Church historian Anton Vladimirovich Kartashev died in Paris

Anton Vladimirovich Kartashev
(1875 - 1960), theologian, church historian, chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod (July-August 1917), minister of confessions of the Provisional Government (1917), professor at the St. Sergius Theological Institute in Paris. Born on July 11, 1875 in the city of Kishtma in the Urals in the family of a miner.

After graduating from theological school, he entered the Perm Theological Seminary, from which he graduated in 1894. In 1899 he graduated from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, then served as an assistant professor in the department of history of the Russian Church.

In 1905 he left teaching at the academy and entered the service of the St. Petersburg Public Library; was elected as a teacher at the St. Petersburg Higher Women's Courses in the Department of History of Religion and Church (1906-1918).

Since 1909 - Chairman of the St. Petersburg Religious and Philosophical Society, supporter of the renewal of church life.

From March 25, 1917 - Comrade Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, and from July 25 - Chief Prosecutor. Realizing the need for church reforms and changes in relations between church and state, Kartashev insisted on abolishing the position of chief prosecutor; from August 5 - Minister of Confessions of the Provisional Government. He was an active member of the Local Council of the Russian Church 1917-18.

After the October Revolution of 1917 he was arrested. After serving a three-month sentence, he lived illegally in Moscow.

In 1918 he founded the Orthodox “Brotherhood of St. Sophia,” which included representatives of the clergy and church intelligentsia.

In January 1919 he left Russia. Active figure in the Russian emigration: chairman of the Russian National Committee in Finland, then in Paris, member of diocesan meetings and diocesan council of the Russian Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

He was one of the founders and professor (from 1944 - Doctor of Church History "honoris causa") of the St. Sergius Theological Institute in Paris (1925-60). He taught Church history (general and Russian), the Old Testament and the Hebrew language. In 1939-1944. - Inspector of the Institute.

Participant in congresses of the Russian Student Christian Movement (RSCM). A supporter of Christian unity, he was a member of the Russian delegations at the ecumenical conferences in Oxford and Edinburgh (1937). He took care of the National Organization of Knights.

Died on September 10, 1960 in Paris. He was buried in the Sainte-Geneviève-des-Bois cemetery near Paris.

Kartashev's scientific activity was distinguished by genuine encyclopedism, brilliant intuition and extraordinary energy. His main area of ​​interest was the history of the Church. Already in the first, pre-revolutionary works [1], an analytical approach to historiography and a critical attitude to sources were evident. In emigration, scientific publications on church-historical issues were continued in various periodicals: the magazines “The Path”, “Bulletin of the RSHD”, and the collections “Orthodox Thought”. The result of Kartashev’s many years of scientific and teaching activity was the theological and historical treatise “The Recreation of Holy Rus'” - a unique experience in building church-state relations, and the two-volume fundamental work “Essays on the History of the Russian Church” - the best overview of Russian church history in the context of general historical development to date . The “Essays” showed the breadth of interests, integrity and intellectual honesty of the author, his scientific objectivity in the analysis of sources, and a critical attitude towards historical events.

A.V. Kartashev: from the Masonic minister - to the apologist of Holy Rus' To the knowledge of Russia from the opposite - 13

Anton Vladimirovich Kartashev (11.7.1875–10.9.1960) – historian of the Church. Born in Kyshtym, Yekaterinburg district, Perm province, in the family of an official who came from serfs who became mining workers. Great-grandfather was the manager of a mining plant, grandfather was an assistant treasurer, father was a member of the Zemstvo Council. In 1888 he graduated from theological school, in 1894 from the Perm Theological Seminary, in 1899 from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, where he was assigned to the department of history of the Russian Church. “Revolutionary storms knocked him out of his quiet rut. Social temperament involved A.V. into journalism,” Kartashev wrote about himself in his autobiography. – “The rector of the Academy, Bishop Sergius (later the sub-Soviet patriarch), on behalf of the Synod, made a friendly proposal: stop journalism, or leave... A.V. with youthful courage I chose the stormy “or”....” From 1906 he was a well-known publicist and (until 1919) a professor on the history of religions at the liberal Higher Women's (Bestuzhev) Courses in St. Petersburg.

