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

This publication discusses the history of the origin and reception of the definition of the Third Ecumenical Council on the Creed. This definition, drawn up in connection with the rejection of the statement of faith by Theodore of Mopsuestia, should, according to the plan of St. Cyril of Alexandria, to secure the Nicene Creed the status of the only symbolic text used in Baptism and the admission of heretics into church fellowship. The author shows that, although this rule was drawn up at the Council, it did not receive official approval and was not solemnly promulgated. In this regard, it did not enjoy authority in the Churches of Asia Minor and the Syrian region, where the forms of the Symbol, close to the modern Constantinople Creed, dominated. The article proves that at the Council of Chalcedon (451) a synthesis of various local traditions regarding the practice of reading the Creed was made: the so-called “Statement of the faith of 150 fathers”, traditionally associated with the Council of Constantinople in 381, received universal authority and began to be considered an authentic form of expression of the “Nicene faith”. To both versions of the text, which were henceforth considered one Creed, the Council attached the wording of the Ephesian ban on changing the Creed. At the same time, the concept of the immutability of the "catholic faith" in content was separated from the immutability of the Symbol by letter, with the possible emergence of new formulas (the latter should not have claimed the status of “symbols”). This idea relatively quickly received a reception in the East. In the West, the recognition of the Constantinople version of the text of the Symbol as authoritative occurs only in the 6th century, and initially in Rome. The Roman bishops, on the other hand, held for the longest time the literal inviolability of the Creed, even after the spread of the Filioque in the Latin West.

Ecumenical Councils, Creed, Council of Chalcedon, Council of Ephesus, Canon law, Church history, Cyril of Alexandria

1. Abramowski L. (2004) “Die Sitzung des Konzils von Ephesus am 22. Juli 431 ±Über die Befestigung des Symbols der heiligen Väter von Nicäa und über den Presbyter Charisius übergebenen Libellus″”. Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 2004, vol. 115, pp. 382–390.
2. Antonov N. (2020) “Vtoroi vselenskii sobor v istoriko-bogoslovskom kontekste”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Series II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2020, vol. 95, pp. 9–32 (in Russian).
3. Gill J. (1977) “±Concilium Florentinum: Documenta et Scriptores″. An Ambitious Project Accomplished”. Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 1977, vol. 43, pp. 5–17.
4. Grillmeier A. (1975) Christ in Christian Tradition. London, vol. 1.
5. Hartmann W., Pennington K. (eds) (2012) The History of Byzantine and Eastern Canon Law to 1500. Washington.
6. Kelly J. N. D. (1972) Early Christian Creeds. London.
7. Kinzig W. (2021) Das Glaubensbekenntnis von Konstantinopel (381): Herkunft, Geltung und Rezeption. Berlin; Boston.
8. Schwartz E. (1926) “Das Nicaenum und das Constantinopolitanum auf der Synode von Chalkedon”. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1926, vol. 25, pp. 38–88.
9. Siecienski E. (2010) The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. Oxford.
10. Staats R. (1996) Das Glaubensbekenntnis von Nizäa-Konstantinopel: Historische und theologische Grundlagen. Darmstadt.
11. Tkachenko A. (2022) “Simvol very”. Pravoslavnaia Entsiklopedia, vol. 63, pp. 453–458 (in Russian).
12. Zakharov G. (2018) “Rimskii sobor 382 g. v kontekste tserkovno-politicheskoi deiatelnosti i ekkleziologicheskikh vzgliadov svt. Damasa Rimskogo i svt. Amvrosiia Mediolanskogo”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Series II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2018, vol. 80, pp. 9–28 (in Russian).

Paskov Petr

the article analyzes the Church's position on the funeral rites that were practiced by the Peruvian Indigenous in the early colonial period. First, the author presents a brief description of the Andean funeral rite, most of the elements of which (the presence of extensive accompanying gifts, burial with subsequent access to the body for ritual purposes, etc.) directly contradicted the Christian doctrine and practice. The author distinguishes between two types of sources — reflecting the theoretical position and revealing its practical implementation. The theoretical provisions are reflected primarily in the materials of the first three Lima church councils, which were convened in 1551-52, 1567-68 and 1582-88. The practical implementation of these provisions is most clearly traced by the materials of the processes for the extirpation of idolatry among the Indigenous people, the peak of which fell on the XVII century. Most of these documents originate from the Archdiocese of Lima. The analysis of these sources shows that the following practices caused the greatest condemnation on the part of the Church: burials of the deceased outside church cemeteries and burials together with accompanying gifts (drinks, food, clothes, etc.). In addition, it can be stated that there are no significant discrepancies between the theory and practice in relation of the Church to Indigenous funeral rites, with the exception of that the burning of ancestral mummies, which has become a common practice, was not prescribed by the documentation of the Lima councils. In conclusion, the author concludes that the efforts of the Church to eradicate traditional rituals were partially successful, and some elements of the traditional Andean funeral rite were replaced by Christian ones.

