Mikhail Piotrovsky: “Isaakievsky will defend himself, but the hysteria around shows that society is unhealthy. "Izvestia": Piotrovsky believes that the appointment of Isaac goes beyond religious boundaries. St. Isaac's Cathedral Piotrovsky
The director of the State Hermitage, earlier, explained his position in detail.
I have said more than once that our society is sick, and the disease is becoming more and more severe. There are plenty of reasons to cause scandals, but the degree of hysteria is growing. We need to think about how to weaken this process rather than stimulate it.
This is not the first time that St. Isaac's Cathedral has been involved in fierce debate. In this sense, he is an important example. The cathedral stands in St. Petersburg and is not going anywhere. The issue of transferring it to the church has been discussed for a long time. You can understand when they shout about acute political situations. But because of St. Isaac's Cathedral, politicians are talking nonsense that could ruin their reputation. Those who listen or read all this perceive, for the most part, boorish speeches. Due to hysteria, understanding of important nuances is lost.
As a result, everyone ends up offended. Hurt feelings are a characteristic sign of the times. Emotions, in my opinion, should not figure here, including on the part of church representatives. Thank God, there is an understanding of the complexity of the problem.
“According to the law, one way or another, what is due will be transferred to the church”
The Union of Russian Museums has its own policy regarding Isaac. I don’t presume to say whether it’s correct or not, but it’s old and well thought out. Some people don't like it, others don't understand it. Even words are not always perceived correctly. People stopped understanding the Russian language.
When another round of conflict began so unexpectedly in connection with St. Isaac's Cathedral, we published a statement from St. Petersburg museum workers. It posed questions that touched us. First and most importantly, the museum is closing. This is no less important for us than the opening of a temple for the church. The second circumstance is that the Union of Museums is in dialogue with the Orthodox Church. We met with the Patriarch, we have an agreement with the Theological Academy. We interact with church representatives at various forums and participate in joint programs. At the Department of Museum Studies at the University there is a permanent conference “Museums and the Church”, where problems are discussed: what is a church museum, museum activities in a cathedral... Museums and the church communicate without screaming and hysterics. We believed that a compromise had been reached at St. Isaac's Cathedral that needed to be developed. You can make it a fully functioning temple without throwing out the museum. The cathedral has an important historical and cultural function, which is supported by the museum.
The cathedrals of St. Petersburg are not just temples, they have a special meaning. They were in the department of the Imperial Court not because the church did not have enough money to maintain them. They have a special historical and cultural status. Russian emperors are buried in the Peter and Paul Cathedral. They come there to worship them. The Kazan Cathedral is a monument to the victory in the war of 1812; Kutuzov is buried there. This is its special meaning. It is no coincidence that the architecture of these cathedrals is not familiar, not entirely Orthodox. It complements the imperial, sacred significance of St. Petersburg. This sacredness is higher than religious. It is state-owned, a sign of a capital city. Reducing the importance of cathedrals to parish churches is a step towards the provincialization of St. Petersburg.
St. Isaac's Cathedral was founded on the birthday of Peter, located next to the Bronze Horseman, this is a monument to the founder of our city. Everything here has a special meaning that should be embodied in the museum.
“The feelings of not only believers were insulted”
It seemed to us that a compromise between the museum and the church in St. Isaac's Cathedral had been reached. There are services there, their number is expanding. The funeral service for Empress Maria Feodorovna was held in St. Isaac's Cathedral. We are surprised that the dialogue was interrupted. The feelings of not only believers were insulted.
It seemed to us that a compromise had been reached with the church at the Tauride Chersonese Museum-Reserve. The sacredness of Chersonesus is different. In the case of Isaac, the historical sacredness of the cathedral is added to the religious one. In Chersonesus, church sacredness is a small part of the history of the most important monument of Russia, the source of our pride, the right to be called Europe. They came to agreement not without controversy. For example, a difficult decision for the museum was to open free entrance to the territory of the reserve so that believers would go to the temple. The point is not even that this deprives the museum of a large part of its income. A chaotic, uncontrollable movement is created across its territory. The museum went for it. Suddenly a demand arose to give all the monastery buildings to the church. It’s good that the church immediately made it clear: there will be a leisurely discussion. This is the correct position.
