Life of Russian Orthodox Clergy in the United States at the End of the 19th Century (Reflected in the correspondence of the Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod Konstantin Pobedonostsev)

Using little-known correspondence of the Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod Konstantin Pobedonostsev with the bishop Nickolay (Ziorov) — head of Russian Orthodox Church in the United States in 1892–1898 — the article explores the everyday life of Russian clergy in America. This correspondence is deposited at the Russian State Historical Archive in St. Petersburg and has not been published or studied before. The author analyzes Pobedonostsev’s role in the diocese affairs. This examination is new both in the Church’s history and recently published literature on Pobedonostsev. Yet the Ober-Procurator’s supervision was of utmost importance for the Russian mission in the United States, faced with the crucial challenge of adapting itself to the alien cultural environment. Pobedonostsev was well informed about the situation with the Russian mission, helped to solve many personnel, financial and organizational problems, was a chief promoter of its interests before the Russian imperial government — Foreign Ministry, Ministry of Finance, the State Council, and the Tzar’s court. Pobedonostsev also stayed in touch with the US diplomatic mission in Russia and Russian diplomats in the United States. He was very close with bishop Nickolay who regarded the Ober-Procurator as his main benefactor and constantly turned to him for advice and assistance. Pobedonostsev strongly supported the bishop’s reforms of missionary activities in education, parish life, and propagation of Orthodoxy, as well as his efforts to defend the Russian Orthodox mission’s interests before American authorities. No wonder their extensive correspondence richly reflected the diocese’s life with all its problems and needs. The article highlights their close cooperation in recruiting qualified clergymen for American service, which was the key task for the mission that suffered from a shortage of reliable professional personnel. Pobedonostsev-Nickolay cooperation greatly contributed to the diocese progress, which later reached its peak under Nickolay’s successor bishop Tikhon (Bellavin). Their correspondence sheds new light on the personalities of both men united by their fervent devotion to the Orthodox Church and highly conservative views. It also presents a revealing case study of the interaction between Russian ecclesiastic and state authorities as well as their perception of American culture. The author’s main methodological approach consisted in text analysis of the archival documents juxtaposed against the context of Russian-American relations and the realities of American life.

1. Akimov, Y. G. (2020) ‘Aleutian and Alaskan Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church, Russian Authorities, and the Propagation of Orthodoxy in North America in the Late 19th Century’, American Yearbook, (2020), pp. 206–216. (In Russian).

2. Akimov, Y. G. and Minkova, K. V. (2018) ‘Transition of the Uniate Emigrants in the USA to Orthodoxy in 1891 – 1892 and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church’, Voprosy istorii, (1), pp. 160–170. (In Russian).

3. Alexeev, A. (1954) ‘Antiokhiiskoe patriarshee podvor’e v Moskve [Antiochian Patriarchal Metochion in Moscow]’, Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii, (6). pp. 58–65 (In Russian).

4. Efimov, A. B. and Lasaeva, O. V. (2012) Aleutskaja i Severo-Amerikanskaja eparchija pri svjatitele Tichone[The Aleutian and North American Diocese under St. Tikhon]. Moscow: PSTGU Publ. (In Russian).

5. Galkina, E. (2018) ‘Spread of Russian America Orthodoxy at the End of 18 th – First Half of 19 th Centuries’, Gumanitarnye i ûridičeskie issledovaniâ, (1), pp. 26–29. (In Russian).

6. Kapalin, K. (2009) Russkaja Pravoslavnaja Cerkov na Aljaske do 1917 goda [The Russian Orthodox Church in Alaska before 1917]. Moscow : OLMA Media Grupp. (In Russian).

7. Kostryukov, A. (2016) ‘Granting of Autocephaly to Orthodox Church in America in the Light of the Documents of Church Archives’, St.Tikhons’ University Reviews, 70(3), pp. 93–103. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.15382/sturII201670.93-103

8. Koudryavtseva, E. P. (2017) ‘Russian Embassy Churches and Priest During the Reign of Nicholas I’, MGIMO Review of International Relations, 6(57), pp. 7–19. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2017-6-57-7-19

9. Malkov, V. L. (2009) Russia and the United States in the 20th Century. Moscow: Nauka Publ. (In Russian).

10. Nureeva, S. V. (2012) ‘K.P Pobedonostsev on a Spiritual Basis of State and Law’, Actual problems of Russian law, (2), pp. 11–19. (In Russian).

11. Pavlov, N. V. (2008) ‘Pobedonostsev’s Views on the People Representative State Body in Russia’, Bulletin of Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Series Law, (2), pp. 12–17. (In Russian).

12. Pechatnov, V. V.and Pechatnov, V. O. (2021) ‘Russian Bishop in Gilded Age America’, MGIMO Review of International Relations, 14(1), pp. 7–30. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2021-1-76-7-30

13. Pechatnov, V. O. and Pechatnov, V.V. (2019) ‘Orthodox America: Past and Present’, USA & Canada: Economics — Politics — Culture, (8), pp. 75–91. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31857/S032120680005968-8

14. Polunov, A. (2016) ‘Protestantism and Roman Catholicism in Perception of «Russian Torquemada»: Some Notes on Religious Views of K. P. Pobedonostsev’, St.Tikhons’ University Reviews, 67(5), pp. 24–32. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.15382/sturI201667.24-32

15. Polunov, A. J. (2010) K.P. Pobedonoscev v obscestvenno-politiceskoj i duhovnoj zizni Rossii. Moscow: ROSSPEN Publ. (In Russian).

16. Svetlova, N. (2018) ‘K. P. Pobedonostsev and parish schools of Russia in the early 20th century’, St.Tikhons’ University Review. Series IV. Pedagogy. Psychology, 49, pp. 59–68. doi: 10.15382/sturIV201849.59-68. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.15382/sturIV201849.59-68

17. Teslya, A. (2017) ‘The Russian Conservative: On the System of K. P. Pobedonostsev’s Political Views in the 1870–1890s’, Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review, 16(1), pp. 151–172. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192X-2017-1-151-172