Prominent figures of the Russian emigration. Nikita Krivoshein about the cathedral in Nice and Paris"

1949-1950 — The most mysterious Athos period in the life of Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein). Excerpt from the book “Theological Works”

A. Musin

« Theological works» archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein), Nizhny Novgorod: Christian Library, 2011. Author-compiler A. MUSIN. A feature of the new book by Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein) is the completeness of the theological texts presented, built on the biographical outline of their author, against the background of historical time, in parallel with the “internal” time, development, reflections and “achievements” of Archbishop Vasily himself. This weighty volume is accompanied by a richly annotated index, where the reader can find brief biographical information about all the individuals mentioned in this volume.

Makronissos - concentration camp island

Makronissos is located fifty miles south of Athens. It is part of the Cyclades - it is the westernmost of their islands in the Aegean Sea

The Greek island of Makronissos is a sinister place where concentration camps were located for many years. By the end of 1947, south coast On the islands, military concentration camps were built in which captured soldiers of the Democratic Army of Greece were kept. In 1949, exiled citizens from other islands began to be transported there. In October 1949, when the Civil War was almost over, the Greek puppet parliament passed an official law “On the organization of rehabilitation camps on the island of Makronis”. That same year, thousands of supporters of leftist ideas were imprisoned on the island; they were arrested "as a precaution". Few survivors in those camps testified that in terms of the sophistication of torture and abuse of people, they even surpassed their German colleagues. The Greek government created the largest concentration camp in the Balkans here. The data varies, and their scatter does not make it possible to give a more or less correct figure: according to various sources, from 50 to 100 thousand people passed through this camp. Among them were not only communists and leftists. There were a considerable number of “suspicious Bulgarians” and even… Jehovah’s Witnesses! Many internees at the Makronissos concentration camp died from torture and inhumane conditions. The survivors were left crippled: the camp mentally and physically crushed many. Today the island is considered a monument civil war and is protected by the state.

In the book “Theological Works” Nizhny Novgorod: Christian Library (2011) on pages 144-179 tells in detail about the hitherto unknown story of the disappearance of monk Basil from Mount Athos in September 1947 and his arrival in Oxford in February 1950. Here are the words that are given in the book of Presbyter Boris Bobrinsky: “In In 1950, after graduating from the Sergius Institute in Paris, I was in Athens, where I worked in the National Library with manuscripts of the works of St. Gregory Palamas. It was then that monk Vasily (Krivoshein) appeared in the city. Exhausted, hungry, in a leaky cassock, as if he had been in some island monastery.” Subsequently, Father Boris often met with him both in the library and in the Russian Church of St. Nicodemus, a Byzantine church of the 6th-12th centuries, archaeologically explored by the rector of the Russian embassy church in Athens, Archimandrite Antonin (Kapustin).

For many decades, nothing was known about the reasons for the disappearance of the ruler from Athos and his arrival in Athens in the form in which Father Boris met him. And so the author, the author and compiler of the new book, A.E. Musin, plunging into historical materials, documents, archives, correspondence with people who personally knew the Bishop, restored the tragic story of his arrest and stay in the island prison.

It is also necessary to cite an excerpt from the work of Professor Mikhail Shkarovsky “History of the Russian monasteries of Athos in the 20th century”: “Soon after the departure of fathers Cassian, Sophronius and Silouan from Athos - on September 26, 1947, a trial took place in Thessaloniki. On charges of collaboration with the German occupiers, the tribunal decided to sentence a group of Russian and Bulgarian monks to imprisonment: monk Vasily (Krivoshein) - to two years, monks Pankrat and Veniamin from the St. Panteleimon Monastery - to one year in prison, and two inhabitants of the Zografsky monastery - to Archimandrite Vladimir and Hierodeacon Pankrat - to one year in prison; Russian hieromonk Vladimir (Belozersky) was released from supervision. All accusations against Russian monks were completely fabricated; the trial was revenge for inviting a representative of the Soviet embassy and was largely an instrument of the Hellenization policy. So the Athonite Archimandrite Eugene wrote to the First Hierarch of the ROCOR, Metropolitan Anastasius, in response to the Bishop’s request dated November 14, 1947 about the details of the arrest and trial, that it was the “culprits” of the invitation of V.D. Karmanov who “arranged for him trezvons and dinners” who were convicted. In addition, Monk Vasily (Krivoshein) was undoubtedly remembered for the fact that for several years he led an intense struggle in Kinot against the restrictive measures of the Greek government, which prevented the influx of novices from Athos to Athos. Slavic countries. Soon after the trial in Thessaloniki, the prison sentence was commuted to defeat in civil rights. Subsequently, the Greek royal authorities forced Father Vasily to leave not only Athos, but also Greece in February 1951 (while the monk formally remained among the brethren of the St. Panteleimon Monastery). He again entered the land of the Holy Mountain only 30 years later - in 1977, already as Archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Church.” http://www.isihazm.ru/?id=384&iid=919

From the author and compiler A. Musin

Taking into account the information of M. Shkarovsky about the correspondence of Archimandrite Eugene and Metropolitan Anastasius at the end of 1947 and the correspondence of Archbishop Vasily and the Athonites from the personal archive of the Bishop, which was not known to the publishers of “Theological Works” of 2010 at the time of work on the book, the history of the exodus of Bishop Vasily from Mount Athos can be reconstructed as follows.

On September 25, 1947, according to the decision of the Greek court in Thessaloniki (No. 394/25-09-1947), Vladyka received a “two-piece” for collaboration, which in public mythology took the form of punishment for inviting an employee of the Soviet embassy in Athens V.D to the monastery Karmanov and the “telephone calls and dinners” arranged for him. Where he served this term is unknown, but Kinot’s letter dated February 22, 1955 stated that monk Vasily had been “abroad” since 1947. However, Thessaloniki is already abroad for Athos.

At the end of September 1949, after a two-year period, in full accordance with the practice of totalitarian regimes, a new “trial” took place. By decision No. 756/49 of the First Level Commission of Public Security of the Thessalonian District, he was exiled to the island of Makronissos. From here, on November 1, 1949, he wrote a letter to T. Whittemore. On December 23, 1949, by decision of the Office of Public Order and Security for the District of Thessaloniki No. 135, his release was denied. According to the stamp in the passport of monk Vasily Krivoshein, he was released on May 9, 1950, after which he arrived in Athens, stayed with an acquaintance, Metropolitan Evlogii Kurila, and met with B. Bobrinsky. Having left Greece in the autumn of 1950, at the end of February 1951 he arrived in Oxford directly from Athens. Only in 1954, by decision of the Supreme Court of Greece 1309/1954 - 1669/22-12-54, Vasily was deprived of Greek citizenship.

The end of the Athos period in the life of Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein) is one of the most mysterious. Vladyka arrives in England at the end of February 1951. In Oxford, he stays with Archimandrite Nicholas Gibbs, already known to him and to us. 5 years earlier, Father Nikolai transferred from the jurisdiction of the Karlovac Synod to the omophorion of Patriarch Alexy (Simansky). The fact that the Bishop, having arrived in Oxford, settled with him in the parish house at the Church of St. Nicholas - naturally. It would be wrong, for the sake of understanding his actions, not to touch upon the most delicate topic in the life of the ruler. The history of his removal from Mount Athos and his establishment in England.

The meager lines of obituary lives give a fairly measured picture of Vasily Krivoshein’s administrative ascent on Mount Athos, which did not interfere with spiritual growth. In 1929, he was the monastic secretary, whose duties included correspondence with the Athos kinot, the patriarchate, and government agencies; by 1937, he was a member of the monastic council and the second extraordinary representative of the Panteleimon monastery at general Athos meetings; since 1942, one of the 20 permanent antiprosops representatives of monasteries in Kinot - the monastic “parliament”, in 1944-1945. - Member of the Holy Epistasia, the administrative body of the Athos monasteries.

What is known about the future is that first from Deacon Mikhail Gorodetsky, that the Bishop left Athos in September 1947. At the end of February 1951, he arrived in Oxford directly from Athens (Memoirs 1998: 202). We can only partially fill this gap with the kind memories that Protopresbyter Boris Bobrinskoy shared with us. In the spring of 1950, after graduating from the Sergius Institute in Paris, he was in Athens, where he worked in the National Library with manuscripts of the works of St. Gregory Palamas. It was then that monk Vasily Krivoshein appeared in the city. Exhausted, hungry, in a leaky cassock, as if after a stay in some island monastery. Subsequently, Father Boris often met with him both in the library and in the Russian Church of St. Nicodemus, a Byzantine temple of the 6th-12th centuries, studied archaeologically by the rector of the Russian embassy church in Athens, Archimandrite Antonin (Kapustin, 1817-1894) and restored by the Russian government in 1851-1855.

Nothing is officially known about the reasons for both the removal from Athos and the return to Athens. The bishop himself briefly mentions this period of his life in his memoirs about Metropolitan Nicholas (Yarushevich), written in September 1969. Without specifying, he testifies to the “major troubles” that the “Greek civil and military authorities” caused him when they removed him from Mount Athos and eventually forced him to leave Greece (Memoirs 1998: 203). Apparently he didn't like to think about it.

Bishop’s close collaborator, Deacon Mikhail Gorodetsky, knew something, perhaps from the meager words of the bishop himself. In his obituary in 1985, he writes that the future bishop had to leave the Holy Mountain due to disagreement with the restrictive measures of the Greek authorities aimed against the influx of monks of non-Greek origin, including Russians, into the Athonite monasteries against the backdrop of a catastrophic reduction in the number of brethren. Monk Vasily, as the monastery secretary and his representative in Kinot, had to “struggle a lot” with such practices. This caused discontent among people hostile to Russian monasticism on Mount Athos. As a result, Vasily Krivoshein “was forced to leave Athos” (Church 2004: 444).

Bishop Nikita Krivoshein’s nephew sees the exodus from Athos as a common fate that captivated all the Krivosheins: “Soon after 1945, for speaking out in favor of recognizing the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Greek authorities imprisoned him in one of the island camps - thus, he was also affected by the family prison tradition.” (Krivoshein N.I. Afterword. About the author of this book and other descendants of A.V. Krivoshein // Krivoshein K.A. Alexander Vasilyevich Krivoshein. The fate of the Russian reformer. M. 1993. p. 261).

Priest Sergius Model, secretary of the Brussels diocese, believes that the exodus of Bishop Basil was due to the fact that the political events of the civil war in Greece forced a significant number of Russian monks to leave Athos (Model S. Un evêque russe en Belgique. Mgr Basile Krivichéine (1900-1985) // Patrimoine Russe. Revue Scientifique de la Fondation pour la Préservation du Patrimoine Russe dans l'Union Européenne, asbl. Bruxelles, Décembre, No. 2, 2005. p. 46).

