Organization of the Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society. Orthodox Palestinian Society. Ippo printed organs

(“Project V.N. Khitrovo”)

The second most important figure to whom we are most indebted for the strengthening and establishment of the Russian presence in the Holy Land and the Middle East must be recognized as the founder and de facto leader of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society V. N. Khitrovo.

V. N. Khitrovo was born on July 5, 1834. Having received an excellent education at the Alexander Lyceum, he entered the service of the State Control, then - the Commissariat Department of the Naval Ministry. Later he served in the Ministry of Finance, was involved in the organization of the first savings and loan partnerships in Russia and led them for 20 years.

But he found his true calling in Palestinian society - in the work of studying the Holy Land and educating the Orthodox Arabs of Palestine. At the same time, V.N. Khitrovo preferred to remain a modest worker, not making his responsible patriotic work a source of income or awards and honors.

A deep interest in the Holy Land manifested itself in the activities of V.N. Khitrovo long before the founding of the society. In the summer of 1871, he made his first - still half-tourist, half-pilgrimage - trip to Palestine. What he saw during this trip: both the difficult, helpless situation of Russian pilgrims, and the bleak state of the Orthodox Arab population of the Jerusalem Patriarchate - made such a strong impression on the quite prosperous St. Petersburg official that his entire spiritual world changed, his entire subsequent life was devoted to the matter of “strengthening his position Orthodoxy in the Middle East." After that first trip, he visited the Holy Land six more times, became close to Archimandrite Antonin Kapustin, in whom he found - in many, although not in all matters - a like-minded person and comrade-in-arms. Antonin's concrete experience and tireless work in creating Russian Palestine became a model and example for V.N. Khitrovo for all subsequent years 36.

The success of his project at the turn of the 80-90s was facilitated by many circumstances, both objective and subjective. Here, first of all, we should mention the rise of Orthodox patriotic consciousness in Russian society, associated with the Russian-Turkish liberation war of 1877–1878, when Russian troops almost reached Constantinople. The Eastern question and the Russian cause in the East acquired a completely new, victorious and offensive perspective.

Among the subjective, but no less important factors, it should be noted the appointment of the state-minded and Orthodox-minded K. P. Pobedonostsev as chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod in 1880 and the pilgrimage on May 21–31, 1881 to the Holy Land of the brothers of Alexander III, who ascended the throne of Grand Duke Sergei and Pavel Alexandrovich.

The latter fact was of fundamental dynastic significance. At one time, Emperor Alexander II told the first chairman of the Palestine Committee, Secretary of State Obolensky: “This is a matter of the heart for me.” The emperor remained faithful to this cordial attitude towards the Holy Land and the Russian presence in it all his life and bequeathed it to his successors Alexander III and Nicholas II. Empress Maria Alexandrovna also attached great importance to caring for Russian pilgrims, whose memory was worthily perpetuated by her sons in the Church of Mary Magdalene in Gethsemane (1885-1888).

The Charter of the Orthodox Palestinian Society was highly approved on May 8, 1882, and on May 21, in the palace of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich the Elder, in the presence of members of the imperial family, Russian and Greek clergy, scientists and diplomats, after a prayer service in the house church, its grand opening took place . The day was not chosen by chance. On this day the Church celebrates the memory of Saints Constantine and Helena. Empress Helena, mother of Constantine, did a lot for the Christian revival of Jerusalem and Palestine. She holds the honor of the first archaeological excavations in Jerusalem, the discovery of Golgotha ​​and the Cross of the Lord. In Rus', the summer construction season traditionally began with “Venin Day” (May 21).

The first pilgrimage of Sergei Alexandrovich with his brother and nephew, Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich (later a famous poet who published under the initials “K.R.”) to the Holy Land in 1881, was timed to the same date, as noted above. It was Grand Duke Sergei who in 1882, at the instigation of V.N. Khitrovo, became the founder and first chairman of the Orthodox Palestinian Society (it was awarded the imperial title a little later, in 1889).

The society was called upon, according to the charter, to carry out three main functions:

Organization and arrangement of Russian pilgrims in Palestine (by 1914, up to 10 thousand people passed through the farmsteads and hotels of the IOPS annually);

Help and support for Orthodoxy in the Middle East through charitable and educational work among the local Arab population. By 1914, the society maintained 113 schools, colleges, and teachers' seminaries in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon. In its approach to this task, the society acted as the heir and continuer of the religious and educational initiatives of the RDM: let us remember the first schools and printing houses founded in Jerusalem by Archimandrite Porfiry; Let us also remember the Beit Jal school for girls, founded by Archimandrite Antonin in 1866 and transferred by him 20 years later to the management of the IOPS (in 1888 the school was transformed into a women's teachers' seminary);

Research and publishing work on the study of the historical destinies and current situation of Palestine and the entire Middle Eastern region, biblical philology and archaeology, the organization of scientific expeditions and excavations, and the promotion of knowledge about the Holy Land in Russian society. On the eve of the October Revolution, in order to expand the scope of scientific research and give it a targeted, systematic character, it was planned to create a Russian Archaeological Institute in Jerusalem after the end of the First World War, similar to the one that successfully functioned at the beginning of the century in Constantinople 37 .

Throughout its history, the society has enjoyed the august, and therefore direct, State attention and support. It was led successively by the above-mentioned Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich (from the founding of the society until 1905), and after his death by the widow of the deceased, Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna, now canonized as a saint of the Russian Orthodox Church.

This ensured a high status and active both public and private funding for the IOPS. Suffice it to say that if on the day of the grand opening of the society on May 21, 1882, according to the recollections of V.N. Khitrovo, “its cash register was not only empty, but there was even a deficit of 50 rubles in it,” then in 1907 Emperor Nicholas II, in his highest rescript addressed to the Chairman of the Society, Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna, summed up the impressive results of the first 25 years of his work. “Now, having possessions in Palestine worth almost 2 million rubles, the IOPS has 8 farmsteads, where up to 10 thousand pilgrims find shelter, a hospital, 6 hospitals for incoming patients and 101 educational institutions with 10,400 students; Over the course of 25 years, he published 347 publications on Palestinian studies 38 .

Since 1893, departments of the Palestine Society began to open in many dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church.

A large place in the life of diocesan departments was occupied by the preparation and conduct of palm collections - the main source of funding for the Palestinian Society. According to the calculations of the secretary of the IOPS, already mentioned above, V.N. Khitrovo, the company’s income had the following structure. “In every ruble of the parish: membership fees - 13 kopecks, donations - 70 kopecks. (including the willow tax), interest on securities - 4 kopecks, from the sale of publications - 1 kopeck, from pilgrims - 12 kopecks.” 39. It is obvious that the truly Russian cause in Palestine was carried out primarily with the selfless help of ordinary believers. Accordingly, the structure of the expenses of the IOPS (in percentage, or, as V.N. Khitrovo said, “in every ruble of expenditure”) was as follows: “for the maintenance of Orthodoxy (i.e., for the maintenance of Russian schools and hospitals in Syria and Palestine. - N.L.) - 32 kopecks, for benefits to pilgrims (for the maintenance of Russian farmsteads in Jerusalem, Jericho, etc. - N.L.) - 35 kopecks, for scientific publications and research - 8 kopecks, for collecting donations - 9 kopecks, for general expenses - 16 kopecks.” 40. In other words, the main expenses of the society were reduced, according to calculations by V.N. Khitrovo, “to 1 pilgrim and 1 student: each pilgrim cost 16 rubles in 1899/1900.” 18 kopecks, with the exception of those received from every 3 rubles. 80 kop. - 12 rub. 38 kopecks Each student of Russian Arab schools - 23 rubles. 21 kopecks.”

The estimate for the first year of the 20th century (1901/1902) was approved at 400 thousand rubles. (not counting one-time construction costs 41.

The educational work of the IOPS is still remembered among the Arab intelligentsia not only in Palestine, but also in Syria and Lebanon. Five public schools were established in Beirut with the assistance of the remarkable Russian teacher M.A. Cherkasova. In 1895, Patriarch Spyridon of Antioch turned to the IOPS with a request to take over a girls’ school in Damascus and several men’s schools, and then the society gradually spread its educational activities throughout almost all of Syria. The total number of Arab children studying in IOPS schools reached 11 thousand people. Unlike French or English schools, in which teaching was (and is now) conducted exclusively in European languages, in the schools and teachers' seminaries of the IOPS, teaching was carried out in Arabic. Of course, they also taught Russian language and literature. As British researcher Derek Hopwood writes, “the fact that the school was Russian and the Russian language was taught in it created a certain reputation and atmosphere for it. Knowledge of the Russian language was a source of pride." 42 But at the same time, familiarization with the Russian classics, with its recognized “all-humanity” and “all-responsiveness”, brought up on Pushkin and Dostoevsky, did not narrow, but expanded the mentality and spiritual horizons of students, making it easier for them to enter the space of world culture 43 .

The fate of Russian heritage in the Middle East in the 20th century
(“J.V. Stalin’s Project”)

The First World War and then 1917 radically changed the situation. Russia's ties with Palestine were severed for a long time. The Russian spiritual mission with its numerous sites, churches and monasteries, as well as schools, hospitals and farmsteads in the Holy Land, which belonged to the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society, were left without any support. Canonically, the mission, cut off from the Moscow Patriarchal Center, found itself subordinate to the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which did a lot in subsequent decades to preserve the Russian Orthodox heritage in Jerusalem. Lands, buildings and property that belonged to both the IOPS and the RDM fell into the possession of the British colonial authorities in 1918, implementing the so-called League of Nations mandate for Palestine, legalized in 1922. It was the English authorities who introduced the practice of forced “rental” use of Russian property, the traditional religious “waqf”, - often without the sanction of the legal owners - for secular and commercial purposes.

However, it would be unfair to say that the new, Soviet Russia abandoned its Middle Eastern heritage. Despite the complexity of the situation, in the conditions of a tough ideological struggle and the Civil War, Palestinian society survived in Petrograd, although it gradually lost the former epithets “imperial” and even “Orthodox”. Now it was the Russian Palestinian Society as part of the Academy of Sciences. As soon as the Soviet State was recognized by European countries, attempts to protect Russian interests and property rights in Palestine were renewed. On May 18, 1923, the representative of the RSFSR in London L. B. Krasin sent a note to the British Foreign Secretary Marquis Curzon, which said: “The Russian government declares that all lands, hotels, hospitals, schools and other buildings, as well as everything else in general movable or immovable property of the Palestinian Society in Jerusalem, Nazareth, Kayfa, Beirut and other places in Palestine and Syria, or wherever it is located (meaning the St. Nicholas Metochion of the IOPS in Bari, in Italy. - N.L.) , is the property of the Russian State. The Russian government simultaneously confirms its similar rights to the property of the former Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, which was under the jurisdiction of the former Holy Synod and which, by virtue of this and in accordance with the decree of January 23, 1918 on the separation of Church and State, became the property of the Russian State. Finally, the Russian government states the same with regard to the movable and immovable property of the former Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Palestine and Syria (consulate buildings, etc.).”

L. B. Krasin’s note, as well as the subsequent (in 1925) negotiations of Plenipotentiary Representative Rakovsky in London, had no effect. In the 1940s, when the USSR and Great Britain were allies in the anti-Hitler coalition, the situation, it would seem, was about to change. Even before the end of the war, on March 5, 1945, the USSR Ambassador in London handed a note to the British government with a reminder of the significant number of properties that belonged to the Russian Empire in Palestine (including both consular property and church property, and belonging to the IOPS), and a requirement to give instructions to the British To the High Commissioner of Palestine “on the transfer, as soon as possible, of all property, as well as the income received from its exploitation, to the jurisdiction of the Soviet diplomatic mission in Egypt.” Attached to the note was a “List of Russian property in Palestine,” which included 35 pieces of property. At the same time, the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs discussed the need to open a Soviet consulate in Palestine.

Despite repeated reminders and a note dated September 17, 1945, the British, on the eve of the approaching Cold War, delayed the issue until the very end of the Mandate.

Then the proven channels of church diplomacy were again used. On April 10, 1945, the new Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy I met with the Head of State I.V. Stalin. In May 1945, he went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. The battle for Berlin continues with the ecclesiastical and diplomatic “battle for Jerusalem.”

Moreover. In 1946, a report by the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church spoke of “new events of fundamental political significance.” Colonel G. G. Karpov, who heads the Council, as a real theologian (of course, under the dictation of Stalin) formulates: “As you know, the Russian Orthodox Church, which received independence (autocephaly) in 1448, occupies only fifth place among all the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches of the world. Meanwhile, its relative importance in the Orthodox world and its recently increased authority (during the war years - N.L.) give grounds for its taking first place. The Pre-Conciliar Conference in Moscow of the heads or their representatives of all Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, authorized earlier by the government and scheduled by Patriarch Alexy for September 1947, has as its main goal the preparation of a convocation in 1948 (the 500th anniversary of the independence of the Russian Orthodox Church), which has not been convened for several years centuries of the Ecumenical Council to resolve the issue of conferring the title Ecumenical on the Moscow Patriarchate.”

From a historical and church-canonical point of view, the “Stalin project” seems to be a pure utopia, devoid of a future. But, oddly enough, it is rooted in an almost Byzantine past. The idea of ​​moving the Ecumenical Patriarchate to Moscow belongs to the Ecumenical Patriarchs themselves. The Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah II was the first to express it, offering himself (in 1588) to the Patriarchate of Moscow and All Rus'. In 1915, the issue was again on the agenda: the annexation of Constantinople seemed a done deal. The most radical model of the post-war system was proposed by the then well-known Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky): Constantinople should be left to the Greeks, fulfilling the dream of Catherine II to recreate the Greek Byzantine Empire, and Palestine and Syria should be annexed to Russia.

But neither Jerusalem, nor Constantinople, nor even more so Russia’s temporary coalition allies either in 1915 or 1945 wanted such an outcome. And when the Pan-Orthodox Conference took place in Moscow in July 1948, Western diplomacy took its own measures so that neither the Patriarchs of Constantinople, nor Alexandria, nor Jerusalem would come to Moscow.

The creation of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948 made its own adjustments. On May 20, 1948, I. L. Rabinovich was appointed “commissioner for Russian property in Israel,” who, according to him, from the very beginning “did everything possible to transfer it to the Soviet Union.” Immediately after the exchange of envoys, the Russian side took measures to revive the activities of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem. In a letter from the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR V.A. Zorin addressed to the Chairman of the Committee on Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of Ministers of the USSR G.G. Karpov dated September 10, 1948, it was stated: “Taking into account the current situation in Jerusalem, the envoy Comrade Ershov introduced the following proposal: 1. Appoint and promptly send the head of the Russian Spiritual Mission from the Moscow Patriarchate, as well as a representative of the Russian Palestinian Society, giving them the appropriate legal powers and powers of attorney to accept and manage property.<…>2. In order to preserve the remaining archives of the Spiritual Mission and the Palestinian Society from possible destruction or theft, transfer all documents for safekeeping to the Anglo-Palestine Bank or take them under the protection of Jewish authorities to Tel Aviv for storage in our mission. The USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs agrees with Comrade Ershov’s proposals. I ask you to take the necessary measures...”

On October 14, 1948, J.V. Stalin signed an order of the Council of Ministers of the USSR “to give consent to the Moscow Patriarchate to leave the USSR for the State of Israel for the permanent work of Archimandrite Leonid (Ilya Khristoforovich Lobachev) as the head of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem and Vladimir Evgenievich Elkhovsky in as mission priest." On November 30, the appointed members of the mission were already in Jerusalem. In one of the first messages, Archimandrite Leonid said that “the church and buildings in Jerusalem, not to mention other places, are in disrepair and need repairs, which also need to be done to raise the authority of the Spiritual mission and the prestige of the Russian Church in Palestine. The income received from the tenants is insignificant, since the main part of the property in Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinian Society, and therefore it will not cover the expenses of the mission. With the receipt of the property of the Palestinian Society, the situation will change; not only will the expenses of both organizations be covered, but also significant amounts will flow into the revenues of the State.”

After the first Israeli-Arab war ended, the demarcation line between the territories of Israel and Jordan (under the terms of the truce) designated a different “space of destiny” for Russian churches and monasteries in the west and east of the country. Temples and sites that ended up on the territory of the State of Israel were returned to the ownership of the Soviet government.

As for the churches, monasteries and sites that remained in 1948 in the territories ceded to Jordan, they retained the subordination of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad - the Status quo, which did not change after the “six-day” war of 1967.

The modern activities of the RDM in Jerusalem, intense and fruitful, could become the topic of a separate study. For the anniversary of the 2000th anniversary of Christianity, the mission, now headed by Archimandrite Theodosius (Vasnev), took on enormous work to restore the churches and farmsteads that were part of it, and to build new hotels for the steadily increasing flow of pilgrims.

New opportunities have also emerged for Russia to return its original heritage. Several years ago, a large plot of land belonging to the IOPS in Jericho and registered in the name of the chairman of the society, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, was returned to the Government of the Russian Federation. In 1997, by decision of the administration of the Palestinian Authority, His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II, during a visit to the Holy Land on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, was donated the Al-Atn site in Bethlehem as a gesture of goodwill. And a month later, in July 1997, news arrived that the Hebron site with the famous Mamvrian Oak, once acquired by Archimandrite Antonin and until recently under the jurisdiction of the Church Abroad, was returned to the Russian Orthodox Church. Finally, in January 2000, it was reported that another “Antoninsky” site in the already mentioned Jericho was transferred to the Moscow Patriarchate.

Palestinian society also experienced periods of decline and revival in the 20th century. Resumption of its work in the early 1950s. was associated with changes in the situation in the Middle East. Then a new charter of the society was adopted, and the publication of the “Palestine Collection”, one of the most authoritative orientalist publications, was restored.

At the turn of the 1980-1990s, when its current chairman O. G. Peresypkin and scientific secretary V. A. Savushkin came to the society, a comprehensive renewal of the country’s public life made it possible to achieve the restoration of the main directions of the statutory activities of the society. In January 1990, a large international scientific symposium “Russia and Palestine: cultural and religious ties and contacts in the past, present and future” was organized, in which scientists from Arab countries, Israel, England, the USA, Germany and Canada took part. In the fall of the same year, members of the society were able to make a pilgrimage trip to the Holy Land for the first time to participate in the “Jerusalem Forum: Representatives of Three Religions for Peace in the Middle East.”

On May 22, 1992, the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation adopted a resolution to restore the historical name of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society and recommended that the government take the necessary measures for the practical restoration and return of its property and rights to the IOPS. In accordance with the new charter adopted in 1992, which was as close as possible to the original one of 1882, the institution of honorary membership was restored in the IOPS. The Committee of Honorary Members is headed by His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II.

Over the past years, the society has been able to organize several dozen pilgrimage trips to the Holy Land, hold, together with the Department for External Church Relations, a number of scientific conferences, including those dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the death of Antonin Kapustin (1994), the 150th anniversary of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem ( 1997) - in Moscow, Balamand (Lebanon), Nazareth (Israel). The 100th anniversary edition of the “Orthodox Palestinian Collection” is being prepared for release. IOPS branches are actively working in St. Petersburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Yaroslavl, as well as in the CIS republics - in Odessa and Chisinau.

Some results

The main result of Russia's one and a half century work in the Holy Land is the creation and preservation of Russian Palestine. The scope of the article does not allow us to cover, at least in basic terms, the history of the temple-building activities of the RDM in the Holy Land.

But perhaps the most important thing, not taken into account by any numbers, is the spiritual contribution that is associated with tens of thousands of Russian Orthodox pilgrims going to the Holy Land. Their flow steadily increased throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. If under Archimandrite Porfiry, in the first years of the mission, there were three or four hundred Russians a year in Palestine, then in 1914, the last peaceful year before the First World War and the revolution, there were about 6 thousand of them in Jerusalem on Easter alone Human.

Historians to this day marvel at this experience of “dialogue of cultures” and “people’s diplomacy”, unprecedented in history in terms of mass and intensity. The envoys of the great Northern Empire, “Hadji-Moscow-Qods,” as they were called in the East, humbly learned to overcome ethnic, confessional and “autocephalous” exclusivity, cultivated in themselves, as Archimandrite Antonin liked to say, “tolerance, so necessary for those who decide to bring tribute and his grateful soul to the Holy Sepulcher, along with thousands of other aliens like him, often not similar to him in anything except one human image and a Christian name.”

Let us not forget that the heritage of Russian Palestine is a whole “library” of works and studies of a church-historical, biblical-philological, archaeological and Byzantological nature, carried out in different years by the heads and employees of the RDM, and scientists of the IOPS. It is enough to mention the multifaceted scientific heritage of Bishop Porfiry and the remarkable archaeological discoveries of Archimandrite Antonin.

We must also name here the historical and literary works associated with the publication of such outstanding series as “Palestinian Patericon” (issues 1–22; edited by Professor I.V. Pomyalovsky and Ac. V.V. Latyshev), “ Orthodox holidays in the Holy Land” by A. A. Dmitrievsky, as well as almost all ancient Russian “walkings” to the Holy Land, published in different years in “Orthodox Palestinian collections”.

It is difficult and responsible to try to formulate any “final” conclusions about the contemporary significance and prospects for the development of Russian Palestine on the threshold of the third millennium of Christianity. Let us note only two aspects.

Preservation and continuity of traditions and main directions of activity of the Russian Spiritual Mission and the Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society - despite the change of governments and regimes, under the Tsar, under Soviet power, under democratic Russia, on the one hand, and equally under the Turks, under the British, under the State Israel, on the other hand, involuntarily makes you wonder what the power of such succession is. It may seem strange to some, but the restoration of the Russian spiritual mission in the Holy Land as an institution of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1948, as well as its founding in 1847 by the sovereign will of Nicholas the First, was again a matter of State policy. In a broader context, part of the same State policy was the first visit of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy (Simansky) to the Holy Land in the victorious May 1945, and Moscow’s attempt at the Meeting of Heads and Representatives of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in July 1948, on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of Russian autocephaly, to reassemble the Orthodox East, “like a bird gathers its chicks under its wing.”

Does this mean a revival - in new historical conditions, in a new social reality - of the former “Constantinople-Jerusalem” vector of Russian spiritual geopolitics? Precisely spiritual - not “imperial”, and not imperialistic. In any case, even if the leaders of Soviet foreign policy were not aware of this, it was still about the presence in the “center of the world”, in Jerusalem, of the Russian Church, and through it Orthodox Russia (even if it does not remember, in the statistical majority of its sinful children that she is Orthodox).

In other words, the “Constantinople-Jerusalem” component of Russian foreign policy in both 1948 and 1998 is almost exclusively spiritual, idealistic, selfless, and sacrificial in nature. The Holy Land still invisibly but powerfully “orients” - and stabilizes - Russia’s position in the “mad world” of economic, political, nationalist interests, global restructuring and local wars.

The “canonical experiment” also found new facets. Russian Palestine, not of its own free will, found itself divided throughout almost the 20th century between the so-called White (foreign) and Red (Moscow) jurisdictions within the Russian Orthodox Church itself. We believe that “heavy steel, crushing glass, forges damask steel”, that historical trials will culminate at the turn of the new millennium with the reunification of the “white”, “red” and other islands of a united Russian Palestine.

