego othosheniias turkami” [The khanate of the Kalmyks during the reign of Ayuka-khan and his relations with the Turks]. Srednevekovye tiurko-tatarskie gosudarstva, 7, pp. 139–151 (in Russian).
7. Priimak Iu. (2010) “Vzaimootnosheniia Rossii s Kalmykskim khanstvomv v kontekste osmanorossiiskogo sopernichestva v severo-vostochnom prichernomor’e (konets XVII — nachalo XVIII v.)” [Relations between Russia and the Kalmyks’s khanate in the context of competition between Osmans and Russia in North-Eastern part of the Black Sea region (from the end of 17th till the beginning of the 18th century)]. Nauchnye problemy gumanitarnykh issledovanii, 8, pp. 109–114 (in Russian).
8. Tepkeev V. (2018) “‘Veleno Kuban’ ego tzarskomu velichestvu pokorit’ ili razorit’: uchastie v russko-turetskoi voine 1710–1711 godov” [“It is ordered to bend to submission or to destroy the Kuban: participation of Kalmyks in the Russian-Turkish war of 1710–1711]. Novyi istoricheskii vestnik, 2 (56), pp. 103–120 (in Russian).
9. Tepkeev V. (2016) “Vzaimootnosheniia Kalmytskogo khanstva s iuzhnym porubezh’em Rossii nakanune politicheskogo krizisa nachala XVIII v.” [Relations of the Kalmyk Khanate with the south borders of Russia prior to the political crisis of the beginning of 18th century]. Magna Historia Studiorum, 2, pp. 34–49 (in Russian).
10. Tepkeev V. (2018) “Vzaimootnosheniia Kalmytskogo khanstva i Kubanskoi ordy v 1712–1715 gg.” [Relations between the Kalmyk Khanate and the Kuban Horde in 1712–1715]. Magna Historia Studiorum, 2, pp. 15–34 (in Russian).

Stankov Kirill

*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 analyses the practice of submitting and reviewing of ministerial reports during the reign of Emperor Alexander I. Using archival documents, the article provides information about the number of reports received from the ministries in the fi rst third of the 19th century. Control over the activities of the new executive bodies created in 1802 was entrusted to the Government Senate. Members of the Senate Committee for the examination of ministerial reports were able to analyse in detail the activities of ministries only in 1802‒1803. The long process of reviewing reports and frequent departures of the emperor from the capital contributed to the fact that the most detailed reports were submitted much later than the set time. This reduced the ability to actually evaluate the activities of the ministries. The article emphasises that the Senate themselves finished the reviewing of incoming reports. From 1810, control of the ministerial reports was passed to the State Council, but all the documents received immediately ended up in the archives of the Offi ce. After the resignation of M. M. Speransky from the post of State Secretary and the beginning of the war of 1812, the Ministers generally stopped making and submitting annual reports on their activities. The author comes to the conclusion that the administrative transformations of 1810‒1811 failed to establish an eff ective system of supervision of departments. The practice of submitting ministerial reports resumed only at the beginning of the reign of Nicholas I.

Alexander I, ministerial reports, ministry, reforms, Government Senate, State Council, Committee for Examination of Ministerial Reports

