Academician Evgeny Evsigneevich Golubinsky

...The feeling of brotherhood with people, which makes one realize the meaning of life among them, fills a person’s heart with bliss, beyond which there is nothing, because the Lord, who is love, created people precisely for the bliss of brotherly love. E.E. Golubinsky. “The Tale of a Good Man.” 1. Scribe taught in the Kingdom of Heaven “And He said to them: Therefore every scribe who is taught in the kingdom of heaven is like a man who is the owner of a house, who brings out of the treasures of his house new and old” (Matthew 13:52). It is unlikely that it will be possible to find a moment in the life of Evgeniy Evsigneevich Golubinsky when he could be imagined separately from the Church. The example of his fate confirms and fills with meaning the aphorism: “Russian means Orthodox,” which the historian himself most of all refuted with his works, in which he showed how little and how shallowly our people were enlightened by the Light of Christian enlightenment. From birth in the family of a rural priest, who, according to the Gospel, was born in a nursery (“More than once, when I was little, my mother laughed and told me that I was not born into the world under ordinary circumstances. For some reason, it was impossible for my mother to give birth to me in the hut: February 28, 1834, was a Maslenitsa Wednesday and, probably, Maslenitsa guests - relatives from nearby villages - had already arrived to us; be that as it may, but not having the opportunity to give birth to me in the hut, my mother went to the yard, to the cow shed, in which, when I was born, I first of all had to get acquainted with frozen cow droppings...” 1), until death, when he, dying, asked to put on his head the book with which he wanted to come to the Judgment of God - his study about the Russian saint closest and dearest to him, “Reverend Sergius of Radonezh and created by him Trinity Lavra" - he was always in the Church and with God. A person born into a baptized people, a people familiar with the Christian faith, has a guarantee - the title of Orthodox is given "in advance", they still need to become, directing their will to comprehend the faith. And in the 19th century, alas, almost only children of the clergy who studied in theological schools and seminaries had the opportunity to do this. Golubinsky’s appearance seems to illustrate the Gospel paradox about the scribe taught by the Kingdom of Heaven - the wealth of book knowledge that he sought and tirelessly acquired, united with faith, attested by the equally tireless collection of the living Tradition of the Church, revealed to him the past and the future, old and new. He brought out the treasure of his knowledge for us - after all, God gives this treasure to his chosen ones not for concealment, but for serving their neighbors. Of course, Golubinsky is not alone. A remarkable galaxy of famous academic devotees of church science - Archpriest Fyodor Golubinsky, Archpriest Alexander Gorsky, V.V. Bolotov, N.P. Gilyarov-Platonov, A.P. Golubtsov, N.N. Glubokovsky - teachers, students, colleagues, friends of Golubinsky, each of whom, being rooted in tradition, boldly rushed to new discoveries and created new scientific directions. At the same time, they were not armchair scientists, devoting all their strength to helping their neighbors and correcting shortcomings in the Church and society, to educate new people. And yet, Golubinsky has a special place - this is, on the one hand, the pinnacle of church science, as evidenced by his election to academician of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, and on the other hand, prophetic vision and voice, appearing at a turning point, seeking a new righteous life. Golubinsky has a rigorous study of the past of our fatherland and the Church, the construction of a scientific edifice of the history of the Russian Church, a bold historical criticism of generally accepted legends that flatter national pride; and faith in the future of Russia, a vision in the Church and society of the strength and opportunity for reconstruction and development on Christian principles - a clear and lofty “national idea” that is now only dreamed of! This idea was not accepted in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, which was sliding into the abyss due to suicidal military scams undertaken by cliques close to the last three emperors - German, Austro-Hungarian and Russian. Perhaps now, 100 merciless years after the proud “Varyag” and the hills of Manchuria, the time has come to listen to God’s will about Russia and the Russian Church?! This idea seems at first too simple and divorced from real life, but it is based on historical experience and a deeply thought-out set of measures that will probably require the same forty years from the biblical book of Exodus (this is approximately 30 times the “500 days” during which we were promised to lead the country out of the crisis). Its essence is this: it is possible to achieve sustainable well-being of the state only when the people as a whole become prosperous, and this cannot be done by economic measures alone - it is necessary to instill in people sobriety, honesty and mutual assistance, which only the Orthodox Church can do if it returns to the path of active Christian unity and enlightenment. 2. Rural impressions of childhood Evgeny was born on February 28, 1834 in the family of the priest Evsigny Feodorovich Peskov in the rich village of Matveevo in the remote Kologrivsky district - in the “bear corner” of the Kostroma province. The diploma came easily to him. His paternal grandfather, priest of the village of Uspenye-Neiskoye Fyodor Nikitich Belyaev, praised the lively, playful and sharp boy, saying: “You will be my academician.” In his own family, from childhood, Evgeniy accepted the good, good seeds of the Christian faith. But he also saw the most repulsive aspects of the life of the priestly class, immersed in drunkenness. The state of the Church in the Russian province of the 19th century, as it appears in the “Memoirs” of E.E. Golubinsky, can be characterized by the expression: “both laughter and sin.” The historian’s very first childhood memories are a fight between a drunken clergy, in which both the wives took part, and the bargaining of the clergy with the chief of the diocesan spiritual board, who came to collect “tribute” from the clergy. “The clergy... were given over to immeasurable drunkenness... During Lent, the drunkenness of the priests stopped... and then a new drunken year began... Our priests played a lot of tricks, and a large number of anecdotes could be told about them... The fathers drank, but did not die from vodka, and of my peers who were priests in our area, three or four went to the next world prematurely from vodka...” 2 Of course, these are the most negative features of rural life clergy. The main part of this life was still ordinary agricultural labor, which the historian writes about in the article “Good Desires Regarding the Russian Church”: “... so a person is finally enough only to do what our priests are at the present time - to be a mechanical performer of church services and requirements, and nothing more. Throughout the summer, peasant work from sunrise to the fading of the evening dawn; throughout the winter, almost the whole day, caring for the cattle that is kept for agriculture, in preparing her food and in feeding her - when it’s about books, when to read them properly, when to think and reflect... Anyone can personally observe how agriculture, in a very short time, changes a seminarian who enters the priesthood into a completely different person from the one he entered: a person enters the position filled with various good dreams; but three or four years pass and not the slightest trace remains of dreams - the man is simply a literate peasant, and nothing more; the very appearance of a person changes completely: instead of careful concern for decency, you see a completely peasant and completely dissolute slovenliness” 3. These negative impressions of childhood, without damaging the faith of E.E. Golubinsky, grew over time, as history was studied, into a sober conviction of the need for transformations in the Russian Church, the need to instill in it enlightenment and morality so essential for the Christian faith. It was precisely this pain for the Church and the entire people and the consciousness of the Christian ideal that drove the pen that wrote “The History of the Russian Church,” and not at all the desire to blaspheme one’s own history. This is especially clear after reading all six articles published after the death of E.E. Golubinsky by his student S.A. Belokurov under the general title “On reforms in the life of the Russian Church.” In the preface, S.A. Belokurov wrote: “It would be an insult to the memory of the deceased to think that when revealing the shortcomings of the Russian Church, he was guided by any other feeling than a sincere desire for her good, a desire to improve her life, a desire to provide her with all possible assistance in this matter. He was a son who sincerely loved his mother, the Church, and exposed her shortcomings not in order to mock her, but in order to free her from them by revealing them.” Thanks to this collection, we have the opportunity to get an idea of ​​the historian’s worldview, which undoubtedly influences the process and results of historical research even more deeply than the techniques and methods of his work. Under such conditions, where did future academic ascetics develop their strong and meaningful faith? We are still far from a clear idea of ​​that “set of unique living conditions that created such people as Gorsky, Golubinsky, Klyuchevsky” 4. Nevertheless, a comparison of the “Memoirs” and the articles “On Reforms” clarifies something here too. The historian recalled that his father taught him to read and write using the book “The Path to Salvation”, famous at that time among priests, by Theodore Emin. “The eloquence of the book, consisting of eight reflections, the first of which begins with the words: “Come to your senses, my soul is immersed in secular luxury!”, delighted both of us - both my father and me.” Apparently, this was a family teaching, and from the age of 9, teaching in theological school shaped the spiritual image of the scientist. Discussing the possibility of correcting the morals of the people, E.E. Golubinsky wrote: “... parish priests have an indispensable duty to teach the people the Christian faith and morality, and they can fulfill this duty properly only through the systematic schooling of children.” Unlike peasant children, children of the priesthood had already undergone such training. From the childhood memories of the scientist, the origin of his surname is also characteristic - the father chose it for his son in honor of not only the famous fellow countryman, academic philosopher Fyodor Aleksandrovich Golubinsky 5, but also in honor of his younger brother - Evgeniy, who was a friend (and drinking buddy) of his father at the seminary... It is possible that the father gave the name to his son in honor of this friend of his! At the age of eight, Evgeniy lost his mother Anna Kozminichna 6. “The death of my mother greatly influenced me: from a playful boy, I became withdrawn and unsociable, beginning to shun peers and games.” At the age of nine, in the first week of Lent in 1843, the boy was taken to the Soligalich school, where, in the opinion of his father, “they taught and flogged him better.” According to tradition, Golubinsky was immediately given the nickname “bear” at the school. The historian's years of study at the school are known to us only from “Memoirs” and are notable for the boy’s diligent teaching from a very zealous teacher - Pavel Nikitich Albov very lively taught the short catechism, constantly turning to children with questions: “What does this mean? How to explain this?” Eugene’s successes in the Greek language once delighted P. N. Albov to such delight that he promised him a great future, advising him to be humble and not to be arrogant... When Golubinsky was in the last class of theological school, an order came from the seminary to take away arbitrary surnames from all students and restore the old, paternal ones; but for Evgeniy, obviously, for his success, they made an exception - he was left with a great surname, and he carried it with great honor to his grave, becoming an ordinary academician of the Academy of Sciences and justifying the hopes placed on him from childhood. After the death of E.E. Golubinsky according to the thoughts and plans of S.A. Belokurov, preparations began for the publication of the Inventory of the Academician's Library with the reproduction of all his notes on the books. I.A. Golubtsov, who headed this work, wrote an introductory article about the historian, where, based on the study of the scientist’s books, he makes very important observations. Let us cite an excerpt from it regarding Golubinsky’s studies: “Successes and praise, feeding the pride of an introverted and serious boy, under the created conditions of the home environment naturally tied him to school and books, and from a young age he was not accustomed to treating them formally, in an official way. The receptive student drew from school and books those true Christian foundations of morality and worldview, which allowed him even then to protect himself from many