In his pronouncements, Metropolitan Anthony always remained true to his convictions and this fact often led to a confrontation. This is the reason why his personality is frequently examined in light of a particularly contentious issue. The paper below, presented at the international conference on Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, which took place at the Holy Trinity Theological Seminary in Jordanville in 2006 attempts to look at the life and times of the future First Hierarch of ROCOR without resorting to polemics. It is reprinted here with the kind permission of the editor of the journal of the Department for the External Relation of Moscow Patriarchate “Tserkov’ i Vremia.” The titles in reference have been translated from Russian into English. For the Russian original titles please consult the original, Russian version of this article. The article has been subdivided by ROCOR Studies.
There are many reasons why discussing Metropolitan Anthony’s (Khrapovitsky) legacy is particularly problematic. In the first place, he was an extremely well-known personality in the ecclesial and political circles of Imperial Russia and — as outstanding people tend to be — could not be regarded with any degree of impartiality by his contemporaries. Indeed their views of him were informed by their own political prejudices.
Secondly, there was a man who had played a pivotal role in the organization of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad which meant that for many decades his work was viewed in the USSR through the prism of the ideological paradigm of the Soviet regime. At the same time, Metropolitan Anthony was a complex personality who never shied away from expressing his views on all the burning questions pertaining to the church-state relationship in the homeland. This he did with a full appreciation that his views were not shared by everyone. He was a lively and sincere man, engaged in a permanent quest to find that truth that could be reconciled with the truth of a life in Christ. This feature is perhaps the most pertinent one to consider in assessing his character.
Can Vladyka Antony’s time be seen in a “historical perspective” now, i.e., has enough time passed for his words and actions to receive a calm and unbiased assessment? It is difficult to give a simple answer to this question. What is beyond doubt is the fact that Metropolitan Anthony lived in the age of great changes and clash of eras; he survived three Russian revolutions and was forced to end his days far away from his homeland. It is inevitable that his legacy has always been and will continue to be of great interest to both the church and general historians. The continuing polemic around his person and legacy is a tangible proof of his place as a major figure within the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century, which is still looking to answer the questions pondered by him all that time ago.
Up until the fall of communism in the Soviet Union, the official Soviet historiography had an extremely negative view of Vladyka’s legacy. The ideological premise of Soviet social sciences could be justified if there was at least an attempt to present a true sequence of historical events with any integrity. However, the integrity of either form or content was conspicuous by its absence from the very fabric of the Soviet atheism-informed academics. Below is the description of the Metropolitan’s religious life prior to the revolution by N.S. Gordienko and P. M. Komarov in their highly tendentious book on the Russian Church Abroad:
“Born in 1863. Theology graduate. Bishop since 1902. Rector of three theological academies. Archbishop first of Volyn, then Kharkov. Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia. A committed monarchist and a member of the “Black Hundred.” While Archbishop of Volyn’, was the leader of and ideological inspiration for the local branch of the “Union of the Russian People.” Maintained extreme right-wing views; was a reactionary and completely opposed to any reforms in political and social life in the pre-revolutionary Russia. Was one of the instigators of the clerical persecution of L. N. Tolstoy. Was considered to be a significant theologian with a traditionalist and dogmatically conservative stance. Categorically disagreed with the need for any reform of the Russian Orthodoxy. A member of the Local Church Council of 1917-18 where he was the leading candidate for the patriarchal position but in the end did not secure the requisite number of votes. Adopted a hostile position from the start of the Great October Socialist Revolution and initiated a political struggle against the newly-established Soviet government, a stance which logically led him to Denikin.” 1
The above paragraph is full of either inaccurate or deliberately falsified information. The only truth in the whole of the description is the fact Vladyka was really born in 1863 and was ideologically opposed to Bolshevism and the power of the Soviets. However, he became a bishop in 1897, was a rector of only two theological academies, Moscow (1891-1895) and Kazan (1895-1900). He also spent a brief time (1890-1891) as a rector of the St Petersburg Seminary. He headed his own diocese, of Ufa and Menzelinsk in 1900. Although he was not one of the initiators of the “persecution” of L. N. Tolstoy, he was strongly opposed to the author’s religious and ethical views — a position he shared with all the other Russian hierarchs headed by Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky, 1846-1912). Moreover, Vladyka was not merely “considered” but actually was one of Russia’s most significant theologians; his opposition was not to the reforms, but to the Revolution and the social and political disturbances it caused. His alleged opposition to the idea of a Russian Orthodox “reformation” is not even worthy of comment: the very premise is historically inaccurate and theologically absurd. Likewise, there is no need to comment on “the requisite number of votes” at the council.
I mention all this merely to give an idea of how inadequate and inaccurate Metropolitan Anthony’s image was in the USSR. And to think that this quotation was taken from a publication in the year of the Millennium of the Baptism of Russia! Incidentally, in the same year of1988, the Moscow Patriarchate published a two-volume work entitled “Historical Overview of the Russian Orthodox Church” in which there was barely any mention of Metropolitan Anthony’s public life prior to the revolution, presumably on ideological grounds. He was mentioned in one place only, as “one of the Church’s more notable scholars and personalities” along with such as figures as Bishops Anthony (Vadkovsky), Tikhon (Beliavin), Sergius (Starogorodsky) and Arseny (Stadnitsky) who had all expressed their support for the restoration of the Patriarchate. 2
The Soviet authors chose not to explain their characterization of Vladyka Anthony as “outstanding” and even his contemporaries” assessment of him as “the cleverest” 3 of all the Russian bishops. Denouncement is always a thankless task. For a start, one inadvertently disseminates the lie by exposing it. In addition, it is important to note that myths have a life of their own, and mythmakers have as little to gain from knowing the truth as do ideologically-minded speculators. Understanding the logic of the myth would be more revealing. In this case, the logic is clear enough; the “enemy of the Soviet state” had always been an enemy of “democracy and progress”— obviously in the Soviet understanding of these terms.
However, while disagreeing completely with Gordienko’s and Komarov’s interpretation of the aforementioned facts, I would like to note that “the militant atheists” were nevertheless basically correct in their assessment of Metropolitan Anthony‘s character. Vladyka was indeed an active opponent of everything for which the Bolshevik Leninists stood. He was a committed monarchist and a true “Orthodox traditionalist.” He could not conceive of the monarchy separated from Orthodoxy or remaining outside it. As for his position on church organization within Orthodoxy, he was always an ardent supporter of the catholicity of the Church with the patriarch at the head. He had dedicated all of his theological and organizational talents to this cause.
A Monk Who Was Always “Hot”
It is a known fact that in order to present a complete socio-psychological profile of anyone, it is not enough just to explain what this person was. It is just as important to show what he was not and in what way this was so. In order to see this more clearly, it is helpful to turn to the commentary on the words that St John the Theologian addressed to the Laodicea in the Revelation:
“I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.” (Rev. 3: 15-6).