“But the peculiar popularity of A.V. Kartashev was created by his active participation in the Religious and Philosophical Meetings (1901–1904), then reorganized into the “Religious and Philosophical Society, where from 1909 he had to be chairman.”

After the February Revolution, as a “liberal theologian”, he was invited by the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod V.N. Lvov “as his comrades,” joined the Cadet Party and joined its Central Committee. In July, Kartashev replaced Lvov as chief prosecutor, and in August, after replacing the Synod with a ministry, he became minister of religious affairs.

Since the Provisional Government consisted mainly of Masons, here we must add one important point, which Anton Vladimirovich not only kept silent about in his autobiography, but also subsequently denied: already during the First World War he was a member of the organization of the so-called “Duma Freemasonry” and even was in the Masonic “Supreme Council” - about this in the 1990s. Archival evidence from the head of the “Supreme Council” Halpern was published, the accuracy of which there is no reason to doubt.

In this regard, Kartashev’s refutation in emigration in 1927 in the newspaper “Vozrozhdenie” may seem strange: “I was not and will not be a Freemason, as a person who consciously gave his will to church discipline and cannot accommodate some kind of spiritual dual citizenship.” (It must be said, however, that in emigration many Februaryists denied their Freemasonry in this way. Perhaps these denials are based on a formal point: the French lodges only half-recognized Russian “Duma” Freemasonry, associated with the atheistic Grand Orient of France, and other Masonic “obsessions” they did not consider him “regular” at all, i.e. legally educated, forcing Russian Freemasons to go through the entire ladder of degrees again; some emigrants refused this - perhaps Kartashev was one of them, who happily used this interpretation of “Duma” Freemasonry to dissociate From him.)

Meanwhile, Anton Vladimirovich’s views during the February Revolution speak for themselves. They were formed in the spirit of demands on the Church from the intelligentsia in the movement of the so-called “religious revival”, which sought to “reform” the Church, turning it from the “beyond ideal” to the social “truth about earth” on the model of Western Christianity. These figures treated the Church as if in its two-thousand-year history it had never faced the problem of “the truth about the earth,” and they, the intelligentsia, now had the right to teach it this.

In this spirit, for example, in 1916 at a meeting of the Petrograd “Religious and Philosophical Society” A.V. Kartashev contrasted the church hierarchy with a kind of “prophecy” as an “internal source of genuine renewal”:

“...The hierarchical authority of the priesthood in the Church does not tolerate prophecy, just as a well-ordered state does not tolerate anarchism... Consequently, the prophetic movement, prophetic creativity in the Church seems to be thought of as overflowing beyond the boundaries of canonical discipline... The spiritual break with the Church goes along the lines of issues known to every cultured person. Everyone knows that in the Church he does not find satisfaction for his reason, his freedom, his creativity and social liberation... References to the ancient patristic works will not help here... alas, everything is creatively living, advanced, truly captivating, enchanting, truly dominant, bearing on itself the stamp of youth and concealing within itself the guarantee of the future cannot fit into the Church, and for historical creativity, for the sake of humanity, it leaves it. No one who is religiously blind denies that the Church continues to shine with unfading inner splendor, with the same attractive, extraordinary evening light coming from heavenly heights. But the human spirit, unable to bear the endless gravity of the crimson sunset rays upon it, again and again rushes into the dark side of the east opposite to them, seeking there a new meeting with the morning rays of the eternal day” (“Reformation, Reformation and Fulfillment of the Church”).

What is symbolic here is the desire for the “dark side” of the horizon opposite the sun (that is, the Church), towards the “morning rays of light” - like an unconscious desire for Lucifer-Dennitsa; After all, the devil does not seduce a person with darkness, but presents it as a “path to light,” sometimes taking the form of a “luminiferous angel”...