______________
Notes

1. Life and walking of Danil, Abbot of the Russian Land. 1106–1108 Ed. M. A. Venevitinova//Orthodox Palestinian collection. -T. I. - Vol. 3. - Book. 3. - St. Petersburg, 1883; T. III. - Vol. 3. - Book. 9. - St. Petersburg, 1885. The newest edition with a parallel modern Russian translation and comments by G. M. Prokhorov: Library of literature of Ancient Rus'. -T. 4. - XII century. - St. Petersburg, “Science”, 1997. - pp. 26-117.
2. Kapterev N.F. The nature of Russia’s relations with the Orthodox East in the 16th and 17th centuries. - M., 1885. - 2nd ed. - M., 1914; Patriarch of Jerusalem Dosifei in his relations with the Russian government. - M., 1891; Relations between the Jerusalem patriarchs and the Russian government from the half of the 16th to the end of the 18th century. - St. Petersburg, 1895.
3. Ponomarev SI. Jerusalem and Palestine in Russian literature, science, painting and translations. Materials for bibliography. - St. Petersburg, 1877 (SORYAS, T. 17). - P. XVI.
4. Under the banner of Russia. Collection of archival documents. - M., 1992.
5. Kostomarov N.I. Russian history in the biographies of its main figures. - M„ 1992. - T. III. - Vol. 7. - P. 100.
6. Arsh G. L. Background of the Greek project//Century of Catherine I. Balkan Affairs. - M., 2000. - P. 211.
7. Grigorovich N. Chancellor Prince Alexander Andreevich Bezborodko in connection with the events of his time. - St. Petersburg, 1879. - T. I. - P. 385. Quoted. from: The Age of Catherine II. Balkan affairs. - P. 212.
8. Vinogradov V.N. The most famous personal letter in history // The Age of Catherine II. Balkan affairs. - pp. 213–214.
9. Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society. - T. 13. - St. Petersburg.. 1874. - P. 69. Compare: p. 132.
10. Bezobrazov P.V. On relations between Russia and Palestine in the 19th century. Historical sketch. 1. Emperor Alexander I and Patriarch Polycarp//Messages of the IOPS. - 1911. - T. XHP. - Vol. 1. - pp. 20–52.
11. Materials for the biography of Porfiry Uspensky. Ed. P. V. Bezobrazova. - T. 1. Official documents. - St. Petersburg, 1910. - P. 3.
12. This refers to the monastery of the Holy Life-Giving Cross near Jerusalem (now within the city), located on the place where, according to legend, the cypress tree from which the Calvary Cross of the Savior was made was cut down.
13. Muravyov A. N. Travel to Holy Places in 1830 - Part 1–2. - St. Petersburg, 1832; 2nd ed. - 1833; 3rd ed. - 1835; 4th ed. - 1840; 5th ed. - 1848. See also his: Letters from the East. - St. Petersburg, 1851. -S. 88–296.
14. Dmitrievsky A. A. Bishop Porfiry Uspensky as the initiator and organizer of the first Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem and his services for the benefit of Orthodoxy and in the study of the Christian East. - St. Petersburg, 1906; Materials for the biography of Bishop Porfiry Uspensky. - T. 1–2. - St. Petersburg, 1910.
15. Lisova N.N. Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem: history and spiritual heritage // Theological works - Collection. 35. To the 150th anniversary of the RDM in Jerusalem (1847-1997). - M., 1999. - P. 36–51.
16. In the letters of Archimandrite Porfiry Uspensky, the combination “Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem” is found already at the beginning of 1844 (Materials for the biography of Bishop Porfiry Uspensky. - T. 2. Correspondence. - St. Petersburg, 1910. - P. 129).
17. Materials for biography. - T. 1, - P. 18.
18. Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov). History of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem. - Serpukhov, 1997.
19. For a detailed critical analysis of the preparation and results of the first stage of the RDM’s activities, see: V. N. Khitrovo, Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem (vol. 2 of this edition).
20. Khitrovo V.N. Orthodoxy in the Holy Land//PPS. - T. I. - Issue. 1. - St. Petersburg, 1881. - P. 55.
21. 1857–1861. Correspondence of Emperor Alexander II with Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich. Diary of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich. - M., 1994. - P. 97, etc.
22. Priest Theodore Titov. His Eminence Kirill Naumov, Bishop of Melitopol, former rector of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem. Essay on the history of relations between Russia and the Orthodox East. - Kyiv, 1902.
23. Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin). Old Jerusalem and its surroundings. From the notes of a monk-pilgrim. - M., 1873. For other works, see: Priest Anatoly Prosvirnin. Works of Archimandrite Leonid Kavelin. (Bibliography) // Theological works - Sat. 9. - M., 1972.
24. A modern researcher rightly notes: “the conductors of Orthodox politics in the east were pilgrims, mostly “gray men and women,” very few publicists and ideologists (they can be counted on one hand), members of the royal family and... in general, Russian diplomacy . As K. N. Leontiev wrote, “our diplomacy was much more restrained and cautious in this matter, which is why it was more Orthodox than our journalism. Some of our diplomats, with a foreign surname and even of Protestant confession...were, rightly, much more Orthodox than they (Russian publicists) in reality” (Lurie St. Ideology and Geopolitical Action.
Vector of Russian cultural expansion: Balkans-Constantinople-Palestine-Ethiopia/Scientific almanac “Civilizations and Cultures”. -Vol. 3. Russia and the East: geopolitics and civilizational relations. - M., 1996. - P. 170). The author quotes K. N. Leontiev’s article “My Historical Fatalism” (from “Notes of a Hermit”): Leontiev K. N. East, Russia and the Slavs. - M., 1996. - P. 448.
25. Dmitrievsky A. A. Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society (1882-1907). - St. Petersburg, 1907. - pp. 15–16.
26. Dmitrievsky A. A. Essay on the activities of Archimandrite Leonid Kavelin, the third head of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem. See vol. 2 present. ed.
27. Dmitrievsky A. A. Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society (1882-1907). - St. Petersburg, 1907. - P. 18.
28. Ibid. - P. 19.
29. Ibid. - pp. 19–20. Wed: Dmitrievsky A. A. In memory of B. P. Mansurov//Messages of the IOPS. - 1910. - T. XXI. - Vol. 3. - pp. 448–450.
30. Archimandrite Cyprian (Kern). Father Antonin Kapustin, archimandrite and head of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem. - Belgrade, 1934. Reprint edition: M, 1997.
31. Dmitrievsky A. A. Head of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, Archimandrite Antonin (Kapustin) as a figure for the benefit of Orthodoxy in the East, and in particular in Palestine. - IOPS messages. - 1904. -T. XV - Issue. 2. - P. 106.
32. Ponomarev S. D. In memory of the father of Archimandrite Antonin. 1. Chronological list of his works and translations. 2. Articles about him // Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. - 1894. - T. III. - pp. 636–652.
33. Dmitrievsky A. A. Russian Gornenskaya women’s community in the “city of Judah” near Jerusalem // IOPS. - 1916. - T. XXVII. - Vol. 1. - pp. 3–33. See also a very small but capacious, well-written and beautifully published book: Hegumen Seraphim (Melkonyan). Gornensky Convent in the Holy Land. - Ed. RDM in Jerusalem. - 1997.
34. Archimandrite Mark (Golovkov). Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem//Theological works. - Sat. 35. - M, 1999. - P. 32.
35. Lisova N. N. Cit. op. P. 46.
36. Back in 1876, his book “A Week in Palestine” was published, dedicated to his impressions of his first trip to the Holy Land. (Second edition: St. Petersburg, 1879; 3rd, posthumous - St. Petersburg, 1912). It was followed by: “Palestine and Sinai. Part 1." (St. Petersburg, 1876), “Orthodoxy in the Holy Land,” which made up the 1st issue of the 1st volume of the “Orthodox Palestine Collection” (St. Petersburg, 1881), which he founded, “Excavations at the Russian site in Jerusalem” (St. Petersburg, 1884 ), “The scientific significance of excavations at the Russian site” (St. Petersburg.. 1885). The experiments in popular science presentation, intended for the widest, most unprepared reader, were also successful. We mean a very small, pocket-sized, but capacious, informative book “To the Life-Giving Holy Sepulcher. The Story of an Old Pilgrim" (St. Petersburg, 1884; in 1895 the 7th edition of this book was published), as well as several issues (or "readings") in the popular science series "Russian Pilgrims of the Holy Land" published by the IOPS (Reading 39 and 40. Jerusalem and its environs. - St. Petersburg, 1896, 1897; Reading 41. Bethlehem, Hebron. - 1898; Reading 42. Jordan - 1900. Reading 44. Laurels of Savva, Feodosia.
37. Ryazhsky P.I. Issues related to the restoration of the activities of the Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society in the Holy Land after the end of the war with Turkey. (Petrograd, 1915. Stamped: Confidential).
38. Anniversary celebrations of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society in Peterhof and St. Petersburg//Messages of the IOPS. - 1907. - T. XVIII. - Vol. 3–4. - pp. 398–399, 432–433.
39. General meeting of the IOPS April 8, 1901 // Communications of the IOPS. -1901. - T. XII. - Vol. 1. - P. 11.
40. Ibid. - P. 12.
41. Ibid. - P. 13.
42. Hopwood D. Russian educational activities in Palestine before 1914 // Orthodox Palestinian collection. - M., 1992. - Issue. 31 (94). - pp. 11–17.
43. Mahamed Omar. Literary and Cultural Relations between Palestine and Russia.- St. Petersburg, 1997.-P.34-69.

Lisova N.N., Candidate of Philosophy, senior researcher at the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

"Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society: XIX – XX – XXI centuries."

National history. 2007 No. 1. P. 3-22.

The Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society (IPOS) is the oldest scientific and humanitarian non-governmental organization in Russia. His activities and legacy in the history of Russian national culture are unique in their significance. The statutory objectives of the Society - promoting pilgrimage to the Holy Land, scientific Palestinian studies and humanitarian cooperation with the countries of the biblical region - are closely related to the traditional spiritual values ​​of our people and the priorities of Russian foreign policy in the East. Likewise, a huge layer of world history and culture cannot be correctly understood without connection with Palestine, its biblical and Christian heritage.

Conceived by the founders of the Russian cause in the East, Bishop Porfiry (Uspensky) and Archimandrite Antonin (Kapustin) and created in 1882 by the sovereign will of Alexander III, the IOPS enjoyed state attention and support in the pre-revolutionary period. At its head were the leaders. book Sergei Alexandrovich (from the founding of the Society until the day of his death on February 4, 1905), and then, until 1917, leader. book Elizaveta Fedorovna. State and property interests associated with the legacy of the IOPS in the Middle East have allowed it to withstand revolutionary cataclysm, survive the Soviet period and intensify its work today.

The activities of the IOPS have not been the subject of comprehensive research by historians for a long time. Until 1917, the only work on this topic was the unfinished monograph by A. A. Dmitrievsky “The Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society and its activities over the past quarter of a century” (the author brought the presentation only up to 1889 - the time of its merger with the Palestine Commission) 1. In the post-October period, only short anniversary notes were dedicated to the Orthodox Palestine Society, the Russian Spiritual Mission (RDM) in Jerusalem and other similar institutions in the corresponding issues of the “Palestine Collection” 2. The situation has changed only in recent years. Several articles related to this topic have appeared in historical and archival Byzantine publications and in periodicals. A monograph by the Israeli Arab historian O. Mahamid was published in St. Petersburg, dedicated to the history of the schools of the Palestinian Society, their significance for the formation of several generations of the Arab national intelligentsia 4 .

The author of this article prepared and published 2 volumes of documents, research and materials “Russia in the Holy Land” 5 and the monograph “Russian spiritual and political presence in the Holy Land and the Middle East in the 19th - early 20th centuries.” (M., 2006). At the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the history of Russian-Palestinian relations became the topic of the candidate's dissertation of I. A. Vorobyova 6 and the book of B. F. Yamilinets 7 .

In foreign historiography, the history of the IOPS is devoted to 2 generalizing works - “Russian interests in Palestine” by F. J. Stavrou 8 and “Russian presence in Syria and Pa-

lestine. Church and Politics in the Middle East" by D. Hopwood 9. The strength of the first monograph is the use of Greek sources, while the center of gravity of the study shifts to the area of ​​Russian-Greek church-political contradictions. Hopwood is a major Arabist, an expert in the political struggle of Russian and British diplomacy in The Middle East. A natural drawback of both works is ignorance of Russian archival material, which, regardless of the desire or position of the authors, impoverishes and often distorts the overall picture.

This article not only provides a general overview of the history of the IOPS, which this year celebrates 125 years of its service to Russia, national science and culture, but also reveals some previously unknown pages of its activities.

“Asymmetrical response”: Paris Peace and Russian Jerusalem

Russia's relations with the Christian East (Byzantine and post-Byzantine world), dating back to the era of the Baptism of Rus', were not interrupted either during the era of the Mongol yoke or after the capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders (1204) and the Turks (1453). During the imperial period (XVIII-XIX centuries), when in international treatises and conventions the topic of holy places acquired an international legal character, and church-diplomatic issues became an integral part of foreign policy discourse, Russia only continued the centuries-old traditions of its ties with the Orthodox peoples of the Ottoman Empire - and its historical responsibility for them.

Not always clearly formulated, this theme of responsibility invariably acted as one of the factors in the political and military-political activities of Imperial Russia. A true watershed in this regard was the era of the Crimean War, the very emergence of which was associated, as is known, with Russia’s traditional attempt to protect the rights of the Orthodox population of the Turkish Empire. After the end of the war, despite its difficult results for Russia, Russian diplomacy managed to make a breakthrough precisely in the Jerusalem direction, using the ancient, long-forgotten, but easily activated element of Russian Orthodox pilgrimage. If on his first visit to Palestine (1830) A. N. Muravyov met in Jerusalem only about two dozen Russian pilgrims stuck there in connection with the war, and by the middle of the 19th century there were from 200 to 400 of them in the Holy Land per year. year 10, then by the beginning of the First World War, up to 10 thousand people passed through the institutions of the IOPS annually 11. From an instinctive, uncontrollable popular movement, pilgrimage became an instrument of skillful - and not only church - politics. The peace treaty of 1856 had not yet been signed in Paris, but they were already talking about Russian penetration into the East... in Jerusalem. A new foreign policy approach was found, designed to compensate for losses and concessions, and it consisted, in the spirit of the times, in the formation of a sphere of their own interests in the Holy Land, and, therefore, their own springboard for penetration 12.

The first step was the creation in 1856 of the Russian Society of Shipping and Trade with its leadership in St. Petersburg and the main port base in Odessa. The founders of the Society were the aide-de-camp, captain 1st rank N.A. Arkas and the owner of steamships on the Volga N.A. Novoselsky. To encourage and support the Society, the government pledged to pay it per mile for 20 years (about 1.5 million rubles per year), to issue 64 thousand rubles. per year for ship repairs and purchase 6,670 shares of the company in the amount of 2 million rubles. (half of the amount was deposited immediately) 13. The speed of establishment of the Society, the attention paid to it by the highest echelons of power, the generous funding provided by the treasury - all testified to the importance that the government attached to it. By the end of 1857, the Company had 17 steamships at its disposal and 10 in shipyards. (For comparison: on the eve of the Crimean War, the entire steam flotilla of the Odessa port consisted of 12 ships). The first ship captains, officers and supercargo ROPIT were all from the Russian navy.

In order to centralize the management of the construction and operation of pilgrimage farmsteads in Palestine, on March 23, 1859, the Palestine Committee was created in St. Petersburg, headed by the king’s brother, Vel. book Konstantin Nikolaevich 14. Alexander II ordered the release of 500 thousand rubles from the State Treasury for his purposes. An annual church collection (the so-called “Palm” or “Palestine”) was also opened. Over the 5 years of the Palestinian Committee’s existence, its treasury received 295,550 rubles. 69 kopecks mug fee, on average - 59 thousand rubles. per year, which, according to the fair remark of A. A. Dmitrievsky, “one cannot but recognize a very favorable result for the era of the liberation of peasants from serfdom.” Other types of voluntary donations were also used. Thus, 75 thousand rubles were received from tax farmers of different provinces, and 30 thousand rubles from Chamberlain Yakovlev. According to the Committee's reports, by the end of 1864 its capital amounted to 1,003,259 rubles. 34 kopecks 15.

Without dwelling on the details of the acquisition of land and the construction of Russian buildings, I will only note that the launched flywheel of the pilgrimage movement required a further expansion of the material base in Palestine. Russian buildings received the first pilgrims in 1864. The main goal pursued in St. Petersburg by creating the Palestine Committee was achieved: “Russian Palestine” became a real spiritual and political factor in the life of the Christian East 16. True, her financial support was by no means brilliant. Over the years, the Palestinian farmsteads fell into disrepair and became crowded for the growing flow of pilgrims; the public sounded the alarm, and the bureaucratic reports of the Palestine Commission, which replaced the committee of the same name, remained government-friendly: they counted on the unpretentiousness and resignation of the common pilgrim mass 17 . A new reorganization of Russian affairs in the East was brewing with the foreground (with the still decisive role of state structures and the church “circle”) of a freer and more democratic social initiative, the embodiment of which was the Orthodox Palestinian Society.

Creation of the Palestine Society

For the convenience of analyzing the activities of the IOPS, it is necessary to outline some periodization. The history of the Society knows 3 large periods: pre-revolutionary (1882 - 1917), Soviet (1917 - 1991) and post-Soviet (from 1992 to the present). Upon closer examination, the activities of the IOPS of pre-revolutionary times clearly fall into 3 stages. The first opens with the creation of the Society on May 8, 1882 and ends with its transformation and merger with the Palestine Commission on March 24, 1889. The second covers the period of time from 1889 to the first Russian revolution of 1905 - 1907. and ends for the Society with a number of tragic losses: in 1903 its founder and main ideologist V.N. Khitrovo died, in February 1905 the first chairman of the leader was killed by a terrorist bomb. book Sergius Alexandrovich, and in August 1906, secretary A.P. Belyaev died. With the departure of the “founding fathers,” the “ascending” heroic stage in the life of Palestinian society ended. The last, third period, located “between two revolutions,” is associated with the coming to leadership of the leader. book Elizaveta Fedorovna as chairman and Professor A. A. Dmitrievsky as secretary 18. It ends with the outbreak of the First World War, when the work of Russian institutions in the Middle East actually ceased and communications with them were severed, or, formally, with the February Revolution and the resignation of the leader. book Elizaveta Fedorovna.

Within the “Soviet” period one can also notice certain chronological gradations. I would define the first 8 years (1917 - 1925) as a period of “struggle for survival.” Having lost the old regime titles in the revolutionary upheaval and devastation, the Russian Palestine Society under the USSR Academy of Sciences (as it began to be called) was officially registered by the NKVD only in October 1925. After several “quiet” (i.e., not marked by any activity) years, during which they left

life and science, most of the pre-revolutionary figures of the Society, including academicians F.I. Uspensky (chairman of the RPO in 1921 - 1928) and N. Ya. Marr (chairman in 1929 - 1934), the RPO smoothly transitions into a completely virtual mode of existence: not formally closed by anyone, it peacefully ceases functioning. This “dormant” existence continued until 1950, when, by “highest” order, the Society was revived due to the change in the situation in the Middle East - the emergence of the State of Israel. The next decades are difficult, but we have to call them a “rebirth period.” The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the widespread political and economic crisis that followed seemed to once again call into question the very existence of the Society. Deprived of material and other support, it was forced to look for a new status and new, independent sources of financing. Taking advantage of the situation, the Society was able to restore its historical name: the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society (resolution of the Supreme Council of May 25, 1992). The named date opens the newest period in the history of the IOPS.

Let's take a closer look at each of the periods. The initiator of the creation of the IOPS was the famous Russian Palestine scholar, a prominent official of the Ministry of Finance V. N. Khitrovo (1834 - 1903) 19 . His interest in the East arose long before the founding of the Society. In the summer of 1871, his first trip to Palestine took place. The difficult, helpless situation of the Russian pilgrims and the desolate state of the Jerusalem Orthodox Church made a strong impression on the quite prosperous St. Petersburg official. Khitrovo was especially influenced by his acquaintance with ordinary pilgrims - commoners, as they were called then: “They attacked our fans a lot in holy places, and yet it was only thanks to these hundreds and thousands of gray peasants and simple women, moving from Jaffa to Jerusalem from year to year and back, just like in the Russian province, we owe to the influence that the name of the Russian has in Palestine; the influence is so strong that you will walk along this road with the Russian language and only some Bedouin who comes from far away will not understand you. Take that away. peasant - and “Moskov”, the only one still supporting Russian influence in Palestine, will disappear. Take him away, and Orthodoxy will die out amid systematic Catholic and even more powerful Protestant propaganda in recent times" 20.

It remained to answer a question that was incomprehensible to many in Russia at the time: why do we need Palestine? For Khitrovo, the situation was extremely clear: he considered the issue of presence in the Middle East to be key for the entire Russian foreign policy. He wrote: “Regarding political interests, I will only point out that we are the natural heirs of the Greeks wherever Orthodoxy exists, that the Turks can be beaten not on the Danube alone, not with the support of the Orthodox Slavs alone, but also on the Euphrates and the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea, relying on the Orthodox Arabic population. Through Georgia and Armenia we are almost in contact with Palestine and embrace Asia Minor. The struggle for dominance in Asia will not take place in the Hindu Kush or the Himalayas, but in the valleys of the Euphrates and in the gorges of the Lebanese Mountains, where the world struggle over the fate of Asia has always ended."21

It was not so easy to awaken religious and, especially, political interest in Jerusalem in the Russian public consciousness in those “positivist” years. The success of Khitrovo’s efforts at the turn of the 1870s - 1880s. contributed to a number of circumstances, both objective and subjective. A serious influence was exerted by the rise in society of Orthodox patriotic consciousness associated with the Russian-Turkish war of 1877 - 1878, when Russian troops almost captured Constantinople. The Eastern question and the Russian cause in the East acquired a completely new, victorious and offensive perspective. And although the wave of enthusiasm was soon replaced by disappointment that came after the Berlin Treaty, the very defeat of Gorchakov’s diplomacy in Berlin required revenge.

The note from Khitrovo, presented by the leader, is dated March 1880. book Konstantin Nikolaevich, who once headed the Palestine Committee. Khitrovo pointed to the alarming growth of the Catholic presence in Jerusalem. The prospect of a mass defection into the union of Orthodox Arabs (who were Russia's main ally in Palestine and Syria) was obvious 22 . After reading the note, he led. book On March 11, 1880, Konstantin Nikolaevich invited its author to his Marble Palace, and 2 weeks later, in the hall of the Imperial Geographical Society, a “reading” (something between a report and a public lecture) of Khitrovo “Orthodoxy in the Holy Land” took place. The published text of the report constituted the first issue of a new publication in Russian scientific literature - the "Orthodox Palestine Collection", published by the author at his own expense. The title page read: “Published by V. N. Khitrovo” 23 .

Public readings at Khitrovo and the book “Orthodoxy in the Holy Land” (1881) caused a great public outcry. But the pilgrimage to the Holy Land on May 21 - 31, 1881 was of decisive importance in the history of the founding of the IOPS. book Sergius and Pavel Alexandrovich and led. book Konstantin Konstantinovich (their cousin, later the famous poet K.R., president of the Academy of Sciences). The immediate reason for the trip was the tragic losses in the royal family: the death of Empress Maria Alexandrovna (May 22, 1880) and the assassination of Alexander II (March 1, 1881). It is unknown who suggested the idea of ​​a funeral pilgrimage to the great princes. Apparently, the idea arose spontaneously: although Empress Maria Alexandrovna was unable to fulfill her dream of a pilgrimage to Jerusalem due to health reasons, she always remained the patroness and benefactor of Russian institutions in Palestine.

Close contact with the head of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, Archimandrite Antonin, contributed to Sergius Alexandrovich's personal interest in the problems of Russian Palestine 24. Soon after the return of the Grand Dukes to St. Petersburg, Khitrovo, with the help of their educator Admiral D.S. Arsenyev and Admiral E.V. Putyatin, achieved an audience with the Grand Duke. book Sergius Alexandrovich and convinced him to become the head of the projected Orthodox Palestinian Society. On May 8, 1882, the Society’s charter was approved by the highest order, and on May 21, in the palace, it was conducted. book Nikolai Nikolaevich the Elder (who also made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 1872) in the presence of members of the imperial family, Russian and Greek clergy, scientists and diplomats, after a prayer service in the house church, its grand opening took place.

Composition, sources of financing, management structure of the IOPS

It is interesting to trace the social composition of the society being created. Among the 43 founding members, who made up, in F. Stavrou’s figurative expression, the “picturesque group,” there were people of different interests and occupations who, as a rule, visited holy places or studied the history of the East and had a certain idea about the subject of their future activity. “The project required dynamism,” writes the historian, “and the founding members were determined to fulfill the assigned tasks” 25.