The commentary explains that “not cold” means a member of the Christian community who is completely untouched by divine grace and “not hot” is someone who is not a true Christian. “A lukewarm man”, continues the Orthodox commentator on the book of the Revelation “is neither a true Christian, nor a hardened pagan, nor an obvious sinner. He is equally indifferent to the Orthodox teaching and impious heresies. A lukewarm man remains in a state of forgetfulness, self-delusion, and spiritual slumber; he therefore neither sees nor understands the danger in which he finds himself.” 4
Metropolitan Anthony was never either “cold” or “lukewarm” but was always “hot”— so hot in fact that his ardor was seen by his contemporaries as an expression of “fanaticism” and political maximalism. In my opinion, this explains the harsh light in which Vladyka was frequently viewed even by his deeply religious contemporaries who held similar political convictions to his own. Below is a good example of this characterization by a Church publicist, General A. A. Kireev. The general wrote in May 1902,
“I met Bishop Anthony of Volyn’ who is without a doubt an intelligent, knowledgeable and lively man. He noted the adverse influence exerted by the Roman scholasticism on our theology in the 17th century and commented that the ‘Kievan period’ had given our theology a ‘form’ and a system, but had also allowed a multitude of Roman errors to creep in. […] He asserted that the filioque was merely an opinion, and not a dogma making further debates on the subject unnecessary. ‘At the same time,’ he added ‘the West and the Old Catholicism which originated there is heresy and we would do better to act as the Greeks do and re-baptize Catholics. At the very least,’ he continued, ‘we should receive them as we do other heretics, for example, the Arians, according to the 3rd Order.’ When I noted that our Church accepts Roman Catholic sacraments as valid, he exclaimed, ‘Yes, I know! But it’s quite wrong!’ I was very concerned. […]. [Protopresbyter I.] Ianyshev was quite right when he wrote to me about Anthony and said that here’s a man who regards anything which isn’t monastic as a delusion of the devil. He even went so far as to suggest that all of the canon are essential!!! That they are basically dogmatic. I could denounce nine-tenths of our clergy and laity as heretics on the basis of these canons (not the dogmatic ones of course)! Doesn’t he see this?” 5
Vladyka could, of course, see all of this and understood the reality of Church life no less clearly than A. A. Kireev. Nevertheless, he felt it incumbent upon himself as an Orthodox theologian, to speak his mind. The general was initially surprised by the Metropolitan’s maximalism but then explained it by the latter’s particular affection for the monastic state. This affection, according to A. A. Kireev’s logic (and also presumably that of the Court Protopresbyter I. Ianyshev) caused the metropolitan to “misunderstand” the realities of church life. Just how great Metropolitan Anthony’s “misunderstanding” was we shall see in other examples. In this case, however, we note Vladyka’s great love for monasticism which was in itself an open secret. As a great proponent of the tradition of academic monasticism, he thought it important to encourage tonsure among students and graduates of theological academies. However, this “tonsure epidemic” as it was called by his contemporaries and which was rightly criticized for the often-negative outcomes it produced should not be associated purely with the name of the Bishop of Volyn. 6.
a scholarly monk who has been removed from his monastic setting and who is unable to form an attachment to another Church institution is liable to be tempted to love nothing except himself
As far back as 1889, a long time before his episcopal consecration, Fr Anthony published an article with a telling title “Academic monasticism” in the capital’s academic journal Tserkovnyi Vestnik (Nos 29 & 30). In it, he tried to elucidate the tasks faced by a monk who had exchanged his monastery for pastoral work to further the work of Christ. According to Fr Anthony, the only goal facing the monk is the cultivating of his inner man. “And this is why”, he wrote, “there are questions about combining monasticism with pastoral work. Pastoral work necessitates a life lived out in public and calls for the pastor to be spiritually involved in the life of his flock and to maintain a constant interaction with the world. While monasticism has only one goal, the improvement of self, for which task the Church offers him the tools of solitude and estrangement from the people of the world and its affairs. 7
So how did the author himself see a resolution to this apparent contradiction? Especially, as he also notes that a scholarly monk who has been removed from his monastic setting and who is unable to form an attachment to another Church institution is liable to be tempted to love nothing except himself. 8
In the first place, noted Fr Anthony, there is no pastoral work without an interior life, only a pastoral conscience. “Just as a hermit forgets the entire world and fixes his gaze only upon God and upon building up his inner man, so also a pastor has but one goal in life — the building up of his inner man but not just within himself but also within his flock. He encloses his whole flock within his conscience and identifies himself spiritually with all the souls entrusted to him by God. 9
On this premise, Fr Anthony makes the logical conclusion that pastoral work — in its Patristic understanding — cannot harm the spiritual growth of a learned monk. In this case, the learned monk “overcomes the passions” for the sake of the salvation of many souls. As far as the dangers associated with “living in the world” is concerned, worldly temptations affect even the monks living in monasteries; an inclination towards sensuousness leads them to decorate their cells, indulge in tasty food, etc. and vanity is fed by the prospect of advancement through the monastic hierarchy. 10
Fr Anthony was a firm opponent of a surface, legalistic view of either of these paths, the pastoral or the monastic. It would not be an exaggeration to call Vladyka a longtime “ideologue” of academic monasticism and so he spared no effort in defending the principle of combining monasticism with pastoral work. Vladyka also sought to refute claims made by many 20th century Church commentators that the higher theological schools were veritable “enclave” of monks by quoting statistical data. The situation as on 1907 was as follows: out of 57 seminary rectors, 29 were monks and 28 archpriests; out of 187 inspectors and 187 assistants of church schools (374 people in total), there were 7 monks and 367 lay administrators. Thus, out of a total of 488 senior theological education personnel, there were only 44 monks (or 9%). 11
However, as it frequently happens in life, the critics were not silenced by these facts, striving instead to prove that the principle itself was wrong. Among them, the well-known author, Eugene Poselianin, wrote that increasingly “our hierarchs glow with youth” and criticized “the usual path” of a scholar-monk who has had no time to grow accustomed to his situation, form a consistent worldview and assimilate the rudiments of a life of spiritual endeavor. The author believed that these academic monks should be required to spend a number of years in strict monasteries for their own good 12
It was difficult to argue against this, and Vladyka Anthony agreed with the proposal, only expressing some doubt whether the monastic scholars would want to “return from their monasteries and devote themselves to the work of theological education in the modern bandit institutions”? In his opinion, it was only the monks (although not all, and not always very skillfully) who endeavored to convey “their piety, religious inspiration and church ideals to the youthful students of theology.” 13
This attitude of the part of the metropolitan is hardly surprising; he had little regard for the imperial higher schools of theology, an opinion he frankly conveyed in his letters to Metropolitan Flavian (Gorodetsky) of Kiev. 14
“The Church build up the people’s conscience by her pastoral work. There is only one way to do this— the way of compassionate love and spiritual mutuality.”
