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

The word συμφωνία is found in two of the most important collections of Byzantine law: novellas and the Eisagoge, where it takes on diff erent meanings. The article analyses the preamble to the sixth novella, the Eisagoge, as well as other medieval texts to establish the meaning of the concept of the “symphony of the kingdom and the priesthood”. The author shows that two diff erent versions of the “symphony” were formed in Byzantium. According to St. Justinian the Great, good harmony, capable of providing all kinds of benefi ts to the human race, does not depend on the relationship between state and church authorities. The “imperial” model of a symphony arises when the kingdom and priesthood properly fulfi ll their ministry before God. The Emperor is obliged to justly rule the Orthodox people, take care of the clergy, and monitor the observance of dogmata and canons. The role of the priesthood is reduced to prayer and the performance of the Sacraments. The second version of the symphony, refl ected in the Eisagoge, on the contrary, involves communication between representatives of the kingdom and the priesthood. The harmony of the two powers is identifi ed with the agreement between the emperor and the patriarch. Only the Patriarch of Constantinople can play such a role. Other hierarchs, including the Eastern Patriarchs, do not matter for achieving “peace and prosperity for the Christian people”. As it is shown in the article, such a separation of the Patriarch of Constantinople from the episcopate can be compared with the ecclesiological model of Roman Catholicism, and the “symphony” of the priesthood and kingdom, presented in Isagogue, with the Latin concept of “the pope behind the back of the emperor”.

church-state relations, symphony, Empire, Church, preamble of the sixth novel, the Eisagoge, emperor Justinian the Great

1. Aerts W. J., van Bochove Th. E., et al. (2001) “The Prooimion of the Eisagoge: Translation and Commentary”, in Subseciva Groningana: Studies in Roman and Byzantine Law, 7, p. 91–155.
2. Asmus V., archpriest (1996) “Uchenie sv. tsaria Iustiniana o svyashchenstve i carstve” [The teaching of St. King Justinian on the priesthood and the kingdom], in Ezhegodnaya bogoslovskaya konferenciya PSTBI. Materialy 1992–1996 gg. [Annual theological conference of St. Tikhon Orthodox University. Proceedings of 1992–1996]. Moscow, p. 3–40 (in Russian).
3. Bezhanidze G. V. (2018) “Svyatitel’ Ioann Zlatoust o carskoj vlasti i vospriyatie ego vzglyadov russkimi svyatitelyami” [St. John Chrysostom on the royal power and the perception of his views by Russian saints], in Zlatoustovskie chteniya: Sbornik dokladov istoriko-bogoslovskoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii [Chrysostomic lectures: collection of papers of scientifi c conference]. Moscow, pp. 25–32 (in Russian).
4. Dagron G. (1996) Empereur et prêtre. Étude sur le «césaropapisme» byzantine. Paris (Russian translation 2010).
5. Dvornik F. (1956) “Byzantine Political Ideas in Kievan Russia”. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 1956, vol. 9/10, pp. 73–121.
6. Dvornik F. (1951) “Pope Gelasius and Emperor Anastasius I”. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 1951, vol., 44, issue 1–2, pp. 111–116.
7. Farina R. (2001) “La concezione della pace nel IV secolo. Costantino il Grande ed Eusebio di Cesarea”, in Chiesa e impero: Da Augusto a Giustiniano. Roma, pp. 185–195.
8. Fried J. (2007) «Donation of Constantine» and «Constitutum Constantini»: The Misinterpretation of a Fiction and Its Original Meaning. New York.
9. Gracianskij M. V. (2019) “Istoricheskij i idejnyj kontekst poslaniya papy Gelasiya I «Famuli vestrae pietatis»” [The historical and ideological context of the message of Pope Gelasius I «Famuli vestrae pietatis»]. Vizantijskij vremennik, 2019, vol.103, pp. 85–112 (in Russian).
10. Gracianskij M. V. “Haeres Petri sive vicarius Petri: obosnovanie isklyuchitel’nykh vlastnykh prerogativ rimskogo episkopa papoj L’vom Velikim” [Haeres Petri sive vicarius Petri: the justification of the exclusive power prerogatives of the Roman bishop by Pope Leo the Great]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II, vol. 26, pp. 27–48 (in Russian).
11. Karagiannopoulos I. E. (1992) I politiki theoria ton vizantinon [The political theory of Byzantines]. Thessaloniki (in Greek).
12. Korolev A. A. (2015) “Konstantinov dar” [Donation of Constantine], in Pravoslavnaya ehntsiklopediya [Orthodox encyclopedia], vol. 37. Moscow, pp. 119–131 (in Russian).
13. Maksimovich K. A. (2011) “K interpretacii ponyatiya cerkovno-gosudarstvennoj simfonii v VI novelle Yustiniana” [On the interpretation of the concept of church-state symphony in Justinian’s VI novel], in XXI Ezhegodnaya konferenciya PSTGU. T. 1 [XXI Annual theological conference of PSTGU, vol. 1]. Moscow, pp. 151–154 (in Russian).
14. Maff ei D. (1964) La donazione di Costantino nei giuristi medievali. Milano.
15. Maff ei D. (1997) “The Forged Donation of Constantine in Medieval and Early Modern Legal Thought”. Fundamina, 1997, vol. 3, pp. 1–23.
16. Medvedev I. P. (2001) Pravovaya kul’tura Vizantij skoj imperii [Legal culture of the Byzantine Empire]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
17. Meyendorff J. (1982) The Byzantine legacy in the Orthodox Church. Crestwood (Russian translation 2007).
18. Runciman S. (1977) The Byzantine Theocracy. London (Russian translation 1998).
19. Schminck A. (1986) Studien zu mittelbyzantinischen Rechtsbüchern. Frankfurt am Main.
20. Simon D. (1994) “Legislation as Both a World Order and a Legal Order”, in Law and Society in Byzantium: Ninth-Twelfth Centuries. Washington, pp. 1–26.
21. Ullman W. (1970) The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: a study in the ideological relation of clerical to lay power. New York.
22. Zakharov G. E. (2018) “Tserkovno-politicheskaia pozitsiia rimskikh episkopov v arianskikh sporakh IV v.” [The political position of the Roman bishops in the Arian controversy of the 4th century]. Vestnik drevnei istorii, 78/1, p. 41–51 (in Russian).

