We don't always have good dreams, sometimes we wake up in a cold sweat from...
Sixty years ago, J.V. Stalin died - a man about whom controversy does not subside and is unlikely to subside in the foreseeable future. A man considered by some to be the greatest genius, others considered to be the greatest criminal. There is also no unity of opinion among Orthodox Christians - some perceive him as King Herod, others as a “God-given emperor.” There are many myths about Stalin in the church environment, some even try to declare him a saint. How did Stalin really feel about Orthodoxy and can he even be considered a believer? We are talking about this with a candidate of historical sciences, senior researcher at the Institute of Russian History, author of the fundamental monograph “Stalin. Power. Religion" by Igor Aleksandrovich Kurlyandsky.
Igor Aleksandrovich, have you personally encountered mythologies on the topic of Stalin - both positive and negative?
Yes, repeatedly. For example, there is a myth about the “Orthodox” Stalin - that in secret from his “party comrades” he professed the Orthodox faith and led a truly spiritual life. And there is also a negative myth - that he was a stupid and narrow-minded person, poorly educated. Of course, both myths have nothing to do with reality.
But those who are convinced of Stalin’s holiness refer to the facts: that he met with the Metropolitan of the Lebanese Mountains Elijah, that he was blessed by Matronushka, that he sent notes to churches listing sins, that on his orders there was a flight over Moscow with the icon of the Kazan Mother of God on board.
Wait, what are these facts? For a historian, facts are what are confirmed by credible sources, that is, archival documents, numerous memoirs of contemporaries. If you set out to find the source of all these near-church stories about “Orthodox Stalin,” then you will not find anything - except perhaps dubious brochures, the authors of which do not provide any evidence for their fantasies. In contrast to documentary evidence of Stalin’s participation in repressions, including the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church.
As a historian who has been studying the life and deeds of Stalin for many years, I can confirm that there was no meeting between Stalin and the Metropolitan of the Lebanese Mountains, Elijah (Karam), and the stories about Stalin’s visit to Blessed Matrona, about the notes he sent to Moscow churches with listings of sins. There was no flight over Moscow with the icon of the Kazan Mother of God on board. This is a lie, spread either out of ignorance or with the malicious purpose of supporting the legend of “Orthodox Stalin” in the public consciousness. And there is no reason for her.
We must remember that the Soviet state, although it changed the format of its relations with the Church in 1943, still remained atheistic in its ideology. And the notorious “turn” was determined not by spiritual and romantic, but by purely pragmatic motives, about which there are already detailed studies by modern historians - O. Yu. Vasilyeva, M. V. Shkarovsky, your humble servant and others. Real documents and facts do not allow us to say that Stalin’s policy turn to the “new course” in state-church relations in 1943 was driven by spiritual reasons, due to his seminary past, sympathy for religion and Orthodoxy, etc.
When and in what political and ideological situation did Stalin’s participation in issues related to the attitude of the Soviet government towards the Church begin?
Stalin began to take part in resolving issues related to the attitude of the Soviet government to the Church in 1922, when he, as General Secretary of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), impeccably carried out the Leninist-Trotskyist plan to defeat and rob the Russian Orthodox Church under the pretext of helping the starving.
Then, in 1923, he played a big role in softening the previous anti-church line, developing a more cautious policy on the issue of closing churches, and personally edited the Central Committee’s circular on this issue. And Patriarch Tikhon was released not without his participation. All this was dictated by opportunistic reasons for the struggle against Trotsky and, so to speak, the general logic of the deployment of the NEP in the country as a policy that presupposes a partial liberalization of social relations.
But the same Stalin played a leading and guiding role in the curtailment of the so-called “religious NEP” in 1927-1930, in the organization of a new large-scale attack on religion and the Church, and the transition to a policy of mass repression and persecution. I write about this in detail, based on documents and facts, in my book “Stalin. Power. Religion". In 1937-1938, Stalin oversaw the mass extermination of the Orthodox episcopate, religious leaders of other faiths, clergy and laity.
Is it true that in the 30s there was a plan for the official liquidation of the Church, and a date was set for the closure of the last church?
No, such a specific plan did not exist in the 30s. It was simply not needed, because the program of the Bolshevik Party and the doctrine of Marxism itself did not leave room for religion, for the Church, for religious consciousness in the future “happy society”. The Bolshevik Party was the main and only legal political force in Soviet society in the 1930s, and Marxism was the ideological foundation of this state. Consequently, tactical turns in relation to religion could be very different in Soviet reality, from persecution and tightening to the “thaw” and the “new course.” The army of party workers, in any case, had the firm idea that religion is an outdated ideology, a relic of the “damned past”, which sooner or later the Soviet people will get rid of.
Stalin studied at a theological seminary in his youth. Did this affect his attitude towards the Church?
According to numerous sources, in the senior classes of the seminary, Joseph Dzhugashvili lost interest in spiritual studies, from an “excellent” and “good” student, he turned into a “C” student, and spiritual lessons went past his ears. The Tiflis Seminary had excellent teachers and a strong program, but his interests had already changed. Having lost the desire to study and deciding not to pursue any spiritual career, Dzhugashvili left the seminary before completing the course. He went into revolutionary activity, remaining a spiritually unenlightened person, despite all his previous spiritual education.
Studying at the seminary certainly did not influence the fact that during the war years he softened state policy in relation to the Church. Moreover, I believe that he subsequently hated his spiritual teachers. A little-known fact - the rector of Stalin’s first years of study at the seminary, Metropolitan Seraphim (Meshcheryakov), was shot in 1933 by order of one of the “troikas” created by the decision of the same Stalin (“troikas” under the local bodies of the GPU were created in 1930 as part of the campaign on collectivization).
By the way, among the Soviet leaders, not only Stalin had a seminary education behind him. For example, this is A.I. Mikoyan, N.I. Podvoisky, A.K. Voronsky, Mikha Tskhakaya and others. Studying at the seminary did not soften their attitude towards the Church.
What are the reasons for such life turns? Was there something wrong in the seminaries, or were the reasons purely external?
