Archbishop Filaret (Gumilevsky) as a church historian

Abstract. This publication is a continuation of a series of publications about outstanding historians of the Russian Church who made a significant contribution to the development of theological science in the Russian Empire, as well as scientific research in general. This article is about Chernigov Archbishop Filaret (Gumilevsky), who played a significant role in the development of historical science. He was the author of the first systematic, scientifically structured course on the History of the Russian Church, in the writing of which innovative methods for constructing a history course were applied at that time and marked the beginning of a critical study of the sources of church history. Abstract. This publication is a continuation of a number of publications about prominent historians of the Russian Church, who made a significant contribution to the development of theological science in the Russian Empire, as well as scientific research in General. In this article we are talking about the Chernigov Archbishop Filaret (Gumilyovsky), who played a significant role in the development of historical science. He wrote the first systematic, scientifically constructed course on the History of the Russian Church, in writing which were used innovative for the time methods of building a course of history and marked the beginning of a critical study of the sources of Church history. The entry into the scientific path of Archbishop Philaret (Gumilevsky) coincided with the development of science and education associated with the reform of theological schools carried out under Emperor Alexander I. It is based on the principle of gradual education, when the training and development of youth took place from the basics (primary education) to high school. This principle of ascent in learning from simple to complex was the basis of the old 8-year school of the 18th century. and was revealed to perfection in Alexander’s reform. This allowed us to make a big step forward in science and education. This era is characterized by a detailed specification of scientific directions and academic disciplines that contributed to the development of scientific specialization. At this time, fundamental scientific research was published, theological periodicals appeared, which contributed to translation and research activities. Science is concentrated around theological academies, which have become centers of scientific and pedagogical thought. The beginning of the scientific career of Filaret (Gumilyovsky) occurred at a time when there was a need for new educational courses, new specialists who could develop church science within the framework of various specialized areas, improving research and teaching methods along the way. An outstanding historian and archpastor, Archbishop Filaret (Gumilevsky), in the world Dimitri Grigorievich Konobeevsky, was born on October 23, 1805 in the village of Konobeevka, Shatsk district, Tambov province, in the family of a priest. He received his initial upbringing and education in his parents' family. The conditions in which the formation of the character and personal qualities of the future historian took place contributed to the development in him of a penchant for monastic life. The first living example of an ascetic life would be his aunt, who lived for 90 years as a maiden. Upon reaching the age of seven, his father placed Dimitri in the Vyshenskaya Hermitage, where his education began. “Dmitry’s abilities were remarkable,” testifies the biographer of St. Philaret, - extraordinary memory, sharpness of words and resourcefulness... amazing" [4, p. 8]. Here, under the guidance of Hierodeacon Nikon, who was once the prefect of the Ryazan Seminary, he takes a course of academic disciplines at the Theological School for two years, and two years later he enters the Shatsk School. While studying in theological schools, students, as a rule, received new surnames from the church authorities, which were assigned in accordance with academic success or personal characteristics. Tambov Bishop Jonah (Vasilievsky), taking into account his small stature and humility, assigned Dmitry the surname Gumilevsky (Latin humilis - low; humilitas - humility). In 1819 he entered the Tambov Theological Seminary, and in 1826 - the Moscow Theological Academy, since the Tambov Seminary was part of the Moscow academic district. There he was tonsured a monk, ordained a hierodeacon, and then a hieromonk. Moscow Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov) provided special patronage to the aspiring scientist. He “attentively followed his teaching, and when he was tonsured, he gave him his name - an exceptional case in the history of the academy. It was felt that the Metropolitan wanted to prepare a worthy successor for himself; he showed such rigor and care towards the young monk” [5]. During his studies at the academy, Hieromonk Filaret was appointed to the position of librarian of the academy. After graduating from the academy in 1831, he was left as a teacher in the department of church history. He combined his duties as a teacher with the work of a librarian and censor. Church history as an academic discipline was then just being introduced into the curricula of theological schools, and St. Filaret (Gumilevsky) along with Makariy (Bulgakov) were the first to develop training courses in the discipline. “Filaret Gumilevsky was the first teacher