Scientific and teaching activities of Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky at the Moscow Theological Academy from 1833 to 1875.

Contents Abstract UDC 27–75 Statement of the research problem 1. MDA student: 1829–1832. 2. Professor of church history at the Moscow Academy of Sciences (1833 – 1863). 2.1. Teaching activities 2.2. Scientific publications and publishing activities. 2.3. Scientific guidance. 2.4. New tasks and long-awaited priesthood 3. Rector of the Moscow Academy of Sciences, professor of the department of dogmatic theology. 1863–1875 3.1. The turbulent times of the 60s - 70s. – main challenges and tasks 3.2. Teaching activities 3.3. Scientific achievements and publications in periodicals and archival materials 3.4. Scientific guidance Conclusion In 2025, it will be 150 years since the death of Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky, Doctor of Theology, who headed the Moscow Theological Academy from 1863 to 1875. The scientific authority of Father Alexander was recognized not only by outstanding representatives of academic theology, but also by secular scientists. A. V. Gorsky's students testify to his participation in all scientific research at the Academy. These facts are stated by the authors of biographical works dedicated to Archpriest Alexander, however, ideas about his scientific views are contradictory and insufficiently substantiated, since the extensive archival part of the legacy of the rector of the MDA has not yet been studied. He bequeathed all the manuscripts to his academy; in the 20th century they were transferred to the Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library, but recently only a few documents have been introduced into scientific circulation. In the proposed study, based on the analysis of archival lecture notes on church history and dogmatic theology, the main features of Archpriest Alexander’s concepts in these disciplines are identified, the development of his ideas and the application of methodology in the scientific research of the Moscow Theological Academy in the period 40–70s are identified, and several anonymous publications that may belong to his authorship are identified. A number of other archival materials clarified the role of Father Alexander in solving the most pressing problems facing academic theology in the mid-19th century. As a result, it was possible to clarify the circumstances of the scientific and pedagogical activities of the ever-memorable rector of the MDA, clarify the main ideas that determine the integrity of his scientific ideas and clarify his role in the organization of teaching and scientific research at the Moscow Theological Academy. Statement of the research problem After the death of Rev. Many colleagues, students and representatives of secular sciences paid tribute to A.V. Gorsky in their memoirs. Among them are professors of the Moscow Theological Academy P. S. Kazansky, S. K. Smirnov, N. I. Subbotin, D. F. Golubinsky, A. P. Lebedev, paleographer I. I. Sreznevsky, government official T. I. Filippov. P. S. Kazansky, who graduated from the MDA in 1842, testifies that three of his classmates carefully recorded A. V. Gorsky’s lectures on church history, and then compared them with each other. The final summary “became a guide for many teachers” 1. At the same time, he admitted that, as students, they could not appreciate the merits of their teacher’s lectures, and then there was no time to return to them. Most of the publications of archival materials prot. A.V. Gorsky became possible thanks to a graduate of 1844, Archpriest S.K. Smirnov, who during his rectorship prepared the publication of his diaries, correspondence with Saints Philaret (Drozdov) and Philaret (Gumilevsky), the history of the Evangelical and Apostolic and part of the lectures on the history of the Eastern Church. In addition, he presented brief characteristics of his teacher’s lecture courses on church history and dogmatic theology in the anniversary edition “History of the Moscow Theological Academy”, a significant part of which is a review of the literature used by A. V. Gorsky in his readings. N. I. Subbotin, who graduated from the academy in 1852, published some archival materials of Archpriest in the magazine “Brotherly Word”. A.V. Gorsky, related to the problems of the domestic split, with his comments, and in the publication “Russian Review” there are letters in which Alexander Vasilyevich gives answers to the scientific queries of his contemporaries. Anticipating the publication of the teacher’s manuscripts, Nikolai Ivanovich wrote that he “will remain unforgettable in academic chronicles as a man of bright mind, extensive and thorough scholarship, rare kindness, high moral qualities and deep unfeigned piety, complete devotion to Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Church” 2. The first biographical study, “The Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky,” was prepared in 1897 as a master’s thesis by S. G. Popov at the request and at the expense of a student and altar boy, Archpriest A. V. Gorsky, Archbishop of Warsaw and Prislinsky Nikolai (Ziorov). The author uses in his essay numerous materials from the archives of Archpriest Alexander, as well as previously published memoirs of his students. His Eminence Nicholas, in his memoirs published in 1814, cites the words of Archbishop Dimitry (Muretov), ​​who admonished him upon entering the MDA: studying “with the famous scientist Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky is a special honor” 3 . A. P. Lebedev, a graduate of 1870, published the most articles about A. V. Gorsky, but his assessments of his legacy need to be verified. Alexey Petrovich called his teacher “a deep expert and the most devoted adherent of our science” 4, but, at the same time, argued that he could not “name a single work of Gorsky that would give him a particularly prominent place among people involved in our science” 5, and his lectures are not of scientific value. Meanwhile, other students noted the originality of Archpriest Alexander’s lecture courses. Professor M.D. Dmitrievich Muretov, who personally communicated with the rector of the academy, emphasized the fundamentally different approaches to the study of church history of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky and A.P. Lebedev: “Gorsky and Lebedev were complete opposites. ... Gorsky is a difficult but deep thinker and theologian, Lebedev is an easy and entertaining storyteller. Gorsky is a researcher and developer of ideas and the meaning of history, Lebedev is an observer and speaker of facts and events. Gorsky is a theologian, Lebedev is a historian” 6. According to M.D. Muretov, “the first duty of the Academy, which is celebrating its centenary, is to immediately publish these [dogmatic] lectures” 7 . In 1900, a collection of articles was published dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the death of the rector of the MDA. It also published his archival comments on the theological works of A. S. Khomyakov, which the author himself did not want to publish on principle. By this time, the idea had developed that the integrity of the scientific heritage of Rev. A.V. Gorsky cannot be restored. One of the authors of the collection, S.I. Smirnov wrote: “Gorsky is a great scientist who will forever remain hidden” 8 . In the same year, a meeting of the Slavic Commission of the Imperial Archaeological Society, of which Alexander Vasilyevich was a corresponding member, was dedicated to the memory of the rector of the MDA. The speaker I. E. Evseev admitted the possibility of A. V. Gorsky’s archival materials being used by other people after his death, and rightly concluded that his scientific influence “in the absence of familiarity with the archive, ... can only be indicated approximately” 9 . In the preface to the anniversary collection “At Trinity at the Academy. 1814–1914” it is noted: “Undoubtedly, Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky is of the greatest importance for the Moscow Theological Academy, occupying first place among all academic figures during the entire hundred-year existence of the Academy. Without exaggeration, we can say that all the best and brightest in the Academy comes from Gorsky, and the Academy will not completely lose its theological and scientific strength until the spirit of Gorsky completely dries up in it” 10. A significant section of the collection, prepared by Archpriest Pyotr Postnikov, is dedicated to A.V. Gorsky, which is preceded by a full review of publications about him published by this time. The collection included a small archival fragment of A.V. Gorsky on the history of the Patriarchate and part of his correspondence. Archpriest Pyotr Postnikov worked with the archival materials of the rector of the MDA and noted that “Lebedev had at his disposal valuable, interesting, unknown material” 11 from which he took “not everything that was possible and necessary” 12. He draws attention to the fact that A. V. Gorsky “the power of analysis increases over time; opinions hastily expressed or borrowed from others give way to more mature and thorough judgments” 13. His research contains numerous facts indicating the recognition of Alexander Vasilyevich’s scientific authority by his contemporaries and his assistance in scientific research to colleagues and representatives of related secular disciplines. In conclusion, Archpriest Peter expresses regret that there is still “no research devoted to his works” 14. The complexity of this task, in his opinion, is due, among other things, to the fact that A. V. Gorsky’s printed materials were published under false names or anonymously. N. N. Glubokovsky, in his essay “Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state,” placed the theological understanding of history at the forefront in describing the lectures of A. V. Gorsky and described his method of Orthodox theology, which “consists of affirming one’s truths on the Word of God and supporting one’s understanding of the Word of God with the testimony of the Church or Tradition in the broadest sense. This respect for the voice of the Church or Tradition is at the same time respect for the history of the Church, which, with this approach, appears not just as a dispassionate narration of the facts of the past, but as a living apology for Christian truth with its doctrinal beliefs and concrete discoveries" 15 Prot. Georgy Florovsky, whose father personally witnessed the last years of service as rector of the MDA, believed that the image of Alexander Vasilyevich was “one of the brightest in science” 16. He notes in the church-historical works of the rector of the MDA the identification of genetic connections between events and fully quotes his diary fragment about the development of the dogma. According to Rev. George, A.V. Gorsky “had a thoughtful historical worldview, his own philosophy of Russian history” 17, but did not specify what they were. Several biographical works about Archpriest have been published in modern Russian literature. A. V. Gorsky. Among them are articles by I. Khibarin “Professor-Ascetic” and S-ov “Archpriest A.V. Gorsky”, published in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate (JMP) in 1954 and 1962. respectively. In 2004, Bishop Gennady (Gogolev) defended his church candidate’s thesis “Giant of Learning: The Life and Works of Archpriest. A. V. Gorsky (1812–1875).” He claims that “unfortunately, Gorsky’s course of dogmatic theology has not been preserved in its entirety. In the archive we find either notes with questions for the exam (or, in modern terms, course syllabi rewritten by students), or materials for lectures and rough sketches that Fr. Alexander did for himself and which for this reason cannot be read” 18. Doctoral church dissertation with the synonymous title “Giant of Knowledge: Biography of Archpriest. A.V. Gorsky” was defended by A.S. Melkov in 2014. He published a number of materials dedicated to the rector of the MDA, but, unfortunately, just like Bishop Gennady (Gogolev), he added practically nothing new to clarify his scientific ideas. Both authors in their research relied mainly on previous literature and did not introduce new archival documents of the rector of the MDA into scientific circulation. E. I. Lyutko published a study “Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky and the formation of scientific theology in Russia”, K. A. Kuzoro analyzed his library activities. Almost all authors attribute the scientific merits of A.V. Gorsky to the fields of church history and paleography. N. N. Lisova is the only one of the researchers of the legacy of Archpriest Alexander who tried to analyze his theological views in the “Review of the main directions of Russian theological academic science in the 19th – early 20th centuries,” but he also did this only on the basis of the opinions of his predecessors and the diary entries of A. V. Gorsky. Nikolai Nikolaevich claims that he “succeeded in achieving a harmonious combination of dogmatic and historical elements in theology” 19, correctly noting A.V. Gorsky’s attention to the dogmatics of church liturgical books and respect for modern non-confessional literature. However, it cannot be considered correct that A. V. Gorsky adopted the opinion of St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences professor A. L. Katansky, who considered himself his student, who spoke about the possibility of “the development of dogmatics, not dogmas” 20. In 1976, lectures by Fr. Alexander on Russian church history. In the article by M. N. Vorobyov “A. V. Gorsky and K. I. Nevostruev (on the issue of the history and nature of co-authorship),” published in the Theological Collection of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's University (PSTGU) in 1997, part of the correspondence of the co-authors was introduced into scientific circulation. In 2023, A. V. Druzhinin defended his theological thesis “Preparation of a pastor in the Russian theological school: understanding, discussion and practice (1808–1869),” in which he refers to several archival documents of A. V. Gorsky, relating mainly to the preparation of the reform of theological education and his correspondence with T. I. Filippov. This brief review of the literature demonstrates the fragmentation and even contradictory opinions of researchers regarding the basic scientific ideas of Father Alexander and their value for Russian theology. Unfortunately, the position about the impossibility of restoring the completeness of the scientific heritage has become entrenched in modern literature. Indeed, the case of prot. A. V. Gorsky is unprecedented in Russian theology: most of the author’s works have not been published, almost all published materials were published anonymously, and the generally accepted participation in the scientific research of colleagues is individual in each case, but at the same time, contemporaries are almost unanimous in the uniqueness of him as a scientist who combined an encyclopedic outlook and the depth of study of private theological disciplines and related humanities. Restoring the integrity and completeness of the scientific work of A. V. Gorsky must begin with what does not raise doubts about the authorship - archival materials, in which the most important are lecture course notes. Contrary to the statement of Bishop Gennady (Gogolev), most of them have been preserved and are in the collection of A.V. Gorsky No. 78 in the Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library, but they are mostly written small and illegible. Preliminary transcription of the lecture course manuscripts and some other materials took about three years. The results of their study are reflected in scientific articles and reports made at PSTGU conferences, some of the archival materials have been prepared for publication. Revealed features of the church-historical and dogmatic ideas of Archpriest. A.V. Gorsky are correlated with the organization of scientific research at the MDA. In addition, thanks to the memoirs of his contemporaries and a thorough analysis of periodicals, it was possible to discover materials that were not previously included in the list of his works. The results obtained became the basis for clarifying the scientific aspect of the biography of Archpriest. A. V. Gorsky. Of the sixty-three years of his life, forty-five were spent at the Moscow Theological Academy. They can be divided into three periods of different duration: 1829–1832. – time of study, 1833–1862. service in the department of church history, 1862–1875. – management of the MDA and the Department of Dogmatic Theology. 1. MDA student: 1829–1832 Life path of Rev. A.V. Gorsky was largely predetermined by the class of theological education, and the foundations of successful scientific and pedagogical activity were laid during his studies at the MDA, so it is necessary to briefly dwell on this period of his life. Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky was born in 1812 in the family of a priest of the Kostroma Cathedral, a teacher of Russian literature and eloquence at the Kostroma Theological Seminary, Vasily Sergeevich Gorsky. From his father he inherited a penchant for philology and a mystical perception of the events of his own life. A year before graduating from the seminary, A. V. Gorsky, who had not yet completed the theological class, was selected for admission to the MDA by the inspector Hieromonk Afanasy (Drozdov). The reason for such haste was that next year a talented student would be taken to St. Petersburg, so recruitment at the academy took place every two years. This was reflected in the results of the entrance exams of the youngest applicant - he was only eleventh on the rank list. While studying at the academy, Alexander Vasilyevich began keeping a diary, in which until his last days he wrote down everything that had an impact on his heart. He characterizes his ability to study in one of his first diary entries: “I had a keen inclination towards literature,” and he loved to “learn languages ​​not through the study of words, but together through the exercise of the mind in the works of them” 21. Very early, A.V. Gorsky made it a rule to verify important decisions by opening the Gospel at random. Archpriest Sergius Smirnov describes this and numerous subsequent cases in detail based on materials from the diaries of Alexander Vasilyevich in an article published a year after his death. During the period of A.V. Gorsky’s studies, the Moscow Academy stood out for its high level of teaching non-theological disciplines. The three best graduates of the first cohort of the MDA in 1818 - Pyotr Spiridonovich Delitsyn, Platon Ivanovich Dobrokhotov and Fyodor Aleksandrovich Golubinsky did not take monastic vows and were left at the academy in non-theological departments: the first - general literature, the second - natural sciences, the third - philosophical. Civil history was read by F. A. Ternovsky-Platonov. Pyotr Postnikov notes A.V. Gorsky’s interest in philosophy and civil history in his first years and the influence of teachers of these disciplines on him. At the end of the first year, he was already fifth on the rank list, and transferred to the theological department fourth. Teachers noted Alexander Vasilyevich’s penchant for studying history and languages, reasoning abilities and literary style. Hieromonk Filaret (Gumilevsky) taught church history in A.V. Gorsky’s course, but he taught this discipline for only one year. Naturally, in such a short period of time he could not prepare an original presentation of a vast subject. Classes on dogmatic theology were taught by the rector, Archimandrite. Polycarp (Gaitannikov). Prot. Sergius Smirnov notes that in his presentation of the material he “followed mainly Lieberman” 22. A feature of his teaching was to alternately involve students in writing out evidence of theological positions with quotes from the holy fathers 23 . He wrote about his student A.V. Gorsky: “one can hope that the writer will remain among the first students” 24. In his final years, Efim Polikarpovich Orlinsky became Alexander Vasilyevich’s closest friend. He was recommended for studying at the MDA by F.A. Golubinsky, who conducted an audit of the Tula Theological Seminary in 1828, where he, not yet completing the seminar course, was already teaching Greek. The father of the future Archbishop of Mogilev, deacon of the Tula province Polikarp Efimovich Orlinsky studied with St. Filaret (Drozdov), which, according to contemporaries, contributed to the further appointments of his son. E. P. Orlinsky was six years older than Alexander Vasilyevich, “always distinguished by pious and scientific zeal, self-possessed character” 25 and with his gentle wisdom helped him cope with the heat of discussions and harsh assessments. A. V. Gorsky graduated from the MDA third with excellent grades in all humanities disciplines that were necessary for successful research work: “theological, philosophical sciences, church and general literature, church and civil history - excellent, good in Hebrew, Greek, German and French - very good” 26. In addition, apparently thanks to P. S. Delitsyn, his range of interests extended to the vast area of ​​natural sciences, which is revealed in his subsequent lecture courses. The Academy retained two of its best graduates. A.V. Gorsky was appointed to the department of church and civil history at the Moscow Theological Seminary, and Eusebius (Orlinsky), who took monastic vows, was assigned to the Bethany Seminary as a teacher of church history and Greek. The first mention of the Metropolitan of Moscow in the diary of A.V. Gorsky dates back to this time: “I saw that I, dressed in the robes of a monk, stood together with my parent before our Eminence the Metropolitan; as if he was appointing me to the Academy...” 