The Fate of a Christian Scientist

Contents Introduction. "Life is a mosaic of details..." Introduction. "Life is a mosaic of details..." Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; and if it dies, it will bear much fruit. The pride of Russia's theological school, Nikolai Nikanorovich Glubokovsky (1863–1937) was one of the most outstanding Orthodox theologians of his time, who combined “Christian orthodoxy with the scientific methods of European enlightenment” 1 . Corresponding Member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences (since 1909), Honored Ordinary Professor of the Imperial Petrograd Theological Academy, Doctor of Theology, church historian, biblical scholar, exegete, philologist, spiritual writer and publicist, outstanding church and public figure, honorary member of the Imperial Kyiv, Kazan and Moscow Theological Academies, Moscow and Petrograd Archaeological institutes, full member of the Orthodox Palestine Society and a number of other scientific societies and brotherhoods. In the second half of his life, spent in exile, Glubokovsky was a professor at the University of Belgrade, one of the founders and professors of the Faculty of Theology at Sofia University, an honorary member of the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris, and a participant in all the most important inter-Christian conferences. “He had classic spiritual balance, a complete character, a brilliant mind with a brilliant heart and memory. He was always and everywhere a man without hypocrisy, with purity, ardor, simplicity and humility - he was a man in the real sense of the word” 2, Metropolitan Stefan of Sofia spoke of him. Glubokovsky lived in an era close to ours. The events of that time have not yet ended and cannot be perceived and assessed in their true light; the scale of events and personalities has not been fully determined. The voice of politics and the assessments of the participants in the events resound loudly in the judgments. Some seemingly great names fade into the shadows or completely into oblivion. For others, as for Glubokovsky himself, historical life is just beginning, outlining the colossal figure of a learned ascetic and thoughtful chronicler of the events of one of the most tragic periods of Russian history. According to N.'s remark. N. Glubokovsky, Russian theological academies were “the focus of spiritual Christian culture, its guardians and nurseries for all of Russia and in all directions” 3. At the same time, theological schools and the four Academies at their head were centers of education not only theological, but also general humanitarian, representing a significant phenomenon of Russian culture. Persons as different in their views and position as Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) 4 and P. B. Struve 5 wrote about this. Today, the spiritual-academic world as one of the manifestations of Orthodox culture remains a little-studied area of Russian historical space, and the remark made in 1915 by P. B. Struve (in a review of the collection “At the Trinity at the Academy” dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the MDA) remains valid: “...The most scientific problem of the influence of the Russian clergy, as a socio-cultural force in our national development, has not only not been developed, but not even felt and not delivered. The Russian clergy created a special spiritual type and this type has its own special role in the Russian cultural process (...) First of all, the Russian “seminarian” and “academician” somehow in their own way and very significantly invested in the history of Russian science. There can be no doubt about this." 6 According to Struve, “the first and only truly brilliant popovich in Russian national literature” 7 was V. O. Klyuchevsky. Let us add that there were others, no less brilliant... Our book is dedicated to one of them. His unique personality, rare talents and phenomenal hard work made Glubokovsky a key figure in the spiritual and academic world. This was a star of the first magnitude, one of the “titans of the old, harsh but valiant theological school, which knew how to cultivate talents” 8. But in his life there were many things typical for a professor of the ecclesiastical department: origin, early orphanhood, poverty, difficulties in his career caused by clashes with church authorities and officials from the ecclesiastical department. “Life is a mosaic of particulars,” noted N. N. Glubokovsky, - united and conditioned by the principle of life. Without the latter, it is a pile of sand, worthy only of violent delight; without the former, it is an empty mirage, devoid of value and even harmful if it is not capable of being embodied. A proportional combination of these two elements is necessary (...) There is no real life without particulars” 9. It was the collection and study of these “particulars,” simple components of the complex activities of Glubokovsky and the people around him, that formed the basis of this study. Scientific works, events of Glubokovsky’s personal, pedagogical and church-social activities needed to be included in the spiritual, academic and social environment, in the time context. This touched on issues that had not yet been developed (at the time of writing the dissertation) in the scientific literature, which had to be reconstructed directly from archival sources and dedicated to them in separate chapters of the dissertation, where Glubokovsky sometimes remains, as it were, “behind the scenes.” But the events and persons associated with these historical realities constituted the direct content of the daily life of my hero and are inseparably connected with his scientific and pedagogical works, creating those temporary impulses to which the creatively active and energetic personality of N. reacted so sensitively. N. Glubokovsky. Refraction of this historical mosaic through the prism of the fate of a Christian scientist allows us not only to see the events of that time from a different perspective, which is important for overcoming established stereotypes, but also to raise new questions. At the same time, the introduction of Glubokovsky’s personality