Bezhanidze Georgy

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

The article discusses the motives of Emperor Justinian to form the supermetropolitan authority of the fi ve patriarchs. In the 4th — 6th centuries when this highest level of church power was gradually forming, there was no “organic metaphysics” of the five major sees; accordingly, the author of the article points at the relativism of the use of the term “pentarchy” for the early Byzantine period of church history. This idea is confirmed by the attitude of Justinian to the most prominent sees; the number of incumbents he addresses his constitutions to changes from one to fi ve, while four of them presided over the Ecumenical Council. The emperor’s rule-making and administrative methods towards the major sees cannot be explained by the seeming aimlessness of his ecclesiastical policy. Justinian is aware of the actual structure of the imperial Church that had already developed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. In addition, he avoids obvious blunders of his predecessors Zeno and Anastasius, who tried to make the Church agree on compromise with anti-Chalcedonites by means of extending infl uence over a single patriarch, while separating him from his bishops and other patriarchs. Justinian learns from previous experience of Emperor Leo I and, probably, of Pope Felix III who considered the model of a one-time, “horizontal” consensus of catholic bishops to be essential for reaching an agreement in the whole Church. On the contrary, Justinian could also be infl uenced by the idea of Pope Gelasius, who denies the need for such a consensus, thus the following constitutions of Justinian established equality of the five patriarchal thrones. The author of the article also pays attention to Justinian’s ideas on the exceptional nature of his law-making powers that made him feel free to form the church government of superior rank.

pentarchy, Emperor Justinian I, patriarchates, Council of Chalcedon, See of Rome, ecclesiology, imperial legislation on the Church

1. Barmin A. V. (2018) “Nikita Seid”, in Pravoslavnaya Enziklopediya, 49, pp. 564–568 (in Russian).
2. Barmin A. V. (2019) “Petr III, Patriarkh Antiochiyskii” [Petros III, Patriarch of Antioch], in Pravoslavnaya Enziklopediia, 2019, 55, pp. 694–697 (in Russian).
3. Baus K., Beck H.-G., Ewig E., Vogt H. J. (1982) Die Kirche in Ost und West von Chalkedon bis zum Frühmittelalter (451–700). Freiburg, Basel, Wien.
4. Beck H.-G. (1980) Geschichte der orthodoxen Kirche im byzantinischen Reich. Göttingen.
5. Blaudeau Ph. (2019) “Entre tradition et innovation ecclésiologique. L’idée pentarchique de Justinien” in Theologie zwischen Tradition und Innovation / La théologie entre tradition et innovation. Fribourg, pp. 61–74.
6. Bondatch A. G. “Pentarchiia I Moskovskii patriarkhat” [Pentarchy and the Patriarchate of Moscow] (https://bogoslov.ru/article/1881917#_ftn1 (18.10.2020)).
7. Chrysos E. (1969) “I ekkliastiki politiki tu Justinianu kata tin erin peri ta tria kefalaia ke tin 5 Ikumenikin Sinodon” [Justinian’s ecclesiastical policy during the «Three Chapters» controversy and the fifth Ecumenical Council], in Analekta Vlatadon, vol. 3, Thessaloniki (in Greek).
8. De Halleux A. “L’institution patriarcale et la pentarchie. Un point de vue orthodoxe”. Revue théologique de Louvain (3e Année), 1972, vol. 2, pp. 177–199.
9. Gahbauer F. (1993) Die Pentarchietheorie. Frankfurt-am-Main. Joannou P.-P. “La législation impériale et la christianisation de l’empire romain (311–476)”. Orientalia christiana analecta, 1972, vol. 192.
10. Feidas B. (2002) Ekkliastiki istoria [Church history], vol. 1, Athens.
11. Feidas B. (1969) O thesmos tis pentarkhias ton patriarkhon. Proipothesis diamorfoseos tu thesmu (ap arkhis mekhri to 451) [The institution of the pentarchy of the patriarchs. Prerequisites of the formation of the institution (from the beginning to 451 A.D.]. Athens (in Greek).
12. Feidas B. (1977) O thesmos tis pentarkhias ton patriarkhon. Istorikokanonika provlimata peri tin liturgian tu thesmu [The institution of the pentarchy of the patriarchs. Historico-canonical problems related to the functioning of this institution]. Athens (in Greek).
13. Gratsianskiy M. V. (2016) Imperator Justinian Velikii i nasledie Chalkidonskogo Sobora [Emperor Justinian the Great and the legacy of the Council of Chalcedon]. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Gratsianskiy M. V. “Papa Gelasii I (492–496) i ego ekklesiologicheskie vozzreniya” [Pope Gelasius I (492–496) and his ecclesiological views]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I, vol. 65, pp. 25–41 (in Russian). doi: 10.15382/sturI201665.25-41
15. Gratsianskiy M. V. (2015) “Prichiny I obstoiatel’stva nachala «Akakianskoi skhizmy» (484 g.)” [Cause and Circumstances of the Beginning of the «Acacian Schism» (A.D. 484)] in Iresiona. Antichnyi mir I ego nasledie, vol. 4, pp. 188–200 (in Russian).
16. Maksimovich K. A. (2018) “Nil Doksopatr” [Neilos Doxopatros], in Pravoslavnaya Enziklopediia, vol. 51, pp. 166–167 (in Russian).
17. Meier M. (2003) Das andere Zeitalter Justinians. Kontingenzerfahrung und Kontingenzbewältigung im 6. Jahrhundert n. Göttingen.
18. Morini E. (2003) “Roma e la pentarchia dei patriarchi nella percezione dell’oriente greco tardoantico e medioevale”, in Forme storiche di governo nella Chiesa universale. Giornata di studio in occasione dell’ultima lezione del prof. Giuseppe Alberigo (a cura di Paolo Prodi). Bologna, pp. 27–41.
19. Schwartz E. (1960) “Zur Geschichte der alten Kirche und ihres Rechts” in Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 4, Berlin.
20. Schwartz E. (1934) “Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma” in Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Abteilung. Neue Folge, vol. 10, München.
21. Sieben H. J. (1979) “Die Konzilsidee der Alten Kirche”, in Brandmüller W. (ed.). Konziliengeschichte. Reihe B: Untersuchungen. Padeborn, München, Wien, Zürich.
22. Sil’vestrova E. (2007) Lex generalis. Imperatorskaya konstitutsiia v sisteme istochnikov greko-rimskogo prava V–X vv. n.e. [Lex generalis. An imperial constitution and the system of sources of Roman law in the 5th –10th centuries A.D.]. Moscow (in Russian).
23. Troianos S. (1964) I ekkliastiki dikonomia mekhri tu thanatu tu Justinianu [Ecclesiastical proceedings in the period up to the death of Justinian]. Athens (in Greek).
24. Troianos S. (1971) “Die Sonderstellung des Kaisers im früh- und mittelbyzantinischen kirchlichen Prozess”, in Byzantina, vol. 3, Thessaloniki, pp. 69-80.
25. Troianos S. (1991) “Nomos und Kanon in Byzanz” in Kanon: Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für das Recht der Ostkirchen, vol. 10, Wien, pp. 37-51.
26. Zakharov G. E. (2019) Vneshnyaya kommunikatsiya i bogoslovskaya traditsiya Rimskoi Tserkvi v ehpokhu arianskikh sporov [External communication and theological tradition of the Roman Church in the period of the Arian controversy]. Moscow (in Russian).
27. Zakharov G. E. “Poslanie Rimskogo sobora Confi dimus quidem v kontekste vzaimootnoshenii Tserkvei Zapada i Vostoka v 70-e gg. IV v.” [The Roman synodal letter Confi dimus quidem in the context of relations between the churches of East and West (370–379)]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II, vol. 71, pp. 7–20 (in Russian).