of church history at the Moscow Theological Academy who made this subject interesting and exciting for students. He himself began to work on lectures and evoked a lively attitude towards the subject in his listeners” [5]. Over the next nine years (1832–1841), Hieromonk Philaret served in a number of responsible positions, ending this period of his life in the rank of bishop. In 1832, he was transferred to the department of moral and pastoral theology, and then appointed inspector of the academy and abbot of the Moscow Epiphany Monastery. Three years later, on January 27, 1835, Filaret was elevated to the rank of archimandrite, then appointed rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, and in October 1841, with the assistance of the Moscow Metropolitan, Filaret was elevated to the rank of bishop and assigned to the See of Riga. At this time, they began the creation of the main scientific work: “History of the Russian Church.” During his ministry in the Baltic states, Bishop Filaret concentrated on organizing an Orthodox mission focused on the local population. In this regard, he strongly supported the preaching of Christianity, worship and teaching in schools for the indigenous population - Latvians and Estonians - in local Baltic languages, thereby contributing not only to the development of Orthodoxy among the Baltic people, but also to the formation of an original culture. During his ministry in Riga, Saint Philaret opened 63 parishes, established 20 permanent churches and 43 temporary [5]. He contributed in every possible way to the ordination of the Balts to the priesthood, distributed prayer books, catechisms and texts of the Liturgy translated into Latvian and Estonian. Until November 1845, up to 16,000 copies of books in the Baltic languages ​​were distributed to peasants [1]. In order to ensure literate clergy among the local population, St. Filaret decides to open a theological seminary and petitions the Governing Synod. The result of the active mission will be numerous conversions of the local population to Orthodoxy. By August 1, 1846, 12,598 people (6,285 Estonians and 6,313 Latvians) had joined Orthodoxy in Livonia, mostly children of parents who had already converted to Orthodoxy. Those who expressed a desire to convert to Orthodoxy are 50,462 people (of which 40,463 are Estonians and 9,999 Latvians) [1]. This activity caused sharp rejection among the barons and the German party that patronized them in St. Petersburg. Therefore, already in 1848, Philaret was transferred to the Kharkov See, where he performed his archpastoral service for more than ten years before his appointment in 1859 as Archbishop of Chernigov and Nizhyn. Accepting the new appointment, St. Filaret left Metropolitan to his successor. Macarius (Bulgakov) a highly developed diocese with excellent spiritual education and educated clergy. During the period of service of Saint Philaret at the Kharkov and Chernigov departments, the priority direction of his archpastoral activity was the development of spiritual education. In this regard, he paid special attention to theological seminaries and diocesan schools: he closely monitored the organization of the educational process and the education of students, developed educational programs, and supplied student libraries with his printed works. New buildings were built at the Kharkov seminary, and a women's diocesan school was founded. In Chernigov he created a student library at the seminary and donated all his scientific works to it, bequeathing to the local seminary a personal library containing 1,572 items. This period also saw the active research activities of His Eminence Philaret. He compiled many historical and statistical descriptions of the monasteries of the Kharkov and Chernigov dioceses, completed a major work on the History of the Russian Church, the history of hymnography and spiritual literature, and wrote a number of hagiographic works. Research works of St. Filaret received recognition in the scientific world. His Grace Philaret was admitted to the Society of Russian History and Antiquities (1847), was a full member of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society and an honorary member of Kharkov University (1852); honorary member of the Imperial Russian Archaeological Society (1856). Despite being very busy in diocesan work and scientific works, St. Filaret did not remain aloof from the events of public life: he “visited prisons, during the Sevastopol campaign he blessed passing squads, served prayer services; when the hospitals were overcrowded with the wounded, he gave the seminary premises for them, transferring the students to private apartments” [5]. In 1866, a cholera epidemic broke out in the south of the Russian Empire, claiming many lives. At the height of the epidemic, St. Filaret undertook a tour of the diocese, saying: “The people have lost heart, they should be encouraged.” On the way, he himself fell ill and died on August 9 in Konotop. The main merit of Archbishop. Filaret (Gumilevsky) is the development and implementation of the historical method in science and teaching, which is based on the study and scientific criticism of sources, critical analysis of scientific theories and hypotheses from the point of view of these sources. It began with his research works and the works of his contemporaries: Met. Evgenia (Bolkhovitinova), Metropolitan. Macarius (Bulgakov) and continued by his successors and their