With such views, Anton Vladimirovich was appointed by the Provisional Government to lead the church life of the new, democratic Russia. This leadership of his managed to express itself in active assistance in convening the All-Russian Local Council in Moscow to restore the patriarchate. On August 16, 1917, on the first day of working sessions of the Council, Minister Kartashev, on behalf of the Provisional Government, welcomed the opening Council, stated that the ministry’s control over the Church would be minimal, and reported that the Provisional Government had allocated 1 million rubles. for the expenses of holding the Council.

Meanwhile, the strengthening of the “social-democratic” unrest was beginning to have a sobering effect on some Februaryists. At the end of August, Kartashev came out as a supporter of the “rebellion” of the general. L.G. Kornilov, who sought to stop anarchy and the rise to power of Lenin’s party. The head of the Provisional Government, Kerensky, as is known, then betrayed Kornilov and facilitated the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks. On September 10, Kartashev, the last cadet in the government, in a note addressed to Kerensky, pointing out the “dominance of the socialists over the Provisional Government,” asked to be dismissed from his post, but was left. On October 25, he made a speech at a government meeting about the need for decisive measures against the armed uprising being prepared by the Bolsheviks, and in the evening of the same day, together with other members of the government, he was arrested by the Bolsheviks in the Winter Palace and sent to the Peter and Paul Fortress.

Kartashev was released on January 26, 1918, and in July he came to Moscow to further participate in the Local Council. At the same time, he took an active part in anti-Bolshevik underground organizations (National Center, etc.). On New Year's Eve 1919, he fled to Finland, where he headed the “Russian Committee” for organizing the White Army, General. N.N. Yudenich.

After the defeat of Yudenich, in 1920 he moved to Paris, where he participated in an attempt at a new gathering of white forces in the form of the “Russian National Committee”, created at a congress in May 1921 to support the remnants of the white armies (at that time the evacuated army of General Wrangel was to Gallipoli, where Kartashev went for negotiations).

Of course, Anton Vladimirovich had not yet overcome his Februaryist views at that time. Accordingly, in the church schism of 1926, he found himself not on the side of the monarchical Russian Church Abroad, but in the “Parisian” exarchate of Metropolitan Eulogius, which broke away from it, which at first preferred the omophorion of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), loyal to the Bolshevik government, about which the corresponding signatures of loyalty were given, and then the Eulogian exarchate entered the Masonic Patriarchate of Constantinople.

This split occurred not least because of the Paris Theological Institute, subsidized by the Freemasons, created by Metropolitan Eulogius in 1925, where Kartashev became a teacher. He later acknowledged the existence of generous subsidies, without which, “mainly from the Anglo-Saxon world and America in particular, we could not exist.” The head of this breakaway church jurisdiction, Metropolitan Evlogy, also acknowledged in his memoirs the presence of subsidies from emigrant Masons (V.A. Maklakova and others).

In subsequent years, Kartashev wrote many scientific works, among which he highlighted “The History of Ecumenical Councils” (courses of lectures), “History of the Russian Church”, “Old Testament Biblical Criticism”. His former reformist spirit gradually faded away as he matured spiritually and became more familiar with secularized Western Christianity.

And in 1958, the recovered A.V. Kartashev has already complained to Fr. Mitrofan Znosko-Borovsky, priest (later bishop) of the Russian Church Abroad:

“...you have no idea about the terrible spiritual subjugation of the Russian Orthodox scientist here, abroad. Our path is hard. They say, “money has no smell.” Not true. They not only smell, they contain terrible poison. Here you have, for example, our Paris Theological Academy. Her students... Think about when I tell them in lectures about St. Rus', they laugh, for them it is a legend, an empty phrase... Before you is my multi-volume work “History of the Russian Church”... If you want, this is a justification for my life and my last dying word to the Mother of the Russian Church. The work is ready for printing, but I can’t publish it. The YMCA-Press publishing house demands a very high price. They require reworking certain sections of history, throwing out some things and changing others. In other words, I must abandon what is so important and significant in the history of our Church and in the life of our people. “I went through so much,” the professor continued, “when I was working on the publication of my book “The Reconstruction of St. Rus'." And then YMCA-Press demanded a lot of changes in the text. I made concessions to them, changed a few things, but they demanded more and more new changes, which I could not agree to, and the book would have remained unpublished if my grateful student, the current Bishop Sylvester, had not taken the trouble upon himself " (The book was published in 1956 as a “Publication of the Special Committee” chaired by Bishop Sylvester, Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch; two volumes of “Essays on the History of the Russian Church” were published in 1959 in the “YMCA-Press” - the presentation in them was brought to the beginning of the 19th century centuries.)