Pashkov Dmitry, archpriest

The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor is known for its chronology. Theophanes dates all events in accordance with the years of ministry of the Pope and the four patriarchs. All these fi ve bishops are called «ecumenical» in preamble of the chronicle. These data make us to look for additional information about the five patriarchs in the writing. The title «ecumenical» is never used by Theophanes in relation to the Patriarch of Constantinople. The only exception is the elevation of Constantine to this see in 754. New patriarch is named «ecumenical» by iconoclast emperor. Theophanes speaks of all fi ve thrones as catholic. He means not so much the patriarchs themselves as the churches they lead. Theophanes objects to the application of the title «patriarch» to bishop of Thessalonica. Three observations can be made regarding the order of the patriarchal sees. First, the titles of the annual articles have names of Jerusalem patriarchs in third place, not the Alexandrian. Secondly, when describing the Ecumenical Councils, the chronicler, on the one hand, insists on the presidency of «catholic thrones» even in contradiction with the original sources of his chronicle, and on the other hand, he gives the names of the primates in an arbitrary order, in accordance with the requirement of the message plot. Third, St. Theophanes nevertheless does not ignore the problem of primacy: he says under 6042 from the creation of the world, that the name of the patriarch Mina was “shifted” and replaced in the first place with the name of Pope Vigilius. The Chronicler does not comment on this fact, but he probably retains Malala’s account showing that the order of the sees was often determined by a specifi c historical situation. The same can be said for the third place of Jerusalem in annual rubrics. Generally the system of the pentarchy of St. Theophanes is characterized by the complete equality of the patriarchal sees and the churches they head.

Pentarchy, Theophanes the Confessor, Chronography, chronicle, patriarch, ecumenical, primacy, pope, bishop, ecclesiology

1. Afi nogenov D. E. (1997) “Konstantinopolskii patriarkhat i ikonoborcheskii krizis v Vizantii” (784–847) [The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Afi nogenov D. E. (2013) «Mnogoslozhnyi svitok» — slaviianskii perevod poslaniiia trekh vostochnykh patriarkhov imperatoru Feofi lu [Mnogosložnyj Svitok: the Church Slavonic translation of the Letter of the Three Oriental Patriarchs to Emperor Theophilos], Bogoslovskie trudy, 2013, vol. 45, pp. 238–271 (in Russian).
3. Afi nogenov D. E. (2018) “Rasskaz ob osade Konstantinopolya v 717—718 g. v hronike Feofana Ispovednika: sredy redaktorskoj raboty” [The story of the siege of Constantinople (717—718) in the Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor]. Indoevropejskoe yazykoznanie i klassicheskaya filologiya, 2018, vol. 22-1, pp. 60–67 (in Russian).
4. Chichurov I. S. (2007) “Feofan Ispovednik — publikator, redaktor, avtor?” [Theophanes the Confessor — publisher, editor, author?], in Idem, Izbrannye Trudy [Selected Works]. Мoscow, pp. 181–194 (in Russian).
5. Chichurov I. S. (2007) “Mesto “Hronografi i” Feofana v rannevizantij skoj istoriografi cheskoj tradicii (IV — nachalo IX v.)” [The position of Theophanes’ Chronography in the early Byzantine historiographic tradition (IV — early IX centuries)], in Idem, Izbrannye Trudy [Selected Works]. Мoscow, pp. 9–156 (in Russian).
6. Chichurov I. S. (1980) Vizantij skie istoricheskie sochineniya: «Hronografi ya» Feofana, «Breviarij» Nikifora [Byzantine historical works: «Chronography» of Theophanes, «Breviarium» of Nicephorus]. Мoscow, (In Russian).
7. Gahbauer F. R. (1993) Die Pentarchietheorie. Ein Modell der Kirchenleitung von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Frankfurt am Main [Frankfurter theologische Studien, Bd. 42].
8. Gratsianskiy M. V. (2019) “Chetvertyj Vselenskij Sobor i problema pervenstva Rimskogo episkopa” [The Fourth Ecumenical Council and the Issue of the Bishop of Rome]. Vestnik Volgogradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Seriya 4. Istoriya. Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2019, vol. 24, n. 6, pp. 255–271 (in Russian).
9. Kuzenkov P. V. (2020) “Ponimanie «vselenskosti» v pravoslavnoj tradicii” [Conception of «universality» in the Orthodox tradition], in Prichiny i vyzovy tekushchego krizisa mezhpravoslavnyh otnoshenij : Materialy nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii (PSTGU, 25–26 fevralya 2019 goda). Мoscow, pp. 97–114 (in Russian).
10. Kuzenkov P. V. (2012) “O proiskhozhdenii aleksandrij skoj ery: (Po povodu novoj knigi A. Mosskhammera)” [The origin of the Alexandrian era: (On the new book by A. Mosshammer)], in ΘΕΟΔΟΥΛΟΣ. Sbornik pamyati prof. I. S. Chichurova. Мoscow, pp. 116–170 (in Russian).
11. Kuzenkov P. V. (2007) “Spory o vozraste mira v Vizantii VII-XI vv. (o trekh mirovyh erah: aleksandrijskoj, «protovizantij skoj» i vizantij skoj” [Arguments on the age of the world in Byzantium of the 7th–11th centuries: on the three world eras: Alexandrine, «Protobyzantine» and Byzantine]. Vizantijskij vremennik, vol. 66 (91), pp. 93‒124 (in Russian).
12. Kompa A. (2015) “In search of Syncellus’ and Theophanes’ own words: the authorship of the Chronographia revisited”, in M. Jankowiak, F. Montinaro (eds.) Studies in Theophanes. Paris [Travaux et mémoires 19], pp. 73–93.
13. Lilie R. (Hrsg.) (1999) Die Patriarchen der ikonoklastischen Zeit: Germanos I. — Methodios I. (715—847) Frankfurt am Main; Berlin; Bern; New York; Paris; Wien [Berliner byzantinistische Studien, bd. 5].
14. Mango C. (1978) “Who wrote the Chronicle of Theophanes?” Zborknik Radova Vizantinoškog Instituta, 1978, XVIII, pp. 9–17.
15. Mango C., R. Scott, (eds.) (1997) The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284–813. Oxford.
16. Queenan A. (1967) “The Pentarchy: Its Origin and Initial Development”, Diakonia, 1967, n. 2, pp. 338–351.
17. Turlej S. (2016) Justiniana Prima. An underestimated aspect of Justinian’s church policy”. Kraków [=Jagiellonian studies in history, vol. 7].
18. Turtledove H. (ed.) (1982) The Chronicle of Theophanes. An English translation of anni mundi 6095—6305 (A. D. 602—813). Philadelphia.
19. Uspenskij K. N. (1950, 1951) “Ocherki po istorii ikonoborcheskogo dvizheniya v Vizantij skoj imperii VIII–IX vv.: Feofan i ego Hronografi ya” [Essays on the history of the iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire of the 8th–9th centuries: Theophanes and his Chronography]. Vizantijskij Vremennik, 1950–1951, vol. 3, 4, pp. 396–439; pp. 211–263 (in Russian).
20. Zuckerman C. (2015) “Theophanes the Confessor and Theophanes the Chronicler or A story of square brackets”, in M. Jankowiak, F. Montinaro (eds) Studies in Theophanes. Paris [Travaux et mémoires 19], pp. 31–53.

Izotova 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.