students Archpriest. Alexander Gorsky, E.E. Golubinsky, A.P. Lebedev, Dobroklonsky and many other researchers. This undertaking gave impetus to the development of many existing ones and the opening of new scientific directions and academic disciplines. The use of the historical method marked the beginning of the return of Russian theological science from Western scholasticism to the Fathers of the Church. Earlier, in the 18th century, the Russian theological school lived largely by ready-made theological and philosophical constructs, which, with certain editing and adaptation, were adopted as the basis for teaching. The training courses, therefore, were taught on the basis of ready-made concepts, schemes, and constructions developed in the West in the Catholic and Protestant school tradition. All this, firstly, led to the fact that theological science in Russia was secondary in relation to Western science, and its development was largely determined by the specifics and direction of development of Western science due to the dependence of the theological school in Russia on Western literature. The historical method will be the beginning of overcoming the Western captivity of Russian theological thought and will open up the prospect of independent development of church science, which by the beginning of the 20th century had achieved tangible progress. Historical thinking was the main distinguishing feature and dignity of Filaret (Gumilevsky) as a scientist and was manifested even in the theological direction, in which he had to work a lot. Teaching Dogmatic Theology, he sought to reveal dogma precisely in a historical context: “It is very characteristic of Philaret to strive to show it as the truth of reason. At the same time, dogma is shown in history” [8, p. 227]. His main scientific direction will be history, and he will become one of the founders of church historical science in Russia. According to A. V. Kartashev, through his efforts the Russian theological school received “a real scientific history of the Russian Church... since the publication of Archbishop Philaret’s “History of the Russian Church” [3, p. 23]. Before this, there was only the history of Metropolitan Plato (Levshin), which was based on the chronological principle. He was the first to initiate a critical study of sources, therefore, as part of his course on church history, some historical traditions of the Russian Church, previously perceived as irrefutable in their authenticity, were subject to scientific criticism. In particular, the legend about the journey of the Apostle Andrew across Rus' in the history of Archbishop. Filareta is characterized as a retelling of a private opinion that did not reflect the objective course of events 1 . “Critical source studies in Russian church history begin with Professor Philaret (Gumilevsky), which reached its peak in the works of Professor Archpriest Alexander Gorsky, professors K.I. Nevostrueva and E.E. Golubinsky. This “criticism” means, first of all, scientific integrity. Bishop Philaret’s gift in studying and comparing sources was also noted” [5]. His History of the Russian Church was published simultaneously with the beginning of the publication of the multi-volume work of Metropolitan Macarius. Differing from each other in historical concept and method, as well as in the principles of construction, they mutually complemented each other. Filaret's history gave a holistic view, a conceptual approach to the sanctification of history; he sought to show the historical sequence of events in their interrelation, to trace the logic of the development of the historical process, and Makaryev’s multi-volume work offered a wide range of factual material and new previously unexplored sources. The Church and the historical process are combined in the realm of the human principle. Being not subject to time due to its nature, “it is unchangeable, irresistible by time, like the eternal God, its founder, like the Holy Spirit, its invisible ruler” [7, p. 3]. On the other hand, in its earthly dimension it represents a society of people who perceive faith differently, have different degrees of spiritual age, therefore there is a place for exploits of the spirit and a place for human failures... “In one and the same Church on earth there are those who have highly succeeded in a life of grace, and those just beginning, there are those who are sound in spirit and those possessed by serious mental illnesses... Human passions in connection with the circumstances of the time make the fact that the Church, founded by Christ, appears in different positions over time...” [7, p. 3]. Thus, the history of the Church unfolds on the plane of human existence with its characteristic spiritual struggle, with its characteristic spiritual ups and downs, holiness and sinfulness, and it is in this plane that the eventfulness of the history of the Church of Christ on earth is created, with the divine aspect of its existence belonging to eternal life. “In this way, the Church of Christ moves, together with people, into the realm of history” [7, p. 4]. The driving force of history is the internal development of the national spirit, which at different periods of history has presented both high examples of asceticism and deep spiritual decline. “The sequence of historical events is determined by the spiritual improvement of the people, guided by the pastoral care of the church” [6]. This is the basis for a view of