Церковная старина в современной России

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

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

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

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

In this period the new government strategy is in search of financial flows for the restoration due to the position of Ministry of economic developments and Federal agency on management of federal property that neglects the needs of cultural life. Alongside with this apart from economic aspect, as a result of ongoing democratic reforms, the transfer of the real estate and monuments to Russian Orthodox Church has got the political significance. Authorities grant material resources and means of influence to their main ideological partner and the Orthodoxy in a new fundamentalist version begins to play a role of national ideology in the society. For this purpose, the cultural heritage and its interpretation are transformed to conformity with political needs. It is obvious, that the main threat to monuments of religious culture today is connected not with their physical destruction, but with conscious purposeful changes of theirs cultural-historical shape that needs to be protected according to the law and historical memory. This process is in keeping with aesthetic and every day life preferences of modern orthodox mentality that, unfortunately, is shared by significant part of society and bureaucracy. It is necessary to note the aspirations of several social groups, namely clergy and functionaries, to change the national legislation in the area of protection of cultural heritage.

The controversy between the Moscow patriarchy and museums on the status of former ecclesiastical propriety and the right of possession of sacred art objects could not be regarded only as the argument based on interest of owners. Museum community really worries about the status and safety of monuments and sites. The situation in this field is unfavorable today and its development was influenced by following objective factors. Among the political factors I note the contradictions between the representatives of federal and regional authorities, so-called «parade of sovereignties» in Russia, when the church buildings were transferred to the Church without previous consultation with Ministry of culture specialists.

In 2010 a new law is being drawn up on the restitution of ecclesiastical property including cultural monuments of federal importance which privatization is strictly forbidden. According to governmental representatives, the state is getting rid of its Soviet heritage in terms of confiscated church property but it is not restitution itself, only a goodwill gesture. According to experts this project may only legitimate the chaotic privatization of masterpieces of Orthodox art by religious communities without any cultural heritage protection and civil control over using of monumental architecture that could lead to its loss and inaccessibility for non-religious people.

In the same time Russian government in 2001–2010 tried to use the moral authority and propaganda opportunities of the Moscow patriarchy for the support of internal and foreign policy in exchange for property return. On social lifelevel there exists public pragmatism which gives preference to instant economic benefit over complex and expensive actions on cultural heritage objects preservation. At the same time there exists the loop of law in the sphere of protection and use of monuments and sites. Today in Russian Federation we can see degradation of monument protection system and lack of personal responsibility of officials for such protection. Unfortunately, the museums in Russian Federation are a close and inert system; they are incapable of preventive measures dealing with religious organizations. They are equally incapable of old-fashioned expositions re-structuring and of involving the public, including Christian, in their activity.

The situation inside Russian Orthodox Church also aggravates the state of monuments and sites and threatens its safety. The Moscow patriarchy aspires to establish leader positions in the society and effectuates so-called «new Christianization» using in its activity the principal and outstanding monuments of culture. At the same time the ordinary believers show selfish and irresponsible aspiration to satisfy theirs religious needs without any responsibility monuments protection. I note that clergymen and laymen desire to assert through the return of monuments as a way of revenge to art workers for the expropriation of the Church property in XX century and the aims for the self-affirmation through refusal to follow recommendations of experts. In the Church grows the pragmatism, which opposites of the attitude towards Christian monuments as a form of Holy Tradition that belong to the historical Orthodoxy. The situation is influenced by mass fall of cultural and educational background of clergymen and laymen in Moscow patriarchy. The ideological transformation, theological mutation and changes of religious behavior as a result of neo-conservatism and acculturation also lead to the transformation of monuments and sites. The actual public and state control over religious organizations activities does not exist. I have to mention the wide spread system of corrupted relations between culture experts and heads of the religious organizations, who justify the actions of such organizations aimed at destruction or deformation of monuments. The religious minorities in present Russia as a whole try to respect the law on monuments protection; but Moscow patriarchy counting on the support of authorities dares violating existing norms. The deplorable situation with the protection of monuments and sites, used by religious organization, reflects the general state of cultural heritage protection and its use in Russian Federation, but bears some specific features.

Chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10 describe most typical situations in the area of culture monuments transfer to the religious organizations and their protection. I have chosen the main problem regions such as Novgorod, Kostroma, Ryazan, Jaroslavl, Rostov, Solovki, Valaam, Astrahan, Moscow and Saint-Petersburg. The most dramatic episodes and conflicts around the Vladimir icon (1993–1999) and Trinity icon (2008–2009) in Tretijakov gallery, Toropec icon in Russian Museum (2009), Trinity-Sergius monastery of the Moscow region (1992–2001), Ipatius monastery in Kostroma (1993–2005), Assumption church in Kadashi in Moscow (2004), Yaroslavl’s temples (2005), the Ryazan Kremlin (2004–2005) are described in detail. Problems occur in New Jerusalem monastery (Moscow region), Trinity cathedral and Miroza monastery in Pskov, Epiphany monastery (Kostroma), Aleksander-Svirsky and Tihvin monastery (Leningrad region) and in others places. Even the cases of physical abuse of experts working there made by monks are observed (Zeleneckij monastery, Leningrad region, 2004). One of the most scandalous cases is the demolition of several monuments of wooden architecture by local archbishopric including «house of Peredolskij» (XIX century) and dangerous and illegal situation at St. Sophia cathedral in Novgorod.

Activity of hierarchy aimed at property return increases when any anniversaries approach and when it is very probable to receive substantial state financing (1000 anniversary of Yaroslavl, celebrating of 400 anniversary of the dynasty of the Romanovs in Kostroma). The situation is characterized sometimes by «postponed conflict» when unresolved problems fade into the background and threaten to turn back as serious shocks. All these processes take place against the background of the weakness of the civil society. The professional associations set up especially for protection of monuments and sites are very unstable, an example — Novgorod society of the amateurs of Antiquity (since 1999). The All-Russia society for monuments protection (since 1965) has turned into conformist establishment. The Orthodox intellectuals commonly depend on the hierarchy position. The most consecutive fighters for protection of cultural heritages are the political organizations as they consider this action as a part of their political activity in general. A very good example is the position of regional branches of parties «Yabloko» and Union of Right Forces in the conflict around Ipatius monastery in Kostroma (2004–2005).