The Council of the Uniate Church held in the Polish city of Zamość in 1720 can be considered as an important milestone in the process of confessional identity formation of this church. Published by the decision of the Council in 1722 in the town Supraśl, the doctrinal compendium Sobranie pripadkov kratkoe (‘A short collection of cases’) was addressed to both the clergy and ordinary believers. This article undertakes for the first time a source analysis of Sobranie pripadkov, the authorship of which is traditionally attributed to Metropolitan Lev (Kiszka, 1633–1728). The relation of Sobranie pripadkov to two earlier works of the Metropolitan was analysed: the fi rst was published 1693 in Lublin in Polish, the second was a Cyrillic edition of ca. 1697, preserved in bad condition and without title page in the collection of the State Historical Museum (Moscow). As a result of the study, it was found out that the version of 1693 is an abstract presentation of the theological and canonical treatises of the Milanese Martino Bonacina (1585–1631). Material borrowed from Bonacina is expanded in the version ca. 1697 through instructive examples of Western origin and polemical theology of the Jesuit Bellarmino; and in the fi nal version of 1722 the material is supplemented by a number of fragments from the canon law treatises, quotations from theological and liturgical works. In its signifi cance, Sobranie pripadkov is comparable to the posttridental Roman Catechism (1566). Throughout the 18th century, the doctrinal compendium of the Council of Zamość was reprinted many times with various additions and changes; by the end of the century Sobranie pripadkov gains signifi cant circulation in parish practice.

Zamość Council, Unia Theology, Lev Kiszka, Sobranie pripadkov kratkoe (‘A short collection of cases’), Catholic theology, Martino Bonacina

1. Castronovo V. (1969) “Bonacina, Martino”, in Dizionario Biografi co degli Italiani, vol. II. Roma, pp. 466–468.
2. Kažuro I. (2019) Vilniaus bazilij onų vienuolyno spaustuvės veikla 1628–1839 m. Daktaro disertacija. Vilnius.
3. Korzo M. (2007) Ukrainskaia i belorusskaia katekheticheskaia traditsiia kontsa XVI — XVIII vv.: stanovlenie, evoliutsiia i problema zaimstvovanii [Ukrainian and Belorus’ Catechetical Tradition, the 16th — 18th Centuries: Formation, Evolution and Problem of Borrowings]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Senyk S. (1990) “The Ukrainian Church and Latinization”. Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 56 (1), pp. 165–187.
5. Skochyljas I. (1999) “Protokoly general’nyh vizytacij cerkov Kyi’vs’koi’ uniats’koi’ mytropolii’ XVIII stolittja (na prykladi nedatovanoi’ jepyskops’koi’ revizii’ Shhyrec’kogo namisnyctva)” [Protocols of General Visitations of Churches of the Kyiv Uniate Metropolitanate of the 18th Century (On the Example of an undated Episcopal Audit of the Shchyrets Governorate)]. Zapysky Naukovogo tovarystva im. Shevchenka, 238, pp. 434−514 (in Ukrainian).
6. Sutorius K. V. (2018) “Nravstvennoe bogoslovie v Kievo-Mogilianskoi akademii po materialam rukopisnykh istochnikov” [Moral Theology in the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy based on Manuscript Sources]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Istoriia, 63 (1), pp. 5–28 (in Russian).
7. Touati F.-O. (2000) “Contagion and Leprosy: Myth, Ideas and Evolution in Medieval Minds and Societies”, in L. I. Conrad, D. Wujastyk (eds) Contagion: Perspectives from Pre-Modern Society. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 179–202.

Korzo Margarita

*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 devoted to the study of a general and topical problem in the history of Russian universities, namely professors’ mobility, i.e. relocation of professors between universities of the Russian Empire in the course of their academic careers. This process has been studied throughout the entire existence of the system of Russian universities up to 1914. The spatial scope of the work includes all universities of the Russian Empire subordinated to the Ministry of Public Education and subject to similar legislation, which provides a unifi ed view of them as a university system. For the most complete and detailed study of mobility, on the basis of a complete prosopographic database of Russian professors, an auxiliary database was compiled, which collected information about those of them who moved from one university to another. Data on 522 such professorial transitions are analyzed using graphs and tables. The general dynamics of the process was revealed, which made it possible to prove that in the late XIX — early XX centuries. mobility was an essential and very common phenomenon for the career of a university professor in Russia. Shown is the role that mobility played when privat-docents received free professorial positions. The reverse process was also discovered, when professors moved to another university for the position of privatdocent, compensating for the loss of status with other capabilities of the scientifi c and educational system. The distribution of transitions between specifi c universities was also constructed, pairs were identifi ed between which these transitions were especially frequent, universities were revealed where the number of professors who left from there was the most high, and, on the contrary, universities, where a signifi cant number of scientists moved to. Chains of transitions were also considered, which could reach up to three or four subsequent transfers between universities. Based on this analysis, a conclusion was made about the presence of several types — «starting», «transferring» and «terminal» universities in the Russian Empire. The average duration of a professor’s position before transferring to another university was calculated; Based on its general distribution, various groups of reasons are shown that stimulated both young and age scientists to change their place.

Russian universities, professors, academic mobility, transitions, databases, prosopography, dynamics

