Православие и лютеранство в приграничных районах Европейского Севера России (1900-1940-е гг.) Международные отношения на Севере Европы и Баренц-регион. 2008, с.79-86.

year: “ ... It’s an honour for me to have an opportunity o f expressing my opinion on the situation. I think that the rights o f Russian citizens cannot become a subject to repayment in obvious damage and undermining of their existence. ... repayment o f the Norwegian government for the rights on salmon fishery ... not so important now but far the most important for the future and in due course can lead to final discontinuance o f fishing by Russian in Pazretsky and Rovdensky bays. Therefore there is no ground for conceding the recollected rights on salmon fishery because of clear seen consequences not only for that region but even nation-wide”. As a reaction to such resolute attitude revealed by father Ionafan corresponding to upholding o f the Russian civil rights a letter of request was sent to him from the Imperial society on September, 10th, 1913. It can be taken as a kind o f assistance to Russian trading navigation stating the following: to take the monastery work on operation of a falls near to St. Boris and Gleb's church on Paz river against Norwegian claims.8 After Revolution 1917 besides introduction o f the decree “About branch of church from the state and school from church” the life in the monastery seriously changed. Clergy o f the Arkhangelsk diocese, inhabitants o f the Kola Peninsula were disturbed by the question o f Pechengskaya volost. On March, 1st, 1918 the Soviet of National Commissars and the revolutionary Government of Finland made a treaty according to which Russia conceded Pechengsky district to Finland. Arkhangelsk diocese authorities expressed their concern about that agreement and gave the reference “to clergy Arkhangelsk diocese (for the wide circulation among parishioners)”. In reference loss o f Pechenga was expected to provoke Russian North and the whole o f Russia loss o f seaside territories with the richest fishery, nonfreezing harbours, as well as the cultural center on the Murman, traditional religious relics - Trifono-Pechengsky monastery and Pazretsky parish. All people protested “... against a scandalous partition of Russia” and in the name o f rescuing Russian national property. This protest of clergy was heard and supported by inhabitants o f some volosts on the Kola North.9 The newspaper “Arkhangelsk Council News. Deputies o f workers and soldiers” published a telegram received from Pechenga revealing the protest against the treaty with Finland. It was signed by inhabitants o f Vida bay, Chervyanaya colonies (and by the Finnish population too), and by members Pechengsky society from Malovolokskaya volost. After signing Brest-Lithuanian treaty, in Pechenga there were English armies which remained there till October 1919. Subsequently it was marked in sheet o f Trifono-Pechengsky monastery, and formed a firm basis at the device of Pechenga’s defense, providing with building materials and constructions “... on *ГАМО.-Ф. 87-И. - On. 1 .-Д . 24. - Jl. 1,5,6, 18. Захаров В. Печенга в период интервенции и гражданской войны. Очерк 4 // Советская Печенга.- 1982.- 18 мая,- С. 3; К духовенству Архангельской епархии... // Архангельские епархиальные ведомости,- 1918.-№ 101, 2(15) апреля,- С.З. 82