The success of the IOPS depended on the ability of its leaders to avoid the mistakes of their predecessors - the RDM and the Palestinian Commission. It is indicative that neither he led. book Konstantin Nikolaevich, nor Count N.P. Ignatiev were not included in the list of founders. There was neither Porfiry, nor Leonid Kavelin, nor Antonin, nor K.P. Pobedonostsev in it, despite his close relationship with Sergius Alexandrovich. The only veteran of the Palestinian Committee and the Palestinian Commission admitted to the founding members of the PPO was B.P. Mansurov. Most of the named persons became honorary members of the IOPS from the day of its opening, but their absence among the founders was a kind of litmus test, signaling that the new Society intended to plan and build its work with minimal regard to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Synod.

The main composition of the founding members can be divided into 3 groups: the aristocracy, the military and civilian high bureaucracy and scientists. There were 10 people belonging to the aristocracy: princes, counts, countesses. Of the great princes, besides Sergius Alexandrovich, only his cousin, Vladimir, was there. book Mikhail Mikhailovich. His appearance on the list of founders is difficult to explain; he did not participate in any way in the further activities of the Society and, due to a morganatic marriage, was even forced to spend the rest of his days outside of Russia. Much more serious participants were the famous poet and playwright, Prince. A. A. Golenishchev-Kutuzov (1848 - 1913) and Count S. D. Sheremetev (1844 - 1918), member of the State Council and honorary member of the Academy of Sciences, who wrote and published a lot on Russian history and the history of holy places. Admiral Count E.V. Putyatin and his daughter Countess O.E. Putyatin were known for their charitable activities in favor of the Church and Orthodoxy abroad. Previously, Putyatin made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and tried to financially help the RDM. Now the Putyatin family became the largest benefactor in favor of the Palestine Society. The same group included colonel, later general, M.P. Stepanov, who accompanied Sergius Alexandrovich on his pilgrimage to the Holy Land in May 1881 and was soon elected first secretary of the IOPS.

The second group included, among others: a comrade of the state controller (later the state controller), a Slavophile writer, a historian of Russian-Greek church relations, and the author of the book “Modern Church Issues” (St. Petersburg, 1882). T. I. Filippov, who became the first vice-chairman of the IOPS, director of the office of the Ministry of Finance, future director of the Public Library D. F. Kobeko 26 and Minister of State Property M. N. Ostrovsky.

The third group consisted of: the great Russian Byzantinist V. G. Vasilyevsky, M. A. Venevitinov, known for his research and the best edition of “The Walking of Abbot Daniel”, church historian and archaeologist, professor of the Kiev Theological Academy A. A. Olesnitsky, author of the only literature, the archaeological monograph “The Holy Land”, etc. The same group should include the literary critic and bibliographer S.I. Ponomarev, the creator of the first bibliographic index “Palestine and Jerusalem in Russian Literature” (St. Petersburg, 1876).

Membership in the Society was open to all who sympathized with its tasks and goals and were interested in the Holy Land. There were 3 categories of members: honorary, full and associate members. The number of honorary members was initially limited to 50. They could be people known for their merits or scientific works about the Holy Land, or those who made a donation of at least 5 thousand rubles to the IOPS account. This made honorary membership available only to major scientists, secular and ecclesiastical, as well as to wealthy people. The latter group included members of the imperial family, the highest nobility and the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church. They constituted the main source of financing for various projects.

The number of active members was limited to 2 thousand. This group formed the backbone of the society. Who was one of them? Let us consider, for example, the composition of the Chisinau department, which is quite typical for most regional departments. According to the list as of March 1, 1901, it consisted of: 2 honorary members, 3 full members, 26 employee members (of which 5 were life members). In total, there were 31 people in the department. In terms of social composition, 22 members belonged to the clergy, including: 1 archbishop, 2 bishops, 2 archimandrites, 3 abbots, 1 hieromonk, 3 archpriests, 10 priests. In other words, 2/3 of the department consisted of persons of clergy rank. The secular part of the department included 9 people. Among them were 2 directors of gymnasiums, a director of a real school, 2 teachers of a theological seminary, 1 merchant of the 1st guild, 1 local employee, 1 actual state councilor and a Chisinau craft head 27. Two years later, the department already consisted of 42 people. Replenishment was mainly provided by the same clergy. Exactly half of the department was now occupied by priests (21, of which 12 were rural). As a result, there were 33 spiritual people in the department, i.e. more than 75% 28 .

On January 20, 1902, a department of the IOPS was opened in Tambov. The list of active members of the department allows us to get an idea of ​​its social composition. Among the active members were the ruling bishop, the governor, the provincial leader of the nobility, 1 lieutenant general and 1 hereditary honorary citizen. The collaborating members included the chairman of the Tambov Treasury Chamber, the rector of the Theological Seminary, 2 archpriests, a member of the Tambov consistory, the abbess of the Ascension Convent, the mayor, the district military commander, the director of the Tambov Catherine Teachers' Institute, the director of a real school, the provincial treasurer, and the caretaker of the Second Theological School. As we see, in Tambov the clergy did not make up the majority, and in general the social status of the members of the department was higher than in Chisinau.

Palm tax remained one of the main sources of funding for the Palestine Society. According to the calculations of the always careful and accurate V.N. Khitrovo, the Society’s income had the following structure: “In each ruble of the parish: membership fees - 13 kopecks, donations (including Palm tax) - 70 kopecks, interest on securities - 4 kopecks, from sales of publications - 1 kopecks, from pilgrims - 12 kopecks." 29. Obviously, the Russian cause in Palestine continued to be carried out primarily by the selfless help of ordinary believers. Accordingly, the structure of IOPS expenses (in percentage, or, as Khitrovo liked to say, “in every ruble of expenditure”) looked like this: “for the maintenance of Orthodoxy (i.e. for the maintenance of Russian schools in Syria and Palestine. - N.L.) - 32 kopecks, for benefits to pilgrims (for the maintenance of Russian farmsteads in Jerusalem, Jericho, etc. - N.L.) - 35 kopecks, for scientific publications and research - 8 kopecks, for collecting donations - 9 kopecks, for total expenses - 16 kopecks." thirty . Or, in round figures, the main expenses of the Society were reduced to “1 pilgrim and 1 student: each pilgrim cost 16 rubles 18 kopecks in 1899/1900, with the exception of 3 rubles 80 kopecks received from each - 12 rubles 38 kopecks.” Each student of Russian Arab schools costs 23 rubles and 21 kopecks." 31. The IOPS estimate for 1901/1902 was approved at 400 thousand rubles. (not counting one-time construction costs) 32.

The diocesan departments of the Palestine Society, which began to emerge in 1893, were primarily called upon to intensify the collection of donations in favor of Russian Palestine. Oddly enough, the first of them was the most remote Yakut department, created on March 21, 1893. It included 18 person, the department had 3084 rubles at the cash desk. (of which 1,800 rubles are one-time contributions, 375 rubles are annual membership fees and 904 rubles are donations). At the end of the same year, on December 19, the Odessa department of the IOPS was opened, and from January 1894 to April 1895, 16 more departments were opened. The purpose of their creation was twofold - to find new means of financing the activities of the IOPS in the Holy Land and to develop popular science and propaganda work among the general population to familiarize people with the history of the Holy Land and the significance of the Russian presence in the East.

Unlike the Chisinau and Tambov departments, others were numerous. Thus, there were about 200 members in the Yekaterinburg department. In Donskoy, in one year after its opening, 334 people were accepted into the Society; by 1903, the number of members had increased to 562 33 . The amount of funds collected grew proportionally. For 1895 - 1900 The Don Department of the IOPS contributed almost 40 thousand rubles to the Society's cash desk, not counting the Palm Collection, of which 14,333 rubles were collected over the same years 34 . In total, from the opening of the Department to January 1, 1904, they sent 58,219 rubles to the Council of the IOPS as membership fees and one-time donations (not counting Verbny). The number of pilgrims from the Don region has also increased significantly. During the indicated 5 years, 922 pilgrims were noted, while in the previous 7 years, before the opening of the Department, only 140 35 of them went to Palestine.

With Russia it helped to support what was created in 1882. ImperialOrthodoxPalestiniansociety. It set the task of creating a network... recognized this innovation and formed its own “ SocietyOrthodox". In 1926 it was renamed "...

Introduction to the concept of the subject “history of local Orthodox churches”

Training course

Maintain what was created in 1882 ImperialOrthodoxPalestiniansociety. It set the task of creating... Z. D. Abkhazian (West Georgian) Catholicosate of Georgian Orthodox Churches // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2000. T. 1. P. 67 ...

Collection of plans and minutes of meetings of the public Advisory Council “Education as a mechanism for the formation of the spiritual and moral culture of society” under the Moscow Department of Education (Moscow Committee of Education)

Document

Academy of Slavic Culture, full member ImperialOrthodoxPalestiniansociety. General discussion. 2. Message from the working group...

Orthodox monasticism of Podolia IV – first third of the twentieth century (historical essays)

Document

...), instead of a free existence, a soulless Imperial Kazenshchina. The era of the emergence of absolutism in Russia... published in all its integrity in the publication OrthodoxPalestiniansociety, edited by N.P. Barsukova (St. Petersburg, 1885 ...

Date of creation: May 21, 1882 Description:

The Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society is the oldest scientific and humanitarian organization in Russia, whose statutory objectives are to promote Orthodox pilgrimage to the Holy Land, scientific Palestinian studies and humanitarian cooperation with the peoples of the Middle East.

Founded on May 21, 1882, on the day of remembrance of Saints Constantine and Helen, Equal-to-the-Apostles, as the Orthodox Palestinian Society. In 1889 it received the honorary name Imperial.

From 1882 to 1905, the chairman of the Society was Grand Duke Sergius Alexandrovich.

After the October Revolution, society was forced to divide into two independent organizations - Russian and foreign. In 1918, the remaining part of the society in Russia was renamed the Russian Palestine Society under the Academy of Sciences. On May 22, 1992, the historical name was restored - the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society.

Company structure

• Chairman. At the General Meeting of the IOPS on June 14, 2007, the chairman of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation was elected chairman of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society;
• Committee of Honorary Members. Heads the committee His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill;
• Advice;
• Editorial Council;
• Membership. As of July 7, 2009, the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society has 619 members;
• Branches. Currently, the Society has 15 branches both in Russia and abroad. In Russia, branches have been opened in cities such as Belgorod, Vladimir, Nizhny Novgorod, Orel, Perm, Rostov-on-Don, St. Petersburg, Tver. In the Holy Land, branches operate in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Acre. In addition, branches have been established in Cyprus, Bulgaria and Uzbekistan.

Charter of the Society

The charter of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society was approved by decree of Emperor Alexander III on May 8, 1882 and by an act of public recognition by the meeting of founding members held on May 21, 1882 in St. Petersburg.

The Orthodox Palestine Society was created in 1882. A few years later, another designation appeared in the title: Imperial, and since 1918 it began to be called the Russian Palestine. In 1992, the historical name was restored and it is again listed as the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society. The names of a society and their changes, in a certain sense, reflect its inherent features and are associated with turning points in its history.

The Palestinian Society was conceived as an institution designed to fulfill three main tasks: to serve Russian pilgrims in Palestine, to strengthen Orthodoxy among local residents and to carry out the scientific study of the country, its antiquities and shrines. The Palestinian society played a huge role in the development of domestic oriental studies. In his publications - the “Orthodox Palestine Collection”, partly in the “Messages” and “Reports” - important works devoted to the history and culture of the peoples of the Middle East, a number of literary monuments belonging to Russian culture, were published. Already when they appeared, these publications gained international fame and recognition. Members of the Palestine Society and its active figures were prominent scientists: it is enough to name the names of academicians N. P. Kondakov, N. Ya. Marr, B. A. Turaev, P. K. Kokovtsov, I. Yu. Krachkovsky.

In the difficult post-revolutionary years, society was able to withstand the onslaught of the new era and made its own contribution to the development of domestic science. Until the end of the 20s. it lived an intense scientific life. But in the 30-40s. its activities died out, although it did not formally cease to exist.

A new rise emerged in the early 50s. Scientific studies resumed, not only in Leningrad, as before, but also in Moscow. Subsequently, branches of the society appeared in Gorky, Yerevan, and Tbilisi.

Today the Society lives a full-blooded scientific life. It brings together scientists studying the history and culture of Palestine and the peoples of the Middle East. The content of the “Palestinian Collection” adequately reflects the topics that the members of the society are engaged in.

Palestinian society multiplies and develops the humanistic traditions of domestic science, strives to comprehensively illuminate the past of the Middle East region, its culture, languages, and beliefs. Interest in the Christian East, as well as in the problems of the Middle East, is traditional.

Palestine is a geographical territory stretching along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, with a long and very complex history. Human society has appeared here since time immemorial. Already in the 10th–8th millennia BC, agricultural and pastoral tribes were attested in Palestine. In the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC, the great powers of antiquity - Egypt and Hatti - sought to conquer Palestine. In the 1st millennium BC, the Assyrians and Babylonians made campaigns in Palestine, and even the earliest written sources speak of the grave consequences of endless wars. At the end of the 6th century. BC the Persians took over the country.

The intensive social development of local and alien tribes (who spoke various Semitic languages ​​and dialects) stimulated the emergence of small city-states. At the turn of the 2nd–1st millennia BC, an ancient Jewish state was formed in Palestine, destroyed in 586 BC. But even after its death, for several centuries, Jewish society on its territory functioned as a separate ethno-confessional unit.

In the 1st century BC Palestine acquired the status of a Roman province with the corresponding administration, in this capacity it later became part of the Byzantine Empire. Palestine was one of the first countries to be affected by the Arab conquest: the Arabs captured Jerusalem in 638.

In the 11th century In Western Europe, a broad military-colonization movement with a strong religious overtones began, which resulted in the Crusades. Having declared their goal to be the liberation of the Holy Sepulcher from the hands of infidels, the crusaders, after many bloody battles, conquered a number of countries in the Middle East, including Palestine. However, already in 1187, the Egyptian Sultan Salah ad-Din took possession of Palestine, and subsequent attempts to assert their dominance over the country ended in complete failure for the crusaders.

Subsequently, the Ottoman Turks rushed to Palestine, and from the 16th century. The country became part of the Ottoman Empire for a long time.

At the time when the Palestinian society began to be created, Palestine had a mixed population. Here the interests of not only religions, taken as a whole, collided, but also their individual movements - both in Christianity and in Islam. The Orthodox, Catholic, Armenian Churches were represented by separate patriarchates. Protestant, Syro-Jacobite, Coptic, Ethiopian - bishoprics. For centuries, the Catholic Church persistently spread Catholicism among the local population of the Middle East, resulting in a number of communities that entered into a union with the papacy. They recognized the supremacy of the pope and the basic tenets of the Catholic religion, but retained their own rituals, including worship in their own language (1). In the 19th century Protestants carried out equally intensive propaganda. The positions of the Orthodox (in this case, Greek-Orthodox) Church were more tolerant.

Politics was closely intertwined with religion, an important object of which was holy places, that is, a number of Christian shrines in Jerusalem and surrounding cities and villages, places and buildings associated, according to the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition, with the life of Jesus Christ. There was a fierce struggle over the rights to protect holy places, as well as the rights to protect Christians of various denominations living within the Ottoman Empire (2). In the last century, French diplomacy proceeded from the fact that France allegedly protected the holy places in Jerusalem and Bithynia for nine centuries. This privilege was disputed by the Greeks and Armenians, and by the beginning of the 19th century. It was they who turned out to be the owners of the most important shrines. But France did not want to put up with losses and in 1851, for example, through the mouth of its ambassador in Turkey, she demanded that Catholics be provided with: in Jerusalem - tombs and domes in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre; on Calvary - possession of the tombs of the crusader kings and joint possession of the Calvary altar; possession of the Church of Gethsemane and the tomb of the Blessed Virgin; ownership of the upper Bethlehem Church and adjacent gardens and cemeteries. Having recognized the justice of the French demands, the Sultan nevertheless, due to Russian protests and trying to ensure the completeness of his own control, maintained the existing state of affairs.

France exercised its political presence in the Ottoman Empire not only through claims to holy places, but also through rights to patronage Catholics. In 1535, having concluded the appropriate agreements (capitulations), Turkey, among other points, recognized the rights of France to protect French subjects within the Ottoman Empire. Soon, through a series of legislative acts, France was recognized as the patroness of all Catholics in the Ottoman state - both subjects of the Sultan and Europeans living there.

Protestants in Turkey could count on the patronage of England and Prussia; the first acted through the Anglican Church, the second through the Evangelical Church. In all cases, European states sought political benefits for themselves and sought to establish their influence in Turkey, but at certain moments they actually came to the aid of non-Muslims, whose position in the Ottoman Empire was very difficult.

Catholicism and especially Protestantism in relation to the Middle East were imported religions (it is true that local Maronite Catholics declared themselves legitimate adherents of the Roman Curia, but in reality they belonged to one of the denominations of Syrian Christianity, which largely adopted monothelitism (3). As for Orthodoxy , then it was born and formed on local soil, its two-thousand-year history is continuous. The jurisdiction of the Orthodox Jerusalem Patriarchate, created in 451, extended to Palestine, to Syria and Lebanon - Antioch, officially approved in 325. Covered in the eyes of Christians around the world. glory, they, however, completely lost their political prestige. The Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch (as well as the Patriarch of Alexandria, whose power extended to Egypt) were deprived of the right to directly communicate with the Turkish administration and were forced to turn to the mediation of the Constantinople (“ecumenical”) Patriarch. They constantly needed financial support, and Russia annually transferred a certain amount to the Jerusalem Patriarchate. The Orthodox of the Middle East were predominantly Arabs, while the clergy consisted mainly of Greeks. Attempts by Arabs to rise to the highest levels of the hierarchy led to success in rare cases. The patriarchs did not contribute to the spread of education and could not serve pilgrims, the number of which, due to the development of communication routes, was constantly growing. In addition, the Greek clergy carefully observed their interests and sought to exclude any interference in their own affairs.

Like other ethno-confessional minorities of the Ottoman Empire, the Orthodox were looking for support, and their main patron was the Russian Tsar. Orthodoxy in Russia was the official religion; all other religions could only count on tolerance within certain limits. After the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, Moscow was proclaimed the “third Rome,” that is, the heir of Constantinople, which was considered the “second Rome.” Continuity was emphasized by the marriage of the Grand Duke of Moscow John III with the niece of the last Byzantine emperor Zoe (Sophia) Palaeologus. In 1547, John III's successor, John IV (the Terrible), was crowned and proclaimed king, a title equivalent to the Byzantine Caesar, i.e., emperor. Finally, in 1589, under Tsar Theodore, the Moscow Patriarchate was established. The movement of the center of Orthodoxy to Russia, to Moscow, has become an obvious fact.

As you know, the reforms of Peter I also extended to the Church. The power of the patriarch was abolished, the Church began to submit to the Holy Synod, headed by the chief prosecutor - a secular official. The Synod was a government institution subject to the will of the king. Thus, the Russian emperor acted as the patron of the Orthodox in the Ottoman Empire not only as a secular ruler, but in a sense also as a spiritual ruler.

These circumstances created the ideological basis for the actions taken by Russia in the Ottoman Empire. From the end of the 17th century. Russian-Turkish relations became increasingly strained. Wars with Turkey ended in most cases with the victory of Russian weapons. Certain parts of the territory of the Ottoman Empire became part of Russia, while others, like Greece and Bulgaria, gained independence with the support of Russia. Russia insisted that the protection of holy places be provided specifically to the Orthodox Church and that the right to patronage the Orthodox subjects of Turkey be assigned to it. In particular, in the diplomatic prehistory of the Crimean War of 1853–1855. These moments played a very significant role, although the essence of the conflict was, of course, deeper.

Of course, under these conditions, any actions that the Russians took in the Ottoman Empire acquired the character of state actions and were interpreted as moves in a diplomatic game. This created difficulties both for the Palestinian society (although it was private) and for those institutions that, to a certain extent, were its predecessors.

In 1842, Vice-Chancellor and at the same time Minister of Foreign Affairs K.R. Nesselrode submitted a report to the emperor, in which he drew attention to the oppression of the Orthodox - both from Muslims and from Catholics and Protestants. He noted that the support of the Greek Church, especially since the appointment of a Protestant bishop in Jerusalem and taking into account the actions of American missionaries, has become especially important and necessary. There is an urgent need to send a Russian clergyman to Jerusalem, who would become an intermediary between the Synod and the Jerusalem Orthodox clergy, monitor the use of sums sent from Russia, report on the state of affairs, etc. According to K. R. Nesselrode, such a mission, according to at least at first, it was supposed to be informal. In accordance with this project, in 1843, Archimandrite Porfiry (Uspensky), a man of great knowledge, was sent to the East, who subsequently had the opportunity to enrich science with a number of valuable discoveries (4). Given that the archimandrite arrived in the East as an unofficial person, the background of his trip was not a secret to anyone. In Jerusalem he was welcomed as a specially sent representative of Russia.

Porfiry (Uspensky) managed to travel almost all of Palestine, he made wide acquaintances with both the Orthodox clergy and ministers of non-Orthodox churches. Endowed with powers of observation, he formed a clear picture of the state of affairs and came to the conclusion that it was necessary to send a special Russian spiritual mission to Palestine. “The Archimandrite of Jerusalem,” as Father Porfiry began to be called, visited Egypt, Sinai, visited the Athos Monastery in Greece and returned to his homeland through Wallachia and Moldavia. His report and notes served as the basis for the decision to establish the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem. Porfiry (Uspensky) himself was appointed the first head of the mission. At the beginning of 1848, the mission arrived in Jerusalem and remained there until 1854, when the Crimean War began and the presence of the Russian mission within the Ottoman Empire became impossible.

The unsuccessful outcome of the Crimean War for Russia undermined its prestige in Turkey. The sending of a new mission was associated with the desire to restore lost positions. By agreement with the Porte, the new head of the mission, Kirill (Naumov), was elevated to the rank of bishop. This circumstance caused friction with the local clergy, since the high rank of the envoy violated the canonical relationship of the two Churches - Russian and Jerusalem, as if limiting the prerogatives of the latter. Bishop Kirill arrived in Jerusalem in 1858, with 10 people (under Porfiry (Uspensky) there were only three). Subsequent missions were also few in number, and the leaders, following the example of the first mission, were in the rank of archimandrite. The Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem functioned before the revolution, then there was a break in its activities. At present, the Russian Church still has its official representative in Jerusalem (5).

Sending a mission to Palestine was a diplomatic gesture, but the mission, headed, as a rule, by intelligent and energetic individuals, was also involved in purely practical matters. Among them, the main place was occupied by the service (“nurturing”) of pilgrims. Special shelters were set up for them - the mission bought plots of land and ready-made buildings, adapted them for dormitories, and took care of organizing caravans for those visiting holy places. With the approval of the mission, Russian pilgrims gained the opportunity to attend church services, which were conducted in Church Slavonic.

At the same time, the mission contributed to the spread of education among the local Arab population, although its capabilities were more than limited. This is how the historian of the Palestinian society, the famous scientist A. A. Dmitrievsky characterizes the activities of Archimandrite Porfiry (Uspensky) in this direction: “...at the Greek theological school opened by the patriarchy, at his (Uspensky’s) insistence, he assigned 12 young natives to prepare from them educated rural pastors; at this school, catechism and Arabic literature were taught in Arabic by the Arab Father Spiridonius, specially invited from Beirut; in the parish schools of Jerusalem, Arab teachers were appointed to teach children to read and write Arabic; outside Jerusalem they opened similar schools in Lydda, Ramla and Jaffa and a school for Arab girls in Jerusalem itself; in the printing house established by the patriarchate in the St. Nicholas Monastery, at his insistence, they began to print books in Arabic (Catechism and Apostle, etc.)” (6).

Although the scientific study of Palestine was not part of the duties of the mission, more than one discovery was associated with the activities of this institution, which was due to the personal qualities of the heads of the mission.

