/

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

St. Tikhon’s University Review II :99
Khruleva Irina

“The character of a good ruler”: an evolution of ideas of power in the political doctrine of puritanism of New England in the 17th — 18th centuries

Khruleva Irina (2021) "“The character of a good ruler”: an evolution of ideas of power in the political doctrine of puritanism of New England in the 17th — 18th centuries ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2021, Iss. 99, pp. 9-35 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII202199.9-35
This article is devoted to the evolution of the ideas of the Puritans of New England about the origin of the institution of secular power, the power of rulers, their responsibility to the people and the possibility of rebellion against tyrants. Guided by the concept of a national covenant, the founders of the Colony of Massachusetts proclaimed the collective responsibility of all members of the Puritan community to adhere to divine precepts. The tasks of the leaders of colonies of New England primarily involved monitoring the observance of religious norms, and the Puritan political discourse of the first half of the 17th century was dominated by the theme of the subordination of ordinary participants in the “Puritan experiment” to wise and pious rulers who care about the “common good”. Unlike the Puritan political sermons and pamphlets of the first half of the 17th century, the polemical literature of the Glorious Revolution period is practically devoid of religious argumentation. From this time on, the task of the secular ruler primarily involved protecting the “ancient rights and privileges” of the subjects of the English crown, the principle of equality of natural rights of people, rather than the “true” Puritan faith. The natural-law argumentation of the Puritan preachers was incorporated into traditional theological discourse; nevertheless, their sermons served as an important channel of intellectual transfer, creating favourable conditions for the inhabitants of New England to fully perceive the concepts of the Enlightenment, including those concerning the origin of political power, the preferred model of state structure, the duties of rulers as related to their subjects, justifying the rights and freedoms of the colonists and guaranties of their observance. Congregational ministers in New England played a unique role in mobilising the patriotic camp during the Revolutionary War. By actively participating in the discussion of the issue of republican virtue, the Puritan ministers gave the process of building a new state in North America a moral dimension.
American Revolution, New England Puritanism, US history, religion in USA, political doctrine, democratic culture
  1. Adamova Nina E. (2014) “Grazhdanskaia vlast’ v predstavlenii angliiskikh separatistov nachala XVII v.” [Civil authority in the views of English separatists of the early 17th century]. Trudy kafedry istorii novogo i noveishego vremeni, 2014, no. 12, pp. 14–25 (in Russian).
  2. Albanese Cathrine L. (1976) Sons of the Fathers: The Civil Religion of the American Revolution. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  3. Arch Stephen C. (1992) “The Glorious Revolution and the Rhetoric of Puritan History”. Early American Literature, 1992, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 61–74.
  4. Bailyn Bernard (1967) The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.
  5. Berkovitch Sacvan (1978) American Jeremiad. Madison (Wisc.): University of Wisconsin Press.
  6. Bonomi Patricia U. (2003) Under the Scope of Heaven: Religion, Society, and Politics in Colonial America. N. Y.: Oxford University Press.
  7. Breen T. H. (1974) The Character of the Good Ruler. Puritan Political Ideas in New England, 1630– 1730. New York: Norton.
  8. Bremer Francis (1980) “In Defense of Regicide: John Cotton on the Execution of Charles I”. William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser., 1980, vol. 37, pp. 103–124.
  9. Clark J. C. D. (1994) The Language of Liberty, 1660–1832: Political Discourse and Social Dynamics in the Anglo-American World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Grasso Christopher (1999) A Speaking Aristocracy: Transforming Public Discourse in Eighteenth- Century Connecticut. Chapel Hill, London: University of North Carolina Press.
  11. Hall Michael G. (1988) The Last American Puritan: The Life of Increase Mather. Middletown (Conn.): Wesleyan University Press.
  12. Hall Timothy D. (1994) Contested Boundaries: Itinerancy and the Reshaping of the Colonial American Religious World. Durham (N.C.): Duke University Press.
  13. Hatch Nathan O. (1977) The sacred cause of liberty: republican thought and the millennium in Revolutionary New England. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  14. Heimert Alan (1966) Religion and the American Mind from the Great Awakening to the Revolution. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.
  15. Hoff man R., Albert P. J. (eds.) (1994) Religion in a Revolutionary Age. Charlottesville, University Press of Virginia.
  16. Khruleva Irina Y. (2018) “Skladyvanie novoi religioznoi situatsii v britanskikh koloniiakh Severnoi Ameriki v rezultate “Velikogo Produzhdenia” 1730–1750-kh gg.” [Shaping of a new religious situation in British North America as the result of the First Great Awakening of the 1730s–1750s]. ENOJ Istoria, 2018, vol. 65, no. 1 (in Russian).
  17. Khruleva Irina Y. (2005) “Vliianie epokhi “Slavnoi revolutsii” na razvitie politicheskikh institutov Britanskikh kolonii v Severnoi Amerike” [The impact of the Glorious Revolution on the progress of political institutions in British North America]. Istoricheskii opyt Ameriki: vzgliad rossiiskikh i amerikanskikh istorikov. Moscow, pp. 4–17 (in Russian).
  18. Lambert Frank (2003) The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  19. Morgan E. (ed.) (1965) Puritan Political Ideas. 1558–1794. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company
  20. Morgan Edmund S. (1967) “The Puritan Ethic and the American Revolution”. William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 1967, vol. 24, pp. 3–43.
  21. Noll Mark A. (2004) The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefi eld and the Wesleys. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
  22. Pahl Jon (1992) Paradox Lost: Free Will and Political Liberty in American Culture, 1630–1760. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
  23. Stanwood Owen (2007) “The Protestant Moment: Antipopery, the Revolution of 1688–1689, and the Making of an Anglo-American Empire”. Journal of British Studies, 2007, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 481–508.
  24. Stout Harry S. (1977) “Religion, Communications, and the Ideological Origins of the American Revolution”. William and Mary Quaterly, 3rdser., 1977, vol. 34, pp. 519–541.
  25. Williams Roger (1963) The Complete Writings of Roger Williams. 7 vols. New York.
  26. Waldman Steven (2008) Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America. New York: Random House.
  27. Ziff L. (ed.) (1968) John Cotton on the Churches of New England. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.

Khruleva Irina


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: Lomonosov Moscow State University; 27/4 Lomonosovskiy prospekt, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation;
Post: associate professor;
ORCID: 0000-0001-8888-9091;
Email: irinakhruleva@mail.ru.

*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.