Both I and the famous researcher of spiritual education of that era, Doctor of Historical Sciences T.G., are trying to answer this question. Leontyev. The answer is that not everything was as it should be in the seminaries, and external reasons also had an effect. In the seminaries, cramming, formalism, and the barracks spirit of learning had a negative influence; in the national outskirts, Russification tendencies were also added. On the other hand, the revolutionary movement tried in every possible way to discredit religion and the Church, and the sentiments it generated penetrated into the seminary environment. The anti-church influence of the environment as a whole was felt - despite the strict seminary rules, the students found outlets into the outside world.
In his book “Stalin. Power. Religion" I am trying to answer this question. My conclusion is that Stalin did not become such a convinced atheist and materialist as some outstanding leaders of Russian communism, like Lenin, Trotsky and Bukharin. There is evidence of this - and his notes on the works of a number of Russian and foreign classics, studied by my teacher, one of the largest researchers of the Stalinist theme B. S. Ilizarov (they contain traces of thoughts on the topic of God and immortality, impossible for a person who radically denies them) . Characteristic, for example, in this regard are Stalin’s remarks in the margins of France’s essay, “Resurrection” by L.N. Tolstoy, “The Brothers Karamazov” by F.M. Dostoevsky and other famous works. So, for example, Stalin exhausted Anatole France’s dialogue “On God,” and in one place wrote his conclusion about the reason for people’s failure to comprehend God: “They don’t know traces, they don’t see. He does not exist for them,” thus leaving a “loophole” for the existence of God. It is impossible not to note the facts that Stalin parodied certain religious traits in the cult of his own person, which he carefully built, as well as in the cult of Lenin, in communist symbols. For a consistent atheist, such actions seem impossible.
I am convinced that in his attitude towards religion, Stalin was an agnostic, that is, a person who did not believe either in the existence of God or in his absence. This circumstance (and not the fictitious Stalinist “Orthodoxy,” as many believe) made it easier for him to maneuver in relation to religion and the Church during the war. For him, this atheistic moment was not a matter of principle.
Did he express somewhere in his speeches, in his texts, his attitude towards faith, God, the Russian Orthodox Church?
Yes, he expressed it repeatedly in the 1920s, and his attitude was consistently negative. Let me give you a couple of quotes on this topic. Thus, in his conversation with the American labor delegation in 1927, he announced that the liquidation of the religious clergy would be completed, and in a conversation with workers’ correspondents in 1928, he said that “our country has recognized that religion is not needed,” and called for mocking ridicule of the clergy and announced: “of course, we are in favor of turning all churches into clubs.” It must be borne in mind that these texts were intended for public speeches in front of party and worker-peasant audiences. Stalin does not have separate speeches or articles entirely devoted to religious problems, but he does have fragments on this topic in his book “Stalin. Power. Religion” I analyze them.
There are still debates about the scale of repression against believers and the clergy. Some say that in 37-38 more than 100 thousand people were shot (precisely for their faith), others refute these figures. Are there any reliable statistics?
There are no such reliable statistics. More precisely, the figure of 100 thousand people was announced in the early 90s, in the report of A.N. Yakovlev, chairman of the government commission for the rehabilitation of repressed citizens created back in the late 80s. The number of these 100 thousand included not only clergy, but also altar servers, prosphora makers, candle holders, and church wardens. This also included renovationist priests, and any sectarians, and believers of other faiths - in a word, all those who were somehow associated with religious faith.
It is not very clear what documents this government commission used and how its findings can be verified. Again, the question arises: who should be considered believers in this regard (in the form of objects of such calculation)? Probably, we should talk about active laymen who were sentenced precisely with formulations suggesting their active participation in the life of a particular confession. How many were there? Who and how will undertake to count them under the current conditions that most archival and investigative cases from the era of repression are closed to researchers? It is known that clergy and active laymen were repressed during mass operations in the category of “anti-Soviet elements” along with “kulaks” and “criminals.” But among the “kulaks” there were also active members of church communities. And in the “national operations” representatives of the clergy and believers of various faiths were repressed. A separate question is: which of these believers should be considered victims specifically for their faith, and which ones simply caught in the meat grinder of Stalin’s repressions. To answer, you need to study the investigative protocols in each specific case.
Therefore, it would be more correct to say this: in 1937-38, a monstrous blow was dealt to representatives of all faiths. Establishing a more or less exact number of victims is a matter for the future.
Was the persecution of the Church and believers in the late 30s somehow ideologically motivated, did they have a clear goal, were they planned? If so, was there a special goal of eradicating religious faith?
Were. Their ideological motivation stemmed from two Stalinist theories at once, which he revived at the February-March plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks in 1937: the intensification of the class struggle as socialism advanced - and a united front of the enemies of socialism, uniting all hostile forces, from “Trotskyists” to “ churchmen." The clear goal was to oust as much as possible all unnecessary elements from an ideologically homogeneous society. In particular, prevent them from taking advantage of the right granted by the new Constitution of 1936 to gain representation in central and local government in the elections of 1937-1938. All repressions were planned and controlled at the center, which did not exclude the excesses of local performers on the ground. When Stalin considered that this goal had been largely achieved, he curtailed the “Great Terror” (at the same time eliminating some of the direct perpetrators).
How unexpected was Stalin's turn in relations with the Church in 1943 for the people and the authorities?
It was not unexpected either for the people or for the authorities, because already since 1941, in connection with the war, active preparations were made for it - anti-religious propaganda in the country was curtailed, the authorities began to contact church structures.
Was this turn of Stalin the result of an internal struggle, some kind of revision of values?
There are no sources to suggest this. If we analyze the various facts of Stalin’s activities both before and after the war, we can say with confidence that he had no “revision of values.” He simply decided that in this historical period such a policy was more beneficial for the state. There is no need to romanticize Stalin or look for a fictitious spiritual basis in him. The turnaround is based on pragmatic considerations.
That is, relations with the allies and the policy of the Germans in the occupied territories?
