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

This article deals with the issue of institutionalisation of women’s ministries in the Early Church using a broad source base. The earliest organisation of women in Eastern and Western Christian communities was the order of widows which included elderly and only once married women who kept chastity. They did not receive special ordination, prayed for other women of the community, instructed them in the faith, visited sick women, received fi nancial support from the Church, and therefore occupied a lower degree in the clergy. From the 3rd — 4th centuries, the ministry of deaconesses was spreading widely in the Church, like the ministry of widows, which was due to the interaction of the male clergy and women in the Church. It is not known how the ministry of deaconesses came to replace the ministry of widows, but since the functions of both women’s institutions diff ered slightly, this issue should be considered insignifi cant. In the early Byzantine period (5th — 6th centuries), the status of deaconesses was equated to that of a subdeacons, highest for a woman who devoted herself to God. Deaconesses received ordination from the bishop, wore the diaconal orarion, but were excluded from the male clergy and did not perform any clerical functions like the dea conal ones.

deaconesses, widows, Early Church, women’s ministry, Church hierarchy, Church institutions

1. Back Chr. (2015) Die Witwen in der frühen Kirche. Frankfurt.
2. Bakonina S. (ed.) (2013) Sluzhenie zhenshhin v Tserkvi: Issledovania [The ministry of women in the church: Studies], Moscow (in Russian).
3. Bassler J. (1984) “The Widows’ Tale: a Fresh Look at 1 Tim 5: 3–16”. Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 103, pp. 23–41.
4. Bremmer J. (2017) Maidens, Magic and Martyrs in Early Christianity. Collected Essays I. Tübingen (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 379).
5. Colson J. (1960) La fonction diaconale aux origines de l’Église. Paris.
6. Daniélou J. (1974) The Ministry of Women in the Early Church. London.
7. Davies J. G. (1963) “Deacons, Deaconesses and the Minor Orders in the Patristic Period”. Journal of the Ecclesiastiсаl History. Саmbridge, 14, 1963, pp. 1–15.
8. Davies St. (1980) The Revolt of the Widows: The Social World of the Apocryphal Acts. Carbondale; London.
9. Delling G. (1931) Paulus’ Stellung zu Frau und Ehe. Stuttgart.
10. Eisen U. (2000) Women Officeholders in Early Christianity: Epigraphical and Literary Studies. Collegeville (MN).
11. Jones I., Thorpe K., Wootton J. (eds) (2008) Women and Ordination in the Christian Churches. International Perspectives. Norfolk.
12. Kähler E. (1960) Die Frau in den paulinischen Briefen. Zürich.
13. Kalsbach A. (1926) “Die altkirchliche Einrichtung der Diakonissen bis zu ihrem Erlöschen”. Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und für Kirchengeschichte, 22, 1926.
14. Leipoldt J. (1955) Die Frau in der antiken Welt und im Urchristentum. Leipzig.
15. MacDonald D. (1979) “Virgins, Widows, and Paul in Second Century Asia Minor”, in: P. Achtemeier (ed.), Society of Biblical Literature. Seminar Papers, vol. 1, pp. 169–184.
16. Macy G., Ditewig T. W., Zagano Ph. (2012) Women Deacons. Past, Present, Future. Mahwah (NJ).
17. Martimort G. (1986) Deaconesses: An Historical Study. San Francisco.
18. Posternak A. (ed.) (2015) Sluzhenie zhenshhin v Tserkvi: Istochniki [The ministry of women in the church: Historical sources], Moscow (in Russian).
19. Posternak A. (2020) “Status vdov v Pervom poslanii apostola Pavla k Timofeiu (1 Tim 5. 3–16)” [The status of widows in the First Epistle of Paul to Timothy (1 Tim 5. 3–16)]. Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, 1, 2020, pp. 13–36 (in Russian).
20. Rosambert A. (1923) La veuve en droit саnonique jusqu’au ХIV siècle. Paris.
21. Torjesen K. J. (1993) When Women Were Priests: Women’s Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of Their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity. San Francisco.
22. Troitskii S. (2013) “Tserkovnosluzhitel’nitsy v Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi” [Clergywomen in the Orthodox Church], in: Bakonina S. (ed.), Sluzhenie zhenshhin v Tserkvi: Issledovaniia [The ministry of women in the church: Studies], Moscow, pp. 25–156 (in Russian).
23. Zagano Ph. (ed.) (2016) Women Deacons? Essays with Answers. Collegeville (MT).
24. Zamfir K. (2013) Men and Women in the Household of God. A Contextual Approach to Roles and Ministries in the Pastoral Epistles. Göttingen (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus. Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 103).

Posternak Andrey, priest

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

The author is grateful to associate Professor G. E. Zakharov for providing a link to sources and General comments made on this article.

The question of the realisation of primacy in the ancient Church has been mainly studied from the point of view of the ecclesiological and politico-ecclesiastical foundations of this phenomenon. In this paper, the author approaches the problem of primacy from a different point of view and focuses on its functional content. In the author’s interpretation, primacy is an important instrument for the conversion of the diachronic unity of the Church, that is to say, of the permanent identity between the historical Church and the primitive apostolic community, into synchronic unity, realised in the communion of the members of the Church, with one another, and with Christ. The analysis of the patristic and conciliar texts of the Early Christian period gives us the possibility to distinguish fi ve functions of the ecclesiastical primacy with their own limits of implementation and theological justifi cation: 1. sacramental and pastoral ministry in the local Church; 2. preservation and diff usion of the apostolic tradition; 3. demarcation of the Catholic Church from the schismatic communities; 4. regional episcopal consolidation; 5. universal solicitude (integral function). Although the Byzantine ecclesiological tradition did not accept the Roman monocentric model, the idea of universal solicitude is developed within the framework of the pentarchic model of the Church. This research as a whole shows that the idea of apostolicity was not the only one of the possible ideological justifi cations for the primacy. It was its necessary foundation, because the synchronic unity of the Church is unthinkable without diachronic one. This conclusion encourages to pay particular attention to apostolicity in contemporary ecclesiological discussions.