So, the mission represented the Russian Church in Palestine, its duties included only the spiritual “nurturing” of pilgrims arriving from Russia. But the mission constantly overstepped its intended boundaries, so its relations with official St. Petersburg and its diplomatic representatives abroad, i.e., consuls in the Middle East, were, as a rule, tense. The mission had little regard for the practice of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Russia and violated the established system. Professional diplomats were angered and despaired by the behavior of the mission chiefs. In this sense, the letter of the Russian ambassador in Constantinople, Count N.P. Ignatiev, to the head of the mission, Archimandrite Antonin (Kapustin), is characteristic: “Thank you that in the Turkish possessions there is only one Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, and not several. If there were several “Spiritual Missions” or several acquirers of different land corners, then, really, it would be necessary to flee from Turkey - not the Turks, but the Russian representative, and even, perhaps, the Orthodox hierarchs, who would not be able to live from Turkish and European suspicions. Jokes aside, but your letter, dear and sincerely beloved father, doused me like tar...” Further, the ambassador reprimanded the archimandrite for the illegal purchase of land, and the correspondent considered the acquisitions themselves unnecessary. It should be noted that foreigners, and especially institutions, did not have the right to acquire land property in Turkey, so deeds of sale were made on dummies - this practice was widespread, and the Palestinian society subsequently resorted to it.

Soon after the end of the Crimean War, the Spiritual Mission had an unusual competitor. In 1856, the Russian Society of Shipping and Trade (ROPIT) was created in St. Petersburg. In an effort to expand its capital, ROPIT took upon itself the delivery of pilgrims to Palestine and their further arrangement, the construction of special buildings, etc. For this purpose, a special Palestine Committee was created in 1858, headed by Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, despite the fact that The initiator and soul of the enterprise was the official of special assignments of the Maritime Ministry B.P. Mansurov. He visited Palestine and presented a note which made it quite clear that he was trying to integrate the concerns of pilgrims with a program of capital development. At the same time, B.P. Mansurov counted on voluntary donations and was not mistaken - significant sums came from both titled persons and ordinary people, through circle collections in churches. The “development” of Palestine became widespread, especially since the Palestinian Committee found support in the consular service. B.P. Mansurov pointed out that in Jerusalem there has long been a need for a Russian consul. ROPIT was ready to assume part of the costs of establishing a consulate, but on the condition that the title of consul be combined with the title of chief agent of the new society. In the business sphere, the Palestinian Committee pushed the Spiritual Mission into the background; the committee carried out the purchase of land and construction on a large scale. The funds that the mission could count on now went to the Palestine Committee.

The Palestinian Committee (perhaps even more than the mission) was not subject to the control of those responsible for foreign policy in the Middle East. One way or another, the committee existed for only 6 years; in 1864 it was abolished, and was replaced by the Palestine Commission, which was located directly under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The commission included the director of the Asian Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, then the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod (or his “comrade,” i.e., deputy) and personally B.P. Mansurov. The Palestine Commission existed until 1888, during all this time its actual head, as noted by A. A. Dmitrievsky, was B. P. Mansurov (7).

The Palestinian Commission took upon itself the responsibility of improving the life of pilgrims, however, judging by the data given in the book by A. A. Dmitrievsky, it coped with this completely unsatisfactorily. The author’s sympathies are on the side of the Spiritual Mission; he believes that with its modest means the mission did a lot: “The Palestinian Commission for 20 years, despite glaring necessity, “in the position of charitable institutions in Palestine” stubbornly preserves the status quo of 1864 and from suspicious caution, in order to form a “reserve capital” for a rainy day, calmly doomed our pilgrims to the sad necessity of lying in the corridors and under the bunks of our shelters, or even worse, to seek shelter in once-rejected damp and cold Greek monasteries, Turkish dukhans or even dirty basements<…>. The fully clarified “important needs” of our institutions: the addition of second floors above the shelters, underground sewerage, the expansion of reservoirs and hospitals, the construction of Russian permanent shelters in Nazareth and the improvement of the life of Russian pilgrims, needs that even cause “murmur” from the latter, remain, with a few exceptions pia desideria (pious wishes) of the Palestinian Commission, good intentions on paper and do not translate into reality” (8).

The idea of ​​a Palestinian society arose in an atmosphere of disappointment with the results of the “Russian cause” in Palestine.

The society was the creation of essentially one person - Vasily Nikolaevich Khitrovo. “The Orthodox Palestinian Society,” it will be said in his obituary, “arose according to the thoughts of Vasily Nikolaevich, grew, strengthened and reached a flourishing state thanks almost exclusively to his works” (9). A nobleman who served in the credit department at the Ministry of Finance, V. N. Khitrovo was a man of exceptional energy, an enthusiast for the work he took on. At one time he was fascinated by the idea of ​​​​creating a public credit, which, according to his plan, was supposed to help poor peasants escape from poverty. The idea of ​​creating a society came to V.N. Khitrovo in 1876, when he first visited Palestine as a pilgrim. There were apparently several motivating reasons: religious feeling and Russia’s uniquely understood state interests in the Middle East, broad cultural goals and natural human compassion for one’s neighbor. V.N. Khitrovo’s project to establish a private society (Spiritual Mission. The Palestinian Committee, the Palestinian Commission were official institutions) seemed devoid of reality to those around him. V.N. Khitrovo widely shared his thoughts with people who knew Palestine and delved into the essence of the matter, for example, with the head of the Spiritual Mission Antonin (Kapustin) or the rector of the New Jerusalem Monastery, Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin) (10). Both of them were skeptical about V.N. Khitrovo’s plans. Archimandrite Antonin wrote to him: “The Russian Palestine Society - what would be better if it happened to be formed? But do you believe, most venerable Vasily Nikolaevich, that it will be formed, and if it is formed, it will be able to exist for many years in a row and will be able to do many things no worse than Das heilige Land or Der Palastina-Verein? It’s not that I don’t sympathize with the idea of ​​​​forming such a society, but I’m afraid that by forming it, we will disgrace ourselves<…>. We will not be able to maintain a lively interest in a dead subject for long. This seems to me beyond doubt” (11). However, V.N. Khitrovo persistently achieves his goal, in the St. Petersburg department of the society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment he reads the report “Orthodoxy in the Holy Land”, writes letters to influential persons at court, makes acquaintances with them, publishes the first issue of the “Orthodox Palestine Collection” at his own expense. (1881) with the text of his report, thereby marking the beginning of a huge series, finally submitted to the chief prosecutor of the Synod K. P. Pobedonostsev and the director of the Asian Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs P. P. Melnikov a draft charter of the Palestine Society. The tireless work of V.N. Khitrovo ended in success; he received permission to organize and open the society. The opening ceremony took place on May 21, 1882.

§ 1 of the charter stated:
“The Orthodox Palestine Society is established with exclusively scientific and charitable purposes, for the achievement of which it is provided with:
a) collect, develop and disseminate information in Russia about the holy places of the East;
b) provide benefits to Orthodox pilgrims of these places;
c) establish schools, hospitals and hospices, as well as provide financial assistance to local residents, churches, monasteries and clergy” (12).

The Company has a stepped structure. First of all, these are the founding members, 44 people; The composition is noble-aristocratic, two are endowed with high-princely dignity, four are princely, eight are count. The head of the Orthodox Palestinian Society was Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich. In 1905, he was killed by the Socialist Revolutionaries, and his widow Elizaveta Feodorovna took the place of chairman. Among the founders there are only four scientists in the proper sense of the word: the Byzantinist academician V. G. Vasilievsky, professor of theology and Hebraist I. G. Troitsky, archaeologist and source scholar M. A. Venevitinov, historian and archaeologist A. L. Olesnitsky.

Honorary members are elected at the annual meeting. In 1882, some of the founding members were proclaimed honorary; this group included several representatives of the Romanov family, major dignitaries, as well as former heads of the Spiritual Mission Porfiry (Uspensky) and Antonin (Kapustin). According to the charter, honorary members were elected for special merits in the study of Palestine, for scientific works on Palestinian studies. The category of full members consisted of persons who paid 25 rubles annually, and the contribution of employee members was 10 rubles. The society received a government subsidy in the amount of 130,000 rubles; there were also individual donations for special purposes, but the main source of income was club collections in churches and cemeteries. Even special chapels were built where mugs were exhibited. Diocesan departments of the Palestine Society also appeared; in 1887 their number reached 28, which in turn increased revenues.

Mugs to raise funds for the benefit of the Palestinian Society were constantly on display. At the same time, permission was received once a year, on the feast of the Entry of the Lord into Jerusalem, i.e., on Palm Sunday, to make a plate collection, part of which went to the society's cash desk. Since 1886, notes A. A. Dmitrievsky, “willow harvest” has become almost the main resource of the Society’s activities in all departments (13).

As already mentioned, the chairman of the society was the Grand Duke, there was also a vice-chairman, his assistant, etc., but in reality the society was directed by a council of five people, and most of all by the initiator V.N. Khitrovo himself. Even before the creation of the society, he visited Palestine twice (in 1876 and 1880), and went there later, in 1884–1885, 1888, 1889, 1893, 1897. Until his death in 1903, he was the secretary of the society and led his brainchild according to a program he himself developed. V. N. Khitrovo published many articles and notes on Palestinian studies and on issues related to the activities of the society. Apparently, a significant role in the proper functioning of the society was played by the fact that its secretary was an excellent financier.

Thanks to well-organized reporting, we can get a complete picture of the practical activities of the company. As the heir to the Spiritual Mission, the Palestinian Committee and the Palestinian Commission, the society took upon itself one of their main functions - caring for pilgrims arriving from different provinces of Russia and organizing pilgrimage trips. It entered into an agreement with the railway societies, with ROPIT, to reduce the fare for travel tickets for those who intended to visit the Holy Land. Special pilgrimage books were introduced, which gave the right to travel there and back at a reduced rate. From 1883 to 1895, the Encyclopedic Dictionary reports, 18,664 books were sold, while their owners were able to save up to 327,000 rubles (14).

Interesting information about the movement of pilgrims to Palestine is given by the writer I. S. Sokolov-Mikitov, who served as a sailor on the steamship “Queen Olga” on the eve of the First World War: “The steamship “Queen Olga” was similar to ancient ships with tall, tilted back masts and a long bugsprit<…>. We carried cargo, mail, passengers, passed through four seas - the Black, Marmara, Aegean and Mediterranean. Along the way, they called at the ports of Turkey, Greece, the islands of the Aegean Sea, and the ports of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Egypt. In addition to ordinary passengers on the ship, we carried pilgrims and pilgrims going to Jerusalem to venerate the Holy Sepulcher. These pilgrims at that time were guided by the once existing Palestinian society, which had sufficient funds. Among the pilgrims, the majority were middle-aged and elderly women, there were also men, peasants and city people” (15).

But this is how Russian pilgrims were seen by the famous Lebanese writer Michael Nuaima, in those years a student of the Nazareth Seminary, founded for Arabs by the Palestinian Society: “We saw how crowds of them walked on foot to Nazareth - hundreds and thousands, young men and old men, bearded and beardless, men and women; These were mostly peasants. It was interesting for us to look at their strange costumes and shabby clothes. Each of them had a tin kettle hanging on their shoulder or behind their back, and in their hands were long sticks, on which they leaned when walking. It was interesting to listen to how they talked about their impressions<…>. What I liked about these pilgrims was the extreme naivety that was reflected on their faces and the fear of God that was evident in all their movements. They were big kids. It is difficult for anyone who looks at them to believe that the country that gave birth to them gave birth to geniuses whose names are repeated all over the world. But perhaps she would not have given birth to these geniuses if she had not given birth to this people.

I don’t know why, my heart sank every time I imagined these pilgrims in their distant country, how they worked, endured hardships, denying themselves food, drink, clothing, in order to save money for years to visit the Holy Land. What magic raised millions of people in various cities - especially the poor, forced them to leave their homeland and subject themselves to various hardships of travel, and all this not for the sake of earthly gain, but for the acquisition of heavenly wealth? (16).

Regardless of the motivating reasons, pilgrimage journeys significantly expanded the horizons of people who sometimes emerged from the most bearish corners of Russia.

In order to “comprehensively become familiar with the needs and life of the Holy Sepulcher pilgrims,” in 1883 the society sent Dr. A.V. Eliseev, a traveler and scientist, to Palestine. He was given the task of “traversing the path in the company of fans and living in their place the life of a simple pilgrim.” The report on the trip was a detailed report by A.V. Eliseev, read at a meeting of the society on October 18, 1883 and arousing great interest. Impressed by this report, it was decided to begin expanding hospitality institutions in Palestine.

Palestinian society, like the institutions that preceded it, could not make deeds of sale through official means, so purchases were made through figureheads. At the end of the 19th century. The Russian metochion in Jerusalem could shelter 2,000 people (17); it had many services - a laundry, a storage room for things, tanks for rainwater used for drinking.

Subsequently, the farmstead was expanded, a bakery, a water heating facility, a people's dining room and a bathhouse appeared. There were three categories in the compound. The lowest was intended for low-income people, the payment was modest. Full maintenance cost 13 kopecks per day, this included payment for the premises, a two-course lunch and hot water for tea. Classes I and II cost 4 and 2 rubles respectively; of course, a completely different crowd stayed here. Farmsteads also appeared in Nazareth and Haifa. In order to evaluate the activities of the Palestinian society in this direction, it should be remembered that the farmsteads were founded in places with an extremely low level of public services - sewage had to be transported on donkeys, the problem of water was acute (the main source was rainwater, which was collected in tanks), all this affected my health. At the farmsteads there were guides who accompanied and, if necessary, protected the pilgrims. Religious and moral readings were held daily in the farmsteads, and the sale of inexpensive little books (exclusively of religious content) and icons was organized. The publication of this type of literature was carried out by the society itself.

The company's activities in this direction have received favorable reviews. The minutes of the meetings of the council of the Palestine Society contain a copy of a letter from the commander of the cruiser “Bogatyr” addressed to the vice-chairman of the society on January 14, 1914: “During the 4-day stay in January this year. g. on the roads of Jaffa, the entire personnel of the cruiser entrusted to me had the opportunity to visit Jerusalem to worship the shrines of the city and its environs. The institutions of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society came to the aid of the cruiser in this regard and, with their affectionate, broad hospitality, earned the warm gratitude of all members of the cruiser […] The institutions of the society that we saw in the Holy Land evoke feelings of pride in Russia, whose representatives are so exemplary, good and strong they set up a good cause, carried out by the society” (the costs of the reception were at the expense of the society).

Both pilgrims who arrived from Russia and local residents widely used the society’s medical institutions. In Jerusalem, Nazareth, Bethlehem, and Beit Jala, outpatient clinics with free distribution of medicines appeared. The number of outpatient treatment patients here reached 60,000 people per year. In Jerusalem there was a Russian hospital (founded in 1862–1863) with 40 beds with free treatment and maintenance. On the instructions of the Palestine Society, Dr. D. F. Reshetillo, having collected rich material on the spot, wrote a scientific study “Swamp fevers in Palestine. Investigation of the causes and identification of the microorganism of swamp fevers.” This work was published in the 25th issue of PPP (1891).

The activities of the Palestinian Society in the Middle East should be interpreted in direct connection with church charity, which extended mainly, if not exclusively, to fellow believers. Palestinian society was “Orthodox,” and this circumstance determined the main lines of its activity (18).

In modern times, religious propaganda is unthinkable without the dissemination of knowledge (in a certain set, of course), without enlightenment. In the Middle East, where the interests of many Churches collided, enlightenment proceeded in many directions and at different levels. There were many Catholic and Protestant schools and colleges here. In Beirut, the University of St. Joseph was created under the supervision of the Jesuits, and the Protestants supervised the American University. Palestinian society never thought of competing with him. It was concerned, first of all, with disseminating the rudiments of knowledge and simple literacy among the local Christian Arabs, the poor, the downtrodden, the ignorant. Society paid special attention to primary schools. In the first year of its existence, the society opened a school in the village of Mujedil, and the following year schools in Kafr Yasif, Rama and Shejar. 120 boys attended these schools. In 1897, there were already 50 schools with a total number of students of 4,000 people. In 1907 in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon there were 101 schools, the number of students was 11,246, in the 1908/09 academic year there were 102 schools, the number of students was 11,536. On the eve of the First World War, the schools of the Palestine Society were attended by 10,594 students - 5,526 boys and 5068 girls.

Schools founded (under the auspices of Russia) before its establishment also came under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Society.

There were not enough Russian teachers. Finding themselves in difficult, unusual conditions, unable to adapt to local food and unable to put up with the lack of hygiene, young teachers sometimes could not stand it and returned to their homeland, as A.E. Krymsky reported in his letters (19). Palestinian society saw a way out in training teachers from local residents, for which a boarding school was opened in Nazareth in 1886. In 1898 it was transformed into a men's teachers' seminary. A women's boarding school was opened in Beit Jala in October 1890, which was later also converted into a seminary.

Palestinian society was forced to reckon with the traditions of the Arab East and in many cases retained the local education system, dating back to hoary antiquity. Teachers, also local, forced schoolchildren to memorize the book by heart and measured knowledge by the number of pages learned in this way. Under such a system, only capable or especially diligent schoolchildren could advance; the rest sat in the same group for several years.

What were these schools like? Here are the impressions of V.N. Khitrovo, who was in Palestine for a long time during 1884, about a school based on local tradition: “I visited three of our schools: in Kefr-Yasif, in Rama and Mzhdel, I not only visited, but also examined all the hundred boys who were students there. Kefr-Yasifskaya turned out to be the best, followed by Mzhdelskaya, and then Rame. The school in Rameh, where there are more than 60 of them, is the best in terms of success and, therefore, in the abilities of teachers, but in terms of the number of students, the school in the other two, in Kefr-Yasif and Mzhdel, is about 20 each. I was not able to visit the school in Shajar; I had to go completely to the side and lose two days. In essence, it should not be different from the rest. In fact, they exist and up to 120 boys study in all of them - this is a fact. Moreover, our schools are not only no worse than the patriarch’s, but the commission that inspected the schools on behalf of the patriarch in August or September of this year (1884 - K. Yu.) found our Mzhdel school the best of all those examined by it, and thus we could would be pleased. But if we take these schools, without any comparison, and each separately, then we must admit that they stand at a very low level. To give an idea of ​​how the teaching proceeds, I will say that in sequential order the children are given the primer, Psalter, Octoechos, Fared and a collection of stories to read (20). It would seem that someone who has completed the primer and the Psalter can read everything up to and including the Bible. Nothing happened, and only those who have reached the Gospel can read the Arabic spiritual book fluently. I have happened to see boys who read the Octoechos fluently and could not read the Psalter or that part of it that they did not go through. This is explained<тем>that reading itself is learning by rote learning. Those pages of the Psalter that they have gone through, they read fluently; next to the page, but which they have not memorized, they can barely make out. The literary language begins in the same order with Fared and continues with a collection of stories; only the one who reads this latter can read the entire Fared, but the one who reads 10 pages of Fared cannot read the 11th and 12th pages of the same Fared, much less a collection of stories. Regarding writing, success is better and the system itself is more expedient: they start on a slate board, then on tin diluted lime and, finally, on paper (of course, this gradualism is a matter of saving on paper). Then comes arithmetic, and the first four rules are known almost firmly and consciously. As for the Law of God, or rather the catechism, geography and grammar, all this is taught even before Fared, and all of this is known perfectly well if you ask questions in a book, but only you do the question not according to the book or in breakdown, and the whole class becomes stumped. Obvious and complete chiseling without any development, but also without any effort towards this latter. There is no concept of history, even sacred history. What can I tell you about the notorious French language taught in Ramais? I can’t say that this is a myth, because there are three or four students who not only read, but also write. The result is that they get used to and learn the Latin alphabet and learn a few words. To summarize, it should be admitted that in these schools under this system they actually learn to read, write, the first 4 rules of arithmetic and prayers, all in Arabic. The French language is purely pouf and nothing more (21). But even so, I would find that these schools achieve their goal, like the original rural ones, if we add knowledge of Sacred History and if they had books to read, in the absence of which they are forced to forget reading itself very soon or switch to reading Catholic and Protestant books..." (22).

At the same time, the Russian system of education was spreading. It involved a specific curriculum drawn up for the entire academic year. Once it was mastered, after passing the test the student was promoted to the next grade (23). These are the impressions made by a student of a second type school with the Russian education system. He ended up in this school after studying for some time in an ordinary Arab school. “The inhabitants of Lebanon at the time when the country was an Ottoman province were accustomed to the fact that Russia was the traditional patron of the Orthodox, France of the Maronites, England of Protestants and Druze, and Turkey of Muslims. But Russia surpassed its rivals because it opened free schools for the Orthodox in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, and these schools in their programs and organization corresponded to the latest model. In which city a Russian Orthodox school would be opened was determined only by the amount of donations for the construction of a building suitable for the school. Teachers, books, notebooks, ink and pencils, furniture and maintenance of the school administration - all this was free.

The Orthodox peasants of Biskinta (a village in Lebanon - K. Yu.) donated generously. Those who did not sacrifice money made their contribution by working their muscles. Just over a year passed and the building was ready. Huge, covered with tiles, it stood on the bank of a stream that raged in winter and was silent in summer. They built a playground in front of the building and divided the building so that the first floor was allocated to a small kindergarten, and on the second floor in the center there was a large hall, on the sides of which there were six rooms for classes, numbered from 1 to 6.

This was in 1899. For the first time in its history, Biskinta learned what a model school was, for the first time in its history, girls began to study with boys. The school had five teachers and three female teachers, headed by a director who graduated from the Russian teachers' seminary in Nazareth and Palestine and studied pedagogy and school management. For the first time we felt like we were in a school where there was a program and order. The Arabic reading program was based on a book by the late Jurjis Hammam called “The Levels of Reading.” It is a book in four parts, beginning with the alphabet and ending with passages of fiction and poetry, ancient and modern, all with illustrations. Unfortunately, this book has now been completely forgotten and has been replaced in schools by many others, most of them of much lower quality. The reading program was coordinated with the program of gradual study of grammar, so that the graduate would master the morphology and syntax of the Arabic language. The Arabic language received special attention. Also arithmetic. Language and arithmetic were studied first.

Geography, history and natural science come second. Basics of the Russian language - in the third. Few people, after graduating from school, could read Russian fluently or understand more than a few words. The rest of the foreign schools in Lebanon, on the contrary, cared and are caring about teaching European languages ​​much more than teaching Arabic. The program also included physical education and singing classes, and walks that students took with their teachers at least once a week.

Classes lasted from 8 a.m. to noon and from two to four in the afternoon, excluding Wednesday and Saturday, when classes were only until noon. The lesson lasted 50 minutes, 10 minutes were allocated for rest and games. The director notified us about these breaks with a small bell, and we loved them very much...” (24). The author of these lines is the Lebanese writer Mikhail Nuaime (born in 1889).

“Rarely anyone who graduated from the school of the Palestinian Society could read Russian flawlessly correctly. Our knowledge of the Russian language was limited, but we learned poems by heart,” recalls K. V. Ode-Vasilieva, an Arab woman from Lebanon who graduated from a similar school and later a famous Arabist scholar (25). Her impressions are consistent with those made by Mikhail Nuaime. Thus, the primary educational institutions of the Palestinian society were in the fullest sense national schools, and they in turn played a certain role in strengthening the Arab national identity.

Physical education included games for the youngest and gymnastics for the older ones. As the investigators noted, the boys' favorite game was leapfrog.

Dmitry Dmitrievich Smyshlyaev, first commissioner of the IOPS in Jerusalem,
builder of Sergievsky and Alexandrovsky farmsteads

Schoolchildren also acquired labor skills: they became acquainted with gardening and gardening, and became familiar with carpentry and bookbinding. The girls were engaged in sewing and needlework (26). “Lace, which girls learned to knit in schools, was very valuable. They were knitted with a simple needle and were very elegant. This provided income to women then, as it does now” (27).

