ПАЛОМНИЧЕСТВО НА СВЯТУЮ ЗЕМЛЮ В КОНТЕКСТЕ РАЗВИТИЯ ВЗАИМООТНОШЕНИЙ РУССКОЙ ЦЕРКВИ И АНГЛИКАН ВО ВТОРОЙ ПОЛОВИНЕ XIX В.

Importance. The Holy Land, centered in Jerusalem, has always been for Russia not only one of the most important spiritual centers, but also an object of foreign policy interests (within the framework of the political strategy of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union and modern Russia). However, many aspects of the activities of Russian institutions in Jerusalem have not been sufficiently investigated to date. One of them is the relationship between the Russian Consulate and the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission. The purpose of the study is to analyze their interaction and identify the causes of its intense nature in the second half of the 19th century. Materials and Methods. The work is based on a comparative analysis of both archival documents and works published at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries concerning the history of the Russian Empire’s presence in the Middle East and Jerusalem, as well as the activities of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, the Russian Consulate in Jerusalem and the Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society. In addition to comparative analysis, the methodological basis of the study was made up of systematic and socio-cultural approaches, as well as the principles of objectivity and historicism. Results and Discussion. It is shown that the activities of the Russian Consulate in Jerusalem and the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission are clearly regulated by the relevant instructions, which did not allow for double interpretation. At the same time, the instructions that the Mission received are contradictory: on the one hand, its superiors are required to avoid conflicts with foreign structures, primarily with the Jerusalem Patriarchate, and on the other, they were instructed to make efforts to get out of the latter’s care. Conclusion. Russian Embassy in Jerusalem proved that the primary cause of the strained relations between the Russian Consulate in Jerusalem and the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem was the contradiction between the current state expediency, within which the Russian Consulate in Jerusalem operated, and the political goals of the Russian Empire in the Holy Land, which were pursued by the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem.

This article examines the role of the Turkestan Governor-Generalship in addressing Afghanistanrelated issues and border disputes between Great Britain and Russia in the 1860-1870s.Drawing on an extensive body of archival documents and historical sources, the authors emphasize that the struggle between great empires for influence in Afghanistan and its consequences persisted for an extended period.As a result of the Russian Empire's active engagement in Central Asia in the 1860s, the Turkestan Governor-Generalship was established and effectively granted broad powers to forge relationships with neighboring states.In this context, the article analyzes the Governor-Generalship's specific policy towards Afghanistan.Notably, the project proposed by K.P. Kaufman considered recognizing some Afghan territories as independent or neutral, while the British side insisted on acknowledging the independence of the Central Asian khanates.The authors argue that the struggle to establish borders unfolded in several stages.The first stage, which began in 1869, was characterized by the thorough examination of materials collected by the Turkestan government's diplomatic representative by central authorities, after which final conclusions and proposals were sent to the British administration.The next stage focused on fostering friendly relations between the Emir of Afghanistan, Sher Ali Khan, and the Russian Empire, with the Turkestan administration playing a crucial role.Against the backdrop of British preparations to seize Afghan territories, archival data reveal internal instability in Afghanistan.It is particularly noted that in 1878, the Turkestan Governor-General's independent dispatch of a diplomatic mission to Kabul exacerbated the situation, which, in turn, strained Russian-British relations and contributed to the onset of another British military campaign in Afghanistan.Ultimately, as historical sources indicate, the resolution of border issues concerning Afghanistan gave rise to new contradictions between the two empires.

.

НЕСТОР: Ежеквартальный журнал истории и культуры России и Восточной Европы. 2000. № 1: Православная церковь в России и СССР. Источники, исследования, историография ред. по И. В. Лукоянов, С. Л. Фирсов (review)

