The article deals with the ideological and political aspects of the relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. The Russian imperial idea was strongly influenced by the idea of Orthodox oikumene, first shaped in Byzantium. In the 19th century the idea of translatio imperii was further modified first by the Slavophils, and later by the Russian national ideology under Alexander III. The neo-Byzantinism of the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century accepted the idea of the Third Rome and became the basis of Russian policy in the Near East. Support of the Orthodox population of the Balkans and the Near East, a creation of a confederation of Orthodox states under the guidance of Russia, and finally restoration of the Russian Patriarchate, - all these were considered as chains of one line, the restoration of the ideal Christian kingdom. In the Balkans, Russian universalism faced a similar idea of the restoration of the Greek empire, as well as the growing Balkan nationalism. The struggle of the two "great ideas" took place in the frames of the Eastern Question - the rivalry of the great powers for spheres of influence in the Balkans and the Near East. Finally it brought the beginning of the First World War.

The article was written with the support of the RGNF grant 14-01-00419.

page 280
Keywords: Byzantium, Third Rome, Russian church, Patriarchate of Constantinople, Balkans, international relations, nationalism, church policy, Near East, Eastern Question.

IN the SECOND half of the XIX century. Russia was the largest great Power, with a population of about 90 million Orthodox Christians. At this time, the world was already largely divided into colonies and spheres of influence between the European great powers, among which Great Britain and France were leading. Russia's territorial expansion in the Middle East met with resistance from Britain, which saw it as a threat to its Indian possessions. The peculiarity of the Middle East in this competition between the powers was that the colonial appetites of the powers had to be satisfied at the expense of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The near end of the "sick man", as Turkey was called in Europe, seemed a reality already from the end of the XVIII-beginning of the XIX century, when large territories of the empire were ceded to Russia, gained independence or semi-independent status. For Great Britain, the Ottoman possessions were of interest as an area of expanding its economic influence and exercising control over trade routes to India and the Far East. For France, in addition to economic interests, the Middle East was an area of spiritual influence: after all, since the time of the Crusades, Catholic monks settled in Syria and Palestine, whose activities significantly intensified in the XVI-XVII centuries. In addition, from the XIII-XIV centuries. on the islands of the Archipelago lived a lot of Catholics-the heirs of the Crusader states. The confrontation between the great Powers in the Middle East and especially in the Eastern Mediterranean has been called the "Eastern Question".

For Russia, the "Eastern question" was of particular geopolitical importance. Constantinople and the Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits were an outlet to the ice-free sea and the key to the success of the country's Mediterranean trade and grain exports. In addition, control of the Straits and the Ottoman capital on the Bosphorus ensured the security of Russia's southern borders. The unsuccessful Crimean War of 1853-1856 showed how important it was to prevent the military presence of Western powers in the area of the Straits. Numerous agreements, ka-

page 281
The main goal of the Russian Government was to resolve the issue in the most favorable way for Russia.1 The main goal of the Russian government was to ensure that ships pass through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles.

In contrast to the Middle and Far East, in the Middle East, the confessional factor played a major role in the struggle of powers for spheres of influence. Of course, the central place here was occupied by Jerusalem and the Holy Sites of Palestine, which since the Middle Ages attracted the attention of Christians around the world. The Holy Sepulchre was traditionally a shrine under the care of the Greek Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Most of the Holy Sites in Palestine also belonged to the Greek clergy. At the end of the 17th century, Turkey granted many Holy Sites to French Catholics, which led Patriarch Dosifey to appeal to the Russian government for help.2 Gradually, French Catholic monks, primarily Franciscans, developed extensive activities among the Orthodox population of Syria and Palestine: they opened numerous schools, hospitals and orphanages. The result was the union of a large part of the Arab population with the Papal See. In the nineteenth century, English (Anglican) and American missionaries also sought to settle in Palestine and willy-nilly served the interests of British politics.3 Finally, in the last decades of the nineteenth century. Palestine becomes a Herman object-

1. An extensive literature is devoted to the issue of straits: Goryainov S. Bosporus and Dardanelles. Investigation of the issue of straits based on diplomatic correspondence stored in the State and St. Petersburg Main Archives. СПб., 1907; Esperel, I. (1907) La condition international des detroits Bosphore et Dardanelles envisage du point de vue des droits et des devoirs des Neutres dans les guerres maritimes. Toulouse; Laze, M. (1908) La question des detroits. Etude juridique sur la situation international du Bosphore et des Dardanelles. Paris; Gagarin S. Constantinople Straits. Istoriko-politicheskiy ocherk [Historical and political essay]. 1915. April, pp. 96-122; Craves, P. P. (1931) The Question of the Straits. London; Dranov B. A. The Black Sea Straits, Moscow, 1948; Jelavich, B. (1973) The Ottoman Empire, the Great Powers and the Straits Question, 1870-1887. Bloomington; London; Kinyapina N. S. The Balkans and the Straits in Russia's Foreign Policy at the end of the XIX century. Moscow, 1994; Russia and the Black Sea Straits (XVIII-XX centuries). Moscow, 1999.

2. Kapterev N. F. Relations of the Jerusalem Patriarch Dositheus with the Russian government (1669-1707). Moscow, 1891; Runciman, S. (1968) The Great Church in Captivity, p. 347-351. Cambridge.

3. Tibawi, A.I. (1961) British Interests in Palestine. 1800-1901. A Study of Religious and Educational Enterprise. Russia and England in the Holy Land on the Eve of the Crimean War, Moscow, 2015.
page 282
both Catholic and Protestant missionary work4. In this context, Russia also tried to keep up: on the one hand, it traditionally supported local Orthodoxy and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, on the other, it strengthened its spiritual presence and created an educational system through the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission and the Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society. 5
The second and most important focus of Russian policy in the Middle East was Constantinople, the capital of the Ottoman Empire. Understanding the significance of Constantinople and the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the history of the Russian Church of Modern times is impossible without referring to the origins of the foreign policy concept of both churches. In addition to the above-mentioned geopolitical interests, Constantinople was of great spiritual and moral importance for Russia. After the fall of the Byzantine Empire, Russia remained the only free Orthodox kingdom. Moscow gradually assumed the function of the center of the Orthodox world. The overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke, the consolidation of Russian lands around the Moscow Principality, the declaration of autocephaly of the Russian Church and the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia, and finally the proclamation of Ivan the Terrible as tsar of an increasingly powerful state-all this gradually led to the creation of a new ideology of a universalist nature, which, like many other foundations of the political ideology of borrowed from Byzantium. The theory of" Moscow - the Third Rome", originally formulated by Monk Philotheus of Pskov's Eleazar Monastery, did not initially have a political character. Russia in the 16th century was only the guardian of the Constantinople heritage, without any claims to the "fiefdom of Constantinople". Gradually, in Russia, there was a belief that its people are special, but they are not the same.-

4. For the missionary work of the French and Germans in the Holy Land, see also the articles in Voisinages fragiles. Les relations interconfessionelles dans le SudEst europeen et la Mediterrannee orientale 1854-1923: contraintes locales et enjeux internationaux. Ed. par A. Anastassiadis (Ecole Francaise d' Athenes. Mondes Mediterranees et Balkaniques 5). Athenes, 2013.

5. Dmitrievsky A. A. Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society and its activities (1882-1907). SP B., 1907; Staurou, Th. (1963) Russian interests in Palestine. 1882-1914. Thessaloniki; Nikodim (Rotov), Archimandrite. History of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem. Serpukhov, 1997; Lisovoy N. N. Russian Spiritual and Political Presence in the Holy Land and in the Middle East in the XIX-early XX centuries. Moscow, 2006.

page 283
the newly-elected people, the new Israel, the only one in which the ancient faith and piety were preserved. The Greeks tainted their faith with the Union of Florence, for which they paid the price of enslaving their kingdom by the Turks. Now, in the eyes of the Russians, the world was divided into two halves: one half was Russia, and the other half was the peoples of the Orthodox East conquered by the Turks.6
In the 16th century, the idea of translatio imperii-a" second Constantinople " - gained strength. Since Russia was the heir to the fallen Byzantine Empire, it had to not only accept the dignity of the Byzantine emperors, but also transfer the patriarchal dignity to Moscow. The discrepancy between the strong tsar and the subordinate position of the head of the Russian Church became obvious. However, on this path, the harassment of the Russian government inevitably met with the strongest opposition from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The fact is that even in the early Byzantine period, a system of five patriarchates of apostolic origin was formed - Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople. If the first three patriarchal sees, in addition to their apostolic origin, were located in the largest commercial and administrative centers of the Roman Empire, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem entered the pentad as the department of the city of Christ. As for the See of Constantinople, after the Council of Chalcedon in 451, as the see of the reigning city, the capital of the Roman Empire, it received the "privilege of honor" after the Roman See. Several centuries later, a legend appeared about the apostolic origin of the See of Constantinople as founded by St. John the Baptist. St. Andrew the Apostle 7. As political events unfolded in the Middle East, the Constantinople See, as the imperial capital's church, became the only one in the Eastern Mediterranean that had the largest congregation and enjoyed a large number of churches.-

6. Kirillov I. The Third Rome. An essay on the historical development of the idea of Russian Messianism, Moscow, 1914; Malinin V. N. Elder of the Eleazarov Monastery Filofey and his Messages. Historical and literary research. Киев, 1901; Schaeder, H. (1957) Moskau das Dritte Rome. Studien zur Geschichte der politischen Theorien in der Slavischen Welt. Darmstadt; Sinitsyna N. V. "The Third Rome". Istoki i evolyutsiya russkoy srednevekovoi kontseptsii (XV-XVI vv.) [The origins and evolution of the Russian Medieval Concept (XV-XVI vv.)]. Moscow, 1998; Kapterev N. F. The Nature of Russia's Relations to the Orthodox East in the XVI and XVII centuries. Sergiev Posad, 1914.