Tsigankov Dmitry

Philosophical foundations of S. M. Solovyovʼs professorial ministry

Tsigankov Dmitry (2021) "Philosophical foundations of S. M. Solovyovʼs professorial ministry ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2021, Iss. 99, pp. 36-49 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII202199.36-49
Sergey Mikhailovich Solovyov, professor of Russian history and rector of Moscow University, was one of the few University teachers of the mid-19th century who openly declared their commitment to the values of the Christian worldview in the University milieu. In many ways, this view was the result of his refl ections on the role of religion in modern society. He argued that under the infl uence of, for example, the revolution in France, the values of faith are pushed to the periphery of public consciousness, which has created the illusion that the old faith and the new social order oppose each other. However, Solovyov associated this situation not with the values of the faith itself, but with the inability of its missionaries to reach the hearts of their fellow citizens, with broadcasting the truths of school theology in public discourse, and with the lack of cordiality and warmth in sermons of Christian missionaries. Solovyov believed that in the new conditions, the truths of faith should be taught not only by the people of the Church, but also by the University professors who infl uence the formation of public morals, at least during the training of young people at the University. As a result, Professor Solovyov demanded monastic asceticism in his professional work in the quiet of the study room as well as sacrifi cial service and eff orts aimed at harmonising relations between representatives of diff erent generations of society during lectures. A certain challenge to Solovyov was the lack of consensus on this issue among professors and Westerners in the mid-1840s. However, neither the radical spiritual experience of the Russian intelligentsia, nor the spread of materialistic ideas by the generation of the 1860s forced Solovyov to reconsider his attitude to the matters of faith. Under the infl uence of his own religious experience in his later essays, Solovyov refuses to interpret progress as an eternal process of positive changes, which was characteristic of the liberal doctrine and, in fact, raised the question of the dependence of progress in public relations on the eternal truths of the faith.
S. M. Solovyov, progress, faith, social change, liberalism, progress, professorship
  1. Dubrovskii A., Kuchurin V. (1992) “”Feosofiia” S. M. Solov’eva” [S. M. Solovyov’s “Theosophy”], in G. Nevelev (ed.) Teoreticheskaia kul’turologiia i problemy istorii otechestvennoi kul’tury [Theoretical cultural studies and problems of the history of the Russian culture]. Bryansk. Р. 98–107 (in Russian).
  2. Formozov A. (2004) “Sud’ba “Zapisok” istorika S. M. Solov’eva” [The fate of the “Notes” of the historian S.M. Solovyov], in A. Formozov. Rasskazy ob uchenykh [Stories about scholars]. Kursk. Р. 42–51 (in Russian).
  3. Illeritskii V. (1980) Sergei Mikhailovich Solov’ev. Moscow (in Russian).
  4. Ivonina I. (2000) Vremia svobody. Problema napravlennosti istorii v khristianskoi istoricheskoi mysli Rossii XIX — ser. XX vv. [Time of freedom. The problem of the orientation of history in the Christian historical thought of Russia in the 19th — mid-19th centuries]. Novosibirsk (in Russian).
  5. Kiseleva Y., Antoshchenko A. (2019) “Emotsional’nyi mir avtobiografi i S.M. Solov’eva” [The emotional world of S.M. Solovyov’s autobiography], in A.M. Dubrovskii (ed.) Otechestvennaia kul’tura i istoricheskaya mysl’ [Russian culture and historical thought], 5. Bryansk. Р. 30–53 (in Russian).
  6. Kuchurin V. (2001) S. M. Solov’ev: khristianin i uchenyi [S.M. Solovyov: a Christian and a scholar]. St Retersburg (in Russian).
  7. Kuchurin V. (2007) “Religioznyi mir S.M. Solov’eva” [Religious world of S.M. Solovyov], in Mir istorika [The world of the historian], 3. Omsk. Р. 107–136 (in Russian).
  8. Kuchurin V. (2018) “Nachalo formirovaniia nauchno-pedagogicheskikh vzgliadov S. M. Solov’eva” [The beginning of the formation of academic and pedagogical views of S. M. Solovyov]. Vestnik Brianskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, p. 96–101 (in Russian).
  9. Shakhanov A. (1996) Stanovlenie uchenogo [Becoming a scholar], in S. Solov’ev. Pervye nauchnye trudy. Pis’ma [First academic works. Letters]. Moscow. P. 138–153 (in Russian).
  10. Shakhanov A. (2005) S.M. Solov’ev i ego sem’ia [S.M. Solovyov and his family], in Mir istorika: Istoriografi cheskii sbornik [The world of the historian: a historiographical collection], 1. Tomsk. P. 198–239. (in Russian).
  11. Tsimbaev N. (1990) Sergei Solov’ev. Moscow (in Russian).
  12. Volkova I. (1992) “Sergei Mikhailovich Solov’ev. Ocherki zhizni i tvorchestva” [Sergey Mikhailovich Solovyov. Essays on his life and creative works], in S.M. Solov’ev. Obshchedostupnye chteniia o russkoi istorii [Public readings in Russian history]. Р. 24–41 (in Russian).

Tsigankov Dmitry


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 23B Novokuznetskaia Str., Moscow, 115184, Russian Federation; Moscow State University; 27/4 Lomonosovskiy Prospect, Moscow 119192, Russian Federation; Ss Cyril and Methodius Institute of Postgraduate Studies; 4/2/5 Piatnitskaia Str., Moscow 115035, Russian Federation;
Post: Head of Departement of Russian History, Faculty of History; Associate Professor, Department of Russian History in the 19th and the Beginning of the 20th Centuries; Associate Professor, Departement of Church History;
ORCID: 0000-0003-3005-503Х;
Email: tsdm@yandex.ru.

*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.

Belousov Sergey

Confessional aspect in the migration policy in the kalmyk lands in the second half of the 19th century

Belousov Sergey (2021) "Confessional aspect in the migration policy in the kalmyk lands in the second half of the 19th century ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2021, Iss. 99, pp. 50-62 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII202199.50-62
The article examines the confessional aspect of the state migration policy in the Kalmyk lands of Astrakhan Province in the second half of the 19th century. It analyses the features of religious policy in the resettlers’ villages in the Kalmyk lands and reveals its infl uence on the process of the development of parishes. The conclusion of the study is that the main religious component of the state resettlement policy in the Kalmyk lands was assisting the Russian Orthodox Church in forming a parish system in order to serve the spiritual needs of the resettled farmers. The resettlement project was intended primarily to make settlements along roads of strategic importance and transfer part of the Kalmyks to a sedentary lifestyle. It did not directly aff ect the Christianisation of the Kalmyks, but in the future it meant that new settlements would create more favorable conditions for the deployment of missionary activities. In this regard, the state imposed a ban on the resettlement of Old Believers and sectarian population to the Kalmyk lands and took measures to prevent the strengthening of the position of the Buddhist clergy in new settlements. The article pays special attention to the characteristics of the relations between the authorities and the resettled people as to the issue of creating a network of Orthodox parishes; the article reveals the sources of funding for the development of parishes, the diffi culties encountered here, and the results. The necessity of parishes was related both to the farmers’ religiosity and to everyday needs of their daily life. It is shown that despite the desire of the farmers to quickly build a church and open a parish, the tempo of these processed in diff erent settlements varied. They were infl uenced by the intensity of the infl ux of migrants and their fi nancial situation, success in adapting to the conditions of a new place of residence and establishing economic activities. After analysing the facts of parish development for each locality, the article demonstrates that in general it was completed by the beginning of the 20th century. The draws on a wide range of documents from one central and two regional archives of Russia, many of which are made public for the fi rst time.
Russian Orthodox Church, immigrants, religious policy, Kalmyk lands, Astrakhan Province
  1. Belousov S. (2003) Pravoslavnye prikhody Kalmykii v 19 — nachale 20 v. [Orthodox parishes of Kalmykia in the 19th — early 20th centuries]. Elista (in Russian).
  2. Belousov S. (1999) Osnovano tavricheskimi poselentsami. Selo Sadovoe (1849–1917 gg.) [Founded by the migrants from Tauria. The village of Sadovoye (1849–1917)]. Volgograd (in Russian).
  3. Belousov S. (2014) V Kalmytskoi stepi na granitse Evropy i Аzii: Istoriia vozniknoveniia i stanovleniia sela Priiutnogo [In the Kalmyk steppe on the border of Europe and Asia: the origin and development of the village of Priyutnoe]. Stavropol (in Russian).
  4. Borisenko I. (1999) Pravoslavie v Kalmykii [Orthodoxy in Kalmykia]. Moscow (in Russian).