1. Аndreev А., Tozato-Rigo D. (2014) “Aleksandr I i F.-S. Lagarp — uchenik i uchitel’ v gody revoliutsii i liberal’nykh reform” [Alexander I and F.-C. Laharpe — student and teacher during the years of liberal revolutions and reforms], in Imperator Аleksandr I i Frederik-Sezar Lagarp: Pis’ma. Dokumenty [Emperor Alexander I and Frederick-Cesar Laharpe: Letters. Documents], vol. 1: 1782–1802. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Eroshkin N. (1981) Krepostnicheskoe samoderzhavie i ego politicheskie instituty (pervaia polovina XIX veka) [Serfdom and its political institutions (fi rst half of the 19th century)]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Korshunova N. (2002) “Liberal’naia diktatura” Aleksandra I: Reformy v Rossii v pervoi chetverti XIX v. [Liberal dictatorship of Alexander I: Reforms in Russia in the first quarter of the 19th century]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Maskina R. (1964) “Ministerskie otchety i ikh osobennosti kak istoricheskogo istochnika” [Ministerial reports and their features as a historical source], in Problemy arkhivovedeniia i istochnikovedeniia: materialy nauchnoi konferentsii arkhivistov Leningrada (4–6 fevralia 1964 g.) [Issues in study of archives and in source criticism: Materials of the conference of archivists of Leningrad (February 4‒6, 1964)]. Leningrad (in Russian).
5. Pisar’kova L. (2014) Gosudarstvennoe upravlenie Rossii v pervoi chetverti XIX v.: zamysly, proekty, voploshchenie [Public administration of Russia in the first quarter of the 19th century: concepts, projects, implementation]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Pisar’kova L. (2019) Gosudarstvennoe upravlenie Rossii v pervoi treti XIX v.: stanovlenie ministerskoi sistemy [State administration of Russia in the first third of the 19th century: formation of the ministerial system]. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Prikhod’ko M. Uchrezhdenie ministerskoi sistemy upravleniia v Rossii v 1802–1835 gg.: Pravovoi aspekt [Establishing the ministerial system of government in Russia in 1802‒1835: Legal asspect], available at https://histrf.ru/uploads/media/default/0001/09/381fb1c62250054169cd6a4f54ddded2dbdf0678.pdf. (16.02.2020).
8. Raskin D. (ed.) (1998) Vysshie i tsentral’nye gosudarstvennye uchrezhdeniia Rossii. 1801– 1917 gg. [Higher and central state institutions of Russia. 1801‒1917], vol. 1. St Petersburg (in Russian).
9. Safonov M. (1988) Problema reform v pravitel’stvennoi politike Rossii na rubezhe XVIII i XIX vv. [Problem of reforms in the govermental policy of Russia at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries]. Leningrad (in Russian).
10. Safonov M. (2005) “‘Gospodin Aleksandr’ i Saltykovy” [“Master Alexander” and the Saltykovs]. Rodina, 3, pp. 38–42 (in Russian).
11. Tsamutali A. (1996) “Plany liberal’nykh reform v nachale tsarstvovaniya Aleksandra I” [Plans for liberal reforms at the beginning of the reign of Alexander I], in Vlast’ i reformy. Ot samoderzhavnoi k sovetskoi Rossii [Power and reforms. From monarchic to Soviet Russia]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).

Gracheva Yulia

*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.

Present-day scholars invariably point out that by the turn of the 19th — 20th centuries, the process of self-identifi cation of historians within the framework of specific scientific communities had been fi nished. Very often, the role of textsmarkers playing an important role in the course of such intellectual self-defi nition is played by memorial and anniversary publications dedicated to prominent scholars who stand at the beginning of a certain community of scholars. The history of memory about Granovsky in Moscow University allows one to study the process of forming the identity of the community of Moscow historians during a long period of time. All generations of pre-revolution university professors (S. M. Soloviev as Granovsky’s younger contemporary, he is accompanied by B. N. Chicherin and V. I. Guerrier; V. O. Klyuchevsky, the fi rst generation after Granovsky who did not witness Granovsky’s lectures; P. G. Vinogradov and R. Yu. Wipper, the second generation after Granovsky) left their texts about Granovsky. It is obvious that memory about Granovsky was used instrumentally. The interest in the personality and intellectual experience of the Moscow professor was particularly typical of the younger contemporaries of the scholar. Historians at Moscow University of the turn of the centuries desired to make Granovsky’s experience more topical in dealing with issues of the contemporary agenda. As an example, in the situation of methodological choice that was to face Russian historians at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, Vinogradov and Wipper in their reasoning about Granovsky showed the infl uence of shared European intellectual processes on Russian historical science and emphasised that the Russian historian always came to be independent as to the foreign intellectual experience. But a certain unity in the idea about Graovsky who was seen as a founder of the professional community of historians at the university was nevertheless observed. Following Granovsky, the historian at Moscow University, so thought the champions of his cause, must have a general historical view of his subject and stand close to young people at the university, on whom he should have a moral infl uence. The duty of Granovsky’s heir is to struggle for science at the university and to form a specific subculture of professors.