Another version belongs to cousin Bishop Olga Kavelina. The version is in development and is not always consistent with known facts. In a letter to Igor Aleksandrovich Krivoshein dated October 13, 1985, she still knows almost nothing about the fate of the bishop and is clearly confused: “It turns out that until 47 he was on Athos, and then in 1951 he ended up in Constantinople. Where have you been these three years?” But then, with reference to a conversation with N.A. Krivosheina, she clarifies family history. For his adherence to the Russian Church, the bishop was first threatened, and then “grabbed and thrown into a dungeon with rats.” And then she complains that she forgot the name of the person who petitioned for his release (Church 2004: 419-420). Calling these three years a confession, she asks her brother to remember and clarify everything, since it is still not clear to her why the bishop left Athos.

But already in a note addressed to Deacon Mikhail Gorodetsky at the end of 1985 (now in the archives of the diocese in Brussels) new details appear. It is said that in 1925 he came to Mount Athos “unofficially,” which was the formal reason for his deportation. During the war, the bishop “through one person” sent letters to Russia about the state of affairs on Athos: “And after the end of the war, the question arose about the Russian ambassador to Greece visiting Athos. The Bishop said: we must greet him by ringing a bell. In his person we greet our Fatherland and our Russian Church. This was not accepted. When the ambassador arrived on Athos, the bishop was no longer there.”

15 years later, at the end of 2000, Olga Alexandrovna writes a letter to L.A. Uspenskaya in France, and again - new details. Again in connection with the visit of the Soviet ambassador to Mount Athos. The Bishop said: “I think that he should be greeted with the ringing of bells; in his person we greet the country that saved the world from fascism.” This was followed by the threat: “the sea is deep, the cliffs are steep.” He realized that his life was in danger and left Athos secretly. He had three addresses in Thessaloniki. He managed to go to the first address and warned that his life was being threatened. He did not reach the second addressee, was arrested and thrown into prison. They further said that one of the reigning rulers petitioned for his release.”

It is curious that in this letter the theme appears again that the bishop, after Mount Athos, somehow incredibly ended up not in Athens, but in Istanbul, from where he ended up at Oxford. There is also no mention of any intermediaries who facilitated his move to Albion: “Regarding Oxford, I asked the Bishop how he got there. Answered: when I was in Istanbul, I read in the newspaper that Oxford needed a person knowledgeable of languages and the history of Byzantium: I wrote there, and they answered that I was suitable for them.”

However, N. Stavitskaya, who published a conversation with Olga Kavelina in Orthodox Moscow in August 2000 for the 100th anniversary of Archbishop Vasily, does not report anything about this version. The reasons for the bishop’s departure from Athos are spoken of in the spirit of the official version: he fought against the restrictions of the Greek authorities on the arrival of Russian monks, the Greek colonels forced him to leave the holy mountain. In truth, everything is mixed up here: the coup of the “black colonels” of 1967, and the post-war problems of the Holy Mountain.

This publication served as the basis for us to become aware of another version, characteristic, obviously, of part of the Russian community in Paris, which is under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. Lidia Aleksandrovna Uspenskaya reported about it in her letter to Olga Kavelina dated November 25, 2000. The letter was a reaction to the “injustice” of the publication in Orthodox Moscow. However, let’s give the floor to the author herself:

“I received his [Archbishop Vasily - AM] biography published in Orthodox Moscow and was indignant at the absence of a very important episode in it: it simply says that the colonels expelled him from Athos. The matter was much more complicated, and he did not like talking about it at all. After the victory, a mass of pilgrims and tourists poured into Mount Athos. Among them there were a lot of Russian military men. Father Vasily, who was entrusted with receiving guests and explaining everything to them, naturally treated these Russians with special attention: he talked with them for a long time, some returned again to see him... Fr. looked at all this with hatred. Kasyan (Bezobrazov), the same as Fr. Vasily monk. He hated everything Soviet and Russian to the point of hysterics, and he hated Fr. Vasily. I decided to write a denunciation against him. But due to the fact that there was no crime in relations with the Russian military, he came up with something else: “communication with the enemy during the war.” This really happened: oh. The monastery sent Vasily to Bulgaria for alms, since he was really starving. Of course, everyone on Athos knew perfectly well that Fr. Vasily went not on his own initiative, but out of obedience. But the denunciation was sent to the civil authorities in Thessaloniki, and there they looked at it seriously: Fr. Vasily was arrested, tried and sentenced to a concentration camp on an island whose name I have forgotten. There were several small Gulag islands, and a Greek priest we knew said that no one could survive there for more than two years because of hunger. Then two Athonite monks, Sophrony and Silouan, came to Paris, fearing the same fate, and divulged here what they had done to Fr. Vasily….. Having learned from the monks about the position of Fr. Vasily, everyone became worried, turned to Oxford University for help and convinced him to contact the government with a request to request Fr. Vasily, whose erudition is necessary for some kind of encyclopedia. The English government agreed, and the Greek, naturally, under the conditions of that time, could not refuse him. In this way Fr. Vasily traveled through Paris (that’s when we met) to Oxford…. So many years passed, and already Vladyka Vasily was appointed head of the delegation of the Russian Church to the congress in Thessaloniki. He later told us how strange he felt in this city, where he was tried and where the police now saluted him (that’s how they are supposed to do it). But at the congress, where Vladyka Kasyan was also expected, many, remembering the denunciation, his the real reason and the consequences, they were worried: how the two Lords would meet. In the common dining room of the congressists, where everyone met, Vladyka Vasily found a place from where the entrance was visible and arrived a little early. Seeing Vl. entering. Kasyan, he quickly approached and hugged him, rejoicing with him according to Athonite custom. This was the great triumph of Vladyka Vasily. We learned about all this in pieces, usually not from Vladyka Vasily.”

The letter turned into a short correspondence. The following message was written by L.A. Uspenskaya on February 2, 2001. It was stated here that the only source of information about the Soviet officers and the denunciation of Father Cassian were the monks Silouan and Sophrony who came to Paris. The final meeting with Bishop Cassian was recounted by Vasily himself, even with some cunning: “they say, this is how I cheated him.” These meager scraps of stories and guesses, or, on the contrary, memories that are too emotional but blurred by the erosion of time, do not allow us to create a complete and objective picture of what happened. However, it is not permissible for a historian to dismiss them as idle rumors. Each of these stories is based on group and political preferences and antipathies of the parachurch environment, which influenced the imaginary cause-and-effect relationships and involved in its course people from unfriendly camps. Rather, these texts are sources on the history of the mentality of church people in the second half of the 20th century. At the same time, all versions have a set of constant elements: island exile, Greek “flattery”, Russian (Soviet -!) question on Mount Athos in post-war Greece, help dignitaries in liberation. In order to integrate everything that happened into the correct outline of events, you need to listen to the ruler himself, reading between the lines of his memories.

At the end of the first year of his stay in England, an important episode occurred in the life of the bishop, which can help us unravel his “Athos mystery.” It evoked in the bishop’s soul a whole chain of very vivid and detailed memories, the sharpness of which has not been dulled even in the 15 years that have passed since then until the time of writing the memoirs. In the late autumn (October-November) 1951, he unexpectedly met in London with an employee of the Soviet embassy. The meeting was arranged for him by the suspiciously simple-minded hierodeacon Hieronymus Kikkotis, recommended for communication by his Athenian friends, and a completely unfamiliar “red” pastor Stanley Evans.

Expecting to meet only two people in the cafe, Hieromonk Vasily was unpleasantly surprised that there would be a third person there, “Evans’ friend” and “pastor,” who turned out to be not a pastor at all. However, let’s give the floor to eyewitnesses: “At this time, Evans’ companion came up and said to me in Russian, “Hello! I’m very glad to meet you!” “Do you speak Russian?” I was surprised. “Of course. And even Russian himself. And I even serve in the Soviet embassy.” The first reaction of the amazed monk was the desire to leave and “express his displeasure to Kikostis for the fact that he ... did not warn who ... he would have to meet”: “I expected that with Anglican pastors, but here is an embassy employee, I am a minister of the church, and I don’t want to deal with any embassy, ​​especially the Soviet one.” Let's remember the last one.

Not wanting to cause a scandal, the bishop stayed. And a conversation took place between the Russian and the Soviet. A conversation that evokes a completely unambiguous understanding among Soviet people. The embassy employee introduced himself as a secretary; it’s a pity that the bishop did not remember his last name. But I remembered that he was a self-confident, arrogant type, uncultured and ignorant, although not stupid. During the common breakfast they spoke Russian, with the English not understanding anything. Having asked about the reaction in the West to yet another statement by the “Soviet” patriarchs in favor of peace (no one heard it!), the interlocutor moved on to the main thing: “I have an order for you from Metropolitan Nicholas.” After such words, the bishop definitely had to find out what was the matter, since he was already in correspondence with Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich).

“Metropolitan Nicholas is very interested in the situation of Russian monks on Mount Athos and asks you to write to him in detail about this. You can do this through me."
- “I already wrote about all this by mail.”
“Yes, but you can’t write everything by mail. Maybe you can write something additional. And we would forward it to Metropolitan Nicholas.”
“I have nothing to write now, and if I did in the future, I would prefer to write by mail. There is nothing secret in my information" (Memoirs 1998: 208-209)

The secretary insisted and even suggested how it would be possible to contact him in the future: “It may not be now, but tomorrow it will be. You can’t write everything in a letter, but Metropolitan Nikolai is waiting for messages from you. And you have nothing to worry about. This is how we agree. In a month, when you have new information, you will tell your friend Kikotis about this, because you trust him, and he will tell Evans, he will tell me, and we will meet again all four of us, here or in another place.” The bishop’s categorical refusal left the “diplomat” no choice but to leave the last word for himself: “No, you think about it again and let me know through your friend. I'll be waiting". A new invitation to a meeting followed on February 6, 1952 in a letter from Evans, to which the Bishop did not respond. But he told Archimandrite Nicholas (Gibbs) about everything, who approved both the behavior at the meeting and the refusal of further contacts, and promised not to disclose what he heard. However, from a mutual friend, S.N. Bolshakov, it became known that not only did the English police find out about this meeting, but Gibbs himself mentioned it in a private conversation.

In his memoirs, Bishop Vasily writes that he was “amazed at what connections Metropolitan Nikolai had in the Soviet government apparatus and how willingly the authorities of the Soviet embassy fulfill his requests” (Memoirs 1998: 210). Modern commentators are surprised at the “naivety” of the ruler. In their opinion, he should have instead immediately realized that Metropolitan Nikolai is an agent, and any appeal to him is an appeal to the Lubyanka. However, was this naivety? Wasn’t the Bishop a sensible person? Anyone who grew up in the USSR, who read Solzhenitsyn, Dombrovsky, Shalamov, even just a sensitive person, would have no doubt about what he had to attend. Not to participate, but to be present.

“New information” that will be “tomorrow”? About Mount Athos, in England? Public display of a secretary's wallet stuffed with pounds, paying a restaurant bill? The persistence of the “diplomat”, the proposal of a specific scheme for essentially agent communication? And the rhetorical question: “How could the English police know about this?” How how. The agent was being followed: “maybe the secretary was being followed...”. This is confirmed by professional intelligence officer Alexander Feklisov, who just a few months before the Bishop’s arrival in Oxford left the Soviet residency in Great Britain and “went to work” in the USA: “The English counter-espionage service constantly monitored Soviet institutions and their employees” (Feklisov A .Over the ocean and on the island. M., 1994. P.135).

