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

In the middle of the 5th century, in a context where the Alexandrian and Constantinopolitan models were experiencing an exacerbation of their rivalry, the See of Rome also put its claims to the test of the ecclesial realities of the Eastern Roman Empire. Under Bishop Leo’s leadership, Rome then pretended to exercise a primacy based on the principle of solicitude for all the Churches. Above all, the Pope produced a statement of faith, The Tome to Flavian (June 449), which was supposed to give a perfect defi nition of the (diphysite) faith. Paradoxically, his remoteness and peripheral location with regard to the main decision-making centers of the pars orientis gave him real freedom of speech and a certain capacity for intervention. Therefore, during this particular period of its history, the Apostolic See could express a strong claim to authority. The outbreak of the Christological crisis and its treatment up to the Council of Chalcedon, and the Miaphysite controversy which followed it (448–460) were decisive points of verification for it. In effect, a real distance was observed between the formulation and execution of the Roman discourse, forcing the Pope to adapt his agenda to some extent. Egypt, in fact, was henceforth out of reach of Roman undertakings, while the antiochian East was moving away and Jerusalem, considered unreliable, seemed reduced to a secondary role. On the other hand, Constantinople remained central even though it did not fi nd a place in the order of the Petrine sieges. Faced with this major geo-ecclesiological challenge, Leon had to take account of the forces at work. Initially minority (449–450), his position seemed to be strengthened with the advent of Marcian. However, in spite of appearances, the support given to him by the imperial couple was only partial and conditional. Above all, the contrasting decisions of the Council of 451 forced Leon not to be satisfi ed with half a success. Faced with the persistent disagreement over the 28th canon, the Pope sought to strengthen his strategic position at the interface between power and the imperial Church, in order to facilitate the actualization of his claims in a refractory space, where his confrere Anatolius of Constantinople was pursuing other designs, particularly in the direction of the Illyricum. For a short period (452–457), Leon succeeded in establishing a permanent embassy to Marcian, assumed by Julian, the bishop of Cos. But with the change of emperor (457), this special connection was abolished. This disappearance had serious consequences. It was at the origin of a progressive reduction of infl uence in spite of pontifical attempts to compensate it. Therefore, when anti-Chalcedonian opposition threatened to spread from Alexandria (457–460), the Bishop of Rome had to return to the principle of cooperation with his colleague, the Bishop of Constantinople, to guarantee the integrity of Chalcedonian decisions in matters of faith. This constrained choice was not implemented without embarrassing misunderstandings between the two partners, who were nevertheless condemned to come to an agreement.Thus, from 448 to 460, the Pope's struggle appears intense and full of twists and turns. It is also well documented, in particular thanks to several collections of papal letters (collections Ratisbonensis, Grimanica and Avellana). These exchanges make it possible to study further the ways in which Leon wanted to be informed in order to act with more efficiency. Thus, he gave priority to the information transmitted by his representatives over any other consideration, whether they were sent to a legation or whether a correspondent of Western origin and assimilated to a chargé d'aff aires, Julian of Cos, served his interests. If he was deprived of such sources, the Pope then gave preference to the testimony of the bishops, fi rst and foremost that of Constantinople, to ensure the truth of the facts. But the unequal disposition of his confreres to inform him sometimes obliged him to form his judgment according to the indications transmitted by clerics and monks who called him to the rescue. Sometimes he was even forced to face a problematic lack of news. In such cases, his correspondence shows his concern : he insisted in order to get information from his addressees about a situation that was decidedly difficult to control.

Geo-ecclesiology, History of Late Antiquity, History of the Papacy, History of Ecumenical Councils, History of Ancient Christianity, Orthodoxy, Heresy, Monophysitism, Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople

1. Batiff ol Pierre (1924) “L'aff aire de Bassianos d'Éphèse (444–448)”. Échos d’Orient, 1924, vol. 23, pp. 385–394.
2. Batiff ol Pierre (1924) Le siège apostolique (359–451). Paris.
3. Bevan George A., Gray Peter R. (2008) “The trial of Eutyches: A New Interpretation”. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 2008 [2009], Bd. 101, S. 617–657.
4. Blaudeau Philippe (2007) “Accueillis au service du Siège Apostolique. L’Église romaine et les ministres d’origine orientale (Ve–VIe s.)” in P.-G. Delage (ed.) Les Pères de l’Église et les ministères. La Rochelle, pp. 451–465.
5. Blaudeau Philippe (2006) Alexandrie et Constantinople (451–491). De l’histoire à la géoecclésiologie. Rome,
6. Blaudeau Philippe (2016) “Faut-il s'interdire de parler de miaphysisme? Quelques suggestions d'un historien inté ressé à la gé o-ecclé siologie de la pé riode tardo-antique”. Cristianesimo nella storia, 2016, vol. 37, pp. 7–18.
7. Blaudeau Philippe (2003) “Les Augustae garantes de la continuité de la politique religieuse théodosienne? Regard sur l’engagement respectif de Pulchérie et d’Eudocie dans la controverse christologique après la mort de Théodose II (450–460)” in P.-G. Delage (ed.) Les Pères de l’Église et les femmes. La Rochelle, pp. 368–399.
8. Blaudeau Philippe (2006) “Rome contre Alexandrie? L’interprétation pontifi cale de l’enjeu monophysite (de l’émergence de la controverse eutychienne au schisme acacien 448–484)”. Adamantius, 2006, vol. 12, pp. 140–216.
9. Blaudeau Philippe (2008) “Quand les papes parlent d’exil: l’affi rmation d’une conception pontifi cale de la peine d’éloignement durant la controverse chalcédonienne (449–523)” in Ph. Blaudeau (ed.) Exil et relégation: les tribulations du sage et du saint durant l'Antiquité romaine et chrétienne, Ier–VIe s. ap. J.-C. Paris, pp. 273–308.
10. Blaudeau Philippe (1996) “Timothée Aelure et la direction de l'Empire post-chalcédonien”. Revue des études byzantines, 1996, vol. 54, pp. 107–133.
11. Blaudeau Philippe (2001) “«Vice mea». Remarques sur les représentations pontifi cales auprès de l’empereur d’Orient dans la seconde moitié du Ve siècle (452–496)”. Mélanges de l'École française de Rome. Antiquité, 2001, vol. 113, 2, pp. 1059–1123.
12. Dagron Gilbert (1974) Naissance d'une capitale. Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451. Paris.
13. De Halleux André (1990) “Le décret chalcédonien sur les prérogatives de la nouvelle Rome” in A. De Halleux. Patrologie et oecuménisme: recueil d'études. Leuven, pp. 520–555.
14. De Halleux André (1990) “Les deux Rome dans la defi nition de Chalcedoine sur les prerogatives du siège de Constantinople” in A. De Halleux. Patrologie et oecuménisme: recueil d'études. Leuven, pp. 504–519.
15. De Vries Wilhelm (1975) “Das Konzil von Ephesus 449, eine “Räubersynode“? ”. Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 1975, Bd. 41, S. 357–398.
16. Declerck José (1990) “Le patriarche Gennade de Constantinople (458–471) et un opuscule inédit contre les Nestoriens”. Byzantion, 1990, vol. 60, pp. 130–144.
17. Diekamp Franz (1938) Analecta patristica. Texte und Abhandlungen zur griechischen Literatur. Rome.
18. Grillmeier Alois (1990) Le Christ dans la tradition chrétienne. Vol. II. 1: Le Concile de Chalcédoine (451): réception et opposition. Paris.
19. Grumel Venance (1932) Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople. I. Les actes des patriarches. 1. Les regestes de 381 à 715. Kadiköy.
20. Hajjar Joseph (1962) Le synode permanent (σύνοδος žνδημοσα) dans l'Eglise byzantine des origines au XIe siècle. Rome.
21. Herman Emil (1953) “Chalkedon und die Ausgestaltung des konstantinopolitanischen Primats” in A. Grillmeier, H. Bacht. Das Konzil von Chalkedon, Geschichte und Gegenwart. Bd. II: Entscheidung um Chalkedon. Würzburg, S. 459–490.
22. Honigmann Ernest (1950) “Juvenal of Jerusalem”. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 1950, vol. 5, pp. 209–279.
23. Jalland Trevor (1941) The Life and Times of St. Leo the Great. London, New York.
24. Kirchmeyer J. (1967) “Gennade de Constantinople” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité. Vol. VI. Paris, col. 204–205.
25. Magi Luigi (1972) La sede romana nella corrispondenza degli imperatori e patriarchi bizantini (VI–VII sec.). Louvain.
26. May Georg (1989) “Das Lehrverfahren gegen Eutyches im November des Jahres 448. Zur Vorgeschichte des Konzils von Chalkedon”. Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, Bd. 21, S. 1–61.
27. Millar Fergus (2009) “The Syriac Acts of the Second Council of Ephesus (449)”, in R. Price, M. Whitby (eds.) Chalcedon in Context. Church Councils 400–700. Liverpool, pp. 45–69.
28. Pietri Charles (1972) “Damase et Théodose. Communion orthodoxe et géographie politique”, in Epektasis. Mélanges patristiques off erts au cardinal Jean Daniélou. Paris, 627–634.
29. Price Richard (2009) “Truth, Omission, and Fiction in the Acts of Chalcedon”, in R. Price, M. Whitby (eds.) Chalcedon in Context. Church Councils 400–700. Liverpool, pp. 92–106.
30. Ch. et L. Pietri (ed.) Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire. Vol. II: Prosopographie de l'Italie chrétienne (313–604). Rome, 1999–2000.
31. Schwartz Eduard (1927) Codex Vaticanus gr. 1431, eine antichalkedonische Sammlung aus der Zeit Kaiser Zenos. München.
32. Schwartz Eduard (1926) “Das Nicaenum und das Constantinopolitanum auf der Synode von Chalkedon“. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1926, Bd. 25, S. 38–88.
33. Schwartz Eduard (1929) Der Prozeß des Eutyches. München.
34. Schwartz Eduard (1934) Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma. München.

