Journal

Archives

The program «60 parallel»

History is loved in Russia. But our historical feeling is quite peculiar: there is no border between the past and the present. Historical events are perceived as incomplete. We constantly roll the time meter back and try to rewrite history again and again: “to repay debts”, “to restore historical justice”… The famous phrase “History does not know conjunctive mood” is not related to our mentality.

The Soviet state went in non-existence. Church is one of the first victims of the socialist structure. Crushed and humbled during the first years of Soviet power and dragging out a miserable existence during post-war ten years today it demands reinstatement of historical justice. And the government began to repay. In the early 1990s the first crosses began to appear on deserted country temples. Kept in churches icons that were considered to be the state’s property for a long time obtained new owners in the person of church communities.

But joy lasted not for a long time. It became clear very fast that the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) as a part of the post-Soviet society is ill with the same ailments as the society as a whole. Departmental interests pressed noble mission of spirituality restoration of the nation seriously. It turned out that to restore tumbledown temples is an expensive and troublesome deed. It is more profitable to take ready-made things: something that has already been restored by other hands and at the expense of others. One began to evict museums and restoration organizations placed in church buildings and former cloisters.

All museums situated in old Russian towns suffered to this or that extent. The museums of Alexandrov Sloboda, Zvenigorod, Kostroma, Sergiev Posad, Suzdal, Tobolsk suffered from devastation. This sad list can be continued. They chuck out museums, break walls of the unique monuments of architecture and erect annexes disfiguring their figure. Ancient frescos kept with care by museum workers and restorers during the years of religion persecution perish from soot. It is done indiscriminately, without sense, and often even without any advantage for the church.

It is difficult to stop when you have already begun once. The ancient monuments of icon writing became the next aim of our bureaucracy reborn like Phoenix bird. As is well known, everything happens twice in history: the first one – in the form of tragedy, the second one – in the form of farce. And now a jacket suit and a case changed a leather jacket and Mauser but words did not almost change. “Icons are not works of art, they are cult objects. Take them off from museums!” Museum workers heard that in the 1990s and they hear it now. Only spirit of the times changed and culture standards of our rulers have remained the same.

The list of irreparable losses of the native culture grows. In acting churches they smoke candles made not of wax but of chemical substitute. People get in dressed in wet raincoats. That’s why humidity rises steeply during divine services. Icons are wiped with wet rags periodically. The iconostas of The Trinity Cathedral of Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Rublev frescos in Vladimir Assumption Cathedral and Zvenigorod Assumption Cathedral were ruined because of such thoughtless exploitation. The eviction process of Kostroma Museum-preserve from Monastery of St. Ipatius is not finished yet, but the unique church of the XVIII century “in the

New Court

” has burned down through inadvertence of the new owners.

And how many works given to the church vanish without leaving a trace as scores of icons given by Alexandrovsk Sloboda Museum to the temple acting on its territory vanished! And assignations are continued, museum expositions thin out… Today visitors will not already see and the faithful will not pray in front of the famous “Hodegetria Virgin” and “St. Nicholas” of the XIV century – Sergius of Radonezh cell icons given to Lavra from Sergiev-Posad Museum in 1993. Where are they? Are they intact? There is nobody to make responsible for as ROC is a public organization and it does not account for values.

There is no sense to publish here the list of monuments given to the Russian Orthodox Church for the last 15 years and already ruined by “using according to original destination”. First of all, this list is too big for the journal publication. But chiefly, nobody is of concern to it. We are not interested to keep monuments of culture, our history. We are interested to rewrite it.

TSAR’S REGALIA

The autumn event of 1993 connected with the icon of The Virgin of Vladimir became the first alarm signal. The Ministry of Culture of the RF promulgated the information that the decree of the President B. Eltsin about requisitioning of the famous icon of the XII century from the collection of Tretyakov Gallery and its assignation to Moscow patriarchate is ready.

The heated discussion between arts critics, historians, restorers – on the one hand and upholders of “requisitioning of sacred objects from the museum” on the other hand led to compromise: the icon was left in the collection of Tretyakov Gallery but was moved into the acting Nicholas Church of in Tolmachi. It is a part of the museum complex in Lavrushin lane. The whole country waited for the verdict for the unique monument of the native culture destiny because it was obvious for everybody that it is of strategic character. If one can give away “Vladimir icon” everything is clear for everybody. As a result the strategic decision did not take place. They came to political compromise temporarily convenient for both parts but satisfied neither of them.

