Serhiy Mizetskyi’s, the rural priest-intellectual, reflections on the socio-political transformations in the Soviet Ukraine during the 1920-ies

РЕФЛЕКСІЇ СІЛЬСЬКОГО СВЯЩЕННИКА-ІНТЕЛЕКТУАЛА СЕРГІЯ МІЗЕЦЬКОГО ЩОДО СУСПІЛЬНО-ПОЛІТИЧНИХ ТРАНСФОРМАЦІЙ У РАДЯНСЬКІЙ УКРАЇНІ В 1920-х рр.

Мета дослідження - висвітлити рефлексії парафіяльного священника Сергія Андрійовича Мізецького, що мешкав у сільській місцевості Катеринославщини, щодо суспільно- політичних трансформацій в Україні 1920-хрр., на основі аналізу його епістолярію. Методологія дослідження включає методичні прийоми зовнішньої та внутрішньої критики листів священника; біографічний метод необхідний для вивчення життєвого шляху та визначення впливу подій в його житті на формулювання рефлексій; порівняльно-історичний метод - для зіставлення оцінок священнослужителя, поданих у листах, з науковими трактуваннями соціально-політичних трансформацій в 1920-х рр.; поєднання макро- та мікроісторичних підходів для реконструкції оцінок священником місця духовенства в радянському суспільстві. Наукова новизна статті полягає у відтворенні рефлексій священника С. Мізецького щодо соціально-політичних трансформацій у радянській Україні в післяреволюційному десятилітті, на основі аналізу вперше введеного до наукового обігу приватного листування священнослужителя. Схарактеризовано оцінки С. Мізецьким місця духовенства в радянському суспільстві, з'ясовано накреслені ним стратегії виживання. Висновки. Рефлексії священника щодо соціально-політичних і економічних трансформацій в Україні 1920-х рр. показують, що багатовікові культурницькі, ідеологічні стереотипи духовенства зіткнулися з радянськими експериментами. Перехід від людей з високим соціальним статусом у світ “нетрудових елементів”, позбавлених виборчого права, був досить швидким для священника, морально та фізично болісним. С. Мізецький продовжував жити етичними нормами дореволюційних часів. Конфлікт етичних норм відчувався священником на різних рівнях спілкування з владою - від читання монопольної преси до відстоювання своїх інтересів у сільській раді. Аналіз листів дає підстави стверджувати, що між владою та С. Мізецьким, типовим представником духовенства на півдні України, існувала величезна світоглядна прірва. Вона проявлялася більш гостро, ніж у представників колишніх дворян та селян, оскільки останні могли вільно виконувати свої обов'язки (як хлібороби), або, як колишні дворяни, пристосовуватися та шукати своє місце в новій соціальній структурі. Замкнутість у колі наближених до церкви людей, ведення “монологу серця” в листах до брата та батька стали чи не єдиними стратегіями виживання, розради в новому соціально-політичному середовищі. У своїх рефлексіях священник непрямо пророкував узурпацію влади більшовицькою партією, утвердження її монополії в суспільно-політичному житті та контроль над людською думкою, вказував на перетворення освіченої інтелігенції на різноробів, відзначав, що експерименти в селі не відповідали здоровому хліборобському прагматизму та продуктивності. Рефлексії священника щодо розгортання діяльності українських православних церков показали, наскільки гострим та непримиренним було питання українізації церкви. Воно виявило високу ступінь консервативності та зрусифікованості духовенства на півдні України.

Ключові слова: священник, православне духовенство, рефлексії, суспільно-політичні трансформації, повсякденне життя, радянська Україна.

The Problem Statement

Due to the studies on the “small earthy worlds” in Western historiography, a new direction - the history of everyday life evolved and the formation and legitimization was marked during the XXth century (Panfilov, 2019, р. 97). A keen interest in the study of anthropological history in the national historiography appeared recently. Hence, the diverse social groups' everyday life under the Soviet experiments' conditions is presented in the collective monographs, which were prepared by the Institute of History of Ukraine of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in 2010 - 2012. As the Great History would not be completed without the understanding of everyday life, much attention was paid to the issue. As a result, in this context, addressing the ideals, life values, the priest's reflections will deepen our understanding of the ordinary people everyday's life in the socio-political transformations in the Soviet Ukraine and bring us closer to a more detailed study on the Soviet society history and the Orthodox churches.