7. Dvornik, F. (1958) The Idea of Apostolity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew. Cambridge/Mass. Russian translation: Dvornik F. The idea of apostleship in Byzantium and the legend of the Apostle Andrew. St. Petersburg, 2007.

page 284
with the support of the emperor. Rome had been living its own life for many centuries, and the schism of the XI century. it was only the logical conclusion of a long-standing process.

With the loss of political importance of Antioch and Alexandria and the final ecclesiastical division of the West and East, Constantinople became the center of the Eastern Christian world. Everything contributed to this - both the support of the emperor and the isolation of non-Orthodox churches in the East. In the Middle Byzantine period, the Byzantine ecumenical ideology focused on Constantinople was finally formed. The "Byzantine Commonwealth of States", while largely a myth in practical terms, nevertheless existed in theory. But it should be understood that there was no question of any "republic of states": all states that adopted Orthodoxy from Byzantium could only claim a certain degree of proximity to the Basileus-to the extent of their geographical proximity,the degree of assimilation of the Greek language and culture, and political power as an ally. 8 Universalist ideology also dominated the minds of the South Slavic tsars: after all, both the Bulgarian Simeon and the Serbian Stefan Dusan sought to seize Constantinople and become Basileus there. In the courts of Orthodox rulers from the Caucasus to the western Balkans, Byzantine ceremonial and insignia were adopted.

The Byzantines continued to see themselves as the center of the Orthodox Ecumene even after the Crusades, when only a memory of the former political power of the state remained. Under the Ottoman rule, the Patriarch of Constantinople received, in addition to spiritual, also significant secular power. The Orthodox population of the Ottoman Empire was divided into the so - called Rum (that is, Romeysky, Greek) millet-a community that enjoyed internal autonomy. The patriarch, as the head of the millet, was responsible to the Sultan for the law-abiding behavior of his flock. Cases concerning civil legal relations (marriage, divorce, inheritance law) were decided within the Orthodox community at the level of a metropolitan or patriarchal court. In addition, the southern Slavs, who previously had their own autocephalous churches, came under the rule of Constantinople.

8. Obolensky, D. (1971) The Byzantine Commonwealth. Eastern Europe. 500-1453. London. Russian translation: Obolensky D. The Byzantine Commonwealth of Nations, Moscow, 1998. See also: Ivanov S. A. Byzantine Missionary Work. Is it possible to make a Christian out of a barbarian? Moscow, 2003.

page 285
The power of other Eastern patriarchates finally became nominal, and patriarchs often lived in Constantinople for years. Thus, with the exception of Russia and a remote small Georgia, the entire Eastern Christian world, which was part of the vast Ottoman Empire, was under the rule of the Patriarch of Constantinople, who could now call himself "ecumenical"on even greater grounds than in the Byzantine period. 9
The Patriarch of Constantinople's claim to ecumenical supremacy, along with the Byzantine terminology adopted without much change, persisted until the twentieth century. The elevation of the Russian Metropolitan Job to Patriarch on January 26, 1589, and the signing of the completed letter by Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople were perceived in the Greek East as a forced tribute to the unfavorable political situation for the Greeks. However, circumstances forced the Greek hierarchs to accept the fait accompli, and at the Council of 1590, the legitimacy of the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate was officially recognized (although it was given only the fifth place among the patriarchs). XVI and XVII centuries. In the history of Russia , this is the time of the rise and territorial expansion of the Moscow state. The Church played a crucial role in this process. To increase the authority of the tsardom, the Muscovite sovereigns acquire numerous shrines brought from the Christian East by alms collectors. In Russia, it was believed that together with the relics and miraculous icons, the spiritual power of the East passes to Moscow. At the same time, the generous assistance provided to Eastern petitioners served as the basis for the Moscow tsar to be recognized as the patron saint and defender of Orthodoxy in the Ottoman Empire.10
9. On the situation of the Orthodox Church in the Ottoman Empire, see: Sokolov I. I. Constantinople Church in the XIX century St. Petersburg, 1904; Clogg, R. (1982) "The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire", in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: the Functioning of a Plural Society. Vol. 1. The Central Lands, pp. 185-207. Eds. Braude B., Lewis B. New York.

10. Kapterev N. F. Kharakter otnoshenii Rossii ... pp. 26-31; Fonkich B. L. Gramota Konstantinopolskogo patriarkha Joasaph II i sobor vostochnykh tserkov, podverzhayushchaya tsarist titul Ivan IV [The Charter of the Patriarch of Constantinople Joasaph II and the Council of Eastern Churches confirming the royal title of Ivan IV]. Kashtanov S. M. Rossiya i grecheskiy mir v XVI veke [Russia and the Greek world in the XVI century], Moscow, 2004, pp. 381-389; Shpakov A. Ya. Gosudarstvo i tserkva v ikh vzaimodeistvakh relations in the Moscow state. The reign of Fyodor Ivanovich. Establishment of the Patriarchate in Russia. Odessa, 1912; Uspensky B. A. Tsar and Patriarch: Charisma of Power in Russia. The Byzantine Model and its Russian Reinterpretation, Moscow, 1998; Fonkich B. L. From the history of the establishment of the Patriarchate in Russia. Fonkich B. L. Grecheskie rukopisi i dokumenty v Rossii [Greek Manuscripts and documents in Russia], Moscow, 2003, pp. 377-384; Gerd L. A. Konstantinopol ' i Peterburg: tserkovnaya po-

page 286
The XVIII century, which brought little in the sense of developing church contacts between Russia and the Orthodox East, became a new era in military and political terms. The successful Russo-Turkish wars of the second half of the century not only expanded Russia's borders at the expense of former Ottoman possessions, but also promoted contacts with the Greek world. Thousands of Greeks are moving to southern Russia, and prophecies and stories about the imminent liberation from the Ottomans and the restoration of the Byzantine Empire are spreading in the Greek lands. The formation of an independent Greek Kingdom in 1832 with the support of the Western powers (I must say that Russia, which was the cradle of the Greek revolution, officially refused to support the uprising) marked the beginning of a new stage in the history of the Greek world. Weak and economically dependent on Great Britain and France, Greece became the center of the formation of the modern Greek church consciousness, which is closely connected with the concept of the nation. In the 1830s and 1840s, the old, universalist tendency, closely linked to Russia, and the new, separatist one, supported by England and France, fought in the country. Representatives of the " Russian party "(Konstantin Ikonomos et al. They supported the restoration of relations with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which were interrupted in 1833 when the autocephaly of the Church of Greece was proclaimed. On the contrary, supporters of pro-Western trends in politics (the English and French parties) sought to make Greek church life as independent as possible from Constantinople and Russia.11
Politics of Russia in the Orthodox East (1878-1898), Moscow, 2006, pp. 95-114. Kapterev N. F. Character of relations between Russia ... pp. 60-102; Rogov A. I. Kul'turnye svyazi Rossii s balkanskimi stranami v pervoi polovinei XVII v. [Cultural relations of Russia with the Balkan countries in the first half of the 17th century]. First half of the 17th century, Moscow, 1990, pp. 122-137; Chesnokova N. P. Dokumenty posolskogo prikaza sereda XVII v. o privoze v Rossii relikviy s Khristianskogo Vostoka [Documents of the embassy order of the middle of the 17th century on bringing relics from the Christian East to Russia]. Rossiiskaya diplomatiya: istoriya i sovremennost ' [Russian Diplomacy: history and modernity], Moscow, 2001, pp. 141-147; Fonkich B. L. Miraculous icons and sacred relics of the Christian East in Moscow in the middle of the 17th century]. V. / / Essays on feudal Russia. Issue 5. Moscow, 2001, pp. 70-97.

11. Jelavich, B. (1962) Russia and Greece During the Regency of King Othon, 1832-1835. Russian Documents on the First Years of Greek Independence. Thessalonike; Frazee, Ch. (1969) The Orthodox Church and Independent Greece, 1821-1852. Cambridge; Misyurevich (Petrunina) O. E. Formation of the National State in Greece: "the Russian Party" in 1837-1844, Moscow, 1997; Petrunina O. E. Greek Nation and State in the XVIII-XX centuries, Moscow, 2010; Frary, L. (2015) Russia and the Making of Modern Greek Identity, 1821-1844. Oxford.

page 287
The Crimean War changed the balance of power. Russia has now lost its position in the Danubian Principalities and has largely lost credibility with the Greeks of both the Ottoman Empire and the kingdom. The second half of the 1850s was the era of the rise of national movements among the Christian peoples of the Ottoman Empire. Bulgarians defend their ecclesiastical-national independence in the Ecclesiastical-national Assembly in Constantinople. On Easter 1860, Metropolitan Hilarion of Bulgaria did not mention the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople for the first time at the liturgy in St. Stephen's Church, which marked the beginning of the independence of the Bulgarian Church. Its final separation took place in 1870, when the Sultan's firman of independence was issued, and in 1872 the Council of Constantinople declared the Bulgarian schism, and canonical communion between the churches was interrupted for many decades. 12 Although less dramatically, the autocephaly of the Romanian Church was proclaimed (1865) and recognized only two decades later; in fact, the Serbian Church lived independently of Constantinople (in 1832, the autonomous Metropolis of Belgrade was established under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople). The Church of Greece, whose autocephaly was recognized by Constantinople only in 1850, only 17 years after the proclamation, expanded its limits when Thessaly was annexed to the Kingdom of Greece (1881). A strong blow to the economic situation of the Constantinople and other Eastern churches was inflicted by the confiscation of church estates (metochi) in Romania by Prince A. Cuza in 1881. 13. Finally, a significant threat to the church in the Ottoman Empire was posed by the state, which in the mid-19th century embarked on the path of reform (Tanzimat). One of the goals of the transformation, which was carried out on the advice of British diplomacy, was to reduce the influence of the church and weaken the power of the state.-

12. Kurganov V. F. Istoricheskiy ocherk greko-bolgarskoy razdri [Historical sketch of the Greek-Bulgarian strife]. 1873. Part 1. pp. 187-260; Teplov V. The Greek-Bulgarian Church question from unpublished sources. St. Petersburg, 1889; Cyril, Patriarch Bulgarsky. Граф Н. П. Игнатиев и Българският църковен въпрос. Изследване и документи. София, 1958; Маркова З. Българската Екзархия. 1870-1879. София, 1989; Бонева В. Българското църковно-национално движение 1856-1870. Sofia, 2010.