What happened was a banal intelligence operation, the most vulgar and primitive recruitment. The main thing in it was to convince a person to make contact, to draw him into a relationship, offering to write a neutral, and perhaps very important piece of paper for him, which would become the guarantee of new meetings and a bloody signature on the devil’s agreement. It was important to create the appearance that it was easy to get out of this apparently non-committal game by refusing the next meeting. But at the next meeting an offer was made that was “impossible to refuse.” It turned out that the person had been cooperating fruitfully with the authorities for a long time and was their agent, although all this time he himself had been convincing himself of the opposite. A person could have the illusion that it was he who was using the “organs” in a game he had invented, but in reality they used him and used him. There was no turning back now.

Firmly and with dignity, without challenge and with simplicity, with amazing insight and tact, the bishop refused the game that the authorities imposed on everyone in the slightest degree thinking person. That’s really it, DON’T BELIEVE, DON’T FEAR, DON’T ASK. As if he had already read the samizdat brochure “How to behave during interrogation by the KGB,” popular among the Soviet intelligentsia in the 1970s and 80s. It was compiled by Vladimir Albrecht based on the recommendations that were developed by Alexander Yesenin-Volpin in the late 1960s. However, there was an opinion that the text was written by Andrei Amalrik (1938-1980). In 1960, the Bishop, while in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, also steadfastly avoided the invitation of P.V. Makartsev, then deputy chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs, to visit this office for a private conversation. He agreed only after the advice of Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich), noting with sadness: “we look at things differently.” Fortunately, the visit scheduled for July 22 never took place (Memoirs 1998: 234).

So, everything indicates that the ruler could not help but understand what he was being led to. The fact that he refused to admit this on the pages of his memoirs is not evidence of naivety, although what is bad in childish simplicity... Here there is a rejection of proud conceit about one’s own wisdom, a departure from endowing oneself in the eyes of the reader with an all-understanding and all-pervasive insight, with which he rejected the proposed recruitment. This is not self-censorship, this is humility.

In the memories of the ruler there is one characteristic. Explaining his intention to write, he says: “I want to speak out... to tell how God repeatedly saved me from seemingly inevitable death” (Memoirs 1998: 33). The undemanding reader already anticipates that on every page he will be directly invited to see the “finger of God” in one or another manifestation of human self-will. But he will be disappointed. Outwardly, God seems not to be present on the pages of the book. The words “God, by the providence of God, by the grace of God, glory to God” are not in the vocabulary of the author of the memoirs. But this does not mean that the ruler abandoned the original task: God stands invisibly behind every event, action and thought, He is inextricably poured into the history of human destiny and is present everywhere. By giving freedom of action to man, He does not substitute His will for human responsibility. And a Christian who understands this will not allow himself, out of false modesty, to abandon this responsibility, blaming the burden of history on “the providence of God.”

We will allow ourselves a long quotation from the work of Archpriest Georgy Florovsky about the tasks of the Christian historian: “The Christian historian fulfills his professional task of interpreting human life in the light of the Christian view of this life, hideously distorted by sin, but redeemed by Divine mercy... The Christian historian will try to reveal the true meaning of historical events in the light of Christian knowledge about man, but, trying to see the “providential” behind certain events of real history, he will be extremely careful and sensitive. Even in the history of the Church, the “hand of Providence” is hidden, although it would be madness to claim that this Hand does not exist at all or that God is not the Lord of history. The purpose of studying history is not so much to discover the actions of God in it, but to understand human actions, in all the diversity and confusion in which they appear to us.” (Florovsky G., archpriest. The position of the Christian historian // Dogma and History. M., 1998: 78-79).

This is exactly what the ruler does. As a true historian, he allows God to act freely in man, without self-confidently intruding into the sphere of the “providential”, inaccessible to human understanding. Christian humility inherent in a ruler is the humility of responsibility for one’s own actions. You can say “I saved myself” - it will not be true. You can say “God saved” - there will be pride. Or you can simply tell how it happened that the person was saved. This will be true.

He who has eyes - let him read between the lines: the incident that happened, like a real visit from God, aroused many thoughts and feelings in Hieromonk Vasily, confronted him with the need for a volitional choice: “Contrary to my desire, I am being drawn onto a path along which I do not want to go, they are distracting me. from my church and theological work." He was shocked by the unceremoniousness with which the Metropolitan involved him in communication with the embassy employee. And the choice was made by his Christian conscience, the visible presence of God in man, which does not violate human freedom and responsibility.

However, Archimandrite Nicholas’s communication with the British “authorities”, to whom he apparently told about the London meeting of his “tenant”, was perceived by him as normal - after all, Great Britain is a rule-of-law state and the “authorities” here are decent, not extraordinary. The refusal determined his fate in the eyes of the “emergency authorities.” They no longer “approached” him. It was this moment of firmness that became the second, since 1919, axial time in relations with the “Red Motherland.” Many agreed precisely then, at the moment of entering the Moscow Patriarchate, when serving the Church was replaced in them by the idea of ​​serving the Motherland, or even simply by selfish interest.

Probably one of the most striking examples is the “sworn opponent” of the bishop, according to him own definition, Metropolitan Irenaeus of Vienna (Zusemil, 1919-1999). Vladyka writes his last name Suzemil. Archbishop Vasily colorfully describes their harsh dive at the 1971 cathedral regarding the politicized conciliar appeal “To Christians of the whole world and people of good will.” A tendentious and one-sided document, completely unacceptable, in the opinion of the Bishop of Brussels and Belgium for a church council, evoked the “full support” of Irenaeus, then Bishop of Baden and Bavaria, who “shared and approved” the position of the Soviet government. (Memoirs 1998: 449-451).

This approval came at a cost. Archpriest Igor Zuzemil transferred from the ROCOR to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1957, and on October 1, 1958, he was appointed rector of the Moscow Patriarchate parish in The Hague, the future “canonical territory” of Bishop Vasily himself. In 1966 he became Bishop of West Germany. And in 2000-2001, in Florida, retired US Army Colonel George Trofimoff, who until 1994 headed the American desk of the Joint Center for Surveys of Defectors and IDPs in Nuremberg, was arrested and convicted of spying for the USSR and Russia. Soviet Union And of Eastern Europe. It was then that it became clear and widely known that this school friend of Metropolitan Irenaeus was recruited by him in 1969. How can one not be a “sworn opponent” to a person who humbly but firmly rejected such recruitment.

In this case, all these reflections are just a touch to the image of the ruler, a description of the atmosphere that enveloped him in “insidious Albion.” In his relationship with Athos, we are interested in something else: what memories and internal tensions this recruitment attempt in a London cafe caused late autumn 1951. Talking about his unpleasant impression from this unexpected for him, but completely prepared by the other side and the meeting it expected, Vladyka writes: “I know from experience (in Greece I had to visit the Soviet embassy on Mount Athos affairs of a purely ecclesiastical nature) how it is It is dangerous not only on a personal level, but also on a church level, because it gives the enemies of our Church (or the Russian monastery on Mount Athos) a reason to attack us under the pretext of fighting communism and harm us. Therefore, I decided in the future never to deal with Soviet embassies, unless absolutely necessary (obtaining a visa, etc.) What an unpleasant situation I AGAIN (emphasis added by us - A.M.) got into against my will, I thought. (Memoirs 1998: 207). And a little further: “WRITING THROUGH THE EMBASSY IS ILLEGAL, and can cause me trouble from the British. I HAVE EXPERIENCE IN THIS IN GREECE. I don’t want to repeat it” (Memoirs 1998: 209).

So, the logic of historical research allows us to compare the bishop’s story with the known facts of his biography. And then place the intertwined chain of events in the complex political context of the Epoch. We learn that Vladyka DID have relations with the Soviet embassy in Athens and DID send correspondence through the embassy. And these relations REALLY were connected with the issue of the revival of Russian monasteries on Athos. And they DID create serious life problems for him. It remains to take a closer look at what kind of era it was and how it could influence the fate of the Athonite monk.

They talked about the same thing during the Bishop’s first visit to Russia in August 1956. All policies should be based on a request to the Greek government to allow at least 10 monks to Mount Athos. In this case, it was necessary to act within the framework of the laws, directly through the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It would be a mistake to raise the issue of revising the Athos position or to challenge the jurisdiction of Constantinople - this would arm the Greeks and give the Greek government a pretext to deny the right of arrival (Memoirs 1998: 215-216). With pain, the Bishop recalls the stubborn position of the “synodals”, with which Metropolitan Pitirim (Sviridov) introduced him in London in July 1955: “The Athos issue was discussed in the Synod and it was decided to demand the subordination of the Russian Athos monasteries to our jurisdiction.” Remarks about the impossibility of this were followed by the categorical: “We decided so.” There was no point in arguing further.

Despite the strategic goal set, outwardly the actions of Patriarch Alexy (Simansky) fit into the canonical tradition of the Church and international law. Even at the Moscow meeting of heads and representatives of local churches in 1948, an official statement drew the attention of church leaders to the difficult situation of monks of non-Greek nationality, which was supposed to be corrected through negotiations with the Greek government. Later, the Patriarch of Moscow repeatedly wrote to both the Greek government and his brother in Constantinople. However, a certain evolution can be traced in the tone and content of these letters, which we are inclined to explain by the influence of the opinion of Vasily (Krivoshein) himself, expressed during his meeting with Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich) in 1956. So, if on March 7, 1953, Patriarch Alexy unconditionally demanded from Patriarch Athenagoras to ensure “normal” connections between the Russian Church and the Russian monastery on Mount Athos, then in letters dated March 12, 1957 to the Greek Foreign Ministry and March 5, 1958 to Phanar, there was talk of admitting 10 monks to the Patelemonov Monastery. Both the number and the tonality were borrowed from the proposal of Vasily Krivoshein. The change in position determined the fairly quick response of Patriarch Athenagoras on November 20, 1958 on the procedure for admitting new monks to the monasteries of the Holy Mountain. It is important to note that as soon as such an opportunity arose, the Bishop from Brussels entered into constant correspondence with the Athonite brethren and Abbot Ilian, which lasted more than 10 years, from February 28, 1961 until 1972. Moreover, he was not just in such correspondence , but also forwarded copies of Athonite letters to Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) in order to inform him about the state of affairs in the monastery. In 1971, it was thanks to his Athonite correspondence that information about the valuables of the Pskov-Pechersky Monastery exported during the Second World War came to Russia.

So, Bishop Vasily always found himself at the center of the Russian problem of Athos. The Soviet embassy, ​​the diplomatic mission with its high functions, as they were imagined by the Russian intellectual, was supposed to become a connecting thread with Russia (undoubtedly, already different from what it was before the victory over Nazism -!), from which help and support were expected. It was on the wave of general euphoria of 1945 that such a conversion could take place: a significant part of Russia in exile, not excluding church emigration, flocked to the embassies.