T. N. Granovsky, traditions of Granovsky, community of Moscow historians, commemorative practice

1. Asinovskaia S. (1955) Iz istorii peredovykh idei v russkoi medievistike (T. N. Granovskii) [From the history of progressive ideas in the Russian medieval studies (T. N. Granovsky)]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Belen’kii I. (2011) “Rossiiskoe nauchno-istoricheskoe soobshchestvo v kontse XIX — nachale XXI v.: publikatsii i issledovaniia 1940-kh — 2010-kh gg.” [Russian scientific and historical community in the late 19th — early 21st centuries: publications and studies of the 1940s — 2010s], in G. Bordiugov (ed.) Nauchnoe soobshchestvo istorikov Rossii: 20 let peremen [Scientifi c community of Russian historians: 20 years of change]. Pp. 372–373 (in Russian).
3. Tsygankov D. (2009) “Traditsii T. N. Granovskogo i formirovanie ‘moskovskoi shkoly istorikov’: skladyvanie professional’noi nauchnoi sredy v Moskovskom universitete kak problema transfera kul’tur” [Traditions of T. N. Granovsky and the formation of ‘Moscow school of historians’: creating a professional scientifi c environment at Moscow University as a problem of cultural transfer], in “Byt’ russkim po dukhu i evropeitsem po obrazovaniiu”. Universitety Rossiiskoi imperii v obrazovatel’nom prostranstve Tsentral’noi i Vostochnoi Evropy XVIII‒XX v. [“To be Russian in spirit and European in education”. Universities of Russian Empire in the educational space of Central and Eastern Europe of the 18th — 20th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Kirsanova E. (2014) “Obraz T. N. Granovskogo v rossiiskoi istoriografi i vtoroi poloviny XIX — nachala XX v.” [The image of T. N. Granovsky in Russian historiography of the second half of the 19th — early 20th centuries]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 387, pp. 121–126 (in Russian).
5. Korzun V. (2000) Obrazy istoricheskoi nauki na rubezhe XIX–XX vekov. Analiz otechestvennykh istoriograficheskikh kontseptsii [Images of historical science at the turn of the 19th — 20th centuries. Analysis of Russian historiographic concepts]. Yekaterinburg; Omsk (in Russian).
6. Korzun V., Kolevatov D. (2009) “Memorial’nye i iubileinye sobytiia v zhizni nauchnogo soobshchestva kak kul’turnye praktiki samoidentifi katsii” [Memorial and anniversary events in the life of the scientific community as cultural practices of self-identifi cation], in Kul’tura i intelligentsiia Rossii: Innovatsionnye praktiki, obrazy goroda, iubileinye sobytiia. Istoricheskaia pamiat’ gorozhan. Materialy VII Vserossiiskoi nauchnoi konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem, posviashchennoi 35-letiiu osnovaniia OmGU im. F.M. Dostoevskogo (Omsk, 20–22 oktyabria 2009 g.) [Culture and intelligentsia of Russia: Innovative practices, images of the city, anniversary events. Historical memory of citizens. Materials of the 7th all-Russian scientific conference with international participation dedicated to the 35th anniversary of the foundation of Omsk State University]. Omsk. Pp. 197–200 (in Russian)
7. Levandovskii A. (1989) T. N. Granovskii v russkom obshchestvennom dvizhenii [T. N. Granovsky in the Russian social movement]. Moscow (in Russian)
8. Sveshnikov A. (2006) “Mif o Granovskom. Popytka diskursivnogo analiza” [The Myth of Granovsky. An attempt at discursive analysis], in Timofej Nikolaevich Granovskii: ideia vseobshchei istorii [Timofey Nikolaevich Granovsky: an idea of universal history]. Moscow. Pp. 69‒81.
9. Roosevelt P. (1986) Apostle of Russian Liberalism: Timofei Granovsky. Newtonville.
10. Valk S. (2000) “Istoricheskaia nauka v Leningradskom universitete za 125 let” [Historical science at Leningrad University during 125 years], in Izbrannye trudy po istoriografi i i istochnikovedeniiu: Nauchnoe nasledie [Selected works on historiography and source criticism: Scientifi c heritage]. St Petersburg. Pp. 7–106.

Tsigankov Dmitry

*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 paper is devoted to numerous manifestations of social activity of Orthodox priests in Russia in 1917‒1918: priests’ unions, priests’ assemblies, letters to authorities, articles in media. The author of the article uses public texts which help to study mass (rather than elite) ideas, most commonly encountered in the public space. These texts highlight practical, even down-to-earth problems, their rhetoric and emotions reach a grotesque level with events of the revolution in the background. But collective consciousness of priests, their thoughts about their own community are implicitly manifested in these texts as well. This was the result of collective activity of the rallied priests. The author comes to the conclusion that the collective consciousness of priests was almost non-manifested in the public space during the revolution. We often meet elements of their professional consciousness, the contrast of their community and proximate communities (monk clergy, lower clerics), the need to be seen as ordinary people and citizens, to get a right of choice, e.g. to choose a secular work or even to take off their rank without any sanction. The pastoral consciousness, a feeling of priest’s high vocation, his responsibility, the impossibility to leave his service were also manifested brightly. It is hard to make a strict distinction between the professional and the pastoral consciousness, but it is clear that the choice between them became sharper during the events of the Russian Revolution.