13. Gerd L. A. Secularization of estates of Eastern monasteries and churches in Wallachia and Moldavia in the early 1860s and Russia // Bulletin of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's University for the Humanities. 2014. Series II. Istoriya [History], issue 6 (61), pp. 7-34.

page 288
Russian influence exerted through the church 14. Reforms were imposed on the Patriarchate, which led to the adoption in 1860 of a new church charter (Γενικοι Κανονισμοι). Now, along with the Synod, which consisted of members who were replaced every two years, another advisory body was created under the Patriarch - a Mixed Council consisting of clergy and laity. The admission of the laity to ecclesiastical administration led to an increase in the influence of Greek nationalism among the Church of Constantinople. Other attempts were made to weaken the church and the clergy: the introduction of salaries for the clergy, the deprivation of the church of its real estate, the tightening of censorship, etc. (although most of them remained only on paper)15.

In general, the growth of nationalist sentiment in the Balkans of the XIX century. a special place was occupied by Greek nationalism. On the one hand, they were attempts to revive the historical memory of Ancient Greece, which was supported by the Western European Philhellenes. On the other hand, it was a new upsurge in the traditional Ottoman Greek dream of liberating Constantinople and restoring the Christian kingdom. Finally, these were purely practical goals of gradually annexing the ancestral Greek lands to the Greek Kingdom. Of course, the second and third directions turned out to be more viable and received the name of the Greek "great idea" (Μεγαλη iδεα). There were disagreements among the ideologists of the "great idea": some believed that the core of the future united Greek state should be the Greek Kingdom, others believed that the liberation of Constantinople, the historical capital, was possible; finally, others saw the future of the Greek people as part of a powerful unified Ottoman state, in which the Greeks would oust the Turks and rule the empire themselves.16
The Greek "great idea", whose implementation was mainly concentrated around Constantinople and the Patriarchate, was in conflict with the ambitions of Russia, which sought to create a new world order.

14. Davison, H. (1963) Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856-1876. Princeton; Todorova M. England, Russia and Tanzimat. София, 1980; Frindley, C. (1980) Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire. The Subleme Porte, 1789-1922. Princeton; Dulina N. A. Tanzimat and Mustafa Reshid Pasha. M., 1984; Ahmad, F. (1993) The Making of Modern Turkey. London-New York; Makarova I. F. Bolgary i Tanzimat. Moscow, 2010.

15. Σταματοποκ 55;ος Δ. Μεταρρκθμησ& #951; και εκκοσμικεκσ_ 1;. Προς μια ανασκνθεση της ιστοριας τοκ Οικοκμενικοκ Πατριαρχειοκ τον 19 αιωνα. Αθηνα, 2003.

16. Petrunina O. E. Grecheskaya natsiya i gosudarstvo [Greek Nation and State], pp. 323-333.

page 289
if not directly, then indirectly control the Straits and Constantinople. After the Crimean War, the government of Alexander II took a course to support the Balkan Slavs, primarily the Bulgarians. Romantic Slavophilism of the second quarter of the 19th century acquired practical significance and was called "pan-Slavism"17. The support of the Bulgarians, who, following their church-national aspirations, openly rebelled against the Greeks, could not contribute to the warm relations between the Russian Church and the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Russia has refrained from expressing any opinion on the so-called Bulgarian schism, which for a long time "froze" Russia's ability to act in the Balkans through the church: after all, contacts with the Bulgarian hierarchs would immediately lead to an open rupture of relations between the Russian and Constantinople churches. The long-term efforts of Russian diplomats aimed at overcoming the schism could not lead to a positive result, since for both sides church affairs served only as a cover for the implementation of their national and political goals, namely, to make a preliminary division of the Balkan Ottoman territories.

After the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878. Russia has taken a reserved and wait-and-see approach to the Balkans and the Middle East. The disillusionment with the results of the war that followed the Berlin Congress destroyed the hopes of the Slavophiles. Pan-Slavism has been replaced in Russian foreign policy by Russian national policy. This was especially evident in the reign of Alexander III and in the first years of the reign of Nicholas II. The ideologist of this policy was the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, K. P. Pobedonostsev. Russia has a large enough territory not to seek new conquests. At the same time, it is the largest Orthodox great power - the only one with an Orthodox tsar. It follows from this that the Russian Church has a leading place in the Orthodox world, and all other Orthodox states do not.

17. Kohn, H. (1953) Panslavism. Its History and Ideology. Notre Dame; Sumner, B.H. (1937) Russia and the Balkans 1870-1880, pp. 56-80. Oxford.; Petrovich, M.B. (1956) The Emergence of Russian Panslavism, 1856-1870. New York; MacKenzie, D. (1967) Serbs and Russian Panslavism, 1875-8. Itaca, NY: Cornell University Press; Tsimbaev N. I. Slavophilism. From the history of Russian social and political thought of the XIX century. Moscow, 1986; Dudzinskaya E. A. Slavophiles in post-reform Russia. Moscow, 1994; Διαλλα Α. Η Ρωσια απεναντι στα Βαλκανια: ιδεολογια και πολιτικη το δεκτερο μισο τοκ 19ο αιωνα. Αθηνα, 2009.

page 290
they form a host of "sister churches" around it. In relation to the Orthodox peoples of the Ottoman Empire, Russia is the patroness and defender against the oppression of the gentile authorities. This was, in general terms, the foreign policy concept of the Russian Church in the last two decades of the nineteenth century. It is easy to see that in this case the old Byzantine idea of an Orthodox ecumene centered in Russia was interpreted on a new level. It was during these years that the Russian science of studying the Orthodox East was rising, and the Russian school of Byzantine studies was being formed. Without being personally politically engaged, the Byzantinists undoubtedly also contributed to the establishment of this ideology.

In the 1880s and 1890s, Russia was politically isolated in the Balkans. Relations with the Greek Kingdom continued to be pointedly cold. Nor did Russia meet with sympathy from the Serbian government. Romania followed its pro-French political line. The greatest disappointment was experienced by Russia in Bulgaria: in the 1880s, diplomatic relations with it were interrupted, and against the background of the ongoing church schism, this meant the complete loss of any contacts and influence. Only small Montenegro, out of all the Orthodox states in southeastern Europe, remained loyal to Russia.

After the Russo-Turkish war, friendly relations were initially established with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Under Patriarch Joachim III (his first patriarchate - 1878-1884), the authority of Russia among the Turkish Greeks was quite high. The Patriarch was personally sympathetic to Russia and had a lofty vision of an ecumenical Orthodoxy free of nationalism, for which he was sharply criticized by the Greek Prime Minister, X. Trikupis 18.

18. О Иоакиме I I I см.: Στακριδοκ Β. Θ. Οι Οικοκμενικοι ; πατριαρχαι 1860-σημερον.Θεσσ αλονικη, 1977. Σ. 208 - 284; Ανεστιδης Στ. Ιωακειμ ο Γ' Αρχιεπισκοπ_ 9;ς Κωνσταντινο_ 4;πολεως και Οικοκμενικο` 2; Πατριαρχης (1878 - 1884, 1901- 1912) // Δελτιον Κεντροκ Μικρασιατικω ν σποκδων. ΑθΗνα, 1986-1987. Σ. 391-414 (bibliography of works on Joachim published before 1986); Kofos, Ev. (1986) "Patriarch Joachim III (1878-1884) and the Irredentist Policy of the Greek State", Journal of Modern Greek Studies IV (1): 107-120; καρδαρας ΧΡ. Η πολιτικη δραση τοκ πατριαρχη Ιωακειμ Γ'(Πρωτη πατριαρχια 1878-1884). Διδακτορικη διατριβη. Ιωαννινα, 1993; Δημητρια ΚΖ'. Επιστημονικο σκμποσιο "Χριστιανικη Μακεδονια". Ο απο Θεσσαλονικης Οικοκμενικος Πατριαρχης Ιωακειμ Γ' ο Μεγαλοπρενης. Θεσσαλονικη, 1994; Καρδαρας Χρ. Ιωακειμ Γ'-Χαρ. Ζρικοκπης. Η αντιπαραθεση. Απο την ανεκδοτη αλληλογρα φια τοκ Οικοκμενικοκ Πατριαρχη (1878-1884). Αθηνα, 1998.

page 291
In the midst of intense national and political passions, Russian diplomacy highly valued these views of Patriarch Joachim: the leitmotif of the late nineteenth-century dispatches was "to raise the Patriarchate of Constantinople in its own eyes", to make the hierarchs realize the truly universal purpose of their church, which should stand above national passions and play the role of a common mother for the peoples who make up its flock. However, in the minds of Russian church politicians, this line did not contradict the idea of the primacy of the Russian Church in the Orthodox world - after all, the "ecumenicity" of the Patriarchate of Constantinople extended only to the peoples of the Ottoman Empire.

