“Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church” by Archbishop Philaret (Gumilevsky) and the beginning of Russian patrolology

The personality and works of Archbishop Philaret (Gumilevsky) are of great importance for the history of academic theological science. The main one of his works, “Historical Teaching about the Fathers of the Church,” laid the foundation for patrolology as a science in the Orthodox Church. Since its writing, domestic and world patrol science has gone far forward, however, the principles that were laid down by the father of Russian patrol in understanding its subject area and methodology are of important interest today for analyzing its development. His emphasis on the hypostatic nature of patrolological science, the idea of ​​patristic writing as a continuous process, not limited to any historical period, became the basic principles of Orthodox patrolological thought. The article presents this work of Archbishop Philaret to a modern audience, generally characterizing the features of his scientific approach, style, language, etc. Abstract: Personality and works of Archbishop Filaret (Gumilevskiy) are of great importance for the history of academic theology. The main of his works – “Historical Doctrine of the Church Fathers” – marked the beginning of Patrology as a science in the Orthodox Church. Since its writing, the domestic and world patrol science has gone far ahead, but the principles that were laid down by the father of Russian Patrology in understanding its subject area and methodology, are now of important interest for the analysis of its development. His accentuation of the hypostatic nature of patrological science, the idea of ​​patristic writing as a continuous process, not limited to any historical period, became the basic principles of Orthodox patristic thought. The article presents this work of Archbishop Filaret to a modern audience, generally describing the peculiarities of his scientific approach, style, language, etc. The 19th century became a new milestone for Russian, and with it for universal theological science. At this time, more precisely by the middle of this century, the active formation of a circle of theological sciences began in the Russian Orthodox Church, which in their general outlines represents an almost contemporary form to us. The process of forming the Russian theological school proper begins. From the first steps of this process, patrolology becomes one of the integral directions of theological science, initially adopting the very name of the science and discipline, and the internal appearance and content from Western models. In terms of its significance within the framework of the educational and scientific-theological process in theological schools, patrolology immediately occupies one of the leading positions. The process of forming new sciences for the Russian school, including patrolology, began and proceeded simultaneously in the four largest theological schools - Theological Academies - St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv and Kazan. And although, as we will see, the leading role (in relation to patrolology) at the first stage of this formation belonged to the Moscow school, however, soon, by the beginning of the 20th century, it would move to another, no less significant spiritual and educational center - St. Petersburg 1. In general, the influence at that time of various academies specifically as schools was not so significant - the process common to them was much more significant; and the publications of some academies successfully and in a short time became, so to speak, common property - they had a general and often very wide circulation, be it textbooks, current translations or scientific research. But, nevertheless, it is the Moscow school that has the honor of laying the foundation of patrol science in Russia. Thus, the beginning of teaching patrolology in theological schools of the Russian Orthodox Church, and at the same time the beginning of Russian patrol science, was laid by Archbishop Filaret (Gumilyovsky) 2. Being one of the most educated, energetic and versatile church scientists of his time, Saint Philaret had, at the same time, an obvious inclination towards sciences of a historical nature, towards church historical topics 3. The combination of this inclination, his outstanding abilities as a church scientist and teacher, and the specifics of the era when patrolology, which already existed in the West as a science, found itself in demand in the Russian Church and the emerging Russian theological school, it seems, determined St. Philaret to be the founder of Russian (and more broadly, and at the same time, Orthodox) patrolology. In the 30s of the 19th century, in theological academies, on behalf of the Synod, a massive formation of lecture notes began on all key subjects, including all subjects of the seminar course, which would subsequently form the basis of the educational and pedagogical fund of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is within the framework of such a program that Saint Philaret compiles his