Personality, politics and power. About the book by M.I. Odintsov “Patriarch Sergius”

“Patriarch Sergius” → M.I. Odintsov Researching the life of an outstanding person is always a task with many unknowns. Firstly, in most cases it is difficult to restore in detail the world that surrounded him at different periods of his life, to assess what, how and why influenced his worldview, shaped his personality, strengthened his ideas about good and evil, truth and lies. Secondly, it is extremely difficult to understand the socio-psychological situation that indirectly and directly influenced the political preferences of an outstanding person, their change and adjustment - this requires an understanding of what was main and what was secondary for him, who were his teachers, parents, friends, like-minded people and opponents, and finally, how they influenced his internal experiences, which were transformed over the years into certain political decisions and public actions. It is no coincidence that S.Yu. Witte once remarked: “To define a person, one must write the novel of his life, and therefore any definition of a person is only strokes that, to a remote extent, determine his figure.” Writing a “novel of the life” of a famous historical figure means, first of all, trying to understand the important things that made the life of this person interesting and instructive for subsequent generations. Simply put, what allows us to judge the contribution of an outstanding person to history, his influence on the course of historical processes, on the development of society and the state, etc. To talk about Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky) means to study and describe his life in the context of the history of “two Russias” - pre-revolutionary, imperial, and Soviet, Lenin-Stalin. This task is of exceptional complexity, since it presupposes knowledge and understanding of both the phenomenon of monarchical statehood, the traditions of synodal ecclesiasticism, internal church problems and disorders of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, as well as the vicissitudes of church-state relations of the Soviet period, the history of militant Bolshevik theology, church schisms, the political strategy and tactics of the communist party and the proletarian state in the “religious question.” However, all this is only necessary, but insufficient elements that allow us to begin writing a biography of one of the most famous (and repeatedly evaluated) hierarchs of the Russian Church of the 20th century. In order to paint his portrait, it is important, in my opinion, to restore the circle of people ideologically close to His Holiness the Patriarch, to trace the stages of his religious, social and political formation in the context of time. One day D.S. Likhachev said that an intelligent person is one who can often change his views, but never changes his beliefs. Indeed, views can change under the influence of various kinds of external circumstances; Over the years, an intelligent person becomes wiser, sometimes abandoning what he considered an immutable truth in the early years of his life. But to change beliefs means to change oneself, because the attitude towards what is truth and lies, white and black, is the foundation of the human personality. Of course, the point is not at all that D.S. Likhachev wrote about intellectuals - the given definition is quite correct to use when speaking about any thinking, “reflecting” person. Moreover, about an outstanding person. For the researcher, the question always remains relevant: what, why and when influenced the change by an outstanding personality of certain views previously professed by him. Is it really only “external” (for example, socio-political) factors? In search of an answer to the question posed, the researcher must inevitably turn to social psychology, trying to recreate not only the general picture of the past, but also trying to fill this picture with living people. Such a researcher will not be a moralizer and a judge and/or lawyer of the past, he will be, if you like, a “social anthropologist”, for whom it is more important not to dot all the i’s, but to formulate questions in such a way that the answers to them, in case of an error, could be clarified and, if necessary, revised by other scientists. Thus, we are talking about methodological techniques for studying the life of an outstanding person, making it possible to reconstruct his biography in the details that the sources allow. Moreover, I emphasize that knowledge of sources a’priori does not mean that the researcher can fully use them when writing a generalizing biographical work (since in this case we are talking about this kind of work). Marxist-Leninist methodology, alas, does not allow a politically unbiased historian to go beyond templates and sociological cliches, “tying” the biography of an individual to a class, political or religious group, or socio-economic formation. Refusal to do this is already a methodological “betrayal”, even if it is hidden behind various kinds of “lyrical digressions”: the conclusion is predetermined by the approach. It does not follow from this that all biographies written from a Marxist position are bad. But, as a rule, they are one-sided and inherently biased. In the end, a lot depends on who the author is and who is being discussed. For example, let us recall at least the brilliant biography of K. Marx, written in the pre-revolutionary period by V.I. Lenin for the Garnet Encyclopedic Dictionary and published in the 28th volume of the dictionary. Is it possible, using the methodological tools of V.I. Lenin, the author of a biographical article dedicated to the founder of scientific communism, to write a work, for example, about a church leader who lived both before 1917 and during the subsequent Bolshevik period in Russia? I think the question is purely rhetorical. Of course, the majority of modern Russian historians have abandoned Marxist-Leninist methodology in its classical (i.e., Soviet) forms. But approaches to studying the past, to assessing historical figures, unfortunately, are often the same. Positivism, which would be stupid to defame (it played a positive role in the formation of historical science), and now often turns out to be combined with a certain sociological form, where all the accents are initially placed and the only task of the researcher is to “correctly” group the material. The author convinces the reader of the correctness of his own conclusions, predetermined by the original scheme, which states what should be perceived positively and what should be perceived negatively. Deterministic positivism is presented as the result of following the “principles of historicism” and “objectivity,” although this “objectivity,” to be completely consistent, is nothing more than a hidden subjectivity programmed by the chosen approach. I am convinced that it is high time to honestly admit: the slogan of “objectivity” is nothing more than a phrase that allows us to avoid responsibility for methodological choice, or more precisely, for the impossibility of making it. The rejection of sociological schemes imposed during the era of the dominance of the “only correct” ideology in the USSR is important not for debunking Marxist-Leninist methods of historical knowledge, but for the successful development of new methods of historical science, including those related to church issues. Otherwise, the study of issues of church history will not go beyond the “technical addition” of known facts without proper analysis of them. How, in connection with the above, can one characterize the recently published book by a former employee of the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, Doctor of Historical Sciences Mikhail Ivanovich Odintsov, called in the annotation the first complete study of the life and ministry of Patriarch Sergius? To what extent does this book meet the needs of modern historical science for a deep, meaningful, taking into account all pro et contra, biography of His Holiness? It is possible, in my opinion, to answer the questions posed only by considering the structure of the book, characterizing the political and ideological priorities of the author (of course, to the extent that they are spelled out in the book), determining its genre and the quality of presentation of the material to the reader. It should be immediately pointed out that the book is biased - M.I. Odintsov does not hide his sympathy for Patriarch Sergius. This is his full right, which