Development of church historical science in Russia until the beginning of the 20th century

When assessing the state of Russian church-historical science, it is necessary to take into account that in terms of its development and success, from the very beginning of its existence it stood at an insignificant height, remaining far behind the church-historical science of the West. One of the main reasons for this must be recognized as the too late inclusion of church historical science into the composition of other theological sciences taught in Russian Theological schools. Meanwhile, church historical science, like any other serious science, can achieve proper development only when it is properly established and studied in the appropriate scientific schools. The first attempts to introduce church historical science into Russian Theological schools date back only to the beginning of the 18th century. But these attempts had little success not only at the beginning, but throughout the entire eighteenth century. The Spiritual Regulations, compiled by Archbishop Feofan (Prokopovich), an associate of Peter I, expresses concern for the dissemination and organization of Theological schools in Russia, but since the Regulations, in the traditions of its era, rest on scholastic soil, in its project of Theological Schools there is almost no place allocated for church and civil history. History, both of them, was designed to be taught for only one year and, moreover, in connection with the study of languages. History was supposed to amuse young men who were absorbed in the boring business of studying the classics. According to the compiler of the Regulations, students will be more willing to learn “when the sad teaching of languages ​​is dissolved by such a cheerful awareness of the world and the affairs of the world that are passing by” 1 . History, according to the Regulations, seemed like a fun pastime for bored young men. This could hardly in any way be conducive to serious study of science. The study of church history was not given an independent place in the schools designed by Archbishop Feofan. Its study merged and mixed with the study of civil history. The further course of Russian spiritual enlightenment shows that historical and church-historical sciences remained completely neglected for a long time. Forty years after the publication of the Regulations, Catherine II, in one instruction to the Holy Synod, noted that “seminarians know neither church history nor civil history” 2 . However, in the second half of the 18th century, some more enlightened Russian bishops began to establish history classes in seminaries. Thus, Metropolitan of Moscow Platon (Levshin) in the sixties and seventies made an attempt to introduce general history, that is, church and civil history, into the circle of sciences at the Trinity Seminary, which was located in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, very important in its scientific significance. He managed to open optional history courses for all seminarians who decided of their own free will to study this science. But the spirit of the times was not conducive to success. There were very few who wanted to listen and study history: three from theology, five from philosophy, and five from rhetoric (theology, philosophy and rhetoric are the names of the higher, middle and lower classes of the then seminary). And the teachers, devoting most of their time to studying compulsory subjects, did not comply with the metropolitan’s instructions, and history was neglected 3 . This is how things went until the very end of the 18th century, until the reign of Paul I, when they finally paid attention to the sad state of church historical science in theological schools. The Synod ordered that in the theological classes of the then seminaries and academies, which were almost in no way different from each other in their teaching program, to study “a brief church history showing the main eras” 4 . The need to create an essay on general church history, written by a Russian Orthodox person, became obvious. He became Methodius Smirnov (later archbishop) - a graduate of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, then rector of the Trinity Seminary. As a professor, this learned man enjoyed great fame and popularity 5 . Partly on his own initiative, and partly at the prompting of his spiritual superiors, Archbishop Methodius, responding to the needs of the time, decided to compose an essay on general church history, which was supposed to serve as a guide in its study. The work was published in 1805 and introduced as a textbook on church history at the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. Written in Latin, it has the title “Liber Historicus” with the explanation that the book covers the history of the Christian Church of the first three centuries. This was the first attempt in Russian science to create a general church history. It is remarkable that Vladyka Methodius, who was at that time the Archbishop of Tver, received two royal awards at once for his work: the star of Alexander Nevsky and a diamond cross on his hood. This fact indicates that the supreme power encouraged the development of church historical science. The book of Archbishop Methodius is undoubtedly written very scientifically. The author re-read all the best that could be found at that time in foreign literature on the period of history of the Ancient Church, but, unfortunately, the factual material was borrowed from the outside, constituting only an external accessory, an external decoration of the work. The author's scholarship did little to enliven the book: there was a conciseness of presentation, turning into a dry style. It is not surprising that the work of Archbishop Methodius was not particularly popular in the Theological School, among the public, and in science. There has not been a single attempt to translate Liber Historicus into