social political ethical ukrainization church

The Analysis of Sources and Recent Researches

The researchers, T. Yevsieieva (Yevsieieva, 2010, pp. 275-342) and T Savchuk (Savchuk, 2010, pp. 56-59) conducted the scientific publications on the Orthodox clergy structural parts of the daily life during the 1920-ies. However, in our opinion, the characteristics of everyday life should not be limited to the reconstruction of his material life, legal status. We agree with the opinion of the famous historian O. Udod that “the history of everyday life is, first of all, the history of the process of humanization of life, psychologization of everyday life, human attitude to everyday problems, to power, state and society as a whole through the prism of personal perception of everyday life” (Udod, 2010, p. 7). It is the problem of the clergy's attitude to the Soviet modernization challenges, the clergy's reflections on the Bolshevik experiments that did not found special coverage in historiography.

The studies on the Orthodox denominations history of the 1920-ies and the 1930-ies, devoted to certain prominent figures, especially the higher clergy, contain some notes of their understanding of the problems facing the church and the faithful (Zinchenko, 2003, pp. 69-79). In a special article, T Savchuk tried to shed light on V. Lypkivskyi's reflections, the Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) on the clergy life vicissitudes, the struggle of different worldviews (Savchuk, 2019, pp. 104-112).

If the historiography raised questions about the hierarchs reflections, especially the UAOC, on the Soviet reality, the researchers did not pay attention to the parish priests' thoughts, concerns, and hopes of other denominations in the southern Ukrainian region.

The sermons became the paramount source of the analysis concerning how the clergy perceived the new conditions of life and ministry. But the sermons are a genre that is aimed at a wide audience and cannot fully reflect the true views and feelings of the clergy.

Therefore, in order to understand how the clergy valued the new government, their place in society, built strategies for their lives, and other narrative sources are needed. The clergy's reflections reconstructing issue requires the search for and introduction into the scientific circulation of new source materials.

The value of the epistolary genre is indisputable and crucial in order to solve the above-mentioned issues. It should be noted that these sources cannot be mass, because not everyone would dare to write about the socio-economic and political innovations, to give their assessments during the Soviet times. Therefore, the introduction of such sources into scientific circulation can be considered as an important historiographical event.

The Purpose of the Article

The aim of the article is to cover Serhiy Andriyovych Mizetskyi's reflection, the parish priest, who lived in the rural area in Katerynoslav region, on the socio-political transformations in Ukraine during the 1920-ies, based on the analysis of his correspondence.

The Statement of the Basic Material

Due to the critical analysis of the priest's letters to his brother Eugene, father Andrew and son Vasyl numerous issues were covered, for instance, how the priest imagined the world around him, saw himself in this world, the place of the clergy in the society, which formed the survival strategies. The correspondence is stored in the archival investigative file of S. Mizetskyi, which was transferred by the SBU Office to the State Archives of Zaporizhia Region (State archive of the Zaporizhzhya region - SAZR, f. r. 5747, op. 3, c. 10916, pp. 1-24). The case contains 16 letters from the priest, written by him before his arrest, which were confiscated during a search of Yevhen Mizetsky's house. S. Mizetskyi's epistolary was introduced into the scientific circulation for the first time.

It is vital to characterize his social background and family firstly in order to understand the priest's reflections. The future minister was born in 1873 in the village of Snihurivka, Fastiv district, Bila Tserkva region, in the family of a priest. He graduated from the Kyiv Theological Seminary and belonged to the Ukrainian Exarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). During the 1920-ies he served as a priest in the villages of Pokrovske, Nikopol district (modern Dnipropetrovsk region), Maryivka, Khortytskyi district, Zaporizhia region. S. Mizetskyi lived in a family of intellectuals. His brother Peter was a priest in his native village. Another brother, Eugene, worked as a doctor in Fastiv. Mykola's third brother lived in Kursk and worked as an economist. He was the first of the brothers to be persecuted by the Soviet authorities. In 1927 he was exiled to Siberia, to the city of Biysk (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, pp. 3-5).

The priest had a wife Seraphim and sons: Serhiy, Mykola, Oleksandra and Vasyl. Serhiy, as a seminarian, left the country in 1919 and lived in Isere, France. Nata and Halya, young women were mentioned in the letters repeatedly (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, pp. 3, 9/2). However, the analysis of the letters does not allow us to say for sure that the above-mentioned women were his daughters.