would be wrong to condemn. Another thing is that he is attracted to Patriarch Sergius, what he pays close attention to, and what he considers to be insignificant details that can be omitted. In order to correctly evaluate the “emphases” placed by M.I. Odintsov, one should consider his work, starting from the first chapter and ending with the last, making the necessary comments along the way and characterizing the author’s methodological techniques used by him in consecrating the biography of Patriarch Sergius against the background of Russian history of the late 19th - first half of the 20th centuries. Book by M.I. Odintsova appeared in the series “The Life of Remarkable People”. The attentive reader could not help but notice that the books in this series have several directions. Some of them can be called literary and artistic, others – historical, journalistic and even scientific and historical. One thing is constant: a book published in the ZhZL series must be written in such a way that a reader interested in history can read it with no less interest than a professional researcher familiar with historical issues. Of course, a lot depends on the skill of the author: one knows how to speak simply and intelligibly about complex things, while the other does not fully master such skill. What is the book “Patriarch Sergius” by M.I. Odintsova? It is extremely difficult to talk about this, since the author presents his material in a “mixed” manner: in some places the book resembles a novel written by a novice fiction writer, in others it resembles a scientific article written by a graduate of a Soviet humanities university, afraid to move away from the social forms in which he was taught to present facts. The footnotes found in the book are unsystematic and given arbitrarily (although, perhaps, this is not the author’s fault, but the result of the actions of the editors of the series - one can only guess about this). The book is preceded by two epigraphs and a prologue. The first epigraph is taken from the Gospel of Luke - the words of the Savior from the Sermon on the Mount (“Judge not, and you will not be judged”); the second is from the speech of Bishop Sergius at the episcopal consecration in 1901, in which he emphasizes that the episcopal ministry is the “ministry of reconciliation” and a true shepherd for the sake of the Church and the spiritual well-being of his flock is ready to sacrifice everything, even his own life and soul. This clearly and unambiguously defines the author’s position in relation to the hero of the book, which, however, will have to be discussed more than once. As for the prologue, it is even more impressive: M.I. Odintsov presents in artistic form the story of how State Security Colonel G.G. Karpov, summoned to Stalin's Near Dacha, is appointed to the post of Chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church and proposes to the leader Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow as a candidate for the patriarchal throne. So, the reader is intrigued: what kind of person is this, whose appointment to the patriarchal throne is decided during a war by the Supreme Commander himself at the suggestion of an officer of the Soviet secret services? The further presentation should give an answer to this question. As expected, M.I. Odintsov begins the story of the family history of the future High Hierarch, very briefly (on 35 pages) in the first chapter outlining the main stages of his biography - from birth to the end of his tenure as rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in 1905. Unfortunately, the author schematically outlines the events of the first years of the life of His Holiness, practically not touching on the question of what the world of the hereditary clergy was like, how it influenced the formation of the character of Bishop Sergius, what “learned monasticism” was in the history of the Russian Church of the late 19th century, the path of which the future Patriarch entered in the 1890s. His service in the Japanese mission is also described offensively succinctly. M.I. Odintsov notes the extraordinary abilities of his hero, but does not analyze in any way how they manifested themselves: he only records the appointments and movements of the ruler, “technically” describing his activities. According to M.I. Odintsov, Bishop Sergius shared the views of the liberal clergy, to which the researcher also includes Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) of St. Petersburg, Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Volyn and a number of professors and teachers of the capital’s Theological Academy (p. 29). When making such statements, it would be necessary to define in detail what the “liberal clergy” is and who opposed it, especially since Bishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky), who was not the Archbishop of Volyn at that time, was never considered by anyone (neither contemporaries nor historians) to be a representative of the liberal clergy. The author writes completely incorrectly that a group of the capital’s clergy and professors from St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences “under the leadership” (sic!) of Bishop Sergius (Stragorodsky) organized “religious and philosophical interviews” (pp. 30–31). They were organized by secular “God-seekers.” The initiators were Z.N. Gippius and D.S. Merezhkovsky. The idea of ​​Gippius-Merezhkovsky and their like-minded people was supported by V.M. Skvortsov is an official on special assignments under the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev, organizing a meeting of “God-seekers” with Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) and achieving the legalization of religious and philosophical meetings (as these interviews were called) from K.P. Pobedonostseva. Among the participants of the RFU, indeed, were Antonin (Granovsky) and Mikhail (Semyonov), mentioned on the pages of the book, but the first was not a bishop at that time (his consecration took place on March 2, 1903), and the second was an archimandrite. The author, on page 31 calling Mikhail (Semyonov) an archimandrite, on page 34 correctly calls him a hieromonk. This, of course, is a trifle, but a trifle of no small importance for a researcher of church history. By the way, he and Archimandrite Antonin did not have a reputation as “church rebels” at that time. Moreover, even if we consider them “rebels,” then what about the statement that Bishop Sergius, the chairman of the RFU, “took the most radical position,” at least adjectively on the issue of freedom of conscience (p. 33)? Such a statement does not fit well with the statement that, according to the testimony of people close to the ruler, it was unusual for him to talk and discuss “damned issues of our time” openly, publicly (p. 37). It is significant that the author contradicts himself when he quotes the public statement of Bishop Sergius about the events of January 9, 1905 (p. 35). It is clear that M.I. Odintsov wants to say as much as possible about social issues, but he speaks about it fragmentarily and in most cases incoherently. It is important for him to show that “official propaganda, together with the Orthodox hierarchy,” tried to “hide the fact of the bankruptcy of state church policy” (p. 30), that Russia was sliding “into the abyss of social catastrophes,” which is why the Church started talking about reforms, the Local Council and the patriarchate. But the explanation of this phenomenon is given to them in a surprisingly flat manner, although journalistically scathing: “it was no longer possible not to notice the arbitrariness and dictatorship, persecution and persecution that was happening in the spiritual sphere” (p. 35). How did “arbitrariness” and “diktat”, “persecution” and “persecution” influence the fate of the reforms that were then expected by many Orthodox leaders? By the way, the author does not write how and why the “radical” Bishop Sergius, an obvious supporter of reforms, together with Bishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) with the support of Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) participated in organizing the February 1901 determination of the Holy Synod, which stated the apostasy of L.N. Tolstoy from the Church. Or does he still not consider the notorious “excommunication” of the great writer “arbitrary”? Obviously, such questions did not seem very important to the author and therefore are not discussed in the book. I will not describe how the author presents