According to the law, one way or another, what is due will be transferred to the church. It's about goodwill. St. Petersburg museums, I repeat, stated that they were upset by the destruction of the museum in St. Isaac's Cathedral, as well as by some change in the policy of the city authorities, which puts us at a dead end. Still, the dialogue must continue.
I wrote a letter to Patriarch Kirill. The press secretary of His Holiness said that the Patriarch is ready to meet and discuss these issues.
In the letter, I asked for the possibility of temporarily withdrawing the church’s demand for the transfer of St. Isaac’s Cathedral, because this caused a split in society. Against this background, we suggest taking a break to calmly discuss everything and find a wise solution. And there is something to discuss.
“The hysteria around shows that society is unhealthy”
It sounds like the cathedral will retain its functions as a tourist attraction. But this is not a tourist site, but a museum. The first thing that can be done when preserving the museum is to abolish the entrance fee, as was done in Chersonesos. And then discuss whether or not people can be allowed into the colonnade; they walk above the altar. Is it permissible to hang icons in a temple - a monument of monumental architecture? The Royal Doors, as it should be in a church, will be closed, and the image behind them will not be visible. Women will not be able to walk everywhere in the cathedral... All this is connected with the museum aspect, there is something to talk about.
What are we seeing now? We are seeing rudeness. The boorish personal opinion of some “activists” is presented by the press as an official statement of the church.
The St. Petersburg diocese reported that, on the contrary, it is ready for dialogue with museum workers, recognizes their right to such dialogue, and does not consider the opinion of its individual representative official.
These are the facts. We will continue the dialogue. There are many round tables and events planned related to artistic values, ritual art, and the problem of blasphemy... St. Isaac's Cathedral is not included in these topics.
Gradually the right solutions will be found. St. Isaac's Cathedral will protect itself. I'm worried about the hysteria around him. It shows that society is unhealthy, there are many forces that are trying to exploit it.
The next wave of hysteria in the country is rolling in, this time about hijabs. It may be stronger than the struggle around Isaac. It is extremely important not to arouse emotions and to continue the dialogue. Unfortunately, there are people from different sides who want to interfere. Some people are annoyed by rationality, others benefit from conflict.
We must proceed from the fact that we live in the imperial capital. There are many recipes for how the church functioned here. It is necessary to achieve agreement by restraining emotions.
Director of the State Hermitage and President of the Union of Museums of Russia Mikhail Piotrovsky addressed a letter to Patriarch Kirill, in which he raised the question of transferring one of the symbols of St. Petersburg - St. Isaac's Cathedral - to the Russian Orthodox Church.
Mikhail Piotrovsky believes that the proposed transfer of the cathedral is causing a controversial reaction in society. In his opinion, it provoked public conflicts and confrontation between people with different attitudes to this problem.
Piotrovsky emphasizes that at the moment, almost all churches and buildings necessary for the revival of full-fledged religious life in Russia have been transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church. And now we are talking about a few objects that have significant, special significance not only for the Church, but also for the entire multi-confessional, multinational Russian society.
Piotrovsky in his letter expresses the conviction that peace in the souls of people and harmony in society are more important than any property. He proposed to consider the issue of temporarily withdrawing the petition of the St. Petersburg diocese to transfer St. Isaac's Cathedral. This, in his opinion, will make it possible to stop public confrontation and find the most wise and fair solution.
The press secretary of His Holiness the Patriarch, Father Alexander Volkov, in a conversation with the Interfax-Religion agency, expressed surprise that the director of the Hermitage chose a public form of address. “It seems that Mikhail Piotrovsky could turn directly to the patriarch, bypassing public channels, in order to discuss all aspects of this issue in a confidential atmosphere,” said Father Alexander.
Meanwhile, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus', TASS reports, called the transfer of St. Isaac's Cathedral to the Russian Orthodox Church historical justice.
“The attention of the public is now focused on the situation that is unfolding around St. Isaac’s Cathedral,” he reminded the participants in the round table in the State Duma as part of the traditional Christmas readings. “In addition to the legal side of the issue - the implementation of federal law of 2010 N 327 on the transfer to religious organizations religious property in state or municipal ownership, undoubtedly, we are talking about restoring historical justice, transferring the most important sacred place of the Northern capital to the church and believers."
