Understanding the Church as an object of research in the work “History of the Russian Church” by E.E. Golubinsky

The article is devoted to the work of E.E. Golubinsky “History of the Russian Church”, published in 1880–1881. The uniqueness of the work was that in the author's concept, the object of research - the church - was defined as a social institution that arises in society in the process of its evolution. This position completely crossed out the previously established theological definition of the object and brought the author’s position closer to the philosophy of positivism. Such an author's view of the object of study determined the bright conceptual originality of the study and made it possible to minimize the gap between Russian secular and church history. “The History of the Russian Church” by Evgeniy Evstigneevich Golubinsky was published in 1880–1881. Under the patronage of Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) of Moscow, the first and second half of the first volume of this large work were published. The fate of the work was not easy. The first half of the second volume was published only in 1900 and 1904, 20 years after the release of the first part. The work can easily be considered one of the outstanding works of Russian historical science. The work raised many problems and gave a strong impetus to critical source study, which contributed to the appearance of many works on the history of the church. Golubinsky’s “History...” had unprecedented scientific richness for that time; it was based on a huge source and historiographical base, and was extremely critical and bold in its conclusions. Even the old, accepted and inherited from its predecessors, receives a new look and unexpected lighting. Even the object of research itself had to receive a new interpretation, different from that accepted in church historiography. When starting to work on his essay, Golubinsky strives to rely on the most modern philosophical schemes of his time. For him, as a researcher, only one thing is clear: his story cannot be like the historical works of his predecessors. Consistently removing church history from the influence of theology, Golubinsky tries to give it the same scientific basis on which contemporary secular history is based. To take the history of the church away from apologetics, to make it truly objective, pure from mythical traditions that have no real historical basis, this is how the author saw his task. The exceptional complexity of this plan required the historian to exert enormous effort in arguing his positions, and this, in turn, determined Golubinsky’s characteristic, very non-standard, manner of presenting historical material in his research. According to Golubinsky’s ideas, historical writing requires “that the life of society be depicted in all its gradual (or not gradual) movement” 1 . “This ideal requires that the people who make up the succession of government officials and, in general, all historical figures, be depicted as living people with an individual personal physiognomy and with the individual moral character of each, since in history, like real life, which it reproduces, every person matters only as a living moral personality and since our moral sense seeks to be in living communication with historical people and wants to know whether we should give them honors or pronounce a strict, so-called historical court" 2. Similar principles for constructing a historical work already dominate in secular historical literature at this time. As noted by N.L. Rubinstein, the idea of ​​“organic development” of the historical process was the main feature of S.M.’s worldview. Solovyova 3. In his numerous works, Solovyov calls for viewing history as a process of natural development: “peoples live, develop according to known laws, pass through certain ages, like individual people, like everything living, everything organic” 4 . The idea of ​​“organic” development in the presentation of history was strongly promoted by Golubinsky’s teacher at the Moscow Theological Academy N.P. Gilyarov-Platonov, a man who, according to his memoirs, “was distinguished by outstanding talents” 5. “Organic unity... is the unity of the interaction of forces and the internal interweaving of phenomena among themselves, and not just their attachment to a common force,” 6 notes Gilyarov-Platonov, in his work devoted to criticism of the “History of the Russian Church” by Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov). “History is an organic process. The historian must follow the course of organic development,” 7 he insists from the first lines of the work. Thus, consideration of the history of the Russian Church as an organic process required the scientist to provide a fundamentally new justification for the purpose of his work. “The history of any society is a reproduction of its life. The life of societies, civil or ecclesiastical, has its own goal, which it achieves or must achieve with the assistance of a deliberate body, which is the government, and through the use of its own means. Thus, the history of any society is, firstly, the history of what serves it in achieving the goal of its life; secondly, the history of life itself, to what extent it achieves its goal” 8. Consequently, the purpose of the work is to consider not so much the history of the church, but the history of society, which, in order to achieve its historical goals, creates such institutions as the government (state) and the church. Considering the state and the church as institutions created by society, Golubinsky practically repeats the judgments of S.M. Solovyov, which he expresses in his work “Observations on the historical life of peoples.” “Government in one form or another is a product of the historical life of a known people” 9. Consequently, in the general concept of his work, Golubinsky strives to move away from the experience of previous generations of church historians. Tellingly, he shows this already in the introduction. From the theological understanding of the essence of the state and the church, as institutions brought from above, he, like Solovyov, moves on to the interpretation of these