lecture notes on patrolology when he was the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy. This outline will subsequently be used by teachers of theological schools. Already in the 1840s, having left the Moscow Academy and heading the Riga diocese 4, Saint Philaret revised, supplemented it and prepared it for publication - so in 1859 the first Russian patrolological work was published, which became a textbook for several generations of students of theological schools - the three-volume “Historical Teaching about the Fathers of the Church”. In working on this work, Saint Philaret, who had an excellent command of ancient Greek and Latin, as well as some modern Western languages, 5 relied on the following sources and research: 1. Ancient historical sources: “church histories” of Socrates, Sozomen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Blessed. Jerome, St. Photius of Constantinople and some others. As well as acts of martyrdom, the historical component of the works of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus of Rome, Epiphanius of Cyprus, Theodoret of Cyrus, John of Damascus and others. 2. The entire body of patristic writing, which Saint Philaret read in the original, using mainly the “Patrology” of Abbot Min. 3. Contemporary foreign patrolological research, mentioned by Saint Philaret as “materials on patristics” 6: dedicated to the holy fathers of the 1st–3rd centuries 7 and the fathers of the 1st–6th centuries 8. As well as works devoted to the “history of church literature” 9. Saint Philaret gives a brief description of some of these sources. 4. The book also contains numerous footnotes to other (mostly foreign) researchers - canonists, historians, textual critics, publishers, critics, etc., not specifically mentioned by the author in the list of sources and studies 10 . As can be judged from the comments of Saint Philaret himself, the influence on him of foreign sources was minimal, or at least very restrained. His attitude towards Western researchers is often critical and disagrees with one or another of their statements, especially when he encounters scientific conclusions made in the spirit of excessive criticism and the desire to search for disagreements, disagreements with the spirit and letter of Church Tradition, etc., characteristic of the Western approach as a whole. As a rule, Saint Philaret expresses his own opinion on one or another controversial, ambiguous or debated issue related to the conduct of patrolology, briefly referring to the existing range of points of view among researchers. The position of the saint turns out to be primarily directed by the feeling and spirit of the Tradition of the Church, in the “space” of which he considers any scientific arguments. This is the basis of the approach of St. Philaret, as a rule, used by him - attentive to the point of view of the “patrologists” who preceded him, but, in general, independent of them in his opinion (see, for example: [Filaret, 1859a, 42; Filaret, 1859b, 236; Filaret, 1859c, 42, 54, etc.]). In addition, a certain independence of St. Philaret as a patrolologist is confirmed by another important and indisputable fact, which is pointed out, among other things, by the saint himself: all the “patristic studies” that preceded him, without exception, do not go, as a rule, beyond the 3rd, maximum 6th century 12, while the “Historical Doctrine of the Fathers of the Church” for the first time in the history of world pathological science brings the consideration of patristic writing to the 13th century 13. In this regard, in Russian pathological science, until now (!), that is, until the beginning of the 21st century, with one single exception, 14 no one has given a more chronologically detailed overview of patristic writing and pathological material, in comparison with the first work in this area of ​​St. Philaret. It should be noted, however, that Volume III of the “Historical Doctrine of the Fathers of the Church,” dedicated to the period of the 5th–13th centuries, that is, precisely the period that would require maximum independence from the author due to the reasons stated above, seems at the same time to be the weakest in all respects, except for the “hagiography” component of the Fathers of the Church. This fact speaks of the difficulty of the task undertaken by the father of Russian patrolology. Blazing a new path, difficult in itself, could not be sustained with the same quality with which the author followed in the footsteps of the scientists who preceded him. 3. The concept of the subject of patrolology in St. Philareta Of particular importance for us is Saint Philaret’s understanding of the subject of patristic research. In this understanding, he quite radically diverges from both the Western scientists who preceded him 15 and even the contemporary representatives of the St. Petersburg school, who stand, like St. Filaret, faced with the problem of understanding the prospects of Russian patrol 16, and with the subsequent development of patrol science, in this regard, it rather followed the path laid in the West than along the path