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

The last years of life of Paisios Ligaridis, Metropolitan of Gaza, were closely associated with the Russian state and, as it may seem, are well known to researchers. However, some facts of his biography are still insuffi ciently studied and require further research. Paisios Ligaridis’ activity at the Great Moscow Council of 1666/67 is evaluated in the relevant scholarly literature mostly negatively. Both supporters and opponents of Nikon, Patriarch of Moscow, treat him either as an initiator of the decisions taken at the council, or as an embodiment of servility. However, such views do not take into account either unpublished archival materials or historical sources published as early as the 18‒20th centuries. Even less explored are the facts associated with the departure of Paisios Ligaridis to the Orthodox East and his second return to Moscow. They are dealt with differently in historiography not only because of the insuffi cient source base but more often because of the biased interpretation of the available pieces of evidence. Paisios arrived in Kiev in May 1673 and was not going to leave it quickly. Using published and unpublished sources this article puts forward a hypothesis about the possible reasons for the return of Paisios Ligaridis from Kiev to Moscow and his new departure from Moscow in 1676.

Russia, Orthodox East, Metropolitan Paisios Ligaridis, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, Patriarch Nikon, Great Moscow Council of 1666/67, Greek-Russian ties, sources, biography

1. Chesnokova N. (2019) “Paisii Ligarid” [Paisios Ligaridis], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox encyclopaedia], 54, p. 240‒243. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Chesnokova N. (2019) “Zhalovannye gramoty grecheskim ierarkham v kontekste konfessional’nopoliticheskikh sviazei Rossii i pravoslavnogo Vostoka v XVIII v.” [Charters to Greek hierarchs in the context of confessional and political relations between Russia and the Orthodox East in the 18th century], in Kapterevskiie chteniia [The Kapterev Symposium], 17, p. 190‒211. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Floria B. (2001) “Voiny Osmanskoi imperii s gosudarstvami Vostochnoi Evropy (1672‒1681 gg.)” [Wars of the Ottoman Empire with the states of Eastern Europe (1672‒1681)], in Osmanskaia imperiia i strany Tsentral’noi, Vostochnoi i Iugo-Vostochnoi Evropy v XVII v. [Ottoman Empire and the countries of Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe in the 17th century], 2, p. 108‒148 Moscow (in Russian).
4. Fonkich B. (2003) Grecheskie rukopisi i dokumenty v Rossii v XIV — nachale XVIII v. [Greek manuscripts and documents in Russia in the 14th — early 18th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Kapterev N. (2008) “Kharakter otnoshenii Rossii k pravoslavnomu Vostoku v XVI i v XVII stoletiiakh” [The nature of Russia’s relations with the Orthodox East in the 16th and 17th centuries], in N. Kapterev. Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works], 1, p. 21‒505. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Kapterev N. (2008) “O greko-latinskikh shkolakh v Moskve v XVII v.” [On the Greek-Latin schools in Moscow in the 17th century], in N. Kapterev. Sobraniie sochinenii [Collected works], 2, p. 652‒712. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Kapterev N. (2008) “Khlopoty moskovskogo pravitel’stva o vosstanovlenii Paisiia Aleksandriiskogo i Makariia Antiokhiiskogo na ikh patriarshikh kafedrakh i o razreshenii ot zapreshcheniia Paisiia Ligarida” [The eff orts of the Moscow government as to the restoration of Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch in their Patriarch’s sees and as to the elimination of the prohibition of Paisius Ligaridis], in N. Kapterev. Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works], 2, p. 741‒788. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Kudriavtsev I. (1963) “Izdatel’skaia” deiatel’nost Posol’skogo prikaza (K istorii russkoi rukopisnoi knigi vo vtoroi polovine XVII veka)” [“Publishing” activity of the Ambassadorial Office (On the history of Russian manuscript books in the second half of the 17th century)], in Kniga: issledovaniia i materialy [The book: Studies and materials], VIII, p. 189–193. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Makarii (Bulgakov), Metropolitan (1996) Istoriia Russkoi tserkvi [History of the Russian Church], 7. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Oparina T. (2016) “Perevodchik Posol’skogo prikaza Anastas Selunskii” [The translator of the Ambassadorial Offi ce Anastas Selunsky], in Drevniaia Rus’. Voprosy medievistiki, 4 (66), p. 66‒84 (in Russian).
11. Oparina T. (2017) “Ioannikii Grek i grecheskoe zemliachestvo Moskvy” [Ioannikios the Greek and the Greek community of Moscow], in Drevniaia Rus’. Voprosy medievistiki, 3 (69), p. 96‒97 (in Russian).
12. Oparina T. (2019) “Prevratnosti sud’by «grechenina» Nikolaia Dmitrieva” [The vicissitudes of fate of the “Grechenin” Nikolai Dmitriev], in Srednie veka, 80 (2), p. 162–185 (in Russian).
13. Pavel Aleppskii (2005). Puteshestvie antiokhiiskogo patriarkha Makariia v Rossiiu v polovine XVII veka [The journey of Patriarch Macarius of Antioch to Russia in the middle of the 17th century]. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Romanova A. (1998) “Paisii Ligarid” [Paisios Ligaridis], in Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi [Dictionary of scribes and booklore of Ancient Rus’], 3, p. 8–12. St Petersburg (in Russian).
15. Timoshina L. (2012) “Gazskii mitropolit Paisii Ligarid: o nekotorykh datakh i sobytiiakh” [Metropolitan Paisios Ligaridis of Gaza: Some dates and events], in Kapterevskie chtenia [The Kapterev Symposium], 10, p. 89‒133. Moscow (in Russian).
16. Vitsen N. (1996) Puteshestvie v Moskoviiu. 1664‒1665 [Journey to Muscovy. 1664‒1665]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).