The junior class of primary school was a kind of kindergarten, where children from 3 to 6 years old were admitted. According to a report on the schools of Galilee, the elementary school teacher had to wash, comb, feed, put on a mat and engage in some kind of game for each child. Every now and then quarrels arose among the children and crying was heard. The teacher often had to leave the classroom with one child or another without weakening her supervision of other groups of schoolchildren (28). “Admission to the kindergarten was not limited, and there was only one teacher working there. Only later did I understand what a hell of a job she had. There were more than 40 children of three to five years old, it was necessary to keep an eye on everyone, keep everyone busy. Half of these children usually fell asleep on the mats” (29), recalls K.V. Ode-Vasilieva.

Let us add that physical punishment was not used in the schools of the Palestinian society. One can get an idea of ​​the local practice of this type of pedagogical influence from the memoirs of Mikhail Nuaime, taken from an ordinary Arab school: “I heard a lot about the school. There are rods. There's a "falak" there. And what it is is best explained in a large dictionary: “This is a stick with a rope tied to both ends. The legs of the offender are threaded through this noose, tightened, and they are hit.” One time I almost tried “falak”<…>. The teacher ordered me to lie on the ground on my back and tightened the “falak” on my legs, but changed his mind and took pity on me. My good behavior and diligence played their role, and he limited himself to scolding me, as if the power of God reproached one of his servants” (30).

There were no secondary schools under the Palestinian society, but, as already mentioned, there were two teacher seminaries. We have an excellent description of the Nazareth Female Seminary, written by a graduate who entered study in 1900 - the already mentioned K.V. Ode-Vasilieva (before that she graduated from a two-year school of the Palestine Society). The seminary was located in Beit Jala, a mountain village with a Christian population that grew figs and grapes. “Our seminary was located on the top of a mountain and was surrounded by a high wall, exactly like the ancient monasteries. The gates were always locked. The seminary had two two-story buildings connected by a hanging corridor. Teachers lived in one building on the top floor, and elementary school classes were located in the lower floor; the other building was occupied by seminarians. The bedrooms were on the top floor, and on the ground floor there was a dining room, classrooms, a library and the warden's reception room. Not far from these buildings there were all sorts of utility rooms, a kitchen, a bakery, a laundry and even a cowshed. The seminary had its own farm. A small wonderful olive grove served as a place for daily walks for the girls; but we always looked at the small orchard with longing, since we had no right to enter it. But the flower garden was our pride. What flowers were not in it, and what aromas were missing! From the humble violet to the wonderful lily and lush roses, blooming in clusters and individual heads, all shades and wonderful aromas! The chamomile planted on the sides of the front entrance was taller than a man.

Usually, only 40 people studied at the seminary. At first, the duration of study there was 6 years, later it became 8. The last two years were specifically devoted to the study of pedagogical sciences, teaching methods and teaching practice in schools.

Living conditions were better than those in which we lived at home. Each girl had a bed, a locker and a certain set of linen and clothes. The bedrooms had large washrooms. The classrooms were large, bright, their windows looked out onto the garden. Of the men, we had three constant persons: the priest - a teacher of the Law of God, the teacher of Arabic - a sixty-year-old man, and the watchman. The headmistress and teachers, with the exception of two or three, were all Russian. Teaching was conducted in Russian from the third year. Our teachers were mostly young, some of them were attracted by the exotic, some by the Holy Land, and some by love of work, and these were the majority. We, students, lived very friendly with our teachers; in addition to knowledge, they taught us a lot, which enriched our life, made it meaningful and interesting. We have always been grateful to them. During his stay at the seminary, the headmistress changed. The first was elderly, she was more of a teacher than a teacher. She had little interest in the educational process, but she taught us how to manage things. We went to the kitchen, the bakery, the laundry, and even the barn. I studied with her for the first two years. The second boss had a higher education, and immediately set about revising the curriculum, which included geometry, physics, chemistry and the history of the caliphate. The last subject was the boss’s main merit. Many years later, I understood the significance of this person and for the rest of my life I remained grateful and grateful to her, although we did not like each other...” (31).

In 1908–1910 A long journey through Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon was made by Ignatius Yulianovich Krachkovsky, an Arabist left at St. Petersburg University to prepare for a professorship, who later became one of the luminaries of Russian oriental studies. In his diary, he repeatedly noted his meetings with teachers from schools of the Palestinian Society (32). At the same time he met Kultum Ode - K.V. Ode-Vasilieva (33). These meetings were firmly imprinted in the scientist’s memory, and many years later he wrote in his book “Above Arabic Manuscripts”: “When I got to some village in Lebanon, I first of all inquired whether there was a “Moskobite Madrasah” nearby - a Russian school and wanted to get there as soon as possible. I knew well that I would not meet Russian teachers - they usually lived only in big cities - Beirut, Tripoli, Nazareth. It was very rare to see Arab teachers who had been to Russia, but I knew that if the kids accidentally walked into the classroom, they would stand up and chant “hello.”<…>. I knew that, having heard about my origin, I would be surrounded, a little wildly at first, by black-eyed teachers or female teachers and there would be no end to the questions. The braver ones sometimes switched to Russian, which sounded with some kind of touching accent in lips accustomed from childhood to a different phonetics. I have often met, however, teachers who were so fluent in the language that one has to wonder how they could master it to such an extent without ever leaving their homeland. If not all of them spoke with ease, then they all knew well and subscribed to the magazine “Niva”; in everyone’s room one could see volumes of Turgenev or Chekhov, even the volumes of “Knowledge” that had just begun to appear, and sometimes the kind of literature that was in Russia itself was considered prohibited" (34).

School work was the focus of the Palestinian community. Inspectors sent from Russia thoroughly familiarized themselves with its production, and reports were systematically published. Many new pedagogical methods were used in schools. According to I. Yu. Krachkovsky, schools in Palestine and Syria, which were supervised by the Palestine Society, often turned out to be superior in their pedagogical principles to the richly equipped institutions of various Western European or American missions (35). Of course, in this area, as elsewhere, there was a struggle between the advanced and the outdated and unsatisfactory. I. Yu. Krachkovsky himself, being well aware of the organization of school affairs not only in the Palestinian society, but also in educational institutions of other departments, submitted a special note. Despite the resistance of part of the special Palestinian commission that arrived to inspect the schools, I. Yu. Krachkovsky’s note passed almost entirely. As I. Yu. Krachkovsky noted in his diary: “It is extremely pleasant that we managed to make at least the first breach in Palestinian society” (March 19, 1910) (36).

The cultural revival that the Arabs are experiencing in modern and recent times is to a certain extent the result of the contact of two cultures, local and European. Teachers who arrived from Russia to the Middle East at the invitation of the Palestinian Society also made a certain contribution to this process.

Some teachers subsequently became famous for their scientific works. A teacher at the Nazareth Seminary, who taught here for two years, D. V. Semenov is the author of the “Anthology on the Syriac dialect” (Arabic language). Teacher M. M. Izmailova became one of the pioneers of the Arabic dialect in Central Asia (37).

Noteworthy is the review of a graduate of the Palestine school, K.V. Oda-Vasilieva, about one of the teachers of the school, E.I. Golubeva: “I want to pay tribute to the person who introduced us, Arab girls, to the history of the Arabs - Elizaveta Ivanovna Golubeva, the daughter of a Ryazan priest . She, like all our teachers and educators, sought to instill in us a love for our language, literature, and people. She found it possible to study the history of the caliphate and give us a two-year course on this subject (38).

Let us note that, not being teachers, such prominent scientists as A. A. Dmitrievsky, N. A. Mednikov and I. Yu. Krachkovsky participated in the development of programs and instructions for schools.

The history of schools in Palestinian society can become the subject of independent research, which will fill some gaps in the study of domestic pedagogy.

Most of the Arab, local intelligentsia grew up in the schools and seminaries of the Palestinian Society, one of whose representatives is the prose writer and critic Mikhail Nuaime. Recently, his book of memoirs “My Seventy Years” was published in Russian translation, which describes his years of study at the Nazareth Seminary and the Poltava Theological Seminary. M. Nuaime was in correspondence with I. Yu. Krachkovsky, who had a high opinion of the literary talent of his correspondent. In June 1966, M. Nuaime participated in the All-Union Conference on Semitic Languages ​​in Tbilisi (39). In 1967, A. A. Dolinina, a professor at the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Leningrad State University, met with M. Nuaime in Beirut. He conducted the conversation in excellent Russian.

M. Nuaime's comrades in Nazareth were the famous writers Masih Haddad and Nasib Arida. A student of the Nazareth Seminary was the Syrian writer Khalil Beidas, translator of Pushkin, Gogol, and Chekhov. M. Nouaime remembers his teachers G. Fautier and Antoine Ballan. The first was an expert in the Arabic language; his work on the metrics of Arabic poetry is known. The second entered literature as a translator of Tolstoy, Chekhov, Leskov, Gorky (40).

It must be said, finally, that students from the schools of the Palestinian society joined the ranks of our scientific intelligentsia. Among them are several very famous names. K.V. Ode-Vasilieva carried out extensive scientific and teaching work at universities in Moscow and Leningrad, and in the last years of her life she was a professor at the Moscow Institute of International Relations. A student of the Nazareth Seminary, Taufik Kezma graduated from the Kyiv Theological Academy and entered science as the author of a number of oriental studies, including manuals on the Arabic language. P. K. Zhuze, after graduating from the Nazareth Seminary, was sent to the Kazan Theological Academy. In Russia, he created a textbook of the Russian language for Arabs, compiled a Russian-Arabic dictionary, in the last years of his life he worked in Baku, translated monuments of Arabic classical literature into Russian. After the same seminary, A.F. Khashab received a higher secular education (he graduated from the Faculty of Oriental Languages ​​at St. Petersburg University during its heyday) and until 1919 he taught a course in Arabic there.

Essentially, friendly cultural ties between Russians and Arabs acquired the character of a social phenomenon, starting with the activities of the Palestinian Society.

The activities of the Palestinian Society in the areas outlined above took place in the historically determined conditions of pre-revolutionary Russia and were of a unique nature. This activity belongs to history - Russian history and the history of those peoples among whom it unfolded. Its relevance has largely been lost. But a glorious page of domestic science is connected with the Palestinian society, and its achievements are inherited by today's science. In any case, our science strives in every possible way to maintain continuity in relation to the achievements of scientific research that were carried out under the shadow of the Society.

In order to correctly evaluate these achievements, it is necessary to remember that in the second half of the 19th century. Russia has developed its own school, or rather, a school of scientific oriental studies. The development of knowledge in this area was dictated by various circumstances. Russia borders on a vast area with a number of eastern states, which in itself stimulates the collection and comprehension of knowledge about them. The Russian Empire included many eastern peoples - with their own language, their own culture, their own religion. But Oriental studies also developed as a response to general cultural tasks that faced Russian society in the 19th century.

Several centers of Oriental studies appeared in Russia, the main of which were St. Petersburg and Moscow. In St. Petersburg - the Faculty of Oriental Languages ​​of the University and the Asian Museum, in Moscow - the Lazarev Institute. Middle Eastern issues occupy a large place in their activities, and research in this area is universally recognized.

Along with oriental studies, by the end of the 19th century. Byzantine studies achieved enormous success. Its relevance was determined by the fact that Orthodoxy came to Russia from Byzantium; Byzantine sources contain a lot of data (often unique) about the ancient history of Rus'. Ancient Russian culture developed in its broad, diverse connections with Byzantine culture. But, as in the case of Oriental studies, general cultural tasks played an equally important role here. Founded in 1894, Byzantine Temporary (the publication of which continues to this day) immediately upon its publication acquired the significance of an international magazine. By the end of the century, Russian Byzantine studies gained worldwide fame. One of the characteristic features of Russian Byzantine studies was a deep interest in the problems of Slavic and Oriental studies. Sometimes it is even difficult to trace the border between these disciplines; now this feature is especially striking.

The high level of these disciplines as a whole determined the criteria for assessing individual achievements. The successes of those research directions that have been defined within the framework of the Palestinian society should also be interpreted in relation to them. After all, the scientific activity of the Palestinian Society was carried out primarily in line with domestic Oriental studies and domestic Byzantine studies.

How did scientific life proceed in Palestinian society? It was most directly realized in those reports that were announced at meetings and attracted a wide audience. But in the scientific community itself there was no complete satisfaction. On April 11, 1900, an Interview was held on scientific issues relating to Palestine, Syria and neighboring countries. Present were V.V. Latyshev (classicist and Byzantine scholar, researcher of the Northern Black Sea region in ancient times), P.K. Kokovtsov (Hebraist and Semitologist), N.A. Mednikov (Arabist, on behalf of the Palestine Society studied documents about the Arab conquest of Palestine), V. R. Rosen (the greatest Russian Arabist, Chairman of the Eastern Branch of the Russian Archaeological Society, Dean of the Faculty of Oriental Languages), M. I. Rostovtsev (archaeologist and historian), Ya. I. Smirnov (archaeologist and art historian), B. A. Turaev (Egyptologist), V.N. Khitrovo (secretary of the Palestine Society, interested in a wide range of problems relating to Palestinian studies).

P.K. Kokovtsov (41) raised the question of a targeted study of Palestine, of archaeological work on site. He insisted on regular classes of the scientific department of the Society, on admission to it on preferential terms for scientists (remember that members of the Society became people who paid a certain fee, which not everyone could afford. Scientific research, the speaker believed, should be introduced to a greater extent into life of society than is the case at the present time. “I allow myself to think,” P.K. Kokovtsov concluded his speech, “that if, through certain changes in the life of the scientific department of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society, the studies of this department could, in addition to purely publishing activities, be expressed in systematic and lively meetings of representatives of individual disciplines that make up Palestine studies, and outstanding archaeological and scientific-literary news relating to Palestine and the surrounding countries would be discussed jointly, as well as independent abstracts on various questions of scientific Palestinian studies, then this could give a strong impetus to the Russian independent archaeological study of Palestine. In this way, the latter could gradually receive the desired development here in Russia, so that Russian archeology would not have to blush for complete disregard for a country that deserves it least of all countries in the world and, at the same time, is especially dear to the Russian people. The broad scientific program that the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society has set itself, together with the enormous historical interest of the countries<…>ensures the most active participation in the future activities of the scientific department of all Russian scientists, who are involved in their studies to one degree or another in Palestine and the countries adjacent to it. And if only this joint activity had received a solid foundation, then, one can say with confidence, the most complete success in the future would not have been long in coming for the glory of Russian science and Russian scientific Palestinian studies” (42).

Scientific meetings were not always held regularly, however, they became firmly established in the practice of the Palestinian society. Scientists shared the results of their research work, delivering reports to an extremely demanding audience. Such meetings were often headed by Academician Kokovtsov himself. Thus, the scientific meetings of the Palestine Society today (and they determine the current life of the society) continue the tradition established at the very beginning of this century.

If we ignore purely organizational issues, P.K. Kokovtsov put forward the idea of ​​a comprehensive (as they would say today) study of Palestine. This idea has fully retained its relevance; Soviet Palestinian scholars also contributed to its development.

In terms of the saturation of ancient monuments, in their diversity, in the length of time to which these monuments belong, not a single corner of our planet can, apparently, compete with the Eastern Mediterranean. The city of Jericho, located near the confluence of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea, dates back to the 8th millennium BC. It is the oldest known city in the world. In the 19th and especially in the 20th centuries. Western Asia, including Palestine, is becoming gigantic archaeological sites.

In Palestine, in particular, special research institutions appeared: English Exploration Fund (English Fund for the Exploration of Palestine, founded in 1865), Deutsche Palastinaverein (German Palestine Society, founded in 1877). With the resources at their disposal, these research centers carried out archaeological research on a wide range. The results were published in scientific publications that were distributed everywhere. In the eyes of scientists, especially in those days, biblical archeology seemed the most important; they sought, first of all, to discover monuments reflected in the Holy Scriptures. The Bible (Old and New Testaments) is the richest written source documenting the continuous history of Palestine for more than 1,000 years. The ability to compare data from written sources with monuments of material culture is of great interest.

The contribution of Russian scientists to this area is not very large in volume, but at least important for its time. Archimandrite Antonin (Kapustin), who headed the Russian spiritual mission in 1865–1894, led excavations near the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The results of these excavations, undertaken at the initiative and expense of the Palestinian Society, have enriched our knowledge of the life of Jesus Christ.

The excavations at the Russian site, which were conducted by Archimandrite Antonin, were somewhat amateur in nature. Probably, such a competent specialist as M.I. Rostovtsev had in mind this circumstance in his article devoted to the prospects of Russian science in the archaeological study of Palestine. He wrote: “The question of scientific observation of excavations and their scientific examination cannot be made dependent on the random visits of archaeologists who are little familiar with Palestine. Since discoveries in Russian areas are being made constantly, there must be a permanent person for scientific observation of them. Such a person, of course, can only be one of the secretaries of the Constantinople Archaeological Institute, a specialist in Palestine studies and biblical archeology. He must have certain powers from the Holy Synod and the Palestinian Society and be completely independent of the local representatives of both institutions” (45).

In the early 90s. XIX century A special expedition was sent to Syria and Palestine, which included scientists with appropriate professional training. Taking part in the “archaeological journey through Syria and Palestine” were: senior curator of the Hermitage N. P. Kondakov (later academician), the largest Russian historian of Byzantine and Eastern Christian art in general (46), A. A. Olesnitsky, professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy, specially engaged in the archeology of Palestine (47), Ya. I. Smirnov, curator of the Hermitage, distinguished by his enormous knowledge in the history of oriental art (in 1918, shortly before his death, he was elected academician) (48). The expedition was carried out in 1891–1892.

N.P. Kondakov traveled “from Beirut, through Damascus and Gouran, across Transjordan and to Jerusalem,” carefully examining monuments everywhere, recording their condition. A wide-ranging scientist, N.P. Kondakov sought to identify the belonging of the monuments he studied to certain artistic traditions. “Nowhere does this need to connect local archeology with the general history of art so urgently manifest itself as in the archeology of Palestine,” he wrote in the preface to the work published years later. Currently, this work, based on travel records, is one of the most important contributions of Russian science to the study of monuments of the Middle East (49).

Collections of medieval manuscripts attracted particular attention from scholars traveling to the Middle East. In the 19th century In Russia, along with Slavic ones, there were rich collections of Greek and Oriental manuscripts. Russian scientists systematically traveled to museums and libraries in Western Europe, returning, as a rule, with new discoveries. But there were still collections about which science had a vague idea. Such were the libraries of the monasteries on Mount Athos in Greece (among the monasteries were Russian and Iversky, i.e. Georgian), such were the monastic collections in Palestine. The manuscripts of the monastery of St. Catherine on the Sinai Peninsula seemed especially mysterious.

At the end of the 19th century. The Jerusalem Patriarch Nicodemus ordered the collection of manuscripts scattered throughout the Holy Land in the Patriarchate. Their description and publication was undertaken by a Russian scientist, Greek by nationality, Afanasy Ivanovich Papadopolo-Keramevs (1855 or 1856-1912). An excellent connoisseur of manuscripts, A.I. Papadopolo-Keramevs compiled a catalog of the patriarchal library and a five-issue collection of materials that seemed most interesting to him. Both publications were carried out by the Palestine Society (50).

A. I. Papadopolo-Keramevs did not have a university education, and his publications and research were not always at the level of contemporary science. Nevertheless, his contribution as a collector of materials is highly appreciated (51).

The Palestinian Society directed the search for manuscripts that illuminated the past of Palestine. In 1886, the Byzantinist Pavel Vladimirovich Bezobrazov (died in 1918) examined for this purpose the manuscript collections of Constantinople and the surrounding area - the library of the Jerusalem courtyard, Syllog (Constantinople Scientific Society), theological school on the island of Halki, a commercial school on the same island ( 52). But in the 19th–20th centuries. For scholars who studied manuscripts, the Sinai Monastery of St. Catherine had a special attractive force.

The monastery was founded by Emperor Justinian (527-565). Over the centuries, the richest collections of manuscripts in Greek and many eastern languages ​​- Arabic, Syriac, Georgian, Armenian, and also in Old Church Slavonic - settled here. After World War II, a joint American-Egyptian expedition, subsidized by the Human Research Foundation, discovered about 3,300 manuscripts in 20 languages, two-thirds of them in Greek (53). But until the end of the 19th century. there was no complete understanding of the treasures of the Sinai Monastery, since access to them was extremely difficult. The approach to the monastery is through the desert, with Bedouin tribes roaming around, so traveling through Sinai was not only difficult, but also dangerous. The monks were in constant anxiety, although these tribes obeyed the monastery, supplied it with food, cultivated its lands and were obliged to deliver pilgrims to its walls.

This is how A.V. Eliseev describes his arrival at the monastery in 1881: “Before I had time to stretch my limbs, a black monk appeared in a wall window at a height of ten arshins, greeted me in Greek and asked for letters of recommendation. To this day, no one is allowed into the monastery without letters and papers. This rule was created by the special conditions in which the Sinai monastery had long been located. Crowds of wild Bedouins, until they were pacified by the iron hand of the Egyptian khedives, often besieged the monastery and plundered its rich garden. The monks therefore constantly lived in fear of attack. To avoid invasion of the monastery itself, they blocked a gate in the wall, and communication with the monastery was carried out only with the help of a basket raised and lowered on a rope. The admission procedure was previously as follows. Anyone who came first had to put letters of recommendation either from the consuls, or from the Patriarchate of Alexandria and Jerusalem, or from the abbot of Juvania (54) in Cairo, into a basket lowered from a height of three feet. The raised letters were sorted, and then the basket was lowered again to receive the traveler. Release from the monastery was also carried out through a basket. Not a single traveler was allowed in without letters of recommendation, even if he begged in the name of Christ. Our famous pilgrim Vasily Barsky describes his tearful prayers at the foot of the walls of the Sinai monastery” (55).

Despite all the difficulties, scientists still penetrated the Sinai monastery.

In the middle of the 19th century. Archimandrite Porfiry (Uspensky) visited here twice. It was he who first appreciated the Greek manuscript of the 4th century. on thin parchment, containing part of the Old and all of the New Testament; also two early Christian works that were not included in the canon - the epistle of the Apostle Barnabas and the “Shepherd” of Hermas (56). After Porfiry (Uspensky), the German scientist K. Tischendorf worked here for a long time. With many adventures, he managed to remove this manuscript from the monastery, which in science was called the “Codex Sinaiticus.” K. Tischendorf inspired the monks with the idea of ​​presenting the manuscript to Emperor Alexander II, and he published it in St. Petersburg in 1852 (57).

In 1881, N.P. Kondakov visited the Sinai Monastery, and two years later, in 1883, Alexander Antonovich Tsagareli began his research here on Georgian manuscripts. Professor of the Faculty of Oriental Languages ​​of St. Petersburg University A. A. Tsagareli was sent to the East by the Palestine Society to study Georgian antiquities. He visited Sinai and Palestine, then with the same purpose he went to Mount Athos and Constantinople. The journey lasted 8 months, from January to September 1883. A large work by A. A. Tsagareli was published in the 10th issue of the teaching staff (1888).

19 years after A. A. Tsagareli, two more Georgian scholars visited Sinai - N. Ya. Marr and I. A. Javakhishvili. N. Ya. Marr was very critical of the work of his predecessor (58). One way or another, the new catalog of Georgian manuscripts of the Sinai Monastery was published in parts only after 52 and 59 years.

In 1902, the Palestine Society, together with the Eastern Branch of the Russian Archaeological Society, organized an expedition to Sinai and Jerusalem consisting of N. Ya. Marr, I. A. Javakhishvili, A. L. Vasiliev.

N. Ya. Marr’s companion was his student Ivan Aleksandrovich Javakhov (Javakhishvili, 1876-1940), later the greatest Georgian historian (59). The third member of the expedition is Alexander Alexandrovich Vasiliev (died in 1952), an Arabist and specialist in the field of Byzantine history.