Archbishop Anthony regarded the monastery as not just a school of Orthodox piety and solitude but a real school for all people too. He greatly regretted the “removal of education from monasteries” which was perhaps the reason why he viewed scholar-monks as particular carriers of monastic principles in the world, in spite of the fact there were some unworthy pastors even among the monastics. Here, it is necessary also to add that he valued the monastic clergy particularly highly, calling them “the principal teachers and guardians of a genuine indigenous Russian Orthodox piety” “Even now, the village in all its notions and traditions is still a copy of a Russian monastery made more complex by the intricacies of family life.” 15 These words are a good indication of the features Vladyka Anthony considered desirable and important in Russian life, namely the restoration and preservation of a national consciousness which resembled most closely the Orthodox life of the Muscovy Rus. The goals of the Church are above all pastoral; Archpriest George Florovsky was the first to comment on Vladyka’s witness to the Church’s pastoral vocation. “The Church build up the people’s conscience by her pastoral work. There is only one way to do this— the way of compassionate love and spiritual mutuality.” 16
This desire to influence the conscience without resorting to compulsion is characteristic of Vladyka’s whole stance as an Orthodox theologian and polemicist. It is telling that his Master’s dissertation was entitled Psychological Markers in Support of Free Will and Moral Responsibility One can discern Vladyka. Anthony’s inclination to anthropology in this title. The eminent theologian and philosopher Archpriest Basil Zenkovsky made a special note that for Vladyka Anthony “while God is indeed the originator of all physical phenomena, He grants autonomous existence to moral phenomena.” For this reason, Metropolitan Anthony defines his position as “moral monism”, meaning by this that the individual soul’s freedom of existence does not disrupt the unity of being precise because this freedom is enjoyed only by ‘subjects of moral phenomena”, that is by creatures driven by love.” 17
For Vladyka Anthony, this view of love also informed his views on public service which for him was a way of helping his neighbor approach God. For this reason, his public life cannot be seen in isolation from its religious context by which it is also defined.
“A Jewish Question”
This is particularly relevant when considering Vladyka’s attitudes vis-a-vis the so-called “Jewish question.” At the time of the first Russian revolution, Archbishop Anthony made a number of public pronouncements on the subject of Jewish religious consciousness and nihilism, heavily criticizing the latter. In his opinion, the “oppression” of “Israel” began in Russia only after the emergence of this Jewish nihilism.
“I am not ashamed to admit that I feel much closer to a believing Jew or Muslim than to a non-believing Russian.”
“The Jews possess an enormous treasury of moral philosophical ideas which are based on the Bible and expounded by the scholars of the 3rd and then the 11th century. These ideas are incomparably loftier and purer than any positivism, socialism or Marxism which demean human dignity and can be accepted only by the enemies of piety, of faith in a Higher Being or the eternal life”, so spoke Vladyka at the spiritual conference in Zhitomir in February 1906. He called on the educated Jews to acquaint themselves not only with Nietzsche, Marx and Bebel but also with Rabbi Hillel and Moses Maimonides.
“It is quite wrong”, Vladyka said, “to think that appreciating these scholars would make the Jews more estranged from Russians. On the contrary, pious God-fearing people always have much more in common with each other than with wretched atheists. I am not ashamed to admit that I feel much closer to a believing Jew or Muslim than to a non-believing Russian.” 18
The Bishop of Volyn’s admonition turned out to be prophetic; he called on the Jews to ignore their Russian “fair-weather friends” who will be the first to betray them “tomorrow”, because “there is no altruism without a faith in God, only hypocrisy and knavery.” 19
Stalin’s state-sponsored anti-Semitism of the late 1940s and early 1950s was the tragic confirmation of these words. Vladyka was firmly convinced that both the Russian Christians and the Jews who honor the faith of their fathers had the same the goal — to know the will of the Lord and to preach the Good News to the people. Archbishop Anthony, therefore, could in no way be called a religious anti-Semite, even when you consider his views on the Russian “Jewish question” through the prism of the political events of the time. The implacable way in which he expressed his private opinions on this subject does not, to my mind, invalidate this basic principle. 20 Moreover, matters are invariably perceived more radically in times of political instability with the result that commentators are provoked into making controversial publicity-driven statements, rather than restrict themselves to more neutral, academic pronouncements. 21
Vladyka was firmly convinced that both the Russian Christians and the Jews who honor the faith of their fathers had the same the goal — to know the will of the Lord and to preach the Good News to the people.
However, when it came to a situation when his views could influence public opinion for the good, Vladyka expressed himself clearly and unequivocally. It was no coincidence that at the height of the notorious “Beilis affair” in 1913, an open letter from P. E. Senatorov, а peasant religious philosopher vehemently opposed to the blood libel found its way to none other than Vladyka Anthony. In his letter entitled “Concerning ritual murders,” Senatorov addresses Vladyka thus, “I read in the Samara newspaper Volzhskoe Slovo, no. 1668 that while passing through Vilno, you were questioned on the subject of ritual murders by the journalist of the Severno-Zapadnyi Golos. You replied that you did not wish to talk about this matter as you had grown tired of the continuing animosity to the Jewish people and that in any case your words were not heeded. In my opinion, Vladyka, you shouldn’t stop speaking out in defense of the Jews who have no reason to spill Christian blood. 22
This letter is a clear indication that Archbishop Anthony was considered to be a sincere and honest Christian even by those officially classed as sectarian (P. E. Senatorov was an Evangelical). Nevertheless, the unfair image of Vladyka as an ardent anti-Semite became firmly established in Soviet atheistic literature and continues to influence secular researchers into his life and work to this day. 23
Without a doubt, Vladyka had right-wing convictions by which I mean that he held traditionalist views on the value of the monarchy in state governance. He had an extremely negative opinion of any action which he believed threatened this pattern of governance which was itself based on the old triad formula of Count Uvarov [Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality- tr.] and he, therefore, criticized it mercilessly. This explains the Volyn’ hierarch’s far-reaching reputation as a reactionary which followed him in the years 1905-1907. An outstanding individual is frequently judged harshly and unfairly by his contemporaries. Was Vladyka’s “reactionary” label really unfair? Not quite. In his case, the reactionary stance was his response to the impending revolution and to the social upheavals which threatened to bring down the whole empire. In this sense, Vladyka was indeed a committed and thoughtful “reactionary,” acting in the spirit of “Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality.” This formula can be regarded as a true synopsis of Archbishop Anthony’s religious and political credo.