Russian Orthodox Church, Orthodox priests, collective consciousness, consciousness of social strata, professional consciousness, pastoral consciousness, Russian Revolution of 1917, unions of priests, assemblies of priests

1. Beglov A. (2013) “Soslovnost’ pravoslavnogo prikhodskogo dukhovenstva v Rossii v nachale XX veka: regional’nye osobennosti” [Social stratum of Orthodox parish clergy in Russia in the early 20th century: regional specifi city]. Elektronnyi nauchno-obrazovatel’nyi zhurnal “Istoriia”, 5 (21), available at http://mes.igh.ru//s207987840000561-6-1 (29.11.2019) (in Russian).
2. Chernyi A., deacon (2016) “Poniatie “krizisa sviashchenstva” v katolicheskom bogoslovii XX veka” [Idea of the “crisis of priesthood” in Catholic theology of the 20th century]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 6 (68), pp. 112‒127 (in Russian).
3. Feofanov A. (2019) “Korporativnaia identichnost’ pravoslavnogo dukhovenstva Rossiiskoy imperii: istoriografi ia voprosa” [Corporate identity of Orthodox clergy of Russian Empire:Historiography]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 90, pp. 9‒21 (in Russian).
4. Freeze G. (1983) The Parish Clergy in Nineteenth-Century Russia: Crisis, Reform, Counter-Reform. Princeton, NJ.
5. Freeze G. (1977) The Russian Levites. Parish Clergy in the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge, MA.
6. Koniuchenko A. (2006) Tona i polutona pravoslavnogo dukhovenstva Rossii (vtoraia polovina XIX — nachalo XX veka) [Tones and half-tones of Orthodox clergy of Russia in the 19th — early 20th century]. Cheliabinsk (in Russian).
7. Leont’eva T. (2002) Vera i progress. Pravoslavnoe sel’skoe dukhovenstvo Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XIX — nachale XX v. [Orthodox rural clergy of Russia in the second half of the 19th — early 20th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Liut’ko E., deacon (2019) “Poniatie ‘Filaretovskoe dukhovenstvo’ v kontekste razvitiia pastyrskogo bogosloviia v Rossii na rubezhe XIX‒XX vv.” [Idea of “Philaret clergy” in the context of the pastoral theology in Russia at the turn of the 19th — 20th centuries]. Filaretovskii al’manakh, 15, pp. 43‒60 (in Russian).
9. Manchester L. (2015) Popovichi v miru: dukhovenstvo, intelligentsiia i stanovlenie sovremennogo samosoznaniia v Rossii [Priests’ sons in the world: clergy, intelligentsia and formation of the modern self in Russia]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Manchester L. (2019) “Vozniknovenie i znachenie (avto)biografi cheskikh praktik v nekrologakh prikhodskikh sviashchennikov Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi pozdneimperskogo perioda” [Emergence and meaning of (auto)biographical practices in Russian Orthodox parish clergymen’s obituaries in late Imperial Russia], in Vera i lichnost’ v meniaiushchemsia obshchestve. Avtobiografi ka i pravoslavie v Rossii kontsa XVII — nachala XX veka [Faith and personality in the changing society. Autobiography and Orthodoxy in Russia in the late 17th — early 20th centuries]. Moscow. Pp. 206‒226 (in Russian).
11. Mironov B. (2014) Rossiiskaya imperiia. Ot traditsii k modernu [Russian Empire. From tradition to the Modern], vol. 1. St Petersburg (in Russian).
12. Morozov E. (2016) Kontsept professionalizma v sluzhenii sovremennogo pravoslavnogo sviashchennika [Concept of professionalism in serving of the modern Orthodox priest]. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniia: Economicheskie i sotsial’nye peremeny, 4, pp. 167‒182 (in Russian).

Zapalsky Gleb

*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 I. A. Karabinov’s ideas and conceptions of forming the Eucharistic prayer presented in his thesis Eucharistic Prayer (Anaphora): An Attempt at Historical and Liturgical Analysis as well as in his course of lectures taught in the 1910s. This article analyses Karabinov’s views on the formation of the structure of the Eucharistic prayer, as well as the research methodology he used in studying the initial theological forms, the stages of development of the Eucharistic prayer and the interdependence of various liturgical traditions. Karabinov was the fi rst Russian scholar of liturgics to analyse the structure of the Eucharistic prayer sequence and to make use of the comparative method together with historical reconstructions, and without reliance on descriptions, commentaries and interpretations of earlier liturgical studies. He concludes that the Anaphora prayers which consisted of prayers of praise, thanksgiving and short intercessions, were later fi lled with words of exhortation, institution, dogmatic formulations and elaborated intercessions. These additional elements increased the volume of text in the Anaphora prayer, a situation which he believes led to a reduction of the prayer’s original elements, particularly the prayers of thanksgiving. Karabinov’s declared methodology opens the door to liturgical reconstructions which, nevertheless, will not be complete without consideration of the historical-theological context and church practice, neither of which were taken into account in Karabinov’s study. However, his approach of comparitive analysis makes it possible not to return to a moralising retelling of the Eucharistic prayer in narrow confessional confi nes, but allows one to study the text of the Eucharistic prayer in its development and to register all changes in its structure and content.