Blaudeau Philippe

This article studies the improvement in the fi nancial situation of priests of St. Peterburg cathedrals during the 19th — early 20th centuries. Work at cathedrals of the capital city was regarded as prestigious and lucrative. However, not all parishes of St. Petersburg were suffi ciently supported fi nancially. The clergy of certain churches, as well as many uyezd priests of the diocese, experienced fi nancial diffi culties and suffered from bad accomodation. Despite their high level of education, the clergy of St. Petersburg cathedrals often had to look for additional income. Most often, this category of parish clergy taught religion at the city’s educational institutions, less often other subjects. Particularly vulnerable were those who due to their age and bad health were not able to continue their work full time. The article examines the fi nancial situation of the largest cathedrals of St. Petersburg, i.e. Isaakievskiy, Kazanskiy, Andreevskiy, Morskoy Bogoyavlenskiy, Troitse-Petrovskiy, and Petropavlovskiy. Each of them had its glorious history and own traditions. The financial situation was not the same and was not always good. Living conditions were also of varied levels. Sometimes the clergyrented out parts of the houses to outsiders, sometimes they had to rent apartments themselves.

parish clergy, monetary allowances and support, housing, cathedral, clergymen

1. Belonogova Iu. (2007) “Sluzhba i material'noe obespechenie prikhodskogo dukhovenstva Moskovskoi eparkhii v nachale XX v.” [Work and fi nancial situation of parish clergy of Moscow diocese in the early 20th century]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 3 (24), pp. 54–78 (in Russian).
2. Smirnov S. (2012) “Deiatel'nost' prikhodskikh popechitel'stv po uluchsheniiu material'nogo obespecheniia prikhodskogo dukhovenstva (na materialakh Kostromskoi eparkhii)” [Activity of parish committees for improvement of fi nancial situation of parish clergy (materials of Kostroma diocese)]. Vestnik KGU im. N. A. Nekrasova, 2, pp. 176–179 (in Russian).

Morozan Vladimir

*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 is devoted to the study of one of the most important documents related to the history of the Orthodox Church in the Ukraine, i.e. the “Address” (Russ. Обращение) of Metropolitan Mikhail (Ermakov) to archpriests, priests, and laypeople of the Ukraine. The Address was issued at the request of authorities shortly after the July Declaration of the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Sergiy (Stragorodskiy). The article studies the history of the Address, its editing by employees of the State Political Directorate (ГПУ) of the Ukrainian USSR, the response to this document from prominent fi gures of the Ukrainian church. The article also deals with the difficult situation in church life of the Ukraine after the July Declaration and with other documents that marked a new course as to the church and the state, initiated by Metropolitan Sergiy. On the basis of a number of documents, many of which have not yet been published, the article restores the picture of the confrontation between various groups of the Ukrainian clergy, divided by the attitude to the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergiy (Stragorodskiy) and the Address of Metropolitan Mikhail (Ermakov). In the archive of Archbishop Seraphim (Samoilovich) a copy of this document was recently found with editing notes by an employee of the GPU of the USSR. In the typewritten copy, the editing was highlighted in red with the aim of emphasising the inclusion of the emendations in the text. This text was written by request of Metropolitan Mikhail by one of the clerics closely assiciated with him. This unique document refl ects the method of forcible infl uence on archpriests aimed at splitting and humiliating the church. In this form, the text should have been sent abroad as a proof of the forcible influence on the Exarch when making the Address. The text of the copy did not get abroad, but was preserved in the archive of Archbishop Seraphim (Samoilovich) and came to be available for historical study.

Russian Church in 1920s and 1930s, Metropolitan Mikhail (Ermakov), Exarch of Ukraine, “Address” of Metropolitan Mikhail (Ermakov), persecution of Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine, Declaration of Metropolitan Sergiy (Stragorodsky), Kiev clergy, church documents of era of persecution, church opposition in Ukraine, schisms in Church

1. Gubonin M. (ed.) (1994) Akty Sviateishego Tikhona, Patriarkha Moskovskogo i vseia Rossii, pozdneishie dokumenty i perepiska o kanonicheskom preemstve vysshei tserkovnoj vlasti, 1917–1943 [Acts of his Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, later documents and correspondence on the canonical succession of the supreme church authority, 1917‒1943]. Moscow (in Russian)
2. Iakobchuk V. “Pastyrskaia deiatel'nost' protoiereia Aleksandra Glagoleva v 1920–30-e gody” [Activity as a priest of Revd. Aleksandr Glagolev in the 1920s-30s], available at https://bogoslov.ru/article/3248265.
3. Mazyrin A. (2007) “Vopros o zameshchenii Kievskoi kafedry v 1920-e gg.” [Problem of fi lling Kiev see in the 1920s]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. II, 2 (23), pp. 58‒67; 3 (24), pp. 118‒131. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Mazyrin A., Kosik O. (2002) “Vsled za iiul'skoi deklaratsiei” [In the wake of the July Declaration]. Bogoslovskii sbornik, 9, pp. 297‒322 (in Russian).
5. Medvedeva N., Medvedev G. (2001) “Ot iuzhnogo goroda do Iuzhnogo gorodka” [From the southern city to the southern town]. Bogoslovskii sbornik, 8, pp. 364‒394 (in Russian).
6. Prelovska I. (2010) “Dokumenty organov bezopasnosti Ukrainy o zhizni i deiatel'nosti Ekzarkha Ukrainy mitropolita Mikhaila (Ermakova) (1862–1929)” [Documents of security authorities of the Ukraine on the life and activity of the Exarch of Ukraine, Metropolitan Mikhail (Ermakov)]. Ukrainskii arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik, 15, pp. 69 (in Ukrainian).
7. Sviashchennik Anatolii Zhurakovskii. Materialy k zhitiiu (1984) [Priest Anatoly Zhurakovsky. Materials for his Vita]. Paris (in Russian).
8. Sukhorukov A. (2009) “Maloizvestnye stranitsy tserkovnogo sluzheniia Ekzarha Ukrainy mitropolita Mikhaila (Ermakova) v 1922–1923 godakh” [Little-known pages of the church service of Exarch of the Ukraine Metropolitan Mikhail (Ermakov) in 1922‒1923]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 1 (30), pp. 79‒122 (in Russian).
9. Za Krista postradavshie: Goneniia na Russkuiu Pravoslavnuiu Tserkov', 1917‒1956 (1997) [Those who suffered for Christ: Persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church, 1917‒1956]. Moscow (in Russian).