Chesnokova Nadezhda

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

The article analyses the little-studied issue of the infl uence of monasteries on the process of Christianisation of the non-Russian population of Vyatskaya and Velikopermskaya Diocese in the 18th century. In this period, both civil and spiritual authorities had no idea of endowing monasteries with special missionary rights. The decrees of the Russian monarchs and the decrees of the Holy Synod regarding the Orthodox mission most often determined only the behaviour of missionaries, not dividing them into representatives of the black and white clergy. In legislative and other departmental acts of the 18th century, the emphasis was on the missionary’s authority, as well as on the ultimate goal that he should achieve, i.e. strengthening of the newly baptised in the Christian faith. However, this agenda did not imply a full mixture of representatives of the black and white clergy who had dissimilar ways of life. In real practice, the synodal and diocesan authorities used the spiritual and material potential of monasteries with the aim of a better organisation of the Orthodox mission. Monks were often entrusted with duties of conducting direct missionary activity, further catechising and instructing the newly baptised in the Christian faith, organising the activities of the parish clergy, and monitoring the state of faith of the newly baptised. In addition, the monastery was regarded as a place for improving those newly baptised who deviated from standards of the Christian faith. Another aspect of the activity of monasteries was the admission to the confi nes of the monastery of those newly baptised who themselves wanted to establish themselves more fi rmly in the Orthodox faith. Even in those cases when monasteries did not directly take part in the spread of Christianity, there was an indirect influence of monasteries located near non-Russian settlements. It is also worth noting that monasteries owned lands in diff erent parts of Vyatka Diocese, including in areas with a pagan population. Through the Russian (Orthodox) population living in the estates of monasteries, representatives of non-Christian religions became familiar with the Orthodox faith.

missionary, newly baptised, monastery, hegumen, archimandrite, Vyatka Diocese, preachers

1. Florovskii G. (2008) Puti russkogo bogoslovia [Paths of Russian theology]. Мoscow (in Russian)
2. Florovskii G. (2005) Vostochnye Ottsy Tserkvi [Fathers of the Eastern Church]. Мoscow (in Russian)
3. Efi mov A. (2007) Ocherki po istorii missionerstva Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi [Essays in the history of missionary work of the Russian Orthodox Church]. Moscow (in Russian)
4. Kitsenko N. (2006) Sviatoi nashego vremeni: otets Ioann Kronshtadtskii i russkii narod [The saint of our time: Revd. Ioann of Kronstadt and the Russian people]. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Orlov M. (2018) “Gramota Ivana Groznogo syr’ianskim udmurtam” [Charter of Ivan the Terrible to Udmurts]. Drevniaia Rus’. Voprosy medievistiki 3 (73), p. 28–33. (in Russian)
6. Tikhomirov M. (1975) “Beloe i chernoe dukhovenstvo” [White and black clergy], in Religiia i tserkov’ v istorii Rossii (Sovetskie istoriki o pravoslavnoi tserkvi v Rossii) [Religion and church in the history of Russia (Soviet historians on the Orthodox Church in Russia)], p. 64–80 (in Russian).