the history of the church reforms of 1905, I will only note what he claims: the resignation from the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev, “with whose name was associated the unfreedom of the Church, “chained to the autocracy,” was “a concession to reformist forces on the part of the royal court” (pp. 38–39). Such a statement is a new revelation, hitherto unknown to historians; Previously, scientists naively believed that Pobedonostsev naturally resigned after the Manifesto of October 17, 1905, when the Council of Ministers was formed headed by Count S.Yu. Witte. The next, second chapter is devoted to the time of Archbishop Sergius’s service as archbishop – from his appointment to the See of Finland to the beginning of the work of the Local Council of 1917–1918. This chapter, like the previous one, says nothing about how the Bishop met the later famous “elder” Grigory Rasputin, patronized him, why and when he acted as his principled opponent, and how much this influenced his relations with the crowned princes, primarily with Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. This plot can also be considered a “trifle,” but when trying to restore a person’s life, one should not lose sight of those moments that, according to contemporaries, were important and significant. Quite rightly noting that the life of the bishop was inseparable from the history of the Church, M.I. Odintsov devotes considerable space to the story of church reforms of the early 20th century. Unfortunately, in this story he made several rather gross “technical” errors that cannot be ignored. Thus, he writes that “Sergius became a permanent member of the Pre-Conciliar Presence, he led the departments that were supposed to prepare the program of council meetings, materials for council discussions” (p. 61). There were seven departments, and the bishop led only one of them - the seventh, which was engaged in the analysis of measures necessary “to protect the Orthodox faith and Christian piety from incorrect teachings and interpretations in view of strengthening the principles of religious tolerance in the empire.” Only 7 people took part in the work of this department - the smallest number of participants. Pre-conciliar presence, according to M.I. Odintsov, “invited all diocesan bishops to send their thoughts on issues of church reform” (ibid.). The researcher should have known that the initiator of writing the “considerations” was not the Pre-Conciliar presence, but K.P. Pobedonostsev, who formulated a questionnaire for bishops. The chief prosecutor hoped that the traditionally conservative episcopate would support him and the idea of ​​church reform would be destroyed. Therefore, on July 13–27, 1905, at the request of Pobedonostsev, the Holy Synod sent out the corresponding circular No. 3542 to the ruling bishops. In this case, the confusion in time is unforgivable, since it does not allow us to adequately assess what and, most importantly, why the Russian bishops spoke about reforms, understanding what kind of feedback the Chief Prosecutor expected from them. The author is not at all worried that Bishop Sergius on the pages of the book turns out to be a person whose logic of actions and actions cannot be correctly assessed. Thus, he writes that Vladyka took an active part in the work of the synodal commission to develop a new charter for theological academies, without in any way explaining why a supporter of the reform of theological educational institutions (which Vladyka Sergius showed himself to be in his comments on the issue of church reform) contributed to the adoption of a charter that destroyed academic autonomy (p. 62). After all, the author is not writing a track record, but a biography! M.I. writes extremely sparingly. Odintsov and about his long-term deputy K.P. Pobedonostsev for the Department of Orthodox Confession V.K. Sabler, ending with the phrase that the latter’s friendship with the bishop created for Bishop Sergius “additional opportunities for growth in his church career” (p. 64). This is all the more annoying since V.K. Sabler was perceived both in the government and in broad circles of Russian society in an extremely ambiguous manner. Speaking about the fact that Vladyka Sergius did not become the metropolitan of the capital after the death of Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) in November 1912, the author tells readers about the deafness of the archbishop as the reason. That this was a reason, and not a reason, the inquisitive reader can only guess 1. Concluding the presentation of the pre-revolutionary biography of the ruler, the author claims that in the last period of the existence of the monarchy, “Sergius led the opposition in the Synod and compiled a written review addressed to the sovereign.” If the recall should have been said in more detail, then the leadership of the opposition by the ruler should not have been written at all. The only problem was the negative attitude of the majority of the members of the Holy Synod, including Bishop Sergius, towards the Petrograd Metropolitan Pitirim (Oknov) and towards Grigory Rasputin, who supported him. Discontent is one thing, the synodal opposition led by a leader is completely different. Obviously, the author deliberately decided to make Bishop Sergius an oppositionist, since the main thing he drew attention to at the end of the second chapter was the negative perception of autocracy by the majority of the empire’s subjects. However, he expressed this in a very unique way: “the masses were for democracy and longed for democratic changes. Exhausted by a long, hateful war, shocked by scandals at the top, squeezed by problems, Russia felt a craving for freedom, for independence, for law, peace and order. Autocracy and the court camarilla were perceived by everyone as an obstacle to liberation” (p. 69). “Everyone,” apparently, also includes Bishop Sergius, the head of the synodal opposition. How could it be otherwise - “the masses were for democracy.” What can I say to this? It's better to remain silent. The following briefly describes the February Revolution in Petrograd and the attitude of the members of the Holy Synod towards it. Their attitude to the events is not analyzed; the author limits himself to statements, noting that after the revolution the Octobrist V.N. became the chief prosecutor. Lviv. Talking about how, soon after his appointment, the royal throne was taken out of the meeting room, the author writes how difficult this scene was for members of the Holy Synod - both conservative and moderate, liberal. Among the first, in addition to Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow (Parvitsky-Nevsky), Petrograd Pitirim (Oknov) is also mentioned; among the latter are Archbishops Sergius (Stragorodsky) and Tikhon (Bellavin). Without going into a discussion of why it is incorrect to call Metropolitan Pitirim a conservative, it is only worth noting that he simply was not at this meeting. It is also not entirely clear why Bishops Sergius and Tikhon are called liberals - what their liberalism and comparative (with what and who?) moderation consisted of. It is also not entirely clear why only Bishop Sergius was retained in the new composition of the Holy Synod, while the other “relatively moderate” were not retained. The fact that the bishop should have resigned along with everyone else, but remained, is very typical and requires at least a little explanation. It is impossible to consider as such an amorphous indication that “the archbishop’s contemporaries considered the most characteristic feature of him to be his ability to get along with various political trends, to make compromises and tactical tricks when necessary, to be “law-abiding” and at the same time skillfully defend his convictions,” it is impossible. What is considered “tactical tricks” and what is uncompromising? How was this assessed by contemporaries? Why did not all of them admire the ability of Bishop Sergius to “get along with various political trends”? And where did he get the experience of such “accommodation” by 1917? I believe that the answer to this question would help the author find a solution to another question: why in May 1917 did the bishop lose the elections in the capital to Bishop Benjamin (Kazan), an apolitical and modest man? It’s not because of “moderation”! 