The severity of modern discussions about the fate of St. Isaac's Cathedral suggests that the policy of the Soviet government in relation to the remarkable monument of Russian church architecture was at least targeted and specific. Historical sources lead us to a slightly different conclusion - no separate special operation “Isaac” was carried out, the actions of the participants in this drama fluctuated along with the “general party line” in relation to religion. Already with the adoption at the beginning of 1918 of Lenin’s decree “On the separation of church from state and school from church,” it became clear that the new government would henceforth dispose of church buildings in accordance with its own ideas about beauty. It was very difficult for the churches of Petrograd-Leningrad not to disappear in the whirlpool of anti-religious struggle: of the 465 Orthodox churches that existed in 1917, by 1941 only 21 remained.
In 1940, when the museum significance of Montferrand’s masterpiece as “a tool for studying the history of our Motherland by the broad working masses” was no longer seriously questioned, something quite interesting was written in the brochure “The Churchmen of St. Isaac’s Cathedral in the Struggle against the People.” Isaac, in the spirit of a new interpretation of history, found himself in a select number of Kyiv and Novgorod cathedrals and monasteries, the Novodevichy Convent and St. Basil's Cathedral in Moscow: “After the October Socialist Revolution, at the request of the working people, they ceased their activities and became museums.”
“Some malicious pest, well aware of the location of the cathedral, climbed up and, at the top of the pendulum mounting, pulled it to the side by the wire, thus disrupting its proper operation.” Photo: Sergey Petrov/TASS
But these were already the pre-war years, when the Union of Militant Atheists (SVB) somewhat slowed down its activities in order to stop it altogether with the beginning of the Great Patriotic War in the summer of 1941. And in the 1930s, anti-religious magazines promoted completely different ideas: “Art museums, churches, monasteries in most cases are peculiar centers of religious sentiment.” This meant that the exhibition with the Foucault pendulum could be closed down, even to the point of demolition, in the event of policy tightening. Fortunately, the sources did not record mass calls to blow up St. Isaac's Cathedral; however, there are no calls from ordinary citizens to build a museum in it. The idea of museumification came to the minds of the “workers” from among the Soviet cultural apparatchiks who worked in the People's Commissariat for Education under the leadership of Anatoly Lunacharsky, who was also known for his fight against religion. To begin with, as the 1931 brochure of the publication “From the Hearth of Obscurantism to the Hearth of Culture” joyfully tells about this, in October-November 1919, funds belonging to the cathedral in the amount of 27,025 rubles were transferred to the treasury, and on May 5 and 8, 1922 seized:
Gold - 3 poods 11 pounds 48 spools 92 shares;
Silver - 138 poods 31 pounds 61 spools;
Precious stones - 796 pieces.
In Petrograd-Leningrad, of the 465 Orthodox churches that existed in 1917, by 1941 only 21 remained
After this, in March 1923, the cathedral could, in the spirit of the course towards a split in the Orthodox Church, be handed over to the control of the “renovationists”, and in the same year the latter had already fallen out of favor with the Soviet regime. During all these changes, the condition of the temple deteriorated before our eyes, which was recorded by the employees of the Main Science of the People's Commissariat for Education who had their eyes on it. At the same time, S. Lebedyansky, one of the authors of the brochure about the “hotbed of obscurantism,” found not only artistic masterpieces inside St. Isaac’s and protected himself in case of a decision to demolish: “The outwardly monolithic and stable cathedral is in reality extremely fragile and unstable, due to the dishonesty of the construction. [ ...] Everyone assigned to the construction tried to tear as much as possible for himself personally, caring little about the entire construction. The cathedral was made in its individual parts illiterately and completely in bad faith. [...] ".
The idea of museumification came to the minds of the “workers” from among the Soviet cultural apparatchiks who worked in the People's Commissariat for Education under the leadership of Anatoly Lunacharsky, who was also known for his fight against religion. Photo: RIA News
It is noteworthy that in the resolution of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of June 18, 1928, on the basis of which the temple was given to the Main Science, there is not a word about what kind of museum should be organized there. The disputes continued until the opening of the exhibition in April 1931 as the State Anti-Religious Museum, as told by its then director Lev Finn: “The struggle to turn the cathedral into an anti-religious museum lasted for three years. For three years, the Regional Council of the SVB fought fiercely with the then leaders cathedral for this matter. And even in the last days, when the museum had already been created, the evil will of the class enemy wanted to spoil the normal course of the Foucault pendulum and embarked on sabotage. Some malicious saboteur, well aware of the location of the cathedral, climbed up and into the upper part of the mount the pendulum pulled it to the side by the wire, thus disrupting its correct operation.” Hidden under the “then leaders of the cathedral” were the head of the Leningrad state restoration workshops of the Main Science Department, Alexander Udalenkov, and the architect Nikolai Nikitin, who saw a more scientific and less anti-religious museum future for Isaac. The project was financed with the assistance of militant atheists, whose representative Finn sat in the director’s chair, even managing to receive a reprimand in 1932 for “uncoordinated removal of crosses from the cathedral.”