Russian. In parallel with Archbishop Methodius, Metropolitan Platon of Moscow made his own attempt to write a church historical work. His “Brief Russian Church History” was published in Moscow in 1805. In its construction it is similar to a chronicle. The reading public highly appreciated this work. And as Metropolitan Plato himself explains, his “History” was created mainly not for scientific and educational purposes, but in connection with the need to protect the history of the Russian Church from its overly secular coverage by Shcherbatov and Tatishchev. Thus, by the beginning of the 19th century in Russia it was not possible to sufficiently inculcate the study of church history. The first attempt to plant church historical science on Russian soil was not very successful. The next era in the development of church historical science in Russia was the time of the Statute of Seminaries and Academies, developed during the reign of Alexander I and approved in 1814. Since that time, church history as a science has gained greater independence and taken a stronger position among other theological sciences. At that time, academies were required to teach church history in the last two years of study. While maintaining the basis, the Charter of 1814 underwent very significant changes over a period of more than half a century. Such changes also affected the organization of church historical science in academies, moreover, in a direction favorable to this science. The further time passed, the more felt the need to expand the academic teaching of this science. And so, in the 40-50s of the 19th century, the church-historical department gradually divided into four independent departments. In addition to the department of ancient church history, this most important branch of church historical science, departments of biblical history, Russian church history and the new church history of the West appeared. At that time, more and more scientists were appearing in the academy who were developing church historical science. Here it is necessary to note Archimandrite Philaret (Gumilevsky), who taught in the 30s of the 19th century at the Moscow Theological Academy, later Archbishop of Chernigov. It is he who is credited with creating the first independent work on Russian church history, written in Russian. His “History of the Russian Church” is often compared with N. M. Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State”. “For the first time, the entire Russian church history was told and shown as a living whole, told clearly and thoughtfully” 6. This is the history of the state Church, a history describing the exploits of the hierarchs, which gives the entire work an edifying character. It is not for nothing that this work was later revised into a textbook (published in five editions in 1847–1849) 7 . Professor Gumilevsky divides the history of the Russian Church into periods, based on the facts of the internal life of the Church itself and the Russian state, considering four events as the most important phenomena of history: the Mongol invasion (1237), the division of the Russian Metropolis into Northern and Southern (1410), the establishment of the patriarchate (1589), the establishment of the Holy Synod (1721). Each period of the “History” was divided into subsections: the spread of faith, teaching, education, church government, worship, Christian life. And it is from this that a new critical direction begins to emerge when working with sources, which was continued by Archpriest A.V. Gorsky, an outstanding church historian, later rector of the Moscow Theological Academy. At the beginning of his professorial career, he alone had the responsibility of expounding from the pulpit the entire church history, from biblical times to our time: Greek, Western, and Russian. With his active participation, biblical history, Russian church history, and the modern church history of the West gradually emerged from the general sphere of church historical science as independent sciences. Gorsky is credited with creating the first school of Russian church historians. “It was he who gave E. E. Golubinsky the idea of ​​basing his reconstruction of the structure and life of the ancient Russian Church on Byzantine material; he himself gave examples of such comparative analysis in his lectures. Gorsky suggested to N. Kapterev the method used by the latter in his works on the history of Nikon’s patriarchate; Kapterev used materials already selected by Gorsky” 8 . But despite the internally creative movement, books with church historical content appeared extremely rarely. Theological journals, of which there were very few during this period, showed no interest in articles on issues of church historical science. And if articles of this kind did appear, then church history was presented in them for general edification, and was not considered in accordance with the requirements of science and scientific criticism. However, we can safely say that during the operation of the Charter of 1814, church history took a strong place among other theological sciences, and the beginning was made of its scientific treatment in our then very sparse spiritual press. A qualitatively new stage in the development of church historical science in Russia was the introduction into force of the new Charter of Theological Academies in 1869. This is the so-called Makarievsky Charter, named after its initiator and editor-in-chief Archbishop Makariy (Bulgakov), later Metropolitan of Moscow. The Charter of 1869 had a positive impact on the position of church historical science, the importance of which increased significantly. According to this Charter, all academic sciences were distributed into three departments, including a church history department. Students who enrolled in this department began to study almost exclusively historical sciences within four years. And soon this department became the most popular