into the center of the study made it possible, through the measurement and combination of the individual and the general, to identify and build material that was diverse in character, plots, and personalities, identifying the vital points and power lines of a given time field. The study addresses two sets of questions: 1. What was the spiritual-academic corporation “inside”, “for itself”: features of worldview and spiritual education, careers in the spiritual department, the causes of the crisis of the theological school and ways of reforming it. 2. What was the corporation “outside”, “for others”: what influence did it have on the development of church reform and church policy in general, how were its relationships with state and church authorities (chief prosecutor and episcopate), with “learned monasticism”, with secular scientists (on a personal and corporate level), its relationship with “educated” society, attitude to politics, to revolution; in other words, what was its role in society? What was the spiritual-academic corporation like in the last 30 years of the existence of theological academies in Russia? Its activity from its inception to the time of “harvest” (defeat) is limited to a period of about 100 years. However, its formation was a long process. The foundations of the system of theological education were laid by the reforms of Peter the Great. Origin at the beginning of the 18th century. The first theological schools (initially all-class) are associated mainly with the names of bishops, immigrants from Little Russia, graduates of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy, whom Peter I actively involved in church administration. At the same time, the initiative to create such “bishopric schools” belonged to the government, and their foundations were laid by the “Spiritual Regulations” of 1721. The bishop was forbidden to appoint a candidate to the priesthood “who had not studied at that school.” Throughout the 18th century, spiritual education was intensively imposed from above, encountering resistance from the clergy and their children. A certain system of spiritual pedagogy was developed and a network of theological schools was formed, which initially were “the only educational institutions in Russia” 10. As a result of the first reform of theological education (1809–1814), three levels of theological schools were created: lower (schools), middle (seminaries) and higher (Academies), secular education was separated from the spiritual. Orthodox theological academies originate from theological schools that arose in the 17th–18th centuries. The Kiev Theological Academy (hereinafter - KDA; reformed in 1819) considered itself the successor of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy, formed in 1632 on the basis of the school of the Kyiv Brotherhood Monastery, founded in 1615. The Moscow Theological Academy (hereinafter - MDA; reformed in 1814) came from the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, and that, in turn, from the school of the Likhud brothers (graduates of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy), created in 1685 in the Moscow Epiphany Monastery. The St. Petersburg Theological Academy (SPbDA) originates from the Slavic school, founded in 1721 in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra and in 1726 transformed into the Slavic-Greek-Latin Seminary, in 1788 into the Main St. Petersburg Theological Seminary, which has had the status of an Academy since 1797. In 1809 it was reformed in accordance with the first academic Charter. The Kazan Theological Academy (KazDA) was opened later than others. Originating from the Kazan Theological Seminary, organized in 1797, it formally received the status of an Academy back in 1814, but in fact (due to a shortage of teachers) it remained a theological seminary and in fact became an Academy only in 1842. The history of the higher theological school was carefully developed in the works of academic professors and brought to the beginning of the 20th century. Its chroniclers were S. T. Golubev, P. V. Znamensky, N. I. Petrov, A. S. Rodossky, S. K. Smirnov, F. I. Titov, S. A. Ternovsky, I. A. Chistovich, K. V. Kharlampovich and many others. Another “source” of Russian “academic” or “school” theology, which developed under Western influence, was the powerful class of rural clergy who lived on the land and from the land. To the rural clergy N. N. Glubokovsky assigned the most important role in Russian history, believing that no other class has done or is doing more for the cultural good of Russia - especially given the “socio-material squalor” in which this class finds itself. According to Glubokovsky, despite the “defects” that the secular press loved to write about (drunkenness, playing cards, etc.), the clergy “was always ahead and above the environment” 11. It was precisely those who came from the environment of the “disenfranchised” and “long-suffering” rural clergy who formed the spiritual-academic corporation. The children of the wealthier urban (and above all metropolitan) clergy, as a rule, graduated from gymnasiums. The overwhelming majority of representatives of the corporation had several generations of rural priests, deacons, psalm-readers in their family... Professional activity carried out over decades and class isolation contributed to the development and accumulation of certain spiritual properties, preserved and passed on by inheritance. The best representatives of the spiritual-academic corporation combined two principles in their scientific creativity and church-social activities: the achievements of science and “living religious feeling”, which, in our opinion, is one of the significant differences between Russian theology and Western. Theological school of all levels was distinguished from secular school by a special atmosphere, born of the nature of spiritual education (and upbringing), the belonging of its students and mentors to the spiritual class: here everyone was “friends” with each other. “The old theological school - both the academy and the seminary - for all its shortcomings, had the amazing secret of binding people to itself,” wrote one