Belousov Sergey


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: Kalmyk Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences; 8 Ilishkina Str., Elista 358009, Russian Federation;
Post: associate professor, senior research fellow;
ORCID: 0000-0001-7614-3516;
Email: sbelousovelista@mail.ru.

*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 study was supported by a state grant : project: «Comprehensive study of the processes of socio-political and cultural development of the peoples of the South of Russia» (AAAA-A-19-119011490038-5)
Polunov Alexander

Zemsky Sobor, the image of the “White Tsar” and Russia’s policy towards the remote peoples at the end of the 19th — early 20th centuries

Polunov Alexander (2021) "Zemsky Sobor, the image of the “White Tsar” and Russia’s policy towards the remote peoples at the end of the 19th — early 20th centuries ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2021, Iss. 99, pp. 63-77 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII202199.63-77
The article analyses the interrelation between the foreign and domestic policy of the Russian Empire at the end of the 19th — early 20th centuries, changes in the attitude of Russian ruling circles and the conservative elite towards the remote peoples which were seen as the objects of Russia’s protection. The failure of the plans to convene the national representative body (Zemsky Sobor) proposed by N. P. Ignat’ev and I. S. Aksakov in 1882 was a symptom of a serious shift in this sphere. From now on, the foreign peoples who possessed the well-developed national consciousness and struggled to achieve the political autonomy or independence were not treated as the main object of Russia’s patronage. Instead, the main attention was paid to the “peopleschildren” which struggled for physical survival, for maintaining the basic elements of their ethno-cultural distinctiveness. An important place among these peoples occupied the Orthodox Arabs of Palestine and Syria where activities of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society were concentrated. The Arabs’ patriarchal way of life, their simplicity and religiosity attracted attention of Russian conservatives, as did their veneration of the “White Tsar”, the ruler of Russia and protector of the oppressed ethnic groups across the world. In the same way, the Russian conservatives perceived other remote peoples, such as Ethiopians, Assyrians, and various ethnic groups of the Far East. All these peoples applied to the “Empire of Tsars” for the help which was to strengthen the notion of Russia’s special mission in the international stage. Russia’s defeat in the war with Japan and the revolution of 1905–1907 struck a serious blow to these views and undermined the international authority and infl uence of the empire.
N. P. Ignat’ev, Porfi rii (Uspenskii), V. N. Khitrovo, Zemsky Sobor, image of “White Tsar”, Slavs, Orthodox Arabs, Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society
  1. Airapetov Oleg R. (2018) Istoriia vneshnei politiki Rossii. 1801–1914 gg. T. 3. Vneshniaia politika imperatorov Aleksandra II i Aleksandra III [History of Russia’s foreign policy. 1801–1914. Vol. 3. Foreign policy of Emperors Alexander III and Nicholas II]. Moscow: Kuchkovo pole (in Russian).
  2. Anan’ich Boris V., Ganelin Rafail Sh. (1971) “R. A. Fadeev, S.Iu. Witte i ideologicheskie iskaniia “okhranitelei” v 1881–1882 g.” [R. A. Fadeev, S. Iu. Witte and ideological quests of the Conservatives in 1881–1882], in Issledovaniia po sotsial’no-politicheskoi istorii Rossii [Studies in social and political history of Russia]. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 299–328 (in Russian).
  3. Astankov Vasilii A. (2011) “Naslednik tsesarevich Aleksandr Aleksandrovich v period vostochnogo krizisa 1875–1878 gg.” [Heir to the throne Alexander Alexandrovich in the period of the Eastern crisis of 1875–1878]. Rossiiskaia istoriia, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 128–141.
  4. Dudzinskaia Evgeniia A. (1994) Slavianofi ly v poreformennoi Rossii [Slavophiles in the postreform Russia]. Moscow: IRI RAN (in Russian).
  5. Hopwood D. (1969) The Russian Presence in Syria and Palestine, 1843–1914. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  6. Khevrolina Viktoriia M. (2009) Nikolai Pavlovich Ignat;ev. Rossiiskii diplomat [Nikolai Pavlovich Ignatev. The Russian diplomat]. Moscow: Kvadriga (in Russian).
  7. Khristoforov I. (2015) ““V vysshei stepeni dushevnaia oshibka”. Russkaia elita v poiskakh patriarkhal’nykh krest’ian” [“The highly soulful mistake”: Russian elite in the search for the patriarchal peasants]. Rodina, 2, pp. 103–105 (in Russian).
  8. Kuznetsov Oleg V. (1998) R. A. Fadeev: general i publitsist [R. A. Fadeev: general and essay writer]. Volgograd: Izdatel’stvo Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta (in Russian).
  9. Lisovoi Nikolai N. (2006) Russkoe dukhovnoe i politicheskoe prisutstvie v Sviatoi Zemle i na Blizhnem Vostoke v XIX — nachale XX v. [Russian spiritual and political presence in the Holy Land and Near East in the 19th — early 20th centuries]. Moscow: Indrik (in Russian).
  10. Marks Stiven G. (2007) ““Bravo, khrabryi tigr Vostoka!”: russko-iaponskaia voina i pod’em natsionalizma v britanskom Egipte i Indii” [“Bravo, courageous tiger of the East: Russian- Japanese war and the rise of nationalism in British Egypt and India], in Russkii sbornik: Issledovaniiia po istorii Rossii [Russian collection: studies in Russian history], 4. Moscow: Modest Kolerov, pp. 89–107 (in Russian).
  11. Mezhuev B. (1999) “Modelirovanie poniatiia “natsional’nyi interes” na primere dal’nevostochnoi politiki Rossii kontsa 19 — nachala 20 v.” [Modelling the notion of the “national interest” as illustrated by Russia’s Far Eastern policy in the late 19th — early 20th centuries]. Polis, 1, pp. 26–39 (in Russian).
  12. Melnikova L. (2018) “Pravoslavnyi faktor russkoi politiki na Balkanakh v kontse 1850-kh — 1870-kh gg.” [The Orthodox factor of the Russian policy in the Balkans at the end of 1850s — 1870s]. Rossiiskaiia istoriia, 6, pp. 147–161 (in Russian).
  13. Panchenko K. (1994) “Krizis pravoslaviia na arabskom Vostoke v vospriiatii rossiiskoi obshchestvennosti (konets XIX v.)” [Crisis of the Orthodoxy in the Arabic East as seen by the Russian society (late 19th century)]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universitetata. Series 13. Vostokovedenie, 4, pp. 17–28 (in Russian).
  14. Panchenko K. (2013) Pravoslavnye araby: put; cherez veka [Orthodox Arabs: the path through the centuries]. Moscow: PSTGU (in Russian).
  15. Schimmelpenninck van der Oye, David (2009) Toward the Rising Sun: Russian Ideologies of Empire and the Path to War with Japan. Moscow (Russian translation).
  16. Suvorov Valerii V. (2015) Vostochnichestvo. Kul’turno-istoricheskaia kontseptsiia i imperskaia ideologiia [Vostochnichestvo. A cultural and historical conception and imperial ideology]. Saratov: Izdatel’stvo Saratovskogo gosudarstvennogo meditsinskogo universiteta (in Russian).
  17. Teslia Andrei A. (2014) Poslednii iz “ottsov“. Biografi ia I.S. Aksakova [The last of the “fathers”. Biography of I.S. Aksakov]. St Petersburg: Russkaia mysl (in Russian).
  18. Vovchenko D. “Creating Arab Nationalism? Russia and Greece in Ottoman Syria and Palestine (1840–1909)”. Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 901–918.
  19. Zaionchkovskii Piotr A. (1964) Krizis samoderzhaviia na rubezhe 1870–80-kh gg. [Crisis of the tsardom in the late 1870s — early 1880s]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta (in Russian).