Only in 1947 was the cathedral issued a certificate of protection, confirming its status as a monument of architecture and art. In the 1930s, the Soviet government kept a keen eye on whether a new museum, even if of an atheistic nature, was really needed in the very center of the former capital of the empire. The authorities were in no hurry to trumpet too loudly either about the transfer of the temple to the Main Science Department in the summer of 1928, or about the opening of an exhibition there for the public on Easter on April 12, 1931.
Hot on the heels of the events, the two main central newspapers, Pravda and Izvestia, did not publish a word about this. At the same time, there was enough information from the banks of the Neva - in 1928, a new air line Leningrad - Berlin opened, a monument-hut to Lenin was opened in Razliv, a “Buddhological institute” was organized in the city itself, and even beer consumption was reduced by 18 percent... Externally The news about the museum in St. Isaac's Cathedral fit into this line of successes in socialist construction, but millions of readers might have doubted whether a Foucault pendulum was needed in an outstanding monument of temple architecture, even if it was much better than in Paris.
Based on the results of all the Bolshevik experiments on Isaac, it becomes clear that museum status nevertheless ensured the unique masterpiece’s survival and entry into the 21st century.
How the cathedral was robbed
The Bolsheviks took out from Isaac: gold - 3 pounds 11 pounds 48 spools 92 shares; silver - 138 poods 31 pounds 61 spools; precious stones - 796 pieces.
In Lenin’s letter “To Members of the Politburo. Strictly Secret” dated March 19, 1922: “... the confiscation of valuables, especially the richest laurels, monasteries and churches, must be carried out with merciless determination, certainly stopping at nothing, and in the most as soon as possible." Photo: RIA News
16:00 — REGNUM Director of the State Hermitage Mikhail Piotrovsky believes that the nature of the dispute about the transfer of St. Isaac's Cathedral to the Russian Orthodox Church is a sign of St. Petersburg's loss of its capital qualities.
Yulia Karnaeva © REGNUM news agency
“There is a wild provincialization of the city of St. Petersburg,” he said on January 31 at a press conference at the TASS St. Petersburg press center.
Piotrovsky made this conclusion from the methods of discussion on the issue of the fate of St. Isaac's Cathedral by individual representatives of the public and the church, the agency clarifies.
As reported IA REGNUM, Mikhail Piotrovsky addressed a letter to Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus', in which he asked to temporarily withdraw the petition to transfer St. Isaac's Cathedral to the Russian Orthodox Church. This, according to the president of the Union of Museums of Russia, will make it possible to stop public confrontation and find the most wise and fair solution.
After this, the head of the department for relations between church and society of the St. Petersburg diocese, Archpriest Alexander Pelin in a rather harsh form, he advised Piotrovsky “to be more involved in the historical traditions of the Hermitage as one of the best museums in the world, and not to organize provocative exhibitions there.”
“It is very sad that such a high official does not understand the very meaning and symbolic significance of St. Isaac’s Cathedral,” Pelin told Interfax.
At the same time, the director of the Hermitage said today that the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, to whom his letter was addressed, expressed his readiness to conduct a dialogue.
“The diocese, just like the patriarch, said that it is ready to discuss with the museum community all issues related to museum affairs - and with Isaac too. And it is also written that the opinion of individual representatives of the clergy is not the general opinion of the diocese,” Piotrovsky said at a press conference.
Let us recall that on January 10 it became known that the authorities of St. Petersburg decided to transfer St. Isaac's Cathedral to the disposal of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is expected that Isaac will be given to the Church for free use for a period of 49 years no later than the first half of 2019. At the same time, St. Petersburg will remain the owner of the cathedral. As it became known, the decision to transfer the cathedral was made by Governor Poltavchenko after Patriarch Kirill personally addressed him.
The leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church guaranteed the authorities of St. Petersburg the continuation of professional museum activities in St. Isaac's Cathedral and the availability of the temple for everyone to visit.
However, opponents of the transfer of the cathedral into the hands of the Russian Orthodox Church began a campaign to counter the transfer of Isaac to the Russian Orthodox Church. They claim that this decision will lead to the loss of museum funds, the dismissal of hundreds of employees of the St. Isaac's Cathedral Museum, the loss of a source of funding for the restoration of the cathedral and unjustified expenses of the city budget for the maintenance of the cathedral, which will no longer generate income as a museum.
President of the Union of Museums of Russia (RUM) and director of the State Hermitage Museum Mikhail Piotrovsky addressed Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' with a letter in which he invited the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church to consider the issue of temporarily withdrawing the petition of the St. Petersburg diocese to transfer St. Isaac's Cathedral to it. This is reported on the SMR website.
Piotrovsky drew the patriarch's attention to the fact that this issue caused a controversial reaction in society, provoked public conflicts and confrontation between people with different attitudes to this problem.
The President of the SMR is convinced that peace in the souls of people and harmony in society are more important than any property, and this, in his opinion, will make it possible to stop public confrontation and find the most wise and fair solution to this issue, the message says.
The Patriarch's press secretary, Alexander Volkov, told the Interfax-Religion website on January 26 that the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church was informed about Piotrovsky's letter and he is "open to dialogue on this issue, including with the respected Mikhail Borisovich, with whom he is personally acquainted and has met several times ". At the same time, Volkov noted that Piotrovsky “could have addressed directly to the patriarch, bypassing public channels, in order to discuss all aspects of this issue in a confidential atmosphere.”
In the St. Petersburg diocese, Piotrovsky was advised to mind his own business, recalling the Fabre exhibition
Meanwhile, the St. Petersburg diocese reacted very sharply to Piotrovsky’s letter. “In general, Mikhail Borisovich, if he stands up for St. Isaac’s Cathedral as a historical monument, maybe it makes sense to be more involved in the historical traditions of the Hermitage as one of the best museums in the world, and not organize provocative exhibitions there, like the exhibition of Jan Fabre? Maybe it’s worth taking care of this ?" - Interfax-Religion quotes the head of the diocesan department for relations between the Church and society, Archpriest Alexander Pelin.
He added that Piotrovsky did not respond to public requests to cancel the high-profile exhibition of the mentioned Belgian artist in the Hermitage, which, according to some believers, promoted, among other things, the cult of death.
“First you need to learn to hear the public yourself, and then speak on behalf of the public with some requests,” the clergyman emphasized. “It is very sad that such a high official does not understand the very meaning and symbolic significance of St. Isaac’s Cathedral. Leave St. Isaac’s Cathedral in the status of where it is now located, in the status of primarily a museum and a little bit of a temple, is blasphemy and a continuation of the tradition of atheism.”
The decision of the St. Petersburg authorities to transfer St. Isaac's Cathedral to the department of the Russian Orthodox Church caused a wide resonance and heated debate in society and the expert community. Signatures are being collected on the Internet for a petition demanding that this decision be reversed; at the moment, more than 200 thousand people have signed it.
The director of the state museum-monument "St. Isaac's Cathedral" Nikolai Burov even stated that after the transfer of the cathedral to the Russian Orthodox Church, the museum, which existed for 90 years, will cease to exist. Experts expressed concern that the maintenance and restoration of the cathedral will now fall entirely on the city budget, and the safety of unique art monuments may be at risk.
The situation around Isaac was aggravated by statements by State Duma Deputy Speaker Pyotr Tolstoy on this topic.
It is worth recalling that the Church has been seeking the transfer of Isaac to it for several years. For the first time, the St. Petersburg Metropolis turned to the city authorities with a request to transfer the cathedral to it in the summer of 2015. Then the initiative caused heated debate and protests from the cultural community and opposition deputies of the St. Petersburg parliament, who approached the city election commission with a proposal to submit this issue to a citywide referendum, but they were refused.
Nevertheless, in September 2015, the governor of St. Petersburg, Georgy Poltavchenko, refused to transfer the cathedral to the Church, citing the economic inexpediency of such a decision. The diocese announced its intention to challenge Smolny’s refusal in court. Later, Orthodox activists tried to do this, but the court rejected their complaint.
