Saint Theophan the Recluse and the Russian-Turkish War of 1877

Annotation. In 1877, the war between Russia and Turkey began for the liberation of the Balkan Slavic peoples. Saint Theophan (Gorov) at this time was already in retirement in the Holy Dormition Vyshensky Monastery, devoting himself to ascetic labors, translation and writing. But being an expert on the situation in the East and in the Ottoman Empire, he closely followed the events taking place there and in his letters assessed them, and in some cases expressed his vision of the development of the situation. The article examines the attitude of St. Theophan the Recluse to the events during the Balkan campaign, and how they were reflected in his letters. Abstract. In 1877, the war between Russia and Turkey for the liberation of the Balkan Slavic people began. Saint Theophan (Govorov) was already at rest at the Holy Dormition Vyshinsky Monastery at that time, devoting himself to ascetic works, translation and writing activities. But being an expert on the situation in the East and in the Ottoman Empire, he closely followed the events taking place there and, in his letters, gave them an assessment, and in some cases expressed his vision for the development of the situation. The article examines the attitude of St. Theophan the Recluse to the events during the Balkan campaign, and what kind of reflection they found in his letters. While in seclusion, but having patriotic feelings for his Fatherland, Saint Theophan the Recluse closely followed events related to the fate of Russia. On April 12 (24), 1877, the war between Russia and Turkey began. Russia's allies in that war were the Balkan states. This war was associated with the national liberation movement in Bulgaria and the Balkans. For almost five centuries, the Christian population of the Balkans was under the yoke of the Ottoman Empire, which caused discontent in Europe and especially in Russia. A definite impetus for the Russian-Turkish War was the April Uprising in Bulgaria, provoked by the anti-Turkish uprising in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1875), 1 which was brutally suppressed by the Turks, resulting in the death of a large number of civilians. For some time, Russian diplomacy tried to peacefully improve the situation of the Christian population living in the Balkans, but these attempts were not successful. In June 1876, Serbia and Montenegro declared war on Turkey, counting on Russian support, but in August of the same year, Serbian troops were defeated by the Turkish army. After long negotiations that were unsuccessful, Russia decided to go to war with Turkey. On April 12 (24), 1877, a parade of troops took place in Chisinau, and at a prayer service, Bishop of Chisinau and Khotyn Pavel (Lebedev) announced the Manifesto of Emperor Alexander II declaring war on the Turkish Empire. Undoubtedly, the Russian-Turkish War pursued religious goals, since it was associated with the liberation of Orthodox peoples from Turkish enslavement. It must be said that in Russian society there was controversy about the significance of the Russian-Turkish War. Moreover, this polemic goes back to the dispute between Slavophiles and Westerners. The Russian writer F. M. Dostoevsky argued that the basis of this war is the religious factor, since it has liberation significance for the Orthodox Slavic nations based on their unity in the Orthodox faith. The opposite position was expressed by I.S. Turgenev, who believed that the religious component did not play an important role for the Russian-Turkish war and the objectives of the war were purely political. The vision of the significance of the Russian-Turkish War by His Eminence Theophan undoubtedly corresponded to the position of F. M. Dostoevsky. Saint Theophan had been closely following the situation in Bulgaria since the 1850s, when he was rector of the Embassy Church in Constantinople, 2 and he could not help but empathize with the events taking place in the second half of the 1870s. Nevertheless, as follows from his letters, he perceived the Russian-Turkish War as punishment for the sins of the Russian people. He considered these sins so serious that, in fairness, they should have been punished by defeat in the war. However, since this war is being waged in defense of Christians, in case of repentance the Lord can show His mercy and grant victory to Russian weapons. The punishment for the sins of the people in this case will be hard work associated with martial law, and in general all the hardships of war. Saint Theophan expresses such thoughts in his letter to S.A. Pervukhin on April 19, 1877: “Here comes the war! Lord, have mercy on us! We certainly have sinned a lot and are sinning with the entire corps of the Russian kingdom... and for this we should be punished with defeats. But how we do not take up arms for ourselves, but to help Christians; then we can not lose hope that the Lord will show us His mercy and give us success. - As penance for our sins, He will accept the very work and hardship of war. You just need to apply repentance. Lord, have mercy on us!” [3, p. 51]. In another letter of the same time, addressed to Nadezhda Ilyinichna Kugusheva, he reassures her that the war is “not terrible.” And about the reasons for its delay, he says that “it is delayed due to errors - in the initial orders. But as soon as the troops move, they will beat the Turks so hard that they won’t even get a tooth.” [8, p. 26]. In the same letter, he also speaks about what is happening around Russia, noting that this is “also in the order of things.” He considered the opposition from the outside world to Russia not so dangerous; he saw more danger within the country, since forces under influence from the outside could appear here. The outside world, he said, “does its own thing, but we need to do ours. The outer world is not yet as terrible as the inner world: for it [2] gets into it too. And when it climbs in, that’s our misfortune!” [8, p. 26]. Saint Theophan believes that war is, first of all, a reason for repentance, it is an opportunity given by God to realize one’s sins, like the Ninevites, and atone for them. He writes to one respectable person from Tambov: “Behold the war! We must pray and repent... After all, there is something to punish us for... And if there is, then we must get down to business with fear and trembling. Let us become Ninevites!” [5, p. 50]. For non-combatants in particular, such an act of repentance could be donations to military purposes. But this, he notes, is not understood by everyone. In the same letter, he says with concern: “What about the Tambovites? After all, they didn’t sacrifice enough? Is it possible to add more after? Has Moscow given up?!” [5, p. 50]. Expressing such an understanding of the war as a consequence of the sinfulness of the people and a reason for popular repentance, Bishop Theophan noted with bitterness that awareness of what was happening in the Balkans was not widespread in his contemporary society. The society lived its normal life, as if nothing had happened. The saint wrote reproachfully that if someone had publicly expressed concern, for example, in a sermon or in a newspaper article, it would have gone unnoticed. He ends his reasoning in the letter with the words: “This is what we have come to?!” [5, p. 50]. The saint himself approved of the participation of Russian soldiers in the Balkan military campaign. Military service in general is useful for a person, if only because it accustoms him to order and patience, and disciplines a person. Bishop Theophan expresses such thoughts in a letter to N.I. Kugusheva 3. He writes: “It’s good that your son is a militiaman. A soldier’s life gives bearing, introduces one to need and teaches patience” [8, p. 28]. Comforting a mother whose son took part in the Russian-Turkish War, His Grace Theophan asserts that even if a warrior dies in battle, then since this battle was in a righteous battle, for the cause of God, he will receive the crown of martyrdom: “Son at Plevna! Be complacent. Warriors fighting for the cause of God walk the martyr’s road” [6, p. 44]. His Eminence Theophan followed quite closely all the events taking place at that time in the Balkans. Thus, during the beginning of the Russo-Turkish War, when Russia was establishing relations with Romania (which in May 1877 allowed Russian troops into its territory 5 and, starting in August 1877, took part in hostilities on the side of Russia), while Great Britain prevented the development of these relations, insisting that Romania take the side of European states, similar to how it was at that time with Belgium, he wrote in a letter to N.V. Elagin pointed out that England is pursuing a policy of luring Romania to the side of European states, promising it independence, as if this would not happen without its guarantee [7, p. 101–102]. According to him, this is being done in order to block the land passage of the Russian army, “to fence off Russia from Turkey” [7, p. 102]. Reflecting on the tasks of the Balkan campaign, the saint wrote to Elagin: “We need to take into our own hands the entrance to the Bosphorus from the Black Sea” [7, p. 102]. He justified the need for the Russian Empire to take control of the entrance to the Bosphorus not so much by the reason for the free passage of ships of the Russian fleet, but by the fact that the city of Istanbul, the former Constantinople, is located on both sides of the Bosphorus Strait, that is, establishing control over the Bosphorus meant for the Right Reverend Theophan the same as the liberation of Constantinople. Here we can see the commonality of St. Theophan’s position with the Slavophil movement on this issue. More precisely, the idea of ​​the need to conquer Constantinople was shared by His Eminence Theophanes both with the Slavophiles and, for example, with F.M. Dostoevsky 6. The final successful outcome of the Russian-Turkish War for Russia and the Slavic countries was associated with the famous battles for Shipka and the siege of Plevna. The end of the siege of Plevna occurred on November 28, 1877. The capture of Plevna by Russian troops led to a turning point in the course of the war. Russian troops, without waiting for spring, continued advancing through the Balkans, and at the end of 1877, after overcoming the most difficult Churyak pass, they entered Sofia. Saint Theophan closely followed all these events. He empathized with the Russian soldiers, rejoiced at their successes and was upset at their failures. So, in a letter addressed to N.V. Elagin, he expresses his joy at the capture of Plevna and reflects on the further direction of movement of the Russian army, including the capture of Sofia and Shipka, the siege of which will begin a short time after the writing of this letter by Bishop Theophan: “And the war is on. I wish it went better; but it’s true that we had enough intelligence for that” [7, p. 104]. Further, he praises our army, says that he prays that the Lord will give “to our leader a mind of stewardship” [7, p. 104]. In his reasoning, he describes his vision of further developments. “Another day and Sofia is ours... and there along the road is Philippopolis - and Adrianople... where the Turks are gathering... where ours will surely reach in greater numbers - through Shipka... Or maybe ours will go to Rushchuk and Shumla... in order to exterminate the troops here, or drive him into the fortress” [7, p. 105]. In the fall of 1877, Russian troops carried out successful military operations in the Caucasus as part of the Russian-Turkish War and captured the heights in the rear of the Turkish troops, and on October 3 the Battle of Avliyar-Aladzhin took place, which completed the defeat of Mukhtar Pasha’s troops in the Caucasus. Bishop Theophan mentions these successes of Russian weapons in a letter to N.V. Elagin dated October 23, 1887: “Do you see how our people distinguished themselves in Asia?.. The Transdanubian is enviable” [7, p. 106]. He explains the slowdown in actions in the Balkans during this period by the fact that the command is trying to “first catch Osman 8 alive, and then subject Suleiman 9 to a similar fate.” But, in his opinion, they are only wasting time, and the troops need to move forward, and “our army must winter in the Maritsa Valley 10 ... in front of Adrianople or even Constantinople” [7, p. 107]. The result of this Balkan military campaign was the victory of the Russian army. On March 3 (February 19, old style), 1878, on Forgiveness Sunday, Russia signed the preliminary peace treaty of San Stefano, which marked the end of hostilities/ In general, the Russian-Turkish war ended favorably for Russia and the Orthodox Slavic countries. The most important tasks that the Russian Empire set for itself when starting military operations were fully or partially completed. As a result, Russia regained the southern part of Bessarabia, which had been lost earlier in connection with the Crimean War (1853–1856), and annexed the Kars region, whose population was made up of Christian peoples - Armenians and Georgians. According to the Treaty of San Stefano, Bulgaria became an independent state, the largest in the Balkans; Turkey also recognized the independence of Serbia, Romania and Montenegro. In recognition of the importance of Russia for the liberation of the Bulgarian people from Turkish rule since 1878 in Bulgaria, at the Liturgy in Orthodox churches at the great entrance, the Russian Emperor Alexander II and the Russian soldiers who died during the battles for the liberation of Bulgaria in the Russian-Turkish War of 1877–1878 from the centuries-old Turkish yoke were remembered. Saint Theophan in correspondence expressed his joy that the war ended successfully for the Slavic peoples. In a letter to Nadezhda Ilyinichna Kugusheva, written the day after the signing of the Treaty of San Stefano, March 4, 1878, he speaks of his joy at the favorable outcome of the war, mentioning the so-called Berlin Congress that was being prepared and gathered soon: “Glory to God! The goal of the war has been achieved" [8, p. 27]. At the same time, he expresses confidence that the signing of the San Stefano Treaty is a guarantee that “the expected conference or congress” will not come up with “any changes to what has been achieved” [8, p. 28]. When the Right Reverend Theophanes wrote this letter, he did not yet know that at the Berlin Congress, European countries (and not least England) would pursue a persistent policy aimed at worsening the situation of some Balkan countries in comparison with the conditions agreed upon within the framework of the Treaty of San Stefano. The Berlin Congress mentioned in the letter opened on June 1, 1878, under the chairmanship of Prince Otto von Bismarck 11 . At this congress, on July 1, the Berlin Treaty was signed, which significantly changed the provisions of the San Stefano Treaty in favor of Austria-Hungary and to the detriment of the Balkan countries. The borders of Bulgarian territory were significantly reduced, and Bosnia and Herzegovina were transferred to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In a letter written on March 25, 1878, Bishop Theophan expresses his indignation at England’s actions aimed at eliminating the achievements of the San Stefano Treaty regarding the situation of Slavic countries and peoples in the Balkans. He wrote: “Where is politics going?! – It seems that there will be no conference 12. Which I’m very happy about... Nobody wants to say: I agree with what Russia has