early Christianity, primacy, Roman Church, pentarchy, apostolic succession, ecclesiology, church organization

1. Basdevant-Gaudemet Brigitte (2006) “Les évêques de la chrétienté et l’évêque de Rome du milieu du IIIᵉ au milieu du Vᵉ siècle”, in Basdevant-Gaudemet B. Église et Autorités. Études d’histoire du droit canonique médiéval. Limoges: Pulim, pp. 25–49.
2. Blaise Albert (1954) Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chrétiens. Strasbourg: Le latin chrétien.
3. Blaudeau Philippe (2019) “Entre tradition et innovation ecclésiologique: L’idée pentarchique de Justinien”, in S. Loiero, F.-X. Amherdt (eds) Theologie zwischen Tradition und Innovation / La théologie entre tradition et innovation: Échanges interdisciplinaires. Fribourg: Schwabe Verlag, pp. 61–74.
4. Darrouzès Jean (1987) “Le patriarche Méthode contre les Iconoclastes et les Stoudites”. Revue des études byzantines, 1987, vol. 45, pp. 15–57.
5. Dvornik François (1964) Byzance et la primauté romaine. Paris: Éditions du Cerf.
6. Dvornik Francis (1958) The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of Apostle Andrew. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.
7. Gahbauer Ferdinand R. (1993) Die Pentarchietheorie: Ein Modell der Kirchenleitung von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Frankfurt am Main: J. Knecht.
8. Gratsianskiy Mikhail V. (2019) “Haeres Petri sive vicarius Petri: obosnovanie iskliuchitel’nykh vlastnykh prerogativ rimskogo episkopa papoj L’vom Velikim” [Haeres Petri sive vicarius Petri. Arguments of Pope Leo the Great for the exceptional prerogatives of power for the bishop of Rome]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, 2019, Vol. 89, pp. 27–48 (in Russian).
9. Hess Hamilton (2002) The Early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Izotova Olga N. (2019) “Piat’ patriarkhov v pis’makh prp. Feodora Studita” [Five patriarchs in letters of St. Theodore the Studite]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, 2019, vol. 91, pp. 11–27 (in Russian).
11. L’Huillier Peter (1996) The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. Mattei Paul “Le primat romain selon les Africains. Antécédents, contenu et postérité”, in G. Zakharov (ed.), Communio et traditio: Catholic Unity of Church in Early Christian Times. Moscow: PSTGU, 2014, pp. 93–118.
12. Merdinger Jane E. (1997) Rome and the African Church in the Time of Augustine. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
13. Meyendorff John (1981) The Orthodox Church: Its Past and Its Role in the World Today. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
14. Pashkov Dimitri (2018) “Protsedura Vselenskikh Soborov” [The procedure of the Ecumenical Councils], in Sobor i sobornost’: k stoletiiu nachala novoi epokhi. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii 13–16 noiabria 2017 g. [Council and conciliarity: on the centenary of the beginning of a new era. Materials of the international scientific conference, November 13–16, 2017]. Moscow, pp. 27–39 (in Russian).
15. Pietri Charles (1976) Roma Christiana. Recherches sur l’Église de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixte III (311–440). Rome: École Française de Rome.
16. Powell D. L. (1975) “The Schism of Hippolytus”, in Studia Patristica, vol. 12. Berlin, pp. 449–456.
17. Reutter Ursula (2009) Damasus, Bischof von Rom (366–384). Leben und Werk. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
18. Salaverri J. (1933) “La sucesión apostólica en la Historia eclesiástica de Eusebio Cesariense”. Gregorianum, 1933, vol. 14(2), pp. 219–247.
19. Twomey Vincent (1982) Apostolikos Thronos: The Primacy of Rome as Refl ected in the Church History of Eusebius and the Historico-Apologetic Writings of Saint Athanasius the Great. Münster: Aschendorff .
20. Vogel Cyrille (1962) “Unité de l’Église et pluralité des forms historiques d’organisation ecclésiastique du IIIe au Ve siècle”, in Y. Congar, B.-D. Dupuy (eds) L’épiscopat et l’Église universelle. Paris: Les édititions du CERF, pp. 591–636.
21. Zakharov Georgy E. (2019) “Fenomen cerkovnogo techeniia v korpuse pisem svt. Vasiliia Velikogo” [Phenomenon of a Church Faction in the corpus of letters of St. Basil the Great]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, 2019, vol. 89, pp. 9–26 (in Russian).
22. Zakharov Georgy E. (2019) “Ideia apostol’skogo preemstva v poslanii svt. Firmiliana Kesarij skogo k svmch. Kiprianu Karfagenskomu” [Idea of apostolic succession in the epistle of St. Firmilian of Caesarea to St. Cyprian of Carthage]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, vol. 85, pp. 11–30 (in Russian).
23. Zakharov Georgy E. (2019) Vneshniaia kommunikaciia i bogoslovskaia tradiciia Rimskoj Cerkvi v epokhu arianskikh sporov [External communication and theological tradition of the Roman Church in the period of the Arian controversy]. Moscow: PSTGU (in Russian).

Zakharov Georgy

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

This article focuses on archival materials kept in the Russian State Military Historical Archive. These materials appeared in 1910 after the Main Directorate of the Russian Red Cross Society appealed to doctors who worked with sisters of mercy. Doctors were asked about the qualities that the nurse should have. These historical sources are compared with the statements of doctors of earlier times (from the middle of the 19th century). This allowed us to consider the views of doctors about the necessary professional level and the main purpose of nurses in the mid-19th — early 20th centuries. The answers were provided by doctors from diff erent departments who had diff erent experience working with nurses in war and peace times. The requirements formulated by doctors for the functionality of nurses allowed us to distinguish three types of nurses, which were mentioned by doctors. The fi rst type is a sister-servant to suff ering people, whose main purpose is to carefully care for and provide moral support to the sick and wounded. She does not need deep medical knowledge. The second type is made up by the nurse with basic medical skills which allow her to care for patients. The third type is a nurse who is equal in professional level to a paramedic. At the same time, all doctors emphasised that for this medical staff , it is necessary to have education in the spirit of love for the infi rm, sick and wounded.