In 1927 S. Mizetskyi was under investigation for about four months. He was accused of conducting the anti-Soviet activities. On the 28^th of September in 1929, he was arrested again. The priest was blamed for spreading “various provocative rumors and counter-revolutionary agitation” in his letters to various people. (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, p. 16). As a result, the Board of the DPU of the USSR at a special meeting decided to send a priest for a period of three years to the Northern Territory on the 2^nd of March in 1930 (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, p. 23).

According to the Article 54-10 Part I of the Criminal Code of the USSR, on the 26^th of March in 1939, S. Mizetskyi was accused of the counter-revolutionary agitation among his cellmates and imprisoned for ten years in the labour camps. His further fate is unknown. S. Mizetskyi was rehabilitated on the 28^th of December in 1992 (Borodin, 2008, р. 603).

The priest wrote all the letters while he was living in the village of Pokrovske. The inscription at the beginning of the letter “Pokrovske - Sichi” (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, pp. 9/18-9/19) proved that the priest was acquaintanted with the history of the region, who arrived from Kyiv region. S. Mizetskyi's epistolary indicates his high level of education, and the use in letters of the Ukrainian proverbs, sayings in Latin, quotations from the works of M. Nekrasov, I. Krylov, M. Saltykov-Shchedrin once again convinces us that the priestintellectual found himself in an unusual for him, mostly illiterate, rural environment in the southern Ukraine.

According to S. Mizetskyi's life's main stages' characterization, we make a conclusion that the man had an unconquered spirit. He was arrested three times for the bold actions, which were unacceptable statements for the authorities. S. Mizetskyi was a person of a very conservative mood. As a result, the conservatism was manifested in all his reactions. He was a typical clergy representative, once he said the following: “We were all people with position and money” (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, p. 9/19), which before the Soviet power establishment had a more or less stable life, respect for the parishioners and confidence in the future. All this passed away with the Bolshevik government anti-church policy introduction. The loss of material status shaped the priest's negative attitude toward the Communists. All his letters were imbued with a deep and unwavering antipathy to the Soviet rule. In his first letter to his parents, which was dated the 15^th of March, 1922, the priest wrote that he felt “handcuffed and paralyzed” (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, p. 9/18). It should be noted that in the first letter S. Mizetskyi positioned himself as a believer. Owing to his statement, which indicated a person who continues to seek a way out of life in God's protection, for instance, “Thank God for everything, as John Chrysostom said, maybe this temporary ordeal will end and God will let us see better days. I hope for Him and for the Protection of the Blessed Virgin, at whose temple I now serve and I will hope that my hope will not embarrass me!” (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, p. 10916, p. 9/19).

Further, hopeless reflections on the challenges facing the clergy become typical. According to the eloquent message in the letter, written on the 14^th of August in 1924: “I do not see any hope for change. It is likely - tomorrow is the same as today, etc. I have already lost my appetite for the better” (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, p. 9/34-9/35). In addition, a stingy mention of God emerges in the same letter: “Health - .... satisfactory, and tomorrow - as God wills ” (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, pp. 9/34-9/35).

The priest convinced his son Vasya that he should always be satisfied with the fate that God had sent in a letter, which was dated the 6^th of October in 1924.

Taking everything into consideration, we do not see the priest's hope, there was no mention of hope in God in the following years. Hence, complete helplessness can be seen in such phrases as: “Well, we are still breathing, although breathing is getting shorter and harder. The air is bad for breathing. At least for me. And of course, many people don't respond in the roll call - their breath is over!” (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, p. 9/37); “... there are no needs - no earnings. That is, the teeth on the shelf. But it doesn't matter. We have lunch every three days, and live on tea ” (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, p. 9/41). He identified his activity as “earning a living” (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, p. 9/23). As a result, such kind of a definition diminished the priestly ministry significantly, in fact, nullified its significance. The priest himself no longer considered himself a mediator between the man and God.

In addition, the words of the letter testify to the feeling of moral discomfort: “How one would like to leave such an order, or disorder, in such a place, where one could live a quiet and peaceful life in all piety and purity”. Everything seems to be a long nightmare, but not a bitter reality” (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, р. 9/2). “Just think about it, no one has tortured me for eight months now”, S. Mizetskyi wrote on the 10^th of June in 1929, two months before his arrest, that “he had not been summoned anywhere, neither to the Village Council nor to the Financial Department” (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, р. 9/13).

