ГЛАВА 3. ИСТОРИОГРАФИЧЕСКИЙ МЕТОД ЕВСЕВИЯ

Christianity has a special place in the history of world historical thought. Specific Christian historicism had a profound impact on the general development of European historical thought. The influence of Christianity was felt not only by the concept of historical development, the very subject of research by historians, the way of interpreting and explaining events, but also the method of analysis, the way of organizing and presenting material, and methods of description. There is a fairly widespread opinion in the research literature about the decline in the technique of historical writing in connection with the establishment of Christianity. Together with Christianity, the horizons of historical vision allegedly narrow significantly. There is a degradation of history as an emerging science, a decrease in the level that is characteristic of the historical thinking of the Greeks and Romans...” 365 It is believed that Christian historical authors sacrifice true facts for the sake of their political ambitions or religious sympathies. Moreover, in modern historical science, the opinion has been firmly established that “since in the Middle Ages history was considered as the handmaiden of theology and its task was not to explore real reality, but to provide arguments to confirm the biblical-Christian scheme, then, naturally, there could be no question of historical research and historical criticism as such. Medieval chroniclers practically abandoned it, consigning to oblivion the achievements of ancient historiography. To confirm certain provisions, the medieval chronicler selected all the facts, including the most fantastic, and simply discarded the opposite facts. A kind of method of work was falsification and invention of historical facts; they also resorted to arbitrary insertions into the text of ancient authors... Interest in an accurate statement of facts was minimal, and they did not particularly care about checking the factual material” 366. Thus, the conclusion is drawn that Christianity contributed to the decline of ancient historiography. In the scientific literature, there is often an opinion that the works of Christian authors should not be considered serious historical works, but rather as theological works. Thus, the very right of the Christian authors who wrote the “Histories” to be called historians is challenged. At best, it is recognized that “church-Christian writers... created a new historical concept, new methods and ethical assessments, new ideas about the purpose of historical works, which they filled with new content” 367. But at the same time, a clearly rhetorical question is immediately posed, indicating the biased position of the researchers: “Was this “revolution” (or even “revolution” in historiography, as many modern bourgeois scientists call the achievements of ancient Christian historians) progressive, did it contribute to the successes of historical thought and knowledge, or, conversely, turned historiography back to the times of the dominance of theological and mythological ideas that blocked the path to a critical examination and rational explanation of the facts of history? 368 The general picture of historical literature of the last centuries of the falling empire seems to them “a sad desert of compilations, falsifications and plagiarisms” 369. The figure of Eusebius of Caesarea as the founder of a new genre and a whole direction in historiography is very noticeable in this discussion. In historical literature there are different, sometimes directly opposite, assessments of his works. Since J. Burckhardt dismissed him as “the first completely dishonest historian of antiquity,” 370 Eusebius has become “an attractive target for students of the age of Constantine. As a rule, he is characterized as a political propagandist, a good courtier, a practical and secular-loving adviser to Emperor Constantine, a great publicist for the first Christian emperor, the first in a long line of church politicians, a harbinger of Byzantinism, a political theologian... and a Caesar-papist. Obviously, these are not neutral assessments. Traditionally, scholars with barely concealed contempt and disdain describe Eusebius as a man willing to sacrifice his faith and his moral principles for the sake of flattering glorification of Constantine’s institutions. Scholars have often observed that his literary works in defense of the new order portray Constantine and his reign in eschatological terms that rival and even surpass the accounts of the Incarnation and the Second Coming in the history of Salvation.”371 In Russian historiography, the opinion is also firmly established that “being a court flatterer and intriguer, in addition to violent speeches against dissidents, he fills his work with unrestrained praises of Constantine... without stopping to distort historical facts and portraits of historical figures like Alexander the Great” 372. Many researchers condemn the author of the first “Church History” for negligence, pointing to errors in quoting, cases of distortion of meaning and the use of unreliable documents 373, sometimes reaching accusations of outright falsification in order to serve the church-political needs of the time 374. However, other researchers, on the contrary, characterize Eusebius as “the first ancient historian to recognize the need for careful citation of material and identification of sources of information,” 375 which he used critically. Warmington considers this method “a great contribution to world historiography” 376. According to A. Momigliano, Eusebius' interest in authentic facts and documents, reflected in his method, contrasts sharply with the distortion of truth in contemporary pagan historical literature, in particular by the authors of Historia Augustae 377. More moderate researchers, not inclined to excessive praise or accusations, come to the conclusion that although Eusebius did not specifically strive for scientific objectivity, but was guided solely by apologetic intentions 378, this did not prevent him from treating sources with care and subjecting them to careful testing for authenticity, antiquity and authority through critical comparison with other sources, study of manuscript tradition, and philological analysis 379. Thus, a modern researcher of the creative heritage of the Bishop of Caesarea faces at least two problems: firstly, the problem associated with assessing his research technique, critical approach, theoretical attitudes and principles of historical writing, and secondly, the problem of Eusebius’ objectivity. The first problem, despite its importance and the presence of perfectly preserved sources that allow us to draw certain conclusions not only about the methods of Eusebius himself, but also about the influence that this new model of historical work had on the development of early Byzantine historiography, still remains little studied. Attempts to analyze Eusebius’s approach to writing history and to identify the features of his method are few and sporadic. In the scientific literature, either overview descriptions, or generalizing assessments without any detailed analysis, or articles that address individual issues of a private nature prevail. Despite the fact that the vast majority of researchers recognize the methodological dependence of Christian authors [and authors of various genres - I B] on the “father of church historiography” 380 and heated discussions about the method of the Eusebian tradition revolve precisely around the figure of its founder, the problem of the method in Eusebius has clearly not been sufficiently studied. In the historical literature, paradoxically, there is not a single monograph that examines this problem in its entirety, in all its aspects. The problem of the objectivity of the first church historian, in addition to the confessional affiliation of the author, in one way or another affects the question of the political predilections of the historian. At the same time, traditional assessments of the truthfulness and objectivity of the Bishop of Caesarea, as a rule, exaggerate the importance of political themes and political motives in the life and works of Eusebius and do not allow him to be fairly assessed as a researcher 381. The condemnation of Eusebius is most often the result of a misunderstanding of the genre specifics of his main work. Eusebius’s assessment is based on ideas that were developed during the centuries-long development of historical thought and are recorded in our understanding of the goals of historical science. At the same time, as A. Momigliano rightly noted, “perhaps we all underestimate the influence of “Church History” on the development of the historical method” 382. § 1. RESEARCH TECHNIQUE By the time Eusebius decided to write his “Ecclesiastical History,” classical examples of historical works already existed, and Greco-Roman historiography had already developed certain rules and standards for writing such works. “The Father of History” Herodotus laid the foundation for artistic historical narration, which became a classic model for many later historians and predetermined one of the requirements of ancient historiography – entertainment 383 . Thucydides, by general recognition, is “an example of ancient historiography” 384, “the first historical scientist and the founder of historical criticism” 385, the founder of the critical movement in history. He “raised historical criticism to a height that turned out to be unattainable for a long series of generations of historians” 386, and for the first time used some techniques of comparative historical research. However, it was Thucydides who introduced the practice of including in the text of the historical narrative the speeches of political figures compiled by the historian himself in accordance with the requirements of rhetoric. In his “History” there are 39 speeches, occupying more than one quarter of the entire work in volume 387. The theory of dramatic composition formulated by Aristotle in Poetics was transferred by his students and followers to historical literature. Historians of the Hellenistic era and the Roman Empire adopted these rules for the dramatic development of action and turned history into one of the branches of fiction 388. Beginning with Ephorus and Theopompus, rhetorical devices have been widely used in Hellenistic and Roman historiography. A historical work, according to the rules of rhetoric formulated by Isocrates, and after him by Cicero, must have an introduction (exordium) - a request addressed to the reader for attention and favor, a narrative (narratio) and a conclusion (conclusio). Speeches (mostly fictitious), praise and condemnation, anecdotes, and digressions of a moralizing nature should be inserted in appropriate places. Sometimes Cicero recommends (De Oratore, II, 63) the historian to indicate the causes of events, “whether they arise from chance, wisdom or folly” of the actor. According to researchers who specifically dealt with the development of ancient historiography, Roman authors introduced little that was fundamentally new both in terms of form, composition, research techniques, and in terms of understanding the entire course of history 389 . History was still perceived as a genre of fiction 390 or a genre of rhetorical prose with corresponding tasks, methods and techniques of description 391 . Almost until the end of antiquity, “the historian paid special attention to the external aspects of the presentation, which were supposed to influence the reader’s feelings, the introduction of specially composed speeches that real individuals did not pronounce, artificial dramatization of the action, the creation of not so much a real historical portrait as a literary image. The historical work was approached not as a scientific research, but as a kind of kind of artistic work of the didactic genre” 392. The effect, the power of influence on the reader for the ancient historian is no less important than the accuracy and truthfulness of the historical narrative 393. Sallust in his time noted that very much, if not everything in the historical narrative depends on the skill of the image (Sail, Cat, 8, 2–4), and Cicero believed that history develops and improves depending on the development of rhetoric and eloquence (Cic, De orat, 11, 13) 394. In Eusebius’s worldview, the very term “history,” which he constantly uses, on the one hand, has the traditional meaning of story, narration. However, apparently, in its meaning it is already closer to modern ideas than to ancient ones. Eusebius does not specifically dwell on the explanation of this term, but the way he himself writes his “History”, in our opinion, already gives reason to talk about some specificity of his ideas. Apparently, for him, history is no longer just any story, an entertaining tale, a fable, but a story that tells about real historical events, reveals to some extent the laws of the historical process, explains its meaning, and, secondly, a story that meets already defined “scientific” (?) requirements. The “Church History” of Eusebius of Caesarea himself differed significantly from ancient standards and did not fit into the traditional canons of historical writing conceptually and stylistically. True, F. Overbeck tried to rank “Church History” with the ancient historiographical tradition, for it was, in his opinion, the real history of a people with its dynasty (Christ - apostles - bishops), with its wars (persecution), with its internal unrest (heresies), with its heroes and great people (martyrs and theologians) 395. However, such a view is not widespread in historical literature. Modern researchers regard it only as a “witty metaphor” 396. In fact, the “Ecclesiastical History” of the Bishop of Caesarea is a phenomenon that is not very characteristic of the traditions of ancient Greco-Roman historical writing. It differs from classical examples not only conceptually, but also in the way it organizes and presents material. First, Eusebius abandons the use of oral tradition, which was so typical of Greco-Roman historians 397. Even Polybius, along with all ancient historians, considers written sources less valuable than eyewitness accounts and oral tradition 398. Eusebius, in his historical research, gives preference to the written tradition. He is based not only and not so much on stories, legends, etc., but uses the works of his predecessors as the main sources of information. The author's reorientation towards the written tradition is declared by him at the very beginning of his work. On the very first page of his “History” he writes “I could not find any traces of people who walked before me along the same road, except for the most petty stories in which each in his own way left a partial narrative about the period of time he had passed. Everything that in their here and there scattered memories I consider useful for the goal I have set for myself, I will collect, as if in a spiritual meadow, like flowers, I select from old writers the information I need and try to present them in the historical narrative as something whole” (I, 1, 3–4). References to oral tradition, to legends, to popular opinion are extremely rare in Eusebius and, if possible, are verified or confirmed by written evidence. References to oral tradition appear only 13 times in Eusebius's entire Ecclesiastical History. Thus, in the first book he prefaces the message about the death of Herod’s entire army with the word “they say” (I, 11:2). The story of the genealogy of Christ is accompanied by Eusebius with the following comments: “All this is not unsubstantiated and not arbitrarily invented. The relatives of the Savior according to the flesh told us, either for the glorification of themselves, or for the sake of teaching, but, in any case, a true story" (1,7,11). And further, “These are events that are also reported in the history of the Greeks” (1, 7, 12). In the second book, he reports that James received the episcopal throne in the Jerusalem church, indicating the oral source of his information: “As they say” (II, 1, 2). But at the same time, he immediately confirms this information with a reference to the sixth book of the “Essays” of Clement of Alexandria (II, 1, 3). Eusebius’ story about the healing of Abgar by Christ’s word “borrowed from ancient legends” (II, 1, 8). In the second book, he writes: “There is a rumor that Philo, under Claudius, communicated in Rome with Peter...” (II, 17, 1-3), but immediately gives his own reasoning about the veracity of this legend. He considers “this quite probable” (Ibid.). At the end of the second book, talking about the Apostle Paul, he mentions that “the apostle, they say, left for his work of preaching and, having come to Rome a second time, ended his life with martyrdom” (II, 22, 1). But here he confirms this information with references to Luke’s “Acts of the Apostles” and to Paul’s own Second Epistle to Timothy. He further writes: “They say that under him (under Nero) Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter was crucified; this story is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul, surviving in the cemeteries of this city. This is also stated by a cleric named Gaius, who lived under the Roman Bishop Zephyrinus. Objecting in writing to Proclus, the head of the Catathrygian sect, he spoke thus about those places where the sacred remains of the mentioned apostles were buried...” (II, 25.5-6). The same thing “is confirmed by Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, in his letter to the Romans...” (II, 25, 8). In the third book, Eusebius points out: “They say that Timothy was the first to be given the lot to be a bishop in the Church of Ephesus” (III, 4, 5) and further: “They say that it is this Gospel that Paul has in mind...” (III, 4, 7). But here, apparently, the expressions “tell” and “say” act as a literary device to avoid repeated references to Luke’s “Acts”, on which this story of Eusebius is based. Talking about the election of Simeon to the episcopal throne of Jerusalem after the death of Jacob, he refers to some tradition, again uses the expression “they say,” but immediately confirms this with reference to the Holy Scriptures and the writings of Hegesippus (III, 11). Eusebius also mentions ancient legends. He writes: “There is an ancient legend that when Domitian ordered the extermination of everyone from the family of David, one of the heretics pointed to the descendants of Judas as coming from the family of David and considered relatives of Christ” (III, 19). But in the very next sentence he confirms it with a literal extract from Egesippus (III, 19-III, 20, 1–7). Talking about the Gospels, he reports that “Mark and Luke had already given people their Gospels, and John, they say, preached orally all the time and only at the end took up writing for this reason” (III, 24, 7): in the first three Gospels “there is a lack of story about the first acts of Christ, committed at the very beginning of His preaching” (III, 24, 7). Analyzing this story, Eusebius himself comes to the conclusion that “this is true” (III, 24, 7). And then he harmonizes the stories of all four Gospels, giving his own opinion and argumentation (III, 24, 8–12). At the same time, he promises: “We will try, appropriately and more accurately, using the statements of old writers, to present other opinions,” and other works “in due time will be judged by him on the basis of the testimony of the ancients” (III, 24, 17). In Book VIII, Eusebius, referring to rumors, writes: “There is a rumor that he was the main culprit of disasters during the persecution...” (VIII, App., 1). Apparently, he himself shares the opinion that existed among Christians at that time. Thus, Eusebius only three times (I, 11, 2; II, 1, 8; VIII, App., 1) in all ten books of the “Church History” refers to information received orally, without providing evidence of it from written sources and without proving its veracity on his own. This is apparently explained not so much by the negligence or dishonesty of the author, but by his confidence in its veracity and the obviousness of this fact for him and for his readers. In all other cases, he verifies oral information with data from written sources. So, Eusebius does not rely too much on oral tradition, stories and ancient traditions, preferring to verify this information with reports from written sources (mainly the writings of his predecessors) or his own observations, whenever possible. He breaks with the “long dominance of oral tradition in the historical consciousness of antiquity” 399. Another feature of ancient historical writing is associated with this aspect. Thucydides, known for his critical approach to history, also did not particularly trust the oral tradition, but from this he deduced the need for a true historian to limit himself to writing “modern history.” ““Modern history” meant the requirement for the historian to be at least a contemporary of the events described” 400 and to rely on his own experience and observations. The tendency to write “modern history” is characteristic of all ancient historiography starting with Thucydides. Eusebius deviates from this requirement and writes history from the time of Abraham. At the same time, he could refer to his own observations only when talking about events of the recent past or contemporary ones. In the “Church History” there are only three references to his own observations (VIII, 7, 2; VIII, 9, 4; X, 4, 6). Thus, speaking about the martyrdom of Christians in Palestine, he writes: “We ourselves were present at this and saw...” (VIII, 7.2). He also talks about the torture and suffering that the martyrs endured in Thebaid: “We were in those places and saw how many people died at once on one day” (VIII, 9, 4). Otherwise, he could only draw information from the extensive literary tradition that developed in the Greco-Roman and Jewish environment. The work of the Bishop of Caesarea is so overloaded with quotations from original documents, from the writings of more ancient authors with a critical analysis of each piece of evidence, so unlike the entertaining histories of the Greeks or Romans, that some researchers even suggested that this is not yet a “History” itself, but only preparatory notes, “a collection of preparatory materials for writing a real history of the church” 401. However, this statement is unlikely to be true; broad and verbatim quotation obviously has its own order and meaning 402. It’s just that the abundance and thoroughness of the quotations given does not correspond to the traditions of Greco-Roman historiography, it sharply contrasts with it, causing some bewilderment among researchers. As A. Momigliano writes, “a new chapter of historiography begins with Eusebius, not only because he introduced church history, but because he wrote it with documentation that is very different from the documentation of pagan historians” 403. In fact, the qualities of a historian as a researcher of the distant past and the contemporary era are revealed primarily in his attitude to the sources of his information. And it is precisely this criterion that sets Eusebius apart from his predecessors. With all due respect and reverence for Greek and Roman historians, researchers are still forced to note that “Roman historians, including the most outstanding - Sallust, Titus Livy, Tacitus and Suetonius - no less than their Greek teachers, deserve... severe criticism. What is characteristic of them, first of all, is that they consider it unnecessary to turn to primary sources, and very often take material from second and third hands and, moreover, without any criticism. In addition, they neglect the accurate reproduction of documentary sources, altering them in the interests of the stylistic unity of their works, or, if these sources are published, they do not cite them at all” 404. “The approach of ancient historians to sources,” admits A.I. Nemirovsky, “was naive and amateurish in nature. The research methodology was the weakest side of ancient historiography...” 405 The principles of Eusebius’s use of sources differ significantly from the traditional ones adopted in Greco-Roman historiography, and reflect the next era in the development of historical writing in comparison with ancient historical thought. Eusebius resorts to second-order evidence only in rare and necessary cases; in most cases, he draws his information directly from primary sources. Where Eusebius describes the contemporary era, in addition to his own observations, he cites the texts of authentic documents: decrees, decrees, rescripts of emperors, ancient genealogies, etc. “The founder of historical criticism” and the recognized “example of ancient historiography” Thucydides also used historical documents, but in his entire “History”, such documentary sources, according to the calculations of A. I. Nemirovsky, are cited only seven times 406 . The bishop of Caesarea uses the texts of real documents much more often and more actively. As experts note, “in antiquity, especially among Polybius’s predecessors, criticism of the reliability of the source was largely accidental. Neither Thucydides nor Aristotle even indicate the origin of the treaty or text they quote. This is done by Timaeus, who first tried to establish rules for the use of sources. But he also admits, from the point of view of Polybius, inaccuracies: “One cannot help but wonder why Timaeus does not tell us either the city in which this document was found, or the place where the inscribed agreement is located, and does not name those officials who showed him the document and talked with him; with this testimony, everything would be clear, and in case of doubt, everyone could verify on the spot, since the location of the document and the city are known” (XII, 10, 5). Thus, the task of the historian is not simply to rely on documentary material, but also to give the reader a complete and accurate idea of ​​the source of his information. Although, in general, such a precise indication by the author of the sources of his information is a rare phenomenon in ancient historiography. Eusebius, when citing quotations from documents, almost always indicates where they were taken from, for example: “Taken from a column in Tire” (IX, 7, 2), or “this statue has survived to this day; I, being in this city, saw her with my own eyes” (VII, 18, 1), or “the letters that they exchanged have been preserved, and they are easy to find even now. Until our time, they were kept in the library of the city of Elia, created by the local bishop Alexander; there we were able to get materials for this work” (VI, 20, 1). Modern researchers, however, often question such remarks by the Bishop of Caesarea. In particular, in the first book of his “Church History” he reports: “There is written evidence of this, taken from the archives of Edessa 407, which was then the capital. Among the state documents reporting the events of ancient and modern Abgar, the following story has been preserved from that time to the present day. There seems to be nothing more interesting than these letters 408, which I received from the archive and translated word for word from Syriac” (I, 13, 5). Just below, Eusebius once again says that these letters were translated by him literally verbatim from Syriac (I, 13, 22). O. J1. Weinstein, in his historiographical review, speaks sarcastically about “the nature of Eusebius’s learning and his love for accurate documentation,” considering these letters to be a forgery or simply an invention of a church historian. At the same time, he refers to the authority of Lorenzo Valla, but does not provide either his evidence or his own arguments or considerations in this regard. On what basis the author makes this conclusion remains unclear 409. B. G. Derevensky, in his recently published work 410, also places these two letters under the heading “pseudo-historical documents,” but does not make such categorical conclusions and does not consider them an invention of Eusebius. The archive of the Edessa kings Abgars did exist, as evidenced by the so-called “Chronicle of Edessa,” a short chronicle of Edessa rulers and bishops compiled in the 6th century. It is based on earlier chronicles that existed at the Edessa court. And although the Chronicle of Edessa does not say anything about the correspondence between Jesus and Abgar, it is hardly possible to say for sure on this basis that no letters existed, since neither the archive itself nor any comprehensive information about its contents has been preserved. The texts of these letters are given not only by Eusebius, but also by Movses Khorenatsi and other, albeit later, authors. Apparently, some letters actually existed. Eusebius himself saw these materials, studied and translated them 411. He points out: “This is what I said a little higher on the basis of what was found there [in the archives of Odessa - I. B.] manuscripts” (11, 1, 6) and, with his characteristic accuracy, provides