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

The paper deals with the circumstances of holding the Council of Agde in 506 on the ground of the Council's resolutions, the epistolaries of Caesarius of Arles and Ruricius of Limoges. The study based on the context-historical analysis, which is especially useful for ego-documents, since it allows interpreting texts of personal sources taking into account specific cultural and historical conditions. As a result of the analysis, the author comes to the conclusion that the Council of Agde was convened on the initiative of the Visigothic king Alaric II, who, in a situation of the external threat aggravation, considered it as a means of consolidating the population of the former Roman provinces that were part of the barbarian state. The circumstances of the Council give an idea of the relationship between the secular and spiritual authorities in the period under study. The event was held under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Arles Caesarius. The Council was devoted mainly to issues of Church discipline. The decrees of this Council allow us to judge its significance and scale: representatives of almost all South Gallic cities (more than thirty representatives of Gallic clergy) took part in the Council; as a result of its work forty-seven canons were adopted. The correspondence of Caesarius and Ruricius about the Council of Agde acquaints us with the circumstances of its preparation and plans for the next meeting. It allows assessing the hierarchy of relationships within the Christian clergy, in a situation where one bishop (Ruricius) was subordinate to another (Caesarius) due to the seniority of his see, on the one hand, but, on the other hand, Ruricius had higher social status due to his origin. The latter fact, apparently, still played a significant role in communication between representatives of the clergy.

South Gaul, Alaric II, Council of Agde, Council’s canons, Caesarius of Arles, Ruricius of Limoges, epistolography

1. Barcellona R. (2017) “Concili ‘nazionali’ e sotterranee rivoluzioni. Agde 506, Orléans 511, Épaone 517”. Reti Medievali Rivista, 2017, vol. 18/1, pp. 41–66.
2. Collins R. (2008) “Gaul: Visigothic Kingdom, 418–507”, in Av. Cameron, B. Ward-Perkins, M. Whitby (eds) The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 14, Cambridge, pp. 112–114.
3. Daly W. M. (1970) “Caesarius of Arles, a Precursor of Medieval Christendom”. Traditio, 1970, vol. 26, pp. 1–28.
4. DelCogliano M. (2006) “Caesarius of Arles: On Living in Community”. Cistercian Studies Quarterly, 2006, vol. 41/1, pp. 17–30.
5. Fuhrmann H. (1953) “Studien zur Geschichte mittelalterlicher Patriarchate”. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung. Kanonische Abteilung, 1953, vol. 39, pp. 112–176.
6. Gratsianskiy M. V. (2022) “Popytka tserkovno-administrativnoi reorganizatsii Iuzhnoi Gallii v pontifikat papy Zosima (417–418): motivy i posledstviia”, in Vizantiiskie ocherki: Trudy rossiiskikh uchenykh k XXIV Mezhdunarodnomu Kongressu vizantinistov. St. Petersburg, pp. 24–52 (in Russian).
7. Griff e É. (1966) La Gaule chrétienne à l’époque romaine, vol. 2, Paris.
8. Halfond G. I. (2010) Archaeology of Frankish Church Councils, AD 511–768. Boston.
9. Halfond G. I. (2012) “Vouillé, Orléans (511), and the Origins of the Frankish Conciliar Tradition”, in R. W. Mathisen, D. Shanzer (eds) The Battle of Vouillé, 507 CE: Where France Began, Berlin, pp. 151–165.
10. Klingshirn W. E. (1994) Caesarius of Arles: Life, Testament, Letters. Liverpool.
11. Klingshirn W. E. (2002) “Defining the Sortes Sanctorum: Gibbon, Du Cange, and Early Christian Lot Divination”. Journal of Early Christian Studies, vol. 10/1, pp. 77–130.
12. Litovchenko E. V. (2018) “Pis′ma Ruritsiia Limozhskogo k Tsezariiu Arelatskomu (506 god) II.33 i II.36 (vstupitel′naia stat′ia, perevod i kommentarii)”. Izvestiia Smolenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2018, no. 1 (41), pp. 136–147 (in Russian).
13. Litovchenko E. V. (2021) “Semeinye otnosheniia v pozdnei antichnosti: Ruritsii Limozhskii i ego rodstvenniki”, in LAUREA IIII. Antichnyi mir i srednie veka: Chteniia pamiati professora Vladimira Ivanovicha Kadeeva. Kharkiv, pp. 71–75 (in Russian).
14. Litovchenko E. V. (2021) “Tsezarii Arelatskii — ‘lotsman korablia Sv. Petra’ v Gallii”, in V. N. Glaz′ev (ed.) Obshchestvo i vlast′ v kontekste istorii, politologii, sotsiologii: materialy Piatnadtsatoi regional′noi nauchnoi konferentsii (g. Voronezh, 9 fevralia 2021 g.), Voronezh, pp. 224–229 (in Russian).
15. Loustaud J.-P. (2000) Travaux d’archéologie limousine: Limoges antique, vol. 5. Limoges.
16. Mathisen R. W. (1999) Ruricius of Limoges and Friends: A Collection of Letters from Visigothic Gaul. Letters of Ruricius of Limoges, Caesarius of Arles, Euphrasius of Clermont, Faustus of Riez, Graecus of Marseille, Paulinus of Bordeaux, Sedatus of Nî mes, Sidonius Apollinaris, Taurentius and Victorinus of Fréjus. Liverpool.
17. Mommaerts T. S., Kelley D. H. (1992) “The Anicii of Gaul and Rome”, in J. Drinkwater, H. Elton (eds) Fifth-century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity? Cambridge, pp. 111–121.
18. Munier Ch. (1968) “L’énigmatique évêque ‘Petrus de Palatio’ du Concile d’Agde de 506”. Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique, vol. 69, pp. 51–56.
19. Munier Ch. (ed) (1963) Concilia Galliae, a. 314 — a. 506. Turnhout. (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina; 148).
20. Norkin L. V. (2019) “Stanovlenie tserkovnogo pervenstva Arlia v Gallii i rimskie papy (398–432 gg.)”. Vizantiiskii vremennik, 2019, vol. 103, pp. 53–69 (in Russian).
21. Omel′chenko D. M. (2009) “¡Vocerkovlenie″ vremeni v missionerskoi deiatel′nosti Tsezariia Arelatskogo”. Nauchnye vedomosti BelGU. Seriia: Istoriia, politologiya, ekonomika, 2009, 9 (64), pp. 37–40 (in Russian).
22. Omel′chenko D. M. (2021) Tsezarij Arelatskii — episkop i pastyr′. Moscow; St. Petersburg (in Russian).
23. Pietri Ch. (1976) Roma Christiana. Recherches sur l’Eglise de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixte III (311–440), vol. 2, Rome.
24. Pietri L., Heij mans M. (eds) (2013) Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, vol. 4/2, Paris.
25. Pietri L. (2009) “Les lettres d’Avit de Vienne. La correspondence d’un évêque ‘politique’”, in R. Delmaire, J. Desmulliez, P.-L. Gatier (eds) Correspondances. Documents pour l’histoire de l’Antiquité tardive. Actes du colloque international, université Charles-de-Gaulle-Lille 3, 20– 22 novembre 2003. Lyon, pp. 311–331.
26. Tel’minov E. A. (2008) “Khristianskaia tserkov’ i varvary v Rimskoi Gallii V v. n.e.” [The Christian Church and the Barbarians in Roman Gaul, 5th c. AD]. Izvestiia Altaiskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2008, no. 4–3, pp. 241–245 (in Russian).
27. Weckwerth A. (2010) Ablauf, Organisation und Selbstverständnis westlicher antiker Synoden im Spiegel ihrer Akten. Münster.
28. Weckwerth A. (2013) Clavis Conciliorum Occidentalium septem prioribus saeculis celebratorum. Turnhout. (Corpus Christianorum. Claves. Subsidia; 3).