Both of these factors played a role. But the second one had a greater impact. The Germans in the occupied territories did not particularly favor religion, but they often did not hinder it either. Here it is important to remember the Pskov Orthodox spiritual mission, organized with the consent of the leadership of the occupiers, and the activities of Metropolitan Sergius (Voskresensky), other priests later accused of collaboration, and the opening of many churches in the occupied territories, previously closed in the 1920s and 30s by Soviet authorities . Stalin was frightened by this revival of church and religious life that was actually taking place under the occupation, and it seems to me that the motive for intercepting the initiative to control this process played a significant role in this regard. The struggle for influence over believing Soviet citizens was an important circumstance in this regard.
Raising the topic of the need for a softer policy towards the Church and believers on the part of the allies (the British) also played a role, although this was not the main factor.
Did the fact that from the very first hours of the war the Church take a clear anti-Hitler position influence the turn of 1943? Or was there no direct connection here?
Of course, there was a direct connection with this. The Stalinist regime sought to survive and hold out in this war, so the people had to be united in all possible ways to resist the aggressor. The patriotic position of the Church directly determined the further turn of power towards a significant softening of the previous anti-religious policy.
Was the “brothers and sisters” address to the people sincere in 1941, or did Stalin deliberately use internal church language in order to gain favor with people? Why is there still so much controversy surrounding this appeal?
Stalin deliberately used intra-church circulation in order to gain favor with people. He used not only this phrase in his address, since he sought to “reach” as many people as possible with his speech.
What real concessions were made to the Church after the 1943 meeting? Not words, but facts?
Resolution of the Local Council, restoration of the Patriarchate and election of the Patriarch, restoration of the church hierarchy, opening of many thousands of churches and parishes, opening of some monasteries, restoration, albeit to a very limited extent, of spiritual education, greater favorability in matters of land rental and candle production.
No you can not. Anti-church persecution resumed shortly after the war. The main thing in this policy was to lock church life only within the church fence, to exclude any charity, education, missionary work for the Church, not to give it any feedback from society, to entangle religious life with numerous restrictions. That is, keeping religion and the Church in such a kind of “ghetto”. This was deliberately done by Stalin and the country’s leadership; thousands of active priests and laity were again arrested and thrown into camps.
This anti-religious rollback began in 1948. His reason is that Stalin became disillusioned with the effectiveness of using the Russian Orthodox Church in international affairs, after the collapse of his ambitious plan to convene an Ecumenical Council in Moscow and make Moscow a kind of “Orthodox Vatican”. There is an excellent study about this unrealized plan of Stalin by the wonderful historian Olga Vasilyeva. The Ecumenical Council was supposed to proclaim the unification of all Orthodox churches under the leadership of the Patriarch of All Rus' in Moscow. Thus, Stalin believed that the Kremlin leadership, using church channels, would gain unique leverage in the world for broadcasting Soviet (imperial) influence, that is, it would be able to use church structures to a greater extent in foreign policy. However, this plan was thwarted due to the fact that a number of Eastern churches refused to send their representatives to Moscow. And they had to declare the failed “Ecumenical Council” a “meeting.”
Since August 1948, a ban was introduced on the opening of new churches and houses of worship of any denomination throughout the USSR (it was in effect until Stalin’s death) - despite the fact that previously opened churches increasingly began to close (I also provide statistics in the book), the police force became stronger control over bishops and clergy, religious processions and any services outside church buildings were prohibited, the government inspired and supported the process of degradation of religious educational institutions and the moral impoverishment of clergy, saturated the spiritual environment with KGB secretaries and provocateurs, inflated the provocative “Saratov case”, engaged in new repressions, censored sermons - thus, the famous Saint Luke (Voino-Yasenetsky) was deprived of the right to preach...
How did Stalin's relationship with the Church develop in the last years of his life?
They didn’t work out for him at all. The last time he received the Patriarch was in April 1945, and since then not a single religious figure (of any denomination) has been received by Stalin. Patriarch Alexy tried to achieve a reception from Stalin through appeals to Karpov (chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church) - in connection with the anti-religious “rollback” of 1948-1949. Karpov informed Stalin about these requests (such documents exist), but he refused to receive Patriarch Alexy.
What is the reason for the appearance of apocrypha about Stalin and the Church? Was everything just made up, or were there some facts around which legends then formed? After all, for example, Metropolitan Elijah of the Lebanese Mountains actually came to the USSR. What is known about this?
The reason is the need of a certain part of society for a strong dictatorial power, in a strong hand, when the great leader will decide all important issues for them. This is a kind of state of eternal infantilism. Well, to fully perceive such a leader, it is necessary that this leader rely on traditional spiritual foundations, or at least the illusion that he relies on them is needed. Therefore, a legend about “Orthodox Stalin” is invented and corresponding apocrypha is invented to match it. In this kind of literature one can find statements that Stalin is a “God-given leader” or that he is a “holy Orthodox emperor”, the founder and leader of the great Orthodox Empire, which is always alive and “never dies” and similar completely mythological things.
Such apocrypha about “Orthodox Stalin” are simply made up and have no factual basis. Yes, Metropolitan Elijah (Karam) came to the USSR after the war, but they did not have any meeting with Stalin; the story about Elijah (Karam) conveying news to Stalin in 1943 about a vision of the Mother of God to him with a demand to allow the Church to defeat the enemy is also a fiction. , which Stalin allegedly heeded. This has not been confirmed by any sources.
Even among priests there are now Stalinists. How should we feel about this?
There are certainly Stalinist priests. This must be treated as a social and spiritual evil. It is pointless to address any arguments to them; they are not able to hear them, since the creator and leader of the inhuman totalitarian system, Stalin, is an object of veneration for them. One can only pray that the Lord will enlighten them. But lay Stalinists need to be educated, told about the real deeds of Stalin, trying to free them from the captivity of propaganda fiction and pro-Stalinist mythology.