Russian Red Cross Society, communities of nurses, type of nurse, paramedics, opinions of doctors, views of doctors, secondary medical personnel

1. Boroeva O. P. (2013) “Gumanisticheskaia napravlennost’ v professional’noi podgotovke medikov srednego zvena (vtoroi poloviny XIX veka)” [Humanistic orientation in the professional training of middle-level physicians (second half of the 19th century)]. Srednee professional’noe obrazovanie, 2013, vol. 4. pp. 55–56 (in Russian).
2. Efimushkina E. V. (2019) “Obshchina sester miloserdiia v Rossii v predstavleniiakh okruzheniia velikoi kniagini Eleny Pavlovny” [The community of Sisters of Mercy in Russia in the Views of the Milieu of Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia 2: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2019, vol. 86. pp. 97–109. doi: 10.15382/sturII201986.97-109 (in Russian).
3. Kaspruk L. I., Snasapova D. M., Zhakupova D. T. (2014) “Istoriko-meditsinskie aspekty stanovleniia instituta sester miloserdiia v Rossii kak razvitie idey N. I. Pirogova” [Historical and Medical Aspects of Introduction of the Institution of Sisters of Mercy in Russia as a Development of N. I. Pirogov’s Ideas]. Magistra vitae: elektronnyi zhurnal po istoricheskim naukam i arkheologii, 2014, vol. 12 (341), pp. 43–47 (in Russian).
4. Kovtiukh G., Zakharova I. (2018) “Vklad meditsinskoi professury v rabotu Rossiiskogo obshchestva Krasnogo Kresta” [Contribution of medical professors to the work of the Russian red cross society]. Poltora veka miloserdiia. Rossiiskaia imperiia. Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii [A century and a half of mercy. Russian empire. Proceedings of the international scientific conference]. Moscow, pp. 99–111 (in Russian).
5. Posternak A. V. (ed.) (2019) Obshchiny sester miloserdiia Rossiiskoi imperii v 1844–1917 gg.: Entsiklopedicheskii spravochnik [Communities of the Sisters of Charity of the Russian Empire in 1844–1917: Encyclopedic Handbook]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Posternak A. V. (2019) “Obshchiny sester miloserdiia Rossiiskoi imperii v otechestvennoi istoriografii” [Communities of sisters of mercy of the Russian Empire in Russian historiography], in Ezhegodnaia bogoslovskaia konferentsiia Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta [Annual Theological Conference of St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities], 2019, vol. 29. pp. 151–153 (in Russian).
7. Posternak A. V. (2001) Ocherki po istorii obshchin sester miloserdiia [Essays on the History of the Sisters of Charity Communities]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Pravdikovskaya E. N. (2012) “Dvizhenie sester miloserdiia v Rossii i ego krizis v nachale XX veka” [Movement of sisters of charity in Russia and its crisis in the early 20th century] Nauka i shkola, 2012, vol 2. pp. 181–183 (in Russian).
9. Songolov G. I., Galeeva O. P., Zaytsev A. P. (2012) “Po veleniiu serdtsa i zovu chesti. Pirogov i Krestovozdvizhenskaia obshchina sester miloserdiia na Krymskoi voine” [Following the dictates of the heart and the call of honor: N. I. Pirogov and the sisters of mercy of the Krestovozdvizhenskaya community at the Crimean war]. Sibirskii meditsinskii zhurnal (Irkutsk), 2012, vol. 8. pp. 127–132 (in Russian).
10. Suslov V. (1969) “Pirogov i pervye meditsinskie sestry (k 85-letiiu so dnia smerti N. I. Pirogova)” [Pirogov and the First Sisters of Mercy (85 Years after N. I. Pirogov’s Death)]. Meditsinskaia sestra, 1969, vol. 6, pp. 56–57 (in Russian).
11. Tkachev S. (1952) “N. I. Pirogov i pervye sestry (k 70-letiiu so dnia smerti N. I. Pirogova)” [N. I. Pirogov and the First Sisters (70 Years after N. I. Pirogov’s Death)]. Meditsinskaia sestra, 1952, vol. 2, pp. 3–5 (in Russian).
12. Tsvelev Iu., Abashin V., Shmidt A. (2010) “K 200-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia N. I. Pirogova: zhenskii trud na voine. Sestry miloserdiia v Krymskoi (1853–1856 gg.) voine. Ekaterina Bakunina. Dasha Sevastopol’skaia (Mikhailova)” [The 200 th Anniversary of N. I. Pirogov. Women’s Service in the War. Sisters of Mercy in the Crimean War. Ekaterina Bakunina. Dasha Sevastopolskaya]. Zhurnal akusherstva i zhenskikh boleznei, 2010, vol. 59 (2), pp. 100–108 (in Russian).

Kharitonova Anastasia

The article examines the main episodes in the struggle of prominent representatives of the Orthodox clergy to prohibit V. Protopopov’s play Black Ravens (1907) in the Russian Empire, using materials from pre-revolutionary periodicals. Written by the popular journalist and playwright Viktor Protopopov (1866–1916), the play Black Ravens was of an accusatory nature and, according to the author himself, was directed against the semi-fraudulent groups parasitising on the popular veneration of Fr. John of Kronstadt. Based on the analysis of the play and other sources, the article attempts to prove that its accusatory pathos was directed not so much against the swindlers as against the Kronstadt shepherd personally and against the traditional church in general. The ascetic tension of the religious life of Revd. Ioann Sergiev and his followers, combined with a fi rm commitment to the established forms of church ritual, were perceived by some representatives of Russian intellectual society as a manifestation of fanaticism and cultural backwardness. Many of them considered it their civic duty to fight this “cultural backwardness”. In turn, the admirers of the Kronstadt pastor tried to protect, by all available means, their spiritual values and religious feelings. The indiscretion in the choice of means and the excessive emotionality of the main participants in the struggle for the prohibition of the play caused some reputational damage and complicated the Russian Orthodox Church’s already diffi cult relations with society.The factors were used by its implacable enemies in propaganda purposes. Consideration of the confl ict between the clergy and the theater community around the Black Ravens, with an analysis of its causes and consequences, seems relevant in the context of today’s public debate over the use of symbols and plots on the theater stage and in cinematography that off end (deliberately or accidentally) the feelings of believers.