Litovchenko Elena

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

The author expresses her sincere gratitude to Gratsiansky Mikhail Vyacheslavovich, leading Researcher of the Section of General Problems of Ecclesiology, Candidate of Historical Sciences, leading Researcher of the Laboratory for the Study of the Countries of the Black Sea and Byzantium in the Middle Ages of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, for his support and advices during the preparing of this article.

The article is concerned with the key medieval opposition between auctoritas and potestas. It is explored in connection with the figure of the bishop as mainly exemplified in the canons of the Councils of Toledo. Since these words were not attributed to secular or ecclesiastical authority alone, a brief overview of the word usage is first given. Firstly, it made possible to specify the interaction between royal power and the Church, for which secular power was understood as alien. Secondly, examples of the non-technical use of the terms auctoritas and potestas in relation to the bishop have been detected. These cases are then examined. The author briefly retraces the continuity of the Roman notion of auctoritas in relation to the authority of the bishop (mature age, experience, eloquence, euergetism, reputation based among others on such right qualities as grauitas, prudentia, probitas etc.). As in Roman period, the auctoritas of the bishop means above all his power of persuasion, therefore his main management tools were preaching and admonition (sacerdotalis admonitio). The subordinates were supposed to take the path of correction by their will (uoluntas propria). If the bishop lacked authority, he could resort to various types of punishment (animaduersio sacerdotalis). Animaduersio sacerdotalis was linked to the potestas concept. The author suggests that the words auctoritas and potestas could be used as metaphors for describing the bishop's role models. If potestas model, relatable to the sphere of the secular, prevailed, this could cause destruction of the community as a sacralized small community where relationships were to be based on consensus reached non-violently. These observations help to clarify the widespread statement that since the fifth century auctoritas was supposedly connected only with spiritual power and potestas with secular power.

auctoritas, potestas, authority, bishop, Visigothic Kingdom of Toledo, Councils of Toledo, Isidore of Seville, Late Antiquity