Kosik Olga

*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 academic work of historian and philosopher G. P. Fedotov in terms of his philosophical and methodological principles and proposes a thesis that a culture-centred approach served as a foundation for his own historiosophy. This philosopher interpreted the historical process primarily as a creative self-expression of peoples represented in their culture, which he characterised as a “growth of national consciousness”. The key idea is a national tradition; Fedotov posited its revitalisation in contemporary nation-states of Europe. He ascribed particular significance to the language and among other things pointed to the contradictory role of the Slavonic language of the liturgy and of Old Russian literature in Russian history. Prominent place in Fedotov’s academic interests is occupied by civilisational fractures of Russian history and by the issue of cultural unity and transmission of legacy within the national tradition. The article points to the conceptual link between Fedotov’s ideas and the Russia-specifi c thought, domestic Russian cognitive tradition. Belonging to the latter is expressed in such elements of his philosophy as attention to the problem of personality and to the theory of freedom, opposing culture and civilisation, integrated view of the history of humankind, literature-centred approach, denial of linear logic of determinated progress, rejection of the hedonistic explanation of man as a subject in history, criticism of rationalism, economism, individualism, etc. Fedotov not only successfully applied his cultural and historical theory to the history of Russia, but also efficiently used it in specualtions about the future, about the time after the change of the political system. He linked the future fate of the country with a successful solution to the national problem, which he thought to be possible only if founded on the integrating mission of Russian culture; he anticipated and in a number of cases accurately predicted dramatic processes typical of the present day.

history of culture, Russian thought, national tradition, self-consciousness, theory of national construction, culturocentrism, historiography, G. P. Fedotov

1. Antoshchenko A. (2003) “Evraziia” ili “Sviataia Rus’”? Rossiiskie emigranty v poiskakh samosoznaniia na putiakh istorii [“Eurasia” or “Holy Rus’”? Russian emigrants in search of self-cognition on the paths of history]. Petrozavodsk (in Russian).
2. Antoshchenko A. (2014) “Georgii Petrovich Fedotov: poslednie gody v Sovetskoi Rossii” [Georgiy Petrovich Fedotov: The last years in Soviet Russia], in Rossiiskaia intelligentsiia v usloviiakh tsivilizatsionnykh vyzovov [Russian intelligentsia in the context of civilisational challenges]. Pp. 22–26. Cheboksary (in Russian).
3. Antoshchenko A. (2017) ““Vizantinizm” v interpretatsii G. P. Fedotova” [“Byzantinism” in the interpretation of G.P. Fedotov], in Vestnik slavianskikh kul’tur, 44, pp. 7–20 (in Russian).
4. Ivonina O. (2000) Vremia svobody`. Problema napravlennosti istorii v khristianskoi istoricheskoi mysli Rossii XIX — serediny XX v. [Time of freedom. The problem of orientation of history in the Christian historical thought of Russia in the 19th — mid-20th centuries]. Novosibirsk (in Russian).
5. Kiselev A. (2004). Strana grez Georgiia Fedotova (razmyshleniia o Rossii i revoliutsii) [The land of dreams of Georgiy Fedotov (refl ections on Russia and the revolution)]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Klepikova Iu. (2019) “Bremia imperii i prizvanie Rossii: k fi losofi i istorii G. P. Fedotova” [The burden of the empire and the vocation of Russia: Philosophy of history by G. P. Fedotov], in Filosofskie nauki, 4, pp. 44–57 (in Russian).
7. Mezhuev V. (1996) “Natsiia i gosudarstvo” [The nation and the state], in V. Mezhuev. Mezhdu proshlym i budushchim [Between the past and the future]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Morozov E. (2005) “«Novyi grad» v Zapadnoi Evrope: mysli o Rossii” [The “New City” in Western Europe: thoughts about Russia], in Istoriia mysli. Russkaia myslitelnaia traditsiia [History of thought. Russian philosophical tradition], 3, pp. 126–138 Moscow (in Russian).
9. Rybachuk V. (1996) Filosofiia kultury G. P. Fedotova [Philosophy of culture of G. P. Fedotov]. Tver’ (in Russian).
10. Serbinenko V. (1991) “Opravdanie kul’tury: tvorcheskii vybor G. Fedotova” [Justifi cation of culture: G. Fedotov's creative choice], in Voprosy filosofii, 8, pp. 41–53 (in Russian).
11. Serbinenko V., Grebeshev I. (2016) Russkaia metafizika XIX–XX vekov [Russian metaphysics of the 19th — 20th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
12. Smirnov I. (2020) Istoriia mysli. Teoreticheskie osnovaniia [History of thought. Theoretical foundations]. Moscow (in Russian).
13. Zaitseva N. (2001) Logika liubvi: Rossiia v istoriosofskoi kontseptsii G. Fedotova [Logic of love: Russia in the historiosophical concept of G. Fedotov]. Samara (in Russian).