history, which is very characteristic of Russian theological providentialism, which assumed the consideration of church history as the collaboration of the people's feat and divine providence. Researcher of the historical heritage of St. Philareta Solntsev believes that the formation of the historical concept of the archbishop. Philaret takes place against the backdrop of polemics between Westerners and Slavophiles, who asserted the uniqueness of the path and significance of the Russian people in world history, and therefore experienced some influence from this polemic. “Under these conditions, Gumilevsky, within the framework of the orthodox church tradition, tries to substantiate the essentially Slavophile ideas about the originality and self-sufficiency of Russian culture” [6]. The historian is required to deeply immerse himself in Christian life and tradition, which ensures adequate perception and objectivity in the interpretation of various events in the history of the Church. Prof. Glubokovsky N.N., analyzing his work on the history of the Russian Church, characterizes this formulation of the historian’s work as “Christian objectivism,” which becomes the basis for sober criticism of sources [2, p. 75]. The concept of history according to St. Filaret (Gumilevsky) assumes an exhaustive presentation, covering all the main aspects: “... it is necessary that, when depicting the temporary positions of her subject, she has in mind not just one aspect of it... but all the essential aspects of it” [7, p. 5]. At the same time, Filaret considers excessive theorizing in the construction of historical concepts unacceptable. The theoretical approach must be balanced by an appeal to factual material: “History is not a fiction of the imagination; it is an image of the past” [7, p. 5]. In constructing the history of the Russian Church, St. Filaret used an innovative method, previously unknown in church science. Instead of presenting historical events in chronological order, he introduces a special type of systematization of material, dividing history into several time periods, each of which is characterized by events, personalities that influenced the course of the historical process, and its own specific conditions for its development. Each of these periods was structurally divided into several topics, the disclosure of which would make it possible to comprehensively describe the history of a certain period. This type of systematization, or periodization, would subsequently become generally accepted in Russian church historical science. As a basis for the periodization of St. Filaret took the most important events that influenced the position of the Church: the origin of the Church, “the invasion of the Mongols, the division of one metropolis into two, the Patriarchate and the Synod,” accordingly dividing its history into 4 periods. This approach to the periodization of Russian church history became classical long before the present time. Already in the textbook of Professor P. V. Znamensky, which was one of the classic textbooks on the History of the Russian Church, exactly this approach is used to construct the periodization of the subject. The undoubted merit and contribution of Archbishop. Philaret's study of the history of the Russian Church was a scientific description of the Synodal period. This is especially valuable considering that the Archbishop's benefit. Filareta is the first of its kind. A new word in the scientific literature of this direction is also the alphabetical index of remarkable persons and objects - “a very useful innovation that was not generally accepted in Russian scientific writings until the end of the 19th century.” [6]. 1. The first period is from the beginning of Christianity in Russia to the Mongol invasion, or until 1237. 2. The second period is the time of the enslavement of Russia by the Mongols before the division of the metropolis, or 1238–1409. 3. Third period - divided metropolis before the Patriarchate, 1410–1587. 4. The fourth period is the period of the Patriarchate, 1588–1719. 5. Fifth – the period of Synodal governance; until 1826 [7, p. 10]. This systematic work on the history of the Russian Church became the first in a series of systematic studies in this area, forming a traditional system for constructing training courses for systematic research in theological seminaries not only in the pre-revolutionary period, but also in the modern period. List of historical works of St. Filaret (Gumilevsky): History of the Universal Church 1. Abgar, Prince of Edessa and the Image of the Savior Not Made by Hands // Chernigov Diocesan News. 1861. No. 4. 2. Gennady, Patriarch of Constantinople // Orthodox Review. M., 1860. April. 3. Historical overview of the hymns and chants of the Greek Church, with notes and photographs of ancient musical notation. – St. Petersburg: Pratsa Printing House, 1860. – 358 p. 4. Holy Mount Athos - the earthly destiny of the Mother of God: The area and its inhabitants, with a brief outline of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery. M., 1886. 5. Holy icons of the first six centuries // Chernigov Diocesan News. 1861. No. 4. 6. Divine services of the Russian Church before Mongol times. M.: Imperial Society of History and Russian Antiquities at Moscow University, 1847. – 42 p. 7. Gamaleevsky Kharlampiev Convent. Chernigov: Printing house of the Elias Monastery, 1862. – 43 p. 8. Research about the 13th century Russian preacher Bishop Serapion of Vladimir and his Words. – M., 1843. – 34 p. 9 . Research on the death of Tsarevich Dimitri. M.: University Printing House, 1858.