However, both the timing for these contacts and the partner for negotiations were, to put it mildly, not perfect. The interlocutor of the Athonite monk in Athens inevitably had to become a holder of the Orders of Nakhimov and the Red Star, twice a holder of the Order of the Red Banner of Battle, a holder of the Order of Lenin, the acting head of the Intelligence Directorate of the Main Naval Staff, Rear Admiral Konstantin Rodionov (1901-1981), who was in 1945 -1947 in Greece under the guise of “ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary.”

It is difficult to imagine greater human contrast. When Vladyka was breaking through to the whites in the Volunteer Army, someone almost the same age as him volunteered for the workers’ and peasants’ Red Fleet in the same 1919. And he went through the “combat path” from an ordinary sailor to the head of naval intelligence. From where in 1939 he came to the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs, soon becoming the naval attaché of the USSR mission to the Greek government. The Balkan Peninsula was already seen as the key to naval strategy in the Mediterranean. In 1945, K. Rodionov again returned “under the fig trees.”

Officially holding the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary until September 1947, he, according to some sources, continued to remain in Greece until March 1950. Only in 1950 was he appointed Soviet Ambassador to Sweden, also a maritime power. True, there are certain contradictions here. In the first half of 1948, his signature was placed under analytical notes of intelligence messages to the leaders of the USSR in Moscow (Essays on the history of Russian foreign intelligence. T.5. 1945-1965. M., 2003. P. 537, 575, 578, 582, 583) .

Indeed, Admiral Rodionov in 1947-1949. In parallel with his diplomatic duties, he officially held the positions of 1st Deputy Chairman of the newly created Information Committee at the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs, headed by P.V. Fedotov, as well as the head of the Disinformation Service. So that the reader is left in no doubt - the Information Committee was nothing more than a foreign intelligence service. Only in November 1951 this structure was returned to the Ministry of State Security and became the basis of the First Directorate of the KGB of the USSR. The main topic of the analytical notes of that time was the content of the negotiation process of the former allies on the creation of NATO, which K. Rodionov, who was in Greece, was supposed to monitor.

The actual diplomatic work at the embassy in 1945-1946 was apparently carried out by a graduate of the Moscow Pedagogical Institute and a member of the Foreign Ministry since 1937 (Iran, Turkey, European Department), adviser Anatoly Kulazhenkov (1911-1982). Contacts with such “diplomats”, undoubtedly monitored not only by the “Greek government”, but also by the British, and by that time the American intelligence services that had already established themselves in the Balkans, could bring anyone under suspicion and send them into exile.

In addition, the time of the removal of monk Basil from Athos and his appearance in Athens coincides with amazing accuracy with key and dramatic moments in the history of post-war Greece. The country was occupied by the Wehrmacht and parts of the Italian army by June 2, 1940. The government was based in London. In 1941, the Greek National Liberation Front - EAM and the Greek People's Liberation Army - ELAS were created. In 1944, the Lebanese Agreement was signed on the interaction of these forces with the Government in exile. However, the landing of the British on the Balkan Peninsula in October 1944 and the return of the government led to military clashes with ELAS, which disarmed only after the agreement signed in Varkiza in February 1945. The agreement provided for the democratic post-war development of Greece by all political forces.

But EAM, where the main provocateur was the Communist Party of Greece led by the “furious Nikos” Zacharidis (“furious, manikotatos, zealot” Simeon the New Theologian called himself, and Vasily Krivoshein would also call one of the articles dedicated to him), with the support of the USSR and its allies in the Balkans headed for a communist takeover in the country. They boycotted the parliamentary elections on March 31 and the referendum on September 1, 1946, which returned autocracy to the country. Both were declared falsifications of the “monarcho-fascists”. Based on ELAS units and self-defense units, in the spring and summer a network partisan movement was created, which on October 26, 1946 was reformed into the Democratic Army of Greece - DAG, led by General Markos Vafiadis. In December 1947, he will head the Provisional Democratic Government of Greece, but the communists in the civil war will play a decisive and, as always, infernal role. The situation was getting more complicated national issue, because the impact force DAG were Macedonians of Slavic origin, on whom Yugoslavia and Bulgaria relied. In the eyes of the Hellenes, this was a war against the “Slavic communists” seeking to dismember the Motherland.

Active military operations began at the end of 1946, although in the spring MAI self-defense units were created to protect against partisans. Since April 1947, government forces have carried out a series of successful operations against the DAG - Terminus, Aethos, Corax and Ierax. The plenum of the Communist Party held in September 1947 demanded a decisive victory from the army. This aggravated the situation in the country, which was gripped by internal terror. Internment camps were created for communist sympathizers and simply unwanted liberals, in particular on the islands of Ikaria, Chios, Bra, Makronisos and Gavdos. In 1948-1949 Government troops carried out Operation Peristera, pushing the rebels to the north of the country. The last battles took place on August 24-30, 1949 in the Gramos area, after which the defeated DAG units and refugees were withdrawn to Albanian territory. October 16, 1949 marked the official end of the Greek Civil War.

The role of the Soviet Union in these tragic events is assessed by researchers ambiguously. Diplomatic relations between the USSR and the Greek government in exile were restored in July 1941 at the mission level, which was transformed into an embassy in April 1943. In the context of the restoration of the political structures of post-war Greece, the embassy not only monitored the situation, but also tried to influence it. Thus, Admiral Rodionov publicly spoke out in the press against the conclusions of the Union Supervisory Commission and called the results of the parliamentary elections falsified (G. D. Kyriakidis, Civil War in Greece. 1946-1949. M., 1972: 160-161).

However, it is believed that Stalin did not support the Greek rebels, not wanting to spoil relations with Great Britain, whose zone of interests, according to the Yalta-Potsdam system, included Greece. The USSR did not recognize the Provisional Democratic Government of Greece created in October 1947. There is information that from that time Stalin demanded that his Balkan comrades stop supporting demarcation (Systemic history of international relations in four volumes. 1918-2003. Vol. III. Events of 1945-2003. Edited by A. D. Bogaturov. M, 2003: 45 -46, 81-82). At the same time, he could not help but demonstrate solidarity with the movement, which was clearly pro-Soviet in nature. Propaganda in the USSR actively supported the actions of the DAG and stigmatized the “imperialists”, published and republished relevant literature (The Truth about Greece. Blue Book. Published by the Provisional Democratic Government of Greece. M, 1949; Basis H., Biniaris A. Democratic Army of Greece. M, 1948 ). In any case, the USSR supplied weapons to Yugoslavia, which immediately ended up in service with the DAG. It is noteworthy that the decline of active military operations of the partisans since the summer of 1948 coincides in time with the actual breakdown of relations between Stalin and Tito and the cessation of material assistance to Yugoslavia from the USSR. The consequence of this was the virtual cessation of funding for the DAG by the Tito regime. In any case, when in the fall of 1949 its defeated units left for Albania, the refugees and party leaders led by Zacharidis were taken by sea to the USSR. Here, near Tashkent, to create a “free Greece,” 23 barracks settlements were hastily created (Novikov K. Greeks express satisfaction with the area where they are located // Kommersant-Vlast. No. 49 (653). December 12, 2005: 68-76).

Stalin was undoubtedly behind the tragedy of the Greek people of 1946-1949. In any case, the active participation of the Greek Communist Party in the unfolding civil war, the direct support of the partisans to the communist regimes, primarily Yugoslavia, and, albeit indirectly, the Stalinist USSR behind it - all this not only contributed to healthy anti-communism, but also created the basis for a suspicious attitude to Russians in general. Greek researchers, in particular, Professor K. Kavarnos, generally believed that the restrictive measures of the Greek authorities regarding the arrival of monasticism from Soviet Russia in the 20th century. were associated with fears of the penetration of communist influence here. The peak of accusations against Soviet interference in Greek politics reached its peak in the spring of 1947. On April 6th, almost all embassy personnel were recalled to the USSR (Kirikidis 1972: 232-233). Officially new ambassador was assigned to Athens only in 1953.

This entire long story is directly related to the fate of the ruler. Not only because, being a sensitive person, he could not help but listen to what was happening around him, as was the case during the civil war in Spain. It was this complex interweaving of events, personal and geopolitical interests that created the background against which his fate took shape and the only one against which it can be understood.

So, the problems of the Russian monastery on Athos, associated with the lack of support from Russia and the catastrophic decrease in the number of inhabitants, worry the entire Panteleimon brethren, including Abbot-Archimandrite Justin and member of the monastery Council Vasily. The news of the election of the patriarch in Russia and the colossal role of the USSR in the victory in World War II significantly changed the attitude towards the Stalinist regime that existed in the emigration. They not only expect him to help for Athos, but also count on more active intervention of the Russian Orthodox Church in the affairs of the Holy Mountain. After the establishment of diplomatic relations between Greece and the USSR and the appearance of the Soviet embassy in Athens, the possibility of direct contacts with the Motherland appears. Obviously, Vasily Krivoshein visited the embassy on these “church matters”.

Later, the bishop was worried not just about the fact of communication, but also about the implementation of correspondence through the embassy. Apparently, he wrote to the Patriarchate about the state of affairs on Mount Athos and tried to convey messages through Rodionov or his employees. There is documentary evidence of this, which makes our system of assumptions more probable. Thanks to the recent publication of DECR employee Igor Yakimchuk “The situation of Russian monasticism on Holy Mount Athos in the twentieth century” (http://agion-oros.orthodoxy.ru/doc/20.htm), unfortunately, devoid of a reference system and reference apparatus, it became A letter from the Athonite abbot Justin to Patriarch Alexy is known. The letter is dated 1945. The exact date is not indicated, but from the text of the letter it follows that it was written after the election of Alexy as patriarch and, most likely, after the victory over Germany. The most likely date is summer-autumn 1945. In addition to the “confession” of the general faith of the emigration in the degeneration of Stalinist Russia (“It is gratifying to think that the holy Orthodox faith ... is shining again in Holy Rus', that in these difficult years war with the original external enemy-conqueror, the Holy Orthodox Church... inspired and instructed.... the believing Russian people in the holy cause of defending the Motherland. With even greater joy we hear from everywhere that the Orthodox faith and the Church in Russia now have complete freedom and that the rulers of the Russian state treat the Church of Christ with due respect and goodwill"), this contains a clearly unrealistic and non-canonical call to the Moscow Patriarch: take the monastery "under his fatherly spiritual protection."

