Voprosy Istorii (Questions of History), 2006 (3), p. 84.
409 St. Ambrose, in Sergius Fomin & Tatiana Fomina, Rossia pered Vtorym Prishestviem (Russia before the Second Coming), Moscow: "Rodnik", 1994, vol. II, p. 350.
410 Nazarov, “Krovavaia mest’ slavianskim varvaram” (Bloody revenge on the Slavic barbarians), address to the international scientific conference, ‘The Jewish-Bolshevik coup of 1917 as the precondition of the red terror and forced starvations’, http://www.livejournal.com/users/rocornews/174447.html.
411 Leontiev, in Fomin & Fomina, op. cit., vol. II, p. 350.
412 Archbishop John, cited in Orthodoxy America, June, 1987, pp. 10-11.
413 Khrapovitsky, “Dorogie vospominania” (Treasured Reminiscences), Tsarskij Vestnik (Royal Herald), in Archbishop Nicon (Rklitskly), Zhizneopisanie Blazhennejshago Antonia, Mitropolita Kievskago i Galitskago (Biography of his Beatitude Anthony, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galich),New York, 1971, volume 1, p. 26.
414 Solzhenitsyn, Dvesti let vmeste (Two Hundred Years Together), Moscow, 2001, part 1, p. 185.
415 Solzhenitsyn, op. cit., p. 189.
416 Vital, A People Apart: The Jews in Europe 1789-1939, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 288, 289.
417 Lieven, Empire, London: John Murray, 2000, p. 277.
418 Solzhenitsyn, op. cit., p. 192.
419 Hosking, op. cit., p. 390.
420 Krivosheev Yu. & Krivosheev, V., Istoria Rossijskoj Imperii, 1861-1894 (A History of the Russian Empire, 1861-1894), St. Petersburg, 2000, pp. 99, 106.
421 Archbishop Nicanor, in Fomin and Fomina, op. cit., vol. I, p. 351. Of course, the kahal, that “state within a state”, was supposed to have been abolished in the reign of Nicholas I. Evidently, the Jews had managed to get round that law…
422 Hosking, op. cit., pp. 392-393.
423 Solzhenitsyn, op. cit., p. 192.
424 Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews, London: Phoenix, 1995, p. 370.
425 Solzhenitsyn, op. cit., pp. 293-294.
426 Solzhenitsyn, op. cit., p. 299.
427 Solzhenitsyn, op. cit., p. 311.
428 Solzhenitsyn, op. cit., pp. 313-314.
429 Solzhenitsyn, op. cit., p. 314.
430 Solzhenitsyn, op. cit., pp. 317-318.
431 I.L. Solonevich, Narodnaia Monarkhia (The People’s Monarchy),Minsk, 1998, pp. 403-404. The slaves included some who have been numbered among the saints, such as St. John the Russian (enslaved in Turkey) and St. Paul of Cairo.
432 Armour, “The Roots of Sarajevo: Austria-Hungary and Serbia, 1867-81”, History Today, February 27, 2014.
433 Judah, The Serbs, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009, third edition, pp. 93-94.
434 Zhukov, Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov’ na Rodine i za Rubezhom (The Russian Orthodox Church in the Homeland and Abroad), Paris, 2005, pp. 18-19.
435 Glenny, The Balkans, 1804-1999, London: Granta Books, 2000, p. 175.
436 Jelavich, History of the Balkans, Cambridge University Press, 1983, vol. 2, p. 31.
437 Dostoyevsky, The Diary of a Writer, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenij (Complete Works), vol. 26, pp. 77-82.
438 “It was a notable event,” writes Rosamund Bartlett, “not because Tolstoy found the lecture interesting (he dismissed it as ‘childish nonsense’), but because it was the only occasion on which he and Dostoyevsky were in spitting distance of each other. Strakhov was a friend of both the great writers, but he honoured Tolstoy’s request not to introduce him to anyone, and so the two passed like ships in the night, to their subsequent mutual regret. Much later, Tolstoy described in letters the horrible experience of having to sit in a stuffy hall which was packed so full that there were even high-society ladies in evening dress perched on window ledges. As someone who went out of his way to avoid being part of the crowd, and who disdained having anything to do with polite society or fashion, his blood must have boiled at having to wait until the emaciated figure of the twenty-four-year-old philosopher decided to make a grand theatrical entrance in his billowing white silk cravat. Tolstoy certainly did not have the patience to sit and listen to some boy ‘with a huge head consisting of hair and eyes’ spout pretentious pseudo-profundities. After the first string of German quotations and references to cherubim and seraphim, he got up and walked out, leaving Strakhov to carry on listening to the ‘ravings of a lunatic’” (Tolstoy. A Russian Life, Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011, p. 267).
439 Archbishop Nicon (Rklitsky), Zhizneopisanie Blazhenneishago Antonia, Mitropolita Kievskago i Galitskago (Biography of Blessed Anthony, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galich), volume 1, 1971, pp. 103-104.