of the everyday vices of modern Bursak and church society that surrounded him, and subsequently attracted his scientific attention to the study and merciless condemnation of these vices in his numerous works. Even then, in the days of his youth, he valued knowledge, sought it, showing remarkable diligence and initiative and, obviously, inclined in the future to devote himself entirely to it, but for now trying to stock up on what would provide the necessary help in the future. It is quite natural that in this case, the school tradition, the environment in which his education took place, should have been of great importance in terms of directing his attention. In the then lower and secondary theological schools, all knowledge was offered only under the condition of a thorough study of ancient languages. Coming home from the seminary on vacation, Golubinsky again found the same old Greek-Latin lexicons, well known to him from school, carefully preserved by his father, and Latin textbooks on philosophy, theology and other subjects printed in Moscow at the beginning of the 19th century; In seminary classes, I constantly heard references to old and new foreign scientific authorities. It is clear that it did not take long for the inquisitive seminarian to become convinced of the need to thoroughly study new European languages, as the best means of direct communication with the very sources of knowledge. Let’s not forget that it was still the time of serfdom, and perhaps in the landowner’s estate of his native village of Matveev, French speech was still heard, and in the manor’s rooms on the shelves one could see, or even more easily find in abundance in Kostroma, at a second-hand bookstore, small pocket French books, mostly the heritage of the 18th century. And E.E. began to study French; This is the first perceptible manifestation for us of his initiative in the field of knowledge. Having entered the Academy in 1854, he tripled his persistence in this regard, and by Christmastide of the first year he began to read quite fluently in both French and German. In the seminary, apparently, both the general mood and scientific interests of E.E. were determined; Apparently, even then he joined the small ranks of that part of the seminary youth who, not being suppressed by the Filaret-official school regime, sought positive knowledge and did not shy away from some free-thinking in their worldview. Having bought it about a year before graduating from the seminary for 10 kopecks. ser. the French book: “L'esprit de l'encyclopedie”, E.E., not without some special significance, perhaps wrote that it belonged to a student of “Theology”: his head was probably not theologically or philosophically inclined, probably even at that time. At the Academy, philosophy was not good for him, and subsequently he assessed himself as a philosopher whose mind went beyond his mind. His studies in literature, schism and history were much more successful. In the entire composition of his library, it is impossible to indicate a single, perhaps purely theological or philosophical book that he would have acquired consciously for the purpose of studying the subject; here we will find only 3-4 of his old textbooks, and several theological treatises in Latin, acquired by chance out of respect for their antiquity. Theological and philosophical dissertations, donated by colleagues or students, unlike other books, he usually left uncut; sometimes, however, he read a philosophical or theological article that came his way somewhere, sometimes even bought some kind of manual on the history of philosophy or theology, but he did this either because he considered it necessary for himself to have minimal familiarity with the relevant areas, or because the subjects presented here were related to one or another question of history and life that interested him. While the course of study continued, ending with the Academy, E.E. was, obviously, bound in his studies by the framework of the school and for his next topics he drew material from the state book depositories: the official bookkeeper did not have to dream of his own book, and only random books that he came across from a second-hand book dealer, costing 5-10 kopecks. silver, occasionally became the property of an inquisitive student” 7 . In addition to “Memoirs”, about the historian’s studies at the Kostroma Seminary, there is a detailed essay by N.I. Serebryansky 8, written on the basis of the seminary archive commissioned by S.A. Belokurov in 1915 for publication in the Readings of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities. E. Golubinsky writes that at the seminary, by the time he entered, “the last traces of Bursat knighthood: drunkenness and rowdy” had already been exterminated. Nevertheless, Evgeniy twice happened to get drunk during vacations (vacations). It is well characterized by what happened as a result of this. "One of my comrades challenged me to boast, said that I would be sent to the academy, etc. I began to boast, and the remarkable thing is that I realized that boasting was disgusting, and yet I continued. Afterwards I felt terribly ashamed, and I promised myself never to drink." Another interesting point in “Memoirs” is that the seminarians called each other in the village language: Kostyukha (Konstantin), Menyukha (Veniamin). In the memoirs of M. Muretov, who unfairly underestimates the authority of Golubinsky as a teacher, it is said that students at the academy called Professor Golubinsky “Evsyukha”. One can assume that this is an ordinary seminar address, but its production from the patronymic, and not the name, rather gives it a connotation of respect. Among the seminary professors, Golubinsky was influenced by the very good and diligent teacher of patrolology P. S. Smirnov, who fascinated the seminarians with reading the patristic works. A number of other subjects were also well taught - rhetoric, Orthodox confession, philosophy, pastoral and moral theology. The teacher of the last subject is K.F. Bronzov was a very good preacher. In 1854, after graduating from the seminary, Golubinsky was sent to the Moscow Theological Academy at public expense, missing the path with the famous MDA professor (and the first representative of the Kostroma community in it) Archpriest Theodore Aleksandrovich Golubinsky, who, upon retirement, went to Kostroma, where he soon died. At the Academy, professors listened poorly to Golubinsky’s Memoirs. Nevertheless, some of them undoubtedly had a decisive influence on E.E.’s upbringing as a scientist. Mainly, this, of course, refers to his fellow countryman, Professor Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky. Once upon a time A.V. himself Gorsky arrived from Kostroma to the Academy in the same way. He had a letter from his father, the Kostroma cathedral archpriest, to Professor F.A. Golubinsky - “an undoubted benefactor” with a request not to leave the attention and care of the young fellow countryman. Now it’s time for A.V. himself. Gorsky to become a trustee of the Kostroma student. Golubinsky notes that they listened poorly to professors at the Academy, including Gorsky. He makes an exception for the Bachelor of Holy Scripture, Hieromonk Mikhail Luzin, whose lectures on Bauer and Strauss were outstanding and listened to attentively. Here are some more interesting manifestations of veneration for fellow countrymen: upon entering the Academy, Golubinsky wanted to join the editorial office of the academic journal, “Additions to the publication of the Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation,” at the invitation of the senior scribe A.V. Vlasov, also a Kostroma resident, to earn money. But another Kostroma resident, rector Evgeniy (Sakharov), opposed it, since this would distract Golubinsky from his studies and said that Golubinsky, if he needed money, could turn to him, and in fact gave him money for a tip several times. In fact, Golubinsky had to devote all his time to his studies until the last minute. Studying at the Academy was based on writing monthly essays. Golubinsky enthusiastically wrote essays on all subjects, but his essays on history, literary history and the New Testament were most highly rated. 4. Historiographic works of Evgeniy Golubinsky Golubinsky received a master's degree in theology for his first scientific work - a course essay written at the Moscow Academy of Sciences, “On the mode of action of the Orthodox Greco-Roman sovereigns in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries in favor of the church, against heretics and schismatics” (M., 1859; 2nd ed. – M., 1860). The topic set by the Holy Synod referred to the use of historical experience for repressions against Old Believers and sectarians 9 . Golubinsky knew the Old Believers well and later wrote a large historical work “On our polemics with the Old Believers” (M., 1896, 2nd ed.-M., 1905). In it, he collected historical and archaeological materials that objectively resolved many controversial issues that led to the schism, pointed out, in particular, the antiquity and Orthodoxy of dualism, wrote that the Council of 1667, which imposed oaths on the Old Believers (with the participation of the Eastern Patriarchs), simply did not understand that the discrepancies between the Russian and modern Greek statutes of the mid-17th century were not due to the mistakes of the Russians, but thanks to changes in the charter by the Greeks themselves. This work seriously undermined aggressive anti-schismatic propaganda. As for the sectarians, he set their morality as an example in his church-journalistic articles. But for now, as a student, he was forced to write on a topic, the formulation of which contradicted his Christian concepts - he did not at all believe that violent measures against schismatics would benefit the church. The essay had to be rewritten - Golubinsky, with the consent of his teacher, rector A.V. Gorsky, chose a chronological principle of presentation, which did not suit his superiors, and it had to be completely reworked, giving a systematic overview of measures for their groups. Golubinsky’s choice of a chronological principle, which required great research efforts, speaks of the scientific and spiritual maturity of the young scientist - the second option was much easier to do from the very beginning (there was a German book on this topic, built on a systematic principle). The final version of the essay was edited by A.V. Gorsky, to please the tastes of his superiors, supplemented him with “police eloquence” (as Golubinsky put it in his “Memoirs”) about the beneficence of measures against heretics and schismatics. The creative atmosphere in which the educational and scientific activity of Golubinsky (from 1859 a professor at Bethany Seminary) began is wonderfully described in an unpublished article by I.A. Golubtsova 10: “And the affairs and people of that time, apparently, infected him with the greatness of their aspirations, tasks and hopes, the dawn of a new life was becoming ever brighter, great reforms were being prepared, the luminaries of Russian fiction were rising higher and higher, and in the quiet of academic offices such workers as the famous “dad” A.V. Gorsky, who was then releasing his major “Description of Manuscripts”, worked smoothly and cheerfully Synodal Library ", and S.M. Soloviev, from year to year with amazing methodicality, as if on promise, printing volume after volume of his grandiose History of Russia. The awareness of all this and these examples should have invigorated strong people in particular, and therefore it is no wonder that E.E., being himself a chick from the same flock of glorious ones, even then came to the decision to devote himself entirely to science and vowed to write the History of the Russian Church before the establishment Synod. Dreams of accomplishing this after 35 years of service deceived him, as he himself later admitted in 1893, but his word and thought never diverged from deeds, and already in the seminary (...) he begins to prepare for the accomplishment of the scientific feat he had taken upon himself: in the 60th year, even while replenishing his library (...) he paid serious attention to sources and manuals on Russian civil and church history... At the same time, A.V. Gorsky gives him the published parts of his “Description of Manuscripts” - a sign that the famous scientist does not lose sight of his talented student, and that the latter is engaged in subjects close to this major work on the history of ancient Slavic-Russian writing. The teaching of subjects in the missionary department of the seminary in itself was also supposed to strengthen his interest in Russian church history, putting forward several current problems of practical significance and asking him a number of questions that later attracted his scientific attention for decades, such as questions about the nature of ancient Russian piety, the formation of the finger, etc. On January 12, 1861, E.E. Golubinsky was appointed to the Moscow Theological Academy as a bachelor in the department of Russian church history and a teacher of German. He taught the first subject for almost 35 years, until his retirement (July 26, 1895)... [His library] is increasingly acquiring the character of either a necessary or, for the sake of convenience of using books, only a desirable addition to the fundamental library of the Academic. The historian of the Russian Church, as