During the first patriarchate of Joachim III, it was decided to open a metochion of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Moscow. The Patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria, the Serbian Church, and the Iveron Monastery on Mount Athos already had metochias. After the confiscation of the estates of Eastern monasteries and churches in Romania in the early 1860s, as well as in Bessarabia in 1873, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, along with other ecclesiastical institutions of the East, lost significant revenues. With the separation of the Bulgarian dioceses in 1870 and the annexation of Thessaly to the Kingdom of Greece, the Ecumenical Patriarchate's revenues declined even further. The favorable relations between the Russian and Constantinople churches, which were established under Joachim III, served as a good reason to support the Patriarch of Constantinople by opening his metochion in Moscow in 1881. The Greeks were given the Church of St. Sergius of Radonezh in Krapivniki with an adjacent plot of land on which apartment buildings were built. Archimandrite Seraphim (Skaruli) became the first rector of the metochion19.

The ideologues of this approach were K. P. Pobedonostsev and his closest adviser on church affairs in the Middle East, Professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy I. E. Troitsky 20. Well-informed from official and non-official sources.-

19. Gerd L. A. Constantinople and Petersburg, pp. 396-416.

20. On the role of I. E. Troitsky in the Russian church policy in the Middle East, see: Gerd L. A. Constantinople and Petersburg, pp. 158-162; also the publication of his correspondence with the agent of the Russian Society of Shipping and Trade in Constantinople, G. P. Begleri: Russia and the Orthodox East. The Patriarchate of Constantinople at the end of the 19th century. Letters of G. P. Begleri to Professor I. E. Troitsky. 1878-1898 gg. / Ed. podg. L. A. Gerd. St. Petersburg, 2003.

page 292
According to the official sources on the state of affairs in the Orthodox East, Troitsky was equally far from sympathizing with both the Greeks and the Slavs in the Balkans. The church system in each country, he said, depends entirely on the civil state of affairs. In the Middle Ages, when states independent of Byzantium were formed, the autocephaly of the churches of these countries was proclaimed. Therefore, the autocephaly of the Orthodox churches in South-Eastern Europe is a logical consequence of state independence, and the primacy of Russia is a consequence of its importance as a state with the largest Orthodox population. The claims of Constantinople to primacy in the Eastern Christian world, therefore, seemed to Troitsky absurd from the historical point of view and harmful from the political point of view, since they were based on the national and political claims of the Greeks of the kingdom, directed against Russia and Russian interests. Troitsky's polemic with the only proponent of the Greek "great idea" at that time in Russia, the state comptroller T. I. Filippov, is indicative in this respect. The dispute arose in 1886. on the occasion of the celebration of the memory of the Byzantine Patriarch Photius, canonized in the XIX century. Filippov, in his church-political views, also proceeded from the idea of the unity of Orthodoxy, but considered this unity from the Greek point of view. The Church, in his opinion, should be independent of political circumstances; Constantinople, as the spiritual homeland of Russian Orthodoxy, should prevail in the Orthodox world, and the Russian Church can only occupy a humble daughter position here.21 Of course, these views can only be described as a beautiful utopia. Politics and ecclesiastical affairs in the East were one, and under the guise of the church struggle, as a rule, national-political and economic interests were pursued. Until the beginning of the 20th century, the figure of Filippov stood out in Russia.

After the abdication of Joachim III in 1884, relations between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Russian Church have become increasingly cold and almost come to naught. There are practically no documents in the archives that show any significant content of the project.-

21. Troitsky I. E. Something about the article of a Citizen (No. 38)on the occasion of honoring the memory of Patriarch Photius in the Slavic Charitable Society on February 6, 1891. February 17, 1891, No. 59. See: Gerd L. A. Constantinople and Petersburg, pp. 162-170.

page 293
personal contacts. Patriarchs Joachim IV (1884-1886), Dionysius V (1887-1890), and Anthimus VII (1897-1898) aroused moderate hostility in Russia, and the negotiations of Constantine V (1898-1901) with Anglican bishops did not at all correspond to the direction of Russian politics.22 Russian diplomacy tried to support Joachim III in every subsequent patriarchal election, but circumstances prevented his election. In 1886, Joachim was visited in Constantinople by I. E. Troitsky, and a long conversation took place between them, which was later recorded almost verbatim by Troitsky. The topic for discussion was still the same - ecumenical Orthodoxy, but without specifying the primary role of a particular church: here the opinions of the interlocutors could clearly differ 23. Later, Joachim retired to the cell of Mylopotamon on Mount Athos, but during his stay there he repeatedly met with Russian diplomats and maintained contacts with the abbot of the Russian monastery of St. Panteleimon, Archimandrite Makarii. Finally, in 1901. Joachim III again occupies the patriarchal throne.

The 20th century brought a new dimension to Russia's Balkan politics: From the "freeze" attitude of the late nineteenth century, they move on to a discussion of more active actions in the Middle East. Russian politicians understood that the country was still not ready for a military solution to the Eastern question, especially since for a while the supporters of active actions in the Far East won. The defeat in the war with Japan and the revolution of 1905-1906 postponed Russia's projects in the Balkans for several years. This reticence at the time coincided with the plans of Austria-Hungary, Russia's main rival in expanding its influence in the Balkans. According to the Murzsteg Agreement of 1903, Russia and Austria-Hungary are trying to contain the growing movement in Macedonia, but the reforms by the end of the 1900s showed their failure. Meanwhile, by the early 1910s, plans for an alliance of Balkan states against the common enemy, the Ottoman Empire, had matured. Both Russia and its European partners played an important role in the creation of the Balkan League. At the beginning of October 1912, the war began.

22. [Troitsky I. E.] Something about the article of the Citizen (No. 38) on the occasion of honoring the memory of Patriarch Photius in the Slavic Charitable Society on February 6, 1891, pp. 64-91.

23. See the publication of the report of I. E. Troitsky: "Our Fatherland Church ranks first among all Orthodox churches." Report of Professor I. E. Troitsky on a business trip to the East, 1886. article and comm. by L. A. Gerd / / Historical Archive, 2001, No. 4, pp. 135-174.

page 294
The first Balkan War. Within two months, the allies (Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro) managed to oust the Turks from almost the entire European territory of the empire. As a result of the Balkan War, negotiations were held on the division of Macedonia and Thrace between the allies. Russia was hatching plans to create a unified South Slavic state, which, however, at that time was not destined to be realized. As a result of lengthy negotiations, finally, on May 30, 1913, in London, the treaty on the drawing of borders was signed. A short time later, Bulgaria attacked its former allies, and a month later suffered a crushing defeat. Under the Treaty of Bucharest on August 10, 1913, it lost access to the Aegean Sea and a significant part of its territorial acquisitions. The Balkan wars were a prologue to the First World War, which radically changed not only the map of the Middle East and the Balkans, but also the balance of power in the international arena.

The Balkan wars did not bring the desired result for Russia. The resistance of other powers, as well as the contradictions between the South Slavs themselves, did not allow Russia to create a single South Slavic state. Despite all the efforts made to this end, Russian diplomats were unable to agree on the removal of the Bulgarian schism: both sides - both Greek and Bulgarian - were not interested in this, seeing in the split a convenient excuse for further political struggle. The inclusion of Macedonia in Greece raised another important issue for Russia - the status of Mount Athos. The Russian monasticism of Mount Athos was, according to Article 62 of the Berlin Treatise, under the patronage of Russian diplomatic representatives in Thessaloniki and Constantinople. Since the increase in the number of Russians on Mount Athos (in 1913 there were about 5,000 of them) and the influx of funds from Russia caused discontent among the Greeks, Russian Athonites often had to use the support of diplomats and even the Turkish authorities. Under the new conditions, the position of the Russians on Mount Athos was under threat. In order to preserve this unique "Russian island" in the Eastern Mediterranean, Russian diplomats at the talks in London raised the issue of internationalizing Mount Athos, creating a neutral zone, a condominium under the patronage of six Orthodox states (Russia, Greece, Serbia, Romania, Montenegro and Bulgaria). Russia insisted on participating in the administration of Mount Athos later, after the outbreak of the First World War;

page 295
the issue was finally removed from the agenda only after the October Revolution 24.