At the seminary
It was said that Coco's unquestionable academic success increased tensions between rich and poor children at school. Progressing from class to class as the top student, he graduated from school in 1894 at the age of 14 with an honors diploma, which was rarely awarded to students from poor families.
Tucker R. P. 81
In 1894, Joseph left Gori and entered the Tiflis Theological Seminary. Most of the nearly six hundred students at this institution viewed their studies not as preparation for a spiritual career, but as a stage in a secular university education. The fact was that the Russian Tsar did not allow the opening of a university in Tiflis, fearing its transformation into a hotbed of nationalist sedition. At this time, measures were taken for general Russification, and Russian was introduced as the language of instruction at the seminary instead of the previously used Georgian. This measure, combined with the strict discipline that reigned in the seminary and made life there more like a barracks than a religious educational institution, became the cause of repeated conflicts between students and authorities.
Neumayr A. P. 333
We felt like prisoners who had to spend our youth here without guilt...
Iremashvili I. P. 120
The Tiflis Orthodox Seminary was then a breeding ground for all kinds of liberation ideas among young people, both populist-nationalist and Marxist-internationalist; it was full of various secret circles.
Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin: Brief biography. S. 7
…Already in the first seminary years [Joseph] changed noticeably. He gave the impression of a rather closed and self-absorbed person; he quickly learned to hide his thoughts and feelings from others with an impenetrable veil - a quality that later became a defining element of his tactics.
Neumayr A. P. 335
Iremashvili’s memories are incomparably more vivid and closer to the truth. He portrays Joseph as a lanky, wiry, freckled boy, who, solely through perseverance, isolation and love of power, knew how to achieve his goal, whether it was about commanding his comrades, throwing stones or climbing rocks. Coco had an ardent love for nature, but did not feel attachment to its living beings. Compassion for people or animals was alien to him: “I never saw him cry.” “For the joys or sorrows of his comrades, Coco knew only a sarcastic grin.” All this may have been slightly polished in memory, like a stone in a stream, but it is not made up.
Trotsky L. P. 223
Iremashvili wrote that at that time Joseph was thin and wiry, with an aquiline nose, a narrow face with pockmarks, dark eyes, lively and restless. He was small, but strong and knew how to fight better than anyone. But Joseph was “different from others” and was not liked for his manners. Like many capable people who experience poverty, low birth, or physical handicaps, he was aggressive. He had to assert himself in this way. He was "a good friend as long as you submitted to his power-hungry will."
Gray Ya. P. 22
At the time of entering the seminary, Joseph was only 14 years old, in his physique he was rather weak and frail, but, nevertheless, very soon not only classmates, but also teachers drew attention to the high sense of self-esteem that distinguished him, unusual in such a young person. age. Perhaps it was the mother, who, being illiterate herself, ensured that her son became a seminary student, and thereby ensured a better future for him. Her unshakable faith in her only and undoubtedly intelligent son instilled in him the conviction, perhaps even tinged with a belief in predestination, that he, as his mother’s “delegate,” should accomplish something significant in his life.
Neumayr A. P. 333
About six hundred students, locked up almost all the time (with the exception of about one hour in the afternoon) in a barracks-type building, which some called a “stone bag,” led a strictly regimented life: at 7.00 - rise, morning prayer, tea, class studies until 14.00, at 15.00 - lunch, at 17.00 - roll call, evening prayer, tea at 20.00, then independent studies, at 22.00 - lights out.
Tucker R. P. 85
As soon as the monks put out the lamps and left, Joseph took out a candle and read in its weak light, often spending sleepless nights reading the book. The consequences were felt: he began to look sick. Sometimes the friends took the book from the insatiable reader and put out the candle.
Yakovlev N. N. P. 25
...When he was 15-16 years old, Coco came up with the idea of supplementing his education by... reading books in used bookstores, standing for a long time at the counter, immersed in reading the supposedly “considered” book.
When this trick was discovered and he was almost banned from bookstores, young Dzhugashvili came up with another trick: he began to rent books from the store to read, paying 10 kopecks. per day. But he did not read these books, but persuaded several friends to collectively rewrite them. Two people copied it at once - each one a page, sitting on both sides of an open book on the table. This technique speeded up rewriting so much that friends managed to rewrite a fairly thick book costing 3 rubles in three days, and it, therefore, cost them only 30 kopecks. (for three), i.e. ten times cheaper. The manuscripts were carefully bound and in this way, in a relatively short time, Coco had a fairly decent library. When he was expelled from the seminary and began working at the observatory, this “library” was kept in his room. Later, when Joseph Dzhugashvili went underground (1901), the library was distributed among friends, but they continued to use it together.
We have an approximate idea of the composition of the books in this library from the memoirs of Lado Ketskhoveli and other Georgian revolutionaries (Sturua, Dzhibladze). There were books by Marx, Engels, Goethe, Schiller, Aristotle, Shakespeare, Darwin, Heine, Adam Smith, Tugan-Baranovsky, Struve, Plekhanov, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, Pisarev, Turgenev, Dobrolyubov, Saltykov-Shchedrin and Georgian writers - Baratashvili, Chavchavadze , Kazbegi, Ninoshchvili, Ioseliani, Akakia Tsereteli and others.