of its graduates. “They fed poorly there, taught poorly, and yet, how many former seminarians and academicians remained for the rest of their lives bound by some invisible but strong connection with their harsh and meager school! There are many reasons for this, but the most important, it seems, is that the theological school, more than any other, came closer to the concept of what any real school should be, which can be called a family, fenced off from the outside and connected from the inside. And even to this day, despite the growing difference in views and at times the hostility of relations resulting from this, everyone here is much more at home with each other than somewhere in a gymnasium or university, completely filled with completely alien, alien and rushing elements” 12. The nickname “dad” was common at that time for the rector of a seminary and even an academy. Another important difference between a theological school and a secular one is the inseparability of the process of education and upbringing. The system of spiritual education for years cultivated the habit of the scientific and theological sphere, formed a special religious mood of the individual and a special “leaven”, in which the mind from youth was refined on the problems of theological knowledge and received “a specific shade of theological and religious disposition and development” 13. This created a solid foundation for the further growth of the theological maturity of the academic teacher. This was ensured by four years of study at a theological school, six years at a seminary, then four years at a theological academy, where only the best students who graduated from first-class seminaries had the right to enter. “In an atmosphere of ascetic diligence and high idealism, dozens of children from a remote village and the bastard deacon’s school repeated Lomonosov’s career” 14. According to MDA professor S.S. Glagolev, “not a single higher institution in the world enrolls students with better preparation and, in general, a better composition than the Russian Theological Academy” 15. But the other side of this system was the compulsion of spiritual education. A student at the Theological Academy was a kind of “serf” 16, for since the late 1870s. the path to secular higher education institutions was practically closed for seminarians. In a broad sense, the corporation included all graduates of theological academies; in a narrower sense, which we are considering, it included academic teachers. According to the staff of 1884, each academy had 29–32 teachers, according to the Charter of 1910–1911. – 35–37 and, finally, the draft Charter of 1918 provided for 50 teachers; that is, 120–150 people taught at the same time (in 4 academies), and in total the corporation amounted to about 300 people during the last 30 years of its existence (1890–1918). About a third of it were ordinary professors with a doctorate degree (theology, church history, church law), the majority of the corporation (about 2/3 or more) were lay teachers, less than 1/3 had holy orders (monastics, priests, archpriests). The four academies annually graduated about 200 candidates of theology. In total, the number of graduates of theological academies over the past thirty years has not exceeded 6,000 (for 98 million Orthodox Christians in 1914, i.e. 1 graduate per 16 thousand). Graduates of the academies were integrated into various spheres of state, public, and church life. Most of them joined the ranks of teachers in theological schools and seminaries, a smaller part joined the bureaucracy (secular and ecclesiastical), the ranks of teachers in secular educational institutions (including universities), some became writers, publicists and representatives of other “liberal professions” 17. Students and teachers, former classmates were connected by invisible threads of academic brotherhood. These were “small stars that scattered throughout Russia” 18, being carriers of Orthodox “ideology”, regardless of the department or region in which their activities continued. According to one of the SPbDA graduates, the higher theological school “gave Russia a great number (both quantitatively and qualitatively) of church administrators-hierarchs, preachers, missionaries, outstanding scientists in all fields of humanitarian knowledge and even statesmen of all-Russian significance.” And he also stated a “sad phenomenon”: in comparison with graduates of other higher educational institutions, the graduates of the academies (with rare exceptions) “went alone somewhere deep into the mass of the people, remaining both little known and little influential, not to the extent of their talents and services to Russia - they did not unite into a monolithic national Russian intelligentsia, did not become the leading stratum” 19. The author saw the reasons for this in the difficult living conditions (“struggle for existence”) of the overwhelming majority of the students of the theological school, but the main reason was called innate “Varangian mania”: “we are below, and above are the “Varangians” of various, changing tribes and nationalities” 20 . Another explanation can be heard in the confession of SPbDA professor I. E. Evseev: “Academic figures in the depths of their hearts are imbued with the conviction that the development of knowledge in the name of knowledge itself best moves forward the highest goals of human aspirations. In scientific creativity they tend to see for themselves the highest task and purpose of their existence, in a way a sacred rite entrusted to them by God. Hence, at best, academic creativity lacks temperament: it is not warmed by that vital warmth that is necessary to develop life values, to constantly maintain the volitional engine in tension” 21. Only a small part of the students of theological academies became priests. The “flight” from the ecclesiastical department, observed since the end of the 19th century, increasingly worried the church authorities. According to Anthony (Khrapovitsky), no more than 5% of those who graduated from the academy continued to serve in the ecclesiastical department. Finally, a few remained in the theological academies as