funeral rite, Christianization, Underworld, Andean civilization, councils, Incas, colonial period

1. Aries F. (1992) Chelovek pered litsom smerti. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Armas Asín F. (2009) “Evangelización, ortodoxia católica y gestualidad andina (Perú, 1532– 1700)”, in F. Armas Asín (ed.) La invención del catolicismo en América. Los procesos de evangelización, siglos XVI–XVIII, Lima, pp. 1115–1137.
3. Carter W. E. (1968) “Secular Кeinforcement in Aymara Death Ritual”. American Anthropologist, 1968, vol. 70/2, pp. 238–263.
4. Dejo J. (2018) “Contemplar y simbolizar en la misión: unión con Dios e identidad jesuita en los Andes (siglos XVI y XVII)”. Revista Sílex, 2018, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 43–71.
5. Kessel J. van (2001) “El ritual mortuorio de los aymara de Tarapacá como vivencia y crianza de la vida”. Chungara: Revista de Antropología Chilena, 2001, vol. 33/2, pp. 221–234.
6. Novoselova E., Chernova N., Katakhova N. (2021) “‘Language conquest’: colonial Quechua grammars as a model of cultural and linguistic acculturation”. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities and social sciences, 2021, vol. 6, pp. 927–938 (in Russian).
7. Lisi F. L. (2008) “El Tercer Concilio de Lima y su signifi cación en la aculturación de las poblaciones indígenas de la América del Sur”. Guaraguao, Año 12, 2008, vol. 28, pp. 71–74.
8. López Lamerán C. (2011) ”El III Concilio de Lima y la conformación de una normativa evangelizadora para la provincia eclesiástica del Perú”. Intus-Legere Historia, 2011, vol. 5/2, pp. 51–68.
9. Martínes Ferrer L. (2009) ”El proceso de institucionalización de la iglesia católica en Iberoamérica (siglos XVI–XVIII)”, in F. Armas Asín (ed.) La invención del catolicismo en América. Los procesos de evangelización, siglos XVI–XVIII. Lima, pp. 19–44.
10. Saranyana J.-I. (2009) “El más allá en los concilios limenses del ciclo colonial, 1551–1772”, in G. von Wobeser, E. Vila Vilar (eds) Muerte y vida en el más allá España y América, siglos XVI–XVIII. México, pp. 109–124.
11. Valderrana Fernández R., Escalante Gutierrez C. (1980) “Apu Qorpuna: visión del mundo de los muertos en la comunidad de Awkimarka”. Debates de Antropología, 1980, vol. 5, pp. 233–264.
12. Vreeland P. J. (1998) “Mummies of Peru”, in T. A. Cockburn, E. Cockburn (eds) Mummies, disease and ancient cultures. Cambridge, рр. 154–189.

Novoselova Elena

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

The article is devoted to the analysis of the participation of the Metropolitan of Moscow Filaret (Drozdov) in the development of government policy measures during the period of the Great Reforms. Saint Philaret (Drozdov), the most authoritative hierarch of the Russian Church, by the beginning of the reign of Emperor Alexander II, had considerable experience in ecclesiastical and political activity. He had been familiar with the monarch who had ascended the throne for a long time, their relationship was not only official, but also personal. The emperor's wife, Maria Alexandrovna, respected the spiritual gifts of the Moscow Metropolitan. Faced with the problem of writing the text of the manifesto on the abolition of serfdom, the government turned to Metropolitan Philaret. The Moscow saint formulated his own, different from the original, concept of the content of the document, which was accepted. Less well known is his involvement in the preparation of the budget reform. The article reveals the role of the metropolitan in the legislative recognition of a special status for church finances, different from both state and public funds. Some reform initiatives of the government were not implemented due to the opposition of the metropolitan. The active position of St. Philaret prevented the liberalization of the policy towards the Old Believer schism. By rejecting the idea of including a hierarchy in the Council of State, he contributed to the emperor's abandonment of constitutional undertakings. Thus, Metropolitan Filaret (Drozov) should be regarded not only as a prominent church hierarch, but also as a prominent participant in government activities during the era of the Great Reforms.

Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov), Orthodox state, church-state relations, modernization, Great Reforms, government, conservatism

1. Alekseeva S. (2003) Sviateishii Sinod v sisteme vysshikh i tsentralnykh gosudarstvennykh uchrezhdenii poreformennoi Rossii 1856–1904 gg. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
2. Bezhanidze G. (1999) “P. A. Valuev i ego proekt reformy Gosudarstvennogo Soveta”, in Ezhegodnaia bogoslovskaia konferentsiia PSTGU: Materialy. Moscow, pp. 177–182 (in Russian).
3. Bezhanidze G. (2007) “Ober-prokuror Sviateishego Sinoda A. P. Akhmatov i sviatitel³ Filaret (Drozdov)”. Filaretovskii almanakh, 2007, vol. 3, pp. 53–97 (in Russian).
4. Bezhanidze G. (2008) “Ober-prokuror Sviateishego Sinoda A. P. Tolstoi i sviatitel³ Filaret (Drozdov)”. Filaretovskii almanakh, 2008, vol. 4, pp. 93–121 (in Russian).
5. Bezhanidze Iu., Firsov A. (2014) “Aleksandr Petrovich Tolstoi — Ober-prokuror Sviateishego Sinoda”. Voprosy istorii, 2014, no. 2, pp. 17–41 (in Russian).
6. Bezhanidze G., Firsov A. (2021) “Ober-prokurory Sviateishego Sinoda o sinodal³noi sisteme tserkovnogo upravleniia”. Vestnik Istoricheskogo obshchestva Sankt-Peterburgskoi Dukhovnoi Akademii, 2021, vol.1 (6), pp. 41–50 (in Russian).
7. Chernukha V. (1976) “Programmnaia zapiska ministra vnutrennikh del P. A. Valueva ot 22 sentyabrya 1861”. Vspomogatelnye istoricheskie distsipliny, vol. 7, pp. 210–220 (in Russian).
8. Chernukha V. (1978) Vnutrenniaia politika tsarizma s serediny 50-h do nachala 80-h godov XIX veka. Leningrad (in Russian).
9. Firsov A. (2008) “Okhranit sobstvennost tserkovnuiu…″: sviatitel Filaret (Drozdov) i finansovaia reforma 1862 g.”. Filaretovskii almanakh, 2008, vol. 4, pp. 147–157 (in Russian).
10. Lebedev A. (2013) “Sviatitel³ Filaret i Manifest ot 19 fevralya 1861 goda”. Filaretovskii almanakh, 2013, vol. 9, pp. 22–50 (in Russian).
11. Freeze G. (2008) “Pastyr³ i tserkovnyi deiatel³: sviatitel³ Filaret Moskovskii i staroobriadcheskii raskol 1825–1855 gg”. Filaretovskii almanakh, 2008, vol. 4, pp. 122–146 (in Russian).
12. Racheotes, N. (2019) The Life and Thought of Filaret Drozdov, 1782–1867: the Thorny Path to Sainthood. New York; London.
13. Rimskii S. (1999) Rossiiskaia Tserkov v epokhu Velikikh reform. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Smolitsch I. (1964) Geschichte des Russischen Kirche, 1700–1917. Leiden (Russian translation, 1997).
15. Zakharova L. (2005) “Velikie reformy 1860-kh — 1870-kh godov: povorotnyi punkt rossiiskoi istorii?”. Otechestvennaia istoriia, 2005, no. 4, pp. 151–167 (in Russian).

Bezhanidze Georgy

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

Firsov 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 study was funded by the Russian Foundation for Fundamental Research as part of the project no. 21-011-44119\21 “Theological thought in the context of modernisation: Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov) and imperal institutions of his time”.