This last book, “Reconstruction of Holy Rus',” was unacceptable to YMCA-Press primarily because of its national-patriotic spirit. However, having undergone a huge evolution, A.V. Kartashev, unfortunately, did not rise to the level of creating the restraining meaning of Orthodox monarchical statehood, did not touch upon the eschatological perspective and the theme of the coming Antichrist, and expressed almost chiliastic judgments about the construction of the “Kingdom of God still here on earth.

».

Nevertheless, the book is worth reading to reflect on the practical activities of Christians in a world of evil. There is no smell of Western, so-called “democratic Christianity” there, for example: “ Only in the name of even a drop

embodied, realized in life by the light of heaven, “the Kingdom of God and its righteousness,” a Christian can put up with all the imperfections of state power and violence.”
Therefore, in the authoritarian-corporate (“fascist”) regimes of Portugal (Salazar) and Spain (Franco), Kartashev saw “an example of flexible tactics in implementing a Christian state in our time, not in name and sign, but in essence,” and believed that After the collapse of communism in Russia, “a creative, enlightened dictatorship is inevitable at first
.”

The main idea of ​​the book is Kartashev’s proposed understanding of the “symphony” of spiritual and state authorities in the new conditions of the twentieth century. The author recalls three historical options for the union of the monarch with the Church, depicting spiritual and temporal power in the well-known image of two swords: “a) in the Roman scheme of two swords in the hands of the pope, b) in the Byzantine – two swords in two different but agreed upon hands: the church and states, c) in the Protestant scheme of two swords in the hands of secular heads of Christian states. ... in all cases this is a predetermined, obligatory union of the Divine and human principles, by analogy with the two natures in the One Hypostasis of the God-Man.”

However, only in the Orthodox understanding did this principle of the unfused and indivisible union of the Divine and the human in Christ turn out to be, by analogy, correctly applied to the unfused and indivisible union of the Church and the state in the concept of “symphony” (harmonious consonance, agreement). The analogy with the dual nature of Christ here, of course, is only an ideal to which we must strive to achieve the maximum possible Christianization of earthly life. But this ideal is the only true formula for combining the Absolute and the relative in the earthly world: preserving the maximalism of the goal without falling into the Catholic utopia of building the “Kingdom of God on earth.” Both Western types of combination of church and state power led to the secularization of the Church.

In his theory of “recreation of Holy Rus',” Kartashev proceeded from the impossibility of restoring the Russian autocratic monarchy, but, unlike many of his colleagues at the Paris Institute, he ardently defended in this book its merits in the past as the most perfect union between state and church power. Let us recall that this was written by a wiser Februaryist at the end of his life, a member of the anti-monarchist Provisional Government:

“Orthodoxy has lost its Tsar, its anointed protector. Maybe it won't be for long. Or maybe it won't happen at all. What Orthodox heart will not mourn this irreplaceable loss! And who would not be happy if, by the unknown fates of Providence, this servant of the Church was again placed in the former place of his theocratic ministry! chatterbox and dreamer "... I reverently take off my hat at the funeral of the Orthodox monarchy."

Kartashev associated the “funeral of the monarchy,” that is, the impossibility of its restoration, not with its “utopianism” as a political system, but with the growth of dangerous trends throughout the modern world. After the fall of the monarchies, the victorious “flat secularism managed ... to provide, without resistance, short-sighted theologians with something essentially alien to them

and the heretical flag of the supposedly indisputable “principle of separation of church and state” ...”; as a result, “a godless, anti-Christian culture, despising the Church, calmly builds its anti-Christ tower to heaven.”