«Black Ravens», V. V. Protopopov, John of Kronstadt, “Ioannites”, Bishop Germogen (Dolganev), Archpriest Ioann Vostorgov, Tolstoy’s religious doctrine

1. Basinsky P. (2013) Svyatoj protiv Lva: Ioann Kronshtadtskij i Lev Tolstoj: istoria odnoy vrazhdy [Saint against Leo: John of Kronstadt and Leo Tolstoy: the story of one enmity]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Zimina N. (2010) “K voprosu ob ioannitskom dvizhenii v Russkoj Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi i vozniknovenii v kontse 1920-h gg. katakombnogo techenia “arhiepiskopa” Agafangela (Sadovskova)” [Towards the question about the movement of “ioannitstvo” in the Russian Orthotodox Church and the beginning of its catacomb movement under the direction of “archbishop” Agafangel (Sadovskov) in the 1920s.] // Bulletin of PSTGU. Ser. 2: History. History of the Russian Orthodox Church, no. 4 (37) (in Russian).
3. Kitsenko N.(2006) Svyatoj nashego vremeni: Otets Ioann Kronshtadtskij i russkij narod [Saint of our time: Father John of Kronstadt and the Russian people]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Orekhanov G. (2016) Lev Tolstoj. “Prorok bez chesti”: hronika katastrofy [Leo Tolstoy. «The Prophet Without Honor»: A Chronicle of the Catastrophe]. Moscow, 2016 (in Russian).
5. Stepanov A., Ivanov A. (2008) Chernaya sotnya. Istoricheskaya ehntsiklopedia 1900–1917 [Black Hundred. Historical Encyclopedia 1900–1917]. Moscow (in Russian).

Perekatov Andrey

This article studies the correspondence between the Swiss Egyptologist Eduard Naville and the prominent Russian Egyptologist Vladimir Golenishchev, the collector of antiquities that laid the cornerstone for the Egyptian department of A. S. Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow. This correspondence is preserved at Vladimir Golenishchev Archives, Paris. In the 1910s, both Naville and Golenishchev were considered to represent the senior generation of the European Egyptology still keeping the traditions of its “heroic age” of the middle of the 19th century, when the French Egyptological school played the main role. However, in the 1880s, German Egyptology, specifi cally its Berlin school (A. Erman, K. Sethe, etc.), took the leadership: it developed the theory of the Ancient Egyptian language, and its methodology was followed by scholars entering this fi eld of research from the 1890s onwards (among them Golenishchev’s close friend, the British Egyptologist Alan H. Gardiner). Naville and Golenishchev strongly opposed a number of views proposed by Berlin school, especially the treatment of the Egyptian linguistic phenomena from the viewpoint of Semitology. In the letters discussed, Naville proposed to Golenishchev to launch a campaign against Berlin school taking the advantage of the imminent loss of Germany in World War I and the general indignation of the Entente nations against Germans. Golenishchev took this idea especially willingly at the end of 1918, when his own interests were negatively aff ected by the war and the revolution that started in Russia. However, this campaign against Berlin school did not start and, in any case, hardly had a prospect of success. The scholars’ correspondence also refl ected the specifi c episodes of war and revolutionary developments in Russia.

Eduard Naville, Vladimir Golenishchev, Egyptology, Berlin school, World War I, Russian revolution, letter correspondence

1. Berchem D. van (1989) L’égyptologue genevois Edouard Naville: années d’études et premiers voyages en Egypte, 1862–1870. Genève.
2. Bierbrier M. L. (ed.) (2019) Who Was Who in Egyptology. London.
3. Danilova I. (ed.) (1987) Vydaiushchiisia russkii vostokoved V. S. Golenishchev i istoriia priobreteniia ego kollektsii v muzei iziashchnykh iskusstv (1909‒1912) [The remarkable Russian Orientalist V. S. Golenischev and the history of acquisition of his collection by the Museum of Fine Arts (1909‒1912)]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. David É. (1999) Gaston Maspero 1846–1916. Le gentleman égyptologue. Paris.
5. Demidchik A. (2005) Bezymiannaia piramida: Gosudarstvennaia doktrina drevneegipetskoi Gerakleopol’skoi monarkhii [A nameless pyramid: The state doctrine of the Ancient Egyptian Heracleopolitan Monarchy]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
6. Emel’ianov V. (2020) “B.A. Turaev i bor’ba za shumerologiiu v russkoi nauke nachala XX veka” [B. A. Turaev and the struggle for sumerology in Russian academia at the beginning of the 20th century]. Religiovedenie, 3, pp. 13–14 (in Russian).
7. Gertzen T. (2013) École de Berlin und “Goldenes Zeitalter” (1882‒1914) der Ägyptologie als Wissenschaft. Das Lehrer-Schüler-Verhältnis von Ebers, Erman und Sethe. Berlin.
8. Gertzen Th. L. (2006) “Henri Édouard Naville (1844–1926) — Ein Ägyptologe der ‘Alten Schule’”. Kemet 15/4, pp. 70–72.
9. Golovin N. (2001) Voennye usiliia Rossii v Mirovoi voine [Russia’s military eff ort in the World War]. Zhukovskii; Moscow (in Russian).
10. Howard M. (1991) The Franco-Prussian War: The German Invasion of France 1870–1871. New York.
11. Il’in-Tomich A. (2016) “Sotsial’nyi perevorot v Egipte v trudakh V.V. Struve” [Social revolution in Egypt in the works by Vasily Struve]. Vestnik Universiteta Dmitriia Pozharskogo, 2(4), pp. 35–47. (in Russian).
12. Ladynin I., Izosimov D., Sennikova P. (2020) “Velikii kniaz’ Konstantin Konstantinovich i sud’ba kollektsii egipetskikh drevnostei V. S. Golenishcheva” [Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich and the destiny of Vladimir Golenischeff’s collection of Egyptian antiquities (new documents from archives)]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia 2: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2, pp. 110–129. (in Russian).
13. Naville Éd. (1920) L’évolution de la langue égyptienne et les langues sémitiques: l’écriture, la grammaire, le démotique et l’araméen, le copte, l’hébreu. Paris.
14. Pitteloud J.-Fr. (2009) “Marcel Naville”, in Historisches Lexikon der Schweitz (HLS). Version vom 26.03.2009; available at https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/de/articles/015206/2009-03-26/ (16.11.2020).
15. Tomashevich O. (2008) “Deshifrovka Zh.-F. Shampol’ona i stanovlenie egiptologii kak nauchnogo napravleniia v XIX–XX vv. Formirovanie egiptologicheskikh shkol” [The deciphering by J.-F. Champollion and the making of Egyptology as a sphere of research in the 19th and the 20th centuries. The formation of research schools], in V. I. Kuzishchin (ed.), Istoriografiia istorii drevnego Vostoka [Historiography of the Ancient Orient], part 1. Moscow, pp. 17–119 (in Russian).
16. Utkin A. (2001) Pervaia mirovaia voina [World War I]. Moscow (in Russian).
17. Vuilleumier S. “Edouard Naville”, in Historisches Lexikon der Schweitz (HLS). Version vom 25.10.2019; available at https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/de/articles/042707/2019-10-25/ (16.11.2020).