This study aims at providing an overview of the everyday life of Russian nuns in Palestine after World War II. This research encompassed the following tasks: to analyze the range of ego-documents available today, characterizing the everyday life and internal motivation of women in choosing the church jurisdiction; to identify, on the basis of written sources, the most active supporters of the Moscow Patriarchate to examine the nuns’ activity as information agents of the Russian Orthodox Church and Soviet government; to characterize the actors influencing the everyday life of the Russian nuns in the context of the creation of the state of Israel and new borders dividing the Holy Land; to present the motives and instruments of influence employed by the representatives of both secu-lar and church diplomacies in respect to the women leading a monastic life; to describe consequences of including the nuns into the sphere of interest of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR; to show the specific role of “Russian women” in the context of the struggle for securing positions of the USSR and the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in the region. The sources for the study were prodused by the state (correspondence between the state authorities, meeting notes) and from the religious actors (letters of nuns to the church authorities, reports of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, memoirs of the clergy). By combining the methods of micro-history and history of the everyday life with the political history of the Cold War, the study examines the agency of the nuns — a category of women traditionally unnoticeable in the political history. Due to the specificity of the sources, the study focuses exclusively on a group of the nuns of the Holy Land who came under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patri-archate. The majority of the Russian-speaking population of Palestine in the mid-1940s were women in the status of monastic residents (nuns and novices) and pilgrims, and in the 1940s–1950s, they were drawn into the geopolitical combinations of the Soviet Union. The Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem, staffed with representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church, becomes a key institution of influence in the region. This article shows how elderly nuns became an object of close attention and even funding by the Soviet state. The everyday life of the nuns became directly dependent on the activities of the Soviet agencies and Soviet-Israeli relations after the arri-val of the Soviet state representatives. At the same time, the nuns became key participants in the inter-jurisdictional conflicts and began to act as agents of influence in the region. The study analyzes numerous ego-documents created by the nuns themselves from the collection of the Council on the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the USSR Council of Ministers. The study shows how nuns positioned themselves as leading a monastic life in the written correspondence with the ROC authorities and staff of the Soviet MFA. The instances of influence of different secular authorities on the development of the female monasticism presented here point to promising research avenues for future reconstruction of the history of women in the Holy Land based on archival materials from state departments, alternative sources should also be found. The study focused on the life of elderly Russian nuns in the Holy Land and showed their activity in the context of the geopolitical transformations in the Near East in the 1940s–1950s.

The article deals with the role of public diplomacy in Russian-Spanish relations; puts forward a hypothesis, that public diplomacy plays an independent role, sometimes even replacing traditional diplomacy, in the “political vacuum”, when political ties between the two countries were frozen or even broken off. The author points out that some examples of public diplomacy can be traced in Russian-Spanish relations in the 18—19th centuries, but they transferred into state policy only in the 20th century. It was at that time that the Soviet government started to maintain a purposeful public policy aimed at “creating a positive image of the country” through the development of cultural and scientific contacts. This is demonstrated in the article on a number of examples: The October Revolution, which divided the world into two opposing blocs, in which there was no place for political relations; the period of Francoism, when both states publicly declared their irreconcilable ideological confrontation, but in fact were pragmatically building economic relations and strengthened scientific and cultural contacts. In those years, the personal support of prominent scientists and public figures played a huge role in building official diplomatic relations after the death of Franco. The author pays special attention to the role of the diplomacy of science and education, the importance of which. increased noticeably in the 21st century. From this point of view, the evolution of relations between Russia and Spain in the first quarter of this century is considered, especially during the period of cooling of relations as a result of the Ukrainian crisis.

The author analyzes various liturgical short calendars printed in Moscow and Kyiv in the 18 th century. Generally, by the end of the century, the efforts of the Holy Synod succeeded in unifying Orthodox doctrine and celebrations in all the regions of the Russian Empire. In this article the author specifically focuses on the level of solemnity of some non-mobile feasts. The analysis of two Calendars printed respectively in Moscow in 1795 and in Kyiv in 1798 shows that the level of solemnity of the feasts of some saints or icons in several cases diverged in Kyiv and Moscow. This indicates that there were still differences between the ecclesiastical practice of the Russian Church and the Kyivan Metropolia. The paper suggests the historical, political and cultural roots of such differences.