What were the relations between the Russian Church and Constantinople in the first two decades of the 20th century? Among the Russian church leaders of this period, along with the prevailing traditional imperial line, two trends are outlined. The first of them can be called neo-Slavophilism - it was associated with the projects of the South Slavic confederation of states in close connection with Russia. The second continued the line of supporting the Greeks in church and political affairs and implementing the "great idea". The Greek-Philist movement found its champion in the person of Professor I. I. Sokolov of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, who since 1902 was the editor of the Academy's print organ, the Church Bulletin. Since then, almost every issue of the magazine has published articles introducing readers to the life of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and, unlike other printed publications, Sokolov has always presented church life in the East in an extremely favorable light. Sokolov began his academic career as a historian of the Byzantine Church; later, he took up the history of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Modern times. The result of his eight-month studies in the archives of the Patriarchate was the fundamental monograph "The Church of Constantinople in the XIX century" (St. Petersburg, 1904). The author carefully avoids all the "sharp corners" in the history of the church; he says nothing even about the Bulgarian ecclesiastical question. Its goal is to show the inner life of the patriarchate and the merits of each patriarch. He paints with vivid colors the oppressed position of the church in the Ottoman state. For Sokolov, the ideal of a state-church structure was the Byzantine Empire-a model, in his words, of a "church-bound state", the realization of the ideal of happiness on earth. In his opinion, all the efforts of politicians should be devoted to restoring this device.25
24. Gerd L. A. Russkiy Afon 1878-1914 [Russian Athos 1878-1914]. Ocherki tserkovno-politicheskoi istorii [Essays on Church and Political History], Moscow, 2010, pp. 129-138.

25. On the evolution of Grecophilic ideas in Russia from K. N. Leontiev to I. I. Sokolov, see Stamatopoulos, D. (2013) " From the Byzantinism of K. Leont'ev to the Byzantinism of I. I. Sokolov: the Byzantine Orthodox East as a motif of the Russian Orientalism", in Heritages de Byzance en Europe du Sud-Est a l'epoque modern et contemporaine. Athenes, p. 321-340; Σταματοποκλ& #959;ς Δ. Ζο Βκζαντιο μετα το 'Εθνος. Ζο προβλημα της σκνεθειας στις Βαλκανικες ιστοριογρα φιες. ΑθΗνα, 2009. Σ. 244-252, 282-285; Gerd L. A. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and Russia 1901-1914, Moscow, 2012, pp. 38-63. The views of I. I. Sokolov are clearly expressed in his lecture: Sokolov I. I.

page 296
Sokolov participated in the Pre-Conciliar Presence of 1906, the Pre-Conciliar Conference of 1912, and the All-Russian Council of 1917-1918. He introduced his colleagues to the experience of Byzantium and the parish practice of the contemporary Orthodox East, which, in his opinion, could be partly borrowed from the reform of the Russian Church. 26 On October 23, 1917, Sokolov delivered a report on the patriarchate at the Council 27. Sokolov begins his report with a detailed historical and canonical reference that emphasizes the organic nature of the patriarchate for church legislation. The ideal to strive for in the field of higher church administration, the basis of the entire church system , is a combination of the principles of the individual, i.e., patriarchal, and conciliar: "The Patriarchate is the goal of conciliarity and at the same time an organ, and conciliarity is the basis of the patriarchate." The author draws, in his opinion, a picture of the life of the Patriarchate of Constantinople close to the ideal, both in the Byzantine era and in subsequent centuries. Categorically disagreeing with the accusations of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Caesarepapism, which were expressed by some of his contemporaries, Sokolov argued that " papism by its very nature is alien to Eastern Orthodoxy and is incompatible with the legal views and historical tasks prevailing in the East. And we have no reason to fear papism when the patriarchate is restored. " 28 No less sharply, the author speaks about the failure of criticism concerning the moral character and personal qualities of the patriarchs of Constantinople: "The work of the patriarchs was amazing. They were the best people from the people, enlightened, morally authoritative, selfless, understanding the tasks and needs of time and energy-

On Byzantinism in the church-historical relation. Introductory lecture on the Department of History of the Greek-Eastern Church (from the Division of Churches), delivered at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy on November 1, 1903. St. Petersburg, 1903.

26. Sokolov's annual trips to the East were aimed, not least, at collecting material for the future reform of the Russian Church. See his articles: Parish in Constantinople / / Church Bulletin. 1912. N 38. pp. 1189-1193; Dioceses of the Church of Constantinople of the present time. Petrograd, 1914; Ecclesiastical Court in the Patriarchate of Constantinople in its present state. 1914. N 39. pp. 1181-1188.

27. Acts of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918, Moscow, 1994, vol. 2, pp. 383-391. (Act 29).

28. Ibid., p. 387.

page 297
d) guiding everyone to a specific goal. Their ministry is a continuous struggle and suffering for the faith. " 29
Sokolov moves from praising the Patriarchate of Constantinople to addressing the pressing problems of the Russian Church: "Separation of Church and state is brewing. This means that the position of the Russian Church will be approximately the same as that of the Church of Constantinople, for example. True, there is a non - orthodox government there, but it is well known that we do not have to wait for special favors from our government." Meanwhile, the entire Eastern Christian world faces common challenges in the face of the non-Orthodox world, and therefore "a general coalition of Orthodox churches is absolutely necessary, it is necessary to mobilize all forces to counteract the aggressive plan of non-Orthodoxy."30
Sokolov's report expresses concern for the fate of Orthodoxy in the entire Eastern Christian world - after all, the war is not over yet. The theme of the loss of the main pillar of the Church in the state - the Orthodox tsar-is particularly mournful. With the collapse of the monarchy, for all ideologists of the Byzantine-monarchist trend in Russian politics, the main core of their constructions disappeared. Accustomed to thinking according to certain historical patterns, they looked for parallels in the history of the Church, either in Byzantium or in the Ottoman Empire, and could not imagine any other forms of its existence in a democratic state. "With the fall of the imperial power, there is a change in ideology. The Emperor was the protector of the Church. It lasted for 200 years. For 200 years we have been fighting for Orthodoxy in the East. Who will be the guardian of this age-old heritage in the Russian Church after the fall of tsarist power? Only the patriarch can be such a guardian, " said another member of the council, Prince E. N. Trubetskoy.31
The positions of both the Grecophiles and their opponents were clearly manifested during the First World War, when the Allied victory seemed close, and Russia, according to secret treaties of March 1915, was supposed to transfer Constantinople and the surrounding territories. 32 In an atmosphere of euphoria, covering-

29. Acts of the Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917-1918, p. 389.

30. Ibid., p. 390.

31. Ibid., p. 396.

32. Straits (collection) / Pred. F. Rotshteyna. Dop. art. E. A. Adamova. Moscow, 1924.

page 298
Russian journalists, church leaders, politicians, and specialists in economics and military affairs are once again turning to the topic of the "patrimony of Constantinople"in view of the imminent solution of the Eastern question. Russian Constantinople, the fulfillment of a century-old dream, the triumph of Orthodoxy-that's what occupied the minds of hundreds of thousands of people. Here, of course, the question arose about the fate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Church of St. Sophia. The return of this relic to the Orthodox Church was considered a symbolic act of the greatest importance 33. The Synod wrote a lengthy note in which it argued that the Patriarch of Constantinople should retain primacy in the Orthodox world, just as he had enjoyed it in the Byzantine era.34 Even more radical judgments were contained in an article by Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky), who proposed the transfer of Constantinople to the Greeks in gratitude for enlightening Russia with Christianity in the tenth century. The secretary of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society, A. A. Dmitrievsky, also spoke in support of the Greeks in the Orthodox East during the war, and at a meeting of the Slavic Charitable Society in Petrograd on March 2, 1915, for the first time openly stated that the line of support for the Arabs in Palestine, which the Society had followed since its foundation, was erroneous. At the same time, there were many journalists and public figures in Russia who supported the Russification of Constantinople and the reduction of the patriarch to a diocesan bishop subordinate to the Russian Patriarch of Petrograd.35
The October Revolution of 1917 put an end to both political utopias and the role played by the Russian Church in the state. Ecclesiastical policy that was so important

33. On the future of St. John the Baptist Many authoritative people expressed their opinion on Sofia, one of which was the director of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople F. I. Uspensky. See: Gerd L. A. Another project of the "Russian Constantinople". Note by F. I. Uspensky 1915 / / Auxiliary historical disciplines. 2007. Vol. 30, pp. 424-433; recently published another edition of this document: Buchert V. " We need to carefully measure our first steps in Tsaregrad...". Note by Academician F. I. Uspensky. 1915 / / Vostochny archiv. N 1 (31). Moscow, 2015. pp. 60-65.

34. Lisovoy N. N. Russkaya tserkva i patriarchaty Vostoka [Russian Church and Patriarchates of the East]. Tri tserkovno-politicheskie utopii XX veka [Three church-political utopias of the XX century]. Istoriya i sovremennost ' [History and Modernity], Moscow, 2002, pp. 156-196.

35. Gerd L. A. Constantinople and Petersburg, pp. 196-199.

page 299
The new government is no longer interested in Russia's place in the Middle East. Greek politicians who sought to implement the "great idea" also failed: after the military defeat of the Turks in 1922, a population exchange followed, as a result of which one and a half million Greeks from Asia Minor were forced to move to Greece, thus leaving their places of historical settlement. On the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, a secular Turkish state was created, in which there was no longer a place for the Millets of previous centuries. Thus, in the 1910s, the era of universalist attempts to create a large Orthodox empire on the Byzantine model ended. The 20th century brought new forms of church-state relations and new forms of inter-church dialogue.

Bibliography / References

Бонева В. Българското църковно-национално движение 1856-1870. Sofia, 2010.

Buchert V. "We need to measure our first steps in Tsaregrad very carefully..." Note by Academician F. I. Uspensky. 1915 / / Vostochny archiv. N 1 (31). Moscow, 2015. pp. 60-65.

Gagarin S. Constantinople Straits. Historical and political essay //Russian thought. 1915. April, pp. 96-122.