Ladynin Ivan

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

This work is supported by the Russian Science Foundation under grant 19-18-00369 “The Classical Orient: culture, world-view, tradition of research in Russia (based on the monuments in the collection of the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts and archive sources)”. The author is grateful to the member of this research project, the Head of the Department of Ancient Orient, A.S. Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow, Dr. Olga Vassilieva for the permission to use in this research the archive date that she gathered.

The article studies the scholarly heritage of Bishop German (Weinberg), who prepared a reference book with information on more than one hundred services to Russian saints which were compiled in the 18th — early 20th centuries. Until recently, nothing was known about the scholarly work of Bishop German, who died in a forced labour camp in 1942. Some time ago, a manuscript of his dissertation entitled Services to Russian saints created during the Synodal period of Russian church life and supplementary materials for this work were found in the Russian National Library. These materials are currently being prepared for publication. The value of Bishop German’s study is due to the fact that when compiling the history of services he used the archives of the Synod and those of the Censorship Department. In conformity with Russian laws, the approval of the liturgical text for publication was accompanied by a long bureaucratic correspondence. This correspondence is an invaluable source for reconstructing the history of compilation and editing of church services. This work made it possible to establish the names of the authors and editors of a large number of church services. The work of Bishop German should be viewed in the general context of the re-emerging interest in Russian saints which marked the reign of Nicholas II. Since nothing was known about the existence of this study, at least three attempts to design such a reference book were made in the 20th century. Boris Sove collected materials for a similar work in Helsinki. In 1951, Feodosiy Spasskiy published the history of services to Russian saints in Paris. In 1964–1965, Archpriest Rostislav Lozinskiy presented a dissertation on this topic in Moscow Theological Academy. However, none of these authors ever turned to archival materials, therefore Bishop German’s study remains unsurpassed and relevant. At present, an edition of Bishop German’s materials is being prepared; it will be supplemented with data on those editorial corrections which were made in services to Russian saints in the post-revolutionary period.

Church Slavonic hymnography, services, liturgics, sanctity, textology, source criticism, Synod, censorship, history of Russian church

1. Gorev M. (1928) Poslednii svyatoi. Poslednie dni romanovskoi tserkvi [The last saint. The last days of the Romanovs’ church]. Moscow; Leningrad (in Russian)
2. Vorob’ev V. (ed.) Za Khrista postradavshie. Goneniia na Russkuiu Pravoslavnuiu Tserkov’. 1917–1956. Biografi cheskii spravochnik. Kniga chetvertaia [Those who suff ered for Christ. Persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1917–1956. Biographical reference. Book 4]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Koroleva V. (1995) I stoiat’ khramu i zvonit’ kolokolam [The church has to stand and the bells have to ring]. Prostor, 6 (in Russian).
4. Koroleva V. (2006) “German (Veinberg)”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox encyclopaedia], vol. 11. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Kravetsky A. (1996) “Boris Ivanovich Sove (Predislovie k publikatsii)” [Boris Ivanovich Sove (Preface to the publication)]. Uchenye zapiski Rossiiskogo Pravoslavnogo Universiteta ap. Ioanna Bogoslova, 2, p. 21–30 (in Russian).
6. Kravetsky A. (2012) “Liturgicheskii samizdat XX veka: iazykovye osobennosti i problemy retseptsii” [Liturgical underground printing of the 20th century: language features and problems of reception], in U. Pawluczuk (ed.) Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej. Vol. 3. Język naszej modlitvy — dawnej i dziś. Białystok. P. 85–94 (in Russian).
7. Kravetsky A., Pletneva A. (2001) Istoriia tserkovnoslavianskogo iazyka v Rossii (konets XIX — XX vek) [History of the Church Slavonic language in Russia (late 19th — 20th centuries)]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Krest na Krasnom obryve: Svyatye novomucheniki Kazakhstana (2002) [Cross on the red cliff : the Holy New Martyrs of Kazakhstan]. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Lozinskij R. R. (2018) Russkaya liturgicheskaya pis`mennost` (Kostroma. 1964–1965). Puti istoricheskogo razvitiya i analiz bogoslovskogo soderzhaniya. [Russian liturgical texts. Historical development and analysis of theological content], vols 1–2. Tula. (in Russian).
10. Kobets O., Krupenkov A. (eds) (2011) Proslavlenie sviatitelia Ioasafa Belgorodskogo: Dokumenty [Veneration of St. Ioasaf of Belgorod: Documents]. Belgorod (in Russian).
11. Naumov A. (2019) “Svetite Metodij i Kiril v czerkovnoslavyanskata ximnografi ya ot Novoto vreme (Sluzhbi)” [Sts Methodius and Cyril in the newer Church Slavonic hymnography (Services)]. Palaebulgarika, XLIII, 3, p. 72–94 (in Bulgarian).
12. Pociechina H., Kravetsky A. (eds) (2013) Minei: obrazets gimnografi cheskoi literatury i sredstvo formirovaniia mirovozzreniia pravoslavnykh [Menaia: an example of hymnographic literature and a medium in shaping the Orthodox worldview]. Olsztyn (in Russian).
13. Spasskii F. (1951) Russkoe liturgicheskoe tvorchestvo [Russian liturgical creative work]. Paris (in Russian).
14. Spasskii F. (2008) Russkoe liturgicheskoe tvorchestvo [Russian liturgical creative work]. Moscow (in Russian).
15. Die Russischen Orthodoxen Bischöfe von 1893 bis 1965. Bio-Bibliographie von Metropolit Manuil (Lemeševskij) (1981). Teil. II. Erlangen.