2 The third chapter is devoted to the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the history of the life and work of Bishop Sergius “dissolves” in the narrative of this most important event in church history. The author talks about the discussion that has unfolded around the issue of restoring the patriarchate, calling the words of one of the opponents of the restoration of this institution, professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy P.P., prophetic. Kudryavtseva. If the Patriarch is elected, the professor believed, the growth of clericalism and the strengthening of the action of centrifugal forces both in church and political terms are inevitable. The author does not develop this idea, but it is quite clear that it is close to him. Of course, no one has the right to criticize a researcher for his opinion, but I believe consistency in views is necessary. Accordingly, M.I. Odintsov had to openly prove and show in the future that the patriarchate, under the conditions of the establishment of the new (Soviet) system, became an obstacle to establishing good relations between the Church and the state. He does not do this openly, but he hints quite transparently (when he touches on the problem of renovationism, which will be discussed later). By and large, the third chapter is a retelling of some aspects of the history of the work of the Local Council, and nothing more. The author does not write why Bishop Sergius did not collect a significant number of votes as a candidate for the patriarchal table, as usual, getting off with the statement (“he did not receive a significant number of votes in any of the rounds and dropped out of the fight long before the final”) (p. 95). Considerable attention in this chapter is given to M.I. Odintsov devoted himself to the issue of the separation of Church and state, describing in a free artistic form the discussion in Lenin’s Council of People’s Commissars of the draft decree. The author sympathetically evaluates the work done by the Bolsheviks on the “religious issue,” convincing readers that the councilors and church hierarchs, led by Patriarch Tikhon, tried to involve believers in confrontation with the authorities. Of course, they tried, and primarily because they did not consider (like millions of citizens of the former Russian Empire) the Bolshevik government legitimate, and the Bolsheviks as patriots. The conclusion of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty and the exit from the war is historically incorrect to consider as M.I. does. Odintsov, loudly declaring that the patriarchal calls to continue the war “doomed the population to additional hardships and deprivations, and in the future made possible a quick defeat in the fight against a superior enemy, which could be followed by the collapse of the Russian state” (p. 11). Such a free interpretation of the actions of the Bolsheviks, who supposedly cared about the welfare and territorial integrity of Russia, indicates that the author does not want to objectively look at the actions of Soviet rulers, thinks not in historical, but in political categories of the Soviet model, and completely does not take into account the work of modern scientists who study the revolution and the Civil War without ideological bias. Tracing the Soviet history of the Civil War, M.I. Odintsov, among other things, writes about mutual terror - whites and reds. “Believers and non-believers, priests and commissars, communists and non-party people, red and white died” (p. 116). This is an absolute truth, as is the truth that the “Red Terror” was elevated to a state principle. “We are not fighting against individuals,” wrote one of the leaders of the Cheka of Soviet Russia, M.I., on November 1, 1918. Latsis, - we are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. During the investigation, do not look for material and evidence that the accused acted in deed or word against the Soviet regime. The first question you should ask him is what his origin, upbringing, education or profession is. These questions should determine the fate of the accused. This is the meaning and essence of the “red terror.” Moreover, neither in the acts of government policy A.V. Kolchak, A.I. Denikin and P.N. Wrangel, there was no theoretical justification for terror in “white” journalism. The White Army was characterized by the cruelty inherent in war in general. Not understanding this means refusing to see in the Soviet punitive system the elements that made it inhumane in essence, naturally leading to terror and violence - first against class enemies, and then against former like-minded people. “Churchmen” in this system were predetermined by an unenviable fate. M.I. Odintsov, apparently, thinks differently; his “objectivity” presupposes the rehabilitation of what seems to him historically correct, “natural.” “Rehabilitating” the Soviet system, he tries to “fit” Bishop Sergius into it in such a way as to present him as a person who understood the social laws that brought the Bolsheviks to power. Where it is possible not to write about something that will destroy his views, the author prefers to remain silent. Thus, he writes that in September 1918 the Cathedral was closed, but does not see this act of violence on the part of the Bolshevik authorities. It is also worth noting that in the third chapter the reader becomes acquainted mainly with general church-political subjects, and not with the biography of Bishop Sergius. Knowing how M.I. Odintsov’s approach to the selection of topics and materials included in the book is not surprising. The fourth chapter, judging by the title, describes the time of Metropolitan Sergius’ service at the Vladimir See, i.e. 1917–1922. The author again returns to subjects related to the end of the Synodal era, further considering the time of the end of the Civil War, the “renovationist temptation” of the ruler and his return to the Patriarchal Church. The chapter begins with a story about how the bishop became the ruling bishop in Vladimir. The author's style of presentation, to put it mildly, immediately causes bewilderment. Characterizing the predecessor of the bishop - Archbishop Alexy (Dorodnitsyn), M.I. Odintsov notes that he was “a colorful type of Russian bishop” - he had a wonderful voice, was an excellent regent, was disproportionately obese (he could not serve the liturgy without changing his vestments), had an excellent appetite and could even drink almost a bucket of water (when he was tormented by thirst) (p. 122). The information was most likely taken from the dictionary of Metropolitan Manuel (Lemeshevsky), who liked to give similar characteristics, but what is important is not where it was taken from. The question arises: why is it given in a book about Patriarch Sergius, especially since such details, in principle, are not suitable for a historical work, even a fictionalized one. Did the “flavor” of the Russian bishop really consist in the above-mentioned habits? And what does this give us for understanding the era, the main character of the book, and finally, the psychology of the Russian clergy? In my opinion - nothing. Especially considering that a few lines below the author cites the fact of Metropolitan Sergius’s “connection” with the revolutionaries, citing the Vladimir Diocesan Gazette. If Archbishop Alexy - “a colorful type of Russian bishop” - was a despot and monarchist (the author also notes this), then his successor is the opposite? Or is it something else? We won't see any analysis. Understand it as you wish. The author also mentions the name of Bishop Andrei (Ukhtomsky), indicating that he was also nominated as a candidate, but then withdrew his candidacy in favor of Metropolitan Sergius. “Andrei Ufimsky’s refusal in his favor was not accidental,” notes M.I. Odintsov. “This bishop, also anti-monarchist, was a faithful ally of Sergius of Stragorod and did not hesitate to persuade his supporters to vote for the latter” (p. 123). It turns out that this is what it’s all about: both rulers had a common political vision of events and were anti-monarchists! Looking ahead, I will point out that the author does not write more about the relationship between his “comrades-in-arms,” although Bishop Andrei over the years became an active opponent of “Sergianism” and an irreconcilable critic of Metropolitan Sergius. How did this happen? The reader will not find an answer, just as he will not find information about the position of Bishop Andrei in the late 1920s - the first half of the 1930s. In addition to the fundamental points, it is necessary to note the fact that the material is clearly unsatisfactory. The author often acts as a novelist, provides extensive dialogues with historical figures and even reads the thoughts of his hero. Describing Metropolitan Sergius’s visit to the center of Moscow in 1918, the author writes, in particular, the following: “Get away, get away from here,” the Metropolitan’s head began to pound. “Run away from this kingdom of ghosts.” Another time, describing the dialogue between Patriarch Tikhon and Metropolitan Sergius, the author, without any reference to sources (and in this case it would not have hurt), quotes the words of His Holiness, who allegedly said that in his conversation with Latsis and Krasikov, he “even did not speak out against the damned eighth department of the People’s Commissariat of Justice, together with the Judas Spitsberg and Galkin who were entrenched there. But guess what... they don’t believe it.” It is also difficult for the reader familiar with the history of the life and ministry of Patriarch Tikhon to believe that His Holiness spoke exactly like that, sometimes using expressions like “you’re spot on” (p. 137). It is impossible to pass over in silence the way the author presents the history of Lenin’s famous letter related to the confiscation of church valuables (March 1922). The book places (and rightly) emphasis on the fact that during that period the L.D. program was being implemented. Trotsky, but at the same time it is argued that the requirement is the opinion of V.I. Lenin’s proposal to carry out the confiscation of valuables “with the most furious and merciless energy” was not discussed separately, being taken into account only as the opinion of one of the Politburo members, who was absent from the meeting due to illness. In addition, citing an extensive passage from Lenin’s “highly secret” message, M.I. Odintsov did not quote the key words of the leader, irritated by the events in Shuya: “The more representatives of the reactionary clergy and the reactionary bourgeoisie we manage to shoot on this occasion, the better. It is now necessary to teach this public a lesson so that for several decades they will not dare to think about any resistance.” Obviously, this was done so as not to once again focus attention on the position of the leader of the world proletariat in the “church issue.” Characterizing the history of church values, the author naturally addressed the question of renovationism, making it clear to the reader that their activity was supported by the GPU. Why, according to M.I. Odintsov, did Metropolitan Sergius finally decide to cooperate with the Renovationists? The answer is simple: with the best of intentions: the Bishop understood that by appointing a renovationist bishop to Vladimir, the diocese could become a bastion of the movement, “seducing the clergy and believers into schism.” The Bishop “hoped to outwit the Renovationists and the GPU behind them and, having stood at the head of the All-Russian Central Church, gradually straighten the church course in the Orthodox-canonical direction. There was also a fear of losing the church center and thereby harming the cause of church unity” (p. 162). The historian, as we see, acts in the thankless role of interpreter of the actions of his hero and his lawyer, without even thinking about the fact that other hierarchs, for example, Metropolitan Veniamin (Kazan) of Petrograd, refused to save the Church and its unity in this way, paying for the refusal with their lives. The author does not write why they did this and what was the matter. He is concerned about justifying his hero, especially since “the political declarations of the renovationists provided them with the support of ordinary believers: up to 70 percent of the parishes followed them” (p. 163). Again we see the old Soviet scheme: the renovationists managed to gain the upper hand for a while because they met the aspirations of the people, who did not want the “politicization” of the Church and were supporters of Soviet power. However, the further, the more Metropolitan Sergius understood the incorrectness of the actions of the leaders of renovationism and his own mistake. The result was public repentance and return to the Patriarchal Church. According to M.I. Odintsov, “that was the path of the prodigal son, the path of the sinner to Canossa.” Without appreciating the stylistic charms of this expression, we note that if we follow the author’s logic, the bishop failed either to outwit the renovationists and the GPU, or to stand at the head of the All-Russian Central Church and correct the church course.” “Straightening” turned out to be a “sin.” What conclusions follow from this? None. Only a moralizing maxim in the spirit of the “pious stories” of past times: after the departure of Metropolitan Sergius to the Patriarchal Church, the renovationists “felt how the entire edifice of the renovationist church they were building began to shake” (p. 176). Did the leaders of renovationism talk about what they “felt,” or were their feelings in some special way able to be understood and conveyed to us by M.I. Odintsov, it is unclear from the text of the book. The most voluminous chapter of the book is the fifth, entitled “In the native Nizhny Novgorod region. 1924–1934." The title does not at all indicate that we are talking about the service of Metropolitan Sergius at the Nizhny Novgorod See - the author talks about events related to the history of church-state relations in the indicated decade and, in part, about the bishop himself. As in previous chapters, the reader is faced with numerous factual errors, the author’s unique “literary” style and his unique concept, which cannot be called consistent, logically structured and justified. In order not to be unfounded, examples should be given. Thus, characterizing the Synod, which Patriarch Tikhon managed to form in February 1925, the author indicates Metropolitan Seraphim (Alexandrov) of St. Petersburg among its members (p. 179). You don’t need to be a deep researcher of recent church history to know: in 1925 there could be no “St. Petersburg” metropolitan - until 1924 there was a Metropolitan of Petrograd, and after that there was a Metropolitan of Leningrad. At this time, the department was, in fact, dowager, and Metropolitan Seraphim (Alexandrov) was the ruling bishop in Tver. But these “technical” flaws are forgotten when you begin to get acquainted with the dialogues of the bishops, which the author has placed below. I would like to believe that they were “constructed” by the author based on documents, but presented in the spirit of a work of art that is not of the highest level. As an example, I will give a paragraph presented as a response from Metropolitan Sergius to a remark from one of the hierarchs. “Yes,” Metropolitan Sergius warmly echoed, “everything that has happened to us, starting from the revolution of the seventeenth year, is an expression of God’s will about the fate of our Fatherland. We can and must fulfill our civic and social duty in the new conditions of our state life, if only everyone at the same time preserves their Orthodox faith and fidelity to the vows we made in Holy Baptism” (p. 180). What kind of language is this? This is the language of the office, an artificial, “declarative” language. This is what provincial actors say in a bad play - pretentiously, with a pretense of thoughtfulness. On another page, touching on the events associated with the death of Patriarch Tikhon, the author writes about how the hero of his book “came flooded with memories, everything that connected Sergius with the deceased surfaced in his consciousness” (p. 181). Where is M.I. from? Does Odintsov know about what “surfaced in consciousness”? How does he know that Bishop Grigory (Yatskovsky) during interrogation by E.A. Tuchkova thought about the last one: “Uh-oh, a healthy man, he’s eaten up on government food”? (p. 188). Why M.I. Odintsov cites Tuchkov’s dialogue with Deribas (p. 189), arranging phrases in such a way that a suspicion arises: was he himself certainly the third in the office? How can one write that Metropolitan Sergius in 1930 felt that the “cold alienation” of the state towards church organizations could not be overcome, asking himself about the futility of the efforts of recent years and the futility of the hopes that had arisen?! Penetrating into the thoughts of the long-deceased hierarch, on the pages of the book by M.I. Odintsov builds a chain of reasoning for his hero: “Or maybe those who condemned and rejected me and saw me as an apostate are right. No, no,” he drove away the dark thoughts. – You can be disappointed in yourself because of your mistakes and weaknesses. But what did you do not for your own sake?.. to stop halfway? Even if external conditions have changed, the world is ruled by God’s Providence, and everything is in the power of the Divine will,” etc. (p. 251). Not limiting himself to penetrating the thoughts of Metropolitan Sergius, the author easily builds a chain of reasoning and the Bolshevik with pre-revolutionary experience P.G. Smidovich, thinking, sitting “in his favorite soft chair” (pp. 251–252). If the author had written a historical novel dedicated to Patriarch Sergius, he would probably have the right to such passages, but the genre of his book is somewhat different: it is a biography, albeit presented in literary form! However, let professional literary experts judge the literary merits of this work. They, perhaps, will see the positive aspects of the presentation where it is problematic for a historian to find them. Of course, it’s not only about the form of presentation, but also about the content. Describing how Metropolitan Sergius became the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens, the author says practically nothing about the role and significance of Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky), who after the death of High Hierarch Tikhon became the head of the church ship. In the chapter we find only a few phrases that do not allow us to create an adequate portrait of the Locum Tenens. The author emphasizes that there is no doubt about the sincerity of the statements made by Metropolitan Peter, since he “with all his activities, especially in the subsequent (after 1925 - S.F.) difficult years for him, confirmed his loyalty to Patriarch Tikhon and the Orthodox Church” (pp. 183–184). However, literally on the next page M.I. Odintsov claims that “although nothing new was put forward by the authorities, and Patriarch Tikhon had previously given agreement in principle on all these points (i.e. points, upon implementation of which the authorities agreed to normalize church-state relations - S.F.), Peter Polyansky failed to establish acceptable relations with the authorities. Moreover, in the bodies of the OGLU he was considered a “politically unreliable” figure and “unsuitable” for the post of head of the Church” (p. 185). It turns out that Vladyka Peter, faithful to the Patriarch, was unable to fulfill his will and normalize the position of the Orthodox Church in the USSR. Why? “He was neither a diplomat nor a politician, so some of his actions were perceived very painfully by the authorities.” The conclusion suggests itself: Bishop Sergius possessed all the qualities of a diplomat and politician, and accordingly was more suited to the role of head of the Church. This is where the author strives to lead the reader, fully sharing the methods that Bishop Sergius used when he found himself in the role of Deputy of the arrested Locum Tenens. It can be argued that Metropolitan Peter appears on the pages of the book as a minor historical character, necessary only in order to better and more clearly illuminate the outstanding activity of Bishop Sergius. The author does not seek to explain why, when attempting to secretly (by written poll) elect the Patriarch in 1926, the majority of hierarchs spoke for Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov) of Kazan, and not for the active and active Metropolitan Sergius. Didn’t the hierarchs understand that a “diplomat” and a “politician” were better? Obviously, unlike the author of the book, they did not understand. A significant place in the fifth chapter is devoted to the consideration of the famous “Declaration” of Metropolitan Sergius of 1927. For the author, there is no doubt that her acceptance was the right step of the Deputy Locum Tenens. The author unconditionally supports the old thesis of the supporters of Bishop Sergius that his actions are historically justified, and the actions of opponents of the Declaration, on the contrary, should be condemned. The Deputy Locum Tenens appears to be a continuator of the line of Patriarch Tikhon, although until his death he could not recognize the desire of the authorities to influence personnel appointments in the Church (and this was precisely the main goal of the Bolsheviks). This circumstance should be recognized as a fundamental point that M.I. Odintsov does not want to discuss. It is obvious to him: if the Patriarch were alive, he would agree to everything that Metropolitan Sergius agreed to in 1927. I think this is too much of an assumption. Not a single modern historian of the Church who is seriously working on the study of church-state relations in the 1920s–1930s shares such ideas, as far as I know. M.I. Odintsov, admitting that the Declaration caused great confusion among the clergy and flock, explains this with another moralistic maxim. “But he (Metropolitan Sergius - S.F.) was a real monk. He stood before God, and the main thing for him was not the judgment of history, but the judgment of God” (p. 216). Is it really possible that for his opponents “on the right”, including many bishops, the main thing was the judgment of history, and not the judgment of God, and they were not real monks?! The question is, of course, hypothetical. A separate paragraph of the fifth chapter is devoted to the issue of the attitude of emigration to the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius. Characterizing supporters of the Church Abroad, the author writes about Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky)’s tendency toward “independence,” believing that the appearance of the Declaration became a convenient reason for an open break with the Moscow Patriarchate. Having written this, we should remind readers that raising the name of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Peter in the ROCOR was not interrupted, which meant that there was a break with Metropolitan Sergius, and not with the Mother Church. A historian engaged in the study of the Russian Orthodox Church of the modern period should not forget this. Getting acquainted with the work of M.I. Odintsov, the reader is surprised to discover that the author easily changes the style and format of presentation of the material - from a fictional presentation he abruptly moves to the form of a scientific article. So, in the fifth chapter, after the story about emigration, he examines in detail the Resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR “On Religious Associations” and the decisions of the XIV All-Russian Congress of Soviets. This is perhaps the strongest part of the book, although Metropolitan Sergius is not discussed here. Bishop Sergius is discussed in the next paragraph - about the beginning of the “deep 1930s.” In this paragraph, the author sets out the story of the famous February 1930 interview with the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens. The author tells in person how the authorities put pressure on the ruler, demanding “correct” answers, how he received foreign correspondents and gave answers to their questions. His answers caused a wave of criticism, accusations of “salesness to a godless state.” “But still,” the book states, “despite the attacks from “externals” and even in spite of them, Sergius’ position in the church environment is gradually strengthening” (pp. 245–246). Unfortunately, we do not have the opportunity to take this story seriously. Moscow researcher I.A. Kurlyandsky found and analyzed materials devoted to this plot, and they do not make it possible to believe in what M.I. cited. Odintsov's story. “Textological analysis has shown,” writes I.A. Kurlyandsky, - that the interview itself was a falsification (emphasis added by the author - S.F.), committed by Stalin, Yaroslavsky and Molotov, authorized by the Politburo decree. The fact of the subsequent authorization of the “interview” by Metropolitan Sergius, in my opinion, does not change the author’s assessment of it as falsification, because it is obvious that this authorization was made under direct pressure from the state” 3 . Monograph by I.A. Kurlyandsky appeared more than a year before the work of M.I. Odintsov, who should have familiarized himself with it and not engaged in an “artistic description” of the story with the “interview.” At the end of the fifth chapter, the author laconically writes that in the summer of 1934, the Synod of Metropolitan Sergius adopted a resolution to judge the foreign clergy of the “Karlovak group” as having rebelled to their legitimate clergy, without in any way explaining the reasons for what had happened. The author only mentions a letter in which he reported on the grave impression made on Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) by the message about his being brought to the ecclesiastical court and that the leader of the ROCOR recalled Bishop Sergius as a “bright head” and “kind heart.” There is no analysis in the book of how former friends - Metropolitans Sergius and Anthony - disagreed on the issue of cooperation with the Bolsheviks. There is only a statement: they separated. Thanks for that too. The sixth chapter concerns the life and ministry of Metropolitan Sergius in 1934–1941, i.e. during the most difficult period of church-state relations in the USSR, when the institutional Church suffered exceptional damage, and the authorities were seriously thinking about the complete eradication of “religious prejudices.” The author writes about conferring the title of “His Beatitude” on the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens and transferring him to the Moscow See. M.I. Odintsov rightly notes that “thereby Metropolitan Sergius was recognized as the ruling first hierarch of the Russian Church” (p. 259), but does not comment in any way on the ambiguity of the position in which the bishop found himself - after all, his powers were based on the written order of Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky), de jure and in conclusion, remaining the Patriarchal Locum Tenens. Talking about the closure of churches, the author gives an example of how the authorities used the Renovationists for this purpose, emphasizing: “it was no secret to anyone that the Renovationists were in collusion with the authorities” (p. 261). You can’t argue with this, but were it only the renovationists who were “in collusion,” and what was this “conspiracy”? In the end, cooperation with the atheists did not save either the renovationists or the “Sergievites” from repression. By the way, about repressions. The author talks about how in those years Metropolitan Sergius himself could have become a victim of Stalin’s terror. To make it more convincing, he cited the bishop’s dialogue with E.A. Tuchkov. If in reality there was such a conversation between the persecuted and the persecutor, then it is necessary to give a footnote, because otherwise everything looks too staged. Let me give you a few excerpts as examples. Thus, in response to Tuchkov’s accusations, Metropolitan Sergius stated: “I don’t believe you, and I have nothing to fear. I have lived a lot, done a lot for the Church and people of faith. The Church, no matter how much you would like, cannot be killed; it is alive and will live, even if you defame my name. I hope the time will come when the faithful will sort it out and not cover my gray hairs with shame. But behind you, Tuchkov, there is blood, tears, grief. No one will remember you with a kind word. You will be cursed in your descendants. And over time, your own people will turn away from you” (p. 264). Parrying such bold predictions, Tuchkov, according to M.I. Odintsov, declared his hatred of party liberals, religion and the Church (p. 265). The reader gets acquainted with the drama, but, unfortunately, it is far from Shakespeare's scale: the tragedy, against the will of the author of the book about Patriarch Sergius, but under his pen, turns into a blasphemous farce. Following the dialogues there is documentary material and a table with data reflecting the religious situation in the USSR for the years 1938 and 1940. Next, the author reports how Metropolitan Sergius invited the heads of the Estonian and Latvian metropolises to return to the Moscow Patriarchate, on the same page calling Bishop Alexander (Paulus) metropolitan and archbishop (p. 268). According to him, Bishop Alexander “gave an oath of allegiance to the Moscow Patriarchate.” What kind of oath this is is not explained, although the reader may have a similar question, for in the fifth chapter, describing the interrogation of Bishop Afanasy (Sakharov), M.I. Odintsov quotes him as saying “we don’t use oaths at all” (p. 204). In the same chapter, the author talks about the policies of the CPSU(b) and the Soviet state on the anti-religious front, about the religious policy of Nazi Germany on the eve of World War II and about the beginning of the Great Patriotic War. These stories are given without any artistic “insertions”; they are informative and well-reasoned 4. They say practically nothing about Metropolitan Sergius, but they write about the state of the “religious issue” both in the USSR and in the Third Reich. The last two chapters deal with a fairly short, but extremely eventful period of the war - from 1941 to 1944 (i.e., at the time of the death of Patriarch Sergius). The author talks about the evacuation of the bishop to Ulyanovsk, about his life and ministry outside Moscow, and gives a story about how the head of the Moscow Patriarchate helped the suffering (once, having no money, he gave a gold watch to a petitioner, having taken it off his hand). The author rightly writes about how the Nazis destroyed churches, but says nothing about the reasons that forced them to simultaneously open thousands of churches previously closed by the Bolsheviks. The author does not write about why the fascists declared Metropolitan Sergius “enemy number one of the Reich” (p. 301). Perhaps M.I. Odintsov means the fact that among the church leaders whom the Nazi bosses considered “red”, it was the head of the Moscow Patriarchate who was their first enemy? I admit, I still haven't figured it out. Talking extensively and in detail about the patriotic activities of the Moscow Patriarchate during the war years, the author, with reference to the book “The Truth about Religion in Russia,” says that correspondents from American publications repeatedly met with representatives of religious organizations in the USSR. Thus, in December 1941, a representative of the Associated Press interviewed Archbishop Andrei of Saratov (p. 326). Indeed, an interview with Bishop Andrei (Komarov) was published in “The Truth about Religion in Russia,” but, judging by the text, it was a “commissioned” speech, its publication pursued political goals. M.I. Odintsov, unfortunately, does not specifically consider the history of the creation of “The Truth about Religion in Russia” and the role of Metropolitan Sergius in its preparation. It's a pity. This could be a fascinating story, because in this "Truth." there were a lot of lies and exaggerations. Doesn't characterize M.I. Odintsov and the preface to the book of Metropolitan Sergius. In the final chapter, the author examines Stalin's policy of “reconciliation and compromise,” which led to the creation of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the election of Bishop Sergius as Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. In the genre of narrative story M.I. Odintsov writes how NKVD Colonel G.G. was called up from the active army to be appointed to the post of Chairman of the Council. Karpov is “youthful, tightly built, with a pleasant, open face” (p. 331). The author clearly sympathizes with this man, not considering it necessary to briefly highlight his glorious path to a major position 5 . But he describes in detail the history of the famous meeting of Metropolitans Sergius (Stragorodsky), Alexy (Simansky) and Nikolai (Yarushevich) with I.V. Stalin on September 4, 1943. M.I. Odintsov, in his characteristic manner, also writes about the impression Stalin made on Metropolitan Sergius. Vladyka “walked around his small room and thought about something. Cell attendant John (Razumov) suddenly heard: “How kind he is! How kind he is!” The cell attendant either said to himself or asked: · So he is an unbeliever? Can you expect any good from this? “You know, John,” Sergius said, stopping opposite, “whoever is good has God living in his soul” (p. 337). It is not indicated where this apocrypha came from, but it is difficult to believe in its veracity: Metropolitan Sergius was never a naive or stupid person, he remembered very well what was happening in the 1920s - 1930s. The bishop’s own sister died in 1937, having been arrested as “the sister of Metropolitan Sergius of Stragorod” (p. 263). Did he really believe that the “good” leader, in whose soul “God lives,” had nothing to do with the terror taking place in the country?! However, it is more important to find an answer to another question: what does M.I. think about this? Odintsov, who posted the dialogue between the bishop and his cell