proposed by the founder of Russian patrol. Thus, Saint Philaret harshly criticized the scheme of studying the Fathers of the Church “life, works, teaching” 17, which was classic for that time in Western patrolological science (and has not lost its relevance until the 21st century), offering an alternative version of the subject of patristic research. His view here is very categorical: “To consider the dogmatic teaching of the fathers to be the same special part of Patristics as the study of works or life means not to understand the subject itself” [Filaret, 1859a, XX]. According to him, a separate study of the teachings of the fathers means nothing more than duplication of the description of their creations 18. Thus, according to the author of the “Historical Teaching on the Fathers of the Church,” the subject of patristics consists of two, and unequal, parts: 1. "the lives (of the holy fathers) and 2. review of (their) works” [Filaret, 1859a, XXI]. Or, according to another definition, from “information about the personality of each of them (and) about his creations” [Filaret, 1859a, XXVI], through which “the spirit and direction of the teacher (that is, the father) of the Church is depicted with possible accuracy” [Filaret, 1859a, XXVI]. In this area, the saint, obviously, still finds some place for the teaching of the holy fathers (within the framework of the review of works being carried out), however, in his opinion, “it should not occupy as much space as the life of the Father of the Church” [Filaret, 1859a, XXI]. The desire of St. Philaret is partly understandable - to protect himself from reducing the entire rich heritage of the holy fathers to just one teaching or an even narrower area - to just one dogmatic component: “That patristics that pays exclusive attention to the dogmatic teaching of the fathers, losing sight of both the interpretation of Scripture and instructions in piety, distorts the concept of the fathers of the Church, does not present them in their exact form" [Filaret, 1859a, XX]. This feature will find its understanding in later pathological writing (See: [Legeev, 2015, 13–18]), especially in the context of those personalistic accentuations in theology that will fully manifest themselves in the period of the 20th–21st centuries However, despite this good desire, St. Philaret’s concept of the subject of patristic research should be considered too “raw” and requiring historical correction. This concept of the subject is such that, although it deviates his work from purely and only historical biographies of saints (with separate and subordinate to this history interspersed in their “fabric” of information about the scientific works of saints), it is still too similar to the latter. The following fact also speaks in favor of this relationship. Despite the fact that Saint Philaret considers the subject of his consideration precisely (and only) the holy fathers, excluding the teachers of the Church, such as Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, from the general and chronologically consistent context of his narrative, he still devotes a separate section to them. This approach indicates a certain instability of the concept of the subject of patristic research: it is still too close to the hagiographic genre, although, on the other hand, it is already vaguely aware of the wider “context” of Tradition as its basis. The further path of patrolology will move towards moving away from such uncertainty and a clearer differentiation and introduction into the subject area of ​​patrolology of the theology of the Holy Fathers, as well as the course and patterns of its historical development, with the legitimate inclusion in this area of ​​personalities significant for the historical development of the Church - teachers of the Church. Ultimately, the subject of patrolology, as understood by its founder and founder on Orthodox and Russian soil, turns out to be still very far from the understanding of the subject area of ​​this science to which it will approach in the 21st century, during the period of the revival of the Russian theological school. 4. Features of the author's method and style The methodology of St. Philaret is partly the result of the above-mentioned concept of the subject. The biographies of saints produced by him are, as a rule, quite detailed. The emphasis on their works as church writers and theologians, so necessary for specifically pathological writing (in our modern understanding of it), is present in St. Philaret, but, it seems, is not expressed strongly enough, at least with the omission of the connection of these works with the main processes that took place in the Church during the historical periods of the lives of the saints. Few exceptions to the above only confirm rule 19. In general, not all the personalities discussed in “Historical Teaching” have the characteristics of works; where it is given, this characteristic is, as a rule, either quite external in nature, or vaguely selective (see, for example, the topic dedicated to St. Macarius the Great: [Filaret, 1859b, 232–241]), or briefly