Kravetsky Alexander

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

This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for basic research. The project 17-29-09018.

This article deals with one of the key events in the history of relations between the state and religious denominations in Russia, i.e. preparing the decree on the separation of the church from the state and the school from the church. This decree determined the main principles and directions of activities of the state as to the church. The article shows the role of M.A. Reusner, the prominent scholar and lawyer, in the preparation of the decree, identifi es his actual role in the process of designing the document. Using documentary materials and academic works of Prof. M.A. Reusner himself, the article analyses his contribution to the development of the decree. The article also assesses the historical role of the scholar in the committee which prepared the decree as well as the influence of his expert and personal opinions on the formulation of specifi c provisions of the decree. The main conclusion of the study is that Prof. Reusner, who was a renowned scholar and lawyer involved in the work of the decree was not its actual ideologist.

state-confessional relations, decrees of Soviet authorities, freedom of conscience, relations between state and church, religious legislation, M. Reusner

1. Alpyspaeva G. (2019) “Arkhivnye istochniki o realizatsii Dekreta ‘Ob otdelenii tserkvi ot gosudarstva i shkoly ot tserkvi’ v Kazahstane v 1920-e gody (na materialakh Akmolinskogo uezda)” [Archival sources on the implementation of the decree “On separation of church from state, and school from church” in Kazakhstan in the 1920s (based on materials of Akmola district)]. Moscow: Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 90, p. 39–54 (in Russian).
2. Kashevarov A. (2007) “Razrabotka na Pomestnom sobore 1917–1918 ofi tsial’noi pozitsii Pravoslavnoi tserkvi v otnoshenii Sovetskoi vlasti i ee religioznoi politiki” [The Regional Council of 1917–1918 and its role in working out the offi cial position of the Orthodox Church towards the Soviet state and its religious policy]. Vestnik SPbGU. Seriia 2. Istoriia, 2, p. 48–60 (in Russian).
3. Kirichenko M. (1987) “Gosudarstvo i tserkov‘. K istorii leninskogo dekreta” [The state and the church. To the history of Lenin’s decree]. Nauka i religiia, 4, (in Russian)
4. Leonov S. (2016) “Nachalo antitserkovnogo terrora v period Oktiabr’skoi revoliutsii” [The beginning of anti-church terror during the October revolution]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia 2. Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 6 (73), p. 69-90. (in Russian)
5. Petrov S. (2015) “Otnoshenie Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi k bol’shevikam v 1917–1918 v sovremennoi istoriografi i” [The relation of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Bolsheviks in 1917–1918 in modern historiography]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 3 (64), p. 31–43 (in Russian).
6. Safonov A. (2017) Gosudarstvo i konfessii v pozdneimperskoi Rossii: pravovye aspekty vzaimootnoshenii [The state and religions in late Imperial Russia: legal aspects of the relationship]. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Sipeikin A. (2016) “Antireligioznaia i antitserkovnaia politika sovetskoi vlasti: 1917–1920” [The Soviet antireligious and antichurch policy: 1917–1920]. Vestnik TvGU. Seriya: Istoriya, 4, p. 16–38 (in Russian).
8. Skibina O. (2016) Gosudarstvenno-pravovye vzgliady M.A. Reisnera [State-legal views of M. A. Reusner]. Belgorod (in Russian).
9. Smirnov N. (ed.) (1958) Voprosy istorii religii i ateizma: Sbornik statei [Issues in the history of religion and atheism], vol. 5. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Sokolov A. (2014) Gosudarstvo i Pravoslavnaia tserkov’ v Rossii, fevral’ 1917 — ianvar’ 1918 [The state and the Orthodox church in Russia, February 1917 — January 1918]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
11. Tsypin V. (2010) Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi. Sinodal’nyi i noveishii periody [History of the Russian Orthodox Church. Synodal and recent periods]. Moscow (in Russian).
12. Vishkvartsev V. (2019) “Gosudarstvenno-pravovye i religioznye vzglady M.A. Reisnera na nravstvennost’” [Mikhail A. Risner’s state-legal and religious views on morality (the end of the 19th century)]. Actual problems of Russian law, 2019, p. 34–43 (in Russian).
13. Vorobiev V., Miliakova L. (eds) (2016) Otdelenie Tserkvi ot gosudarstva i shkoly ot Tserkvi v Sovetskoi Rossii. Oktiabr’ 1917–1918 g. Sbornik dokumentov» [Separation of church from state and school from church in Soviet Russia. October 1917–1918. Collection of documents]. Moscow (in Russian).