detailed information about their location in his “Church History”. And we have no reason not to believe him. In this case, in our opinion, it is legitimate to raise the question only about the authenticity or falsification of the materials he used, their origin, but not about the truthfulness or flattery of the author himself. In this case, B. G. Derevensky admits that the information used by Eusebius and Movses Khorenatsi owes its origin to the rich literature of Edessa Christians. From the end of the 2nd century there was a large Christian community in Edessa. At the very beginning of the 3rd century (about 202 AD), Christianity was adopted by the Edessa ruler Abgar IX the Great as the state religion. It was probably then that a cycle of legends arose about the creation of the Church of Edessa, designed to confirm its apostolic origin. The core of this cycle was the legend about the correspondence of Jesus with Abgar V Uchama, the ruler of Edessa at the beginning of the 1st century, and about the latter’s conversion to Christianity through one of the apostles. Perhaps, says B.G. Derevensky, the information given by Eusebius of Caesarea and the letters confirming them were a record of a legend that developed in the 2nd-3rd centuries among Edessa Christians, which, however, has a real historical basis. But even if these letters are only literary works conveying a beautiful legend, and not real facts, then in this case we have no right to accuse Eusebius of deliberately distorting reality. His only “fault” is that he was unable to establish their authenticity or falsification at the turn of the 3rd-4th centuries, as Lorenzo Valla did in the 15th century or modern researchers. Eusebius also uses other materials that were preserved in the archives before his time. He writes: “Until now, the archives have kept the genealogies of both Jews and ancient proselytes, for example Ahior the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabite, as well as immigrants from Egypt who intermarried with the Jews” (1:7, 13). In another place, he refers to another archive and the original documents stored in it, proving that a certain Alexander, a supporter of Montanus, who called himself a martyr, was in fact “convicted in Ephesus by the proconsul Aemilius Frontinus not for Christianity, but for robberies”: “Those who wish to obtain information about him have at their disposal the Asian state archive” (V, 18, 9). Eusebius Pamphilus actively attracts and uses the correspondence of church leaders of the 2nd-3rd centuries. He cites extensive excerpts from the letter of Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, to Caricus and Pontik (V, 19, 1), the letter of Irenaeus to Florinus (V, 20, 4), Polycrates, the head of the Asian bishops, to Victor and to the Roman Church (V, 24, 1; III, 31,2), the famous letter of the Smyrna Church to the local Churches about the martyrdom of Polycarp (IV, 15, 2), letters from Origen’s students (VI, 2, 1) and the teacher himself (VI, 39, 5), several “letters from Alexander to the inhabitants of Antinous, which are still preserved with us” (VI, 11, 3–4), “letters from Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus of Caesarea, sent by them in their defense to Demetrius” (VI, 19, 17), letters from Dionysius to Germanus (VI, 40, 1) or the Antiochian bishop Fabius (VI, 41, 1; VI, 44, 1) and other church leaders (VII, 1, 1; VII, 5, 3; VII, 6, 1; VII, 7, 1; VII, 21–22). When resolving various issues, Eusebius also refers to other letters and epistles (I, 7, 1; VIII, 10, 1–2; VII, 30, 1, etc.): “At that time, many gifted church writers were in full force; the letters they exchanged have survived and are easy to find even now.” Eusebius himself took materials for his work, as already indicated, in the library of the city of Aelia (VI, 20, 1). In addition, Eusebius uses not only materials from the correspondence of church leaders of that time, but also letters and messages from secular persons, such as the message of Sabinus, the supreme prefect (IX, 1, 3). He also provides lengthy copies of imperial letters, which are in the nature of orders and decrees. Thus, he quotes in full “the imperial letter, which commands a council of bishops to be in Rome for unity and like-mindedness” (X, 5, 18–20), the letter of Emperor Constantine, “which appoints a Second Council to resolve any disagreement between the bishops” (X, 5, 21–23). Further, Eusebius cites “a copy of the imperial letter on the issuance of money to the Churches” (X. 6, 1–5), “a copy of the imperial letter with the order to relieve the primates of the Churches from all public duties” (X. 7, 1–2). These letters are given by Eusebius in their entirety and without any of his own comments. It is interesting that they are used by the Bishop of Caesarea not so much as a source of reliable information on any issue, but as indisputable evidence confirming his views in the heated controversy of the time. Obviously, these documents should have been more truthful and eloquent than his own reasoning to prove to the reader the idea of ​​​​establishing peace and prosperity in the empire with the coming to power of the pious Constantine. The Bishop of Caesarea provides texts and official decrees 412. Thus, he gives the full text of Maximin’s rescript of 312 on the restoration of paganism throughout the empire (IX, 7, 12). Eusebius copied it from a tablet at Tire and carefully translated this anti-Christian document from Latin into Greek. According to G. Trompf, “Eusebius did this not just for the sake of complete documentation of his “History”, for which Eusebius is known, but to prove his idea about the inevitable punishment of tyrants - the enemies of God” 413. Probably, the proof of this idea at that time really required Eusebius to accurately reproduce the entire text of the rescript, and even translate it from Latin into Greek, although he does an excellent job with the help of other striking examples. As with the letters and imperial epistles, the exact citation of extensive documents was apparently prompted by the apologetic and polemical intentions of the author. Eusebius himself explains the reasons that prompted him to cite the text of this document as follows: “It seems to me necessary to place here the edict of Maximinus itself, given in columns, so that the vain and arrogant audacity of his hatred of God, and the hatred of evil and godlessness of the holy truth that followed on his heels, becomes clear at once. Persecuted by her, he soon made other decisions and enshrined them in written laws” (IX, 7, 2). Following this is “a translation of the Edict of Maximin, issued in response to the decrees against us; taken from a column in Tire (copy)” (IX, 7, 4–14). Guided by the same goals, Eusebius gives “a translation of the decree of the tyrant Maximinus” (IX, 96), “a translation of the decree of the tyrant in favor of Christians from Latin into Greek 414 (IX, 106), the contents of the edict of Emperor Galerius 415, “which we translated, as best we could, from Latin into Greek” (VIII, 17, 3–9), a rescript Licinius Gallienus (VII, 13, 1) with a small commentary (“Let it be placed here for greater clarity translated from the Latin language”), a copy of the decree of Emperor Constantine, “permitting donations to be made only to the Catholic Church” (X, 5, 15–17), and, finally, “the decree of the emperors Constantine and Licinius translated from the Latin language” (X, 5, 1–14), famous like the Edict of Milan 416. Some of these documents have caused a lot of controversy among researchers. For example, the edict on religious tolerance, which went down in history as the “Edict of Galerius” and cited under this name by Eusebius, is attributed by R. Grant to another time, attributed to another ruler, and on the basis of this he accuses the Bishop of Caesarea of ​​deliberately distorting sources. The fact is that Eusebius cites the preamble to the edict, containing the names and full titles of the emperors, the authors of this document. However, of the four emperors who shared power in the Empire, the text given in the Ecclesiastical History does not contain the name of Maximin Daia. According to T. Barnes, the name Maximinus originally appeared in the edict given by Eusebius, but was destroyed in the document later 417 R. Grant attributes this edict not to Galerius, but namely to Maximinus. Valery Maximion, and Maximina - Galery Valery Maximin The difference is in one letter a. However, the official title shows that the date on which the edict was issued is between December 10 and 24, 311, that is, six months after the death of Galerius” 418. In our opinion, this point of view, despite its originality, is devoid of serious grounds. Lactantius also gives the text of this edict and names the exact date of its promulgation - April 30, 311 (Galerius was then consul). Obviously, R. Grant is overly incredulous here and, without sufficient grounds, accuses Eusebius of deliberate falsification. The text of the Edict of Milan, which caused the most controversy, is also preserved in two versions, a more extensive one by Eusebius (X, 5) and a shorter one by Lactantius (De mortibus persecutorum, 48). In general, the text of Lactantius coincides with the text of Eusebius. The discrepancies are explained by the fact that Eusebius gives a Greek translation of this document 419. Moreover, there is some difference between them, which cannot be explained only by the manner of transmission or the absent-mindedness of the scribes 420. The text quoted in Lactantius is an order from Licinius addressed to the governor of Bithynia and published in Nicomedia. Eusebius's more extensive text was presumably addressed to the rulers of Palestine, Syria and Egypt, and Eusebius saw a copy of it in Caesarea Palestine. In Bithynia, where the decree of Galerius was in force, there was no need for an introductory part, which was therefore omitted from Lactantius. The main controversy revolves around the origin of this decree. Eusebius connected it with the names of Constantine and Licinius. Lactantius reports that this decree was signed only by Licinius and was promulgated by him in Nicomedia in 313. Did Eusebius sin against the truth by calling Constantine one of the authors of the famous decree? As A. B. Ranovich shows, this question “is significant only from the point of view of source study, but essentially its solution is indifferent, since the decree of Licinius was the result of his negotiations with Constantine in Milan and could have been issued by Constantine in Milan, if there was a need for it” 421. In general, the authenticity of most of the documents cited by Eusebius in the “Ecclesiastical History” and “Biography of Constantine” has been established and confirmed by modern scholars 422 . Eusebius's sources are numerous and varied. These are the historical works of his predecessors, and works of theological content, and data from personal observations, and documents of a legislative nature. Eusebius cites some church materials that he was able to discover, apparently, in local churches. He writes, for example: “And to this day there is a detailed account of those events of Beryl’s statement, the resolution of the Council convened on this occasion, Origen’s questions and his conversations with Beryl, which took place in the local church” (VI, 33, 3). Of the narrative monuments, the sources of information for Eusebius are not only the Holy Scriptures and the writings of apologists, as one might expect from a church historian, but also Josephus, Greek and Roman historians, not called by name, however, (I, 7, 11, II, 7, III, 20, 8–9, IV, 2, 5), non-Christian and pagan authors (II, praef, II, 8, IV, 6, 13, V, 5, 3, IX, 1,3, VI, 19, 1–2, VI, 19, 9). The Bishop of Caesarea, by all accounts, was a brilliantly educated man. He was perfectly familiar with the entire Christian and non-Christian tradition that preceded him. Even those modern scholars who generally view Eusebius's historical work with extreme skepticism are forced to admit that "he alone, relying on the resources of the church libraries in Caesarea and Jerusalem and on his earlier chronological research, could create what is called a historical narrative (ύφήγησις ιστορική)" 423. First of all, the Bishop of Caesarea uses, of course, the Christian tradition. His work is replete with constant references to the Holy Scriptures and to the works of apologists and church fathers. He makes very active use of the works of Sextus Julius Africanus 424 (1, 6, 1, 1, 7, 15–16 et seq.), Clement of Alexandria (I, 12, 1, 11, 1, 3–4, 11, 9, 2, III, 29, 1, III, 30, 2, III, 23, 2), Origen (III, 1, 3, VI, 40, 1, VI, 39, 5), Tertullian 425 (II, 2, 4, II, 25, 4, III, 20, 7, III, 33, 3), Philo of Alexandria (II, 5, 1–2, II, 5, 6, II, 6, 2–4, II, 16, 1, II, 17, 1–3, II, 17, 7, II, 17, 12, II, 17, 14, II, 17, 18, II, 18, 1), Justin the Philosopher 426 (II, 13, 2, III, 26, 3), Irenaeus of Lyons 427 (II, 13, 5, III, 18, 2–3, III, 23, 2, III, 36, 12, III, 39, 1, IV, 7, 9, IV, 8, 3, IV, 11, 2, IV, 14, 2, IV, 29, 4, V, 7, 1, V, 20, 4), Papias of Hierapolis 428 (II, 15, 2, III, 39, 1), Egesippus (II, 23, 3, II, 23, 19, III, 11, III, 19, III, 20, 7, III, 32, 2–3, IV, 11, 7), Tatian (IV, 16, 7), Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth (II, 25, 8, III, 28, 3), Dionysius of Alexandria 429 (VI, 41, 1, VI, 44, 1, VII, 1, 1, VII, 5,3, VII, 6, 1, VII, 7, 1, VII, 21–22), Melito of Sardis and many others. As A. Dempf emphasizes, “we should be grateful to Eusebius for preserving for us invaluable evidence about the ancient philosophy of history” 430. The works of many of the authors mentioned and quoted by Eusebius have not survived to this day. Therefore, from the work of Eusebius, and in some cases only from him, we can find out what works were written by these ancient authors, what their content was, and even the very names of these writers. This is often the only source of information about such works 431 . So, for example, Eusebius refers to Ariston of Pella, Rodon and others. Ariston was the author of the unsurvived apologetic work “Dialogue of Priscus and Jason,” in which a Christian proved to a Jew that the Old Testament prophets testified about Christ. He also wrote “The History of the War with Barkokhba” in 132. None of these writings have survived. They are only referred to by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius 432. Rodon is a student of Tatian, a church writer. His works also have not reached us. Information about him and his writings was preserved only in the “Church History” of Eusebius of Caesarea 433. Eusebius also refers to Agrippa Castor (IV, 7, 6), Musanus (IV, 28), Modestus and Philip, Bishop of Gortyn (IV, 25), Apollinaris (IV, 27, V, 16, V, 19, 1), Miltiades (V, 17, 5), Apollonius (V, 18, 1), Heraclitus, Candida, Apion, Sextus, Arabian (V, 27) and others. From the “History” of Eusebius, it became known that Miltiades is a Christian author of the 2nd century, who wrote against the heresy of Marcion “The said Miltiades left us other monuments of his diligent studies of the Holy Scriptures, including a book against the Hellenes and another, against the Jews, he especially examines both topics in two books of each of the named works. He also sent to the rulers of the world an Apology for Philosophy” (V, 17, 5) Apollonius, a church writer also of the 2nd century, wrote a book exposing the so-called Phrygian heresy (V, 18, 1). Apollinaris, blessed bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, was also a prolific church writer of the 2nd century. Eusebius knew his work “To the Hellenes” in five books, “On the Truth” two books, two books “To the Jews”, an essay against the Phrygian heresy and a speech to the emperor (IV, 27). Very little is known about Agrippa Castor. Eusebius himself writes: “The work of the most famous writer of that time, Agrippa Castor, has reached us - a devastating exposure of Basilides, showing the terrible lie of his time” (IV, 7, 6). Musan, as follows from the mention of Eusebius, was also a church writer of the 2nd century; he owned “a strong word of exhortation written to the brothers who had deviated into the heresy of the Encratites” (IV, 28). Modest - church writer of the 3rd century. His work, directed against Marcion and known to Eusebius, has not survived to this day. Eusebius also names those church writers who were already known to few people in his time. He writes: “Many people still have many of the writings of old church writers - monuments of their noble zeal. We know, for example, the works of Heraclitus “On the Epistles of Paul”, Maximus on where evil comes from (a question about which heretics made a lot of noise) and that matter was created, Candide’s reasoning about the six days of creation, Apion on the same topic, Sextus “On the Resurrection”, some work of Arabian and many others 434, in the absence of any point of support it is impossible to determine either the time of their writing or the time of events, which they talk about. A lot of works have survived, even the titles of which cannot be named. All of them were written by orthodox church writers (as can be seen from the way they interpret Scripture), but unknown to us, for their name is not given in the title” (V, 27). According to researchers 435, Eusebius quotes in his works (not only the Ecclesiastical History, but also the Chronicle, Praeparatio Evangelica and Demonstratio Evangelica) more than a hundred ancient authors, whose works he could probably find in the famous library of Origen and other large collections of that time. Talking about Clement of Alexandria and his writings, Eusebius examines what sources he used, and notes among other Jewish writers, with whose writings he himself was obviously familiar. He names Aristobulus 436, Demetrius 437, Eupolemus 438, etc. Thus, Eusebius contributes to the adaptation of the Jewish tradition and its inclusion in the circulation of Christian historians. It was Eusebius of Caesarea who was the first to use the so-called “Flavian testimony” about Christ and introduced it into scientific circulation. For the first time in Christian literature it is quoted precisely in the “Ecclesiastical History” of the Bishop of Caesarea. This quotation exactly coincides with the Greek text of fragment XVIII 3 3 of the “Antiquities of the Jews”, as it appears in the manuscripts that have reached us 439. The testimonium Flavianum looks exactly the same in the Byzantine ecclesiastical authors Isidore of Pelusia (-431), Ecumenius (VI century), George Amartolus (IX century), Euthymius Zigabenus (XII century), as well as in the Acta Sanctorum Donati (V century) and in the Suda dictionary (X century). The historians Sozomen and John Malala, who wrote in the 40s and 40s, do not quote Josephus in full, but it is noticeable that their “testimony” has undergone thorough Christian processing. As for other information reported by Josephus, it is to Eusebius that we owe the fact that this information was accepted by later historians and that a generally favorable attitude toward this author was established in Christian historiography 440 . Eusebius writes about Joseph: “After all these stories, we should also get to know Joseph, who helped us while we were busy with our work” (III, 9, 1). Eusebius considers him “worthy of trust” (III, 9, 2) “This man worked diligently on another work” (III, 10, 6) “In order to establish confidence in his testimony about the events known to him, it is reasonable to add the words he cited at the end of “Antiquities.” Reproaching Justus of Tiberias, who also tried to write the history of his time, for not writing truthfully, and demanding an account from him in many ways, he concludes with these words: “I was not afraid, like you, for my work. I handed these books to the emperors almost in view of what was happening. I recognized myself as a guardian of the truth that I communicated to them, and I was not mistaken in expecting confirmation from them. I gave my story to many others, including participants in the war, such as King Agrippa and some of his relatives. And so Emperor Titus wished that people would become acquainted with these events only through my books. He ordered them to be made public, sealing the order with his own signature; King Agrippa wrote 62 letters, testifying to the veracity of what was reported” (III, 10, 8–11). Eusebius was obviously well acquainted with the works of Greek and Roman historians. However, in his Ecclesiastical History he never mentioned any of the classical authors by name 441. Thus, Eusebius notes “This is told by the Greek writers who celebrated the Olympiads and the events that took place during each of them” (II, 7), “historians of that time write that by decree of the Senate, honors to Domitian were canceled” (III, 20, 8–9), or “this is how the Greek historians who wrote about this time tell about it” (IV, 2, 5). The reason for this “anonymity” seems quite understandable. References to writers whose names were popular among pagans could cause an undesirable reaction among Christian audiences. On the other hand, Eusebius’s possible opponents from the pagan camp, well educated and brought up on the works of Greek and Roman historians, just like Eusebius himself, were well acquainted with these works and, without special explanations, understood who was being discussed in a particular case. In addition, it was these authors who could best confirm the accuracy of the information they provided. That is probably why Eusebius refers to certain “Greek historians.” For a modern researcher, however, it is much more difficult to establish what is hidden behind these meager phrases. Most likely, Eusebius had access to not only those works that are now recognized as classics. It is more likely that he used the works of later writers, which were compilations based on materials from classical authors. These works, written in a simpler and more entertaining language, were more popular and had a wider circulation among the people. Many of these works were later lost, and we know the names of their authors only thanks to small mentions from the same Eusebius and others. In this case, it is possible to find out the sources of Eusebius’s information only with a high degree of probability. So, for example, speaking about the suicide of Pontius Pilate, he refers to certain Greek historians who described the history of the Olympiads (II, 7). It is not known exactly who Eusebius means in this case. There is no reliable information about the fate of Pilate after his departure from Judea at the end of 36 AD. e., which is discussed in the passage under consideration by Eusebius, there is no Joseph Flavius says nothing about this. The legend itself about the repentance and suicide (or even execution) of Judge Jesus arose among Christians, apparently in the 2nd century, when the name of Pilate began to be actively used in Christian preaching. The reference to certain “Greek writers” perhaps points to Phlegon 442, a historian of the early 2nd century AD. e., who wrote a chronicle of the Olympics. This version is also supported by a direct reference to this author, preserved in the Armenian translation of the “Chronicle” of Eusebius of Caesarea (125 17) “After these monuments have been presented in all details, here we should finally indicate Phlegon, a freedman of the emperor, who in fourteen books chronicled the event up to the 229th Olympiad (up to the year 138) of that Roman era empire when he lived." The thirteenth book of Phlegon’s work is also mentioned by Jerome; however, Jerome the Blessed calls him a “Roman historian.” Later authors, such as John Philoponus, John Malala, and Michael the Syrian, also refer to Phlegon. Although they, in all likelihood, used Phlegon not directly, but only through third parties, which explains a lot of inaccuracies in the quoted passages 443. Talking about the famine under Claudius and confirming the information he provides with a reference to “writers who are far from our teaching” (II, 8), he again does not say who exactly he has in mind. Probably, in this case, the source of Eusebius is Tacitus’s brief mention of the shortage of grain in Rome and the resulting famine during the reign of Emperor Claudius (41–54) in the twelfth book of his Annals (XII, 43) 444. When describing the downpour and thunderstorm that miraculously occurred and ensured Aurelius’ victory on the northern front (V, 5, 3), Eusebius rejects the pagan description in favor of the “more reliable” statement of Tertullian. Eusebius writes: “Writers who are far from our faith, but who present the same events, have a story about this, as do our writers. Historians from the outside recognize the miracle, but, not understanding anything about our faith, they deny that it happened through our prayers. Our people, who are close to the truth, convey the facts simply and artlessly.” One of them called Apollinaris, the other - “venerable Tertullian”. It is not entirely clear who Eusebius means when he speaks of “writers far from our faith.” A pagan interpretation of events is given on a column in honor of the imperial victory in Rome. However, it is unlikely that Eusebius would call the author of this inscription a writer. Perhaps we are talking about the rescript of Marcus Aurelius, which is given in the appendix to the “First Apology” of St. Justin the Philosopher. It is this rescript of Marcus Aurelius, nicknamed “The Blessed One,” that Tertullian has in mind (Apology, V, 7). But most church historians consider it to be fraudulent. In addition, according to Eusebius himself, “letters from Mark, a very intelligent emperor, are still circulating” (III, 5,6). It is likely that this passage is about them. Although the letters themselves apparently have not survived. Modern researchers know Marcus Aurelius only as the author of the Meditations. No information is provided about these letters of his 445. The official (pagan) version of these events and the so-called “miracle of the rain” is also contained in Dio Cassius (LXXI, 8–10) and in the biography of Marcus Aurelius, attributed to Julius Capitolinus, in the collection Scriptores Historiae Augustae. However, this collection dates back to the end of the 4th century and could not serve as a source for Eusebius. And the surviving fragments of the work of Dio Cassius 446 provide very little information on this matter. In the third book of his “History,” Eusebius refers not to certain “historians of that time.” He, in particular, says “historians of that time write that by decree of the Roman Senate, honors to Domitian were canceled, and those unjustly expelled by him were returned. At the same time, as our ancient writers report, the Apostle John left the island where he had been exiled and took up residence in Ephesus” (III 20:8-9). In this passage it is not entirely clear which of the “historians of that time” we are talking about. What time is meant? Are they identical to “our ancient writers”? Who is meant by them? Perhaps Eusebius, in order to avoid repetition, called Egesippus and Tertullian mentioned above (“This writes Egesippus, remembers Domitian and Tertullian” (III, 20, 7)). Although it is more likely that here he means one of the ancient writers. A message about the reaction of the Senate to the death of Domitian in 96 is available, for example, in Suetonius (Domitian, 23) 447. Eusebius could also have used the description of the events that followed the death of Emperor Domitian, presented in Pliny the Younger's Panegyric 448 (Panegyric to Trajan, 52). However, it is hardly possible to say with certainty which of the ancient writers Eusebius refers to in this place. Eusebius’ wide acquaintance with the Greek, especially Hellenistic, tradition is evidenced not only by the “Ecclesiastical History” of the first Christian historian, but also by his other works 449. The three works of Eusebius - Chronicle, Praeparatio Evangehca and Demonstratio Evangehca - represent a kind of unity and, like the “Ecclesiastical History”, are intended to reveal the content and meaning of world history. However, the nature of these works allows for a freer form and the use of wider material. Thus, Praeparatio Evangehca talks about the “mythological theology” that preceded and prepared Christian teaching. Here Eusebius reveals an excellent knowledge of Greek and Jewish mythology and literary tradition. As researchers found out 450, “the Babylonian myth was taken by him from the Bible, the Egyptian myth is quoted from extracts from Diodorus, Euhemerus and, finally, Clement of Alexandria, the Roman myth is from Dionysius of Halicarnassus” 451. He goes on to quote Plutarch, Porphyry and Plato. Moreover, as shown in modern studies, in his Praeparatio Evangelica he, in fact, represents the whole of Plato, citing him 218 times, and the whole of Porphyry, whose work against Christians in 30 books, unfortunately lost, he refutes. Largely thanks to the works of Eusebius, which preserved the main provisions of the enemy of