Reviewed by: Confessions of the Shtetl: Converts from Judaism in Imperial Russia, 1817–1906 by Ellie Schainkar Glenn Dynner Confessions of the Shtetl: Converts from Judaism in Imperial Russia, 1817–1906 By Ellie Schainkar. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2017. 327 Pp. The popular image of the East European shtetl as an insular, authentic Jewish space is now frequently contested by historians, who tend to regard these heavily Jewish small market towns as scenes of inter-ethnic economic symbiosis and modest social interaction. While this multiconfessional dynamic usually occurred within heavily prescribed roles, boundary transgressions did occur and could result in conversion. In fact, as Ellie Schainker shows in her well-crafted study, conversions occurred a lot more often in the nineteenth-century imperial Russian shtetl than we might expect. These drastic acts were less a result of state pressure or missionary activity, she argues, than of positive dayto-day Jewish-Christian encounters. The Russian Jewish conversion phenomenon, which approached 85,000 by the end of that century, reveals the shtetl as more of an "interreligious zone" than a space of "imagined Jewish exclusivity and social insularity." The older, lachrymose reading of Jewish history tends to treat conversion as a product of state compulsion (military conscription, state-sponsored missionary schemes) and Jewish desperation (poverty, discrimination, anti-Jewish violence). While these could be factors, Schainkar allows, it is time to move beyond solely negative explanations. For one thing, nineteenth-century Russian state conversionist aspirations always existed in tension with the state's legally affirmed toleration of Judaism—officials were much more alarmed by Jewish Christianizing sects and Christian Judaizing sects that defied classification and regulation than by Judaism itself. This contradictory official desire for Jewish conversion alongside official toleration resulted in a relatively passive state missionary project that was, for the most part, kept alive by former Jews. In Russia, proselytizing was largely a "Jewish affair," Schainkar observes. If conversion did not usually emanate from above, it is better examined at the grassroots level. Schainkar presents numerous conversion cases preserved in Russian church and state archives, paying close attention to the "space in which Jews and Christians met and interconfessional relationships were nurtured," [End Page 133] that is, the Jewish-run tavern. Jewish-Christian interactions in Russian taverns were, at base, economic—Jews leased the taverns from nobles and primarily sold vodka to the peasants. Yet Schainkar's sources also suggest interconfessional socializing and occasional theological discussions in taverns, which led some Jews to have a change of heart. Conversion was thus more often an outgrowth of friendship and romance ("shtetl interfaith sociability") than hostile state compulsion. Nor were female conversions frequently a result of male Christian "abductions," as converts' family members often claimed. When abductions did occur they were, in fact, usually at the hands of Jewish families attempting to return converted children to the Jewish community. Images of those abductions, portrayed as fanatical Jewish responses to conversion, proliferated in the Russian press during the late nineteenth century. Schainkar's colorful archival journey represents the kind of work that is transforming historians' understanding of East European Jewry. She unearths myriad cases in a complex interreligious zone while helping us to see larger patterns and tendencies. However, a few areas seem to require further exploration. The profound impact of state-imposed initiatives like Jewish conscription and peasant emancipation on traditional societal constraints seems often missed here. In addition, the main sources selected for analysis—conversion narratives—tend to evince empathy for the converts, who claimed to be only following their hearts, but not for their families, who could be hurt in unseen ways (e.g., damaged marriage prospects for a convert's siblings and cousins). A related issue is the rather generous interpretations of these tendentious sources. Could not many conversion narratives in fact entail exaggerated or fabricated responses designed to please the church and state officials conducting the interviews? Jews who really converted as a result of impoverishment, indebtedness, greed, or careerism would not have been so forthcoming. Nevertheless, Schainkar's book offers fascinating details, new dimensions, and refreshing perspectives on daily Jewish life in imperial Russia. Her approach to the phenomenon of Jewish conversion humanizes individuals who are usually depicted...

The article is devoted to one of the pages in the history of relations between the Russian Orthodox and Anglican Churches — the first visit of archdeacon William Palmer to Russia. The Anglican theologian, an associate of the Oxford movement, arrived in Russia in order to prove the correctness of the “theory of branches” proposed by the Oxford theologians and, as a consequence, to enter into Eucharistic communion with the Orthodox believers. Palmer had conversations on this issue with the chief Prosecutor of the Synod N. A. Protasov, Archimandrite Athanasius (Drozdov), Archpriest V. Kutnevich, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, and other representatives of the Russian clergy. As a result of meetings and conversations, the Anglican archdeacon was denied intercommunion, but the Russian Church authorities were sympathetic to the idea of rapprochement between the Anglican and Russian Orthodox Churches and agreed to continue the dialogue on this issue. The article analyzes the purpose, content and outcome of W. Palmer’s visit to Russia, as well as the reasons why the Anglican theologian was not accepted into Eucharistic communion. The article highlights the personal contribution of the Archdeacon Palmer to strengthening of the the relationship between representatives of the two Churches, as well as his role in increasing interest for Anglicanism on the part of the Russian clergy and the church community.