Orlov Maxim

The article analyses the novels about the “new people” published at the turn of the 1860s and 1870s. These are Znameniia vremeni (‘Signs of the time’) by D. L. Mordovtsev, Shag za shagom (‘Step by step’) by I. V. Omulevsky, Nikolai Negorev, ili Blagopoluchnyi rossiianin (‘Nikolai Negorev, or the Prosperous Russian’) by I. A. Kushchevsky. The aim of the study is to identify the ideological agenda of the Russian intelligentsia of miscellaneous ranks (Rus. разночинная интеллигенция) of that time. The literature on the “new people”, starting from the novel by N. G. Chernyshevsky Chto delat’? (‘What to do?’), attempted to provide ideological guidelines for the new generation; the novels of this kind were “manuals” for young intellectuals, where they looked for answers to questions about what to they should do and be like. Due to the clearly opinionated nature of these texts, they are a valuable historical source for the study of the ideology of intelligentsia, its intellectual and moral quests. In historiography, these novels were described mainly in the context of the history of the Russian literature and literary criticism, but were not used in an integrated way as a specifi c topic of research in the light of the study of world outlook of intelligentsia, which makes this article particularly relevant. The main part of the article describes plot-related and thematical units, shows the features of personalities of the characters of the novels, studies the ideas that they proclaim. The article concludes that these novels refl ected the mindset of the intelligentsia of the period of transition, i.e. between the Sixtiers and the Narodniks, and were incorporated in the process of development of its ideology.

Russian intelligentsia, raznochintsy, 1860s, narodniks, “new people”, Mordovtsev, Omulevsky, Kushchevsky

1. Abel’tin E. (2004) Ideinye techeniia v russkoi literature 60‒70kh gg. XIX v. i formirovanie obraza “geroia vremeni” [Ideological trends in Russian literature of the 60‒70s of the 19th century and formation of the image of a “hero of the time”]. Novosibirsk (in Russian).
2. Andreeva V. (2015) “«Shag za shagom» I. V. Omulevskogo — roman o «novykh liudiakh» v literaturnom protsesse vtoroi poloviny XIX veka” [“Shag za shagom” by Innokenty Omulevsky, a novel about the “new people” in the literary process of the second half of the 19th century]. Vestnik KGU im. N. A. Nekrasova, 6, p. 70‒72 (in Russian).
3. Bazanov V. (1941) Iz literaturnoi polemiki 60-kh godov [From the literary polemics of the 60s]. Petrozavodsk (in Russian).
4. Gordeeva I. (2003) “Zabytye liudi”: Istoriia rossiiskogo kommunitarnogo dvizheniia [“Forgotten people”: The history of the Russian communitarian movement]. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Egorov B. (1963) Roman 1860-kh — nachala 1870-kh godov o “novykh liudiakh” [The novel of the 1860s — early 1870s about the “new people”]. Tartu (in Russian).
6. Levandovskaia A., Levandovskii A. (2002) “Temnoe tsarstvo”: kupets-predprinimatel’ i ego literaturnye obrazy [The “Dark Kingdom”: A merchant-entrepreneur and his refl ections in fi ction]. Otechestvennaia istoriia, 1, p. 146‒158 (in Russian).
7. Levandovsky A. (2000) “Sindrom raznochintsa” [Raznochinets syndrom], in Zheleznyi vek [The iron age]. Moscow. P. 74‒82 (in Russian).
8. Liamin S. (2012) “Razvitie burzhuaznoi identichnosti v poreformennoi Rossii i «antiburzhuaznost’» rossiiskoi intelligentsii” [The development of bourgeois identity in the postreform Russia and the “anti-bourgeois” nature of the Russian intelligentsia]. Interrum, 1, p. 56‒63 (in Russian).
9. Mogil’ner M. (1999) Mifologiia “podpol’nogo cheloveka”: radikal’nyi mikrokosm v Rossii v nachale XX v. kak predmet semioticheskogo analiza [The mythology of the “underground man”: a radical microcosm in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century as a topic of semiotic analysis]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Pinaev M. (1982) “N. G. Chernyshevskii-romanist i ‘novye liudi’ v literature 60‒70-kh godov” [Novelist N. G. Chernyshevsky and ‘new people’ in the literature of the 60‒70s], in Istoriia russkoi literatury [History of the Russian literature], 3. Leningrad. P. 80‒119 (in Russian).
11. Rodigina N., Saburova T. (2011) “Pokolencheskoe izmerenie sotsiokul’turnoi istorii Rossii XIX veka: preemstvennost’ i razryvy” [Generation-related dimension in the social and cultural history of Russia in the 19th century: continuity and fractures]. Dialog so vremenem: al’manakh intellektual’noi istorii, 34, p. 138‒157 (in Russian).
12. Saburova T. (2014) “Fenomen russkoi intelligentsii XIX veka: model’ mira i paradoksy samoidentifi katsii” [The phenomenon of the 19th century Russian intelligentsia: The model of the world and the paradoxes of self-identifi cation], in L. Repina (ed.) Idei i liudi: intellektual’naia kul’tura Evropy v Novoe vremia [Ideas and people: Intellectual culture of Europe in the Modern time]. Moscow. P. 435‒470 (in Russian).
13. Starygina N. (2003) Russkii roman v situatsii fi losofsko-religioznoi polemiki 1860‒1870-kh godov [The Russian novel in a situation of philosophical and religious controversy of the 1860‒1870s]. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Zinovieva M. (1974) “Tipologicheskie cherty revoliutsionno-prosvetitel’skogo realizma v romane I. V. Omulevskogo ‘Shag za shagom’” [Typological features of revolutionary educational realism in the novel by I. V. Omulevsky “Step by Step”], in Problemy literatury Sibiri XVIIXX vv. [The problems of Siberian literature of the 17th — 20th centuries]. Novosibirsk. P. 78‒89 (in Russian).