he now officially became, was obliged to give his listeners a coherent course from beginning to end; and he immediately began conscientiously fulfilling his new duty - he worked on compiling weekly lectures all week long, without taking a breath and tirelessly, day and night, as he himself admitted later. From that time on, books on Russian church and civil history began to arrive in his library in a wide stream, acquired truth without worrying about the system: here we will find all the almost classic works of Russian church and civil historians, and multi-volume editions of Russian monuments in the type of publications of the Archaeographic Commission, all kinds of materials and monographs, dictionaries, historical, statistical and archaeological descriptions of Russian principalities, villages, cities, regions, provinces, churches, monasteries, dioceses, descriptions of handwritten collections, lives and services of various saints, ethnographic materials - travel, monuments of Byzantine and Russian civil and ecclesiastical law, various journals subscribed to them either for individual years or sometimes over a number of years. In addition to what he had acquired, dissertations and other works of his colleagues and students began to flow into his library in abundance; and as his academic name grew, the cabinets and shelves in his office began to be filled with offerings and gifts from individual scientists, Russian, Slavic and Greek, as well as scientific publications of various societies that were in a hurry to elect him as a member... How, on what sources and aids he worked when compiling his course or, what is the same when writing his scientific works, this is better known to the Academic Library and other public and government book depositories. Having himself, albeit for a very short time, been a librarian at a seminary, E.E. undoubtedly managed to become somewhat familiar with library science, and most importantly, appreciate the importance for scientific work and all the benefits and conveniences of having a more or less extensive book depository at hand at your complete disposal. This experience, of course, largely encouraged him to acquire his own book, and on the other hand explains the greed with which, upon transfer to the Academy, he attacked the book wealth of such an extensive and valuable library as the fundamental library of the Academy. One of her former librarians and colleagues of Golubinsky, prof. I.N. Korsunsky testifies that soon after entering the service at the Academy, the academic library, both in book and in its manuscript treasures, became as well known to E.E-ch as his own: he (sorted through) all of it in the departments relating to his subject and re-read it, leaving on the government books the same numerous marks with which his own books were dotted and the use of which he, probably imitated A.V. Gorsky to a large extent. The first difficult time of sitting without getting up and not initially living in the academic office for hastily preparing a course of lectures has passed, and E.E. could think about calmer scientific work, about fulfilling his promise, and, forgetting about himself, about his personal life, about the entire external society, he devoted himself to his work with full energy and remarkable cheerfulness.” A few words should be said about Golubinsky’s attitude towards his predecessors. Memory of Metropolitan Plato (Levshin), who did so much both for church history and for church education, was deeply revered by Golubinsky. He dedicated his “History” to Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) (and Gorsky). At the same time, no authority, the most genuine authority, could protect Golubinsky from criticism, who valued the truth most of all: “Amicus Plato, sed magis amicus veritas” 11. The Academy attempted to publish a church historical dictionary (work on the dictionary did not progress far). Golubinsky wrote several articles for the dictionary. Golubinsky’s criticism of later legends in the article about Abraham of Rostov seemed too bold to Gorsky, he, believing that there were insufficient grounds for it, wrote to his former student with extreme caution and respect: “The most venerable and kind Evgeniy Evsigneevich! Kostroma Epiphany Monastery, containing the life of St. Abraham. There is something in it that resolves your confusion. Kindly look indulgently at some notes. Since the matter is not entirely clear, too harsh reviews and decisive conclusions may necessarily seem premature. God grant that a new revision will lead you to more moderate conclusions. Your zealously devoted Professor A. Gorsky, April 21, 1862.” Golubinsky’s too bold critical approach worried his other teacher, Archimandrite Mikhail Luzin, who later replaced Gorsky as rector. He even assumed that Golubinsky might be fired from the Academy for an article in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, and after the release of the 1st volume of “History” he spoke in evangelical words: “Evgeniy Evsigneevich has sinned a lot and there will be many beatings.” To understand the origins of the history of the Russian Church, Golubinsky had to start by studying the history of Christianity among the Slavic peoples who had converted to Orthodoxy before the Russians. These materials were supposed to become an introduction to the academic course of Russian church history. During this work he wrote two studies. The first of them, completed in 1867, “Constantine and Methodius, Slavic Apostles,” received the Uvarov Prize of the Academy of Sciences in 1869 (based on a positive review by I.I. Sreznevsky). The work remaining in manuscript consists of two parts. The first contains a complete biography of the Slavic first teachers Constantine and Methodius, and the second contains a critical overview of the legends about them. In a letter to Sreznevsky, Golubinsky explained his attitude to this work: “... they belong to such a class of our great people that we are obliged to know not only the deeds they performed for us, but (...), because of their greatest significance and importance, their entire lives.” Golubinsky did not publish the work, on the one hand, out of fear of the censorship of that time, which would not have missed sharp criticism of some legendary tales, and on the other hand, because of publishing problems - he had little of his own funds at that time, and the editor of the only suitable journal, “Readings in the Imperial Society of History and Russian Antiquities” (CHOIDR) O.M. Bodyansky was the author of the work “The Time of the Origin of Slavic Letters”, criticized by Golubinsky in his study. Much later, Golubinsky could have published a work on Constantine and Methodius either at his own expense or in the same CHIDR, but being demanding of himself, perhaps even more than of others, he did not do this, believing that Cyrillic and Methodological studies had reached a higher level over the past years. For his work, he only wanted a detailed critical analysis by a competent researcher, as he himself wrote about it on a manuscript stored in the Manuscript Department of the RSL 12. Despite this, volume 1 of the study was republished with some abbreviations after more than 100 years (“Theological Works” for 1985 and 1986). In his “Memoirs” Golubinsky writes that during the life of Metropolitan. Filaret, he would not have been able to publish this and his subsequent research, nor receive the Uvarov Prize. "...the oppression that Metropolitan Philaret exerted on the employees at the Academy was strongly felt. I remember when there was a rumor about the metropolitan’s serious illness, I stood at the desk and wrote my “Brief Essay.” (Several months before I had completed my research on Constantine and Methodius). Suddenly the large Lavra bell was rung. I realized that this was the announcement of the death of the metropolitan, and involuntarily crossed myself, saying to myself: “A weight has been lifted off my shoulders.” I later submitted the research on Constantine and Methodius for the Uvarov Prize, and it was awarded to me in full. If it had been under Metropolitan Philaret, then it would have been impossible for me to submit an essay for the prize besides him; And if I were to send my History of the Russian Church to Philaret into the next world, he would become truly furious (and A.V. Gorsky would certainly burst into tears)..." Day and night reading manuscripts and writing papers while standing at the desk (which made it possible not to succumb to sleep) undermined Golubinsky’s powerful health - he suffered a stroke and became blind in one eye - but this did not break his cheerful spirit. As can be seen from the above excerpt, he immediately set to work on the second work, which also required a huge amount of scientific work - “A brief sketch of the history of the Orthodox churches of the Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian or Moldo-Valashian.” Golubinsky’s research, which for the first time clearly illuminated the history of these churches, was favorably received by rector A.V. Gorsky and other scientists. In 1871, Golubinsky published it at his own expense, hoping that there would be 1,200 people in Russia who wanted to learn the church history of the Slavic brothers, and he was mistaken - a tenth of the circulation was sold out. Golubinsky did not submit any of these initial essays for a doctorate - the first because Gorsky did not approve of his criticism of legends and would not give a doctorate, and the second because he considered it insufficiently thorough. This exactingness towards himself later played a good role in the fate of his main work - “History of the Russian Church”, defended as a doctoral dissertation. The fact is that the dissertations went through academic censorship, and not through ordinary censorship, which would not have allowed the publication of “History”. 28.IX.1870 Golubinsky was elevated to the rank of extraordinary professor. I.A. Golubtsov writes about Golubinsky's work of that time: "...from the very first years of his scientific studies, E.E. showed great interest in ethnographic material - folk life, character, beliefs, customs, occupations - both Russian Slavs and Russian foreigners and Balkan Slavs. It is clear that even then the future church historian believed it was necessary not to limit himself to just one so-called external history, but strived to create a "complete" history, and therefore, he is looking everywhere for materials, even random ones, from which he could write this complete history... Studying the history of the Slavic first teachers naturally led him, as it were, to the great historical cradle of the Orthodox Slavic churches, the children of one common mother of the Byzantine church, and, judging by some places in the text of his short essay (cf. pp. 321, 193, etc.), not yet having completely finished the history of the Slavic first teachers, he had already begun to write the history of the older sisters of the Russian Church - the South Slavic and Romanian churches. Simultaneous acquaintance with Russian history and the opportunity to observe similar phenomena in other Slavic churches gave E.E. an opportunity to constantly compare these phenomena with each other, prompting the use of the so-called in research. comparative method, inference by analogy; E.E. was well acquainted with this method by the works on linguistics, which he studied so seriously... (in connection with his serious attitude to the duties of a teacher of the German language - A.P.). Observing the paucity of native sources for the study of the ancient periods of the Slavic churches, E.E. more and more often he had to turn to richer Byzantine materials, both narrative and legal (civil and ecclesiastical); and although he did not publish special works on the history of the Byzantine church, countless excursions into this area, scattered throughout the I.R.C. and other works, make it clear what deep knowledge he possessed in this area, and many pages of I.R.Ts. show what important assistance this knowledge provided him in characterizing or describing some moments and phenomena of Russian church history unknown from native sources. (...) what books did he work from then, from the mid-60s; here are the most prominent Russian bibliographies and grammars of that time, and dictionaries of the Balkan languages, starting with Czech and Serbian and ending with modern Greek and Turkish, and all kinds of geographical maps, atlases and foreign manuals on comparative historical geography and a number of church-canonical and legal monuments (...), but most of all these are all kinds of Russian, and mainly foreign, old and new civil and church histories of the Balkan countries, statistical, historical and geographical descriptions them and travel: in Austria, Hungary, Albania, Moldova, Wallachia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia, Greece, Heb. Turkey, guides to individual centers of these countries, and, finally, books and brochures dedicated to the endless Balkan church and political strife of that time; The academic library, obviously, could not satisfy such a wide demand for “Balkan” literature, and E.E., willy-nilly, had to acquire it himself. Having been published in 1871, the book immediately won attention, and the author became widely known both in Russia and in the countries of the Middle East, without losing its significance to this day. Its content showed very