liturgical studies, Eucharistic prayer, Anaphora, Karabinov, thanksgiving, words of institution, Epiclesis, intercession

1. Bouley A. (1980) From Freedom to Formula / The Evolution of the Eucharistic Prayer from Oral Improvisation to Written Texts. Washington, DC.
2. Bovkalo A. (1998) “Poslednii god sushchestvovaniia Bogoslovskogo instituta” [Last year of the theological institute]. Minuvshee. Istoricheskii al’manakh, 24 (in Russian).
3. E. P. R., Zheltov M., priest (2012) “Karabinov I. A.”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, vol. 30, pp. 614‒615. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Fenwick J. (1992) The Anaphoras of St Basil and St James. An Investigation into their Common Origin. Rome.
5. Galadza P. (2001) “Baumstark’s Kievan Contemporary, Mikhail N. Skaballanovich (1871–1931): A Sketch of His Life and Heorthology”, in R. F. Taft, G. Winkler (eds) Comparative Liturgy Fifty Years After Anton Baumstark (1872‒1948): Acts of the International Congress, 25‒29 September 1998. Rome. Pp. 761–777.
6. Galadza D. (2016) “«Les grandes étapes de la liturgie byzantine» de Miguel Arranz quarante ans après”, in A. Lossky, G. Sekulovski (eds) 60 semaines liturgiques à Saint-Serge. Bilans et perspectives nouvelles. Münster. Pp. 295–310.
7. Galadza D. (2017) “The Assumptionists and the Study of Byzantine Liturgy”: L’apport des Assomptionnistes français aux études byzantines, in M.-H. Blanchet, I. A. Tudorie (eds) Une approche critique. Paris. Pp. 233–258.
8. Getcha J. (2004) “Les études liturgiques russes au XIXe — XXe siècles et leur impact sur la pratique”. Les mouvements liturgiques. Corrélations entre pratiques et recherches (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae, «Subsidia» 129). Roma. Pp. 279‒290.
9. Karabinov I. (2004) Postnaia Triod’. Istoricheskii obzor ee plana, sostava, redaktsii i slavianskikh perevodov [The Lenten Triodion. Historical review of its plan, composition, editions, and Slavic translations]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Ligier L. (1973) “The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer: From the Last Supper to the Eucharist”. Studia Liturgica, 9, pp. 161–185.
11. Mateos J. (1971) “La célébration de la Parole dans la Liturgie byzantine. Étude historique”. OCA 191.
12. Pivovarova N. (2004) “Zabytye imena v Russkoi tserkovnoi arkheologii: I. A. Karabinov i N. V. Malitskii” [Forgotten names in Russian church archaeology: I. A. Karabinov and N. V. Malitsky]. Iskusstvo khristianskogo mira, 8. Moscow (in Russian).
13. Salaville S. (1929) “Bulletin de liturgie (suite)”. Revue des études byzantines, 154, pp. 173‒208.
14. Sauget J. (1962) Bibliographie des Liturgies Orientales (1900–1960). Roma.
15. Sove B. (1970) “Istoriia liturgicheskoi nauki v Rossii” [History of liturgical studies in Russia]. Uchenye zapiski. Pravoslavnyi Universitet ap. Ioanna Bogoslova, 2, pp. 21–98 (in Russian).
16. Spynks B. (2013) Do This in Remembrance of Me: The Eucharist from the Early Church to the Present Day. London.
17. Sukhova N. (2006) Vysshaia dukhovnaшa shkola: problemy i reformy (vtoraia polovina XIX veka) [Higher spiritual school: Problems and reforms (the second half of the 19th century)]. Moscow (in Russian).
18. Taft R., (2011) “Ekumenicheskaia nauka i katolichesko-pravoslavnyi spor ob epiklezise” [Ecumenical scholarship and the Catholic-Orthodox Epiclesis dispute], in Taft R.F. Stat’i, vol. 2. Omsk (in Russian).
19. Taft R. (2011) “Liturgicheskoe delo 25 let spustia posle Aleksandra Shmemana (1921‒1983): chelovek i ego nasledie” [Liturgical enterprise twenty-fi ve years after Alexander Shmeman (1921‒1983): The man and his heritage], in Taft R. F. Stat’i, vol. 2. Omsk (in Russian).
20. Taft R. (2000) The Byzantine Rite. A Short History. St Petersburg (Russian translation).
21. Taft R. (2002) “Anton Baumstark’s Comparative Liturgy Revisited”, in Acts of the International Congress Comparative Liturgy Fifty Years After Anton Baumstark (1872‒1948). Rome, 25‒29 September 1998. Rome. Pp. 191–237.
22. Taft R. (2001) Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding. Rome.
23. Tarasov I. (2014) “Zhiznennyi put’ professora Sankt-Peterburgskoi dukhovnoi akademii Ivana Alekseevicha Karabinova (1878‒1937)” [Professor of St. Petersburg Theological Academy Ivan Alekseevich Karabinov: Biography]. Khistianskoe chtenie, 4, pp. 125‒155 (in Russian).
24. Uspenskii N. Anaphora (opyt istoriko-liturgicheskogo analiza) [Anaphora: an essay in historical and liturgical analysis], available at http://www.btrudy.ru/resources/BT13/40_Uspensky_Anaphora.pdf (25.12.2019).
25. West F., Taft R. (eds) (1923) A. Baumstark. Vom geschichtlichen Werden der Liturgie.
26. Winkler G. (1994) “The Achievements of the Pontifi cal Oriental Institute in the Study of Oriental Liturgiology”, in R. Taft and J. Dugan (eds) Il 75 Anniversario del Pontificio Istituto Orientale.Atti delle celebrazioni giubilari. Rome. Pp. 115–141.
27. Zheltov M. (2011) Obzor istorii pravoslavnoi liturgicheskoi nauki do kontsa XX veka [Outline of history of Orthodox liturgical science up to the end of the 20th century], available at https://bogoslov.ru/article/1883125.
28. Zheltov M. (2011) “The Moment of Eucharistic Consecration in Byzantine Thought”, in M. Johnson (ed.) Issues in Eucharistic Praying in East and West: Essays in Liturgical and Theological Analysis. Pp. 263–306.
29. Zheltov M. (2012) “Anaphora”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, vol. 30, pp. 279‒289. Moscow (in Russian).