27. 2. Professor of church history at the Moscow Academy of Sciences (1833 – 1863). 2.1. Teaching activities The vision was fulfilled, but not fully - six months later A.V. Gorsky was transferred to the department of church history at the Moscow Academy of Arts. Most of his further ministry took place under the direct leadership of St. Filaret (Drozdova). Alexander Vasilyevich wanted to become a monk, but did not receive the blessing of his parents. Archpriest Vasily Gorsky asked his friend, Archpriest. F.A. Golubinsky, help dissuade his son from making a hasty decision. As a result, A.V. Gorsky, like Archpriests F.N. Golubinsky and P.S. Delitsyn, focused on teaching and scientific activities for many years. Archim. Filaret (Gumilevsky), who headed the MDA in 1835, and A.V. Gorsky, placed the study of history at the forefront of the teaching and scientific activities of the Academy. According to S.K. Smirnov, “when the friends of science began to serve together, history classes became their daily food and soon the student began to reach the measure of the teacher’s knowledge, and then surpassed him” 28. The rector simultaneously held the position of librarian and subscribed to all modern non-confessional theological literature. This allowed Gorsky to use the latest research in the field of church history and dogmatic theology in preparing his lectures. In particular, in his personal library there was the newly published dogmatics of G. Klee. In addition, Archimandrite Filaret instilled in his younger friend an interest in studying archival materials. At the beginning of A.V. Gorsky’s teaching, church history included biblical and universal history, as well as church antiquities: teachings, services, decrees (canon law). The textbooks for this discipline were “Outlines of Church Biblical History” by St. Philaret (Drozdov) and “Inscriptions of Church History” by St. Innocent (Smirnov), but the Metropolitan of Moscow demanded that teachers compile their own notes, since two decades had already passed since they were written. In a letter to the rector of the MDA, he notes that “the author of Biblical [history] had no time to revise his long-standing work, and the teachers of this book have still wandered in the footsteps of others without reasoning, although they were often reminded of this” 29 . At the same time, St. Filaret (Drozdov) personally checked A.V. Gorsky’s preparation for classes. In 1837, Alexander Vasilyevich described in detail his debate in his diary, during which the Metropolitan of Moscow, in particular, drew attention to the novice teacher’s passion for romantic ideas: “What is spirit? Have you been able to embrace and explore the spirit of Christianity yourself? Could you fit this into the heads of your students? This is a strange direction in history today. They look at humanity as one person, and assimilate this or that general direction to it” 30. Another early fragment from the diary of Alexander Vasilyevich - about the development of dogma, is often quoted in the literature about it: “When dogma is considered [only] as a Divine thought, it is united and unchangeable, in itself complete, clear, definite. But when a dogma is considered as a Divine thought, assimilated or still being assimilated by the human mind, then its external massiveness necessarily increases over time. ... New discoveries of the human mind in the field of truth, its gradually increasing experience, add new clarity to it. ... All sciences, the more they are related to dogma, benefit from this in accuracy and positivity; Over time, a complete, rigorous system of knowledge becomes more and more possible. This is the course of development of dogma, this is its life! 31. In 1914, the previously published diary of A.V. Gorsky was compared with his manuscripts and clarifications of the texts were made. In particular, the omission of the word “only” was discovered in the first sentence above, which emphasizes the author’s assimilation of the immutability of dogma exclusively in the sense of the Divine idea. Unlike A.L. Katansky, to whom N.N. Lisovoy refers, A.V. Gorsky speaks here specifically about the development of dogma. Already at this time, he was interested not only in church-historical issues, but also in the current dogmatic problem, which was solved in the Protestant project of the history of Schleiermacher’s dogma and the theory of dogmatic development of the representatives of the Catholic Tübingen school of Drey and Mohler. An important point characterizing the worldview of the author of the fragment is the unconditional consistency of faith and scientific knowledge. Taking into account the fact that the text dates back to the very beginning of the scientific ministry of A.V. Gorsky, his attitude to this issue during the period of reading dogmatic theology is of interest. In 1838, in his report on the audit of the MDA, Metropolitan. Filaret (Drozdov) highly appreciates the teaching activities of the rector Archimandrite Filaret (Gumilevsky) and the teacher of church history A.V. Gorsky. He singles out the independent work of Alexander Vasilyevich, noting “several biographies of significant volume, not yet processed to perfection, but useful” prepared from original sources 32. The Metropolitan of Moscow concludes that the teacher of church history “taught his subject with special zeal and for the benefit of the students” 33. Archim. Filaret (Gumilevsky), perhaps foreseeing his approaching episcopal ministry, wrote to Alexander Vasilyevich: “You have an important responsibility for the direction of the whole academy. Your influence should be stronger than everyone else, because you are stronger than all of us (I don’t like to flatter anyone, and you don’t need to)” 34, but at the same time added: “but the German wolf has firmly sunk its claws into you, of course, without your knowledge” 35. This letter was handed over to A.V. Gorsky’s biographer S.G. Popov after the publication of his work, so he published it in the journal “Soulful Reading”, adding to the text an explanation that Alexander Vasilyevich, remembering his own uncritical passion for Western literature, was lenient with his students in such cases. In 1843, Bishop Filaret of Riga again called on his friend to be careful when working with modern Western works: “Treasuring my beloved soul, I sincerely ask you to beware of German coldness towards lofty subjects” 36. In the archives of Alexander Vasilyevich in the Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library (OR RSL), numerous notes on church history from different years, both the author’s and those written down by his students, have been preserved. Two identical lists of lectures on biblical history are in the archives of the MDA library. One of them indicates the scribe - hieromonk of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra Gideon, and the date - 1846. This is the latest surviving notes of A. V. Gorsky’s lectures on biblical history A. V. Gorsky prefaces the extensive section of Old Testament history with introductory lectures, in which he formulates the principle of constructing the entire course of church history and presents a critical analysis of the literature on this discipline. A. P. Lebedev, correctly notes that it is the introductory lectures that determine the conceptual feature of any discipline, but considers only one source from the 78 collections of the RSL Manuscripts Department: storage unit 2 cardboard 4. This material does not represent a consistent presentation of the issue, but includes fragments of lectures from different years, so it does not allow us to restore the concept of the lecture course by A. V. Gorsky. An analysis of all surviving versions of the notes of the introductory lectures given by him until the mid-40s confirmed the opinion of Archpriest Pyotr Postnikov about the change in the conceptual ideas of A.V. Gorsky and the inaccuracy of the assessments made by A.P. Lebedev (These materials have been prepared for publication with comments). Alexander Vasilievich begins all introductory lectures with a detailed analysis of the literature, which over time becomes more critical, including in relation to A. Neander. In the latest notes, A.V. Gorsky made many additions and changes to the Gospel history, relative to the version that is known from publications, especially in the section preceding the entry of Jesus Christ into public ministry. He prefaces the presentation of the material with an appeal to students about the exceptional importance of this subject and the benefits of participating in the sacrament of the sacrament before the start of classes. The revision of early conceptual settings is reflected in the correction of the first sentence of the published text: “the beginning of the greatest events that were later so important for humanity.” Alexander Vasilyevich replaces the neutral words “greatest events” with “Divine institutions” 37. The main feature of his readings, the emphasis on the theological nature of the subject, fades into the background with A.P. Lebedev. Alexander Vasilyevich, like Saints Philaret of Moscow and Innokenty of Penza, puts the determining action in church history of Divine Providence at the forefront. At the same time, his concept reveals the current modern tendency to understand history “as a gradual revelation of the plan by which all this moves, considerations of how everything goes towards this plan, how the main goal is gradually achieved, how people called to a special service in the church gradually prepare for inner perfection” 38. A.V. Gorsky claims that the first period of the economy “has so little in it that, apparently, God leads it only as an intermediary thread from the first Adam to the second” 39, therefore, he reads the Old Testament history not only historically, but also educationally. The basis for the periodization of discipline is changes in the relationship between God and man: the internal state of the Church corresponds to a special action of Providence. The main divisions are caused by the Fall, after which people deviated from the direct path to achieving the goal determined by the Creator, and its subsequent correction through the Incarnation. One of the first church historians, Alexander Vasilyevich refused to divide history into centuries. The original position of A.V. Gorsky about the predominant action of each person of the Trinity in the New Testament history of individual nations is given by S.K. Smirnov and A.P. Lebedev, but they do not explain either the basis for it or the meaning in the concept of discipline. A. V. Gorsky formulated this position only in 1844, based on the idea of ​​​​the identity of Divine Providence about man and the Church as a whole, as well as its individual parts. He connects the calling of peoples to the Church with the action of God the Father, their leadership with the triple ministry of the Son of God - Prophet, High Priest and King, which ends with the action of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church. Just like St. Filaret (Drozdov) A.V. Gorsky believes that the Sacred history of God’s chosen people prefigures the fate of Christian peoples; God’s providence allocates each of them its own time and place in the history of the Church. Prot. Georgy Florovsky correctly notes that A.V. Gorsky assigned a special role to the Russian church. In his opinion, it is the Russian church that is “entrusted with primacy among the Slavic tribes”, ... entrusted with the “special burden of representing and protecting Orthodoxy” 40. He emphasized that it was no coincidence that the time of the conversion of Russian lands to Christianity coincided with the decline of the Byzantine Empire and paid special attention to the activities of St. Cyril and Methodius. On the one hand, Russian church history represented a huge field for scientific research, on the other hand, due to censorship restrictions, special care was required in disclosing church-state relations, including in solving problems of schism. A.V. Gorsky's notes on Russian church history do not consider the periods of patriarchate and Synodal rule. In the anniversary collection “At Trinity at the Academy” a small undated archival fragment “The Period of Patriarchate in the Russian Church” was published. The author's use of romantic terminology and the general style of the text - emotional and overloaded with epithets 41 - allows us to attribute it to the beginning of A.V. Gorsky's teaching career. The priority of the theological nature of church history does not detract from the attention of A.V. Gorsky to its historical aspect. The method of church history, in his opinion, should be the same as for any historical discipline, which presupposes the reliability of sources, the truth of events, the harmony and systematic presentation of the material. Alexander Vasilyevich considers it useful to use the developments of related church disciplines - chronology, geography, diplomacy and statistics (Alexander Vasilyevich was entrusted with compiling a textbook on church geography, but it has not yet been found). In addition, in his opinion, especially in the history of the New Testament, “one cannot help but enter into close connection with a new vast area - civil and political history” 42. These provisions, in contrast to his theology of history, are reflected in sufficient detail in the literature. In a lecture course of the still undivided discipline, A. V. Gorsky presented a synthesis of theological understanding of history and scientific historical research of monuments and literature. Gradually, independent subjects began to emerge from it: canon law, then Old Testament and Gospel history, the history of the Russian Church. A.P. Lebedev claims that at the end of his service at the department of church history, A.V. Gorsky taught “only ancient church history” 43 and “worked little ... on the history of dogmas” 44. Meanwhile, the program “Lesson Program for the Class of General Church History,” which dates back to this time, begins with the Evangelical and Apostolic periods, and ends with the 19th century. Among the most significant researchers, A.V. Gorsky mentions a contemporary - the French historian Abbot Rene Guette 45. Regarding the history of the teaching, Alexander Vasilyevich writes that this part of the discipline, first of all, deserves separate consideration and is given to it, contrary to the words of A.P. Lebedev, significant attention both in lecture notes and in published materials. Publications: o. Ioann (Sokolov) It has come this far, and everything comes this far, to Moscow. Spirit. The Academy reads church history in a non-Orthodox way. Not only not in the spirit of the Orthodox Church, but even directly according to Lutheran and rationalist books. Recently this was said at a full meeting of the Academic Committee here at the Academy (of which I am a member) under A.P. Karasevsky 610, the rector of Kiev Dimitri 611 and many other persons. I defended you with your known good intentions and zeal for the Orthodox Church, to which the Most Rev. Athanasius 612 surrendered. In any case, having decided to write to you about this, I think that you will not hesitate to take appropriate measures to avert such comments, and for this I advise you, for your part, to pay attention to the notes on church history compiled by your students in class from your words. There is a copy of these notes at the local Academy. Now in our committee we are drawing up a project for transforming the educational part in all religious institutions; will go into action soon. By the way, several comments apply to the teaching of church history; even the very plan for science is destined” 46. Postnikov-Athos elders asked him for lectures on New Testament history. Gorsky advised Sokolov in 1848 during the writing of his scientific works 47 I. Sakharov - 1847 - consultations. He regretted that no one issued a word of praise to Vladimir, Olga and Boris and Gleb 48. He was well versed in icon painting - Sakharov, Snegirev - review 49. Consultations on the question of the desire of the Bulgarians to establish a patriarchate. 50 In the Gorsky archive there is a rough draft of the Charter of the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment 51 F. G. - help the weak: Postnikov: Alexy Rzhanitsyn: about possible sharp criticism: “don’t be afraid to listen to the last word and then safely pass it on to me not in the same strength as you received” 52 1846 - criticism of Bishop Gorsky In Ep. Agafangel (MDA graduate in 1836) is the same age as Gorsky on December 12, 1859. - history of the Christian Church. Gorsky - P. 328 The brilliance and vastness of this work should extend to the point that it makes redundant all foreign works of this kind, such as the histories of Fleury, Neander, etc. Therefore, it consists of no less than 20 volumes. Therefore, I would suggest giving the term no less than 15 years. 