sketchy (see, for example, the topic dedicated to St. John Cassian: [Filaret, 1859c, 52–55]). Some characteristics of the works contain citations, sometimes copious ones, of the holy fathers. All this indicates some heterogeneity of the method. In general, the “patrology” of St. Philaret is distinguished by its encyclopedic approach 20 . The total number of personalities considered in the “patrology” of St. Philaret is 122. An impressive figure, typical more for collections of the lives of saints than for later manuals and studies devoted to patristic-patrological topics 21 . The author tries to cover as many holy fathers as possible, without losing sight of those of them whose written heritage did not play a primary role in the life of the Church (for example, Saints Dionysius of Corinth, Serapion of Antioch, Philaeus of Thmuite, Zeno of Verona, Orsisius of Tabennisiot, Theotimos of Scythia, Asterius of Amasia, Polychronius of Apamea, Paulinus of Nola and many others). It is noteworthy that the book of St. Philaret also includes Russian holy writers of the 11th–12th centuries 22 . Such a method, probably inevitable for the time of the birth of science and having its own strengths and weaknesses, will be gradually and quite consistently overcome in the works of the most prominent patrolologists of subsequent periods - moving away from encyclopedicism to conceptualism and caring more about the pedagogical rather than the scientific side of the issue 23. It should be noted, however, that the subsequent trend away from encyclopedicism will also be associated with changes in the understanding of the subject area of ​​patrolology itself (see: [Legeev, 2015, 36]). The encyclopedic approach applied by St. Philaret had as its almost inevitable consequence the overview of the presented material, only in individual, rare topics, revealed with depth, partly only approaching the standards that just half a century later would be established by the works of the next generation of Russian patrolologists - N. I. Sagarda, A. I. Sagarda, S. L. Epifnovich and I. V. Popov. Among these few more fully covered topics are chapters dedicated to Saints Athanasius the Great, the Cappadocian Fathers, Ephraim the Syrian, John Chrysostom, Jerome of Stridon, Augustine of Hippo and a few others. Such important holy fathers for patrolology as, for example, Maximus the Confessor or Simeon the New Theologian, in the work of St. Philaret, microscopic attention is given in comparison with their role in the life of the Church - too superficial to become familiar with their heritage. Saint Philaret in his work successfully combines the compilation and remarkableness of language, the spirituality of judgments and the scientific and theological accuracy of individual thoughts. His language is clear, bright, intelligible, precise and colorful; represents the most important advantage of the first Russian “patrology”. It is easily perceived by the reader and allows you to encapsulate a large amount of thought in a few words. Let us give several almost arbitrary examples of the style of St. Philaret: “Unfortunately, there were people who wanted to spoil sacred antiquity” [Filaret, 1859a, 6]. “The writings of the apostolic men... also breathe simplicity and sincerity, strong with the power of truth. Their very external form expressed simplicity: they were written in the form of letters” [Filaret, 1859a, 5]. “Tertullian was gifted with a living and deep feeling, a fiery imagination, a mind capable of descending to the last foundations of thought; had extensive information. But his vivid imagination and impulses of fiery feeling carried him beyond the limits of moderation” [Filaret, 1859a, 183]. “For the present time, it is not entirely clear how St. could speak about such lofty objects as the mystery of the Holy Trinity. Gregory from the church pulpit to the people, and speak as he spoke” [Filaret, 1859b, 170]. “It was necessary to use cunning when summoning John to the capital, and they did: the ruler of the east, Asterius, invited Chrysostom to visit with him the countryside places of the martyrs. Chrysostom appeared - and the ready-made chariot carried him along the Constantinople road” [Filaret, 1859a, 281]. “Having an excellent command of the Latin language, Jerome well understood the work of a translator and translated as he understood this matter. It is impossible not to notice, however, that Jerome’s translation could have been more correct even if he had not translated so hastily... Complete perfection in heaven!” [Filaret, 1859a, 367–368]. “In St. Augustine, what is most striking is the combination of two qualities that are rarely found in the same person: a deep, living and abundant feeling and the most subtle scholastic reason” [Filaret, 1859c, 43]. Taking into account the peculiarities of the method of this book, it should be recognized that the first experience of Russian (and generally Orthodox) patrolological writing, carried out by St. Philaret, cannot yet be clearly differentiated as an educational or, on the contrary, scientific work. Rather, it represents a combination