Dashevskaya Zoya

This article examines church life in Tashkent and Central Asian diocese during the period of its post-war revival, when the diocese was led by Revd. Guriy (Egorov). It studies several aspects of church life, i.e. the opening of churches, return of former church buildings to communities and construction of new ones, establishment of parish life, organisation of supply of parishes with candles, service books and church utensils. The role of the authorised representatives of the Council for the Russian Orthodox Church in the process of restoring church life is also analysed. It is shown that in the period 1944‒1948 the authorised representatives in one way or another contributed to the opening of churches in the republics of Central Asia. The article reveals unique features of Tashkent and Central Asian diocese and the associated diffi culties. Revd. Guriy, despite various diffi culties, actively visited the diocese parishes (many of which for decades or never at all saw the ruling bishop), consecrated newly opened churches, paid attention to parish issues, pointed out defi ciencies and helped to overcome them. Under Revd. Guriy, the number of parishes in the diocese reached its maximum of 67 (he visited 61 parishes in person). When there came a cooling in church-state relations, Revd. Guriy actively defended low-income parishes from closure, and also changed tactics, turning his eff orts to industrial centres in Central Asian republics.

Russian Orthodox Church, state-church relations, Central Asia, diocese of Tashkent and Central Asia, church life revival, petitions of believers, church openings, authorised representative of Council for Russian Orthodox Church, bishop Guriy (Egorov)

