Metropolitan Sergi Stragorodsky: The case of the representative individual*

Abstract

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Acknowledgement I should like to express my gratitude to Keston Institute, Oxford, and in particular to Malcolm Walker, Keston's archivist and librarian, for invaluable help in preparing this paper. Notes 1 See Dixon, 2004 Dixon, S. 2004. Sergii (Stragorodskii) in the Russian Orthodox Diocese of Finland: apostasy and mixed marriages 1905–1917. The Slavonic and East European Review, 82(1) January: 50–73. [Google Scholar], for an in-depth study of Sergi's views and administrative policies in the years preceding the 1917 Revolution. 2 On the Religious-Philosophical Meetings see: Pyman, 1984 Pyman, A. 1984. “The church and the intelligentsia with special reference to the religious-philosophical meetings in St Petersburg 1901–1903”. In Russian Thought and Society 1800–1917: Essays in Honour of Eugene Lampert, Edited by: Bartlett, R. 181–219. Keele: University of Keele. [Google Scholar]; Dixon, 2004 Dixon, S. 2004. Sergii (Stragorodskii) in the Russian Orthodox Diocese of Finland: apostasy and mixed marriages 1905–1917. The Slavonic and East European Review, 82(1) January: 50–73. [Google Scholar], p. 54. 3 Firsov lists the 20 sessions, lasting over a year and a half, as: the church and the intelligentsia (I–II), Lev Tolstoy and the Russian church (III–IV), freedom of conscience (VII–IX), spirit and flesh (X–XI), marriage (XII–XVI), and the development of dogma (XVIII–XX) (Firsov, 2002 Firsov, S. 2002. Russkaya Tserkov' nakanune peremen (konets 1890-kh – 1918 gg.), Moscow: Krugly stol po religioznomu obrazovaniyu i diakonii. [Google Scholar], p. 110). 4 On Sergi's administration of the archdiocese of Finland and Vyborg, see the essential study by Dixon (Dixon, 2004 Dixon, S. 2004. Sergii (Stragorodskii) in the Russian Orthodox Diocese of Finland: apostasy and mixed marriages 1905–1917. The Slavonic and East European Review, 82(1) January: 50–73. [Google Scholar], pp. 50–73). 5 On Bishop Sergi's talents and his work as an original theologian, see Mitrofanov, 2002 Mitrofanov, G. prot. 2002. Istoriya russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi 1900–1927, St Petersburg: Satis. [Google Scholar], pp. 376–80. 6 Firsov, 1999 Firsov, S. 1999. Vremya v sud'be, St Petersburg: St Petersburg University Press. [Google Scholar], pp. 46–47, quoting from an archival source. 7 Vostryshev does not give a source for this passage. On the complexities of this situation, the interrelationships between Sergi and the others, and the role of Metropolitan Petr, see: Stratonov, 1995 Stratonov, I. 1995. “Russkaya tserkovnaya smuta 1921–1931 gg”. In Iz istorii khristianskoi tserkvi na rodine i za rubezhom v xx stoletii: sbornik (materialy po istorii tserkvi 5), 29–172. Moscow: Krutitskoye Patriarsheye Podvor'ye. (originally Berlin, 1932) [Google Scholar]; Yelevferi, 1995. On the fate of Metropolitan Petr, see Corley, 1996 Corley, F. 1996. Religion in the Soviet Union: an Archival Reader, London: Macmillan. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], pp. 108–12. 8 Following the execution of Metropolitan Petr in 1937 Sergi became officially locum tenens. 9 The text, dated 16/29 July 1927 and signed by Metropolitan Sergi and eight members of the Temporary Patriarchal Holy Synod, is published in Patriarkh, 1949, pp. 59–63. On the draft of the Declaration, which the authorities did not accept, see Mitrofanov, 2002 Mitrofanov, G. prot. 2002. Istoriya russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi 1900–1927, St Petersburg: Satis. [Google Scholar], pp. 383–87. 10 A point lost in translation is that the ‘joys, successes and failures’ refer to the ‘Motherland’ (rodina) and not to the Soviet Union. 11 On the state organs of control over the church, see the important article by T.A. Chumachenko (2003 Chumachenko, T. A. 2003. “Sovet po delam Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi pri SNK (SM) SSSR v 1943–1947 gg.: osobennosti formirovaniya i deyatel'nosti apparata”. In Murashko and Odintsov, 2003 69–98. [Google Scholar]). 12 According to a letter received by Metropolitan Yevlogi, Sergi had been given the text of the announcement and then kept in solitary confinement. ‘He was faced with the dilemma of either saying that the church was persecuted, in which case all the Tikhonite bishops would be arrested – that is, the whole church organisation would be destroyed – or of saying that there was no persecution and being shamed as a liar’ (Yevlogi, 1994 Yevlogi mitrop. (Georgiyevsky). 1994. Put' moyei zhizni: vospominaniya mitropolita Yevlogiya (Georgiyevskogo) izlozhennyye po ego rasskazam T. Manukhinoi, Moscow: Moskovsky rabochi. [Google Scholar], pp. 568–69). 13 The full text of Karpov's notes on the meeting has now been published: Zapiska, 2003. 14 Pospielovsky debates this issue: Pospielovsky, 1997 Pospielovsky, D. 1997. The “best years” of Stalin's church policy (1942–1948) in the light of archival documents. Religion, State & Society, 25(2): 139–162. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar], pp. 140–41. 15 The Synod had not met since 1935 because virtually all its members had been arrested. 16 Of the whole list only one, Bishop Nikolai Mogilevsky, was in fact released.