Previously, the Smolny and Sampson Cathedrals had already been transferred from the state museum-monument of the same name to the Church.
Illustration copyright RIA Novosti Image caption First you need to learn to hear the public, and then speak, Piotrovsky was advised in the church
Director of the Hermitage Mikhail Piotrovsky asked Patriarch Kirill to postpone the transfer of St. Isaac's Cathedral to the Russian Orthodox Church, given the contradictory reaction in society. The St. Petersburg diocese reacted sharply - it advised Piotrovsky to take care of his museum.
“In general, Mikhail Borisovich, if he stands up for St. Isaac’s Cathedral as a historical monument, maybe it makes sense to be more involved in the historical traditions of the Hermitage as one of the best museums in the world, and not organize provocative exhibitions there, like the Jan Fabre exhibition? Maybe it’s worth taking care of this ?" - Alexander Pelin, head of the diocesan department for relations between church and society, told the Interfax-Religion portal.
An appeal from the director of the State Hermitage to the head of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) was published the day before on the website of the Union of Museums, which is headed by Piotrovsky. He drew the patriarch’s attention to the “contradictory reaction in society” and “public conflicts” that were provoked by the transfer of St. Isaac’s Cathedral to the free use of the church.
Piotrovsky, in a letter to Patriarch Kirill, also indicated that almost all the churches necessary for a full-fledged religious life in Russia were transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church. The Church, according to him, did not receive only “a few objects” that were important not only for it, but also for the entire “multi-confessional, multi-ethnic Russian society.”
The director of the Hermitage suggested that the head of the Russian Orthodox Church consider temporarily revoking the decision to transfer the cathedral to the St. Petersburg diocese in order to “stop public confrontation” and find “the wisest and fairest solution.”
Patriarch Kirill was informed about Piotrovsky’s letter, press secretary of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church Alexander Volkov said on Thursday. “The Primate of the Russian Church is open to dialogue on this issue, including with the respected Mikhail Borisovich, with whom he is personally acquainted and has met several times,” RIA Novosti quotes him.
“The initial public form of this appeal is surprising - it seems that Mikhail Piotrovsky could have addressed directly to the patriarch, bypassing public channels, in order to discuss all aspects of this issue in a confidential atmosphere,” he added.
The St. Petersburg diocese turned to Poltavchenko with a request to transfer St. Isaac's Cathedral to her in the summer of 2015 and. In January 2017, the governor changed his mind. His administration reported that this happened after Poltavchenko’s communication with the patriarch.
The governor's decision rallied the St. Petersburg opposition and the public, who organized a people's meeting on the steps of the cathedral and to the Vasileostrovsky court to declare the order to transfer the cathedral to the church illegal. The court registered the suit on Wednesday.
Archpriest Alexander Pelin from the St. Petersburg diocese, commenting on the claims of those who disagreed with the transfer of the cathedral to the Russian Orthodox Church, recalled that the exhibition of Jean Fabre in the Hermitage also caused protests.
“First you need to learn to hear the public yourself, and then make some requests on behalf of the public,” he advised Piotrovsky. “It is very sad that such a high official does not understand the very meaning and symbolic significance of St. Isaac’s Cathedral.”
Since November last year, the Hermitage has been hosting the exhibition “Knight of Despair - Warrior of Beauty” by the Belgian artist Jan Fabre, which uses stuffed animals. The church sharply criticized this exhibition, but Piotrovsky refused to close it. He wrote to the head of the State Duma Committee on Culture, Stanislav Govorukhin, that the authors of the complaints about the exhibition were not there and were writing them as carbon copies.
Earlier, Deputy Speaker of the State Duma, former journalist Pyotr Tolstoy, defended the decision to transfer the cathedral to the church, which provoked a separate scandal. “People who are the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those who destroyed our churches, jumping out from behind the Pale of Settlement with a revolver in 1917, today, working in various other very respected places - at radio stations, in legislative assemblies, continue the work of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers,” he criticized opponents of the transfer of the cathedral to the Russian Orthodox Church.
The Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia then accused Deputy Speaker Tolstoy of anti-Semitism and demanded an explanation from the leadership of the State Duma. Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin said that by the Pale of Settlement, his deputy probably meant something else - as the Chairman of Parliament suggests, it was about convicts.