Vladyka had a sober view on the unfolding events and spared no effort in denouncing the effects of the revolution – not so much its politics but the psychological and social consequences it created. One can see evidence of this in his address entitled “A sermon on the Dread Judgment and current events” delivered on 20th February 1905 in St Petersburg St Isaac’s Cathedral. In it he contrasted the revolutionary demands with the march of progress headed by the monarchy and, long before its enemies had made violence their daily staple made this proleptic statement,
“If it pleases the Lord to delay His righteous judgment, let us redouble our prayers that He preserve ordinary Russian people against this common mass delusion. May they continue to have a clear vision of who their friends and enemies are and remain loyal to the Autocracy as the only form of government that is friendly. May the people remember that, should they waver in their loyalty, they will become the most unfortunate of all nations, held in bondage not, as in former times, by the exacting squire, but by the very enemies of all that their millennia-old traditions have held as sacred and precious. This is a fierce and cruel foe who will begin its work with preventing the people from learning God’s Law in schools and will finish it by destroying holy churches, removing from them the relics of God’s Saints and depositing them in anatomical theaters.” 24
These words of Vladyka Anthony were met with some skepticism by the “God-seekers” of the time, by such people as D. S. Merezhskovsky and V. V. Rozanov. The latter called the Volyn’ hierarch a “scaremonger” pointing out all the errors and gloomy pessimism in the prophecy. Let’s wait until they start throwing the relics out and then talk about it, he seemed to say: (“why to denounce a thief before he’s stolen anything?)” 25
- V. Rozanov’s mistaken logic became apparent in just over twelve years’ time, after the establishment of the Bolshevik rule. Vladyka’s former opponents from the anti-Bolshevik alliance who at the time of the first Russian revolution sympathized with the enemies of the crown, now came to understand what he had meant then and, most significantly, what he had felt in his heart. But that is another story.
Vladyka was determined to prevent the unfolding events from developing along a “democratic” route and this determination resulted in his making a number of harsh pronouncements in the years of 1905-06. (In his private correspondence with his supporters, he proposed deploying radical methods in the struggle against the revolutionaries). Thus, in his letter of 21 November 1905 to B. V. Nikol’sky, one of the more committed right-wing monarchists, the hierarch suggested that individual opposition to the revolution should not be confined to organizing elections to the Duma but “should begin with amassing weapons and identifying the main revolutionaries to be done away with. I think, it’s too late for other forms of protest.” “Naturally, being in holy orders”, he continued, “I can’t take an active part in the fighting myself, or enroll in the ranks of the Black Hundred, which unfortunately does not even exist as an organized body.” 26
It was this kind of statements — made privately by Vladyka — which contributed to his reputation as a “Black Hundred” supporter and a counter-revolutionary in the Soviet times. While there is no need to comment on the latter accusation, the term “Black Hundred” merits an explanation. It has long become a derogatory term of abuse. In Soviet historiography, a Black Hundredist and a pogrom perpetrator were regarded as being one and the same thing, 27 with historians emphasizing that “the characteristic feature of a Black Hundredist allegiance was their class antagonism within a nationalist-driven agenda.” 28
Thus, in his letter of 21 November 1905 to B. V. Nikol’sky, one of the more committed right-wing monarchists, the hierarch suggested that individual opposition to the revolution should not be confined to organizing elections to the Duma but “should begin with amassing weapons and identifying the main revolutionaries to be done away with. I think, it’s too late for other forms of protest.”
Undoubtedly this description of the Black Hundred is accurate in itself but is completely inaccurate with reference to Archbishop Anthony. His “Black Hundred” sympathies (if you can even call them this) were of a completely different quality. Let me repeat myself: his views were above all monarchist and patriotic without any nationalist additions whatsoever. In his letter as far back as 1906, Vladyka described the Union of the Russian People as Russia’s first and only “national, purely peasant and democratic movement. All this talk about “the people” in the press and in the Duma and the State Council, all this hand-wringing and breast-beating — it’s all complete hypocrisy. No one really cares about the people. All this business of ours — the revolution, the constitution, the “four-line whip” 29 and all of these supposed freedoms are just playthings for the gentry, a subject for the nobles” debate.” According to him, there were fewer than 1,000 clergymen and monks who were “in any way involved in the Russian Union.” 30 What is significant here is not so much that the archbishop called the Union of the Russian People a democratic movement but that his letter was addressed to N. A. Berdyaev, a man vehemently opposed to all forms of nationalism who despised politicians of A. I. Dubrovin’s ilk. This psychological aspect is fundamental to our understanding and, to my mind, should not be ignored. 31
An Archbishop Who Wished to See a Greater Respect of the State
Psychological aberration is a frequent feature in history. A person is assessed not in the light of his actions or statements, but according to their reception by his politically motivated contemporaries (or, sometimes, later followers). This was the case with Archbishop Anthony whose words were frequently imbued with a meaning which was directly opposite to the Archbishop’s original thought. On 4 May 1906, during his short term as a member of the newly reformed State Council, Vladyka made a speech which attracted publicity from very different political quarters. Vladyka proposed that the letter of gratitude that the council was preparing to dispatch to the monarch should not include the members’ wish to see all political prisoners pardoned. This proposal earned him dubious fame as a supporter of the death penalty. As soon as 10th of May, the most popular Russian newspaper, Suvorin’s Novoe Vremia, carried an article by V.V. Rozanov entitled “Concerning the Amnesty” in which he identified the bishop of Volyn as being the Russian Church’s first call to preserve the death penalty. 32 Rozanov did not forget this charge; in 1907 in his article for the Russkoe Slovo he stated again that during his time in the State Council, Vladyka’s defense of the death penalty was in the “name of the Holy Synod.” 33
As soon as 10th of May, the most popular Russian newspaper, Suvorin’s Novoe Vremia, carried an article by V.V. Rozanov entitled “Concerning the Amnesty” in which he identified the bishop of Volyn as being the Russian Church’s first call to preserve the death penalty.
Although the facts of the matter were completely different, this public accusation was never refuted by the “independent” press. In his letter to N. A. Berdyaev, Vladyka described the whole incident: “I stated that, apart from anything else, it was ignoble on the part of the State Council to assume a cheap and inappropriate role of the intercessor, and by so doing, to force the Emperor into the burdensome position of the executioner. I said that was deeply offended by this insincere and unworthy start to the council’s work and that if this plea for clemency were to go ahead, I would stand down forthwith. I say this, even though my own brother, the engineer Boris Pavlovich Khrapovitsky, has spent five months in prison on a political charge — and is still there, despite the fact he is in prison owing to a misunderstanding and has not actually committed any crime.” 34
Thus, we see that Vladyka placed principles above the ever-changing political circumstances. He was not concerned with ensuring the severest possible punishment to political prisoners but with avoiding discrediting the monarch whose possible refusal in the uncertain revolutionary times to satisfy the appeals for amnesty could have been interpreted as “harsh and inclement.” Archbishop Anthony had a better sense than many of his contemporaries of how dangerous this situation could prove, both for the Church and the state. He longed for stability with all sincerity, but he also had a broad understanding of what it entailed. He wanted to see more than merely a return to the status quo which the revolution had disturbed; he wished to see greater respect for the authority of the state among those elements of society who in his opinion — wittingly or unwittingly — had been undermining it for a long time.