professorial fellows (two annually, subsequently four graduates in each academy), and only a select few continued the path of scientific service in the academies 22, rising for 25 years along the scientific-hierarchical ladder from and. from associate professor to emeritus professor, and retired after 30 years of service. Often the service was delayed for 40 or even 50 years, which was traditional for the Kazan and Kyiv academies, why in the Charter of 1910–1911. a service life limit of 30 years was specifically introduced. As a result of strict selection and subsequent no less fierce competition, the ecclesiastical and academic professorship in Russia had a high scientific qualification and at the same time, according to one of its representatives, academic corporations were “a state of cruel morals” 23, which was facilitated by corporate isolation, which had an almost caste character. According to the established tradition, graduates of their native academy became teachers. Cases of replacement of the department “from the outside” (by students of another academy) were an exception; teachers who graduated from secular educational institutions became even more rare; “outsiders” did not stay within the walls of the academies, even if for some special reason they ended up there. Within each academy there were unique “parties” headed by honored professors (“old men”) who influenced internal academic policy (election of candidates to fill departments, awarding academic degrees, etc.). Intercorporate ties were rather weak. The impetus for their development and desire for unification was given by the era of 1905–1907. At the same time, the “party spirit” that strengthened under the influence of the liberation movement and academic autonomy aggravated the division within corporations into two camps; “liberals (renovationists)” and “conservatives (guardians).” At the same time, this division acquired some political overtones; The most “cadet” was the CDA, in which the “leftists” made up the majority. Spiritual education (ensuring the immutability of the fundamentals of the worldview and greater stability of the individual) and the isolation of the academic corporation caused a different attitude of its representatives towards the “world”; distant from the immediate and topical, they were less susceptible to the changing political elements, a narrowly politicized vision and assessment of events. According to one of the graduates of the theological academy, later a famous writer, publicist for Birzhevye Vedomosti A. A. Izmailov, academic teachers were an example of “the beautiful scientific asceticism of dozens of people for whom there is nothing in the world except knowledge, except the beloved walls of their alma mater and its library, who were smart like sages and naive like children in all other practical issues of life” 24 . The relatively small workload of an academic teacher (two lectures a week, with the established (for example, in St. Petersburg) practice of delivering double lectures to students of two years at the same time) left enough time for scientific, literary and journalistic activities, which were varied and large, as evidenced (in addition to monographs) by four academic journals: “Christian Reading” (SPbDA, 1821–1917), “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy” (1860–1917), “Theological Bulletin” (MDA, 1892–1918, previously “Additions to the works of the Holy Fathers,” 1843–1891), “Orthodox Interlocutor” (KazDA, 1855–1917). The St. Petersburg Theological Academy also published the weekly “Church Bulletin” (1875–1916), which until 1905 was practically the only church-public periodical. One can name about a dozen large spiritual magazines, including “Strannik” (St. Petersburg), “Faith and Reason” (Kharkov), “Missionary Review” (Kharkov), “Soulful Reading” (Moscow) and others, in which academic teachers also actively published; this collaboration, especially from the early 1900s, extended to secular periodicals. Since 1906, various weeklies and magazines with church-journalistic content began to be published, which, as a rule, existed only for one or two years - “Church and Public Life” (Kazan), “Church and Society” (St. Petersburg), “Christian” (Moscow) and others 25. Even one of the most severe critics of theological academies, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), expressed the opinion (though already in exile) that “our Academies produced many times more scientific printed works than universities,” and therefore, “despite all their shortcomings and the inexpediency of their very organization, all sincere educated people should treat them with deep respect and sympathy” 26. However, “society” rarely showed attention to the creativity of representatives of “official” or “school” theology; they were not among the “thought leaders” of their generation. According to the remark of A. A. Izmailov, “our theological scholarship usually closed in on itself, naturally dissociated itself to the side, and it is not surprising that both this area and the outstanding people in it are in many ways still a mystery to secular society” 27 . Theological publications, published in a circulation of 30–500 copies (as a rule, at the expense of the authors themselves), according to Glubokovsky, “were a simple victim of the jealousy of individuals” who lived “under the heavy pressure of despair, that they write for a non-existent public, without counting on it in the distant future” 28 . “In the theological field,” he noted, “everyone and everyone wrote in Russia more according to their individual inclination and published out of their own “fear,” which was not at all exclusively material ...” 