The article considers women's charitable activities in the Nizhny Novgorod region in the 1870-1890s. In the XIX century women were especially social active in the field of charity. The involvement of women in the social life of the province affected mainly upper and wealthy groups of the urban population (in the peasant group the features of traditional society were preserved for a long time). The article presents new facts (found both in archival and published sources) about the philanthropy of Nizhny Novgorod merchantry and nobility. The facts demonstrate that charitable initiatives of charity activists manifested themselves mainly in their social and cultural projects. In article all donations of women are systematized by type of assistance (assistance to the poor and the church, maintenance of almshouses, donations for the construction of hospitals and maternity hospitals, charity in the field of education, donations to orphanages, registration of wills for the needs of philanthropy). It is concluded that the largest amount of donations in monetary terms in the last third of the XIX century was ordered for the construction of new hospitals. For the first time, the article presents a detailed history of the hospital institution, created with a large donation from the merchant G.N. Ryabinina for a building of surgical department of the Nizhny Novgorod Provincial Zemstvo Hospital in 1899.

charity, philanthropy, poor relief, women’s history, 19th Centuries Russian History, merchants, Imperial Russia, public education, Nizhny Novgorod

1. Kononova Т. (2002) Osobennosti razvitiia blagotvoritelnosti v Rossii. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Krasnov V. (2019) Blagotvoritelnost v kupecheskom Nizhnem. Nizhny Novgorod (in Russian).
3. Lindenmeyr A. (1993) “Public Life, Private Virtues: Women in Russian Charity, 1762–1914”. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 1993, vol. 18 (3), pp. 562–591.
4. Makarov I. (1999) “Parokhodovladel³tsy Sirotkiny”, in Kazhdyi rod znamenit i slaven: iz istorii nizhegorodskogo predprinimatelstva XVII — nachala XX v., Nizhny Novgorod, pp. 202–221 (in Russian).
5. Marasanova V., Albegova I., Shamatonova G. (2012) “Istoricheskie traditsii zhenskoi blagotvoritelnosti v Rossii (na primere semei gubernatorov Verkhnego Povolzhia)”. Zhenshchina v rossiiskom obshchestve, 2012, vol. 1 (62), pp. 26–37 (in Russian).
6. Sedov A. (1994) “Mukomol³noe delo. Bashkirovy”, in Nizhegorodskii krai: fakty, sobytiia, liudi, Nizhny Novgorod, pp. 205–207 (in Russian).
7. Sedov А. (2005) Kerzhaki: istoriia triokh pokolenii kuptsov Bugrovykh. Nizhny Novgorod (in Russian).
8. Sedov A. (2007) Kuptsy-staroobriadtsy Blinovy. Nizhny Novgorod (in Russian).
9. Seleznev F. (2004) “Byl polezen svoei rodine…″”. Nizhegorodskaia starina, 2004, vol. 9, pp. 12–18 (in Russian).
10. Seleznev F. (2013) “Adresa miloserdiia: nizhegorodskie blagotvoriteli”, in Slavnoe proshloe nizhegorodskoi zemli: kniga dlia vneklassnogo chteniia po istorii Nizhegorodskogo kraia, Nizhny Novgorod, pp. 172–179 (in Russian).
11. Shiyan L. (1999) “Fenomen Rukavishnikovykh”, in Kazhdyi rod znamenit i slaven: iz istorii nizhegorodskogo predprinimatelstva XVII — nachala XX v. Nizhny Novgorod, pp. 164–178 (in Russian).
12. Ulianova G. (1996) “Zhenshchiny sem³i Morozovykh: blagotvoritel³nost³ kak semeinaia traditsiia”, in Trudy Pervykh Morozovskikh chtenii, Noginsk, pp. 115–121 (in Russian).
13. Ulianova G. (2002) “Predprinimateli i filantropiia v Nizhnem Novgorode v XIX — nachale XX vv.”, in Predprinimatelstvo i gorodskaia kultura v Rossii, Moscow, pp. 119–138 (in Russian).
14. Ulianova G. (2005) Blagotvoritelnost v Rossiiskoi imperii: XIX — nachalo XX vv. Moscow (in Russian).
15. Vakhromeeva O. (2004) Problema vzaimopomoshchi i finansirovaniia na Bestuzhevskikh kursakh. St. Petersburg (in Russian).