concepts from the point of view of new philosophical concepts, the leading place among which is Comte's positivism. The state and the church were not established by God, but are a product of the “historical life of the people,” that is, social development. This postulate is most clearly revealed by Golubinsky in the introduction, in his interpretation of the concept of church history. To understand the full depth of the innovation, we should consider this issue in more detail. The question of defining the object of Russian church history arises already in the first works of clergy historians. Metropolitan Platon (Levshin), who left behind the first systematic presentation of the history of the Russian Church, in his work practically bypasses the definition of the church and its place in Russian society 10 . A follower of Plato, Archbishop of Chernigov Filaret (Gumilevsky) approaches the definition much more seriously. Considering his “History of the Russian Church” as an integral part of theology, Filaret dwells on this issue in detail. “The Church of Christ, in its essence, as a Divine institution, does not belong to the realm of changeable objects - it is unchangeable, irresistible by time, like the eternal God, its founder, the Holy Spirit, its invisible ruler,” 11 he writes in his Introduction to the history of the Russian Church. But such a definition of the object of research makes all attempts to study it pointless. Filaret intelligently goes about this, emphasizing the sacred component of the concept of church, and only after that moves on to defining the actual object of his research. “The earthly Church is a society of people sanctified by grace [my italics hereinafter - N.S.], who only gradually understand the truth of Christian revelation through faith, gradually assimilate in their hearts the holiness of Christ through practical exercise; truth and holiness - belonging to the one true church - in the minds of people becomes clearer and more firmly as exploits. In one and the same church on earth there are those who have highly succeeded in the life of grace, and those who are just beginning, there are those who are sound in spirit and those who are overcome by serious mental illnesses. ... Human passions in connection with the circumstances of the time make it so that the church founded by Christ appears in different positions over time, now fighting, now calming down, taking now one or another measure for its integrity. Thus, the Church of Christ moves, together with people, into the realm of history” 12. From a theological point of view, Archbishop Philaret’s definition of the church can be considered ideal. It is not surprising that many subsequent authors basically copy it, without bothering themselves with the subtleties of the problem. So, in Filaret’s definition we can highlight the following points that reveal its essence. First, the church, as a divine institution, is not connected with society, lives outside its laws, its goals and objectives are determined by divine providence and, therefore, do not obey the laws of social development. The Church lives outside of time and space, it is eternal like God himself. Secondly, in real earthly life, the church is not the whole society, but only a part of it, “sanctified by grace.” This part of society, united by the church within the framework of a specific statehood, actively assists it in achieving its goals. Church society is heterogeneous; along with layers that actively follow the path of spiritual improvement, there are layers that are obsessed with “serious mental illnesses.” But these latter do not determine the life of the church. It is determined by the “deeds” of the righteous, with which the church edifies society for salvation. Third, human society, consisting of people and therefore obsessed with passions, seeks salvation, which it finds in the church. The Church comes to the aid of society at the most critical moments in its history. The history of this assistance is the object of study by a church historian. Thus, the author emphasizes the freedom of the church from society as such, but not the freedom of society from the church. The Church, according to Filaret, despite its isolation from society, constantly patronizes it, guides and heals it. All this is explained by the fact that “human passions did not appear in the same form according to circumstances, yielding to one another visible primacy in the spirit of the times, using now one or another measure to retain power over people” 13. Human passions are eternal, therefore, the need for spiritual protection of society on the part of the church will be constant, which brings the church as a divine institution to society and forces us to live with it. Another of its hierarchs, Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), held the same opinion on the place of the church in society. “The Russian Church, like any other, is essentially a society of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, consisting of a divinely established hierarchy and flock, but only existing in Russia. This society has always used God-given means to achieve its goal: teaching, worship and government, and together with various rights and benefits that it received from the civil domestic authorities” 14. As can be seen from the quote, Macarius is less categorical in defining the church and its place in society. However, he also emphasizes the edifying role of the church as a shepherd watching over society, which was quite natural for the bishop of the Russian Church. Like Filaret, Macarius emphasizes that the church is first and foremost a “society of believers,” and not a society as such. Metropolitan Macarius's further reasoning about the church is very interesting, since with some fundamental changes they formed the basis for similar reasoning by E.E. Golubinsky, so it’s worth reproducing them in their entirety. “This society has always had as its goal the education of people in faith and piety and the preparation of them for eternal life. Finally, this society, as a private and Orthodox Church, could and did have relations with other Churches and religious societies, Orthodox