Smirnov 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.

This article examines the circumstances of the closure in 1964 of Volyn Theological Seminary which was one of the eight educational institutions of such type in the USSR. The analysis of archival sources, kept primarily at the State Archives of Volyn region, allows one to establish when Soviet authorities fi nally decided to liquidate the seminary in Lutsk, what steps were taken in this direction and how Moscow Patriarchate and Volyn-Rivne diocesan administration resisted to these actions. During N. Khrushchev’s governance, fi ve theological seminaries of the Russian Orthodox Church were closed in the Soviet Union, this being an important part in the general anti-religious policy of the state. Although the main reasons for the closure of seminaries are well studied in the relevant historiography, there are almost no studies where the entire process of closing theological institutions would be described in detail. This article is a new contribution to the study of complicated relations of the Russian Orthodox Church and Soviet authorities in the 1950s and 60s. However, it is undeniable that in the process of closing higher theological institutions, the system not only made use of those propaganda tricks which were used in all such cases in various republics of the USSR, but gambled on the nationalist card as well, which came to be a characteristic feature of anti-religious policies in the Western Ukraine. This being said, the study of relevant documents does not allow one to conclude that teachers and students of Volyn Theological Seminary, especially at the fi nal stage of its operation, were involved in any real nationalist activities. Therefore, along with such accusations of the staff of the Seminary, authorities used other accusations as well; these are examined in this article.

Volyn Theological Seminary, Council for Aff airs of Russian Orthodox Church, Volyn Regional Committee of Communist Party of Ukraine, Committee for Education, archimandrite Mefodiy (Menzak), archpriest Petro Vlodek, A. Fedulov, Vladimir Kuroyedov

1. Baran V. (1995) “Vlada і Tserkva: z іstorіi vzaiemin u 1945–1965 rokakh” [The government and the Church, the history of relations in 1945‒1965]. Suchasnіst', 5, pp. 113‒128 (in Ukrainian).
2. Mel'nichuk-Martiniuk S. (2013) Moyi spogadi bez prikras [My memories unvarnished]. Lutsk (in Ukrainian).
3. Pashchenko V. (2001) “Rosіis'ka pravoslavna tserkva naprikіntsі khrushchovs'koi “vіdligi” [Russian Orthodox Church at the end of Khrushchev “thaw”]. Ukrains'kii іstorichnii zhurnal, 5, pp. 141‒160 (in Ukrainian).
4. Pashchenko V. (2001) Pravoslav'ia v Novіtnіi іstorіi Ukraini [Orthodoxy in the modern history of the Ukraine]. Poltava (in Ukrainian).
5. Shkarovskiy M. (2010) Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov' v XX veke [Russian Orthodox Church in the twentieth century]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Vlodek. P. (2001) “Treba bulo z nіchogo stvoriuvati semіnarіiu” [We had to make a seminary out of nothing]. Visnik pressluzhbi UPTs, pp. 25 (in Ukrainian).
7. Vlodek. P. (2006) “U roki khrushchovs'kikh gonіn' pretenzіi do studentіv і vikladachіv Dukhovnoii semіnarіi ne malo tіl'ki pokhoronne biuro” [During Khrushchev’s persecution, it was only the undertaker’s offi ce that had no allegations against students and teachers of the Theological Seminary]. Ofіtsіyniy vіsnik UPTs, 58, pp. 43‒46 (in Ukrainian).