Zapevalova Ekaterina

Abstract. Apparently, until now, researchers have not paid attention to the fact that the “Declaration” of Met. Sergius Stragorodsky (1927) contains an almost direct quotation from Blessed Augustine's “De civitate Dei”, which speaks of the common joys and sorrows that in this life unite the citizens of the heavenly city and the citizens of the earthly city. As a consequence, the question arises as to what extent this borrowing could be, as well as whether this parallel legitimizes the ecclesiological (church-state) concept of Metropolitan Sergius. Evidently, Blessed Augustine was not among his favorite and even frequently quoted authors. This could result from the critical attitude towards the Bishop of Hippo, which was revealed even before 1917 by representatives of the “new theology”, whom Met. Sergius belonged to. However, since at the beginning of the 20th century “De civitate Dei” was too often the subject of church and public discussions, Met. Sergius, with his well-known erudition, could not be completely unfamiliar with it. At the same time, the conducted research shows that the position of Met. Sergius on the issue of church-state relations was changing throughout his life due to changing historical circumstances. Nevertheless, we can say for certain that his position was constant in the idea of the inviolability of the canonical structure of the local Church. This idea is formed against the background of the struggle for the restoration of the patriarchate. It considers the autocephalous local Church (not the diocese, as it was in ancient times) as a structural unit of the universal Church. Consequently, it implies the need to maintain a single church organization throughout the USSR. This, in turn, required the legal functioning of the Church, and, as a result, had a much greater dependence on the earthly city than blessed Augustine supposed.

Blessed Augustine, “De civitate Dei”, Declaration of 1927, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), New theology, Local Church, Restoration of the Patriarchate, Church-state Relations.

1. Amvrosiy (Polyansky) (2003) Uchenie o Tsarstve Bozhiem po sochineniiu blazhennogo Avgustina “O grade Bozhiem”. Tver (in Russian).
2. Antoniy (Khrapovitskiy) (2007) Izbrannye trudy. Pis′ma. Materialy. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Florovsky G., archpr. (1934) “O granitsah Tserkvi”. Put’, 1934, no. 44, pp. 15–26 (in Russian).
4. Khondzinskiy P., archpr. (2014) “Pravoslavnoe uchenie o spasenii″ arkhim. Sergiia (Stragorodskogo) i ego kritika sviash. Viktorom (Ostrovidovym) i arkhiep. Serafimom (Sobolevym)”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2014, vol. 57, pp. 98–113 (in Russian).
5. Khondzinskii P., archpr. (2018) “Grad″ ili khram″? — k voprosu o kliuchevykh poniatiiakh ekklesiologicheskikh kontseptsii blazhennogo Avgustina i sviatitelia Filareta Moskovskogo”. Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, 2018, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 81–96 (in Russian).
6. Khondzinskii P., archpr. (2018) “Russkoe novoe bogoslovie″ v kontse XIX — nachale XX vv.: k voprosu o genezise i soderzhatelnom ob″eme poniatiia”. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov v Rossii i za rubezhom, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 121–141 (in Russian).
7. Lossky V. (1934) “Les dogmes et les conditions de la vraie connaissance”, in Bulletin de la Confrérie de St. Photius le Confesseur, vol. 1, pp. 2–12.
8. Meendorf I., revd. (1891) Pravoslavie v sovremennom mire. New York (in Russian).
9. Patriarkh Sergii (Stragorodskii): pro et contra (2017). St. Petersburg (in Russian).
10. Polovinkin S. (ed.) (2005) Zapiski peterburgskikh Religiozno-fi losofskikh sobranii (1901–1903). Moscow (in Russian).
11. Ratzinger J. (1992) Volk und Haus Gottes. München.
12. Schmidt E. (1985) Zeit und Geschichte bei Augustin. Heidelberg.
13. Sergius (Stragorodsky), metr. (1942) “Predislovie”, in Pravda o religii v Rossii, Мoscow, pp. 7–14 (in Russian).
14. Sergius (Stragorodsky), metr. (1935) “Znachenie apostol³skogo preemstva v inoslavii”. Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii, 1935, no. 23–24, pp. 3–11 (in Russian).
15. Suvorov V. (2015) “Postanovlenie Sviateishego Patriarkha Tikhona, Sviashchennogo Sinoda i Vysshego Tserkovnogo Soveta Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1920 goda i ego rol v iurisdiktsionnykh sporakh russkoi tserkovnoi emigratsii”. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University, no. 24 (379), pp. 182–189 (in Russian).

Khondzinskii Pavel, archpriest

This study was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (project no. 23-28-00650, https://rscf.ru/en/project/23-28-00650/) and carried out at St. Tikhon Orthodox University for the Humanities.