Polunov Alexander


Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in History;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: Lomonosov Moscow State University; 27/4 Lomonosovskiy prospekt, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation;
Post: associate professor, head of the Department of interethnic and interdenominational relations management, school of public administration;
ORCID: 0000-0002-4484-6003;
Email: polunov@spa.msu.ru.

*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.

Rakovskii Dmitrii

The Imperial Hermitage in the formation of cultural memory (second half of the 19th — early 20th centuries)

Rakovskii Dmitrii (2021) "The Imperial Hermitage in the formation of cultural memory (second half of the 19th — early 20th centuries) ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2021, Iss. 99, pp. 78-97 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII202199.78-97
This article is devoted to examining the expositions of the Imperial Hermitage of the second half of the 19th — early 20th centuries from the point of view of their infl uence on the formation of cultural memory and historical perceptions of Russian society. As part of the study, the exhibits were selected and distributed according to historical eras, illustrated by the plots of the works. We entered all the selected paintings into tables, where we added information on the main characters and events depicted in them. After that, the data were combined into consolidated tables, in which the number of repeats of each individual character and historical event was counted. This made it possible to single out a number of the most popular heroes and events of world history as refl ected in the exhibitions of the Imperial Hermitage, to determine the share of each era in the information space of the picture gallery and to trace their changes over more than half a century. We selected and characterised the images of historical fi gures of various eras that are most often found in the expositions of the Imperial Hermitage, i.e. Antiquity, Middle Ages, Modern History. We also studied the transformation of their images over time for visitors of the studied period. After analysing the information received, we tried to draw conclusions about the image of World History that was broadcast by the Imperial Hermitage through its picture gallery, comparing them with the results of our research on the image of the Russian history refl ected in the expositions of the Russian Museum of the same era.
historical memory, cultural memory, memorial research, memorial policy, general history, museums of second half of 19th — early 20th centuries, Hermitage, museum exposition, memory studies
  1. Bolashenkova E. (2015) “Images of Eskandar of the Two Horns. Alexander of Macedon in Historical Memory of Tajiks”, in Lavrovskii sbornik: Materialy XXXVIII i XXXIX Sredneaziatsko-Kavkazskikh chtenii 2014–2015 gg. Etnologija, istoriia, arkheologiia, kul’turologiia [Lavrovsky collection: Materials of the XXXVIII and XXXIX Central Asian-Caucasian readings, 2014–2015. Ethnology, history, archaeology, cultural studies]. St Petersburg, pp. 413–417 (in Russian).
  2. Gervic Majja (2003) Leo fon Klence i Novyi Ermitazh v kontekste evropeiskogo muzeinogo stroitel’stva [Leo von Klenze and the New Hermitage in the context of European museum construction]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  3. Grin P. (2010) Aleksandr Makedonski. Tsar’ chetyrekh storon sveta [Alexander the Great. King of the four parts of the world]. Moscow (in Russian).
  4. Kaganje L. (1990) “Istoriia Kartinnoi galerei. 1764–1917” [History of the Art Gallery. 1764–1917], in Ermitazh. Istoriia i sovremennost’ [Hermitage Museum. History and modernity]. Moscow, pp. 83–97 (in Russian).
  5. Levinson-Lessing V. (1985) Istoriia Kartinnoi galerei Ermitazha (1764–1917) [History of the Hermitage Painting Gallery (1764–1917)]. Leningrad (in Russian).
  6. Liddel Hart B. (2003) Scipio Africanus: Greater than Napoleon. Moscow (Russian translation).
  7. Malinovskii K. (1989) “Proishozhdenie i datirovka postupleniia kartin v Ermitazh po materialam Iakoba Shtelina” [The origin and dating of the receipt of paintings in the Hermitage based on materials by Jacob Stehlin], in Istoriia Ermitazha i ego kollektsii [History of the Hermitage and its collections]. Leningrad, pp. 14–21 (in Russian).
  8. Nepomnjashchii N. (2008) 100 velikikh sokrovishch Rossii [100 great treasures of Russia]. Moscow (in Russian).
  9. Nikogosian M. (2012) ““Istoriia Antoniia i Kleopatry” Tiepolo iz sobraniia kniazia N. B. Iusupova. Siuzhet, istochniki i smyslovaia interpretatsiia” [The Story of Anthony and Cleopatra” by Tiepolo from the collection of Prince N.B. Yusupov. Plot, sources and semantic interpretation]. Iskusstvoznanie, 1–2, pp. 389–409 (in Russian).
  10. Piotrovskii M. (2015) Moi Ermitazh [My Hermitage]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  11. Prilezhaeva-Barskaia B. (1928) Po zalam Ermitazha [Through the halls of the Hermitage]. Leningrad (in Russian).
  12. Rakovsky D. (2020) “Museums in the context of memory studies”. Klio, 4, pp. 148–156 (in Russian).
  13. Rakovsky D. (2020) “The Russian Museum of Emperor Alexander III as a site of memory”. Voprosy istorii, 11, pp. 132–137 (in Russian).
  14. Rostovtsev E., Sidorchuk I. (2014) “Muzei i istoricheskaia pamiat’ v sovremennoi Rossii” [The museum and historical memory in modern Russia]. Voprosy muzeologii, 2, pp. 16–21 (in Russian).
  15. Shifman I. (1988) Aleksandr Makedonskii [Alexander the Great]. Leningrad (in Russian).
  16. Suslov A. (1927) Ermitazh: Kratkii istoricheskii ocherk [Hermitage: a brief historical sketch]. Leningrad (in Russian).
  17. Suslov A. (1928) Zimnii dvorets (1754–1927 gg.): Istoricheskii ocherk [Winter Palace (1754–1927): a historical sketch]. Leningrad (in Russian).
  18. Vasil’ev A. (2012) “Scipion Afrikanskii kak politicheskii i voennyi lider novogo tipa” [Scipio Africanus as a political and military leader of a new type]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta, 2, pp. 109–116 (in Russian).