Iliasova Liliia

The article discusses the reaction of the clergy of a typical Russian city to the revolutionary events of 1917. It shows changes in the role of the Orthodox Church in Tsaritsyn in the situation of a national crisis. The analysis is based primarily on materials of those local newspapers which under the circumstances of the proclaimed freedom of press could reliably refl ect the problems of society and presented diverse points of view on their solution depending on political preferences of the editorial offices. The article identifi es the main diffi culties in the activity of parishes, i.e. the increase in anti-church attitudes, lack of agreement among the clergy, deterioration in the financial situation of the Church, confl icts both within the clergy and between priests and the church-goers. During the First World War, the Church in Tsaritsyn managed to organise assistance to the needy and consolidate all the forces of society, but after the fall of the monarchy in Russia, a great deal of time and eff ort was spent on participating in rallies, marches, and public prayers in support of the Provisional Government. The consistent position of the clergy as to preserving civil peace did not find much response in the people, and the new authorities did not ensure interaction with the Russian Orthodox Church which was excluded from solving current issues at the local level. The democratisation of parish life and the activity of the clergy in the election process did not lead to the strengthening of the position of the Church in society, but, on the contrary, contributed to the involvement of priests in political strife. The authority and role of Orthodox pastors in preserving the moral foundations of the population was steadily declining. The main reason for the strengthening of this trend was the inability of priests to respond to the challenges of the revolutionary time, their absorption in ensuring their daily subsistence and petty squabbles, especially over the preservation of their own positions. The local clergy did not become the driving force of the revolution in 1917, although they supported the Provisional Government en masse. The advent of Bolsheviks to power was a complete surprise for the Orthodox Church, which is perfectly illustrated by the example of the situation in Tsaritsyn.