S. Mizetskyi reacted quite sharply and fairly to the innovations implemented by the new government in agriculture and the life of the peasants. In his reflections, the priest demonstrated a healthy agricultural pragmatism. In a letter to his family in 1924, he wrote that the authorities had banned private mills in the village, and only the state mill, which was run by a party member, operated. The priest aptly said: “It's good to work like this: a competitor grabbed the throat by force of “law”and then do what you want” (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, р. 9/35). S. Mizetskyi was concerned that the people stood and waited in the queue for two or three days, and in the summer, in the midst of fieldwork, it's just a huge luxury. The peasants from this mill for a high price received low-quality ground grain and “cursed the philanthropists”, who did not care about them.

Furthermore, he also expressed his negative opinion concerning the work of the peasant consumer society, which in the absence of competitors sold low-quality products at inflated prices (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, р. 9/35).

S. Mizetskyi wrote about the tax policy fairly that led to the clergy impoverishment during the 1920-ies: “Various taxes oppress the public and leave them no time to think about anything other than finding means of subsistence and paying any contributions. Because of our ignorance, everything: the taxes and donations become mandatory and compulsory. For example, the so-called Mopr (The Foreign Proletarians Aid Society, who are sitting in prisons) sends us <...> To such a proletariat sitting abroad, we are forced to donate from people ” (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, р. 9/34).

On the 21^st of April in1927, he reflected again sarcastically on the government tax policy in a letter: “It seems that the Soviet-communist government is watching very carefully and does not allow anything better to fall, and for a long time everything is better and even only good, and even tolerant. It weighed each pig and sheep, and evaluated and laid them on, and did not ignore them. <.> The same property of the party and its close relatives (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, р. 9/28).

In his letters, the priest exposed the Soviet government's hypocrisy, double standards, and the Bolshevik's ideas' populism numerous times. The following phrases are apt: “It turns out that “everything folk”, - has already passed away. And now you have to pay for everything, even for living in the world” (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, р. 9/10).

S. Mizetskyi clearly noted not only the brutal state intervention in the peasants' agricultural activities, but also the gradual formation of a state monopoly on a human thought. The abovementioned situation was reflected, in his opinion, in the distribution of only state newspapers. The priest wrote about the distorted information in these newspapers in February 1927: “So I only sometimes read newspapers (Moscow News), and even then I'm bored: all hurray, hurray! And you know that for the most part they lie ruthlessly.” (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, р. 9/42).

In a letter, which was dated February 3, 1927, S. Mizetskyi commented on the staged election procedure in the village. At a time when the newspapers reported huge public interest in the election, the priest could observe the exact opposite situation. S. Mizetskyi wrote that “six communists-agitators” arrived in the village, led by the head of the district from Nikopol. They campaigned. Due to the low turnout, the “persecutors” went to the village threatening to impose a fine on anyone, who did not show up, at a sum of 5 rubles. After such threats came 93 people, the heads of families, who brought cards of other family members sent in advance. The priest ironically said that after the election the newspapers would write “a brilliant lie about the great interest of the population in the Council elections” (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, р. 9/41). In this context, S. Mizetskyi compared power to the devil, who according to the Holy Scriptures is the father of lies.

Due to the letters' analysis, which makes it clear that all segments of the population gradually, with complications, joined the new system of the socio-political relations imposed by the authorities. We agree with S. Liakh's opinion that the peasant, guided by his own standards during the 1920-ies, was ready to be flexible and adjust to power. S. Liakh, the historian, while analyzing the everyday life of the peasantry, came to the conclusion that there was the dualism of forms of the post-revolutionary peasantry consciousness, which allowed to adapt, to build transitional types of behavior (Liakh, 2010, p. 183).

The election process in Pokrovskyi illustrated how people were persuaded to return to the authorities. But if the peasants did not want to, but still came under duress and allegedly voted for the councils, the priest assessed their step negatively and declared in a verse from the Bible that a blessed man who does not go to the “soviyet” (meeting) of the wicked (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, p. 9/41).