1. André, J.-M. (1982) “La conception de l’etat et de l’empire dans la pensée gréco-romaine des deux premiers siècles de notre ère”, in W. Haase (ed.) Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Bd. II.30.1. Sprache und Literatur (Literatur der augusteischen Zeit: Allgemeines; einzelne Autoren). Berlin; New York, pp. 3–74.
2. Aurov O. (2019) Ispaniia v epokhu vestgotov. Kratkaia istoriia. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
3. Baraz D. (1998) “Seneca, Ethics, and the Body: The Treatment of Cruelty in Medieval Thought”. Journal of the History of Ideas, 1998, vol. 59/2, pp. 195–215.
4. Berger A. (1953) Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law. Philadelphia.
5. Birkin M. (2020) Episkop v vestgotskoi Ispanii. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
6. Birkin M. (2020) “Durnoi episkop kak tiran v ¡Sententsiiakh″ Isidora Sevil′skogo”. Shagi / Steps, vol. 6/2, pp. 259–291 (in Russian).
7. Blaise A. (1954) Dictionnaire Latin-Français des auteurs chrétiens. Turnhout.
8. Brandt A. (1999) Moralische Werte in den Res gestae des Ammianus Marcellinus. Göttingen.
9. Brown P. (1992) Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire. Madison.
10. Castellanos S. (2003) “Significance of Social Unanimity in a Visigothic Hagiography: Keys to an Ideological Screen”. Journal of Early Christian Studies, 2003, vol. 11/3, pp. 387–419.
11. Classen C. J. (2010) Aretai und Virtutes: Untersuchungen zu den Wertvorstellungen der Griechen und Römer. Berlin; New York.
12. Cottrell A. (1993) “Auctoritas and Potestas: A Reevaluation of the Correspondence of Gelasius I on Papal-Imperial Relations”. Mediaeval Studies, 1993, vol. 55, pp. 95–109.
13. Cowan E. (2016) “Contesting Clementia: The Rhetoric of Severitas in Tiberian Rome before and after the Trial of Clutorius Priscus”. The Journal of Roman Studies, 2016, vol. 106, pp. 77–101.
14. Drake H. A. (2000) Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance. Baltimore.
15. Ensslin W. (1954) “Auctoritas und Potestas. Zur Zweigewaltenlehre des Papstes Gelasius I”. Historisches Jahrbuch, 1954, vol. 74, pp. 661–668.
16. Finley M. I. (1973) Democracy Ancient and Modern. New Brunswick.
17. Finley M. I. (1982) Authority and Legitimacy in the Classical City-state. Copenhagen.
18. Fontaine J., Pellistrandi C. (eds) (1992) L’Europe héritière de l’Espagne wisigothique. Madrid.
19. Galinsky K. (1998) Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction. Princeton.
20. Garnsey P. (1970) Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire. Oxford.
21. Gaudemet J. (1989) L’église dans l’empire romain (IVe–Ve siècles). Paris.
22. Gizewski C., Willvonseder R. (1996) ”Auctoritas”, in H. Cancik, H. Schneider (eds) Der Neue Pauly: Enzyclopädie der Antike. Bd. 2. Stuttgart; Weimar, pp. 266–267.
23. Gratsianskiy M. (2019) “Istoricheskii i ideinyi kontekst poslaniia papy Gelasiia I ¡Famuli vestrae pietatis″”. Vizantiiskii vremennik, vol. 103, pp. 85–112 (in Russian).
24. Gwynn D. M. (2012) “Episcopal Leadership”, in S. F. Johnson (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity. Oxford, pp. 876–915.
25. Heinze R. (1925) “Auctoritas”. Hermes, 1925, vol. 60/3, pp. 348–366.
26. Hellegouarc’h J. (1963) Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la République. Paris.
27. Heßler W. (1965) “Auctoritas im deutschen Mittellatein: Eine Zwischenbilanz im Mittellateinischen Wörterbuch”. Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, 1965, vol. 47/3, pp. 255–265.
28. Hölkeskamp K.-J. (2018) “Auctoritas”, in The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. 2018. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30473
29. Jégou L. (2011) L’évêque, juge de paix: l’autorité épiscopale et le règlement des confl its entre Loire et Elbe (milieu VIIIe-milieu XIe siècle). Turnhout.
30. Kargaltsev A. (2015) “Afrikanskie sobory III v.: episkopy i ispovedniki”. Mnemon: Issledovaniia i publikatsii po istorii antichnogo mira, 2015, no. 15, pp. 432–445 (in Russian).
31. Knabe G. (1981) Kornelii Tatsit (Vremia. Zhizn′. Knigi). Moscow (in Russian).
32. Lendon J. E. (1997) Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World. Oxford.
33. Lowrie M. (2009) Writing, Performance, and Authority in Augustan Rome. Oxford.
34. Lütcke K.-H. (1986) “Auctoritas”, in C. Mayer (ed.) Augustinus-Lexikon. vol. 1: Aaron–Conuersio. Basel, Sp. 498–510.
35. Magdelain A. (1947) Auctoritas principis. Paris.
36. Magdelain A. (1990) “Auctoritas rerum”, in A. Magdelain Jus Imperium Auctoritas. Études de droit romain. Rome, pp. 685–705.
37. Magdelain A. (1990) “De l’‘auctoritas patrum’ à l’‘auctoritas senatus’”, in A. Magdelain Jus Imperium Auctoritas. Études de droit romain. Rome, pp. 385–403.
38. Marey A. (2017) Avtoritet, ili Podchinenie bez nasiliia. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
39. Marey E. (2012) “Fenomen ¡vestgotskoi simfonii″ v 75-om kanone IV-go Toledskogo sobora 633 g. (k probleme perekhoda k srednevekovoi gosudarstvennosti)”. Elektronnyi nauchnoobrazovatel′nyi zhurnal “Istoriya”, 2012, vol. 3, no. 3 (11), available at https://history.jes.su/s207987840000372-8-1/ (accessed 30.09.2022; in Russian).
40. Markus R. A. (1985) “The Sacred and the Secular: From Augustine to Gregory the Great”. The Journal of Theological Studies, 1985, vol. 36/1, pp. 84–96.
41. Markus R. A. (1990) The End of Ancient Christianity. Cambridge.
42. Markus R. A. (2010) “The Secular in Late Antiquity”, in É. Rebillard, C. Sotinel (eds) Les frontières du profane dans l’Antiquité tardive. Rome, pp. 353–361.
43. Martin C. (2008) “L’innovation politique dans le royaume de Tolède: le sacre du souverain”, in C. Péneau (ed.) Élections et pouvoirs politiques du VIIe au XVIIe siècle: actes du colloque réuni à Paris 12 du 30 novembre au 2 décembre 2006. Paris, 2008, pp. 281–300.
44. Meyer E. (1975) Römischer Staat und Staatsgedanke. Zürich.
45. Miethke J. (1980) “Autorität I”, in G. Krause, G. Müller (eds) Theologische Realenzyklopädie, vol. 5, Berlin, 1980, pp. 17–32.
46. Morstein-Marx R. (2004) Mass Oratory and Political Power in the late Roman Republic. Cambridge.
47. Nelson J. L. (1967) “Gelasius I’s Doctrine of Responsibility: A Note”. The Journal of Theological Studies, 1967, vol. 18/1, pp. 154–162.
48. Niermeyer J. F. (ed.) (1976) Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus. Leiden.
49. Oexle O. G. (1990) “Stand, Klasse (Antike und Mittelalter)”, in R. Koselleck (ed.) Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, vol. 6, Stuttgart, pp. 156‒200.
50. Orlandis J., Ramos-Lissón Domingo (1986) Historia de los concilios de la España romana y visigoda. Pamplona.
51. Peachin M (2011) “Introduction”, in M. Peachin (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World. Oxford, pp. 3–36.
52. Pöschl V. (1967) Grundwerte römischer Staatsgesinnung in den Geschichtswerken des Sallust. Berlin.
53. Prinz O. (ed.) (1999) Mittellateinisches Wörterbuch bis zum ausgehenden 13. Jahrhundert, vol. 2, Munich.
54. Rabe H. (1972) “Autorität”, in R. Koselleck (ed.) Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, vol. 1, Stuttgart, 1972, pp. 382–406.
55. Rees R. (2018) “Authorising Freedom of Speech under Theodosius”, in D. W. P. Burgersdij k, A. J. Ross (eds) Imagining Emperors in the Later Roman Empire. Leiden, pp. 289–309.
56. Reydellet M. (1981). La royauté dans la littérature latine de Sidoine Apollinaire à Isidore de Séville. Paris.
57. Rodríguez A. H. (2013) “Auctoritas y potestas en la exégesis bíblica carolingia”. Bulletin du centre d’études médiévales d’Auxerre. BUCEMA, 2013, no. 7, available at http://journals.openedition. org/cem/12774 (accessed 30.09.2022).
58. Schulz F. (1936) Principles of Roman Law. Oxford.
59. Staedler E. (1941) “Über Rechtsnatur und Rechtsinhalt der Augustischen Regesten”. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Romanistische Abteilung, 1941, vol. 61/1, pp. 77–122.
60. Stephens C. W. B. (2015) Canon Law and Episcopal Authority: The Canons of Antioch and Serdica. Oxford.
61. Suchan M. (2015) Mahnen und Regieren: Die Metapher des Hirten im früheren Mittelalter. Berlin; Boston.
62. Syme R. (1958). Tacitus, vol. 1, Oxford.
63. Teillet S. (2011). Des Goths à la Nation Gothique: Les origines de l’idée de nation en Occident du Ve au VIIe siècle. Paris.
64. Teja R. (1999) “Auctoritas vs. potestas: el liderazgo social de los obispos en la sociedad tardoantigua”, in R. Teja. Emperadores, obispos, monjes y mujeres. Protagonistas del cristianismo antiguo. Madrid, pp. 97–107.
65. Timpe D. (1995) Romano-Germanica: gesammelte Studien zur Germania des Tacitus. Stuttgart.
66. Utchenko S. (1973) “Eshche raz o rimskoi sisteme tsennostei”. Vestnik drevnei istorii, 1973, vol. 126/4, pp. 30–47 (in Russian).
67. Van Dam R. (2011) “Bishops and Clerics during the Fourth Century: Numbers and Their Implications”, in J. Leemans (ed.) Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity. Berlin; Boston, pp. 217–242.
68. Velázquez S. I. (2003) “Pro patriae gentisque Gothorum statu”, in H.-W. Goetz, J. Jarnut, W. Pohl (eds) Regna and Gentes. The Relationship between Late Antique and Early Medieval People and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World. Leiden, pp. 161–217.
69. Wagenvoort H., Tellenbach G. (1950) “Auctoritas”, in Th. Clauser et al. (eds) Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, vol. 1, Stuttgart, pp. 902–909.
70. Whelan R. (2021) “After Augustine, after Markus: The Problem of the Secular at the End of Antiquity”. Early Medieval Europe, 2021, vol. 29/1, pp. 12–35.
71. Wieacker F. (1988) Römische Rechtsgeschichte: Quellenkunde, Rechtsbildung, Jurisprudenz und Rechtsliteratur. I: Einleitung; Quellenkunde; Frühzeit und Republik. Munich.
72. Zakharov G. (2015) “Lev I Velikii. Zhizn′”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, vol. 40, Moscow, pp. 227–232 (in Russian).
73. Zakharov G. (2022) “Vzaimootnosheniia Rimskoi, Fessalonikiiskoi i Konstantinopol′skoi kafedr v kontekste razvitiia sinodal′nykh institutov v pervoi polovine V v.”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2022, vol. 104, pp. 27–37 (in Russian).
74. Zakharov G., Anashkin A. (eds) (2022) Ekkleziologicheskaia traditsiia i tserkovnaia organizatsiia Illirika v kontse IV — pervoi polovine V v.: Issledovaniia i perevody. Moscow (in Russian).
75. Ziegler A. K. (1930) Church and State in Visigothic Spain. Washington.
76. Ziegler A. K. (1943) “Pope Gelasius I and His Teaching on the Relation of Church and State”. The Catholic Historical Review, 1943, vol. 27/4, pp. 412–437.