Fedchuk Alexander, 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 the letters from Metropolitan of Kaff a Basilios to Ivan IV, as well as to an unnamed Russian metropolitan. These documents were fi rst brought by the merchant of sultan’s treasury Adrian Greek at the beginning of 1542. He was executing diplomatic duties and, as it seems now, was also the one who presented interests not only of sultan but also of ecumenical patriarch Jeremiah (1521–1545). The importance of these documents is conditioned by the fact that they include the earliest mention of the metropolitan of Kaff a as well as by the fact that they immediately come from the chancellery of this hierarch. The analysis of this document allowed us to make a conclusion about a multifaceted process of forming the complex, the so-called Greek documentation of the Ambassador’s offi ce (Russ. Посольский приказ). It was shown that the first “Greek” Ambassadorial book (посольская книга) is a creation of a later period because the inventories of the Ambassador’s offi ce show a diff erent chronological interval of documents contained in it. Our study points to a more complicated character of selecting and copying charters for the Ambassadorial books. One of the diffi cult issues in the hisotory of making embassy’s registers is the necessity to clarify the reasons why deacons and clerks copied charters of Ottoman sultans and Eastern hierarchs sometimes into “Turkish”, sometimes “Greek” Ambassadorial books. The reasons for the lacuna of 1520‒1548 in the 1st “Greek” Ambassadorial book could be connected not only with the factors pointed to by S. M. Kashtanov, but also with the change in the intra-chancellery ideas about belonging of epistles of Eastern Orthodox hierarchs to the documentation of Russian-Turkish relations. The publication of these epistles allows one to broaden the source base for the study of the history of Orthodoxy in the Crimean Peninsula during the Ottoman reign.

diplomatic correspondence of Ivan the Terrible, diplomatic correspondence, Kaffa, Metropoly of Kaffa, Ottoman Empire, Crimean Khanate, Ambassadorial books

1. Aibabina E., Bocharov S. (2002) “Grecheskie pravoslavnye tserkvi srednevekovoi Kaff y” [Greek Orthodox churches of mediaeval Kaffa], in Pravoslavnye drevnosti Tavriki [Orthodox antiquities of Taurica]. Kiev. Pp. 159–168 (in Russian).
2. Bachinskii A., Erusalimskii K., Kochekovskaia N., Moiseev M. (2018) “Diplomaticheskaia perepiska Ivana Groznogo: problemy avtorstva, khraneniia i bytovaniia” [Diplomatic correspondence of Ivan the Terrible: Problems of authorship, archiving and existence]. Rossiiskaya istoriia, 2, pp. 111–129 (in Russian).
3. Bennigsen A., Lemers’e-Kel’kezhe Sh. (2009) “Osmanskie pridvornye kuptsy i torgovlia moskovitskimi mekhami vo vtoroi polovine XVI v.” [Ottoman court merchants and trade by Muscovite furs in the second half of the 16th century], in I. Mustakimov, A. Sitdikov (eds) Vostochnaia Evropa Srednevekov’ia i rannego Novogo vremeni glazami frantsuzskikh issledovatelei [Eastern Europe of the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times in interpretation of French explorers]. Kazan. Pp. 314–340 (in Russian).
4. Bert’e-Delagard A. (1920) “Issledovanie nekotorykh nedoumennykh voprosov srednevekov’ia v Tavride” [A study of some diffi cult questions of the Middle Ages in Taurica]. Izvestiia Tavricheskoi uchenoi arkhivnoi komissii, 57, pp. 1–135 (in Russian).
5. Dziubinski A. (2005) Stosunki dyplomatyczne polsko-tureckie w latach 1500–1572 w kontekście miẹdzynarodowym. Wrocław.
6. Efi mov A. (2013) “Kristianskoe naselenie Kryma v 1630-e gg. po osmanskim istochnikam” [Christian population of Crimea in the 1630s according to Ottoman sources]. Vestnik RGGU. Seriia: Istoriia. Filologiia. Kul’turologiia. Vostokovedenie, 9 (110), pp. 134–143 (in Russian).
7. Erusalimskii K. (2018) Na sluzhbe korolia i Rechi Pospolitoi [At the service of the king and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth]. Moscow; St Petersburg (in Russian).
8. Filiushkin A. (2006) Tituly russkikh gosudarei [The titles of Russian rulers]. Moscow; St Petersburg (in Russian).
9. Kamentseva E. (2003) Khronologiia [Chronology]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Kashtanov S. (2004) “Sostav i soderzhanie dokumentov “grecheskikh” posol’skikh knig № 1 i 2 [Composition and content of documents of “Greek” Ambassador’s books № 1 and 2], in S. Kashtanov (ed.) Rossiia i grecheskii mir v XVI veke, 1, pp. 8–40 (in Russian).
11. Kashtanov S. (2004) “Kodikologicheskaia struktura “grecheskoi” posol’skoj knigi № 1 [Codicological structure of “Greek” Ambassador’s book № 1], in S. Kashtanov (ed.) Rossiia i grecheski mir v XVI veke. Moscow, 1, pp. 41–83 (in Russian).
12. Meier M. (2003) “Rossiia i Osmanskaia imperiia ot nachala XVI v. do 1569 g. Formirovanie obshchikh granits dvukh gosudarstv” [Russia and the Ottoman Empire from the beginning of the 16th century to 1569. Formation of borders of the two states], in M. Mejer, S. Oreshkova (eds) Ot Stambula do Moskvy [From Istanbul to Moscow]. Moscow. Pp. 91–116 (in Russian).
13. Moiseev M. (2018) “Perepiska Rossii s Nogaiskoj Ordoi v pravlenie Ivana Groznogo: dokumentooborot i arkhivatsiia poslanii” [Correspondence between Russia and Nogai Horde in the reign of Ivan the Terrible: Document management and archiving of epistles]. Srednevekovye tiurko-tatarskie gosudarstva, 10, pp. 75–83 (in Russian).
14. Mashkova L. (2017) “Russkie posol’skie knigi: nachalo formirovaniia” [Russian Ambassadorial books: The beginning of their formation], in Velikoe stoianie na reke Ugre i formirovanie Rossiiskogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva: lokal’nye i global’nye konteksty. Materialy Vserossiiskoi s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem nauchnoi konferentsii (30 marta — 1 aprelia 2017 g., Kaluga) [The Great Stand on the Ugra River and the formation of the Russian centralised state: local and global contexts. Conference proceedings]. Kaluga. Pp. 232–250 (in Russian).
15. Öztürk Y. (2019) “Altinordu imaparatorluğ’undan Osmanlı imaparatorluğ’na bir doğu Avrupa beşkenti Kefe”. Crimean Historical Review, 1, pp. 45–70.
16. Rogozhin N. (1994) Posol’skie knigi Rossii kontsa XV — nachala XVII vv. [Ambassador’s books of Russia in the late 15th — early 17th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
17. Volodikhin D. (2016) “Tsarev prikhod” na Oku 1541 goda” [Tzar’s advent the the Oka-river in 1541]. Istoriia voennogo dela: issledovaniia i istochniki. 2016. Spetsial’nyi vypusk V. Stoianie na reke Ugre 1480–2015, II, pp. 482–494 (in Russian).
18. Zaitsev I. (2016) “O pravakh khristian v Krymskom khanstve. Iarlyk khana Sakhib-Gireia krymskim khristianam (1772 g.)” [On the rights of Christians in the Crimean Khanate. The edict of Khan Sakhib Giray to Crimean Christians (1772)], in Krym: problemy` istorii [Crimea: The problems of history]. Moscow. Pp. 63–82 (in Russian).
19. Zaitsev I. (2019) “Khristianskie narody. Pravoslavie i inoslavie. Kultura krymskikh khristian” [Christian nations. Orthodoxy and non-Orthodoxy. Culture of Crimean Christians], in A. Iurasov (ed.) Istoriia Kryma [History of Crimea]. Moscow. Pp. 475–481 (in Russian).