Russian Revolution of 1917, Tsaritsyn, Russian Orthodox Church, clergy, Saratov Diocese, First World War

1. Babkin M. (2007) Dukhovenstvo russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi i sverzhenie monarkhii (nachalo XX v. — konets 1917 g.) [Clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church and the overturn of monarchy (beginning of the 20th century — end of 1917)]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Drozdov A. (1991) “Vybory v Tsaritsynskuiu Gorodskuiu Dumu 9 iiulia 1917 g.” [Elections to Tsaritsyn City Duma on July 9, 1917]. Voprosy kraevedenia, 1, p. 108‒110 (in Russian).
3. Khomuteckii A. (1922) Kratkii ocherk Soiuza Tsaritsynskoi gubernii s 1906 po 1922 god [An outline of the Union of Tsaritsyn province from 1906 to 1922.]. Tsaritsyn (in Russian).
4. Repnikov A., Gaida F. (2008) Retsenziia na: Babkin M. Dukhovenstvo russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi i sverzhenie monarkhii (nachalo XX v. — konets 1917 g.) [Review of: Babkin M. Clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church and the overthrow of the monarchy (beginning of the 20th century — end of 1917)]. Otechestvennaia istoriia, 5, p. 202‒207 (in Russian).
5. Tiumentsev I. (ed.) (2003) Ocherki po istorii Volgogradskoi eparkhii Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi [Essays in the history of Volgograd diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church]. Volgograd (in Russian).
6. Vodolagin M. (1967) Krasnyi Tsaritsyn [The red Tsaritsyn]. Volgograd (in Russian).

Vorobyеv Evgeniy

*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 purpose of this article is to trace the process of reorganising church life in Yakutia in the context of the Russian revolution of 1917. The main source of the study is the regional periodicals Vestnik Iakutskogo komiteta obshchestvennoi bezopasnosti (“Bulletin of Yakut public security committee”) and Iakutskie eparkhial’nye vedomosti (“Yakut diocesan gazette”). These acted not only as mass media, but also took active part in forming public opinion about the ongoing events in the country and in the region. The article demonstrates the ambiguous response of the Yakut clergy to the overthrow of monarchy and discusses diffi cult relations between diocesan authorities and the revolutionary organs of state authorities in the region. In the spring, these organs persistently advocated the separation of the church from the state and from the school, initiated a comprehensive check of diocesan aff airs and approved the confi scation of church lands. However, the diocese managed to defend the right to independently resolve their internal aff airs. The main attention is paid in the article to the process of democratisation of diocesan administration, the leading institutions of which were the pastoral meeting, the diocesan congress and the Church Diocesan Council, while the importance of episcopal authority was rapidly decreasing. For a deep reorganisation of church life, the arrangement of parishes on the gospel basis was also required, which implied their transformation into active self-governing communities. The Union of Orthodox Christians of Yakutia actively tried to promote this process. The low morale and psychological state of the clergy and church-goers of Yakut diocese by the end of 1917 clearly testifi es to the low effi ciency of these transformations in the context of a deepening revolution.

Russian Orthodox Church, Yakut Diocese, Russian revolution of 1917, democratisation of Church life, diocesan administration, Yakut diocesan gazette, Bulletin of Yakut public security committee, Union of Orthodox Christians of Yakutia

1. Babkin M. (ed.) (2008) Rossiiskoe dukhovenstvo i sverzhenie monarkhii v 1917 godu (Materialy i arkhivnye dokumenty po istorii RPTs) [Russian clergy and the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917 (Materials and archival documents on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church)]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Babkin M. (ed.) (2017) Konfessional’naia politika Vremennogo pravitel’stva Rossii: sbornik dokumentov [Confessional policy of the Provisional Government of Russia: a collection of documents]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Fiodorov V. (2013) Iakutiya v epokhu voin i revoliutsii (1900‒1919) [Yakutia in the era of wars and revolutions (1900‒1919)]. Novosibirsk (in Russian).
4. Iurganova I. (2003) Istoriia Iakutskoi eparkhii. 1870‒1919 gg. (deiatel’nost’ dukhovnoi konsistorii) [History of Yakut Diocese. 1870‒1919 (Activity of the spiritual consistory)]. Yakutsk (in Russian).
5. Nikolaev A. (2001) “Mnogaia leta, Blagovernoe Vremennoe Pravitel’stvo!” [“Long live the Righteous Provisional Government!”]. Iakutskii arkhiv, 3, p. 108‒111 (in Russian).
6. Popov G. (2005) Sochineniia. T. 1 [Works. Vol. 1]. Iakutsk (in Russian).
7. Radchenko N. (2016) “Politicheskie organizatsii Iakutii v period Fevral’skoi revoliutsii 1917 goda” [Political organisations in Yakutia during the February revolution of 1017]. Vestnik SVFU, 1, p. 13‒20 (in Russian).

