No 4 (2023)

The article presents the history of the Tver diocese of the period of independence of the principality. The main attention is paid to the contribution to the formation and development of the diocese of the Tver rulers. The material on the development of the Tver monasteries of the specified period is considered.

The article deals with the internal factors of the Russian episcopate’s formation in the 16th century. It was established that the belonging to the influential church groups had played the most important role till the last quarter of the 16th century. There were three - the monks’ community of the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius monastery, the Kirillo-Belozerskii monastery, the Iosifo-Volockii monastery. The period, when Simon (the monk of the Holy Trinity- St. Sergius monastery) was the metropolitan, was characterized by the increase of the number of the bishops from this monastery (1495-1511). The metropolitan Daniil (1522-1539) who was from the Iosifo-Volockii monastery strengthened the position of this monastery. The metropolitan Makarii (1542-1563) tried to strike a balance between these two groups. The patriarch Iov (1586-1605) didn’t belong to the influential church groups. That’s why their influence on the governing of the Russian church was minimized. The bishops were appointed from about 15 monasteries. It was connected, on the one hand, with the attempt of Iov and his ally the Godunovs to weaken the “aristocratic” monasteries, on another hand - with the death of the last capable representative of the dynasty in 1584. For a long time the dynasty supported these influential monasteries and others.

The article discusses a little-known missionary project of the reign of Catherine II "A new institution for the conversion of non-believers". Its development was closely connected with the change of the confessional policy of the Empress. After the abolition of the Novokreschenskaya office, diocesan preachers were established, whose purpose was to continue the spread of Christianity among the peoples of Russia. The activities of some preachers caused reproaches from the supreme church authorities. This led to the idea of developing a project to organize the activities of preachers. The project was a model of the best organization of missionary work within the entire empire, but its approbation had to be carried out in Siberia. In case of successful implementation, the project could become a guiding principle for missionaries of other dioceses of Russia.

The article examines the role of the Russian ambassador to Constantinople (1864-1876) N.P. Ignatiev in the settlement of a major conflict on Mount Athos in the first half of the 1870s (the «Greek-Russian Panteleimon process»), as well as in the creation and development in the Caucasus (Abkhazia) of the New Athos Monastery of Saint Simon the Cananaean which is a branch of the Athos Russian St. Panteleimon Monastery. It is shown that the foundation of the Caucasian monastery was one of the natural results of the conflict caused by the aggravation of contradictions between different ethnic communities in St. Panteleimon Monastery in connection with the general rise of anti-Slavic and anti-Russian sentiments in the Greek environment due to Russia's position in the Greek-Bulgarian church issue, as well as to a certain extent in connection with the actions of the British diplomacy that sought to weaken Russian influence in the Balkans and the Middle East. It is shown that largely due to the actions of N.P. Ignatiev Russia managed to preserve the integrity of the Russian St. Panteleimon Monastery, avoid a break with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and even strengthen its position on Mount Athos. The origin and development of the Caucasian monastery, its situation during the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878, the spiritual life and missionary activity of the New Athonite monks are studied. It is emphasized that the New Athos Monastery, having emerged as a supposed «refuge» for Russian Athonians in the event of new troubles in the East, soon turned into a pearl of the Black Sea coast, a major spiritual and missionary center in the south of the Russian Empire.

Although “Circle of those seeking Christian enlightenment”, a Moscow organization of Church intellectuals of the last pre-revolutionary decade, or "Novoselov’s circle" named after its Chairman M.A. Novoselov, has received all conscious attention it deserves, and its major figures such as Novoselov, P.A. Florensky, S.N. Bulgakov, and others don’t require special representation, the history of the Circle still needs further investigation and special focus. The Circle is most often mentioned in the context of comments or introductions to the publications of the heritage of its members where their personal features are revealed with little reference to the activities of the organization. Therefore, the question of personal dynamics acquired by each member participating in the Circle is to be assessed. When we reflect on such issue as the Church and political involvement of Novoselov and the Samarins we should conclude that political issues were not subject to discussion in this society, while another group, “Samarin circle” approached the field of politics. А number of inaccuracies in the list of participants of the circle is due to the specific nature of their inquiry. It has turned evident that in search of the ways to reform their Circle while having different views on the general concept, the members often found opponents in the face of new associates.

The article presents the charitable activities of the Orthodox clergy and laity during the First World War. Based on a wide range of sources and studies, various practices of providing assistance to wounded and maimed soldiers, prisoners of war, refugees, and members of soldiers' families are shown. At the same time, various public reactions to the role of the Orthodox Church in mobilizing the rear and consolidating the population for the successful conduct of the war are emphasized.

The article examines the situation of the farmsteads of the four Eastern Patriarchates in post-revolutionary Moscow. Special attention is paid to the struggle of the official representatives of the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Jerusalem for their Moscow apartment houses reflected in correspondence with various Soviet authorities. Responding to the attempts motivated by the decrees of the Soviet authorities to nationalize the households of the farmsteads, their abbots used a wide range of arguments, up to the declared concern for the Middle Eastern proletariat. At first they tried to justify the inviolability of their property by the charitable nature of the use of the income received from it, then they shifted the emphasis to the secularism of the institutions they represent (the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Jerusalem) and, finally, they began to assert the impossibility of nationalizing what, in their opinion, has already been nationalized by the Greek nation. The fluctuations of representatives of various Soviet bodies, to which the abbots of Greek farmsteads, including the Moscow Soviet and the NKID of the RSFSR, applied with their petitions, are shown. In fact, the end of the question was put at the beginning of 1919 by the chairman of the VIII Liquidation Department of the NKYU, P.A. Krasikov, who had no doubt what policy regarding religious organizations should be carried out in Soviet Russia (a policy ensuring their complete early liquidation). The seizure of apartment buildings foreshadowed the subsequent termination of the activities of the Moscow farmsteads of the Eastern Patriarchates, although attempts were made to revive it until the second half of the 1920s, and Constantinople - even until the second half of the 1930s.