Pokhlebkin V. pp. 73–74
authorAt the seminary 1 Young Guard. 1939. No. 12. P. 23; Official index of railway, steamship and other passenger communications: Summer schedule 1894 St. Petersburg,
From the book Who stood behind Stalin? author Ostrovsky Alexander VladimirovichLast year at the seminary In May 1898, Seid Devdoriani graduated from the seminary and entered Yuryev University (1). The leadership of the student circle, which he headed, passed to Soso Dzhugashvili. “A few months later,” recalled S. Devdoriani, “in Yuryev I received
From the book Who stood behind Stalin? author Ostrovsky Alexander VladimirovichLast year at the seminary 1st GF IML. F. 8. Op. 2. Part 1. D. 12. L. 181
From the book Stalin's Inner Circle. Leader's Companions author Medvedev Roy AlexandrovichA Bolshevik from the theological seminary, Anastas Mikoyan was born in Armenia in the village of Sanahin in the family of a poor rural carpenter. After finishing primary school, the father sent the talented boy to study at the Armenian theological seminary in Tiflis. It was one of the best educational institutions in
From the book Life's Work author Vasilevsky Alexander MikhailovichYOUNG YEARS First steps. - Everyday life in Kineshma. - “Grain Commission”. - Kostroma and Kostroma residents. - Within the walls of the seminary. - On the eve of the war My biography until the Great October Revolution does not contain anything special. I come from the clergy class. But such people in Russia
From the book History of the Russian Church (Synodal period) author Tsypin VladislavEXAMINATION PROGRAM on the History of the Russian Church for 4th grade students of the Moscow Theological Seminary (Correspondence Education Sector) 1 ticket - 1. Russian Orthodox Church on the eve of Peter's reforms. General characteristics of the synodal era. Review of literature sources on the synodal period
From the book Stalin in life author Guslyarov EvgeniyAt the seminary, it was said that Coco's unqualified success in learning increased the tensions that existed in the school between children from rich and poor families. Moving from class to class as the best student, he graduated from school in 1894 at the age of 14 and received a diploma with honors,
In Russia, theological schools until the beginning of the 19th century. were the core of public education. Theological schools, seminaries and academies trained mainly clergy and clergy.
Initially, because of their belonging to the clergy, it was difficult for graduates of theological schools to enter secular educational institutions and the public service, but after 1863 the situation changed. Seminary graduates were given access to universities, and children of clergy were given access to secular secondary schools. Some of the seminary graduates used their education for its intended purpose, some benefited Russia in other fields, becoming scientists, doctors, poets, military men and statesmen. Let us remember the most famous seminarians who did not follow the church path.
Mikhail Speransky
Mikhail SperanskyThe famous reformer Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky (1772–1839) was the son of a poor parish priest. His parents sent him to study at the Vladimir Seminary, where from the first year of study he showed bright abilities, for which, according to the custom of that time, he received the surname Speransky, the Russian equivalent of this Latin word is the surname Nadezhdin. After the Vladimir Seminary, he was sent for further study to the Alexander Nevsky Seminary of St. Petersburg - that was the name of the theological academy in the northern capital at that time. According to V.O. Klyuchevsky , “Speransky was the best, gifted representative of the old, spiritual and academic education.”
Upon completion of his studies, Speransky’s career took off sharply, and this happened without “searching and servility.” Soon, thanks to his abilities, he approached Emperor Alexander I, and on his instructions he developed a project for general political reform, which covered the entire system of political and civil relations. And although there was a period of short-term disgrace in Speransky’s life, Mikhail Mikhailovich, who had only a spiritual education, entered Russian history as a great reformer, the founder of Russian legal science and theoretical jurisprudence. Pushkin endowed him with the sublime epithet “genius of good.”
Dostoevsky’s definition could not be more suitable for Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky (1828–1889), the son of a priest and a graduate of the Saratov Theological Seminary: “The contingent of atheists still gives the clergy.” But Nikolai Gavrilovich’s revolutionary views were formed not in the seminary, but while studying at St. Petersburg University. Chernyshevsky was the ideological inspirer of the revolutionary society “Land and Freedom”.
Arrested for anti-government activities, he spent more than 20 years in exile. In his most famous novel, What Is to Be Done? Chernyshevsky brought out a new type of “special person”, whom he endowed with the features of revolutionary holiness. The asceticism of the main character Rakhmetov, who did not drink wine, did not touch women and ate black bread, was copied from the holy ascetics, with whose lives the author was well acquainted. The false idea of the novel - building the Kingdom of God on earth - infected many gullible young people. The novel was perceived as a “liturgical book.” Chernyshevsky became the spiritual leader of the revolutionary generation of the “sixties” and the founder of populism.
Nekrasov called Chernyshevsky a prophet, and Chernyshevsky, who prophesied the revolution, turned out to be not just its prophet, but also a co-author. Lenin, “plowed” by the novel, by 1917 already knew exactly what to do.
Nikolay Dobrolyubov
Nikolay Dobrolyubov
The famous literary critic, publicist and revolutionary democrat Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov (1836-1861) was born into the family of a Nizhny Novgorod priest. He studied at the Theological School and the Nizhny Novgorod Seminary, after which he was sent to study at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, but instead entered the Main Pedagogical Institute. In his youth, Nikolai, as can be seen from his Diary, was a devout man, closely monitored his inner world, and took care of his soul. Later, something changed in him, he began to call his soul “darling” - “get lost, my little soul,” and in his works he called on the reader to “take up the axe,” i.e. engage in a revolutionary reorganization of society.
Dobrolyubov’s craving for writing arose quite early - already at the age of 13 he began writing poetry, in the seminary his works on philosophical topics reached 100 pages in volume, and in adulthood this craving resulted in a huge number of articles and reviews. He became a literary critic after unsuccessful experiments in fiction.
Dobrolyubov’s works, despite the genre in which he wrote - literary criticism and reviews - always contained statements on socio-political topics. In his views he was “a materialist of the Feuerbachian trend and a consistent revolutionary commoner.” Chernyshevsky was his close friend and colleague in his activities in the Sovremennik magazine.
Dobrolyubov died at the age of 25 with the consciousness that he had not managed to do anything.
Joseph Stalin
Stalin in his youth
Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (1879–1953) is seminarian No. 1 on this list. He graduated with honors from the Gori Theological School and served obedience in the choir during his studies. After graduating from college, he was sent to the Tiflis Theological Seminary, but being carried away by revolutionary ideas, he did not complete his studies; he was expelled in his last year.
After expulsion from the seminary, Stalin devoted himself entirely to revolutionary activities, and then to the internal party struggle, the result of which was his unlimited power over ⅙ of the world. Under Stalin in 1937–1939. The Church suffered another colossal blow; the largest Local Church found itself on the verge of extinction. Only the Great Patriotic War brought about a change in Stalin’s attitude towards the Church. In 1943, he received three hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, with whom he discussed issues of restoring church life.