Pushkarev Vladimir

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

The article studies the charitable activity of the rector of the Cathedral of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in Geneva, Revd. S. I. Orlov (1864‒1944). He gained the first experience in helping the suff ering people during his ministry in Ryazan province (1891‒1895). He began his ministry in Russian Orthodox parishes in 1895 in the south of France. For most of his life, he was rector of the Cathedral of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in Geneva (1905‒1944). One of the fi rst steps of Archpriest (till 1828) Orlov in his parish was the creation of parish patronage for the poor and sick by the church. It was opened on April 20, 1906. It paid housing to the needy Russians, issued one-time loans and non-refundable allowances for medical treatment, provided free and affordable lunches, etc. Already in its third year of operation, it was able to spend 6,000 francs to help the needy. The fi rst serious ordeal for the patronage was the First World War. It had to provide assistance to compatriots who wanted to return to their homeland, prisoners of war and refugees. After the fall of the monarchy, Archpriest Orlov continued to bear his pastoral burden and to care about the many Russians living in Switzerland. Church patronage constantly harmonised its activities with the imperial consulate in Geneva, and later with the representative of A.V. Kolchak’s government. Archpriest Sergy Orlov took part in the activities of the patronage as well as in other relief organisations for compatriots. He initiated the founding of some of them, i.e. the Dormitory for Russian women in diffi cult fi nancial situation (1918), the Russian Charity Society in Lausanne (1918), Russian Society (1919), Union of Orthodox Wives (1924) and others.

Revd. Sergiy Ioannovich Orlov, Cathedral of Exaltation of Holy Cross in Geneva, parish patronage for the poor and sick at the church, Prince S. М. Golitsyn, Russian deputy in Bern V. R. Bakherakht, Union of Orthodox Wives, assistance to prisoners of war and refugeers

1. Cherniavskii S. (2016) Diplomatiia Rossii. Opyt Pervoi mirovoi voiny [Russian diplomacy. The experience of World War I]. Moscow.
2. Iubileinyj sbornik ottsa protopresvitera Sergiia Ioannovicha Orlova. 27 ianvaria (9 fevralia) 1891– 1941 (1941) [The anniversary collection for Revd. Sergiy Ioannovich Orlov. January 27 (February 9) 1891‒1941)]. Geneve (in Russian).
3. Pastyr’ dobryi. 50-letie pastyrskogo sluzheniia protopresvitera o. Sergiya Orlova (1941) [The kind pastor. 50th anniversary of ministry of Revd. S. Orlov]. Geneve (in Russian).

Shevtsova Galina

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

The article is based on materials of state archives of Krasnoyarsk region, most of which are made public for the fi rst time. It examines the stages in the anti-church policy of Soviet authorities in Yenisey Province in the 1920s at uyezd and volost’ levels. Two main stages are identifi ed, i.e. the campaign for the separation of the church from the state and campaign for the confi scation of church valuables. The article analyses the legislative acts and organisational structure of the anti-church policy, evaluates main results of the actions performed as well as the reaction of the local population. The article gives an in-depth reconstruction of events associated with the confi scation of church valuables in Krasnoyarsk District. It concludes that there was no massive repression against the church in the 1920s. However, the rural churches suff ered an enormous economic damage, while the subsistence of the clergy was made entirely the duty of church-goers. At the same time, ideological work to shape non-religious mindset commenced. This work did not come to be successful in this period. The records show the discontent of the rural population as to the policy of Soviet authorities and specifi c leaders. This was one of the reasons for the withdrawal from toughening the antichurch policy. The hardest period for the church was the 1930s due to the beginning of collectivisation. Despite certain regional features, the experience of conducting antichurch policy in Siberia in the studied period can be regarded as a refl ection of the history of Russia on the whole.

Russian Orthodox Church, Yenisei Province, separation of Church from state, confiscation of church valuables, Soviet authorities, rural population, clergy

1. Baksheev A. (2013) Problemy sovetskoi gosudarstvennosti v Sibiri perioda NEPa [Problems of the Soviet state in Siberia in the period of the New Economic Policy]. Krasnoyarsk (in Russian).
2. Dvoretskaia A. Eniseiskaya eparkhiia v 20‒30 e gody ХХ veka [Yenisey Diocese in the 1920‒30s], available at http://красноярские-архивы.рф/articles/k_yubileyu_eniseyskoy_eparhii/14 (in Russian).
3. Ivanov S. (2015) “Finansy i politika v realizatsii iz»iatykh v 1922 g. tserkovnykh tsennostei” [Finance and politics in handling church values confi scated in the 1920s]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 5 (66), p. 36‒60 (in Russian).