Obviously, this letter was transferred to the USSR Embassy in Athens by Krivoshein himself. Contacts of this kind, in which the illusions of Athos monasticism in relation to Soviet Russia and the hope for closer contacts with ecclesiastical Moscow were clearly outlined, could have become the reason for the removal of the bishop from Athos at the end of the 1940s. It was at this time that the civil war and internal terror in the country intensified, and anti-communist and, as an inevitable consequence, anti-Russian relations grew. Return of Vasily Krivoshein to Athens in the spring of 1950. Naturally, it came at a time immediately after the end of the war. However, his participation in the Svyatogorsk Epistasy official biography limited to 1945, i.e., the time of the appearance of Abbot Justin’s letter and Vasily’s supposed visit to the Soviet embassy in Athens. Obviously, the problems began long before the fall of 1947—the date of Bishop Vasily’s removal from Mount Athos, according to official biographical data. These problems are further evidenced by the facts of the departure of a number of Russian monastics from the Holy Mountain in 1946 - early 1947.

This is also evidenced by new documents from the Vladyka’s personal archive, discovered in 2006 among the documents of the Belgian Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church in Brussels. Among them is the passport of the Athonite monk No. 6114849, issued in the name of the monk Vsevolod-Vasily Krivoshein on November 3, 1945. Another date recorded with the stamp of the military authorities in Athens is “Canceled” - June 24, 1950. Obviously, these are two extreme boundaries fixing the measure confession of monk Basil, his departure from Athonite Epistasia and exodus from Athens.

It is possible that Vasily Krivoshein and Soviet diplomats initially met on the Holy Mountain. There is information about a visit by diplomatic mission workers, Rodionov himself or his assistants, to the Panteleimon Monastery on Athos, as evidenced by the book of honorary visitors in 1946 (Talalai M. On the situation of Russian monasticism on Athos after 1912 // Pages. 3:3. M., 1998. P.422). Is this where the information about the “bell ringing” comes from, as well as the appearance of “Russian military” in the monastery? However, it is believed that the Holy Mountain residents coldly greeted their compatriots, even those who did not cross themselves at the entrance to the temple. Naturally, behind their appearance there was a certain intention, using the Moscow Patriarchate, to include Russian Athos into the orbit of Soviet politics. And we must admit that at first these intentions could correspond to the illusions of part of the brethren, as evidenced by the abbot’s letter.

However, the era of German occupation provided an example of other illusions. Part of the Slavic monasticism on Mount Athos could well view the Germans as fighters against Bolshevism. This entailed contacts, perhaps inevitable, between part of the Bulgarian and Russian monks and the German administration. In 1945, the court in Thessaloniki recognized this fact and struck some of the monks in their rights, accusing them of collaboration (Talalai M. On the situation of Russian monasticism on Athos after 1912 // Pages. 3:3. M., 1998. P. 420). The “German trace” in the history of Vasily Krivoshein cannot be completely discounted, just as the chronology of official news cannot be unconditionally trusted.

It is difficult to say anything about the role of Bishop Cassian (Bezobrazov) in this story. According to the information we have, Cassian returned from Mount Athos to Paris at the end of 1946 - beginning of 1947, while Vasily was removed from the monastery, according to official news, in September 1947, in fact much later. However, their relationship was indeed difficult, as the Bishop himself testifies to this in his letters to his brother Igor Aleksandrovich Krivoshein dated June 14, 1960 and March 23, 1975. There is nothing personal behind these confessions. The reason is Bishop Cassian’s real hostility towards the Moscow Patriarchate and his intrigues against it. The story of how Vladyka Vasily “outweighed” Kassian Bezobrazov is told very vividly and is certainly true. Most likely, this happened in 1959, when on November 11-15 the Greek Church organized pan-Orthodox celebrations in Thessalonica in memory of the 600th anniversary of the repose of St. Gregory Palamas. Then Bishop Vasily became a personal guest of Orthodox Thessaloniki as the author of a major work on St. Gregory. Bishop Cassian of Catana, dean of the Sergius Institute, was also present at these celebrations: on November 13, the University of Thessalonica awarded him the diploma of Doctor of Theology honoris causa. Vladyka Vasily then managed not only to “beat” his Athonite friend - on November 14 and 15 they shared the Eucharistic cup together. At the same time, the official delegation of the Moscow Patriarchate was for the first time allowed to make a pilgrimage to Athos. Where the ruler, naturally, did not end up.

It is also not entirely clear what kind of information Hieroschemamonk Sophrony Sakharov could have brought to Paris. Here he ended up in the spring of 1947, when he was not accepted into the Sergiev Institute. However, since the official reason for Sofroniy’s refusal to study was his “Soviet orientation,” one should be surprised at the persistence of such sentiments on Athos. The myth that “communists” settled in the Panteleimon Monastery, which creates many difficulties for the Athonites, was mentioned 15 years after the events described by Abbot Ilian in his letter to Archbishop Vasily dated May 3, 1962.

However, it is known that the ruler was released from his “island Gulag” by political circumstances that had not changed and not by “one of the reigning rulers”, forgotten by his Moscow relatives. Very specific people were involved in this - the exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Western Europe, Metropolitan Herman of Thyatira, the Parisian archpriest Evgraf Kovalevsky, who used the authority of his Orthodox Institute of St. Dionysus and the famous American Byzantinist, friend of Father Pavel Florensky and St. Patriarch Tikhon, Thomas Whitmore.

The following documents testify to this. Thus, in November 1959, the Orthodox Institute (Institut Français de Théologie Orthodoxe Saint-Denis), formally subordinate to the Academy of Paris, organized theological readings dedicated to the 600th anniversary of the death of St. Gregory Palamas. The Institute was headed by Archpriest Evgraf Kovalevsky, a kind of Father Georgy Kochetkov of the 1950s, whose paths diverged from the Moscow Patriarchate already in 1953. Knowing Bishop Vasily as a major specialist in this field, the secretary of the institute E. Carabin sent him an invitation on October 16 to take part in this seminar. On the thirtieth of October, the Bishop motivates his refusal in two ways: both by the fact that at that time he will be in Thessaloniki for church-wide celebrations, and by the fact that he does not know under the jurisdiction of which canonical bishop and which Orthodox Church this “Orthodox institution” is located and whether it belongs to to the Church in general.

The challenge was accepted. The response letter from the institute secretary dated December 18 uses almost prohibited techniques. He expresses surprise that the Bishop needs to re-recommend his old friend Eugraph Kovalevsky, who, when Vasily himself was in a difficult situation in Greece, tried to help him, including using the authority of the institute (votre ancien camarade l'Archiprêtre Eugraph Kovalevsky qui en se servant de notre Institut précisement, a essayé avec Mr. Whittemore de vous venir en aide lorsque vous vous trouviez en difficulté en Grèce). (Le groupement ecclésiastique de R. P. Eugraph Kovalevsky et l’Eglise Orthodox // Bulletin of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate. No. 33-34. 1960. P. 93-99). The public and international resonance, which L.A. Uspenskaya talked about, somewhat confusedly, could really play a saving role in the fate of the bishop.

Today it has become possible to clarify his fate, thanks to documents from the personal archive recently discovered in the Brussels diocese by priest Sergius Model. We have no confirmation that the Bishop was removed from the Holy Mountain in September 1947. Perhaps it should be September 1949. At least in early October he was already in a concentration camp for internment on the island of Makronisos in the Aegean Sea , in pursuance of decision No. 756/49 of the Commission of the first level of Public Security of the Thessalonian District. Among the papers is a draft of his letter, written in Greek and addressed to an anonymous professor, who, apparently, was Thomas Whitmore. The letter is dated November 1, 1949 and written in Makronisos. It says that he has been in the camp for about a month, mentions the proposal of English friends to continue his work on patrol in the British Isles, and constantly emphasizes the author's anti-communist views. The letter contains a request to the “professor” to help his release and move to England. It is the constant references to the anti-communist views of the future ruler that confirm our assumption about the connection of his imprisonment with the events of the civil war in Greece and suspicion of cooperation with the Soviet embassy.

At the same time, he writes an appeal to the Office of Public Order and Security for the District of Thessaloniki, the Greek “KGB” of that era. As a result, Resolution No. 135 of December 23, 1949, signed by the “troika” of responsible persons, was adopted: authoritarian regimes are sadly and comically similar to each other. The “authorities” carefully considered this request and did not find any grounds for return.

He continues to remain in his island exile until early May 1950, when he finds himself in the capital of Greece. We learn about this from the “certificate of release” issued by the Greek police on May 9 of this year. According to this certificate, Vasily lived in Athens (Psychiko, Elikonos St. 5), in the house of Metropolitan Eulogius of Koritsky (Kuriles), who was expelled from Albania; There are also police marks here confirming the fact that the bishop regularly appeared for checks at the “authorities”: May 10, May 11, May 13, May 26. It is difficult to say how long this lasted. Judging by the stamp on the passport, this document was canceled on June 24, 1950.

Unfortunately, the letter from Professor G. Lampe, dated July 25, 1950, offering Vasily Krivoshein a part-time position at Oxford in connection with work on a patristic dictionary, does not contain an address. It seems that it was received by the addressee back in Athens, before arriving in Paris, where, as is known from the words of L. Uspenskaya, Vasily Krivoshein spent some time before moving to Oxford in early 1951. However, already on July 17, 1950, the first “Athonite certificate" of Basil, signed by Archimandrite Justin and approved by the Greek authorities on August 25, which confirmed his monastic status and residence in the Orthodox parish in Oxford in England. Judging by the wear and tear of the document, he traveled with his owner for quite a long time: it seems that in August-September Krivoshein was still in Greece.

Athonite-Athenian history allows us to draw several conclusions regarding the fate of the ruler. The episode with the recruitment in London clearly shows that the bishop came out unsullied from his communication with Rodionov and his assistants in Athens: otherwise there would not have been a need to organize a meeting in “this” format. It is also worth adding here the significant remark of Metropolitan Pitirim (Nechaev), a more than knowledgeable man, that Bishop Vasily “came to Russia quite often, but for some reason he was always subjected to a thorough search at customs. Apparently, one day he ended up on some kind of black list and then could no longer get out of it” (Rus’ Leaving 2004: 301). The bishop himself never mentions this in his letters. Maybe because he knew how to put customs officers in their place. The same Metropolitan Pitirim tells a funny story. The boring officer tortured him at the airport with particular predilection:

- What are you bringing?
—Vestment.
- Why do you need it? Why can't you serve like that?
- No I can not.
- Why don’t you have one?
- It is one thing, these are just different details.
- Is it possible to live without them?
- It is forbidden.
Finally it was the turn of the bishop's staff.
- What's this?
— This is a rod, a symbol of bishop’s power.
- Why are there snakes on it?
- Oh, this is a very ancient symbol! You see: two snakes, one smart, the other stupid, are having a conversation. Just like you and me!
The customs officer swore and let him through" (Rus leaving 2004: 301-302).