The issues raised in the article refer to the problems of Church diplomacy of Russia and other great powers in the Middle East in the 1850–1860’s when Russian diplomacy, both secular and church, faced the task of developing new approaches, first of all, in shaping the sphere of Russian interests in the Middle and Far East. Church policy of Russia in the Christian East in the 1850s–1860s is observed through the prism of the position of the Metropolitan of Moscow Filaret (Drozdov, 1782–1867), an outstanding church figure whose position determined the development of Russian church presence abroad not only in the Holy Land, but also in China and North America. The role of Metropolitan Filaret is presented in the forefront of such issues as the development of inter-church relations between the Russian Church with the Patriarchates of the East, the formation of the concept of Russian-Greek, Russian-Arab and Russian-Slavic relations, the interaction and contradictions of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission and the Russian consulate in Jerusalem.

Russia's official presence in Palestine can be traced back to 1847 with the creation of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem.This was part of a larger process: the large-scale installation of the leading European powers -Prussia, Great Britain, France, and Austria -in the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire.What Henry Laurens has called the "invention of the Holy Land" took place after the 1839 Egyptian invasion of Syria and the first plan for the internationalization of Jerusalem under the aegis of the main European powers. 1 This process also appears as a reaction to emerging secular ideologies -liberalism, socialism, and nationalism -that challenged the religious values of Western societies.It was also at that time that Palestine, part of the Arab periphery of the Ottoman Empire and land of the three Abrahamic religions, became a battleground for the leading European powers' conflicting religious and political interests.However, Russia's installation in Palestine also responded to logics specific to the political and religious developments of the Russian Empire itself, such as the central place of religion (specifically the Orthodox Church) in the county's self-perception; relations between the state, the Orthodox Church ("first and dominant"), and other religions; relations between Orthodoxy and science; and so on.It is in the nineteenth century, particularly its second half, that the idea of "Holy Russia," conceptualized in medieval texts and presenting Russia as the "Second Jerusalem" or the "Third Rome," was revived and given new expression. 2 After the Crimean War in 1856, in order to reinforce the Russian position in the Levant and Europe after its military defeat, the Russian Empire decided to open, in 1858, the Russian consulate in Jerusalem and, in 1859,

John Greaves, a British subject, was an important actor of modernization in the Russian Empire. He arrived at the port of Berdyansk as a representative of the British company Clayton & Shuttleworth, and he established a plant of agricultural machinery there, which became the largest plant of this kind in Europe. In 1877 Greaves offered himself for the position of German vice- consul in Berdyansk. In 1907 he became a vice-consul of the British Empire, and kept this post until 1918. Greaves and his family became an example of a new vector of actors’ mobility and new practices of socialization, formed under the influence of modernization. These stimulated the emergence of new forms of loyalty, as well as the combination of economics and politics. Special attention is paid to the Greaves’ family and business ties with the Germans, as well as on his personal experience of contacts with the German authorities, which is particularly interesting in the context of the competitive struggle between the British, Russian and German empires.

The review of the XVIII International Scientific Conference "State and Law: evolution, current state, development prospects (to the 300th anniversary of the Russian Empire)" was held on April 29-30, 2021 at the St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The Russian Empire existed on the political map of the world from October 22 (November 2), 1721 until the February Revolution and the overthrow of the Monarchy on March 3, 1917. The Russian Empire was the third largest state that ever existed (after the British and Mongolian Empires): It extended to the Arctic Ocean in the north and the Black Sea in the south, to the Baltic Sea in the west and the Pacific Ocean in the east. The Russian Empire was one of the great powers along with Great Britain, France, Prussia (Germany) and Austria-Hungary, and since the second half of the XIX century – also Italy and the United States. The capital of the Russian Empire was St. Petersburg (1721 - 1728), Moscow (1728 - 1732), then again St. Petersburg (1732 - 1917), renamed Petrograd in 1914. Therefore, it is natural that a conference dedicated to the 300th anniversary of the formation of the Russian Empire was held in St. Petersburg, the former imperial capital. The conference was devoted to problems concerning various aspects of the organization and functioning of the state and law, a retrospective analysis of the activities of state bodies in the Russian Empire. The discussion focused on various issues: the character of the Russian Empire as a socio-legal phenomenon and the subject of the legitimate use of state coercion, the development of political and legal thought, the regulatory and legal foundations of the organization and functioning of the Russian state in the XVIII century – at the beginning of the XX century, the characteristics of state bodies as an element of the mechanism of the imperial state in Russia, the organizational and legal bases of the activities of bodies that manage the internal affairs of the Russian Empire, as well as the image of state authorities and officials-representatives of state power.