1. Andreev A. (2005) “«Natsional’naia model’» universitetskogo obrazovaniia: vozniknovenie i razvitie (chast’ 2)” [“National model” of university education: emergence and development (part 2)]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii, 2, p. 110–119 (in Russian).
2. Andreev A. (2009) Rossiiskie universitety XVIII — pervoj poloviny XIX veka v kontekste universitetskoj istorii Evropy [Russian universities of the 18th — first half of the 19th centuries in the context of European university history]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Andreev A., Posokhov S. (eds) (2012) Universitet v Rossiiskoi imperii XVIII — pervoi poloviny XIX veka [University in the Russian Empire of the 18th — fi rst half of the 19th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Baumgarten M. (2001) Professoren- und Universitätsprofi le im Hubboldt’schen Modell 1810–1914, in Schwinges R. (ed.) Humboldt International. Der Export des deutschen Universitätsmodells im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Basel, p. 105–129 (in German).
5. Gribovskii M. (2019) “Dorevoliutsionnyi rossiiskii universitet v sovremennoi istoriografi i” [Prerevolutionary Russian University in modern historiography]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Istoriia, 64, 1, p. 192–210 (in Russian).
6. Eimontova R. (1985) Russkie universitety na grani dvukh epoch [Russian universities on the verge of two eras]. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Eimontova R. (1993) Russkie universitety na putiakh reformy: Shestidesiatye gody XIX veka [Russian universities on the way of reform: the sixties of the 19th century]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Ivanov A. (1991) Vysshaia shkola Rossii v kontse XIX — nachale XX veka [Higher school of Russia in the late 19th — early 20th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Ivanov A. (2016) Uchenoe dostoinstvo Rossij skoj imperii. XVIII — nachalo XX veka. Podgotovka i nauchnaia attestatsiia professorov i prepodavatelei vysshei shkoly [Scientific merit of the Russian Empire. 18th — early 20th centuries. Training and scientific certification of professors and teachers of higher education]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Ivanova E. (2014) “Chto mozhet dat’ edinaia baza dannykh po professure dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii issledovateliam akademicheskoi mobil’nosti” [What can a unifi ed database on professorship of pre-revolutionary Russia give to researchers of academic mobility], in Demin M. (ed.) Sotsiologiia v deistvii — 2014. Izbrannye materialy VI sotsiologicheskoi mezhvuzovskoi konferentsii studentov i aspirantov. St.-Petersburg, p. 131–141 (in Russian).
11. Ivanova E. (2015) “Popytka postroeniia kauzal’noi modeli kadrovoi dinamiki professorskoprepodavatel’skogo sostava dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii” [An attempt to build a causal model of personnel dynamics for the teaching staff of pre-revolutionary Russia], in Demin M. (ed.) Sotsiologiia v deistvii — 2015. Izbrannye materialy VII sotsiologicheskoj mezhvuzovskoj konferentsii studentov i aspirantov. St.-Petesburg, pp. 118–136 (in Russian).
12. Kostina T., Kupriianov A. (2016) “Growth or stagnation? Historical dynamics of the growth patterns of University of Dorpat (1803–1884)”. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Istoriia, 3, pp. 31–45 (in English).
13. Kostina T., Kupriianov A. (2017) “Kadrovaia politika popechitelei Kazanskogo uchebnogo okruga i dinamika vozrastnogo sostava professorov Kazanskogo universiteta v 1804–1884 gg.” [Personnel policy of superintendents of Kazan educational district and dynamics of age structure of Kazan University professors in 1804-1884]. Uchenye zapiski Kazanskogo universiteta. Ser. Gumanitarnye nauki, 159, 4, pp.925–941 (in Russian).
14. Kupriianov A. (2017) “Ot prosopografii universitetskoi professury do tsifrovogo sleda fi losofskogo parokhoda: «Srednie dannye» i formal’nye podkhody v istorii nauki” [From prosopography of university professors to the digital footprint of a philosophical steamer: «Average data» and formal approaches in the history of science] Topos. Filosofsko-kul’turologicheskij zhurnal, 1–2, pp. 111–137 (in Russian).
15. Loskutova M. V. “Geografi cheskaia mobil’nost’ professorov i prepodavatelej rossij skikh universitetov vtoroj poloviny XIX v.: problemy i predvaritel’nye rezul’taty issledovaniia” [Geographic mobility of professors and teachers of Russian universities in the second half of the 19th century: problems and preliminary results of the study], in Andreev A., Doronin A. (eds) «Byt’ russkim po dukhu i evropeitsem po obrazovaniiu». Universitety Rossij skoi imperii v obrazovatel’nom prostranstve Tsentral’noi i Vostochnoi Evropy XVIII — nachala XX v. Moscow, pp. 183–221 (in Russian).
16. Maurer T. (1998) Hochschullehrer im Zarenreich. Ein Beitrag zur russischen Sozial- und Bildungsgeschichte. Köln/Weimar/Wien (in German).
17. Maurer T. (2015) «Barometry» ili «maiaki» obshchestva? Izbrannye stat’i po sotsial’noi istorii russkikh i nemetskikh universitetov [«Barometers» or «Beacons» of Society? Selected articles on the social history of Russian and German universities]. Moscow (in Russian).
18. Petrov F.A. (2003) Formirovanie sistemy universitetskogo obrazovaniia v Rossii [Formation of the system of university education in Russia]. Moscow, vol.1–4 (in Russian).
19. Piskunov I. (2014) “Pravovoe polozhenie rossij skikh privat-dotsentov (1803–1884)” [Legal status of Russian privat-docents (1803-1884)]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Ser. Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 59, pp. 98–116 (in Russian).
20. Posokhov S. (2014) Universitet i gorod v Rossij skoi imperii. Vtoraia polovina XVIII — pervaia polovina XIX veka [University and city in the Russian Empire. Second half of the 18th — fi rst half of the 19th century]. Khar’kov (in Russian).
21. Rostovtsev E., Barinov D., Sidorchuk I. (2019) “Krizis 1911 goda v provintsial’nykh universitetakh” [Crisis of 1911 in the provincial universities]. Bylye gody. Rossijskij istoricheskij zhurnal, 54, pp. 1877–1886 (in Russian).
22. Rostovtsev E. (2012) “1911 god v zhizni universitetskoj korporatsii (vlast’ i Sankt-Peterburgskij universitet)” [1911 in the life of a university corporation (Government and St. Petersburg University)], in Dvornichenko A. (ed.) Kafedra istorii Rossii i sovremennaia otechestvennaia istoricheskaia nauka. St.-Petersburg, pp. 473–507 (in Russian).
23. Rostovtsev E. (2017) Stolichnyi universitet Rossij skoj imperii: uchenoe soslovie, obshchestvo i vlast’ (vtoraia polovina XIX — nachalo XX veka) [Capital University of the Russian Empire: Academic Estate, Society and Power (second half of the 19th — early 20th centuries)]. Moscow (in Russian).
24. Shchetinina G. (1976) Universitety v Rossii i Ustav 1884 goda [Universities in Russia and the Statute 1884]. Moscow (in Russian).
25. Tsygankov D.A. (2010) Professor V.I. Ger’e i ego ucheniki [Professor V.I. Guerrier and his students]. Moscow (in Russian).
26. Tsygankov D. A. (2019) “Robert Vipper i soobshchestvo moskovskikh istorikov v predrevoliutsionnuiu epokhu” [Robert Wipper and the community of Moscow historians in the pre-revolutionary era]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Istoriia, 64, 1, pp. 222–234.

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.

Based on the analysis of the periodicals of Orel guberniya of the early 20th century, as well as information on the public utterances of provincial public fi gures on the Church question in the pre-revolutionary period, the author reconstructs the process of formation of Renovationist schism among the liberal nobility and clergy of the province of Orel, trying to explain the presence of succession between the supporters of the reform of the Church in diff erent periods. The author also traces the emergence of ideas of Christian socialism in the province, which later became central to Soviet Renovationism. The study of the genesis of these ideas in the province during the period from the First Russian revolution to the February revolution makes it possible to understand the connection between religious and political factors in this dramatic period. When describing the events known to historians of the “Church revolution” of 1917 in Orel guberniya, the article draws on a unique material of personal origin, i.e. a detailed description of these events by one of the priests who was a participant and witness. The author of the article formulates his view on the processes of using the ideas of reforming the Church by various political parties from the Cadets to the Bolsheviks, finds a point of convergence of interests of those who fought for political power, and those who, being a certain stratum of the regional clergy, expressed their readiness to ensure the interests of the existing power, quickly changing their “patrons” if necessary. Moreover, attention is drawn to the facts of a rapid and radical change in the political position of certain representatives of Orel priesthood precisely during the implementation of serious revolutionary changes in the Russian state. The author was able to identify these names, specify them in the article and establish the diff erences between the schismatic element and those who really cared about the welfare of the Church.