Georgia's cultural ties with Palestine go back to distant times. Already in the 5th century. there were Georgian churches and monasteries here, as evidenced by the presence of Georgian manuscripts in Palestine. In the Holy Cross Monastery near Jerusalem, N. Ya. Marr discovered the life of Gregory of Khandztia, a Georgian ascetic, written in 951 by George Merchul. The life, endowed with great artistic merit, tells about monastic life, about pilgrims, about figures of the Georgian church, and provides many details about the cultural life of Georgians in the 8th–9th centuries. While preparing his life for publication, N. Ya. Marr in 1904 undertook a trip to the places mentioned in the monument, and admitted that he used it as the best guide. With the help of his life, the scientist determined the location of monasteries in Khandzta, Shatberd, Mijnadzor and other places (60).

In Jerusalem, N. Y. Marr was lucky enough to find another wonderful manuscript, which tells about the captivity of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614. The work was written by a monk of the monastery of St. Sava - the Greek Antiochus, nicknamed Stratigus. Antiochus wrote in Greek, but the original of his work (with the exception of some passages) has not survived. The manuscript contained a complete Georgian translation of the work, in which an eyewitness narrated the capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614 - the last Persian campaign against the Byzantine Empire, which included Palestine. N. Y. Marr published the essay along with brief Arabic selections (61).

N. Ya. Marr was an excellent connoisseur of many languages, he studied literary Arabic perfectly. In Sinai, he discovered an Arabic version of the life of Gregory the Illuminator, under whom Armenia adopted Christianity as the state religion. The biography of Gregory in Armenian is one of the most significant monuments of Armenian literature, which contains (in addition to the history of the conversion of the Armenians) a lot of important information about Armenian history, ancient pre-Christian beliefs, etc. The monument appeared in the 5th century, its versions are known in other languages: Greek, Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopian, Georgian, Latin, it was also translated into Church Slavonic (62). The exemplary publication of the Arabic version of this work, carried out by N. Ya. Marr, was a great contribution to the study of Eastern Christian literature.

He prepared a description of the Georgian manuscripts of the library of the Greek Patriarchate in Jerusalem, published much later (63). N. Y. Marr is one of the most outstanding scientists who showed their talent within the framework of the activities of the Palestinian Society. He was closely associated with the society until the end of his life, and was its chairman from 1929 (64).

A. A. Vasiliev studied the manuscripts of the Arab Christian historian of the 10th century in Sinai. Agapius of Menbidzh (65). Soon after his return, in the XV volume of SPPO (Part 3, 1904), he published his travel notes “A Trip to Sinai in 1902.” These notes (with dedication to companions, N. Ya. Marr and I. A. Javakhov) are still read with great interest.

The World War significantly changed the activities of Palestinian society. Pilgrimage journeys stopped, life in the Society’s schools came to a standstill. His staff in Syria and Palestine were in dire straits. But collections for the benefit of the Palestine Society continued, its “Messages” were regularly published, and issues of the “Palestine Collection” were prepared for publication. Palestinian society was ready to expand its activities, but the historical events of 1917 brought the most radical changes into its life.

On March 18, 1917, the Council of the Society made the following decision: “In view of the subsequent changes in the political system of Russia, to recognize henceforth the name of the Society “Orthodox Palestine Society.” Addressing the diocesan departments, commissioners and employees, the council asked them to be guided by the charter of 1882. Before these events, the charter of 1889 was in force, which differed from the previous one in essence only in that it called the Palestine Society the Imperial Society. After the overthrow of the dynasty, this epithet lost its meaning. On March 26, Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna resigned. She headed the Society after the death of her husband, Grand Duke Sergius Alexandrovich, i.e., since 1905. On April 6, her resignation was accepted with an expression of gratitude and gratitude. At the same time, Academician B. A. Turaev joined the Council.

On April 9, at a general meeting, Prince A. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov was elected chairman of the Palestine Society, who headed it until his emigration. The last time he chaired the council was on December 27, 1917, and on October 5 (18), 1918, “due to the continued absence from Petrograd of the Chairman of the Society A. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov and the impossibility at the present time of establishing more or less correct relations with him “The council asked to temporarily assume the duties of the chairman - the “oldest member of the council,” Academician V.V. Latyshev. Until his death on May 2, 1921.

V.V. Latyshev headed the Palestine Society, although, apparently, he was not elected by the general meeting, as required by the charter78.

In connection with the revolutionary events, Palestinian society was left with only one function - scientific, but the role of science (even during the years of civil war, intervention, devastation, famine) remained beyond doubt. Immediately after the revolution, by the very course of events, the Palestinian society turned into a purely scientific enterprise, and for the scientific community the importance and prospects of its future activities were obvious. The scientists themselves energetically sought its approval. It was this circumstance that allowed such an unusual institution in the conditions of new Russia as the Palestinian society to survive and strengthen. But it was nevertheless not easy.

The society could be recognized, first of all, by the approval of its charter. In accordance with the well-known decree of the Council of People's Commissars of January 23, 1918 “On the separation of the Church from the state and the school from the Church” and in accordance with the explanatory documents related to this decree, a new charter of the Russian Palestine Society was developed (this is what it was decided to call the organization) . The goals of the Society were formulated in § 1:

a) historical, archaeological and modern cultural and everyday study of Palestine, Syria, Mount Athos, Egypt and the neighboring countries of the biblical East;

b) organization of international enterprises in Palestine for the study and preservation of monuments of art and antiquity or participation in them;

c) promoting both scientific expeditions and educational excursions of individual citizens of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, and live communication between the masses of the Russian people with the sights of the same countries.

a) takes care to inform and make public such information on issues of Palestinian studies that are in private hands and in the archives of various places;

b) strives to acquire rare books, ancient manuscripts, geographical maps and other scientific aids on Palestinian studies, allowing both the members themselves and everyone who wants to benefit from them for their studies to use them;

c) issues monetary and other awards for the development of questions proposed by him in the field of studying the biblical East;

d) equips expeditions, gives instructions to its members or outsiders who wish to participate in the work of the Society, assisting them with his instructions and monetary benefits;

e) collects and disseminates information on issues of Palestinian studies through lectures, reports and communications in meetings of members of the Society and outsiders, as well as through the printing of scientific research and the publication of periodicals;

f) provides assistance to Russian travelers and sightseers when they visit Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Mount Athos and other places in the Middle East, and, if possible, Italy, by publishing guidebooks, arranging and maintaining on-site excursions, hotels, hiring experienced guides, etc.

Funds were to come from annual and one-time contributions, voluntary donations from persons and institutions sympathetic to the goals of the Society, income from enterprises and real estate owned by the Society in Russia and abroad, as well as amounts from the sale of the Society’s publications.

On September 25, 1918, all the necessary documents were sent to the Council of Workers, Peasants and Red Army Deputies of the Rozhdestvensky District of Petrograd. But the Council, apparently, could only speak out about the permissibility or impermissibility of the current activities of the Society. Meanwhile, Palestinian society tried in every possible way to find its place in the system of scientific institutions, to fit organically into it.

Having sent the charter to the Christmas Council, the Palestine Society (in October 1918) instructed V.V. Latyshev to present this document to the conference, i.e., the general meeting of the Academy of Sciences. A note from Academician B.A. Turaev was attached to the charter, where he characterized the path traveled by the Society and noted that its scientific activity did not stop during the war. “But, paying attention to scientific activities on issues of Palestine studies within Russia, the Society at the same time vigilantly monitors world events developing in the Middle East and looks forward to the end of the brutal bloody struggle and that happy moment when, finally, fraternal communication will occur among all peoples of the world, and Palestine will once again become an arena for peaceful activities and scientific work. The Palestinian society is aware that it faces enormous work in restoring the activities interrupted during the war: first of all, it will have to take care of the future fate of the numerous employees of the Society, both Russians and natives, who are on the ground - in Syria and Palestine, and then solicit, with the assistance of the Soviet Federal Republic, recognition of the Society’s rights to land properties and valuable buildings belonging to it in Palestine.” The draft charter, which was submitted for consideration and approval to the People's Commissariat of Education of the Union of Communes of the Northern Region, “with complete certainty and clarity outlines the scope of the Society’s activities and clarifies its goals and objectives that will be implemented by it after the onset of peacetime”79.

Meanwhile, a group of academics, “who have been in close contact with the Palestine Society on questions of scientific Palestinian studies for over 25 years,” issued a statement on the situation of the Society. The Deputy Chairman of the Council of Communes of the Northern Region “by order of the NKP (People's Commissariat of Education - K. Yu.) dated October 24, 1918, proposed that the Russian Academy of Sciences take urgent measures to protect the scientific property of the Palestinian society from any accidents of the revolutionary time"80. This document (No. 1463) is mentioned in the minutes of the meeting of the Council of the Society on July 12, 1919. From the minutes it is clear that the Council of Communes proposed to the Academy of Sciences to accept the Palestine Society under its jurisdiction81. The Society itself requested this. Addressing the conference with a request to send one representative from the Academy to the council as a member, the Society at the same time declared its desire to be registered with the Russian Academy of Sciences. The corresponding letter was sent on March 14, 191982. By this time, the name of the Society had changed somewhat; already in the minutes of the council meeting of December 16, 1918, it was designated as the “Russian” (and not the “Russian”) Palestine Society. The title of the charter was changed: “Charter of the Russian Palestine Society affiliated to the Russian Academy of Sciences”83.

So, the Palestine Society sent its charter to the Petrograd Soviet and the Academy of Sciences, addressed documents with amendments regarding the name of the Society there, and awaited approval as an organization.

On October 19, 1919, the head of affairs, V.D. Yushmanov, reported to the Council of the Society that a certificate had been received from the Petrograd Council: according to the definition of the Civil Affairs Subdivision of the Management Department of the Petrograd Council on August 29, a society called “Russian Palestine Society” was included in the “Register of Societies and Unions” "under No. 1784.

The next act of recognition was the attitude of the Board of the United Council of Scientific Institutions and Higher Educational Institutions on May 8, 1920, that it “recognized the Palestine Society as a scientific institution and included it among the members of the Council.” By decision of the council of the Palestine Society, the head of affairs, V.D. Yushmanov, was appointed its representative in the United Council85.

Finally, a notification was received from the permanent secretary of the Academy of Sciences (in those years he was Academician S.F. Oldenburg) dated April 17 and May 11, 1920 “about the decision of the Department of Historical Sciences and Philology to have its own member of the Council of the Russian Palestine Society.” representative and on the election of Academician Boris Aleksandrovich Turaev as such.” As for the desire of the RPO to be registered with the Academy of Sciences, the journal of the council meetings says: there was no response to the letter86; but “from a private message from the permanent secretary of the Academy S. F. Oldenburg, it became known that the conference of the Academy of Sciences did not recognize it as possible solely for reasons of principle (i.e., obviously, without any connection with individuals - K. Yu.) to accept Palestinian society under its control."87. And at the same time, the archive contains an extract from the minutes of the meeting of the Board of the Russian Academy of Sciences dated December 31, 1921, which reads: “p. 1. Heard: an extract from the minutes of the OS (general meeting - K. Yu.) dated 10/XII (rel. 28/XII No. 1781) with a resolution to approve the proposal of the vice-president - to equate the chairman of the Palestine Society with academicians, heads of institutions, and the scientific secretary of the Society - to the scientific secretaries of the scientific institutions of the Academy. Decided: to carry out”88.

So, the Palestine Society was recognized as a legal institution, and the charter of the Society was published in typographical form (in the old spelling). Compared to the version presented in 1918, it did not undergo any special changes.

By the nature of its activities, the post-revolutionary Palestinian Society was an institution of an academic type, although the connection with the Academy of Sciences did not receive sufficient formal expression. Remaining outwardly outside of any scientific and organizational structure, fully legalized under Soviet rule, the Society was under threat of closure. Thus, at the end of June 1921, when academician F.I. Uspensky, who had been elected shortly before, was the chairman of the Society, the Cheka sealed the Society’s premises at 10 Mytninskaya Street. F.I. Uspensky wrote a special note in which he outlined the scientific activities of the Society and his rights as the owner of property abroad. From the above it is clear,” the author of the note concluded, “that “the misfortune that befell the Palestinian Society at the end of June of this year, which was expressed in the imposition of seals on the premises of the Society, in the arrest of the head of the house and affairs of the Society V.D. Yushmanov and in the confiscation of part of the books and bundles of archival material and current affairs, served as the main motive for the dissemination in the leading Petrograd circles of public education of the view that Palestinian society is a dead institution, devoid of work and vitality. It was forcibly deprived of the right to operate and with this note it tries to remove the undeserved reproach from itself and at the same time explain that it is not for us with our wretched culture to encroach on the closure of such scientific institutions that have shown their vital activity, bringing significant benefits to the people and science, and this is - in a foreign theater, in fair and successful combat with foreigners<…>. Let us hope that the Soviet government will not lay its hand on the Russian people’s cause in Palestine, which is useful from a state point of view, and will allow the Palestinian Society to continue its activities in accordance with the new charter.”89

The Academy of Sciences also joined in the efforts and authorized three of its members, academicians F.I. Uspensky, P.K. Kokovtsov and V.I. Vernadsky, to discuss measures to resume the activities of the Society90. But only on April 3, 1922, the secretary of the RPO A.N. Akimov was able to report “on the steps he had taken before the Cheka to remove the seals from the premises of the Palestine Society, which were finally crowned with success”91.

The situation in which the Society found itself in the summer of 1923 was much more complicated. Even before the revolution, in the city of Bari, located in southern Italy, the Palestinian Society undertook the construction of the Church of St. Nicholas of Myra, and with it a farmstead for Russian pilgrims. The saint was greatly revered in Russia, and the city where his relics were located was included in the pilgrimage route92. The work was carried out by a specially established Bargrad Committee, whose chairman was A. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov. The former chairman of the Palestine Society, in connection with the revolutionary events, left Russia, broke all ties with the Society, settled in Berlin and in the early 20s. through his trusted prince N.D. Zhevakhov (also involved in the activities of the Bargrad Committee) declared himself the administrator of the Society’s property. A trial began in Bari that lasted for years. All these years, the RPO maintained close contact with the Soviet embassy in Italy, supplied diplomatic workers with the necessary documentation and, following their advice, identified persons called upon to defend the interests of the RPO in court. Therefore, not only for the RPO, but also for the embassy, ​​the note sent to the governments of Great Britain, France and Italy was a complete surprise and stated, among other things, that the Palestinian Society was liquidated back in 1918!

The note was submitted on May 18, 1923, and on June 22 it was published in Izvestia of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and in Petrogradskaya Pravda. In Izvestia one could read the following: “According to information received by the Russian government, an organization located in Berlin and which has appropriated the name “Council of the Russian Palestine Society,” being in financial difficulties, proposes to begin a partial sale of real estate that belonged to before the revolution to the specified society in Palestine and Syria. The Russian government considers it its duty to state in this regard that by virtue of the decree of the Council of People's Commissars of January 23, 1918, the Russian Palestine Society was liquidated and all its property, both movable and immovable, was declared the property of the Russian state.” Further in the note there were details about the nature of the property and its location in “Jerusalem, Nazareth, Kayfa, Beirut and other places in Palestine and Syria”, the nationalized property of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem, Jericho, Jaffa and Tiberias was mentioned, and the nationalized possessions of the ministry were also mentioned foreign affairs of tsarist times. Noting that a significant part of the property of the Palestinian Society is located in Italy, the note placed responsibility for the preservation of the property of the Russian state on the governments of Great Britain, France and Italy “until the moment when the Russian government is able to dispose of this property.” All transactions concluded without the consent and approval of the government were declared void (that is, without force - K. Yu.).

On June 20, perhaps in connection with the filing of the note, the NKVD did not approve the charter of the RPO during re-registration and adopted a resolution to liquidate the Company93. Then the Society sent a letter to the Petrograd Directorate of Scientific Institutions, which raised the question of property in connection with the process in Bari. The management, in turn, contacted Aktsentr. The note of May 18, this letter said, complicated the situation. “As a result of the said note, an extremely difficult situation was created for the Palestinian Society, which continues to legally exist to this day, since the aforementioned decree of January 23, 1918 did not actually affect this Society, which is basically scientific and not ecclesiastical or religious. The Company’s opportunity to defend its rights to property in Bari in an Italian court was also cancelled, which was reported in detail in his report of the 6th month by the Company’s employee, Vl. Kamensky"94.

On June 24, the chairman of the RPO F. I. Uspensky and the scientific secretary V. N. Beneshevich sent a letter to the Petrograd Directorate of Higher Educational Institutions and Scientific Institutions. It is clear from the letter that the RPO Council addressed the Aktsentr “with a request to find out the actual position of the Society and give instructions on the further direction of its activities.” The authors of the letter noted that the decree to which the note referred “had no force in relation to the Society, which was basically scientific and used, among other things, the assistance of church bodies only to raise funds.” The Charter of the Society, continued the authors of the letter, was also presented to the People's Commissariat for Education; There is a safe conduct certificate for the library and the premises occupied by the Society. “No orders to nationalize property or liquidate the Company came from anywhere, and no actions in this direction were taken by the relevant authorities. All the property of the Society has been preserved and is located in the premises occupied by its library and museum, with the exception of those things and documents that were selected by officials of the emergency commission during a search carried out in 1922 (1921? - K. Yu.) and have not yet been returned in full, although, according to the written official certificate of the Revolutionary Tribunal, no guilt or offenses on the part of the Society were discovered. This position of the Society threatens to change for the worse in view of the solemn announcement of the note on the liquidation of the Society.” Further, the authors of the letter pointed to a number of possible measures in order to preserve the Society, in particular, the need to “exactly clarify the legal position of the Society and obtain from the People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs a certificate of its registration”95.

But events did not unfold in favor of the Society. On June 4, 1923, the head of the registration desk of societies and other associations in the Volodarsky district of Petrograd drew up an act on the closure of the Russian (!) Palestinian Society and sealed two rooms of the RPO96. At the same time, vigorous efforts were made to preserve Palestinian society, to save it for science. The next day after the imposition of seals and the closure of the Society, the Chairman of the Russian Academy of the History of Material Culture, Academician N. Ya. Marr, sent a letter to the Administrative Department of the Provincial Executive Committee, where he noted that in three rooms of the Society there is a book collection, an archive and a museum of the Middle East, consisting by resolution of the Council RAIMK is run by the Academy. The Academy asks to urgently remove the seals from these premises97. On July 6, a letter was sent to the same address from the Petrograd Directorate of Scientific and Scientific-Art Institutions. Since there is a letter of protection for the property located on the premises of the RPO, the department requests that the seals be removed98.

Nevertheless, efforts to restore the Society were crowned with success only at the end of 1925. Within just over two years, the activities of the RPO as a scientific organization were discontinued. Only on October 25, 1925, the charter of the RPO was approved by the NKVD, and the Society resumed its activities99. In this regard, F.I. Uspensky sent a letter to the People's Commissar of Internal Affairs with the following content:

“The Russian Palestine Society, having begun to continue its activities, in accordance with the charter approved by the Commissariat of Internal Affairs of the RSFSR, considers it its duty to express its gratitude to you and at the same time bring to your attention that it considers all property located both abroad and in the USSR , considered to be the Palestinian society’s national property, and for its part will make every effort to defend its rights by all legal means.”100

It is not difficult to understand that in the new conditions of Soviet reality, the property of the Palestinian society (regardless of their status before the revolution and in full accordance with the character that the Society acquired after the revolution) became public property. The supreme right to dispose of them naturally passed to the state; this idea constituted, so to speak, the pathos of the note. The scientists who headed the RPO in those years understood all this very well; this can be judged from the letter of F.I. Uspensky cited above. But the note stated that the Russian Palestine Society was liquidated in connection with the decree on the nationalization of church property, and this in no way corresponded to reality. From the documents we have cited, it is clear that the RPO made efforts to legalize itself and achieved full recognition. Indeed, the sad incident of 1921 was eliminated. On December 9, 1922, the 1919 charter, with some amendments, was approved by the Deputy Head of the Main Science of the Aktsentr Narkompros101. All this indicates that the information about the RPO that was used in drawing up the note came from incompetent persons. Be that as it may, the close cooperation of the RPO with the NKID continued, and the trial in Bari finally ended in favor of the Palestinian society. A. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov and his representative N. D. Zhevakhov lost the process. At the beginning of the 30s. the management of the property of the RPO in Bari was completely entrusted to the Soviet ambassador in Italy102.

Russian Palestinian society endured all the difficulties of war and post-war times. Membership fees constituted the main financial source of the Society's existence, but the money was devalued. On May 26, 1922, it was recognized that “it is fundamentally desirable to establish membership fees at least in the amount of 1,000,000 rubles”103. To these general difficulties were added specific ones, as we described above. And yet, at the end of the 10s and throughout the 20s. The Russian Palestinian society, although with interruptions, continued to function properly.

Getting acquainted with the activities of the RPO during this period is striking in the abundance of “big” names in its composition. As already mentioned, after the revolution, the Society was headed by Academician V.V. Latyshev104, his successor was Academician F.I. Uspensky, a leading Byzantinist. Scientists associated with the Palestinian Society include Academician V. G. Vasilievsky, one of the largest domestic Byzantine scholars. Next to him stands the figure of academician N.P. Kondakov - his role in the activities of the Palestinian society is equally significant. In the 20s the successes of the RPO, in a certain sense even the very fact of its existence, are associated, first of all, with F.I. Uspensky. Three major representatives of Russian Byzantine studies devoted their activities to the Palestinian society.

F.I. Uspensky was a scientist of an extremely wide range. He is the author of the monumental “History of the Byzantine Empire” in three volumes and hundreds of works, some of which go beyond the boundaries of Byzantine studies proper (although these limits themselves are not very precisely fixed). F. I. Uspensky entered the history of Byzantine studies not only as a major researcher, but also as an organizer - he was the founder and permanent director of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople. The Archaeological Institute interrupted its activities with the outbreak of the World War. In the mid-20s. Hopes arose for the resumption of the institute's activities, but they were not destined to come true. Deeply traumatized by the death of his brainchild, the director of RAIC concentrated his efforts on ensuring the activities of the Palestinian Society, with which he had long been associated.

After F.I. Uspensky, the Palestine Society was led by N.Ya. Marr; in certain periods, Academician I.Yu. Krachkovsky assumed the functions of chairman.

In the mid-20s. members of the RPO included D. V. Ainalov (art historian), academicians V. V. Bartold, V. N. Beneshevich (Byzantine scholar, Caucasian scholar, for a long time was the scientific secretary of the Society), A. A. Dmitrievsky (the largest expert on liturgical manuscripts , historian of the Society, was also its scientific secretary), academicians S. A. Zhebelev, P. K. Kokovtsov, N. P. Likhachev (collector of antiquities, researcher of a wide range), I. I. Meshchaninov (linguist, later academician), S. F. Oldenburg, prof. M. D. Priselkov, academician A. I. Sobolevsky, prof. I. I. Sokolov (historian, for a long time was the executive editor of SPPO), V. V. Struve (then a professor, later an academician), B. V. Farmakovsky, M. V. Farmakovsky (archaeologists), N. D. Flittner , prof. I. G. Frank-Kamenetsky, prof. V. K. Shileiko (historians of the ancient world). It is interesting to note that such outstanding figures in the field of natural science as academicians V.I. Vernadsky, A.E. Fersman, N.I. Vavilov became members of the Society. Addressing N.I. Vavilov with an invitation to become a member of the RPO council, N.Ya. Marr asked to help the Society “in fulfilling its task of studying Palestine, Syria, Egypt and neighboring countries, by the way, in natural history terms”105.

The number of RPO members in the 20s. (after the restoration of the Society in 1925) numbered 55 people.

Organizational changes in Palestinian society followed immediately after the February Revolution; radical changes to the organizational structure were introduced, as shown above, by the October Revolution. Actually, the scientific life of the Society resumed under new conditions at the beginning of 1919. The invitation to the first meeting has been preserved; we present it in full as a document of the era:

“The chairman of the department of scientific publications and research of the Russian Palestine Society, V.V. Latyshev, humbly asks you to welcome you to the first meeting on the scientific study of Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Constantinople and Athos, which will take place on Sunday, January 13 (26) of this year, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, in the premises of the Council of the Palestine Society (Peski, Mytninskaya St., 10, entrance from the yard).