Isakov Pavel

Using various types of sources — ego-documents, investigative materials and periodicals — this article provides previously unknown data on the stay of Bishop Sofroniy (Arefi ev) at Yakut see in 1919–1921. It shows the signifi cance of his activities which were characterised as the “beginning of the rise” in the religious attitudes of churchgoers and as the revival of diocesan life. The fate of the last bishop of Yakutia and Viliuy Sofroniy refl ects all the vicissitudes in the history of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century, the hostages of which were representatives of the clergy: he was transferred from one see to another, tried to survive and preserve his clerical rank, did not avoid arrests, exile, temporary fall into Renovationism and, in the end, execution by shooting. The Yakut period in his life was short and lasted only two years. It was a difficult time in the life of the diocese, churchgoers and the archpriest. The article shows that during this period, he managed to gain respect of local residents, which triggered his arrests and the subsequent exile. It is emphasised that the bishop in conditions of the first years of the Soviet state made eff orts to revitalise church activity: he made pastoral trips, supported the structuring of life in monasteries, arranged congregational meetings, readings, discussions, lectures in churches and educational institutions. He organised church singing events, made choirs, ran several church cocerts. Of interest is the information about the desire of the diocesan archbishop to infl uence revolutionary tribunals; F.G. Sivtsev in his diary mentions that local Soviet authorities made executions during periods of his absence. The data gathered in this article are supposed to complement and make more precise our information about Bishop Sofroniy (Arefi ev) and, on the whole, the information about archpriests of the Russian Orthodox Church, about victims of political repression in the fi rst half of the 20th century.

Bishop Sofroniy (Arefiev), Yakut and Viliuy diocese, Yakutia, repression of Orthodox clergy, ego-documents, Yakutsk, Higher Provisional Church Administration, Renovationism

1. Kiiashko N. Arkhiepiskop Sofroniy: “Edu tuda, gde vsekh sazhaiut”. [Archbishop Sofroniy: “I’m going to the place where they put to prison everyone”], available at https://pravoslavieru/123844.html (05.03.2020) (in Russian).
2. Lavrinov V. (2006) Obnovlencheskii raskol v portretakh ego deiatelei [The Renovationist schism in portraits of its figures]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Levitin-Krasnov A., Shavrov V. (1996) Ocherki po istorii russkoi tserkovnoi smuty [Essays on the history of the Russian church tumult]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Nikolaev A. (2001) “Mnogie leta, Blagovernoe vremennoe pravitel’stvo!” [“Long live the righteous provisional government!”]. Iakutskii arkhiv, 3, p. 108−111 (in Russian).
5. Novomucheniki, ispovedniki, za Khrista postradavshie v gody gonenii na Russkuiu Pravoslavnuiu Tserkov’ v XX v. [New martyrs, confessors, the ones who suff ered for Christ during the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th century], available at http: //www.pstbi.ccas.ru/cgi-bin/code.exe/martyrs1.htm?ans (23.04.2020) (in Russian).
6. Petrov S. (2014) “Obnovlencheskii tserkovnyi raskol v Sibiri” [Renovationist church schism in Siberia]. Gumanitarnye nauki v Sibiri, 4, p. 79–82 (in Russian).
7. Simon (Istiukov), hieromonk (2015) “Novosibirskaia eparkhiia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi v 20-e gody XX veka” [Novosibirsk diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 1920s]. Bogoslovskii sbornik (Novosibirsk), 10, p. 36–41 (in Russian).
8. Sofronii (Aref’ev), Drevo. Otkrytaia pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Sofroniy (Arefiev), A Tree. Open Orthodox encyclopaedia], available at https://drevo-info.ru/articles/24791.html (02.04.2020) (in Russian).
9. Yurganova I. (2010) Episkopy Iakutii [The bishops of Yakutia]. Omsk (in Russian).

Yurganova Inna

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

This article is devoted to the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia to Moscow Patriarchate during the period Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky). During his years as head of the Russian Church Abroad, criticism of the actions of Moscow Patriarchate intensifi ed. The reason for criticism was the Patriarchate’s support for the Communist state, as well as its participation in the ecumenical movement. Metropolitan Filaret, who initially expressed his opinion with restraint, gradually changed his rhetoric. Partly, the Metropolitan’s sharpness was due to the infl uence of radicals, i.e. Protopresbyter George (Grabbe) (later Bishop Gregory) and Archimandrite Panteleimon (Metropoulos). The Councils and the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia also made harsh statements. In particular, it was said that Moscow Patriarchate cannot be considered the successor of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, and its orders are illegal. Attempts were made to declare Moscow Patriarchate unholy (Rus. безблагодатный, lit. ‘with no divine grace’). This opinion was expressed by the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Metropolitan Filaret (Voznesensky), as well as by the secretary of the Synod of Bishops, Protopresbyter George Grabbe. They believed that the holiness (Rus. благодать) of the cleric of Moscow Patriarchate can only be obtained at the moment of joining the Russian Church Outside Russia. Despite this opinion, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia did not offi cially declare Moscow Patriarchate unholy. A large part of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia spoke of Moscow Patriarchate with respect and were ready for dialogue.

Moscow Patriarchate, Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Third All-Russian Council, holiness, sacraments, Metropolitan Filaret (Voznesensky), Archbishop Averky (Taushev), Archbishop Anthony (Bartoshevich), Protopresbyter George Grabbe, Archimandrite Panteleimon (Metropoulos), A. I. Solzhenitsyn