In an article based on the diaries of arch. Antonin (Kapustin) presents his active work in the creation of Russian Palestine. As the fifth head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem, arch. Antonin continued the work of the first Russian missionaries, strengthened Russia's presence in the Holy Land and raised its authority. As a learned archaeologist, archeographer, historian, arch. Antonin made an invaluable contribution to the study of biblical history and the preservation of the shrines of the Christian East. One of the main achievements of arch. Antonina consists in acquiring land plots in the Holy Land, which had a special historical significance and in the future allowed maintaining the authority of Russia and the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in the Holy Land.

Reviewed by: Making Jews Modern: The Yiddish and Ladino Press in the Russian and Ottoman Empires Norman A. Stillman Making Jews Modern: The Yiddish and Ladino Press in the Russian and Ottoman Empires, by Sarah Abrevaya Stein. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2004. 311 pp. + illustrations. $35.00. In this beautifully conceived, meticulously documented, and intriguing comparative study, Sarah Abrevaya Stein examines the role of the vernacular press as a medium of Jewish modernization in the Tsarist and Ottoman Empires during the latter decades of the nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth. Focusing on two journals in particular, Der Fraynd (published in St. Petersburg and later Warsaw, 1903–13) and El Tiempo (published in Constantinople/Istanbul, 1872–1930), she treats them and other periodicals not merely as sources for the history of their time and place, but as participating agents that actively contributed to, and indeed consciously tried to shape, the changes taking place within the respective societies of their readers. Stein clearly understands that there were different Jewish modernities. She chose these particular case studies, she informs us, because, despite some salient differences, these societies resembled one another in a number of significant respects far more than they did those of their coreligionists in the nation-states of the West. Not only did they both inhabit great autocratic, multi-ethnic empires, but both Jewish societies actually spoke an entirely different language from that of their gentile neighbors. (In North Africa and the Middle East, most Jews spoke Jewish variants, sociolects, of the local language, and in Central and Western Europe, emancipated Jews had long since adopted [End Page 188] the national languages.) However, the respective attitudes of Yiddish speakers and Ladino speakers toward their mother tongues diverged drastically in the modernizing process. For a time, a debate raged in both societies over Jewish vernacular (Yiddish žargon; Ladino, žirgonza) and cultural identity. However, Russian Jews came to see Yiddish as their national language and the badge of their unique cultural identity even when they were attracted to Russian language and culture. Ottoman Jews, on the other hand, looked down upon Ladino even while using it, had no interest in Turkish or the Balkan languages, and were drawn to French as the language of modern civilization. The adoption of French as the lingua franca for the Sephardi/Mizrahi bourgeoisie from Morocco to Iran was due to the successful efforts of the Alliance Israélite Universelle which, imbued with the French mission civilisatrice, established a network of schools throughout the Ottoman Empire and other Islamic countries. Stein has added an important additional perspective to the sociolinguistic transformation of the Jews that was part and parcel of the process of their modernization. Stein's book is divided into three parts, each of which is divided in turn into two chapters, that stand as foils to each other. Part One presents an historical survey of the origins and development of the Yiddish and Ladino presses and how each in its own way created a newspaper culture. While the two principal journals examined in the study, Der Fraynd and El Tiempo, were both avowedly secular in outlook, they attracted a wide readership since the boundary line between most religious and secular Jews during this time period was not clearly delineated. In Part Two ("Imaging Culture"), Stein analyzes some of the major themes that were conveyed to readers of the Yiddish and Ladino press through the combined use of text and illustrative material (photographs and engraved illustrations). Reflecting the social and political ferment of late Tsarist times, the Yiddish press made use of cartoons to express ideals, hopes, frustrations, and anger. She also shows how, following the pogroms, photographs were used to shape and reshape the image of Jewish suffering and victimization. This kind of reportage and iconography was risky enough in the Russian Empire and could lead to a publication being closed down. In the Ottoman Empire, it was not even an option. The articles and images in the Ladino press that Stein chooses to deconstruct deal with what she dubs "The Science of Healthy Living," which in actuality was not merely the promotion of hygiene, good nutrition, and knowledge of...