Rakovskii Dmitrii


Place of work: State Russian Museum; 2 Inzhenernaya ul., St Petersburg 191186, Russian Federation;
Post: researcher;
ORCID: 0000-0002-4810-6977;
Email: dimioniss@mail.ru.
Saralidze Merab, priest

The state of russian society in the second half of the 19th — early 20th centuries in the assessment of bishop Gurias (Burtasovsky)

Saralidze Merab (2021) "The state of russian society in the second half of the 19th — early 20th centuries in the assessment of bishop Gurias (Burtasovsky) ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2021, Iss. 99, pp. 98-109 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII202199.98-109
This article attempts to identify the civic stance and views of the famous priest of the Russian Orthodox Church, Bishop Guriy (Burtasovsky) concerning the state of the Russian society during the period of changes in political and public life caused by modernisation. The article contains a brief analysis of the secular worldview, the role of the church and the clergy in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries. It establishes a link between class restructuring and the emergence and development of Russian parliamentarism. It discusses reports, decisions and notes by Bishop Guriy kept at state archives, his thoughts about the situation with other denominations, with convicts, requirements for clergymen, women’s education, the woman’s role in the family during the crisis of this social institution. The article also provides evaluation of these ideas that are based on historical and sociological studies. In the fi nal section, the article draws conclusions about the general relevance of the bishop’s understanding of the current historical situation and about his progressive egalitarian missionary views which did not contradict conservative political views.
modernisation, secularisation of consciousness, religious image of the world, rationalism, Bishop Guriy (Burtasovsky), Orthodox mission, education of members of national minorities, correction of convicts, marginality in society, patriarchalauthoritarian model of family, women’s education
  1. Alyoshkin A., Kalmykov A. (2006) Dumy Tavricheskogo dvortsa: Gosudarstvennaia Duma Rossii. 1906–2006 [Dumas of the Tauric Palace: State Duma in Russia. 1906–2006]. Moscow (in Russian).
  2. Bezhanidze G. (2014) O eparkkhial’nom otchiote mitropolita Filareta (Drozdova) za 1863 g. [On the diocesan report of Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov) for 1863]. Filaretovskii al’manakh, 10, p. 7–25 (in Russian).
  3. Bezhanidze G., Firsov A. (2017) ““Povinen sidet’ v Sinode i smotret’ nakrepko”. Instruktsiia ober-prokuroru Sviateishego Sinoda. 1722 g.” [“Obliged to sit in the Synod and look fi rmly”. Instruction to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. 1722 g.]. Istoricheskii arkhiv, 2, p. 178–184 (in Russian).
  4. Bobrovnikov V. (2012) “Chto vyshlo iz proekta sozdaniia v Rossii inorodtsev? (otvet Dzhonu Slokumu iz musul’manskikh okrain imperii)” [What came out of the project of creating foreigners in Russia? (answer to John Slocum from the Muslim outskirts of the empire)], in “Poniatiia o Rossii”: K istoricheskoi semantike imperskogo perioda [“Concepts of Russia”: Towards the historical semantics of the imperial period], vol. 2. Moscow, p. 259–291 (in Russian).
  5. Dzherasi R. (2013) Okno na Vostok: Imperiia, orientalizm, natsiia i religiia v Rossii [Window to the East: Empire, orientalism, nation and religion in Russia]. Moscow (in Russian).
  6. D’iachkov V. (2000) “O zhenskoi dole, muzhskoi roli i nashem meste pod solntsem, ili O tom, chto byvaet za nepravil’noe i nesoznatel’noe demografi cheskoe povedenie” [About women’s destiny, the role of men, and our place under the sun, or What happens for the wrong and unreasonable demographic behaviour], in Borodkin L. (ed.) Sotsial’naia istoriia: Ezhegodnik [Social History: a yearbook]. Moscow, p. 219–229 (in Russian).
  7. Firsov S. (2002) Russkaia Tserkov’ nakanune peremen (konets 1890-kh — 1918 gg.) [Russian Church on the verge of changes (late 1890s — 1918)]. Moscow (in Russian).
  8. Kuleshov S., Volobuev O., Pivovar E. et al. (1991) Nashe Otechestvo. Opyt politicheskoi istorii [Our motherland. A political history], vol. 1. Moscow (in Russian).
  9. Lipakov E. (2006) “Gurii”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox encyclopaedia], vol. 13. Moscow, p. 472–473 (in Russian).
  10. Mironov B. (2003) Sotsial’naia istoriia Rossii perioda imperii (XVIII — nachalo XX v.) [Social history of Russia during the period of the empire (18th — early 20th centuries)], vols 1–2. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  11. Olenich T. (2004) Transformatsiia russkogo religioznogo sektantstva v kontekste sovremennogo filosofsko-kul’turologicheskogo znaniia [Transformation of Russian religious sectarianism in the context of modern philosophical and cultural knowledge]. Rostov-na-Donu (in Russian).
  12. Sliozkin Iu. (2008) Arkticheskie zerkala. Rossiia i malye narody Severa [Arctic mirrors. Russia and small northern peoples]. Moscow (in Russian).

Saralidze Merab, priest


Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: St. Tikhon Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow, 127 051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-3381-687X;
Email: saralidze.m@gmail.com.
Dashevskaya Zoya

Emergence and development of historical and liturgical studies in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the Russian Academia: a study of the sacraments