For this reason, Vladyka was happy to see the almanac Vekhi printed in 1909. On 10 May 1909 he published an open letter to the authors in which he wrote,
“I was reading words of love, truth, compassion and of faith in people and our whole society. He regarded the authors of Vekhi as belonging to a different camp from his own but nevertheless saw in them “harbingers of the society’s renaissance.”
The book inspired the archpastor to hope in Russia’s future of allowed him to view current difficulties and failings as a temporary aberration. Moreover, in conveying his archpastoral blessing to N.A. Berdyaev, S. N. Bulgakov, M. O. Gershezon, B. A. Kistyakovsky, P. B. Struve, S. L. Frank and A. S. Izgoev, he was publicly declaring his openness to those whom he had only recently regarded as his ideological opponents, i.e., the opponents to Christianity. He looked on them all as on newly-believing Sauls. 35 The benevolence of Vladyka’s reception of Vekhi was a stark contrast to its reception by others; the book was decried by all the liberal and revolutionary factions in Russia.
Lenin’s reaction was also rather telling; he did not hide his utter contempt for everything Vekhi promoted (Vekhi is а stream of reactionary slops tipped all over democracy”) 36 and in almost all of his articles about the book he made particular mention of the Archbishop of Volyn’s positive reaction to it. Lenin had various reasons to recall Vekhi in 1909, 1910, 1911 and 1912 and in every instance, his assessment of it was in the light of Archbishop Anthony’s reception. In 1909 Lenin wrote, “Together with Anthony, Vekhi was preaching at the people, calling for “repentance”, “humility”, a struggle against “the pride of the intellect”, “obedience”, “a simple rough food of the old Mosaic Decalogue”, “a fight against the legion of demons that had entered the gigantic body of Russia.” 37 The fact that Lenin hated Vladyka hardly merits an explanation — the reasons for this are clear enough. More telling is Lenin’s view — a reasonable one-that the archbishop represented a vast ideological force which was completely opposed to the socialist propaganda and whose values the Bolshevik leader himself found both alien and incomprehensible. The Vekhi authors, however, shared much of this ideology which in itself was symptomatic of the problem. 38
Moreover, in conveying his archpastoral blessing to N.A. Berdyaev, S. N. Bulgakov, M. O. Gershezon, B. A. Kistyakovsky, P. B. Struve, S. L. Frank and A. S. Izgoev, he was publicly declaring his openness to those whom he had only recently regarded as his ideological opponents, i.e., the opponents to Christianity.
Archbishop Anthony viewed the connection between Orthodoxy and the rule of autocracy as natural and a feature of Russia’s political reality. This explains the close attention he paid to the events of the first Russian revolution and the subsequent ideological vicissitude on the part of the educated elements of Russian society. He envisaged potential tragedies both for the country and its people in disturbing this connection. This aspect gives insight into the reasons why Vladyka always involved himself in the affairs of the Imperial House, by which he also sought to consolidate the position of the Orthodox Church. It is no coincidence that he was the author of the special prayer composed on the occasion of the “300th Anniversary of the Peaceful Reign of the God-preserved House of Romanov” blessed by the Holy Synod to be read out at the end of the usual “loyal” thanksgiving moleben. After reminding the listener of the circumstances surrounding the accession of the House of Romanov, Vladyka Anthony continues “Accept, O Lord, this our humble thanksgiving on their behalf and grant to those of this royal generation who had departed this life forgiveness of sin and eternal repose. Bless, O Lord, those who are alive today and instruct them to the keeping of Thy commandments. Establish Thou their sons and their sons’ sons for the rule of autocracy in the Russian kingdom unto many years, to reign even until Thy Second and Dread coming, keeping them in prosperity unto length of days.” 39
It is telling, though hardly surprising, that Vladyka Anthony made a particular mention of the importance of preserving the Romanov’s rule precisely in the form of autocracy. In the person of the Archbishop of Volyn’, the Church was praying for the preservation of the form of government which the revolutionaries were busily trying to overthrow in the first Russian revolution. At the same time, he never concealed his other views on the subject of Church-state relations in the imperial Russia and was an ardent supporter of the restoration of the patriarchal office. Most of Vladyka’s publications up to 1917 were concerned precisely with the latter subject.
Development of St. Joseph of Voltsk’s Ideology
In his assessment of Metropolitan Anthony’s life and work, Archbishop Nikon (Rklitsky), his official biographer, commented that Vladyka “always sought to establish the moral principle before considering any feature of Church life. Thus in his estimation, the moral principle of the Patriarchate is that the patriarch is a source of unity for the whole nation — in both spiritual and temporal sense. Vladyka Anthony wrote that the patriarch carries in his heart the spiritual life of the whole country; through him all the believers are spiritually joined to the Universal Church” 40. This conviction ensured that for Vladyka the restoration of the Patriarchate in the Russian Church was a matter of principle, and the future of Orthodoxy in Russia depended much on the successful outcome of this operation. In 1905, he submitted a memorandum to the Holy Synod in which he emphasized that it is only after the restoration of the patriarchate that the Russian Church could begin to recover other aspects of her churchmanship which she had lost. Later, the themes of the memorandum were further developed and brought to a conclusion in the form of a separate article entitled “The Restoration of the Patriarchate.” The article written in 1911 contained many passages that were textually identical to the original memorandum. In 1912 it was published in the journal Russkii Inok which was edited by the monks of the Pochaev Monastery with the assistance of Vladyka Anthony himself. As is clear from the title, the article was dedicated to the problems surrounding the restoration of the Patriarchate, the very notion of which, according to the archpastor, “underpins the whole work of church revival.” 41
Vladyka Anthony also developed his previous ideas on the nature of the “Church militant” insisting on the need for the Church to have her own general (i.e., the patriarch). Vladyka conceded that prior to 1905, the Church was subject to procurators which made it all the more important that the Church should now be free “to direct her own life.” At the same time, he stated that at the present time, the Church was experiencing difficulties not in her governance but in having to “worry year by year to provide even a humble piece of bread with which to feed her clergy” 42, by which he meant that the Church’s annual budget was now set by the multi-confessional Duma.
Vladyka Anthony also developed his previous ideas on the nature of the “Church militant” insisting on the need for the Church to have her own general (i.e., the patriarch).