and non-Orthodox. And therefore, throughout the entire continuation of its existence, the Russian Church can be considered from four sides: from the side of the individuals who compose it, that is, its hierarchy and flock; from the side of the means that she used, that is, teaching, worship and government, as well as rights and advantages; from the side of her goal, that is, the faith and morality of her children; finally, in terms of its relationship to other Churches and religious societies” 15. Thus, the church, in the theological understanding of this term, is a separate society of believers standing outside of society. The Church was established by God, therefore it is eternal. In its practice, the church is guided by God-given means. The purpose of the practice is to educate society in faith and piety. Golubinsky, in his understanding of the church, moves away from the theological interpretation of this term, changing key provisions in it. “The history of any society is ... the history of what serves it in achieving the goal of its life... The purpose and purpose of the church, as a society, is to educate people in the Christian faith and morals to assist them in obtaining earthly well-being and to bring them eternal salvation; its governmental body, serving it for this purpose, constitutes a divinely established hierarchy... Of what parts (factors) the whole life of each church is composed, history should also consist of such parts... the government with its activities, teaching, worship, church life of society. ... Every church, as a private whole, can have some kind of relationship with other churches...” 16. So, Golubinsky, defining the object of his research, practically copies the definition of the church given by Metropolitan Macarius. The theses about church practice and the moral role that the church should play in the life of society remain unchanged. The tasks that historians set for themselves are also similar. These tasks will subsequently determine the structure of the presentation of church life in their works. However, in the main thing Golubinsky very boldly deviates from the theological canon. For Golubinsky, the church is no longer a “divine institution,” but an institution that serves society in “achieving its goals,” that is, society creates the church and assigns certain functions to it. In other words, the church is a product of the socialization of society, and just like the state that emerges in this process, it serves to satisfy the historical needs of this society. That is why Golubinsky’s text lacks an important remark that is contained in his theologian predecessors. Golubinsky nowhere mentions that the church is a “society of believers.” The Church, as a product of social life, cannot belong to any particular part of society. The church stands out in society only as an institution: “Every church is not only a society, but a society within a society, a spiritual one in a secular state...” 17. In Golubinsky’s text, the sociologization of the concepts of society and church, which is absent from theologians, is clearly visible. Golubinsky considers these concepts within the framework of a different philosophical system, historical positivism, bringing his history closer and closer to secular historical knowledge. This historical innovation will be carried by the author throughout the entire work. First of all, it will determine the foundations of the historical periodization of the history of the Russian Church, where the evolution of the church hierarchy will be subordinated to the stages of social and state development. This, in turn, will determine the basic principles of presenting historical material. Unlike his predecessors, Golubinsky, in his “History,” shows the maturation of Christianity in the Russian environment, leading his reader through the entire history of the development of the Christian worldview in Rus'. Starting from the first mentions of this phenomenon in sources to the first adherents and, finally, to its full and final approval as a religion of the state, everywhere he paints a picture of its gradual germination through the soil of Russian reality. The establishment of Christianity in Russian life is the germination of the living organism of the phenomenon itself in the living body of history. Revealing this pattern, the author shows the evolution of society through the process of self-organization, leading it first to the formation of state institutions, and then to the emergence of the church. All these conceptual innovations brought Russian church historical science, represented by Golubinsky, to the forefront of scientific research of that time and made it possible to minimize the gap between Russian secular and church history. Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. T. 1. The first period, Kyiv or pre-Mongol. First half of the volume. M., 2002. P. XVII. See, Rubinshtein N.L. Russian historiography. M., 1941. P. 320–322. Solovyov S.M. Public readings about Peter the Great / In the book. Solovyov S.M. Readings and stories on the history of Russia. M., 1989. P. 415. Golubinsky E.E. Memories. / In the book. Polunov A.Yu. Solovyov I. V. Life and works of academician E.E. Golubinsky. M., 1998. P. 181. Gilyarov-Platonov N. P. A few words about mechanistic methods in the study of history // Gilyarov-Platonov N.P. Collection of essays. T. 1. M., 1899. P. 238. Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. T. 1. Period one... First half of the volume. P. XXIII. Solovyov S.M. Observations on the historical life of peoples / In the book. Solovyov S.M. Observations on the historical life of peoples. My notes are for my children, and if possible, for others. Historical letters. Progress and religion. M., 2003. P. 12. Platon (Levshin) Metropolitan of Moscow. Brief Russian church history. M., 1805. S. I–X. Filaret (Gumilevsky). History of the Russian Church. (In five periods). M., 2001. P. 3. Filaret (Gumilevsky). Decree. op. S. 3. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. History of the Russian Church. M., 1996. Book. II. T. II. P. 11. Golubinsky E.E. Decree. op. pp. XXII–XXIII. Golubinsky E.E. Decree. op. P. XXIII.