440 For Soloviev Sophia was the feminine principle of God, His ‘other’. For some of his heretical followers, such as Protopriest Sergius Bulgakov, it was the Mother of God.
441 Soloviev, “Golos Moskvy” (The Voice of Moscow), 14 March, 1885; quoted in Fomin and Fomina, op. cit.
442 Soloviev, in N.G. Fyodorovsky, V poiskakh svoego puti: Rossia mezhdu Evropoj i Aziej (In Search of her own Path: Russia between Europe and Asia), Moscow, 1997, pp. 334-335.
443 Soloviev, “Kak probudit’ nashi tserkovnie sily?” in Paul Valliere, “The Liberal Tradition in Russian Orthodox Theology”, in J. Breck, J. Meyendorff and E. Silk (eds.), The Legacy of St Vladimir, Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990, p. 103.
444 Soloviev, “Evrejstvo i khristianskij vopros”, in Valliere, op. cit., p. 104.
445 Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy, London: Allen Unwin, 1952, pp. 115-117.
446 Khrapovitsky, “The Infallibility of the Pope according to Vladimir Soloviev”, Orthodox Life, vol. 37, N 4, July-August, 1987, pp. 37, 43.
447 Firsov, Russkaia Tserkov’ nakanune peremen (konets 1890-kh – 1918 g.) (The Russian Church on the Eve of the Changes (the end of the 1890s to 1918), Moscow, 2002, pp. 39-40.
448 St. Ambrose, “A reply to one well disposed towards the Latin church. Regarding the unjust glorying of the papists in the imaginary dignity of their church”.
449 Pobedonostev, in Protopriest Michael Ardov, "Arkhi-Kontrrevoliutsioner", Nasha Strana, N 2929, December 3, 2011, p. 3.
450 A.I. Peshkov, “’Kto razoriaet – mal vo Tsarstvii Khristovym’” (He who destroys is least in the Kingdom of Christ), in K.P. Pobedonostev, Sochinenia (Works), St. Petersburg, p. 3.
451 Firsov, op. cit., pp. 42-43.
452 Peshkov provides a certain, not very convincing correction to this point of view: “It is necessary to take into account that even in the Synod he did not have that direct administrative power which any minister in Russia’s Tsarist government possessed in the department subject to him, since the Most Holy Synod was a collegial organ, whose decision-making required the unanimity of its members. As Pobedonostev himself emphasized, ‘juridically I have no power to issue orders in the Church and the department. You have to refer to the Synod.’ In particular, when Metropolitan Isidore of St. Petersburg expressed himself against the publication in Russia of the New Testament in the translation of V.A. Zhukovsky, K.P. Pobedonostev had to publish it abroad, in Berlin…” (Peshkov, op. cit., p. 7)
453 Firsov, op. cit., p. 77.
454 Pobedonostev, Moskovskij Sbornik: Tserkov’ i Gosudarstvo (Moscow Anthology: Church and State),op. cit., p. 264.
455 Pobedonostsev, op. cit., p. 266.
456 Pobedonostsev, op. cit., pp. 268-269.
457 Pobedonostsev, op. cit., pp. 271-275, 276-277.
458 Pobedonostsev, "Novaia Demokratia" (The New Democracy), in Sochinenia (Works), St. Petersburg: "Nauka", 1996, p. 277.
459Pobedonostev, op. cit., pp. 278-279.
460 Pobedonostsev, op. cit., pp. 279-280.
461 As in Gilbert and Sullivan's operetta, H.M.S. Pinafore: I always voted at my Party's call / And I never thought of thinking for myself at all. (V.M.)
462Pobedonostsev, op. cit., pp. 281-283.
463 Krivosheev & Krivosheev, op. cit., pp. 91, 90, 88.
464 Alexander III, in Fomin, S. & Fomin, T. op. cit., 1998, vol. 1, p. 354. Prince Sergius Trubetskoy illustrated the link between family feeling and feeling for the monarchy during his childhood under the same Tsar Alexander: “Father and mother, grandfathers and grandmothers were for us in childhood not only sources and centres of love and unquestioned authority; they were enveloped in our eyes by a kind of aura which the modern generation does not know… Our fathers and grandfathers were in our children’s eyes both patriarchs and family monarchs, while our mothers and grandmothers were family tsaritsas.”
465 Pipes, The Russian Revolution, 1899-1919, London: Collins Harvill, 1990, pp. 143-145.
466 Figes, A People’s Tragedy, London: Pimlico, 1997, pp. 46-47.
467 Figes, op. cit., p. 160.
468 Wilson, Tolstoy, London: Atlantic Books, 2012, p. 402.
469 Wilson, op. cit., p. 403.
470 Figes, op. cit., pp. 160-162.
471 V.F. Ivanov, Russkaia Intelligentsia i Masonstvo ot Petra I do nashikh dnej (The Russian Intelligentstia from Peter I to our days), Moscow, 1997. p. 363.