Shushkanova Elena

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

The article studies various issues in functioning of the Bishops’ Council of the German Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. It emphasises that the period of 1948‒1950 came to be a period of serious ordeals for the clergy who took spiritual care of laity in the camps of displaced persons, in the cities and settlements of post-war Germany. Despite severe consequences of the fi nancial reform in Western Germany, ruling priest Metropolitan Seraphim with the assistance of the Bishops’ Council managed to coordinate the life of the diocese in the most important spheres such as the divine service, establishing the school of priests, repairs of churches, solution to confl icts in parishes, issues of preservation of the Russian Orthodox identity in the displaced persons. The article concludes that the Bishops’ Council took different measures to solve diffi cult problems of the management of the diocese. Special commissions were established which consisted of both priests and lay people who were considered prominent specialists in law, church building, pedagogy and education, church historical studies. These groups were led by the diocese “commissars” and “auditors” who had power to solve the confl ict situation in Menhegoff , Schleisheim, Stuttgart, Wiesbaden and other parishes. The article also analyses the line-up of the Bishops’ Council. It included distinguished priests and lay people of the post-Revolution and post-War waves of the Russian emigration. The members of the Council remained mostly unchanged in the studied period, though there were some changes due to the departure of some members from Germany overseas. One should also note the balance of the leading role of chairman of the Council, the respected hierarch Metropolitan Seraphim with collective and advisory initiatives in the functioning of the Council. The Archive of the German Diocese makes up the primary source of materials for this article.

diocese, council of bishops, parish, Metropolitan Seraphim (Lyade), clergy, lay people, Russian Orthodox Church Abroad

1. Gavrilin A. (2007) “Latviiskoe pravoslavnoe dukhovenstvo na territorii Germanii v 1945‒ 1949 godakh” [Latvial Orthodox clergy in the territory of Germany in 1945‒1949]. Tserkov’ i Vremya, 2 (39), p. 233‒256 (in Russian).
2. Kornilov A., Kinstler A. (2016) “Pedagogicheskaia intelligentsia i dukhovenstvo lageria peremeschionnykh lits Menhegof” [Pedagogical intelligentsia and clergy of the camp of displaced persons in Menhegoff ]. Intelligentsia i mir, 2, p. 40‒54 (in Russian).
3. Kostryukov A. (2015) Russkaia Zarubezhnaia Tserkov’ v 1939‒1964 gg.: Administrativnoe ustroistvo i otnosheniia s Tserkoviu v Otechestve [Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in 1939‒1964: Administrative structure and relations with the Church in the home country]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Never A. (2007) Pravoslavnye sviashchennosluzhiteli, bogoslovy i tserkovnye deiateli russkoi emigratsii v Zapadnoi i Tsentral’noi Ievrope. 1920‒1995: Biographicheskii spravochnik [Orthodox clergy, theologians, and church fi gures of the Russian emigration in Western and Central Europe. 1920‒1995: Biographical reference book]. Moscow; Paris (in Russian).

Kornilov Aleksandr

*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.

Patriarch Nikon’s letters of 1659‒1662 to Boyar N. A. Zyuzun, his comrade and protégé, have not been a topic for a specicialised study. Historical science continues to be interested in Patriarch Nikon’s activities, which requires the publication, historical and philological commentary and an integrated study of these letters. The relevance of study of these letters is strengthened by a clearly manifested tendency in the development of the present-day humanities towards interdisciplinary studies and making an anthropologically oriented history. The novel character of the study is due to the examination of the newly-discovered texts as part of the complex of the “case” of Patriarch Boyar Zyuzin which reveal one of the key events in Patriarch Nikon’s biography, i.e. his attempt to return to the Patriarch’s see. The epistolary texts concerning Zyuzin’s “case” are examined in the light of the scientifi c objectiveness and in line with the historical and philological approach. The introductory article provides a brief outline of the specialist opinions about Nikon’s deed and Zyuzin’s participation in it. It presents an analysis of content-related and literary features of Patriarch Nikon’s and Boyar Zyzin’s letters. Judging by the topic range and character of the letters, Patriarch and his boyar had friendly and confi dential relations due to which Patriarch Nikon in accordance with God’s will decided to return to Moscow, while Zyuzin attempted to conciliate the Patriarch and the Tsar. An integrated evaluation of the newly-discovered letters allows us to broaden the existing ideas about Patriarch Nikon’s and Boyar N. A. Zyuzin’s personalities and comprehend Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich’s participation in the event.