of both, with all the partial advantages and, to a greater extent, historical disadvantages that flow from this. 5. Historical significance and fate of Archbishop Philaret’s “patrology” The total volume of the three-volume “Historical Teaching” is 1122 pages of text. Saint Philaret published this monumental work in St. Petersburg in accordance with the printing standards of that time, of course, still very far from the capabilities of printing in the 21st century. After the first printing, the book was reprinted several times: in 1882; in 1996, the Holy Trinity Lavra published a reprint of the first edition of 1859; in 2001 Sretensky Monastery - reprint of 1882; the last time in 2007 - in Kyiv, the book was published by the publishing house named after St. Leo, Pope of Rome. This latest edition is the best in quality, and also has a hardcover and was released in one volume. Despite the reprint versions, the book is relatively easy to read. The patrolological work of St. Philaret (Gumilevsky) laid the foundation and shaped the appearance of Russian patrolology, giving its development a powerful impetus. Not only during the 19th century, but also for a long time after it, it had virtually no “competitors” in terms of its monumental comprehensiveness and broad encyclopedic approach, so characteristic of the science of the 17th–19th centuries in general. Despite the importance of this work, another book is becoming a truly popular textbook for theological seminaries - “Readings on Patrolology” by D. V. Gusev, published within the walls of the Kazan Theological Academy 40 years after the appearance of “Historical Teaching about the Fathers of the Church”. For our time, the work of St. Philaret, according to A.G. Dunaev, “is mainly of archaeographic interest due to references to old publications and sporadic references to archives” [Dunaev, 2004, XXXVII]. One can agree with this opinion, but not entirely. Being the first and most characteristic example of Orthodox patrolological encyclopedias, written in a wonderful language, this work entered the treasury of Church Tradition, which means that today it has not lost some relevance as a beneficial example and example of the scientific work of an Orthodox patrolologist both for church scientists and for students of theological and secular universities. List of the main works of Archbishop Philaret (Gumilevsky): 1. History of the Russian Church in five volumes. M.: In the printing house of V. Gauthier. 1848–1859. 2. Historical and statistical description of the Chernigov diocese. Kiev, 1874. T. 6. 3. Pictures of church life in the Chernigov diocese from its nine-century history. Kiev, 1911. 4. Novgorod-Seversky // Chernigov diocesan news. Additions. 1872. No. 11. pp. 237–264. 5. Words and conversations of Philaret, Bishop of Kharkov and Akhtyrsky, spoken in Riga. M., 1850. 6. Conversations about the suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ, spoken by Philaret, Bishop of Kharkov and Akhtyrsky: at 2 p.m. Moscow, 1857. 7. Research on the death of Tsarevich Dimitri. M.: Univ. typ., 1858. 8. Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church: in 3 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1859. 9. Review of Russian spiritual literature, 862–1720. SPb.: Printing house Imp. Academician Sciences, 1857. 10. Historical overview of the hymns and chants of the Greek Church, with notes and photographs of ancient musical notation. Chernigov: type. Elias Monastery, 1864. 11. Cathedral Chernigov monasteries: Ilyinsky, Eletsky and Borisoglebsky. Chernigov, 1861. 12. Russian saints, revered by the entire Church or locally: An experience in describing their lives. Chernigov, 1861–1864 (2nd edition – 1863–1865, 3rd edition – 1882), in three sections (books). 13. Words, conversations and speeches of Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov and Nizhyn. 2nd edition. Chernigov, 1863. In 4 parts (3rd edition - 1883). 14. Orthodox dogmatic theology. Chernigov, 1864 (2nd edition – 1865). 15. Saints of the South Slavs: Experience of describing their lives. Chernigov, 1865. In 2 volumes. (2nd edition - 1882, 3rd edition - 1883, 4th edition - 1894). 16. An abbreviated history of the Russian Church. St. Petersburg, 1869. 17. Holy ascetics of the Eastern Church. St. Petersburg 1871. 18. Lives of saints revered by the Orthodox Church, with information about the feasts of the Lord and the Mother of God and about the miraculous icons revealed. St. Petersburg, 1885. 19. Description of the Novgorod-Seversky Spaso-Preobrazhensky first-class monastery. Chernigov: Gub. typ., 1873. 20. Divine services of the Russian Church before Mongol times. M.: Society of History and Antiquities of Russia, 1847 Moscow: Society of History and Antiquities of Russia, 1847. 21. The Life of the Holy Righteous Simeon of Verkhoturye: borrowed. from the book: “Russian Saints” by Philaret, Archbishop. Chernigovsky. M.: Publishing house. bookseller I. A. Morozov, 1885. 1. Dunaev (2004) – Dunaev A.G. Lectures by N.I. Sagards and patrolology of the 20th century / N.I. Sagarda. Lectures on patrolology. I–IV centuries. M.: Publishing house. Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2004. 2. Legeev (2015) – Legeev M., priest. Patrology. The period of the Ancient Church: with a reader. St. Petersburg: Publishing house SPbPDA, 2015. 592 p. 3. Meyendorff (1992) – Meyendorff I., protopr. Introduction to Patristic Theology. Vilnius; M., 1992. 360 p. 4. Filaret (1859a) – Filaret (Gumilevsky), archbishop. Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church; in 3 volumes. St. Petersburg: Type. 2nd department own His Imper. Velich. Offices, 1859. T. 1. 5. Filaret (1859b) – Filaret (Gumilevsky), archbishop. Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church; in 3 volumes. St. Petersburg: Type. 2nd department own His Imper. Velich. Offices, 1859. T. 2. 6. Filaret (1859c) – Filaret (Gumilevsky), archbishop. Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church; in 3 volumes. St. Petersburg: Type. 2nd department own His Imper. Velich. Offices, 1859. T. 3. 7. Filippyev (2007) - Vsevolod (Filippyev), monk. The path of the holy fathers. Jordanville; M.: Holy Trinity Convent; Pilgrim, 2007. 640 p. What will be associated with such names as N.I. Sagarda and A.I. Sagarda. In 2009, local veneration of Archbishop Philaret (Gumilevsky) was established in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. As can be seen from just the list of his works. See attachment below. However, most of the foreign scientific works of that time used by St. Philaret, was also written in Latin. Saint Philaret uses precisely this term (patristics) in his work. See: [Filaret, 1859a, XVII and others further]. Lumper, Mehler, Permaneder, Winter. Tobenz, Walch, Locherer, Annegarn, Goldwieser and Fessler. See: [Filaret, 1859a, XXVI].. Dupin, Selye, Cava, Udina, Fabrice, Galland and Bolland (the latter formed the basis for the biographies of the saints St. Demetrius of Rostov) and others. See: [Filaret, 1859a, XXVII–XXVIII]. Among which are the names mentioned: Cotelier, Montfaucon, Bickel, Beverage, Baur, Gobar, Teal, Smith, Gornemann, Frey, Russel, Hefele, Calvin, Lutel, Banage, Larroquin, Dalley, Pearson, Rothe, Jacobson, Schmit, Danz, Fevarden, Neander, Ullmann, Huss, Wiener, Semisha, Ganz, Berthold, Black, Bieseler, Kelln, Grechneider, Gürnke, Efimovsky and others. From which there may be remarkable exceptions, which only confirms the general rule, especially and above all for Protestant science. “There is not a single complete patristic yet” [Filaret, 1859a, XXVI]. And implicitly, Saint Philaret goes further, taking into account the creation by him, subsequent to the administration of the Riga diocese (when the “Historical Teaching on the Fathers of the Church” was written) during the period of his bishopric at the Kharkov See, from 1848 to 1857, of a new work - “Review of Russian Spiritual Literature for the Years 862–1720.” This work will be published in 1857, even a little earlier than the publication of “Historical Teaching on the Fathers of the Church”; obviously, it was assessed by the author as a kind of chronological continuation of his patristic research. At least, the saint himself clearly affirms the need not to limit “patristic studies” to any limited period, but to cover in them the entire historical path of the Church [Filaret, 1859a, XIV]. This refers to the patrolology of the monk Vsevolod (Filippiev) [Filippiev, 2007], which brings its chronology with small notes to the 20th century. Patrology does not count. John Meyendorff [Meyendorff, 1992], which, although it covers the 14th century, however, due to too huge blank spots in this formal periodization, cannot be considered as chronologically more comprehensive in comparison with the book of St. Philareta. For example, according to the instructions of St. Philaret himself, with Permander, Lumper and Mehler. See: [Filaret, 1859a, XX]. See [Filaret, 1859a, XX]. Article: A look at patristics as a science. Christian reading. 1846. 7, 2. "1). The life of every father, 2). His works and 3). His teaching is dogmatic" See: [Filaret, 1859a, XX]. “After reviewing the content of dogmatic works, to propose separately the dogmatic teaching of the father means... to repeat the same thing in defiance of correct reasoning about the matter” See: [Filaret, 1859a, XX–XXI]. It is difficult to miss, for example, the connection between the works and teachings of St. Athanasius the Great with the general problems of triadological disputes. Generally characteristic of his era. Where the usual number of personalities averages from 4 to 6 per period; Taking into account the total number of periods in the era of thirteen centuries covered by St. Philaret about seven, we obtain an approximate average number of personalities for this volume of chronology - about 35. St. Hilarion of Kyiv, St. Theodosius of Pechersk, Metropolitan. John of Kyiv, St. Nestor the Chronicler and St. Kirill Turovsky. The most striking examples in this regard can be cited: patrolology of protopr. I. Meyendorff, prot. G. Florovsky, where a “bet” will be made on selectivity and visibility; Our textbook will largely rely on these methods [Legeev, 2015].