As well as being at pains to show the secular authorities that “the office of the patriarch does not limit autocracy but is its surest support,” Vladyka Anthony was also keen to exonerate the monarch himself from the responsibility for the ecclesiastical council that had failed to materialize. The archbishop thought that the March 1905 campaign of slander and misrepresentation by the conservative elements of the supposed views of the Holy Synod meant that the Synod did not feel able to report to the Tsar that “the Local Church has been forcibly deprived of her head for 200 years” at which point Emperor Nicholas II would have been pleased to restore the patriarch’s office to the Church, appointing for it “either the Church’s most senior hierarch or the hierarch who occupies the patriarchal see in the understanding that subsequent patriarchs would be elected in the usual way 43 (i.e. at the Council), In his article in 1911, the Volyn’ hierarch wrote that the Tsar was not made aware of the fact that the Church was deprived of her lawful head because of the “unwise and insincere” conservative press, at the same time demanding from the monarch a solution to the most pressing church problem of the day! Vladyka Anthony maintained that since the “Council could be convened only by the patriarch with the monarch’s permission, the appointment of very first patriarch could be effected simply by royal assent and a manifesto.” 44 For this, it followed that the Council was secondary (in the current Russian reality) to the election of the patriarch which was a task of primary importance and on which the success of all the other church reforms depended. The illogical nature of this proposal is, at first glance, completely obvious. Already in the 19th century, Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) made a comment that there was hardly any difference between the authority of the presiding member of the Holy Synod and the patriarch. “Restoration of the Patriarchate would not be appropriate because the patriarch could hardly hope to be more active than the whole of the Synod. In the event of the secular authorities beginning to oppress the spiritual ones, in what way would a single patriarch prove more resilient to the pressure than the entire Synod?” 45
The issue at stake here was clearly not the leadership of the Church but the council itself. The Archbishop of Volyn’ had moved the goalposts so much that the effects now preceded the causes but this was more as a result of the political realities of the time rather than a considered theological position. Any blame we might want to ascribe to the archbishop for this would be a historical injustice; he was a man of his time and was constrained to work within the traditions of governance inherited by Russia since the times of Peter the Great. However, the fact that he had to work within the tradition does not mean that he was necessarily in agreement with it. Vladyka Anthony regarded as fatal the loss of the patriarchal office, the deposition of Patriarch Nikon and the proclamation of the emperor as the head of the Church (in the reign of Paul I). 46
An Admirer of “Raskol’niki”
Vladyka’s deep knowledge of Russian history made him particularly aware of the significance of the schism in the Russian church and the need to find a compromise with the Old Believers. As a well-known Orthodox publicist, Vladyka was often engaged in debates with the Old Believers, trying to convince them of the need to join themselves to the one Russian Church.
It was no coincidence that the first All-Russian “One Faith” [edinovertsy] Conference was held in Moscow in 1912 under the archbishop’s chairmanship. According to Archbishop Nikon (Rklitsky) who was quoting the words of the edinovertsy priest, S. Shleev, Vladyka Anthony even made a promise to “become the first-ever edinovertsy bishop, if this was the will of the Synod and the Emperor.” 47
A deputation from the conference headed by the chairman was received by Nicholas II on 31 January 1912. Speaking on behalf of the delegation, Vladyka Anthony assured the monarch that “the Orthodox Old Ritualists preserve both in their services and as far as possible also in their daily life the same spirit and character that permeated Holy Russia when the Lord gave the royal throne to your pious forefathers, Your Majesty. The Old Ritualists are filled with a spirit of utter loyalty to their Emperor and the whole royal family as an embodiment of the promise of their own distant past. 48 Vladyka Anthony’s emphasis on the fact that the Old Believers have kept the old Russian traditions is obvious and deliberate. This is how he saw his task — to preserve (and recreate) the old ways of religious life in Russia. However, it was equally obvious to him that no return to this way of life would be possible without first restoring a fully canonical ecclesial life. This was also understood by the Orthodox journalists writing about the conference; they all predicted that the inevitable outcome of the conference would be the restoration of the patriarchate, the convening of the Local Council and the reintegration of the Old Believers into the Orthodox Church on pre-Nikonian terms. 49 It is therefore clear that the Old Believer question was viewed in the context of the restoration of the Patriarchate. Vladyka Anthony was deputed by the conference to write to the Old Believers, exhorting them to return to the bosom of the Mother Church. He tried to argue that past persecutions endured by the Old Believers could not justify their current separation from the Church. Rather than directing their opposition and indignation at the Church, he called on his Old Believer brothers to resist “the spirit of this world — the spirit of ungodliness, corruption and falsehood which is equally hostile to the Church and to the Old Believers.” 50
The urgent need for unity against anti-Christian forces was the leitmotif of all of Vladyka’s interaction with the Old Believers. His appeals were not heard. The Old Believer A. I. Morozov replied to Vladyka with an open letter in which he pointed out that the opponents of the Nikonian reforms had never separated themselves from the Church, while, on the other hand, the “state Church” in Russia had fallen prey to the heresy of caesaropapism and her hierarchy “was tainted with many delusions of Latin and Protestant origin.” 51
However, the negative reaction on the part of the Old Believers is not of primary importance here; much more significant is Vladyka Anthony’s appeals to them in the first place in line with his vision of the Russian Church of the future as moving beyond the 17th century schism, while at the same time validating Patriarch Nikon’s political and religious stance. Vladyka’s understanding of the special role played by the monarchy in building up of Orthodox Russia for many centuries makes this vision more comprehensible. He was first and foremost a sincere monarchist, and this sincerity was seen by his contemporaries (especially and mostly by those with liberal views) as a sign of his “reactionary” stance and a desire to arrest time. It is true that Vladyka had a great desire to stop the course of Russian history which he believed would bring down the whole edifice of the Orthodox monarchy. When this time had dawned, he channeled his work as an Orthodox polemicist into the struggle, which encompassed the whole scope of life in Russia, politics as well as religion.
An Inquisitor of the Russian Athonites
It is in this context, I believe, that the Archbishop of Volyn’ had decided to speak against the “Name of God” controversy of 1912-13 which had led to the so-called Athonite troubles. 52
Vladyka’s assessment of the “new false teaching which deifies names” was in the context of the times. He believed that they were living at a time when Russian society was particularly attracted by the Khlysty movement. Vladyka mused that “whole-hearted atheism has had its day now. The people are frightened to live too far removed from heaven but being corrupt and weak, no longer have the strength to move closer to it by going by Christ’s narrow way.” He believed that they were looking for other, easier ways to approach God and found them in sectarianism, magnetism, neo-Buddhism and the Khlyst movement. People of little faith are eager to “accept anything which contradicts the strict teaching of the Church and which promises a closer relationship with the Divine without being engaged in Church piety and moral struggle.” “This is the reason”, wrote the Archbishop, “why so many eagerly embraced the teaching on God’s Name, some through blind zeal and obstinacy, and some because, in their idleness, they were sweetly anticipating a rapid advance to such heights of perfection that they would no longer be required to attend any services or say any prayers, but only to ‘bear the name of Jesus in their hearts’.” 53
It is obvious that for Vladyka Anthony the emergence of the “Name of God” controversy was symptomatic of the religious and moral ill-health which afflicted the society and a sign of further moral perturbation to come. Vladyka was genuinely grieved by the disturbance which opposition to this teaching had brought to Athos but this did not diminish his desire to refute the new heretical “dogma” from a theological standpoint. The Pochaev-based journal Russkiy inok = The Russian Monk became a veritable mouthpiece for all critics of onomatoxy. 54
It is obvious that for Vladyka Anthony the emergence of the “Name of God” controversy was symptomatic of the religious and moral ill-health which afflicted the society and a sign of further moral perturbation to come.