During the meeting, Stalin asked the metropolitans a question about the reasons for the shortage of priestly personnel. To which Metropolitan Sergius (Stargorodsky) replied: “We don’t have personnel for various reasons. One of them: we train a priest, and he becomes a marshal of the Soviet Union" Only his mother lamented the fact that Joseph did not accept holy orders. She wanted to see her son as a priest.
Anastas Ivanovich Mikoyan (1895–1978) is the only non-Orthodox seminarian on this list. Mikoyan belonged to the Armenian Apostolic Church. But the monophysite Mikoyan and the nominally Orthodox Stalin found a common theme - revolutionary activity. Mikoyan studied at the Tiflis Armenian-Gregorian Seminary Nersesyan, which he graduated from as a member of the RSDLP(b). As Mikoyan himself writes, he lost faith in the existence of God in the second grade of the seminary, and for arguing with the teacher of the Law of God, his classmates began to call him not Anastas, but Anastvats, which in Armenian means “atheist.” However, this did not prevent him from continuing his studies at the Armenian Theological Academy. Mikoyan's subsequent career was similar to Stalin's. Anastas held high and responsible positions.
Mikoyan was a political opportunist who knew how to mimic any circumstances. There was even an epigram about him: “From Ilyich to Ilyich without a heart attack or paralysis.” Mikoyan died at the age of 82. Today, a person chewing Mikoyan sausage is unlikely to remember in whose honor this plant producing meat products is named.
Alexander Vasilevsky
The famous Soviet commander Alexander Mikhailovich Vasilevsky (1895–1977) was born in the village of Novaya Golchikha, Kineshma district, Kostroma province, into the family of a church choir director; his father later took holy orders. Alexander graduated from theological school in Kineshma and theological seminary in Kostroma. Vasilevsky did not want to be a priest; he dreamed of becoming an agronomist or land surveyor. But Vasilevsky did not have the chance to cultivate the land; he had to defend it - the First World War began.
Alexander Mikhailovich defended his homeland during both the First and Second World Wars. He led the development of many key military operations of the Soviet troops. Vasilevsky was one of the main organizers of the defense of Moscow, he planned and prepared the counter-offensive at Stalingrad, coordinated the fronts in the battles of Kursk, during the liberation of Donbass, in the Crimea, in the battles on the Right Bank of Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic states. Under the command of Vasilevsky, in just 24 days in August 1945, Soviet and Mongolian troops defeated the Japanese Kwantung Army in Manchuria.
Whether the priest's son Alexander Vasilevsky showed interest in the Christian faith at least after 1943, when the Church was granted relative freedom, there is no evidence.
Andrey Vlasov
Soviet military leader Andrei Andreevich Vlasov (1901–1942) went down in history as a traitor general. He was born in the village of Lomakino, Nizhny Novgorod province. At the request of his father, who held the position of church warden, he was admitted to a theological school, after which he entered the Nizhny Novgorod Seminary. When in 1917 Vlasov saw that the bayonet of the revolution was aimed at the Church, he immediately left the seminary and went to study to become an agronomist. In 1919, after being drafted into the Red Army, his ascent through the ranks began. Vlasov had all the qualities of a careerist.
But fame did not come to him from the direction he wanted. In April 1942, the general was captured by the Germans.
Vlasov agreed to cooperate with the Nazis and headed the so-called. "Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia" and the "Russian Liberation Army", composed of captured Soviet military personnel. He wrote an open letter “Why I took the path of fighting Bolshevism” and made propaganda trips to the still occupied territories, in which he called for support for the “liberation movement.”
In 1945, the traitorous general was captured and taken to Moscow, where after his trial he was hanged.
There is an opinion that Vlasov confessed and received communion during his stay in Germany. But this is just a legend.
In contact with
1.3. Theological seminary and the first steps into the revolution
In September 1894, after passing the entrance exams, Joseph Dzhugashvili was enrolled in the Orthodox Theological Seminary in Tiflis, which was then one of the best educational institutions in Transcaucasia.
The seminary building was located in the center of Tiflis, not far from Erivan Square. On the balcony of the building there were bells hanging on an iron rod. In the large courtyard near the building there were acacia trees, near which there were benches, and large woodpiles of firewood were stacked against the wall. Between the wall and the firewood there was a rather wide, sheltered place with a corner; Joseph and his comrades often sat in this corner, discussing various issues. Joseph often read books here alone.
In the depths of the courtyard there was an elementary school for children who lived at home and in which students of the 5th and 6th grades of the seminary gave them trial lessons.
Opposite the entrance to the seminary building there was a hospital, and at the entrance to it on the first floor there were rooms for the inspector, overseers and the office. In the basement there was a wardrobe and a dining room with a kitchen. In the middle of the second floor was the seminary church. Around it with windows to the street are classrooms, a teacher's room and the rector's apartment with a secret door through which the rector could quietly enter the church and observe the behavior of the students. The library and bedrooms were on the third floor.
The seminary was dominated by the Jesuit regime, which caused Joseph protest and revolutionary sentiments. He began secretly attending an illegal Social Democratic circle.
Under the influence of Russian Marxists who lived in Transcaucasia, I. Dzhugashvili joined the revolutionary movement. In an illegal circle, he studied the works of K. Marx, F. Engels, V. I. Lenin, G. V. Plekhanov.
In August 1898, he formally joined the Tiflis organization of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, becoming a member of the Mesame Dasi group, the first social democratic organization in Georgia. In 1893 - 1898, this group played a positive role in the spread of Marxism, despite its political heterogeneity: its majority stood on the position of “legal Marxism”, leaning towards bourgeois nationalism. Stalin, Ketskhoveli, Tsulukidze represented that revolutionary Marxist minority “Mesame Dasi”, which became the embryo of revolutionary social democracy in Georgia. I. Dzhugashvili promoted Marxist ideas among the workers of the Tbilisi railways. workshops.