A. A. Stakhovich, Cadets, Church Renovationism, Orel Guberniya, Christian socialism, revolution of 1905–1907, February Revolution, Church schism, Bishop Makarii (Gnevushev)

1. Aronov D. (2013) “Pravovoe nasledie liberalnoi iusprudentsii Rossii kontsa XIX — nachala XX v. Problemy i perspektivy ispolzovaniia nasovremennom ėtape razvitiia rossiiskoi gosudarstvennosti” [Legacy of liberal jurisprudence in Russia of the late 19th — early 20th centuries. Problems and prospects of use at the modern stage of development of the Russian state]. Izvestiia vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Povolzhskiĭ region. Obshchestvennye nauki, 1 (25), p. 13–17 (in Russian).
2. Balakshina Iu. (2015) Bratstvo revnitelei tserkovnogo obnovleniia (gruppa «32-kh» peterburgskikh sviashchennikov), 1903–1907 [Brotherhood of zealots of Church renewal (a group of “32” St. Petersburg priests), 1903–1907]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Bendin A. (2010) “Svoboda sovesti ili veroterpimost?: polemika v Rossiiskoi pechati (nachalo XX veka)” [Freedom of conscience or religious tolerance?: Polemics in the Russian press (the beginning of the 20th century)]. Novyi istoricheskii vestnik, 24, p. 5–14 (in Russian).
4. Briantsev M. (2017) “Formirovanie komitetov obshchestvennoi bezopasnosti v Orlovskoĭ gubernii v marte 1917 g.” [Formation of public security committees in Orel Guberniya in March 1917], in Pravo i gosudarstvo: problemy metodologii, teorii i istorii. Materialy VI Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii [Law and state: problems of methodology, theory and history. Materials of the 6th all-Russian scientifi c and practical conference], p. 3–8. Krasnodar (in Russian).
5. Firsov S. (2002) Russkaia tserkov nakanune peremen: Konets 1890–1918 gg.) [Russian Church on the eve of changes: Late 1890s — 1918)]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Friz G. (2019) “«Votserkovlenie» 1917 goda: tserkovnyi krizis i prikhodskaia revoliutsiia” [“Votserkovlenie” 1917: ecclesiastical crisis and parish revolution]. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov v Rossii i za rubezhom, 1–2, p. 30–57 (in Russian).
7. Ivanov V. (2009) Neizvestnyi Polikarpov [Unknown Polikarpov]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Kabytov P. (2011) “P. A. Stolypin i treteiiunskaia monarkhia” [P. A. Stolypin and the 3-June monarchy]. Izvestiia Samarskogo nauchnogo tsentra Rossiiskoi akademii nauk, 13, 3 (2), p. 386–390 (in Russian).
9. Kurbenkov V., Kulazhnikov V. (2014) “Khristianstvo i sotsializm v kontse ХIХ i nachale ХХ vekov v kontekste kritiki sotsialisticheskoi ideologii” [Christianity and socialism in the late ХIХ and early ХХ centuries in the context of criticism of socialist ideology]. Nauka i sovremennost, 1 (1), p. 52–59 (in Russian).
10. Lobanov V. (2019) “«Obnovlencheskii» raskol v Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi (1922–1946 gg.)” [“Renovationist” schism in the Russian Orthodox Church (1922–1946)]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
11. Matveeva E. (2014) Osobennosti tserkovnogo sudoproizvodstva v Rossii vo II polovine ХIХ veka (na materialakh Orlovskoi eparkhii) [Features of Church legal proceedings in Russia in the second half of the XIX century (on the materials of Oryol diocese)]. Iuridicheskie zapiski, 1, p. 143–152 (in Russian).
12. Orekhanov G., priest (2002) Na puti k Soboru. Tserkovnye reformy i pervaia russkaia revoliutsiia [On the way to the Council. Church reforms and the fi rst Russian revolution]. Moscow (in Russian).
13. Rogoznyi P. (2008) Tserkovnaia revoliutsiia 1917 goda [Church revolution of 1917]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
14. Shakhmalov Sh. (2010) “Osobennosti ideino-politicheskikh i programmnykh ustanovok kadetov” [Peculiarities of the ideological and political and policies of the cadets]. Vlast, 11, pp. 81–84 (in Russian).
15. Shkarovskii M. (1999) Obnovlencheskoe dvizhenie v Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi XX veka [The Renovationist movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the XX century]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
16. Stepanova E. (2010) “Klir i miriane na prikhode RPTs v nachale ХХ veka (po materialam «Otzyvov eparchial’nykh arkhiereev po voprosu o tserkovnoĭ reforme»)” [Clergy and laity in the parish of the Russian Orthodox Church in the early twentieth century (based on the materials of «Reviews of diocesan bishops on the issue of Church reform»)] Svet Khristov prosveshchaet vsekh: Almanakh Sviato-Filaretovskogo pravoslavno-khristianskogo instituta, 2, p. 69–81 (in Russian).
17. Titlinov B. (1923) Novaia Tserkov [New Church]. Petrograd; Moscow (in Russian).
18. Titlinov B. (1926) Smysl obnovlencheskogo dvizheniia v istorii [The meaning of the renewal movement in history]. Samara (in Russian).
19. Vorontsova I. (2018) “Sviashchennik G. S. Petrov i ego «delo»: protsess nad tserkovnym publitsistom 1906–1907 gg.” [Priest G. S. Petrov and his «case»: the trial of a Church publicist 1906–1907]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 85, р. 11–29 (in Russian).
20. Vostrikova V. (2010) “Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Stakhovich: «…dlia nas khorosh tolko put legalnyi»” [Alexander Alexandrovich Stakhovich: “...for us, only the legal path is good”], in Kara-Murza A. (ed.) Orlovskie liberaly: liudi, sobytiia, epokha [Orel liberals: people, events, epoch], p. 80–89. Orel (in Russian).

Balyko Timofey

Professor, priest Alexander Mazyrin

This article discusses the forms of resistance of believers that took place during the implementation of the Soviets government’s decree “On the separation of church and state, church and school” in 1918. The author of the article describes mass religious processions and armed clashes as a form of resistance to units of the Red Guard. It is necessary to abandon the stereotype of the feeble response to the Bolsheviks’ arbitrariness and armed violence that has developed in the church consciousness. The armed resistance of the clergy and believers was mostly local and led to casualties not only among believers, but also among representatives of the Soviet authorities. The article provides an example of an attempt of requisition of the property of a metochion of Belogorsk Monastery of St. Nicholas in Perm, which grew into an armed clash between the defenders of the metochion and the Red Guard in February 1918. This resistance was supported by Andronik (Nikolsky), bishop of Perm diocese. He called on the clergy and believers to defend churches, monasteries, and church property in every possible way. This confrontation led to the death of the Red Guard soldiers, parishioners and members of the Belogorsk brotherhood. The article restores this event into a complete story based on sources which are signifi cantly diff erent in value and degree of reliability, i.e. materials of the Soviet and White Guard press, as well as memoirs of the participants of the event. The question of justifi cation of extreme forms of church resistance from the moral-canonical point of view is debatable and requires a solution in the presentday church science.