attendant on the pages of his book? However, this is not easy to do: the author is more interested in the opportunity to describe in detail the Church’s assistance to the army, talk about the journalistic activity of church hierarchs who described the atrocities of the enemy, and emphasize how correctly (if not to say sensitively) the chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church treated Patriarch Sergius. M.I. Odintsov indicates that the Patriarch approached the Council with a request for an amnesty for previously repressed hierarchs, but does not indicate exactly how many were released. The main thing is to show that relations between the authorities and the Moscow Patriarchate since the autumn of 1943 have developed in the spirit of mutual understanding and mutual respect. The author examines how the Council was formed, what was included in the responsibilities of its leader, and what tasks he had to solve. Everything is presented here clearly and clearly - no stylistic “decorations”. He cites important statistical materials, including those about religious buildings destroyed during the war by the German invaders. It seems that the given figures would tell the reader more if he had the opportunity to compare them with the statistics of the destruction and desecration of churches and monasteries carried out by the Bolsheviks - from 1917 to 1941. At the end of the chapter and the entire book, M.I. Odintsov touchingly describes the arrival of G.G. Karpov on the last birthday of Patriarch Sergius (in January 1944). Karpov presented His Holiness with gifts worth 30 thousand rubles - a watch with a gold chain, cognac, champagne, caviar and fruit (p. 372) “for the hero of the day” (as in the text - S.F.). This is, of course, very interesting information, but given on its own it can hardly add anything to the portrait of Patriarch Sergius. The author should have explained to the reader that the Soviet government was not distinguished by unselfishness, and such gifts made during the war should rather be understood as a kind of “political bribe.” The eighth chapter ends with the story of the death of Patriarch Sergius, the last words are taken from a poem that naively expresses the love of believers for the deceased. There is no conclusion (epilogue) or conclusions. And this, I think, is quite natural. The author did not at all seek to explain the phenomenon of the personality of Patriarch Sergius, who for some was and remains a great figure of the Church, who saved it in the most difficult years of militant atheism, and for others, a man who made unacceptable concessions to power and thereby turned the Church into an obedient instrument of the Soviet state. M.I. Odintsov chose the side of those who perceive Patriarch Sergius as the “savior” of Russian Orthodoxy, skillfully and wisely steering the church ship towards the only possible goal at that time: finding a compromise with the Bolshevik leaders. The apogee of the movement towards this goal, judging by the text of the book, was the events of 1943, when the authorities agreed to hold the Council and created a body controlling the Church - the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church. For the author who wrote the book about Patriarch Sergius, everything was clear from the very beginning - he sought to structure the presentation in such a way that the biography of his hero would serve as a kind of illustration of the socio-political scheme, which was basically Soviet. The book contains a story about the social and political processes taking place in the country, and Patriarch Sergius is as a participant in them, drawn by the historical flow and adapting to it. The author strives to give an “objective” picture of the movement of Russian society from the monarchy to the Soviets, although he does this with student spontaneity, not noticing the complexity of such a task. His thought jumps from fact to fact, from phrase to phrase, behind which in most cases there is nothing but banal statements. The personality of Patriarch Sergius, his life “drowns” in these phrases; The reader sees his “remarkability” primarily in the fact that His Holiness understood the laws of development of Russian society better than most of his contemporaries - Orthodox hierarchs. His individuality is obscured by the sociological scheme that explains the history of Russia both before and after 1917. In this scheme, Patriarch Sergius is given an important place as a church leader, who saw the horizons of the future earlier and better than others. His opponents in the book are either silent or unequivocally criticized by the author; like-minded people are presented as students and apprentices. On the pages of the book, which mentions dozens of names of various historical figures of both the Church and the state, there are practically no living persons. Despite the “artistic” insertions and “lyrical” digressions, the reader does not see thinking, suffering, convincing and convinced people - there are mannequins, some “actors” of a historical theater in which the drama is played out. But the actors only learned their roles, but did not get used to them. That’s why, following the great theatrical reformer, watching their performance, I want to shout: “I don’t believe it!” The form of its presentation, which was already mentioned at the very beginning of the article, does not help to understand the material either. And yet, to summarize, let us again formulate the old question: what is the book “Patriarch Sergius”? Unfortunately, I don’t have a clear answer. Is it a non-fiction narrative or a historical novel using documents? Moralistic short stories in which the main character is always (or almost always) right and is the personification of all possible virtues? An artistic (in form, not in skill of execution) tale about church-state relations in Russia and the USSR at the end of the 19th – first half of the 20th century, by a former student of a parish school, who mastered Marxist-Leninist dialectics, clearly “not according to Hegel”? There is an old joke about cinema: there are good films, bad films and Indian films. This anecdote came to mind in connection with the book I read by M.I. Odintsova. There are different books, good and bad, and there are works done in a “mixed manner”, with the pretense of ease of perception of a serious topic. Work by M.I. Odintsova became proof that such topics require from researchers not only knowledge of facts, but also conceptual clarity, serious methodological preparation, and a rejection of moralizing and bias. It must be remembered that a moral feeling cannot serve as a reliable guide for a historian when discussing the activities of a historical figure, that the researcher’s job is not to criticize or apologetics his hero, but to understand all the pros and cons associated with his life in a particular era. Otherwise, instead of a “novel of life,” the result is a political pamphlet, the meaning of which is fully understood only by its author. A reader new to the names of Orthodox bishops may also become confused when reading about the movements associated with the death of Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky), since a typo has crept into the text of the second chapter: on pp. 65, 66, 67 the names of Metropolitans Anthony (Vadkovsky) and Vladimir (Epiphany) are mixed up. Pointing to the elections of bishops that took place in 1917, M.I. Odintsov also mentions the election “to the post” of Metropolitan of Moscow Vl. Tikhon (Bellavina). The author probably does not consider it to be fundamental that occupying a department is not taking up a “post.” See: Kurlyandsky I.A. Stalin, power, religion. M., 2011. P. 444. Apparently, by accident in this chapter the author named the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs V.M. Molotov as Minister of Foreign Affairs (p. 287). Official biography of G.G. Karpova is well known; it was published, among other things, on the pages of Izvestia of the CPSU Central Committee. The author could have cited at least excerpts from it. But he preferred to say that “unfortunately, we still know very little about this man, who, by the will of fate, found himself in a difficult, contradictory, and at times tragic situation. But what we know allows us to speak of him as a realistically thinking person, whose merits in the revival of the Church and the normalization of state-church relations have not yet been objectively assessed, and in recent years have been deliberately downplayed” (p. 371).