well how the historian understood his tasks: after his complaints that he, unfortunately, had to give only external history, the reader will encounter here something that to this day is somehow not customary to be introduced into serious historical works, namely: a presentation of contemporary events, in particular a detailed analysis of the so-called Bulgarian church question; the corresponding pages of the book show that the author, apparently with great interest, diligently rummaged through journalistic, magazine and newspaper literature, not only Russian, but also foreign, and carefully followed the progress of the case in the contemporary press; Moreover, in his presentation E.E. does not remain an impassive observer of what is happening, but on the contrary definitely takes the side of the just cause of Bulgarian church liberation, being a competent judge of the Bulgarian truth and Greek falsehood, as well as all the less active parties in this matter. It is clear that in general he very closely followed the political affairs of that time, both Russian and foreign... The study of the history of the Balkan churches, in addition to its direct task of being preliminary preparation for writing the history of the Russian church, gave the author a lot. The materials, however, to a large extent incidental, were served by him, as we have seen, from numerous works that were closer to the study of folklore than to his direct task - the science of the history of the Balkan churches at that time had only very meager specialized literature. These travels, descriptions of countries and the way of life of the people could not have been more to the liking of the mind of a church historian, greedy for concrete knowledge and visual representation. Providing abundant food for comparison and juxtaposition of homogeneous phenomena of life, both those subject to study of Slavic societies, and those proposed for the study of Russian church society, this literature thereby provided strong stimulation and grateful material to his natural criticism, and at the same time indicated the right path to satisfying excited curiosity, strengthening him in the idea that he needed to go and see everything for himself in order to draw the correct conclusion about it from the stories of sometimes discordant writers and travelers. phenomenon or see and even more, which may. remained unnoticed or, in order to look for answers to questions of future work that had already arisen before him, but had not yet received a definite answer, in order to finally get new research and books on his subject, which, given the insufficient established relations with the Slavs and Greeks at that time, he could not receive from abroad despite any efforts; Meanwhile, he had the intention of continuing work on the history of the Balkan churches and he himself hardly considered his intention fulfilled when in 1872 he published two of his articles: one devoted to the history of enlightenment among the Greeks since the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, and the other outlining the history of the altar barrier or iconostasis in Orthodoxy. church (Right review 1872 Nos. 5–7 and 11).” The new academic (“Makaryevsky”) charter adopted in 1869 provided for the possibility of scientific trips, and Golubinsky, not satisfied with only book knowledge about the Orthodox churches, immediately decided to travel abroad. To avoid red tape in the Academy Council, whose elders were dissatisfied with Golubinsky’s non-participation in their gambling and drinking company, he directly sent a request for leave to the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy. He asked A.V. Gorsky and, having received a laudatory review, expressed his consent. This review contained such intense praise, especially for the “Brief Essay,” that when Gorsky himself began to read it to Golubinsky, he became shy, asked for a blessing and left without finishing listening. Golubinsky had no money for the trip. In order to ask the Synod for an increase in salary during the trip, he begged to be sent to St. Petersburg as a delegate to the archaeological congress. The chief prosecutor immediately agreed to the increase, but the scrupulous Golubinsky did not listen to the advice of experienced people to bow to the director of the Economic Administration of the Synod and received only part of the promised increase. The chief prosecutor's report on authorizing the trip was approved by the emperor, and Alexander II personally inscribed: “I agree, but on the condition that he should not interfere in political affairs.” This caution was dictated by the extremely tense situation in the Balkans, as well as, perhaps, by the personal position taken by Golubinsky regarding various Balkan conflicts, clearly expressed in the “Brief Essay”. The journey “for a closer acquaintance with the internal life of modern life and monuments of the historical life of the Greek and Slavic Orthodox churches” lasted from the summer of 1872 to the end of 1873. First, Golubinsky worked for 4 months in Vienna, studying in libraries and making trips to the main places of Poland and Austro-Hungarian Rus' (Galicia and Bukovina). During his stay in Austria, he even began to write articles “On the Galician Russians, on the Hungarian Russians and on the Austrian Rusyns,” but did not finish them, not having time to collect the necessary material. From Vienna he left for Belgrade, visiting the Serbian Bishop of Budim on the way to St. Andre. Then he spent 4 months in Belgrade, traveling from there also throughout the Principality of Serbia. Through Bulgaria and Romania he arrived in Constantinople, devoting 6 months to its study. From here, on Easter 1873, through Cyprus and Rhodes, he traveled to Jerusalem, and also visited Bethlehem, the monastery of St. Savva, on the Dead Sea, Jordan and in Gorny. In Jerusalem, I learned a lot of information from the now famous Fr. Antonina (Kapustina). Along the way I visited Smyrna, Alexandria and Beirut. Returning to Constantinople, he visited Thessaloniki and Athos, staying at the Russian Panteleimon Monastery and taking part in the famous 14-hour vigils, lived for 1 1/2 months in Athens, a month in Rome, from where he made his way back through Ravenna, Venice, Trieste, Vienna and some other cities. Golubinsky later wrote: "I was extremely glad that my dreams of traveling abroad came true. With my own eyes I saw the preserved ancient monuments of church architecture, which I wanted to see for my science. Without seeing them myself, but knowing only from the drawings, I would never have formed the completely clear and distinct idea about them that I wanted (St. Sophia of Constantinople should be placed here in the first place); with my own eyes I saw church life and church morals and customs among the Greeks and Southern Orthodox Slavs, some of which (morals and customs) we do not have...” There are many interesting observations by Golubinsky in his as yet unpublished diaries. Golubtsov in his article notes Golubinsky’s emotional experiences due to the difficulty of fulfilling the task he had taken on: “When E.E. was in Constantinople in 1873, he was 39 years old; and on his birthday, amid the hectic work of studying foreign and foreign church life, although related to life, who seemed to have gone completely into new information and impressions full of interest, the tireless scientist looked back on the path traveled changed his mind and in a letter to his teacher and rector A.V. Gorsky, as if he were an old man, he admitted in spirit: “Today I have reached my 40th year, when I think about what I would have planned and dreamed of doing, the blues are truly attacking.” way on a preliminary examination and study of the areas of knowledge themselves. Meanwhile, the scientist had already suffered two great trials: after an eye disease, he half lost his sight (blind in his right eye), and then during his journey he failed in his attempt to arrange his personal life - despite all the isolation and stern scientific seriousness, and at the age of 40 he still felt an attraction to a family lifestyle and in Vienna proposed to the daughter (...) of the hospitable archpriest. Raevsky, but was refused...” According to Golubtsov, the trip not only gave Golubinsky material for the introduction and comparative method in the study of the Russian Church, but also contributed to the development of public interests in Golubinsky, which allowed him to pay much more attention when studying the history of the Russian Church to acute church-social, church-state, national issues: “after the Greek-Bulgarian strife, from the question of the role of Russia in the Middle East, from Pan-Slavism and Pan-Germanism, he naturally moved on to questions Slavophilism, Normanism, assessment of old and new Russia, Peter's reforms, the position of churches under the regulations and under Pobedonostsev, to questions about desirable reforms of Russian church administration, about the restoration of the patriarchate, about the position of the white clergy, about the normal structure of the parish, about the limits of episcopal power, etc. and all the often fleeting notes in articles and books, as well as his scientific works, invariably indicate that he resolved all these issues not in the spirit of the resolution of Alexander II, not in the style of Pobedonostsev, but in the spirit of a liberal Westerner, Normanist and supporter of Peter’s reforms. Thus, studying Balkan affairs, by its very essence, was supposed to develop an interest in politics, the public and partly journalism, and this interest was reflected in E.E.ch not only in the choice of subjects and books to read, but also in the nature of his scientific studies and works. With the latter in mind, one cannot help but recall such of his works as the articles: “On our polemics on the issue of the origin of the schism” or “On the issue of the reform of church government”; these questions always interested him greatly, as questions of lively public interest and heated polemics of his time in church and public circles... His very “History of the Russian Church” is full of this deep interest in the public, often filled with journalistic material, sometimes presented in a hot polemical tone. The reader knows that in his I.R.Ts. The author offers not the history of metropolitans and bishops, but precisely the history of the Russian church community, carefully examines the history of the Christianization of Russian society, examines the history of the enlightenment of ancient Rus', the structure of the ancient Russian church society, its religious and ritual life, with its monasticism and churches, with its worship and rituals, superstitions and remnants of paganism, with its writing and preaching, etc. and only then, in connection with all these issues, does he depict the activities of the pastors of the Russian Church, the highest representatives of the religious and cultural development it has achieved. And when presenting these questions, he declares himself a decisive populist, in the spirit of the school that took place in the 60s. gradually preponderating in the sphere of presentation of Russian civil history, he poses questions for research, often under the undoubted influence of the scientific and journalistic disputes that took place before his eyes about ancient and modern Russia, about the value of Peter’s reforms, about the tasks of monasticism and its nature in ancient Rus', and so on, and in his answers he takes the original position of a populist-Westerner, responding for the most part to the opinions of Slavophiles and the right wing of Russian journalism in in the sense that enlightenment before the Tatar yoke developed faster among us than later, that Christianity came to us in addition to Vladimir St., as Westernism penetrated not by the will of Peter V., but that Vladimir St. is a kind of Peter V. of ancient Rus', like him worthy of all praise, that one of the prominent tasks of monasticism from ancient times was and should really be public service, which some literary representatives so ardently advocated monasticism at the end of the 19th beginning. XX centuries; that Christianity took root very slowly in Russian society, that in general, in many respects it is necessary to abandon traditional ideas about the first steps of Christianity in Rus' and its influence on the newly enlightened, starting with Vladimir... In another respect, as we have already partly said, studying the history of the Balkan churches and traveling gave significant results, we mean his always-present inclination to study life and ritual; Due to the underdevelopment of religious abstract consciousness among Russians, ritual and everyday life have always occupied a very prominent place in religious life, and E.E. He devoted a lot of time to studying them, and in his I.R.Ts-vi devoted many pages to the presentation of the relevant departments. And always, no matter what he read, he did not miss the ritual details and in his interpretations of old monuments very often, sometimes quite unexpectedly, proceeded from everyday information... everywhere, everywhere he collects grains of everyday life and ritual, especially those that provide some material for the explanation of historical issues: it is worth looking through those countless notes on the formation of fingers and on various terms... in order to understand how much importance he