At the same time, the chairman of the department addresses you with the most earnest request not to refuse to outline the topics that you deign to recognize as necessary to put in the first place for scientific development.

The most convenient tram routes are: 4, 13, 25 and 26.”

V.V. Latyshev himself was unable to take part in the meeting; N.Ya. Marr presided. This meeting was attended by V.V. Bartold, A.I. Brilliantov, A.A. Vasiliev, N.N. Glubokovsky, A.A. Dmitrievsky, A.V. Nikitsky, I.S. Palmov, I.G. Troitsky, B. A. Turaev and the head of the affairs of the Council of the RPO V. D. Yushmanov106.

Publishing matters were discussed, and it turned out, in particular, that the printing of the 63rd issue of the “Palestine Collection” was almost completed, and “Messages” (vol. XXVIII for 1917) were printed in the amount of 8 author’s sheets. (These numbers completed the old series of PPS and SPPO.) The portfolio contained a number of important works, including “Russia in the Middle East in the 19th Century” by A. A. Dmitrievsky. Plans for future work were discussed by V. V. Bartold (he was going to continue the work of N. A. Melnikov), A. A. Vasiliev, A. A. Dmitrievsky, N. Ya. Marr (“The Caucasus in the life of Christian Palestine and Palestine in monuments of art and writing and folk literature of the Caucasus"), I. S. Palmov, I. G. Troitsky. A written application was sent by P.K. Kokovtsov (he proposed, in particular, the topic “Archaeological excavations and investigations in Palestine and Syria in the 19th and 20th centuries and their significance for biblical studies”).

The question of the status of the Society was also discussed: one way or another it should be associated with the Academy of Sciences, for example, as an institute for the study of Palestine. A note from the Society's council was read, submitted to the conference of the Academy of Sciences on October 30, 1918 and to the People's Commissariat of Education, with a petition for approval of the new charter and the section of this charter that spoke about the goals of the Society107.

The surviving minutes of the meetings show that in the post-revolutionary years the scientific life of the RPO was distinguished by an extraordinary breadth of interests. The RPO's focus is on the archeology of Palestine. B.V. Farmakovsky makes a report “The latest archaeological research in Jericho”, B.L. Bogaevsky speaks on the topic “The most ancient cultures on the soil of Palestine according to the latest excavations.” The review of I. G. Troitsky about the book by A. A. Olesnitsky “Biblical Archeology”108 is discussed. Problems of the history of the ancient Jews are posed in the reports of V. V. Struve “Ephraim and Manasseh and the Fall of Israel” and S. Ya. Lurie “The Stay of Israel in Egypt according to Jewish Sources.” V. K. Shileiko’s report “El is the name of the solar god” attracts wide attention. Byzantine studies fit organically into the scientific life of the RPO. V.V. Latyshev reads out the report “On the hagiographical works of Nikita David of Paphlagon”, S.P. Rozanov - “Proscinitary in the “Synopsis” of Dorotheus of Monemvasia”. Judging by the title, V. E. Waldenberg’s report “The Constitution of Byzantium according to its literary monuments” was interesting and unusual. Work is planned for the future. F. I. Uspensky introduces listeners to the project of a joint Russian-French publication of manuscripts of Athos. Manuscripts are a recurring theme in societies such as Palestine. N. Y. Marr's student, Englishman Robert Blake, reports on three American expeditions to Palestine and Syria in 1923, 1927 and 1930. for the purpose of studying and describing manuscripts, in particular Georgian ones. Monuments of art are not ignored. N.P. Kondakov and V.N. Beneshevich give a report “Newly found icons of the Sinai Monastery”; in a separate report, V.N. Beneshevich seeks to determine the time of origin of the Sinai mosaic of the Transfiguration. Arabic studies is presented by I. Yu. Krachkovsky (report “Memoirs of the Syrian Emir from the era of the first crusade”).

The report of F. I. Uspensky “Eastern and Western European political and trade interests on the Mediterranean coast in the Middle Ages” is distinguished by a broad formulation of the issue. The society is also interested in more modern subjects: reports by I. I. Sokolov “The Question of the Holy Places of Palestine in the Light of Russian Diplomatic Correspondence of the Last Quarter of the 19th Century”, F. I. Uspensky “The Current Situation of the Jerusalem Patriarchate” (1922), K. V. Ode -Vasilieva “Events of 1929 in Palestine” (1931).

It should be noted that in the post-revolutionary years the publishing capabilities of academic institutions were very small. Research thought found outlets in oral reports, lectures, and was often limited to this. Reports at RPO meetings ensured the development of science, the results of which were presented to a very demanding and completely competent audience.

Publishing opportunities were limited, but they still existed. In 1926, it was finally possible to publish the XXIX volume of “Messages of the Palestine Society”109. But attempts to publish the next, XXX volume, were unsuccessful.

Summing up some results of the activities of the RPO under V.V. Latyshev and especially under F.I. Uspensky, we come to the conviction that the Society in these years was an active scientific institution, a union of scientists with a broad and varied program. There is no doubt that the successes of the RPO were largely due to the energy and excellent organizational qualities of F.I. Uspensky. But even these qualities were not enough to overcome the specific difficulties of the time. Palestinian society had an excellent library. Numerous works on Palestinian studies and related issues in Russian and foreign languages ​​were collected here. The library collected information from the current press about Palestine - a certain part of the library consisted of clippings from newspapers and magazines. A catalog of books110 was published. After the temporary cessation of the RPO's activities in 1923, the book collection entered the Russian Academy of the History of Material Culture, and subsequently disintegrated. Since the books were protected from the vicissitudes of time, the collection as such ceased to exist. Currently, the library of the Palestinian Society is partly located in St. Petersburg (in special libraries of academic institutions and in the State Museum of the History of Religion), partly in Moscow.

The society also lost its archive (since 1952 - in the archives of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs).

In 1929, after the death of F.I. Uspensky, N.Ya. Marr became the chairman of the RPO, who during these years carried dozens of scientific and public responsibilities and could not ensure the normal activities of the Society. Of course, objective circumstances also played a role: the problems of Palestinian society in the early 30s, during the crisis of historical science in the USSR, seemed alien. Under these conditions, the Palestinian Society ceased its activities111.

The first edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia does not mention the Society. In the early 30s. there was intensive correspondence about the publication of the work

N. Ya. Marra “Description of the Georgian manuscripts of the Sinai Monastery.” The book was published in 1940, and under the stamp not of the RPO, as planned, but of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Palestinian society, as it might seem, ceased to exist forever.

And yet the Society was revived. On January 16, 1951, a general meeting of the RPO took place. The chief scientific secretary of the Academy of Sciences, Academician A.V. Topchiev, chaired the meeting, and prominent scientists from Moscow and Leningrad attended the meeting. In his opening speech, A.V. Topchiev said: “Due to a number of circumstances, the activities of the Russian Palestine Society were actually interrupted in the early 30s. Taking into account the recent increased interest of Soviet scientists, and especially orientalists, in the countries of the Middle East, as well as the increased capabilities of Soviet science, the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences recognized the need to intensify the activities of the Society as an organization helping Soviet scientists study these countries. To this end, the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences carried out a number of activities to replenish the membership of the Society and prepare for this meeting.”

It was assumed that the chairman of the RPO would be I. Yu. Krachkovsky - a life member of the Society since 1915, a member of its council since 1921, and then a fellow chairman, who, after the death of F. I. Uspensky and until October 1929, had to serve duties of the chairman. But I. Yu. Krachkovsky was ill (he had a few days to live, and died on January 24, 1951). The researcher of Central Asia S.P. Tolstov was elected Chairman of the Society, the council included academicians V.V. Struve, A.V. Topchiev, corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences N.V. Pigulevskaya, R.P. Dadykin (scientific secretary). Without being a member of the council, I. Yu. Krachkovsky remained in his old position as deputy chairman of the RPO. At the same time, the representative of the RPO in Israel, M. P. Kalugin, was approved.

At the meeting, a report by I. Yu. Krachkovsky was read out, which spoke about the past activities of the Society and outlined its program for the future. All speakers spoke about immediate tasks. N.V. Pigulevskaya, in particular, insisted on the need to resume scientific and publishing activities in traditional areas, meaning, of course, the publication of the “Palestine Collection”. Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich) of Kolomna and Krutitsky, who was present at the meeting, recalled the long-standing ties of the Palestinian society with the Russian Spiritual Mission, drew attention to the property of the RPO abroad, and called for the care that these property needs.

The meeting adopted the Society's charter. Essentially, this was the previous charter of 1919, to which, however, significant editorial changes were made to reflect the new reality and terminology.

§ 1 of the charter read: “The Russian Palestine Society under the USSR Academy of Sciences has the goal of:

a) study of Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq and neighboring countries of the Middle East in historical, archaeological, philological and cultural-everyday relations;

b) participation in international events for the study and protection of monuments of art and antiquity in these countries;

c) organizing scientific expeditions and educational excursions for citizens of the USSR to get acquainted with the sights and historical monuments of these countries.”

With the restoration of the Society, scientific reports became a practice. Thus, in 1954, V. V. Struve spoke in Moscow - “The contribution of Egypt, Syria and Palestine to the history of the development of drama”, N. V. Pigulevskaya - “From Beijing to Jerusalem (the walk of the Syrians Mar Yablakha and Bar Sauma).” On May 25, 1955, the report of A.P. Okladnikov “Monuments of the Stone Age of Palestine and their significance for the history of ancient mankind” was announced. V.P. Yakimov made a presentation “The significance of paleoanthropological finds in Palestine for studying the problem of the origin of modern man.” On May 26, two reports were presented: B. N. Zakhoder - “The Khorasan Code of Geographical Information about Eastern Europe” and S. I. Brook - “Map of the Peoples of Western Asia.”

Meetings of the Palestine Society were also held in Leningrad. Here, the Society’s activities were largely due to the vigorous energy of Nina Viktorovna Pigulevskaya (1894-1970). A student of P.K. Kokovtsova, N.V. Pigulevskaya entered the history of science primarily as a siriologist - an expert on Syrian manuscripts and Syrian literature, at the same time as an orientalist historian and Byzantinist of a wide profile. She is the author of a number of books: “Mesopotamia at the turn of the 5th–6th centuries.” (1940), “Byzantium and Iran at the turn of the 6th and 7th centuries.” (1946), “Cities of Iran in the Early Middle Ages” (1956), “Byzantium on the Roads to India” (1957), “Arabs near the borders of Byzantium and Iran in the 4th–6th centuries.” (1964). In those years when these books112 appeared (as well as numerous articles; the number of published works by N.V. Pigulevskaya exceeds 170), their author was one of the very few researchers who had the appropriate training to begin to tackle this issue.

In 1946, N.V. Pigulevskaya was elected corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences. The resumption of the activities of the Palestinian society, the direction that this activity took, was largely the work of N.V. Pigulevskaya. She organized scientific meetings not only in Leningrad, but also in Moscow, where she traveled with students and colleagues.

The organizational abilities of N.V. Pigulevskaya were manifested not only in her activities as deputy chairman of the RPO. She headed the Cabinet of the Middle East of the Leningrad branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and was the chairman of the Inter-Institutional Byzantine Group in Leningrad. Scientific life in the RPO, in the Cabinet of the Middle East and in the Byzantine group proceeded in similar directions; now even the speakers cannot always remember along which line this or that report was announced. But the independent role of the Palestinian society in the development of our oriental studies, in particular St. Petersburg, is undoubted, just as the personal contribution of N.V. Pigulevskaya is undoubted. This is how Doctor of Historical Sciences A.G. Lundin, a famous historian of ancient South Arabia, describes the meetings in Leningrad: “The scientific meetings, which took place every two to three months, were not crowded. They were attended by both prominent oriental scientists, members of the Palestinian Society, and (even predominantly) young scientists, orientalists and Byzantinists. The reports discussed formed the basis for the articles in the Palestine Collection. Participation in the meetings and the reports themselves served as a scientific school for many scientists of the post-war generation.

“I especially remember my speech at the Palestine Society in 1955 - the first scientific report in my life,” writes A.G. Lundin. “The meeting was held, as usual, in the building of the Academy of Sciences, in a room called the “President’s Office.” There was a large desk with a table lamp with a green glass shade - the famous “green lamp”, which became part of Orientalist folklore of the 30s. and mentioned in the book by I. Yu. Krachkovsky “Above Arabic Manuscripts”. There was also a corner leather sofa in the office.

I arrived early for my first report and sat on the sofa in the corner while waiting for it to start. Gradually the meeting participants gathered. Among the first was

N.V. Pigulevskaya, V.A. Krachkovskaya, I.G. Livshits, I.P. Petrushevsky and others came113. Nina Viktorovna remembered that in the same office she read her first report at a meeting of the College of Orientalists114. It turned out that Vera Aleksandrovna Krachkovskaya gave her first report here. We remembered the names that had already become legendary - Academician S. F. Oldenburg, who occupied the chairman’s place at the desk, N. Ya. Marr, I. Yu. Krachkovsky... Then Vera Alexandrovna, looking at me, said: “But in this place , in the corner, V.V. Bartold always sat,” and while the conversation was going on about Bartold, I quietly moved to another place. But then the conversation changed, and Nina Viktorovna, looking at me, said: “F.I. Shcherbatskoy usually sat in this place115. After that, I stood up and did not dare to sit down before the meeting began.

An atmosphere of goodwill and responsibility reigned during the discussion of the reports. The performance always evoked responses, almost everyone present spoke. None of the leading scientists, members of the Palestinian Society, kept silent, and inattention when reading the report was simply impossible. But there was no condescension towards the speaker, no discounts on youth and inexperience, although critical remarks, even the most severe, were combined with indications of the best places to work and its merits. The meetings of the Palestinian Society of that time remained for me the best example of the “academic” style, the “academic” manner of work”116.

In the same atmosphere, reports were given by other scientists, Leningraders and Muscovites, venerable and young - I. N. Vinnikov, N. A. Meshchersky, E. E. Granstrem, L. P. Zhukovskaya, A. V. Bank, R R. Orbeli, K. B. Starkova, V. S. Shandrovskaya, A. V. Paykova, B. L. Fonkich, M. M. Elizarova and others.

Under the skillful leadership of N.V. Pigulevskaya, the Leningrad branch of the RPO played its role in uniting scientists working on complex problems of the history and culture of the peoples of the Middle East in antiquity and the Middle Ages117.

The Russian Palestine Society resumed its activities at a time when Russian oriental studies again took its rightful place in world science. During this period, former difficulties with the publication of scientific works were largely overcome. In 1954, the first issue of the new series of “Palestine Collection” was published. The responsible editor of this and subsequent issues was N.V. Pigulevskaya118. She headed the publication personally, without an editorial board, taking full responsibility. Of course, preliminary testing of the materials and their review took place with the participation of many specialists, but the composition of the issues, the very direction of the publication, were determined by N.V. Pigulevskaya. Although not a periodical by status, the “Palestine Collection” was published with amazing regularity: from 1954 to 1971, 23 issues were published!

N.V. Pigulevskaya’s successor as the executive editor of the “Palestine Collection” was academician B.B. Piotrovsky, who strongly supported the traditional, fully justified direction of this publication. In the person of executive secretaries M. M. Elizarova and E. N. Meshcherskaya, B. B. Piotrovsky found worthy assistants.

The nature and direction of the scientific activity taking place within the framework of the Russian Palestine Society is most clearly reflected in the “Palestine Collection”; from the publications of this body one can get an adequate idea of ​​the Society.

To date, 98 issues of the Palestine Collection have been published. These are studies concerning the history, culture, languages ​​of the peoples of the Middle East (including Egypt), the countries of the Mediterranean (up to and including Spain), the Middle East and, to some extent, even the Far East119. The chronological limits of these studies can be briefly discussed - from ancient times to the present day.

Here is an approximate list of disciplines reflected in the PS - both in a series of monographs and in articles and reviews: Egyptology (history, linguistics, archaeology); papyrology of Byzantine as well as Greco-Roman Egypt; biblical studies; Hebraistics and Semitology in numerous branches; Qumran studies; history and culture of Ugarit and Phenicia (including colonies); Arabic studies (history of both pre-Islamic Arabs and Muslim Arabs, epigraphy highlighting a specific area of ​​study of South Arab inscriptions, Arabic philology, numismatics); Byzantine studies in a wide spectrum (history of Byzantium, literature, art, Byzantium and the East as a special topic); Greco-Roman antiquity, history of Hellenism; Iranian studies (history of Iran in antiquity and the Middle Ages, languages, Iranian philology); Siriology; Russian and Slavic studies; Armenian studies; Georgian Studies; Coptology; Ethiopian Studies; Turkology; Kurdish studies.

The disciplines are listed in random order; the division is somewhat arbitrary and does not show all thematic headings that are identified with a more detailed subject systematization. Noting the wide range of the publication, one more, in this case important, feature should be emphasized. “The Palestine Collection” is printed in the Academic Printing House No. 1, founded by Peter the Great in 1709. This printing house has long been famous for its wealth of various fonts, including oriental ones. The printing level of the “Palestine Collection” indicates that the Academic Printing House has preserved its traditions and is able to provide the most complex publications. The texts in the collection are reproduced in their original writing.

The variety of disciplines reflected in the “Palestine Collection” is obvious. At the same time, the main theme of the collection remains a set of studies devoted to the history and culture of the Christian East.

For the period of formation of Eastern Christian culture, we can talk about a unified literature, in a certain sense, realized in different linguistic variants. The same tendency is in painting, but here the presence of local traditions usually has a stronger effect, and the differences are even more noticeable in architecture, not only secular, but also religious. Nevertheless, here too we can to some extent talk about a single cultural phenomenon, a single ideological and aesthetic basis.

Pronounced features of community are present in the culture of the Syrians, Armenians, Georgians, Copts, Ethiopians, Albanians120, and Christian Arabs - peoples who together constituted the Christian East.

The impetus for this culture was given by the Greek-speaking Byzantium, the movement was radical in nature, although there were reverse flows. Byzantium itself, however, cannot be unconditionally attributed to the Christian East; the orientation of culture towards the “east” coexisted here with an equally pronounced orientation towards the “west” (at least in tradition). But it was Byzantium that served both as a source of culture and as its measure.

The Eastern Orthodox Slavs are usually excluded from the concept of “Christian East,” but they are excluded due to a negative association (not “East”) and due to other traditions of study. Meanwhile, typologically, East Slavic culture is very close to the culture of those societies whose belonging to the Christian East is unconditionally recognized. The patterns here are the same.

The foundations of the established tradition of studying the Christian East in our country were laid at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. the works of such outstanding researchers as V. R. Rosen and B. A. Turaev, N. Ya. Marr and I. Yu. Krachkovsky, N. P. Kondakov and P. K. Kokovtsov, F. I. Uspensky and I. A. Orbeli. As with all Russian Oriental studies, the centers for the study of the Christian East were the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences and the Faculty of Oriental Languages ​​of St. Petersburg University, the Asian Museum and the Oriental Branch of the Russian Archaeological Society, in Moscow - the Lazarev Institute of Oriental Languages ​​- and, of course, the Palestinian Society. True, the fact that the Society was “Orthodox” left an imprint on the direction of its scientific activity. The past of both Palestine and the Christian East as a whole was viewed through the prism of Orthodoxy and mainly within the confines of Orthodoxy. In this sense, the range of interests of the Eastern Branch of the Russian Archaeological Society was wider - in its “Notes” the Christian East is presented in its entirety. This feature was also adopted by the magazine “Christian East”, which began publishing in 1912, and the 6 published volumes of which absorbed the best traditions121 that had developed by that time in Russian oriental studies.

These traditions were inherited by the “Palestine Collection” of the new series, which played a huge role in understanding the historical and cultural phenomenon itself. Being primarily a siriologist, N.V. Pigulevskaya at the same time well felt that the Syrian culture (as well as the culture of the Armenians, Georgians, Copts, etc.) belonged to a more significant whole. She realized her understanding of the Christian East in her own works and passed this quality on to her students and staff. This approach emerges quite clearly in the numerous works included in the Palestine Collection. In this way, the continuity of science was ensured in another, very important area.

And today the history and culture of the peoples of the Christian East or, in more modern terms, the peoples belonging to the Byzantine cultural circle, along with Palestine as such, is the main subject of study within the Society122.
5

At the dawn of its existence, the Palestinian society had very clearly defined goals - the spread of Orthodoxy, care for Russian pilgrims and the scientific study of Christian shrines and antiquities of Palestine. Unique in its character, this Society was one of the manifestations of Russian policy in the Middle East, its primary task (if one can say so in this case) is clearly revealed. And at the same time, already in the first years of the Society’s activity, significant deviations from the initially formulated tasks were discovered.

The Society's own role in politics was reduced to zero. It did not and could not perform any political tasks in practice. Palestinian society was engaged in the spread and strengthening of Orthodoxy among local Arabs, but more and more the role was played not by the goal, but by the means of achieving it. Educational activities prevailed. Palestinian society gained fame among the local population precisely as a hotbed of knowledge, and not as a bearer and propagandist of Orthodoxy. Of course, the spread of Orthodoxy - direct or indirect - was carried out very energetically, but it turned out that it was directed primarily at their own fellow citizens, at those thousands of pilgrims who flocked from Russia to the Holy Places. Finally, in the scientific field, which was outlined clearly and clearly, at the turn of two centuries a certain turning point was indicated. The study of Palestinian shrines gave way to a broad, multifaceted study of the region as a whole, and the study of the Middle East within its wide borders.

At its inception, Palestinian society responded, first of all, to the tastes and goals of the aristocracy and the royal family. The composition of the Society speaks for itself, and at first it could function only thanks to the contributions and contributions of its eminent members and crowned patrons. But the Society did not remain a class-limited enterprise, much less become a purely monarchical institution. In its educational activities it responded rather to the progressive ideas of its time. At the same time, of course, one cannot discount the fact that it included such persons as Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich or Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod K. P. Pobedonostsev.

After the revolution, Palestinian society was able to fit into the emerging Soviet science without fundamental disruption.

In the early 50s. In the 20th century, it resumed its activities, and in the form that basically continues to this day. The objectives of the Society are very broad and, as we have already indicated, it is best to judge this from the “Palestine Collection”123. The Palestinian Society brings together scientists engaged in developing a wide range of scientific problems. But it is not a research institute typical of our country, and is not able to take on its functions. The task of the Palestinian Society is different - to unite scientists on a voluntary basis around special issues, to unite outside their departmental affiliation. Being by its nature a creative association, the Palestinian Society is capable of playing the role of a coordinating institution. The main form of its activity is free scientific discussion with the desire to reach the widest possible scope of specialists. Informal connections between scientists play a beneficial role in the development of science and allow flexible responses to problems that arise especially at the intersection of disciplines. In its activities, the Palestinian Society strives to provide a lively, creative atmosphere.

It is in this capacity that Palestinian society fits into the structure of academic science, making its own contribution to its development.

Today the Society acts in a new capacity. In restoring the old name, I would like to see only a tribute to tradition, and the fact that a scientific society has become “Orthodox” does not make a confessional approach to the subject of research inevitable. At the same time, many previous prohibitions have now been lifted, and this makes it possible to expand scientific issues. Despite all the technical difficulties, scientific contacts strengthened. Many members of the Society had the opportunity to visit the Middle East and set foot in Palestine. I would like to believe that, while remaining true to its traditions, the Palestinian society will continue to bear the scientific burden it has voluntarily assumed with dignity.

P.S. author. This sketch of the history of Palestinian society appears as it was completed in 1984, without any significant editorial changes. Some phrases will probably make the reader wince, who has forgotten about the strict publishing requirements of a bygone - hopefully irrevocably - era, or is not familiar with them at all. This remark applies especially to the history of the Society in the post-war period. Having accepted criticism in advance, the author nevertheless left the text unchanged, since partial editing would have violated the unity of style. More to the point, my views on the past of Palestinian society have not changed.

