Церковная старина в современной России

The book is dedicated to the complex study of the multilateral relationship between Russian State, Russian society, cultural institutions, especially museums, and Russian Orthodox Church in the field of restitution, use and protection of historical monuments and sites. The investigation deals with the positive and negative trends of the process, reasons of conflicts and potential monuments’ safety threats.

The preface describes the problems and indicates the sources of research, including the data obtained from State and Church archives, mass-media and Internet publications and personal interviews with State and Church officials, museum employees, restorers, clergy and parishioners. Today the process of monuments transfer to religious organizations and control over their state is undergoing system crisis. It menaces cultural heritage safety and public stability. The situation appears as a multilevel conflict which is not limited to economic, political or ideological aspect, but reflects the cultural and aesthetic priorities of Russian society representatives and groups.

Chapter 1 analyzes historical process of ecclesiastical propriety origin and development both in Byzantium and Russia as corporate material goods and its secularization after 1917 with triggered the present day conflict. My intention is to show that ecclesiastical goods, including liturgical objects, according to the canon low, could be alienated if it seems appropriate for the broadly understood aims of Christian activity. Now, the fact of sacred art objects being kept at State museums and use of cathedrals and monastery complexes for the cultural purposes should be regarded as a special kind of Church mission. The demands of Moscow patriarchy for return of the museum collections in parish life menace the safety of masterpieces and social development. The every day use and reconstruction of antiquities for modern needs leads sometimes to its destruction and impedes free access for citizens to cultural heritage. My conclusions show that hierarchy does not posses exclusive rights for management of diocesan and parish goods without agreement of parish communities. Local parish communities are currently very weak in Russia, and the absences of civil control leads to abuses in the field of the ecclesiastical propriety on the part of clergy. At the same time the privileges and payments received by Moscow patriarchy today should be regarded as redemption paid by the State for the former ecclesiastical propriety, and mass restitution of the ecclesiastical goods is not on the agenda.

Chapter 2 describes historical attitude of Russian Orthodox Church towards the antiquities and cultural heritage. The rise of large scale Christian movement in Russia 1850–1917 known as «ecclesiastical archeology» was a normal process in the formation of open society and presented special Church measures for the protection of cultural heritage. The activity of archeological societies which by 1917 numbered up to 60, the reasons of success and problems of this movement are systematized here. The establishing of Imperial Archeological Commission (1859) was the beginning of State control over historical monuments, including Church buildings and objects of art, but The Holy Synod func-tioneers always tried to use the ecclesiastical archeological establishment to avoid control. The special attention is given to acts of Russian Orthodox Church Council o† 1917–1918 in the field of antiquities protection. Communist rule depriving clergy and Christians and transfer of ecclesiastical objects of arts in the State collection made grounds for several Church groups to regard museum and restoring activities as a special anti-Christian measure. This phenomenon should be regarded as one of reasons of modern conflict. In fact, Russian experience of museum activity and school of restoration in XX century does not contradict Christian tradition.

Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6 deal with the chronology and analyze the events o† 1988–2010 in investigated field including their sociopolitical background. In 1988–1990, in the course of «democratic wave», it was possible to speak about «restoration of historical validity and believers» rights». But since 1990, we can see two new trends: the aspiration of Moscow patriarchy to take control over the cultural situation and the use of restitution of Church property by government in political games. Historical events could fit the following scheme: 1988–1993 – the period of the populist restitution, 1994–2000 – the period of the controlled restitution, 2001–2005 – the period of the ideological and economic restitution. During 1990–2010 we counted 237 conflict situations between Moscow patriarchy and museums in Russian Federation. The period of 2002–2005 is marked by growth of the crisis situations and their extreme and extremist forms.