It is clear with what things museum workers are dissatisfied. The integrity of the best exposition of Old Russian painting in the world is ruined, the damage risk of the unique work continues to be real. Of course, temperature-humidity conditions in Nicholas Church in Tolmachi are much better than in any other acting temple. But it is still far from the stable climate of the main building of Tretyakov Gallery. That’s why the icon is placed into the special container-icon case with autonomous microclimate and is a hostage of the apparatus that protects it.

Fighters for “ancient godliness” have no reasons to rejoice: the icon is in the acting temple but it is not got out from the museum (it is still a state property). The public organization named “the Russian Orthodox Church” did not obtain the desired property.

And at last, the main question is left without a reply: whether one can or not? Can one hand over the national property to the public organization at risk of its loss for the sake of “reinstatement of historical justice”?

Nevertheless, the discussion of Vladimir icon was useful. It showed positions of the parts so good that there was nothing new to be said about assignation problems for succeeding years. Thanks for publications of 1993 today it is known beforehand how Moscow patriarchate will motivate the regular suggestion to evict the interfering it museum nowhere and what specialist will begin to object. It is known even why the voices of the latter will not be heard.

The main arguments of the culture figures (they are academicians D. Likhachev, B. Ryibakov, D. Sarabyanov, V. Yanin, heads of the biggest museums, famous writers and artists) are: ancient icons are not protected from any changes of temperature-humidity conditions and can react to it unpredictably. They demand the constant supervision of curators and restorers of the highest qualification. Long being of the unique monuments in the conditions of the acting church will lead to its destruction. It is clear that these words make no impression on fighters for augmenting of church property. The answer is fanatic: “Do you really think that people will keep better than God will do?”[1] But it is a position of an interested party. It is more interesting to ask oneself a question: why scientists’ arguments do not persuade officials and touch society as a whole? The answer is obvious: we are not interested to keep our history, we are interested to rewrite it.

For the same reason arguments of ROC look more attractive in the opinion of an average statistical Russian.

There are two such arguments:

1. The museum is not the place for the icon. It must be used according to its original use:

2. Let’s give the property back to the owner; let’s remember who it belongs to[2]..

As for the second thesis I want to object it is better not to remember who it belongs to. Or a gaffe can happen.

The point is that The Virgin of Vladimir has never been a church property.

The icon brought from Constantinople into Kiev at the beginning of the XII century belonged to a Kiev prince for several ten years. Seized as a war trophy during feudal wars in 1995 it passed on to the possession of the Vladimir princes. The icon was considered to be a protector of prince’s power and a patroness in war. No wonder that with strengthening of Moscow The Virgin of Vladimir passed on to the possession of Moscow princes and began to play the role of the prince’s regalia along with Monomakh’s Cap. This remote icon that was not included into the ensemble of any concrete temple was used during state ceremonials and taken in war campaigns. The question of whose property The Virgin of Vladimir was during the times of Ivan Kalita or Boris Godunov can be discussed. In the conditions of autocracy when life and all property of subjects belonged to the grand duke (a tsar) the question about division of private and “state” property is relative to some extent. I hold the opinion that tsar’s regalia should be considered rather as state than private property. Still the possibility to dispose of them was limited to some extent. The ruler could not sell Monomakh’s Cap or present The Virgin of Vladimir. And here the point is not in written laws but in something that today one would call “public opinion”. Both people and persons in attendance would condemn this act.

In any case there are no doubts that The Virgin of Vladimir has never belonged to Moscow patriarchy for 900 years of its existence. And the fact that the icon was kept in Assumption Cathedral of Moscow Kremlin (though not only there) for many years does not conflict with this statement. Monomakh’s Cap was used not every day as well; it was not on the monarch’s head but in the sovereign’s sacristy for most time. And it does not mean that it was the property of a sacristan.

It is not also coherent with the demand of use of The Virgin of Vladimir according to its original destination. It is not a temple icon. It was taken in campaigns and put in front of the army to protect it from the enemy. So must we put The Virgin of Vladimir on a tank and bring it to the zone of military operations? Must we hold a thanksgiving service with it under the batter? Of course, it is good to believe that “people will not defend better than God will do” but still one does not want to risk…

In the whole, the example of The Virgin of Vladimir proves unequivocally: it is better not to know history when you rewrite it. Historic facts are unnecessary hindrances in this process.