1. Anashkin D. (2017) “K voprosu ob osobennostiakh bogosluzhebnoi zhizni Russkoi Zarubezhnoi Tserkvi v 1946–2000 gg.” [Characteristic features of liturgical life of the Russian Church Abroad in 1946–2000]. ХХVII Ezhegodnaia bogoslovskaia konferentsiia PSTGU, p. 164–172. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Artemov N. (2008) “Sobesedovaniia predstavitelei klira dvukh germanskikh eparkhii (MP i RPTsZ) 1993–1997 gg. kak nachalo vosstanovleniia edinstva Russkoi Tserkvi” [Colloquys of representatives of the clergy of two German dioceses (Moscow Patriarchate and Russian Orthodox Church Abroad) in 1993‒1997 as the beginning of the restoration of the unity of the Russian Church]. XVIII Ezhegodnaia bogoslovskaia konferentsiia PSTGU, vol. 1, p. 302–324 (in Russian).
3. Borisov A. (1994) Pobelevshie nivy. Razmyshleniia o Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi [Whitened fields. Refl ections on the Russian Orthodox Church]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Bochkov P. (2018) Obzor nekanonicheskikh pravoslavnykh iurisdiktsii ХХ–ХХI vv. [Review of non-canonical Orthodox jurisdictions of the 20th — 21st centuries]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
5. Kornilov A. (2008) Monakh ot Optiny do Platiny. Zhizn’ episkopa Seattliiskogo Nektariia (Kontsevicha) [Monk from Optina to Platinum. The life of Seattle Bishop Nektarios (Kontsevich)]. Nizhnii Novgorod (in Russian).
6. Makovetskii A. (2009) “Belaia Tserkov’”: Vdali ot ateisticheskogo terrora [White Church: far from atheistic terror]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
7. Popov A. (2005) Rossiiskoe pravoslavnoe zarubezh’e [The Russian Orthodox expatriate community]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Psarev A. (2012) “Razvitie mirovozzreniya Russkoi Zarubezhnoi Tserkvi v otnoshenii Pomestnykh Tserkvei i inoslaviia” [Development of the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to local churches and non-Orthodoxy]. Deianiia IV Vsezarubezhnogo Sobora Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi Zagranitsei, p. 180–205. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Sollogub A. (1968) Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov’ za granitsei: 1918–1968 [The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad: 1918–1968]. New York (in Russian).
10. Slesarev A. (2009) Starostil’nyi raskol v istorii Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi (1924–2008) [Old-Calendar schism in the history of the Orthodox Church (1924‒2008)]. Moscow (in Russian)
11. Senina T. (Kassia, nun) (2007) Stolp ognennyi. Mitropolit N’iu-Iorkskii i Vostochno-Amerikanskii Filaret (Voznesenskii) i Russkaia Zarubezhnaia Tserkov‘ (1964–1985) [Pillar of fire. Metropolitan Philaret of New-York and Eastern America (Voznesensky) and the Russian Church Abroad]. St Petersburg (in Russian).

Kostryukov Andrey

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

This article makes public letters of a well-known author of the handbook in dogmatic theology, Rector of Vologda Theological Seminary, Archpriest Nikolai Malinovsky. The letters are addressed to the famous theologian, exegete and church historian Nikolai Nikanorovich Glubokovsky. They date back to the time of the pedagogical activity of N. N. Glubokovsky at St. Petersburg Theological Academy, where he worked from 1891 until the time of its closure. Archpriest Nikolai Malinovsky and N. N. Glubokovsky were natives of Vologda Guberniya and were graduates of Vologda Seminary. The author of the letters touched upon various aspects and problems of theological education. The letters of the Rector of the Seminary are a valuable source which reflects the life of Vologda Theological Seminary in one of the most diffi cult periods of its history, overshadowed by the revolutionary turmoil. Many of the materials published here shed light on certain events that took place at the Theological School of Vologda Diocese. Some documents deal with one of the graduates, later teacher, of Vologda Seminary, i. e. Bishop of Saratov and Tsaritsyn Ioann (Kratirov). The purpose of the article is a comprehensive analysis of this epistolary heritage; it is directly related to the history of secondary theological education in Vologda Diocese. These letters discover new facts, evaluate relevant historical events, which cannot always be done by studying historical documents only. The research methodology is based on the historical method, which allows one to assess historical events in Vologda Theological Seminary at the beginning of the twentieth century. The published letters are kept in the archival fund of N.N. Glubokovsky in the Manuscript Department of the Russian National Library and have not been used by researchers before.

Archpriest Nikolai Malinovsky, N. N. Glubokovsky, Bishop Ioann (Kratirov), Vologda Theological Seminary, secondary religious education, Educational Committee, rector

1. Artiomkin D. (2016) “Malinovskii”, in Pravoslavnaia Entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 43 (in Russian).
2. Bogdanova T., Klement’iev A, (2006) “Glubokovskii”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 11, p. 601‒610 (in Russian).
3. Bogdanova T. (2010) N. N. Glubokovskii. Sud’ba khristianskogo uchenogo [N. N. Glubokovsky. The fate of a Christian scholar]. Moscow; St. Petersburg (in Russian).
4. Ferapont (Shirokov), hieromonk (2019) “Dukhovno-patrioticheskaia deiatel’nost’ vospitannikov Vologodskoi Dukhovnoi Seminarii v gody Pervoi mirovoi voiny” [Spiritual and patriotic activity of students of Vologda Theological Seminary during the First World War]. Tserkov’. Bogoslovie. Istoriia: Materialy VII Vserossiiskoi nauchno-bogoslovskoi konferentsii (Ekaterinburg) [Church. Theology. History: Materials of the 7th All-Russian Scientific and Theological Conference (Yekaterinburg, February 8‒10, 2019)]. Yekaterinburg. P. 382‒289 (in Russian).
5. Ferapont (Shirokov), hieromonk (2019) “Obozrenie Episkopom Vologodskim i Totemskim Nikonom (Rozhdestvenskim) Vologodskoi eparkhii v period prebyvaniia praviashchim arkhiereem (po materialam ezhegodnykh otchetov eparkhial’nogo arkhiereia)” [Survey by Bishop of Vologda and Totma Nikon (Rozhdestvensky) of Vologda Diocese during his stay as Ruling Bishop (based on annual reports of the diocesan bishop)], in Niva gospodnia. Vestnik Penzenskoi dukhovnoi seminarii [Lord’s fi elds. Bulletin of Penza Theological Seminary]. Penza, p. 71‒76 (in Russian).
6. Ferapont (Shirokov), hieromonk (2020) “Rol’ i znachenie nachal’stvuiushchikh lits dukhovnykh shkol v protivodeistvii revoliutsionnym volneniiam v seminariiakh v nachale 20 veka (na primere Vologodskoi dukhovnoi seminarii)” [The role and signifi cance of the leaders of theological schools in countering revolutionary unrest in seminaries at the beginning of the twentieth century (with Vologda Theological Seminary as an example)]. Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, 1 (29), p. 151‒173 (in Russian).

Hieromonk Ferapont (Shirokov P.)