Moiseev Maksim

*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 Krylov story, consequences of which are discussed in the letters of the trustee of Moscow school district Pavel Dmitrievich Golokhvastov to the minister of education, Count Sergei Semenovich Uvarov, can be read at diff erent levels and, depending on this, be subject to various scientifi c interpretations. One of the fi rst scholars who studied this topic, N. P. Barsukov, considered it to be a private family history, disassociated with the university environment, but, following religious discussions of T. N. Granovsky and A. I. Gertsen in 1845 and 1846, it is regarded to be undermining the unity of the circle of Westerners (Russ. западники). D. A. Tsygankov, on the contrary, sees the confl ict around Krylov as a landmark event in the history of the university which separates the era of the Great Disputes of the 1840s from the Dreary Seven Years («мрачное семилетие»). However, no matter how one evaluates Krylov’s story, there are practically no studies that would make the chronology of events associated with this confl ict more precise. The documents published below, together with documents that have already been made public but not suffi ciently studied, allow one to look at this university aff air in more detail. The Krylov story began in August 1846 and kept in tension all those involved up to the summer of 1848. This situation demonstrates that the university milieu is extremely confl ict-ridden, unpredictable, subject to abrupt changes.

Krylov story, university milieu, era of Great Disputes of 1840s, Dreary Seven Years, T. N. Granovskiy

1. Levandovskii A. (1989) T. N. Granovskii v russkom obshchestvennom dvizhenii [T. N. Granovsky in the Russian public movement]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Petrov F. (2003) Formirovanie sistemy universitetskogo obrazovaniia v Rossii [The emergence of the university education system in Russia]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Tsygankov D. (2014) “Upivshis' vinami do besstydstva…” [“Drunk on wine to the point of shamelessness...”]. Rodina, 9, pp. 73–76 (in Russian).

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.

Andreev Andrei

*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.

Naumov Pavel

This publication introduces an important document from the Archive of foreign policy of the Russian Federation. This document illustrates the attitude of the People's Commissariat for Foreign Aff airs of the USSR towards the Patriarchate of Constantinople at one of the most critical moments of its history (April 1924) and allows one to assess the Commissariat’s good awareness of the state of aff airs in the Eastern church. The published source shows difficult situation of the primary Patriarchate on the one hand, and its strong involvement in political intrigues on the other hand, which the author of the document (presumably, the representative of the USSR in Turkey Ya. Z. Surits) cynically offered to make use of. The published analytical report pays much attention to the problem of the so-called Anatolian church (better known as the “Turkish Orthodox Church”). It is noteworthy that the Soviet diplomat did not give unambiguous assessments and recommendations to his Moscow administration. His key suggestion was to send a representative of the Russian Renovationist schism to Istanbul and then use him in order to infl uence the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Soviet interests. This proposal appeared to be interesting to the administration of the Commissariat, but for some reason was not implemented, which partially prevented the worst-case scenario of the development of relations between the Russian and Constantinople Churches; in this worst scenario, the Fanar would have become fully affiliated with the Soviet Renovationism (in the end, this affi liation was less defi nitely pronounced).