Reforming Peter the Great

According to “Kommersant” reports “government committee under the direct leadership of the first vice-premier Dmitry Medvedev confirmed the conception of assignation of property with religious purpose to the Russian Orthodox Church. It also entrusted the Ministry of Economic Development to prepare a corresponding bill, which is to come into force in 2008” [3] .

Thus, a set expression “church restitution” has emerged in Russian bureaucratic vocabulary. Well, restoration of historical justice is a common good. But it is comprehended, so to say, in a very primitive way: as a restoration of property’s rights. And in order to realize this act with a not faltering government hand it is not necessary to know the history. Moreover it is harmful. You may make a stop, fall to thinking and ask yourself a question: “Whom did it really belong to in 1916?..” – and here is the end of humanitarian beginning!

Certainly, a common sense demands: when restoring property’s rights it is necessary to know the year which these rights correspond to. In other case we will make a mistake with boundaries: the majority of wars which were waged within the post-Soviet territory began due to disagreement in “boundary-year” relation, some contended that the boundary must run according to, for instance, 1918, others insisted on 1925.

Representatives of Russian Orthodox Church can hardly help. They usually don’t say the exact dates, they say in the following way: “The church property was illegally taken away during the period of godfighting persecution” [4]. Indeed, the church endured a terrible epoch in its life, it lost everything. Gregory Florovskiy, an archpriest, wrote about that time: “State takes a stand as the only one, absolute and all-embracing resource of all powers and legislation, of any activity or creative work. Everything must become and be state, henceforth only state is allowed. Church has no independent circle of affaires, - for the State takes all affaires as its own. […] It was a “Babylon capture” of Russian Church. Priesthood becomes … an “intimidated estate” [5]. Well, these are just words. There is just one snag to it. It’s that period of time which G.Florovskiy describes – the beginning of the XVIII century”.

Namely during this time the church was joined to the State and was deprived of the property. The patriarchate was abolished in Russia, the head of church became “Christian sovereign”, its administrative part was handed to the special ministry – Synod, led by the functionary without order. Cloisters and temples turned into establishments which were supported by the state, “spiritual belongings” became a part of public property. They could be secularized at any time which happened more than once during all the history of Russian Empire beginning from XVIII century when tsar Peter the Great recasted church bells into guns and Empress Catherine II deprived churches of the most part of lands.

That is extremely significant that in the article of Decree of Board of People’s Commissariat in RSFSR from January 23, 1918 “On separation of church from the state and school from the church” it is said only about the nationalization of property “of existing church and religious communities in Russia”. It is worth paying attention – namely communities. Russian Empire was a polyconfessional land, but confessions were not equal. All of them were regarded as “religious communities”. And only one of them – the Russian Orthodox Church – was not a community. It was a part of the state. It is not clear why in the Decree it runs only about belongings of communities. What is it – forgetfulness or “special love” of Bolsheviks towards Orthodox Church? – Certainly, neither of them. Bolsheviks didn’t deprive Orthodox Church of property, because there was nothing to take away. Orthodox “spiritual property” belonged to the state for 200 years. During the Soviet period the situation didn’t change: it continued to be one of the form of public property and was transferred in other forms (for instance, into the state museum fund) when it was necessary (the state defined this measure, as in XVIII, by itself).

In any case, the restitution should be dated from the beginning of XVIII century. The later dates are irrelevant.

I’m definitely sure that history is better not to be known! Because our heads are full of outrageous ideas: “Cult things and erections are not fundamental. The principal treasure of church during pre-Peter the Great epoch was lands. And if we decided to restore property relationships, existing in Aleksey Michailovich’s time, then we should be consistent…”.

What if these ideas are not so outrageous as they seem? - As “Kommersant” reports: “Meanwhile on the threshold of assignation to church, the land is being transferred to church without any compensation” [6].

Make restitution of Kremlin to rightful owner

“The principal resource of church is, certainly, land which the Russian Orthodox Church got gratis. “Just imagine how it is difficult nowadays to find even for money a plot of land for building offices or elite dwelling in the center of Moscow, - interlocutor of the newspaper said [collaborator of Investment Programs Center of the Russian Orthodox Church.]. – Today nobody has such free plots of land. It is the church that has. And it is a chance for our perspective projects”. About one hundred addresses in Moscow are being in working out today. The program of restoration of patriarch estates in the metropolis presupposes building of commercial establishments – office, trade and housing erections under the church patronage and partially on the basis of immovable property of the Russian Orthodox Church” [7].