Without wishing to submit Vladyka Anthony’s views on the teaching to close scrutiny, it is nevertheless appropriate to point out that he regarded this a point of social order as well as theology, that is to say, a subject matter which also had moral and religious implications. Although some churchmen, for example, Archbishop Tikhon (Vasilievsky) of Kursk, argued that the controversy was largely caused by the newspaper articles penned by the Volyn’ hierarch himself, 55 it would hardly be appropriate to lay all the blame on the latter. Let us stress this again: Vladyka always responded eagerly and sincerely to any important or complex event which affected the ecclesial or political life in Russia. The Athonite controversy was precisely this kind of event. The question of whether (or not) he was correct in his judgments is, in this case, of secondary importance. As a Christian polemicist, he was always ready to express his views and quick to react to current affairs. He never sought to impose his position, which he believed to be true, on others, but rather hoped they would be converted to the truth by the strength of his argument. This, perhaps, was the defining feature of his work.
So, let us offer a brief summary. The main themes which preoccupied Vladyka Anthony at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century were questions of church order and politics which he addressed using his considerable talents as an Orthodox publicist and polemicist. These were main subjects connected with the academic monasticism, the canonical life of the Church (above all the restoration of the Patriarchate) and the moral basis for the rule of monarchy. The changing events within the empire affected the different emphases the archbishop placed on matters which concerned him, and he appealed to a variety of political and historical models in addressing them. Vladyka remained entirely true to himself and his convictions in everything he wrote or said. He conscientiously defended his political and religious beliefs which he held in all sincerity. These could be summarized by the well-known triad of “Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality,” all three maintained as a symphony of authority — in the spirit in which he understood and perceived it.
- Gordienko, N. S., Komarov, P. M. Obrechennye. O russkoi emigrantskoi psevdotserkvi = The Doomed: the Emigrant Russian pseudo-Church, Leningrad, 1988, p. 19. ↩
- Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov’ (988-1988): Ocherki istorii (1917-1988) = The Russian Orthodox Church 988-1988. Historical Outline 1917-1988. Moscow, 1988. ↩
- Ibid. p. 11. ↩
- Russian Bible with Commentary on All the Books of the Holy Scripture of the Old and the New Testaments, St. Petersburg, 1913. ↩
- Diary of A. A. Kireev. Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library, f.126, d.13, l. 147ob. Entry of  May 1902. ↩
- However, this is exactly what N.P. Golubovsky claimed in his memoirs, asserting that this new type of monasticism was artificially engineered from the 1890s with its originator and head (i.e., Vladyka Anthony) creating a whole new direction within the Russian Orthodox Church in which “ ‘in the spirit of true church piety’ it was both the theory and practice that “monastics are permitted to do anything and are forgiven for everything”; which encouraged school officials to identify theological students caught in misdemeanors by their secular names only – a whole tribe of Vasyas, Vanyas, Mityas and Sashas; which, rather controversially, called for monastic tonsure to be declared a sacrament, and if the number of sacraments must be restricted to seven, to remove marriage from their ranks and replace it with monasticism as a medium of offering the ‘suffering love in Christ’ in service to God after the example of His redemptive sacrifice, whereas all that marriage has to offer to God is mankind’s ability to reproduce itself – and even then not without sin and still in need of salvation by means of the monastic habit.” (N.N. Glubokovsky, “St Petersburg Theological Academy During the Years of Patriarch Barnabas” Studies There” Transl. of the Russian title. Sremski Karlovci, 1936, p. 90-01. C.f., reprinted in Tserkovno-Istoricheskii Vestnik, 1999, No. 2-3, p. 240). Similar views were also expressed by the well-known publicist V.V. Rozanov who, without any references, claimed in Russkoe Slovo in 1899 that the following assessment of widowed priest-turned-bishops was a direct quotation by Vladyka Anthony: “What kind of monks are they anyway? They used to be married; only somebody who has never touched a woman can be called a monk.” It has been said, however, that V. V. Rozanov regarded this judgment of Vladyka Anthony’s as “profound and true. But this only alienates him further from our clergy as he speaks of concepts which they do not understand and to which they are hostile” (V.V. Rozanov, Старая и новая Россия = “Old and New Russia. Articles and Essays 1909, Russian. Moscow, 2004, p. 228) ↩
- Priest Anthony, “On Academic Monasticism” Russian. Title tr. from Russian. Kazan, 1900, p.417. ↩
- Ibid. p.422. ↩
- Ibid. p. 423. ↩
- Ibid. p. 427. ↩
- Archbishop Anthony “Academic Monasticism” (Statistical reference). Russian. Kolokol, 1907 8 February No. 311. ↩
- Poselianin E.K., “On the subject of academic monasticism” (in relation to the 200th anniversary of the death of St Nikita of Novgorod). Russian. Kolokol, 1908 1 May No. 658. ↩
- Archbishop Anthony “More on academic monasticism” (Letter to the editor). Russian. Kolokol 1908 14 May No 668. ↩
- Cf. Monk Vsevolod (Filipeyv), “The Beginning of the End is Nigh” From the correspondence of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) to metropolitan Flavian (Gorodetsky). Russian. Blagodatnyi ogon’” 2002. No. 9. p.86-87. ↩
- Archbishop Anthony “Moral code of monastic and secular clergy.” Russian. Kolokol 1908. 8 August No. 737. ↩
- Archpriest Georges Florovsky, Ways of Russian Orthodoxy, Russian. Paris, 1937. p. 428. ↩
- V.V. Zenkovsky, The History of Russian Philosophy.” Russian. Leningrad, 1991. Vol 2, part 1, p. 131. ↩
- Archbishop Anthony “The Jewish Question and the Holy Bible.” Pochaev, 1907, pp. 13-14. ↩
- Ibid., p.14. ↩
- C.f., Vladyka’s correspondence with professor B. V. Nikol’sky in 1905 : “Material for Defining Counter-Revolution of 1905.” Russian. Byloe 1923. Nо. 21, pp. 160, 162, 165, 167. ↩
- According to V. I. Dahl, a publicist is an author with a popular, journalistic style, dealing with “contemporary general issues of public interest.” Russian. (Dahl, V., Encyclopedic Dictionary, Moscow, 1935, vol. 1935, p. 556). ↩
- Senatorov “Concerning ritual murders” (Letter to Archbishop Anthony of Volyn and Zhitomir). Russian. Samara. 1913, p. 8. ↩
- C.f., Dmitriev, A., “The blood libel and the Christian Church.” Russian. Moscow 1932, p.63. In the author’s opinion, the Pochaev Monastery headed by Vladyka was “at the forefront” (as was also the case with the Kiev Monastery of the Caves) of an organized crusade which proclaimed the blood libel “to poison and corrupt the uneducated peasantry.” Dmitriev went so far as to claim that Vladyka Anthony together with Sergius of Finland made frequent statements in the press accusing the Jews of committing ritually-motivated murders since ancient times (ibid. p. 64). In the early 1930s, it was impossible for the Church to refute such cynical lies as it had been completely stripped of any legal rights. ↩
- Quoted from Rozanov, V. V. “By the Church Wall.” Russian. Moscow, 1995, p. 454. ↩
- Ibid. p.447. ↩
- C.f., “Material for Defining the counter-Revolution of 1905.” Russian., p. 168. ↩
- The tone was set by the Bolshevik leader V. I. Lenin who in his usual nonchalant manner called the Archbishop of Volyn’ “ ‘Vladyka’ of the Black Hundredist murderers” (c.f. Lenin, V. I., “The visit of the Tsar and a number of Black Hundredist Duma deputies to England.” Russian. Collected Works, Moscow; Leningrad, 1930, vol. 14, p. 114). ↩
- Stepanov, S. A. “The Black Hundred in Russia (1905-1914).” Russian. Moscow, 1992, p.26. ↩
- The four principles of democratic elections: direct, equal, secret and universal suffrage ↩
- Bishop Nikon (Rklitsky) “The Life of His Beatitude Anthony, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia”, New York, 1957, vol. 2, pp. 189, 192. ↩
- Modern apologists for the Black Hundred usually do not consider this and include in the membership everyone who had had anything at all to do with the movement, without any reference to their stance on any social or political question, for example, the question of nationality. Thus in A. D. Stepanov’s book, Vladyka Anthony name is listed among the leaders and active members of the Black Hundred movement and he is identified as an honorary member of the Russian Assembly and as an active member of the Black Hundred (c.f., Stepanov, A. D., The Black Hundred. A View Across Centuries = Черная Сотня. Взгляд через столетие. St. P., 2002, p.116) As far as Vladyka’s supposed “anti-Semitic” statements are concerned, it must be remembered that they were made in the context of his political convictions that many non-believing Jews were active in the revolutionary movement within Russia. This active participation on the part of the Jews is also attested in S. A. Stepanov’s monograph (no relation to the Black Hundredist apologist A. D. Stepanov) which quotes the following statistics: “of those convicted of politically-motivated crimes in 1901-04, there were 64.9% Jews in the Vilnius judicial district, 48.2% in the Kiev district and 55% in Odessa. In 1900-2, out of 1178 convicted social revolutionaries, 15.4% were Jews. In 1892-1902, out of 5,047 convicted Marxists and Social Democrats, the Jews numbered 23.4%. At the time of the first Russian revolution, 18.9% of the Bolshevik party membership was Jewish. (Stepanov, S. A.Index, p.27) ↩
- Rozanov, V.V., “When the Those in Charge Have Left….” Russian: Когда начальство ушло…, Moscow, 1997, pp. 128-29. ↩
- Rozanov, V.V.”Russian State and Society. Essays 1906, 1907.” Russian: Русская государственность и общество. Статьи 1906 1907. Moscow, 2003, p.256. ↩
- Bishop Nikon (Rklitsky) “The Life…”pp. 178-179. ↩
- Archbishop Anthony, “An Open Letter To All Authors of the Anthology Vekhi” Slovo, 1909. 10 May, No. 791. ↩
- Lenin, V. I., “Concerning Vekhi”, Collected Works, M., L., 1930, vol 14, p. 222. ↩
- Ibid. p. 223. ↩
- C.f., Lenin, “L.N. Tolstoy”, p.403; Lenin, ‘Stolypin and the Revolution,” Ibid, M. L. 1920, vol.15, p. 225. Lenin “Political Parties in Russia”, Ibid. p.485. Lenin, “Another Crusade Against Democracy”, ibid. M., 1935, vol. 16, p. 132. ↩
- Russkii Inok. 1913. No. 4, p. 243. ↩
- Bishop Nikon (Rklitsky) “The Life…”vol. 3, p.15. ↩
- Archbishop Anthony “The Restoration of the Patriarchate” Russkii Inok. 1902. No. 7. Appendix, p.5. ↩
- Ibid., p. 4. ↩
- Ibid., p.15. In connection with this, the 1913 article by the journalist M. O. Men’shikov in Novoe Vremya stated that as the 300th anniversary of the Romanov house drew closer “it was natural that everyone would want to honor both our Church and history by restoring the patriarchal office.” At the same time, the journalist identified two opinions on this matter within the Holy Synod. The first view was that the Synod’s most senior metropolitan should simply bear the name of Patriarch, whereas the second (which the journalist believed to be represented by Bishop Hermogenes of Saratov) insisted that the new patriarch be endowed with ancient canonical privileges. Men’shikov claimed that the former opinion was predominant (c.f., Novoe Vremya. 1912. 14 January). I believe that Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) was also of this former opinion, but in the end, neither view was “influential” in the Russian Church. ↩
- Archbishop Anthony. Appendix, p. 15. ↩
- Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. “A Collection of Opinions and Reviews.” Russian. Собрание мнений и отзывов. Moscow, 1886, vol. 4, para 8, p.146. ↩
- Bishop Nikon (Rklitsky) “The Life…vol. 3p.168. ↩
- Ibid. p.169. ↩
- Ibid., p. 269. ↩
- Dmitrievsky. “The First Orthodox-Old Believer All-Russia Conference: its Decisions and Significance.” S.-Peterburgskie Vedomosti. 1912. 22 February (6 March). No 42. ↩
- “Letter of His Eminence Archbishop Anthony of Volyn to all Old Believers who have separated themselves from the Orthodox Church” Supplement to Tserkovnye vedomosti. 1912. No.10. pp. 401, 402. ↩
- Morozov, A. “An Open letter to Archbishop Anthony of Volyn” S.-Peterburgskie Vedomosti. 1912. 1 (140) May. No. 98. ↩
- More details about the political consequences of this event v. Firsov, S. L., “The Orthodox Church and State in the last Decade of Autocracy in Russia.” Russian. Православная Церковь и государство в последнее десятилетие существования самодержавия в России. St.-P., 1996, pp. 462, 502. ↩
- Archbishop Anthony, “Concerning the new false teaching which deifies names and the apologia of Antony Bulatovich.” Supplement to Tserkovnye vedomosti. 1913, p. 871. ↩
- C.f., Monk Chrysnathos, “Review of the Book by Schema-Monk Hilarion entitled In the Caucasus Mountains,” Russkii Inok, 1912, No. 4 pp. 69-75; No. 5, pp. 57-59; No. 6, pp. 50-60. ↩
- Cf. Zhevakhov, L. L. Memoirs of Prince N. D.Zhevakhov, the Assistant Procurator of the Holy Synod. Russian. Moscow, 1999. vol.1, p.133. ↩