1. Borisova O. (2019) Gonimy, no ne ostavleny: Tashkentskaia i Sredneaziatskaia eparkhiya. 1943‒1961 [Persecuted but not abandoned: Tashkent and Central Asian Diocese]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Chumachenko T. (1999) Gosudarstvo, Pravoslavnaia Tserkov’, veruiushie. 1941‒1961 gg. [State, Orthodox Church, believers, 1941‒1961]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Dorofeev R. (2015) Zakat turkestanskogo obnovlenchestva i missiia arkhiepiskopa Aleksiia (Palitsyna) 1943‒1944 godov [The decline of Turkestan renovationism and the mission of archbishop Alexy (Palitsyn) in 1943‒1944]. Vostok Svyshe, 2 (37), pp. 61‒71 (in Russian).
4. Galak A. (2017) Nastoiatel’ samarkandskogo Sviato-Georgievskogo khrama protoierei Petr Kniazhinskii [Rector of Samarkand St. George’s church archpriest Petr Kniazhinskiy]. Vostok Svyshe, 3 (44), pp. 34‒40 (in Russian).
5. Grushina A. (2014) “My znaem tainu zhizni…”. Sud’ba i pastyrskii podvig arkhimandrita Borisa (Kholcheva) [“We know the mystery of life…” The fate and pastor’s feat of archimandrite Boris (Kholchev)]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Ikim, Vladimir, metropolitan (2011) Po stopam Apostola Fomy. Khristianstvo v Tsentral’noi Azii [In the wake of Thomas the Apostle. Christianity in Central Asia]. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Ozmitel E. (2017). Kirgizstanskii martirolog: Novomucheniki i ispovedniki Tserkvi Russkoi, repressirovannoe dukhovenstvo, tserkovnosluzhiteli, monashestvuiushchie i miriane, rodivshiesia, sluzhivshie, postradavshie v Kirgizstane v ХХ v. [The Kyrgyzstan martyrology: new martyrs and confessors of Russian Church, persecuted clergy, clerics, monks and laity, born, having served, suffered in Kyrgyzstan in the 20th century]. Bishkek (in Russian).
8. Shkarovsky M. (1999) Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov’ pri Staline i Khrushcheve (Gosudarstvennotserkovnye otnosheniia v SSSR v 1939‒1964 gg.) [Russian Orthodox Church under Stalin and Khrushchev (state-church relations in the USSR in 1939‒1964)]. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Shubkin V. (2012) “Evoliutsiia gosudarstvenno-tserkovnykh otnoshenii na territorii Orenburgskoi (Chkalovskoi) eparkhii v 1943–1958 gg.” [Evolution of state-church relations in the diocese of Orenburg (Chkalovsk)]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia 2: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2 (45), pp. 44‒55 (in Russian).
10. Wendland, Ioann, metropolitan (1999) Kniaz’ Fedor (Chernyi). Mitropolit Guriy (Egorov) [Prince Feodor (Cherny). Metropolitan Guriy (Egorov)]. Yaroslavl (in Russian).
11. Zaslavskii V. (2004) Tserkovnaia smuta v Turkestanskoi eparkhii (po materialam Tsentral’nogo gosudarstvennogo arkhiva Respubliki Uzbekistan i drugim istochnikam) [Religious turmoil in Turkestan diocese (based on materials from the Central State Archive of the Republic of Uzbekistan and other sources)]. Tserkovno-istoricheskii vestnik, 11, pp. 183‒245 (in Russian).

Pavlov Dmitriy

The previously unpublished in Russian document written by Metropolitan of Philadelphia Meletius Typald, stands on the watershed in the history of the Greek fraternity of Venice and of Orthodoxy in Italy in the Early Modern period. It came to be the last known text that Meletius wrote as an Orthodox hierarch, therefore his pathos and circle of problems are noteworthy in the context of the subsequent steps of its author. The message not only touches upon the issues related to inter-Christian relations at the turn of the 17th — 18th centuries, but also introduces the reader to the topic of state-confessional relations, which is important not only for the Orthodox, but for the Catholic Church in the Venetian Republic. The state of the Orthodox Church in the Ionian Islands is evaluated critically in the letter, through the prism of applying canonical and administrative law in the moral life of the clergy and believers. At the same time, the author does not forget his political goal in revealing the shortcomings listed by him, insisting on the desirability of transferring to him control over these dioceses. For Russian history, this document is of interest, since it was written during the stay in Venice of Moscow stolniks (palace servants) sent by Tsar Peter to teach maritime aff airs. They met with Typald and left memories about the communication with him. And if Meletius was very sincere with Russian Catholics P. Rogovsky and P. Artemyev, he presented himself to B. P. Sheremetev and the navigators as a paladin of the Orthodox faith.

Meletius Typald, stolniks, Venice administration, Stato da Mar, Orthodox Church, Ionian Islands