People's Commissariat for Foreign Aff airs of USSR, Republic of Turkey, Patriarchate of Constantinople, Fanar, philetism, Patriarch Meletius (Metaxakis), Patriarch Gregory (Zervudakis), Turkish Orthodox Church, Renovationist schism, Russian Orthodox Church

1. Mazyrin A., Kostryukov A. (2017) Iz istorii vzaimootnoshenii Russkoi i Konstantinopol'skoi Tserkvei v XX veke [From the history of relations between the Russian and Constantinople Churches in the 20th century]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Mitrofan (Shkurin), Hegumen (2006) “Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov' i sovetskaia vneshniaia politika v 1922–1929 godakh (Po materialam Antireligioznoi komissii)” [Russian OrthodoxChurch and Soviet foreign policy in 1922‒1929 (Materials of the Anti-Religious Commission)]. Vestnik tserkovnoj istorii, 1, pp. 162–175 (in Russian).
3. Shkarovskii M. (2014) Konstantinopol'skii Patriarkhat i Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov' v pervoi polovine 20 veka [The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Russian Orthodox Church in the first half of the twentieth century]. Moscow (in Russian).

Mazyrin Aleksandr, 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.

This publication presents letters of bishop of the Finnish Archdiocese of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate, Alexander (Karpin), to the Russian emigrant of the fi rst wave Prince Alexei Vasilyevich Obolensky (1877‒1969). The letters are from the period of 1939‒1946. They are kept at the archive of Novo-Valaamskiy monastery of Finland and are published for the fi rst time. Alexey Vasilyevich was a descendant of the ancient family of Obolensky. In Russia, he was actively engaged in social and political activities, being one of the founders of the Society for Russian Antiquity (Rus. Общество ревнителей русской старины). After the October revolution he emigrated to Finland. There he became a benefactor of Russian monasteries in Valaam, Konevets, and Lintula. He carried on an extensive correspondence. His correspondents had varied social status and level of familiarity with spiritual matters. One of the correspondents was bishop Alexander (Karpin). He was elected by the Council of the Finnish Orthodox Church to the see of Vyborg in 1935. Because of the Soviet-Finnish Winter war, Obolensky moved to Stockholm, but continued the correspondence. Bishop Alexander cared for refugees from Karelian Isthmus after 1939, who were settled throughout Finland. The correspondence was of personal nature. It characterises the bishop mainly from his personal side, and not so much as a church-related public “functioner”, but as a devoted Christian, a deeply religious person, aggrieved by the fate of the world in that difficult time of fratricidal wars, growing secularism, large-scalerepression against faith and nonconformism, the person on whose shoulders suddenly fell a heavy burden of responsibility for the believers and the Church in such diffi cult conditions. However, in some letters, the bishop also touched upon problems of church life.

Orthodoxy, history, bishop Alexander (Karpin), Alexey Vasilievich Obolensky, Finnish Orthodox Church, Russian Church dispersion, Finland, emigration, correspondence, archive of NovopValaamskiy monastery

1. Bekzhanova N. (ed.) (2003) “A prishlos' v razluke zhit' goda...”: rossiiskoe zarubezh'e v Finliandii mezhdu dvumia voinami: Materialy k biobibliografi i, 1978–2002 [“And one had to live in separation for years...”: Russian Diaspora in Finland between the two wars: materials for the bibliography, 1978‒2002]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
2. Loima J. (2004) “Nationalism and the Orthodox Church in Finland”, in Nationalism and Orthodoxy: Two thematic Studies. Helsinki. Pp. 93‒204.
3. Shevchenko T. (ed.) (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012) “Pis'ma Novogo Valaama” [Letters from Novyi Valaam]. Al'fa i Omega, 2008, vol. 3, pp. 237–252; 2009, vol. 1, pp. 250–290; vol. 2, pp. 256–268; vol. 3, pp. 277–288; 2010, vol. 1, pp. 308–320; vol. 2, pp. 295–314; vol. 3, pp. 288–299; 2011, vol. 1, pp. 286–302; vol. 2, pp. 334–346; vol. 3, pp. 245–262; 2012, vol. 2–3, pp. 597–619.
4. Siluan (Nikitin), Hieromonk (2014) “Aleksandr (Karpin) — pervyi pravoslavnyi episkop Hel'sinki” [Alexander (Karpin), the fi rst Orthodox bishop of Helsinki]. Sretenskii Sbornik. Nauchnye trudy prepodavatelei Sretenskoi Dukhovnoi Seminarii, 5, pp. 377‒404 (in Russian).
5. Vukolov N. (ed.) (2008) “Obolenskii A. V. Moi vospominaniia” [Obolenskij A. V. My Memoirs], in N. Eneeva (ed.) Problemy istorii russkogo zarubezh'ia: materialy i issledovaniia [Problems of the history of Russian emogration: Materials and studies]. Moscow. Pp. 314‒375.

Shevchenko Tatyana

*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.