472 Lebedev, Velikorossia (Great Russia), St. Petersburg, 1997, pp. 377-379.
473 Voeikov, So Tsarem i Bez Tsaria (With and Without the Tsar), Moscow, 1995, p. 271. For more statistics, see Arsène de Goulevitch, Czarism and Revolution, Hawthorne, Ca., 1962.
474 Polsky, The New Martyrs of Russia, Wildwood, Alberta: Monastery Press, 2000, p. 117.
475 Mikhail V. Shkarovskii, “The Russian Orthodox Church”, in Edward Action, Vladimir Cherniaev, William Rosenberg (eds.), A Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914-1921, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997, p. 416. On December 1, 1901 the Tsar decreed that every military unit having its own clergy should have its own church in the form of a separate building (A.S. Fedotov, “Khramy vo imia svyatogo blagovernago velikago kniazia Aleksandra Nevskago v XIX-XX vv.”, Pravoslavnaia Rus’, N 5 (1818), March 1/14, 2007, p. 13).
476 Isabel de Madariaga, Russia in the Age of Catherine the Great, London: Phoenix, 2002, p. 580.
477 Soloviev, op. cit., pp. 41-42.
478 Ferguson, The Pity of War. 1914-1918, London: Penguin, 1999, pp. 43-44.
479 Tsar Nicholas, in Lieven, Nicholas II, p. 94.
480 Figes, Natasha’s Dance, pp. 415-416.
481 A man of talent and energy, Witte was distrusted by the conservatives. Thus on October 13, 1901, N.V. Muraviev, the Minister of Justice said that Witte, “thanks to his wife Matilda, a pure-blooded Jewess, has concluded a close union with the Jews and is confusing Russia… In his hands are special organs of his secret police… He is preparing, if there were to be a change of reign, to take power into his own hands. He has… influence everywhere” (Vladimir Gubanov (ed.), Nikolai II-ij i Novie Mucheniki (Nicholas II and the New Martyrs), St. Petersburg, 2000, p. 705).
482 Kireev, in Niall Ferguson, The War of the Worlds, London: Penguin, 2007, p. 70.
483 Pipes, op. cit., pp. 12-13.
484 Lieven, op. cit., p. 94.
485 Ferguson, op. cit., pp. 49-50.
486 Carter, op. cit., p. 209.
487 Ferguson, op. cit., pp. 50-51.
488 Lieven, op. cit., p. 97.
489 Archbishop Nicon (Rklitsky), Zhizneopisanie Blazhennejshago Antonia, Mitropolita Kievskago i Galitskago, volume 2, New York, 1957, pp. 140-141.
490 “The First Chinese Orthodox Martyrs”, Orthodox Life, vol. 29, N 1, January-February, 1979, pp. 14-18; The True Vine, N 8, Winter, 1991, pp. 42-51.
491 “’I’ll go along with the conference comedy,’ said the Kaiser, ‘but I’ll keep my dagger at my side during the waltz.’ For once his uncle in Britain agreed with him. ‘It is the greatest nonsense and rubbish I ever heard of,’ said Edward. Germany went to the conference intending to wreck it if it could do so without taking all the blame. Its delegation was headed by Georg zu Münster, the German ambassador to Paris, who strongly disliked the whole idea of the conference, and included Karl von Stengel, a professor from Munich, who published a pamphlet shortly before the proceedings started in which he condemned disarmament, arbitration and the whole peace movement. The directions that Holstein in the German Foreign Office gave the delegates said: ‘For the state there is aim superior to the protection of its interests… In the case of great powers these will not necessarily be identical with the maintenance of peace, but rather with the violation of the enemy and competitor by an appropriately combined group of stronger states.’.. “One member of the German delegation, a military officer, made an unfortunate impression when he gave an exceedingly belligerent speech in which he boasted that his country could easily afford its defence expenditure and that furthermore every German saw military service ‘as a sacred and patriotic duty, to the performance of which he owes his existence, his prosperity, his future.’” (Margaret Macmillan, The War that Ended Peace, London: Profile, 2014, pp. 279-280, 281) (V.M.)
492 Soloviev, op. cit., pp. 33-34.
493 Thus Miranda Carter writes: “When, a couple of months before the Hague peace conference took place in May 1899, the British ambassador in St. Petersburg raised the issue of the four new battleships Russia had commissioned, Nicholas replied that it wasn’t the right moment for ‘exchanging views about a mutual curtailment of naval programmes’. By then, the tsar’s enthusiasm had waned when, according to the British Russia expert Donald Mackenzie Wallace, it had been pointed out to him that the proposed alternative to war – an arbitration court – would undermine the intrinsic superiority of the Great Powers, since small countries would have just as much muscle as big ones; and that there were thirty outstanding disputes with other Asian powers which Russia would almost certainly lose in arbitration. Nor did he like being hailed as a hero by European socialists” (The Three Emperors, London: Penguin, 2010, p. 252).