The article is devoted to the events connected with the next aggravation of church-state relations in the late 1950s. The author focuses on the organization of work on the inventory of property of church parishes, which was carried out in 1959. The Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church. All parishes operating in the post-war period were subject to revision. In order to implement this project, the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church developed standard forms with questions for distribution through its commissioners for parishes of all regions, territories and autonomous republics of the USSR. The questionnaires were based on the form of pre-revolutionary clear sheets. The forms filled out by the staff of the parishes were the so-called "Observation cases for religious buildings (premises) belonging to religious associations (communities)." Almost all of these documents have been preserved in the archives. The observational cases on the temples of the Moscow region were postponed in the Central State Archive of the Moscow Region (TSGAMO) in the fund 7383 (Authorized by the Council for Religious Affairs under the USSR Council of Ministers for the Moscow Region).The author comes to the conclusion that the inventory of parish property in the 1950s was of a repressive nature, due to the fact that the purpose of the whole event was to increase economic pressure on the Church as a whole and on the basic element of the church structure - the parish. In addition, the documents that compiled the Observation Files show that simultaneously with the information about the material values owned by religious associations, the authorities once again attempted to monitor all church activities at the parish level – to find out the extent of the religiosity of the population and the degree of its involvement in church life. The article is based on archival materials, a number of which are being introduced into scientific circulation for the first time.

anti-religious campaign, Moscow Region, supervisory affairs, Russian Orthodox Church, Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, church property, church parish

1. Chumachenko T. (2006) “Pravovaia baza gosudarstvenno-tserkovnykh otnoshenii v 1940-e — pervoi polovine 1960-kh godov: soderzhanie, praktika primeneniia, evoliutsiia”. Vestnik CHelGU, 2006, vol. 5, pp. 138–149 (in Russian).
2. Fedotov A. Pervyi etap antitserkovnykh repressii N. S. Khrushcheva (1958–1961 gg.), available at https://bogoslov.ru/article/3698574 (in Russian).
3. Kashevarov A. (2013) “Propagandistskii aspekt antitserkovnoi kampanii 1958–1964 gg.” Vestnik Russkoi khristianskoi gumanitarnoi akademii, 2013, vol. 4, pp. 86–93 (in Russian).
4. Koldina A. (2022) “Kampaniia po iz″iatiiu tserkovnykh tsennostei v pomoshch³ golodaiushchim na stranitsakh gazety Borba″ Balashovskogo uezdnogo ispolnitelnogo komiteta RKP(b) Saratovskoi gubernii za 1922 god”. Istoriia i arkhivy, 2022, vol. 3, pp. 63–71 (in Russian).
5. Nikonov V. (2022) “Iz″iatie tsennostei iz khramov Moskovskoi gubernii v 1922 g. v arhivnykh dokumentakh CGAMO i CGA g. Moskvy”. Istoriia i arkhivy, 2022, vol. 1, pp. 105–118 (in Russian).
6. Nikonov V. (2022) “Reports of the Authorized Council for the Aff airs of the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow and the Moscow region as a source of information on the growth of the religiosity of Muscovites in 1944–1946”. Izvestiia Smolenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2022, vol. 3 (59), pp. 168–184 (in Russian).
7. Nikonov V., Novak Vyacheslav, priest (2013) Ocherki istorii Mikhailo-Arkhangelskogo khrama sela Konstantinovo Bronnitskogo blagochiniia Moskovskoi eparkhii. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Nikonov V., Ushatova N. (2016) Za Khista preterpevshie. Tserkov’ i politicheskie repressii 1920−1950-h gg. na territorii Ramenskogo raiona Moskovskoj oblasti. T. I. Ramenskaya volost’. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Ostroukhova N. (2020) “Osobennosti normativno-pravovogo regulirovaniya gosudarstvennotserkovnykh otnoshenii v SSSR (1953–1963)”. Via in tempore. Istoriia. Politologiia, 2020, vol. 47 (1), pp. 160–169 (in Russian).
10. Tolmacheva I. (2017) Khram sviatogo velikomuchenika Georgiia sela Ignatevo. Istoricheskii ocherk. Moscow (in Russian).
11. Tsypin Vladislav, archpriest (1997) Istoriia Russkoi Tserkvi. 1917–1997 gg. Moscow (in Russian).

Nikonov Vadim

*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.

In the mid-90s of the twentieth century, two bishops’ meetings of the Russian Orthodox Church the Moscow Patriarchate and the Church Abroad, i.e. Patriarch Alexiy II and the Berlin-German Archbishop Mark, quietly and almost imperceptibly took place. These meetings continue the policy of the understanding the paths of both parts of the Russian Orthodox Church and strengthening the dialogue. Using archival documents, the author in this article examines these meetings and also presenting their context. There were tensions in relations between the two parts of the Russian Church, and despite of all the tensions archbishop Mark visited Russia in 1996, where a meeting with the patriarch took place, which was a continuation of the meeting in Munich in 1995. In the Russian Church Abroad, there are attempts to resolve the problems that have arisen after the admission of banned clerics of the Moscow Patriarchate. The author concludes that in the ROCA there are tendency to move from the ideological positions and isolations towards realism. The internal discussions of ROCOR, caused by these bishops’ meetings, made it possible to raise the dialogue with the MP to a new level.