Patriarch Nikon, Nikita Alexeevich Zyuzun, Zyuzin’s “case”, techniques of epistolary genre and Greek-Byzantine epistolary tradition, Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich, integrated approach, anthropologically oriented history

1. Dianova T. (1997) Filigrani XVII–XVIII vv. “Golova shuta”. Katalog [Filigrees of the 17th — 18th centuries “Jester’s Head”. Catalogue]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Dianova T., Kostyukhina L. (1980) Vodianye znaki rukopisei Rossii XVII v.: Po materialam Otdela rukopisei GIM [Watermarks of Russian manuscripts of the 17th century: Materials from the Department of Manuscripts of the State Historical Museum]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Dianova T., Kostyukhina L. (1988) Filigrani XVII veka. Po rukopisnym istochnikam GIM. Katalog [Filigrees of the 17th century. Manuscript sources of the State Historical Museum. Catalogue]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Fetisov Timofei, priest (2016) “Gosudarstvenno-tserkovnye otnosheniia po zavetam sviatogo kniazia Vladimira” [State-church relations according to the precepts of holy prince Vladimir]. Filosofiia prava, 6 (79), p. 122–127 (in Russian).
5. Heawood E. (1950) Watermarks mainly of the 17th and 18th Centuries, vol. 1. Amsterdam.
6. Kartashev A. (1992) Sobranie sochinenii. [Collected works], vol. 2. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Krichevskii B. (2007) “Boiare v protsesse otstraneniia Nikona ot vlasti” [Boyars in the process of removing Nikon from power]. Vestnik SPbU, 2, 1, p. 18–26 (in Russian).
8. Lobachev S. (2003) Patriarkh Nikon [Patriarch Nikon]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
9. Moskovskie sobory 1660, 1666, 1667 godov. Sobranie dokumentov epokhi (2014) [Moscow councils of 1660, 1666, 1667. Collection of documents of the epoch], vol. 2. St Petersburg (in Russian).
10. Paneyakh V. (1981) Novye materialy o Novgorodskom vosstanii 1650 g. [New materials on Novgorod uprising of 1650]. Voprosy istorii, 2, p. 84–91 (in Russian).
11. Sevast’yanova S.K. (2007) Epistoliarnoe nasledie patriarkha Nikona. Perepiska s sovremennikami: issledovanie i teksty [Epistolary legacy of Patriarch Nikon. Correspondence with contemporaries: research and texts]. Moscow (in Russian).
12. Slovar’ russkogo iazyka XI–XVII vv. (1982, 1987) [Dictionary of the Russian language of the 11th — 17th centuries], vols 9, 13. Moscow (in Russian).
13. Ustinova I. (2016) Makarii [Macarius], Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox encyclopaedia], vol. 42, p. 481–483 (in Russian).
14. Velikotskaia (Mozgunova) N. (2015) “Delo boiarina Nikity Ziuzina” [The case of Boyar Nikita Zyuzin]. Russkiy mir v prostranstvenno-vremennom kontekste [Russian world in a spatal nad temporal context]. Barnaul. P. 107–119 (in Russian).
15. Vernadskii G. (2004) Istoriia Rossii [History of Russia], vol. 5. Tver’; Moscow (in Russian).
16. Zagrebin V. (1975) Svod izobrazhenii fi ligrani “Kuvshinchik” [Collection of images of the fi ligree “Jug”]. Leningrad (in Russian).
17. Zyzykin M. (1931–1939) Patriarkh Nikon. Ego gosudarstvennye i kanonicheskie idei [Patriarch Nikon. His state and canonical ideas]. Warsaw (in Russian).

Sevastyanova Svetlana

*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.