and was overflowing with students. But the most important thing is that the Charter in question introduced the rule that the degree of Master of Theology was given only for a printed work that was publicly defended according to the then accepted procedure. Thus, in the Theological Academies, for the acquisition of academic degrees, exactly the same requirements were introduced as those that existed then in Russian universities. This greatly advanced church historical science. A significant number of both master's and doctoral dissertations on issues of church history appeared. The need to print dissertations led to the fact that they became known to the general public and, according to A.P. Lebedev, “church historical science came out of the walls of educational institutions and became a phenomenon of public importance” 9. The expansion of the circle of people involved in church history was also facilitated by the University Charter of 1863, according to which the department of church history was opened at the historical and philological department of the university. In spiritual magazines, the number of which at that time increased significantly 10, many church historical articles began to appear, sometimes very valuable. The public who read spiritual magazines began to give these articles noticeable preference over articles on other branches of theological knowledge, as a result of which more and more space in magazines began to be devoted to articles of church historical content. Attention should be paid to the very nature of church-historical monographic literature, which appeared under the influence of the academic Charter of 1869, and to the nature of those church-historical articles, which, mainly from the same time, began to fill spiritual magazines. Various directions have emerged in the development of certain church-historical issues. It has become possible to guess from the author himself, regardless of the subject he is writing about, from which angles he will cover the issue he is considering and where his likes and dislikes will lean. What appeared in science is called a direction. But more importantly, in the development of church historical science, skepticism also appeared, which is so rarely found in theological sciences even today - not the skepticism that is an expression of distrust in one’s own strengths, but the one that does not delude itself. Skepticism, which the famous writer of that time, His Eminence Porfiry (Uspensky), called “sound, and not consumptive,” that is, that skepticism that should decipher church historical legends and look for the grain of truth here 11. The personification of this period was the “History of the Russian Church” by E. E. Golubinsky 12. This extensive work marked the heyday of Russian church history. The author identifies three characteristic periods: Kiev, Moscow and St. Petersburg, which examine not so much the church organization as the development of religion itself. The main advantage of the work is the critical method of working with sources, taken by Golubinsky from his teachers - Archbishop Philaret (Gumilevsky) and Archpriest A.V. Gorsky. The study widely uses the comparative method and elements of psychological analysis. Thanks to this, the history of the Russian Church by E. E. Golubinsky becomes logically and psychologically justified. One of the most significant works of this period was the multi-volume “History of the Russian Church” by Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) of Moscow. The first edition of Makariev’s “History” was published from 1857 to 1883 13. In its pathos and volume, it is comparable to S. M. Solovyov’s “History of Russia since Ancient Times,” which appeared in parallel with Makariev’s work. The merits of the work of Metropolitan Macarius include the richness of the source base and factual completeness, which has remained unsurpassed to this day. The principle of grouping historical facts here is based on changes in intra-church relations between the Russian Church and the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The author's erudition is striking: there is practically not only a single ancient source that he has not used, but also not a single Russian or foreign book or article touching on issues of civil and church history that would escape the close gaze of a researcher. Factual thoroughness is an important advantage of this multi-volume work. “This is a monument to amazing hard work and noble curiosity. And at a certain stage of scientific work, factual thoroughness is a real and important step forward” 14. Summarizing all of the above, we can conclude that during the period under review there was a tendency to change the problematics of works of a church-historical nature. It can be defined as a tendency towards denationalization of Russian church history. In this, it follows a similar path to the all-Russian one: through the political stories of N. M. Karamzin and Archbishop Philaret (Gumilevsky), S. M. Solovyov and Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) - to the “human” history of V. O. Klyuchevsky and E. E. Golubinsky. With the advent of works of this kind, a new era began in the life of Russian church historical science. The new Academic Charter of 1884 made profound changes in the order and life of the Theological Academies, tightened censorship, but this almost did not affect the position of church historical science, which continued to develop and strengthen. The Charter even stated that, next to the highest academic degree of Doctor of Theology, a new degree of Doctor of Church History was being established, which was determined to be awarded for church historical works. There was no such degree even in theological faculties in the West. Among the outstanding scientists who distinguished themselves with their works on the so-called general church history at the time under review, one should mention the