2.2. Scientific publications and publishing activities. In the mid-30s, only one church magazine was published in Russia - “Christian Reading” at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. In addition, during the reign of Nicholas I, very strict double censorship control was in effect - secular and ecclesiastical. In March 1834, a secret inquiry was opened in the Holy Synod about the way of thinking of the rector of the Kyiv Theological Academy (KDA), Archimandrite Innocent (Borisov). In 1835, Archpriest was removed from academic teaching. Gerasim Pavsky, and after him were fired from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy (SPbDA) and his student Archpriest. F. F. Sidonsky. The consideration of the case of Archpriest Pavsky was resumed in 1842 in connection with the dissemination of his lectures, in which Biblical texts were interpreted exclusively historically. The Metropolitan of Moscow discovered in the materials of his former student “a false, incompatible with the dignity of the Holy Scriptures and a harmful concept about prophecies and some books of the Old Testament” 53 . At the end of the 30s, Archimandrite. Filaret (Gumilevsky) and A.V. Gorsky entered the wide circle of friends of the historian M.P. Pogodin. In 1841, in response to Mikhail Petrovich’s request to take part in his magazine “Moskvityanin”, Alexander Vasilyevich agreed, subject to the anonymity of his publications. “One of the reasons is that we, the spiritual, are obliged, before publishing our works, to ask for the blessing of the diocesan bishops. There are others too. Meanwhile, for the truth, it makes no difference whatever letter is placed under the article written to explain it, A, or B, or N” 54. According to N.P. Barsukov, biographer of M.P. Pogodin, the position of A.V. Gorsky likened him to the ancient chroniclers. By this time, Archimandrite. Filaret (Gumilevsky) had already completed the development of the draft editions of “The Works of the Holy Fathers” (“TSO”) and “Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers” (“PribTSO”), perhaps not without the participation of A. V. Gorsky, but the first issues were published after the appointment of the rector of the MDA to the Riga department in 1843. The integrity of the two-part edition was ensured by the fact that the publication of the holy father’s works was necessarily accompanied by a patristic study dedicated to him in PribTSO. Most articles were published anonymously, the main exception being the materials of the Metropolitan of Moscow. The authorship of the publications was disclosed twenty years after the publication of the first issue of the magazine in the Appendix to its 21 parts. The editorial committee of the MDA was always headed by rectors, who, however, changed quite often. The permanent members of the publishing house were the oldest professors of the academy F.A. Golubinsky, P.S. Delitsyn and the young leading teacher of church history A.V. Gorsky. Pyotr Spiridonovich translated and edited TSO materials, and Alexander Vasilyevich was responsible for PribTSO. It was he who regularly met with St. Filaret (Drozdov) to discuss the upcoming issues, recording in detail the content of their conversations in his diary. Most of the works of A. V. Gorsky, naturally, were published in the MDA journal. In 1845, at the request of M.P. Pogodin to prepare a review of “Introduction to the History of the Russian Church,” Met. Makarii Bulgakov, he expressed doubt about the possibility of making it known to everyone, explaining this by saying that “the state of our church affairs and my personal position do not allow me to say in print what, in good conscience, a scientist can and should say in his office” 55 (these words are often quoted in the literature out of context and always with an incorrect reference to the first volume of the edition). Even in 1856, A.V. Gorsky wrote to Archbishop. Eusebius (Orlinsky) regarding the publication of his notes on church history, that “he still does not see a time that would be conducive to the free progress of such a matter” 56. A. V. Gorsky's scientific publications of this period were devoted to various issues, often refuting the opinions formulated in the articles of other authors. All of them are distinguished by scientific argumentation of their positions, based on historical monuments and current scientific research, including foreign religious research. The issues of the articles touch on almost all areas of church history - teaching, worship, canon law, martyrdom. The article “On Christian virgins before monasticism” is directly related to Alexander Vasilyevich’s own life choice, who, according to D.N. Tolstoy, although “did not wear a monastic robe, he led a monastic lifestyle, and deep sincere piety preserved him in all the purity of Orthodoxy, despite his familiarity with the writings of all kinds of negative trends” 57. Almost twenty years later, A.V. Gorsky will again turn to the practice of the ancient church in order to justify the possibility of his celibate ordination to the priesthood. This essay, entitled “On the Question of Our Clergy,” was published posthumously. In his research, Alexander Vasilyevich proves that his ordination, unique for the Russian Church, as well as the way of life that preceded it, have a basis in church history. In 1862, in response to an article in the newspaper Den, which stated that a monk cannot be a bishop, he presented a detailed historical study “On the rank of bishop in relation to monasticism.” Another material related to church institutions - “On the sacred ceremony of the wedding and anointing of kings to the throne” was prepared by A. V. Gorsky in 1856 in connection with the accession to the throne of Emperor Alexander II, but was published only a year after the coronation of Alexander III in 1883. A. V. Gorsky clarifies the events of the Gospel story in the article “Did the Lord Jesus Christ celebrate the Jewish Passover?”, written to refute the point of view set forth in the publication “Brief extracts from letters to converted Jews about the correctness of the Orthodox Church in relation to the use of leavened bread, and not unleavened bread.” In his argumentation, Alexander Vasilyevich relies on the opinions of the holy fathers on this issue and texts from the liturgical books of the Eastern Church. The article “Letter of Mara of Samosata to his son Serapion” was prepared by him in connection with the discovery of this ancient written monument, which reveals the events of the Gospel time, and represents a critical analysis of the opinion about the source of the English researcher Curton. The article by A.V. Gorsky “The external state of the Eastern Church in the 9th-13th centuries” was published in “Christian Reading” (“KhCh”) at the request of Archimandrite. Eusebius (Orlinsky), appointed rector of SPbDA in 1847. A brief review of A. V. Gorsky, “Ascetics of the Faith in the East after the Fall of the Greek Empire,” precedes the publication of his translation from Greek of the book of the Svyatogorsk monk Nicodemus, which outlines the exploits of, among other things, Russian confessors of the Orthodox faith. Alexander Vasilyevich emphasizes that the continuity of the feat of the martyrs of the first centuries in recent times testifies to “the strength and grace-filled life in the Church” 58, and “the communion of the Russian Church with the Churches of the East, which together constitute a single, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, makes us partakers of the glory of martyrdom, which adorns our brethren in the East” 59. The area of ​​primary scientific interest of A. V. Gorsky was domestic history, the sources for which he drew from his archival research. His very first article, “News about Abraham Palitsyn,” was published in the magazine “Moskvityanin” in 1841. In 1842, Alexander Vasilyevich’s large-scale work “Historical Description of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra” was published in a separate edition. After that, he had to write a response to the criticism of D.P. Golovastov, who challenged the author’s point of view on the role of his ancestor - “Objections to comments about the siege of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra,” which were published in the magazine “Moskvityanin”. In 1844, Alexander Vasilyevich introduced into scientific circulation the monuments of spiritual literature from the time of Grand Duke Yaroslav, publishing them in an academic journal. I. E. Evseev draws attention to the fact that the material “On the Russian campaigns against Surozh,” published in 1844 in the journal “Notes of the Odessa History Society,” and attributed to the legacy of A. V. Gorsky, was signed: “reported by D. Ch. Pogodin” 60. It was not possible to establish who D. Ch. Pogodin is. At this time, A.V. Gorsky became on a par with the leading Russian paleographers. In 1843, the Pogodinsky edition published his article, not included in the list of scientific works of Alexander Vasilyevich - “Analysis of the description of the manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum compiled by Vostokov” (it is mentioned in a letter to A.V. Gorsky by St. Philaret (Gumilevsky) 61). The article by A. V. Gorsky “On the Slavic translation of the Pentateuch of Moses, corrected in the 15th century according to the Hebrew text” continued and significantly expanded the study of this monument by philologist A. Kh. Vostokov. At the suggestion of St. Philaret (Drozdov) A.V. Gorsky prepared a series of articles about Russian saints: Cyril, Peter, Jonah, Alexis, Cyprian, Photius and Metropolitan Peter Mogila. Publications about the split were banned by censorship until the early 50s. Nevertheless, the long-term problem of the Russian Church did not go unnoticed by Alexander Vasilyevich during this period. Particular circumstances related to the schism are disclosed by A.V. Gorsky in the publications “On theological schools in Moscow in the 17th century”, “On the relations of the Russian Church with the Svyatogorsk monasteries”. “Relations between the monks of Kirillov of Belozersky and Joseph of Volokolamsk monasteries in the 16th century”, “Maxim the Greek, Holy Mountainer”, “Some information about Paisius Ligarid” 62. The patristic studies that accompanied the publications of the holy fathers were important for the fight against the schism - on the one hand, as the experience of their opposition to divisions in the ancient church, on the other, for a reasoned refutation of the interpretation of their heritage by schismatics. The biographies of Saints Basil the Great and Athanasius the Great are attributed to the authorship of A.V. Gorsky. The latter was noted by many contemporaries as an exemplary patristic work. Material about St. Cyril and Methodius was published in 1843 in the magazine “Moskvityanin”. Regarding this publication, St. Filaret (Gumilevsky) wrote to a friend: “I will never write such an article!” 63. In 1849, on behalf of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, A.V. Gorsky began describing the manuscripts of the Synodal Library, inviting his student Kapiton Ivanovich Nevostruev as an assistant. The results of the study, published in the first volume, were criticized by Archimandrite. John (Sokolov), to whose review A.V. Gorsky responded with an apology for the applied methodology for studying manuscripts. In the same year, sending the first volume of the Description of Manuscripts to Archbishop Eusebius, Alexander Vasilyevich noted that this was the first work under which his name appeared 64. M. N. Vorobyov, who studied in detail the process of working on the collection of manuscripts, claims that “the first volume of the Description was written by Gorsky’s hand” 65 . K.I. Nevostruev went through an excellent school under his leadership, but began to publish independent works only in 1860 66 . In 1856, based on the discovered materials, a joint liturgical study by A. V. Gorsky and K. I. Nevostruev, “On the Ancient Canons of St. Cyril and Methodius." K. I. Nevostruev’s suspicions of A. V. Gorsky’s intention to infringe on his copyright in the publication of the second volume came as a shock to him: “not a single word suggested the idea that this work was mine. ... I grieve this mentally. The publication of the first part of the inventory proved to you that I have not humiliated myself so deeply as to allow myself scientific predation” 67. Perhaps this incident confirmed Alexander Vasilyevich’s intention not to sign published works in the future. All of his publications, except for the following volumes of descriptions of manuscripts of the Synodal Library, were published anonymously. I. E. Evseev believes that the importance of A. V. Gorsky in the description of manuscripts is higher than that of K. I. Nevostruev, and suggests that he described collection materials that remained unpublished, but these manuscripts disappeared 68. In addition, he gives examples in which contemporaries are found to have borrowed the results of his scientific work stored in the archive materials and allows for the possibility of “using Gorsky’s archive after his death” 69 . 2.3. Scientific guidance. The priority task for A.V. Gorsky was scientific leadership, and he made this choice already in 1838. In his diary, he discusses three types of church service: monastic, priestly and scientific. He strove for the first of them, but did not receive the blessing of his parents, the second was impossible due to his reluctance towards family life. Academic studies, according to Alexander Vasilyevich, cannot be a goal in themselves, since in this case, “the true meaning of life is lost from sight. … No matter how highly the education of the mind is valued, both according to Christian rules and the judgment of common sense, this is not the whole purpose of man” 70 . P. S. Kazansky, in his memoirs about Gorsky, states that “in all academic works on church history of that time, not only the indication of sources, but also the presentation itself largely belongs to A. V-chu” 71. Another student of A.V. Gorsky, N.I. Subbotin explained the relatively insignificant amount of the teacher’s scientific heritage by the fact that “most of his time was taken up by scientific work for others (author’s italics)” 72. “In this readiness to help anyone, especially those seriously engaged in scientific work, one must recognize not only a remarkable, highly moral trait of his character, but also the greatest merit for science” 73 . Help from A.V. Gorsky St. Filaret (Gumilevsky) in the preparation of his large-scale works “History of the Russian Church” is confirmed by numerous passages from their correspondence. So in 1842, the Bishop of Riga in despair turned to Gorsky: “I don’t know how it happened, but I don’t have your historical notes about the Russian Church and the 4th century of Christianity. Whatever you want, but send it as soon as possible, especially notes about the Russian Church" 74 . Two years later, he thanks his friend for his help: “Of course, you are sure how dear the help of your love, ready to share everything, is to me. I need your comments both in letters and in lectures” 75. Study guide of St. Filaret (Gumilevsky) “Historical Study of the Fathers of the Church,” for which he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Theology, was created in parallel with the patristic studies of the MDA. In 1846, during the preparation of this work for publication, the Bishop of Riga asked A.V. Gorsky: “for the sake of love, take on the labor in my place to fulfill the wishes of the censorship, no matter what it demands” 76 . Starting from the first issues of PribTSO, a series of anonymous articles was published in the section on the doctrine of faith, which opened with the essay “On the Orthodox Church of Christ.” It was followed by the publications “On the Providence of God,” “On the Threefold Ministry of Jesus Christ,” “On the Divinity of the Christian Religion,” and “On the Preparation of the Human Race to Receive the Savior.” All of them were subsequently attributed to the authorship of Archimandrite Eusebius (Orlinsky). These works reveal in detail the key provisions of the concept of church history of A.V. Gorsky: about the participation of all the persons of the Trinity in the Providence of the world and the church, about the threefold ministry of Jesus Christ, and the author combines in his research a consideration of the issue in the prototypes of the Old Testament and the heritage of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church. In the article “On the Preparation of the Human Race to Receive the Savior,” 77 he traces the significance of Old Testament prophecies during the Old Testament times, during the life of Jesus Christ and the initial spread of Christ’s Church, both among Jews and among pagans, and especially emphasizes their importance at the present time, when spreading rationalistic ideas reject the deity of Jesus Christ. The scale of the research, which demonstrates the author’s excellent knowledge of biblical history, exegesis and patristic literature, allows us to assume, at a minimum, the assistance of A.V. Gorsky in the creation of these works, since their correspondence confirms his assistance to his closest friend. So in 1847, after being transferred to the position of rector of St. Petersburg Academy of Music, preparing to teach a course on “Evangelical History,” he asked Gorsky: “My friend! You said “at least you would have given me everything, if only for me.” Hold back the word that slipped through, but was written on paper and in my soul. Give me your notes about the life of Jesus Christ just for me." 78 The archbishop's favorite genre. Eusebius (Orlinsky) had conversations and teachings; in the future he never had such works. St. Filaret (Gumilevsky) closely followed events in the MDA and publications in academic journals. Regarding the sacramentological conversations, Archimandrite. Eusebius, he wrote to A.V. Gorsky: “I sincerely wish that there would be no continuation of the Conversations. May God protect you from Conversations" 79 . In the next letter after his appointment as rector, Archimandrite. Alexey (Rzhanitsyn) he warns Alexander Vasilyevich: “They express great concern about the state of the Academy: they say: they were weak with Eusebius, and even worse with Alexey. ... I ask the Lord, work and make up for the shortcomings of the weak with what you can” 80. A.V. Gorsky paid special attention to preparing students of the academy for scientific activities, involving them in their own research. Pyotr Postnikov notes the help of A.V. Gorsky already at the very beginning of his service in the MDA in writing the work of Pavel Fiveysky “A Look at the History of the Russian Church,” published in 1834 81. In 1838, problems arose with the publication of Nikolai Rudnev, “Discourse on heresies and schisms that occurred in the Russian Church from the time of Vladimir the Great to Ivan the Terrible” 82. The graduate's supervisors were Archim. Filaret (Gumilevsky) and A.V. Gorsky, who were supposed to personally correct Rudnev’s essay, which gave the Chief Prosecutor Count Protasov a reason to criticize the Metropolitan of Moscow. Another case for the Chief Prosecutor's claims to St. He introduced himself to Filaret (Drozdov) and the Moscow Academy in 1840 after numerous comments made on the works of MDA graduates by Archimandrite. Nikodim (Kazantsev). These circumstances served as a lesson for A.V. Gorsky in choosing topics for student essays and carefully monitoring their content. Alexander Vasilyevich also helped those students who officially had other mentors, including one of the best graduates of the MDA, A. M. Ivantsov-Platonov (his leader was the rector of the MDA, Archimandrite Sergius (Lyapidevsky). S. K. Smirnov noted that “in finishing church-historical and even theological course essays, the main work lay with the famous worker of science, enriched with comprehensive information, professor church history by A. V. Gorsky. Some dissertations were so reworked by him that the honor of authorship could no longer be recognized by the student" 83 . The “History of the Florence Cathedral”, published under the name of I. Ostroumov, was attributed to the authorship of A.V. Gorsky. Alexander Vasilyevich’s archive contains preparatory materials devoted to this issue. The essay implements his methodology of historical research, formulated in lectures: a thorough identification of historical circumstances based on sources and literature ends with a conclusion about the determining action of Providence: “the attempt of the last emperor of Constantinople to proclaim the union of churches in his city was not a church matter and