S. Mizetskyi was depressed by the fact that with the Soviet power advent the intelligentsia's work was depreciated. Those people, who had the appropriate status before the revolution, studied at universities, worked in public services, during the 1920-ies swept the streets or sawed firewood. Mentioned in a letter, which was dated October 6, 1924, Shura, a third-year medical student, sawed firewood for two weeks in Nikopol and earned 12 rubles. and bought a jacket for that money (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, p. 9/24).

The priest used a strategy of behavior, which was based on the law in conflicts with the authorities. It should be noted that S. Mizetskyi knew the laws well. And this is not surprising, as the priests informed the peasants (most of whom were illiterate) about the certain laws' implementation traditionally. During the 1920-ies, under the anti-church pressure, the ignorance of the laws threatened serious problems and was in fact a trap for the clergy. Hence, the priests followed the news, were interested in the legislative innovations. According to the letters' analysis, at first S. Mizetskyi hoped that the Soviet government would act within the law framework. However, in various conflicts with the authorities, the priest was disappointed deeply. Here is one of the cases that indicates the authorities' biased attitude towards the clergy and its violation of legal norms. In 1926, S. Mizetskyi married one couple, but the priest did not demand the man to provide him with the extract from the metric book after the state registration of marriage. The above-mentioned certificate would cost a person at least 7 rubles. And the priest wanted to save the believer's money. Because of this, a case was brought against him. S. Mizetskyi tried to prove to the investigator that the law is not about a metric extract. As a result, he received the following response: “It is implied”. I don't know “what else is meant by these or similar revolutionary lawmakers”. “But on the 15^th /28^th (the old and new style dates. - Ed.) of this August, I am obliged to appear in court in Pokrovskyi as a defendant with the threat of a large fine....”, - wrote in despair the priest the on 2^nd of August in 1926 in letters to his brother (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, p. 9/17).

Taking everything into consideration, the origins of the authorities' prejudice lay in the Bolshevik's biased attitude towards the clergy, especially the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) of the ROC. The authorities preferred the activities of the Synodal and Conciliar Episcopal Churches to a greater extent during 1926 - 1927, and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to a lesser extent. These denominations, which emerged in the National Liberation Movement outbreak for the Ukrainian Orthodoxy reform, were seen by the authorities for some period of time as a means of fighting against the ROC. Furthermore, such a policy of double standards sowed discord between the representatives of different Orthodox churches. It was S. Mizetskyi's hostility f towards the Ukrainian Orthodox Church figures that differed. The paramount evidence was depicted in a letter, which was dated the 15th of March in 1922 concerning the conflict that arose between the priest's father and the parishioners of Snihurivka, S. Mizetskyi suggested that his family leave the village without any pity and give it to the “sincere Ukrainians who will show Snihurivka good laity how the Cossacks rule!” (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, p. 9/18).

We should highlight the fact that the priest was not fascinated by the National Liberation Church Movement ideas, in spite of living in Kyiv region, which was the mecca for the National Liberation Church Movement. The reasons for such a negative attitude lie in the strength of the ROC clergy pro-imperial positions, in the desire to preserve the inviolability of church dogma.

During the Ukrainian National revolution, S. Mizetskyi already lived in Katerynoslav region, a region that was blaze towards the Ukrainian Movement in the middle of the church. During the 1920-ies, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was represented by individual communities. In the Russified region, S. Mizetskyi's multi-confessional environment did not contribute to the formation of Ukrainian-centric view.

In order to prove the thesis about the significant influence of the environment on the priest's worldview, we will give a vivid example of the archpriest, Dmytro's Halevych daily life from Vinnytsia. The priest spoke Russian, invariably belonged to the ROC, but he was not ashamed to read, study church literature, watched the release of the Ukrainian songs, which were published by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. In addition, the priest did not show any antipathy to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church clergy in his letters to his daughter, who lived in Germany (Yanytskyi, 2001, pp. 10-126). Nevertheless, Podillya, with its powerful impulses to the Ukrainianization of church life, did not leave the priest indifferent towards the conservative Ukrainian Exarchate of the ROC.