attached to an accurate understanding of words, a clear idea of ​​the features of life, phenomena and things designated by some term in different eras. From this point of view, it can be understood that the increased interest in language, in the words of E.E. was explained not only by his penchant for philology, but also by his high appreciation of language, one of those phenomena of everyday life, [which] is itself the richest source of our information about the life of times and peoples of the past... ...we will have to recognize this time as exceptional, as shown by E.E. the tension of curiosity and all mental forces, and the influence that this work had on the nature of all his further scientific activity: at this time, on the one hand, both the study of auxiliary disciplines and the accumulation of information in areas adjacent to the subject of his future research on Russian soil ended; on the other hand, undoubtedly at the same time many questions and the general nature of his future work on I.R.C. became clear along the way. Let us not forget that while studying the history of the Balkan churches, becoming personally acquainted with local church relations and monuments, strengthening his interest in everyday life and society, studying foreign languages ​​and auxiliary disciplines, developing his merciless criticism, stocking up on foreign books and material for the future comparative study of Russian phenomena, he was at the same time a teacher of Russian church history; this teaching undoubtedly outlined questions for him, required research from him, forced him to develop a general and detailed plan of work, and helped him gradually introduce the material he received into its place in future work. He thus began this work fully armed with his scientific knowledge and insight.” Having worked for about 5 years on the first volume of “History of the Russian Church” (vol. 1. First period, Kiev or pre-Mongol, 1st half - M., 1880; 2nd half, published in 1881). , Golubinsky submitted it as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Theology. On December 16, 1880, a defense took place, one of the opponents was V.O. Klyuchevsky. The defense, which attracted the attention of the general public, was very successful 13 . For this essay he was awarded the Uvarov Prize of the Academy of Sciences. It is interesting that the money for the publication was lent to Golubinsky by Moscow Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), who at that time himself was publishing his multi-volume “History” and knew about Golubinsky’s criticism of his work! “The History of the Russian Church” is Golubinsky’s main work, the most studied and comprehended by reviewers. Still, it must be said that the reviewers’ assessments relate more to volume I, since the normal study of church history was forcibly interrupted by the revolution, and the 2nd half of volume II was not even published to the end (a large chapter on monasticism and something else still remains unpublished). Reviewers noted that in volume I of Golubinsky’s “History of the Russian Church,” for the first time, a picture of folk religious life was given, the course of Christian education of the Russian people was illuminated, and a critical analysis of the sources of Russian church history was carried out. In his work, Golubinsky strives to take from each monument everything essential that would help form a general concept of the direction of enlightenment, and concludes that in pre-Petrine Rus' there was no real enlightenment, but only literacy and erudition, not a living, meaningful Christian faith and morality, but ritual faith. In his criticism of sources, he uses two methodological techniques - clearing the field of view from incorrect testimony that obscures the truth and accumulating new facts through a comprehensive analysis of news recognized as reliable, refuting a number of legends - the chronicle legend about the journey of St. Andrew along the banks of the Dnieper and Volkhov, news of the baptism of Askold and Dir, the Russian prince in Surozh, St. Olga, the story of the chronicle about the conversion and baptism of St. Vladimir, etc. In addition to the refutation, Golubinsky’s work is remarkable for its creative work; he approaches reliable data with a whole arsenal of questions (what? how? why? for what?), resurrecting a past life in terms of living concreteness, as far as possible given the paucity of factual material of our church history he discovered. This poverty does not allow us to describe ancient Russian figures as living people, and in history, “...like real life, which it reproduces, every person matters only as a living moral person, and since our moral sense seeks to be in living communication with historical people and wants to know whether we should give them honor or pronounce a strict, so-called, sentence on them. historical court." “History is the history of individuals and then institutions... Institutions can be depicted even in the absence of material, with the help of analogies and reverse conclusions from later to earlier times. Our ecclesiastical institutions are borrowed from Greece; therefore, information about Greek institutions can fill the lack of information about our Russian institutions. Further, institutions are not like people: they are stable and durable. Therefore, from the later times of the pre-Petrine period of history, one can draw conclusions to earlier times.” Using this comparative method, the material for which is also partly the history of Western churches, Golubinsky reconstructs the history of church institutions of the pre-Mongol period (diocesan administration, parish and parish clergy, monasteries, church architecture). The historian emphasizes serious shortcomings that have arisen in the Russian church: the vastness of the dioceses, which alienated the bishop from church society; forced and artificial formation of the clergy from peasants and slaves; the transfer from Greece of all the abuses that distorted monasticism, the retreat after the death of St. Theodosius of Pechersk from the true monastic (community) charter. Strict scientificity and impartiality are combined in Golubinsky’s work with journalisticism. “When talking about the shortcomings of the past tense, sometimes it is impossible not to capture... the present, for... the reason that sometimes the past still continues... to remain the present... The historian, willy-nilly, becomes... a publicist.” "Publicism in a historian loses its value when it acts as a biased teaching," argues Malyshevsky, who wrote a review for the Academy of Sciences, "But "our historian's journalism is a completely different kind. Rooted by the original motives in the highest ideals of life, presented to the historian's thoughts, it is firmly based on the scientifically determined relationship of the depicted past life to its ideals and modern reality, which constitutes the legacy of the past. This is how journalism is set up. constitutes an undoubted advantage in a historian. Sincerity, directness, courage, as traits of love for truth, for truth, elevate this dignity in him. “Golubinsky’s story not only teaches, it educates the reader, creating in him a good, truthful mood. In this regard, it is the best work in our literature, and at the present moment, when Russian church life asks so many painful questions, it is most convenient to take the work of our historian as a guide,” wrote S.I. Smirnov. V.O. Klyuchevsky, who was G-go’s opponent at the doctoral disputation, noted the shortcomings of the “History of the Russian Church” method: “... firstly, the tendency to isolate church-historical phenomena from their setting, ... out of connection with the historical environment in which. they arose, and secondly, historical-critical skepticism, excessive suspicion with which he relates to the sources of our history.” The negative attitude of the Holy Synod and Chief Prosecutor K.P. Pobedonostsev towards Golubinsky’s work, which persisted for more than 20 years after the publication of the first volume of “History” in 1880, prevented the scientist from finishing his work and fulfilling the vow of youth - for 35 years to write the History of the Russian Church of the pre-Petrine period. The Synod's dissatisfaction with “History” delayed the election of Golubinsky as an ordinary professor at the Moscow Spiritual Academy, which nevertheless took place on June 14, 1881, also with the support of Metropolitan Macarius. December 29, 1882 elected to corresponding member of Academician. Sciences in the category of historical and political. Sci. From Jan. 1884 to Apr. 1893 was assistant rector for the church history department and member of the board of the Moscow Spiritual Academy. 17.I.1886 confirmed with the rank of emeritus professor. In 1886–87 Golubinsky was the editor of the MDA magazine "Additions to the publication of the works of the holy fathers in Russian translation. In March 1893 he received the Metropolitan Macarius Prize for the essay "Reverend Sergius of Radonezh and the Trinity Lavra created by him" (Serg. Pos., 1892; 2nd ed. - M., 1909). "The history of the canonization of saints in Russia Church" (Serg. Posad, 1894, 2nd ed. - M., 1903) not only revealed the history of canonization in the Russian and Greek churches, but also became a guide for further canonization activities, playing a role in the canonization of St. Seraphim of Sarov. In July 1895, he retired. Volume II (1 half volume) of “History of the Russian Church,” containing the history of the Moscow period up to and including the Stoglavy Cathedral, was published in the CHIDR only in 1900. The sources of this period in the history of the Russian Church provide more opportunities to revive the faces and facts of the past, and in Volume II, for example, the biography of St. Metropolitan Peter, image of Archimandrite. Mikhail Mitya, conflicts of Metropolitan. Cyprian with the Novgorodians, the history of Metropolitan. Isidora, Metropolitan Daniel, Metropolitan Macarius with the Stoglavy Cathedral, Ven. Maxim the Greek. 19.III.1903 by the general meeting of Academician. Sciences Golubinsky was elected ordinary academician in the department of Russian language and literature. “Good wishes” from Academician Golubinsky In 1906–1907 Academician Golubinsky was a member of the Pre-Conciliar Presence at the Holy Synod, in connection with which he published the brochure “On the Question of Church Reform” (M., 1906). In a letter to S.A. Belokurov, written on March 13, 1906, Golubinsky wrote: “From today we begin to improve the Russian church... Today is the first meeting of the sections of special presence.” Unfortunately, the work of the Pre-Conciliar Presence was interrupted - the tsar did not want the upcoming council. In 1913, after the death of the scientist, the collection “On Reform in the Life of the Russian Church” was published, offering a holistic solution to the main problems facing our Church. The most important thing in Golubinsky’s project is an indication to the highest authorities that the development of Russia should serve for the benefit of its people, and on the other hand, an indication to society that prosperity cannot be expected from the government - it can only be achieved through the solidary efforts of all healthy forces of society - peasants, zemstvos, clergy, merchants. Surprisingly, according to Golubinsky, the best rulers of Russia - Vladimir the Saint and Peter the Great - in their reforms achieved significant progress both in strengthening the state and in achieving the welfare and education of the people. The article “Good wishes (pia desideria) regarding the Russian Church” was written earlier than others, back in 1881: “The thoughts and concerns of all Russian people... are concentrated on the fact that our state, which stands so far behind others and has hitherto moved so slowly along the path of development, must finally take this path firmly and decisively and, without hesitation, follow it with all its energy... The true task of any state is not that it cares about the rise of its political power, which makes the majority of its inhabitants neither warm nor cold..., but so that it cares about the civil well-being of the people, so that it strives to provide everyone with the means to live as comfortably as possible. We Russians have cared too much about the political power of our state and it is time, finally, to take care of the civil well-being of our people. That our common people live too poorly and poorly - as poorly and poorly as anywhere in Europe and, perhaps, not everywhere in Asia, this constitutes a fact that, finally, even the most courageous hypocrites do not dare to deny. There are two reasons for the extremely unenviable position of our common people: externally harsh social conditions and the internal bad manners of themselves. To raise the well-being of the people, it is necessary to eliminate both reasons and not just one: put the people in the most favorable social conditions, endow them with all sorts of benefits and simply give them money - if the other reason is not eliminated, nothing will come of it except that the taverns will flourish and that the people will fall into an even lower degree of poverty, completely, as they say, squandered and naked. It is the proper business of the state to gradually remove external unfavorable conditions and create favorable conditions; but the task of moral