– 32 p. 10. Historical and statistical description of the Kharkov diocese. M.: Gautier Printing House, 1852–1858. 11. Historical and statistical description of the Kharkov diocese. Kharkov: University Printing House, 1859. 12. Historical and statistical description of the Chernigov diocese. Chernigov: Type. Shapira, 1873. 13. History of the Russian Church in five periods. M.: University Printing House, 1847–1848. 14. Kamensky Assumption Convent. Chernigov: Printing house of the Elias Monastery, 1863. – 19 p. 15. Cathedral Chernigov monasteries: Ilyinsky, Eletsky and Borisoglebsky: With adj. Several unpublished works of St. Dimitri. Chernigov, 1861. – 178 p., 1 sheet. ill. 16. On the biography of Chernigov Archbishop Anthony // Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy, 1862. 17. Kozeletsky St. George Monastery: [Description]. Chernigov: Printing house of the Elias Monastery, 1862. – 36 p. 18. Brief historical description of the Rykhlovskaya desert. Chernigov: Provincial Printing House, 1873. – 88 p. 19. Krupitsky Baturinsky third-class monastery of St. Nicholas: Brief historical sketch. – Chernigov: Printing house of the Elias Monastery, 1862. – 44 p. 20. Maksakovsky Spassky Women's Monastery. Chernigov: Printing house of the Elias Monastery, 1864. – 26 p. 21. Materials for the history of the Astrakhan diocese: (From the “Review of Russian Spiritual Literature” by Archbishop Philaret). Astrakhan: Roslyakov Printing House, rent. Egorov, 1898. – 9 p. 22. A few words about the book “Stoglav” // Moskvityanin, 1849. 23. General overview of the Chernigov diocese. Chernigov, 1861. – 134 p. 24. Description of the Gamaleevsky Kharlampiev Monastery. Chernigov: Provincial Printing House, 1873. – 36 p. 25. Description of the Glukhovsky Peter and Paul Monastery. Chernigov: Provincial Printing House, 1873. – 10 p. 26. Description of the Dumnitsky Mother of God Monastery. Chernigov: Provincial Printing House, 1873. – 18 p. 27. Description of the Kamensky Assumption Monastery. Chernigov: Provincial Printing House, 1873. – 14 s. 28. Description of the Kozeletsky Monastery. Chernigov: Provincial Printing House, 1873. – 30 p. 29. Description of the Krupitsky Monastery of St. Nicholas. Chernigov: Provincial Printing House, 1873. – 38 s. 30. Description of the Maksakov Spassky Monastery. Chernigov: Provincial Printing House, 1873. – 24 p. 31. Description of the monasteries of Gamaleevsky Kharlampiev and Kamensky Uspensky // Chernigov Diocesan News. 1862, 1863. 32. Description of the Nezhinsky Annunciation second-class monastery, called “Nazareth” of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Chernigov: Provincial Printing House, 1873. – 52 p. 34. Description of the Novgorod-Seversky Spaso-Preobrazhensky first-class monastery. Chernigov: Provincial Printing House, 1873. – 122 p. 35. Description of the Chernigov Yelets Monastery. Chernigov: Provincial Printing House, 1873. – 34 p. 36. About ancient schools, almshouses and brotherhoods // Chernigov Diocesan News. 1862. 37. Where did the indigenous people of Livonia receive Christianity from: from the East or from the West? // Moskvitian. 1843. 38. Ryazan hierarchs // Christian reading. 1859. – 49 p. 39. Svyatogorsk hostel Assumption hermitage. Kharkov: University Printing House, 1851. – 39 p. 40. Cherneev Nikolaevsky Monastery. Kharkov: University Printing House, 1849. – 27 p. 41. Chernigov: [Ist. essay]. Chernigov: Printing house of the Elias Monastery, 1863.– 80 p. 42. Chernigov monasteries: Ilyinsky, Yeletsky and Borisoglebsky. Chernigov, 1861. 43. Black Sea Nikolaevskaya hermitage near the Lebyazhye Estuary. Kharkov: University Printing House, 1856. – 35 p. B.a. Works of the Right Reverend Philaret and the activities of the Orthodox clergy to strengthen Orthodoxy in the region // Electronic resource. URL: https://www.sedmitza.ru/lib/text/430280/ (access date: 12/04/2019; 19:03). 1. Glubokovsky N.N. Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state. M.: Publishing house of the St. Vladimir Brotherhood, 2002. 2. Kartashev A.V. Essays on the History of the Russian Church. M.: “Terra” - “Terra”, 1993. T. I. 3. Listovsky I.S. Filaret, Archbishop of Chernigov. Chernigov: Printing house of the Provincial Board, 1894. 4. Sikorskaya N.A. Archbishop of Chernigov Filaret (Gumilevsky) as a historian of the Russian Church // Electronic resource. URL: https://www.pravenc.ru/text/839889.html (access date: 12/02/2019; 18:26). 5. Solntsev N.I. Historical concept of Archbishop of Chernigov Philaret (Gumilevsky) in the work “History of the Russian Church” // Electronic resource. URL: http://os.x-pdf. ru/20istoriya/679024–1-istoricheskaya-koncepciya-arhiepiskopachernigovskogo-filareta-gumile.php (date of access: 11.20.2019; 17:55). 6. Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop. History of the Russian Church in five periods. M.: Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2001. 7. Florovsky G., prot. Paths of Russian theology. Vilnius, 1991 “He (the chronicler - author's note) conveys news that came to him, probably from Korsun, about the visit of the apostle. Andrei of the Kyiv Mountains, but conveys this news as a private opinion. Moreover, in this work he does not say that under the apostles the seed of the word of God bore fruit on the soil of Kievan Rus” [7, p. 13–14].