professor of the Moscow Theological Academy A.P. Lebedev, who in the last years of his life worked as a professor in the department of Church history at Moscow University. In 1870, Lebedev was elected extraordinary professor at the Moscow Academy of Sciences, ahead of V. O. Klyuchevsky in the running. In 1879 he defended his doctoral dissertation “Ecumenical Councils of the 4th and 5th centuries. A review of their dogmatic activities in connection with the directions of the schools of Alexandria and Antioch.” A.P. Lebedev left behind a large number of works. He is the author of a number of articles published in the church press. The first and only Russian church historian, Lebedev undertook the publication of the complete collection of his works, which amounted to 11 volumes. He also wrote the only work of its kind to this day on the history of church historical science, “Church historiography in its main representatives from the 4th century to the 20th century” (St. Petersburg, 1903) 15. His work is not a story, not an apology, but an investigation. When considering issues of historiography, Lebedev remains invariably critical. And there is not a single Church historian he studied, from Eusebius of Caesarea to Archpriest A.V. Gorsky, who would escape critical analysis from the researcher. But his criticism, his comments are always reasoned and supported by facts. The main task of a scientist is to give a balanced, impartial characterization of each church historian or group of historians (school). That is why he never remains in the field of negative assessments, but always looks for and finds a rational grain. And he succeeds brilliantly. The great merit of A.P. Lebedev is that he constantly strives to find out to what extent this or that position, clarified by one or another historian, is confirmed by the historical material he provides and how wide is the sphere of influence of this view on the nature of the presentation. This approach to historical text remains relevant today. Another outstanding scientist of the era in question is the professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy V.V. Bolotov. His “Collected Church Historical Works” 16 has not lost its relevance and scientific quality to this day. One can say more: the one-sidedness and limitations of the historical positivist methodology of the 19th century were overcome and replenished by V.V. Bolotov. First of all, this concerns the cognitive capabilities of the historian in the field of source study practice. These possibilities directly stem from the specifics of historical knowledge itself, which provides for the primary role of the cognizing personality in the process of cognition. By this, V.V. Bolotov anticipated the conclusions of advanced scientific trends of the 20th century, the fruitful methodology of which was built on criticism of traditional ideas about the relationship between the historian and the source. And the system of theological knowledge appears in V.V. Bolotov as a necessary prerequisite for any church historical research. As a result, Russian church historical science approached the 20th century with a fully formed scientific apparatus. It was significantly enriched by the works of Russian scientists, whose works, thanks to the publication of monographic literature and church periodicals, became publicly available. The first scientific schools were created, through a developed network of Theological and even secular educational institutions (Theological academies and seminaries, as well as universities), church history was taught at a decent level, including through the publication of textbooks and lecture courses by prominent figures in this science. Rich source study and factual material on various areas of church history have been accumulated, and key problems in its study have been identified. All this testifies to the ever-increasing potential of Russian church historical science. The tragic trials that the terrible 20th century brought to Russia interrupted its development, but in the 21st century, one can hope that it will again begin to develop successfully and fruitfully. Quote by: Lebedev A.P. Church historiography in its main representatives from the 4th century to the 20th century. St. Petersburg, 2000. P. 397. Znamensky P.V. Theological schools in Russia before the reform of 1808. Kazan, 1881. P. 471. Smirnov S.K. History of the Trinity Lavra Seminary. M., 1867. S. 332–333, 335. Lebedev A.P. Decree. op. P. 399. Smirnov S.K. Decree. op. P. 279. Florovsky Georgy, archpriest. Paths of Russian theology. Paris, 1937. P. 365. Filaret (Gumilevsky), archbishop. History of the Russian Church in five periods. St. Petersburg, 1894. Melkov A.S. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy A.V. Gorsky and his contribution to the development of Russian church historical science // Platonov’s readings: Collection of scientific works / Ed. P. S. Kabytova. Samara, 2002. P. 199. Lebedev A.P. A brief outline of the development of church historical science in Russia // Theological Bulletin. 1895. No. 7. pp. 289–321. The most popular spiritual magazines: Soulful Reading. M., 1860–1917; Kyiv antiquity. Kyiv, 1882–1906; Orthodox Review. M., 1860–1891; Orthodox interlocutor. Kazan, 1855–1917; Additions to the works of the holy fathers. M., 1843–1891; Wanderer, St. Petersburg, 1860–1917; Christian reading. St. Petersburg; Pg. 1821–1918; Readings at the Moscow Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. M., 1863, 1867–1916. Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. Kyiv, 1874. June. P. 443. Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. T. 1. M., 1997; T. 2. Part 1. M., 1900; Part 2. M., 1917. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. History of the Russian Church. In 7 books. M., 1995. Florovsky Georgy, archpriest. Decree. op. P. 366. Bolotov V.V. Collection of church historical works. In 8 volumes. M., 1994.