Gerd L. A. Constantinople and Petersburg: Church Policy of Russia in the Orthodox East (1878-1898). Moscow, 2006.

Gerd L. A. Another project of "Russian Constantinople". Note by F. I. Uspensky 1915 / / Auxiliary historical disciplines. 2007. Vol. 30, pp. 424-433

Gerd L. A. Russkiy Afon (Russian Athos) 1878-1914. Essays on Church and political history. Moscow, 2010.

Gerd L. A. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and Russia 1901-1914 Moscow, 2012.

Gerd L. A. Secularization of estates of Eastern monasteries and churches in Wallachia and Moldavia in the early 1860s and Russia / / Bulletin of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's University for the Humanities. 2014. Series II. Istoriya [History], issue 6 (61), pp. 7-34.

Goryainov S. Bosporus and Dardanelles. Investigation of the issue of straits based on diplomatic correspondence stored in the State and St. Petersburg Main Archives. St. Petersburg, 1907.

Janitor F. The idea of apostleship in Byzantium and the legend of the Apostle Andrew. St. Petersburg, 2007. Acts of the Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917-1918, vol. 2. Moscow, 1994.

Dmitrievsky A. A. Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society and its activities (1882-1907). St. Petersburg, 1907.

Dranov B. A. Chernomorskiye prolivy [Black Sea Straits], Moscow, 1948.

Dudzinskaya E. A. Slavophiles in Post-reform Russia, Moscow, 1994.

Dulina N. A. Tanzimat and Mustafa Reshid Pasha, Moscow, 1984.

page 300
Ivanov S. A. Byzantine missionary work. Is it possible to make a Christian out of a barbarian? Moscow, 2003.

Kapterev N. F. Relations of the Jerusalem Patriarch Dositheus with the Russian government (1669-1707). Moscow, 1891.

Kapterev N. F. The Nature of Russia's relations to the Orthodox East in the XVI and XVII centuries. 2. Sergiev Posad Publ., 1914.

Kinyapina N. S. The Balkans and the Straits in Russia's Foreign Policy at the End of the 19th century. Moscow, 1994.

Кирил, патриарх Български. Граф Н. П. Игнатиев и Българският църковен въпрос. Изследване и документи. Sofia, 1958.

Kirillov I. The Third Rome. Essay on the historical development of the idea of Russian Messianism, Moscow, 1914.

Kurganov V. F. Istoricheskiy ocherk greko-bolgarskoy razdri [Historical sketch of the Greek-Bulgarian strife]. 1873. Part 1. pp. 187-260.

Lisovoy N. N. Russkaya tserkva i patriarchaty Vostoka [Russian Church and Patriarchates of the East]. Three ecclesiastical and political utopias of the XX century // Religions of the world. Istoriya i sovremennost ' [History and Modernity], Moscow, 2002, pp. 156-196.

Lisovoy N. N. Russian Spiritual and Political Presence in the Holy Land and in the Middle East in the XIX-early XX centuries. Moscow, 2006.

Makarova I. F. Bolgary i Tanzimat [Bulgarians and Tanzimat], Moscow, 2010.

Malinin V. N. Elder of the Eleazar Monastery Filofey and his epistles. Historical and literary research. Kiev, 1901.

Маркова З. Българската Екзархия. 1870-1879. Sofia, 1989.

"Our Fatherland Church ranks first among all Orthodox churches." Report of Professor I. E. Troitsky on a business trip to the East, 1886. article and comm. by L. A. Gerd / / Historical Archive, 2001, No. 4, pp. 135-174.

Nikodim (Rotov), Archimandrite. History of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem. Serpukhov, 1997.

Obolensky D. The Byzantine Commonwealth of Nations, Moscow, 1998.

Petrunina (Misyurevich) O. E. Formation of the National State in Greece: "the Russian Party" in 1837-1844, Moscow, 1997.

Petrunina O. E. Greek Nation and State in the XVIII-XX centuries. Moscow, 2010.

Straits (collection) / Pred. F. Rotshteyna. Dop. art. E. A. Adamova. Moscow, 1924.

Rogov A. I. Kul'turnye svyazi Rossii s balkanskimi stranami v pervoi polovinei XVII v. [Cultural relations of Russia with the Balkan countries in the first half of the 17th century]. The first half of the 17th century, Moscow, 1990, pp. 122-137.

Russia and the Orthodox East. The Patriarchate of Constantinople at the end of the XI X century Letters of G. P. Begleri to Professor I. E. Troitsky. 1878-1898 gg. / Ed. podg. L. A. Gerd. SPb., 2003.

Russia and the Black Sea Straits (XVIII-XX centuries). Moscow, 1999.

Sinitsyna N. V. "The Third Rome". The origins and evolution of the Russian medieval concept (XV-XVI centuries). Moscow, 1998.

Russia and England in the Holy Land on the Eve of the Crimean War, Moscow, 2015.

Sokolov I. I. Constantinople Church in the XIX century. St. Petersburg, 1904.

Sokolov I. I. On Byzantinism in the church-historical relation. Introductory lecture on the Department of History of the Greek-Eastern Church (from the Division of Churches),

page 301
read at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy on November 1, 1903. St. Petersburg, 1903.

Sokolov I. I. Prikhod v Konstantinopol ' [Parish in Constantinople]. 1912. N 38. pp. 1189-1193.

Sokolov I. I. Dioceses of the Constantinople Church of the present time. Petrograd, 1914.

Sokolov I. I. [The Church Court in the Patriarchate of Constantinople in its current state]. 1914. N 39. pp. 1181-1188.

Teplov V. The Greek-Bulgarian Church Question from unpublished sources. SP B., 1889.

Todorova M. England, Russia and Tanzimat. Sofia, 1980.

[Troitsky I. E.] Something about the article of a Citizen (No. 38)on the occasion of honoring the memory of Patriarch Photius in the Slavic Charitable Society on February 6, 1891. February 17, 1891 N 59.

Uspensky B. A. Tsar and Patriarch: Charisma of Power in Russia. The Byzantine Model and its Russian Reinterpretation, Moscow, 1998.

Fonkich B. L. Chudotvornye ikon i svyatennye relikvii Khristianskogo Vostoka v Moskve v sredne XV II V. [Miraculous icons and sacred relics of the Christian East in Moscow in the middle of the XV-II century]. Issue 5. Moscow, 2001, pp. 70-97.

Fonkich B. L. From the history of the establishment of the Patriarchate in Russia. Sobornye gramoty 1590 i 1593 gg. [Sobornye gramoty 1590 i 1593 gg.] / / Fonkich B. L. Grecheskie rukopisi i dokumenty v Rossii [Greek manuscripts and documents in Russia]. Moscow, 2003, pp. 377-384.

Fonkich, B. L., The Charter of the Patriarch of Constantinople Joasaph II and the Council of Eastern Churches confirming the royal title of Ivan IV, Kashtanov, S. M. Russia and the Greek World in the XVI Century, Moscow, 2004, pp. 381-389.

Tsimbaev N. I. Slavophilism. From the history of Russian social and political thought of the XIX century. Moscow, 1986

Chesnokova N. P. Dokumenty posolskogo prikazda sredni XVII v. o privoze v Rossii relikviy s Khristianskogo Vostoka [Documents of the embassy order of the middle of the 17th century on bringing relics from the Christian East to Russia].

The state and the Church in their Mutual Relations in the Moscow State. The reign of Fyodor Ivanovich. Establishment of the Patriarchate in Russia. Odessa, 1912.

Ανεστιδης Στ. Ιωακειμ ο Γ' Αρχιεπισκοπ_ 9;ς Κωνσταντινο_ 4;πολεως και Οικοκμενικο` 2; Πατριαρχης (1878-1884, 1901-1912) // Δελτιον Κεντροκ Μικρασιατικω ν σποκδων. Αθηνα, 1986-1987. Σ. 391-414.

Δημητρια ΚΖ'. Επιστημονικο σκμποσιο "Χριστιανικη Μακεδονια". Ο απο Θεσσαλονικης Οικοκμενικος Πατριαρχης Ιωακειμ Γ' ο Μεγαλοπρενης. Θεσσαλονικη, 1994.

Διαλλα Α. Η Ρωσια απεναντι στα Βαλκανια: ιδεολογια και πολιτικη το δεκτερο μισο τοκ 19ο αιωνα. Αθηνα, 2009.

Καρδαρας Χρ. Η πολιτικη δραση τοκ πατριαρχη Ιωακειμ Γ'(Πρωτη πατριαρχια 1878-1884). Διδακτορικη διατριβη. Ιωαννινα, 1993;

Καρδαρας Χρ. Ιωακειμ Γ'-Χαρ. Ζρικοκπης. Η αντιπαραθεσ_ 1;. Απο την ανεκδοτη αλληλογραφια τοκ Οικοκμενικοκ Πατριαρχη (1878-1884). Αθηνα, 1998.

Σταματοποκλο ;ς Δ. Μεταρρκθμηση και εκκοσμικεκση. Προς μια ανασκνθεση της ιστοριας τοκ Οικοκμενικοκ Πατριαρχειοκ τον 19 αιωνα. Αθηνα, 2003.

page 302
Σταματοποκλο ;ς Δ. Ζο Βκζαντιο μετα το 'Εθνος. Ζο προβλημα της σκνεθειας στις Βαλκανικες ιστοριογραφι^ 9;ς. Αθηνα, 2009. Σ. 244-252, 282-285.

Στακριδοκ Β. Θ. Οι Οικοκμενικο_ 3; πατριαρχαι 1860-σημερον. Θεσσαλονικη, 1977. Σ. 208-284.