Russian Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, ROCOR, German Diocese of ROCOR, Patriarch Alexy, Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov), Metropolitan Mark (Arndt)

1. Artemov N., archpriest (2008) “Sobesedovaniia predstavitelei klira dvukh germanskikh eparkhii 1993–1997 gg. kak nachalo vosstanovleniia edinstva Russkoi Tserkvi”, in XVIII Ezhegodnaia bogoslovskaia konferentsiia PSTGU: Materialy, vol. I, pp. 302–324 (in Russian).
2. Kornilov A. (2004) Na sluzhbe emigratsii. Dukhovenstvo lageria peremeshchennykh lits Fishbek. Nizhny Novgorod (in Russian).
3. Kostryukov A. (2021) “Pozitsiia Russkoi Zarubezhnoi Tserkvi po voprosu o blagodatnosti Moskovskoi Patriarkhii pri mitropolite Filarete (Voznesenskom)”. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2021, vol. 98, pp. 130–142 (in Russian).
4. Makovetkii A., archpriest (2016) “Rol episkopa Grigoriia (Grabbe) v otkrytii prikhodov Russkoi Zarubezhnoi Tserkvi na kanonicheskoi territorii Moskovskogo Patriarkhata”. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2016, vol. 3 (70), pp. 104–115 (in Russian).
5. Roepke C.-J. (2003) Hinhören und Hinsehen: Beziehungen zwischen der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche und der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland. Leipzig.
6. Seide G. (1989) Verantwortung in der Diaspora. Die Russische Orthodoxe Kirche im Ausland. Munich.

Varfolomey Bazanov, protodeacon

Dans les Universités de Vilna, Dorpat et Abo les professeurs parlent sur la cathèdre et dans les affaires leur langue maternelle qui est en même temps celle du pays; et si Vilna a quelques membres qui font exception, cette Université s’en ressent sûrement par des entraves qui, sans être saillantes, n’en pésent pas moins sur la marche de l’instruction et des affaires. Les professeurs de chacune de ces trois Universités sont ou se regardent comme d’une même Nation, de la Nation qu’ils sont appellée à instruire. Dans les Universités de l’Intérieur il n’en est pas de même. Là on voit un Conseil académique composé de Russes, d’Allemands, de Français, de Hongrois etc. Toutes les races humaines semblent s’y croiser, et l’on a pu croire que ce monstrueux assemblage ferait un tout harmonique, animé du même esprit! L’on n’a pas prévu les rivalités nationales, les haines de parti, les cabales sourdes, les divisions de tout genre qui devaient en résulter. L’on n’a pas senti que le Russe se prévaudroit d’une prépondérance nationale et l’étranger des lumières supérieures de sa Nation. L’admission de ceux-ci a en encore le désavantage que l’on a parlé trois langues sur les cathèdres de ces Universités, le Russe, le Latin et le Français, dont l’une seule était bien comprise par l’étudiant. On a, à la vérité, fait le possible pour engager les Professeurs étrangers à s’accoutumer petit-à-petit à la langue russe et plusieurs s’en sont empressés. Mais combien d’années ont dû s’écouler pour s’acquérir l’exercice nécessaire pour exprimer leurs idées avec facilité, clarté, précision et liberté, comme le doit tout Professeur, et combien de fois des hommes d’ailleurs estimables ont été pendant ces exercices d’écolier l’objet de la risée de leurs auditeurs! Ou bien ils se sont vus obligés d’écrire et de faire corriger leurs leçons et de les lire mot à mot; ce qui leur ôtait toute liberté, facilité et vivacité et donnait à la leçon une monotonie léthargique qui ne pouvait aucunement réveiller l’attention de l’étudiant et soutenir son intérêt.