Belogorsk Monastery, metochion, decree “On the separation of church and state, church and school”, Soviet authority, Perm Diocese

1. Curtiss J. C. (1953) The Russian Church and the Soviet State, 1917–1950. Boston (reprinted in 1965).
2. Damaskin (Orlovskiy), hieromonk (1993) Mucheniki, ispovedniki i podvizhniki blagochestiya Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi XX stoletiya [Martyrs, confessors and ascetics of Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century]. Tver (in Russian).
3. Dokumenty Sviashchennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918 gg. T.3. Protokoly Sviashchennogo sobora [Documents of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church, 1917–1998. Vol. 3. Protocols of the Holy Council]. Moscow, 2014 (in Russian).
4. Kashevarov A. (2005) Pravoslavnaia Rossiiskaia Tserkov’ i Sovetskoe gosudarstvo (1917–1922) [Orthodox Russian Church and Soviet State (1917–1922)]. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Leonov S. (2014) “Anti-Church terror during the October Revolution through the prism of historiography”. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2 (57).
6. Nechaev, M. (2004) Tserkov’ na Urale v period velikikh potriasenii (1917–1922) [Church in the Ural during the period of great tumult (1917–1922)]. Perm (in Russian).
7. Tsypin V., protopriest (2006) Istoriia Russkoi Tserkvi ХХ v. [History of the Russian Church of the 20th century]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Shkarovskii M. (1999) Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov’ pri Staline i Khrushcheve [Russian Orthodox Church during the times of Stalin and Khrushchev]. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Shkarovskii M. (2010) Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov’ v XX v. [Russian Orthodox Churh in the 20th century]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Vasil`eva O. (1993) “Russian Orthodox Church and Soviet authority in 1917–1927”. Voprosy istorii, 8, p. 40–45.

Marchenko Alexey, archpriest

*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.

The paper examines the phenomenon of “ecclesiastical Bolshevism”, i.e. a radical disruption of church order caused by the February Revolution of 1917. The term “ecclesiastical Bolshevism” refers to acts of insubordination of bishops, parish clergymen, monks and lay members of the Church to ecclesiastical authorities and their violating of canonical church discipline. The feature of the phenomenon was that the participants of inner church confl icts sought assistance from secular revolutionary authorities. The author points out the importance of documents from the Conference of Bishops and Judicial Commission of the Local Council of 1917–1918 for studying church confl icts on a diocesan scale. He analyses the activities of the special conciliar Commission designed to stop the disruptions of church order. The author concludes that the phenomenon of “ecclesiastical Bolshevism” was due to a number of reasons, the most important being the partial secularization of clergy and monastics and their loss of canon-law awareness. The external revolutionary factors became the catalyst for the critical tendencies already present in church life. The Local Council regarded “ecclesiastical Bolshevism” as a threat to the unity of the Church. The Episcopal Conference was considering the appeals of bishops deposed in the course of the “church revolution” from the very beginning of its work. The principal condemnation of “ecclesiastical Bolshevism” and the arrangements for countering it were defi ned in a special conciliar decree from April 6 (19), 1918.

Russian Orthodox Church, Local Council, revolution of 1917, “ecclesiastical Bolshevism”, orthodox clergy, monks, laity

1. Krapivin M. (2013) “Vsevolod Putyata v kontekste religioznoj politiki organov VChK (1918– 1919 gg.)” [“Vsevolod Putyata in the context of the religious policy of the VChK, 1918–1919”]. Vestnik tserkovnoi istorii, 1/2, p. 247–311 (in Russian).
2. Leont’ev P. (1998) “Revolyuciya v Cerkvi: s``ezdy` dukhovenstva i miryan v 1917 godu” [Revolution in the Church: congresses of clergy and laity in 1917]. In Cerkov` v istorii Rossii, 2, p. 214–248 (in Russian).
3. Rogoznyi P. (2008) Tserkovnaya revolyuciya 1917 goda (Vy`sshee dukhovenstvo Rossij skoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi v bor`be za vlast` v eparkhiyakh posle Fevral`skoj revolyucii) [Church Revolution of 1917 (higher clergy of the Russian Church in struggle for power in dioceses after the February Revolution)]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
4. Rogoznyi P. (2017) “Duhovenstvo protiv Cerkvi v 1917–1918 gg. (“Cerkovnyj bol’shevizm” i cerkovnye bol’sheviki)” [Clergy against the Church in 1917–1918 (“Ecclesiastical Bolshevism” and the Church by the Bolsheviks)], in Epoha vojn i revolyucij : 1914–1922: Materialy Mezhdunarodnogo kollokviuma (Sankt-Peterburg, 9–11 iyunya 2016 goda) [The epoch of wars and revolutions, 1914–1922: Proceedings of St Petersburg International Colloquium (June 9–11, 2016)]. St Petersburg, pp. 375–390 (in Russian).
5. Zavitnovskij I. (2001) “Cerkovnaya revolyuciya i cerkovnoe ukrainstvo 1917 goda” [Church Revolution and the Church Ukrainstvo of 1917 year]. Vestnik molodykh uchenykh. Seriya: Istoricheskie nauki, 2001, vol. 2 (5), pp. 15–31 (in Russian).

Kovyrzin Konstantin

*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 reconstructs the history of the Оrthodox Turkestan diocese in 1925–1929 in order to answer the following questions: why Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) decided to replace its ruling Bishop Luka (Voino-Yasenetsky), why Metropolitan Nikandr (Fenomenov) became the new Turkestan Bishop, and what gave this appointment to the faithful of Central Asia. Serious problems that arose in the management of the Turkestan diocese in 1925-1927 are comprehended in the article based on archival documents from the Fund of Metropolitan Nikandr (Fenomenov), stored in the Central State archive of the Republic of Uzbekistan, as well as on the basis of narrative sources (memoirs and letters). The crisis of legitimacy and legality of Church administration was common to the entire Russian Orthodox Church at that time, was caused by repressive policies and gross interference by soviet authorities in internal Church aff airs. This crisis was aggravated in Central Asia by many specifi c factors. Serious confl icts caused the interim administration of the Turkestan diocese in 1925 by Bishop Sergius (Lavrov), who sometimes evaded the schism, then returned to Patriarch Tikhon, and also the activities of Bishop Andrew (Ukhtomsky), who created a secret autocephalous hierarchy not only for his Ufa believers, but also for the Turkestan ones. Bishop Luke, returning from exile in early 1926, tried to restore Church unity by reconciling the warring parties, but did not succeed. In addition, there was a fierce confrontation between Bishop Luka and Archpriest Mikhail Andreev. Quarrels among the clergy, inappropriate actions and complaints of parishioners gave the Renovationists reasons to discredit the clergy of «Tikhon’s Church». Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) tried to correct the situation at the end of 1926 and beyond, but neither the ruling Bishop nor the Tashkent congregation recognized his appointments. Bishop Luke, continuing to be called Tashkent and Turkestan until the autumn of 1927, was in an uncertain state in relation to the highest Church leadership and the administration of his diocese. Then he resigned, remaining to live in Tashkent. After the Declaration of 1927 Bishop Luke was inclined to stop communicating with Metropolitan Sergius; рossibly it was the infl uence of Metropolitan Arseny (Stadnitsky). Therefore, in September 1927, Metropolitan Sergius once again decided to replace its ruling Bishop, in order not to lose the Turkestan diocese. Metropolitan Nikandr (Fenomenov) agreed to become one — being in Ashgabat after his second exile, he did not have the opportunity to follow the appointment to the Odessa Chair. After entering the administration of the Turkestan diocese, Metropolitan Nikandr served in the only orthodox St. Sergius church in Tashkent at that time. He faced the hostility of its parishioners, who continue to consider Bishop Luka the ruling Bishop. Gradually, Metropolitan Nikandr managed to reconcile the warring parties, restore the correct attitude of the clergy and parishioners to the local and higher Church authorities. He promote the registration of parishes, the number of which increased by a third under him.