done” [7, p. 109]. His opinion was that it was better not to hold the Congress. He believed that what Russia had done as a result of the Balkan military campaign “will be approved and legitimized by time. It seems that this outcome is the best, given the current state of affairs. But think of a way to hurt England?! I just want to bite her and make her squeal... She is the most unscrupulous!” [7, p. 109]. As a result, Bishop Theophan even admitted the possibility of a new war, while recognizing the reliability of the power of Russian weapons and the readiness of Russian troops for military action, which he mentions in his correspondence with N.I. Kugusheva: “Yes - our enemies do not sleep. But ours don’t yawn either. They make efforts to avert war, but are ready to meet it. But God’s will be done!” [8, p. 29]. At the same time, he expressed confidence that we would come out of the new war unashamed and we could win the war, but it was not needed for Russia, which was already tired. Events in the Balkans showed that Saint Theophan, despite the fact that he retired to the Vyshensky Monastery for ascetic work and literary works, was not indifferent to geopolitical issues. He, as an expert on the situation of Orthodox peoples in the Middle East and the Balkans, not only followed the course of the Russian-Turkish War of 1877, but in correspondence with his correspondents commented on what was happening and expressed his opinion. He perceived the war itself as a punishment that the Lord allowed for sins, but at the same time, by starting military operations, Russia did the right thing; it stood up for the suffering Orthodox people. In one of his letters he wrote: “Our war is truly for the cause of God” [6, p. 44]. He considered the liberation of the Orthodox peoples in the Balkans from Ottoman rule to be the main goal of the entire military campaign. 1. Dostoevsky F.M. Diary of a writer // Collected works: In 9 volumes. T. 9. Moscow, 2007. – 608 p. 2. Clement, Metropolitan of Kaluga and Borovsk. The second foreign business trip of St. Theophan // Orthodox Book Review. 2017 July-August, p. 14–21. 3. Korolkov John, Rev. His Eminence Theophan, former Bishop of Vladimir and Colonel S.A. Pervukhin in their mutual correspondence: (On the centenary of the birth of Bishop Feofan). – Kyiv: Type. Aks. society “Peter Barsky in Kiev”, 1915. – 144, IV p. 4. Kugusheva O.I. Memoirs: from the history of correspondence 83 of St. Theophan the Recluse with the Kugushev-Boratynsky family // Banner: collection. articles. Moscow, 1994. 5. Theophan the Recluse, St. Collection of letters. Vol. 3. M.: Tipo-Litogr. I. Efimova, 1899. – 256, XI p. 6. Theophan the Recluse, St. Collection of letters. Vol. 5. M.: Tipo-Litogr. I. Efimova, – 1899. – 232, VIII p. 7. Theophan the Recluse, St. Collection of letters. Vol. 7. M.: Tipo-Litogr. I. Efimova, 1900 – 256, X p. 8. Theophan the Recluse, St. Collection of letters. Vol. 8. M.: Tipo-Litogr. I. Efimova, 1901 – P. 228, XII p. April 18 – May 23, 1876 By the outside world, Saint Theophan means England and its allies. Kugusheva Nadezhda Ilyinichna (nee Boratynskaya; 1828–1900) – princess, correspondent of the Right Reverend Theophan. On April 16 (April 4, old style), 1877, an agreement was signed in Bucharest between Romania and the Russian Empire, according to which Russian troops were allowed to pass through the territories of Romania, provided that Russia did not challenge the integrity of the Romanian state. Shortly after war was declared against the Ottoman Empire, Russian troops entered Romania via the newly built Eiffel Bridge at Ungheni. In his “Diary” F.M. Dostoevsky notes: “Yes, the Golden Horn and Constantinople - all this will be ours... And, firstly, it will happen by itself, precisely because the time has come, and if it has not yet come, then the time is indeed close, all the signs are there.” In general, F.M. Dostoevsky was a supporter of not just the capture of Constantinople (Istanbul), but also the transfer of the capital of Russia to Constantinople as the “cradle of Orthodoxy” [1, p. 70]. This refers to the Caucasian campaign of the Russian-Turkish War The name of Osman is used here by His Eminence Theophan in a figurative sense. Osman I Gazi (1281–1326) - the first Ottoman sultan, the son of the Turkish prince Ertogrul and the Turkish concubine Hayma. Osman inherited from his father power over the Turkish hordes that settled in Phrygia. After his name they began to be called Ottoman Turks or Ottomans. Osman is the founder of the Ottoman Empire; he conquered the entire western part of Asia Minor. The name Suleiman is also used by Bishop Theophan in a figurative sense. Suleiman I the Magnificent (November 6, 1494 – September 5/6, 1566) was the tenth Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, reigning from September 22, 1520, caliph from 1538. He is considered the greatest Sultan of the Ottoman dynasty; under Suleiman the Ottoman Porte reached the pinnacle of its development Maritsa is one of the largest rivers in the Balkans. Otto von Bismarck (1815–1898) – politician and statesman; first chancellor of the German Empire (Second Reich). This refers to the Berlin Congress.