Dashevskaya Zoya (2021) "Emergence and development of historical and liturgical studies in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the Russian Academia: a study of the sacraments ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2021, Iss. 99, pp. 110-133 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII202199.110-133
Studies in historical liturgics played an important role in the Russian science from the second half of the 19th century up to the period when theological academies were forcibly closed by the Communist revolution. Taking an integrated look on these studies, we can discern the emergence of a new and independent line of research out of which originates a whole new branch of historical science. The studies in question make advances both in terms of detailed research into primary liturgical source material and in terms of overall methodology, as becomes evident in the 20th century. The works of representatives of this Russian school (A. A. Dmitrievsky, A. I. Almazov, I. A. Karabinov, Archbishop Benedikt (Alentov), and others) have been used by well-known specialists of the Pontifi cal Oriental Institute and by followers of the Spanish theologian Juan Mateos. A historical and liturgical analysis into the way how the Church celebrated its mysteries became one of the most important lines of research in these studies. The approaches and methodology of the Russian scholars used in the study of the Sacraments make up the topic of this article. Studies into the liturgical aspect of various rites in the works of these liturgical scholars did not confl ict with the dogmatic content of the Sacraments because the authors assume that a theological development (including that of the Sacraments and the accompanying rites) is directly related to the developing history of the church and society, along with their prevailing theological ideas and concepts. The result of these endeavours is the emergence of a historical-liturgical school in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. Russian liturgists, despite their diff ering views on liturgical history and even their mutual criticism, managed to introduce the application of the historical-critical and comparative methods to the study of liturgical artefacts; their work forms a signifi cant contribution to Russia’s intellectual history, and even today their research methods preserve their relevance. The development of the field of historical liturgics within the Russian theological school stimulated historical research; the scholars, while remaining within the scientifi c framework, continued to analyse and discuss historical evidence and the interrelation of various historical data. The work of these scholars provides us with the opportunity to build an integrated vision of the historical development of the Byzantine rite in the church service.
liturgics, the Sacraments, Byzantine rite, A. A. Dmitrievsky, I. A. Karabinov, A. I. Almazov, Archbishop Benedikt (Alentov)
  1. Buchinger H. (2007) “Kreshchenie i miropomazanie v siriiskoj traditsii III–IV vv.” [Baptism and Chrismation in the Syrian tradition of the III–IV centuries]. Pravoslavnoe ucheniie o tserkovnykh Tainstvakh [Orthodox doctrine of the Sacraments], vol. 1. Moscow, p. 220–233 (in Russian).
  2. Cheslyn Jones, Edward Yarnold, SJ, Geoffrey Wainwright, Paul Bradshaw (eds) (1992) Study of Liturgy (Revised Edition). Oxford.
  3. Dmitrievsky A. (2017) Lektsii po liturgike, 1 [Lectures in liturgics 1]. Ekaterinburg (in Russian).
  4. Dmitrievsky A. (1923–1928) Nauka o pravoslavnom bogosluzhenii [The study of Orthodox worship]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  5. Johnson M. (2007) “Kreshchenie i Miropomazanie v egipetskoi traditsii III–IV vv.” [Baptism and Chrismation in the Egyptian tradition of the III–IV centuries]. Pravoslavnoe ucheniie o tserkovnykh Tainstvakh [Orthodox doctrine of the Sacraments], vol. 1. Moscow, p. 234–256 (in Russian).
  6. Getcha Job (2004) Les études liturgiques russes au XIXe — XXe siècles et leur impact sur la pratique. Les mouvements liturgiques. Corrélations entre pratiques et recherches. Roma, p. 279–290.
  7. Glubokovskii N. (2002) Russkaia bogoslovskaia nauka v ee istoricheskom razvitii i noveishem sostoianii [Russian theological scholarship in its historical development and present state]. Moscow (in Russian).
  8. Hotz Robert (2014) Sakramente — Im Wechselspiel Zwischen Ost und West. Moscow (Russian translation).
  9. Khristoforov V. (2004) “Venedikt”. Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, vol. 7, p. 576–577. Moscow (in Russian).
  10. Korogodina M. (2006) Ispoved’ v Rossii v XIV–XIX vekakh: Issledovnanie i teksty [Confession in Russia in the XIV–XIX centuries: Research and texts]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  11. Merras M. (2007) “Nekotorye vazhneishie aspekty Kreshheniia i Miropomazaniia v rannevizantijskoj tradicii” [Some important aspects of Baptism and Chrismation in the early Byzantine tradition]. Pravoslavnoe ucheniie o tserkovnykh Tainstvakh [Orthodox doctrine of the Sacraments], vol. 1, p. 280–294 (in Russian).
  12. Meyendorff P. (2009) The Anointing of the Sick. Orthodox Liturgy Series 1. Crestwood, NY: SVS Press.
  13. Pentkovskij A. M. (2007) “Pokajannaja praktika khristianskoj Tserkvi vo vtoroj polovine pervogo tysjacheletija po Rozhdestvu Khrista“ [The penitential practice of the Christian Church in the second half of the fi rst millennium A.D.]. Pravoslavnoe ucheniie o tserkovnykh Tainstvakh [Orthodox doctrine of the Sacraments], vol. 3, pp. 203–215 (in Russian).
  14. Sanjuk Fr. Gleb (2015) “Liturgicheskij e issledovanij a professora SPb Dukhovnoj Academii A. L. Katanskogo“ [A. L. Katansky, Professor of Liturgics in St Petersburg Theological Academy: Liturgical Studies]. Khristianskoje chtenije, 2. pp. 178–187 (in Russian).
  15. Sauget Joseph-Marie. Bibliographie des liturgies orientales, 1900–1960. Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1962. Pp. 57–59.
  16. Sukhova N. Yu. (2006) Vysshaya dukhovnaya shkola: problemy i reformy (vtoraya polovina XIX veka) [Higher Theological School: Problems and reforms (the second half of the 19th century)], Izd-vo PSTGU, Moscow (in Russian).
  17. Sukhova N. Yu. (2007) Vertograd nauk dukhovnyi: Sbornik statei po istorii vysshego dukhovnogo obrazovaniya v Rossii XIX — nachala XX veka [The garden of spiritual science: a collection of articles on the history of theological education in Russia in the 19th — early 20th centuries], Izd-vo PSTGU, Moscow (in Russian).
  18. Sukhova N. Yu. (2009) Sistema nauchno-bogoslovskoi attestatsii v Rossii v XIX — nachale XX v. [The system of academic theological attestation in Russia in the 19th — the beginning of 20th century], Izd-vo PSTGU, Moscow (in Russian).
  19. Sukhova N. Yu. (2017) “The Formation of Liturgical Studies as an Academic Discipline”, Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, no. 2(18), pp. 88–116, Moscow (in Russian).
  20. Taft Ρ. F. (2011) “Liturgicheskoe delo 25 let spustya posle Aleksandra Shmemana (1921–1983): chelovek i ego nasledie” [The liturgical enterprise 25 years after Alexander Schmemann: the person and his heritage], in Taft R. F. Stat’i [Articles], vol. II. Omsk (in Russian).
  21. Taft Ρ. F. (2009) “Kak rastut liturgii” [How liturgies grow: the evolution of the Byzantine “divine liturgy”]. Mateos X., Taft R. F. Razvitie vizantijskoj liturgii. Kiev: Quo Vadis.
  22. The Church at Prayer: Volume III: The Sacraments. The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, Minnesota, 1987.
  23. The Study of Liturgy (Revised Edition). Edited by Cheslyn Jones, Edward Yarnold, SJ, Geoffrey Wainwright, and Paul Bradshaw. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1992.
  24. Tkachenko A. (2011) “Ispoved“ [Confession]. Pravoslavnaja entsiklopedia [Orthodox encyclopaedia], vol. 27, pp. 624–634, Moscow (in Russian).
  25. Tkachenko A. A., Remorov Ioann (2008) “Jeleosvjaschenij e“ [Chrismation]. Pravoslavnaja entsiklopedija [Orthodox encyclopaedia], vol. 18, pp. 325–337, Moscow (in Russian).
  26. Venedikt (Alentov), archbishop (2004) K istorii pravoslavnogo bogosluzheniya: Istorikoliturgicheskoe i arxeologicheskoe issledovanie o chine tainstva Eleosvyashheniya [Towards the history of Orthodox worship: historical, liturgical and archaeological study of the rite of the Sacrament of the blessing of oil]. Kiev: Izdatel`stvo imeni svt. L`va, papy` Rimskogo.
  27. Zheltov M. S., К.А.М. (2001) “A. I. Almazov“. Pravoslavnaya ehntsiklopediya [Orthodox encyclopaedia], vol. 2. pp. 38–39, Moscow (in Russian).
  28. Zheltov Mikhail, deacon (2009) “Istoriko-liturgicheskij e aspekty sakramentologii“ [Historical and liturgical aspects of sacramentology]. Pravoslavnoe ucheniie o tserkovnykh Tainstvakh [Orthodox doctrine of the Sacraments]. Moscow: Synodal Biblical-Theological Commission, vol. 1. pp. 124–133 (in Russian).
  29. Zheltov M. (2011) “Obzor istorii pravoslavnoĬ liturgicheskoĬ nauki do kontsa XX veka” [Outline of the history of Orthodox liturgical studies up to the end of the 20th century], available at http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/1883125.html (17.09.2011).