Academician G.F. Parrot, Emperor Nicholas I, Dorpat Professorial Institute, Committee on the Organization of Educational Institutions, Professor, University,

1. Andreev A. (2005) Russkie studenty v nemetskikh universitetakh XVIII — pervoi poloviny XIX veka. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Andreev A. (2019) “Perepiska imperatora Aleksandra I i professora G. F. Parrota (1802–1825) kak istochnik po izucheniiu politicheskikh reform v Rossiiskoi imperii”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2019, vol. 89, pp. 67–82 (in Russian).
3. Ivanov A. (2016) Uchenoe dostoinstvo Rossiiskoi imperii. XVIII — nachalo XX veka. Podgotovka i nauchnaia attestatsiia professorov i prepodavatelei vysshei shkoly. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Karnauh N. (2020) Derptskii Professorskii institut — nauchno-pedagogicheskaia shkola Rossii. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Paina E. (1970) “Professorskii institut pri Tartuskom universitete (1828–1839) i russko-pribaltiiskie nauchnye sviazi”, in Iz istorii estestvoznaniia i tekhniki Pribaltiki, Riga, pp. 138–148 (in Russian).
6. Petrov F. (2003) Formirovanie sistemy universitetskogo obrazovaniia v Rossii. 3. Universitetskaia professura i podgotovka Ustava 1835 goda. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Tamul V. (1988) Professorskii institut i mezhdunarodnye nauchnye sviazi Tartuskogo universiteta v pervoi polovine 19 v. Tartu (in Russian).

Gracheva Yulia

*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.

Documents from the collections of the Russian State Historical Archives and the National Historical Archives of Belarus are considered for publication, shedding light on the discussion of history that unfolded in the highest circles of representatives of the Russian Empire in 1909–1910 about the remains of Jesuit Andrew Bobola, revered by Catholics as a holy, kept in the Dominican church of Polotsk. Actualization of the Bobola problem, whose history went back to its origins at the beginning of the 19th century, was dangerous with the preparation of the transfer of the relics of St. Euphrosyne of Polotsk. The cult of Andrew Bobola has long been used by Polotsk Dominicans to lure the Orthodox inhabitants of Polotsk into Catholicism, so the church and secular authorities of the Russian Empire feared that by appealing to the figure of Bobola, Catholics might try to spoil the ceremony of transferring the relics of St. Euphrosyne and use a great Orthodox celebration to promote their faith. In this regard, the question was raised about the fate of the remains of Andrew Bobola. Some officials believed that it would make sense to take the Catholic relic outside of Polotsk (for example, to Pinsk). However, the milder version prevailed. It was decided not to touch the remains of Bobola, so as not to give Catholics an extra reason for propaganda and exaltation of him as a saint. The following documents are published: presentation of the Vitebsk Governor B.B. Gershau-Flotov addressed to the Minister of Internal Affairs P.A. Stolypin on the desirability of transferring the Catholic relic from Polotsk; a fragment of the most obedient report on the state of the Vitebsk province for 1908, in which the same idea is defended; the initial response of the Minister of the Interior to B.B. Gershau-Flotov; minutes of a meeting of a special meeting convened on the initiative of Nicholas II and designed to decide the fate of Bobola's remains.

Andrew Bobola, Euphrosyne of Polotsk, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Russian Empire, Polotsk, Pinsk

1. Bendin A. (2010) Problemy veroterpimosti v Severo-Zapadnom krae Rossiiskoi imperii (1863– 1914 gg.). Moscow (in Russian).
2. Bendin A. (2010) “Religiozno-etnicheskie protivorechiia i konfl ikty na territorii Severo- Zapadnogo kraia Rossiiskoi imperii (vtoraia polovina XIX — nachalo XX vv.)”, in O. Airapetov, M. Jovanovich, M. Kolerov, B. Manning, P. Cheysti (eds) Russkii sbornik: Issledovaniia po istorii Rossii, Moscow, pp. 59–94 (in Russian).
3. Tabunov V. (2019) “Belorusskaia tserkovnaia uniia v pamiati naseleniia belorusskikh zemel³ kontsa XIX — nachala XX st.”. Vesnik MDU imya A. A. Kulyashova. Gistoryya, filasofiya, filalogiya, 2019, vol. 1, pp. 24–28 (in Belarusian).
4. Weeks T. (2005) “My″ ili oni″? Belorusy i ofi tsialnaia Rossiia, 1863–1914”, in P. Werth, P. Kabytov, A. Miller (eds) “Rossiiskaia imperiia v zarubezhnoi istoriografi i: raboty poslednikh let”. Moscow (in Russian).

Koronevskii Viktor

This article is funded by the Russian Scientce Foundation, project no. 21-48-04402 “RSF-DFG: Saints and heroes: from Christianisation to nationalism: Symbol, Image, Memory (North-Western Russia, Baltic countries, Northern Europe)”.