I.V. himself Stalin later recalled this period in a conversation with the German writer Emil Ludwig:
“Ludwig. Let me ask you a few questions from your biography. When I visited Masaryk, he told me that he recognized himself as a socialist from the age of 6. What and when made you a socialist?
Stalin. I cannot say that from the age of 6 I had a craving for socialism. And not even from 10 or 12 years old. I joined the revolutionary movement at the age of 15, when I contacted underground groups of Russian Marxists who then lived in Transcaucasia. These groups had a great influence on me and gave me a taste for underground Marxist literature.
Ludwig. What prompted you to become an oppositionist? Possibly mistreatment from parents?
Stalin. No. My parents were uneducated people, but they treated me not badly at all. Another thing is the Orthodox theological seminary, where I studied then. Out of protest against the mocking regime and the Jesuit methods that existed in the seminary, I was ready to become and actually became a revolutionary, a supporter of Marxism, as a truly revolutionary teaching.
Ludwig. But don't you recognize the positive qualities of the Jesuits?
Stalin. Yes, they are systematic and persistent in working to achieve bad goals. But their main method is surveillance, espionage, getting into the soul, bullying - what could be positive about this? For example, surveillance in a boarding house: at 9 o’clock the bell rings for tea, we go to the dining room, and when we return to our rooms, it turns out that during this time all our storage boxes have been searched and gutted... What could be positive about this?” (I. Stalin. Conversation with the German writer Emil Ludwig on December 13, 1931. Works, vol. 13, SS. 115-114).
One of the first books he read in 1894 was “Capital” by Karl Marx. This work of the founder of Marxism laid the foundations for young Stalin to understand the essence of the relationship between labor and capital and capitalist reproduction and was later used by him in developing the basis of socialist production during the years of the first five-year plans in the USSR.
Passionate about studying Marxist literature and reading fiction, Stalin, while studying at the Tiflis Seminary, wrote several poems that Ilya Chavchavadze really liked, who published them in the newspaper he edited on the front page, in a prominent place. In June–December 1895, five poems by Joseph were published on the pages of the newspaper “Iveria” signed by I. Dzh-shvili and then Soselo, one of which is dedicated to the writer Rafael Eristavi, the other is called “The Moon”, and the rest are not titled . The sixth poem, “Elder Ninika,” was published in the newspaper “Kvali” in July 1896. Chavchavadze placed these poems prominently on the first page.
So, from a young age, Joseph Dzhugashvili became famous, introducing his creations into the treasury of Georgian culture.
In 1901, the Georgian public figure M. Kelendzheridze compiled a manual on the theory of literature, in which he placed a poem signed by Soselo among the best examples of Georgian classical literature. In 1907, he also compiled and published “The Georgian Reader or a collection of the best examples of Georgian literature” (vol. I), in which on page 43 he placed a poem by Dzhugashvili dedicated to R. Eristavi.
Usually a person who writes poetry reveals what is hidden in his soul. For example, in a poem dedicated to Rafael Eristavi, the spirit of patriotism sounds quite clearly in every stanza. And the “Morning” of young Joseph ends with the following lines:
“Blossom, O my Georgia!
May peace reign in your native land!
And you study, friends,
Glorify your Motherland!”
He was a great patriot of his Motherland (Georgia, Russia, USSR) until the end of his life.
From the book: Savelyev I.V., Kharchikov A.A. Spaceship IS – 130. Book 1. Takeoff. Part one. CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH. 1.3. Theological seminary and the first steps into the revolution
Reviews
Thank you, Igvas. I read before that Stalin studied very well at the seminary. And according to classmates, even in the smoking room he talked not about girls, but about God. His views gradually changed under the influence of the revolutionaries, reprimands began to appear for disciplinary offenses - laughing in church, being late from vacation, but he still studied excellently. The reason for expulsion was failure to appear for the final exam. This surprised me very much.
Now there is a lot of slander against him. He made mistakes, so why invent more? And yet, it is difficult to find a political figure more popular among our people than him.
In 1888, at the age of 10, Soso became one of 150 boys who entered the Gori Theological School. His mother wanted him to become a bishop, but the school only accepted children of clergy. One priest solved this problem by introducing Father Joseph as a deacon. Soso succeeded in the three main pastimes of the city of Gori: city fights, wrestling tournaments of all age categories, and wars that took place at the school between the guys.
Church choir boy reading Psalms, Darwin and Marx
Young Soso had a very beautiful voice, which was complemented by an excellent singing style. He sang in the church choir and was often invited to weddings, where he sang from the pulpit, dressed in a surplice. In his youth, he was very devout and did not miss almost a single service. His school friend Chelidze recalls: “He not only adhered to church rituals himself, but also reminded us of their importance.”. He was the best hymn reader in the church. The church school awarded him the Book of Psalms of David with the dedicatory inscription: “ Joseph Dzhugashvili for brilliant studies, good behavior and excellent singing of Psalms».
An avid reader, Soso purchased Darwin's Origin of Species at age 13. One day he was arguing with friends about the injustice of the division between rich and poor. Soso amazed everyone with his answer: “God cannot be considered unjust, he simply does not exist. We are all deceived. If God really existed, he would make the world a more just place. I’ll give you one book to read, and you’ll understand everything.”. And he showed everyone Darwin's book.
At the age of 15, Soso received a personal scholarship to study at the Georgian Orthodox Seminary in Tiflis (Tbilisi), which was considered the best religious educational institution in the south of the Russian Empire. However, according to Trotsky, Stalin’s revolutionary comrade (and later his enemy), the theological schools of the Russian Empire were “notorious for the savagery of their morals, medieval pedagogy and the law of the “kulaks”.
The Tbilisi seminary was called the “Stone Bag”. “All the evil condemned by the Bible flourished in this place of piety,” writes biographer Montefiore. – “The seminary was quite successful in providing the Russian Revolution with some of its most ruthless radicals.” One of the students studying with Stalin wrote: “No secular school has produced as many atheists as the Tbilisi Seminary.”