Dashevskaya Zoya


Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: St Philaret's Christian Orthodox Institute; Moscow State University; 29 Pokrovka, Moscow 105062, Russian Federation;
Post: Dean, Sсhool of Theology, St Philaret's Christian Orthodox Institute;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2193-3382;
Email: dean@sfi.ru.
Kiyashko Nikita

“We don’t need any hostile priests”: the evolution of religious policy of soviet authorities in 1922 with security services in Kuban’ region as an example

Kiyashko Nikita (2021) "“We don’t need any hostile priests”: the evolution of religious policy of soviet authorities in 1922 with security services in Kuban’ region as an example ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2021, Iss. 99, pp. 134-149 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII202199.134-149
This article analyses the evolution of the religious policy of the Soviet government in 1922 and the role of security organs (ВЧК, ГПУ) in the implementation of the new course of relations with the church. The campaign to confi scate church valuables, which actually became the state robbery of churches, was not a strategic result of the supreme power, but only an instrument of Lenin’s attack on the Church, in the process of which a more important task became apparent, i.e. to institutionalise the diff erentiation of the clergy and the division of its administrative apparatus. The implementation of these plans led in practice to the formation of a new mechanism, i.e. an interaction between the party and the state security organs in the sphere of religious policy. Within the framework of the new model, the State Political Directorate (ГПУ) received offi cial authorisation to manage internal church aff airs using specifi c methods of investigative work, and local offi cials were appointed by the State Political Directorate to control church policy. Exercising their authority to decentralise church government, local security organs switched to using a clergy-based intelligence network, which established control over the administration of dioceses. The fi rst step in the systematic work was dealing with “church” data as with a separate corpus of information and the establishmentl of its structure, the maintenance of which was entrusted to the VI division of the Secret Department of the State Political Directorate.
religious policy, confi scation of church valuables, Russian Orthodox Church, Kuban diocese, clergy, All-Russian Extraordinary Commission, State Political Directorate, cipher telegrammes of State Political Directorate
  1. Arkhivy Kremlya. Kn. 1. Politbiuro i tserkov’. 1922–1925 gg. Moscow, 1997; Kn. 2. Politbiuro i tserkov’. 1922–1925 gg. Moscow, 1998 [Archives of the Kremlin. Vol. 1. Politbureau and the church. 1922–1925; Vol. 2. Politbureau and the church. 1922–1925] (in Russian).
  2. Babich A. (2012) “K voprosu ob iz»iatii tserkovnykh tsennostei na Kubani v 1922 godu” [Confiscation of church valuables in Kuban region in 1922]. Kuban’-Ukraina: voprosy istorikokul’turnogo vzaimodeistviia, vol. 6. Krasnodar, p. 319–331 (in Russian).
  3. Ivanov S. (2015) “Finansy i politika v realizatsii iz»iatykh v 1922 g. tserkovnykh tsennostei” [Finance and politics in handling the church values seized in 1922]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 5 (66), p. 36–60 (in Russian).
  4. Ivanov S. (2015) “Tserkovnoe serebro v denezhnoi reforme 1922–1924 gg.” [Church silver in the 1922–1924 monetary reform]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 6 (67), p. 38–63 (in Russian).
  5. Mazyrin A., Goncharov V., Uspenskii I. (2006) Iz'iatie tserkovnykh tsennostei v Moskve v 1922 godu. Sbornik dokumentov iz fondov Revvoensoveta Respubliki [The confi scation of church valuables in Moscow in 1922. Collection of documents from the funds of the Revvoensovet of the Republic]. Moscow, 2006 (in Russian).
  6. Kiyashko N. (2019) “Tserkov’ i sovetskaia vlast’ na iuge v 1920-e gg.: vzaimootnosheniia na mestakh v kontekste gosudarstvennoi politiki” [The church and soviet power in the south in the 1920s: local relations in the context of state policy]. Tserkov’. Bogoslovie. Istoriia: materialy VII Vserossiiskoi nauchno-bogoslovskoi konferentsii (Ekaterinburg, 8–10 fevralya 2019 g.) [Church. Theology. History: Proceedings of the 7th All-Russian conference. Ekaterinburg, 8–10 February, 2019]. Ekaterinburg, p. 66–72 (in Russian).
  7. Kiyashko N. (2020) “VChK i problema poiska modeli religioznoi politiki Sovetskogo gosudarstva v 1922–1922 gg.” [The Cheka and the problem of fi nding a model of the religious policy of the Soviet state in 1922–1922]. In Tserkov’. Bogoslovie. Istoriia, 1, p. 119–128 (in Russian).
  8. Kiyashko N. (2020) ““Arest ego byl vyzvan takticheskimi soobrazheniyami”: Sekretnyi otdel VChK i politicheskii kontrol’ nad pravoslavnym dukhovenstvom (1920–1921 gg.)” [“His arrest was caused by tactical considerations”: the Secret Department of the Cheka and political control over the Orthodox clergy]. In S. Nemchenko (ed.) Otradnenskie istorikokraevedcheskie chteniia. vol. VIII: Materialy mezhregional’noi nauchnoi konferentsii. Armavir, p. 68–74 (in Russian).
  9. Krivova N. (1997) Vlast’ i Tserkov’ v 1922–1925 gg.: Politbiuro i GPU v bor’be za tserkovnye tsennosti i politicheskoe podchinenie dukhovenstva [Power and the church in 1922-1925: the Politbureau and the GPU in the struggle for church valuables and the political control over the clergy]. Moscow (in Russian).
  10. Kurliandskii I. (2011) Stalin, vlast’, religiia (religioznyi i tserkovnyi faktory vo vnutrennei politike sovetskogo gosudarstva v 1922–1953 gg. [Stalin, power, religion (religious and church-related factors in the internal policy of the Soviet state in 1922–1953]. Moscow (in Russian).
  11. Odintsov M. (ed.) (1999) Russkie Patriarkhi XX veka: Sud’by Otechestva i Tserkvi na stranitsakh arkhivnykh dokumentov [Russian patriarchs of the 20th century: the fate of the country and the church on the pages of archival documents]. Moscow (in Russian).
  12. Petrov S. (2004) Dokumenty deloproizvodstva Politbiuro CK RKP(b) kak istochnik po istorii Russkoi tserkvi (1922–1925 gg.) [Documents of the Politbureau of the Central Committee of the RKP(b) as a source for the history of the Russian Church (1922–1925)]. Moscow (in Russian).
  13. Lobanov V. (2014) Protokoly Komissii po provedeniiu otdeleniia tserkvi ot gosudarstva pri CK RKP(b)-VKP(b) (Antireligioznoi komissii). 1922–1929 gg. [Proceedings of the Commission for the separation of church and state of the Central Committee of the RKP(b)-VKP(b) (Antireligious Commission). 1922–1929]. Moscow (in Russian).
  14. Vasil’ev O. (ed.) (1996) Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov’ i kommunisticheskoe gosudarstvo. 1917–1941. Dokumenty i fotomaterialy [The Russian Orthodox Church and the Communist State. 1917–1941. Documents and photographic materials]. Moscow (in Russian).
  15. Vorobiev V. (ed.) (2000) Sledstvennoe delo Patriarkha Tikhona [The case of Patriarch Tikhon: A collection of documents based on the materials of the Central Archive of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation]. Moscow (in Russian).