Another important result of history is the Bishop’s commitment to observing the canons and recognizing the primacy of the honor of the Ecumenical Patriarch. This commitment, based on real churchliness, yet received an additional stimulus through personal experience. An attempt in 1945 to come under the “fatherly spiritual protection” of the Moscow Patriarchate, in which, apparently, Vasily Krivoshein also took part, ended sadly, and instilled additional respect for the canons. Subsequently, the bishop consistently adhered to the priority of Greek laws and Constantinople jurisdiction in the Athos issue and respected the primacy of the honor of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

He also consistently distances himself from the politicized activities of the Moscow Patriarchate and Soviet “PR.” Otherwise there would be such a “struggle for peace” that no stone would be left unturned. This was also understood on Athos: the letter from Abbot Ilian dated November 11, 1959 addressed to the chairman of the DECR MP already contains a request only for material assistance, and not for “spiritual patronage.” In his letter on December 31, 1971 to the hierodeacon of the Panteleimon Monastery, its steward and representative in Kinot David (Tsuber, + 1978), the bishop calls on the brethren to remember “that the Panteleimon Monastery on Athos has always been under the canonical jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and is now in it. The Russian Church fully recognizes the Constantinople jurisdiction over Athos... You should also know that according to the law you are not Soviet, but Greek citizens, albeit unique ones, due to the special position of Athos... You must carefully avoid any political or political-church speeches and actions, such as protests against war, condemnation of the hydrogen bomb, for disarmament, peace, etc. All kinds of such speeches are completely inappropriate on the part of monks who have renounced peace, can have an extremely detrimental effect on the monastery. And most importantly, they are essentially wrong, for it is not the business of the Church, much less monasticism, to get involved in worldly political affairs. I am writing about this because our Patriarchate often makes such political statements that it gives its enemies a reason... to attack it. I don’t blame her for this, because she is forced to do this inside Russia. As they say, “to live with wolves is to howl like a wolf.” But she does not force us “foreign” hierarchs, clergy and laity to do this, leaves us free and we do not participate in any “defense of the world”, etc. Obviously, the letter was dictated not only by the experience of a quarter of a century ago, but by the Bishop’s impressions of the politicized course of the 1971 council and the report of Metropolitan Alexy of Tallinn “On the peacekeeping activities of the Russian Orthodox Church” - one of the most painful memories of the council (On the 100th anniversary of the birth of Bishop Vasily (Krivoshein), Archbishop of Brussels and Belgium. Publication and introductory article by N. Krivoshein // Zvezda. No. 12. St. Petersburg, 2000. pp. 184-186).

His attitude towards the universal significance of the Patriarchate of Constantinople as a whole was also distinguished by a special canonical tact, which should not be contested and undermined, but strengthened by pan-Orthodox unity. These thoughts were formulated by him in connection with the Second International conference Orthodox Theological Society of America, held September 25-29, 1972 at St. Vladimir's Seminary near New York. In his opinion, “The Ecumenical Patriarch should be surrounded by a permanent synod of representatives of all autocephalous churches in order to become the center of pan-Orthodox coordination. As primus inter pares, he presides over the synod, which discusses issues of a pan-Orthodox nature and makes its decisions by a majority vote. These decisions are subsequently implemented by the autocephalous churches. This kind of pan-Orthodox synod will not do double work with the synod of the Church of Constantinople or limit the autonomy of the autocephalous churches, since its competence is completely different and is strictly limited to issues of a pan-Orthodox nature. A step towards the formation of such a center of coordination and discussion has already been the Pan-Orthodox Conferences of recent years, but they are convened irregularly and do not have the means to implement their decisions in practice. And the most pressing issues are not discussed at them. They have no power to discuss. The creation of this kind of center for pan-Orthodox coordination will help... the Orthodox Church fulfill its mission in the modern world and confront the difficulties of our days. At the same time, this can only enhance the pan-Orthodox significance of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.” This position is worth remembering right now, when Russian-Greek relations have become strained again, both in connection with Athos itself and the transfer of Bishop Vasily (Osborne) of Sergius to the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch. This was reflected in the correspondence between Moscow and Constantinople in 2002-2004, and in the discussion at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in October 2004, as well as in a number of official statements and actions in 2006.

But there is one more feature in the image of the ruler, a feature that has been overcome, which Nikita Krivoshein called “captivity by a common fate.” This is an unexpected (as unexpected - “aifnis”, according to St. Simeon the New Theologian, short minutes of visitation from Above) trust in Soviet Russia that arose and melted as a result of the victory over Hitler. Monk Vasily is not alone here. Not only he, but also Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky) believed in the cruel joke played on him at the Soviet embassy in Paris. But not only the metropolitan, but also the bishop’s brother, Igor Krivoshein! All the Krivosheins were scorched by the hot breath of the Motherland, albeit Soviet, but which loves, forgives and waits. The heat, which from a distance seemed like light and warmth, emanated from the embassies and attracted people to it. He gave Igor Aleksandrovich Krivoshein and his family Nina Alekseevna and Nikita citizenship, Ulyanovsk, Marfinskaya sharashka, Mordovian camps, Maloyaroslavets and return to the fourth third own life. First lap. In 1947, Igor Alexandrovich with his “sickle-fisted and hammer-fisted” “good France” was sent to the USSR by sea from Marseille. A little later his wife and son follow him. At the same time, Vasily Krivoshein was expelled from Athos. And somewhere in the latitudes of the Aegean Sea, both brothers, one, perhaps already exiled to the islands of the local “archipelago”, and the second, still on his way by steamship to the “Gulag archipelago”, will find themselves nearby for a moment. Closer than they had been for a quarter of a century.

The choice made by the Bishop in Oxford could not have been random, dictated by circumstances or the authority of Archimandrite Gibbs. It was a natural impulse, a real opportunity to realize that connection with Russia, albeit illusory and idealized, which could not be realized on Athos. Psychologically, this was a small victory, retribution for the unfair insults inflicted on both ourselves and Russia. It is no coincidence that he signs his first works as a monk of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery on Mount Athos.

But, in essence, this is drawing a clear line between anti-Christian communism and Christian Russia. Later, it seems, he sees a much deeper meaning in his stay under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. This is the meaning of the testimony, surprisingly embodied in the paradoxical characteristic that was once given to him - “red anti-Soviet.” Here two truths merged together - canonical and historical. The Moscow Patriarchate, considered “red” in Europe, was the only one that had impeccable canonicity in his eyes. Against the historical background of Russian church schisms and jurisdictional disputes between Local Churches due to the Orthodox dispersion, the canonical succession of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) and his successors seemed to be suffered through the blood of the new martyrs, which did not cancel the administrative untruth - the habit of governing the church without these new martyrs. This determined the transition of the future archpastor from under the mophoria of the Mother of God, covering Athos, to the omophorion of the Patriarchs of Moscow. And, consequently, a suspicious attitude towards him as an “agent of Moscow”. Professor at the University of Louvain Jean Groothers looked at this problem a little differently: the expulsion of the bishop from Mount Athos for his pro-Russian position gained him the sympathy of the “Soviet”, who allowed this “emigrant” to “return to Russia” as a bishop of the Russian Church.

Behind this canonical truth there was another truth. Russia, tormented by socialism, needed spiritual and moral support. And belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate becomes for Bishop Vasily Krivoshein (“ministerial” surname!) one of the possible means of expressing solidarity with his crucified Motherland. In turn, this affiliation morally allowed the Bishop another “luxury” - to tell the truth about the Church in Russia. Had he prayed in another jurisdiction, he would have naturally lost this right. But he was one of those who suffered along with the entire Church. Probably, this decision received support from the distant autumn of 1919, talking about which Vladyka wrote: “This is how I experienced my deliverance from red captivity then. I remember all this even now, but at the same time I remember with gratitude and love all the Russian people who helped me, sympathized with me, and were kind to me. A peasant woman who gave me milk and was sad about my fate. A sailor in torn trousers, who quietly let me break some bread. A horse guard who calmed me down and left me free. And, of course, my fellow prisoners “peasants”. They contain my love and memory of Russia.” He voluntarily returned to “red captivity” as a conqueror of death, preferring to be together with the “co-prisoners” Christians who remained in Russia. His belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate is an ACTION committed in imitation of Christ, who humbled Himself and took on the “form of a servant” (Phil. 2:7). Gleb Rahr will say about him: “As he fought his way and made his way to the Whites in the nineteenth year, so he began already as a church hierarch, once again make his way to the believing people of Russia in order to serve them to the best of his ability.”

Both then and today, cynical voices, justifying themselves and others like themselves, turned to the Lord with undisguised reproach: “It’s easy for you to teach us from abroad, to talk ‘from there’ about our problems.” This dishonest phrase was not only a figure of self-apology for yielding to threats and blackmail, but also the result of irritation at a person who did not want to submit to these temptations of “this age.” Moreover, he taught from within the Russian Church, being part of it, he taught even while in Russia, from the pulpit of the Local Council... And in the truth he proclaimed there was not a shadow of reproach to those in Russia. He himself will say this in the lines dedicated to Archbishop Veniamin (Novitsky): “It is not for us living in the West to condemn or even criticize him for this”... There is no need for illusions, he knew the compromises. He could remain silent if he was convinced or he realized himself that this silence was in the interests of the Church or its individual members. But he did not lie, realizing that a person cannot always tell the truth, but must always not tell a lie. Moreover, he did not believe that cowardly silence, hiding the truth, served the benefit of the Church.

You can often hear that no speeches in defense of truth in the Church can bring it relief from injustice; they only aggravate the situation of the suffering. Silence in this case is a manifestation of the humility necessary for a Christian. But the Lord’s humility lay in something else. Understanding very well that here “a calf is butting against an oak tree,” he humbly continued to talk about the disasters of faith and the Church. Humility lies precisely in this constancy.

His speech was both freedom and conscious necessity. He clearly understood his mission for both Russia and Europe. Already in his speech when he was named bishop, he clearly outlined the meaning of Russians being in Europe - this is a testimony about Russianness and about Orthodoxy. That's right, and not about Russian Orthodoxy. But in neither one nor the other there is arrogant arrogance of one’s belonging to Russian Orthodoxy, there is no “boothy patriotism”, the representatives of which try to cover up their hatred of their neighbors with cries of love for the Motherland. Being a stateless Russian almost until the end of his life, he never submitted to the idea of ​​“national privatization” of faith. Orthodoxy for him - Universal Church, which makes Russia what it is. At the same time, pain for those people who did not feel the canonical rightness of the Moscow Patriarchate sometimes prompted him to a certain harshness, especially in his letters. But, while I criticize the “Greek-Vladimirites” or the “schismatic Anastasyevites,” advocating their return to the Mother Church, he, I believe, was not guided by church politicking or jurisdictional ambitions. He sincerely believed that this would bring about the Truth of God...

Turning to another jurisdiction happens quickly. It is not known whether the letter of release of the Ecumenical Patriarch was given, but the blessing of the Athos abbot was clearly received. This allowed Krivoshein to identify himself in letters of the 1950s. in two ways - as a hieromonk of the monastery of St. Panteleimon on Mount Athos and the Oskford Metochion of St. Nicholas. In March-April, negotiations between Archimandrite Nicholas (Gibbs) and Metropolitan Nicholas (Yarushevich) took place regarding the ordination of Krivoshein to the priesthood. This is what was done: on May 21, in memory of the Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian, Bishop of the Serbian Patriarchate Irinej (Djordzhovich) ordained him a hierodeacon, and on May 22, on the patronal feast of the metochion, he was ordained a hieromonk. Church integration took place. His “throne holiday” - the day of the Apostle of Love - would later turn out to be a special sign of his concern for the St. Petersburg theological schools, whose church has the same dedication.