The Russian Orthodox Church in Central Asia, the Declaration of 1927, the persecution of The Church in the Soviet Union, exiled clergy in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, Metropolitan Arseny (Stadnitsky), Metropolitan Nikandr (Fenomenov), Аrchbishop Luke (Voino-Yasenetsky), Аrchbishop Dionysius (Prozorovsky)

1. Beglov A. (2007) “Eparhii i episkopy Rossij skoj Cerkvi v 1927 godu, ili pochemu mitropolit Sergij (Stragorodskij ) stal peremeshchat’ eparhial’nyh preosvyashchennyh?” [Dioceses and bishops of the Russian Church in 1927, or why Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) began to move bishops?]. Al’fa i Omega, 2 (49), p. 169–189 (in Russian).
2. Fioletova N. (1992) “Istoriya odnoj zhizni” [History of one life]. Minuvshee, 9, p. 7–105 (in Russian).
3. Khodakovskaya O. (2016) «Kak melko, glupo to, chego ya domogalsya…» Vzlety i padeniya episkopa Sergiya (Lavrova) [“How small, stupid is what I was trying to achieve...” The ups and downs of Bishop Sergius (Lavrov)]. Vostok svyshe, 1–2 (XL), p. 13–24 (in Russian).
4. Mazyrin A., Kosik O. (eds) (2011) Alchushchie pravdy: materialy cerkovnoj polemiki 1927 goda [Hungry for truth: materials of the church polemics of 1927]. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Odintsov M. (2002) “Arsenij (Stadnickij ), mitropolit Tashkentskij i Turkestanskij (1862–1936 gg.). Biograficheskij ocherk” [Arseny (Stadnitsky), Metropolitan of Tashkent and Turkestan (1862–1936). Biographical sketch]. Cerkovno-istoricheskij vestnik, 9, pp. 109–145 (in Russian).
6. Shik E. (ed.) (2016) “Nepridumannye sud’by na fone ushedshego veka. Pis’ma M.V. Shika (svyashch. Mihaila) i N.D. Shahovskoj-Shik” [Non-fi ctional fates against the background of the past century. Letters of M. V. Shik (priest Mikhail) and N. D. Shakhovskaya-Shik]. Vol. 2. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Zimina N. (2004) “Vikarii Ufi mskoj eparhii 1920-h godov: svyashchennomuchenik Veniamin (Troickij ; 1901–1937)” [Vicars of the Ufa diocese of the 1920s: Hieromartyr Veniamin (Troitsky; 1901–1937)], in Ezhegodnaya bogoslovskaya konferenciya PSTBI [Annual theological conference of PSTBI: materials of 2004]. P. 323–349 Moscow (in Russian).
8. Zimina N. (2006) “Neparadnyi portret: Arkhiep. Dionisii (Prozorovskii) v dukhovnoi istorii Rossii KhKh v.” [Casual portrait: Archbishop Dionysius (Prozorovsky) in the spiritual history of Russia in the twentieth century]. Ural’skie Biriukovskie chteniia, 4, 2, p. 356–362 (in Russian).

Ozmitel Ekaterina

*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 publishes several reports on the exhortations of the parish priest of the village of Gryaznukha of Kazan Diocese, Vasily Yakovlevich Smelov, to his parishioners, who are accused of deviating from the Old Belief (Spasovo denomination). Texts of exhortations date to 1857 and 1858. In conditions when the transfer of Orthodox believers to other faiths was prohibited, the responsibility for the return of those who refused to go back to Orthodoxy was associated with parish priests and pious people, who were to exhort the accused. In this situation was V. Ya. Smelov. The spiritual consistory required from him regular reports on the results of exhortations. The logic of the parish priest’s exhortations with Old Believers is quite typical for polemic conversations. However, their content is unique, as V. Ya. Smelov, guided by the book tradition of Old Believers, tried to formulate polemic arguments of his own. In addition, the exhortation reports also refl ect certain religious views on the Orthodox parish and the Church of the Old Believers of Spasovo denomination, which is still poorly studied in historiography.

Old Believers, Spasovo denomination, V. Y. Smelov, Orthodox parish, polemics, apostasy, Kazan Diocese, exhortations, parish priests

1. Ageeva Elena A., Robson R. R., Smilianskaia Elena B. (1997) “Staroobriadtsy spasovtsy puti narodnogo bogosloviia i formy samosokhraneniia traditsionnykh-obshchestv v Rossii XX stoletiia” [Old Believers-spasovtsy: Ways of folk theology and forms of self-preservation of traditional societies in Russia in the 20th century]. Revue des Études Slaves, 69–1–2, p. 101–117 (in Russian).
2. Ageeva Elena A. (2011) “Staroobriadcheskii polemicheskii sbornik XIX v.: k voprosu o brake u staroobriadtsev vestnik” [Old Believers’ polemic collection of the XIX century: to the question of marriage of Old Believers]. Vestnik tserkovnoi istorii, 3–4 (23–24), pp. 191–218 (in Russian).
3. Firsov S. L. (2009) “ Pravoslavnoe gosudarstvo i russkie staroobryadtsy-popovtsy v epohu imperatora Nikolaya I” [Orthodox state and Russian Old Believers in the era of Emperor Nicholas I]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta, Ser. 6, 1, pp. 6 — 15 (in Russian). Gusarov Iu. Vasilii Iakovlevich Smelov, available at http://enc.cap.ru/?t=prsn&lnk=2665 (07.12.2019) (in Russian).
4. Kuzoro K. ( 2009) “Napravleniya issledovaniya staroobryadchestva v Sinodal’noj (cerkovnoj) istoriografi i poslednej treti XIX — nachala XX v.” [The directions of research of Old Believers in the Synodal (Church) historiography of the last third of XIX — beginning of XX centuries]. Vestnik Tomskogo universiteta, 320, p. 115–118 (in Russian).
5. Maltsev A. (2006) Staroobriadcheskie bespopovskie soglasiia v XVIII — nachale XIX: problemy vzaimootnoshenii [Old Believers’ Bespopovsky denominations in the 18th — early 19th centuries: problems of relations]. Novosibirsk (in Russian).
6. Marsden T. (2015) The crisis of Religious toleration in imperial Russia: Bibikov’s system for the Old Believers, 1841–1855. Oxford.
7. Nikanorov I. (2012) “Polemika v fedoseevskom soglasii v nachale XIX vekapo povodu sbornika «Otecheskoe zaveshchanie»” [A polemic in Fedoseyev’s denomination at the beginning ofthe 19th century about the collection “Otecheskoe zaveshchanie”]. Istoricheskii ezhegodnik, p. 56–63.
8. Tsapina O. (2014) «Smekha dostojnoe pozorishche»? Diskussiya o veroterpimosti i obraz staroobryadcev v Rossii epohi Prosvshcheniya [“A pitiful view that deserves laughter”? Discussion about tolerance and the image of Old Believers in Enlightenment Russia], in O vere i sueveriyah. Sbornik statej v chest’ E. B. Smilyanskoj. Moscow, pp. 207–256 (in Russian).

Astaviev 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.

Krestyaninov Artem

*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.