Christians, it was possible in our time to restore in general terms the works of Porphyry. In a number of other cases, the extracts from ancient and Hellenistic historians quoted by Eusebius “represent the only surviving fragments of these authors. Thus, in his studies of chronology, Eusebius cites evidence about the Chaldeans of Alexander Polyhistor, Abydenos and Josephus, about Assyria - again Abydenos and Castor, Diodorus, Kefalion and various Assyrian royal lists. Eusebius gives the history of the Jews according to the Old Testament, Clement of Alexandria, Josephus, the history of the Egyptians - according to Manetho and Porphyry. According to Greek history, he uses as sources the evidence of Castor, Porphyry and Diodorus, among the Romans it was Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Diodorus and Castor” 452. Talking about miracles, Eusebius, to confirm the reliability of the information he provides, refers not only to Christian authors, but also to pagan ones, or, as he calls them, “outside historians” (V, 5, 3). “Writers who are far from our faith also have stories about this, but ours also have stories about the same events,” or “writers who are far from our teaching also told about this” (11:8). He even refers to Greek philosophers who were hostile to Christianity “How Origen succeeded in these areas is evidenced by contemporary Hellenic philosophers; in their works we find frequent references to him” (VI, 19, 1). He even cites excerpts from the work of Porfiry 453, who is sharply anti-Christian: “Why talk about this when Porfiry, our contemporary... wrote a book against us in which, trying to slander Scripture, he also commemorates its interpreters” (VI, 19, 2). Claiming to be objective and impartial, Eusebius does not reject his entire work simply because it was written by a pagan who is anti-Christian, but examines his specific messages, commenting that in one case “he speaks correctly... but clearly lies” in another (VI, 19, 9). Moreover, it was Porphyry’s “Chronicle” that, in all likelihood, was used by Eusebius as the basis for his chronological outline for the period from 221 to 270 454. Once Eusebius even points out: “Such an end was predicted by the demon for his many frivolous crimes” (VIII, App., 3), obviously referring to the saying of some pagan oracle. However, this is an isolated and exceptional case. Eusebius checks the testimony of the Savior's blood relatives with Greek historians (1.7, 11). True, in his story about the origin of Herod, he again does not name the specific source of his information. He writes: “These are events that are also reported in the history of the Greeks” (I, 7, 2). He could have gleaned such information either from Josephus (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 1–4, 7; XIV, 14), or from the already mentioned Phlegon. One can hardly call the writings of Josephus “the history of the Greeks,” although Eusebius’ account is consistent and briefly conveys the main content of Josephus’s story. It is more likely that Eusebius here relies on Phlegon, to whom he has already addressed more than once. Moreover, references to the works of ancient authors are found in Eusebius not sporadically and accidentally, but he raises this to a principle in the introduction to the second chapter of his historical work. He writes that he will describe events “based on Holy Scripture and involving secular historians, to whose records I will refer when necessary” (II, praef.). So, refusing to primarily use oral tradition, Eusebius gives preference to written sources. He introduces and uses the richest Christian tradition, as well as the Jewish one (the works of Josephus, Eupolemus, etc.). It is interesting that among its sources, contrary to popular belief, are not only the Holy Scriptures and the works of Christian apologists, but also the texts of authentic state documents, rescripts and decrees, materials from extensive correspondence of church and secular persons, documents of church councils, as well as the writings of Greek and Roman historians, even non-Christian, pagan authors. Moreover, Eusebius, as a rule, indicates where he found this or that information, with an exact indication not only of the author himself and the title of his work, but also of the specific place, down to the book and chapter number. If we are talking about a document, it also indicates where it was found. If necessary, Eusebius even translates the necessary materials from Syriac or Latin, pointing out the possibility of errors in translation. Thus, the research technique of the Bishop of Caesarea already meets certain “scientific” requirements. § 2. CRITICAL METHOD OF EUSEBIUS In addition to the fact that Eusebius used numerous and varied sources in his research, the author’s attitude towards them and the method of obtaining reliable information from them also deserve special attention. Eusebius's critical method caused a lot of controversy and diametrically opposed assessments in the scientific literature. Some, in principle, do not allow the idea that there is any historical criticism in the works of a church author. Others, on the contrary, believe that it was the critical method of Eusebius that became the main achievement of historiography for the entire period from the 4th to the 16th centuries. What did this “critical method” of the first church historian consist of? To evaluate a historical researcher, it is important not only what sources he uses, but, perhaps even more important, how he uses them. Scientists have long established the fact that Eusebius was not the first Christian author to compile the World Chronicle. This was done by Sextus Julius Africanus a hundred years before him. On this basis, R. Grant, in fact, accuses Eusebius of plagiarism. Moreover, he adds sarcastically that where Eusebius follows Africanus, his “Chronicle” (and, accordingly, “Church History”) is even more or less true; as for the events after 221, which Eusebius describes independently, here the English researcher finds a lot of errors, inaccuracies, distortions, etc. In his opinion, “in the “History”, in which he describes his own time, he did not have a real chronological core, both in the “Chronicle” and in the “History” he shows a weak understanding of the events after 270” 455. Other scholars, led by Heinrich Gelzer, who in 1898 restored and published the lost “Chronicle” of Africanus, comparing it with the work of the Bishop of Caesarea, came to the conclusion that “Eusebius is an even more significant historian who independently verified and critically examined Africanus’ sources. He correlated the Babylonian chronology of Berossus, the Egyptian Chronicle of Manetho and the Greek list of kings of Castor of Rhodes with the Jewish chronology” 456. And Eusebius’s appeal to his scribes with a request that they conscientiously convey and check the previous chronology system, according to researchers, testifies to “his excellent critical research spirit (mind)” 457. What actually was the approach of the Bishop of Caesarea to the sources of information used? The first thing that strikes the reader of the first “Church History” is the abundance of quotations from more ancient authors. Moreover, he accurately reproduces passages from the texts of his predecessors. Very often he himself says: “Exactly as it is told in Origen...” (III, 1, 3), or “this is how Josephus tells it word for word” (II, 19.1), or “as Joseph writes about it in the twentieth book of Antiquities...” (II. 20, 1), “Luke mentions in the Acts of the Apostles... Here is his story verbatim” (III. 31, 5). Almost always he gives verbatim excerpts from the works of ancient authors (I, 5,2; II, 2, 4; II, 5, 1–2; II, 6, 2; III, 6, 1; 111,6, 11; 111,6, 17; 111,8, 1; III, 31, 5; 111,32,2–3; 111,36,6; IV, 11, 2, etc.). This feature sharply distinguishes the work of Eusebius from the entire ancient tradition that preceded him, “the decisive thing for his assessment as a historian is that he cites the documents and texts that should confirm his positions verbatim. Many of these evidence are unique to us. Only on the basis of his amazing review of the colossal literature could he be convincing” 458. Thus, it was precisely the apologetic and polemical goals of Eusebius’s works that obliged him to be truthful and accurate. Before using the data of his source, the Bishop of Caesarea pays attention to the time of its appearance, authenticity, integrity, integrity and reliability (V, 27). When determining the reliability of his source, Eusebius gives it not only an external characteristic, but also conducts an internal analysis - he considers the style of the source, the historical, chronological, linguistic, topographical and other details found in it. As the Russian researcher of the 19th century M.D. Muretov notes, “the subtlety of the analysis revealed by Eusebius deserves complete surprise and is in no way inferior to the techniques developed by modern science” 459. Eusebius even tries to establish the authorship of some works. For example, he tries to determine who owns the Greek translation of Paul's letters. He reasons as follows: “Paul wrote to the Jews in his native language, and some say that the Evangelist Luke, and others that Clement himself translated it into Greek. The latter seems more probable both from the similarity of language in the Epistle of Clement and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and from the slight difference between the thoughts of both writers" (III, 38, 2). Eusebius is quite critical even of genuine sources. To determine the degree of reliability of a genuine source, he pays attention to the personality of the writer: is he trustworthy and to what extent? Could he really know what he is reporting? Where did this or that writer get his information from? Quite often, Eusebius, when conveying this or that information, indicates not only where he himself got it from, but also the sources of the author he quotes. For example, Eusebius prefaces his story with the following remark: “Dionysius, who was in our time the bishop of Alexandria, in the second book of On the Promises, speaking about the Revelation of John, recalls this man in this way, following the ancient tradition...” (III, 28, 3). In another place he writes like this: "Irenaeus, in the first book of his work “Against Heresies,” gives details about his vile false teaching, and in the third he conveys a story that does not deserve oblivion. Referring to Polycarp, he tells...” (III, 28. 6). “Irenaeus, based on their books [i.e., on the books of the prophets - I.V.], says...” (III, 7, 3). Talking about the situation of Christians in the Roman Empire under the Emperor Hadrian, he is based on Justin's Apology. However, he does not simply rely on the story of a well-known and revered church writer, but for greater reliability and accuracy he refers to the original documents that he used: “The Emperor responded by writing to Minucius Fundanus, proconsul of Asia, ordering that no one should be tried without accusation and reasonable conviction. Justin also encloses a copy of this letter in the Latin original, prefacing it with these words: “We could ask you for what we want, for the trial of us on the basis of the letter of the greatest and most glorious Caesar Hadrian, your father, but we turn to you because our request is fair. We enclose a copy of Adrian’s letter so that you know that we are telling the truth in this too. Here it is.’ Then the said writer gives a Latin copy, which we, to the best of our ability, translated into Greek” (IV, 8, 6-8). Even such authoritative figures as the Evangelist Luke, Irenaeus and others, he does not believe blindly. He compares the data of the Holy Books with each other. He repeatedly points out: “This is clear from his own words and from Luke’s account in the Acts of the Apostles. And Peter himself tells...” (III, 4, 1-2), or “Paul repeatedly testifies to them in his Epistles. And Luke in Acts... mentions. "(II, 4, 4). Luke, for example, he believes not because he is a “sacred” writer, but because he had information about the events he describes either from direct personal experience, or from the apostles and participants in these events, and also because his testimony is confirmed by the news of Josephus (I, 5, 2; II, 12, 2; II, 20, 1, etc.). For example, he characterizes one of the church authors, whose works he often uses, as follows: “Justin, a sincere lover of true philosophy; having studied with the Greeks, he studied their sciences” (IV, 8, 3), but converted to Christianity (IV, 8, 5). He “left us many useful works; they testify to a mind that has been schooled and immersed in contemplation of the Divine; to them we send inquisitive people, noting for their benefit those that have become known to us...” (IV, 18, 1). Quite often he quotes the Latin author Tertullian. He characterizes him as “an excellent expert on Roman laws and in general a famous person, one of the most famous,” the author of the “Apology of Christians,” written in Latin and translated into Greek (II, 2, 4) and therefore trusts him. Sometimes he himself confirms the information received from Tertullian: “The story about this is taken from the Latin Apology of Tertullian ... So it was then” (III, 33, 3). Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria are for him “the most faithful witnesses and leaders of church orthodoxy” (III, 23, 2). However, when characterizing his sources, Eusebius argues not only as a Christian, but also as a historian claiming scientific objectivity. He writes, for example: “... a certain Bardesan, a very gifted man and an excellent command of the Syriac language, compiled and wrote in his native language... dialogues against the followers of Marcion and other heresiarchs... His students (there were many of them, for he was a strong dialectician) translated them from Syriac into Greek. Bardesan previously belonged to the school of Valentin, but, having realized many of his inventions and refuted them, he decided that he himself had returned to the thoughts of the faithful. However, he did not completely clean off the dirt of the old heresy” (IV, 30, 1). Thus, although Bardesan has not yet freed himself from his heretical errors, this does not prevent Eusebius from recognizing his positive qualities and using his data as a historical source. In the same way, when addressing Tatian, he gives him and his works a balanced description, without denigrating or praising him. In his fourth book, Eusebius writes: “They say that Tatian led people astray” (IV, 27–28). Further, referring to the testimony of Justin, he characterizes him as a heretic who apostatized from the true faith. However, he does not refuse to use his works. He even speaks with praise of Tatian’s “To the Hellenes” as “the best and most useful of all his works” (IV, 29, 4–7). He reports that “in his youth he was a sophist, studied Greek sciences, and gained considerable fame here.” Thus, contrary to expectations, for Eusebius the very fact of the author’s adherence to the true Christian faith is not yet a decisive factor, the main criterion in the selection of sources. He uses the works of Christian apologists and church fathers, recognized by the church, and the writings of heretics, and even open opponents of Christianity. At the same time, it cannot be said that Eusebius uses all the works known to him at that time indiscriminately and treats everyone with equal confidence. He, for example, refuses to use the “Acts of Pilate,” widely known and widespread in his time. He rejects them not only because they contain “blasphemy against the Savior,” but also mainly because they contain a lot of chronological and other errors. Eusebius argues for the falsity of this work in the following way: “This clearly exposes the falsity of the “Notes” compiled quite recently against our Savior; Already the time indicated in the title exposes the falsity of this invention. They attribute the saving suffering of the Savior, to which the Jews criminally subjected Him, to the fourth consulate of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign, but if we believe Joseph, then Pilate did not yet rule Judea at that time. Josephus in the above-mentioned work directly indicates that Tiberius appointed Pilate procurator of Judea in the twelfth year of his reign” (I, 9, 3). Based on comparisons and comparative analysis of various works, Eusebius independently comes to the conclusion about the falsity of some and the truth of others. For example, after talking about the death of James the Righteous, the brother of Christ, he adds: “This is what concerns James, to whom it belongs. The first of the so-called Council Epistles. You should know, however, that it is false - few of the ancients mention it, also the so-called Judas - one of the seven called Council. We know, however, that they, along with others, are publicly read in many Churches” (II, 23, 24-25). In Book III, talking about “false and undisputed Christian books,” he gives his own opinion on this matter. He writes: “The Epistle of Peter, called the First, is recognized as authentic, and the ancient saints refer to it in their writings. The so-called Second is not, as we have heard, numbered among the books of the New Testament, but many consider it useful and diligently read it along with the other scriptures. “Acts”, “Gospel”, “Sermon” and “Apocalypse”, called by his name, are, as we know, not included in Catholic works at all, and neither ancient nor modern church writers use their testimonies... Of the works named by Petrov, I recognize one and only one as authentic; it was also recognized by the ancient saints... I do not consider the so-called “Acts of Paul” among the books to be indisputable” (III, 3, 1–5). So, Eusebius does not rely entirely and completely on the written tradition. It is clear that this is also due to the fact that by that time the canonical list of “indisputable” books had not been established. The canon was just being formed. Various writers had different assessments of the writings that existed and circulated among Christians. The bishop of Caesarea had to independently check them for authenticity or forgery, and draw his own conclusions. Often his main criterion in solving this problem is the fact whether ancient church writers mention this or that work. However, not every piece of evidence is authoritative for him. For example, he is not inclined to believe Papias of Hierapolis. Eusebius devotes quite a lot of space to the story of Papin of Hierapolis. In the Christian tradition, Papias was considered a highly respected author, and Irenaeus names him as a disciple of the Apostle John, "a friend of Polycarp of Smyrna, one of the ancient Christians" (III, 39, 1). However, Eusebius himself does not blindly follow the established tradition, but tries to independently analyze the facts known to him. He writes: “Papias himself, in the preface to his work, does not at all pretend to be a person who personally saw and heard the holy apostles, but says that he was introduced to the faith by people known to the apostles” (III, 39, 2). “It should be noted,” continues Eusebius, “that Papias mentions two people with the name John (apostle and presbyter)... Papias admits that he heard the words of the apostle from people who communicated with him; I listened to Ariston and Presbyter John personally. Often, mentioning them by name in his books, he conveys their stories...” (III, 39, 5-7). He is quite skeptical about the writings of Papias, as well as about the sources of his information; “He also conveys other stories that came to him through oral tradition: some strange parables of the Savior, something rather fabulous” (III, 39, 11). Summarizing his attitude towards this church author, Eusebius writes: “...I think that he poorly interpreted the apostolic words and did not understand their representative and mysterious meaning, for he was of little mind. This is clear from his books, although most of the church writers who lived after him greatly respected him as an old writer, and his opinions were shared, for example, by Irenaeus and others” (III, 39, 12-13) 460. In other cases, Eusebius not only refers to authoritative ancient writers, but also tries to conduct a certain stylistic and linguistic analysis of them. “The forged ones include: “The Acts of Paul”, a book called “The Shepherd”, “The Apocalypse of Peter”, “The Epistle” recognized by Barnavin, the so-called “Teaching of the Apostles” and, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, which some reject, while others classify as recognized books. Some placed among these books the “Gospel of the Jews”, which the Jews love most, who believed in Christ. All these are rejected books, and we considered it necessary to compile a list of them, believing that we should know which books are authentic, not fabricated and accepted by church tradition, and which, on the contrary, are excluded from the books of the New Testament, although these books should be known to the majority of church writers, and those that are known among heretics as the “Gospel” of the apostles: Peter, Thomas, Matthew and others. also “Acts” supposedly of Andrew, John and other apostles. These books were never mentioned by any of the church writers. And their speech and style are very different from the apostolic spirit, but their thoughts and the entire teaching as a whole are far from consistent with true orthodoxy: these are clearly inventions of heretics. Therefore, these books should not only be classified as forgeries, but should be completely rejected as completely absurd and impious” (III, 25, 4-7). Thus, considering certain ancient books that caused controversy among church leaders of that time, Eusebius tries to independently evaluate them, based on a certain analysis and comparison of the style, language, content, general orientation of these works and the recognized works of the apostles. At the same time, the Christian spirit is clearly manifested in their analysis: the main conclusion that Eusebius makes about these writings is that they are “completely absurd and impious” (ibid.). Thus, it was precisely the church interests and goals associated with the affirmation of the Christian faith that forced him to conduct a scrupulous source study. Rejecting heretical writings, he again resorts to comparison and comparative analysis: “Whoever wants to know that I am not slandering them: let him collect and compare the lists they have with each other; he will find many disagreements: the Asclepiodots do not agree with the Theodotovs” (V, 28, 16). He considers the possibility of errors or accidental distortions in the rewriting. In this regard, Eusebius points out the prevalence of identical lists and thereby eliminates the possibility of errors during rewriting: “You can get a lot of these lists: their students diligently copied what the teachers, according to them, corrected, that is, spoiled” (V, 28, 17). In yet another case, Eusebius proves the authenticity of the work by comparing information known to him from other sources. He writes: “There is one large and amazing letter from Clement, which is generally accepted as authentic; it was written on behalf of the Roman Church to the Corinthian Church, for there was discord in Corinth at that time. We know that this letter has long been read to the people in many churches; They still read it now. And that Corinth was engulfed in discord, Egesippus is a reliable witness to this” (III, 16). In the seventh book, Eusebius, referring to Dionysius, using the techniques of historical criticism, gives a brilliant linguistic, historical, textual analysis of the Apocalypse of John. Trying to establish the authorship of the Apocalypse, he writes: “I do not argue that he [the author – I.V.] is called John, just as I do not argue that he is a holy man and inspired by God, but it is difficult for me to agree that he is an apostle, the son of Zebedee and the brother of James, who wrote the Gospel of John and the Catholic Epistle. I am led to this conclusion by the entire nature of the presentation of both writers, and the choice of words, and the construction of this book. The evangelist does not write his name anywhere, neither in the Gospel nor in the Epistle, and does not declare anything about himself” (VII, 25, 7-8). “The author of the Apocalypse immediately, at the very beginning, puts himself forward...” (VII, 25, 9). “Neither in the Second nor in the Third Epistles, which are considered to be John’s, although they are short, John does not call himself by name, but writes as about a nameless one: “elder.” This one considered it insufficient, having once identified himself, to begin the story, but began again. “I, John, your brother, partaker in the tribulation, and in the kingdom, and in the patience of Jesus, was on the island of Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus,” and at the end he adds: “Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book, and I, John, who saw and heard these things” (VII, 25, 11). Further, Eusebius, following Dionysius, writes: “We should believe the words of John that it was he who wrote this. But who he is is not clear. He did not say that he was the same one who, as is repeatedly mentioned in the Gospel, was the beloved disciple of the Lord and reclined on his chest, that he was the brother of Jacob, that he himself saw and heard the Lord. If he had wanted to pinpoint who he was, he would have referred to some of the above. There is nothing of the kind: he calls himself our brother and partner, a witness of Jesus and blessed, for he saw and heard the revelation. I think,” he concludes, “that the Apostle John has many namesakes. Love for him, admiration for him, the desire to be just as beloved by the Lord - all this made his name dear: this is how families of believers often call boys after Peter or Paul. There is another John in Acts... about which it is said...” (VII, 25, 12–15). Next, various options are considered for which John could be the author of the Apocalypse, and the conclusion is made: “I think that the author was someone else, especially since in Ephesus they say there are two tombs, each called John’s” (VII, 25, 16). Further, Dionysius, and after him Eusebius, gives a real stylistic analysis of the works, considering the characteristic expressions of the authors, not only thoughts, but also the structure of the works, syntax, initial phrases, even those categories that characterize the author’s worldview as a whole. “Judging by the thoughts, choice of words and construction of sentences, you guess that the author of Revelation and the Evangelist John are different persons. The Gospel and the Message agree with each other and even begin the same; in one: “In the beginning was the Word”, in the other: “He who was in the beginning”... He is consistent and does not deviate from his goal, develops his thought, insisting on the same basic thoughts, using the same words... The attentive reader will find that both works repeatedly mention: life, light that drives away darkness, and constantly: truth, grace, joy, the Body and Blood of the Lord, judgment, remission of sins; God's love for us; the commandment of mutual love; that all commandments must be kept; exposing the world, the devil, the Antichrist; the promise of the Holy Spirit, sonship with God; the unchanging requirement of faith, everywhere - the Father and the Son. Noting the distinctive features everywhere, you see that the Gospel and the Epistle have the same manner of speech. The Apocalypse and these books are incompatible: there is no connection between them, no closeness, there is, as they say, no common letter. The message knows nothing about the Apocalypse. The Apocalypse does not mention the Message and has no thoughts about it...” (VII, 25, 17-23). “One may also note the difference between the style of the Gospel and the Message and the style of the Apocalypse. The first are in impeccable Greek, they are eloquent, convincing in reasoning, well constructed; in them you will not find any foreign word, no errors in the language, no new invented words; it is clear that the Lord gifted their author with a double gift: the gift of knowledge and the gift of speech. That the author of Revelation was given knowledge, knowledge, and the gift of prophecy, I do not argue, but I see that he writes Greek incorrectly, uses foreign words and makes mistakes in the language. There is no need to make a list of them. I say all this not in mockery, but in order to clearly show the difference between these works” (VII, 25, 24–27). Whenever possible, Eusebius checks the information received with texts from other available sources. From the very first book of his “History”, he not only retells the Holy Scripture, but also confirms or verifies it with the data of historians. For example, when talking about the genealogy of Christ, he refers to “the prophecy written by Moses,” and then draws on the data of Josephus: “... this is what Joseph says about him [about Herod - I.V.]: he was an Edomite on his father and an Arab on his mother; but Africanus (not just anyone, but a good historian) says that, according to those who carefully studied his genealogy, Antipater (Herod’s father) was the son of a certain Herod from Axalon...” Very often he compares the data of the Gospels and information taken from the works of Joseph. In some places he verifies Joseph’s words with the messages of the Gospels: “Joseph in the second book of the History writes... The Evangelist adds...” (1, 8, 9-16), or “The same Joseph admits... This testimony agrees with what is written in the Gospels...” (I, 11, 3). In other cases, on the contrary, the writings of Joseph or some other church writer confirm the data of Holy Scripture, for example: “According to the Gospel, the mentioned historian [Joseph - I. V.] speaks of the accession of Archelaus after Herod” (1, 9, 1), or “The Holy Gospel reports... Joseph writes about the same thing” (I, 11, 1). “Here is the story of Hegesippus, lengthy and in agreement with Clement... Joseph did not hesitate to testify in writing about this... in the twentieth book of his “Antiquities” (III. 23, 19-21). "Clement gives this story in the sixth book of his Essays. The testimony of the Bishop of Hierapolis Papias agrees with this. Peter mentions Mark in the First Epistle" (II, 15, 2). "The coincidence between the Holy Scripture and the story of Joseph is amazing in the narration of this miracle. It is clear that he testifies to what happened in reality" (II, 10. 2). "So says Justin. With Irenaeus agrees with him...” (II. 13, 5). “You will see that this [Joseph’s story – I.V.] is consistent with the Acts of the Apostles (II. 12, 2). “The same writer [Joseph – I.V.] in the second book of his work entitled “On Virtues” tells... Joseph echoes him... Listen to his literal story in the second book of the “Jewish War” ... " (II, 6, 3–4). It is characteristic that Eusebius not only names the authors, but also quite accurately indicates the fragment of the work he is discussing. At the same time, “the connection between the method of direct quotation of documents and the church historical genre was not as automatic as it might seem at first glance” 461. Some researchers associate the appearance of this innovation with a change in the shape of the book. Perhaps the previously common scroll form created certain inconveniences when searching for the desired quotation in the book and checking its accuracy. Therefore, from the point of view of researchers, ancient authors more often quoted from memory or simply retold what they had once heard or read. With the spread of the code book among Christians, the situation is changing. The appearance of page numbering, a table of contents, and the ability to quickly and easily find the required place in the text creates technically favorable conditions for the spread of the practice of quoting 462 . Another factor that determined the wide possibility of citation was the replication of certain types of Christian documents. Episcopal epistles were often sent to all the churches of the Roman Empire (Socrates Scholasticus, I, 6.41); texts of a polemical nature were carefully collected and distributed in order to defend one or another theological position 463 . Thus, the desire of the Bishop of Caesarea for truthfulness and persuasiveness, the social practice established in the Christian environment, and the historical situation itself led to the emergence of a new method - the method of exact direct quotation, which is manifested in the “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius of Caesarea. Discussing the seventy disciples of Christ, Eusebius draws on data from many sources. He writes: “The names of the Savior’s apostles are known to everyone from the Gospels; there is no list of 70 disciples anywhere” (I, 12, 1). In addition to the Gospel, Eusebius uses the Acts of the Apostles, Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, the fifth book of Clement of Alexandria’s Essays, even data from oral tradition, “the testimony of Paul” and elementary mathematical calculations (1, 12, 1–4), as a result of which he comes to the conclusion that “Christ had more than seventy disciples” (I, 12, 4). Eusebius compares data from sources known to him and tries to reconcile conflicting information, if possible. He writes, for example: “I am surprised at the coincidence of this story in Joseph and in Holy Scripture: it is true. If some think that there is disagreement in the name of the king, then both deeds and days point to the same person. Perhaps the scribe made a mistake and changed his name, or perhaps the same person bore two names, as happens with many” (I, 10, 10). As modern research has shown, Eusebius was right. The king mentioned in this passage actually bore a double name: Herod-Agrippa 464. Sometimes the data of the Holy Scriptures and the writers they use do not agree with each other. For example, in the second book, Eusebius cites a message from Clement of Alexandria: “Clement, in the seventh book of his Essays, gives a story about this Jacob, worthy of memorization and transmitted to him by his predecessors” (II, 9, 2). However, below he writes: “Whereas Holy Scripture says...” (II, 9, 4). In this case, Eusebius gives preference to Scripture. He resolves the contradictions found in Scripture itself as follows: “Since the evangelists Matthew and Luke convey the genealogy of Christ in different ways, many believers believe that they contradict one another, and everyone, not knowing the truth, tries with all his might to come up with an explanation for these passages. Let us cite a message about them that came to us in a letter to Aristides, where Africanus, whom we recently mentioned, writes about the agreement of the Gospel genealogies. Having refuted the opinions of others as far-fetched and erroneous, he conveys in these words the story he heard” (II, 7, 1). In conclusion, he concludes that “both narratives are completely correct and reach Joseph through a tortuous but correct path.” Thus, it is quite obvious that the author was guided primarily by apologetic and polemical goals, but this is precisely what forces him, when talking about things important from a Christian point of view, to be extremely precise and accurate, and before confidently talking about them, to compare data from several (in this case four) sources. It is interesting that Eusebius indicates where he gets information from, from which author he borrows arguments and arguments, which was not typical for the bulk of ancient works. It is very significant that, even having established the authenticity and reliability of his sources, the author does not always simply follow them. In some cases, his opinion does not coincide with the opinion of the quoted author, and then he gives his own interpretation of the text. So, for example, quoting the works of Josephus and generally appreciating them highly, in one place he disagrees with him and directly points out this. “In the Holy Scriptures,” he writes, “according to his [Joseph – I.V.] words, there is a prediction that just at that time a certain fellow countryman of theirs will rule the world. He himself believed that it was fulfilled on Vespasian, but Vespasian did not rule the whole world, but only that part of it that was owned by the Romans. It would be more correct to attribute this prophecy to Christ, to Whom the Father said: “Ask of Me, I will give the nations for Your inheritance and the ends of the earth for Your possession,” and at the same time “the voice of the holy apostles goes through all the earth and their words to the ends of the universe” (III, 8, 10-11). The author does not hide his ignorance on any issue. Eusebius expresses his opinion, but leaves the reader to draw his own final conclusions. Talking about the fire that broke out in the Nicomedia Palace, he writes: “I don’t know what caused the fire... but rumors spread that it was the work of Christians; the suspicion was false, but, by order of the emperor, local Christians began to be beaten indiscriminately..." (VIII, 6, 6). In cases of doubt, he leaves the judgment of the degree of reliability of the source to the sole discretion of each reader. The historian openly admits his ignorance. Sometimes he considers it necessary to warn the reader that, while reporting some information borrowed from some source, he does not know where it came from. So, for example, citing the message of Polycarp of Smyrna about Christ to the inhabitants of Smyrna, he warns: “I don’t know where he borrowed this information from” (III, 36, 11). A clear indication of Eusebius’s critical approach can also be seen in his attitude towards the numerous and varied stories circulating among Christians about miraculous events from early Christian history. In Eusebius's History, stories of miracles are extremely rare. In addition, Eusebius departs from the form of historical works characteristic of ancient historiography with an abundance of fictitious speeches compiled according to all the rules of rhetoric, but not actual statements of historical figures. To be precise, we note that Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” contains only one speech - “The Solemn Word spoken to the Tire Bishop Paulinus regarding the creation of churches” (X, 4). It is preceded by the following words: “A certain man, moderately gifted, wrote a word and, going out into the middle, in a church meeting, pronounced it in the presence of numerous shepherds, who listened to him attentively and decently, addressing one of them, the most venerable, God-loving bishop, through whose diligence a church was built in Tire, the most beautiful in Phenicia” (X, 4, 1). Although Eusebius uses the traditional ancient form in this case, it acquires some features in his composition. Firstly, by “a certain moderately gifted person” Eusebius obviously means himself. Thus, he is not imagining what any famous person might have said here, but is presenting in colorful form his own thoughts and ideas. Probably, Eusebius uses this technique deliberately in order to separate his thoughts and his vision of the contemporary state of the church and empire from the history that he sets out according to written sources and documents. This traditional literary form serves him in order not to mislead the reader: so that it can be clearly seen where Eusebius accurately conveys the facts and events known to him, and where he expresses his position, based only on his inner feeling. Secondly, it is not known for sure whether this speech is fictitious or whether Eusebius actually delivered it at one of the church councils of 324–325. Thus, in the work of the Bishop of Caesarea there is one single speech that belongs to the author himself and, perhaps, is not fictitious. Using the traditional ancient form, Eusebius endows it with specific features, gradually moving away from the traditions of Greco-Roman historiography. As S. L. Utchenko suggested, “it is quite likely that the “predilection” characteristic of all ancient historians for inserted speeches that characterize both characters and situations is not at all explained by the desire for greater liveliness, entertainment, so to speak, “fictionalization” of the presentation, as literary scholars and philologists often claim, but follows as a natural consequence from general “attitudes”, from a general oro-acoustic orientation ancient literature" 465 If this assumption is correct, then this feature inherent in the historical work of Eusebius of Caesarea could mark the beginning of the reorientation of early medieval literature towards the written word. It was Christianity that contributed to overcoming the oro-acoustic orientation of classical Greco-Roman literature. The written word was given great importance in the Christian tradition. It was very important that Bible quotations be quoted accurately and without distortion 466 . However, Christian authors pay great attention not only to the word of the Bible and the patristic tradition, but also to the written word in general 467. Be that as it may, Eusebius and all his Christian followers up to the 6th century rejected the method of introducing fictitious speeches into the fabric of the narrative, developed by ancient historiography. Again in a historical work, fictitious speech appears only in the work of Evagrius (H. E., 6, 12) 468, put, however, into the mouth not of a commander or politician, but of Archbishop Gregory of Antioch. In general, Eusebius, without directly abandoning the ancient principles of historical writing and, as if based on the method of Thucydides, Polybius and other Greek and Roman historians, lays the foundations of a new historiographic tradition. Assessing Eusebius’ approach as a whole, the English scholar Drake writes: “Ecclesiastical History is a unique work. It remains the most important collection of sources on the history of the church of those centuries. Accuracy in citing sources, the use of lengthy excerpts, alas, in general a rather mediocre style [less artistic and entertaining than that of classical ancient authors - I.V.] - all this marks its characteristic features, close to modern “scientific” scholarship” 469. Thus, the features of Eusebius’s History, which are often pointed out as its shortcomings (from the point of view of artistic style), at the same time turn out to be features of the author’s “scientific” (in some sense) approach to his work. Eusebius refuses to use oral tradition, preferring the written works of his predecessors, legal documents, church materials, correspondence and even inscriptions to legends and stories. He quotes extensively and accurately from his sources. He not only reports any information, but tries to find out the original source of this information. Critically examining each evidence, determines whether it can be trusted, and, if possible, checks it with data from other sources. Analyzing “controversial” books, he tries to establish their authorship, authenticity or falsification with the help of a certain stylistic, linguistic, textological and comparative analysis. Contrary to the very widespread opinion about the decline in the level of historical research in connection with the establishment of Christianity, “Ecclesiastical History” by Eusebius of Caesarea reveals a very competent and serious approach of the author to writing historical work. The interests of affirming faith required not only entertainment and edification, but also reliability and accuracy. Eusebius’s Christian position not only did not interfere, but, on the contrary, forced him to be extremely accurate, truthful and accurate. In conditions of intense polemics with the most educated representatives of pagan culture, he could be convincing and could contrast his concept with the traditional one only by being well versed in Christian and non-Christian literature, observing the accuracy of all formulations, without allowing the slightest mistake. § 3. THEORETICAL POINTS AND PRINCIPLES OF HISTORICAL WRITING Eusebius of Caesarea himself is well aware of the innovation of his work and even, in a sense, contrasts himself with ancient historians. In the introduction to the fifth chapter of his “Church History,” he formulates new principles of historical writing as follows: “Others in their historical narratives necessarily write about military victories, about trophies, about the exploits of military leaders and the valor of soldiers, stained with blood and murders committed for the sake of their children, homeland and all wealth. Our word, telling about how to live in God, will be written on the eternal tablets of those who waged a peaceful war for the peace of their souls and courageously fought for the truth, and not for their homeland, for faith, and not for loved ones. It will proclaim the enduring memory of the resistance of the fighters for the faith, of their long-suffering courage, of the victory over demons and invisible opponents, and of the things they received for all this” (V, praef.). Thus, in accordance with his value system, he rethinks the subject and tasks of historical science. If ancient historians set as their goal to trace, using factual material, the rise of some states and the fall of others, conquests, the formation of colonies 470, the struggle of political groups, etc., then Eusebius pays main attention to phenomena of the moral order. The admiration of the Romans for military valor, the desire to seize the property of others, devastate cities, destroy free peoples or convert them into slavery, the very name of Rome - all this causes decisive condemnation 471. Soviet historians were inclined to see this as a manifestation of the struggle of the provinces with the great power policies of Rome. “Can one doubt,” writes A. L. Katz, “that the oppressed provinces stood behind Christian apologists such as Lactantius and Eusebius?” 472. In our opinion, this trend is not only and not so much evidence of political protest, but reflects changes in the value system. Eusebius does not condemn Rome and does not completely reject traditional Roman virtues, but he places new emphasis on the events he describes. Instead of military and political history, the affirmation of the Christian faith comes to the fore. Instead of glorifying military victories and military valor, courage and bravery of soldiers, Eusebius gives the reader as an example the steadfastness of the martyrs, their loyalty to Christian teaching, and shows the moral superiority of Christians over pagans. If for Thucydides, as for other ancient authors, the essence and content of history is the struggle for power, which is waged by peoples, states, groups of people and individuals by political means or with the help of weapons 473, then for the first Christian historian it is “the education of humanity for Salvation.” Eusebius sees his main task not in describing the political vicissitudes, economic life of peoples, etc., but in testifying to all the persecutions that befell Christians, and the final affirmation of the true Christian faith. In accordance with this main goal, he first tries not to simply “write about all the glorious Christians throughout the whole world who have labored for the faith [this is not my task; this is the work of people who saw it with their own eyes! - but to give an overview of everything that has been undertaken against us since the beginning of the persecution” (VIII, 13, 7-8). This thought receives its completion in the final part of the work: “... let us sing a new song, for after the gloomy sights and terrible stories we have been honored to see and glorify what many who lived before us, the true righteous and martyrs of God, wanted to see on earth and did not see, wanted to hear and did not hear” (X, 1, 4). At the same time, Eusebius retains the attitude towards history, widespread in ancient historiography, as a “mentor of life”, a rich source of instructive examples. As R. Dostalova notes, “Byzantine historiography from the very beginning followed the traditions of Herodotus and Thucydides, not only in terms of language, but also in the sense of the concept of works. The Byzantines learned the theories of historiography from Polybius, who emphasized the didactic goals of historiography, the need to write truthfully, etc.” 474. Polybius' statement directly echoes the thoughts of the Bishop of Caesarea. Polybius notes 475 “how great and varied are the benefits for inquisitive people derived from the true history of events” (1, 2, 8). Beginning his work, Eusebius also writes: “I hope that my work will be useful to those who listen carefully to the instructive lessons of history” (1,3,5). In the eighth chapter, he again makes a reservation: “I will tell in this story, which concerns everyone, only about what can benefit, firstly, ourselves, and then our descendants” (VIII, 2, 2). Beginning with Eusebius of Caesarea, church historians have introduced Christian prayer into the fabric of their narratives. Eusebius begins his narrative with prayer: “I pray to God to be my guide and the power of Christ to assist me in my work” (I, 1, 3). He ends his work with prayer: “... let us stand up and beg Him out loud. May He save and preserve us, His flock, to the end, may He grant us the eternal, inviolable and unshakable gift in Christ Jesus our Savior, through whom be glory to Him forever and ever. Amen!" (X, 4, 72). Referring to God, Eusebius speaks of his intention to write the truth: “Let us call on God the Father and Jesus Christ Himself, our Savior and Master, the Heavenly Word of the Father, to help us and assist us in presenting the truth” (I, 5, praef.). Here the connection between Eusebius and the Greco-Roman ancient traditions is obvious. The technique of addressing the gods was common in classical Greek encomia or other speeches. Pliny the Younger begins his “Panegyric” to Trajan: “It is wonderful and wise, senators, that the rule established by our ancestors to begin not only every business, but even every speech with a prayerful appeal to the gods, for no undertaking of people could be correct, prudent and happy without the help and advice of the immortal gods and without prayer to them... It is fitting and proper for me to turn with a prayer to the great and all-good To Jupiter... so that he would make my speech worthy of a consul, a senate, worthy of our princeps, so that every word of mine would testify to the truth, our freedom and fidelity, so that, finally, my speech would be as far from any semblance of flattery as it is far from any coercion” (Panegyric 476, 1). Thus, Eusebius develops ancient traditions, although he does not follow them entirely. He changes some points so that everything corresponds to the Christian worldview. Firstly, prayer is used by Eusebius not only at the beginning of the work, but much more often and more actively. Secondly, Eusebius resorts to prayers not only in rhetoric, but also in his main historical work. Prayer in general is of great importance in the life of Christians. Thirdly, the prayer of the Bishop of Caesarea is, naturally, addressed not to Jupiter and the immortal gods, but to the Christian God. The Bishop of Caesarea does not cease to appeal for divine help and support further, in the course of his work: “Thanks be to God Almighty and Master for everything, and the greatest gratitude to the Savior and Redeemer of our souls, Jesus Christ, through whom we always pray for unshakable firmness in the midst of worldly anxieties and spiritual situations. With prayer, we add this tenth book to the previous books of Church history, and dedicate it to you, Peacock...” (X, 1,1). The work of Eusebius of Caesarea introduces a lot of new things into the tradition of historical writing, related to the general revaluation of traditional values ​​by Christians and the establishment of a Christian model of perception of the world and history. The works of Christian historians, followers of Eusebius, are characterized by emotionality, psychologism, and personal perception. Describing the behavior of Christians before the trial, Eusebius writes: “Here a difference was discovered among the rest: some were ready for martyrdom and eagerly made a confession of faith. However, they turned out to be unprepared, without experience, still weak, unable to withstand this intense, great torture. There were ten such people who fell away. They caused us great grief and immeasurable grief and broke the courageous resolve of those who had not yet been captured and who, although with great fear, helped the martyrs and did not abandon them. Here we were all struck with horror, because the outcome of their confession was dark; we were not afraid of torture, but, seeing the impending end, we were afraid that someone would fall away...” (V, 1, 11). Thus, a Christian historian not only tells the reader some information, looking at it from the outside, detached, objectively, but also shares his thoughts, feelings, and experiences. He could not remain indifferent to the events he described. Even the author tells the story itself not from the third person, as was customary in Greco-Roman historiography, but from the first, on behalf of Christians (“we”), without hiding his beliefs, likes and dislikes (V, 1, 50–61; VIII, 9, 5). Eusebius repeatedly exclaims very emotionally: “...there are no words to tell how many martyrs there are - and which ones! - the inhabitants of every city and village could see with their own eyes everywhere” (VIII, 4, 5), “what then happened surpasses all description...” (VIII, 6, 9), “and again, how to count the number of martyrs in each diocese, especially in Africa, in Mauritania, in Thebaid and in Egypt?” (VIII, 6, 10). Or again: “Who will not be shocked to see how these truly amazing fighters for the faith steadfastly endured a long scourging and immediately after it a competition with bloodthirsty beasts!” (VIII, 7, 1). “Is there a word to tell about the valiant courage with which they endured every torture? The spectacle of these torments was constantly renewed, and what anger there was!” (VIII, 10, 4–5). “The torture and suffering that the martyrs endured in Thebaid surpasses all description” (VIII, 9, 1). In the perception of the historian, with the establishment of a new religion, a new feature appears - Christian compassion. The theoretical principles and principles of historical writing, manifested in the work of Eusebius of Caesarea, bear the imprint of a transitional era. On the one hand, a connection is revealed between Eusebius’s attitudes and the traditions of antiquity (appeal to the gods, the idea of ​​the instructiveness and didactic benefits of history, etc.). On the other hand, many traditional attitudes are overestimated in connection with the approval of the general Christian model of worldview. Thus, Eusebius refuses to describe wars and political vicissitudes and brings to the fore “moral history.” His historical work is imbued with psychologism, emotionality, and Christian compassion. The story itself is told by the author in the first person, and not in the third, as was customary in Greco-Roman historiography. Of course, these changes were noticed both by Eusebius’s contemporaries and by researchers of the 19th and 20th centuries. They caused a variety of assessments and often served as a reason for reproaches of bias and deceit against the author of the first “Church History”. However, the very change in the author’s position, his attempt to present not only a certain amount of information, but also to give his own assessment of the events, in our opinion, is not yet a sufficient basis for accusing Eusebius of Caesarea and his followers of falsifying history, of dishonesty and deceit. § 4. THE PROBLEM OF OBJECTIVITY The quality of historical work depends not only on the completeness of information and a careful attitude to it, but also on the historian’s approach to his tasks. The main criterion of a good historian, and, accordingly, of historical work, is its truthfulness. Every ancient author, starting his story, considered it his duty to assure the reader of his desire for truth, of his own truthfulness and objectivity. Many Christian authors, describing the history of the first three centuries of Christianity and talking about the martyrdom of Christians, seem to consciously abandon the principle proclaimed by Tacitus - to write impartially, “sine ira et studio.” But does this feature make their writings less truthful and meaningful? Is this fact indisputable evidence of the regression of historical thinking of Christian authors? The answer to this question is not as indisputable and unambiguous as it seems at first glance. Firstly, not all researchers unconditionally recognize the desire of ancient authors for a cold, detached and impartial presentation of what they saw or heard as a virtue. For example, at one time the German researcher Howald accused Herodotus of a morbid predilection for depicting human weakness and cowardice; he considered Herodotus’s position as an “accurate and impartial observer” to be an example of his “fundamental immorality,” and his “History” was regarded as “the world’s oldest example of a terrible criminal novel” 477. Hippolyte Taine, singling out Thucydides among the ancient historians, accuses him of dispassion and callousness: “Nothing can be more terrible than this composure of the historian, completely natural: he passes by murders, uprisings, pestilence as a person detached from everything human, who, having fixed his eyes on the truth, cannot descend to anger and pity. Death, life, good and bad deeds - all this is indifferent to science, all this in its eyes is nothing more than facts and reasons” 478. Secondly, not all ancient authors fulfill their promise to be truthful and impartial. Roman historians, like the Greek ones, always assured of their desire for accuracy and truthfulness, always spoke of the need to conduct a historical narrative impartially, they themselves convinced the reader that they would speak only the truth, without deviating one iota from it, without even keeping silent about unpleasant things and without allowing themselves to express their personal sympathies or antipathies. However, both Roman and Greek historians stand very far from this ideal 479. Well known, for example, are the “minimum requirement for a historian” cited by Cicero - not to be a liar (non esse mendacem) (Cic.. De orat., II, 51) and the formulation of the basic “laws of history”: “Who does not know that the first law of history is not to dare any lie, then - not to fear any truth; write in such a way as not to allow oneself to be suspected of either sympathy or hostility” (Cic., De orat., II, 62). However, in letters to Atticus, he himself quite openly and cynically admitted to various rhetorical fabrications (Sis., Ad Att., I, 14, 3–4), although in words he always advocated adherence to the truth. Another Roman historian, Sallust, on the one hand, demanded truthfulness and impartiality from the historian (Sail., Cat., 4. 2–3), and on the other, said that the glory of the deeds of individuals or entire nations depends on the brilliance of the eloquence of those who describe these deeds (Sail., Cat., 8). Apparently, as S. L. Utchenko rightly concludes, “this kind of declarative statements can be considered as locus communis in all those cases when Roman historians generally began to discuss such topics” 480. However, these statements by Greek and Roman historians cannot yet serve as a guarantee of their veracity. And their writings often contained conscious or accidental distortions of actual facts, resulting from an excessive desire to make their story exciting and exciting, due to personal sympathies or simply insufficient knowledge of the material 481. Classical scholars are forced to admit that “the majority of ancient historians omitted material unfavorable to their main thought, selecting facts without much verification, even dubious information that developed their idea” 482. Even Thucydides could not avoid accusations of subjectivity, concealment of the truth, deliberate obscurity in order to confuse the reader, pedantry and doctrinaire 483 . Thus, the authors' assurances of their own impartiality are often regarded as nothing more than a cliché, characteristic of most Greek and Roman historians. The problem of Eusebius' objectivity is an important and rather complex problem. All researchers who in one way or another touched on the legacy of the first church historian invariably turned to the question of his objectivity. At the same time, assessments of the truthfulness and objectivity of Eusebius range from apologetic to the most critical. Starting with G. Geltser, many researchers sing real praises to Eusebius, his “love of truth” 484. Others note “Eusebius’s tendency to omit or distort inconvenient facts,” limiting this assessment only to those sections of the Ecclesiastical History that deal with the time in which Eusebius himself lived 485 . Still others generally believe that Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History,” together with other works, can be considered his “survival kit.” “It was written in such a way that he could survive not only as a subject of the emperor, but also as a Christian bishop during the great disasters” 486. Eusebius's Christian views are ridiculed as a kind of "philosophy of success", and the bishop himself is portrayed as a deceitful careerist who put religion at the service of the politics of Constantine 487. The most captious critic of Eusebius, the author of a very revealing article in this regard (“The Case against Eusebius”), R. Grant, argues his position as follows: “It is obvious that Eusebius was strongly influenced by political considerations when he wrote his “Ecclesiastical History.” We will give examples of the influence of such considerations on his descriptions of events. He mixed up the names of Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (All three bore the name Antoninus at different times). But in this confusion There is his own method. He transfers the blame for the persecution from Marcus Aurelius to the “bad” emperor Lucius Verus. In the depiction of Eusebius, the “good” emperor Marcus Aurelius could not be a persecutor. Since in reality he was such and, as his “Reflections” show, he despised Christians, it turns out that Eusebius hid the historical fact for the sake of his moralistic political approach. There is no surprise in the fact that the great and good. Constantine was an ardent admirer of Marcus Aurelius. It was the pro-Constantinian bias that was responsible for many of Eusebius’ distortions of facts.”488 Even more controversial is Eusebius' description of Constantine's reign in his special work dedicated to the emperor, On the Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, more commonly known as Vita Constantim (Life of Constantine). This work is difficult to classify as strictly historical, but it is very closely related to Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” by the commonality of plots and assessments and, in the opinion of most researchers, makes it possible to more accurately reconstruct the historian’s actual attitude to the reign of Emperor Constantine. In this work, Eusebius gives lavish praise to Constantine, portraying him as an ideal ruler, and his reign as a period of general peace and prosperity. This work caused a storm of negative reaction from researchers and a lot of reproaches for “servile flattery” against its author. At the end of the 19th century, Jacob Burckhard, accusing the author of dishonesty, irritably referred to him as “the most disgusting of panegyrists.” Even in the 19th century, historians found numerous errors and distortions of reality in Eusebius’ narrative 489. He was portrayed as “a two-faced and arrogant man”; the basis of all his actions was seen as “ambition, vanity, the desire to gain favor from the powers that be, material comfort and secular splendor” 490. Similar assessments are present in modern literature. Many accuse Eusebius of deliberately distorting the image of Constantine, embellishing it, thereby hoping to save his life, receive ranks, titles and any material benefits 491; they consider Eusebius a “faithful servant” of the emperor, to whom he devoted himself and his works 492. In response to these accusations, other researchers gave the highest assessment of the veracity of Eusebius M.D. Muretov, for example, objecting to such an assessment of the personality of the first Christian historian, writes “meanwhile, there is some actual data on the basis of which it is possible to illuminate the moral character of Eusebius in a completely opposite light” 493. And then he parries numerous accusations against the bishop of Caesarea: “This epicurean sits bent at his desk all his life and rummages through the dusty and dark archives of libraries, this court juir devotes all his leisure time to reading ancient manuscripts; this lover of comfort spends his life in constant wanderings from one city to another to study church history, and with all selflessness devotes himself to the improvement of the Caesarea flock and the pacification of church unrest. This vain vulgar and materialist asks the emperor not for money, not for honors and not for material wealth, but for free access to all libraries and archives... If we add that, out of love for science and service to the church, Eusebius sacrifices all the delights of the family hearth and becomes a supporter of celibacy for the clergy, if we know that Eusebius led a moderate and almost ascetic lifestyle, then I am absolutely perplexed as to how one can reproach such a person for his addiction to material goods, for secular comfort and almost for dishonesty in relation to Constantine? 494 A.P. Lebedev, analyzing not even his “Ecclesiastical History,” but largely an apologetic work specifically dedicated to praising the emperor 495, wrote in 1897: “Eusebius of Caesarea, who knew Constantine closely, was a friend of the first Christian emperor and described his “life” after his death, when, therefore, the opportunity opened up for the historian to speak impartially, paints an attractive, moral image of Constantine, confirming his characterization with facts that even picky historical criticism can hardly object to... Pretentious criticism can deny one or another fact of this kind conveyed by Eusebius, can reinterpret in its own way this or that news of Eusebius to the detriment of the glory of Constantine... but no one is able to question the veracity of the entire work of Eusebius historian" 496. Probably, this assessment of Eusebius’s veracity is exaggerated, however, the accusations of deliberate distortion of facts and servility to the emperor brought against Eusebius, in our opinion, are too harsh and have no basis in reality. Firstly, “The Life of Constantine” was written after the death of Emperor Constantine, and it is unlikely that Eusebius could count on any reward from Constantine’s successors. Secondly, this work is not something very unusual for the ancient literary tradition. It is written in the spirit of panegyric and does not aim to provide an accurate and detailed account of the events of the emperor's life. Eusebius paints a certain ideal image of a ruler, using techniques and means developed and tested by ancient historiography. To resolve the question of the real relationship of Eusebius of Caesarea to Constantine, M. Hollerich draws on another of his works, which has never become the subject of close attention of scientists - “Commentaries on Isaiah.” The Commentaries show little interest in the empire or Constantine personally. Eusebius' main subject here is the church. And the “sanctified imperialism” present in the speeches to Constantine and in the “Biography of the Emperor,” according to the researcher, owes its origin to the rhetorical tradition and is an insufficient basis for the assertion that Eusebius really had similar views on the relationship between the church and imperial power. 497 And finally, as modern research shows, the relationship between Eusebius and Constantine during the life of the emperor was not so warm. “Constantine probably first drew attention to Eusebius at the Council of Nicaea. The bishop had some doubts about the proposed faith, but eventually agreed to subscribe in the interests of harmony and unity. The Emperor, himself entirely devoted to the cause of unity, must have been pleasantly surprised by the contrast between this learned, respectful readiness to compromise and the inflexibility of the other bishops. A few years later, when the Christians of Antioch wanted to make Eusebius their bishop, Constantine wrote them a letter praising their candidate for his learning and prudence. However, the emperor rejected their request. This letter is a good indication of the real position of Eusebius at that time at court. This issue has caused controversy among historians. Some made him a powerful adviser behind the throne, a judge of Constantine's religious policy; others portrayed him as little more than a lackey, doing his master's bidding in return for aid against his enemies in the church. This letter clarifies a lot. The pretext for Constantine's intervention, preventing the transfer of Eusebius to Antioch (for promotion), was the canon of the Council of Nicaea prohibiting such transfers. However, it is difficult to believe that the emperor would have taken this rule into account if he had favored the candidacy of Eusebius. Apparently, the emperor considered that a scholar-bishop was not suitable to lead such a politically important and troubled center. Such doubt suggests that he did not rely entirely on the advice of Eusebius. However, Constantine valued Eusebius' abilities as a Christian scholar, turning to him when he needed accurate copies of the Bible for the new churches of Constantinople, as evidenced by the emperor's surviving letter to Eusebius. In all likelihood, this is why Eusebius acted as an honorary, although perhaps not a frequent guest at court” 498. Personal contacts between Eusebius and Constantine were limited, according to T.D. Barnes, to just four meetings 499. B. Warmington also supported this view in his report to the Oxford Patriotic Conference in 1987, asking the question: "Did Constantine have a priest with him at all times who could really be called an 'ecclesiastical adviser'? Clearly we have no sufficient grounds for answering this question in the affirmative."500 The position of Eusebius himself in this situation is not entirely clear. Drake admits that Eusebius was aware of the advantages of his connections with the palace in the fierce church disputes of the 4th century. tried to build a powerful defense for himself in this way 501. According to most authors, in his work “The Life of Constantine” Eusebius as a historian is much less conscientious than in “Ecclesiastical History” 502. But, taking into account the panegyric nature of this work, one should hardly expect more objectivity and truthfulness from it. In addition, the significance of this work is determined by the fact that, as a contemporary of the events, Eusebius reports a number of information that is most valuable to us. As for “Ecclesiastical History” (the main work of Eusebius of Caesarea), then, in our opinion, Eusebius very carefully, conscientiously and knowledgeably solves the task he set for himself at the beginning of his work - to describe church history as he understood it. He devotes a lot of space to the activities of emperors, since in his view the fate of the empire and the church largely depended on the monarch. However, he does not describe all of their actions, but only those that are directly related to the church. That is, he omits many facts of secular history, but not out of malice or negligence, bad faith, but because they are not directly related to his topic. The inaccuracies and errors that researchers find in his work make up an insignificant percentage 503. Despite all the indicated shortcomings of Eusebius, in our opinion, he can be assessed as a completely conscientious and trustworthy author. § 5. THE PROBLEM OF THE AUTHOR’S SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS The problem of author's self-awareness deserves special attention. It is quite difficult to study this aspect, since the author of a literary or historical work does not always communicate about himself; he sets other tasks for himself. Only a few author's remarks at the beginning and during the course of the work allow us to draw some conclusions about what goals the author pursues, how he sees his place in a long line of other authors, how he feels about his work, etc. The development of the author's consciousness led to the formation among the ancient Greeks and Romans of very specific ideas about the rights and responsibilities of the author (“the obligation to justify with special arguments the importance of the entire topic and the legitimacy of one’s approach to it”), about innovation and the canon, about originality and plagiarism. All this in “Middle Eastern literature” is opposed by “internal anonymity,” “blurred boundaries of authorship,” openness of form, “zero credit,” and the absence of a formally defined introduction 504. Early Byzantine historians were at the intersection of these two lines. How did these traditions, often contradictory, influence the approach of Byzantine authors to their historical works and the formation of their authorial self-awareness? For the first time in Russian historiography, I. S. Chichurov tried to raise the question of the author’s self-awareness of early Byzantine historians, drawing on the preambles of Byzantine historical works to analyze 505. He concludes that over time, as a result of gradual changes, a high level of authorial self-awareness is replaced by almost complete anonymity. The main milestones on this path are the 4th and 9th centuries. The final approval of the new model and standards of historical writing characteristic of the Christian era occurs, according to the researcher, in the 9th century, in the works of Theophan the Confessor. The beginning of this turn was laid by Eusebius of Caesarea. The founder of the genre of church history begins his work with a fairly detailed definition of its subject: we will talk about the apostolic heritage, about the years from the incarnation of the Savior to the contemporary Eusebius, about those who carried God’s word, both orally and in writing, who deviated from the true path (heretics), about the machinations of the Jewish people against Christ, about martyrs for the faith. But the main thing, as I. S. Chichurov notes 506, is not this. Eusebius, like secular authors, is clearly aware of his place among other historians. On the one hand, he does not deviate from the traditions of ancient historiography and at the very beginning of his work asks the reader to be favorable to him. On the other hand, Eusebius is well aware of the novelty of his work. He writes: “Immediately, however, I ask well-meaning people for leniency towards my work. I confess that it is beyond my strength to fulfill this promise perfectly and completely, for I am the first to undertake such a story and enter, as it were, onto an untrodden and untrodden road... I could not find any traces of people who had walked before me along the same road, except for the most petty stories in which each in his own way left a partial narrative about the period of time he had passed: as if in the distance, torches held high, there were the voices of people; as if from somewhere above from a watchtower they shout to us and show us where to go and how to direct the course of the story without wandering and in safety” (I, 1,3). Thus, Eusebius is well aware of the novelty of the work he has undertaken and feels like a pioneer. However, this awareness of innovation is not a reason for pride for him; rather, on the contrary, he foresees the difficulties that he will face. Eusebius repeatedly writes that the work he has undertaken is beyond his strength. “Do we have enough words to describe them exactly?” (VIII, 3, 4), “we do not have the strength to adequately tell about how respected the faith in God Almighty, proclaimed by Christ to all people, was enjoyed before the current persecution...” (VIII, 1, 1). With the modesty and self-abasement characteristic of a Christian, he begins his work, calling on God for help. At the same time, Eusebius is not only confident in the legitimacy of his approach to the topic, but he is not alien to the hope of success. “I consider this work my most urgent task, because, as far as I know, not one of the church writers has yet bothered to undertake such a thing. I hope that my work will be very useful to those who listen carefully to the instructive lessons of history" (I, 3, 5). The Bishop of Caesarea was repeatedly reproached for the fact that his historical work lacks integrity and contains a lot of different information that is not united by a single idea. In our opinion, this statement is not entirely true. The author is very clearly aware of his tasks and, when selecting material, is guided by the principle of expediency. He himself explains his position as follows: “It is not our business, however, to describe the gloomy disasters that befell them; It is not my task to inform posterity about their strife and follies before the persecution. We have decided to say nothing more about them except what justifies the judgment of God. I am not carried away by the desire to perpetuate the memory of either those who fell into temptation due to persecution, or those who suffered the collapse of all hope of salvation and, by their own choice, were cast into the boiling abyss” (VIII, 2, 2). It is obvious that this is not the dispassionate narrative of some faceless, almost anonymous author, but the result of individual human activity. And the personality of this person is revealed in the selection of material, in the awareness of the goals and objectives of his work, in the understanding of the difficulties that may arise, in the author’s attitude towards the people and events that he describes, in relation to the sources of his information, etc. The author does not at all hide his belonging to the Christian church, sympathy for Christians and martyrs, and, conversely, his negative attitude towards persecutors. In the works of Eusebius there are already some features that betray the author’s Christian worldview, in particular his modesty and self-abasement, but they do not completely hide the author’s individuality. The high level of authorial self-awareness characteristic of the classical ancient worldview from about the beginning of the 9th century, from the time of John of Damascus and Theophanes, loses its force in early Byzantine literature, degenerating into a declarative rejection of individual creativity 507. Eusebius, obviously, stands at the very beginning of this process. In general, the work of Eusebius Pamphilus reveals a combination of traditional approaches and innovations introduced by him. Eusebius of Caesarea develops the best traditions of ancient historical thought and at the same time introduces many new things into the practice of historical writing. Following Thucydides and Polybius, he uses a lot of original documents in his work, subjecting them to thorough historical criticism. Even in his “Church History” the traditional literary form, speech, finds a place for itself, but he endows it with new content. The author's general attitude towards history as a “teacher of life”, a source of instructive examples, is also associated with the traditions of Greco-Roman historiography. At the same time, Eusebius’s approach to writing historical work differed significantly from the accepted canons. The subject of research itself is changing. The bishop of Caesarea is not interested in the history of wars or political vicissitudes, but in spiritual history. Moreover, he departs from the ancient tradition, according to which a true historian must write contemporary history, of which he himself was a witness and, perhaps, a participant. Eusebius takes a very bold step when he begins to describe history from the creation of the world. The author's Christian worldview also left its mark on the historian's style of presentation. He renounces the principle of “writing without anger and partiality” proclaimed by Tacitus, does not hide his likes and dislikes, and very emotionally, with Christian compassion, describes the disasters that befell his fellow believers, which, however, does not make his work less objective and truthful. The first church historian refused to use oral tradition, preferring the written works of his predecessors, legal documents, church materials, correspondence and even inscriptions to legends and stories. And the conditions of intense polemics with the most educated pagans, in which the establishment of Christianity took place, forced church authors to perfectly navigate the vast Christian and non-Christian literature, to be extremely accurate in citing documents and to provide only carefully verified data. In addition, Eusebius always carefully indicates where he got this or that information from. Eusebius's critical method, as recognized by most researchers, is a huge contribution to the development of world historical thought. The life and work of Eusebius of Caesarea (260–340 AD) chronologically fit entirely within the framework of ancient civilization. He did not know about the division of the united Roman Empire into two parts - Eastern and Western - in 395, nor about the massive invasions of barbarians and the sack of Rome in 410, nor about the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, etc. He owed all his education and upbringing to the traditions of the ancient world. At the same time, he was a Christian bishop, and this circumstance left its very deep imprint on all his work. Ancient education and the Greek language, which Eusebius spoke and wrote, determined the stability of traditional ideas in the new system of worldview. At the same time, Christian attitudes had a huge influence on the formation of most ideological categories and the formation of a completely different conceptual basis for all historical views of Eusebius of Caesarea, as well as many other creators and bearers of a new culture. Moreover, the new system of ideas, naturally, was not a simple mechanical set, a largely random combination of heterogeneous and sometimes contradictory ideas. They seemed to be re-thought, experienced, felt. “Church History” is a very complex and interesting source in this regard, showing the features of the transitional era, the complex process of formation of a new system of worldview, its starting points, certain “discoveries” perceived by the Middle Ages, and - most importantly - the mechanisms of formation of this new system. As Church History shows, at the turn of the 3rd-4th centuries the mechanism for the formation of historical memory changes. The main attention is now paid not to wars and political intrigues, but to church history. The emergence of a new genre is a significant phenomenon. Moreover, it is necessary to note the specific understanding of this church history by early Byzantine authors. The church itself is not understood as an ecclesiastical organization, a system of institutions, a hierarchy of ecclesiastical offices, or any local church community. The Church is understood by Eusebius very broadly. For him, church history does not begin in the 1st century AD. e., not from the Nativity of Christ, as one might expect, but from the creation of the world, Adam and the first righteous. This is, at first glance, an absurd circumstance; a certain oddity can hardly be explained by ignorance of the subject, chance, or the political situation that the author is trying to track. Rather, this hides a specific understanding of church history and the history of mankind in general. In addition, the work of Eusebius of Caesarea reveals another “strangeness” - a close interweaving of church and secular subjects in one work with the general title “Ecclesiastical History.” Obviously, this is again not due to the carelessness or illegibility of the author or any political overtones. Probably, church history, understood as the movement of humanity towards salvation, was perceived not as a separate area of ​​​​human life, but as the core, the basis of all human history. Not only the Christian bishop Eusebius, for opportunistic purposes of establishing a new faith and a new government, of which researchers often accused him, describes world history in this way, but other authors, and secular people, also write “Church Histories”. Thus, from the beginning of the 4th century, we can probably talk about some kind of reorientation of mass consciousness and, accordingly, a change in the very mechanism of formation of people’s historical memory. For historians, as well as for their audience, what is important is not wars and political intrigues, but the history of the salvation of the human race and everything that in one way or another contributes to the disclosure of this history. Hence the predominance of religious attitudes in people’s minds, and other features of the perception of history and the world as a whole. At the turn of the 3rd-4th centuries, as the writings of Eusebius show, the entire picture of the world was radically transformed. The world itself (κόσμος) no longer includes the sky, stars and earth, nature and man, which was characteristic of the ancient worldview, but is understood as the world of people, sinful and imperfect. Accordingly, the view on the history of this world changes: it is not subject to the movement of the stars and does not include natural changes. Thus, history begins to be understood only as human history, the history of people and their relationship with God. Eusebius builds a new scheme of the historical process. God is at the center of the Christian worldview, which gives history theocratism and providentialism. The devil, the personified force of evil, appears next to him. However, this scheme is far from dualism. Man also takes a worthy place in it. The actual recognition of the freedom of human will and his responsibility for his actions is one of the most important features of early medieval historicism. The course of history is determined by the interaction of God, the devil and man and the predominance of any one of these forces in certain circumstances. But the main driving force of historical development is man, acting in synergy with God. Finally, such an understanding of the forces operating in history leads to the formation of new ideas about the causality of the historical process. In the Christian understanding, everything happens not by the will of blind Chance and not under the influence of the momentary impulse of any political figure, but by the will of God. Each event has its own deep meaning. At the same time, the story is not perceived as a simple enactment of a long-written drama. The active role of man and his responsibility for the daily choices he makes preclude such an understanding. There are certain patterns in history. This is a causally determined process. Of course, the medieval historian, and especially the historian of the transitional era (the turn of the 3rd-4th centuries), looked for the causes of events and phenomena not in the level of development of productive forces, not in the economic basis, not in the development of the political situation, and did not clearly identify the social and ideological prerequisites for this or that event. He saw the laws of historical development in his own way. For him, the course of history is governed primarily by moral logic. And although these ideas differ significantly from the modern understanding of the causes and patterns of historical development, in the distant historical perspective this meant the birth of the idea of ​​objective history. Now history is beginning to be understood as a long process, determined not by a set of random events and volitional decisions of individual outstanding individuals, but as an objective, natural process, developing according to its own laws and subject to its own logic. By highlighting the Nativity of Christ and the Second Coming as key moments, history acquires a linear, directional slow and generally progressive in nature. In the understanding of the Christian author, history has a specific purpose and meaning and moves in an upward direction. Although the very term “progress” in relation to the early Middle Ages can be used to a large extent only conventionally, it is nevertheless significant that history is now understood as the gradual upward development of society. The concept of progress at the turn of the 3rd-4th centuries, as in the subsequent era of the classical Middle Ages, has a certain specificity. It applies primarily to spiritual life. History is perceived by Christian thinkers as the moral and spiritual development of people, the ascent of humanity to the Kingdom of Heaven, and preparation for Salvation. Moreover, this “progress” is not unlimited. History moves towards a certain goal and, therefore, development is oriented towards a certain limit. The perception of the entire human community is also changing. All humanity is now divided not according to territoriality, but according to religious affiliation: into Christians and non-Christians. However, this division is not rigid. Anyone can accept Christianity and be saved. Thus, instead of polis isolation and the idea of ​​Jewish or Roman exclusivity, the concept of universalism is substantiated. History begins to be understood as a world-historical process. The main thing here is not the mechanical expansion of the author’s geographical horizons, but the awareness of the unity and homogeneity of this world. It is no coincidence that Eusebius strives to follow a unified chronological system, which he himself developed. This concept of history, developed by the Bishop of Caesarea, was a great innovation in the historical views of that time, and it was to have a decisive influence on historical thought and historiography of the entire Christian Middle Ages. Researchers rightly call Eusebius “the father of Christian history and the Christian Herodotus.” Many of Eusebius’ ideas were continued and developed in the East and West. Eusebius is the first historian who tried to give a Christian interpretation of history, and the scheme of historical development laid down by him, with certain variations, will remain dominant throughout the Middle Ages. The same trends are well reflected in language changes. Eusebius abandons some traditional Greek concepts that evoked strong pagan associations. Thus, Eusebius seems to be trying to avoid using terms that could cause the reader to associate with ancient cyclism. He practically does not use the concepts κύκλος, περίοδος. If they appear on the pages of “Church History” (in exceptional cases), then they have a completely different semantic meaning, in no way connected with the cycle of history. Eusebius abandons the key idea for ancient historiography of Fate, Fate or Chance (fatum, είμαρμένη, fortuna, τύχη). He reinterprets and uses other Greek concepts (καιρός, συμβεβηκότα), giving them new meanings and new semantic shades. Where the ancient authors could see the action of Fate or Chance, in Eusebius Divine Providence (πρόνοια) operates, bringing τά συμβεβηκότα into a certain order. The term itself τά συμβεβηκότα now denotes historical events, at first glance unexpected, but, as it becomes obvious from the entire historical perspective, that did not happen by chance, but according to the will of God and the secret plan of God to encourage some, punish others, or guide others to the path of truth. The writings of the Bishop of Caesarea also indicate a profound rethinking of spatial categories. To designate the entire world as a whole, the universe, the entire world space, he uses the familiar Greek term κόσμος as the most general concept. In the vocabulary of Eusebius, the term κόσμος and words with the same root occupy a fairly large place. However, here κόσμος takes on a slightly different meaning. For Eusebius, κόσμος is, rather, a populated, human world. This is the world of people, “all who have lived before and are now living,” a world in which Christians and other people live and act, for whose salvation Christ suffered. The concept of κόσμος now acquires an evaluative meaning. Everything “cosmic” (κοσμικός) now acquires a new meaning: “earthly”, “worldly”, “secular”. Κόσμος no longer includes the sky, but is opposed to it. And earthly life acquires a religious and moral significance that is not characteristic of modern geographical concepts. Thus, in the work of Eusebius, another mechanism for transforming the entire system of ideas is quite clearly manifested - the rethinking of previous, traditional categories, endowing them with a new semantic load, new shades, a certain selectivity, with the help of which Eusebius uses some concepts very actively, while others, on the contrary, avoids. He uses neutral concepts instead of evaluative ones or endows neutral concepts with Christian content. These linguistic transformations sometimes make it possible to identify certain ideological attitudes of the author, even if the author does not specifically reveal them. An important phenomenon not only in the development of historiography, but also in the formation of a new culture as a whole, in our opinion, was the emergence of the “Eusebius Method”. The very fact of the emergence of a different attitude towards sources, new methods of working with written materials, etc. already reflects the reorientation of cultural tradition towards the written word. In addition, in accordance with his concept, Eusebius approved a new view of historical writing. Not only the concept of historical development, the very subject of research by historians, the way of explaining events changes, but also the method of analysis, the author’s attitude to the sources of his information, the way of organizing and presenting material, methods of historical research, the technique of writing history and, in general, the view of history as a science. Contrary to the ancient historiographical tradition, Eusebius's text is not colored with speeches and words. Instead, there are exact quotes from letters, state and church documents. Such careful use of documentation, necessary in the context of tough theological disputes at the turn of the 3rd-4th centuries, the fierce struggle of established Christianity against paganism, will become a real revolution in the development of historical science. Exact quotations with the obligatory indication of their source, careful verification of controversial sources for authenticity and reliability, the absence of fictitious speeches and consideration of the previous historiographical tradition, already present in the “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius of Caesarea, will in the future be accepted as criteria for a scientific essay. Thus, very carefully, almost imperceptibly, without advertising his innovation, Eusebius makes, in fact, a gigantic revolution and lays the foundations of a new worldview. BB – Byzantine temporary book VDI – Bulletin of Ancient History TPZS – Works on sign systems. Scientific notes of the University of Tartu. BS – Byzantinoslavica. Prague, 1929 – Byz - Byzation. Bruxelles, 1924 – BZ – Byzantinische Zeitschrift. Leipzig-Munchen-Stuttgart-Leipzig, 1892 – SAN – Cambridge Ancient History CQ – Classical Quarterly. Oxford, 1907 – DOP - Dumbarton Oaks Papers. Cambridge Mass., Washington. 1941 – GRBS – Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies. Cambridge Mass., 1958 – JThS – Journal of Theological Studies PG – Patrologie cursus completus Series Graeca. Ed. by J.-P. Migne. Paris, 1857 – StP – Studia Patristica (Papers of the International Conferences of Patristic Studies) 0 1–906 – Eusebius The Ecclesiastical History With an English translation by K. Lake, J. E. L. Oulton, H. J. Lowlor Vol. 1–2 Cambridge (Mass), 1975 – Eusebius Pamphilus Ecclesiastical History Μ, 1993 1 Eusebius Pamphilus Works V 2v Μ, 1848 2 Eusebius Pamphilus Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine 2nd edition M group “Labarum”, 1998 P 1–214 3 Eusebius Pamphilus word to Basileus Constantine on the occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of his reign // Eusebius Pamphilus Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine Μ, 1998 P 215–268 4 Eusebius Pamphili Praeparatio Evangelica (Eusebius Pamphili Praeparatio Evangelica) // PG T XXI, col 21–408 5 Eusebius Pamphili Demonstratio Evangelica ( Εύσεβίου τού Παμφίλου εύαγ → δέκα ) // PG T XXII, col 14–792 6 βαρβάρων (Chromcorum libri duo) // PG T XIX, col 99 – 600 1 Blessed Augustine About the City of God // Works of Blessed Augustine, Bishop of Hipponia Part 3 Kiev, 1906–1910 2 Aurelius, Mark Reflections Magnitogorsk, 1994 Introductory essay. From Kotlyarevsky – Marcus Aurelius Antonin Reflections St. Petersburg “Science”, 1993 P 75–92 3 Aristotle Physics Μ, 1937 (Translated by V.P. Karpov) 4 St. Athanasius the Great Defensive word against the Arians // St. Athanasius the Great Works Μ, 1994 T 1 5 Athenagoras Petition for Christians About the Resurrection of the Dead // Works of ancient Christian apologists Translate the notes of Archpriest P. Preobrazhensky St. Petersburg, 1999 P 53–124 6 Bible Books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments Vol. 1–2 St. Petersburg “Spiritual Enlightenment”, 1991 7 Herodotus History In 9 books Translation and notes by G. A. Stratonovsky Under. total edited by S. L. Utchenko L “Science”, 1972 8 Acts of the Ecumenical Councils T 1 St. Petersburg, 1996 9 Dio Cassius Cocceianus Roman history Book. 59, 1–30 Per. from ancient Greek N. A. Kasatkina, A. V. Makhlayuk, E. A. Moleva, S. K. Sizova. Under. total ed. S.K. Sizova. Comm. A. V. Makhlayuk, M. S. Sadovskoy // From the history of ancient society. Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. Vol. 6 N. Novgorod, 1999 pp. 191–227 10. Dio Cassius Cocceianus Roman History LX, 1–35. Per. from ancient Greek N. A. Kasatkina, A. V. Makhlayuk, S. K. Sizov. Under general ed. S.K. Sizova. Comm. A. V. Makhlayuk // From the history of ancient society. Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. Issue 7 N. Novgorod, 2001 P 205–244 11. Dio Cassius Cocceianus Epitome of the LXI book of the Roman History / Trans. from ancient Greek by V.V. Antonova, I.Yu. Vashcheva, A.V. Makhlayuk, E.A. Moleva, N.Yu. Sivkina. General ed. and comm. A. V. Makhlayuk // From the history of ancient society. Interuniversity. with scientific tr. Vol. 8 N. Novgorod, 2003 P 192–208 12. Evagrius Scholasticus Church history. Translation and comments by I. V. Krivushin St. Petersburg, 1999 13. Josephus Flavius Jewish War Minsk, 1991 – Josejus De bello Judaico libri VII Ed In Niese, Flavn Iosefi opera, vol 6 Berlin Weidmann, 1895, repr 1955 14. Josephus Flavius ​​Jewish Antiquities Minsk, 1994 Vol 1–2 – Antiquitates Judaicae, Ed. V. Niese, Flavn Iosefi opera, vol 1–4 Berlin. Weidmann, 1887–1890 15. Josephus Flavius ​​On the antiquity of the Jewish people. Against Apion St. Petersburg, 1895 16. [Irenaeus of Lyons] Works of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. M, 1871 -St. Irenaeus of Lyon Works M “Pilgrim”, 1996 17. Justin Philosopher First Apology // St. Justin, philosopher and martyr of Creation Μ, 1995 – Apologia Ed bу E. J. Goodspeed Die ältesten Apologeten Gottingen Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1915 S 26–77 18. Clement of Alexandria – Clemens Alexandrinus Werke Ed O Stahlin, neu herausg L Fruchtei, 4 aufl U Treue Bd 1–4 1970–1985 19. Firmian Lucius Caecilius Lactantius On the deaths of the pursuers. Translation and comments by V. M. Tyulenev St. Petersburg, 1998 20. Livy T. History of Rome from the foundation of the city T 1–3 Μ, 1994 21. Gaius Pliny Caecilius Secundus Panegyric to Emperor Trajan // Letters of Pliny the Younger I-H Ed. M. E. Sergeenko, A. I. Dovatura M “Science”, 1984 P 212–271 (Translation by V. S. Sokolov) 22. Late Greek Prose Μ, 1960 23. Polybius General history in 40 books. Translation by F. G. Mishchenko T 1–3 Μ, 1995 24. Early Christian Church Fathers Anthology Brussels, 1978 25. Gaius Sallust Crispus. About the Conspiracy of Catiline (Translation by V. Gornstein) // Historians of Antiquity V2-xt T 11 Ancient Rome Trans. from lat. / Comp. and approx. M. Tomashevskaya, ill. S. Krestovsky M, 1989 P 7–50 26. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus The Life of the Twelve Caesars M "Science", 1993 27. Seneca Moral letters to Lucilius // Anthology of world philosophy T 1 Part 1 Μ, 1969 28. [Sozomen] Church history of Ermia Sozomen of Salamis St. Petersburg, 1851 29. Socrates Scholasticus Ecclesiastical History Μ, 1996 30. Tatian Speech against the Hellenes // Works of ancient Christian apologists St. Petersburg, 1999 pp. 10–48 31. Cornelius Tacitus Works in 2 volumes T 1 Annals Small works St. Petersburg “Science”, 1993 32. Tertullian Apology // Fathers and teachers of the Church of the 3rd century Anthology T 1 Μ, 1996 From 317–378 (Translated by N. Shcheglova) - Quintus Septimius Florent Tertullian Selected works Compiled and generally ed. A. A. Stolyarova M, 1994 33. Works of Theodoret of Cyrrhus // Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation M, 1843–1912 T 26–30 34. Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus / Works of ancient Christian apologists St. Petersburg, 1999 P. 128–194 35. Philo of Alexandria. Against Flaccus On the embassy to Gaius Josephus Flavius ​​On the antiquity of the Jewish people. Against Apion M-Jerusalem, 1994 C 53–108 – Pyhilonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt Vol 1–7 Ed L Cohn, P Windland Berol, 1896–1930 36. Thucydides History Trans. F. Mishchenko Note. S. Zhebeleva M ed. Sabashnikov, 1915 T 1–2 (Reprint - St. Petersburg, 1994) 37. Cicero Three Treatises on Oratory Μ, 1994 38. Ecclesiastes // Poetry and prose of the ancient East Μ, 1973 39. Diodorus Bibliotheca Historica Rec L Dindorf Vol 3 Leipig, Teubner, 1867 40. Phlegon von Tralles Jacobi F Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker II, B 257 Berlin, 1929 41. 1967 42. Διώνος Κασσιου Κοκκηιανου ᾿Ρωμαϊκή \ στορ! α – Dioms Cassn Cocceiani Histona Romana cum Annotationibus Ludovici Dindorfi Vol IV Lipsiae In aedibus V. G. Teubner 1864 Lib LXXI – Dio Cassius Dio’s Roman History / Ed by E Cary Vol 1–9 Cambridge, 1970 1 [Published by Brockhaus, Evfron] Encyclopedic Dictionary of Biography T 5 M, 1994 (Reprint) 2 Lein, Tony Christian thinkers St. Petersburg, 1997 3 Myths of the peoples of the world Vol. 1–2 M.1982 4 Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia. Ed. Prof. A. P. Lopukhina T 5 Petrograd, 1904 5 Dictionary of Antiquity M, 1989 6 Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary Μ, 1983 7 Christianity Encyclopedic Dictionary. Ed. S. S. Averintseva M, 1993 8 Baumgartner A. S. Ye Gods A Dictionary of Gods New Jersey, 1984 9 The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy Ed by A. H. Armstrong Cambridge, 1970 10. Chambers biographical dictionary Vol 1 Edinburgh 1975 P 450–451 11. Clarke P.A.B. Dictionary of ethics, theology and society London, 1977 12. Companion Encyclopedia of Theology Ed by P. Byrne and L. Houlden London-New York, 1995 13. Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature Ed by H. Wace and W. S. Piercy London, 1911 14. Dictionary of Latin and Greek theological terms Ed by A. Muller 1993 15. Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion Eastern and Western Thought Ed by W.L. Reese New Jersey, 1980 16. Dictionary of Religion Ed by J.R. Hinnells London 1984 17. Encyclopaedia Britannica Fourteenth Edition Vol 8 London, 1929 P 892–893 18. Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, 1996 V 5 P 1060–1061 19. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Ed by E Ferguson NewYork – London, 1990 20. Encyclopedia of the Early Church Ed by A. di Bernardino New York, Oxford University Press, 1992 V 1 21. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Ed bv Hastings Edinburgh, 1912 Vol 5 22. Gaskeil G. A. Dictionary of all Scriptures and Myths New York Julian Press, 1960 23. Das Grossen Lexikon der Antike Leipzig, 1977 24. Handbuch der Kirchengeschtchte Hrsg von Hubert Jedin Band II Herder Freiburg-Basel-Wien, 1982 25. A History of Christianity Ed by K. S. Latourette New York, 1953 26. Huberts R. Drobner Lehrbuch der Patrologie Freiburgim Breisgau 1994 S 186–197 27. Lampe G. W. H. Patristic Greek Lexikon Oxford, 1964 28. Larousse P. Grand Dictionnaire Universel Paris, 1865 T 7 29. Lexikon der Religionen Phänomene Geschichte Ideen Hrsg von Hans Waldenfels Freiburg im Breisgau, 1992 30. Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche Hrsg von dr. H. Buchberger Freiburg, 1931 S 856–862 31. Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche Hrsg von J. Hofer und K. Rahner Freiburg 1959 Vol 3 S 1195–1197 32. Lexikon des Mittelalters München, 1988 V 4 33. New Dictionary of Theology Ed By S. W. Ferguson, D. F. Wright Leicester, 1988 34. The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church Ed By J. D. Douglas Grant Rapidos, Michigan, 1974 35. The Oxford dictionary of Byzantium Ed by A. Kazhdan NewYork – Oxford, 1991 V 2 36. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church Ed by F. L. Cross Oxford, 1997 37. The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions Ed by John Bowker Oxford-New York, 1997 38. Paulys Real Encyclopadie der Classischen Altertumwissenschaft Hrsg von G. Wissowa Stuttgart, 1909 S 1366–1439 39. Reallexicon fur Antike und Christentum Hrsg von T. Klauser Bd 1–6 Stuttgart, 1950–1966 40. Sophocles E. A. Greek Lexikon of the Roman and Byzantine Period Leipzig, 1914 41. Theologische Realenzyklopadie Hrsg Von dr. Michael Wolter Berlin, 1981 42. Wörterbuch des Christentums / Hrsg Von Volker Drehsen Zurich, 1988 1 Aeeni E. Empire of Time Kiev 1998 2 Averintsev S.S. Greek “literature” and Middle Eastern “literature” (Two creative principles) // Questions of literature 1971 No. 8 P 40–68 3 Averintsev S.S. At the crossroads of literary traditions, Byzantine literature, origins and creative principles // Questions of literature 1973 No. 2 P 150–183 4 Averintsev S.S. The order of space and the order of history in the worldview of the early Middle Ages // Antiquity and Byzantium Μ, 1975 5 Averintsev S. S. Poetics of early Byzantine literature M. 1997 6 Averintsev S.S. Stoic worldly wisdom through the eyes of an educated Syrian of the pre-Christian era // Ancient culture and modern science Μ, 1985 7 Averintsev S.S. Christianity in the history of European culture // Problems of the Middle Ages. Cultural studies. Scientific notes of the Moscow Cultural Lyceum No. 1310. Series theory, history and philosophy of culture Vol. 3 No. 1–2 Μ, 1998 C 97–122 8 Azarevich Dm. The ancient world and Christianity Yaroslavl, 1880 9 Alexandrov G. F. Aristotle (philosophical and socio-political views) M, 1940 10. Amman A. The Path of the Fathers A brief introduction to patristics Milan-M, 1994 11. Ancient Literature Ed. A. A. Taho Godi M “Enlightenment”, 1973 12. Ariès F. Man in the Face of Death Μ, 1992 13. Asmus V. F. Ancient philosophy M. 1976 14. Akhundov M. D. Genesis of the idea of space and time / / Philosophical Sciences 1976 No. 4 15. Akhundov M. D. Concepts of space and time, origins, evolution, prospects M, 1982 16. Balla O. Time and the Other The Middle Ages in European historical well-being // Knowledge is power No. 1, 2001 17. Barg M. A. Categories and methods of historical science M, 1984 18. Barg M. A. The concept of world historical as a cognitive principle of historical science M, 1979 19. Barg M. A. Epochs and ideas of the formation of historicism M, 1987 20. Batkin L. M. On the problem of historicism in the Italian culture of the Renaissance // History of philosophy and cultural issues M "Science", 1975 P 167–189 21. Bekboev A. A. The concept of necessity and chance in the teachings of ancient and eastern thinkers Frunze, 1989 22. Belenky M. S. About the mythology and philosophy of the Bible Μ, 1977 23. Berger A.K. Political thought of ancient Greek democracy Μ, 1966 24. Bernheim E. Philosophy of History Its history and tasks M, 1910 25. Bibikov M. V. Byzantine historical prose M, 1996 26. Bibikov M.V. Historical literature of Byzantium St. Petersburg, 1998 27. Bibikov M. .V Problems of historicism of Byzantine historiography // Russian Byzantine studies Results and prospects St. Petersburg, 1994 P 28–29 28. Bicilli Π. M. Elements of medieval culture St. Petersburg, 1995 29. Bolgov N. N. Ancient written sources Greece Part 1 Belgorod, 1999 30. Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the ancient church M, 1994 (reprint reproduction of the 1907 edition) 31. Bondarenko Yu. Ya. The idea of fate, roots and evolution Μ, 1989 32. Borodin O. R. Man and time Μ, 1991 33. Braginskaya N.V. Aeon in “Eulogy to Constantine” by Eusebius of Caesarea // Antiquity and Byzantium Μ, 1975 34. Burckhardt J. The Age of Constantine the Great / Trans. from English by L. A. Igorevsky - M ZAO Tsentrpoligraf, 2003 35. Bychkov V.V. Aesthetica Patrum Aesthetics of the Church Fathers M, 1995 36. Bychkov V.V. Aesthetics of Late Antiquity M, 1981 37. Bychkov V.V. Aesthetics of Philo of Alexandria//VDI 1975 38. Vainstein O. L. Western European medieval historiography M-L, 1964 39. Vashcheva I.Yu. Eusebius of Caesarea and the formation of the Christian concept of history // Problems of history and the creative heritage of Professor N. P. Sokolova Nizhny Novgorod, 1998 P 17–25 40. Vashcheva I. Yu. Drama of history characters (on the question of the historical views of Eusebius of Caesarea) // Ancient World Belgorod, 1999 P 58–68 41. Vashcheva I. Yu. Fates in the “History” of Eusebius // Problems of Antiquity and Medieval Studies Nizhny Novgorod UNN, 1999 42. Vashcheva I. Yu. History and time transformation of the meaning of traditional concepts at the turn of eras // Problems of history and culture of medieval society in St. Petersburg, 2000 P 63–65 43. Vashcheva I. Yu. Eusebius of Caesarea and modern approaches // Historical science on the threshold of the third millennium Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific Conference Tyumen, 2000 P 113–116 44. Vashcheva I. Yu. Εκκλησία problem of the term and its understanding in early Byzantine historiography // VII readings in memory of Professor N. P. Sokolova Proceedings of the regional conference N. Novgorod UNN, 2000 P 27–30 45. Vashcheva I. Yu. Geographical space in the worldview of Eusebius of Caesarea // From the history of ancient society. Vol. 7 N. Novgorod UNN, 2001 P 18–34 46. Vashcheva I. Yu. Virbonusne6aäßeia ancient and Christian values ​​in the worldview of the first church historian // XII readings in memory of Professor S. I. Arkhangelsky. Part 1 N. Novgorod UNN, 2001 From 17–28 47. Vashcheva I. Yu. Historical criticism in the work of the first Christian historian // Problems of source study of general history Part 1 Belgorod, 2002 P 50–68 48. Vashcheva I. Yu. Ethnocultural and confessional groups in the worldview of the first Christian historian // Akra Collection of scientific works / Ed. A. V. Makhlayuka N. Novgorod UNN, 2002 P 34–44 49. Vashcheva I. Yu. Eusebius of Caesarea and the problem of Christian chronology // Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod University. N.I. Lobachevsky. Series History Vol. 1 N. Novgorod, 2002 P 5–12 50. Veduiikina I. V. Biblical legend about the division of the earth in the early Christian and Byzantine traditions // Dialogue with time Almanac of intellectual history Edited by L. P. Repina, V. I. Ukolova 1/99 Μ, IVI RAS, 1999 51. Weinberg I.P. Middle Eastern historians of the mid-1st millennium BC. e. about the place and role of man in historical action // Environment, personality, society Μ, 1992, pp. 11–15 52. Weinberg I.P. On the question of the peculiarities of historical thinking in the Ancient Near East // Questions of ancient history Caucasian-Middle Eastern collection Tbilisi, 1977 53. Weinberg I.P. Space and olam on the legitimacy of co-or opposition // Questions of ancient Eastern culture Daugavpils, 1982 54. Weinberg I.P. Materials for the study of ancient Middle Eastern historical thought. Ancient East. Yerevan, 1978 No. 3 55. Weinberg I. P. Space and time in the model of the world of the Old Testament historian // Peoples of Asia and Africa 1990, No. 6 56. Weinberg I.P. The Birth of History Historical thought in the Middle East of the mid-1st millennium BC. e. M, 1993 57. Weinberg I.P. Man in the culture of the ancient Near East Μ, 1986 58. Wellhausen Yu. Israeli-Jewish religion // From the history of early Christianity. Ed. Η. M. Nikolsky Μ, 1907 59. Byzantine literature M.1974 60. Winkelman F. Byzantine church historiography // VV T 53 Μ, 1992 P 71–79 61. Vipper R. Yu. The emergence of Christian literature M-L, 1964 62. Vipper R. Yu. Culture of antiquity and Christianity / / VI 1954 N° 9 C 35–48 63. Gaidenko V.P. The theme of fate and the idea of time in the ancient Greek worldview // VF 1969 No. 9 P 88–98 64. Gaidenko P. P. Understanding of being in ancient and medieval philosophy // Antiquity as a type of culture Μ, 1988 P 284–307 65. Gaidenko P. P. The concept of time in ancient philosophy / / Dialogue with time Almanac of intellectual history Edited by L. P. Repina and V. I. Ukolova 1 / 1999 Μ, 1995 P 13–35 66. Gene B. History and historical culture of the medieval West. Translation from French E. V. Baevskoy, E. M. Beregovskoy M. Languages of Slavic culture, 2002 67. Guerrier V. Philosophy of history from Augustine to Hegel M 1915 68. Geffken I., prof. From the history of the first centuries of Christianity St. Petersburg, 1908 69. Gnostics, or “false knowledge” Kiev, 1997 70. Golubtsova N. I. At the origins of the Christian Church Μ, 1967 71. Goran V. P. Ancient Greek mythology of fate Novosibirsk, 1990 72. Goran V.P. Mythologem of fate and some aspects of the genesis of the category of necessity in ancient Greek philosophy // Logical-semantic analysis of knowledge structures Foundations and application Novosibirsk, 1989 P 69–80 73. Goran V.P. Necessity and chance in the philosophy of Democritus Novosibirsk, 1984 74. [AND. le] Goff The Civilization of the Medieval West Μ, 1992 75. Gumilev L.N. Ethnicity and category of time / Reports of the Geographical Society of the USSR 1970. Vol. 17 P 143–157 // Ethnosphere History of people and history of nature Μ, 1993 P 79–96 76. Gumilyovsky, Filaret Teaching about the fathers and teachers of the church in St. Petersburg 1882 Vol. 2 77. Gurevich A. Ya. Time as a problem in the history of culture // VF 1969 No. 3 78. Gurevich A. Ya. Western European visions of the other world and “realism” of the Middle Ages // TPZS, Tartu, 1977 Issue VIII C 3–27 79. Gurevich A. Ya. Categories of medieval culture Μ, 1972 80. Gurevich A. Ya. General law and specific patterns in history / VI, 1965, No. 8 81. Gurevich A. Ya. Ideas about time in medieval Europe / / History and Psychology Μ, 1971 82. Gurevich A. Ya. Saga and truth / / TPZS Issue 13 1981 P 22–35 83. Gurevich A. Ya. “What is time?” // Questions of literature 1968 No. 11 P 151–174 84. Gurevich A. Ya. The problem of mentalities in modern historiography // General history of discussion, new approaches Issue 1 Μ, 1989 85. Delumeau, Jean Horror in the West Μ, 1994 86. Derevensky B. G. Jesus Christ in documents of the history of St. Petersburg, “Aleteia”, 2000 87. Jones A. X. M. The death of the ancient world Rostov-on-Don, 1997 88. Dobiash Rozhdestvenskaya O. A. Culture of the Western European Middle Ages Μ, “Science”, 1987 89. Dovatur A.I. Narrative and scientific style of Herodotus L, 1957 90. Donini A. At the origins of Christianity Μ, 1989 91. Dostalova R. Byzantine historiography. Character and forms // VV T 43 1982 92. Drewe R. The origin of Christianity from Gnosticism M, 1930 93. Drozdov I., priest. Essays on general church history. Vol. 3 Christian literature of the first three centuries (apostolic men and apologists) Irkutsk, 1907 94. Durant W. Caesar and Christ Μ, 1997 95. Evtukhov I. O. Formation of the Christian concept of man (Western apologetics) // Environment, personality, society Μ, 1992 P 111–112 96. Egorova M.V. Category “historical time”. Its methodological functions // Questions of scientific methodology Issue 5 Tomsk, 1975 P 96–109 97. Zharov A. M. The problem of time, the structure of formation and uncertainty / / VF 1980 No. 1 P 88–98 98. Zhelenina I. A. Historical situation, methodology of analysis M, 1987 99. Zhurenko N. B. Rhetoric in early Byzantine poetry // Ancient poetics Μ, 1991 100. Zelinsky F. F. Rivals of Christianity Μ, 1996 101. Ivonin Yu. E., Kazakov M. M., Kerov V.L., Kurbatov G.L., Fedosik V.A. Essays on the history of the Christian Church in Europe (Antiquity, Middle Ages. Reformation) / Ed. prof. Yu. E. Ivonina Smolensk, 1999 102. Irmiler I. Main features of ideas about progress in Byzantium // VV T 49 1988 103. Historiography of ancient history. Ed. prof. V. I. Kuzishchina M, 1980 104. History of Byzantium Vol. 1 Μ, 1967 105. Kagan M. S. Time as a philosophical problem // VF 1982 No. 10 P 117–124 106. Kazhdan A.P. On the social essence of the idea and struggle in Christianity in the 4th-5th centuries // Ancient Society Μ, 1967 107. Kazhdan A.P. From Christ to Constantine M, 1965 108. Karsavin L. Culture of the Middle Ages Kiev, 1994 109. Kartashev A.V. Ecumenical Councils Μ, 1994 110. Kats A.L. Socio-political motives in the ideological struggle in the Roman Empire at the end of the 3rd – beginning of the 4th centuries. // Ancient Society Μ, “Science”, 1967 P 282–287 111. Cassidy F. X. Did the ancient Greeks have an idea of history 5 / / VF No. 8 1987 112. Kechekyan S. F. The teachings of Aristotle and state and law Μ, L, 1947 113. Cyprian (Kern) Patrology Part 1 Paris-Moscow, 1996 114. Kozarzhevsky A.I. Source study problems of early Christian literature M, 1985 115. Collingwood R. J. The Idea of History Autobiography Μ, 1980 116. Conrad N.I. West and East Μ, 1966 117. Korelin M. S. The fall of the ancient worldview (cultural crisis in the Roman Empire) St. Petersburg, 1901 118. A brief introduction to the history of Greece. Lectures by Prof. V. Buzeskula Kharkov, 1910 119. Krivushin I.V. Time in the “History” of Theophylact Simokatta // Bulletin of Leningrad State University, series 2, 1991 Vol. 4 (L 9 23) 120. Krivushin I. V. Eusebius of Caesarea and the New Testament philosophy of history / / Ivanovo State University - regional center of science, culture and education Abstracts of reports. Anniversary Scientific Conference Ivanovo, 1994 pp. 96–97 121. Krivushin I.V. Eusebius of Caesarea, father of church history // Intellectual history in the faces of seven portraits of thinkers of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance Ivanovo, 1996 P 7–24 122. Krivushin I.V. History and people in church historiography of the 5th century Ivanovo, 1994 123. Krivushin I.V. Problems of early Byzantine church-historical thought in modern Russian Byzantine studies // Russian Byzantine studies. Results and prospects Abstracts of reports and messages at the International Conference dedicated to the centenary of the Byzantine Temporary and the centenary of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople Μ, 1994 C 66–68 124. Krivushin I.V. Early Byzantine church historiography of St. Petersburg, 1998 125. Krivushin I. V. The birth of church historiography of Eusebia of Caesarea Ivanovo, 1995 126. Krivushin I.V. Christianity and history, church historiography of the IV-VII centuries and progress in historical knowledge / / Historical knowledge Traditions and innovations Abstracts of the International Theoretical Conference Izhevsk, 1993 Part 1 S 127–129 127. Kryvelev I. A. Bible historical-critical analysis M, 1985 128. Kryvelev I. A. History of religions Μ, 1975 T 1 129. Kryvelev I. A. Religious picture of the world and its theological modernization M, 1968 130. Kuznetsova T. I., Miller T. A. Ancient epic historiography Herodotus, Titus of Libya M, 1984 131. Kulakovsky Yu. A. History of Byzantium Vol. 1–3 St. Petersburg “Aletheia”, 1996 132. Culture of Byzantium IV – first half of VII in T 1 M “Science”, 1986 133. Kurbatov G. L. History of Byzantium Μ, 1984 134. Kurbatov G. L. Early Byzantine portraits (On the history of socio-political thought) L, 1991 135. Lebedev A.P. The era of persecution of Christians and the establishment of Christianity in the Greco-Roman world under Constantine the Great Μ, 1897 136. Lebedev A.P. Church historiography in its main representatives from IV to XX in St. Petersburg, 1903 137. Levada Yu. A. Historical consciousness and scientific method // Philosophical problems of historical science Μ, 1969 138. Lenzman Y. A. Comparing the Gospels M, 1964 139. Loy A. N. Social and historical content of the category Kiev, 1978 140. Losev A.F. Ancient space and modern science Μ, 1927 141. Losev A.F. Ancient philosophy of history Μ, 1977 Latest edition Losev A.F. Ancient philosophy of history - St. Petersburg Aletheia, 2001 142. Losev A. F. Historical time in the culture of classical Greece // History of philosophy and cultural issues M "Science", 1975 P 7–61 143. Losev A. F. History of ancient aesthetics Vol. VIII M, 1988 144. Losev A.F. Late Hellenism Μ, 1980 145. Losev A. F. Hellenistic Roman aesthetics of the 1st-2nd centuries AD M, 1979 146. Lotman Yu. M. On the concept of geographical space in Russian medieval texts // TPZS Issue 181 1965 P 210–216 147. Lotman Yu. M. , Uspensky B A Myth – name – culture / / TPZS Issue 6 Tartu, 1973 P 282–305 148. Lurie S. Ya. Herodotus M-L, 1947 149. Lyubarsky Ya. N. Byzantine historians and writers St. Petersburg, 1999 150. Lyubarsky Ya. N. Byzantines on the “engines of history” // Social consciousness in the Balkans in the Middle Ages Μ, 1977 151. Mayorov G. G. Formation of medieval philosophy Μ, 1979 152. Meshcherskaya E. N. The Legend of Avgar - an Early Syrian Literary Monument (Historical Roots in the Evolution of the Apocryphal Legend) M "Science", 1984 153. Meshcherskaya E. N. The legend of Avgar and apotropaic texts in Greek / / Palestine collection Issue 26(89) 1978 P 102–107 154. Molchanov Yu. B. The problem of time in modern science M, 1990 155. Molchanov Yu. B. Four concepts of time in philosophy and physics M, 1977 156. Muretov M. D. Eusebius Pamphilus (Objections to N. Rozanov’s book “Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine”) // Orthodox Review Μ, 1881 Vol. 3 (December) 157. Nemirovsky A. I. Polybii as a historian // Questions of history 1974 No. 6 158. Nemirovsky A. I. Birth of Clio Voronezh, 1986 159. Nemirovsky A. I. At the origins of historical thought Voronezh, 1979 160. Neretina S.S. Word and text in medieval culture. History myth, time, mystery Μ, 1994 161. Nikolaev Yu In search of a deity St. Petersburg, 1879 162. Nikolsky N. M. World and social revolution according to the views of early Christianity // Nikolsky N. M. Selected works on the history of religion M, 1974 163. Novitsky Or. The gradual development of ancient philosophical teachings in connection with the development of pagan beliefs Kiev, 1861 Part 2 164. Osokin N. A. Essay on medieval historiography M, 1881 165. Ostroumov S.I., priest. Analysis of the information of Eusebius of Caesarea and Bl. Jerome of Stridon about the Greek apologists of Christianity of the 2nd century Μ, 1886 166. Orlov M. A. History of relations between man and the devil Μ, 1992 (Reprint of the 1904 edition) 167. Pigulevskaya N.V. Culture of the Syrians in the Middle Ages Μ, 1979 168. Popova T.V. Artistic features of the work of Eusebius of Caesarea Vita Constantin! // BB 34 1973 169. Porshnev B.F. Social psychology and history Μ, 1965 170. Problems of literary theory in Byzantium and the Latin Middle Ages Μ, 1986 171. Space and time Kiev, 1984 172. Ranovich A. Ya. About early Christianity Μ, 1959 173. Ranovich A. Ya. Primary sources on the history of early Christianity Ancient critics of Christianity Μ, 1990 174. Rizhsky M.I. What is the Bible Chita, 1960 175. Rozhansky I. D. Ancient science Μ, 1980 176. Rozhansky I. D. Development of natural science in the era of antiquity Part 2 – Evolution of the idea of space Μ, 1979 177. Rozanov N. P. Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea Palestine Μ,1880 178. Samokhina G. S. Polybii's era, fate, work Abstract of Dr. dissertation Μ, 1997 179. Sandulov Y. Devil Historical and cultural phenomenon of St. Petersburg, 1997 180. Sboev V. Gnosis and the Gnostics Kazan, 1839 181. Sventsitskaya I. S. Early Christianity pages of history Μ, 1987 182. Svidersky V.I. Space and time Philosophical essay M, 1958 183. Sidorov A.I. Patrolology course Μ, 1996 184. Skvortsov L.V. Time and necessity in history Μ, 1974 185. Slavyatinskaya M. N. On the formation of the category of time in the Greek language // Questions of classical philology, Issue VI 1976, pp. 115–145 186. Sokolov V.V. Medieval philosophy Μ, 1979 187. Spassky A. Hellenism and Christianity Sergiev Posad, 1914 188. Spassky I. Studies of Biblical chronology Kiev, 1857 189. Taho-Godi A. A. Ionian and Attic understanding of the term “history” and related ones // Questions of classical philology Issue II MU, 1969 P 107–126 190. Taho-Godi A. A. Hellenistic understanding of the term “history” and related ones // Ibid., pp. 126–158 191. Ternovsky S., Ternovsky F. Three first centuries of Christianity Kiev, 1878 192. Typology and interrelation of literatures of the Ancient world Edited by P. A. Grintser M, 1971 193. Toporov V.N. On the cosmological sources of early historical descriptions // TPZS Issue 6 Tartu, 1973 P 106–150 194. Trofimova M. A. Historical and philosophical issues of Gnosticism M, 1979 195. Trubetskoy S. N., book The Doctrine of Logos in its history M, 1900 196. Taine I. Titus Livia Μ, 1900 197. Tyulenev V. M. Lactantius Christian historian at the crossroads of eras St. Petersburg Aletheia, 2000 198. Udaltsova Z. V. From the Byzantine chronography of the 7th century John Laurentius Lid Easter Chronicle / / VV, 1984 Issue 45 199. Udaltsova Z. V. Ideological and political struggle in early Byzantium Μ, 1974 200. Udaltsova Z. V. From the history of Byzantine culture of the early Middle Ages // Europe in the Middle Ages Economics, politics, culture Μ, 1972 201. Udaltsova 3. V. Historical and philosophical views of secular authors of early Byzantium // Byzantine essays Μ, 1992 P 3–23 202. Udaltsova Z. V. Development of historical thought // Culture of Byzantium IV - first half of VII century MU, 1984 203. Udaltsova Z.V. Church historians of early Byzantium / /ВВ 43 1982 P 3–21 204. Udaltsova Z. V. Evolution of the concept of historical time in the works of early Byzantine authors // Frome late Antiquity to Early Byzantium Proceedings of the byzantmological Symposium in the 16th intern eirene conf Praha 1985 205. Udaltsova 3. V. Evolution of the concepts of “historical time” and “space” during the transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages // Formations and social class structures M, 1985 P 199–203 206. Ukolova V.I. Ancient heritage and culture of the early Middle Ages Μ, 1989 207. Ukolova V.I. Eternity and time in the philosophy of Boethius // Ancient culture and modern science Μ, 1985 208. Ukolova V.I. Ideas about history at the turn of antiquity and the Middle Ages // Ideological and political struggle in medieval society Μ, 1984 P 38–68 209. Urbanchik T. Eusebius and Socrates // Historical thought in Byzantium and the medieval West. Interuniversity collection of scientific works Ivanovo, 1998 210. Uspensky F.I. History of the Byzantine Empire M-L, 1913–1948 211. Utchenko S. L. Some trends in the development of Roman historiography of the 3rd-1st centuries BC. e. // VDI 1969 No. 2 212. Utchenko S. L. On some features of ancient culture // VDI, 1977 No. 1 213. Utchenko S. L. Political teachings of ancient Rome M “Science”, 1977 214. Fedorova E. V. People of Imperial Rome. M State University Publishing House, 1990 215. Fisher V. History of the Devil St. Petersburg, 1907 216. Frolov E. D. Torch of Prometheus L, 1981 217. Khvostova K.V. Socio-economic processes in Byzantium and their understanding by Byzantine contemporaries (XIV40;-XV40; centuries) Μ, 1992 218. Tsyb S.V. 2000 years from the Nativity of Christ history of our chronology Barnaul, 1999 219. Chaloyan V.K. East - West continuity in the philosophy of ancient and medieval society Μ, 1979 220. Chanyshev A. N. Lecture course on ancient and medieval philosophy M, 1991 221. Chekalova A. A. On the issue of the theory of monarchy in the 4th century / / Byzantine essays Μ, 1991 P 11–31 222. Chichurov I. S. On the problem of authorial self-awareness of Byzantine historians of the 4th-9th centuries // Antiquity and Byzantium Μ, 1975 223. Chichurov I. S. The place of Theophanes’ “Chronography” in the early Byzantine historiographic tradition (IV - early 9th century) // The most ancient states on the territory of the USSR Μ, 1981 224. Chichurov I. S. Political ideology of the Middle Ages Byzantium and Russia Μ, 1990 225. Sheinman M. M. Belief in the Devil in the history of religion M, 1977 226. Shifman I. Sh. The Old Testament and its world Μ, 1987 227. Shifman I. Sh. Syrian society of the era of the Principate (I-III centuries AD) M, 1977 228. Shichalin Yu. On the history of rethinking the term ύπόστασις / Ancient Balkan Studies Issue 3 Linguistic data and ethnocultural context of the Mediterranean Μ, 1978 229. Shtaerman E. M. Crisis of ancient culture Μ, 1975 230. Shtaerman E. M. On recurrence in history // VDI, 1965 No. 7 231. Rae Adin Steinsaltz Time in the Jewish tradition / / www.ludaicaru.org/Steinsalz/time.htm www.home.ural.ru/v.irkhin/ book/glava7.htm, www.imp.uran.ru/ktm_lab/irkhm/bookall/15.htm 232. Enken T. History and system of medieval worldview St. Petersburg, 1907 233. Jülicher A. The religion of Jesus and the beginning of Christianity before the Council of Nicea // From the history of early Christianity M, 1907 P 59–178 234. Yaroslavsky Em. Celestials of the Jewish sky // Criticism of the Jewish religion Μ, 1964 235. Yastrebov A. Eusebius of Caesarea Historical essay / / Theological collection Issue III M, 1999 236. Armstrong K. A History of God London, 1993 237. Baker R. A. Summary of Christian History Nashville!, 1959 238. Bardenhewer O. Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur Freiburg, 1932 Bd III 239. Barnes H. E. An Intellectual and Cultural History of the Western World NewYork, 1965 240. Barnes T. D. Constantine and Eusebius Cambridge, 1981 241. Barnes T. D. From Eusebius to Augustine Selected papers 1982– 1993 Brookfield, 1995 242. Barnes T. D. Some Inconsistencies in Eusebius // Journal of Theological Studies Vol 35 1984 P 470–475 243. Barnes T. D. The Editions of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History // GRBS, 1980 V 21 P 191–201 244. Barnes T. D. The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine Harvard, 1982 245. Barnes T. D. Two Speeches by Eusebius / / Early Christianity and the Roman Empire London, 1984 246. Baur F. Ch. Die Epochen der Kirchlichen Geschichtsschreibung Tubingen, 1852 247. Baynes N. H. Byzantine Studies and other essays London, 1955 248. Beaucamp J. Temps et Histoire 1 Le prologue de la Chronique pascale Travaux et Mémoires 1979 V 7 P 223–301 249. Beck H-G. Kirche und theologische Literatur in Byzantinischen Reich München, 1977 250. Beck P. H. Vorsehung und Vorherbestimmung in der theologischen Literatur der Byzantiner Roma, 1937 251. Berkhof H. DieTheologie des Eusebius von Caesarea Amsterdam, 1939 252. Boer W. Graeko-Roman Historiography in its relation to Biblical and Modern Thinking // History and Theory 1968 Vol 7 No. 1 P 60–75 253. Boer W. den Some Remarks on the Beginnings of Christian Historiography // StP, 1959 Vol 4 P 348–362 254. Boman G. Das Hebräische Denken im Vergleich mit dem Griechischen Gottingen, 1965 255. Brandon S. G. F. History, Time and Deity A Historical and Comparative Study of the Conception of Time and Religious Thought and Practice New York, 1965 256. Brandon S. G. F. Time and Mankind London-New York, 1951 257. Burckhardt J Die Zeit Constantines des Grossen Leipzig, 1880 258. Cairns G. E. Philosophies of History Meeting of East and West in Cycle-Pattern Theories of History New York, 1962 259. Callahan J. Four Views of Time in Ancient Philosophy Cambridge (Mass), 1948 260. Callahan J. New Source of Augustine’s theory of time / / Harvard Studies m classical Philology Vol 63 1958 P 437–454 261. Cameron A. Circus factions Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium Oxford, 1976 262. Cameron Αυ., Cameron Al. Christianity and Tradition in the Historiography of the Late Empire / / The Classical Quarterly Vol 14 No. 2 1964 P 316–328 263. Carr E. What is History New York, 1962 264. Chadwick N. The Early Church London-New York, 1990 265. Chesnut Gl. F. Fate, Fortune, Free Will and Nature in Eusebius of Caesarea / / Studies in Early Christianity Vol X Doctrines of Human Nature, Sin and Salvation in the Early Church New York-London, 1993 P 13–30 266. Chesnut G. F. The First Christian Histories Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret and Evagrius Paris, 1977 267. Chesnut Gl. F. The Pattern of the Past Augustine’s debate with Eusebius and Salust / / Studies in Early Christianity Vol VIII New York- London, 1993 268. Christ K. Der Untergang der antiken Welt Darmstadt, 1970 269. Christensen T. The So-called Appendix to Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica VIII // Classica et Medievalia Vol 34 1983 P 177–209 270. Classical Antiquity Early Christianity Byzantium Leiden, 1971 271. Cochrane Ch. Christianity and Classical Culture New York, 1957 272. Cohen M. R. The Meaning of Human History LaSalle, 1961 273. Colhngwood R. The Idea of History New York, 1956 274. Copeiston Fr. G. A History of Medieval Philosophy Notre Dame-London, 1972 275. Croce V. Teoria e storia della stonografia Bari, 1927 276. Croke Br. , Emmeth A Historiography in Late Antiquity An Overview / / History and Historians in Late Antiquity Ed by Br Croke and A M Emmeth Pergamon Press Sydney, 1983 277. Croke Br. The Origins of the Christian World Chronicle // History and Historians P 116–131 278. Cullman O. Christ and Time Philadelphia, 1950 279. Dempf A. Christlische Philosophie Der Mensch zwichen Gott und der Welt Bonn, 1952 280. Dempf A. Geistgeschichte der frühchristlichen Kultùr Wien, 1960 281. Dempf A. Eusebios als Historiker // Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-historische class München, 1964 Heft 11 282. Dempf A. Geistesgeschichte der altchnstlischen Kultur Stuttgart, 1964 283. Dempf A. Der Platomsmus des Eusebius, Victorinus und Pseudo-Dionysius // Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-Historikal Class Heft 3 München, 1962 S 3–18 284. Dempf A. Sacrum Imperium Geschichts-und Staatsphilosophie des Mittelalters und der politischen Renaissance Munich, 1925 285. Diller H. Der Philosophische Gebrauch von κοσμος und κοσμειν / Festschrift In Schell München, 1956 S 47–60 286. Dodds E. R. Pagan and Christian manage of Anxiety Some aspects of religious experience from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine Cambridge, 1965 287. Downey G. Perspective of the early church Historians // GRBS, 1965, 6 288. Drake H. A. Constantine and Consensus // Church History 1995 No. 1 P 1–15 289. Drake H. A. In Praise of Constantine A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius’ Tricenmal Orations // Univ of California Press Berkeley, 1976 V 15 290. Droge A. J. Homer or Moses 71 Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture / / Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 26 Tubingen,1989 P 168–193 291. Dolger F. Byzantine Literature // The Cambridge Medieval History Vol IV Cambridge, 1967 292. The Early Christian Fathers Ed by H. Bettenson Oxford, 1969 293. Early Christianity Origins and Evolution to 600 A D Ed by I. Hazlett SPCK, London, 1991 294. Eisenstein E. L. Clio and Chronos Some Aspects of History-Book Time / / History and Theory Studies in the Philosophy of History 1966 Bieheft 6 P 36–64 295. Eltade M. Cosmos and History The Myth of the Eternal Return New York, 1959 296. Eliade M. A. History of Religious Ideas Vol 2 Chicago, 1982 297. Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism Ed by H.W. Attndge, G. Hata Leiden, 1992 298. The Fathers of the Church Ed By L. Shopp New York, 1946 299. Fischer G. P. History of Christian Doctrine Edinburgh 1896 300. Fascher E. Herodot und Eusebius, zwei Vater der Geschichtsschreibung / / Uberheferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen Hrsg von F Paschke Berlin, 1981 S 185–192 301. Foakes-Jackson † J. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea as first Christian Historian Cambridge, 1933 302. Frankfort H. A., Wilson J. A. The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man Chicago, 1946 303. Forsyth Neil The Old Enemy Satan and the Combat Myth Princeton-New Jersey, 1987 304. Friese J. Die Denkform von Kreislauf und Fortschritt und die Weltgeschichte//Studium generale 1958 Jg 11 H 4 305. Funkenstein A. Perceptions of Jewish History Berkeley-Los Angelos-Oxford, 1993 306. Gelzer H. Sextus Julius Africanus Bd II Leipzig, 1898 307. Gent W. Die Philosophie des Raumes und der Zeit Bonn, 1926 308. Gilson T. History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages L,1972 309. Godecke M. Geschichte als Mythos Eusebs Kirchengeschichte Bern, 1987 310. Grant R. M. The Case against Eusebius or Did the Father of History Write History? // StP 1975 Vol 12 311. Grant R. M. Church History in the Early Church // Christian Beginnings Apocalypse to History London, 1983 P 287–306 312. Grant R. M. Civilization as a Preparation for Christianity m the Thought of Eusebius // Continuity and Discontinuity in Church History Ed by F F Church, T Georg Leiden, 1979 P 62–70 313. Grant R. M. The Early Christian Doctrine of God Charlottesville Univ of Virginia Paris, 1966 314. Grant R. M. Gods and the One God London, 1986 315. Grant R. M. Greek Apologists of the Second Century Philadelphia The Westminster Press, 1988 316. Grant R. M. Papias in Eusebius’ Church History // Mélanges d’Histoire des Religions offers à Henri-Charles Puech Paris, 1974 P 209–213 317. Grant R. M. Religion and Politics at the Council at Nicaea // Journal of Religion Vol 55 1975 P 1–12 318. Gustafsson V. Eusebius’ Principles in Handling His Sources, as Found in his “Church History”, books I-VIII // StP 1961 Vol 4 319. Halton T. Hegesippus in Eusebius // StP 1982 Vol 17 320. Harnak A. Geschichte der altchristlischen Literatur bis Eusebius Leipzig, 1958 Teil II, band 2 321. Harnak A. Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten Leipzig, 1902 322. Harnak A. Zu Eusebius H E IV, 15, 37 // Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte Bd 2 Heft 2 1877 S 291–296 323. Harnack A. Porphyrtus “Gegen die Christen” // Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen 1916 324. Heizinga, Johan Men and Ideas History, the Middle ages, the Renaissance Princeton, 1959 325. Hellenisches und Christlisches im Fruhbyzantmischen Geistesleben Wien, 1948 S 11–27 326. Helm R. Eusebius Chronik und ihre Tabellenform Berlin, 1924 327. Heussi K. Zum Geschichtsverstandnis des Eusebius von Casarea // Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Friedrich-Schiller-Umversitat Jena – Gesellschafts-und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reiche Bd 7 1957/58 Heft 1 328. Histoire du Christianisme des origines à nos jours Sous la direction de J. M. Mayeur, Ch. Pietn A. Vaucher, M. Venard T 1 Desclée, Paris, 1990 329. History and Historians in Late Antiquity Ed by W. Croce and A. Emmeth Sydney, 1983 330. A History of Christianity Ed by K. S. Latourette New York, 1953 331. Hollench M. J. Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius Reassessing the First “Court Theologian” // Church history Vol 59 1990 P 309–325 332. Hunger H. The Classical Tradition in Byzantine Literature The Importance of Rhetoric in Byzantium // Byzantium and the Classical Tradition 333. Hunger H. Geschichte der Textuberlieferung der Antiken und Mittelalterlichen Literatur Zurich, 1961 334. Hunger H. Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner Bd 1–2 München, 1978 335. Hunger H. On the Imitation (Mimesis) of Antiquity in Byzantine Literature // DOP Vol 23/24 1969–1970 P 15–38 336. Huxley G. L. Problems in Chronography of Eusebius // Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy Vol 82 No. 7 Dublin, 1982 337. Irwin W. A. The Hebrews // The Intellectual Adventual Adventure of Ancient Man Chicago, 1946 338. Judge E. A. Christian Innovation and its Contemporary Observes // History and Historians in Late Antiquity 339. Kelley D. R. The History of Ideas Cannon and Variations New York, 1990 340. Kelly] N. D. Early Christian Creeds New York, 1972 341. Kelly J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines London, 1977 342. Kerschensteiner J. Kosmos quellenkritische Untersuchung zu den Vorsokratikern München, 1962 343. Konig-Ockenfels D. Christliche Deutung der Weltgeschichte bei Euseb von Casarea // Saeculum, 1976.27 P 348–365 344. Knowles D. The Evolution of Medieval Thought London, 1988 345. Kranz W. Kosmos//Archiv fur Begriffsgeschichte Bonn, 1955 Bd 11 346. Kranz W. Kosmos als philosophischer Begriff in fruhgriechischer Zeit // Philologus 1938–1939 Bd 1993 347. Krumbacher K. Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur von Justinian bis zum Ende des ostromischen Reiches (527–1453) München, 1897 348. Labnolle, Pierre de The History and Literature oi Christianity from Tertullian to Boethius London-New York 1996 349. Lacroix V. L’histoire dans l’antiquite Paris, 1951 350. Laquer R. Eusebs als Historiker seiner Zeit Berlin, 1929 351. Lawlor H. J., Oulton J. E. L. Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea The Ecclesiastical History and the Martyrs of Palestine London, 1928 V 1–2 352. Lee P. K. The concept of the city of God in Early Christian thought // StP Vol 18 H 2 1989 P 99–107 353. Mango S. Discontinuity with the Classical Past in Byzantium // Byzantium and the Classical Tradition Ed by M Mullet and R Scott Birmingham, 1981 P 48–61 354. Marenbon J. Early Medieval Philosophy London-New York, 1988 P 13–19 355. Markus R. A. Culminating in Constantine//The Times Literary Supplement 1981 4058 356. Markus R. A. The End of Ancient Christianity Cambridge, 1990 357. Markus R. A. Saeculum, History and Society in St Augustine New York, 1970 358. Meinecke F. Die Entstehung des Historismus 2 Aufl München, 1946 359. Milburn R. L. P. Early Christian Interpretations of History London, 1954 360. Momighano A. The classical Foundations of Modern Historiography Berkeley, 1990 361. Momighano A. Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography Oxford, 1977 362. Momighano A. Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century AD // The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century Oxford, 1963 363. Momighano A. Studies m historiography London, 1966 364. Nigg W. Die Kirchengeschichtsschreibung Grundzuge ihrer historischen Entwicklung München, 1934 365. Nilsson M. P. Geschichte der griechischen Religion 2 Aufl, München, 1961 366. Omans R. Br. The Origins of European Thought About the body, the mind, the soul, the world time and fate New Interpretations of Greek, Roman and kindred evidence also of some basis Jewish and Christian beliefs Cambridge, 1989 367. Overbeck F. Uber die Anfänge der Kirchengeschichtsschreibung Base], 1892 368. Paganism in the late Roman Empire and in Byzantium Cracow, 1991 369. Pelican J. Christianity and Classical Culture New Haven- London, 1993 370. Peterson E. Der Monotheismus als Politisches Problem Leipzig, 1935 371. Place E. Des Introduction générale / / La preparation evangelique Sources chrétiennes No. 206 Paris, 1977 372. Podskalsky D. Byzantinische Reichseschatologie DiePenodisierung der Weltgeschichte in der vier Grossenreichen (Daniel 2 und 7) und dem Tausend-Jahrigen Friedensreiche (Arok 20) Eine motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung München, 1972 373. Podskalsky G. Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz München, 1977 374. Pollard T. E. Eusebius of Caesarea and the Synod of Antioch (324/ 325) / / Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen / Hrsg von Fr Paschke Akademie-Verlag Berlin, 1981 S 459–464 375. Poulet G. Études sur le temps humain Paris, 1950 376. Press G. A. History and Development of the Idea of History in Antiquity // History and Theory 1977 Vol 16 No. 3 377. Prestige G. L. God in Patristic Thought London, 1952 378. Quasten J. Patrology Westminster, Maryland, 1992 Vol 3 P 309–345 379. Rodwell W., Bentley J Our Christian Heritage London, 1984 380. Rousset P. La conception de l'histoire a l'epoque feodale // Mélanges d'histoire du Moyen Age dedies à la memoire de Louis Halphen Paris, 1951 P 620–633 381. Ruhbach G. Apologetik und Geschichte zur Theologie Eusebs von Caesarea Heidelberg, 1962 382. Sandmel S. Judaism and Christian Beginnings Oxford, 1978 383. Schadewaldt W. Hellas und Hesperie Zürich, 1945 384. Schneider C. Geistgeschichte des antiken Christentums München, 1954 Bd 1.2 385. Schwartz E. Griechische Geschichtsschreiber Leipzig, 1959 386. Schwartz E. Uber Kirchengeschichte / / Gesammelte Schriften Berlin, 1938 Bd 1 S 110–130 387. Schwartz E. Uber das Verhältnis der Hellener zur Geschichte // Geschichtliche Schriften Bd I Berlin, 1938 388. Scott R. The Classical Tradition in Byzantine Historiography // Byzantium and the Classical Tradition Umv of Birmingham Thirteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies 1979 Ed by M Mullet, R Scott Birmingham, 1981 P 61–75 389. Seeck O. Das Sogennante Edikt von Mailand // Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte Bd 12, 1891 390. Sevcenko Ihor Was Originality one of the important concerns of Byzantine literati? Does originality belong to the spirit of Byzantine literature? // XX Congrès International des Études Byzantines Collège de France – Sorbonne Pre-actes T 1 Paris, 2001 P 57 391. Silvestre H. Le Probleme des faux au Moyen Age / /Le Moyen Age T 66, no. 3 392. Sirinelli J. Les vues historique d’Eusèbe de Césarée durant la périod prénicéenne Dakar, 1961 393. Sirinelli J. Quelques allusions à Melchisédech dans l’oeuvre d’Eusèbe de Césarée // StP Vol 6 Part 4 1962 394. Smalley W. Historians in the Middle Ages New York, 1974 395. Stevenson J. Studies in Eusebius Cambridge, 1929 396. Straub J. Christliche Geschichtsapologetik in der Krisis des Römischen Reiches // Historia 1950 Jg 1 Heft 1 397. Swain I. The Theory of Four Monarchies//Classical Philosophy 1940 Vol 35 398. Timpe D. Wast Kirchengeschichte? Zum Gattungscharacterder Historia Ecclesiastica des Eusebius / / Festschrift R Werner zu seinem 65 Geburtstag Konstanz, 1989 S 171–204 399. Tinnefeid F. Kategorien der Keiserkritik in der byzantinischen Historiography München, 1971 400. Toynbee A. Greek Historical Thought NewYork, 1952 401. Trompf G. W. The Idea of ​​the Historical Recurrence in Western Thought From Antiquity to the Reformation Berkeley-Los Angeles- London, 1979 402. Trompf G. W. The Logic of Retribution in Eusebius of Caesarea / / History and Historians P 132–146 403. Trompf G. W. The Notions of Historical Recurrence in Classical Hebrew Historiography // Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament Ed by J. A. Emerton Leiden, 1979 404. Vallin P. Les Chrétiens et leur Histoire Desclée, Paris, 1985 405. Vaèceval The Notions of Time m Eusebius’ Church History // Byzantinoslavica Praha, 2000 T LX(1999)2 P 304–308 406. Wallace-Had nil D. S. Eusebius of Caesarea London, 1960 407. Wand J. W. C A History of the Early Church Norwich 1965 408. Warmington V. H. The Sources of Some Constantmian documents m Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History and Life of Constantine // StP 1985 Vol 18/1 P 93–97 409. Weiss G. Antike und Byzans Kontinuität der Gesellschaftsstruktur // Historische Zeitschrift 1977 No. 224 410. Whitrow G. L. Time in History Views of Time from Prehistory to the present Day Oxford, 1988 411. Widgery A. G. Interpretations of History From Confucius to Toynbee London, 1961 412. Winkelmann F. Die Kirchengeschichtswerke in ostromischen Reich // BS Vol 37 No. 1–2 1976 413. Winkelmann F. Die Textbezeugung der Vita Constantim des Eusebius von Caesarea Berlin, 1962 414. Winkelmann F. Die Vita Constantim des Eusebius Halle, 1959 415. Winkelmann F. Probleme der Zitate in den Werken der ostromischen Kirchenhistoriker // Das Korpus der griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller Historie, Gegenvart, Zukunft Hrsg von J Irmscher, K Treu Berlin, 1977 S 195–208 416. Wright G. E. God Who Acts // Studies in Biblical Theology 8 London, 1952 417. Zimmerman H. Ecclesia als Objekt der Historiographie Wien, 1960 418. Zorn W. Geschichte des Wortes und Begriffes “Fortschritt” // Saeculum, 1953 Bd 4 419. Καρπόζηλος , ' Απόστολος Βυζαντινοί Ιστορικοί καί χρονογράφοι Τόμος A (4 ος –7 οι αι ) Εκδόσεις Κανάκη Ἀθήνα 1997 Σελ 57–67 420. κατά τήν Βυζαντινήν περίοδον A θήναι, 1996 Σελ 3–19. Skvortsov L.V. Time and necessity in history. M., 1974. P. 7. Udaltsova 3. V. Evolution... P. 33. (“Christian historiography was characterized by deep idealism, vagueness and inconsistency of theological and philosophical views. Church historians were noted by a certain limited knowledge, especially in the sphere of the political and ideological life of their contemporary society, the weakness of their method, the deterioration of the literary style of their works in comparison with ancient authors.” Cf. Winkelmann F. Die Kirchengeschichtswerke... S. 1, 188.) Historiography of ancient history. Ed. prof. V. I. Kuzishchina. M., 1980. pp. 16–18. Vainstein O. L. Western European medieval historiography. M.-L., 1964. P. 38. Burckhardt W. Die Zeit Constantines des Grossen. Leipzig, 1880, pp. 334–335. (Cf. modern edition and translation: “Eusebius, although all historians rely on him, is guilty of so many distortions, distortions and conjectures that he has long lost the right to be considered the author of an infallible historical work.” Burckhardt J. The Age of Constantine the Great / Translation by JI. A. Igorevsky. - M.: ZAO Tsentrpoligraf, 2003. P. 284.) Hollerich M. J. Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius: Reassessing the First “Court Theologian” // Church History. Vol. 59. No. 3. 1990. P. 309–310. Vainshtein O. L. Decree. op. P. 41 The expressed point of view is practically not argued in this work, however, its appearance on the pages of a historiographical essay is not surprising, since it expresses a generally accepted, established view of Eusebius of Caesarea as a historian of the era of Constantine. The mention of Alexander the Great in this context is completely unexpected and incomprehensible, since in Eusebius’s “Church History” there is not only a more or less detailed description of the hero, but not even a single reference to the great conqueror. Alexander the Great is mentioned by Eusebius as an object of comparison when characterizing the Emperor Constantine in his “Biography of the Blessed Emperor Constantine,” however, this work does not belong to the category of strictly historical works, but rather resembles an ancient panegyric, and therefore it is hardly worth making such harsh demands on it. Barnes T. D. Constantine and Eusebius P 140–141, Lawlor H. J. , Oulton J. E. L Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea The Ecclesiastical History and the Martyrs of Palestine L, 1928 Vol 2 P 19 ff Grant R. M. Eusebius as Church Historian Oxford, 1980 Idem Papias m Eusebius’ Church History // Melanges d'Histoire des Religions offers a H-Ch Puech P.1974 P 209–213 Idem The Case against Eusebius P 413–421 Chesnut G. F. The First Christian Histories P 254 Warmington V. The Sources of some Constantiman Documents in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History and Life of Constantine // StP Vol 18, 1985 P 93–98 Momighano A. Studies in Historiography London, 1966 P 145 Gustafsson V. Eusebius’ Principles in Handlinghis Sources as Found in his “Church History”, books I-VIII // Studia Patristica Vol 4 1961 P 429–441 Judge E. A. Christian Innovation and Its Contemporary Observes // History and Historians P 15–16 Momighano A. The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography Berkeley-Los Angeles-Oxford, 1990 P 141 Heussi K. Zum Geschichtsverstandnis S 90–91 Milburn R. L. P Early Christian Interpretations of History London, 1954 P 84–97 Momighano A. Studies P 145 Ruchback G Apologetik und Geschichte Zur Theologie Eusebs von Caesarea Heidelberg, 1962 S 130–133 Timpe D. Was ist Kirchengeschichte S 186–188 The prominent German researcher F. Winkelmann, for example, emphasized that “the specificity of church historical writings lies not in the content, but in the method” and that “the specificity of all Byzantine historical writings that were influenced by this kind (including chronography and Christian biographies) consisted in documentation, in concern for simplicity and clarity of language, which vary depending on the origin and abilities of each individual author” (Winkelmann F. Byzantine church historiography // VV T 53 1992 P 72–73) Hollerich M. J. Op cit P 310 d Momigliano A. Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A D // The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century Oxford, 1963 P 92 Vainstein O. L. Decree op. From 14 Wed Borukhovich V. G. Scientific and literary significance of Herodotus’ work // Herodotus History J1, 1972 From 499 Ancient literature. Ed. A. A. Taho-Godi M “Enlightenment”, 1973 P 174–175 Vainiitein O.L. Decree. op. C 15 (Cf. Frolov E. D. Torch of Prometheus L, 1981 C 135) Ibid C 17 (According to the calculations of A.I. Nemirovsky, speeches make up an even more significant part in Thucydides’ “History” - no less than 30%). Quintillian’s statement about history as a “poem in prose” is very indicative in this regard. Lacroix V. L’histoire dans l’antiquité Florilège suivi d’une étude Paris, 1951 Historiography of ancient history From 13 Utchenko S. L. Political teachings of ancient Rome P 105 AKA Some trends in the development of Roman historiography of the 3rd-1st centuries BC. e. // VDI, 1969, No. 2 P 66–74 Utchenko S. L. Political teachings P 113 Timpe D. Was ist Kirchengeschicnte S 179 Timpe D. Op cit S 186–189 Vainstein O. L. Decree op. From 24–25 Barg M. A. Epochs. . P. 40. Schwartz E. Über Kirchengeschichte // Gesammelte Schriften. Berlin, 1938. Bd 1.S.114 Heussi K. Zum Geschichtsverstandnis. . S 89. Krivushin I.V. Early Byzantine church historiography.. P. 14. Momigliano A. Op. cit. R. 92–93. Vainshtein O. L. Decree. op. P. 34. Nemirovsky A.I. At the origins... P. 203. The modern city of Urfa in northern Iraq. This passage deals with a letter written by toparch Abgar to Jesus, and Jesus’ response to the toparch. Vainshtein O. L. Decree. op. pp. 41, 270. Derevensky B. G. Jesus Christ in historical documents. SPb.' "Aletheia", 2000 pp. 426–428. N.V. Pigulevskaya fully trusts the report that Eusebius used materials from the Edessa archive, where the Syriac text of Addae’s narrative (411) was located, and that Eusebius actually translated this text from Syriac into Greek. (For more details, see: Pigulevskaya N.V. Culture of the Syrians in the Middle Ages. M., 1979. pp. 186–187.) The historical roots and evolution of this legend are thoroughly explored in the works of E. N. Meshcherskaya: Meshcherskaya E. N. The Legend of Avgar - an early Syrian literary monument (Historical roots in the evolution of the apocryphal legend). M.: “Science”, 1984. She is also the Legend of Avgar and apotropaic texts in Greek // Palestine collection. Vol. 26 (89). 1978. pp. 102–107. Eusebius included certain letters and edicts, the authenticity of which is now fully confirmed, even in the "Biography of the Emperor Constantine", a panegyric in its essence (Drake N. Op cit R 10-11) Trompf G. The Logic of Retribution P 132–133 Lactantius, talking about the last days of Emperor Maximinus, does not say anything about this decree, which, however, is understandable, since it does not agree with the main idea of his narrative about the indispensable punishment of tyrants. Here he is more consistent and more tendentious than Eusebius The term itself was first used by Baronius in the 16th century. However, since the 19th century, researchers have noted the inaccuracy of its use by Otto Seek, and after him, most other researchers indicate that the sources do not know any Edict of Milan issued for the entire empire. The document referred to is not in the nature of an edict, a law, but an administrative order relating to any area. This is a mandatum, and not an edict in the strict sense of the word. In addition, this document was promulgated on April 30, 311 in Nicomedia, and not in Milan. Thus, it turns out that this is not Milan and not an edict (Seeck O. Das Sogennante Edikt von Mailand // Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte Bd 12 1891 S 381–386 Ranovich A. B. On early Christianity Μ, 1959 C 448) Barnes T. D. The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine Harvard, 1982. P 21–23 Grant R. M. The Case against Eusebius P 417 Ranovich A. B. Decree op. C. 445 Donini A. At the origins of Christianity M. 1989 P 217 Ranovich A. B. Decree op. C 448 Judge E. A. Christian Innovation P 25 Sextus Julius Africanus is an ancient Christian writer, originally from Emmaus in Palestine, who lived in the first half of the 3rd century AD. e., was a presbyter in Alexandria. He compiled a chronological overview of the events of Greco-Roman history (called by scientists πενταβ᾿ιβλον χρονολογικόν), covering the time from the creation of the world, which he attributed to 5500 BC, until 221 after AD X. This work served as the main source not only for Eusebius, but also for the later Byzantine historians G. Sincellus, I. Malala, Kedrin, Theophanes and for the so-called “Easter Chronicle”. Two interesting letters from Africanus have also survived, one to Corigen on the apocryphal history of Susanna (Migne, PG T 10 P 37–97), the other to Aristides on the genealogy of the Savior (published by Spitta, Halle, 1877). Quintus Septimius Florence Tertullian - the father of Latin theology. Born around 160 in Carthage into a pagan family. Received rhetorical and legal education. For some time he lived in Rome and practiced as a lawyer there. Around about 197 he converted to Christianity. Until the end of his life he wrote a lot in defense of the Christian faith. At first, Tertullian supported the dominant Catholic Church, but subsequently became disillusioned with church authorities and began to advocate Montanism. He died c. 220 Tertullian was the first prominent Christian to write in Latin. He always wrote as a lawyer, defending his views and attacking his opponents. He was very critical of Greek philosophy, considering it the founder of heresies. Tertullian left more than 30 works of an apologetic, dogmatic and practical nature, the most famous of which are “Apologetics”, “Prescriptions for Heretics”, five books “Against Marcion”, “Repentance”, “Moderation”. Justin Philosopher, or Martyr (2nd century) - Greek by origin, first sought the truth in Greek philosophy, at different times considered himself to be the Stoics, followers of Aristotle, then to the Pythagoreans, etc. At the end of his life he accepted Christianity, recognizing this philosophy as the only true and useful one. Of the rich literary heritage, only three works of Justin, “Conversation with Tryphon the Jew,” have survived to this day, the first “Apology,” a defense of the Christian faith addressed to the emperor, and the second “Apology,” a briefer appendix to the previous work, addressed to the Roman Senate. During the last years of his life, Justin taught in Rome. In the 60s of the 2nd century, he, along with others, was arrested and accused of belonging to Christianity. When asked to renounce his faith by making sacrifices to the pagan gods, he refused and went to his death, confident of his salvation in Christ. Irenaeus of Lyon - Greek by origin, was born in Asia Minor in a Christian family. As a boy, he heard the speeches of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who personally knew the Apostle John. Having matured, he moved to Lyon (Gaul), where he became a presbyter. Then in 177 he replaced the bishop who died a martyr's death. It is believed that Irenaeus died at the beginning of the 3rd century. Irenaeus was greatly influenced by Justin. Irenaeus became the link between early Greek theology and Western Latin theology, the founder of which is considered to be his younger contemporary Tertullian. If Justin was mainly an apologist, then Irenaeus refuted heresies and expounded the essence of apostolic Christianity. His largest work, “The Exposure and Refutation of the Doctrine Falsely Calling Itself Knowledge,” is known by its shorter title, “Against Heresies.” It was written mainly against Gnosticism, in refutation of which Irenaeus put forward a number of arguments that were subsequently adopted by Orthodox thinkers. The Pope of Hierapolis was a learned bishop, a direct disciple of St. John, a friend of Polycarp of Smyrna. He died a martyr in the period 156–165. From his work (“Five Books of Explanations of the Lord’s Sayings”, etc.), only small excerpts have survived, either in his original words or in the retelling of others, which are recognized as very important as ancient evidence of some of the main points of Christian teaching. He mentions the Gospel of Matthew, written in Hebrew. Dionysius of Alexandria - head of the Alexandrian catechetical school and bishop of Alexandria (247–264). Prolific writer, energetic church leader. During the persecution of Decius in 250–251, he went into hiding and was exiled under Valerian (252–258). The works of Dionysius have survived only in fragments. The main ones are “Books on Nature” (against atomism and Epicureanism), two books “On the Promises” (against chiliasm, rejects the authenticity of the Apocalypse), “Reproof and Justification” (against Sabellius), commentaries on the book of Ecclesiastes. Dempf A. Eusebios als Historiker S 3 Golubtsova N.I. At the origins of the Christian church M “Science”, 1969 P 12 Eusebius Pamphilus Ecclesiastical History Μ, 1991 C 403 Note 13 Basic information about apologists and Christian writers of the 2nd-3rd centuries, known today, is collected in the following works by S.I. Ostroumov, priest. Analysis of information from Eusebius of Caesarea and Bl. Jerome of Stridon about the Greek apologists of Christianity of the 2nd century M. 1886 John Drozdov, priest. Essays on general church history Vol. 3 Christian literature of the first three centuries (apostolic men and apologists) Irkutsk, 1907 Geffken I., prof. From the history of the first centuries of Christianity Trans. with him. A. Ya. Brusova St. Petersburg, 1908 Sidorov A. I. Course of patrolology, the emergence of church writing M, 1996 Cyprian (Kern), archim. Patrology I Paris - M, 1996 Grant R. M. Greek Apologists of the Second Century Philadelphia The Westminster Press, 1988 A translation of the main surviving fragments of the writings of Christian apologists is given in the book Writings of Ancient Christian Apologists. Per. P. Preobrazhensky, A. G. Dunaev and others. St. Petersburg, “Aletheia”, 1999 Aristobulus is an Alexandrian writer, originally a Jew, teacher of Ptolemy IX. His interpretation of the Pentateuch, written in Greek, is mentioned by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius. Eupolemus (II century BC) – Jewish historian, author of the treatise “On the Kings of the Jews.” Derevensky B. G. Decree op. C 111 Thanks to the works of Eusebius, the writings of Josephus became popular in the Christian world. Jerome, who continued Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” and translated it into Latin, called Josephus “the Greek Livy,” and until the 16th century he continued to be praised as “the greatest adherent of truth,” surpassing all historians, both Greek and Roman, in the reliability of his data. This reputation of Josephus is due to the fact that he is the only ancient non-Christian author who mentions the founder of the Christian religion as a historical figure. All works of Josephus have been translated into Russian “On the Antiquities of the Jewish People” St. Petersburg, 1898, “Jewish War” St. Petersburg, 1900, “Jewish Antiquities” Vol. 1–2, St. Petersburg, 1900 Modern editions “Jewish War” Minsk, 1991, “Jewish Antiquities” Minsk, 1994. Anyone interested in history was familiar with him and it did not seem necessary to quote him. The accusation against Eusebius, therefore, is as witty as the accusation of the history textbook of the New Testament, which tells about the worship of the Magi, of stealing this story from the Gospel of Matthew" (Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the ancient church T 1 Μ, 1994 (Reprint reproduction of the 1907 edition) pp. 142–143). In addition, Eusebius’s “Chronicle” differs too much from the work of Sextus Julius Africanus in both form and content to be considered “copied.” Phlegon of Thralles, Publius Aelius (Flego) - Greek writer of the early 2nd century, freedman of Emperor Hadrian, author of several historical works (Excerpts from the Olympiads, Life of Hadrian, etc.), which have not survived to this day and are known only in fragments quoted by later writers. Surviving fragments see Phlegon von Tralles - Jacobi F. Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker II, “B”, N№257 Berlin, 1929. The surviving fragments from his work “On Incredible Phenomena” have been translated into Russian. Phlegon of Thrallsky About incredible phenomena // Monuments of Late Antique Poetry and Prose Μ, 1968 (Per M. G. Grabar-Passek), Phlegon of Trallsky // Late Greek Prose Μ, 1960 (Bolgov N. N. Ancient written sources Greece Part 1 Belgorod, 1999 P 95–96) Derevensky B. G. Decree op. From 29.36 Cornelius Tacitus Works in 2 volumes. Volume 1 Annals. Small works St. Petersburg “Science”, 1993 C 203 Bolgov N. N. Decree op. P. 80–81 Dovatur A I Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus // Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Reflections St. Petersburg “Science”, 1993 P. 75–92 Dion Cassius (160–235) - Greek historian and Roman senator Full name - Dion Cassius Cockeyan Born in Nicaea (Bithynia). After the death of his father, the governor of Cilicia, he came to Rome in 180. Under Commodus he becomes a lawyer. Ruler of Pergamon and Smyrna, consul of 220, proconsul of Africa, governor of Dalmatia, Pannonia, consul of 229. Died in Nicaea. Wrote Roman history in 80 books from the founding of Rome to his consulate. In language and style it imitates Thucydides. Books 36–60 (about the events of 68 BC - 57 AD), partially books 78–79 (about the events of 217–220 AD) have been preserved in full. There are a number of fragments from the rest. Some of the books survived in retellings by Byzantine authors. There is no complete Russian translation (Bolgov N. N. Decree op. C 7–75) Main edition of Dio Cassius Dio’s Roman History / Ed E Cary Vol 1–9 Cambridge, 1970 Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus Life of the Twelve Caesars C 219 Gaius Pliny Caecilius Secundus Panegyric to Emperor Trajan // Letters of Pliny the Younger. Letters 1-X Ed. A. I. Dovatura M “Science”, 1984, Trompf G. The Logic of Retribution P 135 Dempf A. Eusebius als Historiker S 7 Dionysius of Halicarnassus (55–8 BC) – Greek historian and rhetorician, from 30 BC. e. lived in Rome Wrote the work “Roman Antiquities” in XX books Books 1-IX, most of books X-XI are fully preserved, only fragments of the rest Main publication Dionysi Halicarnasei antiquitates Romanae / Ed C Jacoby Vol 1–4 Lips, 1885–1905. Only minor passages have been translated into Russian. See Dionysius of Halicarnassus // Reader on the history of Ancient Rome M, 1987 (Per V Sokolova), Dionysius of Halicarnassus // Reader on the history of the Ancient World T III Rome Μ, 1953, Dionysius of Halicarnassus // The Ancient World in the monuments of its writing T 3 Μ, 1922 C 6–7,15–19,20–22, 50–51 (Bolgov N. N. Decree op. C 51)4 Konig-Ockenfels D. Op cit S 352 Porphyry (232/233–301/305) is one of the few surviving authors of the 3rd century, a philosopher, a representative of early Roman Neoplatonism. The author of numerous works on philosophy, religion, mathematics, history, rhetoric, astrology, etc. 77 of his works are known. In the field of history, he wrote the essay “Against Christians,” which was preserved in the form of fragments in the works of other authors (see: Losev A.F. History of Ancient Aesthetics. Last Centuries. M., 1988. Book I). For excerpts from this work, see: Harnack A. Porphyrius “Gegen dieChristen” // Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. 1916. Russian translation see: Ranovich A. B. Primary sources on the history of early Christianity. Ancient critics of Christianity. M., 1990. pp. 346–391. Grant R. M. The Case... P. 414. Dempf A. Eusebius als Historiker... S. 6. Muretov M.D. Eusebius Pamphilus.. P. 661. For more details on Eusebius’s attitude towards Papias, see Grant R M. Papias in Eusebius’ Church History // Mélanges d’Histoire des Religions offerts à Henri-Charles Puech. Paris, 1974, pp. 209–213. Urbanchik T. Eusebius and Socrates // Historical thought in Byzantium and the medieval West. Ivanovo, 1998. P. 32. Eusebius Pamphilus. Church history... Approx. 27. P. 382. Utchenko S. L. About some features of ancient culture // VDI, 1977, No. 1.S. 10. Urbanchik T. Decree. op. From 30. The predominance of oral or written tradition in the historical consciousness of a particular era is obviously associated with the scale of historical memory. Historical time in the ancient worldview was relatively short (Herodotus). Historians considered reliable only those events of which they themselves were contemporaries, or those that were no more than one generation away from them. Thucydides, for example, considered events that were only one generation away from him to be “distant,” and information about them was not trustworthy. Christianity, however, significantly expands ideas about its history. For a Christian author, history begins with the creation of the world, the flood, etc. Krivushin I.V. Early Byzantine... P. 214. Drake H.A. In Praise of Constantine... P. 6. Nemirovsky A.I. At the Origins... P. 5. He is the same. The Birth of Clio... P. 153 et seq. Samokhina G.S. Polybius: era, fate, work. Abstract of Dr. dissertations. M., 1997. P. 22 et seq. Kats A.L. Socio-political motives in the ideological struggle in the Roman Empire at the end of the 3rd – beginning of the 4th centuries // Ancient Society. M., 1967. pp. 287–291. Nemirovsky A.I. At the origins... P. 61. Dostalova R. Byzantine historiography (character and forms) // VV. Vol. 43. 1982. P. 23. Polybius. General history. Per. F. G. Mishchenko. T. 1. SP b., 1994. P. 148. Gaius Pliny Caecilius Sec. Panegyric to Emperor Trajan // Letters of Pliny the Younger. Letters I-H. Ed. A.I. Dovatura. M.: “Nauka”, 1984. P. 212. Howald E. Ionische Geschichtsschreibung // Hermes. Vol. 58. 1923. S 116. Cited. According to the publication: Lurie S. Ya. Herodotus. M.-L, 1947. pp. 36–37. Ten I. Titus Livius. M., 1900. P. 375. Vainshtein O. L. Decree. op. pp. 35–36. Utchenko S. L. Political teachings. pp. 107–108. Nemirovsky A.I. At the origins... P. 135–136. Historiography of ancient history... P. 13. Muller-Strubing H. Thukydidische Forschungen. Wien, 1881. Schwartz J. Die Demokratie. Leipzig, 1884. For more details, see: Nemirovsky A.I. At the Origins... P. 35. Gelzer N. Sextus Julius Afncanus Bd II, Leipzig, 1898 S 107 Schwarz E. Griechische Geschichtsschreiber Leipzig, 1959 S 539,550 Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature Ed by H. Wace and W C Piercy L., 1911 P 323–325 Milburn R. L. P Early Christian Interpretations of History L, 1954 Ch IV Foakes-Jackson J. Eusebius, Bischop of Caesarea as First Christian Historian Cambridge, 1933 Grant R. M. The Case against Eusebius or Did the Father of History write History? // Studia Patristica 1975 Vol 12 P 420–421 Cochrane Ch. Christianity and Classical Culture New York, 1957 P 63 Muretov M.D. Decree op. C 669 Udaltsova 3. V. Church historians of early Byzantium // VV 43 1982 P 3–21 Καρπόζηλος A. A. (4 ος –7 οι αι) Ἀθήνα, 1997 Σελ 59 Muretov M. D. Decree op. C 669–670 We are talking about the Life of Constantine. Lebedev A.P. The era of persecution of Christians and the establishment of Christianity in the Greco-Roman world under Constantine the Great. M., 1897. pp. 275–277. Hollerich M. J. Religion and Politics... P. 313–315. Drake N. A. In Praise of Constantine a Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius’ Tricentennial Orations // Univ. of California Press. Berkeley, 1976. V. 15. P. 7–10. Barnes T. D. Constantine and Eusebius... P. 265–267. J For more details, see: Hollerich M. J. Religion and politics... P. 312–313. Drake H. A. Op. cit. P. 8. Golubtsova N. I. At the origins... P. 13. Even an author as biased and skeptical of Eusebius as R. Grant finds only three factual errors in him (Grant R. M. The Case against Eusebius...). Moreover, they are the exception rather than the rule. Averintsev S.S. Greek “literature” and Middle Eastern “literature” // Typology and interconnection of literatures of the Ancient World. Ed. P. A. Grintser. M., 1971. S. 220–224. Chichurov I.S. On the problem of authorial self-awareness of Byzantine historians of the 4th-9th centuries // Antiquity and Byzantium. M., 1975. pp. 203–217. He is also the Place of Theophanes’ “Chronography” in the early Byzantine historiographic tradition (IV – early 9th centuries) // The most ancient states on the territory of the USSR. M, 1981. P. 31.