29. At the same time, Glubokovsky pointed to the “completely incorrect and extremely harmful view” that has developed in Russian “educated” society, that since the saving Christian faith is accessible to everyone, then every Christian is competent to study theology - he even has the right to judge, judge, and value theological science without appropriate systematic preparation,” and warned about the danger of this “confusion of faith and knowledge” 30. Orthodox theological academies in Russia, as not only educational and scientific institutions, but also confessional ones, performed two main tasks: 1) the development of theological science and the training of relevant specialists (teachers for theological seminaries and schools); 2) fulfillment of apologetic-protective functions and training of shepherds. Accordingly, two trends appeared in the life of the highest theological school. The spiritual authorities looked at academies primarily from a professional-utilitarian point of view, seeing them, first of all, as pastoral schools. As a power and force external to the theological school, it showed a desire to restrain, limit, control and subjugate; as ecclesiastical authority, that is, the highest teaching authority - to lead, patronize, direct. Needing the professional activity of “their own,” the church intelligentsia, the authorities at the same time did not trust them. The academies themselves, driven by the internal needs of the free development of theological science, sought to escape such restrictions (but not from church walls!). This “struggle,” which took place not without the influence of the “liberation” movement, created a certain channel in which theological school and theological science developed. The duality of tasks introduced contradictions into the life of the higher theological school and imposed certain oppression on academic teachers. The words of Professor A.P. Lebedev can serve as a tuning fork. Characterizing the censorship conditions for the development of theological science in Russia, its complex relationship with church authorities, he noted that “the history of the Orthodox Theological Academy must be written with tears and blood” 31 . But he hardly imagined that a decade later life would deprive these words of the last shadow of any metaphor. Subsequently, from the height of his years, “after the newest ominous radiances (...) of liberal-communist darkness,” wanderings in exile, closer acquaintance with Western experience, Glubokovsky noted that Orthodox confessionalism “was not at all a fanaticism of thought, knowledge and feeling. He only demanded that scientists fulfill their high tasks wisely and conscientiously and strictly adhere to the obligations of their faith. (...) Everyone had to take care of themselves and not take upon themselves what they could not fulfill with scientific objectivity and directness, since it was impossible to undermine their own ruling institutions if people do not deceive, but sincerely serve them and conscientiously seek sanctioning differences from them. In this regard, one had to be wise in choosing the topics themselves, of which not all were available for comprehensive and frank treatment. It was necessary to have and maintain sufficient self-restraint..." 32. The development of the theological school repeated the wave-like movement of national life: the alternation of reforms and counter-reforms. The Academic Charter of 1869, developed under the influence of the University Charter (1867), granted relative autonomy to academies, expanding the rights of academic councils in the field of administrative and educational activities, which led to the strengthening of the principles of self-government in the administrative structure of academies and the development of independence in theological science, contributed to the transfer of the leadership of theological academies into the hands of the white clergy, thereby causing discontent among part of the hierarchy 33 . At the same time, “specialization” was introduced by dividing into three departments (theological, church-historical and church-practical). According to some, it had a beneficial effect on the development of theological science, and according to others, it disrupted the normal structure of academic life, ensuring the dominance of historical disciplines to the detriment of theological sciences. According to the Charter of 1884 “specialization” was abolished, the rights of academic councils were curtailed, the power of the rector and the dependence of academic corporations on diocesan bishops were strengthened, and public disputes in the defense of academic degrees were abolished. According to I.K. Smolich, the Charter of 1884 “abandoned long-term prospects, limiting itself to setting tasks on a local Russian scale. He had in mind not so much the scientific education of the future clergy and teachers of the Russian Church, but rather the training of politically and confessionally reliable church and administrative personnel” 34. Over the next thirty years of the existence of theological academies, it was the Charter of 1869 that became a kind of starting point or axis relative to which (“left” or “right”) various projects for reforming the higher theological school were developed, and for academic corporations a return to it became a cherished dream. "Temporary Rules" 1905–1906 granted “autonomy” to the academies, the Charter of 1910 and the amendments to it in 1911 not only abolished it, but further subordinated the academic corporations to the rector and diocesan bishop. In 1917, the academies were again granted relative autonomy, but they were already doomed... Every year more and more studies are published on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church of the period under review, and the study of the history of theological education in Russia is gaining momentum. Several main “directions” can be identified on which the attention of researchers is concentrated: the role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the development of education in Russia; Christian pedagogy, its principles; system of theological education - from parochial schools to the highest level of theological school (theological academies); history of theological schools in individual regions; state policy regarding religious education. There is a growing interest in the study of higher theological school, its history, traditions and influence on Russian culture; to the life and activities of its individual representatives. This interest is also manifested in the re-edition of works by representatives of pre-revolutionary theological science (V.V. Bolotov, A.I. Brilliantov, N.N. Glubokovsky, A.V. Gorsky, A.A. Dmitrievsky, S.L. Epifanovich, P.V. Znamensky, A.L. Katansky, A.P. Lebedev, I.I. Malyshevsky, M. D. Muretova, V. I. Nesmelov, I. V. Popov, V. D. Prilutsky, V. I. Ekzemplyarsky and others). And more and more often the name Η appears on the pages of research. N. Glubokovsky. Several short biographical sketches about him were published even before the revolution, the first of them was written by N. P. Dankov 35, the second - V. A. Melikhov 36. Both authors (Glubokovsky's students at SPbDA) were based on materials provided, undoubtedly, by Glubokovsky himself. The 25th anniversary of scientific and literary activity (1908) and the 25th anniversary of scientific and teaching activity (1914) caused the appearance of anniversary articles in various periodicals. In addition, numerous reviews were published in Russia and abroad, both on the works of Glubokovsky himself and on the volumes of the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia he edited. A special section consists of polemical articles related to Glubokovsky’s speeches at the Pre-Conciliar Presence on issues of church reform and the reform of theological schools. In 1925 in Sofia, a collection “35th anniversary of the scientific activity of Professor Nikolai Nikanorovich Glubokovsky” was published, it included documents important for assessing scientific, pedagogical and church-social activities, including the first years of his stay in emigration, as well as the most complete bibliography of Glubokovsky’s works (up to 1925 inclusive) 37 . Glubokovsky’s anniversaries, celebrated “in refugee”, also evoked a lot of printed responses. And, finally, obituaries that appeared in the Russian and foreign press. As a result, we have a fairly extensive list of literature reflecting the life, scientific and literary path of the scientist and the assessment of his scientific creativity and activities by his contemporaries. Then there was a long silence, interrupted by A. Ignatiev’s article “In Memory of N. N. Glubokovsky" 38. The anniversary, celebrated in December 2004 (140 years since his birth), generated several articles and publications (including in electronic form). Since the early 1990s. Some of Glubokovsky's works are also being republished 39 , and some of his works are being published for the first time 40 . The vast majority of materials on which the research is based are being introduced into scientific circulation for the first time. First of all, this is the extensive archive of N. himself. N. Glubokovsky, which is stored in several archives. The main body of documents is concentrated in the Manuscripts Department of the Russian National Library (OR RNL. F. 194. Op. 1 and 2) and has over 2000 files, including biographical documents, creative manuscripts, extensive correspondence (personal and official), materials of service-pedagogical and church-social activities, photographs, as well as documents related to the publication of volumes of the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia published under Edited by Glubokovsky. Another part of his personal archive is located in the Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg (TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 2162). Its distinctive feature is the predominance of official biographical documents (formular lists, diplomas and certificates related to awards and election to honorary members of scientific societies, academies, brotherhoods, trustees, etc.; letters related to Glubokovsky’s anniversaries in 1914 and 1916); Materials concerning the history of the Glubokovsky family are also stored here 41 . A small but important collection of Glubokovsky’s documents is available in the Russian State Historical Archive (RGIA): seminar and academic works (more than 40 in total), 42 diplomas on awards and election as an honorary member of various scientific and church communities and educational institutions, including theological academies 43, decrees of the Holy Synod related to his scientific and pedagogical activities, as well as materials from prepared and unpublished volumes PBE. Materials from Glubokovsky’s personal archive from the Central State Archive of Bulgaria (CDA, Sofia) were used, which mainly contains autographs (in Russian) of Glubokovsky’s articles published during his lifetime in foreign periodicals (in Serbian, Bulgarian, Romanian, English, German and other languages). Extensive correspondence from both academic teachers and secular scholars is involved. It represents a most valuable source of biographical information and evidence about various aspects of the life of the spiritual academic corporation, about the relationship between secular and church scientists, etc. Elected to the Imperial Academy of Sciences in 1909, Glubokovsky maintained business and friendly correspondence with a number of academicians and corresponding members. Their archives have been preserved much better than the archives of professors of theological academies. We have identified about 500 letters from N. himself. N. Glubokovsky 44 and two volumes of his correspondence with the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, with teachers of academies and seminaries, officials of the spiritual department, secular scientists and other correspondents have been prepared for publication. A distinctive feature of this correspondence is the paucity of information about “external”, in particular social and political, events. It becomes completely different, exceptionally valuable for the information and assessments of what is happening in it, in 1917–1921. (before Glubokovsky left abroad). In addition to personal funds, documents of official origin were used: reports, minutes of various meetings, etc. from the archives of St. Petersburg (TsGIA SPb), Moscow (OR RSL), Kyiv (Institute of Manuscripts of the Scientific Library of Ukraine named after V.I. Vernadsky) and Kazan (National Archive of the Republic of Tatarstan) theological academies, as well as materials (on the reform of theological education, revision of theological academies, etc.) from the archives of the Office of the