Yuzbashyan Karen Nikitich - Doctor of Historical Sciences, St. Petersburg branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, leading scientific consultant.

1. For a general overview of the state of Christian communities, see in particular: Rondot P. Les Chretiens d'Orient. Paris, 1956; Assfalg J., Kruger P. Petit dictionnaire de l'Orient chrutien. Brepols, 1991.
2. Contradictions could find the most base way out. Often, during common holidays, quarrels arose between representatives of individual faiths - ordinary parishioners and their hierarchs, ending in assault.
See, for example: Krymsky A.E. Letters from Lebanon 1896–1898. M., 1975. S. 283–284.
3. Monothelites - supporters of the doctrine of two natures, but one will in Jesus Christ. This doctrine was put forward by the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius (610-640) in an attempt to reconcile the Eastern Churches with the Imperial Church. See: Rodionov M. A. Maronites. From the ethno-confessional history of the eastern Mediterranean. M., 1982. S. 10–11.
4. See: Porfiry Uspensky. The book of my existence. I–VIII, St. Petersburg, 1894–1902.
5. See: Nicodemus. History of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem // Theological works. 1979. Sat. 20.
6.XXV. Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society and its activities (1882-1907). Historical note, compiled on behalf of the council of the society prof. A. A. Dmitrievsky (hereinafter referred to as the Palestinian Society). St. Petersburg, 1907. P. 5.
7. See: Palestinian Society... P. 59.
8. Ibid. pp. 101–102.
9. SPPO, 1892–1904. Vol. II–XIV. Part I. pp. 156–166.
10. The archimandrite was a former guards captain, and later replaced Antonin (Kapustin) as his successor in leadership of the mission. According to the founder, Patriarch Nikon, the New Jerusalem was supposed to replace Jerusalem in Palestine as a place of worship; The Resurrection Cathedral (built in 1656–1685) was a copy of the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem.
11. Palestinian society... P. 131–132.
12. The Charter is published in the Supplements to I, II, XIV issues. SPPO.
13. See: Palestinian Society... P. 208.
14. See: Encyclopedic Dictionary. F. A. Brockhaus and I. A. Efron. St. Petersburg, 1890–1907. T. 44. P. 626.
15. Sokolov-Mikitov I. S. Long-ago meetings. L., 1975. pp. 149–150.
16. Nuaime M. My seventy years / Transl. from Arabic by S. M. Batsieva. M., 1980.
pp. 117–118.
17. But by Easter, an eyewitness notes, up to 10,000 people flocked, most of them bivouacked in the yard. See: Krymsky A.E. History of new Arabic literature. M., 1971. P. 309. Note 214.
18. And at the same time, one cannot help but pay attention to the following fact. As A. A. Dmitrievsky notes (Palestinian Society... P. 206), “even people of the Jewish faith signed up” for the society.
19. See: Krymsky A.E. Letters from Lebanon. 1896–1898. M., 1975. S. 283–284.
20. Octoechos - “octagonal”, this is the name of the church liturgical book, which contains chants for each day of the week, distributed. Unfortunately, it was not possible to identify the Fared textbook bibliographically.
21. V.N. Khitrovo was generally against French, believing that knowledge of this language contributed to the success of Catholic propaganda. A. E. Krymsky talks about a conversation that took place in French in the living room of the Russian Consul General in Beirut A. A. Gagarin: “But the three of us are having a conversation with each other not in Russian, but in French,” he tried argue A.E. Krymsky, “and we don’t turn into Catholics.” “We are a different matter,” V.N. Khitrovo answered exhaustively and changed the topic of conversation. (Krymsky A.E. History of new Arabic literature. P. 311. Note 219.)
22. Palestinian society... P. 259–261. The excerpt is taken from a letter from V.N. Khitrovo dated December 23, 1884, addressed to M.P. Stepanov, then assistant to the chairman of the Palestine Society.
23. See: Starokadomsky M.A. On the cultural and educational activities of the Russian Palestinian Society in the Middle East // PS. 1965. Issue. 13(76). P. 178.
24. Nuaime M. Decree. op. pp. 60–61.
25. Ode-Vasilieva K.V. A look into the past // PS. 1965. Issue. 13(76). P. 172.
26. See: Starokadomsky M.A. Decree. op. P. 180.
27. Ode-Vasilieva K.V. A look into the past. P. 172.
28. See: Starokadomsky M.A. Decree. op. P. 178.
29. Ode-Vasilieva K.V. A look into the past. P. 173.
30. Nuaime M. Decree. op. P. 46.
31. Ode-Vasilieva K.V. A look into the past. pp. 174–175.
32. See: Krachkovskaya V. A. I. Yu. Krachkovsky in Lebanon and Palestine (1908–1910) // PS. 1954. Issue. 1(63); It's her. Travel of I. Yu. Krachkovsky to the Middle East (1908–1910) // PS. 1974. Vol. 25(88).
33. See: Ode-Vasilieva K.V. My memories of academician I.Yu. Krachkovsky // PS. 1956. Issue. 2(64-65). pp. 127–128.
34. Krachkovsky I. Yu. Above Arabic manuscripts // Izbr. op. M.; L., 1955. T. 1. P. 54–55.
35. See: Ibid. P. 55.
36. Krachkovskaya V. A. I. Yu. Krachkovsky in Lebanon and Palestine. pp. 116–117.
37. See: Sharafutdinova R. Sh. Russian-Arab cultural ties in the Middle East (a page from the history of Russian-Arab ties) // PS. Vol. 26(89), 1978, pp. 116–117.
38. Ode-Vasilieva K.V. A look into the past. pp. 175–176.
39. See: PS. 1974. Vol. 25(88). P. 6.
40. See for more details: Tilley P. The Imperial Russian Orthodox Palestine Society and the Arab Literary Renaissance. 1882–1914 // Australian Slavonic and East European Studies. 1988. Vol. 2. Number 2. R. 52–83.
41. About Academician Pavel Konstantinovich Kokovtsov, see: Pigulevskaya N.V. Academician Pavel Konstantinovich Kokovtsov and his school // Bulletin of the Leningrad State University. 1947. Issue. 5. pp. 106–118; Orbeli R.R. Academician P.K. Kokovtsov and his handwritten heritage // Essays on the history of Russian oriental studies. 1956. Issue. 2. pp. 341–359. See also: PS. 1964. Vol. 11(74). pp. 170–174 (on pp. 175-181 there is a bibliography of the works of P.K. Kokovtsov, compiled by O.E. Livotova).
42. SPPO. 1902. Issue. XII. P. 371.
43. See: Myths of the peoples of the world. M., 1980. T. 1. P. 490–504; Ancient world history. III. The Decline of Ancient Societies / Ed. I. M. Dyakonova, V. D. Neronova, I. S. Sventsitskaya. M., 1982. pp. 129–133.
44. PPP. 1884. Issue. 7. See also: Nicodemus. Russian Spiritual Mission. P. 48. Modern science is more restrained in its conclusions; the path of Jesus Christ to Calvary is not precisely determined, cf.: Kenyon Kathleen M. Jerusalem. Excavating 3000 Years of History. New York, 1967, pp. 144–154.
45. Rostovtsev M.I. Russian archeology in Palestine // ХV. 1912. T. 1. pp. 265–266.
46. ​​See in particular: Lazarev V.N. Nikodim Pavlovich Kondakov (1844-1925). M., 1925. (On pp. 43-47 - a list of works by N.P. Kondakov).
47. Two large works were published in the teaching staff: “The Old Testament Temple in Jerusalem” (1889. Issue 13) and “Megalithic Monuments of the Holy Land” (1895. Issue 41).
48. About Ya. I. Smirnov, see the obituary written by S. A. Zhebelev: Seminarium Kondakovianum. Prague, 1928. Issue. 2. (on pp. 16-18 - a list of works by Ya. I. Smirnov), as well as the memoirs of I. A. Orbeli in the book: Yuzbashyan K. N. Academician Joseph Abgarovich Orbeli. M., 1964. S. 145, 147–151.
49. Kondakov N.P. Archaeological journey through Syria and Palestine. St. Petersburg, 1904. Upon returning from the expedition, on May 13, 1892, N.P. Kondakov read the report “On the results of the first Russian scientific expedition to the Holy Land,” published in SPPO (1892. Issue III. pp. 144-160 ). See also: Danzig B. M. The Middle East in Russian science and literature. M., 1973. pp. 317–318.
50. Papadopulos-Kerameus A. I. Ierosolymitike Bibliotheke etoi Katalogos ton en te Bibliotheke tou agiotatou… patriarchikou thronou ton ierosolymon kai pases Palaistines apokeimenon ellenikon kodikon. Petropolis, 1891–1910. I–V; Analekta ierosolymitikes stachyologias. 1891–1898. I–V.
51. See: Dmitrievsky A. A. A. I. Papadopolo-Keramevs and his collaboration in scientific publications of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society (according to personal memories and documentary data) // SPPO. 1913. pp. 374–388, 492–523 and sec. ed. St. Petersburg, 1914; obituary with a list of works, written by Kh. M. Loparev // VV. 1915. XIX. pp. 188–212. Publications by A. I. Papadopolo-Keramevs are contained in many issues of the teaching staff.
52. See Extracts from a letter from P.V. Bezobrazov dated January 3, 1887 // SPPO. 1891. Issue. I. pp. 168–173.
53. See: Doyel L. Bequeathed by time. M., 1980. P. 334 with reference: Atiya A. S. The Arabic Manuscripts of Mount Sinai. Baltimore, 1955 (American Foundation for the Study of Man). P. 11.
54. Juvaniya - courtyard of the Sinai Monastery in Cairo.
55. Eliseev A.V. The Path to Sinai. 1881 PPS. 1883. Issue. 4. pp. 187–188; The wanderings of Vasily Grigorovich-Barsky through the holy places of the East from 1723 to 1747. Published by the Orthodox Palestine Society based on an original manuscript / Ed. Nikolai Barsukov. St. Petersburg, 1885–1887. Parts I–IV.
56. See: Korostovtsev M. A., Khodzhash S. I. Oriental studies activity of Porfiry (Uspensky) // Near and Middle East. M.; L., 1962. P. 130.
57. For the adventurous activities of K. Tischendorf in the Middle East, see: L. Doyel. Decree. op. pp. 310–359, cf. foreword by Y. V. Vasilkov. pp. 8–11. Until 1933, the Codex Sinaiticus was the property of the State Public Library. M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin in Leningrad, and then during a period when the state was in dire need of currency, it was sold to the British Museum in London. Codex Sinaiticus is one of the oldest, containing the Old and New Testaments together.
58. See: Mikhankova V. A. Nikolai Yakovlevich Marr. M.; L., 1948. P. 103. Note 2.
59. See: Lomtatidze G. A. Ivan Aleksandrovich Javakhishvili. Tbilisi, 1976.
60. See: Marr N. Georgy Merchul. Life of St. Gregory of Khandzti. Texts and research on Armenian-Georgian philology. St. Petersburg, 1911. Book. VII.
61. Antiochus Strateg. Captivity of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614. The Georgian text was researched, published, translated, and the Arabic extract was added by N. Ya. Marr // Texts and research on Armenian-Georgian philology. St. Petersburg, 1909. Book. IX.
62. The Russian Orthodox Church celebrates the memory of Gregory the Armenian along with other churches. One of the vestibules of St. Basil's Cathedral in Moscow is dedicated to Gregory the Armenian.
63. See: Marr N. Ya. Brief description of the Georgian manuscripts of the library of the Greek Patriarchate in Jerusalem / Prepared for publication by E. P. Metreveli. Tbilisi, 1955.
64. The orientalist activity of N. Ya. Marr is well covered in the book by V. A. Mikhankova cited above. No matter how you feel about the works of N. Ya. Marr, devoted to general issues of linguistics, his contribution to the study of the culture of the Christian East, to the study of written monuments, primarily Armenian and Georgian, is indisputable.
65. For a summary of the trip report, see: ZVOIRAO. 1906. XVI. P. 11.
66. The “Soviet Historical Encyclopedia” (vol. 12, stb. 209) erroneously reports that a total of 62 issues of the teaching staff were published (1881–1916). The numbering of the new series of the “Collection” is also erroneous: the first issue, published in 1954, is marked as 1 (63), although in fact it was 1 (64). The error was corrected in the next issue, published number 2 (64-65). Vol. 63 PPS is marked 1917, although in fact it was published later: Latyshev V.V. Collection of Palestinian and Syrian hagiography. Vol. III. PPP. Vol. 63, 1917.
67. “Walking Kaliki” - this is how wanderers are called in ancient songs and fairy tales. In dictionaries this word is derived from Lat. caliga (boot). A pilgrim is a pilgrim traveling to holy places. The word is derived from “palm” - pilgrims usually returned from Jerusalem with a palm branch.
68. Monuments of literature of Ancient Rus'. XII century M., 1980. P. 8.
69. At the turn of the VI–VII centuries. Georgians accepted Orthodoxy. Some of the Syrians were also Orthodox. In general, ethnic boundaries rarely completely coincide with religious ones.
70. See about the Nusayris: Ash-Shahrastani. A book about religions and sects / Translation, introduction and commentary by S. M. Prozorov. M., 1984. pp. 164–165.
71. See obituary written by I. Yu. Krachkovsky // ZVOIRAO. 1921.XXV. pp. 425, 427 (on pp. 439–440 there is a list of works by N. A. Mednikov).
72. Certain aspects of the activities of the Palestinian society before the revolution were widely covered in the Russian press, but the only generalizing work is the book by A. A. Dmitrievsky, repeatedly cited above, the presentation of which, unfortunately, ends in 1889 (see note 5). Let us also note a work in Arabic that appeared in 1912 as a belated response to the 25th anniversary of the society: Sh. H. Swedan. History of the Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society for a Quarter of a Century (published, apparently, in the USA). See review by I. Yu. Krachkovsky in SPPO (1913. XXIV. pp. 553-555).
For contemporary foreign works concerning the history of Palestinian society before the revolution, see: Hopwood Derek. The Russian Presence in Syria and Palestine, 1843–1914. Church and Politics in the Near East. Oxford, 1969. The history of Palestinian society is considered only in the context of Russian foreign policy, scientific activity is completely bypassed.
The dissertation of T. J. Stavrou, defended on May 22, 1961 at Indiana University, USA, is also devoted to the pre-revolutionary period in the activities of the Palestinian Society: The Russian Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society, 1882–1914, by Theofanis George Stavrou Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph. D. degree in history at Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. May 8, 1961. The author is well acquainted with Russian and Greek literature related to the subject, like D. Hopwood, he is interested in the Society as a reflection of Russian policy in the Middle East, nevertheless, he offers the reader a fairly holistic description of the subject of research. The author managed to get acquainted with T.J. Stavr’s dissertation in a photocopy after writing his own work.
73. See: Kovalevsky E.P. Russian scientific interests in Palestine and adjacent areas. Petrograd, 1915. An abbreviated report under the same title was published in the magazine “Hermes” (1915. No. 9–10. pp. 226-230).
74. See: APO. Op. 3 (add.), No. 1, pp. 126–142, 153–155. V.V. Latyshev, however, had little faith in the reality of this enterprise. He said that “the most expedient way to prepare for the opening of an archaeological institute in Palestine would be to create a cadre of Russian scientific forces there. To do this, it would be necessary to send there from the Society as a correspondent archaeologist a person not unknown in the scientific world, in order to then send suitable young people under his guidance” (see ibid., l. 154). But having accepted this proposal, the Society could not settle on a suitable candidate.
75. See: IAN. 1917. pp. 601–605. Special opinion of P.K. Kokovtsov ibid. pp. 758–760, 763.
76. See: Ershov S. A., Pyatnitsky Yu. A., Yuzbashyan K. N. Scientific merits of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople. To the 90th anniversary of its foundation // PS. 1987. Vol. 29(92).
77. See: APO. Op. 3 (add.), No. 1, pp. 153. Experts pinned a lot of hopes on the Athens Institute. Here is what an employee of the Archaeological Institute in Constantinople, archaeologist and art historian F.I. Shmit wrote in 1912: “Recently, they have again started talking about the founding of a Russian archaeological institute in Athens. Such an institute, one hopes, will, while pursuing, of course, classical goals, still pay some attention to medieval monuments - after all, the French, English, and German “schools,” with all their classical traditions, sympathies and programs, are increasingly They are more interested in Byzantium. This is the task for the Byzantine department of the Russian Institute: to restore and publish the mosaics of St. Luke. It would be a brilliant start." (Shmit F. Monuments of Byzantine art in Greece // Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. New series. 1912. July. Part X. P. 59). Little is known about the Russian initiative in Athens; the author owes the reference to F. I. Shmit’s article to S. R. Tokhtasyev.
78 Information taken from a regularly maintained journal of council meetings. See: APO, op. 3 (add.), No. 1, l. 278–321.
79 APO, op. 3 (extra), l. 326–332.
80 Ibid., op. 1, No. 50 (letter from Chairman V.V. Latyshev and the Governor of Affairs
V.D. Yushmanov, sent to the Civil Affairs Subdivision of the Petrograd Soviet Administration Department on July 14, 1919).
81 See: Ibid., op. 3 (add.), No. 1, l. 343.
82 See: Ibid., op. 1, No. 49 (letter from the Council of the Society to the Permanent Secretary of the Academy of Sciences, sent “in addition to its attitude of March 9th for No. 8”).
83 Ibid., op. 3 (add.), No. 1, l. 329.
84 See: Ibid., l. 347.
85 See: Ibid., op. 1, no. 14, also op. 3 (add.), No. 1, l. 363.
86 We are talking about the above-mentioned letter dated March 14, 1919.
87 APO, op. 3 (add.), No. 1, l. 344, 363.
88 Ibid., op. 1, no. 15.
89 Ibid., No. 6, l. 8–9, also, 7.
90 See: Ibid., No. 42, l. 3.
91 Ibid., No. 45 (No. 9, 12).
92 The temple and courtyard were founded on 9/V 1913. The project belonged to the academician of architecture A.V. Shchusev, based on the Novgorod-Pskov architecture of the 17th century. See: Yushmanov V.D. Laying the foundation of a Russian church in the name of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker // SPPO. XXIV. 1913. P. 250.
93 See: APO, No. 6, l. 25.
94 Ibid., l. 27. The note to which the relation refers could not be found, but another note by V.V. Kamensky, concerning the same topic and dated July 11, 1923, was preserved. See: APO, op. 1, No. 6, l. 24.
95 Ibid., No. 5, l. 32–33 (copy of the quoted letter).
96 See: Ibid., l. 39–40.
97 See: Ibid., l. 10.
98 See: Ibid., No. 6, l. eleven.
99 On March 30, 1930, the chairman of the RPO N. Ya. Marr at the council made a report on the long path of legalization that the Society has made since 1917. See: APO, op. 1, No. 42 (No. 5), l. 81–82.
100 APO, op. 1, No. 10, l. 2.
101 See: Ibid., l. 26.
102 See: Ibid., l. 96–99.
103 Ibid., no. 45 (no. 14).
104 See: Vinberg N. A. Materials on the biography of V. V. Latyshev; List of works by Academician V.V. Latyshev // Soviet Archeology. XXVIII. 1958. pp. 36–51, 52–53.
105 APO, op. 1, No. 7, l. 12 (letter dated April 14, 1930). Back in 1917, participating in a project on the Palestine Committee at the Academy of Sciences, V. I. Vernadsky spoke about the need “not to limit the actions of the Committee exclusively to archaeological and historical issues, but to also bear in mind the issues of the study of Palestine, its geological, geographical and ethnographic peculiarities".
106 V. D. Yushmanov (father of the famous Arabist N. V. Yushmanov) has been an employee of the Society since 1886.
107 See: APO, op. 1, No. 45 (No. 12).
108 See: Olesnitsky A. A. Biblical archeology / Ed. and with additions
V. P. Rybinsky. Part 1. Religious antiquities. Petrograd, 1920.
109 A small volume contains only 7 articles: F. Uspensky. Competition between peoples in the Middle East. Russia and France; I. Krachkovsky. Two Arabic Tales from Nazareth; I. Sokolov. Chrysanthus Notara's work on the conquest of China by the Mongols; A. Zakharov. Philistines (chapter from the history of the earthly world); F. Uspensky. Eastern policy of Manuel Komnenos. Seljuk Turks and Christian states of Syria and Palestine; N. Brunov. Model of the Jerusalem Temple, brought in the 17th century. in Russia; D. Lebedev. Calendars of Palestine and its neighboring provinces.
110 Systematic catalog of the library of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society. I–II. St. Petersburg, 1907; Supplement to volumes I and II (for 1908–1912). Departments A-N. St. Petersburg, 1913.
111 During this period, the Palestinian society attracted the attention of S. M. Kirov. He summoned N.Ya. Marr (his graduate student I.V. Megrelidze also went to Smolny with him), found out that there was no decree on closing the RPO and proposed to intensify its activities, taking into account, in particular, the rights to customs duties in the harbor of Bari. Information taken from a personal letter from I.V. Megrelidze dated February 20, 1985.
112 Already posthumously appeared: Pigulevskaya N.V. Middle East. Byzantium. Slavs. L., 1976; The culture of the Syrians in the Middle Ages. M., 1979.
113 V. A. Krachkovskaya, wife of I. Yu. Krachkovsky, is an Arabist, I. G. Livshits is an Egyptologist, I. P. Petrushevsky is an Iranian scholar.
114 The College of Orientalists is the coordinating body of oriental studies at the Asian Museum in Leningrad.
115 Academician F.I. Shcherbatskoy - Indologist.
116 From a letter from A.G. Lundin to the author.
117 K. B. Starkova told the author about some details of the activities of the Palestinian Society in the first years after restoration.
118 Issue 11(74) was dedicated to N.V. Pigulevskaya and was published under the editorship of K.B. Starkova. The editing of issues 21(84) and 23(86), begun under N.V. Pigulevskaya, was carried out by M.N. Bogolyubov.
119 The staff of the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences has prepared a complete bibliography of scientific publications of the Palestinian Society.
120 This refers to the inhabitants of Caucasian Albania, a country located on the left bank of the Kura River, which later included a number of regions of historical Armenia. A single Albanian ethnic group did not emerge; the term has a collective, and after the adoption of Christianity, it has a pronounced confessional character.
121 In 1999, the publication was resumed, the VII volume of “Christian East” was published.
122 This topic was presented in a concentrated form at scientific sessions:
I. June 6–8, 1983. Formation and development of historiography in the Middle East (Byzantine cultural circle). Reports: Peoples of Asia and Africa. 1984. No. 3. P. 148–149 (A. L. Khosroev); Historical and philological journal of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR. 1983. No. 4. P. 237–238 (A. A. Akopyan); News of the Academy of Sciences of the Georgian SSR. History series, etc. 1984. No. 1. P. 190–192 (M. Chkhartishvili).
II. February 22, 1985 Traditional Education in the Middle East (Byzantine Cultural Circle). Report: PS. Vol. 29(92). 1987. P. 195 (E. N. Meshcherskaya).
III. June 4–6, 1986. Ethnic and confessional identity in the Middle East (Byzantine cultural circle). Report: PS. Vol. 29(92). 1987. pp. 196–198 (E. N. Meshcherskaya).
IV. May 23–26, 1988. Religious Conversion: Legend and Reality. Report: PS. Vol. 30(93). pp. 140–141 (E. N. Meshcherskaya).
V. June 13–14, 1990 Byzantium and the Christian East (political, ideological and cultural relations).
123 Since 1998 it has been published as the “Orthodox-Palestinian Collection” in a traditional cover.

List of abbreviations

APO - St. Petersburg branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Archive of Orientalists, f. 120 (Palestine Society Archives)
BB - Byzantine temporary book
ZVOIRAO - Notes of the Eastern Branch of the Imperial Russian Archaeological Society
IAH - News of the Academy of Sciences
PPS - Orthodox Palestinian collection
PS - Palestinian collection
SPPO - Communications of the Orthodox Palestine Society
HV - Christian East