That is nothing new that nowadays the Russian Orthodox Church is not interested in dilapidated rural temples. Their low investment attractiveness in comparison with city land and immovable property is obvious. What for should we restore them? – May be only for the faithful… But nowadays Russian Orthodox Church doesn’t care for them. It is more interesting to find out where in this country the most expensive land and immovable property are. – The answer is obvious: in historical centers of cities. But we have one snag here: religious buildings that have advantageous location – churches and cloisters – were transferred to Moscow patriarchy long ago. It seems there is nothing to take away, although this difficulty was easily overcome. The new object of church raiding became citadels of Russia.

“Citadel that is a fortress within a town; a wall with gun-slots, gates, towers, defending and enclosing the most important part of the town, castle, state treasury etc.”[8] - A naïve old man Dhal. He was a connoisseur of Russian history. That was why he couldn’t suppose that the system of fortification erections could be claimed a property of religious purpose, for all the time belonging to the church. He was sure that a bastion and an ambo were not the same. But nowadays people become pliable and it turned out that the difference is not so distinct.

This summer the Tobolsk State Historic-Architectural Museum-Preserve was deprived of its last building on the territory of Tobolsk Kremlin. As the result it ceased to be a historic-architectural museum-preserve. As the specialists assert that “fifteen years of Tobolsk-Tyumen diocese’s lording on the territory of the citadel showed that this non-state organization ignores existing laws on protection of historical objects and leads systematic adaptation of Tobolsk citadel’s monuments for their everyday necessities” [9].

That is quite different with Zaray Kremlin. Here is the museum not moved from the citadel yet. This question is brought up, but Zaray Kremlin is not handed over to diocese at present. It is a municipal land. The church is on the way to capture of the territory now: a “house of priest” was stuck in the middle of the architectural ensemble of XVI century – it was a terrible brick detached house with garage which disfigured the unique architectural monument. In this case we deal not with a poor restoration, but with a non-sanctioned building that ignores the existing laws on historical objects protection.

On the statement of Ryazan Museum-Preserve, “the question on withdrawal of museum-preserve from the territory of [Ryazan] citadel is not solved yet, mainly because it contradicts the most important legislative and sub-legislative acts of Russian Federation which are not to break by anybody” [10]. I venture to not agree with the colleagues. Legislative and sub-legislative acts of the Russian Federation didn’t prevent from the church raiding in other cities. I believe the main reason was that the whole city protected the museum. We don’t object to the fact when the temples are transferred to dioceses, but we don’t understand why “Oleg’s Palace” was deprived of the museum and was turned into the private residence of archbishop. Ryazan was driven with mass meetings of protest, people gathered thousands of signatures. As the result Ryazan citadel didn’t lose its ground. But the events are not over here. On the 10^th of December the director of Ryazan Museum-Preserve L. Maksimova was discharged by the head of the Federal Agency for Culture and Cinematography M. Shvydkoy because “she did not seek for compromise” with church hierarchs. [11] “Now Ryazan Museum will have a new director who will seek for a reasonable approach, compromise settlement through the dialogue” as Shvydkoy hopes. [12]

I want to pay attention to the fact that all the cases described above open a subject of non-religious establishments. Cathedrals in citadels of Tobolsk, Zaraysk, Ryazan were handed over to the church long ago and it is not the point of arguing.

Astrakhan Citadel is a new object of strong interest of patriarchate. As M. Shvydkoy announced: “In Astrakhan temples of the Citadel will be given to the Russian Orthodox Church as soon as we’ll put them in order. All civil buildings will be kept in under the jurisdiction of the temporal power and temporal culture”. [13] Being guided by the previous experience it is necessary to add a key word “so far” to the statement of the head of the Russian culture. They will be kept so far…

I believe there isn’t a single man in Russia who hasn’t seen the image of Solovki Citadel. Moreover it is depicted on the five hundred banknote. Although if you surf the Internet or look through the popular magazines you will be surprised to find out that Solovki Citadel was renamed. Under the well-known picture of a fortress with impregnable walls of boulder laying and mighty towers, pieces of ordnance in gun-slots, you will see the signature: “Solovki Cloister”. It is strange… Nobody argues that Solovki Cloister is still on the territory of Solovki Citadel. But there were also other erections: a military garrison, prison casemates, administrative establishments, warehouses, a mill, a dock, and lots of buildings of civil and military purpose. Combatant ships of Russian Navy were staying in harbor at the foot of the walls.