Ahmad, F. (1993) The Making of Modern Turkey. London-New York.

Anastassiadis, A., ed. (2013) Voisinages fragiles. Les relations interconfessionelles dans le Sud-Est europeen et la Mediterrannee orientale 1854-1923: contraintes locales et enjeux internationaux. (Ecole Francaise d' Athenes. Mondes Mediterranees et Balkaniques 5). Athenes.

Anestidis, S. (1986-1987) "Ioakeim III Archiepiskopos Constantinoupolos kai Oikoumenikos Patriarchis(1878-1884, 1901-1912)"" [Joakeim III Archbishop of Constantinople and Ecumenical Patriarch (1878 - 1884, 1901 - 1912)"], Deltion Kentrou Mikrasiatikon Spoudon (Athens): 391-414

Boneva, V. (2010), B"lgarskoto ts"rkovno-natsionalno dvizhenie 1856-1870. [The bulgarian church-national movement]. Sofia, Za bukvite.

Bukhert, V. (2015) "Nam nuzhno ochen' tshchatel'no soizmeriat' nashi pervye shagi v Tsaregrade..." Zapiska akademika F. I. Uspenskogo. 1915 g." ["We should program very carefully our first steps in Constantinople". The note of F.I. Uspenskii. 1915"], Vostochnyi Arkhiv 1(31): 60-65.

Chesnokova, N. (2001) "Dokumenty Posol'skogo Prikaza serediny XV I I v. o privoze v Rossiiu relikvii s Khristianskogo Vostoka" ["The documents from the Posol'skij Prikaz (Ambassador's Office) from the mid XVIIth century about the delivery of relics from the Christian East to Russia"], in Rossiiskaia Diplomatiia. Istoriia I Sovremennost'. Moscow.

Clogg, R. (1982) "The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire", in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: the Functioning of a Plural Society. Vol. 1. The Central Lands, pp. 185-207. Eds. Braude B., Lewis B. New York.

Craves, P.P. (1931) The question of the Straits. London.

Davison, H. (1963) Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856-1876. Princeton.

Deianiia sviashchennogo sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi tserkvi 1917-1918. [Acts of the Holy Council of Russian Orthodox Church 1917-1918], Moscow, 1994. Vol. 2.

Dialla, A. (2009) I Rosia apenanti sta Balkania: ideologia kai politiki to deytero miso tou 19ou aiona [Russia against the Balkans: Ideology and Politics in the Second Half of the XIXth Century]. Athens.

Dimitria 27. Epistimoniko symposio "Christianiki Makedonia". O apo Thssalonikis Oikoumenikos Patriarchis Ioakeim III o Megaloprepis [Dimitria 27. A scientific symposium "Christian Macedonia". The ecumenical Patriarch Joakeim III the magnificent from Thessaloniki]. Thessaloniki, 1994.

Dmitrievskii, A. (1907) Imperatorskoe Pravoslavnoe Palestinskoe obshestvo I ego deiatel'nost' (1882-1907) [Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society and its activities (1882-1907)]. St. Petersburg.

Dranov, B. (1948) Chernomorskie prolivy [The Black Sea straits]. Moscow.

Dudzinskaia, E. (1994) Slavianofily v poreformennoi Rossii [The Slavophils in Russia after the reforms]. Moscow.

Dulina, N. (1984) Tanzimat i Mustafa Reshid Pasha [The Tanzimat and Mustafa Reshid Pasha]. Moscow.

page 303
Dvornik, F. (1958) The Idea of Apostolity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew. Cambridge/Mass.

Esperel, I.B. (1907) La condition international des detroits Bosphore et Dardanelles envisage du point de vue des droits et des devoirs des Neutres dans les guerres maritimes. Toulouse.

Fonkich, B. (2001) "Chudotvornye ikony i sviashchennye relikvii Khristianskogo Vostoka v Moskve v seredine XVII v." ["Miracle icons and sacred relics of the Christian East in Moscow in the middle of the X VII th century"], Ocherki Feodal'noi Rossii 5 (Moscow): 70-97.

Fonkich, B. (2003) "Iz istorii uchrezhdeniia patriarshestva v Rossii. Sobornye gramoty 1590 I 1593 gg." [From the history of establishment of Moscow Patriarchate. Council documents of 1590 and 1593"], in Fonkich, B. Grecheskie rukopisi i documenty v Rossii (Moscow), p. 377-384.

Fonkich, B. (2004) "Gramota Konstantinopol'skogo Patriarcha Ioasafa II i sobora vostochnykh tserkvei, podtverzhdaiushchaia tsarskii titul Ivana IV" ["A Document of the Patriarch of Constantinople Joasaph II and the Council of Eastern Churches, adopting the Tsar title of Ivan IV"], in Kashtanov, S.M. Rossiia i Grecheskii Mir v XVI veke (Moscow), p. 381-389.

Frary, L. (2015) Russia and the Making of Modern Greek Idenitity, 1821-1844. Oxford. Frazee, Ch. (1969) The Orthodox Church and Independent Greece, 1821-1852. Cambridge. Frindley, C. (1980) Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire. The Sublime Porte, 1789-1922. Princeton.

Gagarin, S. (1915), "Konstantinopol'skie prolivy. Istoriko-politicheskii ocherk" ["The starits of Constantinople. An essay on political history "], Russkaia mysl', April: 96-122.

Gerd, L. (2006) Konstantinopol' i Peterburg: tserkovnaia politika Rossii na Pravoslavnom Vostoke (1878-1898) [Constantinople and St. Petersburg: Russian Church's policy in the Orthodox East (1878-1898)] Moscow, Indrik.

Gerd, L. (2007) "Eshche odin proekt "Russkogo Konstantinopolia". Zapiska F. I. Uspenskogo 1915 g." ["One more project of "Russian Constantinople". The note of F. I. Uspenskii of 1915 g."], Vspomogatel'nye istoricheskie distsipliny 30: 424-433.

Gerd, L. (2010) Russkii Afon 1878-1914. Ocherki tserkovno-politicheskoi istorii [Russian Athos 1878-1914. Essays on church-political history]. Moscow, Indrik.

Gerd, L. (2012), Konstantinopol'skii Patriarkhat i Rossiia. 1901-1914 [The Patriarchate of Constantinople and Russia. 1901-1914]. Moscow, Indrik.

Gerd, L. (2014) "Sekuliarizatsiia imenii vostochnykh monastyrei i tserkvei v Valahii i Moldavii v nachale 1860-h godov i Rossiia" ["The Secularization of the properties of the Eastern monasteries and churches in Walachia and Moldavia and Russia"], Vestnik Sviato-Tikhonovskogo Gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia Istoria 6(61): 7-34.

Gerd, L., ed. (2001) "Nasha otechestvennaia tserkov' zanimaet pervoe mesto mezhdu vsemi pravoslavnymi tserkviami". Otchet professora I. E. Troitskogo o komandirovke na Vostok. 1886 g." ["Our Church is the first among all Orthodox Churches". A report of professor I.E. Troitskii about his trip to the East. 1886", Istoricheskii Arkhiv 4: 135-174.

Gerd, L., ed. (2003) Rossiia I pravoslavnyi Vostok. Konstantinopol'skii Patriarkhat v kontse XIX v. Pis'ma G. P. Begleri k prof. I. E. Troitskomu 1878-1898 gg. [Russia and the Orthodox East in the end of the XIXth century. Letters of G. P. Begleri to Prof. I. E. Troitskii 1878-1898] St. Petersburg, Oleg Abyshko Editions.

page 304
Goriainov, S. (1907) Bosfor i Dardanelly. Issledovanie voprosa o prolivah po diplomaticheskoi perepiske, hraniashcheisia v Gosudarstvennom i SanktPeterburgskom glavnom arkhivah. [Bosphore and Dardanelles. Research of the question of the straits according the diplomatic correspondence from the State and St. Petersburg Main Archives]. St. Petersburg.

Ivanov, S. (2003) Vizantiiskoe missionerstvo. Mozhno li sdelat' iz varvara khristianina? [The Byzantine missionary. Is it possible to make a hristian from a Barbarian?]. Moscow.

Jelavich, B. (1962) Russia and Greece During the Regency of King Othon, 1832-1835. Russian Documents on the First Years of Greek Independence. Thessalonike.

Jelavich, B. (1973) The Ottoman Empire, the Great Powers and the Straits Question, 1870-1887. Bloomington; London.

Kapterev, N. (1891) Snosheniшa Ierusalimskogo Patriarлha Dosifeшa s Russkim pravitel'stvom (1669-1707) [Relations of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem Dositheos with the Russian пovernment (1669-1707)]. Moscow.

Kapterev, N. (1914) Kharacter otnoshenii Rossii k Pravoslavnomu Vostoku v XVI i XVII stoletiiakh [Character of the relationship between Russia and the Orthodox East in the XVIth and the XVIIth centuries]. Sergiev Posad.

Kardaras, Ch. (1993) I politiki drasi tou patrirchi Ioakeim III (Proti patriarchia 1878-1884). Didaktoriki diatrivi [The political activities of Patriarch Ioakeim III (First Patriarchate 1878-1884) Doctoral Thesis]. Ioannina.

Kardaras, Ch. (1998) Ioakeim III-Char. Trikoupis. I antiparathesi. Apo tin anekdoti allilografia tou Oikoumenikou Patriarchi (1878 - 1884) [Joachim III Char. Trikoupis. A Controversion. From the inedited correspondence of the ecumenical Patriarch (1878-1884)]. Athens.