Kiyashko Nikita


Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: Lomonosov Moscow State University; 19 B.Lybyanka Str., Moscow 107031, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0001-7415-2603;
Email: kiyashkonv@gmail.com.
Dolya Evgeniy, priest

Relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the American Metropolitanate in the 1950s as shown by the documents of the State archive of the Russian Federation

Dolya Evgeniy (2021) "Relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the American Metropolitanate in the 1950s as shown by the documents of the State archive of the Russian Federation ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2021, Iss. 99, pp. 150-162 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII202199.150-162
This article examines the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the American Metropolitanate that split off from it in the 1950s. This period remains the least studied compared to other decades of confrontation between the North American Metropolitanate and the Moscow Patriarchate. The documentary basis of the article is the Fund R-6991 (Council for religious aff airs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR) of the State Archive of the Russian Federation. The materials show that the 50s are characterised by an almost complete cessation of bilateral dialogue. Metr. Leonty (Turkevich) replaced deceased metr. Theophilus (Pashkovsky) and set a course for the separation of the American Metropolitanate from the Patriarchate. Patriarch Alexy was no longer recognised as the “spiritual head” of the Metropolitan district, and his name was no longer mentioned in the divine service. By the mid-1950s, the Metropolitanate began to consider the possibility of canonical subordination to the Ecumenical Patriarch. The head of the Church of Constantinople, not of the Russian Church, was already seen as a source of Church legalisation. Moreover, with the support of the Greeks, a number of prominent fi gures of the American Metropolitanate began to declare the idea of creating an Autocephalous Orthodox Church in the United States, in which the leading role would be taken by representatives of Constantinople. Moscow Patriarchate could not allow the weakening of its position in the United States and, for its part, made several attempts to approach the leadership of the Metropolitanate, but they were either rejected or completely ignored. Archival documents, being made public for the fi rst time, show, fi rstly, the reaction of representatives of the Patriarchate and state structures of the USSR to certain processes in the USA, and, secondly, allow us to identify a number of reasons which did not make possible for the American Metropolitanate to contact the Patriarchate.
All-American Council, North American Metropolitanate, American Exarchate, autocephaly, Moscow Patriarchate, Archbishop Boris (Vik), Archpriest Alexander Shmeman
  1. Constance J. Tarasar and John H. Erikson (eds) (1976) Orthodox America 1794—1976: Development of the Orthodox Church in America. Syosset (NY): The Orthodox Church in America.
  2. Iuvenalij, metropolitan (ed.) (1999) Chelovek Tserkvi [Man of the Church]. Moscow: Raritet (in Russian).
  3. Ivanov A. (1955) “Pravoslavie v Amerike (Okonchanie)” [Orthodoxy in America (Ending)]. Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii, 1955, vol. 3, pp. 69–76 (in Russian).
  4. Kostryukov А. (2015) Russkaia zarubezhnaia tserkov’ v 1939–1964 gg. Administrativnoe ustroistvo i otnosheniia s tserkov’iu v otechestve [Russian Church abroad in 1939–1964. Administrative structure and relationship with the church in the motherland]. Moscow: PSTGU (in Russian).
  5. Kostryukov А. (2016) “Darovanie avtokefalii Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi v Amerike v svete dokumentov tserkovnykh arkhivov” [Granting of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in America in the light of the documents of Church archives]. Vestnik PSTGU, 2016, vol. 3 (70), pp. 93–103 (in Russian).
  6. Prosvetov R. (ed.) (2016) Benjamin (Fedchenkov) mitr. Sluzhenie v Amerike (v dokumentakh 1943–1947 godov) [Benjamin (Fedchenkov) Metropolitan. Service in America (in documents of 1933–1947)]. Moscow: Otchii dom (in Russian).
  7. Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov’ v Severnoi Amerike. Istoricheskaia spravka [The Russian Orthodox Church in North America. Historical background]. Jordanville (New-York): Sviato- Troitskii monastyr’ (in Russian).
  8. Serafim (Surrency), archimandrite (1973) The Quest for Orthodox Church Unity in America: A History of the Orthodox Church in North America in the Twentieth Century. NY: Saints Boris and Gleb Press.
  9. Vedernikov A. (1950) “Grekh protiv Materi-Tserkvi” [Sin against Mother Church]. Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii, 1950, vol. 7, pp. 68–78 (in Russian).

Dolya Evgeniy, priest


Student status: Graduate student;
Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: Russian State University for the Humanities; 6, Miusskaya Square, Moscow 125993, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-7977-7968;
Email: vosdol@yandex.ru.

BOOK REVIEWS

Kostryukov Andrey

A drop in the ocean of sorrow — Rev. of Пученков А., Калиновский В. Духовный форпост России. Православное духовенство Крыма в 1914–1920 годах. СПб.: Владимир Даль, 2020.

Kostryukov Andrey (2021) "A drop in the ocean of sorrow". Rev. of Puchenkov A., Kalinovskiy V. Duhovniy forpost Rossii. Pravoslavnoe duhovenstvo Krima v 1914–1920 godah. SPb.: Vladimir Daly, 2020., Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II : Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2021, Iss. 99, pp. 165-168 (in Russian).

PDF

Kostryukov Andrey


Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in History;
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Theology;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for Humanities; 6/1 Likhov Pereulok, office 219, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: Leading Research Fellow, Research Centre for Contemporary History of Russian Orthodox Church; Associate Professor, Department of General and Russian Church History and Canon Law;
ORCID: 0000-0003-4334-1035;
Email: a.kost@mail.ru.

*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.