The book of Archbishop VASILY (Krivoshein) (1900-1985) “Theological Works”, “Christian Library”, Nizhny Novgorod, 2011, combines articles by an outstanding theologian and patrolologist of the 20th century, Archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Church in Belgium, published in rare and hard-to-access periodicals. The new publication brings these works closer to the modern reader and will contribute to the Christian education of society.

All published articles are combined into blocks in accordance with different periods of the bishop’s life (Athos, Oxford, Paris and Brussels). The uniqueness of this publication is due to the fact that it contains for the first time historical and biographical sketches of the life and fate of Bishop Vasily. Based on his personal memories, private and public correspondence and archival materials, the book was able to reconstruct the history of his life almost year by year, and sometimes even by day. For the first time, the essays publish unique materials from his personal archive, preserved by the Brussels diocese and the nephew of Bishop Nikita Igorevich Krivoshein.

Author-compiler books Alexander Evgenievich MUSIN (born 1964), deacon of the Russian Orthodox Church, leading researcher at the Institute of the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences, candidate of theology (1995), doctor of historical sciences (2003), graduated from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy (1995) St. Petersburg State University(1992). He is a specialist in the history of Ancient Rus' and Byzantium, the Orthodox Church and theology, church and Christian archeology, and the protection of cultural heritage. He is the author of 210 publications, including 10 monographs.

30.08.11
Dear father Alexey!
Following my letter regarding the accusations against Archbishop Anthony of Geneva, thoughts emerge one after another from a long time ago.
I once wrote about French Orthodox Church Evgraf Kovalevsky, whose patronage is often reproached by the Church Abroad, in particular St. John of Shanghai and Archbishop Anthony of Geneva, although he was not involved in this matter.
O. Evgraf Evgrafovich Kovalevsky, from the noble Kovalevsky family, a gifted and enterprising man, headed in the early 50s a kind of old Catholic community that was languishing under the leadership of the widow of its initiator Madame Wynaert (a group of the Dutch persuasion). With his “genius” he gave this business a new impetus. His brother Maxim, a talented musician and harmonizer of many church hymns, provided him with irreplaceable liturgical support. They created the Institute of St. Dionysius. Their selection of parishioners was extraordinary: they attracted everyone in search of “spirituality” . They were successfully recruited among those interested in spiritualism; they allowed illegal cohabitation, even for priests; they taught communion to the non-Orthodox; they served according to the Gallican “rite”, which they compiled according to some ancient fragments of services, they served according to the new style, according to Western Easter, etc. And this was called the Orthodox Church of France, which was rejected by all official Churches located on the territory of France.
The famous Freemason Count Marsodon wrote that through this church Freemasonry could join Orthodoxy.
When the number of clergy reached 20 priests, Evgraf needed to become a bishop (in 1966, his brother Maxim told me: I told my brother that he would achieve a bishopric from the MP, but he did not listen to me and went to the Synodal Church). So, this group converted to our Church and was accepted under the omophorion of Vl. John of Shanghai. Many cannot understand how the holy Lord agreed to this, but this can be understood by some of the consequences. Vladyka John demanded that they observe the Orthodox Paschal, but left them a new style; He also demanded that communicants at evening liturgies (after work) observe daytime fasting. One can assume that they were cunning behind his back; and since the Synod reminded them of church order, Bishop John-Nectarius of Saint-Denis Kovalevsky decided to move to the MP and had a meeting in Odessa on this matter (at the end of 1965 or at the beginning of 1966). When the “right” priests found out about this, they sent a report to the Synod; then Archbishop was appointed for the investigation. Vitaly of Montreal (future metropolitan). Bishop Kovalevsky did not take into account the decision of the Synod of the ROCOR, which banned him from the priesthood, and remained on his own; one quarter of the priests went with him; the second quarter went towards Moscow; 3rd quarter - near Constantinople (Rue Daru); the rest, approximately 7 people, remained within the Church Abroad. Serve, except the so-called They didn’t know how to do the Gallican Liturgy. Some of them soon left us: the theologian Gabriel Bornan, to whom Vl. Anthony ordered the matter of his cohabitation to be settled, priest. Gregory Hardy, brother of the future leader of this church, Herman, Portuguese priest. Jean Rochat, who a few years later was received by archbishop. Auxentius, baptized and ordained to all degrees, including the bishopric, with his appointment as exarch of Portugal with the new name “Bishop. Gabriel (Rocha)."
Finally, we stayed with: Archimandrite Hosea (the son of a Russian officer of the Spanish War and the Spanish Flu, a most honest man, truly Orthodox, humble, an extraordinary preacher, who served as our rector in Paris for 20 years (now he is supernumerary in Geneva); Archpriest Pavel Poirier , assigned to our church in Villemoisson, an engineer, a humble and honest man (his wife started spiritualist meetings before joining Orthodoxy, and the medium introduced them to Evgraf); Archpriest Michael de Castelbajac , noble man, a noble count family of the 11th century (his son Quintin, a professor of French and Greek, suspended his professional life, took a three-year course in Jordanville, married a Russian, accepted the priesthood and became abbot in Lyons (father and son followed Archbishop Laurus); Father Andrei Bredo, who soon died, and Archimandrite Amrosius Fontrieu , who laid the foundation for the French deanery in our diocese , who went to the Greeks after a twenty-year stay in the diocese of Vl. Antonia.
Father Ambrose, French on his father’s side and Greek on his mother’s side, taught theology at the Kovalevsky Institute, smart, well-read, charming. I was still amazed by his anti-Russian attitude: Russians don't do anything for us he told me one day, while our Parisian parish was begging. Vl. Anthony visited them once a year, as part of his tours throughout the widely spread diocese, and served with them in a well-equipped apartment church on the Boulevard Sebastopol in Paris, erected Fr. Ambrose as an archimandrite, ordained two priests from young associate professors of philosophy, Patricius Ranson, who died with his daughter Fitinia in the mid-90s, in a car accident in Greece, and Joseph Tereshchenko (Russian father, French mother), the future Bishop Photius in the group of Auxentius ( after the latter was deposed by his synod).
At first we had a very good relationship with Fr. Ambrose. But soon, under the influence of two young priest-philosophers, a certain “radicalization” occurred. Father Ambrose immediately began to protect his parishioners from communication with Russians and “switched” to everything Greek; he began to travel to Greece and organize pilgrimages; at first stubborn in the new style and only at the insistence of Vl. Antonia accepted old style, he became close to the Old Calendarists in Greece, became friends with Fr. Cyprian (the future Metropolitan of Philia), laid the first stone of his church with him. Later he quarreled with him, reproaching his long-time friend for the practice of imaginary healings through exorcisms for money.
The French deanery gradually became closer to the Greek monastery in Boston, where the archimandrite was abbot. Panteleimon (whom our Synod held morally accountable). They began to mutually vilify our Church. I then suspected the MP of this general agitation shortly before the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus'. Then they began to fire at us from all sides, each in their own way, and Pospelovsky and Struve intervened.
Shortly before the break in 1987, one priest asked Vl. Antonia: When, Lord, will you give up on them, are they throwing mud at us all? - The Lord replied: I won't do this, let them leave on their own. They left angrily, motivating their action by dissociating themselves from the “non-Orthodox” bishop, after they had received grace from him for 20 years, and without him changing in the slightest. The Bishop did not want to judge them - let them themselves fall under condemnation. They wandered for a long time in search of the omophorion. Finally they were received by "Archbishop" Auxentius, which theybeforegapWithwe were not recognized as a bishop, since his own Synod removed his rank from him, to which he did not submit and “revived” a new Synod with one bishop. But when Auxentius agreed to accept them, they began to consider him a worthy bishop and claimed that everything that was said about him was a lie.
I admit that they may doubt the reliability of my memories, since to such an extent reality sometimes does not look believable. However, the facts remain facts as they were then, and not as they want to be shown now, and an objective judgment can be made on them.
Pr.V.

After graduating from the School of Political Sciences, Michel de Castelbajac entered the service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This was in the early 50s. Soon his studies began at the Theological Institute of St. Dionysius, founded by Vladimir Lossky. Michel's teacher was Evgraf Kovalevsky.

He was an extraordinary man; there was always a crowd of followers around him. I, too, was one of them until 53-54, as I already said, he was my confessor until the time when Evgraf left the ROCOR. The break with him was as painful for me as the break with my parents' church - I still remember this with pain.

(In 1953, Archpriest Evgraf Kovalevsky, together with a significant part of the believing communities of the Western rite, left the omophorion of the Moscow Patriarchate, forming the “French Catholic Orthodox Church” (FCOC) (“Eglise catholique orthodoxe de France (ECOF)”). Until 1956 The city of Archpriest Evgraf was under the jurisdiction of the Russian Western European Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and then for several years the communities subordinate to Archpriest Evgraf remained independent, until in 1960 they were accepted under his omophorion by Archbishop of San Francisco John (Maximovich) )

At first, after Tikhon’s decree, everyone in the ROCOR was together, but later there were several breaks and splits; there were a lot of temptations and pressures on the ROCOR.

After Michel Castelbajac began studying at the Institute of Saint Dionysius, he left a promising career at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, since this job did not allow him to attend theological classes, and got a job as a watchman

He guarded at night and studied during the day. There was little money, one day my eldest daughter fell ill, and after a doctor’s visit we discovered that we had nothing to buy medicine for the child. I couldn’t continue like this anymore, especially since my wife was expecting a second child. I began to think about where to go to work and how to feed my family.

This question is very acute for many priests in Russia today. Finding a compromise between the needs of the family and spiritual service is very difficult.

When I see priests who only serve, I envy them. Because I had to combine work and ministry. I have four children. When they grew up, got an education and got on their feet, I retired and began serving the church. This happened at the age of 60. And before that, I was both the president of a crystal plant near Paris, and the secretary of the Prefect of all Prefects of France. I must say that I became very interested in crystal back then; I found the craftsmen and ancient recipes with which we made pink, gray, and yellow crystal. One day I learned that the price at which we sell our products to customers sometimes increases a hundred times for the final buyer. I probably would have stayed with my plant if not for one dishonest customer from Morocco, who, having received part of the ordered products worth 16 million francs, never paid us. In order to fulfill his order, we had to install a new furnace and purchase components for crystal.

After consulting with a lawyer, I realized that it was useless to look for that person - it was a time of national movements in North Africa, and no French court could collect a debt at that time in Morocco. The plant had to be closed, it’s good that all our accounts were in order and there were no debts. They just closed at zero.