1. Bobu-Stamati V. (1994–1996) “Anekdota keimena tu Meletiu Typaldu: I lettera kai i Informazione. H Apologia tu Abate Fardella” [Unpublished texts by Meletios Typaldos]. Eoa kai Esperia, 2, pp. 135–227 (in Greek).
2. Bobu-Stamati V. (1995) “O Methodios Anthrakitis kai ta tetradia” [Methodios Anthrakitis and the papers]. Ellinika, 45, pp. 111–127 (in Greek).
3. Grimanis S. (2013) “O Methodios Moronis kai oi aitiaseis ton katholikon enantion ton orthodoxon tis Venetias (1677–1679)” [Methodios Moronis and the complaints of the Catholics against the Orthodox of Venice (1677–1679)]. Thesaurismata, 43, pp. 277–320 (in Greek).
4. Karathanasis A. (1975) I Flangineios Scholi tis Venetias [The Flangini school of Venice]. Thessaloniki (in Greek).
5. Kurkulas K. (1964) “I ekklisiastiki rhitoreia eis ta Eptanisa apo tus XVI mechri tu XIX aionos” [Ecclesiastical rhetoric in the Ionian Islands until the 8th century]. Parnassos, 6, pp. 323–340 (in Greek).
6. Maltezu C. (2008) Odigos tu Archeiu [The guide to the archive]. Venice; Athens (in Greek).
7. Setti C. (2014) “Sudditi fedeli o eretici tollerati? Venezia e i ‘greci’ dal Tardo Medioevo ai consulti di Paolo Sarpi e Fulgenzio Micanzio”. Ateneo Veneto, 3, 13/II, pp. 145–182.
8. Yastrebov A. (2016) “Khodataistvo Petra I za pravoslavnykh Venetsii kak chast’ rossiiskoi vneshnei politiki” [Petition of Peter the Great for the Orthodox Christians of Venice as art of Russia’s foreign policy]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 1 (68), pp. 123–140 (in Russian).
9. Yastrebov A. (2018) Russko-venetsianskie diplomaticheskie i tserkovnye sviazi v epokhu Petra Velikogo. Rossiia i grecheskaia obshhina Venetsii [Russian-Venetian diplomatic and cultural relations in Peter’s the Great time. Russia and the Greek community of Venice]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Yastrebov A. (2019) “Palladii Rogovskii”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopedia], vol. 54. Moscow. Pp. 328–330 (in Russian).

Yastrebov Alexey, archpriest

*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 makes public letters of Bishop Grigoriy (Grabbe; prior to 1979, protopresbyter Georgiy). The author of these letters was for several decades secretary of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and Ruler of the affairs of the Synodal offi ce of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. In the 1960s — early 1980s, he had a great power that sometimes exceeded the power of the Chairman of the Synod of bishops, Metropolitan Filaret (Voznesensky). The recipient of the letters is Grand Prince Kirill Vladimirovich Romanov. Although in 1939, the Russian Church Abroad actually recognised this person as the spiritual leader of the future free Russia, in the post-war years the attitude to him deteriorated. The correspondence was conducted against the background of protests by representatives of the house of the Romanovs, who did not agree with Vladimir Kirillovich’s claims to the throne. The author of the letters, being a supporter of Vladimir Kirillovich, tried to support him. The correspondence is also interesting because it refl ects important events in the life of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in those years. This is the preparation of the canonisation of new martyrs and confessors of Russia, the scandalous marriage that Revd. Grabbe performed on M. Golenevsky, calling him Tsarevich Alexei, and internal confl icts within the Russian Church Abroad. The correspondence refl ected Bishop Grigoriy’s attitude to the changes in the home country in the late 1980s and early 1990s, to Vladimir Kirillovich’s trip to the Soviet Union and his meeting with Patriarch Alexy II.

Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Synod of bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, canonisation of new martyrs of Russia, Russian Imperial house, bishop Grigoriy (Grabbe), Grand Prince Vladimir Kirillovich, monarchists-legitimists

1. Bochkov P., svyashchennik (2018). Obzor nekanonicheskih yurisdikcij XX–XXI vv. V 4 t. [Review of non-canonical jurisdictions of the XX–XXI centuries] Moscow (in Russia).
2. Kostryukov A (2015) Russkaia Zarubezhnaia Tserkov’ v 1939–1964 gg.: Administrativnoe ustroistvo i otnosheniia s Tserkov’iu v Otechestve [Russian Church Abroad in 1939‒1964. Administrative structure and relations with the Church in the Fatherland]. Moscow (in Russian)
3. Makovetsky A., archpriest (2009) Belaia Tserkov’ vdali ot ateisticheskogo terrora [The White Church being far from atheistic terror]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
4. Shumilo S. (2019) Samozvannyj «episkop» Vikentij Chekalin i ego uchastie v pervyh hirotoniyah UAP v marte 1990 g. [The self-styled «Bishop» Vikenty Chekalin and his participation in the first ordinations of the UAOC in March 1990]. // Trudi Kiïvs’koï Duhovnoï Akademiï. 2019. № 13. S. 240–273. Kiev (in Ukrainian).

Makovetsky Arkady, 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.