Holy Synod (RGIA. F. 796) and the Educational Committee (RGIA. F. 802), etc. In total, materials from more than 60 archival funds from 18 archives in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kazan, Kyiv, Sofia, Prague, Paris, Jordanville, New York, Warsaw, as well as materials from private archives were used: in particular, the memoirs of comrade N. N. Glubokovsky at the Vologda Theological Seminary and its last inspector Nikifor Aleksandrovich Ilyinsky “From the Distant Past”, containing information about the life of students of Nikolsky Theological Seminary college and the Vologda Seminary, where Glubokovsky studied. The study used a significant amount of published materials: annual reports and minutes of meetings of academic councils, various documents regulating the life of a higher theological school, biographical sketches, memoirs, etc. The spiritual press, in particular the academic one, contains a wealth of material for studying not only theological thought and internal corporate life, but also the spiritual state of Russian society. In addition to discussing issues of general church and class status, spiritual journalism sensitively captured and reflected public moods, making reviews of the most interesting and significant phenomena in literary, social and state life, important, as Glubokovsky wrote, “for the moral diagnosis” of that time. Getting to know her allows us to doubt the justice of the reproaches addressed to representatives of the so-called. “school” or “academic” theology in “scholasticism”, their separation from life, casteism, etc., which, according to the accusers, was one of the reasons for the departure of the “educated” society from the Church. Representatives of the spiritual-academic corporation actively spoke out on a wide variety of issues of church and public life, and from 1905 they became increasingly involved in politics. The renovationist movement itself grew out of this involvement of part of the clergy (primarily in the capital and other large cities) and representatives of the academic corporation in public and political life. Familiarity with spiritual periodicals also allows us to correct existing ideas about Russian society on the eve of revolutionary upheavals and unrest. These ideas, in our opinion, are characterized by one-sidedness and preoccupation with the socio-economic, political and state aspects, without due attention to the religious sphere, to the fact that Russia was the largest Orthodox power at the beginning of the 20th century. B) bibliography of N.'s works. N. Glubokovsky An almost complete bibliography of Glubokovsky’s works has also been compiled, numbering about 1000 titles, including monographs, articles, notes and reviews published both in Russia and “in refugee”. The bibliography was compiled with the participation of A.K. Klementyev. Thanks to him, it was possible to find and collect most of N.'s works in the libraries of Sofia, Plovdiv, Paris, London, Prague, Bucharest and other cities. N. Glubokovsky, published in exile. This work was greatly facilitated by the fact that from 1883 until the last years of his life, Glubokovsky kept a detailed record of the “literary and scientific facts” of his activities. The value of these recordings of Glubokovsky is enormous. Not only articles, reports and reviews are listed, often published under pseudonyms, initials (N.G., N.G., G-sky) or without a signature at all, but also reviews of them and simply mentions of them in the press. In addition, Glubokovsky gave comments (sometimes quite detailed) about the circumstances of the writing and publication of some of his works or his participation in the works of others. There were several copies of such recordings. One of the notebooks, entitled “Biographical and bibliographic notes of Nikolai Nikanorovich Glubokovsky,” is stored in the OR RNL (F. 194. Op. 1. No. 29) and was brought up to 1914, parts of two (?) others are in the Central House of Archives (Sofia): 1) “Bibliography of the writings and publications of Professor Nikolai N. Glubokovsky, compiled by himself” (F. 1442 book No. 2); 2) “Service-biographical and bibliographical panegyric notes), in complete disorder, or anarchic order” (F. 1442, no. 31); 3) “III. Commissions, conferences, meetings, anniversaries and their echoes” (F. 1442 book No. 16, 20). A certain difficulty lay in reading these records and checking them against printed publications. Personality N. N. Glubokovsky and various aspects of his activities will more than once become the subject of special research. The proposed work is the first attempt at a scientific biography of Glubokovsky. The book is based on a dissertation for a doctorate in church history, defended in 2005 at the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris; The opponents were the dean of the St. Sergius Institute, Doctor of Theology, Professor of Dogmatic Theology, Protopresbyter Boris Bobrinsky, and Doctor of Historical and Philological Sciences, Professor of the History of the Russian Church and Russian Philosophy, Dmitry Mikhailovich Shakhovskoy. Its text has been supplemented (especially Part II - “In Refugee”) with the use of documents from the archives of Bulgaria, St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute (Paris), Holy Trinity Seminary (Jordanville) and private archives. TsGIA SPb. F. 2162. N° 12. L. 222. Letter from M. M. Tareev dated June 23, 1914 Professor Doctor N.N. Glubokovsky: Funeral homily said by Metropolitan Stefan of Sofia during the funeral service of Professor N.N. Glubokovsky in the Sofia Department. Council of March 21, 1937 // Church Bulletin of the Western European Diocese. 1937. No. 6–7. P. 14. Glubokovsky N. N. Christian unity and theological enlightenment in a Christian perspective // The Path. Paris, 1926. No. 4. P. 143. Anthony, Metropolitan Four Academies. Belgrade, 1933. Struve P. B. “At Trinity at the Academy” [review] // RM. 1915. No. 12. pp. 15–18. Kartashev A. Guide to Russian theological science // Bulletin of the RSHD. 1928. No. 11. P. 19, 20. CTIA SPb. F. 2162. No. 16. L. 12 vol. Glubokovsky N.N. On the organization of school pastoral preparation and on the organization of “theological and pastoral schools” // On the reform of the theological school. St. Petersburg, 1908. P. 28. OR RSL. F. 249. M. 4198. No. 5. Letter to V.V. Rozanov dated October 2, 1908. Dobrotvortsev B. “At the Trinity in the Academy”... M., 1914. [Review] // Theological Bibliographic leaflet. 