was soon destroyed by the judgment of God” 84. The work of P. I. Gorsky-Platonov, “The History of the Council of Trent,” according to the testimony of D. M. Muretov, was also written “with the usual and wide participation of A. V. Gorsky” 85. In 1850 St. Filaret (Gumilevsky) wrote to A.V. Gorsky about the article “Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts” by Grigory Smirnov-Platonov: “I thank you a hundred times for the Liturgy of the Presanctified. I say sincerely and without exaggeration – a most excellent work.” 86 P.S. Kazansky argued that A.V. Gorsky wrote his master's thesis to Met. Sergius (Lyapidevsky) “On the Commemoration of the Dead” 87. The largest number of MDA master's theses was from the 40s and 50s. refers to two directions - patristics and exegesis. The series of patristic materials opened with the biography of St. Gregory the Theologian, who received the highest praise from the Metropolitan of Moscow. Shortly before this, he did not allow the master's work of Matvey Salmin, whose authorship this patristic work was attributed, to be published. Gorsky's archive contains preparatory materials for the biography of St. Gregory the Theologian. The process of his editing of students’ texts is demonstrated by archival material in which Alexander Vasilyevich edits the work of Alexander Sokolov “The Life of St. Ephraim the Syrian.” At least half of the article, published in 1848, was rewritten by the mentor. Vasily Nechaev’s master’s thesis “St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov” was also attributed to the authorship of A.V. Gorsky. On this occasion, he wrote to Pogodin, “under my name, no research on the works of St. Demetrius will be published, although I have been studying this subject” 88 . Pyotr Postnikov notes that under the leadership of A.V. Gorsky, a biography of St. Tikhon Zadonsky 89. One of the first patristic studies published in PribTSO was an essay on St. Hippolyte of Rome, prepared by A.V. Gorsky’s library assistant, Archimandrite Hilarion (Bogolyubov). In the section on the works of St. Hippolytus, the author makes a conclusion that is important in opposing the schism: in contrast to the generally accepted text of St. father “On Christ and the Antichrist”, the book “On the End of the World and the Antichrist”, included in the schismatic Collection “in many respects agreeing with the genuine work of Hippolytus on the same subject” 90, was classified in the 1716 edition of Fabricius in the section of dubious and forged works. Along with historical research, the exegetical direction was actively developing in the MDA in the early 40s. Such works were especially relevant in connection with the discussion of the case of Rev. Gerasim Pavsky. By this time, the formation of the last version of A. V. Gorsky’s lecture course on church history was completed, in which the historical reading of Sacred History receives theological comprehension on the basis of a representative educational interpretation. The master's theses of the best graduates of the MDA of the 40s-50s are devoted to historical and exegetical research: Ippolit Bogoslovsky-Platonov - “Explanation of the prophecy of Isaiah about the chosen youth of Jehovah”, Hieromonk Theodore (Bukharev) “Authenticity of chapters 40-66 of the book of St. Prophet Isaiah", which was published after revision in 1850 with the title "On the second part of the book of St. the prophet Isaiah"; Ivan Pobedinsky-Platonov “On the prophetic ministry of Amos and the book of his prophecies”, Mikhail Shavrov “On the third book of Ezra, the experience of research on the apocryphal books”, Alexander Lavrov-Platonov “Promises and prophecies about Jesus Christ in the Pentateuch of Moses”, Vasily Potapov “On the book of St. Prophet Daniel." Among them, S. Smirnov’s essay “Pre-depiction of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church in the Old Testament”, published in 1850, stands out in its scale. It presents a comprehensive examination of the foreshadowing of New Testament Christology and ecclesiology in Old Testament history and ritual institutions. The author emphasizes that “faith in the actual existence of prototypes is the ancient faith of the Church, established on the stone of the word of God” 92, and not a later invention. First, Jesus Christ himself speaks about this repeatedly and definitely, followed by His disciples. This tradition was adopted by the fathers and teachers of the Church, therefore the typical meaning in the Orthodox tradition is the true meaning of Holy Scripture and originates from the Spirit of God. The only one of the listed graduates who continued research in the field of exegesis is Archimandrite. Feodor (Bukharev). It is characteristic that S.K. Smirnov in “History of the MDA”, written for the anniversary of the Academy, does not include master’s theses of graduates, including his own, in their scientific heritage, but lists them in the section on student essays, prefaced by the above remark about the help of A.V. Gorsky. In the early 50s, the ban on publications devoted to the problems of the split was lifted. In 1858 St. Filaret (Gumilevsky), who was faced with the joint actions of schismatics and Protestants during his stay at the Riga See, wrote to A.V. Gorsky: “For the Lord’s sake, print articles directly or indirectly directed against the pernicious spirit of the times. I have been threatened more than once that they are ready to carry out Luther’s revolution. ...If I’m not mistaken, the evil society is thinking of uniting with the schism and acting as one with it. Unfortunately, many of the white clergy are joining the ranks of the enemies of the Church" 93 . Almost immediately after this, an anonymous essay “On the Antichrist” was published in the MDA magazine, which was later attributed to the authorship of graduate Mikhail Saburov, in which a refutation of the schismatics’ ideas is carried out on the basis of philological criticism of the interpretation of the texts of the Holy Scriptures, historical information, and the falsity of the main source attributed to the authorship of St. Hippolytus, and also proves the constant continuity of opinions on this issue of the holy fathers 94. Research “On the mode of action of Orthodox Greco-Roman sovereigns in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries.” in favor of the Church against heretics and schismatics” was proposed by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, the candidacy of graduate E. E. Golubinsky was agreed upon with A. V. Gorsky. The essay collects and analyzes numerous evidence of the state's participation in overcoming church differences, confirming the legitimacy of similar actions in relation to the modern domestic schism. The historical studies of the MDA of this period reflect all aspects of church life - the history of teaching, the relationship between church and state, martyrdom, church archeology (liturgics). At the same time, the academy is developing an exegetical direction. In addition, academic essays provide responses to current internal and external challenges. This large-scale scientific work was supervised by A.V. Gorsky. Unfortunately, for most of his students, master's essays remained the only serious scientific research. The best graduates of the 40s and 50s were recognized as V.P. Kudryavtsev-Platonov and A.M. Ivantsov-Platonov. Their correspondence with Alexander Vasilyevich testifies to their deep respect for their teacher. He, in turn, continues to help them after completing his studies: he supports Feodor Bukharev in letters, gives historical explanations at the request of V.P. Kudryavtsev, assists in the appointment of A.M. Ivantsov to SPbDA, who, due to a misunderstanding, was not left at the MDA. 2.4. New tasks and long-awaited priesthood In his diary entries of the second half of the 50s, Alexander Vasilyevich records in detail the content of long conversations with the Metropolitan of Moscow, in which he shares memories of various difficult circumstances of his many years of service and conveys to him his experience of communicating with colleagues and secular authorities. He emphasizes the importance of maintaining peace within the church when resolving any controversial issues. With the accession to the throne of Emperor Alexander II and the appointment of Count A.P. Tolstoy to the post of Chief Prosecutor, the Metropolitan of Moscow was involved in social and state reforms, and, in turn, set new tasks for A.V. Gorsky. St. Filaret (Drozdov) is gradually preparing to consider the issue of translating the Holy Scriptures into Russian. A positive decision on it is made after the death of the principal opponent of the transfer, Metropolitan of Kyiv Philaret. In 1858, an inter-academic Committee was created, headed by Archimandrite. Feofan (Govorov). A.V. Gorsky is a member of the MDA working group, personally translating the Gospel of Mark and the epistles of the Apostle Paul. Apparently, from that time on he developed a close relationship with St. Theophan the Recluse. St. Filaret (Drozdov) often turned to A.V. Gorsky in cases where an expert assessment was required on various historical issues. In particular, at his request, in response to a request from the Chief Prosecutor, Alexander Vasilyevich prepared a review of A.P. Shchapov’s essay “The Russian Split of the Old Believers.” All the reviewer’s comments are scientifically reasoned, made in a calm tone, testifying to his respectful attitude towards his younger colleague, which, apparently, saved A.P. Shchapov from serious problems. At the request of the adviser to the chief prosecutor T.I. Filippov, A.V. Gorsky, being himself in the status of a layman, on the basis of church practice, clarified the question of the possibility of theological writings of the laity, which arose after the publication abroad of the polemical pamphlets of A.S. Khomyakov. Archaeologist I.M. Snegirev, specializing in the study of monuments of ancient art in Russia, asked him to express his comments on his article “Review of Russian Icon Painting.” All these materials from A.V. Gorsky’s answers were subsequently published by N.I. Subbotin. At the end of the 50s, two works by Prince Gagarin, who converted to Catholicism and joined the Jesuit order, were published in Russian: “On the reconciliation of the Russian Church with the Roman Church” and “Letters on the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God” to a Russian lady. In 1859, the Academy responded to them with a series of articles in PribTSO. In addition to two materials by the former prince’s long-time opponent, A. N. Muravyov, articles by MDA professors were published: “On the temporal power of the bishops of Rome” by N. K. Sokolov, and “Information about a new work: a layman’s response to the book will Russia become Catholic” by N. I. Subbotin and rector Archimandrite. Sergius (Lyapidevsky) “On the procession of the Holy Spirit”, which were edited by A.V. Gorsky 95. In 1860, a Committee was created to prepare the reform of theological education, which was headed by Archbishop of Kherson Dimitry (Muretov). The assistant chief prosecutor, Prince S.N. Urusov, wanted to see Gorsky in this position. On January 25, 1860, Alexander Vasilyevich writes down the words of St. Philaret (Drozdov): “No matter how sorry it is to part with you, it’s clear that we’ll have to let you go.” A. V. Gorsky tried to nominate his younger colleague V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov, but “Vladyka, praising him as doing his job, said: “It’s a pity to distract him from his work. Besides, he’s young; perhaps they’ll listen to you more.” 96 In the course of his work, A.V. Gorsky became close to the archbishop. Dimitri (Muretov), ​​met with him outside of official meetings. Their friendship continued in the future. Apparently, including in order to give A.V. Gorsky greater ecclesiastical authority in solving general church problems, St. Filaret (Drozdov) invited him to become a monk. Prot. Sergius Smirnov noted that Alexander Vasilyevich “according to his testimony, he was afraid that if he accepted monasticism, he would be removed from his place of service by being elevated to the cathedral, with which, in his opinion, his beloved service to science should have been too limited” 97 . As a result, the Metropolitan of Moscow made an unprecedented decision for the practice of the Russian Church on his celibate ordination to the priesthood. Historical proof of its possibility, as noted above, was prepared by Alexander Vasilyevich himself. On March 24, A.V. Gorsky was ordained a deacon, on March 27 he was elevated to the rank of priest, and in the same year he became an archpriest. At the end of 1860, in a letter to Chief Prosecutor A.P. Tolstoy, St. Filaret (Drozdov) calls Archpriest. A.V. Gorsky is among the candidates for the position of rector of the MDA, noting that “with undoubted merits in general, he has information on history and church antiquities that joins him among the famous scientists” 98, however, the final choice is made in favor of the monastic student of Gorsky by Archimandrite. Savva (Tikhomirova). 3. Rector of the Moscow Academy of Sciences, professor of the department of dogmatic theology. 1863–1875 3.1. The turbulent times of the 60s - 70s. – main challenges and tasks Just two years later, the question of changing the rector of the MDA arose again, and the Metropolitan of Moscow expressed a desire for the academy to be headed by Archpriest. A. V. Gorsky. Fifty-year-old prot. Alexander became the first non-monastic rector of the theological academy. Regarding the new position, he wrote in his diary: “1) they elected me, not experienced in government positions; 2) in stormy times; 3) not in the general order. ... Maybe this experience ... will give the white clergy a way to jointly occupy higher academic positions with monastics” 99. In 1863, the Metropolitan of Moscow again twice proposed to Archpriest. A.V. Gorsky to accept monasticism, and with it - “the position of rector in the Moscow Epiphany Monastery, ... while retaining the position of rector of the academy and with the promise of an early entry into the rank of saint” 100. Alexander Vasilyevich, having prayed in church during the liturgy, opened the Gospel before making a decision, and saw in the text a sign of God’s Providence to “remain lesser,” but wrote in his diary that “when the depletion of strength forces him to abandon the burden of academic and administrative activities, ... [he] cannot imagine a more secluded refuge than the monastic cell” 101. The reign of Emperor Alexander II, in comparison with the reign of his father, Nicholas I, was indeed turbulent; various aspects of state life were transformed, reforms of higher secular and spiritual education were being prepared, in which the role of the white clergy was strengthened. Following Archpriest Alexander, the capital's academy was headed by Archpriest John Yanyshev, and Archpriest Joseph Vasiliev, who returned from Paris, headed the committee for preparing a new charter for theological academies. The weakening of censorship and the reform of church periodicals made it possible to bring the discussion of the problems and tasks of the Church into the public space. Along with academic publications, non-departmental church magazines began to be published, aimed at a wide audience - “Soulful Reading”, “Wanderer”, “Orthodox Review”, “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment”. Among the editors of these publications were students of A.V. Gorsky: priests Vasily Nechaev, Alexander Ivantsov-Platonov, Victor Rozhdestvensky. On the pages of international church periodicals, polemics with the Jesuits intensified. Articles from the Paris edition of Fr. Joseph Vasiliev’s “L`Union Chretienne” was republished in new domestic magazines. Its editor, Abbot Rene Guette, an outstanding church historian, converted to Orthodoxy and, on the proposal of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, was awarded the degree of Doctor of Theology. A review of his essay “The Schismatic Papacy” was prepared by Archpriest. A. V. Gorsky. At the same time, a dialogue was conducted about the rapprochement of the Russian Church with the Anglican Church. A little later, consultations began with representatives of the Old Catholic movement, led by Professor S. Döllinger. In 1863, the question was raised about lifting the ban on the entry of Jesuits into Russia, established by Emperor Alexander I. M. P. Pogodin, commenting on the ongoing transition of representatives of the world to Catholicism, asked: “why did not those who converted return home to ask Philaret, Innocent, Gorsky and show them their doubts and bewilderments?” 102, giving the rector of the MDA a place of honor next to the most authoritative bishops. In 1866, Yu. F. Samarin, sending his book “The Jesuits and Their Attitude to Russia” to the rector of the MDA, wrote to him: “Your judgment would, of course, be dear to me, but I don’t dare ask you for it, knowing that you are extremely burdened” 103. In a reply letter, Rev. A.V. Gorsky thanks Samarin for the expensive gift, praises him for his “deep understanding of the true spirit of Christianity, sincere conviction in its faithful preservation in the Orthodox Church and the purity of the Christian conscience” 104. Thanks to church periodicals, the polemics with the Old Believers took on a new scale, in which the Church needed to develop an optimal position. Precisely Fr. A. V. Gorsky prepared, at the request of the Holy Synod, a policy document “Considerations on the consideration of controversial issues between the schism and the Orthodox Church,” published by N. I. Subbotin immediately after his death. The magazine itself was created as a result of the response of the rector of the MDA to the request of the Holy Synod to open a special section in one of the spiritual periodicals to place articles on the schism in it, with the goal of reuniting adherents of the schism with the Orthodox Church. A new challenge for the Church was the sharply increased criticism from natural science. According to St. Filaret, recorded by A.V. Gorsky, “Apparently the time has come when it is necessary to fight openly, as in the first times, without using the patronage of secular power; but the church persecuted by it had to fight against paganism and defend itself: so now it must fight against human wisdom” 105. One of the effective means of this struggle was church periodicals. Among the priority polemical tasks, the main place was occupied by opposition to the critical trend in Protestant theology, whose representatives questioned the authenticity of part of the books of Holy Scripture, limited exegesis exclusively to the historical interpretation of the Bible, and developed a predominantly moral trend in theology. These ideas, without proper critical analysis, spread in Russia. In particular, the Holy Synod considered Schenkel's dogmatics as a guide for seminary teachers. In preparing the reform of both university and academic education, the importance of confronting natural science criticism was taken into account. The university charter retained the compulsory nature of theological disciplines for all Orthodox students, but teaching was reoriented towards general Christian apologetics. In 1865, Metropolitan. Filaret (Drozdov) requested the opinion of the rector of the MDA on measures to improve the teaching of theological disciplines at universities. Prot. A.V. Gorsky recommended, despite the brevity of the courses, not to limit oneself to apologetics, but to “introduce students to the very dogmas of faith” 106, since they are the basis of the Christian worldview. A similar situation arose when discussing the reform of theological academies. A new compulsory subject was introduced - basic theology, and dogmatic theology, church history and church archeology lost this status and were taught only in the corresponding departments. Archpriest A.V. Gorsky did not approve of the introduction of specialization; he considered it especially dangerous for theological science that dogmatic theology was gaining the status of a compulsory discipline. In addition to the main theology, the Department of Natural Science Apologetics was opened at the MDA, headed by D. F. Golubinsky. This became possible thanks to the fact that the rector of the MDA proposed introducing a clause into the charter, according to which “with the permission of the Holy Synod, at the discretion of need, new subjects in addition to those named can be introduced, as well as general changes can be made in the educational part of the Academy” 107. The second half of the 60s was darkened for Rev. A.V. Gorsky with the loss of close colleagues. In 1863, the oldest professor P. S. Delitsyn died. His role in the publication of the Works of the Holy Fathers was so great that the publication of academic journals was suspended for seven years. In 1866, Archbishop Filaret of Chernigov died, and the next year, Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow. Prot. A.V. Gorsky personally collected materials for glorifying his mentor, and, according to the editor who published them in 1914, he probably did this during the life of St. Filareta 108. In 1868, on the day of remembrance of the opening of the MDA, the rector honored the memory of the deceased with the words: “blessed are the works in word and deed, science and life, of those who served for the creation of the Orthodox Church: their memory will not fade away, and their name will live on for generations: the pagans will tell their wisdom and the church will confess their praise.” The memory of the Golubinskys, Delitsyns, Filarets and others will not fade away” 109. In 1870, Archpriest Alexander brought the audience closer to the church in every sense, achieving the opening of the academic Church of the Intercession. His numerous words and sermons were published first in the MDA magazine, and then in a separate publication, but still remain unexplored. 