In 1907, in the city square in Tbilisi, under the secret leadership of Stalin, an armed attack was carried out on a carriage carrying money to the Imperial Bank... Forty people were killed. According to unofficial data, Lenin said the following words on this subject: “This is exactly the person I need.”
Soso became addicted to reading the works of revolutionaries such as Victor Hugo, Emile Zola, Marx and Engels - authors whose books were banned by the seminary. He spent a lot of time reading forbidden books, serving his sentence for this in a punishment cell. Most often this happened because of the revenge of one of the teachers, whom Soso nicknamed "Black Mark". The teacher spied on him and regularly searched his room for prohibited books. The Black Mark taught the young Stalin repressive tactics - “surveillance, espionage, invasion of privacy, suppression of feelings”, and this, according to Stalin himself, he later successfully used in managing the Soviet state.
In the fifth year of study, almost at the end of his education, Soso did not return to the seminary. The seminary minutes officially noted that he declared himself an atheist, and in May 1899 he was “expelled... for failure to appear for exams”.
Revolutionary, Bolshevik and bank robber
Now Soso has turned into a street fighter, gang leader and professional revolutionary acting against the Russian monarchy. In 1903, he joined the ranks of the Bolshevik Party and became an expert in bank robberies and extortion, through which the Bolshevik treasury was replenished. In 1907, in the city square in Tbilisi, under the secret leadership of Stalin, an armed attack was carried out on a carriage carrying money to the Imperial Bank. The amount received as a result of the robbery today would be 3.4 million US dollars. During the robbery, 10 bombs were detonated and 40 people were killed. According to unofficial data, Lenin said the following words on this subject: “This is exactly the person I need”.
In 1913, Soso took the name Stalin. Despite numerous arrests and imprisonments, he constantly escaped, but was then exiled to Siberia, where he remained until 1917. After the Revolution of 1917 and the overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II, his position in the ranks of the Bolshevik Party began to rapidly strengthen. After Lenin's death in 1924, he quickly ousted all his competitors and became the supreme leader of the Soviet Republic.
His followers called him "the only hope of workers and peasants of the whole world." However, the confiscation of grain and other food products carried out by the Soviet authorities on Stalin's orders led to the Holodomor, which by 1937 killed several million Soviet peasants.
Mass killer
At the end of the 1930s. After carrying out campaigns known as the "Great Purge" or "Great Terror", Stalin gained absolute power in the country. The Great Purge was aimed at eliminating all political opponents and anyone who could threaten his position. Stalin understood well that “death as the simplest and most effective political weapon is very convenient.”
The “purge” included members of the Communist Party (both opponents and former comrades), members of the Red Army and representatives of all walks of life, including more than 100 thousand priests and monks of the Russian Orthodox Church. Montefiore writes: “During 1937–1938. more than 1.5 million people were shot. Stalin personally signed the death sentences of almost 39 thousand people, many of whom were his old acquaintances.”
How and why did a boy from the church choir and a theological seminary student become one of the bloodiest dictators in world history, for whom “killing a million people was no different from weeding”? Of course, this is largely due to the fact that Stalin read the works of Darwin at the tender age of 13.
After Stalin's death, Nikita Khrushchev became the head of the USSR. In 1956, in his speech at the 20th Party Congress, he publicly accused Stalin of crimes, saying that the purges "caused irreparable damage to the country", that "many of the victims were innocent, and the sentences were based on untruthful confessions made under torture."
In 1991, Soviet archives became publicly available. It is documented that under Stalin, in the period before, during and after the Second World War, about 800 thousand prisoners were executed (on political or criminal charges), about 1.7 million people died in the Gulag (forceful labor camps) and approximately 389 thousand people died in exile in Central Asia and Siberia. Many historians consider these figures to be too low. According to Montefiore, “it is likely that about 20 million people were killed; 28 million were deported, and 18 million of them were held captive in the Gulag.”
Why?
How and why did a choir boy and parish church student become one of the bloodiest dictators in world history, for whom “killing a million people was no different from weeding”? Of course, this is largely due to the fact that Stalin read the works of Darwin at the tender age of 13. This knowledge gave him all the "excuses" his mind needed to deny the existence of God. and rejecting the authority of the Bible in your life. With this reading, the road to the acceptance of Marx's atheistic revolutionism was paved and all restrictions were removed from killing one's opponents - the ruthless elimination of the "weak" in the process of unconscious revenge for childhood pain.
The seminary where Stalin studied obviously did not provide comprehensive answers to his atheistic questions. And no matter what truth was taught in this seminary, the teachers demonstrated a far from Christian demeanor. Thus, having rejected the Lord and His Word, Stalin, while still a teenager, filled the resulting spiritual void with the thoughts and beliefs of revolutionaries. The rest is history.
Karl Marx (right) read Darwin's On the Origin of Species shortly after its publication in 1859 in England. This book gave Marx scientific justification for denying the creation of the world by God and, therefore, denying the existence of God himself. He fully believed that this scientific theory confirmed his view of the world, according to which the main “struggle for existence” among representatives of the human race occurs between social classes (and classes are akin to species). In 1861, he wrote to his friend Ferdinand Lassalle: “Darwin’s work is the most important for me and serves my purpose, since it provides a scientific basis for the historical class struggle.”1
In 1873, Karl Marx sent Darwin his book “Capital” with a personal signature. Harvard evolutionist and Marxist, the late Stephen Jay Gould, confirmed this fact, stating that he personally saw a signed book (in the Darwin Library at Down House) in which Marx calls himself a "sincere admirer" of Darwin. Darwin politely responded with a letter of gratitude, but apparently never read the book, as evidenced by its uncut pages.2
Be that as it may, it is a myth that Marx wanted to dedicate his book to Darwin. Most likely, the request for dedication came from the lover of Marx's daughter, Edward Evelyn.
True, that's not all. There is one more chapter. The Bible says: “And just as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.”(Hebrews 9:27) “All who are in the tombs will hear the voice of the Son of God; ...and those who have done evil will come out in the resurrection of judgment.”(Gospel of John 5:28–29).