1914. Issue. 10–11. October–November. P. 168. (Italics are ours. - T.B.) Pisarev L. About academic education // Church and public life. 1906. No. 3, January 7. Stb. 88. Kartashev A. Guide to Russian theological science // Vestnik PCXD. 1928. No. 11. P. 19, 20. Glagolev S.S. Introductory lecture in Introduction to Theology // BV. 1905. No. 11. P. 412. Pisarev L. On academic education... Stb. 87. See also: Glubokovsky N.N. Christian unity... P. 143. Glagolev S.S. Immortality of the past (the principle of preservation of phenomena) // BV. 1903. No. 2. P. 224–225. Veritinov N. In the old academy // Revival. La Renaissance. Literary and political notebooks. Notebook 50th. Paris. February 1956. pp. 132–133. Right there. P. 133. “The Varangians did not give Russia self-awareness, and even if they wanted to, they could not give it, because, according to the natural law of blood, they could not understand the innermost of the Russian soul” (Ibid.). Evseev I. E. Higher theological school and spiritual creativity // Kh. 1912. No. 5. P. 598. According to our calculations, in St. Petersburg about a third of the 60 left in 1891–1916. professorial fellows later became her teachers. OR RNB. F. 194. Op. 1. No. 293. L. 2 vol. Letter about. E. P. Akvilonova to Glubokovsky dated November 23. 1909 Change A. “At Trinity at the Academy.” 1814–1914 Anniversary collection of historical materials. M., 1914. Pp. XI + 772. Price 3 rubles [rec.] // Historical Bulletin. 1914. No. 12. P. 1001. See: Andreev G. L. Spiritual periodicals in Russian 1801–1917. Bibliographic index. T. 1–3. New York, 1998. Anthony, Metropolitan Four Academies. P. 9. Change A. “At Trinity at the Academy.” 1814–1914... P. 1000. Glubokovsky N.N. 1) Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state. Warsaw, 1928. P. 3; 2) In memory of the late professor A.P. Lebedev // Wanderer. 1908. No. 9. P. 294. Glubokovsky N. N. Russian theological science... P. 3. Glubokovsky N. N. On issues of theological school (secondary and higher). St. Petersburg 1907. P. 44. Lebedev A.P. Two pioneers of church-historical science in our country and a little information about the lots of their successors // BV. 1907. No. 5. P. 166. Glubokovsky N. N. St. Petersburg Theological Academy during the studentship there of Patriarch Varnava // Russian Abroad to His Holiness Patriarch VARNAVA, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of his episcopal ministry. Novy Sad, 1936. pp. 76–78. “In general, on the subject we are considering, more slander and malice prevail, and there is not the slightest characteristic, as well as in outlining the fundamental side of the issue. Theological Academies in Russia were and were called “Orthodox”. Therefore, they were confessional institutions, which means they had to proclaim and justify their confession as true. Such was their very nature, which, naturally, could only be expressed in an appropriate way. But this feature cannot be understood in a sectarian, narrow and hostile tendentious way. Orthodoxy was dominant in Russia and embraced a huge mass of the population. Isn’t it completely legal for them and for him to set up their own scientific and educational institutes? Orthodoxy believes in its Christian righteousness and, of course, wants to proclaim and defend it: - is it normal to consider all such institutions to be partisan and biased in their very essence? Isn't it fairer to admit that they were convinced of their truth and sincerely wanted to serve only it? And it does not allow fanatical intolerance or scientific obscurity, but, on the contrary, seeks solid justification and wide coverage” (Ibid. pp. 75 – 76). Smolich I.K. History of the Russian Church. 1700–1917. Part I. M., 1996. P. 473. PBE. T. 4. St. Petersburg, 1903, pp. 411–418. Melikhov V. A. Nikolay Nikanorovich Glubokovsky, Professor Imp. S.P.D.A. On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of his scientific activity. Kharkov, 1914. In 2008 (again in Sofia) another collection was published: “In memory of prof. Nikolai Nikanorovich Glubokovsky (1863–1937),” which included reports from an international scientific conference held in March 2008 at the Library of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in connection with the 70th anniversary of the death of N. N. Glubokovsky. JMP. 1966. No. 8. P. 53–77. See appendix. V: Literature about N. N. Glubokovsky Orthodoxy in its essence (TsiVr. 1991. No. 1); Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state (M., 1993, 2003); Slavic Bible (Scientific journal of the Russian Orthodox University of the Apostle John the Theologian. Issue 1. M., 1995. P. 43–57); Holy Apostle Luke. Evangelist and writer. M., 1999 (with a preface by A.I. Sidorov “Professor Nikolai Nikanorovich Glubokovsky (1863–1937).” pp. I–V); Annunciation of St. Apostle Paul and Jewish-rabbinic theology. St. Petersburg, 1998 (with a foreword by Prof. Archpriest Vladimir Sorokin. P. 4–5); The gospel of Christian freedom according to the message of St. ap. Paul to the Galatians. M., 1999; The Gospel of Christian glory in the Apocalypse of St. Apostle John the Theologian. St. Petersburg, 2002. Glubokovsky’s memoirs about his stay at the Moscow and Petrograd Theological Academies have been republished (Church Historical Bulletin. 1999. No. 2–3. P. 205–218; 219–243). Academic vows and covenants. M., 2005; Lectures on the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament. M., 2006; Bible Dictionary. M.; Jordanville, 2007; St. Petersburg EV. 2008. Vol. 35–36 (separate articles written in exile). The materials of the “Sofia Archive” of N. N. Glubokovsky, now located in the Moscow Theological Academy, could not be involved in our research. For information on the composition of this part of Glubokovsky’s archive, see: Peter (Eremeev), hieromonk. Sofia archive of N. N. Glubokovsky // TsiVr. 2003. No. 2 (23). pp. 140–156.