But if I had not closed the plant then, I would not have become a priest, because I really liked what I was doing. And material always supported the Orthodox Church in those days. Even during the prosperity of our plant, we bought an old church, made repairs and invited a priest. He was Evgraf Kovalevsky. We held processions on holidays, which greatly irritated the Catholic bishop. One day - I suspect the same bishop in this - the bank in which we kept our factory capital closed without warning for re-discounting. It was before Christmas, the workers had to pay their salaries. If one of our parishioners had not lent us an insufficiently large amount, I know that this could have turned out to be an unpleasant story. Thanks to the recommendation of our spiritual father Evgraf, everything settled down.

France is a Catholic country, in which it was the Catholic Church that had a great influence on culture, well, literature, music, family relationships, and the entire way of life, finally. Having changed the church and become Orthodox, have you encountered the problem of losing your national identity, your French roots?

I would clarify that France is not a Catholic, but an atheistic country. The Catholic Church has no influence on society today. And, unfortunately, it cannot resist the strengthening of Islamism in France. As for my identity, there was no such internal problem for me. On the contrary, I believe that in the Orthodox Church I became myself, I found the real inner life that I was looking for. But there were external problems - a break with some people dear to me.

Still, I can’t help but say one thing: France was originally an Orthodox country. Every 7 km there was a church here. In the second century, the martyrs of Lyon - the Lyon martyrs, as they are called today - they were tortured and executed not far from the place where we are talking to you now. And today they are revered by the Orthodox Church. Like other martyrs for Christ, who were French, German, Italian. BEFORE the division of the churches to the Orthodox and Roman, all the churches in Europe were Orthodox. And people are looking for this lost spirit today. Not a single Frenchman refuses to listen about Orthodoxy. My friend, the Orthodox writer and translator Jean Louis Palierne, wrote the book “Where is Orthodoxy Hiding?” And so he always simply calls out to the Russians: DO NOT be silent about the Orthodox faith, share it with the French who turned out to be lost sheep, talk about it... Why do you think France is in first place among suicides? Here you are Tatyana, a journalist, you probably have a wide circle of acquaintances. Have you told any French about your faith?

-I invited French friends, a married couple, to our church for Easter.

And what? What did they tell you?

“They didn’t want to leave the church.” There were many impressions. At first they were struck by the lowered curtain in the altar - it seemed to them similar to the descriptions of the temple in Jerusalem, where God dwelt in the sanctuary behind the curtain. And they thought that the curtain would always remain lowered. And the altar is closed. But then, when the curtain rose, the Royal Doors opened, the priest came out of the altar and the service began, they told me that they felt somehow cheerful and joyful. The “Interactive Service” seemed lively and warm to them. Now they are asking when the next Easter will be... I can’t guarantee that they will definitely come, but the fact that they, by the way, artists, fed up with all sorts of interactive performances, were “hooked” by the Orthodox service - it was obvious...

In this regard, I also had the following question: How was it easy for you, a person of a different mentality, who grew up within the framework of a strict French upbringing, which is based on the principles of Cartesianism, to accept the fact that in Orthodoxy the mind must give way to the heart? Have YOU felt an internal conflict when, in the name of your irrational faith, you had to cross parental prohibitions. For example, cry in public? Hug a homeless person?

- I did NOT have such internal conflicts. For 50 years in Orthodoxy, I have never regretted my choice. The principles of education, the inner parental voice are increasingly weaker than the ardent faith in Christ. There were martyrs who, even torture, disdained the name of their faith. And what kind of principles...

-Well, I have formulated such a beautiful question.../ We are laughing/

Tell us about your children, please. Although I know one of your sons - this is the priest of the Church of John the Russian in Lyon - Father Quentin.

Yes, this is my youngest son.

Eldest daughter Marie Liz became a famous restorer. She travels all over the world. She has worked in the USA and Italy. Now Marie Liz has received an invitation to Corsica to restore Bonaparte’s house.

Son Jean Guillem owns an architectural agency in Paris. " LINEAIRE A "He is married and has three children.

After him - daughter Catherine, who received a philological education and worked at the National Library in Paris. She was an expert on ancient Greek manuscripts. One day she was sent to Greece, to Thessaloniki. There Catherine lived for several days in the monastery, and a little later she decided to take monastic vows.

Was it difficult for you to accept this decision?

Yes, it's hard. Although for devout parents there is no more joy when a son becomes a priest and a daughter a nun. But everyone like me and my “mother” had a hard time surviving this daughter’s decision. The Greek monastery in which she lives - the Monastery of the Holy Angels - is very strict. For the first three days of fasting there, the nuns do not eat anything, they have a lot of obediences, since the monastery is poor, ascetic, there are no amenities there: running water, for example, and they go down the mountain in a cart to get water. For the first year we had no news from her at all; we couldn’t even write to her. Now I see her and talk on the phone. I recently went to Greece and visited Seraphima; after her conversion, she adopted this name. She is very cheerful, her face is young and shining. All the nuns there are simply beaming with joy. She has lived there for more than 20 years, and does not age, does not change. I tell them there: how wonderful it is here!

Catherine always loved the church very much. One day, when she was about 18, she came to the Lesninsky monastery near Paris for several days, and went to church service. Some man heard her speaking French and said to her: What are you doing in our Russian monastery? Are you French?

I would also go to a monastery...

My father looked at me carefully

What would you do there?

I would pray, do work, and also write books. I'll wait until my son grows up.

Peer Michel laughed and replied:

You could pray and work there, but write novels... - he shook his head,

/ After our conversation, I thought that maybe I really confuse the monastery with the “abode of labor and pure bliss”? This chain led me from my beloved poet to Bulgakov’s house of the Master and Margarita, in which, as you know, there is peace, but no joy... And in the monastery, according to Peer Michel, everything is filled with joy. Probably, this is the mistake of many creative people - to accept a gift higher than the Giver - our talents are higher than God, for which we deserve peace, not joy/./

Our conversations with Father Michel began during Lent. We drank tea with him with Lenten bread sent from the Greek Monastery of the Holy Angels, where his daughter Seraphima lives. I have never eaten tastier bread in my life

-Your son became a priest, your daughter chose the path of monasticism. Was it difficult for you to raise your children in the Orthodox faith in a non-Orthodox country? What did YOU read to them? Did you have a TV in your house and what programs did YOU allow your children to watch? Did you have any conflicts with your children when they grew up and began to understand that not all their peers live by such strict rules? Were there “mutins on the ship”?

Children are the treasure of humanity. Our values ​​are manifested in little children - simplicity, clarity, natural kindness without a drop of sentimentality, gentleness, sincerity. Therefore, Jesus said: If you are not like children, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I will even tell you a little secret of a priest with 50 years of experience: children’s confession is always clear , clear, clean... My children did not cause me any big problems. They were obedient, as it should be in an Orthodox family. We didn't have a TV. It was too expensive for us in those days. Sometimes we were very Hard times. My children’s friends at school laughed: “Are you a beggar?!” My sons fought, defended their honor - Michel’s father smiles. / And of course we had books. Prayer books, literature of the Middle Ages, poetry. The children especially knew a lot about Charles d'Orléans. / Author's note: Prince Charles d'Orléans (1391-1465), father of the French king Louis XII, was considered not only one of the most valiant knights of his time, but also a major poet . Participant in the Hundred Years' War, spent 25 years in English captivity/

And the famous French realist novelists: Balzac, Zola?

Father Michel makes a purely French hand sign, which can be understood as a slight push away. Without words. I wish I had filmed this interview; so many answers to my questions were in the quick expressions that replaced each other on my interlocutor’s face, in his precise gestures of small, beautiful hands/remember the hands of Andrei Bolkonsky in Tolstoy?/.

How did you decide to become a priest?

This was suggested to me by John Maksimovich (Shanghaisky). It was he who ordained me. This was in 1964.

To be continued

March 26 / April 8, 1905 (St. Petersburg) - January 30, 1970 (Paris). Religious figure, theologian, icon painter.

The youngest of the three sons of the statesman, church and public figure D.S.S. Evgraf Petrovich Kovalevsky (1865/1866 - 1941) and activist of public education, teacher Inna Vladimirovna Kovalevskaya (nee Strekalova; 1877-1961).

In 1920 he emigrated with his family to France. Lived in Nice, then moved to Paris. He graduated from the Faculty of Philology of the University of Paris (Sorbonne) and the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris (1928). Founding member of the Brotherhood of St. Alexander Nevsky (1921) and the Brotherhood of St. Photia (1925).

He worked in the studio of artists V. I. Shukhaev and A. E. Yakovlev. Later he turned to church fresco and icon painting, creating, in particular, icons for the iconostasis in the church in Montparnasse (1928) and for the chapel in Colombes near Paris (1952). Participant in the exhibitions “Salon of Artists of the French School” (1955, 1958).

In 1928–1931 - psalmist of the Orthodox French parish of St. Genevieve in Paris; in 1937 he was ordained a priest and became assistant rector of this church. From 1938 to 1970 he was rector of the French parish of St. Irenea in Paris. He took an active part in organizing the Orthodox parish in Nantes.

In 1939 he was mobilized into the French army. In 1940–1944 he was in German captivity, spent a long time in the Mühlberg camp in Saxony, and was later transferred to the Stalag Russian prisoner of war camp, where he spiritually nourished his fellow prisoners.

In 1944 he founded and headed the French Orthodox Theological Institute of St. Dionysius in Paris. In 1945 he received the rank of archpriest. Doctor of Theology "honoris causa" of the Moscow Patriarchate (together with V.N. Lossky and V.N. Ilyin). Author of theological works on exegesis, canon, and liturgics.

In 1953, together with a significant part of the believing communities of the Western rite, he left the omophorion of the Moscow Patriarchate and founded the French Catholic Orthodox Church (FCOC; “Eglise catholique orthodoxe de France”). In 1964 he was tonsured a monk; in the same year he received the rank of archimandrite and on November 11, 1964, with the consent of the synod of the ROCOR, he was ordained bishop of Saint-Denis with the name John (John-Nectarius).

In 1966, after the death of Archbishop John (Maksimovich), he came into conflict with the ROCOR, left it without permission, was expelled from the clergy and defrocked, and in 1967 excommunicated from the Church by the Council of Bishops of the ROC. From 1967 until his death - Primate of the independent French Catholic Orthodox Church.

He was buried in the Père Lachaise cemetery in Paris. An issue of the magazine “Présence Orthodox” (Paris, 1970. N 9-10), as well as the book “Jean de Saint Denis” (Paris, 1970), is dedicated to his memory.

Brothers: Pyotr Kovalevsky (1901–1978) – historian, bibliographer, church and public figure; Maxim Kovalevsky (1903–1988) – mathematician, church leader and spiritual composer.

Bibliography:

* GARF. F. 6991. Committee on Religious Affairs of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. Op. 6. D. 65. Materials on the Western European Exarchate (England, Italy, France) in 1966. L. 50-53. Russian writers of emigration: Biographical information and bibliography of their books on theology, religious philosophy, church history and Orthodox culture: 1921–1972 / Compiled by N. M. Zernov. Boston, 1973. Bishop John // Religious figures of the Russian Diaspora.