However, the Antichrist must be resisted even in these unfavorable conditions. Based on the impossibility of restoring the monarchy, Kartashev proposed a new, very controversial, principle of the “symphony” of the Church - no longer with the monarch (for he does not exist), but “ with the elements of a free society

... In this newest form
of the symphony
, not directly with the state, but with the believing people, the planned appearance of the symphony is very, very modest.
But the “nominalism” of the old “Christian” states, which lulls the will of Christians, is eliminated. What we get is “realism” of real, not illusory, achievements of the Christianization of this world. This is a method that, from the inside and partially, modestly transforms the things and phenomena of this world in the spirit of the Gospel, and does not outwardly stamp them with the epithet “Christian.” This is the real subordination of the world fabric to the will of God, this is real theocratic transformation
, this is, so to speak,
a molecular
achievement on the path to creating the kingdom of God on earth.” According to Kartashev, this version of the “symphony” is also feasible because in a modern democratic state, unlike past eras, “the state rules, but far from controls the lives of nations. Nations are self-governing,” breaking down into “living cells of their body”—“this corporatism is nine-tenths of the entire composition of the state.”

This opinion, of course, does not correspond in any way to the real state of affairs, when the so-called “world behind the scenes” is increasingly acquiring the character of totalitarian global power with modern electronic means of control and management through the global financial system.

How to carry out the call under these conditions:

“It is necessary, through the great and united efforts of Christian construction, to show ideologically and in practice that the Christian state is not an outdated and museum-like structure, like a flintlock instead of a rifle. It is necessary to equip Christianity with the latest word in the latest cultural technology to make one forget its spoiled reputation among the masses of passivity and backwardness. Goal: to produce a “synthesis of the Orthodox covenants of Holy Rus' and the Petrine covenants of Great Russia,” that is, “a synthesis of Holy Rus' and the spirit of humanistic culture,” and to recreate “St. Rus' in the framework of modern society and statehood is not a paradox, but the only real possibility.”

“For such a new, unusual for us

, mission and responsibility for the fate of the church, we all - both hierarchs and laity - must radically
restructure
both our thoughts and actions... We must realize that now we can no longer think that the hierarchy privileged in the state will do everything for us.
Her privileges have been taken away. On the contrary, that we ourselves, and it is mainly the laity
, and not the hierarchy, will do everything possible so that the Church, not from the outside, but from within us and with our assistance, penetrates into all the pores and the entire fabric of the life of the entire people... Do not secularize the hierarchy, but, on the contrary, churchize laity in their state, economic and cultural activities - this is the main method of social mission that the Russian Orthodox Church is to carry out... This is our lay service to the Church, and not to this world.”

Of course, Kartashev realized that this method of Christianizing the world was much more difficult than it was before. That the sinful “element of a free society” will resist such a virtuous “symphony” and that the laity does not have adequate organizational means to resist the powerful “barbarizing” forces of the modern world. After all, it is one thing when the entire structure of the state, headed by the monarch, serves to protect spiritual values, another when there is no such state protection, but rather the opposite: state power encourages the democratic disintegration of the people - this way it is easier to manage them, controlling material values, allowing “buying and selling” "... Therefore, Kartashev called for super-efforts of the laity:

“This is achievable only with intense and total organization. With this organization into unions and brotherhoods, according to professions, according to tasks, according to all sorts of characteristics, we - members of the Church, with its blessing and under its spiritual control, must permeate the entire complex of political, cultural, everyday, all kinds of life... We would not be lost in loneliness, “We would carry out church influence into all the molecules of the fabric of social life, relying on our unions and brotherhoods and thereby saving our spiritual fathers, and the entire hierarchy in general, from direct political struggle and some of its forms that are incompatible with the priesthood.” For this, “ All of Russia must be covered with a huge complex network of church brotherhoods.”

».

“There are moments of existence about which Christ himself said: “Sell your clothes and buy a sword” (Luke 22:36). Time to mobilize the laity

" For - “Who and since when freed Christians from the war with the Antichrist in order to indifferently help the Antichrist cause of the “city of the devil” with our blindness and connivance?”...