Birkin Mikhail

The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 21-011-44125\21 ("Latin Ecclesiastical Tradition of the 4th - 7th centuries in the Modern Scientific and Theological Context").

: One of the parishes of the ancient Sergievski posad of the Moscow province got its name from the wooden church in the name of the Renewal of the Church of the Resurrection of Christ, in the vernacular of the Resurrection. It was erected to the north of the monastery in 1654 by decree of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and with the blessing of Patriarch Nikon in memory of the events of the defense of the monastery in 1608-1610. By 1782, by the time the settlement received urban status – the status of a posad, the Resurrection Church remained wooden, while in other parishes the temples were stone. Moreover, there was another wooden church of this parish next to it – in the name of the Apostles Peter and Paul (Petropavlovskai). It was possible to replace wooden buildings with a stone (brick) temple only in the first quarter of the XIX century. Initially, it was supposed to carry out construction in a couple of seasons of 1811-1812. To do this, Metropolitan Platon's permission (resolution) was obtained, the plan and facade of the church with the chapel were approved, a suitable artel of builders was found, the work of a brick factory was organized, other building materials were prepared. However, the events of the Patriotic War of 1812 and its consequences slowed down the progress of work. The buildings were returned to construction in 1814. The consecration of the temple took place in two stages, as all construction and finishing works were completed. In 1818, the main altar was consecrated in the name of the Renewal of the Church of the Resurrection of Christ on the new antimins, and the next year, 1819, the chapel with the throne in the name of the Apostles Peter and Paul on the old antimins. Both events took place with the participation of an outstanding local native Archimandrite Nikanor (26.11.1787-17.09.1856) and the clergy of Sergievski posad. In everyday life, residents often call it Petropavlovsk church. In the XX century, it experienced ruin and rebirth and is now a courtyard of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra.

local history, Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Sergievski posad, Resurrection (Peter and Paul) church, parish, stone construction, brick production

1. Chetyrina N. (2012) Kontrakty na stroitelnye i otdelochnye raboty, proizvodstvo i prodazhu stroimaterialov iz fonda ratushi Sergievskogo posada (1795–1863 gg.). Moscow (in Russian).
2. Filimonov K. (1997) Sergiev Posad. Stranitsy istorii. XIV — nachalo XX veka. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Kessler Kh. (2011) “Istoricheskai dinamika sezonnich rinkov truda: formy naima i trudovye otnoshenia v russkoi kirpichnoi promyshlennosti XV–XX vv”, in Rus, Rossia: Srednevekovie i novoe vremia. Vtorie chtenia pamiati akademika RAN L.V. Milova. Materialy k mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii. Moskva, 17–19 noiabria 2011 g. Moscow, pp. 151–155 (in Russian).
4. Nekrasov A. (1928) Khudozhestvennye pamiatniki Moskvi i Moskovskoi gubernii. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Pamiatniki arhitektyri Moskovskoi oblasti (1999). Moscow (in Russian).
6. Peneiko O. (2007) Gorod Sergiev Posad. Troitse-Sergievoi lavra. Pokrovski Khotkovski monastyr′ i monastyrskie podvoria. Vladimir (in Russian).
7. Tokareva T. (1997) Prikhodskie tserkvi Sergieva Posada. Sergiev Posad (in Russian).
8. Trofi mov I. (1961) Pamiatniki arhitektury Troitse-Sergievoi lavry. Issledovania i restavratsia. Moscow (in Russian).