Kiniapina, N. (1994) Balkany i prolivy vo vneshnei politike Rossii v kontse XIX v. [The Balkans and the straits in Russian foreign policy in the end of the XIXth century]. 2nd ed.

Kiril, patriarkh B"lgarski. (1958) Graf N.P. Ignatiev i B"lgarskiiat ts"rkoven v"pros. Izsledvane i dokumenti [Count N. P. Ignatiev and the Bulgarian church question]. Sofia.

Kirillov, I. (1914) Tretii Rim. Ocherk istoricheskogo razvitiia idei russkogo messianisma [An essay on the historical development of the Idea of Russian messianism]. Moscow.

Kofos, Ev. (1986) Patriarch Joachim III (1878-1884) and the Irredentist Policy of the Greek State, Journal of Modern Greek Studies IV (1): 107-120.

Kohn, H. (1953) Panslavism. Its History and Ideology. Notre Dame.

Kurganov, V. (1873) "Istoricheskii ocherk greko-bolgarskoi raspri" ["Historical essay on the Greek-Bulgarian controversion"], Pravoslavnyi Sobesednik 1: 187-260.

Laze, M. (1908) La question des detroits. Etude juridique sur la situation international du Bosphore et des Dardanelles. Paris.

Lisovoi, N. (2002) "Russkaia tserkov' i patriarkhaty Vostoka. Tri tserkovno-politicheskie utopia XX veka" ["The Russian Church and the Eastern Patriarchats. Three churchpolitical utopias of the XXth century"], Religii mira. Istoriia i sovremennost' 2002: 156-196.

Lisovoi, N. (2006) Russkoe dukhovnoe i politicheskoe prisutstvie v Sviatoi Zemle i na Blizhnem Vostoke v XIX - nachale XX v. [Russian spiritual and political presence in the Holy Land and in the Middle East in 19th - early 20th centuries]. Moscow, Indrik.

page 305
MacKenzie, D. (1967) Serbs and Russian Panslavism, 1875-8. Itaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Makarova, I. (2010) Bolgary i Tanzimat [Bulgarins and the Tanzimat]. Msocow.

Malinin, V. (1901) Starets Eleazarova monastyria Filofei i ego poslaniia. Istorikoliteraturnoe issledovanie [The starec of the Eleazar Monastery Philotheos and his letters. A historical literature study]. Kiev.

Markova, Z. (1989) B"lgarskata Ekzarkhiia 1870 - 1879 [The Bulgarian Ekzarchate 1870-1879]. Sofia.

Nikodim (Rotov), archimandrite (1997) Istoria Russkoi Dukhovnoi Missii v Ierusalime [History of the Russian Ecclesiastical mission in Jerusalem] Serpuhov.

Obolensky, D. (1971) The Byzantine Commonwealth. Eastern Europe. 500-1453. London.

Petrovich, M.B. (1956) The Emergence of Russian Panslavism, 1856-1870. New York.

Petrunina (Misiurevich), O. (1997) Stanovlenie natsional'nogo gosudarstva v Gretsii: "russkaia partiia" v 1837-1844 gg. [The formation of a national state in Greece: "Russian Party" in 1837-1844]. Moscow.

Petrunina, O. (2010) Grecheskaia natsiia i gosudarstvo v XVIII-XX vv. [Greek nation and state in the XVIII-XX centuries]. Moscow.

Rogov, A. (1990) "Kul'turnye sviazi Rossii s balkanskimi stranami v pervoi polovine XVII v." [Cultural relations between Russia and the states of the Balkans in the first half of the XV I I th century", Sviazi Rossii s narodami Balkanskogo poluostrova. Pervaia polovina XVII v. [Relations of Russia with the peoples of the Balkan peninsula. First half of the XVIIth century]. Moscow: 122-137.

Rossiia i Chernomorskie prolivy (XVIII-XX stoletiia) [Russia and the Black Sea straits (XVIII-XX Centuries)]. Moscow, 1999.

Rotshtein, F., Adamov, E., eds. (1924) Prolivy (Sbornik) [The Straits (collected documents)]. Moscow.

Runciman, S. (1968) The Great Church in Captivity. Cambridge.

Schaeder, H. (1957) Moskau das Dritte Rome. Studien zur Geschichte der politischen Theorien in der Slavischen Welt. Darmstadt.

Shpakov, A. (1912) Gosudarstvo i tserkov' v ikh vzaimnykh otnosheniiakh v Moskovskom gosudarstve. Tsarstvovanie Fedora Ivanovicha. Uchrezhdenie patriarshestva v Rossii [State and church in their relations in the Moscovian State. The rule of Fedor Ivanovich. The establishment of Russian Patriarchate]. Odessa.

Sinitsyna, N. (1998)"Tretii Rim". Istoki i evoliutsiia russkoi srednevekovoi kontseptsii (XV-XVI vv.) ["The Trird Rome". Origins and evolution of a Russian Middle Ages concept (XV-XVI centuries)]. Moscow.

Smirnova, I. (2015) Rossiia i Angliia v Sviatoi Zemle v kanun Krymskoi voiny [Russia and England in the Holy Land on the eve of the Crimean War]. Moscow.

Sokolov, I. (1903) O vizantinisme v tserkovno-istoricheskom otnoshenii. Vstupitel'naia lektsiia po kafedre istorii Greko-vostochnoi tserkvi (ot razdeleniia tserkvei), prochitannaia v Sankt-Peterburgskoi Dukhovnoi Akademii 1 noiabria 1903 goda [About Byzantinism in church history. An introduction lecture at the Department of Greek-Eastern Church (from the separation of the Churches) Read at St.-Petersburg Theological Academy on November 1, 1903]. St. Petersburg.

Sokolov, I. (1904) Konstantinopol'skaia Tserkov' v XIX v. [The Church of Constantinople in the XIXth century]. St. Petersburg.

Sokolov, I. (1912) "Prikhod v Konstantinopole" ["The parish in Constantinople"], Tserkovnyi Vestnik 38: 1189-1193

page 306
Sokolov, I. (1914) "Tserkovnyi sud v Konstantinopol'skom Patriarkhate v sovremennom ego sostoianii" ["The Church court in the Patriarchate of Constantinople in it present state"], Tserkovnyi Vestnik 39: 1181-1188.

Sokolov, I. (1914) Eparchii Konstantinopol'skoi Tserkvi nastoiashchego vremeni [The dioceses of the Church of Constantinople nowadays]. Petrograd.

Stamatopoulos, D. (2003) Metarrythmisi kai ekkosmikeusi. Pro mia anasynthesi tis istorias tou Oikoumenikou Patriarcheiou ton 19o aiona [Reforms amd Secularisation. The History of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the 19th Century Revised]. Athens, Alexandria.

Stamatopoulos, D. (2009) To Byzantio meta to Ethnos. To provlima tis synetheias stis Balkanikes istoriografies [Byzantium after the Ethnos. The Problem of Correspondence in the Balkan Historiographies]. Athens, Alexandria.

Stamatopoulos, D. (2013) "From the Vyzantinism of K. Leont'ev to the Vyzantinism of I. Sokolov: the Byzantine Orthodox East as a motif of the Russian Orientalism", in Heritages de Byzance en Europe du Sud-Est a l'epoque modern et contemporaine. Athenes, p. 321-340.

Stauridou, V. (1977) Oi Oikoumenkoi Patriarchai 1860-simeron [The Ecumenical Patriarchs from 1860 to our days]. Thessaloniki.

Staurou, Th. (1963) Russian interests in Palestine. 1882-1914. Thessalonike.

Sumner, B.H. (1937) Russia and the Balkans 1870-1880. Oxford.

Teplov, V. (1889) Greko-Bolgarskii tserkovnyi vopros po neizdannym istochnikam [The Greek-Bulgarian church question according to unpublished sources]. St. Petersburg.

Tibawi, A.I. (1961) British Interests in Palestine. 1800-1901. A Study of Religious and Educational Enterprise. London.

Todorova, M. (1980) Angliia, Rusiia i Tanzimatyt [England, Russia and the Tanzimat]. Sofia.

Troitskii, I. "Nechto po povodu stat'i Grazhdanina (No 38) po sluchaiu chestvovaniia pamiati Patriarkha Fotiia v Slavianskom blagotvoritel'nom obshchestve" [Something about the article of Grazhdanin (No 38) concerning the celebration of Patriarch Photius' anniversary in the Slavonic Philanthropic Society on the 6th of February 1891"], Moscovskie Vedomosti February 17, 1891, No. 59.

Tsimbaev, N. (1986) Slavianofil'stvo. Iz istorii russkoi obshestvenno-politicheskoi mysli XIX veka [Slavophilism. From the history of Russian public and political thought of the XIXth century]. Moscow.

Uspenskii, B. (1998) Tsar' i Patriarkh: kharisma vlasti v Rossii. Vizantiiskaia model' i ee russkoe pereosmyslenie [Tsar and Patriarch: the charisma of power in Russia. A Byzantine Model and its Russian Interpretation]. Moscow.

Voisinages fragiles. Les relations interconfessionelles dans le Sud-Est europeen et la Mediterrannee orientale 1854-1923: contraintes locales et enjeux internationaux. Ed. par A. Anastassiadis (Ecole Francaise d' Athenes. Mondes Mediterranees et Balkaniques 5). Athenes, 2013.

page 307

Permanent link to this publication: