Athos and its new political international position

Contents 1. Occupation by Greek and Bulgarian troops of St. Mount Athos 2. New system of life on Mount Athos under changed political circumstances 1. Occupation by Greek and Bulgarian troops of St. Mount Athos The recently completed Balkan war of the allied Christian peoples against the primordial enemy of Orthodoxy - Turkey, with the goal of granting by force of arms to their fellow tribesmen and co-religionists in Old Serbia and Macedonia freedom of faith and political civil life, the natural course of events and the happy victorious successes of the allies, led to the occupation of St. Mount Athos and the necessary change in the civil system of life on it. Occupation of St. Mount Athos was carried out by Greek troops, as befitted this quiet corner of the globe - a place of unceasing prayer, silence and high, Christian ascetic deeds - without any shedding of blood, in the most peaceful, even complacent way. November 26, the day of the patron of the city of Thessaloniki - St. Great Martyr Demetrius the Myrrh-Streaming, Greek troops under the command of the Diadochos Constantine occupied the city of Thessaloniki, to which the entire peninsula of Chalkidiki gravitated in civil terms. It was natural, therefore, to expect the occupation of this peninsula in general and St. Mount Athos in particular. These expectations were not long and in vain. On November 2, at about 12 o'clock in the afternoon, the Greek destroyer Fiella appeared in sight of Mount Athos, which soon dropped anchor in the Athos pier Daphne. 67 Greek sailors under the command of officers landed ashore. The Greek traders and Turkish customs and telegraph officials who met them answered the question of the senior officer: “Where are the ruling Turkish authorities at this time?” - they gave the answer that the kaymakam is in Kareya, and the rest of the Turkish authorities are now visiting the Russian Panteleimon Monastery. Then the command of the senior officer followed - to occupy government buildings and lower the Ottoman flag, replacing it with the national Greek one. With enthusiastic exclamations from the crowd gathered on the shore of the pier: “zito”, “zito basileus”, “zito eleutheria” (Hurray! Long live the king, long live freedom!), the order of the senior officer was carried out; The Greek flag fluttered on the shore of St. Mount Athos and was greeted from the destroyer with a cannon salute. By telephone from Daphne, the protat (the ruling assembly consisting of 20 representatives of the main Athonite monasteries) of Kareya was informed about the profit of the Greek destroyer and about the transfer of Athos to the rule of the Greek government. From there, a deputation elected by the protate hastily set off to the Daphne pier to meet the welcome and long-awaited dear guests of the new owners of St. Mount Athos. Meanwhile, an hour and a half after the arrival of the destroyer Fiella, the Greek battleship Georgy Averov and two more destroyers approached the same Daphnian pier. Having learned that Athos was already occupied by Greek troops, the vice-admiral of the battleship Pavel Kundurioti ordered the senior officer of the destroyer "Fiella" Telemachus Kurmulis, appointed temporary ruler of St. Mountains, in the presence of the deputation that arrived from Kareya from the protate and the assembled people, read the following royal decree: “In the name of His Majesty King George I of the Hellenes, we, Vice Admiral Pavel Kundurioti, commanders of the Aegean Fleet, command the inhabitants of the Athos Peninsula (Holy Mountain): 1. The Athos peninsula (Holy Mountains) is entirely occupied by us and is henceforth our occupation, and is in a state of blockade according to Hellenic laws. 2. Turkish rule in this peninsula is abolished, and its power is assumed by the commander of the occupation detachment, assistant captain Telemachus Kurmulis, with several officers of this detachment and officials who will be appointed. 3. Local affairs will be dealt with, until our new orders, as before by the same officials, but under the supreme supervision of the commander of this detachment himself, who has the right to replace the bad and careless with others. 4. The hitherto existing laws and local customs, or rights of property, will continue to be in force and applied by the various authorities of the government under the supervision of this commander of the detachment, who has the right to take charge of every matter and order that the request be given to him at the appointed time. 5. We guarantee complete respect and inviolability of the rights: property, religion, personal freedom, life, honor, family and (sic!) relations and property of all residents of this area occupied by us, without distinguishing tribal origin or religious belief (sic!), considering everyone indifferently equal to each other both in terms of rights and duties. 6. We pledge to provide patronage to sacred and honest humane institutions, monasteries and monasteries, the property of which will remain inviolable, and they will be managed without the intervention of this commander. 7. We entrust the protection of the above-mentioned rights, for which we have guaranteed, from all danger and violation to the commander of this detachment, who establishes a police force on the seven peninsulas and has the power to make his orders to this police of any nature, but common to all residents and imposing equal duties on them, without distinguishing tribal or religious origin, and in any case cannot violate the monastic residence and its administration on St. Grief. 8. We resolutely prohibit all residents of this peninsula from carrying weapons: everyone is obliged, within a certain period appointed by the detachment commander, to hand over their weapons to the soldiers of the occupation detachment. To carry out disarmament, we allow the detachment commander to impose strict punishments and take strict measures also against all villages. 9 . Residents of the occupied area are obliged to continue to pay the tax collectors appointed by the commander the legalized taxes and expenses they have been paying to the Turks until now, so that from these the expenses mainly for the administration of this peninsula can be paid. Residents of villages are also obliged to make contributions in emergency cases in money and things on the orders of the detachment commander, who has the right to compulsorily demand compensation for losses. 10. We invite all residents of the peninsula to live in peace and order, obeying the law and orders of this commander and avoiding any action that could disturb public peace. 11. Any action or attempt with the aim of violating the public safety of this area occupied by us, the fleet and its crew, or the interests of Hellas, will be judged military-style, decisively, within 24 hours, as a crime of the most recent betrayal, with the death penalty. This announcement must be communicated to all residents of this peninsula, by order of the detachment commander. November 2, 1912 Battleship "Georgy Averov". Vice Admiral Pavel Kundurioti." After the decree was read, the battleship orchestra performed the Greek national anthem, after which the battleship Averov and two destroyers left Daphne. The destroyer Fiella, standing on its barrel against the Russian Panteleimon Monastery, invited Turkish officials who found hospitality in the monastery on board and declared them prisoners of war. The news of the occupation of St. by Greek troops. Mount Athos quickly spread throughout Athos and caused enthusiastic rejoicing everywhere. The town of Kareya, having learned about the intention of the Greek detachment to arrive there on the same day, began to quickly prepare for the ceremonial meeting: the buildings were decorated with the flags of the allied Balkan powers; On the chests of many there were bows made of ribbons in the colors of Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian and Montenegrin, and in their hands there were small flags of the same nationalities. Turkish fezzes were thrown off, and Greek caps appeared on the heads of many Karean merchants. The jubilant population eagerly awaited the arrival of the Greek army on Karea under the command of the new ruler, St. Mountains of Telemachus Kurmulis. At 10 o'clock in the evening, the ringing of the bells of the Protat Assumption Cathedral, the Russian St. Andrew's monastery and the Russian cells closest to Karey announced the approach of the new owners of St. Mount Athos, and its entire population - monastics and laymen - came out to meet them, greeting them with illumination lit in honor of NPH on all buildings, firing pistols and shouting “zito”. The Greek troops were met by the elders near the konak (the seat of the antiprosop) of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery and not far from the apartment of the local Turkish kaymakam. The head of the detachment demanded the named representative of the Turkish authorities, who surrendered to him without any resistance. Immediately, on the orders of the chief of the detachment, the Turkish flag was lowered from the konak kaymakam, and the national Greek flag was hoisted with joyful exclamations of the jubilant people. Arriving troops led by Telemachus Kurmulis, in the presentation of St. icons, amid the ringing of bells and popular rejoicing, headed to the ancient Dormition Protat Cathedral, where they listened to a short litany with the proclamation of many years of the reigning Greek dynasty, allied kings and the Christ-loving Greek army and went to rest in the apartments allocated for them. The people on the streets rejoiced all night, expressing this, at mutual meetings, with Easter greetings to each other: “Christ anesti - Christ is risen” and the answer: Alifos anesti - Truly risen,” and they fired revolvers into the air. November 3, i.e. the day after the occupation of St. Mountains with Greek troops, in Daphne on a Greek transport ship a landing of the Greek army arrived on Athos - infantry, artillery and cavalry of 800 people and, having landed on the shore, immediately went to Karea, where they were greeted by the local population with the same enthusiasm and with the same ceremony as the first detachment the day before under the command of Telemachus Kurmulis. The new owners of St. Mount Athos, partly to satisfy the curiosity and goals of the pilgrims, and mostly out of idleness, they decided to explore the Athos monasteries and get acquainted with their sights. To do this, the entire landing party was divided into small detachments, which, under the command of officers, made the rounds of the Athos monasteries. The meeting of these detachments in the monasteries was solemn and hospitable everywhere. One of these detachments, under the command of staff captain Demosthenes Zantopullo, arrived at the Russian Panteleimon Monastery on November 7. After the ceremonial meeting in the Panteleimon Cathedral, the head of the detachment made the following welcoming speech, which was not devoid of interest: “Today’s visit to you is my direct duty to express gratitude to the noble Russian nation, whose representative is the Russian Panteleimon Monastery here on Mount Athos. We are fully aware and appreciate the high patronage of Russia over the small Balkan powers, thanks to which it was only possible for them to unite to overthrow the Turkish yoke that had weighed on the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula for so many centuries. And this aspiration and this dream came true - freedom was declared. In particular, our Hellenic people firmly remember the patronage of Russia in 1897, which resulted in the salvation of our nation. The reception given to the detachment by the Russian brethren of the monastery was most sincere and cordial. The Bulgarian government, wanting to show that it is not alien to interests in St. Mount Athos, having its subjects here in two monasteries - in Zogref and Hilandar, in the monastery of Xylurgu and some cells, sent a detachment of Bulgarian troops of 70 people to Athos, who settled in the Zograf monastery, but did not take any part in the administration of Athos. This is how the Ottoman government on Mount Athos was replaced by the Greek one. 2. A new system of life on Mount Athos under changed political circumstances The canonism of Mount Athos, approved by the late Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III in 1911 on October 31, clearly shows that the legal status of Greek nationality, despite the numerical superiority of the Slavic element on Mount Athos (Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs and Romanians), in all respects prevails over the latter. According to canonism, the Greek monasteries of the Holy Mountain, which own the land of the Svyatogorsk Peninsula and have the right to send their antiprosops to the Karean protate, have seventeen monasteries, while the Slavs have only three monasteries. This unevenness alone speaks eloquently for itself and shows how difficult it is for the Slavs in general and Russian monks in particular to live on Mount Athos. In the Karean protate, where all questions concerning St. Mountains, decided by a majority vote, the numerical superiority in huge numbers should sometimes fall to the lot of the Greeks, who until recently were united here by tribal kinship, and the undisguised enmity and distrust of the Slavs in general and the Russians in particular. “Pan-Slavism” is a kind of nightmare that oppressed and clouded the consciousness of the Greeks and prevented them from correctly looking at the life and relationships of nationalities, by the will of Providence and by the force of historical circumstances, forced to live side by side with them on the same territory. The indicated unfavorable historical living conditions of the inhabitants of Mount Athos had the consequence of the displacement by the strongest element of the weakest, although the oldest, of its primordial heritage. So, for example, Russian monks, who received the right of their independent existence on Athos in the 12th century and created their own monastery of Russik, thanks to difficulties of a political nature that arose in our fatherland, and in the monastery itself - of an economic nature, imprudently allowed the strengthening of monks of Greek nationality in their monastery. The latter little by little ousted the Russians from their monastery and in the 17th and 18th centuries finally took possession of it. And when, from the forties of the 19th century, the number of Russian monks in the Panteleimon Monastery increased again, the restoration of the lost right to own the monastery and the election of an abbot of Russian origin cost the Russian brethren an enormous effort of spiritual and material strength. This case at one time received the loud name of the “Greek-Russian Panteleimon trial” and in the early seventies of the last century attracted the deep attention of our Russian, Constantinople and Athens press. The persistent and unfair struggle of the Greeks against the Russians in this process was resolved in favor of the latter only thanks to the strong support of Russian Constantinople diplomacy, headed by our ambassador, Count N.P., powerful in Turkey at that time. Ignatiev. The St. Paul Monastery, according to the testimony of our famous traveler Vasily Plaka-Grigorovich-Barsky, inhabited by Serbs back in 1744, passed into the hands of the Greeks in the 19th century, who in every possible way sought to erase from the walls of the monastery all traces and even the memory of their former owners, until the fiery element came to their aid, destroying these eloquent remnants of the life of the Slavic inhabitants and even most of them. monastery The Iveron Monastery, founded on Athos in the 10th century by contemporaries of St. Athanasius of Athos, the Georgians father and son John and Euthymius, in the 11th and 12th centuries reached its highest prosperity and enormous popularity in Orthodox Georgia, thanks to the lively book and literary activity of its ever-memorable inhabitants, Gregory Mtatsmindeli and others, in the 17th century, due to economic difficulties, also fell into the hands of Greek monks, who achieved complete ousting from the monastery of the legitimate inhabitants in the Iversky Predtechensky monastery, closest to the monastery. The extremely difficult living conditions of these hermitages, constrained by the Greek monks of the Iveron monastery, forced the inhabitants of the Iveron monastery to strain all their efforts to return back their ancient heritage - the Iveron Monastery, but so far these efforts and their persistent requests, which created the so-called “Georgian process” or Georgian case on Athos, remain fruitless and do not promise a favorable resolution in the near future. On the basis of the overwhelming superiority of the Greek element over the Slavic, the question of erecting the Russian completely comfortable cenobitic monasteries of St. Andrew (Seray also) and Elias into monasteries could not be resolved in a desirable and favorable sense, and the first of them from the hands of the Patriarch of Constantinople Anthimus VI (in 1871) received a sigil for the name stauropegial. Wanting to resolve this issue in a sense favorable to strengthening the Slavic element on Mount Athos, Count N.P. Ignatiev included, among other things, the following provision in Article XXII of the preliminary San Stefano Treaty: “Athos monks of Russian origin will retain their property and previous benefits and will continue to enjoy in the three monasteries that belong to them, and in the institutions dependent on them, the same rights and benefits that are provided for other spiritual institutions and monasteries of Mount Athos.” This insertion into Article XXII of the Treaty of San Stefano completely infuriated the Constantinople newspaper “Thraces,” which was at one time hostile to Russian monks on Mount Athos, and it without hesitation allowed the quoted words of the treaty to be called a “strategic joke” by Count N.P. Ignatiev, although he perfectly understood the deep difference between the monastery and the monastery on Athos, but wished to “kill two game with one shot: to build the monasteries into monasteries and establish them as Russian property.” This circumstance alone - the erection of the Russian monasteries of Andreevsky and Ilyinsky into monasteries, according to the newspaper, can be considered “the achievement of complete success of Russian domination over Mount Athos” and is “a clear violation of the church and people’s rights” of Greek nationality (“Fraki”, 1878 No. 1251). “The creator of the new Bulgaria, General Ignatiev, writes on the same occasion “Neologos”, considering the Chalkidiki peninsula a spoke in the eyes of Bulgaria, despite the fact that it was completely separated from the mainland, found a way to glorify it, defining in treatises Russian patronage over members of the Russian church in Athos and the chimerical, never-existent rights of Russian monasteries to St. Grief. The general's feverish impatience revealed to the world what kind of a man he was, and what the goals were that all those machinations in Constantinople, called the "Bulgarian question" and the "question of the monastery of St. Panteleimon”, to which others were drawn as victims, and others, out of necessity, participated in them” (1878, No. 2745). From the same point of view hostile to Russia, the famous English diplomat Marquis of Salisbury looked at this article, suspecting in it a violation of international relations and the interests of European powers interested in all parts of the Ottoman Empire. “Such treaties, according to the Marquis of Salisbury (dated April 1, 1878), cannot be viewed with pleasure by either the Greek government or the powers, for which all parts of the Ottoman Empire are a subject of common interest. The general consequence of this part of the treatise will be the strengthening of the power of the Russian Empire in countries and on the coasts where the Greek population dominates, not only to the detriment of this nation, but also of any country that has interests in the east of the Mediterranean Sea” (“Moskov. Ved.” 1878 No. 80). Therefore, despite the special memorial to our ambassadors abroad dated March 28 from Prince Gorchakov, which explained the incorrect understanding of the San Stefano Treaty, the Marquis of Salisbury, at a meeting of the Berlin Congress, proposed Article XXII of the San Stefano Treaty for consideration in the following wording: “The monks of Mount Athos will retain their possessions and previous advantages and will enjoy, without any exception, complete equality of rights and prerogatives.” As is known, in this edition, with an amendment or addition by the Italian commissioner Mr. Ubri, after the words: “the monks of Mount Athos - whatever their homeland was” - this article, according to account LXII, was included in the Berlin treatise, which left our Russian monasteries in that humiliated, powerless and completely dependent position on their kyriarchic monasteries - Vatopedi and Pandocrator, in which they were from the time of their creation, and which has always favored their natural growth and internal and external prosperity. If we move from the monasteries to the life of the numerous Russian Kelliots on Athos, then here, especially in recent times, a lot of difficult, abnormal things have been observed and deserve serious correction or settlement by establishing more definite legal provisions in their relations to those monasteries on whose lands they were created and located. Among the cells that have achieved material security, such as, for example, Zlatoust, whose elder has recently become even the temporary owner of the famous Serbian Decani Lavra, there is an undisguised desire to obtain the rights of monasteries on Mount Athos. The fierce and prolonged struggle of the Russian Holy Cross cell with the Karakal Monastery, as is known, prompted its abbot to seek his fortune first in the Faran Lavra of St. Theodosius, and now, it seems, they have settled down well in one of the Syrian monasteries... The difficult, often very tempting, processes of Russian keliots with their monasteries are so numerous that recently both the Russian Consulate General in Thessaloniki and the Russian Imperial Embassy in Constantinople have been exhausted from them, virtually deprived of almost any opportunity to come to the aid of their offended compatriots. Measures of influence: non-distribution to monasteries of their income from Bessarabian estates bent on them, prohibition to transfer donations sent from Russia, prohibition of monks of Greek nationality from traveling to Russia to collect alms or to serve in their farmsteads (in Moscow, Taganrog, etc.) and other similar measures were temporary in nature, had an impact only at a certain given moment and only on certain individuals in Greek monasteries. Those interested tried to smooth out the rough spots that arose and made concessions to Russian monasteries and monasteries, and golden rain poured in abundance from the embassy and consulate into the pockets of the brethren who were thirsty for it. Soon, however, new misunderstandings arose on Athos, and again our government resorted to its tried and tested means to resolve them, and so things went on endlessly until our days. Bearing in mind all of the above, now that, thanks to the occupation of St. Mount Athos by Greek and Bulgarian troops, there is a need to develop a new modus vivendi for its inhabitants; it is necessary to more carefully and seriously discuss the question: what should be the new political, church, community and internal monastic structure of Mount Athos? If anywhere, then in this question, which is not without very complex and serious difficulties, in our extreme understanding, one should adhere to the golden truth, expressed in the wise folk saying: “They do not seek good from good.” When resolving this issue, taking into account the centuries-old history of monasticism on St. Mount Athos, and the peculiar system of communal governance on it in the Karean protate, and the internal monastic way of life in the monastics, which corresponds to the idea of complete renunciation of the world and one’s personal freedom, and the monastic system modified, according to the conditions of later freer views on monastic life, in idiorhythms, and the middle path of ascetic life, not alien to preserving for oneself some freedom and the right to life under easier monastic rules in cells, and the extremely rigoristic, merciless and harsh regime in the fight against one’s flesh in the anchorage of Karulya 1, and, finally, the attitude of Athos to the church authorities in the person of the ecumenical patriarch - all this must be strictly weighed, evaluated, and only then subjected to additions and corrections. The past life of the inhabitants of the Holy Mountain and those sharp deviations and abnormalities that made themselves felt in the internal structure of the Holy Mountain monasticism and sometimes served as the subject of temptation and condemnation of outside observers, will prompt with complete clarity all these necessary amendments. These are our modest wishes for the Svyatogorsk monasticism under the new changed political conditions of life on Mount Athos. 1) We would like to maintain the ststus quo on the issue of the spiritual dependence of the monasteries of St. Mount Athos from the Ecumenical Patriarch. There are absolutely no good reasons to diminish the rights of the patriarch in relation to the Holy Mountain. These rights have behind them the force of deep antiquity; they took shape and resulted in strictly defined forms with which the Svyatogorsk monasticism had already become accustomed, and with which, with very rare exceptions, it was never burdened, seeing in the person of the patriarch a true spiritual father and a just supreme judge. In ecclesiastical terms, the subordination of the Svyatogorsk monasteries to the authority of the Athenian metropolitan and his synod, as well as the Russian Holy Synod, on the contrary, will be an appropriation of the rights of the Patriarch of Constantinople, will undoubtedly cause him an undeserved offense and can introduce into monastic life new undesirable phenomena of relationships, restrictions on influence and even, perhaps, protests on the part of the monks themselves. 2) It is certainly necessary to maintain the status quo on Mount Athos and in relation to the division of monasteries into monasteries and idiorhythms, with their life having developed into a certain harmonious internal order. The Holy Mountain, with its variety of forms of monastic life, always stood out sharply from a number of other monastic strongholds on the globe, temptingly attracted to its heights those who sought high feats of fasting, prayer, unquestioning obedience, complete non-covetousness and renunciation of their will, and attracted people of the Orthodox way of thinking from all over the world. And the centuries-old history of Mount Athos clearly testifies to us that those who came to it to monk, found, according to their desires and inclinations, everything they needed and left behind as a legacy for future generations examples of high holy life, and great ascetic deeds, and examples worthy of imitation in the defense of Orthodoxy and the service of the Orthodox Church, which also gained them unfading glory in the literary field, and in enriching monasteries with book treasures through rewriting manuscripts. 3) Independent community (Kinot) administration of St. Mount Athos in the Karei protate or, as it was sometimes called, in the monastic republic, it is desirable to maintain the status quo in its basic principles, but with some adjustments suggested by the life of modern Athos. The Svyatogorsk monastic community had already become accustomed to this independent self-government, and on Mount Athos it resulted in strictly defined traditions and even written canonisms. A change in this regard will undoubtedly entail a disruption in the structure of all monastic life on Athos and may even have harmful and undesirable consequences. But we cannot turn a blind eye to the shortcomings in this self-government, which in the past history of Mount Athos interfered with the peaceful flow of monastic life here and caused fierce disputes, enmity between monks, unrest in the monasteries and long-term ruinous processes, etc. According to §§ 2 and 3 of the Svyatogorsk canonism, the entire Athos peninsula is divided in land terms between the existing 20 monasteries, of which 17 monasteries belong to the Greeks and only three to the Slavs. These monasteries are governed by the protate, which is made up of the antiprosops of these 20 monasteries, resolving all issues according to the common benefit in a peace-loving “spirit” by a majority vote. But, given the numerical superiority of the anti-prosops of the Greeks over the Slavs in protate or synaxis and the antagonism of these nationalities among themselves that existed until recently, it is not difficult to guess that the numerical superiority in protate, when deciding Svyatogorsk affairs, in the vast majority of cases leaned towards the side of the Greeks and to the detriment of the Slavs. Issues in the protate were very often resolved not only in accordance with the “common benefit and in a peaceful spirit,” but contrary to all justice and very often with a clear, undisguised intention to cause significant damage to the interests of the unloved Slavic nationality. In order to carry out any important and useful work for the Slavic nationality in general and Russian monks in particular in the protate, it was necessary for the anti-prosop of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery to calculate in advance which of the anti-prosops he could attract to his side in this matter, which of the hostile or unfavorably disposed colleagues in the protate to cajole and appease with tempting promises and promises, and which of them would be removed with plausible pretexts from the kinot on the day when an interesting and important issue for the life of his monastery was being discussed at the meeting, or directly resort to the tried and tested Greek method - to divide by one means or another like-minded and friendly voices that could interfere with a favorable resolution of the issue. In a word, the anti-prosop was required to have resourceful diplomatic moves, keen insight and subtle foresight so that the card he had put at stake would not be cruelly beaten. It goes without saying that choosing an antiprosopus, brought up in Greek and having mastered all the techniques of everyday politics of the sons of the cunning Ulysses, was not an easy task for the Russian, Bulgarian and Serbian monks on Athos. And such a typical Russian anti-prosop as the late hieromonk of the Panteleimon Monastery Nathanael can be considered a happy exception. In order to alleviate all of these extremely difficult living conditions for monks of Slavic nationality on Mount Athos, it is necessary to repeat what the late Count N.P., the unforgettable benefactor and patron of the Slavic monks on Mount Athos, persistently strived for. Ignatiev. The latter tried to elevate the Russian well-maintained monasteries - Andreevsky (Seray also) and Ilyinsky to the position of kyriarchic Athonite monasteries and thereby bring their antiprosops into the Karean protate, in which the Slavic element would thus immediately be strengthened by two voices. But the hostile cries of the Greek press, fears for the integrity of the Ottoman Empire and the fear of “strengthening the power of the Russian Empire in countries and coastal areas dominated by the Greek population,” the Marquis of Salisbury, and Article LXII of the Berlin Treaty prevented the implementation of this good and beneficent intention of Count N.P. Ignatieva. Now, when the victorious allied troops of the Greeks and Bulgarians have occupied Mount Athos, when the faint shadow of Turkish civil power has disappeared from its face and there is no hope of its establishment again, it is quite fair to carry out the intentions of Count N.P. Ignatiev and the Russian monasteries of St. Andrew and Ilyinsky are to be elevated to the position of full-fledged Athonite monasteries. At the same time, other Athonite questions related to the question of Russian local monasteries beg for resolution. To resolve the Georgian question on Athos, which has been troubling both the Athosites for many years, the universal church, and the Russian government, spiritual and secular, and even the inhabitants of Orthodox Georgia, it would now be opportune to elevate the Iveron St. John the Baptist monastery to the position of an Athos monastery with all the rights arising from this position. To satisfy the ambition of the Bulgarian and Romanian peoples, it is necessary to do the same in relation to the Assumption, Xylurgu and Moldavian-Vlachian monasteries of St. John the Baptist. If this recognition of the said monasteries as monasteries had been accomplished officially by the allied Balkan warring powers, Russia and Romania, the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Athos protate, then the numerical Slavic element in the Karean protate would have immediately increased by four new voices with the addition of the voice of the Georgian anti-prosop. Seven or even eight votes in the protate against seventeen - this, of course, still does not completely help the matter and does not inspire firm confidence that general monastic issues will be resolved in the kinot “for the common benefit” and peacefully, but it is still better than three votes against seventeen, as we see in the kinot at the present time. Speaking about the elevation of the Russian monasteries of St. Andrew's and Elias, the Bulgarian Xylurgu, the Romanian St. John the Baptist and the Georgian St. John the Baptist to the status of monasteries, we must not forget for a minute that in resolving this issue, issues of a material nature should play an important role. The monasteries on whose lands these monasteries were created, with this transfer of them to monasteries, are deprived of their income, which is now collected from each monk who joins the brethren of the monasteries, and from any new building built inside the monastery. As for the monasteries themselves, simply listing them as monasteries, without specific land plots, which hitherto were distributed only among 20 kyriarchical monasteries, can put them in new extremely sad and even unbearable economic living conditions. This important issue can only be resolved at the moment and in the only way - through the forced alienation of land and the revision of the boundaries of the land holdings of all monasteries and monasteries. Otherwise, our hermitages will continue to be deprived not only of land, water, timber and fuel, but also will not have arsans or a pier for unloading vital products for their inhabitants for the whole year. With the permission of Pandocrator or Stavronikita, the Russian Ilyinsky skete each time receives the right to unload its ship with food and transport it to the monastery, and the Russian St. Andrew's monastery is in the same position in relation to Vatopedi. Some of these monasteries own a very insignificant amount of land necessary for construction (for example, Ilyinsky monastery), are in danger of being left without water (Andreevsky monastery), and almost all monasteries, due to the lack of their own forest, are deprived of firewood. Consequently, it is now necessary to resolve land, water and forest or firewood issues for these monasteries, compensating in one way or another for the monasteries, which in this case actually suffer significant material damage. One can hardly doubt that the monasteries converted into monasteries, which have been seeking independence on Mount Athos for decades, will refuse the completely natural reward of their kyriarchal monasteries in the matter of their own ransom from the monasteries and the better arrangement of their living comforts. 4) In a number of questions related to the new political system of life on Mount Athos, the Kelliot question and, in particular, the question of the Russian Kelliots should not take the last place. The Kellyot form of Athonite monasticism originates from antiquity. Some Athonite cells date back 800 years. But even if we took these archaic dates on faith, we would still not dare to place the modern Athonite cells not only in connection, but even in some kind of parallel with the ancient monidria, about which we find evidence in the historical documents of the initial history of Athonite monasticism and in the original Athonite Charter of 972. The monidrias of the initial history of Mount Athos, in their structure of monastic life and legal status, were monasteries in the proper sense, but in comparison with modern monasteries with a limited number of their monastic inhabitants. Their main and fundamental difference from modern Athos cells is that the monidria had their own land on Athos and were not in any material land dependence on anyone. The Kellyots, however, if we recognize this fact as true and going to the point on the issue we are considering, already from 1661 on Athos they lost any shadow of land ownership and turned into simple tenants, casual and temporary owners to whom the owner had the right to rent out the cell and not rent it out, to establish such or other conditions for their cohabitation, etc. All Russian celliots living on Mount Athos now and mainly on the lands of Greek monasteries are hardly able to document that this or that cell was continuously inhabited by Russian monks even for two hundred years. Russian Kellyotism on Athos flourished in the last 19th century and especially from the beginning of the forties, which was helped by the political and economic conditions of life in our fatherland. Russian celliots acquired their cells from the Greek monasteries, which were the poorest financially, and by succession from the owners of their elders - the Greeks, after whose death they subsequently became the natural legal heirs. Through commercial resourcefulness and the successful distribution of a huge amount of pleading correspondence throughout monastic-loving Russia, the Russian celliots managed to attract significant funds in their favor, thanks to which these cells began to expand and beautify, and their churches took on a majestic appearance and splendor inside like the cathedral churches of monasteries. The number of people living in financially secure cells gradually grew and in some of them there are now up to 60, 80 and even up to 100 monks. In a word, some Athonite cells little by little took on the appearance of real Athonite monasteries, for example, the cells of St. John the Theologian, Kirillo-Belozerskaya, etc., and even surpassed their kyriarchal monasteries in beauty, number of inhabitants and even church deanery. Next to such types of owners who were careful and diligent about the improvement of their cell, in Russian Kellyotism on Athos, another direction was very sharply revealed, not akin to strict monasticism. Some celliots, thanks to the money acquired on Athos, appear on Athos in their cells as a rare guest, and mostly on cell business they live in Constantinople or Thessaloniki, leading the most free, and often downright shameful in moral terms, lifestyle. The names of such Kellyots are well known, as they were made public in official government notices 2 . Both the kelliots of the first type, and especially the kelliots of the second category, equally caused anxiety and fear on Athos among the monasteries on whose lands they had their cells. The first, with their arbitrary expansions and constant grandiose buildings and increasing numbers of inhabitants, caused inevitable clashes with the monastery, which strictly tried to remind the elder of the cell about homologies and that he would go out arbitrarily without any constraint from the boundaries of what was permitted to him, thereby exposing himself to all sorts of unfair complaints and criticisms on their part. The latter, with their riotous lifestyle in the cities, directly denigrated the Athonite monasticism and served as an object of temptation for those living in the world. Facts such as the scandalous story of the Kelliot Theodosius with the Astrakhan Cossack girl Tatyana could not pass without consequences for the fate of the Athonite Kelliots. In order to put a limit to the unrest in Athos Kelliot life, the Greek monasteries began to restrict Russian Kelliots by all means and finally achieved the publication in 1911 of a special prohibitory sigillion by the late Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III, who, from personal experience, was well aware of the dark sides of modern Kelliot life on Athos. According to this charter, no more than six people could live in a cell. This patriarchal sigilion seemed extremely shy and stern to the Russian Kelliots, and they began to bitterly and loudly complain everywhere about the oppression allegedly inflicted on them by the Greek monasteries. With these complaints, the Russian Kellyots filled their numerous petitions to the Russian consulates in Thessaloniki and in Constantinople and to the Russian embassy in Constantinople, and at the end of last year they even published a special brochure on this issue in order to draw the attention of our State Duma to themselves. This entire brochure, consisting of fabrications and deliberate distortions of documentary historical facts, is obviously designed for simpletons and gullible people who are completely ignorant of either the history of Athos monasticism in general, or the sore Kellyot issue on Athos in particular. Be that as it may, the Russian Kellyots, both in government spheres and among some deputies of the State Duma, have achieved, as we know, sympathy. Our government began to seriously think about removing the place for these supposedly offended and disadvantaged Athos inhabitants in the upcoming new organizational civil statute or canonism for Athos. How and in what way the favor of the European Orthodox powers interested in the fate of Athos will be expressed in the future, we cannot now say with all certainty. In our opinion, it would be enough to give some of the richest and most comfortable cells in all respects special attention in their long-standing and ardent desire - to turn their cells into monasteries, with the elevation of their elders, with the rights of diceas, to the rank of archimandrite, which is so dear to them, which speaks a lot to the mind, and especially to the heart, of Russian benefactors. But from here, however, it is still a long way from granting the Russian Kelliots, who do not enjoy the right of land ownership on Mount Athos, the right to take part in the management of the monasticism of Mount Athos on the same basis as the monks of the kyriarchic monasteries. Giving them the right to vote or participate in the Athonite ruling institutions, whatever their names, will undoubtedly serve as a stumbling block for our diplomas in its good intentions to develop a new canonism or statute for Mount Athos in general and for the Russian Kelliots in particular. In this form and on these principles, we can safely predict in advance that this canonism will not pass on Athos and will provoke a whole storm against itself from the Greek monks of the kyriarchic monasteries, who will understand it as an encroachment on the status quo. But if, beyond expectation, the Kelliot question were resolved, according to the desires of the Kelliots themselves, then can we guarantee that Russian Athonite monasticism in general and Kelliotism in particular will flourish through this, and in what and where will it be possible to find restraining principles for the Russian Kelliots?.. That is why it seems to us that the Kelliot question should be given an important place in the new political statute of Mount Athos, but it must also be indicated in its management appropriate subordinate position. A fair solution to the Kellyot question must be rooted in the centuries-old established life and practice of Mount Athos in this regard. Giving the Kellyots the right to have the number of brothers according to their material means cannot be considered injustice and will bring desirable calm to their mood. If we keep in mind that the Athonite Kelliots, as Russian subjects, will be under the patronage and vigilant supervision, according to the new political statute, of the representative of Russia, the leading power on Athos, then their carefree life here is completely ensured and for the sake of the Kelliots there is no urgent need to create brakes for a possible peaceful resolution of the pressing important church-political issue. 5) Development of a new political civil structure of St. Mount Athos is not without difficulties, but this issue cannot be of essential importance on Athos for its implementation. There is no violation of the status quo here. The new order of life on Mount Athos naturally should have brought about a new canonism or statute for the Holy Spirit. This matter is purely political and belongs entirely to diplomats. The Greek troops, having captured Thessalonica without much effort, occupied Chalkndika and in particular St. with even greater ease. Mount Athos. The hoisting of the national Greek flag in Daphne and Kareya on Athos caused, as we have seen, an explosion of delight on the part of the local Greek population and was “Easter” for the Svyatogorsk monks of Greek nationality, but this same event, as we are told from Athos, plunged the Slavic monks - Bulgarians, Serbs and Russians - into despondency. The latter, who in their lifetime had suffered a lot of all kinds of oppression and injustice from the monks of Greek nationality, thanks to their legal numerical superiority in the protate, could naturally fear their strengthening. The fears are understandable and quite natural. Hence the desire arose among the powers interested in the fate of the monastics