Chetyrina Natalia

*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.

Revolutionary organization Narodnaya Volya party used a terrorism as a method of disorganization of government. As objects of that except emperor became the most odious statemen and general Vassily Strelnikov, who was attorney of Kyiv military district court. He truly hates revolutionary youth, attorney activizes massive searches and arrests. Strelnikov intimidates them by death penalty that bring them to give wanted testimonies. As the inquiry progresses attorney shuffles and overcharges facts for exact death penalty. Negative recalls about Strelnikov leaved his coworker Vassily Novitzky, lead of Kyiv gendarme province governance and liberal professor of law Fyodor Kistyakovsky. These reports allow to have trust to revolutionary memoirs. A populist Vera Figner propose to kill Strelnikov. She compiles reports about his directions and everyday life. Then to Odessa came Stepan Khalturin, one of executors, the second arrived only in two months – Nikolay Zhelvakov. Khalturin invents a plan of attempt, after a murder he has to drive away a comrade in cart that waits at neighbor street. Khalturin behave uncompromisingly and don’t listen other points of view. 18 march of 1882 Zhelvakov shoot and kill an attorney Strelnikov, but both Zhelvakov and Khalturin was grabbed by people in the crowd. At inquiry Zhelvakov behave hardy and only explicate reasons of his action. But Khalturin make to excuse himself and just before an execution he gave honest testimonies. Probably he makes to put off his death penalty. This successful for revolutionists act of terrorism was prepared very bad and mirrors a state of Narodnaya Volya party after one year of Alexander II assassination.

Vassily Strelnikov, Narodnaya Volya party, crisis, Stepan Khalturin, Nikolay Zhelvakov, political terrorism, murder

1. Levitskii V. [Tsederbaum V.] (1928) Partiia “Narodnaia volia”. Vozniknovenie. Bor′ba. Gibel′. Moscow; Leningrad (in Russian).
2. Mamonov A. (2017) “Memuary professora poreformennogo vremeni”. Rossiiskaia istoriia, 2017, no. 5 (in Russian).
3. Polevoi Iu. (1979) Stepan Khalturin. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Rubach A. (1924) “Ubiistvo gen. Strel′nikova i kazn′ Khalturina i Zhelvakova”. Letopis’ revoliutsii, 1924, no. 2 (in Russian).
5. Sergeev V. (2005) Propagandist s dinamitom: Pravda i mif o Stepane Khalturine. Kirov (in Russian).
6. Sidorov N. (1931) Stepan Nikolaevich Khalturin. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Sobolev V. (1973) Stepan Khalturin. 1856–1882. Kirov (in Russian).
8. Steklov Iu. (1923) Stepan Khalturin. 1856–1882. Vyatka (in Russian).
9. Troitskii N. (1978) Bezumstvo khrabrykh. Russkie revoliutsionery i karatel’naia politika tsarizma. 1866–1882 gg. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Volk S. (1966) Narodnaia volia. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
11. Zhelvakova I. (1990) “On uspel stat’ tol’ko geroem”. Fakel. 1990: istoriko-revoliutsionnyi al’manakh. Moscow (in Russian).

Barabanova Maria

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

This article is devoted to the compilation of a socio-cultural portrait of professors and lecturers of Russian Universities and Theological Academies – participants of the 1917-1918 Local Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia. The author analyzes the composition of the Pre-Council Commission of 1906, the Pre-Council Commission of 1917 and draws attention to the increasing role of professors in the preparation of Church reform. The professors invited to work on the project of the future Council found a new meaning for their activities, another opportunity to serve the Church. Leading experts in various fields of theological, historical sciences, and law were those who contributed to the discussions of public associations, church-state forums a high scientific level of argumentation and the construction of concepts of Church development. 46 professors and lecturers of Russian Universities and Theological Academies took part in the work of the Council in 1917. In the article, the author analyzes the social composition of the group, education, academic statuses. The author concludes that despite the differences, scholars nevertheless had a lot in common. Origin (36 out of 46 people were born in families belonging to the clergy) and education (35 out of 46 people studied in theological academies) made this group a single scientific community with similar values and ideas. This explains the absence of major conflicts between professors and lecturers of Universities and Theological Academies. The work on the preparation of the Church reform, the non-institutional position in relation to the Church organization made it possible for them to acquire a new corporate identity: at the Council of 1917, scientists felt themselves to be the “Church elite”, which can and should maintain the core of the new ecclesiology – conciliarity (sobornost’).

The Pre-Council Commission of 1906, the Pre-Council Commission of 1917, the 1917-1918 Local Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia, Russian Universities, Theological Academies, professors, prosopography