All this is true. But again the question arises of how realistic such mobilization is in the current democracy, which requires the utmost consciousness and sacrifice of the broad masses of the people in an atomized society, especially considering the powerful opposition. Kartashev himself admits:

“The masses carelessly do not realize... that Christians have long no longer lived in an era of peace, but, on the contrary, in an era of super-world war “not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against the spirits of wickedness in high places” ( Eph. 6:12). This war has already descended from the heights of the spirit and has become our real everyday life.”

Kartashev somewhat frivolously called this new form of “symphony” - “theocracy within the framework of democracy.” Rather, it looks like the retreat of Christians to the last line of defense from the onslaught of the advancing forces of totalitarian anti-Christian democracy, which will achieve world domination at the end of history... And in this case, the “recreation of Holy Rus'” should be understood not as a “symphony” of the Church with society (all more anti-Christian), but as a rallying of the faithful into that “camp of saints and the beloved city” (Rev. 20), which will remain undefeated by the Antichrist and will be taken to Heaven by Christ at His second coming.

It is a pity that this last remarkable book by Anton Vladimirovich was deprived of such an important eschatological coordinate. Nevertheless, many of the correct thoughts in it deserve respect and application in our pre-apocalyptic times. In any case, what needs to be done is what the author described as “ It’s time to mobilize the laity

».

M.V. Nazarov Material used from the book “Mission of the Russian Emigration” (vol. I published and volume II – not published). There are exact links to sources. And also: “Bulletin of the RSHD”. Paris. 1960. No. 58-59.

Emigration

Soon after the October Revolution, Anton Vladimirovich, along with other ministers, was arrested and detained in the Peter and Paul Fortress. It is reported that then A.M. Kollontai personally advocated for him before the Military Revolutionary Committee. He spent three months in captivity, and after being freed, he disappeared and was forced to hide in Moscow in safe houses, as an illegal immigrant.

Kartashev resolutely did not accept Soviet power, although for some time he lived and worked in the new Russia, being forced to reckon with the new state of affairs. In 1918, he formed the Orthodox “Brotherhood of Hagia Sophia,” which united representatives of the intelligentsia and clergy in its ranks.

In 1919, in January, Anton Vladimirovich left the territory of Russia and moved to Finland. While in exile, he headed the Russian National Committee in Finland, and then in Paris. Having settled in France, Kartashev not only criticized the Soviet regime, but in his publications and speeches supported the fight against Bolshevism. At the same time, he noted that in order to win it is necessary to rely on the masses, and for this it is necessary for the people to come to their senses. He must come to his senses through a return to faith.

Kartashev played a major role in the creation and formation of the Russian Student Christian Movement. Here he had like-minded people and associates Nikolai Berdyaev and father Sergius Bulgakov. Subsequently, on the initiative of the movement, the St. Sergius Theological Institute was formed in Paris. Over time, this educational institution gained wide popularity. Anton Vladimirovich, holding the position of professor, devoted many years of his life to the institute. Here he taught Church History, the Old Testament, and Hebrew.

A.V. Kartashev died on September 10, 1960, in the city of Paris. He was buried in the Sainte-Geneviève-des-Bois cemetery.

To knowledge of Russia “from the opposite” - see also:

1. In memory of N.M. Yazykova. 2. Herzen: “Nothing can be created through terrorism.” 3. In memory of L.A. Tikhomirov. 4. Dostoevsky: “Orthodoxy is our socialism.” 5. Gogol’s sacrifice to Divine truth. 6. Samarin: from Hegel to Orthodoxy. 7. Kostomarov: Little Russia as a small homeland. 8. Karamzin: from Freemasonry to monarchism. 9. Ivan Kireyevsky: from romanticism to Orthodoxy. 10. In memory of K.S. Aksakova. 11. In memory of P.A. Vyazemsky. 12. M.N. Katkov: “a statesman without a public office.” 13. A.V. Kartashev: from a Masonic minister to an apologist for Holy Rus'.

Permanent page address:

Leave your comment

« Previous entry