education of the people is not his task, it is impossible for him, and in this case it must necessarily turn to the help of the church and its priests. Our people are devoted to drunkenness not only in the person of urban artisans-proletarians, as is the case almost everywhere, but also in the person of their entire agricultural class, as is the case nowhere else. Until it is achieved that our people become as sober as possible, until then all external efforts to improve their life will be powerless and ineffective: but this can only be achieved with the help of priests... There is double work ahead - first you need to make the priests themselves sober and then entrust them with the duty (mission) to make the people sober; but it is precisely by this, albeit lengthened, path, and not by any other, that the goal can be achieved. The ulcer and disease of drunkenness do not allow us to extend our dreams beyond sobriety, that is, they force us to limit our dreams; but sobriety does not constitute everything that can give the moral education of the people and what determines their well-being. Every reader, we believe, has come across news about sectarian communities that are examples of well-being and prosperity - how everyone in them is not only sober, but also hardworking, honest, disposed to help each other, and how therefore they do not have at all that shaggy poverty that is so abundant in our country. The sectarians did this through moral education, and if this is possible with them, then, of course, it is possible with us too. They will say that sectarians are influenced by their exceptional position. But Protestantism is the faith of entire peoples who are by no means in an exceptional position: and to what extent the moral education of the church, through pastors, has raised the well-being of the people there! Take the trouble to find out, for example, about our neighbor Sweden, to what extent the people there owe their well-being to the church!.. The Church teaches and should teach people to have all those good qualities that we would like to see in the best citizens; it teaches Christian morality, and all civil morality is embraced by Christian morality, as a smaller whole by a larger whole... Thus, the question of what position the church is in is not only a question for the church itself, but a question of absolutely significant importance for the state as well... That our Russian Church, both as an assistant to the state and as a fulfiller of its direct goals, is completely far from a situation that is in any way satisfactory and still makes us wish for something very different - this constitutes a sad but indisputable truth, which only those who are personally interested in ensuring that everything in the church remains as it has hitherto are willing to dispute. Consequently, both in the interests of the state and in the interests of the church itself, it cannot but be recognized as an object of urgent desire that the church, like the state, not lagging behind it, if not setting an example for it, what should be, should internalize the consciousness of the need for its self-improvement.” Let us briefly summarize the set of measures proposed by Golubinsky to improve the condition of the Church at all levels - from the highest church administration to the parish: – greatly increase the number of dioceses and form metropolitan districts in the likeness of Greek ones; bishop of the provincial city - metropolitan (archbishop); bishops of district cities, including four subordinate to him, and constituting the city cathedral (according to the original order, not only all cities had their bishops (each, both the largest and the smallest, one at a time), but certainly all villages or collections of villages, which were parishes); - assign salaries to bishops; - do not transfer them from place to place, but their seniority, with the complete destruction of the seniority of departments, be counted according to the seniority of initiation; - bishops should wear black clothes and not fluffy, as the canons command, so that finally they become, as far as possible, free from that disease of cruel glory that the Regulations speak of; bishops travel not in quadruples, but in pairs 14; – cancel orders to bishops; – force synod officials not to take bribes; – publish a set of laws of the Russian Church; - both patriarchs with the council, and diocesan bishops with presbyteries must carry out the business of administration and court as openly and openly as possible: print the minutes of their meetings so that everyone can know and discuss their decisions; – local councils should consist of both clergy and laity, and the laity have an advisory voice in church-wide issues (increasing the number of bishops, the method of appointing bishops and priests, organizing guardians, etc.), but do not participate in resolving issues relating to the rights of bishops and the patriarch, monasticism; - the patriarch should not have any individual rights, as we had in the old days (Sukhanov: Our patriarch in Moscow is like your dad). The danger of despotism is inevitably associated with a one-man patriarchate. The Ecumenical Patriarchs of Constantinople are not at all autocratic: the Holy Synod attached to them cannot do anything without them, but they cannot do anything without this synod, in other words, the patriarch is nothing more than the chairman of the synod; – the Christian Church should be not only a guide of people to the Kingdom of Heaven, but also a guardian of their earthly poverty, which it really was in the first centuries of its existence. At each parish church, a guardianship for the poor of the parish should be established, which should consist, in addition to the local priest or priests, of one or another number of parishioners who are most honest and zealous for the cause of Christian virtue. These trustees must collect and accept from parishioners their voluntary offerings for the benefit of the poor of the parish and then, watching over God and their conscience, use them for their intended purpose. Moreover, our present beggary, which is so unseemly and which is so abused, must be completely destroyed. There can be no doubt that the congregation regards the establishment of the fraternity with sympathy. But the question of their existence and prosperity will depend on how the priests react to the matter, who at the beginning can become its main leaders, and in case of proper participation, will soon be able to put it firmly in place, and, conversely, in case of indifference, they can kill it at the very beginning, so that it is born stillborn. For this reason, a Christianly necessary and extremely important matter from a state point of view should be considered among the priests among their essential and indispensable duties, for neglect of which they would face the same penalty as for negligence in other essential and indispensable duties. Since not in all parishes the means to satisfy needs will correspond to its size, then, following the example of the primate church, the matter should be organized so that within the boundaries of counties or deaneries fraternal help can exist between trustees. In the event of national disasters in some places in Russia, famine and fires, trustees can also act as intermediaries in the transfer of donations; – it is necessary to direct monetary contributions (not only direct deposits of money, but also donations for the construction of churches) from monasteries to parish churches. According to the commandment of the holy fathers, which is also read in the church service charter now adopted by us, containing the charter of monastic life, “bringing the acquisition of other people’s labors (into monasteries), which is not at all for the benefit of us (the monks); but (it is appropriate) to run away from (it) and drive it away like a deadly poison." Without the need to decorate or build churches for good, it means taking money from the poor. But donations should be made to the clergy on the condition that the latter properly fulfill their duties of preaching and moral education, since the reasonableness and usefulness of this donation is too clear. After the clergy, the matter should reach the very parishes, so that hospitals, almshouses, etc. trade schools; – The priest is for his parishioners a teacher of Christian morality in all its scope; therefore, he should be for them, if possible, an image and example of all Christian virtues. This requires that they themselves be properly educated morally in the seminaries that prepare them. But the vice of drunkenness among our clergy, into which priests fall upon entering the field, despite any education received in the seminary, must be eradicated among them partly by measures of administrative severity, partly by taking other appropriate measures. If we want priests to eradicate drunkenness among the people - and only they can do this - then, of course, we must start with them. In general, the eradication of drunkenness among priests (which to this day, as in the 16th century, foreigners continue to marvel at) is a matter of the most paramount importance and the most urgent need. Since evil is too old and persistent, the most energetic fight against it is necessary. Firstly, it is necessary to strengthen supervision over the clergy, which we now have almost none at all (for the deans are almost no overseers at all) and which is needed, besides our reason, and for many other reasons; secondly, the most severe punishments and punishments must be applied to the case), not to say merciless, Muravyovsky, for by indulging, we will be doing something that is sacrificing hundreds and thousands of people (such as parishioners) to a few. Along with administrative and punitive measures, in this case there is an educational measure, which, as such, is stronger than the first and which therefore must be applied to the case in full. This is the establishment of schools for girls of the clergy, so that the wives of priests will certainly be women who have received an education. The influence of educated wives on priests, which is very important in bringing decency, neatness and decency into their lives instead of the current, almost completely peasant, dirt, untidiness and ugliness, will undoubtedly contribute decisively to eradicating drunkenness among them. If a drunken pig from the village turns up to a decent and good wife, a person will involuntarily be overcome by conscience, and he will begin to moderate and involuntarily restrain himself, in order to finally reach the conviction that the joys of life do not lie in dirty drunkenness alone, as the fathers taught - that a good and decent wife, good and decent children, and being a human being with them is much better; – We lacked enlightenment both in the whole society and in the clergy, until the time of Peter the Great; Until that time, our priests could not be teachers of the people. From the time of Peter, we began to introduce enlightenment both throughout society and in the clergy, and finally, to some extent, it was completely introduced, so that at the present time, people who have received real general and theological knowledge are certainly and exclusively appointed to the priesthood. And yet, our parish priests to this day remain for the people only performers of church services and require... our parish priests, in order to become true shepherds of their flock, must take upon themselves the responsibility of double teaching: firstly, to systematically teach the truths of the faith and the rules of Christian morality to all growing children (as they reach school age); secondly, through regularly constant preaching in the church, to maintain knowledge of the truths of faith and zeal for observance of the rules of morality in adult people. It is necessary to establish parish schools at every parish church; there is an urgent need for the most deliberate efforts to instill and restore Christian morality among the people. Our common people are disgustingly foul-mouthed in their outward behavior, then they are hideously drunk, they are not aware of the duty to be hardworking, they do not know at all what a Christian conscience is (remember our artisans and their outrageous tendency to deceive), in their family and with their unfortunate animal workers they are an ugly barbarian. Our merchants, so zealous for external prayer, so devoted to churches and burning unquenchable lamps in their shops, observe so little honesty in trade that one might think that they light lamps so that God will help them deceive people. How long ago have our officials, from top to bottom, ceased, or have they stopped completely, to represent the personification of those vices that are characteristic of their rank? Trying to raise children in such a way that they become people not just of outwardly futile (in itself) prayer, but also true Christians - this is what our priests should set their task when teaching Christian moral teaching to children; - Our worship is not performed in such a way that it can bring all the benefits to the people and that its performance generally corresponds to its meaning and purpose. Everything that is read and sung in church must be intelligible, legible, so that it can be understood by those present, otherwise it will not make sense, for it is read and sung not for anyone but for those present; but with us this is far from the case - a very significant part of what is heard on them remains for those present the inarticulate sound of a clanking cymbal, vainly beating the air. In the case of liturgy, the reason is bad custom; in the case of vespers and matins, it is a bad custom and a monastic charter adopted in parishes, representing services in such a volume that if all-night vigils or matins were performed so earnestly that everything read and sung at them was completely intelligible to those present, then they would be so long as in parish churches this is completely impossible (and just as in the monasteries themselves this is fully observed only on Athos alone). It is impossible and there is no reason to force lay people to be monks (and only Athos monks); but it is also pointless to perform services in such a way that those present do not understand at all what is being read and sung (compare Apostle Paul in the First Epistle to Corinth. Chapter 14); therefore, to achieve the possibility of the latter, it is necessary to reduce services. The right to outline the order of public services, including the liturgy, in ancient times belonged not only to every private church, but also to every bishop, and no one subsequently limited this right; The monastic charter entered our parish churches not through universal or private legislation, but simply through custom. Consequently, the matter can be done by the own authority of the Holy Synod. It is necessary to destroy this custom, which is imposed on all reason, and in doing so it must begin with the bishop's protodeacons, who set a bad tone and set a bad example for all other deacons (and gentlemen merchants with their merchant taste and merchant sense should not have any say in this case). Let the deacons, if you like, remain basses, but they must certainly serve as required by the human meaning and meaning of what they proclaim and read. And what nonsense is it that the one who offers the prayer does not understand and does not know what he is saying! The reading of the Gospel at the liturgy or - what is the same thing - the word of God is the most important thing at it, and it is this word of God that is read in such a way that it is almost the same even if it were not read. It is necessary to make a number of corrections to the liturgy: correct the translations of the liturgical texts of the New and Old Testaments; so that the divine service is performed as earnestly as possible, to include something in reading and singing (at the all-night vigil: shorten the kathismas, the reading of the troparia of the canon, shorten the Six Psalms somewhat; before the liturgy, the reading of the hours should be greatly reduced or completely put aside); so that the divine service is as understandable as possible, translate the most important things into Russian and sell them at the cheapest price, publish the Bible with a good introduction and with constant footnotes; make the royal doors small, like the Greeks, restore the ancient shape of the iconostases so that the altar is visible to the people; the dressing of bishops at liturgy should be moved from the middle of the church to the southwestern corner. In 1907, Golubinsky became completely blind. Students continued to work on his legacy. S.I. Smirnov recorded his “Memoirs,” which vividly described the life of the provincial clergy of the mid-19th century, the theological school and seminary, and the everyday and scientific atmosphere of the Moscow Spiritual Academy for several decades. After Golubinsky’s death on January 7, 1912, S.A. Belokurov published a collection of articles “On reform in the life of the Russian Church” (Moscow, 1913). The publication of the last half-volume of “History of the Russian Church”, prepared by S.A. Belokurov, was interrupted in 1917. Most of Golubinsky’s works were published thanks to the concerns of his students - S.A. Belokurova, S.I. Smirnov and others. A number of studies were published in the journals “Orthodox Review”, “Theological Bulletin”, “Izvestia ORYAS”. During his lifetime, more than 70 of his works were published. 15 Golubinsky’s students, among whom we can also name such major historians as N.F. Kapterev, A.P. Golubtsov, N.N. Glubokovsky, adopted from their teacher the spirit of bold, impartial, Orthodox historical criticism and creativity. The fourth, last, half volume of “History of the Russian Church” was published in 1918 (not completely - A.P.), and “Memoirs” were published even in 1923 in Kostroma. What remained unpublished was carefully kept by I.A. Golubtsov, or placed in state archives, the system of which was created by the same Belokurov and Golubtsov together with other “bourgeois historians.” D.S. Likhachev, recalling the first years of Soviet power, wrote about the hatred with which the old Russian spirituality, history and culture were destroyed. It was the desire to resist the boor 16, to save, to preserve, that led him to choose the profession of philologist and historian: “with a feeling of pity and sadness, I began to study ancient Russian literature and ancient Russian art at the university in 1923. I wanted to keep Russia in my memory...” 17 The same feelings, obviously, possessed the historians of the older generation, who became “fellow travelers” in order to save the historical memory of the people, to create a clear and reliable archival system of the Soviet state, which preserved for us the priceless spiritual monuments of a “destroyed to the ground” world. Most of the archival treasures have not yet been published. The memory of society as a whole, including the Church, was largely erased. Why be surprised at the lack of proper attention to the works of church scientists - the Church is still not ready to accept the official decisions of the Local Council of 1917–1918! It cannot be said that the legacy of E.E. Golubinsky was ignored. “History of the Russian Church”, “History of the canonization of saints in the Russian Church”, “Memoirs” were reprinted. The collection “On Reform in the Life of the Russian Church” was republished in exile. Back in 1985–86. “Theological Works” published part 1 of the work “Saints Constantine and Methodius, Slavic Apostles” - so far the only publication of Golubinsky’s archival materials. These publications aroused not only interest, but also attacks. In the Radonezh newspaper, distributed in Orthodox churches, publications appeared accusing Golubinsky of distorting history and his publishers of harming the Church. Archimandrite Tikhon, who publishes a lot of pre-revolutionary literature in reprints at the Sretensky Monastery, spoke about the need for spiritual censorship. On the other hand, articles by historians appeared that highly valued the personality and contribution of the outstanding Church historian 18 . In our opinion, it is too early to write final articles about the work of Academician E.E. Golubinsky - we need to publish those archival materials that will allow us to more fully reveal his talent and his personality. First of all, this is the unpublished part of Volume II of “History of the Russian Church.” Golubinsky in his “Memoirs” writes: “the second half of volume II consists of the following. The chapters have been rewritten for printing: “Administration” - 151 fours, “Enlightenment” - 142 fours, “Divine services” in five notebooks... The draft chapter on monasticism consists of 11 notebooks...” But taking this 4th half volume of “History”, anyone can be convinced that the chapters on monasticism there is no... In addition, there is no afterword promised by the publisher - Belokurov. It may seem surprising that none of the researchers have yet paid attention to this lacuna. This can probably only be explained by our lack of church historical science 19 . Indeed, what we were looking for was easily found in the Belokurov fund in the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts, although in the inventory of the case the chapter was incorrectly identified as the article “Monasticism” 20. There we also managed to find Belokurov’s afterword, which, unfortunately, was unfinished. In addition, Belokurov was able to prepare for publication a selection of Golubinsky’s sketches on the moral state of society. We discovered another important source related to Golubinsky by chance: working in the library of the Historical and Archival Institute, we were able to identify de visu several hundred books that belonged to Golubinsky. Golubinsky marked his books with an autograph on the flyleaf, which is often accompanied by an indication of the date of purchase or donation of the book; The text contains pencil marks and notes from the academician. Later, we discovered in the Golubinsky collection in the Manuscripts Department of the Rumyantsev Library the above-mentioned “Inventory of the personal library of academician Evgeniy Evsigneevich Golubinsky with the inclusion of all the notes he made on books,” prepared for publication by I.A. Golubtsov in 1912–1918. 21, and Golubtsov’s most valuable introductory essay ended up in the “Obituaries” folder. Of undoubted interest for Golubinsky’s biographer is Professor N. Serebryansky’s essay about Golubinsky’s studies at the Kostroma Seminary, written for the Choir Institute of Children and Children commissioned by Belokurov. Of course, what is needed is the critical review of the work on Constantine and Methodius that Golubinsky desired (the study itself is also kept in the Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library). The historian's diaries and correspondence are also kept there - of undoubted interest here are, in particular, his impressions of the Orthodox peoples of Austria. Interesting unpublished works and biographical materials are contained in the Golubinsky fund in the Russian State Historical Archive (F. 1628). These are articles about the Greek and South Slavic churches and peoples, about the Carpatho-Russians, a large critical work on the history of Slavophilism (the existence of which is not mentioned even in the author’s “Memoirs”), a political pamphlet “Should the Russians strive to seize Constantinople,” etc. “The Real Story” by Academician Evgeniy Golubinsky “History comes in three kinds: stupid, accepting everything, what left us the past time with the name of historical material, at face value and therefore telling old wives' tales; a liar who is not deceived herself, but deceives others, which for different practical reasons represents white as black and black as white, blasphemes what is worthy of praise and praises what is worthy of blame, etc.; and the real one, which strives for so that it is as true and as detailed as possible recognize the past and then try to do the same and reproduce it in detail. Providing those who want and those who want to be supporters of stupid or lying history, I, for my part, am an ardent admirer of real history.” Is “real church history” necessary? Seems like a strange question. “Christianity is the religion of historians,” quotes Archpriest. G.Florovsky Brand Block 22. Church historians appeared in the first centuries of Christianity, as an academic subject, church history has been studied in our theological academies for almost two centuries, and finally, essays by the most authoritative modern philosophers and theologians have been written on this topic. But, “for all that,” the church people do not know history (and are not very curious to find out), and the shepherds of the Church often find it easier and more suitable to feed their flock not with the solid food of the historical truth of the Church Tradition, and not with the milk of the Gospel parables and events, but with the sweet candies of wonderful legends. Sometimes clergy strangely combine a childish attachment to fairy tales with a cynical attitude towards reality, caused by knowledge of the numerous crimes and vices that fill church history, as well as the general history of mankind. Well, there are reasons for the fact that an unprepared mind can be tempted by sin discovered within the fence of the Church. This turns out to be equally dangerous for the simpleton, for the intellectual, for the layman, and for the clergy. When a person comes to the Church, he needs to be given only the pure milk of faith, and from the history of the Church to select the brightest pages imbued with the Gospel spirit and meaning (as, for example, G. Fedotov does in “Saints of Ancient Rus'” and Father A. Schmemann in “The Historical Path of Orthodoxy”). This approach is justified and honest - there are no distortions of historical truth, no lies in these books. But this reasonable pedagogical principle cannot be transformed into fear or hostility towards history, as has often happened and still happens, especially when discussing the works of Golubinsky. History, like ordinary everyday life in general, seems to the neophyte something low, divorced from the heights and purity of Christian ascetic life, only distracting from the task of acquiring the Kingdom of Heaven. The wonderful desire for repentance, a break with a previous sinful life, first takes the form of an external struggle with the past, with everything that seems only worldly. You want to immediately find and enter a community or monastery where saints live and where there is no sin, to find a holy elder, a confessor who will cut off your evil will, so that from now on you will have no communication with the fallen world. But time passes and a person understands that a Christian cannot run and hide from the outside world, that in the Church, which seems by definition not involved in sin, there is “everything the same,” and then the real meaning of Christ’s Incarnation is revealed. He came to the fallen world, came to the sick, sinners, and the mission of the Church is to continue His work on earth. To heal lepers, the doctor must be among them, risking infection. And then the most precious thing, together with the study of the Holy Scriptures and prayer, becomes history, the Tradition of the Church becomes, the memory of those who, in the abyss of a fallen world, found peace and saved thousands around them, and the memory of how many, seduced by the false charm of power and wealth, fell away. Then a person, seeing sin both in himself and in others, does not follow the path of sectarianism, “true” Orthodoxy, reformation, but along the path of knowledge of the experience of holiness preserved by Tradition and the falls of the real historical Church, real individuals and communities. The 2000-year experience of the Church contains much more than can be seen with one’s own eyes in the present, but it is also impossible to understand the past without intimate knowledge of today’s Church, without being in it - “it’s better to see once,” and then, by studying history, you can reconstruct the past, because the past lives in the present... To assess the significance of Golubinsky, it will be necessary not only to publish and study his legacy more deeply, but also to return to understanding the concept of church historical science, its tasks and methods. It is necessary to understand that church history is not only history, but also theology, and that this in no way detracts from its quality as a historical science, but requires from the church historian knowledge in the field of theology and religious studies and a developed life position in relation to religion. This is very clearly stated by V.V. Bolotov in a passage about the confessionality of a church historian 23. By the way, Golubinsky received a doctorate in theology, not history 24. Modern articles aimed at giving a general view of church history and the significance of Golubinsky are very contradictory, although most of them base their conclusions on the differently interpreted dialogue between Golubinsky and his opponent at the doctoral disputation N.I. Subbotin. Golubinsky said: “... I don’t consider my book to be real history, there is no real history.” So, A.I. Pliguzov believes that the history of Golubinsky’s medieval church remains only a source study that does not contain the deep generalizations necessary for a true history, made on an impeccable scientific basis 25, which has yet to be created. The editors of the “Orthodox Encyclopedia” avoided the need to evaluate Golubinsky, uncritically repeating the words of Subbotin: “The future historian will gratefully use your extremely important and useful work for him to compile a real, real history of the Russian Church, but your work in itself is not yet such a history” 26. Yu.A. Tkachenko described Golubinsky’s work as “the peak of the heyday of church history and the beginning of its decline” 27, believing that church history that does not meet the tastes of the official Church (i.e., the Holy Synod and the bishops) has since begun to disappear. In the above-mentioned article, Komissarenko highly appreciates the significance of Golubinsky’s work, believing that modern historical science is based on his conclusions and concepts. In our opinion, the meaning that Golubinsky himself put into words about the absence of a real history of the Russian Church was not that he was unable to give a clear historical concept - he did - but that the available sources do not allow him to do the most important thing for him - to find out in a sufficiently complete manner what the Old Russian Church was like in relation to the depth and consciousness of the faith of its members. He agreed that future historians would still research a lot, clarify, and correct some of his conclusions, but he was sure that there would be no new, completely different scientific concepts - the poverty of the sources is the poverty of medieval Rus' itself, which did not develop any acceptable and broad system of Christian education and care. Golubinsky hoped that the real history of the Russian Church was just beginning! What Golubinsky did for church historical science is wonderfully said by Kartashev: “his work contains so much light, in which we not only see historical facts, but also understand them, and this is the goal of history” 28. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” or, in the words of the Apostle Paul: “faith without works is dead.” HER. Golubinsky did not stop only with good wishes, but throughout his life he was an example for his students, devoting it to Christian education and charity - he helped and cared for his relatives, his neighbors’ children, his native village, and the school, seminary, and academy in which he studied. Let us conclude the article with an amazing description of this great Russian ascetic of church science, found in the drafts of I.A. Golubtsov. "Character traits - self-love, scientific pride, humility before God, disappointment after failures, a feeling of fatigue; religiosity, attention to Holy Scripture; does not like to waste in vain; hates the love of money; deeply political mood - refusal of salary; does not spare money to satisfy his scientific needs and curiosity. Traits of his home life: thriftiness to the point of scrupulousness and curiosity (he built the stairs so that there would be no creaking); passion for rationalism where practice matters, caulked the pipes. Trust in the book: he hunted according to the book, he used the book for healing. He gave us apples, he loved to treat him, he kept a lot of household supplies. He donated money and books during his lifetime. Scientific interests: everyday life (even in the Gospel), interest in issues of modern controversy; philology, language study; literature; serious attitude towards auxiliary disciplines. Religion: Holy Scripture, St. Sergius; Lavra. A mocking attitude towards the religious tricks of the Greeks. Public interests: about the attitude to social activities, Slavophilism, the issue of spelling, monasticism and its shortcomings; war; restoration of the patriarchate and other issues of church governance; Peter's reforms; Synod; Theological Bulletin since retirement; Bulgarian-Balkan issues. Academic life; Montesquieu; a magazine for everyone; L. Tolstoy. (Sevastopol and Japanese War). Interest in politics. Interest in Paul I, Alexander I, L'esprit de l'encyclopedie. Russia and Russians, the opinion of foreigners about Russians. Before publishing his atlas, he studies reproduction photography. Opinion about the Greeks. Scientific enterprise and cheerfulness. Skepticism (verification of one translation by another, one book by another). Rough upbringing, rude habits, directness. I didn’t like to make difficulties for myself from auxiliary disciplines - maps, atlases, archaeological drawings abound - the desire to see. The desire to verify book information with personal observations. Everywhere one senses a healthy, unrestrained scientific criticism - whether in the reading of foreigners about Russia, in the notes about the heads of John the Baptist, etc. Impartiality is a principle. Awareness of one’s mistakes is intimate, but publicly I would hardly agree. Constantly monitors new information on a subject he has once mastered and already developed. Unaccountable hostility to lies - to everything and everyone that and who allows lies. Pickiness, rudeness and irritability of criticism of those authors, where at least a little one feels an exaggeration of their merits or an overestimation of the importance of the subject of research. The requirement for unconditional clarity and accuracy in generalizations and assessments (lies in lives); amendments in translations of liturgical books and Holy Scripture. High respect for Rev. Sergius, as an exception from the ranks of modern monasticism. The task of monasticism is to serve society. Dislike for modern monasticism and a selection of its historical and present shortcomings. Attentive attitude to Holy Scripture, the Epistles of the Apostles and the Acts. Reading articles of the Theological Bulletin. Political economy (Golubinsky paid tribute to the social movement of the 60s). In history, he sees an explanation for the mistakes, the culprits of the events - The cause of the Mongol yoke - the Russians themselves; attitude towards Russians. Interest in Galician Ukrainophilism. Conscious imitation of ancient Russian man Interests of curiosity: an arithmetic textbook for old age, spelling issues, terminology. Attitude towards the book: criticism, pickiness, rudeness, directness, requirement of clarity and accuracy; amendments in worship and Holy Scripture in translations.” Golubinsky E.E. Memories. Kostroma, 1923. (Republished with abbreviations - in the book “The Life and Work of Academician E.E. Golubinsky.” M., 1998). Golubinsky E.E. Quoted op. Golubinsky E.E. About reforms in the life of the Russian Church. M., 1913. (See also: E.E. Golubinsky on reforms in the Church / Abstract by A. Platonov // Orthodox community. 1991. NN 5–6) Memoirs of M.A. Golubtsova // S.A. Golubtsov. MDA in the era of revolutions. M., 1997, p. 145. It is interesting that Fyodor Golubinsky himself was given his last name by the rector of the Kostroma seminary for his meekness, seeing from the window how the tall seminarian was being pushed around by a short classmate. In the book. “The Life and Work of Academician E.E. Golubinsky” the authors mistakenly indicate the name of her sister instead of the mother’s name (we managed to find her name in Golubinsky’s letter to Belokurov dated 16-1-09). OR RSL. F.541, K.1, D.17. The article is planned to be published in the “Archaeographic Yearbook for 2002”. RGADA, fund 184 (Belokurova S.A.), storage unit. 1156. Nikolai Ilyich Serebryansky - in 1914–16 a teacher at the Kostroma Seminary, since 1917 a professor at the Moscow Academy of Sciences at the Department of History of the Russian Church - Golubinsky’s Department. He was arrested twice and died in a camp in 1940. About him - S. Golubtsov. MDA professorship in the Gulag and Cheka networks. M., 1999. It would be interesting to compare the measures described by E.E. Golubinsky with the measures proposed in 1875 by the Kyiv Metropolitan Arseny and caustically ridiculed by N.S. Leskov in the article “A few words about the note of His Eminence Metropolitan Arseny about the Doukhobor and other sects” OR RSL. F.541, K.1, D.17. “Plato is a friend, but truth is more precious.” OR RSL. F.541, K. 2, D. 2. Komissarenko A.I. Dispute at the defense of E.E. Golubinsky’s doctoral dissertation “History of the Russian Church” in 1880: source study aspects. This refers to the size of the harness. Today this corresponds to something like the demand of the Yekaterinburg Archbishop Vikenty not to drive foreign cars for the priesthood. “List of works of Academician E.E.G-go” was published in the “Report on the activities of ORYAS for 1912” - St. Petersburg, 1912. Republished in the book: “Life and works of Academician E.E. Golubinsky. M., 1998.” However, in his opinion, rudeness was in abundance among representatives of the pre-revolutionary high society of the capital. Likhachev D.S. Conversations of previous years: Memories of the intelligentsia of the 1920–1930s // Our Heritage. – 1993. – N 26. Articles by V.V. Afanasyeva (Evg. Evs. Golubinsky // Monuments of the Fatherland, 1/1988), A.N. Sakharov (From the publisher. In the book: Kartashev A.V. Essays on the history of the Russian church. M.: Nauka, 1991), A.A. Platonova (Golubinsky E.E. in the encyclopedia “Domestic History”. Vol. 1), A.Yu. Polunova and I.V. Solovyov (Academician E.E. Golubinsky. Historian and time. In the book: Life and works of Academician E.E. Golubinsky. M., 1998). A.V. wrote about the “terrifyingly decreased scientific and theological level of the Russian Church” after the revolution. Kartashev in “Essays on the History of the Russian Church.” It will be very interesting for historians to compare Golubinsky’s work with the well-known work on Smolich’s monasticism. About the fate of the “Inventory” see: A. Platonov. “Inventory of the personal library of academician Evgeniy Evsigneevich Golubinsky with the inclusion of all the notes he made on books” (About the unknown work of I.A. Golubtsov) G. Florovsky, prot. The Position of the Christian Historian, p.39. In the book. Florensky G., prot. Dogma and history. M., 1998. Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the ancient church. T.I. Introduction to Church History. M., 1994. (Reprint). N.M. Nikolsky called him a “pious theologian” in his anti-church “History of the Russian Church,” which is confirmed by the testimonies of friends and acquaintances, in particular, I.A. Golubtsov, who mentioned Golubinsky’s religiosity and his desire to imitate the ancient Russian man. Pliguzov A.I. On the study of the medieval history of the Russian church // Orthodox community. Review of literature on the history of the Russian Church // Historical Bulletin No. 1 (12) 2001 Tkachenko Yu.A. Church historical science in Russia in the 19th – early 20th centuries // V All-Russian Platonov Readings Kartashev A.V. Quote cit., p.32.