1. Andreev A. (2020) “Mobilnost professorov v universitetskoi sisteme Rossiiskoĭ imperii XIX — nachala XX vv.” Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2020, vol. 97, pp. 68–93 (in Russian).
2. Andreev A., Tsigankov D. (2016) “Prepodavanie tserkovno-bogoslovskikh distsiplin i podgotovka istorikov v Imperatorskom Moskovskom universitete”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2016, vol. 1 (68), pp. 45–64 (in Russian).
3. Beglov A. (2016) “Vserossiĭskiĭ tserkovnyi sobor 1917–1918 gg. kak iavlenie sobornoi praktiki tserkvi”. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov] v Rossii i za rubezhom, 2016, no. 1 (34), pp. 51–73 (in Russian).
4. Biriukova Iu. (ed.) (2012) “Zapiska protoiereia P. V. Verkhovskogo v prilozhenie k protokolu doprosa”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2012, vol. 5 (48), pp. 92–99 (in Russian).
5. Fominykh S. (ed.) (1996) Professora Tomskogo universiteta. Biografi cheskii slovar]. Tomsk, vol. 1 (in Russian).
6. Freeze G. (1983) Parish Clergy in Nineteenth-Century Russia: Crisis, Reform, Counter-Reform. Princeton.
7. Ganelin R., Dvornichenko A. (eds) (2012–2014) Setevoi slovar] professorov i prepodavateleĭ Sankt- Peterburgskogo universiteta (1819–1917). St. Petersburg (in Russian).
8. Golubtsov S. (1999) Moskovskaia Dukhovnaia Akademiia v nachale XX v. Professura i sotrudniki. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Ivanov A. (1991) Vysshaia shkola Rossii v kontse XIX — nachale XX veka. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Kolcherin A., Mramornov A. (2015) Dokumenty Sviashchennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoĭ Rossiĭskoĭ Tserkvi 1917–1918 gg. Vol. 5, Moscow (in Russian).
11. Kravetskiĭ A., Shul®ts G. (eds) (2002) “Biograficheskie svedeniia o chlenakh Pomestnogo Sobora”, in Sviashchennyĭ Sobor Pravoslavnoĭ Rossiiskoi Tserkvi, 1917–1918 gg.: Obzor deianii, vol. 1. Moscow (in Russian).
12. Krylov A. (2019) “Kafedry bogosloviia v universitetakh Rossiiskoi imperii. Sotsiokul®turnyi kontekst”. Gramota, 2019, vol. 12, pp. 54–61 (in Russian).
13. Malanin V. (ed.) (2001) Professora Permskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta (1916–2001). Perm (in Russian).
14. Mramornov A. (ed.) (2012) Dokumenty Sviashchennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoĭ Rossiĭskoĭ Tserkvi 1917–1918 gg., vol.1, Moscow (in Russian).
15. Mramornov A. (ed.) (2015) “Predsobornyi sovet 1917 goda — tserkovnyi otvet na voprosy sekuliarizirovavshegosia obshchestva revoliutsionnoĭ Rossii, in Pravoslavie i sovremennost]: problemy sekuliarizma i postsekuliarizma. Moscow, pp. 286–300 (in Russian).
16. Mramornov A. (ed.) (2020) “Pomestnyi Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918 gg.”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, vol. 57, Moscow, pp. 367–389 (in Russian).
17. Solov®ev I. (ed.) (2014) Zhurnaly i protokoly zasedanii vysochaishe uchrezhdennogo Predsobornogo prisutstviia (1906 g.) Moscow, vols 1–4 (in Russian).
18. Sukhova N. (2012) “Tserkovnoe pravo v pravoslavnykh dukhovnykh akademiiakh Rossii: problemy i traditsii”. Religii mira. Istoriia i sovremennost], 2012, vol. 2010, pp. 346–386 (in Russian).
19. Sukhova N. (2012) “Tserkovnaia istoriia kak bogoslovskaia distsiplina v kontekste istoricheskogo obrazovaniia v Sinodalnyi period”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2012, vol. 4 (47), pp. 23–39 (in Russian).
20. Tarasova V. (2005) Vysshaia dukhovnaia shkola Rossii v kontse XIX — nachale XX veka: istoriia imperatorskikh pravoslavnykh dukhovnykh akademii. Moscow (in Russian).
21. Tomsinov V. (2007) Rossiiskie pravovedy XVIII–XX vekov. Ocherki zhizni i tvorchestva. Moscow (in Russian).
22. Trubetskov D. (ed.) (2000) Professora i doktora nauk Saratovskoĭ oblasti. 1909–1999. Saratov, vol. 1 (in Russian).
23. Ul®ianovskii V. (ed.) (2014) Biograficheskii slovar] vypusknikov Kievskoi dukhovnoi akademii 1819– 1920-e gg. Vol. 1, Kyiv (in Russian).
24. Volkov V., Kulikova M., Loginov V. (eds) (2006) Moskovskie professora XVIII — nachala XX vekov. Gumanitarnye i obshchestvennye nauki. Moscow (in Russian).

Iliukhina Olga

The article examines the transformation of relations between the state and the Church in the aspect of the repressive policy of the Soviet government on the example of the Nizhny Novgorod diocese in the period 1918 – 1921. This study reflects issues directly related to the reaction of the church administration to the unfolding full-scale persecution. The author compares the situation in the Nizhny Novgorod diocese with the historical circumstances in other dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church and finds that the Nizhny Novgorod scenario is typical. Nevertheless, there are some features of the historical picture on the Nizhny Novgorod land, due to certain circumstances and personal characteristics of representatives of both secular and Ecclesiastical authorities. This article hypothesizes that the loyal position of the ruling bishop and the diocesan council in relation to the Soviet government did not lead to the cessation of persecution, but contributed to a partial improvement in the state of church affairs in the field. The analysis of the historical situation shows how the degree of loyalty of the diocesan administration towards the new government has changed, taking into account the aggressive pressure from the ruling circles. Russian Russian Orthodox Church. The results of this study can be used in works aimed at studying the history of the Russian Orthodox Church during the period of the beginning of the persecution to obtain a holistic picture of church life, the life of believers in Russia on the example of the Russian province.

Diocesan Council, Church, Soviet, regime, persecution, red, terror

1. Biriukova Iu. (2019) “Pravoslavnoe dukhovenstvo v usloviiakh ¡krasnogo terrora″ na iuge Rossii v period grazhdanskoi voiny 1918–1919 gg.”. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2019, vol. 87, pp. 40–50 (in Russian).
2. Damaskin (Orlovskii; hieromonk) (1992) Mucheniki, ispovedniki i podvizhniki blagochestiia Rossiiskoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi XX stoletiia: Zhizneopisaniia i materialy k nim. Tver (in Russian).
3. Kiiashko N. (2019) “Tserkov′ v sisteme formirovaniia institutov vlasti Dobrovol’cheskogo dvizheniia na Iuge Rossii: osobennosti sozdaniia Chernomorskoi eparkhii v 1918–1919 gg.”. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2019, vol. 91, pp. 92–104 (in Russian).
4. Krivosheeva N. (2011) “O polozhenii v Orenburgskoi eparkhii v 1918–1919 gg.”. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2011, vol. 3 (40), pp. 67–71 (in Russian).
5. Leonov S. (2016) “Nachalo antitserkovnogo terrora v period oktiabr’skoi revoliutsii”. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2016, vol. 6 (73), pp. 69–90 (in Russian).
6. Marchenko A. (2020) “Vooruzhennaia zashchita sviatyni kak forma tserkovnogo soprotivleniia sovetskoi vlasti na primere shturma podvor′ia Belogorskogo monastyria Permskoi eparkhii v fevrale 1918 goda”. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2020, vol. 97, pp. 108–119 (in Russian).

Serukhina Oksana

The article examines the period of the history of the Transfiguration of the Valaam Monastery of 1918 - 1939, before the evacuation to Heyniavesi. The famous Russian monastery, which belonged to the Diocese of Finland and Vyborg of the Orthodox Russian Church, had to adapt to life in independent Finland. The conditions of the monastery existence had changed significantly after the declaration of independence of this country and the change of the state system in Russia. In 1918, the Finnish government awarded the diocese the status of the second state church of the national minority. Despite the difficulties of socio-political, economic and jurisdictional nature, active finnization, which included the imposed calendar reform, the monastery became a symbol of steadfastness, evidence of the greatness of Russian culture and loyalty to Orthodoxy for Russian emigration around the world. The monastery leadership managed to find a common language with the church and secular authorities of Finland, the monastery won the respect and love of ordinary Finlanders. It can be said that the monastery has found its place in a new Western society. However, the author believes that it is possible to assert about the "prosperity" or "flourishing" of the Valaam Monastery at that time only conditionally, in comparison with the sad fate of monasteries in the USSR. She recalls the contradictory events in the story of the Valaam Monastery in the period, which influenced the fate of its inhabitants and the monastery itself, contributed to the reduction in the number of the brotherhood and the appearance of a "split" in it, and proves that visible well-being was the attribute of an artificially created image, although it had a positive meaning.

Orthodox Church of Finland, Russians Orthodox Church, Valaam Monastery, calendar split, monasticism, emigration, Russian church scattering, diaspora.

1. Baschmakoff N., Leinonen M. (2001) “Russian Life in Finland 1917–1939: A Local and Oral History”. Studia Slavica Finlandensia. Helsinki, 2001, vol. XVIII.
2. Bertash A. et al. (eds) (2005) Valaamskii monastyr’ i ego podvizhniki. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
3. Chelyshev E., Shakhovskoi D. (1994) Kul’turnoe nasledie russkoi emigratsii: 1917–1940, vol. 1. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Dubrovskaia E. (2000) “Zhizn′ russkoi kolonii v Finliandii vesnoi 1918 g. (po materialam russkoiazychnoi pressy)”, in Zarubezhnaia Rossiia 1917–1939 gg. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
5. Dubrovskaia E. (2018) “Karel′sko-finliandskoe pogranich′e v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov”, in Skandinavskie chteniia 2016. Etnografi cheskie i kul’turno-istoricheskie aspekty. St. Petersburg, pp. 186–201 (in Russian).
6. Eneeva N., Kolosova V., Mironova E. (eds) (2004) Rossiiskoe zarubezh’e v Finliandii mezhdu dvumia mirovymi voinami. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
7. Eneeva N. (2015) “Znachenie russkogo pravoslavnogo zarubezh′ia 1917–1939 gg. dlia istorii Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi i Rossii”. Vestnik Rossiiskogo gumanitarnogo nauchnogo fonda, 2015, no. 1 (78), pp. 83–94 (in Russian).
8. Gil′di L. (2006) Narod izgoi v Rossii. St. Petersburg (in Russian). Iarovoi O., Smirnova I. (1997) Valaamskii monastyr’ i pravoslavnaia tserkov’ v Finliandii: 1880– 1930-e gg. (iz istorii finnizatsii pravoslavnoi konfessii). Petrozavodsk (in Russian).
9. Kananen H. (2013) “The Adaptation of an Ethnic Minority in Finland in the 1940s and 1950s: Orthodox Displaced Persons and the Lutheran Indigenous Population”. Scandinavian Journal of History, 2013, vol. 38 (1), pp. 111–132.
10. Kashchaev A., Osipov V. (2016) “Vklad russkikh uchenykh-emigrantov v razvitie mirovoi nauki i tekhniki”. Kul’tura. Nauka. Obrazovanie, 2016, no. 2, pp. 49–65 (in Russian).
11. Kilpeläinen H. (2000) “Valamo — karjalaisten luostari?” Helsinki.
12. Kornilov A. (2002) Dukhovenstvo peremeshchennykh lits: Biografi cheskii slovar’. Nizhny Novgorod (in Russian).
13. Kosik V. (2008) Russkoe tserkovnoe zarubezh’e XX v. v biografi iakh dukhovenstva ot Ameriki do Iaponii. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Kostriukov A. (2007) Russkaia Zarubezhnaia Tserkov’ v pervoi polovine 1920-kh gg.: Organizatsiia tserkovnogo upravleniia v emigratsii i ego otnosheniia s Moskovskoi Patriarkhiei pri zhizni Patriarkha Tikhona. Moscow (in Russian).
15. Kostriukov A. (2011) Russkaia Zarubezhnaia Tserkov’ v 1925–1938 gg.: Iurisdiktsionnye konfl ikty i otnosheniia s moskovskoi tserkovnoi vlast’iu. Moscow (in Russian).
16. Klement′ev A. (ed.) (2017) “Materialy k istorii Spaso-Preobrazhenskogo monastyria na ostrove Valaam i v mestnosti Papinniemi v Finliandskoi respublike v 1939–1944 gg.”. Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, 2017, no. 4 (20), pp. 202–372 (in Russian).
17. Klement′ev A., Skvortsova O. (eds) “Materialy k istorii Spaso-Preobrazhenskogo monastyria na ostrove Valaam i v mestnosti Papinniemi v Finliandskoi Respublike v 1939–1944 gg. (okonchanie)”. Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, 2018, no. 1 (21), pp. 267–412 (in Russian).
18. Loima J. (2001) Muukalaisina Suomessa. Kaakkoisen Kannaksen kreikkalaiskatoliset venäläisseurakunnat kansallisena ongelmana 1889–1939. Helsinki.
19. Loima J. (2004) “Nationalism and the Orthodox Church in Finland”, in J. Loima, T. Laitila (eds) Nationalism and Orthodoxy. Helsinki, 2004, pp. 93–199.
20. Mironova E. (2018) “Russkoe zarubezh′e kak model′ gosudarstva vne granits”. Rossiia XXI, 2018, no. 6, pp. 80–101 (in Russian).
21. Murtorinne E. (1988) The History of Finnish Theology: 1828–1918. Helsinki.
22. Musaev V. (2007) “Pravoslavnaia Tserkov′ v nezavisimoi Finliandii (1918–1930-e gg.)”. Vestnik tserkovnoi istorii, 2007, no. 2 (6), pp. 194–212 (in Russian).
23. Musaev V. (2014) Mezhdu Zapadom i Vostokom: Pravoslavie v avtonomnoi i nezavisimoi Finliandii (1890–1930-e gg.). St. Petersburg (in Russian).
24. Nevalainen P. (2003) Izgoi. Rossiiskie bezhentsy v Finliandii (1917–1939). St. Petersburg (in Russian).
25. Nikola (Trajkovski; hegumen) (2009) Sveta Rusija: Zapisi od Makedonija. Skopje.
26. Onufrii (Makhanov; hierodeacon) (2005) “Prichal molitv uedinennykh”. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
27. Popov A. (2007) Rossiiskoe pravoslavie za rubezhom: Bibliografi cheskii ukazatel’ literatury i istochnikov: 1918–2006. Moscow (in Russian).
28. Severikov V. (2006) “Iz opyta politicheskoi istorii pravoslaviia v Finliandii i Rossii XX v.” Severnaia Evropa v XXI v.: priroda, kul’tura, ekonomika. Petrozavodsk, p. 241 (in Russian).
29. Siluan (Nikitin; bishop) (2021) Finliandskaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov’ v 1957–1988 godakh. Moscow (in Russian).
30. Smirnova I., Iarovoi O. (2001) Valaam: pod flagom Finliandii. Petrozavodsk (in Russian).
31. Soini E. (2017) Vzaimoproniknovenie russkoi i fi nskoi literatury v pervoi polovine XX veka. Moscow (in Russian).
32. Shevchenko T. (2008) “K voprosu o iurisdiktsii Finliandskoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi”. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2008, vol. 1, pp. 42–69 (in Russian).
33. Shevchenko T. (ed.) (2009) “N. Glubokovskii. ¡Voina i mir″ v Finliandskoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi”. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2009, no. 2, pp. 99–119.
34. Shevchenko T. (2011) Igumen Khariton. Moscow (in Russian).
35. Shevchenko T. (2012) Valaamskii monastyr’ i stanovlenii Finliandskoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi (1917– 1957). Moscow (in Russian).
36. Shevchenko T. (2018) Valaamskie inoki v epokhu gonenii. Moskovskoe podvor’e Valaamskogo monastyria i ego nasel’niki posle revoliutsii 1917 g. Moscow (in Russian).
37. Shevchenko T. (2019) “K istorii poiavleniia v Finliandii russkikh starostil′nykh prikhodov 1925– 1927 gg.”. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2019, vol. 87, pp. 83–96 (in Russian).
38. Shkarovskii M. (2009) Istoriia russkoi tserkovnoi emigratsii. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
39. Shkarovskii M. (2015) “Russkaia obshchina Pokrova Presviatoi Bogoroditsy v Khel′sinki v XX v.” Sankt-Peterburg i strany Severnoi Evropy, 2015, no. 16, pp. 216–224 (in Russian).
40. Shkarovskii M. (2016) “Russkaia Nikol’skaia obshchina v Khel′sinki”. Sankt-Peterburg i strany Zapadnoi Evropy, 2016, no. 1 (17), pp. 255–262 (in Russian).
41. Teterevleva T., Reut O. (2014) “¡Grazhdane nesushchestvuiushchei derzhavy″: grazhdanskaia identichnost′, poddanstvo, suverenitet v obshchestvenno-politicheskom diskurse russkogo zarubezh’ia 1920–1930-e gg.”, in Chelovek v meniaiushchemsia mire. Problemy identichnosti i sotsial’noi adaptatsii v istorii i sovremennosti: metodologiia, metodika i praktiki issledovaniia: Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii. Tomsk, pp. 100–102 (in Russian).
42. Tret′iakov S. (2015) “Valaamskie podvizhniki v emigratsii”. Valaamskie svetil’niki dukha. XX vek. Moscow, pp. 373–407 (in Russian).
43. Vsevolod (Filip′ev; monk) (2000) Sviatorusskoe otkrovenie miru: Izbrannye stat’i. Jordanville (in Russian).
44. Zemskov V. (2005) Spetsposelentsy v SSSR, 1930–1960. Moscow (in Russian).

Shevchenko Tatyana

*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 publication introduces into the scientific circulation the letters of one of the famous Russian Orthodox Church hierarchs of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a member of the State Council, a famous theological writer Archbishop Nikolai (Ziorov), which relate to the early period of the hierarch’s biography, associated with his service at the theological and educational department. The letters were addressed to Nikifor Alexandrovich Ilyinsky, an Assistant Inspector at the Vologda Theological Seminary. In his letters Archbishop Nikolay dealt with various topics, but to a greater extent he considered the problems of theological schools, thus, the letters are the most valuable source on the history of theological education at the Synodal period. The letters also noted the destinies of those individuals whose life path was connected with the Vologda Diocese and the Vologda Theological Seminary. The particular interest is the characterization of the control and auditing activities held by the Educational Committee under the Holy Synod, as well as individual auditors and events which took place in theological schools at the considered period. The purpose of the publication of the letters is to show the view of one of the hierarchs of the Russian Church of the early twentieth century on the problems and controversial issues of the inner life of theological schools. The published letters can be found in N. A. Ilyinsky’s diary, which is stored in the State Archive of the Vologda Region.

Archbishop Nikolay (Ziorov), N. A. Ilyinsky, theological education, the Educational Committee, audits of theological and educational institutions, the Vologda Theological Seminary, bishop Peter (Losev).

1. Bogdanova T., Mironovich A. (2008) “Nikolai Ziorov, arkhiep. Varshavskii i Privislenskii”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, vol. L, Moscow, pp. 322–238 (in Russian).
2. Danilenko B. (archpriest), Petr (Eremeev; hieromonk) (eds) (2005) N. Glubokovskii. Akademicheskie obety i zavety. Moscow; Sergiev Posad.
3. Kalinovskii V. (2017) “Arkhiepiskop Nikolai (Ziorov): krymskie stranitsy biografi i ierarkha”, in Aktual’nye voprosy sovremennogo bogosloviia i tserkovnoi nauki: Materialy IX mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-bogoslovskoi konferentsii, posviashchennoi 100-letiiu nachala muchenicheskogo i ispovednicheskogo podviga Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, pp. 154–159 (in Russian).
4. Kalinovskii V. (2019) “Vzgliady arkhiepiskopa Nikolaia (Ziorova) na natsional′nyi vopros”. Khristianskoe chtenie, 2019, no. 5, pp. 237–249 (in Russian).

Hieromonk Ферапонт (Shirokov P.)

*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.