However, in Katerynoslav region the relations issue between the clergy of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Exarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church was of high topicality. S. Mizetskyi was extremely negative about all reforms in the Orthodox Church. The priest spoke about the new Ukrainian churches, using unfriendly formulations and the Communists' terminology, for instance: Some rascals, “obnovlentsi”, “zhyvtsi”, “samokruty” appeared and tormented the Church of Christ (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, p. 9/23). In 1925, in a letter to relatives, he called the UAOC figures “traveling touring artists”, “actors” who “attract a frivolous mass that does not understand the essence of the subject” (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, p. 9/2).

In 1926 - 1927, the priest had conflicts with the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church representatives numerous times, ignoring the instructions from the Bible on maintaining peace with all. It is noteworthy that in a letter dated August 2, 1926, he wrote the following: “We prosecuted the self-sacrifices that raided here under the slogan the “revolutionary legitimacy”. At first, the police pushed the case in such a way as to describe me as the only instigator and criminal, or at least a fabricator. But that did not happen. They had to direct their diligence to another address, to the address of the saints. And we see a touching picture: the police can't find them in any way!?! This is in the Soviet Republic,... ” (SAZR, f.r. 5747, op. 3, case 10916, p. 9/17). The priest was furious because the authorities could not find these “self-saints” who, according to S. Mizetskyi, lived in a neighboring village. The priest, resorting to M. Saltykov-Shchedrin's allegory from the work “The Sleepless Eye”, wrote that under such an “eye” of the Soviet government “thieves, murderers, self-sacrifices, etc. took refuge” (SAZR, f.r. 5747, d. 3, c. 10916, p. 9/17). The fact that the priest put the church and the murderers on the same level once again proves that he had feelings that were inconsistent with the Biblical principles.

In the context of S. Mizetsky's attitude to the UAOC, I would like to mention that he was a delegate from Kateiynoslav during the All-Ukrainian Orthodox Church Council in 1918. He was even part of the Peace Delegation, together with the future metropolitan, Archpriest V Lypkivski, which was supposed to resolve the Ukrainian property parishes subordination issue that remained the part of Russia (Starodub, 2010, pp. 124-125). Getting acquainted with the negative moods, the priest's views on the church Ukrainization allows us to understand why the Cathedral couldn't implement the plans to declare the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

The Conclusions. The coverage of the priest's reflections on the socio-political and economic transformations in Ukraine during the 1920-ies suggests that centuries-old cultural and ideological stereotypes of the clergy collided with the Soviet experiments. The people with high social status faced with the new challenges became part of the world of “nonlabor elements”, were deprived of the right to vote. As a result, those changes happened quite rapid for the priest, morally and physically painful. S. Mizetskyi carried on keeping to the pre-revolutionary times' ethical norms, which did not correspond to the ideas of vulgar materialism, the new government's policy of double standards. Hence, the ethical norms' conflict manifested itself at various levels of communication between the priest and the authorities - from reading the monopoly press to defending their interests in the village council. Due to the letters' analysis, which provides pieces of evidence and gives the opportunity to claim that there was a huge ideological gap between the authorities and S. Mizetskyi, a typical representative of the clergy in the south of Ukraine. It was felt more acutely than that of the former nobles and peasants, as the latter were free to perform their duties (as farmers) or, as former nobles, to adapt and seek their place in the new social structure. Because of the aloofness in the circle of people close to the church, conducting a “monologue of the heart” in letters to brother and father became almost the only strategies for survival, consolation in the new socio-political environment. If at the beginning of the 1920-ies the priest expressed hope in God in his views and chose his faith in the better as the survival strategy, later on, in the second half of the 1920-ies S. Mizetskyi no longer felt like a mediator between God and people described the activity as “earning a living”. In his reflections, he indirectly predicted the usurpation of power by the Bolshevik Party, the establishment of its monopoly in the socio-political life and control over human thought, pointed to the transformation of the educated intelligentsia into handymen, noting that experiments in the countryside did not meet healthy agricultural pragmatism and productivity. The priest's reflections on the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches activities development depicted the church Ukrainianization issue, which was too harsh and uncompromising. It showed a high degree of conservatism and Russification of the clergy in southern Ukraine. Through the views of S. Mizetskyi and his ilk, there was a long way to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church autocephaly establishment and recognition.

Further investigations based on the priest's letters will help to characterize the problem of the priestly family's typical fate in the Soviet modernization conditions, which were left behind.

Bibliography

1. Borodin, Ye. 1, Ivanenko, V. V., Prokopenko, L. L. & Tereshchenko, R. K. (Comp.) (2008). Reabilitovani istoriieiu: Dnipropetrovska oblast: U 2-kh kn [Rehabilitated history: Dnepropetrovsk region: in 2 books.] (B. 2). Dnipropetrovsk: Naukovo-redaktsiinyi tsentr oblasnoi redkolehii po pidhotovtsi i vydanniu tematychnoi serii knyh “Reabilitovani istoriieiu”; Vyd-vo “Monolit”, 1118 p. [in Ukrainian]

2. Derzhavnyi arkhiv Zaporizkoi oblasti (State archive of the Zaporizhzhya region - SAZR)

3. Yevsieieva, T. (2010). Pravoslavne dukhovenstvo [Orthodox Clergy]. Narysy povsiakdennoho zhyttia radianskoi Ukrainy v dobu nepu (1921 -1928 rr): Kolektyvna monohrafiia. (Р. 2, pp. 275-342). Kyiv: Instytut istorii Ukrainy NAN Ukrainy. [in Ukrainian]

4. Zinchenko, A. (2003). lierarkhy Ukrainskoi tserkvy: mytropolyt Mykola Boretskyi, arkhiiepyskop Kostiantyn Krotevych, mytropolyt Ivan Pavlovskyi [Hierarchs of the Ukrainian Church: Metropolitan Nikolai Boretsky, Archbishop Konstantin Krotevych, Metropolitan Ivan Pavlovsky]. Kyiv: Ukrainska Vydavnycha Spilka, 156 p. [in Ukrainian]

5. Liakh, S. R. (2010). Selianyn yak filosof [The Peasant as a Philosopher]. Narysy povsiakdennoho zhyttia radianskoi Ukrainy v dobu nepu (1921 -1928 rr.): Kolektyvna monohrafiia. (Р. 1, pp. 182-196). Kyiv: Instytut istorii Ukrainy NAN Ukrainy. [in Ukrainian]

6. Panfilov, O. Yu. & Petrova, L. O. (2019). Bahatomirnist povsiakdennia u konteksti zhyttievoho svitu osobystosti [Multidimensionality of Daily Occurrence in the Context of the Vital World of the Personality]. VisnykNatsionalnoho yurydychnoho universytetu imeni YaroslavaMudroho- The Bulletin of Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, 1 (40), 96-108. doi: 10.21564/2075-7190.40.155803 [in Ukrainian]

7. Savchuk, T. (2010). Dozvillia pravoslavnoho dukhovenstva v 1920-kh rr. (Leisureof the Orthodox Clergy during the 1920-ies.). Istorychnyi arkhiv. Naukovi studii - Historical Archive: Scientific Studies. Mykolaiv: Vyd-vo ChDUim. P. Mohyly, 5, 56-59. [in Ukrainian]

8. Savchuk, T. (2019). Refleksii mytropolyta V. Lypkivskoho na vyklyky pered viruiuchymy v Radianskii Ukraini [Metropolitan V Lypkivskyi's Reflections on the Challenges of the Believers in Soviet Ukraine]. Eminak: naukovyi shchokvartalnyk -Eminak: Scientific Quarterly journal, 3 (27), 104-112. doi: 10.33782/eminak2019.3(27).316 [in Ukrainian]

9. Starodub, A. (2010). Vseukrainskyi pravoslavnyi tserkovnyi Sobor 1918 roku: ohliad dzherel [All-Ukrainian Orthodox Church Cathedral of 1918: an overview of sources.]. Kyiv: [b. v.], 234 p. [in Ukrainian]

10. Udod, O. (2010). Istoriia povsiakdennosti yak providnyi napriam ukrainskoi istoriohrafii [History of Everyday Life as a Leading Area of Ukrainian Historiography]. Kraieznavstvo - Local history: scientific journal, 3, 5-9. [in Ukrainian]

11. Yanytskyi, P. & Domanskyi, I. (Comp.) (2001). Halevych Dmytro. Nezaareshtovani lysty: Lysty sviashchenyka z Ukrainy do Nimechchyny 1922 - 1938 [Halevych Dmytro. Non-arrested Letters: Letters from a Priest from Ukraine to Germany. 1922 - 1938]. Kyiv: Vydav. dim “Kozaky”, 128 p. [in Ukrainian]

Размещено на Allbest.ru