3.2. Teaching activities A month before the official approval, Prot. Alexandra as rector of St. Filaret (Drozdov) wrote to him: “I believe that you will need to accept the department of Theological Sciences” 110. The short-term academic ministry of monastic rectors (there were six of them between 1841 and 1862) had a negative impact on the teaching of dogmatic theology at the MDA. Since the 50s, textbooks in academies have been the works of Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov): “Introduction to Orthodox Theology” and “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology,” which the Metropolitan of Moscow subjected to critical analysis at the preparation stage. On January 17, 1863, Gorsky wrote in his diary: “Maybe God will allow me to do something when I go deeper into my present situation and become acquainted with the field of my new science, dogmatic theology. Will my strength change me? I feel that such work should have been undertaken much earlier than my present years." 111 He gave his first lecture on dogmatic theology 10 days after his letter to St. Philareta (Drozdova) November 3, 1862 112 S.K. Smirnov writes that “Gorsky without difficulty mastered the new subject that was given to him late. In his theological readings the predominance of the historical element is noticeable; The revelation of his positive teaching is preceded by the history of dogma, partly processed by him previously in his historical lectures, partly re-stated with the help of the best new works of Western theologians” 113. In the OR RSL in fund No. 78 prot. A.V. Gorsky in cardboard 8 contains two notes, which the storage dates back to different periods of reading dogmatic lectures - the 60s and 70s. In fact, storage unit 7 contains a summary of dogmatic theology, and storage unit 6 contains an introduction to Orthodox dogmatic theology and three sections related to ecclesiology, which he read in the dogmatic theology course. In addition, the archives of the rector of the MDA preserved numerous preparatory materials, lists of exam questions, as well as short answers to them, written in the hand of the rector himself. Apparently, they were compiled by him after the revision of Archimandrite. Savva (Tikhomirova), who considered the students’ answers in dogmatic theology unsatisfactory, as a result of which the teacher, Doctor of Theology Rev. A.V. Gorsky was reprimanded. In the archive of A.D. Belyaev, who replaced Archpriest. A. V. Gorsky at the Department of Dogmatic Theology, there are records of the latest version of his introductory lectures on this discipline, given in 1874. Comparing them with the teacher’s own manuscripts allows us to conclude that he developed the lecture questions in more detail than he read in the classroom. At the same time, notes from the first lectures of the course were found in the student’s manuscripts, which are not in the materials of the rector of the MDA, which made it possible to restore the integrity of the introductory part 114. Archpriest Alexander's lectures on dogmatic disciplines differ significantly from Metropolitan's teaching aids. Makaria (Bulgakov). A.V. Gorsky considers it necessary to give “a special place to polemical and apologetic remarks against attacks on the truth of Christ, which are growing and multiplying. Through this, you can become more familiar with modernity and apply your knowledge to modernity” 115. In addition, he pays considerable attention to the linguistic analysis of the texts of Holy Scripture. In the course Introduction to Orthodox Theology, Archpriest Alexander analyzes and refutes modern rationalistic concepts in detail, building his argument not on the self-testimony of the Holy Scriptures, as the Rev. Macarius, but based on considerations of reason. According to the rector of the MDA, science and faith can come to an agreement if the first accepts the supernatural origin of the world, to which it cannot oppose a worthy alternative, and the second recognizes the gradual creation of the world, since this does not contradict the basic dogmas 116. He emphasizes that Revelation is transmitted in a personal way and illustrates this by how, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, the ideas about the Messiah in the Old Testament prophecies are gradually clarified and the New Testament teaching is revealed by the church fathers. Unlike Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) and other authors of textbooks on dogmatic theology, Archpriest. A.V. Gorsky does not build a detailed system. In his opinion, in dogma there is no one position from which all others are derived, but its semantic center is the dogma of redemption, therefore all dogmas must be considered in connection with it 117. Just as in the course of church history, for Archpriest Alexander the idea of the triple ministry of Jesus Christ is essential, but in dogmatics he especially emphasizes His royal ministry: “the theological teaching about the assimilation of redemption and its completion in everyone, or the teaching about Salvation, ... is nothing more than the development of the teaching about the Royal ministry of Jesus Christ” 118, predicted by the prophets, into which He enters in its entirety after the Ascension. Moreover, the Kingdom of God, according to Fr. Alexandra, will be created both in the Church as a whole and in the soul of every person. In the introductory part of the lectures on dogmatic theology, the rector of the MDA presents a detailed overview of non-confessional theological works, starting from the time of the division of the Western Church. Among modern authors, he singles out the leader of the Old Catholic movement, Döllinger, and gives extensive quotes from him, in particular, his opinion on the relationship of the Roman Church to the Eastern: “Western scholasticism, with its non-historical direction, with its complacent ignorance regarding the entire Eastern Tradition and the Church, very much contributed to the dangerous break with this Church and made it difficult to heal” 119. Here Archpriest Alexander addresses the question of the possibility of developing the dogma, which worried him at the very beginning of his scientific and teaching activities. He presents a critical analysis of the concepts of Schleirmacher and Möhler and formulates his point of view. Prot. A.V. Gorsky believes that, in principle, it is possible to allow the emergence of new dogmas, but only if they are recognized by the entire church, although, in his opinion, “in the knowledge of the truths of faith in general, what is meant is not so much breadth as deepening” 120. He points out that two sides can be distinguished in the doctrine: Divine and human. God is essentially immovable and unchangeable, and the truths of Revelation and the Church established by him are also unchangeable. But in a historical sense, “in relation to the personal understanding of revealed truth and the personal assimilation of Divine institutions, not only changes are possible, but also progress, and progress of improvement is even required of Christians” 121. The basis for this is the help of the Holy Spirit, who abides in the Church until the end of time, and the tools are, first of all, the exegesis of Revelation in a specific historical context and the careful use of modern discoveries in the philosophical, historical, and natural sciences. It is obvious that here, as in the early diary fragment, we are talking specifically about the development of dogma. A detailed comparison of the positions of A.V. Gorsky and his student A.L. Katansky on the issue of the development of dogma goes beyond the scope of this study. I will only note that Alexey Lvovich adhered to such a method in the historical presentation of dogma, when “the entire dogmatic system must be repeated several times, depending on how many periods this science is divided into, i.e. the whole body of dogmas must pass before the readers’ eyes several times” 122. Therefore, it was quite natural for him to talk about the development of dogmatics. A. V. Gorsky follows another method, which Katansky characterizes as episodic or monographic and notes that the only modern author who follows him in his presentation of dogmatic theology is Klee. The course of dogmatic theology of Archpriest Alexander is a set of treatises devoted to the main doctrinal issues, arranged in the order of the symbol of Faith. In each of them he presents a historical study of how particular aspects of dogma were clarified, and, in addition, traces the gradual fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, since the New Testament is the development of the Old and the fulfillment of its promises. The correlation between history and exegesis in the theology of history, characteristic of its church-historical concept, is revealed from a new perspective of historical theology. The form of presentation of dogmatic theology by A. V. Gorsky did not change after the reform of academic education, this is confirmed by the dates on the margins of the notes, but according to the testimony of Archpriest Sergius Smirnov, he read additional new material to each course beyond the program. As a rule, in these lectures the rector of the MDA discussed the most pressing polemical and apologetic issues. In the section on the creation of man, he turns to the most pressing topic - a critical analysis of Darwin's theory of development 123 . In the very last note of the notes, made shortly before his death, Archpriest Alexander emphasizes that the consequence of the theory of natural selection is the distortion of “every concept of purpose, every teleology from the field of knowledge, all ... causes from the field of the world” 124. He is surprised, on the one hand, at the “naive, learned complacency,” and on the other, at the “good-natured gullibility” of even the educated public, who abandoned their own reasoning 125. In the archive prot. A synopsis was discovered by A.V. Gorsky, in which he refutes the main position of the schismatics about the coming kingdom of the Antichrist, entitled “On the existence of the Church of Christ in its complete order until the time of the second - glorious coming of Jesus Christ.” Judging by the design, this text is lecture material. The rector of the MDA identifies the main basis for the doctrinal errors of the schismatics: doubt in the truth of the Word of God, which means that He “does not have omniscience and omnipotence - divine properties, since he did not foreknow her [the Church’s] fall or did not have sufficient strength to preserve it. But such thoughts do not agree with the concept of His Divinity, are not worthy of His Divine greatness and are blasphemous” 126. This material was published and commented in detail in the context of other Russian works devoted to criticism of the idea of ​​the Antichrist 127. Dogmatic theology became no less a favorite discipline for the rector of the Moscow Academy of Sciences than church history. M. D. Muretov, in particular, writes about this, whom Archpriest Alexander literally begged not to move from the theological department to the historical department, convincing that “history is only an external and often tawdry garment, but the body and being are in theology: in the ideas and ideals revealed by theology in the dogmas of the church” 128. In 1874, Prot. A.V. Gorsky wrote in his diary: “abbreviated the entire essence of Christianity: Christ with His truth and grace and people blessed with grace, or the Church! It’s all my theology!” 129. After the adoption of the new Charter, no more than 10 people studied at the theological department, but according to the testimony of Bishop Nikolai (Ziorov) of Warsaw and Prislinsky, the rector’s classroom was always full, in 1873–1874. Vladimir Solovyov listened to his lectures. In addition to his main course, Archpriest Alexander “at the request of the students of the history department, in the absence of a special professor, read to them on Byzantine history, and to the practitioners - on church archeology” 130, that is, he continued to communicate directly with almost all students of the academy, not only in the church, but also in the classroom. A. D. Belyaev 131 also wrote in his later unpublished memoirs that he lectured on Byzantine history at the history department. In addition, all students listened to the sermons of Fr. Alexander, in which he almost always devoted space to doctrinal issues. The testimony of Archbishop Nicholas of Warsaw and A.D. Belyaev refutes the statement of A.P. Lebedev, who wrote in 1900, that Gorsky “lost all influence on students of other departments” 132. The article already mentioned above, published on the 25th anniversary of the death of the rector of the MDA, reveals a clear desire of the author to belittle the value of his lecture courses. A.P. Lebedev, being primarily a church historian, and gravitating towards modern Protestant methodology, was unable to appreciate either the theological component of his church-historical course or the peculiarities of the presentation of dogmatic theology. About the fact that Alexey Petrovich “was not a theologian at all” 133 wrote Archpriest. Georgy Florovsky. Unfortunately, the assessments given by A.P. Lebedev to the archival notes of Archpriest Alexander have not yet been verified based on sources and are often cited in modern literature. 3.3. Scientific achievements and publications in periodicals and archival materials In 1865, at the recommendation of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, based on a set of scientific works, Archpriest Alexander was awarded the degree of Doctor of Theology. Since 1865 he was an honorary member of the Kyiv Theological Academy, and since 1872 - of the Kazan Academy. At the same time, his achievements were widely recognized by secular science. In 1864, Prot. A.V. Gorsky was elected honorary doctor of history at Moscow University, in 1867 at St. Petersburg University, and in 1871 at the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts in Zagreb. For their joint work with K.I. Nevostruev on the description of manuscripts of the Synodal Library, the description of manuscripts of the Synodal Library, the authors were awarded the newly established Lomonosov Prize in the field of literature. In 1873, in connection with the fortieth anniversary of the academic service of the rector of the MDA, among the many congratulations and honorary elections there was a letter of gratitude from the Imperial Society of Natural History Amateurs. Due to the enormous busyness of the rector of the MDA in the last years of his life, he rarely publishes his materials, as before they are published anonymously. In 1863, PribTSO published a biography of St. Epiphany of Cyprus. In 1866, two small notes by A.V. Gorsky were published in the Collection of the Society of Old Russian Art, and his apologetic word for the Nativity of Christ was published in the magazine “Soulful Reading”. The rector of the MDA contrasts the superstition of modern science, which rebelled against Christianity, with the love for the true wisdom of the Magi: through natural knowledge they reached the realm of the mysteries of God, “subdued their science to Christ” 134 and were even able to understand more than the scientists of Jerusalem. In his opinion, the objectivity of scientific research should bring one closer to faith, and not move away from it. In the 60s, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky continued to deal with the problems of the Old Believers. At the request of the Metropolitan of Moscow, he prepared a critical response to the ideologists of the Belokrinitsky part of the schism, “The Claims of an “Apologist” of the Austrian Priesthood,” published in 1864. The rector of the MDA proves the incorrectness of opponents’ use of the analogy of modern circumstances of the schism with events dating back to the life of St. Athanasius the Great, to whom his large-scale patristic research is dedicated. The circumstances preceding the creation of this material were revealed by N.I. Subbotin, who republished the article twice by Archpriest. Alexandra in the magazine “Brotherly Word”. In addition, he discovered in the archives of A.V. Gorsky and published a continuation of the analysis of the apology, as well as a short note in which he proved the anathematism of false teachers in the ancient church, written by him in response to Gilyarov’s article published in Sovremennye Izvestia. These publications were not included in the heritage of Archpriest. A. V. Gorsky 135. During the period of suspension of the publication of MDA journals, the works of professors and graduates of the academy were published in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” (“CHOLDP”), the charter for which was prepared by the rector of the MDA. Among the materials in this edition are 1868–1869. There were three articles that can be attributed to his legacy. The similarity of their content with his lecture courses testifies in favor of the authorship of A.V. Gorsky. Unfortunately, statistical methods for determining authorship, successfully used in fiction, do not give unambiguous results in the case of theological texts. All three articles were published anonymously, while the rest of the publications in the publication are signed, at a minimum, by the initials of the authors. The only exception is the above-mentioned master's thesis of the 1858 graduate P. I. Gorsky-Platonov, “The History of the Council of Trent.” Pavel Ivanovich, the namesake of the rector of the Moscow Academy of Sciences, nephew of P. S. Kazansky, apparently did not dare to put his name under this study, since the academy was well aware of the significant participation of the rector of the Moscow Academy of Sciences in its preparation. Subsequently, P.I. Gorsky-Platonov was mainly engaged in translations of texts of the Old Testament and did not write a single scientific work comparable to his master’s thesis. Of the three publications, the most significant material in volume: “Disclosure of the most important dogmatic truths of Christianity in the writings of apologists,” is devoted to refuting the point of view of Protestant authors who argued that the Apostolic teaching was distorted in the writings of the next generation of fathers and teachers of the Church. Archpriest Alexander reveals the importance of turning to the study of this period in his lectures on dogmatic theology. He proves that the ideas and rules that appeared during the time of the apologists, which we do not find in the writings of the Apostles, but by their origin are Apostolic and should be traced back to the Apostolic tradition” 136. The very division of the most important dogmatic truths into three chapters: about the Trinity unity of the Divine, about the fall of man and his redemption by the death of Jesus Christ on the cross, is also characteristic of the concept of Gorsky’s dogmatic theology. And finally, in the relevant parts of the course, the fathers and teachers of the Church are also quoted. The article “A comparison of the stories of the Evangelists “On the Resurrection and Appearances of Jesus Christ” is a scientific presentation of the circumstances that A.V. Gorsky analyzes in detail in his lecture course on Evangelical history. In the publication “On the Action of the Ancient Shepherds of the Church in Times of Social Disaster,” the author combines a historical study of events with a review of patristic literature on this issue. He demonstrates that in ancient times, just as now, the most important task of pastors was to refute pagan false teachings and prove the injustice of their hostility against Christians. Another material by Fr. was posthumously published in CHOLDP. A.V. Gorsky “Against Baur”, the original of which is in his archive. After the resumption of publication of MDA journals, PribTSO published two articles by the rector. A historical and dogmatic study, “The Council of Jerusalem” is dedicated to the approaching bicentenary of this event. It reveals the circumstances of the establishment of the council and analyzes its dogmatic definitions. In lecture courses on dogmatic disciplines, Archpriest Alexander emphasized that after the era of the Ecumenical Councils, previously unresolved dogmatic issues continue to be clarified in the Church, including the Council’s determination on the essential presence of the Lord Jesus Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist. The article “The Formation of the Canon of the Holy Books of the New Testament,” also published in 1871, criticizes the doubts of Protestant scholars about the authenticity of a number of texts of the Holy Scriptures and traces how the collection of individual books into the canon took place in apostolic times. Archpriest Alexander’s archive contains a review of the English collection of articles “Church and the World,” which was most likely sent to the rector of the MDA by his nephew Sokolov, who was in England on a business trip. In this material, which has been completely rewritten and is apparently being prepared for publication, the rector of the MDA demonstrates the commonality of the problems and tasks facing both churches, and ends it with a position that he himself fully shared: “a ritual without teaching is simple formalism and disorder. The decline of the ritual, in turn, led to widespread and deep disbelief in the sacramental teaching and aversion to it” 137. Also in the archive prot. A. V. Gorsky discovered a critical analysis of Schenkel’s dogmatics from the point of view of conscience. He proves that the author, trying to reveal the doctrine from the point of view of conscience, distorts the idea of ​​​​almost all the main Christian dogmas and therefore cannot be used as a teaching aid by seminary teachers. The listed materials prot. A.V. Gorsky, dating back to this time, indicate that he promptly responded to all modern problems facing academic theology. Before the reform of 1869, Prot. A.V. Gorsky was the only doctor of theology at the MDA and continued to determine the directions of the scientific activity of the academy. Exegetical works of this period are devoted mainly to refuting historical criticism of sources and concepts that deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ. In 1865, Hieromonk Mikhail Luzin, who headed the department of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, published his study “On the Gospel and Gospel History (Concerning Renan’s book “The Life of Jesus”). Following him, four graduates of 1868: Nikolai Eleonsky, Andrei Polotebnov, Vladimir Markov and Nikolai Komarov, in their master's theses, presented a critical analysis of Baur's opinions on private issues. Among the master's works of the 60s, there is one study that continues the study of Old Testament texts - “On the historical significance of the books of the minor prophets” by 138 graduate of 1864 Peter Kazansky, published by PTSO in 1872. This is a successful example of the use of the historical-critical method in historical research. The author reveals the prophecies about the Messiah against the backdrop of a careful consideration of the historical context. In particular, he determines the time of service of the prophets Joel, Jonah, Obadiah, Nahum according to the books of other prophets - Amos, Hosea, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. In the mid-60s, active study of church archeology or liturgics began at the MDA. At first, A.L. Katansky was involved in this area under the leadership of the rector, who in his memoirs notes “the enormous benefit ... of the instructions of the unforgettable Fr. A.V. Gorsky sources and manuals for studying various departments of this science" 139 after his return to St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, I.D. Mansvetov. In the archive prot. A.V. Gorsky has a voluminous folder inscribed “Liturgics” to Mansvetov. According to the Charter of 1869, scientific degrees were awarded based on the results of public defenses of certification essays. The main objectives of public debates, according to N. Yu. Sukhova, were “to present the best achievements of theological science and educate society” 140. She notes that in the period from 1869, the defense of master's theses, and until 1884, doctoral thesis, “became, if not the most important, then the most noticeable and spectacular moment in the process of scientific certification” 141. Authoritative secular scientists, including the historian M.P. Pogodin and Yu.F. Samarin, came to public debates at the MDA. Information about how the defenses took place was reflected in the publications of church periodicals. In the period from 1871 to 1875, all research submitted for scientific degrees was defended at the MDA. Among them are two doctoral dissertations each in the theological and church history departments and one in church practical dissertations, as well as two master's theses in the historical and theological departments. The degree of Doctor of Theology was awarded to the inspector of the academy, Archimandrite Mikhail Luzin, who defended the above-mentioned research, and four professors who do not have holy orders, acting as assistant rector for theological, church-historical and church-practical departments: Viktor Dmitrievich Kudryavtsev-Platonov (“Religion, its essence and origin”), Pyotr Simonovich Kazansky (“History of Orthodox monasticism in Egypt,” Sergei Konstantinovich Smirnov (“Philological remarks on the New Testament language in comparison with the classical language when reading the epistles of the Apostle Paul to the Ephesians”), as well as Nikolai Ivanovich Subbotin (“On the origin of the Austrian or Belokrinitsky hierarchy”). It was assumed that master's theses would be submitted by the best students at the time of graduation from the academy, but the first graduating class did not live up to these expectations. At the beginning of 1873, Prot. A.V. Gorsky wrote to his friend, Archbishop Eusebius of Mogilev: “What kind of masters of theology will be who did not attend the Academy of Theology? How will we fill the 4th year of our students’ activities? How can we ensure that we again have masters in any sciences?” 142. A graduate of the history department in 1872, N.F. Kapterev defended his dissertation “Secular bishops’ officials in Ancient Rus'” in 1874. Nikolai Fedorovich later recalled how carefully the rector of the MDA helped him prepare for a public debate, although his scientific supervisor was E. E. Golubinsky. In 1875, a graduate of the theological department of St. Mikhail Sobolev was awarded a master's degree for his research “The Reality of the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ.” At all defenses, the rector of the MDA gave a final speech, in which he briefly, but succinctly and accessible to a wide audience, described the main advantages of the essay awarded a scientific degree. In the archives of the MDA, records of his words in V.D.’s defense have been preserved in his personal files. Kudryavtsev-Platonov and S.K. Smirnov. In both cases, Archpriest Alexander noted that their research was the first in their fields. In addition, in personal affairs, Archimandrite. Mikhail (Luzin), N.I. Subbotin and priest. Mikhail (Sobolev), detailed reviews of Archpriest Alexander were discovered, in which he formulated the main requirements for theological dissertations: relevance of the topic, objectivity of historical-critical methodology, confessional understanding of the research results. The rector of the MDA invariably demonstrates respect for his colleagues, most advantageously shows the merits of their research, and formulates comments in a friendly, correct form, often correcting inaccuracies made by the author with his own explanation. At the stage of discussing P. S. Kazansky’s dissertation at the history department, the opinions of fellow professors about the possibility of his admission to defense were divided. A negative review from the historical department was written by A.P. Lebedev, who had not served in the MDA for even two years. The rector had to intervene in the discussion process. In addition, he helped P. S. Kazansky strengthen the problematic component of his research 143. As a result, Pyotr Simonovich’s defense was successful; he adequately responded to all the comments of his young colleague. Unfortunately, this was not the only case when disputes that arose between his colleagues in connection with the defense of dissertations went beyond the limits of the correctness of scientific discussions, which, according to contemporaries, undermined the health of Rev. Alexander and brought his death closer. Among the graduates who managed to attend his dogmatic course, no one was able to come to the defense immediately after graduating from the academy. A classmate of Mikhail Sobolev, Grigory Voskresensky worked on a dissertation on the topic “Ancient Slavic translation of the Apostle and his fate until the 15th century,” which he defended in 1879 in the department of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament. I. N. Korsunsky, who graduated from the theological department of the Moscow Academy of Arts in 1874, wrote his master’s thesis “Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New,” however, after the death of Archpriest. A.V. Gorsky, at the request of the academic council, was forced to change the topic to “Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament” and defended it only in 1882. The best graduate of 1875, John Mansvetov, prepared under the guidance of Archpriest. A. V. Gorsky historical and exegetical study “New Testament teaching about the Church.” Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) was interested in this work during the revision of the MDA in the spring of 1875. A.V. Gorsky wrote in his diary that he “spoke about my review of Mansvetov’s candidate’s essay precisely from the point of view of attentiveness and completeness” 144 . Unfortunately, this review from the rector of the MDA could not be found. Correspondence of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky with the rector of SPbDA, Rev. I. L. Yanyshev testifies to the cooperation of academies in the review of certification essays. At the request of the Holy Synod, the rector of the MDA presented a positive review of the doctoral dissertation of his colleague, Fr. John, but as a result was still not allowed to defend herself. Review by prot. A.V. Gorsky is in his archive and is interesting because it reflects his point of view on the permissible boundaries of private opinions in theological science. In the archive prot. A.V. Gorsky also preserved a letter from Bishop. Sylvester (Malevansky). Sending him his dissertation “The Teaching of the Church in the First Three Centuries of Christianity,” he writes: “Keeping vividly in mind your truly brotherly sympathy and compassion for my illnesses and infirmities, I consider it my most pleasant duty to send to Your Reverence the work of my infirmities, asking you to accept it graciously and condescendingly, as I was once received. I ask for your prayers in feelings of deepest respect and spiritual devotion, and I remain forever Your Reverence’s zealous servant” 145. Recently, Bishop Kanevsky was canonized as a locally revered saint on the basis of his scientific merits. Perhaps this precedent will contribute to the consideration of the question that was posed in modern literature in relation to the prot. A. V. Gorsky. Disease prot. A.V. Gorsky escalated at the end of 1874. Lectures were given intermittently, including at the rector’s apartment. In the summer, despite treatment, his condition worsened. Prot. A.V. Gorsky, more than anyone else, understood what an irreparable loss his departure would be for the theological department. In the last days of his life, still hoping for a favorable outcome of the disease, he tried to help his colleagues in organizing the teaching of his discipline and outlined the main tasks in its development. He asked Metropolitan Innocent of Moscow to provide himself with an assistant in order to gradually prepare him for reading his discipline. Perhaps A.V. Gorsky saw I.F. Mansvetov in this position, but the best graduate of the theological department of the academy was appointed to the Poltava Seminary. The rector of the MDA emphasizes the need to restore the compulsory teaching of dogmatic theology in all departments of the Academy, since scientific degrees in theological academies are awarded specifically theological ones, regardless of specialization. He also expresses regret about the separation of church history and church archeology into special disciplines, since the history of dogmas is limited to the period of the Ecumenical Council definitions and does not consider their fate in subsequent times, and without studying the life of dogma, manifested in the ritual, it loses the fullness of its significance. Prot. A.V. Gorsky notes the importance of independent study of the theological literature of the Eastern Church of the second millennium. The death of the rector of the MDA was expected, but the theological department did not have time to prepare for it. Not to mention the teaching of dogmatic theology to historians and practitioners, from 1875 to 1877 it was not taught even in the theological department. A graduate of 1877, MDA professor Dimitry Muretov wrote in his memoirs that “there were no exams or practical classes in this discipline and there is no mark on it in our certificates” 146. There was no one to replace the deceased rector. Two doctors of the theological department - archim. Mikhail (Luzin) and V.D. Kudryavtsev taught compulsory disciplines. In addition to them, the department served “Private Associate Professor N.I. Lebedev - Candidate, Associate Professor Petropavlovsky - Master, even Ivantsov, who was illegally stuck in the academy correcting the position of Associate Professor, without a degree, - and Eternal Masters who had little proven themselves in science and the extraordinary P.I. Gorsky and P.I. Kazansky" 147. The question of replacing the department was raised only in the summer of 1876. The best graduates of 1875 and 1876, priests, were considered candidates for the position of teacher of dogmatic theology. Ioann Mansvetov and A.D. Belyaev. Despite the fact that Mansvetov had already prepared his master's thesis and was ordained to the priesthood, the choice was made in favor of Belyaev, who only managed to listen to a small part of the dogmatic course. Alexander Dmitrievich wrote in his diary that “if rector Gorsky, who loved Mansvetov very much, had been alive, the latter could have gotten into the department” 148. S. G. Popov, in his biography of A. V. Gorsky, cites the instruction of the rector of the MDA to his students: “It is good for everyone to choose a question to the development of which they would devote all the time free from official studies - theological, historical, philosophical, etc., as long as it belongs to the circle of subjects of spiritual education. ... This would help train and develop our specialists in various parts. ... At the same time, specialization should not interfere with the versatility of education. … Universality and exclusivity are two extremes. The first is respectable, but the lot of the few. And the latter can be respected when someone, having completed his education, by a decisive inclination devotes himself to one single science” 149. Archpriest Alexander solved the task set for himself at the beginning of his church service - he managed to train specialists in various areas of theological knowledge. A preliminary analysis of the manuscripts of Archpriest Alexander's lecture courses made it possible to identify the main feature of his theological ideas - the deep interdisciplinary connection of church history and church antiquities with theology, which was weakened by the introduction of specialization in academic education by the reform of 1869. His lecture courses on these disciplines are original and of interest both in terms of their construction and in the disclosure of particular theological issues: Christology, ecclesiology, soteriology, etc. Special attention is given to the summary of basic theology, which formulates the point of view of the rector of the MDA on the relationship between religion and science. In addition, in the archive of A.V. Gorsky there remains a significant number of manuscripts that have not yet been studied, including correspondence. In the legacy of the rector of the MDA, a significant place is occupied by materials devoted to solving modern problems facing the Russian Church - overcoming the schism, confronting natural scientific criticism and the historical-critical direction in theology. An analysis of the problems of master's works written at the MDA during the ministry of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky indicates that under his leadership at the MDA from the 40s, along with the historical direction, the exegetical direction developed, and in the 60s the formation of liturgics began. The attached historiography provides an updated list of the works of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky - about seventy publications: from notes and short answers to queries, to large-scale studies, including those not mentioned in modern biographical studies. The totality of the mentioned materials testifies to the scale of his works on organizing teaching and scientific research at the MDA, but it will be possible to fully appreciate the significance of the ever-memorable rector of the MDA for Russian theology only as a result of their comprehensive study. The opinion that A.V. Gorsky did not like to write is controversial. Rather, he did not see the possibility of publishing his works. The 150th anniversary of the death of the rector of the MDA is an excellent occasion for the publication of his archival materials, first of all, lecture courses on church history, basic and dogmatic theology. In addition, to study his legacy it would be useful to collect all published materials in one publication. Gorsky A.V., prot. Petition to Innocent (Veniaminov), Metropolitan of Moscow, to transfer the course “Dogmatic Theology” to another teacher due to illness // OR RSL F. 78. Cardboard 1. Unit. hr. 3. Gorsky A.V., prot. Lesson program for the class of General Church History. Without end. (60s) // OR RSL F. 78. Cardboard 2. Unit. hr. 1. Gorsky A.V., prot. Church history. Lectures...Part I. Old Testament history. (1840/1841) // OR RSL F. 78. Cardboard 2. Unit. hr. 5. Gorsky A.V., prot. Church history. Introductory lectures. (1830–1840) // OR RSL. F. 78. Cardboard 4. Units. hr. 1. Gorsky A.V., prot. Old Testament history - lectures (with additions) (1830–1840) // OR RSL. F. 78. K.4. Unit hr. 2. Gorsky A.V., prot. Old Testament history // OR RSL. F. 304. 2. No. 272–274. Gorsky A.V., prot. Gospel story // OR RSL. F. 304. 2. No. 275. Gorsky A.V., prot. Notes on “questions on dogmatic theology” [1860s] // OR RSL. F. 78. Cardboard 8. Units. hr. 4. Gorsky A.V., prot. Dogmatic theology - lectures and materials for them. [60s] // OR RSL. F. 78. Cardboard 8. Units. hr. 6 Gorsky A.V., prot. Dogmatic theology - lectures and materials for them. [1870–1874] // OR RSL. F. 78. Cardboard 8. Units. hr. 7 Gorsky A.V., prot. Church services - lectures (?) on liturgics and materials for them // OR RSL. F. 78. K.8. Unit hr. 10. Gorsky A.V., prot. About Ephraim the Syrian // OR RSL. F. 78. K.12. units hr. 1., Life of Ephraim the Syrian K. 12. Unit. hr. 16. Gorsky A.V., prot. Church and world // OR RSL. F. 78. Cardboard 12. Units. hr. 20. Gorsky A.V., prot. Schenkel. Review of “Christian dogmatics from the point of view of conscience” // OR RSL. F. 78. Cardboard 12. Units. hr. 26.27. Gorsky A.V., prot. Review of the works of Rev. Ioanna Yanysheva // OR RSL. F. 78. Cardboard 12. Units. hr. 32. Gorsky A.V., prot. Letter to Yu. F. Samarin 1866 // OR RSL F. 78. K. 22. Unit. hr. 32. L. 1 Belyaev A.D. Lectures [1874] // OR RSL. F. 26. K.10. Unit hr. 10. Belyaev A. D. Rector of the MDA A.V. Gorsky, his printed works and the manuscripts left after him. //OR RSL. F. 26. Cardboard No. 9. Unit. hr. 14. Samarin Yu. F. Letter to A. V. Gorsky. 1866, 1875 // OR RSL F. 78. K. 30. Unit. hr. 62. Sylvester (Malevansky), St. Letter from Prot. A.V. Gorsky. March. 1873 // OR RSL. F. 78. K. 30. Unit. hr. 83. L. 1. The case of the elevation of the extraordinary professor Archimandrite Mikhail to the degree of Doctor of Theology // OR RSL. F. 172. K. 2. Unit. hr. 17. The case of the elevation of the extraordinary professor Nikolai Subbotin to the degree of Doctor of Theology // OR RSL. F. 172. K. 22. Unit. hr. 13. Case (No. 75) of the Council on the elevation of candidate Mikhail Sobolev to the degree of master // OR RSL. F. 172. K. 22. Unit. hr. 21. Published works of A.V. Gorsky. News about Abraham Palitsyn // Moskvitian. 1841. Part 5. No. 9. P. 218–235. Historical description of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra. Moscow, 1842. Objections to comments about the siege of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra // Moskvityanin. 1842. Part 12. 406–444. About Christian virgins before monasticism // PribTSO. 1843. Part 1. pp. 276–291. Kirill, Metropolitan Kyiv and all Russia // PribTSO. 1843. Part 1 pp. 415–432. About St. Cyril and Methodius // Moskvitian. 1843. Part 3. No. 6. P. 405–434. Saint Peter, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia // PribTSO. 1844. Part 2. pp. 73–90. Monuments of spiritual literature from the times of Grand Duke Yaroslav // PribTSO. 1844. Part 2. pp. 204–299. About the Russian campaign against Surozh // Notes of the Odessa History Society. 1844. T. 1. pp. 191–196. Life of St. Basil the Great, archbishop. Caesarea // PribTSO. 1845. Part 3. pp. 1–110. About theological schools in Moscow in the 17th century. // PribTSO.1845. Part 3. pp. 147–197; Peter Mogila, metropolitan Kyiv // PribTSO. 1846. Part 4. pp. 29–76. St. Jonah, Met. Kyiv and all Russia // PribTSO. 1846. Part 4. pp. 221–267; The external state of the Eastern Church in the 9th-13th centuries // Kh. 1848. No. 1. S. St. Alexy, Met. Kyiv and all Russia // PribTSO. 1848. Part 6. pp. 89–128; About relations Rus. Churches with Svyatogorsk monasteries until the 18th century. // PribTSO. pp. 129–168; St. Cyprian, Met. Kyiv and all Russia // PribTSO. 1848. Part 6. pp. 295–369. About the Russian metropolis in the end. 9th century // PribTSO. 1850. Part 9. pp. 132–146. Life of St. Athanasius, Archbishop. Alexandria // PribTSO. 1851. Part 10. pp. 29–20. Relations between the monks of Kirillov of Belozersky and Joseph of Volokolamsk monasteries in the 16th century. // PribTSO. 1851. Part 10. pp. 144–192. Message to Vasily, Archimandrite. Pechersky. XII century // PribTSO. 1851. Part 10. pp. 341–357. Photius, Met. Kyiv and all Russia // PribTSO. 1852. Part 11. pp. 207–27 Devotees of faith in the East after the fall of the Greek Empire // PribTSO. 1852. Part 11. pp. 466–487, 642–654; 1853. Part 12. pp. 175–184. Did the Lord Jesus Christ celebrate the Jewish Passover at His last supper with His disciples // PribTSO. 1853. Part 12. pp. 446–491 Metropolis of Kyiv at the beginning of its separation from Moscow // PribTSO. 1854. Part 13. pp. 524–554. Blessed life Theodorit, bishop Kirsky // PribTSO. 1855. Part 14. pp. 309–396. Description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library. Section one. Scripture. Moscow, 1855. Gorsky A.V., Nevostruev K.I. Description: about the ancient canons of St. Cyril and Methodius // PribTSO. 1856. Part 15. pp. 33–48. Metropolitans of Moscow since the division of the All-Russian Metropolis into two halves: Theodosius and Philip I // PribTSO. 1857. Part 16. pp. 210–246. Description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library. Section two. Scriptures of the Holy Fathers. 1. Interpretation of Holy Scripture. Moscow, 1857. About ancient words on St. Pentecost // PribTSO. 1858. Part 17. pp. 34–64. Maxim Greek Svyatogorets // PribTSO. 1859. Part 18, pp. 144–19. Description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library. Section two. Scriptures of the Holy Fathers. 2. Dogmatic and spiritual-moral scriptures. Moscow, 1859. Oh glory. translation of the Pentateuch of Moses, rev. in the 15th century according to euro text // PribTSO. 1860. Part 19. pp. 134–163; A word on the memory of the deliverance of the Trinity Lavra from the siege // PribTSO. 1860. Part 19. pp. 586–574. Letter from Mary of Samosat to his son Serapion // PribTSO. 1861. Part 20. pp. 613–628; Word on the Day of Pentecost // PribTSO. 1861. Part 20. pp. 153–162. Some information about Paisius Ligarid before his arrival in Russia // PribTSO. 1862. Part 21. pp. 133–148. On the rank of bishop in relation to monasticism in the Eastern Church // PribTSO. 1862. Part 21, pp. 321–375. Description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library. Section two. Scriptures of the Holy Fathers. 3. Various theological works. M., 1862. St. Epiphanius, bishop. Cyprus // PribTSO. 1863. Part 22. pp. 271–290; The claims of the “apologist” of the Austrian priesthood // PribTSO. 1864, Part 23, pp. 10–27. Word for the Nativity of Christ // Soulful reading. 1866. Part 3. No. 12. pp. 301–306. Greek liturgy in pictures // Collection for 1866, published by the Society of Old Russian Art at the Moscow Public Museum. Mixture. pp. 117–118. Letter from A.V. Gorsky to the secretary of the society // Collection for 1866, published by the Society of Old Russian Art at the Moscow Public Museum. Mixture. pp. 118–119. Description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library. Section three, liturgical books. Part one. M., 1869. Comparison of the tales of the Evangelists “On the Resurrection and Appearances of Jesus Christ” // CHOLDP. 1869. Book. 4. pp. 1–31. On the action of the ancient shepherds of the Church in times of social disasters // CHOLDP. 1869. Book. 5. pp. 1–65. Disclosure of the most important dogmatic truths of Christianity in the writings of apologists // CHOLDP. 1869. Book. 9. pp. 1–142. Formation of the canon of the Holy Books of the New Testament // PribTSO. 1871. Part 24. pp. 297–327. Jerusalem Cathedral // PribTSO. 1871. Part 24. pp. 568–620. Considerations on the consideration of controversial issues between the schism and the Orthodox Church // Brotherly Word. 1875. T. 4. pp. 247–255. Notes on two pseudo-historical evidence in defense of the Old Believers // Bratskoe Slovo. 1876. T. 1. pp. 108–110. On primitive Christianity in connection with the question of the origin of the New Testament canon - against Baur // CHOLDP. 1877. No. 1. P. 1–13. On the issue of our clergy: East. essays // CHOLDP. 1877. Book. 2. Dept. 1. pp. 196–202. About the sacred ceremony of the wedding and anointing of kings to the kingdom // PribTSO. 1882. Part 29. pp. 117–151; About the Greek Church from 1453 to the beginning. XVIII century // PribTSO. 1883. Part 32. pp. 391–427; History of the Evangelical and Apostolic Church: Acad. lectures. Moscow: type. Lavrova. 1883. Letters from the archbishop. Eusebius (Orlinsky) // CHOLDP. 1884. K.2. Part 3. C Diary / from. With notes Prot. S.K. Smirnova // PribTSO. 1884 Part 34. Vol. 1. pp. 84–144, Vol. 4. pp. 305–365, Part 35. Vol. 1. pp. 197–268. Speeches given by A.V. Gorsky at the communion of mentors and students of the Moscow Theological Academy // PribTSO. 1885. Part 35. pp. 575–600. Word on the day of remembrance of the opening of the Moscow Theological Academy [pronounced on October 1, 1868] // BV. 1894. T. 4. No. 10. P. 26–32. Words from the rector of the MDA, Rev. A. V. Gorsky. Sergiev Posad, type. Snegireva. 1895. Notes on the theological works of Khomyakov. // BV. 1900. T. 3. No. 11. P. 475–543. Apology “Descriptions of Slavic manuscripts of the Synodal Library” and an accusatory word against Father John (now rector of the Kazan Theological Academy rector) // BV. 1900. T. 3. No. 11. P. 130–149. From the writings of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Brotherly Word. 1892. T. 1. pp. 186–213, 263–275. [2] Letter to T.I. Filippov [no date, but according to the content it should be dated to 1858]: / N.I. Subbotin. A.V. Gorsky. Applications // Russian Review. 1896. T. 37. pp. 270–274. [6] Letter to I.M. Snegirev: Comments on Snegirev’s article on icon painting [no date, response to a letter dated February 26, 1849] / N.I. Subbotin // A.V. Gorsky. Applications // Russian Review. 1896. T. 37. pp. 282–287. Unpublished passages from the “Diary” // BV. 1914. No. 10/11. pp. 367–423. Various cases that occurred through the prayers of Metropolitan. Philareta (Drozdova) // BV. 1914. T. 3. No. 10/11. pp. 365–366. The period of the patriarchate in the Russian Church // At the Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914. Anniversary collection of historical materials. Moscow, ed. Former Pupils of Moscow. spirits acad. 1914. pp. 252–338. History of the Russian Church // ZhMP. 1976. No. 1. P. 62–70; No. 2. P. 61–70; No. 3. P. 68–76; No. 4. pp. 69–77. About the presence of the Church of Christ in its complete order until the time of the second - glorious coming of Jesus Christ // Theological works. 2004. Vol. 51. pp. 9–26. Works by other authors mentioned in the text Bogoslovsky-Platonov I. Explanation of the prophecy of Isaiah about the chosen youth of Jehovah (Is. 42:1–9) // PribTSO. 1850. Part 9. pp. 400–432. Vorobyov M. N. A.V. Gorsky and K.I. Nevostruev (on the question of the history and nature of co-authorship) // Theological collection of PSTGU. 1997 issue. 1. pp. 268–297. Glubokovsky N. N. Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state. Warsaw: [b. And.]. 1928. Glubokovsky N. N. Eminence Eusebius (Orlinsky), former rector (1847–1850) of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. // Christian Reading. 1909. No. 10. S. Golubinsky E. E. About the way of action of the Orthodox Church. Greco-Roman sovereigns in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries. in favor of the Church, against heretics and schismatics. Moscow: type. V. Gauthier. 1859. Eusebius (Orlinsky), [5] Letter dated May 12, 1847 / Letters to Archbishop. Eusebius (Orlinsky) to A.V. Gorsky // PribTSO. 1886. Part 37. P. 717. Hilarion (Bogolyubov), archimandrite. Saint Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr // Additions to the works of the Holy Fathers. 1846. Part 4. pp. 309–337. Lavrov-Platonov A.F. Promises and prophecies about Jesus Christ in the Pentateuch of Moses // PribTSO. 1856. Part 15. pp. 270–300. Nechaev V. "Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov." Moscow: type. V. Gauthier. 1849. Ostroumov I. N. History of the Florence Cathedral. Moscow: type. A. Seeds. 1847. Pobedinsky-Platonov I. About the prophetic ministry of Amos and the book of his prophecies // PribTSO. 1852. Part 11, pp. 11–61. Saburov M. About the Antichrist // PribTSO. 1859. Part 17. pp. 411–452, 493–574. Sergius (Lyapidevsky), Metropolitan. On the commemoration of the dead, according to the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church. Moscow: type. A. Seeds. 1845. Smirnov S. Pre-depiction of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church in the Old Testament. Moscow: Univ. type. 1852. Smirnov-Platonov G. On the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. Moscow: type. V. Gauthier. 1850. Sobolev M. The reality of the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Moscow: Univ. type. 1874. Tikhonravov M. About Christian martyrdom. Moscow: type. A. Seeds. 1846. [Theodore (Bukharev), hierome.] About the second part of the book of St. Prophet Isaiah // PrTSO. 1850. No. 9. pp. 79–131. Philaret of Moscow, St. [232]. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the revision of the Moscow Theological Academy [1838, July 11] // Collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna on educational and state issues, published under the editorship of the Right Reverend Savva, Archbishop of Tver and Kashin. T. 2. St. Petersburg, 1885. pp. 411 – 420. Philaret of Moscow, St. [265] Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion regarding the appearance of an incorrect lithographed translation into Russian of some books of the Old Testament [Feb. 28. 1842] // Collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna on educational and state issues, published under the editorship of the Right Reverend Savva, Archbishop of Tver and Kashinsky. St. Petersburg, 1885–1885. T. 3. P. 54 – 56. Metropolitan Filaret Moscow, St. On the dogmatic dignity and protective use of the Greek Seventy Interpreters and Slavic translations of the Holy Scriptures // PribTSO. 1858. Part 17. pp. 452–493. Philaret of Moscow, St. [562] Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, presenting candidates for the position of rector of the Moscow Theological Academy [1860, December 15] // Collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna on educational and state issues, published under the editorship of the Right Reverend Savva, Archbishop of Tver and Kashinsky. St. Petersburg, T. 4. Moscow, 1886. P. 573–576. Philaret of Moscow St. Letters to Filaret Gumilevsky. Moscow: type. M. N. Lavrova. 1884. Philaret of Moscow, St. [6] Letter dated October 23, 1862 / Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to A.V. Gorsky // PribTSO. 1882. Part 29. Philaret of Chernigov, St. Letters to A.V. Gorsky. Moscow: in type. M. G. Volchanin. 1885. A.V. Gorsky at the beginning of his professorial activity based on the letters of Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov // Soulful Reading. 1896. No. 9. pp. 319–322. On the preparation of the human race to receive the Savior // PribTSO. 1845. Part 3. pp. 34–333. Barsukov N.P. Life and works of M.P. Pogodin: in 22 volumes. St. Petersburg: A.D. and P.D. Pogodin. 1888–1902. Belyaev A. A. Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy P. S. Kazansky and his correspondence with Archbishop Platon of Kostroma. Sergiev Posad, 1910 Gennady (Gogolev), bishop. A giant of learning: the life and works of Rev. A. V. Gorsky (1812–1875). Moscow, Compound of the Krutitsky Monastery. 2004. Golubinsky D.F., prot. Participation of Rev. A.V. Gorsky in the establishment of the department at the MDA. Natural science apologetics // BV. 1900. No. 11. pp. 467–474. Evseev I. E. Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky To the minutes of the 48th meeting of December 1, 1900 // Antiquities. Proceedings of the Slavic Commission of the Imperial Archaeological Society. Moscow, 1902. pp. 58–65. Hilarion (Bogolyubov), archimandrite. Saint Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr // Additions to the works of the Holy Fathers. 1846. Part 4. pp. 319, 309–337. Kazansky P. S. Memories of A.V. Gorsky / Prot. A.V. Gorsky in the memoirs of him by the Moscow Theological Academy on the 25th anniversary of his death. With the attachment of unpublished papers from the archive of A.V. Gorsky. Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1900. pp. 178–195. Karelina L. A. Methodological features of the lecture course of dogmatic theology by Rev. A. V. Gorsky // Kh. 2021. No. 5. pp. 1–11. Karelina L. A. Master's debate of priest Ioann Mansvetov in the MDA in the context of ecclesiological disputes of the 70–80s // Questions of Theology. 2022. T. 4. No. 2. P.309–326. Karelina L.A. Saint Philaret (Drozdov) and Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky - teacher and student // Filaret’s almanac. 2022. No. 18. pp. 174–195. Karelina L. A. Solving the problem of the relationship between faith and science in the legacy of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky // Spiritual Arsenal. 2023. Tula, No. 2(10). pp. 70–87. Karelina L.A. Refutation of the schismatics’ idea about the coming kingdom of the Antichrist in the materials of Archpriest. A. V. Gorsky in the context of the Orthodox Church’s opposition to the doctrine of schism from the mid-18th to the mid-19th centuries. // Theological works. 2024. Issue. 51. pp. 165–185. Karelina L. A. Historical review of the published works of Prot. A. V. Gorsky, dedicated to the study of schism, in the context of his academic activities // Theological works. 2024. Issue. 51. pp. 186–204. Karelina L. A. Archpriest Alexander Gorsky and biblical exegesis at the Moscow Theological Academy // Filaretovsky almanac. 2024. No. 14. pp. 123–147. Katansky A.L. Memoirs of an old professor. N. Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary. 2010. Lebedev A.P. A brief outline of the development of church historical science in Russia // Theological Bulletin. 1895. T. 4. No. 12. P. 289–321. Lebedev A.P. To the memories of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky rector and professor of the Moscow Academy of Sciences / Prot. A.V. Gorsky in the memoirs of him by the Moscow Theological Academy on the 25th anniversary of his death. With the attachment of unpublished papers from the archive of A.V. Gorsky. Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1900. pp. 195–222. Lisova N.N. Review of the main directions of Russian theological academic science in the 19th – early 20th centuries // Theological works. 2002. No. 37. Melkov A. S. Giant of knowledge: biography of Archpriest. A. V. Gorsky. Moscow, Pashkov house. 2012. Muretov M. D. From the memoirs of a student of the Moscow Theological Academy of the XXXII year (1873–1877) // BV. 1914. T. 3. No. 10/11. pp. 646–676. Nikolai (Ziorov), archbishop. My memories of MDA. Warsaw: type. Varshchavsky school Districts. 1914. Popov S.G. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky. Sergiev Posad: type 2. A. I. Snegireva. 1897. S-ov. Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1962. No. pp. 72–80. Smirnov S.I. Alexander Vasilievich Gorsky / Prot. A.V. Gorsky in the memoirs of him at the Moscow Theological Academy. With the attachment of unpublished papers from the archive of A.V. Gorsky. Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1900. pp. 15–76. Smirnov S.K. Alexander Vasilievich Gorsky // Orthodox Review. Moscow, 1876. No. 10. P. 461–491. Smirnov S.K. History of the Moscow Theological Academy (1814–1870). Moscow: Univ. type. (M. Katkov). 1879. Subbotin N.I.A. V. Gorsky // Russian Review. 1896. No. 37. No. 1. pp. 259–268. Subbotin N. I. From the writings of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Brotherly Word. Moscow, 1892. T. 1. P. 186–213, 263–275 Florovsky G. Ways of Russian theology. Moscow, Institute of Russian Civilization. 2009. Khibarin I. Professor-ascetic // ZhMP. 1954. No. 10. P. 59–64. At Trinity at the Academy. 1814–1914." Moscow: ed. Former Pupils of Moscow. spirits acad. 1914. Gennadij Gogolev (2004) Velikan uchenosti: zhizn` i trudy` prot. A. V. Gorskogo (1812–1875) [ The Giant of Learning: Life and Works of Archpriest A. V. Gorsky (1812–1875) ] Moscow: Izdatel`stvo Kruticzkogo podvor`ya (in Russian). Hibarin (1954) “Professor-podvzhnik” [“The ascetic Professor”] Moscow: Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarxii, no.10, pp. 59–64 (in Russian). Karelina L. A. (2021) “Metodological features of the lecture course of dogmatic theology by Archpriest A.V. Gorsky”] Saint-Petersburg: Christian chtenie, no. 5, pp. 1–11 (in Russian). Karelina L. A. (2022) “Magisterskij dispute svyashhennika Ioanna Mansvetova v MDA v kontekste èklessiologicheskix sporov 70–80-x godov” [“The Master's Dispute of Priest John Mansvetov at the Moscow State University in the context of the Eclessiological disputes of the 70s and 80s”] Saint-Petersburg: Voprosy` teologii, vol.4. no. 2, pp. 309–326 (in Russian) . Karelina L. A. (2022) “St. Filaret (Drozdov) and Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky are a teacher and a student”] Moscow: Filaretovskij al`manax, no. 18, pp. 174–195 (in Russian). Karelina L. A. (2023) “Solving the problem of the relationship between faith and science in the legacy of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky”] Tula: Duxovny`j arsenal, n o. 2 (10), pp. 70–89 (in Russian). Karelina L. A. (2024) “Oproverzhenie idei raskol`nikov o nastupivshem czarstve antixrista v materialax prot. A. V. Gorskogo v kontekste protivostoyaniya pravoslavnoj cerkvi ucheniyu raskola s serediny` XVIII do serediny` XIX vv” [“Refutation of the Schismatics' idea of the coming kingdom of the Antichrist in the materials of Archpriest A. V. Gorsky in the context of the opposition of the Orthodox Church to the doctrine of schism from the middle of the XVIII to the middle of the XIX centuries”]. Moscow: Bogoslovskie trudy`, vol. 51 pp. 165–185 Karelina L. A. (2024) “Istoricheskij obzor opublikovanny`x trudov prot. A.V. Gorskogo, posvyashhenny`x izucheniyu raskola, v kontekste ego akademicheskoj deyatel`no” [“A historical review of the published works of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky is devoted to the study of the schism in the context of his academic activitie”]. Moscow: Bogoslovskie trudy`, vol. 51, pp. 186–204 (in Russian). Karelina L. A. (2024) “Protoierej Aleksandr Gorskij i biblejskaya èkzegeza v Moskovskoj duxovnoj akademii” [“Archpriest Alexander Gorsky and Biblical Exegesis at the Moscow Theological Academy”] Moscow: Filaretovskij al`manax, no. 14, pp. 123–147 (in Russian). Katanskij A. L. (2010) Vospominaniya starogo professora [Memoirs of an old professor] N. Novgorod: Nizhegorodskaya duxovnaya seminariya (in Russian). Lisovoj N. N. (2002) “Obzor osnovny`x napravlenij russkoj bogoslovskoj akademicheskoj nauki v XIX – early XX century” [“Review of the main directions of Russian theological academic science in the XIX – early XX centur”] Moscow: Bogoslovskie trudy `, vol. 37 (in Russian). Mel`kov A. S. (2012) Ispolin znaniya: zhizneopisanie prot. A. V. Gorskogo [The Giant of Knowledge: the biography of Archpriest A. V. Gorskogo] Moscow: Pashkov dom (in Russian). S-ov. Protoierej A. V. Gorskij [“Archpriest A. V. Gorsky”] Moscow: Zhurnal moskovskoj patriarxii, no. 40, pp. 72–80 (in Russian). Florovskij G. (2009) Puti russkogo bogosloviya [The Ways of Russian Theology] Moscow: Institut russkoj civilizacii (in Russian). Kazansky P. S. Memories of A.V. Gorsky / Prot. A.V. Gorsky in the memoirs of him by the Moscow Theological Academy on the 25th anniversary of his death. With the attachment of unpublished papers from the archive of A.V. Gorsky. Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1900. P.182–183. Subbotin N.I. From the writings of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Brotherly Word. Moscow, 1892. T. 1. P. 259 Nikolai (Ziorov), archbishop. My memories of MDA. Warsaw, 1914. P. 3. Lebedev A.P. A brief outline of the development of church historical science in Russia // Theological Bulletin. 1895. T. 4. No. 12. P. 312. Muretov M.D. From the memoirs of a student of the Moscow Theological Academy of the XXXII year (1873–1877) // BV, 1914. T. 3. No. 10/11. P. 660. Smirnov S.I. Alexander Vasilievich Gorsky / Prot. A.V. Gorsky in the memoirs of him at the Moscow Theological Academy. With the attachment of unpublished papers from the archive of A.V. Gorsky. Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1900. P. 37. Evseev I. E. Alexander Vasilievich Gorsky. To the minutes of the 48th meeting on December 1, 1900 // Antiquities. Proceedings of the Slavic Commission of the Imperial Archaeological Society. Moscow, 1902. P. 62. At Trinity at the Academy. 1814–1914. Moscow, 1914. P. VIII. Postnikov Peter, Rev. Essays on the life and work of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky / At Trinity at the Academy. 1814–1914. Right there. P. 255. Glubokovsky N. N. Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state. Warsaw: [b. And.]. 1928. P. 32. Florovsky G. V. Ways of Russian theology. Moscow, 2009. P. 465. Gennady (Gogolev), archimandrite. “The Giant of Learning”: the life and works of Rev. A. V. Gorsky (1812–1875). Moscow, 2004. P. 161. Lisova N.N. Review of the main directions of Russian theological academic science in the 19th – early 20th centuries / Theological views of Archpriest Alexander Gorsky // Theological works. No. 37. P. 23. Gorsky A.V., prot. 1830 undated // Diary: [1830 – June 28, 1840] / Ed. with notes prot. S.K. Smirnova // PribTSO. 1884. Part 34. Book. 3. P. 87. Smirnov S. K. History of the Moscow Theological Academy (1814–1870). Moscow, 1879. P. 20. Quote from Popov S. G. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky. Sergiev Posad, 1897. 1897. P. 35. Glubokovsky N. N. Eminence Eusebius (Orlinsky), former rector (1847–1850) of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. // HC. 1909. No. 10. P. 134. Quote from Popov S. G. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky. P. 44. Gorsky A. V. , prot. From January 9 to 10, 1833 [1830 – June 28, 1840] // Diary. pp. 95–96. Smirnov S. K. History of MDA. P. 36. Philaret of Moscow, St. [14] Letter dated January 19, 1839 // Letters to Filaret Gumilevsky. Moscow, 1884. P. 25. Gorsky A. V. prot. July 2, 1837 [1830 – June 28, 1840] // Diary. P. 133. Right there. June 19, 1836. P. 127. Philaret of Moscow, St. [232]. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the revision of the Moscow Theological Academy [1838, July 11] // Collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna on educational and state issues, published under the editorship of the Right Reverend Savva, Archbishop of Tver and Kashin. T. 2. St. Petersburg, 1885. P. 414. A.V. Gorsky at the beginning of his professorial activity based on the letters of Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov // Soulful Reading. 1896. No. 9. P. 324. Philaret of Chernigov, St. [46]Letter dated July 5, 1843 / Letters to A.V. Gorsky. Moscow, 1885. P. 124. Gorsky A.V., prot. Gospel story // OR RSL. F. 304. 2. No. 131. L. 15. Gorsky A.V., prot. Old Testament history // OR RSL. F. 304.2. No. 272. L. 18. Gorsky A.V., prot. History of the Old Testament Church in Five Books. Book 1 // OR RSL. F. 304. 2. No. 125 L. 47–47 ver. Gorsky A.V., prot. January 14, 1853 Unpublished passages from the “Diary” // Theological Bulletin. Moscow, 1914. No. 10/11. P. 376. See, for example: Gorsky A.V., prot. The period of the patriarchate in the Russian Church // At the Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914. Anniversary collection of historical materials. M., 1914. For example: “It was necessary to awaken the forces of the sons of the south in order to then communicate their spirit, their fruits of acquisition... to the minds of the sons of the north, stagnant in lifeless activity; a ray of spiritual enlightenment will penetrate from south to north and light up its luminaries here.” P. 356. Gorsky A.V., prot. Old Testament history - lectures (with additions) (1830–1840) // OR RSL. F. 78. K.4. Unit hr. 2. L. 6. Lebedev A.P. To the memories of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky rector and professor of the Moscow Academy of Sciences / Prot. A.V. Gorsky in the memoirs of him at the Moscow Theological Academy on the 25th anniversary of his death. With the attachment of unpublished papers from the archives of A.V. Gorsky. Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1900. P. 203. Gorsky A.V., prot. Lesson program for the class of General Church History. Without end. (60s) // OR RSL F. 78. Cardboard 2, Unit. hr. 1. L. 1 – 2. Quote from “The Trinity at the Academy / the influence of A.V. Gorskyon the organization of teaching church history in various educational institutions pp. 301–302 Philaret of Moscow, St. [265]Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion regarding the appearance of an incorrect lithographed translation into Russian of some books of the Old Testament [Feb. 28. 1842] //Collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna on educational and state issues, published under the editorship of the Right Reverend Savva, Archbishop of Tver and Kashin. T. 1–5. St. Petersburg, 1885–1888. T. 3. P. 54. Barsukov N.P. Life and works of M.P. Pogodin. St. Petersburg, 1892. T. 5. P. 351. Barsukov N.P. Life and works of M.P. Pogodin. St. Petersburg, 1894. T. 8. P. 254. Gorsky A.V., prot. [11] The letter without year and date must be attributed to 1856 / Letters to Eusebius (Orlinsky) // Readings in the society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment. 1884. K. 2. Part 3. P. 11. Quote from Barsukov N.P. Life and works of M. P. Pogodin. T. 5. P. 350. Gorsky A.V., prot. Devotees of faith in the east after the fall of the Greek Empire // PribTSO. 1852. No. 1. P. 467. About the Russian campaign against Surozh // Notes of the Odessa History Society. 1844. T. 1. P. 196. Philaret of Chernigov, St. [46]Letter June 2, 1843 / Letters to A.V. Gorsky. P. 122. Karelina L. A. Historical review of the published works of Rev. A. V. Gorsky, dedicated to the study of schism, in the context of his academic activities // Theological works. Vol. 51. pp. 191–194. Philaret of Chernigov, St. [47]Letter dated August 6. 1843 / Letters from Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov to A.V. Gorsky. P. 127. Gorsky A.V., [3] Letter dated September 4, 1856 / Letters from A.V. Gorsky to Archbishop. Eusebius (Orlinsky) / CHOLDP. 1884. K. 2. Part 3. P. 6. Vorobyov M. N. A.V. Gorsky and K.I. Nevostruev (on the question of the history and nature of co-authorship) // Theological collection of PSTGU. 1997 issue. 1. P. 276. Gorsky A.V., prot. [161] Letters to K.I. Nevostruev, 1856 // OR RSL. F. 78. K. 22. Unit. hr. 13. L. 6. Evseev I. E. Alexander Vasilievich Gorsky. pp. 64–65. Gorsky A. V. August 16, 1840 Diary [August 16, 1840–January 27, 1860] / Ed. with notes prot. S.K. Smirnova // PribTSO. 1884. Part 34. Book. 4. pp. 303–304. Kazansky P. S. Memories of A. V. Gorsky. P.188. Subbotin N.I. From the writings of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Brotherly Word. Moscow, 1892. T. 1. P. 186. Philaret of Chernigov, St. [36] Letter dated August 28, 1842 / Letters from Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov to A.V. Gorsky. P. 89. Right there. [52] Letter dated April 6, 1844, p. 147. Right there. [76] Letter dated July 23, 1846, p. 197. On the preparation of the human race to receive the Savior // PribTSO. 1845. Part 3. pp. 34–33. Philaret of Chernigov, St. [82] Letter dated April 20, 1847 / Letters from Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov to A.V. Gorsky. P. 208. Philaret of Chernigov, St. [83] Letter dated 16 Oct. 1847 / Letters from Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov to A.V. Gorsky. pp. 213–214. Postnikov P. prot. Essays on the life and work of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky. P. 294. Smirnov S. K. History of MDA. pp. 173–174. Ostroumov I. History of the Florence Cathedral. Moscow, 1847. P. 213. Muretov D. M. From the memoirs of a student of the Moscow Theological Academy of the XXXII year (1873–1877) // BV. 1915. T. 3. No. 10–12. P. 744. Philaret of Chernigov, St. [109] Letter dated January 9, 1851. / Letters from Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov to A.V. Gorsky. P. 254. Kazansky P. S. Memories of A. V. Gorsky. P. 188. Barsukov N.P. Life and works of M.P. Pogodin. T. 11. St. Petersburg, 1897. P. 222. Postnikov P. prot. Essays on the life and work of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky. P. 295. Hilarion (Bogolyubov), archimandrite. Saint Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr // Additions to the works of the Holy Fathers. 1846. Part 4. P. 319. Karelina L. A. Archpriest Alexander Gorsky and biblical exegesis at the Moscow Theological Academy // Filaretovsky almanac. 2024. No. 14. pp. 123–147. Philaret of Chernigov, St. [134] Letter dated 28 Oct. 1858 / Letters from Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov to A.V. Gorsky. P. 302. Gorsky A.V., prot. 1859 undated / Unpublished passages from the “Diary” // Theological Bulletin. 1914. No. 10/11. pp. 387–388. Gorsky A.V., prot. Diary: [August 16, 1840 – January 27, 1860] ... P. 350. Philaret of Moscow, St. [562] Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, presenting candidates for the position of rector of the Moscow Theological Academy [1860, December 15] // Collection of opinions and reviews ... T. 4. Moscow, 1886. pp. 574–575. Gorsky A.V., prot. October undated 1862 / Diary [July 3, 1860–April 28, 1875] // PribTSO. 1885. Part 35. Book. 1. pp. 230–231. Smirnov S.K. Alexander Vasilievich Gorsky // Orthodox Review. Moscow, 1876. No. 10. P. 488. Barsukov N.P. Life and works of M.P. Pogodin. T. 21. St. Petersburg, 1907. P. 225. Samarin Yu. F. Letter to A.V. Gorsky. 1866, 1875 // OR RSL F. 78. K. 30. Unit. hr. 62. L. 1 turn. Gorsky A.V., prot. Letter to Yu. F. Samarin 1866 // OR RSL F. 78. K. 22. Unit. hr. 32. L. 1. Gorsky A.V., prot. November 18, 1859 / Unpublished passages from the Diary. P. 388. Philaret of Moscow, St. [response to letter 39 of November 11, 1865] November 13, 1865 / Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to A.V. Gorsky // PribTSO. 1882. Part 30. P. 415. Quote from Golubinsky D.F., prot. Participation of Rev. A.V. Gorsky in the establishment of the department at the MDA. Natural science apologetics // BV. 1900. No. 11. P. 470. Gorsky A.V., prot. Various cases that occurred through the prayers of Metropolitan. Philareta (Drozdova) // BV. 1914. T. 3. No. 10/11. P. 365 footnote. Gorsky A.V., prot. Word on the day of remembrance of the opening of the Moscow Theological Academy [pronounced on October 1, 1868] // BV. 1894. T. 4. No. 10. P. 32. Philaret of Moscow, St. [6] Letter dated October 23, 1862 / Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to A.V. Gorsky // PribTSO. 1882. Part 29. P. 551. Smirnov S. K. Alexander Vasilievich Gorsky. P. 488. Gorsky A.V., prot. [b/n] Letter November 3, 1862 Letters to prof. N. K. Sokolov (1861–1863) // At Trinity at the Academy. 1814–1914." P. 459. Smirnov S. K. History of MDA. P. 22. Karelina L. A. Methodological features of the lecture course of dogmatic theology prot. A. V. Gorsky // Kh. 2021. No. 5. pp. 1–11. Gorsky A.V., prot. Dogmatic theology - lectures and materials for them. [60s] // OR RSL. F. 78. Cardboard 8. Units. hr. 6. L. 76. Karelina L. A. Solving the problem of the relationship between faith and science in the legacy of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky // Spiritual Arsenal. 2023. Tula, no. 2(10) pp. 79–81. Gorsky A.V., prot. Dogmatic theology - lectures and materials for them. [1870–1874] // OR RSL. F. 78. Cardboard 8. Units. hr. 7. L. 2nd turn. Gorsky A.V., prot. Dogmatic theology - lectures and materials for them. [60s]. L. 108. Gorsky A.V., prot. Dogmatic theology - lectures and materials for them. [1870–1874]. L. 25. Gorsky A.V., prot. Dogmatic theology - lectures and materials for them. [60s]. L. 128. Katansky A.L. On the historical presentation of dogmas // Christian reading. 1871. No. 5. P. 842. Karelina L. A. Solving the problem of the relationship between faith and science in the legacy of Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky. pp. 81–83. Gorsky A.V., prot. Dogmatic theology - lectures and materials for them. [1870–1874]. L. 256. Gorsky A.V., prot. About the presence of the Church of Christ in its complete order until the time of the second - glorious coming of Jesus Christ // Theological works. 2024. Issue. 51. P. 12. Muretov M. D. From the memoirs of a XXXII year student at the Moscow Theological Academy (1873–1877). P. 670. Gorsky A.V. prot. August 30, 1874 Diary // PribTSO. 1884. Part 35. T. 1. P. 265. Nikolai (Ziorov), archbishop. My memories of MDA. P. 14. Belyaev A. D. Rector of the MDA A.V. Gorsky, his printed works and the manuscripts left after him. //OR RSL. F. 26. Cardboard No. 9. Unit. hr. 14. L. 47. Lebedev A.P. To the memories of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky rector and professor of the MDA. pp. 198–199. Florovsky G. Ways of Russian theology. P. 474. Gorsky A.V., prot. Word for the Nativity of Christ // Soulful reading. 1866. Part. 3. No. 12. P. 304. Gorsky A.V., prot. Dogmatic theology - lectures and materials for them. [60s]. L. 72. Gorsky A.V., prot. Church and world // OR RSL. F. 78. K. 12. Unit. hr. 20. L. 6. Kazansky P.I. On the historical significance of the books of the minor prophets // PTSO. 1872. Part 25 Book. 1. pp. 103–165. Book 2. pp. 581–636. Katansky L. A. Memoirs of an old professor. Nizhny Novgorod. 2010. P. 189. Sukhova N. Yu. The system of scientific and theological certification in Russia in the 19th – early 20th centuries. Moscow, 2012. P. 450. Gorsky A.V., prot. [14] Letter dated January 28, 1873 / Letters to Eusebius (Orlinsky) // CHOLDP. 1884. K. 2. Part 3. P. 25. Belyaev A. A. Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy P. S. Kazansky and his correspondence with Archbishop Plato of Kostroma. Sergiev Posad, 1910. pp. 61–62. Gorsky A.V., prot. April 25, 1875 Diary // PribTSO. 1884. Part 35. T. 1. P. 267. Sylvester (Malevansky), St. Letter from Prot. A.V. Gorsky. March. 1873 // OR RSL. F. 78. K. 30. Unit. hr. 83. L. 1. Muretov M. D. From the memoirs of a XXXII year student at the Moscow Theological Academy (1873–1877). P. 760. Quote from Karelina L.A. Master's dispute of priest Ioann Mansvetov in the MDA in the context of ecclesiological disputes of the 70–80s // Questions of Theology. 2022. No. 2. pp. 312–313. Quote from Popov S. G. Rector of the MDA A. V. Gorsky. pp. 141–142.