of Mount Athos to protect their interests by all means and provide protection to the monks who came from Russia and other Slavic countries. The subsequent protests and objections on the part of these powers to the Athos government regarding the occupation of Mount Athos by Greek troops led to the sending to Athos of a detachment of Bulgarian troops, hitherto actually not taking any part in the administration, and to the recognition by the first minister of Hellas, Mr. Venizelos, in the House of People's Deputies and before a special deputation from the Athos Greek monasteries that the solution to the Athos issue belongs to the Orthodox powers led by Russia. In the course of modern political events, it turns out that in addition to the warring Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro, Russia and Romania are also interested in Mount Athos, because the number of their subjects here is very significant, and the ties of Mount Athos with Russia and Romania are very old. The news that flashed in the newspapers that all-embracing Austria also declared claims to Athos cannot be taken seriously, since there are 2 or 3 of its subjects - Orthodox Galicians and Serbs in Hilandar. The best, in our opinion, solution to this issue may be the recognition of St. Mount Athos is politically international and independent. Each of the mentioned six interested Orthodox powers, led by powerful Russia, looks after the interests of its subjects living on Mount Athos and patronizes them in all necessary cases. Each of the powers sends for this purpose an authorized person who, together with representatives of other powers, forms part of a special international council or international commission, replacing the Turkish kaymakam of bygone times on Mount Athos and carrying out all his functions - political, judicial and police. To assist the commissioner in performing police functions and protecting the inhabitants, a small detachment of soldiers or gendarmerie is assigned, which, with six representatives, constitutes an impressive garrison, quite sufficient to protect Athos from external enemies and in case of pacifying possible unrest among the monks of the Holy Mountain. The Turkish kaymakam, as is known, had a permanent residence on Kareya in the center of Athos and had to bear all the difficult conditions of their existence here, strictly observing the centuries-old traditions of Athonite monasticism. Loneliness, the absence of any kind of entertainment, alienation from worldly life, thanks to the rare delivery of mail here, and complete almost idleness, with a quiet, generally peaceful monastic life - all this was his difficult lot, but for this, as a reward, he was provided with a salary, with difficulty issued to Turkish officials from the state treasury, and sometimes received occasional substantial baksheesh from the monasteries. It would be risky and even very dangerous to subject the representatives of the six Orthodox powers to all of the above-mentioned deprivations if Kareia on Athos were again recognized as their place of permanent residence. It is terrible to think that these commissioners, undoubtedly in most cases young people, completely alien to the monastic calling and spiritual interests, will be doomed to all the deprivations and restrictions to which their predecessor, the Turkish kaymak, was subjected here. The thirst for life and the need to communicate with secular people will constantly draw them beyond the line of the Athonite monotonous settlement or develop in them an addiction to certain vices that have nothing in common with Mount Athos... The frivolous behavior of secular intelligent young people can even have a demoralizing effect on the monks of the Holy Mountain. The international Athonite gendarmerie will not find itself in a better position. And if Kareya under the kaymakam and with a small number of Ottoman officials and a small number of zaptii and serdars (local guards from Macedonian natives) presented very seductive pictures to the gaze of pious admirers, then these pictures, in our opinion, should in the future result in even more grandiose and seductive ones. Six representatives of European powers with their states and court ranks will naturally attract a larger number of traders to Kareya, and with them all those dens of entertainment that are tempting for Kellyot monasticism, which Eastern street life presents to us in amazing variety, will appear here. Kareya should naturally turn into a noisy town, Athos will be no different from the bustling world, and then goodbye to silence and silence on Athos... It would hardly be better for the aforementioned representatives of the powers - the patrons of Athos - to exist in Erisso, a small town neighboring the Holy Mountain, where even a bishop lives, whose title although mentions the Holy Mountain, but who actually never had anything to do with the Holy Mountain. The only difference between Yerisso and Kareya is that here a balanced elderly person can have a peaceful family home - and that’s all. Therefore, we believe that for the place of residence of these representatives of the patron powers and judicial authorities it is better to choose such populous and cultural cities as Thessaloniki or even Constantinople, closest to Athos. Thanks to the mostly peaceful life that reigns on Mount Athos, there is no need for constant vigilant police surveillance, and if necessary, it is not difficult for the gendarmerie, led by these authorized representatives, to appear at any time on the Holy Mountain to restore order and tranquility. However, for constant supervision, as a last resort, it is possible to establish six-month duty on Mount Athos for both detachments and one of the authorized representatives, assigning for this purpose a special room for everyone on Kareya, which will create the need for each representative to live on Mount Athos for one half-year in a period of three years. The great need for all representatives of the 6 interested powers and the full composition of the court will not be felt particularly often, since the generally peaceful life of Athonite is rarely disrupted by events of exceptional importance and criminality. Karoulye is the northwestern part of the Athos peninsula, where stern anchorites live in caves, never leaving them even to the peaks of Athos and eating alms, which are delivered to them on Saturdays by the monasteries of the monasteries. More about this in our brochure “Russian Athonite Kelliot monks and their begging letters for alms sent throughout Russia.” Kyiv. 1906 You might be interested in: