History of the description of the collection of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library

Gospel tetra. Moscow. The beginning of the 15th century. The middle of the 19th century was a time of rapid development of philology in domestic science. This science largely owes its flourishing to the remarkable scientist Alexander Khristoforovich Vostokov. This Slavic philologist, researcher of ancient Russian literature, poet and translator made many discoveries in the field of philological knowledge. He owns works on the comparative grammar of Slavic languages, lexicography of Church Slavonic and Russian languages, and paleography. 1 A.Kh. Vostokov was the first representative of the comparative historical school in Russian linguistics. In his works, he dealt with the issues of the origin of the Old Church Slavonic language, the relationship between the Church Slavonic language and secular Slavic languages, etc. Comparing data from various languages, establishing their relationship, A.Kh. Vostokov developed a new method for that time, which was called comparative historical. This strict scientific method of Vostokov, his comprehensive use of philological means, was applied to an unusually rich collection of monuments of Russian antiquity - to the manuscripts of the Synodal Library in the 50s of the 19th century by Alexander Gorsky. His work, written jointly with Kapiton Nevostruev, was built on the basis of the method developed by Vostokov. The name of Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky (1812–1875) is inextricably linked with the history of the Moscow Theological Academy. “To him it owes its prosperity and its primacy among other academies in Russia, which it retained until the very end of the Synodal period.” 2 Personality A.V. Gorsky had a colossal influence on the widest range of phenomena in Russian church-historical, philological and theological sciences, which became a consequence of his comprehensive scientific and church activities. The scientist's main subject was the history of the Russian Church. One of the fundamental points in the development of this area of ​​historical knowledge is Gorsky’s multifaceted work on the description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library. “This is not only a description of manuscripts in the proper sense of the word, it is also a well-founded assessment or characterization of monuments and their significance as historical sources... The enduring value of his work is that instead of an external description, he gave research. This especially applies to the description of biblical manuscripts: to this day it remains of great importance as an experience in the history of the Slavic text of the Bible." 3 In order to correctly understand what tasks Gorsky set in his work on the description of manuscripts, and what methods he was guided by, and how he generally worked on the study of all this vast manuscript material, one should first consider the previous activities of the scientist, in which his gift as an archaeographer gradually developed. Alexander Gorsky, like any novice researcher, when starting to study the monuments of ancient literature, walked uncertainly, by touch, developing techniques for himself, losing his way, wondering what to take and what to discard; I dwelled on the empty, petty and missed the important, serious. In addition, at that time there were almost no critically processed monuments that could make the scientist’s work easier. When Gorsky for the first time, with only the “Dictionary of Spiritual Writers” 4 of Metropolitan Evgeniy (Bolkhovitinov) in his hands, began to study the church and literary monuments of ancient Rus', a keen interest in the history of literature was aroused by N.A.’s book. Polevoy "History of the Russian people." 5 After “History of the Russian State” 6 N.M. Karamzin, this book served as a source of acquaintance with Russian antiquity for the young researcher. At the Theological Academy, Gorsky found a person who was able to direct his interest in the study of antiquity - the manuscripts of the Academy and the Sergius Lavra. This was his friend Filaret (Gumilevsky), a famous historian of the Russian Church, author of the “Review of Spiritual Literature”, 7 later Archbishop of Chernigov. Having entered under the scientific guidance of Filaret, Gorsky immediately sensed the weak side of Polevoy’s historical work, immediately felt the hasty conclusions of the researcher, so that he himself could already point out the gaps in this work. Gorsky's first studies were aimed at studying the history of the Russian Church, where he set the task of tracing how Christian teaching was instilled in the Russian people in various periods of historical life. “In the entire history of the Christian Church,” says Gorsky, “by revealing the history of its teachings, we follow, in fact, the gradual disclosure of Christian teaching. Here we must look at how the teaching was previously spread, how it was applied to the mind, how it was revealed and in what way it revealed its effect.” 8 Connected with this is Gorsky’s constant interest in the inner life of the church people themselves: how Christian teaching was accepted in everyday life and in life. Therefore, he was interested not so much in official documents as in literary monuments, especially lives and sermons, which opened access to this inner world of church antiquity. And it is from these studies of Gorsky that his definition of the task of Russian church history comes: to present the life of the Russian people as a society of believers, a task that has not been accomplished to this day. While working on this problem, Gorsky drew attention to an important conductor of Christian ideas into the pagan masses of the Russian Slavs - literature and preaching. In this way he approached the study of literary monuments of Russian antiquity. Touching upon the direction of the Greek Church at the time when the Russians borrowed Christianity, and finding “the scarcity of teaching people,” Gorsky, through a strictly scientific study of Russian history, came to the interesting conclusions that Christian enlightenment was established in Rus' mainly with the help of the Slavic Bible. “In tenth-century Greece, the responsibility to preach lay with bishops, not presbyters. It was the same with us. There were few preachers compared to the need. The Greek preachers banished all simplicity. The Slavic translation of the books of John of Damascus could not be a folk book, for there was much that was incomprehensible. One translation of the Holy Scripture remained a true treasure. Not only in the pre-Mongol period, but also in the later period, one cannot deny the weak understanding of Christianity among the masses and some leaders of the Church: how would they support Christian education among the masses with meager means? Support through practice, churches, worship?” 9 Gorsky's study of Russian church history, as can be seen from this passage, was based on a wide and close acquaintance with the history of the Christian Church in general and the Greek Church in particular. Thus, if Russian monuments did not provide Gorsky with indications of distant facts of Russian church history, he turned to the Church of Constantinople and found an explanation there. This method was used to explain Gorsky’s confirmation of Saint Alexy in the rank of metropolitan. Monuments of Russian church literature, on the contrary, explained to him the dark issues in the history of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Metropolitan Cyprian, describing the life of St. Peter of Moscow, speaks of the displacement of the then Patriarch of Constantinople; a fact unknown in Greek sources. Thus, without the additions of Metropolitan Cyprian, it would not have become known about the violent overthrow of Patriarch Philotheus from the throne. For Gorsky, the study of ancient Russian literature and the history of the Russian Church always goes hand in hand with the study of Byzantium. Pointing to the weak spread of education among the masses, Gorsky reveals one of the root causes of the phenomenon known as schism, and his comparative study of the destinies of the Russian and Greek Churches sheds even more light on this phenomenon. Explaining the history of the schism, Gorsky managed to preserve historical truth in purity, without sacrificing it for preconceived views. He, like a wise historian, comments on the historical fact itself, and does not denounce the Old Believers. Gorsky regrets that obvious forgery is called upon to help the truth. In ancient monuments of church literature, he points out traces of the “double hallelujah” and the double finger, the legality of which was proved by Metropolitan Daniel 10 of Moscow even before the famous Council of the Hundred Heads. Gorsky found shortcomings in Nikon’s correction of church books: the closeness of the translation even with the loss of meaning. For the sake of polemical purposes, Gorsky never resorted to sophistry, refuting the ahistorical opinion that the Hundred-Glavy Council had no legal significance. The main advantage of Gorsky's historical research is given by the fact that he worked from handwritten sources and was guided by a strictly scientific method. Therefore, his scientific works bear the stamp of rare self-sufficiency; His natural talent went through a strictly scientific school. Applying his knowledge to the treasures of ancient Russian literature, which were located in the Lavra, Academic and Synodal libraries, Gorsky found in these unpublished historical monuments an understanding of the past destinies of the Russian land. The narrow limits of one scientific specialty did not satisfy the researcher. Gorsky mastered all the manuals for philological and historical criticism of the source, paleography, studied Slavic dialects, and the Russian language in its historical development. Appearance in print of “Descriptions of Russian and Slavic Manuscripts” 11 of the Rumyantsev Museum A.Kh. Vostokov found Gorsky in full possession of monuments of ancient Russian and Slavic writing. Having mastered Vostokov’s comparative historical method, Gorsky surpassed him with the depth and breadth of his theological education, so necessary for a correct assessment of the monuments of ancient Russian literature. Excellent familiarity with Byzantine literature helped Gorski to critically assess its influence on the literature of the Slavs: Serbs, Bulgarians and Russians. Gorsky's education and his paleographic experience were so significant that he easily explained the alphabetical table, before which Vostokov stopped powerless. But in addition to his extensive erudition, the very field of Gorsky’s historical observations was immeasurably richer than the field in which Vostokov was destined to work. The latter studied those Slavic manuscripts that were in the hands of N.P. Rumyantsev, and a few manuscripts that previously belonged to A.S. Norov and D.A. Tolstoy. Gorsky opened the libraries of the Trinity Lavra, the Moscow Theological Academy, the Volokolamsk Monastery and, finally, the Synodal Library. What was the Moscow Synodal Library like during Gorsky’s time? It contained so many ancient books, manuscripts, papers and acts that all this represented the richest material for the history of the Russian Church, which no repository or library could provide. 12 Meanwhile, this material remained scientifically unclaimed: in the absence of a real index or catalog, it was almost impossible to use it, although the need for the use of all this wealth for learned historians and philologists appeared long ago. Secular researchers engaged in historical and philological research have more than once reproached, and quite rightly, the spiritual authorities for their reluctance to correct the situation. Finally, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow took the initiative to positively resolve the problem. In May 1849, he wrote to the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archimandrite Alexy (Rzhanitsyn), later Archbishop of Tver: “They say that strangers are undertaking without us for the synodal library what I have been thinking about for a long time, without achieving it, namely the compilation of a clear catalogue, and are even thinking about printing. Therefore, tell the censors that if anything of this kind comes to the censorship, they should keep it from being passed through without being presented to the Holy Synod. And I want to know if something like this happens. But as it is desirable for us ourselves, it is also necessary to do something for which we can be reproached for not doing it: then talk to Mr. Gorsky, if he will take on this matter with several employees who could be hired in Moscow and whom he would direct and supervise the work, visiting Moscow from time to time. Engage in this thought and give me an answer.” 13 It is obvious that Metropolitan Philaret’s plan for the Synodal Book Depository was to introduce all this new manuscript material into scientific circulation immediately with proper interpretation in line with church tradition. That’s why he wanted to entrust this to “his” person, who was A.V. Gorsky, not wanting to allow the interference of “strangers,” secular researchers. The letter from the Moscow hierarch decided the matter. After the rector’s conversation with Gorsky, Alexander Vasilyevich got down to business. 14 First it was necessary to find a capable assistant. Being a professor, Gorsky knew all the students – both those graduating from the Academy and those who had graduated from it. We had to choose one of them as our employee. And Gorsky’s attention focused on the teacher of the Simbirsk Theological Seminary, Kapiton Ivanovich Nevostruev. When Nevostruev was still a student at the Academy, he already showed an inclination towards history and archaeological research. Having become a teacher, he began to diligently study Russian antiquities, studying archives and compiling descriptions of the monasteries of the Simbirsk diocese. Gorsky, with whom Nevostruev maintained frequent correspondence after graduating from the Academy, was an active adviser to him in this endeavor. It was this talented student that Gorsky decided to involve in work on the description of the manuscripts of the Synodal Library. And after receiving Nevostruev’s consent to this, on July 30, 1849, a decree of the Holy Synod followed on the instructions of A.V. Gorsky and K.I. Nevostruev to compile a description of the Slavic manuscripts stored in the Synodal Library. 15 And already in the autumn of the same year, hard work began on describing the manuscripts. It goes without saying that such a big and necessary task that A.V. took on. Gorsky together with K.I. Nevostruev, required detailed preliminary discussions of the task, order and methods of conducting it. Therefore, the researchers first found out the purpose of their work and drew up special rules for it. According to their plans, the description should have appeared not in the form of a simple inventory serving to protect manuscripts, or a detailed list of the articles contained in them, but in the form of a serious scientific bibliographic work. The purpose of the work was to “present a more distinct concept of them (i.e., manuscripts and articles) in consideration of issues of scientific sophistication, paying attention to both the content and language of ancient written monuments. Moreover, due to the nature of these monuments, mostly ecclesiastical, scientific research should primarily serve to explain the history of the church, its literature and antiquities.” 16 The work itself had to be carried out according to the following rules: “1) Manuscripts were arranged according to their content, and then manuscripts of the same content were given place one after the other, according to the time of their writing. 2) Describe each manuscript as if it were the only one the descriptor had in mind, but to the extent that it contains features that are not repeated in manuscripts of the same content: note bibliographical features, among other things, and spelling; designate the content in more detail, the more different it is from the content of the same others and at the same time, having in mind the analysis of several manuscripts of the same content, review their general content in the analysis of the oldest of them; write out all postscripts, etc. 3) With the analysis of manuscripts containing remarkable monuments of literature, combine the analysis of the monuments themselves in relation to content and language; and when analyzing translations and in relation to the correctness of the transmission of the original. 4) To evaluate translations and extracts from works of Greek and other foreign languages, always look for the source used by the translator or extractor - and if it is not in printed publications, look for it in Greek manuscripts, in the Synodal library or in other available ones. 5) Everything that deserves special attention and research, both in the main content of the manuscript and in the inserted articles and postscripts, should be examined and explained as far as possible. 6) All extracts from manuscripts, no matter how large or small they are, must be conveyed in the description with literal accuracy.” 17 The researchers’ work itself followed approximately this pattern. The initial description of a certain manuscript was made on site by Nevostruev, who worked in the Moscow Kremlin, in the Chudov Monastery. He analyzed manuscripts, made comparisons, expressed his assumptions and considerations. The notebook with such descriptions was then sent to Gorsky, and he, where necessary, corrected it and provided his additional comments, philological, historical, etc. The notebook, completely rewritten in Moscow, was again sent to the Sergius Lavra to Gorsky, for his final approval. Sometimes the description was carried out differently: Gorsky himself took some manuscript from the Synodal Library, made notes on it, and forwarded it to Nevostruev, who then began the description itself. And again, from the Chudov Monastery, the notebook with the studied material went on a 60-kilometer journey to the Lavra to Gorsky. These notebooks of description, compiled by Nevostruev, were always returned to Gorsky, covered with comments, additions and notes from Alexander Vasilyevich. These proofs, which were sent along with numerous letters, are full of the same instructions and messages. 18 Reviewing all this again, K.I. Nevostruev could see that he had written too much and what he had not completed, how best to use the same data that he himself extracted from the manuscripts, how to further carry out the work of analyzing and studying the manuscripts. Nevostruev took note of all these conclusions and once again redid his work. And a new, so to speak, report was sent to the Lavra along with the manuscript. Nevostruev's notebooks received their final revision when Gorsky subjected them to a new review. But it often happened that the strict scientist was again dissatisfied. He noticed “that unnecessary excerpts from articles and collections were made, important and characteristic things were missed here, too much was said about the personality of the writer, the conclusion there was weak, there was insignificant, there was not confirmed, here it was too bold and careless. And again, from the Lavra, new lessons are coming to the Miracle researcher, again the notebooks are covered with crosses on all sides: a cross on unnecessary extracts, a cross on shaky conclusions, a cross on careless words, heated reviews, and on top of the crossed out Nevostruev’s text, in the small letter of the Lavra scholar, come the final conclusions, expressed by energetic criticism, with extraordinary accuracy and simplicity. These altered, altered notebooks, with final conclusions, will, of course, no longer meet with any checks or changes in Chudov.” 19 From this it becomes clear that although Nevostruev was prepared for the task of describing his Simbirsk activities in antiquity, it was not sufficiently prepared. At first, Gorsky explained to him what he needed to pay attention to when reading and studying manuscripts, advised him to omit unimportant details such as typos, rearrangements of words, taught him how to determine the antiquity of a translation and the features of the language, how to make comparisons and selections. “Student mistakes are replete with Nevostruev’s first notebook. He sees antiquity where corrupted forms appear, incomprehensible to the scribe; he sees antiquity where a local accent is displayed. Gorsky eliminates these student mistakes of his employee, but with that modesty and caution that cannot offend anyone’s pride, he sees in his employee gross mistakes, student slips, but constantly treats them as learned opinions with which he does not agree. All these, so to speak, intimate suggestions always bear the stamp of the broadest humanity.” 20 These letters, notebooks, half-sheets, sewn-in and enclosed notes, personal conversations with Gorsky were of great importance for Nevostruev. He gradually improved, studied, acquired the skill and ability to understand manuscripts in order to work usefully and fruitfully. Such joint work and communication with Gorsky developed, re-educated and improved Nevostruev. In his free time from working with the manuscripts of the Synodal Library, Nevostruev also spent a lot of time studying ancient Russian monuments. 21 “Nevostruev did not forget the materials he collected during his work in Simbirsk. He prepared and published a number of historical descriptions and publications of documents on the history of monasteries, 22 cathedrals and churches of the Simbirsk-Samara Volga region." 23 And this, of course, was Gorsky’s school, which was based on those philological and linguistic principles of archaeographic work that were developed during the Description of the collection of manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library. The draft notebooks “Descriptions” have in this regard an extremely important bibliographical interest. More than half of Nevostruev’s texts, extracts, and materials were crossed out and thrown away as unnecessary trash; errors, mistakes, guesswork are eliminated; Gorsky accompanies all this with new quotes, long critical comments instead of student extracts, insignificant and fruitless for conclusion. 24 Sending Nevostruev a number of his many years of observations based on a deep critical study of both the Synodal and Lavra manuscripts, Gorsky poses a number of new, private questions: “search, inquire, note, explain, prove.” The “Description of Manuscripts” itself will forever remain Gorsky’s major work. This is a treasury of critically cleared facts for the history of the language, both Russian and Old Slavic. In terms of breadth of plan, it has nothing similar in European literature. The researcher set himself the task of presenting not a dry description of many manuscripts, but the historical fate of those literary works, the lists of which were included in the Synodal Literature. Brought to the end, adhered to the original plan and executed with that critical tact, with the enormous erudition that Gorsky possessed, “Description” gave our science a critical history of all pre-Petrine literature. The material collected and processed by Gorsky provided invaluable information in the field of historical and literary research, enriching the history of not only our literature, but also the history of Byzantine literature. Adhering to the comparative-historical method of study, Gorsky, first of all, strives to find the initial Greek and Latin text, then subjects their translations to a detailed examination, and makes detailed extracts from unpublished works. He does not hide from himself or from his readers the difficulties of the task ahead, but these difficulties are overcome and lead to new discoveries in the field of Greek literature. For example, the study of Slavic manuscripts of the Synodal Library made it possible to discover the “Words” of the famous opponent of Origen - Methodius of Patara, completely unknown to Western scientists at that time. The ancient Greek Patericon in a Slavic translation, described by Patriarch Photius of Constantinople in chapters, but not known in Greek, new excerpts from the famous “Ladder” of John of Sinai, the “Instructions” of the Apostle James to the Jews, the new “Word” of Theodore the Studite, the “Words” of Simeon the New Theologian, part of unpublished or completely unknown in Greek, a new edition of the Christian adaptation of the work of the Stoic Epictetus, attributed to St. Maximus the Confessor, in 100 chapters. Gorsky found that St. Maxim is also the author of a work of spiritual and moral content called “The Helmsman,” which is not in Greek. 25 Scientists introduced the primary sources of many other works into scientific circulation. Deep acquaintance with the works of the fathers of the Greek Church enabled Gorsky to determine the historical significance of ancient works of Slavic literature. He separated to the last detail everything miraculous and borrowed in the works of John, Exarch of Bulgaria, while rejecting the works incorrectly attributed to him, and carefully highlighted everything original in the “Word” of Constantine, Presbyter of Bulgaria. 26 Studying the original monuments of Slavic and Russian literature, Gorsky notes all the indications found in them about the customs and way of life of the people, everything that revealed the hidden spring of historical figures and all the features that vividly characterize a certain era of antiquity. Thus, even minor news about rope dancers in Constantinople did not escape his attention. 27 But the main interest of the study focused on resolving the question that deeply occupied Gorsky for many years, namely: “how was that collection of biblical books in the Slavic language that we have before the first printed editions formed? And in what form was the word of God known to our ancestors?” 28 Such a task becomes historically justified if we look at the problem of the Slavic translation of the Bible. The latest Slavic edition, the so-called Elizabethan Bible of 1751, although it bears the stamp of informed and zealous scholarship, but by the very factual circumstances of its origin turns out to be limited in quality. 29 Such dissatisfaction with the existing Slavic translation has long been recognized in Russia and has caused attempts in the scientific world to eliminate it. Back in 1812, Metropolitan Evgeniy (Bolkhovitinov) had already submitted his “Study on the Slavic Translation of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments” to the Imperial Academy of Sciences for publication. The author based it on the text of the Gennadian Bible of 1499, which was strongly influenced by the Latin Vulgate rather than Greek manuscripts. 30 However, in the study of the Right Reverend Eugene, there were many inaccuracies and errors. Therefore, the monograph of Metropolitan Eugene was not published and was published only in 1839, after the death of the author, and bore in the title the surname not of the Metropolitan himself, but of the professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy Orest Novitsky. 31 And only now, when describing the Slavic manuscripts of the Synodal Library, Gorsky made an invaluable contribution to support this enterprise. He discovered, collected and reviewed enormous material and outlined new prospects for fruitful scientific work on the genesis and restitution of the Slavic Bible. According to the fair and competent verdict of Professor G.A. Voskresensky, this “is, one might say, an inexhaustible treasury of critically cleared facts for the history of the sacred biblical text.” 32 One of the many advantages of this work by Gorsky was that he laid down valuable acquisitions and authoritative incentives for further research on this problem. The history of the Slavic text is constantly touched upon by Gorsky throughout the entire “Description”. He convincingly proved that not all of the Old Testament books of the Bible were known to Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod in the Slavic translation. The remaining books were translated from Latin by inexperienced translators, and the book of Esther was generally accepted in a later translation from Hebrew. Gorsky followed the text of the Holy Scripture through all the monuments of ancient Slavic literature and noticed that the most ancient Slavic writers did not quote the texts of Scripture in accordance with the ancient original, but probably conveyed it according to their own translation. Gorsky noticed this phenomenon in John, Exarch of Bulgaria, in the translation of Athanasius of Alexandria, made by one of the disciples of St. Methodius - Constantine of Bulgaria, in the translation of the “Catechetical Teachings” of Cyril of Jerusalem, dating back to ancient times, in an equally ancient translation by Gregory the Theologian. 33 Thus, Gorsky established the following pattern: the older the monument of Slavic literature, the more the Slavic text of the Holy Scripture is distinguished by disagreement and independence with the ancient original. He noted this remarkable phenomenon, raising the question of the scope and fate of the Cyril and Methodius translation of the Holy Scriptures. Gorsky did not solve this issue in its entirety, but managed to identify the most important phases in the history of the Slavic text of the New Testament and, with the help of subtle critical observations, was able to determine the oldest original text of the Psalms, Acts and Apostolic Epistles. The description of the manuscripts, with the direct participation of Gorsky, lasted for 14 years. The result of such a long work was the appearance in print, with the name of Gorsky and Nevostruev, of six rather voluminous volumes, in which more than 340 books and manuscripts were described in detail. 34 This work created real fame for Gorsky as a scientist. Everyone was talking about him then: they said that in terms of completeness, thoroughness, depth and detail, even similar descriptions of the oldest libraries in Europe, compiled by Western scientists, could not compare with him. 35 In 1867, the Academy of Sciences awarded “Description” the Lomonosov Prize. His friends were the first to tell Gorsky this good news. Academician A.F. Bychkov, notifying Alexander Vasilyevich about this, wrote to him on December 2, 1867: “I hasten to convey to you the pleasant news that at yesterday’s meeting of the Academy of Sciences, you were awarded the Lomonosov Prize for your description of the manuscripts of the Synodal Library, this long-term work that has enriched Slavic philology and our literature with many new data. Academy of Sciences, based on detailed reports compiled by me and I.I. Sreznevsky, unanimously awarded you and K.I. Nevostruev Prize, and thus managed to give due and deserved credit to work, which has few similar ones in Western European literature.” 36 The official report on the first award of the Lomonosov Prize stated that “Description” is “a work of our scientific literature whose merits place it among the small number of the most important phenomena of our current scientific literature, and give it the right to special respect from the Academy... an important phenomenon, both in relation to the famous book depository, which contains works of ancient and ancient writing, necessary for anyone studying the language and literature of Russian and all Slavic Orthodoxy, and in terms of its scientific significance not only in Russian and Slavic literature, but also in European scientific literature in general. 37 ... There are very few such works of intelligence, scholarship, diligence, and attentiveness in our scientific literature; There are few such works in the literature of Western Europe.” 38 To this day, the description of the collection of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library, undertaken by A.V. Gorsky and K.I. Nevostruev retains scientific relevance and serves as a valuable tool for the study of literary monuments and Slavic antiquities. See: Vostokov A.Kh. Description of Russian and Slavic manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum. St. Petersburg, 1842; Dictionary of the Church Slavonic language / Imp. AN. From Russian language and literature. St. Petersburg, 1858–1861. 2 t. Melkov A. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy A.V. Gorsky and his contribution to the development of Russian church historical science // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2002. No. 12. P. 47. Evgeniy (Bolkhovitinov), Metropolitan. Historical dictionary about writers of the clergy of the Greek-Russian Church who were in Russia. St. Petersburg, 1827. 2 vols. Polevoy N.A. History of the Russian people. T. 1–6. M., 1829–1833. Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State: In 3 books, containing 12 volumes with full notes. "Ed. I. Einerling. 5th ed. St. Petersburg, 1842–1843. 3 books Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop. Review of Russian spiritual literature. Kharkov. 1859–1861. 2 books Tikhonravov N.S. Gorsky and Nevostruev // At the Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Anniversary collection of historical materials / Published by former students of the Moscow Theological Academy. M., 1914. P. 343. See: Daniil, Met. Moscow. Messages, teachings, Words - Zhmakin V. Metropolitan Daniel and his writings. M., 1881. Vostokov A.Kh. Description of Russian and Slavic manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum. St. Petersburg, 1842 See in detail about the Moscow Synodal Library: Ikonnikov V.S. Experience in the history of Russian historiography. Kyiv, 1891–1892. T. 1. Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. Letters to the late Archbishop of Tver Alexy. 1843–1867. M., 1883. pp. 45–46. Gorsky A.V. Diary / Ed. S.K. Smirnova // Additions to the works of the holy fathers. 1884. T. 34. P. 315, 319, 330. OR RSL, f. 78, room 39, unit. hr. 22, l. 1–6. Sreznevsky I.I. Report on the first award of the Lomonosov Prize // Notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. St. Petersburg, 1868. T. 12. Book. 2. P. 202. OR RSL, f. 78, room 20, unit. hr. 22, l. 1–71. Tikhonravov N.S. Decree op. P. 352. Nevostruev K.I. The Word of Saint Hippolytus about the Antichrist in a Slavic translation according to a copy of the 12th century. M., 1868; Nevostruev K.I. Description of the Simbirsk Spassky Monastery. M., 1855; About the beginning of the Alatyr Kiev-Nicholas Monastery // Bulletin of Western Russia. 1866. No. 8–9; Historical description of the male Spaso-Preobrazhensky and female Spassky Monasteries that were in the city of Samara // Classics of Samara Local History: Anthology / Ed. P.S. Kabytova, E.L. Dubman. Samara, 2002. pp. 31–44. Classics of Samara Local History: An Anthology » Ed. P.S. Kabytova, E.L. Dubman. Samara, 2002. P. 32; See research by K.I. Nevostruev on the archeology of the Volga region: On the settlements of the Volga-Bulgarian and Kazan kingdoms. M., 1871; Ananyinsky burial ground, Vyatka province. M., 1871. OR RSL, f. 78, units hr. 11, l. 1–229. Note from Academician A.F. Bychkova. Appendix to the report on the first award of the Lomonosov Prize // Notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. St. Petersburg, 1868. T. 12. Book. 2. P. 296. Tikhonravov N.S. Decree 3 op. P. 348. Gorsky A.V., Nevostruev K.I. Description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library. M., 1855. T. 1. Dep. 1. P. II. See: Chistovich I. A. Correction of the text of the Slavic Bible before the publication of 1751 // Orthodox Review. M., 1860. Part 1. pp. 499–507. See: Evseev E.I. Gennadievskaya Bible of 1499 // Proceedings of the fifteenth archaeological congress in Novgorod. T. 2. 1914. Quote by: Glubokovsky N.N. Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state. M., 2002. P. 50. Tikhonravov N.S. Decree 3 op. P. 349. Gorsky A.V., Nevostruev K.I. Description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library. M., 1855–1917. 3 Dept.: Dept. 1. Holy Scripture. M., 1855; Dept. 2. Scriptures of the Holy Fathers. M., 1857–1862. 3. T.; Dept. 3. Liturgical books. M., 1862–1917. 2. T. See: Gilyarov-Platonov N.P. From the experience. St. Petersburg, 1882. P. 96; Voskresensky G.A. A.V. Gorsky // Slavic Review. 1892. T. 3. Book. 10. P. 178. OR RSL, f. 78, room 23, unit. hr. 76, l. 1–1 vol. A.F. Bychkov - A.V. Gorsky dated December 2, 1867 Sreznevsky I.I. Report on the first award of the Lomonosov Prize // Notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. St. Petersburg, 1868. T. 12. Book. 2. pp. 196–197. Sreznevsky I.I. Appendix to the report on the first award of the Lomonosov Prize // Ibid. P. 240.