Just imagine if the famous image of Moscow Kremlin with Spasskaya Bashnya and emerging dome of senate from the wall is entitled as “the Image of Chudov Cloister in Moscow”. You will probably agree that such annotation is irrelevant. It is really so that in former times Chudov Cloister was behind rack Kremlin walls. But not only this erection!.. Solovki Cloister’s experience shows that such substitution is possible.

In the beginning it was a word – an inexact expression appeared from nowhere. And today the Russian Orthodox Church demands a “restoration of historical fairness”: eviction of the museum from the establishments it occupies and handing over the whole Solovki Fortress into a cloister. Such phenomenon didn’t exist in history and even couldn’t be. But we rewrite the history!

To be on the safe side public is kept in the dark for the time being. Ministry of Culture keeps silence. The representatives of the Russian Culture express their opinion very inconsistently and indistinctly. M Shvydkoy declares that everything has already been solved. They are passing on. But his first-hand assistant – the Head of the Cultural Heritage Department A. Kolupaeva is telling that “the documents of the passing of buildings occupied by Solovki State Museum-Reserve of History, Architecture and Nature to the Russian Orthodox Church were not received in the Federal Agency for Culture and Cinematography for agreement”. It was only once when the director of museum-preserve, M.Lopatkin, gave his view on this point: “A total passing of monuments will demand to remove museum funds, expositions and all services of the museum from its walls. Solovki doesn’t have room for such evacuation”[14]. Then he also kept silence. It seems that the fate of the distinguished monument of fortificational architecture of XVI – the beginning of XVII centuries is already solved within the precincts of functionary cabinet. Or it will be solved soon. And we know in what way.

In any case the newspapers are gay with headlines “Solovki will be closed for tourists”. How do journalists happen to get such information? – It is not difficult to guess: from the public statements of the Russian Orthodox Church. “Solovki – is a unique land. God was its creator and people put its virgin lands to the plough not for mercenary ends, but for prayer and creative pleasing to God work. […] Excessive increase of attendance is not compatible with the purpose of keeping spiritual atmosphere of Solovki. […] I have no doubt that the Orthodox Church which held out against execution and concentration camp will hold out against shameless cult of gain…” [15]

I want to calm our compatriots: Solovki won’t be closed. It is the situation of pre-passing. But when it is handed over then the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church towards “shameless cult of gain” will change immediately. They may call tourists as “pilgrims”, state treasury will be saved from taxation (tourism – is a commercial activity, but pilgrimage – is a religious one which isn’t taxable), but to close it irrevocably is unlikely. What for to kill the chicken laying golden eggs?

Stream of tourists to Solovki increased in the beginning of the XXI century. The majority of the objects of interest on archipelago were divided between a museum and a cloister. Serious competition was unfolding during that period. The museum created a tourist center, the cloister in its turn created a pilgrim one, the museum restore its inn, the cloister founded its own, the museum restore an old cutter, the cloister got two new ones… Certainly, the conditions were not equal: the cloister always made an exclusive suggestion. Its objects could be visited only by pilgrims (those who had a voucher from the pilgrimage center). But the museum in its turn receives everybody. If you want to visit the island Anzer then buy a cloister voucher. But Zayatskie islands and botanical gardens you will see either way because it is a museum property. Despite this, the cloister gained to attract approximately only a forth of tourists. The rest found the museum suggestion more attractive. You see tourism is not only the charms, but also the level of cultural and consumer services suggested. They distinguished in quality at great extent. As the result, the cloister failed.

It is not a pleasant situation. But we have an easy way out. The principal resource – Solovki Citadel which is in co-use so far - requires a monopoly. A competitor must be removed from it. An official of Investment Programs Center of the Russian Orthodox Church uttered his opinion on the alike problem: “here is a chance for our perspective projects”.

In general, I believe that citizens shouldn’t be afraid of not being permitted to Solovki. They will sooner not want to go there.

---

[1]From the interview of hierodeacon Job of Holy Trinity St. Sergius Lavra // The Obschaya Newspaper, 1993, 26 November – 2 December.

[2] See the interview of the dean of Church Art Faculty of St. Tikhon's Orthodox University of Alexander Saltanov Archpriest // Russkaya Myisl, 1993, 4-10 November.

[3] Kirillov N. Church Restitution // Supplement to newspaper “Merchant” №103 (3679) from 18.06.2007